It is not just the US that is holding elections. There is a Spanish general election on Sunday and the streets of Madrid are festooned with campaign posters.

Spanish political slogans have lost a little of their élan, since the civil war and the days of “No pasaran”. The main parties in this election have clearly run out of inspiration on the sloganeering front. Outside my hotel is a huge banner for the centre-right Popular Party, featuring its smiling, bearded leader, Mariano Rajoy. The line on the poster is “Clear ideas, with Rajoy it’s possible.” The main slogan being used by the governing Socialist Party translates as “We are the majority”. To which the obvious response is: well, we’ll see about that on Sunday, won’t we?

Actually, most political analysts are, in fact predicting a narrow victory for the socialist government of Jose Zapatero. At a panel in Madrid yesterday morning, four out of the five panellists predicted a Socialist (PSOE) victory; just one panellist thought that the PP might make it. This is hardly surprising since the PSOE have been ahead in every poll for months, even when polls are adjusted to take account for the reluctance of some conservative voters to own up to their political preferences.

If the PP do fail to make a breakthrough, they should kick themselves. There are plenty of things in today’s Spain that should work well for a rightwing opposition party: the economy is faltering and there has been huge illegal immigration. These themes have come to the fore in recent weeks. Who knows - they might yet produce a surprise on Sunday.

So the race goes on. Hillary’s victories in Ohio and Texas are both embarrassing and pleasing for political pundits. Pleasing because this is fantastically exciting election - and now we well get some more of it. It’s like being told there will be an extra series of The Sopranos. Embarrassing - obviously - because once again the conventional wisdom has been turned on its head.

I did a BBC Radio programme yesterday morning in which it was all but assumed that the race was over - and it was clearly going to be Obama v McCain. To his credit my fellow guest, Robert Kagan, insisted that Hillary had a good shot of re-opening the race by winning both of last night’s primaries.

Since Kagan was right about that, let me also quote him on the question of presidential character and foreign policy. This is something that both the Clinton and McCain campaigns are going big on. McCain last night insisted that he is by far the most experienced candidate to deal with a foreign policy emergency. And the Clinton campaign has been running TV ads, showing Hillary answering an emergency 3am call at the White House. (more…)

If you browse down my blogroll, you will see a link to the excellent and eclectic Normblog.

Norm has asked me to write a piece on a favourite book, which you can find here. Seeing my effort on screen, it seems extremely short and perfunctory. But some of the other efforts in Norm’s “writers choice” series are really good. I particularly recommend the essays by John Lloyd, Francis Wheen and Christopher Hitchens.

In my earlier musings on the character of my fellow columnist, I left out one other abiding impression from our time at The Economist. It really is a big mistake to get into a prolonged argument with Clive. Once riled he is relentless. The conversation will only end when Clive has nailed your head to the floor (figuratively speaking, obviously).

So I’m going to accept his invitation. Let’s call it quits. History can judge whether Obama is an orator to be ranked alongside King, Kennedy at el. But I think we should take a broad view of what history means. Let’s wait at least 200 years before we form a definitive judgement.

While we’re waiting, can I offer some short-term predictions. Obama will win the nomination. Obama will win the presidency. Obama will then deliver an inaugural speech that is so brilliant and moving, that even I will be reduced to tears (without the assistance of an onion.) And within 18 months Clive Crook and many of Obama’s former fans will be bitterly disappointed - so it will be left to me to argue that he’s not so bad really.

Meanwhile, I was amused by this analysis of my relationship with my present and former colleague that appeared on the comments section of the Crook blog: (more…)

Nikita Krushchev, the leader of the Soviet Union in 1956, told the western world: “We will bury you.” Now Dmitry Medvedev, the newly elected president of Russia, has come back with a revised offer: “We will buy you.”

In a speech this year, Mr Medvedev urged Russian businesses to emulate the Chinese and to go on a global buying spree to secure new technology and markets. “This is a very important task,” he insisted.

Russia certainly has lots of money to spend. Its currency reserves of $464bn (€305bn, £234bn) are the third largest in the world. It has set up a $127bn stabilisation fund with a licence to invest overseas. Gazprom, the state-run gas monopoly that Mr Medvedev chaired until recently, is keen to buy assets in western Europe.

 Continue reading Medvedev will not declare cold war

I’ve always felt a bit queasy about columnists who debate with each other on the pages of their own papers. It can seem a bit vain and self-referential. On the other hand, the whole phenomeon of blogging is vain and self-referential. So here goes.

Clive Crook has given me a bit of a going over because of my critique of Obama’s speeches. Here is my response; (more…)