The American Election

Living in mainstream America, as I do, everyday I'm immersed in turgid journalism "covering" the 2008 election, which usually centers around the ongoing struggle between Sen.Clinton and Sen.Obama. More often than not, the daily commentary is not worth reading, but the Atlantic has two excellent articles between its covers this month: articles that have supported my suspicions for some time now. Both indulge Barack Obama, who would now have to burn the American flag to not be elected as the Democratic headpiece. Firstly, Marc Ambinder highlights the successes of Obama's online campaigning and how this would translate well into government. Of course, if he were to be elected president, the history books would be filled with the racial facets of progress and cultural revolution, seamlessly sweeping aside his dabblings with the internet. He's churned out well in excess of $50 million through his website donations alone, but his real statement has been his cyber-networking, pulling in Facebook fans and MySpace clingers-on alike. The Web is a fickle engine, capable of derailing even the hardiest public figure with one looped video-clip, but as Ambinder explains: "If Obama wins, he can harness the Web as a unifying force once the voting is done [and] even deliver some of the audacious promises that Obama the candidate has made." Indeed, if he employed and (crucially) developed the British model of online petitioning, he could encourage genuine democracy beyond the meager vote. The second of Atlantic's Obama articles draws, for the first time, on the possibility that the extended furore between the two Democratic candidates might, in fact, help them in the long run. Besides the obvious benefits, such as time to hone their arguments and refine their speeches, they've also been forced repeatedly to revise their policies and evolve the fundamental messages of their campaigns. (Some might argue that Clinton hasn't done this at all, and I would concur, but Obama certainly has.) What's more, now that the campaign has extended well into it's ninth month, both candidates have become household names, and the subjects of many round-the-table discussions. Our honourable friend, Mr McCain has somewhat slid off the radar. For the neutral bystanders among us, like myself, voting for a Democratic candidate seems an easy option, but that would severely misread the scale of the Democratic operation. Not only do they have to overcome this lengthy affair unscathed, with a viable contender, they also have to overcome the Republican party, similar to the Conservatives switching places with Labour in Briatin. This draws a close comparison; how many Labour back-benchers can you name? No reader of this blog could not name the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Home Secretary, the Education Minister, etc. But could you name the Shadow Chancellor, the Shadow Home Secretary? Probably not. However, with the election of Boris Johnson, we see that promiscuity of character can occasionally prevail as a valuable long-term investment, as the Tories would undoubtedly agree. This, my friends, poses a problem to the Republican Party in the US. Can they uphold public awareness to the point of total confidence? especially in the wake of the glossy Mr Obama and his web-friendly user base, the upcoming months will be interesting for this very reason. But will the media pick up on it as Matthew Yglesias has done in this month's Atlantic? I will.