In June of 2013, I wrote about my thoughts on the election of Hassan Rouhani to the position of President of Iran. Later that year, I wrote about an interim deal between Iran and the West. In recent days, a new deal has been struck with Iran to scale back its nuclear program.
What do I think about the deal? I am happy with it. As I've said before, I favour efforts to prevent war; the officials who has worked hard to secure the deal - individuals such as US Secretary of State John Kerry, the UK's Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs Philip Hammond, and Iran's Minister of Foreign Affairs Mohammad Javad Zarif - should all be commended. The actions of these people and others have all contributed towards nuclear non-proliferation, towards peace and towards international co-operation.
By contrast, I think those who are criticising the deal and/or have stated their intentions to actively sabotage it should be condemned. Seriously, why are people who advocate for more war in the Middle East being granted any sort of attention? They should be refuted and dismissed, not treated as though they have any credibility.
I hope the deal will lead to a continuing improvement of relations between Iran and the West. Such an amelioration is good for all sides and the world as a whole.
Showing posts with label John Kerry. Show all posts
Showing posts with label John Kerry. Show all posts
Thursday, 16 July 2015
Sunday, 19 January 2014
The "Dean Scream"
This time ten years ago, during the United States presidential election of 2004, Vermont Governor Howard Dean gave this infamous speech after finishing third in the Iowa Democratic Caucus:
At the time, Dean had been ill with the flu and the crowd was filled with highly enthusiastic and loud supporters. He had to bellow above the roar of the crowd in order to be heard; unfortunately for him, to those watching television, it appeared as though he were needlessly yelling at a quiet audience. Dean later confirmed that the "Yeah!" he screamed out at the end was due to his voice cracking.
Dean's speech and scream was highlighted as a major reason for his loss in the Democratic primaries to Senator John Kerry. The media subsequently overplayed and mocked his speech, which brought down his poll numbers: at the time of his speech, Dean had held a significant lead in the New Hampshire primary, but when it came to voting day in that state on January 27th, he came in second to Kerry. By the end of the Democratic primaries and caucuses, Dean had only won Vermont and Washington, D.C.
It's a shame, as back then I thought that Dean would have been a good Democratic candidate and president; I also thought that his scream speech was impressive. Fortunately, despite his defeat in the presidential primaries, Dean is far from being some forgotten politician: his 50-state strategy to help Democrats compete and win elections in heavily Republican areas and his campaign's use of the Internet to mobilize voters were used by President Barack Obama and other Democratic candidates in the 2008 and 2012 elections, and I'm sure that Democratic candidates will continue to use the Dean-Obama model for the foreseeable future.
I should also note that it was because of Dean that my brother and I became interested in politics. We might not have followed the 2004 election - and might have had less interest in subsequent elections - had it not been for him.
At the time, Dean had been ill with the flu and the crowd was filled with highly enthusiastic and loud supporters. He had to bellow above the roar of the crowd in order to be heard; unfortunately for him, to those watching television, it appeared as though he were needlessly yelling at a quiet audience. Dean later confirmed that the "Yeah!" he screamed out at the end was due to his voice cracking.
Dean's speech and scream was highlighted as a major reason for his loss in the Democratic primaries to Senator John Kerry. The media subsequently overplayed and mocked his speech, which brought down his poll numbers: at the time of his speech, Dean had held a significant lead in the New Hampshire primary, but when it came to voting day in that state on January 27th, he came in second to Kerry. By the end of the Democratic primaries and caucuses, Dean had only won Vermont and Washington, D.C.
It's a shame, as back then I thought that Dean would have been a good Democratic candidate and president; I also thought that his scream speech was impressive. Fortunately, despite his defeat in the presidential primaries, Dean is far from being some forgotten politician: his 50-state strategy to help Democrats compete and win elections in heavily Republican areas and his campaign's use of the Internet to mobilize voters were used by President Barack Obama and other Democratic candidates in the 2008 and 2012 elections, and I'm sure that Democratic candidates will continue to use the Dean-Obama model for the foreseeable future.
I should also note that it was because of Dean that my brother and I became interested in politics. We might not have followed the 2004 election - and might have had less interest in subsequent elections - had it not been for him.
Thursday, 4 October 2012
A thought on the debate in Denver
The media in the United States - and to a point, here in the United Kingdom - is currently buzzing with activity over President Barack Obama's unexpectedly flat performance in last night's debate. Not surprisingly, my family and I have been discussing the debate extensively for much of today, and there was something we thought of that may help explain why Obama wasn't on his game: Syria.
Just before the debate, the situation in Syria had changed with a mortar explosion in Turkey, and Turkey retaliated against Syria. Naturally, everyone is worried about the situation in the Middle East and in Syria especially, but the media, the general public, and even other presidential candidates are not privy to the same information that the president is.
We think there's a possibility that Obama was informed about the changing circumstances in the Middle East before the debate. We think that any intelligence briefing prior to the debate could have contained incomplete facts about Syria and Turkey (not because of poor reporting, but because not all information may have been available yet), and given how volatile the Middle East is he could have been expecting a far worse briefing after the debate, which could have said that the two countries were at war. If that had happened, I doubt anyone would have wanted to have been in Obama's position at that particular moment...even his opponent.
If this was the case, it does not show weakness on behalf of the president: he is entitled to worry about the situation in the Middle East as the rest of us are, and anxiety may have caught him at the wrong moment. On one hand, I think Obama is concerned about the continued loss of life and the affect the conflict may have on the rest of the world, but on the other it is likely that he would be blamed - regardless of whether or not anything was his fault - if the situation exploded...and so he could have been worrying about that, too.
We are speculating, of course, but let's face it: Obama is the president. He has been running the country for four years, and he hasn't exactly had an easy time. This year has been especially difficult for him, with having to govern the country and face excessively challenging international challenges while running for re-election in the most vitriolic presidential race we have ever observed. Even George W. Bush had a difficult time in his debates against John Kerry, and he was under less pressure than Obama currently is. One could just say "deal with it, you're the president, forget any sympathy/leave if you can't handle it" or mock him outright, but he is human, and all sane and reasonable people will find intense pressure too much. The important thing is to find the path to bounce back, and it will be interesting to see how Obama recovers and handles the next debate.
Again, this is all only a possibility, maybe there is another reason. I don't know all the facts and I do not speak for the president, nor do I want this post to be interpreted as "making excuses" for him or making some sort of questioning of his mental state when that is not the intention. I think Obama and his team are very much aware that he will have to pick up the pace in the next two debates and avoid the mistakes of the first round.
Just before the debate, the situation in Syria had changed with a mortar explosion in Turkey, and Turkey retaliated against Syria. Naturally, everyone is worried about the situation in the Middle East and in Syria especially, but the media, the general public, and even other presidential candidates are not privy to the same information that the president is.
We think there's a possibility that Obama was informed about the changing circumstances in the Middle East before the debate. We think that any intelligence briefing prior to the debate could have contained incomplete facts about Syria and Turkey (not because of poor reporting, but because not all information may have been available yet), and given how volatile the Middle East is he could have been expecting a far worse briefing after the debate, which could have said that the two countries were at war. If that had happened, I doubt anyone would have wanted to have been in Obama's position at that particular moment...even his opponent.
If this was the case, it does not show weakness on behalf of the president: he is entitled to worry about the situation in the Middle East as the rest of us are, and anxiety may have caught him at the wrong moment. On one hand, I think Obama is concerned about the continued loss of life and the affect the conflict may have on the rest of the world, but on the other it is likely that he would be blamed - regardless of whether or not anything was his fault - if the situation exploded...and so he could have been worrying about that, too.
We are speculating, of course, but let's face it: Obama is the president. He has been running the country for four years, and he hasn't exactly had an easy time. This year has been especially difficult for him, with having to govern the country and face excessively challenging international challenges while running for re-election in the most vitriolic presidential race we have ever observed. Even George W. Bush had a difficult time in his debates against John Kerry, and he was under less pressure than Obama currently is. One could just say "deal with it, you're the president, forget any sympathy/leave if you can't handle it" or mock him outright, but he is human, and all sane and reasonable people will find intense pressure too much. The important thing is to find the path to bounce back, and it will be interesting to see how Obama recovers and handles the next debate.
Again, this is all only a possibility, maybe there is another reason. I don't know all the facts and I do not speak for the president, nor do I want this post to be interpreted as "making excuses" for him or making some sort of questioning of his mental state when that is not the intention. I think Obama and his team are very much aware that he will have to pick up the pace in the next two debates and avoid the mistakes of the first round.
Monday, 27 February 2012
United States presidential elections 2000 and 2004
Here are some statistics about the 2000 and 2004 presidential elections in the United States that I find interesting. In 2000, then-Governor George W. Bush won the presidency by winning the electoral vote but losing the popular vote; meanwhile, then-Vice President Al Gore lost the electoral vote but did win the popular vote. Bush won 271 electoral votes and 50,456,002 popular votes while Gore won 266 electoral votes (though should have won 267 but there was a faithless elector in Washington D.C.), and 50,999,897 popular votes. Florida was highly disputed in that election, and had the state been given to Gore he would have won both votes.
In 2004, then-President Bush was running for re-election, and his challenger was Senator John Kerry (D-MA). Bush won this election, this time winning both the electoral vote (286) and the popular vote (62,040,610); while Kerry only won 251 electoral votes (he should have won 252, but an electoral voter in Minnesota accidentally voted for Kerry's running mate instead) and 59,028,444 popular votes. The margins of victory here, while a little too close for comfort, are more significant than in 2000; however, the state that was most disputed in this election was Ohio, although not to the extent Florida was.
Had Kerry won Ohio, Bush would have been narrowly defeated in the electoral college with 266 votes to Kerry's 272 (or 271 when factoring in the Minnesota voter, making the result 271-266 as it was in 2000, but this time it would have been the winner who would have lost a vote), but won the popular vote by more than three million voters. Bush would then have had the record of being the first person to have been elected president without winning the votes of the people, and subsequently voted out after losing in the electoral college but winning the larger share (and even majority) of the popular vote. I am not sure if that would be a record anyone would want to hold, but I suppose it would be better than having the record of winning every state in one election to end up losing them all in the next.
Of course, this outcome did not happen, but I do find these statistics fascinating. I also find it interesting that both Gore and Kerry did not receive the total amount of electoral votes they should have (one because of the faithless elector making a protest, the other from an error), and that had Bush lost Ohio in 2004 he would received the same amount of electoral votes as Gore.
In 2004, then-President Bush was running for re-election, and his challenger was Senator John Kerry (D-MA). Bush won this election, this time winning both the electoral vote (286) and the popular vote (62,040,610); while Kerry only won 251 electoral votes (he should have won 252, but an electoral voter in Minnesota accidentally voted for Kerry's running mate instead) and 59,028,444 popular votes. The margins of victory here, while a little too close for comfort, are more significant than in 2000; however, the state that was most disputed in this election was Ohio, although not to the extent Florida was.
Had Kerry won Ohio, Bush would have been narrowly defeated in the electoral college with 266 votes to Kerry's 272 (or 271 when factoring in the Minnesota voter, making the result 271-266 as it was in 2000, but this time it would have been the winner who would have lost a vote), but won the popular vote by more than three million voters. Bush would then have had the record of being the first person to have been elected president without winning the votes of the people, and subsequently voted out after losing in the electoral college but winning the larger share (and even majority) of the popular vote. I am not sure if that would be a record anyone would want to hold, but I suppose it would be better than having the record of winning every state in one election to end up losing them all in the next.
Of course, this outcome did not happen, but I do find these statistics fascinating. I also find it interesting that both Gore and Kerry did not receive the total amount of electoral votes they should have (one because of the faithless elector making a protest, the other from an error), and that had Bush lost Ohio in 2004 he would received the same amount of electoral votes as Gore.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)