LibDems take advice from US Republicans!

Bush's senior policy adviser now cited as the LibDem's new oracle. Seriously.

It really says something when the Liberal Democrats' official organ is proudly sporting the words of a US Republican "urging Barack Obama to be more like Nick Clegg".

For the record, the remains of the LibDems are boastfully quoting Michael Gerson, former senior policy advisor to President George W Bush between 2000 and 2006 - that is, someone sitting right at the core of the lethal (literally) neo-con Chain of Command during both the Iraq mess and the build-up to the biggest financial crash since 1929.

Of course, if pressed, Nick Clegg and his dwindling rank of faithfuls would probably tell you that, no, it's Barack Obama that's turned conservative and that, yes, the Bushite Republicans have magically become "progressive" (one of Clegg's favourite words). Just like the previously-evil Tories have blossomed overnight into Clegg's "progressive" wet dream.

And then the LibDems would probably add that, even though George W Bush's tax cuts for upper-income, capital-owning households were the trigger for America's worst record on income inequality since the 1920s, the Republicans were still good at stimulating social mobility.

And yeah, mobility, George W Bush certainly managed.

In the sense that it was thanks to his atrocious inititatives such as the Ownership Society that millions of low-wage Americans moved to homes that they couldn't afford and from which they were soon kicked out. They moved alright.

Not quite social, but still mobility.

Nationalism: BP's desperate card?

Don't let anybody tell you that nationalism and big capital don't match.

Look at how BP's PR machine is turning the whole thing around. And with some success too.

What started on April 20 with an oil rig explosion and the death of 11 workers, quickly turned into one of the most devastating environmental catastrophes ever. It is estimated that 40,000 barrels a day have been spilling into the Gulf of Mexico.

The consequences for the environment and local economy (and when we say "local" we mean the equivalent of a semicircle going from Cornwall all the way to East Anglia) are devastating. Millions of people depending on fishing and tourism, the two most obvious areas that spring to mind, are obviously very concerned.

For the record, BP encountered hostility because: 1) evidence of criminal negligence is gradually surfacing (regarding cost cutting and lax security measures); 2) the company has been fined several times in recent years for negligence over, again, security, safety hazards and environmental crimes in the US; 3) in the wake of the accident, company's CEO Tony Hayward came up with one tactless comment after the other and got lambasted for lacking empathy.

Now, bear in mind that BP shares started nosediving straight after the accident and continued to do so after each attempt at cleaning up failed and each time Mr Hayward engaged in inept remarks.

On June 1, BP shares already lost 34 per cent of their value before the spill.

Obama's notorious "whose ass to kick" and "he wouldn't work for me" remarks didn't take place until June 8. Shares kept plunging until they reached half their original value, but to say the President is responsible is a complete smokescreen.

So what happened? When it was clear that "ordinary" PR couldn't cut it on behalf of BP, aid came in the guise of the "patriotic" card. And it worked.

Just look at it. In the past few days, the focus has shifted completely. It is no longer on the environmental tragedy, its impact on millions of lives, the clean-up and BP's obvious responsibilities.

Boris Johnson and Lord Tebbit accused Barack Obama and the Americans in general of anti-British rhetoric, "buck-passing and name-calling", even though the buck does indeed stop at BP.

Tebbit, in particular, called Obama "despicable", unleashed accusations of "anti-BP rhetoric" and putting BP pension schemes at risk, as he kick-started the game of "whataboutery" that the "Americans too" have caused environmental disasters in the past (and?).

On Thursday night's BBC Question Time the rhetoric had hit such crass levels that panel member Toby Young ("journalist and author") got a round of applause by saying that "if you wanna see some ass kicked you should tune into the England v USA World Cup game on Saturday".

Never mind questions should be raised about a messed-up system where millions of pensions are literally left to the gambling world, just blow the dog whistle and start mentioning "British interests" (to be read in a manly, gravely voice)...and that's it, people's attention is easily sidetracked.

So imagine that. Basically Barack Obama, his administration, and the millions of American citizens affected by BP's ineptitude, should just say: "don't rush, BP. No sweat. We know some British pension schemes are invested in BP, so just leave it. Actually, have one on us".

Obama: equal hospital visitation rights for same-sex partners

The landmark decision will apply to almost all medical institutions in the country and will prohibit discrimination in hospital visits.

Barack Obama issued yesterday a Presidential statement that will extend hospital visitation rights to same-sex partners. Patients will also be free to choose whoever they want as next-of-kin in case of medical emergencies or medical decisions.

In the US, it is common for hospitals to bar visitors who are not related to patients through either blood or marriage.

The decision was inspired in part by the case of Janice Langbehn, who was kept from seeing her partner, Lisa Pond, as she slipped into a coma. Last September a federal judge rejected Langbehn's lawsuit against Florida's Jackson Memorial Hospital, saying there was no law requiring the staff to grant Langbehn access to Pond's bedside.

In a memo released yesterday (pdf), the President said that gay and lesbian Americans are "uniquely affected" by relatives-only policies at hospitals. He added that they "are often barred from the bedsides of the partners with whom they may have spent decades of their lives -- unable to be there for the person they love, and unable to act as a legal surrogate if their partner is incapacitated".

The President's move was hailed as a major step toward fairness for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender Americans.

American pro-LGBT rights group Human Rights Campaign saluted Obama's decision. "Discrimination touches every facet of the lives of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people, including at times of crisis and illness, when we need our loved ones with us more than ever", was the comment from HRC President Joe Solmonese.

Right-wing Christian group Family Research Council criticised Obama's move. According to one of the group's leaders, Peter Sprigg, the new rule "undermines the definition of marriage" and "clearly constitutes pandering to a radical special interest group".

No surprises there, from a group whose mission statement says: "Family Research Council believes that homosexual conduct is harmful to the persons who engage in it and to society at large, and can never be affirmed".

Obama speaks out on LGBT rights

I never thought that, in my lifetime, I'd hear a major head of state spell out their support for LGBT rights so unequivocally.

In recent weeks, there's been a surge in the number of articles slamming Barack Obama for his allegedly disappointing record on progressive causes. Only a few days ago, Mehdi Hasan wrote in the New Statesman that:

"The distance between Obama and Bush on a host of policies is not as great as many people might hope or have expected - and it appears to get narrower by the day. [...] It was inevitable that even the slightest sense of continuity in policy, personnel or practice would disappoint, as it has. Obama, however, has gone further, adopting his predecessor's positions on a wide variety of issues, from the parochially domestic to the grandly geopolitical".

Although such attacks fit in comfortably with the Left's long history of sado-masochism, they're also remarkably ingenerous.

When Obama spoke last night at the Human Rights Campaign he reminded us of the abyss between his administration and his predecessor's.

Remember that only four years ago, George W Bush was publicly stating that "marriage cannot be severed from its cultural, religious and natural roots without weakening the good influence of society". He defined marriage as a "sacred institution between a man and a woman", advocated a federal ban on gay marriage and went as far as comparing "unethical politicians" with same-sex marriage supporters.

His predecessor Bill Clinton did not fair well either. In a country where opposition to LGBT rights is a clear vote-winner, he signed the Defense of Marriage Act, which legally defines marriage as a legal union exclusively between one man and one woman.

Now, compare all of the above with last June when - fresh from election - Obama paid tribute to the Stonewall resistance movement of 1969 and called upon "the Congress, and the American people to work together to promote equal rights for all, regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity".

Compare Bush's rhetoric and actions with last week's vote in the House of Representatives, where the Democrats passed a law that expands the definition of hate crimes to include those committed because of a victim’s sexual orientation.

Compare it to Obama's pledge last night that he will repeal the so-called "don't ask, don't tell" policy (another Clintonite gem) that prevents gay people in the military from revealing their sexual orientation. "That is my commitment to you", Obama said, while also calling on Congress to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act and to introduce a law that would extend benefits to domestic partners.

"I'm here with a simple message: I'm here with you in that fight", the President said, adding: "My expectation is that when you look back on these years you will look back and see a time when we put a stop against discrimination ... whether in the office or the battlefield."

Human Rights Campaign President Joe Salmonese called it "a historic night" and he's right. I never thought that in my lifetime I'd hear any major head of state - let alone a US president - spell out their support for LGBT rights so clearly and unequivocally.

Obama: Kanye West "a jackass"

And he's right!

Just before Barack Obama went on camera to do an interview with CNBC, he started chatting about Kanye West’s antics at the MTV Video Music Awards. The President nailed it right on the head when he said: "I thought that was really inappropriate" adding, "He's a jackass". [Click here to hear the audio clip].

It's not the first time that the egomaniacal rapper gets all the attention he craves for. In 2006 he made a complete arse of himself at another MTV award (see it here). Another outburst a year later grabbed some more headlines and, only the other day, he made people laugh as he comically stormed onstage when country singer Taylor Swift accepted her Best Female Video award.

Obama and "the health care speech"

"We are the only wealthy nation that allows such hardship for millions of its people".

The United States of America is the one country many know something about. You ask one of 'us Europeans' to list "something American" and they could go on forever, from Hollywood celebs to TV shows, from politicians to geography, from food to you name it- in a way no other country comes even remotely close.

But you ask most people and while they may look up to the US when it comes down to a lot of things, they would also invariably tell you about the one thing that's so scarily offputting: ruthlessness.

And, oversimplistic though it may be, this is how most view the US: the place where, if hardship falls on you, if one thing goes wrong or if fortune turns against you, then you're basically fucked and left to fend for yourself.

I don't know how many last night watched or read Barack Obama's "health care speech" in the Congress, but no-one can say he's not trying his hardest to put that right. No-one, but the most ideological Nader-voter perhaps, can accuse him of lacking bollocks or tiptoeing around. Because Obama's may not sound like the perfect plan, but for the first time there is something workable that, if passed, will not leave a single American citizen without healthcare coverage.

For the first time the concepts of compassion and the "ability to stand in other people's shoes" were spelt out in a factual, practical manner, a far cry from the hollow, hypocritical, religious formulas that have characterised each American administration until 2008 (of the kind "as long as you recite may-God-be-with-you then it's none of my business").

Obama laid out his plan sounding at once passionate and resolute as well as calm and persuasive.

While the president repeated his readiness to listen to his opponents and compromise, he also announced: "I will not back down on the basic principle that, if Americans can't find affordable coverage, we will provide you with a choice" and "I won't stand by while the special interests use the same old tactics to keep things exactly the way they are."

Laying the spotlight on the plight of the uninsured, as well as the millions duped by insurance companies on the basis of "pre-existing conditions" like acne (he cited the case of an Illinois man who had his cancer treatment stopped because his insurer found that he hadn't reported gallstones he didn't even know about), President Obama said: "We are the only democracy, the only advanced democracy on Earth, the only wealthy nation that allows such hardship for millions of its people".

14,000 Americans lose their coverage everyday and millions go bankrupt as a consequence of a deeply fucked up health system - one where, Obama reminded us, "insurance companies are not only encouraged to find reasons to drop the seriously ill, they are rewarded for it".

"I am not the first president to take up this cause, but I am determined to be the last", Obama remarked. If he succeeds, America will have finally turned over a new leaf.

War Games and scapegoats

The warped tabloid world: Labour's vanity and 'diversity' are killing our soldiers in Afghanistan.

With the recent surge in casualties (8 British troops killed in one single day) in Afghanistan, you may have noticed a spike in right-wing commentators blaming Gordon Brown.

As you know, this blog is not fond of this New Labour government. However, we also think that, far too often, the same papers who are happy to beat the drums of war, any war, think of it as a game of Playstation 3. The only scenario they can envisage from their settee is: our Boys fly over, bomb the crap out of the bearded ones, raid a few villages and bob's your uncle, off they go and mission accomplished.

But our friends from the tabloids are simply incapable to fathom that war is war. Quite simply because, lucky them, they've never been in one. As they scramble for scapegoats, one comes in cheap and convenient: Punchbag Gordon.

And so you get Sun Defence editor Tom Newton Dunn writing that "Boys pay for mean Brown", while Richard Littlejohn in the Daily Mail states that "They're paying the blood price of putting welfare before warfare", with the added attack on "a Prime Minister who puts 'diversity' before defence and gives a higher priority to a Gay Pride march than to the mortal sacrifices being made by young men in Afghanistan in the name of Queen and Country". Highly relevant, you see.

Leo McKinstry in the Daily Express joins in, saying that "Labour's vanity" is what's killing British troops in Afghanistan. "Hundreds more brave young men are being sacrificed on the altar of Gordon Brown’s socialist arrogance", he writes, adding that British troops are there because Brown is "desperate to curry favour" with President Obama.

Is it possible that no-one was available at the Express to remind McKinstry that neither Brown nor Obama started the war? It happened to be a man called George W Bush who, the same McKinstry wrote in the Telegraph back in 2004, "through his toughness [was] successful[ly] demilitarising the most dangerous regimes on the planet".

Prolong a divisive debate?

Next time you get arrested, try telling the coppers that "Nothing will be gained by spending our time and energy laying blame for the past". See where that takes you.

"We're all equal before the law", right? When the other day Barack Obama exposed years of dodgy CIA interrogation methods, including the White House-endorsed torturing of terror suspects, you'd have thought that prosecution would be the next step. Such interrogation techniques, "waterboarding" but one of them, have been deemed illegal (including by the US itself) since WWII.

Obama may have called it a "a dark and painful chapter in our history" and promised that America will never repeat the same mistakes, but he also pledged that no-one will be prosecuted. "Nothing will be gained by spending our time and energy laying blame for the past", he said, a sentiment echoed by Alexander Chancellor in Friday's Guardian. "There are more urgent priorities", he wrote, adding that "Putting people on trial will [...] distract the Obama administration from its essential business".

Now, try and apply the same concept to all aspects of law and daily life. A burglar gets caught and then released without charges "because, there's no point in dwelling, let's just move on". Or a serial rapist. Why subject the poor victim to the stress of reliving her trauma in court? You could argue that it's "time for reflection and not retribution" and that the victim should simply get down to their daily business.

Or a fraudster. Again, a company may have been severely damaged by his or her illegal dealings, but, rather than bringing the crook to account and getting bogged down with legal quibbles, wouldn't the firm's shattered resources be better employed in dealing with their most "urgent priorities"?

So there it is. Next time you get caught, no matter which heinous crime you may have committed, just quote President Obama and tell the coppers that "they shouldn't be spending their time and energy laying blame for the past".

90% tax on big bonuses in the US

Now how's that for a windfall profit tax?

For years humongous bonuses were defended with the fable that "the best have to be rewarded" and "otherwise our best executives will fly elsewhere".

The recent AIG scam, where the ailing insurance giants awarded themselves bonuses of $165m the moment they pocketed $170bn in aid from the government, confirms that a load of bollocks was being fed to the public.

Those big corporations really are the biggest scroungers on earth. You wave some money in front of them and they act like a paedophile in a playground. Luckily though it looks like the tide has turned, at least in the US. Following the AIG scam, yesterday the House of Representatives voted to introduce a 90% tax on big bonuses from firms bailed out by taxpayers.

President Obama had previously dubbed AIG's bonuses "an outrage", adding that they are a symptom of "a bubble and bust economy that valued reckless speculation over responsibility and hard work". "It's hard to understand how derivative traders at AIG warranted any bonuses, much less $165m in extra pay," he said, noting that "all across the country, there are people who work hard and meet their responsibilities every day, without the benefit of government bailouts or multimillion-dollar bonuses" (incidentally: I never thought I'd live to hear a US President ever saying that!).

However, like in the UK, why the Government didn't set strict conditions when they pumped gazillions into big corporations as part of the bailouts remains a mystery. Well, not quite.

Obama caps executive pay

Fat cats pay on bailout businesses to be limited.

It's what millions of people would want to hear from the British government. It's the natural course of action for those banks who were bailed out from the taxpayer to the tune of hundreds of billions. But whereas in Britain they're still tiptoeing about, in the US Barack Obama is going straight to the point.

After dubbing the Wall Street culture of bonuses in times of crisis "shameful", the new President revealed "details of new rules limiting executive pay to $500,000 [still a level that you or me will never understand through our entire lifetime -ed] a year for firms getting a US taxpayer bail-out". The BBC reports that "here was public outcry over $18.4bn in bonuses paid out in 2008 at a time when taxpayer money was propping up the financial system".

"If the taxpayers are helping you, then you've got certain responsibilities to not be living high on the hog," Obama said. As the Reuters agency notes, "the White House aims to hold banking executives accountable for the money they receive from government coffers with the new rules, which were presented as being in the interest of shareholders and taxpayers alike".

Interestingly, while this is front page news in the US, you'll struggle to find any mention in the UK press. Instead, all the headlines are for Obama "screwing up" the nomination process. The question is: why? Could it be that our lovely bankers may want to shield people from overexcitement with ideas of fairness and accountability?

Obama repeals ban on abortion funds

No one can accuse Barack Obama of failing to live up to expectations (though The Independent's Robert Fisk did here on the subject of Gaza). His first act was to order the closure of that stunning example of atrocious Neo-Conservatism known as Guantanamo.

Then yesterday came his repeal of George W Bush's ban on abortion funds, in the face of vast criticism coming from the powerful US anti-abortion lobby. When Bush brought in the ban, family planning organisations like Planet Parenthood lost millions of dollars in funding overnight. At least 16 developing nations in Africa, Asia and the Middle East were affected. "More than 1,000 outreach workers lost their jobs and, it estimates, about 38,000 women lost contraceptive, post-natal and immunisation services" writes the BBC's Jill McGivering.

The cynics will have to wait. So far Obama has delivered. And quick.

The Obama bandwagon

By the looks of it, George W Bush was an alien catapulted in from outer space. The millions of voters and hangers-on that made his two terms possible have magically disappeared. Are we really such a spineless species?

The day has arrived. Billions of people worldwide will be watching as Barack Obama is today sworn in as America's 44th President. The epic comparisons are chucked around like confetti. Is this Abraham Lincoln-style history in the making? Is Obama carrying Martin Luther King's torch? Or will today look more like JFK's inauguration, signalling the arrival of "a new, bright, young, fresh America?"

None of this is Obama's fault. Nor is the fact that he's being burdened with colossal amounts of expectation, courtesy of the havoc wreaked by eight years of galloping Neo Conservatism in the White House.

For sure, Obama's inauguration is providing some interesting insight into human nature's deepest sheepishness. We really are a disgustingly spineless species. We don't like to be seen siding with losers. We love licking the winner's arse. We cherish a gushing crowd, we just love the collective hysteria.

Which is why it's easier to find a piece of dandruff in a carpet than spotting a Bush voter or hanger-on. Like post-1945 Germany or post-1989 Romania, it really feels like the Texan guy was catapulted in from outer space and ransacked the place for two terms. Where are the multitudes that made his eight years possible? Where are the defenders of the Iraq war (David Miliband, anyone?), the advocates of Guantanamo Bay, the hordes that went along with the lethal Project for a New American Century?

They've all quietly sneaked out of the way and jumped on the bandwagon. A few months ago Melanie Phillips was having convulsions as she wrote piece after piece about "Obama's Muslim connections", his "multiple links to anti-Americans and subversives" and his embracing of Christianity "as a tactical manoeuvre to get himself elected". She's been quiet on the Obama subject ever since.

Also, look at what the Daily Mail wrote two years ago about Obama. "A drunk and a bigot - what the US Presidental hopeful HASN'T said about his father...". Only last summer, in the same paper, our chum Richard Littlejohn was writing "Obama for President? Don't count your chickens", adding that "while the Messiah clings to a slim lead overall, he trails McCain on a range of policies from energy to national security".

The day after his victory, Littlejohn's tack changed. "Only a dyed-in-the-wool racist could fail to be enthralled and inspired by Obama's ascent to the most powerful office in the world.", he wrote. Not to mention this morning's Daily Mail epic "We will walk together as one, Obama tells U.S. as he honours Martin Luther King Jr hours before becoming President". For a while, anti-Obama pieces in the Mail have been notable by their absence.

The Sun as well, of course. Last July, Trevor Kavanagh called Barack Obama a "snake-oil salesman". Amongst a colour-related pun or two, Kelvin MacKenzie was sneering that "I will only believe there’s no racism any more when they put a white man in charge of Rwanda". Today, in the same paper, you won't find any of that. It's all about "a new day dawns" and "the end of the Bush “misadministration”". Shame the Sun are wonderfully quiet on the the most memorable piece of Bush "misadministration" they staunchly supported: the Iraq war. This morning, the Sun's own editorial oozes industrial amounts of cheese. "Special One" goes the headline, spurting words like "hope and goodwill", "gifted and glamorous", "grace and dignity", "cool dude", "natural commander". You read it and you feel like you've had eight pints.

An old Housemartins song was called Sheep and it went like this:

"When I was young they used to get me counting sheep
But the counting I did was all in vain

Now when I'm tired and I'm trying to get to sleep

I count humans jumping onto trains".

The year in review

January

- Gordon Brown says that "Britain is better placed than most to withstand the global turbulence". Famous last words.
- The Government nationalises Northern Rock but privatises the profits.
- Actor Heath Ledger dies age 28.
- Middle East peace envoy Tony Blair says he's optimistic about peace in the region.

- Barack Obama wins the Iowa caucases unexpectedly. Hillary Clinton starts worrying.

February

- French President Nicolas Sarkozy marries former supermodel Carla Bruni.
- Nine civilians are killed 'accidentally' in Baghdad by US forces.

- Shannon Matthews, a nine-year-old girl from West Yorkshire, goes missing. The Sun offers a £20,000 reward.

March

- Business Secretary John Hutton argues that "more millionaires are needed" in Britain.

- Heather Mills is awarded £24.3m in her divorce settlement with Paul McCartney.
- Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero and his Socialist Party secure another four years in government with a general election victory in Spain.

- Police find Shannon Matthews and arrest her mother and relatives on suspicion of abduction.

April

- Media tycoon and right-wing politician Silvio Berlusconi wins the Italian elections.

-In Austria, it is reported that a man called Josef Fritzl had incarcerated his daughter in a custom-built cellar for 24 years, raped her and fathered seven children by her, leaving three of them in the cellar.

May

- Labour suffer a humiliating defeat at the local elections. Brown admits it's a "bad night".

- Boris Johnson defeats Ken Livingstone in the London mayoral elections.

- Wayne Rooney and Coleen McLoughlin announce their £3m wedding.

- On BBC1's Question Time, chief moron Richard Littlejohn accuses Polly Toynbee of "not living in the real world". Because he does, doesn't he?

June
- The Government narrowly wins the 42 days detention vote.

- The UN Security Council accuses Robert Mugabe of not allowing free and fair elections in Zimbabwe.

- Yet another Big Brother hits the nation right in the face. It's the ninth time in eight years.
- Football: Spain win the Euro 2008 after beating Germany in the final.

July

- British newspapers discuss the escalating problem of knife crime.

- Max Mosely wins £60,000 in his privacy battle against the News of The World. A rare instance of tabloid bullying being legally condemned.

- Labour is trounced by the SNP in the Glasgow East byelection.

- Former Sex Pistols singer John Lydon is accused of abusing Bloc Party's Kele Okoreke.

August

- War erupts between Russia and Georgia over Abkhazia and South Ossetia.

- The Bejing Olympics kick off amidst controversy over China's crap human rights record.

- Alistair Darling gets massacred by the Tory press for simply admitting the truth: this is Britain's worst economic crisis in 60 years.

- Barack Obama becomes the official Democratic nominee for the White House.

- Jeremy Paxman talks underpants and says middle-class white males are discriminated.

September
- John McCain's running mate, bible-belter Sarah Palin, is the talk of the town.

- The subprime mortgage crisis escalates in the US. The investment bank Lehman Brothers goes bust. In Britain, Bradford & Bingley are part-nationalised.

- Movie legend Paul Newman dies aged 83.

- The expression 'credit crunch' is literally everywhere.

- Pink Floyd's Richard Wright, 65, says farewell.

- The Sun's Fergus Shanahan pens the most appalling article of the year.

October

- Iceland is in the throes of a financial collapse. There are severe repercussions in Britain.

- Peter Mandelson becomes Lord and returns to the Cabinet.

- The US Presidential campaign reaches fever pitch.
- Russell Brand and Jonathan Ross are in the nation's bad books.

- In the wake of a botched TV appearance, the tabloids decide Kerry Katona is bad again.

November

- Barack Obama is the new American President.

- Prince Charles turns 60.

- A report into the failings in the case of Baby P kickstarts the Sun and the Dail Mail's crusade against left wing councils, single mothers and social workers.

- Busy with Baby P and Karen Matthews, the country's tabloids don't seem particularly interested in reports of a British Fritzl.

- The charity single "Heroes" recorded by the X-Factor finalists reaches no.1.
- 188 people die in an islamist terrorist attack in Mumbai, India.

December

- A series of riots erupts in Greece.

- In the US, President elect Obama names his cabinet, including Hillary Clinton.
- David Cameron accuses banks of having been irresponsible.

- Gordon Brown says he has saved the world.

- Woolworths, MFI, Zivvi and Whittard are the latest victims of the economic crisis.
- A debate starts on the idea of bailing out Jaguar.

- An Iraqi journalist throws two shoes at President Bush during his final visit to Baghdad.

The Obama Files

Hagley Road to Ladywood expands with a new section

Remember the happy days of the 1997 elections? Weren't you convinced Tony Blair's victory was the beginning of a new era? Well, we all know how it ended. In fact it hasn't ended yet, but it sure went pear-shaped right from the start. With their determination to out-Tory the Tories in both policies and rhetoric, New Labour's roll call of lies, privatisations, tuition fees and the Iraq war (as well as much more) won't be easily forgotten.

Fast forward to 2008 and Barack Obama's victory in the US Presidential elections is also being hailed as 'history in the making' and the start of a new dawn. At Hagley Road to Ladywood we actually think he's a more genuine article than Saint Tony. This time, however, we've decided to keep a close eye on his latest decisions and actions in office, week by week. Will Obama walk the walk, keep his promises and bring change? Hagley Road's new online section "The Obama Files" will help you to keep track of the new US President's first term in office.

Afghanistan: theatre of defeat?

Will we ever come to a point where the US government can sell its citizens the concept of 'public security' without having to fight a full-scale war in some corner of the world? By Johnny Taronja.

Iraq was always the 'bad war'. By 2007, only Blair, Bush, a crazed warmonger or an arms dealer were still of the opinion that the Iraq carnage was justified as part of a 'grand', 'just', design. And so now we read that they can't wait to get out, both the Americans and the remaining British troops. Which is good.

But a look at Simon Jenkins' article in today's Guardian warns about sleepwalking into another catastrophic mess, Afghanistan. The constant stream of bad news from Iraq distracted public opinion from the fact that a war has been fought in Afghanistan for the past seven years and that no end appears in sight. In fact it looks like more of a mess as each day goes by. "The conflict is far more intractable than Iraq", writes Jenkins, "since the staple crop is not oil but opium and since the border with Pakistan is hopelessly unstable. Throughout history this land has been the theatre of defeat".

During the presidential election campaign, Barack Obama was careful to boost his patriotic credentials by stating that, while still opposed to the Iraq war, he supports the idea of more troops in Afghanistan, lest we forget, a country much bigger than Iraq. That remains unknown quantity.

One question, however, remains open. Will we ever come to a point where the US government can sell its citizens the concept of 'public security' without having to fight a full-scale war in some corner of the world to show that they mean business?

Primary elections: what Britain needs

While Obama got elected thanks to the bottom-up system of the US' primaries, Britain has to choose between unelected Gordon Brown and super toff David Cameron.

These days commentators from across the political spectrum are engaged in debating whether Britain will ever be able to elect a non-white President. The discussion had barely started when it got bogged down in a spectacularly sterile morass.

Look at the stick Jeremy Paxman is getting over his BBC interview with rapper Dizzie Rascal about Barack Obama's victory ("BBC under fire over hip-hop slant on Obama win"). First Paxo was criticised for being 'crass' and 'patronising' (what's new, I hear you saying). Then sections of what is referred to as the "black community", whatever that means, slated the fact itself that Dizzie Rascal had been picked for an interview. "There were many intelligent black people to choose from", they said, "Dizzie Rascal perpetrates negative stereotypes about who we are", with reference to the singer's use of words like "innit" and "wassappenin" during the Newsnight special.

But that's how many people speak. How does it make it intrinsically unworthy of twenty seconds on the BBC? Would a black person educated at Eaton (start searching now) make it more representative? Would it be enough to spare you this sterile navel-searching? Doesn’t it say something about Britain's very own hang-up, which is the one about class and the other, about arguing the toss?

Barack Obama won precisely because he didn’t focus his campaign on race. As he centred around the obscene eight years of the Bush administration and his neo Con mates, his message was beyond black and white and it's startling that a bigger deal over the colour of his skin is being made this side of the Atlantic than it currently is in the US.

In the meantime, no-one's looking at the most relevant issues. The fact that the Americans' choice of President is a bottom-up process, for example. Nerve-racking it may be, but their system of primary elections allowed someone like Barack Obama, with only four years in the Senate, to get the upper hand over a sacred cow like Hillary Clinton (pun unintended) or other more experienced colleagues. Compare it with the UK, where current Prime Minister Gordon Brown was never elected and is a direct product of the machinations that took place right at the very top of the Labour party. Or Leader of the Opposition David Cameron, so posh that he can't decide which side his hair should be parted.

So if you still believe Dizzie Rascal on Newsnight was even relevant, your scale of priorities needs some urgent rethinking.

Obama's victory: the right-wing press

Jumping on the bandwagon, colour-related puns and conspiracy theories. The British right-wing press is talking about Obama's victory.

Finding admirers of John McCain and Sarah Palin is already looking as hopeless as the quest to unearth any supporter of John Major in the Nineties. You won't find a single paper or MP openly expressing disappointment at Obama's victory. Yesterday's pathetic exchange between David Cameron and Gordon Brown already looked like two slugs fighting for who could dribble the most in their "I'm-exactly-like-Obama" competition.

The Telegraph, for instance, is quite candid in its "Republican post-mortem", underlining the divide between the social conservatives who think gays should all be burned at the stake "and moderates who think the fanaticism of some evangelical voters has driven away independent voters".

Even Max Hastings in the Daily Mail is writing that "the miracle has happened", adding: "Almost all of us are thrilled that Obama has made it, passionately keen for him to succeed". In the same paper, David Jones calls it "a night to remember and to relish". Seriously, that's in today's Daily Mail. Look it up here and here if you don't want to be seen at the till with a copy of it.

But as we shift even further to the right, you can sense the unease. You can't expect the Daily Express, who is about as right wing as Thatcher's handbag, to do a Daily Mail and jump on the bandwagon. Theirs is a different angle. "TARGET OBAMA", is their headline, "FEARS PRESIDENT MAY NEVER MAKE IT TO THE WHITE HOUSE", as they report what Ku Klux Klan International leader Railton Loy said of Mr Obama: “If that man is elected president, he’ll be shot sure as hell. The hate would be so deep down South".

Incidentally, a similarly grim prediction is made by BNP leader Nick Griffin. He writes that "At its worst, a string of white supremacist nuts and disgruntled ex-jarheads will be arrested plotting to assassinate him, and one will succeed, sparking not just pogroms but the legalised dispossession of a white America paralysed by fear and guilt". Followed by the predictable, "for at the very heart of Barak Obama there is a deep-seated anti-white racism". Textbook reverse psychology there.

On to more familiar territory, you can tell the whole Sun staff spent the past twenty four hours obsessing over colour-related puns. Kelvin MacKenzie's contribution is "Black? I hope Obama's got lots of grey". What a witty guy. Then look at this pearl, "I will only believe there’s no racism any more when they put a white man in charge of Rwanda". Put that page three down MacKenzie, get your hand off your knob and pick up a history book. You may have even heard of good old Rhodesia or apartheid South Africa. "White men" were "in charge" of Africa for quite a few years.

As for Jeremy Clarkson, not a word yet. So let's content ourselves with Fergus Shanahan, another one of our favourites, who goes for the Schwarznegger angle, "You look at [Obama's] slender frame and think: such a burden on such slim shoulders".

Oh aren't they seething.

And Obama won...!

Can you imagine no more GW Bush in the White House? Well, he's already packing his bags.

Only about forty years ago, Obama wouldn't have been allowed to sit on a bus in the US. Today, however, coming a long way from slavery to persecution, America has elected its first black President. It's a change of the kind of those you study in history books.

Can you imagine no more Bush in the White House? Did you ever think it was going to be possible? Well, it's happening now. And if there was one achievement George W Bush deserves to be credited for, it's that of having pissed off his own country so much over eight years that their reaction was to elect the most liberal candidate in living memory. And, in what signified the defeat of the don't-give-a-shit-army, huge numbers made it to the polls to vote the Republicans out.

Not only that. Aside from Obama's clear victory, last night the Democrats secured an amazing majority both in the Senate and the House of Representatives, something Bill Clinton could only have dreamt of throughout his eight years in office.

So to all those crows fearing that white blue collars would never vote for Obama; all the prophets of gloom announcing the sure loss of the pro-Hillary feminist vote; all those terrified by the advent of Sarah Palin. You can now relax, he did it. Barack Obama is the 44th President of the United States of America.

Please Obama, win

The hopes of billions around the world are at stake in tomorrow's US presidential elections

If there's one thing that can be predicted about the American elections, here it is. If Barack Obama wins there will be times he'll disappoint you. There will be talks of wasted chances and the widespread belief that the GREAT HOPE OF 2008 was betrayed. Obama the sell-out and Obama the let-down. You'll think that he watered down his policies and that the difference with the Republicans is no more than paper thin.

Whichever your opinion, there is so much at stake in tomorrow's US presidential elections that it's impossible to "not care" or proclaim that it'll make no difference.

Just imagine for a second that the upset of the century takes place and John McCain wins against all expectations and opinion polls. In just one big swipe, eight years of Bush administration will be vindicated and nobody will have a leg to stand on as they whinge. Suddenly, "what are you on about, you loser? How can Bush and McCain be wrong if they won three elections in a row", will sound like a fair comeback. The notion that you can carpet bomb and invade a country against the will of the international community will receive its democratic seal of approval, meaning that even a disaster of epic proportions like the Iraq carnage wasn't enough to sway public opinion.

But it's not all. The political philosophy behind the biggest financial scam in sixty years -simplistically marketed to the masses as 'the credit crunch', as if it was some sort of natural tsunami beyond our control- will be validated. A government that sanctioned mass debt, more bankruptcies and repossessions than during the Great Depression will be, at worst, excused and, at best, actively supported. It'll mean official approval that ice melting and global warming exist only in the imagination of Al Gore and the most stoned of tree huggers.

And also, would you honestly have no problems with a world where the outcome of the most important election is determined by someone's skin colour rather than policies and beliefs? Left and right analysts, in fact, agree that the main reason the current opinion polls aren’t to be trusted is Obama's skin colour. Had he been white, goes the common belief, the Republicans and McCain would have stood no chance. There are enough people to affect the election result who may refuse to cast their ballot for the Democratic candidate purely on the basis that his skin hue isn't white enough.

On the converse, remember that tomorrow we'll be this close from waking up to a world where all the Blairs, Aznars and Berlusconis (i.e. the little men who based their political careers on licking George W Bush's arse), are sanctioned as the official losers. Imagine you wake up to a world where Sarah Palin, her $150,000 makeover and her god-created-the-earth-in-six-days fairy tale remain locked in the limbo of irrelevant bollocks. A world where the President of the only superpower voted against the Iraq war since its inception. A world where the US government will view access to a doctor when you're sick as a right and not a privilege. A world where the President of the United States knows what it feels like to be part of a minority.

For all that, and much more (we don’t want to bore you), please Barack Obama, win. One day, we may even be grateful.

Michael Moore, Mike's Election Guide 2008

A review

For many years, especially across Europe, the left's main limit has been one of communication. When I was at University, I was absolutely stunned by how most lecturers (mostly left-of-centre) appeared to bask in a self-important sea of cryptic language and dense sentences. They may have been well-meaning, yet there was always the suspicion that their main priority was to speak in the arsiest language possible, drowned in a sea of never-ending paragraphs and elitist jargon.

Similarly, it is often said that today's left is failing to speak to people's hearts, even though blunders like the Iraq war and the credit crisis would be the perfect background for the return of ideals based on redistribution, fairness and civil rights.

Michael Moore is the perfect answer to the problem. His latest book, Mike's Election Guide 2008 makes the perfect case for the Democrats in the run-up to the US presidential elections. You don't have to be a political buff to understand his argument. Often tongue-in-cheek, his priority is that of reaching out to any ordinary citizen concerned with their daily problems, without ever resorting to trite populism.

As our readers probably know, Moore gained enormous popularity during the Bush years. Both his film/documentaries Bowling for Columbine and Farenheit 9/11 were excellent arguments against the Republican's grip on American public opinion. Especially in the case of foreign policy and the Iraq war, his stance has been vindicated. While in 2003 70% of Americans were on Bush's side, most people today admit that Moore (and Barack Obama, for that matter) had been right all along.

Mike's Election Guide 2008 starts with some hilarious Q&A in which ordinary members of the public express their prejudices, doubts and concerns. The topics range from people's spiralling credit card debts to gay partnerships.
There are men who ask :"If Iran has weapons of mass destruction we should invade, right?" and women who wonder if their views on abortion are compatible with their Catholic faith. Michael Moore replies that "[W]omen are not allowed to be pastors. [They] are viewed in such high esteem in the Catholic Church that your good pastor is not allowed to be in love with any of them, let alone marry them". Interestingly, Moore is also of the opinion that Hillary Clinton "went against her own heart" when she voted in favour of the Iraq war in order to show America that "she could kick ass and start wars just like a man". Obama, instead, stayed true to his beliefs and voted against the war in spite of all the prejudices against his surname and accusations of not being patriotic enough.

There are also provocative statements such as his call to bring back the draft or the suggestion that anyone who tries to make a profit from healthcare should be arrested and healthcare made free and accessible to every American. McCain and the Republicans still disagree.

Moore also calls for Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld to be indicted for crimes against humanity. "If I'm asleep at the wheel of my car", he writes, "and that causes the death of innocents then I am liable, and I can guarantee that I AM GOING TO JAIL". By the same token, Moore argues, the Bush administration's mixture of pre-meditation, negligence and incompetence that caused so much death and suffering, from Iraq to New Orleans, shouldn't go unpunished.

Overall, Mike's Election Guide 2008 is a compelling read, quick, trim and amusing. Let's just hope that on election day people will put it to use.