Sun for Obama, Hurricane for McCain

After the American Century

There are times when the time, the place, and the very elements come together in patterns that make events seem fated, and the speech Barack Obama made in Denver was one of those moments in history. Convention locations and times are decided long before the candidates have been selected, so no one planned the coincidence that the first Black American to be nominated for president would close the convention on the very day that Martin Luther King gave his "I have a dream speech" 45 years ago. Nor could anyone have forseen that Colorado itself would be a crucial swing state in the coming election. Obama did choose to speak outdoors in a stadium, and this was taking a chance on the weather. No one could guarantee years in advance that the day in question would be sunny, the evening would be gorgeous, the crowd ecstatic.

The chances of history do not appear to be favoring the Republicans, who prepare to hold their convention next week in St. Paul. Located on the Mississippi, it was always possible that it could remind Americans of the terrible flooding of New Orleans further downstream in 2005, exactly three years ago, and the disgracefully poor response of the Bush Administration. Weather reports now make clear that Hurrican Gustav will likely hit Louisiana just as the Republicans are scheduled to begin their convention. Not only is it a terrible reminder to voters of their cronyism, incompetence, and utter failure in a national emergency, but if the storm is at all serious, it will drown interest in what the Republicans are saying. Indeed, there is open talk of postponing their convention. However, anyone who has organized even a small conference knows that trying to change the dates will be a logistical nightmare, almost certain to make the Republicans look disorganized and reduce the impact of the event. Imagine trying to rebook 15,000 hotel rooms, to change all those airplane reservations, and so forth. So the ultimate nightmare: Republicans have a party in Minnesota while a storm rages in their electoral heartland. The scourge almost seems Biblical.

The sun shines on the Democrats, a hurricane strikes the Republicans. Shakespeare would have no problem that, and might have knocked out a couplet to punctuate the transition.

Then rose a mighty Hurricane upon the GOP convention.
It howled down John McCain and drowned his nomination.

Democratic Convention Even More Interesting Than Newspapers Tell You It Is

After the American Century

The nominating convention is not an institution invented by the Founding Fathers, and is not mentioned in the Constitution. It emerged in the 1830s, as voting was democratized and as the nation continued to expand well beyond the original 13 states. By the time convnetions were becoming a standard feature of US politics, the telegraph was available to publicize major speeches and the nominating process. One is tempted to think of the later nineteenth century as a golden era, when conventions really mattered, because real debate took place and because real choices between candidates had to be made. Judging by the general quality of the presidents from Grant to McKinley, however, perhaps Mark Twain and Dudley Warner were right to call it only the Gilded Age, or superficially golden.

Since then, every generation has reinvented the convention, which today is a showcase of unity, not a forum for debate. The Democratic National Convention in Denver is certainly a case in point. After a intra-party civil war all spring, the Clintonites have given their unequivocal support to Barack Obama. Moreover, the party has paraded a host of other speakers before the public, to show the diversity and talent that the Democrats can bring to the White House, if given the chance.

I watched all of the speakers on Tuesday night, and recommend going to YuuTube for a look at some of those who have not gotten much subsequent attention, particularly in Denmark where the quality of the coverage has been superficial at best. One of the best performances was that of the Governor of Montana, Brian Schweitzer, who literally had the entire convention standing up and shouting their support by the end of his 15 minutes. He came across beautifully as a shrewd rancher turned politician, with economic policies that had already done for his state what Obama wants to do for the nation as a whole. But these words are a silly, weak, and dry summary that does no justice to his sly, triumphant performance. Watching him, you can see why the pragmatist wing of the party has managed to win the governorships of the formerly "Red" states of Montana, Wyoming, Colorado, New Mexico, and even McCain's Arizona.

Other speakers reminded the party of its more radical traditions and urban roots, none better than Dennis Kucinich, a member of the House of Representatives from Cleveland. He has been demanding the impeachment of George W. Bush for lying to the nation about the reasons for going to war with Iraq. His six minute speech, "Wake Up America" was a wonderful example of a vitriolic, Populist attack on Washington, specifically the policies of George Bush. He also got much applause from the party faithful, though less than the more folksy Governor of Montana.

Then there were the personal stories told by ordinary citizens, something European politics might learn from. It is one thing to hear in the abstract that the Republican Congress has blocked legislation that would ensure women are given equal pay for equal work. It is another thing to hear a grandmother talk about working for a tire company for 19 years, discovering that during all that time she was given smaller raises than her male co-workers, winning a lawsuit at the local level, but losing it on appeal (Republican appointed judges on the Supreme Court), and how legislation to outlaw such discrimination was thwarted in the Senate (Republicans). There were many others with important personal stories to tell, and collectively they underscored the Democratic Party's platform.

If one follows all of the events, which can be done on-line, what emerges is a richer and more interesting tapestry of images and ideas than one gets from the newspapers. They have to tell one or at most two stories, and so focus on just a few aspects of the Convention. Yes, Hillary and Bill both gave excellent speeches, but there was far more content in many other presentations. As so often happens, reporters focus on those elements of the present that they know from the past. The Clintons are already history, as the saying goes. Their style of politics is on the way out, replaced by the pragmatism of a new generation. For one more example of that, have a look at the speech by Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick. I want to end by quoting extensively from his speech on Tuesday night:

"When I was growing up on the South Side of Chicago in the 50s and 60s, everything was broken. Playgrounds, schools, families and lives all broken. But we had a community. Those were days when every child was under the jurisdiction of every single adult on the block. So if you messed up in front of Ms. Jones' stoop, she would straighten you out as if you were hers and then call home, so you would get it twice. What those adults were trying to get across to us was that they had a stake in us. They wanted us to understand that membership in a community is seeing the stake that each of us has in our neighbor's dreams and struggles, as well as our own."

Patrick went on, "Barack Obama has challenged us to rebuild our national community. To focus not on the things that tear us apart, but on those that bring us together; not on the right or the left, but right and wrong; not on yesterday, but tomorrow. These are the possibilities Barack Obama asks us to reach for. This is the kind of leadership he offers to bring to the presidency, not because government can solve every problem in everybody's life; but because "government," as Barney Frank likes to say, is simply the name we give to the things we choose to do together."

There is so much more to the Convention than you can find in the newspapers, especially the Danish newspapers, that for the rest of the campaign - less than 70 days left now - it would be best to get out on the Web and see the speeches, or read them, for yourself, rather than let a reporter tell you what was said. Just as important, you need to look for the things not covered at all in the newspapers.

Can Joe Biden Help Obama Regain the Lead?

After the American Century

Obama has chosen Joe Biden, Senator from Delaware since 1972 as his running mate. Biden has long chaired the Senate Foreign Relations Committee (when the Democrats had a majority in that chamber) and his extensive experience there shores up one of Obama's weak points. The choice underscores the historical fact that vice-presidents often are not selected based on their ability to deliver a particular state. Delaware is one of the smallest states in the nation, and with only three electoral votes is not an important prize in itself. More important is Biden's mix of experience, feisty energy, and extensive Washington connections that will make him an engaging contrast to Obama.

Biden can emphasize that he is a Catholic, born in the working-class town of Scranton, Pennsylvania. The over-riding question is whether he can inspire working-class voters who have been reluctant to support Obama. During the past month he has fallen in the polls against McCain, who might win a close election were it held today. The many polls tracked by RealClearPolitics collectively show that a month of negative campaigning led by Karl Rove trainees, has taken its toll on the Illinois senator. To some extent McCain has also risen in the polls, but a considerable number of voters, at least 15%, remain undecided. Negative campaigning has created some of that indecision.

In the last week Obama has begun to hit back, with his own negative advertisements. And so the downward spiral accelerates, propelling this campagin, like all others in recent memory, down the low road of attacking character rather than debating policies. McCain has accused Obama of being unpatriotic, inexperienced, and elitist, to make a short list. Obama is now replying that McCain is too wealthy and out of touch to understand the economy or the problems of ordinary Americans. The Arizona Senator provided grist for this mill when he could not tell a reporter how many houses he has. A man who is not certain how many houses he owns (seven) the argument goes, does not deserve to sit in the White House. Certainly, he is in a far different position than 99% of the public.

Obama has tried to keep to the high road in his national campaign advertisements, reserving the negative advertisements for particular state races. There is no need to parade negativity in places where he is comfortably ahead, like California or New York. If his strategy works, it will present him as an idealist who would rather not get down in the mud, but will fight there if that is the ground staked out by McCain's Rove-inspired campaign.

The danger with negative campaigning remains that in the end both candidates will only look bad to the voters. Perhaps the addition of Joe Biden will move Obama in another direction, quite familiar from previous races, where the vice-presidential nominee goes on the attack while the presidential candidate tries to stand above the fray.

Meanwhile, the press seems to agree that McCain has not yet decided on a running-mate, but that he is seriously considering three governors: Tom Pawlenty of Minnesota, Charlie Crist of Florida, and former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney. Many other names have been discussed, however, perhaps the most interesting being Condolezza Rice - who could suddenly give him traction with both Black and women voters.

With the race a statistical dead-heat, the coming two weeks of conventions may prove crucial to the public's perception of both candidates, and to the result on election day.

Why Class Size Matters

After the American Century

As universities and secondary schools and primary schools begin the new academic year, once again there are stories in the press about class size. In Denmark, some schools have pressed up the number of students to 30 in a room, and such class sizes can also be found in some parts of the US. Now anyone can see that the more students there are, the more work there is for the teacher, in terms of grading papers, exams, and reports. But actually, this is not the main problem with the larger classes.

After teaching for more than three decades, I think I have some insight into why class size matters. First, the larger the class the less each student can participate. If there are 30 students in a class that meets for one hour, given equal time, each of them can only speak for two minutes. In a language class, for example, that means students will speak so little that they will not improve. Furthermore, as all teachers can tell you, once there are 30 students, it becomes almost impossible to get all of them to participate equally. Rather, a smaller number will do more of the talking, and some will sit silently most of the time. Class participation matters because it gets students thinking. As soon as a student expresses an idea it must be defended, explained, compared to other positions, and so forth. The quiet student is far less likely to get engaged in discussions, and less likely to develop thoughtful positions.

A second reason class size matters is due to the internal dynamics of the group. Consider a class with just two students. There is only one relationship for each, two in all. Add one more student, and there are suddenly six relationships, two for each. Add a fourth student, and each of the four students has three relations, a total of 12. In other words, the social complexity of a class increases geometrically. By the time there are 30 students in a room, each of them has 29 relationships, not to mention cliques, clusters, and groups. A teacher can keep an eye on 15 or 20 students and maintain a sense of the various dynamics of the room, but the task becomes immensely more difficult as each new person is added. Speaking for myself, somewhere between 22 and 24 students the class gets too large for a comfortable, open dynamic. Consider that 22 students, who collectively have 462 potential relationships. A politician with no teaching experience may think it does not mean too much to add eight more students, but in fact the social complexity of what is going on almost doubles, to 870 potential relationships. At this point, few teachers can keep track of the internal dynamics in a class. More importantly, the students themselves cannot keep track of them all. A class is no longer comfortable, but unpredictable. It ceases to be a open context, and many decide to keep their heads down. Teachers find it necessary to do more and more of the talking as class size rises. Once larger than 30, it becomes hard to avoid turning the lesson into a lecture.

These two reasons ought to be enough, but there is one more. The larger the class gets, the more stressful teaching becomes, assuming that the teacher wants to keep a dialogue alive with the students. As the numbers grow, it becomes harder to remember student names and their individual problems, and students immediately sense this and of course resent it. As classes grow, teachers find it hard to create and maintain a bond. Disruptions and disciplinary problems become more frequent. Teachers caught in that situation year after year may leave the profession. Some will think it is their own fault, but foolish politicians who are "optimizing resources" are the culprits.

When you hear about classes being larger than about 24, you can be sure the educational process is in danger. When class size rises to 30, the politicians who have imposed this "savings" should be replaced as soon as possible. One final illustration suggests you should believe these observations. Look at elite private schools that cater to children of the rich. They have the choice to do whatever works best, and without exception they keep classes small.

Age Should Not be an Issue in this Election

After the American Century

Most presidents upon election have been between the ages of 50 and 60, but some of the most effective assumed office before then. One lingering misconception from the primary elections is that Barack Obama might be a bit too young or inexperienced to be president. This image was fostered by Hillary Clinton, but in fact, her own husband, Bill Clinton, was younger than Obama when he was elected president. Born in 1946, Clinton was 46 in 1992. He had no Washington experience at all, and his only preparation was to serve as governor of one of the smaller southern states.

Theodore Roosevelt was only 43 when he became president in 1901, the same age as John F. Kennedy when he was elected in 1960. Franklin Delano Roosevelt was 50 when elected in 1932. In short, Obama is well within the range of normal presidential ages.

The Constitution is quite clear on this issue. It states no one is eligible to run for President until they have reached the age of 35. Life expectancy has increased since it was adopted, however, and candidates may be a little older as a result. But longer lifespans ought to have the effect of widening the field of possible candidates, not eliminating those who are in their 40s.

If there is no historical reason to think that Obama is too young, one might make a case for McCain as being too old, though I am loath to make it. Senator McCain, who will be 72 on August 29, gives every indication of being in full vigor. Ronald Reagan was elected in his 70th year, and remained in office until he was 78. If elected, however, McCain would begin to serve later in life than anyone before him. Given the strains of the modern presidency, which often turns into a 24-hour a day job, I personally would feel better in 2011 if the president were 50 rather than 75, but on the whole, this probably should not be an issue, anymore than Obama's supposed youth should be.

Generational Divide? Obama and McCain

After the American Century

McCain is almost exactly 25 years older than Obama, and just as importantly, he looks much older as well. Partly for this reason alone, they therefore appeal to quite different generations, though it is hard to decide how much a candidate's age influences particular groups of voters. In general, however, McCain would win easily if only people over 60 could vote, and Obama would win easily if only those under 50 could, and it would be landslide if only those under 40 could. The so-called "millennial generation" is more for him than Generation Xers, in other words. Each candidate is aware of these demographics, and anyone looking for an advertiser's view of this matter should look at "What Obama can teach you about Millennial Marking". Obama hopes to mobilize the youth vote, which is notoriously lazy about getting to the polls. McCain is banking on the geriatric electorate, which grows larger each year.

Rather than focus on the two ends of the spectrum, however, it might be more useful to think of the election in terms of who wins the votes of those between 50 and 62. This is the baby boomer generation, born between 1946 and 1958. They graduated from college starting in 1968. They grew up with the Cold War and lived with the possibility of a nuclear apocalypse. For them, the Civil Rights movement, the Vietnam War, and Watergate were formative experiences. Most of them can tell you exactly where they were in 1963 when they heard that John F. Kennedy had been assassinated. Most of them also remember the deaths of Martin Luther King and Robert Kennedy. This is a generation born into a wealthy nation that in its youth never imagined the dollar could be so weak or that the US could become a debtor nation on such a massive scale. But just as they were coming of age, they experienced the bleak 1970s economy, with its stagflation and energy crisis, which at time time appeared to be a permanent scarcity of resources.

This generation has already produced two presidents. Both Bush and Clinton were born in 1946, and they epitomize the complexity of the boomers, who were by no means all hippies and revolutionaries. The boomers divide geographically into those from the South, who tend toward cultural conservatism and the Republicans, those from the Northeast and West coast, who tend toward liberal and to a lesser extent to radical positions, and the key group that is up for grabs, from the Midwest and the West. In other words, Obama and McCain should be focusing on this demographic group in the heartland, and it would be highly likely for either or both to select a vice-president from a state like Iowa, Indiana, Nebraska, or Ohio, who is part of that generation.

Yet more than the right demographic face is needed. Each candidate will need to develop a story that appeals to the boomer voters, extrapolating from their historical experience to the present. Obama will likely do this by calling upon the imagery and the language of the Kennedy era, including an echo of Martin Luther King as well. Note that his convention acceptance speech is scheduled on the anniversary of the "I Have a Dream" address. McCain stands for the supposed "lost cause" of Vietnam, and he has already begun to claim the mantle of Ronald Reagan. In other words, he is gently distancing himself from the younger Bush, in part by being seen with his father. Somewhat paradoxically, the older candidate will likely present himself as the heir of the 1980s, while the younger candidate will seek to represent the spirit of the early 1960s.

Will the Boomers prefer a return to Jackie and Jack's Camelot, with its idealism, hope, and promise? Or will they choose a warrior's narrative of struggle and survival against external threats? Obama and McCain will each project a different vision of the past as the basis that voters should use to see into the future. To the Midwestern Boomer generation, either of these scenarios might appear plausible.

Can Obama be Ordinary Enough to be President?

After the American Century

As the Olympics are about to begin, the presidential campaign has reached a point of quite temporary unimportance for the media. It is an appropriate moment to recall the amazing journey the American political system has made since early January. Back before the Iowa caucuses, few thought McCain had a chance for the Republican nomination, and Obama was an interesting outsider for the Democrats. Who could have predicted that Hillary would so mismange her finances and her campaign? Who thought Giuliani would fall so flat on his face? Who imagined that the Democrats would not reach a decision until June?

In these nearly eight months, Obama has gone from being an outsider to the favorite to win, and McCain has resurrected himself to a convincing foe. On the op-ed pages some columnists have been asking why Obama has so small a lead in the polls, given the abysmal ratings that Bush has in his last year as President. Surely, many are saying, Obama ought to have more than just a few points advantage. Such comments betray the mentality of the educated experts who live inside the Washington Beltway or in New York. The idea that a young, Black politician "ought" to have a sizeable lead over a more experienced white one suggests some commentators have lost track of the American people.

Furthermore, although McCain may be taking on the Bush policies and negative Bush campaign tactics, he has managed to preserve something of the image of a straight-talking maverick. He is presenting himself as the Republican non-Bush. To the extent that he can keep foreign policy and terror at the center of the campaign, he becomes stronger. Strangely, he would likely benefit were a major terror attack to occur before election day. McCain also will pass the "beer" test with white, male voters, who probably imagine themselves as being more comfortable having a brew with him down at the local saloon. Bush won the "beer" test against both Gore and Kerry.

With this in mind, probably the best thing that Obama can do to win over skeptical voters is appear to be more approachable, more average, more "just folks." Back in 1992 Bill Clinton went on a TV show and played the sax, which proved popular. To Europeans, such actions seem strange, because they do not expect politicians to reveal so much of their private lives. But Americans like politicians who have nicknames. It was not James, but Jimmy Carter, not John but Jack Kennedy, not Abraham but Abe Lincoln, and so on, at least back to the election of 1824. That was when "Old Hickory" - Andy Jackson - beat that Bostonian stuffed-shirt abolitionist aristocrat John Quincy Adams.

In other words, the average American needs to feel comfortable, on an imaginary first-name basis with the candidate, to vote for him. For Obama to win big, he will need to supplement his inspirational rhetoric with some down-to-earth qualities. He already has this rapport with the more literate minority who have read his two best-selling books. In contrast, McCain has more of this "average Joe" feeling, and his problem is the opposite - to find a loftier rhetorical register in at least a few of his speeches.

Politicians win the essential middle ground in the United States not through ideology, not through rhetoric, but through a direct appeal to the ordinary citizen. In short, as Lord Bryce realized long ago, Americans look not for extraordinary but ordinary people to lead them. Whatever his many failings, Bush was the ordinary man, the merely average student from nowhere important in Texas. Not a highbrow, he did not stress his Yale pedigree. For crucial swing voters, the often unvoiced question will be: Is Obama ordinary enough to be President?

Obama on the World Stage

After the American Century


Obama stood on the world stage for the first time in Berlin, and judging by the crowd's reaction, he was a great success. The talking heads on screen afterward tried to find critical things to say, which is their job. But rather than trying to summarize their remarks, let us review the main points.

1. Obama came out with no one to introduce him. There was no build up or fan-fare, no drum rolls. He simply came out. This is a humble way to present yourself, without any of the trappings of a head of state.

2. Obama connected his remarks at many points with German history and experiece, giving a speech that obviously was created for this specific time and place. I may have missed something, but I believe that we are still waiting for John McCain to give a major speech anywhere on any subject.

3. Obama was not merely throwing pretty remarks at the Germans. He reminded them that some of the terrorists who struck on 9/11 had been students in Hamburg, but he did this in such a skillful way that it did not rouse commentary afterwards, nor apparently cause offense. Obama's point was that the globalized world demands unified action, that borders - walls - are now dysfunctional. He also called on Germany to contribute to the military effort in Afghanistan. This is not such a popular position in that country.

4. Obama did not make specific policy proposals, as I hoped he might (see the last blog). But in retrospect, I can see that getting specific is perhaps inappropriate at this stage, when he is still a candidate. So he called for an end to torture, but did not mention Guantanamo. He called for unified actions against global warming, and praised the German efforts in this regard, but he did not get into details. He asked for a united effort against drugs, terrorism, and racism. Again, I can see that the commentators would have jumped on him for acting like the head of state had he been too detailed about any of these matters. This speech was about vision, not the details of implementation.

5. There were some fine rhetorical passages in the speech, but it does not appear that there is one line that is destined for quotation in years to come. But the general level of the speech was high, far higher than anything either of the Bush presidents ever attained, and better than what John McCain can muster.

When he was finished, Obama left the podium as simply as he arrived there. There was no music or follow-up speaker. He went down to shake hands with people in the front of the crowd. Overall, he showed that he has the stature and the charisma needed to recover the American image abroad. When was the last time 200,000 people turned out anywhere abroad to hear an American leader speak? Actually, the largest crowd to hear any candidate speak during the primaries was 75,000, for Obama in Oregon. I do not recall anything like it for many years. One has to go back to Reagan to find an equivalent moment.


The full text of Obama's speech can be found on CNN

What Obama Should Say in Berlin

After the American Century

Tonight Obama will address a large outdoor crowd in Berlin. No one seems to know how many will come to hear him, but estimates range as high as one million. If the weather is good, that is distinctly possible. So far on this journey Obama has done exceedingly well, apparently making a particularly positive impression in Iraq and Jordan, yet solidifying his support for Israel at the same time. The most difficult part of his trip might seem to be over, since Afghanistan, Iraq, Jordan, and Israel are all troubled nations that present severe foreign policy problems.

By comparison, Germany, France, and Great Britain might look easy. But they are not necessary a doddle. Some of the Germans are prickly about becoming a backdrop to the American campaign, including Angela Merkel. It is thus essential that Obama not appear to be campaigning, that he address his German audience first, and deliver only a good sound bite for the Americans. Who remembers what else John F. Kennedy said in Berlin besides "Today, in the world of freedom, the proudest boast is Ich bin ein Berliner"? (An uncharitable and perhaps slightly inaccurate translation of this remark into Danish would read ... the proudest boast is that "I am a donut.") So for the Americans, all he needs is a pithy one-liner, preferably followed by a roar of cheering and applause. For the Europeans, in contrast, there needs to be some substance.

What might Obama say? He has 300 foreign policy advisors and a clever staff, so they have assuredly thought of more things than I can this morning, but here is a short list of possibilities, other than the obvious need to say thank you for the opportunity to come and a few words about the strong ties between the two nations, etc etc. In any case, this is what I think Obama ought to say. It is a bit tricky for him, because he must seem to speak as a powerful Senator, representing the Democratic Party, and not as a presidential candidate.

(1) The EU has been a tremendous economic success. It is a tribute to earlier American foreign policy, of the sort that needs to be recovered. That foreign policy promoted dialogue, peaceful economic development, and the dismantaling of militaristic nationalism. A region plagued by major wars for hundreds of years until 1945 has now been at peace for more than 60 years. in another generation, no one will be alive that personally remembers World War II. The EU is therefore a model for the rest of the world, and the proudest boast of a Berliner today is that he or she is a citizen of the EU. [He did say much of this, in fact.]

(2) The US needs to listen more to its allies. It should have listened to Germany on Iraq. It needs to be a partner, not an overbearing leader. [Of these three sentences, he said one and three, more or less, but did not specifically mention German opposition to the Iraq invasion.]

(3) The base in Guantanamo should be closed. Five previous secretaries of state, Republicans and Democrats, have called for it to be shut down, and John McCain, as a former prisoner of war, is no fan of the Cuban base either. This would also be popular with the German audience. [He did call for an end to torture, but did not specifcally mention Gauntanamo.]

(4) The US needs to work with the EU to deal with global warming, where the Bush Administration has obstructed progress. Germany is an inspiring example of what can be done with alternative energy, as it has some of the world's largest wind farms and solar arrays. If a northern nation with often cloudy weather can do so much, clearly the US can do even more in the arid but sunny West and the windy Great Plains. (He might mention Al Gore's 10 year plan, but probably he will not do so explicitly.) [He did say much of this.]

(5) The educational exchanges between Europe and America are important and need to be strengthened. Under the Bush Administration the landmark Fulbright Program has been cut back. It should be given far more funding and added scope. Educational exchanges not only strengthen the cultural bonds between our continents, they lead to the synergies of innovation. [He said nothing about this.]

(6) The EU and the US must stand firmly together in confronting global terrorism. At the same time, they must use economic assistance and cultural programs to create a better context for dialogue. The common goal must be to allow a multicultural world to live in peace. [These ideas were central to his speech.]

I am not predicting he will say any of these things, but he ought to. We will see. [Many of the themes mentioned here were in the speech, but of course I did not attempt to imagine the metaphors he might use. The dominant image was that of breaking down walls, which made German historical experience a symbol of hope. This is not always the lesson drawn from German history, and it made the crowd feel good.]