h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

I went to an Obama rally here in Ohio today, along with 11,000 of my closest friends . I managed to grab some pretty good seats - fourth row, pretty close to the platform. It was a great experience. The woman who introduced Senator Obama was a local who quoted too deeply from the Declaration of Independence... she quoted from the second paragraph, which is what everyone does (We hold these truths to be self-evident) but then kept going, into the section about overthrow and abolition of the government, which I thought was an odd choice.

Senator Obama is an extremely persuasive and inspiring speaker. I've watched his great speeches live as they happened... 'This was the moment...' from Iowa, 'Yes we can' from South Carolina, 'What began as a whisper in Iowa...' after Super Tuesday and of course his incredible 2004 Boston speech. But it's tough to compare that with the energy and inspiration that comes from listening to him in person. It's impossible not to feel something, I think.

Maybe it's my infatuation with history and its great men, maybe it's my inherent optimism and idealism, but I tend to believe that rhetoric and a force for inspiration can change the world. There's something valuable in the power of persuasion and inspiration. That's not nothing. If I can paraphrase a line from The West Wing, (spoken by the character Sam Seaborn) the measure of a great speech is the velocity with which people rise to their feet to applaud at the end. Once people are on their feet, who knows what can happen?

I've gotta get away from hootoo. I'm now writing forum posts with 'single quotes'!

Hey Jordan

I'm watching with some fascination from the other hemisphere and wondering if Obama does win the Democratic vote (which looks odds-on now), can he get to the White House? Will Americans really vote in a black President?

And given that rhetoric is one thing and government another; I wonder whether he has the experience to lead such a vast nation successfully (however you measure success) over the next four years?

From this distance my sneaking suspicion is that if Hillary won the Democratic nomination, she'd have a better chance of the White House (despite being a woman). Is that a view shared in the USA?

Whatever happens, it's interesting to say the least...

Fb

Hey FB
Yes, he can win the White House. He might not, but he definitely can.

In my experience (heh) experience is overrated among Presidents. There's really no job in the government, whether you're in Congress for 15 years or you're governor of a large state or you're Vice President, that will actually prepare you to be President. Some of our best Presidents have been inexperienced when they took the office. John F Kennedy, Abraham Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, Washington... they were pretty good Presidents I think.

As for his race, I think there's still a sizable racist element in America (whether overtly or not) but they were never going to vote Democratic anyways. Being a woman would be a bigger impediment to winning the White House than being black, I'd have to guess. I don't think anyone here would vote against a candidate for being a woman or black (correct me if I'm wrong) but it's a fact of life that some people would. Right now, most polls suggest Senator Obama would defeat Senator McCain by a fairly strong margin, and Senator Clinton would narrowly lose to Senator McCain. Of course, those numbers mean very little this far out, because anything could happen between now and election time.

Senator Obama's campaign performance in the primary has been remarkable, whereas Senator Clinton's has been fairly lackluster. If that's a good gauge of how their campaigns will perform for the General election (which it probably is), Senator Obama has an edge there too.

Jordan is correct. The good old boys around here are much more likely to vote for Obama than a woman. Of course most of them won't vote for either.

I am cautiously optimistic.

The Obama phenomenon is intriguing. Everything that's been shown over here suggests he's a gifted orator but that he's lightweight in terms of actual policy. He just seems like a rebound candidate after the near-illiteracy of Bush.

There's more to politics than rhetoric. Idealism is understandable after a lousy President, but maybe it's really a time for pragmatism. Aren't you going to need fiscal toughness to sort out the economy? Is that Obama? Don't you need candidates with a clear-cut philosophy on your various foreign entanglements? How do you guys know what you're voting for?

Tell you what. We've got a depressing Scotsman you can borrow for a few years. Gordon Brown would even make Hilary seem cheerful.

Pin, please. If he was a policy lightweight, I wouldn't be voting for him and I think you know that. I don't know what qualifies someone as a policy heavyweight of course - but whatever it is, Hillary doesn't have it in any greater degree than Obama. Every candidate running for President, or even just Senator, has to become an expert on all the issues. They're briefed several times daily and have throngs of policy advisors. Do you think I haven't read and considered Obama's plans on healthcare, Iraq, the environment, etc?

I think that in some ways Obama's oratory gifts are hurting him. Probably helping more than hurting, in all honesty. It gives his opponents an excuse to claim his success is due entirely to his ability at the podium, which is not at all true. I mean, Hillary's success is due at least partially to the national recognition she has from being first lady for eight years. What brings a candidate into national recognition is what's written about the most, but it's not what that candidate is all about. Hillary is cannot be defined by Bill Clinton's presidency, and Obama cannot be defined by his oration.

I just made this journal to share and remember a good experience I had. I think we have fundamentally different approaches to politics, Pin, so I'll just leave it at that.

Yeah. OK. Sorry.

Yes, you're right about experience not helping prepare anybody for the top job. Look at Kevin Rudd here in Australia: he was a virtual unknown two years ago and now leads us - and is held up as the great hope for moderation, understanding and a more measured future for the country.

I think if I were in the USA I'd be with you supporting Obama. The Clinton campaign impresses me with its slickness (not necessarily a compliment) and efficiency, but I don't get the same feeling passion and commitment from Hillary as I do when I listen to / read Obama.

(Is that photo of him in Somalia going to damage his campaign, btw? From last night's news it looked like it might backfire on the Clintons.)

As for McCain; well is it a case of 'same old, same old'? I'm a lifetime socialist, so I'd never support him in any case. But from the point of view of American voters - is there a significant proportion who want to keep the status quo that Bush has established, or is the country so disillusioned with Bush that no republican has a chance?

Hyp How lovely to see you popping in. I hope your blahs are a little less overwhelming?

Fb

I don't think the Obama photo will be a factor. I was shocked when the BBC World News website had it as its lead story - it wasn't quite so big a deal here (I think). I believe that the Clintons didn't mean to open that up as an attack on Obama - even though they've made some serious miscalculations, they would not do this on purpose.

Oh, McCain has a good chance of winning. Pretty much any time the two parties go up against each other, each side has a good chance of winning - it all depends on what happens between now and November. Another foiled terrorist plot might shake things up, just as a McCain gaffe would (and he's more prone to gaffes than is generally recognized).

Indeed, sorry I didn't mention it - I was engaged in discussion , but I'm glad to see you too Hyp I'm also cautiously optimistic.

Fascinating election. And thats an understatement. Has there ever been an election in America when so many of the worlds population were interested in the outcome?

It certainly seems to be a defining moment for the country. I guess its always defining to an extent - but this seems bigger somehow.

I've heard people in the UK talking about it in a way they'd never talk about British politics. I fear over here more and more we don't trust our government (or the opposition - and I still think the opposition would be a very bad thing for this country), and worse don't want to do anything about it. Whereas you guys seem to get really excited about it, and from what I've heard it seems to be the biggest voter turnout.

Funnily even before Jordan's stirring support of the man (and smackdown of pin ), I was thinking that Obama seems to be a stirring candidate. Given that we have little to go on except gut instinct ('cos the rest is just publicity and propoganda in whichever country you go to), I'd probably go with Obama... I don't have a vote though (my late Grandmother was born in Philidelphia though, and raised in New York, and married in Ireland... not that that makes any difference), so its not an issue. But just thought I'd highlight (if it needed highlighting any more), what a huge election this seems to be. Even if its just to see the end of the reign of a certain grinning idiot.

You make a good point. We really don't have too much to go on. In the 2000 primary, Bush claimed the 'compassionate conservative' mantle, which sounds pretty good as far as conservativism goes. It's really quite difficult to tell which way these people will go. A lot of it has to do with the advisors they surround themselves with. I absolutely loathe the advisors Senator Clinton surrounds herself with. That's one of my main objections to her campaign. They are awful. I know less about Obama's advisors, but I haven't heard anything I found objectionable yet.

Certainly is a fascinating contest.

Will be particularly interesting to see how gracefully Hilary admits defeat, (if and) when it becomes obvious that she should...

As for Obama's policies, he seems to have a fairly reasonable sounding and complete set: get the healthcare sorted out, pressure the WTO into making it easier for american companies to screw more money out of poorer countries (pretty much a must have policy for any candidate I guess ), invest in renewable energy, more power to the workers comrade, sort the mortages out, bring the soldiers home, hire more teachers, hire more soldiers, all sorts of promising looking stuff, the list goes on and on. Clinton also has promising looking stuff too of course.

As always, the proof of the pudding will be in the eating, but there doesn't seem any reason right now to doubt Obama's cake any more than Clinton's.

Not that it makes a blind bit of difference from this side of the pond, but:

Go Obama!

Meanwhile, thanks for sharing Jordan - always nice to here from the man on the street, nice one

vp

This election is a wonderful thing for people my age in particular, I think - and the high voter turnout from my 18-24 demographic certainly supports that. Not only will the November election be my first ballot (notwithstanding our city council election in June), ever since I was at all conscious of world affairs, George Bush has been my president. Well, the first political issue I became aware of was the Monika Lewinsky scandal; the second was the Bush-Gore election. I was 10 at the time of that event, and ever since it's been George Bush.

For people my age, this is the first chance we have to see a change, and this is the first chance we have to actually have an impact on that change. Perhaps this is self-evident, but maybe that's one reason why "change" has become so important to this election.

I'm very excited. The next few months will be a mental revolution for me, or else they'll simply affirm my entrenched cynicism.

I've very excited and hopeful about this election. I'm supporting Obama too.

"Look at Kevin Rudd here in Australia: he was a virtual unknown two years ago and now leads us - and is held up as the great hope for moderation, understanding and a more measured future for the country."

-I'm not sure I have all that much hope for Kevin Rudd. I don't think he so much 'won' the election as John Howard 'lost'.
I'm glad Little Johhny's gone, but I have a wait and see attitude toward K-Rudd. Nice to see him say 'Sorry' though.

So is Ohio buzzing with political excitement Jodan?

Ohio is abuzz, as they say For the second time in less than four years, our votes could turn out to be critical in deciding who the next President will be. The Clinton campaign has essentially said that if they don't win Ohio, they will have to give up. Ohio is demographically favorable to Clinton, so if she can't win here, she won't win anywhere else. I think Ohio will go for Clinton by a smallish margin. But then again, I'm horrible at electoral prognostication.

Well looks like she won't be giving up .

I don't understand this http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7278629.stm though. It says "In Texas, those who made up their minds in the past three days overwhelmingly went for Mrs Clinton." All the polls seemed to suggest it was going to be close in Texas, yet the beeb are making it sound like she is some huge unexpected winner in Texas, and the Texans haven't even finished counting their caucus (which it seems Obama won).

Once they do, exit polls suggest that from the primaries and caucus combined, Clinton's net gain in Texas will be +1/+2 delegate(s). Overwhemlming indeed.

At the start of the week she had to completely destroy Obama and take 60%+ of the votes in both TX and OH, just to have an excuse to continue, now shes the comeback kid?

For sake of completeness, CNN have (project):

TX (P) Clinton 51% Obama 48%
TX (C) Obama 52% Clinton 48%
OH Clinton 54% Obama 44%
RI Clinton 58% Obama 40%
VT Obama 60% Clinton 38%

Comeback my big fat bottom.

I heard that many *Republicans* voted for Clinton rather than McCain in the primaries, just to skew the vote.