Obama is almost officially the first in line for the White House. Nobody actually had a shadow of doubt that he would go for a second term, but it is only now that it has been officially confirmed.
Though Obama has to submit the “candidate’s application” to the Federal Electoral Committee in April, the White House leaked information that our “friend Barack” has already chosen Chicago as his pre-election headquarters.
The most peculiar thing is, despite all the criticism of the 44th president and political losses and defeats in his first term, he is quite even and very likely to stay on for another term. If everything comes together in the economy (and it will, most likely) and doesn’t work that well for the Republican camp, who so far have mainly radicals among their candidates or “half-suited” (not much of a presidential quality) political figures.
Obama’s popularity, which had fallen before the big midterm congressional elections in the autumn of 2010, is now growing again: His work is approved by more than half of voters. This figure fell close to 40 percent at the beginning of the year. Good sign.
Everything that is connected to the presidential elections usually begins to stir strongly in American politics immediately after the presidential term rolls over its second half. This is the case for Barack Obama. His “team”, exactly on Jan. 20, which is the U.S. presidential inauguration day, announced that the 44th (and the first black) president of the country will be nominated for the 2011 elections and will have his headquarters in the “Windy City,” as Chicago is also known. Chicago is Obama’s “adopted homeland”: He was born in Hawaii but was the senator for the state of Illinois, where Chicago is the largest city and hometown of his wife, Michelle.
The Farther from Washington, the Closer to the White House
Everything that’s happening, by and large, is a regular pre-election routine. Perhaps the choice of headquarters is the only exception. The “approach” to Washington from afar no longer makes news. All the “two-termers” — Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton and George Bush (Junior) — have made their headquarters either in Washington or its outskirts for the last 30 years.
There is an obvious political logic in Obama’s “moving” to the industrial Chicago (which is, by the way, in a different time zone — Chicago is an hour behind Washington).
Campaign strategy planners have taken everything into account and decided that for America, from the times of Clinton and Bush (Junior), Washington has become a symbol of depression and disregard for the problems, rights and liberties of the voters. This is, honestly, a simple truth. In general, Washington is not a good city. It is deep with dirty politicians, lobbyists and other similar personages. The farther from it the better. The president will have to get into this deep. Obviously, it is not much of a concern for others. It is one thing before the elections, and after it is a different matter. Politics. That’s why “the election campaign” will be settling in Chicago.
The second thought is directly connected to the first one. The Democrats are now scared of, to some extent, the insurgent character of the Republican election strategy. They insisted that Obama could have been “a fresh wind” before the 2008 elections, but after the two years in Washington, he has acquired the same old political mold that everything in Washington has. That is why he and the city, including the White House, need to be well-aired. Congress has already been aired, and there is a majority of Republicans in the lower chamber now. It is a beautiful line of argument. It may work out.
This line of argument, of course, “can’t be killed” by simple relocation of the headquarters to Illinois, but it’s quite possible this can blunt its instruments. Only this single thing can add, if not several votes, then such a portion of votes that they — who knows? — will decide who will get a permit to enter and who won’t.
To sum up, judging by the place Obama has chosen for the headquarters, you can tell that he has serious intentions and wants to extend the “terms of lease” on Pennsylvania Avenue. And it’s quite possible he will do it.
The Lame System of the Electoral College
The presidential election in the U.S. has turned into a race with frequent photo finishes in the last couple of decades. At times, the winner is dressed in such a thin percentage of triumphal clothes that they are either transparent or have holes in them. For the last 20 years, the advantage of the winner over the loser used to be very modest: one or two percent — it’s already good.
In the 2000 elections, George Bush, Jr. received 453,000 votes FEWER than the number of votes received by his Democratic rival, Al Gore. Unfortunately George Bush did move into the White House, unfortunately, but only after numerous court hearings in Florida and long recalculations of votes (271 against 266).
As for Obama, he became president, taking into account all that is mentioned above, with a record advantage over the Republican John McCain. Obama whipped McCain with a 7.2 percent advantage (52.9 percent against 45.7 percent), which is twice as much of the votes (375 against 173) during the 2008 election.
The founding fathers of America did not build such a safety valve (indirect elections through the electoral college) into American democracy by accident. They knew all too well the character of their unbridled, hot-tempered and impatient compatriots. But now, as the example of Bush versus Gore has shown, sometimes this valve hampers the democratic procedure. Indeed, most of the citizens voted against Bush, and paradoxically they got him. American history has witnessed this paradox three times so far. John Quincy Adams in 1824, Rutherford Hayes in 1876 and Benjamin Harrison in 1888 entered the White House in the same way. Many American experts say that a system like this is pure anachronism, but it still survives. In order to change this, however, you need to change the Constitution.
Most of all, however strange it may sound, Barack Hussein Obama may get some help from his Republican opponents. The fact that they are “taking it to the right” (up to the most fierce ultra-radicalism) is generally favored by electors of a certain type but only for the time being. Radicalism tires them rather quickly.
The Republican Party has not decided on its candidates (it’s a bit too early), but the queue from the beginning of the proposal of a candidate by the party is already building up. Among “the first” in line are the ex-governor of Massachusetts, Mitt Romney; ex-governor of Alaska and the vice presidential candidate for McCain, Sarah Palin (“fighting Sarah”); ex-governor of Minnesota, Tim Pawlenty; and ex-governor of Arkansas, Mike Huckabee. There are others of course, but these are “the leading four.” They are all actively engaged in collecting elections funds.
They Say Our Tsar Is a Fake!
Frequent appearances of “the facts and information” are the signs that there are elections in the air — the birth of a methodology Mark Twain knew and described so well as sheer nonsense. Some newspapers, for example, contain rumors that Obama forged his birth certificate. And that he was not born in Honolulu, Hawaii, but in Kenya, where his real birth certificate is hidden (buried, burnt or seized). Therefore, America has a fake president (according to the U.S. Constitution, only an American-born citizen can be nominated for presidency). The saga about Obama’s origins has lasted since the 2008 elections. The health care services in Hawaii have demonstrated several times the original birth certificate of Barack Obama dated Aug. 4, 1961, but it is not of much help.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.