Jim Webb wants to be Obama's vice-president. While the Wikipedia page is informative, it won't paint the picture that 23/6 ("some of the news, most of the time") has painted with its rundown of Webb's vital statistics. The quote from one of his novels, at the bottom, is... memorable.
If the World Could Vote is one of those sites that tell us what everyone supposedly already knows. In this case, it's that the whole world would rather have Obama as president of the US than have McCain. It's not a new trend. After the 2004 election, there was a spate of sites featuring Americans apologising to the rest of the world for the results. There was even a bag company that included an apology in their exports to France.
In general, the developed world is to the left of US politics. Up and to the left, if you add an axis representing, say, literacy or education. And you'd expect New Zealand to follow that same trend. But here's the curious thing. New Zealand is one of the few countries that favour McCain over Obama.
In his, we join Thailand (96% McCain), Venezuela (100% McCain) and Kenya at 100% McCain, which presumably says more about Venezuelans and Kenyans who have the money to afford a computer that anything else.
And that's it. Human-rights paradises Israel and Indonesia are split down the middle. Israel's split probably shows, more than anything, the level of education of Israelis, as they've apparently seen through the Republican spin that Obama wants to single-handedly destroy their country. Haaretz, a particularly good Israeli newspaper, commented on this even before Obama had finalised the nomination, in an interesting editorial. Probably more on that later, as the Obama smears are downright fascinating (as is Obama's response to them.)
So, why are online Kiwis more in favour of McCain than Obama? It's not a huge majority - 55% - but it stands out in contrast against the votes of other Western countries (Australia around 90% Obama, UK 92% Obama, etc.) Any simple answer is likely to be simplistic, but there has to be something to explain the anomaly. I doubt it's a matter of racism, since our neighbourly International Home of Racism is sitting at 90% Obama.
I'm not going to speculate on it further - I'm more likely to chat about it on Thursday's Wire show on bFM, around 1.30pm. But someone with their finger more firmly on the pulse might have some suggestions.
"Ron Paul emerged from last week's GOP debate as completely victorious according to every available benchmark and yet there is still a deliberate ploy to push the Texas Congressman to the sidelines on behalf of a terrified corporate media."
So says Paul Watson of Prison Planet, in a recent Jones Report. Ever heard of Ron Paul? Here's me guessing you haven't. Ever heard of Rudolph Giuliani? Of course you have. Well, let's hear about Ron Paul.
He's in Congress for his 10th term. Wikipedia has this to say:
Paul advocates the limited role of government, low taxes, free markets, and a return to monetary policies based on commodity-backed currency. He has earned the nickname "Dr. No" for voting against any bill he believes violates the Constitution. In the words of former Treasury Secretary William Simon, Paul is the "one exception to the Gang of 535" on Capitol Hill. He has never voted to raise taxes or congressional pay. He has always voted against the USA PATRIOT Act, the Military Commissions Act of 2006, and the Iraq War.
I'm not generally a fan of libertarians. They like to take functions of society out democratic control by privatising them, and plus "libertarian" was totally our word first. But it sure is interesting listening to him in the debate.
Senator Mike Gravel made some brilliant points in this Democrat candidate debate, but he's an old man, who repeats himself, has frequent verbal tics ("You know something? You know something?"), etc. The impact of television on politics has predictably favoured better rhetoric over better policies. Of particular interest was his first point - if the Democrats had some balls (no pun intended, Pelosi) and were serious about ending the war, or at least making it clear what's keeping it going, they could.