Poll: Who should be the Democratic presidential nominee?
The US presidential elections have a global impact like no other. From African cotton-growers to Palestinian refugees, what happens in polling booths from Maine to California come November will affect the futures of all the world's citizens, in some cases more materially than the decisions of their own governments. Yet we have no vote.
So vent your opinions in our online poll and tomorrow, as voters in Ohio, Texas, Vermont and Rhode Island head to the polls to choose their party's nominee, we will publish the final results. You might even sway a few of them...


Am suspicious of H. Clinton. Bent to the strong jewish lobby in NY. Lacked judgement on Iraq vote when many around the world suspected that "evidence was organized around the decision already made" . Barrak appears clean and probably more sensitive to rest of the world.But media needs to prod more his background and backers
Posted by: philippe hein | 3 Mar 2008 17:32:14
What about Senator Mike Gravel from Alaska? Last time I checked he was still in the Democratic race
Gravel 2008!
Posted by: Christian Gomez | 3 Mar 2008 18:01:58
Correct,the President of the USA is in essence the President of the entire free world. In this age of gross globalization where US policy will effect billions of non US citizens a way should be found to give citizens of the world a say in the election process of a US President.
Posted by: Leslie Udwin | 3 Mar 2008 19:26:46
i want obama to win the nomination and the presidential election. I think america must try someone and something new. Hilary clinton and mcain are just part of the old school and it would not matter which one of them wins, their policies would be much the same.
I never liked clinton for thinking the job was hers by right and there for the taking and that obama was an upstart who had no right to be there and it clear that she feels this now and this is one of the reasons that she is never really liked.
I think she has out organised obama in ohio and my feeling is that she will win there as there is a strong feeling for the clintons but i hope she wins narrowly and that obama wins in texas and the other states.
peter ellis
Posted by: peter ellis | 3 Mar 2008 21:30:59
Sen. Clinton thinks that by 'leaking' false stories about Obama it will sway voters to her side. Voters are smart and are sick of her constant means of using her 'surrogates' to fuel lies to the media and then saying she didn't know anything about it.
She needs to clean her mess (again) before she starts slandering her opponent. I wished Obama played as dirty as the Clinton's and opened up the biggest can of worms this country has seen yet about the Clinton's.
Is she taking a leave of absence when the lawsuit against her takes place before the general election? Why is that being swept under her rug? Hypocrites!!
Posted by: Obama08 | 3 Mar 2008 23:18:18
I think the use of " African cotton-growers to Palestinian refugees" was inappropriate in you article. We can clearly see how the presidential elections will impact all citizens...a bit tacky, if I say so myself. D
Posted by: D | 4 Mar 2008 00:12:11
Hillary has been there (the White House), done so much already; and will have unique -- and I mean unique --- support from Bill who really has been there and done that. Hillary can make the US healthy again and respected globally. Obama so far is all "sound and fury"; he might well succeed Hillary, unless Chelsea does.
Hillary deserves opportunity to follow the example being set by Perth's recently elected first woman Lord Mayor, Mrs Lisa Scaffidi, who is already doing wonders for this State's capital city.
And it isn't as though Hillary has a hard act to follow.
Thank you,
Ron Willis
Mount Lawley, Perth, Western Australia 6050.
Posted by: Ron Willis | 4 Mar 2008 03:36:55
Obama will heal this world - I am convinced 100% beyond the shadow of any doubt. HRC on the other hand will even be worse than Bush. Just see what kind of campaign she is leading and you will as well arrive at the same conclusion.
OBAMA FOR BETTER WORLD
CANADIAN FOR OBAMA
Posted by: sagin | 4 Mar 2008 15:13:19
Yes the world can see a fake hollow ambition and will not mistake it for "experience". This woman is plain simple annoying. I bet you will be pressed to tell me what her supposed "experience" is. Being the wife of a president? Guess what that does not count. People spend year around other people as wives/husbands and don't just pick their experience by osmosis.
Posted by: | 4 Mar 2008 15:28:28
Hillary all the way - she's the one I'd vote for.
Posted by: Michelle | 4 Mar 2008 15:31:36
Any thoughtful person prefers the tone and substance of Barack Obama as the new face of the United States to the rest of the world. Millions of us are trying back here in the USA -
Thanks to the rest of the world for a much needed reality check!
Posted by: Zachary Marcus | 4 Mar 2008 15:59:04
Hillary is been dishonest by claiming not knowing Bush intention to invade Iraq, as a Senator she supposed to have read the context of the proposition in detail without any assumption, this is where sound judgment comes into interplay, Barack is SOUND and no doubt this generation need a president like him to bring about POSITIVE change in this country, using negative attacks will not work, people are sick and tired of backbitting. GO Barack.
Posted by: Sunny | 4 Mar 2008 16:28:32
to Mr. Willis (Australia) "Obama..... might well succeed Hillary, unless Chelsea does." I guess i can forgive you such non-democratic propositions given your commonwealth background with the monarchy mindset, but i myself want the representative democracy our nation fought to create. Perhaps as an outsider oligarchy looks good to you, but this is my country. You're entitled to your opinion though....
Posted by: teopa | 4 Mar 2008 16:38:34
I would personally endorse mr Obama for the white house. of cause the trade unions aren`t no fools and they know what they need.one has to look round to see how many union leaders have endorse Barack Obama? its quiet alot compared to mrs clinton. moreso both John and Hilary were already part of old school in the policy makings anyway. so if indeed Amereica needs to turn a new leave then obviously Obama is the only qualified new leave among the lots.
Posted by: E Yeboah | 4 Mar 2008 17:33:37
Uh, yeah. You want to vote in this election, move over here and become a U.S. citizen. Otherwise quit whining. Do you realize how dumb you sound asking for the right to vote in another nation's election? How's this, you want a couple million Texans voting in your next election?
If you hadn't tried to screw us over back in the 18th century, maybe we'd still be a part of Britain rather than separate from it. As is, too freaking bad.
Posted by: Ben | 4 Mar 2008 18:54:20
The ideas came from John Edwards. No, he wouldn't break ground as the first minority group member (although men are, mathematically, in the minority), but he is arguably the best candidate. Certainly he is the *only* presidential candidate to whom I have ever sent a donation. No idea whom I will vote for now. Ron Paul?!
Posted by: Linda | 4 Mar 2008 18:59:07
In numerous UK polls, a significant majority have generally disapproved of the George W Bush administration. A fairly recent UK poll in The Guardian newspaper showed George W Bush to be more of a threat to world peace than Kim Jong-Il. Unlike Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton voted in favour of the military invasion of Iraq. If elected, Clinton will be seen as just another ruthless pariah to the rest of the world. Don't let this vicious dynasty continue.
Posted by: Jeremy G | 4 Mar 2008 19:20:16
SUNNY: I can't remember the last time a family member of a Prime Minister in Australia or the UK was elected in succession a la G. W. Bush, so your comment about the 'representative democracy our nation fought to create' is flawed. Not only that, you show a naivity that is typical of many in your nation by a) suggesting that democracy was invented by your country (it wasn't) and b) that other western nations have no place commenting on the US election. You have a short memory - your current "President" took both the UK and Australia into an illegal war that has done nothing but bring terrorism to our countries. The flailing US economy is having implications on the economies of most other Western nations as we speak. We have EVERY right to comment on this election and in fact, I am one of many people who believe we should be allowed a vote, considering the actions of the US affect us so directly.
Moth. London, UK.
Posted by: moth | 4 Mar 2008 19:20:49
Sorry, my previous comment was meant for TEOPA, not Sunny!
Posted by: moth | 4 Mar 2008 19:23:15
I am as much a fan of Obama as anyone else, but touting an internet poll with a statistically unrepresentative 1700 person sample as a "news" story is a gross misrepresentation.
Posted by: Brian W | 4 Mar 2008 20:00:11
By electing Obama as the Democratic nominee, and then going on to elect him as the country's President, the American people will be sending out a momentous message. They will tell the world that their country has finally opted to live up to the ideals (and ideas) on which it was founded. Equally importantly, the rest of the world will see that American society is turning its back on the aberrations and injustices that have plagued it in the last few centuries. It is rare in history for a country and its people to proclaim aspirations that are manifestly overboard and praiseworthy.
Posted by: Jay Bhattacharjee | 5 Mar 2008 05:29:40
To Ben - and all other Americans who think we should keep our mouths shut on the US elections:
If you don't want us to have a say, stop trying to have your say all over the rest of the world. The US interferes in the governance of other sovereign nations in much greater ways than with online polls - coups, assassinations, funding terrorists, invasions, to name but a few.
You can't appoint yourself world leader and then expect the world not to want a say in who that leader is.
Posted by: Laura | 5 Mar 2008 11:47:09
First of all, a poll in ENGLISH for a candidate - and just 1700 voters - should not be a news story about world preference.
Second, Hillary has FAR MORE TRADE UNION backing then Obama. AFSCME, United Farm Warkers, American Federation of Teachers, the Nurses Union - it goes on! SEIU has gotten more press but it's only very recently that Obama has gotten any union support. Mostly because he doesn't have a record of support for them the way that Hillary does.
Third - Name a US Senator who didn't vote for the war. The Senate and the whole US was misled by Bush and his cronies, compromising FBI data to make it look like there were weapons of mass destruction when there was not. I marched in San Francisco AGAINST the Iraq war - but I understand that you have to look at history in its context. All of the US Senate was mislead, and anyone who wasn't there at the time or didn't have the ability to vote (because they weren't in office) can't say its the same thing to make a speech, that it is to vote. In the Senate, since Obama joined - he has the EXACT SAME voting record on Iraq as Hillary.
Posted by: bravegal | 6 Mar 2008 16:53:02
Lord Have M.E.R.C.Y!
Yesterday I saw a BITTER Hateful anger coming from Hillary at a press conference which totally changes my support for her. She also ruin ANY possibility of a so called “Dream Ticket”.
She is out to RIP the party apart to win this Impossible nomination at ANY Cost. How could she uses such POOR Judgment to Endorse her Republican opponent and also give them more ammunition to use against her if, by some miracle, she ends up being the nominee. I am NOT voting or Supporting anyone who is so POWER hungry. Obama since super Tuesday went 12-0 all of a sudden she won 3 primaries she "cross the Commander-in-Chief threshold"? And basically DEMANDING to be the Nominee!
The DNC must recognize that Hillary is now a liability, in many respects, to the Democratic party. Obama is bringing NEW people to the process from all walks of life, which means party building. I know a battalion of young people supporting Obama in Florida who never went out and vote because Florida was not relevant. With the recent Clinton rage, win at any cost mentality, NONE of these young people will be inspired and motivated to go to the polls. I think Super delegate Teresa Benitez-Thompson, from Arizona, who endorse Obama on March 6 said it best:
"After careful thought, it is my honor today to endorse Sen. Barack Obama who, day by day and state by state, is challenging politics as usual and engaging so many new, diverse, Democratic voters," Benitez-Thompson said in a post on Obama's campaign Web site. "These new voters will propel Sen. Obama to victory in November and help elect great Democrats at the state and local level."
Obama will turn a lot of red-states blue in November!! Hillary You Lost My Support, SHAME ON YOU!!
Posted by: Mark Lawrence | 7 Mar 2008 16:58:22
The result of this poll is reflected in dozens of polls around the world which all show a massive preference for Senator Obama. Some of them are listed here: http://www.theworldwantsobama.org/search/label/*Polls
Posted by: The World Wants Obama | 17 Mar 2008 15:09:39