ndmckinney|net

Congratulations to Barack Obama for obliterating Hillary Clinton in Maryland, Virginia, and the District. Now that you’ve won the delegates in the District (90% registered democrats), we won’t be seeing you again until January 20, 2009.

I know it seems like I’m really against Hillary Clinton for President, and maybe I am. But in reality, the rationale for voting for Clinton isn’t much more than “well, she’s a woman.”

Take, for example, this page from the BBC. The Beeb posted photos and testimonials from Baltimore voters. The woman in this photo pretty much encapsulates why I hate Clinton supporters:

[Obama]‘s more of a visionary but it’d be very exciting to have a woman in the White House.

If I understand her point of view, she’s voting for Clinton not because she think’s Hillary’s the best candidate, but because she thinks a woman would be “exciting”?

To be fair, motivations for voting for Obama aren’t always fair, either. Consider this post from the same BBC spread.

*sigh*

I’ve been going through the DC Voter Guide for the primary election on the 12th. In the booklet, each candidate has the high-school-student-government statement about “why I should be president”.

For comparison:

Barack Obama

At this defining moment, we need to unite this nation around a common purpose. That’s why I’m running for President.

I’m running to tell special interests that their days of setting the agenda are over. I’ll invest in jobs and affordable housing. I’ll forge bipartisan solutions, and pass universal health care. I’ll make world-class education affordable from birth through college. And I’ll end the Iraq war.

Over my two decades in public service, I brought people together to solve problems and make a difference in peoples’ lives. Let’s stop settling and reach for what we know is possible.

Hillary Clinton

Hilary Rodham Clinton, 60, graduated from Wellesley College in 1969 and Yale Law School in 1973. She was the First Lady of Arkansas from 1979 to 1992 and the First Lady of the United States from 1993 to 2001. She was elected twice, in 2000 and 2006, to the U.S. Senate to represent New York. She is a proud supporter of the District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act and the No Taxation without Representation Act. She believes District residents should have the right to elect two Senators and a Representative whose political powers equal those of other Members of Congress.

That’s right, Hillary Clinton just copied and pasted from her resumé. I haven’t gone looking for similar statements in other states, but I image the template looks something like this:

Hillary Rodham Clinton:

[insert resumé material here]

[Reference Bill Clinton here]

[If not in south, Mention I live in New York]

[Insert pandering state issue #1 here]

[Insert pandering state issue #2 here (space permitting)]

Vote Obama, DC. He’s not running as ‘First Lady’.

Today marked the something-th anniversary of the Supreme Court’s decision in Roe v. Wade. I hate this ruling.

I don’t hate it because it attempts to legislate from the bench (read: trimester rulings). I don’t hate it because it creates new rights from the 14th Amendment (which it doesn’t do). No, I hate this decision because it brings hordes of irrational and obnoxious protesters to Washington, DC.

Every year, the nearby Catholic high schools (and, I suspect, children even younger) bus scores of children in to serve as pawns in their “we don’t agree with your policy so we’re going to shout slogans on the steps of the Court” agenda. High school children do not have a valid say in the nation’s abortion policy, despite what they say. If you’re concerned about “family values”, don’t let your child wander around Union Station (where they’re interfering with my commute) unattended and unruly. Children who dress like prostitutes to protest abortion are not being taught the right lessons.

I’m not saying that the outcome of Roe was incorrect; but I’m not so sure that this is an issue where the federal government should be getting involved.

I’m sure that I’d fail this question if it came up on the bar exam, so don’t take my word for anything.

The world economy is going into recession. The US is sinking fast, and the world markets are being dragged down with us.

I know that for most policy makers, the US stock market is the amorphous “market”, but there is something extremely dangerous about the

The interest rates will fail for two reasons. First, the problems with the economy are more systemic than the Fed is wiling to admit. The solution is much like applying a simple bandage to someone who’s already lost a leg.

Secondly, the purpose for an interest rate cut is to increase the supply of money, but the current woes of the global economy are about a lack of available credit in the first place. With most major banks reporting losses of several billion dollars each, it is unlikely that there is much more money that can go into the economy.

Thirdly, there is the looming problem of inflation. With oil and food prices rising substantially, there are already inflationary pressures that threaten to dismantle the economic engine, no matter what the Fed decides to do.

While it may hurt, we need to take more of a Paul Volker approach to the economy. Instead of giving short-term interest rate cuts, we need to keep steady or even raise interest rates in order, painful though it is, to defeat inflation allow the economy to fully correct itself.

[From Fed Cuts Key Interest Rate as Asian Markets Drop for Second Day]

Sometimes, the best way to take a look at yourself comes from outside. This is why I think it is important for everyone to read the foreign press, especially foreign-language press.

Le Monde has a section on their website on the US election. While the French are no experts on the US electoral process (neither are Americans, but that’s another topic of discussion), the articles they provide

In partucular, I would suggest reading the article regarding the Iowa primaries. It gives a fairly concise description of the process, the timeframe for the primaries. For the French, the primaries on 5 February are the end of the story (and to some extent, they’re right).

The interesting bits come from the difference in interpreting what is important. For example, the French seem to suggest that more weight should go to the 22 primary on 5 Feb. but acknowledge that “[t]he parties – and the press – attach extreme importance to Iowa, which is the first poll after a year of campaigning.“

Le Monde does not seem to endorse a particular candidate, but it does spend far more time discussing the position of the democratic candidates than the republican candidates, suggesting that may give an endorsement to whomever wins the party nomination.

The paper also acknowledges that Obama and Edwards have a far more difficult challenge with the election, noting that these candidates must win or at least have a very strong showing in Iowa in order to convince other states of their importance.

[From Le Monde.fr : Les élections américaines]

John Barron of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation has an entertaining op-ed piece in the Washington Post that provides an entertaining comparison between Australian and U.S. national elections.