Will the Blagojevich scandal affect Obama?

In most US States when a Senate seat becomes empty (for cause of death, resignation or election to another office), the governor gets to appoint someone to fill in until the next election.

By now I suppose every one has heard of the  ugly scandal that is currently unfolding in Illinois. The Democratic goveror Rod Blagojevich was caught talking about exchanging the Senate seat vacated by Obama for something (preferably involving money for him, his wife or his campaign) on a wire-tap. This is referred to as the "pay to play" scheme.

 Rod Blagojevich : quel toupet !

What is most surprising is not that the governor should try to "trade" the Senate seat for fundraising (obviously that must be a common practice, how could it not be?) but that he should be so open about the personal benefits that he could obtain but most mind-boggling is the fact that he had the cheek to do this over the phone. He should have known better, all the more so since he knew he was under investigation byPatrick J Fitzgerald a federal prosecutor for other allegations of corruption ! 

A little time watching HBO's extraordinary TV series The Wire ( Sur Ecoute, in France) would have prevented great harm to the governor and his reputation. Bagojevich is constantly compared to Tony Soprano by the media, although the mobster was probably a bit more FBI wary than the politician. 

Now how does all this affect President-elect Obama? 

Although personally, there is no love lost between the two men and Obama would certainly not want to be involved in this corrupt business, there are several reasons to suspect that the President-elect (and/or his staff) might have known more than he claimed in recent declarations. 

1. It is the Senate seat that he has just vacated : so although he has denied any wrongdoing and even any direct or staff-channelled contact with the governor or his staff, it seems a bit unlikely that Obama would know nothing at all about who was being considered to replace him and that he

2. Several of the candidates considered were close Obama aides or advisors. And Jesse Jackson Jr. formerly responsible for Obama's fundraising operation (remember how he repudiated his father's rude gaffe) was actually referred to as "candidate number 5" in telephone conversations and one of his aides had been approached with the deal. The content of these phonecalls seem to indicate that the congressman agreed to help with the governor's fundraising in exchange for the Senate position. 

In the left leaning blog The Nation, John Nichols makes the case to defend Jesse Jackson Jr by arguing that the congressman has a history of defending reform and refusing to compromise politically, making him thus unlikely of trying to accept the governor's pay to play game. I can see the point but wonder whether it is really convincing : does being honest and ready to risk politial capital in many circumstances prove that you would never accept to raise money in exchange for a position to which  you are unlikely of getting elected. 

3. In some of the governor's dreamland scenarii, he would get appointed in the Obama administration in exchange for the Senate seat. How could Obama's staff be completely ignorant of this? Or we could also imagine and some have argued that the Obama staff may be the ones who blew the whistle on the governor's wheelings and dealings and warned the federal prosecutor of what was going on. In that case, they should have come clean about it as soon as possible. 

4. The fourth and strongest connection between the Obama administration and Rod Blagojevich is the future chief of staff, Rahm Emmanuel who worked very closely with the governor in the past. These two know each other very well and Emmanuel is certainly the person with whom the governor or his staff would have got in touch if they wanted to exchange favors. Click here for more on this : to read an article reporting that sources confirmed that Emmanuel had spoken to Blagojevich's chief of staff. 

I don't want to argue that Obama and his staff knew about this but rather more modestly that it seems a bit unlikely that no one on the President elect's team knew anything about the governor's shennenigans.  

the future of the GOP

A quick reminder, worth mentionning even if it is obvious to most of you.

In analytical terms the Republican base is composed of several different groups and thus the party is highly dependent the existence of this coalition, for no single group has the clout to make the GOP a viable party by itself ( of course some people adhere to all of these ideas)

The strength of the GOP in the past has relied on holding together (in no particular order) :

1. the deficit hawks or fiscal conservatives, these are often proponents of small government, eager to let the States, local governement and, even better, individuals themselves take control of their destinies ( they resemble a mild strain of libertarians).

2. the foreign policy hawks (aka "neocons" or neoconservatives), who were advocates of American intervention in foreign countries, as a way of maintaining American interests and domination in world affairs. Their position in the GOP is considerably less dominant than it was at the beginning of George W Bush's term. 

3. the social conservatives, who promote traditional values; they will fight for the institution of mariage, against abortion.

All three groups were dissapointed by the Bush administration and it's proving harder than ever to hold them together in a coalition.  The fiscal conservatives have gone ballistic over the cost of the Bush wars and over the biggest government expansion ever experienced under a Republican President (with the exception of Lincoln, perhaps...  if you remember the exam  I set in January 2008). The social conservatives are upset that Bush didn't/couldn't do more to implement their agenda on marriage and abortion. Each group accuses the others of having cost them the election : group 1 and 2 think that the Palin selection (which enthused group 3) is to blame for alienating independents voters. Group 1 and 3 feel that the war in Irak burnt up the party's capital and betrayed the Republican values. Group 1 resents group 2 and the national security wizz team of having endangered American liberties (Patriot Act, wiretapping...) And so forth...

Moreover, each section seems to be tugging in opposite directions and reconciliation of all these conflicting interests appears virtually impossible now.

Two main questions :

What direction will the party take and what will be the policy priorities of the GOP? 

- Will the party focus back on small government, fiscal restraint and individual liberties. Is such a shift politically desirable in the context of an economic meltdown? 

- How important will social issues be in the future of the GOP? The social conservatives themselves are starting to splinter : the younger generation is becoming more involved in environmental protection and less in fighting against gay marriage. Some evangelicals are willing to team with Obama to reduce the number of abortions and to tackle the challenges raised by climate change. 

-  Can a new GOP emerge with a platform more finely atunned to the challenges America is faced with : immigration and integration; financial turmoil due in part to reduced regulation; healthcare... For now the Democrats' answers to these questions have appealed to the voters, but the onus is now on the GOP to come up with viable policies that provide long term solutions that are congruent with the Republican ideals and values. Whether these values need to be refashioned is another question the party will have to grapple with. 

I believe that there's nothing like a stint in the opposition to stimulate policy makers and political thinkers. 

 

The subsidiary question which is related to the first is : Who will lead the Republican Party? To name but a few: Sarah Palin, Mitt Romney (remember how he dropped out of the primary race for the good of party and country !), Newt Gingrich ( who led the opposition to President Clinton in Congress). But there are many others out there waiting for the chance to become the GOP standard bearer in 2012. Who do you think could take up the mantle of the party? What would it mean for the GOP? 

filibustering, Georgia and a majority of 60 in the Senate

After a long thanksgiving leave, during which, among other important things,  a boysterous Sarah Palin was interviewed "while turkeys were slaughtered in the background", I'm back to tackle the best I can a momentous topic : what now for the GOP? 

But before that I'd like to answer the question asked by one of you : what's with Georgia? And why the hype about the 60 strong Democratic majority in the Senate? 

Remember that the US Constitution lets each State make provisions for the electoral rules they wish to apply, which made it possible for some States to disenfranchise certain citizens in the past.  

A runoff is organised when no candidate has reached the 50% +1 vote margin required in certain  States which have a two round system (as we do in France for most of our elections; the word runoff is thus translated into "deuxième tour"). In most States, a plurality system voting is the rule ( also called "first past the post" as it is referred to in England, for instance) and so there can be no runoffs.
In Georgia, the vote was split between three candidates (Rep; Dem and Libertarian), neither of which won a majority, hence the runoff election between the incumbent Saxby Chambliss (R) and Jim Martin (D). The runoff was won by the Republican candidate, as expected (NYT article). The GOP base was very excited about the runoff, much more than the Democratic base, and Chambliss described this election as the last ligne of defence protecting the US from Democratic Party tyranny. 

Why ? Because if the Democrats have a majority of 60 in the Senate they will be able prevent an opposition Senator from filibustering. 

Filibustering is a practice of legislative obstruction by which a Senator takes the floor during a debate on a bill and does not stop talking untill the session is adjourned, the practice is commonly started before a Congressional recess ( Christmas/Summer break). A successful filibuster thus prevents a bill from being voted. 

For a fictional rendition of this practice watch in The West Wing, season 2, episode 17. There is also a great scene of filibustering in the classic Mr Smith goes to Washington (1939). 

Filibustering is often used to block appointments to Cabinet positions than require Senatorial confirmation (Secretary of State, Secretary of the Treasury, Attorney General...).

The only way to stop a filibuster is for a majority of 60 senators to cast a vote (called "cloture") ending a floor debate and thus precipitating the vote on the bill. If the Democrats had such a majority, the Republicans fear that they would rubberstamp any Obama appointments and crush all opposition. And obviously, a bigger the majority the easier it will be for the Dems to pass legislation. 

I recommend a short a NYTimes video presenting the results of the runoff and its impact on US politics. 

How close are/were the Democrats to the magic number of 60 Senators? If we have a glance at the electoral map and the result of the 2008 election, what we see is that the Democrats have 56 seats, the Republicans 41 and there are 2 independent Senators,  including the very controversial figure of Joe Lieberman, a former Democrat who vocally supported McCain during the campaign and criticized Obama, for an up-date on his position in the Democratic caucus and his ability to keep his comittee chairmanship : read this. 

Basically 3 seats were left undecided after the election and were proving critical for the Democrats to establish a complete hegemony in the Senate : Georgia (no longer an issue now), Alaska and Minnesota. 

Alaska's incumbent Senator Ted Stevens (convicted on several counts of felony, days before the election) lost to his Democratic opponents by a very narow margin and the result was finally known on the 18th of November. 

Whereas in Minnesota, the election was so close that an automatic recount  was ordered, in compliance with the State electoral laws. The feud oppose former comedian Al Franken (D) to incumbent Norm Coleman (R), each has won 42% of the vote, with 15% going to Independent Dean Barkley. As I write the gap between the two candidates is about 225 votes! The election could really go either way; read about projection models in the NYTimes. The final results will be in around the 19th of December. 

I'm creating a new post to talk about the future of the GOP, this one is long enough already. 

The place of the South in presidential politics

One of the deep changes that this election year seems to have brought about is a shift in the geo-political balance of the country. After being the stronghold of the Democrats for a century, the South tipped to the Republicans thanks to  Richard Nixon's "Southern Strategy" in 1968 and due to the committment of the Democrats to civil rights reform, racial integration and federal control of the implementation of these policies. 

Since then, the South has been considered: 

1. a bastion of Republicanism

2. a must-win for any presidential candidate 

These two ideas may seem contradictory at first (since Democrats won 3 presidential elections since the 1970s), but remember that the two Democratic Presidents since the 1970s (and for that matter since Lyndon B. Johnson) were southerners and that was a contributing factor to their electoral victory : they managed to take the South (or chunks of it) away from the Republican Party. 

Jimmy Carter, a former Senator and Governor from Georgia, won every single Southern State in 1976 (see electoral map). In 1992, the all Southern ticket, Clinton (Governor of Arkansas)+ Gore (Senator from Tennessee) made significant inroads in the South, taking Georgia, Louisiana and Arkansas along with Kentucky, West Virginia, Tennessee ( see 1992 electoral map) ; in 1996, the incumbent President and VP won Florida and lost Georgia ( see 1996 electoral map). 

This week I read a very interesting article on the political weight of the  South in American presidential politics after this election. I don't agree with everything they say but it is well worth your time. 

Basically the gist of the argument is this:

The region’s absence from Mr. Obama’s winning formula means it “is becoming distinctly less important,” said Wayne Parent, a political scientist at Louisiana State University. “The South has moved from being the center of the political universe to being an outside player in presidential politics.”

The South is losing its make or break status in presidential politics because :

-   this year NO Southerners were on the presidential tickets of either party. 

-  the South is breaking up as a voting block ( I'd qualify this: look at the Clinton electoral victories) : with peripheral, more suburban and educated states (NC, Va and Fl) falling out of step with the rest of the region.

-  the Southern white male vote went emphatically to McCain and is no longer needed to win the election. 

-  the South is now the last bastion of Republicanism ( I'd say : have another look at the electoral map, the Mid West is solidly GOP as well!) and the country's political divide may well be a sectional one as well, i.e. geographical areas are split up between the parties. In this case, there are very few Republicans in the Senate and House of Representatives elected by the North-East, which is solidly Democratic and it's the other way around in the South . I trust that my students remember what the sectional divide of the country build the grounds for in the 1840-60s. 

I'd like to add that perhaps the South is changing and turning away from some of its core beliefs (opposition to federal/Northern interference, defence of small governement and low taxes; all of which can be summarized in the motto "States' Rights" with all the historical baggage that comes with it...) and rattled as it is by the crisis may well be opening up to some of the Democratic policy proposals. I still have in mind the uncanny homemade sign mentionned earlier : "Rednecks 4 Obama, cause even we're sick of this s#@*". 

How true this general analysis will prove to be is difficult to assess. 

Why? Because of the rather unsual circumstances of this electoral contest : an incumbent president with the lowest ratings ever, an embattled Republican party, a Black candidate, an unprecedented economic crisis. All the factors certainly distorted the political dynamics of the country. And whether some of the trends, initiated in 2008, will prove lasting is yet to be seen. 

For more on electoral shifts and detailed county by county data : survey this interactive map. 

I was thinking of discussing the future of the Republican Party in one of my next posts, rather than President elect Obama's transition team.  Does that sound good? 

Pictures contributed by my special correspondant in Atlanta, Georgia

30 minutes?

The British media had quite a laugh when they heard that the French president had spent a whole 30 minutes on the phone with the President elect. Gordon Brown reported a 10 minute conversation. 

Listen to BBC Radio 4's Any Questions broadcast on Friday (if you listen to it on their website, the programme doesn't start immediately, to hear the joke go directly to : 13'30 to get the context of the discussion about the "special relationship"). 

Questions and tentative answers

From my special correspondant in Atlanta, Georgia two pictures I would like to share with you:

You'll have noticed the confederate flag's unexpected apparition in the O. How to explain this paradox? Let's ask them :

Do pardon my French, I'm sure they'd say. But this seem to show a momentous change happening in America, at least symbolically. More pictures and stories from Atlanta in a later post. 

Now that the headlines are perhaps starting to settle down and turn to other issues than the American presidential election, it is perhaps time to take a step back, try and understand what has happened, what Obama's election means and how it was acheived.

1. The first Black President. 

 The media everywhere, and perhaps even more so in France and European countries have been prompt to hail Obama's victory as one for all African-Americans and people of colour.  We've all read expressions as "racial barriers are breaking down". How true is this? 

It's difficult to say, but what I do think needs reminding is that: 

-   Obama never ran as the/a Black candidate, making his bid very different from that of Jesse Jackson in 1988 and thus attracting some tough remarks from the latter. His was a "post-racial" campaign. When he called attention to his skin colour it was always in the context of heralding the possibilities of America, in which a man born of a woman from Kansas and a man from Kenya would become a presidential candidate. He doesn't not have the same background or experience of African-Americans whose collective identity was forged by the memory of slavery and segregation. Obama is from a different background and a different generation.  

 Actually what does Obama's victory mean for Black America? 

 

-  The theme of "change" was broad enough to serve as a vehicle to each person's aspirations : so the Democrat's victory is different things to different people. Obviously for African-Americans and for many others the main "change" was the possibility to vote for a Black president for the first time. But the rhetoric of "change" certainly meant many other things. 

In his speech Obama clearly emphasized that his election was not enough of a "change"; there was a lot more to be done to rebuild America, its self confidence and its international standing. 

2. The historic nature of the election. 

The word (beware of the difference between historic and historical) has been on every lip and at the tip of every pen or keypad for the last couple of weeks. It's always difficult to assess, as it is happening, how historic an election will prove to be. 

At the very least, 2008 will be a historic election because people saw it as a unique moment in history and millions of Americans were eager to participate in it and "make history". I think that this is probably the most striking feature of the election, regardless of its real historic nature (which I do not doubt, don't get me wrong), its perceived historic nature is even more interesting. People truly believed they were making the American dream come true, revealing the true nature of American values. This will probably go down in history books as a great moment of self-definition and of nation-building. 

Obama's wonderful talents as a speaker have also emphasized the theme of "history in the making". In his victory he uses the example of a Black woman from Selma, Alabama to paint the backdrop of his victory:

 

He goes through the important events of the last 106 years (the age of this voter) : slavery wasn't very far away, women couldn't vote, the Depression was followed by the New Deal, World War II was fought to defend democracy, the civil rights movement was also based on the extension of American values to all, regardless of skin colour. He mentions the Montgomery bus boycott of 1955-6 sparked off by Rosa Parks, the Birmingham fight against segregation and the brutal use of force by the police chief "Bull" O'Connor, the preacher from Atlanta, Dr. Martin Luther King, whose rhetoric flows in Obama's speech : especially at the end when he echoes the last words of the pastor : that maybe not in one year or in one term but that "as a nation we will get there". 

Many are inclined to see this election as the last step of the civil rights movement, as Obama himself suggests here. And his election certainly meant a lot to some people in Selma, as cleverly and touchingly presented in this video from the NYTimes.

The scale of the involvement of the grass-roots is unheard of; so perhaps even more significant than Obama's victory is how he won. 

3. The how and the why. 

The senator from Illinois won thanks to : 

- an amazing locally based network of active supporters.  These figures really blew my mind : 2/3 of the people who voted for Obama had been contacted by someone from his campaign ( phone or face to face, excluding robo-calls). For McCain the figure is 1/4.  The outreach effort was huge. The voter registration drive was also unprecedented : 19% of Black voters were voting for the first time (and 8% of whites). Two important consituencies for Obama : women, the young and Blacks ( International Herald Tribune). 

- new-technology and the internet, used to raise mind-boggling amounts of cash. 

- a well organized campaign that never strayed from its plan. The team was focussed, disciplined and used his opponent's mistakes to his advantage : many now see McCain's "the fundementals of the economy are strong" remark in the midst of the financial meltdown as the tipping point in the campaign (mid-September). 

-  and last but not least (!) the candidate himself, a remarkable speaker, thinker and campaigner, with a much needed message of change, union and hope. 

I should add to the factors explaining the Democratic win that John McCain was dogged by :

-  a fledging economy

-  president Bush's poor record 

-  the Republican brand, which was toxic. 

-  a poorly organized campaign team

-  his VP choice : for the last two days I've been hearing alarming comments leaked by McCain advisers on her attitude and ignorance (it's appalling stuff and I'd hope that it's not true for the sake of Republicans) 

4. Things seen and links

I've watched an interesting video on the perspective of Muslim students from NY on America,  the election, how Obama's campaign reacted to Muslim supporters and how they decided not to advertise their support for fear of stoking the rumours that Obama was a Muslim ( always used to discredit his candidacy by some vile opponents). 

For an emotional video overview of the last two years of campaigning : watch this, it will bring up memories. 

final results

A landslide victory for Obama and a lot of enthousiasm. 

Look at the map to see the extent of the victory : Obama took Pennsylvania and many former red states (Virginia, Indiana, Ohio, Iowa...)

Listen to or download Obama's victory speech and McCain's concession speech. 

election coverage

At 5 AM in the UK : a sweeping  Obama victory is projected and McCain conceded the election. Electoral map.

It's difficult/impossible to get through to all the major networks via the internet. These are the results and projections so far: 

McCain  Obama 

Kentucky (8) Vermont (3)

At 1 AM in the UK : I'm listening to BBC Radio 4, all major TV/radio/newpaper websites are not available.  Virginia may be close as may be North Carolina. The Guardian is calling Oklahoma and Tennessee and Arkansas for McCain with Connecticut and Maine for Obama. 

Virginia and Pennsylvania may be going for Obama, although this was not confirmed as yet by CNN.

How to follow an American election?

Just a very very simple reminder of how things will unfold tonight: 

The basic approach is to have a map and colour in blue or red each State as the results come in. 

Along with a map and the allocation of electoral college votes by State, you need a two column chart. When a State is called for one or the other candidate, you then put the number of electoral college votes allocated to the State in the column of the winner ( "winner takes all system"). 

A candidate needs 270 electoral college votes to win the election. 

I will be watching Virginia ("Virginia is the new Florida" is the title of an article dealing with difficulties at the polling stations, posted on the Nation's website) and Pennsylvania ( and perhaps Indiana, Ohio or Colorado as well) very carefully : whoever wins both will be well on his way to win the White House. But I don't expect the results to be in before late in the night or early in the morning in Europe. 

For some last predictions : 

-  read Ken Rudin's appraisal : Obama wins and the Democrats do well in Congress. In his opinion, Obama keeps Pennsylvania blue and takes the following red states :Virginia, Colorado, Iowa, Nevada and New Mexico. Mc Cain fails to win over any blue States and keeps Florida, Indiana, Missouri ( thus loosing its bellwether status!), North Carolina, Ohio, West Virginia. 

Ken Rudin ( a favourite commentator of mine from It's All Politics podcast) does not fail to remind his readers of his rather poor record on predictions : he had predicted Democratic victories in 2000 and 2004!

If you are too impatient to wait for the main networks to broadcast the results, here is a recipe for finding things out for yourself. 

Look at the early returns of several key or representative/bellwether counties in the key States. Political analyst Tom Oliphant gives you the tools to become your own political expert and pundit. Will his recipe work? 

For more advice of this kind : visit the Nation's page on how to decipher early signs along with a count down of what to expect during this long night.  Look out for Kentucky where polls close early and an Obama win would probably signal a Democratic landslide; keep an eye on Virginia and Indiana; some Senate races will be equally indicative of the national mood : Georgia's senatorial contest is very close, a Democratic victory would be good news for their camp. The results of New Hampshire will be known fairly early in the night : this is State that McCain should win...

last polls...

Last polls indicate, as expected, that McCain is narrowing the gap, probably showing that more and more undecided voters are making up their mind and going for what may appear to them as the safest choice. I've heard lots of interviews of people who are frightened by Barack Obama. I strongly recommend This American Life's "Battle Ground" podcast, a documentary on the election in Pennsylvania. Many still harbour doubts about his religion, or think he has a radical or marxist agenda.  The endless reminders of his connection with Ayers, a former terrorist, have also really left a dent in his reputation and are discouraging voters who were already suspicious to pull the lever for him (in the US, many voting machines have levers that you need to pull, the actual process of voting is quite different from what we have in France, check the infamous and indeed confusing "butterfly ballots" used in Florida in 2000). A very high turnout is expected to put strains on the polling stations and the voting system : who will it discourage from voting and how will it impact the outcome, is anyones guess. 

My own poll : 

Are any of you going to stay up late/all night or wake up in the middle of the night or very early to monitor the results? 

If you do, would like to come on the blog and let us know what is going on and what news media you are watching ? 

Last moves and stories

1. Where are the candidates right now? 

These last campaign stops clearly indicate what the key states are and which might make the election. For instance McCain has been travelling in Virginia, a State that has not voted for a Democratic President for 44 years, but that might go either way this year and that the Republicans are wary of loosing. The state of Pennsylvania is also attracting a lot of visits from the Republican team, since, as I have mentionned in an earlier post, it is a critical battleground state. 

No Republican President won the election without taking Ohio; and both campaigns are now canvassing the state in an effort to get the vote out and convince the undecided.

The Republicans are concentrating their attention on states with a strong working class population and where Obama didn't fare very well in the primaries, hoping to pick up disgruntled Clinton supporters.

The Guardian offered two maps showing the past week's campaign stops of both candidates : 

A. Both campaigns visited : Missouri, Indiana, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia and North Carolina and of course Florida, a key state for the Republicans if their is one. 

B. In addition Obama or Biden also visited Nevada, Colorado and Iowa. 

Excepting Pennsylvania these states were all won by George W Bush in 2004. Obama is trying to ratchet up support in traditionnally "red" states while the McCain campaign is mostly playing defense. 

2. Obama's aunt living illegally in Boston has not become a big story, although all the networks are covering it as a "non-story"!?!

3. Before the campaign is over, time for a laugh.  Watch this video of John McCain and Tina Fay playing Sarah Palin pretending to try and raise money. This is from Saturday Night Live, a comedy show that you have probably heard of : 

-  reference to campaign costs (the $150,000 spent on Palin's attire)

-  reference to Palin "going rogue" : I recommend watching Jon Stewart's explanation for this one, a good summary of the mainstream media's hysteria over Palin's unplanned/unscripted comments on various issues: 

For more hilarious videos : Palin playing herself and confusing people at the studio of Saturday Night Live; McCain presenting his new strategies...

Jon Stewart's take on Obama's infomercial is quite good too: watch.

the informercial

By now, you'd have to be living as a recluse not to have heard about last night's broadcast of a 30 minute infomercial produced by the Obama campaign. It could be watched on three of the major networks and on many others. To watch it from the begining : click here.

What was the aim of this long ad? Obama wanted/needed to

-  reintroduce himself to the electorate in a more direct and casual fashion and on his own terms

-  reassure the voters that the candidate is not a radical, to  that the Republicans have been striving to define

-  showcase some of his policy proposals by presenting them as answers to the problems faced by ordinary Americans who are clearly given a substantial and yet support role in the grand narrative. 

-  make use of Obama's capacities as a public speaker, and remind voters of how powerful his rhetoric can be was almost forgotten after hours of watching the drawn-out presidential debates. 

-  show that the candidate is "presidential" (notice how the office in which half of the scenes take place has a bit of an oval office feel to it).

What struck me the most is how cleverly Obama is presented as a professor, a father, a son, a preacher, a listener, and probably in a few more roles. The editing is quite smooth although the strings are often quite apparent and the transitions pretty obvious, but this is probably no accident. American history is deftly interwoven in the narrative and provides the Obama story with a broad backdrop, and presents his candidacy as something that is no rupture with the "American soul", despite his emphasis on change. This makes voting for him participating in something historic and deeply rooted in the American dream. 

So despite the poor musical choices, the video works quite well, I thought. 

Why spend more than $5M for this last minute ? 

-  the Obama campaign is probably trying to avoid complacency and encourage people to vote even if the polls are in favour of Obama, though the gap is probably closing and most of the so-called "undecided" will probably go to McCain ( listen to the October 23rd  installment of It's all politics from NPR, available on i-tunes)

-  and why not? they have the cash at hand, so why not launch a final push

For the West Wing fans out there : read this article on the similarities between the fictionnal campaign of the last season of the series, aired in 2006 and the 2008 election. It is striking, and I am currently rewatching that very season with unabated enthousiasm. 

name calling...

With Obama still leading in the polls, the Republicans have been getting itchy and the crowds drawn to Palin or McCain rallies have become quite aggressive, whenever the Democrat's name is mentionned you can hear booing and people shouting "terrorist" or even worse.  Obama has even attracted white supremacist would-be killers. 

The other big word that has been bandied around recently is "socialist". Obama used the expression "spread the wealth around" and as soon as I heard McCain pick it up during the last debate I knew that it would be a major talking point for the Republicans. This notion truly repells many Americans who believe that you get what you deserve and that it shouldn't be for the State to ensure equality. 

This week, my favourite radio show deals with the election in one of the crucial battleground state : Pennsylvania. The electorate is mostly white and blue collar and this is a group of voters that Obama has been struggling to convince ever since the primaries. What's going on on the ground, how is racial prejudice going to affect the election on Tuesday? To discover "Battle  Ground" the latest episode of This American Life, download it on your MP3 player or listen to it on your computer, go on i-tunes and search for This American Life or visit their website. 

A summary of what to expect at the polls ( at the polling station in this context) : long lines, some new voting machines and hopefully enough paper ballots if the machines aren't working properly but this year most Americans will be voting on paper ballots read by electronic scanning machines. This year, supposedly all votes will be counted and no major electoral fraud is expected. 

There have, however,  been rumours to discourage people from voting : phony fliers announcing a change of preccinct, or even saying that Republicans must vote on the 4th of November and that Democrats and Independents must vote the next day !  

How Sarah Palin came to be on the GOP ticket

For those of you wondering how the Governor of Alaska came to be chosen by the McCain campaign, you will find some answers in one of the best pieces of investigative journalism I have read since I've been paying attention to the 2008 election. The story was broken by the New Yorker, a quality magazine with a clear and proclaimed pro-Obama stance. 

Here's a summary of the article : 

Sarah Palin and some of her close advisors knew she had a real national potential and that her life story was compelling. Sarah Palin and her advisers hired public relation experts and advisers in Washington to make her case in Republican circles and to make herself known for what she was doing in Alaska (being a reformer, going after special interests and fighting for a natural gas pipeline etc...). As early as the beginning of 2007, a Republican blogger Adam Brinckley started a draft Sarah Palin on the ticket movement. ( The most famous instance of drafting someone for an elected position occured in the 1950s with Eisenhower.)

Last summer, she invited to the governor's mansion two distinct group of conservative journalists and influential personalities who were on cruises organized by the Weekly Standard and the National Review. She made a strong impression on all of them. That's where the momentum started, in particular with William Kristol's columns in the NYTimes calling for her to be the VP nominee. Then when McCain's choice for VP had been narrowed down to Joe Liebermann ( a Democrat turned independent who would have incensed the GOP base), Sarah Palin names came up again and after only seeing for a couple of hours, the Republican candidate announced his choice. 

I'm ashamed to admit that this did still not hit my radar at that point and I was abashedly surprised by McCain's announcement at the end of August. 

So much for the maverick, hockey mom, I-don't-know-a- thing-about-how-Washington-works posturing....

To stay on the Palin front, I've noticed that for the last week or so, many of the conservatives who have not defected to the Obama camp (Colin Powell, Chris Buckley, the son of the founder of The National Review, Scott McClelan former Bush press secretary and many more) have jumped on the Sarah bandwagon and have been defending her vocally. 

of endorsements, maps and ads

1. The first consequence of Former Secretary of State Powell's endorsement of Barack Obama was an downpour of donations to the latter's campaign. But this endorsement might also sway independent voters. Listen to a discussion about this latest development what is means for Obama but more importantly what it means for Powell and his legacy as a politician. 

2. Remember that Obama declined the public financing scheme (limited to $84M) so that he could raise and spend more money on ads and on local campaign offices. Recently, the Obama camp has opened even more local operations on battleground states which now seem to be within the Senator's grasp : Virginia, Ohio, North Carolina, Florida, Indiana, Missouri and Nevada. 

For more details on the electoral map, I can not commend enough the NPR map, showing predictions for each state and the projected number of electoral votes for each candidate : John McCain's 163 tailing Obama's 273. Reminder: to win the election, a candidate needs 270 electoral votes and all states are winner take all (even if you win by a very slim margin you take all the electoral votes apportionned to that state) except in Nebraska and Maine where the electoral votes are distributed according to the "Congressional District Method".

3. The NYTimes offers an excellent coverage of the ad blitz that has been going on for a couple months. It will tell you how much each candidate and each support group has spent on ads, where they were aired and what the total cost of each ad was. You will see that Obama has widely outspent McCain ( $145M to $90M) but that the Republican National Committee (RNC) with about $10M is far ahead of the Democratic National Committee (DNC). 

At the top of the page you can select the ads by issuer :  B. Obama, J. McCain, RNC, DNC and many other groups campaigning on the behalf of one or the other candidates, such AFL-CIO, the most important labor union in the country criticizing McCain's commitment to the Iraq war and his health care policies, or that with a very modest budget and in a very localized area the conservative group American Issues Project hammering Obama's terrorist connection with Ayers from the Weather Underground. 

At the bottom of the page you will find links that show the advertisement breakdown by subject : taxes, environment/energy; gas/oil; jobs... By selecting a topic you can measure how important each issue is for each candidate: for instance I was surprised to see that Obama has spent more money running ads on taxes than his opponent, whereas McCain outspends the Democratic candidate on ads concerned with the environment. Basically what this reveals is that the candidates are spending more money on the issues which aren't the strongsuits of their parties. 

The maps are very instructive and some of them help delineate the battle-ground states and the geographical spread of the issues. 

The most interesting feature of this web page is that it provides you with a great amount of information and lets you analyse it.

What else? 

Colin Powell endorses Obama

General Colin Powell's endorsement of Obama was not a major surprise. But the extent to which he condemned the Republican ticket was less expected. He questionned John McCain's judgement in his selection of a VP and in his dealing with the current economic hardships. He then proceeded to lavish praise on Barack Obama

Watch the video:  

How real is Joe the plumber?

How did Joe the Plumber's story start? Like this : 

How was it used in the debate by John McCain? 

Joe the Plumber was exemplified as the hard working entrepreneur which would be hit hard by Obama's tax plan : tax cuts for people earning less than $250, 000 a year,  and a higher level of tax ( 39% from the current 36%) for people making more than this threshold. 

Sen. McCain used this example repeatedly during the debate and thus attracted a lot of attention on Joe Wurzelbacher. The McCain campaign has released a web ad on "Joe the Plumber".

What I found very effective was John McCain's use of Obama's expression " spread the wealth around",  which is certain to make all conservatives cringe and to help paint Obama with a very liberal near socialistic brush.  

In fact, it has emerged that Joe the Plumber is not called Joe but Sam and is not a fully licensed plumber. But perhaps more significantly he is very likely to benefit from Sen. Obama's proposed tax cuts, since he works in a very small business ( he is the only employee and works alongside the owner) and does not make more than $250, 000 yearly. He also owes back  taxes. 

I first heard the news on BBC Radio 4 and checked the story out on the NYTimes. 

You are probably wondering what this means about the McCain campaign's ability to vet and select the examples they showcase. The polical blog Politico offers an interesting analysis of how they are operating. 

Meanwhile the right wing National Review Online is certain that there is a coalition of the Left (Democrats+media+blogs) against Joe the Plumber and that discrediting that man is the work of the Obama "thug-machine".  The NRO beleives that this incident offers insights into the way the Obama campaign operates, by dismissing or smearing their contradictors.  

For a humourous take on the Joe the Plumber story and the debate in general, check out Jon Stewart's Daily Show.

Emotions are riding high, about as high as the stakes for this election.