Is Obama mania really necessary?

Firstly, without sounding like I'm putting a disclaimer, i want to say that I actually support Obama and would of voted for him if I was American. I don't agree with all his policies and in areas I think the US will go backwards under him, but in general I think he is good for not only the US but also the world in general. It couldn't of got worse.

However, with his appearance at the G20 and NATO recently. I am getting just a bit frustrated with first, the ridiculously bad and sensational British media and secondly, public opinion about the new messiah.

This week I discovered who Michelle Obama's designer is, what she ate for every meal in the UK, how she hugged the Queen and several school kids, we also learned that she is not a big fan of tea and getting a Portuguese dog because their daughter has an allergy. We got to see every speech made by Obama several times over with every smile and glance analysed. We did not see however, Japan's view of the G20, or China's, India's, Indonesia's and Korea's. I thought there was 20 leaders visiting London (actually 22, math levels are dropping in the world). I even missed half of what our own Prime Minister had said because it was hardly repeated. I want to know why. Why was Michelle Obama even here? I mean I can't bring a girlfriend to work with me. Mrs Sarkozy wasn't here and that was a real shame. Is there really that much demand for the Obama's.

Is his perceived popularity real? Well a few facts, he got 52.92% of the US vote in the election. So 47.98% of those who voted, didn't vote for him. In most places we call 47%, nearly half. This is only one part of the tale. It equates to roughly 70m votes. Now if you bear in mind only 60% of the eligible voters actually voted then you see that he got 70m from 210m voters (roughly, it can be argued that viable voters range from 208 to 211.). So Obama got 30% of the eligible vote, so 70% of the eligible voters didn't vote for him. In England we call this the majority. In defence of Obama, there is no way to know who the people who decided not to vote would of voted for if they were made to vote. Also 30% was more than any other candidate and was a clear easy winner, even though it is widely regarded as an unfair electoral process (the irony that a country that promotes democracy around the world doesn't have a truly democratic system).
Read it again though. 70%. 7 in 10 potential voters choose not to vote for him. So why the massive popularity message. It can only be based on perceived popularity.

I think he has actually done a pretty poor job in his first couple of months. I say couple of months, the elections were in November so he has had a while to prepare. Yet even after saying the economy is a priority has pretty much left Tim Geithner on his own in the treasury with EU policy makers even making suggestions they had no one to discuss policies with. November was nearly 6 months ago! Add to this some naive appointments such as Daschle. Personally I thought Clinton should of been given the job of health because it is an area that Obama could make really improve and I don't believe she is suitable for foriegn affairs.

These are key decisions because there is no way he can get half the work done that he wants without a strong backing. I do think Obama has been good on foreign affairs and creating a clean slab for foreign relations. This where I think the essence of Obama's popularity comes from. He has a natural gift that caught be taught. He creates hope and makes you believe in him. He is a brilliant speaker (although his speech writers must take some credit) and reminds me of how the UK was in 97 with Blair, who whatever you say about him is also a great speaker.
Although Obama is so popular around the world the US is still unpopular (can't have it all).

I could go on forever but I have many things bugging me at the moment. For one the anti-finance sector propaganda that is growing. Firstly, Sir Fred Godwin is not the sole reason the UK or the world is in recession. He also isn't the sole reason for the RBS demise. It is naive to think one person has that power. Saying this his pension is ridiculous and he should be ashamed of himself. Physically targeting him and especially his family is disgraceful. Are we barbarians?

Which leads me lastly to my last rant the protests. I am extremely proud that we are a country that allows freedom of speech and demonstrations but the ones at the G20 were truelly pathetic. Firstly, 3 protests in a week killed any chance of getting a big crowd. More people watched my local Sunday league team than turned up on the Wednesday. Secondly, climate protests, what on earth are you doing protesting at an event that not in a million Sundays was ever going to talk about climate. We've got to the stage where they go to every summit and people don't even blink twice. There is a big conference in Copenhagen coming up which is where all their attention should lie. I do agree with there points but they are so badly ran with no clear aims or objectives that are ever going to be put in place. Thirdly, the anti-war protesters. Did they not see that there was a NATO summit this week. Fourthly, the thugs that decided to smash the RBS building. Congratulations we own 70% of that building and will be paying for the new refurbishment. Also you look like idiots. I say we because as I saw most of the protesters were students not workers. Also if you want to act like an idiot then at least show your face or are you embarrassed.
The police in general did a good job (compare London to Strasbourg or Bangkok) but they were well over handed in some instances and they should not be let off the hook with that.

My main complaint though is that there is no organisation of a clear objective other than using the moral right to persuade politicians. They just looked a bit stupid.

I know most of my friends will disagree with every point I've made but it's been one of those weeks.