Most of the coverage in the UK of American elections in the last couple of days has focused on Hillary Clinton’s latest primary victory and then John Edwards’s endorsement of Barack Obama.

However, also of significance is the special election (by-election) win chalked up by the Democrats in a formerly solidly Republican Mississipi congressional seat. George W Bush carried the district with more than 60% of the vote in 2004, but in this week’s election Democrat Travis Childers won through. This makes it three special election victories for the Democrats in a month - all in strongly Republican areas - and suggests that far from struggling to hold on to their dramatic gains from the 2006 elections, they are poised to make even more gains this autumn.

There’s a fascinating article in the New York Magazine, Ten ‘What Ifs’ About Hillary Clinton’s Campaign – you can read it here. Here’s No. 9 on the list:

9. What if Clinton had gone magnanimous on Obama and the Reverend Wright?
The GOP strategist Alex Castellanos offers an intriguing theory about how Hillary might have reacted differently, and more effectively, to the issue that threatened to swallow Obama. “After the Reverend Wright controversy, Obama was suffering the worst press month of his campaign,” he says. “Hillary had a choice. She could have gotten bigger, more presidential, less political; she could have risen to defend Obama, saying, ‘This is outrageous and has no place in politics.’ Instead, she chose to become smaller, more political, less presidential. She diminished the value of the attacks on him by making them hers. Her instincts betrayed her. What if she had chosen to soar above a weakened Obama? That was her moment. And I believe she missed her last great opportunity to win this race.”

Political campaigns are hot-houses, none more so than internal party contests. The successful campaigns and campaigners are those which retain perspective, and can see things as they are seen from the outside.

The great achievement of Senator Obama’s campaign has been never to lose sight of his key message of change and hope. The ‘Reverend Wright affair’ was a moment for Senator Clinton to show some grace, and to repair relations with the African-American community, which have become so damaged by the off-piste comments of her campaign.

But she couldn’t step outside the hot-house, couldn’t see the bigger picture: she saw a sliver of weakness in her opponent, launched herself at his jugular, and lost her best, last chance to rescue her campaign.

The results of the Democratic primaries in Indiana and North Carolina look certain to end Senator Hillary Clinton’s 2008 bid for the White House: Senator Barack Obama is now the presumptive nominee of his party.

Though Clinton won ‘blue-collar’ Indiana, the wafer-thin 51%-49% margin severely undermines her claim that only she can appeal to the voters who will likely decide this November’s general election match-up with the Republican’s Senator John McCain. That Obama cruised to victory in North Carolina by a larger-than-expected 14% will serve to pile further pressure on Clinton to withdraw her candidacy imminently and gracefully to allow the Democratic party to unite against McCain. It is now impossible for her to overhaul Obama’s lead, either in the popular vote or pledged delegates, as even her campaign team accepts. Over the next couple of days, more and more superdelegates are expected to declare for Obama.

Until now, Clinton has been able to justify staying in the contest on the grounds that all the American people deserve to have a say through the primary-process about who should be the Democratic nominee. Now they’ve made their choice, and opted for her opponent, she’ll need to turn that on its head, and argue that the superdelegates must overturn the popular verdict. It was a tough sell before the Indiana result was known: it’ll be next-to impossible now.

The question, then, is not if but when – and how. Will Clinton fight through the final remaining primaries in June? Would she be prepared to drag the process on into the Democratic party’s August convention? No-one can order her to stop (though a joint request from Jimmy Carter and Al Gore on behalf of the party has been mooted and would surely hammer in the final nail). The question she must be asking herself today is: where do I go from here? Because the answer to that will determine her next move.

Does she see her career now in the Senate? Does she want to pitch for the Vice-President ticket with Obama? Or does she want to run again, either in 2012 (if Obama loses) or even 2016 (if he wins)? In any of those eventualities, she’s going to need the goodwill, and money, of Democratic activists, voters and donors. It’s hard to see how they will gain a more favourable view of her if she prolongs the party’s primary process unnecessarily. The end-game is here.

After a turbulent couple of weeks for Senator Barack Obama’s campaign, things are starting to look up – he has been tested and emerged relatively unscathed from the inflammatory comments of his turbulent Pastor, Jeremiah Wright.

At least as importantly, the US media is beginning to focus on how unlikely it is that Senator Hillary Clinton might ultimately triumph, with the ruling out of Florida and Michigan ballot re-runs, and the acceptance that Democratic superdelegates must not over-rule the popular choice.

Here’s David Brooks in today’s New York Times:

Hillary Clinton’s presidential prospects continue to dim. The door is closing. Night is coming. The end, however, is not near. Last week, an important Clinton adviser told Jim VandeHei and Mike Allen (also of Politico) that Clinton had no more than a 10 percent chance of getting the nomination. Now, she’s probably down to a 5 percent chance. Five percent.

Let’s take a look at what she’s going to put her party through for the sake of that 5 percent chance: The Democratic Party is probably going to have to endure another three months of daily sniping. … For the sake of that 5 percent, this will be the sourest spring. About a fifth of Clinton and Obama supporters now say they wouldn’t vote for the other candidate in the general election. Meanwhile, on the other side, voters get an unobstructed view of the Republican nominee. John McCain’s approval ratings have soared 11 points. He is now viewed positively by 67 percent of Americans. A month ago, McCain was losing to Obama among independents by double digits in a general election matchup. Now McCain has a lead among this group.

For three more months, Clinton is likely to hurt Obama even more against McCain, without hurting him against herself. And all this is happening so she can preserve that 5 percent chance.

Nor is Mr Brooks a lone voice. The Economist also has a must-read article today, pointing out the real significance of Bill Richardson’s recent endorsement of Sen. Obama:

Last week Bill Richardson, a Hispanic and himself a former presidential candidate, endorsed Mr Obama. This will not have a big impact: Hispanics are unlikely to break en masse with him. But his tilt for Mr Obama may help to open doors for superdelegates. Mr Richardson was close to Mr Clinton, serving as ambassador to the United Nations and as energy secretary. Yet he has abandoned the Clintons for what he says is the unifying message of Mr Obama. If other superdelegates come to believe that Mr Obama is a unifier and Mrs Clinton is a dividing force, the young senator from Illinois may prove stronger than ever.

With Sen. Clinton (and her husband, of course) stumping in Kentucky, which votes in two months’ time (20th May), it’s clear the Clintons are in it for the long haul.

But all they can hope for is that the Obama campaign implodes, perhaps with a sharp prod from the obsessive Clintons. In which case, Sen. Clinton will have to pick up the pieces of a divided party, at least half of whom will blame her for bringing bright hope’s audacious candidate crashing to the ground for the sake of her personal ambition.

The more likely alternative is that Sen. Obama finds himself limping to the finishing line of the Democratic race in June, attacked by his foes and supposed friends alike, damaged in the eyes of the non-aligned independent voters who will be absolutely crucial to whoever hopes to win in the November general election.

Either way, it’s hard to see how this can have good ending for the Democrats.

Democratic presidential contender Barack Obama’s speech confronting the issues of race at stake in the USA has dominated the nation’s news coverage in the last day. USA Today gives a flavour:

On USATODAY.com, an article about Obama’s speech attracted 7,502 comments by 2:30 a.m. ET today, the most for a single story. The previous high for comments on a single story (5,517) was an article about Obama defeating Hillary Rodham Clinton in the Feb. 19 Wisconsin and Hawaii nominating contests, according to USA TODAY research. By late Tuesday, Obama’s speech was the most-viewed video on MSNBC.com, the second-most viewed story on websites for ABC, CBS and CNN.

You can watch the speech in full here:

Two things continue to impress me about Obama’s campaign:

1. His speeches are impressive, thoughtful, crafted – and clearly authored (primarily at least) by the candidate himself. Of how many politicians can that be said? This is a politician who cares about words, and the impact they can have.

2. His ability to shape the political agenda. Perhaps it was inevitable that race would become a big issue at some point during the contest – but Obama hasn’t just mouthed the easy platitudes that the country must learn from its past and now move on. Instead, he has put up, front and centre the fact that race remains an issue.

So says an American psychiatrist in his latest book The Liberal Mind: The Psychological Causes of Political Madness, sadly only available in the United States.

“Based on strikingly irrational beliefs and emotions, modern liberals relentlessly undermine the most important principles on which our freedoms were founded,” says Dr. Lyle Rossiter.

For a full, unbiased review, see the scary World Net Daily.

Rossiter says the kind of liberalism being displayed by the two major candidates for the Democratic Party presidential nomination can only be understood as a psychological disorder.

Sometimes I’m really glad British politics hasn’t quite caught up with the US just yet. (Hat-tip: Joe.My.God)

Jeremy Hardy, on this week’s News Quiz called the American elections 2008 for John McCain, but as a commentor on a thread last week asked…

What if we all voted?

If you fill in your choice of vote, and give your age and sex, the site takes you through to the results so far. Fewer than 600 people have had their say so far, with one candidate overwhelmingly in the lead.

It was YouTube’s top video for the weekend, and has been the talk of the political blogosphere today: a musical remix of Barack Obama’s “Yes We Can” speech from New Hampshire, featuring will.i.am of the Black Eyed Peas, Scarlett Johansson, rapper Common, Kareem Abdul Jabar, John Legend, Herbie Hancock, and a host of other celebrity supporters.

Obama-inclined as I am, I’m afraid it does nothing for me. Perhaps it’s the overtones of Bob the Builder’s theme-song; or perhaps it’s that I want to listen to Obama’s rhetoric not will.i.am’s rhyme. You’re far better off watching the speech on which it riffs. Anyway, you can judge for yourself by watching it here:

Far better for my money, and perhaps his, was this 30-second spot that Obama’s campaign showed during last night’s US Superbowl (the most expensive advertising slot in the word).

How long before such ads are allowed in the UK? And what effect will they have on political discourse when they are shown? Will they cause folk to switch on, or to turn off?

Mitt Romney won yesterday’s low profile Maine caucus. (No Democrat contest.)

In those states where at least one poll has taken place post-Iowa, McCain is ahead in thirteen, Romney in just two. On the Democrat side, it is thirteen-three in Clinton’s favour over Obama. For both Romney and Obama one of the states they are leading in is their home state. (Data from pollster.com).

A (near) knock-out result is more likely on the Republican than Democrat side when more than half of the US goes to the polls on Tuesday, as the Republicans have “winner-takes-all” primary election rules. On the Democrat side generally more proportional rules means just losing in a state can still win you delegates and so the gap in delegate numbers between the candidate who triumphs on Tuesday and the one who doesn’t is likely to be much smaller on the Democrat side.

And then there were four… As we approach Super Tuesday on 5th February, when over 20 states vote in their primaries, it’s clear there are two two-horse races for the Democrat and Republican presidential nominations. So when better than now to ask: who would you prefer to see occupy the White House in a year’s time?

Here are your four choices:

Sen. Hillary Clinton (Dem)
Sen. John McCain (GOP)
Sen. Barack Obama (Dem)
Gov. Mitt Romney (GOP)

Eyes right to cast your ballot. If you want a helping hand, there are a couple of quizzes you can take to match you up with the Presidential candidate who most closely matches your views on a range of issues. In both cases, it turned out I should support Mike Gravel, the 77 year-old former Democratic senator for Alaska: an interesting guy. He is, technically at least, now the only other Democratic candidate in the race – but as he polled 0.14% in the New Hampshire primary, a late surge seems a tad unlikely.

Incidentally, about a month ago, LDV hit upon the cunning, if perhaps over-ambitious, idea of putting six questions to each of the seven main Presidential candidates – the four above, plus Democrat John Edwards, and Republicans Rudy Guiliani and Mike Huckabee - to see if they’d respond at all, and, if they did, what their answers would be.

Our questions were as follows:

- Do you believe it’s now time to set a framework for the withdrawal of US and British forces from Iraq?
- Do you think there is any more a ’special relationship’ between the US and United Kingdom?
- What do you think is the greatest threat to future well-being and prosperity in the UK and US?
- What role do you see for the United Nations during your presidency?
- How big a threat do you believe global warming to be?
- How would you respond if a US citizen were indicted for war crimes in the International Criminal Court?

Interestingly, only Clinton’s and Obama’s sites were set up to allow/encourage media inquiries from abroad. Edwards’ and McCain’s contact forms didn’t allow for enquiries from anyone outside the USA (so I lied, and said I was from Moody, Alabama). Guiliani and Huckabee both provided catch-all email addresses, while Romney’s contact-me form permitted only 100 words - which meant half the last question was missed off.

And what was the net result of all this net questioning?

Well, I’ve been subscribed to Obama’s and Edwards’ email distribution lists. The only candidate who responded at all personally was Mitt Romney – by copying ‘n’ pasting his key campaign themes. So I’m afraid there’s no EXCLUSIVE interviews with the Presidential hopefuls to be had here folks. Maybe in 2012…

John McCain: another win confirms his comback and gives him a chance as we head towards Super Tuesday, where 22 states coast-to-coast are up for grabs. His campaign still looks to be struggling to have the financial and organisational strength to fight on that much large stage, but he’s had an excellent run in with a series of victories giving his campaign a major boost.

Mitt Romney: his campaign will be disappointed to lose to McCain by a small margin - again - but will be hoping that a few early loses will be swept away into the curiosity corner of history by major wins on Super Tuesday when his well-funded campaign (and very, very deep personal pockets) will be able to afford TV commercials on a scale the others and unlikely to be able to match.

Rudy Guiliani: disaster. His strategy was based on sitting out the early contests and then sweeping in to win the big states like Florida. His national poll ratings have plunged, he is losing support in key Super Tuesday states and he didn’t even come close to winning in Florida. He is now expected to pull out and endorse McCain according to the US media.

Mike Huckabee: has again failed to get close to matching his early upset. The fall in his support late in the Florida campaign as Romney surged suggest he has lost out in the battle to be the ‘true Republican’ candidate against McCain.

Barack Obama: having hammered Hilary Clinton in the South Carolina Democrat primary on Saturday, he got the momentum again, further boosted by a subsequent clutch of Kennedy family endorsements. Losing now in Florida to Clinton means it’s back to as you were: he’s still credible, but not romping it. The big challenge is to overcome the Clinton machine when the contest goes in effect national for Super Tuesday.

Hilary Clinton: losing Florida after not just losing, but being overwhelmed, in South Carolina would have been a huge blow. But now her win means it’s 1-1 in the immediate run up to the big event of Super Tuesday. A nagging doubt for her campaign: did Bill’s campaigning in South Carolina let Hilary effectively concentrate on other states, and so is having him out on the campaign trail in the highest possible profile manner something to be repeated in the next few days, or was the South Carolina thumping a warning that, actually, Bill isn’t going down that well? The scene of crowds of (Obama supporting) Democrats booing when Bill Clinton appeared on TV after the South Carolina results may well give pause for thought. But Super Tuesday should play to the Clinton strengths, requiring as it does huge organisational strength across the whole country.

John Edwards: even his latest fundraising email implicitly admits he’s not really expecting to win any states. But he is continuing to pick up delegate numbers (though not in Flordia where Democrat rules means no delegrates were at stake as the state had brought the primary forward in breach of the party’s rules). And who knows? Maybe that dream of political enthusiasts - a contest in which no candidate gets a majority of delegates - will happen, making the Democrat convention a real decision making event with Edwards holding the key to who gets the nomination. In which case one question will be: does Edwards want a shot at Vice President again or is Attorney General his preference?

In this not-altogether-serious clip from Letterman, Barack Obama gives his top ten campaign priorities.

And the top promise? Not just the a black person at the very top of America’s political system, but in news sure to depress John Edwards, he’d put Oprah Winfrey on the second rung down.

Read more »

Since I (somewhat arbitrarily) declared for John Edwards a few days ago, I’ve been following his press release feed.

What fascinates us Brits about the US elections is that they’re sort of the same as here, but at the same time, completely different. Read more »

If you’re going to manipulate a photograph for political use, have a better excuse ready than this.

Hat tip: Hywel Morgan

Romney wins in Republican contest, giving him two wins so far (Michigan, and the low-profile Wyoming contest) to second-placed McCain’s one (New Hampshire) and third-placed Huckabee’s one (Iowa), who finished third. Net result? Republican contest is still wide open. Next up - South Carolina primary and Nevada caucus on Saturday. South Carolina is being seen as much the more important of the two and is where McCain’s 2000 presidential bid got derailed. This time it is probably Huckabee who faces the bigger risk because, after his initial dramatic win in Iowa, he hasn’t got close to winning again.

On the Democrat side, Clinton got 55% of the vote, with Edwards and Obama not on the ballot paper and their supporters voting for “uncommitted” instead. However, the result may be seen as a blow to her because exit polls show she did very poorly amongst young voters and also black voters. On the other hand, it means she did well amongst older voters. As older voters are more likely to vote, that’s a surer base of support than Obama’s, which relies on him being able to motivate young people to vote in unprecedented numbers. He managed that in Iowa - but it’ll be a tough act to pull off repeatedly. So again - race still wide open. Next up - Nevada caucus (only) on Saturday.

Tuesday brings Michigan’s primaries, which will be a bit odd as most of the top Democrat candidates aren’t on the ballot paper. Why? Read more »

The answer may well be: by bucking the male political pundit stereotype of how a Presidential candidate should act.

Peering through the New Hampshire entrails is likely to go on for some time, and throw up more evidence as time goes on (particularly when the pollsters who were predicting a large Obama win starting trying to figure out where they went wrong), but the early signs are that a strong Clinton showing amongst women who made up their minds in the last few days of the campaign was key to her victory.

What could have caused her to do well amongst this group of people?

There were two events in the last few days that might have had a big political impact: Obama’s win in Iowa (but which, if anything, would have made people more likely to vote for him) and Clinton’s display of emotion. At one point when speaking she appeared to be close to breaking into tears, before regaining her composure and getting back on track - all within a matter of a few seconds.

This triggered an orgy of punditry speculation, largely from male pundits, about whether she really had the strength to be President (as well as a few brickbats aimed at those same pundits from those who pointed out that Republican Mitt Romney has three times started crying in public during his Presidential campaign, all three of which went largely unremarked and didn’t trigger any similar questioning of his own suitability).

But it now looks as if the pundits didn’t just give this issue undue attention because it was a woman/Clinton, they actually got the politics of it all wrong. Because amongst female voters, Clinton’s popularity seems (on the evidence so far, caveat, caveat) to have prospered after the incident, helping deliver her victory.