The View From Abroad – Zimbabwe

A reader writes:

About three weeks ago, I was in the eastern highlands of Zimbabwe, having dinner with about a dozen Zimbabweans, all black, and they were fully informed about Obama and their excitement was incredible.  These were educated people — some of the few professionals left in that part of Zim in the wake of the Mugabe-induced economic and political meltdown — and they were grilling me on how it could be that a man of African ancestry could be elected in Zim. 

When I told them that to almost all Americans under 40, a candidate’s race wasn’t of any consequence, they nodded in agreement — "what a great country," one said "that can ignore such things as race and prosper."   These were all people, though, who have learned the bitter lesson of the consequences of reverse racism — Mugabe’s seizure of white-owned farms and businesses that has led to Zim’s collapse, and to widespread hunger in the  formerly most prosperous African country.  One thing Mugabe has done in Zim- he has made whites and blacks all brothers, united in hatred of bad government.  

The View From Abroad – South Korea

A reader from South Korea writes:

Koreans, like almost everyone else in the world, want to see a change in American government.  For just about everyone, that means a Democrat in the White House.  From my own experience, I’d say that Koreans prefer Hillary.  That’s partly because they look back fondly on the Clinton years, but also because Obama is an unknown quantity over here.  Many of them know who he is, but they don’t know what he stands for. And his speaking skills are hard to appreciate if English isn’t your first language. Most who are aware of him are skeptical of his ability to win the general election.

Another reader from South Korea adds:

My Korean coworkers, middle class but highly educated women, most of whom have lived and worked in the states, all despise Bush, admire Hillary and have virtually no idea about my man Obama.  It’s quite odd, I can only assume there’s a media blackout.

Obama’s MSM Win

Gal Beckerman on the campaigns’ competing narratives:

The story [the Clinton camp] wanted told was that these were easy and obvious wins for Obama, and so we shouldn’t really make a big deal out of them. Meanwhile, Obama’s people were trying to tamp down expectations that he would do so well, hoping that it would be played big when he did.

Well, you can judge for yourself this morning who won in this narrative battle. It’s clear from all the headlines with the words “surge” and “sweep,” not to mention the New York Post’s reliably histrionic, “WHAM BAM,” that Obama got the better of Clinton on this critical front.

That Clinton Ad

Lots of you felt it wasn’t negative at all. Paul Waldman agrees:

While lots of people complain about how dirty and nasty today’s campaigns are, candidates today might as well be firing cannons filled with nerf balls compared to what used to go on. Andrew Jackson’s opponents distributed pamphlets accusing him of being "a gambler, a cock fighter, a slave trader and the husband of a really fat wife." Now that’s some negative campaigning! Or how about Karl Rove spreading rumors that his client’s opponent was a pedophile? Ah, the good old days. […]

I suppose the problem at the moment for Clinton is that the story she’s been telling about Obama all along – that he doesn’t match her on experience, toughness, and policy chops — doesn’t seem to be doing the trick. But if she’s going to set aside that argument, it has to be replaced with something. This is just one ad, of course. But it’s hard to discern exactly why Clinton thinks voters should reject Obama and choose her instead.