The Cosmopolitan Blog

Now that the hype of the election has died down, we are getting to see the “real” Obama. We can start realizing what kind of leader he will be. The one significant thing I take away from his victory speech (other than how powerful and understated it was), is when he said that we haven’t actually achieved anything yet, all that’s happened so far is that we’ve been given a CHANCE to start.

Obama strikes me as so very steady, “no drama Obama” as they call him, everything he does he planned and thought about, and he consulted smart level-headed people about the topic first. This, I feel is his “unique selling point” as we say in Marketing, and it’s in sharp contrast from everything we’ve seen until now. Everything, lately, has been about being “reactive”. McCain picked his VP reactively, after Hillary Clinton’s loss, thinking he could get the female vote. George W invaded Iraq reactively after believing false reports, and mainly as a reaction to having been attacked on 9/11. The bailout was a “reactive” measure due to the need of the public to see something done.

I think we need to remember that governing is not done as a reaction to possible opinion polls or to what the evermore invading media thinks about the current situation. Politics and government decisions must be done by experts, people with knowledge and experience, people who understand the world we live in today (it’s changed a lot in the past few years). Most events do not need an IMMEDIATE REACTION, there is time to discuss and consult amongst experts, to have a global perspective and to take informed decisions. And for me, Obama represents a person who can do all that. Where he lacks the actual field experience, he has the global perspective of an “outsider”, all the while surrounding himself with the experts in each field.

What I see Obama doing in these few days is dialing down the entertainment aspect of politics, removing the sensationalism. We joke, here in Canada, that our politics are boring compared to the USA’s. The truth is, politics is about steadfastness, and each branch of it should be left to the experts. Obama shows us this, BUT, at the same time, promises to keep transparency in his government. He’s started http://www.change.gov, where we can all stay informed of what is going on, and we can even express our opinion and apply for a job. So he’s being transparent AND he listens. But that’s it. He doesn’t promise that he will somehow react to the questions and requests, he promises to take everything under advisement and then takes an informed decision.

The past few months were about hope for change. Now we get real and watch what politics and government are really about, what they were designed to be when the words “a government of the people, for the people and by the people” were uttered.

I was watching CNN’s videos this morning, and listening to what the world’s reaction is to Obama becoming the presumptive nominee of the Democratic party. Interestingly, in places like Lebanon, it was more important to them for a woman to have won. I think that the impact of a woman winning would have been greater around the world, because women’s struggle is a concept universally understood, which touches everyone in some way. On the other hand, the fact that a black man won a victory in the US is probably harder to understand for those who don’t follow US history as we do, and who don’t understand the African-American struggle.

Other reactions around the world: Germans are delighted, seeing Obama in a similar light as they did John F. Kennedy 50 years ago. In Japan, a group of female fans dream of meeting Obama. And in China, they seem happy with the fact that Clinton did not win, seeing her as a old-style hardliner who would perpetuate the impression Americans have of China. …and it India, they just want to see a president who will push India further up on the world map. Maybe they think the US government should outsource to India like the rest of us!

In a post back in January, when there were still more than 2 candidates in each party for the US elections, i predicted that if either Hillary or Obama became the party nominee, then the Democrats would loose the general election and the next president would be a republican.

I still stand by this statement. See, I always asked the question “is the US more sexist or racist”. We think this question no longer applies, since 1/2 of america is voting for a black man and the other 1/2 for a woman and one would think the answer is that it’s pretty much equal. But that’s not true, it still very much applies: now that we know our opponent is McCain, who is more electable and likely to win against him, a woman or a black man? So again, I ask the question “is the US more sexist or more racist”?

I personally always thought America was more ready to elect a woman than a black man. After all, this is a country where there a still TWO schools that have some sort of racial segregation.

My personal viewpoint is that, by nature, the Democrats are more likely to accept a minority lead them. So they are more likely to accept a black man. But when it comes to the elections, we may also be looking at a whole bunch of republicans and undecided, who DON’T want to vote for McCain. Will they vote for Barack? I don’t think they will. And in that case, I feel that maybe Clinton should be McCain’s opponent, I think that a republican is more likely to vote for a woman than a black man.

This is absolutely 100% my opinion and understanding of this country from what i hear, what i observe, having lived there and having most of my friends and family still living there. Now, i want to hear what you think. Feel free to post a comment or two. Or answer the poll question on the right. Is the US more sexist or more racist?

Well, i never considered myself an anarchist, but here you have it. I’m boycotting something. I’m boycotting CNN. Their tag line is “the most trusted name in news”. Seriously? How can we trust you, if you refuse to acknowledge that there are other countries out there. Dear CNN, did you know that the world does not, actually, revolve around the USA? That there are a few billion of us who don’t actually give a damn if we miss yet another Obama/Clinton debate? That taking a break from reporting on the primaries to spend 7 days talking about the New York governor’s affair is not actually good news reporting?

I used to fervently believe that Obama was the best democratic choice. Politics used to fascinate me. And now, CNN has single-handedly managed to turn me off politics. Maybe it’s cuz i’m generation X and i have the attention span of a goldfish, but seriously, a contest that lasts over 6 months, really, i promise you, looses steam very, very quickly.

Here is my plea to CNN, in the name of cosmopolitanism. We live on Earth. Earth is comprised of many countries. Each country, believe it or not, has newsworthy events. In order to up the awareness and IQ of your people, reporting on what is happening in other countries might actually be a good thing. Oh, and then, if you even spend just 10 minutes per hour reporting on what else is happening around the world, well then, maybe you could make a bold claim like being “the most trusted name in news”… And no, good looking anchors like Anderson Cooper not longer dissipate my anger.

But what makes me so mad (you know, like even MADDER than i was in the paragraph above!), and, unfortunately, i can’t really blame it on CNN, is the fact that i feel like we’re the only ones to see that the longer the democrats fight it out, the more power they’re giving to the republicans. I made a prediction on this blog a few months back, and i continue to maintain it. At the time, there were other democratic candidates, and i had said, if either Hillary or Obama get the nomination, then i guarantee the next POTUS will be a republican. I still believe that. Only time will tell, but in this case, pleeeease can time just hurry the hell up?

So it struck me today, as I watched CNN pretty much all morning… In the Republican party, the choice is now down to McCain versus Huckabee, right? (Although some would argue, the race is pretty much already won by McCain)… But lets say, for 1 second, that there is a still a choice.

I’ve been listening to their rhetoric this morning and I realize, the choice is really depressing. Either you go with McCain, who is a lot more middle of the road on many issues (that’s his plus point in my eyes) such as economy and immigration, but whose only interest, you can tell from his ads, is to be commander in chief and fight an even stronger “war on terror” by invading Iran and probably North Korea next. OR you go with Huckabee who is not so gung-ho on invading the world, but on the other hand, is determined to bring his faith into everything he does, as I saw him this morning, preaching in the church Jerry Falwell used to.

I am so glad I am not someone who has to make the choice between a military president and a religious president! But then, who knows? Maybe these ideals are what makes a republican? But can you just imagine if, as i think it may go, McCain becomes president and Huckabee becomes Vice-President?? …and we thought we had it bad with George W. Bush! Hang on America, you’re in for a rough ride!