Farewell 2016, Fidel Castro, democracy, and rational polity

Well, it’s been a real car crash of a year.  To anyone who ever says “it can’t get any worse”, this is a wry reminder that it can always get worse.

Electoral outcomes that were all disastrous for the environment, voted for by people who are angry and disenfranchised, and thus fodder for any demagogue that promises a solution without having any real answers, or intention of carrying out what they promise anyway.

Habitat destruction continuing rampant – the single greatest threat to biodiversity, as it has been for a long time.

In fifty years, when too few of those alive will have reliable memory of these times, they will ask “what were they doing in the years 2000 to 2020, when they had a golden opportunity to fix things, with relatively little cost?”  All you can say is that venal, self-interested people persuaded whole electorates that first, there was no problem; then: we don’t know enough about it, or it’s not really a problem, or we can’t do anything about it, or we can live with it.

Vale Fidel Castro, who gave the world a shining example on how to improve health and education outcomes for the whole country (not just an elite) with scant resources.  And to all those who whinged that he was a dictator: look at those outcomes, then look at health, education and poverty in the USA, and how much worse they are and will be.  Then look at the US version of democracy:  with just a small nudge from Russia (with help from their stooge Wikileaks) you get an unethical, dangerous liar as president.

Things can always get worse before they get better.  But as just one person, the very least you can do is vote wisely, act ethically, and do whatever you can locally to help global outcomes.

Trumped

2016 will be remembered by history as a year of inflection and singularity - and not in a good way.

Why did the polls get it wrong on the US election?  That was probably the margin of Trump supporters who, when polled, didn't feel obliged to tell the truth.  Like their candidate.

Trump has many more outrageous and incorrect things to say, and he'll do it.  Much like Ronald Reagan, but with no semblance of class.  And people won't mis-remember Trump like they do Reagan.

Will he build a wall and make Mexicans pay for it?  No.  He might add a smidgen to what's already there, just to tick off that item.

Will he clear the swamp?  Of course not.

Will he put Clinton in jail?  He'll probably try.  He has a clear history of pursuing grudges.  But I very much doubt he'll be able to make good on that promise, for all his efforts.

What's left?  Global recession, unstable times, a nastier U.S. political landscape, a much worse time for America's working poor, let alone those without a job.  One thing he'll be able to do (with a non-hostile Congress) is roll back Affordable Healthcare.  An unstable polity in the hands of Clinton would be calmed; one under Trump will not.  He's anti-science, anti-truth, anti-climate-change... and a good way to make money will be to sell asbestos to Americas (Trump tweet 2012: "If we didn't remove incredibly powerful fire retardant asbestos & replace it with junk that doesn't work, the World Trade Center would never have burned down")

Be resilient in very turbulent times.

Obama's Noble prize

Congratulations to Barack Obama for his award of the Nobel Peace Prize.

Of course, a number of conservatives and Americans are frantically scratching their heads over this award.

(The Sydney Morning Herald's pet conservative, Paul Sheehan, complained: about Obama being nominated before he was two weeks in office; about the number of US Democrats that had been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in recent years - Jimmy Carter and Al Gore too; but he mainly complained about the Afghanistan government.)


But world politics is not felt by its subtlety, so some may have missed the work Obama has done to improve the atmosphere of multilateral politics.

It's worth looking at some of the reasons Obama was cited.  The Nobel committee said (with some emphasis added by me) the award was

" for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples. The Committee has attached special importance to Obama's vision of and work for a world without nuclear weapons.
Obama has as President created a new climate in international politics. Multilateral diplomacy has regained a central position, with emphasis on the role that the United Nations and other international institutions can play. Dialogue and negotiations are preferred as instruments for resolving even the most difficult international conflicts. The vision of a world free from nuclear arms has powerfully stimulated disarmament and arms control negotiations. Thanks to Obama's initiative, the USA is now playing a more constructive role in meeting the great climatic challenges the world is confronting. Democracy and human rights are to be strengthened.
Only very rarely has a person to the same extent as Obama captured the world's attention and given its people hope for a better future. His diplomacy is founded in the concept that those who are to lead the world must do so on the basis of values and attitudes that are shared by the majority of the world's population.
For 108 years, the Norwegian Nobel Committee has sought to stimulate precisely that international policy and those attitudes for which Obama is now the world's leading spokesman. The Committee endorses Obama's appeal that 'Now is the time for all of us to take our share of responsibility for a global response to global challenges.'"

Of polls, presidents, and kangaroos

An informal readers poll in the Sydney Morning Herald gave some interesting results for kangaroos and presidents.


The sample size given was 1256. Of those, just over three quarters felt that kangaroos "should be killed to provide meat for human consumption".

Of the quarter that didn't agree, doubtless some of them thought kangaroos were just too cute and furry. But the environmental debate is all but won by the carnivores.

Assuming there is a certain amount of inevitability about meat consumption, it would make more sense to harvest kangaroo than cow. They're lean, and built for the Australian environment - and so have far less effect on the Australian environment - and the global one, for that matter. Most overseas-originating arguments against it seem somewhat specious*.


And how do you think President Obama's going? About one in seven thought he was brilliant - somewhat less than I might have expected. Most just thing he's good. Some don't know, some go for the average... but less than two percent think he's performing poorly. That's surprisingly low, especially as one could expect there to be a reasonable number of partisans from the right in that sampling. And Obama has already been faced with a high number of no-win situations in a short amount of time.

I still contend that he imparts wisdom more consistently than any other players around him, but I would think that the mass judgment counts wins more than anything else. And it's hard to say that what clear wins he has had.

With any luck, the general public is collectively trying to use a bit of wisdom. Now that would be about as much of an ask as calling for a wise leader...


*Update 29-May-09: There have been some instances of bad industrial ethics/practices in the kangaroo industry (including brutality and lack of hygiene), but these are certainly not intrinsic to the issue of kangaroos vs cows.

rebirth of rationality in America

"Science, science, science" - summary from Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the US House of Representatives, when asked about priorities in a plan for reviving the US economy (quoted in New Scientist, 24 Jan 2009).

"I believe in evolution, scientific enquiry, and global warming" - Barack Obama, The Audacity Of Hope (p17).

"I refuse to believe the majority of people believe this malarky" - Joe Biden, now Vice President, when asked about intelligent design in 2006.

Obama is sometimes black

In reading the headlines in Australian newspapers, it's easy to get the impression that the only notable feature of Barack Obama as president is that he is black. Never mind his ethics, intelligence, insight, vision, coherency - and praxis. As a letter-writer took glee in pointing out in two Australian papers, Martin Luthor King said "[I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where] they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character." That writer didn't notice anything particular about Obama; he had already missed the boat.

But Obama is sometimes black. Meaning, there is sometimes some particular significance [beyond what his experiences have fed into his character]. This even apart from those around the world who are now infusing his ethics and asking themselves in a given situation "what would Obama do?"

BBC World Service radio recorded and reported some personal experiences from some people who had made the trek to Washington to experience the inaugeration in person. One African American woman expressed how he was a personal inspiration to her, his example encouraging her to a greater level of personal responsibility in her life. (Not that she, from her discourse, seemed to lack any particular sense of responsibility. It seemed, more, that she felt that connection, and felt duty-bound to take her sense of responsibility to a higher level.)

It is not my intention to purvey any sort of condescension here, but rather to convey a sense of the inspiration he has provided to so many people that would not have otherwise been engaged were he not African American.

Obama is black when it has particular significance. But for the most part, he is more than that.

Obama before inaugeration

Obama's "last interview before inaugeration" was another good insight into the man who, having already cemented his pivotal status in this epoch must also be, in some part of his mind, aware that eight years is a drastically short time to put in place sound building blocks for the world's future.

Despite the questions being inevitably located within the same melange of pressing issues of the era, and despite his charactistically easy loquatiousness echoing themes largely previsited, there remained room - as always - to gain further understanding of his capacity to chart the maelstroms.

He mentioned discussing with his daughters Lincoln's inaugeration addresses and their personal expectations of him to achieve so much, in a human sphere. He has consistently been able to weave any and all of the varying strands of ideas to a broader, nobler narrative. The clarity and strong coherency of his vision, humanity and intelligence is always stunning. Although that is all too often proven inadequate unto itself, he also clearly articulates action that is already underway as concrete reality. It's fortunate that the opportunity is here: There are truly few who could face these times like Obama.

Bush's final whimpers (#5 of 2008)

The Bush administration gave a coup de grace to 2008 in responding to the punitive Israeli attack on Gaza. When asked if they had been told of the attack in advance, a spokesman noted that a few days earlier the Israeli cabinet had flagged publicly that it could not tolerate the rockets from Gaza.

To date, neither Bush nor Rice have said anything about the assault on Gaza. One of Bush's signal goals of this term - peace for Israel and Palestine - has been quietly put out with the garbage.

Meanwhile, Laura Bush is making her own attempts at expiative rewrites of history. The Iraqi journalist who threw the shoe at Bush? It proves there is freedom in Iraq (never mind that he had his bones broken on arrest, and was tortured in jail). The "9/11" attacks: well, they didn't happen again under Bush's watch (never mind that they happened the first time, with clear warnings).

Bush doubled the US budget deficit in his tenure; the cost to the US of the Iraq occupation has been estimated at $3 to 5 trillion. That goverment spending deficit has been attributed almost entirely to security costs and tax cuts - see discussion here).

Bush's fondness for abstinence pledges over sex education and contraceptives has been a truly dismal failure. A study published in the journal Pediatrics (reported here) shows that those who took "the pledge" are equally likely to experience sex before marriage - but their use of condoms and other contraception is noticeably lower. The implication is that, in the US at least, this policy has simply resulted in more disease and unwanted pregnancy.

Spending any more time or energy on this is unwarranted. Frank Rich of the New York Times addresses this subject far more eloquently and rigorously than me (read in particular about Bush's own, risible, 'mission accomplished' publicity, which inter alia touts foreign disaster aid, while ignoring the Katrina fiasco in their own backyard).

2008 is simply the year that saw out a particularly bad and deeply unpopular president.

Some thoughts on Obama (#1 of 2008)

Two events of 2008 far outweigh in significance all others. I see Obama's election as having a greater long-term effect, particularly as he presents such a stark contrast against Bush's tenure in every possible way.


Obama's victory brings a lot of promises, and no guarantees. Even so, nothing short of revolution could change the landscape of American politics the way Obama has. This makes him the next best.

"I think... our values and and spiritual life matter at least as much as our GDP".

Simply in the manner of political discourse, he has made American politics a less venal, more noble arena. Although this is more a change in spirit than substance (it brings about no structural change), his influence will clearly be felt over the next few election cycles. But more, his presence has encouraged people to be more active in political processes, whether as a volunteer or voter. Disenchantment with "politics" only serves vested minority interests; greater popular engagement means, at the very least, those in power are obliged to a greater accountability to the public. (All this is true regardless of political hue or political system.)

I have found it hard to fault the consistency of Obama's character and vision, as he espouses in The Audacity Of Hope. (The most I can find so far is minor quibbles with use of language*, but there is context to this.) One could say that his efforts to unify views of polar opposition are doomed, but on the other hand he hangs his hat on the 'liberal' end of American politics.

"I am angry about policies that consistently favor the wealthy and powerful over average Americans, and insist that government has an important role in opening up opportunity to all. I believe in evolution, scientific inquiry, and global warming..."

I'm not overwhelmed by the stars. I think, for instance, that some of his appointments to date are going to prove fraught. Hilary Clinton is not the most diplomatic person one could appoint to the top diplomat position. And she will certainly not ease middle east tensions (nothing short of freedom for the occupied territories and removal of all Israeli settlements would achieve this - and that will not happen under her watch). Obama's appointments for science and for climate change are brave, but they are knowledgeable as scientists, not for their ability to navigate the treacherous political waters. The positions need a reasonable amount of scientific understanding, but a particularly strong political nous - not the other way around.


Still, I'm getting some very good signals from Audacity of Hope. It shows great clarity of vision, and it is one of the most pleasant reads I've had in a long time.


* For example: "...and then, with the walls of the status quo breached, every form of 'outsider' came streaming through the gates: feminists, Latinos, hippies, Panthers, welfare moms, gays, all asserting their rights, all insisting on recognition, all demanding a seat at the table and a piece of the pie." Some very legitimate claims are lumped in with some relatively spurious ones; on the other hand, he could be said to be making a characterisation of perception.

Obama's ethical reforms

"I have said repeatedly that I intend to close Guantanamo, and I will follow through on that."

"I have said repeatedly that America doesn't torture. And I'm going to make sure that we don't torture. Those are part and parcel of an effort to regain America's moral stature in the world."

Tuesday's great horse race, and the world's fate

Tuesday is the day of that great horse race, traditionally the day Australia stands still and celebrates. Ostensibly the world will also stand still on that day, but the US election happens on Wednesday our time, and so doesn't clash with the Melbourne Cup.

I'll be deferring celebrations until Wednesday, and watching that race; it'll be thoroughly enjoyable.

Twenty-seven years ago, US history professor Allan Lichtman (using statistical methods from Vladimir Keilis-Borok) developed a predictive model, 13 Keys to the White House, which has successfully forecast every outcome since then. Those factors, largely relating to incumbency, economy and war, point to victory for Obama. On the other hand, this campaign is not in the realm of the ordinary. In fact, many have characterised it as the pivotal election of our time.

I don't know that those 13 indicators are necessary. Possibly all the factors needed here are charisma, coupled with no significant negatives - and Obama's one 'negative' is proving simply not enough. But more, he has integrity, which comes through in his responses to criticisms, and his responses to some of the negative criticisms on his opponent by his own side. Personally, I'm barracking on the basis of policies as much as anything else - but that doesn't seem to be an influential factor in the US public picking a president. Given the notable lack of political engagement, subtle factors like policy don't filter through to the average voter's consciousness. [that's a bit unfair for the millions that are informed, but more a reflection on how the ultimate decision is really played out only at the margins.]

There are pivotal differences: on climate change, on equity, and on the candidates' different levels of grassroots community engagement, both well before the election, and during the campaign.

All factors point to a landslide.

Skin colour is clearly a factor, although as was pointed out on ABC's Insiders today, the US media has been remarkably restrained in dealing with this issue. But it's plausible that the outcome will be much tighter than the polls predict: what people say is not the same as what they do, and there's surely a lot of people who will nominate Obama in the polls, but will find it harder to actually vote for a black man. On the other hand, the grassroots efforts of Obama's people will see a much larger turnout than usual, predicted to match that of 1960 - where Kennedy, too, presented an option of hope and charisma.

Yet there remains the usually unsaid: Obama is and will be a target for domestic extremists. So far, this has been restricted to those without a clue or a plan. But as events move forward, those with more determination will be a constant threat - throughout Obama's presidency. That remains a pall on what will bring new hope globally - even if he is able to deliver only a part of what he promises.

Good luck.

Volatile capitalism and the short sell ban

The Australian government has banned short selling on the stock exchange for at least 30 days. Although this mirrors similar actions in ny other countries (including the US, Britain, Canada and Germany), few have extended such a ban beyond financial stocks to all short selling.

The stated aims are to reduce market volatility and to improve liquidity.

Short selling is a way of betting on the market: if you think share prices are going down, sell at current prices that which you do not own, with a commitment to supply the shares later - hopefully you buy them when lower.

All manner of Byzantine financial instruments and transactions have been created over the years to allow people to trade all manner of items in all manner of ways. In some cases, the type of transaction emerged as a way for productive entities to mitigate risk; others have their origins in speculative motives - ie gambling.

There would be valid business reasons for some to sell short, but it's clear that such a ban would have at least a somewhat soothing effect on the current turbulent market. Still, it's surprising that governments would countenance market restrictions that would affect legitimate business - but these are uncommon times. In one of the Murdoch papers, short selling is defended as an aid to price discovery. But there are myriad other ways for prices to emerge - if that's what you want - in a slower, more stable way.

Re-regulation is in the air, and the vultures arbitraging a living (or killing) from a position of extra knowledge at the margins (or simply from a willingness to gamble) are going to find their game stifled. Somewhat.


Elsewhere, analysts and journalists, too, are speculating (here, for example) within their metier. what if the world stops buying US currency and securities? How will China's massive surplus holding of same play out? In fact, they wouldn't tip the bucket (and sell US), because it would hurt them too. China is more likely to gradually diversify over time, which suggests an inevitable weakening of US fortunes. With world trade significantly denominated in US dollars, this too can create turmoil. For this reason, and for the current market chaos, we could quite soon see a scurry of central bankers collaborating in a more formal way to realign the financial stars for the new realities. And because of the clear origins of the current mess in the financial toxins released by America, its status could be irrevokably tarnished. Unless its regulatory hand is clearly brought to bear. If the rest of the world could vote on this basis, it wouldn't be for McCain.

Politics: Carter endorsing Obama

Former US President Jimmy Carter is a Democrat superdelegate. It was announced (by the Carter centre) that after polls closed in the final two Democrat primaries (Montana and South Dakota), Carter would pledge for Obama.



One wonders why he didn't do this before the primaries were over. Various news reports (here as well) point to an earlier surrogate endorsement when he said his family [children and grandchildren] supported Obama. Yet the Republicans (their National Committee) is reported to be active on the anti-Obama campaign by passing to journalists a two-year-old video in which Carter was apparently critical. The problem? Obama didn't yet have the "proven substance or experience".

Well, if that's all they can dig up, the Republicans are in trouble.

Carter also apparently said he regarded Al Gore as the best candidate (he wasn't ever to run), but if Hilary Clinton nominated, he would support her. But that was two years ago.

I'm not convinced that that earlier pledge was all that was behind the timing of Carter's official backing Obama. It's plausible that more superdelegates would have got behind Carter if he'd endorsed earlier, to the point of tipping the balance earlier.

Was it equivocation in any sense? A sense of duty to an earlier commitment? Or were (at least some of) the Democrats strategically opting for a lengthy primary campaign, calculating that prolonged exposure would outweight any internecine negativity?

Obama: ethics, intelligence, inspiration

Hunter S Thompson once wrote about a speech Jimmy Carter gave on the stumps running up to the 1976 presidential election. It was delivered, I believe, at a minor venue and was not widely reported.

Thompson was sparse on details, but his pivotal point was that the speech enormously impressed him and greatly increased Carter's stature in his mind. Soon after, he asked Carter for a text of the speech. Carter responded that it had been given off the cuff, and that nobody had kept a record of it.

Whatever you think of Carter or Thompson, the sentiment has to be admired. When in the course of a cliche-strewn, jading, saturation-reported, safe-rhetoric-laden election season, there is anything at all that raises the spirits, it must stand out like an oasis in the desert.

Barack Obama has given such a shining beacon of a speech.

I read it yesterday, and gave it a strong recommendation to the first two people I met (for the first time), minutes later.

The sentiment, ethics, and intelligence of the speech reflect enormously on the man. Until I read it, I suspected Obama of potentially empty rhetoric. But he dealt with a controversial situation (his association with a divisive firebrand preacher) not by distancing himself as any other candidate would, but by speaking to the wider issues with a ringing clarity.

My personal feeling is there has not been a candidate of such intelligence and ethics since at least Jimmy Carter (and I would be very surprised if Carter does not endorse him) - and probably much further back.

I can only hope that Obama lasts the distance to election day, because the world needs him.

BBC mentioned the speech is available on YouTube and Obama's web site. I reproduce below the text as I read it yesterday. The full text is here; the video is on Obama's web site (YouTube's copy is not in sync).

I recommend you read below for a taste, then watch the full 30 minute speech. I cannot recall ever being held by a political speech for more than five minutes; this lasts the distance and is most rewarding.


"The fact that so many people are surprised to hear that anger in some of Reverend Wright's sermons simply reminds us of the old truism that the most segregated hour in American life occurs on Sunday morning. That anger is not always productive; it keeps us from squarely facing our own complicity in our condition, and prevents the African-American community from forging the alliances it needs to bring about real change.
But the anger is real; it is powerful; and to simply wish it away, to condemn it without understanding its roots, only serves to widen the chasm of misunderstanding that exists between the races.
In fact, a similar anger exists within segments of the white community. Most working- and middle-class white Americans don't feel that they have been particularly privileged by their race. Their experience is the immigrant experience - as far as they're concerned, no one's handed them anything, they've built it from scratch. They are anxious about their futures, and feel their dreams slipping away; in an era of stagnant wages and global competition, opportunity comes to be seen as a zero sum game, in which your dreams come at my expense.
Like the anger within the black community, these resentments aren't always expressed in polite company. But they have helped shape the political landscape for at least a generation. Anger over welfare and affirmative action helped forge the Reagan coalition.
Just as black anger often proved counterproductive, so have these white resentments distracted attention from the real culprits of the middle class squeeze - a corporate culture rife with inside dealing, questionable accounting practices, and short-term greed; a Washington dominated by lobbyists and special interests; economic policies that favour the few over the many. And yet, to wish away the resentments of white Americans, to label them as misguided or even racist, without recognising they are grounded in legitimate concerns - this too widens the racial divide.
This is where we are now. It's a racial stalemate we've been stuck in for years. Contrary to the claims of some of my critics, black and white, I have never been so naive as to believe that we can get beyond our racial divisions in a single election cycle, or with a single candidacy.
But I have asserted a firm conviction that working together we can move beyond some of our old racial wounds, that we have no choice if we are to continue on the path of a more perfect union.

In the end, then, what is called for is nothing more, and nothing less, than what all the world's great religions demand - that we do unto others as we would have them do unto us.
For we have a choice in this country. We can accept a politics that breeds division, and conflict, and cynicism. We can tackle race only as spectacle - as we did in the O. J. trial - or in the wake of tragedy, as in the aftermath of Katrina - or as fodder for the nightly news. We can play Reverend Wright's sermons and talk about them from now until the election, and make the only question in this campaign whether or not the American people think that I somehow sympathise with his most offensive words. We can pounce on some gaffe by a Hillary supporter as evidence she's playing the race card, or we can speculate on whether white men will all flock to John McCain in the election regardless of his policies.
That is one option. Or, at this moment, in this election, we can come together and say, "Not this time".
This time we want to talk about the crumbling schools that are stealing the future of all our children. This time we want to reject the cynicism that tells us that these kids can't learn; that those kids who don't look like us are somebody else's problem.
This time we want to talk about how the lines in the Emergency Room are filled with whites and blacks and Hispanics who do not have health care; who don't have the power on their own to overcome the special interests in Washington, but who can take them on if we do it together.
This time we want to talk about the fact that the real problem is not that someone who doesn't look like you might take your job; it's that the corporation you work for will ship it overseas for nothing more than a profit.
This time we want to talk about the men and women of every colour and creed who serve together, and fight together, and bleed together under the same proud flag. We want to talk about how to bring them home from a war that never should've been authorised and never should've been waged, and we want to talk about how we'll show our patriotism by caring for them, and their families, and giving them the benefits they have earned."

Backing the unbackable for President

I can't see Obama getting the Democrat nomination.



All sorts of tripe is put in the mainstream media (and even more into the Blogosphere, I'd say). I read one opinion piece that said Clinton would be withdrawing pretty soon. But that's forgetting a) her determination (good on her); and b) her substantial campaign funds - she outguns the lot by a handsome margin.



Since this isn't the mainstream media, I'm happy to get hung for a sheep. I expect McCain to win Super Tuesday by a good margin, with only Romney left hanging out until the convention. I'm sure this would have surprised most people a month ago.



And I expect Super Tuesday to be rather inconclusive for the Democrats, with only Clinton and Obama remaining. I still can't see a black getting the nomination, although if anyone could, it's conceivably him.



So I would expect it to be McCain against Clinton. Both candidates being far more to the middle of the road is, I feel, happenstance. But at the very least, it would mean an unceremonious dumping of those neoconservative troglodytes currently bunkered in the Whitehouse. And it would mean no exit plan for the Iraq war, although on that score we can be grateful for new ideas - any.



I could be wrong about Obama. He's a candidate I'd like to back, but he'd quite a dark horse as far as his executive ability goes. His achievements so far, both inside the senate and out, have been very commendable, but that's not the same as running a presidency. Oh, what the heck. I'll go for him. Although I have much admiration for Clinton's commitment to reforms such as health care, she's relatively conservative. Edwards would be second, but oops I see he's already "suspended" his campaign.

Obama's sounding like a junior Kennedy. Could the Democrats go with him? Could he avoid the fate of the previous Kennedys? And would enough Americans be able to swallow their past and vote for him? Passing those hurdles, could he make the grade? So much in the way of true vision, but one can always hope...

I find it hard to place money on which of those three will get up. So, with the rider of slim margins between them, I'd guess McCain as most likely, with Clinton second and Obama third.

I don't worry about Clinton or Obama really. And McCain is not the worst the Republicans could throw up. At least that anti-science irrationalist Huckabee's not going to make a dent.

I'm not optimistic about action on climate change. Again, chucking Bush and his cronies will in itself achieve as much as it did in Australia when John Howard was dumped. On climate change alone, the only US politician I've heard in which I can have full confidence would be... Schwartzenegger. He's ineligible, being born outside the US. If Gore ever came back, you'd know the USA was starting to treat the issue seriously.

As far as watching horse races go, I'm less concerned about really bad outcomes than I have been in a long time. A really good outcome would be too much to ask for.

Update 04-Feb-08: I've been ignoring Mitt Romney by and large. Expect those Republicans who don't want McCain to coalesce behind Romney - especially all groupings to the right. So it's not really over yet.

Obama, ahead of his time?

It’s no surprise to hear Barack Obama has put his hat into the ring for the US presidency race – nearly two years early.

If you said Who? then you’ve already missed the boat. Time magazine picked him for its cover – for this reason – some time back.

Neither should it be a surprise that there was such a flurry of hats shooting into the ring in the wake of the mid-term elections. The Democrats can smell blood – that of Bush, his cronies, and anyone who comes within an ideological whiff of being tainted by the neo-conservative agenda, the oil agenda, or even the very mention of Iraq.

Ah, Iraq. Yet another chance for America to get confused, without even knowing why. Hey, we’re meant to be the good guys, remember? So why’s everyone being mean to us?

Why indeed? You didn’t, after all, create the war on terrorism. ...did you? Well, You certainly made it more of a, well, war, and less of a dialogue. And there’s that little matter of that bastard child of yours, that you keep giving pocket money to, so it can, well, play the bully.

Ahh, I digress. But why not? These people need a bit of a kick in the reality.

No, I was talking about Democrat presidential candidates. At this point in the cycle, the race has never been so NOT wide open.

Obama may have captured some people’s imagination. Partly because he’s the first black (yes, I know his mother’s white) to get a realistic lookin as a major party candidate. Partly because he has a young, dynamic turn of phrase, and seems to say the right things, if sometimes too generalistically. And partly because some relish the Great American video Game turning into Obama versus Osama (although, the sophistication of American politics being what it is, some will think he is Osama).

Yes yes, that’s a bit glib. Harsh, even. His achievements as Senator suggest there is substance behind him. But capturing imagination is one thing. It’s another thing (or two) to:

• As a relative novice, avoid stumbling under the intense media blowtorch that turns to ash most candidates;
• Capture the warchest that Hilary has.

Ah Hilary. Synonymous with “polarizing”. That’s another post, another day. And we’ve barely even started on Obama. Good luck to him on that blowtorch thing – I’m quite curious to see how he weathers it. Maybe in a few races time, Barack. Oops, I almost forgot you were black. And America just couldn’t vote for a black. Even harder than voting for a... woman.