Crying wolf over Obama's 'betrayals'

Another piece, in The Observer this time, draws attention to Obama's apparent political re-positioning. A similar argument is made in the LA Times. The liberal left often seems at its most comfortable when screaming betrayal at one of their own and so it will be with Barack Obama.

As I argued a couple of days ago, these accusations do not have much depth to them. What the argument amounts to is that his language on issues like Iran, Nafta, and Iraq has become 'more moderate' and his attitude towards recent Supreme Court judgements is not conventionally liberal. Michael Crowley's piece in the The Observer makes reference to a recent Rolling Stone interview of the presumed presidential nominee where he reveals his eclectic taste in music. Strange then that in the same interview Barack Obama is asked how to judge him at the end of his first term and he said:

Obama: "If I haven't gotten combat troops out of Iraq, passed universal health care and a new energy policy that speaks to our dependence on foreign oil and deals seriously with global warming, then we've missed the boat."

Seems pretty explicit on Iraq. Some will make much of the 'combat' qualifier on troops but this is consistent with where he's been positioned previously.

Michael Crowley sees Obama's alleged political re-positioning (as opposed to a rhetorical re-positioning) as a direct pitch to independent voters amongst whom McCain is in the lead. Firstly, it is worth saying that a lot of these 'independent' are actually Republican. There is currently a shift from Republican identification to independent identification as a result of the disastrous performance of the Bush administration.

More importantly, it would be crazy not to have the construction of a winning coalition in mind in all this but, given 22 debates with Senator Clinton, goodness knows how many hours of speeches, press and TV interviews, any substantive shifting of his positions will be walloped by the McCaincampaign and the media. He's anchored and that's it.

He is doing the right things and he is running a highly professional but principled political campaign. Let's just be careful about throwing around accusations of betrayal that don't have much behind them. If he did fundamentally shift by, for example, capriciously reversing his commitment to engage in dialogue with America's adversaries, then criticism would be justified. In the meantime, let's not cry wolf. All that does is prick up the ears of the Republican wolf in the forest.

Hillary, you MEGAstar

Unity in Unity, New Hampshire.

So long, farewell and thanks for all the fun Mrs Clinton

A few weeks ago I argued that Hillary Clinton shouldn't quit the race quite yet and instead continue in the campaign but do so in a more magnanimous fashion. It seems that magnanimity is a bit too much for Ms Clinton just yet. Her surrogate Harold Ickes has been all over the news channels this weekend raging about 4 delegates taken from her tally in Michigan in opposition to the will of 600,000 voters.

Four things: 

(i) Barack Obama was not on the ballot in Michigan as the ruling at the time was that NONE of Michigan's delegates would be seated. The Obama campaign consequently didn't compete the seat following the DNC's ruling. 

(ii) It is clear that turnout was completely suppressed in Michigan so it is not at all clear that it can be counted as a proper primary in any sense. Compare Ohio, which has a similar population to Michigan and had a turnout of 2.2million. 600,000 or so voted in the Michigan primary in a more Democratic state. It is also a state in a geographic region where Obama has done well.

(iii) The decision was made by the Democratic Party's Rules and Bylaws Committee on the basis of a proposal by the Michigan Democratic Party. 

(iv) We are talking about FOUR delegates. Perhaps the Clinton campaign, in a characteristic act of denial, has not noticed that it is in deficit by over 150 delegates! Is it really worth ratcheting up the rhetoric to such a degree when the potential gain is so little?

So this is all a bit silly now. At a time when the rhetoric should be dampened, Clinton surrogates are still trying to stoke up resentment. What can they possibly gain? Nothing. The Democrats could pay a heavy price, however. Even the Clinton loyalist www.mydd.com concludes that her chances are 'near to nothing' as she now has to win 82% of the remaining delegates.

A few weeks ago, 'not yet' was my conclusion about whether Hillary Clinton should quit (with the important 'be nice' caveat which has been broken.) The final primaries take place in Montana and South Dakota tomorrow. The minute those polls close provides a great opportunity for Hillary Clinton to show her political courage and deep commitment to the party. 

Yes, Hillary, the time to quit has come. So long and thanks for all the fun.

Clinton beats Obama in the electoral college

I've just seen an absolutely fascinating analysis about the US Presidential race. The site www.electoral-vote.com has done an analysis of who is better placed to beat McCain this Autumn based on the available polling evidence. There needs to be an enormous health warning attached to this: polls now do not necessarily indicate how things will go come November. Actually, 'not necessarily' is not strong enough. They do not.

But what it shows, hold your breath Obama supporters, is that Hillary Clinton would win the electoral college by 327 to 194 as polls stand. Obama's lead would be only 266 to 248. That is four short of a majority.

In addition to the health warning, I would also make the comment that Hillary currently secures more of the lower income, white Democratic base than Obama and they are not moving over to him quite yet. I believe they will but he has a hell of a job to do to convince them. He has all but sealed the nomination but he hasn't sealed the deal with the voters. Far from it.

These maps also show that his superior national lead over McCain when compared to Hillary does not translate into a superior performance in the electoral college.

I'll keep an eye on this website as it will graphically demonstrate how the Obama campaign is going state by state. But the campaign has a long way to go. He has time to do it.

I have put a permanent counter on the site (top left) which I will update periodically.

Istanbul

As will be obvious from my half-hearted and rather superficial post about Frank Field on Monday, I am currently enjoying a break. Though I had good intentions to maintain a daily blog and could easily do so given that I have wi-fi access in my hotel, I just haven't been able to motivate myself to do it.

In fact, I'm going to indulge in this mesmerising city, Istanbul instead of writing about how Hillary Clinton's win in West Virginia changes nothing or how it is fascinating that Obama has moved his campaign to general election footing signalled by his decision to speak in the swing state of Missouri rather than West Virginia last night or how the draft Queen's speech contains some really good measures not least a cheeky little proposal on buying up surplus housing for redistribution or the welfare reform measures and a strong idea on the introduction of an NHS constitution.

The reason I'm here is quite simple. Orhan Pamuk. I've been a fan of his writing for some time (I would particularly recommend 'Snow' and 'My Name is Red') and his 'Istanbul: memories and the city' has been on my bookshelf for a while. Cheesy but what better than to read it in Istanbul?

The threads of Turkey's identity crisis, East and West, Kemalist and Ottoman, flow through Pamuk's literature just as the Bosphorus and Sea of Marmara collide and separate in Istanbul. In 'Istanbul', Pamuk becomes curator, poet, archivist, social historian, and autobiographer. Istanbul becomes his history, his canvas, his personality. Like Hugo, Dickens, and Joyce before him he allows himself to be defined by a city and in turn hooks us into accompanying him on an archaeological dig of the soul of place.

Pamuk's personal history and that of his family has an uncanny entanglement with that of his subject. His family's fortunes turn upon the death of his paternal Grandfather, a 'magnificent man', whose fortunes are frittered away by the hopelessness of his father and uncle's business acumen. A decaying family fortune reflects the decaying seat of the Ottoman empire, a city neglected, bellowing up nothing but darkness and painful memories of past greatness.

He never met his Grandfather just as he never saw Sultanate Istanbul, but each is omnipresent in his upbringing. His Grandmother, wise and charismatic, never surfaces until after midday, rarely leaves the family home, waiting for their family greatness to return (she sees omens of this in little Orhan, the 'crow') and Istanbul is gripped by huzun, a kind of collective melancholy induced by dispossessed greatness, power, and wealth.

The embers of this melancholic shabbiness remain in modern Istanbul but this is not the same city that Pamuk grew up in. It had just about reached a population of a million when Pamuk began school, its population now stands at ten million. The old city, Pera, and Bosphorus communities have been swallowed in mass migration and development. Romantic as the crossing from the West to the Asian side sounds, the Asian side is nothing of the sort. Rather it is a sea of modernist medium rise tower blocks. Rather than a bridge from West to East or vice versa, the trip across the Bosphorus is more akin to crossing from 1920 to 1965.

There is much discussion about whether Turkey can ever be part of Europe. Istanbul is not typical, I'm assured, but on the evidence of this city it absolutely can be. It has the feel of a modern, European city with an Islamic hue rather than an Islamic city. Islamic architecture (sometimes subsuming Orthodox Christian architecture as in the spectacular Haghia Sofya) provides the city's best moments. However, much as the Sultans left for the hills and then extinction quite a while ago, Ottoman Istanbul remains as a relic rather than a threat. Even Haghia Sofya is now just a museum (though I can't remember being in a more breathtaking structure.)

So where does Turkey's destiny lie? The Government of Tayyip Erdogan seems to want have its cake and eat it, supporting a fusion of modern economic reform and conservative Islam. It is patently obvious that the only way to combine these two things is hypocrisy- liberalism will leave religious conservatism in its wake. The only question will be if and what kind of backlash this approach will provoke. For now, the EU's most sensible course of action is to continue an engagement with Erdogan. The mono-creed vision of European politicians such as Valery Giscard d'Estaing needs to be challenged just as areas where Turkey falls short, freedom of speech, Cyprus, and the potential entanglement of religious with secular law need to be tested. It should be noted that despite the approach of Erdogan's AKP, Turkey is perhaps more aggressively secularist government than any in Europe with the possible exception of France.

Orhan Pamuk's city of black and white has been replaced by a sparkling city, self-confident in its future, released from its past. It is as Europoean as Napoli, Athens, or Seville. Old Istanbul, the city of Pamuk's youth was given its energy by the Bosphorus. New Istanbul, this city of new train lines, stadiums, affluent housing developments, and high-rise office blocks, has an energy of its own. Ataturk has won- in Istanbul at least. Is the EU to reverse the city back to its history or allow its destiny to be European? On the evidence of Istanbul at least, Turkey is already well on its way to a European destiny.

Postscript: Pamuk collects some newspaper columns that he has read over the years (see what I mean about being a curator?) Two quotes particularly amused me:

From 1946:

"We're tired of seeing every square in the city flooded every time it rains. Whoever is supposed to fix this, should fix it soon."

From 1927:

"Yesterday it snowed and did anyone in the city board a tram from the front or indeed show any respect to their elders? It is with regret that we note how quickly the city forgets the polite rules of society that so few of our inhabitants knew in the first place."

Anyone who has been here will be able to vouch for that!

Hillary as Vice President?

Michael Tomasky runs through the negatives for Hillary becoming Obama's Vice-Presidential nominee: he would inherent her weaknesses, her foreign policy stance, they couldn't work together, and then there's Bill. I would add the negative of some of her comments and insinuations during the campaign about his ability to be Commander-in-Chief in particular. Republicans would have her comments on a loop during the whole campaign if she was VP nominee.

I guess it comes down to whether he thinks he can win over her voters. He will be fairly confident of achieving that and so won't risk the negatives that Hillary represents in my view. Also, he's in such a strong position now that he can avoid having a unity ticket foisted upon him by the party. If not Hillary then who? Well, I've always thought that Bill Richardson would make an interesting choice but let's see how the debate shapes up.

Obama takes lead in super-delegates

This is a critical turning point in the campaign. Obama now leads in super-delegates (party elders, representatives, and officials) according to ABC News. He already has an insurmountable lead in pledged delegates (based on caucuses and primaries.) The party is rallying behind him.

Why Hillary Clinton shouldn't quit......yet

The result is now all but beyond doubt. Yet that doesn't mean that how this is resolved does not matter. The dignified retreat by Mike Huckabee should be the model for Hillary Clinton. She is still campaigning and that is absolutely right but how she campaigns matters.

The tone of this battle needs to be brought down. Right now, many of Hillary's supporters are smarting, especially in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana, and other recent states where she has won on the basis of a tough campaign against Barack Obama winning the white, blue collar vote in the process. Up to a third of her voters currently say that they wouldn't vote for Barack Obama. Hillary has to manage the upset down to give Obama every chance to reclaim those voters for the Democrats. That process is best achieved on the basis of Hillary seeing this race out to its conclusion but in a positive manner that unifies the party. She needs to start saying lots of very nice things about Obama.

A cynical viewpoint sees Hillary's strategy as a destructive one. There is a theory that she is trying to destroy Obama's candidacy with a view to running again in 2012. She has gone too far on a few occasions- by pouring petrol on the flames on a number of controversies, by suggesting that Obama had not been properly vetted, by suggesting that only John McCain and herself have the experience to be Commander-in Chief. I don't believe that is her strategy at all but we will see in the next few weeks.

Clinton is an exceptional but highly flawed candidate. She hasn't won this battle but boy did she turn it into a fight. Now is the time to show the political world her very best side. If the great divider in American politics can be the unifier of the Democrats she will do herself no end of good. And who knows, if Obama doesn't quite make it, she may get another shot in 2012 and this time she could win.

Postscript: Some good articles shamelessly pilfered from Real Clear Politics are linked below.

Joe Klein foresees an uplifting battle of ideas and personalities in the McCain v Obama race (Cindy McCain was also on MSNBC yesterday saying that her husband wouldn't go negative.....but his surrogates?) but the media needs to give that type of campaign the oxygen it needs. Klein's conclusion:

"A general-election campaign between John McCain and Barack Obama doesn't need any hype. It won't be boring. The question is whether we, politicians and press alike, will grant this election — and electorate — the respect that it deserves."

Dick Morris, a wily and utterly unsentimental political titan, doesn't see Hillary letting this defeat go lightly. Instead she will hang and chop Obama ready for display in the butcher's window.

And finally, David Ignatius discusses how the situation in the Middle East could project itself into the campaign over the coming months- continuing Iranian training of militia in Iraq and a potential US military response, a possible Israel-Palestine 'shelf' peace deal, and an interesting diplomatic initiative by Turkey to broker a peace deal between Syria and Israel.

What can Labour learn from the Democratic primaries?

An article that I have written for the new website Labour Outlook is available here:

What can Labour learn from the Democratic primaries?

Obama bounces back

It's been a rough few weeks for Barack Obama but last night's results are a big moment for him. To win North Carolina by a mile and to lose Indiana so narrowly has reclaimed the momentum for Obama. If he can now maintain the momentum once again the almost inevitable nomination will become inevitable.

The discussion about Hillary being his running mate has re-surfaced and it has some superficial attraction. It would re-unite the party and make Obama more appealing to some of those demographics that Obama has had relative difficulty in wooing. White, working-class voters is the demographic that springs to mind. It seems like a crazy idea in reality though. After all that Senator Clinton has said about and implied about Barack Obama it would be a difficult match to make work. Not only that, there is still the impression that Hillary and her cheer-leaders believe that Obama has stolen this nomination from them and she is the rightful nominee- a nomination that he has tactically deprived her of.

On top of that and more crucially, what may make some sense in the campaign most definitely will not make sense in the White House: there's two of them to contend with, all the baggage from the Clinton White House will return once again, the Republicans may be going easy on Hillary right now because they want to face her in the election (How do I know this? They keep on saying how she is the better candidate than Obama) but just wait until she's either on a ticket or in the White House itself. The logic of Hillary as VP nominee just doesn't stack up.

Iran hawks

Oliver Kamm (who has taken our debate onto his blog here), self-styled left-wing neo-con, is upset that I suggested that Hillary's threat to obliterate Iran (given this, given that....) was irresponsible.

I'll build my case on the argument rather than the more personal approach that Mr Kamm adopts in his response to my article on his blog. I based much (but not all) of my criticism of Senator Clinton on a US intelligence document, the National Intelligence Estimate on Iran. The conclusions (it's very short report so it's worth a read) are available here.

Just some highlights:

- Iran halted its nuclear weapons programme (as defined: For the purposes of this Estimate, by “nuclear weapons program” we mean Iran’s nuclear weapon design and weaponization work and covert uranium conversion-related and uranium enrichment-related work; we do not mean Iran’s declared civil work related to uranium conversion and enrichment.
- The DNI is 'moderately confident' that Iran could technically produce enough fissile material between 2010-2015. There is a 'possibility' that this will not be the case until after 2015.
- Iran halted the programme in 2003 in response to international pressure.
- It is 'moderately' confident that dissuading Iran from eventually developing a nuclear weapon will be difficult. Furthermore, it assesses with moderate to high confidence that Iran is keeping open the option of re-starting its nuclear weapons programme.
- It is 'moderately' confident that Iran would use covert sites to to develop high grade uranium. Such covert enrichment ceased in 2003 at the same time that the weapons programme halted.

So we have to be aware of the real possibility that Iran may still be pursuing a nuclear weapon by other means and will have the capability within a decade. We also have to acknowledge that, as things stand, its programme is halted and that there is enormous scope for negotiation and international pressure.

Mr Kamm, of course, reads a lot into my argument that wasn't there- I'd like him to show exactly where I assert or suggest that Iran is not a threat or a concern. Rather on the balance of the evidence contained within the NIE, a bellicose approach is just not justified.

And if you are a Presidential candidate who is asked ''if' Iran had a nuclear weapon and 'if' it attacked Israel what would you do?' and you respond 'we could obliterate them' then that is grossly irresponsible. The NIE suggests a more diplomatic and negotiated way forward. The scenario presented of a nuclear attack on Israel is just plucked out of the air.

You can see that Senator Obama responds in a very different way. See Meet The Press last Sunday. This must be why Mr Kamm groups Senators McCain and Clinton on these issues. He is right to. On the basis of recent comments both would constitute a continuation of neo-con foreign policy.

Of course, one major reason that you shouldn't threaten to 'obliterate Iran' is that it will actually be counter-productive. If you back Iran into a corner then any negotiated conclusion becomes less likely. Potential national humiliation is the enemy of progress on this threat. International support for our position will be diminished. Beyond that, be careful what you threaten you might just create a situation where you have to follow through....very quickly you can lose control of events.

Anyway, it's good to know that the hawks are watching over us....

Postscript: Hawks come in pairs it would seem. Stephen Pollard has repeated Oliver Kamm's points (for amplification presumably) mis-representing the argument all the way but that's a familiar tactic.

Of course, those silly Iranians won't hear Hillary threaten to 'obliterate' them. No one else will hear it either. It's just a political game. Has no impact. Hell, let's have some fun playing all sorts of scenarios through and issuing all sorts of threats. It's just deterrence. They don't know that the US has the biggest nuclear arsenal on the planet. So they have to be told....

It would seem that 'hearts and minds' still does not have a place in the neo-con's dictionary...

I do notice that Mr Pollard refers to Mr Kamm as the 'master.' Enough said.

Why is Obama not doing worse?

He's just had a bad loss in Pennsylvania (though it was expected, the cash he piled in should have resulted in a better outcome), he has accused traditional working class voters of clinging to religion, guns, and harbouring hostility towards immigrants through bitterness, and the mad pastor is on the prowl. Obama's poll position is remarkably solid.

David Brooks in the New York Times has part of the answer. America is divided, this is a demographic election. Obama and Clinton have different appeals to different demographics and that is just playing out. As E.J.Dionne of the Washington Post has said, this primary is just like the census. You know how each candidate is going to do in each group then you can predict the outcome in any state once you know its demographic configuration.

What I have seen less of and will look out for is why Obama and Clinton have different appeals to different demographics. There will be positive and negative reasons. A major reason for Obama's difficulty in most states with the white, working class could well be that the familiar has more appeal when you find yourself in an economically and socially precarious position. So it may not just be guns and god that you cling to. Perhaps you cling to Clinton as well?

Postscript: The mad pastor problem is becoming corrosive for Obama and it is clear that his brilliant speech on race has failed to limit the damage. I wonder what Jeremiah Wright's tour of Town Halls and TV studios is designed to achieve. Self-rehabilitation would seem to be the obvious motivation but the more he speaks, the more ridiculous he sounds. Perhaps he is not throwing Obama under a bus but, rather, encouraging Obama to throw him under a bus. Obama has a difficult choice to make. Should he disown his former pastor and former church? It may become inevitable. If it does, it is a decision he needs to make sooner rather than later.

Democrat doom-mongers

Two very similar articles appeared in the New York Times and The Times of London with a deeply pessimistic outlook for the Democrats' chances in November. Paul Krugman argues:

"Well, now he [Obama] has an overwhelming money advantage and the support of much of the Democratic establishment — yet he still can’t seem to win over large blocs of Democratic voters, especially among the white working class.

As a result, he keeps losing big states. And general election polls suggest that he might well lose to John McCain."

Krugman goes on to argue that the rightful path is for the Democrats to re-connect with the old certainties: the successful Clinton economy, and the great social programmes of the past, Medicare and Social Security. And unfortunately, the desire to create a 'new politics' just doesn't mesh well with that narrative. It has left the Democrats in a 'self-inflicted state of confusion' Anyone guess who Krugman is backing?

And in today's Times, Gerard Baker argues a very similar thing. He dismisses Obama and Clinton as 'two cynical losers' and goes on to say:

What they want is a man - or a woman - of character and record to inspire and lead them. That may be why the Democrats are in trouble.

Now. Let's just steady up here for a while. Contrary to what Krugman and Baker argue (both of whom I respect as commentators) the Democrats are not hurtling towards a defeat just yet. In fact, there has not been a national poll that has McCain ahead of Obama for a number of weeks. See here for the latest Real Clear Politics list of polls:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/national.html

The average also has Hillary ahead. So actually, the portents at this stage are quite good. Despite a bruising and negative primary battle, the only time that McCain has stepped ahead of Obama is around the time of the Jeremiah Wright affair (which hit Clinton as well.) Actually, while Obama has been wounded in recent battles and that harms his chances against McCain or of being a 'transcendent candidate' he is still in a remarkably strong position. A third of Hillary's voters say they won't vote for him and he's still ahead!

Now let's deal with that 'petulant vote' once again. Remember when people were saying that the conservative right would not vote for McCain during the Republican primary? Well, guess what, nobody's talking about that now. Though I haven't seen any figures on this, my guess is that a lot of those nay-sayers are now returning to the fold. It will be more tricky for Obama to win back white, socially conservative, middle class Democrats, i.e. the Reagan Democrats, but not impossible. He will need an 'I get it' moment but he is more than capable of that.

A final point worth making is that the Democratic Primary is focusing relentlessly on the negatives of Obama and Clinton and not on those of John McCain. Anyone who thinks that a candidate with who is comfortable with the notion of 100 years in Iraq for US troops, confesses that economics is not his strongest suit when the US is in an election, can not tell the difference between Sunni and Shi'ite Muslims, cosies up to lobbyists, maintains a Bushite foreign policy and has a vicious temper will not face a hard time come the Presidential election proper is in for a major surprise.

So the doom-mongers are too hasty. The only confusion is the notion that what is happening now is a definitive guide to what will happen in the election. We ultimately have no idea what will happen post nomination. But we do know that both potential Democratic nominees start off from a remarkably high base.

Hillary Clinton on Iran

There's something about Hillary's promise to 'obliterate Iran' if it launched an attack against Israel that I find deeply concerning. Surely the one thing that we've learned about international conflict is that to escalate rhetoric unnecessarily is hugely dangerous? Just such an escalation day by day made the Iraq conflict more and more inevitable.



A more lithe and sophisticated politician would surely make the important point that Iran does not have nuclear weapons as the latest CIA National Intelligence Estimate shows and is at the very least a number of years away from acquiring them, that America would work with its international allies in Europe, the Middle East and elsewhere as well as with the International Atomic Energy Agency to ensure that Iran does not acquire nuclear weapons, and if we found ourselves in a situation where Iran had nuclear weapons and was threatening Israel with them that would be a monumental and avoidable failure? There are just too many 'ifs' in the question of what would you do if Iran launched a nuclear strike against Israel. The politician might also say that to accept those hypotheticals is to escalate a situation unnecessarily which is ultimately against US security interests. It is grossly irresponsible to play rhetorical or political games with people's lives or the national interest.

I am worried that Hillary Clinton feels the need to prove herself in the national security arena (particularly following her Tuzla 'sniper fire' political humiliation.) That could have severe consequences.

Whatever Hillary may say about withdrawal from Iraq (which she is in favour of), there has to be a question about whether her election would mark a continuation of a Bushite foreign policy. Sure, there has been criticism of Barack Obama for saying that he would launch strategic air strikes should he receive actionable intelligence even if those camps were based in an ally's territory (i.e. Pakistan.) Actually, Obama's policy doesn't sound so mad. Besides there is a slight difference between shelling terrorist camps and 'obliterating' a nation.

The rest of the world is thirsting for a definitively post-Bush foreign policy (not just on Iraq.) There are now question marks about whether this is what Hillary Clinton is offering.

Postscript: A great 55-45 win for Hillary in Pennsylvania last night at the upper end of expectations. What does it change? It changes two things and emphasises another. It puts the momentum back with her and that will be maintained if she can snatch Indiana on May 6th. Secondly, it means that she is ahead of the popular vote if Michigan and Florida are included. At the very least that undercuts Obama's popular vote argument.

Finally, it emphasises that he is still have a lot of difficulty with less affluent, working class, white voters. As the race proceeds in this bitter fashion the chances that these Democrats will automatically fall behind Obama as a nominee recedes. So Obama still ahead but a very good night for Hillary indeed.

Postscript 2: It appears that Simon Jenkins covered a similar topic in his Guardian column this morning. I am pleased to say that we came to the same conclusion, i.e. that only Barack Obama is likely to mark a decisive break with recent US foreign policy.

Obama the Orthodox

A few weeks ago I wrote that the impact of the protracted Conrad-esque Primary campaign would be to normalise Barack Obama. David Brooks of the New York Times analysed it brilliantly on Meet the Press yesterday. He described how Obama has become an orthodox liberal and orthodox politician over the last few weeks.

In some respects the former is more concerning than the latter. I suspect the anti-liberal attack will not be as effective in a year where the American economy is rocking and the Iraq occupation shows no sign of any conclusion.

The main problem though is what happens when the candidate assumes office. As Brooks pointed out, some of the positions being adopted in these primaries are going to prove impractically limiting in office. Withdrawal from Iraq regardless of the circumstances and absolutely no tax increases for anyone earning less than $200,000 were two commitments made in Wednesday's debate that will soon provide unnecessary obstacles to a new Democratic President (I can see early betrayal coming on....) For Hillary's part, she placed Saudi Arabia under America's security umbrella. For me, this was the stupidest thing said by any candidate in this election so far.

As Robert Novak noted, Obama's post-partisan appeal is being undermined in this process. Once Hillary finally falls he will quickly have to re-discover some of the transcendent appeal that launched his campaign into the stratosphere earlier this year.

What of Hillary? Well, it would be amazing if she doesn't win tomorrow. But increasingly her function in this campaign seems to be to remind independent voters that Democrats are conventional Washington politicians really.....

Her new Chief Strategist, Geoff Garin, who seems like a genuinely nice guy, someone with real integrity, revealed the strategy, also on Meet the Press yesterday. When pressed what was Hillary's path to the nomination, his response was basically that the campaign was just going to stay alive as long as possible and see what happens. Does survival count as strategy? Whether it does or not, the longer it continues the more orthodox Obama seems. Maybe that is strategy after all......

Obama's tough debate

The only live feed I could get of last night's debate was on a local ABC station (ABC- you should be ashamed of the poor coverage of this....actually you should be ashamed for how this debate was hosted and produced also.....) It was very irritating that the debate was overshadowed by a focus group response graph thingy (what do you call them?) Basically, 25 undecided voters sit in a room and indicate their reaction to what the candidates are saying using a dial on a scale 0-100 (50 being neutral, 0 being very negative.) After a while though, the response graph thingy was quite interesting.

I picked up the following things:

i) Clinton scored very well when she was a unifier, i.e. when she praised Obama and said the party should unite to take on McCain.
ii) She scored poorly when she attacked Obama but
iii) He then scored poorly in responding to her attacks AND his defences went on for longer so he was suffering for longer periods of time. In other words, Clinton didn't gain by attacking him but he couldn't gain either and may have lost.
iv) The 'bitter' gaffe was not playing particularly badly but when he talked about Jeremiah Wright it did.
v) The only big NEGATIVE of the night was when Clinton was talking about the Bosnian episode.
vi) Obama refused to comment on this issue which went down well but then, of course, Clinton was allowed to move off her negatives quickly so she did not sustain long periods of tough focus. The moderators did not step in where Obama did not and this was a major failing in my view as it meant that three-quarters of the first hour of debate were focused on Obama's negatives and that was disproportionate.
vii) Both candidates scored VERY highly whenever they discussed the issues: healthcare, the economy, Iraq, trade, housing etc...

Sorry if the above seems a bit geeky (in my defence, I had to watch the graph thingy...) but it shows something very important. Obama has clearly decided to play these debates fair by and large (there have been exceptions like when he attacked Clinton for being on the Board of Wal-mart.) But he is not, in the short term, getting the benefit from that. Despite having pretty high ratings throughout most of the debate, he lost 2-1 among the undecided voters in that focus group.

So the calculation is clearly that he gains more in the long-term image stakes by the way he conducts himself. That is a really tough call and before the McCain debates he's going to have to re-visit that calculation. My instinct would be that he should punch a little more often but not change his overall approach.

In fairness, Hillary Clinton did perform better in the meaty part of the debate, i.e. on the issues. I don't think that is necessarily of grave concern for Obama though he did seem very shaky on the issue of tax and seemed at one point to be making up policy on the spot after he had clearly contradicted himself on whether he would tax those on $97,000-$200,000 a year more. He'll have to time to mug up before September and McCain is not without weaknesses there.

Postscript: More on ABC news: it was hosted by George Stephanopoulos who worked for Bill Clinton and basically wrote a book of unrequited love to him, All too Human. He more ruthlessly pursued Obama's negatives than he did Hillary Clinton's last night. I lost count of the number of times Chelsea Clinton flashed up on my screen. General Wesley Clark, a Clinton supporter, kept on flashing up when Hillary was talking about Commander-in-Chief issues also. At one point, Hillary almost directed the camera to him in the audience! ABC came across as grossly unprofessional and biased.....

Obama's gaffe and what it means

Unsurprisingly, Barack Obama's comments about people in small town America being bitter about their economic hardship then clinging to verities of old such as guns and God and becoming hostile towards immigrants, free trade and people who are different have been gleefully seized upon by his opponents. Is it not concerning that John McCain and Hillary Clinton are now hunting as a pack?

That aside, perspective is urgently needed. Ed Kilgore on Real Clear Politics provides it. The gaffe (and it was a gaffe: a much too sweeping a comment that left him open to his opponents' attacks) has presented the Clinton campaign with an opportunity to emphasise that Obama has had some relative difficulty in swaying white, middle-class America to vote for him thus far. There is an under-current to all this but the argument neutralises a core element of Obama's claim on the nomination. He has emphasised that there is large portion of his vote that just won't transfer to Hillary. Now she is emphasising the same and what's more those white, small town, economically alienated, socially conservative Democrats will be attracted to McCain. For some figures see the 'Obama and Clinton's petulant vote' post. Super-delegates get ready to play piggy in the middle (but you're used to that, right?)

Where does this leave things? In limbo really. Clinton will win Pennsylvania by a healthy margin. She will probably win Indiana by a narrower margin. Obama will have a very healthy win in North Carolina. Narrow advantage Clinton on April 22nd/ May 6th. Obama still well ahead overall. Things will have moved a millimetre towards Clinton.

More broadly, either Democrat candidate will face a challenge in converting all their opponent's vote later in the year. In this, both Clinton and Obama have a point. But they both have a three month Presidential campaign in which to achieve the shift. The polls in August rarely relate to the result in November. As James Carville never tires of pointing out on Meet the Press, Clinton was third place in the polls in July 1992 and Kerry was 14 points clear in Summer 2004.

So what to do? How about deciding the nominee on the basis of who has the most delegates? And it would be a very brave decision indeed for the super-delegates to flip the candidate with the most pledged delegates....

Is that John McCain I can hear whistling in his bath?

Postscript: Clinton's ad following Obama's comments can be seen below:

Clinton and Obama's petulant vote

An interesting analysis of recent poll data on Real Clear Politics breaks down the latest Clinton/Obama v McCain poll. Most interestingly, one third of Hillary Clinton's supporters would back McCain over Obama and one quarter of Obama's supporters would go for McCain over Clinton. The Clinton statistic is even more remarkable when your consider that her support is essentially less affluent, less educated voters plus Democrat women who are in their middle-age and older. These demographics are a core component of Democrat support in any election.

Any pollster will tell you to treat questions such as 'what would you do if...?' with extreme caution. Nonetheless,these numbers must cause concern for the Democrats. It is clear that the ongoing contest between Obama and Clinton is dragging both their ratings down. Obama leads McCain in States such a Wisconsin where he enjoyed support and Clinton enjoys the same advantage in States such as New York. Slightly worryingly for the Democrats, McCain enjoys a significant lead in Ohio over both candidates in the latest poll though Clinton does enjoy a lead there on average.

So both candidates' supporters are showing a degree of petulance. Obama's appeal to independents, Republicans, and the young (all groups that do not necessarily vote for the Democrats- rather obviously in the case of cross-over Republicans!) suggests that these are voters that could be lost to the Democrats should he not be nominated. In other words, they are in it for Obama and no-one else. Cart-loads of independent and Republican voters are being registered for the Democrats so that they can vote for Obama in Pennsylvania. The closed primary there means that you have to be a registered Democrat to vote.

Clinton's supporters should well be different. Given unity, a good Convention, a ringing endorsement of Obama by Clinton, and some sidewalk pounding, it should be within the Obama campaign's capability to win them over.

In a sense, the Obama 'quarter' is more worrying than the Clinton 'third.' But both represent significant challenges for the Democrats and the nominee's ability to sway the petulant refuseniks could determine which way this Presidential election goes.

Barack Obama buys surge

Barack Obama's surge in Pennsylvania has begun. It is partly explained by a phenomenal outlay of advertising spend- $2million in a single week. For a moment yesterday I did a quick on-line search for flights and checked my passport but it is still very likely that Hillary will win so I'm staying put for now. He's catching up in a similar way to his surge in Ohio so he'll fall just short in all likelihood. But he will slash Hillary's delegate and vote take and that is crucial.

The race still winds forward like a Joseph Conrad novel- when will it end and how many bodies will be strewn on the riverbank by the end?

Hillary Clinton's strategist misses the point, loses his job

Mark Penn, former Chief Strategist to the Hillary Clinton campaign, wrote a (rather fun) book, Microtrends, in which he analyses how by targeting small groups that are on the rise, you can have a big impact. An article in Portfolio magazine explains how he did precisely the opposite with Hillary Clinton's campaign. Penn tried to move the mountain rather than quarrying and mining away at a victory for his candidate. I suspect that he actually did apply his theory but just targeted the wrong groups. Penn went for the old micros traditional to the Democratic base rather than the new micros that Obama has attracted: independents, college students, affluent and well-educated liberals, disillusioned anti-Bush Republicans and so on....

What Penn's failure shows is that for all the polling in world you can't beat good old-fashioned political instinct. Any old mathematician can sit down to read and interpret polls. But it takes real political instinct to inspire whole new (and some old) groups of people. Obama has pursued his message of inspiration because that's what he believes. His organisation have maximised that appeal into a fund-raising and campaigning machine that is formidable and incredibly innovative.

Candidates that are built from the bottom up lack authenticity. Hence the likely failure of the say anything candidacy of Hillary Clinton. Better to have a candidate who lives and breathes their beliefs then work out how that can have maximum impact.

In politics it is not just about making a profit, it is about winning an election (or primary.) If you are an electronics manufacturer and sell millions of MP3 players because of clever targeting and marketing that's great. But in politics you have to get more than your rival not just satisfy your shareholders. Microtrends are fine but they rarely suggest a winning strategy. That is down to good old-fashioned policy and politics.