A charismatic Democratic outsider with a genuine shot at the presidential candidacy, yearning to be seen as a unifying force rather than simply representing the ethnic minority vote.
- Trail Mix 2008: Barack Obama: king of rhetoric
- Three Line Whip: Why the Thatcherites favour Obama
- Toby Harnden: What Hillary Clinton has to do to win
- Christopher Hope: Why the US Presidential Election is just like the West Wing
The Establishment candidate, whose commanding lead in the polls is suddenly dwindling as the finish line approaches, opening up the prospect of a party convention where the winner will finally be decided.
On the Republican side, meanwhile, the traditional right wing base of the party is suspicious of the liberal views of their ageing frontrunner who refuses to pander to the religious right.
No, not the US Election 2008. Simply the plot line to the penultimate series six of the West Wing, the award winning American television show that came to an end last year.
Simply switch Barack Obama with Latino hopeful Matt Santos, hapless vice president Bob Russell with Hillary Clinton and Alan Alda's Californian senator Arnold Vinnick with John McCain and the scriptwriters might find themselves accused of creating reality TV rather than deep-thinking drama.
Of course the Americans have always had difficulty distinguishing between Aaron Sorkin's masterful portrayal of a fictional White House and the real thing. Shortly after the series first launched, a poll found most voters wanted Martin Sheen's president to be the real commander in chief.
Indeed New Hampshire is so proud of the heritage of Sheen's Jed Bartlett - a man who could trace his ancestry back to the founding fathers - that official signs proudly proclaim the state as his home lest visitors are unaware.
But to have contrived to create a presidential race to almost exactly mirror an entire television series seems a little unlikely, whatever the pervasive influence of television on American life. What makes the current race so compelling, even to those in Britain, is one of the core reasons the television series won so many plaudits.
At first The West Wing pulled you in with zippy dialogue and complex yet convincing plot lines. But after a few episodes you found yourself tuning in to watch what was essentially a moral battle of ideas.
Here was a coterie of young, good looking zealots who, regardless of whether you supported their liberal policies, were fervent in their desire to do the right thing. They were opposed by mostly grubby, pork barrel snouted Republicans who may have been portrayed as villains but whose occasional lucid counter arguments made them hard to despise entirely.
The real life battle for the hearts of America has echoes of the high minded struggles Sorkin so convincingly devised. Of course the idealistic, ideological drive of Bartlett's White House was derided by critics as a simplistic view of a world where professional politicians cannot afford to pander to something so inconvenient as principle.
And so it is on the campaign trail, where pragmatism is the only option and the drive to win - or at least not to lose - almost entirely overwhelms any sense of underlying ethos. At least in the beginning.
At the start of his imaginary campaign Congressman Santos was advised not to dwell on policy but to deal simply in "retail politics", selling himself as a concept to the voters. Obama has followed a similar route. He has captivated audiences with the idea of who he is.
Yet just as Santos began to score points by engaging in serious policy, so Obama has recently started to earn the respect of those who care for a little more substance with their style. By contrast Hillary is starting to stumble, in much the same way as the much derided VP Bob Russell faltered on television.
Their personalities are not similar - he is portrayed as a small-minded dullard who simply fell into the role of presumptive nominee. She, by contrast, is attacked for her over-reaching ambition and the overwhelming scheming cynicism of her campaign.
Yet just as Russell suffered from being front-runner for so long, so Hillary has apparently lost popularity for failing to offer a surprise. The voters know who she is. Her vision of experience is being eclipsed by a thirst for change in the form of a young, good looking candidate who intrigues the public and offers a taste of something new.
Russell was similarly overshadowed by the articulate and free-speaking Santos. Just by being unable to provide that same sense of vitality as her opponent Hillary gives the appearance of standing still.
In the fictional campaign, of course, Santos went to win the Democratic nomination after an inspirational performance at the party convention. Bob Russell slunk off never to be heard of again. Similarities aside, it seems unlikely Hillary - or indeed Bill - will allow the same to happen to her.
McCain's similarity to Alan Alda's statesmanlike character Arnold Vinnick is also striking. Both are aged in their 70s, while their public image is of truth-telling iconoclasts who win crowds over with a stubborn blend of honesty and belligerance.
Both of their problems stem, however, not from appealing to the centre, but from persuading the hardline Republican vote that they share their beliefs on abortion and gay marriage. Indeed one of Vinnick's most notable blunders is when he agrees to a backroom deal with the religious right to appoint anti-abortion judges in return for their support.
McCain has yet to be forced to move away from the centre ground. But any chance of succeeding George Bush may require him to do just that, completing the scriptwriters' forecasts.
Of course Santos went on to win The West Wing presidency after a bitterly fought contest in which a nuclear accident in Senator Vinnick's home state prompts a spectacular Republican collapse in the polls.
Obama may not need anything near so dramatic to claim both the Democratic nomination and the presidency itself. And if he can replicate the success of his on-screen doppelganger then the world might find itself reminded of yet another hit US drama where the White House is occupied by a black president - 24.
I live in New Hampshire, but I have never seen any of these 'home of Jed Bartlet' signs. Indeed given the State Republican/libertarian tendencies, I am skeptical that they would want to highlight the connection. I do see signs and references to Josiah Bartlet - the real former resident who signed the declaration of independence and has a town (Bartlet) named after him.
Could we not give all this cover on the long drawn out American contest for the next President a break for now. We in Europe have a lot more to be concerned about so how about tackling some of these rather worrying events ---- can start with Brown supporting a Blair run for the EU Presidency - scary thought that!
I don't think the parallels between this Presidential election and the "West Wing" are accidental. "Art imitates life and life imitates Art" - this time the political strategists on both sides have been taking notes and watching rerun of the show.
Dumbocrazy is a filthy game for the stupid masses to destroy/enslave themselves. Those that worship the political terrorists deserve to die.
It's Bartlet.
'I didn't have time to watch the episodes' Posted by Igonikon Jack on February 14, 2008 3:13 AM How can that be true when you have time to post ridiculous lengthy comments on every available subject every day of the year?
One supposes that John McCain is so far to the Left of the Republican Party he must be in danger of passing Hillary and Barack going in the other direction within the Democrats. Hillary and Obama must open up some differentials between their positions. I instinctively go for Clinton because I think she IS a known quantity and is not promising all things to all men. Obama has a little momentum at the moment, albeit in minor states, but is this about evangelist style rhetoric behind which there is very little substance and none of delivery? Mrs Clinton is adjusting her campaign machine, and will re-tune aspects of her message - but she is to her own self true, and while some call her a polarising figure, I do believe there is clarity about what she believes in, and what she wants to do with the Presidency. There is also a clear lead on many directions in the Bill Clinton era. Obama is a very unknown quantity. Take out the issue of mixed race - though have no doubt it is being used by him in his leveraging of voters - and may result in Hillary being more combative in that dodgy area - and look at Barack on the issues: there is no real substance at all. Old hands in the Party, the so called superdelegates who are not so politically naive as voters, ought to continue to back the known quantity. In the end the ticket may be Clinton-Obama anyway. Where is the other option for VP in the current debate? All the while John McCain is as far apart from the Bush administration and as close to the Democrats on key issues as any Republican can be. We may be looking at the wrong race here.
I love The West Wing tremendously, know it inside-out better than most and have been thinking along these lines for some time now. And anything which brings such a brilliant show to a wider audience is to be applauded. But let's not kid ourselves folks: this isn't journalism.
Gordon ConArtist Brown is pushing the EU constitution through the house and all the Telegraph can fill its pages with is the minutiae of the run up to the beginnings of some foreign election. Get a grip.
When you get right down to it, it's a case of age before beauty.
BORING ! BORING ! BORING ! And the election is not until November, many months of journalists' expense claims ahead. Why are we not getting the same coverage of the Russian elections, February in Siberia not so attractive ?
Oh boy! A president with PC skin-colour...No mention that he is a parasite that thinks he is entitled to other people's hard-earned income. Why does the mainsteam media/hollywood adore these criminal parasites...I guess they rely on "socialist" trouble-making thieves for their livelihoods.
Yawn!
Oh, how I miss Bartlet... The real thing just is no match. Even Obama can't get close to Bartlet. *sigh* But he will have to do. I don't see Martin Sheen running for president. ;)
"Here was a coterie of young, good looking zealots who, regardless of whether you supported their liberal policies, were fervent in their desire to do the right thing." Here you have a bunch of childish elitist parasites who had murderous contempt for people who wanted to keep what they earned... I wanted to kill them every episode. Imagine some childish jackass telling me that they own me. Political parasites are a cancer and better killed off.
I enjoyed reading Matthew Bayley's article comparing the current US presidential-election elimination contests with the fictional West Wing TV drama. I didn't have time to watch the episodes. But, in the two political theaters--art and real life--there are lots of drama. And, for the Democrats, add suspense--in the Obama-Hillary race. The Republicans have almost settled on John McCain as their nominee. By one estimate, he has garnered about 827 to Mike Huckabee's 217, out of the 1,191 delegates needed for nomination in a total available pool of 2,380. There are not enough remaining delegates votes to help Huckabee overtake McCain. Experts put that as a mathematical impossibility, considering the fact that some candidates like Mitt Romney had already taken out (won) 286 delegates. And, even if they pledge their delegates to Huckabee, it still cannot undermine McCain's lead. But, that of the Democrats is a real cliffhanger. With last weekend's and Tuesday victories, Obama has the lead in popular votes, aggregate pledged and superdelegates counts, and can claim the front-runner status mow. In one estimate, Obama leads Hillary 1,253 to 1211 in aggregate delegate enumeration. In another, it's 1307 to 1270. On average, Obama lead Hillary by 40 delegates. But, here is the cliffhanger: There are 2,025 delegates needed to win the Democratic nomination, out of the total available 4,049. Obama has won the last successive eight elections. But, these are not heavily populated states. But, that gave him about more 100 pledged delegates against Hillary, to make up the differential edge she has over the superdelegate projections. There are 796 of these superdelegates--party heavy weights not part of the primaries or caucus elections. About half of them are already pledged. And, about 380 are still available to either Hillary or Obama. The problem with the Democrats is that, even though the momentum right now favors Obama, the trajectory of this election suggests neither candidate can clearly clinch the magic delegate-nomination number of 2,025 without disproportionate infusion of the superdelegates. I just found out that there is a precedent: In 1984, Democratic candidate Gary Hart won 11 of 12 successive primaries including the mother load of California against the establishment candidate: Former vice president Walter Mondale. But, when the disproportionate superdelegate pledges were added, Mr. Mondale clinched the nomination. But, what is different here is the race factor. Democrats heavily depend on African-Americans' votes and support to win any nationwide election. Awarding the nomination to either candidate has repercussions. But, for Hillary, the only chance she has is keeping the delegate race as close as it is now, and sweeping the forthcoming elections of Texas, Ohio and Pennsylvania, where the prospects so far favor her; but overall odds still not. Another monkey wrench are the unaccepted Michigan and Florida delegates votes, which Hillary won. A possible intra-party, Democratic in-fighting on these issues, is one that favors Republicans most in a general election they are not favored to win. Stay tuned. Igonikon Jack, USA
The healthiest thing for democracy in the West that we've seen is the disintegration the Republican Party's unholy alliance with the reactionary Religious "conservatives". For the Democrats, of course, Obama is necessary because without him, they would have been forced to go with Clinton, who many fear (and not without cause) is too divisive to win. I think, as things stand, it's not so important whether Obama or Clinton wins, but whether or not McCain's anointment as the Republican candidate (and let's make no mistake here, it's now in the bag, so to speak) will fracture the GOP. Let's remember it's basically this formula which gave Republicans control of Congress in the 1990s and then the White House with Bush. The Democrats in their time simply could not convincingly rally around their candidates (Gore in 2000 and Kerry in 2004). To some extent, I think Bush can be blamed as well, for picking a VP who can't represent a conservative succession from current Presidency to future one. All in all, I think this is the most dramatic, important and, above all else, healthiest presidential race in a generation. Whether Obama wins or loses in the DNC or in November (if he makes it that fair) he and his campaign must be credited with waking up minorities and youth to their Constitutional birthright.