Obamarama grips a nation
I believe this is my first post this year, so first of all I hope your 2008 is going smoothly. I hope to be posting more soon (don't I always say that?). Here's something I wrote for Redbrick about the American elections. It's not that long, but they only gave me 550 words to play with. And cut most of that out in the paper. Hey ho, here it is:
The most important event of 2008 is happening thousands of miles away, and we can’t do anything about it. Republicans and Democrats are currently choosing their American Presidential candidate, while the world looks on impotently.
Trying to choose a favourite Republican nominee is like trying to choose which debilitating skin disease you’d rather have. John McCain seems the only (relatively) sane one. Rudy Giuliani has been described as “George Bush with brains”. If he’s only half as dangerous as that implies, we should still be very worried.
Mitt Romney is trying to be everyone’s friend and failing spectacularly. He is both for and against abortion, for instance. Romney is also a Mormon, and anyone who thinks that the Garden of Eden is located in Missouri should be ridiculed at length. He has, however, been criticised by some for not being Mormon enough. Only in America…
The final frontrunner is Mike Huckerbee, whose contribution to the religion debate was: “Science changes with every generation and with new discoveries, and God doesn’t, so I’ll stick with God if the two are in conflict”. So stupid it’s hard to know where to start. Its only possible merit is that on reading it Richard Dawkins might spontaneously combust.
It seems very likely that a Democratic candidate will be in the White House come 2009. John Edwards’s grass-roots campaign is stalling, because America doesn’t have a trade union movement worth basing a campaign around. The two main contenders are Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.
How can Clinton portray herself as the force for change? You wouldn’t see Norma Major or Cherie Blair campaign for Prime Minister on a similar platform. Hillary unexpectedly won the New Hampshire nomination, seemingly because she shed a tear at a question and answer session. It proved she was human, with proper emotions and things. But surely weeping isn’t a basis for a long-term political strategy? If it is, Hillary should just replace herself with a crying statue of the Virgin Mary. It would save her a lot of effort. The statue would at least pull less ridiculous faces.
She is leading a negative campaign against her fellow Democratic nominees, forgetting they are all on the same side. Supporting the Iraq war is one thing. The problem is the fact that she didn’t actually read the CIA’s document on Iraq’s WMD before she voted for war. In all fairness, Clinton would probably be a competent President, maybe even reaching half-decent on a good day.
However, the only credible change candidate is Barack Obama. He may not be the new Messiah, but he makes people feel good about themselves. None of Hillary’s negative campaigning for him. We haven’t seen much substance yet, but Obama’s policies will be tested now he has emerged as a serious front-runner. On foreign affairs he seems sound, at least. He advocates talking to the leaders of Iran rather than blowing it up. And unlike Mitt Romney, Obama believes in ending Guantanamo Bay rather than extending it.
It’s still early days. February 5th, or ‘Super Tuesday’, is a date for your diary. On that day twenty states vote at once for their nominations. By then we may be in a clearer position to know who will compete for the job of US election. One thing’s for sure: whoever wins has to be better than George Bush. Hopefully.
Cory
