Can Obama bring a new type of polititics?

The evidence against is considerable:

1. His campaign
- dirty enough to be fundamentally old school

2. His past
- the manner of his rise to the State Senate in Chicago suggests a man very comfortable with realpolitik

BUT . . .

It is possible to argue that the only way he could get to where he has is by respecting the norms of the current corrupt system.

Alternatively . . .

Is a new politics even possible? Or is asking for it like asking for a new human nature?

p.s. The bail-out has failed. What happens now? How bad does this get? Do we all die imminently?

"It's hard to reach across the aisle when you're so far to the left"

McCain is right - bipartisanship relies on a certain amount of common ground. But then McCain should know better than most that sometimes conviction requires you to simply ignore opposing cries.

Will the real Barack Obama (when the right time comes) stand up

Christopher Hitchens has penned a provocative piece on Obama:

"Why is Obama so vapid, hesitant and gutless?"
http://www.slate.com/id/2200587/

Despite being an Obama supporter, I agree with a lot of Hitchens says. Obama has not campaigned with the independence and boldness that those who read his writings are familiar with.

He is politically savvy. He knows that an bold campaign, while impressing some, would alienate many. So he has played it safe, often tediously safe.

Perhaps the bizarre truth that emerges is this: The only way for a radical to get into the White House is for him to pretend that he isn't.

We have two strong characters but we will not get a strong president

If Barack Obama wins . . .

Much of his ambitious agenda will be scuppered by spending constraints. The government was pretty broke before it started trying to save the world economy.

If John McCain wins . . .

He will have a Democratic Congress and Senate to work with. Best of luck trying to work some of his bipartisan magic with some pissed off Democrats.

p.s.

Why has Obama asked to change the topic of the 1st debate to foreign policy? This is the debate most people watch. Why not stick with the economy as the original schedule had it?
It's both the issue people care most about and the issue on which McCain is a true dingbat.

Sometimes less is more

It's generally a good idea to stick to your strengths. Which is why it is interesting that McCain, a self-confessed economic muppet, has decided to take lots of dramatic standpoints on the economic crisis. And he has ended up looking . . . a muppet.

In comparison to McCain's blustering, Obama has looked calm and logical.
Presidential?
Let's hope for further blustering at Friday's debate.

A break

Everyone agrees that this whole thing goes on way too long . . . So take a break. Have a day without thinking about change, experience, pitbulls with lipstick etc. Do not allow the assorted craziness of this race to even enter your head today.

Obama's tribe

I met a Kenyan academic on the train today. Apparently, the Luo (the tribe of Obama's father) are the "bright" tribe, producing many doctors and lawyers. They also said that Luo are renouned "for getting done what they say they will do". Sounds good.

Obama has drawn ahead again in the polls - has his campaign ridden out Hurricane Palin? Or are the polls just too bouncy to merit attention at the moment?

When Giuliani turned cosmopolitan into a dirty word

"I'm sorry that Barack Obama feels that her hometown isn't cosmopolitan enough. I'm sorry, Barack, that it's not flashy enough"

Cosmopolitan does not mean flashy. Neither does it mean elitist.

I like the idea of a cosmopolitan president. The world needs an American president who has some sort of understanding and genuine interest in the world beyond its borders.

It does not need a foreign policy dingbat as its next VP.

The mysterious youth vote

Early on in "Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail", Hunter S. Thompson suggests that the youth vote could decide the 1972 election. He asks why those on Capitol Hill were not taking it seriously.

In hindsight, they were right. McGovern, the supposed candidate of the youth vote, was hammered by Nixon. Back in 2008, Barack Obama is the new supposed candidate of the youth vote.

McGovern and Obama share an important thing in commmon: their appeal to youth rests on them being perceived as anti-politicians. The Eagleton affair made McGovern look like a standard scheming politician. Obama has avoided such a scandal but can his anti-politician survive the mud-slinging of the campaign?

Can Palin's popularity last?

In 1984, Geraldine Ferraro became the first woman on a presidential ticket when Walter Mondale picked her to be his vice. Before Ferraro's selection, Mondale was running 16% behind Reagan in the polls. Shortly after, he drew level. Later, however, she suffered from allegations about her and her husband's finances. In the end, Mondale suffered a landslide defeat.

It is tempting to suggest that Palin may be a short-time fad like Ferraro.
Especially for people like me who would love to believe that the Alaskan's popularity is a short-term phenomenon.

BUT

1. Mondale was a clear underdog who was always likely to lose
- the Obama/McCain race is much tighter
- even if her impact lessens, it could still be big enough to prove decisive

2. Ferraro was not a hockey mum
- Palin appeals to a group of women who Ferraro didn't
- These women have perhaps never had such a champion and may be unwilling to abandon her

Uneven Stakes

Defeat on the 4th November means very different things to the two parties.

For the Republicans:

Defeat could actually be a very good thing

1. A clear break from President Bush and his legacy
- it would be harder for future Republican candidates to be painted as "more Bush"

2. An intellectual revival
- being out of power would give the party the space to rethink what it stands for. In particular, its relationship with neoconservatism would benefit from being rethought.

3. The rise of a new generation
- needed to replace an tired-looking old guard

4. Handover a dodgy economy and two tricky wars . . .
- And there would be the oppotunity to hammer the Democrats as they struggled with them . . .

For the Democrats:

Defeat would be disastrous

1. Massive questions over the political viability of the party
- if you can't win an election when you have a candidate who generates the enthusiasm that Barack Obama does and the opposition has presided over the disasters of the last two terms, you have to wonder how you are ever going to win an election. Add in the worrying fact that since Reagan's win in 1980, Bill Clinton is the only Democrat to have won an election.

2. The burning out of their brightest star
- the nature of Barack Obama's campaign means that he would not be able to return in four years time and generate the same sort of enthusiasm again. He would be lost to the Democrats as a candidate.

3. Undermining of their intellectual agenda
- in terms of its policy proposals, Obama's campaign contains many ideas that the Democrats hold dear. Would defeat force these central tenets to be reconsidered?

4. The prospect of a long time out of power
- at this point things get a little far-fetched but here we go. Imagine McCain wins and enjoys at least a steady term. He then decides to step down and Sarah Palin (who has managed to hang onto her everywoman appeal) runs as his successor and defeats another Kerry/Mondale/Gore-esque candidate (who the people don't connect with).