Apparatchiks rule
One of the grand old men of British journalism has been bitten, I see,
And in the other major British paper is probably the view of most American Democrats (and democrats) as well: (*)
"Since the beginning of January, the Democratic party in the US has held elections that have provided great excitement and held the attention of much of the world. We are about to see if its commitment to democracy is equally impressive. Having started this election season with scenes of rural folk gathering in frontrooms and schoolhalls to stand up and be counted, the final decision is now likely to be made by party apparatchiks accountable only to themselves. Or worse still, the courts."
So what to do?
I see Barack Obama thought it worthwhile taking a long detour away from the current campaign battlegrounds to see John Edwards: might an Edwards endorsement help in Ohio perhaps?
Meanwhile as journalists trail around hoping to be shouted at (and thus made famous at least in their own newsrooms) by President Clinton, it seems ordinary
Hello, I'm 
颁辞尘尘别苍迟蝉听听 Post your comment
An endorsement by John Edwards would be very good for Barack Obama but won't help him when he appears on the O'Reilly factor because Bill O'Reilly hates John Edwards - even though John Edwards is trying to help the poor and stuff.
As this primary race rolls on, it is interesting to note how new factors are gradually being introduced into the mix as the eventual result for the Democrats continues to evade the realms of predictability. A couple of weeks ago nobody was really aware (due to a lack of media coverage on the issue) of the existence of super-delegates, but then all of sudden they became potentially very important and now all the papers are number-crunching their potentially decisive impact.
Similarly now we see the first mentioning of potential court involvement which could rob the entire Primary season of the democratic credibility it has been steadily building these past few weeks. How ironic it would be that, if Senator Clinton finds herself in a position of needing the Florida delegates to guarantee victory, she is forced to turn to the Supreme Court for assistance - the very same entity that decided the election of her husband's successor in the election of 2000. Would she really want to begin her term of office in this way, given that the Supreme Court's installing of Bush in favour of Gore tarnished Bush's mandate from day one?
The 'detour' thing is interesting and significant. But have a look at this other Times article.
And don't be too taken in by the man we know affectionately as 'Mystic Mogg'...
I do not know what to think of the Clintons. They are ruthless in a many ways. Just remember:
Is Obama good enough? I do not know. Will the Clintons be any better. For sure they are not.
I hope they do not destroy the party and we get another "WAR-HERO" like Bush/McCain.
Your ending link is atrocious...some guy goes to heckle Clinton and then condemn him for causing disunion in the party?! Then he says "I THINK he hit me..?!" Give some airtime to a person that actually makes sense.
Tsk, tsk Justin. I have no preference in the newspapers but saying that the Times and Guardian are the only 'major British papers' shows that you do have bias after all ;). I hope you meant another not the other!
Well, the Daily Star doesn't really count, does it?
Let's hope it doesn't come down to the Supers otherwise the Democrats will lose this contest owing to the party being split.
That's bad news for Obama, though the American people are too sensible to know or care. Rees-Mogg is the Kristol of British journalism: the fact that he says something is proof that it's wrong.
I'm sure Obama seems great to those who have no say in the outcome. I too, as a Canadian, have no stake in it, and he seems like the perfect candidate. But its only because it seems that Obama unites not only Americans, but everyone else in the world. Another President Clinton would seem to show a sinister dynasty of power in America, versus the beacon of democracy. Not to mention the last Clintons failed attempts at reconciliation in the Mid-East, along with the Balkans.
I know that Hilliary and Barack carry the same policies...but a President, who's black, is a son of a Muslim,and had travelled widely and understands the world in a very personal way, versus theoretical (as perhaps Bush has).... what a dream for a Non-American!
Read WRM's hagiogroghy of Bob Dole's Grandpa. Interesting that he notes McCain in not a neo-con and will differ from GWB. This is true but lets not imagine that McCain is some sort of nice concensus building diplomacy lover. While not a neo-con McCain is a foriegn policy hawk. He is of a military mind. The military option will be at the fore-front of his thinking and he will not hestitate to use US military power to further US interests. If I lived in Terhan I'd be building a shelter just in case he gets elected.
There seems to be an atitude of the super-delegates undemocratically stealing the nomination - which I am guessing is the Obama spin - wouldn't they effectively be negotiating out a tie - with the key question is how close can the delegate count be for it to be seemed justified??
As for the ghost-delegates of Florida etc - is there any talk of re-holding the primaries with everyones name on the ballot???
If there is such concern about the popular vote, which seems fair to me, why wouldn't Mr Obama welcome the counting of delegates from Florida and Michigan. These electorates have until now been excluded from any final count.
Also, although I am sure that Mr Obama's intentions are nothing more than selfless, why if he opposes the existance of the superdelegates is he so keen to court their support.
Methinks he doth protest too much!
Justin
I have been reading about the previous campaigns for the candidates and two questions have occured to me.
1) If after all the vitriol one of the candidates is invoved in a fatal accident/incident (Kennedy)is the other candidate automatically selected or do further elections take place.
2) Do the superdelegates have the power to sanction any of the candidates' actions "For the good of the party"?
As an African who has followed these primaries pretty closely ,I keep wondering at the message the American people will send to the rest of the world if they maintain the Clinton Dynasty after another Bush dynasty.It will resemble Kingdoms in the middle east.Jesus take the wheel!!
Absolutely facinating (not !)Justin,but could we have some news on Policies ? You know, Healthcare,Foreign Policy,Gun Control, the World Economy ?,Thats what I really require from a 大象传媒 News Reporter.
Like it or not the USA is the most powerful Nation on the Planet,it might be useful to know what the Presidetential Candidates have in store for America and The World.
John Ault - posting no 11 - asks why the results of the Florida and Michigan primaries should not be included. As I understand it, the Democratic National Committee decided this in advance of said primaries, because both States had moved their primaries too early in the process. Both Hillary and Barack agreed with this, and therefore agreed not to campaign in these States. AFAIK Barack wasn't even on the ballot in Michigan. You can't change the rules after you've played the game.
He also asks 'Also, although I am sure that Mr Obama's intentions are nothing more than selfless, why if he opposes the existance (sic) of the superdelegates is he so keen to court their support.' I didn't know that he did oppose their existence. I thought that he and a lot of other people were just suggesting that the superdelegates should not confound the will of those who voted in the Primaries.
Anyway, it is a vast leap of logic to say that if you disagree with something you should have nothing to do with it. It makes about as much sense as a lawyer saying 'I disagree with this law. Therefore I shall ignore its existence.' Again, you have to play by the rules, even if you don't always agree with them.
Methinks Mr Ault is a Hillary supporter! (Or perhaps a McCain supporter who wants Hillary to be the candidate....)
BushClintonBushClinton = Banana Republic
I share Daniel's concern about the reference to the Times and Guardian being Britain's only major papers. It isn't the mark of a great columnist.
Can't re-hold the Florida and Michigan primaries without a fair period of campaigning (2 weeks or so).
As it is, counting the delegates would also be illegal as it would deny equal access to both candidates, as Barack was acting in good faith on the decision of the Democratic Party.
Even so, the fairest alternative would be to reduce the delegate count required to win by the number of delegates on offer from those two states.
Count Hillary Out!
"No you should never count the Clintons out", nonsense and here is why. Barack Obama will end up having won more caucasus, more primaries, more states and more delegates then Hillary, the Super Delegates can't change that. What they can do is to go against Obama and make sure that they lose the young voters, the swing voters, the independent voters and the general election by rallying around Hillary Rodham Clinton, now tell me:Why would they like to do that? I am sure that they would like to keep their jobs, wouldn't you?
The Democrats have played race, gender and special interests ( gays, abortionists, trial lawyers ) for as long as one can remember. Now they have the ultimate race+gender ticket. No can loose! And yet it may bite them in the hindmost. Apparently Obama will not agree to a second spot if he has more elected delegates. His electorate will react with anger and possibly violence if he is demoted to second spot. The queenmakers are no doubt burning the midnight oil looking for a solution.
If I was Obama, I would invest in kevlar, bodyguards and an Abrams tank.
So, what to do?
Vote Republican!
For all their many many faults, there is a great deal more transparency and commitment to 'playing fair' than we have ever seen from the Democrats from FDR forward.
The Dems are almost religiously committed to the maintenance of a political machine, with the goal of the perfect integration of government and party. Sound familiar??
Do we want to be governed by people who do not see themselves as accountable to anyone?
To quote the great Ronald Reagan:
The US is a nation that has a government, not the other way around.
May it ever be so.
Those who suggest the FL and the MI votes should count do not understand US election rules. Mr Obama's name was not even on the ballot in MI because he abided by the rules set by the DNC. Are we to tell our children that winning is everything, even if it means breaking the rules.
An analogy in the US general election would be ask, after the votes have been cast for a presidential candidate, that the electoral system be set aside, and victory given to he/she who receives the most votes. On that basis Al Gore would have been declared President in 2000.
The candidates went into the fight knowing the rules, ought to now live with them.
I think it has already been mentioned but this article describes how certain delegate rich parts of Texas are more likely to pay dividends for Obama while some of the Hispanic "Hillary" demographic will yield fewer. What I found interesting though is the way each campaign is looked at as a company. A 'company' that has cash flow problems in high season, that doesn't have the foresight to deal with future potential anomalies would not appear to be the company that shareholders would have much faith in.
John McBride, Correct grammer is the Democrat Party - not democratic party. The word democratic pertains only to the Republican Party.
I am from Michigan. Our delegates should not be seated. Hillary was the only major name on the Democrat ballot, and even she was asked to remove herself by the DNC but she refused when the other candidates followed the rules (no one talks about this now).
Also, it should be said that it was major news here that we would not have delegates. It was covered in local news and front page on newspapers. We all knew this and voted with this in mind (and NOT voted because of this).
Also, some of us voted in the Republican contest INSTEAD of the Democrat contest so that we would have a vote in something. If Michigan were granted a re-vote, then those who voted in the Republican contest would likely not be allowed to vote. If this were the case, ONLY THEN can we say we were disenfranchised. This is the worst case scenario.
We all knew the rules ahead of time.
Unless the Democratic Part gets its act together (doubtful), this primary may wind up in a trainwreck. The Clintons are a driven team and will go to any lengths to prevail. They will argue for inclusion of the Michigan and Florida delegates and will use all their chits to armtwist the "super" delegates. Thus the voters are once again at risk of getting saddled with a candidate they did not vote for. The American voting system is in serious need of overhaul.
As a resident of Illinois (Barack's home state), hopefully I can help clarify some of this. The question about the delegates from Florida and Michigan being seated at the convention is opposed to by many on the grounds of fairness. First, one of the candidates wasn't even on the Ballot in Michigan and the other contest was schewed because neither of the candidates were allowed (per party rules) to campaign there. Every contests on the democratic side so far has followed the same basic pattern. Clinton usually leads in early polls by huge numbers due to name recognition. Obama usually starts improving tremendously as he campaigns in the state. Basically, as people get to know him and his positions, he improves. Thus the reason why many people oppose Florida being seated. Had both candidates been allowed to campaign in those states the results (percentage wise) would have been different. The simple solution to this would be to hold another vote in both states. However, due to the costs, I highly doubt that is going to happen.
To answer the questions from comment 13:
1) Should one of the candidates bow out of the race or otherwise be unable to run, the other candidate would by default get the nomination.
2) The super delegates do not have the power to sanction a candidate's actions, other then to switch there support to the other candidate. Super Delegate is actually a misleading term. The voting in each state allocates a certain number of delegates to the national convention. Super Delegates don't represent a state and their votes at the national convention carry the same weight as the pledged or state allocated delegates. Super Delegates can also change whom they support at any time. So if one candidate starts to win the pledged delegates by a large margin, the super delegates can switch their vote to that candidate in order to unify the party heading into the general election.
To answer the request for policies in comment 15:
Healthcare: Both candidates have a policy for universal healthcare. The main difference between them is that Hillary's plan mandates health insurance and Obama's does not. This is an important aspect. While Obama's plan does not mandate that people get health insurance, it has a better chance of being passed into law and doesn't garnish the wages of people who can't afford it (like Hillary has proposed). The bright side with both plans is presumably lower cost care and help for the poor via tax breaks, etc. with health insurance.
Foreign Policy: The number one disagreement between the 2 candidates is whether or not to meet with the leaders of nations that we disagree with (Iran, Cuba, etc.) Hillary, thinks that we should follow the Bush approach and not meet with them until they meet certain criteria. Obama is of the position that we need to meet with them in order to have diplomacy so that we can avoid armed conflicts in the future.
Rather then post the rest of the policy differences, I'd suggest that you check out both candidates' web sites. They both have outlines of all of their policy proposals.
I don't understand. If, according to the London Times article, foreigners are (somewhat) impressed with the seriousness with which millions of people are takeing this election, and the sheir volume of people takeing part in the primarees thus far, then why would anyone be impressed with the continuence of such actions (if) as seems more and more likely, the super deligates are called in to take the final decision? To me at least, that is a direct afront to the democratic process, and if it does, indeed come to that, I shudder at the thought of what the world may think of us. O dear lets hope it most certainly doesn't!!
I feel so sorry for the British. Our system is far too complicated with far too many opertunities for falts and mistakes. If it were up to me, I would scrap it and institute a parlamentary one. No race/gender card to play, no insane amount of campaign funds to raise, and no deligates-just the popular vote prevails!
Including Michigan would be horrible for the Obama campaign given that the choice was between Hillary and Other(at best they can relocate the delegates from other to Obama). The chances of Michigan hosting (note: hosting not gaining) a revote is extremely small because the state would have to pay for it instead of the party.
In response to Phil's question, Super delegates will rarely sanction an action, they'll either come out supporting one or the other. Also, super delegates shouldn't really be counted in these news results. They are not binded to vote one way, they can say they are voting for Obama and then go into the convention and vote for Clinton.
At some point soon surely the Superdelegates are going to decide to back the winner, and about 80% of them will move over to Obama.
They also look at the v McCain polls in which Obama is doing much better that Clinton.
If Clinton doesn't win all 3 of Texas, Ohio and Pennsylvania she will concede. If she doesn't win them handsomely she will have lost.
Anyone agree?
This reminds me of who Hamas would want, a government in Isreal that would want peace or a government (hard-line Lukid Party) that wants more oppression and expansion of settlements. Its obvious the choice would be the hard-line Lukid Party. Otherwise the recruit pool would dry up and they be out of business.
Very similar with AC, McCain, with his claims of being in Iraq for the next 100 years and threatening to bomb Tehran is excellent for business.
"If there is such concern about the popular vote, which seems fair to me, why wouldn't Mr Obama welcome the counting of delegates from Florida and Michigan. These electorates have until now been excluded from any final count."
BECAUSE Obama wasn't on the ballot in Michigan, that is why, and did not contest in Florida. So typical of a Clinton to try and change the rules in the middle of the game just because they are losing! In fact, it is so typical of the Democratic Party in general, as the whole "Sore-Loserman" debacle in Florida during the presidential election attests, in which ALL the lower courts AND the supreme court agreed with Bush? Only one court in the entire court sysetm...One...the wack-a-doo Florida Supreme Court concurred with Gore and now we're inflicted with incesccent whining about so-called "stolen" elections! Put it behing you, people, and move on.
To #30, Mary: the popular vote would never work in the United States, because it is, after all, a group of united *states*.
For all the talk of scrapping the primaries, the caucuses and, of course, the electoral college, it all comes down to one thing: voters in Montana, Michigan, South Carolina, Wisconsin, etc. don't want California picking the President.
And with California's large population, that would be a real possibility.
"Hillary Clinton has started the most negative campaign I have ever seen, other than what the Republicans can launch..."
Actually, this is the most disturbingly "clean" campaign I have seen in a very long time and the only explanation I have for it is that everyone who should be pounding Obama for being an unqualified ultra liberal whose 3 years of experience in government should make a prima fascia case to dismiss him is afraid of being called a racist if they do. Actually, the hands off, handle with kid gloves style of the campaign so far is if anything a sign of racial prejudice, a fear of engaging in the usual rough and tumble public free for all which has always characterized American politics. As a result, this serious issue is not being brought to the fore. Hopefully, whether it is Clinton or Obama, neither race nor sex will play any role in the general election campaign and the gloves will come off. American politics is not supposed to be and never has been played by the Marquis of Queensbury rules. If there is one thing that we have learned in recent decades, it's that negative campaigning does work. That's because the accusations and revelations each side makes about the other sticks to them if it turns out to be true. You know exactly what you are getting before you pull the lever. If this doesn't happen, we could wind up realizing when the new President takes office that the electorate has blindly bought a pig in a poke.
Apologies to my many friends on the Sun, the Star, the Mirror, the Independent, the Telegraph et al for seeming to slight them by suggesting only the Guardian and the Times are major British papers!
It was a typo - I meant to say "the other major British paper with an interesting piece on the election"...
I am British, writing from Buenos Aires where I live. It seems the sentiment here 鈥 and one I share 鈥 is one of exciting hope after so many years of disgust and despair with US politics, that were often translated into virulent anti-Washington sentiment (especially understandable in view of many US Governments鈥 record on 鈥渉uman rights鈥 and 鈥渄emocracy鈥 in Latin America, and elsewhere). It is crucial, I think, to acknowledge that democracy as we know it, worldwide, is very much a matter of personality cult. When governments are replaced often little changes in policy terms, owing to the glacial progress of legislation, public resistance to innovation and threats to the status quo, and the fact that leaders and their entourage run out of steam. Now there are three people left in the race for the White House and all of them seem pretty good to me as an observer (but then US policy affects us all, so we are all closely concerned). Clinton may have the most experience but much of it was not very positive; she is certainly an intelligent, dynamic woman and she has some good ideas and maybe will have learned from her mistakes, but she is tainted with her husband's disappointing record and less than squeaky clean slate. She reeks of ambition. And surely you cannot keep having dynasties in power in so-called democracies (I know they do in Greece, France, Pakistan, India, Portugal 鈥 but are those countries truly democratic? I doubt it). McCain has shown great skill in fighting off the loony right and, although I am not keen on many of his policies, he seems to be a man of integrity and is extremely likeable 鈥 yet he is still a Republican, so I hope he will lose in November. My vote 鈥 and my own personal opinion polls suggest I am not alone among non-US citizens 鈥 would go to Obama, who, I agree with many other commentators, is simply the greatest breath of fresh air. He is highly attractive in just about very sense (unless you are a heartless racist reactionary 鈥 and, of course, I am not saying you are those things if you oppose him). The fact he has lived abroad and has a multicultural background is very much in his favour (G W Bush hardly seemed to know where much of his own country was let alone the location and significance of the rest of the world) while his 鈥渓ack of experience鈥 may mean he has new, groundbreaking and forward-looking ideas and policies. So what if he plagiarizes his friends' words or tries too hard to woo young trendy voters, his natural constituency? I think he would inspire the world to learn to stop hating the USA again, to look up to it and to admire its leadership, in this dismal and upsetting world of Bushes, Putins, Mugabes, Berlusconis, Sarkozys and even Browns. I just hope he will win two terms and begin to help to save the world.
Mr 'Jimbo' - posting no 25 - wrote 'John McBride, Correct grammer is the Democrat Party - not democratic party. The word democratic pertains only to the Republican Party.'
A few points. (a) This has nothing to do with grammar (b) I know no such word as 'grammer' - though I think it may possibly be the surname of the star of the classic sitcom 'Frasier'. (c) If jimbo is claiming that the correct title for the Democratic Party is the Democrat Party, he is talking nonsense. AFAIK the Democrats themselves strongly object to this usage, and it is used only by Republicans to insult them (d) Jimbo also claims that the only really democratic party is the Republicans. Indeed. Who can forget that great victory for democracy 8 years ago in Florida 鈥 and indeed in the US as a whole? As Mr Gore pointed out, 'You win some, you lose some - and then there鈥檚 that rare third category...'
"The Democratic Party in the US has held elections has held elections that have provided great excitement and held the attention of much of the rest of the world" Indeed!?? Well that may or may not have held the attention of the rest of the world - they do have alot at stake after all - but they certainly haven't provided much "excitement" here at home judging by the turnout. Only about a quarter of eligible voters have bothered to turn out at the polls, so apparently the vast majority of potential voters aren't too excited. Litlle wonder given the vapid rhetoric and lack of policy details. Now let's see who should we vote for, which of the two big-money candidates more resembles a "rock star"? And we already have seen if the Dem's " committment to democracy is equally impressive"; just ask Palestinian's who voted the wrong way in free and fair elections recently and have been mercilessly punished for it by the Duopoly Party and candidates Billary and Obama in full agreement.
Mr 鈥楯imbo鈥 鈥 posting no 25 鈥 wrote 鈥楯ohn McBride, Correct grammer is the Democrat Party - not democratic party. The word democratic pertains only to the Republican Party.鈥欌
A few points. (a) This has nothing to do with grammar (b) I know no such word as 鈥榞rammer鈥 鈥 though I think it may possibly be the surname of the star of the classic sitcom 鈥楩rasier鈥. (c) If jimbo is claiming that the correct title for the Democratic Party is the Democrat Party, he is talking nonsense. AFAIK the Democrats themselves strongly object to this usage, and it used only by Republicans to insult them (d) Jimbo also claims that the only really democratic party is the Republicans. Indeed. Who can forget that great victory for democracy 8 years ago in Florida 鈥 and indeed in the US as a whole? As Mr Gore pointed out, 鈥榊ou win some, you lose some 鈥 and then there鈥檚 that rare third category鈥︹