Now, in a way, this means nothing to me – I live in the UK, and whoever the Americans elect is there concern. But I thought I’d have a go anyway.

From what I’ve seen of these two (who are the Democratic [kinda like Labour] candidates – John McCain has already clinched the Republican [bit like the Tories] vote) , the media is tending to present Barack Obama as the sane one, and Hillary Clinton as a bit of a loony.

Much has been made of Obama being a young black man, potentially the first black president in American history. He’s being pushed as a bit of a black JFK, with the looks and the smarts, and the ability to relate to the younger generation. Clinton, as noted in a Saturday Night live sketch, is popular with elderly white women.

I think that perhaps that is a bit harsh, but nevertheless, I can see the benefits of choosing Obama over Clinton. One benefit is that he seems to be more in control of what he wants to do with the healthcare system. Another is that he’s not directly related to a former president.

What’s so bad about being related to a former president? Three words – GEORGE WALKER BUSH. Isn’t that enough?

Some have attempted to belittle Obama, saying he is not suitable because of his background – he has been raised at varying times as both Christian and Muslim, and the suggestion is that no-one wants a Muslim as president of America. Obama denies being a practicing Muslim.

But even if he were practicing, is it so bad? Basic Muslim and Christian values are identical, it’s only the extremists (on both sides) that cause problems. And wouldn’t someone who has first hand experience of Muslims would probably have a great deal more success in dealings with the Middle East.

And Clinton has a scary smile. And screwed up healthcare last time. And is married to Bill Clinton…