unimaginative2
Senior Member
Obama's and Clinton's policies aren't even remotely similar to McGovern's. Both of them would be considered to the right of Nixon. Remember, Nixon seriously considered a Guaranteed Annual Income.
|
|
|
U.S. Elections 2008
- Thread starter Admiral Beez
- Start date
Obama's and Clinton's policies aren't even remotely similar to McGovern's. Both of them would be considered to the right of Nixon. Remember, Nixon seriously considered a Guaranteed Annual Income.
JasonParis
Moderator
Obama's America looks a lot like Canada
Diane Francis, Financial Post
Published: Saturday, February 23, 2008
U.S. Democratic presidential candidate Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) greets a crowd of supporters at his Virginia, Maryland and Washington primary election night rally in Madison, Wis., Feb. 12, 2008.John Gress/ReutersU.S. Democratic presidential candidate Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) greets a crowd of supporters at his Virginia, Maryland and Washington primary election night rally in Madison, Wis., Feb. 12, 2008.
This U.S. election represents a major inflection point for that country as well as for Canada and the world.
Obama will crush Hillary and then McCain in the fall, a new comprehensive poll shows.
Why? Because America is not working like it used to and has deteriorated in the past generation into more have-nots than haves. This is not news, but now the have-nots, and other disenchanted voters, are turning out in record numbers to vote.
This week's poll shows Obama with a 14-point edge over Clinton, 52% to 38%, after being in a statistical tie last month. In a head-to-head matchup, Obama beats McCain 47% to 40%.
Obama is uniting those left behind by the Republicans and other social Darwinists who have exclusively looked after -- to quote President George Bush -- the "haves" and "have mores." Enormous tax cuts go to rich people, while the rest are given a stern lecture by the Republicans about the benefits of hard work and the American dream, which, by the way, is mostly unobtainable if you were born a member of a minority or if you cannot stay healthy or are uneducated.
Republicans have created budget deficits with their tax cuts for plutocrats, CEOs, Wall Street hedge fund pirates, lawyer ambulance chasers, overpaid doctors and insurance companies. (Their combined profits last year were nearly what provinces spend on providing health care to 32 million Canadians).
Tax cuts to rich people are regressive and don't help people who don't make much money or pay little, if any, taxes. They are an instrument of class division.
The point is, if Bush policies worked for the majority, McCain would be ahead. Instead, there is a large, and growing, "third-world country" inside the United States that consists of unhealthy, damaged and disenfranchised people victimized by lousy education in poor neighbourhoods, little or no medical care or war injuries that are not compensated for properly. African-Americans have been damaged for centuries and there is no help for America's "downstairs" -- the millions of illegals, exploited as nannies, delivery "boys" or orange and avocado pickers -- who cater to America's wealthy "upstairs" elite.
Is it any wonder that African-Americans and Mexican-hispanics vote solidly Democrat and will opt for Obama in dizzying numbers? They represent two out of every 10 voters. Many of these have never bothered to vote, but Obama is getting virtually all of the 15% voting in primaries who are "first-time" voters.
Obama also connects with prosperous voters concerned about what I call the "Brazilling" of America -- the reduction of the middle class and the increase in poverty.
Here are Obama's initiatives, which are common policy in Canada and other developed nations:
-Americans will have the same health-care benefits as its politicians;
-Poor American children should enjoy the same quality of public education as well-off children; and
-The United States will pull out of Iraq and work on multi-lateral efforts to restore peace around the world. President Obama will expect Canada, Europe and others to pony up much more to help create global police forces.
dfrancis@nationalpost.com
Diane Francis, Financial Post
Published: Saturday, February 23, 2008
U.S. Democratic presidential candidate Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) greets a crowd of supporters at his Virginia, Maryland and Washington primary election night rally in Madison, Wis., Feb. 12, 2008.John Gress/ReutersU.S. Democratic presidential candidate Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) greets a crowd of supporters at his Virginia, Maryland and Washington primary election night rally in Madison, Wis., Feb. 12, 2008.
This U.S. election represents a major inflection point for that country as well as for Canada and the world.
Obama will crush Hillary and then McCain in the fall, a new comprehensive poll shows.
Why? Because America is not working like it used to and has deteriorated in the past generation into more have-nots than haves. This is not news, but now the have-nots, and other disenchanted voters, are turning out in record numbers to vote.
This week's poll shows Obama with a 14-point edge over Clinton, 52% to 38%, after being in a statistical tie last month. In a head-to-head matchup, Obama beats McCain 47% to 40%.
Obama is uniting those left behind by the Republicans and other social Darwinists who have exclusively looked after -- to quote President George Bush -- the "haves" and "have mores." Enormous tax cuts go to rich people, while the rest are given a stern lecture by the Republicans about the benefits of hard work and the American dream, which, by the way, is mostly unobtainable if you were born a member of a minority or if you cannot stay healthy or are uneducated.
Republicans have created budget deficits with their tax cuts for plutocrats, CEOs, Wall Street hedge fund pirates, lawyer ambulance chasers, overpaid doctors and insurance companies. (Their combined profits last year were nearly what provinces spend on providing health care to 32 million Canadians).
Tax cuts to rich people are regressive and don't help people who don't make much money or pay little, if any, taxes. They are an instrument of class division.
The point is, if Bush policies worked for the majority, McCain would be ahead. Instead, there is a large, and growing, "third-world country" inside the United States that consists of unhealthy, damaged and disenfranchised people victimized by lousy education in poor neighbourhoods, little or no medical care or war injuries that are not compensated for properly. African-Americans have been damaged for centuries and there is no help for America's "downstairs" -- the millions of illegals, exploited as nannies, delivery "boys" or orange and avocado pickers -- who cater to America's wealthy "upstairs" elite.
Is it any wonder that African-Americans and Mexican-hispanics vote solidly Democrat and will opt for Obama in dizzying numbers? They represent two out of every 10 voters. Many of these have never bothered to vote, but Obama is getting virtually all of the 15% voting in primaries who are "first-time" voters.
Obama also connects with prosperous voters concerned about what I call the "Brazilling" of America -- the reduction of the middle class and the increase in poverty.
Here are Obama's initiatives, which are common policy in Canada and other developed nations:
-Americans will have the same health-care benefits as its politicians;
-Poor American children should enjoy the same quality of public education as well-off children; and
-The United States will pull out of Iraq and work on multi-lateral efforts to restore peace around the world. President Obama will expect Canada, Europe and others to pony up much more to help create global police forces.
dfrancis@nationalpost.com
allabootmatt
Senior Member
While you're right about Republican intransigence being an obstacle to progress in the Senate, the 60+ seats thing is just a convenient fallacy. To my knowledge the Senate GOP has yet to actually filibuster anything. They have only threatened to, to which the Democrats have responded with "well, if you say you're going to filibuster, then I guess we need 60 votes to pass anything." This is unbelievable cowardice. If the GOP want to obstruct the legislative process, then they should have the gumption to stay up all night on the floor reading Harry Potter into the record, or whatever. That they have been allowed to get away with such unbelievable obstruction based only on threats is a very poor reflection on the Democratic leadership in the Senate, and reason numero uno that Harry Reid needs to be turfed in favour of someone tougher. Like Hillary Clinton, for example, who I hear will have a much clearer schedule soon.
Just one ex-Washingtonian's opinion...
Brandon716
Senior Member
Not only that, but Nixon (a self-described conservative Republican) froze national wages and prices and rent then went onto be re-elected in 1972. That kind of government intervention in the economy today would have the right wing and wall street machine crying Soviet Communism.
The scale of politics in the US have changed so much.
Could you imagine Stephen Harper standing up and saying that rent would not go up and that your wages would be frozen in 2008?
bjl
New Member
Less ugly?
DENTROBATE54
Banned
Okay, it's statements like this that not only make me 100% convinced of your true identity but that you've truly learned nothing from your last experience here.
You apparently have the cultural sensitivity of a damp sponge indiscriminately sapping up water. The Middle East IS the way the it is because of American intervention- manipulating the UN like its puppet to invade and slaughter innocent civilians, in excess of 600,000 since March 2003, with total disregard or apathy by both Western media outlets and a large sect of conservative bigots who giggle at calling these people sand-n---ers. The fact that you consider societies atypical of your own as "ugly" again plays into the dichotomy of 'Us' vs 'Them' whereby no matter what a minority does the majority can't seem to relent its persecution of them.
The corporate interests of American/European/East Asian imperialism is what keeping the developing world the way it is. Just how long has the developing world been developing now? There's no justification for 'ugly' comments when it's the West depriving Iraqi/Afghan civilians access to better quality of life via conglomerizing the natural resources of countries they invade and painting an unwavering black and white composite of Islamophobia and terror threat when shades of grey point to a vast majority of non-extremist Muslims.
Roy G Biv
Senior Member
That in no way justifies Hillary's Rovian campaign. She's risking ruining her own party for her own personal glory. It's disgusting.
I'm left of the Democrats, but would support McCain over Hillary.
DENTROBATE54
Banned
Thank you, I've been waiting for someone to bring this up. Her campaign has been vicious and hurtful. I haven't seen anyone from Obama's camp take one jab at her for being a women yet every couple of days these suspicious and convenient rumours/lies/misinformations come up about Mr. Obama's ad hominen. I've heard of dirty politics before but from within your own political party
. I wonder what would've happened if Ignatieff had put up this much counter-intuitive opposition against Dion? She's seriously coming across as barbaric and deceitful and given we've had more than our fair share of that mindset from GW Bush I'd sooner elect Ralph Nader and screw the mainstream parties altogether!
Keep it up, Bill's congenality only goes so far if the only aura his candidate's giving off is coldness, messiah complex and god-given bravado afforded by a prior stint in the White House.
St. Even
Active Member
Hey, here's an idea, before anymore public name-calling begins, how about we get back to the US election?
Obama Denies Assuring Canada on NAFTA
New York Times
Published: March 3, 2008
Filed at 7:27 p.m. ET
SAN ANTONIO (AP) -- Barack Obama said Monday that his campaign never gave Canada back-channel assurances that his harsh words about the North American Free Trade Agreement were for political show -- despite the disclosure of a Canadian memo indicating otherwise.
According to the memo obtained by The Associated Press, Obama's senior economic adviser told Canadian officials in Chicago that the debate over free trade in the Democratic presidential primary campaign was ''political positioning'' and that Obama was not really protectionist.
The adviser, Austan Goolsbee, said his comments to those officials were misinterpreted by the author, Joseph DeMora, who works for the Canadian consulate in Chicago and attended the meeting.
In Carrollton, Texas, Obama told reporters: ''Nobody reached out to the Canadians to try to assure them of anything.''
Asked why he had appeared to deny a report last week that such a meeting had taken place, Obama said: ''That was the information I had at the time.''
In Ottawa, Prime Minister Stephen Harper disputed the contention of his political opposition that Canadian officials leaked word of the meeting to complicate Obama's chances or to favor Republican Sen. John McCain, who strongly supports NAFTA.
Harper told Parliament he was amused by the suggestion ''we are so all powerful that we could interfere in the American election and pick their president for them. This government doesn't claim that kind of power. I certainly deny any allegation that this government has attempted to interfere in the American election.''
Harper said he has watched the U.S. campaign closely and believes all leading candidates from both parties -- Obama, McCain and Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton -- ''would continue the strong friendship and partnership that Canada and the United States enjoys.''
The original report by CTV in Canada suggested an Obama emissary had reached out to officials at the Canadian Embassy in Washington. Embassy officials artfully denied any such contact had been made with them.
As it turned out, the meeting took place in Chicago instead, with Canadian Consul General Georges Rioux and DeMora taking notes.
Obama said that one of his advisers had been invited by someone at the consulate to visit and discuss trade.
''The Canadian Embassy confirmed that he said everything I said on the campaign trail,'' Obama asserted.
''We think the terms of NAFTA have to be altered'' to strengthen environmental and labor protections, he said.
The memo says: ''Noting anxiety among many U.S. domestic audiences about the U.S. economic outlook, Goolsbee candidly acknowledged the protectionist sentiment that has emerged, particularly in the Midwest, during the primary campaign.''
It went on: ''He cautioned that this messaging should not be taken out of context and should be viewed as more about political positioning than a clear articulation of policy plans.''
Goolsbee disputed the characterization.
''This thing about 'it's more about political positioning than a clear articulation of policy plans,' that's this guy's language,'' Goolsbee said of DeMora. ''He's not quoting me.
''I certainly did not use that phrase in any way,'' he said.
NAFTA is widely opposed in economically depressed Ohio, which holds its presidential primary Tuesday and is a battleground between Obama and Clinton.
Clinton said Monday that Obama's campaign gave the Canadians ''the old wink-wink.''
''I think that's the kind of difference between talk and action that I've been talking about,'' Clinton told reporters while campaigning in Ohio. ''It raises questions about Senator Obama coming to Ohio and giving speeches against NAFTA.''
Both candidates said in a debate in Cleveland last week that they would use the threat of pulling out of NAFTA to persuade Canada and Mexico to negotiate more protections for workers and the environment in the agreement.
The memo obtained by the AP was widely distributed within the Canadian government. It is more than 1,300 words and covers many topics that DeMora said were discussed in the Feb. 8 ''introductory meeting.''
Goolsbee ''was frank in saying that the primary campaign has been necessarily domestically focused, particularly in the Midwest, and that much of the rhetoric that may be perceived to be protectionist is more reflective of political maneuvering than policy,'' the memo's introduction said.
''On NAFTA, Goolsbee suggested that Obama is less about fundamentally changing the agreement and more in favour of strengthening/clarifying language on labour mobility and environment and trying to establish these as more `core' principles of the agreement.''
Goolsbee said that sentence is true and consistent with Obama's position. But he said other portions of the memo were inaccurate.
In a statement, the Canadian Embassy expressed regret on how the discussions have been interpreted.
The statement said ''there was no intention to convey, in any way, that Senator Obama and his campaign team were taking a different position in public from views expressed in private, including about NAFTA.''
Goolsbee said the visit lasted about 40 minutes, and perhaps two to three minutes were spent discussing NAFTA. He said the Canadians asked about Obama's position, and he replied about his interest in improving labor and environmental standards, and they raised some concerns that Obama sounds like a protectionist.
Goolsbee said he responded that Obama is not a protectionist, but that the Illinois senator tries to strike a balance between the economic struggles of working Americans and recognizing that free trade is good for the economy.
''That's a pretty ham-handed description of what I answered,'' Goolsbee said of the memo's description of ''political positioning.'' ''A: In no possible way was that a reference to NAFTA. And B: In no possible way was I inferring that he was going to introduce any policies that you should ignore and he had no intention of enacting. Those are both completely crazy.''
Obama Denies Assuring Canada on NAFTA
New York Times
Published: March 3, 2008
Filed at 7:27 p.m. ET
SAN ANTONIO (AP) -- Barack Obama said Monday that his campaign never gave Canada back-channel assurances that his harsh words about the North American Free Trade Agreement were for political show -- despite the disclosure of a Canadian memo indicating otherwise.
According to the memo obtained by The Associated Press, Obama's senior economic adviser told Canadian officials in Chicago that the debate over free trade in the Democratic presidential primary campaign was ''political positioning'' and that Obama was not really protectionist.
The adviser, Austan Goolsbee, said his comments to those officials were misinterpreted by the author, Joseph DeMora, who works for the Canadian consulate in Chicago and attended the meeting.
In Carrollton, Texas, Obama told reporters: ''Nobody reached out to the Canadians to try to assure them of anything.''
Asked why he had appeared to deny a report last week that such a meeting had taken place, Obama said: ''That was the information I had at the time.''
In Ottawa, Prime Minister Stephen Harper disputed the contention of his political opposition that Canadian officials leaked word of the meeting to complicate Obama's chances or to favor Republican Sen. John McCain, who strongly supports NAFTA.
Harper told Parliament he was amused by the suggestion ''we are so all powerful that we could interfere in the American election and pick their president for them. This government doesn't claim that kind of power. I certainly deny any allegation that this government has attempted to interfere in the American election.''
Harper said he has watched the U.S. campaign closely and believes all leading candidates from both parties -- Obama, McCain and Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton -- ''would continue the strong friendship and partnership that Canada and the United States enjoys.''
The original report by CTV in Canada suggested an Obama emissary had reached out to officials at the Canadian Embassy in Washington. Embassy officials artfully denied any such contact had been made with them.
As it turned out, the meeting took place in Chicago instead, with Canadian Consul General Georges Rioux and DeMora taking notes.
Obama said that one of his advisers had been invited by someone at the consulate to visit and discuss trade.
''The Canadian Embassy confirmed that he said everything I said on the campaign trail,'' Obama asserted.
''We think the terms of NAFTA have to be altered'' to strengthen environmental and labor protections, he said.
The memo says: ''Noting anxiety among many U.S. domestic audiences about the U.S. economic outlook, Goolsbee candidly acknowledged the protectionist sentiment that has emerged, particularly in the Midwest, during the primary campaign.''
It went on: ''He cautioned that this messaging should not be taken out of context and should be viewed as more about political positioning than a clear articulation of policy plans.''
Goolsbee disputed the characterization.
''This thing about 'it's more about political positioning than a clear articulation of policy plans,' that's this guy's language,'' Goolsbee said of DeMora. ''He's not quoting me.
''I certainly did not use that phrase in any way,'' he said.
NAFTA is widely opposed in economically depressed Ohio, which holds its presidential primary Tuesday and is a battleground between Obama and Clinton.
Clinton said Monday that Obama's campaign gave the Canadians ''the old wink-wink.''
''I think that's the kind of difference between talk and action that I've been talking about,'' Clinton told reporters while campaigning in Ohio. ''It raises questions about Senator Obama coming to Ohio and giving speeches against NAFTA.''
Both candidates said in a debate in Cleveland last week that they would use the threat of pulling out of NAFTA to persuade Canada and Mexico to negotiate more protections for workers and the environment in the agreement.
The memo obtained by the AP was widely distributed within the Canadian government. It is more than 1,300 words and covers many topics that DeMora said were discussed in the Feb. 8 ''introductory meeting.''
Goolsbee ''was frank in saying that the primary campaign has been necessarily domestically focused, particularly in the Midwest, and that much of the rhetoric that may be perceived to be protectionist is more reflective of political maneuvering than policy,'' the memo's introduction said.
''On NAFTA, Goolsbee suggested that Obama is less about fundamentally changing the agreement and more in favour of strengthening/clarifying language on labour mobility and environment and trying to establish these as more `core' principles of the agreement.''
Goolsbee said that sentence is true and consistent with Obama's position. But he said other portions of the memo were inaccurate.
In a statement, the Canadian Embassy expressed regret on how the discussions have been interpreted.
The statement said ''there was no intention to convey, in any way, that Senator Obama and his campaign team were taking a different position in public from views expressed in private, including about NAFTA.''
Goolsbee said the visit lasted about 40 minutes, and perhaps two to three minutes were spent discussing NAFTA. He said the Canadians asked about Obama's position, and he replied about his interest in improving labor and environmental standards, and they raised some concerns that Obama sounds like a protectionist.
Goolsbee said he responded that Obama is not a protectionist, but that the Illinois senator tries to strike a balance between the economic struggles of working Americans and recognizing that free trade is good for the economy.
''That's a pretty ham-handed description of what I answered,'' Goolsbee said of the memo's description of ''political positioning.'' ''A: In no possible way was that a reference to NAFTA. And B: In no possible way was I inferring that he was going to introduce any policies that you should ignore and he had no intention of enacting. Those are both completely crazy.''
billonlogan
Active Member
Rookies.
St. Even
Active Member
^^
ya, on both sides of the border.
ya, on both sides of the border.
H
Hydrogen
Guest
There can certainly be little doubt that short-sighted policies originating in the United States have contributed to the troubled affairs of the Middle East, but they are most certainly not the sole cause for the continued conflict in that region.
To blame one country for the present state of affairs is more than a little simplistic. The Middle East - as it is - is an imposed reconstruction of post colonial Europe and post-Ottoman Empire. There can be little doubt that oil has played a considerable role in the political dynamics of the region since the 1930's, but do remember that it was the Americans who undermined British and French rule by offering considerable proceeds from oil exploration and production to desert kingdoms that were otherwise destitute. This action eventually helped to bring the overthrow of the kings and governments that were propped up by the British and French, leaders who were then replaced by local home-grown dictators who modeled themselves on Stalin or Hitler. The British and most certainly the French were not interested in seeing local leaders become rich and powerful from oil production. Local leaders thought otherwise when seeing the success of the Arabian families.
The Americans had no real issue with enriching and empowering (and stabilizing) the extended families of pre-existing Kingdoms - not until the 1970's and the evolution of OPEC. During the Cold War, some leaders of the region aligned themselves with the Soviet Union, others like Israel and Iran aligned themselves with the United States. While at times being in conflict with each other, the wealthy Kings and Stalinesque leaders of the region were united in their hatred for Israel, angered by how it was created and threatened by its existence, and subsequently wanted it destroyed. Even though the Saudis helped finance wars on Israel both directly and indirectly, and helped create OPEC, they never receded from the American sphere of influence. A long history of American support has gone a very long way in maintaining the power of the Saudi royal family. A strong America was - and still is - something essential to their interests.
The politics of the region have been complicated by many factors - history, colonialism, regionalism, tribalism, economics, development, ideology and religious differences - to name just a few (Shiite and Sunni conflicts have created far more bloodshed than the Arab-Israeli conflicts). Many ongoing conflicts in the Middle-East have originated there, and are not the product of one country.
As for Iraq, as badly as things have gone, there is no verifiable evidence to proclaim that the Americans have "slaughtered" 600,000 civilians since 2003. To be sure, grossly over-estimating deaths actually insults the memory of the actual dead as accurate assessments will eventually turn such assertions on their head and reduce the significance of those who suffered unnecessary deaths. Amplifying deaths - even for a cause - does nothing useful other than to magnify further hatred and confusion. These two qualities are always durable for those in pursuit of conflict and will always stand in the way of the pursuit of peace.
Prometheus The Supremo
►Member №41+⅜◄
Member Bio
- Joined
- Apr 23, 2007
- Messages
- 4,107
- Reaction score
- 5
- Location
- a strange reality, bizarro toronto
the huckster is out of the race. guess god wasn't on his side.
Brandon716
Senior Member
Hillary's campaign hasn't been using Rovian tactics. She hasn't made race an issue in this campaign, although Bill Clinton made a mistake when after the South Carolina primary he said that "so did Jesse Jackson" when referring to a win in SC. That comment was taken out of context and was something even Bill Clinton knew he shouldn't have said after he said it. It was a moment of him being upset.
Do you really think Bill Clinton, who created the Clinton Foundation after leaving office to help primarily African Americans with HIV and other diseases in 3rd world lands, is a racist?
Come on. The claim of Rovian politics is a little over the top, Hillary has run a tough campaign, but its not been racist or Rovian.
DENTROBATE54
Banned
And the saga continues ! Seriously when will it end already so we can start the Democrats vs. Republicans part of the campaign...
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/afp/us_vote
Clinton resurrects campaign as McCain claims Republican mantle
COLUMBUS, Ohio (AFP) - Democrat Hillary Clinton racked up stunning primary victories over Barack Obama in Ohio and Texas, resurrecting her flagging White House hopes and setting the stage for an epic nominating end-game.
Clinton's comeback prolonged the longest and costliest nominating race in US history and ensured countless weeks or months of bruising battles for the right to face John McCain, who clinched the Republican mantle Tuesday.
"I think what's important is this campaign has turned a corner. It is about who is strongest against the Republican nominee John McCain. ... What happened yesterday is that voters said, look, we want somebody who can go toe-to-toe with John McCain on national security," Clinton told CNN television early Wednesday.
President George W. Bush was scheduled to welcome McCain for lunch at the White House Wednesday and was expected to endorse his one-time rival, addressing the media alongside the man he hopes will succeed him in January 2009.
The feisty senator and former first lady, her campaign threatened with oblivion, took Ohio, Texas and Rhode Island, ending Obama's 12-contest win streak after he started the evening with a victory in Vermont.
Basking in the unaccustomed role of underdog, Clinton, 60, crowed that the results heralded a "new chapter in this historic campaign" and told a rally in Ohio that "we're going all the way" to the White House.
But Obama, 46, a freshman senator from Illinois, stressed she still faced tough odds to overhaul his lead of about 100 in the race for the 2,025 delegates needed to win the Democratic nomination.
"The bottom line though is we come out of the evening essentially the same lead in delegates as we had going in," Obama told Fox television Wednesday. "We are in a strong position to get the nomination," he stressed.
Obama, seeking to become the first black US president, and Clinton, vying to be the country's first woman chief executive, turned their sights on their next big showdown in Pennsylvania on April 22.
But some analysts predicted that given the Democrats' system of attributing delegates by proportional vote, the fight could go all the way to the Democratic convention in August with the outcome decided by non-elected superdelegates" -- party luminaries who can vote as they like.
With nearly all precincts reporting in Ohio, Clinton had a 54-44 percent edge over Obama. She led 51-47 percent in Texas, which followed its primary vote with caucuses in a two-step delegate selection process.
Clinton came up big after launching an all-out attack on Obama's ability to protect the United States, including a controversial ad aired three days ago featuring children sleeping as a crisis broke over the White House.
Obama accused Clinton of fear-mongering but some analysts suggested the tactic worked. Texas exit polls showed more than 60 percent of people who made up their minds in the last three days opted for Clinton.
"I think what's noteworthy is a lot of pundits thought we were coming tonight to a funeral for Hillary Clinton," said Paul Begala, a former aide to president Bill Clinton. "Instead we saw a resurrection."
Clinton signaled she would press the attack in the weeks ahead in what could be an increasingly nasty campaign.
"We have two wars abroad, we have a recession looming here at home," she told the Ohio rally.
"Voters faced a critical question. Who is tested and ready to be commander in chief on day one? And who knows how to turn our economy around, because we sure do need it."
McCain, 71, also capped an amazing comeback after his campaign had looked dead and buried in mid-2007, crippled by overspending and infighting that led to an exodus of top aides.
But now, McCain can enjoy laying out his lines of attack for the November election while watching the Democrats fight tooth and nail.
The Arizona senator promised to combat Islamic extremism, keep the US economy open to world trade and lower taxes if elected to succeed Bush, whose blessing he was to receive at the White House on Wednesday.
"And I am very pleased to note that tonight, my friends, we have won enough delegates to claim with confidence, humility and a sense of great responsibility that I will be the Republican nominee for president of the United States," he told cheering supporters in a Dallas hotel.
His victories Tuesday took McCain, a Vietnam war hero distrusted by many conservatives for his maverick stance on issues such as immigration, over the Republican finish line of 1,191 delegates.
His last remaining challenger, former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee, bowed out and pledged fealty to the Republicans' new standard-bearer.
! Seriously when will it end already so we can start the Democrats vs. Republicans part of the campaign...http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/afp/us_vote
Clinton resurrects campaign as McCain claims Republican mantle
COLUMBUS, Ohio (AFP) - Democrat Hillary Clinton racked up stunning primary victories over Barack Obama in Ohio and Texas, resurrecting her flagging White House hopes and setting the stage for an epic nominating end-game.
Clinton's comeback prolonged the longest and costliest nominating race in US history and ensured countless weeks or months of bruising battles for the right to face John McCain, who clinched the Republican mantle Tuesday.
"I think what's important is this campaign has turned a corner. It is about who is strongest against the Republican nominee John McCain. ... What happened yesterday is that voters said, look, we want somebody who can go toe-to-toe with John McCain on national security," Clinton told CNN television early Wednesday.
President George W. Bush was scheduled to welcome McCain for lunch at the White House Wednesday and was expected to endorse his one-time rival, addressing the media alongside the man he hopes will succeed him in January 2009.
The feisty senator and former first lady, her campaign threatened with oblivion, took Ohio, Texas and Rhode Island, ending Obama's 12-contest win streak after he started the evening with a victory in Vermont.
Basking in the unaccustomed role of underdog, Clinton, 60, crowed that the results heralded a "new chapter in this historic campaign" and told a rally in Ohio that "we're going all the way" to the White House.
But Obama, 46, a freshman senator from Illinois, stressed she still faced tough odds to overhaul his lead of about 100 in the race for the 2,025 delegates needed to win the Democratic nomination.
"The bottom line though is we come out of the evening essentially the same lead in delegates as we had going in," Obama told Fox television Wednesday. "We are in a strong position to get the nomination," he stressed.
Obama, seeking to become the first black US president, and Clinton, vying to be the country's first woman chief executive, turned their sights on their next big showdown in Pennsylvania on April 22.
But some analysts predicted that given the Democrats' system of attributing delegates by proportional vote, the fight could go all the way to the Democratic convention in August with the outcome decided by non-elected superdelegates" -- party luminaries who can vote as they like.
With nearly all precincts reporting in Ohio, Clinton had a 54-44 percent edge over Obama. She led 51-47 percent in Texas, which followed its primary vote with caucuses in a two-step delegate selection process.
Clinton came up big after launching an all-out attack on Obama's ability to protect the United States, including a controversial ad aired three days ago featuring children sleeping as a crisis broke over the White House.
Obama accused Clinton of fear-mongering but some analysts suggested the tactic worked. Texas exit polls showed more than 60 percent of people who made up their minds in the last three days opted for Clinton.
"I think what's noteworthy is a lot of pundits thought we were coming tonight to a funeral for Hillary Clinton," said Paul Begala, a former aide to president Bill Clinton. "Instead we saw a resurrection."
Clinton signaled she would press the attack in the weeks ahead in what could be an increasingly nasty campaign.
"We have two wars abroad, we have a recession looming here at home," she told the Ohio rally.
"Voters faced a critical question. Who is tested and ready to be commander in chief on day one? And who knows how to turn our economy around, because we sure do need it."
McCain, 71, also capped an amazing comeback after his campaign had looked dead and buried in mid-2007, crippled by overspending and infighting that led to an exodus of top aides.
But now, McCain can enjoy laying out his lines of attack for the November election while watching the Democrats fight tooth and nail.
The Arizona senator promised to combat Islamic extremism, keep the US economy open to world trade and lower taxes if elected to succeed Bush, whose blessing he was to receive at the White House on Wednesday.
"And I am very pleased to note that tonight, my friends, we have won enough delegates to claim with confidence, humility and a sense of great responsibility that I will be the Republican nominee for president of the United States," he told cheering supporters in a Dallas hotel.
His victories Tuesday took McCain, a Vietnam war hero distrusted by many conservatives for his maverick stance on issues such as immigration, over the Republican finish line of 1,191 delegates.
His last remaining challenger, former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee, bowed out and pledged fealty to the Republicans' new standard-bearer.