Lessons from Obama?
Martin Kettle in the Guardian suggests:
Labour high command, past and present, is privately conflicted about Obama. They want a Democrat to win in November, but they do not really want it to be Obama. Labour resents Hillary Clinton’s defeat this year almost as much as the Clintons do. They looked at Clinton and saw someone they recognised. They thought, somewhat naively, that she was the safe and therefore the better choice. That is why there is a kind of schadenfreude in Labour circles about the way the campaign has gone in the past two weeks. It is as though Labour people almost want the Democrats to lose this year, because in some twisted way that outcome would validate their own failure. At one level a lot of them feel very threatened by Obama and his success.
There may well be some truth in this and there certainly is truth in Kettle’s comments about the failure of many in the U.K to recognise just how different American politics is from our own. The problem, however, with Kettle’s otherwise typically astute analysis is in his conclusion:
He (Obama) offers a different political temper for different political times. He embodies hope and change and still, perhaps, victory. Brown offers none of these. Obama’s lesson is staring Labour in the face – but Labour seems simply too demoralised now to learn it.
It is of course, undoubtedly true that Brown does not embody hope and change, let alone a spirit of victory. Merely seeing his glum face on television reminds Labour supporters of the dreadful error of judgement they made. But, having pointed out how very different the two polities are, Kettle then returns to the old method of suggesting there is a lesson for Labour to learn from Obama’s success. I am really not sure there is much Labour can learn and here are a few reasons why.
1. Obama has energised the Democratic base in a way that John Kerry couldn’t four years ago and with a skill which most of his rivals for the nomination could not get close to matching. He has energised it mostly through excellent rhetoric which is based upon a feel-good optimism and a visceral dislike of the Bush administration. Even if Labour possessed a charismatic figure (which it currently does not), British political culture, particularly at this moment in time, is not exactly open to such an approach. There is not a visceral hatred of the Conservative Party anymore (memories have faded) and the Labour Party no longer has a base, or if it still does, it certainly doesn’t want to energise the trade union activists.
2. The politics of hope, the politics of change, the politics of aspiration – the widespread cynicism in British society towards politics makes Obama-style rhetoric unlikely to resonate. A major part of the problem is the media of course. In the U.S the liberal media saw and heard Obama and loved him and set about enthusiastically charting the wonderful ’story’ of his rise to president. If an optimistic Obama figure did emerge in bitter Britain he would be mocked ruthlessly in print and on television. Read some Obama speeches and put them in a UK context and ask yourself if the whole of the political class (including the media) would not be laughing out loud.
3. Obama is able to frame his appeal in terms of a liberal form of patriotism – this is absolutely crucial to his success. While privately many Democratic activists may roll their eyes when there is talk of the American dream or American ‘exceptionalism’ – in public they are able to comfortably put forward their combination – of not-quite social-democratic notions of the enabling state and aspirational individualism – as a patriotic package. Tony Blair, briefly, managed to manufacture and popularise some form of progressive patriotism (the ‘Cool Britannia’ period) but patriotism, feel-good politics about being British is a minefield in contemporary UK politics. Brown has tried to ignite some enthusiasm for Britishness but it has utterly failed. Celtic nationalisms, which Labour (for good reasons at the time), de facto allied themselves with, have undermined Labour’s position in Scottish and Welsh heartlands. English (and what remains of British) nationalism remains essentially reactionary, defining itself by dislike of Europe and/or America. British culture is sarcastic, pessimistic and cynical – hardly fertile ground for the politics of hope.
4. The Obama story itself – the son of a Kenyan who can rise to be president – resonates beautifully in America and is a major factor in explaining the momentum Obama was able to pick up and maintain. But such a story remains sadly unthinkable in the U.K., however much Brits may like to consider themselves more tolerant and superior to ‘racist Americans’. British voters elect neo-Nazis to their local councils.
5. Kettle suggest that one of the lessons to be learnt from Obama is boldness:
Both Blair and Brown (Brown in particular) have always been haunted by the fear that their success could suddenly go irreversibly wrong. It is why they are such frightened control freaks. They worry that Britain is, at heart, a Tory-voting nation that must be appeased not challenged. And so, having feared the backlash so much, they have now helped to make it happen and seem powerless to do anything about it.
But Obama has not challenged the Republican voters in a bold way at all – he has reassured them he is a patriotic, God-fearing Christian, a decent family man, pro-military, tough on terrorism (but more effective) who wants to help them deal with rising fuel costs and the credit crunch. His ‘hope’ and ‘change’ is for everyone – conservatives included. In that sense he could not be more Blairite.
Labour has a leadership crisis because it has no effective leadership and (as yet) no credible alternative leadership. If there is an early lesson to be learnt from the Democrats it is a very modest and simple one – that a political party needs to be able to choose from more than one candidate for leader.
The Democrats could have gone for Hillary Clinton or John Edwards. Like them or not, the Republicans had a host of credible leadership contenders aside from McCain. Labour had one, chosen unopposed.
Labour’s number one problem, staring its supporters in the face every day, is how to resolve the absence of leadership talent in the party.
Comments
| 12 September 2008, 2:26 pm |
The problem here is that Obama is not what he seems. He is a perfectly conventional liberal Chicago-machine politician; he has links to organized crime, the Muslim Brotherhood (through advisors), aging revolutionaries (the Ayers), modern revolutionaries (Soros) and his old friends from his “community organizing” days are in big trouble back home.
See Michelle Malkin on ACORNwatch and be stunned at the scale of corruption in the Democratic Party. Accusations of vote rigging in Florida? How about Democratic counties in Arkansas throwing away absentee ballots in 2004? Denying the military vote, perhaps?
And then there is friend Obama’s little problem with the truth… see repeated “gaffes” on his past, his senate record and his former church.
Obama is a very smooth political operator from the dirty politics of Chicago.
As for the Labour Party, speaking as a member, we’re fucked. The worry for me is that the left are going to make a strong bid with union backing for the leadership and policy direction after the inevitable defeat – which, if GB does not resign will be a landslide to the Conservatives.
| 12 September 2008, 2:26 pm |
The main problem is that Labour is has been in power. Any Labour alternative must almost certainly be found in the present Cabinet. Obama did not have that burden.
Also, strictly speaking, Obama is not the son of a “black immigrant.”
| 12 September 2008, 2:28 pm |
Tim, yes. You’re right, I’d missed that one. His mother was American, his father visited twice. That does not make his father an immigrant.
And as I have pointed out elsewhere, there is a deliberate manipulation in called Obama “black”. Not because of his skin colour, the manipulation lies in associating him with the Afro-American community, which whom he shares nothing beyond recent politics.
| 12 September 2008, 2:29 pm |
Agree with pretty much all of that, Shabba, although I think Kettle is over-stretching with suggestions of Labour schadenfreude as the wheels come off the Obama bandwagon somewhat and, like you, I’m not that convinced Labour can learn anything from what is happening over there now. On the contrary, what we’re seeing is, I think, clear evidence that the Demcorats have learned from late-90s Labour.
| 12 September 2008, 2:49 pm |
It is silly that Kettle has chosen this moment to trot out with this article considering Obama is diving in the polls, and it appears to be spreading from state to state.
The only thing i would agree with him on is American optimism, which frankly is a major factor in what makes the US such a great country. Also he fails to mention that it happens to be the chippy left (read Guardian) who are the most negative people of all.
| 12 September 2008, 3:01 pm |
Obama has not challenged the Republican voters in a bold way at all – he has reassured them he is a patriotic, God-fearing Christian, a decent family man, pro-military, tough on terrorism (but more effective) who wants to help them deal with rising fuel costs and the credit crunch
Oh, really? When did he manage that, then? I’d like to see any evidence that Republican voters see Obama as patriotic, God-fearing, pro-military, effective on terrorism (I take it that’ll be his proposed talks with Iran) etc.
One of the reasons Sarah Palin’s nomination acceptance speech resonated so much with US mainstream voters as well as her core constituency was her witty but merciless takedown of Obama’s self-promotion — she could only have succeeded with if the US public was not already deeply sceptical about all those areas, on each of which Obama’s actual track record, as opposed to his “reassurances”, was far from reassuring.
Contrary to the opinion of so many in Europe (and quite a few commenters on HP), the mainstream US public are not a bunch of unsophisticated and gullible fools.
| 12 September 2008, 3:16 pm |
Just a bit off topic, but the name “Shabba Goy” has always confused me. It should be either “Shabbat Goy” (in a strict transliteration), or “Shabbas Goy” (in a Polish Ashkenazic transliteration). A small thing, but it bugs me enough to distract me from your fine comments.
(Amazing, isn’t it, how petty a commentator with too much time on his hands can be)
| 12 September 2008, 3:49 pm |
‘British culture is sarcastic, pessimistic and cynical – hardly fertile ground for the politics of hope.’
Don’t you mean (considering the previous paragraph) ‘English Culture’
It is quite an important difference.
The English are very cynical about an apparent abscence of ‘cynicism’, they just don’t believe it, don’t believe in optimism other than as a cynical ploy by a chancer.
The English consistently believe things cannot get better and that next year will be worse than this.
The Celtic nations have contributed a lot of hopeful reformers for the labour party, but an obvious Labour Celt is probably less likely to be elected by Middle England than a very Tory woman, or member of an ethnic minority.
The British that did, historically favour optimism and change, left, which is part of why there is a USA, Canada, Australia and New Zealand.
Americans are not like this.
This is the biggest generalization of a difference that is generally true.
The biggest error for Gordon Brown is that he was chosen by the party not by the people.
An early general election would have been won by Labour even if a subsequent one was lost.
The biggest lesson for labour should be one of the meaning of constitutional Democracy and its priority now should be to try to rationalise the piece meal Constitutional tinkering it has commenced, not trying to hold on to the executive at all costs.
If they do not at the very least create a constitutional court role for the new Supreme Court, the seperate legislative assemblies will inevitably conflict with Westminster pulling the union apart and propelling labour into a permanent minority English party.
But hey, the Labour Party could just keep trying to look for an Obama for a US style televisual celebrity, for the endless pursuit of style over substance, oh how about a David Lammy he might be able to do the UK version of the media show?
| 12 September 2008, 3:57 pm |
A poll out today suggests much more enthusiasm by Americans for all the politicianc involved in the Preidential elections.
McCain is now viewed favorably by 56% of the nation’s voters while Obama earns positive reviews from 55% Sarah Palin is viewed favorably by 56%, Joe Biden by 53%.
Much higher figures than for any race in the last two decades, and contrary to some of comments above.
| 12 September 2008, 3:58 pm |
IMO Labour should be most interested in looking at the campaigning strategies of the Democrats (specifically the 50 state strategy) and Obama’s success in raising a huge amount of money from a mass of individual doners. Not that I can see incumbent almost universally unpopular Labour raising money from anyone, and therefore not being able to fund local organisers across the UK…but maybe one day when the electoral cycle changes again.
Richard, would you have preferred to see HRC as the Democratic candidate?
McCain has certainly gained momentum in the last couple of weeks and the polls have moved his way, but Obama has a fat load of cash and an army of activists and newly-registered voters which surely should come to his rescue.
Am very looking forward to the debates! Sarah Palin’s recent interview demonstrates she’s not as much an idiot as some of the ‘angry left’ blogs would like her to be, even if she didn’t seem to know what the Bush Doctrine is.
| 12 September 2008, 3:59 pm |
My primary identity is as a Londoner (ie born and bred) rather than English but I think that the above post is generalising just a little bit about a nation of 40 or whatever it is million people.
I have to say that the Scottish side of my family were not known for their optimism, quite the reverse.
| 12 September 2008, 4:00 pm |
* damn, donors!!
p.s In that same interview Palin reiterated the suggestion that because Alaska is within sight of Russia she must have great experience of dealing with nasty ol’Pooty.
| 12 September 2008, 4:00 pm |
I mean the metaculture most not the Kool Aid one
| 12 September 2008, 4:19 pm |
Unrelated but… he gets a lot of stick, Macca, but good on him for saying this after ‘campaigners’ asked him to reconsider his plans to play in Israel:
He told newspaper Yedioth Ahronoth: “I refused. I do what I think, and I have many friends who support Israel.”
More here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7612038.stm
| 12 September 2008, 4:35 pm |
The British that did, historically favour optimism and change
There’s some truth in this, Britain ‘chases away’ a goodly proportion of it’s optimists (mind you I’m not so optimistic about SA presently, I may have to change the parenthesized part of my handle soon to something antipodean).
Back on topic, one point, Obama’s ’success’ is far from in-the-bag.
| 12 September 2008, 4:58 pm |
LLH
Well there is that Ibsenesque gloom about Scottish dourness but then Nordics don’t find that kind of gloom incompatible with social and participatory democracy.
I was really referring to a democratic political culture and that it really does seem to be a much stronger feature, at the heart of the societies resulting from the British Isles diaspora of millions all of whom seemed to gain the Universal franchise before Englands grudging acquiescence to it (1945 election being the first without restrictions on the principle).
My experience of England and political organising at all levels is the almost paranoid obsession with secrecy, with doing deals behind the scenes or via personal contacts rather than through a public forum that assumes public business is to be debated in Public.
Anyone who has experienced a US ‘town hall’ meeting between concerned local community members vs one of the focus group driven charades of one of Nu labours great ‘listening’ consultations (too incompetent to be called Machiavellian but a lot less enabling) knows what I mean.
The kind of passivity in political affairs that one finds in England is born of the majority passivity vs minority destructive anger that comes from being deprived of a voice in matters directly relating to ones own life.
Just read the UCU activist threads on such sites as socialist Unity for a sense of the paranoid and delusional cultic behaviour that one finds among those who claim to be concerned Trade unionist activists.
Even some of the loony left tendency meetings i have attended in the US seem to be at least pragmatic enough to be able to engage in a protest.
try insisting on ‘Roberts Rules of order’ at an English community bun fight.
The strength of US democracy lies not in its Presidential election circus but at most every other level of society, so any lesson we are likely to learn from this will be the wrong one.
The UK’s political institutions are (or were at least at the macro level) more Western European than they are American and our political culture in terms of attitudes and values (as consistently revealed by long term trends in polling) are far more communitarian, redistributive and less individualistic than in the US.
What we have is an anglo-american political elite that is seduced (or its flip side envious) by the glamour of their US counterparts that bereft of ideas that reflect democratic consensus, are forever looking for another out of context, model or example or format to import for the next little game of a media targetted blaze of coverage for a demonstration project launched amid much fanfare, bread and circusses, before being dropped as media interest inevitably wanes.
Unlike in the US where outcomes actually do matter (except perhaps in presidential elections where only the media clueless do not get a 2nd term) in the UK all is substanceless process at every level of political engagement..
| 12 September 2008, 5:10 pm |
Kool Aid, though I’m a member of the Labour Party, if I were an American citizen, I would be campaigning and voting for John McCain anyway.
If I were inclined to vote Democrat, then I would have preferred Hillary Clinton, even if she is bent and still somewhat of a Leftist. I don’t know exactly why, but my political instincts tells me that HRC would have been less of a risk than BO…and my instincts have been right of late – I said that Cameron would get the nomination about six weeks before his speech and I predicted HRC would lose to BO last summer.
| 12 September 2008, 5:11 pm |
Oh, and I also said last September that Gordan Brown would be a disaster and we (the LP) should get rid of him as fast as possible and set out on a Blairite reform agenda to defeat the Tories.
| 12 September 2008, 5:18 pm |
“Shabbat Goy” (in a strict transliteration) -
Not at all. It would be either Goy Shel Shabbat (Hebrew) or Shabbes Goy (Yiddish).
| 12 September 2008, 5:19 pm |
“I also said last September that Gordan Brown would be a disaster”
I have been saying this since at least 2000, and in the present tense ;-)
| 12 September 2008, 5:25 pm |
“The strength of US democracy lies not in its Presidential election circus but at most every other level of society, so any lesson we are likely to learn from this will be the wrong one.”
Presidential elections are unedifying spectacles, and the problem with with talking about American democracy with non-Americans is that for them it is the beginning and end of the story. Truth is, there are something like 500,000 elected officials in this country, with true and carefully defined powers.
The police powers are quite complex, with different agencies from different levels of government overseeing distinct though overlapping responsibilities: municipal police, county constabulary, state police, federal agencies.
| 12 September 2008, 5:46 pm |
Mesquito is right.
Which is why the story about Sarah Palin,who as the Mayor of Wasilla, oversaw charging rape victims for forensic examinations, will go down so badly in the next few days.
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/121265.php
A fine way to appeal to Hillary voters.
| 12 September 2008, 6:11 pm |
Richard, thanks for that. I’ve checked out your blog and aquainted myself with your views. If you ever go to your constituency Labour Party meetings your opinions must be as welcome as a fart in a taxi
Tim, there’s so much stuff like that going around the liberal blogs about Palin and it doesn’t seem to be doing much damage. Questions about the Bridge to Nowhere, Troopergate, things that happened under her watch in Wasilla, may make her momentarily uncomfortable in the debates or in interviews, but they’re not bringing down the ticket. If it was discovered that she personally raped polar bears for fun that would be a proper scandal.
| 12 September 2008, 6:21 pm |
Its just getting picked up by the mainstream media.
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jfTm-bOoREGlDJnQXYG9I2CDN-wQD934SK0G0
I’d give it a few days before you judge, its far mor simple than the complex bridges and trooper emails.
| 12 September 2008, 6:24 pm |
Kool Aid: tim, subtle as ever, wants to start a conversation over the degree to which Gov. Palin hates rape victims. Why he feels this need is a mystery, as he also says her collapse and humiliation are simply a matter of time.
| 12 September 2008, 6:24 pm |
Nearly Oxfordian
12 September 2008, 5:18 pm
“Shabbat Goy” (in a strict transliteration) -
Not at all. It would be either Goy Shel Shabbat (Hebrew) or Shabbes Goy (Yiddish).
Ummm… sorry, but “Shabbat Goy” is actually correct. It’s grammatical status is the “status constructus.”
Pedants Unite!!!
| 12 September 2008, 8:02 pm |
Mesquito.
I wish you’d lean to read properly.
After the 1976 stuff?
I’d put the chances of Palin imploding at about 20%, as I’ve said before.Not inevitable.
And I’ve never claimed that she hates rape victims, just that she oversaw charging them for forensic tests.
She could however claim ignorance.
very easily.
| 12 September 2008, 8:34 pm |
Kool Aid, though I’m a member of the Labour Party, if I were an American citizen, I would be campaigning and voting for John McCain anyway.
If I were inclined to vote Democrat, then I would have preferred Hillary Clinton, even if she is bent and still somewhat of a Leftist.
If you dislike Leftists so much why are you a member of the Labour Party?
| 12 September 2008, 11:40 pm |
Palins husband suboenad.
What a shock
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jOTk11gvqDAgD0cY3i4WjI_2YOxwD935EF780
| 13 September 2008, 12:14 am |
I don’t know why anyone reads the graun/CiF for views and news on the US presidential election. It’s generally useless.
| 13 September 2008, 12:28 am |
Andrew, the reason I remain in the Labour Party is because I believe that no other party in Britain will stand up for the working man’s interests. The Tories aren’t interested and the Liberals seem rather bemused by the concept. And surely the Labour Party’s a big enough tent to include even me!
Besides there is more to the Labour Party than Leftists or what might be called in a very narrow sense, socialists. Kool Aid, yes, some of my views are unpopular but then we disagree and agree on different matters. I regularly campaign and leaflet with my constituency party, being one of the twenty or so people in my city who operate outside their wards.
| 13 September 2008, 12:31 am |
Boston Globe, March 4, 2000
McCain gets emotional at the mention of military families needing food stamps or veterans lacking health care. The outrage comes from inside: McCain’s severe war injuries prevent him from combing his hair, typing on a keyboard, or tying his shoes. Friends marvel at McCain’s encyclopedic knowledge of sports. He’s an avid fan – Ted Williams is his hero – but he can’t raise his arm above his shoulder to throw a baseball.
Stay classy, Senator Obama!
| 13 September 2008, 12:41 am |
Mesquito’s comment at 5.25pm is absolutely right. US politics is so much more local than ours and people are less cynical and more active because they can actually get things of significance done at that local level. Here in the UK local councils don’t seem to have much effective power beyond keeping the public toilets open or not in some places.
| 13 September 2008, 12:43 am |
AG, I agree with you on that!
Kool Aid, what do you mean by my opinions?
| 13 September 2008, 12:50 am |
ag:
I don’t know why that should be. As I’ve grown older and less ideological (and less universalist) I’ve come to the conclusion that America governance is basically an English inheritance.
| 13 September 2008, 1:10 am |
“While privately many Democratic activists may roll their eyes when there is talk of the American dream or American ‘exceptionalism’…..”
This seems to strike at the heart of why the Dems seem to have such a hard time selecting winning candidates for president. In the same way that liberal MSM journos are ineveidtably biassed no matter how hard they try to be objective, because they simply don’t understand the thinking of people who don’t share their own view of the world, so Dem activists inability to relate to much of mainstream America results in a pool of potential candidates that looks and thinks like them.
The dems have to a substantial extent become a patrician party, thinking of the electorate as children, and bitterly unable to understand why voters won’t vote for “what is best for them”. How ironic that so many “Democrats” view the electorate (in so many words) as morons.
| 13 September 2008, 2:01 am |
mesquito
I would say exactly the opposite. American governance was formed as the result of a revolutionary war against England.
English school children are taught that it was the ‘American war of independence’
It was a lot more than that it was a revolution against English forms of Governance, centralised, monarchical, absolutist and authoritarian.
There was tremendous support for the colonists among the middle classes who were agitating for greater politicalrepresentation.
Constitutionally America was carefully and deliberately designed never to be able to become another England ever again, and very successful it has been too, though the dynastic prince GW and his southern pre-revolutionary style of colonial governance has sought to ride rough shod over the balancing restraints in the constitution.
| 13 September 2008, 2:15 am |
I followed you up to the last graf, metta, but I’ll write that off to campaign season hyperbole.
My bible on this is Pauline Kael’s From Resistance to Revolution. In it she makes it pretty clear that they thought they were preserving their rights as Englishmen, and that it was The Mother Country that had slipped it’s moorings and was drifting into tyranny and corruption.
| 13 September 2008, 2:16 am |
And yes, yes, I know. Thomas Payne.
| 13 September 2008, 2:39 am |
roll their eyes when there is talk of the American dream or American ‘exceptionalism
I think this taps a deep vein.
I got my wish for another forum and there was a one on national service at Columbia University. This was on Obama’s home turf (alma mater) as opposed to Saddleback which was somewhat more McCain friendly. During this forum, they agreed on a lot, but I saw two key differences illustrated between the candidates, American exceptionalism vs. multilateralism and government as friend vs. something to trim back.
On exceptionalism, McCain came down unabashedly for America as the city on a shining hill. One of the interviewers, Judy Woodruff, pressed this question hard to McCain and the other Richard Stengel did, I think, Obama a disservice, by not pressing him also. As a result McCain received a defining moment while Obama stayed in the shadows.
Woodruff:…Are Americans better than people in some of these other countries? We hear the term ‘exceptionalism’ about the United States.
McCain: …We’re the only nation I know in the world really is deeply concerned about adhering to the principle all of us are created equal and endowed by our creators with certain rights. And those we have tried to bring to the world. And we have not so much militarily, but through example, through leadership, through economic assistance….
This particular American self image is a critical separator will have a major impact on this election. While I do not totally agree it as stated by McCain, I do believe America has and will continue to be a world leader on the trail to a better human condition.
Stengel blew the question and conflated ‘exceptionalism’ with ‘special‘ and Obama missed it and drifted off to something else. This will be noticed by those who will resonate with what McCain said. And I think a lot of Americans do, whether you agree with the sentiment or not. Obama has a real chance of being perceived as a better world candidate than an American one by a significant portion of the electorate.
BTW Coolest thing I thought Obama said:
And to say to young people, to say to young people, even as we’re transforming Washington, come on, we want you. We want you to get involved at every level. And by the way, you don’t even have to join government. Part of what we’re going to do is create transparency and accountability in how government works so you can be an active citizen holding your public servants and elected officials accountable. one other aspect of citizenship is paying attention to what’s taking place
| 13 September 2008, 3:04 am |
Merely seeing his glum face on television reminds Labour supporters of the dreadful error of judgement they made.
You mean Brown was elected in democratic election of party members or supporters? When did that take place?
| 13 September 2008, 3:38 am |
Labour’s problem is not an absence of leadership – this argument is often proffered by authoritarians – but an absence of ideas.
The Blairites are in permanent mourning at the loss of their dazzling icon, and everything bad that has happened since must be blamed on Brown, even though that is clearly absurd, but the reality is the party now has to decide what its ideas and philosophy are, what it stands for. Blair was never keen on that sort of stuff.
| 13 September 2008, 3:39 am |
This article was posted a couple weeks too late. Obama is slipping in the polls. As Goy mentions Obama is not adverse to proclaiming his faith in god, and conservative principles such as personal resposibility and getting people off wellfare. This are attitudes that are needed to some extent to win the general election.
But after McCain selected Palin as his v. p. the media, which is predominately democrat, has piled on her in the most snide, condescending, and adolescent way. Seriously the editorials sounded like they were written by 9th graders. Just this week there was an article in Salon, by J. Cole, that compared here to Islamic extremists; no joke, at least the author wasn’t aware he was a joke. Another in Salon had a photoshopped picture of her as a dominatrix coming on to a moose, and proclaiming her “doability” is what makes her a real threat.
So we have the media fiercely attacking the vp nominee for being a christian family values conservative. This negates Obama’s embrace of faith, and other conservative principles the he, like Bill Clinton, have embraced. These voter are left with the unavoidable conclusion that democratic politicians are hypocrites. And it is beginning to show in the polls.
| 13 September 2008, 3:42 am |
Blair, briefly, managed to manufacture and popularise some form of progressive patriotism (the ‘Cool Britannia’ period)
Hilarious. You don’t actually mean that do you?
| 13 September 2008, 3:50 am |
Celtic nationalisms, which Labour (for good reasons at the time), de facto allied themselves with, have undermined Labour’s position in Scottish and Welsh heartlands.
Support for independence in Wales is low. The SNP may be in power in Scotland, but its not because of pro-independence feelings but because of other factors.
| 13 September 2008, 3:56 am |
This article was posted a couple weeks too late. Obama is slipping in the polls
You are obviously a poll addict. Let this convention hoo haa work itself out the system, plus the Palin nonsense. Obama’s underlying position is still strong (see the EV situation, and state by state polling).
| 13 September 2008, 4:41 am |
“(see the EV situation, and state by state polling).”
Recent state polls –
WA – Obama +2
NJ – Obama + 3
PA – Obama +2
MI – Obama +2 (avg of 4)
CO & NM cannot come close to making up for polling like that.
| 13 September 2008, 5:13 am |
The reality is the party now has to decide what its ideas and philosophy are, what it stands for. Blair was never keen on that sort of stuff.
You have to be kidding don’t you? Blair never stopped talking about ideas and framing his policies as part of an overall philosophy – did other Labour governments call regular international conferences of centre-left parties to discuss, (in rough chronological order) The Third Way, Social Democracy in the 21st century, Progressive Governance etc etc?
The late Blair in particular, framed the war against terror as part of an ideological struggle for values, he talked about that all the time.
The problem is that since Blair, the Labour Party has struggled for ideas.
| 13 September 2008, 5:23 am |
DaveW
Don’t worry, these polls must look a tad worrying for us both, but that’s at the height of the Palin business and the RNC bounce.
He’s weathering well, is old Obama, although I notice that the stress of it all has given him grey hair (I am still holding out in that department; despite my advancing years, I have only one grey hair). He’s got a solid basis in EVs.
| 13 September 2008, 5:39 am |
Benjamin – Obama has to win CO, NM, and IA if nothing else changes. A lot has to change for him to win IA. WA is the only state that seems in play that I know 1st hand, and it looks like Gregoire is finally going to get here very well deserved come-uppance – and it seems that McCain has at least an outside chance of carrying WA on Rossi’s coat tails.
Obama is in serious trouble; he has lost momentumn, and some of the things he has said in the last week are utterly absurd – for example bringing up the experience of running his presidential campaign (which is run by Axelrod in any case, so even that was a lie) as being equivalent or superior to Palin’s exec experience as AK Gov. He’s desperate, and he’s sounding desparate, and the electorate can sense that.
It is going to take something significant for him to turn things around – though I agree it’;s far from In the bag for McCain. McCain is trading around 51 on InTrade, and I’m holding on to my long position at this point.
| 13 September 2008, 5:57 am |
Well, that’s not I see it. I suppose old Obama has said silly things, but for daftness just check out Palin’s interview with ABC, especially the stuff about God and foreign policy. Its beyond stupid really. Its just sad.
Anyway, we shall see how this pans out. The Reps have told some awful fibs lately, the lipstick thing, the kindergaten thing. I live far away, and just just look at all this nonsense and think its pretty sad things should be run like this.
If these sort of things work, as in get votes, then expect campaigns to get worse in the future. Race to the bottom and all that.
| 13 September 2008, 6:01 am |
“It got so bad… that FactCheck.org — one of the nonpartisan journalism websites heroically trying to strain truth amid all the sound and fury — had to put out an extraordinary news release. It chastised John McCain’s campaign for — now get this — distorting FactCheck’s debunking of distortions” LA Times.
AP notes that “even in a political culture accustomed to truth-stretching, McCain’s skirting of facts has stood out this week.”
| 13 September 2008, 6:06 am |
I agree the state by state polling is worsening for Obama though Dave, and I agree he needs to win extra states. Its pretty sad if that is based on the lies and distortions of McCain though. Not only because I support Obama, but because the at least reasonable truthful campaigning is important. There are distortions and spin from both sides, but I was shocked by some of the outright fibs by McCain campaign lately.
| 13 September 2008, 7:59 am |
“but for daftness just check out Palin’s interview with ABC, especially the stuff about God and foreign policy. Its beyond stupid really. Its just sad.”
- what did you think of Pakistan’s new Prez. getting sworn in with the ritual slaying of 2 goats to “ward off evil”? (And that guy does have his finger on the nuclear button thank you Mr Damon)
| 13 September 2008, 8:15 am |
I was not aware of that particular event, although I did catch a few of his words.
No, I was just a bit shocked, and then I suppose amused, that she clearly did not know what Gibson had just asked her about – the Bush doctrine of preemption. I mean, blimey, even I have heard of that one.
| 13 September 2008, 8:23 am |
Anyway, she’s got an interview coming up with Hannity – damn, that will be tough.
| 13 September 2008, 8:31 am |
Actually dave, a lot has to change for him to lose in Iowa
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/ia/iowa_mccain_vs_obama-209.html#polls
And in other news.
Alaska lawmakers voted to subpoena the first dude.
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jOTk11gvqDAgD0cY3i4WjI_2YOxwD935J6A80
| 13 September 2008, 8:35 am |
Benjamin – I’m a politics/news junkie, and I could not have confidently defined the “Bush Doctrine”. That’s a non-story. As for the rest – politics as usual; Obama is playing similar games. It’s not a good thing, but nobody should pretend to be surprised.
Palin has demonstarted an ability to connect with an important part of the electorate, that neither Obama nor McCain nor Biden has been able to reach effectively; her whole presentation is good politics. Even if you don’t warm to that kind of thing, you should be able to see that it is effective politics.
| 13 September 2008, 8:45 am |
“No, I was just a bit shocked, and then I suppose amused, that she clearly did not know what Gibson had just asked her about – the Bush doctrine of preemption. I mean, blimey, even I have heard of that one.”
Krauthammer – the pundit who coined the term “Bush Doctrine” takes Gibson to the woodshed over his misrepresentation of the term. Gibson was wrong.
| 13 September 2008, 9:02 am |
“Actually dave, a lot has to change for him to lose in Iowa”. You’re right; however, the polling is sparse, and I’m not buying it. I was in Cedar Rapids last week – folks there don’t like his line on ethanol, but they’ll vote for him in the end.
| 13 September 2008, 9:12 am |
More on the “Bush Doctrine” here; I have no idea who the blogger is (but there are no tell-tale signs of any neo-Nazi tendencies) but he cites his references, and makes a plausible case – http://hughhewitt.townhall.com/blog/g/7656b78a-a090-4a56-9bf5-0e37bdaff80a
| 13 September 2008, 10:38 am |
More on the “Bush Doctrine” here; I have no idea who the blogger is (but there are no tell-tale signs of any neo-Nazi tendencies)
Careful. Hewitt is pretty damn sneaky.
| 13 September 2008, 10:48 am |
Richard, fair enough – I agree that political parties should be broad churches and they certainly need people who are willing to do the spadework come election time.
The Labour party is a left of centre party though and if it is going to unite and move forward it will have to be under someone who represents the broad centre-left ground, not a far-left or, forgive the phrase, uber-Blairite figure.
| 13 September 2008, 11:26 am |
Its a bit unfair to laugh at Palin and the Bush doctrine.She hasn’t been taught it yet and its not in the Bible.
If this education progresses too fast she’ll end up claiming that a Nuclear Armed Jolly phonics village is no threat to Russia.
A Russia, Charleee, that is right next to Alaska
| 13 September 2008, 11:31 am |
Benjamin
You’ve missed the point though – your taking a shot at Palin for her religious views yet the Prez. of Pakistan was indulging in even stranger religious views during his inauguration. Actually, if I had to generalise, if your squeamish about the mix of religion and politics then you’d find most of the ME and OIC countries a little troublesome for your delicate constitution.
| 13 September 2008, 11:36 am |
Barack Obama believes Jesus died and was resurrected. What a nutcase.
| 13 September 2008, 11:50 am |
“the reason I remain in the Labour Party is because I believe that no other party in Britain will stand up for the working man’s interests”
As they have done for the past 11 years. Oh, yeah …
| 13 September 2008, 12:44 pm |
your taking a shot at Palin for her religious views
No I’m not. I’m taking a shot at her explanation of her religious views and war. Take butchers at the video, you’ll see what I mean. Christianity I have no problem with, but she’s just funny.
| 13 September 2008, 12:48 pm |
Take butchers at the video
Should be “take a butchers at the video”.
Its really extraordinary how she tries to justify herself.
| 13 September 2008, 12:55 pm |
Palin has demonstarted an ability to connect with an important part of the electorate, that neither Obama nor McCain nor Biden has been able to reach effectively; her whole presentation is good politics. Even if you don’t warm to that kind of thing, you should be able to see that it is effective politics.
Yes, effective and rather crude identity politics, the type of stuff that normally Republicans fulminate about. As for the feminist stuff that is now flying about Republican circles and Fox News right now, its really quite bizarre. Scrutinising every word of politicians for alleged sexism? That’s normally what ‘far left’ feminist groups do – the type people that normally get an earful from Hannity – but now the domain of McCain/Palin surrogates in the media. Funny old world, eh?
| 13 September 2008, 12:59 pm |
DaveW:
If you have “no idea” who Bill Dyer is, you should find out as soon as possible. On his blog (BeldarBlog) he was arguing that Palin was the best possible vice-presidential candidate long before she was picked. Anyone who was totally surprised that McCain picked her hadn’t been reading him. He’s the best source for the truth about Palin, and has shot down dozens of ridiculous attacks on her. In his day job, he’s a lawyer in Texas.
| 13 September 2008, 1:49 pm |
Has he revealed why she billed the state for 312 days at home?
| 13 September 2008, 1:52 pm |
i’ve just had a look at his blog.
As a defence of the Palin ignorance of the Bush doctrine, he says, well, theres more than one meaning to the Bush doctrine.
Given that Sarah knew none of them, it doesn’t seem a very stout defence.
| 13 September 2008, 2:53 pm |
Apart from the fact she clearly knows nothing about foreign policy, its the awful robotic nature of Palin’s responses in the Gibson interview that I also find rather despressing. When McCain and and Obama you can see the cogs working, with her she’s coming out with pat phrases and soundbites that have clearly been drummed into by her campaign staff. Perhaps if she relaxes a bit and doesn’t continue sounding like an over eager student at a careers class we might see some sort of rounded human being.
| 13 September 2008, 6:40 pm |
Questions asked of Obama (Presidential Candidate) by Charles Gibson:
How does it feel to break a glass ceiling?
How does it feel to “win”?
How does your family feel about your “winning” breaking a glass ceiling?
Who will be your VP?
Should you choose Hillary Clinton as VP?
Will you accept public finance?
What issues is your campaign about?
Will you visit Iraq?
Will you debate McCain at a town hall?
What did you think of your competitor’s [Clinton] speech?
Questions asked of Palin (Vice-Presidential Candidate) by Charles Gibson:
Do you have enough qualifications for the job you’re seeking? Specifically have you visited foreign countries and met foreign leaders?
Aren’t you conceited to be seeking this high level job?
Questions about foreign policy
-territorial integrity of Georgia
-allowing Georgia and Ukraine to be members of NATO
-NATO treaty
-Iranian nuclear threat
-what to do if Israel attacks Iran
-Al Qaeda motivations
-the Bush Doctrine
-attacking terrorists harbored by Pakistan
Is America fighting a holy war? [misquoted Palin]
| 13 September 2008, 6:53 pm |
A visual example of Gibson’s interview methods:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4b4bGAoVR7g
| 13 September 2008, 8:41 pm |
“As for the Labour Party, speaking as a member, we’re fucked. The worry for me is that the left are going to make a strong bid with union backing for the leadership and policy direction after the inevitable defeat – which, if GB does not resign will be a landslide to the Conservatives.”
Hmmm. I could have written the above myself. I have these concerns too. I think HP attracts a certain type of party member…
| 14 September 2008, 2:45 am |
Barack Obama believes Jesus died and was resurrected. What a nutcase.
-mesquito – all 4 of them believe this. Isn’t that disturbing enough?
| 14 September 2008, 9:24 am |
Palin is robotic and Obama is a rounded human being?
You couldn’t make up this stuff … pure Monty Python.
| 14 September 2008, 9:46 pm |
How’s Michelle Obama not attending the Ground Zero commeneration going down in America?
A small point.
Obama was not the son of an immigrant.