| 30.09.2008 |
|
||||||||
| We recently wrote here about the battle for influence within the McCain campaign between neoconservatives and realists. How deep the rift and how intense the struggle between the two Republican camps is exemplified by an open letter to Sarah Palin by the editors of The American Conservative magazine. The letter, dripping with disdain for John McCain and well-known neoconservative figures, in a sarcastic tone, lists the main foreign policy grievances realists have with George W. Bush and his neoconservative agenda. Here are a few of them: Russia: - Realists don't think the U.S. and Russia are headed for a repeat of the Cold War. They feel that Russia's behavior doesn't constitute a major threat to the U.S. - "Russia is not an expansionist, ideological empire. It's a traditional, semi-authoritarian great power intent on preserving its influence in its own backyard and its prestige on the world stage." - "Putin, far from being a totalitarian ideologue, is an economic nationalist, as the leaders of great powers traditionally have been." Middle East: -"Israel's problem isn't external threat so much as internal security and demographics." -"The task before the Israelis is not to defend themselves against aggressive neighbors but to give justice to the Palestinians already in their midst — to suppress terrorism without suppressing civil liberties and human rights, which only leads to more bloodshed." -"The most helpful role the United States can play is that of impartial mediator in the conflict." Iran: -"Iran does not have nuclear weapons and is far from attaining them." -"Instead of boxing Iran into a corner, we should engage with Ahmadinejad, unsavory fellow though he is. Even with nuclear weapons, Iran would not pose an existential threat to Israel, let alone America." Towards the end of the letter, the writers directly appeal to Sarah Palin to eschew the neoconservative agenda: "You prize localism, their vision is grandiose. You value fiscal discipline, neocons will ruin the country to finance endless war. You honor life, and they think nothing of killing hundreds of thousands in the service of ideology. But they'll tell you this alien vision — imported from the Left — is coherent and conservative." Sure, The American Conservative, founded by Pat Buchanan, is not the official mouthpiece of realism. And some of the specific points made in the letter, i.e. the stance toward Israel, will be considered too extreme and won't be shared by other outlets with a realist bent. Nevertheless the main thrust of the letter provides an interesting insight into the fierce struggle that is waging within the Republican party. The outcome of this fight for the soul of the GOP will definitely have consequences for the future of the Republican party and possibly the world. |
||||||||
|
||||||||
| 29.09.2008 |
|
||||||||
| The global financial turmoil produces many losers, but also some winners. With the American banking sector currently melting down, it is hardly surprising that some commentators view the U.S. as the biggest loser in this crisis. Frank Herold is one of them. In a guest editorial for Russia's RIA Novosti (in German), Herold, an editor with Berliner Zeitung, argues that as a result of the turmoil, there will be a realignment of the global power structure. To be sure, Herold feels that it is premature to sing the swan song for the U.S., but he thinks the time of American global hegemony, at least for the foreseeable future, is over. Possible beneficiaries of the crumbling old world order, according to Herold, are China, but also Iran, Venezuela's Hugo Chavez and the Taliban in Afghanistan. With the U.S. preoccupied with itself, who is supposed to keep Iran, Chavez and the Taliban in check, asks Herold. But the most interesting aspect of Herold's analysis is that he proclaims Europe one of the major winners in the international power reshuffle: It doesn't matter who wins the election and becomes president, McCain or Obama. Whoever it is will have to seek common ground with Europe – and not with a particular European country - a position that George W. Bush felt was good enough - but with Europe as a supranational power, writes Herold. Hence, Herold argues, after the failure of the Bush model, it is now the up to the Europeans, who rightfully have complained for a long time about American unilateralism and hubris, to confidently present their solutions for the global challenges the West is facing. According to Herold, the financial crisis has brought the EU closer together and is in itself a convincing argument that the kind of integration the EU provides is necessary. Europe is back, writes Herold and warns that everyone who doesn't recognize that fact misjudges the signals of the current crisis. That goes for the U.S., but also Russia, who's foreign policy instincts, states Herold, were no less "American," than those of the U.S. While Herold's analysis that the U.S. is weakened by the financial crisis sounds plausible, his deduction that therefore Europe is one of its biggest beneficiaries isn't. Politics isn't a zero-sum game. Just because, the U.S. loses some of its global stature doesn't necessarily translate into European gains. (Yesterday's historic election results of the CSU and the SPD in Bavaria proved that point.) If the EU's economic and foreign policy, as well as its structural fundamentals haven't changed - and they haven't - then why should Europe be in a better position now then a few weeks ago? What's more, the assumption that Europe, through this crisis, has become more cohesive, for the time being is just that – an assumption that hasn't been put to the test. As far as the next U.S. president is concerned though, Herold is right. Whether it is Obama or McCain, he will have to seek common ground with Europe. Not necessarily because Europe is so much stronger than before, but because compared to all the other global players, Europe is simply the best option. |
||||||||
|
||||||||
| 27.09.2008 |
|
||||||||
| So who won the debate, John McCain or Barack Obama? Neither of them is the answer, if you ask how the international media reacted to the first presidential debate, even though some political analysts give Obama a slight edge. "A clear tie" headlines Germany's business magazine Wirtschaftswoche, and comments that both McCain and Obama came across surprisingly bland during the TV debate. One of the reasons for their rather dreary performance was that both wanted to avoid mistakes. The question which of them will be the next president remains open - although Obama is likely to benefit more from the financial crisis than his opponent, writes Wirtschaftswoche. Poland's Rzeczpospolita (via dradio.de) argues along the same lines. Obama presented himself slightly better on economic issues, even though McCain gave a better answer to the question which concrete steps should be taken to solve the financial crisis: To freeze government spending with the exception of some key areas. But generally McCain and Obama talked as though the many dramatic events of the past few days simply hadn't happened. "McCain seemed like an old, experienced sheriff, Obama like a handsome university professor who is open for alternative views," says Rzeczpospolita. "The debate only confirmed that both candidates can contribute nothing substantial to the discussion about the financial crisis," argues Switzerland's Neue Zürcher Zeitung. Both stuck to their old rhetoric, despite the fact that the crisis has thwarted their budget plans. Where foreign policy was concerned, McCain – as expected - managed to put his opponent on the defense. Repeatedly Obama was accused of being naive and inexperienced without being able to effectly counter the charges. But the Democratic nominee stuck it out and appeared presidential. Since there were no gaffes or big mishaps, the effect of the debate on the race will probably be negligable. This helps Obama who leads in the polls and has taken another hurdle on his path to the White House, writes the Swiss paper. "McCain needed to win, but he couldn't pull it off," German communications expert Frank Brettschneider told DPA. Obama was well prepared and on foreign policy topics came across better than he had until now. McCain merely relied on characterizing Obama as inexperienced. "That is simply not good enough," said Brettschneider, who teaches at Hohenheim university near Stuttgart. All in all, Brettschneider saw the debate ending with a slight advantage for Obama. Dutch communications specialist Eliane Schoonman agrees that Obama did better in the debate: Obama explained in great detail how the financial crisis has been created by the Republicans, how it affects the ordinary Americans and how he, Barack Obama, is going to solve the problem. McCain did better discussing the war in Iraq, casting himself as a war hero intent on winning, she told Dutch broadcaster RNW. So who won? As the debate mostly dealt with security, McCain's key issue, he should have won. Everything, though, points to a victory for Obama, who thus extends his lead over McCain, Schoonman was quoted by RNW. |
||||||||
|
||||||||
| 26.09.2008 |
|
||||||||
| After two days of uncertainty about the first presidential debate, John McCain finally said "Yes I can." So the event is on and we can all watch McCain and Barack Obama square off against each other on foreign policy, but probably even more on the financial crisis. Tim already laid out a way to do justice to both topics. But the big question is: Do the debates even matter? Tom Holbrooke, a political scientist at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, argues in his blog (via scienceblogs.de) that debates usually don't have much influence in the outcome of the presidential election. His prediction for the current debate: "I don't expect to see large swings in candidate support following the individual debates, barring something really spectacular happening. However, even relatively small shifts in the same direction over the three debates could make this relatively tight race even tighter (if the shifts favor McCain), or could blow it open (if the shifts favor Obama)." Ross Barker, a political scientist at Rutgers, agrees that "debates aren't do or die". Others disagree. Alan Schroeder, author of "Presidential Debates: 40 Years of High-Risk TV", told Bloomberg that the McCain-Obama debates are very different than previous debates and therefore may have a greater impact on the race. And Dan Balz in the Washington Post makes the case using historical examples, that debates are in fact "enormously important." Who's right? We can all be the judge. Let's just wait, watch the debates, and see if there are major shifts in the polls afterwards. |
||||||||
|
||||||||
| 25.09.2008 |
|
||||||||
| Just before Barack Obama's visit to Berlin this summer, the German weekly Die Zeit reported via a press release and a follow-up article that the Democratic presidential candidate has German ancestors. According to the paper, Christian Gutknecht, Obama's grandfather six generations back emigrated with his wife from the Alsatian village of Bischweiler to the U.S. There, he changed his name to Goodknight and died in Germantown, Pennsylvania in 1795. This is not Obama's only ancestral relation to Germany, reported Die Zeit. Another line dates back to 1616 and the German city of Heilbronn. According to the paper, after Kenian (50 percent) and English (37,7 percent) roots, Obama's German (4,68 percent) roots take third place in his ancestorial make-up. But then yesterday, Swiss largest paper Blick said not so fast, and headlined an article on Obama's ancestry with the following: "Swiss blood runs through Obama's veins." The paper, refering to an interview by AFP with the archivist of Bischweiler, now Bischwilller, writes that Obama's ancestor Christian Gutknecht was probably a Swiss immigrant who had moved to Eschweiler. According to the archivist, Gutknecht had lived in a street in the Alsatian village that was built especially for Swiss immigrants. Many other Swiss outlets carried the story as well. So is Obama more Swiss than German? And if so, does it matter? And what would that mean for his foreign policy positions via Germany and Switzerland? As soon as someone tackles these difficult issues, you can read about right here. |
||||||||
|
||||||||
| 24.09.2008 |
|
||||||||
| The first presidential debate between Barack Obama and John McCain with its focus on foreign policy and national security is garnering huge international attention. For campaign aficionados anywhere in the world who don't mind getting up early, or staying up late, that is good news because you'll almost certainly can watch the debate live. Here's a sampling of international media outlets that will carry the proceedings from the campus of the University of Mississippi: -CNN International -CNN Espanol -BBC -Telemundo -France 24 -ARD -ZDF In addition, the Campaign on Presidential Debates (CPD) and Myspace.com have teamed up to create a special online platform, where users can watch a live stream of the debates, and also interact with each other. You can check it out here. |
||||||||
|
||||||||
| 23.09.2008 |
|
||||||||
| Barack Obama did Europe and the Middle East in a week to bolster his foreign policy credentials. Sarah Palin, in a political speed dating effort, will meet with nine international leaders in less than 30 hours without even leaving the U.S. Both Obama's whirlwind jet-setting tour and Palin's meet-and-greet with foreign leaders, show how serious a qualification international experience is for both campaigns. Sure, Obama received some great media coverage and photo opportunties from his trip. Sarah Palin will also come out of those meetings with foreign leaders with at least some good shake-hands pictures. But really, how much better equipped to deal with foreign policy are Obama and Palin after their respected ventures into global affairs? How much more do they know than they did before? Probably not that much. This is not to say that Obama's trip and Palin's New York meetings were in vain. Let's just take them for what they are - highly choreographed efforts to showcase to voters and the media that the candidate is suited for the world stage. Neither Obama nor Palin are now all of a sudden foreign policy experts. |
||||||||
|
||||||||
| 22.09.2008 |
|
||||||||
| It doesn't look like the financial turmoil emanating from the U.S. is going away anytime soon. Instead the malaise that was triggered by the housing bubble in the U.S. has spread around the world. Obviously the meltdown on Wall Street will also have an impact on the presidential race. The blame game is already in full swing between Barack Obama and John McCain. Who's fault is the crisis anyway and who is better equipped to lead the world out of it, McCain or Obama, Democrats or Republicans? And of course it is not just the U.S. media that play referee in the blame game. Global media outlets also have their take on whether McCain or Obama will be hurt by or benefit from the crisis. For an overview of international English-language opinion on the issue, check out the Nieman Watchdog. There are however some interesting takes on the blame game that are not published in English, so here we go: "Monday, September 14, the day the American markets crashed, should mark a turning point in the election campaign", writes the French daily Liberation (via AFP). McCain in the end supported the plan to save AIG after having rejected it the previous day. McCain basically wants to continue the course of his predecessor, opines Liberation and adds: Government is not a dirty word for Obama. But so far the Democratic candidate couldn't convince voters that he is better suited to fulfill the expectations Americans have, writes the French paper and argues that the financial crisis is the best example for the price that must be paid for Republican laisser-faire policies. According to Switzerland's Neue Zürcher Zeitung, Obama benefits from the turmoil on Wall Street even though he is no financial expert and his remarks on the situation were rather simplifying. But for a long time Obama has called for stronger oversight over financial markets, a demand that is hard to counter after recent events, writes the paper. Another advantage for Obama is the fact that the economy is now the dominant topic and that - righly or wrongly - voters feel that the Democrats are better equipped to deal with this issue. The German weekly Die Zeit agrees: "Traditionally Democrats are considered to be the party that is better on economic policy." Until now, however, Obama has not been able to profit from this sentiment. He has not proven that he can emphasize with the worries of the man on the street as Bill Clinton did in his time. One of Obama's problems on the campaign trail has been that he appears intellectual and aloof. While the crisis on Wall Street is eating up the savings of working class, Obama should should lay out his remedy. But exactly on that point he has fallen short so far, opines Die Zeit and sums up: "The political environment favors Obama - but he must seize the opportunity." |
||||||||
|
||||||||
| 21.09.2008 |
|
||||||||
| One of our goals here at Across the Pond is to show how people outside the U.S. think about the presidential election and the candidates. Regular readers of this blog know of course that judging by opinion polls, the whole world clearly wants Barack Obama to be the next president of the United States. So, case closed? Not really. Polls, as every politician and every pollster will attest to, never tell the entire story. They are also not necessarily a good indicator of what is in the interest of the people participating in these surveys, as poll takers and voters don't always act rationally and choose the option that is in their or their country's best interest. So when a leading German business magazine, a Canadian broadcaster and a Finnish EU parlamentarian asked whether John McCain or Barack Obama is better for Germany, Canada and the EU, we'll tell you about it right here. Let's start with the German business magazine Capital, which headlines a lengthy piece (in German) on Obama and McCain, "Who is better for Germany?" According to Capital, it is not only Herr Müller or Frau Schmidt who prefer Obama over McCain, but also Germany's business leaders: Two-thirds of them, says a Capital survey, want Obama as the next president because they think the Democratic candidate would be better for Germany. But they are wrong, conclude the authors of the Capital article. With one possible exception – climate change – a president McCain would be better for Germany on every business-related issue, i.e., free trade, subsidies, currency policy. And even on climate change, Obama is not the clear favorite since his plan for the 'greening' of U.S. automakers will be achieved through subsides for American companies like General Motors and Ford. This, says Capital, will hurt German automakers. When it comes to free trade, Obama wants to renegotiate current trade agreements. What's more, writes Capital, the Democrats are not particularly fond of foreign companies. "There are repeated efforts to increase our taxes," Capital quotes an unnamed U.S. head of a major German company. "Almost always they are brought on by Democrats." On foreign policy, Obama is pretty much a blank slate, while McCain knows Europe and is also well known there, argues Capital. McCain is a regular at Munich's Security Conference and his advisor for transatlantic relations, Richard Burt, was ambassador to Germany from 1985 to 1989. However, there is some anxiety in German business circles about McCain's hard-line approach toward Russia. While McCain wants Russia thrown out of the G8, the German Chambers of Industry and Commerce warn against isolating Russia. In sum, writes Capital, an Obama victory in November would lead to dissappointment, and not only where matters of international business are concerned. Many Germans have not gotten the message that - like McCain - Obama will push for a greater international role for Germany, e.g., more German troops and money for Afghanistan. "Under Obama, there will be more complications in transatlantic relations than many people expect," the magazine quotes Eberhard Sandschneider, Director of the German Council on Foreign Relations. Interestingly, an article by Canada's CTV, asks "Who would be the best for Canada: McCain or Obama?" and comes to similar conclusions: "On pocketbook issues, the sensible thing to do would be to hope for a McCain presidency," CTV quotes Greg Anderson, a U.S. foreign policy expert at the University of Alberta. On national security, however, it's a different picture. A dove is better than a hawk, Stephen Clarkson, a professor of political economy at the University of Toronto specializing in Canada-U.S. relations told CTV. But in the end, pragmatism reigns. Canadian experts quoted by CTV agree: "You work with whoever's there." Pragmatic is also a word that comes to mind when reading Anneli Jäätteenmäki's analysis in the Helsinki Times, which also questions which of the two presidential candidates is better for Europe. Jäätteenmäki, a Finnish Member of the European Parliament for the Centre Party, puts it this way: "What we all must realize is that both candidates recognize that American foreign policy must change. They both want to move away from the unilateralism of the Bush administration towards a more multilateral approach. I believe that this change will be good for both the United States and Europe." In a nutshell: "Either way, Europe is better off." |
||||||||
|
||||||||
| 19.09.2008 |
|
||||||||
| We have parsed and analyzed John McCain's and Barack Obama's reactions and stance vis-à-vis Russia and Georgia here at Across the Pond, while the military conflict between both states was taking place. But more often than not, after the dust settles and other topics make their way onto the agenda, journalists often neglect to follow up with a sober after-the-fact analysis of events. Even we are not blameless in this regard. But sometimes when the media fail, academia comes to the rescue. In our case, it comes in the form of the Hungarian think tank Budapest Analyses, which has just released (via GMF) its take on the presidential candidates' stances on Russia. Here are a few nuggets from the BA's brief on McCain and Obama: -John McCain reiterated his tough stance toward Russia, which is even more hard-line than President George W. Bush's. -John McCain, as president, would carry on with President Bush's 'Democracy Project' where Russia and its neighbors are concerned. -John McCain is "instinctively prone to shoot from the hip; second, he harbors deep personal enmities against Vladimir Putin; and third, his foreign policy advisers are a mix of Realpolitik practitioners and neo-conservatives." -John McCain's neo-conservative advisers are pushing him toward a more hawkish stance toward Russia. -John McCain is a staunch supporter of the planned anti-missile batteries in Poland (and the radar systems in the Czech Republic) and feels that they might be serving as a hedge against potential threats from Russia and China. -"Barack Obama remained relatively aloof during the conflict and did not go beyond calling for vigorous diplomatic actions to reach a political solution." -Barack Obama's Hawaiian vacation during the conflict doesn't explain his lackluster response on the issue. -Barack Obama's only issued "one mildly directly critical comment about Moscow's behavior in the conflict," namely that genuine peacekeeping forces should be deployed in South Ossetia and Abkhazia. -Barack Obama's brief statement during the conflict "implied that he did not consider the conflict as so serious a step by Russia that would necessitate a strong American response." -Barack Obama and his team, in classical Realpolitik fashion, think the U.S. needs Russian cooperation on a host of issues. -Barack Obama and "his foreign policy team - among others Anthony Lake, Susan Rice and Gregory Craig - are skeptical about the wisdom of deploying the anti-missile batteries in Poland; that is, "provoking" the Russians unnecessarily." -Barack Obama, however, has to convey that he is not "soft" on national security and has tried to position himself in the tradition of FDR and JFK as someone who can "blend foreign policy with moral considerations". -Barack Obama himself has talked about a new type of leadership so much that "a conventional Realpolitik would be a big disappointment for a lot of his supporters." To read the detailed analysis click here. |
||||||||
|
||||||||
| 18.09.2008 |
|
||||||||
| In her first town hall meeting with John McCain, Sarah Palin was asked to address her perceived lack of foreign policy experience by giving specifics how she is prepared to deal with global affairs. Instead of providing specifics, Palin offered generalities, as Scott Conroy points out in From the Road. Palin, as any other candidate, is free to answer or not answer any questions. And it is also Palin's prerogative to let McCain speak about her foreign policy credentials in the town hall meeting, and let her spokesman provide details relating to her foreign policy experience at a later date. That approach, however, won't work long term because it won't satisfy questions voters and the media have about her record. But, as has been reported here and elsewhere, the foreign policy education of Sarah Palin is still ongoing, and perhaps as the Alaska Governor said herself, the goal is not to be ready today, but to be ready come January 20, 2009. Considering Palin's reluctance to address foreign policy issues at this point, the Republican vice presidential candidate went out on a limb, which she may live to regret, writes Mosheh Oinounou at Fox News Embeds. At the town hall meeting in Michigan, Palin issued the following challenge: "I have that readiness, and if you want specifics with specific policy or countries, go ahead you can ask me to play stump the candidate if you want to." What will Palin's dare mean for the campaign? "While Palin's offer of stump the candidate was partially meant in jest, media already eager to trip up the Alaska Governor on her perceived weakness now have even more incentive to — if ever accorded the opportunity to ask questions," writes Oinounou, adding that the last candidate to issue such a dare was Gary Hart. He ultimately lost that challenge. But even more intriguing is the question why Palin even made such a challenge? It is a challenge that is her's to lose. One must only ask a fairly specific foreign question and pretty much every politician - whether veteran foreign policy official or novice candidate - will fail. What's more, to prove that one can memorize foreign ministers and capitals doesn't necessarily convey foreign policy experience, but rather good memory skills. In a nutshell: By issuing such a challenge, Palin or any other politician, is in a no-win situation. If she answers a question correctly, it doesnt improve her foreign policy standing. If she makes a gaffe, it confirms her critics' perception that she is clueless on foreign policy. So why did she do it? What do you think? |
||||||||
|
||||||||
| 17.09.2008 |
|
||||||||
| After reporting numerous times about Barack Obama's popularity in Germany, Europe and the world, we here at Across the Pond thought we had Obamamania covered inside out and had pretty much considered that part of the election saga closed. We were wrong. We still managed to ignore reports coming out of Canada that it had been struck by a severe case of Obamamania. But what is being reported now out of Brazil by the Guardian (via the Drudge Report) redefines the entire concept of admiration and adoration for Barack Obama the world has seen heretofore. According to the Guardian, at least six Brazilian politicians have renamed themselves after the Democratic candidate hoping to be more attractive for voters. But it doesn't end with the name change. Change is also what one of the Brazilian Obamas, a man formerly know as Claudio Henrique dos Anjos, wants to bring Belford Rexo, a city on the outskirts of Rio de Janeiro: "I say the same things. I talk about political renewal, change, about transforming the city." While people were renaming themselves after Obama in Brazil, a totally different phenomenon is sweeping the U.S., as media outlets as diverse as Marie Claire and ABC News are reporting: Palinmania. For better or worse, so far no name changes to Palin have surfaced by admirers of John McCain's running mate. And so far, as the Daily Telegraph notes, Palinmania has been slow to cross the Atlantic. We'll keep you posted should that change. |
||||||||
|
||||||||
| 14.09.2008 |
|
||||||||
| Sarah Palin visited Iraq, but stayed really close to the border for a really brief time. That sums up the most current version given by Palin's team of the Alaska Governor's trip to Iraq. As Jazz Shaw points out correctly in The Moderate Voice, "it should be noted, once again, that there technically isn’t a lie in here per say. She apparently was inside of both of those countries and I suppose you could consider every square inch of Iraq a 'battle zone' if you parse the language closely enough." Still, adds Shaw, "Palin is looking like far less of a rube or Washington Outsider than the original billing and much more adept at twisting political tales to the advantage of the campaign without allowing herself to get caught in an actual 'pants on fire' situation." That assumes that Palin and her team deliberately released misleading information, which is not necessarily the case. It could simply be a rookie mistake by a team that has not operated in this kind of media and political environment before. If that was the case, then they better adapt fast, because after this incident the media will even play closer attention to all the information provided by Palin and her staff. |
||||||||
|
||||||||
| 09.09.2008 |
|
||||||||
| Some things never change: Even as the presidential race between John McCain and Barack Obama in the U.S. is tightening, people across the world stick with their preferred candidate. According to a just released poll, people in 22 countries want Obama to become president, while McCain is not favored in a single country. The poll conducted by Globescan for the BBC included more than 23,000 participants in countries such as Australia, France, Germany, Russia, China, India, Kenya, Indonesia, Brazil and Turkey and was carried out in July and August. "The margin in favor of Senator Obama ranged from 9 percent in India to 82 percent in Kenya, while an average of 49 percent across the 22 countries preferred Senator Obama compared with 12 percent preferring Senator McCain," ABC News Australia reported. According to ABC, the countries most optimistic that an Obama presidency would improve relations were America's NATO allies -- Canada (69 percent), France (62 percent), Germany (61 percent), Britain (54 percent), Italy (64 percent), as well as Australia (62 percent), Kenya (87 percent) and Nigeria (71 percent). For regular readers of Across the Pond, the world's staunch and consistent support of the Democratic candidate doesn't come as a suprise. We have written about various polls with the same outcome here repeatedly. What is interesting though is that now that the campaign is really heating up and people in the U.S. and the world are learning more about both candidates - but especially about the relative newcomer Obama - how differently Americans and the rest of the world react to what they see. While Americans, according to most recent polls, haven't really made up their minds on Obama, people across the globe, like what they see and hear from Obama and really want him and not McCain in the White House. |
||||||||
|
||||||||
| 06.09.2008 |
|
||||||||
| Want to see how John McCain and Barack Obama stack up on major foreign policy issues? Want to participate in a poll on important topics such as NAFTA, Iran, Darfur and energy independence, and then see which of the two candidates shares your views? Want to compare campaign statements by Obama and McCain on international relations? Or find out which blogs to follow to get the scoop on foreign policy? If you do, then check out the just released election guide 2008 by the Foreign Policy Association. As you have probably guessed by now, I think it is really, really good. |
||||||||
|
||||||||
| 05.09.2008 |
|
||||||||
| Ever since Sarah Palin joined Barack Obama and John McCain in the quest for the biggest pastor problem, I have been wondering: Is there some written or unwritten rule that every candidate on a presidential ticket must now bring his or her own pastor issue with them? I can't recall that in previous presidential elections, pastor problems were a campaign staple, but I may be wrong. Are pastor problems part of the vetting process now? And if so, when is Joe Biden's turn? Please enlighten me. | ||||||||
|
||||||||
| 04.09.2008 |
|
||||||||
| After Barack Obama and John McCain, it's now Sarah Palin's turn to have a pastor problem. And the way it looks right now, for the attention and the flak she's catching for her association with her former pastor Ed Kalnins, she is definitely competing with the trouble Obama faced with his problem pastor Jeremiah Wright earlier this year. According to the Huffington Post, who reviewed sermons by the pastor, Kalnins "preached that critics of President Bush will be banished to hell; questioned whether people who voted for Sen. John Kerry in 2004 would be accepted to heaven; charged that the 9/11 terrorist attacks and war in Iraq were part of a war "contending for your faith;" and said that Jesus "operated from that position of war mode." What's more, Palin's current pastor Larry Kroon also doesn't shy away from controversy. He "gave the pulpit over to a figure viewed with deep hostility by many Jewish organizations: David Brickner, the executive director of Jews for Jesus", reports Ben Smith. Brickner, according to Smith, "described terrorist attacks on Israelis as God's 'judgment of unbelief' of Jews who haven't embraced Christianity." But to make things even worse, it's not just statement's by Palin's former and current pastor that are controversial, remarks by the Alaska Governor herself have also caused a media stir. As the Wall Street Journal and many other outlets report, Governor Palin at the invitation of her former pastor Kalnins "appeared on stage in June before a youth group at Wassila Assembly of God, where she reminisced fondly about getting baptized there, before asking the young people to pray for a proposed natural gas pipeline in Alaska and for American soldiers." Here's what Palin said: "Pray for our military men and women who are striving to do what is right also for this country," Gov. Palin said, in a video of the talk posted on the church's Web site. Pray "that our national leaders are sending them out on a task that is from God. That's what we have to make sure we're praying for: that there is a plan and that plan is God's plan." A lot of people, especially outside of the U.S., are uncomfortable with the important role that faith plays in American life and how openly and directly many Americans speak about their faith. I am not. As a European, I have always been fascinated by the sheer multitude of beliefs Americans hold and the very deep and personal faith many Americans profess. And I also don't take issue with the fact that many American politicians have strong religious beliefs that guide their lives. But what I do think is problematic is when religion is invoked to justify or support narrow political interests. And that is exactly what Sarah Palin has done. But what do you think? Is it okay for a Governor to assert that the Iraq war is a task from God and to ask people to pray for a natural-gas pipeline? |
||||||||
|
||||||||
| 03.09.2008 |
|
||||||||
| Last night's fundraiser for Barack Obama in Geneva, Switzerland featuring Hollywood star George Clooney was a big success. Despite the steep price of 1,000 dollars for the reception and 10,000 dollars for a seat at Clooney's table, all places were filled, Swiss daily Tages-Anzeiger reported. Most of the 170 guests hailed from places like Los Angeles, Prague, London and Zurich, the paper quoted organizer Charles Adams. According to 20 Minuten Online, the 900,000 dollars that Clooney brought in with the event is the highest amount raised for Obama outside the United States. Still no word on the dinner menu. |
||||||||
|
||||||||
| 02.09.2008 |
|
||||||||
| Are you an American living in Europe with 10,000 dollars to spare and no dinner plans for tonight? Actually, it helps if you are a fan of George Clooney and support Barack Obama for president. If so, then you should head to Geneva, Switzerland immediately where Clooney will headline a fundraiser for the Democratic presidential candidate tonight. The event organized by Charles Adams, an American lawyer living in Switzerland, will kick off in Geneva's old town with a reception and continue at Adams' residence with a dinner, Swiss daily Blick reports. For the price tag of 10,000 dollars guests secure a seat at Clooney's table. For a mere 1,000 dollars guests may only listen to Clooney's remarks at the reception. The fundraiser in Geneva is the biggest of its kind outside the United States, Basler Zeitung quoted Adams who said that guests may also get treated with a personal video message by Barack Obama. So what's for dinner you ask? Something exclusive like foie gras, Adams told Blick, adding that he doesn't really know himself since it is delivered by a catering company. So how can you find out if that coveted seat next to George Clooney is still available? Ask Charles Adams. |
||||||||
|
||||||||
| 01.09.2008 |
|
||||||||
| A new survey focusing on America's role in the world by the United Nations Foundation UNF (via U.S. Diplomacy Blog) doesn't offer too many new insights into what Americans want their next president to focus on, but rather confirms the dramatic evolvement of issues since the start of the campaign. Iraq, once the number one issue, now is on par with health care when it comes to ranking the most important topics. Instead, the economy and energy prices now top the list. When asked specifically about the dominant foreign policy issue, unsurprisingly, America's dependence on foreign oil is the clear winner, followed by terrorism and global trade. The survey also finds that an overwhelming majority of participants feel that the U.S. is less respected around the world and that this presents a big problem. According to the UNF, there is now a new consensus among core Republican voters, core Democratic voters, and swing voters that America's dependence on foreign oil is the key international issue. Other important issues shared by all three constituents are terrorism and global trade. However, when asked whether the U.S. should be more or less active in the world, there are different trendlines. While Democrats and Independents clearly want the U.S. to be less active globally compared to an earlier poll, Republican sentiment on the question remains unchanged. So how atttuned are Barack Obama and John McCain to voter concerns about the economy and energy prices/dependence? Not much if one takes their recent choices for vice presidential candidates as an indicator. Neither Joe Biden (in contrast to Mark Warner), nor Sarah Palin (in contrast to Mitt Romney) are particularly strong on economic and trade issues. Couple that with the fact that neither Obama nor McCain are well-versed in that area either, voters won't find much economic experience on both tickets. |
||||||||
|
||||||||