I always enjoyed seeing Johnny Carson on late night TV. I didn’t know he was still alive.
Oh, wait! It’s John McCain!
Heard over dinner tonight, hosted by Laywood Chan, son of the late and great Dan Chan who passed away on May 18: the story of Judy Chen of Flushing, NY, a mother of two sons serving with the US armed forces, was attacked by a Red Chinese régime-sanctioned thug operating in the United States. Only Republicans Tom Tancredo and Dana Rohrabacher have said anything about it on behalf of Ms Chen, charging that the Red Chinese were behind this attack on an American citizen. Many others have taken place.
Ms Chen, who escaped Red China after victimization during the Cultural Revolution, asked, ‘Am I in China or America?’
Ms Chen said that rocks and eggs were also thrown at them by the thugs.
Why are not more lawmakers on both sides of the political spectrum not joining in and pointing out to the Red Chinese that attacks on Americans on their own soil are totally unacceptable?
And if the charges are true, why is the Red Politburo so fearful and willing to commit a hate crime on someone else’s foreign soil? If the reversed happened it would organize mass protests against that other nation and call for a mass boycott.
Maybe Americans should be doing just that.
According to a press release, one of Ms Chen’s sons, LCOM John Lee Caldwell, flew home to see how bad the attack on his mother was.
LCOM Caldwell is about to go on his second tour in Iraq but took 10 days’ leave to see his mother.
The release from PR Newswire and the anti-Communist Party Epoch Times (often biased against the Beijing Politburo) alleged, ‘Pro-communist mobs numbering as many as 600 have been a consistent presence in Flushing, New York, since May 17th when they first began intimidating Falun Gong adherents. The attacks on Falun Gong have frequently escalated to violence, and at least seven instigators have been arrested on charges of assault by New York police. The attacks are believed to have been orchestrated by the Chinese Consulate in New York City, as revealed by a telephone recording with Mr. Keyu Peng, the Chinese Consul General, in which he boasts of his involvement.
‘The incidents in New York City are part of a larger pattern of coercive intimidation used by Beijing's United Front Work Organization, which is charged with the mission of isolating and destroying dissenting voices on foreign soil—even in the U.S. The ramifications were apparent enough by 2004 as to prompt House Congressional Resolution 304, calling for Beijing to cease its intimidation of Falun Gong adherents on U.S. soil.’
I am not commenting on the validity of Falun Gong and whether it is a cult or not: the fact remains that an American subject was attacked and if there is a Politburo connection, Americans need to pay careful attention to what foreign governments are committing on their own soil.
It’s been interesting watching the MSM dissect the Clinton campaign with a whole range of experts saying why she will not be the Democratic Party nominee for the presidency. I would venture to say these are the same experts predicting a Hillary Clinton win a year ago.
It’s that which I have found remarkable today as Sen. Barack Obama becomes the presumptive nominee for the Democratic Party, rather than the very strong likelihood that Sen. Obama has won.
For months, the mainstream media have been promoting Sen. Obama heavily. One reason is that he is newsworthy to the left. More often than not, his race is used as the reason behind that promotion. In essence, most New Zealanders, and I would say most non-Americans who watched the news from the US, were left in little doubt that he would take the Democratic Party contest.
Image sells in American politics, and probably politics in many western countries. George W. Bush got people used to thinking about a Republican president in 2000 by forming his cabinet while lawyers battled Florida. When he did win, only diehard Democrats tried to tell the American people they had been hoodwinked. Everyone else awaited the January 20, 2001 swearing-in. Go back a few years and Tony Blair, too, gave an inevitable image of a Labour victory in 1997.
This time, Sen. Obama has done the same, and it has been a well thought-out campaign: his book, writing from a humanist perspective and admitting any faults that his rivals were likely to dig up; a consistent branding scheme (the use of the Gotham typeface, for example); and vagueness (to give his opponents less of a target).
On some of these aspects, Sen. Obama has fielded a very different campaign. Only vagueness seems to be the common thread with other winners. A pre-campaign book was clever as well as admitting to things no other potential presidential nominee would, such as his having tried cocaine.
In fact, when he began getting specific after a challenge by Sen. Clinton, he actually lost traction.
I do not pretend to like all of Sen. Obama’s policies if I were to look at his voting record in the Senate, any more than I find myself in accord with Sens. Clinton and McCain.
As a minority, I am glad that a racial barrier has been broken in American politics. Even though Sen. Obama is biracial, he has been branded an African–American through his father’s homeland, showing just how people are habitual pigeonholers. If by the quirk of genetics he had his mother’s skin colour, would his race have become such an issue?
That one matter shows how far his campaign has come, in a country that would not have fathomed a “black” president other than in fiction, in the form of Morgan Freeman or Dennis Haysbert.
We can accept God being played by Morgan Freeman, but a black president?
While having huge African–American support, I totally understand the campaign Sen. Obama ran in terms of race: he plain didn’t mention it.
I wouldn’t.
Any member of any minority in the world, whether that minority is black, yellow, brown or white, who has been brought up on the idea of hard work and dignity, would not make race an issue—with perhaps the exception of others making race an issue for him or her.
I think that earned Sen. Obama brownie points among many of the United States’ immigrants and people descended relatively recently from immigrants.
It finally proves so many of those lessons from our parents right: that if you work hard, you can become a leader.
Once upon a time, parents said that but knew that it would take a miracle for a minority to get there, whether we are talking about the US or New Zealand.
Barack Obama is proof not only of his own abilities, but he represents the hope that the presidency is no longer governed by skin colour, but by sheer hard work. That speaks to a large part of the electorate, including Caucasian–Americans.
In some ways this has allowed his policies to be overlooked, which is actually unhealthy for democracy. Americans need to be voting on who can bring them true honour and meaning. But just as Sen. Obama began attacking Sen. John McCain’s policies as he presumed himself the Democratic nominee, it will be up to Sen. McCain to reveal his opponent’s policy shortcomings.
However, it was not always in the bag.
Those same MSM experts seem to forget that Sen. Clinton, using a campaign that broke the rules on branding (a confused message and confused visual communications) got so close to Sen. Obama that it actually was a miracle she survived and gained as many votes as she did. Writing in a country that has had two successive female prime ministers and, at one point, women in the Governor-General’s and Chief Justice’s role as well, the gender difference means far less to me. What I saw was a clumsy campaign that had more traction than logic would allow me to admit.
Sen. Clinton’s progress was nothing short of amazing considering she did not play from the rulebook, and we brand consultants will have to at least acknowledge her case and say: anomalies exist in marketing strategy.
The question is now whether there is a Clinton vice-presidency, but Obama aides are dead set against it. Equally, Clinton aides would not want their senator cosying up with Sen. Obama.
If the Clinton image of “will say and do anything for the top job” is accurate, and as Sen. Clinton herself mentioned the possibility of assassination, I would not consider the senator from New York to be a vice-presidential nominee if I were Barack Obama. I might get “Arkancided” in the hope of her succession.
But right now, Sen. Obama has a Democratic Party to reunite and invigorate, something that Sen. McCain may have difficulty doing for an uninspired GOP. Sen. Obama has media visibility on his side, reaching internal as well as external audiences.
I always enjoyed seeing Johnny Carson on late night TV. I didn’t know he was still alive.
Oh, wait! It’s John McCain!
American Infidel posted an excellent piece from Cross Action News on how the US political system has been compromised, by Carl Parnell. Some excerpts:
However, as seen in these different opinions, politicians have been blamed for the failure of America’s political system. But, one respondent to the survey voiced a strong opinion that put the blame on average Americans. Her opinion was:
Our Constitution frames the best form of government on the planet. The balance of powers and the system of checks and balances provided a framework that allowed our young country to grow and develop and remain despot free for the last 220 years. The government itself is not what I have lost faith in. “We the People” is what I have lost faith in.
And advice for the electorate follows (my emphasis), and I have to agree with it as I have never, in the elections I have participated in, voted for personal gain. Even for those who do not believe in God or in prayer, the remaining advice is still useful:
“Of the people, by the people, for the people” means the people should educate themselves and elect leaders at all levels that work for them. The people should watch what those elected officials do and boot them out of office when they no longer work for the people. The caliber of citizens and politicians has declined in the last 220 years.
Therefore, America’s political system is at a crossroads in 2008. When the American electorate votes for the President of the United States and for any members of Congress in November 2008, they must absolutely know the true facts about each candidate. Citizens of the United States must not permit the race, gender, or political party of the candidate be a determining factor in who wins the election. Citizens of the United States must not let personal economic gain become the deciding factor in which candidate they vote for in any election. Citizens of the United States must vote for candidates who have the true qualities of great leaders, such as those possessed by America’s forefathers. Some of these qualities would be honesty, integrity, morality, faith in the nation they serve, faith in the people they serve, having the character of a statesman instead of the character of many modern-day politicians. Of course, true representative leaders of the United States should always pray to God before voting on any legislation that affects the greatest nation in the world.
However, if America continues to elect people to office that assume the role of a politician instead of a statesman, America may lose more than just the faith of its citizens toward its political system. America may possibly lose its status as the greatest nation in the world.
There is still support for the US around the world—but they need a beacon to look up to rather than to criticize. In November, vote to make America great again—not just in economic terms, but in terms of the true leadership and morality that it can stand for.
]]>Folks may recall the videos I posted about the possibility that Hillary Clinton committed a breach of electoral finance laws in 2000 a few weeks back.
The following was Dugg today: ‘Paul v. Clinton: Experts Question Whether Clinton Campaign Finance Case Will Impact ’08 Race’.
It’s an old article from 2007 but the last time it was on Digg, Democratic supporters dismissed it as a right-wing attack on their Hillary.
Now you see from the comments on Digg that many, many Democrats have joined in and the right-wing charge has disappeared. It’s obviously accepted by more of the US population.
The excerpts are interesting (and I am being biased against Sen. Clinton in selecting these):
The star-studded August 2000 event was later deemed to be a violation of federal campaign finance laws: The Clinton campaign had to pay a $35,000 fine to the Federal Elections Committee. Clinton’s campaign finance director David Rosen was accused of lying to the FEC, indicted, but eventually acquitted. …
The case presents the classic question of what Clinton knew and when she knew it, said election lawyer John Armor. He said the tape shows that Clinton allegedly committed at least four felonies pertaining to illegal campaign fundraising and obstructing subsequent federal investigations into the matter. …
“No presidential candidate was ever caught on videotape engaged in felony,” Paul told Cybercast News Service. “No candidate [has ever been] engaged in major civil fraud suit [that] she was forced to testify in.” …
In a written declaration for the California court filed on April 7, 2006, Clinton said only that she did not remember discussions with Paul about the fundraiser.
“I have no recollection whatsoever of discussing any arrangement with him whereby he would support my campaign for the United States Senate in exchange for anything from me or then-President Clinton,” Clinton wrote.
The following excerpt, however, is very sad:
From a political perspective, the public stopped caring about alleged misdeeds by either of the Clintons, said Gary Rose, political science professor at Sacred Heart University.
“When it comes to the Clintons, they are generally immune to public condemnation regarding ethical lapses and violations of the law,” Rose told Cybercast News Service. “If this case continues into the general election, we'll see how it affects swing voters and independents, but it is not going to derail her bid for the nomination. I still remember Bill Clinton’s polls, and two-thirds of voters said they didn’t trust him but voted for him irrespective of his morality or ethics.”
Even critics of Clinton don’t think the case will harm her politically.
“She’s going to hold the highest office in the country. She’s got the money, the organization and the FBI files,” James Nesfield, president of the Equal Justice Foundation of America (EJFA), said in an interview.
I don’t think Americans are that stupid but there is one part that rings true: we are so used to the idea of the Clintons being crooks we don’t bat an eyelid any more. The more news like this surfaces, the more it becomes part of the Clinton noise, and fewer and fewer will care. We become desensitized.
None of this has made it into the MSM in this country and I bet little has made it into the MSM in the States.
Also, the voting public was different in 1996 because they did not see the Sen. Dole as being potentially effective—either have an ineffective, uninspiring president, or an untrustworthy one. Americans chose the latter, since when did politicians and trust go together?
In 2008, the world is different—Americans have the choice between an experienced candidate (McCain) or the claimed agent of change (Obama). Or, the least experienced of the three in elected office who claims sleep deprivation causes lies (Clinton).
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.
I am not Sen. John McCain’s biggest cheerleader by any means—heck, I even made fun of him on national television—but there are aspects of his life where you think, ‘Man, this guy has served his country.’ And when I say ‘served his country,’ I don’t mean taking a trip to Bosnia with Chelsea Clinton and coming under sniper fire. Some quotes about his past, which might explain just why he has his fans. First, from VietnamWar.com:
John McCain’s 5½ years of captivity in North Vietnam were divided into two phases. Early on, this son and grandson of high-ranking Naval officers was accorded relatively privileged status. Then he refused early release—which he saw as a public relations stunt by his captors—insisting that POWs held longer than him should be granted their freedom first. Thereafter, McCain was treated much more severely, but he also had an opportunity to bond with his fellow prisoners.
So this captured PoW, a Naval Lieutanant Commander, who had suffered two fractured arms, a fractured leg, a bayonet wound in the foot, said: I’m not going home early, no matter how bad.
He was then beaten every two hours in the second phase, while suffering from dysentry, and later two to three beatings a week. While not the worst given out to PoWs in Vietnam, McCain said he discovered where his breaking point was.
When running for Senate, and accused of being a carpet-bagger, McCain responded to a journalist:
Listen, pal. I spent 22 years in the Navy. My father was in the Navy. My grandfather was in the Navy. We in the military service tend to move a lot. We have to live in all parts of the country, all parts of the world. I wish I could have had the luxury, like you, of growing up and living and spending my entire life in a nice place like the First District of Arizona, but I was doing other things. As a matter of fact, when I think about it now, the place I lived longest in my life was Hanoi.
I know this is McCain in his past, and not everyone agrees with him today, but these aspects don’t seem to be brought up much in the media. He holds a Silver Star, Bronze Star, the Legion of Merit, the Purple Heart and a Distinguished Flying Cross, and retired in 1981 in the rank of Captain.
If the American election is about experience, as Sen. Clinton says, then John McCain looks pretty unbeatable. But, this election is about so much more.
This is off a page on Digg, which is what you might guess when it comes to involvement in digital media. One might even say it reflects their personalities. Barack Obama is very active, Hillary Clinton hasn’t been active for a few weeks, and John McCain—well, he hasn’t been active in a long time.
]]>I see Sen. Clinton has resorted to even more attacks on Sen. Obama, all of which smack of desperation and come through to me 7,000-plus miles away as tiresome. God only knows what the American people have to put up with on a far more frequent basis, especially if it is in my consciousness in a foreign country.
The Clinton camp has not denied sending out a picture of Sen. Obama on one of his many visits back to Kenya, wearing traditional elder garb. Its intention: to show how “foreign” Sen. Obama is. More to the point, to show how “un-American” he is. Wear traditional costume? You are not wholesome enough to be American, in that Ward and June Cleaver way.
You see, there is a theory that the Clinton side must have in that it is considered culturally sensitive for a white American to adopt his or her host’s costumes, but it is considered odd for a black American to do the same.
Despite the large African-descended community in the United States, traditional African costume has not entered the general consciousness of the country. Sen. Obama, wearing the costume of his father’s homeland, looks very different to the well suited figure that Americans have seen during the campaign. He has tried to be race-neutral for the most part, rightly resisting to use that aspect in a campaign that is heated enough.
The Clinton campaign is hoping this photo will be the undoing of Obama in Ohio and Texas. I do not think so. Americans are just too darned smart for this to work.
There is nothing wrong with the image but for the fact that it may have come from the Clinton campaign, released with an obvious belief that it is scandalous.
It shouldn’t be, of course, but Clinton has now made this campaign about race—or her own racism. (I suppose it might not be as bad as showing your tax liabilities.)
Nevertheless, having a black campaign manager is not going to make her look whiter than white on this issue, if you will pardon the one attempt at humour in this post.
These attacks have fallen flat before. Anti-Obama types and anti-Islamists stressed that his middle name is Hussein. That proved ineffective for numerous reasons. Earlier in the year, in stressing her credentials, Clinton said that it took a president (LBJ) to make the Civil Rights’ Movement effective—which was seen by many as undermining the work of Dr Martin Luther King Jr. For me, that brought up the 2004 incident when Clinton joked that Mahatma Gandhi was someone who pumped gas for a living in St Louis, Mo.
While I tried to give Sen. Clinton the benefit of the doubt on her incidents, I am not so sure about the newest—and it wasn’t helped by the Clinton campaign’s reactions. Skemono, a fellow blogger, expresses it better than I could, quoting campaign manager Michelle Williams. I imagine that Skemono is better versed on the topic, being inside the US.
Put these incidents together and it paints a sorry picture of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton’s élitism and what she regards as “American”. Obviously Indians need not apply, even the great man Gandhi. I imagine in her view blacks need the white hand to help, the freedom of the Civil War given to them benevolently, and civil rights by President Lyndon Johnson.
Even if Sen. Clinton is not a racist, and it’s actually likely she isn’t, I believe she is not above using race for political capital.
However, she has miscalculated things. The United States of America is founded on immigrants. It all depends on when one arrived. Even the native American, the first one there, probably migrated from Asia.
If Sen. Clinton had a good grasp on the Hispanic vote, then I suspect she lost some potential supporters today.
Obama, the role model
Why should not Obama, whose father was an immigrant who made good on the American Dream, adopt the clothing of his homeland? Many of us who have the privilege of visiting the country from which our ancestors came would do the same. It shows Barack Obama to be a proud man, and if he is willing to celebrate his heritage, then he comes with a sense of self-respect.
A person who is willing to celebrate their heritage, at Barack Obama’s level, can be a good role model for many others who did not consider it.
You are only as good as your dignity, and Sen. Obama has shown that.
While I will defend Sen. Obama, I cannot be said to be a fan of his. I do not agree with all of his policies, and I even agree with Sen. Clinton that he lacks specificity to field a credible campaign if he were nominated. I am unsure of his foreign policy credentials and how he will deal with régimes that attack the values of freedom and democracy—on that Sen. Clinton should attack him. There are signs, which conservatives are prepared to cite in their opposition, of Obama’s extreme left tendencies.
However, I would rather see a dignified man enter the White House than a woman who resorts to playground bully tactics. Though out of the current front-runners I would rather not see any of them enter.
Campaign and attack all you want—but do not take it down to this level.
Experience
Today on National Radio here in New Zealand, Sen. Clinton stressed her foreign policy credentials, saying she did not need an instruction manual or advisers to deal with the matter.
The last time I looked, Sen. Obama had 12 years in elected office versus her eight.
On a day like this, I am not sure if it is worth much—even if I agree with Sen. Clinton that she has been clearer on her foreign policy during her campaign. (I won’t bring more of her prior positions on foreign policy into this yet.)
And if she refers to the years as First Lady and wishes to count them as part of her ‘experience’, then she must stand by her decisions at that time. Unfortunately, Sen. Clinton only stands by the ones she thinks makes her look good.
Her Wal-mart support for cheap Chinese labour and her pro-NAFTA stance were fairly consistent positions during her time as First Lady of Arkansas and as First Lady.
If Americans are upset by what they saw as a preemptive strike by President Bush on Iraq, perhaps they need to be reminded that President Clinton did the same in Kosovo. If she supported that as the President’s wife, and she supported the war on Iraq, can Democrats and those opposed to the war trust her?
This is not a campaign about substance, as Sen. Clinton has stressed that it should be. And she has had a major hand in taking that substance away.
Reading the blogosphere I have found Democrats who believe Clinton has ‘swift-boated’ Obama.
These tactics aren’t presidential
I would not want, as a citizen of a western country that has a history with the United States, and which sacrificed lives for the sake of freedom alongside members of the US armed forces, to think that Sen. Clinton’s pettiness and pit-bull tactics will affect the way I do business as a New Zealander.
And being part of a family that has been in the US for a century, I do have a stake: to ensure my cousins and an aunt are not living in a place that has a questionable, élitist leader with dictatorial tendencies.
The in-fighting can only be good for the Republican Party, whose lead candidate, Sen. John McCain, has not captured the public’s attention as well. Attacks on him have not really held up, either. A divided Democratic Party is just what the GOP needs, and they have Sen. Hillary Clinton to thank for it.
What was your reaction to the results of the Iowa caucuses?
Total surprise. I thought I wouldn’t care but I do. Last time, the Democrats had a clear front-runner in the form of Sen. John Kerry and I found that sparked a greater interest for me, to see how he would fare against President Bush. This time, the interest comes from how unpredictable the fight is.
I would not have predicted Obama, Edwards and Clinton for the Dems, and I would not have predicted Huckabee, Romney and Thompson for the GOP.
Go back two years and most of my GOP friends were pessimistic because the only candidates they could foresee were John McCain and Rudy Giuliani. Others, perhaps prescient, said there would be a surprise candidate that must emerge closer to the end of 2007. They were right.
I thought Fred Thompson might have been that man but there certainly has been a lot of attention surrounding Gov. Huckabee. That momentum continued.
Among my Democrat friends, the hope a few years back was that Al Gore would consider running. Back in 2004 I had good friends who felt Edwards supported their values more and were disappointed that Sen. Kerry emerged as the front-runner in Iowa. Through 2007 I had next to no Democratic friends who felt Sen. Clinton was right for them.
I am glad the usual rule of “who spends the most wins” did not apply for either party here. It is another example of branding: a good consistent brand that taps in to the consciousness can outweigh huge spends. And that’s something I hope will buoy smaller parties in New Zealand as we face our General Election this year.
Now that the Iowa caucus item is over, the BBC is running a Britney Spears–K. Fed. story.