I didn’t sleep all that well last night due to two factors: one, my annoying tickly cough that won’t go away; and two, wanting to know the results of the election. I had planned to get up early today to see the results rather than wait up for what looks to have been an all-nighter. I was almost happy when my cough woke me at 1.30 this morning because I decided while trying to cool my throat with water I would look online to see what the results were looking like.

For you see, in the back of my mind, like that annoying cough that won’t go away was the fear that McCain might just pull it off. That we would be in for at least another four years of right-wing nuttery and hawkishness kept me awake last night. Just before I awoke at 6.30 to finally see the results I had a dream that McCain won. In that dream I sobbed…like a little girl…who had her toy taken away…by a bad man…named McCain.

I was so nervous as I got up, walked to the living room and opened the laptop. What was I going to see? My stomach was in my throat (along with the phlegmy cough) and I braced myself for the news. As soon as I saw Obama’s face and the headlines I shed a couple of tears.

I’m bloody exhausted from tossing and turning last night but I don’t care. It’s a new day for America and a new day for the world. Call it clichéd or call it kitschy but after eight years of Bush and many more years of racism all Americans, black or white, can now say “Free at last! Free at last! Thank God Almighty we are free at last!”

Two years ago, a list of the nation’s brainiest cities was put together from Census Bureau reports — that is, cities with the highest percentage of college graduates, which is not the same as smart, of course.

These are vibrant, prosperous places where a knowledge economy and cool things to do after hours attract people from all over the country. Among the top 10, only two of those metro areas — Raleigh, N.C., and Lexington, Ky. — voted Republican in the 2004 presidential election.

This year, all 10 are likely to go Democratic. What’s more, with Colorado, New Hampshire and Virginia now trending blue, Republicans stand to lose the nation’s 10 best-educated states as well.

That’s right, 80% of brainy cities last time around voted Democrat. I’ve always thought it made more sense to vote Democrat; I’m glad I’ve been proven right.

If you were unable to detect the sarcasm in that last sentence, you can stay with the Republicans; we still need village idiots after all.

Earlier this week the blog Huffington Post (yes, Arianna Huffington) reported that an Al Qaeda supporter posted a video on a website this week stating that a terrorist attack just before the election would most likely usher in a McCain presidency and that he, and others like him he claimed, would welcome this. He said that McCain would continue the policies of George W. Bush: i.e. the war in Afghanistan and Iraq.

“This requires presence of an impetuous American leader such as McCain, who pledged to continue the war till the last American soldier,” the message said. “Then, al-Qaida will have to support McCain in the coming elections so that he continues the failing march of his predecessor, Bush.”

It should be noted that this video has come from someone not directly affiliated with Al Qaeda, but he is noted by the intelligence group that translated the video to be “a frequent and apparently respected contributor” to the website on which he posts.

I have thought this for some time: that a McCain presidency would potentially bring more terrorism rather than less. While I admit Obama is weaker on foreign policy than McCain, his election would send such a message of change and hope to the rest of the world that even fundamentalists would have to take note.

I do not hold the belief that Al Qaeda is a vast world-wide underground operation; rather, it is a small group in Pakistan/Afghanistan and other groups that wish to emulate them around the world. Regardless of the actual makeup of this group, they will most likely continue to plot against America and the West. I believe no war nor any other action, apart from American isolationism and non-interventionism, will prevent this. The point is, I believe, that McCain would indeed continue Bush’s failed Islamic relations and wars in Afghanistan and Iraq to the point of complete and utter disaster. Obama, on the other hand, would seek to safely end the wars and get Afghanistan and Iraq back on course.

If this message from an avowed Islamic fundamentalist does not make you think twice about voting for McCain, I don’t know what else I can say or do. The choice is up to you…’my friends.’

Many argue that Bill Clinton won in 1992 because the economy was not doing well. It seems that this is happening again with Obama. Because the economy is so poorly, voters are turning to Democrats to fix it. I feel there is another argument to be made that they are simply turning to the party not currently in power. Had George H. W. Bush been a Democrat and Clinton a Republican I believe there is still every possibility that Clinton would have won, simply because he was of the other party. I also believe the same goes for the current election. Many more Americans are tired of the Bush Republican party with its rampant quasi-fascism, hard-line right-wing values and poor economic management that they are now turning to the other party. Again I ask, however, if George W. Bush had been a Democrat and Obama a Republican would the same be happening? I believe yes.

While I acknowledge that the argument also exists that Obama is the stronger candidate in the eyes of many people it is hard to argue that McCain is any less so. He is certainly a man with extensive public service experience and, yes I will concede, more foreign policy experience than Obama. I suppose, however, that at this moment in time most Americans are not as concerned with foreign policy so much as domestic policy.

The reason I put forward this question/argument that the current events in America are potentially changing the outcome of the current election is because the same may happen here in Britain at the next election but the opposite may occur. If David Cameron’s Conservative party win the next election – and there appears to be every chance that they may – then the voters in Britain will have shown they believe conservatism rather than liberalism will manage their country better.

I truly believe that while political parties mean something to a small handful of individuals – the die-hard political animals such as myself – the majority of people are so centrist or so able to be influenced that they will vote for whomever is in power if they are happy with the current state of affairs or for whomever is in opposition if they are not happy. I know someone who voted Communist for his first vote just to be different. He has voted Labour or Liberal Democrat ever since and in no way could be labeled a Tory but yet he has said he will likely vote Conservative at the next election because he feels there should be give and take. Labour have had their shot at power, now it is the Conservatives’ turn he says.

I find this dichotomy very interesting. America and Britain are both facing the worst economic crises in living memory but their voters are responding in very different ways. I do need to point out, however, that Prime Minister Gordon Brown’s approval ratings have gone up due to his management of the crisis. The British people do seem to think he is doing a good job; however, this is a blip in the polls. Since Brown came into power almost 18 months ago Labour’s approval ratings have slipped dramatically. For the past year polls have shown that if an election were held that day, the Conservative party would win in a near-landslide. There is also no election scheduled as yet and none due to take place until 2010 at the latest so all of my talk of British voters turning to the Conservative party is conjectured.

I think my friend’s point of give and take is certainly valid. There are times when the leaders of a particular political party do not possess the qualities needed to run a country or manage a poor economy. I am a die-hard Democrat though, and not ashamed to say I’m a Liberal. I know most Americans abhor the term Liberal and associate it closely with Socialist but there are distinct differences. The point I am trying to make here is that I find the current election in America so very interesting on so many different levels. Yes, it is historic that a black man will likely be the next president. Yes, I am happy to see the Republican Party taking such a beating. But the poor economy in America, I believe, is greatly altering the outcome of this election. I am not saying Obama could not have won without this crisis but I do feel it would have been harder to do so. Current events in America will always affect elections. It is those current events that spur voters to choose between the two candidates. What is interesting is that because of this particular event Obama and the Democratic Party are experiencing resurgence. I simply wonder if the party labels actually mean anything. If the parties were reversed would Obama still be winning just because he is of the opposition party? It’s certainly food for thought.

The first point I wish to bring up is John McCain’s over-use, arguably abuse, of the word ‘maverick’. Compromise is what makes the world go round. Being a ‘maverick’ is not always a good thing. Being stubborn and refusing to compromise can get you a reputation of someone who is not pleasant to work with or for. Certainly standing up for what you believe in is a good quality but so is compromise and working together. President Bush was a maverick of sorts in that he refused to sit down with North Korea or Iran to discuss tensions and their growing nuclear programmes. Diplomacy is a key aspect of any presidency. Foreign leaders are not going to be as willing to work with the US if our leader is too head-strong. We’ve seen this the last eight years and look where it has gotten us. While I don’t like to tout ‘the world would vote for Obama’ because it is an American election, it is very important to note that our poor reputation throughout the world would rise very quickly with Obama and sink even lower with McCain. Moreover, if McCain’s alleged temper began to go hand-in-hand with his maverick tendencies it could damage us even further. People don’t want to work with hotheads. Standing up to party leaders may be an admirable quality at times but, in the end, teamwork and compromise go a lot further than being a lone ‘maverick’.

My second point is on the negativity the McCain campaign seems to have let overtake them. Polls are showing that the negative attack ads from the McCain campaign have actually damaged him rather than helped him. Obama made an excellent point in the debate about how Americans were less concerned with his or McCain’s hurt feelings than they are with them actually discussing the issues. McCain tried to pin the negativity on Obama solely because he had not agreed to Town Hall-type meetings. His claim was that the negative attack ad questions and comments could have been directed at Obama and he would have had the opportunity to answer these claims. I’m sorry but that is absolute bull hockey. Obama not agreeing to do these meetings does not excuse in any way, shape or form the McCain campaign attacking him so blatantly. Sarah Palin claiming he ‘pals around with terrorists’ only opened up a huge Pandora’s box of racism, Islamaphobia and hatred. McCain then accused Obama of having negative ads attacking his record on issues such as health care and immigration. Again, I’m sorry but attacking your opponent’s record and stance on specific issues is what you are supposed to do. You cannot relate this in any way, shape or form to attacking someone’s character. Where you stand on specific issues is how the American voters will judge you. Your opponent stands the better chance of defeating you if he/she can show weaknesses in your positions. That’s Politics 101 John-boy. At the end of the day it is the issues on which you will, and should always, be judged. While character is important, unless Obama himself planted a bomb for Bill Ayers or personally registered a non-existent voter for Acorn, his very loose associations with these people do not prevent him from being a good president.

My third point is very short. I was unhappy that Obama somewhat dodged the direct question of whether Sarah Palin was qualified to be president should anything happen to McCain. McCain certainly jumped at the opportunity to attack Joe Biden’s record. I think, perhaps, Obama did not want to appear negative or be labeled as sexist but I also think he missed a golden opportunity to directly question McCain’s judgment in choosing such an inexperienced running mate.

My final point is all about Joe. Joe the plumber was the talking point of last night’s debate. He’s a plumber in Ohio to whom each candidate spoke directly to in explaining how his tax cuts and economic plans would help Joe buy his business and prosper. I had hoped to learn more about him in the Guardian’s ‘Who is Joe the Plumber?‘ piece but, alas, there is not much more information around besides what we already know. I wondered how he felt about being used as an example and who he intended to vote for. Here is his response to the debate. It would seem to me that he will be voting for McCain.

The polls are all pointing to an Obama win. I’m trying very hard not to count my chickens before they hatch because, as I’ve discussed before, people often have a tendency to say they’ll vote for the black candidate but then don’t when they get in the voting booth. I certainly hope Obama has done enough to win. Like the rest of you I will just sit back and wait, hoping, praying that Americans make the right decision.

“It is pertinent, it’s important because when you consider Barack Obama’s reaction to and explanation to his association there, and without him being clear at all on what he knew and when he knew it, that I think kinda peaks into his ability to tell us the truth on, not only on association but perhaps other things also … so, it’s relevant, I believe, and I brought it up in response to the New York Times article having been printed recently, and I think it just makes us ask the question that, if there’s not forthrightness there, with that association and what was known and when it was known, does that lead us to ask, is there forthrightness with the plans Barack Obama has or say tax cuts, or spending increases, makes us question judgment. And I think it’s fair and relevant.”

I can’t even begin to come up with a mocking sentence to rival this one, so I’m not even going to try.

I first noticed it in the first debate and did remark to my husband that it was a bit strange. He says ‘Pahk-i-stahn’ rather than ‘Pack-i-stan’ and ‘Tahli-bahn’ rather than ‘Tol-i-ban’ or ‘Tal-i-ban’. I can’t figure out what he’s trying to do. The Pakistan pronunciation would seem to be taking on a slightly British tone. Saying France as ‘Frahnce’ or dance as ‘dahnce’: the elongated a. The Taliban, too, seems to be slightly British. The only problem with this is that most English don’t even sound like that. They do elongate the a in Pakistan slightly but not to the extent Obama does. It’s hard to explain this in written form, obviously.

I’m not saying here what the correct pronunciation is; I’m just saying he sounds a bit strange. Unfortunately, whatever he is doing it just comes off as sounding ever so pretentious; like I used to when I tried to do a British accent. I think he means well, but I also think he has a load of advisors around him; surely one of them knows something about Pakistan and can correct his pronunciation. That’s just my little, ever so small quibble with Obama.