Right, a reality

It's difficult to imagine that the Kamala Harris team didn't see this coming. They were at no point clearly ahead in the run-up to the polls. If at all they were, it was just by a small margin in some regions.

The Trump team had the momentum right from the start. In fact, he was running for 2024 right from the time he was narrowly edged out by Joe Biden in 2020.

The Democrats bungled with the nomination. There was an initial excitement, but that gave way to real issues on the ground.

Inflation, real-estate prices, unemployment, etc., seem to have played a good part and even overridden an issue like abortion.

Kamala Harris made a faux pas when she replied, "There is nothing," when she was asked if she would do anything different from Joe Biden. She made amends subsequently, but the damage seemed to have been done.

It's not that Trump is always correct in replies to questions. But when someone who is trailing makes a mistake, the damage is greater than when someone who is leading makes a mistake.  

IT'S NO LONGER A BACKLASH

The right wing began consolidating its position, and the far right began emerging into the mainstream about 10 to 15 years ago.

It was a backlash against a social, economic and political norm that many people began to feel was unjust. We have seen that in many countries, including India.

Conservatives began to be seen as a group of pro-active, result-oriented people, compared to the liberal and progressive groups who were seen preferring the status quo and merely complaining and not doing anything.

That might be a perception, but in politics, perceptions play a huge role.

Perception or not, it began to settle down in various strata of society, and internet-aided social networks played a huge part in this transformation.

Aspects like globalisation, multilateralism, cultural inclusivity, etc, were seen as a threat to national identity and national prosperity.

Brexit and the ascent of conservatives to power in many countries, including India, was a testament to how the social mosaic was changing.

A decade and a half down the line, it's no longer a backlash. It's a reaffirmation of a reality and, for many, even an aspiration.

This is a reality that has also thrown the liberal camps into confusion and disarray. So much so that many in those groups are switching sides. Otherwise, the sort of gains that conservatives are making won't be possible.

RIGHT AND WRONG

Many years ago, probably in the mid-2000s, I was talking to a professor of physics who is good with computer technology as well. 

Those were the days we were revelling in the excitement of "connections" and "friends" we were making on social media. AI and deepfakes were just restricted to the realms of labs and academic discussions.

I still remember him saying that free access to the internet in general and social media in particular will bring huge changes in society at all levels. At one point, he said it might even "wreak havoc".

I won't get into whether there has been a havoc or not, but definitely, we have seen changes, quite drastic and dramatic.

I asked him, "Are we heading in the right direction?"

He said, "Right or wrong is debatable. What is right for one could be wrong for another. But a clearer way of looking at it is 'for anyone, what works is right and what doesn't work is wrong'."

He just left it at that and set me thinking.

That was about 20 years ago. A good point to ponder over today as well.

Harris-Trump presidential debate: Who won?

The second U.S. presidential debate yesterday (today morning in India) was significantly better than the first one between Donald Trump and Joe Biden. It felt more like a debate between equals, in stark contrast to the chaotic first encounter.

ECONOMY

Harris started off by responding to the moderator’s question: “When it comes to the economy, do you believe Americans are better off than they were four years ago?” 

However, she didn’t directly answer the question. Instead, she outlined her plans to improve the lives of Americans, which sounded more like an opposition leader challenging an incumbent rather than a leader defending their administration’s record.

This was not the strongest start for her. I wonder why she didn’t simply say, “Yes, we are better off now than four years ago,” and then provide supporting reasons.

To her credit, she quickly recovered and began a subtle offensive.

ABORTION

She was particularly passionate when discussing abortion, which was unsurprising given her track record on this contentious issue. I’m confident her ratings received a boost after that segment. In contrast, Trump’s stance on abortion did not come across as compelling as Harris’s.

RACE

On the issue of race, moderator David Muir asked:

Mr. President, you recently said of Vice President Harris, "I didn't know she was Black until a number of years ago when she happened to turn Black, and now she wants to be known as Black." I want to ask a bigger-picture question here tonight. Why do you believe it's appropriate to weigh in on the racial identity of your opponent?

To this, Trump cleverly replied:

I don't. And I don't care. I don't care what she is. I don't care. You make a big deal out of something. I couldn't care less. Whatever she wants to be is okay with me. ... I don't know. I don't know. All I can say is I read where she was not Black, that she put out. And, I'll say that. And then I read that she was black. And that's okay. Either one was okay with me. That's up to her. That's up to her.

Harris’s response on race was rather generic, except for mentioning a couple of instances where she accused Trump of acting in a racist manner in the past. However, she didn’t address the issue of her own racial background. 

I thought Trump handled this better.

GLOBAL ISSUES

On global issues, neither candidate managed to outdo the other. There was, as usual, NATO, Afghanistan, North Korea, Russia, and China. Their responses were all quite predictable. 

All said and done, I don't think either of them will be able to end the Ukraine war within 24 hours of being elected. 

CLAIMS AND COUNTER-CLAIMS

On almost all topics, both Harris and Trump exchanged claims and counterclaims, each accusing the other of lying. Obviously, there’s plenty of fact-checking to be done.

Both Harris and Trump employed “scare tactics,” using “facts” to paint a dire picture of what would happen if the other candidate won.

Until the facts are verified, we won’t know the extent of truth in their claims and counterclaims. Also, whether Americans need to be fearful of the future if either of them is elected.

BODY LANGUAGE

On the whole, from the body language point of view, Harris came across as a more professional debater, frequently addressing Trump directly. 

I don’t recall Trump ever looking directly at Harris except for a few sideways glances. This gave the impression that Harris was in command while Trump was on the defensive.

Harris often used the word “you,” directly addressing the American people, especially when looking into the camera. Trump, on the other hand, seemed to focus more on the word “destroy,” as in “they will destroy America”.

While we don’t know the accuracy of the facts, claims, and counterclaims made by Harris and Trump, this was indeed a fiery debate, and Kamala Harris seemed to emerge as the more articulate, forceful, and stronger participant.

Here is the replay of the full debate:

Don't miss a new post. Get it on email by subscribing to this blog.

Powered by

Back to the 'old normal' in the US

Around three years before the pandemic struck, Donald Trump ushered in a new form of public engagement and governance in the US, in a radical departure from the past. 

A whole swathe of presidential conduct changed dramatically -- aspects ranging from decision-making to implementation; from interaction with the media to engagement with world leaders; from honouring time-tested traditions to characterising as enemies people who had divergent views.

This was a 'new normal' people in the US and many people abroad were forced to get accustomed to.

They now won't have to. It's back to the presidential demeanour and diplomacy that we have always known.

This video popped on my YouTube feed ... as if reminding me of where the thread was left ... President Obama surprising Vice President Joe Biden with the Presidential Medal of Freedom on January 12, 2017. (It's 37 minutes long.)

Fast forward three years, 10 months ... President-elect Biden delivers the acceptance speech on Nov 7, 2020.

Biden seems to have recouped his energy during the four-year break. Good for him. Hopefully, good for America and for the rest of the world.

Can't leave Kamal Harris out. A great speech.

Countdown to chaos or decision?

Image courtesy: Pixabay

I hope it's the latter.

The day after tomorrow is the day, or rather the night. 

It's not for nothing US Presidential elections are keenly watched the world over. 

It's one of the oldest democracies and one of the most powerful nations in the world. Its dollar and military are still a force to reckon with. Its institutions are strong and resilient enough to withstand the frequent destabilizing forces that keep cropping up off and on. Its culture has a profound influence all over the world. 

TOO CLOSE TO CALL

That's a phrase we keep hearing on the election night, as winners for each State are announced by media organisations. 

(How strange everyone looks to the so-called "biased" media networks to declare - unofficially - who the winner is!)  

The popular opinion was that Donald Trump, during his four years of presidency, will script his own defeat. Let's accept this -- there is nothing so far (from the "unreliable" pollsters) to suggest this will definitely happen.

That means we are going to hear that phrase many times over on Nov 3 night and, who knows, well into the next day too.

The outcome might be uncertain, well in keeping with this year's pan-global theme. But the battle lines are crystal clear.  

CONTEST THIS TIME IS ON THESE LINES

• Conspiracy theories vs Science
  
  
• COVID-19 is a ploy to destroy America; don't panic and buckle vs COVID-19 is a disease; take care of your health as well as of others
  
  
• Mask symbolises shackles and tyranny; wearing it won't prevent you from getting COVID-19 vs Wearing a mask is a recommendation of health experts to keep you and everyone else safe
  
  
• Our well-being and health can't be at the cost of the economy vs It's possible to keep the economy running even while we take care of our well-being and health
   
• People who disagree with you are all wrong vs People who disagree with you could be right
  
  
• Recklessness vs Prudence
  
  
• Don't think too much, act (you can correct later) vs Think through before you act (because by the time you correct, the damage is done.)
  
  
• Reach your destination, don't bother about the road vs The road you take to reach the destination is equally important
  
  
• Don't waste time waiting for consensus and to take everyone on board vs Getting as many people on board is important. Correctness and inclusiveness of decisions matter as much as the speed with which decisions are taken
  
  
• Security and economy is more important than everything else vs Everything else is as important as security and economy
  
  
• Only America and Americans matter, don't bother about the rest vs The rest of the world matters too
  
  

THE POSSIBILITIES

• Narrow win for Trump (The show will go on)
  
  
• Landslide win for Trump (The show will go on; the likelihood of more pomp and fury)
  
  
• Landslide for Biden (The Red camp might smell a rat but the celebration in the Blue camp might overwhelm the shock in the Red camp)
  
  
• Narrow win for Biden (The Red camp might smell a rat. But the worry is will they let emotions spill on to the streets?)
  
  
• Counting disputed in one or many states (Court battles. If not long-drawn-out, the Supreme Court will declare the winner. Remember 2000? There is also the possibility of the contingent election. It has happened thrice: in 1801, 1825, and 1837. SG in his blog describes how it works and the interesting outcome it could throw up.)

MY DOUBT

If Trump loses, narrowly or by a wide margin, will he and his supporters be sporting enough to accept the verdict?

Kamala Harris might overshadow Joe Biden

It isn't easy to hazard a guess on the result of a US presidential election, thanks to its fabled complexity. Many well-calculated predictions have gone wrong. Now, with less than three months to November 3, the runup to the poll is heating up. 

On August 11, Joe Biden announced his running mate: California senator Kamala Harris, who herself fought a tough battle with Biden to be the Democratic presidential nominee.

The next day, Biden introduced Harris at a campaign event in Wilmington, Delaware. It was late in the night for me, so I watched the event on YouTube the next day morning.

A radiant 55-year-old Kamala Harris, brimming with enthusiasm and confidence, clearly outshined a tired-looking 77-year-old Joe Biden. Their speeches were on predictable lines. 

I am not going into the political or economic ideologies of the two. But by the end of that event, I wondered if Harris, rather than Biden, would actually lead the campaign.

THE MASALA DOSA VIDEO

Within the next few days, in India, a year-old YouTube video of Kamala Harris and Mindy Kaling cooking masala dosa began to be widely shared on social media.

HARRIS-KAVANAUGH FACEOFF

On a more serious note, there is a two-year-old clip of Kamala Harris taking down justice Brett Kavanaugh with pointed and sharp questions at a Senate hearing on the Mueller investigation.

HOW TO PRONOUNCE KAMALA

Meanwhile, BBC's South Asia Correspondent, Rajini Vaidyanathan, put out a tweet on how Kamala Harris pronounces her first name, which is a very common Indian name.

Kamala is an Indian name. (Her mother was born in #Chennai). As Kamala Harris says in her autobiography this is how you pronounce her name:

"My name is pronounced "Comma-la", like the punctuation mark”. #KamalaHarris.

— Rajini Vaidyanathan (@BBCRajiniV) August 11, 2020

Donald Trump's victory over Hillary Clinton: stunning but not surprising

What has happened in the US today is not what was probable but what was possible. Donald Trump had promised a Brexit like outcome and that has come true.

What's stunning is Trump's win rather than Clinton's defeat. But I am not surprised. What has mattered finally is the frustration of the grassroots of the society like middle class and working class with a system that simply didn't work for them.

His win has followed a familiar pattern where anti-establishment forces have prevailed over status quo-ist, and politically correct conformists. We saw that in the Brexit referendum. We saw that in the rise of Narendra Modi and of Arvind Kejriwal; and also of Rodrigo Duterte as the President of the Philippines.

This is more of Trump's victory than that of the Republican Party, because another reason for the historic result is the yawning gap between political parties and the people.

Trump and Clinton stuck to the script. He blasted the elitist Washington coterie and promised moon to middle class, factory workers, delivery boys and gas station employees. She attacked Trump, focused on women, immigrants and educated elite. Finally his script worked.

The way Trump controversially but steadily worked his way through the primaries to the White House is remarkable. He began as nothing. And as he progressed, no one seemed to like his ways. But he was progressing. That was a reality, which a vast majority of people, and the media, either were blind to, or thought would peter out finally. But that was not to be.

What we now need to see is how far Trump will be able to bring the fractured Republican Party and its supporters together. Because without that unity, he won't be able carry through many of his grandiose plans. Actually he will need to reach out across the aisle as well. There is a limit to how much confrontation can achieve.

The first indications of what the Trump presidency will be came in his acceptance speech. He is doing what inevitably he has to -- sounding Presidential, conciliatory and inclusive.

But still we really don't know what his plans are. He has broken many rules already. So we can expect quite a few out of the box policy plans from him. Exciting days ahead.

Donald Trump's acceptance speech

Hillary Clinton's concession speech

Barack Obama's speech on Trump victory

What Trump should have told Chris Wallace when he was asked if he would accept election result

In the third and last US Presidential debate today early morning, Indian time, I thought Donald Trump performed much better than the previous two debates.

He was calmer, he didn't interrupt Hillary Clinton or the moderator (Chris Wallace) as often he did on the previous two occasions; and he seemed to be more focused and prepared. He seemed to be putting Hillary on the defensive on quite a few occasions.

The Republican presidential hopeful's trump card has always been that Hillary has experience, but it's a bad experience. Another is that Hillary only talks, never does or gets anything done.

Trump has no experience, and, therefore, has no baggage. People who are backing Trump are the ones who are willing to take the gamble to entrust the leadership of the US to someone who is not an original politician; and the hope is that he will fare differently, taking America out of the current problems.

But all the ground Trump seemed to be gaining finally, he lost with one answer: his refusal to say that he will accept the verdict of the election.

It was a very dangerous statement. I am sure Trump and even the audience didn't immediately get the full implications of that. What he said sounded more like what we are used to hearing in nations where democracy hasn't really taken root or in nations ruled authoritarian rulers.

Trump's pronouncement (like a few earlier too) didn't fit into the image of America the world has. In fact, his non-commitment has turned out to be the only real highlight of the debate. The rest of the debate was all on predictable lines.

For the record, here is the transcript of the relevant portions, which I am sure will go down in history.

Chris Wallace: ".... Your running mate Governor Pence pledged on Sunday that he and you, his words, will absolutely accept the result of this election. Today your daughter Ivanka said the same thing. I want to ask you here on the stage tonight, do you make the same commitment that you will absolutely, sir, that you will absolutely accept the result of the selection?"

Trump:  "I will look at it at the time. I'm not looking anything now I will look at it at the time. What I've seen, what I've seen it so bad. First of all the media is so dishonest  ..... "

Wallace: "But, sir."

Trump: " .... We will find out on November eighth but I think they’re going to see through it. ... "

Wallace: "But sir, there is a tradition in this country, in fact one of the prides of this country, is the peaceful transition of power and that no matter how hard fought a campaign is, that at the end of the campaign, that the loser concedes to the winner, not saying that you are necessarily going to be the you loser or the winner, but that the loser concedes to the winner and that the country comes together in part for the good of the country, are you saying that you are not prepared now to commit to that principle?"

Trump: "What I'm saying now is I will tell you at the time. I will keep you in suspense, okay?"

Of course, Trump isn't categorically saying that he won't accept the verdict.

However, he could have said something on these lines:

I am sure I won't have to make a concessions speech because I won't be the loser. It's Hillary who will have to. But since you asked the question, even though it's been a rigged election, I will make the same commitment that I will absolutely accept the result of the election. That's a great American tradition that I will honour.

If Trump had said this, he would have gained a few undecided voters, who knows may be even a few Democrat supporters sitting on the fence. He wouldn't have lost anything. And Wallace wouldn't have had to ask the more pointed supplementary question.

But then, that wouldn't have been Trump -- the aggressive, unpredictable, wildcard politician, who has progressed this far.

The Trump dream of mending a broken America

If you have been following Donald Trump's campaign speeches, you wouldn't find anything extraordinarily new in this book. However, the book elaborates on some of the pet themes of this realty mogul and reality star.

Trump's premise is that America resembles a Third World country. Everything is broken. But not beyond repair. And he alone can fix it.

His arguments are superficial; and often unidirectional. On the face of it, some of the things he talks about seem to make sense, but when you are talking of a huge, multicultural nation like the US, its Presidential aspirant can't have blinkers. He needs to have a holistic and a macro view of different aspects of the nation.

Somewhere towards the latter half of the book I began getting the feeling that he has just one solution: create more and more business opportunities for people. So create more and more hotels, resorts, malls etc etc. even if heritage structures or whatever have to be broken down.

That way, he will bring in more jobs, and prosperity. His route to fixing America is only via more and more dollars. Not surprising, because, he is basically a businessman. And, I doubt if he has any interest in or understanding of any other facet of a multicultural society.

At the same time, he says somewhere in the book, that getting rich is no guarantee to becoming happy. He talks of American values, which are not elaborated. And, there is somewhere a disconnect.

The book is more about his dreams, of mending a broken country. But the full, long road map isn't there. Just elect him as the next President of the US. That's all. Leave the rest to him.

My rating: 2 of 5 stars 

Hillary Clinton gains from Donald Trump's errors

The expectations ahead of the second US Presidential Debate that took place today was akin to one ahead of soap operas. Much of the blame must be taken by the Republican nominee Donald Trump.

It all began with the 2005 video tape that surfaced on Friday, in which Trump bragged about how his celebrity status allowed him to grope and make other sexual advances to women. That this 11 year-old tape should come to light only a few days before the debate and less than a month ahead of the poll, is more than mere coincidence. Also, it's not the first time presidential candidates have had to face ghosts from the past at the most wrong time. It's politics that a democracy gives room for.

Understandably, there was huge uproar. Trump was forced to apologize. Anyone else would have sought this unseemly distraction to end there. But not Trump. At the end of the apology, he made it plain clear that the topic would be discussed in the coming days, and signed off sounding a bit ominous, see you at Sunday's debate.

Trump then turned his focus on Bill Clinton. He got four women who have accused Bill Clinton of transgressions, on stage before the press, a couple of hours before the debate. And according to Washington Post and NBC News, there was a plan to get the four women to confront Bill just as they were to walk in for the debate. But the whole plan was nixed.

As expected, Trump raised the topic during the debate. but Hillary, who was well prepared, refused to take the bait, and steered clear of this non-topic, and focused on current topics of importance to the public.

Trump had come to the debate so much on the defensive and in negative territory, it was pretty easy game for Hillary. She knew Trump was already messing things up further; and she had to only ensure that she didn't make any mistakes. There was no need for her to push Trump deeper into the mess.

It was a dead pan performance by Hillary. She didn't score any major points; and there were no knockout punches. But thanks to Trump's conduct, Hillary seemed to be the winner today, without making winning strokes.

As I write this, it's the day after in the US; and news is breaking that House Speaker Paul Ryan has declared that he will not support Trump. But he hasn't withdrawn his endorsement. Things are so bad, that running mate Mike Pence has had to declare that he hasn't still quit the race.

Polls are showing that Hillary is gaining now. It will be too difficult for Trump to close the gap or even overtake, unless there is a miracle.

First Presidential debate goes to Hillary

The much-awaited first presidential debate in the 2016 election took place today at the Hofstra University, in New York. It was billed as the most-talked about event. A huge number of people watched the debate. Still no official figures; but some 100 million people are said to have watched it.

How did Hillary Clinton perform

- She was calm and composed.
- Initially she seemed to be on the defensive and having to do lot explaining
- But later she took on an aggressive tone without sounding offensive.
- She effectively and forcefully put her points across
- She never interrupted when Trump or the moderator was speaking
- She presented a pleasant demeanour often smiling
- She was to the point and was very articulate
- She managed to deflect inconvenient questions very effectively.
- At times her confidence was bordering on I-know-it-all sort of counteance.
- She didn't have effective answers to some of the negative images Trump painted about present-day America. There wasn't a clear answer to why things have come to such a pass.

How did Donald Trump perform

- He used well the advantage of his non-politician status, and not having been in any position of power to question Hillary on the ills plaguing the US today.
- He came across as a no-nonsense go-getter whose only agenda is to fix issues.
- He kept talking about having the interest of America uppermost in any policy decision
- He was impatient and looked quite aggressive
- He was constantly interrupting both Hillary and the moderator
- He was seeing everything from trade to tax and diplomacy to terrorism only through the prism of money. He was constantly coming across as a businessman talking.

At the end of it all, I felt Clinton ended ahead of Trump.

There were many interesting quotes. But what I liked the best, came at the fag end.

Donald: She doesn't have the look. She don't have the stamina. .... I don't believe she does have the stamina. To be president of this country you need tremendous stamina.

Hillary: Well, as soon as he travels to one hundred and twelve countries and negotiates a peace deal, a cease-fire, a release of dissidents, and opening of new opportunities and nations around the world or even spends 11 hours testifying in front of a congressional committee, he can talk to me about stamina.

NPR has the entire text of the live debate, and the fact-checks.

Hillary Clinton concedes, backs Barack Obama

Finally it has happened; what Hillary Clinton never wanted to happen. The fighter has accepted defeat and thrown her weight behind the winner. It must have been quite a hard task for her. That's evident from the time she took to make the concession speech. Now, all eyes are on Obama: will he pick her as his running mate? (Report: BBC)

• Text of Hillary Clinton's concession speech (NYT)
• Video of Hillary Clinton's concession speech (BBC)

Why not Hillary as running mate?

Mr Barack Obama, the President of the United States, and Ms Hillary Clinton, the Vice-President... -- imagine that scenario on January 20, 2009 -- that will be an amazing combination.... But more about that a bit later in this post.

First, I don't think any time in the recent past a US presidential primary has generated so much interest. Whoever becomes the President s/he will create a record as the first Black, woman or the oldest President.

The Democratic primary now very much resembles the final stages of a cricket match (the sport that arouses as much passion and interest in India as baseball and basketball does in the US).

Who is good for India?
It's generally felt that Republican policies are favourable to India. Last time it was John Kerry who spoke out against outsourcing jobs to India. Even this time, both Hillary and Obama have tried to win over middle class Americans by raking up outsourcing. I am not quite concerned, because, in such issues, my gut feeling is irrespective of Republican or Democratic views, it'll be what the American businessmen want that will prevail rather than what the ordinary American would want.

Personally, among the candidates, I'd rank my choice thus: Hillary, Obama and McCain. I have read a lot about the Clintons -- Bill and Hillary -- more than about Obama; and may be because of that I am favouring her. But Obama is as much impressive -- I've completely fallen for his oratorical style; a great communicator he is. His speeches are definitely worth listening to.

Hillary's attractiveness is the amazing experience she has behind her; and the family exudes an exceptionally remarkable charm. It's pretty certain that Obama has made it, but Hillary has surely let it be known that she is, nevertheless, a tough fighter the Americans can rely on. I haven't been able to relate to McCain at all, though I guess he too has a great record mainly for fighting in Vietnam.

Hillary: from First Lady to Vice-President?
Now all the focus will be on who will be Obama's running mate. I think it should be Hillary. The double-engined Democratic bandwagon will have more than adequate muscle to see through the race. But for that first Obama and Hillary will close ranks as fast as possible.

Unlike the Republican campaign, Democratic race has seen debates on the lines of Black and White; Man and Woman. There is a lot of scratching of the head happening to determine why Hillary, in spite of being a woman and with loads of experience, didn't come through clean. Or, did those very attributes go against her?

Similar questions are being asked about Obama as well. In spite of being Black and inexperienced how did he steal a march over Hillary? Some are talking of the how the number of delegates is hardly an indicator of one's actual popularity. Of course, it'sn't that the American electoral system is anywhere near perfect.

My take is this: Obama is ahead simply because he has been been able to connect to the masses much better. His communication skills have undoubtedly helped him; enormously. Ronald Reagan is another politician who worked his communication skills to great advantage -- arguably it played a big role in the beginning the end of the Communist empire by engaging Mikhail Gorbachev of the Soviet Union. And, Obama is miles ahead of McCain as far as connecting to people is concerned, if video clippings of their campaigns are any indication.

Imagine this in January 20, 2009 -- Mr Barack Obama, the President of the United States, and Ms Hillary Clinton, the Vice-President... that will be an amazing combination.

She shouldn't worry that she wouldn't be in the limelight, that she would have just a back-up role. Coming to think of it, actually it wouldn't be a role totally unfamiliar to her, for that's what she had been doing for eight long years when hubby Bill was in the White House. So it's perfectly possible for Obama and Hillary to have a perfect understanding regarding the roles they have to play. During this term, Vice-President Dick Cheney has played a no insignificant role in the post-9/11 engagement of his country with the rest of the world, mainly in Iraq.

Of course, this wouldn't be the same as she being in the White House itself. But so what? There was a time when things had hotted up so much in Bill's Oval Office, it didn't really matter if she was in the White House or not. She carried on her own administration of the United States as its First Lady. She is quite used to this sort backseat driving, with help of the actual driver or not, I guess.

But if Hillary is indeed chosen as Obama's running mate and goes on to become the vice-president, a possible problem will be Bill. Remember how he had almost wrecked Hillary's campaign recently? So what will Bill's role be? I am sure both Obama and Hillary will factor that in their plans.

Imagine, another driver, behind the back-seat driver, driving both Hillary and Obama! Bill is quite capable of that!

Photo captions and credits:

• Democratic presidential hopeful Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., speaks to the media in Brandon, South Dakota Friday, May 23, 2008 as she apologizes for an earlier statement to the Argus Leader's editorial board in Sioux Falls, S.D. citing the June 1968 assassination of Robert F. Kennedy in defending her decision to keep running for the Democratic presidential nomination despite increasingly long odds.(AP Photo/Elise Amendola) Source
• U.S. Democratic presidential candidate Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) speaks at a rally in Sunrise, Florida, May 23, 2008. Reuters/Joe Skipper (United States) US presidential election campaign 2008 USA. Source

Barack Obama's Super Tuesday Speech

Obama is behind, but not so far as to throw in the towel; the Democratic nomination race will continue. We have seen an 'Obama surge', and that has helped him get close to Clinton. Will he overtake her? A fantastic, invigorating speech here. He is a great orator. The rendition, well punctuated with pauses, is arresting. It's a long speech but worth listening to.

Hillary Clinton's Super Tuesday Speech

Clinton is ahead of Obama, but not well enough to clinch the Democratic nomination. A good speech here, but she doesn't seem to connect with the audience as effectively as Obama.

Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama: Slugfest to Lovefest

The Super Tuesday is just a few days away -- on Feb 5, when most of America will vote for the party nominees. (Youtube channel: You Choose '08.) As the crucial primaries get closer, here below are two video clippings from the Democractic debates. These two show the contrasting moods of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.

Hillary, Obama clash at South Carolina Democratic Debate

Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama spar during the South Carolina debate on Jan 21.

Clinton, Obama cordial at debate

Democrats Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton shared a debate stage alone for the first time on Thursday, Jan 31, striking a cordial tone. They even fielded questions on who will be the vice-presidential candidate. Does this reflect the overwhelming confidence that the Republicans will be routed for sure, and that Hillary and Obama are reconciled to one of them being the President?

Barack Obama's YES WE CAN victory speech in South Carolina

This is a great speech, worth listening to. Obviously Obama and his supporters are all fired up. Because he has got a huge morale boost ahead of the February 5 Super Tuesday, when most probably the lineup for Nov 8 should be clear.

In South Carolina, it must be remembered, the African-American voters make up make up almost half the electorate, and majority of them support him rather than Hillary.

Reports say S Carolina voting was polarised along colour, gender and age. It's funny that in the world’s greatest nation people can’t look beyond these physical attributes. Probably it’s because there'sn't anything else to choose, with both Obama and Hillary speaking pretty much the same thing.

Obama is, I guess, aware of this, and tries his best to dispel it, when he says in his speech, “So understand this, South Carolina. The choice in this election is not between regions or religions or genders. It's not about rich versus poor, young versus old. And it is not about black versus white. This election is about the past versus the future. It's about whether we settle for the same divisions and distractions and drama that passes for politics today or whether we reach for a politics of common sense and innovation, a politics of shared sacrifice and shared prosperity."

Any way, the contest is in no way over.

Hillary, McCain make it a contest

Just a few hours back, I was ready to hear not just Hillary Clinton conceding New Hampshire, but even pulling out of the race in favour of Barack Obama. Over the past few days, she was looking so downcast, the feeling of resignation written all over her face. O, what an upset! It's good there is a contest out there, there's some excitement remaining. Even on the Republican side, thanks to John McCain. But where is Giuliani, who was supposed to be leading in the national polls? O, right, in NH, pollsters couldn't get even Hillary right, could they?

Obama, Huckabee off a great start

The excitement is on. The year-long process to elect a successor to George Bush has begun. Barack Obama and Mike Huckabee are off to a colourful start. (Read report) The race is a year long. So, there is no guarantee that one of these two will be the next President.

America has one of the most complicated process of electing its President -- arguably the most powerful person on earth. Whether one likes it or not, America, its politicians, policies, and society have a great influence on rest of the world. As the saying goes: If America sneezes, the rest of the world catches cold. It's a different matter if America realises this, and does something about it.

The election process

• BBC has excellent details elaborating the complicated electoral process. Click here to know everything about it.

Here are some extracts:

Most states hold state-wide votes, called primaries, to determine their preferred candidates from the two main parties. Others use a slightly different procedure involving public meetings, called caucuses.

This is the process by which supporters of the Democratic or Republican parties, in each US state, say which candidate they would like to see representing their party in the November presidential election.

Each state gets to send a certain number of delegates to the parties' national conventions in August or September 2008. Bigger states have more delegates. During these national conventions each party's nominee is formally chosen.

The primaries and caucuses determine which candidate the delegates will vote for. Suppose, Obama has has got more votes than Hillary in Iowa. It means, more delegates, who have pledged support to Obama -- than who have pledged support to Hillary -- will be sent from that state, Iowa, to the Democratic party's national convention.

The candidate with the most delegates wins the nomination. Usually this becomes clear early on in the primary season. This year the winning candidates are expected to be known in February.

The Democrats will hold their convention in Colorado in late August. The Republicans will hold theirs in Minneapolis in early September. The presidential candidates will take part in TV debates on 26 September, and 7 and 15 October.

Voting takes place on November 8. Americans do not, technically, participate in a direct election of the president. It's the delegates / electors who actually select the president.

In almost every state, the winner of the popular vote -- on Nov 8 -- gets all the electoral college votes in that state, even if his or her majority is wafer thin. So it can happen that a candidate ends up with more electoral college votes than the rival candidate, and yet a smaller share, nationally, of the popular vote.