Caucuses and The Non-Caucasian

I have just watched some speeches made by the Democrat and Republican candidates after Iowa voted for their preferred Presidential runners. In time I will no doubt find that it is just me, but I think it is worth noting that the man likely to come out of the caucuses in the lead is not Caucausian. History will be my judge.

The Republicans struck me as wet fishes, even though Mike Huckabee had CHUCK NORRIS¹ behind him. No surprise that he won the Republican vote - "Vote for me, or it's The Norris for you!". Hillary had Philandering Bill standing behind her, and where did she come for the Democrats? Third. I'm sure there's a lesson in there somewhere. On a related note; Is there nothing CHUCK NORRIS cannot do?. Why isn't he running for President? He could sort out the Middle East single handed.

Listening to Barack Obama's speech, I get the impression that he's a sound bloke and I was swayed by his words and his oration. Given Dubya Bush's mass destruction of the English language, in all her beauty, Obama gets my vote purely on the grounds of being able to form a cogent sentence and deliver it with gravitas and conviction. The last eight years of mumbling, smirking and embarrassed silences will no doubt have convinced many that the ability to communicate clearly is a core skill no statesman should be without.

But it also struck me that this is a speech designed precisely to engender these feelings. How am I to know if this is what he really stands for, or is he just saying what it takes to get elected?

Like examinations for kids, elections, and the campaign trail in particular, seem a colossally flawed method for choosing a government. From a purely theoretical standpoint, it seems perfectly logical to pick your best candidates and then let the people decide which one they want.

The problem is that the vast majority of people are deciding based on what they see on TV and what they read in the papers. They have no idea what a particular politician actually holds dear or what they will do once elected to office. They are forced to choose based on information that is skewed from reality. The magnitude of the skewing is the unknown factor; really, it is this single unknown that stops the theoretical ideal from working in practice.

Unfortunately, while the problem appears to be simple, it a flaw which is in all of us. Humans are selfish and trusting animals. We generally accept that which is presented to us, even if, on inspection, it is flawed, baseless or not in our own self-interest.

That said, and to take the place of a human for the merest instant, I though Barack said all the right things and, more importantly, he said it in the right way. "Change" must be the Democratic message for this campaign, but I didn't believe it when Hillary was saying it, due, no doubt, to her smiling doofus of a husband perched over her left shoulder (see, you got to get The Norris).

At this point, I am unaware of any sleaze that has been levelled at Barack Obama. Every other candidate (OK, maybe not every candidate, but the main ones), to quote General Taylor in Good Morning, Vietnam, "lugs a trainload of shit behind him (or her) that would fertilize the Sinai." Now, maybe Barack's people bought one of those ex-Soviet stealth missile trains to haul his shit about in, because, although I haven't given it my complete attention, I can't say I've detected any spin from his camp.

And that's the point. Despite only watching four videos and no seeing Barack Obama's name colocated with the word "Liar" on reddit, digg or elsewhere, I am confident to declare him the next POTUS. It will be interesting to see how they all get on in New Hampshire in a couple of days.

Now the comedians can get on with the business of coming up with Black First Lady jokes and mildy-racist Secret Service codenames.

¹ I didn't type this in caps, but Blogger wouldn't let me correct it. Damn, Chuck Norris is all powerful...