Comment, news and views from the US Elections.
Susbscribe to an XML feed of this blog at:
http://timesonline.typepad.com/uselections/rss.xml
Hillary Clinton stepped her efforts to heal the rift in the Democratic Party last night with a warning to her supporters that it would be a "grave error" if they chose to vote for Republican John McCain over her rival Barack Obama come November. In a tacit acknowledgement of her rapidly dwindling presidential hopes and the divisive nature of what has been one of the dirtiest Democratic primary fights in recent years, Clinton told CNN's Wolf Blitzer that she would lend her full weight to Obama's likely presidential campaign. Clinton made her remarks after being asked by a viewer why she thought so many of her supporters say they would vote for McCain if Obama was the Democratic nominee. It would be a "terrible mistake," she warned, if they decided to do so.
"Anybody who has ever voted for me or voted for Barack has much more in common in terms of what we want to see happen in our country and in the world with the other than they do with John McCain," she said.
"I'm going to work my heart out for whoever our nominee is. Obviously, I'm still hoping to be that nominee, but I'm going to do everything I can to make sure that anyone who supported me ... understands what a grave error it would be not to vote for Senator Obama."
Her response constitutes a marked departure from earlier comments on the campaign trail in which she has appeared to suggest her Republican rival would make a better president than Obama. She drew widespread criticism in March when she told reporters: "I think that I have a lifetime of experience that I will bring to the White House. I know Senator McCain has a lifetime of experience to the White House. And Senator Obama has a speech he gave in 2002."
The comment triggered speculation that Clinton, known to be a "very close" friend of McCain (her husband's words) would in fact prefer the Republican in the White House, not least because he has already made clear he will only serve for four years due to his advanced age - meaning she would not have long to wait before she could launch another presidential bid.
But apparently this is not the case. (Or, if you're of a cynical persuasion, it is, but voicing it would be political suicide - there's no doubt she's already had more than a few verbal slaps from senior Democrats over her Rovian tactics against one of their own.)
Either way, she's got a lot more backpeddling to do if she's got any hope of convincing her supporters to back Obama, given that she's been pretty successful in painting him as an elitist, black supremacist, inexperienced and reckless pansy who may also be a secret Muslim. According to exit polls from West Virginia, 35 per cent of her supporters there say they would vote for John McCain if Obama is was the nominee, while a further 24 per cent said they would sit the election out.
The hope is, of course, that by election time the antagonism between the two camps will be a distant memory and that Democrats will fall in behind whoever ends up being their nominee. On November 5, Americans will find out whether that theory was correct.
 Nobody really won in West Virginia. Hillary Clinton's decisive victory failed to take her any closer to the Democratic nomination, while Obama's loss raised the spectre of deserting Reagan Democrats come his all-but-certain candidacy in November.
 Surveying the US press this morning, Clinton might have felt pretty deflated by its collective effort to find a hundred new ways to say the word "hollow." "Symbolic", "meaningless", "empty" - barely was a newspaper article or blog to be found that wasn't littered with unflattering adjectives.
Part of Clinton's difficulty - apart from a mathematical problem that only a pupil at Hogwarts could solve - was that a number of prominent figures in her campaign, notably Bill, had set the bar rather too high - about 15 per cent too high, in fact. It was never about winning in West Virginia - the demographics of which were always going to work in Clinton's favour - but about the size of the victory. And as numerous commentators have noted today, after the former president cited 80 per cent of a 600,000 turnout as the result required to alter the dynamics of the race, suddenly 67 per cent of 330,000 turnout looks a little weak. Her campaign is clearly starting to acknowledge the reality of her situation: not only are advisers "privately" assuring the press that an exit is approaching, but her victory speech in Charleston last night sounded much like a pitch for the VP spot on the ballot.
Clinton's win did in fact bolster her argument that Obama has problems pulling in the Reagan Democrats who dominate this region of America, but as it comes too late to change the dynamics of the race, it will serve only to make Democrats a little queasier about their all-but-certain choice of nominee. Critics excoriate her for playing dirty on issues of race - which the Republicans would no doubt have raised anyway, but perhaps with less credibility among conservative Democrats than when coming from one of the grande-dames of their own party.
Obama may be able to turn all this to his advantage, however. Putting his problems into stark focus this early in the election season gives him the time to tackle his problem areas - his schedule for today, filled with talks on the economy in Michigan factories, is a clear sign his campaign is about to go blue-collar crazy.
A selection of comment from the web:
Stumper, Newsweek:
" And the winner is... no one. Hillary Clinton may have received the most votes in today's West Virginia primary, taking 67 percent of the vote and netting 10 delegates. Barack Obama may have moved one step closer to clinching the Democratic nomination. But as the polls close, the odds of Clinton topping her party's ticket are still impossibly long, and the worries about Obama's potential weakness among white, working-class swing voters in November are more justified than ever. Thanks for nothing, West Virginia. You may want to consider changing your slogan from "Open for Business" to "Everybody Loses.""
Salon:
"Clinton dropped some of her recent, explicit arguments against Obama (in her victory speech), but the one she made implicitly -- that he's less electable than she is -- isn't likely to change the cold, hard truth of the numbers. Bill Clinton said last week that Hillary needed to win 80 percent of the vote with a turnout of 600,000 -- which would have surpassed even the wildest dreams of Democratic strategists here -- to "make the earth move" and change the dynamics of the race. Tuesday's win was an overwhelming one, yes, but not of the seismic-force variety. And considering that Obama has picked up more than two dozen superdelegates since last week's elections, including four on Tuesday alone, he's rapidly moving closer to claiming the nomination."
Maureen Dowd, New York Times:
"In grim times, a bitter Hillary clings to bitter voters who in grim times supposedly cling to guns, religion and antipathy to people who aren’t like them.
"Mining that antipathy, the New York senator has been working hard to get the hard-working white voters of hardscrabble Appalachia so she can show that a black man can’t yet be elected president."
Presidential Candidates:
"Although the Clinton campaign and her supporters will try to make a big deal out of her large margin of victory in West Virginia, the fact is that the state is perfectly tailored to Clinton’s demographic strengths and her large victory is not a surprise at all. ... What is interesting is that while Obama has won 22 contests by a margin of at least 20%, West Virginia is only Clinton’s 3rd 20%+ win! If you are a Clinton supporter who somehow thinks this WV win actually means something, read that again please. Obama has had 22 large wins, while West Virginia only Clinton’s 3rd such large victory. The other 2 contests Clinton won by 20+% were Oklahoma and Clinton’s home state of Arkansas."
Powerline:
"The fact that voters in a given Democratic primary favor Clinton over Obama doesn't mean that many of them will favor McCain over Obama; nor should we assume that Clinton voters who say they'll vote for McCain will actually follow through.
"Nonetheless, the margin in the West Virginia primary suggests real resistance to Obama among Democrats in that state. Now, Obama doesn't need to win West Virginia in November any more than he needs to win Kentucky, where he's scheduled to be trounced next week. But there are many Democratic voters in Ohio and Pennsylvania who fit the West Virginia and/or Kentucky profile. Obama may need to do reasonably well with such voters to carry these two crucial states."
McClatchy:
"Her argument about West Virginia's importance undercuts the value of winning the primary there. By noting that every Democratic nominee since 1976 has won the primary, she inadvertently links herself not only to candidates such as Jimmy Carter, Michael Dukakis and Bill Clinton who won the state in spring AND fall — but also to Walter Mondale, Al Gore and John Kerry, who went on to lose it in general elections. Second, Obama could carry many of the Democratic votes in November that went to Clinton in the spring."
 Rarely has a projected 36-point win been so inconsequential. With just 28 unpledged delegates up for grabs in the Mountain State, even such a decisive victory will have only a negligible effect on the mathematics of the primary race. Hillary Clinton's hopes rest on the slim possibility that a landslide win in a largely white, blue-collar state will convince the superdelegates of her sole remaining argument - that she is the only Democratic candidate who can win over "hard-working Americans, white Americans" who might otherwise vote for John McCain.
 Admittedly, the demographics of the state, and her projected margin of victory, might lend some weight to that argument. And it is likely that Kentucky, which votes next week, will show a similar trend. But privately - as the Huffington Post points out - her advisers acknowledge that both states probably offer too little, and come too late, to change the nature of the game. Articles predicting a Clinton victory in West Virginia now battle for space alongside analyses of how "Obama defeated Clinton for the nomination", a sure sign that there will be no Lazarus-like resurrection for Clinton this time, at least if the press have anything to do with it (and they do). Meanwhile senior Democratic party figures are sending ever starker warnings to the former first lady that while they will allow her the time to stage a dignified exit, a party-wrecking final shoot-out will not impact well on her political future.
In reality, Clinton's only real hope of snatching the nomination is the emergence of a scandal - one of such magnitude that Obama's presidential bid is completely derailed, leaving her as the party's saviour. But time is running out - increasingly an afterthought to the Obama campaign, aides to the Illinois senator say that he will win enough delegates next week in Oregon to give him a clear and unassailable majority - and that he will then make a unilateral declaration of victory.
Here's what the press has to say:
The Caucus - New York Times:
"It is not clear whether even a gigantic win here could reverse her fortunes, which took a turn for the worse last week when she lost North Carolina by a big margin and won Indiana by a small one. A big win here would certainly increase her overall popular vote, which her campaign hopes would help impress superdelegates that she would be a stronger candidate in November than Mr. Obama. But the state has too few delegates — 28 — to make much of a dent in Mr. Obama’s delegate lead."
Politico:
"If Clinton can rack up victories equal to or larger than the gaudy 30-point leads she holds in most polls of West Virginia and Kentucky voters, it would help her campaign press its central case to uncommitted superdelegates. Clinton aides argue that Obama has trouble with the working-class and elderly white voters who make up big chunks of the electorates in those states, and whose support Clinton contends will be key if Democrats are to defeat the presumptive Republican nominee, Sen. John McCain (Ariz.).
"The argument is unlikely to block Obama’s nomination, which is viewed as inevitable by an increasing number of pundits and superdelegates."
Salon:
"Tuesday's election might prove to be more important as a bellwether for November than as a prize in the fight for the Democratic nomination... The problem for Obama is that if any state is tailor-made for registered Democrats to abandon the ticket in droves if he's on it, it may be West Virginia. The state's population is older, whiter, poorer and worse educated than most of the rest of the nation -- all demographics that have flocked to Clinton in primaries so far. This may be the state where one of the Clinton campaign's arguments about electability -- if you don't win the state in the primary, you can't win it in the general election -- comes closest to being true."
ABC:
"Even if Sen. Clinton goes quickly and quietly when the voting is done, the damage until that point is real (it's not like the Republicans are taking this time off) -- and there's nothing quick or quiet about what's going on.
"Clinton is heavily favored to win West Virginia, and Sen. Barack Obama doesn't seem to care very much; in the week since Indiana and North Carolina, he makes his first and last campaign stop there on Monday. Unless the superdelegates change their minds -- and fast -- even wide Obama losses will matter approximately not at all -- except that they might, just not in the way Clinton hopes they will."
Has last night's win for Hillary Clinton in Pennsylvania altered the dynamics of the Democratic race? The media consensus appears to be that while there has been no substantive change, her solid 10-point victory has raised some awkward questions for Barack Obama.
 Why, after a string of phenomenal successes, is he struggling to land a knock out blow on his rival? Is Clinton correct in her assertion that he is unable to carry the big states crucial to a Democratic victory in the autumn? The Obama camp has some strong answers, arguing that the former point could equally be applied to Clinton, the one time presumptive nominee. On the latter, it asserts that there are in fact not three or four battleground states but 10 or 11, a large swathe of which the Illinois senator has won. Nevertheless, it is a case that the campaign is going to have to argue very forcefully over the coming weeks.
Meanwhile, concerns over the destructive nature of the campaign are reaching stratospheric levels. The New York Times today appeared to be backtracking on its initial endorsement of Clinton with a scathing editorial urging her to drop her "mean, vacuous, desperate" tactics now for the sake of the party and calling on superdelegates to end the bloodbath as soon as possible. The Washington Post cited exit polls suggesting that seven out of 10 voters thought Hillary had been unfair in her attacks, while half said the same of Obama. In another article, it appeared to query the utility of Hillary staying in the race, noting that it was almost impossible for her to catch her rival in the delegate count or popular vote. It quoted loyal Clinton supporters privately expressing doubts about her ability to prevail, even in the wake of her Pennsylvania win.
A selection of comment from the web:
Top of the Ticket, LA Times:
"Psychologically, it's a significant result -- one that should cause many leading Democrats to listen a little more intently to her case that she still represents the party's best chance for victory in November."
New York Times editorial:
"Voters are getting tired of it; it is demeaning the political process; and it does not work. It is past time for Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton to acknowledge that the negativity, for which she is mostly responsible, does nothing but harm to her, her opponent, her party and the 2008 election.
If nothing else, self interest should push her in that direction. Mrs. Clinton did not get the big win in Pennsylvania that she needed to challenge the calculus of the Democratic race.
"It is getting to be time for the superdelegates to do what the Democrats had in mind when they created superdelegates: settle a bloody race that cannot be won at the ballot box."
Real Clear Politics, TIME:
"If the superdelegates had grown concerned after Ohio about Obama's ability to win lower income whites in the general election - these results will not alleviate their worries. Pittsburgh, Scranton, and Erie all swung decisively for Clinton. If Ohio had them worried, so will these results.
"As for whether it will serve Clinton's short-term goal of spinning herself as still having a chance to capture the nomination - that remains to be seen."
Salon.com:
"There are no verities, just various forms of spin-dried argumentation. Does Pennsylvania prove that -- like the March 4 Ohio and Texas primaries -- Obama cannot close the deal when he is one big-state victory away from being bathed in triumphal confetti at the Denver Convention? Or does Pennsylvania underscore for Democrats the dangers of scorched-earth politics...?
"Given his delegate lead, Democratic rules divvying up the primary vote proportionally, and the fact that there are only seven states left on the political calendar, Obama might survive a near-wipeout in the remaining delegate contests. But watching Obama stumble across the finish line as the presumptive nominee is not a formula to inspire the Democrats with confidence heading into the fall elections."
Huffington Post:
"How proud the Clintonistas must be. They have learned how to rival what Hillary once termed the "vast right-wing conspiracy" in the effort to destroy a viable Democratic leader who dares to stand in the way of their ambitions. The tactics used to kneecap Barack Obama are the same as had been turned on Bill Clinton in earlier times, from radical-baiting associates to challenging his resolve in protecting the nation from foreign enemies. Sen. Clinton's eminently sensible and centrist -- to a fault -- opponent is now viewed as weak and even vaguely unpatriotic because he is thoughtful. Neither Karl Rove nor Dick Morris could have done a better job."
 I don't imagine many bets have been placed on Hillary Clinton pulling out of the Democratic race tomorrow. Whether a supporter or not, you've got to admire the former first lady's tenacity - she has the grip of Spiderman on steroids. But a particularly bad result - which at her stage in the game means either a loss or a narrow win - could put her under enormous pressure from senior Democrats to withdraw for the good of the party.
 As I explained in my post yesterday, it's not the win but the size of the victory that matters for Clinton in Pennsylvania. She needs to win by some 25 points to have any hope of catching Barack Obama in the popular vote, without which it will be difficult to convince superdelegates to ignore her rival's higher delegate count and pick her as the most electable candidate.
A double-digit victory has been widely touted as the result that would justify her remaining in the race - though surrogates were today suggesting a five or six point win would allow her to claim a success in the face of her rival's much higher spending in the state. While this would still leave her flailing in the mathmatical wilderness, her campaign may well have managed expectations down to a point where this inconvenient fact could be glossed over.
In that case, she would no doubt continue at least until Indiana and North Carolina on May 6th. In both states, she would need to at least hold Obama to a tie or her continued campaign would start to resemble a bad David Lynch movie. With the Illinois senator polling strongly in both states, at present the Obamaite prediction of a May 7 finish to the campaign seems the most likely scenario.
Should her Pennsylvania win be much narrower, however, say two or three points, it would be almost impossible for her to claim any justification for staying in the race. But given Hillary "Rocky" Clinton's almost superhuman ability to keep on getting up off the mat, even that might not be enough to count her out.
 With under 24 hours to go until the last major contest in the primary season, polls indicate that Barack Obama has little hope of catching rival Hillary Clinton, for whom the state’s large blue collar population is a natural constituency. But certain figures suggest that he has every chance of eating so far into her margin of victory that she can no longer justify continuing in the Democratic race.
 Most late polls put Clinton with a 5-7 point lead in Pennsylvania, the only remaining primary state with a healthy crop of delegates – 158 - up for grabs. But with no prospect of catching Obama in the overall delegate count, the Clinton camp knows that winning will not be enough. In order to convince the all-important super-delegates who will decide the nomination that she is the most electable candidate, she must win big.
Today’s Zogby poll – the most recent survey available - shows Clinton leading Obama 48 to 42 per cent, while a poll of polls by Real Clear Politics gives Clinton a 5.3 point margin over her rival. However this is a considerably narrower lead than Clinton commanded at the start of the state campaign and suggests Obama could yet erode her support to a point that a win would be of little consequence.
There is, of course, potential for an upset. One survey conducted over the weekend by Public Policy Polling gives Obama a 3 point lead over the former first lady, and notes his strength in cities such as Philadelphia, where a strong turnout could boost his chances.
Meanwhile an analysis by Politico cites a Democratic voter registration surge that appears to be working in Obama’s favour.
According to the Pennsylvanian Secretary of State’s office, around 217,000 new voters have registered for tomorrow’s primary, an overwhelming majority of whom declared themselves Democrats.
In the state’s largest city, Philadelphia, over 12,000 new Democrats signed up in the final week of registration, compared to just 509 Republicans. Meanwhile across the state over 178,000 voters have changed their party affiliations since January – with 92 per cent switching to the Democrats.
This is excellent news for the Democratic Party and could severely dent John McCain’s hope of taking the state in November. But a closer look reveals a bonus for Obama too.
A poll of the party switchers and new registrants released last week by Franklin & Marshall College found that Obama was the candidate of choice for 62 per cent. Clinton insiders cited by Politico said they were also anticipating a similar split.
Terry Madonna, a political scientist and the poll’s director, said that depending on turnout, those new voters could keep Clinton from the double digit win that is widely thought to be needed to keep her in the race.
If Zogby’s latest poll is to be believed, however, Clinton is scoring highly among late deciders, a trend that if it continues could see her extend her edge in tomorrow’s vote. It shows her widening her margin by 3 points in the space of just 24 hours, with a corresponding 2 point drop in undecideds.
The popular belief is that Clinton needs to win by at least 10 points in order to justify continuing in the Democratic race. Any less, and she would have no chance of winning the popular vote, which even supporters acknowledge is her only hope of convincing superdelegates to ignore Obama’s greater delegate count and award her the nomination at the August convention.
Today, some analysts suggested that even if she scored a landslide win of 25 points or more she would struggle to catch her rival in the popular vote. An analysis by Bloomberg found that even with such a hefty victory she would need to win by over 20 points in later contests such as West Virginia, Kentucky and Puerto Rico. That is assuming she can break even in Indiana, North Carolina, South Dakota, Montana and Oregon, states where she is currently struggling in the polls.
To catch him now, Clinton needed “blowout numbers,” Peter Fenn, a Democratic consultant who isn't affiliated with either campaign, was quoted as saying. “The wheels would have to come off the Obama bus, and the engine would have to blow.”
For those hoping to avoid a messy showdown at the convention, the worst outcome would be that Clinton wins by a margin in single digits but yet significant enough to claim a mandate for staying in the race.
Says Andrew Sullivan on the Atlantic’s Daily Dish: “Given the way the campaign has unfolded so far, you can see the looming nightmare scenario: Clinton wins by nine points. Not enough to alter the dynamics of the race in her favour, but enough to keep the agony going. For all our sakes, I hope we get a real decision soon.”
 Barack Obama today fought back against accusations of elitism following comments that "bitter" small-town Americans cling to "guns or religion."
Speaking at a rally for steelworkers in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, the Democratic frontrunner accused rival Hillary Clinton of political opportunism in portraying him as "out of touch" and disdainful of middle America. And in a new ad for Pennsylvania that appeared designed to defuse the row, the state's popular Democratic senator, Bob Casey, explained to voters why he thought Obama was the candidate who could best tackle the concerns of working Americans.
The Clinton camp had pounced upon remarks by Mr Obama, made to a San Francisco audience on Friday, in which he had tried to explain his difficulties in wooing white, working class voters. Mr Obama made what some commentators are describing as his worst campaign blunder yet when he said: “You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing’s replaced them. And it’s not surprising, then, they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”
Mrs Clinton is trailing Mr Obama in the delegate count and can now only win the nomination by persuading super-delegates - elected officials and senior Democrats who will have a free vote on the nominee in August - that she is the best candidate to beat Republican John McCain come November.
Yesterday, a reinvigorated Mrs Clinton sought to capitalise on her opponent's comments to do just that. She denounced the remarks as “demeaning”, “elitist” and “out of touch," while campaign aides mounted a full-scale offensive, distributing “I’m not bitter” stickers and wheeling out supporters to fan the flames on television and radio shows.
One poll today suggested that the strategy was taking effect. A survey by the American Research Group gave Mrs Clinton a 20 point lead over Mr Obama in Pennsylvania, which holds its crucial primary on April 22. However ARG polls can be inaccurate and another poll, by Philadelphia's Temple University, saw Mr Obama trailing by a more probably nine points.
Seeking to limit the damage, Mr Obama accused his opponent of mounting a cynical and dishonest attack.
“Now it may be that I chose my words badly. It wasn’t the first time and it won’t be the last. But when I hear my opponents, both of whom have spent decades in Washington, saying I’m out of touch, it’s time to cut through their rhetoric and look at the reality,” he said.
He mocked at her performance at a campaign stop in Indiana yesterday, when, in a clear attempt to boost her appeal among working-class voters, she downed a shot of whiskey and a beer.
“Around election time, the candidates can’t do enough for you. They’ll promise you anything, give you a long list of proposals and they’ll even come around, with TV crews in tow, to throw back a shot and a beer,” he said.
The pundits say...:
Instapundit:
"Barack Obama broke the first rule of Democratic presidential politics: never let on that you believe rural American voters are hicks straight out of Deliverance. . . . he could not have picked a worse time to reveal his contempt for average Americans."
Huffington Post:
"Barack Obama told it mostly correctly last week when he said that workers in many towns in America were angry and bitter. For coming closer to telling the unfiltered truth than most politicians, he was lambasted by his political opponents. That he put religious faith in the mix was admittedly an exaggeration and therefore an error. But it shouldn't draw attention from the facts and it is yet another example of how much surer his sense of what has happened to America is that the views of his opponents, Democrat or Republican."
Newsbusters:
"If media really are in the tank for Obama, and want to help him navigate this minefield he's created for himself, maybe they should look at some speeches Gov. Bill Clinton made in 1991 and 1992 that typically involved some form of the phrase "economically insecure white people."
"Although Clinton was typically talking about how, in his view, Republicans tried to use race to gin up votes amongst financially struggling Caucasians, the similarities would certainly be enough to deflect attention away from Obama, assuming this was the press's modus operandi."
The Daily Dish:
"The "bitter" spat is gold for Morris-Rove politics, which is why Clinton is exploiting it so baldly. It is exactly the kind of debate that has constructed American politics since Vietnam; it is exactly the kind of politics that Obama has been trying to transcend. Clinton will use anything at this point to destroy Obama's candidacy and message; but by adopting Rovism at its reddest, the Clintons do risk looking too obvious... At some point people will realize that the Clintons represent a continuation of the kind of politics that has made a serious engagement with this country's profound problems impossible. Or is acknowledging profound problems now unpatriotic?"
 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."
 A struggling small time boxer takes on the heavyweight champ in a once-in-a-lifetime fight in which he strives to go the distance, not for the glory or the spoils of victory, but for his self-respect. Not exactly the most striking parallel with Hillary Clinton, one half of America's most formidable political power couple. Perhaps the former first lady was envisioning her defeat on points at the end of a fight which leaves both opponents forever scarred...
 But let's say we suspend our disbelief for a moment, and accept that Mrs Clinton is Rocky Balboa, that underdog fighter battling the establishment heavyweights. Who would Barack Obama be? And John McCain? In the Clinton-as-Rocky scenario Apollo Creed seems the obvious choice for Obama, but his status as reigning champion doesn't fit. Ivan Drago, the evil Soviet droid? Too inarticulate. Clubber Lang, aka Mr T? His infectious catchphrases and years spent on the mean streets of Chicago make him a more likely candidate, but his gratuitously sadistic nature rules him out too.
In fact, after Mrs Clinton's bagged the best role, the remaining field of cartoon baddies seems a little scant, so I've widened my search to all Sylvester Stallone films to give McCain and Obama an equal shot at action hero status. And after several hours of rumination and intense discussion with my newsroom colleagues, the results are in.
 First up, John McCain. An Vietnam veteran who can no longer raise his arms above his head due to the torture he suffered at the hands of the Vietcong, a bit of a maverick, a tinderbox temperament, relentlessly patriotic and ideological - he can only be John Rambo.
 Barack Obama is a little tougher. There are few great orators among Stallone's heroes, so I've chosen a man whose physical agility can perhaps match the Illinois senator's rhetorical dexterity - Gabe Walker, aka Cliffhanger.
Now that would be a fight I'd like to see.
 You need Flash Player 8 or higher to view video content with the ROO Flash Player. Click here to download and install it. Having trouble watching this video? Click here to view it on Times Online TV.
 In an effort to counter accusations that he is anti-Israeli, Barack Obama recently wheeled out foreign policy advisor General Merrill McPeak to explain statements he made a few years ago in which he appeared to blame the American-Jewish lobby for preventing the development of a robust US strategy on the conflict.
In a interview with Shalom TV, "America's first national Jewish television network", McPeak explained that "I decided a long time ago that I was on Israel's side," declaring himself "a long-term admirer of Israel and ... a friend of Israel."
Why? According to ABC's blog the Political Punch, the Obama campaign was forced to act after the Clinton camp sent around a story by the American Spectator in which Robert Goldberg, vice president of the Center for Medicine in the Public Interest, slammed McPeak as "anti-Israel and anti-Jewish."
The basis for his claims was an interview with The Oregonian in 2003, in which McPeak had said there was no effective US "playbook" for the Middle East, in part because of the political obstacles to taking a hardline stance on Israeli settlements.
He said: "We don't have a playbook for the Middle East. You know, for instance, obviously, a part of that long-term strategy would be getting the Israelis and the Palestinians together at . . . something other than a peace process. Process is not a substitute for achievement or settlement. And even so the process has gone off the tracks, but the process isn't enough. . . . We need to get it fixed and only we have the authority with both sides to move them towards that. Everybody knows that."
The Oregonian reporter asked: "So where's the problem? State? White House?"
"New York City," replied McPeak. "Miami. We have a large vote - vote, here in favor of Israel. And no politician wants to run against it."
Says the reporter: "Actually I was thinking of the larger lack of a Middle East strategy. Does that emanate out of the State Department or out of the White House, combination of both, is it a personality struggle, what's - what's going on?"
McPeak explained: "I think that everybody understands that a settlement of the Arab-Israeli problem would require the Israelis to stop settling the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, and maybe even withdraw some of the settlements that've already been put there. And nobody wants to take on that problem. It's just too tough politically. So that means we can't . . . you can't develop a Middle East strategy. It's impossible."
Goldberg also took issue with a 1976 article for Foreign Policy Magazine in which McPeak questioned Israel's refusal to retreat to 1967 borders - as required by international law.
The Republican Jewish Coalition called on Obama to fire McPeak, saying: "By choosing to have a military advisor and national campaign co-chairman like Gen. McPeak, serious questions and doubts are once again being raised about Sen. Obama's positions and judgment on Middle East issues."
The Obama camp then issued a statement saying that candidates did not always agree with everything their advisors said, and that Obama did not personally agree with McPeak about the influence of pro-Israeli voters.
In the Shalom TV interview, McPeak attempted to clarify his comments, saying:
"It would serve everyone's purposes for Israel to remove itself from occupied territories in conditions that represent a negotiated solution agreeable to both sides. What Israel's security requires is peace with its neighbors, and a failure to get to a negotiated solution on the occupied territories has prevented peace. There's enough blame on both sides, and even blame for the United States. I would like the United States to play a constructive role to bring about progress in the [peace] process."
Of the influence of the pro-Israeli lobby, he said, "American Jewry has some influence, just like [American] Irish have influence about Ireland policy, just like the National Rifle Association has something to say about our arms policy. I don't object to interest groups or lobbying groups exercising influence. I think our government takes account of the various kinds of competing interests that are represented in our country, and then acts in a way that is consistent with our own best interest."
Regarding the RJC, he added: "You'll have to check with them [on] what they're trying to do here. Or with the Clinton campaign. This has the smell of politics, doesn't it?"
Readers, your thoughts please...
 As Hillary Clinton wades into the Rev. Wright controversy, a couple of interesting items have made their way onto the web.
First is a statement from the Clinton family's pastor during their White House years, Dean J. Snyder of the Foundry United Methodist Church. He writes in support of the Reverend Wright, who he suggests has been the victim of a smear campaign using selective soundbites to distort his true position.
"To evaluate his dynamic ministry on the basis of two or three sound bites does a grave injustice to Dr. Wright, the members of his congregation, and the African-American church which has been the spiritual refuge of a people that has suffered from discrimination, disadvantage, and violence. Dr. Wright, a member of an integrated denomination, has been an agent of racial reconciliation while proclaiming perceptions and truths uncomfortable for some white people to hear.
"Those of us who are white Americans would do well to listen carefully to Dr. Wright rather than to use a few of his quotes to polarize. This is a critical time in America's history as we seek to repent of our racism. No matter which candidates prevail, let us use this time to listen again to one another and not to distort one another's truth."
Next up is an article on the Huffington Post which links Hillary Clinton to a very conservative, fundamentalist religious group called The Family (or sometimes The Fellowship). A secretive organisation started in 1935 with shadowy links to fascist dictators, The Family is the subject of a book to be published in May called The Family: The Secret Fundamentalism at the Heart of American Power written by Jeff Sharlett, who wrote about his experience with the group in Harpers' in 2003.
The book describes how the group was started by Abraham Vereide:
"... an immigrant preacher who in 1935 organized a small group of businessmen sympathetic to European fascism, fusing the Far Right with his own polite but authoritarian faith. From that core, Vereide built an international network of fundamentalists who spoke the language of establishment power, a "family" that thrives to this day. In public, they host prayer breakfasts; in private they preach a gospel of "biblical capitalism," military might, and American empire. Citing Hitler, Lenin, and Mao, Doug Coe, the Family's current leader, declares, "We work with power where we can, build new power where we can't.""
The Nation and the Atlantic Monthly are among a number of reputable publications that have noted Clinton's membership of the controversial group. In the wake of her insistence that Barack Obama should have selected his religious associations more carefully, perhaps some questions should be raised about her own choice...
 Until now, the conventional wisdom has been that Barack Obama is the Democratic candidate with the greatest appeal to crossover voters. Not so in Mississippi, where the exit polls show a hefty contingent of self-identified Republicans casting their votes for Hillary Clinton.
 According to figures from CNN, 13 per cent of voters in the Democratic primary identified themselves as Republicans, and these supported Clinton by 77 to 23 per cent. This is in contrast to independents, who made up 17 per cent of voters and were more evenly split - 53 to 43 in Obama's favour.
This has not gone unnoticed by liberal bloggers, several of whom have posed the question: Is Rush Limbaugh's strategy working?
Ahead of last week's primaries in Texas and Ohio, the ultra-right-wing talk radio host (a self-identified "male chauvinist pig" who once likened Clinton to "a screeching ex-wife") urged conservatives to go out and vote for the former first lady "if they can stomach it" because her nomination would mean a Republican win in the presidential election. Prolonging the knife fight between the two Democrats would also mire the party in chaos and boost John McCain's hopes, he argued.
And that's not the end of the story. On polling day, Bill Clinton went on the Rush Limbaugh Show (while the man himself was off sick) and called on listeners to back his wife. You can read about it and listen to the radio clip via this Daily Dish post.
It didn't really work in Texas and Ohio, where large numbers of Republicans voted in both Democratic primaries but were divided relatively equally between the two candidates, according to MSNBC exit data. (Some analyses say this also represented tactical voting for Mrs Clinton as she had previously commanded little support among Republicans, but this may be a little tenuous.) But is it perhaps now catching on? Or were Mississippi Republicans simply more motivated to come out and vote for Clinton because of Obama's assumed strength in the state?
Limbaugh himself certainly thinks his strategy (now named Rush the Vote) is working, having hailed the "chaos achieved" on his show.
Here's a selection of comment from the blogosphere:
My DD:
"I was skeptical of the right-wing campaign to turn out for Hillary Clinton so that the battle for the Democratic nomination would drag out even longer, supposedly meant to help John McCain (John, who?), but today's results make it difficult to ignore. Although, the more insidious side of what may have motivated these Republicans to vote for Hillary against Barack is that the racist vote may have been alive and well."
Huffington Post:
"Are some of Mississippi's Republicans trying to cause mischief? ... Earlier this month, conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh told listeners that since the Republican race was all but over, they should turn out for Clinton, because of his view that she would be a weaker fall opponent for presumptive GOP nominee John McCain — but there is no statistical evidence to indicate his instructions played any role in the Mississippi results."
"Rarely in American politics have so many people ever intentionally voted for a candidate they hate so much. Approximately 40,000 Republicans in Mississippi decided to vote for Hillary Clinton in order to help her destroy the Democratic Party this year with a divided convention.... The only hope for Hillary Clinton is that Republican voters will help her reduce the gap against Obama, and that the superdelegates will somehow be convinced to obey the will of Rush Limbaugh and his acolytes by stealing the election from the legitimate voters."
CNN Political Ticker:
 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.
 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.
 There have been some interesting developments in the row over what has rapidly become known as the "dressed photo," a picture of Barack Obama in  traditional Somali (Muslim) dress that Matt Drudge claims was circulated by a Clinton staffer (Read the full story in today's Times here). The general consensus seems to be that if the Clinton camp did deliberately leak the photo, it was a despicably cheap shot and one which should put an end to the former first lady's campaign. However many bloggers are also questioning the provenance of the photo - and in some cases, Drudge's version of events.
Big Head DC quotes N.Kafi, editor of Geeska Afrika, as saying that they published the report and photo back in August 2006, and speculates that Matt Drudge, a conservative and well-known opponent of Hillary Clinton, might be trying to set up the former first lady:
"What may have happened is Drudge found the picture on the Geeska Afrika Web site and then knowingly launched a fake story insisting the Clinton camp was behind the circulation of the picture. There may be evidence that Drudge even fabricated e-mails from Clinton staffers referring to the photo. The Internet publisher has long been well-known for his distaste for the Clinton family."
Meanwhile Sweetness and Light notes that the photo actually appeared in the National Examiner on February 4, and posts screen grabs of the report.
Below the Beltway takes a humorous approach to the photo flap, posting photos of various other US politicians dressed in foreign garb (including one of Mrs Clinton herself wearing hijab.) Michelle Malkin has a similar post but makes a more serious political point with pictures of President Bush and wife Laura cuddling up to the Saudis and asking "which bothers you the most?"
Lynn Sweet's blog for the Chicago Sun-Times quotes retired Air Force General Scott Gration, who accompanied Obama on the Africa tour, and Susan Rice, formerly President Clinton's Africa expert - both of whom now advise the Illinois senator on foreign policy:
"“I was along on that picture,” Gration said. They were seeing a “community mobilization” in Wajir and witnessed the “live auction” of camels and other livestock..
During the course of this, Obama was given an outfit, and “as a great guest,” he tried it on, much in the way, Gration said, people “try on Christmas gifts” they may not want to keep.
Obama did “what any leader should do…accept the gift, accept the hospitality,” said Gration. Obama was “accepting a gift of friendship in a way we expect,” he said.
Rice, who served as an African expert in President Clinton’s White House, said release of the photo was designed “to be divisive.’’ But she also noted that President Clinton had himself dressed in kinte cloth as part of respecting local customs and cultures."
Political Radar, ABC, has details of an interview Mrs Clinton gave to an ABC affiliate on the issue in which she dismissed questions about whether her campaign leaked the photo as "really laughable". It also reports Obama's response:
""This is one more attempt by my opponent's campaign to change the subject," said Clinton, "From his health-care plan that won't cover everybody, from an economic plan that won't produce jobs, and from a record that is pretty thin when it comes to national security and standing up for our country around the world."
The former first lady argued that there are photos of her from around the world wearing "the costume of the country" she was visiting.""
But Stumper, Newsweek, says it is absurd to claim, as the Clinton staffer reportedly did, that the former first lady would have been crucified for such a photo, but urges us not to jump to any conclusions until it is clear how high up it came from:
"As I've written before, "over the past few months, it's become clear that there are some shady people out there bent on spreading the claim----completely, inarguably, demonstrably false--that Obama is a 'crypto-Muslim Manchurian candidate.'" ... Meaning that the photo, which shouldn't be controversial, will be...
If it emerges that top Clinton aides did, in fact, authorize the attempted "smear," then Obama's outrage would be justified, and Clinton should book her flight back to Chappaqua. If an unauthorized staffer sent it out, then he or she should be sacked--and the damage should stop at embarrassment."
Loathed by some Democrats for siphoning off liberal votes in the 2000 Gore-Bush contest, Ralph Nader has announced he is once again to run as a  third party candidate for president. The left-wing consumer advocate, who ran as the Green Party nominee in 2000 and as an independent in 2004, declared on NBC's Meet the Press that he was running as a representative of those marginalised by Republican and Democratic policies.
Pledging to "shift the power from the few to the many," Nader attacked the top presidential contenders as too close to big business.
Most people were disenchanted with the main parties due to the prolonged conflict in Iraq and sputtering economy, he said. Meanwhile corporate tax cuts and other business-friendly policies under the Bush administration had left many lower- and middle-class people with heavy debt, he added.
"You take that framework of people feeling locked out, shut out, marginalized, disrespected," he said. "You go from Iraq, to Palestine/Israel, from Enron to Wall Street, from Katrina to the bungling of the Bush administration, to the complicity of the Democrats in not stopping him on the war, stopping him on the tax cuts."
Though Nader took just 2.7 per cent of the popular vote in the 2000 election, he has been blamed for tipping the hotly-disputed, razor-thin contest in the Republicans' favour. In Florida, where George W. Bush's 500 vote margin won him the White House, Nader took 97,000 votes, the majority of which would have presumably otherwise gone to the Democrats.
However Nader has roundly dismissed the spoiler claims, saying that is the Democratic Party's own fault if it loses votes because it is refusing to address "major injustices" suffered by Americans. "I’m sick of this political bigotry here. They’ve sold off the US government to big business. And they accuse others of being spoilers. That is grotesque," he said.
He suggested that this time, his candidacy would not tip the race to the Republicans because following the Iraq debacle the electorate would not vote for a "pro-war John McCain."
His rivals also downplayed his potential impact.
Clinton called Nader’s decision"a passing fancy" and lamented that he had"prevented Al Gore from being the greatest president we could have had and I think that’s really unfortunate."
Obama appeared to accept Nader's long-time argument that no party has an automatic right to certain votes, saying that the onus was on the Democrats "to be so compelling that a few percentage of the vote going to another candidate is not going to make any difference."
Meanwhile Tim Pawlenty, the Republican Governor of Minnesota currently being touted as a possible vice presidential partner for McCain, said Nader’s entry might "unsettle the Democratic race, to some small degree."
"I don’t think it’s going to be a big factor, but it will be a small factor," he said.
He might be thinking of Nader as an antidote to McCain's age problem - with his 74th birthday on Wednesday, the left-winger might be the one candidate that can make the 71-year-old Republican look youthful.
Continue reading "Could Ralph Nader be the Democrats’ spoiler – again?" »
 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...
 Barack Obama remains on course for victory in next week's Wisconsin primary but Hillary Clinton is closing the gap and could yet snatch a surprise win, if the latest polls are to be believed. While some surveys have given the young Illinois senator a healthy lead in the state - Public Policy Polling found he was leading Clinton 50 to 39 per cent on Monday - others conducted more recently show him being squeezed by the former first lady - Rasmussen on Wednesday gave him 47 to Clinton's 43 percent, with his edge little more than the 3.3 percentage point margin of error. This is more in line with RealClearPolitics' poll of polls, which gives Obama a 4.3 per cent lead.
Clinton appeared to have all but given up on Wisconsin earlier in the week, choosing instead to campaign in Ohio and Texas ahead of their critical March 4 primaries. But, with fresh hopes of an upset and conscious that the state's 92 delegates could tip the balance in such a tight race, she has embarked on a late offensive, releasing a statewide ad attacking Obama for failing to sign up to a debate in Milwaukee on Saturday night. You can watch the ad, and Obama's response, below:
So how would a win for either candidate in Wisconsin impact the race? According to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, the state's primary has picked the eventual Democratic nominee in 16 out of the last 24 elections, so the odds are weighted in the winner's favour. Click here for the rather natty interactive feature.
Here's some thoughts from the web:
Charlie Cook, National Journal:
"If Obama's winning streak continues through Wisconsin, it's entirely plausible that his momentum going into Ohio and Texas will prevent Clinton from having a sorely needed victory week. Should that happen, it would be quite hard for Clinton to get back in the race."
Ben Smith, Politico.com
"The arguments for it being an easy Obama state have to do with the big college campuses, a primary open to independents, the ineffable nature of a state that elects Russ Feingold, and the latest polls. But it isn't a caucus state, and only 6 percent of the 2004 primary electorate was black."
Top of the Ticket (LA Times):
"If Obama wins Wisconsin convincingly, you have to suspect the race in Ohio will tighten. Wisconsin would be the ninth straight win for Obama, and he would have shut out Clinton since Super Tuesday (assuming he also wins Hawaii next Tuesday, which would give him 10 victories in a row).
"But if Clinton wins Wisconsin, where Democrats proudly embrace the state's progressive tradition, then she would head into Ohio and Texas having thrown a lasso around the horse on which some think Obama is running away."
NPR.org:
"Wisconsin's demographics would seem to favor Clinton, since she has done well with white, working-class voters in many primaries this year (Wisconsin's population is 87.5 percent white).
"But the state boasts a history of progressive politics that could benefit Obama. The 1960 primary, for instance, was crucial in helping John F. Kennedy win the Democratic nomination over rival and fellow senator Hubert Humphrey.
"In 2004, Howard Dean's failure to win the Wisconsin primary essentially ended the former Vermont governor's presidential campaign. Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry carried the state that year and went on to win the nomination."
 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 sp |
