Princess Obama

Howard

Two posts in a row that are not on the Middle East! Great. There is a world out there. I knew you could do it and this one is spot on. Keep this going into 2008 and I will become a fan!

Eisenmenger

"it wasn’t obvious that the rot that has degraded the British mind had also penetrated the American psyche." Didn't the Americans vote for Bill Clinton?

Rev Goat Boy

How can anyone who believes in intelligent design, that the MMR jab causes Autism & that AGW is anti capitalist conspiracy dare talk about reason.

Grumpy More Mature Man (Can't say old, wouldn't feel good about myself)

A really well made general point Melanie. It pervades our culture and is analgous to falling in love... We buy cars because they make us feel good about ourselves. We spend money on flat screen TV's (even though our current models still work) because it makes us feel good about ourselves (fleetingly). We are blind when we fall in love, so we marry in haste and repent at leisure. The whole of Western society is based on style of presentation over content. aaaaaarrrrrrrggggggg!

Kevyn Bodman

Very interesting, Melanie. And largely true,I think. But I think the Americans did,in fact, get there before us when they elected JFK in 1960. There was a man who really was not much more than a pretty face. (One of my friends thinks that I 'court controversy' but I want to let that comment about JFK stand because I think that people are still largely in denial about his immense flaws.) In 1984 Reagan's campaign included the oft-repeated phrase, 'it's morning in America.' There wasn't much more thinking about policies in the campaign , or none that was vouchsafed to the voters. Now, in 2008, and with the endorsement of the world's #1 celebrity, Oprah, Obama is benetting from and reinforcing celebrity culture.But 'where's the beef?' Is Obama really as hollow as some fear? I think he might be; but that of itself wouldn't prevent him getting the nomination. I liked Hillary Clinton as a strong, capable candidate right up until yesterday's quivering voice. Oh, dear. I don't want that kind of emoting in any holder of high office. I want: their biased tendencies (aka instinctive policy goals) to be close to mine and calm, clear judgement. Well, I can but dream.

Harry Templeton

The election of Obama as President of the USA will prove devastating to the free world because he will strengthen the Islamofacists by the immediate withdrawal of American troops from Iraq.

Daithi

Ron Paul is the real deal and the only one that can beat Obama. Go Ron Paul! www.ronpaul2008.com

BJ

There is in fact nothing new about this phenomenon in America and it has nothing to do with the Diana effect (which I agree is a negative influence on the UK). George W Bush was able to beat both Gore and Kerry by projecting himself as the more likeable candidate, for example, when he famously labelled Gore a "calculating machine". His campaigning skills were his strong point. The example of Ronald Reagan's communication skills also comes to mind.

JH

Good point Melanie, but this style of shallow emotional politicking didn't start with Diana. It began in the USA with prettyboy JFK running on an idealistic 'New Frontier' ticket while using the Chicago mob to steal the 1960 election from Richard Nixon, a far better man but without the aura of youth and style. Given the benefit of the doubt nearer the time because of his violent and untimely death,JFK is now seen as a much reduced and compromised figure. The sams is already coming true for Diana, Blair and Clinton and will surely do so for Obama.

Jayant Das

Obama is a Harvard Law grad and the 1st black man to be editor of its Law Review. He is a constituitional scholar who teaches constitutional law at University of Chicago. That sounds like Princess Diana to you? Give me a break. By the way, How old was William Pitt the Younger when he became your Prime Minister? Thankfully reporters like you weren't around then.

Dan

Yes. Obama is charismatic; he is, among his American contemporaries, wonderfully eloquent. He is a credit to the Senate, and to his party. But he is, as Ms. Phillips observes, the purveyor of efflatus masquerading as policy. His presidency would provide an irresistable moment of opportunity to the enemies of the Anglosphere, and where required to get tough he alternately recommends invading Waziristan and "dialoguing" with the revolutionary 12er Madhists of Iran. Moreover, his victory in Iowa and his national popularity show that the supposed racial divisiveness that his election would resolve is Already Resolved. I like him, but I fear his presidency under the current circumstances.

Redhead Infidel

BJ said: "The example of Ronald Reagan's communication skills also comes to mind." You're the first person, anywhere on this planet, that I have ever heard compare Bush's bumbling, stuttering speaking style to Reagan's smooth and witty oration. Seriously, that was funny. Thanks!

Seth Halpern

I agree, but with this caveat: You'll never persuade me that Nineteenth Century England didn't have its share of sentimentalists. (Remember "Sense and Sensibility"?) But of course in those days hardly anybody was allowed to vote....

g50

Sod off, you british nutter.

JH

Jayant Das - Melanie doesn't question Obama's intellectual and academic record. Notwithstanding his achievements his platform speeches are banal, platitudinous and appeal to emotion rather than intellect. His age alone isn't under question so the comparison to Pitt is irrelevant.

Susan Watts

I have a friend who supports Obama. When I asked why, her reason was that he could bring America together, and "heal" us. I asked what he's accomplished. "Oh, lots of things", she replied. She couldn't name one thing. In reality, my friend knows nothing about his policies, his voting record, etc. Because he is pretty and speaks nicely, and I think because she wants to vote for a black man, she supports him. How foolish. He will only weaken America, and harm our interests. I see him as a very dangerous man.

syn

Both Obama and Huckabee give Americans a Happy fix; it's the Oprahfication of our Nation provided by Oprah, Inc.

Alan Caruba

Americans have become drunk again on the notion of change. This happens every four years when some candidate says they are going to go to Washington, D.C., and change things there. Usually that politician lives in Washington, D.C. most of the year. The one thing anyone inside the Beltway knows is that changing the federal government may well be impossible. The federal government is where truly bad ideas become entire departments with Cabinet Secretaries and vast staffs all conjuring up new “programs” in order to avoid losing a dime of the budget allocated to them. If you don’t spend it, some other department will get it! Spending money is what Washington, D.C. is all about and, with a $13 trillion economy and the “skim” we call taxes, that means there’s lots of money to spread around. Government is a major industry and, worse, one that can destroy other industries. It can legislate you out of business. That’s why all that gassy talk about Big Oil, Big Pharmaceuticals, and Big Insurance is scary. Those are industries that employ lots of Americans, provide goods and services to lots of Americans, and are not in business to piss off lots of Americans. So here we are trying to choose a new leader, a President whose job is described and limited by the U.S. Constitution. He has veto power. He has to report to Congress on the state of the Union once a year. He is the Commander-in-Chief of our military. And he is mostly in charge of foreign policy. He is the third leg of a three-legged stool called the federal government. He must share power with Congress and the Supreme Court. Thus, the President, no matter who he is, has limitations on how much change he can bring about and, when you are dealing with something as vast as the federal government where thousands of federal employees can pretty much ignore you if they choose, you must depend on department and agency heads to steer the behemoth as much as possible where you want it to go. Even Barack Hussein Obama must know that. Surely Hillary Rodham Clinton does. So does John McCain and even big ole’ Fred Thompson. If elected, Mitt Romney, who has been a Governor, might find a few surprises by comparison. The United States of America is in serious financial trouble and that is where change must be focused and where it is least likely to be, given the capacity of Congress to ignore the problem. For thirty-one of the last thirty-five years, the U.S. has spent more on government programs and services than it has collected in taxes. To cover the difference, the government borrows money and right now the debt is around $9 trillion. I often write about the tyranny of demography. It’s not just how many people live in the United States or sneak into it illegally, it’s how old they are as well. An entire generation of “Boomers” is retiring and will need more medical care. That fact alone means that by 2040 every last dime this nation collects will not be enough to fund Social Security and Medicare, and all the rest of the programs it currently funds. Lastly, a lot of our national debt is held in foreign nations and, if they decide the U.S. dollar isn’t as solid as it has been, they might just decide to put their money in China or the European Union as a safer bet. These days, millions, if not trillions, move electronically at the speed of sound every day. And here’s where it gets really difficult. These programs came out of Democrat administrations and reflect Democrat values, casting a big safety net for Americans. Even Republicans like George W. Bush added a prescription program that costs billions more. It’s one thing to send out those checks every month and quite another to make the reductions to the federal government and its spending frenzies that will be needed to insure the money is there. Sometimes, like 9/11 change is thrust upon a nation. Out of that singular terrorist attack, the United States will surely be in Iraq and Afghanistan, and who knows where else in the Middle East for at least a generation or more. Sometimes change is just one really bad idea like the Department of Education. Nowhere in the Constitution is there a single reference to education as a function of the federal government. I’m pretty sure there’s no reference to Housing and Urban Development, but we have a department for that, too. The former has ruined the nation’s educational system and the latter is a sinkhole of badly conceived projects. So, yes, change is needed, but it will not be the kind of change most Americans want. And it will not be the kind of change anyone running for President is going to talk about.

Murray Braithwaite

until this moment it wasn’t obvious that the rot that has degraded the British mind had also penetrated the American [DEMOCRATIC] psyche. Now we know better.

Reverend Gonzo

"Obama appears to be on the wrong side of just about every important issue going; indeed, were he to be elected president he would be a danger to the free world." No, see, what makes him good is that he is on the RIGHT side of every issue. And honestly, if you see no substance in what he is saying, you probably aren't listening to what he is saying. If you want to label a presidential hopeful as a danger to the free world, it would be Mike Huckabee.

Christopher

Wow...you don't get us AT ALL. Americans aren't drunk on change, we're full of hope. That's the critical difference. America got fat, lazy, belligerent and a more than a little stupid during the Bush years (and let's just take as read all the Brits saying we were like that long before W got into office, shall we?). America lost itself during the Bush Administration and the Iraq war. Obama appeals to our best natures and our best selves, moreover he taps into the general wish to stop all the pettiness and back-biting we've done to ourselves. That's why he's winning, that's why he'll win. Thanks for the pop psychiatry about the Dianafication of America, but that's all a load of rubbish. Americans thrive on hope and our (admittedly) romantic self-image. But the truth is...we do best with hope, we're at our best with hope, and we can do MIRACLES with our hope and good work. America, the REAL America, is back in business.

Campbell Arena

Obama is joke; all fluff no substance. He timed his entry perfectly in order to win the Democratic nomination. But he will be slaughtered in the general election; which is almost a year away. Scrutiny on his muslim past, drug use, and corruption in Chicago will surface and doom his candidacy. Mark my words.

Brian O'Connor

Reverend Gonzo wrote:

No, see, what makes him [Obama] good is that he is on the RIGHT side of every issue.

Right! Like invading Pakistan!

Christopher writes:

Obama appeals to our best natures and our best selves, moreover he taps into the general wish to stop all the pettiness and back-biting we've done to ourselves. . . . But the truth is...we do best with hope, we're at our best with hope, and we can do MIRACLES with our hope and good work. America, the REAL America, is back in business.

Alas -- if only pure, beautiful, pristine "hope" were a substitute for a workable plan . . .

But it is not. And Mr. Obama has tapped into the sentimental side of us 'mericuns, the side that tells us that our emotions are infallible. All we have to do is trust him, follow him. And invade Pakistan.

Christy

It is not simply that voters prefer Mr. Obama's "image" to Mrs. Clinton's "substance." Just as Mr. Obama's current media image helps him, Mrs. Clinton has a long running image problem. She comes across to some voters, though not all, as a sort of mean machine. When she nearly broke down this week, her voice was the nicest I have ever heard it. This helped humanize her. Yet an image of meanness is not a trait Americans want in their leaders. If that is the establishment - and Mrs. Clinton is the establishment - then yes, Americans will vote for change. Hope for change - the ability to believe it is possible - is one of the beautiful things about republican government. At the same time, I am admittedly unclear about what Mr. Obama stands for on many issues!

Celia Bright

So who do you suggest the Americans vote for, then, Melanie?

Brian O'Connor

Christy wrote:

When she nearly broke down this week, her voice was the nicest I have ever heard it. This helped humanize her. Yet an image of meanness is not a trait Americans want in their leaders.

Again we see the alarming role emotion ("Mean," "nice," "humanize") plays in 'mericun politics.

Purely apart from definitional disputes, the utopian endpoint -- a body politic in which everyone joins hands in agreement and sings Kumbaya in four part harmony -- swamps reality.

Given the kinds of problems and the divergent opinions facing the world, there can be no "coming together" as Mr. Obama suggests he will produce, and his supporters believe is possible.

How can skeptics convince Al Gore and his disciples that AGW is a myth, or vice versa? How can those believing that we must stay in Iraq until the country is stable persuade those who are for "exit now" against immediate withdrawal, or vice versa? For those who believe that Bush lied about WMD, what logic would persuade them that Bush didn't lie, or vice versa?

Mr. Obama's either hopelessly naivé himself, or he's lying through his teeth when he says his election will bring the country together.

It isn't going to happen, and it is downright silly for someone to base their vote on the notion that it might.

Albert

The sheer audacity and irony present in this article have prompted me to respond.

Grandiose, blanket statements that assert “Britain’s transformation from a country of reason, intelligence, stoicism, self-restraint and responsibility into a land of credulousness, emotional incontinence, sentimentality, irresponsibility and self-obsession" are clearly over exaggerated, based on the emotionally appealing myth of utopian past.

And to talk of credulousness! Typically when a reasonable and responsible person ascertains that if politician were “to be elected president he would be a danger to the free world”, he or she backs that statement up with a set of concrete reasons explaining why this is true. Here, readers are just expected to take it at face value.

One who speaks characterizes campaigns based on emotional appeal as “empty, amoral, untruthful and manipulative”, should perhaps try to base his or her writing less on emotional appeal and more on logic and reason.

IW

You don't like anything, do you.

Dan in Columbus, USA

Wow. We've only had ONE caucus, and a very exclusive (what, 7% of the population?) and ridiculous (less a vote and more of a 'pep rally-meets-screaming deabte' that takes three frickin' hours) one at that, and everybody wants to play "guess who the next president will be". Let's all calm down, wait, oh, even for NH to be over, before we start wailing and grinding teeth. As to the basis of the article, sure, politicians in EVERY country play this game, because, unfortunately, most people vote more on how they FEEL than on what they THINK. And we end up with Carter. Yes, the article makes a point, but let's not get too drawn into the hype.

Verity

Susan,I too see Barak Obama as a dangerous individual. His past is rather too eventful and he doesn't seem to have anything to offer but fuzzy wuzz feelings of "change". Admittedly, a balanced budget would make a nice change, but "change" has a dated, Seventies feel about it. Someone else who promised "change" as though it were automatically a good thing, was Tony Blair, who changed Britain out of all recognition within 10 years, and he did it without the permission of the British. I still call Obama the Manchurian Candidate. There's something not quite right about this individual.

Maeve McHugh

Melanie, your view is spop on. Your excellent judgement and common sense are based in reality. Maeve

Daniel Hannan

Melanie, you're brilliant - eloquent, informed and charming - and I wish I had a tenth of your elegance on the page. But be honest: this is really about Obama's position on Iraq. You're perfectly entitled to disagree with him, of course, and no one could call you inconsistent, but it's a bit harsh to say that he's "on the wrong side of just about every issue going". I mean, how do you know? Has he expressed views on them? "A danger to the free world"? Really? You can call him vague, yes, platitudinous, hackneyed, insubstantial. But dangerous? As far as I'm concerned, absence of detailed plans is a recommendation. Give me a president who says and does little over one who has minute schemes for reform any day. As Ronald Reagan used to storm at his cabinet ministers: "Don't just do something - stand there!"

joyce

These are serious times, we don't need a rock star as President, we need a ROCK. Someone hard and tough, not warm and fuzzy who the media wants to make THEIR darling. The only candidate on either side running who has a REAL track record of being tough and fixing problems is Rudy Giuliani. I'm not a Republican, but I'm going to vote for him as the man running who can actually PROTECT my family and America.

Karen

The British main stream media are having a love-in with Obama at the moment and have already made him President.

Jack Feehily

You are right on! What a brilliant analogy. If Barak Obama had been just another white Illinois legislator who managed to get elected to the US Senate under the most peculiar of circumstances, he would absolutely not be a leading contender for the democratic nomination. Everyone knows that pols are supposed to wait patiently in line. Even Hillary subjected herself to that discipline. But Barak is not white. His father is from Kenya and his mother is from Kansas. I wonder if his mother was acquainted with Dorothy and Toto, because the present situation with her son is as fantastical as a trip to Oz. Hey, he's a great and charismatic speaker. That's a tremendous plus for a young former senator from Illinois who would like to be president someday. When is someone going to ask "can you tell us exactly what you have in mind to change, and how you plan of doing that?" Right now he remains in the category of populist and preacher. Haven't they been steps on the way to demagoguery? Has anyone checked out the web site for the church that Barak has been a passionate member of? It would be one thing if he just attended that church, but he claims to be a committed member of it. I want a president who will manifest strong faith, but I don't want a president who is a screaming liberal on every subject from amnesty to Jesus Christ.

Brian O'Connor

Albert wrote:

And to talk of credulousness! Typically when a reasonable and responsible person ascertains that if politician were “to be elected president he would be a danger to the free world”, he or she backs that statement up with a set of concrete reasons explaining why this is true. Here, readers are just expected to take it at face value.

Well, if he follows through on his inclination to invade Pakistan, I'd call that a danger to the world.

What would you call it?

Or, is Mr. Obama lying or simply hopelessly naivé?

And which would be worse: a president who is capable of such a howler or who is so out-of-touch?

joyce

Well Shrillary pulled out a win in Iowa. So the media will have egg on their face...AGAIN. Frankly, she'd be easier to beat in the General election. Half the nation despises her and would vote for Satan before they would vote for her.

Michael B

"That is because Dianafication is essentially empty, amoral, untruthful and manipulative ..." Yes, there are other things at play, but that is its heart and its soul. Nicely done.

Jim Carr

Obama is, by a distance, the most dangerous candidate. Not just for his empty-headed querulous acceptance of anthropogenic glaobal warming, or 'climate change', but also for his Muslim-friendly appeasement of the world's terror centres. There'll be trouble, and lots of it, if this charlatan enters the White House.

kee

tonya harding

Robert Williams

Obama's foreign policy does not include the word Afghanistan http://www.barackobama.com/issues/foreignpolicy/