US Elections - Times Online - WBLG

A Campaign Holiday?

This week begins the two-month campaign slow-down between the July 4th Holiday and the Democratic and Republican Conventions. The collective attention of the public will turn more to summer beach getaways and the upcoming Olympic Games in Beijing than politics. As with almost every presidential election, a candidate can't win the race during this time, but one sizable slip-up can certainly lose it.

It's during this campaign lull when a candidate can be irreparably branded, so it's important to stay on the offensive and respond quickly to attacks. In 2004, the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth emerged during the summer to undermine John Kerry's military record. In 1988, it was this summer calm that saw George H.W. Bush unleash Willie Horton on Michael Dukakis, forever branding him as soft on crime.

Going into this break, both candidates have very clear plans for where they'd like to be positioned entering the two weeks of conventions in late-August and early-September, and for the two-month sprint to Election Day that will follow.

From NBC's First Read:

McCain's goal for these next two months: to have this a low single-digit race by September 5. Obama's goal is more obvious: 1) to begin erasing character doubts about himself, 2) bankrupting McCain financially in the lean red states, and 3) building not only a national lead but double-digit leads in as many states as he can.

So, while campaign coverage may take something of a holiday from its highs of the past months, don't expect to see Barack Obama or John McCain relaxing on a beach between now and September. They'll both be busy jockeying for position and doing their best not to let the other's attack machine brand them as unelectable.

McCain "Working for the Weekend"

Given his recent work patterns, John McCain may do well to change his campaign's theme song to  Loverboy's 1980's hit, "Working for the Weekend."

As Politico reports, Mr McCain has "held just one public campaign event on a weekend" in the 20 weeks since Mitt Romney left the GOP race.  While the McCain camp insists that the Senator has been keeping busy, they also admit that it's been nice for their candidate to have the chance to rest, polish up on policy, and meet privately with aides and advisers.

The downside to Mr McCain's absence from the weekend campaign trail is that it inevitably raises questions about his age. At 71, the candidate goes to great lengths to appear vigorous and energetic. In fact, his image is so carefully controlled that it took this blogger significantly longer than usual to find a photo of him not wearing a suit and working.

Avoiding weekend events also prevents Mr McCain from cashing in on the larger crowds he could attract outside of the work week. For a candidate who is notably lacking in enthusiastic support among his base, many analysts think he's wasting valuable time. (This week's LA Times/Bloomberg poll showed only 45% of McCain supporters were "enthusiastic" about his candidacy.)

Mr McCain's weekend getaways may be coming to an end soon, however. His campaign points to upcoming events Saturday in Washington and Kentucky and says the senator will campaign on weekends for much of the summer.

Bill Clinton's Half-Hearted Endorsement

For the first time since his wife's departure from the Democratic primary race, Bill Clinton has spoken out in support of Barack Obama.

His spokesman, Matt McKenna, released the following statement early on Tuesday:

"President Clinton is obviously committed to doing whatever he can and is asked to do to ensure Senator Obama is the next President of the United States."

The one-sentence statement is certainly something less than the full-throated endorsement Mr Obama must have hoped for. It comes just days before Mr Obama and Hillary Clinton will embrace in Unity, New Hampshire – their first public appearance together since the end of their primary battle just weeks ago.

Marc Ambinder at The Atlantic notes that sources say Mr Clinton still has some leftover bad feelings toward Mr Obama, who he thinks ran what was "essentially an anti-Clinton candidacy," where he tried to position himself as the fresh-faced alternative to Clinton-era politics.

Additionally, Mr Clinton feels like the Obama campaign went "out of its way to portray the former president as a racist" during the primaries. The same sources note, however, that Mr Clinton doesn't want to sit out of this election and would be willing to bury the hatchet in a private meeting with Mr Obama.

It looks like they won't get their chance on Friday though. The Obama campaign says the former president won't be attending the event in New Hampshire.

Unity in Unity

When Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton campaign together on Friday in the quaint New England town of Unity, New Hampshire, the event will be far more symbolism than substance.

The tiny town in the foothills of New Hampshire's White Mountains was home to just over 500 voters in that state's 'First in the Nation' presidential primary in January. If the name "Unity" isn't enough symbolism for you, consider this ― Mrs Clinton and Mr Obama each received 107 of Unity's votes.

So on Friday, when the two embrace and smile for the cameras, you can rest assured that it's not the town's 700 votes they're after ― it's all in the name.

Towns the pair passed on include Squabbletown, California, Liar's Corner, Ohio, and Liberal, Kansas.

Drinking at the last chance saloon

Nico Hines writes:

Here is Hillary Clinton enjoying a drink with a claque of journalists on a campaign flight. Has she finally given up on becoming the next President and resorted to drowning her sorrows? Or has has the senator come up with an ingenious last-ditch ploy to invoke the glory of a past victory?

Legend has it that four years ago, during a meeting of congressional delegates in Tallinn, Estonia, the former First Lady challenged Senator John McCain to a drinking contest and soundly beat him.

She may have traded Eastern European vodka for a glass of decent whisky but Mrs Clinton has reminded us that, despite Obama's lead in the delegate count, there is only one candidate who can drink McCain under the table.

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."

The Obamakinz: the latest must-have accessory

Meet the Obamakinz - the latest must-have accessory for fans of Barack Obama. A multipurpose toy, it'd also make an ideal gift for conservatives seeking a liberal effigy to burn, or perhaps a voodoo doll for the Clinton camp.

This 8-inch high doll costs $16.95 from Herobuilders, which also counts among its products a $55 Barack and Hillary dream ticket combo for relentless optimists, a Larry Craig "I'm not gay" action figure and a bloodied Uday Hussein for the more sadistically-minded consumer.

Hillary Clinton's got hers on order, and Bill's bringing the pins...

Obama's race speech: the media reacts

Barack Obama's speech on race in Philadelphia yesterday has polarised the US media, with much of the liberal press lauding him as the wise man of US politics and many on the right dismissing him as an apologist for anti-American and anti-white sentiment.

Here's a selection of comment from both sides of the political divide:

Andrew Sullivan on the Daily Dish, TheAtlantic.com:

"This searing, nuanced, gut-wrenching, loyal, and deeply, deeply Christian speech is the most honest speech on race in America in my adult lifetime. It is a speech we have all been waiting for for a generation. Its ability to embrace both the legitimate fears and resentments of whites and the understandable anger and dashed hopes of many blacks was, in my view, unique in recent American history. ... I have never felt more convinced that this man's candidacy - not this man, his candidacy - and what he can bring us to achieve - is an historic opportunity."

The Trail, Washington Post:

"Neither Obama nor his advisers can know at this point where the Wright controversy will lead. It is not likely that one speech, however well-crafted, can put it to rest. But the test of leadership is to turn adversity into opportunity and on Tuesday Obama took it. Now he must await the judgment of the voters."

Michael Crowley, The New Republic:

"Today, Barack Obama gave a brilliant, inspiring, intellectually supple speech - but one that may have done little to solve his festering problem with working class white Americans. It's important to distinguish between these two dimensions of today's remarkable address. Those who actually heard or read Obama's entire speech will be reminded that he is a true intellectual - a talented writer and lyrical speaker. ...

"But those weren't the people Obama needed to reach today. His target audience was working class white voters - Reagan Democrats with a historic tendency to let racial prejudice and fear override their other social and economic interests, and whose view of Obama the Jeremiah Wright controversy threatens to permanently warp."

Powerline:

"If Reverend Wright was so profoundly mistaken about this key issue -- the "genius," of America and its capacity to change -- why did Obama embrace Wright's church? Why did Wright become his spiritual adviser and "uncle" figure? Why was it Wright who was able to lead Obama to Christ?

"... This, then, is the evasion of Obama's speech. Why such a close and longstanding association with someone this "profoundly mistaken"? The answer, I have argued, is opportunism in part, but also a left-wing ideology that, whatever Obama may say now, is not so far removed from Wright's deplorable views."

Michelle Malkin:

"For all of his supposedly unique and transcendent understanding of race in America, Obama’s talk amounted to the same old, same old. The Glowbama mystique has gone the way of the Emperor’s clothes. Instead of accountability, we got excuses. Instead of disavowal of demagoguery, we got whacked with the moral equivalence card. Instead of rejecting the Blame America mantra of left-wing black nationalism, we got more Blame Whitey. Same old, same old."

Right on the Right:

"I want to be very clear in saying that Barack Obama's candidacy is now, and forever will be, defined by his apologist rhetoric in the midst of a conflict about race. He has shown very clearly that he doesn't have the judgment to lead this nation, given that he didn't have the judgment to leave his own church in the face of radical anti-American and conspiracy-mongering slurs."

Iraq: the candidates' stance, then and now

John McCain's first visit to Iraq as the Republican nominee has put the conflict ravaging the country firmly back at the top of the campaign agenda. Here, we chart the stances of the three remaining presidential candidates from the run-up to the invasion to the campaign trail.

Autumn 2002 - pre-invasion:

Hillary Clinton, Oct 10 2002, on voting to authorise the use of force in Iraq:

"Intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al-Qaida members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. ... Even though the resolution before the Senate is not as strong as I would like in requiring the diplomatic route first and placing highest priority on a simple, clear requirement for unlimited inspections, I take the President at his word that he will try hard to pass a United Nations resolution and seek to avoid war, if possible."

John McCain, October 10 2002, on voting to authorise the use of force in Iraq:

"The government of Saddam Hussein is a clear and present danger to the United States of America… He has developed stocks of germs and toxins in sufficient quantities to kill the entire population of the Earth multiple times. He has placed weapons laden with these poisons on alert to fire at his neighbors within minutes, not hours, and has devolved authority to fire them to subordinates. He develops nuclear weapons with which he would hold his neighbors and us hostage. …
Failure to end the danger posed by Saddam Hussein's Iraq makes it more likely that the interaction we believe to have occurred between members of al Qaeda and Saddam's regime may increasingly take the form of active cooperation to target the United States."

Barack Obama, October 2 2002, Chicago anti-war rally:

"(Saddam Hussein's) a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.
But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history.
I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda."

Autumn 2003 - post invasion:

Clinton, December 15 2003, Council of Foreign Relations:

"I was one who supported giving President Bush the authority, if necessary, to use force against Saddam Hussein. I believe that that was the right vote. I have had many disputes and disagreements with the administration over how that authority has been used, but I stand by the vote to provide the authority because I think it was a necessary step in order to maximize the outcome that did occur in the Security Council with the unanimous vote to send in inspectors. And I also knew that our military forces would be successful. But what we did not appreciate fully and what the administration was unprepared for was what would happen the day after."

McCain, November 5 2003, Council on Foreign Relations:

"The United States can and must win in Iraq. Doing so will require the administration to remain committed to a policy of transformational change in Iraq. ... It will require the president's deep involvement in his administration's decision-making in Iraq. As Lincoln and Truman demonstrated, American presidents cannot always leave decisions on matters of supreme national interest to their subordinates. It will require a commitment to do what is necessary militarily, to deploy as many American forces for as long as it takes, to ignore the political calendar, and to trust Iraqis with a greater degree of authority to manage their own affairs."

Obama, December 2 2003, quoted by Rockford Register Star:

"We have an administration whose arrogance internationally seems to have no bounds. (The Iraq war) is distracting us from what should be our No. 1 priority, the war on terrorism. There is no connection between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaida."

Spring/summer 2004 - presidential election campaign:

Clinton, April 20 2004, Larry King Live:

"I don't regret giving the president authority, because at the time it was in the context of weapons of mass destruction, grave threats to the United States, and clearly, Saddam Hussein had been a real problem for the international community for more than a decade. What I regret is the way the president used the authority."

McCain, August 30 2004, Republican National Convention:

"Our enemies have made clear the danger they pose to our security and to the very essence of our culture ...liberty. Only the most deluded of us could doubt the necessity of this war. Like all wars, this one will have its ups and downs. But we must fight. We must."

Obama, July 27 2004, Democratic National Convention:

"When we send our young men and women into harm’s way, we have a solemn obligation not to fudge the numbers or shade the truth about why they’re going, to care for their families while they’re gone, to tend to the soldiers upon their return, and to never ever go to war without enough troops to win the war, secure the peace, and earn the respect of the world. Now let me be clear. Let me be clear. We have real enemies in the world. These enemies must be found. They must be pursued — and they must be defeated. "

2005 - 2006:

Clinton, June 21 2006, US Senate:

"It is time to put policy ahead of politics and success ahead of the status quo. It is time for a new strategy to produce what we need: a stable Iraq government that takes over for its own people so our troops can finish their job."

McCain: June 21 2006, US Senate:

"Because we cannot pull out and hope for the best, because we cannot withdraw and manage things from afar, because morality and our security compel it, we have to see this mission through to completion. Drawdowns must be based on conditions in-country, not an arbitrary deadline rooted in our domestic politics.”

Obama, November 22 2005, Chicago Council on Foreign Relations:

"I strongly opposed this war before it began, though many disagreed with me at that time. ... But I believe that, having waged a war that has unleashed daily carnage and uncertainty in Iraq, we have to manage our exit in a responsible way - with the hope of leaving a stable foundation for the future, but at the very least taking care not to plunge the country into an even deeper and, perhaps, irreparable crisis. ... In sum, we have to focus, methodically and without partisanship, on those steps that will: one, stabilize Iraq, avoid all out civil war, and give the factions within Iraq the space they need to forge a political settlement; two, contain and ultimately extinquish the insurgency in Iraq; and three, bring our troops safely home."

January 2007 - the surge:

Clinton, January 17, NBC Today Show:

"(Bush is) taking troops away from Afghanistan, where I think we need to be putting more troops, and sending them to Iraq on a mission that I think has a very limited, if any, chance for success."

McCain, January 5 2007, American Enterprise Institute:

"We have made many, many mistakes since 2003 and these will not be easily reversed.  Even greater than the cost thus far, and in the future, however, are the catastrophic consequences that would ensue from our failure in Iraq.  By surging troops and bringing security to Baghdad and other areas, we will give the Iraqis and their partners the best possible chances to succeed. "

Obama, January 19 2007, ahead of vote against the surge:

"It is my firm belief that the responsible course of action - for the United States, for Iraq, and for our troops - is to oppose this reckless escalation and to pursue a new policy. This policy that I've laid out is consistent with what I have advocated for well over a year, with many of the recommendations of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group, and with what the American people demanded in the November election."

The campaign trail:

Clinton, March 17 2008:

"We can have hundreds of thousands of troops on the ground for a hundred years, but that doesn’t change the fact that there is no political solution to the situation in Iraq. Senator McCain and President Bush claim withdrawal is defeat. Let’s be clear, withdrawal is not defeat. Defeat is keeping troops in Iraq for 100 years.”

McCain, March 17 2008:

"We are succeeding. And we can succeed and American casualties overall are way down. That is in direct contradiction to the predictions made by the Democrats and particularly Sen. [Barack] Obama and Sen. [Hillary] Clinton.

"I will be glad to stake my campaign on the fact that this has succeeded and the American people appreciate it. Now will we be able to succeed fast enough? Will they be able to -- al Qaeda be able to come back? That is a tough question. They are on the run, but they are not defeated."

Obama, March 17 2008:

"It’s not enough to stand up five years later in the heat of a campaign and say that you’re ready on day one – you have to be right on day one. On the war in Iraq, Senator Clinton’s judgment was wrong. If we had followed my judgment, we wouldn’t be standing here five years later debating how to end the war in Iraq, because we never would have fought it...

"We cannot wait to bring this war in Iraq to a close.”

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.

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...

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.

War of words? Now it's the battle of the speeches

Primary night speeches are usually surrounded by a certain amount of etiquette, with candidates agreeing to speak at different times to ensure equal network coverage. But the war of words between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama now appears to have metamorphosed into the clash of the speeches as, within moments of the former first lady beginning to speak, her rival bounded onstage in Texas to hail his victory, forcing the networks to cut her off. See how CNN dealt with it:

So was this accidental, or a deliberate ploy to deny Clinton coverage?

Here's a selection of comment from the web:

Ryan Nadel on NowPublic:

"Interpret this as you like. But let me make some suggestions: The media is out to get Clinton (or so the Clinton camp wants us to think). CNN chose to focus on the winner (which makes sense to me). Obama is a better speaker (duh!). Watch it and you be the judge. The fact the TV networks did this is no big deal. I think the more important point is that Obama chose to speak at the same time as Clinton. He wouldn't have dared to do that a month ago."

Tim Russert on MSNBC (via Huffington Post):

"I thought tonight when Hillary Clinton started speaking the Obama people were stepping back saying alright you go first you are the loser. When they heard no concession or no graciousness quote on quote coming from Hillary Clinton they decided why allow her an opportunity to criticize us? We are going to go out there and proclaim victory."

Ben Smith on Politico:

"The timing of the two candidates' evening speeches indicated that both are readying for a bruising two weeks."

The Caucus, New York Times:

"OK, was it fair for the TV stations to have bumped Mrs. Clinton off the air while she was still speaking but then show Mr. Obama going on at length with his stump speech? The networks obviously had to follow the Wisconsin winner, but what a move by Mr. Obama, to hop up on stage shortly after she started speaking."

Top of the Ticket, LA Times:

"Clinton and her supporters may express umbrage that Obama so flagrantly stepped on her appearance; that he didn't wait longer before claiming the spotlight. And courtesy questions may be raised about his disinclination to mention her as he claimed his Wisconsin win."

Catch up with the primary night speeches below:

Barack Obama:

Hillary Clinton:

John McCain:

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.

Mitt Romney: a profile

• His first name is Willard, Mitt being his middle name.
• A Mormon, he spent six years as a young man as a missionary for the church, including a two year stint in France. During his campaign he was forced to defend his faith on a number of occasions and at one point made a JFK-style speech addressing how his religion would affect his stance as president.
• He was governor of Massachusetts from 2003 to 2007, standing down shortly before he announced his presidential bid.
• He was President of the Salt Lake Organizing Committee for the 2002 Olympic Winter Games, after which he wrote the book Turnaround: Crisis, Leadership, and the Olympic Games.
• As founder and CEO of Bain Capital (a post he left in 2001) he amassed a huge personal fortune, estimated at between $250 million and $500 million, which he has drawn on to fund his presidential campaign.
• He attended the Mormon Church's Brigham Young University and later gained an MBA from Harvard University.
• His father is George Romney, a former governor of Massachusetts. Mitt Romney got into trouble during his campaign when he claimed he had seen his father march with Martin Luther King - he later admitted he was speaking figuratively.
• He married Ann Davies, his high school sweetheart, in 1969 and has 5 sons, who write a blog on his presidential campaign website called Five brothers: a "blog". He also has 11 grandchildren.
• He was the subject of Hugh Hewitt's 2007 book: A Mormon in the White House? 10 Things Every American Should Know about Mitt Romney.
• During his campaign he won nominating contests in Alaska, Colorado, Michigan, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana, North Dakota, Utah, Maine, Nevada and Wyoming.
• After Super Tuesday he had a total of 133 delegates, putting him in third place behind Mike Huckabee on 156 and John McCain on 689.
• According to Federal Election Commission, by the end of 2007 Romney had spent $37.5 million of his own money on his campaign. $18 million of that was spent in December, twice as much as contributions from outside sources that same month. He is thought to have spent considerably more this year.
• He was the top Republican fundraiser having amassed some $90 million last year. However by the end of 2007 he had spent all but £2.5 million of it.
• Personal animosity and political differences between him and John McCain, the presumptive nominee, meant there was no chance of the vice-presidential spot on the Republican ticket.

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

Liveblogging the Super Tuesday results

07.30am - The votes are in

Ten hours later and Super Tuesday might not have produced any definitive answers but it hasn't been lacking in drama: a see-sawing Democratic battle and Huckabee's comeback in particular have set the stage for a thrilling finish to the primary races.

For full coverage from our writers in the US follow the links below:

Clinton and Obama split Super Tuesday

John McCain stakes his claim to the Republican crown

Clinton gets booed at the Obama party

McCain celebrates almost-victory to Rocky tune

Analysis: Super Tuesday not super-decisive - Gerard Baker, US editor of The Times

06.30am - Obama takes Missouri (and equal bragging rights)

Finally, after an agonizingly tight contest, the networks are projecting Missouri for Obama. This gives the Illinois senator a total of 13 victories tonight, against Clinton's 8 (though including primary heavyweights California, New York and New Jersey). The result, which also sees the candidates split the popular vote 49-48 per cent in Clinton's favour, leaves no one able to proclaim themselves the clear winner.  The race continues...

05.50am - Romney the Republican loser?

What a difference a night can make. Ten hours ago Mike Huckabee was limping towards a lacklustre Super Tuesday result and a little-noticed withdrawal; now, with a raft of southern states behind him, TV studios are a-buzz with lofty suggestions of vice-presidencies and the like.

Meanwhile Romney, who last week proclaimed the contest a two-man race, is being branded with the L-word...

05.30am - Clinton and McCain to carry California, McCain to take Missouri

Clinton and McCain have pulled off huge victories in this delegate-heavy state, a disappointment for Obama in particular who seemed to have eroded his rival's lead here in recent days. However with many congressional districts still to report it is not yet clear how the delegates will break down, with the process particularly complicated on the Republican side. McCain is also projected to win Missouri, a big winner-takes-all state for Republicans.

05.15am - Arizona for Clinton, Missouri still too close to call

CNN is projecting a Clinton win in Arizona and in the bellwether state of Missouri the race is going down to the wire - with 98 per cent of precincts reporting there's just one point separating the frontrunners on both sides. More news soon.

04.49am - Tornadoes batter Super Tuesday states

Americans had been expecting a night of electoral thrills but it was drama of an altogether more tragic kind that gripped the south tonight as a series of tornadoes cut a swath through the states of Arkansas, Mississippi, Kentucky and Tennessee, killing at least fifteen people and injuring dozens.

A couple and a child were killed when a tornado tore through the centre of Atkins, a community of 3,000 along the Arkansas River, while another five people lost their lives statewide, including in the towns of Clinton and Gassville.

The storms killed at least five people in Tennessee, while three adults died in westerrn Kentucky, authorities said.

As warning sirens sounded across the states, voting stations were drawn into the chaos with at least one site in Atkins being transformed into a Red Cross shelter after the polls closed.

Meanwhile a Little Rock convention hall hosting a party for Mike Huckabee, the Republican candidate and former Arkansas governor, suffered power outages.

"It's been a wild night," Tommy Jackson, a state emergency management spokesman, said. "A heck of a way to have elections in Arkansas."

Mr Huckabee spoke of his sorrow at the loss of life during his address to supporters. "While we hope tonight is a time for us to celebrate election results, we are reminded that nothing is as important as the lives of these fellow Arkansans, and our hearts go out to their families."

04.45am - Idaho and Colorado called for Obama

CNN has called Idaho and Colorado for the Illinois senator, bringing his total so far for tonight to 11 states.

04.03am - California "too close to call"

With the polls just closed in California, the networks are saying it's too close to call on both sides. With delegates awarded proportionately in both contests, a tight result would temper the impact of this heavyweight state.

03.50am - Huckabee on course for Tennessee victory

Some networks are calling Tennessee for Huckabee, adding it to the raft of southern states that have fallen to him tonight. Given that just a few days ago many were questioning his continued presence in the race, this is a quite astonishing result. Is this a sign of social conservatives in revolt against John McCain?

03.30am - Huckabee pushes on in the south

AP is calling Georgia for Mike Huckabee, adding to his considerable progress in the southern states. Obama is projected to win the Minnesota caucus and North Dakota, according to CNN, while the latter is also to go to Romney. McCain takes Arizona, the state he represents in the Senate, but nowhere near as decisively as expected with Romney leaching conservative votes. More soon.

03.15am - Huckabee: "I will be president next year"

With Arkansas, Alabama and West Virginia under his belt, Mike Huckabee thumbed his nose at those who said he should drop out ahead of Super Tuesday and insisted that in a little less than a year he would take up residency in the White House.

"I’ve got to say that Mitt Romney was right about one thing - this is a two-man race," he told whooping supporters. "He was just wrong about who the other man in the race was. It’s me, not him."

You've got to admire his dogged optimism...

03.00am - Utah for Romney, Oklahoma for McCain

Mitt Romney has clawed back some delegates in Utah, an unsurprising win given its large Mormon population and his involvement in the Salt Lake City Olympics, but an important one nevertheless.

Seconds later, however, and McCain has taken Oklahoma, another winner-takes-all state. Things are not looking good for Romney.

02.45am - A twist in the tale

Gerard Baker writes: Further to that last note, I reckon now also that the exits way overstated Obama support in Georgia and Alabama too. On the Republican side they also seem to have heavily overestimated Romney support (they gave him Delaware which McCain seems to have won quite comfortably. The narrative among the pundits on TV and on the blogs has changed quite dramatically. When we started three hours ago it was - Obama doing well, Clinton in trouble and Romney and Huckabee fighting back against McCain. Now it's  - Hillary back in charge and McCain steadily locking down his party's nomination.

02.40am - A bad night for exit polls

Gerard Baker writes: Might be shaping up to be another bad night for the exit polls. Hillary has now just won (presumably quite comfortably, given how early they've been called) both Massachusetts and New Jersey. The exits had New Jersey as an exact tie (49-49) and Massachusetts as a very slight Obama lead (48.5-48). If this pattern plays out as we go west - especially Missouri, where the exits had Obama slightly ahead, and the big one California, where they gave Hillary a small lead, this might turn into a night that gives Hillary a slight edge.

02.30am - More Democratic projections...

Obama looks to have locked up Alabama - where he is currently leading Clinton by some 30 points - and Kansas. These are desperately important wins for the Illinois senator, who elsewhere seems to be losing ground to the former first lady. Fox and MSNBC have just called both New Jersey and Massachusetts for Clinton, a troubling result for the Obama campaign and one that suggests some of the earlier exit polls could have been misleading...

02.20am - McCain scores big in New York

John McCain has sewn up New York's 101 delegates, according to a CNN projection. This is a big prize as it's a winner-takes-all state on the Republican side.

02.00am - New York backs its senator, Obama takes Delaware.

Clinton headquarters has erupted in wild applause following CNN's projection that the New York senator has carried her delegate-rich state. But not all New York's 232 delegates will go to Clinton as, like in many Democratic primary states, these are awarded proportionately. More news on the breakdown later.

Meanwhile CNN has projected that Delaware has gone to Obama.

01.50am - McCain to carry Delaware

John McCain has added Delaware to his victories in the liberal north-east, according to CNN projections, but it's in the south that he really needs to prove himself.

01.35am  - Tennessee called for Clinton

Arkansas' neighbour has also fallen to Clinton, according to projections.

This is a solid win for the former first lady - who spent considerable time and money campaigning in the state - and suggests that the Clintons' links to the region could influence other neighbours, such as the critical Missouri.

01.30am - Arkansas for Clinton, Huckabee

Hillary Clinton and Mike Huckabee have pulled off expected but nevertheless important wins here, according to CNN projections. No surprise, given their links to the state - Clinton was first lady here while Huckabee was governor for some years - but losses here would have been damaging.

01.13am - Eyes to the north-east

Tim Reid writes: Exit polls must be treated with extreme caution. But the area to watch here are the north-east states of Connecticut, Delaware and particularly New Jersey, which in geographical terms, is almost a suburb of Mrs Clinton's home state of New York. Mrs Clinton held formidable, double-digit leads there just two weeks ago.  According to the exit polls, Obama is winning all three, and New Jersey by six.  If the exit polls are proved right, the north-east surge of Mr Obama points to much wider concerns for the former First Lady and firm evidence that his recent momentum is very real.

01.02am - Projections incoming...

CNN projects that John McCain has ratcheted up three  wins in Connecticut, Illinois and New Jersey, while Massachusetts has backed Romney.

On the Democratic side, CNN is projecting the expected win for Obama in his home state of Illinois, and victory for Clinton in Oklahoma. More soon.

01.01am - Huckabee complicates Republican race

Gerard Baker writes: The exit polls indicate the Republican race looks a lot more complicated than the pre-Super Tuesday polls suggested. Huckabee may do well in the South - Georgia, Alabama, Tennessee and of course his home state of Arkansas, with McCain trailing badly there. Romney doing well in a number of states including Missouri, Delaware and his home states of Utah and Massachusetts.

McCain's advantages in winner-take-all states - New York, New Jersey especially - will probably still give him a delegate lead tonight.  But for a Republican not to be able to win in the South shows just how much trouble he's got.

1.00am - Leaked exit polls reported in the Times show Obama surge

Exit polls leaked to The Times show that Obama's recent momentum has propelled him to victory in a swath of early reporting states and is locked a tight struggle with Hillary Clinton in other, delegate-rich states.

12.45am - This could be a very big night for Obama

Gerard Baker writes: Doing some simple cross-tabulations from the exit poll, it looks like Obama has won Georgia by a margin of about two to one (66 to 32 per cent to Hillary). That’s a very big win.  If the exits we’ve seen for Alabama are correct he is set to win there (polls close at 8pm eastern) easily. Opinion polls had this race a near-tie.

12.30am - Obama doing well among southern whites

The Illinois senator seems to have reversed the trend that worried his campaign following his South Carolina win and has increased his support among southern whites, according to exit polls emerging from Georgia. Figures cited by CNN indicate that while Obama continued to attract a overwhelming majority of African Americans - 88 per cent - white votes were split 57-39 to Clinton - a significant improvement on the South Carolina result. When the figures were broken down for gender Clinton looked to have even less of a lead, with male voters split 49-46 in her favour and women 62-36. Even in southern states with smaller African-American populations, therefore, Clinton could still face an uphill struggle.

12 midnight - Obama wins in Georgia

The clocks have just struck midnight and already CNN is calling Georgia for Obama, but there's no news yet on how the delegates have been split. On the Republican side, the race is still wide open, suggesting John McCain may not be soaring to the expected landslide.

Meanwhile Drudge is reporting the following exit numbers coming from the campaigns:

OBAMA: Alabama: Obama 60, Clinton 37... Arizona: Obama 51, Clinton 45... Connecticut: Obama 53, Clinton 45... Delaware: Obama 56, Clinton 42... Georgia: Obama 75, Clinton 26... Illinois: Obama 70, Clinton 30... Massachusetts: Obama 50, Clinton 48... Missouri: Obama 50, Clinton 46... New Jersey: Obama 53, Clinton 47...

CLINTON: Arkansas: Clinton 72, Obama 26... California: Clinton 50, Obama 47... New York: Clinton 56, Obama 43... Oklahoma: Clinton 61, Obama 31... Tennessee: Clinton 52, Obama 41...

11.55pm - Exit polls show race, gender faultlines

Barack Obama has a clear lead among African Americans while Hillary Clinton has an edge among women and whites, according to exit polls being quoted by Associated Press. This bodes well for Obama in Georgia and Alabama and could also reflect a swing towards him in New York, where Clinton has always drawn huge support from the African American community.

No indication yet though of where Latino votes are going - crucial in the battle for the mighty California.

11.30 pm - Change v experience argument rumbles on

Exit polls coming in for CNN show that 74 per cent of Obama voters say change is the most important factor to them, with just 3 per cent citing experience. Clinton voters, meanwhile, are less polarised, with 45 per cent putting experience at the top of their wish list and 29 per cent change.

On the Republican side, most McCain voters are looking for experience while those choosing Romney and Huckabee are doing so because of their values.

Meanwhile ABC's early exit polls suggest Obama's change message is reverberating ever louder, with 52 per cent of Democrats citing ability to bring change as the most important attribute, as opposed to experience with 23 per cent.

The majority of Republicans - 44 per cent - opted for values, while experience and straight-talking came in at 25 and 22 percent respectively - not the best news for John McCain.

10.30 pm - Huckabee snatches West Virginia caucus from Romney

It was a state that Mitt Romney seemed certain to win. With just 18 delegates, West Virginia was never going to tip the race but the Massachussetts governor recognised its symbolic importance enough to campaign here personally in the frenzied Super Tuesday run-up. With polls predicting a Romney victory until the last, his defeat in today's caucus does not augur well for his bid to stay in the contest.

Romney won the first ballot but failed to garner the 50 per cent needed to secure a win. In the second round, McCain's supporters fell in line with Huckabee's, propelling the former Baptist preacher to a 52-47 per cent victory. The result left the Romney camp accusing the two other contenders of a "backroom deal" and demonstrated the crucial role Huckabee's continued presence in the race may have on tonight's results. Read The Times article here.

10.15pm - Liveblogging Super Tuesday

With just two hours until the first primary results are due to start trickling in, we're gearing up for what looks like a thrilling night on the Republican side and a nerve-grinding one for the Democrats. John McCain has a clear lead over Mitt Romney across the country according to the latest polls and could, if he lives up to expectations, sew up the nomination tonight. But in the Democratic race it looks tighter than ever, with a surging Barack Obama matching Hillary Clinton stride for stride.

The first primary result is expected to be Georgia at 12 midnight (GMT), followed by a whole tranche of states at 1am, including Mr Obama's home state of Illinois, New Jersey and Tennessee. We'll be liveblogging the results all the way through to tomorrow morning, when the final numbers are due in from Alaska at around 6.30am.