England for Obama

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.

Michael Seitzman has written a great piece on The Huffington Post about Obama’s performance last night. Called Barack Obama And The Return Of Grace, here’s an excerpt (my bolding) -

“Watch Barack Obama in that debate and you see a man who is confident but not arrogant - hence the regular acknowledgment of his opponent when they agree. He is sure of himself, yet thoughtful in the way he explains his position. He is more than capable of being Commander In Chief, yet just as interested in being Diplomat In Chief. Standing on that podium next to a walking shadow of our past, Barack Obama stands as a clear signpost to our future.

McCain is his own history book, more interested in listing the stamps on his passport and forcing our collective groans at every mention of his maverickness and his POW imprisonment, than he is in providing us a vision of any real future under his leadership. Never mind the new cold war John McCain promises us with our enemies, what about the one he promises to perpetuate with our fellow Americans? Ask yourself this question, can you even imagine that kind of mannerless, undiplomatic, insulting discourteousness from Barack Obama? Not a chance. Obama’s unwillingness to display anger may be something that his critics see as proof of his inability to win, but it happens to be the very quality that proves he can lead.”

Indeed. And about those two bolded points:

As I wrote last night (well, this morning): John McCain was the living embodiment of the status quo and of the past last night; Barack Obama was the living embodiment of the future. Interestingly, in over 90 minutes, McCain only uttered the word “change” - his mantra of recent weeks - once. Is this a reversal of strategy? Has he realigned himself with Bush and the Republican administration? I think this might be the case. John McCain certainly came across as ‘the old guard’ last night - and I don’t see how he can change that frame, now he’s put himself back in it.

Secondly: while many of us knew about Obama’s mild manner, his thoughtfulness, his calm and measured approach to issues and style of delivery - all adjectives that could never be applied to McCain - last night was, of course, about millions of Americans watching this, properly, for the first time.

So the more I think about it, the more I realise that Obama didn’t need to deliver those killer punches that we lily-livered, bleeding heart, liberal egghead communists so wanted him to deliver to McCain. Obama just had to be himself: intelligent, gentlemanly, capable, rational, confident, positive, knowledgeable, reasonable, gracious.

Because while he may not have been tougher, or angrier, or made his points in a punchier, more memorable way, Barack Obama ultimately came across as the better man last night. And in doing so, I think he potentially reached the hearts and minds of the American people far more effectively - and on a far more important level - than he could have done with any killer-punch soundbite.

OK, so I’m not going to go into a long dissection or commentary on the presidential debate here - it’s 3.50am for gawd’s sake - except to sum it up with the following:

Obama absolutely held his own. He came across as very smart, very calm, very thoughtful, very measured and yes, presidential. He was, of course, probably far too wordy and wonky for some people - and while there were flashes of emotional brilliance, they were, sadly, only that: flashes. The snappy sucker-punches we were all hoping for failed to materialise.

McCain came across much better than he has done in recent weeks. Possibly because he wasn’t using a teleprompter. He’s much better off-the-cuff than when reading prepared speeches and suddenly seems emotionally connected with what he’s saying.

Obama kept saying “John is right”. On the one hand, this made him seem generous, intelligent and bipartisan; on the other, it kept making McCain sound good. Arrrgghh.

McCain tried the opposite tactic: continually telling us that Senator Obama just “doesn’t understand”. It was at best patronising and at worst aggressive. But I’m sure his base loved it.

McCain never looked at Obama once. This made him seem scared (and rude). Obama, on the other hand, would often look across at McCain as he made certain points.

In general: Obama focused on the future; McCain focused on the past (and even seemed to be bringing up the idea of the past in our future. Cold War seconds, anyone?). Obama was positive, McCain negative. I’d say that this was the starkest difference between the two, and the nub of how they came across.

McCain kept talking about what he had done - votes and decisions and anecdotes, “I” this and “I” that - keen to remind us of his record and his history (he even invoked himself when asked about 9/11). This tactic made him seem arrogant, defensive and backward-looking - but Obama could have done with more of the “I” stuff. People don’t know him well enough; they don’t know his record.

It’s hard to say right now who came out with the best soundbites, but I’m suspecting Obama. Which could mean that some of the post-debate spin will go his way.

But in short: I’d say it was a tie.

And the overriding feeling as it was all being played out? That we were, quite simply, witnessing the status quo versus the future. The current regime, the current situation - the way America has operated for the past 8 years - versus a new regime and the possibility of a very different future for the United States.

John McCain represents one. Barack Obama represents the other. There they were: your two choices, America. And that’s another reason why it’s a tie - because I can’t see many people changing their minds, one way or the other, based on tonight’s performance from the two of them. You either want the status quo to continue - or you want a change. And it really is as simple as that.

Erm, providing the debates actually happen, that is… But let’s say, for the sake of argument, that they will, eh?

Joseph Romm is posting a series of fascinating articles on The Huffington Post about debate strategy.

Part one sums up what Obama needs to do delivery-wise - in a nutshell: be a straight-talker, but not a smart-talker - and looks at who won previous presidential debates, and why. (Note: there are a lot of Shakespeare references. See, I knew we Brits had something to offer Obama!)

Part two talks about convincingly ‘framing’ your opponent; to successfully undermine him - by focusing and re-focusing on his character flaws - so that the post-debate spin goes in your favour. In Obama’s case, says Romm, it’s about making “the entire post-debate spin about the various lies and out-of-touch, intemperate statements that McCain inevitably makes”. This is a strategy, he says, that can’t lose.

Part three, promises Romm, “will focus on how Obama can use McCain’s character flaws to incite the hot-headed Arizonan to make the maximum number of mistakes and tell the maximum number of lies”. Ooh! Can’t wait.

So, in fact, there’s nothing major to report this morning following yesterday’s bombshell from John McCain. Except that - as I wrote in my comment to P Grecco last night - it’s come out that the Republican camp want to push the presidential debate back to October 2, which is, surprise surprise!, the date that the vice presidential debate is due to take place. ie. they want to push that back too, to an unspecified date. Ideally, presumably, ‘never’.

Could this possibly be because they fear that Sarah Palin is at best unprepared for, or at worst unable to cope with, her debate with Joe Biden? Could this entire ‘rushing to Washington’ thing have been purposely constructed in order to push back - or even eliminate - as many debates as possible? I wouldn’t put it past the GOP.

For what it’s worth - and it actually is worth quite a lot - polls of American people on various news sites seem to show that the overwhelming majority think the debate this Friday should still go on (looks like McCain got the public opinion wrong on this one - oops); and the debate commission is also insisting, along with Obama, that it goes ahead.

In the meantime, both Barack Obama and John McCain are going to be in Washington today, at the invitation of George Bush - although apparently this invite was extended months ago - and there were some big TV moments yesterday.

Firstly, George Bush addressed the nation about the economic crisis and the proposed bailout plan. Here’s the MSNBC Nightly News team analysing what was, essentially, a sales pitch:

Secondly, The Late Show With David Letterman saw its host rip into John McCain, who was supposed to be appearing on it but pulled out at the last minute due to his rush to Washington (only it turns out he was in the studio next door):

And thirdly, video of Katie Couric’s Monday night interview with Sarah Palin appeared on YouTube (my jaw, which had been slowly moving towards the floor, actually hit it on Palin’s last line):

No, really.

Don’t wet yourself, West Wing fans. But Aaron Sorkin has penned a conversation between President Jed Bartlet and wannabe president Barack Obama.

He wrote it for Maureen Dowd at the New York Times, it touches on elitism (after I wrote this West Wing-referencing post!), and you can read it here.

(Favourite line? “I won’t lie to you, being fictional was a big advantage”. Followed closely by: “Have you tried doing a two-hour special or a really good Christmas show?”)

(And just to clarify: by that, I mean excellence and great achievement. Not looking down your nose at people.)

There’s an excellent article by Sam Harris on Newsweek’s site right now. Entitled ‘When Atheists Attack’ (love it!), he rips into Sarah Palin’s religious beliefs and how they shape her world view (”In what respect, Charlee?”) and talks about the “elitist” slur that taints Obama and Biden and, well, the left in general. An extract:

“Ask yourself: how has “elitism” become a bad word in American politics? There is simply no other walk of life in which extraordinary talent and rigorous training are denigrated. We want elite pilots to fly our planes, elite troops to undertake our most critical missions, elite athletes to represent us in competition and elite scientists to devote the most productive years of their lives to curing our diseases. And yet, when it comes time to vest people with even greater responsibilities, we consider it a virtue to shun any and all standards of excellence. When it comes to choosing the people whose thoughts and actions will decide the fates of millions, then we suddenly want someone just like us, someone fit to have a beer with, someone down-to-earth - in fact, almost anyone, provided that he or she doesn’t seem too intelligent or well educated.”

Which was, of course, George W Bush’s ’strength’ - and one of the reasons why he won. Twice. Well, won once.

I’ve always found the ‘elitist’ tag in American politics interesting, as it doesn’t seem to exist in Britain. Sam Harris asks how it became a dirty word - and it certainly seems to have been around since the Clinton era, as The West Wing devotees will know. It’s a constant battle of the character of Jed Bartlet - an Ivy League educated, Nobel Prize-winning President who is continually being told by those around him that he has to play down his intellect at the risk of seeming ‘elitist’.

What’s curious - and of course, disheartening - is that, as Harris notes, the ‘elitist’ tag in American politics seems to be synonymous not with ‘money’ or ‘power’ or ‘the old boys’ network’ but with ‘intelligence’, ‘education’ and ‘intellect’.

Ergo: despite being raised by a single mother and coming from very humble beginnings, Barack Obama is an ‘elitist’ because he’s a Harvard-educated lawyer who’s written two books.

And despite owning seven houses, 13 cars and being married to a multi-millionairess, John McCain is not a member of the elite.

Any idea where this comes from, anyone? And why it doesn’t exist so much in Britain? Is it because we’ve been used to ‘the elite’ lauding it over us since, ooh, time immemorial? It really is a subject I find interesting and depressing in equal measures.

(Update: here’s an interesting right wing perspective on the issue).

This is a Guest Post by Oliver Houston. He is a member of the Labour Party and the National Union of Journalists. As a Manchester United supporter, he campaigned against the US takeover in 2005. He has also written extensively about UK and US foreign policy in Latin America.)

If you would like to contribute to the site contact us now!

Britain’s foreign policy and economic agenda rely almost entirely upon the US, yet we have absolutely no say whatsoever in how the US is run. This situation cannot be allowed to continue unchallenged – argues Oliver Houston from London, England.

Britain’s former Prime Minister Tony Blair made quite a splash in the US with his recent appearance on the Jon Stewart show. For you, our American cousins, to see a leader respectfully say things about the Iraq war like “I never took the view that people who disagreed with it were stupid or misguided or had bad intentions” was no doubt heartening and sickening in equal measure, given the disgraceful way opponents of the war in your country were cast as traitorous appeasers lacking courage or patriotism.

Articulate and charming though our Tony undeniably is, it shouldn’t be forgotten that we on this side of the Pond also had to endure our own shameful distortion and shoddy manipulation of the “intelligence”.  And while one’s love of country wasn’t brought into question (it seldom is over here), we were often asked to believe the ridiculous assertion that those resisting the rush to invasion based on the US neo-con timeline were somehow being supportive of Saddam.

What’s more, the support from our widely-respected leader was often touted by the much-derided Bush as proof that he must be in the right – and this provision of crucial political cover should not be easily forgiven by you, or by us. [1]

So, yes, we have plenty of cause for complaint, and we’d have loved to have seen Stewart skewer Blair with a little more force, but can totally appreciate why he was treated with rather kid gloves, given the place he occupies in the hearts of the American people for his deft, eloquent and compassionate response in the aftermath of the terrible events of September 11th 2001 in expressing Britain’s support and solidarity.
But for those of us on this side of the Atlantic, it was also an unsettling reminder of just how little say we’ve had as a country, let alone as a people, over our foreign policy.

(more…)

Rearrange those words to make a popular phrase or saying, and you get… this.

As predicted: it appears that Obama and Biden are just having to do what they do, and do it well - keep calm and measured, talk about the issues and not dumb down, keep it clean and not sink as low as their opponents - and hey presto: they can watch the Republicans ruin their chances all by themselves.

The American public aren’t stupid - they’ve just been misinformed.  I truly think that 2008 is the election year that this here interweb thing has come into its own.

Yes, it’s this weekend’s slightly-off-topic post!

On Thursday, Sarah Palin called it the “Palin and McCain administration” - how very Freudian! - and well, who knows, it might be her administration one day, eh? Although not with McCain as VP, of course. But I digress. Because following John McCain and Sarah Palin reiterations that she’s qualified on foreign affairs because you can see Russia from Alaska - and the revelation that as governor, Palin hired an old school friend for the top, $95,000 job at the State Division of Agriculture because she had a childhood love of cows - here are my…

Suggested qualifications for cabinet posts in Palin’s administration - should someone want to be Secretary of:


Agriculture - Visited a petting zoo when a kid.

Commerce - Likes shopping.

Defense - Once hit a man.

Education - Graduated from High School.

Energy - Knows how to change a lightbulb.

Health and Human Services - Used to watch ER. Big fan of Grey’s Anatomy.

Homeland Security - Owns a gun.

Housing and Urban Development - Owns seven houses. Would like to own more.

Interior - Loves picking out wallpaper.

Labor - Once worked for their dad for the day.

State - Has never left their state.

Transportation - Owns a car.

Treasury - Has a change pot on their mantlepiece.

Veterans Affairs - Once slept with a soldier.

Attorney General - Reads John Grisham novels.

oops! And I nearly forgot:

President - Was a POW.

Vice President - Has ovaries.