Proud

Yes, it was a good day.

But I hope the President Elect will not be destroyed by the hype now being presented by journalists and be allowed to get on with the job.

The BBC et al should now withdraw and give the guy the chance he deserves.

But I fear.....

Pride is a personal emotion and you are entitled to feel it, however - the BBC extravaganza was way over the top!

The job of the BBC is to report the news in an informative and accessible manner. This goal could have been achieved at a fraction of the cost and far more effectively.

The coverage was biased, opinion-centric and patronising. The same mindless questions posed to interviewees and guests. Instant reactions sought rather than detailed investigation. Unconcealed bias from journalists preferring to express personal feelings rather than reporting the news. Not enough focus on the data - particularly not the data that didn't fit with the pre-chosen narrative.

Last night's Newsnight special covered most of the same ground. When 30 minutes in Paxo is again explaining the parentage of Obama - you know they have run out of new and interesting things to say.

The Breakfast news this morning continuing to run the election as the main story. Acceptable on a quiet news day and where they have researched new angles. Unacceptable when we have a by-election and other local news and Turnbull is still serving up 24 hour-old instant reactions.

At the moment the BBC just isn't working.

#1 The damage is already done. I'm disapointed that the wars in the middle east and the credit crunch haven't already been resolved by super-Obama. he's had 24 hours whats keeping him?

The media have portrayed him as a messiah and will happily crucify him in a year or two when he doesn't perform as they wish.

"The BBC played a big part in bringing the sights and sounds and statistics of an historic day in America to people all around the world, and that's just a cool thing to have a chance to participate in. "

Patronising twaddle !!! Do you honestly think, Mr Hartman, it would have been the role of the BBC to have acted as a cheerleader for Margaret Thatcher in her bid to become the Prime Minister of the UK, to satisfy the long held desire of BBC journalists to advance the cause of women's emancipation !?

I think Obama is great, and hope he makes a great president, but to remark that being part of this 'historic day' is 'cool' [what a fatuous word that is] when the BBC has so clearly wanted this outcome, is asinine in the extreme.

I-M-P-A-R-T-I-A-L is the key word here - no Licence Fee will exist without out and it is time for the 'cheerleading' to stop, and the asking of searching questions to start - this is your real job as a journalist, not getting 'back stage access' to celebrity parties.

Please grow up !

Glad you had a good day. It must have been fun.
I found the global Media Love-In rather nauseating, myself. You'd have sworn a Guru With Global Reach had been voted in to Solve All the World's Problems.
Endless love letters from journalists to Obama: projecting their longings/utopian views/desire for redemption on to the silver-tongued man with the Mandela smile.
[A closer look at Mandela will reveal that that towering, smiling gentleman sold out to neo-liberal policies pushed by US-UK power-brokers and left his nation as unequal and poverty-stricken as ever.]
Journalists came across as emotive, gushing and subjective. No analysis of Obama's actual words or policy projections; which hardly differ much (yet) from the Bush regime's.
As someone has said on another blog thread: If Obama doesn't close Guantanamo, pull out of Iraq, and acknowledge and properly deal with the myriad US foreign policy 'strategic blunders' of the last 8 years, the honeymoon memories will fade fast and the disillusionment will be particularly bitter.

Yesterday, I was trying to explain to my 5 years old (who had just been lend a toy mobile phone)about Obama being elected:
" today is an important day to remember. In America, a new man has been chosen to be the top man. For the first time, America has a black president that seems really good"
To which she replied: " What is his number? Shall I give him a call?"

in this modern world where polititians act more like celebraties and they play to the media i wouldnt expect mr obama's advisors failing in there jobs.

it will be up to the invasive media forces to trip him up or catch him out.

in todays market of instant celebrety there are a lot of nobody celebs who are just annoying some are polititians and ex polititians some are reality show contestants but all waste media time that could be used by real hard working polititians to improve the general knowledge base.

will mr obama play celeb or knuckle down and just do the job this we can only wait and see.

#3

"I'm disapointed that the wars in the middle east and the credit crunch haven't already been resolved by super-Obama. he's had 24 hours whats keeping him?"

Erm? He does not get sworn in until 2009, does he?

I am a Brit so I do not have proper grip on the procedure.

Where does the buck stop now, so to speak?

"The BBC played a big part in bringing the sights and sounds and statistics of an historic day in America to people all around the world, and that's just a cool thing to have a chance to participate in. "

The assumption of course, is that people "all around the world" are in thrall to American domestic politics.
The assumption is that people "all around the world" think American honour has been restored because - after voting in warmongering Bush twice - they finally voted in the deeply cool Obama.
Obama gives a surface impression of being that peace-loving, freedom-loving type of American - the type for whom Guantanamo and Lynndie England and Abu Ghraib would be anathema. The type for whom ongoing lying by high officials and out-of-control military budgets and belligerent talk would be anathema.
But will reality match the image? I hope so. Obama seems like a nice guy.
I can understand that, for journalists, it must have been cool to participate in a big, news event that projected sexy sound and visual bites - with little to no contextual analysis - around the globe.
But what exactly were you journalists participating in? Do journalists understand (or even care to understand) the nature of the 'product' (re-branded America) you helped a massive media outfit 'market to the world' so uncritically?

Given that you are proudly working for the British Broadcasting Corporation, would you please respect the way British people spell English. You will continue to be an alien until you honour us with the dignity of following the house rules in your colourful blog.

I might also add that previous posts concerning the embarrassing sucking up to the USA elections on BBC news was horrible. As one person said, "could you imagine that happening when Mrs Thatcher was being elected, just because she was a woman?"
One thing we have learned in Britain is that have a 'first' what ever as leader counts for absolutely nothing. Nice con-trick, Obama seems like a decent chap, but he won't be able to do anything with the legacy he has passed onto him. In other words he has been set up to fail, you'll see how historic that is. He is going for a prat fall, thanks to the last 8 years of Bush. The Republicans did not want to win, you could see how happy McCain was in his acceptance of defeat speech, "Mission Accomplished", the black guy gets it.

Anyway, please spell in English when writing for a British Public Service organisation, we don't want our kids to grow up illiterate like GWB now do we?

Thank you =8¬)

I congratulate you and all Americans that your democracy worked and was seen working by the whole world.

However as a Briton I did not need the indepth coverage .. I did not have a vote to change, quite rightly!

I did not need the saturation coverage of the result with it's very racist interpretation. The best candidate won .. voted for by millions of Whites, Hispanics and Asians so why show it as a solely black event?

Thirdly I am British and generally proud of being so but I am not "always proud" to be so .. My fellow citzens and my government make me wish I wasn't with alarming regularity ... That certainy about "always proud to be an American" is something that scares me about so many Americans and American leadership of the free world. The scences of thousands chanting USA USA at those final McCain rallies sound like the Red Guard chanting Ho Ho Hochi Min......

As proud as you are today tobe both an American and working for the BBC I am increasingly, and I fear irreversibly, ashamed of being British. Not because of what many people cite as the social ills of the country (becuase, in my experience, there aren't really gangs of hoodies roaming the streets, drugs are no more prevalent than they were 20 years ago and young and old will never see eye to eye) but becuase of the terrible narrow mindedness and axe grinding taht goes on, which the BBC blogs and their comments are a perfect microcosm of.

Look at post number two above. "The BBC just isn't working"? What? In what way? In the way that it provided consistantly better coverage than anybody else or the way in which it simply reported the "narrative" which fiercewildanimal didn't want to hear. Get the feeling he/she is a McCain supporter? I certainly do. If you want to see real "biased, opinion-centric and patronising" coverage of any story, try watching any of the American networks. Spend a day watching Fox News, then come back to the BBC to apologise for even thinking of calling them biased. Hell, even Stephen Colbert's parody of a biased reporter was more restrained than the rest of the Americans!

I'm not a ra-ra BBC cheerleader, by any means. The Brand/Ross debacle was one of the biggest cave ins ever and totally fueled by the same brand of over-reaction that colours these comments. Why can't people step back, take a breath and appreciate what we have: A world leader in comprehensive and free news reporting and a chance, just a chance, that the imspiration, the hope, the dream, that one man in Obama brings can actually turn things around.

The world looks ready to try and make friends with America again. That's the biggest story anywhere as far as I'm concerned..

@happydumps - "The world looks ready to try and make friends with America again. That's the biggest story anywhere as far as I'm concerned."

But is America ready to apologise and try and make friend with the world again? That's the real story.

After all the lies and ramping up of military aggression and arrogant trampling of international law of the past 8 years by the US, I would think the world might like to hear some sort of peace-talk or overture of friendship from the US.

The US has treated others with disdain - and insulted intelligence with mendacious stories and introduced the crudest moral ambiguities into international discourse.

The families of hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqi and Afghani men, women and children will be wondering if America is ready to apologise for aerial bombing their countries - in 'revenge' for an event they had absolutely nothing to do with.

America is at a vital cross-road where critical decisions will have to be taken by the new Commander-in-Chief. Fortunately the future is in the hands of a charismatic and capable leader determined to steer America in the right direction. Hope springs eternal! Obama will bridge the gap between the rich and the very poor. America is pulsating with excitement.

Rome:
It is a great day for the United States, Barack Obama [and his friends & family] and the BBC...

This truly was a world election and not just for the US. It demonstrates absolutely that you can achieve anything in America. The day after the election I refused to watch any of the American news outlets on television, and only tuned into news from other countries, namely via BBC. It was only then that I could really feel the impact of this monumental and historic moment in our history.

The world is watching us now...but for better reasons.

Peace.

Read more on this at www.raverantrage.blogspot.com

Good to know my TV Tax is still being spent wisely.
How many journalists were sent to the States to cover this? Sure a new US president might be a big thing but for those people like myself who have no real interest in the outcome (afterall, it's going to be same masters controlling the "president" puppet), I felt sick to watch my TV Tax being spent in such an impartial and over-bearing way.

I demand a refund!

No news on the front page about Glenrothes... nothing but abundant praise for the socialist, ethnically diverse and politically correct Obama.

Oh and a story on the front page - presumably in place of "Brown expects drubbing from royally peeved electorate" - telling us that 9 out of 10 Britons are happy! You couldn't make it up.

In soviet Britain, BBC watches YOU.

I'm a little bit scared when such a number of people rely on ONE man to solve their daily problems. For sure he will not be able to tackle economics issues, so people will be disapointed. It is just a question of time. Then they will blame M.Obama for their poor situation and try to find another saviour. Media will sacrify M.Obama... At the end of the day the question is: What I have done today to keep control of my life?

First time I've felt jealous of Americans for one of their politicians!

I thought it was ironic that, despite the election, the BBC panel still frequently consistented of old, middle-aged, middle-class white blokes.

The comments of John Bolton caused a lot of comment amongst my friends, and had us reaching for the off switch quicker than Andrew Neil!

Obama`s election is historic, as it would have been if he`d stood for the Republicans. I was impressed with McCain`s generous and gracious speech accepting defeat. As before in his campaign he has gone out of his way to promote decency in the treatment of his opponent and demonstrates that he, and many of his generation, has adapted to the idea of a truly pluralistic America.

Perhaps the most important thing this election does is to make clear that skin colour or race is no longer a barrier to advancement in America.
One day America will have Presidential candidates of Hispanic or Asian descent and it will be considered unimportant and unremarkable, all that will matter will be that persons character, policies and record.
Once Obama`s Presidency begins America will have truly crossed over this watershed and it will be business as usual.

Could we do the same in the UK? After all we elected one of the first women Prime ministers.

Pride cometh before a fall. I don't see how anyone is justified being "proud" if they were born in America. Lucky yes, proud no? As for being a BBC journalist, well you are now among the ranks of a network that thinks calling people on the telephone and leaving harassing messages to the victim's daughter all being broadcast over the public airwaves is a harmless prank. In the United States that would have constituted at least one and possibly several felonies. Are you becoming a skinhead soccer hooligan too?

SheffTim: "...we elected one of the first women Prime ministers" - and look how cold and heartless she turned out to be - and her economic policies, later amplified by Blair, played their part in the crash you've just witnessed in the UK.

"I was impressed with McCain's gracious speech... accepting defeat."

Mission Accomplished. McCain knows he's handing over the huge Republican-made mess to a black Democrat to clean up - he couldn't be happier! Noticed how happy Bush is looking too - how quick to tell Obama: "Go off and enjoy yourself boy!"

"Once Obama's presidency begins ... it''ll be business as usual".

Too right. The frontman's changed but the Pentagon quietly received a massive, billion-dollar increase days before the Wall St crash. No-one's been voted in or out of the Pentagon. The militarisation of the US will continue apace - only this time Obama will be able to sweet talk more people into signing up to serve the flag.

Will Obama close down Guantanamo? Will Obama close down the string of military bases the US has built across Iraq during their illegal occupation of that country? Will Obama start resepcting international law with respect to Israel-Palestine?

We need to grow up and look at the US (and other) power structures in an adult way. We need to lose our childish 'groupie' mindset that has us ecstatically throwing our panties at rockstar Obama. There are too many problems in the world to sustain this sort of naivete.

Obama's election win brings hope and optimism not only for the USA but for the world.

However, I do wish that BBC news reports would make mention of the fact that he represents the democratic party and not focus on the colour of his skin and ethnicity, thereby perpetuating racial inequality. Justin Webb has a lovely tan but no-one mentions that!

#8 that was sarcasm in my original post.

However given quite how many times I read comments on these blogs along the lines of 'if they win McCain & Palin will have bombed Iran by Xmas' it would appear than not many people realise that the new guy doen't take over until Jan. Equally the media HAVE been claiming that simply voting for Obama would make the world instantly better- they've given him a billing that he can't live up to and they'll start taking him down in months if he doesn't deliver.

#23 "Will Obama close down Guantanamo? Will Obama close down the string of military bases the US has built across Iraq during their illegal occupation of that country? Will Obama start resepcting international law with respect to Israel-Palestine?"

Obama can close down Guatanimo within days. However what do you suggest happen to the Saudi, Yemenese and Chinese prisoners who make up 3/4 of the population? If sent home they'll be locked up in worst conditions than they are now and probably executed. THAT is why Bush hasn't been able to close it.

The occupation of Iraq is NOT illegal- the US have a UN mandate to remain there for the short term and have the permission of the current Iraqi government (UN recognised) to occupy those bases.

I'm unaware of any american breaches of international law regarding Israel. I'm also unaware of any UN recognised country called Palestine. What I AM aware of are illegal organisations such as Hezbollah who continue to attack Israel in breach of UN resolutions calling for ceasefires by ALL sides.

It would appear that Obama's biggest problem will be placating the usual crowd who make up 'international laws' to justify US bashing.

#18, angrymeercat:

No news on the front page about Glenrothes...

Oh you mean that thing that's currently the main story on the front page, with a big picture and lots of analysis? Riiight....

the socialist, ethnically diverse and politically correct Obama.

Obama socialist? What a strange centre of political gravity you have. Sounds more like the word being used as a meaningless slur.

As for politically correct, that over-used phrase gets banded about so casually these days that - like the word socialist - it's become little more than a meaningless sneer, in this case from right-wingers who get indignant that they (mostly white/straight/non-Muslim/etc ) are no longer treated as if they're the only people who matter. "How dare he! Sneer sneer. It's PC gone mad!!"

I can well imagine people who attempted to ban slavery and give women the vote being dismissed by the historically equivalent sneer of "politically correct" at their respective times.

Such people usually end up on the wrong side of history.

But please do feel free to elaborate on what you feel makes Obama politically correct.

the amero...a poem


along came a man called barack,
who will keep the secret agenda on track,

Bush jr signed the NORTH AMERICAN PARTNERSHIP in 2005,
Its now Obama's job to bring the UNION alive,

In comes the new currency, the AMERO,you see,
hopefully it will bring in some fake PROSPERITY.....

kind regards
nomorefakenews

Sirjohnwood, Comment 23

You have righteous anger about the state of the world. 45 years ago your anger would have been about segregation of facilities and the denial of voting rights to blacks in the southern states of America, the imprisonment of (and violence against) those that sought change.
The election of a non white American President would have been unthinkable even a decade or two ago; that is the point here. Don` t diminish the significance of this election, people died in the struggle for basic civil rights; getting from the 1950s to 2008 has been a long, hard journey.

And you are right; Obama should be judged by his policies and record, not by the colour of his skin. That is what Martin Luther King meant by ` I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the colour of their skin but by the content of their character.`
https://www.time.com/time/archive/collections/0,21428,c_civil_rights,00.shtml

The point about Mrs Thatcher is that she was the first woman PM in Britain`s entire history. Women in the UK ony received the right to vote, on the completely equal terms as men, in 1928. Before her only three women had ever been elected to that office anywhere in the world. (Sirimavo Bandaranaike [Sri Lanka] Indira Gandhi [India] & Golda Meir [Israel].)

To shape our future, first understand the past.
More to do? Clearly there are, things move on and the issues of the day change. But don`t diminish the past and those that went before you.

I agree entirely with fiercewildanimal (#2), especially with regards to journalists giving their opinions. The BBC will always be in trouble while this continues. The campaign against George Osborne is a case in point and I don’t think the BBC has heard the last of that.

And lordBeddGelert (#4), as I recall the BBC WERE campaigning for Margaret Thatcher (and had it in for Michael Foot), although this may be hard to believe today. The BBC were liberal/left-wing then as they are now (perhaps not as much as they are now), but I believe that a desire to promote the cause of women in power and the fact the Margaret Thatcher was seen as a moderate at the time (close to Ted Heath) was enough for them to go against the grain.

As far as the US coverage is concerned, I cannot help recall the BBC’s admission that the “corridors of Broadcasting House were strewn with empty champagne bottles” after Tony Blair was elected as Prime Minister. The metaphoric champagne corks could almost be heard coming over the airwaves the other night.

At least their miniscule presence in the U.S. means that they cannot do much harm to the political process. However, in the UK, with the BBC’s 50% of broadcast media and increasing presence in other electronic media, the damage goes on. For example, how many percentage points were added to the Labour lead at Glenrothes by the BBC’s output?

Having lived in Britain myself, let me allow a few comments.
1) We are not "lost cousins" who made a bad decision in 1776!".
2) The Press, including the BBC, elected this new President. They will later destroy him in their rush to find every bit of dirt and expose it after keeping all the known facts quietly under wraps the last two years.
3) To be proud of one's country is not a vice and I've been to 77 countries. Never ONCE, did I come back to the USA and not be glad I was back in the most free democratic republic on God's great Earth.
4) Obama won with 98% of the black vote and half the white vote - who is racist????? If Obama had ANY qualifications at all to be President, he would have gotten a vast majority of the white vote.
5) Voters grew to hate Bush and blamed him for every little thing that happened, from global warming to lack of solar activity which is actually causing global cooling and everything in beween. It became irrational and beyond stupid. In this environment, there was little McCain could do about it.
6) As for Sarah Palin, without her on the ticket McCain would have lost 40/59, not 46/52 as he did. Many voted for him ONLY because of Palin, the only real Republican conservative on the ticket.
7) In two years, as the reality of what they have done sets in, the voters here will return to political balance and elect a GOP majority in the House and Senate, much as they did back in 1994 after the first two years of the Clinton administration.
8) I loved living in England and everything about it and I know how hard it is for most of you to admit the sun often sets on the former British empire but you are never out of the influence of American economic, political and cultural power.
9) All that said, the people of the USA mean no ill will to anyone and without us carrying the load, the world would be a much uglier place indeed and you jolly well know it!!!
10) I would close by saying England is our most loyal and best friend in the world and no one I know in the USA doesn't appreciate it!! Even if we are your forlorn and misguided cousins!!!

Really, Rome you are the worst combination for the BBC - American working for the BBC. All we get is the worst of the opinionated British and the OTT commercialism of the US. If you really want to achieve something, do the following:

1. Remind the BBC and the Brits that WWII ended in 1945 and the Brits were only on the winning side because of the Americans.

2. Tell Americans that Obama is not going to be the saviour that they all think he's going to be.

3. Tell yourself that you should get a proper job with an AMERICAN media organisation.

Pathetic, that's what you are

As an American you should be proud. Let me offer my congratulations on the nation's decision to all Americans! Well done!

As for the BBC coverage, I thought there was too much talking without enough information. And the touch screen thing was far too flash for my liking.

As a non-American viewer I preferred Al Jazeera's coverage as it was more relevant from a global perspective. Every comment that could be made form an American perspective had already been made many times.

That said I'm glad I caught the Gore Vidal interview on the BBC's coverage. Best part of the coverage without doubt. I wish it had gone on longer.

Question for the Americans... why do you have such long queues during your elections?

I voted some hours earlier here in New Zealand. Not much of a queue. Wouldn't have been five minutes in and out of the door.

This blogger makes the argument: https://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/11/7/211134/136/800/657193

Now I'm watching the local election coverage. I should find out the results by the day's end. I'm hoping for a Labour/Greens/Progressives/Maori coalition government, but it's pretty neck-and-neck and nobody knows which way the Maori party will go.

Well Mr Hartman, what would you have been saying had McCain won? Nothing huh?

It really does you no credit to produce such utter claptrap on this blog. Obama was elected as US President number 44 - his background as a middle class American is enough to confirm that he is a careerist politician. Is the black person in the Chicago ghetto going to wake up today feeling they have a great new life ahead of them?

So star-struck was the left wing media, including the BBC, with Nelson Mandela that it took them years after he was no longer president to take a timid look at the ugly reality of the violent New South Africa. And they have yet to explore the subject of endemic black on white violence and racism in that country. It is too incongruent an issue for the delicate political sensibilities of the left.

So I disagree that the left wing media will turn on Obama when (not if) if he doesn't deliver the socialist idiocy they are hoping for. They will treat him gently, as one would a good friend who has turned away from the path they hoped he would tread.

Rome Hartman should be anything but proud of the BBC's reporting on the US elections. BBC 'journalists' acted for the most part like teenage girls at a rock concert swooning over lead singer Obama.

When is the BBC going to start to live up to its obligation to be impartial?

NonEnglish #32

I think you hit the nail on the head. In all likelihood Hartman couldn't land a job with CNN or PMSNBC, and NPR and PBS wouldn't pay him enough. Besides, PBS's resident left wing America basher Bill Moyers has returned after making his pile at CBS. Or maybe he deludes himself that BBC 2008 is what it was in 1958 or 1968.

I think you are right about Obama too. Even an experienced politician would find the current situation overwhelming. I'm not saying McCain would do well but based on Obama's inexperience, it's hard to see how this election won't lead to a disaster. Once you get by the rhetoric, the personna, the hype, there seems to be little of substance to suggest that Obama currently has the wherewithall to cope with a multitude of seemingly impossible problems. He is clearly intelligent and hopefully will surround himself with people who know far more than he does. I think a lot of people who are expecting miracles including the US becoming a colony of Europe again are in for a rude disappointement. One thing about Obama that is clear is that his point of view is strictly American even if it seems skewed from the far left of his party. Let's not forget that history shows the Democrats to be protectionist due to their close ties to organized labor and have started most of the major wars America became involved in during the 20th century. This included WWI, WWII, Korea, and Viet Nam. Democrats seem far more willing to engage in wars than Republicans. Without Democratic support, Iraq would likely not have happened while the intervention in Kosovo was strictly a Democratic idea. Funny how Europeans didn't seem to need a UN Security Council for Kosovo, they never would have gotten one if they did. That war was not in America's intrest, it was strictly a European affair.

Dear Mr Hartman,

This blog is filled with right anger that Mr Obama has won and their comments owe more to seeking an outlet for disappointment than reasoned response to your post.

Leaving those aside, there are three sources of your pride that should be examined independently.

(i) (in paragraph 2) Pride at the gracious speeches made by both Mr McCain and Mr Obama. This is quite justified and is widely felt; it is an example to us all. This is seen in the UK press. First, the left-leaning Guardian newspaper:

"John McCain conceded the 2008 presidential election, which he described as "the great honour of my life", in a generous and gracious speech to supporters gathered at the swish Biltmore hotel in his home state of Arizona." [https://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/nov/05/john-mccain-concedes-barack-obama%5D

Also, the right-wing Daily Mail newspaper:

"John McCain conceded defeat today in a gracious speech urging his supporters to throw their weight behind the new president." [https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1083142/Boos-mar-John-McCains-gracious-concession-hints-just-beginning-Sarah-Palin.html%5D

As seen by comment around the world, this first source of pride is both widely held and widely justified.

(ii) (paragraph 3) Pride at the racial progress that President-elect Obama's success represents. Quite how anyone can not agree with this view is beyond comprehension for non-racist minds. The right-wing Fox News hailed the election as "historic" and "fulfilling the [Dr Martin Luther King] dream". [https://townhall.com/video/FoxNews/2176_081106-09547_110608_ff_king_B1200%5D

America should be proud at the election of a black man and it is merely bitterness that prevents this.

(iii) (paragraph 4) Pride at the work of the BBC in its coverage of this story, particularly for a world audience. This is the only pride that I do not endorse; whilst admirable, the BBC coverage was inadequate in many ways. Technical failures played a big part in the marathon coverage programme, but the greatest weakness was David Dimbleby. Whereas his mastery over British elections is certified, his ability in covering American presidential (and Congressional and gubernatorial) elections was far inferior. His inability to control the conversation (particularly the disaster that was John Bolton) and his woeful ignorance of many aspects of American political culture were striking. Chiefly, however, he conveyed an atmosphere of indifference (this is not the same as impartiality) and aloofness that was misplaced; there was no excitement or energy in the coverage at all. Energy does not mean an enthusiasm for any one candidate, but it does mean a lack of interest in the unfolding events. This was mitigated somewhat by the commanding presence of Jeremy Vine who managed his graphics magnificently, but did not cover for the anchor's downbeat atmosphere. I do wonder whether or not Andrew Neil would have made a better choice.

Thank-you for your post, which reveals a welcome human spirit in the heart of BBC production, and congratulations for your worldwide coverage. Yet whilst your pride in the candidates and in America are well-founded and justified, errors made in the BBC coverage ought to be examined with a sharper scapel.

Yours,
Jonathan

Michelle Obama said she was not proud to be an American until her husband was nominated for President. She grew up in an ordinary household on the South side of Chicago but managed to go to Princeton and then Harvard law school. She could have become a very wealty woman in her own right had she pursued her career in law as could her husband. Yet she somehow expected more. What? Who can say. She fared far better considering her humble beginnings than most people including most whites. She seems to have had a chip of some sort on her shoulder, undoubtedly put there with the help of liberal whites and African Americans like her friend Jesse Jackson. I for one am tired of the crap. Forty and fifty years ago and before, yes, race held many people back. Twenty years ago, some. But it hardly counts anymore, her husband's election is proof of that. How will the professional racial minorities always get screwed in America crowd make a living now that their cause is so obviously dead? Simple, they like BBC can pretend that it isn't. They will always find the obscure exceptions to magnify and distort to prove their case. BBC has proven to be an inferior journalist more akin to Pravda and Tass of the USSR than any legitimate honest journalist. It has fallen very far from its once exalted pedistal. It's greatest flaw...it's incompetent staff top to bottom and almost without exception. You're among quite a crowd Hartman. Pay close attention, you will get a PHD lesson in what not to do if you ever want to become a real journalist.

Where do I go to bring a factual omission to your attention? In your article at this web page: https://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7717578.stm under number 9 ("DYNASTIC POWER HAS TAKEN A HIT") you mention that "Mark Udall won the New Mexico Senate race." This was a mistake on two counts. First, Mark Udall won the COLORADO Senate race. Also, Mark's cousin, Thomas Udall, is the actual winner of the New Mexico Senate race.

I think your web site should have some sort of a quick link method of pointing out typographical errors and outright mistakes like this one without having to intrude into a relatively unrelated blog posting.

#6 that was one of the cutest things I have read. And yes people are "sick" of the celebrating but so what, if everyone agreed on everything then we would not need elections we would just all agree who should lead. I for one am glad for once in a LONG time I can be happy for who won, not sad. Historic yes, but he was the right person, in my opinion, to win no matter what.
:)

~*~
https://ember-heart.blogspot.com/2008/02/obamas-blossoms.html

This is what Michelle Obama said in full (Comment 39):

'What we have learned over this year is that hope is making a comeback. It is making a comeback and let me tell you something, For the first time in my adult lifetime, I am really proud of my country. And not just because Barack has done well, but because I think people are hungry for change. I have been desperate to see our country moving in that direction and just not feeling so alone in my frustration and disappointment. I have seen people who are hungry to be unified around some basic common issues. It has made me proud.'

I'm white, a little older than her; old enough to remember Martin Luther King`s `I have a Dream` speech being reported on the radio and, to be honest, I doubted that it would be possible for a non white President to be elected in the course of my lifetime. If you don`t understand the history of racial prejudice in America and the civil rights issue you may find it difficult to understand why.
https://www.time.com/time/archive/collections/0,21428,c_civil_rights,00.shtml

It has been a long hard journey from Luther King`s speech to 2008. King himself was assassinated in 1968. Times move on and attitudes change, and I am impressed and yes - proud - that America has demonstrated this week how far it has come in my lifetime and how much attitudes have changed.

I'm probably not alone in feeling this; this is what Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said about the election result: `One of the great things about representing this country is it continues to surprise; it continues to renew itself; it continues to beat all odds and expectations. As an African American, I am especially proud because this is a country that's been through a long journey in terms of overcoming wounds and making race not the factor in our lives. That work is not done, but Wednesday was obviously an extraordinary step forward.`

The Washington Post`s editorial opened with: `Like so many millions of Americans, we savor the phrase, and congratulate the winner, and celebrate the momentousness of the occasion. It is momentous for the generational change it heralds, the geographic realignment it reflects and the racial progress it both acknowledges and promises.`

I guess a lot of conservatives will now just try and deny that race has ever been an issue in American politics. Don`t let them whitewash history.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Proud of what? That the US elected an empty feel-good sound-bite?

Who do you think Neo-Soviet Russia was hoping would win? China, North Korea, Iran, Syria, Venezuela - the Taliban and Al Qaeda, Hezbollah and Al Sadr?

Do you think they're afraid of anyone except the US under George Bush? Do you think they are afraid of the party who wanted to Cut-n-Run from Iraq? (The party that wants to make sure that every American, British, and coalition soldier murdered there died for no reason.) From the party that talks about the principles that America and the West stand for, but isn't willing to fight for them - and is instead willing to let genocide, despotism, and terrorism have free reign? (Sound familiar? It's the mantra of the UN and Nato.)

Do you think that even our supposed "allies" on the continent in Europe are anything but overjoyed at the prospect of an America that they can manipulate both economically and politically? An America that is just as much in denial about the the post-9/11 world as they are?

Electing an African American or a woman could have signified the beginning of a new America. Instead it signifies the end. And there's no one to take our place.

But at least we in the US are still protected by two oceans. You're not.

Congratulations America!

The outcome of the election for the next President of the U.S. has lifted democracy in America to new heights, many might even call it a rebirth, with the successful acheivment for the first time of a coloured candidate to win this post for the top and most powerful political job in the West. If President Elect Barak Obama were to acheive nothing more than that feat alone it would still give him his own unique place in history.
More is of course to be expected of him, and if the tone of his acceptance speech is anything to go by, then he is as aware of this as anybody. Of all that he has inherited from the previous administration the problems of the Middle East require urgent attention and need the input of an objective political dynamic. Syria and Iran are correctly cited by Obama as being of prime importance with regards to this approach. True. Of relative unimportance is Iraq, and the sooner this futile and criminal agression is ended and the military toys are confiscated from the irresponsible rabble conducting this sad and viscious proto-facist Bush/Blairite campaign the better for the hope of making real progress in the Middle East.
But no solution for this troubled region will be remotely possible unless the deep long running crisis of the Palistinian/Israeli dispute is tackled with determination and commitment of a sort that it hasn't had to date, which means abandoning the heavily biased sympathetic American approach to Israel, burying the doctrines of Richard Perle and his Zionist confederates and being more supportive of the Palistinian demands calling for the end of building Jewish settlements on Palestinian territory for example.
However, we shall have to wait and see. Many good things may be expected of the future President Obama, but whatever he may be, it will not be a magician, and only time and experience will reveal all.

By the way....nice one Andrew Marr!!

NeoPoliticus #44

Through perpetual weakness in foriegn policy, the Democrats have been responsible for backing the US into most of the major wars fought in the 20th century. The good news is that we learned during the Cuban missile crisis that the President of the United States cannot ultimately restrain the American military when US vital interests and security are threatened. Kennedy cabled Khrushchev that he didn't know how much longer he could control his generals. If Obama proves as weak as you think and I fear he might be, he will get us involved in one very bloody war after another. The bad news is that they may be nuclear wars. OTOH, Obama became streetwise in the South side of Chicago which is its meanest side according to the song BBC wouldn't let me reprint the lyrics of. He may turn out to be much tougher than we think. For the sake of our security and world peace, let's hope so. Bullies like Ahmadinejad and Putin invariably back down when confronted with the certainty of being clobbered. This was the lesson Neville Chamberlain never understood.

I am from Ukraine and it's surprise for me that your old president and new decide work together during next 75 days.
Now I understand your proud. Only famous country and famous president can do such. Only such work can help your country fight the crisis.

[Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator]

How many years before we see a black Republican candidate on their presidential ticket?

Condi Rice for VP for example. Would they get full support from all in the party?

With a white mother and a black father, Obama is of mixed race, and could equally be black or white - using the definition used by the BBC.

I wish they would actually treat him to the dignity of the words of Martin Luthor King and not make an issue of his skin colour - Obama is just another well heeled democrat - politically lacking in policies, but really good at speeches!

Lets see what the next 4 years hold.

As #49 says, BO ' is just another well-heeled democrat ... really good at giving speeches'

The way the journalists have been going on - as passionate as teenage girls at a rock concert - you'd swear some deeply disavantaged boy from the 'hood had just been sworn in and appointed a couple of unknown but highly respected, progressive community activists - free of Wall Street, corporate and military tie-ins.

Now that would be Real Change!

Instead, it's a cool new label on a dented product, by the looks of things.

Obama won on good oratory, great marketing, brand placement and slogan-filled speeches.

We should be able to rely on journalists NOT to fall so eagerly for marketing slogans and nifty soundbites. It's not Obama per se who's disappointed me - it's the media's uncritical fawning over him that's so sickening - and revealing.

With a white mother and a black father, Obama is of mixed race, and could equally be black or white...I wish they would actually treat him to the dignity of the words of Martin Luther King and not make an issue of his skin colour... Comment 49

Please do not ignore the fact that race and skin colour has been a significant issue for many white Americans over the course of his lifetime.

When Barack Obama was born his (married) parents would have been unable to visit the 16 US states that banned interracial marriages, punished both partners with imprisonment and deemed all children from such unions illegitimate; this was only ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in 1967!

The change in attitude - by a great many white people - over the past few decades is why this election, and the skin colour of the new president, is significant and cannot be ignored. America is not yet truly colour blind, but this is a major step forward.

SheffTim - you are right. It is momentous and historic that a man of colour has risen to the US Presidency.

It's a great day for non-racists everywhere. Obama himself is marvellous. It remains to be seen who he appoints to the highest positions. By their fruit shall ye know them and all that...

But the problem is that there are far bigger issues here at stake than race - and these issues, which are of international import, have unfortunately overshadowed this domestic political achievement in the US.

These big issues include issues of war and anti-Semitism (I use the word Semitic here to refer to Arabs) and endless lies told to Americans and to the world by the Bush Administration.

If we want to dwell on race (I don't, by the way) we might point to the fact that two of the most mendacious members of the Bush Administratoin were people of colour - Condi Rice ('mushroom clouds' and 'we could never have imagined it') and Colin Powell (his preposterous 'WMD drones and 'anthrax' powder' (both fake) show-and-tell at the UN).

#52. You need a dictionary: there is nothing 'preposterous' about drones or anthrax powder. The British first tested air dropped anthrax spores in 1943 (rather too succesfuly- it took 60 years to clean up). Weaponised anthrax powder was used just after 9/11 in the US and the UN destroyed literally tons of the stuff in Iraq after the first gulf war. Equally unmanned aircraft delivering weapons have been around since WW2 and the US use high-tech versions over Iraq and Afghanistan (predators).

Powell was lying- he was mistaken. Like me he didn't believe a word Saddam said and believed the WMD still existed. This is why he resigned and later backed Obama.

Too right - there's nothing 'preposterous' about anthrax. We saw weaponised anthrax emerge from a high security military laboratory on American soil, then get posted about to key Congressmen in grubby envelopes childishly scrawled with anti-semitic text, just before the Patriot Act was rushed through Congress.

'Like me, he didn't believe a word...This is why he resigned ..." Do you have a reference for where Powell 'fessed up and spelled out how 'he didn't believe a word' and that this is 'why he resigned'? I don't recall reading this.

Do I NEED to provide a reference that Powell didn't believe a word coming out of Saddams' mouth? After 10 years of mucking UN weapons inspectors and about and claiming to have won 'the mother of all battles' he wasn't exactly Mister Credible on the world stage.

I'd love to know the exact truth about the anthrax used in the US just after 9/11 too, but if it was designed to get the patriot act approved it was a pretty half-assed effort. Are we really meant to believe that that was the best the CIA (or whoever you'd like to blame) could manage? The Una-bomber did better.

Certainly it looks like the old fashioned racism you describe has taken a battering. But don't applaud the death of racism just yet, there is a 21st century version....

Nearly half of all white voters (43%) were willing to vote for a black man.

But 95% of black voters voted for a candidate with the same colour skin as themselves.

Racism is not finished just yet - we can really applaud when ALL people vote for the candidate, not the skin colour.

Comment 56:
Yet 90% of black voters also voted for Kerry in 2004, so their allegiance is not just to black candidates. This time round black voters still only represented about 13% of the turnout. Even though the current economic situation favored the Democrats against the incumbent Republicans, in Louisiana, Arkansas, Tennessee, Oklahoma, Kentucky, Mississippi, Alabama, West Virginia and western Pennsylvania Obama's share of the white vote was substantially less than Kerry got in 2004; race does appear to have been a factor in these states. (Clinton won in Arkansas, Louisiana, Kentucky, Tennessee and West Virginia twice.)
Elsewhere, however, Obama managed to persuade many white voters to vote for him; for some in spite of, not because of, his skin colour.

Perhaps as more non white candidates are fielded by all parties then race and skin colour will eventually become irrelevant. This was the first ever Presidential election with a non white candidate standing for a main party. I suspect the next watershed moment will be when the Republicans also field a non white candidate for either President or VP. I would genuinely welcome that too.

Did you know? Condoleeza Rice was a classmate of one of 4 young girls killed in a 1963 Birmingham [Alabama] black church bombing by the KKK. The film Mississippi Burning isn`t an exaggerated view of race relations in the south at that time. There were many such bombings and killings.

Yet Rice is a Republican. Up until the 1970's many Republican politicians were strongly anti segregationist/pro civil rights, the party was originally founded to oppose slavery. It was Democrat politicians in the southern states that often proved to be the most racist. Many black [and Hispanic] voters are social conservatives and strongly religious; the challenge for the Republicans today is attracting those voters back.

I put in my 1st post (21): `One day America will [also] have Presidential candidates of Hispanic or Asian descent and it will be considered unimportant and unremarkable, all that will matter will be that person's character, abilities, policies and record.` I look forward to that day.

Drop bombes on anyone we think might kill us

This veterans day talk radio discussed our three thousand solders who were committing suicide each year. So three psychologists and a dozen callers rambled on for an hour, all of the intelligent elite and all in perfect agreement – solders are prone to victimize themselves.

Yes but who is suicidal, men who fight a war, or our sucker-bait society that glamorizes war?

I remember those who served with me in the Vietnam War, how 95% were of the laboring class. Remember how for the officers it was pure glory, but for us pure degrading slavery.

Remember how ex-alcoholic President Bush acted so suicidal moments after 911, and to this day how he is driven by knee-jerk anxiety.

For former alcoholics are most beneficial to society, so long as mortal danger does not give them a knee-jerk anxiety. For many times have I tried to help those addicted to alcohol, and to no avail as they could not cope with any confusion or stress.

Mr. Obama had as his main push the need for change, and with the public it hit a raw nerve. For Bush, except for dropping bombs on his enemies, changed not one thing that involved some kind of risk. To please Republicans and the rich he loved to do as it involved no risk. Continuing his two wars he liked to do as it minimized risk.

All Bush had to do when asked to discuss global warming was send an envoy, but this meant the risk of change. And be it to change the regulations of our finance industry, or propose some change in the Congo, the danger of failure revived the urge to drink, and to keep his sanity he had to back away from change.

Surely, no ex-alcoholic should ever be given the power to drop bombes on anyone he thinks might kill him.

13. sirjohnwood wrote:

"But is America ready to apologise and try and make friend with the world again? That's the real story."

The "world" can go and hang itself for all I care. We have over three thousand people murdered and you expect us to sit by and treat it as a misdemeanor?

Lest you forget, Afghanistan was at the time harboring Al Qaeda. Iraq was not directly involved but 9/11 showed that there is a very sound argument for not allowing your avowed enemies to sit safely, concocting their plans until they do strike at you. After all Saddam's regime was shooting at aircraft patrolling the UN-mandated no-fly zone already and had made unsuccessful attempts to assassinate our head of state on visits to the region.

I recall telling a friend about reaction in the European press to 9/11 and saying how even the French were supportive. His reply has stuck with me; "Europe will be supportive provided we don't actually do anything about it". How right he was!

57. SheffTim

"One day America will [also] have Presidential candidates of Hispanic or Asian descent and it will be considered unimportant and unremarkable, all that will matter will be that person's character, abilities, policies and record"


I will happily join you in looking forward to the day when ALL people vote on the basis of merit not race.

But as 95% of a racial group vote for one party (apparently coincidentally with the candidate with the same skin colour as themelves) just don't pretend we have reached that today.

#58 "Surely, no ex-alcoholic should ever be given the power to drop bombs on anyone he thinks might kill him. "

FDR and Churchill drank themselves silly most days in office (FDR went through 12 martinis a day and Churchill managed 2 bottle of champagne and best part of a bottle of brandy a day). Hitler and Himmler were tee-total.

I'm not sure where this claim that Bush is an ex-alcoholic came from. If he was then he showed incredible will giving up the bottle. Personally I think its the standard US technique of blaming the demon drink for an individuals personal failings. I won't name a certain Australian-American that has done that several times already and managed to maintain his position in hollywood.

Schwerpunkt wrote:
"The "world" can go and hang itself for all I care. We have over three thousand people murdered and you expect us to sit by and treat it as a misdemeanor?"
. . . . . . .

I guess the families of the dead brides and grooms at the various rural wedding parties that have been bombed by US planes in Afghanistan and Iraq over the last couple of years might use similar words to yours.

In their culture, weddings are big affairs. These people are not rich and save for years. Relatives, friends and children pour in from all over for the big event. Musicians, singers and chefs make it a big day on the calendar.
What have these people ever done to you to deserve an American bomb on their wedding party?

#62. At these weddings they tend to fire AK47's in the air. I suspect even you can work out that a group of guys in turbans apparently firing AK's at passing US aircraft MIGHT look hostile and might attract bombs?

I personally find it odd how many 'weddings' get bombed too. Its like all the 'baby milk factories' that used to get bombed in Iraq. Was Iraq the home of Nestle? Even the recent cross-border raid in Syria that got the senior Al Que'da guy was initially described as a 'wedding'.

That said I've frequently posted that using B52's in this way didn't work in Vietnam and it doesn't work now. You need to send in infantry on the ground not bomb from the air. This means fewer civillian casualties and bombing "mistakes" but far more military losses.

Mr Hartmann, despite my cynicism, I appreciate what you are saying. The hopes of millions of Americans have landed on Obama's slim shoulders, and let's hope he can carry them.
For the first time ever, America has a dark-hued President. For those Americans who abhor racism, this is a great domestic achievement.
While we can celebrate Obama's win in racial terms, let's not assume that a darker-hued president is automatically a 'man of the people'.
You refer to two fountains, Rome. I remember two towns in South Africa - the mud huts in the scrub-land were for the black people, the shining White Houses on the hills were for the whites.
Great was the poorest South Africans' misery when Clinton and Blair hot-footed it over to SA straight after Mandela was released after 27 years in jail to persuade him to ditch his 'socialist' ideas about houses for all the poor - in favour of Washington Consensus neo-liberalism and the IMF.
Mandela the Messiah unfortunately found himself swept along by big, well-financed forces almost beyond his control. Well-heeled British and American tourists still pour in to SA's magnificent luxury safari lodges and golf estates, giving a horrified glance at the tin shacks that line the highways, courtesy of the IMF stranglehold and the massive bribing of corrupt ANC officials by northern hemisphere arms dealers and other unscrupulous free marketeers.
Those that compare Obama with Mandela may be right on two counts:
- Both were/are surrounded by very powerful people with big vested interests
- Both were/are uncritically hailed - pure Cult of Personality - by public and journalists alike.
There the comparisons end. Obama is a well-heeled man, embedded in the US Establishment and sponsored by its elite, and did not spend 27 years in an apartheid jail fighting for the right to speak.

#64. Mandela was trained in terrorism (or guerilla warfare depending on you POV) by the Soviet Union in Ethiopia. His Tokarev pistol from that time in his life was recently auctioned. He was jailed for his part in a series of bombings and freely admits he was lucky not to be hanged.

He was repeatedly offered freedom if he would stop calling for the violent overthrow of appartheid. He refused. His (damn fine) speech made after his release was a call to arms. Its worth listening too carefully if you're not familiar with the words.

The real Mandela is not the one you, or the media choose to describe. I'd also suggest that South Africa is one of the few functioning african countries on the continent, precisely because they ditched their 'socialist' ideas. Better to have shanties alongside golf courses than just shanties.

#38

I really take exception to people who claim to "know" why others write their blogs. You can justify your opinions as you wish but please do not begin to think you know why I posted my comments.

Your notion that there are "embittered" people who don't like Obama's election "because he is black" is both offensive and cheap.

I have stated elsewhere that I believe both the main presidential candidates were substandard and not what the USA needs. In four years time we will have every opportunity to discuss what went right and what went wrong. Until then have the courtesy to accept that there are people who have very cogent reasons for not celebrating the result of this election.

59. Schwerpunkt :

"....

The "world" can go and hang itself for all I care. We have over three thousand people murdered and you expect us to sit by and treat it as a misdemeanor? ...."
-----------------


Don't worry too much. We have a massive semi-professinal 'anti-brigade' that are always protesting something. They'd started with the anti-americanism as soon as Bush was elected - before 9-11 let alone any response to 9-11.

Here is one clear advantage to Obama...

Now you have a left of centre president who is acceptable to them, the same people will be quietening down and scuttling back to save the whale, ban the bomb, end global heating or whatever.

We will still have to put up with them, but the US will be hearing far less now.

PeterSym -
"The real Mandela is not the one you, or the media choose to describe."

No. He's the one YOU describe, I take it. You seem to have got right inside the man's cerebellum and know all there is to know about him. Remarkable, really.

PSym - " I'd also suggest that South Africa is one of the few functioning african countries on the continent, precisely because they ditched their 'socialist' ideas. Better to have shanties alongside golf courses than just shanties."

Ah, but as you lie inside your beautiful golf course mansion you tremble in fear as gangs of AK-47 professionals - in groups of between 3 and 7- enter your luxury home, no matter how many alarm systems you think you have - tie you and your family up and clear out all you own - all in the name of 'repossessing' what was never theirs but what they know they're owed, since it was promised them.
It's feudal.
What a fool's paradise. What a travesty of an opportunity. What greedy, neo-liberal short-sightedness.

jon11uk

"Here is one clear advantage to Obama...
Now you have a left of centre president who is acceptable to them, the same people will be quietening down and scuttling back to save the whale, ban the bomb, end global heating or whatever.
We will still have to put up with them, but the US will be hearing far less now. "

. . . . . . . .

Wishful thinking, mate.

I've never witnessed such a short honeymoon.

One look at his cabinet line-up has made it all much clearer.

The Republican mess has been handed over a black Democrat... perfect, not so?

No wonder McCain said in an interview today that he's 'sleeping like a baby now' - Mission Accomplished.

Why do you think the neo-cons pushed Sarah Palin so hard? Mrs Hockey Moose was inserted to help sink McCain as fast as possible and lubricate the way for B.O. to slide in.

The higher McBama's been exalted, the harder he's going to fall, unfortunately.

jon112uk. Comment 60:
The term you mean is `partisan` (adherence to one party), which is something very different from `racist`.

In 2004 the black vote was overwhelmingly for a white Democrat candidate, in 2008 the black vote was overwhelmingly for a non white Democrat candidate. Supporting both candidates in turn means they can`t be classed as racist.

The questions are: why has the Republican party (the party of Lincoln that abolished slavery) lost the support of most black voters when it used to have substantial black support? Can it regain their [and attract Hispanic] support? Is it motivated about attempting to? Population trends suggest they should at least try.

#68. Mandela headed the ANC's ARMED wing which I believe translates as spear and shield. I never claimed to have got inside his head, but I have a fair knowledge of who trained him, when, and what he did with the training. I have also listened to his speaches.

I think we both agree that one mans terrorist is anothers freedom fighter and I understand why Mandela fought against the system. I hope I would have the courage to do the same.

HOWEVER if you wish to claim he was a peaceful socialist, a Ghandi or Martin Luther King it is in defiance of all the facts about his life and totally contrary to his words and deeds. he is a great man, but not a man of peace.

#69

I agree. Obama has neither the experience nor the backing to deal with the US economy and without that he is doomed to fail on crucial fronts. And the problem for the Democrats is that it was "liberal" thinking by the Financial Services brigade that created the mess that is the marketplace to day.

A "socialist" movement to create a wave of new property owners, with new found wealth "changing" their self image is precisely what Thatcher did in the UK with the sale of Council stock. Creating debt on such a huge scale locks people into a financial system that will never let them go. It is so crude and so simple it is a wonder that we didn't recognise it as such - feudal barons and tied property owners whose whole life depends on serving their masters and mistresses? Who needs slavery?

If the world needs a new mantra it is that ownership is only good when it is just and honest. We can really do without the dishonesty and immorality of our current bankers and commercial corporations. We should not pander to their pain and we should not be backing them. That means Obama is already the wrong person to lead.

In four years time who is going to hurt more? The middle class politician or the "average" American who will be jobless and worthless?

#63

"At these weddings they tend to fire AK47's in the air. I suspect even you can work out that a group of guys in turbans apparently firing AK's at passing US aircraft MIGHT look hostile and might attract bombs?"

Gives new meaning to the term "shotgun wedding." :-)

#73. I went to a wedding in Crete once- they dug out a German MG42 left over from the war and fired off 500 rounds of ammo (plus shotguns, pistols & rifles). It must have sounded like the battle of the bulge from across the valley!

Peter_Sym, you're a card. Do you curate a museum of WW11 weaponry by any chance?

As far as bombing innocent people goes, I believe two or more weddings have been bombed by US ordinance while we were all focused on the re-branding of the USA.

The thing is, this is not a joke. We need to pay attention to what is going on for it has has serious implications for our children and grandchildren, even if we ourselves are too cynical, stuck in outmoded, unhelpful ways of thinking or caught up in the boyish excitement of guns and battles. Ageing white boys and their toys are endangering world peace at the moment; even under the cover of a youthful black president.

#75. No, but I was a soldier and I served in the balkans for a little while where much WW2 german (and British) weaponary was being fired at me. The current US med. machine gun is a direct copy of the German war time MG42 so it paid to be familiar with old kit.

Its strange too how you don't consider aging arabs and their toys to be playing in part in the lack of world peace too.... just last week a suicide bomber killed 22 afghans while killing 1 US serviceman. If people like you were a bit less partisan about what 'collateral damage' you choose I might have more time for your opinions.

The presentation of BBC-WNA is too chatty. The presenters like to provide short commentaries on the stories they air.

It can't be too hard to briefly introduce the story, and at the end of the story move on to the next story, without a short aside, or a brief opinion offered. The presenters in London manage to do this, why do Matt Frei and now, Katy Kay have so much trouble?

#66

Dear bully_baiter,

You are reading into my post ideas that I did not express.

First, I should not presume to understand why people post. No; and neither do I. Yet, it is quite clear that many comments fail to engage with Mr Hartman's analysis and that they are overwhelmingly negative about the Obama victory. Consequently, for me to suggest that such posts owe much to a sense of disappointment seems to me to me to be both reasonable and evidence-based.

Second, you accuse me of pointing to/inventing “’embittered’ people who don’t like Obama’s election ‘because he is black’”. Sadly, I did not say this. I regret using the word ‘bitter’ with its campaign connotations. However, I do not say (and do not think) that people are bitter because of his colour. I think people are bitter that their candidate lost and this disappointment (perfectly reasonable and acceptable) prevents them being proud (which you should be) at the election of a black man. Basically – ‘see beyond your disappointment, at least as far as the skin colour’!

I thought both candidates were excellent politicians who engaged in an election that did enormous credit to America.

Despite the problems you reference #6, I am unable to understand any cogent justification for not celebrating the election of a black man.

Thank-you for your reply,
Jonathan

How do you stand it Hartman? It can't be the money.

Who cares? A dying empire, the epitome of hypocrisy, an example to all of how to screw up the world economy, has an "election". What a joke, give anyone enough money and the simpletons would elect them president. Must be nice to live in their one party state, good of them to split it into two identical "factions" so that the mugs who live there think they have a choice. As for the BBC coverage- can I have my money back, please? How many BBC people went there, for goodness sake?

Well, now the honeymoon's over, Mr Hartman, I'm curious to know how you're feeling.

The "calls for unity and common purpose" reveal that the divide between Democrats and Republican is flimsy indeed.
The Cabinet contains a large number of Clintonites, many banking bail-out types and hard-nosed corporate apparatchiks, Iraq war supporters and even a dodgy real estate agent with a couple of failed deals behind her.
Not much sign of real grassroots representation, revealing REAL change that even the little people can believe in, huh?
And if we're going to harp on about race (which everyone seemed to do when Obama got in) it's fascinating to see that Obama's Cabinet is overwhelmingly white.
So what's new?