Yes we can.

This is a little strange, writing about the US elections. I really thought I had given up on US politics, after the farce of the last 2. It has been a great struggle to understand how anyone could vote for George W. Bush, whoever his opponent would be. Then again, the Democrats were so terribly organised then, many voters probably had no idea where to go at what time. Yet, I was certain any interest in US elections was in the past.

Then, a miracle happens.

I have been a long-time admirer of Sen. John McCain, who has crossed partisan lines to get the right bills passed, for the right reasons, and eschewed the pork-barrel ladening that plagues so much of his party's other politicians. Last I checked, George H W Bush still serves as a director of the Carlyle Group. As much as Sen. McCain's nomination pleases me, it has hardly been a surprise, particularly considering the much disillusioned Republican political base. Here is a candidate who is everything right, for everything wrong with 'Dubbya'. A real war hero, a veteran in the Senate, and by most accounts an honest man.


But it wasn't the Straight-Talk Express that caught my interest. I honestly thought the Republican nomination was sewed up from the beginning. The Evangelical base would never go for a Mormon president, and Huckabee cannot win over anyone besides Evangelicals.

No, the real surprise was in the Democratic primaries. Not too long ago, there was but one candidate in the race, Sen. Clinton. Who's Barack Obama anyway? But Obama's meteoric rise has sparked off some serious thinking, especially about cynicism. It isn't the rise of Obama in itself that is interesting, it is the high road he has taken over the the course of these elections. I had been sick to the stomach with all the mud-slinging and aspersions of US politics. Then here comes a man, a black man, with a message based a positive message for once. It was inspiring, but I doubted if it was workable. I hoped it did, but doubted it, and reality smacked me in the face for it.

The one thing I don't really believe is Obama transcending racial lines. It is not that I think he is playing the race card. He is not, at least, not by any detectable means. Mostly, it is because he does not have to. He is the one who may become the first black president. He does not need to talk about being black. The black vote is already his. But that much is expected, and nothing to truly gripe about. The same ought to be said about Sen. Clinton and the white women's vote, but it is not happening. And to be fair, if Sen. Clinton dominated the women's voting, would we accuse her of playing the gender card?

But back to the question of why Sen. Clinton is losing. Over the past couple of elections, voter turnout among Democrats and young people has been low. Barack Obama is not fighting for voters among established groups so much as creating new groups of voters, particularly among the young and the disenfranchised. His message his change and hope, which particularly appeals to the young. Now that young voters have finally ceased their apathy and come out of the woodwork in large numbers, are we going to accuse them of voting for the 'wrong' candidate? If an older generation does so, it is effectively denying democracy itself. First, the young are berated for not voting, then for not voting for 'their' candidate. It would seem the only 'right' way would be to vote exactly as the older generation. Their vote might as well be cast for them.

There is some doubt as to whether Obama can deliver his promises. That will depend on many things after he gets elected, such as who his team will be, how much support he can get from both the lower and upper house, and so on. The only evidence of his leadership ability thus far is in his campaign, which in many ways far more efficient and effective than Sen. Clinton's. It is without doubt that Sen. Clinton has more experience, but the question remains if she can escape the shackles of her past as First Lady (something Obama has not attacked her for).


The final gripe I have perused on the internet is the frustration of feminists. It is almost amusing reading about how a woman running for elections must be seen to be competent, yet still feminine, and how that is such a huge challenge. Fair enough, it is not easy.

Yet, Obama faces his own challenge, one as tricky if not even more so: how to stay on the high road while your opponent slings mud at you daily. The most part of Obama's appeal lies in his self-portrayal as the good guy. As a result of that, he can only snipe back after Sen. Clinton has done too much. Beyond that, he can but defend himself, and amicably.

The argument runs on, that if Obama were a woman, he would never have made it this far. Why not argue that if Hillary were a man, she would not have Bill and any dynastic support? Or that she would not even potentially have pulled it even a fraction of the women's vote that she has? Sen. Clinton's gender cuts both ways, as does Sen. Obama's race. The only difference is how they have used their backgrounds, and Obama has done better. As long as we are speculating, Sen. Clinton would have probably lost the women's vote even more spectacularly if Obama were a woman.

At the end of it all, the scoresheets look like this:

Sen. Clinton is the more experienced candidate, but experience can often be offset by gathering a team with experience and listening to them.

Sen. Obama has captured the moral high-ground.

On the question of competence, we weigh Obama's campagin against Clinton's past work. It is arguable which way the coin falls, so lets go with a draw.

In the end, the scales tip slightly in Obama's favour, but then again, I'm biased. Nonetheless, Obama has run the better campaign and won more votes overall. Its time to let the people be heard.

Yes we can.