Philadelphia X

Even in the right wing press, many American commentators are going easy on Obama for the moment. No one wants to be seen as bitter, racist or anti-democratic by denouncing him just yet. Articles have titles like "Can we agree?" - looking for areas of common ground between Obama's coalition and the National Review's readership.

With one exception - our own dear Melanie Phillips. I can't quite bring myself to go through this whole article and tell you all the reasons why she is wrong and offensive. But for starters:

- she compares Obama's election to Blair's in 1997 which is, I think, to totally underestimate the strength of Obama's grassroots campaign, and the interest and enthusiasm he has generated among people who have never had any interest in politics before

- she claims Obama's election is, in effect, the signing of a national suicide note, since he is part of the progressive conspiracy that wants to destroy everything that is great about America (and in the same breath manages to call Blair a Marxist)

- she doesn't even pay lip service to the achievement of Obama, and America, in electing a black president after such a history of the discrimination against and disenfranchisement of African Americans. Instead, she condemns the "victim culture" which - shock horror - tries to redress historical injustices by promoting the rights of minority groups.

This woman has been top of my list of people I feel the need to shout at when they come on the radio for a long time. It is made even worse, somehow, by the fact that she went to school with my mum, and then to St Anne's. But I do think it's interesting that, while an American magazine is prepared to publish this article, its American writers do not yet seem as ready or prepared to write Obama off so definitively.

UPDATE: lovely Oliver Burkeman spotted she wrote something similarly innane in the Spectator (can you get any more grumpy than this?!):

"A historic moment indeed. The hyperbole for once is not exaggerated: this is a watershed election which changes the fate of the world. The fear however is that the world now becomes very much less safe for all of us as a result."

"Those of us who have looked on appalled during this most frightening of presidential elections – at the suspension of reason and its replacement by thuggery -- can only hope that the way this man governs will be very different from the profile provided by his influences, associations and record to date. It’s a faint hope – the enemies of America, freedom and the west will certainly be rejoicing today"

And finally, as Burkeman points out, she thinks 52% of the popular vote is a "minority power-grab".

Gah! Words finally fail me.

Musical diversion

I just got really excited because I found that my friend James and I are on the NPR website! Proudest moment of my life.

Minot, North Dakota - the final presidential debate

I took a lot of notes, but to be honest, it was pretty boring. Same old same old most of the time - the same stats, the same responses, in a lot of cases even the exact same phrases that have been used in previous debates. This is depressing given the huge amount of material they could potentially discuss - they seem stuck on a few topics.

Listening to it, rather than watching it, made me notice the difference between the candidates' voices - Obama's is deep, soft and rather mellow; McCain's slightly scratchy, higher and certainly less pleasant. But I thought both of them sounded tired, and at times Obama sounded bored of the whole thing. They probably are, but it seems a shame when this may be the last time some people hear them setting out their vision and plans for America.

I feel like I am constantly bemoaning the fact that neither candidate is setting out a compelling vision. I wonder if this is because I am a consultant - and if actually this is the last thing the electorate wants. But still, I can't help thinking that only a vision can really get people excited about this election. I think Obama has succeeded in setting one out for his foot soldiers, but it hasn't made it out to us, (or indeed Joe the plumber), the ordinary observers.

A couple of details took me by surprise. Both candidates plan to end all imports of oil from the Middle East (and Venezuela) within 10 years. Does anyone have any idea what this would do to those countries if it actually happened? It also sound completely unrealistic.

Obama mentioned the story of a woman whose equal pay for equal work claim was dismissed and McCain did not support her case (or perhaps her appeal - I missed some key moments). Does this mean there is no federal equal pay legislation in America?

McCain seems to be accusing Obama of wanting to "spread the wealth around" - when I first heard this I thought that was supposed to be a good thing, but apparently not.

Finally, all this talk about health care is getting me down. Even laying aside (or taking as read - and in need of change) the inequity of the American system, it is stupendously expensive (America spends twice as much of its GDP on health - 16% - as the average for developed countries). Both candidates were asked if they were interesting in containing costs, and of course both said they were. But their strategies for doing so are likely to have minimal impact - making medical records available electronically, tackling obesity and opening more walk in clinics are all good ideas, but they won't save 8% of GDP.

A couple of weeks ago the New Yorker had an ad publicising a request from more than 500 doctors for the candidates to go further and advocate establishing a single payer system, which is something that could dramatically reduce costs. But even with healthcare so high on so many voters' lists of priorities, it looks like neither candidate sees this kind of radical solution as palatable to the electorate.

Thank goodness for North Dakota public radio

I did a very stupid thing, which was to book myself to be on a train during the third, and final, presidential debate. I spent a while wondering what could be done - and was seriously tempted just to plagirise Oliver Burkeman because I have enjoyed his coverage so much.

Instead, I resurrected my radio and after repeatedly finding nothing but static and some unexpected tribal drumming, I managed to find Prairie Public Radio which was running a rather too kind interview with a local politician in run up to the debate.

I had visions of gathering a crowd of politically minded train travellers to the loungue car, and even got permission from the attendant (who sang to us over the intercom five times a day to remind us of the treats she had available) to set up a listen party in her car, but reception was poor and no one had come along to join me so I headed back to my cabin.

On the way back I ran into Rebecca, who had been keen, and Nandan, who she'd met over dinner, and the two of them came back to my (extremely small) cabin, where we cradled and cajoled the radio to try to get better reception. It was maddening until we came into Stanley and transmission got strong enough to be able to hear anything properly. Towards the end of the debate, Rebecca went to get some fresh air when we stopped at Minot, and Betsy came and took her place.

So, we listened hard and in theory I should be able to tell you all about it. But this story is a lot more interesting than the debate was, I'm afraid.