Article on Democratic Convention

An attempt at writing an election coverage piece. Enjoy.

____________

All eyes are on Denver, Colorado this week, as the city prepares to host the 2008 Democratic Party Convention. Over 65,000 people are expected to attend the convention which will see Sen. Barack Obama become the first ever African American to be elected as the party’s Presidential Nominee. The convention will set the tone for the rest of the election campaign as Obama seeks to unite the his party, divided by his long and bitter primary battle with Sen. Hillary Clinton.

The convention comes at a critical time for the Obama campaign, as political polls show the race between Obama and his rival, Republican Senator John McCain, tightening to within the margin of error. A CNN poll from the 24th of August shows the candidates tied, each winning 47% of the vote. One area in which Obama is weak is his appeal to those Democrat voters who favoured Sen. Clinton in the primaries. Recent polling shows Sen. Obama winning just 79% of Democrat voters, with many of Clinton’s supporters now choosing to vote for McCain rather than the man who unseated Clinton as the Democratic Nominee. By comparison 2004 Democrat Nominee John Kerry was able to win 89% of his party’s voters. Obama’s failure to galvanise Democrat voters has meant he has been unable to capitalise on his party’s identification advantage over the Republicans, with 7% more voters identifying themselves as Democrats than Republicans.

If Obama is able to convince another 10 to 15 percent of Democrat voters to support him, he could open up a substantial lead in the polls.

In order to do this, the Democrats must present a united face at this weeks convention, where Hillary Clinton will publically ask her supporters to vote for Obama. Clinton, who won 17 million votes over the course of the primary contest, is scheduled to headline the first night of the convention, with a speech on the subject of “Renewing America”. Her husband, former president Bill Clinton is scheduled to give a speech on the conventions second night on the topic of “Securing America’s future.”

The Clintons will also attempt to help Obama increase his support amongst white working class voters, a group he struggled to appeal too in the primary contest, and is still lacking support from.

Winning votes amongst this key voting bloc was an important factor in Obama’s decision to pick long serving Democrat Senator Joe Biden as his Vice Presidential Candidate. Biden, who has over 25 years of experience in the Senate, has a strong appeal to the working class with Obama introducing Biden as a “a scrappy kid from Scranton”, a working class city in Pennsylvania. Obama also described Biden as “a statesman with sound judgment who doesn’t have to hide behind bluster to keep America strong.”

Biden is scheduled to address the Democratic Convention on the same night as former President Clinton, giving a speech on the subject of National Security, seeking to offer a counter to Vietnam War veteran John McCain’s’ perceived advantage when it comes to experience in foreign policy.

Column on Secret Recordings

So I had my appendix out last week, hence the lack of column. I spent a couple of days in hospital, cut off from internet and news access. One of the first things I did when I got out was to check the news and see what I’d missed.

So what had our nation’s politicians been up to in my absence?

Secret tapes, secret agendas, secret donations and secret trusts. Is there any political news at the moment that doesn’t involve some kind of cloak and dagger deception?

First we had Winston Peters and the seemingly endless list of complaints over his use of secret trust and murky “expense funds”. Then we had Bill English being caught on tape at the National Party Convention promising to sell Kiwibank, followed by Lockwood Smith making worrying reference to National’s popular policy concessions being just a way to fool the public in order to avoid “scaring the horses”. Both of these conversations were caught on tape and leaked to the media, followed by Helen Clark and Michael Cullen hailing them as proof that National has a secret agenda, and is trying to bluff its way into Government so it can sell off all the state’s assets and privatise the whole country. The Nats responded by alleging that Labour was behind the recordings, and that they may even have been doctored. According to John Key Labour is running an orchestrated smear campaign, desperately attempting to scare voters away from National.

Things have gotten nasty in parliament recently too, with Winston Peters insinuating (behind the protection of parliamentary privilege of course) that Rodney Hide is gay, Hide referring to Peters as a “tired old drunk”, Key and Clark at each others throats at every opportunity and Michael Cullen tearing Gerry Brownlee to shreds whenever he gets the chance.

It’s definitely election year alright. Some level of dirty campaigning is to be expected.

What’s disappointed me is just how dirty Labour has gotten.

Chris Trotter, leftist writer and historian wrote an excellent (though painfully biased) history of New Zealand last year called No Left Turn. The book basically told the story of New Zealand history as a struggle between the forces of greed, bigotry and hate (National) and selflessness, equality and egalitarianism (Labour). History of course isn’t anything like that, but the reason Trotter’s book worked on a story telling level (if not an objectivity level) was that the New Zealand left has a relatively clean history when it comes to campaigning. Michael Joseph Savage, Labours depression era leader, for example allowed the New Zealand people to vote directly on his ground breaking welfare policies, and fatally refused to take time out of campaigning to receive medical treatment, for fear that his people would be denied the option to make a proper choice on so important an issue. Such a bravely democratic move has become the ideal to which the New Zealand left is meant to aspire too.

At the moment they are falling far short of it, and even Trotter can’t make them look good.

Labour’s campaign, while having some very positive aspects (“getting on with the business of governing” is a very admirable campaign slogan) is becoming mired by dirty tactics and unnecessary nastiness. Be in Michael Cullen calling Key a “rich prick”, Clark calling him “diddums” or that god-awful anti-Key singalong at the party conference, Labour comes off looking bitter, resentful and cruel. Labour aligned blog The Standard is so virulent in its attacks on John Key and his “hollow” campaign that at times it borders on self parody (a recent article turned the Tony Veitch scandal into an attack on Key). The left is convinced that National is being vague on policy in an attempt to hide its right-wing plan for New Zealand. According to Labour and its supporters, as soon as Key gets into power it’s open season on state assets, beneficiaries, working for families, kiwibank, kiwisaver and any other policy that aims to help the poor.

So incensed is the left at the tactics National is using (and the success they are having with them) that it’s looking more and more like they’ve resorted to some really questionable stuff. The secret recordings made of Bill English and Lockwood smith, reportedly by Labour party activists, are a long way from the democratic and open campaigns they promised us the Electoral Finance Act would bring about. Can you imagine the ruckus the left would be kicking up if National had made secret recordings of Labour party candidate’s private conversations? It wasn’t ok when Richard Nixon did it, it’s not ok now. The English tape in particular seems to feature someone goading English into saying what he did about Kiwisaver, which raises even more ethical questions than simply making a secret recording.

The left loves to claim the moral high ground in debates. Often as in the case of the American Civil Rights movement, or our own anti-nuclear or anti-apartheid protest movements, they have a right to do so. Now however, the left has nothing to complain about except that their loosing in the polls to a guy who to put it bluntly, is really bloody good at campaigning.

The way to fight Key and National is to turn the debate to policy, to issues. In terms of their policy preferences New Zealanders have traditionally been a relatively left wing country, economically if not socially. Labour can go out and win votes on it’s track record. For example a public currently straining under the pressures of a recession will be thrilled to know that under Labour  the average hourly wage has increased 9.6 percent in the last 2 years.

In 2002 Labour ran a group of successful TV ads, with rising music playing over clips of their ministers in action, meeting foreign dignitaries, getting out in the community. The ads promised leadership, inspiration and the will to lead the nation. The tagline told voters that when New Zealand needed leadership, Labour led. The message was upbeat, positive and enthusiastic. It’s the Labour of those ads that they want the public to be seeing this time round.

If Labour can’t convince the public they have more to offer than scandal mongering and smear campaigns, the happy days of 2002 and their record breaking election victory are going to seem a very long time ago indeed.

One of the quirks of MMP is that it lessens the importance of winning individual electorate seats. In American Elections, owing to different Electoral College votes assigned to each state, the outcome of entire elections can rest on a single state. It’s because of this that Barack Obama and John McCain each have over 20 field offices in Florida, while neither one has opened a single office in South Dakota. In New Zealand however, it is rare that the result of a single electorate seat will have too large an impact on the results of the wider election. In 2008 however the dynamics of the race suggest that local results in a number of key electorates will play a vital part in deciding who forms our next Government.

The first of these important seats is Tauranga, home of Winston Peters and possibly New Zealand First’s only way back into Parliament at the end of the year. A party either needs 5% of the vote or to win one or more electorate seat to be able to receive a proportional share of the 120 nominal seats in the house. The polls at the moment suggest that New Zealand First could have a hard time making it over the 5% threshold. A New Zealand Herald Poll from 26th July gives New Zealand First just 4.1 percent of the vote. A Colmar-Brunton poll from 18th July gives them just 2.4 percent. The best result in any recent poll for NZF has them on exactly 5% from a Roy Morgan poll in late July.

It’s important to note that all of these polls were conducted before the various scandals around Winston Peter’s use of secret trusts and secret donations broke. What impact these will have on the parties’ poll numbers remains to be seen. It could be a negative one as the party’s hypocrisy on the issuer of accountability drives away voters or the scandals could cause a rallying of the New Zealand First vote to defend Peters from a media beat up on “our Winnie”.

If their current level of support continues however, New Zealand First is in a dangerous position and Winston Peters needs a win in Tauranga to ensure his parties political survival.

When it comes to winning Tauranga, Peters has a lot of experience. He first won the seat in 1984 and was able to hold onto it until he was eventually beaten by National’s Bob Clarkson in 2005. Clarkson went on to be one of Parliaments most colourful and eccentric MP’s, earning himself the derisive nickname “Burqa Bob” from opponents, after he told reporters that any women wearing burqas should “go back to Islam or Iraq”.
In 2008 however Clarkson is not running, instead Peters will be running against former National Party Tauranga Chairman Simon Bridges.  Bridges is in many ways a far tougher opponent for Peters than Clarkson is. At just 31 Bridges is less than half Peters’ age and is a relatively fresh face in the New Zealand political scene.

As a former crown prosecutor he has a good record of service to the community and speaks with weight on law and order issues. More importantly Bridges has been running on a theme of change. His campaign website proclaims that “A vote for Simon Bridges this election is a vote for the future”. Such sentiment will ring true with voters in Tauranga who have had 9 years of the same Government, and years of Winston Peters as their MP. It is easy to understand why Tauranga voters, suffering through the slowing of the economy and a jump in violent crime rates would be attracted to a candidate promising fresh ideas and a good record on law and order.

Bridge’s appeal as a candidate was confirmed in a recent Colmar Brunton Poll of the Tauranga race.

According to the Poll, Bridges has a 20 point lead over Peters, winning 48% of respondents compared to Peters 28%. When interviewed about the poll, Helen Clark said she did not think it would give Peters much cause for concern, after all he has been down before and always finds a way to fight back. While the unflappable Peters may not panic when he sees these numbers, it is a definite indicator that he is in for a fight if he wants to win back Tauranga.

If Bridges wins Tauranga and New Zealand First doesn’t make it over 5%, the effect on the overall Election would be dramatic. Peters and his party would be a valuable coalition partner for either National or Labour. Despite tensions between his party and National, Peters has promised to negotiate first with the party that receives the most votes, which is almost certainly going to be National. If National can’t get enough votes to govern alone, it will need to turn to people like ACT and New Zealand First to make up the numbers, as their task of making it into Government will be a lot harder if they don’t have the option of going with New Zealand First.

For Labour, who would probably have a much smoother relationship if they did go into Government with Peters, losing New Zealand First would be a significant problem as it further cuts down their options for recreating a 2005 like deal to get back into power.

New Zealand First is not the only minor party important for any potential coalition deal to be involved in an all important electorate seat battle this year. Just as in 2005, ACT needs to win the seat of Epsom if it is going to have any presence in parliament after the election.

Earlier in the year when Sir Roger Douglas announced his return to the party, ACT faithful were filled with optimism. Sir Roger himself in an interview with me predicted ACT could get as high as 6 or 7 percent.

Current polls however suggest such success is a pipedream. Despite the zeal of the party’s followers, ACT’s poll numbers are disastrous. The latest Roy Morgan poll has them on an awe-inspiring 2.5 percent, the poll before that had then at 0.5%. By comparison, The legalise cannabis party got 0.4% in a Colmar Brunton poll recently. So with ACT polling about as well as the dope-heads, they need an electorate seat or they can kiss goodbye to parliament.

The best chance ACT has of winning this is in Epsom, a notoriously right wing (think Fendalton) electorate where party leader Rodney Hide was able to score an upset win in 2005. This year Hide looks to be on track to take the seat again, facing the man he beat for the seat, National’s Richard Worth. Worth finds himself in a tricky position, as winning the seat could potentially cost National a coalition partner it needs to win the election.
ACT and New Zealand First have been at each other’s throats in Parliament this year, they differ on almost all aspects of policy and political philosophy. Yet both parties find themselves in a similar position this election, both facing oblivion if they prove unable to hold their electorate seats. If either party disappears, it could prove a deciding factor in the election.

Labour and the polls

“The Labour Comeback Begins”

“The Elections turning point?”

“Labour closes the Gap”

The above are just a couple of headlines and comments I’ve seen around various left wing blogs since the release of A Fairfax Media-Nielsen poll on July 19th showing that National’s lead over Labour had dropped from 24% to 16% in the latest poll. Fairfax Media themselves referred to the poll as “throwing a life line” to the struggling Government. Adding to National’s woe was the fact that John Key had slipped in the Preferred Prime Minister category to just 39%, the lowest rating he has received all year.

According to the narrative being set by the mainstream media and the various blogs, the reason for this turn around in Labours support is the success of various attacks they have been launching on John Key. In recent weeks Labour has hammered Key on Crosby Textor, Tranzrail, and National’s decision to open up ACC to private competition, a move which Labour claims will damage the system leading to higher premiums and endless law suits. The combined effect of these attacks has been to portray Key as a man reliant on his foreign spin doctors, unable to think for himself, and firmly in the pocket of big business. Such an image is a far cry from the kiwi boy made good, nice guy image National wants for their leader.

The second reason cited for National’s tumble in the poll is growing voter dissatisfaction with National’s unwillingness to roll out policy with any real meet behind it. The much hyped tax cuts, the backbone of National’s election strategy, are still being kept under wraps, with National unwilling to elaborate on how big they will be or how exactly the nation can afford them. Recent policy announcements by the Nats have bordered on self parody, with their policy statement for the multimillion outdoor recreation industry being released on a single A4 sheet of paper. National’s biggest policy announcement, of their much criticised ACC plans, was made by Dominion Post Journalist Vernon Small, who revealed that people in big foreign banking firms like Merryl0Lynch (who used to employ John Key) were being told of the plans to introduce competition (something that would net the insurance industry hundreds of millions of dollars worth of profit each year) while the New Zealand voter was being kept in the dark. Having a journo break the news of your buddy buddy relationship with foreign banks as a way to announce major economic policy is a terrible look.

Further evidence that National’s feet dragging on major policy was behind the shrinking gap between them and Labour came when 55% of respondents to the Fairfax Poll said they “wanted to see policy from National now” as opposed to the mere 35% who wanted to wait. This is worrying for National as that 35% is likely to be their “bed rock support”, those voters who would vote National no matter what. The type of people who still voted for National in 2002, its worst election defeat in decades. That means the 55% of people is bound to include many of those voters National has recently taken off of Labour. Key has cause to be worried that if his party is unable to provide any substantial reasons for those swing voters to stick around, they could swing back to Labour. The fact that a large proportion of undecided swing voters still exists is evidenced by the 28% of respondents to the poll who say they have not yet made up their mind about their preferred prime minister.

So yes, it’s a worrying poll for National that might give them cause to rethink a couple of things.

But it is the beginning of a stunning Labour comeback?

Far from it.

There are a couple of important things to keep in mind when looking at the poll results. First of all, as with all polls, this is just one snapshot of the population, taken at a specific time. Individual polls can be misleading, and we will have to wait for the next month’s worth of polls to be able to get a clear and accurate view of wither Labour really has closed the gap to the extent this poll suggests.

Even if this poll is accurate, the results aren’t as encouraging for Labour as they would appear at first. While it is true that Labour gained five points, National only lost 3 points. That means there are 2 points that are coming from a loss of support from another party. And what party is that?

Labours traditional preferred coalition partner, The Greens.

With poll ratings as high as they are, it is almost unthinkable that National will not get the most votes at this election. That doesn’t mean they will win however, it just means that as often happens under MMP they might get more votes than any single other party, but not have the parliamentary majority needed to govern. If National is unable to govern alone and ACT’s abysmal poll ratings (1 percent, ouch, so much for the party getting 6 or 7 percent huh?) continue then National could find itself being beaten by a broad left wing coalition of Labour, the Greens, The Maori Party, New Zealand first etc.

Labour will HAVE to form a coalition government to win the elections. What that means is we should be paying more attention to the combined ratings of the left wing voting bloc who could form a government (The Greens, Labour, Progressives, Maori Party and sometimes New Zealand First) and comparing it with the right wing voting bloc (National, ACT, United Future) since it is likely to be these voting blocs, rather than single parties that govern. When viewed this way, Labour taking 2 percent off the Greens doesn’t really help them at all, as the left wing voting bloc doesn’t really gain any support, its members just pass voters around between themselves. Had Labour been able to cannibalise 2 percent of ACT or United Futures vote, it would be a different story.

As it stands, National is the biggest party, and if they are unable to govern alone they will simply govern as a coalition with the other right wing parties.

Canta Feature on US Elections

So far the 2008 American Presidential election campaign has been one of the most dramatic in history. Be it Barack Obama’s stunning rise from eloquent underdog to bonafide front runner, or John McCain’s stunning comeback after his campaign imploded in 2007, the campaign has been full of dramatic moments. With mere months to go now until the polls open, national polls from America show the race at an almost dead heat, with just 3 percent separating the two candidates according to a recent Gallup Poll, one of America’s most reliable polling services.
Despite the closeness of the race, the two candidates offer vastly different visions for America’s future, and vastly different solutions to the problems the nation faces. Senator John McCain, the 71 year old presidential nominee of the Republican Party, the party of incumbent president George W. Bush, is a classic compassionate conservative.

He mixes a strong commitment to free trade and tax cuts, the bread and butter of conservative economic policies, with liberal social and foreign policies that have won him great support from independent voters. Sen. McCain has earned himself a reputation as a political maverick, someone who will go against his party line and transcend the normal ideological squabbles, with his support of liberal issues like battling climate change. He has also been vocal in his opposition to the use of controversial “interrogation” techniques such as water boarding, and has promised one of his first acts as President would be to close Guantanamo Bay and ensure “America never tortures another person.”

McCain speaks with great credibility on these matters due to his years as a victim of torture in a Prisoner of War camp during the Vietnam War. His military experience also gives him strong credibility on matters of foreign policy, 72% of American’s telling a recent Washington Post poll that McCain would make a good commander in chief, as opposed to just 48% who say the same of his opponent.

McCain will need all the credibility on matters of economics and the military that he can get, as he faces the daunting task of convincing an American Public who do not seem to agree with him on these major issues. The Arizona Senator, whose economic policies bear a marked similarity to those of President Bush, will be worried by recent polls that show Americans are dissatisfied with the state of their economy and their nation. A Gallup poll from July 21st showed that 80% of American’s have a negative view of the current state of the economy, with just 7 percent holding a positive one. Even more worrying for the McCain campaign is a much cited poll CBS/New York Times on April 3rd, which says more than 80% of respondents said they were “dissatisfied with the direction of the country”, while 81% thought that “things have pretty seriously gotten off on the wrong track”.

Combine this with President Bush’s abysmal approval ratings, with a realclearpolitics.com averaging of national polls on July 21st finding him to have the support of just 28 percent of the population, and McCain’s task of convincing Americans to vote for four more years of republican rule is a difficult one.

It is made even more difficult by the immense hype surrounding his opponent. Barack Obama, a 46 year old Senator from Illinois, is being hyped by many as a transformational figure in American politics. The first ever African American presidential nominee from either of the major parties, he rode a tidal wave of grass roots support to a stunning victory over the seemingly unbeatable Hillary Clinton in the Democratic Primary Contest.

Obama promotes himself as a reformer, someone who will change the American political system, bringing an end to the gutter politics and vested interests of the Bush Years. His campaign slogan “Change We Can Believe In” has struck a chord with those millions of American voters who do think their country is on the wrong track. Obama himself is an impressive figure, despite being relatively new to the national political scene (few had even heard of him before 2004) his eloquent and uplifting speechmaking has won him comparisons to both John F Kennedy and Martin Luther King Jr. Obama is immensely popular amongst younger voters, and has driven hundreds of thousands of first time voters to turn out and support him.

In terms of policy Obama is markedly different from McCain. Obama is in many ways a classic liberal politician. He favours universal health care, energy independence, increased spending on infrastructure and investment, and removing the multibillion dollar tax cuts George bush granted to the rich. For many however the defining point of difference between the two candidates is Obama’s opposition to the War in Iraq, a war McCain supports. Obama promises to withdraw American troops from Iraq, to be redeployed in Afghanistan to fight the Taliban and pursue Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda. Obama says the Iraq war was a costly distraction from the War on Terror, and thinks that within 16 months of becoming president he will have been able to complete what he calls his “measured withdrawal” of American combat troops in Iraq.

McCain on the other hand believes that pulling out of Iraq will leave the country in chaos, something America will be responsible for. The two candidates have engaged in a bitter and heated debate on the issue, the most recent development being that the Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has voiced preference for Obama’s withdrawal plans.

Despite their differences, the two candidates do share some similarities. Both tout themselves as able to work across party lines, to move beyond the partisan squabbles that have been the hallmark of the Bush years. It is a claim where McCain has more credibility, having a strong track record of bipartisan co-operation, including on campaign finance laws that many within in his own party saw as a betrayal. Obama is no hostage to partisan concerns however, cosponsoring a bill in congress with Republican Senator Tom Coburn aimed at cutting Government Waste and increasing transparency in spending, something that ruffled the feathers of many big spending Democrats. With both men promising to deliver change in Washington, and the race so close, who is likely to win?

At this stage, it’s pretty hard to call, but Sen. Obama does appear to be in a slightly better position.

Rather than a direct voting system like we have in New Zealand, where whoever gets the most votes forms a government, the American system is more splintered, reflecting the belief in separation of powers that is the great strength of American Government. Each state is assigned a set number of what are called Electoral College votes, based on population. For example California, the most populace state, gets 55 electoral votes, while Alaska a far less populated state gets just 3. On polling day, whoever gets the most votes in a state wins its electoral votes. So winning California gets you 55 votes, Alaska nets 3 votes etc. There are a total of 538 electoral votes up for grabs in the election. Of these, who ever can get to 270 votes becomes the president.

This voting system means that it is whoever wins the most states that is important, rather than whoever wins the most votes.

So who is in the better position to win the 270 electoral votes needed?

As it stands, Barack Obama.

The easiest way for John McCain to win in this election is simply to win all the states George Bush won in 2004. Bush won himself 286 electoral votes, and if McCain can stop Obama from turning enough of those states Democrat in 2008, he will win the white house. So McCain would in theory have the easiest road to the presidency, simply needing to convince voters in those states to vote as they did in the last election.

Obama has the much harder task of winning all the states John Kerry won in 2004, while adding an extra 19 Electoral College votes to his haul. If McCain can flip even one of the Kerry states, Obama’s task becomes even harder. If he can flip one that yields a large number of electoral votes, such as Pennsylvania which went to Kerry by a slim margin in 2004, and would yield him 21 extra electoral votes, then the Obama campaign is effectively sunk.

However, current polling from the various states suggest that not only is McCain going to have an almost impossible time flipping Kerry States, he may not even be able to hold onto the Bush states. Of the Bush states that McCain needs to hold, current polling has Obama within striking distance of taking Montana (3 electoral college votes), Colorado (9) New Mexico (10), Florida (27), Ohio (20) as well as closing the gap in traditionally strong Republican states like Texas and Alaska. If Obama were to win Ohio for instance, and a poll from July 21st had Obama up 8 percent in the state, it would be almost impossible for McCain to win. If Obama took Ohio and say, New Mexico then McCain is done. At current polling levels, he is expected to take both.

To offset these possible losses, McCain needs to be able to flip some big Kerry states. Of the Kerry states however only New Mexico and Pennsylvania seem even close to being up for grabs and Obama still has a clear lead in both.

That’s not to say all is lost for McCain however. The Republican Party is known for death defying comebacks, often driven by attacking the weaknesses of their opponents. As a candidate Obama has many weaknesses ripe for attack by the Republicans. With his childhood in Indonesia, his foreign sounding name, controversial statements about guns and religion, as well as a myriad of controversial associates in his past like 60’s wannabe revolutionary William Ayers, Obama lacks appeal to the notoriously patriotic American middle classes. In the primary battle with Hillary Clinton, Obama polled poorly with the so called “Reagan Democrats”, those uneducated middle class whites who traditionally voted Democrat but in recent years have voted Republican due their social conservatism. Obama’s big spending plans will also be a turn off to economically conservative voters, at a time when the American Government faces huge deficits. Obama has the hard task of convincing voters that the government can afford billions of dollars in new spending at a time when it is trillions of dollars in debt.

Most importantly however has been the damage he has done to himself through so called “Flip flops”. In 2004 the Republican Attack machine was able to destroy John Kerry’s image by successfully attacking Kerry over repeated changes in position. The image of Kerry in the mind of voters was of an indecisive weak man unable to lead the world’s only superpower. Obama has run the risk of exposing himself to similar attacks with a number of high profile policy reversals. In 2007 he promised he would opt into America’s public financing campaign, and thus limit himself to an 85 million dollar spending limit, just as John McCain has done. However Obama recently broke his promise, meaning he will have no spending limits in the campaign, but did so at the expense of damaging the voters trust in him.

On top of this Obama voted in favour of a bill granting legal amnesty to any phone company found to have taken part in illegal wire tapping on behalf of the bush administration. This decision was seen as a betrayal by Obama’s liberal supporters, and was seized upon by Republicans as proof that despite his promises of change, Obama is just another politician. A man ready and willing to break promises, lie, and distort the truth to win votes. It remains to be seen if these attacks will damage Obama enough to stop him from winning vital states like Ohio, but they offer hope to Republican supporters that while Obama may be leading, he is not unbeatable.

At this stage however, Obama is the clear front runner. As long as he can avoid disastrous mistakes, or damaging scandals, he looks to be a safe pick to win the elections. However American History is full of Democratic nominees who should win the election, but don’t. Obama just has to hope he can avoid that fate. If he can he will be in a position to make good on the promise so many see in him.