Thursday, February 28, 2008
New York faces shifts in primary results
LOOKING AHEAD by Wally Dobelis
Let’s start with the guardedly good news, which are mostly on the international scene. In Iraq, the radical anti-US Shiite cleric Muquada al Sadr has decided to expand the cease-fire to be observed by his powerful militia, the Mahdi Army, by another six months. Along with the emergence of Sunni-dominated groups fighting the al Quaeda terrorists, that should save American lives and speed the return of our troops.
In Kenya, there may be hopes of a political settlement of a contested election between President Mwai Kibaki and opposition leader Raila Odinga, whose people have grievances over land and poverty. It has caused murderous racially oriented violence, with over 1,000 people losing their lives. The settlement will involve sharing of power, with a prime minister’s post going to the Kikuyu opposition leader.
Further good news is that while the Pakistan popular election removed our ally Musharraf from power, it also defeated the Muslim extremist parties. In the North West Frontier Province (shades of Kipling!) in 2002 the fundamentalist parties won 12% of vote. They then formed a local government, became a part of the neighboring Baluchistan’s coalition rule, and had 57 seats in the 342-member national parliament.
Now, in 2008, they only won five seats nationally, nine in the NWFP 96-member provincial government, vs. 67 in 2002. The NWFP turned to the Pakistan Peoples Party (the late Benazir Bhutto’s group) and to the local Awami National Party. The people have had it with the murderous Taliban supporter groups. In Jhang, the heart of Punjab, a member of Musharraf’s Pakistani Muslim League –Q party soundly defeated an accused Taliban sympathizer cleric.
The national results were similarly anti-Terrorist, with PPP led by Ali Zardari, Bhutto’s husband, and its breakaway branch, former PM Nawez Sharif’s PML-N holding a plurality in the parliament (Musharraf's PML- Q ended with about 10%), may benefit the US, if we work with the leaders instead of pushing them.
The resignation of Cuba’s President Fidel Castro also gives the US a chance to normalize relations and consider lifting the embargo, the tool that has served Castro in justifying his regime’s controls and abuses. Fidel’s brother Raul, caretaker for 19 months and now President, has slowly begun some reforms that lead towards our objectives of human rights (free press, political parties, ceasing the terrorization of population) as well as of economics, the lopsided system that has kept average pay at under $20 month, meanwhile neglecting agriculture and shrinking the housing, clothing, transportation and communications hopes of the people. Raul is expected to start permitting limited capitalist practices of small busineses, self-employment, limited buying and selling of houses, and foreign travel, particularly for athletes. The capricious ideologue non-manager Fidel built up education, with 800, 00 professionals, including 85,000 physicians earning ridiculously low pay, serving a population of 11 million under inadequate conditions. The Democratic candidates are willing to negotiate - the practical Hillary, with a provision of proof that some human rights reforms have taken place, while the more visionary Obama will accept well- established plans.
This brings us back to US matters, particularly the primaries, where Obama has substantially overcome Clinton’s lead, with victories in 11 post-Super Tuesday state races. February 5th seems such a long time ago, and it might be worth while to review Hillary’s New York victory, that, along with the Massachusetts rout, gave such a hope to her camp. New York State had the largest turnout in 20 years, over a third of registered Democrats (also 20% of Republicans) voting, comparable to the eerily parallel of primaries of 1988, when Michael Dukakis scored 51% against Jesse Jackson’s 37 and Al Gore’s 10. That brings up the weird suggestion in The Telegraph of Britain that Al Gore might emerge as the compromise candidate. This is a most improbable scenario that, one imagines, would require some substantial rock-bottom Democratic Party fear that the high-flying Obama, carried by a wave of leftwing/Denial-like enthusiasms, would lose against the stolid McCain; an emergence of Gore from the shadows, and a resignation of Clinton, throwing her elected delegates to Gore and persuading the super-delegates to do likewise. Ugh!
Coming back to reality, here are the numbers underlying Clinton’s New York victory. The state voted 57% for her, with New York City coming in at 55%. Obama won in only one county, Tompkins, in the Finger Lakes, home of Cornell University and Ithaca College. The city boroughs voted Clinton/Obama as follows: Bronx 60/38 (much Latin vote), Brooklyn 50/48, Manhattan 54/44 (heavily Obama on the West Side), Queens 60/38, and Staten Island 61/36%. Overall, Clinton came out with 139 NYS delegates, Obama with 93.
As to the final numbers, using CNN figures, as of February 19 Obama has 1,327 and Clinton has 1255 delegates. Of the approximately 915 remaining delegates to be elected (the total remaining is 1190, discounted by my estimate of 275 super-delegates), Obama would have to win some 85% to have a victory without the appointed delegates' help. We'll wait ‘till August for finite results.
Let’s start with the guardedly good news, which are mostly on the international scene. In Iraq, the radical anti-US Shiite cleric Muquada al Sadr has decided to expand the cease-fire to be observed by his powerful militia, the Mahdi Army, by another six months. Along with the emergence of Sunni-dominated groups fighting the al Quaeda terrorists, that should save American lives and speed the return of our troops.
In Kenya, there may be hopes of a political settlement of a contested election between President Mwai Kibaki and opposition leader Raila Odinga, whose people have grievances over land and poverty. It has caused murderous racially oriented violence, with over 1,000 people losing their lives. The settlement will involve sharing of power, with a prime minister’s post going to the Kikuyu opposition leader.
Further good news is that while the Pakistan popular election removed our ally Musharraf from power, it also defeated the Muslim extremist parties. In the North West Frontier Province (shades of Kipling!) in 2002 the fundamentalist parties won 12% of vote. They then formed a local government, became a part of the neighboring Baluchistan’s coalition rule, and had 57 seats in the 342-member national parliament.
Now, in 2008, they only won five seats nationally, nine in the NWFP 96-member provincial government, vs. 67 in 2002. The NWFP turned to the Pakistan Peoples Party (the late Benazir Bhutto’s group) and to the local Awami National Party. The people have had it with the murderous Taliban supporter groups. In Jhang, the heart of Punjab, a member of Musharraf’s Pakistani Muslim League –Q party soundly defeated an accused Taliban sympathizer cleric.
The national results were similarly anti-Terrorist, with PPP led by Ali Zardari, Bhutto’s husband, and its breakaway branch, former PM Nawez Sharif’s PML-N holding a plurality in the parliament (Musharraf's PML- Q ended with about 10%), may benefit the US, if we work with the leaders instead of pushing them.
The resignation of Cuba’s President Fidel Castro also gives the US a chance to normalize relations and consider lifting the embargo, the tool that has served Castro in justifying his regime’s controls and abuses. Fidel’s brother Raul, caretaker for 19 months and now President, has slowly begun some reforms that lead towards our objectives of human rights (free press, political parties, ceasing the terrorization of population) as well as of economics, the lopsided system that has kept average pay at under $20 month, meanwhile neglecting agriculture and shrinking the housing, clothing, transportation and communications hopes of the people. Raul is expected to start permitting limited capitalist practices of small busineses, self-employment, limited buying and selling of houses, and foreign travel, particularly for athletes. The capricious ideologue non-manager Fidel built up education, with 800, 00 professionals, including 85,000 physicians earning ridiculously low pay, serving a population of 11 million under inadequate conditions. The Democratic candidates are willing to negotiate - the practical Hillary, with a provision of proof that some human rights reforms have taken place, while the more visionary Obama will accept well- established plans.
This brings us back to US matters, particularly the primaries, where Obama has substantially overcome Clinton’s lead, with victories in 11 post-Super Tuesday state races. February 5th seems such a long time ago, and it might be worth while to review Hillary’s New York victory, that, along with the Massachusetts rout, gave such a hope to her camp. New York State had the largest turnout in 20 years, over a third of registered Democrats (also 20% of Republicans) voting, comparable to the eerily parallel of primaries of 1988, when Michael Dukakis scored 51% against Jesse Jackson’s 37 and Al Gore’s 10. That brings up the weird suggestion in The Telegraph of Britain that Al Gore might emerge as the compromise candidate. This is a most improbable scenario that, one imagines, would require some substantial rock-bottom Democratic Party fear that the high-flying Obama, carried by a wave of leftwing/Denial-like enthusiasms, would lose against the stolid McCain; an emergence of Gore from the shadows, and a resignation of Clinton, throwing her elected delegates to Gore and persuading the super-delegates to do likewise. Ugh!
Coming back to reality, here are the numbers underlying Clinton’s New York victory. The state voted 57% for her, with New York City coming in at 55%. Obama won in only one county, Tompkins, in the Finger Lakes, home of Cornell University and Ithaca College. The city boroughs voted Clinton/Obama as follows: Bronx 60/38 (much Latin vote), Brooklyn 50/48, Manhattan 54/44 (heavily Obama on the West Side), Queens 60/38, and Staten Island 61/36%. Overall, Clinton came out with 139 NYS delegates, Obama with 93.
As to the final numbers, using CNN figures, as of February 19 Obama has 1,327 and Clinton has 1255 delegates. Of the approximately 915 remaining delegates to be elected (the total remaining is 1190, discounted by my estimate of 275 super-delegates), Obama would have to win some 85% to have a victory without the appointed delegates' help. We'll wait ‘till August for finite results.
# posted by Wally Dobelis @ 7:37 AM 
