Palin Smackdown

Nobody's going to deny that there's bias in the media - just flick on Fox News and you'll see daily disinformation on a scale Joseph Goebbels would have been proud of.

But when it comes to Sarah Palin... Enough is enough.

I'll admit, I'm on the fence when it comes to Sarah. I like her plucky spirit and determination. I'm not so keen on her religious fervour or questionable opinions on the environment.

(To illustrate my conflict; as keen on hunting as I am, the 'ariel shooting' Palin advocates seems a little unfair. I mean, tracking down a wolf or moose with a high powered rifle makes hunting one sided enough. Targeting them from low-flying airplanes is just thoroughly unsporting!)

But whatever my reservations about Ms. Palin, I have noticed a landslide of negativity being sent her way by the press and media.

It's true that the media tends to have a liberal bias (with the exception of the Fox Propaganda Network.) But I can't remember it ever being quite so blatant before.

Sarah Palin is a nice enough lady. She's got a lovely family and a successful career - one she achieved all on her own, without any of the 'positive discrimination' feminists are screaming for. Sure, she's not perfect. But she's not bad, as far as it goes.

Yet the media is merciless in their attacks against her. Just this morning, I saw her being dismissed as 'a bucket of fluff.' People are openly questioning her political ability, her commitment to her family and even her dress sense.

Come on, guys. It's not only not very nice. It's also dumb. The more the liberal left attack Sarah Palin, the more they galvanise the moderates and the right wing to back up 'that nice little Alaskan lady.'

Not to mention, some of the attacks are just damn stupid.

Seriously, why would the Democrats make such a thing about Palin's perceived 'inexperience' when she's at least as experienced as their own Presidential candidate. I'm sorry, but that's just playing into the right wing's hands.

Whichever way you look at it, McCain pulled an ace from his sleeve when he selected Sarah Palin to stand for the vice presidency. The only way the Democrats are going to trump this clever move is by shelving the attacks against her - completely.

They need to play nice - to recognize Sarah Palin's refreshing perspective, her family values and her political ambitions. They need to pat her on the head, tell everybody what a good job lil' Sarah is doing and dismiss her as a political unimportance. Only then they can concentrate on the main target - McCain.

If they play nice, they won't seen to be mean spirited bullies. It'll pull the carpet out from the Republican's campaign and put them back on a level footing.

But I don't think the liberals are capable of that level of political sophistication. They're just going to team up on this friendly, family woman and bombard her with the sort of mean-spirited maliciousness they wailed about the Republicans aiming towards Hillary.

The scary thing? This election was the Democrats to lose - and a damn fine job they're doing of exactly that.

Ding Dong, the Witch is Dead!

Can it be possible? Is the Hillary Campaign Train finally derailed?


Well, last night Barack Obama wrapped up enough votes to seal the Democratic Nomination for the White House - but Hillary still isn't conceding.

Not yet - not until she gets at least a consolation prize, like the Vice Presidential nomination.

If Obama does choose to pick Hillary for that slot, they'll make a pretty unbeatable duo in the upcoming elections. If he doesn't, he'll still most likely put up a strong contest for the White House. Don't take my word for it - while Ladbrookes are offering strong odds of 5/4 on McCain (meaning a £4 will net you £5 if he wins, plus your original four quid) the odds on Obama are an astounding (and unprofitable) 4/7, meaning if you place a £7 bet you'll only stand to win £4 if he takes the election.

Snce there's money involved, I'm generally willing to accept those odds as gospel.

But would Hillary take the Vice President spot? Would Obama even offer it to her?

It would certainly make history for Hillary to become the first female Vice President. But Vice President isn't exactly an important or significant role - even John Adams, the first Vice President, admitted that the position was "the most insignificant office that ever the invention of man contrived or his imagination conceived."

But this might be the closest she'll ever get. At 60 years old today, Hillary would be nearing McCain vintage by the time she got the opportunity to run for President herself - and if Obama was to last two terms, history generally dictates that the opposing party 'gets their turn' meaning Hillary could realistically be 76 before the next Democratic president heads to Pennsylvania Avenue.

Vice Presidency might be the only opportunity Clinton has to make her own mark on American History. You can't really blame her for fighting so bitterly to secure it.

Why can't the Democrats be more Democratic?

Let's be honest here - the 2008 Presidential election is pretty much sewn up for the Democrats, whichever candidate they choose.

Or, at least, it would be if they didn't continue being such idiots about the whole thing!

The longer this primary drags out, the more chance the Dems have of blowing the whole shooting match.

On the other side, you've got to hand it to the Republicans. They are an incredibly focused and capable political machine. They've accepted the idea of doing whatever it takes to achieve victory; including compromising their conservative polemic and standing behind a man like John McCain (who crosses party lines on several key issues.)

They're a losing party with a winning strategy.

Dumbo Dems

What's highlighted by the skirmish for the Democratic candidacy is just how undemocratic the Democratic party really is. A lot of the angry rhetoric conservative pundits throw at the Democrats compares them to 'Stalinists.' Normally I find that comparison laughable - but dammit if there isn't a grain of truth buried in there somewhere!

Take, for instance, the decision to disenfranchise Democratic delegates from Michigan and Florida.

Those states chose to bring their primary dates forward, in order to make their state more important in the selection process. For breaking 'the rules' the Democratic party removed their right to send delegates to the Democratic Convention. They basically stopped their votes from counting.

Hardly very democratic!

Secondly, take the concept of the Super Delegates. These are 'important' Democrats, like state governors and the like, who have a 'bigger' vote than the standard Delegates at the convention. Basically, all Democratic Delegates are created equal, but some are more equal than others.

In a close knit race like the battle between Hillary and Obama, the Super Delegates are 'king makers.' Whatever the election results declare, the Super Delegates can go in and reverse the decision if they don't like it.

Again, hardly very Democratic! What's the point of having months of state-wide primary elections if the Super Delegates can swoop in and change the final count if they feel that democracy hasn't provided the 'right' answer.

And that's the core of the issue, isn't it? Despite being called the 'Democratic' party, the Democratic party elite are determined to control the electoral process so they end up with the result they want - the will of the voters be damned.

The fact that we're only two months away from the Democratic Convention and we're no closer to having a definitive winner has shown the American public only one thing - that the Democratic party is incapable of governing itself. Is that really the sort of organisation we want governing the country?

Unless the Democrats get united and organised, the answer to that question will come on election day.

Election Fever 2008!

I haven't had a post about the election in ages - because it's been pretty boring so far.

John McCain might as well be sitting in a hammock drinking cocktails, since his job is done. He's wrapped up the Republican primary and a good job too, since fundamentalist nutjob Mike Huckabee and crazy mormon Mitt Romney would have been scary if they'd been given a shot at the White House.

I like John McCain. His age doesn't worry me, since he's only slightly older than my dad and papa is still sharp as a lick of paint. McCain also wins points because the extreme left despise him (labelling him 'McSame' and accusing him of being 'Bush Mk.II) only slightly less than the extreme right of his own party despise him (calling him a 'leftist' and a 'token Republican' for crossing party lines on certain issues.)

If the far left and the far right can't stand him, he's probably doing something right.

As far as the Democrats go... well, that whole scene's a bloody mess, isn't it?

Republicans are rubbing their hands together at Obama and Clinton locking horns. This whole battle should have been over long ago, but plucky old Hillary is refusing to let Obama win and that's dragging the primary on... and on... and on...


On the face of it, Obama's got her licked. He's got the majority of delegates on his side and is clearly the most popular candidate. Hillary isn't going out without a fight, though, and has awkwardly managed to win states like Florida (even if it didn't count) and Pennsylvania, which are the 'swing states' that will win (or lose) a Presidential election.

The more bitter the battle gets, the more damage Clinton and Obama are doing to each other's chances of victory in the Presidential election.

The consensus is that Hillary will have to use her support amongst the 'super delegates' to secure the candidacy - and if she does that, she'll have basically disenfranchised every person who voted in the Democratic Primaries (since she'd have rejected the popular vote and won through political clout alone.)

If Hillary does that, I can't see how she'd hope to win the 2008 Election.

The Social Security Money-Pit

Being brought up as a child of the Thatcher government, I've never really considered Britain a socialist country - although that's what it's labelled by many Americans.

It's Anglicised 'socialism' that's proving to be the crux of the upcoming presidential election, with both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton advocating British-style programs to care for certain American citizens, while John McCain and the Republican party continue to advocate a completely privatized system.

It's a tough sell for McCain & Co. Universal access to adequate health care is clearly the cornerstone of a 'civilised' society and whether you believe in public or private health care, it's difficult to argue that the current system isn't in need of a serious overhaul.

The other 'tough sell' is Social Security. Developed by President Roosevelt after the great depression, Social Security is a mandatory payment by working citizens into a federal fund, which supplies the retired and disabled with a pension.

Many Republicans want this abolished, leaving citizens responsible for paying into their own retirement programs. Most Democrats, on the other hand, want Social Security expanded, to cover more people and offer more benefits.

On the face of it, the Democrats have a much stronger argument. After all, if somebody's paid into Social Security for their entire life, why shouldn't they receive a pension upon retirement? And if a person becomes disabled, isn't it the government's duty to pay their costs of living?

Whatever argument the Republicans come up with to counter this proposal makes them sound callous and uncaring. However, there is one uncomfortable nugget of truth in their argument that Democrats and Liberals are increasingly wary of acknowledging.

Social Security doesn't work.

In theory, Social Security is just a government-funded pension scheme. Workers pay in 12% of their income every paycheque and that money is invested in a 'fund' which generates enough revenue (from interest and investments) to pay for that worker's retirement after thirty or forty years of payments.

It's exactly how a modern day 401k system works - except for a couple of serious issues.

The return on the invested money is considerably less. An average American investing $285,000 dollars into Social Security over the course of his life (about average for somebody earning $60,000 a year) will receive a pension of $2,200 a month upon retirement. If that same $285,000 had been invested in a private high-grade corporate bond, the monthly return could conservatively be estimated at $7,400 a month.

The interest bearing 'fund' has already been spent. Or, at least, that's what Economist Thomas Sowell suggests - arguing that the retirement pensions of the first generation of Social Security contributors is actually being paid for by the contributions of the second generation. The money that should have been in trust - developing interest to pay for future Social Security payments - has actually been borrowed in the form of Government Bonds. This causes a problem when the 'Baby Boom' generation retires and the Social Security contributions of the 'next generation' are only able to cover 75% of the expected costs.

The Money Pit

Social Security Board of Trustees issued their annual report on Tuesday which outlined this exact problem. By 2017, the income from the current Social Security payments American workers make will fall below the cost of the pensions Social Security has promised to pay out.

In short, those of us planning to retire after 2017 will either have to accept a smaller pension payment - or be prepared to pay more taxes.

And if that sounds bad enough, it gets worse. With advances in medicine and science, the demographic gap between retired Americans and working ones is increasing - meaning the diminishing Social Security investment will have to be spread across a widening group of retirees.

It's absolutely unsustainable. In fact, to pay the pensions of retiring Americans at their current rate, Social Security payments will have to be increased by 300%! That means the average working American will see an instantaneous tax increase of 12.4% - and a self-employed American will technically be required to pay an additional 24.8%.

The only other alternative is to pay out less upon retirement - further widening the disparity between private investment (through a 401k scheme) and the money you get back from a lifetime paying into Social Security.

Democrats Lose

Alarmingly, neither Barack Obama nor Hillary Clinton seem to be addressing this alarming issue. In fact, Clinton has made it very clear that she wants to expand both Social Security and Medicare.

On the surface of it, that appeals to a lot of Americans - more pension money. More health care benefits. But it will come at the cost of increasing income taxes - dramatically.

For most working Americans, Social Security is not longer a realistic plan for the future. Unless they invest more of their own money into a private 401k scheme, there will simply not be enough money in the Social Security fund to give them a livable pension.

The Alternative...

For many people - myself included - it would seem to be far more sensible and profitable to take the 12.4 percent paid into Social Security (half by you, half by your employer) and pay it directly into your 401k (where an additional 6% of my income already goes.)

That way, you can maximise the effectiveness of your investment (if the earlier example holds true) winding up with three or four times the monthly pension that you would through Social Security alone.

In addition, if you could invest 12.4% of your income privately, into a 401k that would actually give you a decent return on your money, you might not need to do what millions of Americans (including myself) do and supplement your Social Security retirement 'plan' by investing a further 6% of your income privately. That's 6% to spend elsewhere adding up to thousands of dollars a year.

...and why it's not viable

As rosy as this option sounds, it's not viable for several reasons.

Firstly, and most importantly, the inefficiencies of the current Social Security system mean that our Social Security payments are required to pay for the retiring Baby Boomers. In fact, these payments won't even add up to 73% of the promised payments the Baby Boom generation is expecting - so Social Security payments have to continue - or possibly increase - even though they're not contributing to our future retirement at all!

Secondly, what the Social Security system lacks in return-on-investment, it at least offers in stability (in theory.) Recent financial disasters like Enron and Bear Stearns show that even low-risk investment portfolios do carry some risk. In the private sector, if a lifetime's investment is wiped out overnight, there's nobody you can go running to.

• That being said, if the government's habit of dipping into the Social Security trust had been copied in a private company, the 'dippers' would be facing lengthy jail-terms, rather than reelection.)
• That additionally being said, the fact that Social Security is due to go into the red by 2017 suggests that investment in government Social Security is no safer - perhaps even less so - than putting money into a private investment portfolio.)

Thirdly, the mandatory Social Security payments make sure every American worker is investing in their retirement (even if they get terrible return on their investment.) If American workers had 12% of their income freed up in order to invest in their future... who's to say they would?

It's exactly the same problem that plagues the health care system. Almost 50 million Americans are without health insurance - ostensibly because they can't afford it. How long would it be after Social Security was privatised before millions of Americans started claiming they couldn't afford to invest in their pension schemes, either?

Whether or not they can afford healthcare, they can afford to invest 12.4% of their payroll into a pension scheme - they do so already because the Social Security payments are compulsory. But if payroll taxes were abolished and somebody had the option of spending money or not, many would choose not - resulting in a sizable chunk of people descending into poverty when they hit 65.

THIS is the real Achilles heel of privatised Social Security. The fact that some people are far too bloody stupid to actually take it seriously.

So where does that leave us?

Roll the dice. Take your chances. Whichever way you look at it, the future of Social Security is very grim indeed.

Currently, Social Security is a cash-gobbling monster headed directly into debt. In less than a decade, either the Baby Boomers or the American 9-to-5'er (or both) are going to feel a firm fiscal pinch. Somebody is not going to get what they were promised - either in the size of their Social Security cheque or the amount of tax rudely hacked from their paycheque.

The reality is, Social Security no longer offers anybody a secure future. For my generation, Social Security deductions are basically just another form of income tax. We receive no benefit for them whatsoever. Unless we invest the rest of our paycheque into a 401k scheme, there is little hope of ever receiving an adequate pension from Social Security.

Social Security is already effectively privatised.

When are Hillary and Obama going to admit that?

Some Thoughts about Universal Health Care

When it comes to the ongoing debate about American health care, I'm definitely in the privatised, American camp. I've seen the British version of 'universal health care' and it's not pretty.

So far, Tina and my experiences with the American health care system have been much more positive than what we experienced in England - even if they cost more.

Our experiences

Tina's expecting a baby - so that means plenty of visits to Robert Woods Johnson Hospital for scans, checkups and advice. After the contributions of my job's health insurance package, we've been left with about $1,000 to pay out of our own pockets.

In England, the NHS would not have charged us any money. However, the treatment we've received in America has been in a beautiful, clean, well-appointed new hospital with very modern equipment. We weren't left waiting for very long and the doctors and nurses have held our hand through the entire process.

At the Royal Hampshire Infirmary, in Winchester, we had a couple of terrible experiences, being expected to wait about four hours for treatment in a dirty hospital, with old equipment and a doctor who once gave Tina a potentially life-threatening misdiagnosis (delivered in a rude and offhand manner.)

Even worse, two new mothers from Winchester recently died from the same form of streptococcal infection they'd coincidentally picked up while in the maternity ward of the Royal Hampshire Infirmary.

Clearly, private health insurance offers us (Tina and myself) a much higher standard of health care that we could receive back home

The Downside of Private Health Care

That being said, Tina and I are in the enviable situation of having a good health care package and living close to an excellent hospital.

The reason health care is such an important issue in the upcoming presidential election is because almost 50 million Americans - close to 20% of the entire US population - have no health care coverage at all.

This is because private health care is rocketing in price - and many companies, like Wal-Mart, don't offer an adequate health care package even to full time employees.

Now, even if you're a stuffy old Tory, like me, you can't help but admit that this is wrong. Adequate health care is a basic human right. That shouldn't be a political issue for either the Democrats or Republicans. It's only the best means to accomplish this goal which should be up for discussion. In theory...

In theory.

Because currently, the debate's taken a rather surreal twist and more and more conservative Republicans are railing against any notion of 'universal health care' as proposed by Barack Obama, Senator Clinton or even their own candidate, John McCain.

In fact, in his daily radio show, conservative pundit Mark Levin often claims that Obama and Clinton are pitching a 'socialised' medical system along the same lines as Britain's National Health Service - and he enjoys using the dismal state of the NHS as an example of why it would never work.

But the problem with the conservative argument (as is increasingly common with any conservative argument is that it's utter rubbish.

American 'socialism.'

Pundits love to label the likes of Hillary Clinton as a 'socialist' or 'Marxist' when they have no real concept of the term. For a Brit - at least one who's lived long enough to remember the socialist Labor party (before Tony Blair came along) - the idea of calling Obama or Clinton a socialist is completely laughable.

Neither Democratic candidate wants to introduce a nationalised health service along the lines of the NHS. Instead, the 'universal health care' they're suggesting would simply mean that everybody in America (hence 'universal') would have access to affordable medical care (hence 'health care.')

For those in poverty, that could be some kind of system like Medicare or Medicaid. For low income families, it could be some form of subsidized or Federal health insurance.

Additionally, Obama, Clinton and McCain want the consumer cost of private medical insurance to be reduced by opening up competition - meaning consumers wouldn't be limited to the health insurance package their employer offers - and could seek more competitive quotes out-of-state.

Also, big companies like Wal-Mart would be forced to do what they should have done from the very beginning - offer their full-time employees adequate health care.

Whatever happens, the intended result of universal health care would be a system in which everybody in America has access to medical treatment. And apparently the conservative Republicans loath this idea!

Why?

The major argument conservatives have against any form of universal health care is that it would be tax-payer funded. They're worried that their hard-earned income would be taxed in order to pay for the health care of low income families (read: other people. Conservatives don't like giving money for the benefit of other people.)

There is a simple and indisputable reason why this argument is idiotic. America already has a system of 'universal health care' that's funded by the tax-payer (and subsidized by the health insurance consumer.)

Federal law forbids hospitals from turning away patients. If a visitor to a hospital doesn't have health insurance - or the means to pay their bills - it's the government or hospital that eventually has to pay up for that patient's treatment.

Which means the tax payer already pays $15 billion a year towards the health care of people without insurance. What's worse, hospitals and doctors cover the expense of 'writing off' uninsured patients by charging paying customers more - which in turn dramatically hikes up health insurance premiums.

So whether it's through tax-dollars or an increase in health insurance premiums, at the end of the day, the bad-tempered conservatives are already paying for other people's health care.

It seems stubborn and idiotic for them not to open their minds to a more efficient (i.e. cheaper) way of doing what they're already doing now.

The Simple Maths

Health insurance premiums have skyrocketed over the last few years - and one of the major reasons is because hospitals and doctors have needed to recoup their losses from treating uninsured patients.

Since about 20% of Americans have no health insurance - plus the millions of illegal immigrants and undocumented workers - the current situation works something like this:

Four people go to the hospital and have treatment that costs $300.

One of those four people has no health insurance. So to cover their costs, the hospital is forced to split that loss amongst the other three paying customers.

$300 ÷ 3 = $100 each added to their bill.

That bill ends up being $400 instead of $300. Basically, they're paying 25% more.

And it's a spiralling problem. As health insurance premiums increase, more and more people can't afford insurance, which means doctors and hospitals have to increase their costs to cover them.

That, in turn, increases insurance premiums again, which again means that more people 'drop out' of health insurance programs...

And do you see where I'm going with this?

Something needs to be done.

This situation needs to be addressed - and conservatives can't stick their head in the sand and pretend otherwise.

Currently, all three of the presidential candidates have interesting and promising solutions to the health care crisis.

Senator John McCain

John McCain's solution is within Republican party lines.

While he rejects any form of government funded or subsidized universal health care, he wants to offer a $5,000 tax rebate for families with private medical insurance (helping considerably towards the cost.)

In addition, he wants to reduce health insurance premiums by opening up competition between states. Currently, health insurance providers can operate in one state alone - meaning there are a limited number of suppliers in each state.

McCain's idea is to allow consumers to select insurance from companies based all across the United States, forcing suppliers to offer more affordable premiums.

In addition, Senator McCain wants to allow consumers to opt-out of their company's health-insurance package and take their employer's contribution elsewhere - again forcing health insurance companies to offer more competitive rates, rather than 'signing up' big businesses and forcing a big, fat premium out of every employee.

"In health care," John McCain explains, "I believe in enhancing the freedom of individuals to receive necessary and desired care."

Basically: We help those with the means to help themselves.

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton

Even though her opponents (like talk show host Mark Levin) accuse Hillary of being a socialist, the universal health care package she champions is very different from the National Health Service in England.

In fact, she spent [wasted - Editorial Bear] millions of dollars while her husband was in the White House investigating - and ultimately ruling out - a single-payer health care system like we have in Britain or Canada.

Clinton advocates government subsidies for low-income families, meaning that they will be able to afford health insurance.

She also wants to set up a federal health care system, which Americans can 'buy into' instead of their employer's health insurance package. This will force private health insurance companies to make their premiums more competitive and offer health care coverage to people with pre-existing conditions - people who would normally be refused private health insurance.

Because of the subsidies and the setting up of a federal health care system, Hillary Clinton's solution to America's health care crisis is the most expensive. However, with costs of $110 billion per year (in contrast, the war in Iraq costs $144 billion per year) this can be paid for by eliminating the controversial 'Bush tax cuts.')

However, it's the thought of killing this tax break which makes Hillary's plan so unpopular with the conservatives.

Clinton's election promise: "One of the goals that I will be presenting is health insurance for every child and universal health care for every American."

Senator Barack Obama

Obama similarly believes in real 'universal health care' and on the face of it, many of his ideas are similar to Hillary Clinton's.

Most importantly, the idea that every American should have access to affordable health insurance even if they have a pre-existing condition.

"I am absolutely determined that by the end of the first term of the next president, we should have universal health care in this country."

Critics of Obama have pointed out his lack of specific details when it comes to a proposed universal health care package - but it will still be rooted within the existing system of private health insurance providers (with some government intervention.)

Obama's plan will ultimately hope to reduce health care costs for all Americans, while providing low-income families or those with pre-existing conditions access to the medical care they are currently excluded from.

It's been a long time coming...

Whichever candidate ends up the White House, I'm confident that they will introduce improvements to the existing health care system and allow more people to have access to better care at a cheaper price.

One thing to note is that none of the candidates - not even Hillary Clinton - plans to eliminate the concept of private health insurance. They just want to regulate and streamline it.

Hopefully this means that the advantages of private medical insurance - driving the development of cutting-edge new technology and pharmaceuticals - will remain, while the disadvantages (the high insurance premiums and difficulty getting medical coverage for pre-existing conditions) will be addressed.

Having experienced both socialised and privatised heath care, I am convinced that the private system offers the consumer a better service. However, just like in any privatised industry, the demand to make money often threatens to overwhelm the mandate to provide a service.

I just hope that whichever presidential candidate makes it to the White House, they ensure that the patient always comes before the shareholder.

The Importance of Reading...

I recently discovered a blog called Texas Liberal, which makes for interesting reading.

One of the posts was about the Houston Chronicle publishing the answer to a question Texas Liberal had sent in - what were the last three books the presidential hopefuls had read?

The answers were quite interesting.

"Republican Mike Huckabee didn’t respond when asked by a newspaper reader, Neil Aquino of Houston, to list the last three books he has read."

Quelle surprise... It's such a bad cliché that evangelicals don't read (or, if they do, they limit themselves to books related to scriptural topics.) But by furthering that stereotype, I think it's a pretty poor showing for Mike Huckabee. He couldn't think of a single book he'd read recently? Jeeze, the guy could have at least thrown The Bible in there!

"But Republican John McCain said he had recently reread A Farewell to Arms by Ernest Hemingway and read, presumably for the first time, The Age of Turbulence by former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan and the Spirit of Churchill by Deborah Davis Brezina."

A Hemingway book? And a book about Winston Churchill? And then Greenspan's new book? If you ask me, these are clearly well rehearsed answers. Hemingway was the rough, tough, man's man. Churchill was the legendary warrior statesman. Greenspan is a legendary Republican policyman. If you were trying to reach out to a cynically targeted audience, I can think of no better answers than the ones John McCain gave!

But then again, McCain's only a little older than my father and he enjoys a good historical biography every now and then (I think he recently completed one about Horatio Nelson.)



"Clinton listed Ike: An American Hero by Michael Korda, The Bourne Betrayal by Robert Ludlum and The Appeal by John Grisham."

Even though Clinton comes across as a devious and cold political Machiavelli, I found her answer surprisingly earnest. Two of the three books she mentioned are populist and sniffed at by the literati, but would make very entertaining reading.

Even more so than John McCain, Hillary appears to actually be a reader and although snobs might disapprove of her choice of 'best selling schlock' it appeals to me because they're the kind of books I enjoy myself (nobody writes a courtroom drama like Grisham.)

"My 9-year-old, Malia, and I read all the Harry Potter books together,” Obama said.

Obama's answer was a bit too twee for me. Obama is a charming statesman, but even he can lay it on a bit thick. This seems like another answer specifically designed to appeal to his audience.

"Aww!" the potential voters gush. "He reads with his little girl! And he reads Harry Potter, just like me! Awww!"

And, besides, the billion-dollar bestsellers of JK Rowling hardly need a potential-presidential endorsement to sell more copies!

Reading Rocks

The importance of what presidents read can't be underestimated. Even back in the sixties, people were peering into the White House bookcases with surprising curiosity. The fact that John F. Kennedy listed From Russia With Love as one of his favourite paperbacks helped significantly boost author Ian Fleming's career - and made Kennedy seem that much cooler.

The books a president reads are important for various reasons.

Firstly, it's just important that a president does read. Somebody who enjoys reading will generally have a broader base of knowledge than somebody who doesn't. That's why Mike Huckabee ducking the question gave me another reason to distrust him.

Secondly, people express a lot of their own personality in the choice of books they enjoy. John F. Kennedy appealed to the original Playboy generation with his choice of a James Bond book. Clinton's choice of a Grisham novel suggests she enjoys taut pacing, a well detailed and beautifully researched 'real world' setting and difficult, thought provoking moral questions to ponder. McCain's choices indicate a man who's interested in history and economics and not too arrogant to pick up a book and learn more about them.

The Texas Liberal's question was brilliant because it stripped away a lot of the media hype and gave us a genuine peek into these politician's lives.

It also made me think about what the books I've been reading say about me.

Because Tina gets Advanced Reading Copies of upcoming books, I tend to read them as and when they arrive (making my choice of reading material rather random.)

The last three books I read were The Justice Riders by Chuck Norris (who endorsed Huckabee... The least Mike could have done in return was read Chuck's book.) Simplexity by Jeffrey Kluger (the book that's simply too complex to describe in one sentence) and Loose Girl by Kerry Cohen.

They don't really say much about my personality (my preferred diet of adventure stories and thrillers probably does) but I certainly feel reading those three books broadened my horizons.

What were the last three books you read? ...and if you were standing for President, what do you think they'd say about you?

Super Tuesday

Ironically, the most mediocre day of the week has become one of the most important for the 2008 race to the White House.

Super Tuesday, also known in some circles as Super Duper Tuesday, Giga Tuesday, Tsunami Tuesday, and (my personal favorite) The Tuesday of Destiny is the day in which a whopping 24 American states hold their Presidential Primaries - with the Democrat and Republican party each voting to decide which candidate they want spearheading their campaign for the Presidency.

Some think today might make-or-break the campaigns of key candidates. Others think it's just going to stoke the fires and make the battle for nomination even hotter. Either way, for most of the United States, today is when we first get the chance to make our contribution to the American democratic process.

New Jersey is just one of the 24 voting states - but a hotly contested one. 127 Democratic delegates and 52 Republican representatives are up for grabs. Today, all talk is about who people want rooting for them in the race to the White House.

For the Republicans, it looks like John McCain has the New Jersey election all sewn up. The more moderate of the Republican candidates, his policies appeal to a broad audience across both parties and he also has the backing of former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani, who carries a lot of clout in a state neighboring New York.

The Democratic primary is little less clear. Hillary is a clear favorite, carrying similar weight to Rudy as New York's favorite senator. However, in traditionally liberal New Jersey, Obama is winning a lot of hearts and minds and has growing support from Democratic delegates in urban centers like Newark.

As I drove to work today, a gaggle of Princeton students were hoisting 'Obama' placards in the air at the Lawrenceville junction. The Clinton campaign was noticeably absent.

In fact, she wasn't the only one.

During the Local Elections in New Jersey, I was a little dismayed that none of the candidates had done any campaigning in my area. Despite the stakes being so much higher in this election, I felt largely the same way about the Presidential Primaries. It's very disappointing to have your opinions (and vote) totally ignored because of geography or the demographic of your particular neighborhood.

Rudy Giuliani's campaign came unstuck because voters thought him opportunistic and mercenary (ignoring the smaller states in favor of 'make or break' competitions like Florida.) Candidates from both the Republican and Democratic parties would do wise not to make the same mistakes in electoraly important places like New Jersey!

Obama goes for Broke

The right-wing conservatives have a nick-name for Hillary Clinton - Shrillary.

As it turns out, that derisive term has hit pretty close to the mark.

In recent days, Clinton has launched into a high-pitched attack against her Democratic rival Barack Obama, who shot past her in the Iowa primaries to take the lead in the race for the Democratic presidential nomination.

"Elect a doer, not a talker," she declared. ""You campaign in poetry, but you govern in prose."

[What does that even mean? Editorial Bear]

Democrats in New Hampshire have met Hillary's criticism with the opposite of her intended reaction. Just one day before the all-important New Hampshire primary, Obama's a wicked 10 points ahead of her in the opinion polls.

At this rate, the Democratic nomination will be wrapped up in no time and the 44th President of the United States might just be the nation's first African-American one.

What's been Hillary's mistake? It's pretty much the same as Rudy Giuliani's.

In September of last year, New York's former mayor was a clear front runner for the Republican nomination, with a 76% approval rating from New York's Republicans. However a 'dirty' campaign attacking his rivals has lost him a lot of the support he'd garnered.

Having his pal Kerik hauled up on 16 counts of tax fraud didn't help.

From his position as front-runner, Rudy found himself standing sixth out of the seven candidates in the Iowa caucus.

What was his mistake? The one Hillary is so gleefully repeating.

Running such a negative campaign.

The fact is, bad-mouthing your rivals and attacking their credibility is a wonderfully therapeutic strategy, but an ultimately unrewarding one. At the end of the day, teacher always said to keep your mouth closed if you can't think of anything nice to say - and that philosophy is just as valid in a presidential election as a classroom.

Barack Obama's greatest strength in the upcoming election may be his positive focus. He talks about his plans and ambitions if he makes it to the White House. In contrast, Hillary attacks his lack of 'experience' in office.

Sure, she had eight years 'experience' in the White House - but only as First Lady. That doesn't mean she's got greater experience in running the country. It just means she knows where the linens are in the Lincoln bedroom.

Unless Hillary can shift her campaign towards telling people what she will do - rather than what her rivals won't - she'll soon find the widening gap between her and Barack Obama stretching so far, even a former President as First Husband won't help her bridge it.

Howard Dean and Al Gore

Just tonight, I watched two interviews with former Presidential candidates.

First was Al Gore - who is an utterly charming, clever, sharp and highly capable man. I mean, he's won an Oscar and (part of) a Nobel Prize. Given that the man who beat him in the 2000 election can't even pronounce the word 'nuclear' it's kind of a sharp indictment of American society that he's not in the White House right now.



Second was Howard Dean, former presidential candidate (he lost the Democratic nomination to John Kerry) who now runs the Democratic National Committee. He again struck me as a clever, considered man who delivered sharp, quick responses to difficult questions.

Given that the Democratic nominees seem to be tied up in infighting and bitchiness - plus the fact that both front runners (Hillary and Obama) are up against discrimination regarding their sex and race, it's a real shame that neither of these two apparently capable men are throwing their hats into the ring.

I don't doubt either front-running Democratic candidate's abilities. I'm just not sure America is as ready for them as the world is.