England for Obama

Ladies and gentlemen, your moment of Zen:

Keith Olbermann looks at what happened yesterday with the scuppered bailout bill - including McCain and Obama’s responses, and what exactly Nancy Pelosi said to offend all those right-wing Republicans:

This is good. From the blog Politicalwire.com:

“A new Public Policy Polling survey in North Carolina finds Sen. Barack Obama has taken the lead over Sen. John McCain for the first time, 47% to 45%.

Key finding: ‘Over the last year there’s been a strong relationship between the number of North Carolinians listing the economy as their biggest concern, and Obama’s standing in the polls. In January when just 39% of voters said it was their biggest issue John McCain led by 14 points. In August with it up to 48% Obama trailed by just three. Last week with 58% listing it number one the race was tied, and now with the number up to a record 64% Obama has taken a small lead. He is up 55-38 among respondents citing the economy as their main concern’.'”

Also not helping McCain: A dramatic decline in approval of running mate Sarah Palin.”

Note: North Carolina isn’t on everyone’s list of swing states - probably because, according to the Wikipedia entry on the 2008 presidential election, “North Carolina has been considered a “safe” Republican state for decades. It last supported a Democratic presidential candidate in 1976.”

A breakthrough in the South would be something indeed…

John McCain last night:

“Senator Obama and his allies in Congress infused unnecessary partisanship into the process. Now is not the time to affix the blame. It’s time to fix the problem.”

Love it.

*Sighs*.

OK, in a nutshell, the GOP have scuppered the bailout plan. It failed to get enough votes, and apparently it’s because a dozen Republicans were upset by Nancy Pelosi’s ‘partisan’ speech. Watch them explain:

- and then watch the brilliant House Financial Services Committee chairman Barney Frank lay into them (from around 4:25 onwards):

Barack Obama said of the latest development:

“It’s important for the American public and the markets to stay calm, because things are never smooth in Congress, and to understand that it will get better…We are going to make sure that an emergency package is put together, because it is required for us to stabilize the markets…

“So I’m confident that we are going to get there, but it’s going to be a little rocky. It’s sort of like flying into Denver — you know you’re going to land, it’s not always fun going over those mountains.”

The MCain campaign, meanwhile - which rode into town claiming it would bring everyone together and of course failed miserably - said:

“From the minute John McCain suspended his campaign and arrived in Washington to address this crisis, he was attacked by the Democratic leadership: Senators Obama and Reid, Speaker Pelosi and others. Their partisan attacks were an effort to gain political advantage during a national economic crisis. By doing so, they put at risk the homes, livelihoods and savings of millions of American families.

Barack Obama failed to lead, phoned it in, attacked John McCain, and refused to even say if he supported the final bill.

Just before the vote, when the outcome was still in doubt, Speaker Pelosi gave a strongly worded partisan speech and poisoned the outcome.

This bill failed because Barack Obama and the Democrats put politics ahead of country.”

Erm, yes. And I think you just “put politics ahead of country” by talking about yourself a lot, and blaming Obama and the Democrats, didn’t you?

Wait a minute - now that it’s failed, doesn’t this mean that John McCain has to suspend his campaign again?

Hmm… now, what’s wrong with this picture?

Well, how about:

1. If you attack your opponent for agreeing with your candidate, don’t you make your own candidate look like he’s in the wrong himself?

2. Isn’t sometimes agreeing with opposition politicians a sign of maturity, true bipartisanship, and a measured and ‘big picture’ approach to the issues?

Following the logic of this ad, surely the natural progression from

“Is Barack Obama ready to lead? No.”

must be

“Is our candidate ready to lead? No.”

I think this is what is known in football politics as an own goal. Score!

A big thanks to Republicans for Obama for their recent shout-out

If any other Obama-related blogs/organisations wants trade links then get in touch!

(Notice I omitted the word ‘werewolf’).

If you’re one of our American friends, and you live in the Big Smoke, then your country needs you! Yes, it may be 3,500 miles away (that’s about the closest point, isn’t it?), but it does need you.

Or rather: the Obama London meet-up group needs you.

These guys are doing sterling work trying to get out the vote over here in London - calling registered Democrats, canvassing areas where Americans go (clue: the Whole Foods store is one of them) and generally trying to make sure that no American in London goes uncovered. Or at least unregistered to vote.

The group meets every Monday in central London, so you can get down there tonight if you read this in time.  Go to the group’s meet-up page here to find out more - including how to help out, even if you can’t make a Monday meeting.

Oh, and if you’re just a Brit who happens to know any Americans - please tell them that they need to register their vote, like, erm, now. Send ‘em to this link.

(NB. Brits are also welcome to join the meet-up group, but there’s a limit to what we can do. Phone banking goes down better when it’s not done by someone who talks like Hugh Grant, for example.)

Over on Talking Points Memo, reader articleman nicely sums up the ways in which Barack Obama won Friday night’s debate:

“First, he won by not losing.  That sounds stupid but it’s not.  He’s up five points in the trackers, and the foreign policy debate is a road game.  Obama didn’t lose.  He made no gaffes, he did not commit to the bailout, he showed heft in foreign policy and gave no ground, he seemed Presidential, the commentariat thought it tight, with some giving it to him narrowly, some narrowly to McCain.

Second, the snap polls show he won, which will drive the media narrative.  CBS’s snap poll of undecideds show them 40-22 for Obama, with 38 as a tie.  CNN says 51-38 for Obama.  If you look at historical evidence, such as Ford’s Poland gaffe in 1976, or the Dukakis’ rape/murder answer in 1988, the perception of winning in the media drives the later move in public opinion more than the underlying event does in the first place.  This matters.

Third, Obama won on effect, because McCain looked nasty.  Obama smiled like a human being; McCain did not.  Obama said some positive things about McCain; McCain said none about Obama.  The scolds in past Presidential debates?  Nixon, Carter, Mondale, Gore.  Add McCain.  The sunnier?  Kennedy, Reagan, Bush43 in 2000, Obama.

Fourth, and let’s not pretend it’s first, Obama won because he did well on the issues.  Obama went harder at the economy than McCain did, and successfully linked his economic priorities to a strong foreign policy.  Obama and McCain spoke from deep conviction about Iraq, but the American people agree preponderantly with Obama that the war was a mistake they’d like ended.  Obama had the moment of the night, telling McCain “you were wrong” in a litany of Iraq misjudgments.

McCain saying that Obama lacked the “knowledge and judgment” to be the President, which drew a mature chuckle from Obama, was the coup-de-grace, albeit self-administered.  McCain was nasty and contemptuous, and half of the American people presently disagree with McCain’s assertion.  Apparently McCain views them as stupid and lacking in judgment too.  Like his pick of Palin, the gibe is polarizing and a call to pick sides.  This isn’t a year for that party and its base to drive both bases in that way.”

And here are my two favourite comments posted by readers on TPM this weekend:

“McCain’s demeanor last night will alienate many voters in these four groups:
1. WOMEN: We know what it’s like to be dismissed and condescended to.
2: OLDER VOTERS: It was just plain (I keep typing ‘palin”!) rude.
3: BLACKS: We’re not good enough to be even looked at??
4: YOUNG VOTERS: Experience is all so we are dismissed and our opinion doesn’t count.”

and

“After reading through the many of the comments here and there, I think my 10 year old son said it best: McCain just seemed like a rude, angry man and Obama was polite and answered the questions. For the average voter, I think this is the impression that will stick.”

Another interesting piece on the Huffington Post…

Relationship experts Kathy and Gay Hendricks have written an article about Michelle and Barack Obama’s marriage - arguing that it will bring much-needed healthy role model of a relationship to the White House.

You can read their post here - but it’s actually the point made in the title - The Obama Relationship: A Major Benefit Nobody’s Talking About - which I’m most interested in.

Because, while I realise that how a person treats, and feels about, their spouse can show an awful lot about their character - and that the Obamas’ happy and healthy relationship is certainly a benefit, not a hindrance - I don’t think that a politician’s personal life reflects their ability to lead or make the correct policy decisions (just look at Slicky Willy). And I certainly don’t think that it should be a reason to vote or not vote for him/her.

That said: if Barack Obama was the Republican candidate, there’s no doubt in my mind that that the GOP would be making an awful lot of his 16-year-long, apparently faithful, marriage that’s produced two beautiful daughters. What with them being the party of ‘Christian family values’, an’ all.

The Democrats have made no such fuss over the Obamas’ marriage - and I, for one, am delighted about that. I’m glad that this is “the major benefit that nobody’s talking about”. Because even if Barack and Michelle are a good role model for a relationship - and I do believe that they are, as they truly seem to be equals and best friends who openly love and respect each other - I don’t think that should be a reason to vote them into the White House. And it’s nice to see that somewhere along the line, the Dems seem to have made the same judgement, too.