When Dresses Count

A recent photograph of Barack Obama dressed in traditional African dress, while on a visit to Kenya in 2006, has added fuel to the fire in the rivalry against both democratic candidates. The picture, submitted to the Drudge Report website, shows Obama garbed in a white turban and white traditional African robe.

Obama’s camp claimed that the distribution of the image was a smear campaign tactic initiated by rival Hillary Clinton’s camp. The Clinton camp denied this, stating that they had nothing to do with the photograph becoming public. Obama’s father was originally from Kenya and this is probably the reason why he made the visit.

Tempers are fraying in both camps with the crucial debate in Ohio at stake. Obama’s campaign manager, David Plouffe, stated that the distribution of the photo was “…the most shameful, offensive fear-mongering we’ve seen from either party in this election”. In response Clinton’s campaign manager, Maggie Williams, said, “If Barack Obama’s campaign wants to suggest that a photo of him wearing traditional Somali clothing is divisive, they should be ashamed. Hillary Clinton has worn the traditional clothing of countries she has visited and had those photos published widely.”

Clinton continued to try to gain an upper hand by trying to project Obama as a rash and inconsistent politician who lacks foreign policy experience. She likened him to George Bush Jr. who had the same kind of inexperience when he was elected to the presidency.

Obama has, for some time now, enjoyed a winning streak, securing 11 primaries consecutively. Clinton requires a win in both Ohio and Texas to ensure that she continues in the race for the presidential nomination. For the first time, Obama is leading in a poll, having secured 50% in Texas as compared to a 46% secured by Clinton. Obama is edging forward as the Democratic front-runner and unless Clinton manages a remarkable turnaround, Obama is expected to be the likely Democratic front-runner.

Obama, Clinton Prepare for Ohio and Texas

The candidates in the Democratic camps ramped up their campaigning ahead of tomorrow’s primaries in Ohio and Texas. Currently Barack Obama is leading ahead of Hillary Clinton, having won 11 consecutive victories, in the last few primaries.

The Clinton camp released a new television commercial that implied that she had the required experience that would help her make disaster averting decisions. The Obama camp was quick to retort to the ad by highlighting Clinton’s endorsement of the controversial war in Iraq.

Both candidates continued to trade comments at each other’s campaign and strategies over the weekend. Obama called Clinton’s pledge to ignite political change an empty promise. He went on to say that, “Real change isn’t voting for George Bush’s war in Iraq and then telling the American people it was actually a vote for more diplomacy when you start running for president.” Clinton retorted in a rally in Texas by highlighting Obama’s inexperience in foreign policy once again.

Clinton not only faces stiff competition from Obama, but also falling support within her own camp. On Friday, she lost the support of the chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, Jay Rockefeller. Rockefeller stressed on the fact that Obama was able to predict the outcome of what would happen in Iraq when others could not. Rockefeller stated that sound judgment and decisive action were required in the Oval office and Obama was the most likely candidate who had such qualities.

Clinton successfully managed to raise funds for her campaign this month. She publicly announced that she had raised $35 million. However, Obama’s campaign representative stated that he had managed to raise considerably more. The $35 million figure is considered to be $8.2 million more than what was dominated during the last financial quarter. The average contribution was around $100 with more than $30 million being donated over the internet.

Bloomberg Ends Rumors of White House Bid

New York Mayor, Michael Bloomberg, denied that he was joining in the race for the White House. With this Bloomberg squashed the two-year long rumors that had been circulating that he would be running for President as an independent candidate. However, this has also sparked off a new round of speculation – this time on which candidate would win an endorsement from him.

Bloomberg’s clarification appeared in the form of a statement in an article in the New York Times, which stated, “I am not and will not be a candidate for president.” Bloomberg went on to say that he would gladly support a candidate who had an independent, non-partisan approach. He, however, did not indicate if he was endorsing any of the current candidates. The article quelled almost two years of conjecture about whether the 66-year-old billionaire businessman would make a bid for the White House.

The speculation began two years ago when Bloomberg decided to quit the Republican Party and become an independent. Bloomberg is known for his views emphasizing a non-partisan approach in politics. In the New York Times article mentioned above, he has stated, “An independent approach really can produce progress on the most critical issues, including the economy, education, the environment, energy, infrastructure and crime. I believe… that an independent can win the presidency.”

Concerning his involvement in the current presidential race, Bloomberg stated that he would instead concentrate on trying to “steer the national conversation away from partisanship and toward unity; away from ideology and toward common sense”. If he did decide to run for the presidency, his political experience, gained during his stint as mayor of New York, and the vast personal wealth at his disposal, would make his candidacy a serious threat to the current front-runners.

By now, it is clear that John McCain will be winning the Republican nomination for president. However, Democratic candidates, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, are both locked in a close tie. It is to be seen if Bloomberg’s endorsement will be an influencing factor in this race.

Ralph Nader Enters the Presidential Race

Ralph Nader, a prominent anti-establishment consumer advocate since the 1960s, clearly announced his will to step into the election fray as a third-party candidate in NBC’s Meet the Press, by simply stating, “I’m running for president.” He has selected former member of San Francisco Board of Supervisors, Matt Gonzalez, as his running mate. Democrats believe that Nader’s presidential bid in 2000 cost Al Gore the election. He ran again, in 2004. This time Nader will be up against Senators Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton from the Democrats, and Senator John McCain from the Republicans.

Carrying his anti-establishment card high, Nader said Americans were disenchanted with the Democrats and Republicans since they avoided discussing voters’ key issues. In his words, people were feeling “locked out, shut out, marginalized, and disrespected.” He accused the main parties of “political bigotry” and said that they “don’t stand for the people”.

Calling Washington DC a “corporate-occupied territory”, Nader accused it of keeping the government from addressing the important issues. “We have to shift the power from the few to the many,” he asserted.

Nader has also questioned the integrity of the three main contenders in the race. “Do they have the moral courage, do they have the fortitude to stand up to corporate powers and get things done for the American people?” he queried, emphasizing the closeness of the top contenders to big business.

As expected, his questions have not been kindly received by them. The Democratic candidates, Obama and Clinton, were quick with repartees relating to his spoiler candidate status from the 2000 election.

During the 2000 presidential elections, a record three million people, making up more than 2 percent of the vote, backed Nader, who was then the Green Party candidate. Even a small portion of these votes, especially from Florida, could have helped Al Gore win. However, this was not the case and Nader ended up being called a spoiler candidate.

Clinton Backer Defects to Obama camp

The support for Hillary Clinton seems to be dwindling as Democratic congressman and civil rights leader, John Lewis, has shifted his support from Clinton to rival Obama. This is an important shift as Lewis is considered a key Afro-American supporter.

Lewis is a veteran of the US civil rights movement and hails from Georgia. The congressman stated that he had to shift in order to be on the side of the people. Obama’s campaign is gaining in momentum, especially after a widely telecast debate which showed both the democratic candidates slugging it out over various issues. Lewis stated, “The people are pressing for a new day in American politics and I think they see Senator Barack Obama as a symbol of that change.” The congressman’s switching camps is a significant blow to Clinton as her campaign seems to be dwindling, having suffered from 11 consecutive losses to Obama in recent primaries.

Clinton commented that she felt that Lewis must have been under tremendous pressure to have to switch camps. Lewis had initially pledged his support to Clinton last October. Clinton responded philosophically, stating that the shift did not matter because, as she said “At the end of the day it’s not about who is supporting us, it’s about what we’re presenting, what our positions are, what our experiences and qualifications are.” Obama welcomed the support of Lewis stating that he was “deeply honored” by this turn of events.

Both Clinton and Obama are campaigning hard for the next set of primaries in Texas and Ohio. Initial opinion polls indicate that Obama is gaining ground in both of these states. In fact, this is the first time that Obama is leading Clinton going into a primary. Initial polls seem to indicate that Obama is leading in Texas and is expected to secure 50% of the votes while Clinton is trailing at 46% according to a CNN poll.

Clash of the Titans: Obama and Clinton Engage in Heated Debate

Both the Democratic Party candidates once again locked horns with each other. This time the battlefield was a telecast debate, their final onscreen encounter before next week’s primaries in Ohio and Texas. Clinton and Obama lashed out at each other, on topics such as negative campaigning strategies, policies on health care, trade and foreign policy, and the war in Iraq.

The candidates engaged fiercely in a verbal repartee accusing each other of dirty tricks and negative campaigning over the past few weeks, merely in the name of gaining an upper hand. Each candidate accused the other of having spread misinformation about each others professed policies. While Clinton highlighted the flyers that the Obama camp had circulated regarding Clinton’s policies on North American Free Trade Agreement and her health care plan, Obama brushed it aside saying that his rival had been constantly indulging in negative attacks against his campaign and he was not whining about it, as he understood the intent of such moves.

Obama, however, sought to quell the recent uproar over a photo that had been distributed over the internet. He said that he believed Clinton when she said she had no idea where that photo had originated. The greatest contrast between both candidates was seen on the issue of foreign policy. Clinton once again harped on her prior qualifications in the field as a former first lady and a New York Senator making her a better choice to handle such affairs. Obama retorted that longevity in Washington should not be confused with experience; he highlighted Clinton’s vote in favor of authorizing the Iraq war in 2002, which was a large-scale strategic blunder.

Both candidates are set to face off next in Texas and Ohio. The stakes are high for Clinton who needs wins in both states to reduce the growing gap between her and Obama. Initial polls seems to indicate that Obama is leading in Texas and is expected to secure 50% of the votes while Clinton trailed at 46% according to a CNN poll.

Dodd Gives Obama the Nod

Senator Christopher Dodd, one-time rival of Barack Obama, has given his endorsement to Obama’s drive for the presidency. Dodd now feels that Obama is ready to be the next President. He also indicated that he felt there should be party unity behind Obama, saying, “…this is the moment for Democrats and independents and others to come together, to get behind this candidacy”. Dodd stated that it was time to concentrate on taking the fight to the Republicans and was worried of a divisive campaign evolving, taking into account the current presidential race. Dodd also went on to say that he was worried that Clinton’s supporters were overreaching themselves trying to halt Obama’s momentum.

Dodd abandoned his own presidential campaign last month. He is the first Democratic candidate to have dropped out who has endorsed another party member. Both democratic candidates, Obama and Clinton tried ardently to woo Dodd over. Dodd is said to have received numerous calls from former President Bill Clinton. His support comes at a time when Obama is pulling ahead of Clinton in the presidential race. Obama has won 11 consecutive primaries since Super Tuesday and is considered by many to be the Democratic front-runner.

Dodd commented on the kind of scrutiny that Obama had been subjected to and how the Democratic candidate had yet managed to garner the support of so many. Both democratic candidates are campaigning hard before the next set of primaries in Texas and Ohio. Initial polls seem to indicate that Obama is gaining ground in both of these states. In fact, this is the first time Obama is leading Clinton going into a primary. Initial polls seem to indicate that Obama is leading in Texas and is expected to secure 50% of the votes, while Clinton trailed at 46%, according to a CNN poll. Dodd’s support comes at a critical time when Clinton is floundering to make a comeback and desperately needs to win in the States of Texas and Ohio.

Clinton, Obama Exchange Offensives

As if to ready for the primaries in Texas and Ohio, on March 4, Democratic presidential rivals Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are already sharpening their attacks on each other.

Clinton, is lagging behind Obama in the delegates she has won to the national convention to select the Democratic presidential nominee for the November election. She desperately needs wins in Texas and Ohio to continue on the race. Speaking to journalists in Rhode Island, she said, “I’m working as hard as I can.” She said, “I have good campaigns in Texas and Ohio and I feel really positive about what’s going to happen on March 4.”

Clinton initiated attacks on Obama in response to leaflets distributed in Ohio where he criticized his rival’s health care plan. She also criticized the Illinois senator for his support, in the past, of the North American Free Trade Agreement. “Nobody believes Senator Obama’s plan is universal because it’s not. Mine is,” she said, adding, “So raise legitimate questions but don’t engage in, you know, this kind of false and misleading advertising.” She went on to add, “There’s a big difference between what is said in that campaign and what is done in that campaign.”

Obama, whose rating have been steadily rising over the past several weeks, retorted that the former first lady’s anger was a frustrated campaign tactic. The leaflets, he pointed out, had been distributed some weeks before. Clinton, he reasoned, had not objected then. Clinton responded to this by sayingthat she was under the impression that the leaflets had been taken back following a clarification from her campaign. She said she was surprised to see them with a woman in Ohio. “I thought they’d stopped,” she fumed, and added, “They had been discredited and we’d called their hand and I thought they’d stopped, or at least that it would have been revised.”

Obama shot back by criticizing Clinton for shifting her stance on the North American Free Trade Agreement, which was pushed through by Clinton’s husband, the former President Bill Clinton. “Senator Clinton’s premise in her candidacy throughout this campaign has been 35 years of experience, including eight years in the White House, right? She has essentially presented herself as co-president during the Clinton years,” Obama said. “So the notion that you can selectively pick what you take credit for and then run away from what isn’t politically convenient, that doesn’t make sense,” he added.

Obama, Clinton Spend Extravagantly on Campaigns

It could be an indication of how close the competition between the two leaders is, and how high the stakes involved are. Democrats Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are both spending extravagantly on their electoral campaigns. In contrast, Republican John McCain has spent only about a third as much.

For instance, Obama has already spent $30.5 million in the January, going by his report to the Federal Election Commission (FEC). Out of this, more than $18 million was used for ads to be broadcast on television and radio. Hillary Clinton too was on par, spending $28.5 million in January, from which $11 million went in campaign ads. In addition, she spent $3.5 million on direct mail expenses; Obama’s expenses for the same came up to a little less than half of the amount.

However, the campaigns of the two leaders differ in their choice of vendors. Obama, for instance, uses the services of different strategists and consultants for major events. His campaign has already spent $2.7 million to pay for the services of four firms: Harstad Strategic Research, David Binder Research, Benenson Strategy Group, and Brilliant Corners. He has spent $1.2 million for media consulting and production services provided by his strategist, David Axelrod; besides he has also worked with other consultants.

In contrast, Clinton relies largely on her own strategists’ firms for major campaign functions. She paid her senior strategist Mark Penn’s firm, Penn, Schoen & Berland, $3.5 million for the direct mail campaign, and another $315,000 for polling in January. Over and above the $7.5 million that she has already paid the firm, she still owes another $2.1 million. Clinton’s campaign also paid her media strategist Mandy Grunwald’s firm more than $2 million to create ads.

The campaign spending reveals interesting information into the strategies employed by the campaigns of the two leaders. Obama, for instance, relied heavily on television to make his presence known amongst voters. Clinton, in contrast relied more on direct mail posts to her supporters.

Obama’s campaign, however, does enjoy the edge when it comes to finance. While Clinton, who has lent $5 million to her campaign ran up$7.6 million in debts, Obama, in January had about $1 million in debt with $18 million cash. In January, Obama raised $35 million against the $13 million raised by Clinton.

Bill Clinton: Texas is Do or Die for Hillary

Texas, according to former President Bill Clinton, would be the litmus test that would decide the fate of his wife Hillary Clinton’s presidential ambitions. The results in the primary elections to be held on March 4, 2008, in Texas, as well as in Ohio, he indicated, would determine whether Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama would win the Democratic Party’s presidential nomination.

The former president has throughout played an active role in his wife’s presidential campaign. Addressing a rally in Galveston, Texas, on Wednesday, he asked voters to vote for her to ensure that she is nominated. “This whole nomination process has come down to Texas and Ohio,” he told a 300 strong audience comprising of Hillary Clinton’s supporters. “If she wins Texas and Ohio I think she will be the nominee. If you don’t deliver for her, I don’t think she can be. It’s all on you,” he added, for good effect.

Hillary Clinton, once a frontrunner in the presidential race has, for some time, seen her position gradually lagging behind her rival Obama. A candidate needs 2,025 delegates to be nominated. With the Illinois senator’s recent victory in Wisconsin, Clinton has 1,233 delegates as compared to Obama’s 1,303. For Hillary Clinton, who desperately needs to improve her count of delegates, the primaries in Texas and Ohio could very well be the last ray of hope. Both, Hillary Clinton and Obama will be vying hard for the 228 delegates in Texas and 161 in Ohio.

As Martin Frost, a congressman from Dallas, with a neutral position explained, “Clinton could win the statewide vote, but she could still just break even or end up behind in the delegate count,” adding, “The press is playing attention to who wins the delegates, so that will be important.”