Brits for Obama

Super Tuesday - Some Thoughts

2008-02-06T15:32:00.001-08:00

Most of the commentators are calling it a Clinton victory by an edge, but they're looking at the smallest of small pictures here. Personally, I couldn't handle the tension, and went to bed only to spend my sleeping time dreaming of absurd outcomes, only to find a 14 - 8 state sweep for Obama, but essentially a delegate draw.

Some perspective before I launch into my ever-positive analysis: Hopes for a California were really dreams, for one reason and one reason alone. Absentee ballots. These had been distributed in January, when Clinton was still riding in a 20% lead over Obama. Don't forget they also included ballots casted for Edwards before he dropped out. The fact that he narrowed this down to 10% is still impressive, and reflects the surge in polls, though sadly wasn't enough to carry the state and the bragging rights therein.

For me, the biggest disappointment of the night was New Jersey. I was really thinking that there would be a slimmer margin than it was, and was privately predicting a victory. Massachusetts less so. That was a Clinton stronghold from day one, and it just shows the bare-faced disingenuity once again that they are spinning it as a surprise victory.

Big victories then? Georgia was a complete rout that the Clinton camp were quick to play down as meaningless (helpfully avoiding the racist undertones that Bill managed when commenting on the South Carolina result). Connecticut, though close, was a nice little coup. It's always good to snatch something out of your opponents backyard, and Obama was the only one to do so this evening.

Let's now consider Illinois versus New York. Naturally each senator won their own state. It would be an upset of epic proportions if they didn't. However, what of the margins? Obama won his by an impressive 32%, almost twice the margin of Clinton's 17%. This is probably because he has served more years in elected politics for that state than Clinton in New York (or indeed at all). But being a native daughter of Chicago, you'd think there would at least be a sentimental groundswell for her.

Apparently not. The upshot out of all this? If we add up the delegate tallies from both states for both candidates, Hillary having won the second largest state in the country, Obama ends up seven delegates ahead of her. So, when it comes to the home state advantage, he wins it with style.

Here are the reasons I think last night will ultimately be seen as a better night for Obama in the grand scheme of things.

1. In statistical terms it was a draw.

A stone cold draw. Anyone who tells you otherwise has a memory not too far removed from a goldfish. There was a virtual plurality in the popular votes; the kudos of Clinton's big states was balanced by the sheer number of states that Obama carried and the margins by which he carried them.

So why is this actually a victory for Obama? Simple. You ever see the Rocky films? Ok, even if you haven't you know the basic principle - salty underdog takes on established champion. At the climactic battle at the very end, the champ (let's use Rocky IV's Ivan Drago) pummels the underdog relentlessly, and although the latter lands a few punches, he's still standing and in fighting shape six rounds later. By boxing standards, that's technically a victory thus far, but the very fact Rocky is not only standing, but still able to put up a fight was inconceivable before the match began. Thus it is here.

Let me say what I said after New Hampshire once again. For longer than anyone can remember now, Clinton held a 20% lead against Obama, and that was with Edwards still in the race. Now he's level pegging not only in the polls, but also in the actual vote.

To continue the Rocky metaphor, Clinton has thrown so many punches and so much against Obama that she's actually in a worse position financially, and he's got the energy to carry on right to the DNC floor if necessary. She's already tapped most of her contributors fully. His is mostly from small donors, so there's a lot of reserve energy. Her campaign has said time and again that

Boxing analogies aside, the two candidates are now truly even for the first time in entire race. They are essentially starting the race from point zero. And this leads into my second reason...

2. The Obama campaign just gets stronger as time goes on

A lot of people will call bullshit on the fact Obama won a lot of Caucuses. My response? Cry me a river. The fact that the Clinton machine has neglected the art of the caucus is because they were hubristic enough to think that they didn't need to win states that were decided that way. Her weakness here only highlights Obama's strength. It is supremely impressive the way the non-establishment candidate can do that, especially given he's had only three years in national politics. He's won seven out of eight caucus races, and even in the one he lost (Nevada) he came out with more delegates.

The caucus is an imperfect system as far as democratic devices go, but every player knows the rules when they enter, so they can't cry foul when they fail to properly utilise the system. Caucuses have been a good way for Obama to get a large number of delegates while conserving his resources, which leads into my third point...

3. The February primaries very much favour Obama

Yes they do. I ungenerously slate the pundits for having short memories. The start of the race seems a decade ago in comparison to where we are now. Saturdays three races are caucuses, one of which, Lousiana, should favour Obama because of its high African American population. All through February there are more states will favour Obama, Virginia and Maryland spring immediately to mind, with 200 delegates between them. DC, Wisconsin and Hawaii follow, ending on the 19th February. It is then the campaigns get their first real respite, after what should be a healthy month for Obama. Not decisive by any means, but it should do no harm to his momentum and fundraising.

Giving Obama the ability to lead into my fourth point...

4. The more time Obama has to campaign, the more effective his performance.

Texas and Ohio. Clinton's next "firewalls" according the pundits in her corners. Only, we've heard so much of the firewalls that were supposed to stop Obama in his tracks, and it's never come to pass. All they've done is contain him, which isn't much of an achievement for the establishment candidate. However, for Texas and Ohio, Obama has the time and resources to erode the received wisdom as to those states voting intentions. Given this, I think he can win both states, or at the very least dent any Clinton plurality there to the point of insignificance. I won't predict anything other than it will be close. So close that we'll probably head into April, by all reckonings. I decline at this stage to predict anything beyond.

Although I get the feeling after last night that I'll be writing these notes for a while, probably into May, if not beyond.

I've said it before and I'll say it again - it's going to be a long road ahead.

Upcoming notes:

What Obama needs to do after Super Tuesday
The Arguments for a Clinton Nomination
Super Delegates

Brief thoughts on what to expect from Super Tuesday and beyond

2008-02-06T15:31:00.001-08:00

I write this brief note rather late in the day, just to get my ideas on record, and to see how wrong I am come morning. Though I sit on the fence so much here, only a decisive result will prove me wrong. So here goes.

The short answer is, failing an upset, a long run up until the end of March, maybe April. I am pretty sure we won't get a winner today.

The expectations are on Clinton to carry most of the states vis-a-vis the popular vote. That said, Obama isn't expected to come far behind, so the race will really come down to the number of delegates unless there are some major upsets.

That said, there are signs that the Clinton campaign is faltering. The challenge to televised debates is generally made by the underdog candidate who has nothing to lose from such a challenge. It's quite a play of the hand, and it could seriously backfire if the Obama camp gains in confidence after tonight.

Super Tuesday was supposed to inherently favour Clinton, if only because of name recognition and the fact that Obama's rise was based on his ability to get his face out there in the early states. Hereafter, there is time again for him and his camp to collect and replicate the effect he had on the early states. He can compete on a 2 to 1 fund advantage and by bursting through the firewall, can convince more doubters that he's the real deal.

As to superdelegates... that's a tricky one. There's a lot of fence-sitting going on. The thing with the Democrat party elite is that I don't think that many of them want to plump for Clinton, but they fear the retribution if they stick their necks out for Obama. I think if there's a sense that he's within reach of winning it but for their pledge, there'll be a flood of endorsements. I personally maintain the opinion that had he won New Hampshire, they'd be level pegging in SupDels (and I'd have been in the international press, but that's another matter), such is history though.

Finally, the Clinton machine is the Clinton machine - it's proven in the past two decades to be like Rasputin: inexplicably seductive and impossible to kill (for better or worse).

Exit polls seem to indicate a long haul. Expect my analysis tomorrow.

Postscript: I am officially in love with Scarlett Johansson after seeing her in that will.i.am video. Not that I was exactly ambivalent before. If anyone can get her number for me, that'd be super.

Edwards and the run up to Super Tuesday

2008-02-06T15:30:00.001-08:00

So John Edwards dropped out, right before I was going to write a note on him. Oh well. All the more reason to do so. I'm actually surprised. Despite predicting that he would do so after New Hampshire (though that was predicated on an Obama win), I actually thought he would go pas t February the 5th. Still, predicting anything in this race is an exercise in futility (one I will continue to doggedly pursue).

Anyway, that leaves the huge, gaping question, where will Edwards 15% of voters go? There are three options for them: Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and home. Whilst I'll say you shouldn't underestimate the third of these options, I'll discuss the other two.

As the most "left" of the two candidates (not a label I'm particularly happy with in this election, or any other) the easy answer would be to Obama. Of course, that's missing about a million points. Here's a couple. Edwards had as much union support as Clinton. Obama hasn't got much at all. Unions tend to favour the "bruiser" candidate who proclaims that he will be a fighter against the forces of evil (I paraphrase slightly here). Obama's message is the opposite, or it may as well be to someone with those values. Clinton on the other hand has countered the Obama message with her "blood, sweat and tears" message. Similarly, he held onto quite a fair portion of the white male votes, and it is almost impossible to know where they are going to go. My instinct from the race is that, outside of the unions, they will go to Obama, but that is sheer conjecture.

He has yet to endorse, and frankly I don't blame him. No one knows who is going to win at this stage and I'm pretty sure he wants a role to play in cabinet, if not VP. Incidentally, I don't think he should be on the ticket. Don't get me wrong, he has his faults, but I do quite like the guy. You can question his change of tack from 2004, but his message on poverty is sound, and one that ought to be reflected in Democrat policy. Also, I actually believe him when he says it, which counts for a lot.

The timing of his withdrawal is the most interesting to me. Note that he dropped out a day after Florida, the only truly decisive Clinton "victory" (though as I have argued elsewhere, it isn't actually a victory). This has successfully distracted those corners of the media who were speculating its value. In fact, Florida has gone almost completely off the map, except for the hardcore pols (like myself) who wonder how it might come to play in the convention. This could be coincidence but, in and of itself, helps Obama a great deal by curbing any momentum that Clinton could have got from it. The national polls have shown a gradual erosion of her lead. State-by-state is a different story, but this is indicative of the fact that Obama now has a profile nationwide, and with the $10,000,000+ he's going to spend on national advertising across 24 states, you can bet this is only going to increase.

Personally, I think he will endorse Obama after Super Tuesday, subject to what I say below. Bill Richardson too. I still expect the latter to be on an Obama ticket though. Next, Super-Duper-Tsunami Tuesday.

***SUPER TUESDAY***

There was an interesting article in the Washington Post that noted that the more exposure any given electorate had to Obama, the greater his rise in that estimation. I think his campaign knows this, and it's another important part of why he has been campaigning the way he has - i.e. short on detail, high on class and inspiration. All he needs to do is introduce himself as a credible alternative to Clinton to the people at large, and they realise that there is another way to a credible Democrat candidate come November. I came close to criticising him for not changing from this approach, but I now retract any thoughts along those lines. At this stage, he needs to win hearts, not minds. He can save the latter for the general election, when policy differences actually matter. Remember how close he actually is to Clinton on the issues, save for the details and Iraq (the latter being a different kettle of fish, in terms of what it shows about the respective candidates).

As such Obama doesn't need to "win" this coming tuesday. He needs about a third of the states and at least 40% of the delegates on offer (some media outlets set the bar higher, but not by much). The new consensus is that if he can carry a credible showing, then the long fight is to his advantage. There will be a number of telling (and very spinnable) races:

California

A fine rump of delegates is on offer here, and also a fine picture of where the liberal end of America stands out west. Clinton has seen her poll figures slipping here, and I personally expect that to continue. My instinct tells me that the Latin-American vote will give her a win, but not be enough to prevent Obama from getting a significant portion of the delegates. That said, if he does win, that will be collosal. Even by half a percentage point. But let's not get ahead of ourselves here.

New York, Illinois

The general expectation is that both Senators will win their respective states. What will be interesting is the margin by which each wins. Assuming there are no statistical upsets elsewhere in the race, the savvy pundits will note (as the polls indicate) that Obama will probably win Illinois by a bigger margin than Clinton wins New York. That a second term Senator might lose to a freshman not yet in his fourth year potentially speaks volumes and shows a greater faith in those who duly elected and who have been served by Obama than the supposed firewall of New York that surrounds Clinton.

Alabama, Georgia

The South is going to be a fascinating factor. There is inherent racial tension in that part of America, as well as the distinctly anti-Hillary sentiment. Which is stronger will be very interesting. There were reports after South Carolina of people specifically voting for Obama as the anti-Hillary candidate, but stating they would not vote for him in the general election. No problem for Obama I think. That isn't the Democrat base in these states. The young voters are. The unprecedented turnout that we have seen is being surged by the young. Without it, Clinton would have romped to victory already. As her base is eroded as more become enamoured by Obama, so too will the influx of first time voters increase; it happened in Iowa and I still think is the unknown factor in this entire election. Nowhere, I would say, will this be more evident than in the southern states. The exit polls here will make for very interesting reading.

Delegates and the road ahead

This is a delegates race, no doubt about it. No matter the result, the tally in the aftermath will set the tone for the entire rest of the race. Save for a number of major upsets, I do not see either candidate claiming a decisive victory past Tuesday. Super-delegates aside, Obama has a pretty significant lead in this respect, relative to those cast. The wet-dream of the Obama supporter is for him to retain the same proportion of lead that he currently does, but realism says otherwise. As I stated above, he needs at least 40% pledged. Less, and he's still viable, but that would be ideal, given how the race will unfold following Super Tuesday. It's nice to note that on a delegate by delegate basis, Obama has not lost a single primary or caucus, despite the percentages. That's down to the intelligence of his campaign base, and I hope that that permeates this Tuesday's vote, statewide. It would be a supreme exercise in cognitive dissonance to assume that Obama will come out with the majority of 05/02 delegates, but the structure of his campaign thus far indicates that he will make the most of every single opportunity.

Next Notes: Arguments for a Clinton nomination; Superdelegates; Super Tuesday Review

South Carolina, The Kennedys and a bit on Florida

2008-02-06T15:29:00.000-08:00

Obama won South Carolina by a complete landslide. He needed to. Anything less than a 15% margin in a state where the African-American vote was this strong would have been played in the press as a loss. But to do so by almost 30% is more than even I expected

Unfortunately, this victory will not give him quite the momentum that Clinton recieved from her victories, if only because it was always expected. However, it does show a number of things, and the desired momentum will come from the raft of high-profile Kennedy endorsements we saw today. More on those in a bit.

The Clintons have almost roundly lost the goodwill of the African-American community. 80% of the black vote went to Obama. They're playing a pretty dangerous game here though; they are acting like they don't think they need it. They do. Any Democrat, come November, is going to need it, especially if McCain is the opposition. However, I would argue that it will remain crucial in the primary contest, and the Clinton campaign has basically burned that particular bridge, something that will come back to haunt him.

As to the Kennedy endorsements, these couldn't have come at a better time for Barack Obama. The lingering fear is that an overwhelming victory in SC was going to make Obama the "black candidate". This mitigates it, and quite nicely so. I personally thought that Obama's acceptance was one of the best speeches ever given. Even better than the SC acceptance. There are so many opinion pieces on why this endorsement is good, to the extent that I won't repeat it, but to say that it is a superb build on a weekend that should have been a walk in the park, but actually added something.

The perceived wisdom used to be that the party faithful would rally around the Clinton camp. It remains, and it is assumed that the super-delegates will win this for Clinton in a brokered convention. I personally think there isn't going to be establishment adherence that was assumed five months ago. Obama's share of congressional endorsements (who also have super-delegate votes) at this early stage are supremely respectable given the fact that he is up against the Clinton name.

Note one thing else here, the rather lamentable attempt by Clinton to get Florida's delegates reinstated. I won't go into this in too much depth, but after agreeing not to participate, she is using the cynical pitch that she cares about the state. No - she cares about the delegates, who she never thought she'd need, but would come in pretty handy right about now. She seems to have won it by about 20%.

I'll say this in isolation: If the DNC reinstate the Florida delegates, then the Democrat party deserve to lose the next election. I don't think they will though.

It's mildly academic. This is now a race for delegates, which is why February 5th is the thing that we should care about. For now. February 5th will tell a lot of things. But the one thing January has proven has been that the American Presidential nominations will be fought on delegates and fought fiercely, and this is just the beginning.

Obama vs the Clinton tag-team

2008-02-06T15:27:00.000-08:00

25/01/2008

(I promised a Nevada note. Apologies. You aren't going to get one. My Edwards and Superdelegates notes will be forthcoming though.)

Starting along this line immediately opens me up to charges of hypocrisy when I railed against Hillary's "the big mean boys are all ganging up me" comment a while back. I'll conveniently side-step that for the time being and engage on the more central tenet of this note. That is, if there was ever any doubt that America would be getting a two-for-one deal on Clintons in event the Presidential contest goes Hillary's way, that doubt has evaporated. It's a two man show.

I've previously criticised Mark Penn and his strategy, but I can humbly acknowledge that I was a bit short-sighted in this. This one-two punch method has his nasty, grubby fingerprints all over it and, to my relative (and perhaps naive) disbelief, it actually seems to be working. Obama has now had to descend into the gutter and engage the Clinton machine on its own terms. This doesn't necessarily compromise his pledge not to engage in a mud-slinging contest with the other candidates. As far as I'm concerned, surrogates are fair game, though I'd prefer the war was engaged between them.

However, therein lies the rub. You can't deploy David Axelrod (or even Michelle Obama, much as I love her) to take on Bill Clinton. You need the big guns, and given Obama's relative newcomer status, there aren't too many of them in his camp, at least not in the form of prominent politicians. In fact, there aren't many figures in Democratic party itself to rival him in terms of heavyweight status. After all, we're talking about the first Democrat since Roosevelt to serve two consecutive terms. If his political captital was translated into a relative dollar amount, it would probably be capable of covering the sub-prime losses. Short of resurrecting John F Kennedy himself, there's not much that competes.

So Barack Obama himself must take the task of rebutting some of the utter tripe that Bill Clinton has been coming out with about him. This is a tough approach, because it involves fighting a war on two fronts, especially given that Obama needs to start putting policy specifics (and I know he has them) at the front of his campaign. However, this is the only approach that can sensibly be taken. They're ramping up the attacks, and using the classic disingenuous pose of accusing Obama of doing exactly what they are about to.

Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton sets Bill loose in South Carolina while campaigning for Super Tuesday herself. She can afford to do this. Nevada's big lesson is that it seems very likely that the African-American vote will weigh very favourably for Obama. If Clinton loses, she can afford to chalk it up to a "racial thing" and will probably hit back at Obama for playing the race card. Secondly she (or more probably, Mark Penn) can shrug it off and say that she didn't really seriously campaign there, so a loss there is no big deal.

My instinct is that the Clinton campaign in its current form cannot be sustained for too long before it starts to really sour things against them. Clinton is heavily mortgaging the political good will within the party by consistently railing against the only candidate in years to make Democrats feel good about themselves. Ironically this sees the Clinton machine benefiting from the very thing it was bemoaning in Iowa - the shortened Primary season. All they need to do is make this fly until the 5th of February and it may be that it works well enough to make things very difficult for Obama, assuming that the statistics from Nevada and New Hampshire, as well as the polls from South Carolina, remain reflective of the support of the respective candidates. My hope is that it wears thin after South Carolina.

That said, it seems that Bill Clinton is getting under the skin of the media too. Although the media do not maketh the campaign, their presentation and focus of events are the recepticle through which most voters view the story. Only the die-hards will spend the weekend watching C-Span feeds and getting an unfiltered sense of the campaign. If the Clintons do collapse it will be a case of them living by the sword and very quickly dying by it. Sadly, I doubt it will happen. I think no matter what happens in the next few weeks, this is probably a battle that will go to convention floor, and it won't be a pretty one either. I think the reason most of the media gleefully and prematurely celebrated the Clinton demise was because it looked like this might just be a civlised affair. No longer. This is going to be a gritty slug-out.

A final point - the obituaries for Barack Obama's Presidential bid are beginning to appear. I think these are as premature as those written about the Clinton after Iowa. I didn't buy into those and don't buy into these. That said, the Big Mo is with Clinton at the minute. Personally though, I don't think the momentum is a popular one. It involves the Clintons pulling out all the stops, if only because of desperation.

If Clinton does win it, then it merely confirms my previously held belief that the Democratic party aren't capable of picking a candidate post-Reagan who is electable in a two-horse race. You want to throw Bill Clinton back at me as a refutation to that point? I have two words for you. Ross Perot.

I really don't think the Clintons are as electable as their campaign seems to assume they are - especially if it is against McCain or Giuliani, the only two viable candidates for the GOP but effective nonetheless. But Hillary and her husband will drag the Democrats down into the gutter to prove that they at least gave it a shot, in the name of the party they ultimately destroyed.

Obama on the other hand, can win the general election and I still believe that in this month of 2009 we will see his inauguration and a transformation in western politics.

Here's hoping at least.

On Michelle Obama and Presidential Spouses

2008-01-19T15:35:00.001-08:00

I like Michelle Obama. She's a supremely smart and articulate individual with a genuine sense of humour. Those who know me will know that I'm always a sucker those attributes, and throw in good looks and you have me sold.

I used to like Bill Clinton. As a perpetually horny teenage boy, I found it very easy to forgive his indiscretions. Even past that, he was still a charmer, and again, I quite liked that. No more really.

There's been an increased focus on Michelle in the British press over the past few days, in light of her actively stumping for her husband. She does it well, I feel, and I won't be surprised if the Obama campaign elects to step up her role and encourage the media to focus on it.

There are some very obvious and very good reasons to do this. First of all, she's from a bona fide working class background. She speaks from the heart on matters of class, and does so well. Secondly and connectedly, she speaks to women with ambition and does so in a more honest and less patronising way than the Hillary Clinton does. Finally, she is happy with the man she married. Hillary Rodham Clinton is not. No matter how many times she wields out her increasingly cranky other half, she is not proud of the choice she made in that man. Her campaign name is "Hillary" and not "Clinton". For her Senate seat, she campaigned as Hillary Rodham for the most part, and basically rode on Bill Clinton's shame to get her party support.

I suppose you could view that latter observation as positive, rather than the negative that I deem it be. Perhaps. I couldn't disagree more. Hillary Clinton is someone who has been made to look complete chump for essentially enabling her husband's sex addiction. Does that really make her a strong person? I'd say no. If you disagree, please say and give some pretty good reasons why you do. I'll be happy to rebut all of them.

If feminists want to wax lyrical about the progress of a Clinton victory, they should look at the baggage she will bring back to White House. Probably the most shameful of public sexual histories that ever did exist, with Hillary content to continue with it. She may purport to break the "glass ceiling" by getting to the White House, but will succeed only in letting shards of glass drop along the rest of her gender.

Michelle Obama on the other hand has a genuine hand in how Barack works. She charmed him in their initial courtship. She was the primary earner in the family for a long while. She had the veto on every political ambition that her husband has ever hand. She has handled the travails of the campaign with mixture of class and gusto that is just astounding. When you examine her and her relationship with her husband, you see the true feminist dream and a genuine role model for women.

It's been said about Hillary Clinton as a positive flowing from Bill's presidency that behind every great man, there is a great woman. With Barack Obama, the following is true: Alongside a great man stands a great woman.

I know that when Barack says that he has infinite respect for his wife, he actually means it, and I'm pretty sure that when Michelle Obama stands by her man, she does it for the right reasons.

I like her.

***

Pete

PS - I'll write on Nevada tomorrow.

Obama vs Partisanship

2008-01-19T15:34:00.000-08:00

The New York Post carried an opinion piece the other day stating that the "real fairytale" of an Obama campaign was the idea that a cross partisan consensus could be built and effectively maintained. In it, there was a telling agreement with uber-liberal Paul Krugman (for British readers, the Post can be closely drawn with the Daily Mail in terms of politics) that said that partisanship was the only way of getting things done, and the only legitimate game of elected officials.

In other words, the piece was saying this: All liberals and conservatives should agree one thing - they are enemies.

Somebody asked me the other day why I supported Obama. I guess I had no real answer for them because I've taken that particular truth to be self evident since November 2006, and not really thought about justifying myself. However, this argument, and the ones that have essentially been levied by Clinton and, to a lesser extent, Edwards against the Obama stump have solidified my faith in this matter.

There is a feeling, not only in America, but in the West at large, that politics is merely the battlefield for competing ideologies. It's been this way for at least as long as I can remember, and as far as my history can tell me, for most of the 20th century, save for wartime. It's become sharper of late. A real sense among liberals that conservatives are evil and vice versa. Straw men are built and burned with aplomb and applause. We dehumanise George Bush in the same way that the right dehumanised Bill Clinton as if we have the sole entitlement to the moral and political high-ground.

The reason I support Obama is because he doesn't believe in the high ground and even more because he doesn't believe in entitlement. He recently, and it seems controversially, made positive allusions to Ronald Reagan. The contemporary liberal thought puts Reagan mildly close to Hitler in terms of his legacy, and the blogosphere and the other candidates have leapt on this with an enthusiasm that is sickeningly disingenuous. It wasn't an endorsement. For those who didn't work it out yet, here's what Barack was saying:

"Reagan changed the direction of America because America wanted it. The man won 49 states the next time round. You want the liberal version of Reagan? That's me."

Unless you're an idiot, this speaks for itself. He doesn't favour two-bit, incremental change in the midst of a political war of attrition. He wants genuine progress that is achievable only through consensus and agreement. This is what the founding fathers wanted, it's what Lincoln espoused, it's what Roosevelt achieved and what Robert Kennedy preached. Like Obama, they wanted a Union, not an eternal political conflict that was the ultimate expression of self-destruction.

Barack Obama recently said that his favourite TV programme was The Wire. For those unfamiliar with the show, on the surface it is a crime drama that examines all facets of the world of law, justice and enforcement, as well as providing a rather biting commentary on the American situation. However, a deeper subtext is that the institutions that currently exist are inherently flawed because of the false hopes that their leaders provide to those who are the true members. Whether it be politicians, unions, the police force or organised criminals, it describes a system that is stunted and broken. Those same leaders have an entrenched interest in keeping each institution combative and counter-productive, rather than thinking forward on the true interests of those they purport to benefit.

The same is true of most politicians these days. It works for them to perpetuate an "us and them" agenda in the short term, because it plays into the fears of those who rally around it. What Obama has done is remarkable. From his keynote speech in 2004 to date, he has embraced the collective efforts of all those he has encountered, and resolved to act in what he feels are the best interests of all Americans, not just the ones that voted for him. He has remembered that proper, responsible national service is for the country at large, not just the Democratic party or the liberal blogosphere. Most importantly, he has gained unprecedented support under such a banner.

I end with a rather lengthy Bobby Kennedy speech extract that I feel is both apt and sums up my feelings on the matter:

"When you teach a man to hate and fear his brother, when you teach that he is a lesser man because of his color or his beliefs or the policies he pursues, when you teach that those who differ from you threaten your freedom or your job or your family, then you also learn to confront others not as fellow citizens but as enemies, to be met not with cooperation but with conquest; to be subjugated and mastered.

We learn, at the last, to look at our brothers as aliens, men with whom we share a city, but not a community; men bound to us in common dwelling, but not in common effort. We learn to share only a common fear, only a common desire to retreat from each other, only a common impulse to meet disagreement with force. For all this, there are no final answers.

Yet we know what we must do. It is to achieve true justice among our fellow citizens. The question is not what programs we should seek to enact. The question is whether we can find in our own midst and in our own hearts that leadership of humane purpose that will recognize the terrible truths of our existence.

We must admit the vanity of our false distinctions among men and learn to find our own advancement in the search for the advancement of others. We must admit in ourselves that our own children's future cannot be built on the misfortunes of others. We must recognize that this short life can neither be ennobled or enriched by hatred or revenge.

Our lives on this planet are too short and the work to be done too great to let this spirit flourish any longer in our land. Of course we cannot vanquish it with a program, nor with a resolution.

But we can perhaps remember, if only for a time, that those who live with us are our brothers, that they share with us the same short moment of life; that they seek, as do we, nothing but the chance to live out their lives in purpose and in happiness, winning what satisfaction and fulfillment they can.

Surely, this bond of common faith, this bond of common goal, can begin to teach us something. Surely, we can learn, at least, to look at those around us as fellow men, and surely we can begin to work a little harder to bind up the wounds among us and to become in our own hearts brothers and countrymen once again."

This is the Obama message also. I hope it carries in Nevada tonight and beyond.

***

Pete

New Hampshire Analysis and Reasons to Feel Good

2008-01-19T15:33:00.002-08:00

There was one clear loser last night, and that was the media.

In the run up to the final count, you couldn't move for obituaries on the Clinton dynasty and predictions of double-digit victories for Obama. Neither happened. Instead at the final count we have Clinton at 39% to Obama's 36%. This was basically the count from the outset, when only 8% of districts were in. At the time, it was disheartening. How could it not have been? The expectation was immense.

Expect the pundits to chew on this for a few weeks: Was it the crying game? Was it the Bradley factor? Did McCain's surge in support from independents detract from Barack's base? Was Iowa just a blip? Is Clinton actually inevitable? And so on.

I won't go into these in turn, they probably all had a part to play. However, I'm torn on the crying thing. On the one hand, I don't want to assume that women are so easily duped into voting for a female candidate just because she is seen as capable of crying. On the other hand, if it was the crying then it's a good thing for the Obama campaign for a number of reasons. Firstly, it's a one-time get out of jail card. She won't be able to do it again, or it will seem, genuine or not, like a classic piece of Clintonian theatre. Secondly, if women voters elsewhere get a sense that the New Hampshire gals were duped, there will be a backlash. We've seen in Iowa a situation where her gender base is willing to go to Obama, so Clinton may not carry the female vote as easily it is suggested she now will. Finally, I think she's put herself into a bit of a corner here and it does little for her "electability" argument, which I have a feeling will re-emerge in South Carolina. And, sorry to sound sexist here, she can't really play the aggressive hawk in the debates anymore with any level of integrity. The US is electing a President, not lobbying for the right of women to cry in public after two weeks of hard campaigning.

Overall, this could be the most genuine glimpse into Hillary's soul we've ever had. It's possible, and for my money, it is. But there's the kicker. After all, she was the one who cockily said "now comes the fun par?" before her descent into negativity and innuendo. It's hard to feel sorry for her at this juncture. A final point: if this was genuine, it's actually also quite disturbing. It shows that there is such a sense of entitlement lurking within Clinton, and a rather creepy personal reaction that the American public isn't paying it.

Back to Obama. I'm going to point out firstly that he technically didn't lose New Hampshire at all. He got the same number of delegates as Clinton. Nine each. And the "super-delegates" of NH actually favoured him 3-2 in the end. I'll write more on super-delegates another time.

Of course, share of the vote counts in the eyes of the media, especially when you're expecting a double-digit result in the opposite direction. Given the possibility of that in the minds of Obama supporters, you'd be entitled to feel disappointed. You wouldn't be correct in that feeling though, and here's a few reasons why.

1. Remember, New Hampshire was supposed to be Clinton's Firewall in this race. That meant that a few weeks ago, the polls and the pundits were expecting her to put the opposition out of contention with her NH standing, no matter the Iowa result. Instead, she made a minor comeback by less than 3% over someone who two weeks ago she was polling 13% against in the state.

2. Insurgent candidates usually fall after an early setback for one reason, and one reason alone: money. Let's remember, that if this comes down to state-by-state battle, Obama has the resources and organisation to match her dollar-for-dollar, activist-for-activist.

3. There are signs of union endorsements coming Obama's way. A couple of prominent Nevada unions look set to make him their man, and this will probably just be the beginning. The reason one Union cited? That Barack was a man "who could take the campaign all the way to November". This is a sign of Democratic bases waking up to the fact that Clinton is no longer in line for a coronation. She's in line for a very tough fight and there is a credible and superior alternative.

4. Florida. If there was another Clinton firewall before the 5th of February, this was it. Older voters seem to love the Clintons, and this would have paid serious dividends. Unfortunately for them, the state is basically meaningless now, because it's been stripped of its delegates and no candidate is going to campaign there. That said, with a base loyal Clinton, a win for Obama would be severe moral victory for the campaign at large. A win for Clinton is to be expected, so won't be big news.

5. Look again. The polls weren't all wrong. If you look at them, the final outcome seems to show that his level of support stayed consistent. It was Hillary who surged at the last minute. After all, there were enough undecideds in the polls for that to happen if you took numbers away from Edwards and Richardson. The lesson here? Obama seems to be building a consistent and loyal base. When he hits a high in the polls, he doesn't fall.

6. Obama's speech was inspired and soaring. This one was reminiscent of JFK. He turned a disappointed crowd into a rapt audience who would have done anything for the man. It was better than Iowa, and it was good preparation for South Carolina. "Yes we can!" was good, "Yes we did!" would also have been accurate.

Ultimately, this is a setback from a position that, a few months ago, no one expected Obama would hold, to a position which most said it would be improbable that he could hold. In other words, in the long game (and make no mistake, this is most definitely a long game) the past week taken as a whole has been a significant success for Barack. Insurgent campaigns fail for another reason as well, and that is lack of steam, and demoralisation. This will not happen to an Obama campaign. His supporters are now more sober and determined than ever. He remains a once in a generation candidate, one that will not be abandoned in a race that is breaking turnout records left, right and center.

All that said, nothing would have pleased me more than a double-digit New Hampshire victory, save maybe Clinton dropping out of the race. But as far as I'm concerned, a negative reaction to what has happened this year in this campaign is kind of like meeting a beautiful stranger who you never hoped would find you attractive, charming them to pieces, having two nights in a row of great sex with them and then being disappointed that they didn't say "I love you" yet. You need perspective in these things.

This is an improbable journey, as the man himself said, and it is by no means over.

New Hampshire Primary - LIVE

2008-01-19T15:33:00.001-08:00

Part one is a preamble, followed by a brief intermission on my conversation with Reuters today

Part two is on events as they unfold.

Hope you read/enjoy. Full analysis tomorrow.

***PART ONE - THE PREAMBLE

I'm doing this as the night goes on, rather than a few days late as last time, so it should be a bit more narrative, for what that's worth. Insomnia sometimes has it's upsides I guess. As an opener, I am a little concerned that the media's expectations of the Obama bounce. They are predicting double digits, and while I'm happy for that to happen, if it doesn't happen for whatever reason, and there's slimmer margin of victory, they may just declare Clinton the "comeback kid".

That said, Obama has remained calm throughout the five days, and he himself has not overplayed expectations. Neither has his campaign team, to their credit. In fact, taking a step back, it is well to remember that only a week ago he was facing polls with Clinton ahead to the same degree that he was. Even if he doesn't get the magic double digits, or there's a relative shock upset and he doesn't win, it's a departure from the perceived wisdom of a few weeks ago that this is Clinton's Firewall and strong state for the former first lady. The key then becomes to take South Carolina in a fair fashion, which he should be set to do.

Actually there's an upside. If Hillary better than expected in New Hampshire, it's probable that Mark Penn will stay at the head of her campaign. Given my opinion that he's a gargantuan idiot, this can only be a good thing. Heaven forbid that the Clinton campaign actually gets a sense that it isn't the mid-90s any more. However, on the downside, it opens up the distinct possibilty that the Clinton Machine will take off the gloves and go very negative.

END OF PART ONE***

I got interviewed by a guy from Reuters today about the impact of the Obama phenomenon worldwide. I'm not sure if he'll use what I said in his piece. I bigged up the UK for Obama group, and it would be cool to get some extra coverage on that, and maybe ride a bit further with it down the line.

***PART TWO - THE RESULTS

01:25AM Ok, results are coming in. It is so tense, I can barely describe it. McCain has been called as the winner on most of the networks. With only 12% reporting but with exit poll analysis factored in I think this is a fair call. While we're here, I quite like McCain. I liked him in 2000 and if there's a Republican with a realistic prospect of success, I'm not unhappy with him being it. I may do a note on the GOP race before February 5th. I may not.

01:40AM It's 40% to 36% in favour of Clinton right now with 16% of precincts reporting. CNN are calling John Edwards at third. This may be important later. He's running at 17% right now, down 5% from a general average of 22%. More on this later.

01:46AM Romney speaks. I have to say, he really looks how I imagine a young Vice-President Daniels (from the latest series of 24) to look. He congratulates McCain with more class than I would have expected of him. Oddly, he's using the change line from the Democrat race. Almost echoing the line of Edwards and Obama. Strange. I actually like the words coming out of his mouth right now, but having witnessed his campaign, can only gawp at how ultimately disingenuous it is.

01:58AM It's going to be a long night. Huckabee is to speak now. He reminds me of President Logan from 24 while we're on the topic. I'm not a huge fan of evangelicals in politics, but I've got to say that Huckabee does come across as a nice enough guy, and to his credit he has shaken up the GOP race, regardless of what I feel about his positions. On the Dem race, it's still close. Clinton has the edge right now.

02:11AM Here's McCain to speak. I'll confess, this is the first speech of his that I've watched. He proclaims himself the Comeback Kid, and he's right. Three months ago he was considered a hair away from dropping out of the race. He speaks with a sense of dignity that is hard not to respect. He's playing the maverick card pretty strongly and that's an admirable position to take. He fired his campaign staff for suggesting otherwise, and it would seem that his position has been vindicated. That said, he still has the toughest of races ahead of him. I personally wish him luck. There has to be a GOP candidate, and I hope it is he. His supporters at this speech sound like idiots though. Overall, an incredibly classy speech, so congratulations to him. I do like "Johnny B Good" as an end to his speech.

02:26AM I don't know why the networks keep talking about this being a bad night for Giuliani, as they did in Iowa. He didn't campaign to any substantial degree in either state. That's not his campaign and it's dumb to call right now. He's playing a Super-Duper Tuesday game. It's going to be a lot tighter now that McCain has posted so well. He will get a fair surge in the intervening states.

02:33AM Two delegates each so far. It's still tight. College towns have yet to come in. Keep the faith. Pundits are noting the strong showing for McCain and the Independent votes are going.

02:40AM CNN are reporting a projected 5 to 4 delegates in favour of Obama. Again, this is based on current poll returns and exit polls. FOX exit polls had it at 39% to 36% in favour of Obama. CNN report that the gender gap is back. Older voters favour Clinton, younger Obama, the latter by a bigger margin, but making a lesser impact in terms of turnout. In other words we're not seeing the same demographic patterns that we did in Iowa.

02:45AM Ron Paul speaks. I... I really don't want to give this idiot campaign any coverage. I'll give him a nod for having organised it so tightly. On every opinion piece that I've seen there is always at least one ridiculous comment that Ron Paul is basically the second coming, to an extent that is completely unrepresentative of his presence in the campaign.

02:51AM Some idiot on CNN just said that it was a mistake for Obama to be humble about his poll successes. Stupid analysis. He didn't on expectations, and no matter the result, that was the smart move. The only group playing on expectations was the media.

03:23AM Eight delegates each for Obama and Clinton. 39% to 36% still in her favour.

03:35AM I can't go on any further. It looks like it's going to be closer than the polls suggested. As I go to bed, the Associated Press has called it for Clinton. CNN too now, and Obama just conceded. It's looking like there's a less than 5% in it though and Obama will get close to Clinton in terms of the number of delegates, if not the same. I'll give you my full perspective tomorrow.

On the New Hampshire Debates

2008-01-19T15:32:00.000-08:00

I was going to do a lengthy post on the debates, but they went to 4am and I didn't get coherent notes down, but from memory, here goes.

Some points:

Obama looked presidential, no two ways about it. He looks, sounds and acts like the front-runner. More importantly, the other candidates treat him as such. I was a tiny bit disappointed in his response to the final question, not because of its content, but because it matched what Hillary said, and I wanted something more. That said, it was the perfectly sensible approach to do, and the question was designed to elicit a gaffe (for those who didn't see, it was "Is there anything in the past debates you regret saying?").

Beyond that, I won't say much about his performance. He's clearly found his stride and spoke with that classic gravitas that his almost seductive baritone elicits.

Clinton, in the midst of a number of attacks made the rather pissy point that the US supposedly elected a "likable" President in 2000 and that that was a mistake. I won't dignify that insinuation with a response. She then reeled off a list her prior achievements after attacking the finer points of some of Obama's positions. Most of the latter was rather disingenuous, and Barack, wisely I think, didn't really rise to them.

She then invited Edwards to attack Obama, which he used as an opportunity to defend him and then launch an attack on Clinton herself. The media has heavily publicised this as a new Edwards tactic. Maybe so, but I also think that he could have stayed above the fray without going to Obama's aid, and without doing so on first name terms. In fact, they both seemed rather congenial towards one another throughout, though this was very much an overture by Edwards. I think he's hedging his bets for a nod on the Obama ticket (he certainly won't get on a Clinton ticket after last night.)

As I said in my previous note, she hasn't improved and won't. Aside from a transparent attempt to humanise herself, which came across in a very stilted way, it was the same performance as ever.

Short of leading him into an almighty gaffe, it would be hard for her to have done much with this debate, and although Mark Penn has been trying to spin it her way (without merit) the media just aren't biting. The best the pro-Clinton media has to say is that the debate "rose questions about Obama that ought to be examined". Beside being a weak line of argument (as weak as Clinton's "tried and tested" mantra) this simply won't happen. There's two days left until the Primary. Say what you will about the unreliability of the "Big Mo'" it should carry Obama through. The RCP poll average has swung beyond the margin of error in Barack's favour in the space of four days. For all my skepticism about polls, this can only be good.

Edwards performance wasn't bad. I find his populist message very off-putting at times, like being punched in the stomach by Michael Moore, but I guess I'm so used to hearing it that I was able to appreciate the nuances in what he was saying. He emphasised the importance of the race as one that should be dominated by "the agents of change" as opposed to the "status quo" and made it plainly clear that he included himself and Obama in the former, and Clinton in the latter. Of course, the fact that he almost leaped to Barack's defense against a couple of Clinton's attacks endears him to me all the more.

Some pundits have suggested that his strategy is to see if Clinton can be significantly weakened to allow him a chance to regain a place in the race. This doesn't seem particularly logical to me. That strategy would involve a NH result where Clinton was third again,which seems unlikely. Although given that I've called Edwards as being out of the race already, I suppose this is an interesting hedge to keep a place on the ticket open.

Which leads me to Richardson. The press was generally impressed with his performance and so was I. He's not caught my attention so much in previous debates, if only because of the previously wide field of candidates, but last night I really enjoyed his contributions. His tag-line "what's wrong with experience?" is deceptive, and it seems the media realised that.

I think it was a very effective audition for a place on the ticket of the victor, no matter who he thought it to be. Though he revealed his hand a little bit when he stated that a person who lacked experience was not precluded from the job. This was in response to question that was clearly designed to elicit a leaning towards Clinton or Obama, and he did so for the latter. I'll write another time as to why I think Obama-Richardson would be a good ticket, but I have a feeling the New Mexico Governor agrees with me on this.

For Obama, it's been said that David Axelrod himself couldn't have scripted it better.

I agree.

***

Pete Start

***

POSTSCRIPT: The polls seem to do so as well. The second that I finish this note, the latest RCP average is +7.7 in favour of Obama. A week ago, it was +7 Clinton. Way beyond the dread margin of error.

On Iowa

2008-01-19T15:31:00.000-08:00

Barack Obama won the Iowa caucus. He won by a clear 8%, which is more than most polls favoured him doing at any stage of the race. If I'm honest, even I was expecting it to be tighter. I even had a nightmare that Chris Dodd had beaten the lot, with Obama in third place, although in reality this is as likely as most people having heard of Chris Dodd.

Clinton is by no means down and out by any stretch of the imagination. New Hampshire is consistently referred to as her "Firewall", and it would take a victory there as well as the next primary, in South Carolina, to seal the deal for Barack Obama. Even then, a powerful showing in Florida could push her over the edge on Super Tuesday, when some 22 states hold their primaries. That said for supporters of Obama there is reason to be optimistic, as well as reasons not to become complacent.

This race showed a number of important things:

1. A predominately white electorate is perfectly happy to vote, in large numbers, Republicans included, for a candidate of African-American origin in a Mid-western state. There will be a lot of squabbling among the more idiotic liberals at the racist undertones of this observation (something I won't even dignify with a response), still more on the fact that he is not "very black". Both of these miss the point. The latter is a ridiculous observation, racism isn't a percentages game. A racist is a racist, and generally doesn't get caught up in the finer points of heredity, nor do they pay heed to how "white" someone acts (yet another ridiculous point). To them, it's white or bust. Plus, most out and out racists aren't voting Democrat in any event.

2. Women, Clinton's core constituency, did not buy into the idea that they should vote on gender lines. Maybe some did, but the majority (last figure OI read was 5%) went with Obama. To me, this is more important than the race thing (but then I've never believed that the majority of Americans are the bigoted morons that the Guardian et al make them out to be).

3. "If you book them, they will come" was the oft repeated epithet in Wayne's World 2. Many scoffed at the idea that an Obama campaign could motive a youth vote, let alone a youth caucus. Well, Barack listened to the ghost of Jim Morrison, he booked them, and they came. This says two things. Firstly, there is more genuine sense of movement and change among young people. Unlike Howard Dean in 2004, there is something substantial going on. Secondly, it shows the sheer sophistication of his electoral machine. Despite the fact that he is new to Presidential politics, he is an extremely effective organiser with an excellent team of people behind him. Say what you will about the role of President - the executive branch of government is more than just one man.

4. I think the polls aren't particularly reliable in this race. As far as IA is concerned, they were never going to be, such is the nature of the caucus, but I think that there is a genuine under-representation of Obama supporters, and I think this is acute in those attending college. One of a number of examples is that the vast majority of polls are conducted by phoning residential numbers. If your main point of contact is a mobile phone, the norm for most students, you don't get counted in the polls. For this, and other reasons I reckon Clinton's lead is being overestimated by pollsters to some degree.

5. Contrary to what some pundits say, I think John Edwards is out of the race. The bedrock of his campaign was spending big and winning big in Iowa, and riding the momentum that that might have generated. He'll fight New Hampshire on the chance that Clinton going negative (see below) is effective, but save an almighty gaffe from Obama, it's unlikely he'll capitalise. He boasts he was outspent significantly by the other candidates. This is true. But the point is that they CAN outspend him, and afford to do so. Coming second in Iowa has stopped people talking about him, and therefore limits the amount of money that he can raise. If, and when, he does bow out, the general feeling is that he will endorse Obama, which will be key for latter.

And a few thoughts about the speeches:

Obama's had the atmosphere of a national convention speech. Obama has been criticised at times for his inconsistency, but it's generally accepted that the mean standard of his performances have increased. I think he can only get better, and I think that he's found his stride. The content will be criticised by the Clinton camp et al for lacking in substantive policy, but I don't think it really was the occasion for detailed statements in any event. Where some people make JFK comparisons, I was more reminded of Roosevelt's 1932 inauguration speech. The reaction was just electric and gave a true sense of a new movement in American politics.

I didn't like Edwards speech. He was about as gracious in defeat as John McEnroe. He also wasted the network coverage, with, oddly, a campaign speech that seemed to be targetted at Iowa, which he just lost. He still thinks he's in the running, and I guess you can't blame him. The 0.28% over Clinton speaks a completely disproportionately in the media, and is still only in the race by the thinnest of margins.

Clinton's speeches haven't improved and I don't think they ever will. She's been molded too deeply and for too long as the centrist iron-lasy . The very fact that at any point in the race she has to be "humanised" by her campaign speaks volumes. She made a good point about the turnout for the Democrats. It's a grand foretelling for the General Election in November, and one that is, ironically, probably down to Obama, who will also be the chief beneficiary of it. That said, the content, for what it was worth, was as good as it could have been. It definitely beat Edwards. It was also as abstract as Obama's too, but this probably won't be noted.

On the second tier:

Joe Biden is a nice guy and Chris Dodd has a lot of class. Any other election and I'd probably be saying it was a damn shame they didn't get more coverage. It's a pity they weren't in the running in 2000, maybe on the same ticket. A far more accomplished and dignified individual than Al Gore, I have little doubt that he would have floored George Bush Junior (as he was then known). Ah well. One for the ages I guess.

Richardson didn't give a speech, or if he did I couldn't find it on the web. For the record, at this stage I'm willing to bet on an Obama-Richardson ticket for a whole raft of reasons I won't go into here.

Final thoughts:

Clinton isn't out yet. She will go more negative, the question remaining is how directly. If she were to NH by negativity, it would cost her deeply in South Carolina. There won't be a lot, if any momentum from such a win, and it wouldn't be by a great margin either.

The factor that will have sealed her fate in the event of an Obama nomination? Her chief strategist, Mark Penn. He and his camp have treated Obama, and more importantly, the Democrat electorate with little short of contempt and assumed that at best they are naive and at worst, stupid. Throughout the campaign he has been condescending and smug, something shared by the rest of camp Clinton. He is running a 2002 campaign and will live to regret it.

Ultimately, the "Clinton Machine" is just that. A machine. It has substantial fundraising powers and is utterly ruthless and mechanical. Obama is leading a movement and a substantial movement at that. Where Clinton is an insular entity, the Obama effect has a life of its own. And unlike past underdog candidates, he can match her dollar-for-dollar throughout the fight.

There's still a long road ahead, but there's every reason to be incredibly happy with what has gone so far. I'm just glad that New Hampshire is on the east coast, so I can watch the results unfold on Tuesday.

Welcome

2008-01-19T15:25:00.000-08:00

I created this blog as an outlet for why one of the most dynamic and inspirational politicians of my generation should become President of the United States, a country for which I have a great affection. I've written at length on Barack Obama on Facebook, but wanted this to be an actual record of international support for an individual who I feel is capable of changing the face of America.

I hope you enjoy. I start with my take on Iowa.

Pete