I certainly can claim to be one of the early birds in detecting the strength of the movement towards Barack Obama. I am not sure that those early forecasts are of any importance except to the columnist himself, but they do reassure the writer that he, or she, is in touch with some sort of political reality.

On January 28th I wrote a column for the London Times, which started with the question: “Has Barack Obama developed the “Big Mo”, vital momentum that would take him through to the Democratic nomination, very possibly to the Presidency.” I answered my opening question in the last paragraph “Youth, idealism, style are powerful political weapons. On February 5th, we shall see whether they have captivated America. If they do, we shall find that they have captivated Britain as well. Barack Obama could have a message for us all.”

After Super-Tuesday, I went a stage farther. My opening sentence surprised many of my London friends and readers. I wrote that “it is hard to see who can stop Barack Obama becoming the next President of the United States…. Barack Obama has the future of America ahead of him.”

At any rate he has been fully tested by Hillary Clinton’s campaign. That had its own faults, and Bill’s interventions were usually disastrous, but we all came away with a new respect for Hillary’s resilience and endurance, even if many of us felt a great relief that she had lost. Now it is Obama versus McCain. Do I still feel that Obama is almost unstoppable, even though Hillary undoubtedly came closer to stopping him than I had expected?

There are of course inherent risks in being the first black candidate from a major party to be nominated for the Presidency. In 1968, the Vietnam primaries, Bobbie Kennedy, also a candidate of idealism, was assassinated. Separately from the primary struggle, so was Martin Luther King. Barack Obama is both black and idealist, a double challenge to the worst kind of American bigot. Everyone is aware of the risk, and nobody wants to talk about it.

There are other events which could change the ordinary pattern of political events, what the strategic study groups call “low probability, high impact events”. The classic low probability, high impact event was of course 9/11 itself. A crisis in the Middle East, or a terrorist attack on the U.S. itself could change the whole character of the Presidential debate.

However, these are not predictable events, they are merely conceivable possibilities. Outside those possibilities Senator Obama seems to me to be a very strong favourite to win the Presidency in November.

In the first place, he is the candidate of youth, idealism and change. Americans are tired of the Republican Presidency after two terms of George W. Bush. They are tired of the dynastic Presidency which proved a serious handicap to Senator Clinton. If she had won the Presidency that would have been the sixth successive term of the Bush or Clinton dynasties.

Senator McCain has much more experience of defence, and would be an impressive Commander-in-Chief, but he is already in his seventies – he is not a symbol of domestic renewal, because of his age. If the campaign concentrates on the recent Republican record, McCain will be hurt by that; if it concentrates on domestic issues, McCain is less attractive than Obama to the young and radical.

I still see Senator Obama as the candidate of change and vision. That was the appeal of John F. Kennedy. If America is tired of Washington cynicism, Obama is the Kennedy of the present generation.

William Rees-Mogg
The Daily Reckoning Australia

P.S. to get The Daily Reckoning direct to your inbox sign up to our free e-mail newsletter or if you prefer to use RSS, subscribe to the Daily Reckoning RSS feed.

Source: Barack Obama is a Strong Favourite to Win the Presidency

In Tuesday’s Pennsylvania Democratic Presidential Primary, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton achieved the absolute bare minimum she needed to prolong her battle against Barack Obama. And she still had a slight hope of somehow squeaking through to land the party nomination.

But that’s not the “real” story here.

In view of the irresponsible and damaging economic promises that are emerging from both contenders, the already-wheezing U.S. economy may be about to cry for mercy from the relentless and prolonged assault. And the longer the Democratic Primary War continues, the greater the fallout for the U.S. market.

We all understand the dynamics of U.S. presidential politics. In the primaries, contenders make promises designed to appeal to the most-committed, core supporters of their party. Republicans promise tax cuts so massive that they would immediately put the Federal budget into terminal collapse; they promise extra military programs; and they talk about a new batch of moral initiatives designed to make U.S. teenagers straighten up – once and for all.

Democrats, on the other hand, promise an impenetrable wall against foreigners taking away high-paying union jobs; plus social programs designed to rescue anybody suffering financial or emotional difficulties; and a spectacular new environmental assault against multinational corporations that will return the entire planet to room temperature.

Only the most simple-minded voters take these pledges seriously. The problem is that once the candidate is elected, some percentage of their campaign “promises” will need to be put into effect – presumably in order to reassure voters about the high integrity of politicians. Make 10 pledges, you can get away with implementing two; make 50, and you will have to implement at least seven or eight, if not 10.

Once the primary season is over, the game changes. Now the candidates are looking for the elusive “soccer mom” independent, who has all kinds of needs and desires but who above all wants to be reassured that the next president won’t do anything rash or expensive, because it might cost too much money or damage the economy.

The focus goes on to tiny little non-partisan initiatives, exquisitely crafted to win a particular voting bloc, but each only moderately expensive and hardly any of them economically damaging. More of these have to be implemented after the election – maybe 5 out of each 10 – so their aggregate effect is quite expensive and damaging, but no one initiative can be blamed for this problem.

Then, after the election, the politicians go back to rewarding large campaign donors and potential campaign donors in the usual ways, with the occasional populist panic when a crisis occurs.

The problem now is that the Clinton/Obama primary contest has gone on too long.

On trade, both candidates, who had been considered fairly moderate and rational, have already:

• Come out against a perfectly benign free trade agreement with Colombia.
• Have promised to renegotiate the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), already in effect for 14 years.
• And have made threatening noises against the evil multinationals that “outsource” good U.S. jobs to Third World markets.

Obama, for example, has proposed substantial tax breaks for those “Patriot” companies that keep jobs in the United States, and that pay union wages and benefits. If either candidate is elected, and puts into effect half of the protectionist policies they have supported, world trade will be thoroughly obstructed, and will probably decline in total. That’s a highly undesirable outcome; the only time we’ve seen this previously was in the 1930s.

Then there’s housing. Both candidates want to spend at least $30 billion to bail out the scorched U.S. housing market, helping defaulting homeowners through federally guaranteed loans that forgive part of the principal. Clinton even wants to add a feature, proposing the government buy foreclosed houses in the hope of reselling them later on.

This would all create an artificial price floor under the housing market, which sounds like a good idea until you realize that since the market prices would be artificial, there would be few free-market buyers supporting the market. That “reality” brings with it a high probability of a further downward lurch in home prices that could devastate market confidence and damage the U.S. housing market for years – if not decades – to come.

Both candidates have healthcare plans, and are currently accusing each other of being too mean to consumers. Only on the subject of taxation does the competition not run to who can give the biggest benefits; here the argument is who is calling for the bigger tax increase for the rich – sticking it to the rich is a key aim of many Democrat primary voters, however counterproductive it may be economically.

Once Clinton or Obama has been anointed as the Democratic nominee, the rhetoric will change radically. Gone will be all the hostility to multinationals, foreign competitors and those of higher incomes. Likewise, you’ll also be able to watch and see as the lavish handouts to subprime homeowners and the uninsured suddenly disappear.

In will come soothing statements about the candidate’s commitment to world trade and fiscal responsibility, combined with explanations of how their health and housing plans will be carefully targeted at those most in need.

From the U.S. economy’s point of view, that day cannot come soon enough.

[Editor’s Note: Money Morning Contributing Editor Martin Hutchinson has personally interviewed the economic advisors for candidates McCain, Obama and Edwards, and concluded that Obama and McCain would be the best candidates for investors. He wrote about the "Potomac Primaries" in mid-February. For a full report on the "presidential profit plays," please click here. The report is free of charge].