Across the pond

The problem with writing a blog in 2008 is that lots of things happen while you are writing the blog, even if you write, as I do now, quite quickly.

So in my last blog I made a passing reference to a report in the London Daily Telegraph, which said that Hillary Clinton had hinted that she might be prepared to serve as Vice President to President Barack Obama.

After I had finished my blog, I went back to my ‘research’.  The London Times interpreted her speech as an invitation to Obama to be her Vice President. Likewise The Guardian, but I could not get beyond the headline to find out what The Guardian was saying, because although they are probably the best mainstream news blog in all the world and all the universe, they still have trouble with coping with the new technology. So all I was getting was gobblygook.

But both London serious newspapers reported that Clinton was actually offering Obama an olive branch. Telling him, that despite the harsh words exchanged between them, she was quite prepared for him to serve as her Vice President.

It is very clear from the subsequent coverage that the Clinton camp is now gung ho. They believe that they won yesterday, because of their ‘kitchen sink’ stategy. Which translated into English means that they threw everything against Obama in a desparate attempt to recover the momentum. And fuelled by the adrenalin of their victory the Clinton camp is indicating that the real situation is that Hillary is quite happy to have a joint platform with Obama, so long as she has the number one spot.

Neither the New York Times nor the Washington Post, thougth the Clinton speech was worthy of interpretation. It was all part of her electioneering.

 So I thought that I should get back to studying the facts. Just how close are these two Democratic contenders, and what difference will be made by the states that are yet to declare. We know that Pennsylvania is the biggest single block vote. But what about the others? Will they make a difference to the outcome.

 My analysis will be the subject of a blog soon.

Meanwhile some advice to Hillary. You have got too gung ho, after your victory yesterday. As you did after New Hampshire, where you reversed Obama’s win in Iowa, in a state which was thought to be more the kind of place Obama would win. (I doubted this view, because I have been there, and know something about it.)

Looking back now, the Clintons won New Hampshire by a modest majority of  39 per cent against 36 per cent. But the third candidate there, John Edwards, secured 17 per cent, far more than the victory margin. Edwards has withdrawn since then. And the big question for the election commentators, is who is getting Edwards’ votes?

Both Clinton and Obama are too the left of the American centre. But yesterday’s vote was not such victory that the Clinton campaign can be sure that their negative campaigning is the secret of their success yesterday. Left wingers may have been influenced by the attacks on Obama’s links with Rezko, his ertswhile fundraiser who is now on trial for corruption charges.

But were they influenced by the vicious campaign, mounted not through editorial, but through paid advertising, that Obama was not a person who could be trusted with the top job in America.

The Clinton ad asks who you would want as President of  America? Who would you trust your children’s future too? Is it Hillary Clinton with her proven record, and her service of eight years as first lady? Or is it, the unknown black (implicit)?

My own guess, is that this particular ad, probably lost the Clintons more votes than it won them.

Because ordinary Americans are not stupid.

The notion that Obama is not sufficiently experienced  to be President is not born out by the facts. He is quite as experienced in politics as Jack Kennedy. And several American Presidents, who took on the role with not terrible consequences, had far less experience. Witness, Eisenhower. Who was an army chap, who might, but by no means certainly, be voting for John McCain were he alive today. Because he was a Republican, but not the kind of Republican, which George Bush Junior has turned out to be. The kind of right winger who believes that everyone who disagrees with them is out of step.

Several of the British commentators I read, apologise, when commenting on the American elections, for voicing opinions as to what American voters should do, come next November.

I have no such inhibitions. Because America, when it votes, needs to be aware that the next American President is far more powerful than any other world leader. Including the new boss of Russia, who is possibly Putin’s placeman.  

The headline I used for this offering, assumes that my readers has read some Shakespeare. As have quite a lot of Americans, which I know, because whenever I revisit it, it seems I am falling over Americans, or Japanese, or Chinese.

But they all come because Shakespeare, although he lived long before the internet was even a dream, had something to say to a generation who have to live with the reality of News2008.

Enough for now.

But the next blog may take a different tack.