• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Presidential election may be up for grabs

I am sitting out the winter in Mission, Texas deep in the Rio Grande Valley. One of the local TV stations ran an item the other day re fund raising for the Democrats in one county here in February. According to it, Clinton had raised about 250K compared to 7.5K for Obama. The area here is heavily Hispanic, a group that the punditry claims supports Clinton.

Tuesday will be interesting.
 
Hmmm....Interrrrresting...there could be a role for former USAF Chief of Staff General McPeak in the administration of Barack Obama, if he is elected.

http://www.ohiodailyblog.com/content/obama-responds-nat...eaturing-gen.-mcpeak

http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/GeneralPledgeLetter.pdf

He's been with Obama since early in the campaign, endorsing at least as far back as November 7th, 2007.

So, what if any role do you see Gen McPeak having in an Obama administration?
 
More on Senator Obama's Free Trade gaffe:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080304.wPrimary04/BNStory/Front

Will Obama's 'wink wink' on free trade help Clinton win precious votes in Ohio?

JOHN IBBITSON

March 4, 2008 at 1:18 AM EST

CLEVELAND — The Clinton people have dubbed it NAFTA-gate, and desperately wish the press would do the same. The Obama people try to shrug the whole thing off.

The question is whether Barack Obama's Canadian contradictions over the North American free-trade agreement could tip the balance in today's mini Super Tuesday.

Here in Ohio, where some polls give Hillary Clinton a slight edge while others show a dead heat, concerns over the sincerity of Mr. Obama's anti-NAFTA rhetoric could encourage voters worried about disappearing jobs to throw their support behind Ms. Clinton.

Or not.

“It might influence a few people who are sitting on the fence,” but not enough to swing today's primary one way or another, believes John Gilliom, a professor at Ohio University who closely follows the Democratic Party.

“Mostly what they're doing is just throwing everything on the wall, and seeing what sticks.”

Here's what happened, based in part on a leaked memorandum obtained by The Associated Press, and on reports from CTV: Early in February, Austan Goolsbee, one of Mr. Obama's senior economic advisers, talked informally with officials at the Canadian consulate in Chicago. A consulate staffer wrote a memo based on the conversation, in which he said Mr. Goolsbee advised the Canadians that “much of the rhetoric that may be perceived to be protectionist is more reflective of political manoeuvring than policy.”

This memo made the rounds, and eventually the gist of the message was communicated to a CTV journalist, who reported that Mr. Obama was saying one thing about NAFTA to voters, but something quite different to the Canadian government.

Mr. Goolsbee insists his comments were taken out of context by the memo writer. The Canadian embassy in Washington strongly denied that there had been any communication between the Obama campaign and the embassy.

When that turned out to be technically, but not substantively, true – the communication was with the Chicago consulate, not the embassy – the embassy yesterday offered an apology, saying that “there was no intention to convey, in any way, that Senator Obama and his campaign team were taking a different position in public from views expressed in private, including about NAFTA. We deeply regret any inference that may have been drawn to that effect.”

End of story? Hardly.

Throughout a marathon 75-minute conference call with reporters yesterday, senior Clinton campaign officials repeatedly stressed the importance of the contradiction between Mr. Obama's anti-NAFTA rhetoric and the private assurances of one of his advisers.

“The fact that his aide would be saying something in private very different to Canadian officials is very much on the minds of voters in Ohio,” maintained Howard Wolfson, Ms. Clinton's communications director.

“Because it's just flat-out wrong to tell the people of Ohio one thing in public about NAFTA and say something quite different to the government of Canada behind closed doors.”

Ms. Clinton said yesterday that she believed the Obama campaign had given the Canadian government “the old wink-wink.”

“I think that's the kind of difference between talk and action that I've been talking about,” she went on. “It raises questions about Senator Obama coming to Ohio and giving speeches against NAFTA.”

Mr. Obama rebutted, while campaigning in Texas: “Nobody reached out to the Canadians to try to assure them of anything.”

Asked why he had appeared to deny a report last week that such a meeting had taken place, Mr. Obama rather weakly replied, “That was the information I had at the time.”

But while Mr. Obama's staffers worked hard yesterday to discredit the reports of the Chicago conversation, Prime Minister Stephen Harper was busy apologizing for it yesterday, in response to a question from NDP Leader Jack Layton during Question Period.

Mr. Harper said that his government “regretted the fact that information has come out that would imply that Senator Obama has been saying different things in public than in private. The government of Canada does not condone this and certainly regrets any implication.”

The way the affair has been handled was not calculated to endear Mr. Obama to the Harper government.

“There clearly was a misunderstanding that was being fomented by folks within the government,” said one senior Obama official, speaking on background.

But the official said that the campaign appreciated that Ottawa and the embassy in Washington had taken steps to clear up the misunderstanding, “albeit in a tardy fashion.”

The CBC reported yesterday that the affair had infuriated Mr. Obama and his senior advisers to the point that it could impair relations between an Obama administration and the Canadian government, quoting an Obama campaign official saying, “Why is Canada meddling in the internal affairs of the United States. … To provide such a false account at this juncture on the eve of a crucial election is not an accident, and it is really, really stupid.” But the Obama official who spoke to The Globe and Mail described the reaction as “overblown.”
 
Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act, is the Globe and Mail’s John Ibbitson’s take:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080305.wprimaryibbitson05/BNStory/Front
The Comeback Kid still faces an uphill battle

JOHN IBBITSON

From Wednesday's Globe and Mail

COLUMBUS, OHIO — As the results first trickled, then finally poured in at the Clinton rally, staff grinned confidently and the crowd was ebullient.

Rhode Island was hers. And when Ohio went her way, people went crazy. Hillary Clinton has finally ended Barack Obama's unbroken string of wins. The consensus in the room was emphatic. This tournament is headed to Pennsylvania.

But then there was Texas. The Lone Star State is even bigger than Ohio (228 delegates to 161), and it looked to be, for all intents and purposes, a dead heat, whatever the final numbers showed. And Vermont went for Mr. Obama by more than 20 points.

The Comeback Kid keeps coming back and back, at least in her mind and those of her supporters. Nonetheless, the conclusion of a cold-light-of-day analysis remains stark: Winning conditions are waning for Ms. Clinton.

She needed to win big last night. Her husband, former president Bill Clinton, said she needed to take both Texas and Ohio. But once every number is crunched, she will pick up, at best, a handful of delegates.

The proportional method of apportioning delegates that the Democratic Party employs is to blame. And that, in the end, made last night not a good night.

All the Super Tuesdays are over. There simply aren't enough winnable states left for Ms. Clinton to eliminate the lead in pledged delegates that Mr. Obama still enjoys.

Because Ms. Clinton cannot go to the convention in Denver at the end of August leading in pledged delegate support, she and her advisers must accept that her prospects for victory remain slim.

Different organizations use different formulas to calculate pledged and superdelegate totals. Let's use The New York Times numbers, which are among the most conservative.

The Times gave Mr. Obama a lead of 133 in pledged delegates, going into last night's contests. Ms. Clinton currently enjoys a lead of 33 among superdelegates who have declared their intent. That lead has been steadily shrinking as more and more superdelegates declare their support for Mr. Obama. (Two superdelegates declared for him yesterday.) Mr. Obama thus currently enjoys a lead of 100 delegates overall.

Last night's results suggested that his lead will remain substantially intact. Let's assume that the superdelegate differential remains unchanged over the coming months. The next two contests are the Wyoming caucuses (March 8, 18 delegates) and the Mississippi primary (March 11, 40 delegates). Mr. Obama traditionally outperforms Ms. Clinton in caucuses, while Mississippi's large black population virtually guarantees that he will have a strong showing there.

That means that the Democrats will arrive at the next big primary, Pennsylvania (April 22, 188 delegates) with Mr. Obama's lead, in all likelihood, essentially unchanged from what it was before last night. If you include Pennsylvania and all the other remaining states, there are only 656 pledged delegates available. Ms. Clinton would need to win roughly two-thirds of the pledged delegates in the remaining contests to get ahead of Mr. Obama. And some of those states, especially North Carolina (May 6, 134 delegates) have to be considered Obama states.

That is why there is virtually no practical possibility of Ms. Clinton eliminating the pledged delegate gap. Her best remaining hope would be to persuade the Democratic National Committee to seat the banned Michigan and Florida delegates. She won big in those states, but the races were not contested because the states broke the rules by holding their primaries in January.

The DNC leadership might agree to hold fresh primaries in Florida and Michigan, but it will never seat the existing delegates, and it is highly unlikely that there is a judge to be found who would force them. (The courts generally refuse to interfere in the internal workings of political parties.) That leaves only one possibility: a massive surge of support for Ms. Clinton among superdelegates. But as long as she remains behind in the pledged delegate count, that surge is improbable.

In fact, quite the opposite may well happen, as superdelegates rally behind the front-running candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination, and lend their voices to the calls for Ms. Clinton not to drag this out to the Denver convention at the end of August.

Bottom line: There isn't a convincing scenario that ends with Ms. Clinton winning, no matter what Ohio might say.

Nonetheless, she is as determined a candidate as she is capable, and last night's results make Pennsylvania and beyond an inevitability.

“The people of Ohio have said it loudly and clearly, we're going on. We're going strong. And we're going all the way!” Ms. Clinton vowed last night, and you had to believe her.

At some point, this is going to start to hurt the Democrats' chances of victory in November, especially if each campaign steps up its attacks on the other, as will certainly happen.

The Republicans have finally certified that John McCain is their nominee, thanks to wins in Texas, Ohio, Rhode Island and Vermont. Last night, former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee graciously stepped down. From now on, Mr. McCain will run a national campaign for the presidency, while the Democrats continue to fight it out, state by state.

So whether or not last night was a moral, tactical or even real victory for Hillary Clinton, it came at a cost, for her own prospects and those of her party.

I think:

1. Ibbitson is right. It remains a steep, uphill struggle for Clinton; not necessarily unwinnable, but hard to win and especially hard to win without doing serious damage to the brand; and

2. The big winner last night was John McCain. It goes well beyond just locking up his party’s race – but that’s important because it allows him access to the Republican National Committee’s considerable resources. He needed a Clinton victory to prevent an Obama coronation. The polls say he has a chance, maybe even a good chance, against Clinton but he’s toast against Obama – right now. He can now count on Clinton further damaging Obama’s credibility and, if he’s lucky, Obama will counter-attack: reminding Americans of the sleaze that clings to the Clintons.

Clinton’s attacks on Obama seemed to have had some effect. He finally stumbled. The question is: will he, in a desperate attempt to regain the initiative, open a ‘dirty’ campaign against Hillary (as she has done against him)? The Republicans are, I believe salivating at the prospect because it means they can conserve their big, mean, dirty attacks for the fall.

Finally, McCain can now focus on everybody but the hard right (Limbaugh, etc) wing of his party. The hard right wing has nowhere to go, except to sit on its electoral hands and be, rightfully, accused of giving the White House to the Democrats – that should be enough to neuter them. McCain can appeal to a lot of independents if Hillary is the nominee because, as an acquaintance of mine put it, while a lot of people rather like Clinton a whole lot more really, really hate her: she has weak positives but really strong negatives while both Obama and McCain have strong positives and (Limbaugh etc excepted) weak negatives. My acquaintance also opined that every Limbaugh type attack on McCain actually works in his favour by attracting less extreme voters form all wings of both parties.

 
In addition, Clinton is suggesting that they both run on the same ticket...obviously with her for president.

Not likely, but if they did, with Obama in the lead....McCain would have a tough time, even if he picked a black for VP. With Clinton for president and Obama for VP, McCain would win if he had a black for VP....

some of the matchings out there......
 
Clearly you are no Limbaugh fan and you would no doubt be astounded to learn that I am a frequent listener of his program.;D I and many conservatives dont like McCain's stand on immigration,his blocking of conservative judges [gang of 14] and other liberal light positions. I guess the one word that sums up how conservatives feel about McCain is trust - we dont trust him. I will vote for him simply for his position on the war on terror and hope that in 4 years time a true conservative can be found to run.The fear of the right is that McCain may so damage the Republican party that it would open the way for Obama or whoever in 2012. The truth is McCain cant win in November without conservatives. He has to arrive at some form of accomodation. Everyone is waiting to see who he asks to be his running mate.
 
With Hillary as the nominee she has close to 50% negatives no matter who she picks. After August I doubt Obama would feel like being #2,because Bill will be calling the shots.Who would want that ? This election will come down to who will be the best leader in a dangerous world and McCain wins that going away. News today was that a message on the FARC laptop captured was a reference to Obama and his marxist leanings.The more the press digs into Obama the less appealing he will become as both he and his wife have strong marxist leanings and that doesnt sit well with white voters.My guess is that when the Clinton's are done with Obama he will have run his last Presidential campaign.
 
In the past I was a fan of Limbaugh.....but he is so far right he's touching the left, the same goes for Coulter...

McCain isn't going to damage the Republican party any less than Bush Jr. has done.....Not just the Iraq war handling, although that is part of it, but the guy comes across as having a severe case of ADD.....
 
tomahawk6 said:
News today was that a message on the FARC laptop captured was a reference to Obama and his marxist leanings.The more the press digs into Obama the less appealing he will become as both he and his wife have strong marxist leanings and that doesnt sit well with white voters.My guess is that when the Clinton's are done with Obama he will have run his last Presidential campaign.

I can not imagine Candians regarding Obama and his wife as "Marxist."  Perhaps that kind of innuendo works in the states but my guess is most Canadians regard him as just a solid Democrat and proud American.

Can you provide a reference to your comment on the FARC laptop ?
 
I found this, but it's not much...

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,335128,00.html

References to U.S. diplomatic overtures are scintillating, if vague.

In a Dec. 11 message to the secretariat, Marquez writes: "If you are in agreement, I can receive Jim and Tucker to hear the proposal of the gringos."

The same message says an Italian referred to only as Consolo has told Marquez "the European Parliament wants to get involved in the prisoner exchange."

Writing two days before his death, Reyes tells his secretariat comrades that "the gringos," working through Ecuador's government, are interested "in talking to us on various issues."

"They say the new president of their country will be (Barack) Obama," noting that Obama rejects both the Bush administration's free trade agreement with Colombia and the current military aid program.

Reyes said the response he relayed is that the United States would have to publicly express that desire.

 
Baden  Guy said:
I can not imagine Candians regarding Obama and his wife as "Marxist."  Perhaps that kind of innuendo works in the states but my guess is most Canadians regard him as just a solid Democrat and proud American.

Can you provide a reference to your comment on the FARC laptop ?

Actually it isnt innuendo rather its based on the comments of both Obama's[husband/wife].Obama believes in income redistribution.If that isnt a marxist concept I dont know what is. If you notice I dont include Hillary in that characterization because he is so far to the left of her it isnt funny. She is just a good old fashioned socialist the kind found all across Europe and in Canada. Its customary to see US politicians wear a US flag lapel pin. Obama evidently doesnt see the need.
 
tomahawk6 said:
Obama believes in income redistribution.If that isnt a marxist concept I dont know what is.

This I was not aware off - I still believe he will clinch the nomination though due to his charisma and "change" theme.  Now when it comes down to the actual election against McCain...
 
There will be no Clinton/Obama ticket: the more I read this the more sense it makes

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/70531/post-671254.html#msg671254

Senator Clinton is going to race to the end no matter what the damage to the Democratic Party, this is all about her, and devil take the hindmost. Senator Obama and his supporters are on the wave of something similar to a religious revival, there is no turning back (and once people lose the faith, things get ugly indeed).

I will suggest the Democratic party will be crippled by internal divisions no matter who wins, and this will translate into an unimpressive campaign come November. Consider also that neither Senator Clinton or Obama have much on their legislative resumes and fairly thin CV's outside their being members of the Congress and the bubble might pop pretty quickly: John Kerry Mk II but without a polarizing figure in the white house to run against.

Even if one of the two becomes the President, they will discover the Democratic Houses are not beholden to them, and end up having terribly frustrating and ineffectual Administrations. Future historians will have a ball.
 
More political shenanigans. One can only wonder what the Democrat "base" will think of this:

http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=816A5016-3048-5C12-0045B280DB1ACED5

Superdelegates play hardball
By: Josephine Hearn and Amie Parnes and Josh Kraushaar
March 6, 2008 06:57 AM EST

Flexing their new power to determine the Democratic presidential nomination, a bloc of Ohio superdelegates is withholding endorsements from Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton until one or the other offers a concrete proposal to protect American jobs, two Ohio Democrats told Politico Wednesday.

The apparent deal among Ohioans is the first evidence of superdelegates’ banding together and seeking concessions from the presidential candidates in return for votes at the convention. It’s a practice that could become more common after Clinton’s victories in Ohio and Texas on Tuesday put her back on solid footing in her race against Obama and ensured that the battle for superdelegates will continue for many weeks to come.

Ohio Democratic Rep. Marcy Kaptur, one of the leading protectionists in Congress, said Ohioans have many suggestions on economic and trade issues they hoped the candidates would address.

“We have a laundry list of measures we think would be effective, some involving tax policy, some involving investment policy, intellectual property incentives to hold investments in this country,” Kaptur said. “I’m hoping superdelegates [who] are uncommitted that have the economy as their major concern will gravitate to our group and use that power to gain additional attention.”

Among congressional Democrats from Ohio, only Rep. Stephanie Tubbs Jones, a Clinton backer, has endorsed. The rest — Kaptur, Reps. Dennis J. Kucinich, Tim Ryan, Zack Space, Betty S. Sutton and Charlie Wilson, and Sen. Sherrod Brown — remain uncommitted even after their state’s voters handed Clinton a decisive victory in Tuesday’s Democratic primary.

“We had a general agreement,” Kucinich said of the pact. “We have economic issues that need to be addressed. Ohio has economic issues more urgent than any other state.”

A spokesman for Ryan acknowledged that the Ohioans sent a letter to both Obama and Clinton last week in which they outlined their views about the economy, but he insisted there was no agreement to withhold votes. Ryan himself told Politico: “We want the candidates to talk about the issues important to Ohio. We all have the same issues, and we’ve talked about them. But I don’t think there’s any coordinated effort to stick together. There are conversations. It gets hard to build any kind of alliance when, in a lot of our districts, certain candidates did really, really well.”

Ryan said he had been thinking of making an endorsement “up until Monday,” then added: “There’s always talk of trying to build coalitions.”

In the Feb. 25 letter, the Ohio lawmakers urged the candidates to address manufacturing job losses, “unfair” international competition and U.S. trade policy, with a particular emphasis on China. “American workers and industry can compete with any nation, provided the playing field is even,” they wrote.

The Ohio superdelegates’ decision to remain uncommitted even after their state had spoken mirrored patterns seen across the country Wednesday. Only two superdelegates — Dayton Mayor Rhine McLin and Georgia Democratic Party Chairwoman Jane Kidd — changed their positions after Clinton won in Texas, Ohio and Rhode Island, and both of them endorsed Obama.

Harold Ickes, a senior adviser to the Clinton campaign, said on a conference call Wednesday that many superdelegates were “keeping their powder dry. … They’re watching and waiting.”

Rep. Raul M. Grijalva (D-Ariz.), an Obama backer, echoed that sentiment verbatim. “I think, after this, there is a pause. Everybody waits. They keep their powder dry.”

Democratic officials said Tuesday that the Obama campaign planned to unveil the support of 50 new superdelegates Wednesday. No such announcement came Wednesday, but several Obama backers said that such a plan had, in fact, been in the works. Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.) said Wednesday morning that she thought the plan was “going forward” but added that she had yet to check in with the campaign.

Both campaigns had expected that Wednesday would bring a wave of new endorsements for Obama if he’d won in both Texas and Ohio.

“Many people [backing Clinton] were saying, ‘I’m going to go on and pull out after Tuesday.’ And now they’re saying, ‘Under no circumstances am I pulling out. I’ve been there all along,’” said Clinton supporter Rep. Emanuel Cleaver II (D-Mo.). “It’s amazing how three wins can turn people around.”

Clinton’s victories provided much-needed relief for her backers on Capitol Hill, especially African-Americans who had faced pressure from some black activists to back Obama.

As Clinton gave her victory speech in Ohio Tuesday night, a group of her congressional supporters gathered around a television at the home of Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.). As Clinton ran through a list of those who had helped her in Ohio — the governor, the lieutenant governor, former Sen. John Glenn — they anxiously yelled at the television, “And? And?”

“And I especially want to thank Congresswoman Stephanie Tubbs Jones,” Clinton said. The room erupted into cheers.

Perhaps more than any other African-American in Congress, Tubbs Jones had gone out on a limb to support Clinton, serving as national co-chairwoman of her campaign.

“The senator is well aware of what some African-American supporters have experienced,” said Cleaver, who was pleased that Clinton had recognized Tubbs Jones. “For people like Stephanie Tubbs Jones and [Rep.] Sheila Jackson Lee [D-Texas], this has been a vindication for them, because they have really taken hits for supporting Sen. Clinton. Today, they’re looking pretty good.”

The next big contest in the presidential race is Pennsylvania, and it’s seven weeks away.

Superdelegates from the Keystone State were almost bemused Wednesday that the state was now being described as “the new Iowa” because of the time the candidates would spend campaigning there and the significance of the outcome.

“I never expected to be in a position where Pennsylvania was going to matter,” said Rep. Jason Altmire (D-Pa.). Altmire said he feared that the campaign might get ugly in the long run-up to the Pennsylvania vote. “I just hope the two candidates don’t bash each other over the head for the next few weeks,” he said. “That’s the worst possible scenario.”

Pennsylvania Sen. Robert P. Casey Jr. concurred: “Our voters will have no patience for nastiness.”

Meanwhile, Democratic leaders were mulling plans to have Michigan and Florida hold primary votes after Pennsylvania and other primaries are finished in order to give those voters a say in the tight race.

Reflecting on that possibility and the fickleness of superdelegates, Cleaver said, “If another country elected leaders the way we do, we’d ask them to bring in the U.N. monitors.”

TM & © THE POLITICO & POLITICO.COM, a division of Allbritton Communications Company
 
http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2008/03/captured-farc-computers-name-barack.html
http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2008/03/michelle-barack-heart-che-supporters.html

Here are a couple of links to the types of thing T6 is referring to.  Good, Bad or Indifferent.
 
Thucydides said:
More political shenanigans. One can only wonder what the Democratic "base" will think of this:

You don't have to mock them by implying that their base doesn't exist by using quotes with the word "base" above.  ;D Well, the Democrats obviously appeal to young, newer voters in the States, such as many university/college students whose influence in any election should not be underestimated, aside from the Dem.'s more traditional voting blocs, such as union members and certain minority voting blocs such as the Black-American and Hispanic voters (though Chicanos would more probably vote for Democrats, while the Cuban-American vote will most probably vote Republican) and so forth.

November will certainly be an interesting time for our neighbors to the South.

 
The nomination process could very well destroy the democrats unless Clinton or Obama come to terms. Neither will have enough delegates as I have stated from the outset to win the nomination outright. Its going to take the superdelegates to cast the deciding vote and that wont happen until August. Hillary has to damage Obama enough to get the support of the superD's.That process is well underway. The press began asking Obama tough questions and he walked out of a news conference rather than answer. If Hillary wins the nomination she will have trouble with black voters. She cannot afford to alienate any group with her high negatives. I for one will enjoy watching the dem's carve each other up from now until August. :)
 
And don't forget the Florida, Michigan delegates.

Michigan, Florida dilemma: 'Idea of a redo absurd'
by Mark Silva

The protracted contest between Democrats Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton could circle back around to Michigan and Florida again before it is finished -- or one side in a colossal party standoff may have to back down.....

Seat Florida (and Michigan) and Howard (The Scream) Dean and Obama and all the Instant Dems are perturbed.  Don't seat  them and Hilary and all those "Hanging Chad" Gore fans are perturbed.  Either way the Dems are going to be hurting for a "base" in November.

Have a run-off and Obama's position on keeping them out is not likely to help him get their votes in a run off vote.
 
A few points:

1. I am indeed no great ‘fan’ of Rush Limbaugh or Ann Coulter – for the same reasons I am no ‘fan’ of Judy Rebick and Linda McQuaig: I dislike blinkered oversimplification wherever it resides on the political spectrum. There are many good and valid reasons to oppose all of Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John McCain. On balance, as a Canadian, I find McCain least objectionable; thinking Canadians should always wish that bad things happen to American isolationists of the Lou Dobbs variety.

2. I am impressed by the enthusiasm of the Democratic ‘base;’ in Texas the losing Democrat got more votes than all three Republican candidates combined. Clinton and Obama are reaching and energizing their base – as the candidates’ fund raising figures indicate. In fairness, the same data show that the GOP is waaaaay ahead of the nearly broke Dems at the party level.

3. I think the super-delegate issue is terribly dangerous for the Dems. T6 and I agree: neither Democratic candidate can earn enough pledged (elected in caucuses or primaries) delegates to win; it will have to be decided by the super-delegates, perhaps even at the convention. The GOP will be crowing (no matter who the Dems select), “Look at him/her: picked by the insiders rather than elected by the people, like our fellow!”  That being said, I think that good, practical politics means that the party leadership (elected legislators and elected party executive members) have earned and deserve some special status in major party decisions – such as selecting the leader. We do that in Canada, the British do it, what’s wrong when the Americans do it, too?

4. My guesstimate remains:

• Obama can beat McCain with relative ease (say, 52% vs 46% (the rest going to 3rd party candidates, etc); but

• McCain can, just, beat Clinton because her negatives are so much higher than anyone else’s. I repeat: those who like her like her a bit; those who dislike her do so with a deep and abiding passion.

Therefore: as a Canadian observer, I hope the super-delegates overturn the ‘will of the people’ and ‘select’ Hillary Clinton as the Democrat’s flag-bearer; then I really, really hope that McCain does beat here because I fear she would be a weak, protectionist, isolationist president.
 
Back
Top