How big a change does Haiti truly need?

Unless you've been living under a rock, or have no interest in international politics, you are probably aware that Haiti is preparing to have an election this year. There hasn't been such an international buzz around Haitian elections since the first democratic election that brought Jean-Bertrand Aristide to power in 1990. This year, the buzz is all around Wyclef Jean, the hip hop star-cum-president hopeful.

Judging by the media hype, you would think that Wyclef is the only artist looking to be elected in November. Actually,  another charismatic singer has thron his hat in the race: Michel "Sweet Micky" Martelly, also know as Prezidan (president, in Haitian creole).

Clef is getting all the press, but honestly, if both of them were to be on the ballot, I wouldn't be so quick to say that he is a shoe-in. In fact, if there were only two candidates, Clef and Sweet Micky, it would probably be a very close race. And you know that whoever wins, it's going to be some party. With the headache to go along with it...

I can't comment on either man's political acumen, nor can I say that either of them is better equipped to become president. The problem in Haiti is that anyone who touches the presidency becomes corrupt. Everyone. It happened to Aristide, many people say it happened to Préval, the current president. Let's not mention the litany of army generals in the '90s. The Duvaliers before that, Magloire, and so on. The position is poisoned. In order to fix this, I think something very different has to happen, and that may be where Clef has an advantage.

He's been around the world, has been educated in the US, and is an accomplished businessman. That should help him bring new eyes and a new vision of what Haiti can and should be as a country, the first Black-led independent country. La perle des Antilles, the Carribean Pearl.

Clef has charisma, he can make things move. He loves his country and can probably propose a vision that is much more optimistic than a politician could. Because, let's face it: in order for Haiti to get out of this mess, the people need a dream. They need hope, they need something to look up to, something drive for. Maybe it's education for all. Maybe it's rebuilding a new city, where everyone will have safe housing. Maybe it's a job for everyone who is willing and able to work. Maybe it's food on the table three times a day, every day. Maybe it's knowing that all your babies will reach adulthood, that they won't die of malnutrition or water poisoning or some other ailment brought on by poverty and famine. There has to be something more than waking up and barely being able to survive.

What Clef doesn't have, yet, is a team. If he were to be elected, I could see him as the leader. I could see him as the one pointing the way. I don't see him as the president, though. I don't see him as the one to make the difficult decisions about monetary policy, foreign affairs, and so on. He will need a solid team to whom he can say "This is what I want our country to look like. Tell me how we're going to do it." He has to be surrounded by people who will say "Let me find a way" not "We can't do that." Can he create that team? If so, does he have enough humility to stand back and say "OK, you know this better than I do. Explain to me how it works, do your thing, and I'll talk to the people."

Which could be another issue: Clef's French and Creole are not quite there yet. I won't say his Creole is "mawon" but will the people look past the accent if, indeed, he is able to lead the country efficiently? I don't know.

Can Clef draw enough money and machinery to clean up the rubble that is Port-au-Prince in order to let it rise from its ashes?

Can he do it in five years, which is all he is allowed to have under the current constitution?

Can he clean up his image quickly enough and make people forget about all the allegations surrounding his Yele Haiti foundation?

Is he ready? Is he able? We all know he's willing and that may be half the battle. He'll have to go through a lot of muckraking and mudslinging just to reach the vote. And it won't stop there, he'll probably still be attacked after the vote, if he wins. Will he be able to withstand it?

For most of these questions, I don't know.

How about the other singer, Sweet Micky? Can he make a decent president?  I don't know. I know he's charismatic, I know he can work a crowd, I've seen him do it. Unfortunately, the only images I have of Martelly is of a man so drunk on stage that he can barely stand straight, uttering a constant stream of profanity-laced ramblings. From what I hear, he has always been rather cozy with the richer and shadier individuals in power. To me, that doesn't bode well for his presidency.

As I mentioned in an interview after the earthquake, Haiti isn't lacking a president. What it's lacking is a leader. Préval was an awful leader during the earthquake. He was largely unseen, and unheard. He should have been on the radio, on TV, every day, to let the people know what was happening, what he was doing to clear this mess, and how he was planning on pulling the country out of yet another catastrophe.

There needs to be a severe change of direction in the country. But not so abrupt that it causes it to go past the tipping point and fall.

I wish I had thought of this...

... but Alan Weiss did it before me. Score:

Alan: lots
Me: Not so much

My Report to the President

Obama: a speech for the times, maybe someday for the ages

As I watched the inauguration ceremony for Barack Obama, I was in awe of the entire operation. It felt more like a rock concert than an inauguration. The crowd of thousands chanting “Obama! Obama!” waiting to see its hero. Anticipation was palpable. All around the world, people watching, eagerly waiting to hear the first words of the 44^th president of the United States of America.

Anyone expecting a rah-rah-rah speech must have been sorely disappointed. This was a down-to-earth, accountability- and responsibility-filled speech. Barack Obama pulled no punches and delivered a rousing, but difficult speech. He did not shy away from the fact that times are difficult and the American people have a lot of work to do, in order to get out of the current mess.

Rating his performance, I would give it a 9.5 on content and 8.5 on delivery.

Delivery

Obama's delivery was nearly flawless. There were a couple of hesitations, but nothing major. Martin Luther King stumbled slightly also in his “I Have A Dream” speech.

Obama spoke in a deep, soothing voice. He did not move much, he did not rush the speech, he was poised. His tone was conversational. He was at ease and he put his listeners at ease.

His delivery, sing-song at times, reminded me of Martin Luther King as he spoke to a throng of supporters on the Washington DC steps.

So why 8.5, for such a great speaker? Maybe because my expectations were so high. However, there were two elements from his delivery that perturbed me. One was purely mechanical, the other was emotional.

Mechanically: I HATE that teleprompter! He looks like a Bobble Head when he's constantly switching from the left to the right. Furthermore, he does it multiple times in the same sentence. It is hugely annoying. I never recommend that people write out their speech and read it during delivery, but at times I wondered if that wouldn't have been better for him.

He never looked at the camera nor did he look at the crowd. The only time he tried to make contact with his audience was when he thanked George Bush for his service to the nation. At that moment, he briefly turned away from his text but returned to it immediately after.

I am not sure why Obama so heavily relies on his text to deliver his speeches. Is it because he cannot remember it all? Is it a crutch he uses? Or is it the equivalent of PowerPoint in business presentations: a necessary tool that everyone feels the need to use?

He needs to ditch the teleprompter completely, or find a better way to use it because it affects his effectiveness.

Emotionally, I was constantly expecting the Big Explosion. Something outstanding, a defining moment in the speech. There were a few, somehow, they didn't stand out from the rest of the speech. Obama did not put more emphasis on one part of the speech, than another. All of it seemed to be of equal importance. Yet, in most great speeches, there is an emotional nugget that is carried on for generations:

• We have nothing to fear but fear itself.

• Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country.

• I do not know that woman... oops, no, that's a different speech!

While there are many good moments in the speech (as we will see in the content), he did not use any of the tools that make a speech memorable: alliteration, repetition, the rule of three, just to name a few. That made the speech less appealing emotionally: it's the Moment that really defined the speech.

Content

What was so good about the content? At what is considered a defining moment in America, Obama's words were timeless and deeply rooted in the nation's history. He named no names, he named no nations. His words could be spoken again, almost verbatim, at another time, and they would still have the same power. Words such as:

• “In reaffirming the greatness of our nation, we understand that greatness is never a given. It must be earned. ”

• “Starting today, we must pick ourselves up, dust ourselves off, and begin again the work of remaking America.”

• “To those leaders around the globe who seek to sow conflict, or blame their society's ills on the West — know that your people will judge you on what you can build, not what you destroy.”

• “Let it be said by our children's children that when we were tested we refused to let this journey end, that we did not turn back nor did we falter; and with eyes fixed on the horizon and God's grace upon us, we carried forth that great gift of freedom and delivered it safely to future generations.”

When analyzing the words, you can see that the speech was inspired by some of the greatest American speakers. One line stuck out for me, one that could have been uttered by John F Kennedy: “The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works.”

His speech contained beautiful imagery: “To those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent, know that you are on the wrong side of history; but that we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist.”

That image is also an excellent example of the inclusive language used by Obama. He has promised to bring people back together, and his words are tailored to that effect:

“To the people of poor nations, we pledge to work alongside you to make your farms flourish and let clean waters flow; to nourish starved bodies and feed hungry minds. And to those nations like ours that enjoy relative plenty, we say we can no longer afford indifference to suffering outside our borders; nor can we consume the world's resources without regard to effect. For the world has changed, and we must change with it.”

Obama shows that he definitely understands American history, that he knows where the nation needs to be headed, and that he will get it there albeit with the help of friends and “former foes” alike. He shows that he expects hard work, sacrifice, ambition and creativity from everyone, including himself.

His speech needed to get that message across clearly and simply.

It delivered.

Is this all the leadership we have to offer?

The recent melodrama of Canadian politics has made one thing clear: we have a dearth of effective leaders in our government.

An effective leader knows what to do and gets it done. His or her prime directive should be to put the enterprise first, and him/her after. Evidently, none of our current leaders seem to realize this.

Let's see, now:

• Michael Ignatieff: he was pegged as the next Liberal leader. In that capacity, now more than ever, he should step up to the plate and take a stance. Instead, he chooses to sit back, be non-committal, waiting to step forward when conditions are favourable. Not the sign of a great leader: I will jump in when things favour me.
• Stéphane Dion: I admire the guy's tenacity, but enough is enough. Wednesday's blunder makes Inspector Clouseau look like Stephen Hawking. Few people want him as the head of the Liberal party, yet he clings on like a desperate cat hanging from a tree limb. An effective leader recognizes when he/she is no longer helpful. Mr. Dion is no longer helping the Liberal party: he is severely hindering it. If there was an election today, Mr. Dion's mistake would probably hand a majority government to the Tories.
• Stephen Harper: in a scant few days, Stephen Harper has tarnished his image as a strategic, competent leader and now appears as a self-absorbed, power-hungry man. He showed that he is willing to go to almost any length in order to hold on to power. In the last two months, he has twice shown that he is completely out of touch with his surroundings. Once, after proposing a measure that infuriated Quebecers and most likely cost him his majority. And now, the current political upheaval. His address on national television was one filled with fear-mongering, blaming, and finger-pointing. He has become the most polarizing figure in Canadian politics and for the first time in years, "sovereignty" has once again become the centre of political discourse.
• Jack Layton and Gilles Duceppe: both acknowledge that they need to rely on each other to get through the current mess. However, how long could such a coalition last? Mr. Duceppe has stated that he is willing to vote in favour of any measure that is favourable to Quebec. He has also pledged not to undermine the coalition for the next 18 months. But how will he vote if a measure is proposed, that does not favour Quebec?
• Bob Rae: after dilly dallying, Mr. Rae seems to have donned his suit of armor and is ready to do battle. He stepped to the forefront of the coalition, ready to lead them to battle. Too bad the governor-general has scuttled his plans, for now. Nevertheless, he is the one that currently projects the best leadership qualities. He is calling for calm, and working to reassure business leaders that there is no 'crisis' in Ottawa, while simultaneously working with the other party leaders. In the past few days, he has decided to enter the leadership race and has stepped up to role of coalition advocate. If he does it well, keeps on message and maintains his enthusiasm until the Liberal leadership race in May, he may well become Mr. Dion's successor.

We're in the middle of an unprecedented economic crisis, with daily announcements of massive layoffs, dire warnings of tough times, and meanwhile, our government is putting more effort on saving its hide than it is on creating a better future for all Canadians.

When I look at our neighbours to the South, who just elected a unifying figure to counter eight years of disastrous PR, all I can think about is this: Is this really all we have to offer ourselves?

Voting with your funny bone

The past couple of weeks have seen Sarah Palin and John McCain show up on Saturday Night Live, letting the folks at SNL have a little fun at their expense.

Now, this is not an endorsement by any stretch of the imagination, but if I had to vote solely on the "fun factor", the McCain-Palin ticket would win, hands down.

Palin has appeared on Saturday Night Live while McCain has appeared on SNL and David Letterman. In both instances, the folks at SNL had a chance to poke fun at the candidates, although I thought McCain did better than Palin. As for his Letterman stint, McCain showed up even though Letterman had been picking on him the previous day because McCain had reneged on a promise to appear on "the big show", choosing instead to be interviewed by Katie Couric.

Barack Obama has also been on some shows, but nothing like Palin and especially McCain.

For those who don't know, Sarah Palin was spoofed by Tina Fey on Saturday Night Live's season opener. Fey did a nail-on impression of Palin that received rave reviews and was the talk of the water cooler for weeks. You can see it on Saturday Night Live's site. A few weeks later, Palin agreed to appear on SNL, and appeared in two sketches: The Palin Rap and the opening of the show.

As you can see, they didn't give Palin much to work with. But they gave McCain much better material and he delivered:  a QVC Opening (which included his wife) and Weekend Update. On The Late Show, he traded barbs with David Letterman, who kept on nagging him about skipping the show the previous day. McCain could easily have said "no" and skipped out completely. But he came on, faced the music, and gave a great show. There was even a tense moment where I felt Letterman was truly upset and agitated about the state of the economy and the country. McCain, to his credit, treated that part of the interview seriously and gave a decent answer to Letterman's questions. This occured only a few days after a debate with Obama. That two-minute segment had more emotion and grit than the entire 90 minutes he had spent "debating" with his adversary.

During the SNL skit, I discovered a side of McCain that I hadn't noticed in the debates: when he's at ease, he is actually a very funny guy. Notice in his skits that he pauses when the audience laughs, in order not to step on their laughter. He doesn't hesitate much and he doesn't have a fake, scary grin like he did at the Republican convention. He genuinely is enjoying himself. I feel like all his TV appearances are a testament to that.

As for the Obama-Biden ticket? Well, so far, they are no fun at all. They don't seem to be making the rounds of the comedy shows and Obama's few apparitions barely made me crack a smile. Obama is smooth, even, and unemotional in his appearances. Those are great traits for a president trying to be reassuring to a nation in distress. But together, they make for boring TV!

I don't know what's going to happen on November 4th. Will the so-called "Bradley effect" prevail? Or will Obama win, as all polls seem to indicate? Will the appearances on comedy shows make McCain appear like a lovable, funny human being? Or will it portray him as a goofball? I'll be watching closely to see.

I will say this in closing, though: if McCain does not win, I hope Saturday Night Live gives him a spot as a regular guest. He could become one of the most valuable members of the team.

McCain vs Obama

Tonight was the second of three U.S. presidential debates, in a town hall format. So basically, they are responding to questions, either from the Internet, or from people present at the session. I'm not sure what the rules are, but it seems like they had as much time as they wanted to answer the original question but were allowed only one minute to "discuss" the question.

The moderator was Tom Brokaw, the NBC News anchor, who also acted as timekeeper.

The Good

Obama showed confidence. Once he started talking on issues that he felt comfortable with, he stuttered less and was more assertive in his statements. At one point, Obama even said “During my first term,” signalling that he fully expects to win and to be re-elected.

McCain tried, not always successfully, to inject a little humour in the debate. Yes, this is a serious situation but a little humour is often welcome.

Both candidates got up, got close to the people asking questions and looked them in the eyes when answering. They didn't just sit in their seats and force people to strain their necks to view them as they answered. There were a couple of instances, though, where I found that McCain walked in too closely to the crowd. Yet, after looking closely, it looks like it was a trick of the camera. At the beginning, McCain spent too much time speaking to the person who asked the question and not enough time addressing the audience as a whole. As the debate progressed, he improved that aspect.

Both were gracious enough at the beginning, acknowledging that each had done some good things, and even agreeing on a few issues. As time went by, though, the cordiality slowly went by the wayside.

Obama seemed more at ease than McCain. His movements were more fluid and he was better able to connect with the audience. In fact, I saw more nodding of the heads and smiles in the background when Obama spoke than when McCain spoke, a testament to Obama's greater effectiveness. McCain did not seem as comfortable. Of course, part of it is due to the injuries he suffered in Vietnam. However, it's questionable whether people will look past that when they look at him.

The last question of the evening was an opportunity for both candidates to show a little vulnerability. McCain took it and admitted he didn't know the future. OK, a bit banal, but still he admitted to it. Obama didn't. Yes, he said that his wife Michelle has a list of things he doesn't know, but Obama himself did not admit it. That only adds to his image of being arrogant and over-confident.

The Bad

Not enough stories. A lot of the themes tonight were very emotional for many American people. Yet both candidates failed to deliver compelling stories to illustrate those issues. Obama came close when replying to the "Obama Doctrine" question. In his answer, he posed questions directly to the American people, asking them to give a moral answer. But most of the examples were reduced to attacking the opposing party.

Obama stuttered at crucial times in his answers. They gave the impression that he was either lying, making it up on the spot, or he wasn't convinced about what he was saying.

McCain used the term “my friend” and “my friends” too often. It can be endearing, but as with any colloquialism, when overused it loses its effectiveness and becomes annoying.

McCain, at one point, forgot to use his microphone while answering. Normally, that would only be funny. However, that can be seen as a “brain fart” which is not a good thing for him.

When asked whether medical coverage is a right, a privilege, or a responsibility, McCain said responsibility. I am sure many people who have trouble paying medical bills felt insulted or stunned by that answer. That could play against him during this campaign. Especially since Obama stated it was a right.

The Ugly

Where was the timer? If you have ever been to a Toastmasters meeting, you know that one of the important functions in a meeting is the timekeeper. The timekeeper is the one that reigns in the people who think that their time is more valuable than other people's time. He or she uses (surprise, surprise!) red, yellow, green lights to tell people when to stop talking. And they are punished when they go overtime.

During the discussion period, Obama and McCain paid no mind to the time, and received a small warning from Brokaw. In effect, they were allowed to ignore the rules as they pleased.

McCain was dismissive and disrespectful twice in the debate: when he called Obama “that one” and when he assumed that one person had never heard about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. That's a slight on McCain, and one that is not very presidential.

Final word

Overall, it was an interesting debate, as much in its form as in the content. I would have preferred more interaction between the candidates and a bit more dialogue so they could challenge each other more effectively.

The debate itself was closely fought. Obama wins it though, because he came off as more polished, more confident, and he better connected with his audience.