American Democracy? As far as candidates go, it is a race for the lowest common denominator which, after all, is the essence of Democracy.

Ian cheese, London, UK

Brilliant piece. But.. more simply, centre-left politicians «can't fool all the people all the time». Centre-lefters, as the name implies, don't know where they stand. Thus, they don't know much what they are doing.. and FOR WHOM they are governing. People just don't know what to expect from them.

Rui, Lisbon, Portugal

Liberal intelligencia - an oxymoron surely?

Mac, Teignmouth, Devon,

Brown is not a Leader, he could dance naked in the streets and still lose, he is not a winner, he is not a good decision maker, the Labour party are fresh out of any intelligent people that is why they have to steal all the Tories ideas, just to cling onto power.

Ben, London, UK

Brown is a very cautious politician. He will not take chances. His only hope is to force a confrontation with the Tories by withdrawing from Iraq which would probably put them in the position of supporting an unpopular war.

gareth, llanelli,

Indeed, for a man who is supposed to be very clever, Brown has made some remarkably stupid decisions. Like many others I cannot comprehend why he persists with ID cards, 42 days etc. And he just made himself look foolish over the election which we all know he intended to have.

Paul Owen, Birmingham, UK

I think Tonye you mean the benefits of his stewardship for Scotland. Everything he has touched for England has been a shambles - whilst he was Chancellor and PM. If you think he's that great then I'm sure you will welcome him as a leader of the Scotland when Alex and Wendy get you independence.

john, romsey, uk

Isn't 'champagne-socialist intelligentsia' a contradiction in terms?

Alfred T Mahan, Westbury, Wiltshire

Tonye - Scotland is obviously a very different place to England then! Ok , I'm biased but with the exception of house prices (for me as an owner with no mortgage), I cant think of a single thing that is better now than it was 10 years ago, but I can think of many, many things that are worse.

Billy, Leeds, West Yorks

After Bill Clinton's 1992 victory someone wrote that in all elections people either vote for continuity or change, and that Bush's misfortune was to be a continuity candidate at a time when people wanted change. Ironically, I think Hillary was in the same bind, the zeitgeist was for change and Obama

Richard Briscoe, Amersham, England

Wrong! Brown has lost the support of not only unskilled workers but that large group in society that sustained Margaret Thatcher, skilled workers, employed and self employed. They have borne the brunt of triangualation for eleven years and are sick of it.

Bob, Faversham, UK

Good analysis Anatole, based purely on your column's emphasise on the importance of charasmatic new leaders is David Cameron not the reincarnation of Tony Blair?

Rohit Rai, Glasgow, United Kingdom

I cannot see that these two have a deal in common. Clinton is feisty, smiley, noisy, hip hoppy, full of attack while Brown is quiet, unsmiling, unstirred, solid as the Bank of England and now apologetic. They are however firm establishment people and both appear wearied by events and time.

Boris, Belgravia, London

You a re quite clear in the article that you are or were a Brown supporter. I can never take your views on economics seriously again. Your judgement is serously flawed

John pierpoint, London,

Adrian Gilbert - 'Progressive' when used to describe politicians is actually a technical term for politicians who espouse redistribution of wealth from the rich to the poor via fiscal mechanisms. (The opposite of 'regressive' - a tax that affects the poor more than the rich).

Daniel, Glasgow,

"champagne-socialist intelligentsia" is one of the most oxymoronic terms I've ever read.

Pretty much the only good thing about Brown is that he's not Hillary Clinton.

Neil McF, Southampton, England

Tonye, O, from Dalgety Bay

You are perfectly correct if you are a Jock otherwise he has been a total disaster. Massive taxation to fund massive public spending and no tangible results unless you live North of the border. Even the Jockinese Labour Party appear to have declared UDI.

Tom Hanna, North Yorkshire,

Bill Clinton and Tony Blair were consummate liers. If another word for lying is 'triagulation' it sounds as hollow. Hillary Clinton is shunned for her hypocrisy so typical of Blair and Bill Clinton. Brown is an introvert, old Labour closetted socialist
who thinks that voters are idiots.

Gary, LONDON,

Superb analysis - the parallels are striking. You could also mention their christian socialist roots, their "roundhead" work ethic, their political (and in Hillary's case actual) marriages to cavalier charmers, and their Nixonian control freakery. Cameron/Obama as nemesis completes the picture

Simon David, Singapore,

"But when politicians' reputations are sliding, this dynamic goes into reverse. Instead of getting credit for both the positions they espouse ... the public gives them credit for neither."

Call it the "credibility crunch" or "rhetorical de-leveraging". Ha ha!

Andy, London,

Gordon Brown did not "inherit" the Blair-Bush foreign policy. He was in the Cabinet at the time of the invasion of Iraq and there is still a doctrine of Collective Ministerial Responsibility in this country (Robin Cook and Clare Short resigned!). He has blood on his hands just as much as Blair.

Michael, London,

Brown's problem is that his political skills were formed during opposition rather than government, and much of the time in office is spent opposing the tories. It would be an interesting study to determine when Labour believed it was the Government, and when the tories realised they were not.

Mike Kelly, Milton Keynes,

Anatole, Another point - both waited for more than a decade in the shadow of and as secondary to their shallow and flashy others (Bil and Tony) in the hope of their glory days. Both messed it up spectacularly when the spotlight fell on them. Idealistic mind does not mean a great leader.

Prabhat, UK,

Wrong! The liberal intelligentsia are an irrellevence. Brown has lost the support of unskilled workers and the large section of society that sustained Margaret Thatcher, skilled workers, small business people, the self employed. They have quietly borne his underhand machinations for eleven years.

Bob, Faversham, UK

Why is it that commentators like the esteemed Mr Kaletsky fall for the hype and refer to left-wing politics as 'progressive'? There has been nothing progressive about Brown's term as PM. He, like the now forgotten Ken, is a total reactionary. Progress today is with the Tories.

Adrian Gilbert, Tonbridge,

"Instead of getting credit for both the positions they espouse - for example, better public services and lower taxes"

Does the author really think we have better services and more money in our pockets? He is living in a different Britain to me.

Nobby Clark, Perth, UK

I would question the emphasis Anatole places on Iraq and instead revert to the character problem. GB dithers, claims credit where it is often not due and is generally both ungracious in victory and petulant in defeat. Hillary seems to lie, cast aspersions and do anything to climb the slippery pole.

Guy Thompson, London,

The whole problem with liberal politicians is that their principles are incompatable with effective governance. Once in power, they are forced to exercise a modicum of responsibility and new lib heroes arise to assuage the angst of their idiotic constituency, only to disapoint in their turn

Kev Wilson, Slough,

I agree with Chris, London, and Jon Livesey, Sunnydale. Instead of taking a reading of the political situation on the ground and making a simple decision.

Who said: "You can only please some people some of the time; but not all the people all of the time? A wise American?

albert hall, hove, england

A good analysis. However whether Anmerica was ready to embrace either a woman or a black President in 2008 was doubtful. The Democratic Party have probably thrown away the election. Similiarly the Labour Party made a disastrous mistake in choosing the Scot Brown to lead an English government.

Michael Riley, London, London

Brown and labour simple have to go, ID card, and CCTV and teh orwelleian nightmare they seam determind to create alone should be enough to get rid of them, but at the end of day, they are crap, which should be enough to get rid of any one.

Mr W Jones, Liverpool, England.

Mr Kaletsky repeats more often than is good for his credibility that Mr Brown was one of the most successful leftwing politician. He also likes to add that Mr Brown was a great steward of the British economy. If that is the best the Left can do, keep them out of power for ever.

Alex Story, Wakefield, Yorkshire, UK

I was amazed to read this crazy artical by A.Kaletsky.
You are supporting a man Gordon Brown who has taxed us to death, done massive damage to the Pensions in this country
lost control of law and order via his own social enginering cant make a speech or a decision and will wreck this country.
Rob

Rob Stanton, Wokingham, UK

Brown's plans for 42 day detention are pure political posturing. He thinks that by proposing such a preposterously illiberal measure all parties will oppose him. There will be compromise but, crucially, he will look tougher than the Tories.

This might have been clever in 1998, but now looks crass.

chris, london, uk

A good analysis, as usual, but one other problem in common for Clinton and Brown is a generational one. Young voters have the advantage of not being prisoners to a triangulation argument. Since they are not making yesterday's choices, they are not swayed by yesterday's arguments.

jon livesey, Sunnyvale, CA/USA

Anatole, Gordon Brown is still Prime Minister and will remain PM for another two years. He has done more for the Country as Chancellor and Prime Minister. The benefits to the country of his stewardship is currently being enjoyed by your readers. Cameron should learn about policy from the lib dems.

Tonye, O, Dalgety Bay, Scotland