When I arrived in the US on 9 September, I felt certain that President Barack Obama would win a second term in the White House. This was not wishful thinking; I had some objective arguments to rest my case on. After winning 2008 elections to become the first African American president, it came time to assess him on the basis of performance and results. Frankly, I was not among those who considered Obama a good president for the US. This was not solely because of the reason commonly cited in our part of the world that following that exciting address he delivered to the Islamic world and the strong beginning he made in dealing with the Arab-Israeli conflict, all the glow and energy of that initial burst of vigour quickly faded. Rather, it was largely because he failed to extricate the US and the world from its gruelling economic crisis. Obama's history during his first four years as president was a story of strong beginnings that open with speeches that were, perhaps, among the most stirring the world has heard since Churchill. But these beginnings rapidly lost their force and impetus. According to observers of domestic politics in the US, Obama was not type of leader who could succeed in extending his hand to the opposition in order to obtain a national consensus on his policies. The result was that most of his successes came at the expense of sharp divisions between the Democrats and Republicans. Then, after the latter party succeeded in securing a majority in the House of Representatives, he had no successes worth mentioning. This is not to say that he did not meet with some success. He managed to get US forces out of Iraq, to set a deadline for the US exit from Afghanistan by 2014, to pass a healthcare bill, and to bring the US economy back from the brink of major catastrophe. He also salvaged the US automobile industry and put it back into competition in international markets. But the sum of these achievements pales when we compare it to the promises Obama made with respect to the national deficit, a surge in economic growth rates and unemployment reduction. This said, by the time I reached Washington DC in September, the tide was definitely in Obama's favour. This was evident in opinion polls, which were giving him an eight point lead over his Republican rival. There were reasons for this. He had the advantage of being an incumbent president, so his campaign coffers were full while he and his party were spared primary elections and, hence, the spectre of internal rifts. In addition, sitting presidents always receive free propaganda since they are constantly at the centre of the news. Meanwhile, Mitt Romney emerged from the primaries bearing wounds from both sides of the Republican political spectrum. To the right he was not ultraconservative enough and to the left he was too ideological. Ultimately, he succeeded in becoming the Republican contender on the strength of a collection of stances that he would have to pay for dearly later, after having to pay for them — literally — in cash. Then he had to struggle to mend rifts and shore up the ranks in the Republican Party whose national convention in Tampa would ordinarily have given a natural boost for unity but, to his and the party's misfortune, had to be shortened due to a hurricane. For the rest of September, Obama retained his lead. Then came the first debate between the presidential candidates 3 October. Everyone had anticipated that Obama, with his expertise, his rhetorical flare and his “presidential” persona, would crush his rival, and that the race would be over a month before elections day. But to everyone's surprise, Romney won the debate hands down. He had shown himself more persuasive than the president and capable of winning over the people. Obama, by contrast, came across as arrogant and indifferent. He may have delivered some good punches, but he lost in the final tally. The result was that the Americans saw that they had a real alternative to the current occupant of the White House and the Romney team emerged with fresh and powerful impetus. Although Romney lost the next two presidential debate rounds, he retained that impetus and his popularity ratings came neck-and-neck to those of Obama who, until the first debate, seemed to be the sole contender. Perhaps the major reason for this was that the first debate altered the profiles of the players. Whereas Obama was the candidate who stood for “change” in 2008, Romney came to represent this in 2012. To a people who love change, Romney's claims that the president had not fulfilled his promises and that the American people still were in the grips of economic crisis reverberated deeply, and when he asked those people whether they were ready to put up with four more years of this, it was like music to their ears. Nevertheless, this did not keep Obama from winning, even if by a narrow margin. He still had a number of points in his favour; some connected with his character, others with serendipity. He had his charisma going for him and his talent for firing the enthusiasm of the people. These combined with his ability to build a broad alliance of women, African Americans, Jews, Latin Americans, gays, young people and other minorities and segments of society that shared deep worries about the conservatives in the Republican Party. Perhaps more importantly, Obama was still the same organisational man he was in 2008. He was a pro at getting his supporters out to the polls, especially in swing states that proved so crucial to his victory. As for the serendipitous, just as the race was heading into its final round and it seemed as though Romney was about to wrest the White House from Obama, Hurricane Sandy swept up the Atlantic seaboard. Suddenly, Obama was given the opportunity to demonstrate his powers of leadership as never before in the past four years, with full 24-hour-a-day media coverage, while Romney was obscured in a virtual media blackout. Then, since strokes of luck do not come singly, an economic report announced that Obama had created 179,000 new jobs. This latest statistic added credibility to Obama's claim that his administration had brought the US out of its economic doldrums and set it firmly on the path to economic and fiscal health. There was another factor that would remain in Obama's favour: the difference between the popular vote and the Electoral College vote. The latter gave him some confidence. While Romney had succeeded in breaking Obama's lead in the popular polls, he would not succeed in breaking Obama's lead among the states. These were what carried Obama firmly into the White House, after scraping a close victory in the popular vote. So, the African-American has returned for another four-year term. Here in the Arab world, people are racing to say that it makes little difference since we always use the Arab-Israeli conflict as our chief, if not sole, gauge for assessment and evaluation. But there are other important considerations that should be taken into account. Prime among them are whether Obama can save the world from an economic crisis that is growing more severe in Europe, how effectively he can handle the crisis with Iran, and whether he can induce China and Russia into joining the global majority on Syria. These are just for starters, and there are certain to be other major issues that should concern us, and that will show themselves in the coming days.
