Tag: Hillary Clinton

  • President Obama endorses Hillary Clinton for President

    President Obama endorses Hillary Clinton for President

    WASHINGTON (TIP): US President Barack Obama formally endorsed Hillary Clinton’s White House bid on Thursday, June 9, and called for the Democratic Party to unite behind her after a protracted battle with Bernie Sanders for the party nomination.

    Clinton, the presumptive Democratic nominee, said it “means the world” to her to have Obama’s support.

    “It is absolutely a joy and an honor that President Obama and I over the years have gone from fierce competitors to true friends,” Clinton told Reuters in an interview.

    Obama defeated Clinton in the 2008 Democratic primary and she went on to serve as secretary of state. Obama, who enjoys strong approval ratings after nearly eight years in office, will campaign with Clinton next week in Wisconsin, her campaign said.

    “I don’t think there’s ever been someone so qualified to hold this office,” Obama said of Clinton in a video. “I’m with her. I am fired up, and I cannot wait to get out there and campaign for Hillary,” Obama said. Sanders, who met with Obama at the White House earlier on Thursday, said afterward he would work with Clinton to defeat Trump.

    In his endorsement video, the president took time to say that Sanders had run “an incredible campaign,” and that he had shone “a spotlight on issues like economic inequality and the outsized influence of money in our politics.”

    In fact, Obama said, those are messages the Democrats should embrace for the general election. And while Clinton and Sanders may have been rivals during the primary season, “they’re both patriots who love this country and they share a vision for the America that we all believe in.”

    “This has been a hard-fought race,” Obama said. “I know some say these primaries have somehow left the Democratic Party more divided: Well, they said that eight years ago, as well.”

    And just as Democrats’ victory in that election paved the way for significant national initiatives, Obama said he expects his party “won’t just win in November, we’ll build on the progress that we’ve made and we will win a brighter future for this country that we love.”

    Although the declarations of Clinton’s presumptive victory were based on her delegate haul, Sanders is not technically eliminated from the race because he could theoretically sway the Democrats unbound “super” delegates to his side. Still, that would be a tough sell for the senator: Clinton won more primary contests, more of the popular vote and more regular pledged delegates.

    The endorsement increases pressure on Sanders, a US senator from Vermont, to concede the race so the party can focus on campaigning against Donald Trump, the Republican presumptive nominee for the Nov. 8 election.

  • Hillary Clinton secures Democratic Presidential Nomination

    Hillary Clinton secures Democratic Presidential Nomination

    Former US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has secured the number of delegates necessary to be presumptive Democratic presidential nominee in the November elections, according to a count carried out by the NBC channel on Monday and as reported by the Associated Press.

    Becomes the first woman to top a major-party ticket in US

    After her victory over Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders in Puerto Rico on Sunday and with the new support from superdelegates in recent days, Clinton has surpassed the 2,383 delegates needed as is now the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee.

    It has been a long and bruising primary season for Hillary as she becomes the first woman to lead a major party in the race for the White House.

    The former first lady will almost certainly be proclaimed the Democratic party nominee at the July convention in Philadelphia, and will face the unofficial candidate for the Republican party Donald Trump in the elections.

    NBC’s count was released one day ahead of the last major primary elections in which Democrats in New Jersey, North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana, New Mexico and California, the most populous state in the country, will go to the polls on Tuesday.

    “According to the news, we are on the brink of a historic and unprecedented moment,” Clinton told her supporters.

    She said there were “primaries to win”, in reference to Tuesday’s primaries.

    Once named the party’s official candidate at the July convention, Clinton will become the first woman to enter the presidential race from one of the two major parties.

    NBC calculated that Clinton has 2,384 delegates, one above the minimum required, including 1,812 delegates won in the primaries and 572 superdelegates.

    Her rival, democratic socialist Bernie Sanders, has 1,566 delegates, 1,520 of them from the primaries and only 46 superdelegates, according to NBC.

  • House Speaker Paul Ryan Says He Will Vote for Donald Trump

    House Speaker Paul Ryan Says He Will Vote for Donald Trump

    WASHINGTON (TIP): Nearly a month after being named the presumptive nominee of the Republican Party, Donald Trump has finally earned the vote of House Speaker Paul Ryan.

    Far from a wholehearted embrace of his party’s 2016 standard-bearer’s policies and temperament, Ryan’s announcement on Thursday mainly emphasized that Trump would be a better ally to advance Ryan’s policy goals than likely Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton.

    The announcement, published in a column in his home town newspaper the GazetteXtra, failed to include the word “endorsement,” instead indicating only that the Wisconsin lawmaker will cast his vote for Trump at the ballot box. Ryan wrote that he came to his decision after several conversations with Trump.

    “I feel confident he would help us turn the ideas … into laws to help improve people’s lives,” he wrote.

    NBC News had proclaimed Trump the presumptive nominee 29 days ago on May 4, after Trump’s final GOP rivals exited the race. But Ryan withheld his support at the time, instead publicizing his concerns with the likely nominee.

    Ryan suggested then that it was up to Trump to unify the party after a primary that resulted in a nominee that many establishment Republicans did not prefer.

    “I think the bulk of the burden on unifying the party will have to come from our presumptive nominee,” Ryan said last month. “I’m not there right now. And I hope to though, and I want to. But I think what is required is that we unify this party.”

    In the column published Thursday, Ryan did not sugarcoat his continuing disagreements with Trump.

    “It’s no secret that he and I have our differences. I won’t pretend otherwise. And when I feel the need to, I’ll continue to speak my mind,” Ryan wrote. “To enact (Republican) ideas, we need a Republican president willing to sign them into law. That’s why, when he sealed the nomination, I could not offer my support for Donald Trump before discussing policies and basic principles.”

    While it’s hardly a glowing recommendation, Ryan’s willingness to support Trump presents yet another obstacle to the “Stop Trump” movement as establishment Republicans are slowly lining up behind their nominee, albeit reluctantly.

    Related: Donald Trump and Paul Ryan Could Not Be Further Apart

    A primary reason for that unification is Republicans’ common enemy in Hillary Clinton, a fact not lost on Ryan in his announcement Thursday.

    “One person who we know won’t support it is Hillary Clinton. A Clinton White House would mean four more years of liberal cronyism and a government more out for itself than the people it serves. Quite simply, she represents all that our agenda aims to fix,” Ryan wrote.

    Ryan was slow to the Trump train after expressing concerns over some of Trump’s comments and positions. The two met twice in May, after Trump was deemed the presumptive nominee, but an endorsement wasn’t immediate after the meetings.

    Trump said on NBC’s “Meet the Press” on May 8 that he was “blindsided” by Ryan’s lack of an endorsement.

    “But (I) have a nice relationship with him. And then all of a sudden, he gets on and he does this number. So I’m not exactly sure what he has in mind. But that’s okay,” Trump added.

    In Ryan’s column Thursday, he said Trump can “help us” move forward on their policy domestic and foreign policy priories.

    “As I said from the start, my goal has been to unite the party so we can win in the fall. And if we’re going to unite, it has to be over ideas,” Ryan said, seeming to get behind him for the sake of the party and not his satisfaction with the person.

  • Trump temperamentally unfit to hold President’s office: #HillaryClinton

    Trump temperamentally unfit to hold President’s office: #HillaryClinton

    SAN DIEGO, CA (TIP): In one of the most striking speeches of her political career, Hillary Clinton dispensed with the sober diplo-speak that has characterized her previous national security addresses and went straight for the jugular, unleashing a series of biting attacks on Trump.

    In the spirit of President Lyndon Johnson’s notorious “Daisy” nuclear blast ad targeting Barry Goldwater’s temperament in 1964, Clinton warned that Trump should not be let anywhere near the nuclear codes because he could start a war when somebody “got under his very thin skin.”

    “He’s not just unprepared — he’s temperamentally unfit to hold an office that requires knowledge, stability and immense responsibility,” Clinton said during the speech in San Diego, California, days before Tuesday’s primary in the Golden State effectively concludes the primary season and confirms her as the presumptive Democratic nominee over Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders.

    Trump fired back while speaking at a rally in San Jose, California, Thursday night.

    “I watched Hillary today and it was pathetic. It was so sad to watch,” Trump said, calling it a “political speech” that had nothing to do with foreign policy.

    “It was a pretty pathetic deal,” he added.

    The speech marked a significant moment in Clinton’s campaign, as it was the first real signal of the tactics and attitude she will use to take on Trump and offered a preview of what are likely to be fierce clashes between the rivals at a trio of presidential debates later in the year. It demonstrated the kind of sardonic, unrestrained humor that she often shows in private interactions with friends and reporters but has refrained from displaying in public.

    It also appeared to be aimed at Democrats who are spooked by recent polls showing a tight race between Clinton and Trump, and who fear her often-criticized campaigning skills won’t keep up with Trump’s volatile and highly effective off-the-cuff style.

    And when she argued that Trump’s lack of knowledge on foreign policy and temperament would put at risk decades of Republican and Democratic foreign policy advances, she appeared to be making a pitch for disgruntled national security conservatives who feel unable to put their trust in the Republican nominee.

    Yet the strategy has its risks, as pretty much all of Trump’s GOP primary rivals who tried to take on Trump couldn’t survive his return fire. The question is whether Clinton will be more effective. She might be helped by not waiting until the last minute like the Republicans did — seeking to define Trump early in the minds of the general election audience.

    She attempted to convince voters that Trump’s ideas are a mix of “bizarre rants, personal feuds and outright lies.” She lambasted his “bragging” approach to foreign policy based on a string of “nasty tweets” and accused him of harboring a “bizarre” affinity for authoritarian leaders like Russian President Vladimir Putin, the Communist rulers of China and North Korean dictator Kim Jong-Un.

    “We cannot put the safety of our children and grandchildren in Donald Trump’s hands. We cannot let him roll the dice with America,” Clinton said.

    At one point, Clinton imagined Trump composing nasty tweets to respond to her speech. And the combative Republican standard-bearer did not disappoint.

    “Bad performance by Crooked Hillary Clinton! Reading poorly from the teleprompter! She doesn’t even look presidential!” the presumptive GOP nominee wrote as her address ended.

    In another tweet, Trump added: “Crooked Hillary no longer has credibility – too much failure in office. People will not allow another four years of incompetence!”

    But taking a page from Trump’s book, Clinton’s speech contained a string of zingers meant to ridicule the presumptive presidential GOP nominee and render him an unacceptable choice for president.

    “He says he has foreign policy experience because he ran the Miss Universe pageant in Russia,” Clinton said. “The stakes in global statecraft are infinitely higher and more complex than in the world of luxury hotels.”

    She added: “I will leave it to the psychiatrists to explain his attraction to tyrants” before taking aim at Trump’s claim that being a global business tycoon equips him with significant global knowledge.

    “You know, there’s no risk of people losing their lives if you blow up a golf-course deal,” she said. “But it doesn’t work like that in world affairs.”

    “He also says, ‘I know more about ISIS than the generals do, believe me.’ You know what? I don’t believe him,” Clinton said, drawing cheers from her partisan audience of around 250 people.

    Aides said that Clinton never intended the speech to be a formal foreign policy address but rather to deliver a stinging rebuke of Trump. After watching and reading Trump speeches carefully, Clinton gave an outline of what she wanted to say at the beginning of last week, and speechwriters Megan Rooney and Dan Schwerin worked with foreign policy advisers Jake Sullivan and Laura Rosenberger on the first draft, two campaign aides told CNN.

    For the last few days, they’ve been going back and forth with Clinton to streamline it. Originally, there was more of her own foreign policy, but it was sharpened over last week to include far more Trump.

    She spent her coast-to-coast plane ride Wednesday revising the speech with Rooney. Clinton kept working on the specific language right up right before the speech, and a story about Navy SEALs protecting civilians during the 2011 operation that killed Osama bin Laden was a final addition.

    In terms of policy, much of what she talked about — including her views on NATO, trade and Russia — has already been rolled out in previous, more conventional foreign policy speeches.

    But she did focus on the more controversial aspects of the foreign policy that he has laid out.

    “This is a man who said that more countries should have nuclear weapons, including Saudi Arabia. This is someone who has threatened to abandon our allies in NATO, the countries that work with us to root out terrorists abroad before they strike us at home,” Clinton said.

    “He believes we can treat the U.S. economy like one of his casinos and default on our debts to the rest of the world, which would cause an economic catastrophe far worse than anything we experienced in 2008,” she continued. “He has said that he would order our military to carry out torture.”

    Clinton’s speech laid out the parameters for what is likely to be a furious foreign policy debate in the general election. It is a feud that will allow her to take aim at Trump’s alleged inexperience and lack of knowledge but will also require her to defend what Republicans see as deep vulnerabilities in her own foreign policy record.

    Those liabilities include the aftermath of the NATO intervention in Libya, in which she played a dominant role and which left behind a dangerous failed state and a terror haven, as well as the Obama administration’s “reset” of relations with Russia, which critics say was naïve and ineffective.

    Clinton must also confront accusations that she negligently put American national security at risk by using a personal email server for her official business when she served as secretary of state.

    Trump has already made his own attempt to obliterate Clinton’s foreign policy credentials.

    “She doesn’t have the temperament to be president. She’s got bad judgment. She’s got horribly bad judgment,” Trump said last week. “If you look at the war in Iraq, if you look at what she did with Libya, which was a total catastrophe.”

    The likely Democratic nominee closed out her speech with a preview of how she will respond to such attacks — by turning the heat back on Trump and his perceived lack of qualifications to be president.

    “Imagine Donald Trump sitting in the Situation Room, making life-or-death decisions on behalf of the United States. Imagine him deciding whether to send your spouses or children into battle. Imagine if he had not just his Twitter account at his disposal when he’s angry, but America’s entire arsenal,” she said.

    “Do we want him making those calls — someone thin-skinned and quick to anger, who lashes out at the smallest criticism?” she asked rhetorically. “Do we want his finger anywhere near the button?”

    (Source: CNN)

  • Trump Fueling ISIS Recruitment Effort: Gen. Hayden

    Trump Fueling ISIS Recruitment Effort: Gen. Hayden

    NEW YORK (TIP): Donald Trump has damaged American security, says former CIA and NSA director Gen. Michael Hayden in an interview with The Guardian.

    “The jihadist narrative is that there is undying enmity between Islam and the modern world so when Trump says they all hate us, he’s using their narrative,” Hayden said. “He’s feeding their recruitment video.”

    Trump has proposed a temporary ban on all Muslim immigration amid fears Islamic State (ISIS) terrorists could be embedded in groups of Syrian refugees and has said he would quickly defeat the terrorist group if elected.

    The Somali terror group Al Shabab and ISIS both have released videos featuring Trump, Talking Points Memo reports.

    Trump’s proposal for “a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States” following San Bernardino shootings was featured in Al Shababs’ video, while ISIS included his comments that Brussels had become “a horror show.”

    Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said months ago that Trump’s words were being used in ISIS recruitment videos, but at the time only her husband and others were seen in such videos. Last week, she said she had been right all along.

    “I knew it was already going on, but it wasn’t public yet,” Real Clear Politics quoted Clinton as saying.

  • Indian American Neera Tanden Appointed To Democratic Party’s Policy Panel

    Indian American Neera Tanden Appointed To Democratic Party’s Policy Panel

    Democratic National Committee Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz announced the appointment of the party Platform Drafting Committee’s 15 members who will draft its policy agenda for the November presidential election.

    Among the members is Indian American Neera Tanden, 45, who has been a long-time associate of Democratic presidential front-runner Hillary Clinton, is being touted as a potential cabinet member if Clinton is elected as the US president in the November general elections.

    The panel is responsible for developing and managing the process through which the platform is established which is similar to the election manifesto parties have in India.

    Tanden, the president of the Center for American Progress (a top US think-tank), has served as a Clinton surrogate and worked as policy director for Clinton’s presidential campaign in 2008. She was a key protagonist in developing President Barack Obama’s healthcare reform proposals – the Affordable Care Act – during her tenure in the Obama administration.

    U.S. Democratic Party
    U.S. Democratic Party

    “We are delighted to bring together this talented group of Democrats. These individuals represent some of the best progressive thinking from across the nation. I am confident that the members of this committee will engage Americans in a substantive dialogue of ideas and solutions that will inform our Party Platform,” Democratic National Committee Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultzshe said.

    Congressman Elijah Cummings has been appointed as chair of the drafting committee.

    The committee’s members are Rep. Elijah Cummings, Howard Berman, Paul Booth, Carol Browner, Rep. Keith Ellison, Rep. Luis Gutierrez, Rep. Barbara Lee, Bill McKibben, Deborah Parker, State Rep. Alicia Reece, Bonnie Schaefer, Ambassador Wendy Sherman, Neera Tanden, Dr. Cornel West, and James Zogby.

    Sanders said he was satisfied with the way the committee’s seats were distributed.

    “We believe that we will have the representation on the platform drafting committee to create a Democratic platform that reflects the views of millions of our supporters who want the party to address the needs of working families in this country and not just Wall Street, the drug companies, the fossil fuel industry and other powerful special interests,” he said in a statement.

    Clinton campaign press secretary Brian Fallon also said their camp is happy with the fact that Sanders will have more input in the party platform.

    “We’re pleased that the upcoming Democratic Convention will ensure supporters of Senator Sanders are well represented in the drafting of the party’s platform,” Fallon said. “The Democratic Party historically has been a big tent, representing a diverse coalition, and Hillary Clinton is committed to continue welcoming different perspectives and ideas.”

  • Hillary Clinton’s email nightmares are back and are likely to get much worse

    Hillary Clinton’s email nightmares are back and are likely to get much worse

    As the former Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton struggles to lock down the Democratic presidential nomination, her infamous email controversy is back.

    The State Department’s inspector general recently released its report on the email practices of Clinton and a number of other past secretaries of state.

    The report badly complicates Clinton’s past explanations about the server and whether she complied fully with the laws in place governing electronic communication. And it virtually ensures that Clinton’s email practices will be front and center in Donald Trump’s fusillade of attacks against her credibility and honesty between now and Nov. 8.

    The inspector general, in a long awaited review obtained Wednesday, May 25, by The Washington Post in advance of its publication, found that Clinton’s use of private email for public business was “not an appropriate method” of preserving documents and that her practices failed to comply with department policies meant to ensure that federal record laws are followed.

    The report says Clinton, who is the Democratic presidential front-runner, should have printed and saved her emails during her four years in office or surrendered her work-related correspondence immediately upon stepping down in February 2013. Instead, Clinton provided those records in December 2014, nearly two years after leaving office.

    For a candidate already struggling to overcome a perception that she is neither honest nor trustworthy, the IG report makes that task significantly harder. No one will come out of this news cycle — with the exception of the hardest of the hard-core Clinton people — believing she is a better bet for the presidency on May 25 than she was on May 23.

    Clinton remains blessed that Republicans are on the verge of nominating Donald Trump, a candidate whose numbers on honesty, trustworthiness and even readiness to lead are worse — and in some cases, far worse — than hers. But Trump’s task of casting her as “Crooked Hillary” just got easier.


    Here are the most critical parts of the State Department inspector general report on Clinton’s email use as reported by Washington Times:

    The State Department’s independent watchdog released an 83-page report Wednesday to lawmakers concluding that Hillary Clinton’s email practices did not comply with department policies.

    Below are some of the most revealing parts of the findings:

    1. The report concludes that Clinton’s use of a personal email account was “not an appropriate method.” This knocks down a key argument made in Clinton’s defense — that because she had emailed State Department officials on their government accounts, records of her communications were preserved.

    imrs.php.jpg

    2. In January 2011, there were two hacking attempts on the Clinton email system in one day. An adviser to President Bill Clinton tried to shut down the server each time.

    imrs.php.jpg

    3. There were warnings issued to senior State Department officials that hackers were targeting personal email accounts. Below, an excerpt from a March 11, 2011, memo written by the assistant secretary of diplomatic security.

    imrs.php.jpg

    4. The audit also covered Clinton’s aides, some of whom did not cooperate when asked to respond to a questionnaire about email use. Some of the aides used their personal email accounts extensively for official business.

    imrs.php.jpg

    5. The package of emails turned over by Clinton was “incomplete.”

    6. IT security officials were concerned about Clinton’s use of personal email and held meetings to discuss the need to preserve records and security. One staff member said the security director said the email system had been approved by state’s legal staff. The IG did not find evidence that the department’s legal adviser had reviewed or approved Clinton’s email system. 

    Another staff member who raised issues was told that their mission was “to support the Secretary, and instructed the staff never to speak of the Secretary’s personal email system again.”

    7. The report also criticizes Colin Powell’s handling of official emails during his tenure as secretary of state, saying it was also “not an appropriate method” for preserving emails that are part of the federal record. When asked to defend her email system, Clinton has said that her predecessors also used personal accounts.

     

    But the report also notes that by the time Clinton became secretary of state, the guidance on email use was much more detailed, suggesting that pointing to Powell is not an entirely fair comparison.

    imrs.php.jpg


     

  • Donald Trump beats Clinton in new poll

    Donald Trump beats Clinton in new poll

    WASHINGTON (TIP): Presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump has for the first time edged out his Democratic rival Hillary Clinton in a latest poll even as majority of respondents have an high unfavorable opinion of both the aspirants.

    This is for the first time in a poll that Trump is seen ahead of Clinton, albeit within a margin of error.

    Fox News, in its latest national polls, found that Trump has the support of 45 per cent of the potential general election votes, while Clinton has the support of 42 per cent.

    Trump emerged as the presumptive nominee of the Republican party after winning the Indian elections early this month.

    He is the only GOP candidate left in the race, which early this year was crowded with 16 more White House aspirants including well established Senators and Governors.

    Clinton, however, is yet to clinch the nomination as her sole rival Senator Bernie Sanders from Vermont is giving a tough fight by winning a number of States and preventing her from acquiring enough delegate to become the presumptive nominee.

    Sanders, according to the Fox News, is still ahead of Trump.

    In a hypothetical match up, Sanders has support of 46 per cent of the respondents as against 42 per cent for Trump, Fox News said.

    However, a key highlight of the latest poll is the high unfavorable view of both Trump (56 per cent) and Clinton (61 per cent).

    Earlier Clinton’s negative rating was 58 per cent and Trump’s was at 65 per cent. “The standard for unpopular presidential candidates has been Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan in 1980, but we have two new champions,” said Republican pollster Daron Shaw, who conducts the Fox News Poll with Democratic pollster Chris Anderson.

    “Clinton and Trump rate lower than disastrous candidates like Mondale or Dole,” he said. Trump leads Clinton by 55 to 31 per cent among whites.

    On the other hand Clinton has a commanding lead over Trump when it comes to black (90 to seven per cent) and Hispanics (62 to 23 per cent).

    Fox News had surveyed 1021 registered voters between May 14-17.(PTI)

  • Clinton Sanders split wins as they slug it out to bitter end

    Clinton Sanders split wins as they slug it out to bitter end

    WASHINGTON (TIP): Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders split primary wins in Kentucky and Oregon respectively on May 15 as they continued an internecine electoral slugfest that is driving Democratic Party grandees to despair.

    Party stalwarts fear the prolonged intra-party fracas, which is now getting bitter, is starting to cost the party campaign time, money, and votes, even as the Republican Party begins to rally around Trump after he worsted his rivals, and has pretty much wrapped up the nomination. Trump himself has started taunting Hillary Clinton for not being able to shake off Sanders.

    But the 72-year old self-professed socialist Senator from Vermont is just refusing to fade out despite trailing Clinton by a huge margin in the race towards the 2383 delegates needed to win the Democratic nomination. On Tuesday, he notched up another impressive in the liberal state of Oregon (54.5-45.5) while narrowly losing Kentucky by only a few thousand votes to Clinton (46.8-46.3).

    The win did little to change the delegate count because of the way the system is designed, with the party establishment awarding pledged delegates proportionally to votes secured, and the un-pledged delegates leaning heavily towards Clinton, leaving her 2291-1528 ahead.

    But Sanders has refused to back down. He has promised to take the fight all the way to California, among the last state to primary on June 7 (on the day Prime Minister Modi is scheduled to arrive in Washington DC), leaving the Democratic party with the enervating prospect of seeing another three weeks of bloodletting, even as Trump and the Republicans get their act together.

    In fact, the tension within the Democratic Party has increased even as Sanders’ chances of winning the nomination, despite the massive popular grassroots support he has, is decreasing.

    Over the weekend, Sanders’ supports erupted in anger when the Nevada Democratic Party began awarding delegates to Clinton, accusing party stalwarts of rigging the system.

    Chaos and vandalism followed at the meeting keynoted by Clinton surrogate Barbara Boxer, a retiring California Senator who is also related to her, with some Sanders’ supporters accused of issuing death threats to party veterans favoring Clinton.

    Sanders called the allegations “nonsense” even as he reveled in massive public adulation on the west coast where he will make his last stand.

    Some of his supporters concede that he has only a theoretical chance now of winning the nomination (he has to win 855 of the 946 delegates still in play, which means he has to beat Clinton by something like 85-15 in the remaining primaries), but they want him to remain in the fray if only to influence the Clinton platform (manifesto) with the outside chance she may draft him as her running mate (or cabinet colleague if she wins, as Obama did with Hillary).

    But current feud is driving party stalwarts crazy because it is distracting them from also recapturing the Senate, where the Republicans have a 54-46 advantage, but Democrats see many vulnerable GOP candidates in the 34 Senate races (one-third of the Senate also goes to polls on Nov.8)

    “If Clinton can’t put Sanders away, can she beat Trump?” was the headline of one oped, among the many that reflected on whether the lack of fervor and passion among her flock, unlike that exhibited by supporters of Sanders and Trump, would be her undoing. (PTI)

  • Reshma Saujani on campaign trail in New Jersey

    Reshma Saujani on campaign trail in New Jersey

    Reshma Saujani, an American lawyer and politician (D) speaking at South Asians for Hillary Clinton for President at Curry On Restaurant in Jersey City on 17th May, 2016.

    Photo/ Moohammed Jaffer-SnapsIndia

     

  • Indian American Neera Tanden Leads Clinton Campaign In Slamming Trump’s Policies

    Indian American Neera Tanden Leads Clinton Campaign In Slamming Trump’s Policies

    WASHINGTON:  Indian American Neera Tanden (@neeratanden) on Wednesday, May 11, led the Hillary Clinton campaign in slamming the economic policies of Donald Trump, Republican presidential presumptive nominee, and alleging that this poses threat to the economic future of women and families.

    “Make no mistake: Trump’s divisive comments about women’s health are a direct threat to our dignity and economic security,” said Ms Tanden, president of the Center for American Progress Action Fund.

    “Trump is now trying to cover up the bald spots in his economic plan but women can see for themselves and women can see through his comb over,” said Ms Tanden who was joined by Senator Barbara Mikulski of Maryland.

    The two said that the trillions in tax cuts for millionaires, billionaires and corporations laid out in Trump’s tax plan would be an enormous boon for the top one per cent of earners, made at the expense of working families, seniors and the health of the economy.

    Trump’s plan would give USD 3 trillion over 10 years or more than 35 per cent of its tax breaks to millionaires, enough money to ensure Medicare and Social Security’s solvency for the next 75 years, repair the ailing infrastructure, or raise every person now living in poverty up to the poverty line.

    Trump would give multi-millionaires in the top 0.1 per cent like himself a raise of USD 1.3 million a year, or USD 100,000 a month.

    Ms Tanden alleged Trump’s ideas are not the only risk his presidency would pose for the economic future of women and families around this country.

    “His tax plan gives USD 3 trillion to millionaires, that’s enough to make Social Security and Medicare solvent for 75 years. Women, who rely disproportionately on Social Security, can’t afford such an irresponsible giveaway,” Ms Tanden said.

    Ms Tanden and Mikulski said Trump still opposes raising the minimum wage because he believes “wages are too high” and recently said he doesn’t favor a federal floor for the minimum wage, which could leave many workers subject to a lower minimum wage.

    At a time when two-thirds of minimum wage workers are women, this issue is critical to working families, they said. “I’m with Hillary because I know that she’s the only candidate who will make fighting for women and families her priority,” Mikulski said.

  • Hillary Clinton’s campaign slams Donald Trump for mocking Indians

    Hillary Clinton’s campaign slams Donald Trump for mocking Indians

    WASHINGTON (TIP): Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign has slammed Republican frontrunner Donald Trump for mocking an Indian call centre worker during an election rally this week, saying it shows disrespect towards the community and is reflective of his divisive rhetoric.

    “Donald Trump mocking Indian workers is just typical of his disrespect that he has shown to groups across the spectrum,” said John Podesta, chairman of the Clinton Campaign.

    “He has run a campaign of bigotry and division. I think that’s quite dangerous for the country when you think about the fact that you need friends, allies. The kind of campaign he is running breeds disrespect across the globe and breeds division and danger here at home,” he told reporters in Germantown, Maryland after formally launching ‘Indian- Americans for Hillary’, an effort by the community to rally behind the Democratic presidential front runner.

    Podesta was reacting to Trump’s apparent use of a fake Indian accent to mock a call centre representative in India during a campaign rally in Delaware this week.

    The real estate tycoon said that he called up his credit card company to find out whether their customer support is based in the US or overseas.

    At the same time, he described India as a great place, asserting that he is not angry with Indian leaders.

    Meanwhile, an Indian-American entrepreneur also hit out at Trump, calling his comments “demeaning”.

    “When Donald Trump fakes the accent of an Indian at the help desk, it is demeaning and demonising to me personally,” said Frank Islam, a top Indian-American bundler in the Clinton campaign who has helped raised more than USD 100,000 for her.

    A resident of Maryland, Islam is part of the newly launched ‘Indian-Americans for Hillary’.

    He also disagreed with the remarks of Republican Governor from Maine, Paul LePage, who had said that Indian workers are “worst” and “hardest” to understand. “I do not know, where he got that impression. I consider Indian-Americans very hard working and they aim high,” he said. “I consider Indian-Americans to be thoughtful, constructing, hardworking and resilient. So I do not agree with him,” Islam said, adding that the community played a key role in strengthening the country.

  • Anti-Trump Forces Build Shadow Third-Party Campaign

    Anti-Trump Forces Build Shadow Third-Party Campaign

    WASHINGTON (TIP): Anti-Donald Trump strategists are working behind the scenes to build the foundation for a third-party run even as the Republican Party takes steps toward unifying around the presumptive GOP candidate, says an ABC report.

    A small but dedicated group of Republicans say they’ve begun to cultivate donors in hopes of mounting a viable third-party challenge to a likely Hillary Clinton-Trump showdown that some strategists say has fed broad demand for an alternative option.

    “I think we’ll end up in a situation where we do see somebody who’s a conservative alternative to Trump and Mrs. Clinton come November,” Rick Wilson, a veteran Republican operative, said on ABC News’ “Powerhouse Politics” podcast.

    While Texas’ state ballot deadline passed this week and others are fast approaching, Wilson downplayed ballot access hurdles, citing legal precedent for rolling back early deadlines. The real challenge, he said, is fielding the appropriate candidate.

    “We recognize that finding that person who can pick up the mantle of the third party, who is also electable and compelling and has a great personal narrative, is a difficult lift,” he said. “It’s a lot harder than the ballot access question by an order of magnitude.”

    Another Republican at the heart of the effort, Weekly Standard editor and ABC News Contributor Bill Kristol, has tweeted about having discussed the possibility of a third party run with Mitt Romney, Nebraska Sen. Ben Sasse, and former Oklahoma Sen. Tom Coburn. Kristol, Wilson, as well as GOP strategist Joel Searby, are heading up the effort, but it also involves donors and about a dozen other strategists.

    Sasse said he is not interested in running, but has bemoaned the two likely candidates and called for a third option in an open letter, writing “WHY is that the only choice?” Similar efforts by this same group to recruit Gen. James Mattis, a retired Marine Corps General, also have not come to pass.

    A source close to third party discussions told ABC News that Trump’s position as presumptive nominee explains why the third-party effort has now sprung into force.

    “It’s very realistic,” the source said when asked if it was possible to mount this type of effort in May. “We already have a number of serious and capable donors ready to help and while it is very difficult to do this, it is not complicated. It’s a pretty straightforward process. There are a number of signatures needed and a legal process in each state. We are focused on the timeline and while it’s difficult, it’s not a problem that can’t be solved by hard work and resources.”

    The same source said they are working on recruiting a candidate: “There are a lot of people who would like to run for president, but only a few that are truly qualified and could mount a bid of this stature this late in the game. We are focused on a very small number of candidates who would fit that profile.”

    Matt Kibbe, a former head of the fiscal-conservative group FreedomWorks who led a super PAC supporting Rand Paul in the GOP presidential primary, suggested there’s broad demand for an alternative to a Clinton-Trump matchup.

    “I think Libertarians, a lot of [Tea Party members], a lot of constitutional conservatives, and probably less relevantly establishment Republicans, are looking for another option as well,” said Kibbe, who has traditionally voted Republican but plans to attend the GOP, Democratic, and Libertarian conventions in search of a candidate, and is open to likely Libertarian nominee former New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson.

    Some conservative leaders have cast doubt about the chances of a realistic third-party option as more party members make peace with Trump as their nominee.

    Al Cardenas, the former president of the American Conservatives Union and currently a senior partner at the lobbying firm Squire Patton Boggs, said talk of a third option has waned.

    “It’s a combination of lacking a superstar willing to do so, and a sense that the party will fare better in general election, down ticket, if it’s not split at top of the ticket,” Cardenas said. Many conservatives are more focused on keeping GOP majorities in Congress, with Trump on the presidential ticket, Cardenas said.

    The anti-Trump forces’ uphill climb may have grown steeper today as House Speaker Paul Ryan narrowed the gap between himself and Trump, with the two issuing a joint statement saying their meetings in Washington, D.C., signaled a “positive step” toward unifying the Republican Party.

    Other conservative leaders have also warmed to Trump. Despite the GOP nominee’s inconsistencies on whether he supports raising tax rates on the wealthy, Grover Norquist, the top anti-tax activist in Washington, D.C., defended Trump in an interview with CNBC, saying he is “not at all concerned that any taxes are going up at all” with Trump as president.

    But anti-Trump activist Wilson said the third-party movement can emerge and beat Clinton.

    “A large number of Republicans — 55 percent of the people that have cast their vote in the Republican primary or caucus this year — have done so against Donald Trump,” he said. “Now some of those folks are going to go to him [and] settle for Trump. But that’s because right now they don’t have a conservative alternative before them who can provide them with answers on how you preserve the Republican and conservative movement without it being simply a Hillary operation.”

  • Indian American Neera Tanden Leads Clinton Campaign In Slamming Trump’s Policies

    Indian American Neera Tanden Leads Clinton Campaign In Slamming Trump’s Policies

    WASHINGTON:  Indian American Neera Tanden on Wednesday led the Hillary Clinton campaign in slamming the economic policies of Donald Trump, Republican presidential presumptive nominee, and alleging that this poses threat to the economic future of women and families.

    “Make no mistake: Trump’s divisive comments about women’s health are a direct threat to our dignity and economic security,” said Ms Tanden, president of the Center for American Progress Action Fund.

    “Trump is now trying to cover up the bald spots in his economic plan but women can see for themselves and women can see through his comb over,” said Ms Tanden who was joined by Senator Barbara Mikulski of Maryland.

    The two said that the trillions in tax cuts for millionaires, billionaires and corporations laid out in Trump’s tax plan would be an enormous boon for the top one per cent of earners, made at the expense of working families, seniors and the health of the economy.

    Trump’s plan would give USD 3 trillion over 10 years or more than 35 per cent of its tax breaks to millionaires, enough money to ensure Medicare and Social Security’s solvency for the next 75 years, repair the ailing infrastructure, or raise every person now living in poverty up to the poverty line.

    Trump would give multi-millionaires in the top 0.1 per cent like himself a raise of USD 1.3 million a year, or USD 100,000 a month.

    Ms Tanden alleged Trump’s ideas are not the only risk his presidency would pose for the economic future of women and families around this country.

    “His tax plan gives USD 3 trillion to millionaires, that’s enough to make Social Security and Medicare solvent for 75 years. Women, who rely disproportionately on Social Security, can’t afford such an irresponsible giveaway,” Ms Tanden said.

    Ms Tanden and Mikulski said Trump still opposes raising the minimum wage because he believes “wages are too high” and recently said he doesn’t favor a federal floor for the minimum wage, which could leave many workers subject to a lower minimum wage.

    At a time when two-thirds of minimum wage workers are women, this issue is critical to working families, they said. “I’m with Hillary because I know that she’s the only candidate who will make fighting for women and families her priority,” Mikulski said.

  • Donald Trump wins big in Indiana, becomes presumptive GOP nominee

    Donald Trump wins big in Indiana, becomes presumptive GOP nominee

    WASHINGTON (TIP): Donald Trump won the Republican primary in Indiana on Tuesday, May 3, a resounding victory that sets him up to be the presumptive Republican nominee.

    Rival Ted Cruz announced later in the evening that he was dropping out of the race, removing Trump’s most formidable foe.

    Read also: Trump’s Win will have Consequences

    Speaking to supporters, Trump said he didn’t know whether Cruz liked him or not but called him “one tough competitor.” Just hours earlier, when Cruz was still in the race, they were trading insults.

    “This has been an amazing evening. I didn’t expect this,” Trump said, as he called for party unity.

    On the Democratic side, Bernie Sanders was the projected winner in Indiana over Hillary Clinton, a surprise as she had held a slight lead in recent polls.
    Trump is now the favorite to win the GOP nomination, a notion unthinkable to many in the GOP establishment a year ago when his potential presidential bid was regarded as a lark or publicity stunt. Republican National Committee chairman Reince Priebus said in a tweet that Trump was the “presumptive nominee” and that the party should unite behind him.

    Cruz could no longer amass a majority of the delegates by the time of the Republican National Convention in July, and Trump’s string of victories raised doubts that he could deny Trump a majority by that point.

    “Lyin’ Ted Cruz consistently said that he will, and must, win Indiana,” Trump tweeted shortly after the race was called. “If he doesn’t he should drop out of the race-stop wasting time & money.”

    The Hoosier State had once been considered a state favorable to Cruz, and even he had seen it as a firewall to Trump’s wins in the northeast. But an alliance that the Texas senator made with John Kasich unraveled, and Cruz’s announcement that Carly Fiorina would be his running mate hasn’t changed the dynamics of the race.

    Clinton has tried to turn her attention to the general election, but Sanders has been bolstered by a hefty fundraising network of small donors. Even though the amount that he raised fell in April, it was still almost $26 million, nearly the same amount that Clinton raised for the primary.

  • Trump’s Win will have Consequences

    Trump’s Win will have Consequences

    Trump’s opponent, Ted Cruz’s wife had said that her husband’s candidacy was showing America, “the face of God, whom they serve”. But in reality many Americans were reminded of Elmer Gantry, a sleazy 1920s sociopathic preacher from the film Elmer Gantry. Most Americans were not ready for Ted Cruz’s kind of ultra-conservatism. They are worried about jobs. So to paraphrase Bill Clinton, “it is jobs, stupid.”

    Trump had declared that his idea was to bring new blood in the party and change its base and outlook. He never spared an opportunity to provoke his rivals, party leadership and media personalities, who inevitably retaliated.

    The anti-Trump movement spent more than $75 million on broadcast TV alone. He also weathered nearly 64,000 television advertisements critical of him. Media was also campaigning against him and giving favorable coverage to his opponents. All this has come to a naught. Now Trump is going to be the Republican nominee. He achieved this victory on his own, in spite of opposition from the Republican Party bosses, who are then left with no option but to back him. The leadership did not realize that people are tired of all politicians and do not trust them. Their false promises do not impress anyone. The longer a politician is in office, the more disliked he is. People are fed up with politicians with the same rhetoric and talking points, refusing to accept and learn from the mistakes and make changes and focus on improving the job situation. In 2014, the Republicans secured the largest majority in the House since 1928, and by winning nine seats, regained the Senate majority for the first time in eight years. They also took pride in having control of 31 governorships.

    Nevertheless, the so-called establishment could not find any capable aspirant who could be a match for Trump, who had never held any public office. Trump has shown that the party leadership is out of touch.

    The recent campaign has brought out the anger of young people, as they are the victims of modernization, international trade deals and shrinking economy with consequent loss of jobs. The income level has gone down, widening the gap between the rich and the ordinary people.

    Germany, which had faced the same problem, woke up quite early and made provisions to train the affected workers in new technology. Hence, Germany was equipped to face the problems generated by the international trade agreements.

    Neither the Obama administration nor the Republican Congress nor the Senate did anything to address this issue. Therefore, the Republican Party as well as Hillary Clinton are finding it difficult to face the angry youth in their own parties. The Republican leadership as well as Hillary all these years have indulged in pep talk and made tall promises which have failed to revive the economy.

    So it is no wonder that while the Republican Party leadership has to eat humble pie, Hillary has also not secured the nomination yet because people do not really like her or trust her. She, of course, would get the required number of delegates in the remaining states, especially in California. But the victory will not be glorious.

    Trump says that his ability to make deals and fix problems is the key to his remarkable success in business. But the eventual final campaign would not be easy for either Trump or Hillary. All these days Trump has scrupulously avoided giving details of his economic policy or his international agenda.

    His “America First” slogan has roused nationalist fervor but it would result in a protectionist policy. It is true that all international trade agreements have some unpalatable clauses but they also boost trade and economy. It is curious that while multi-billionaire Trump’s “America-First” policy is another name for protectionism; the self-proclaimed socialist, Sanders, also wants to tread the same path. Some economists have pointed out that various welfare schemes put forward by Sanders would have to be backed up by heavy taxation, resulting in the increase in inflation and the cost of living.

    So far, democratic white youth nationwide have favored Sanders and brought Hillary’s favorability numbers significantly down. While Trump has won the nomination race, he does not mix with the African-Americans like Hillary does. He has alienated Hispanics and Muslims, which make a very large chunk of population. The language which Trump has used so far, is dangerous. In November, no matter who wins, Hillary or Trump, the problems facing either of them would be enormous and very intricate because of their history and the way in which they have conducted themselves so far.

    For instance, it is believed that Hillary is willing to compromise. But some, who know her, say that it is true but at times she is very adamant. When her husband was the President, he put forward a plan for healthcare, which would have been accepted by the Congress with some amendments. But Hillary was adamant, hence the plan failed to pass.

    The situation in the country demands a conciliatory tone as well as behavior. Obama generally kept aloof from the members of both parties and also leaders of other countries. Nevertheless, he did follow a conciliatory policy on crucial matters.

    Hillary or Trump would have to face a not-so-friendly Congress and the Senate. It is quite possible that Sanders and some other Senators would keep up pressure on the future Clinton administration. It would need a great deal of acumen not to be populist and disturb the balance.

    Hillary has been branded as someone, who is close to the financial circles. No President could afford to be an antagonist of these circles; but to keep a balance requires great deal of skill. While Hillary, first as the First Lady, then as the Senator, had relations with members of both houses of Congress., Trump would be totally new to the Congress and the administration. He, of course, has been the head of a big commercial conglomerate. But as the head of the state, he would have to run the administration, be answerable to the Congress as well as people, which is quite different from running a company. Thus, the new President would have to face a volatile situation and many challenges.

    (Govind Talwalkar - The author is a former Editor of ‘Maharashtra Times’)
  • Hillary Clinton calls voting for Iraq war ‘a mistake’

    Hillary Clinton calls voting for Iraq war ‘a mistake’

    WASHINGTON (TIP): The US Democratic presidential front-runner Hillary Clinton said on April 21 her greatest political regret is “voting to give President Bush authority in Iraq”.

    It is in contrast to her stand in the 2008 campaign, during which Clinton defended her “Yes” vote for the Iraq war as a way to give the then President George W. Bush authority to deal with Iraq.

    “It did not turn out the way that I had thought it would, based on what he had said,” she said of the Iraq war during a town hall event aired live on the ABC “Good Morning America” programme Thursday morning.

    Hillary Clinton joined “Good Morning America” two days after winning the New York Democratic primary. She took questions from the two hosts of ABC and questions from the audience.

    “And I regret that. And I said that it was a mistake and, obviously, is something that I wish hadn’t turned out the way it did.” she added.

    During the campaign, the Democratic candidate has often been criticized for her vote in support of the Iraq war when she served as the US Senator from New York State.

    Her Democratic nomination rival, Bernie Sanders, said earlier that “the disastrous invasion of Iraq, something that I strongly opposed, has unraveled the region completely and led to the rise of al-Qaeda and to (the emergence of) IS.”

    “I think that (the Iraq war) was one of the worst foreign policy blunders in the history of the United States,” Sanders said.

    Apart from the Iraq war, Clinton has kept giving different answers for what she thinks is her greatest regret in politics, including not overhauling the healthcare system earlier and the 2012 attacks killing four Americans in Benghazi, Libya.

  • Trump and Clinton win New York primaries, solidify positions

    Trump and Clinton win New York primaries, solidify positions

    NEW YORK (TIP): Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, the Republican and Democratic party frontrunners for US presidential nominations, have won their respective primaries in New York state.

    New York helped both front-runners to solidify their lead. Mr. Trump won a commanding victory with 60% of the votes and scooped up most of his home state’s 95 delegates. John Kasich, the governor of Ohio, came a distant second with 25% of the votes and Mr. Cruz scored a measly 15%. “Thank you New York! I love you!”, Mr. Trump tweeted shortly after polls closed. In his short victory speech at Trump tower, his gleaming palace in Manhattan, the real-estate mogul thanked his family and his team and then declared that “we don’t have much of a race anymore…Senator Cruz is just about mathematically eliminated”.

    Mrs. Clinton won an equally convincing 58%of the votes with the remaining 42% going to Mr. Sanders. There were 291 Democratic delegates at stake in New York; Mrs. Clinton bagged most of them. She had fought a surprisingly tough battle in the city, which she considers her home state, against Mr. Sanders, who hails from Brooklyn. In the two weeks since she lost in Wisconsin on April 5th, she campaigned tirelessly in the streets of the Big Apple. She danced the merengue in a Latino neighborhood in Washington Heights and devoured an ice-cream concoction called “Victory Mac Daddy” at an ice-cream parlor in the East Village. Meanwhile Mr. Sanders stuck to holding large rallies in Prospect Park and Washington Square Park, attracting tens of thousands of mostly young people.

    Have the two front-runners wrapped up their respective nominations? They haven’t, though Mrs. Clinton is now very nearly unbeatable. Shedding her usual caution, she declared in her victory speech that “the race for the Democratic nomination is in the home stretch and victory is in sight”. She also reached out to Sanders supporters, telling them that “there is much more that unites us than divides us”. Mr. Trump on the other hand needs to continue to win in five important contests on the east coast next week (Pennsylvania, Delaware, Rhode Island, Connecticut and Maryland), in Indiana and most crucially in California, where voters go to the polls on June 7th and 172 delegates are at stake. He knows that he still has only a narrow path to get the 1,237 pledged delegates needed to avoid a contested convention in Cleveland, which is why he keeps whining about the “rigged” delegate system. Speaking to reporters on Staten Island on the weekend, Mr. Trump said he hoped that the July convention would “not involve violence”. “And I don’t think it will,” he said. “But I will say this: It’s a rigged system. It’s a crooked system. It’s a hundred-percent crooked.”

    The New York vote was reportedly marred by voting irregularities, with numerous accounts of thousands being inexplicably stripped from voter rolls. This prompted the New York City comptroller to announce an audit to identify the problems in the primary vote. Mr. Sanders’ team probably rightly assumed that their candidate was especially affected by (often young) voters being barred from voting. “We are deeply disturbed by what we’re hearing from polling places across the state”, said a statement by the Sanders campaign. “From long lines and dramatic understaffing to longtime voters being forced to cast affidavit ballots and thousands of registered New Yorkers being dropped from the rolls, what’s happening today is a disgrace.”

    Mr. Kasich was not in New York any more after the polls closed on April 19th, moving on to Maryland. He had done his bit of campaigning and eating in New York-he prompted snarky comments when he attacked a slice of pizza with a fork though he did better with chicken soup with replace and apple strudel. He won the island of Manhattan, where Mr. Trump is widely disliked, but did far less well than Mr. Trump in rural areas in upstate New York, which has been hit hard by job losses in recent years. Mr. Cruz would dearly like Mr. Kasich to quit the campaign, but the plucky Ohio governor thinks he can win a contested convention. Others want him to stay in the race merely to keep a voice of reason in the Republican contest. Mr. Cruz had also moved on to the next state, spending the evening of April 19th in Pennsylvania. He had offended New Yorkers when he attacked Mr. Trump in Iowa because of his “New York values” and however much he tried to qualify his insult in subsequent months, New Yorkers paid him back with a poor result. By now Mr. Cruz, like Mr. Kasich, has no chance of winning the required 1,237 pledged candidates to win the nomination. And, like the governor, he is staying in because he thinks he has a chance to win a contested convention.

    Clinton seems to have locked up the Democratic race with a commanding win in the Empire State. She now leads Sanders by more than 250 pledged delegates leaving the superdelegates aside for the moment.

    Sanders’ hope to win the race is effectively over. He would have to win a far larger share of the remaining delegates than he already has. Even his loyalists beganacknowledging on the night of the primary that Sanders could no longer catch Clinton in delegates. However, there’s a good case for him to stay in the race right until the Democratic National Convention scheduled for July.

    For Donald Trump, a commanding win in New York-he won 90 of the 95 available delegates – delivering a massive blow to his critics since New York is considered to be the largest immigrant inhabited state-provides much-needed stability to a campaign that’s been in wild flux for weeks, roiled by losses, delegate troubles, and internal power struggles. The fact that Ted Cruz, his closest rival, was shut out entirely, makes the win sweeter for him and reinforces that he is the front-runner.

    Yet Trump dreams are far-fetched as he needs 1,237 delegates to clinch the Republican nomination. He’d have to win about 63 percent of the delegates still on the board. That’s a higher proportion than what he’s won so far, but the field is smaller now, and the map ahead is thought to favor him, including as it includes several northeastern states and California. Trump has excelled in states with higher numbers of moderates.

    Ted Cruz, meanwhile, is now mathematically eliminated from reaching 1,237, though he was practically denied that chance long ago. His hope is to keep Trump from getting there on the first ballot at the convention, and then snatch the nomination out from under him on subsequent ballots. That’s why Cruz has put so much effort into state conventions where delegates are selected, and he’s been very successful at placing his own loyalists in slots-much to Trump’s chagrin. As for John Kasich, the measly five delegates he won in New York doesn’t help him much. He’s still hoping for a miracle on the floor in Cleveland, as the party magically recognizes him as the strongest general-election candidate and crowns him the nominee. Good luck, governor.

    But what if Trump doesn’t actually need to get to 1,237?

    Vote now on www.theindianpanorama.news/poll

  • Sanders tops Time’s poll of 100 most influential

    Sanders tops Time’s poll of 100 most influential

    NEW YORK (TIP): Democratic presidential hopeful Bernie Sanders has won Time magazine’s readers’ poll of the world’s 100 most influential people, garnering more than three times as many votes as his rival Hillary Clinton.

    Prime Minister Narendra Modi, tennis icon Sania Mirza and actor Priyanka Chopra are also among the probable contenders named by the magazine for its annual list. In the readers’ poll, Modi got 0.7% of the ‘yes’ votes while Mirza got 0.5% and Chopra 0.8%.

    Sanders had been leading the readers’ poll from the start and finished with 3.3 per cent of the total ‘yes’ votes when the poll closed midnight yesterday.

    The Vermont senator not only beat Clinton, 68, who has finished with one per cent of the ‘yes’ votes but also a host of world leaders and cultural figures.

    Sanders edged out the South Korean boy band Big Bang which got 2.9% votes. Myanmar pro-democracy leader Aung San Suu Kyi came in third with 2.2% votes followed by US President Barack Obama with 2%.

  • Trump Sparks another Row with his Anti-Abortion Comments

    Trump Sparks another Row with his Anti-Abortion Comments

    WASHINGTON (TIP): US presidential wannabe Donald Trump has withdrawn a call for women who have abortions to be punished, only hours after suggesting it.

    Republican presidential front-runner Donald Trump says women who end pregnancies should face punishment if the US bans abortion, triggering a torrent of criticism from both sides of the abortion debate, including his White House rivals.

    After MSNBC broadcast a clip of an interview with Trump, the property mogul released a statement two hours later backing a ban on abortion and advocating punishments for abortion doctors, but reversing himself on the question of women themselves facing repercussions.

    Mr. Trump then travelled to Washington to meet with his foreign policy advisers and remained out of the public eye for more than 24 hours, a lifetime by his standards.

    Instead of appearing himself, he dispatched a succession of aides to TV news sets to explain that his position on abortion had not been fully formed, and that he simply “misspoke”.

    “This was a misspeak,” Katrina Pierson, a spokeswoman, told CNN. “There was a misspeak here and you have a presidential candidate that clarified the record not once but twice.”

    “The doctor or any other person performing this illegal act upon a woman would be held legally responsible, not the woman,” Trump said in his last statement. “The woman is a victim in this case as is the life in her womb.”

    Trump faced a barrage of condemnation on Thursday over his comments that women who have abortions should be punished, highlighting his struggles with female voters and damaging his chances in a crucial upcoming contest.

    Trump has won support from Republican voters for selling himself as a Washington outsider. But the New York real estate tycoon, who once supported abortion access, has come under pressure from conservatives to prove he is truly one of them.

    At the same time, he has drawn criticism for comments that offended women and minority groups.

    The Republican front-runner has fallen behind rival Ted Cruz in Wisconsin, where the next primary election will be held on Tuesday, April 5, and a recent poll showed that nearly three-quarters of women have an unfavorable opinion of him.

    While Mr. Trump holds a commanding advantage in the Republican race, even some within his own party have suggested his weakness with women could be his undoing in a potential general election match-up with Hillary Clinton.

    Polls show the former secretary of state leading Mr. Trump by an average of 11 points in such a scenario, with the gap widening to 16 per cent among women.

    Mrs. Clinton, for her part, has slammed Mr. Trump’s comments on abortion as “outrageous and dangerous”.

  • Why are American Voters so angry?

    Why are American Voters so angry?

    Americans are generally known for having a positive outlook on life, but with the countdown for November’s presidential election now well under way, polls show voters are angry. This may explain the success of non-mainstream candidates such as Republican Donald Trump and Democrat Bernie Sanders. But what is fuelling the frustration?

    A CNN/ORC poll carried out in December 2015 suggests 69% of Americans are either “very angry” or “somewhat angry” about “the way things are going” in the US.

    And the same proportion – 69% – are angry because the political system “seems to only be working for the insiders with money and power, like those on Wall Street or in Washington,” according to a NBC/Wall Street Journal poll from November.

    Many people are not only angry, they are angrier than they were a year ago, according to an NBC/Esquire survey last month -particularly Republicans (61%) and white people (54%) but also 42% of Democrats, 43% of Latinos and 33% of African Americans.

    Candidates have sensed the mood and are adopting the rhetoric. Donald Trump, who has arguably tapped into voters’ frustration better than any other candidate, says he is “very, very angry” and will “gladly accept the mantle of anger” while rival Republican Ben Carson says he has encountered “many Americans who are discouraged and angry as they watch the American dream slipping away”.

    Democratic presidential hopeful Bernie Sanders says: “I am angry and millions of Americans are angry,” while Hillary Clinton says she “understands why people get angry”.

    Here are five reasons why some voters feel the American dream is in tatters

    Economy

    “The failure of the economy to deliver real progress to middle-class and working-class Americans over the past 15 years is the most fundamental source of public anger and disaffection in the US,” says William Galston, an expert in governance studies at the Brookings Institution think tank.

    Although the country may have recovered from the recession -economic output has rebounded and unemployment rates have fallen from 10% in 2009 to 5% in 2015 – Americans are still feeling the pinch in their wallets. Household incomes have, generally speaking, been stagnant for 15 years. In 2014, the median household income was $53,657, according to the US Census Bureau -compared with $57,357 in 2007 and$57,843 in 1999 (adjusted for inflation).

    There is also a sense that many jobs are of lower quality and opportunity is dwindling, says Galston. “The search for explanations can very quickly degenerate into the identification of villains in American politics. On the left it is the billionaires, the banks, and Wall Street. On the right it is immigrants, other countries taking advantage of us and the international economy -they are two sides of the same political coin.”

    Immigration

    America’s demographics are changing – nearly 59 million immigrants have arrived in the US since 1965, not all of whom entered the country legally. Forty years ago, 84% of the American population was made up of non-Hispanic white people – by last year the figure was 62%, according to Pew Research. It projects this trend will continue, and by 2055 non-Hispanic white people will make up less than half the population. Pew expects them to account for only 46% of the population by 2065. By 2055, more Asians than any other ethnic group are expected to move to US.

    “It’s been an era of huge demographic, racial, cultural, religious and generational change,” says Paul Taylor, author of The Next America. “While some celebrate these changes, others deplore them. Some older, whiter voters do not recognize the country they grew up in. There is a sense of alien tribes,” he says.

    The US currently has 11.3 million illegal immigrants. Migrants often become a target of anger, says Roberto Suro, an immigration expert at the University of Southern California. “There is a displacement of anxiety and they become the face of larger sources of tensions, such as terrorism, jobs and dissatisfaction. We saw that very clearly when Donald Trump switched from [complaining about] Mexicans to Muslims without skipping a beat after San Bernardino,” he says, referring to the shooting in California in December that left 14 people dead.

    Washington

    When asked if they trust the government, 89% of Republicans and 72% of Democrats say “only sometimes” or “never”, according to Pew Research. Six out of 10 Americans think the government has too much power, a survey by Gallupsuggests, while the government has been named as the top problem in the US for two years in a row – above issues such as the economy, jobs and immigration, according to the organization.

    The gridlock on Capitol Hill and the perceived impotence of elected officials has led to resentment among 20 to 30% of voters, says polling expert Karlyn Bowman, from the American Enterprise Institute. “People see politicians fighting and things not getting done – plus the responsibilities of Congress have grown significantly since the 1970s and there is simply more to criticize. People feel more distant from their government and sour on it,” she says.

    William Galston thinks part of the appeal of Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders is down to frustration with what some see as a failing system. “So on the right you have someone who is running as a ‘strong man’, a Berlusconi and Putin, who will get things done, and on the left you have someone who is rejecting incrementalism and calling for a political revolution,” he says.

    Ted Cruz, who won the Republican caucuses in Iowa, is also running as an anti-establishment candidate. “Tonight is a victory for every American who’s watched in dismay as career politicians in Washington in both parties refuse to listen and too often fail to keep their commitments to the people,” he said on Monday night.

    America’s place in the World

    America is used to being seen as a superpower but the number of Americans that think the US “stands above all other countries in the world” went from 38% in 2012 to 28% in 2014, Pew Research suggests. Seventy percent of Americans also think the US is losing respect internationally, according to a 2013 poll by the center.

    “For a country that is used to being on top of the world, the last 15 years haven’t been great in terms of foreign policy. There’s a feeling of having been at war since 9/11 that’s never really gone away, a sense America doesn’t know what it wants and that things aren’t going our way,” says Roberto Suro. The rise of China, the failure to defeat the Taliban and the slow progress in the fight against the so-called Islamic State group has contributed to the anxiety.

    Americans are also more afraid of the prospect of terrorist attacks than at any time since 9/11, according to a New York Times/CBS poll. The American reaction to the San Bernardino shooting was different to the French reaction to the Paris attacks, says Galston. “Whereas the French rallied around the government, Americans rallied against it. There is an impression that the US government is failing in its most basic obligation to keep country and people safe.”

    Divided nation

    Democrats and Republicans have become more ideologically polarized than ever. The typical (median), Republican is now more conservative in his or her core social, economic and political views than 94% of Democrats, compared with 70% in 1994, according to Pew Research. The median Democrat, meanwhile, is more liberal than 92% of Republicans, up from 64%.

    The study also found that the share of Americans with a highly negative view of the opposing party has doubled, and that the animosity is so deep, many would be unhappy if a close relative married someone of a different political persuasion.

    This polarization makes reaching common ground on big issues such as immigration, healthcare and gun control more complicated. The deadlock is, in turn, angering another part of the electorate. “Despite this rise in polarization in America, a large mass in the middle are pragmatic. They aren’t totally disengaged, they don’t want to see Washington gridlocked, but they roll their eyes at the nature of this discourse,” says Paul Taylor. This group includes a lot of young people and tends to eschew party labels. “If they voted,” he says, “they could play an important part of the election.”

  • Trump campaign manager charged with assaulting reporter

    Trump campaign manager charged with assaulting reporter

    Donald Trump campaign manager Corey Lewandowski has been charged with assaulting a journalist at a campaign event.

    Mr Lewandowski is charged with simple battery over his encounter with former Breitbart reporter Michelle Fields.

    On 8 March after a news conference in Florida, he allegedly grabbed her arm when she tried to ask a question and bruised her.

    Mr Lewandowski plans to plead not guilty, the Trump campaign said.

    Police in Jupiter, Florida, where he was arrested, issued Lewandowski a notice Tuesday, March 29, to appear before a judge on May 4 for the misdemeanor charge. A surveillance video released by the police appears to show Lewandowski grabbing a reporter for Breitbart News as she tried to ask Trump a question during a March 8 campaign event.

    The footage appears to show him trying to pull her out of the way as she walks alongside Mr Trump and tries to speak to him.

    The Trump campaign said Lewandowski “is absolutely innocent of this charge” in a statement released late Tuesday morning.

    “He will enter a plea of not guilty and looks forward to his day in court,” said the statement. “He is completely confident that he will be exonerated.”

    A police report obtained by The Associated Press includes an interview with the reporter, Michelle Fields, who worked for Breitbart News at the time.

    “Lewandowski grabbed Fields’ left arm with his right hand causing her to turn and step back,” reads the report. Fields showed police her left forearm which “appeared to show a grabbing-type injury,” according to the investigating officer.

    The charge comes during a difficult time for Mr Trump, just ahead of next week’s Wisconsin primary where he is neck-and-neck with Senator Ted Cruz.

    Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker has just endorsed Mr Cruz for president.

    He will participate in a CNN town hall event on Tuesday night when all three Republican contenders will face questions.

    Mr Trump is currently well ahead in the Republican race with 739 delegates to Cruz’s 465.

    Ohio Governor John Kasich is well behind with 143, with the 1,237 needed to win the nomination probably out of his reach.

    In the Democratic race, Hillary Clinton will try in Wisconsin to stem the momentum of a resurgent Bernie Sanders, who is on a roll after a string of wins.

  • Trump, Clinton add to their lead with wins in Arizona

    Trump, Clinton add to their lead with wins in Arizona

    WASHINGTON(TIP): Under the shadow of overseas violence, Republican Donald Trump and Democrat Hillary Clinton padded their leads on Tuesday with victories in Arizona and attacked each other as the 2016 presidential contest turned into a clash over who could best deal with Islamic extremism.

    Democratic challenger Bernie Sanders scored a win in Utah’s Democratic caucuses, claiming victory in the Western state as he tries to keep pace with Clinton who has a seemingly insurmountable lead in the delegate count. He netted some delegates in Utah, but not enough to make up for his loss to Clinton in Arizona.

    Long lines and high interest marked primary elections across Arizona, Utah and Idaho that were largely an afterthought for much of the day as the world grappled with a new wave of bloody attacks in Europe. The Islamic State group claimed responsibility for blasts at the airport and a subway train in Brussels that left dozens dead and many more wounded.

    “This is about not only selecting a president, but also selecting a commander-in-chief,” Clinton said in Seattle as she condemned Trump by name and denounced his embrace of torture and hardline rhetoric aimed at Muslims. “The last thing we need is leaders who incite more fear.”

    Trump, in turn, branded Clinton as “Incompetent Hillary” in an interview with Fox News as he discussed her tenure as secretary of state. “Incompetent Hillary doesn’t know what she’s talking about,” the billionaire businessman said. “She doesn’t have a clue.”

    The back and forth between the front-runners came amid a frenzy of activity from voters eager to make their voices heard in the 2016 election.

    In Utah, caucus-goers were dispatched by poll workers to local stores with orders buy reams of paper and photocopy fresh ballots amid huge turnout. The state Democratic Party’s website crashed due to high traffic.

    In Arizona, voters waited two hours or more in some places to cast primary ballots, while police were called to help control traffic.

    The results from Arizona didn’t bode well for Democrat Bernie Sanders and Republicans Ted Cruz and John Kasich. They are running out of time to slow Trump and Clinton’s march toward acquiring all the delegates needed to claim their parties’ nominations at the parties’ national conventions in July.

    Trump’s Arizona victory gives him all of the state’s 58 delegates, while Arizona awards its delegates proportionally on the Democratic side.

    As voters flooded to the polls, the presidential candidates lashed out at each other’s foreign policy prescriptions, showcasing sharp contrasts in confronting the threat of Islamic extremism.

    Clinton – and Trump’s Republican rivals – questioned the Republican front-runner’s temperament and readiness to serve as commander in chief, and condemned his calls to diminish U.S. involvement with NATO.

    Addressing cheering supporters in Seattle, Clinton said the attacks in Brussels were a pointed reminder of “how high the stakes are” in 2016.

    Cruz seized on Trump’s foreign policy inexperience while declaring that the U.S. is at war with the Islamic State group.

    The ultraconservative Texas senator also issued a statement following the Brussels attacks that it was time for law enforcement to “patrol and secure Muslim neighborhoods before they become radicalized,” without providing more details.

    Trump’s brash tone has turned off some Republican voters in predominantly Mormon Utah, where early returns suggest Cruz has a chance to claim more than 50 percent of the caucus vote – and with it, all 40 of Utah’s delegates. Trump could earn some delegates should Cruz fail to exceed 50 percent, in which case the delegates would be awarded based on each candidate’s vote total.

    Arizona’s win gives Trump a little less than half the delegates allocated so far. That’s still short of the majority needed to clinch the nomination before the party’s national convention this summer.

    However, Trump has a path to the nomination if he continues to win states that award all or most of their delegates to the winner. Overall, Trump has accumulated 739 delegates, Cruz has 425 and Kasich 143. It takes 1,237 delegates to win the nomination.

    On the Democratic side, Clinton’s delegate advantage is even greater than Trump’s.

    The former secretary of state is coming off last week’s five-state sweep of Sanders, who remains popular among his party’s most liberal and younger voters but needs to improve his performance if he expects to stay relevant.

    The Vermont senator, now trailing Clinton by more than 300 pledged delegates, had targeted Tuesday’s races as the start of a comeback tour.

    He, too, addressed the world’s security threat: “We will stand as a nation with our allies and our friends and people all over this world,” he told supporters in San Diego. “We will stand with them and we will together crush and destroy ISIS.”

    For the evening, Clinton stands to win at least 45 delegates to at least 34 for Sanders based on the results in Arizona and Utah.

    To date, Clinton has a delegate lead of 1,208 to Sanders’ 878, based on primaries and caucuses. Clinton has at least 1,675 delegates to at least 904 for Sanders when including superdelegates – elected lawmakers and party officials who can cast votes at the convention for any candidate.

  • Reworking Ties with US

    Reworking Ties with US

    The front runners -Republican Donald Trump and Democratic Hillary Clinton.Irrespective of who wins, the tilt is towards India
    The front runners -Republican Donald Trump and Democratic Hillary Clinton.Irrespective of who wins, the tilt is towards India

    American presidential elections get international attention because of worldwide interest in who is going to become the most powerful leader on the international stage. The US presidential elections in 2012 were less exciting than usual, because of the widespread belief that President Obama would be re-elected. We are now witnessing party primary elections, in which a flamboyant billionaire with a mercurial temperament, Donald Trump, has captured worldwide attention. Trump, a property baron, owns a network of hotels, casinos, golf courses and other properties. He has, paradoxically, struck a chord among blue-collared workers, who feel their jobs threatened by immigrants. His populist response has been to advocate building a wall across the US-Mexico border and banning immigration of Muslims, whom he labels collectively as terrorists.

    Hillary Clinton’s primary opponent, former Senator Bernie Sanders, has likewise, espoused the cause of ending free trade arrangements and called for tighter control over Wall Street. Sanders alleges that unemployed and blue-collar workers suffer, because of excessive trade liberalization and the unholy nexus between politicians (including Hillary) and the financial, business and industrial barons of Wall Street. The tactics Trump and Sanders have adopted have won huge support from insecure blue-collar workers, making life difficult and the competition unexpectedly tough, for Clinton. Despite this, Hillary is expected to win the Democratic Party nomination, unless she encounters difficulties, because of alleged misdemeanors during her tenure as Secretary of State. Trump could likewise sail through as the candidate of the Republican Party. A word of caution on the upcoming elections is called for. The Republican Party could land itself in a mess, if its establishment chooses to ignore the political verdict and nominates an eminent party politician to replace Trump as its presidential candidate.

    Trump has moved far away from the Republican Party in his views on several foreign policy issues. He has criticized military intervention in Iraq, Syria and Libya and voiced his opposition to such military intervention abroad. He remains ambivalent on his approach to Israel, though he will inevitably fall in line with conventional thinking on the Jewish state. Interestingly, Trump vows to build bridges with President Vladimir Putin, while Hillary remains steadfastly hostile to the Russian leader. Both Hillary and Trump have suspicions and misgivings about China, with Trump repeatedly asserting that China got rich at the cost of American industry and its working class. The two frontrunners hold opposing views on liberalizing trade, with Trump claiming that liberalization damages the livelihood of American workers.

    While Trump has expressed serious misgivings and suspicions about the Islamic world in general, he has expressed specific reservations about the behavior of Pakistan. Quite unexpectedly, Trump has answered his critics on their charge that he is anti-immigrant and racist by suggesting that he has great admiration for Indians, who are hardworking, intelligent and innovative. He has suggested that Indian students who come for studies in US universities should be allowed to stay on and work.

    The eight years of the Clinton presidency included some of the worst years in India-US relations. The Clinton administration turned the heat on India to give up its nuclear program. It pressured Russia to end space cooperation with India. It promoted a worldwide effort to cripple our economy after our nuclear tests and failed. In its early years, the Clinton administration even made overtures to the Hurriyat in Kashmir. On the other hand, the George Bush presidency saw a remarkable turnaround in India-US relations. American pressure after 9/11 forced the Musharraf dispensation to sue for a ceasefire in J&K and end cross-border infiltration in the state. This continued till the last days of the Bush presidency. Global nuclear sanctions against India ended, as the Bush administration used all its persuasive powers to get the 45-member Nuclear Suppliers Group to end sanctions on India. Shortly thereafter, at US initiative, India was welcomed into new global economic forums, like the G20.

    While President Obama had pledged to strengthen the US-India strategic partnership, his approach to India has been largely transactional, seeking greater Indian purchases of US weapons, while doing very little to turn the squeeze on Pakistan to end terrorism targeting India and Afghanistan. Intelligence sharing with India has been episodic and sometimes duplicitous, given the delay and reluctance with which intelligence information on the revelations of David Headley was shared with us. More importantly, the US is actively partnering Pakistan and China to bring about “reconciliation” with the Taliban in Afghanistan. Well-placed Afghans complain bitterly of the pressures they are facing from this US-China-Pakistan axis, to keep making concessions to the Taliban. Interestingly, even some in the Obama administration are concerned about what is transpiring.

    The world is now seeing an opportunistic move by the Obama administration to persuade India to back US efforts to rein in the Chinese in the Western Pacific, given China’s expanding maritime border claims on South Korea, Japan, Taiwan, Vietnam, the Philippines, Malaysia, Brunei and Indonesia. At the same time, the Obama administration is joining China and turning a blind eye to Pakistan-sponsored terrorism in Afghanistan. What the Obama administration is thereby doing, is to seek India’s support to curb Chinese maritime claims in the Asia-Pacific, even as its colludes with China to determine the future of Afghanistan, in a manner that furthers Pakistan’s regional ambitions. There has been much talk, but little action by the Obama administration to curb Pakistan-sponsored terrorism.

    Hillary has taken a personal interest in relations with India. Unlike her husband, and John Kerry, her viscerally anti-Indian successor, as Secretary of State, Hillary did respond in a friendly manner to India’s concerns and policies across both its eastern and western land and maritime borders. This was evident in her approach to India’s role in the ASEAN Regional Forum. She chose to call a spade a spade when it came to Pakistan-sponsored terrorism leading to the emergence of extremist outfits that threated Pakistan itself, with the words: “You cannot nurture vipers in your backyard and expect that they will bite only your neighbor”. In these circumstances, we can expect a more mutually beneficial relationship with the US, after the coming presidential elections.


    ParthasarathyBy G Parthasarathy – (The author is a former diplomat)

  • A Win for the Front-Runners

    A Win for the Front-Runners

    Hillary Clinton, the Democratic front-runner and Donald Trump, the Republican front-runner have won some crucial primary victories in Florida, Ohio, Illinois, North Carolina and Missouri. Marco Rubio, a much-touted candidate by the Republican Party leaders and the media, who was defeated in his own state of Florida, where he won only in his own county. He has now suspended his campaign. It is no surprise that he lost, as he was nothing but an empty suit.

    On the Democratic side, Hillary had a clean sweep in the southern states. With the addition of the big states like Ohio, Illinois and Florida, she now has almost a commanding lead. Donald Trump cannot claim such an advantage.

    Hillary’s rival, Bernie Sanders, is trailing behind and is not expected to reach the minimum number of the delegates required to secure the nomination, which is now easy for Hillary. But he has posed a challenge to the Democratic front-runner. On the side of the Grand Old Party (GOP), it is a strange spectacle. Though the front-runner, Trump, has emerged victorious in many states, the Republican leadership is not happy, as Trump is a threat to the establishment which might not have envisaged that Trump, who had never actively participated in active politics, would get so much support from the voters.

    The New Yorker has defied the imagination and now is the leader among the three contenders. All this is indicative of the pervading disillusionment of the supporters of the Republican Party.

    The leaders and those near to them were initially confident about the candidacy of Jeb Bush, former Ohio Governor. But internally he had several enemies and the Republican voters had enough of Bush.

    After the demise of Jeb’s campaign, the Republican leadership stood behind Rubio. He had nothing to offer to the voters. He was talking about the 21st century but his views were that of the 19th century. Trump savaged him, retaliating Rubio crossed all norms of decency and used foul language.

    Republicans are not happy with Ted Cruz, the senator from Texas. He has no friends in the Party and in the Senate. He calls them the “Washington Cartel”. Both Cruz and Rubio are the products of the Tea Party, which is the cause of the present dissentions and decline of the Republican Party.

    Sanders is able to pose a challenge to Hillary Clinton, because, though 74 years old, he represents the angry age group between 18 and 35, of present-day America. Of course, they are mainly White. These young people feel that they have been neglected and have not benefited by the creation of new wealth.

    They are also angry that the CEOs of the big companies are awarded millions even when they fail the companies. Sanders says that he has a message and would not withdraw from the race. But he does not seem to want to analyses his message in light of the reality. He criticizes the Wall Street and wants the state ownership of those institutions. But state ownership is also not above board. Clement Attlee, when he was the Prime Minister of UK, once observed that people like Harold Laski had written books on the grammar of politics but were ignorant of the practice of politics. Sanders’ speeches remind us of Attlee’s observations.

    The young African-Americans and Latinos are not visibly so inclined as are the Whites and that is why Sanders’ crowd generally is white. He has failed to get the support of the blacks, who overwhelmingly support Hillary. She even gained about 80 per cent in some black constituencies. That is because she and her husband kept a constant personal contact with blacks and the Latinos. Bill Clinton, while president, had implemented some measures which were beneficial to the blacks.

    After Obama had won the presidential race handsomely, the Republican Party stalwarts decided to take steps to reform the party, to make it more inclusive and diverse. But the report to that effect was put aside. Instead, the most reactionary new element, the Tea Party, got hold of the GOP, which is why the last seven years have witnessed the disruptive record of the Republican Party. Now, the Party leadership is praying and plotting to stop the front-runner, Trump, from getting the required number of delegates and the nomination. They want to bring in their chosen candidate. That may split the party. The Republican Party is in a fix. It does not want either Trump or Cruz and the third candidate, Kasich, has won nowhere, except in Ohio, his own state. The Republican party in the House and the Senate, unmindful of the changes in the world, is still obsessed with the cold war politics and so all the while talks about dominating the world. The American people, themselves, by and large are tired of the war. President Obama’s slow withdrawal of the troops from several theatres of war is welcomed by them. The American leadership has to rise to the occasion and adjust to the changing world which wants cooperation and exchange of ideas and not lectures and least of all orders. The refugee problem has been handled by Europe itself and it has not asked for help and guidance from America.

    The Democratic Party also has its problems. The recent campaign for the primaries has revealed several drawbacks of the party and its leadership. The rise of Sanders, who has no party base, shows the party leadership is docile. Sanders is not a winnable nominee but no other candidate has come forward. Hillary Clinton would win the nomination, but ordinary voters all the while would be worried of her credibility gap. She had changed her positions every now and then. Moreover, the fund-raising craze of the Clinton family foundation has no limit, which is also a problem. At the moment people are not happy with any of the candidates. Most people are fed up with the politicians.