Hillary's potential path to 2016

This blog backed Hillary Clinton during the last US Presidential election campaign, even though Barack Obama was the clear favourite among many liberals here and in the US. There is no doubt that Obama's election was a remarkable historic occasion. He has also - after some flapping - delivered on some key policy objectives like health care. He has also made imaginative appointments to some top jobs, including the Supreme Court (and the Secretary of State). But what is remarkable is that he has also managed - not entirely due to the combined wackos of Fox News and the Tea Party movement - to lose so much of the goodwill that greeted his election.

Obama lacks the emotion expected of US commanders in chief - which may endear him to many in Europe, but doesn't work in domestic crises - and has a surprising unsureness of touch whether it is in handling the BP crisis where he has gained no credit for forcing them to establish a £20bn fund to help victims of the oil leak or on selling his health or banking reforms to a wider electorate. He has been better on policy delivery than might have been anticipated - but far worse at presentation and selling his policies. And that matters in politics.

Despite being a largely disorganised affair with Sarah Palin their only recognisable figurehead, the Republicans are averaging a six-point lead in November's midterm elections. They are on course to make a net gain of six state governorships, could regain the House (despite a slight Democrat lead in generic polls) and reduce the Democrats' Senate majority considerably. And it has to be said that a big reason for their ability to do so is the inability of Obama to reach out to the electorate: the very criticisms that were made of him in states like Pennsylvania in the primaries now appear writ large on a national stage.

At the same time, Obama's decision to appoint Hillary Clinton has proved, despite her initial misgivings about accepting the post, to be a boon to her reputation. Her personal popularity is much higher than his, in excess of 60% and sometimes as high as 70% approval ratings. She has been loyal to a fault, and largely successful on the international stage. She is highly respected in the military: even today, with General McChrystal ranting to Rolling Stone about her White House colleagues, he gives Hillary a pass. Now there is serious talk of replacing the hapless Joe Biden as VP with Hillary, either after the midterms or for as an Obama running mate in 2012, allowing her to run for the top job in 2016. While such talk may be fanciful and speculative for now, the evidence is growing that it isn't just Bill who knows how to be the Comeback Kid.

Obama's healthcare victory

It would be unwise to underestimate the significance of Obama's victory on healthcare last night. However narrow the vote in favour, it marks the beginning of a new phase of his presidency. That he has had to win without Republican support is the result of the absurd extremism of the contemporary Republican party and its media cheerleaders, rather than a sign of the President's having shifted to the left. Had he allowed their wrecking tactics to prevail, he would have destroyed his own Presidency as well as any hope of healthcare reform. Now he needs to set a clear path of other domestic and international policy issues - he is already well advanced on education with little fanfare - including climate change and Middle East policy. But after a rocky start to 2010, the President should be able to regain the confidence of his early months and give the Democrats a stronger chance than they had before today in the November mid-terms.

Obama's Massachusetts failure

Martha Coakley may be winning awards for ineptitude after her spectacular failure to hold onto Ted Kennedy's seat against the Republican insurgent Scott Brown in Massachusetts last night. And it would be hard to dream up a more inept candidate for a by-election (though some of us remember Labour's sterling efforts in the 1980s). But the result was not just a defeat for Coakley, it was a wake-up call to the White House about Obama's singular failure to communicate to middle America.

Looked at in policy terms, Obama has been a reasonably successful President. Viewed through the prism of foreign policy - aside from the Middle East - he has injected new respect for the USA. But with domestic voters, he has simply failed to engage on the issues that matter.

Healthcare is clearly the issue that has mobilised so much anger and suspicion. Of course it is bizarre that Massachusetts, with far more 'socialised' medicine than Obama's latest plans, should be exercised by this. But people are not concerned about the plans, they are concerned at what they think they will do. In part, that is the fault of the crazed right and Fox News. But it is just as much about the inept way that Obama and his team (and Congress) have handled the issue. Instead of giving people simple explanations and clear choices, they have allowed the whole business to look like a threat cooked up in back door negotiations behind closed doors. That is a failure of leadership and a failure of communication by Obama.

As John B Judis of the New Republic puts it:

Obama’s lack of engagement with middle America has come to the surface and has contributed to his decline in popularity. This shortcoming has been evident in his style and choice of venues--he gave his endorsement of Coakley on Sunday at Northeastern University, in Boston, rather than at a union hall or public auditorium in Worcester or Springfield. It is also evident in his choice of advisors and spokespeople and in the way he has framed his programs.

He chose the former head of the New York Fed, Timothy Geithner, to be his chief economic spokesman during a financial crisis that was widely seen as the product of Wall Street. And in developing and presenting his policies on the banks, he didn’t put the kind of conditions on taxpayer assistance that would have assured middle America that they weren’t giving handouts to the wealthy.

In the case of his health care plan, he did not really have a spokesman, but ceded the public face of the policy to the congressional leadership....Where Obama invited a voter backlash was by letting the burden of reducing health care costs appear to fall on senior citizens and those middle-class workers who had acquired good health insurance through decades of union battles with management, and not on the insurance and drug companies. Obama ceded too much to the policy wonks who were devising intricate schemes to show they could cut the deficit. He took his eye of off the political imperative of keeping middle America in his corner.

The fact is that successful politicians need not only to be developing the right policies, they need to know how to communicate them to the voters. Obama showed his weakness reaching many middle class working people during the Democratic primaries. Many of us hoped that he had learned his lessons from that experience. If last night's results are not to be a precursor for a wipeout in the mid-terms, the President must recognise the need to restore clear messages about what he is doing and how.

Obama's first year

When I was in Washington last month, one couldn't escape the TV ads for the Virginia gubernatorial elections taking place today. And it was pretty clear that the Republican Bob McDonnell, was wiping the floor with the Democratic candidate State Sentator Creigh Deeds. A shrewd mix of clever policies on issues like transport gridlock, combined with relentless attacks on Deeds, seemed to be getting little response from the hapless Democrat. No wonder Barack Obama passed on getting too involved in his campaign - even though it was in a state that Obama took last year. By contrast, Obama has been lending his weight - no pun intended - to Democratic Governor Jon Corzine to Republican Chris Christie. Corzine's attack ads were certainly the stronger, including dubious attacks on his opponent's girth, but faces a tough battle tonight.

If the Democrats lose both states, a lot will be written about Obama's failings. Indeed much has already appeared on these lines. And it is true that the healthcare legislation has fallen victim to a combination of sharp politics by the private healthcare industry and some pretty inept early responses by Obama and his people. Moreover, the shrillness of the Conservative Repubican media and political opposition have made it hard to become the unifier he might have been. But the reasons for defeat today may have more to do with the candidates in both states and less to do with Obama than critics allow.

No account of the first year of this President could fail to recognise how much he has tried to do, and how far things have advanced in a year domestically. The US is now far stronger on climate change than before, and is ready to accept targets, even if they are less than the Copenhagen summiteers might wish. He has successfully revived the American economy, which is now back in growth. He has embarked on ambitious and very New Democrat education reforms. And he is now within striking distance of major health reform, even if the limited public option may still limit its scope. What he has largely avoided, to his credit, is getting sidetracked by second order issues (unless declaring a brief war on Fox News counts).

Internationally, good relations have been restored with Russia - at least, to a point. He has made bold speeches in the Muslim world. Hillary Clinton's appointment has proved astute in associating his administration with important foreign policy achievements, including her Northern Ireland mission recently. His Afghan policy may not be settled, and is suffering from the large casualties recently, but he is gaining more credit for careful consideration on military numbers than criticism for dithering.

All in all, that's not a bad record for a first year. And I have never pretended I didn't have my doubts about Obama. Of course, it won't be enough this time next year, by which time healthcare must be up and running, and the economy must have been showing serious continued growth, with unemployment starting to reverse. But significant credit is still due one year on.

Obama's impressive 100 days

Today marks the 100th day of Barack Obama's Presidency. And an impressive if challenging 100 days it has been. Leave aside the sillier obsessions of cable news channels and you have a picture of decisiveness and decision-making that would be creditable in a President with far more experience than Obama.

His cabinet picks have been strong - especially Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State - though he had a few early mishaps. Kathleen Sibelius was only sworn in as health secretary yesterday in good time to face up to the flu crisis. But in a few months Obama has pushed through a huge economic stimulus, set a date for closing Guantanamo Bay and stopped CIA torture practices, changed Iran policy and ensured a safe ending to a pirate hostage drama. Importantly, European and Latin American visits changed how the US appears to the outside world (though he should not be afraid to speak up on human rights either - nobody gains if the Chavezes win out over the Lulas in the battle for Latin American minds). With Sibelius in place, he should be able to push forward the crucial healthcare reforms.

That he has been more liberal than pundits expect may owe more to the times than to the man. I finally read Dreams from my Father over the Easter and found it a far more perceptive and revealing book than his rather bland policy tome Audacity of Hope written more recently. It is a good guide to his philosophy, and the influence of Chicago community politics. It also suggests a mix of radicalism and pragmatism that came through in the election, and which many thought would translate into greater bipartisanship. His standing - and his ability to get things done - is certainly boosted by the defection of Arlen Spector, the Pennsylvania senator, from the Republicans, but his failure to reach more widely into the Republicans reflects both the increasing partisanship of the party (and the far reach of its lunatic fringe) as well as the more partisan instincts of an unforgiving Democrat majority in Congress.

It won't be easy for Obama to keep up the momentum, or to maintain his current levels of popularity, though the Republicans and their crackpot media allies are doing their bit to help him. What he needs to show over the next year are solid results in the economy, progress in Afghanistan and Pakistan on security, and the beginnings of healthcare reform. His ability to do so will help determine whether he is to become a great President.

The dangers of repetition in Obama's America

Janet Daley in today's Telegraph has succumbed to the delusions prevalent among many Republicans in the United States. She believes that Obama has 'staggered to the left' which would be good news for them. Aside from the fact that Obama is too cautious even to consider the level of state ownership that has been brought in here in Britain, Daley and her soulmates in the Right wing magazines, on Fox News and in rightwing talk radio Stateside are making precisely the same mistakes that the Tories made in Britain in 1997. In other words, they are fighting the pre-election battles after the election has been won, believing their own propaganda along the way.

The fact is that Obama is both governing as he said he would and is doing so largely from the centre. On Iraq, he may withdraw combat troops but will leave 35,000 others there, for example. He has scrapped the more egregious of Bush's doctrines, and he is a stronger believer with Hillary Clinton at State in tough diplomacy. But he is no pacifist. And on health and education, his policies involve taking on vested interests where necessary, for example to improve educational accountability or to provide affordable universal health cover.

With approval ratings above 60%, the Republican attacks have little traction beyond the usual suspects. But this is not to say that Obama is not in danger of repeating an error of the early Blair years himself. Before the 1997 election, Labour made relatively modest pledges on things like class sizes. But by creating a raft of aspirational if over-ambitious targets in the following years - largely at the insistence of the Treasury apart from the initial literacy targets - the Government allowed relatively good progress in the public services to be portrayed as 'failure' because those targets had been missed. The level of Obama's ambition is such that he could suffer a similar fate. For example, nobody believes there will be univeral health cover in the US by the time of the next election because of the complexity of change: Obama should set milestones that can be met along the way to demonstrate progress towards the greater goal.

Nevertheless, it is the Republicans who are suffering most in their delusions at the moment. Like the Tories in 1997, they simply haven't come to terms with the simple fact that they lost the election.

Daschle's departure could doom Obama's health reforms

What is it about the American tax system that seems to trap so many nominees for high office? Admittedly, Tom Daschle's mistakes were in a bigger league than most. But his decision to step down as Barack Obama's health secretary is a huge setback to the cause of healthcare reform in the United States.

Daschle had developed a plan and real expertise on the issue, in a way that was missing from Hillary Clinton's earlier efforts in the 1990s. If anyone was going to be able to get past the vested interests of the country's vastly inefficient health industry, it was he. Jonathan Cohn at The New Republic has his own list of likely replacements, but few could match Daschle on the issue. It just goes to show that even the best laid plans....

Great expectations

As Barack Obama takes the Presidential seal of office this afternoon, he will have the whole world in his hands. Despite the pragmatic good sense of his cabinet picks, he remains a figure on whom everyone wishes to project their views and hopes. And, of course, he will disappoint some of them. But that is not to say that he has to disappoint as a President.

On the contrary, good governance will require a combination of pragmatism and idealism. As The New Republic puts it in their editorial this week, "the real question is how Obama will determine the relative balance between the two." After today's pageantry, his in-tray is more than full enough: sorting out just one of the five big challenges - the recession and credit crunch, Middle East peace, Afghanistan, health care and climate change - would be enough for any Presidential first term, but he has no choice but to try to tackle all five.

Despite the churlish efforts of some to rain on his parade, there is good reason to believe that the combination of pragmatism and idealism that Obama has so far demonstrated will bring us closer to solutions to these seemingly intractable problems. On health care, for example, he has chosen in Tom Daschle the right man for the job, one who has already thought things through, and has already started to co-opt Republican opponents of Hillary Clinton's doomed efforts in the nineties. Of course, we need to see the meat of his and Hillary's foreign policy - 'smart power' is a good phrase, but doesn't yet mean a lot. And one gets the sense that no government has yet hit on the magic solution to get us out of the recession, though Obama's proposals - like Gordon Brown's - seem a lot more likely to do so than doing nothing. Yet even his transition has been smoother and smarter than most.

So we have great expectations for Obama today. The cynics would like us to think that those expectations will be dashed within months. Obama has already broken lots of records and set lots of precedents just by being elected. If he is honest about what he can do - and what others must do to help it happen - there is a real chance he can defy the doom-mongers and ensure that his blend of pragmatic idealism shines through.

A ceasefire is needed in Gaza - on both sides

Of course, there is a humanitarian crisis in Gaza, as the Israeli army tries to stop the daily indiscriminate firing of dozens of rockets at their civilians by Hamas. And Israel could do more to avoid genuine civilian targets, though the size of Gaza and the nature of its military make civilian casualties inevitable. And, of course, a ceasefire is urgently needed. But, as Tony Blair pointed out this morning, a ceasefire can only come when there is a verifiable end to those rockets, and arms shipments through tunnels from Egypt to Hamas, as well as an end to Israeli military action in Gaza.

Not that this would be terribly clear in some reporting on British television about events in the region. Channel 4 News makes little effort to hide its contempt for Israel: last night Sarah Smith was even given time to show how she was already falling out of love with Barack Obama because he failed to condemn Israel (given that he had made his views pretty clear during the election campaign, as even Smith acknowledged, why should this be a surprise?)




Equally, President Bush has said some daft things in his day, but this statement on Gaza is hardly among them: "I know people are saying: let's have a ceasefire. (Those are) noble ambitions. But any ceasefire must have the conditions in it so that Hamas does not use Gaza as a place from which to launch rockets."

Yet this was the subject of much head shaking on the ITN News at Ten last night and in much BBC reporting of the issues. Indeed, there were attempts to contrast his approach with that of Gordon Brown (a contrast which, I accept, may not have been entirely unprompted) who said this on Sunday: "So first we need an immediate ceasefire - and that includes the stopping of the rockets into Israel. Secondly we need some resolution of the problems over arms trafficking into Gaza. And, thirdly, we need the borders, the crossings open, and that will need some international solution."

We certainly need a ceasefire quickly in Gaza, but one that lasts and one that is observed by Hamas as well as Israel. Those who have taken to the streets to protest Israel's actions in Gaza - and their media supporters - would have a lot more credibility if one thought they genuinely believed that too.

Obama's smart education pick

Barack Obama has named Arne Duncan, the Chicago schools chief, as his education secretary. While Duncan is no reform outrider, he has supported the sort of change needed in Chicago's schools and is a reformer, doing so in a way that has largely won plaudits from both reformers and teachers. And those who believe that reform matters will be mightily relieved that he has not appointed the teaching union favourite Linda Darling-Hammond.

Who will be Obama's education pick?

So far, President-elect Obama has played a blinder with his cabinet picks. But reform-minded progressives are watching closely to see who he decides to make his education secretary.

The AP has listed six potential candidates, where Arne Duncan, the Chicago schools boss, John Schnur, who has developed the brilliant New Leaders for Schools programme or New Orleans recovery superintendent Paul Vallas would all signal that Obama is a reformer, a supporter of accountability and charter schools, and is open to the sort of radical change that the bipartisan efforts of Ted Kennedy with President Bush failed to achieve through lack of funds. New York's Joel Klein would be another good pick.

Alternatively, he could pick his education adviser, Stanford Professor Linda Darling-Hammond, and set back the cause of reform by decades. Obama cannily played both sides of the debate in the election. Soon he will have to decide. His decision will be an important one for the direction of progressive politics.

Change we can believe in from Obama

Today's confirmation by Barack Obama of his national security team, with Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State, Robert Gates continuing in Defence and Eric Holder as the first African American attorney general, is further confirmation of the mature and thoughtful approach that the president-elect has been taking to the transition.

Where previous presidents struggled in their first 100 days, let alone their cabinet picks, Obama looks set to hit the ground running in the New Year when he takes over from Bush. By picking not only strong former opponents like Clinton from his own side, but also strong Republicans, he is showing every sign of being a strong and confident leader. His Treasury picks have all seemed equally inspired.

That some of his supporters are dismayed that he didn't pick radicals suggests they misunderstood the nature of the change Obama promised: it was not a revival of the 1972 George McGovern campaign but a return to responsible intelligent government, where people are appointed more for their ability than their politics. And that is change that we can all believe in.

Obama is showing early wisdom in his likely cabinet choices

The Clinton-haters are having a seizure. Liberals who convinced themselves that Fox News was right - and Obama would be a red-blooded socialist - feel betrayed. Meanwhile the President-elect is proving himself to be a shrewd seeker of real talent, as he makes his cabinet picks; a process, incidentally, at which careful planning has left him well advanced on his predecessors including Bill Clinton.

Of course, we don't yet know some of the key picks, such as whether Hillary Clinton will be Secretary of State or whether Bush's Defence Secretary Robert Gates will stay in post. And Obama has already announced top jobs for team loyalists in his picks of Eric Holder as the first African-American Attorney General, Tom Daschle at health and Gov Janet Napolitano for Homeland Security.

So, why pick Hillary? Gerard Baker in The Times, no fan of Hillary, makes the case eloquently (even if he draws a different conclusion in the end):

First, few doubt that she is qualified to do it. She demonstrated on the campaign trail the breadth of her intellectual reach, a genuine depth of knowledge on global affairs and the sort of energy needed for someone who might fly half a million miles in the course of a year. What's more, it is not as though there was a great range of alternatives. John Kerry, first mooted for the job a while back, famously aloof and arrogant, might have proved a diplomatic disaster. Bill Richardson, the New Mexico Governor with the colourful past, was too risky for the global stage. Richard Holbrooke, the self-appointed dean of Democratic diplomacy, had alienated too many of the Obama foreign policy team through his disdainful dismissal of their inexperience during the primary campaign. Tony Lake, Senator Obama's principal foreign policy adviser in the campaign, said he didn't want the job. Tom Daschle, the former leader of the Senate Democrats and an early adopter of the Obama brand, seemed to lack the global heft to be the public face of the new president. So why not go with the best qualified candidate?

Baker thinks that there would be too much drama if Hillary is selected, and that she would be running a permanent 2012 Presidential campaign as the most prominent member of Obama's team. But Time magazine points out here that selecting her could have the opposite effect, and be as much raw politics in Obama's case as the politics of change.

At the same time, Obama is reaching out to Republicans including John McCain and Gates to show just how inclusive - and imaginative - his administration will be. Of course, there are the leaks and the briefings. But the process is still in better shape than the media lets on: Obama is not only well advanced, he is showing real imagination in the transition.

JFK had nothing on Barack O'Bama

Forget JFK's Irish roots or the Ronald Reagan Ballyporeen connection. Hardy Drew and the Nancy Boys know where the real action is now.



Hat Tip: Daniel Finkelstein.

Lessons from Obama's victory

There has been a lot of talk about what Obama's victory means for British political leaders. Gordon Brown tells us it is a victory for progressive politics. David Cameron thinks it heralds a new generation of young leaders, including Dave presumably. It may mean both, but the bigger lessons for the parties are organisational and strategic. Here are six.

1. Obama used new media as never before, and in ways that no British party has come close to matching. This not only kept him in touch with his supporters, with access to blogs and YouTube videos, it gave him a huge base of financial support. McCain was in the slow lane, by contrast.

2. Obama won a big boost in young voters, as well as Hispanics. He managed to inspire in ways that previous leaders had failed to do. Part of the reason for the higher youth vote was his success with new media.

3. Obama had the superior get out the vote effort. This is what really mattered in close fought states like Florida, Virginia and North Carolina. His field offices vastly outnumbered those of McCain and he had far more people working for him. British political parties need to find new ways to get people working for parties at election time, expanding on the dwindling party membership. People on the ground do matter.

4. Obama ran a brilliantly disciplined campaign. He didn't rise to the bait when accused of consorting with terrorists or accused of being a socialist by the ludicrous Joe the Plumber. He reacted calmly during the financial crisis as McCain dithered. He remained polite towards his opponents as they indulged in silly name-calling (though this didn't mean his campaign ran no negative ads) and he inspired optimism rather than cynicism as a result.

5. Despite claims that he was a mad left-winger, he ran a centrist campaign while McCain swung rightwards. Had McCain stuck to his instincts, picking Lieberman and sidelining Bush's crazier advisers, he could have run things a lot closer. But Obama showed people that he was a safe centrist bet who had practical policies on issues that mattered to their lives.

6. He didn't reject his Democratic heritage when it came to past winners. Despite his differences, he used Hillary and Bill Clinton to brilliant effect. Unlike Al Gore.

Obama's fine start

A brilliant start. Let's hope he can keep this tone and spirit going.

Obama's night of triumph

Barack Obama looks certain to be the next American President. There are still close races yet to call, but with Pennsylvania staying blue, Iowa and Ohio going blue also and Florida likely to do so, this looks like as good a night for the Democrats as they had with Bill Clinton in the nineties. For that he deserves great credit for a brilliant campaign. But he was also blessed in his opponent's bizarre strategy of turning right and embracing rightwing tactics rather than seeking the centrist votes he was elected to win.

Obama won on a mandate for change, but the one lesson he must learn from Clinton is that his capacity for change will be determined by how well he prioritises over the coming months. He must aboid any gesture politics, and show that he can make a real difference on the economy in the immediate term and healthcare in the longer term. He must make good cabinet appointments and he must show the right mix of caution and conviction with respect to foreign policy - experience he has gained as a result of the campaign.

Obama is fortunate in that he doesn't have the baggage that Bill Clinton had from the campaign - Ayers and Acorn may get Fox viewers steaming, but few others care - but he must show that his bipartisanship extends beyond campaign rhetoric. All that is for the weeks ahead. But tonight is a moment of history, and one to be savoured.

Is Obama really in landslide territory?

There are plenty of predictions around about tonight's result. There seems to be a consensus among many, including Luke, that Obama should pick up Nevada, Colorado, New Mexico, Iowa, Ohio, Virginia, giving him around 311-227 electoral college votes over McCain, a healthy margin of victory. Others would add Florida to the Obama column, and there are rumblings about places like Georgia, South Carolina and Montana. Such a result would be a remarkable achievement for Obama, and not just because he would become America's first black president.

But none of these represents the sort of landslide that Reagan or Nixon enjoyed over liberal Democrat opponents in the past, or - unless all the toss-up states go Obama's way - even those Bill Clinton had in his two victories.

The RealClearPolitics polling maps are a great reminder of how things once were. In 1972, George McGovern won just 17 electoral college votes, taking Massachussets and Washington DC. In 1980, against Ronald Reagan, Jimmy Carter got just 49 votes, including his native Georgia. Four years later, Walter Mondale was reduced to 17 votes - his home state of Minnesota and DC. Mike Dukakis at least managed to add a few states - including the now blue state of West Virginia - to amass 111 votes. By 1992, the tables were turned as Bill Clinton defeated George Bush (the first) 370-168 picking up states now seen as solidly red for Presidential polls such as Louisiana, Arkansas, Tennessee (his and Gore's home states), Georgia and Kentucky, but not Virginia. Bob Dole lost 9 of Bush's electoral college votes in 1996 to get just 159 votes. Only the two more recent elections, with 271-267 and 286-252, have been relatively close.

So, will this really will be a landslide, or will the cautious projections be closer to the mark? Either way, it is likely to be a historic result.

Obama's strength on the home stretch

According to some of our Sunday papers, Barack Obama's campaign has been 'rocked' by revelations that a distant half-aunt who donated £200 to his campaign is an illegal immigrant. I don't think so. Far more damaging to McCain's campaign was the latest effort to make Sarah Palin look stupid. A look at the latest polls shows that far from tightening, the polls are widening in Obama's favour. RealClearPolitics now expects a landslide with Obama winning with 168 more electoral votes than McCain. It really does look now like Yes he Can.

Obama's strong lead and campaigning strengths

As a supporter of Hillary Clinton, I confess I was sceptical about Barack Obama. I felt he was policy-lite and that he would be scuppered by the Republican attack machine. Twelve days out from the election - with many people already voting - I have to confess I underestimated his strengths.

Obama has proven a resilient campaigner. His calm response to the economic crisis contrasted with the floundering of John McCain. His selection of the dull if gaffe-prone Joe Biden as his running mate has proven a wiser choice than the increasingly divisive Sarah Palin, who has become a figure of fun for independent voters as much as Democrats. In a characteristically powerful piece for Time magazine, Joe Klein explains how those qualities have been melded with a much clearer view of policies. (As Klein says, Obama's book Audacity of Hope was hardly audacious on the policy front.)

Of course, there are still 12 days to go, and one is naturally inclined towards the caution of Jonathan Freedland in yesterday's Guardian. But the polls are very different now: Obama is ten points ahead in Virginia, for goodness sake! He looks the leader that John Kerry never seemed. He has avoided the faux-populism that cost Al Gore the 2000 poll. And the feeble attempts by the Republicans and Fox News to crank up scandals about Acorn voter drives and 60s radical William Ayers just look pathetic, especially given Republican links to Acorn.

Obama has proved himself as the best Democratic candidate since Clinton. If, as seems increasingly likely, he is elected as their first president since then, he will need to show that his policies - and some such as his healthcare proposals need some work - can be put into effect at the same time as managing the aftershock of the financial crisis. And in doing so, he must show a sureness of touch that Bill Clinton lacked in his early days in the White House.