Washington File

Yes Art - who posted his comment April 28th and stated " I can't get over the fact that people all over the globe think they are smarter and better at selecting the US President than US citizens living in the US are". - the American people must be smarter than anyone else, when electing their president - they elected Geroge W. did'nt they?

The world has been waiting 8 years for Mr. Bush's "other shoe to fall" only to discover in year 8 that he has been wearing sandals all along!

A perfect example of Mr. Bush's other shoe -WMD - Bullroar!

Mr. Powell's promising career was destroyed when the Bush admininstration used him as a puppet to lie to the UN about the US being "absoultely certain" of WMD in Iraq. - oops, George W. thought he said Iran!

I can't get over the fact that people all over the globe think they are smarter and better at selecting the US President than US citizens living in the US are.
I think all elections everywhere should open up so that the people in the U.S. can vote for our Prime Ministers, Chancellors, and leaders of other countries!
After the U.S. Presidential election is over and the world doesn't see change opinion will be split three ways. The people will say the leader failed because of it's race, because of it's gender or because of it's party affiliations. It really doesn't matter, the world will blame the U.S. for everything.

Henry, I like your columns. They teach me a lot. But....it was Laurel that slapped Hardy.

your kidding!...the fat guy slapped the skinny guy...h

Overseas Canadian commented:

"Besides, one of the reasons the superdelegates were created was to add the experienced voice of party members to the popularity contest of caucuses and primaries where sometimes even Republicans can vote and throw off what is actually best for the party."

It has been reported that Rush Limhaugh was urging Republican voters on his radio broadcast to go vote in the Democratic primaries for Hillary Clinton. [If you dont believe this go to Google and enter the search for 'Limbaugh and "vote Democrat" ' and several pages of links will be produced.] He believes McCain can more easily defeat Clinton. Well I am not so sure.

Anyway, since the race is so close between Clinton and Obama if only 5 to 10 percent of Rush Limbaugh's Republican listeners followed his advice and voted in the Democratic primaries, this could (I'm not claim ing it is proven) be the reason for the small lead Obama now has over Hilary.

The super-delegates serve a very useful purpose. Now maybe more then ever. The primary races to be able to pick a clear front runner--an almost equal number in the party favour one candidate or the other. In such a case I believe it is prudent to allow the "wisdom and experience" of the super-delegate decide mwhich of the two candidates is best for the part at this time.

I don't understand why everyone is saying that the populace has spoken for Obama and the public would be disenfranchised if the superdelegates went with Clinton. Obama has 53% to Clinton's 47%....to me that is a pretty even split. Besides, one of the reasons the superdelegates were created was to add the experienced voice of party members to the popularity contest of caucuses and primaries where sometimes even Republicans can vote and throw off what is actually best for the party. If Obama had, say 70% of the vote (still short of the 2025 needed to win), I would agree that perhaps the superdelegates should heed those numbers, but that simply is not the case.

It is time for the Clintons, both Hillary and Bill, to take a good hard look at the big picture!!
The world does not need another Republican in the White House. Until that party realizes that the U.S. isn't the sole ruler of the universe, they don't deserve to be in power.
The Clintons are only doing themselves, their party and the rest of the entire world a disservice by not acknowleging that the majority of their country has already spoken and Obama is their choice.
They should work to help him win. One of the reasons he is in the lead is because everyone is tired of old-style dirty politics.
Enough already. It is time to help your party win Mr. & Mrs. C.!!

Don in Mississauga speaks of "many lives lost"
and "many disasters" which were "narrowly
averted" on the US side of the space race.
Whats actually true is that no US crews were
lost in a flight until the Challenger of 1986.
One US crew perished on the pad, in a test,
that was Apollo 1 of January 1967. And, while
there were a couple of hairy in-flight incidents, Apollo 13 being the main one, and
the truncated flight of Gemini 8 being the
other, thats about it. It would be wrong to
claim that NASA decision makers felt that "no
sacrifice" of lives "was too great", quite the
opposite. They were always aware that risk for its own sake was a sure path to losing the public's confidence in the program.
Now, its fair to say that the Soviet Union was somewhat more bloody minded about their side of the space race. And, two missions of
theirs resulted in the crew's deaths, Soyuz 1 of 1967, and Soyuz 11 of 1971, four deaths in
total. But, they also knew that a victory in a space race was not to be found over a trail of dead bodies. Rather, that was the route to
losing.

To Neal in Vancouver; time to get livid cuz
the american prez and his republican party sent money, people, and lots of advice to get Harper elected up here.

I often say the our federal government in fact works for the American Republican party.

There are two certainties that have resulted from the primary process so far: one is that, finally, winds of change have started to blow with hurricane force in the U.S., which can, i think, only be good for Canada. The second is a sad realization that Clinton seems to have been blinded by personal ambition, and doesn't realize that the only way to win the nomination is to not play by the rules - what kind of message does that send to the international community?

To Billy Bean: Bill Clinton was not impeached. Furthermore, the attempt to impeach him was laughable. He was not the first president to engage in extra-marrital affairs in the White House (see JFK) and I think a man's ability to be faithful to his wife has very little to do with his ability to run a country.

In Hilary's case, I think that her sense of righteousness is starting to rub people the wrong way. From her stance on video games, to the inflated sense of pride stemming from all the "personal battles" she's won, I think people are tired of hearing about how great and how virtuous she is.

Obama does not have to share his personal issues and his sense of morality with us. He understands that the country needs a president, not a head case.

I am just wondering why no one, including Obama, has challenged Clinton on all her assertions ..for example does she really have 35 years of experience..has she been vetted (is defending a cheating husband and trying to redefine oral sex being vetted)..she is a fighter..can someone name one fight she was in and won (again is defending a cheating husband fighting and expereince)..to me Obama looks and acts like a president and Hillary looks and acts like a woman with a cheating husband (and I dont why anyone would be suprised that Bill cheated on her..)

Henry, I get 56% to catch Obama. HOwever she could win Pennsylvania by a lot more than that and certainly will win puerto rico by a lot more than that. Give her 70/30 in Puerto Rico and 60/40 in pensylvannia and keep it close in the other states, some for her, some for him and its close enough. It only needs to be near 100 to make the arguement that Fl and MI need to be counted. There's plenty of math for Clinton to win. I havent even added super delegates.

I think all of the Obamania people are a little deluded -- this isn't the Oscar's or People's Choice Awards. Yes, Obama is a very photogenic, American Dream living, charismatic, very intelligent, seemingly straightforward guy -- BUT HE HAS NO EXPERIENCE (look at how crappy Bush has been at the job, well, okay, Bush's IQ is also a bit of a challenge ;-) ). The Rupublicans will destroy him in a campaign, he has too many weaknesses in his still very young political career, and they will exploit every single one of them. I do also agree that Hillary cannot beat McCain....as much as I personally despise the Cheney/Bush regime and everything it has done..... I think the Republicans are a shoe-in with McCain. Only way the Dem's can win in my opinion is if McCain makes a series of horrible political mistakes (meaning quite a few more than one or two), or if something weird happens with his health between now and November...

Clinton will do more damage than good to the party by digging in her heels and fighting this to the end. What the Democrats need is to unite behind one leader - by all accounts, that's Obama. If Hillary had the good of both the country and the party in her best interests, which I don't believe she does, she would concede and focus her energy on converting the gift of two miserably failed GOP terms into a Democratic landslide.

I didn't think that Harper was low enough to use dirty tricks to influence an American election ... obviously his is that slimy. His interference in an American election is an embarrassment to our country. I'd be livid if an American President interfered in one of ours.

The Canadian Government should have understood the possible consequences of interfering in the US campaign of Mr.Obama.
He is not likely to forget this if he is elected. His memory will no doubt be much better than the PMO official

I think there are a couple of things that hurt Hillary.

One is her husband,she lacks the persona and charisma that BOTH Bill and Obama have.

As a woman, when the big deal was made about her tears, it didn't move me as a matter of fact I found it to be both fake AND done as a GESTURE that was suppose to make me feel sorry for her as another woman but in fact turned me off of her.

I have no doubt that she would wear the pants in office as the president but what I question is,would she be able to actually LISTEN to anyone other than herself for advice?

I also don't know IF it is possible for Hillary or Obama to be on the same ticket together IF as she said,it COULD be possible depending on WHO is at the top of the bill.

IF she was defeated by Obama,could she settle with being not solely in power? I don't think so, whereas I believe Obama could.

That is also one of the problems with being a seasoned and experienced politician over an inexperienced one.

Inexperienced people are usually more open to learning and suggestions than the experienced.

IF change is what the people truly want,than I see them choosing Obama over Hillary.

America desparately needs a change in policy. Americans would also like a change in the style of leadership, one that's less partisan.

Hillary, because of her experience, will likely be more effective in implementing policy changes than Obama. Obama, on the other hand, contends that he will bring a new leadership style to the White House.

The question is, which is more important for Americans at this juncture in history?

Drew nailed it!
Hillary's conduct over the past two weeks is proof she is anything but "Presidential." Her vicious and brutal tactics are an indication of her desperation and unbound personal ambition. She should be ashamed!

Now, why can't Canadians have a choice like this one? The only viable alternative to Harper that we have is Dion - and even Liberals don't want to vote for him.

The US has a woman and an African-American to choose from, both with campaign messages that actually inspire people to get out and vote - we have a bunch of old, fat white guys with bad hairpieces, and every year Canadians get more apathetic about politics because we feel we're 'damned if we do, damned if we don't'.

I've personally given up on voting for major parties - my ballot is going to the Greens; or maybe the CCF, just to shake things up.

Both Clinton and Obama have The Right Stuff. The whole Democratic field has been an embarrassment of riches compared to the tired lineup trotted out by the morally bankrupt - and fiscally bankrupting - Republicans.

As a Canadian I am just as pleased for Hillary gaining Texas and Ohio as I would be for Obama, though his remarkably steady performance would lead me to his camp if participating.

It would have just been better if the night had, one way or the other, produced a clear victor. Instead, the nightmare scenario for Democrats: the spectre of backroom deals and another seven gruelling weeks before the nominee can finally put this to rest and turn sights on McCain and the Republican slime machine.

But it bears remembering that polls consistently show Obama as more easily able to defeat McCain, even if this is unfairly due to sixteen years of Republican hate piled relentlessly on the poor woman.

Now our own proto-neocon Bush wannabe's in Ottawa are interfering with the American process in a seeming effort to discredit Obama's position on NAFTA. They too clearly think it would be easier for their soulmates in the GOP to beat Hillary.

The world is praying that one way or the other, Democrats can keep it together long enough to decisively boot the Republicans into well-deserved oblivion in every branch of government for at least a decade – it will take that long for them to clean up the current Republican mess. A Republican victory come November would render the damage to America and the world irreversible.

One more Republican appointment to the Supreme Court would ensure corporate hegemony over human rights in the United States for at least a generation to come, and this must not be allowed to happen. If it comes to this, it will be a dark day for democracy everywhere.

Hillary or Obama, the world will improve with either. Solidarity - not a Democratic Party hallmark - must be the winner.

The Dems must win.

You've nailed it. The Democrats could end up with a contested convention. That could unite them or fatally divide them.

Obama needs to rise to the challenge of re-tooling his message and answering the "experience question". How he does that in the next few weeks will say a lot about his political judgement and leadership abilities.

Personally, I'd answer the experience attacks by replying that America is looking for a leader not a manager. And someone who will unite it not someone who has a history of dividing it.

Ambition always outweighs the national interest in the United States. Case in point, the space race. When The Soviets and the Americans were trying to get their people to the moon first no sacrifice was too great to achieve the goal. Despite constant worries that NASA might "lose the crew" on untried and inadequate equipment the decision was made to go ahead anyway and damn the consequences. Many lives were lost and many disasters wherein more lives could have been lost were narrowly averted. The Soviet program was no better. There is that tendency to require all or nothing with no sacrifice too great for the common good. So damn the torpedoes, damn the expense, the only thing that matters is winning no moatter how many careers - or bodies - are left behind.

My only comment is why in Gods name would the US people, elect Hillary Clinton as President, don't they have any pride. The Clintons carry so much garbage it is not funny, he was impeached, hello. and how will Hillary run the country and watch Bill????

I agree with Henry Champ's conclusion.

Though I hate negative ads in politics - I generally despise political ads on TV in general, actually, they are so laden with banalities and cynicism (see Harper's attacks on Dion, mere weeks after Dion assumed the leadership) - I think Obama is going to need to pick his time and hit Clinton with a good one.

If momentum shifts in the Democratic race, Obama would do well to remind Americans that Hillary rarely takes a principled position on anything and votes to win at politics, period, not in the public interest. There's ample recent evidence to back up that claim. Evidence that has her more closely connected to Bush than to Obama and progressive democrats on the whole.

Note to Hillary: You've lost, so now show the maturity to accept that fact and get out of the race before you further damage Obama's chances to beat McCain in November.

Like Huckabee, Sen.Clinton is determined that "it ain't over until it's over" and for her that means the floor of the convention; no civil bowing out. Be her motives righteous, selfish or to make history, Sen.Obama better fasten his seat belt. Sen.Clinton and her machine are an SUV and Obama is driving a Pinto. The only winner,here,is Sen.McCain.

There is a certain irony in both Drew and Charlene's comments that Hilary Clinton should bow out because to stay in will hurt the front runner, Senator Obama, and help the Republicans. Applying the same logic 6 or 8 months ago would mean that Senator Obama was dead wrong to oppose the clear front runner at that time, Senator Clinton. In those heady days she was the clear front runner, unassailable and the Democrates were headed to the White House. Along came Obama, and turned all that on its head. Was he wrong to do so?
The democratic process can only be helped by the ongoing debate, by the ongoing campaign in the democratic party. whoever wins, he or she will have to be campaign tested if they are to battle the Republicans. Clinton already has been through the fire. Obama can only benifit from an ongoing campaign that readies him for the nomination.
Clinton will stay in. She is playing by the rules accepted by the party. And at the end of the day she may well win, given the importance of the super delegates. If she does win based on the superdelegates, her choice for V.P. is becomming increasingly limited to Obama in order to claim legitimacy with in the party ranks. Not a bad outcome.

You have identified the dilemma.

When the want of power over rides the best interest of the party or people,you pave the way for your enemy as they sit back and watch you undermind yourself.

IF the U.S. was actually LISTENING and PAYING ATTENTION to it's people,they would understand what we in Canada are seeing.

A person[Obama] who is uniting the people together as a nation rather than dividing them[Hillary].

The real question is,can they figure it out BEFORE they damage their party too much more?

It is truly sad that Hillary Clinton's ambitions outweigh the national interests. At this point in the race she cannot win without subverting the will of the voters, which would disillusion and disenfranchise the majority of the Democratic base and most of the independent voters who came out to support Obama. Her only option now to stall Obama's momentum is to increase the attacks on him (and she still won't win). This only serves to divide the party and foster resentment on both sides, and dilute the support of the Democratic nominee -- way to polarize your own party Hillary! Do the world a favor and bow-out gracefully.