The songs - and the candidate - remain the same
- 29 Oct 08, 07:31 PM GMT
Raleigh, North Carolina: Nothing in high-stakes modern American politics is left to chance.
At Barack Obama's rallies there is a music playlist. It is played at every rally. No local favourites sneak in. Just a mixture of old and new.
There is "The Adventure" by Angels and Airwaves, "Celebration" by Kool and the Gang and "Give the People What They Want" by the O'Jays.
I am reliably informed by Rob Magee, my cameraman, that the Obama playlist consists of 21 songs - all soon to be uploaded onto his iPod.
Two songs, however, are used to define the campaign. One is the arrival anthem, that plays Barack Obama onto the stage. It is U2's 'City of Blinding Lights' - with its line "oh you look so beautiful tonight".
And after his speech, when he lifts the bottle of water to his lips, in comes the heavy beat and then Stevie Wonder's scream in "Signed, Sealed, Delivered".
In the arena, a soundman stands at his console and fades in the music, much as if this was a rock show. And in a way it is. The timing is usually immaculate.
Four years ago, John Kerry also had a playlist. His campaign song was "No Surrender" by Bruce Springsteen.
But there was a difference. Mr Kerry lined up rock stars to appear with him: Springsteen, Dave Grohl of the Foo Fighters and Bon Jovi.
Mr Obama does not need the band. He is the star. He does not need Hollywood stardust.
I can remember a whisper going around the crowd in Philadelphia: "Will Smith is coming". He did not appear and no-one cared.
The crowds are pumping for Obama, even before he arrives on stage.
(I recall a lunchtime rally in Madison, Wisconsin with Bruce Springsteen and John Kerry in 2004. As soon as Springsteen had done his fifteen minutes, the crowds drifted back to their offices. I always thought Mr Kerry should have done a deal with the crowd: "Hang with me for a few minutes and you'll get Springsteen as your reward.")
The point about the Obama playlist is that it reflects the campaign. I have covered a number of these elections and I have never seen such a disciplined, tightly controlled organisation.
There are no leaks, no raised voices. I am sure there are arguments between David Axelrod, David Plouffe and Robert Gibbs, but they do not show.
His critics may say he has never run anything, never accomplished anything, but his campaign management has been impressive.
So Barack Obama has begun what he calls his closing arguments. In these final days he charts his long, improbable journey from the cold of Maine to the sunshine of California.
There is much detail about tax and healthcare, but when all is stripped away the Obama message comes down to this: the country is on the wrong track and its time for change.
The riff line of his campaign is "change". And the crowd cry back: "Yes We Can".
Most of us desire change. Most of us dream of a better job, or life or relationship. We have all at one time stood on the brink of reinvention.
Change is beguiling when times are rough. And in that sense Barack Obama is a lucky politician.
America is less sure of itself and where it is heading than it has been for as long as I can remember.
What is wrapped inside the slogan of "change" is sometimes hard to pin down but it has served him well.
As the election has moved closer, so another theme has emerged - his populist attack on trickle-down economics.
He speaks of the "tired old theory that says we should give more to billionaires and big corporations and hope that prosperity trickles down to everyone".
He wants to grow the economy from the bottom up.
What will this mean in practice? I think an Obama administration will invest heavily in alternative energy programmes and infrastructure and hope that will be an engine-room for jobs.
There is a reflective element to Mr Obama's closing arguments. He thinks America has been living through a period of "profound irresponsibility" in the way its government and people have run up debt.
What he thinks has been lost in the past eight years is "a common sense of purpose".
As so often in modern politics, the message is inseparable from the man.
I have watched him closely at rally after rally.
His playlist does not change - and neither does he.
He is unruffled, disciplined. His organisation is tightly-controlled. They do not like the unpredictable.
Through set-backs and controversies he has conducted his campaign with grace and intellect. He does not strike me as a needy politician.
He has been carried to this point on the wings of rhetoric... to a degree. He has several speeds to his speeches.
I saw him on a cold Sunday in Wilmington. He spoke without notes. He was on fire, lifting up the crowd, letting them fall gently and lifting them again.
He knew how to surf the emotions of a crowd better than any politician apart from, perhaps, Bill Clinton.
In Berlin before a crowd of 250,000 he checked himself. He rowed back. He did not want to be the preacher on the world stage. He wanted to appear statesmanlike, showing off his knowledge of history.
And as the election approaches, he sticks to the words on the autocue. There is no need to take a risk. This is a campaign on cruise control.
The other night in Pittsburgh I had a recurring thought.
The expectations. That I was not at a political rally. The audience were not voters. They were fans, urging their man on to victory.
And as he drew to a close his oratory took off. He could not control himself. The passion flowed. The crowd sensed it. They were on their feet. Not listening to the words.
They were lost in the roar.
When the event was over, some of the crowds lined the streets. The light was on the turn.
The bitter cold had edged down from the North. Many of the people in the crowd were African-American.
They cheered their man out of town. Time and again they have told me "this is our time". This is their victory parade. It is as if the whole weight of their history is being lifted. At last.
But such expectations! What a burden! But that - if the polls are right - lies ahead.
The BBC is not responsible for the content of external internet sites
I’m Gavin Hewitt, following Barack Obama’s presidential campaign. My colleague, Matthew Price, is doing the same for John McCain.
Latest Photos
Clicking on any of these photos will take you to an external site.
Archive
October 2008
| Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | ||||||
| 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 |
| 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 |
| 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 |
| 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 |
| 30 |
Being Discussed Now
Latest: Reporters' blogs
|
Richard Black: |
|
|
Fergus Walsh: |
|
|
Robert Peston: |
|
|
Nick Robinson: |
|
- News Editors
- Sport Editors
- Journalism Labs
- BBC Internet Blog
- Radio 4 Blog
- Viewfinder
- dot.life
- Earth Watch: Richard Black
- Ethical Man
- Fergus on Flu
- Gavin Hewitt's Europe
- Magazine Monitor
- Mark Easton's UK
- Mark Mardell's America
- Mihir Bose on Sport
- Nick Bryant's Australia
- Nick Robinson's Newslog
- NI: The Devenport Diaries
- Open Secrets
- Peston's Picks
- Razia's Arthouse
- Scotland: Blether with Brian
- Scotland: Douglas Fraser's Ledger
- Soutik Biswas' India
- Spaceman
- Stephanomics
- Wales: Betsan's Blog
- 5 Live Breakfast
- Daily Politics: Andrew Neil
- Newsnight
- Newsnight: Michael Crick
- Newsnight: Peter Marshall
- Newsnight: Paul Mason
- Newsnight: Mark Urban
- Newsnight: Susan Watts
- PM programme (iPM)
- Today: Evan Davis
- Today: Tom Feilden
- Working Lunch: Declan Curry
- World Tonight: Robin Lustig
~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~56~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
Maybe the playlist is fixed because the campaign has licensed the right to use that music. Changing it frequently would require a lot more administration.
Complain about this comment
For a very transformational candidate he is also very risk adverse, which will stand him in stead for being President. I think Americans might be shocked (disappointed?) how "ordinary" things will be under Obama. I'm not saying he'll be a failure but after eight years of calamity the Obama administration might seem quite mundane.
Which would suit me perfectly.
Complain about this comment
#1 -
Haha, that's probably true, but it's very mean of you to say so - there goes our Gavin, constructing this big, lovely metaphor about a perfectly controlled campaign being like a perfectly controlled campaign, and you had to come in with that wet blanket ;)
As for the weight of expectations - good lord, yes. I am not American, but I can't remember the last time, young though I am, that the result of any election mattered so much to me. If he loses, it will be genuinely crushing.
However, I think people who are predicting widespread civil disobedience if McCain wins (and loses the popular vote) are overstating the case. At most, I can see there being a few major demonstrations, peaking on January 20, followed by a gradual return to more of the same.
Complain about this comment
If Sarah Palin gets in (because McCains heart won't hold for 4 years) the song will be "It's the End of The World As We Know It".
The Americans may not revolt against McCain if he steals the election but the world will disown America (for a start we should kick all US troops out of Europe as a warning to America that they may have helped us defeat Facism in Europe but now it's their turn to defeat it at home).
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
#5 undrakh
You casually link Obama's eloquence to both Hitler and Mussolini .... why not Martin Luther King and Ghandi.
You give yourself away.
Anyway to give your post more credit than it deserves and answer your point on oratory...
Obviously there is more to governing than speechmaking, however it certainly helps because people see you are coherent and in charge of your own mind and opinions. This is why Obama's discussion of policies has left McCain's campaign foundering.
McCain only surges as he fudges issues and reinterprets Obama's ideas in order to score cheap shots with "shock words" like wealth redistribution - what has Bush just done with the banking bailout?
As to empathy with the people .... whose policies will help the least well off .... and whose the rich?
Complain about this comment
Of course, writing fawning, gushing, starry-eyed accounts of your boundless adoration for Barack Obama probably falls well outside the BBC Charter and guidelines on impartiality, but we'll not say a word!
Seriously though Gavin - did you ever consider a career writing for Oprah's magazine?
Complain about this comment
#5 a comparison to hitler wow. tell me apart from effectiveness to rally a crowd? tell me how is obama in any way similar to hitler?
although obama's mantra is change, apart from implementing some sort of health care program that includes everyone, I dont believe he will change much on foreign policy or even tax policy. If he wins I would expect him to be similar to clinton in almost every way.
(clinton failed to implement comprehensive health care reform, but he tried).
quite frankly anything different from what Bush is doing can be seen as a drastic change, since it was the Bush admin that came in and made radical changes to the nations policies.
running the country requires a lot more than one man's influence, so unless he goes around bullying the congress and the senate calling anyone who opposes 'unamerican' and 'un-patriotic' like the current administration back in 2002, there will be no revolution.
Complain about this comment
Below are to examples of how Sam Cook's music Helps Obama send his message
As Barack Obama is being attacked by John Mc Cain for not picking Hillary Clinton as his Vice President running mate.
Once again Barack Obama turns to the music of Sam Cooks it Wonderful World to put his message of hope softly crush John McCain's attacks but show how out of touch with day to day live John McCain is. Check the Video Out on You Tube while you can.
Obama message injects three key change elements into the choice for American Presidency.
First, Freshness, Obama is a fresh face for Millions of Americans who have grown tired of hearing the name Clinton on almost daily in the media for the last Fifteen years.
Second is Vitality at Obama use the words "Hope, Change and Believe" in his speech's every chance he gets.
Third is Charisma, Obama's Tailored Suits, Good looks and Attractive family projects the hopes and dreams of so many Americans.
Obama likes to be compared to John F Kennedy but myself I hear and feel Late 50's Soul Music Sensation Sam Cooke in Obama's message.
Obama's likes to remind his audiences of the Power of Words the word I most associate with Obama is Infatuation.
In Sam Cooke's 1957 hit song " Darling You Send Me" Cooke projected the joy of new love to the American Public which long grown tired of the repression of the 1950's.
If you dropped the Word's "Darling" form Cooke's and insert Obama you capture the feeling inside the body politic of many Democrats today.
Obama You send me
Honest you do
Obama You thrill me
At first I thought it was infatuation But woo, it's lasted so long
Now (Obama) I find myself wanting To marry you and take you home
Complain about this comment
Gavin, just to say I have so enjoyed reading this campaign blog.
This is passionate, lyrical writing. Exhausting as all this must be, it is also something that I guess must feel special, historical, and maybe, kind of wonderful.
I envy you, this is not an ordinary assignment is it? But you are not letting us down.
And I don't normally come on blogs and say this kind of thing.
Complain about this comment
It really annoys me how left wing politicians like to burn the straw man of trickle down economics. The concept of 'trickle down economics' is unknown to economists, and no right-wing politician has ever suggested it.
It is true that according to the Laffer Curve certain tax cuts will pay for themselves, however, this is only under certain circumstances. Certain tax cuts have yielded a higher tax take in Ireland, Russia, Estonia, and the US. However, according to the Laffer Curve we wouldn't expect all tax cuts to do this.
Obama's populist tactics of soaking the rich, though, are hardly going to be conducive to economic growth.
Complain about this comment
One song not mentioned - possibly because its on a T.V. ad and not at a meeting; The Weepies 'Can't go back now'.
Yesterday, when you were young,
Everything you needed done was done for you.
Now you do it on your own
But you find you're all alone,
What can you do?
You and me walk on
Cause you can't go back now.
Complain about this comment
One song not mentioned (possibly because its on a T.V. ad & not at a meeting) The Weepies' Can't go back now.
Yesterday, when you were young,
Everything you needed done was done for you.
Now you do it on your own
But you find you're all alone,
What can you do?
You and me walk on
Cause you can't go back now.
Complain about this comment
One song not mentioned (possibly because its on a T.V. ad and not at meetings) The Weepies' Can't go back now.
Yesterday, when you were young,
Everything you needed done was done for you.
Now you do it on your own
But you find you're all alone,
What can you do?
You and me walk on
Cause you can't go back now.
Complain about this comment
How come undrakh's comment has been referred to the moderator for comparing Obama to Hitler, whilst Limey's comment that calls McCain a Fascist has been left up there?
Complain about this comment
#1 Garry_a_Hill
I'm pretty sure that the Obama team are up to the admin involved in changing a few songs around if they thought that would give them a better advantage.
Complain about this comment
To #4 Limey who wrote:
"but the world will disown America (for a start we should kick all US troops out of Europe"
I'd love for US troops to come home from Europe. The free ride of American protection needs to stop and Europeans need to take care of their own defense. BUT if we leave, then surely you must realize that YOU will be responsible for your own protection. Now considering that you all weren't able to defend yourselves at the beginning of last century (when YOU were the superpowers), do you really see yourselves being capable of defending yourselves now that you AREN'T superpowers anymore? And what about the cost of defending yourselves? Surely you can see that military spending will have to increase which means spending on social programs will decrease.
Methinks you have a severe case of little man syndrome.
Complain about this comment
Gavin
You nailed it
God help us
Complain about this comment
BS (#16), the administration is not in rearranging the playlist, but in arranging the licensing. This would be additional effort with not much point to it, a distraction.
Complain about this comment
Great piece, but I worked as a volunteer at the Kerry rally in Madison, and it was amazing with 80,000 people in a city of over 200,000. I did not see people leaving after Bruce Springsteen sang so I think the writer's comments saying that people went back to their offices was misleading. People came from all over and it was a glorious, sunny day where all were welcome, contrasted with Bush rallies where people were controlled and in rare cases, thrown out with opposing T-shirts, etc.
I thought this event was symbolic and have talked about it as being the height of how a democracy should be, so comments that diminished this event hurt a little....Jenny Wren
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
kewhattrick, perhaps if you studied military history and understood what went on in the European Political/Military Battlefields of the 18th 19th and 20th centuries you might begin to comprehend that the modern govts of Europe have learned NOT to look a gifthorse in the mouth; in WW2 as an example the Waffen SS troops, recognised as the BEST soldiers ever to have fought in any campain, were in the majority deployed against Russian forces as the U.S. forces were feared for their technology and not the fighting prowess of their troops ( Hollywood nonewithstanding ) and were not considered a threat in the same way the Russian army was, which was known for it.s incredible courage and determination to win even at the cost of hunderds of thousands if not millions of it's men and women. If the U.S. feels it has to have troops in Europe to serve it's interests, hey, we don't mind letting you "protect" us , when push comes to shove European troops are better trained and organised than U.S. ones, as so many NATO exercises have shown, our worry isn't the enemy. but so called
" freindly " fire from our U.S .saviours.
Complain about this comment
Poor Matthew Price seems to have drawn the short straw.
He writes about trailing round America in McCain's wake not even being allowed into the rallies. He is left with literally nothing to write about.
And Gavin can wax lyrical - literally - from the Obama trail.
Says it all really.
Complain about this comment
#17
Speaking as a British subject
I think you have an incorrect view of the American presence in Europe.
We let your forces use our country as a base to further Americas self image as peace keeper to the world. Although how you keep the peace by bombing a country back to the stoneage I don't know.
We don't need your troops here to defend us, we can do that ourselves thankyou.
And speaking as a member of the fifth largest economy in the worldI don't think we are suffering from little man syndrome
Complain about this comment
@kcwhattrick
Ever wonder why America has such a bad rep? Thats right, people like you.
Complain about this comment
re- post number 11 and trickle down economics......
Mrs T put her faith in this idea and used it as a justification for the sale of council housing to tenants ( social housing for our US readers) and the privatisation of public utilities.
I guess poster 11 is a lot younger than me...I was there and do not want to go back.
The idea failed. Most of the shares quickly went to the investment institutions ( so the amount and duration of trickle- down was limited), and we are left with a paucity of low-cost rented housing ( but lots of unsold houses and flats for purchase)
Give me one example of an old right wing politician who has delivered new ideas, that worked, and garnered the popular support to endure the pain whilst the policies inevitably took time to work. That's why people need hope.
Complain about this comment
re kewhattrick.....
At the start of the last century the great European powers were fighting each other, following an arms race in an atmosphere of extreme nationalism ( 'my country right or wrong'....sound familiar?). The end result was a war which still resonates a century later ( visit any small village in UK, France, Italy....look at the war memorials)
As to WW2, I do not recall the US initially being too keen to get involved to defeat Fascism in Europe, even when asked, indeed your ambassador in the UK was fiercely pro-Nazi.
And you did not save us free of charge: the UK only paid off its war loans from the US a few years ago
Europe knows that wars do not work. My worry is that McCain and his consort Palin have a very different view. The US is a lucky country: in crude body count, the world wars of the 20th century left them relatively unmarked with no civilian casualties and physical destruction of infrastructure . That escape is still relevant today because it makes the Right in the US think any war can be won 'cheaply'.
Obama is less likely to engage in war: even if that were his only saving grace, it is sufficient.
Complain about this comment
lets get real on this blog , lets get beyond peoples INDOCTRINATION via the SYSTEM.....
We have the NORTH AMERICAN UNION taking place in the next presidential term....
on the white house website.....
on 23march2005 at Baylor,Uni waco, Texas...presidents bush jr(usa) ,fox(mexico)..and matin(canada)....signed the
SECURITY AND PROSPERITY PARTNERSHIP OF NORTH AMERICA
SECURITY is really ID cards(control) for movement of peoples,i.e mexicans...yes the borders are coming down....(like the EU)
PROSPERITY is the NEW CURRENCY the amero
PARTNERSHIP is the UNION
NORTH AMERICA is usa,canada,mexico
the current money "problems" have been manufactured to happen.....other main UNION will be THE PACIFIC RIM REGION ...
THATS 3 MAIN trading blocks EU, THE AMERICAS AND THE PACIFIC RIM (as stated by karl marx in the 1800's who was a propagandist for the ruling elite)and other smaller ones i.e AFRICA..
all i'm saying is start to think for yourselves and QUESTION what is being presented to YOU...
kind regards
nomorefakenews
Complain about this comment
Is there nobody at the BBC embarrassed by its coverage of this election? An obscene number of BBC journalists are in America at the moment, and all of them have adopted variations on Hewitt's gushing tone when commenting on Obama. It's like having dozens of wannabe Simon Schamas running around chattering about the historic narrative while ignoring all the inconvenient details which might jar with the desired soft-focus picture of The One. How unlike the McCain campaign upon which the BBC's many hacks are only too keen to throw any mud they stumble across.
If a former McCain speech-writer had come out for Obama the BBC would be all over it, but there has been no mention of the former Obama speech-writer who has just declared her support for McCain. It doesn't fit the narrative. Likewise, there's been nothing from the BBC about the Khalidi tape, or the latest in the long line of revelations about ACORN, or the fact that - contrary to the opinions of BBC's self-important gatekeepers - it's the Democratic VP pick, not Sarah Palin, who is being hidden away by his campaign because he's an embarrassment, or any number of other stories that emerge every day about the Obama campaign but which the army of BBC journalists are unwilling to report lest his halo be tarnished. Quite frankly, the BBC could've saved licence fee payers a fortune by having just one journalist Stateside to read out the latest press releases from the Democratic Party campaign; the overall effect would've been the same, and the language would not have been as cringe-inducing as Gavin Hewitt's effusive prose.
Complain about this comment
17 Kwchattrick wrote:
To #4 Limey who wrote:
"but the world will disown America (for a start we should kick all US troops out of Europe"
I'd love for US troops to come home from Europe. The free ride of American protection needs to stop and Europeans need to take care of their own defense. BUT if we leave, then surely you must realize that YOU will be responsible for your own protection. Now considering that you all weren't able to defend yourselves at the beginning of last century (when YOU were the superpowers), do you really see yourselves being capable of defending yourselves now that you AREN'T superpowers anymore? And what about the cost of defending yourselves? Surely you can see that military spending will have to increase which means spending on social programs will decrease.
Methinks you have a severe case of little man syndrome.
...............................
Europe has 200 million citizens and is well able to defend itself. We don't need American troops.
Complain about this comment
#29, I'm not sure a speech writer changing allegiance makes much difference. They are just paid employees after all, much like the far more numerous paid McCain campaign workers who admit they aren't voting for him.
The theory that giving big businesses tax breaks helps economy has not really proven to work much in the US lately. They have happily taken the tax breaks while moving the jobs overseas. Now they seem suprised that the economy is suffering? Why the suprise? Every time you lay off a worker you lose a consumer, especially now that credit is tightening.
Complain about this comment
Gavin, You come across about as air-headed and intoxicated by Obama's piffle as these mindless Americans attending an Obama rally!
"They were on their feet. Not listening to the words," pretty well sums up the shallow mindset that now grips Democrats in U.S., not least converts like Colin Powell whose reasons for supporting Obama were so full of holes and devoid of depth I marvelled at the insanity that now grips much of this nation.
Evidently the powers of discernment and reason have departed for saner climes. Shades of Adolf Hitler rallies in the 1930s. The Germans, too, wanted 'change', intellect went out the window, insanity took over, and in time disaster struck the nation.
Elect a man of poor moral character like Barack Obama and America's decline will be truly sealed.
Complain about this comment
re number 29
News is about whats new. What McCain is saying is old and tired, lacks any originality, does not sit with the times.
The US is in financial crisis whilst being engaged in two hugely expensive wars overseas, neither of which is doing much for its so-called 'homeland security'. It struts its stuff on the world stage yet cannot achieve the peace and security it craves. As a major consumer of fossil fuels it has a shared responsibilty for the environmental problems we are facing. If McCain and his party had some good ideas about solving these problems they might get more column inches. Their brightest idea was Palin....nuff said
Complain about this comment
Re duhbuh. Posting 29.
Right on! I've already informed Matt Frei and Katty Kay similarly. Having for months watched from Canada these wretched election campaigns, and despite multitudinous evidence of Obama being a shabby individual and proven liar on a whole array of matters that are easily uncovered, and associates with pure grub - not least raving racist preacher Jeremiah Wright, ex-terrorist and still a Marxist, Bill Ayers, Muslim extremists such as Louis Farrakhan, convicted criminal Tony Soprana - all of which to the discerning speaks volumes about poor character, BBC reporters and news anchors prove as shallow as those of the pitiful CNN.
Evidently they, too, are caught up in the mindless excited I observe - now with profound contempt!
As I've said before, when nations abandon a moral compass and with that standards and true values, discernment and intellect to make wise judgement goes out the window. No more so than in America today.
We'll see how excited these air-heads are in four years!
Complain about this comment
4. At 10:08pm on 29 Oct 2008, Limey wrote:
"If Sarah Palin gets in (because McCains heart won't hold for 4 years) the song will be "It's the End of The World As We Know It".
The Americans may not revolt against McCain if he steals the election but the world will disown America (for a start we should kick all US troops out of Europe as a warning to America that they may have helped us defeat Facism in Europe but now it's their turn to defeat it at home)."
If I was american and had a vote I'd go out an vote McCain based on that comment. The idea that if the republicans win again it has to be because of fraud is incredibly offensive. Equally why won't McCain last 4 years? He's about a month older than Reagan was when elected (a man who lasted 8 years in office including taking 3 dum dum bullets in the chest) and 8 years younger than our Queen who still manages 400 public engagements a year.
Complain about this comment
#22. Presumably you never studied military history because virtually everything in your post is wrong.
The vast majority of german soldiers fought in the east because thats were most of the fighting was. The premier SS divisions were moved to Normanday before D-day and spearheaded the fighting there.
The same SS divisions were then at Arhem and leading the counterattack against the US in the Ardennes.
The US were not more technologically advanced. The US sherman was woefully less advanced than the German tanks and the Russian T34. Their infantry weapons were less capable and their tactics old-fashioned. Despite this the US airborne still managed to fight the SS into the ground around bastogne with negligable support from the air.
Most SS divisions were actually atrocious. They were made up of eastern europeans who hated stalin, given minimal training and captured weapons. They fought hard because capture by the russians meant death. There were 33 SS divisions and only the 5 or 6 Germanic ones were really good. They fought the US from D-day onwards.
Neither is the US the only side that has friendly fire. The only US lt general killed in WW2 was killed by RAF lancasters along with 1600 other US soldiers.
Complain about this comment
"His critics may say he has never run anything, never accomplished anything, but his campaign management has been impressive. "
And McCain, the experienced veteran, has in contrast run a sloppy campaign. I think you can get a sense of what a McCain presidency would be like from the attention-deficit cway his campaign has proceeded.
Complain about this comment
19. Gary_A_Hill wrote:
"the administration is not in rearranging the playlist, but in arranging the licensing. This would be additional effort with not much point to it, a distraction."
Arranging the licensing would not be that big a deal either. They would have to pay additional fees, but they don't seem to be short of money, to put it mildly.
Remember, in modern American politics a campaign stop is a performance. The music is like the stump speech. You work on it, hone it, then leave it alone after you're satisfied with it. You've got the timing down--you don't mess with it. When you take a Broadway play on the road, you don't rewrite the script in each city. The only people who hear the music or the stump speech over and over are the news media. And they only report when something is different--and then over-analyze it.
Complain about this comment
No.36 not quite true about NOT studying military history, I live 6 miles from a small village called Moulidier that was flattened by the Das Reich on their march north to Normandy in June 1944 from their base in and around Montauban 90 miles or so south of where I live. The quote about the superior technology actually came from an Officer of the Das Reich who in discussion with the author of the book which goes into great detail from 4 points of view French, German, U.S. and British of that march north about how they were harried by U.S. " Jabo's" once north of Tours and how the realisation dawned on them of just how great the firepower of the allies against them was when they got into their positions in Normandy. The point I was trying to make is that after two world wars and inumerable wars before then, invasion armies marching across all of Europe and beyond into Russia, most citizens here don't share the U.S's enthusiasm with military intervention as a early means of resolving cultural traits which don't acceed to the U.S.'s ideals of acceptability, particularly the Bush/Republican form of war making and therefore as Russia has now too much to lose should her fragile democracy fail. there is a serious question as to whether NATO or U. S. troop concentrations would be better placed elsewhere.
Complain about this comment
re number 35
The odds on McCain surviving 4 years are less than those of Obama: simple probability based on life expectancy ( go and ask an insurance company for life cover for a 70 year old....costs an arm and a leg...why? cos they are quite likely to die)Given his wartime experience, we might expect his life expectancy to be lower than the norm. Palin would be then be run by a 'back-office'......no thanks, we have had 8 years of a Republican president run by his back office.
Complain about this comment
Well it does appear as if European history is not taught in Europe.
WWI and WWII were European creations. Peace/victory in both wars was brought about because Non-Europeans cared and got involved.
Europeans live free and democratic lives because of this great sacrifice from the rest of us.
It's ludicrous to believe that a continent such as Europe could easily defend itself today. You all couldn't defend yourselves when you were the superpowers. Remember all the colonials who had to get involved in your 2 bloodbaths?
Ever wonder why the EU has never made good on its promise of a rapid reactionary force for Europe? Simple. It doesnt' have to. Should tragedy befall Europe, you all know that a good portion of this planet would gladly lay down our lives for you. How many of you would do that for anyone outside of Europe?
And I suggest that certain posters google "friendly fire" of WWII. I can assure you that these incidences did happen and quite a bit during such a chaotic war. And not by Americans.
Complain about this comment
kcwhattrick.....the US only got involved in WW2 after it was attacked itself. Prior to that event it was at least disinterested and at best obstructive to the war against fascism in europe. Post 1945 Europe was a convenient forward base against the USSR, we offered the US exactly what the Czechs and Poles and Turks now offer the US. In return we received protection: but there was a mutual advantage.
The idea that the US had to come to the rescue of Europe is rather hard to take, given that the war against Fascism started in Spain in 36, we in Britain carried it on from 39 to 41 years with little US help and the USSR sacrified the greatest number of lives.
Why is all this relevant to the campaign? Because McCain seems to have that American mindset , that war can work at little or no civilian cost ( because geography protected the US in the 2 world wars). I think he'd press the red button a whole lot sooner than Obama.
Complain about this comment
re. 39. johnnyrvf:
Actually, the US, the RAF, and the Russians all had their versions of Jabos. The US had P-47s (which by 1944 were being reassigned from bomber escort), the British had the Typhoon, and the Russians had the Stormavik. And earlier in the war the Germans had the Stuka. What made the difference was not the technology but the air superiority over France at the time of the Normandy invasion. I think there was only one sortie flown by the Luftwaffe over the invasion beaches. The Luftwaffe had taken a pounding in the British and American strategic bombing campaign and they were short of trained pilots.
If anything, the Germans had the superior technology. What the US had was massive firepower and an unending stream of tanks, planes and guns. My dad once described being in a 1000 plan mission over Germany. There were planes ahead and behind as far as he could see. And in the air war, the US was as willing to use human wave attacks as the Russians. The Eighth Air Force had the highest casualty rate of any unit in the American armed forces in the war.
Complain about this comment
Yup for a guy who talks about change, he doesn't change much. He should try practising what he preaches.
Complain about this comment
re. 42. olddocrob wrote:
"....the US only got involved in WW2 after it was attacked itself."
Not true. American Navy and Coast Guard sailors were fighting and dying in escort duty in the Atlantic well before Pearl Harbor.
Complain about this comment
"the US only got involved in WW2 after it was attacked itself. "
Yup, this is one of those Europeanisms that I love. Why should the US or anyone else for that matter have gotten involved sooner? Can you honestly tell me that the UK, France etc. got involved in WWII for any other reason than the fact that THEY felt threatened? I would dearly love to believe that a true concern for Jews was your primary reason, but I can't. If it were, then you would have gotten involved when Hitler first started discriminating against them.
Why Europeans hold a grudge against America for thinking long and hard BEFORE getting involved in another Euro bloodbath is beyond me. Can you honestly name me one time that Europe has gotten involved in a war in which it wasn't in the best interest of your continent? For some reason, when we Yanks hesitate to help you all, it's tragic, but when you all hesitate to offer help, it's called rational.
As for the silly "we in Britain carried it on from 39 to 41 years with little US help" . Thanks. Apparently, the Lend/Lease program meant nothing to you all.
Complain about this comment
#17 - Now considering that you all weren't able to defend yourselves at the beginning of last century (when YOU were the superpowers), do you really see yourselves being capable of defending yourselves now that you AREN'T superpowers anymore?
This kind of post makes me embarrassed to be an American. It the very attitude that gets us hated by the rest of the world and called arrogant because that's what this is. Please grow up. Our Declaration of Independence states that "all men are created equal" NOT that "Americans are superior to everyone else." Not to mention that bringing up something that happened 100 years ago is completely irrelevant.
Complain about this comment
One thing that is readily apparent from some of the European posters on this thread is the belief that America should have jumped to attention the minute Europe snapped its fingers over WWII.
I get the feeling that these posters believe there was an extremely close relationship between the US and Europe. That simply isn't true.
The "special relationship" between the US and the UK did not begin until the US got involved in WWII. Because of the alliance between the UK, the US, Canada, Australia and other former/present British colonies during such a horrific war, there is now a clique among the UK and her former colonies. It's a clique that France and other European nations wish they had with their former colonies, but unfortunately don't.
I think many need to stop putting the US/European relationship of today in yesterday's context. At the beginning of the 20th Century, it was Europe, not the US, who bullied, pushed around and bossed the world.
Complain about this comment
#48 - At the beginning of the 20th Century,
Who cares? It was 100 years ago. Are you one of the Hatfields or McCoys or something?
Complain about this comment
#47 Actually it's standing up and speaking the truth that gets us hated.
Ever wonder why there are still US troops in Europe almost 100 years after WWII? Ever wonder why the EU has not made good on its promise of a rapid reactionary force for Europe?
The answers are simple. It's because Europe relies on outside help (most notably the US) to help defend it. This is not arrogant or bullying to say this. It's the truth.
Europeans know full well that should any danger/harm befall them, a significant portion of this planet will come to their aid. Can you honestly see some country like Iran attacking France and the French not looking to us and receiving from us some help?
Claiming that the US was "late" to WWII is simply childish and only aggravates the belief that Europeans don't appreciate our help. Expressing a desire for US troops to leave Europe is simply sheer posing on the part of our European allies. Do some research. European spending on their militaries is nothing compared to US spending on its military. Why? Because Europeans are quite happy for Uncle Sam to foot the bill to help defend it. This is not arrogance. It's fact. A fact that makes Europeans uncomfortable.
Unfortunately, when you draw attention to this, you get comments such as "You're an embarrassment to America" or "You're the reason Americans are hated the world over."
Complain about this comment
"Who cares? It was 100 years ago. "
People should care. The ramifications of both World Wars (and European colonialism) are still being felt today.
Europe (with the tremendous help of its non-European allies) rid itself of Nazism. Because of this, Europeans live free and democratic lives.
With this freedom and democracy come obligations to ensure that others receive the same gifts.
Are you really suggesting that we shouldn't still care about WWII and that it should become just a footnote in our history books?
Complain about this comment
"Who cares? It was 100 years ago."
People should care. The ramifications of both World Wars (and European colonialism) are still being felt today.
Europe (with the tremendous help of its non-European allies) rid itself of Nazism. Because of this, Europeans live free and democratic lives.
With this freedom and democracy come obligations to ensure that others receive the same gifts.
Are you really suggesting that we shouldn't still care about WWII and that it should become just a footnote in our history books?
Complain about this comment
'Elect a man of poor moral character like Barack Obama and America's decline will be truly sealed.'
the current incumbent is a former alcoholic who has, by dint of his aggressive, ill concieved foreign policy, killed millions of people in the middle east and thousands of allied troops. Poor moral character is a slur that can be added not just to Obama
Complain about this comment
You Brits, really.
Obama is a black/white, slick, smart lawyer who plays hip-hop when he's alone and feels like dancing and staying in touch with the brothers in the hood.
If he was really going to change anything he'd start by cutting defense spending and pulling our troops out of Europe and Iraq and most other countries. No change there...
If he was the "new idealist" hope for mankind and making you feel good he wouldn't be sabre rattling at Pakistan.
But at least he will acknowledge that Europeans are not all godless-communistic-
wimps sniveling every time they are forced to genuflect in the direction of the WORLD'S ONLY SUPERPOWER.
Feel sorry for him, he's going to have about as much room to wiggle and make "change" as a man in a straitjacket. The irony of it all....free market capitalists having to admit they need to rely on a potent injection of socialism for capitalism to survive...hahaha!
luv
All American Boy
Complain about this comment
Re. America's involvement in WWII. I don't know too much history, but I'm pretty sure the US did what it did because it's leaders believed that to be in the best interests of the US.
Europeans (in particularly Brits) - This makes them no worse than we are.
Americans - It doesn't make you that much better either.
I don't believe that any country is anywhere near perfect, and this includes America, England and the rest of the British countries, France and anywhere else you care to name.
There's a lot of arguments which seem to be "America's perfect in everyway", "No it's not it's the source of all the worlds problems.", "Yes", "No", "Yes", "NO"...
Both sides are ridiculously extreme and just plain wrong.
As an example, freedom. Yes America has contributed a lot, but no it didn't invent the concept, and there's plenty of other countries that have also contribute. I'm currently sitting in New Zealand, the first country on the planet to give women the vote. Surely an important contribution?
I personally believe that America is probably a lot better place to live (for me) than plenty of other countries that could be named. But I prefer England. The reason is simple. I'm English, England is my home, and it's where I love. I'm pretty sure most Americans feel the same way about America. For that matter, most Iraqis feel the same way about Iraq.
Can we please try to stop petty minded mud slinging at each other? We don't expect much better from politicians, can we lead by example a bit please? Pretty please...?
Complain about this comment
#46 "Can you honestly tell me that the UK, France etc. got involved in WWII for any other reason than the fact that THEY felt threatened?"
We could debate this for years. Hitler truly felt that Britain was Germany's natural ally and in his dreams wanted a combined British and German army smashing the Russians. The British Empire and Nazi Germany could have existed side by side, especially if France (Germanys biggest trading partner in 1939) hadn't fallen.
Britain would only have been truly threatened if Germany had control of all the ports along the channel and north sea (which is why we REALLY went to war in 1914... we didn't really care about Belgian neutrality).
I'm rather proud that we declared war on Hitler in 1939 because at the time we didn't have to- it was the morally right thing to do at the time.
Complain about this comment
Post #46; kcwhattrick wrote:
"Can you honestly name me one time that Europe has gotten involved in a war in which it wasn't in the best interest of your continent?"
Korean war, Falklands war, Yugoslav wars, First Gulf War, Second Gulf War.
Just off the top of my head.
Complain about this comment
#57 The Falklands were British territory, inhabited by British passport holders and sitting on top of more oil than Kuwait. It was a 110% just war but we had massive self interest there. A spin off was that no other country messed with Britain for a decade (and by that I mean Guatamala especially)
Equally the first gulf war (and partially the second) ensured a safe flow of oil to us. Again self interest.
Yugoslavia was more complex, but were being overwhelmed by refugees and wars in the Balkans have a nasty habit of spreading so it wasn't done solely for the sake of peace. Indeed I was there and we did precious little of any use.
You have a small point about Korea but at the time Chinese communists were stirring up trouble in Malaya and threatening Hong Kong so we had something to gain from stopping the communist spread.
Going to war when you have nothing to gain from it is the stupidiest sort of war. The 'gain' we get from Afghanistan and Iraq is less than the cost which is why they're unpopular.
Complain about this comment
#56 Peter Sym who said "I'm rather proud that we declared war on Hitler in 1939 because at the time we didn't have to- it was the morally right thing to do at the time."
And I'm rather proud that the US thought long and hard BEFORE entering yet another European bloodbath. It's ironic that you feel the UK didn't have to enter in 1939 while many of your fellow Europeans criticize the US for NOT entering the same year.
Along with too many Americans who feel we "won" WWII for everyone, there are too many Europeans who feel that
1) There was some sort of deadline to join WWI and II and that America somehow missed it and was "late".
2) That when Europeans are suffering/in danger, it's morally right to immediately get involved and help out. How many non-Europeans have suffered just as badly as, if not worse than, Europeans only to receive no amount of help? For some strange reason, Americans helping Iraqis is bad, but if the Iraqis were European, the view would be drastically different.
I just don't buy the whole "you were late and only got involved for your own interests" complaint.
3)
Complain about this comment
#59. Quite agree.
By the way, I don't think many people were aware of the holocaust until after the end of the war. I seem to recall reading somewhere that the US general who first came across Belson was pretty shocked by what had been happening there.
UK got involved when Poland was invaded, this had always been our line in the sand, and I believe general policy was to prevent any one country getting to powerful, to upset the balance of power. In short, UK got involved for its own interests. Moral arguments for the war have merit, but they're not why we went in.
Having said that, my knowledge of history isn't great, so if someone knows better, then please correct me. :)
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS