England for Obama

There is a truth about Presidential races that is rarely highlighted: the funniest candidate usually wins. The one who voters think they would have a good time with, were they to hang out, has a huge edge over their opponent.

In fact, the equation can be expressed as: where one candidate possesses greater humour than the other, they will be President - except in cases where neither possess humour, in which case the Republican wins.

In all of the Presidential races of the television age this has held to be true. Dubya was funnier than Gore and Kerry, Clinton was funnier than Bush, Reagan was funnier than Carter and so on. Neither Dukakis nor Bush Snr were funny – hence Bush Snr won. Do you see the irrefutable truth of our equation now?!

(I should point out my slight conflict of interest – in another life I’m a comedy writer, so I have a vested interest in humour This article is a bit like those surveys commissioned by a soap manufacturer that find that 96% of people enjoy a good bar of soap in the morning).

This phenomenom is more expressed as the ‘candidate you could have a beer with’ – hence Hillary Clinton’s many ludicrous attempts to ‘have a beer’ with voters… for four minutes and 3 sips. However it is humour, jokes and a relaxed smile that are the secret.

A smile is how we engage with one another and relax one another. A joke can reduce the most grandiose argument to rubble. And nothing conveys the joy of life and of being human than laughter.

The great Presidents down the years have known this – with their leadership abilities has come great wit. This heritage goes all the way back to Lincoln, who was known and criticised for making jokes about serious issues (he retorted that: “I have to laugh because I cannot cry”). For example, he once remarked: “Whenever I hear anyone arguing for slavery, I feel a strong impulse to see it tried on him personally.” OK, not the greatest punchline in history - but I bet it killed in the 1860s.

No discussion, however brief, about Presidential humour would be complete without passing mention of Ronald Reagan. For British folk looking back on his presidency it must seem as inexplicable as the two Bush terms we’ve just lived through. How did an ex-actor with political views far to the right of his country’s mainstream and very little political gravitas become and stay the most powerful man in the world? The answer is that he was one of the great communicators and that he understood how important it was to use humour. At the time of the Cold War and all of the threat that it possessed, he would happily tell jokes in public about Russia:

OK, so they’re the kind of jokes your Dad would tell - and he is mocking his opponents - but he understood that people like to laugh about everything, even the serious stuff. Especially the serious stuff. Here’s one more, maybe his most famous joke, which totally destroyed what the Democrats thought was their trump card in the election race:

This entire campaign has been sadly bereft of jokes and humour. Perhaps it’s a sign of the times. It’s as if because there are ‘tough times’ the candidates don’t want to trivialise the issues with humour. Or perhaps its fear that the voracious news media will spin anything out of the ordinary as a ‘gaffe’. Well, I hate to lecture the great and the good but ‘tough times’ are exactly when we want someone to give us a bloody laugh.

Now I’m not suggesting the candidates do five minutes of stand-up as their opening statements of the debates - but please do something to make us smile and show us they’re as human as we are.

Thank the Lord for Joe Biden, who seems to have a great sense of humour. Although sadly his loquacious personality has done him as much harm as good - something he dealt with brilliantly in an early presidential debate:

He also produced without a shadow of a doubt the joke of the campaign at hapless Rudy Giuliani’s expense:

But that joke is almost a year old – and there’s been very little since.

Sadly, for humour in the campaign we now have to rely on Sarah Palin. And amazingly, not just the unintentional stuff: the other day she tried a joke. Here it is:

“I’ve never met Joe Biden. But I’ve been hearing about his Senate speeches since I was in, like, second grade.”

That’s a joke about Joe Biden being old. It’s rubbish.

She is still giving us plenty of laughs though – tragically for her, mainly in her serious interviews. Here she expertly explains, seemingly with a straight face, why living in Alaska makes her qualified to do the wars, global trade deals and all those other tiny things you have to look after when vice-president:

It’s a great argument, that: “I’m near people from other countries and I’m under their planes therefore I’m a foreign policy expert”. As I write this I’m quite near my kitchen which basically means I’m ready for my own BBC2 daytime cookery show. By her logic, President Bush, being from Texas - which is a long way from Canada and Russia - would be totally ignorant of foreign policy. (Hang on maybe she’s onto something.) The amazing thing is, she’s in line to be a 72-year-old’s heartbeat away from the Presidency. It’s like Lincoln said with the really serious stuff – you have to laugh or you’d cry.

Sadly, neither of the Presidential candidates seem willing or maybe able to use humour. The problem is that an absence of comedy presents a real danger for Obama in this election. Remember our scientifically tested formula: if neither have a sense of humour, the Republican wins.

Obama is a serious man who is passionate about achieving serious things - but it’s worth remembering that so was Al Gore. We may have looked with bemusement at chuckling George W coming even close to beating Gore on the back of the longest period of prosperity in modern US history - but I’d submit that Presidential contests are popularity contests and that Americans want a President they can relate to. It’s possible to be disdainful of this, but if you’re going to invest that much power in one person, Americans want that to be someone who they feel they can “go for a beer with”.

That said, Obama is capable of being funny. Here’s some of him at his relaxed best:

But he needs to translate that onto the bigger stage. At the moment, and in the first debate, Obama is in danger of coming over as earnest. Earnest politicians rarely win the Presidency. Luckily for us all, he’s not against a natural communicator. However, McCain’s ’straight talking’ and ‘maverick’ tags are designed to make him seem more down-to-earth - and the Republicans will continue to try and paint Obama as an out of touch elitist as they did so successfully with Kerry, Gore and Dukakis.

So I’d offer this plea to Barack: show your human side with something other than an earnest story, show your undoubted love of life - and in the next debates, please tell us a joke. Heck, if he likes, I’ll write him a couple.

Compare and contrast. I do believe this is what Sarah Palin called ‘verbiage’:

Watch CBS Videos Online

I heart Joe Biden. And I think he’s going to do just fine tonight. I don’t think Sarah Palin’s going to have the monopoly on straight-talking, emotionally ‘connecting’ responses. In fact, I think Joe Biden does much better than her on that front - because while he has the intellect and knowledge to back it up (*coughs*), he’s also utterly charming and disarming.

He also breaks up his answers into actual sentences.

(Incidentally, that Jefferson quote about “underestimating the wisdom of the people”? He never said it.)

As explained here by MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow and Lawrence O’Donnell (who turns out to be a former producer/writer on The West Wing. Fancy!):

According to the American people, that is.

Yes, while many of the pundits in the mainstream media - and bloggers like me - thought that last night’s presidential debate between Barack Obama and John McCain would be seen as a tie, it seems that the American public felt differently.

And felt differently in a very, very good way.

The post-debate polls of undecided voters went massively in Obama’s favour. Why, even a focus group of undecideds covered by Fox - Fox! - declared Obama the winner:

Here’s a round-up of the poll figures. As Kos says over on Daily Kos:

“Given the CNN and CBS polling, the public has overwhelmingly crowned Obama the winner of the debate. It seems that Republicans spent so much time trashing Obama’s “lack of experience” and “lack of judgment” on national security, that expectations were ridiculously low, and as a result, people were pleasantly (and happily) surprised.

Kind of imagine Sarah Palin, who we’ve all come to see as a blithering idiot, turning in a performance the caliber of Obama’s tonight - she would all the much stronger for it, no matter if on the merits, she merely equaled Joe Biden. That’s what apparently happened tonight.

And those snap polls are apparently driving much of tonight’s media narrative. That and McCain’s inability to look Obama in the eye.”

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.

Andrea Mitchell at MSNBC reports on the will-they-won’t-they debate:

According to Today on Radio 4, the discussions in Washington about the economic bailout turned into “a shouting match” yesterday. And according to HuffPo, John McCain “sat quiet through most of the meeting, [and] never offered specifics”. Probably because he doesn’t know much about the economy, eh? I mean, don’t get me wrong, I don’t know much about the economy, either. But then, I didn’t just fly to Washington saying that I was going to help. Although I’m perfectly happy to make tea for everyone if they need me.

Meanwhile, back in Oxford, Mississippi, preparations are taking place for tonight’s televised debate. Or rather: would-be televised debate, as according to news sources, it is still ‘in limbo’*.  John McCain has said all along that he won’t take part until and unless a deal has been reached in Washington - and, well, it doesn’t look like that’s gonna happen today, Johnny boy.

So will he really balk? Will Barack Obama be standing there tonight opposite an empty lectern? I somehow doubt it. If McCain doesn’t show up tonight, he will have thrown away the election. Instantly. Of course, if he still turns up before any deal has been agreed, he will look like he’s going back on his word - but in the big scheme of things, that would be far less damaging and I’m sure the GOP could spin it, as they spin everything else.

More on the goings-on in Washington yesterday here and here - and here’s our man Obama giving his sensible take on the whole affair:

I have to say, I find it both remarkable and quite, quite hand-rubbingly brilliant that it’s the right wing of the Republican party that’s scuppering Bush’s bailout plan - because, to their minds, this is “socialism” and the free market should be left to, well, run free (oh, and by the way: John McCain is in their ranks). The Republicans didn’t squirm when Hurricane Katrina happened and millions of people needed aid. They don’t squirm when they need health care, because they can afford it. But they’re squirming now.

I keep thinking of a great quote I heard from a commentator the other day: “Profits are privatised, but debt is socialised”.

And so it seems. In the Republicans’ America, at least.
*I love that headline: Debate Remains In Limbo. Is that ‘Limbo, Ohio’? I wouldn’t put it past my American friends and their crazy place names…

Hooraaah!

The lead story right now on HuffPo:

“Barack Obama is committed to hosting a public, televised event Friday night in Mississippi even if John McCain does not show up, an official close to the Obama campaign tells the Huffington Post.

In McCain’s absence, the Senator is willing to make the scheduled debate a townhall meeting, a one-on-one interview with NewsHour’s Jim Lehrer, or the combination of the two, the official said.

Such a course of action could make life incredibly difficult for McCain, who has called for the suspension of the debate in light of the current economic crisis. Should he stay in Washington D.C. - if a bailout is not completed by then - and let Obama alone reach tens of millions of television viewers?

A lot, of course, depends upon what the debate commission decides to do. At this point in time, there is no indication that they are going to postpone the affair, as the McCain campaign has asked.”

McCain could, of course, send his vice presidential candidate to debate in his place. No, wait: she’s not ready, is she? Although she is, apparently, ready to be the Vice President. In fact, I do believe she has confidence in that readiness. Just like Julie Andrews in The Sound Of Music.

*Update* John McCain will attend the debate. Probably. Nicely handled, Barack. You stuck to your guns, you expressed equal concern about what’s good for the country - can’t let McCain have the upper hand on that one, now, can we? - and you’ve come out of this smelling of roses. That’s our boy. Not that we expected any less of you, of course…

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):