Here we go...

Polls are closing in the US shortly and the whole presidential-election buzz is reaching its peak. Meanwhile, one wonders whether much thought has been given to the next steps for the losers.

First up, note that whatever the outcome tonight, the next four years should be pretty difficult, so the president, whoever he (or, a heartbeat away, she) might be, will be vulnerable in 2012 if the economy hasn't picked up and people are still feeling the pinch.

If McCain wins, all very well for him, and I think we would broadly expect to see dismay and disappointment in America, and probably some cynicism worldwide. I suspect Obama would not reappear in 2012, since a great deal of his appeal has stemmed from his newness (it's all been about change, after all). But Hillary Clinton, Al Gore and no doubt a dozen others could jockey to dominate a damaged Democratic party in time to challenge a 76-year-old president in 2012.

If Obama wins, as everybody seems to be expecting, the effect on the Republican party seems likely to be much more extreme. Even during this campaign, there's been a lot of talk of the "Republican base", and McCain's choice of Sarah Palin as his running mate to satisfy that base gives a clear indication of where the power in the party lies. So a Republican failure, coupled with the whole "cataclysm" discourse of modern electioneering, suggests that the Republicans would swiftly elbow McCain - the self-professed 'maverick' - aside, and return to their more conservative roots, quite possibly led by Sarah Palin in 2012. Even if it's not the belipsticked pitbull, recent reports suggest that she and her wing of the party will be setting the agenda. So it could be back to babies-guns-n-Jesus for a moral crusade in 2012.

So is an Obama victory, ironically, the outcome most likely to drive a large chunk of the American political landscape back to the right, and therefore to polarise the country?

Ministerial broadcast

Whether it's for Obama or McCain, I find the idea that you can buy half an hour of US TV air time for your own advertisements pretty weird.

Heaven help us if we are ever subjected to thirty minutes of Brown, Cameron, or Clegg. Yikes.

EDIT: If and when they do arrive on these shores, I hope they lose the label "infomercial", as commonly applied. A political broadcast is not information - it's less than that. But it's not commercial, either - it's more than that.

Just when I thought it was safe to go back into the news media...

If there's one good thing about the whole Brand/Ross/Sachs hullabaloo, it's that it's finally driven the economy off the hallowed top story pedestal on which it has been persistently residing for several weeks, allowing media outlets both print and broadcast to put the willies up audiences with sonorous invocations of coming financial woe. So a thousand thanks for that.

I'm even more grateful that this furore seems likely to see us through until the US presidential election next week, which should pick up the headline spot for a good few days. And even more if there's a nice balloty mess in Pennsylvania or somewhere.

Brand and Ross were crude, then apologised, and this was accepted. I can see that there may be a case for disciplining or sacking either of them if it was live, but the real fault appears to be with the staffer/s who listened to the programme and cleared it for broadcast. That surely is the point of recorded shows - the entertainers are there to try to entertain, while the production team produce the thing. So while I think Brand is overrated, I'm not sure he should have been the one to go.

But what dismays me even more than any of these shenanigans is, as usual, the response: we seem to have two received opinions, one that they are both juvenile, irresponsible, offensive and overpaid and should be summarily dismissed, if not caned; and the other, that they are hilarious geniuses and everybody over thirty should get a life.

Why don't more people just not mind about all this? I'll regret writing this, but...is this story really more important than the economy?

Picking Palin...

Some early Palin-spotting now seems interesting and/or amusing. I like the reference in this blogger's post in February that Palin would be "like the Republican Party's Segolene Royal." Not a comforting parallel, but we shall see whether it was prescient.

Like Peter Mandelson....

...we're back.

More soon.

Mugabe, food, Rome, outrage, blah

The reaction to this story seems a little odd to me. What's the point of a conference, if not dialogue? Is the best way to help Zimbabwe's people to refuse to allow its government access to global expertise and opinion on food security?

Of course, there is a sense of deja vu about this. I'm not sure whether this sort of rhetorical flourish is particularly helpful, either.