US-Election 2008

[Guest]

<b>Black backers steadfast for Clinton</b><!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->“African-American superdelegates are being targeted, harassed and threatened,” said Rep. Emanuel Cleaver II (D-Mo.), a superdelegate who has supported Clinton since August. Cleaver said black superdelegates are receiving “nasty letters, phone calls, threats they’ll get an opponent, being called an Uncle Tom.

“This is the politics of the 1950s,” he complained. “A lot of members are experiencing a lot of ugly stuff. They’re not going to talk about it, but it’s happening.”
...................

“I’ve gotten threatening mail,” Watson said. “They say, ‘Your district went 61-29 Obama and you need to change.’ But I don’t intimidate. I can hold the ground. … I would lose my seat over my principles.”

....

Black superdelegates are getting heavy pressure from such groups as ColorOfChange.org, a grass-roots organization backing Obama.

“Some [Congressional Black Caucus] members are threatening to vote against their constituents, and perhaps against the will of the American people, by casting their superdelegate vote for Sen. Clinton,” the ColorOfChange.org website reads. “We can prevent this from happen by letting black leadership know we're watching.”
..............


Rep. Gregory W. Meeks (D-N.Y.), a Black Caucus member, said he is still “very strong” for Clinton even in the wake of Lewis’s turnaround. He was unmoved by discord in his Queens district, which backed Obama in the New York primary.

“Some people threw out flyers. That doesn’t faze me at all. If someone wants to run against me, that’s democracy,” he said. “Sen. Obama is a very inspirational person. People in the district are proud. I’m proud. You can’t not be proud being an African-American… But I have to do overall what’s in the best interests of my district.”

....


Cleaver questioned why white superdelegates such as Massachusetts Sens. Edward M. Kennedy and John F. Kerry weren’t being targeted to support Clinton after she carried their state.

“If white people were being harassed and threatened because they were not supporting a white candidate, we’d see headlines,” he said. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

[Guest]

Is this ad will do same as LJ did with Goldwater?

http://blog.hillaryclinton.com/

[Guest]

Today Rockafeller endrosed Obama and Rep conservative had endrosed Hillary. This is fun to watch. In Wisconsin and Virginia Conservative voted for Obama now they think McCain is bad. <!--emo&--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif' /><!--endemo-->
This will give you some idea.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->HIGH VOTER TURNOUT IN PLANO, TEXAS
I have already sent my absentee ballot in the mail for HILLARY, the 44th President of the United States!

My dad, a registered republican who will be VOTING AND CAUCUSING for HILLARY, texted me and said that at his precinct in Plano, <b>the line was 300+ deep</b>. This is a VERY conservative area. <b>My dad re-committed yesterday to voting for Hillary after Rush Limbaugh encouraged Republican voters to get out the vote for Hillary</b>.  <!--emo&--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

[dhu]

it is both fun and odd. they are having some type of category level confusion. The subtle white racist accuses the beleagured black slave descendants of their own white cardinal sin of antisemitism!! These double bind dynamics are being brought to fore for first time. I would like to think their millenia long good cop-bad cop routine against oppressed peoples is finally imploding.

[Guest]

dhu,
There is change in mood now, wind is blowing in different direction, here is another example.

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->I have, after many failed attempts, persuaded my Republican mother who has NEVER voted in ANY prior election to vote for Hillary.  My persuasion was really very simple.  Vote for Hillary to prevent Obama from being the Democratic nominee.  I then told her she could easily vote for the Republican party in November.  She said, "Alright, sounds fair to me.  So how do I vote and where?  My 85 year old Democratic grandmother took her at 9:30 this morning.  She too voted for Clinton and said she will vote Republican in November if Obama is the nominee."  Also, my sister, who is 35, has never voted in any election.  She went today at noon with my grandmother to vote for Hillary.  Go HILLARY!!!  Everyone:  Use the power of persuasion to get Hillary nominated<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Previously students were forcing parents to vote for Obama , because it was cool thing to do, now these kids are bored with brand Obama and now they are going back to Clinton. It is as simple. <!--emo&--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif' /><!--endemo-->

Now he will be punished - <!--emo&--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->I have heard some sickening news.  It was announced that our senator Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) has endorsed BO.  He states that BO has the experience to be our president.  I can't believe it!  All of the early polls has Hillary 2:1 over BO.  This is also his re-election year.  I'm glad that he has told us now, so we can let him know on May 13th that his services are no longer needed.  He has lost several votes!<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

[acharya]

USA Systematically Discriminates

Translated By Ester Luteranova

20 February 2008

http://watchingamerica.com/News/2008/03/01...-discriminates/

Slovakia - SME - Original Article (Slovakian)

Various human rights groups in Geneva noted on Wednesday that the United States is responsible for "ongoing and systematic" racial discrimination throughout all aspects of society, from Guantanamo Bay to the justice and education systems. "The government of the United States does not react to permanent and systematic racial discrimination problems" despite ratifying the UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (CEDR) in 1994, according to Ajamu Baraka, the executive director of the U.S. Human Rights Network (USHRN).

"Unfortunately, we are finding that the government has not complied with its obligations since 1994² Baraka said to reporters, specifying the effects of Hurricane Katrina on the African-American population in New Orleans, treatment of immigrant workers, police brutality and housing discrimination. "These issues escaped examination" by the government. The American Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD) will publish its evaluation of Washington's efforts later this week. USHRN and other organizations, including Human Rights Watch (HRW), prepared their own evaluations, stressing serious cases of racial discrimination.

HRW stated that different legal standards applied to non-American citizens held in Guantanamo. "American policies are holding foreigners without judicial process and their arrests are based on discriminatory practices, violating CEDR," said Alison Parker, an HRW Deputy Director of the United States Division. She also stated that American citizens were transferred from Guantanamo to a standard U.S. justice system, which grants them more rights. She also mentioned disproportionate judicial proceedings against African-Americans and other minorities, mainly life sentences of youth offenders charged with murder without the possibility of parole.

Experts noted that administrations led by both democrats and republicans have failed to apply the Convention to its full extent since 1994, but hope that the upcoming presidential elections in November will bring some progress on these issues.

[acharya]

<!--QuoteBegin-acharya+Mar 1 2008, 03:07 PM-->QUOTE(acharya @ Mar 1 2008, 03:07 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->Obamanomics
Hope and fear

Feb 28th 2008
From The Economist print edition
Democratic economic policy sounds worryingly populist

AP

FOR a man who has placed “hope” at the centre of his campaign, Barack Obama can sound pretty darned depressing. As the battle for the Democratic nomination reaches a climax in Texas and Ohio, the front-runner's speeches have begun to paint a world in which laid-off parents compete with their children for minimum-wage jobs while corporate fat-cats mis-sell dodgy mortgages and ship jobs off to Mexico. The man who claims to be a “post-partisan” centrist seems to be channelling the spirit of William Jennings Bryan, the original American populist, who thunderously demanded to know “Upon which side shall the Democratic Party fight—upon the side of ‘the idle holders of idle capital’ or upon the side of ‘the struggling masses’?”

There is no denying that for some middle-class Americans, the past few years have indeed been a struggle. What is missing from Mr Obama's speeches is any hint that this is not the whole story: that globalisation brings down prices and increases consumer choice; that unemployment is low by historical standards; that American companies are still the world's most dynamic and creative; and that Americans still, on the whole, live lives of astonishing affluence.

It is not fair, moreover, to blame Mr Obama exclusively. His rival, Hillary Clinton, is no less responsible for the Democratic Party's wholesale descent into economic miserabilism. Both candidates have threatened to pull America out of NAFTA, the free-trade deal with Mexico and Canada, unless it is rewritten. Both rail against oil companies, drug companies, credit-card companies—the usual suspects. Both want more government spending and regulation to protect individuals against predatory companies. Indeed, in some ways, Mrs Clinton is worse. She appears to be sceptical of all trade deals, including the multilateral Doha round which would produce big benefits for the world's poorest countries. Unlike Mr Obama, she has proposed a deeply unsound five-year freeze on interest payments for subprime borrowers, which would surely result in higher rates and scarcer credit for future borrowers.
Beyond the campaign

How worrying is their populism? The sanguine—and conventional—argument is that none of it matters much. Democratic candidates always veer to the left during primaries, because that is where the votes are. But come the general election, the winner will tack back towards the centre, where the crucial independent voter resides.

The winner, unless Mrs Clinton can stage a dramatic comeback in the big primaries on March 4th, is likely to be Mr Obama. If you look on his website rather than listen to his speeches, there are plenty of intelligently designed, reasonably centrist proposals to be found (see article). It is sensible, for instance, to make it easier for people to save for retirement by enrolling everyone in a scheme unless they specifically opt out. His plans for health-care reform, like Mrs Clinton's, are middle-of-the-road. And his economic advisers, even more than hers, are sound academic economists. So although it might seem odd to advise suspicious voters to ignore the rhetoric of a man whose principal appeal rests on his speeches, Mr Obama in office would surely seek to be something other than the capitalist-hating demagogue he has recently sounded like.

Yet there are reasons to worry. The longer the Democratic race grinds on, the more entrenched the candidates may become in their populism. As America moves into the election proper, there is every likelihood that it will do so against a backdrop of worsening macroeconomic figures and rising numbers of house repossessions. Both John McCain and the Democratic nominee will then be chasing swing voters who are, typically, white working men—the type already prone to pessimism about their prospects. This group is not a natural part of Mr Obama's constituency and, if he were the nominee, he might well be tempted to keep the populism turned up high. If he were elected president, backed by a Democratic Congress with enhanced majorities, Mr Obama might well feel obliged to deliver on some of his promises. At the very least, the prospects for freer trade would then be dim.

The sad thing is that one might reasonably have expected better from Mr Obama. He wants to improve America's international reputation yet campaigns against NAFTA. He trumpets “the audacity of hope” yet proposes more government intervention. He might have chosen to use his silver tongue to address America's problems in imaginative ways—for example, by making the case for reforming the distorting tax code. Instead, he wants to throw money at social problems and slap more taxes on the rich, and he is using his oratorical powers to prey on people's fears.

Mr Obama advertises himself as something fresh, hopeful and new. But on economic matters at least he, like Mrs Clinton, has begun to look a rather ordinary old-style Democrat.
[right][snapback]79171[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

[acharya]

<!--QuoteBegin-acharya+Mar 1 2008, 03:06 PM-->QUOTE(acharya @ Mar 1 2008, 03:06 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->US society helping to make people sicker

By Christopher Bowe in New York

Published: February 29 2008 02:39 | Last updated: February 29 2008 02:39

Americans should be living four years longer at current rates of healthcare spending, signalling that US society is helping to make people sicker, a report on health inequality said on Thursday.

The report by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (RWJF), an influential US philanthropy, presented new evidence of widening disparities in health between income levels in the United States.

The nation’s poorest adults were nearly five times more likely to be in “poor or fair” health as the richest - 31 per cent versus 6.6 per cent - and at every income level the wealthier group was healthier than the next lower one.

This trend of declining health according to income was seen in all race groups. Although socioeconomic factors are “harshest” on the poorest, the report said, “economic inequality has increased in the United States and the middle-class has lost ground.”

Dr Risa Lavizzo-Mourey chief executive of RWJF said: “A far greater determinant is the sometimes toxic relationship between how we live our lives and the economic, social and physical environments that surround us. Some of the factors affecting our health we certainly can influence on our own; many of the factors, however, are outside our individual control.”

The report and a new commission formed by the RWJF to look at remedies highlight potentially wider discussion and scrutiny on health disparities due to socioeconomic status and income inequality.

Researchers, including social epidemiologists, have long sought wider attention to socioeconomic forces to improve national health and reduce healthcare spending.

Dr Stephen Bezruchka, of the University of Washington school of public health, told the Financial Tines in an interview this month: “That is the key thing. Inequality basically shapes the whole structure of society. The thing is - in America - people seem to like it. But that’s what’s killing us.”

US healthcare reform proposals have so far centred around better access to basic healthcare for all Americans, in particular 47m people without health insurance.

Americans’ health and life expectancy is relatively poorer than other rich countries, even though the US spends more than $2,000bn a year on healthcare and nearly double per capita than the amount spent in the UK.

Dr Mark McClellan, former chief of both Medicare, the US health programme for elderly and poor, and the Food and Drug Administration said: “In fact, wealthy Americans have worse health than middle income Britons, as measured by several major chronic conditions. But there are promising strategies out there that show we can take practical steps to close the gap.”

Dr McClellan will lead a commission comprised of leading private and public sector voices, including Wal-Mart, to explore how to mitigate US society’s worsening health despite significantly higher healthcare spending than other countries.

It plans to take two years to formulate potential remedies to health disparities through in urban planning, economic development, improved schools and access to higher education, housing subsidies and health prevention efforts.

Linda Dillman, head of Wal-Mart risk management and benefits, said US society presents some obstacles to good health, and fixing them is good for the nation and makes better customers. “There are underlying causes that need to be addressed in this country. For instance, compared with Europe, we’re a ’drive-thru’ country,” she said.

Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2008
[right][snapback]79170[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

[acharya]

<!--QuoteBegin-acharya+Mar 1 2008, 03:04 PM-->QUOTE(acharya @ Mar 1 2008, 03:04 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->Trans-Atlantic Relations | 24.02.2008
Europeans Hopeful US Democrats Will Rescue Trans-Atlantic Ties
Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama
Großansicht des Bildes mit der Bildunterschrift:  Europe has high hopes for the Democratic presidential hopefuls

Europeans think the next US president will be better. They hope a Democrat in the White House will reinvigorate trans-Atlantic ties. But the candidates aren't necessarily much more in tune with Europe.

Europeans' interest in the US primaries and caucuses is immense: leading German newsmagazine Der Spiegel even devoted its title story to Democrat Barack Obama last week, and the Internet is alive with young Europeans commenting on the campaigns in innumerable blogs and forums.

US soldiers talk to journalists in BaghdadBildunterschrift: Großansicht des Bildes mit der Bildunterschrift:  Many have been unimpressed by the Americans' actions in Iraq

Many Europeans connect the election of a new US president with the hope for a new beginning in trans-Atlantic relations, which suffered setbacks due to numerous controversies, from George W. Bush's uncompromising approach to climate change to his foray into the Iraqi desert. To many Europeans, everything will get better once there's a new president. And if he or she is a Democrat, they believe, it's guaranteed.

Regardless of how passionately Europeans follow the duel between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, Europe plays a negligible role in the top Democratic contenders' campaigns. Aside from a few sentences in speeches and essays, the two have hardly said a word about Europe.

And according to some, European hopes will likely be dashed.

"A fundamental new evaluation of the trans-Atlantic relationship will not take place," said Esther Brimmer, research director at the Center for Transatlantic Relations (CTR) at Johns Hopkins University in Washington, DC.

But the tone will change.

"Obama and Clinton will make themselves out to be more cooperative, more international. And for every American president, Europe remains the most important partner," Brimmer said.

US won't allow Europe to dictate

On points of contention between the US and Europe, such as climate change or human rights, the Europeans could expect significantly more cooperation than in the past, she added.

President Bush in Biloxi, Mississippi, surveying damage caused by Hurricane Katrina in 2005Bildunterschrift: Großansicht des Bildes mit der Bildunterschrift:  A new president may take a different approach to climate change

But whether under a President Obama or a President Clinton, the US would demand the leadership role in fighting climate change. It would also refuse to let the Europeans dictate what should be done, Brimmer said. And it's inconceivable that a new president would ratify the statutes of the International Criminal Court (ICC), an issue that looms large for Europeans.

"With so much military personnel all over the world, the US doesn't want to be subjected to politically motivated accusations from other states at the ICC," Brimmer said.

But a new president wouldn't try to actively thwart the ICC, as the Bush administration did at the start.

And when it comes to Iraq and Iran's nuclear ambitions, a President Obama or Clinton would discuss the issues more closely with the Europeans, Brimmer reckoned.

Obama attracted attention last year by suggesting he would try to engage in direct talks with Iran. Clinton called the suggestion naive.

Grown apart

Brimmer said the biggest difference between the two Democrats in regard to Europe was that Obama wanted to set the course for where the US would be in 30 or 40 years, particularly in terms of climate change and international dialogue. Clinton, on the other hand, was focused on improving America's standing in the world in the near term.

The World Trade Center on fireBildunterschrift: Großansicht des Bildes mit der Bildunterschrift:  Sept. 11 doesn't loom as large for Europeans as it does for Americans

This different approach "naturally influences the role Europe plays for the US in the mid-term," Brimmer said.

Though Bush's foreign policy may have caused a storm over the Atlantic, actually there had been a fundamental, structural change in the trans-Atlantic relationship, said Karen Donfried, vice president of the German Marshall Funds of the United States.

"The attacks on Sept. 11, 2001, hit the US at a time when the Europeans -- after the end of the Cold War -- felt safer than ever," she said. The US and Europe had not only developed different interests, but were also no longer united by a common enemy.

Polls reinforce that view: While Americans identify terrorism as the number one threat, Europeans say climate change is the biggest problem.

Finding a common cause

The rise of new 'super powers,' such as China and India could, however, bring Americans and Europeans closer together again, according to Donfried.

"The EU and the US must work together to integrate countries that come from outside this tradition into the global political system they have so clearly molded," she said.

In that sense, Obama and Clinton would certainly view Europeans as effective partners. But the "Europeans would have to finally get their house in order," Donfried said.

"In haggling over a new European constitution and the Lisbon reform treaty, the Europeans were so occupied with themselves that they were neither united enough nor did they have the necessary view of the outside world to be this effective partner," she said.
[right][snapback]79168[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

[acharya]

<!--QuoteBegin-acharya+Mar 1 2008, 02:57 PM-->QUOTE(acharya @ Mar 1 2008, 02:57 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->The secret to Obama's success

A yearning for a new day in US politics is behind Obama's success, but other factors will determine if he wins the Democratic nomination, says Mike Rosenberg for ISN Security Watch.

Barack Obama by Joe Crimmings. (Joe CrimmingsFlickr)
    Image: Joe Crimmings, Flickr

Commentary by Mike Rosenberg for ISN Security Watch (27/02/08)

Europeans are scratching their heads over how US Senator Barack Obama - until recently a politician relatively unknown outside the US - has become not only the front-runner in the Democratic presidential primaries, but also a serious contender to become what is arguably the most powerful political leader in the world.

To understand this peculiar American phenomena - in which the media appear only too ready to compare the Illinois senator to that of US president John F Kennedy without further explanation - one needs to understand not only how most Americans perceive recent presidents, but also how Obama's campaign is the by-product of a deep cynicism that has become ingrained in the past 50 years.

Kennedy is something of a mythical figure that held the Russians at bay and took on the Mafia. Beating out then-vice president Richard Nixon in the 1960 presidential election, he offered a vision of the US that was progressive, while promising to make the world a better place. While Kennedy's administration made a number of mistakes - and his personal life was questionable - he is nevertheless remembered as the US' last great president.

Following Kennedy's assassination in 1963, then-vice president Lyndon B Johnson, a Democrat from Texas, took office. Johnson's presidency was heavily marked by the Vietnam War, for which he is largely blamed.

After Johnson, America fell in love with the late president's brother, US senator Robert Kennedy. After the latter's assassination just before the 1968 Democratic Convention, the party turned to a rather gray but qualified man, Hubert Humphrey, who went on to lose the presidential race to Nixon.

Nixon is remembered of course for bombing Cambodia, losing the war in Vietnam, and authorizing the 1972 Watergate break-in, as well as a number of other "dirty tricks" against domestic opponents.

The disgraced commander-in-chief was followed by a line of US presidents who left dubious legacies: Gerald Ford, remembered for pardoning his old boss, Nixon; Jimmy Carter, who although some believe did a lot of things right, will go down in history for his handling of the Iranian hostage crisis; Ronald Reagan, viewed by many as the country's greatest president and harbinger of tremendous optimism, while others remember him for huge deficits, simplistic views of issues and siestas; and George Bush, who most would say did a credible job, but had the bad luck to run for re-election during an economic slowdown and losing to Bill Clinton.

But while the country did well by most measures during the Clinton years, and he demonstrated a certain mastery of detail and an interest in very complex policy discussions combined with optimism, the lasting legacy of Clinton's presidency is his relationship with a White House intern.

After Clinton, the divided nature of the US electorate was brought to a head and George W Bush won a very narrow and, to some, controversial victory over Al Gore. Since then Americans have seen 9/11, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and lately a crumbling economy.
Yes we can

Into this picture come two very different politicians competing for the Democratic nomination. Obama and his opponent, US Senator Hillary Clinton, actually have the same or similar views on most policy questions. If not for their both having chosen this moment to make their presidential bid, they would probably be allies. Besides the obvious aspects of the first woman and first black American to get this far in their quests for the Oval Office, each offers a compelling vision of how to meet the challenges facing the country.

Clinton projects competence and carefully researched policy positions on a myriad of questions and to some degree tells voters that she can repeat the success of her husband's tenure. Obama, on the other hand, offers hope. He, like Kennedy, Reagan and Bill Clinton, makes people believe that the US can do better on all fronts and terms the presidential race a choice between the "past and the future."

The real success of the Obama campaign has been its ability to penetrate the US' accumulated cynicism and give the country a glimmer of hope that it can actually move beyond its current divisions and come together. He echoes one of Kennedy's most famous ideas, saying that "we are the change we've been waiting for" and telling Americans that they have a role in "healing the nation and repairing the planet."
The role of new media

There is a further lesson in Kennedy's win over Nixon in 1960. The most common explanation of why a relatively young and inexperienced senator from Massachusetts could beat a popular vice president was that Kennedy was the first politician at the national level who understood how to portray himself on television.

What is clear about the Obama campaign is that it is using the internet in a way that has never been used before to raise money and awareness, as well as to organize voters at the local level to register and vote in the caucuses and primaries.

The success of his campaign is due, to a large extent, to a "viral" movement begun many months ago that used the internet as a key ingredient for spreading its message of hope and change and "infecting" potential supporters.

Both the message and the medium appeal particularly to people under 35, who are supporting Obama in record numbers. Currently, around 100,000 people send the campaign donations every month. For many, this is the first time they have contributed money to a political campaign.

My European friends have a hard time seeing the simplicity of the message for what it really is and accepting that millions of Americans are ready to suspend their disbelief and support what the Obama campaign calls a "movement for change."
The role of the super-delegate

Will Obama's campaign go all the way? Will the momentum continue to build until the national convention in August? The race is far from over and the Clinton campaign is betting heavily on winning in Ohio and Texas on 4 March.

But the story – as perhaps it can only be in the US – doesn't end there. Perhaps the most interesting question is assuming that Obama goes into the convention with a lead in delegates, will the roughly 800 "super-delegates" split evenly across the two candidates or would they, as a group, come out for Clinton?

This is not a question in vain.

Unlike the Republicans, Democrats, prompted by the battle between Walter Mondale and Gary Hart in 1984, instituted a system whereby super-delegates can have the final say of who will be the party's presidential candidate.

Super-delegates are political insiders, senators, representatives and governors who are not bound by any previous primary vote to cast their selection for the presidential candidate. In essence, they are free to cast their vote as they wish, however, in practice their vote may be susceptible to political pressures. In the end it is these super-delegates that may very well hold the keys to the White House.

Obama has said that he feels it would be "unwise" for the party officials to go against the will of the people – in reference to delegates awarded in the various primaries. However, to see if the Democrats are willing to listen to the voice of the people we may have to wait until the convention in Denver.


Mike Rosenberg is a professor of strategic management at IESE Business School, Barcelona, Spain.

The views and opinions expressed herein are those of the author only, not the International Relations and Security Network (ISN).
[right][snapback]79162[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->