One wonders what the man is up to.

source: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article4107327.ece

<blockquote>[Bush]  expressed regret at the bitter divisions over the war and said that he was troubled about how his country had been misunderstood. “I think that in retrospect I could have used a different tone, a different rhetoric.”

Phrases such as “bring them on” or “dead or alive”, he said, “indicated to people that I was, you know, not a man of peace”.</blockquote>

I am writing this from the latitude of Fairbanks although on the other side of the globe, that is from Finland's border to the Russian Federation. In the last decade, I haven't spent more than a couple of week-long visits in the states. If this makes me disqualified in the reader's eyes, he or she is kindly asked to stop reading now.

There is no reason to deny that the events in America has worried me a lot. And the Bush-administration has been more like the tip of an iceberg. One thing that has worried me in particular has been what I've perceived as a long lasting major disconnect between the American people and the Democratic Party. I feel that the republicans have been a lot better communicators, listening skillfully to the sentiments among "common people", and been even more skillfull when using that to modulate their propaganda. We all know that this loud propaganda poorly has described what republicans then really do, when in power. 

It is my opinion, for whatever my opinion now is worth, that there has been more than a grain of truth to the meme about Democrats as an "elite" different from, and opposed to, common people. 

This is where my optimism comes in!

I am no big fan of Barack Obama. And I am not all that sure of him beating even an opponent as McCain. Remember: The voters that are to decide are the same who re-elected Bush four years ago.

But what I am very much impressed by is the way the Obama-campaign has worked, of its resemblance to a Popular Movement, how lots of common people have felt energized and mobilized by a common cause.

Also if the election this year should go wrong, there may be reason to hope that the Democratic Party can develop from a posture that by many Americans, and not without reason, is perceived as belittleing.

After the success of the Obama campaign, maybe the party as a whole can start ponder whether few but wealthy donors really is a better strategy than grassroot activism.

I think that people's feeling of being part of a movement is an important feature that greatly enhances the chances to win elections - however, ...of course!, ...the movement must not betray its base. But maybe too much emphasis has been put on winning the elections.

What I hope for, is a Democratic Party that puts more energy into convincing the voters that public health, good education and right to abortion are important issues, but a party realizing that the voters must be convinced first, before it's time to create legislation. A party that treats the voters as adults and gets perceived to be treating ordinary people with respect. A party that is less about achieving or holding on to power, and more about influencing the debate and the agenda.

There can be little doubt that the comments at this site are predominantly disappointed in, if not averse against, HRC.

Where does one go to see the other side of the coin?
Where do the wittiest and most intelligent Clinton activists flock?

 

 

p.s.

I intended this to be posted to Election Central, not to the Cafe, and I appologize to any reader if I didn't succeed to do this, and my question seems out-of-limits for a Cafe post.

In the last year, I've a couple of times been asked why "Europe" seems to be so much in favor of Obama (or against mrs Clinton). Every time, I've given the same answer, that Europeans aren't particularly interested in the primary campaigns in America, and that only the fewest Europeans are likely to have any opinion at all.

But after having thought about this again and again, and by now for quite a long time, I'm prepared to qualify that answer:

Yes, if it is true as I suspect that most of the Americans I've met working or studying in Europe are supportive of mrs Clinton, then they may have a point that mass media reports as they come through to their European audience may have not only a pro-Democratic slant, but also a slight tendency to treat Clinton in a more critical light than Obama.

Why that?


Ok, here is my theory:

First of all, women's equality is to a certain degree a passed issue for most people in Western Europe. Britain and Denmark have their queens, Finland its female president, like Iceland (1980) and Ireland (1990) have had. They have all been uncontroversial and rather successful. Germany's chancellor being female is no big deal at all, probably about as much an advantage as an disadvantage, which probably also could  be said about Berlin's queer mayor. No European feminists look to the United States for examples or hope.

On the other hand, advancing on the merits of one's husband is generally frowned upon. If people at all can relate to this, it only leads to unfavorable associations to South American and the Perons.

Secondly, Bill Clinton's merits are maybe not seen in as positive a light as among many U.S. Democrats. His personality worked splendidly with European counterparts and public, yes, that's true, but his government's policies towards Russia, Israel/Palestine, the EU, and Yugoslavia/Kosovo are particularly now in retrospect seen in an unflattering light.

If there is any ability that would be needed among the world's leaders in the next decade, be it then the ability to achieve compromises rather than procrastinations on fields important for our survival on Earth as well as for the world's peace. Hillary Clinton's personal record contains a failure, on what's here seen as a badly needed but very modest reform of a health care system that with its good care for the privileged reminds more about the Soviet Union than about any civilized country. Mrs Clinton is tested and has failed.

No-one can be blind for how the perceived differences between Western Europe and the United States have widened considerably since 1990. The run up to the invasion of Iraq made this particularly conspicious, and Hillary Clinton do maybe act as a personification of this, reminding about how also many Democrats in America have supported wars of aggression and other crimes. Obama's personality and his often repeated meme about America's need for a change do surely arouse a memory of better times.

People who have an opinion, like typically many journalists have, may also agree that it is high time for America to elect a president outside of the circles of white Protestant males. Given the size of the non-white population, the long presence of blacks in the country, and given the last years' anti-Muslim frenzy, it may be rather easy to put more hope into an unknown Obama - regardless of how little is actually known about him and what policies he likely will pursue if he gets elected.

But I'm sure peopel in responsible position brace themselves for the not unlikely election of McCain.