Can't people think up their own stuff? http://www.obamaorchimp.com/
On the subject of Obama, when I was in Florida recently, I bought his book, just out of curiosity regarding all the hype. While it isn't an exceptionally provocative book by normal-person standards, it has a remarkable amount of candour for a politician whose best years are ahead of him. It is when he describes his interactions with people - meeting his wife, his prospective father in law, or meeting Senator Robert Byrd - that the book gets really interesting, and you get that rare feeling (where politicians go) that you can actually tell what makes him tick.
That said, I was still kind of hoping, frankly, that Hillary Clinton might get the nomination. Not that I'm any sort of fan of her husband, really, but she should not be blamed for his baggage. It is just that, from the larger philosophical perspective, I feel males really have too much say in the world already, to be honest.
My country has only had a female Prime Minister once, and that was for only a scant seventy days. The US has had forty three male Presidents and appears to be well on its way to a forty fourth, with no other viable women candidates that I can see coming along for yet another generation.
I find that quite depressing personally. Perhaps where change goes, gender resonates more with me as a Canadian than ethnicity, as our largest minority (the Francophone population) has held the Prime Ministerial office many times.
7 comments:
It is not a small problem that she is the wife of he; she be only because of he.
Sorry, can't and won't buy it.
That's the kind of double standard male politicians are never subjected to. Was Al Gore challenged for only existing because of Albert Gore Sr? Was Governor George W Bush accused of only existing because of a presidential parent? Or that Barack Obama only exists Federally because he got to run against the easiest-to-defeat opponent (in Alan Keyes) Illinois saw in a century?
No - let's be honest with ourselves. Men do not face such challenges.
Only women do.
lnbomI don't disagree that it would be refreshing to have a woman in the White House or that women are unfairly held to a different standard then men. My argument is Hillary specific. She got elected to the Senate representing New York without any prior relationship with that state. She had no prior direct political experience representing anybody. There are many women in the USA who by their own achievements are reasonable candidates for this high office. Democrats in the USA are more favorably supporting Obama, not because he is a man or allegedly black, but because he represents a different approach on issues and apparently is more trusted than Hillary. E.g. Hillary says she favors universal health care, but her method is to mandate that all residents purchase health insurance from private insurers;people that don't currently have health insurance can't magically afford it because it is mandated by government but they know the government can garnish their wages; people perceive this as a fraud and don't like it. She seems to bank on their being enough uninformed or otherwise ignorant people to vote her in; she apparently miscalculated. Obama pointing out the falacy in her proposal wasn't apparently expected either. No, it is not that she is a woman, but rather that she stands for things that aren't popular and she is not trusted by many. Hillary is a very bright and capable person, she might make a great President, but she is not going to win the Democrat nomination because of what people know about her and not just because she is held to a different standard.
*shrug* As a Canadian, I find the arguments against universal health care to be fairly unconvincing.
The reason everyone pays in is so that the premiums for everyone (Canadians pay this, too, but through a taxation mandate) are modest. A shared load, between healthy and the less healthy, allows the risk to be broadly based and diffused throughout the population. Krugman explains why this is important.
Let's face it - in the US, people with insurance are subsidizing the uninsured right now. When someone willingly uninsured in their twenties (the decade where you think you are immortal) falls ill, the burden of care falls on the emergency ward where they are brought, and payment for medical services are never recovered. The cost has to be paid by someone, and typically that ends up being the US' insurees.
In Canada, we all pay, rich or poor: from the Newfoundland seasonal fishers to bank presidents, old or young. And because of that, the premium stays affordable. All the money coming in from nineteen year old cell phone salespeople who need little medical helps assist in paying the freight for those who need more. And as people age, it all pays forward.
The rest of the western world stands - frankly - bewildered that the US even debates about this.
As to the women issue, I despair of either Canada or the US seeing a woman leader for another generation. Some glass ceilings are just too high to smash I guess.
I completely agree with you on universal health care. I am a strong advocate of government sponsored health care paid by taxation and equally available to the rich and poor. It's totally a moral issue. Capitalism and health care provision conflict. Canada's model is a good start. Canada must be willing to put the necessary resources into action. The effort is valiant and noble. Continued focus of health care through the insurer's eyes is the failing in the USA. Poor people don't have access to adequate health care in the usa until they are in a crisis situation. Health care providers in the USA exploit all Americans with over-pricing and profit maximization with regard to nothing else while government stands by and does nothing other than proclaim we have the best health care system in the world; not truth for the poor.
Well, I'd say that things probably wouldn't be any different with a woman leader than with a male leader. To survive in politics, you need to be tough and aggressive, and for a woman perhaps even more so than for a guy. So right now, it doesn't look like it would matter. If you look at the Western women leaders of the last fifty years, they were all no-nonsense and tough as nails and would give any guy a run for his money. So we wouldn't be seeing anything new either way, I don't think.
(I personally don't like either of the Democratic candidates but I'm open to a candidate of any background as long as we share the same positions. )
By the way, Condoleezza Rice is one example of a woman in politics today. True, she was appointed rather than elected, but what with her, Nancy Pelosi as a Speaker, Hillary Clinton and many other women as Senators and Representatives, and Ruth Ginsburg as a Supreme Court Justice, women are actually pretty well represented. And although the President is the "top", because of checks-and-balances, he isn't really The Top - just one of the top.
Post a Comment