According to The Associate Press updated poll result, Democratic Presidential Candidate Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are running tight.

Barack Obama, 48 % vs. Hillary Rodham Clinton, 47 %

A few weeks ago, Clinton was leading 49% to 46%, which means Obama improved 2% while Clinton fell 2%.

The next major test for Obama and Clinton will come in primaries in North Carolina and Indiana on May 6.  Clinton hopes to keep her victory in Pennsylvania, while Obama has an advantage in North Carolina. Therefore, Indiana in particular is shaping up as a crucial battleground state in the fight for the Democratic Party’s presidential nomination.

North Carolina is expected heavy turn out by African-American voters. So Obama will have a bigger chance to win. But the in Indiana, some Democrats who may be questioning whether Obama would be the strongest Democrat in November against the presumptive Republican nominee, Senator John McCain.

Some political analyst says Hillary Clinton has an uphill climb to the Democratic nomination, with her convincing win in Pennsylvania.

And refer to The New York Times, Change, which is the campaign slogan of Obama, may not carry quite the same political magic in Indiana as it has elsewhere.

Americans in Indiana hold onto a lot of traditional values, some people told the media that they want it like it used to be. They are worried about their life will be changed.

Refer to New York Times, “many of the two dozen voters interviewed in this central Indiana manufacturing city of 46,000 expressed queasiness over the notions of change that both Democratic candidates have proudly pledged elsewhere. Though residents bemoaned economic conditions that have taken away thousands of factory jobs and given the state the 11th-highest rate of foreclosures, they also said they worried about doing things – anything – very differently.”

And analysts say the recent vote in Pennsylvania clearly shows that Obama has yet to prove that he can appeal to white working class voters, which can be important swing votes in the general election in states like Ohio and Pennsylvania.

Clinton supporters say Obama’s difficulty in winning working class or so-called blue-collar voters could doom Democratic prospects in the November election.

And what makes it more uncertain is:  21% of the respondents in Indiana remain undecided of who they’ll vote – a high number of undecided voters for an election less than two weeks away.

The U.S. Presidential contender Hillary Clinton vowed to “obliterate” Iran if it attacked Israel, and presumably with nuclear weapons. A global repercussion has arisen.

“I want the Iranians to know that if I’m the president, we will attack Iran” Mrs. Clinton said on ABC’s “Good Morning America” on April 22nd.

I’d like to share the video with everyone, here you can watch it on Youtube.

The full transcript of the Iran part:

CHRIS CUOMO: You said if Iran were to strike Israel, there would be ‘massive retaliation.” Scary words. Does ‘massive retaliation” mean you’d go into Iran? You would bomb Iran? Is that what that’s supposed to suggest?

CLINTON: Well, the question was, if Iran were to launch a nuclear attack on Israel, what would our response be? And I want the Iranians to know that if I am president, we will attack Iran. And I want them to understand that. Because it does mean that they have to look very carefully at their society. Because whatever stage of development they might be in their nuclear weapons program, in the next 10 years during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them. That’s a terrible thing to say, but those people who run Iran need to understand that. Because that, perhaps, will deter them from doing something that would be reckless, foolish, and tragic.

Also, there are some response on Arab news, which says: This is the foreign politics of the madhouse. It demonstrates the same doltish ignorance that has distinguished Bush’s foreign relations. It offers only violence where there should be negotiations and war where there could be peace. At a stroke, Clinton demonstrated to everyone in this region that if she were the next occupant of the White House, Iraq-like death and destruction would be the order of the day.

Even though Hillary had won Pennsylvania, which she defined as the way lead to White House, still many people are very concerned with her foreign policy on Iran and the Middle East. The whole world is worried that she is even tougher than John McCain on the war to Iran. Some UK media call Hillary’s saying awful response on Iran.

Her rival Barack Obama didn’t talk that much on Iran, but had give a speech before saying that he would call for a “diplomatic surge” that will include talks with Iran.

“We should be talking to them (Iran)as well,” said senator Barack Obama

“I’m Barack Obama. I don’t take money from oil companies or Washington lobbyists, and I won’t let them block change anymore,” said Obama in his latest campaign ads.

However, Obama’s words are proved to be a downright lie in recent days. It is another strike on Obama after his loss in Pennsylvania Primary. According to the campaign finance reports, Obama continued accepting donations from oil company executives and employees in March even after his ads was aired.

The report shows that Obama has received at least $263, 000 from oil company senior executives, family members and employees since he declared he would run for the Democratic nominee last year.

“Obama’s ad is factually correct. He does not take money from oil companies. A 1907 federal law bars all corporations from giving money to political candidates. However, oil company employees can make donations,” the Los Angeles Times analyzed. “(Actually,) at least $140,000 has come in chunks of between $1,000 and $2,300, the maximum permitted under federal law.”

In previous campaign of Pennsylvania primary, Obama sent messages to the public that he cares about the effect of high price of gasoline on people and called for a windfall profits tax on oil companies.

Obama is not the only beneficiary of oil companies’ support. Clinton has received $ 336,000 by this kind of mean while McCain has been awarded $445,000.

The campaign rhetoric continues to heat up, especially after the Pennsylvania primary campaign that can only be described as verbally violent. The negative attacks by Senator Clinton’s campaign that have been aimed at her opponent, Senator Obama, have done what appears to be significant damage to his previous image as the obvious next President. This has impelled Senator Obama to cross his own lines of running a positive campaign to making subtle attacks against his opponent. His frustration with his inability to end Clinton’s campaign has led both campaigns into a verbal fight that persists. Certainly, it’s not counter for a democratic election to talk about differences in issues among candidates and which one should be the nominee for legitimate reasons, but the dialogue changing into irrelevant and shameful attacks on meaningless issues is harmful not only to each candidate, but to the political discourse as a whole.

In an interview with The Real News Network, Tom Hayden, an author and activist, stated that with Senator Clinton’s increasingly relentless assault on Senator Obama, “she becomes swamped with more negative numbers as well … And so you have a death spiral, a downward death spiral going on here. But you’d have to be foolish to think it doesn’t give a huge advantage to John McCain…” In effect this statement agrees with many other observers that are finding that the back-and-forth attacks by both campaigns on meaningless issues such as Senator Obama’s “elitist remarks” and his Reverend Wright controversy or Senator Clinton’s Bosnia controversy are simply giving John McCain and the Republican Party more advantages to take. According to political “analysts” this is simply old-fashioned politics, and Senator Obama needs to come out a little bit tougher. But is this the kind of roughing up that should be involved in the presidential election?

This anger over the direction of the political discourse within both the campaigns and the media was clearly on display at the end of the ABC debate in Pennsylvania, in which Charles Gibson, reacting to widespread booing and hissing by the crowd, jokingly remarked “the crowd is turning on me.” It is very realistic to believe that people were displeased for legitimate reasons, especially with an economy on a downward trip, the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan not faring much better, and a global image that is tarnished. Glenn Greenwald from Salon.com rightly states that “the guardians of our political discourse … traffic almost exclusively in puerile, vapid fixations with these types of petty conflicts and substance-free controversies. They’re the decadent ringleaders of the freak show which dominates our political discourse and dictates the outcome of our elections.”

The “spin doctors” in the media and in the campaigns have for decades exercised this power of twisting words and meanings to make them beneficial for their own purposes. Jon Stewart cited on CNN’s Crossfire that political analysts in campaigns and in the media, immediately after any controversies or debates, head down to “spin alley”. He then asked them “don’t you think that, for people watching at home, that’s kind of a drag, that you’re literally walking to a place called deception lane?” This deception that the media and political campaigns often devolve into is further emphasized by Glenn Greenwald’s remarks that “[i]f you look at our national elections over the past three decades — the petty sideshows that dominate them, the ways they are almost entirely bereft of substance, the control which dirt-mongers and vapid media stars exert over them — what is there to be “proud” of?”

In U.S., a growing number of voters shun party membership and declare themselves independent in recent years. The statistics show that the number of independent voters will occupy one third of all voters in the coming presidential election.

Since the primaries began, huge numbers of independents have been embraced by both the Democratic Party and the Republican Party. “The thing we know about independents is, when they choose to vote in a primary, they tend to stay with that party in the general election,” said a top advisor to former Democratic Gov. Gray Davis.

The current governor of Virginia also pointed out that the presidential candidate who can win independents’ support will become the U.S. president finally.

In previous primaries, McCain and Obama both are very welcomed by independents. In primaries in Virginia, Missouri and Washington, over 60% independents voted to Obama. McCain has earned supports from 53% independents in Connecticut Primary.

But on the whole, the Democratic Party has an advantage over the Republican Party on independents’ favor. According to the poll of Pew Research Centre, independent’s support for Republican has declined from 46% in 2004 to 40% in 2008.

The above poll also indicates that independents hold a pessimistic view of the state of U.S. economy.

In addition, the result of the research of L.A. Times and Bloomberg National Poll shows that independents are inclined to vote for the Democratic Party as they think it can better handle with the present U.S. recession. Among all respondents, two third are unsatisfied with the economy policy of George W. Bush.

Hillary Clinton is the first presidential candidate to make a public statement to urge President George W. Bush to boycott the Beijing Olympic opening ceremonies unless China improves human rights.

“I encourage the Chinese to take advantage of this moment as an opportunity to live up to universal human aspirations of respect for human rights and unity, ideals that the Olympic Games have come to represent,” Hillary Clinton said

Actually, Hillary Clinton has criticized Bush’s China Policy for a long time. Appearing at a speech on Foreign Policy at George Washington University on February, she asserted her belief in human rights and democracy and stressed that she had rich experience in dealing with the rising power of China.

Besides, Hillary also sends the message to the public that she has an advantage over her rival Obama because she has a pretty good inside view with her over eight years in the White House and over seven years in the Senate.

It is generally believed that Hillary Clinton will adopt the same tough line towards China during her presidential campaign as Bill Clinton did. Based on some documents, interviews, speeches and debates related to Hillary Clinton, we can conclude some points of her China Policy.

Overall Strategy
It would be a position where we would operate from strength with a coherent policy about what our interests were and what we hope to achieve.
(Q: Should we believe that the U.S. relationship with China under a Hillary Clinton administration would be less one of cooperation and engagement and one more akin to confrontation?)
(Source: 2007 Democratic radio debate on NPR Dec 4, 2007 )

Tibet and Sudan
[We should push] the Chinese to end the suppression of Tibetans and undermining their culture & religious beliefs, and to get more cooperation with respect to Sudan. But the challenge is how do we try to influence the Chinese government? I believe we have missed many opportunities during the Bush administration to do so. In fact, I think it’s fair to say our policy toward China is incoherent and that has not been in our strategic interest. So I would urge the president to not attend the opening ceremonies, and let’s see whether the Chinese government responds because that would be a great loss of face and perhaps we would get more cooperation.
(Source: 2008 Democratic Compassion Forum at Messiah College Apr 13, 2008)

Economy
We have handicapped ourselves because of Bush’s irresponsible fiscal policies, but we’ve also, unfortunately, seen an incoherent foreign policy. I fear that if we don’t start taking steps to demonstrate that we are back in charge of our fiscal destiny, that we do have a coherent diplomatic approach toward China, China will continue to gain leverage over us.
(Source: 2007 Des Moines Register Democratic debate Dec 13, 2007)

We’ve got to get back to fiscal responsibility in order to undercut the Chinese power over us because of the debt we hold. We also have to deal with their currency manipulation. We have to have tougher standards on what they import into this country. I do not want to eat bad food from China or have my children having toys that are going to get them sick. So let’s be tougher on China going forward.
(Source: 2007 AFL-CIO Democratic primary forum Aug 8, 2007)

Human Rights
I think you do have to call them (China) on human rights. I mean, the Chinese respect us if we actually call them on their misbehavior and their breaches of human rights, economic activities and other kinds of problems that we have with them. That’s what I object to about this administration. We’ve gotten the worst of both worlds. We’ve gotten neither the kind of smart enforcement nor the kind of cooperation that might lead to changes in behavior.
(Source: 2007 Democratic radio debate on NPR Dec 4, 2007 )

Actually, Bill Clinton abandoned his firm stance on China after he became the U.S. president. He was the first president to visit China after Tiananmen Square Protests of 1989. Also, he pushed through legislation to make China’s Most Favored Nation Status permanent.

According to her speech on 2007 Democratic radio debate on NPR, Hillary said she had been deeply involved in being part of the Bill Clinton team in the first Clinton administration and given the best possible advice on Chinese foreign policy.

So Hillary Clinton may follow the similar path as her husband does if one day she is elected as the U.S. president.

As the excitement around the Pennsylvania primary calms down, the aftershocks within the Democratic Party and its constituents will continue through until the next primaries in Indiana and North Carolina on May 6th. But what’s being overlooked despite all the media coverage is that despite Senator Clinton’s seemingly victory over Senator Obama in the delegate count, statistically, it is also unlikely for him to reach the magic number of 2,025 delegates until the end of all primaries. Inevitably, in the end, it will be up to those often talked about, but never questioned, superdelegates.

Of the 4,025 delegates that attend the Democratic National Convention in August, the superdelegates number is approximately 794, about 1/5 of the entire delegate count at the convention. According to Max Follmer at The Huffington Post, the superdelegates were created in 1980 as “a way to put the brakes on too much bottom-up initiative if necessary.” George McGovern, former Democratic Party Chairman and Democratic nominee in the 1972 Presidential campaign, conceded that the creation of these superdelegates, who are not subject to the will of the voters, were “a concession some years later to the party regulars who thought that certain people should automatically be delegates.” Follmer describes the superdelegate membership:

• All members of the Democratic National Committee
• All Democratic members of the House of Representatives
• All Democratic members of the United States Senate
• All Democratic governors
• All former Democratic presidents
• All former Democratic leaders of the United States Senate
• All former Democratic Speakers of the House
• All former Democratic House Minority Leaders
• All former Chairs of the Democratic National Committee

So then what is the problem with the superdelegates? Many will say there is no problem with the system and that the game should be played as it is. But people from the other side will say that it is wholly an un-democratic system in which the candidates vying for the nomination are essentially bartering the superdelegates for votes that are, in effect, much more meaningful than a “regular” voters ballot. This bartering is not limited to political favours, however, as a New York Times article back in mid-February cited that “[s]uperdelegates have received more than $890,000 in campaign contributions from Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton in the last three years”.

The “purchasing” of delegate votes is tremendously disturbing for a system that prides itself for its “any person can become President” mantra. Rather, perhaps it should be changed to “any person that has the most money can become President” or “any person that can take the most money from financially-troubled voters and use that money to buy votes can become President.” The increasing reliance on unaccountable superdelegates and the incredible amounts of money being thrown at election campaigns points at a system that is perhaps going in the wrong direction and has been for decades. The fact that superdelegates even exist should tell voters how much their own parties trust them.

In recent years, an increasing number of Asians emigrated to American and successfully assimilated into the local community. It forces U.S. politicians to attach greater weight to this group.

In response to the U.S. presidential election, 80-20 Initiative which is the largest national APA political Organization issued a questionnaire to presidential candidates of both the Republican party and the Democratic Party. The questionnaire focuses on two issues: 1) break the glass ceiling for APAs; 2) nominate more Asian Am judges.

Senator Clinton as the first endorsed candidate has got their supports since California Democratic primary. Senator Obama replied more than a month later. However, McCain has not given any answer to that questionnaire until now.

According to the statistics of previous U.S. presidential elections, most Asian Pacific American tended to support the Democratic Party because its immigration policy and welfare policy are better for them. For example, the immigration plan which was proposed by the U.S. present president Bush in 2004 has a great influence on most Asian Pacific Americans.

However, some Asian Pacific Americans with high-income prefer the Republican Party as the ruling party because of its lower tax on the rich.

I came across to an interesting article on the Guardian, with the Title “Whether Clinton, Obama or McCain wins it, prepare for a big letdown.”

After Clinton won Pennsylvania primary, many predicted that this is a good thing for McCain. Because Hillary did well enough to stay in the race, but not so well as to start swinging it the other way. And voters started to question Obama’s political experience and real ability compare to his perfect speech. People are questioning whether he could fulfill 1/10 of what he promised during his speech.

Interestingly, in the article, suppose Obama wins, “Well, people around the world would be thrilled – and filled with hope. That would be his first problem. The worldwide expectations are so high that they can’t possibly be fulfilled, any more than Princess Diana could return to being an ordinary human being. ”

“If McCain and Clinton have question marks over their experience of government, they look like George Washington and Abraham Lincoln compared with Obama. His inexperience has showed on the hustings, and it would show even more in the Oval Office. He has never run any big organisation; now he would step into the biggest.”

And to McCain, the writer describes him as “His mindset is of his age: in Iraq, he is in some deeper sense still fighting Vietnam. And he is a very American hero. His appeal across the seas is distinctly limited.”

And what if Hillary wins, the writer seems to select Mrs Clinton as his favorate one to win. “I continue to believe that Clinton is better equipped to be a good president for this time. Despite her recent braggadocio about Iran (”we would be able to totally obliterate them”), I think she has the temperament, experience and mindset to be what the world needs in Washington for the next four years”

After the pennsylvania primary, more and more people turned out to believe that Hillary has a big chance to win more support from superdelegates. For Obama still can’t win more support in the big states, and for Hillary, the unconventional first lady, is really tough to deal with. Hillary Clinton’s most striking feature is her tenacity. She never quits. And between Super Tuesday and Pennsylvania, Hillary tries to brand herself not as the one all people like , but the one people trust more in the White House.

New York Senator Hillary Clinton, as widely expected, won the Pennsylvania Democratic primary Tuesday, denying Obama, the senator from Illinois, a chance to argue the race for his party’s presidential nomination is over.

“At the end of the day, people have to decide who they think would be not only the best president, which is the most important question, but who would be the better candidate against Senator McCain” Hillary said after winning Pennsylvania Primary.    “And I think the coalition that I’ve put together, as demonstrated once again last night, is a very strong base for us.”  She has said that the Democratic super-delegates, who could yet tip the balance her way, need to ask themselves why Mr Obama still “can’t close the deal”, despite spending so much money in Pennsylvania.  

In her victory speech, Hillary Clinton declared that she is not going to quit. “Some people counted me out and said to drop out. But the American people don’t quit – and they deserve a president who doesn’t quit, either.” A Clinton campaign memo went further, suggesting that the negative tone adopted by both candidates in Pennsylvania had put them “under the microscope” for the first time.

“Hillary took more than a few punches and came out stronger while Senator Obama emerged weaker as voters learnt more about him.” Obama cannot pick up enough delegates in the contests remaining to secure the nomination. That means he’ll have to rely on getting enough of the 795 super delegates  Meanwhile, Clinton’s strategy is to create enough doubt about Obama’s electability that she can persuade a strong majority of super delegates to back her, giving her the nomination.

John McCain, the presumptive Republican Nominee dissociated himself from the advertisement on 23rd. But his senior adviser Mark Salter expressed at the prospect of the Democratic race continuing for weeks to come, saying they should “take their time – don’t rush”.  

Analysts say that Polls from Pennsylvania showed that Clinton was backed by whites – 62 per cent to 38 – by women, by working-class households and by people aged over 45. Obama was again supported by blacks, young voters and by the educated affluent.