What a summer!

As the summer formally comes to an end (although the weather doesn't seem to have noticed this), it's time to reflect on just some of the many things that have happened in the last few months.

• Brexit.
• A new Prime Minister.
• Five leadership elections have begun (can you name all five parties?).
• Wales have been the last Home Nation remaining in an international football tournament.
• England has had to get a new manager. And it's still looking for some more decent players.
• Gary Lineker has shown what to do when a wild prediction proves correct. Pay attention Paddy Ashdown.
• Donald Trump vs Hillary Clinton
• Torrential rain.
• Hornby have had excellent advertising for their R3501 Virgin East Coast Train Pack.
• More celebrity deaths, including the voice of Postman Pat.
• ...and so much more.

It's been quite a few months that have kept the papers busy. Who would have thought the summer could be more intense than the autumn?

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...

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?

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!

Washington DC says No to Clinton

Well that's the "Potomac Primary" over. I visited Washington DC back in 2000 during another Presidential election year but the only political conversation I had was with a Vietnam veteran protesting because his friend was sent to Vietnam in Bill Clinton's place and died. He was pretty scathing about the Clintons and last night's results suggest that this dislike of them is shared by many in the city.

Hillary Clinton is now badly blooded and on the back foot, although if you believe that this well connected Washington insider with stackloads of "super delegates" is an "outside challenger" in this contest then I guess you'd believe Bill did not have sexual relations with that woman. If the super delegates give her the nomination over the popular choice of the primaries, then the party's demands that it be called "Democratic" will become even hollower.

But this seems unlikely. Clinton is now basically ignoring the next round of primaries and focusing all her efforts on a state often included in the South. (BBC News: Defeats push Clinton onto back foot) Hmm sound familiar? But this strategry backfired on Rudy Giuliani failed and it will probably backfire on Clinton as well.

As for Barack Obama, I saw his speech last night but can't see this "great new hope" that so many think he is. Is it just that he's a new name on the scene? Or that he talks about unity across a very divided country? He certainly didn't win me over.

These are NOT our natural friends

There's a lot of matters where I am in strong disagreement with Tim Montgomerie but that's what healthy debate does for you. But there's one matter where he and I are very much in agreement and that is the way the fringe nutters in the US Republican Party do so much to damage the cause of conservatism with their rampant bigotry and naieve view of the world. Tim highlights this again in his post CentreRight: The Ann Coulter problem and shows the following picture of car stickers being sold at the recent Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC):

Well okay a few are bearable (e.g. "Proud Republican" and "Mitt Romney for President") but the bigotry and personal abuse is such that I almost feel sorry for Hillary Clinton - and that really takes some doing. If stickers like the racist "Press 1 for English, Press 2 for deportation", the homophobic "Republican Women like Men" or the sexist "KFC Hillary Special - 2 Fat Thighs, 2 Small Breasts, ... Left Wing" (or a T-shirt comparing the landmark abortion Supreme Court ruling with the Holocaust) appeared alongside those for any significant British politician, they, their party and the very ideology would be rightly crucified from all sides. That wouldn't be any "liberal bias" (and the US right needs to learn what "liberal" really means), that would be the ordinary, decent humanity of the vast majority rejecting twisted bigotry.

Now you may thing that this is just the product of an extreme fringe. But it's a very popular fringe with Ann Coulter having no remote counterpart in terms of popularity or outspokeness (or the ability to leave Jeremy Paxman gobsmacked) on the right in the UK. Tim is right to clearly and openly distance himself and others from this extremism.

Bye bye Romney

I've not had much time to blog about the US Presidential election, especially given how fast it's gone. But right now I'm watching as Mitt Romney announces his withdrawal from the race. I never warmed to Romney - he always comes across as a bit of a robot on stage. As you can probably guess, of the remaining candidates I want Guliani, although Ron Paul's campaigning techniques and youth support are not something to be ignored. Now that the contest is formally down to John McCain, Ron Paul and Mike Huckabee it can only be McCain - that will come as little surprise to my readers.

Meanwhile the Democrat race goes on and on, with the absurdly complex rules of their side of Super Duper Tuesday leaving everyone still trying to work out who "won". Had November's election been Romney vs Barack Obama, I'd want Obama to win, but now that McCain will be the Republican nominee I want him instead. And anyone would be better than another four years of the Clintons.

Is Oprah female or black?

Since the answer is "both", you're probably think that that's the stupidest question anyone could ask. And you'd probably be right.

However with race & gender becoming ever more prominent in the US Presidential primaries there are ever greater demands for people to support a candidate not because of policies but because they are the same race or gender as the voter. So what happens when they are the same as two candidates?

normblog: Oprah or farce? notes that Oprah Winfrey's endorsement of Barack Obama has led to supporters of Hillary Clinton makind accusations of treachery against her fellow women! See also The Sunday Times: Women turn on 'traitor' Oprah Winfrey for backing Barack Obama.

Now I don't know much about Oprah's particular brand of politics so I can't comment on which candidate is the natural choice for her. But I find it hypocritical of her detractors to attack her not for apparently choosing a candidate on grounds of identity, but for choosing the wrong identity!

So is the term to be "First Gentleman"?

The race for the White House has shifted a gear. (BBC News: Hillary Clinton joins 2008 race)

Whilst I doubt Hillary Clinton will actually win her party's nomination (recent history is not the side of the early favourite Democrat) invariably people will be speculating on what to call the husband of a female US President. There aren't too many precedents and the husband of governors who use "First Lad" and "First Dude" don't seem likely to be trend setters. However Daniel Mulhern, husband of Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm, seems to officially billed as "First Gentleman" and so maybe that term will catch on.

On a more pertinent question, just what is Hillary's given name this week? Her Senator website calls her "Hillary Rodham Clinton" but her campaign website calls her "Hillary Clinton". Studies have shown that "Hillary Rodham Clinton" polls better than "Hillary Clinton", (CNN.com: Poll: Spare the 'Rodham,' spoil her election) yet "Hillary Clinton" carries far more name recognition. Is she trying to have her cake and eat it?