US Elections - Times Online - WBLG

Gen Petraeus on Iraq: the reaction

Reactions to the testimony of Gen Petraeus, the commander of US forces in Iraq, in the Senate yesterday were predictable in their split along party lines. Republican-leaning commentators by and large fell in behind John McCain's upbeat assessment of a successful surge and the swelling prospect of victory. Liberals, meanwhile, offered scathing critiques of what they described as propagandistic testimony, picking up on a number of points of interest:

1. That under pressure from Senator Joe Biden, the Democratic chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker admitted that Afghanistan and Pakistan, not Iraq, was the central front in the battle against al-Qaeda.

2. That Gen Petraeus stated that the US had not "turned any corners" nor "seen any lights at the end of the tunnel," in contrast to statements last summer in which he claimed corners had been turned.

3. That the Iraqi government is failing to take the necessary steps to ensure sufficient progress in the areas of politics and security responsibility.

4. That the United States, while accusing Iran of destructive and destabilising machinations in the country, is yet favouring with its support the Shiite faction most closely linked to Iran (The Islamic Supreme Council in Iraq, the largest party in government, and its militia, the Badr Corps).

For the verdict on how the presidential candidates performed at the hearings, click here.

Here's a selection of comment from the web:

Robert Scheer on the Huffington Post:

"His faithful testimony, at least to the president if not the truth, on Tuesday was a particularly painful performance. Civilian deaths in March were 50 percent higher than in February, and there were a score of recent American deaths, and there is no evidence of political progress to support Petraeus' stab at optimism over the "fragile" situation in Iraq. Most absurd was the suggestion that the problem would all go away if Iran would only behave, when in fact American troops are being sacrificed on the pro-Iranian side of an internal Shiite power dispute. The Shiites in charge of "our" government in Iraq are exiles trained for decades in Iran."

Hullabaloo:

"(Senator) Joe Biden asked Amb. Crocker whether it would be better for American national security interests to eliminate Al Qaeda in Iraq or Al Qaeda along the Pakistan-Afghanistan border. Crocker had nowhere to hide with that question.

"Crocker, in an impossible political position -- give the correct answer and humiliate the Bush administration; give the administration's answer and look like a fool -- dodged as much as he could. Then Biden forced him down. Crocker: "I would therefore pick Al Qaeda on the Afghanistan-Pakistan border.

"Game over. Every single argument that the Administration and their lapdogs like John McCain have made or are making break down after that answer. The Ambassdor to Iraq just admitted that Iraq is not the central front in the war on terror... He admitted that the global fight against terror is currently misdirected."

Andrew Sullivan on the Daily Dish, Atlantic.com:

"Petraeus and Crocker strike me as making every effort to be intellectually honest, and their credibility is all the greater for it. They certainly appear more circumspect about Iraq than some of their Republican interlocutors...  He's candid about turning Baghdad into a warren of sectarian mini-ghettoes guarded by massive internal walls, about Iran's large gains in influence whatever happens, about a recent spike in violence. ...

"It's all he can do at this point, isn't it, to keep this "fragile and reversible" security progress from unraveling. Petraeus cannot be held responsible for the political will to commit to Iraq for a generation, the only time-line that makes much sense if this is to achieve anything faintly resembling a decent outcome in line with the original war-goals. So he hangs in there; along with the troops; while the kind of Iraqi political progress that alone can get us out of there with minimal damage occurs at a glacial and always reversible pace."

Crooks and Liars:

"Same as the last time…Everything is better, but very fragile...Sure sounds like they want the 100 year—McCain Plan to me.
Crocker: …almost everything in Iraq is hard, but hard does not mean hopeless
He sounds like a basketball coach telling his team during a time out—-that even though they are losing by thirty five points with 6 minutes left to go, they still have a chance to win,…Win, exactly?"

Cenk Ugyur on the Huffington Post:

"I hear him bemoaning Iranian influence in Iraq all the time. Yet, no one has helped Iran more inside Iraq than he has. We have lent the full force of our military might to the political faction and Shiite militia most closely associated with Iran. ...

"The Badr Corps is linked with the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq (ISCI), which is the largest party inside Iraq. The Badr Corps also happens to be the militia with closest ties to Iran. They also happen to be the militia that ran those feared death squads during the ethnic cleansing of Baghdad. And get this - they are also the ones that want to split up Iraq instead of keeping it unified.

"All of these objectives seem to be diametrically opposed to what we want in Iraq. So why have we thrown all our military muscle behind them? ... I would love it if we actually used Congressional hearings to ask a real question for once and if General Petraeus, for once, gave us a real answer."

National Review:

"If Gen. David Petraeus wasn’t denounced as a traitor upon his arrival on Capitol Hill Tuesday, his testimony was the occasion for the same dreary willful obtuseness on the part of congressional Democrats as in September. ... Petraeus and Crocker always counsel patience when talking of Iraq. They displayed it themselves during hours of interrogation on Capitol Hill. They are impressive public servants with no agenda other than trying to help the United States win a crucial war. Would that their antagonists learned from their example."

General Petraeus and the US elections

Tomorrow’s congressional testimony of General David Petraeus, commander of US forces in Iraq, could prove critical to the election campaign in two ways. Firstly, the general’s assessment of the situation on the ground will either undermine or bolster the candidates’ respective positions as to whether the US should stay the course or cut and run. Secondly, and in many ways more crucially, it will provide an unparalleled opportunity for the public to see how the candidates – all of whom will question the general in their committee roles – would deal with the conflict as commander-in-chief.

If General Petraeus delivers an upbeat assessment of current progress in Iraq, it will lend support to John McCain’s claim that the surge – of which he is regarded as a key architect – has been a success and that sustained engagement in the country will ultimately bring victory. If the picture is less rosy – which, in the light of recent flare-ups, might be expected – it could convince wavering Americans that the gradual withdrawal advocated by Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama is the way to go.

However the impact of his actual evidence might be limited. Five years into the conflict, public opinion is fairly entrenched. Few serious opponents of the war are likely to reverse their views on the basis of the testimony of an army general, and will either dismiss a positive assessment as politicised or disregard it as having no bearing on the morality of the invasion in the first place - still a key issue for the anti-war movement. A particularly scathing assessment would have far more serious implications for the McCain campaign, but at this point in time General Petraeus is probably about as likely to admit defeat as President Bush is.

Most interesting will be how the respective candidates deal with the general. Will they take on board what he has to say, or try to use the hearings as a platform to advance their own views? Will they appear presidential, or churlish and partisan, resisting evidence that does not fit their positions? Will they demonstrate good judgement and an understanding of facts on the ground or will gaps in their knowledge be revealed? All this, and more, will no doubt be relentlessly picked over by the US media in the coming days.

The media culture clash: Samantha Power vs the British press

Samantha Power, Barack Obama's now ex-campaign adviser, might have spent her childhood years in Ireland
but the experience obviously didn't prepare her for her face-to-face encounter with a bloodthirsty British newshound.

Loose-tongued Power let slip her true feelings about Hillary Clinton during an interview with the Scotsman newspaper in London, branding the rival candidate a "monster" for her tactics in the Ohio primary campaign. She hastily tried to repair the damage, saying the comment was "off the record," but it was too late. She had been "gotcha-ed" by the British press.

The editor of the Scotsman vigorously defended the paper's decision to publish the remark, saying Power could not simply withdraw a comment made during an on-the-record interview.

"We have no opinion on whether Ms Power was right to quit and perhaps politics should be able to retain people with talent who are prepared to learn by their mistakes but we are certain it was right to publish," Mike Gilson said. "I do not know of a case when anyone has been able to withdraw on the record quotes after they have been made."

He continued: "The interview our political correspondent Gerri Peev conducted with Ms Power was clearly on an on the record basis. She was clearly passionate and angry with the tactics of the Clinton camp over the Ohio primary and that spilled over in the interview. Our job was to put that interview before the public as a matter of public interest. It was for others to judge whether the remarks were ill-judged or spoke of the inexperience in the Obama camp."

Power issued a full mea culpa and did not quibble over the paper's right to publish the quote. But the affair highlights a significant difference in the media cultures of Britain and the United States Todd Gitlin, professor of journalism and sociology at Columbia University, said that if the sequence of events was as reported, the Scotsman had been "well within their rights" to publish, and expressed a degree of exasperation with the deferential attitude of many in the US media.

One key distinction between British and American reporting is that whereas in the US, off-the-record means exactly that, in Britain, it is generally treated as permission to publish but with only a vague attribution, for example to "a senior campaign source". Even if the conversation is a completely private one, it may still be treated as fair game. But there is no doubt that it is a very grey area with little in the way of clear-cut ethical standards.

Roy Greenslade, professor of journalism at London's City University, expressed doubt that the exact sequence of the quote determined whether it was on or off the record. "If I interview someone, and they say, for example, "Tony Blair is a savage - but that's off the record," they are essentially telling me not to print that."

Power may not have been aware of such niceties, though in this case it is not clear it would have saved her anyway.
What might have averted her career-wrecking error was an awareness of the ruthlessness of the British media, some of whom spend their entire lives stalking celebrities and politicians in the simple hope that at some point they will slip up.

While this is not a phenomenon unique to this side of the Atlantic,Britain's cutthroat tabloid culture does perhaps engender a degree of ferocity in the media that outstrips that of the more respectful US press.This is not necessarily always a good thing, of course. In the United States
too there was an increasing tendency to pounce on the gaffe, particularly in a lengthy campaign with plenty of opportunity for slip-ups, Gitlin said. "There are thousands of circling journalists just waiting for the gotcha moment, the gaffe. But pursuit of the gaffe moment does really cheapen journalism, I think."

“Journalists themselves disagree about this but the presumption is that the exemption from attribution is much too commonplace and we should applaud the rejection of it here," he said.

There was in general "too much trickery and obscurantism" in the attribution of quotations, he said.

Did Clinton cheat on NAFTA too?

Just days after Hillary Clinton seized upon reports that the Obama camp privately told Canadian officials their hardline on the North American Free Trade Agreement was only for political show, a report has emerged suggesting Clinton herself might have been playing a similar game.

Both candidates worried officials in Canada with their protectionist rhetoric during the primary campaign in Ohio, where the agreement is blamed by blue-collar workers for the decline in manufacturing jobs. Clinton and Obama both told Ohio voters that they would renegotiate the agreement and pull out of it entirely if sufficent protections for American workers weren't forthcoming.

But the Canadian Globe and Mail reported today that it was in fact a remark about Clinton's campaign, not Obama's, that triggered the furore.

It claims that the basis for the story was an offhand comment made by Ian Brodie, chief of staff to Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper, to CTV journalists during the media lock-up for the country's February 26 budget.

Apparently attempting to play down the impact of the candidates' campaign promises, Brodie told reporters that the threat was not a serious one, adding that someone from Clinton's campaign had even contacted Canadian diplomats to tell them not to worry because the NAFTA rhetoric was mostly political posturing.

It quoted an unnamed source as saying that several people overheard the remark.

The source was quoted as saying that Mr. Brodie said that someone from Ms. Clinton's campaign called and was "telling the embassy to take it with a grain of salt."

It is not clear how, if that was indeed the basis for the report, the Clinton campaign metamorphosed into the Obama campaign. The president of CTV, which broke the story, declined to comment tonight.

But should we really be surprised if either candidate, or both, privately gave such assurances? They are politicians after all, and only the most naive voter would believe that everything promised on the campaign trail would automatically translate into policy once safely ensconced in office.

As detailed here, officials at the British Embassy in Washington have told The Times that they are not overly concerned about the trade policies of either Democrat. One said: “There is a difference between what they say to get elected and what they do afterwards.”

A sad but universal truth.

Is the media tide turning against Obama?

Hillary Clinton has long been complaining that her rival gets preferential treatment from the media, but from Barack Obama's latest encounter with reporters it appears the tide may be turning against him.

At a press conference late yesterday, the Democratic frontrunner struggled to field a barrage of tough questions before exasperatedly declaring himself to have spent enough time in the firing line and making a hasty exit.

First on the list was a private talk between one of Obama's economic advisers and a Canadian offical, during which the former reportedly offered assurances that the candidate's tough line on the North American Free Trade Agreement was for political effect.

Obama was probed as to why he last week denied a media report about the conversation, only to acknowledge it after a Canadian government memo surfaced in the press. (His campaign still refutes the version of events in the memo.)

"When I gave you that information, that was the information that I had at the time," he said.

Attention then turned to Obama's links to Tony Rezko, the property developer and former Obama fundraiser who went on trial in Chicago on Monday on corruption charges. One reporter - Carol Marin, political editor at NBC5 in Chicago and columnist at the Chicago Sun-Times - claimed Obama had failed to fully answer press questions on the relationsip, which the candidate denied, suggesting her line of questioning was motivated by his failure to grant her a one-on-one interview. Another then joined the fray and repeated the question, prompting Obama to insist he had addressed all points during past news conferences. However a third journalist then moved in for the kill, pressing him on unanswered questions over fund-raisers held by Rezko on his behalf.

Obama replied, "These requests, I think, can just go on forever." All "pertinent" information had already been provided, he added.

The mood worsened when Obama tried to bring the conference to a close. After a brusque reply to a follow-up question on the Canadian memo, he turned away from the press just after an aide called last question, prompting one reporter to shout that he was avoiding questions just moments after insisting he wasn't.

"Come on! I just answered, like, eight questions," a surprised and flustered Obama told the clamouring media pack as he fled the room. "We're running late."

Obama and Louis Farrakhan

The Clinton campaign's alleged circulation of a photo showing Barack Obama in Somali dress may have backfired rather spectacularly but it seems an unintended blow may have landed more effectively. The Democratic frontrunner has struggled to repair the damage to his campaign not from an attack, but from an expression of support - from the controversial head of the Nation of Islam and oft-alleged anti-semite, Louis Farrakhan.

Obama had already been forced to decry Farrakhan's views once, after the Washington Post reported in January that a magazine published by the Trinity United Church of Christ - of which the Democratic candidate is a member - had named him in its annual awards.

But after Farrakhan lauded Obama as the "hope for the entire world" on Sunday, the Illinois senator was cornered at Tuesday night's Ohio debate by Hillary Clinton, who demanded he again "denounce" the black leader's views. He did so, and, after Clinton continued to criticise him for not explicitly "rejecting" Farrakhan's support, said he both "denounced and rejected" him. (It is interesting to note that despite Clinton's apparent dedication to semantics she later chose to neither reject or denounce a Hispanic backer in Texas who said that “Obama’s problem is he happens to be black.")

In fairness, Clinton should not have to reject the support of every individual whose views she does not espouse. Neither should any other presidential candidate. Amongst the millions of voters lining up behind each prospective president are bound to be some whose opinions are abhorrent to many. Many South Carolina Republican voters, for example, support the display of the Confederate flag - viewed by many as a symbol of racism and oppression - at the state's capitol building. To my knowledge, John McCain has not been asked to denounce this yet. And he shouldn't be.

A better question might be why McCain has yet to comment on a statement from the Tennessee Republican Party released Monday entitled "Anti-semites for Obama." Prominently displaying the "dressed" photo and spelling out Obama's middle name Hussein, it claimed Obama would be a menace to Israel. “On the contrary, supporters of Israel should view a possible Obama administration with extreme caution, as America’s ally is being put in the cross-hairs by the anti-Jewish left,” Bill Hobbs, the party's communications director was quoted as saying. 

McCain did however on Tuesday castigate a right-wing radio presenter who, when introducing him at a Ohio rally, repeatedly used the "Hussein" moniker and insinuated that Obama had a secret past which would soon be exposed. After the "dressed" photo debacle, he is keenly aware that such attacks, smacking of xenophobia-fuelled paranoia, could well prove a devastating own goal.

Abba won't "take a chance" on McCain

He battled the Vietcong but now John McCain has apparently come a-cropper against the Swedes.

The Republican candidate, who had already been banned by John Mellencamp, the American rocker, from using his hits 'Our Country' and 'Pink Houses', found out that he has few fans in Scandinavia when he tried to adopt Abba's "Take a chance on me" as his campaign song. After running into difficulties with the Swedish supergroup, McCain lamented to reporters on board his plane that it wasn't as easy to play the song as he thought.

“It gets expensive in a big hurry and if you’re not careful you can alienate some Swedes,” he joked.“If word gets out to Stockholm that we’re using Abba music, then there’ll be a
worsening in U.S.-Swedish relations.”

He'll just have to pray that the conservative wing of the Republican party doesn't similarly reject his advances...

But McCain's not the only candidate whose choices of campaign song have proved problematic:

Hillary Clinton held an online contest to choose her anthem - and proved that the democratic system has its failings when she got landed with the schmaltzy Celine Dion ballad "You and I". After a thorough panning - the Huffington Post declared it the worst campaign theme song - she ditched the Canadian songstress' tune for Big Head Todd and the Monsters' "Blue Sky".

Barack Obama likes to play DJ at his campaign events and reportedly flicks through his iPod for his favourite Stevie Wonder or Aretha Franklin tune before handing it to a junior staffer to play. But his micromanagement failed to prevent a rather unfortunate gaffe at his New Hampshire primary night rally when, convinced by the polls he was headed for victory, he cued up Stevie Wonder's "Signed, sealed, delivered." And we all know the rest.

(Obama's also picked a few unofficial campaign songs along the way: the surprise YouTube hit "I got a crush on Obama" by Obama Girl - including the catchy line "I saw you float onto the floor at the Democratic Convention 2004, I never wanted you more" - and Will.i.am's slightly more intellectual effort "Yes We Can".)

Mike Huckabee got a public dressing-down from Tom Scholtz of rock band Boston after he played their hit "More than a feeling" at campaign events. Scholtz left no one in any doubt of his feelings about Huckabee, who, he said was "the polar opposite of most everything Boston stands for." Adding that he was supporting Barack Obama, Scholtz complained: "By using my song, and my band's name Boston, you have taken something of mine and used it to promote ideas to which I am opposed. In other words, I think I've been ripped off, dude!"

Words matter - but they're not Obama's

Barack Obama's lofty oratory landed him in trouble yesterday when a particularly memorable speech in Wisconsin turned out to be just a little too memorable - some observers recalled it all too well from the 2006 campaign of Massachussetts Governor Deval Patrick.

After an 'anonymous' rival campaign highlighted the similarities, the section concerned was promptly dissected on YouTube, with the videos leaving little room for doubt. Watch both speeches below.

So how serious a misdemeanour is this? It's not the first time that a presidential candidate has ripped off another politician's words - politics is full of recycled soundbites and it has already been noted that Obama's slogan "Yes, we can" is a translation of "Si, se puede" - the 1972 chant of the United Farm Workers. Joe Biden during his 1988 White House bid got caught plagiarising a speech by Neil Kinnock, then leader of the British Labour Party. The bad news for Obama is that it destroyed Biden's campaign.

The Obama campaign immediately moved to stave off accusations of plagiarism by asking Governor Patrick, a close ally of the Illinois senator, to put in a call to the New York Times, which he duly did. Patrick explained that he had given Obama permission to use his phrases, which he considered a "transcendent argument", and had also assured him it was not necessary to credit him. "Who knows who I am? The point is more important than whose argument it is," he said.

It remains to be seen whether Patrick's intercession will be enough to defuse the row, particularly given that the contentious speech was itself intended to rebutt Hillary Clinton's claim that Obama offers little more than shallow rhetoric. I however would like to suggest to Obama's speechwriters that a meaty policy speech is not only appropriate but a necessity right about now. A really nerdy, technical one packed full of somnolent detail that might bore a rally but will give the policy wonks something to chew over ahead of Texas and Ohio. He is at risk of tipping into inspiration overload and must address Mrs Clinton's attacks once and for all - if he can, that is.

That's my thought on the matter - now, readers, over to you...

A town called Obama

Thousands of Pacific miles might separate residents of an isolated fishing town on Japan's snowy west coast from the buzz of the US election campaign but that hasn't prevented them from taking an avid interest in the fortunes of one candidate - the young Illinois senator with whom the ancient community shares its name.

Obama, Japan has been thoroughly infected by the mania surrounding its accidental namesake and is mounting an astonishing display of support for the man who hopes to become America's first black president.

The main hotel is splattered with posters hailing Obama, while his image will grace headbands and T-shirts currently in production. Sweet bean "manju" cakes bearing Obama’s portrait are being prepared by local confectioners, and the town of 32,000 has even held special primary night parties to celebrate his victories.

Mayor Toshio Murakami plans to send the candidate a good luck "daruma" doll in the lacquerware for which the town is famous nationally, with the word "victory" emblazoned across its chest in Japanese calligraphy.

Murakami sent a gift - a set of lacquer chopsticks - to Obama last year but is not sure whether it arrived as he used an address he found on the internet.

"I will present you the chopsticks of Wakasa paint and I am glad if you use it habitually," Mr Murakami said in the letter, written in English. "I wish you the best of health and success."

He pointed out that Obama's birthday, August 4, happens to be "Chopsticks Day" in the city.

"At first we were more low-key as Hillary Clinton looked to be ahead, but now we see he is getting more popular," Murakami said.

"I give him an 80 per cent chance of becoming president," the 75-year-old said, beaming with pride.

But policy doesn’t seem to be a major concern for the candidate's Japanese supporters - the main draw is his name.

"Obama gives good speeches and has a good voice, so I want him to do well. And, of course, we
share the same name," Seiji Fujiwara, a hotel executive and leader of a local support group established
earlier this month for the candidate, said.

Residents in Obama - which means "small shore" in Japanese - want nothing in return for their support, but hope that if their man becomes president, he might grace them with a visit or perhaps even an international summit to put their little-known home on the tourist map.

Obama and the Cuban flag controversy

US blogs are buzzing with the latest campaign trail controversy - the display of a Cuban flag in a Texas office set up by supporters of Barack Obama. Not only that, the wall-size flag is superimposed with the image of Marxist revolutionary Che Guevara.

The flag was featured in a segment on Fox 26, a local Fox station, looking at efforts by Obama supporters in Houston ahead of the crucial March 4 primary here, and immediately sent right-wingers into a collective fit of apoplexy. Googling "Obama Cuban flag" currently draws a mammoth 534,000 results, challenging "Obama Muslim"'s 1,100,000 for pole position in the smear stakes.

Obama's campaign has since disassociated itself with the volunteer concerned and her ideological viewpoint.

There are a few points to note here -

1 - The office was set up by unpaid volunteers and is not a campaign office - despite Fox's claims to the contrary in its rather misleading original segment, repeated by right wing bloggers across the country. Fox has since acknowledged its error - but bloggers haven't followed suit.

2 - The volunteer concerned is Cuban-American and has a right to her views of her own country of origin. Joseph McCarthy died quite some time ago now.

3- She also comes across as a bit of a flake, as is evident in Fox's subsequent interview. If anything, I'd be more concerned about her proximity to the Obama campaign than that of the bearded one.

3 - Even if Obama did secretly harbour a penchant for Marxist ideology, he'd hardly advertise it to Fox News.

5 - In attempting to hype up the story, the reporter claims that Che Guevara was responsible for "tens of thousands of deaths" - but where did this figure come from? Estimates of executions during Guevara's time as commander of La Cabaña prison immediately after the revolution do vary, but the majority are measured in the low hundreds. Was the reporter perhaps confused with the 20,000 estimated extra-judicial killings under the previous regime of Fulgencia Batista, the US-supported dictator, whose victims were mostly tortured to death?

Here's what the blogs are saying:

Babalu Blog: “Amazing. Simply amazing. The Butcher of La Cabaña, a well deserved and earned nickname for the murdering Argentine, on a Cuban flag in a U.S. Presidential campaign office, draped next to an American Flag. That’s not just a dichotomy or something akin to an irony, it is downright disgusting.”

Charles Johnson on Little Green Footballs:

"If I’m “insinuating” anything, it’s this: when you actively pander to and encourage the radical leftist elements of your party, as the Democrats have been determinedly doing for the past eight years, you’re going to end up with embarrassing scenes like this.

"And attacking the messenger who points it out is standard political damage control."

Outside the Beltway

"Che worship (or, alternatively, the wearing of Che t-shirts as a statement without the slightest clue of who he was) seems to be a phase that certain left-leaning activists go through in their youth; it generally passes. Driscoll’s characterization of it as “juvenilia” is spot on.

"But, surely, Obama doesn’t need to publicly weigh in on the decorating choices of every low level staffer? Let alone “renounce” affinities which he’s never shown?"

John Cole's Balloon Juice:

" I take this as a sign that the GOP is feeling threatened by Obama.

"Is there anyone except the troglodyte right who thinks our Cuba policy has been a success and doesn’t need to be thought through? I mean, if you want to look at long-term failed policies, Cuba could be right up there at the top. What exactly has been accomplished?"

Superdelegates, and how they could change the fate of a nation

With neither Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton able to carve out a clear lead in the Democratic race, talk is increasingly turning to the possibility that superdelegates might, for the first time since their inception in the 1980s, decide the presidential nominee.

So what is a superdelegate, and why do they matter?

This stratum of turbo-charged voters constitute around 20 per cent of Democratic delegates who decide the nominee (Republicans have far fewer, just 123, who I'll come back to later.)

They are made up primarily of Democratic National Committee officials, members of Congress, governors and Democratic notables such as former presidents and congressional leaders. Some, meanwhile, are elected at state conventions.

Sometimes referred to as unpledged delegates, superdelegates are not bound to support any particular nominee. So far, around half have declared their voting intentions, with Hillary Clinton commanding a sizeable lead, but as these could change their mind right up to the last the former first lady can't bank them yet.

With the two rivals neck-and-neck when it comes to your average, common or garden delegate, it is these souped-up versions which may tip the nomination one way or the other.

The Republican party has no superdelegates per se, but it does have 123 unpledged delegates which function the same way.

For further information on superdelegates, CNN has a useful guide here.

What is the current state of play?

Gordon is better than either Barack or Hillary, coos Jacqui

Following dispatch flashed up overnight from the Press Association guy in Washington. A reminder from our Home Secretary that we Brits must appreciate our dear leader, don't you know:

Gordon Brown encompasses the best of Hillary Clinton’s experience and Barack Obama’s message of change, the Home Secretary said yesterday.

Jacqui Smith was speaking at the start of her first trip to the US as home secretary. She told reporters at the UK ambassador’s residence at the British Embassy in Washington that the race to the White House was “fascinating” and added: “It’s been an interesting discussion about the nature of political change and what that involves.”

Asked if Britain could learn anything from the US election, Ms Smith said Mr Obama’s “strong emphasis on being the change candidate” had led to an “interesting” discussion about what that actually meant.

Ms Smith said: “I suppose (that) has some resonance for, I think, the very successful way Gordon Brown has in the UK both continued the basic principles of the Labour Government over the last 10 or 11 years, but has also been able to renew that and reinvigorate that through his leadership and his premiership.”

She said she thought “Gordon Brown had successfully managed both to build on the experience that he has as being part of the Labour Government over the last 10 years and to register to the British people that there was a change of emphasis and that there were new challenges that his premiership was going to be able to address”.

She added: “He combines the best of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.”

Obama beats a Clinton to a Grammy

Barack Obama might have routed Hillary Clinton in the weekend's primaries but it was her husband that he beat to a Grammy for the best spoken word album of the year at last night's ceremony. While the young Illinois senator was wrapping up Sunday's caucus in the east coast state of Maine, over on the west coast the audio version of his book, The Audacity of Hope: Thoughts on Reclaiming the American Dream, triumphed over Bill Clinton's Giving: How Each of Us Can Change the World.

Herbie Hancock, buoyant after his surprise win in the Album of the Year category, gave a tacit nod towards the Democratic presidential candidate when he borrowed Obama's campaign phrase to describe the significance of a jazz artist winning the award this year.

“I’d like to thank the academy for courageously breaking the mold this time,” he said. “This is a new day, that proves that the impossible can be made possible. Yes we can, to coin a phrase.”

Of course it's just a Grammy. And the Clintons already have a clutch of their own - Bill has won the category twice while Hillary took the award home in 1996 for her audio version of the book "It Takes a Village." But as the one time presumptive nominee struggles to rein in her rival's growing momentum, the fact that it was the words of B-Rock, rather than Billary, that ignited the popular culture this year won't be lost on her newly reshuffled campaign staff.

Obama couldn't make it to LA to accept his award. But then, he did have quite a busy weekend.

Who's endorsing who: Republicans

Here's the latest list of notable endorsements for the remaining Republican candidates. Please note that this is not conclusive and if you think there's anyone else that should really be on there, email us at acrossthepond@thetimes.co.uk

John McCain

Senators and governor

<>

<>

• Senator Sam Brownback, Kansas
• Senator Joe Lieberman, Connecticut (Democrat)
• Senator Saxby Chambliss, Georgia
• Senator Richard Burr, North Carolina
• Senator Mel Martinez, Florida
• Senator Gordon Smith, Oregon
• Senator Olympia Snowe, Maine
• Senator John Thune, South Dakota
• Senator John Warner, Virginia
• Senator Tom Coburn, Oklahoma
• Senator Susan Collins, Maine
• Senator Norm Coleman, Minnesota
• Senator Pete Dominici, New Mexico
• Senator Lindsay Graham, South Carolina
• Senator Johnny Isakson, Georgia
• Senator Jon Kyl, Arizona
• Governor Charlie Crist, Florida
• Governor Mitch Daniels, Indiana
• Governor Jim Douglas, Vermont
• Governor Jon Huntsman, Utah
• Governor Tim Pawlenty, Minnesota
• Governor Rick Perry, Texas
• Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, California
• Governor Tommy Thompson, Wisconsin

Celebrities Curt Schilling, pitcher, Boston Redsox Sylvester Stallone Others Rudy Giuliani, former mayor of New York City Phil Gramm, former senator from Texas Martin Feldstein, chief economic policy adviser for President Reagan Tom Ridge, former secretary for homeland security Tom Kean, former chairman, 9/11 Commission Robert "Bud" McFarlane, national security adviser for Ronald Reagan Steve Forbes, president and CEO, Forbes Inc, former Republican presidential candidate John Thain, CEO of Merrill Lynch Trent Lott, former senator from Mississippi and majority leader Henry Kissinger, secretary of state under Presidents Nixon and Ford George P. Shultz, secretary of state under President Reagan R. James Woolsey Jr., former CIA director under President Clinton Norman Schwarzkopf, retired US army general and commander of coalition forces in 1991 Gulf War Newspapers and organisations Boston Globe Des Moines Register Detroit Free Press Harvard Crimson (Harvard University student newspaper) Kansas City Star LA Times New Hampshire Union Leader Orlando Sentinel Philadelphia Inquirer Chicago Tribune New York Times Washington Times Mike Huckabee Senators and governors Senator Alex Diaz de la Portilla, Florida Senator Matt Bartle, Missouri Senator Brad Lager, Missouri Senator Rob Mayer, Missouri Senator Chuck Pergason, Missouri Senator Bob Clegg, New Hampshire Governor Mike Rounds of South Dakota Others Ted Nugent, rock musician Representative Duncan Hunter of California, former 2008 Republican primary candidate Jim Naugle, mayor of Fort Lauderdale (Democrat) Zig Ziglar, motivational speaker Bob Feller, Hall of Fame baseball player Jim Gilchrist, founder of the Minuteman Project Jerry Falwell Jr, son of Jerry Falwell, evangelical leader and founder of Liberty University Ric Flair, former WWE wrestler Chuck Norris, martial artist and action star Bobby Richardson, former New York Yankee Bobby Schindler, brother of Terry Schiavo Steven Reinemund, chairman of PEPSICO Newspapers and organisations Dallas Morning News

California's first lady backs Obama

Election time must be tough when you're both the niece of John F. Kennedy and the wife of California's Republican governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger. But Maria Shriver left no one in any doubt as to where her political loyalties lie with her surprise endorsement yesterday of Barack Obama for president.

Just days after her husband delivered a boost to John McCain's campaign, Ms Shriver stunned delighted supporters at Obama's UCLA rally by making an impromptu appearance, make-up free and and casually dressed after a daughter's equestrian show, to voice her support for the Democratic candidate. Apparently wavering up until the very last minute over whether to go public, Obama aides said that even while she was waiting backstage they were uncertain whether the announcement would go ahead. But stride onstage she did, and declared to a enraptured audience that "If Barack was a state, he'd be California!"

Ms Shriver's break with her husband was not so unusual, as the couple have always been political opposites. But, as Sherry Bebitch Jeffe, USC political analyst, said in today's LA Times, "The drama of it all was just delicious."

Embracing Oprah Winfrey, cousin Caroline Kennedy and Michelle Obama onstage, the effortlessly elegant Ms Shriver (hair unbrushed or no) delivered a priceless media image: three of the most influential Democratic women in America united in their support for the Obama campaign. Hillary must have been seething.

In fact, Ms Bebitch Jeffe says, Ms Shriver "probably edged out Bill Clinton" -- who spent Sunday morning visiting Los Angeles-area black churches - "and Oprah Winfrey as the story of the day, at least in California."

Edwards quits - but where will his supporters go?

Moments after John Edwards quit the Democratic race today the blogosphere was buzzing with frenzied analyses of the likely impact on the remaining contenders. By and large the commentary is as inconclusive as polling on the subject, with some suggesting Obama might gain a slight advantage, others leaning towards Mrs Clinton and more still sitting resolutely (and probably wisely) on the fence.

There are two key points to consider here: delegates already won and supporters who have not yet voted.

Edwards has not yet thrown his weight behind a candidate and may well not do so until he has assessed his potential influence. If the race stays as close as it is as present he may decide to hold on to the dozens of delegates he has accrued and direct them nearer the convention to the candidate who offers him the best reward (ie the VP spot on the ticket or a future Cabinet post.) On the other hand he is clearly ideologically closer to Obama and may endorse him sooner if it looks like Hillary is pulling ahead. I've written about this in an earlier blog post.

However with his delegates not bound to obey him, the bigger question is where his supporters in the remaining states will turn.

Here's a selection of the best comment on the web:

Video: Super Tuesday campaign ads

With Super Tuesday and its slew of crucial, delegate-rich contests less than a week away, the frontrunners in both races have unleashed vollies of new campaign ads to sway wavering voters. Here are their most impressive offerings (some a bit more impressive than others...):

Barack Obama: If you only had enough dollars left in your war chest for one campaign ad, you couldn't do much better than to wheel out a Kennedy:

Hillary Clinton: The former first lady's ads are getting schmaltzier every time. From this ad you might think she was angling for a post with Christian Aid rather than running for president...

John McCain: If it wasn't for the generous layer of vitriol dripping from this anti-Romney ad, you might not know it came from the McCain camp at all. But it is effective in highlighting Mitt Romney's changing positions over the years, especially when compared to the Romney ad up next.

Mitt Romney: McCain and Romney have been busy tussling over who's the biggest flip-flopper for some time now. But if this example is the only one Romney can come up with, he might be better switching tack...

Romney targets McCain temper

Locked in a vicious struggle with John McCain for the Florida GOP primary, Mitt Romney has distributed a missive listing 10 occasions on which the Arizona senator has allegedly lost his temper and attacked other Republicans.

You can view the memo here, and watch some of the incidents mentioned in the videos below:

The Clintons and Mr Rezko

Matt Drudge has posted this picture of the Clintons beaming alongside... wait, who is that? Ah yes, Tony Rezko, the indicted property developer whose past contributions (now donated to charity) to the Obama campaign have been the focus of numerous attacks by the Clinton camp in recent days.

In the South Carolina debate earlier this week, the former first lady attacked Obama for engaging in a land deal with Rezko while in the Illinois state legislature. Obama severed ties with the businessman after he was indicted on fraud, attempted extortion and money laundering charges for allegedly plotting to get campaign money and payoffs from firms seeking to do business before two state boards.

The 53-year-old businessman also faces a separate federal charge of conning the General Electric Capital Corp. out of $10 million in connection with the sale of pizza restaurants.

Mrs Clinton was confronted with the photo during an interview on NBC News today.

She insisted she did not know Rezko, saying “I probably have taken hundreds of thousands of pictures. … I wouldn’t know him if he walked in the door. I don’t have a 17-year-relationship with him,” alluding to Obama’s links to Rezko.

Clinton — who was herself forced to cut ties with and return contributions from businessman Norman Hsu after it emerged that he was evading fraud charges — was asked if it was fair to attack her rival in such a way in light of the fact that Rezko was an established contributer to the Democratic party. Didn't she know from personal experience that it was impossible to completely vet all political contacts?

“There’s a big difference between standing somewhere taking a picture with someone you don’t know and haven’t seen since and having a relationship that, you know, the newspapers in Chicago have been exploring,” she replied.

Still, something about beams and motes springs to mind...

US v Kerik

ABC is reporting an interesting little nugget of information. Tucked away in the last paragraph of this article on Roberta McCain's latest gaffe is the revelation that the pre-trial conference for the prosecution of Bernard Kerik, the former New York City police chief and close associate of Rudy Giuliani indicted on corruption charges, has been postponed from February 4  - the day before Super Tuesday - to Feb 6.

The date was changed at the request of the defence, according to court documents. Make of that what you will...

Mama McCain and the recurring case of foot-in-mouth disease

John McCain's nonagenarian mother Roberta has suffered a recurrence of the foot-in-mouth disease which got her in such trouble with Mormons a couple of months ago (watch here). This time it was a question regarding her son's conservative credentials that tripped her up.

Here's the relevant extract from the C-Span interview transcript:

Steve Scully: This is a political question in terms of how he gets the nomination, but just from what you have seen, how much support do you think he has among the base of the Republican Party?

Roberta McCain: I don’t think he has any. I don’t know what the base of the Repub– maybe I don’t know enough about it, but I’ve not seen any help whatsoever.

Scully: So can he then go on and become the nominee of this party?

McCain: Yes, I think holding their nose they’re going to have to take him.

Scully: Can you explain?

McCain: Well, everything they’ve done and said. … Now I’m really popping off, but he worked like a dog to get Bush re-elected. …He’s backed Bush in everything except Rumsfeld. Have you heard other senators and congressmen backing Bush over eight years? Find me it – give me a name. I’ve not seen any public recognition of the work that he’s done for the Republican party.

Mama McCain is right of course. Despite having a highly respectable lifetime rating of 82.3 percent from the American Conservative Union, John McCain's deviations from the Republican orthodoxy have left him struggling amongst the party faithful, instead drawing his support from moderate Republicans and independents (a fact which, as Roberta implies, could make him the only candidate able to swing it for the GOP this year). And she's only trying to defend her boy.

But this doesn't make the headlines any better for John McCain, who originally wheeled his elderly mother into the spotlight in order to dispel concerns about his own age. After being forced to defend her comments during the Florida debate, this might be one strategy he has come to regret. Watch his response here at 1 min 38.

Why Super Tuesday might not be so super

With both the Democratic and Republican races suffering more ups and downs than President Sarkozy's love-life, observers in America and beyond are waiting expectantly for the multiple nominating contests of Super Tuesday to clarify matters.

But according to an analysis by the Associated Press, we can all stop holding our breath, as it is "mathematically impossible" for any candidate to lock up the nomination on February 5. In fact, the day may not even produce clear frontrunners, leaving later primaries in delegate-rich states such as Ohio and Texas to determine the race. Read why here.

John Edwards the kingmaker?

John Edwards has staked his fading presidential hopes on the pivotal South Carolina primary on Saturday, where a win would propel him into the electoral cash cow that is Super Tuesday. However with the latest polls showing him trailing in third place, a fourth, highly damaging defeat now seems the most likely outcome. Such a loss - in the state of his birth and where he dazzled voters during his 2004 bid for the nomination - would surely spell the end of his campaign. If not immediately, then after a prolonged and painful bleedout.

Accordingly, and with Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama still vying for the mantle of frontrunner, all eyes are turning to Edwards as kingmaker. As Ben Smith wrote on Politico.com last week, due to technical features of the Democratic nominating process, Obama could end up with almost as many delegates as Clinton even if he fails to win as many states. This would leave Edwards in an awfully influential position.

But how would he decide to use it?

Mr Clinton loses his cool

The strains of the campaign trial seem to be getting to Hillary's other half. Questioned by a reporter about a lawsuit being brought by Clinton supporters in Nevada unhappy at the creation of casino caucus sites, the former president's normally slick media persona began to crumble. The reporter's follow-up - whether the complaint might be related to the recent endorsement of rival Barack Obama by the Culinary Workers' Union, representing many casino staff - sparked a furious outburst. Someone's in trouble with the missus....

View from Iraq: Primaries? What primaries?

Iraqi people show very little interest in the American primaries, but appear unanimous in their dislike for George Bush whose legacy will always be linked to their country.

Several men and women questioned about the election fever sweeping the United States refused to answer, saying with a laugh that it meant nothing to them.

Those who did play along stressed that they had far more gripping issues to worry about than American politics, such as security and a lack of basic services – common complaints in Iraq since the US-led invasion almost five years ago.

In addition the only two candidates whose names people recognised were Democratic hopefuls Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.

“I don’t really care about the elections,” said Mohammed Salaam, whose only taste of the campaign comes when he accidentally flicks his television on to a satellite news channel.

“Our life has become far more complicated than to be concerned about them, such as stressing about finding a job,” said the 39-year-old engineer from Baghdad.

Mr Salaam lost his job when the company he worked for closed down because of the violence.

“Also worrying about how to return to my house safely every day makes it ridiculous to add more things to worry about like the elections,” he said yesterday, speaking after Mrs Clinton clinched an unexpected victory over Mr Obama in the New Hampshire Democratic Primary.

On the Republican side, John McCain won the battle.

Mr Salaam said that Mrs Clinton and Mr Obama were the only two candidates he had heard of, but he knew nothing about their respective policies so was unable to choose between them.

“However, the good thing is that they are both against Mr Bush, which is the most important thing for the entire world that is suffering under the Bush policy,” he said.

Asked for his thoughts on the incumbent President, the married father-of-three said: “Hasty and wrongheaded. I think there is something wrong in the genes of his family because his father was even worse then him. They are a family of psychopaths.”

Anas al-Azzawi, aged 36, was similarly scathing about Mr Bush, who is currently on a swan-song tour of the Middle East.

“Everything is bad about him. Please don’t ask me what I think of this man because such a question drives me crazy,” she said.

Unusually, Ms Azzawi said that she was following the American primaries “because I can’t wait until I see Bush being replaced”.

She continued: “I really hope that the new President will have a positive role in our life because Bush has been supporting our corrupt and sectarian Government. We hope that the Government will lose this support when a wise person takes over.”

As for who should get the most powerful job in the world, Ms Azzawi opted for Mrs Clinton.

“With all the violence and awful killing caused by men in the United States, we might need a woman’s touch to help put an end to it,” she said. “But, I see very little chance of the new President making any change because the damage done by Mr Bush is very difficult to repair.”

Arcelan Sadiq, a computer programmer in Baghdad, said the only thing that interested him about the American primaries was Mr Obama because he had heard on the television that the Democratic contender was Muslim.

“I’m waiting to see if the most anti-Islam country in the world these days can still elect a Muslim President,” the 34-year-old, married father-of-two said.

Mr Obama, whose middle name is Hussein, has denied any suggestion that he is Muslim.

"If I were a Muslim, I would let you know," he was quoted by CNN.com as saying in Dubuque, Iowa, last November. "But I'm a member of Trinity United Church of Christ on 95th Street on the South Side of Chicago. We've got the best choir in town, and if you want to come and worship with us, you are more than welcome."

Push Polls in the Palmetto State

South Carolina is known for its peaches, palmettos,  barbecue, and down-and-dirty politics.

A Charleston, SC voter videotaped a call purporting to be an impartial opinion poll, but was actually a "push poll" attacking Fred Thompson.  There are also reports from Sen. McCain's campaign that Huckabee supporters are using push polls in South Carolina to distort McCain's record on abortion issues. He has formed a "Truth Squad" to combat such attacks, as explored in Hannah's earlier post.

It appears that these South Carolina push polls are conducted by, Common Sense Issues, the same Mike Huckabee supporters responsible for the anti-Romney push polls in Iowa.

Here's the push poll attacking Thompson:

(hat tip: Wizbang)

McCain's Truth Squad - views from the blogosphere

John McCain is not taking any chances in South Carolina this time around. Haunted by the memory of the vicious smear campaign that lost him the 2000 Republican primary here to George W. Bush and effectively ended his presidential bid, the Vietnam vet has formed the "Truth Squad", a band of tough political operatives tasked with tackling negative attacks. It has already taken on a number of foes, in one instance wheeling out fellow POW Orson Swindle to combat slurs on McCain's Vietnam record.

Here's what the blogs had to say:

The Plank (The New Republic):

Seems pretty clever. Even if the name "Truth Squad" strikes some voters as cheesy, McCain is shrewd to remind the fine folks of South Carolina just what kind of nasty rumor-mongering their friends and neighbors fell for last time around. Plus, when the '08 version of the illegitimate-black-baby smear does indeed surface, McCain will already have a designated team in place to strike back."

The Palmetto Scoop

"So far they’ve proven to be incredibly adept at snuffing out false rumors and bogus attacks against their candidate."

The State

"Can that group really stave off a sneak attack, if it happens again? Will it happen again? I hope not. Last time was enough of a dark stain on the honor of South Carolina."

Politico

"This is the problem with claiming the high ground and attacking others for running negative campaigns: when you indulge in attacks of your own, you're bound to get less attention for the issues you're trying to spotlight than the fact that you're doing that which you criticized your rival(s) for doing.

Such is what is now happening to John McCain."

Townhall.com

"It should be noted that McCain, Huckabee, and Romney are all reporting these sorts of nasty attacks in the state...  Right now, McCain and Huckabee are running neck-and-neck in the Palmetto state.  This will likely continue to be a nasty race ..."

Top of the Ticket (LA Times):

"Here's the member who impresses us: Adjutant Gen. Stan Spears. In his post -- an elected one -- Spears directs the 10,500-member South Carolina Army and Air National Guard.

"Sounds like a good guy to have on your side."

Welcome to Hill Force One