So we're almost there, we're in the end game, at least as far as the nominations go. John McCain has enough delegates already to get the Republican nomination. How exactly is the question that needs to be asked? Of all the candidates that lined up for that first debate he must have been one of the most unelectable. So it was with a morbid fascination that I watched the other campaigns crash and burn. Rudy Guiliani, the original frontrunner adopted a strategy of monumental stupidity in focusing on only the large States. You don't have to be an experienced politician to know that you never let your opponents build momentum. By the time the large States came to vote he had become the forgotten man. So it should have been Mitt Romney, a succesful businessman, phenomenally rich and able in large part to fund his own campaign, a good family man, well-groomed and squeaky clean. Just how inhuman then must that man be to fail to resonate with the voters. That left cheery avuncular Mike Huckabee, who had little crossover appeal but had the saving grace of at least being a Republican, an accusation that cannot be levelled at John McCain. A man who is at best a right-wing conservative, who some politely refer to as a maverick. What the Republicans have done is nominate a cuckoo in the nest. If I was a Republican I would seriously fear for the future of my party. Not only, if he wins, will he be a disastrous one term President he will be a divisive figure within his own party. He is a military man and, in foreign policy certainly, sees only military solutions. I don't believe that the American people desire to live in a state of perpetual conflict. The United States is a great economic empire but as Britain was to discover when an empire unsheaths its sword its weaknesses are exposed, and its aura of invincibility vanishes. Iraq is a disaster and it will continue to be a disaster. There is no victory to be had there, McCain thinks there is. Better for the States to withdraw with a modicum of credibility intact before they are forced to withdraw to deal with the next crisis that emerges, and it will. At home his "social liberalism" will not play well within his own party, and it will be interesting to see how he deals with Congress. I shouldn't forget Ron Paul, and his campaign has shown that maybe in the future the old two party system can effectively be challenged.
What can you say about the Democratic race, that it is going all the way to the Convention seems inevitable now. It is a little sad that after the people have spoken the nomination may be decided by the party grandees in the form of the super delegates. The rock star glow that has surrounded Barack Obama may be fading. I have to admit that viewing it from this side of the pond, his ethnic background aside, I cannot see the fascination. He is not a great speaker and is often quite hesitant, but he does have a great voice. I'm not a great believer in "the vision thing" as George Bush snr referred to it. I baulk at messianic politics, when I see people breaking down in tears. Especially when what they say has no substance. Yes we can - what does that mean? Hillary can only win with the votes of the super delegates unless of course Obama withdraws. If the momentum now spins away from him and he is seen as a loser before the race for the White House begins he may well receive a visit from the men in grey suits, regardless of his number of delegates. And vice-versa of course. I have to admit I would vote for the steely pragmatism of Hillary Clinton over the soaring rhetoric of Barack Obama. The Democratic nomination was always a two horse race. Then Barack Obama came along and almost blew everyone away. John Edwards fell by the wayside but Hillary stuck at it and all credit to her. In these dangerous times, love her or loathe her, she would be the safe pair of hands.

I was reading that the states that Hillary was strong in tended to be the ones where the presidential election will be fought (I'm going by what I read over here, rather than first hand knowledge) and the states where Barack Obama was strongest tended to be 'safe' democrat strongholds. The point they were making was that if Hillary Clinton won the nomination, she would have a stronger showing in the closer fought states against the republicans, but would not lose any of the democrat strongholds. The other side may not be true though, Barak Obama may not make the breakthrough in these marginals, and can only rely on the already safe states.

The states that could decide who wins the democrat nomination, could ultimately lose the presidential election. It's an interesting quandary for the presidential election

I fear you're right, Nikki. Of course, McCain, could still be hung out to dry by events overseas. Whilst the surge, which he is a great proponent of, is keeping the lid on things in Iraq it could spiral out of control at any time. It is only effectively papering over the cracks and U.S dollars are as influential in the. lull in insurgent activity as any increase in troop numbers. That's a pretty good assessment Anne, and it poses a real dilemma for the Democrats. It is very doubtful that Obama can win in the large States that ultimately decide elections and Hillary is right to emphasise her victory in Ohio particularly in respect of its recent history. Also, in some of the southern States Obama is reported to have polled as little as 15% of the white male vote. The problem is, however, that no one is more likely to unite a divided Republican Party behind John McCain than a Clinton. I did listen to some interviews with die-hard Republicans who said they would vote for Hillary before they'd vote for McCain. But wether or not that holds true at election time is another matter.

It is fun watching you Euro gals talk about our election. Very observant I must say and who knows, possibly right. Problem is they are all lousy candidates, but the thing is once again we will show the world that life goes on no matter which idiot is in office. As bad as some proclaim capitalism to be, the positive side is we can survive a run of lousy presidents.

Anne you noticed that Hilliary was winning the typical non democrat states. The part you did not catch on to was that those states will still vote for the republican candidate so it does not help her at all. The question will be will she get the democrat vote in the traditional democrat states. Don't count on all of Barack's followers to vote for Clinton if she gets the nomination.

Marsha

There are actually huge numbers of republican and independent defectors, precipitated by the kneejerk reaction to the economic nightmare Dubyah and his corporate cronies have caused. NAFTA, gas prices, the war, all these things, predicated on lies upon lies, are finally creeping up to bite the conservative movement in the ass.

While gay marriage and abortion were once compelling issues that drove conservative voters, the failure of Huckabee's faith based campaign would indicate that these voters are motivated by different, more earthly issues such as border security. Unfortunately for McCain, it doesn't appear that fear based campaigning is proving to be as successful an approach for him as it has been for previous conservative candidates either.

The kneejerk reaction is definitely going to swing toward a democratic administration this time round, however, aren't they just the other side of the same coin? Aren't they just driven by different corporations and PAC groups than the republicans?

One need only ask independent candidates like Ralph Nader and Bennie Lee how the cards are stacked in such a way as to preserve and perpetuate the two party system, funded and supported by special interest, with no commitment to their real constituents, the American people.

No matter which way the pendulum swings this time, it does not bode well for the American trans community, and I, for one am seriously considering applying for political asylum in the Netherlands.

I tend to agree with you AM. However, I just switch channels or turn the TV off.

it's probably so close to call and the democrat vote so split, that in the end all they'll actually be voting for is who runs for president and who runs as the vice president.

They won't want to run the risk of alienating nearly 50% of the democrat vote in the presidential election, whoever wins democrat nomination.

I could be wrong but there does seem to be a popular movement for change in America, and it might be foolishly complacent, but McCain seems such a member of the old guard and republican crony-ism that I can't see him being the next president.

but who knows.

Anne, I'm not sure if you are aware of the fact that the conservative repubicans very much dislike McCain. Also McCain had considered switching parties in the past. McCain is a cronie, but more of a liberal cronie than a conservative one.
Marsha

Hi Marsha, thanks for that, I wasn't too aware of McCain's politics - apart from his vietnam exploits

I was taking some of my information from that ever reliable source known as Wikipedia :-

# McCain has received a lifetime American Conservative Union rating of 82 percent through 2006

# Through 2007, McCain has received a lifetime 13 percent "Liberal Quotient" from Americans for Democratic Action

# The National Right to Life Committee gives McCain a lifetime 72 percent rating from 1997 through 2007, while NARAL Pro-Choice America gives him a lifetime 1 percent rating from 1987 through 2007.

# Americans for Better Immigration has given him a lifetime grade of 'D' (near failing) for 1989 through early 2008 on their Immigration-Reduction Report Card.

# The National Rifle Association gave McCain a 'C' grade (fair) as of 2004, and the Gun Owners of America gives a lifetime 'D-' (very near failing) grade for 2000 through 2006.
# The American Civil Liberties Union has given McCain a lifetime 22 percent score through early 2008.
# The League of Conservation Voters has given him a lifetime 24 percent pro-environment action rating through 2007.

Positions on specific issues

McCain has many traditionally Republican views. He has a strong conservative voting record on pro-life and free trade issues, favors private social security accounts, and opposes an expanded government role in health care. McCain also supports school vouchers, capital punishment, mandatory sentencing, and welfare reform. He is generally regarded as a hawk in foreign policy.

Hi Girls,

Yesterday I saw an interview with Striker Maguire, the London Editor of Newsweek, and his "take" on the Clinton/Obama situation was that, in the remaining Democrat Primaries, what actually happens is, in reality, irrelevant, as the delegate count between Clinton & Obama, guarantees that Obama will finish with more delegates than Clinton, and, because of this, Clinton should "immediately" concede, and, for the "good of the Party", swing in behind Obama, and start fighting McCain, instead of each-other!

At present, McCain has a clear field to start running his Presidential campaign now, whereas, if the Democrats take it to the Convention, they'll have to start their Presidential campaign months behind the Republicans!
So, he reckons, if Clinton wants the Democrats to have a genuine chance of winning the Presidency, she should immediately concede!

Well, that's the viewof Newsweek!!

Hugs,
Angela. xx.

Anne,

In 1999 McCain said he does not want to see Rowe v Wade reversed.

The 82 by the American Conservative Union sounds high, but it is one of the lowest ratings for a republican and in the late 90's and early 2000's he scored in the 60's.

His push for amnesty for illegal immigrants with the McCain-Kennedy Immigration Bill was pushed back by american people both democrat and republican last year. Now he has flip flopped on that issue.

His wonderful McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform basically assured things will always be a two party system financed by lobbiest.

The Lieberman-McCain Climate Stewardship Act, based on non science to waste money on unproven global warming remedies

smile,
Marsha

The democratic nomination is not in the bag for either Obama or Clinton, with a current pledged delegate count of Obama - 1321, Clinton - 1186, and in the way of "superdelegates," Obama - 199, Clinton - 238. So, it is clear that it's still anybody's race. The real question at this point would be whether the democratic ticket will be Obama/Clinton or Clinton/Obama.

John McCain is an old man. There is nothing wrong with that if we're lucky enough we will all get old. The problem is he looks like an old man. When you see him on the podium from the waist up that's fine. However, I saw a long shot of him recently and he was unsteady on his legs and someone appeared to take his arm to steady him. We live in an age when image counts for a lot and I wondered how this would play if confronted with a fresh-faced, brash, athletic Barack Obama. We had an example of ageism here recently with Menzies Campbell, the then Leader of the Liberal Democrats, who was perceived to be old - he was 67. Once that perception takes hold it permeates everything. You may think this is irrelevant but over the long Presidential campaign, I believe it could become a factor. The feeling is that McCain could win. I don't think so. He splits the Republican Party and though they may unite to defeat Hillary Clinton, I'm not sure he can depend upon that unity of purpose to defeat Obama. Also he cannot guarantee to rally the evangelical caucus the way George Bush did. His obvious choice for running - mate is Mike Huckabee. But then being John McCain he may well opt for someone else. This, however, poses a dilemma for the Democrats, assuming it becomes beholden upon the super delegates to decide. For though Obama is best placed to defeat McCain there is no guarantee that he can carry the white blue-collar vote. They rejected him in Ohio and they will reject him in the South. As individuals both Clinton and Obama are vulnerable. On the same ticket they would win comfortably. But would Obama accept the Vice-Presidential nomination because I don't believe Hillary will.

I don't know if you described McCain correctly Rae. Instead of being a low calorie Bush, McCain can be thought of as being in the middle of the road. Part democrat, part republican. The problem is that it is the worst democrat part and the worst republican part.
Marsha

Hi, all--

My take is this: If Clinton somehow wins the Democratic convention, McCain will be the next president. If Obama wins the Democratic Convention, he wins the election over McCain.

Rationale (not like I need one...it's not like I'm opinionated or anything... ) Since 1988, there's been Bush, Clinton, Clinton, Bush, Bush. The US desperately wants--no, needs--change. Obama represents change. McCain stays the course. America has a love/hate relationship with the Clinton family, and I don't feel that the US is ready for a woman president. (Which is why Giuliani should have planned better. We could have had both a man and a woman...!)

Plus, I really think Obama offers hope to a nation tired of finding a terrorist behind every Bush.

Luv 'n hugs,

Mina Sakura
"Almost-Angel, Girl Genius, and Ultra-Flirt"

It seems to me that the so-called super delegates have a real problem. By making the correct choice they will be making the wrong decision. How can they with any sense of justice and fair play oppose the will of the people. If, as seems likely, Barack Obama wins the majority of delegates and also the popular vote, how can they possibly not nominate him as the Democratic Party's nominee for President. However, if they do, and I make a prediction here, they will lose the election. She may be the most divisive politician in America but Hillary would beat McCain. It is better the devil you know and for Barack Obama that devil now has a face in the deeply unattractive countenance of the Reverend Jeremiah Wright. Obama has already shown himself incapable of winning the big States and more importantly the white blue collar workers upon whose support any Democratic victory at the polls in November will depend. It is reported here that many of these workers simply would not vote for Obama were he to win the nomination. Of course he may be able to turn this around. People can always be suckers for a little soaring rhetoric. But I'm sure the footage of the ranting Reverend Wright will be repeated ad infinitum throughout the campaign. The simple fact is, regardless of what he says now, he did not renounce and disown this man right away; and it is difficult to believe that after such a long and close association with him he was not fully aware of his views. Also, it ties in neatly with certain remarks made earlier by his wife. If the white working class were unsure of him before they now have a reason for their uncertainty, if they unlikely to vote for him before they are even less likely to now. Yet can the super delegates oppose the will of the people, can they do so without appearing to be arrogant, or indeed racist. Obama will continue to accrue delegates and win in States like North Carolina but his campaign has run out of steam, the enthusiasm has waned, the novelty has worn off. It is the political equivalent of slitting your own throat. I must add though, I hope I'm wrong. The United States needs a Democratic Administration, it needs a Democratic President. It doesn't need John McCain.

In a nutshell, I would tend to agree Porscha, but my gut feeling says McCain will be the winner here. I don't know if the US is ready for it's first black or female president. Such a pity really, I would think that ultimately either would represent a change in the presidency which can only be a good thing.

Nikki

Porscha, to be perfectly Honest i couldnt care LESS about the US presidential nominations. Why is it that we get wall to wall coverage on the news & in the press here...could you imagine the british general elections getting that much coverage in the US.....i sure as hell dont.

i'll be glad when its all over!

Lol xxxxxxxx
Anna-Marie

Oh Anna, you are a Little Englander and no mistake!

First, it matters who wins in America, because they are the most powerful nation on earth.

Second, their presidential campaigns (and the nominations races) are about personal rather than party issues. Barack vs Hilary is just so much more interesting than New Labour v Old Labour.

Third, it's a genuine contest. Who will gain the Democrat nomination is an open question. As is the Presidential election itself - McCain, the white male conservative and not-quite-republican, vs the first black or the first female presidential candidate. Most elections in the UK are one-sided.

Fourth, the outcome in America (unlike here) will have a real impact on minority groups such as the transgendered. For that reason, I'm backing whoever gets the Democrat nomination to beat McCain.

As EM Forster said at the start of "Howard's End" - Only connect.

A little englander eh?....WHATEVER

To be honest catherine i really dont care WHAT you think of me. What really bugs me is the saturation news coverage on every single station( BBC, ITV, Ch4, 5,Sky..etc)...sometimes takin all of the bulletin. Why should people who have no interest in politics whatsover, have this rammed down our throats 24/7?


Anna-Marie

Politics are what rule this world. I would hope you take an intrest in your own.
To not cast a ballot is to say "I don't care if the world walks over me." It gives a person zero right to complain later.

Age is an interesting thing. Maybe its a sign of my advancing years when policemen and politicians all seem incredibly young!

In the UK, Sir Menzies Cambell just had that unfortunate knack of coming across as old, out of touch and a little slow. He probably was'nt but thats perception for you. But compare him to Vince Cable, about two years his junior, who came across as lively, energetic, witty and capable of catching the government unawares. In my view he's probably the best leader the liberals never had!

Across the water, I must admit this election is the first one that I've started to get a rudimentary grasp of what on earth is going on over there. It just seems such a fantastically drawn out and long winded process. Let alone a mammoth expense. But, I guess it is a big country.

To my [mainly ignorant] mind, our cousins have three pretty poor candidates in the running. Osama seems so young and inexperienced at the moment, Hilary, to me, is just a really unpleasant person embodying the worst of america's past love of falseness and fakery. With a little deviousness thrown in. [ok, that'll be just the average definition of 'politician' then!]. John McCain I'm not too sure about but he does sound a little like a low calorie Bush to me...

Usually the UK is a decade or so behind America in trends and actions. What impresses me most is that in this area we're ahead of the game. We had a lousy bunch of political leaders to choose from first!

Ah, its good to be ahead of the game for once...

Much love to all.

Rae xx