Comments on: ST Against Obama?

by: obamisation

Wed, 27 Feb 2008 14:27:36 +0000

There may be other reasons for this kind of reporting. ST may be trying to show that the alternative leadership shown by Obama is not ideal for Singapore. Maybe, the sublime message here is for Singaporeans to be suspicious of this Obama type of leadership and showmanship.

Simply, somebody is not wanting anyone to take up this kind of leadership style or get enticed by it. Very dangerous to our “father knows best” kind of leadership, you know…

by: CS

Wed, 27 Feb 2008 12:01:36 +0000

Although it is clear that a certain higher being up there favors McCain, I don’t think there is any “explicit instruction” to print anti-Obama articles. The Singapore government operates on the basis of pragmatism and I don’t think there is much to gain in bashing Obama, especially since he has a reasonable chance of being elected and Singapore will have to work with him. The anti-Obama stance more likely reflects the biases of the editors. And this makes sense, since the higher beings up there are likely to pick editors who think along the same lines as them. I am skeptical that a higher being would intervene and adopt a anti-Obama stance for our papers. The higher beings know that interventions work best when they are rarely used, and US elections are hardly important enough for them to expend their political capital.

by: twasher

Wed, 27 Feb 2008 10:48:32 +0000

Bethie:

The majority of the articles on Obama in the US papers have been a lot more well-argued and ‘reasonable’ than the ones that appeared in the local papers recently. Furthermore, the fall of Clinton has at least been as newsworthy as the rise of Obama — there has been a lot of commentary on why Clinton is falling behind (at least in the US papers). The ST does not often carry op-eds concentrating on a single US politican, and on one of those days that they did, it was a completely irrational, substanceless sneer, as was the one that ran the same day in Today.

by: Bethie

Wed, 27 Feb 2008 02:58:38 +0000

Aren’t you jumping the gun here? It is still not clear yet that he’s the Democratic candidate. Besides, who is more newsworthy? Clinton or Obama? I rest my case.

by: Onlooker

Tue, 26 Feb 2008 17:52:29 +0000

What do you expect?do you know who owns newscorp?and cna?

by: baracky

Tue, 26 Feb 2008 17:08:28 +0000

It is obvious PAP is a right wing party, though its founding roots were more left wing actually. But since then its policies have become super pro-business and quite obviously illiberal. A neo-con is what today’s PAP is.

by: Daniel

Tue, 26 Feb 2008 16:18:30 +0000

Since the Singaporean government always gets so irritated when foreigners “interfere” (or make any comment on) Singapore politics, I think that Singaporeans and the ST in particular should shut up about US domestic politics. It is reserved for Americans. So there.

by: Helen

Tue, 26 Feb 2008 04:41:48 +0000

So, the USA is not ready for a black president?
It’s time someone expose him for the racist he is.

by: MY

Mon, 25 Feb 2008 03:33:40 +0000

“…not unreasonable to suspect that someone Up There does not like Obama.”

No need to suspect, a particular Someone has recently gone on record during an interview talking up John McCain (urgh!)

http://www.upi.com/International_Security/Emerging_Threats/Analysis/2008/02/08/interview_lee_kuan_yew_–_part_1/1475/

Its really no secret that he’ll be disdainful of Obama, someone who really espouses real leadership renewal, unlike that dross which passes for it in Singapore

by: Elia Diodati

Sat, 23 Feb 2008 21:28:25 +0000

How convenient to let slide Obama’s recent winning streak of ten consecutive primaries…