"The values of perseverance, competence and resoluteness are neither as glamorous nor as emotional as the value of delivering inspirational speech . . "

Are you a McCainite in disguise? McCain is the far superior candidate between amongst the three, even when he is 81. Check out his Feb 12 victory speech (archived on NY Times), bestest speech this election season.

Mr. Soon,

I am rather disappointed with this article. As you know, I am not an Obama supporter. So I am not commenting here to defend him. Rather I am commenting so that we can better political discourse.

Your premise is that a lot of young Sinagaporeans are ill-advised in joining "Obamania." But your arguments against him rely on alleged scandals and relationships with other people. So Obama should not be the nominee because these problems will be exposed by Republicans in the general election?

I hope this is not what American politics looks like to Singapore's youth: The best candidate who can survive the 'scandals.'

Mr. Soon, I know you are better than that and can bring better discussion. Why is Obama wrong due to issues, or campaign strategy, or at least something substantive? All three candidates (all candidates, really) have skeletons that opponents will find in their closets. This is the worst part of American politics, and I hope something that intelligent Singaporeans can rise above.

Don't even try to tell me that Mrs. Clinton doesn't have any, she's been attacked for 15 years, and probably has a much bigger closet than Mr. Obama.

My argument, Mr. Soon, is that you should be looking at Obama on issues, leadership ability, campaign strategy, even your favorite, experience. Moreover, if anyone can get past negative allegations, it seems that Mr. Obama is running a different type of campaign that could be successful in the face of them.

Consider this, lah
Sean Noonan

Small factual correction: Clinton didn't 'win' Texas; Obama actually won 5 more delegates than her there.

I hardly think perseverance in the face of almost certain defeat, at the expense of your own party's prospects in the general elections, is a value to be lauded. People were asking for her to withdraw prior to Texas and Ohio because many had done the math and found that she could not beat Obama on pledged delegates even if she won every remaining state by a margin of 20%, a feat she's accomplished only in Arkansas. It would be ironic if her 'perseverance' contributes to a McCain victory this November.

Bart,

Thanks for the speech. Will take a look.

Noonan,

Thanks for your post. I am merely saying that Obama is not a perfect candidate, and precisely as you point out, everyone does have skeletons in their closets. Yet, it appears to be that somehow he has been elevated an an image for a force of "unequivocally positive" change in the Singapore context (and perhaps America). I give credit to his charismatic speeches and his rhetoric of change as key reasons to why people support him.

However, beyond that, I believe that all candidates have positive elements about their campaign strategy, issue-related focus and their values - and these values have propelled them to be the front-runners of their respective campaigns. These positive values are what I wanted to show in the article.

Twasher,

Considering that many more people voted in the Texas primaries than the caucuses, it may not be wrong for the media to argue that Clinton won the state of Texas. Secondly, technically since full caucus results for Texas are not finalized till a later date, based on confirmed results, Hillary has a lead in Texas. However, you are right to say ultimately, Obama would most likely have won a majority of the delegates in Texas (but a majority of Texas voters - no?).

I am not sure whether she has met "a certain defeat" yet. A significant portion of the superdelegates have yet to make their choices and she is likely to win big in the next key state, Pennsylvania. And many political analysts are arguing that the continual focus on the Democrats in the media is going to help the Democrats in the long run - first by shutting out press reports on McCain relative to the Democratic frontrunners, two, galvanizing more undecided and dispassionate Americans registering as Democrats and three, spur fundraising campaigns.

Wayne,

You haven't addressed my point that she'd still be behind in pledged delegates even if she wins every remaining state as big as she does PA. And that's not going to happen unless, as they say, Obama is caught with a live boy or a dead girl. Sure, it's possible that the superdelegates will flock to Clinton even if she's behind in pledged delegates at the end, but any reasonable projection of Obama's likely final lead in pledged delegates suggests that she'd have to win over about 70% of the undecided superdelegates. Given that since Feb 5, she's gained only about 5 superdelegate endorsements while Obama has gained about 60, there is essentially no evidence whatsoever that there will be a mass flocking of superdelegates to her. Furthermore, it will probably be electorally disastrous for the Democrats to overturn 'the will of the people', however much they have a right to (and I am of the camp that they do have such a right).

I'm also of the camp that the current primary campaign is bad for the Democrats, primarily because Clinton's tactics are to explicitly diminish her opponent with respect to McCain (note that Obama does not return in kind). If both were campaigning by emphasizing their own positive attributes, then that's fine. But when one candidate is telling people that her rival Democrat is less competent than McCain, the Democrats have a problem. I don't think it's a coincidence that Obama's negative points with voters have gone way up since Clinton started the whole "both Seneator McCain and I have a lifetime of experience" meme.

As for the Texas caucuses, the point is that she is being asked to quit the race because of the near-mathematical impossibility of her catchign up in pledged delegates, and Texas has actually made the situation worse for ehr in that respect (even if she won the popular vote). So even if you want to play with semantics and call it a "win" for Clinton, it's still erroneous to put Texas forward as an instance of her 'revival' of her chances (as you and most of the mainstream media has done) --- in reality Texas was just another nail in her coffin. Yes, she 'won' Texas, but by no means was Texas a good result for her. By pointing out that she didn't win, I was not trying to give Obama a 'symbolic' or 'moral' victory --- I was merely disputing the point that Texas made her chances of winning the nomination any better. Finally, everyone seems to be ignoring the fact that Obama effectively wiped out any delegate gains Clinton had from Texas/Ohio/Rhode Island with victories in Wyoming and Mississippi. If the former three states were such a revival for Clinton, then surely the latter two must have been a knockout punch, given that both groups had the same absolute mathematical impact. I am simply calling for some hard-headed assessment of Clinton's real chances, which I think has been rare in the mainstream media.

Hi Wayne,

Just to point out a correction: the MP's name is Sin Boon Ann, not Sim.

Hi Wayne,

I'm not sure why you think going to premier schools like Wellesley and Yale qualify someone to be the POTUS. Do you think George Bush did a fantastic job of the last eight years? Anyway, if your point is that Hillary is brilliant, ergo qualified to be POTUS, I don't think you've even sufficiently supported your primary premise: she failed her bar exam.

Wayne,

I think you give far too little credit to young Singaporeans. Implicit in your article (which, by the way, is an excellent piece and I really like how you drew attention to the strengths of the rest of the remaining contenders in the U.S. presidential race) is that young Singaporeans are not thinking critically in choosing to support Obama.

I most certainly do not think that people are unaware of the strengths and weaknesses of each presidential candidate. However, at the end of the day, no country can have more than one president or prime minister. A choice has to be made. You appear not to support Obama (correct me if I'm wrong because that's the impression I get from reading your piece) and that's fine. It's your conclusion after thinking through all the information that you have gathered. However, that someone else chooses to support Obama after reflecting upon all the information that person has gathered doesn't mean his/her conclusion is any less legitimate. It's just that different people value different things. It is perhaps too much of a sweeping statement to suggest that people are being swayed by his inspirational speeches without giving critical thought.

Also, I think you are reading too much into the comments that were being made in the story. I don't think any of the comments allude to what you called "agitating for change in some forms of the political status quo". I see it as merely people making comparisons between the local context and the American context. Period. Saying Obama flies in the face of the norms of age and experience that Singaporeans are used to in their political leaders doesn't equate to me wanting my prime minister to be exactly like Obama. Similarly, saying that Obama has certain attributes that are attractive doesn't mean that our local leaders are lacking those attributes and it's time for change.

It seems to me that in trying to get people to see the positive aspects of the other candidates (which is certainly a good thing), you have, perhaps unwittingly, made alot of assumptions about Singaporeans who support Obama that may or may not be true. I myself am guilty of making assumptionsthat are much more ill-reasoned than yours all the time and I don't have the right to criticise you. Rather, what I do hope to ask is that you review your own assumptions about Obama supporters. :)

I am young. I am a singaporean. And guess what? I dont find anything great abt Obama. Infact, coming to think abt it, he doesnt even make any sense as half the things he promises cannot even be reasonably accomplished within his long life time. And if I had a vote, I would probably throw it against his and cast it for a more realistic candidate.

I really dont know what the ST is talking abt when they say young singaporeans are gaga over Obama, sorry, I dont see anyone here jumping around or for that matter any where else.

Do have a very nice day :)

Y

Elitist Hogwash,

Qualification to be a President should be decided by the American constitutional system, that is through the elections. Hopefully you can read the article in context - I am trying to show the positive values of each candidates. Obviously they are extremely intelligent and also flawed candidates in some way - the free-wheeling media ensures their flaws will emerge. Yet I don't consider her not passing that one-time D.C bar exam in the 70s as a "flaw", she passed the arkansas one later didn't she? Just as Obama didn't go to Columbia immediately, doesn't means he is not successful in his college career.

Sin:
Thanks for the clarification. Somehow I had the impression of him being "Sim" - even some official documents by the government has his surname as "Sim" - you can google it.

Twasher,

You have made excellent points on why you think that the continual race will pull down the Democrats and benefit McCain- and you specifically wish that Hillary Clinton pulls out. However, for the reasons I have stated, I think the continual race will help the Democrats. The fact is many more new voters signing up as Democrats because of this competitive race. Another fact is that both candidates are easily raising more money than McCain.

I agree with you is a long shot for her. But of course, a week in politics is pretty long =) Moreover, it is not mathematically impossible for her to come back? That's what they said about Obama in the beginning of the race. I remember in my Minnesota prior to the Minnesota caucus, Clinton was leading by 20 points in some polls. Yet, Obama won a huge victory 65-35 on the day itself, mainly because that was late swing to Obama (The Mthe polls underestimate the influences of caucuses in benefiting Obama. So I guess in politics, polls are fluctuating and everything is possible.

Wayne,

Thanks for the post, which is a nice attempt to explain the recent fad/phenomenon (this jury is still out on that one) that is Obamamania. Would the eventual result herald a changing of the guard? Here's my two cents' worth...

Singaporeans' fascination with this year's US election may be seen as a combination of several factors:-
- the relative political decline of the baby boomers, and subsequent rise of the Gen X'ers & Gen Y'ers. Respectfully, the boomers will one day feel that they have messed with our planet for long enough, and cede power (and responsibility) to the younger generation)
- the role that technology plays in disseminating news and information, chiefly through TV and increasingly the Internet (what with social networking sites, blogs and online chats)
- for once (at least since 1980 with Reagan, if not JFK in 1960), a candidate that appears to push for genuine change has surfaced -- one that brings hope to the masses. I suspect Singaporeans are anticipating the outcome of this election more so than others primarily because such hope seems distant on local shores, but that discussion's probably for another day...

For the sophisticated observer, the following points may seem trite, but nonetheless relevant imho, so please bear with me:-
- US elections are invariably personality-based, no matter how these may be dressed up as 'issues'.
- the media will, as rightfully pointed out in the article, starkly present the candidates in their full glory, or lack thereof, which ultimately evens itself out.
- US voters in recent times tend to fall back to the tried and tested, although the Hispanic vote is proving interesting with its recent swing away from Clinton in favour of Obama.
- in light of the previous point, money may not play as crucial a role as in previous elections, although it seems that McCain is quietly marshalling some significant capital for his effort amidst the Democratic squabble.

To clarify the issue of healthcare, there is a fine line between 'universal' and 'compulsory' healthcare. The main argument between Clinton and Obama isn't really whether all Americans should have healthcare (which both candidates have established that they should), but whether they should have a choice in deciding the quantum, timing and duration of healthcare received.

In truth, the Democratic race wasn't really skewed towards Obama even though he did go on an admirable winning streak i.e. Obama has a lead, but it is not conclusive enough to give him the required number of delegates to secure the Democratic nomination. The intricacies of the process make it such that it is unlikely that there will be an absolute winner until the Democratic convention in August.

Perhaps the most telling reason why Singaporeans are more caught up with this election that any other is the one that has been left unsaid by the author or any of the commentators thus far -- race. Would Obama command as much of the public's imagination if he were not as visible a symbol of change? Would Singaporeans be in the least bit interested if there weren't the possibility of a similar situation happening on home soil? To really throw a spanner in the works, what if a minority candidate led an opposition party with the prospect of change, and seek voters' blessings to win and become PM? Would our people be ready for such a move, or would the 'same-old' pragmatism hold back the tide?

In summary we're looking at McCain the Pragmatist, Clinton the Radical-in-Waiting, and Obama the Change Agent. Beneath the veneer, Clinton is rather hawkish on human rights, and may seek to further her husband's agenda, which was somewhat abandoned after the Lewinsky scandal. Despite having momentum in his favour, the one thing that Obama has yet to convince swing voters is Leadership and Implementation. Therefore on current form, the Pragmatist will prevail...

Hey Aaron,

Thanks for weighing in and your clarifications. I admire all three candidates for specific values as delineated in the article.

I do argue that some people who support Obama do not make the effort to look beyond their own candidate because they are swept away by his speech. However, people who support McCain for ideological reasons and Clinton for her strong grasp of policies may also fail to look beyond their own candidates to understand why Obama is such an appealing candidate to so many people. They might or might not change their minds after considering the alternatives. Since I have an impression that many young Singaporeans support Obama, I hope that the article would encourage them to also investigate the other candidates. I even lingered for an hour on Huckabee and Ron Paul's website, their supporters' blog trying to find out why he came from nothingness to challenge the giants of Republican establishment. It is quite intellectually refreshing to stand in the shoes of what some calls the "psycho" Ron Paul supporters in my school to understand why someone would support so enthusiastically Libertarian candidate like Ron Paul when most people in Minnesota supported the pragmatic Matt Romney in the eventual Republican caucus.

Spursfan,

Thanks for your cool post. I like to think of all three of them as change agents in their way. Even (eeks) George Bush was seen as a formidable change agent in 2000 from the Clinton adminstration. Gore with his refreshing take on the environment couldn't present himself as an independent from the Clinton adminstration. The passage of time on perceptions.......

Hey Wayne,

Actually, if there's someone else who I would support for President more than Obama, it's Ron Paul. The ideas behind Libertarian ideology is very appealing to me. Of course, he's a long shot, if not an impossible one. Looking at the pool of those with a reasonably good chance, I still think Obama has the slight edge in terms of being a suitable president. I would actually root for McCain if he can resist the neo-conservatives' demands but it looks like McCain can't afford not to compromise if he wants to win the support of the conservatives. McCain's a good man and certainly a good choice for president but well, there are larger forces out there beyond his control.

From the Asian Pacific Post

http://www.asianpacificpost.com/portal2/c1ee8c441910daf801191182df6d006e_Obama_fever_hits_Singapore.do.html

Aaron and few other bloggers get a mention.