Does anyone "run" the country?
The oddest thing about - which Barack Obama has already described as an attempt to "scare up votes" - is that the person answering the phone is fully clothed and appears to be sitting at a desk.
Meanwhile this from Sam Davis in Maryland, USA:
Justin,
When you have a few, surf over to :
The story repeats a line that occurs all too frequently in news stories, namely that the president (in this case, the Nigerian president) "runs" the country. I've seen this line in many stories, not just from the 大象传媒 but many others, about many presidents and prime ministers.
It's a distortion, if not an outright falsehood, used without thinking. In no sense do presidents or prime ministers of democratic nations "run" their countries.
Truth be told, they have a difficult time just running their governments, especially with bureaucracies and parliaments and congresses with their own differing agendas also in the mix, not to mention political rivals and special interest groups.
I sent a comment to the 大象传媒 website, as I sometimes do, but expect nothing but the normal autoreply.
To me this is a very serious issue, because it's one more example of how the media, unthinkingly, perpetuates ideology and become propagandists. After reading or hearing that line about presidents "running the country" over the decades, in my opinion it propagates the notion among the public at large a president or a PM "should" run the country.
And that, I believe, lays the subliminal groundwork for acceptance of greater and greater government intervention in the economy and individual lives.
Naturally, I asked whoever reads those website-generated missives to "stop it" and cited the same things you see above, but I doubt they'll throw up their hands at the 大象传媒 and say, "Oh, no, now old Davis stateside over in Annapolis is onto this and we have to mend our ways."
However, it might well be a starting point for a more general discussion - perhaps on your blog? - about how subtle use of language by media folk, especially the constant repetition of something that might seem innocuous at first blush, can actually have profound effect on public perception, or the "memes" that are accepted as "truth," as Eric Drexler noted in "Engines of Creation" some 20 years back.
This strikes me as a particularly important discussion in this U.S. presidential year, when the major candidates are making all sorts of policy proposals and the media are reporting and commenting on them in all sorts of ways.
Even slight skewing now, such as that "run the country" business, results in much wider skewing later, just as the variance of even a degree off course in the initial flight of an airplane results in overshooting the destination by hundreds of miles.
"Gosh, we started off to have a constitutional republic. How did we end up with this Napoleon fellow?"
Is he right?
We certainly have a horrible over-emphasis on the Imperial Presidency - I doubt most people in the UK know or care that Congress is likely to remain Democrat controlled this year (with huge potential ramifications for whoever becomes president) and too often the US is characterised by the sitting president (BUSH ! Warmongers CLINTON ! philanderers, etc) but on the other hand presidents do matter. Don't they?
In Cincinnati with Obama and all the talk is of tribal gear following the appearance of of the candidate helpfully circulated (allegedly) by Clinton aides who thought it would be sad if the world didn't see how well, um, foreign, he could look. 
It does not happen. That is what history tells us. Barack, Hillary, and John need to give serious thought to what to do if Cuba implodes.
"Clinton struggled in her base groups - barely winning white women, losing less-educated and lower-income voters - while Obama swept up younger voters, winning those under 30 by one of his biggest margins yet. He beat Clinton by 31 points among independents in Wisconsin's open primary, as well as by seven points among Democrats."
My own concern about is this. He writes: "There are, of course, hypothetical events that could change everything. There could be an attack on Mr Obama himself, but he is protected by the Secret Service. 
UPDATE: An add to those thoughts... The admiral's office (keen blog readers!) call to point out that he himself does not regard Bin Laden as unimportant - of course - the question of his importance or lack of it was posed by me, and the admiral made it clear he is still a high priority.
On a conference call to reporters on Wednesday afternoon, the Clinton team - Penn et al - made clear their number one priority was to get Obama to debate Hillary long and often in the weeks ahead. This makes sense for all sorts of reasons but chief among them, it seems to me, is that she often seems shrill and strained when speaking to large crowds, whereas he looks measured and compelling.
It is not about math (or maths) or about mojo or momentum. As Tom Brokaw put it on MSNBC - almost as an aside but the point is a vital one, surely - the problem for the Clintons is that attacking an upstart, a pretender, is relatively easy to do without necessarily being offensive to the wider public. You can still look serene and on the right side of history. 
History will relate that the wheels came off the Clinton bus somewhere around the time she showed up in Florida for that fake victory speech (Florida delegates, remember, were not to be counted by the party because it was a rogue early primary and none of the candidates campaigned there) which even nervy CNN eventually came round to viewing as a bit fishy.
We want to exist at a deeper level than simply to be gawped at. Humans want to build things, create stuff. New York was not originally created for tourism neither can it be sustained by tourism. Manhattan is not America of course (my son's atlas says that New York is the "Cultural Capital" of the US - surely not?) but the influx of foreigners lured by cheap consumer goods almost all made in the Far East does not look to me like a sign that all is well with the US economy.
"Republican campaign operatives call it the Gramm-o-meter, the money a candidate spends per delegate won, in honor of Phil Gramm, the former Texas senator who spent $25 million and won just 10 delegates, or $2.5 million per, in 1996.
So he will depart leaving only Mike Huckabee, Ron Paul and John McCain in the race - but only McCain with any hope of winning.
WASHINGTON DC: This is a night that but will go down in history nonetheless. It is a night of political passion - a night of reinvigoration of the political muscles that have become so wasted during the Bush years.
WASHINGTON DC: This is Alice in Wonderland: Obama friend and adviser Cassandra Butts has just given the 大象传媒 an impassioned interview in which she asserts that this goes now all the way to the Democratic National Convention in August. Could get nasty.
As voting goes on, I offer in support of those who are queasy about Barack Obama. They may be wrong but they have a right to be heard! 
I know Republicans who are seriously impressed with the Illinois senator, not because they fear his political acumen but because they think he might be a good thing. Part of it comes I think from their hatred of Hillary but there is more to it than that. Colleagues in the sensed the same thing last year, though it was rather forgotten in the general acceptance of the "Hillary is inevitable" myth. 
So we decided to drive, armed with McDonald鈥檚 coffee - not that bad actually - back to Washington. Duty calls and in this case, that means a piece on healthcare, the issue Americans are increasingly saying they care the most about, for tonight鈥檚 main TV news bulletin.
Hello, I'm 
