January 6, 2008
The ‘c’ word
Change is suddenly all the rage here in New Hampshire. All the candidates for the presidency have evidently decided that Barack Obama won in Iowa because he has captured the word "change". Now they all want a piece of it.
The presidential debates - which have just finished - featured an increasingly silly battle over this magical word. John Edwards, running third among the Democrats in the New Hampshire polls, proclaimed that he and Obama are both "agents of change". Hillary Clinton announced that "I embody change." And Bill Richardson, the fourth Democrat on stage, gushed that "I love change." Still, he obviously has some trouble keeping up with a changing world since he announced that one of his first acts as president would be to open negotiations with the Soviet Union.
The Republicans were also banging on about change. Mitt Romney, second in Iowa and running neck-and-neck with John McCain here in NH, made a particularly spirited effort to claim the magic "c" word. McCain got a laugh by saying "You certainly are the candidate of change", a catty reference to Romney’s reputation for policy flip-flops.
In fact, all the candidates seemed to want to lay into Romney. Tactically, this didn’t make much sense (why not go after McCain or Huckabee) - so I suspect it just means that they can’t stand Mitt. He certainly is a goody two-shoes. Although, like all candidates, he spends a lot of time in coffee shops, he never actually drinks coffee, since it is an artificial stimulant. It’s true that he was in Paris in 1968. But he was trying to convert the locals to Mormonism, which seems to be rather missing the spirit of the times.
The conventional wisdom among the journalists here is that both Romney and Hillary are in deep trouble - and that McCain and Obama are the likely victors in Tuesday’s primary; and in the subsequent races for the Republican and Democratic nominations. Being a conventional sort of guy, I share this view.
But a little caution is in order. Some opinion polls show Romney beginning to close the gap that’s opened up between him and McCain in New Hampshire. (And there are rumours that one of the papers is about to print a very damaging McCain story.) And while two polls shows Obama and Hillary neck-and-neck in New Hampshire, only one so far have shown Obama actually ahead. Hillary acquitted herself well in the debate. And if she wins on Tuesday she will be promptly re-installed as favourite for the nomination - and the presidency.
Much of Paris was awakened on this clear, crisp Sunday by a tone on their mobiles that is usually expected only in the event of war, earthquake or leadership change. My SFRActu announced: “Mariage presidentiel en fevrier (JDD)” 09:33. So, here it is the “M” word and that is a big “c” in this political landscape.
My thoughts went immediately to Obama as I wondered when this new wonder will become a full-blown media creature. All the more reason to drill down on not just his checklist of positions, but on HOW he thinks.
Hillary has certainly shown she is not an easy PR agent’s client. Her post-Iowa body language has been that of an angered pre-feminist woman (actually works for me) who is not about to give an inch more on her ground without letting you know you will pay. Her words are playing less well, because she is biting her tongue and revealing her weak side: her raw, get-all-at-any-cost ambition. Unless her hormones shift in the next 24, I think Obama’s youthful, agile smile will win the day.
As with Sarko, who as a spotty-faced boy wearing a cravatte on the burning streets of Paris in 1968 would ikely have taunted a Mormon shite-shirted boy, journalists should put Obama on their arrogance watch list. Let’s hope it is unnecessary,because he is the one who seems to have the “c” stuff working.
Posted by: WCM | January 6th, 2008 at 10:18 am | Report this commentWalter Mondale famously remarked of Gary Hart’s “new ideas”: Where’s the beef?
It is high time someone similarly puncture Obama, so that all the hot air can be let out (anyone who could describe a caucus victory in Iowa as a ‘defining moment in history’ certainly has a lot of that). Obama is nothing more than a professional orator, though in the celebrity politics of America he might just make it (though I doubt it).
McCAIN FOR PRESIDENT
Posted by: RCS | January 6th, 2008 at 1:32 pm | Report this commentPerhaps because, unlike Gideon Rachman, I do not like to think of myself as a conventional sort of guy, I have questions about the accuracy of his predictions for the presidential nominations, at least on the Republican side. I believe that John McCain would be a great Republican candidate, but his humane, realistic and tolerant views on immigration are anathema to the Republican base (not to mention many Democrats as well).
Beyond that, from the point of view of the Republican establishment, McCain will always be a maverick because of his support of campaign finance reform. Remember what the establishment did to him in South Carolina in 2000 (including a racist smear campaign centering on McCain’s adopted Bangladeshi daughter). There will be more of the same if McCain wins in New Hampshire.
Questions will also come up about whether McCain, at 71, has the physical stamina to endure 4 years (let alone
as president. As a fellow senior, I feel somwhat ashamed for raising this point, but then again, I am not running for president.
As for Obama, he probably will win in New Hampshire, but he will face the full force of the formidable and destructive Clinton machine after that, and will have to struggle to survive it. My wife, who is a much more astute observer than I am, notices that Hillary has even adopted some of her husband’s gestures, such as waving her finger when she is making a point. So perhaps the talk of a co-presidency if “Billary” (as some Republicans used to call the Clintons) is elected is not so idle.
While I agree in part with Mr. Rachman that all the talk about “change” is basically silly, there is a sense in which change has more meaning than Mr. Rachman may realize. Some of the most unpopular Bush/Cheney policies, including the search for military dominance overseas, deregulation, and signing on to globalization (the NAFTA treaty, for example) had their origins in the Clinton era. Therefore “change” is not just a reaction against the equally silly notion of “political dynasties”, which has been bandied about by some commentators bereft of any real ideas, but is also a likely reaction against the Clintons’ “centrist” policies, which some Democrats are calling “Bush lite”.
It is also amazing how many commentators act as if neither the candidates nor the issues in this campaign had any history at all prior to the most recent sound bite. Without taking into account the history of such events as the Clinton presidency, Giuliani’s divisive and authoritarian record as mayor of New York, the 2000 election, which many Americans still feel deep down was stolen, and the huge growth in extralegal presidential powers during the Bush years, it is impossible to understand either what is taking place in the current election campaign, or to make predictions that would have any sound basis.
Posted by: Roger Algase | January 6th, 2008 at 5:17 pm | Report this commentHow is it that Mitt Romney’s missionary experience in France is missing the spirit of the times? He was trying to promote principles that he believed in. People say that if Romney wins, it will be in spite of his Mormonism. Why not vote for him because of his Mormonism - because he stands for principles and not hateful bigotry.
Posted by: David Richins | January 6th, 2008 at 6:42 pm | Report this commentwww.PrincipledLeader.org
“(And there are rumours that one of the papers is about to print a very damaging McCain story.)”
Please explain? I am interested in this since I have to decide soon. How can this be credible if the wait until the day before the election?
Posted by: Peter from NH | January 6th, 2008 at 6:50 pm | Report this commentPeter from NH, what story could be more false or vicious than the racial smear about McCain’s adopted daughter that the Bush people spread in South Carolina in 2000? I will not dignify it by going into details, but you probably know it anyway.
Whatever other “story” may come out about McCain one or two days before the primary, I would disregard it and just bear in mind the almost certain source, namely the Republican big money machine men who are certain to be backing either Romney or Giuliani, whichever one they think they have a better chance of putting over on the American public through slick and fraudulent advertising, and by painting them as “leaders” who have even the slightest concern about average Americans.
If I were a Republican, I would certainly vote for McCain. He is the only candidate in his party with an ounce of integrity (except for Ron Paul who, unfortunately, cannot be taken seriously).
Posted by: Roger Algase | January 6th, 2008 at 10:28 pm | Report this commentI have a 2-part question for all candidates. What are the three (and only three) biggest problems facing the US, and what are the three (and only three) principles opon which you will base your decisions?
Posted by: William Lambert | January 6th, 2008 at 10:57 pm | Report this commentWilliam Lambert
If Kucinich were viable, I might have gone for him. Watching him in 2004 Democratic debates, I agreed with him 100%.
This time, I’ve been an Obama fan from the start. Next Edwards.
Clinton runs with the Neocon crowd (Lieberman-Bloomberg). I remember her coolness towards Democrat Ferrer, up against Republican Bloomberg in the NY mayoral contest.
When Lamont won the CT Democratic primary over Lieberman, Clinton played it “cool” as well. As election day approached, Clinton issued a call for the election of tri-state (NY, NJ, CT) democratic candidates, omitting Lamont’s name from the list.
The NYT even wrote @ the omission.
Lamont was of course facing the same Lieberman who’ve gone “independent”. Lieberman was flooded with out of state help. Bloomberg came in early with staff & money.
Clinton is capable and basically a good person – presidential material. She figured that she could only make it with the help of the “establishment & Neocon crowd”. She got it wrong this time. With Obama, there’s change in the air.
What do I have against the “establishment & Neocons” ? The subversion of American interests over Israel’s. The damning occupation & slow strangulation of the Palestinians. The stirring of the cauldron for non-stop wars in the ME.
Posted by: Niall | January 7th, 2008 at 6:20 am | Report this commentNiall: “What do I have against the “establishment & Neocons” ? The subversion of American interests over Israel’s. The damning occupation & slow strangulation of the Palestinians. The stirring of the cauldron for non-stop wars in the ME.”
Well Niall, even if I did agree with your assertions (which I don’t!) it’s a pity that your vote will be solely determined by policy in the ME. That’s neglecting of your responsibility as a citizen.
Posted by: RCS | January 7th, 2008 at 9:20 am | Report this commentHillary Clinton yesterday evening: “…and if I remember a lot of people said they voted for George Bush because they wanted to have a beer with him. Maybe they should have left it at that.”
Obama runs the risk now of looking like the one who is packaged. He needs to break from his litanies. As Gideon Rachman indicated, they are beginning to look thin.
Hillary is beginning to play like the trial lawyer she is. We should see a bit more of Obama’s Consitutional law professor side.
Read an article here in Paris this morning speculating that divergences in message between Bill and Hillary seem to be suggesting a divergence in their marriage à la Hollande-Royal. Nonetheless, the journal predicts Hillary will outrun Obama.
Lastly, RCS’ “it is a pity” makes a point, but not the one he would like to make. Israeli political interests groups should not be permitted to operate in stealth. Only a more frank and honest discussion will permit this “issue” to find a more appropriate weighting in the US debate. At the moment, the AIPAC strategy seems to have succeeded in obliging nearly all candidates to be mute on foreign policy, which is the one area that the US public understands is uniquely directed by the president.
Posted by: WCM | January 7th, 2008 at 9:47 am | Report this commentI’d say, the P word is more relevant than the “C” word, as in “Plague on all their houses”.
No matter who becomes the candidate and the ultimate winner, they are so compromised by the lobby (and especially “The Lobby”) groups that, particularly in the field of foreign policy, they shall pursue the same harmful, inhumane policies of the Bu$h administration that has been so disastrous for most humanity in the past 7 years.
What really is the difference between Hillary the Democrat and any of the Republicans? As was pointed out by the poster Niall, she actually supported Lieberman, a renegade Democrat (basically a candidate of the Zionist Lobby) against the official Democratic candidate. So did most of the party apparatus. This shows that both parties are entirely infiltrated and dominated by The Lobby, at least as far as their foreign policy is concerned.
Although, I guess, Huchabee would be the dream candidate as he could be persuaded to bring about Armageddon quicker than the rest.)
There is no point in hoping for a “better” American administration. The hegemon should simply be opposed, regardless of which talking-head is selected to front for the vested interests.
Posted by: Pacifist | January 7th, 2008 at 9:59 am | Report this commentDear WCM,
Are you seriously suggesting that AIPAC would be able to prevent a candidate speaking out on an issue if there was enough interest from voters and therefore votes in it for them? Also, do AIPAC control the media as well, because it seems to me that if readers were interested then reporters would ask the candidates about it? Sure money is important in the US system, but not as important as voter concern. The lack of interest in this topic from the candidates suggests to me that there are few votes to be made banging on about how awful Israel is. Unlike I suppose in France.
Posted by: AYC | January 7th, 2008 at 11:32 am | Report this commentInteresting you thought she did well in the debate. Many, including myself thought she sounded her arrogant shrill self. In any event it is the independents that are driving Obama to voctory not just in NH but throughout the country. If that is correct about bad press story on McCain coming up in the last 24 hours before the vote…it will only smell of dirty politics and I think people will reject a last minute desperate smear campaign…
Posted by: Lisa-Helene Lawson | January 7th, 2008 at 3:14 pm | Report this commentOh please dont turn this into another posting barrage on AIPAC ISRAEL NEOCONS etc…..like these are the truly relevant foreign policy issues at the moment!…we need the “change agent” here at work!…Obama is a leader for the 21 st century…Edwards is highly admirable, Clinton is very mediocre, but I admit hard working and in some ways a more serious person than hubby…but there never was a reason to make her President, especially the first woman president…there is no resume there for that…
Posted by: Lisa-Helene Lawson | January 7th, 2008 at 3:28 pm | Report this commentChange — yes, many people in America would like to change the direction the country has been heading. The candidates’ debate is meaningless, however, because if you follow the money you lead back to common sources and policies.
Electing Hillary Clinton would be to put the reins of the country back in the hands of one of two families (Bush and Clinton) that would then have directed US policy for 24 (1 term)/28 (2 terms) consecutive years. George Washington must be turning in his grave at the thought of the existence of such political family dynasties.
McCain appears to be the only principled one among the lot. Unlike the other military hawks (Clintons, Bushes, Giuliani, Romney, etc.) who ran from military service despite their readiness to wave the flag and send others and their children to do battle, McCain served and his children are currently serving (a fact, to his credit, that he has refused to highlight in his campaign). His immigration and campaign finance policies are also thoughtful.
kc
Posted by: kc | January 7th, 2008 at 3:34 pm | Report this commentGiven the just reported events of Sunday morning in the Strait of Hormuz, we might be about to see a change in the mood of the voters - and one that will benefit Clinton and McCain. If Clinton pulls back somewhat tomorrow, she could probably attribute some of that to the actions of the IRGC.
Personally I think that Obama is too inexperienced to go all the way. Although there is no doubt he is the most electrifying of all the candidates, experience will be the deciding factor in the current environment.
Posted by: AYC | January 7th, 2008 at 4:11 pm | Report this commentMY PREDICTION
It will be Obama versus McCain, and the latter will be the next President of the United States.
Posted by: RCS | January 7th, 2008 at 4:23 pm | Report this commentLatest month hedge fund campaign contributions:
Clinton, Obama, Edwards, and Romney — all take in $900k to $1million
McCain — $330k
GR, you should re-check this metric following NH primary.
kc
Posted by: kc | January 7th, 2008 at 4:40 pm | Report this commentI agree, with one addition: Lieberman as VEEP.
Posted by: AYC | January 7th, 2008 at 4:41 pm | Report this commentre: AYC’s “just reported events”–There was not crisis to be reported. It was wreckless and dangerous behaviour on the part of Iranian sailors. It is a stretch to impute this incident to a Tehran-directed move. As for the “we are going to blow you up” shouts heard from passing speed patrols, one can also suspect, again, nothing more than hooliganism under a flag. US soldiers have hurled far worse insults and are not unknown for the occasional–and irresponsible–joyride and harassment of “enemies”.
Nonetheless, the incident was regrettable and the US ships demonstrated appropriate assessment and restraint. They do not appear to have been near coastal zones. At the moment, nothing justifies politicising this matter.
As for a response to AYC’s earlier question to me, I will respect Lisa-Hélène’s admonishment. No response is necessary.
Watching US clips today, it seems that Hillary’s all-claws-bared fight back may just be working–at least a little. No one has been able to hear a word of Obama. That is unfortunate. Anyway, it is Edwards who is eating at her voter base. Americans like their comedy and Hillary is dominating the stages and the airwaves. Still, no substance from anyone.
Also, I think it is incorrect to see the Clintons as a family dynasty. A less-than-noble power machine that is bonded by ambitions and arrogance unique to a certain generation of US once-young “institutional” elites seems a more fitting description, if less handy to phrase.
McCain is taking on a rather patrician stance in all of this, sort of like a father who smiles while others are storming in, out and around the house. Nonetheless, he is a hawk and has failed to demonstrate patience with nuance in his foreign policy. Although, I will agree he is looking relatively sophisticated. I would like to know more about where he stands with the Defense industry. My impression is that he has never been one to rubberstamp defence spending measures, but I’m not sure what the overall record of his relationship with the industry is.
Posted by: WCM | January 7th, 2008 at 4:44 pm | Report this commentYeah, sure the big bad Iranian speed boats “harassed” those tender flowers in the American navy but it couldn’t have been that serious or the oil price would have spiked which it didn’t.
BTW Can anybody tell me what real experience Ms. Clinton has that is relevant to running a big country like the US? Most US Senators are basically hacks who, like the useless, hopeless British MP’s, have never run anything. Being the wife of a president is surely not serious qualification?
P
Posted by: Pacifist | January 7th, 2008 at 5:34 pm | Report this commentGR,
Reading your puff piece about Obama in this morning papers, I fail to see that you have done much research outside of Obama’s press releases as to his candidacy.
Anyone who actually thinks “The Obama stance on domestic politics is based around the idea of bipartisanship and coalition-building” clearly is ignoring the voting record of one of the most partisan members of the Senate. Obama one of the leaders of a Chicago political machine who recently endorsed a clinically dead candidate for County Board President over a reformer. Obama is no force whatsoever for change in Chicago politics.
A cigarette puffing southsider who exclusively attended private schools outside of Chicago, profiting mightily from shady real estate deals, his wife’s meteoric career rise, and million $ book advances sounds like a typical Chicago Machine Pol, not an “international symbol of the American dream” you paint him to be.
Posted by: John Powers | January 7th, 2008 at 7:45 pm | Report this commentI suspect I am not alone on this side of the Pond in failing to have seen credible journalism about his Chicago career. Any recommended articles?
As I am a contemporary of Mr Obama and our lives have overlapped briefly in two cities (not Chicago), I found his remarks about why he Wall Street unconvincing. No healthy male just walked away from Wall Street in those years without a failure–not necessarily discrediting–behind him.
From this vantage point, Obama still sems to be the one deserving of being the star of the hour.
Posted by: WCM | January 7th, 2008 at 8:05 pm | Report this commentIN ONE WORD: DEMAGOGUE
I find passages like the following extremely distasteful:
“I have been teased and even derided for using the word ‘hope’,” he says. “But we are America. We don’t need leaders telling us what we cannot do. We need leaders who can inspire us to achieve things. Did you hear JFK [President Kennedy] saying: ‘You know this moon thing, it looks too far’?”
Am I alone? This is a candidate fitting of the age: the age of virtual reality. If Obama were to become president, he’d be a greater flop than either Carter or Bush. Don’t cry for me Argentina!
Posted by: RCS | January 7th, 2008 at 9:06 pm | Report this commentHere is a good story on Obama’s real estate background
http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/353829,CST-NWS-rez23.article
Here is one (rather pleasant in tone, but telling in details) on Michelle Obama’s fast rising career.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/chi-070422michelle-story,0,782112.story
Here is a real charming next door neighbor to Sen. Obama pleading not guilty to fraud a few days ago.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-rezko_04jan04,1,4840465.story
Note this guy from the above story, who did things in Iraq, “The Chicago Way”
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/20/world/middleeast/20minister.html?ref=middleeast
It is easy to miss these stories in Chicago, as they are quite common to a variety of politicians here….it just happens that this politician, Obama, is running for President.
JBP
Posted by: John Powers | January 7th, 2008 at 9:54 pm | Report this commentIt’s all too easy to pinpoint whole heaps of twaddle being spouted by Clinton, Obama and all the other candidates. Their strategy teams have all studied where previous candidates messed up, and have understood that it’s often campaign suicide to go into too much detail on contentious issues. They’re all trying desperately hard to stick to core, safe messages, whip up some fervour among crowds they’re addressing while also coming up with enough media hooks to supply the 24 hour media coverage. It’s not a formula that was ever destined to deliver much in the way of substance.
Obama’s hit the conceptual sweet spot with his change message, and is now milking it for all it’s worth in order to cement his Iowa advantage tomorrow in NH. Does this come at the expense of pompous, over-inflated rhetoric? Naturally. Would you expect any other politician to do anything else in the same circumstances? I don’t think so.
Similarly, Clinton’s now over-egging her change message. This “I’ve embodied change for 35 years” line is simply claptrap. Where’s the beef indeed. Of course, she has tried to effect change, most notably with Hillarycare, but look where that ended up. Tellingly, she’s allied to a number of the constituencies that brought her down then. Not very promising for those seeking a change agent.
It is problematic for Clinton that she projects such raw, naked, steely ambition to get the top job. It makes people uneasy - they think she wants it too much and will do anything to get it. I have to feel sorry for her though, as that’s what decades of being involved in the political system has taught her.
Who knows whether Obama has what it takes to do a decent job in the White House? I don’t - it is a rather exacting job after all. However, I do think that he’s clever enough to compensate for his own experience gaps with talented people. And for all his overblown rhetoric, I also think he would make decisions based on a more balanced and enlightened evaluation of America’s national interest than Bush, which can only be a good thing.
Whoever you support, and whatever you hear, always keep in mind the circumstances and constraints that the candidates are working within. It actually doesn’t leave a great deal of room for manoeuvre. This means it will always be easy to pick holes in their campaigns, but doesn’t necessarily give any reliable indication of what they’d be like as a PotUS.
Posted by: DKM | January 7th, 2008 at 10:09 pm | Report this comment“However, I do think that he’s clever enough to compensate for his own experience gaps with talented people” is exhibited how? Obama endorsed a (literally) brain dead stroke victim for Cook County Board President only a few months ago, only to then endorse the stroke victims son, in a passing of inherited titles unique in American Democracy.
Please look at his record before making such flowery statements as
“he would make decisions based on a more balanced and enlightened evaluation of America’s national interest than Bush” is pure hogwash.
JBP
Posted by: John Powers | January 8th, 2008 at 12:02 am | Report this commentThe latent power of idealism in American politics should not be discounted. Senator Obama has an issue that many independents and Republicans care about: can we change the politics of bitter hatred into a politics of consensus where possible and respectful disagreement where not?
Posted by: Richard Careaga | January 8th, 2008 at 2:13 am | Report this commentSo questioning “can we change the politics of bitter hatred into a politics of consensus” would seem to suggest a bipartisan agenda, no partisan holds on judiciary appointments, and a lack of demonizing ones political opponents, all qualities lacking in Senator Obama.
Obama is without question one of the most partisan members of the Senate, #4 Partisan Democrat, #99 Partisan Anti-Republican per the last ranking, yet somehow he is striving for “consensus”.
Look at the man’s “audacious” voting record (which is almost exactly the same as his ADM jet flying partner Dick Durbin’s stubborn voting record), rather than just repeating his PR fluff. How else can you judge such a thing?
JBP
Posted by: John Powers | January 8th, 2008 at 3:12 am | Report this commentHillary’s classic modus operandi has been on full display during the past 72 hours+. It fails to convey dignity; as for strategic intelligence, it seems unnecessary and misguided. Nonetheless, the US voter likes comedy and she took her wet-eyed act onto Obama’s stage. We will soon know if it works. It just might have, as Edwards is the one who should and likely will pay when the votes are counted.
I have looked into JP’s links and fail to be alarmed. The Chicago political landscape is not nice. Worse questions can be asked of those who sit in board rooms and law firms.A US colleague of mine began his career in public law in Chicago. The experience seems to have had first-rate effects. I smell a political operative.
Mr Rachman–I am also quite turned off by the massively funded, banal, superficial and manipulative “messages” that are formula for the electoral process in the US. This is sadly not news and I don’t believe it is the story. In the FT it would be helpful to find more probing of the power machines. For example, what should we expect of the foreign and economic policy fights if it is McCain-Obama? Will Obama embrace Strobe Talbott’s priorities as outlined in the FT at the weekend? Talbott used to be a vertebrae in the Clinton backbone. Surely there are some strategies and strategists trying to find a home or at least an hour.
Posted by: WCM | January 8th, 2008 at 9:59 am | Report this commentWCM,
Sniff away, or better yet, just read the newspapers before you form an opinion. The difference between the Senator and “those who sit in board rooms and law firms” is that the Senator is running for President, and the other guys aren’t.
It would be inspiring if someone at the Financial Times (or any other national media outlet for that matter) read other newspapers or could do a Google Search before declaring that Senator Obama was some kind of bi-partisan candidate, never touching (rather than endorsing) the corruption of Chicago Machine politics.
JBP
Posted by: John Powers | January 8th, 2008 at 1:03 pm | Report this commentYour confidence that true power is elected is impressive. Your attack on the FT seems uncalled for and raises questions amongst even grumpy sceptics.
Posted by: WCM | January 8th, 2008 at 1:12 pm | Report this comment