While the "no-Hilary so vote for me" aspect is important I don't think its crucial.

I see the values Palin espouses in buckets - God, Guns and Guts making America Great - to be most important. They reinforce McCain's own thin claims to the Presidency.

Sarah Palin deserves unlimited power based not on merit, knowledge or experience, but electoral carnival. With God, Guns and Guts on her side she answers the well-known needs of that surprising beast, the American voting public.

McCain? An old unpredictable man.
- He was middle ranking US Navy BUT as Commander in Chief he can be senior to his Daddy and Grandpa who were Admirals.
- Horribly tortured by Communists - his understandable mental scars (feelings of revenge?) may yet be revealed (WWIII?).

Another US odd-bod ticket to rule the (Free) world and put the rest in fear.

Pete

Ye Gods, talk about gender confusion! A bit of editorial attention and a tad of biological knowledge would help this light weight piece of piffle. Does Tara have a Y chromosome? I'm sure Hilary and Sarah would each proudly claim to have two X chromosomes. Joe Biden would likely object to the following lack of proofreading as well. "Ensuring there was no doubt about her key campaign target, Biden’s opening speech at an introductory rally in Ohio made reference to everything from her"

It's all a waste of cyber space and innocent trees, we can't vote anyway. Who cares?

This article is superficial in the extreme.

Here is the guts of the current campaign taking into account the current crash of the US Finance and Investment system looming depression.

The election is about change. Not about changing the fundamentals of the US economy but changing the way the US economy has been abusd and manipulated.

McCain and Palin represent change wanted by US voters.

Obama and Biden represent more of the same old same old.

Doesn't make sense does it? Well take into account the following facts.

Sub prime loans affair was the start of the current crisis: These loans were instigated by companies taken over by Fannie Mae. The Clintons were involved in those companies. Bill Clinton in 1998 relaxed the regulations regarding loans so as to allow the Sub Prime type loans...and the parcelling and selling of these loans. This occured under the Fannie Mae management of Franklin Raines who paid himself $90 Million over 6 years. One of those corrupt CEO and obviouly an 'insider'.

The Sub prime market was 12-15% of the total housing loans market. The loans market is approximately $1.3 trillion

The Sub prime crisis ended in March. What is occurring now is the effect of the 1st level, Alt-A loans, of the Prime Loans market collapsing. It represents approximately 40% of the total housing market.

The only differences between Sub Prime and Alt-A loans:

Alt A loans were granted to people with no deposit, no assets, no verifiable income but with a credit rating.
Alt A loans low start interest ceased after 5 years. (Sub-Prime 3 years)
Repayment of principal kicked in after 5 years. (Sub-Prime 3 years)

Lehmann Bros collapsed because of their exposure, not to sub-prime, but to Alt A loans.
The vast bulk of Alt A loans have been sold worldwide as Prime Loans.

I don't know if there are Alt-B, Alt-C or Alt-D or their conditions.

Cont.

Now here is Obama's problem.

'Obama had received nearly $10 million in contributions from the finance, insurance and real estate sector through October, and he's second among presidential candidates of either party in money raised from commercial banks, trailing only Clinton. Goldman Sachs, which made $6 billion from devalued mortgage securities in the first nine months of 2007, is Obama's top contributor. When asked if Obama would hold these financial institutions accountable for losses incurred by homeowners and investors, his campaign refused to comment.'
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080211/fraser

Published on 24 January 2008. Try to understand the significance of this date.

Fannie Mae former CEO Franklin Raines is now Obama's Campaign Financial Advisor.

McCain co-sponsered a Bill to regulate the activities of unscrupluous lenders ... it was defeated in the Democrat controlled senate.

McCain's right, the US economy fundamentals are still pretty good ... it's Wall Street greed, speculation and manipulation that is the problem.

Any US citizen with $100,000 or less in any bank is fully protected from any bank failure ... unlike Australia and I wonder at the exposure of our Banks, Governments and other Institutions to Alt-A, not Sub-Prime, loans

If keith's facts are correct, and I see no reason that he would fabricate them, then with impeccable logic drives his argument home.

Obama is a fraud! And the Democratic Party is pulling a con on the American electorate betting on the HATE that a large part of it has for the Republicans. And the cynical attempt of the writer of this article with third rate cheap satire to denigrate Sarah Palin, is intellectually demeaning.

Keith

I was under the impression that Bush after almost 8 years as President would have had major responsibility for the state of the US economy.

He claimed victory in Iraq. Why can't he claim responsibility for sub Prime.

I was forgetting that Bush has been written out of McCain's campaign approach. Conservative pundits do not want to connect McCain with Bush's indifferent legacy.

Connecting sub Prime on Democrats, not with the US Federal Reserve, or the US Treasury or with Bush is quite easy if judicious pre election innuendo is thrown in. But blaming the sudden plunge into the sub Prime crisis on the Clinton Presidency after at least 6 years of Bush's "economic management" is an extraordinary stretch.

One could easily hypothesise that the cost of Bush's Victory in Iraq has been many $billlions in excessive defence spending and inordinate US governmental concentration on Middle East issues. Bush took his eye of the economic ball and distorted the US economy. Sub Prime is the result.

That said McCain, with long experience and often sound judgement, may be a better President than Bush. As many are saying though his age combined with the manifest inexperience of Palin is a worry.

About Obama - he may be good but his name and colour will probably prevent him being voted in - in the conservative US electorate. If he got in US extremists, some of whom are still in or would soon leave US military or security bodies, will probably knock him off. Oswald, after all, was former US Army.

Pete

Correction - to last line of my previous post. Oswald was in the MARINES.

Pete

Thermy

There is no fraud. There is just a general lack of understanding of what the US presidential election is all about.

Central to any presidential election are two power groupings:

Both are right wing.

The two competing groups are the rich northern elites and the rich southern elites. Neither are particularly interested in social reform nor religious conservatism. Both are interested in protecting their respective legacies ie their and their families money.

Both attract fringe dwelling hangers-on, who 'generally' have neither money nor influence, but who try to influence the respective parties social policies. Rarely are they successful and more bark than bite. Their influence is absolutely restricted to election times.

Hence the huge numbers of people who don't vote(40%) because they know neither party is at all interested in them or their interests.

Many commentators in Australia simply do not understand that while the opposing parties are headed by people with pretty well similar backgrounds and philosophies, they not going to change anything.

The characteristics of both parties candidates are similar:

Rich,
Intent on maintaining the wealth and interests of elites,
Well connected to their respective elites,
Are 'embedded' with the respective elites 'advisers',
Educated within the elites structures.

Occassionally ... er rarely ... a candidate is thrown up who doesn't represent either elites. Some have gone on to become fabulous Presidents. In our time there have been only two, Reagan and Carter. Carter sadly failed and they eventually got to and neutralised Reagan.

Of the current candidates I think the best chance at a reformed and more humane(slightly) US is probably Palin.

It occassions great mirth to me when I see people espousing the views as they are expressed in the above article... for they merely expose their own ignorance, misunderstanding and/or blind prejudice.

I'd love to ask all those in Australia who support Obama if they'd have voted for him if he had run in Australia ... for his party would have been to the right of John Howard and would have harboured great hatred for the Labor Party and it's policies.

Thermy (please pass this on to Keith ;)

I agree Reagan was a great President. I agree with all Keith's other comments, which are both surprising and refreshingly leftwing, until he gets down to the third last para.

Keith (please excuse if I address you directly) Palin is indeed untainted by a national power elite camp because she has no record on the national stage.

No national record or experience of national government would be normally considered a grave defect for any deputy leader - however in a US election no record means no black marks. The makes no national record or attendent experience or knowledge a positive plus.

Like Condi she is a woman. Like Condi she may turn out to be a malleable token. If she had worked up through the political ranks like Thatcher or Helen Clark she would have experience. Thatcher was and Clark is a very good leader.

With experience Palin's gender would not be a vacuous (but probably effective) electoral plus for the Republicans.

So to your power elite model I add the token and untainted novice model.

And BTW I'm straining to find an applicable political label to cover me. Athiest, small "l" liberal, but who beleves in building up an independent nuclear weapons capability for Australia. I'm planning on starting a Greens for Nukes Party :)

Pete

Pete

You misunderstand.

I'd have voted and worked for George Bush. McCains ok but tends to favour Government interference. I hold great disdain for Obama's lefty mates... and fear they might gain a foot in the door. I'd fear Palin for her committment to change.

I am laughing at the current solution to the financial mess in the US. The anti government regulation mob of Bush, McCain, Obama etc are championing the tax payer buying all those repo houses in the US, at their original cost, and in the process giving themselves and their favoured mates a pretty much unlimited amount of cash.

I think they might run out of cash before the full extent of the corrupt loan giving is exposed ... or taxpayers start to voice massive objection, refuse to pay tax or riot.

Keith

I agree. As a good socialist I would critique that its OK for Bush to bail out multi-billion dollar businesses with uncertain benefits for the little people just before Bush returns to work at his Daddy's billion dollar oil empire.

The point - it has been known for a national leader's personal circumstances to influence his decisions.

I'm almost loathe to say that thank God we have China to buy our resources because traditional reliance on the health of Uncle Sam would be unhealthy. If Rudd diversifies our recent reliance on China with some attention to India then maybe we won't become a poor outpost of America's past greatness, or a new Chinese outpost but an independent country (that can play off interests).

America may rebound a bit but all I know is that China AND India are rising quickly

Pete

Pete

Both McCain and Obama agree with Bush's actions. Laughable really. Just shows you socialists and your opinions are left right out of the real world ... eh?

Tell me Pete who outside of themselves are China and India's biggest markets. How significant to that particular market are China and India?

Our most reliable and stable trading partners (Take particular note of the use of the plural)are: Who and are worth how much?

Has history shown us how sustainable are Command Economies?

Answer those questions and you'll enter a whole new world of understanding.

Rudd's an irrelevant egocentric fool.

Sorry Keith

I had to wait the statutory time before I could reply and then there was pizza with my wife amd some Mormon friends.

I have to admit that I am a selective socialist, pro Reagan, Thatcher pretty good, pro Australian nuclear weapons, share trading allows me to write.

If I'm a socialist its stretching the standard definition - more like a materialist with a too much curiosity.

Its all about reconising that money, Marx, economics, revenge or greed (shades of Gordon Gecko) make the world go round. Religion - Pell? Islam? official Christianity - nope, depends who's using the name of God/Allah in vain.

I would agree more with sincere Palestinians I've known than rich Saudis or others.

Turning to current problems - Bush's attempt to intervene in the US economy through pump-priming via the military/industrial complex has clearly failed. The product of such an expanding industry is death beyond America's shores. Whether that has been a valid security strategy only history (Yemen days ago, Pakistan today and AQ's next operation (Southeast Asia?) will tell).

Free market easy mortgages in the US during Bush's Presidency clearly needs serious state intervention.

Rudd realises there are no ideological purities - only mixes and compromises. That makes him a successful politician - like Howard. Compromise is what leadership is all about.

Rudd often thinks with an optimistic heart while I (a little person) start with basic motivations.

My current talking with Russians, Indians, Canadians and Americans (I dare say, monitored) continually throws up much material behind the accepted version of things.

I benefit from an information flow denied "real" professionals, while knocking back (and declaring) occasional odd foreign offers.

Regards

Pete

Pete,

You are no more socialist than I am.

In past years you've have been declared a liberal. And would have been proud to accept such a label.

With a little educated reading you'd quickly understand why.

Start with Plato 'The Apology', 'The Crito', and 'The Phaedo'.
Then go straight to J.S.Mill 'On Liberty', 'Representative Government' and 'Utilitarianism'.

Cheers.