Eric Allie, Caglecartoons.com

As the Bush era draws to a close, Europeans are anxious to know what about American policy will change when he’s gone - particularly if a Democratic victory occurs as planned.

According to this lead article from French business magazine Challenges, while a Democrat in the White House will mean a leftward tilt - it won’t be anything like the European left - and it certainly won’t mean the end to American Exceptionalism.

The article says in part:

“In view of the ongoing presidential campaign, the American exception seems as strong as ever. Where else but in America would a primary race go on for more than a year? Where else would candidates obtain tens of millions of dollars a month from their supporters? Where else would party foot soldiers have the chance to select the candidate for the highest post? … All three candidates take lyrical flight in discussing the American dream. Above all, none will hesitate to resort to force.”

And in describing what a Democratic regime might look like, the article cautions:

“Clearly, a Democratic victory in November would undoubtedly open the door to a more left-wing America. But it would be a kind of American left, certainly not modeled on Europe. Both candidates have rejected a “single payer” system for health insurance, like the Canadian and European models. The change ahead will not mean the end of the American exception, but the end of American triumphalism.”

LEADING ARTICLE

Translated By Kate Davis

May 8, 2008

France - Challenges - Original Article (French)

All countries are exceptional. But the United States gladly considers itself exceptionally exceptional, different from all other developed countries in its social organization and its fundamental values. The State is less extensive and the distribution of wealth more unequal. The United States is also more strongly committed to what Margaret Thatcher called the “Victorian values:” individualism, voluntarism, patriotism.

Thus the Bush government, which supports conservative values domestically and demonstrates an unlimited self confidence externally, is the most “exceptional” known in recent years. But at the end of Bush’s mandate, isn’t the United States entering a new cycle, characterized by the rejection of conservatism and a convergence with Europe’s standards?

In reality, three quarters of Americans believe the country is headed in the wrong direction and for example, vigorously support a system of universal health care. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama both have promised to address that. They also want to improve their image in the world. The next government will certainly initiate significant reforms, such as closing Guantanamo or adopting a more rigorous environmental policy in order to address some of the country’s more aberrant characteristics.

Yet in view of the ongoing presidential campaign, the American exception seems as strong as ever. Where else but in America would a primary race go on for more than a year? Where else would candidates obtain tens of millions of dollars a month from their supporters? Where else would party foot soldiers have the chance to select the candidate for the highest post? John McCain won the nomination of his party despite strong internal opposition. Barack Obama is the leader of an uprising against the Democratic old guard.

All three preach a patriotism specific to the United States. John McCain boasts of his service in Vietnam. Barack Obama claims that there is no red or blue, but only one America united by common values. The three candidates take lyrical flight in discussing the American dream. Above all, none will hesitate to resort to force. John McCain sings, “Bomb, bomb [bomb, bomb bomb] Iran.”

READ ON AT WORLDMEETS.US, along with continuing translated foreign press coverage of the U.S. elections.

As of 5:13 pm Central Time today, Sen. Obama was within 11 superdelegates of Sen. Clinton, per the RCP count. Random prediction: By this time on May 21, he’ll be that many or more superdelegates ahead of her. (Granted, that’s not the boldest prediction I’ve ever made.)

Cartoon by Bob Englehart, The Hartford Courant

Cartoonists are having a field day with the results from last night’s Indiana and North Carolina Democratic primaries. A large number of them are lampooning Hillary Clinton and the Democratic party’s divisions.

Here are three of the most timely ones (we’ll run others throughout the day tomorrow):

Pat Bagley, Salt Lake Tribune

Mike Lester, The Rome News-Tribune

RJ Matson, Roll Call

According to this infuriated op-ed from Colombia’s El Tiempo newspaper, “xenophobic” Americans are celebrating the fact that the amount of money migrants send home to their families in Latin America is beginning to drop.

Sergio Muñoz Bata writes for El Tiempo:

“As if the protagonists weren’t human beings who has separated themselves from their families to try and build a better future, the news that cash remittances from Latin American immigrants to their impoverished families back home are declining has been cause for celebration in xenophobic circles in the United States. … that doesn’t imply, as anti-immigrant groups say, good news for those seeking to restrict the flow of migration, since if the U.S. economy continues to deteriorate, the effects will be felt throughout the region. And when the economies of Latin America enter into a major crisis, the only escape valve will once again be immigration.”
Read the rest of this entry »

CNN just showed Senator Hillary Clinton at a campaign appearance, gearing up for the upcoming West Virginia primary — and the subject comes up: with the number of pledged delegates, the popular vote and fund-raising against her, why won’t she quit her battle with Senator Barack Obama for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination?

The New York Daily News has an article detailing the reasons why. And a key reason, the paper says, is her camp’s feeling that Obama has little appeal to white collar voters:

While the case for Hillary Clinton to stay in the race is shakier than ever, one ugly reason for staying in could be found Tuesday amid the ruddy, sun-kissed Hoosiers who cheered her on to victory at the Indianapolis Speedway.

With Clinton posing alongside pioneering Indy speedster Sarah Fisher, there were almost no African-Americans to be seen. Many in the white, working-class crowd were simply not ready to back Barack Obama….

Such feelings leave Clinton and the Democratic Party in a tough spot. With the largest number of remaining delegates now being party insiders, they have to decide if Obama can overcome enough of that antipathy - essentially deciding if enough working-class whites will back away from the black candidate, whether because of the false Muslim rumors, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright flap or old-fashioned racism.

The paper reports that this need “gives her a reason to stay in the race.”

So how long is it likely to go? According to the Daily News, it’s likely Clinton will fight on all the way to the convention, unless there is a truly massive outcry for her to leave:

Two separate sources in the Clinton orbit insisted Tuesday night it’s now more likely Hillary will pursue her quest until the August convention in Denver - unless party leaders rise up en masse and publicly tell her it’s time to stop. The math, after all, remains solidly in Obama’s favor.

“I can think of no reason why it would not go to the convention now,” one top Hillary Democrat predicted. “Why should she get out?”

And then there’s a section that could be a red warning flag:

Some insiders still want to make sure no new bombshells will explode around the freshman Illinois senator.

Will there be new allegations surfacing? Perhaps in original, blind sourced reporting on the Drudge Report? If those surface, look for fingers to be pointed at the Clinton campaign, even if it’s not the source.

He could slip and stumble some more, her polls could continue to be strong, and once the party decides what to do with Florida and Michigan, his lead in the popular vote will be very narrow,” an insider said.

A top Democratic source with insight into Bill’s and Hillary’s states of mind says the Clintons are convinced that a Democratic presidency is all but certain no matter how messy the fight for the nomination.

In that scenario - which the Obama side and some Democratic elders worry is wishful thinking at best, delusional at worst - there’s no downside for Hillary doing whatever it takes for as long as it takes.

The problem is the meaning of “whatever it takes.” If it’s via a continued campaign aimed at driving up Obama’s negatives so they can convince Superdelegates Obama is unelectable, it’s likely to received a lot more poorly by party bigwigs than it would have been two weeks ago.

Already former Senator and presidential candidate George McGovern today jumped ship from Clinton and endorsed Obama. And there are new reports that Clinton has had to lend her campaign $6.4 million more — bringing the total $11.4 million. If this keeps up, watch for late night comedians to do jokes with her name and Mitt Romney’s in the punchline.

If Clinton plays out her campaign based on issues and makes a graceful exit, the Democrats have a chance at unity. If her campaign remains an aggressive negative campaign, complete with eleventh hour negative campaign ads, it could backfire with some superdelegates and will make the Democrats’ attempts to unify their fractured party even more difficult — not to mention negate any possibility of a “Dream Ticket” which more and more seems like an In Your Dreams Ticket.

FOOTNOTE: Just how bad was the political news last night. GO HERE and look at the photos that show how poorly Bill Clinton serves his wife when he stands by her side after a defeat.

Cartoon by John Darkow, Columbia Daily Tribune, Missouri

For more blog discussion on this story go here.

So what happened to Senators Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton in last night’s Democratic presidential primaries?

To find out, you can read a host of news articles and weblog posts (including several perspectives here on TMV). Two MUST READS that just hit the Internet are columns by Dick Polman and Christopher Hitchens.

Polman — one of the country’s best political columnists starts out with this:

Behold these case studies of clinical denial…

Britney Spears, last December: “My sister’s not pregnant.”

John McCain, in January: “Any recession is psychological.”

Hillary Clinton, last night: “I win, he wins. I win, he wins. It’s so close!”

Polman then strips the assertion down detailing a host of factors. Here are some excerpts (read the original in full to get all the details):

1. By slaughtering Clinton in North Carolina and neary beating her in the wee hours in Indiana, Barack Obama racked up an overall net gain of 200,000 popular votes…..

2. Her squeaker win in Indiana, combined with her landslide loss in the more populous North Carolina, means that she will slip farther behind in the overall pledged-delegate competition…..

3. On the psychology/perception front, Obama’s performance last night foiled the Clinton argument that she owned the momentum and that the frontrunner was inexorably fading…..

4. Unpledged superdelegates want to see some clear evidence that voters view Clinton as the more electable and more appealing candidate, despite Obama’s frontunner status. Neither race last night supplied that kind of evidence…..

Polman says it’s “strains credulity” to think (a) Clinton will find fundraising easy, (b) the party will decide to give her Michigan’s delegates, (c) and that “superdelegates are going to deny the nomination to the candidate who, barring a documented revelation that he is an alien from a hostile planet, is now demonstrably poised to finish out the primary season with the most pledgees and popular votes.”

He concludes:

I suspect that the Clintons know all this, despite her display of public denial….And her husband clearly recognizes the lay of the land. He stood behind Hillary last night looking as if he’d been smacked with a two-by-four. The visual of Bill meant more than anything she had to say. The end of an era was in his eyes.

Hitchens provides less detail but makes some pointed observations…and again cannot get the image of Bill Clinton’s face as he stood behind his wife on a very bad political night out of his head:

Of all the slogans that Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Hussein Obama might have picked to distinguish themselves from one another, “Prolier Than Thou” was probably the least convincing.

Yet in the closing days of the Indiana and North Carolina primaries, it seemed as if the two graduates of the nation’s most privileged law schools, and the two former residents of the Ritziest parts of Illinois, were in a race to don the bluest collar and the most stained factory overalls.

Not since a desperate George Herbert Walker Bush (father of the current incumbent) started munching on pork-rinds, donning a Teamster cap and squeezing behind the wheel of a big rig in 1992 have I seen anything so condescending and ridiculous as the recent competition between Clinton and Obama to down the most beers, pose with the most guns, boast of the most hunting expeditions and so forth.

What did the voting boil down to?

However, it was not really the class vote at which people were looking. In North Carolina, Senator Obama reaped almost one hundred per cent of a constituency which the commentators quite frankly called by its primary color.

In Indiana, that constituency is not such a large share of the electorate.

Nobody especially likes to bang on about this, but this is as good an explanation as any for the discrepancy between the two candidates and the two states.

And, since West Virginia and Kentucky are next up – and reporters are almost unconsciously describing these two states as for some reason more “natural” for the former First Lady – in a short while we will be seeing the pendulum of politics swing back again.

There is less and less point in pretending that this campaign is not “about” race.

As far as I can calculate it, though, Mrs Clinton can carry all the next five states AND Puerto Rico and still not get an arithmetical majority.

Nonetheless, she continues to act as if she knows something that the rest of us do not. And I can tell you that it spooks the Obama campaign.

He ends looking at her speech in Indiana…and Bill Clinton:

And she looked tireless and energetic and full of vim and vigour in her – ill advised I felt – electric blue trouser-suit. It’s this amazing love of combat for its own sake that has won her so much grudging respect even from many Republicans.

However, just take a look at the speech and notice the lugubrious, white-haired, red-faced, scowling and bored figure standing so listlessly just behind her.

How can a campaign once renowned for slickness and spin have permitted such a horrid spectre at the feast?

And this dreary, resentful and shambolic person was once himself described as the country’s first black president. If his wife loses we shall know why.

Indeed. I’ve said it here many times: when the story of this campaign is written it will be said that Bill Clinton on balance sandbaggged his wife’s campaign.

The negativity that he reportedly championed (and did convince her to implement) helped divide the party and harden opposition to her. Raising the race card, even though he denies he did, put Hillary Clinton in a position where she started the primaries enjoying strong black voter support that Obama had problems getting, to her loss in North Carolina where she got less than 10 percent of the African-America vote. The Clinton’s frittered away a key constituency — a glaring fact of their campaign. She needed the black vote.

It’s definitely too early to write the Clinton’s political obituaries.

But if Hillary Clinton’s candidacy dies and they call CSI, CSI will likely find Bill Clinton’s fingerprints.

Cartoon by RJ Matson, The New York Observer

Why is the man above smiling? Because, apparently, he has a RIGHT to.

If all goes according to projections and Senator Hillary Clinton somewhat narrowly wins the Indiana Democratic primary (CBS has projected she will narrowly win it), he has a right to smile. Because if early indications are correct, conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh may have provided a textbook case of the influence of radio talk show hosts on partisans in the 21st century.

His “Operation Chaos” — designed to get his listeners to vote whenever they can in Democratic primaries for Clinton to prolong the Democrats’ highly divisive Clinton/Barack Obama Presidential nomination — could have given the Cinton the winning edge, if the victory margin in the end is like what seems to be shaping up now. The New Republic’s The Plank:

Some reporters have speculated about the impact of the “Limbaugh effect” — partisan Republicans crossing over to vote fr Hillary Clinton solely to help weaken the Democrats against John McCain. The sieze of the effect is hard to measure. But there is one numerical measurement, first pointed out to me by the Pew Survey’s Richard Auxier following the Pennsylvania primary, that gives some sense of it.

One exit poll question asks Indiana voters who they would support in a Clinton-McCain contest. 17% of them say McCain. Of those voters, 41% say they would vote for McCain over Clinton. In other words, these voters, 7% of the Indiana electorate, voted for Clinton in the primary but have no intention of supporting her in the fall.

Now, this isn’t a precise measure of the “Limbaugh effect” — no doubt there are some Republicans who backed Obama in the primary out of anti-Clinton sentiment, but plan to vote for McCain in November. But it is a good place to start when making a ballpark estimate. And it’s a sizeable number — 7% may wind up being as big as her margin of victory.

The Huffington Post’s Sam Stein looks at exit polls and reaches the same conclusion: Limbaugh played a role in motivating some voters whose motive was basically to sabatoge the Democratic primary…something some Democrats have tried in cross-over primaries the past but not on such an organized, sustained and serious scale. Stein’s post must be read full but here are some excerpts:

Did Rush Limbaugh actually impact the Democratic primary?

The loud-mouthed radio talk show host has been encouraging Republicans to vote for Sen. Hillary Clinton to continue the “chaos” in the Democratic race. And a sampling of some key exit poll information suggests he may, to a certain extent, be having an effect.

Thirty-six percent of primary voters said that Clinton does not share their values. And yet, among that total, one out of every five (20 percent) nevertheless voted for her in the Indiana election. Moreover, of the 10 percent of Hoosiers who said “neither candidate” shared their values, 75 percent cast their ballots for Clinton.

These are not small numbers. By comparison, of the 33 percent of voters who said Sen. Barack Obama does not share their values, only seven percent cast their ballots in his favor. Basically, more people who don’t relate to Clinton are, for one reason or another, still voting for her. These are not likely to be loyal supporters.

He goes into some detail then writes:

The numbers suggest one of three things: A) Clinton’s support in Indiana, while clearly there, is not entirely solid; B) a large swath of Indiana primary goers simply didn’t like the nominees and thought of Clinton as the lesser of two evils; or C) Limbaugh’s hatchet plan could be having political ripples.

Perhaps it’s a mix of all three.

Republican partisans will applaud what truly seems to be a Limbaugh success. And his “legend” as someone who can press a button and get followers to do his bidding (or jettison previous beliefs and get with the party line) will grow. Some Hillary Clinton supporters will say Well, what does it matter why they vote the way the do — they have the right to vote as they vote. (Which they do.)

But there is an ineffable stench of political sleaziness when Republicans — and Democrats — decide to cross party lines to sandbag the other party. Who would have ever thought 20 or 30 — or 10 — years ago that partisans of either party would vote in another party’s primary specifically to prolong the other party’s turmoil or weaken that party’s candidate? There have been charges that siphoning off another party’s votes has been used via third parties but this hasn’t been an actual calculated strategy until now. Welcome to mega partisan 2008.

Perhaps when Superdelegates look at these numbers, it might influence their perceptions on the components of the Indiana vote….particularly as Limbaugh starts hyping his impact and if the mainstream media latches on to the story.

P.S. Limbaugh’s power isn’t just because he’s a partisan. He is also a talented, first-class broadcaster who knows how to use the broadcast medium and get and hold an audience. He makes it look easy, and it isn’t — which is why so many other conservative and progressive talk show hosts have failed.

This may be the first vote in which his influence can be measured in qualitative terms.

UPDATES:
–Read Andrew Sullivan.

Adam Zyglis, The Buffalo News

While at WORLDMEETS.US, we have seen a good deal of support for John McCain in the Portuguese-speaking countries ofBrazil and Portugal, chiefly due to McCain’s promise to include Brazil in the G8 and his relatively liberal trade policies, this op-ed from Portugal’s Jornal de Negicios is decidedly concerned about what might happen under a McCain presidency.

After examining some of the specifics of McCain’s foreign policy plans, including his plans to create a “League of Democracies,” “expand NATO to include all democratic states,” exclude Russia from the G-8 and include Brazil and India, João Carlos Barradas writes for Jornal de Negocios:

“McCain’s plans are frightening in their incoherence, total lack of realism and underestimation of economic and financial constraints. … Even before Beijing or Moscow put the heat on the eventual Republican president, the apprehension of allies in Berlin, Tokyo and Riyadh would be such that either McCain will have to change course or he will condemn the United States to a proactive interventionism capable of bringing even greater misfortune.

Barradas concludes:

“It is a worrying state of the mind that animates McCain in his desire to reform the world.”

Read the rest of this entry »

Mike Lester, The Rome News-Tribune

The question of whether the Democrats are shooting themselves in the foot with the race issue is being hotly debated on both sides of the Atlantic.

Antoine Maurice writes for Switzerland’s Tribune De Geneve:

“Why is it such a struggle for Obama to get elected? The question of Blacks in the United States is the best kept secret in the American family. Forty years after President Johnson’s great campaign for civil rights, much about race relations has changed, but not the essence: the semi-condescending, semi-frightened, mostly disguised fear of African Americans by the White majority.”

In summing up what’s at stake in the Democratic primary race, Maurice writes:

“The outbreak of race in the debate lends itself to a rational argument about the fragility of the Black candidate. In the mind, these unspeakable racial divisions secretly lurk, and mark the campaign with a strong emotional impact. The debate constitutes a profound test for both Democratic candidates.”

By Antoine Maurice

Translated By Sandrine Ageorges

May 3, 2008

Tribune de Geneve - Switzerland - Original Article (French)

Why is it such a struggle for Obama to get elected? The question of Blacks in the United States is the best kept secret in the American family. Forty years after President Johnson’s great campaign for civil rights, much about race relations has changed, but not the essence: the semi-condescending, semi-frightened, mostly disguised fear of African Americans by the White majority.

The Black community has been shaped largely by a series of dramatic episodes, and it will soon commemorate the 50th anniversary of some of these events: The death of Martin Luther King, last great advocate for Black integration [40 years ago]; the assassination of two Kennedys [John and Robert - 40 years ago], the dawn of the campaign for civil rights, the birth of a Black middle class, the growth of inter-racial marriage, the advent of minority studies (Black history) in academia and minority participation in the arts.

In short, African Americans, who have built their unity based mostly on the way others view them, have experienced unprecedented economic and civic progress.

Barack Obama serves as an indicator of this spectacular progress, while at the same time he is confronting - despite himself - its incompleteness. His strategy thus far has been not to play the race card, but to present himself as the promoter of change in America, more committed to redressing income inequalities than the burden of racial inequity.

READ ON AT WORLDMEETS.US, along with continuing translated foreign press coverage of the U.S. elections.

Sandy Huffaker, Cagle Cartoons

By brian @ Shoebox blog via Duncan @ The Last Minute

Pat Bagley, Salt Lake Tribune

RJ Matson, The St. Louis Post Dispatch

RJ Matson, The St. Louis Post Dispatch

Mike Lester, The Rome News-Tribune

Now as President Bush prepares to leave office and the ‘Three Amigos’ have said their last goodbyes, Mexican columnists have begun to weigh in on the success of their final NAFTA Summit.

While NAFTA has become increasingly unpopular in the United States, the same can be said in Mexico - but for far different reasons.

There, the dissatisfaction stems from the feebleness of NAFTA’s mechanisms for enforcing its decisions on the three federal governments, and the perceived lack of respect given Mexico in relation to its two other North American Read the rest of this entry »

Daryl Cagle, MSNBC.com