Who cares? Whoever gets in will continue with the American administration's policy of bombing and subverting any nation that wants to take control of its own affairs and its own resources, as history has shown they have done for the last 100 years, each and every president including the self-proclaimed rock-star, Kennedy.

As for Americans seeking independence from Britain. No, it was a rebellion of a minority of leftie slave-owning British colonists who didn't want to pay their due taxes to assist Britain cover the cost of the wars in America that had ensured the French could not take over the British colonies in America. George Washington and his fellow terrorist insurgents then went on to commit genocide against the Iroquois (who earlier had helped the colonists defeat the French), setting the future course of American history. Highly unpalatable, but true.

Environment Policies

With Super Tuesday in the US Primaries today, it's time to look at the Big 4 candidates’ global warming policies as presented on their official websites.

A post at my blog, Fighting Global Warming US Style (http://laborview.blogspot.com/2008/02/fighting-global-warming-us-style.html) has the basics.

Obama has the slickest and most detailed. His plan is very similar to Clinton's. McCain is a convert but lacks detail on his site. Romney is to the right of Howard.

It will matter.

"2.9 per cent mentioned Iraq, while a similar number mentioned either climate or warming."

I find this an amazingly low percentage.

We're living through the worst foreign policy blunder imaginable in Iraq with the whole world including Australia far less safe as a result.

We've seen America steadfastly refuse to reign in its greenhouse emissions and its dependence on oil, preferring instead to satisfy its rapacious resources appetite by rampaging around the planet and using its military might to secure what it needs.

This is all down to the current US government. We're talking about a one-off last-ditch chance here to try and redeem the situation. And these world changing issues don't rate a mention? I'm surprised.

They may not rate a mention but they would certainly be taken into consideration by any respondent who's put even a modicum of thought in to their response. You've also got to bear in mind that the questions are fairly general, and funnel the respondent into the personality of the candidates rather than focusing on specific policies. Clearly, whatever the gloss, the emphatic win for Obama has a lot to do with his moral clarity in opposing the Iraq war from the beginning.

How many responses to the survey were received and collated?

Bronwyn is shocked at the lack of interest.... but the candidates never mention any of these things in the TV snips I've seen, so how could we comment one way or another?

All I've ever seen any American politicians say, well, shout, they 'say' nothing do they?, is that they will 'bring change'.

We all know 'change' is not allowed anywhere, especially on economic matters, look at Swann and Rudd after all, 'full steam ahead' and 'never mind the icebergs'.

All these dills in the USA will be doing the same whoever gets in, and none is going to end the various wars they are waging, the real or imagined ones.

It's a shame Gore isn't running. Not that he's a messiah, just that of all those pontificating 'change' makers, Gore is the only one to have suggested what direction his change might come from and go to.

It's also about past time we fell for the auld 'war hero' guff isn't it?

A real war hero would have broken out of Colditz, or dug a tunnel to get himself free, not sat it out in the Wartime Hilton... I remember when.... after all, it was good enough for Douglas Bader, and Biggles.

Let's face it... we're not the US, have no say in the US, don't really want to import the politics of the US here, and... when all's said and done... all these politicians are empty bean cans... look at Shriver married to Arnie supporting Obama... how do their heads work?

BBoy and The Blue Cross

Spot on, both of you, but I still think these issues should have rated specific mention. We were asked to validate our choices and there was plenty of space allowed to do it.

Yes, I see the parallels between Obama and Rudd. They're both 'pretty' boys, they both know how to articulate the right message, they will both make periphery improvements, but will anything really change?

*McCain was also seen as someone who could re-establish respect for the US in the world,*

Frankly McCain is too old and hasn't realised that the world has
changed. McCain wants to keep imagining about USA the superpower,
whilst the rest of us are aware of USA, the world's largest debtor
nation. Owning lots of bombs is not much good, if one can't even
catch Osama or Zawahiri! 2 crazy Arabs have in fact so far outsmarted
the whole US military, that's the reality.

Staying in Iraq for another 100 years will certainly not re-establish
respect for the US, which is what McCain thinks should happen.

Obama represents a whole new way of thinking in US politics, which
is quite refreshing, so lets hope that he wins! Americans are
finally learning the hard way, that their country is crashing,
thats why many are accepting that change is overdue.

Reckon most Posts so far show good commonsense - something Blair and Howard lost sight of when they steadfastly followed Georgie Boy Bush into Iraq.

Obama thus looks like the best choice to bring the commonsense to an America that we must admit we all still sorely need.

Keep up the good work, trusty OLO's. Looks like the future needs you.

Cheers - BB, WA.

I agree, top ender, that Obama looks good on climate change.

If you want to compare your position vs. the candidates, this is a good site: http://www.electoralcompass.com/page/0/thema+s/ (thanks Graham for pointing this out to me). I found this pretty useful because, despite being reasonably informed, I haven't had the time to check each candidate in detail.

Here's my take on the campaign: http://opinion-nation.blogspot.com/2008/02/lucky-americans.html -- I guess the incumbent makes anyone else look good :)

Good commonsense Posts so far, friends.

Yep, Obama makes the best choice for anyone who realises how much we still need America.

Not with the Repub's of course, who blotted their copybooks even too much with the likes of Blair and Howard alone.

Best Regards - BB, WA.

I hope the secret service is doing their job. The last great black America, Martin Luther King Jr, didnt fair to well with the rednecks. I wonder how much has changed in the US since those days.

Well they voted for the idiot who went missing from his village somewhere in Texas last time. Why not Billary or Osama? ..sorry I meant Obama.

And where the hell is Monica?

If I was American, Obama would have my vote.

Now Rainier, with respect to Gibo's ideas about the secret service, I reckon you might have 'blown' your cover with that last comment ;)

out of curiosity... how many people participated in this "primary"?

You are right, Yabby, the US cannot catch Osama or Zawahiri, but they could have, many times, if they had really wanted to. The truth is that al Qaeda is far too valuable an asset to the global military-industrial complex to really be eliminated. How else than having an everlasting "War on Terror" could oil prices be kept so artificially high? How else could the US justify supporting oppressive dictatorships like Pakistan, Tadjikistan, Saudi Arabia, etc. except as supporters of their WOT?

I too hope Obama wins the Democrat nomination, and with Al Gore as his running mate, he should easily win the election. But I fear that he may not survive winning the California primary. Bobby Kennedy won that and look what happened to him. Obama is a KKK figure: Kennedy, King, Kennedy, all in one easy target.

Just what, exactly, is "eccentric" about Ron Paul? As far as I'm concerned he is the candidate that makes the most sense.
There is a huge media blackout on this candidate here in Australia. If Australians were more informed, they would realize that Ron Paul has the most logical answers for the U.S. He has recently come 2nd in the Maine caucus and he won the primaries Nevada and Louisiana. His stance on the Iraq war (the only Republican against it) is especially relevant to Australian sentiments. He is a congressman and a Doctor, and is very conservative. He is in no way "eccentric"

Please excuse 2 errors on the previous post regarding Ron Paul:
He came in 2nd in Nevada and Louisiana (not 1st as mentioned)

It worries me that Obama could get a bullet before he gets to the WhiteHouse. There is still a lot of hate in the US towards the negros. Never knew why. Many dont want them in power or with increased rights. And there are guns all over the place. And many of the people are becoming more destabilised. Islam might have a go at him to start a war within America between the whites and the blacks. The secret service needs to take special care with this man.

An American president who has had affiliation (more than he admits to)with Islam, what are Americians thinking. Regardless of his current status as a Christian the spirit of islam is cunning, determined,and committed to destruction. Lets open our eyes to truth!!

I'd like to add my voice to those of eja and kjg.

Graham, could you tell us the sample size and the response rate, please.

I participated in the survey, and this kind of rigour will make me more willing to keep doing so in future.

The media release Graham sent to all those who particpated said 2000 voted across Australia.

I suspect there is an inbuilt bias in the survey, to wit only people who can afford computers and the internet are able to particpate. And they have joined Online Opinion to help quench their thirst for poltical knowledge and debate. Neither of these is neccesarily representative of voters in the US primaries.

Also, to generalise, Australian politics is more to the left than US politics. This may explain our vote for Obama since he is seen here and in the US as more left wing than the other cnadidates.

We are more to the left partly because we have a party based on the trade union bureaucracy, whereas neither the Demcorats or Republicans can be described in that way.

Indeed in my view a battle between Jack and Barack would be like a fight between the two wings of the Liberal party. Both will represent the interests of business. One is just more attuned to the need for capital to respect its workforce than the other. (The same goes if it is Hillary rather than Barack.)

And why is Ron Paul called eccentric? I think that is a nice word the media use to describe a fascist.

There was a suggestion on Foxtel Sky that as either Hillary or Barak will win the Demo' nomination, whoever wins should ask the other to be Vice Pres' if either wins the White House?

Suits me down to the ground, but what about you others on this Thread?

Cheers - BB, WA.

Reply to Passy, Wednesday, 6 February 2008

"And why is Ron Paul called eccentric? I think that is a nice word the media use to describe a fascist."

Passy, do you even know what a fascist is? Ron Paul is a libertarian, which is the exact opposite of a fascist. He believes in a strict adherence to the constitution, smaller government and in personal freedoms/liberties.

Ron Paul has been a well respected congressman for many years. You should do some research before you make statements like that.

Watch http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=yDfPaUux1Kc

Then tell me what you think about the "Ron Paul is eccentric" comment.

AGS berates me for suggesting the media might think Ron Paul is a fascist. He is right to do so.

Fascism is a movement initially of the middle class, caught as it is between the working class and big business.

It builds its base in the early days among two groups - the middle class and disaffected people, especially young unemployed men. This latter group becomes its storm troopers.

In times of economic crisis (eg when the rate of profit plummets) big bsuiness turns to the fascists to smash the defensive organisations of the working class (unions, labour parties and other parties of the left) and restore profit rates - mainly by driving wages down.

Ron Paul's movement has elements of both groups in it (just as Hansonism did in Australia). That doesn't make it fascist yet. So I should have resisted the cheap shot and just stuck to the usual accusations against Ron Paul - mainly that he sponsored a newsletter full of racist filth for many years. Being anti-semitic doesn't necessarily make you a fascist. But it sure doesn't make you a "libertarian".

I wrote to a friend recently that Clinton would win the nomination because the super delegates represent the Party hierarchy, not the membership and they have a large number of votes. I think I need a bit of clarification on this. Does anyone know about the super delegates - how many, where exactly from etc etc?