2 posts tagged “2008”

For me, an Obama win (looking very likely now, and a landslide too)
will be very interesting for one main thing: the campaign's
organisation. This is a man who was helped up by a hope-inspiring
speech, and who has been in the Senate for hardly four years, and look
where he is.

Look who he beat: Hillary Clinton. Look who he is leading
comfortably: McCain. Tainted as these personalities are (Hillary by
her husband's time, and McCain by his association with the Bush
administration), imperfect propositions as they were, they are two
formidable politicians who would have filled the president's seat
comfortably (McCain may still do?).

I remember talking to people in London about Obama a year ago, no one
was sure who he was. No one ever thought he'd win. I remember being
at a dinner party with a bunch of young bankers from New York, and
when I mentioned Obama's name, the New Yorkers laughed out loud. "In
America, to be in powerful positions, you have to be a man and you
have to be white. Okay?"

I do not know how he did it. But the word on the internet is that his
campaign has been one of the most organised in history. This David
Axelrod fellow seems to have been on the ball from day one.

This Washington Post article provides some clues on how Obama went
about cultivating friends, picking subjects to focus on since his first days
at the Senate. I am not sure if Obama wanted to be president as soon
as he joined the Senate, but it is clear that he planned for the option,
should he choose it.

When Obama won Iowa, on the back of his vision and personality, he
put the Clinton campaign in disarray. Given the doubts that the
commentators had about Hillary, they wrote her off: if an upstart
like Obama can dislodge her in Iowa so classily, how can she ever
win? She proved them wrong; she bounced back and fought hard. And she
would have won, had it not been for the foresight of the Obama
campaign.

They planned right from the start to have a presence in every state.
Hillary's people thought she'd have the nomination wrapped up early
on, and were lax about their organisation in the smaller, mid-race
states. Come mid-race, with both candidates tied, her campaign was
scrambling to have a presence in 12 states when the Obama people had
been there for months. Those states were crucial in handing Obama his
win over Clinton - she had, after all, won most of the big states.

Few people are aware that one of the reasons for Obama's handsome
surge in the polls is his campaign's spending on TV ads. He regularly
outspends McCain, sometimes with a huge margin. Obama is loaded,
and he burns through the cash super-fast.  Why shouldn't he, he is always
raising new money - see the recent Powell surge.

Howard Dean may have invented internet-based grassroots organisation
but Obama's campaign seems to have made all that look like ancient
history. They raise money at every opportunity. Hillary is
super-tightening the race? We need your support. Palin's just
appeared on the scene? Hey guys, time for your donations.  McCain
is running attack ads? Money please. Powell's just endorsed us?
Greenbacks, please. The campaign's default answer to any situation
is: "Dear supporter, here is how you can help: send us a check."

You cannot win with only money.  He stands for something, and put against
John McCain he is showing he is a better candidate.  His appearances on
Letterman and Leno about two years ago revealed a guy with a sense
of humour, intelligence, and a presidential look. It is now apparent he is also
a highly-focused candidate. I love the way he has matured over the past year;
he used to be a single-issue, Iraq-war guy with a unique name. Now he
speaks with ease on any number of topics and conducts himself with such
terrific judgment.

"Don’t feel defensive. Stay calm, cool and collected."- seems like his motto.

I watched the McCain-Obama debate in full last night. I watched it on
CNN with my father (in Cairo). About fifteen minutes into it, my dad
thought it'd be a great idea to switch to Al-Jazeera and get the
Arabic-dubbed version. My father is very comfortable with English, so
I was a little surprised, but he is used to watching and listening to
stuff in Arabic. We switched to Al-Jazeera for another fifteen
minutes, and then he called it a night and I switched back to CNN.

The interpreter Al Jazeera assigned to cover Obama was loud and spoke
expressively, whereas the guy who did McCain sounded quiet and
robotic. I was surprised how with Arabic as language of
communication, and the personalities of both candidates now muted, I
could focus much better on what was being said. Context matters, eh?

Returning to CNN was welcome though, because the original version
felt more right for the occasion.

In my opinion, McCain scored heavily in this debate. He came off a
lot more articulate and substantial than I had ever seen him before
(admittedly only a few times). Overall, he seemed authoritative and
made more of the debate than Obama, who I thought was going to be an
expert debater. He engaged robustly and easily brushed off
potentially damaging attacks by Obama.

Obama, on the other hand, appeared more refined and gentlemanly. He
attempted to connect with all parties of the debate: the moderator,
the audience in the room, the TV audience, and McCain himself. McCain
never once even looked in Obama's direction. Towards the end of the
debate, I began to feel that McCain had over-reached a little, he was
coming off as superior and patronising. But he did not get to the
school-master levels of Cheney, when the VP debated against Edwards.

I felt overall McCain won though. Obama did not call McCain on that
overbearing attitude, he did not call him on Iraq or Afghanistan
strongly enough, he left Palin, McCain's age, and a few other things
in the debate unsaid. I also felt that Obama, though a great speaker,
sometimes slowed down a lot - clearly his brain was racing on.
McCain, who started off nervously, became much more fluent quickly.
He seemed to speak from the gut.

Nevertheless, McCain was in his bubble. He thought highly of himself
and little of his opponent. Obama was engaged, on his feet, and
impressively smooth. But he was slow and failed to inflict serious
points against his rival.

Given that most Dems and Reps would have fallen behind party lines,
this was a battle for the independents and 'soft' voters. Unless I am
mis-reading the pulse of the US voter, who may turn out to prefer
refinement and thinks less of experience, McCain won. The good news
is that there are two more debates to really firm up people's minds.

PS. Both drew blanks on the economy.