And now McCain’s latest effort:

Notice anything? Yes, that’s right. It’s not very good - again. The actual video is simply dull, visually. Very blocky, dark and far less intelligent than Obama’s. The comparison that springs most readily to mind is a Japanese hybrid car advert, not a brilliant piece of political propaganda. The closest this comes to actual visual or emotional manipulation is the relentless focus on technology and space - signalling a forward looking McCain quite at odds with that white.

White hair McCain seems very reluctant to display, mind. Compare Obama’s presence in his spots - young, smiling and all over the place - with McCain’s gloomy avoidance of the camera. Just two, short appearances in this, and short and sombre at that. It’s almost as if he’s afraid the voters will see him.

But perhaps that’s the point. The video’s underlying message is far more concerning. On the surface rides the usual bumpf; America is wonderful, McCain wants to keep it that way, he’s a patriot. To summarise: Blah. But underneath that comes the real message.

Observe the constant emphasis in the script:

American technology protected the world. We went to the moon, not because it was easy, but because it was hard.

John McCain will call America to our next national purpose: Energy Security. A comprehensive bipartisan plan to: Lower prices at the pump; Reduce dependence on foreign oil through domestic drilling; And champion energy alternatives for better choices and lower costs.

Putting country first. McCain.

Emphasis, as usual, mine. Just look at it; over and over, a focus on resolution and security. McCain will provide a, “purpose,” for America. He’ll, “reduce dependence,” on foreign oil, and so increase America’s economic security. And he’ll cross boundaries as a, “bipartisan,” leader.

The final picture: a strong, resolute leader who’ll work across traditional boundaries for the nations’ good. A uniter, not a divider (sound familiar?). And completely uncontroversial, and not a right wingnut you need to worry about.

And, unfortunately for McCain, it’ll flop. The claims he makes can be scotched in easy terms. The ad says he’s a resolute man who’ll keep at a task until it’s done; which, naturally, explains why this is his third slogan in as many ads. He’s an uncontroversial bipartisan - whose last spot was an attack ad. He isn’t a rightist loon, the ad implies - just one who wouldn’t be averse to, say, bombing Iran.

Oh, and the “uniter not a divider” bit. Already gone, I’m afraid. Change and unity have been Obama’s message from the start, articulated in soaring rhetoric; McCain is a member of the (conservative) Republican Party. That he’s been forced to snatch the meme for himself suggests one thing only - that he’s already lost the election on his own views, and must find someone else’s.

So, he’ll lose?

And the theme of today’s video is - political positioning! (duh?)

Note the careful imagery again: Barack in shirt-sleeves, because he’s not a stuffy office boy but a man of the people. Barack as a young man, because he’s not a 71 year old who won’t see his second term. Barack at a community meeting, because he’s a man of the people. Barack on the phone (at 3AM?), concentrating - because he’s a hard worker, who’ll never let you down. Barack signing a law, because he’s got some experience in Washington and isn’t the callow youth of Republican propaganda. Barack with workers, smiling, because he’s a man of the people. Barack with children, because he loves them as much as you. Barack talking to workers, because he’s a man of the people. Barack shaking hands with more workers, because he’s a man of the people. Barack hugging an old (working) lady, because he’s a caring and happy man of the people who everyone loves.

Conclusion: Barack Obama is a kind, friendly, hard-working man of the people, and not at all the aloof, inexperienced elitist of Clintonite agitprop.

And so on. And the message of the script? Much the same:

Obama: I’m Barack Obama, and I approve this message.
Announcer: He worked his way through college and Harvard Law. Turned down big money offers, and helped lift neighborhoods stung by job loss.

Fought for workers’ rights. He passed a law to move people from welfare to work, slashed the rolls by eighty percent. Passed tax cuts for workers; health care for kids. As president, he’ll end tax breaks for companies that export jobs, reward those that create jobs in America. And never forget the dignity that comes from work.

Emphasis mine. The message boils down to:

Barack Obama is a hard-working, ordinary guy. He worked his way through college; hard-working. And he’d rather work hard for others; turned down big money.

He’s a man of the people. He gave them what they wanted; but didn’t let them lounge on the dole like that nasty quasi-socialist the Malkinites claim he’d be. No, he protects American workers, and loves children. A Man of the People, and a Patriot.

So, a message totally consistent with his last ad. There, he talked to camera, espoused mainstream values, and painted himself a man of the people. Here, he protects workers, works hard, loves his countrymen - and paints himself as a man of the people. And rebuffs accusations of cold, unpatriotic, middle-class elitism from Malkin et al.

It’s pure political positioning. Obama needs to erect a break against shit slung by Republicans who smear him as foreign, aloof and socialist; so he emphasises hard work, “American values” and his populism. Vacuous? Mostly. Lacking in a policy message? Certainly. Dull? For anyone across the Atlantic, very probably.

But that’s not the point. 30 seconds isn’t enough to preach a sermon, but it’s enough to give an impression - and that’s what Obama’s doing. And it looks like he’s hit the right (hah…) spots so far…

Hello to all from Chennai, Hyderabad, Bhubaneswar, Mumbai, Mahape, Iwade, Kaizuka, Osaka, Higashiosaka, Sakai, Izumisano, Naniwa & Yuasa. We hope you enjoyed the blog.

Also: hello to our lone reader in St. Helier.

Rowan Williams yesterday struck out at the break-away faction in terms that were certainly a lot more vigorous than he is known for. Desperate times call for desperate men.

In his piece on the matter last month Douglas argued that the schism was a cause for joy amongst athiests. This is of course untrue and instead appropriate for anti-clericists and anti-theists, a largely inter-locking pair of factions who the Anglican Church have perhaps done more than any other Christian denomination to consider the criticisms of. I can think of no mainstream Christian Church closer to harmless.

This Church being torn in two and half of it being now utterly unrestrained in its bigotry {which is rather formidable in places} is perhaps not the most pleasing state of affairs imaginable. We can but hope that the importance of all religion fades and that the division within the Church weakens its resources and causes both sects to die away. Rather like happened to failed political project, Respect. Not to mention a plethora of other political parties.

Sadly a protracted demise does not tend to happen to Churches for a while longer. Or at least has a far lengthier duration. At least mild amusement is resulting from this one. For instance not the phrase “Protestant sect” being used against the Conservatives, with a claim that this is all that they amount to. As opposed to the Anglican Church, which…?

Worth a read is Ali’s response, which is, as ever on these matters, so well informed and heavily considered I feel like an amateurish ignorant when approaching this issue by comparison. In it he opines that a split was “Inevitable”. I imagine so but articles such as this were doubtless unhelpful. Rational analyses of the institution of marriage were doubtless highly provocative, although not least because it left the conservative case entirely in shreds.

It also makes it pretty clear that considered thinkers such as Chane can not co-exist in a Church also including deranged reactionaries such as Akinola, especially not while both fill prominent positions. Of the two it would cause far more numerical damage to lose the latter, but intellectually I have little doubt as to which would be better to collaborate with.

So it was the position no leader of any organisation would want to place himself in: compromise quality and lose the masses or cede to fierceness and be forced to purge some of the finest thinkers the Church has? An unenviable position for any man, so perhaps for Williams, someone without a doubt a man with the air of the ditherer about him, the reactionary wing forcing his hand is something of a relief.

At any rate, we can only hope that the manner he has adopted in relation to this issue {if anything one too soft} is sustained. Whether I actually desire reconciliation between the two factions is somthing I am presently uncertain over.

This strikes me as exactly the sort of article that Nick Clegg should be writing.

Emphasising both the total collapse of the increasing failed New Labour project and the unacceptability of the primary alternative {albeit not to my satisfaction with the latter, but to be fair this wasn’t meant to be a rant} Clegg does his best to set out why the Liberal Democrats are the only viable party for the disenchanted leftists of which there are so many. And what language! “A home for progressives”, why, we clearly have here a man atuned to his audience. Homelessness is unquestionably the sensation overcoming British left-wingers who see their intuitive party of choice demanding six weeks of imprisonment for the potentially without a charge or trial. Who read of alarmingly blatant references to “coercion” in internal government documents. Who plunged us into a pointless war that left our forces mangled and fingers blood-drenched then refused to apologise or retreat. Who seemed to pluck the very worst of statism and harness none of the best.

And that fidgeting, incessant longing for change that wafts across the Atlantic, where it seems that earnest leftism of some sort has become unstoppable. While here that momentum is perversely ridden upon by an institution that bears the word Conservative in its very name. That seems delightful if listened to absently but upon closer inspection reveals itself to be almost as foul as it has always been. Just as reactionary, if not more so. Serving the affluent instead of those with any real needs not provided for by the family estates. Threatening to set about fining those that live in family arrangements which displease it. Eying what little good their opponents have done while fingering an ill-concealed blade.

Yes, Clegg has us pinned down far better than even Cameron and judging by this display his ability to make the correct noises is even more skilled at making the right noises to coax our ear. The extent to which he is actually saying anything different to the Conservatives is questionable (see especially the references to the “Top-down NHS” he wishes to reform and cries for further localism) but there is the advantage that Clegg actually seems to be a man in possession of an earnest bone and thus we can expect these to be his genuine views, rather than merely what is expedient.

However if the Tories talking like him can be forgiven, him talking like a Tory can not be. Any politician who uses the phrase “ordinary families” runs the immediate risk of me slapping down the paper in disgust. There is no such structure and has never been. To exacerbate matters he brings tax cuts into it and thus begins basing his economic policy upon fantasy. Hardly a novel criticism to level at the Liberal Democrats, I am well aware, but when considering them as a viable party of power such matters must come under consideration.

Worse still he has bought into the rather peculiar notion of “Choice” being what the state should aim for above all in public services, rather than doing its utmost to ensure that it offers that service well. For instance in the example Clegg uses of emphasising the parental role in deciding schooling the value of assigning further “choice” is surely highly limited: a parent will wish their child to achieve and to be happy. If educational establishments provided by the state allow for as much then there will be nothing to choose. It is only the failures of the system which parents will attempt to swerve around and unless it can be outlined exactly how this will help resolve them this is in no way a solution.

But besides these irksome raw notes {which are what you get when dealing with even the most charming of liberals} there is salvation: Clegg had this reader almost salivating at his utterly unexpected ressurection of the term “Ethical foreign policy”. I once was posted on a parlimentary placement with a member of the Labour Party who, when I questioned him upon the dissappearance of this promise, curtly replied “Robin Cook is dead.” But in Clegg, it seems, his spirit lives on. A glorious piece of knowledge to possess, if not something we can be certain would become manifest were he to take power.

The pledge alone, though, gives me hope and pleasure. I had imagined the concept lost in an ocean of Saudi oil and the cash-for-firearms dollars of a thousand tyrants.

Clegg described it in the print edition as

lost on the road to Mesopatania

but that he at least has found it gives me some spark of desire for once not entirely futile that Cook’s vision be realised.

Something, then, for everyone here. From the easing of the tax burden (as the cutters would have it) on certain families to the statistical ruminations upon the poor to please poverty warriors to the anti-central talk that pleasures localisers to the aforementioned glee it brought about in me concerning matters abroad. It seems that he has gathered the foundation stones for an electoral coalition, here. Certainly enough for a studier structure than the rapidly crumbling edifice of the Labour Party.

Let us see what he builds.

“Sky News revamps website”?

Oh excellent, I’ll- wait. Ah, I see. Oh well.