Democrats, just say it! She rocks!

Regular readers know that I have been an Obama supporter for a long time, and obviously the change in the dynamics of this election since Sarah Palin was chosen by McCain had me worried. So I'd like to say it, and mostly to suggest democrats to say it too: Palin rocks!

The Republican ads, the discourse, even Karl Rove's op-ed in the Wall Street Journal pretending to give an advice to Obama to stop his attacks on Palin when Obama has not, in fact, attacked Palin: this all demonstrates that the fight about Palin is the fight the Republicans want to have. Why wouldn't they? She's good-looking, she's bold, she is indeniably different from anything we've seen on a presidential ticket before, and she is definitely a woman. And even the supposed skeletons in her closet are only likely to make her like more: So she was a pitbull with her former brother-in-law? Many think, and say that a pitbul is exactly what we need. So she believes in God and creation? That's better than being a godless liberal, many think. Plus, any questionable attack on a woman mechanically creates a defence reaction among some undecided women, and men, and with reasons. After all, claims that Palin is a monster are widely exaggerated. She's obviously not a liberal, but the thing that is the worst about her for us Obama supporters is that she's creating a strong movement in favour of John McCain.

Democrats can't win if the question is "do you like Wonder Woman?". Of course we like her. Who doesn't? God, I may well love her. I don't want her as President of course, but that's not based on her being a monster. They need to bring back the debate on "do you want more Bush?" (or even "what kind of change do you want?", etc) . So here's my proposition to Democrats and other Obama supporters: concede the point publicly. Governor Palin is an extraordinary woman and an exciting candidate. That fight can't be won, and obviously the Rove gang won't let it fade either. The Obama camp needs to clearly say that this fight is lost: Palin rocks! That way they will efficiently diffuse the Republican tactic of pretending that Palin is attacked. I'd like to see a McCain spokesperson saying "the claim from the Obama camp that Palin rocks is offensive and sexist and the only question in this election are about Palin's life and family".

And so here is, free of charge, a draft for an ad to run in all 50 states day and night: "The McCain campaign wants to make this election about Sarah Palin. It makes sense. She's an extraordinary woman and an uncommon candidate. But this election is not about Sarah Palin. It is about our country and our future. Do you really want more of the same policies?"

Come to think of it, the Republican VP president is not the traditional attack dog: instead, they invented the attacked dog, which is really new.

Whose fairy tale exactly?

"You say yes to Hillary and you won't have to worry about your future", said Bill Clinton somewhere in a townhall meeting in Pennsylvania yesterday. Who's telling a big fairy tale now?

And what would that substance be?

You know, they (clintonites in particular) say that Obama has no content. What do they mean by that? Well they mean he has no precise plan about the things he wants to do, the legislations he wants to pass. In a word (Hillary's), he does not offer "solutions", by which you should understand a description of the world as it should be.

There is first the little problem with that assumption that it is untrue and unbased. If you read Obama's book or his website, you can see that he has precise ideas and proposals on every topic, that he worked and thought through the issued that our world is facing.

But honestlty, I would argue that the existence of detailed plans is not what matters. One of the reasons I support Obama is precisely that he does not offer "plug-and-play" solutions the way Hillary and other traditional politicians do. When was the last time in Western Europea that a politician elected on a programme actually implemented it?

As Obama says, there is no shortage of good ideas. There actually even is a clear consensus on what should basically exist: affordable healthcare, pro-growth policies, pro-civilisation foreign policy, ending the Iraq war, etc. Everybody agrees that the real problem with change is "how do you get there". Everybody also agrees that the main reason why necessary change does not happen is the stability of political antagonisms and blockages. There are things politicians can't do because they wouldn't be reelected: upset the interests who finance their campaign and upset the voters.

I would therefore argue that the only way to create change in this political environment is through popular support. It has to be bottom-up. It is a very basic, very logical conclusion of political technology. It is definitely what makes Barack different: the popular support which, contrary to what "they" say, does not rely on magnetism or oratory skills, but on a precise idea of how to achieve conciliation.

What makes Barack different is both a mastering of what conciliation means and implies, and a capacity to mobilise people around those ideas and to share them. The hope that Barrack carries is a widely shared reasonable vision, a wide concern for how change can actually be implemented as opposed to a focus on how things should be regardless of what can be done (see Nader). On that, he is full of substance and his track record is remarkable. On that he is the most experienced and most skilled candidate.

But I had another point, as stated in the title: when you propose people "solutions" and "programmes", a description of how things should be, you don't hold anything concrete. What you offer is ideology, or "fairy tale", to quote Bill. And it is true that Obama
is awfully weak on ideology and pre-conceived solution that you should fight for.

Traditional elections, and traditional politics, tend to be Stalinian negotiations: here is what I want, this is not debatable. And the opposition of fixed blocks is the indepassable horizon of the political fights.

Because Obama does not offer the kind of thinking waiver which we are used to consider as political concreteness, some assume that he has to be all about words, or even worse, all about mesmerising crowds. We're that close to calling it Voodoo magic. But that's the exact opposite of it: a belief in intelligence, a belief that people can own their government and be concerned and involved in the difficulty of the choices it faces.