"Mummy, what does 'santorum surging' mean?"

So far the US Presidential election is just dull.

Compared to recent contests this one just hasn't caught fire. On the Democrat side the euphoria from when Obama was first elected has now died down as even his most ardent supporters realise he can't walk on water and isn't going to deliver endless change they can believe in. But he's basically unopposed for his party's nomination. (Yes pedants I know there's probably a few non-entities who've managed to get their name onto the odd primary ballot paper but that won't make a difference.) The last incumbent President in such a position who went on to lose re-election was Herbert Hoover back in 1932. That should give Obama comfort until he remembers that Hoover fell in harsh economic times - and no Obama can't simply magic away the world's economic problems. We're not in Doctor Who!

On the Republican side we have the return of Mitt Romney and the succession of "stop Romney" candidates, and all it's done is reinforce perceptions of the Republican Party as full of nutters. Now just because I'm a British Conservative doesn't mean I should automatically cheer on anyone from one of our "sister" parties around the world - you don't see many Conservatives cheering on Nicolas Sarkozy and Angela Merkel at the moment despite their parties being founder members of the IDU. The nuttier wings of the Republican Party are not ones that should be copied here. But they can at least make things exciting - and at the moment that hasn't happened. Instead it's one long dull fest.

Of course there is the occasional moment of humour, especially with Rick Santorum. For there is a not very nice meaning for "santorum" and if he pulls off an early primary win a lot of people will be searching for more information on him.

So why are journalists so keen to write that "Santorum is surging"?

Shock horror as Nick Clegg learns he's not considered a potential Prime Minister

One of the amazing things about Liberal Democrat leaders is their ability to take themselves so seriously when all around them see them for what they are. Nick Clegg has just had the latest shock. For he has realised he will not be meeting with Barack Obama.

I am really annoyed... As it was not a state visit I understood I wouldn't get to see him. But when I found out Obama was meeting the Queen and David Cameron I got on the phone to David Miliband to ask him what was going on.

(Source of quote: Daily Mail: Nick Clegg's in a spin over Obama visit)

You see Obama is meeting with the present and prospective future Prime Ministers. Not with the perpetual leader of a minor opposition party. What interest has he in wasting his time?

Liberal Democrat Voice: Clegg 'annoyed' not to be meeting Obama notes that Liberal Democrat frontbenchers are allowed to consult with departmental civil servants, in the same way the Shadow Cabinet are, but that is because there is a realistic possibility of the Liberal Democrats serving in a coalition. Not that they may form a government. Both the White House and the Foreign Office realise this. Nick Clegg clearly still has delusions of grandeur.

Obama conforms to stereotype

The arrogant American abroad is a well known stereotype. They exhibit many traits but one of the most annoying is when they automatically assume that everyone can use their things, usually their money, and tries to force it on. I have experienced it myself once when selling something on eBay and the buyer mailed me dollar notes. Unless I go to the US anytime soon they are utterly useless (they're too low an amount to make changing them worthwhile and the small number of shops who do accept them are primarily ones for tourists at airports that neither sell much I want nor charge low prices).

A similar thing comes with DVDs. In order to prevent free trade in DVDs, especially in an era when one can buy directly from the US over the internet, the DVD industry included the region code system that means many DVDs can only be played on players configured for the same region. Some but not all DVD players in the UK can play discs from any region but it's not exactly "recommended" by the manufacturers. But the stereotypical American seems ignorant of the problem and assumes that any player in the world can play a Region 1 disc.

And Barack Obama has conformed to the stereotype. (Daily Telegraph: Gordon Brown is frustrated by 'Psycho' in No 10) His entire gift to Gordon Brown is utterly useless over here.

By the way this has a bearing on Brown's DVD meme. I now get just six points for seeing the films, as I don't have any of them on Region 1. How do other people do?

Brown's DVD meme

I've been tagged by Mars Hill: Gordon's DVD Meme. This is about the 25 DVDs that Barack Obama gave Gordon Brown.

Take two points for every film you own and have seen (only one if you own it but haven't got round to watching it yet), one point if you've seen it but don't own the DVD, and no points for those you haven’t either watched, purchased or been given.

OWN: Star Wars Episode IV, 2001: A Space Odyssey, the Wizard of Oz.

SEEN: Gone With The Wind, To Kill A Mockingbird, Lawrence of Arabia, ET.

NEVER SEEN: The Godfather, Schindler's List, It's A Wonderful Life, Citizen Kane, Singing in the Rain, Raging Bull, Vertigo, The Searchers, Psycho, The Graduate, On the Waterfront, Some Like it Hot, Chinatown, City Lights, Sunset Boulevard, Casablanca, The General, and The Grapes of Wrath.

I get 10 points. Erm...

Brown wasn't the first to meet Obama

Everyone's been billing Gordon Brown as the first western leader to meet President Obama. For instance The Guardian's website indexes a story with "PM in DC: Brown was the first western leader to see President Obama, but how was his speech to Congress received?" From this we can conclude one of two things.

Either the Grauniad is prone to inaccuracies. No surprise there.

Or Canada isn't part of the west.

And here was me thinking Stephen Harper is a very western leader!

National Post: British press declares Canada no longer part of the western world has the details on this one, including photographic evidence.

Oh and whereas Obama was able to spare only half an hour for Brown, Harper got a full visit to Ottawa. But then did Brown really think his meeting was for any greater purpose than snubbing Sarkozy?

Another Obama appointment collapses

Following up on Obama fails to walk on water, the latest news is that Judd Gregg, Barack Obama's latest proposed Commerce Secretary, has withdrawn. (BBC News: Another Obama cabinet pick quits) At least this time it's because of policy differences, rather than personal taxes. But this is not shaping up to be the all-singing, all-dancing, all bipartisan administration promised.

Obama fails to walk on water

If only this were the moment where the ridiculous overhyping of Obama ceased. But no-one ever pays much attention to the cock-ups of Cabinet appointments.

Obama has said "I screwed up" on two of his appointments - a would-be Health Secretary and a would-be budget watchdog who both withdrew because of investigations into their taxes. (BBC News: Obama admits errors over cabinet) There was also his (successful) nomination of a Treasury Secretary with tax problems. (BBC News: Obama's cabinet nomination crisis - no wonder the Barack Broadcasting Corporation is indexing that story under the alternative title "Honeymoon over?") So much for this glorious new era for the US - it's the same as ever! And then there was Obama's nominee as Commerce Secretary who had to pull out because of a contract given to campaign donors. Have all the years of being a Chicago politician made Obama blind to the problems of sleaze?

And then there's the appointments that have actually stuck. To shore up his limited foreign policy experience Obama's picked both Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton with inevitable potential for disagreement - how many foreign policies is this administration going to have? Or there's the new appointment as Commerce Secretary - a man who voted for his own department's abolition. (BBC News: Republican to join Obama cabinet)

Very little of this is actually going to affect public perceptions of Obama and it's doubtful any of this Cabinet are going to succeed him - the last Cabinet minister to successfully run was, if I recall correctly, Herbert Hoover. But it's not the best start. And combined with his failure to deliver the much trumpeted bipartisanship (BBC News: Bi-partisan hopes fail first test) Obama is rapidly proving to be not some glorious superhero putting the world to rights (hey not even his hero Spider-Man can do all that!) but just another US President. I hope more people come to realise this rather than continuing to harbour unrealistic expectations.

And cue outrage in the comments that anyone dares to cast a critical eye over Obama...

Further thoughts on another "British Obama"

Further to my past post on British Obamas? Yes we've had a few, a few other thoughts on the matter, this time on the problems in the US.

What is perhaps not realised so well is that the key barrier that had to be overcome to having a black President wasn't the Presidential election itself but in getting black politicians to credible elected positions - usually a Governor or Senator - from which they could then make a credible bid for the Presidency. FiveThirtyEight.com: Why Are There No Black Senators? and the resulting discussion thread looks at this problem in the US, with the conclusion that successive measures aimed to protect black voters have resulted at Congressional level in them being ghettoised into gerrymandered safely Democratic urban seats, with the result that black US politicians appear too left-wing for moderate swing voters and few Republicans have to make any appeal to black voters because there aren't many in their own seats. This in turn reduces the pool of potential Senate and Gubernatorial candidates who in turn could run for President. Obama got lucky in missing out a period in the House of Representatives (and it's easy to forget how during his Senate race practically everyone inside - and outside - the Illinois Republican Party seemed to falling over to remove any credible challenger to him) but it's going to take more to get a more permanent grouping of black mainstream politicians in both parties and enable black conservatism to gain a stronger voice. (And yes there have been black Republicans in Congress - the last was J.C. Watts who rose to the number four position in the House Republicans.)

The British system is very different and so far there is no route to the premiership other than service in the Commons. I can see London electing a black Mayor in the future (how about James Cleverly when Boris retires?) but I don't think we've yet reached the point where it's possible for a high flier in another political sphere to jump directly into front line politics in the Commons, unlike in Canada where provincial politicians and even private citizens often get chosen as party leaders. So it is going to come down to those who have worked their way up through the benches in the House and are sufficiently moderate to win the leadership. To take the first four BME MPs elected back in 1987 as examples, the likes of Diane Abbott and the late Bernie Grant would never make it, both being too far on the left of the party. Keith Vaz had a promising ministerial career but was derailed by sleaze. However I believe that if he had not become High Commissioner to South Africa, Paul Boateng would currently be one of the most senior members of the Cabinet and given Gordon Brown's succession of local difficulties Boateng would have been a credible potential candidate in all the leadership speculation and a darn sight more serious one than David Miliband and his banana.

When another fresh face entered the White House

Mars Hill has been running various YouTube videos of past US Presidents (see President Kennedy On Civil Rights & President Johnson's Announcement That He Won't Seek Re-Election, President Carter on the Success of the Egypt/Israel Talks and President Reagan on the Cold War Situation and President Nixon's Resignation Speech and President Ford's First Speech as President ). So in response I'd like to post another, this time another inaugural address. And it's one that seems very appropriate for today.

It was a time when after years of tension and turmoil the United States had been left bitterly divided. Then in a fiercely fought Presidential election a fresh face won the election and entered office with so many full of hope that everything would change, that the country would recover its lost international prestige and greatness and that it would be a glorious new era.

Not so different from now, eh?

So without further ado I give you the inaugural address of the President whom Obama seems to be most like:

Yes Jimmy Carter and his oh so wonderful presidency. Now how long before Obama becomes Carter in deeds as well as in entrance?

Still after years of Carter came Reagan so in the long run things turned out better!

British Obamas? Yes we've had a few

Peter Cuthbertson has contributed an interesting post CentreRight: After Obama, could it happen here? Yes, in 1868 noting that the UK had a Prime Minister from an ethnic minority 140 years ago. But many people now no longer list Jews amongst ethnic minorities and so forget Benjamin Disraeli.

I also remember a moment of the Question Time US election special when someone in the audience said that the United States is the only place where someone raised by a single mother could become leader. Again the UK has been there long ago, when in 1924 Ramsay MacDonald became Prime Minister.

So how long will it be before we see a non-white Prime Minister? It's hard to say because leaders rarely suddenly emerge in British politics but rather spend some time in the Commons first, and to describe someone as "going to be Britain's first [something] Prime Minister" is a kiss of death to a career. But I think after the next election we will be seeing several potentials on the front benches. This country is used to being led by non-white Britons - look at sport! All we're awaiting is the right candidate in politics.

(P.S. I've been told that by the US definition of these things we've already had a black Doctor Who. Can you guess who? And no, it's not Lenny Henry.)

It's almost over

As much a politics junkie as I am, I have been getting ever more sick to death of the US Presidential election. Compare it to the Canadian election that was called and fought in about six weeks! (And shame on the media for barely giving a mention to one of the most successful Conservatives in the Anglosphere. Stephen Harper is practically unknown in this country, even amongst Conservatives.)

Soon it will be over. I have a suspicion it's going to turn out closer than expected. And if we do get another case of the popular vote going one way and the electoral college another I hope the US will actually make a decision about whether they want such a silly system. Or if it's the Democrats losing again they can stop whining and remember that it was the college not the popular vote that gave John F. Kennedy the White House. (Or that Barack Obama did not win the popular vote in the Democrat primaries...)

Maths (or constitutional law) for learners

I've just seen BBC News: US rivals in economy crisis talks about the response of John McCain and Barack Obama to the growing financial crisis. Whilst McCain's response by suspending his campaign is an act of statesmanship, putting country about ambition, Obama's response of continuing to grub for votes is a sign that he is developing some of the worst features of Hillary Clinton.

But what really caught my eyes was the following:

Americans needed to "hear from the person who in approximately 40 days will be responsible for dealing with this mess", Mr Obama told journalists.

The next President does not take office until the 20th of January. So either Obama can't count (it's 117 days) or has forgotten that the new President doesn't take office on election night (so much for his claims to be experienced because he once taught constitutional law).

At such a difficult time for the economy, does the US and the wider world really want a learner in office?

John McCain shows his grace

Thanks to Iain Dale's Diary: McCain Shows His Class for this one. John McCain has put out the following advert to congratulate his opponent:

It's not an advert to win votes but a reminder that politics doesn't have to be ridiculously partisan at all times. Well done that man!

And it's Joe Biden

Barack Obama has chosen Joe Biden to be his running mate. (BBC News: Obama picks Biden as running-mate ) It's a bold move in one sense - Delaware has just three votes in the electoral college and is a pretty reliable blue state. But in another it means Obama now has his own Lloyd Bentsen who could prove to be far more credible than the Presidential nominee. And a campaign promoting "Change we can believe in" now has not only an all Beltway ticket but now includes a man who entered the Senate when Obama was prepubescent.

If there is one significant move in all this it's that increasingly the Vice Presidency is tacking away from being a stepping stone to the Presidency - who can seriously envisage a Biden 2016 bid? Instead the role is becoming more and more a significant office in its own right. And in turn that will make nomination battles more open and competitive. Dick Cheney (who also comes from a tiny state his party never needed to worry about) may well have made his best long term contribution to the office here.

Obama stops walking on water

The latest opinion polls are not looking good for Barack Obama. The Boy Wonder is slipping into a dead heat despite having far more campaign finance and far more television coverage than John McCain. (BBC News: Why has Obama's poll lead slipped?) McCain's legendary underdog ability to triumph over superior odds is coming to the fore and at a time of rising fuel prices Obama is starting to run on empty.

So he needs to pull a rabbit out of a hat, aka choose a Vice Presidential nominee who can boost him. Times have changed since the days when delegates at party conventions got drunk over dinner and laughed about who to nominate, then carried forward the joke to the vote, resulting in people like William Wheeler going from one form of obscurity to another whilst Presidential nominees were left wondering just who their running mate was. (Rutherford Hayes famously said to his wife "I am ashamed to say: Who is Wheeler?")

Nowadays the choice is treated more seriously but is there really a stunning Democrat who can join the ticket and magically turn around Obama's chances? I somehow doubt the choice announced today (BBC News: Obama set to reveal running-mate) will do that.

Well it made me laugh!

Just now on the The Daily Show (Global Edition) Jon Stewart mentioned how Barack Obama, has set up Fight the Smears to deal with all the accusations flying around. But perhaps he should have picked "I Can't Believe That I Barack Obama Have To Deal With This Shit."

However it was taken.

So no more President Clinton

Today Hillary Clinton is going to do what she should have done days ago and concede she's lost the race for the Democratic nomination. BBC News: Clinton to bow out of campaign She has learnt the hard way that she did not have a God Given Right to it and her attempts to bypass the voters by appealing to super-delegates or sending a mob to harass the Rules & By-laws Committee to get a favourable outcome would, if successful, have made her not the Democratic Nominee but the Undemocratic Nominee.

Why has she taken so long? Is being a sore loser inherent in the Democrats' nature? Or is just hard for Clinton to accept that it's not going to be her?

If there's one thing that's irked me more than anything else about her campaign it's been the argument that she should be elected so there can be a woman President and break the glass ceiling. Well if she had won the nomination and Presidency (and inflicted the horror of another term of the Clintons on the world) it wouldn't have been a triumph for women. It would have been a triumph for political marriages.

The US has a number of women in high political positions who have got there on their own merit - Nancy Pelosi and Condoleezza Rice to name but two. But Hillary Clinton is not in this category.

The US and the wider world needs change for the future. Not changing to the past. There are now two very good candidates who each represent a forward direction of change. But let's hope that Barack Obama is sensible enough to not put the past in the Vice Presidential slot on the ticket.

Recent quietness

One thing after another has got in the way recently, hence my quietness. But don't worry, normal service is resuming.

And I note that the US Democrat nomination is still running. Are they trying to bore us all to death?

Current quietness

I've not posted much lately as several things have occupied my time, although in the interim we still don't have either the results of the Zimbabwean presidential election or an ending to the US Democrat nomination battle. Does anything ever change?

I'll probably be quiet over the next week or so as well as certain other events here in London will be occupying my time. But don't worry, normal service will be resumed!

Who can you trust in this world?

I've just been sent links to Hembeck.com: Action Comics #309 and Comics Make No Sense: More Super-Celebrity Thursday! about one of the silliest superhero comic stories going, "The Superman Super-Spectacular" which appeared in Action Comics #309 that went on sale the last week of November 1963.

This story (a full rundown is at Fred Hembeck's site) saw Superman appearing on a "This Is Your Life" style programme celebrating his life and career, with all his friends appearing. The only slight problem is that his alter ego, Clark Kent, is due to be one of the guests and Superman's plans to have either a robot or Batman stand in for him keep going astray. So amidst much madness he turns to the one man he can trust, who willingly disguises himself as Clark:

Ah what a simpler age it was then! Or not - as I said earlier, this issue went on sale the last week of November 1963, perhaps not the best time to appear.

But just imagine that panel with a later President. Could anyone take this scenario seriously:

Or what about the two most likely candidates for this year's election?


So if we can't trust the US President, who can we now trust?