Hillary's last hoorah!

Hillary Clinton has less than 24 hours in which to concede victory to Barack Obama. With super delegates peeling off into the Obama camp, Jimmy Carter joining the rest of his extended family in backing the senator from Illinois, it seems for her it is over when it's over, as over is now. She did well. She was the first woman to break the mould so to speak. Bill may not be going to be First Gentleman, but he can console himself with the possibility of being the second gent on the block, if that's what the V-P's spouse will be.

Clinton has said she is "open" to becoming Obama's vice-presidential running mate. This comes as the US primary elections draw to a close, and she may well be wise to say such a thing. A bruising convention will do nobody any good. One that is more of a rally, well that will be what the Democratic party faithfull will want to see. With a ticket that has both on it, all parts of the party will be satisfied. Hillary should heed that great American saying "Well, you do the math!". As it stands, the arithmetic is not on her side.

Clinton campaign chief Terry McAuliffe said the reports of her V-P thoughts were "100%" incorrect.

"I can honestly say as chairman of this campaign that until someone has the numbers, this campaign carries on. The race goes on. We've got two important votes today and then tomorrow we've got to work the super-delegates and we believe we can persuade enough super-delegates to come over and support Senator Clinton." That is bold talk, but I think I will wake up tomorrow morning hearing that Obama is the nominee. What a year it's been for him!

It's all over for Hillary

I felt that Barack Obama had the Democratic nomination in his grasp weeks ago. I still think he will be the nominee and that Hillary Clinton has missed the boat this time. She needs to decide whether she folds her tent now, at the end of the month or in June. Fold it she will have to.

This particular race is not about her being a woman and him being from an ethnic minority background. This is all about change. Obama has sensed that, as did Ron Paul for the Republicans. Americans are fed up with having to do two or three jobs to make ends meet. They are at the end of their tethers over fickle financiers and corrupt corporations. The war in Iraq has stretched their patriotic hearts to bleeding point and they see their jobs exported in return for cheap Chinese merchandise.

Is it any wonder that they want change? It wouldn't matter what colour Barack Obama was, he'd still come through. It is his message that resonates not his skin tones. He will be in the White House not for who he is but for what he has promised to do. Make lasting change happen!

John Edwards - damned if he does, damned if he doesn't!

Senator John Edwards isn't exactly sitting on the fence. That would put him slightly above the fray. No, I put him in the corner of the stockade with a fiesty filly on one side and a charasmatic steer on the other. Whichever way Edwards goes, he's bound to get kicked!

In a People Magazine exclusive (as they say!) John and Elizabeth Edwards have been waxing in a fairly lyrical way about what they like (and dislike) about Clinton and Obama. All very good, but it's more that just curate's egg philosophy. It's really just saying they aren't telling us who they support. At least Jimmy Carter said everyone in his family was backing Obama, but he couldn't go that far (nudge, nudge; wink, wink) as he was a Super Delegate.

So what is the bottom line? They can't say. After all North Carolina is John Edwards territory and it may be the spark that sets off a second revolution, so he's staying mute. The couple said they will not endorse either remaining candidate, saving their political capital for their own causes – his, fighting poverty; hers, fighting for universal health care.

I have a hunch Elizabeth Edwards is more astute politically than her husband. Achieving the goal of universal health care will help alleviate poverty but fighting poverty, although laudable, is fairly nebulous and does not guarantee a more healthy population. My guess is that the pair of them will need to find a compromise over the symbolism of electing the first woman as president or the first first-generation African-(Kenyan)-American as president.

It really is make-your-mind-up time in the Edwards' kitchen. Anymore dithering and it will be a touch of the Harry Trumans. Heat of the kitchen, and all that!

Topsy-turvy world of American democracy!

The American system of primaries and caucuses is not necessarily based on a level playing field. Far from it. It is often open to manipulation, armtwisting, and, in places, downright fraud. Americans seem to take all this in their stride. They've grown up with pork-barrel politics and smoke-filled deal-making rooms. How much longer are they prepared to put up with it?

Sean Wilentz, writing on salon.com, poses this theory - "Why Hillary Clinton should be winning". Apparently, under a winner-take-all primary system, Hillary Clinton would have a wide lead over Barack Obama -- and enough delegates to clinch the nomination by June. The Democrats in primary states choose their nominee on the basis of a convoluted system of proportional distribution of delegates that varies from state to state and that obtains in neither congressional nor presidential elections. In a popular-vote winner-take-all system, Clinton would now have 1,743 pledged delegates to Obama's 1,257. Wilentz goes on to show how unfair this system is.

I think much of this goes back to the War of Independence or the Revolutionary War, as it is called in America. The Separatists under George Washington won. In fact they had about two-thirds of the colonialist support. The losing third, the American Loyalists (with the British Army), were summarily told to clear off to Canada or leave for Britain, which is what most did. Some stayed on, but diluted their allegiances somewhat.

The two-thirds that made up those that would help create the United States were not, however, deemed sufficiently capable of exercising democratic opinion outright. Many of the signatories to the Constitution were disdainful of open democracy. They favoured a far more controlled system of representation. We have the odd legacy from them of the President of the United States being actually elected by the Electoral College. The thought behind the deed here was that the President and Vice-President were seen as executives of a federation, so a popular vote decision would be inappropriate. It is entirely possible for the winner in the popular vote to obtain fewer Electoral College votes. This is something that crossed both Al Gore's mind as well as his opponent George W. Bush, as Gore won the popular vote.

I've had many a conversation with American friends about the methods used in American democracy. Most are resigned to the fact that things will probably never change. I would hope for their sakes that it does. That's why I find it refreshing that Ron Paul has allowed his name to go forward, and that many Americans see this as the start to real change.

Chelsea Clinton says it again!

Chelsea Clinton has again berated a questioner for asking about "that woman". Have good manners left the political arena too? It's nobody's business because it has nothing to do with this campaign.

She told her questioner at a student center at North Carolina State University yesterday, “It’s none of your business….That is something that is personal to my family. I'm sure there are things that are personal to your family that you don't think are anyone else's business either.’’ She did add this, however, "I don't think you should be voting for or against my mother because of my father.'' Good answer!

There was a time when politicians didn't want their relatives popping up. Jimmy Carter had his brother, Ronald Reagan had his son, and Bill Clinton had his mother! Hillary Clinton, though, can't be too upset by her daughter's interventions. In fact, Chelsea can't be too upset by her own remarks. If ever she runs for President, she has already put down her markers!

Chelsea Clinton ticks off questioner

Maybe Chelsea Clinton should consider running for president if her mother fails to get the nomination. Obviously not now, she's barred by the 35 years old rule, but later on.

When a questioner at Butler University, Indianapolis, asked if her mother's credibility had been injured by the infamous sexual relationship her father had with the White House intern, Monica Lewinsky, she replied like this. "Wow, you're the first person actually that's ever asked me that question in the, I don't know, maybe 70 college campuses I've now been to.'' Then she fired, "And I do not think that is any of your business."

Quite right. Maybe the questioner would like to be asked publicly about personal activities affecting his/her family life? Chelsea added, "And I also don't think that should be the last question." She fielded one more, on global warming, and wrapped it up.

Nice touch. Maybe her mother should take lessons in straight talking!

Hillary's Highs turn to Low Poll Ratings!

MSNBC have conducted a poll and they seem surprised that Hillary Clinton is dipping in the Democratic race. "As expected, one of the two major Democratic candidates saw a downturn in the latest NBC/WSJ poll, but it's not the candidate that you think," reports Chuck Todd. How come he thinks we would be surprised? It only goes to show how out of touch these pundits really are!

It's not going to be rocket science, Chuck! Obama will get the nomination and Obama will beat McCain. Obama will be President! Always assuming that no skeletons are about to come out of an unknown closet somewhere.

Why do I think this? Because Americans want change. They want it to happen, so that the sleazebags and legalised crooks are no longer in control. Obama has been given the airtime to vent this message. If only Ron Paul had been given the same opportunity, but, hey, shucks Chuck, that's life, isn't it?