Give it up, Hillary...

[Stu Monty]

The Missing Debate

 

another ace article from that site.

 

Yep, those Russains aren't best pleased and they seem to be getting on like a house on fire with the bigger kid next door.

[Rashid]

Hmmmm

Obama takes super-delegate lead

 

Barack Obama now has a slim lead in super-delegates

 

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama has overtaken his rival Hillary Clinton for the first time in endorsements from super-delegates.

 

Four super-delegates - party and elected officials - pledged to support Mr Obama, including two who previously supported Mrs Clinton.

 

Mr Obama also has a strong lead in delegates won in state primary and caucus votes.

 

The Democratic super-delegates look set to decide who wins the nomination.

 

Added to the nine who came out in support of Barack Obama on Friday, he now has a slim margin of super-delegates.

 

'Likely nominee'

 

Mr Obama won a convincing victory in Tuesday's North Carolina primary; while Mrs Clinton narrowly won in Indiana.

 

Six more states hold primaries before the Democratic Party officially declares at its nominating convention in August who will take on presumptive Republican candidate John McCain.

 

The nearly 800 super-delegates automatically attend the Denver convention and can vote for whomever they choose.

 

Mrs Clinton held a massive lead in super-delegate support before the party's first primary in Iowa in January.

 

But a string of wins for Mr Obama has convinced many of them to come out in his favour.

 

On Friday, former Democratic US presidential hopeful John Edwards said that Mr Obama is now the party's "likely presidential nominee".

 

But he stopped short of actually endorsing Mr Obama.

 

 

 

 

hmmmm

 

Clinton 'heading for the exit'

 

By John Zogby

Independent pollster and political analyst

 

 

 

 

To all intents and purposes the race for the Democratic nomination is over.

 

 

Barack Obama: About to gain 30 new super-delegates?

 

Senator Obama needs slightly fewer than 200 delegates to pass the winning post and there are more than enough pledged delegates remaining to be elected, and super-delegates waiting to put him over the top.

 

What is important about Indiana and North Carolina is that Senator Clinton was not able to damage Mr Obama.

 

The Illinois senator showed himself to be resilient in the wake of three weeks or so of crisis and, much more importantly, he got back on the winning track. This is the evidence that some super-delegates have been waiting for.

 

Many of them - most of them - had clearly made up their minds that they would not support Mrs Clinton, and so this had become a case of whether or not Mr Obama could close the deal. That is what appears to have happened last night.

 

Cash shortage

 

Where do we go from here? My understanding is that probably today, but certainly within 48 hours, about 30 super-delegates will endorse Mr Obama. That should give him further momentum.

 

 

 

John Zogby: 'there is no chance' Clinton can win

Mathematically, this will widen the gap between him and Mrs Clinton. He has a bigger share of the popular vote, more pledged delegates, and will now overtake her in terms of super-delegates too.

 

I honestly believe that she will find a way to get out of the race before the next primaries - so as to not hurt her future and to not be blamed for hurting Mr Obama and his chances in the general election.

 

Here are the reasons:

 

There really is no mathematical chance for her to win

Her campaign is virtually out of money - and it will be difficult for her to raise significant amounts of money after last night

Not enough happened last night to give her any hope, so continuing would only give the appearance of wanting to damage Mr Obama

Another problem she faces is that she is not perceived as a strong general election contender, because of her high negative poll ratings.

 

I have no evidence that she will throw in the towel, or when she will. She is a Clinton and the Clintons do not have the word "lose" in their playbook - but these are the things I am hearing from supporters on both sides.

 

Disappointed women

 

You will also see pressure from party leaders and party elders on undecided super-delegates to come off the fence.

 

 

Mrs Clinton can help ensure women voters back Barack Obama

 

It is very important that some of that pressure comes from women, because Mrs Clinton has a devoted following among older women, who have a sense that this is the last chance in their lifetimes to elect a woman president, and the members of this demographic may not be keen on voting for Obama.

 

Expect leading Democratic stateswomen, such as Nancy Pelosi, Diane Feinstein, Barbara Boxer, Patty Murray and Blanche Lincoln to take on this role.

 

When they do that depends on how long they want this to go on.

 

These are the people who, together with Mrs Clinton, will send signals to older women supporters - not just delegates - that there is no chance for her, and that we have to get on with the general election campaign.

 

[philyhamann]

She is trying to fuck it up for the Democrats so she can run again in 2012.

[Mr.Smoketoomuch]

WaltonRed:

 

Which facts do I get wrong? You're naive if you go around and believe that America is the great evil in the world. I know left-wingers defending Pol Pot, claiming he was "forced" to mass murder his own people because of U.S bombing them a few years earlier. They also refuse to acknowledge any wrongs done by any left-wing regime. They are either not done by "real" communists; Stalin and Mao, to name two, or they defend suppression of your own population as a necessary evil to defend the country against the evil capitalist world outside; Cuba and the east block countries.

 

I know about 9/11 in 73. I know about the support of para-millitary groups in Guatemala and their CIA-trained dead-squads. All wrong, of course. As for attempts on Chavez, I don't know. I won't deny it, but I will not make up my opionion based on what that Chavez claims. He is a democraticly elected populist moving towards dictatorship.

 

For the record: Obviously, the 9/11ers were motivated by hate towards U.S foreign politics. But I do think it's far fetched to believe that wrong-doings in Latin-America in the 70s and 80s made them sacriface their own lives and 3000 others. They were arabs, the majority Saudis, from what I remember. Maybe some of their anger should have been directed towards their own government.

[RedKnight]

Can't trust the Americans to do it themselves. We should send people over from the capital to show them how to pick a decent candidate... oh.

[philyhamann]

If Obama wins, she can't. She is trying every trick in the book to ruin his chances for 2012. Its a disgrace really, and she isn't doing it for the best of America but for herself. Its really pissing me off, Obama is the best equipped to lead the US - regardless of any doubts, his skin colour and background, whatever you say, might just be a big influence on the world politics.

[WaltonRed]

WaltonRed:

 

Which facts do I get wrong? You're naive if you go around and believe that America is the great evil in the world. I know left-wingers defending Pol Pot, claiming he was "forced" to mass murder his own people because of U.S bombing them a few years earlier. They also refuse to acknowledge any wrongs done by any left-wing regime. They are either not done by "real" communists; Stalin and Mao, to name two, or they defend suppression of your own population as a necessary evil to defend the country against the evil capitalist world outside; Cuba and the east block countries.

 

I know about 9/11 in 73. I know about the support of para-millitary groups in Guatemala and their CIA-trained dead-squads. All wrong, of course. As for attempts on Chavez, I don't know. I won't deny it, but I will not make up my opionion based on what that Chavez claims. He is a democraticly elected populist moving towards dictatorship.

 

For the record: Obviously, the 9/11ers were motivated by hate towards U.S foreign politics. But I do think it's far fetched to believe that wrong-doings in Latin-America in the 70s and 80s made them sacriface their own lives and 3000 others. They were arabs, the majority Saudis, from what I remember. Maybe some of their anger should have been directed towards their own government.

 

 

I'm not saying that 9/11 was a result of American forieign policy towards South America I was using it as another example of their interventions as a point of showing just how bad they are.

 

I didnt even brush on their actions in the middle east because I took it as a given that people would get on to that, apologies I should of been clearer.

 

America have the power and the wealth to actually do good for the world but they have decided instead to protect its interests around the world at any cost. I wouldnt mind if they did it blatently as they are entitled to do what they wish but by doing it under a banner of 'freedom' and 'democracy' is what pisses me off.

 

Also, there is no denying that stalin and Mao were much worse but again the hypocrisy of it all is what gauls me. Its as if they are the only ones who have ever done anything wrong.

 

The West needs a long hard look at itself but rather than 9/11 being a wake up call it just ensured another couple of decades of shite showering down on poor people in poor places who have no grasp of why Uncle Sam kills their kids, husbands, wives, aunties, uncles, nans, grandads, day in day out.

 

And if they dont do it directly they give a license to kill eg. Israel.

[Moo]

If Obama wins, she can't. She is trying every trick in the book to ruin his chances for 2012. Its a disgrace really, and she isn't doing it for the best of America but for herself. Its really pissing me off, Obama is the best equipped to lead the US - regardless of any doubts, his skin colour and background, whatever you say, might just be a big influence on the world politics.

 

Why, because he is black?

 

Seriously though, every American President has a huge influence on world politics by default. So do you think he can have a positive influence and if so, why?

 

 

Further to this, why Should Hillary have already stepped aside to give Obama a free ride? It has only become particularly evident in the last couple of rounds that Obama is establishing a significant lead.

She's obviously started to consider it and may now give up sooner rather than later.

 

As for her going on to endorse him, she should absolutely not do this unless he makes his political beliefs and proposed policies, and his personal ideals, clear.

At present he's leading a race based purely on 'change' (because his election would be THE biggest change of all) and the fact his main competitor seems to have had some bad advice.

 

Can somebody please tell me anything of substance why Obama should be backed and why we, particularly those of us in other parts of the world, should be a pleased about the prospect of him becoming President?

[Section_31]

Why, because he is black?

 

Seriously though, every American President has a huge influence on world politics by default. So do you think he can have a positive influence and if so, why?

 

 

I think you underestimate just how big a factor this is.

 

Even the French refer to Anglo-American relations as having a 'deep rooted Anglo-Saxon agenda'

 

Much of the negative perception of the States around the globe comes from the feeling that it's run by a band of homogeneous rich white men who all went to Ivy league schools and all have extensive business interests which drives their foreign policy - hence the perception of the nation itself as corrupt.

 

Imagine how much of difference a 'slave president' could have in Middle East peace process for instance?

[Moo]

I think you underestimate just how big a factor this is.

 

Even the French refer to Anglo-American relations as having a 'deep rooted Anglo-Saxon agenda'

 

Much of the negative perception of the States around the globe comes from the feeling that it's run by a band of homogeneous rich white men who all went to Ivy league schools and all have extensive business interests which drives their foreign policy - hence the perception of the nation itself as corrupt.

 

Imagine how much of difference a 'slave president' could have in Middle East peace process for instance?

 

So, it is because he is black then?

 

Equally he could have a significantly negative effect in the Middle East if his policies (??) were to be perceived as pro-Isreal.

 

Irrespective of his skin colour, he can only have a positive impact in the Middle East if his aims and objectives for that region are fair to all parties.

That applies to any US President, including even a Republican!!

[WaltonRed]

I think you underestimate just how big a factor this is.

 

Even the French refer to Anglo-American relations as having a 'deep rooted Anglo-Saxon agenda'

 

Much of the negative perception of the States around the globe comes from the feeling that it's run by a band of homogeneous rich white men who all went to Ivy league schools and all have extensive business interests which drives their foreign policy - hence the perception of the nation itself as corrupt.

 

Imagine how much of difference a 'slave president' could have in Middle East peace process for instance?

 

It would have no difference if he kept propping up Israel, and kiiling people in Iraq and possibly invading Iran.

 

He might be black but he's not poor, he's just as old boys network as the next man.

[Section_31]

So, it is because he is black then?

 

 

No, but you can't discount it as a factor in the way he would interact with the rest of the world as opposed to some Texan, and the possible successes that could bring.

[WaltonRed]

No, but you can't discount it as a factor in the way he would interact with the rest of the world as opposed to some Texan, and the possible successes that could bring.

 

Its overplayed. Just because he's black does'nt mean he'll heal the world. He will put America 1st whatever the price.

[Section_31]

Its overplayed. Just because he's black does'nt mean he'll heal the world. He will put America 1st whatever the price.

 

It's not about being black, it's about not being part of a long-standing establishment.

If Barak is 'just one of the boys' why is he being treated so shit by high-placed power brokers in even his own party at the expense of a BIRD?

 

 

The cunts are thick as thieves.

 

Trilateral commision membership

George H.W. Bush: Former President of the U.S.

 

Jimmy Carter: Former President of the U.S.

 

Bill Clinton: Former President of the U.S.

 

Walter Mondale: former Vice President of the U.S. under Carter[1]

 

Dick Cheney: current Vice President of the U.S.

 

Robert Taft Jr.: former US Senator

 

Daniel J. Evans: former Governor of Washington

 

William Scranton: former Governor of Pennsylvania

 

James R. Thompson: former Governor of Illinois

 

Charles Robb: former US Senator

 

John Danforth: former US Senator

 

John McCain: US Senator, 2008 Republican Presidential Candidate, member of the Council on Foreign Relations, past attendee of the World Economic Forum, attended the 2007 Herzliya conference, Board of directors Chairman of the International Republican Institute, Center for Strategic and International Studies Advisory Board member, Pacific Council on International Policy Board member, Republican Main Street Partnership Board member, Alfalfa Club member, attended the 1996 Trilateral Commission meeting in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada

 

Alexander Haig: former Secretary of State under Reagan

 

Lawrence Eagleburger: former Secretary of State under George H. W. Bush

 

Brent Scowcroft: former National Security Advisor under Ford and George H. W. Bush

 

Paul H. O'Neill: former Secretary of the Treasury under George W. Bush

 

John B. Anderson: former US Congressman

 

Ted Sorensen: former special adviser to President Kennedy[6]

 

Lloyd Bentsen: former US Senator and Secretary of the Treasury under Clinton[7]

 

Warren Christopher: former Secretary of State under Clinton and Deputy Secretary of State under Carter[2]

 

Caspar Weinberger: Secretary of Defense under Reagan[8]

 

John Glenn: former astronaut, former US Senator and U.S. Presidential candidate[9]

 

Donna Shalala: Secretary of Health and Human Services under Clinton[10]

 

Robert Rubin: Treasury Secretary under Clinton[11]

 

Bruce Babbitt: Interior Secretary under Clinton[12]

 

Henry Cisneros: HUD Secretary under Clinton[13]

 

Hank Greenberg: Former chairman and CEO of American International Group (AIG), the world's largest insurance and financial services corporation.

Lee Raymond: Former CEO and Chairman, ExxonMobil, vice chairman of the Board of Trustees of the American Enterprise Institute, director of J.P. Morgan Chase & Co., director and member of the Executive Committee and Policy Committee of the American Petroleum Institute.

 

David Rockefeller: Founder of the Trilateral Commission; Chairman of the Chase Manhattan Bank board from 1969 to 1981; Chairman of the Council on Foreign Relations from 1970 to 1985, now honorary Chairman; a life member of the Bilderberg Group.

 

Henry Kissinger: U.S. diplomat, National Security Advisor and Secretary of State in the Nixon and Ford administrations; former Chairman of the International Advisory Committee of JP Morgan Chase.

 

Zbigniew Brzezinski: U.S. National Security Advisor to U.S. President Jimmy Carter from 1977 to 1981.

 

Paul Volcker: Chairman of the U.S. Federal Reserve from 1979 to 1987, Chairman of the Board of Trustees of the Group of Thirty.

 

Alan Greenspan: Former Chairman of the U.S. Federal Reserve

 

Paul Wolfowitz: Former President of the World Bank, former U.S. Deputy Secretary of Defense and a prominent member of the neo-conservatives in Washington.

 

Gerald M. Levin: Former CEO of Time Warner, a member of the Council on Foreign Relations.

 

Ron Southern: Chairman of the Board and majority shareholder of ATCO

 

Robert Zoellick: President of the World Bank, former U.S. Deputy Secretary of State, former U.S. Trade Representative.

 

Frank Carlucci: President of Carlyle Group, U.S. Secretary of Defense from 1987 to 1989.

 

William Cohen: former Republican Congressman and US Senator, U.S. Secretary of Defense under President Clinton.

 

 

Bildaberg attendees

Bill Clinton (1991)[4], former US President, 1993 - 2001

 

Hillary Clinton (1997), current US Senator, Democratic Presidential Candidate 2008, also attended the World Economic Forum, the Salzburg Global Seminar and the Renaissance Weekend. Member of the Democratic Leadership Council

 

Gerald R. Ford (1964, 1966), former US President

 

Dan Quayle (1990, 1991), former US Vice President

 

Walter F. Mondale (1974), former US Vice President

 

Nelson A. Rockefeller (1957, 1974), former US Vice President, former Governor of New York

 

Dean Acheson (1957, 1958, 1964, 1966), former United States Secretary of State

 

Christian Herter (1961, 1963, 1964, 1966)[5], former Secretary of State

 

Dean Rusk (1955, 1957, 1966), former United States Secretary of State

 

Cyrus Vance (1971), former United States Secretary of State

 

Henry Kissinger (1957, 1964, 1966, 1971, 1973, 1974, 1977-2003, 2004[6], 2005, 2006, 2007), Secretary of State, 1973 - 1977

 

Richard Perle (1985, 2003, 2006), assistant Secretary of Defense, 1981 - 1987

 

Donald Rumsfeld (1975, 2002), Secretary of Defense, 2001 - 2006

 

David L. Aaron (1977), former Deputy National Security Advisor

 

Colin L. Powell (1997), former United States Secretary of State

 

William J. Perry (1996), former United States Secretary of Defense

 

Lloyd Bentsen (1989, 1995, 1996, 1997), former United States Secretary of the Treasury

 

Robert S. McNamara (1968, 1975), former US Secretary of Defense, former President of the World Bank

 

McGeorge Bundy (1957, 1964, 1966), former National Security Advisor (United States)

 

Walt Whitman Rostow, former National Security Advisor (United States)

James Steinberg, former Deputy National Security Advisor

 

Brent Scowcroft (1985, 1994), former National Security Advisor (United States)

 

Sandy Berger, former National Security Advisor (United States)

 

Nicholas F. Brady (1991), former United States Secretary of the Treasury

 

Robert Zoellick (1991, 2003, 2006), former Deputy Secretary of State and current President of the World Bank

 

Paul Wolfowitz, former President of the World Bank

 

Richard Holbrooke (1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2004, 2005, 2006), former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations

[WaltonRed]

Bilderberg.

 

A nod to you for your conspiracy knowledge my man.

[Section_31]

Bilderberg.

 

A nod to you for your conspiracy knowledge my man.

 

There are conpiracies attached to it, but the organisations themselves are real.

[WaltonRed]

There are conpiracies attached to it, but the organisations themselves are real.

 

I know, most of the conspiracies are true though.

[Chris]

Why, because he is black?

 

Seriously though, every American President has a huge influence on world politics by default. So do you think he can have a positive influence and if so, why?

 

 

Further to this, why Should Hillary have already stepped aside to give Obama a free ride? It has only become particularly evident in the last couple of rounds that Obama is establishing a significant lead.

She's obviously started to consider it and may now give up sooner rather than later.

 

As for her going on to endorse him, she should absolutely not do this unless he makes his political beliefs and proposed policies, and his personal ideals, clear.

At present he's leading a race based purely on 'change' (because his election would be THE biggest change of all) and the fact his main competitor seems to have had some bad advice.

 

Can somebody please tell me anything of substance why Obama should be backed and why we, particularly those of us in other parts of the world, should be a pleased about the prospect of him becoming President?

 

He can have a positive influence on so many levels. He sends out the right message to the world that the America of the new Millenia is about to change for the better. That the domestic and foreign agenda isn't going to be driven by the good old boys on the board of Halliburton. It can be a new start. A chance to heal things.

 

He's inheriting a rotten country, but one that isn't beyond repair. It's going to take the entirity of the two terms in office to turn the corner, so people shouldn't expect too much. The change mantra shouldn't be underestimated. It's important, and what a lot of people are buying into whether they understand the full extent of his policies or not.

 

It's been pretty obvious that he can't be caught for a couple of months now. I hadn't thought of her sabotaging him so she could run in 2012. Sounds very plausible indeed.

[WaltonRed]

He can have a positive influence on so many levels. He sends out the right message to the world that the America of the new Millenia is about to change for the better. That the domestic and foreign agenda isn't going to be driven by the good old boys on the board of Halliburton. It can be a new start. A chance to heal things.

 

He's inheriting a rotten country, but one that isn't beyond repair. It's going to take the entirity of the two terms in office to turn the corner, so people shouldn't expect too much. The change mantra shouldn't be underestimated. It's important, and what a lot of people are buying into whether they understand the full extent of his policies or not.

 

It's been pretty obvious that he can't be caught for a couple of months now. I hadn't thought of her sabotaging him so she could run in 2012. Sounds very plausible indeed.

 

She'll be too damaged and too old to run in 2012.

 

Who's the female governer who people think will be ready to run by then?

[Big Ig]

Almost Black? How does that work? He's mixed race sure but if you asked him he'd say he's Black like most mixed race people do.

 

Stu, good article. I think over the next few years we will see a definite escalation from the U.S against China as they attempt to try and curtail them while they can.

 

Re: China, the west has already lost. 1.4 billion ultra-nationalist people led by a very strong government with no such distractions such as democracy or suchlike, and becoming rapidly richer and more resource-hungry by the day. China can make long term plans due to its being a dictatorship, and being so cash rich can follow them through - something the US can't do as effectively with its democratic turnover and massive national debt. The only way I can see things going differently is if they boom and bust catastrophically, the economy crashes and the people revolt. Doubt it'll happen though.

 

The chinese people are being played like a stradivarius by their government, they'd go over the top with a pair of pyjamas and a plastic knife if their government told them to, and we're not talking communism here as the driving force, it has been replaced by nationalism, similar to Russia under Putin. They got seriously pissed off with the West's treatment of the Tibet thing (interesting alternative viewpoint article here on that: Tibet: dream and reality, by Slavoj Zizek ), be interesting to see if there's any hangover from that during the olympics.

[Section_31]

"Everyone stays friends. Everyone gets paid and Everyone has a fucking future.”

[Big Ig]

I think it was Owen who put me onto The Nation website a few years back, it's superb mate.

 

This isn't a bad site for varying viewpoints either: Antiwar.com

[Spy Bee]

The problem for China and India, is that as their inflation is so high their economies will lose the advantage they have in a relatively short space of time. Once they do they are fucked due to the size of their populations.

[Moo]

He can have a positive influence on so many levels. He sends out the right message to the world that the America of the new Millenia is about to change for the better. That the domestic and foreign agenda isn't going to be driven by the good old boys on the board of Halliburton. It can be a new start. A chance to heal things.

 

He's inheriting a rotten country, but one that isn't beyond repair. It's going to take the entirity of the two terms in office to turn the corner, so people shouldn't expect too much. The change mantra shouldn't be underestimated. It's important, and what a lot of people are buying into whether they understand the full extent of his policies or not.

 

It's been pretty obvious that he can't be caught for a couple of months now. I hadn't thought of her sabotaging him so she could run in 2012. Sounds very plausible indeed.

 

 

I do appreciate you replying Chris, but as there's nothing of any substance there I'm not convinced.

His campaign lacks courage and most of all lacks conviction.

 

If he gets in and his policies are strong and fair and help heal his country and the world, then all credit will go to him.

But there's nothing whatsoever to suggest that, except for the hype.

 

I for one fear someone who is not willing to nail his colours to the mast.

Honestly, if Barack's campaign continues as it has thus far, I believe McCain will show himself as the better and stronger choice, and if it wasn't for this New Labour-esque 'change' mantra, that would be beyond doubt.

[Moo]

It's not about being black, it's about not being part of a long-standing establishment.

If Barak is 'just one of the boys' why is he being treated so shit by high-placed power brokers in even his own party at the expense of a BIRD?

 

 

Is this for real?

 

Perhaps his own party feel that bird is the better choice to go up against the Republicans and a better choice to subsequently run the country?