What's the deal with Weiner?

AOG, Madrid

Ok, I confess, before all the media attention surrounding "penisgate" I hadn't much heard about Congressman Anthony Weiner. 

I mean, I live on the other side of the Atlantic, and I have the local European politician crew to keep me entertained (or not, as the case may be), so why should I have heard of him before now.

However, I must tell you that my European friends are, once again, appalled at the way American politics works. They really don't see what the big deal is with this guy and they find his resignation rather strange for what they think is a no-crime. 

Especially when they read things about him on the New York Times that say he was: "a once-promising politician whose Brooklyn roots and scrappy style made him a leading candidate to be the next mayor of New York". 

Well, yes I think he made a mistake or two along the way but...I mean, where exactly does America think it is doing its shopping for politicians? And, why do we think that our politicians should not be allowed to be human and make mistakes?

Personally, I think the whole affair has gone a little out of proportion. He is still a brilliant politician, that hasn't gone away. Ok, so his behavior was "lewd" to quote NYT. But...I'm sorry is the only politician on Capitol Hill who has ever made a mistake such as this? Is he to be ostracised for the rest of his life because of one error? Or even two? And in fact, which is the bigger error, his actions or his attempt to deny them?

Yes I know, he sent "lewd" pictures of himself to women on facebook and Twitter. Ok so, after apologizing to the women in question, is his resignation really necessary? If he were not a politician, his actions would more than likely be brushed aside as "typical male behavior" or perhaps the behavior of someone who needs help, not public outcry. 

I cannot say I know all the particulars, but if I got a "lewd" picture of the type seen online these days from a work colleague I would think the man needs help, but little else. I would not ask for his resignation, I would ask the powers that be to talk to him and get him some counseling. Especially if he/she is an esteemed colleague. 

If it is someone I despise, then yes, I would probably want his/her head on a silver platter. I am only human. 

But my wanting revenge, or at least leverage, would still not obscure the fact that my colleague was actually good at his/her job. Which is what makes my Euro friends think we are not putting this entire Weiner thing into perspective. 

And yes, they quickly say things like "Why are Americans so offended by nudity?" or "Why are Americans so puritanical?" I don't think they see a connection since the country is perceived as being slightly manic. 

On the one hand, we give money to the poor, and on the other, we invade poor countries which are weak (because, god forgive, we should invade North Korea who does have nuclear weapons, or Iran or China) and within our sphere of national interest as defined not by public opinion but rather by the -I'm hoping- learned opinion of our political leaders. 

It is hard for them to be on our side (but we knew this even before 9-11), and when scandals such as this one pop up, Europeans look the other way and wondering why the double standard and why are his own party so quick to condemn? 

Well, the reason is probably because they are in a state of panic over the next presidential election and they want absolutely no whiff of a scandal anywhere near them. But is this really necessary? 

Do they think that by not supporting this Congressman in a time of need they really look good in the public eye? That public condemnation from his own party looks good for so small a non-crime?

Yes, of course, I assure you that European politicians and European political life is filled with irony and hypocrisy too. There is nothing new under the sun anymore. But back to Washington.

 Am I supposed to believe that the rest of his fellow politicians never made mistakes? That's a tall order. If anything, I'd concede that they have made mistakes which no one has heard about, but mistakes, believe me, they have made. We all have. 

And bottom line is, he hasn't killed anyone or embezzled millions of dollars from anyone, he sent pictures of his penis to adult women on the internet. No, he shouldn't have. Of course not. And he should not have lied about it. But I think we should get some perspective here.

Everyone who lives on this planet has made mistakes at one time or another, though perhaps we are not all as gracious as he has been:

"I am here today to again apologize for the personal mistakes I have made and the embarrassment I have caused", as NYT writes.

Will the world be a better place if Anthony Weiner, a seven-term Democrat is not working in politics? Probably not. It will be a little bit worse off, of that I'm sure it will be.

As a sort of personal consolation, which Mr. Weiner will probably never know about because he will never read this blog, is that on facebook, among my gay friends, both American and European, the fact that he did all this made them all like him even more. 

Yes, probably for "lewd" reasons, but...isn't voting for a politician because he is good looking or handsome, or she is attractive, just as lewd? 

Do we vote for ugly people very often? Am I mistaken in thinking that it is usually the attractive candidate who wins? Not not always, but often enough? 

Mr. Weiner, I'm sorry you could not behave better, but I'm also sorry that his has been blown out of all proportion. If you need help, I hope you get it.

John McCain's speech

AOG, Madrid

Last night, here in Madrid, I stayed up until 2 AM to watch and listen to John McCain on Fox. Thank you satellites.

What a dissapointment it turnedout to be.

As he spoke long and hard about nothing, here an American, there an American, everywhere an American American, I began analysing his body language, since his verbal language bordered on the soporiphic.

For the first time since 1952, the party holding the White House has nominated someone other than the sitting president or vice president, someone without a vested interest in running on continuity, and at a moment when the party finds it difficult to defend its record from the last eight years.

Here's some of my thoughts:

1- Has he had cosmetic surgery? He does not look like any 72 year old I've ever met.

2- Why, when I look at him, do I think he moves like a hand puppet? He moves his arms with less grace than would a Muppett. Is he ill?

3- The style of his delivery was lacklustre to say the least. His message? Well, aside from the "vote for me" attitude, which is to be expected, I can't say I recall much else.

I do, however, recall his smirk at a protesting woman who was forcibly escorted off the convention.

She has a right to speak. He is not some God. I didn't like the way he laughed at her, at the situation, and at the little people. Nor did I like the way the security guards manhandled her. Was that meant to be a show of grace under pressure or a show of strength?

Either way it was neither civilised nor was it humane. The lady in question was not a criminal.

I was surprised; shocked. If that is how he behaves at a convention, and he is only a Senator, how will he laugh at the country if he becomes president?

Sarah Palin

AOG, Madrid

In the battle for the hearts and minds of Americans this coming November, both the Republicans and the Democrats are keen on finding the best candidate. It's always said that the most important decision a presidential candidate makes is their pick for Vice President. It shows their thinking and judgment.

This 2008, events in the Caucus region between Russia and Georgia have, according to some, pushed/forced/cleared up the way for Obama’s choice as a running mate in the form of Joe Biden, a man earmarked for his expertise in foreign affairs, something which the general media in the US is adamant Mr. Obama lacks. Biden, a Delaware senator, is known as a skilled and tactful debater, and is a foreign policy expert, chairing the Senate foreign relations committee.

On the other side of the spectrum, for reasons known only to himself, McCain has chosen Sarah Palin, Governor of Alaska, to be his running mate. She is the first woman to do so under a Republican ticket. So that, and only that, is good news.

The rest is just abysmal, to say the least.

Flip flops over the Ketchikan bridge aside (also known as the Bridge to Nowhere), Ms. Palin is there, I would venture, to appease the party’s right, as well as its extreme right, wings.

Senator John Kerry, presidential candidate in 2004 also thinks this is the case since, according to him, the party is “suspicious” of McCain.

As if that were not bad enough, according to Senator Kerry, "He's chosen somebody who doesn't believe climate change is man-made", as he declared on ABC news.

She also does not believe in abortion, something which will make the McCain camp loose more votes, especially amongst women, but supports expanded drilling in the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge. According to Wikipedia's much discussed and amended entry for her, she is said to support teaching creationism, alongside sicence.

This is what I find scariest. Whilst the rest of the worl forges forward in scientic research, blowing away the clouds of religion, the potential Vice President of the US believes in Creationism. It is one thing to be an Evangelical Christian, but to believe in Creationsim is just too much for me. But there's more.

Rush Limbaugh, whose radio show attracts millions of rightwing listeners, has enthusiastically welcomed the Governor of Alaska.

"Palin equals guns, babies, Jesus ... Obama just lost blue-collar, white Democratic voters in Pennsylvania and other states," Limbaugh said.

James Dobson, the conservative Christian leader who had been opposed to McCain, said the selection of Palin had won him over.

Amazingly, and catastrophically for the Republicans, by bringing in someone with very little experience, they have, ironically, washed over their main quip at Obama- lack of experience.

When it comes to experience, compared with Ms. Palin, Mr. Obama looks like Winston Churchill.

The Daily News-Miner, an Alaskan paper, wrote in an editorial: “Republicans rightfully have criticised the Democratic nominee, Senator Barack Obama, for his lack of experience but Palin is a neophyte in comparison. Palin is not ready for the top job. It’s clear that McCain picked Palin for reasons of image, not substance.”

A good omen?

After appearing with McCain at a rally in Dayton, Ohio, last Friday, Palin made her second campaign speech on Saturday near Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

Her stop there showed a vulnerability that could be a worry for McCain: some of the audience left as she was speaking and there was booing when, in an appeal to Democratic voters to switch to McCain, she mentioned Hillary Clinton, something Senator Kerry said was insulting to Hillary Clinton supporters, given her anti-abortion and other socially conservative views.

Palin, 44, is Alaska's first female governor. She was sworn in December 2006, making her one of the least experienced people to run for vice-president in recent memory - she has been governor for just a bit over 18 months. Alaska is one of the smallest states in the US, with only 670,000 residents; this would only make it the 17th most populous city in the United States. Just ahead of Fort Worth. Before becoming governor, Palin served two terms as mayor of Wasilla, Alaska, a town of 9,800 people, and was on the city's council before that.

Do you know what the first two "powers and duties" are for the mayor of Wasilla, Alaska? Check their municipal code:

1. Preside at council meetings. The mayor may take part in the discussion of matters before the council, but may not vote, except that the mayor may vote in the case of a tie;

2. Act as ceremonial head of the city;

In the 2006 Alaska gubernatorial race, Palin bested the incumbent Republican governor during the primary election. As for foreign policy experience, she has none, but she was runner-up in the Miss Alaska pageant.

Nonetheless the final outcome in November will give the US one of two new paradigms, either a Black President, or a Woman Vice President for the first time ever.

Given McCain’s advanced age- he just turned 72-, and his not ironclad health, it may even give America its first-ever woman President. But for all the wrong reasons, of course.

Hillary Clinton as Ceasar's wife...

AOG, Madrid

I remember listening in a radio interview in Spain a couple of years ago a quote which I agreed with wholeheartedly. Although in Spanish, it went along these lines:

"Ceasar's wife must not only be his wife, she also has to look like she is his wife"

The quote was a reference to a scandal which happened to Ceasar's second wife, Pompeia, whereby she was accused of doing something which brought great shame to Ceasar: a scandal that occurred during the rites of Bona Dea.

Although, as it turned out, she was innocent, nevertheless, the whole episode was used as ammunition to deliver a divorce veredict. It is from that court case that in the English-speaking world we say "Ceasar's wife must be above suspicion".

Caesar divorced Pompeia and an inquiry was held. Although several members of Caesar's family gave evidence, Caesar himself did not and the court asked him why he had demanded a divorce when so much uncertainty surrounded the incident. "Caesar's wife," he replied, "must be above suspicion."

I mention this because I have been paying a bit more attention to the Democratic primaries in the US. And in particular to Hillary Clinton.

On paper, she is a super candidate. She has (or claims to have), great experience. She certainly is intelligent and she has some good ideas to help the country.

But then, I look at her. How she speaks. How she moves. Her appearance. And then I don't buy it. Especially when compared to the package Mr. Obama sells.

When I listen to them debate, I often think I am witnessing a debate between a PTA Mom and a politician. Silly. Untrue. Unfounded, because they are both great candidates.

But...

Ms. Clinton does not look the part. She does not look like the President of the US. He does. And so does McCain.

Am I the only one who thinks this? Surely not.

May the best person win, of course, but this will not be the case. The best person will not win. The person who most looks like the President of the US will win. Like Reagan did. Like Bush Sr. did. Like Gore did- although we all know what happened there. Like Bush did the second time around.

I am not for a second suggesting Ms. Clinton is not a great candidate. She is. And I would vote for her over McCain any day. But I would have trouble picturing her in the White House sitting as Madam President.

I guess we will have to wait and see.

Obama, despite Tuesday's 10-point defeat, appears all but certain to finish the primary season with more popular votes and more pledged delegates than Clinton.

And then, there's this:

Eliot Spitzer, what's the big deal?

AOG, Madrid

I suppose that if you have lived long enough outside of the US, you come across events like the ones surrounding the (now) ex-Governor of New York with slight amazement.

Eliot Spitzer's short tenure in office as New York's Governor started on January 1st, 2007. He did so with a record margin of victory and a profound sense of promise- here was yet another Democratic "presidentiable".

He resigned on March 12, 2008, in a scandal over his involvement in a sex ring, bringing an abrupt close to a legislature marked by, according to the New York Times "an almost unbroken string of stumbles and frustrations."

Surprisingly, to many, perhaps to most, all of his previous work and achievements mean little when compared to his sex life, by all means a private and personal affair.

According to the New York Times:

"Mr. Spitzer's difficulties were a stark contrast to his long and steady rise. Over the previous eight years as attorney general, Mr. Spitzer, a Democrat, gained national recognition as the 'Sheriff of Wall Street' for his pursuit of corporate corruption and his self-styled role as the defender of the American investor. During his campaign, his signature promise was to change state politics "on Day One" of his new administration, with ethics reform high in his sights."

I read this and I am amazed at his downfall. Some call him a hypocrite. And yet, here I am thinking, aren't we the hypocrites? Is this man not allowed to have a brilliant career, be good at what he does, and nail whosoever he desires, be it man, woman or banana tree?

Are we to understand that having sex with a prostitute is an offense capable of erasing all of your past achievements?

Would this happen to an NFL player? Would it take away his accolades? No. Hollywood star? No, certainly not. President of the US? Well, I don't know for a fact that Clinton and Kennedy used prostitutes, but according to popular lore, they both slept around. And they remained in office. One of them was even re-elected.

So I ask, what is the big deal? Are politicians not allowed private lives? And if they are not, then certainly they retain to sleep with whomever they want (short of paedophilia). I think public life obligations stop just above the belt line.

Ok, so he booked $1,000 an hour prostitutes. So? Whose business is this? Did he pay for them with public money? If so, then there is a different issue. There is a crime. He misappropriated public funds. And, no, sorry, I don't buy the whole "prostitution is a crime" spiel. It is a crime only because people choose to make it so. It is known as one of those "victimless" crimes. Thus, no crime at all.

If there is a crime at all it is that he overpaid for sex. One thousand dollars an hour is certainly well beyond the scope of normality. Like those nails that cost the Pentagon $200 each. An abuse on the part of the provider, but little else.

It would appear that even his wife, Silda Wall Spitzer, finds this as not too big a deal. Certainly she has stood by her man during the public resignation speech, as political wives often do.

According to the Washington Post, "hers was the loudest voice in Spitzer's inner circle urging him not to resign". Here was the main injured party, and it appears like the injury is not bone-deep.

So why are we all tearing our tunics in shame and anger? I hope the charge of "sin" does not come up. We live in the XXI century. Such concepts are outdated. So then, what is the charge?

In Spain, something similar has happened this week, though in a much lower scale.

A local ex Town Councillor in Palma de Mallorca (Rodrigo de Santos López) has been accused of spending 50,000 Euros in one of Palma's male brothels. He is a member of Spain's Conservative party. It has already declared that if found guilty, he will be expelled from the party.

Apparently he used the Town Council's credit card to charge for his foray into the sex trade. But, in Spain, his crime is that he broke people's trust by using money that was not his own to pay for something which was his own: his pleasure. Therein lies the fault, not in that he used prostitutes, or even male prostitutes. I rather the US gained this perspective one day and lost the one it has now.

I certainly am not holding Spain up as any sort of example (no country on Earth gets to be held up as an example of good or evil, we are all people after all), however, Spain is a good representation of, not so much Europe's more laid back attitude towards extra marital affairs, but rather at the division between the public and the private.

No, no one here finds infidelity a joke, but when it does happen, the approach is slightly more pragmatic, and (although there are always exceptions) less histrionic. Certainly so when it comes to the lives of others. And politicians are others.

For all the Christians out there, perhaps the line "He who is free from sin...", throwing the first stone and all that, should take note. No politician on Earth is perfect. Not Fidel Castro, not Nicolas Sarkozy, not Bill Clinton nor George Bush, nor Napoleon or Charles V. No one.

We cannot chastise politicians for not being perfect. They are not. No one is. And if the fault is rooted in his private life, then shame on us for being so prissy.

But, as I said, these observations I'm making only come about after my not having lived continuously in the US for many years now.

I don't expect the majority of Americans to understand, just as they don't understand why health care should be free and universal because it is a basic human right. But that is another post.

The fortunes of the King of Spain

AOG, Madrid

The King of Spain is very much in the news these days. Poor Juan Carlos has had a very rough year.

First, his daughter-in-law’s sister killed herself. Then, a few months later, some politicians began to demand that the Royal finances be audited.

Then, a satirical magazine (a bit more acidic than MAD, but along those juvenile lines), publishes a cover of Crown Prince Felipe doing his wife. A judge withdrew all copies from newsstands and sparked off a national debate regarding the image of the King, the Crown, and the Royal family. Most politicians did not back the judges move.

Later on, a few hooligans in Catalonia burnt a photograph of the King and a new debate started when a judge asked a photo journalist to turn in the negatives so as to prosecute the people who did the burning. Again, national outcry from some sectors regarding freedom of speech.

Then, a very popular right-wing radio network began to demand that the King step down and for Spain to turn into a republic.

As if that were not enough, the President of the Community of Madrid, asked the King publicly not to be too harsh on the main culprit over the airwaves, a certain Mr. Jimenez Losantos.

The King went on to ask publicly that the Royal family be respected by the media. The Spanish were slightly bemused, but the British were surprised that the King would do such a thing. Queen Elizabeth would not ever do that. But then again, the British Royals were not ousted from power in 1931 and Britain did not go through a Civil War 5 years later.

In a sort of PR coup, the Government decides to send to King to Ceuta and Melilla, two Spanish cities in North Africa bordering Morocco. What was meant to be an internal affair turned into a diplomatic crisis when Morocco withdrew its Ambassador from Madrid, and protested publicly accusing Spain of colonialism and equating the status of those two cities to Palestine.

But here things began to take a turn for the better. As has been many times the case, Africa proved to be a turning point in Spanish affairs.

The Royal couple’s tour of the cities was a great national success. The locals were head over heels with the King and Queen.

Then silence, and it appeared that things would turn to normal.

Wrong.

Along came the XII Summit of Iberoamerican leaders in Santiago, Chile.

As it came to a close, the Spanish Prime Minister suddenly found himself and his predecesor under verbal attack from the President of Venezuela, Hugo Chávez. Spain's President tried to defend his predecessor's Administration but the Venezuelan chief was not having it. He accused him of being a Fascist, etc etc etc. Basically, he was not allowing President Zapatero speak. Half way through this, King Juan Carlos flew of the handle and told Chávez to shut up.

Literally, what he said was "¿Por qué no te callas?" "Why won't you shut up?". The King was not happy, especially after Nicaragua's President Ortega went off about how Spanish investement in his country was bad, etc etc etc. The King got up and left, only coming back after Chilean President Bachelet asked him to.

Well, of course, it hit the headlines all over the Spanish-speaking world, and then some. Even the BBC carried the story. All through this week, President Chávez has been intent on continuing his diatribe against Spain, the King, the Spanish, basically, everyone and everything Spanish. Obviously his pride has been hurt.

He has accused the King of knowing there was going to be a Coup against him (ironic since Mr. Chávez himself staged 2 coups before being voted into power), he has accused the Spanish of cutting the Indian's throat to silence them (From Imperial Madrid the order was issued ....blah blah blah).

He has accused Spain of behaving like an imperialist power (maybe this is the only true thing he has said thus far), but nonetheless, it is the worst case of post-colonial tantrum I have seen in a while.

Needless to say, most Latin American leaders (who are as left leaning as Spain's premier), have come to the support of the King. Even Castro has not spoken out against Spain.

Ironically, Spain's opposition party have not, eventhough the man Zapatero was defending originally, ex president Aznar, a Bush ally, was from that party. He even called the President and (purportedly) the King, to thank them for their support. All very gentlemanly.

Nonetheless, Chávez has continued. The news hit that he was planning on syphoning off Venezuela's oil through Portugal.

As if things could not get worse for the King, his daughter (above) announced on Tuesday the 13th (as opposed to Friday the 13th, Tuesday is the unlucky day in Spain), his daughter Princess Elena announced that she and her husband the Duke of Lugo, were separating.

On a brighter note, after this Spanish "annus horribilis", the whole Chávez incident has made the King quite popular in Spain once again.

For the first time ever, a Spanish person defended a fellow citizen in an international forum.

I think, long term, it will be good for Spain. Hopefully, for Venezuela too...

The Mayor who wants to sit in Congress

AOG, Madrid

These days, Madrid’s Mayor, señor Alberto Ruiz- Gallardón, has informed his party that he wants to become a member of the Spanish Congreso. His party, however, have ungraciously declined his offer and the whole country is talking about it.

Back in May, he mentioned much the same and was asked from high on up not to stir the waters. But last week, the story was that he was asked, and he just replied. It didn’t take long for his political adversaries to start showing their teeth. In short, his party, the Conservatives (Partido Popular), which for reasons unbeknown to be, call themselves “liberal”, have said he should remain as Mayor. Thanks, but no thanks.

This is all in the wake of next year’s general election. Some voices point to a victory of the left, and the ousting of the Opposition’s current leader Señor Rajoy. Others say the Right will win because of absenteeism on the part of the Spanish left.

I personally think the Socialists will win, but not with a majority in Congress. In any case, it may still be a few years before Señor Gallardón sits in Spain’s Congress. I think it may not happen until he leaves his party and joins the Socialists.

But will this happen? Probably not.

Goodbye Blair hello Camer...oops, I mean, Brown!

AOG, Madrid

Yesterday, Tony Blair resigned from his post as Prime Minister of the UK. Here in Madrid, and in most of the European press, the headline is "Where next for Mr. Blair?". Hardly anyone is interested in the who, what, when, where and whys of Gordon Brown.

Although no one is saying it very loudly yet, there is a growing feeling that Mr. Brown's time in Downing Street will be brief. It might be bright, it might be great, but it will probably be short-lived too. It isn't so much that he lacks charisma, which he does, it is just that David Cameron, the Torie leader, exudes it from every pore.

He looks like a Prime Minister, he sounds like a Prime Minister, and, most of all, in a country obsessed with class, Mr. Cameron looks very upper class, or at least, upper class enough to be a sort of British Kennedy, something the Blairs never quite got around doing. He is referred to as belonging to the Notting Hill set. And we all know Notting Hill is very chic and well to do.

They were Cool Britannia, Cameron is more Eaton Britannia. Mr. Brown, in spite of an amorous tryst with a Romanian princess at University, is more Lady and the Tramp than Roman Holiday. He's more....I don't know...Coal Miner Britannia? Cameron is the Kennedy's Camelot, and Brown...well...the West End's Spamalot.

Will this make him a bad Prime Minister? Probably not, but it would appear that the British electorate, in line with most Western democracies, vote 40% on policy, 60% on looks and appearance. Even if they would never admit to it.

Nonetheless, there seems to be a, slightly incestuous Cabinet in the making. These are some of the highlights:

David Miliband, the young 41-year-old Environment Secretary who decided not to challenge Mr Brown for the Labour leadership, is tipped for a big promotion to Foreign Secretary, taking over from Margaret Beckett, who was reluctant to leave the Foreign Office. He even has a blog.

His even younger brother, Ed, 37, will head the Cabinet Office, which will have an enhanced role. They will be the first brothers to sit in the same Cabinet since 1929, when half-brothers Austen and Neville Chamberlain served in a Tory government.

Ed Balls, the Treasury minister and Mr Brown's closest political ally, will become the cabinet minister responsible for schools and children in a split Department for Education and Science. A separate cabinet minister will take charge of higher education and science. A husband-and-wife team will sit round the cabinet table for the first time. Mr Balls will be joined by Yvette Cooper, the Housing minister. Is this good for democracy?

It will not matter much. I doubt Mr. Brown will win the next election. After all, as Chancellor of the Exchequer, he has made Britain’s economy stronger. Alas, the poor are poorer and the rich richer. But I will say something in his favor. It appears he is about to pull a Sarkozy and give Jack Straw a Cabinet post.Well done Mr. Brown. This is a type of progress.

Will Cameron change this? He looks like he might. And in this media age, looks are everything. Right?

The secret of their salary

AOG, Madrid

April has been a funny month in Madrid. One day it is hot enough to inaugurate the “shorts” season, and the next it rains. Is this global warming?

Since January, I have been doing an internship at SER radio. Normally I started at three and left at ten PM. I have been re-allocated to the morning shift: eight to three PM. I find myself with a lot of free time in the afternoons. It has only been three days, but already I’m finding it a bit hard to adjust. It is difficult going to bed before midnight, though, surprisingly, it is relatively easy to wake up early. Go figure.

Last week, I watched a program called “Tengo una pregunta para usted” (I have a question for you), in which 100 regular people (referred to as citizens in the news), ask a politician a question.

The first guest was Spain’s Prime Minister, Señor Zapatero. His program did not go all that well. Some complained he had not had the opportunity to watch the show beforehand, unlike the leader of the opposition, Señor Rajoy. Out of the whole show, the only question which stuck out in people’s minds was the one where Señor Zapatero is asked the price of a cup of coffee. “It depends where you go but I would say normally about 80 cents” he replied. The media had a field day. It is true that in Spain’s parliament, subsidised coffee is 80 cents. But not in the real world.

However, Señor Rajoy also hade his Waterloo on television when he was asked his salary by a woman who lives on a monthly 300 Euros pension. His first reply was “Huh??” and then he declined to answer, though he assured her two things:

1- (humbly) he earned considerably more than her.

2- He was working hard to ensure that everyone’s pensions were improved.

Hard to believe from a man who has spent his entire time in the opposition fighting the Government at every opportunity, and then some.

Anyway, next day at work most people were siding with his actions. “The poor woman would have felt very uncomfortable if he had told her how much he made” was the reply I heard from most (though not all) people. Funny how it is quite customary in Spain to think of other people as being of less than average intelligence. I asked myself a few questions during that day- a day in which the press had another field day revealing the salaries of Spain’s top politicians, one after the other (even Señor Rajoy’s, who to this day continues to avoid saying how much he makes a month!).

I asked myself if most people think this woman would indeed be amazed to hear that Señor Rajoy makes over 9,000 Euros per month (he receives 2 salaries, one as a member of Spain’s Parliament and the other as leader of his party). I wondered why so many people were reluctant to talk about salaries ( I have since learned that in Spain- like in the UK-, salaries are private), and especially Señor Rajoy. After all, did he really believe for a second that the press would not reveal how much he made? After all, as a politician, his salary is public information.

I fully understand that many would not like to reveal their income, but a politician whose salary is voted publicly in Parliament? Odd to say the least.

Many have said that he was trying to, not so much save face, but rather please everyone. His intervention in the show had a higher audience than Señor Zapatero’s.

I read that, after 2 politicians, the show’s producers are looking for their next guest. Could be a painter, an actor, a musician….I think the public will vote. I think I should like to see who goes up for scrutiny next.

The "Presidentiables"

AOG, London

I am saddened by the current state of affairs within the Democratic party and the upcoming presidential election in the US.
A couple of weeks ago I was semi-content with the idea that the next president of the US could have been a woman-Mrs. Clinton, or Mr. Obama. Yet, as the pre-presidential pageant runs, a few bits and pieces have begun to surface that make me think that, unfortunately, the next president of the US will be a Republican, if not, in fact, Senator MaCain.

I remember life in the US back in 1988, and the presidential election that year. The Democratic party, boldly endorsed the nomination of a certain, unheard of, Mr. Michael Dukakis. For a while, I believed he could be electable, though I remember thinking at the time that I preferred Reagan. I even remember a bumpersticker that read: "Let Dukakis become President, lets make Reagan King!" Ha ha ha... but I do think it represented the popular feeling at the time. Mr. Reagan had been a good president. At least I thought so at the time. So did many others.

I also remember that the media were very much against Mr. Bush Sr. at the time. I remember the quips about Bush Sr being boring, about not having served much in war, about being weak and a bit of a coward.

All looked good for Mr. Dukakis.

And then I saw it. I saw the one thing which made me understand immediatly that Mr. Dukakis would not win. There was a skit on Saturday Night Live on NBC, which parodied the presidential election. To this day I remember its slogan "Vote for Bush, he is more white!"

And then I knew it. Somebody somewhere had stumbled upon the one thing which would turn the election in favor of the weak, cowardly, tiger tatoo on his buttcheek Mr. Bush: his whiteness, or rather, his "more whiteness".

Sure enough, as my family flew out of the US on election day 1988 headed for a new life in Europe, voters in the US elected Mr. Bush.

I think this week it happened again. Whilst both camps intermittently boo and cheer their candidates, someone somewhere has stumbled upon the one thing which will turn the election away from Mr. Obama: his religion. As ridiculous as this may sound to most people, the mud has been flung about Mr. Obama being a Muslim -the bit about his middle name being Hussein has also taken its toll, but, it being just a name, and the infamous Saddam being dead, it is a bit of a "so?" issue- and it has begun to stick.

Fox news constantly decries that he has attended a muslim school in Indonesia, that he has tried to hide his past. That...well, lets face, that Mr. Obama "...just ain't a Christian!" And guess what? I don't think the US is about to elect a non-Christian into the White House. Mr. Obama has already decided not to favor Fox news any further during his campaign. Although this says a lot about the current state of affairs in America's partisan media, it also shows Mr. Obama may have noticed that Fox has struck upon something which may hurt his campaign no end.






As for Mrs. Clinton, the current climate looks less rosy with each passing day. The latest pecadillo by the "presidentiables" (Spanish word neologised into english to mean "those who are eligible of being elected to president") is the running spat between Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama. is this a good thing? It is if you are a Republican.

So far, the only thing the Democrats have against them is that their candidates are seen as a) a woman, and b) a Muslim. So far, the only electable candidates the Democrats have are a) a woman and b) a Christian who used to be a Muslim.

Are these things important? Well, in any other country on earth, probably not. But in the USA, perhaps both these things are seen as much too important. If you take a look at the american press, it soon becomes obvious that no one is talking about major issues yet, and most everyone is talking about how each candidate is running their campaign- not what their campaign is about.

Is this democratic? Oh, of course it is. Democracy is the rule of the people. And if the people elect politicians on looks, religion, gender and...what else is there? I forget...