Authentic voice in a circus of lies

YOU so rarely see authentic emotion on a television chat show that, when you do, it's almost shocking. This is particularly true in the US with Oprah Winfrey's all-out operatic theatricality. Who'll get the highest score for pseudo sincerity in today's program: Winfrey or her performing guest? Think Tom Cruise on the sofa.

And it's not much better on the couches besides Letterman or Leno. Even the cool dude performances of rock star or hot actor are spurious, laid on with a trowel.

So imagine my surprise with Barack Obama on The Daily Show, one of the two essentially political programs screened by the Comedy Channel that, for a younger demographic, serves as the antidote to Fox News. Like its neighbour in the schedules, The Colbert Report, The Daily Show is compered by a comic, Jon Stewart, who gives the Bush administration both barrels. This does not prevent Republican heavies queuing up to be lampooned; John McCain heads a long line of Republican presidential aspirants who've made repeated appearances. Ditto for the Democrats. To be on The Daily Show is considered cool. Because they get to the politically aware kids, many candidates reckon it's worth the considerable risk. They sit beside Stewart affecting relaxation, but you can almost hear their hearts pound.

Which brings us back to that authentic emotion I mentioned, displayed by Obama. He was spectacularly, genuinely relaxed and, as a consequence, the epitome of cool. He spent much of his time roaring with laughter. He had a lot of fun. And you heard the hearts of viewers pound as he won them over in their millions.

Yet Obama and Stewart were talking surprisingly serious stuff about "the nonsensical way we run presidential campaigns". Stewart displayed clippings from the US newspapers and magazines where every other utterance of Obama's was hysterically headlined as another fatal gaffe, where the merest hiccup on the campaign trail was blown into a political catastrophe. Far from despairing, Obama just kept laughing. And you couldn't help but laugh along.

Obama talked about the competing narratives that consume campaigns, preconceptions chorused by political enemies, pundits and editorialists. In the case of Obama v Hillary Clinton, the narratives are that Obama is charismatic but inexperienced whereas Clinton is not very likable but experienced. Everything Obama and Clinton do is seen through those prisms which, thus far, are working to Clinton's advantage.

You will immediately see the parallels in Australia with the narratives attaching to John Howard and Kevin Rudd, or attached to Rudd by Howard. While Rudd is no Obama in the charisma stakes, he certainly has comparative youth going for him; so Howard has to do a Clinton and make him sound like an escapee from the local kindergarten.

Obama's advice to Rudd would be dead simple: don't panic. Just chip away at the narrative. Thus Obama points out that Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and others had very impressive CVs and that their vast experience gave the world the war in Iraq; whereas the inexperienced Obama - unlike the Bushites and Clinton - opposed the invasion from the beginning. Obama refuses to let the Bushites or the Clinton camp trap him in their story. And he reminds people that Clinton's experience in the Senate isn't much longer than his.

When he talked of the sillinesss on the campaign trail it was like watching outtakes from series seven of The West Wing. As direct and candid as the fictional Matt Santos, the ultimately triumphant Hispanic candidate, Obama talked of the lies we all tell. Every candidate is telling lies. Everyone knows they're hearing lies, most of all the campaign trail commentariat. It's a ritual, an absurdity. And as Obama complains, the lies distract from the serious issues. In the case of the Republicans, huge efforts go into insane auctions, each candidate proclaiming a greater closeness to God. On Guantanamo they outbid each other, contenders insisting that far from closing the place down they'll make it bigger and toss in more people. It's a charade, but the rules of engagement are deemed to demand it. Thus the candidates make fools of themselves and each other.

We see the same performance pieces here. Howard and Rudd on stage, pushing and shoving each other for the limelight. The press in the orchestra pit, the pollsters in the front stalls and the real issues are backstage or in the wings.

Obama was fascinating on the disadvantages of running with a senatorial background, talking of the way senators are wedged into voting on meaningless pieces of legislation, whereas governors are able to set agendas, to create their own legislative campaigns, implying it made a presidential run for a Bill Clinton or Ronald Reagan far easier. And all this frank and often funny analysis was on an ostensibly comic program. Perhaps Australian politics would benefit from a new public affairs program between now and voting day. Compered by John Clarke.