jump to navigation

Don’t do it Obama, a former Python is no guarantee of success… but those polls, oh, those polls… April 19, 2008

Posted by WorldbyStorm in US Media, US Politics.
trackback

Got to say, for me my heart sank when I read the following.

Monty Python legend John Cleese is to offer his services as a speechwriter to Barack Obama if he wins the Democratic nomination to become US president.

The British comedian, who lives in California, said that his jokes could help the Illinois senator get into the White House.

As I’ve noted before, I’ve no particular horse in the Presidential race, other than being certain that a Democratic President would be a slight improvement on a Republican. But really, do we need this?

‘I am due to come to Europe in November but I may be tied up until then because if Barack Obama gets the nomination I’m going to offer my services to him as a speechwriter because I think he is a brilliant man,’ the 68-year-old told the Western Daily Press newspaper.

My advice, for what nothing it is worth, would be to ignore such blandishments. For as noted in the piece:

In 1987, Cleese recorded a party political broadcast for the SDP-Liberal Alliance, the centre-left third-biggest party in British politics, now known as the Liberal Democrats.

And curiously they have been the third biggest party from then to now.

Celebrity assistance? Avoid.

But that may be easier said than done… because:

…rock star Bruce Springsteen yesterday became the latest public figure to endorse Mr Obama for president, saying he stood “head and shoulders above the rest”.

In a message posted on his website, Springsteen said the Illinois senator had “the depth, the reflectiveness and the resilience” to be the next US president.

Just avoid Born in the USA… Obama. Or read the lyric sheet first…

Meanwhile, for all the furore, and yet again Obama has been forced on the defensive, over the ‘bitter’ remarks, they appear to have done little to impact on his poll ratings.

His current standing in the polls for Pennsylvania (April 22nd for all of us with a vote – which is probably none) according to Slate is weirdly all over the shop…

Pennsylvania polling has become increasingly varied as the Keystone State’s April 22 primary approaches. One poll shows a Clinton landslide by as much as 20 points, while others project a much tighter race. The latest PPP poll (PDF) defies the conventional wisdom that the fallout from Obama’s “bitter” remarks would reverse his recent gains, and shows the Illinois senator leading Hillary Clinton, 45 percent to her 42 percent. Other polls have also shown Obama’s chances haven’t taken a significant hit since he made his “bitter” comments.

And as reported in the Irish Times:

new polls suggest that Mr Obama’s controversial remarks about small-town Americans have yet to alienate many voters.

A Philadelphia Daily News poll showed Mrs Clinton leading Mr Obama by 46 per cent to 40 per cent in Pennsylvania, which votes next Tuesday.

Mrs Clinton’s favourable ratings among registered voters have declined to 58 per cent from 65 per cent in March, while Mr Obama’s favourable rating has risen from 47 per cent to 53 per cent.

A Bloomberg/Los Angeles Times poll of likely Democratic voters gives Mrs Clinton a 46 per cent to 41 per cent edge in Pennsylvania but puts Mr Obama ahead in Indiana and North Carolina, the next states to vote on May 6th.

According to a Washington Post/ABC News poll, two out of three Democrats now see Mr Obama as better able to win in November, a dramatic change from February, when Mrs Clinton was five points ahead on this measure.

Among all Americans, 58 per cent now say Mrs Clinton is not honest and not trustworthy, 16 points higher than two years ago, before the presidential campaign began.

Most of the polls were conducted last weekend, after news of Mr Obama’s controversial remarks about small-town Americans broke but before the media amplified them and Mrs Clinton accused him of sounding condescending and out of touch.

Now, really, that’s not bad at all, is it, for a man who whose campaign we are told is coming apart. Indeed he has actually broadly cut a double digit lead for Clinton in previous polls. But, whether this is likely to be any help, or whether indeed these polls are accurate is a completely different issue. The next round of polls, and indeed the primary itself will tell us all. Probably.

Could it be that the US electorate is a lot wiser than the chattering classes give it credit and recognise a fumble when they see it, or is it that the polls are skewed wildly? Or is it that the undecideds will go one way or another… erm… well obviously they will, but which?

Rasmussen has Clinton on 50%, Obama on 41% with a disturbing 9% undecided. Even the PPP poll quoted above by Slate has a considerable 13% undecided.

I can’t read this at all, no surprise there. But it makes for gripping stuff.

As regards the debates, well I caught as much as I wanted of the latest one and have to say, if I was trying to make my mind up, I’d still be puzzled. Again, no surprise there either. Both are capable candidates. No doubt minds are wandering to November and which would be most coherent a challenge to McCain. But then, McCain has his own problems. Let’s not forget that. Either way, more months of this lie ahead.

Great.

Comments»

1. Damian O'Broin - April 19, 2008

I think one of the reason that Obama isn’t suffering as much as one might expect following his ‘bitter’ remarks is to do with the fact that Hillary’s trust ratings are collapsing. I think that the bosnia comments have hurt her, but more because they are being seen as a pattern, the sneaking feeling that Hillary will change her message depending on who’s listening – whether that’s gunfire in Bosnia when talking to a military audience, talking up guns in rural PA or slagging off white working class southerners to her husbands cabinet. My discomfort about Hillary going back several years was that I just didn’t believe her. And that seems to be spreading now.

2. WorldbyStorm - April 19, 2008

Have to agree. Her most recent statements regarding hunting, the Holy Spirit and the photoshoot in a bar just seem utterly calculated, and while calculation is part of this process, wow, there’s calculation and calculation. I have to say I think she’s been badly advised… she’s vastly more intelligent and capable than this, yet it really is LCD politics…

Your point re trust ratings is very true. Interesting to see how things go now in the latest polls…

3. Starkadder - April 19, 2008

With regard to celebrity endorsements and politics, I’d
be careful. As George Clooney sensibly pointed out in
an interview, people in small town American don’t like the
idea of being told what to do by LA or NY celebs.

4. Damian O'Broin - April 19, 2008

and while calculation is part of this process, wow, there’s calculation and calculation.

And one of the key points is not to appear calculating. The big difference between the two candidates is that Obama appears to believe in something (however vague and wooly that may be) and his reaction to the Rev Wright controversy played into this narrative, whereas Clinton appears not to (even though I know she does) and will say what needs to be said to get elected. After years of Democrat candidates either not appearing to stand for anything, or being afraid to tell people what they stand for, Obama stands out as different. For me, I’d want someone who believed in something and – perhaps more importantly – stood by those beliefs

5. WorldbyStorm - April 19, 2008

True indeed. Which is why Clinton’s tactic may be very smart in the short term but very unwise in the long term…

6. John Green - April 21, 2008

I haven’t been able to take Cleese seriously since he did that party political broadcast for the SDP.

*shudder*

7. Hugh Green - April 21, 2008

You won’t want to be watching this then: