By Jon-Christopher Bua, Sky News political analyst
On January 20, 2009, with the grace of God, one of these two men will place his hand on the Bible and take the Oath of Office becoming the 44th President of The United States of America.
Breaking the cold January silence, Ruffles and Flourishes and Hail to the Chief will be played for the first time honouring the new President.
While in the middle of an excruciating summer of record-breaking heat and catastrophic floods, Inauguration Day does seem a long way off.
However, for John McCain and Barack Obama the race to the White House is on.
There are many factors that will determine just who will be the victor. Among them are the differences in: policy, experience, charisma, authenticity, age and race.
Unexpected national and international events may also play a role in the outcome but one of the most important factors in winning this coveted prize is money.
American politics is awash with money. It is a system where candidates must raise huge amounts to win an election and remain in office. This makes them beholden to those who contribute to their campaign coffers.
This week, Senator Obama made a monumental decision to become the first US candidate to forgo public-federal funding for his presidential campaign since it was established in 1974.
What this decision means is that he forgoes £43m in public funds (which is raised through taxes) in exchange for the ability to raise unlimited funds from his contributors without any restrictions on the amount he can raise or spend.
Previously, Mr Obama promised that if he were the Democratic nominee he would negotiate a deal with the McCain campaign where they would both accept public funding.
The mountains of money Mr Obama raised during his primary battle seemed to have changed his mind.
Senator McCain, who has long been a proponent of campaign finance reform, has said he would accept only public funding.
One of the key pieces of legislation which attempts to control the influence of money in politics bears his name - the McCain-Feingold Bill.
This means that the McCain campaign can only spend the £43m it will receive from the end of the Republican Convention on September 4 until Election Day on November 4.
Practically speaking, this means Mr Obama may have the capacity to out raise and outspend Mr McCain two or three to one. This kind of cash buys both advertising and on-the-ground organisation.
Mr Obama plans to run a 50-state campaign, making Mr McCain compete and spend money in traditional strongholds where no Republican has had to spend money in decades.
Public funding comes with rules and restrictions that apply to the campaign organisations of the candidates who accept it.
However, these rules do not apply to the Republican or Democratic party organisations or any of the hundreds of affiliated and "independent groups" including Political Action Committees (PACs) who align themselves with the two candidates and the parties.
The most infamous of these "independent groups" are the 527 organisations, which are named for the section of the legislation that created them.
It was a 527 group that raised the money and produced the ads that "swift boated" John Kerry's bid for the White House by attacking one of his greatest strengths, his Vietnam war hero status.
These groups from the left and the right are notorious for doing the "dastardly deeds" that no campaign would dare to do - they attack their opponent with sleaze and slime leaving their candidate with "clean hands".
It is the lack of control on both the amount of money raised by these groups and the accountability for the content of their advertising that Mr Obama cited as one of his reason for rejecting this broken system.
The Obama campaign will contend that by refusing to accept certain types of "fat cat" donations and running a campaign that has been financed by the average voter who has donated less than £40, Mr Obama has already achieved what campaign finance legislation failed to do - taken big money and influence out of politics.
Mr Obama's decision challenges the very idea that public funding is the answer. It also gives the McCain campaign the opportunity to call him a flip-flopper and to attack him at the heart of his brand, the Candidate of Change.
Mr Obama has taken two risks.
One, that he will continue to raise the record-breaking sums that he amassed during the primary. Fundraising records from May indicate that both Mr McCain and Mr Obama were neck in neck, each collecting £11m. This was £5m less than Obama raised in April.
Two, and perhaps more risky, Mr Obama has handed Mr McCain a way to attack his "brand".
It is here on campaign finance reform where voters will look at the years of Mr McCain's support and action and question whether Mr Obama will follow through on promises of reforming the system.
The voters in the primaries sent a clear message that they wanted change in the way the political game is played. They believed Mr Obama wanted to reform the system.
This pivotal decision by Mr Obama to reject public funding may cause friend and foe alike to question whether this is old politics as usual or a brilliant strategic move showing he has what it takes to be a winner.
by accepting public funding only mccain hopes to avoid all the strings that go with accepting donations from those who would control him - i wish him luck!. if you recall the moral tale - the pied piper of hamelin - he who pays the piper calls the tune! i question obamas poor judgement in accepting big funds from both rich individuals , corporations & special interest groups.like the racial card he has played obama has shown he is nothing but another petty politician who before being elected works his gums & afterwards gums up the works. if you thought that bushs first election against al gore was dirty politics all the way down to the last chad then i think we have got a real dirty fight a brewing again this time.
Posted by: jerome webber , ramat gan, israel 29 Jun 2008 17:30:14
Kalid, great blog and I agree with you. The democrats (the far left super delegates) made the fatal error of "choosing" the wrong candidate. They will rue the day when McCains steps into the White house.
Posted by: Ainsley 24 Jun 2008 12:30:04
In regards to Bruce's comment, thats a whole bag of unimportant matters that's not rellivant at this stage.....Obama is the front runner for the democrts!!! he has clearly broken records by raising that huge amount of money and refusing to accept public funds..in my eyes he is already a winner...well i am not worried about medevial America to tick the "X" next to Obama and not McCain...because those people who will are the minority..the Majority will choose Obama and its very clear that they will..this is the time for change..God is in Control and not man here!!! its not a issues with Colour for me but change...i love change...lets give it a go and see..Obama is more than experience to run the Country..hahaha if Bushed managed the Job i cant see why Obama is inexperince..Bush only has experience in going to war..is that the experience we expect Obama to have?
Posted by: Marlon, London 24 Jun 2008 07:39:04
Sir
Insofar as to public taxes footing the bill to elect the un-electee then Senator Obama has a very valid point thus far as to say, why should the average American spend tax money upon repeated rhetoric and not utilise it better towards free health for all citizens.
Public taxes if I am correct are for the beneift of all, regardless of colour, creed or party alegiance, a factor I am sad to note the retired veteran does not put on the table.
As for the one that will be best to occupy the White House, sadly the so called super delegates scuppered that chance and showed not to have the guts to back what could have been the winning horse, and per ususal played the very fragile and political gamble thus far as to gain voter apathy based upon colour.
Sadly again, I remain of the view that Senator Obama lacks what I call quality decorum to hold the presidential seal, and I'm afraid the wisdom of Senator Clinton will return to haunt many if they do not gather their wits and bring her back into the race.
Still, as it is early days, I wonder if the ticker will hold out that long as [Its Just A Matter Of Time-Hill St. Soul]
Posted by: Khalid 23 Jun 2008 21:39:35
Actually, I feel that Barack Obama is the perfect candidate. I live in the "middle class" and his calmness and open-mindedness to new ideas gives him an advantage to McCain's archaic views on politics, even though he may be more experienced. Bush has ran the country for his own agenda without any concern for the people or their wishes. When his approval ratings are well below 30%, he has done nothing to improve this image. McCain does have some interesting ideas, but it will be the same old thing. We need someone to unite the country and lead with a new vision.
Posted by: Clint / Tennessee, USA 23 Jun 2008 17:23:00
Written by Jon-Christopher Bua
Whoever you are!!/??
You obviously have a bised opinion about American politics! I don't think you also know what "FREEDOM OF THE PRESS" really means??!!
Posted by: Bruce / Tucson, USA 23 Jun 2008 12:47:30
I will keep telling everyone this until "The cows Come Home"!
Barack Obama is too liberal, too untested, too inexperienced, too young and most importantly he is a black man, in a racially polarised country!!
White middle-class American's are not going to vote for a black man with no suitable credentials, to sit in the Oval Office of the W/House and manage their affairs and the affairs of the USA!!
They may say one thing in public, but when they are in the privacy of that voting booth, the box next to McCain's name is going to be ticked!
Maybe it will happen in 20,30 40 yrs time, but not in this very difficult environment that the USA + the world are facing at this time!!
Unfortunately, McCain will win this Presidential election, as he is the better of 2 poor choices for the American electorate to choose from!
It's absolutely amazing, that in a country of 300 million people, this is the best that we can put forward!! I suppose that it is somewhat understandable that the right peole do NOT want to get involved in this business....Because in America, politics is a very dirty business!!
Posted by: Bruce / Tucson, USA 23 Jun 2008 12:11:46