Some men, who appear otherwise quite normal, seem incapable of looking at the United States vice-presidential nominee Sarah Palin without suddenly having their legs turn to spaghetti and their minds to mush. The idea of a moose-hunting, attractive young woman being a heartbeat away from the White House is casting an erotic spell that's seemingly swamping ordinarily rational critical faculties.
Certainly, at first blush, her candidacy seems to have thrown a spanner into Barak Obama's inexorable progress towards 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, Washington, DC. She's rallying the religious vote, as well as bringing innumerable others to John McCain's banner.
But there's a downside to this as well. For every man who gets excited about voting for Palin, there'll be a woman who's not quite as positive. For every born-again Christian who believes abortion should be criminal, there'll be someone else who will now turn out, just to vote her down because they're angry about her views and the way she leads her life. Despite all her freshness and youth, and the surprise that a hunt'n, shoot'n and fish'n mum can also speak smoothly, Palin represents the old politics.
At first blush, she seems to represent a startling freshness. She's a movie script come to life a capable, ordinary gal who's become involved in politics for the same motivations that got her involved as a hockey-mum supporting her children's team. And that's exactly the way she's been packaged. That's why there was a sudden frisson of recognition in the audience during her acceptance speech.
Everyone knows the way this ''Hollywood'' scenario runs and the Republican strategists are relying on people getting enthused about joining the dots. It's a simple text. An honest, ordinary (but attractive) woman goes to Washington and, after a few awakenings, setbacks and laughs, ends up taking over as president and leading the country through a crisis back to greatness again.
Last week, the Australian Industry Group asked Mark Textor, the pollster who's helped chart conservatives to political success, for a special seminar to try to explain exactly what's happening in politics. What link apart from unusual hairstyles could possibly exist between Kevin Rudd, Palin and new Tory London mayor Boris Johnson?
Textor drew a particular similarity into sharp relief, and used it to explain why we are so ready to rip down politicians we turned to just a few years ago. ''In the wake of the World Trade Center attacks'', he says, ''people turned to strong leaders''. These politicians offered stability, saying, in effect, trust us and we will look after you. But today that's all changed. ''People don't want to see 10-point plans to tackle problems in the future. They want action, and answers, now.''
Seen this way, Palin is just a representation of a new dynamic that's tearing across the political fabric all around the world. She's the conservatives' answer to the new ''post-political'' challenge that Obama represents. However, it's worth noting that she still evokes old-style political responses, and that's all the people who will turn out to vote just to make sure she fails. The big turn-on among Republican voters will be reciprocated by the angst she arouses among others who have a visceral opposition to her.
From the beginning, Obama's candidacy has challenged this binary divide. He triumphed over Hillary Clinton by appealing to a new constituency. He positioned himself as representing a new way forward; using new formulations to overcome the seemingly intractable political impasses of the past. In the US, where voting is not compulsory, this still offers him a remarkable chance of becoming the next president. If he can retain the faith of the young and those who want change, he'll win. The key is to be able to mobilise these people, and keep them enthusiastic long enough to cast their votes.
Palin's supporters, on the other hand, are a known force. Although her style is a surprise and she seems new, she is just an evolution of a much older political formulation. She divides the world into republicans and democrats. Obama is attempting to move beyond these old concepts and appeal as someone who will deal with the underlying issues. Much, incidentally, as Rudd did last year when he wrested power from John Howard.
The significance of this approach isn't just confined to the US. The Australian Strategic Policy Institute's Rod Lyon has examined the challenge of this way of dealing with problems in a strategy paper. One easy way of seeing the difference between a McCain and Obama presidency is to examine the conflict in Afghanistan. In Iraq, McCain saw the urgent need for the surge of US forces to directly combat the insurgency at the same time as others were calling for withdrawal. It appears likely that he'd advocate the same tactic in Afghanistan. It's a direct approach that is clearly understood.
Obama, however, talks about dealing with the cause of the problem. He wants to deal with the insurgent sanctuaries in the Pakistan tribal regions, which is undoubtedly the key to solving the crisis in the territory that should be controlled by Kabul. But talk like this doesn't offer much reassurance to the new Islamic politicians in Islamabad. By moving into uncharted political territory Obama threatens old ways of conceiving of the world as divided into ''spheres of influence''.
When Georgia attempted to flex its muscle and regain control of its breakaway territories, Russia very quickly demonstrated that it still determines what will happen in its surrounding region. Even if the US views the world differently, this doesn't mean the view from behind the Kremlin walls will match Obama's vision.
He's transformed US politics already, by challenging the status quo and overthrowing the old way of doing things. The interesting question will be what happens when a new way of doing things meets the rigid formulations of the international strategic balance that's served us for so long.
Nicholas Stuart is a Canberra writer.
nicstuart@hotmail.com