<< Serious crisis -- decline of obstetricians｜メイン｜Washington Report by Yoshiki Hidaka on '08 Jun. 15th >>
2008/6/8 22：56
Presidential nominee of the Democrats -- Barack Obama 分類なし
As the result of fierce and prolonged civil war in the Democrats, Sen. Barack Hussein Obama beat ex First Lady, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton as a nest presidential election nominee, for your ref.>"The Democratic nomination. Win some, lose some" & "The Democrats, Obama's victory" & "Mr. Obama clinches it"
Contrary to the early prospet that Mrs. Clinton would get an easy win, she suffered a humiliating defeat, for your ref.>"The post-mortem, The fall of the House of Clinton"
To begin with, Mr. Obama was almost nameless Senator from Illinois while Mrs. Clinton has long career in the politics -- she is now Senator from New York, and her husband is the 42nd President of the U.S., Bill Clinton, from 1993 to 2001.
So Mrs. Clinton was seemed to be a promising candidate for the Democratic nomination in the 2008 presidential election.
It is very likely Mrs. Clinton saw her nomination as a matter of course.
But just moment please. Her husband was also an almost nameless governor of Arkansas when he was elected to be the U.S. President just like Mr. Obama until recently.
Politics in the U.S. is so TV-nized and in particular Internet-nized recently that "image" and "momentum" does matter.
At first, both candidates had topic characteristics -- Mr. Obama could be the first the U.S. black President, and Mrs. Clinton could be the first the U.S. female President.
In addition, both candidates have very smart brain as they have license of lawyer. But Mr. Obama has talent of the eloquence and much better at speech than Mrs. Clinton.
This is one of the most decisive factors. In deed, from the 35th U.S. President John Fitzgerald Kennedy, looks and talent of speech are important as the U.S. politics has been TV-nized.
In this context, the 40th U.S. President Ronald Wilson Reagan was also good at speech although he lacked detailed knowledge and practical ability in politics.
But it is very likely that the biggest reason why Mr. Obama was elected as a nominee of the Democrats is feeling of keeping breathless that covers from coast to coast.
Not only the Iraq War is a serious mistake but also economy is slowing down as the housing bubble has collapsed.
When going too far in saying, Mr. Obama has secured his nomination via only shouting "change." In this context, it can't be denied that Mrs. Clinton was considered to be old Washington regime.
In other words, many democrats voted him expecting his fresh image that he could realize "change" without solid and rational ground.
When seeking similar examples, we can pick ex South Korean President Roh Moo Hyun and ex Prime Minister in Japan Sinzo Abe. In coincident, both former leaders were proved to be mad man or incompetent that were serious mistakes by eligible voters.
First, ex South Korean mad President Roh Moo Hyun was elected in the atmosphere of anti-U.S.
South Korea is a fanatic anti-Japan country, but at the same time, it is also an anti-U.S. country. In addition, diffusion rate of broad band access is pretty high so that politics in South Korea is also highly Internet-nized.
Roh Moo Hyun won support from internet-literate, anti-Japan and anti-U.S youngsters who are sympathetic t North Korea.
In short, Roh Moo Hyun was elected riding on "momentum." But after his assuming, many South Koreans realized that "he is defective."
When it comes to Shinzo Abe, he was elected in the atmospher of "anti-China." During Koizumi era, he tried to normalize Asian diplomacy, for your ref.>"Japan, China and South Korea 〜 end of prostrate 〜"
As the result, Sino-Japan bilateral relation deteriorated, and many Japanese raised their anti-China sentiment. So hawkish Abe was elected as a successor of Koizumi.
But he lacked practiral political ability, and was forced to step down, for your ref.>"安倍首相辞任"
Off course, the U.S. has much longer experience in democratic system and thick and firm bureaucracy in both party level and the governmental one.
Apart from South Korea, even if an elected leader is incompetent, the U.S. central government could work considerably well -- just like the Reagan administration.
Even though Mr. Obama has a really smart brain, his practical ability is unknown. Even if he is a lemon, the U.S. politics could work well in normal time.
Here, the problem is that the U.S. is not in normal time nowadays but in crisis economically and militarily. In such conditions, ability of the supreme leader is still a decisive factor.
Especially, we should note that the U.S. President is the Supreme Commander of the world strongest military force that is struggling in both Iraq and Afghanistan.
In this context, a leader who was elected riding on momentum should be concerned.
No, wait please! He is still not a elected leader but only a presidential nominee of the Democrats. He should beat the Republican presidential nominee John Sidney McCain III in November in order to become the next president.
Generally, the Democrats is a liberal party than the Republican so that black can become a nominee.
But when it comes to full presidential election, it is unclear that black can beat white to become a president, for your ref.>"The electoral map, Battlefield America" & "The presidential election, America at its best"
Indeed, >"Barack Obama, Bigger battles ahead."
Anyway, even if which candidate will get a win in November Mr. Obama or Mr. McCain, winner should tackle tough challenges in both economy and military to stale declining of the U.S. hegemony, for your ref.>"Still under declining phase" & "Mission in Iraq is not completed"
These challenges are to tough that it it obvious that they won't be albe to re resolved via only shouting "change."
For your rer.>2007. 12/9th. Who will be the next U.S President?
Contrary to the early prospet that Mrs. Clinton would get an easy win, she suffered a humiliating defeat, for your ref.>"The post-mortem, The fall of the House of Clinton"
To begin with, Mr. Obama was almost nameless Senator from Illinois while Mrs. Clinton has long career in the politics -- she is now Senator from New York, and her husband is the 42nd President of the U.S., Bill Clinton, from 1993 to 2001.
So Mrs. Clinton was seemed to be a promising candidate for the Democratic nomination in the 2008 presidential election.
It is very likely Mrs. Clinton saw her nomination as a matter of course.
But just moment please. Her husband was also an almost nameless governor of Arkansas when he was elected to be the U.S. President just like Mr. Obama until recently.
Politics in the U.S. is so TV-nized and in particular Internet-nized recently that "image" and "momentum" does matter.
At first, both candidates had topic characteristics -- Mr. Obama could be the first the U.S. black President, and Mrs. Clinton could be the first the U.S. female President.
In addition, both candidates have very smart brain as they have license of lawyer. But Mr. Obama has talent of the eloquence and much better at speech than Mrs. Clinton.
This is one of the most decisive factors. In deed, from the 35th U.S. President John Fitzgerald Kennedy, looks and talent of speech are important as the U.S. politics has been TV-nized.
In this context, the 40th U.S. President Ronald Wilson Reagan was also good at speech although he lacked detailed knowledge and practical ability in politics.
But it is very likely that the biggest reason why Mr. Obama was elected as a nominee of the Democrats is feeling of keeping breathless that covers from coast to coast.
Not only the Iraq War is a serious mistake but also economy is slowing down as the housing bubble has collapsed.
When going too far in saying, Mr. Obama has secured his nomination via only shouting "change." In this context, it can't be denied that Mrs. Clinton was considered to be old Washington regime.
In other words, many democrats voted him expecting his fresh image that he could realize "change" without solid and rational ground.
When seeking similar examples, we can pick ex South Korean President Roh Moo Hyun and ex Prime Minister in Japan Sinzo Abe. In coincident, both former leaders were proved to be mad man or incompetent that were serious mistakes by eligible voters.
First, ex South Korean mad President Roh Moo Hyun was elected in the atmosphere of anti-U.S.
South Korea is a fanatic anti-Japan country, but at the same time, it is also an anti-U.S. country. In addition, diffusion rate of broad band access is pretty high so that politics in South Korea is also highly Internet-nized.
Roh Moo Hyun won support from internet-literate, anti-Japan and anti-U.S youngsters who are sympathetic t North Korea.
In short, Roh Moo Hyun was elected riding on "momentum." But after his assuming, many South Koreans realized that "he is defective."
When it comes to Shinzo Abe, he was elected in the atmospher of "anti-China." During Koizumi era, he tried to normalize Asian diplomacy, for your ref.>"Japan, China and South Korea 〜 end of prostrate 〜"
As the result, Sino-Japan bilateral relation deteriorated, and many Japanese raised their anti-China sentiment. So hawkish Abe was elected as a successor of Koizumi.
But he lacked practiral political ability, and was forced to step down, for your ref.>"安倍首相辞任"
Off course, the U.S. has much longer experience in democratic system and thick and firm bureaucracy in both party level and the governmental one.
Apart from South Korea, even if an elected leader is incompetent, the U.S. central government could work considerably well -- just like the Reagan administration.
Even though Mr. Obama has a really smart brain, his practical ability is unknown. Even if he is a lemon, the U.S. politics could work well in normal time.
Here, the problem is that the U.S. is not in normal time nowadays but in crisis economically and militarily. In such conditions, ability of the supreme leader is still a decisive factor.
Especially, we should note that the U.S. President is the Supreme Commander of the world strongest military force that is struggling in both Iraq and Afghanistan.
In this context, a leader who was elected riding on momentum should be concerned.
No, wait please! He is still not a elected leader but only a presidential nominee of the Democrats. He should beat the Republican presidential nominee John Sidney McCain III in November in order to become the next president.
Generally, the Democrats is a liberal party than the Republican so that black can become a nominee.
But when it comes to full presidential election, it is unclear that black can beat white to become a president, for your ref.>"The electoral map, Battlefield America" & "The presidential election, America at its best"
Indeed, >"Barack Obama, Bigger battles ahead."
Anyway, even if which candidate will get a win in November Mr. Obama or Mr. McCain, winner should tackle tough challenges in both economy and military to stale declining of the U.S. hegemony, for your ref.>"Still under declining phase" & "Mission in Iraq is not completed"
These challenges are to tough that it it obvious that they won't be albe to re resolved via only shouting "change."
For your rer.>2007. 12/9th. Who will be the next U.S President?
2008/6/15 17：07
投稿者：MrICBM
2008/6/15 16：49
投稿者：MrICBM
Good article, however I think your faith in the American government to stick to moderate policies in these dangerous times is optimistic. There seems to be much discontent with elected governments all over the west, left and right parties seem equally unpopular when they take office. Here in America most people are mad as hell and are not sure who to blame.
Much of Obama's base are anti-free trade Unions that have long held a grudge against Asian imports, and the anti-globalization student movements that trow stones at every G-7 meeting on the planet.
Nancy Pelosi, a member of Obama's party that leads one the strongest Democratic Congresses in decades called on the president to eliminate ",unfair trading practices that have existed for years–in some cases, decades."
When they say "decades" I can only think of one industrial Asian country that the US has had such a issues with for so long:Japan.
Much of Obama's base are anti-free trade Unions that have long held a grudge against Asian imports, and the anti-globalization student movements that trow stones at every G-7 meeting on the planet.
Nancy Pelosi, a member of Obama's party that leads one the strongest Democratic Congresses in decades called on the president to eliminate ",unfair trading practices that have existed for years–in some cases, decades."
When they say "decades" I can only think of one industrial Asian country that the US has had such a issues with for so long:Japan.
Since Japan does not have the street enforcers China seems to deploy overseas to check criticism Japanese trade laws may be an easy target. What makes Japan an even more inviting a target is the Japanese dependence on imported food, much of it from the U.S.
I think it is not a coincidence that the Japan-bashing era from 1980-94 ended when the free trade wing of both Democrats and especially Republicans embraced free trade as a matter of principle. They were perfectly willing to ignore angry union workers as long as middle class workers still had $2 a gallon gas and a good economy.
Polls clearly show the farmers of the US that would fight such laws will vote for McCain anyway so Obama would have little to lose playing such petty games.
I fear there may be sequels such unwatchable films as "Rising Sun" in the near future.
sorry about a double post to run over your 1000 character limit. My thoughts are sometimes like a runaway locomotive and it is dangerous to stop them before they run out of energy.