US-Election 2008

[Shambhu]

Hillary has every reason to get pissed at MSNBC. Dems and rest of USA too understand that.

Sonia is an all out bitch. Hillary at least loves US. Sonia hates hindus. She will love India only when all hindus become psecs..

[acharya]

World speaks out on US elections



Somalia is one of many nations who may be affected by the new US president [EPA]

Al Jazeera website readers from Somalia, Israel, Venezuela and the Philippines give their view on how the US elections will affect them.

Abdullah Sheikh, 26, school teacher, Somalia

Somalis are interested in the US election more than any other nation in the world, because the US government is involved in Somalia and supports the transitional federal government (TFG) which is composed of ruthless warlords formed by Ethiopia and supported by the Bush administration.

In focus


In-depth coverage of the
US presidential election
I am in Mogadishu. The US proxy war in Somalia has caused me to lose my job, my school was destroyed by Ethiopian missiles, my students fled and my wife and three kids are suffering in an IDP [internally displaced persons camp] in the outskirts of the city.

I am jobless and I cannot get job unless there is peace and there is no peace unless Ethiopian forces leave the country.

If Democrats win in the election I hope they will condemn the [war] in Somalia and urge Ethiopian forces to stop killing innocent people.

Barack Obama seems the best candidate for me and my country because he is an ethnic African, he is from the Democrats and he is a young, intelligent man [who] can understand the concerns of African nations and the poor people.

Some people in Somalia still remember the 1993 battle between the late Somali warlord General Mohamed Farah Aideed and US rangers.

Your Views

What impact will the US elections have on your country?

Send us your views
That operation caused several hundreds of Somalis and 18 US soldiers to die and US Black Hawk helicopters were shot down.

Hillary Clinton was the first lady and her husband, Bill Clinton, was in the White House at that time, so Somalians fear that she may continue supporting the Ethiopian occupation.

We believe any change in the White House could also change the situation in Somalia.

The presence of the Ethiopian occupation has created generations of religious warriors in Somalia, and there are thousands of nationalists radicalised by the daily diet of violence.

The Bush administration in the White House is happy with the brutal events in Somalia by Ethiopian forces but, God willing, the Democrats will be different from Bush and his Republicans.

People in Somalia prefer Democrats to dominate the White House, because the Democrats are less violent than Republicans.

Su Schachter, Kibbutz Gezer, Israel

"Any US president who would push us, either politically or by using the aid package as a bribe, to end the conflict in a peaceful and just way would be good for Israel"

Su Schachter, Israel
I think it is a frightening reflection of the enormous power that the United States exerts worldwide that most of the world's countries are thinking, wondering and worrying about how the US elections will affect us all.

Certainly, Israel would be better off if it were more independent of US influence and more concerned about elections and power shifts in the neighbouring Middle Eastern countries, who are our more natural allies in the global scheme.

Israel only suffers from the continuation of conflict between us and our neighbours; we suffer morally, financially, socially, ecologically, socio-economically and of course politically.

Any US president who would push us, either politically or by using the aid package as a bribe, to end the conflict in a peaceful and just way would be good for Israel.

Therefore I would say that any of the Republican fundamentalist candidates would be worst for Israel since they all encourage (and fund) the conflict and encourage (and fund) fundamentalist groups and politicians in Israel.

Hillary Clinton, though she talks a good line of two-state solution and the importance of conflict resolution, seems likely to be similar to her husband in foreign policy and hence more invested in the appearance of pushing for an end to the conflict rather than taking radical steps to force us to withdraw from territories and negotiate meaningfully.

Obama is an unknown in foreign policy, but I am afraid he will rely on liberal Jewish votes to get elected and American Jews tend to be liberal on domestic issues but too unthinkingly supportive of Israeli governmental policies.

Perhaps Obama will live up to his promise and implement a new American policy on third world and Middle Eastern issues. If so, he could be our best candidate.

My fear is too many Americans are committed to a hawkish Israel, either as the fulfillment of their Christian messianic beliefs or as a stronghold for an interventionist American military presence, to allow any candidate to push for a significant change in the status quo.

The sad reality is that too many Israelis agree with them.

Luis Quijada, Cabimas, Venezuela

The primaries on the Republican side have been a bit shocking for me.

Chavez's relationship with a new US leader
will prove crucial to Venezuela[AFP]
I thought [former New York mayor] Giuliani and [Arizona senator] McCain would be now neck-and-neck, but Giuliani preferred to wait for Florida. Bad choice!

For me, it's McCain on the Republican side. On the Democrats it's a bit more clear, I think Hillary will get the nomination despite her clumsy husband (I don't think the attacks on Obama are helping Hillary at all).

Senator Obama can wait and get re-elected as senator in 2010.

As for Venezuela, I guess we'd prefer a Democrat. I don't think it's going to affect my life at all, not even an insane US president would ever dare to invade us.

But as far as diplomatic relations are concerned, a Democrat is easier for us to talk to.

All of them are talking about getting out of Iraq and President Chavez has condemned over and over again the invasion, so if it is a Democrat - he or she will have something in common with Chavez.

I cannot predict the future, but I do hope the new US president is someone everyone can talk to, negotiate with, and above all, be reliable.

Ian K Siaotong, Philippines/Saudi Arabia

I am a migrant worker from the Philippines and currently reside and work in Saudi Arabia.

"The US has changed leadership for decades yet there is no change in their policy towards their Third World country allies"

Ian K Siaotong, Philippines/Saudi Arabia
The Philippines is a traditional ally of the US. Our country, a Third World country, for decades has been dependent on US aid, particularly military equipment.

Our government is hostage to the US since we cannot change our foreign policy - such as establishing closer relations with other nations that America considers as enemy - or we risk losing US aid.

Aside from the aid, we could also face economic sanctions and it would mean economic collapse as the US is our number one trade partner.

I see no difference in whoever wins the US presidential race. The US has changed leadership for decades yet there is no change in their policy towards their Third World country allies.

For me it is a close call between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton for the Democrats and John McCain and Mitt Romney for the Republicans.

I personally want a candidate from the Democratic Party to win this year's presidential election; I prefer Hillary Clinton over Barack Obama as she is more experienced.

The Republicans are too conservative and I doubt if a new Republican president would dare to change their foreign policy.

I do not think that the US elections will affect my life directly. The results may affect my country and Saudi Arabia, where I work, but not me.

However, the devaluation of the US dollar has affected the economies of so many countries and the Philippine peso is at an all time high.

The downside of the rising peso is that migrant workers' earnings are reduced. The Saudi Arabian riyal is a fixed currency so the declining rate of dollars does not affect the Saudi Arabian economy.

With the rising oil prices at $100 per barrel, it will only make Saudi Arabia richer.

Everyone in the US wants change. It would be a breather if a Democratic president is elected. However, a 360-degree change in US foreign policy is maybe too idealistic.

[acharya]

World views: US election



Whoever wins the US election will inherit the issue of Iraq's ongoing violence [GALLO/GETTY]


As candidates in the US primaries prepare to battle it out for their parties' presidential nominations, Al Jazeera spoke to readers across the world for their thoughts on the hotly contested race.

We asked whether they feel the parties' choice of candidate will have an effect on their lives if elected, and what impact, if any, the new US president could have on their lives and their country.

Yousef Hel, Gaza City, Gaza

We as Palestinians are not concerned about the elections, we know the US administration's policy on the Middle East has totally neglected the Palestinian cause for many years.

In focus


In depth coverage of the
US presidential election
It is pro-Israel and financially supports them, neglecting the Palestinian cause and our suffering.

We hope that the American situation will improve, that any new candidate will be willing to push the peace process forward and put pressure on Israel to end the occupation.

We would like to live in peace and stability, it is sad that we will live in 2008 in a few days and the US administration is using double standards.

It will make no difference which candidate from which party is elected. The candidates say things for the election and care only about internal issues, not external issues.

We have witnessed Clinton and Bush the father and even the current president promising Palestinians a state, but never they never fulfilled their promises.

We expect that the new president will focus on the war on terror instead.

The Palestinian people are struggling to seek independence, so will the new president also brand us as terrorists?

Essam Fahim, Lahore, Pakistan

Who becomes the next US candidate will have a huge impact on Pakistan, because Pakistan is a key player in the so-called war on terror.

Will the next US president follow Bush's line on
Pakistan? [GALLO/Getty]
The most obvious ways in which this will happen can be understood by looking at a particular candidate's views about Pakistan.

At least one candidate considers Pakistan to be the most dangerous country in the world right now.

Others are considering the possibility of military action in Pakistan if elected. Even the Bush administration has not ruled out such a possibility.

So how the next president of the US views Pakistan - regarding its role in the war on terror, its internal law and order situation and its nuclear presence in the region - will most definitely affect the Pakistani state and its people.

Pakistan depends considerably on the US for military and economic support and, much as Musharraf would like to take the sole credit for improvement in Pakistan's economy over the past seven or eight years, the fact remains it has been bolstered by US economic aid and political support.

This has been in return for Pakistan's involvement in the war on terror.

But with growing anti-US sentiment in Pakistan, US policy regarding Pakistan after the elections will either act a catalyst for this sentiment or will dampen it and as such affect the kind of pressure that the Pakistani civil society will put on its own new government.

Maithem Abdullah, Baghdad, Iraq

Your Views

What impact will the US presidential race have on your country?

Send us your views
I remember after the 1991 Gulf war, I had a debate with one or more Baathist comrades.

Some preferred that Republicans should win the presidential race of that time.

Their justification was that "the bad enemy that you know is better than the good one you do not know".

Others wished that the Democrats would win, saying that foreign policy would be changed for the better.

However, I believe that the foreign policy of a superpower is fixed in strategy - decision makers are not the presidents we see. The details might differ but the main goals are unchanged.

Therefore, I believe that the elections results will change nothing regarding the Iraq issue.

If you remember in the beginning of the war of 2003, both parties were united and many Democrats as well as Republicans visited Iraq to support American troops there.

The Americans know what are they doing and they are moving towards their strategic goals regardless of the points of views publicised here and there.

As an Iraqi, I feel that the future of my country is not much better than the former Yugoslavia, if not worse.

Niloufar, Tehran, Iran

The great majority of Iranians believe that the outcome of the US elections will make little difference to their lives.

"The ideal candidate for Iran's interests would be the Republican Party's Ron Paul, because he is totally opposed to US interventionism"

Niloufar, Tehran, Iran
They think there will be more of the same traditional militarism and interventionism from either a Republican or a Democratic US president. As such, they basically do not care and see all the media noise as a distraction.

But I think this coming election is potentially significant for the rest of the world, including for Iran.

Aggressive US foreign policy breeds extremism and undermines democratic forces in countries like Iran.

The ideal candidate for Iran's interests (and for greater peace globally) would therefore be the Republican party's Ron Paul, because he is totally opposed to US interventionism and would close all of the US's 150 military bases across the world.

His election would affect the whole political system in America, reverse extremist pressure on the Middle East region by the US and Israel and allow some breathing space for the great majority of Iranians to express their democratic views more freely at home.

Unfortunately, the radical Paul is unlikely to win. Republican party forerunners are all violence-prone and in the pockets of corporatist forces and aggressive Zionist interests in America, as is the Democratic frontrunner, Hillary Clinton.

Barack Obama is likely to reduce some of the pressure on Iran by withdrawing from Iraq and perhaps also from Afghanistan, but he is likely to be pro-Israel and thus of little help to establishing longer-term peace in the region as a whole.

So the best Democratic candidate would have to be the consistently anti-war Dennis Kucinich. His chances, however, are also slim.

The rest are more or less determined to continue aggressive policies against Iran.

Krenar Loshi, Pristina, Kosovo

I think Hillary Clinton is the right candidate for Kosovo.

In 1999, Hillary Clinton called for the US to aggressively engage itself in Kosovo.

Bosnia and Kosovo are examples of foreign engagements that she favoured on moral and strategic grounds.

Kosovo would have never achieved peace had it not been for US involvement and the support of [Bill] Clinton's administration.

What do I hope from the next US president is that they restore the US's reputation in the world and become willing to work together with other nations to reach peace and freedom in the world.

I also hope the next president recognises Kosovo's call for independence and continues to support its integration in Euro-Atlantic structures as the key step towards sustainable peace in Balkans.

[acharya]

Ahram, Egypt
American Elections... Interests, Groups and Mass-voting
By Khaled Amayreh
February ‘08
Egypt - Al Ahram - Original Article (English)
Each time an American elections starts, the Arabic political mind raises the same question: Which is better? –The Democratic Party or the Republican? And which will support more or less the interests of the region?... However, a careful examination suggests that there are no radical differences between the positions of the two big parties of America: the differences are only in the detail. The classical sense of the party no longer has value in the context of the rule of interest groups and voting blocs… How so?

The American elections that took place in 2000 explained that the political life of America exceeded customary partisan competition, as is present in Europe, and restored an American tradition that existed until World War I – that interest groups support the central rule of the the presidency in expressing America... The elected president is not considered to be a candidate of a particular party or an advocator of his own vision, but is a guardian of the interests of the giant economic entities that are politically organized under the name of interest groups.

The two major parties in the end have only two channels through which to deliver candidates for the presidency of the United States. Observers of American politics over recent years notice for example how the majority enjoyed by the Democratic Party in Congress has not changed the orientations of the American administration regarding their external policies and that the majority agreed to everything that had been asked in the special American Security budgets, and so on. Also, observers of the campaigns of the current candidates of the two parties cannot observe any clear differences between them … both democratic and republican support the Jewish establishment... (reducing taxes without reducing budgets allocated for the security of America; controlling sources of energy, but within the framework of a comprehensive strategy; refusal to retreat from the war on terrorism, but without a loud statement of intent) .. As a result, the relationship between the citizen and the party in America is no longer the same as the relationship in Europe, where party reflects the rescue of a European gathering of social groups and specific economic policies depend on the coming to power of particular sympathizers and voices.

The party in America includes various groups and various social strata and the successful candidate does not depend primarily on the party members themselves, because the X-factor in the support of a party in America is not its members, but groups and voting blocs, who support candidates who promise to pursue their interests.

Hence, we find a group of voters that is not, in fact, partisan, but is composed of interest groups and with masses of votes, these groups seek to influence politicians and policy. This makes presidential candidates interested in these groups and diverse voting blocs, which the American electoral system accommodates. Since the assassination of Kennedy (Democrat from Massachusetts) in 1963, no other democratic candidate succeeded from the North has succeeded in reaching the presidency. Both Carter and Clinton are from the southern states, which are characterized by the predominance of conservative social religious trends (and provides a bloc of votes of up to 40 million). In this context, specific voting blocs is starting to formalize: religious, colored, ethnic, or geographical (southern vs. northern), and form a network of interests whose supreme interest is the military-industrial-technological-financial complex that that is associated with various interest groups (arms industry, medicine, oil, and others), such that we can say that the Republican Party did not actually govern over the past eight years (2000-2008), even though officially they did.

But the government is an alliance between neo-conservatives and the new religious right - a coalition that reflects radical shifts in the ideological and political map of America: new conservatives have been able to resolve the historic, traditional trend toward liberalism to express their interests. They have also succeeded, through intellectual discourse, to promote conservative values, turning the religious bloc voting base into a social movement, even though it includes various social groups - poor, segments of the middle class and the rich. However, the core of the association of these groups is religious, and it does not matter that the new administration has passed legislation that offer tax breaks for the rich and increase the gap between them and the poor, disregarding spiritual and moral values of justice and equal opportunity. Yet, the poor did not object because the legislation and the privileges it offered the rich came under the cover of religion.

The foregoing has caused candidates of each party to flirt with bloc voting, regardless of party affiliation, according to a study by the Brookings Institution (2007), on American policies and religious division as determinants of voting in America. It focuses on the role of religion and religious voting blocs, explaining the basic parameters that govern voting and how religion, race and state intersect in the electoral process at the expense of political choice.

The result is that the rich minority needs for its interests masses of votes to ensure the success of its candidates, and for example, the religious voting bloc can deliver nearly 25% of all votes when not fragmented. Consider too that not more than 50% of the population participates in the electoral process in grassroots elections, while the electoral college can be won, as in the case of the election of President Bush (2000) with the loss of the popular vote (of which he obtained less than 48%), while obtaining 271 of a total of 538 Electoral College votes.
<b>
In summary, we should understand the phenomenon of America from the inside, and discover how to deal not only with its parties but also its interest groups and voting blocs, and their visions and plans, if we want to influence and support moderates in the political process. In particular, this type of democracy seems to prevail in many areas, including in a democratic process that involves a rich minority and small numbers of voters but organized and committed, while the political majority is absent – an issue that long-standing democracies (such as the German and Japanese) have considered.</b>

[acharya]

HOPING FOR CHANGE
Germans Weigh in on US Election

By Patrick McGroarty in Berlin

As Americans vote in primaries in 24 US states this Super Tuesday, Germany will be watching. In Berlin, residents say they are looking for an American president who can lead the country away from the divisive policies of George W. Bush.

A float in the Rose Monday carnival parade in Cologne made light of the close race between Democratic US Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama leading into Tuesday's primary contests.
Zoom
AP

A float in the Rose Monday carnival parade in Cologne made light of the close race between Democratic US Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama leading into Tuesday's primary contests.
With polls opening at primaries in 24 US states on this Super Tuesday, America's 303 million citizens will not be alone as they monitor contests that could well determine the Democratic and Republican presidential nominees.

Germans, Europeans and the world are also keeping close tabs on this year's American presidential race. After all, no less is at stake than the election of the "leader of the free world," as American media have often called the presidency since the Cold War -- even if that moral supremacy has been bruised in recent years.

SPIEGEL ONLINE surveyed Germans on the streets of Berlin in the run-up to Super Tuesday to find out their views on the presidential primary. While they had varying opinions on which candidate is best-suited to lead the United States, most favored Democrats Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama -- and all agreed that this year's election is particularly crucial because it represents a chance for major political change in America and the world.

"I think it would be fantastic if a black man won, and I think it would be fantastic if a woman won," said Marlene Gruppe, interviewed at Berlin's central train station. "Either would be a breath of fresh air for America." Gruppe said she favors Clinton, and she is not alone.

"I would like to see Hillary Clinton win," said Charlie Holst, of Lübeck, speaking at Pariser Platz, near the Brandenburg Gate. "I think she is likely to carry forward the policies of her husband, and his policies were in many cases favorable to Germany."

Hillary Leads in Poll of Germans

If public opinion polls are anything to go by, then that view is also shared by most Germans. A December poll for the French news channel France 24 and the International Herald Tribune newspaper found that 44 percent of Germans said they would vote for Clinton if they were allowed -- far greater support than the 22 percent she had in a nationwide survey in the US at the time. Obama came in a distant second, with 11 percent. On the Republican side, the only candidate who obtained any support in Germany was Rudy Giuliani, who had even less backing here (1 percent) than in Florida, where a disappointing third place primary finish ended his presidential bid.

Germans have a long tradition of following US elections closely, and most major newspapers and TV news channels here have a handful of reporters on the campaign trail. The obsession with US politics is a tradition rooted in a long and close relationship between Germany and the United States that extends back to the aftermath of World War II, when Washington helped rebuild West Germany with the Marshall Plan. The Berlin Air Lift brought critical supplies to a city cut off from the West by Soviet troops, and American soldiers stationed in the city helped to insure Moscow didn't invade during the Cold War.

But decades of warm friendship between America and Germany -- first West Germany and later a reunited Germany -- temporarily soured early this century when German Chancellor Gerhard Schröder was re-elected in 2002 on a campaign driven by his disapproval of US President George W. Bush's decision to invade Iraq (more...) and his refusal to pledge Bundeswehr troops for the "adventure" in Iraq.

"We as Germans do not understand why Bush led the world into a war in Iraq," said Helga Nähreng of Berlin, who was interviewed on Potsdamer Platz. Her husband, Rheinhard Nähreng, agreed. "What Bush has done is a mistake," he said.

NEWSLETTER
Sign up for Spiegel Online's daily newsletter and get the best of Der Spiegel's and Spiegel Online's international coverage in your In- Box everyday.

The Nährengs said Obama was their candidate of choice. "I think it would be particularly good for black America," said Reinhard.

"He also comes from a younger generation than the Clintons and has taken a very centrist path -- not to the left, not to the right. I think he can find a new path. It is unimportant whether the next US leader is a woman, like we have here in Berlin with Chancellor Angela Merkel, or a man. What we need is a path out of the crisis situation that we have now."

Since taking office as chancellor in 2005, Merkel has made efforts to mend German-US relations (more...), but the German people remain highly critical of the war in Iraq, Bush and his leadership of the United States.

Ruth Schumbecher, a Berliner who was walking along the Spree River near the German parliament building, the Reichstag, last Friday, said that she believed only a Democrat could help America rebound from the policies of Bush's "oppressive" administration.

"It's very important that the next president turn away from the policies of President Bush and find a new way," she said. "That's the big hope. I'm a big America fan, but I'm also a fan hoping for change."

[acharya]

Le Temps, Switzerland
Global Issues and the American Presidential Election
Days before Super Tuesday, here are the reasons why we need to observe what’s taking place across the Atlantic.
By Susanne Sinclair
Translated by Noga Emanuel
February 04, 2008
Switzerland - Le Temps - Original Article (French)
On Tuesday, voters in 22 states will cast their votes to name their Democratic and Republican candidates. On the conservative side, the suspense seems to have dissipated somewhat; as John McCain is expected to prevail. On the Democratic side, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are in a tight, shoulder to shoulder, race. However the chips may fall, this presidential election is a choice among exceptions: Hillary Clinton, the first woman president, Barack Obama, the first black president, and John McCain, the oldest president at the beginning of his mandate. For months now the world has been enthralled by this spectacle. Here is a rundown of the various reasons why there is such an intense interest in these elections, which reflect how the United States is generally viewed in this world.

The United States remains the primary world power. "With a three hundred million population, and a $14 trillion GDP, how is it possible to remain indifferent to the events which unfold over there?" asks Jeanny Wildi, researcher with the IMD (international School of management), in Lausanne. "As long as dollar is the principal currency of exchange in the world, as long as tales of the private life of a president animate the gossiping classes, the world will continue to be interested in the next star."

Roland W Scholz, professor at the Federal Polytechnic School of Zurich, stresses the centrality and preponderance of American universities in the sciences: "Seventeen of the top 20 world universities are in the United States. If you want to be taken seriously, studying or teaching in the US will be to your advantage." Thus, the academic world is vigorously engaged with this country. What is more, a million people applied for US permanent residence in 2007, never mind the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants.

Persistent myth
American policy also has an effect on the world economy. Historically, the dollar is stronger under a Democratic president than under a Republican one. "The Conservatives tend to utilize larger budgets and cause greater deficits. Imported goods become more expensive and buying power declines. The German automobile industry thus lost 10% sales in 2007", argues the Russian-Israeli investor, Gregory Berenstein, located in Switzerland. Similarly, the future President will chart the denouement in other important issues, such as foreign policy and environmental questions, which in their turn affect global economy and international diplomacy

For most people, the American myth persists. "The American model continues to fascinate. All is possible there”, analyzes Bertold Walter, Head of Finances at the federal polytechnic School at Lausanne. “Europe, by comparison, is not yet unified. Each country is self-defensive of its culture. The right to citizenship in one European country does not extend to its neigboring country." "The United States always excite the dream: the election is a show, a spectacle in its own right. We never scrutinize in the same way elections in China, for example”, adds Nicole Bacharan, an American policy pundit. Barack Obama incarnates the American dream on a worldwide scale. That’s the enthralling part: a black man, modest, educated abroad, and here he is, poised to take on the number one job in America."

Unlike the familiar contests between old political tenors, the present presidential campaign has yielded iconic candidates in Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. "This election is particularly interesting because it does not re-enact another wrestling match between Republicans and Democrats, but rather poses the question: are the United States about to change?" opines Bruno Engelric, Director of Motor-Engineering at Ferrari.

To conclude: "If change does not happen, Uncle Sam’s country is likely to suffer the same fate as the United Kingdom, which passed from being a world power in the nineteenth century to become a country of lesser importance."

[acharya]

Super Tuesday: Opportunities grow for Obama
By Rick Kuethe
Translated By Dorian de Wind
Super Tuesday has become an unforgettable election day. The Democrats’ fight remains extremely exciting; with the Republicans, a miracle is needed to withhold the nomination from John McCain.

February 6, 2008
The Netherlands - Elsevier – Original text (Dutch)

“We are the change we are looking for, what began as a whisper has swollen to a powerful sound,” said Barack Obama from Illinois, where he won convincingly.

“Give me your sick, and your wounded,” cried his Democratic opponent, Hillary Clinton, recalling the text on the Statue of Liberty. She spoke in New York, where she won.

Republican John McCain said from Arizona that he had always found it amusing to be the underdog, but that being a front-runner now is also fine.

The Spoils
In the Democratic camp, Barack Obama has performed much better than could be expected after his loss in New Hampshire one month ago. He won a whole procession of states.

Hillary Clinton, who half a year ago seemed to have the nomination in the bag, but who has lost some ground since then, didn’t do too badly either. She triumphed in big states like New York, New Jersey and California.

One must keep in mind, however, that with the Democrats the number of delegates (and that’s what it is all about!) are distributed proportionately, so that Obama gets a share of the spoils even in those states.

Compelling
Of course, the converse also applies. Clinton did particularly well among relatively low income voters and among Hispanics. Contrary to what is often the case, the race is still wide open with Democrats after Super Tuesday.

That is attractive, especially now that that for the first time in history a black man steps into the arena against a white woman. The fact that the battle is still undecided, improves the chances for Obama, who is waging a much more compelling campaign.

Especially difficult
The picture is much clearer on the Republican side. A miracle has to occur for the nomination to elude McCain. Only last year, the head-strong Republican was “nowhere” and he flew economy class to Iowa to talk to two corn farmers and a tractor mechanic.

McCain, a Vietnam War hero who often works closely with Democrats in the Senate, is an attractive candidate (for Europe, too) who can make it especially difficult for Hillary Clinton this fall, should she become the chosen Democrat.

Premier Jan Peter Balkenende (CDA—Translator’s note: the Dutch “Christian Democratic Appeal” Party) has rightly pointed out to vice-premier Wouter Bos (PvDA –Translator’s note: Partij van de Arbeid, the Dutch Labor Party), who has said that he for Obama is, that the (Dutch) Government will not meddle in this fight.

[acharya]

Well, looking at the recent results... just to quote NY times...
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Saturday, the margin of victories were surprising, particularly in Washington, a predominately white state where he captured 57 percent of the vote in caucus voting compared to Mrs. Clinton’s 31 percent. And in Nebraska, which also held caucuses, he received an impressive 68 percent of the vote to Mrs. Clinton’s 32 percent.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Link: Obama Defeats Clinton in 3-State Sweep
(BTW, the 57% looks like a typo, according to AP it is close to 67%)...

[acharya]

Two tactical masters plot Democrat endgame

No one landed a knockout blow on Super Tuesday, so the fight between Clinton and Obama is set to go the distance. Now each candidate's king of strategy will assume a vital role as micro-management of the campaigns takes on an unprecedented significance. Paul Harris in New York reports

The slight figure, wearing a dark rumpled suit, stood in the cavernous press room at the Chicago Hyatt Regency hotel. All across America, millions of people had voted in 24 separate states, seeking a winner in the fight for the Democratic nomination.

But David Plouffe, campaign manager for Barack Obama, was not talking of grand strategy, or new policies or sweeping visions of a united America. He would leave that to his candidate.

Instead Plouffe was talking statistics, crucial in winning the delegates that decide the Democratic nominee. He had added up the estimated delegate totals from Obama and Hillary Clinton's respective home states of Illinois and New York. 'We should be net 15 up there,' he said, relaying the news to an eager press pack.

Such wonkish minutiae do not make for great headlines. But they are now at the heart of the epic battle unfolding between Clinton and Obama. It is a fight not so much between the two duelling candidates, but between their top staffers. It is over who can master the tiny intricacies of the remaining races and the labyrinthine party rules that govern the contest.

It was not meant to be this way. In recent history one candidate has quickly emerged from early contests and been declared the winner. Arcane delegate counts did not matter. But that has all been thrown out of the window. A massive ground war is breaking out across the rest of America as the Democratic party realises this contest will go on for weeks, and probably months, to come. It is a war of micro-managing that could end up being won by the slimmest of margins. That was why when Plouffe announced his 15-delegate positive result from Illinois and New York, he was smiling broadly.

The master of micro-strategy for Hillary Clinton's campaign is Mark Penn, an obsessive pollster whose specialism is defining and identifying small interest groups and then working out policies that will bring them into Clinton's camp.

Penn, who has been a long-term confidant of Clinton and her husband, Bill, is hugely influential in her campaign. His strategy might be ideally suited to the battle ahead which will focus on a series of divergent states and their complex shifting demographics.

He is a classic Washington insider, living in a $5m mansion in the plush Georgetown district with his wife Nancy Jacobson. Penn's constant polling for the campaign has been instrumental in shaping Clinton's strategic shifts - especially on the war in Iraq - and is likely to continue monitoring the thorny way ahead. Some see that attention to detail as vital in the coming fight as voters turn to the policy-heavy Clinton over Obama's talent for rhetoric that is heavy on inspiration but light on plans. 'It's an advantage for Clinton, especially as the economy goes down. She's got specific policies on so many concerns. Obama's team has more rethinking to do than Clinton's has,' said Professor Shaun Bowler, a political scientist at the University of California at Riverside.

At the same time a host of other talented staffers will be alongside Penn seeking to negotiate Clinton's path through the battle. Chief among them is Howard Wolfson, a hard-edged communications expert. While Penn supplies the backstairs data and research, Wolfson is a sometimes ferocious operative not afraid to go negative on his candidate's opponents. In a tight race, in which handfuls of votes in key areas can make the difference between winning and losing, Wolfson's combative style will be invaluable.

Like Penn he too is a long term member of Hillaryland - the network of close advisers surrounding Clinton. He has been compared to Karl Rove, the mastermind of President George W Bush's two presidential victories and a man known equally for his aggression and attention to detail. Both men, and other top staffers such as campaign manager Patti Solis Doyle, have already had to cope with a shift in tactics. Clinton's team envisaged her path to the nomination as an 'inauguration' but the stunning rise of Obama put paid to that. Now, as the smoke from the early battles recedes, they are adjusting yet again.

Lining up opposite Clinton's team are Obama's staff. Plouffe is the highly competent campaign manager who has engineered stunning victories in Iowa and South Carolina that have hauled the insurgent effort to level pegging with Clinton. He has run political races before, netting impressive victories that belie his quiet public persona.

But his real strength is his relationship with his business partner, David Axelrod. Axelrod is Obama's top politicial consultant and perhaps the biggest single strategic influence on Obama's staff. The tall, mustachioed figure is a dominant presence in the Obama camp and his status is rapidly rising among America's political classes as Obama's campaign surges onwards. The Jewish journalist turned political operative was born in New York but went to college in Chicago. It was there he came across Obama and the two have forged a close political and personal relationship. Axelrod is seen as a master media manager. His touch can probably be seen in much of the gushing press that Obama has generated, even though journalists following his campaign rarely get to interact on any level with the candidate. Indeed, though Clinton is far more open to reporters tailing her every move, she is still often portrayed as more distant and hostile. In terms of the 'media primary', Axelrod has already won a massive victory for his candidate. As the campaigns now invade states including Texas and Ohio, that few thought would ever play a role in the competition, that wave of positive media will have arrived before them. That could be crucial.

Yet the landscape of the coming fight is confused and difficult to predict with any confidence. 'We are now into uncharted territory,' said Cary Covington, a professor of political science at the University of Iowa.

The first battleground is demographics. The contests held so far have shown that the Democratic party has split into two camps with each one often dominant in distinct social groups. Following Clinton are women, white working-class voters, the elderly and Hispanics. Backing Obama are black voters, the young, college students and educated, often high-income, voters. Yet, as Super Tuesday showed last week, the two camps are pretty much in a numerical draw. Adding up all the votes cast across the nation last Tuesday the score reads: Obama 7,070,977 votes against Clinton's 7,293,588. In polling terms that is a razor-thin edge and to break it each candidate must cut into the other's support bases.

Yet it is unlikely now that the Democratic nomination will be settled by any 'big momentum' that suddenly has one candidate's support collapsing. It means that what matters is not winning states, but winning delegates. Clinton and Obama are now engaged in a race for the 2,025 delegates needed to to be voted the party's nominee at the convention in August in Denver. Currently the score is 1,045 for Clinton and 960 to Obama.

At the moment the race looks to favour Obama in the short-term. This week, races will be held in Virginia, Maryland and Washington DC whose populations match Obama's main strengths. The so-called 'Potomac Primary', after the river that abuts all three states, could see Obama edge into a lead. However, after that come contests in delegate-rich big states, including Ohio and Texas, in March. They could go in Clinton's favour. One possibility now being discussed is the so-called 'Pennsylvania Scenario'. That state holds its primary in April, after a long break from other major contests. That could lead to a repeat of the sort of prolonged town-to-town campaigning in Pennsylvania that marked the contest in the early states of Iowa and New Hampshire. Such a massive effort will be a huge drain on the resources of candidates, staffers and finances alike.

And it all might be in vain. For party rules also include some 796 super delegates, who are party officials, Democratic congressmen and other office holders. If public voting still leaves the battle for delegates unwon then the real fight will take place on the phone as staffers and candidates seek to plead, bully, browbeat and beg with individual super-delegates to get their support.

Both candidates have staffers who are more than adept at such tactics. Wolfson and Axelrod in particular are deeply well connected and have 'persuasive' talents. But it could be an ugly fight with a generation of political reputations at stake. Just look at the case of Rahm Emanuel. The Illinois congressman was heralded as a rising star after engineering the Democratic win in the 2006 mid-term elections. As an Illinois politician he is close to Obama. But he is also a long-term friend and ally of the Clintons who mentored his early career. He is a super delegate. He has joked that he is 'hiding under his desk' rather than make a hasty decision. That might be safe for now. But eventually Emanuel - and many others - will have to pick a side.

But it could also spell trouble for the Democratic base. After the entire national party membership has voted, the result could end up being sealed with backroom dealing between officials and political professionals. 'The perception of that sort of wheeler-dealing could easily poison the process. That has serious implications,' said Covington, the professor of political science.

Watching all this unfold is John McCain, in effect the Republican nominee. The contrast with the Republicans could not be more different. After a fierce, and comparatively brief, battle the Republican field is down to McCain and the outsider, former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee. The two are likely to scrap politely a little longer with McCain able to rack up more of the aura of a winner and Huckabee assuming the mantle of the leader of his party's conservative wing.

In the meantime, Republican operatives will already be laying the groundwork for McCain's November election campaign, raising money, preparing field offices, polling and getting their political machine in place. So by the time whichever battered, tired Democrat campaign emerges as the victor from the Obama and Clinton fight, they will immediately be plunged into the real fight: for the White House itself. McCain and the entire Republican attack machine will have been waiting for them for months.

[Guest]

Democrats will lose this election based on previous history, whenever democrats had far-left candidate or broken convention, they lose.
Obama already started crying foul play.
For Clinton, media is very hostile towards them. Republicans are doing good job funding Obama and helping him in caucus.
First time I have heard, candidates are buying votes. Money in street generate votes.

So get ready for President McCain and Vice president Huckabee. <!--emo&--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif' /><!--endemo-->

[Guest]

link
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Bush is not endorsing a candidate. He also had praise for former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, calling him "a good, solid conservative person."

The president weighed in on the Democratic race, saying it "seems far from over to me." And he rejected criticism of former President Clinton's work on the campaign trail for Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y.

<b>"I can understand why President Clinton wants to campaign hard for his wife. And those accusations that Bill Clinton's a racist, I think is just wrong. I just don't agree with it."</b>

<b>As for Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., Bush said, "I certainly don't know what he believes in."</b>
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Establishment want Clinton for continuation of policy at this critical point.

[acharya]

http://www.amconmag.com/2008/2008_02_11/cover.html

The Madness of John McCain

A militarist suffering from acute narcissism and armed with the Bush Doctrine is not fit to be commander in chief.

by Justin Raimondo

John McCain’s reputation as a maverick is no recent contrivance. The senator first captured the media spotlight in September 1983, not long after he’d been elected to his first term in the House, when he voted against President Reagan’s decision to put American troops in Lebanon as part of a multinational “peacekeeping” force.



Prefiguring the revolutionary Jacobinism of Bush’s second inaugural address, which proclaimed the goal of U.S. foreign policy to be “ending tyranny in our world,” McCain was straining at the bit to launch a global crusade while George W. Bush was still touting the virtues of a more “humble foreign policy.” Neither time nor bitter experience has mitigated his militancy.

Other politicians were transformed by 9/11. McCain was unleashed. His strategy of “rogue state rollback” was exactly what the neoconservatives in the Bush administration had in mind, and yet, ever mindful to somehow stand out from the pack while still going along with the program, the senator took umbrage at Rumsfeld’s apparent unwillingness to chew up the U.S. military in an endless occupation. He publicly dissented from the “light footprint” strategy championed by the Department of Defense. More troops, more force, more of everything—that is McCain’s solution to every problem in our newly conquered province.

Rumsfeld became increasingly un-popular not only with the American people—the abrasive defense secretary saw his poll numbers dropping to 34 percent from 39 percent in May 2004, as McCain and Gen. Norman Schwartzkopf took aim—but also with the media, which had grown tired of him. In the bitter winter of 2001, when the War Party was riding high, the Philadelphia Inquirer had enthused, “No doubt about it, Donald Rumsfeld is a stud muffin.” As Rumsfeld’s cachet faded, McCain felt safe in attacking him, and, after Rumsfeld had resigned, declaring him “one of the worst secretaries of defense in history.” As the war itself became more unpopular, McCain managed a feat of triangulation of Clintonian proportions, posing simultaneously as a war critic and a super hawk.

He was unrelenting in his criticism of the Bush administration, even as he pledged to carry its foreign policy forward: he continued to denounce the “tragic mismanagement” of the war, while hailing the surge—and strongly implying that the Bush White House had plagiarized his views. With the war enjoying the support of about a quarter of the American people, however, it was necessary to frame a narrative that would deflect the disadvantages of a pro-war position, while enhancing his image as a straight-shooter who doesn’t care about polls and just tells it like it is.

But “straight talk” has increasingly turned to reckless talk: on the campaign trail, he was caught on video singing “Bomb, bomb, bomb Iran” to the tune of “Barbara Ann”—not one of his better moments. With his presidential campaign in the doldrums, and Giuliani and the rest of the Republican pack stealing much of his thunder, a new extremism seemed to possess him: in answer to repeated questions from one antiwar voter, McCain told a town-hall meeting in Derry, New Hampshire that the United States could stay in Iraq for “maybe a hundred years” and that “would be fine with me… as long as Americans aren’t being killed or injured” in any great numbers, as in Korea.

[Guest]

<b>OBAMA WILL WIN NOMINATION</b><!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->March 4th will, at worst, be a wash for Obama with his probably wins in Ohio, Rhode Island and Vermont offsetting his probable defeat in Texas. (Although in Texas’ open primary, Republicans and Independents may flock to the Dem primary to beat Hillary).

And then come a list of states almost all of which should go for Obama, including likely victories in Pennsylvania, North Carolina, and Indiana. By the convention, he will have more than enough delegates to overcome the expected margins Hillary may rack up among super delegates.

And don’t bet on all the super delegates staying hitched to Hillary. These folks are politicians, half of them public office holders who are really good at reading the handwriting on the wall and really bad at gratitude for past favors.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Republicans and Independent are already doing in caucaus, so that Republican can have hands down victory.

[Hauma Hamiddha]

Huckabee as a VP will be a disaster. He is a confirmd evanjihadist -- he also of course does not accept the evolution of life <!--emo&--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' /><!--endemo-->

[acharya]

Ahram, Egypt
American Elections... Interests, Groups and Mass-voting
By Samer Murkus

Translated by Mola Mola
February 09, '08

Egypt - Ahram.org - Home Page (Arabic)
Each time an American elections starts, the Arabic political mind raises the same question: Which is better? –The Democratic Party or the Republican? And which will support more or less the interests of the region?... However, a careful examination suggests that there are no radical differences between the positions of the two big parties of America: the differences are only in the detail. The classical sense of the party no longer has value in the context of the rule of interest groups and voting blocs… How so?



The American elections that took place in 2000 explained that the political life of America exceeded customary partisan competition, as is present in Europe, and restored an American tradition that existed until World War I – that interest groups support the central rule of the the presidency in expressing America... The elected president is not considered to be a candidate of a particular party or an advocator of his own vision, but is a guardian of the interests of the giant economic entities that are politically organized under the name of interest groups.

The two major parties in the end have only two channels through which to deliver candidates for the presidency of the United States. Observers of American politics over recent years notice for example how the majority enjoyed by the Democratic Party in Congress has not changed the orientations of the American administration regarding their external policies and that the majority agreed to everything that had been asked in the special American Security budgets, and so on. Also, observers of the campaigns of the current candidates of the two parties cannot observe any clear differences between them … both democratic and republican support the Jewish establishment... (reducing taxes without reducing budgets allocated for the security of America; controlling sources of energy, but within the framework of a comprehensive strategy; refusal to retreat from the war on terrorism, but without a loud statement of intent) .. As a result, the relationship between the citizen and the party in America is no longer the same as the relationship in Europe, where party reflects the rescue of a European gathering of social groups and specific economic policies depend on the coming to power of particular sympathizers and voices.

The party in America includes various groups and various social strata and the successful candidate does not depend primarily on the party members themselves, because the X-factor in the support of a party in America is not its members, but groups and voting blocs, who support candidates who promise to pursue their interests.

Hence, we find a group of voters that is not, in fact, partisan, but is composed of interest groups and with masses of votes, these groups seek to influence politicians and policy. This makes presidential candidates interested in these groups and diverse voting blocs, which the American electoral system accommodates. Since the assassination of Kennedy (Democrat from Massachusetts) in 1963, no other democratic candidate succeeded from the North has succeeded in reaching the presidency. Both Carter and Clinton are from the southern states, which are characterized by the predominance of conservative social religious trends (and provides a bloc of votes of up to 40 million). In this context, specific voting blocs is starting to formalize: religious, colored, ethnic, or geographical (southern vs. northern), and form a network of interests whose supreme interest is the military-industrial-technological-financial complex that that is associated with various interest groups (arms industry, medicine, oil, and others), such that we can say that the Republican Party did not actually govern over the past eight years (2000-2008), even though officially they did.


But the government is an alliance between neo-conservatives and the new religious right - a coalition that reflects radical shifts in the ideological and political map of America: new conservatives have been able to resolve the historic, traditional trend toward liberalism to express their interests. They have also succeeded, through intellectual discourse, to promote conservative values, turning the religious bloc voting base into a social movement, even though it includes various social groups - poor, segments of the middle class and the rich. However, the core of the association of these groups is religious, and it does not matter that the new administration has passed legislation that offer tax breaks for the rich and increase the gap between them and the poor, disregarding spiritual and moral values of justice and equal opportunity. Yet, the poor did not object because the legislation and the privileges it offered the rich came under the cover of religion.
The foregoing has caused candidates of each party to flirt with bloc voting, regardless of party affiliation, according to a study by the Brookings Institution (2007), on American policies and religious division as determinants of voting in America. It focuses on the role of religion and religious voting blocs, explaining the basic parameters that govern voting and how religion, race and state intersect in the electoral process at the expense of political choice.



The result is that the rich minority needs for its interests masses of votes to ensure the success of its candidates, and for example, the religious voting bloc can deliver nearly 25% of all votes when not fragmented. Consider too that not more than 50% of the population participates in the electoral process in grassroots elections, while the electoral college can be won, as in the case of the election of President Bush (2000) with the loss of the popular vote (of which he obtained less than 48%), while obtaining 271 of a total of 538 Electoral College votes.



In summary, we should understand the phenomenon of America from the inside, and discover how to deal not only with its parties but also its interest groups and voting blocs, and their visions and plans, if we want to influence and support moderates in the political process. <b>In particular, this type of democracy seems to prevail in many areas, including in a democratic process that involves a rich minority and small numbers of voters but organized and committed, while the political majority is absent – an issue that long-standing democracies (such as the German and Japanese) have considered.</b>

[acharya]

From The Sunday Times
February 10, 2008
Dead hand of Bush is shaping this election
Andrew Sullivan

Of the many theories purporting to explain the increasingly unpredictable contours of the US primary election season, the most obvious has not yet become the conventional wisdom that it richly deserves to be. Perhaps it’s the simplicity of the point that has submerged it. Perhaps the subject has become such a crashing bore that we all simply prefer to move on. But that doesn’t make it any the less true. This election has been crafted by the man who isn’t in it. This is an election about George W Bush.

Most presidential elections, to be sure, are about the last one. Young, electrifying JFK was the antidote to arguably the best and certainly the most tedious president of the last century, Dwight Eisenhower. Jimmy Carter was a purist rebuke to the sordidness of Watergate. Ronald Reagan in turn provided the stylistic pomp and ideological clarity that Carter clearly lacked. George Bush Sr was a “kinder, gentler” Yankier version of Reagan conservatism. Bill Clinton was the clued-in, lower-class hipster to replace the out-of-it patrician pensioner of the first Bush. W, in turn, was the plain-spoken, hedgehog-rather-than-fox antidote to the wily, slippery, verbose Bubba Bill Clinton.

And now we have the three potential Bush replacements: John McCain, the man who ran against him in 2000, voted against his tax cuts, excoriated his torture policy and assailed his Iraq occupation; Hillary, the wife of the man Bush succeeded and who beat his daddy; and Barack Obama, a young, charismatic JFK-liberal whose eloquence and erudition are almost textbook negatives of Bush’s folksy, faux-ignorant charm. It all makes a little more sense now, doesn’t it?

But Bush has empowered his nemeses even more than most presidents. Partly this was a function of the absence of an obvious successor. Unlike most presidents, he had no vice-president to succeed him. Dick Cheney never intended to run for election in his own right (and even seemed somewhat affronted that he had to parade himself before the voters for approval in 2004). The most obvious appointed successor – the accomplished former governor of Florida, Jeb – was a Bush too far even for America’s current dynasticism.

And a Bush clone simply wasn’t available. The president’s uncanny ability to persuade the business elites he was one of them, to appeal to evangelicals by actually being one of them and to corral national security voters on the war was, it turns out, sui generis.

The business elites liked Mormon Mitt Romney enough – but the evangelicals didn’t. The Southern Christianist right loved Mike Huckabee. And the hawks championed McCain, but everyone else mistrusted him. McCain, to be sure, won the nomination last week. But it would be more accurate to say that everyone else lost it. McCain failed to secure a clear majority in the primaries and caucuses. In fact, he’s the only successful candidate I can recall who had to spend the day of his final victory apol-ogising to party activists for winning.

And what, in the end, was the positive Republican reason to vote for McCain? To my mind, it came down to government spending and the war in Iraq. On both core subjects, McCain became the Republican antidote to Bush, without forcing the Republican base of the party to actively repudiate the sitting president. This was a very hard trick to pull off, and McCain hasn’t been given enough credit for managing it.

Bush’s greatest domestic conservative failure has been fiscal. The explosion of discretionary and entitlement spending on his watch would make a left-liberal blush. And one of the core, consistent principles of McCain has been fiscal rectitude. Voting for McCain now is a way for conservatives to renounce the fiscal reckless-ness of the Bush era. And McCain was careful not to blame the president publicly for the mess.

Iraq is a more complicated picture. It is now extremely hard – and I mean extremely – to defend the decision to go to war in 2003. In hindsight, it looks like one of the biggest miscalcu-lations in the history of American foreign policy (and yes, I was for it). But McCain has brilliantly been able to change the subject from this debacle by arguing forcefully that the project is still defensible in principle, if botched brutally in practice.

His brave criticism of Donald Rums-feld and the occupation nonstrategy in 2004 led to the surge; and the surge’s surprising tactical success in bringing a raging civil war down to 2005 levels of murderousness has enabled him to gain just enough credibility to run a national security campaign against the Democrats.

And so he manages both to rebuke Bush while rescuing his most troubled legacy. I’m sceptical he can do it if he gets elected. But his is the only position on the war that both pleases the Republican base and retains even a semblance of credibility among the public at large. For good measure, he opposes the torture policy that many conservatives privately feel ashamed about.

Bush is the reason, in other words, that this unlikely maverick has become the Republican nominee. And Bush is also the reason, I would argue, that Hillary Clinton’s meticulously planned coronation as the next Democratic nominee came unstuck.

It came unstuck because the depth of the Democrats’ disgust with Bush required more than just partisan revenge. And in the glare of the campaign, the Clintons began to represent for many Democrats the kind of politics that Bush himself had mastered. They remembered that before Karl Rove there had been Dick Morris: political consultants skilled at dividing and polarising electorates to get their candidate a 51% victory. Would reelecting the Clintons be in some way an endorsement of continuing Bush-style politics?

If Bush had not so enraged and dispirited liberals, Clinton would have been fine as the next career politician running their machine. But Bush had become for this generation of Democrats what Nixon had become for a previous generation. And they wanted a revolution against him and all he represented. They wanted someone who had clearly opposed the Iraq war in the first place and would not foment a new one against Iran. They wanted someone who wouldn’t require translation by Washington professionals – but could instead inspire and rally the broader public.

The demoralisation of the Bush era made possible the emotional and social forces that have combined to create the Obama movement. Hurricane Katrina and the terrible treatment of poor blacks in New Orleans made a black man almost necessary. Abu Ghraib made a man of integrity important. And the stain that many liberal and independent Americans felt the Bush era had left required a much stronger astringent than careful, focus-grouped, split-the-difference Clintonism.

And that’s why the Republicans realised that up against the transformative power of Obama, they had to risk a move to the centre or face obliteration. Without Obama, I doubt that McCain would have emerged. But up against a clear, fresh, inspiring character, the Republicans couldn’t run a mere regional candidate like Huckabee or a phoney Bush composite like Romney. They needed a Republican who could appeal to the independents who were rushing to the Obama primaries and caucuses. And so Bush made Obama possible and Obama made McCain necessary.

If, as is still narrowly probable, the Clintons still strong-arm and bully their way to the Democratic nomination, something even more unexpected may happen. The conservative repudiation of Bush may finally beat the liberal version. History has its ironies. With McCain, this campaign may just have produced its biggest one.

[Guest]

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Huckabee as a VP will be a disaster. He is a confirmd evanjihadist -- he also of course does not accept the evolution of life<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If Obama is on ticket, US will get Huckabee, who will change consitution and whole list from bible.
Democrats are just democrats <!--emo&--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Blacks are just seeing skin color and whatever Clinton had done for them is gone into drain.

[Pandyan]

<!--QuoteBegin-Hauma Hamiddha+Feb 11 2008, 01:04 PM-->QUOTE(Hauma Hamiddha @ Feb 11 2008, 01:04 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->Huckabee as a VP will be a disaster. He is a confirmd evanjihadist -- he also of course does not accept the evolution of life <!--emo&--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' /><!--endemo-->
[right][snapback]78371[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Huckabee, Brownback, and Tancredo were the three that raised their hand when the moderator of one of the Republican debates asked if any of the candidates did not believe in evolution.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FJ88l5ql_FQ

Seriously, how do these losers live with themselves?

[Guest]

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Seriously, how do these losers live with themselves? <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
They will get elected only on this issue.

[Guest]

<!--QuoteBegin-Mudy+Feb 11 2008, 01:01 PM-->QUOTE(Mudy @ Feb 11 2008, 01:01 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->If Obama is on ticket, US will get Huckabee, who will change consitution and whole list from bible.
Democrats are just democrats  <!--emo&--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Blacks are just seeing skin color and whatever Clinton had done for them is gone into drain.
[right][snapback]78375[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This is not fair comment on blacks. Whatever good Clinton did they ensured him two terms. You can't expect as a group they do same to elect the next Clinton or his kid Chelsea.

Having said that Obama is not true American black as he is not from the generation of blacks that went through slavery and segregation after slavery ended. I am not sure what he will do for blacks that Hillary Clinton cannot do.