Something I noticed about your post was how much it mirrored much of what was being written in the lead up to the Australian general election.

There was a lot of change in the air for more than a year, much of it was born out of poor policy at the top. The polls were so overwhelmingly in favour of Labor and never seemed to move.

And yet, this was despite economic good times and much policy approval. The pundits simply couldn't believe the polls. They were so unprecedented, and Rudd was hardly a public figure until he became leader.

Maybe there is a mood for change in America. Though, I think on body language alone, Obama has it over Huckabee. Just look at his posture.

In a globalized world, where it is easy for people to indulge in news and current affairs from everywhere, is it possible that there is a mood for change across the west and the world at large? Or maybe it's an interesting coincidence.

My, my. Article number 7 on the Iowa caucus, and 49 more states still to go. If we keep up this pace, that's another 343 coming our way.

Messrs Nalle and Bambenek are going to be busy bunnies.

Uh your forgetting DC, Guam, and Puerto Rico!

Change is great, no question. But change solely for the sake of change, without some serious consideration of exactly what you're getting out of that change is a very dangerous thing.

I get the feeling that people know they don't like what we've got and are willing to jump at the first alternative which comes along without looking at it too deeply. I can't see what else could explain the popularity of Huckabee and Obama who both have as their main characteristic an astonishing lack of track record so that people can imagine them to be whatever they are looking for.

Dave

"...change solely for the sake of change..."

Exactly what Howard and the conservatives said in the lead up to our election 1.5 months ago.

Didn't fly with the public because the rhetoric is uninspiring.

Glen Boyd may have have bagged it, ladies and gentlemen. It is important to note that he does not write about politics. He comes at this from the outside, from another field altogether. But he sees what is so painfully clear.

It is more than evident that you Americans are hankering for a real change. That shows through in all the hopelessness and desperation I see in your articles, particularly about the economy; in the "Ron Paul Revolution" and all the Paulbots swarming on here trying to create a candidacy from a few keystrokes. Is is evident from the stale garbage the Giuliani people (they got my e-mail address somehow and now pester me regularly) write in trying so hard to generate a buzz for their own candidate.

If you Yanks can honestly break free from the pre-programmed trash the oil and banking establishment has for you all, you may have a fraction of a chance of actual survival. If not, forget it - you're done for.

Glen - RE: Still, even as a lukewarm Edwards supporter at this point, hearing Obama's victory speech in Iowa the other night, you could almost feel a shift in the political wind, if only for that one moment. After that speech, Obama was being likened to Robert F. Kennedy by some of the Friday Morning political Quarterbacks. Hearing that speech it wasn't hard to see why.

Great points in a great post. I was surprised, and pleased, to see that the turnout in the Iowa caucus, especially among the Democrats, was much higher than predicted. I was also interested to see how well Obama did with younger and first time voters.

By the way, Obama's wonderfully inspirational speech was, perhaps, his version of the Henry V "St Crispian's Day Speech" from the play Henry V. It is directly on target. He makes every person who voted for him in Iowa part of his team, and invites the rest of the nation to get on board, now, because this moment in history belongs to those who are willing to act bravely against all odds (or at least against the supposed Hillary Clinton political steamroller). Even against the certainty of GOP attacks. Obama says,

"Years from now, you'll look back and you'll say that this was the moment, this was the place where America remembered what it means to hope. For many months, we've been teased, even derided for talking about hope. But we always knew that hope is not blind optimism. It's not ignoring the enormity of the tasks ahead or the roadblocks that stand in our path....

Hope is what led a band of colonists to rise up against an empire....

Hope is the bedrock of this nation. The belief that our destiny will not be written for us, but by us, by all those men and women who are not content to settle for the world as it is, who have the courage to remake the world as it should be....

That is what we started here in Iowa and that is the message we can now carry to New Hampshire and beyond.

Because we are not a collection of red states and blue states. We are the United States of America. And in this moment, in this election, we are ready to believe again."

Shakespeare's Henry V says:

This day is call'd the feast of Crispian.
He that outlives this day, and comes safe home,
Will stand a tip-toe when this day is nam'd,
And rouse him at the name of Crispian.
He that shall live this day, and see old age,
Will yearly on the vigil feast his neighbours,
And say 'To-morrow is Saint Crispian.'
Then will he strip his sleeve and show his scars,
And say 'These wounds I had on Crispian's day.'
Old men forget; yet all shall be forgot,
But he'll remember, with advantages,
What feats he did that day. Then shall our names,
Familiar in his mouth as household words-
Harry the King, Bedford and Exeter,
Warwick and Talbot, Salisbury and Gloucester-
Be in their flowing cups freshly rememb'red.
This story shall the good man teach his son;
And Crispin Crispian shall ne'er go by,
From this day to the ending of the world,
But we in it shall be remembered-

We few, we happy few, we band of brothers;
For he to-day that sheds his blood with me
Shall be my brother; be he ne'er so vile,
This day shall gentle his condition;
And gentlemen in England now-a-bed
Shall think themselves accurs'd they were not here,
And hold their manhoods cheap whiles any speaks
That fought with us upon Saint Crispin's day.

Points well taken, Alec. Points to be remembered....

How can Huckabee lose? Not only Iowa Republicans but, more importantly, GOD(he believes)want him to be the nominee.

If you believe with Huckabee that his campaign is receiving divine help and guidance, then isn't the outcome predetermined and guaranteed? And won't he owe a bit more in payoff to his "Maker" than just the usual political pork and spoils?

I guess Romney's view that freedom needs religion to function and Paul's personal belief in Jesus don't go far enough this time to earn the all-important endorsement of the Almighty.

Dave,

you said:

"I get the feeling that people know they don't like what we've got and are willing to jump at the first alternative which comes along without looking at it too deeply. I can't see what else could explain the popularity of Huckabee and Obama who both have as their main characteristic an astonishing lack of track record so that people can imagine them to be whatever they are looking for."

But isn't this how voters have voted for the past 16 years or so? It seems to me that both Bush and Clinton fall into the same type of camp as Huckabee and Obama--not very much "experience" but express in their campaign strategies a desire or need for change because they represent the common people and are not Washington insiders. It seems to me that all of the "change" mantra I've heard recently has been around for quite a while, maybe in a slightly different form and a totally different context, but the same message...

I suppose the only difference is that we are in the midst of a messy war, an iffy economy, and the President who leads us through it has the lowest approval ratings since Carter. That, as all of you have mentioned, seems reason enough to latch on to candidates like Huckabee and Obama, despite their lack of experience.

Hucky won because he has John Hagee on his side.

Ruvy - RE: Points well taken, Alec. Points to be remembered....

Thank you.

It's interesting to see some of the comments regarding Obama's speech on the New York Times Political Blog website page. Although obviously not everyone is an Obama supporter, many of those who took the time to post note how inspired they felt. A couple of samples:

I actually had goose bumps from Obama's Iowa speech! That is the first time that has ever happened in my 54 years of life for an American politician! Barack Obama will be the 44th President of the United States! We are taking back this nation!
-- Posted by Mark

I stood front and center during his speech, and it was the most intense experience I've ever had in my life. The crowd of fellow young people around me were radiating their hopes and dreams and Obama reciprocated by giving the most inspirational performance EVER. He was quite clearly tired and hoarse, but we built off of each other's energy and by the dramatic finish we had all forgotten how long we'd been standing there and how tired we all were from canvassing all day. We didn't want it to end.
Post-mortem: apparently I was cheering so hard that I pulled a muscle in my back. But it was worth it to read this article!
-- Posted by Andy

I am 52. I lost my mother when I was 14. I am the last of 6 boys born to migrant farmworkers whose parents were only able to give their sons as an inheritance - "hope." I am voting for Obama.
-- Posted by Juan Garza

Damn you, Sen. Obama. Damn you.
I was comfortably nestled in my cocoon of American political cynicism. After the calculating Clinton years, with his equally calculating and souless opponents led by Newt Gingrich, after the dumbfounded surreal lunacy and baldfaced greed of the Bush-Cheney era I had given up on politics as a force for meaningful change. Being a "Generation Xer" I never felt all the emotional turmoil of the Kennedy/MLK years. I never got it. Didn't understand it.
Now I do. I liked Obama as a candidate. After Iowa I am determined Obama is not only the best candidate, he is the NEEDED candidate for America without any doubt.
Damn you Obama for giving me theis audacity to hope. Cause if it doesn't work it's going to hurt like hell.
-- Posted by Brian Donnelly

More at this link (Oh-ba-ma Fires It Up): http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/04/oh-bam-a-fires-it-up/

In short, people feel a connection. Apparently, something similar is at play with some of Huckabee's supporters as well, even though this has not been written about as much yet.

Kevin - RE: It seems to me that all of the "change" mantra I've heard recently has been around for quite a while, maybe in a slightly different form and a totally different context, but the same message...

This is neither a slam nor an endorsement, but I hear Edwards, for example, talking about how he is going to fight FOR people (especially the little people). Obama, and Huckabee to some extent, talk about fighting ALONGSIDE people. This is a small, but very substantial difference. As far as I can see, all of this is beyond Hillary Clinton, who lacks her husband's charisma and political instincts.

But of course, whether any of this connects with voters throughout the primary season remains to be seen.

"Uh your forgetting DC, Guam, and Puerto Rico!"

Don't know about DC and Guam, but Puerto Ricans can't vote in federal elections...

I can see I'm going to have to start labeling my jokes again so people will know when to laugh...sigh

Either that, or get a better joke writer (after the strike is over, of course).

:>)

Regarding change:

Any of the leading Democrats will be a sharp change from the current president, eh? It's not quite so simple as, Obama = Change, Clinton = Experience, which is the way it has been framed the last few days.

Both Obama and Huckabee have made conciliatory noises about the other party, saying they want to end the divisions that hurt the country. This sounds good. But they are both fairly doctrinaire:

Obama is a solid liberal [if anyone can point out any conservative policies he has proposed or supported, let me know];

and Huckabee is an even more solid social conservative [he even rejects evolution], although economically he gives off a mixed message: abolish the income tax, but protect the middle class from corporate greed [sounds almost like John Edwards].

If, as seems possible, the eventual nominees are Obama and McCain, it may at least be the nicest campaign in recent memory. They are both on record as hating negative ads [although apparently McCain has been running some anti-Romney ads].

I believe there was even some strange talk early on about them flying across the country in the same plane, having friendly debates at each stop. Sounds kind of exciting and ridiculous at the same time.

This is a great year for political junkies.

Hope is certainly a great thing. But but campaigning on it implies that you are appealing to voters who are desperate and have lost hope and that certainly doesn't describw anyone but a core constituency of brainwashed dupes on the left.

Hope is flashier than selling a prosperous status quo, but it sickens me to see this relentless, deceptive talking down of the economy. It's the left's 'big lie' and I despise Obama for using it.

Kevin - People voted for Carter for change. Ditto Reagan. Bush 41 won a term as a "stay the course" Washington insider against a reformer. Then Clinton twice as an outsider, and Bush twice. That's over thirty years we've been regularly bringing in fresh faces to shake things up and give the country back to the people.

Baronius,

I have to respectfully disagree with your assessment of George W. Bush being an outsider. He may have run his first campaign that way, but being a part of one of the two most powerful political families hardly merits that distinction. By the time of his second run, with most of those blinders off and a cabinet loaded with guys like Rumsfeld, that illusion could no longer realistically be taken seriously.

Personally, I never bought his "uniter not a divider" schtick. Not for one second.

On a secondary note, I just wanted to say that I appreciate all of the comments here, being that this was my virgin foray into the politics section here at BC. I haven't had this much response to one of my music articles in quite awhile, and it is definitely appreciated.

-Glen

Glen, if we knew you were a first-timer, we'd have hurled obscenities right out of the box. We're tough around here. (Actually, I've seen the way debates go in the Music section, and I think Politics is more polite!)

You're right; by 2004, Bush wasn't an outsider. My point is that it's a very common tactic. Sometimes the candidate is a genuine outsider, sometimes not. But voters often support a candidate claiming to be an outsider. I wonder why; is it hope for new ideas, or the impression of honesty? For whatever reason, it's a good tactic, especially after a two-termer.

Lumpy, take a look at the continuing credit crisis and the crash of the housing market.

Take a look at the employment figures on Friday, and how the stock market reacted.

Maybe you can remain optimistic in the face of actual evidence when publications like the Wall St Journal and The Economist are talking recession. But don't caricature this as a leftist plot to dupe stupid people.

And campaigning on hope does not depend on voters who "are desperate and have lost hope." Ronald Reagan, for example, successfully campaigned on hope. [I think he was awful, but I doubt you do.] Please use your brain before writing ridiculous stuff like that.

Obama's ability to inspire people has more to do with appealing to their better nature. He's certainly open to criticism that his resume is light and his policy statements are less than comprehensive. But he really reaches people. Don't underestimate the genuine power of this - not just to get votes, but to change the country.

Hurl away Baronius. Just don't call me old okay? I've been getting that a lot from the folks over in the music section lately. Damn kids!

-Glen

"But he really reaches people. Don't underestimate the genuine power of this - not just to get votes, but to change the country."

I'll grant you the "get votes" part, handy.

"Changing the country" will require the participation (and cooperation) of some pretty hardbitten and hardboiled people (In the Senate and Congress) who are not necessarily in it for the good of the country so much as the good of their districts and financial supporters.

Secondly, your point assumes that "change" will be positive. Maybe.

for the record, i have never referred to glen as "old".

True enough Mark. I figure that's either because you are the consumate gentleman (which is certainly true), or because you are nearly as old as I am (which is probably true).

-Glen

Clavos -

Certainly there are no guarantees, certainly not in government or politics. But there is excitement in seeing people genuinely moved by a positive message. We can react cynically, or we can hope it leads somewhere good.

"I'm no politico. At least not in the same way that Dave Nalle and some of the commenters who frequent the BC politics section here are."

You are bragging, right? I periodically read the work of that brain trust and half of them are truly an embarrassment to humanity.

Is it coincidence that the threatening gestures of the Iranian gunboats has conincided with the rise in popularity of Barack Obama as a presidential candidate?

I think not.

If we elect an inexperienced empty suit liberal as president we will eventually reap what we have sown in American blood at the hands of islamic terrorists. You can call it hyperbole instead of what it actually is, the truth, if you would like people.

That's a real reach, Arch. As much so, I would say, as the popular (among liberals) timeline purporting to show correlations between Bush's popularity and the terror alert level.

But you seem confident, so perhaps you have more data. Let's see... perhaps you can tell us how Obama was doing in the polls last year at around the time the Iranians took those British sailors hostage?

If we elect an inexperienced empty suit liberal as president we will eventually reap what we have sown in American blood at the hands of islamic terrorists.

hmmm, maybe he's onto something. i mean, we elected empty suit george bush and look where that got us.

Is it coincidence that the threatening gestures of the Iranian gunboats has coincided with AC's return to Blogcritics?

Bing,

The Iranian gestures, such as they are, are designed to impress the present empty suit occupying the White House.

A Bush for a prick is worth two Obamas in the bush, or something like that....

Just to remind all of you; in Hebrew, the word bushá means embarrassment - and that is exactly what Bush is: so in Hebrew it comes out Bush bushá - Bush, an embarrassment.

If you guys are looking for me to defend Bush don't hold your breath....but let's not split hairs either, Obama is the epitome of an empty suit.