3 posts tagged “coverage”
I first read about Sen. Joe Biden’s nomination to be Sen. Barack Obama’s running-mate through the MSM. It was probably on Google News, in the headlines. Then I saw it here on television, albeit briefly, since a VP nominee doesn’t really have much importance to New Zealanders.
I first read about Gov. Sarah Palin’s nomination as Sen. John McCain’s running-mate on Timothy’s Vox blog. I have not heard mentions on radio or TV here. And I realize that this is not big news to Kiwis, and I admittedly was out during the six o’clock TV news broadcast yesterday. But as someone kind of interested in US politics, I would have expected to have run into the news somewhere.
Maybe to us, as we have had female prime ministers twice (at one point, the PM, Chief Justice and Governor-General were all female), the ascension of a woman to the presidential ticket is not a biggie. Also, then-Congresswoman Geraldine Ferraro had already trailblazed on that front as the Democratic vice-presidential nominee in 1984.
It will be interesting to see if Gov. Palin will help the McCain campaign. She is largely unknown outside her home state but that might help charges that Sen. McCain (like Sen. Biden, I should point out) is the same-old Washington establishment. With Palin’s approval ratings at 80 per cent in her home state, and a pretty solid résumé, she has quite a few pluses in terms of her hard work for Alaska.
She has been clear on her beliefs—she has a lifetime NRA membership, she opposes the legalization of marijuana and she is pro-life—so people can judge her on those quite easily. If the majority of Americans do not see eye-to-eye with Gov. Palin on these matters, then that is democracy in action.
Alaska, though in fact modern with large cities, has a stereotype among Americans, and being the 47th state in terms of population, the Democrats will be able to accuse the Governor of inexperience in national politics. It’s a fine line, however: Palin has had 16 years of elected public service, versus Sen. Obama’s 11; though I note that this never stopped Sen. Clinton, with eight years, from attacking Sen. Obama in the primaries.
Her biggest plus is her whistle-blowing about corruption and the lack of ethics among certain sectors of government in Alaska, meaning Sarah Palin is a no-nonsense, clean-government advocate. How successful this image will carry through into the quagmire of Washington politics is dependent on how Americans view things: can they believe that one person can make a change, or do they believe one person will be buried among establishment thinking?
It depends on how strongly they believe in the power of the individual.
Palin is probably an individualist—someone who doesn’t mind bucking the trend and surprising people, and that could play well to many Americans. To some extent McCain has these values but he has also changed his mind on some, which the Democrats have rightly pointed out at their Convention.
It will be an interesting road ahead.
The reasons I haven’t been fully supportive of John McCain have largely been from GOP-voting friends who have met him. They speak of a man who seems empty with a cold handshake. McCain supporters might say that that is a sign of a man who hates political functions and prefers getting on with the job. I guess it could be seen both ways.
He has been the butt of my own jokes. On television a couple of years ago, I asked the audience, ‘So what party is this guy with again? I can never tell.’ There has been a perception of McCain being not conservative enough and even in the lead-up to his party’s nomination for the presidency there were members of the religious right who felt the senator from Arizona could not possibly be their guy. Hence, former Gov. Mike Huckabee looked more palatable to them; while the technocrats could not fathom anyone like Huckabee getting the nomination.
Examine McCain’s record and he’s a pretty consistent conservative, from his time in Congress (where he was a supporter of Ronald Reagan), so this perception may have been an invention of the media and his opponents. Remember, when he and George W. Bush were battling it out in 2000, things got dirty as both ran attack ads. McCain came off pretty terribly.
In fact, when I looked at McCain’s record today I am not too sure why there may be some liberal support for him, although he might be able to use that to his advantage with the voting public. Unless people like George W. Bush have been even more staunchly conservative and have offended those liberals.
While voting for the War on Terror Sen. McCain also had amendments to bills added, such as ensuring that the US did not engage in illegal torture of its PoWs. That is easily explained: if you were beaten up and tortured yourself over a five-and-a-half year period, you’d be pretty averse to seeing another human being go through the same thing.
I write of him now not because I have suddenly picked up a GOP baton and figured he’s the best choice for President, but because he hasn’t really had any time in the limelight.
The media are chanting either Obama or Clinton, although more seem to be wondering why Hillary Clinton is still in the race. She must either know she’s a fading cause célèbre, or the Clinton fear-mongering tentacles of Arkancide run deeper in the MSM than we can give them credit. Unless she has a genuine chance, prepared to come on stream if something happens to Obama.
I have written about Barack Obama on this blog because being a minority I want to redress the balance of some of the racist tendencies of some MSM coverage. Politically I do not agree with him any more than I agree with many of the contenders for their parties’ nominations. From memory most of the candidates have a 60 to 70 per cent similarity with my views, which makes you wonder if they are just all saying the right things.
I feel similarly when I defend John McCain. He is the subject of less media coverage (which is the bias here), and he is the subject of ageism as America goes around with this notion that only a younger person can be a dynamic president.
This is not just a US phenomenon: the west loves the idea of a young, glamorous leader.
The US’s finest hours have come from experienced, wise presidents, backed up by strong and wise first ladies. JFK did not live long enough, in my view, to have given the country a “finest hour” in his presidency, though he was inspiring; historical presidents such as Adams, Lincoln, Hoover and FDR were hardly young men.
In this election, Americans need to consider not just the candidate’s stated position but what their past says about their characters—not what the MSM, attack ads and campaign lies say.
They need to strip away the biases of age, race and gender as each principal candidate has suffered from prejudice of one sort or the other.
They need to examine McCain’s 27 years in elected office, without the rhetoric, just as they need to examine Obama’s 12 and Clinton’s eight. (If Obama is inexperienced, according to Clinton, then what does that make her?) And if we are to consider Clinton’s time as First Lady of the country and of Arkansas as she wishes us to, then the record of Lt Cmdr McCain and later Capt McCain needs to be considered, too.
Because the next four years are not about trying to restore Camelot in the White House: they are about putting a person in the White House that can only preach honour but has shown it.
Whether you are a Republican or a Democrat, what we foreigners want to see is trustworthy leadership. Honour begins at home, and who do you want saying, ‘The buck stops here’?
If voters dislike spin then who has offered the least spin, the candidate on whom you can rely most? Or that other countries can rely on most: that America’s enemies will know their days are numbered, that America’s allies will know they have a real friend, and that those who fell out with America know that the nation will in fact consistently and genuinely stand for freedom and liberty?
Men like me were brought up to admire the US for its service to humanity and freedom, and its opposition to Communism, and we want to admire it again. It should not be a country perceived as slogan-heavy and substance-free, yet the perception has shifted toward this since the 1960s. A candidate who resorts to such techniques does not necessarily fit in the 2008 scene and, sadly, that is how I perceive Sen. Clinton. If McCain is really a maverick, then he might shake things up as much as people hope Obama will.
This should be a race between McCain and Obama, and the next months, hopefully, will reveal it is just that.
Nice to know that al-Jazeera is already covering the lead-up to the Sir Edmund Hillary funeral, with a huge piece just now on the news bulletin live from Auckland outside the Holy Trinity Cathedral, where his body is lying in state and people are paying their respects. Nothing of the sort on TV One and TV3 at the moment, though from what I remember, one of the networks will carry the actual funeral live. Good on al-Jazeera for being truly global.