The W-Ts.co.uk

An Englishman (and Woman) in New York…Orlando and Miami

Sat, 14 Jun 2008 23:53:35 GMT

May was very quiet in the Wilson-Thomas household after Claire's unexpected gall bladder operation at the end of April. We had an outing to Snoqualmie Falls a few weekends ago to see the Falls full of snow melt. They looked spectacular.

New York

Business and pleasure took us to the East Coast at the end of May for 10 days. Neither of us had visited New York before so this was a taster visit and we loved it! More like London than Seattle, we appreciated the architecture (Grand Central Station was indeed grand), saw lots of brick buildings, churches and some graveyards, rode the subway, and did lots of tourist things too, walking many blocks. The view from our hotel, the UN Millennium Plaza, was stunning.

The first evening we walked up to Times Square, named after the New York Times building. It was visually stunning - not really beautiful but an experience! Lots of large ads, flashing lights, stretch limos, bustling people, huge shops. On Saturday 30^th, we did two bus tours - one in the pouring rain (!) - going past the really expensive shops, up to Harlem, past Central Park, the Empire State Building and down to the Financial District and Wall Street.

Our lunchtime spot was the Carnegie Deli – never had we seen such sandwiches so full of meat. To give you a scale of things, the W-Ts shared a hot pastrami sandwich and portion of New York cheesecake (mouthwatering). We were surprised at the arrangements: rows of tables with everyone sitting (extremely) close together and found the same at the Blue Note Jazz Club. Maybe this is a reflection of how much is packed into Manhattan. It is 23 sq miles, with 1.6 million residents. Mercer Island is about 13 sq miles with approx 22,000 residents.

History

I had known New York had originally been called New Amsterdam. It was Charles II who had changed the name for his brother, the Duke of York in 1664. I did not know that Wall Street was so called because the Dutch built a Wall to keep the British out! I had also not known that NY served as the US capital between 1780 and 1790.

9/11

New York's most recent history is dominated by "9/11". We came across one of the fire stations that had served that day just off Times Square on Friday evening with the fire engines on display. On Saturday the bus tour made us realize how little room there is at the bottom of Manhattan. There were few places to go when the towers fell down. On Sunday we returned to Wall Street before doing a boat ride to the Statue of Liberty. We visited St Paul's Chapel, modeled on St Martin in the Field Trafalgar Square, and the church attended by George Washington when he was President. The church was used as a mission centre after 9/11 as it is right next door to Ground Zero, but undamaged by the blast. It was very moving and demonstrated the church at its best. Ground Zero itself was hard to comprehend as it is the scene of much building for the new World Trade Centre, but it's a big hole. We had forgotten how much taller the towers were compared to the surrounding buildings, which seemed huge, until we saw a newspaper cutting pinned to a wall, opposite an impressive bronze dedicated to the firemen who lost their lives. It was a somber moment. We were glad we had come to the spot that has so influenced US foreign policy and remembered that many thousands – military and civilian – have lost their lives since 2001.

Our trip to the Statue of Liberty on Liberty Island was good but involved A LOT of queueing: one security line to get on the boat, another more comprehensive one to get into the monument itself, including an air puffer testing you for chemical explosives (no repeat of 9/11 here). If you had not bought a ticket a week in advance you could not go into the monument. After climbing the several hundred steps, (we could not face the queue for the lift) the view back to the city was spectacular but in hindsight we felt it had been a lot of effort and after another long line to get back on the boat, we did not have the energy to get off at Ellis Island, the "welcoming" point for immigrants in the 19^th century and early 20^th century.

Sunday evening was finished with a trip to the top of the Rockefeller Centre to look out over New York. Much like Tom Hanks & Meg Ryan in Sleepless in Seattle, we were the last ones up the Top of the Rock - except we were looking at the Empire State Building, not actually up it. Top of the Rock was recommended by the tour guides and books and we were not disappointed.

Our trip to New York had avoided shopping until Monday morning when we dashed into Bloomingdales; only after the doorman welcomed us in. Our kind of shop. $15 later we left hoping to return (when our bank balance has recovered from NY prices); and with enough time for another trip to the Carnegie Deli (minus cheesecake) before heading for the airport.

Orlando

After the compactness of New York, Orlando in Florida, the most south easterly state was a stark contrast: flat and spread out. And hot: Florida is the "sunshine state". We stayed at the Crown Plaza on International Drive. Claire had our own private pool as few other guests made use of it. Mark attended Microsoft's Tech Ed conference. Thursday evening we went to the Conference Party at the Universal Studios theme park. It was a good evening but reminded us of Las Vegas - all fake; attending in the heat of the day with thousands of others seemed very unattractive. Friday evening we drove away from the theme park area to "downtown" Orlando, which was pleasant and relatively quiet. We ate in the old Station in a "historic Street" which reminded us of New Orleans. We sat by a nice lake with trees growing in the water.

Saturday we spent the whole day at the Kennedy Space Centre, an hour's drive from Orlando. Quite spectacular. We paid the extra for the NASA Up Close tour and it was totally worth it. We went on the Space Shuttle Experience - a simulation of going into orbit, out to the launch and landing sites, saw a Saturn V rocket and saw the capsule for the new Ares rocket for the Constellation program that aims to have men on the moon again by 2020. I came away with three reflections: a) the earth and the heavens are the Lords and everything in them; b) don't give up on being adventurous, even when my slippers and reclining chair seem to hold me tightly in their grasp; c) if the US can develop such amazing technology to get into space, there should be the ability to develop more fuel efficient vehicles and ways to tackle climate change….

Miami

Absorbed by all these thoughts we drove 4hrs to Miami Beach, staying in the art deco hotel called The Hotel. Highly recommended, especially the pool on the roof from which you can see the Ocean. We enjoyed al fresco dining on Ocean Drive watching a man fascinating tourists with a snake and a biker with a convincing model of a female passenger!

Sunday we drove part way down the Florida Keys, a spit of land at the bottom of Florida, where in places you can see the sea on both sides of you! We ate beside mangrove swamps, Claire swam at the Coral Reef Park and we stuck our nose into the southern part of the Everglades National Park on our way back to Miami. Our trip ended Monday in the hot sun on the sand of Miami Beach, fixing our thoughts on this moment as we returned over 7,500 miles later to rainy Seattle, cooler by 40°F!

A Weekend in Las Vegas – A Trip to Three States

Wed, 12 Mar 2008 21:50:36 GMT

Mark was speaking at the Microsoft MIX Conference last week (March 4-7) in Las Vegas. We decided to make a "trip" of this opportunity, so I joined him on Thursday (6^th). En route, it was amazing to fly so close up to Mt Rainier and the Nevada desert went on and on. Then out of nowhere, comes Las Vegas, which is visually spectacular, if somewhat bizarre. We were staying in The Venetian, which in the theme of Las Vegas, is supposed to be a mini-Venice. Las Vegas Blvd goes under the "Rialto Bridge". There is a mini Doge's Palace façade and the Campanile Tower greets you. Upstairs is the Grand Canal (just think about that for a moment!) and St Mark's Square. It is very cleverly done with the ceiling painted to look like the sky, so you feel like you are outside, but having seen the real thing, we commented that the streets were too wide and clean. On Thursday and Friday, we ate in the restaurants around the Grand Canal and St Mark's (the hotel has 30 restaurants!) feeling we were eating 'al fresco'. Of course we weren't, but after a Seattle grey and cloudy winter the illusion was very welcome!!!

The grandeur and illusion of the Strip is built on gambling. There are slot machines awaiting you as you get off the airplane and you have to go through the casinos at all the hotels to get anywhere. Walking around on Thursday night, there was a mixture of grandeur (the hotels are trying to outbid each other in glamour and facilities) and seediness. The housing around the strip is very poor. Guys with "Girls for You in 20 minutes" T-shirts walk the streets flicking their advert cards. On my own, it felt quite intimidating. Although we were still in the US, I knew I was in a different state: prostitution is legal in most counties (but not Las Vegas, which is why they are available in "20 minutes") as is smoking in public places. The scenery is so very different, but more of that in a moment.

Friday I walked up and down "the strip" exploring the different hotels: the Luxor is in the shape of a pyramid with a sphinx outside. It is has a Tutankhamen tomb but after fighting my way through a dark and smoky casino to no avail, I gave that up as a bad job (and I've seen the real thing). Excalibur is the shape of a castle, MGM has a huge bronze lion outside, New York, New York is built in the shape of the NY skyline with a statue of liberty and Paris has an Arc de Triomphe and a half size Eiffel Tower. The Bellagio is spectacular at night with fountains 'dancing' in time to different pieces of music every 15 minutes. But by the end of Friday, I was ready to move on.

Friday afternoon we took a trip to the Hoover Dam, which is on the Colorado River on the Nevada/Arizona border. We took the Dam tour and went inside the power room and the Dam itself. It really is an amazing piece of engineering. We walked from one inlet tower to the other on either side of the state line and changed time zones in the process! It was interesting to read about the wrangles of whether the dam should be built or not by the Federal Government. The folks of the West did not want the government interfering and folks in the East thought it was the West's problem and not one to be solved by the people's tax dollars. In the end the Federal Government did step in and a huge project was delivered to prevent flooding and drought and provide electricity.

Saturday saw us off on a mini 'road-trip' to Death Valley in California. The Grand Canyon is the more popular trip from Vegas and we do plan to return to the Canyon. We chose to visit Death Valley as this is a good time of year to visit – before it simply gets TOO hot. Our drive took us through amazing countryside – brown dry hills with arid ground and what looked like giant yucca plants. We stopped in Pahrump, for petrol (opposite a "gentleman's club" in the shape of a castle) and lunch (good food and good value) at the Bougainvillea Café, not realizing we were going to have to make our way though the casino to get there, and eating breakfast surrounded by slot machines!!! We were driving a rental car with an Illinois plate (!) and got greeted warmly by the occupants of another car as "near neighbours". They lived in Wisconsin and we had to explain that no, we were not from Illinois at all. In the afternoon we drove into Death Valley and Badwater Basin. This is the lowest point in the Western Hemisphere – 282 feet below sea level. It was hot - around 85F – and dry. The whole area is one large salt flat surrounded by mountains, with shimmering mirages of water. We went on a side drive to Artist's Palette, which was stunning.

Our Saturday night stop was at a tiny place called Tecopa, about an hour out of the park. Let's just say the contrast to Friday was striking. We stayed at the Delight's Hot Springs Resort in a breeze block unit of 3 rooms with a very loud snoring neighbor, but we did something we could not do in Las Vegas: sit in a natural hot mineral spring bath staring up at the sky full of stars – fantastic! We had dinner in a small bistro, Pastels, that was like having a meal in someone's house. As Tecopa is so small practically everyone knew each other. The atmosphere and food were excellent. We returned for breakfast and sat outside (for real this time) peacefully looking across at the hills. What was bizarre was within 5 minutes of sitting down we heard an English voice talking about the M25 (for US readers, this is the London orbital freeway) and ferries from Southampton! We mused waiting for our pancakes and Panini that such a little outfit (see the pictures) would just never happen in the UK. The regulation over restaurants would mean that the place would be shut down sooner than you could say "Bob's your uncle" and we wondered how many small communities do lose out by not having an innovative place for food and community.

After another good meal, we returned to Las Vegas by an alternate route over the Old Spanish Highway. We "wowed" as we went round corners into unexpected valleys and vistas and took a scenic drive in Red Rock Canyon before arriving back on the "strip" for one last look at the place and sample a recommended burger joint, In-n-Out Burgers.

You can see most of the pictures from the trip on this page, but we have also put together some panorama shots of a few interesting places along the way. You can see those over on FlickR.

A great weekend: we packed a lot in, saw some fantastic scenery but were glad to return to the trees and water of the Evergreen State.

The Appeal of Sen Obama and Reflections on His Visit to Seattle

Tue, 04 Mar 2008 03:56:35 GMT

Last week I came across a piece in The Times (London not New York) talking about an article written by Trevor Philips, Chair of the Equality and Human Rights Commission in the UK. His thesis is that race relations would not improve under an Obama Presidency and may even go backwards. He said about Obama's white support, "A vote for Obama is a pain-free negation of their own racism." My immediate reaction was this misrepresents the situation and a lot of the comments on The Times website disagree with him.

My impression is that Obama's supporters are genuinely in favour of his ideas, and, as fundamentally, of his approach. They see him as a better choice for the nomination, whilst recognizing Sen Clinton's achievements. The issue of race does not seem to come into the decision, at least, not here in the Pacific North West. I hear this view from friends and saw it first hand when Obama was in Seattle a few weeks back.

After the inconclusive Super Tuesday, both Clinton and Obama had last minute gatherings before the Washington caucus on February 9th. Mark and I tried to see Clinton on Thursday night (7^th). She held her "rally" at an out of the way venue on the waterfront and by the time we got there, there was no parking and people were being turned away. The Seattle PI said 5,000 attended.

The next day I decided to be more prepared and arrived one hour before the doors opened on Sen Obama's rally at a central sports venue. Even then the crowds were numerous and, most strikingly, full of young people (although it was Friday morning so perhaps not so surprising). The crowds were so large the doors had to open early. The venue filled to beyond its capacity to around 18,000 (what the heck to fire regulations?). 3,000, who could not get in, listened to his speech broadcast outside. It truly was an experience with people full of enthusiasm and patience and a totally electric atmosphere when he did appear. Obama came on stage 3hr after I had arrived, by which point I'm thinking this had better be worth it!

As I waited for Sen Obama, I reflected how very different UK politics is. The US presidential election is so much about one individual and yet ironically they do not control Congress in the same way as the British Prime Minister controls Parliament. I also couldn't remember any similar sort of "rally" in UK politics. I've been to meetings to hear candidates for local and national election but it's all been very "proper" and orderly, and on a small scale. My only recollection of a similar rally was the Sheffield rally before the 1992 General Election which is alleged to have contributed to Neil Kinnock's Labour Party defeat against John Major's Conservatives. You can see the rally on YouTube (needless to say). It is compared by the commentator as the "nearest British equivalent to an American style Convention" and it really is, but as far as I can remember, never repeated: these events were seen not to be to the British taste.

Back in the US, Sen Obama seems to have started a movement. He's offering a message of change and hope, quite reminiscent of Tony Blair in that respect before the 1997 UK General Election. Obama speaks in the same sort of measured tone (both are lawyers by training) but without the "I say unto you" of Mr Blair. Whether Sen Obama will clinch the nomination is still up for question. Much will depend on whether Sen Clinton is able to make a significant come-back in tomorrow's primaries and make a case she is still in the race.

McCain vs Not Yet Determined?

Wed, 20 Feb 2008 23:39:34 GMT

February 5th (Super Tuesday) was expected to bring a clear winner on each side of the Presidential nomination battle. But fact has been stranger than fiction.

Over the last two weeks, John McCain has emerged as the Republican nominee, although technically he still does not have the right number of delegates to clinch the title. After spending millions of his own personal fortune (Newsweek, Feb 18th says $355m), Mitt Romney announced on February 7th that he was 'suspending', his bid for the nomination. This felt quite surprising, but he'd done the assessment and worked out that he wasn't going to make it: "money can't buy you love". He's since asked his delegates to support McCain.

After Romney dropped out, Gov Huckabee suddenly looked all the more attractive to Republicans who feel McCain is too moderate and not conservative enough. After a burst of primary wins on Saturday 9^th in Kansas and Louisiana and a close run thing in the Washington caucus, Mike Huckabee has come in second to McCain in the "Potomac" (for English readers named after the river) primaries: Virginia, District of Columbia and Maryland and the two last night: Wisconsin and Washington. I can't see any way that Huckabee can catch McCain now, but he's still in the race…and this contest has shown many presumptions have been wrong. Not all on the the GOP side are happy bunnies at the thought of Sen McCain as the "man", but nothing will rally the party like the Democratic Nomination of Hillary Clinton.

However, that is very much in question. Having led the polls by a very wide margin in 2007, Sen Clinton has not won a contest since February 5^th. Sen Obama has won 10 straight victories in a row – many by a large margin - and is generally thought to have the momentum going into the next big states: Ohio and Texas next Tuesday. The Economist says it is "his to lose" but still wonders if he has what it takes to deliver. Last night, watching Clinton give a speech from Ohio, she looked stressed and sounded screechy again. After the weekend of the 9^th she changed her campaign management and all the commentators are saying she needs to win Ohio and Texas to have a chance of winning the nomination. She is currently around 70 delegates behind Obama. Even then, the nomination may not be resolved until the convention in August on the sheer mathematics of delegates.

Superduper Tuesday... not Super Clarifying

Wed, 06 Feb 2008 06:29:54 GMT

Mitt Romney has won four states as I write: Utah, home of the Mormons and Massachusetts, where he was Governor, Delaware and Minnesota, but he has not really come up trumps.

Mike Huckabee has done far better than expected in what has been penned as a two horse race over the last week. He made another great speech, having won three States as I write, and looking like he will win a few more states in the South. Yesterday Romney was saying he should drop out and Huckabee rebuffed him. Today he's proved that he can do well without Mitt's millions. A possible Vice President?

Hilary Clinton felt like she had a new speech writer. She gave the best speech I've heard so far. The most Presidential I've seen and more persuasive. She referred to her mother who was born before women could vote and watching her up on the stage. That is pretty amazing! Excellent speech, but not as good an orator as Obama (although he was not as good tonight as South Carolina). She said that she looked forward to further debates with Barack Obama and there have been some very close contests but California, with the biggest number of delegates available tonight, could swing the numbers. The Democrats have got a proportional distribution of delegates in all the states unlike the Republicans where a number of states are "winner takes all", but not California. CNN have just projected Clinton and McCain to win California, which is significant for both of them. Obama looks like he has won 14 of 23 States tonight, but it is delegates that count. As I sign off tonight, without California, Clinton has 430 delegates versus Obama's 344.

Clinton was not the only candidate to refer to their mother. Sen McCain's 96 year old mother was in his audience. Tonight, he proclaimed himself the "front runner", but California looked close as he spoke. This is the man who was described on Larry King Live on 21 January by Larry Elder of KABC Radio as having troubles with "the GOP base", because he is "wrong on" immigration, voted against the Bush tax cuts, is a global warming "hysteric", criticized Bush and Rumsfeld on the prosecution of the war and is opposed to water boarding "no matter what". Mr Elder said these issues are "going to be a problem for him to overcome". It shows this election is full of surprises: without California, McCain has 475 delegates, Romney 151 delegates and Huckabee 105. He's out in front, but it is not wrapped up yet.

On both sides, there is still much to play for. Washington State holds its caucuses for both Republicans and Democrats on Saturday. We may see a few candidates in Seattle over the next few days...and certainly some political advertising. The Seattle PI reported yesterday that givers in Washington are supporting Obama and Ron Paul, in fourth position in the Republican race, so it will be very interesting to see what happens here in the Northwest, in a State that normally has no influence in the choice for the Presidential candidate.

A Day of Dropouts & Niggly Debate

Thu, 31 Jan 2008 06:13:19 GMT

As expected Rudy Giuliani dropped out of the Presidential race today and endorsed Sen John McCain. Less expected was John Edwards' announcement in New Orleans that he too was exiting the stage before Super-duper Tuesday. I liked him and it was his announcement in December 2006 that started me blogging on the election. What's unknown is when or whether he will endorse Clinton or Obama. He's talking to both of them.

This evening was the final Republican debate before 5^th February. It felt more like McCain vs Romney about statements Romney made on Iraq in a TV interview last April. McCain did not come off well. He looked like he was "spinning" and nit-picking, without a convincing case, to boost his credentials to be "commander-in-chief." It was the opposite of his normal "straight talking". "Undecided's" polled during the program were unimpressed. The Wilson-Thomas viewers felt more negative about both candidates at the end. In particular, McCain was much harder on immigration than we have heard him and seems to have moved to "build a fence" from his past efforts to deal with the real people involved in the immigration debate (see transcript from the 28 November YouTube/CNN debate). Probably inevitable to have greater appeal, but sad.

Tomorrow, to use a baseball term, Clinton and Obama "play ball" in their first one-on-one debate before twenty plus states vote on Tuesday.

A Week of “A Whole Lot of Politics”…

Wed, 30 Jan 2008 04:20:50 GMT

On Saturday, Barack Obama won a landslide victory in the South Carolina primary beating Hillary Clinton by 2:1 (55% vs 27%). He gave another inspiring speech (with a definite dig at Clinton) - you can see it here. Sen Clinton gave her speech from Tennessee, one of the Super-duper Tuesday States. She was far less "shrill" than she has been. John Edwards polled only 18% in his home state. We wondered if he'd drop out of the race but he said "no", he's carrying on. His speech was very similar to that he gave in Iowa. I think he could do with engaging a broader audience. Obama was endorsed yesterday by Sen Ted Kennedy and this took a lot of media attention – at least on CNN, which seems to be fairly pro-Obama.

Yesterday we were reminded that there is still a current sitting President –despite the Republican candidates not mentioning him. It was President Bush's final State of the Union. He looked relaxed, sought to look tough on the economy and (a little) victorious in Iraq. The Democratic response was uninspiring and vague.

Today, as I am writing this the results of the Florida primary are coming in. Both parties moved this primary up before Feb 5^th, against the advice of the National Committees. The Democratic National Committee penalized Florida by denying them any conference delegates and not allowing the candidates to campaign. Despite this, a record number of Democrats have turned out and Sen Clinton has won 50% of the vote; she has claimed victory, looking forward to next Tuesday. She was the most persuasive I have heard her in an interview with CNN.

John McCain looks like he is going to win Florida narrowly beating Mitt Romney (36% vs 31%). This win will tip him into the front position amongst Republican delegates. It is a critical win for him as this was a Republican only state and his other wins have been dependent on 'independents'. With the economy centre stage in the news over the past week, Romney looked like he might have the edge over McCain's focus on his national security record. I'm listening to Rudy Giuliani's speech having come in a disappointing third. It sounds like he's pulling out – yes, whilst we are watching Romney telling us that the US makes the best cars, beat the Fascists in World War II and that the US doesn't want "socialised medicine" - CNN has flashed up that Giuliani's "suspending his Presidential bid"... ah, no! It seems they were a little premature, but the pundits say he is going to endorse McCain in the next couple of days.

The candidates move to California for the last debates before Super-duper Tuesday. Will we be clear this time next week who the nominees are? Who knows? John McCain is looking more likely to be the Republican choice but he does not have huge funds and is still divisive in certain parts of the party. The Democrats could go either way. But a week can be a long time in politics.

Clear as Mud: When is a Winner not a Winner?

Tue, 22 Jan 2008 05:00:49 GMT

Phew! Another three caucuses/primaries down and three more to go until Super-duper Tuesday. And how confusing it all is still.

Nevada (home of Las Vegas) was supposed to be the "West" and Hispanic contribution to the early primary states but for the Republicans it really did not feature. Only Mitt Romney turned up "west of the mountains" and got rewarded with an easy win. The reason the other candidates did not "go west" was because winning South Carolina is a talisman of who will win the Republican nomination – at least it has been since 1980, but maybe this year things will be different. Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani sure hope so. John McCain narrowly beat Mike Huckabee (33% versus 30%) to win a state he lost in his 2000 bid.

Republican eyes now turn south to Florida on January 29^th. This is when it will become clear whether Rudy Giuliani has confounded the skeptics and shows he has been incredibly strategic by saving his efforts and winning a state with 57 delegates – winner takes all - to add to his current one; or he will seem to have made the gravest error of judgement having led the national polls for the past 12 months. The Republicans also have the Maine Caucus on 1 February.

On the Democratic side, Hillary Clinton won Nevada (51%) beating Sen Obama for the second time in a row (45%). Despite this Obama came away with one more delegate than Clinton from Nevada, as he performed strongly in rural areas. So in one sense, Obama was the winner. Very complicated. Sen Edwards hoped to pick up some union votes in the "Silver State" (so-called because of its silver mines) but only got 4% of the vote. He really needs to repeat his 2004 win in South Carolina next Saturday, 26^th, his home state, to remain anything like viable. But so does Obama. South Carolina has a large African American population and he needs a boost before February 5^th…Super-duper Tuesday.

But it's not just winning states that counts: it is winning delegates who will vote for you at the respective national conventions. And that's where it starts getting complicated. I looked into all of this last year and it made my brain hurt then. Today I've looked at the CNN/Politics pages and it has the following figures.

Mitt Romney currently holds 66 delegates to 38 for Sen McCain.
Sen Obama is leading Sen Clinton 38 to 36.

Seems simple enough, although a long way off the "magic number" of delegates each candidate needs to confirm the nomination (1,191 Republicans, 2,025 Democrats). So far so good. If you click on the Election Center link and go to the Full Democrat Scorecard, an array of disorientating numbers appear which show Clinton in the lead for the Democrats after all (210 vs Obama's 123) with 174 "Superdelegates". Pardon me? These are the "great and the good" who can decide where to put their support. 83% of Clinton's current delegate count is from Superdelegates. There are also "unpledged" Republican delegates, which are significantly fewer in number than the Democrats Superdelegates, change the exact numbers but not the leading candidate. What is even more confusing is that the Green Papers has different numbers again but Clinton and Romney in the overall lead. So I went to the Democrat Party webpage for an explanation and clarification – nothing. And to the Republican webpage – nothing. So I'm left perplexed! But acknowledging, there is still all to play for!

Michigan Brings Another Republican Winner

Wed, 16 Jan 2008 05:29:39 GMT

A week after the last primary, another Republican winner has emerged. Mitt Romney, the former governor of Massachusetts, has won by 9% points over Sen John McCain. This really was Romney's last stand after his two "silvers" in Iowa and New Hampshire. He has spent tens of millions on advertising in three states (an outrageous amount of money in my opinion). After New Hampshire he pulled all advertising from the next primary states of South Carolina and Florida to focus on Michigan. It's paid off!

I heard him speaking yesterday in the state in which he was born and in which his father was Governor. Michigan is up on the Great Lakes and borders with Canada. It is home of Detroit, the centre of the US car making industry. The state is said to have lost at least 200,000 manufacturing jobs since 2000 (about 2% of the state population). Mitt Romney has promised to work to provide "auto" jobs.

John McCain, on the other hand, has spoken about climate change and the need for funding for job retraining. I think he's spoken the truth and talked about the "big picture"... but ended up as the man with the "silver" this time, despite winning this state in 2000.

One of the baffling things to me is the US standards on fuel cars. The car manufacturers have been fighting an increase just recently - an increase that brings them nowhere near European or Japanese standards. So is it any wonder with oil over $100 a barrel that consumers are looking elsewhere for more efficient cars (despite US petrol prices being significantly lower than in the UK). In December we heard a radio programme about a group of German scientists working on a car to run in India that could do 100 miles a gallon this year and 200 next. The spokesman from Detroit sounded embarrassing in contrast.

So what does that have to do with the Presidential race? Yesterday I was reminded that Mitt Romney does have an impressive résumé/CV of fixing broken business situations. My concern is that to win votes, he's trying to prop up an industry that needs to change.

Going to the next primaries, the Republican Nomination still seems wide open.

The Race Continues: New Hampshire Delivers Surprises

Wed, 09 Jan 2008 16:49:43 GMT

After the momentum of Iowa last week, all the polls seemed to suggest the "Iowa Bounce" would make sure Barack Obama easily beat Hillary Clinton in the first "primary" in New Hampshire, but not so. Clinton has won by 3% points. "Experience of Change" has overtaken "Vision of Change". Is this good? Well, probably good for Obama to be brought down from the cloud of crowning that has been put on his head over the last few days. Sen Clinton's victory speech was somewhat cheesy and not very inspiring, but she does have more experience than Obama. My concern about her as the nominee is the vitriolic feelings of Republicans who see her as little short of the devil in not much of a disguise. Expect to see a very ugly General Election campaign if she wins the nomination.

On the Republican side, John McCain, whose campaign was in a disastrous funding position during the summer, won New Hampshire, as he did in 2000. Mitt Romney, who spent millions, came second, and Mike Huckabee has come third. These results certainly add a good deal of interest: what's going to happen? Mitt Romney is proving "money can't buy me love". The "authentic" candidates are "in": Huckabee and McCain. The latter has solid foreign policy experience, but is controversial on immigration and Iraq. Rudy Giuliani still has not made much impact, but hopes his message that he can defend Americans from terrorism and his strategy to focus on Florida (Jan 29^th) and February 5^th will bring him to the fore.

But Iowa and New Hampshire show unexpected things happen at the ballot box and no professional pundit is speculating on who is going to win.

Iowa Starts the Ball Rolling

Fri, 04 Jan 2008 06:10:18 GMT

The presidential election voting has started. A majority white rural state in the middle of the country has kicked things off. Yesterday, everyone was saying it was too close to call for both parties; but the votes have proved different.

Barack Obama won for the Democrats, by 8% points -an African American winning in a white state-which seems pretty amazing when segregation was still a major issue just over 50 years ago. Sen Obama gave a "presidential" speech appealing to hope and unity with a backdrop of enthusiastic youth.

John Edwards in 2nd place, also gave a stirring speech, especially focusing on the need for healthcare reform. Hillary Clinton, who has been top of the Democrats polls all the way through 2007, was pipped into 3rd place by Sen Edwards. Her speech was nowhere near as inspiring as the other Democrats and completely failed to connect emotionally. Whether Sen Clinton can make a comeback in New Hampshire next week remains to be seen. The voters seem to be choosing "change" over "experience" and the Bush/Clinton dynasty.

Mike Huckabee beat Mitt Romney by 9% points in the Republican race. This is an amazing achievement since Mitt Romney has spent millions in Iowa. Mike Huckabee has been the Governor of Arkansas and really impressed me in the CNN/You tube debate. Huckabee's speech was excellent this evening and reconciliatory. He came across on a MSNBC interview as a man of the people, but whether he can carry it forward is uncertain. His foreign policy experience seems limited (and that may be kind) and he has had a large church voters contingent in Iowa that isn't going to be there in New Hampshire.

But the other choices are Mitt Romney-too slick-or Rudy Giuliani-too slimy. Mayor Giuliani has not focused on Iowa and came 6th in the polls. He's not expected to do well in New Hampshire next week either and is instead focusing on Florida at the end of January. The danger is that he will have missed out on momentum. New Hampshire (next Tuesday) is predicted to be the turf of John McCain. Sen McCain was also impressive in the You tube debate and someone who seemed to be on the down and out just a few months ago.

Of course this is just the start of an avalanche of caucuses and primaries in the next month. It really is watch this space!

A Snapshot of US Politics

Mon, 01 Oct 2007 03:33:13 GMT

Over the summer, the Presidential election has felt like it has been plodding along in the background (and well it might since it started so early), unless you live in Iowa or New Hampshire, in which case there is a Presidential candidate on every corner. But now that Labour Day (first Monday in September) has come and gone, the primary season is supposed to be officially under way.

In the Democrat camp, Sen Hillary Clinton still has a decisive 20 percentage point lead over Sen Barack Obama and the rest are somewhere in the background. Yesterday, I heard on the radio that John Edwards is going to seek public funding, which, it was suggested is part of his "anti-lobbying" strategy, arguing (probably rightly) that corporate and specific interest groups have too much sway in Washington. The other perspective was that he is just not raising the sort of money he needs and that in accepting the federal limits, he doesn't have a chance. The next quarter for fundraising finishes today, so we shall soon know more on whether there is any truth in that argument.

The Republicans, to be honest, look rather a shambles at the moment. For the party itself, it has not been a pretty summer. Iraq continues to dominate the headlines. General Petraeus' report on Iraq has come and gone and not much seems to be changing, although there is comfort for the Republicans in the fact that despite winning Congress on the "we are going to do something about Iraq" banner, the Democrats are not able to pass legislation to force any change. The President, who made an afternoon visit to the Seattle area for a fundraising lunch(!) ($10,000 a ticket for a brief face-to-face meeting with the President), has seen his right hand man, Karl Rove, leave to "spend more time with his family", given a Presidential commutation of the prison sentence handed out to Scooter Libby (which seems a very odd thing to do from a British perspective) for his part in misleading the FBI over the leaking of a CIA agent's name, and tried to avoid anyone talking to Congress about the sacking of eight attorneys, which made Attorney General Alberto Gonzales look plain ridiculous, but he's gone too. A Republican Senator resigns from his seat of 27 years today (maybe) because of a rendezvous in an airport "bathroom", which got him charged with "misdemeanours". He resigned, then said he wasn't and then he was and now maybe not. The whole thing has been, well, peculiar and led to us all knowing "way too much information" about what goes on in certain public toilets.

The Republican Presidential candidates are still jostling for position and while Rudy Guiliani remains ahead in the polls, there is a feeling that none of them quite cut the mustard. In August, the Iowa Straw Poll, a sort of combo election/opinion poll, which Republicans voters pay to take part in, had Mitt Romney as the front runner, but not all the candidates took part. John McCain had a disastrous 2^nd Quarter of fundraising and spent just as much as he had raised so he has applied for public funds. He seems to be trailing Fred Thompson, a former senator, turned actor, hailed as the next Ronald Reagan who has been in the wings for months and finally announced his candidacy at the beginning of September. Arguably, the lack of clarity on the Republican side could lead to more excitement in the primaries, whenever they start…for there is a still lot of jostling about dates there too.

15 states are signed up to have their primary on "Super-sized Tuesday", February 5^th. Florida and South Carolina Republican's have already broken away from the pack to have their primary on January 29^th and Michigan is defying national party leaders even further by setting a date of January 15 2008. This is before the January 14 Iowa caucus, which would, by state law, need to move to January 4^th or earlier; and before the New Hampshire primary on January 22, which would need to move to January 12^th or earlier.

On the west coast, the other issue to watch is whether California will change the way it allocates its votes to the Electoral College (a topic to be covered another time) in the General Election in November 2008. In summary, most states give all their votes to one candidate, and on this basis, the Democrat candidate (whoever that turns out to be) is likely to win all of California's votes and as it is one of the biggest states, this is a substantial prize. There is a current drive to have a voter referendum next year (not something that occurs in the UK) which, if successful, would mean that the Electoral College votes would be distributed proportionally between the candidates in the Election depending on their popular vote, and it is anticipated this could give a Republican candidate enough votes to mean a Republican President. Much will happen before then.

Travels: From Castles to Kayaks, Space Ships to Mountains

Fri, 29 Jun 2007 20:53:10 GMT

Over the last two months, we have travelled between us and together around the continents and the country. In May Claire visited England for business and to see family on a fairly short but successful visit. She found time to enjoy England's old buildings, a cream tea (that did seem a luxury) and some curry! She visited Dover Castle and learnt some history herself – how it was under siege in 1216 - and was brought more up-to-date with a visit to the War Time Tunnels (Hellfire Corner) on the same site from where the military directed the evacuation from Dunkirk. She also went to Godinton House – a very English property in beautiful gardens, with excellent cream teas. One week from standing on the top of Dover Castle, Claire was standing amongst the spectacular Cascade Mountains around Leavenworth and Lake Wenatchee as we spent the day with friends building a cabin in the area!

At the beginning of June, Mark went to Florida to speak at TechEd, a Microsoft run conference. He did not enjoy Orlando, but did not bring any photos back to substantiate his claims that it really was a place to avoid. Maybe it was the fact that he arrived there without his suitcase….but after being reunited, he did manage to find himself on a short "road trip" with his colleagues to Miami Beach ("fantastic") and to see the most recent launch of the Space Shuttle from a distance ("magnificent").

After his rather lengthy trip back from Florida (let's not go there), we had a week's "vacation" taking in more of the sights of Washington state. We enjoyed four days on San Juan Island. We have decided this is our US Lake District – somewhere peaceful for a good rest. We saw two pods of whales, but managed to miss the large breaching party they had on the morning after we arrived. We had a mad moment and tried sea kayaking which was really good, but led to much restricted motion the following day and lots of oohs and aahs (and some other words besides). We stayed again at the Harrison House Suites which was wonderful – the breakfasts met our memories of last year.

On the Thursday of that week, we left Friday Harbour for the next part of our trip – a drive around the 400 miles of the Cascade Loop, supposed to be one of the most scenic drives in Washington. It surely was. The drive along the first part past lakes and spectacular mountains was jaw-dropping. We stopped at the visitor centre at the bottom (in typical Claire fashion) and said we wanted to do a walk near the top of the pass and the lady kindly said, words to the effect of "well, only if you want to be knee-deep in snow!" We had not really thought about that so will need to go back again to do that walk and see the observation point at the top which was not yet open for the season. The whole drive reminded us so much of Norway and the fjords and mountains we have seen on our travels there.

Once you go over the top of the mountain, the countryside changes completely into a much arid, dry and desert like place, with lots of fruit trees. We stayed the night at the Freestone Inn, which was amazing – our room was vast and lovely and we sat out staring at the stars with the odd deer wondering past. The last time we saw the stars so clearly was on a trip with Pete and Helen Williams when they lived over here, and, as we recall, we did the whole Cascade Loop in a day and were at the top of Stevens Pass about midnight. We had dinner in Winthrop which is a town that has "remodelled" itself on a Wild West theme - slightly surreal. The next day we drove to Chelan, which is a favourite resort of Seattle folks because it is generally much warmer. We arrived in the rain! We availed ourselves of our accommodation, the Back Country B&B, and made the most of another afternoon nap! Saturday we spent the day chugging up Lake Chelan, the third deepest lake in the US and just over 50 miles long (that is twice the width of the English Channel between Dover and France), and taking in the local views, including eating at Blueberry Hills, a family style restaurant looking peacefully out over the fruit fields – and excellent pies! Sunday we drove the southern arm of the Cascade Loop through Leavenworth, the Bavarian themed town and back over Stevens Pass. As we ascended towards the pass, the clouds came down and we could see very little apart from rain as we came back to Seattle. We just wanted to be back on holiday on "the other side of the mountains"!

An Immigrant’s View of Immigration

Sun, 24 Jun 2007 04:34:42 GMT

The knotty problem of how to deal with immigration has been hitting the headlines in the US again, and knotty it surely is, for four main reasons:

how to stop people coming illegally across the borders from Canada and Mexico – and it was across the Canadian border that some of the 9/11 terrorists stepped and from across the Mexican border that the stream of illegal workers arise;
how to have sufficient highly educated workers brought into the country – the current H1 visa process gets overwhelmed on the first day the new quota becomes available;
how to provide enough cheap labour to do all the fruit picking and other low paid jobs, which are currently being done by "undocumented workers" – "illegals" as the British would say; and
how to deal with the estimated 12 million people who are already here illegally doing all the cheap labour jobs, many of whom have had children here who, in turn, are US citizens by birthright.

The Issues

The Senate has been debating an Immigration Bill, which stalled on 7^th June. Since then President Bush has been on a charm offensive to try and bring the Bill back to life. It is a heated debate, showing there are no easy answers.

On the border, there is strong support for building a fence all along the Mexican border to keep people out. Given the economic incentives, people are still going to come. We have seen that in the UK where people are smuggled on boats and lorries ("trucks" to the US reader) in the most awful conditions, because the end seems better than where they started. So a fence is likely to be a deterrent but not a lasting solution. It is certainly not going to keep terrorists out. If they can work out how to hijack planes they can get round fences.

The strong demand for highly educated/trained workers one is tricky – one we Wilson-Thomas' are benefitting from right now. Part of the solution, in my mind, is for the US to be producing these workers themselves through reform of the education system, which in the eyes of us Brits, seems to take a long time and specializes late, but any education reform is not going to meet short-term needs. The Bill proposes an entry system based on a "points system", similar to that which operates in the UK.

The cheap labour is tricky on the other end of the scale. Partly because education is long and expensive, Americans don't want the kind of jobs those from Mexico are willing to do. President Bush has long favoured a "guest worker programme" and that is what the Democratic Congress is discussing again. The original proposal was to allow 400,000 people in a year for two years at a time, then Congress voted to halve that number. Those against say it will a) produce an underclass of workers who have no ability ever to become US residents and b) will push down the wages of other US workers, so the unions are opposing it. The farmers are desperate for folks to come and pick their fruit – a big issue in Washington and California. We were in one of the fruit-picking areas of Washington last weekend and in discussion about the complexities of the situation were told that the local school district taught in Spanish half the week to meet the needs of the many Hispanic fruit pickers…

The status of the "illegals" is probably the most contentious of all. Options: ignore, deport or make legal. The Bill proposes an "amnesty" but with a penalty, and a contorted route to citizenship. In the past, there have been proposals that everyone returns to their home country and applies from there. Since these are people being paid low wages to start with, that plan seems unlikely to work – too disruptive and too expensive. But the thought of 12 million automatically getting "in line" when many folks wait literally years for a green card, enrages many (Republicans, mainly) and a well-known CNN presenter called Lou Dobbs, who…well I have to turn the TV off when he comes on. Of course the fact that these folks have broken laws to get here is problematic but the need for finding a pragmatic solution seems pressing. Ignoring the problem just lets it fester and wholesale deportation seems impractical both from the point of view of law enforcement and economic impact.

Presidential Views

The current resident of the White House has been working hard to get this Bill passed and this last week has been promising stronger border security and law enforcement in an effort to move the bill forward – an extra $4.4 billion (BBC Website) on top of the $13billion already in the 2008 spending budget (0.1% of GDP – Economist 2 June). What are the views of the would-be White House residents? This CNN link gives an overview of all the candidates.

On the Republican side:

John McCain, hailing from a border State, led the charge with Democrat Sen Teddy Kennedy last year on a similar Immigration Bill, and is arguing something needs to be done in the interests of "national security";
Mitt Romney has criticized Sen McCain's views (New York Times 20 March, Economist, 19 May) and made clear in the June 5 Presidential Debate in New Hampshire that he strongly opposed giving legal status to the illegals;
Mr Giuliani had similar views to Sen McCain but has recently backed off these, opposing the Bill (Newsweek 28 May, Economist 9 June). He has criticized the fact that there is no system for knowing who has left the US.
Tom Tancredo, one of the current Republican outsiders has based his campaign on an anti-immigration message.

On the Democrat side, there seems a lot less between the views of the candidates, but they are accused of changing their minds on the issues over the years. Senators Clinton and Obama both proposed amendments to the Bill in the run up to its recent demise:

Sen Clinton to remove the limit on the number of visas granted based on family ties (voted down); and
Sen Obama to restrict the "points system" to 5 years rather than 14 years (also voted down);
John Edwards on the campaign trail in Iowa in March said he supports spending more securing the borders and allowing the people "in the shadows" to earn citizenship, albeit after being fined and learning to speak English;
Bill Richardson is the only Hispanic in the race and is Governor of New Mexico, another border state. He supports a program to give citizenship to the "12 million", tighter border security - but not a fence, and wants more rights for guest workers (Seattle PI, 25 May).

Speaking as an Immigrant

We are grateful for the time we are able to spend in this country but know that starting life in a new land is no small undertaking. We were fortunate enough to have Microsoft navigate all the paperwork and help us on our way. We would not want to contemplate doing it without that support!

As we listen to the debates, we see a country which prides itself in heritage from here, there and everywhere - a nation whose history is built on immigrants, who wanted to "improve their lot". What seems strange to us is the desire to shut the door hard on the next generation of immigrants who want to "pursue the American dream".

PS. Written June 29. The Senate voted yesterday not to continue with this Bill so it is unlikely there will be any comprehensive immigration reform until the next President takes office.

Bye, Bye Tony, Hello Gordon

Fri, 18 May 2007 01:31:01 GMT

As I flew back to Seattle last Thursday, the "great British public" was reviewing, from every angle, Tony Blair's ten years as Prime Minister, the longest serving Labour PM. As I travelled to the airport, he made his announcement that he would cease his Downing Street tenure on Wednesday 24 June. Not that any of this was a surprise. Blair's premiership has been full of ministerial statements in advance - so much so, that this was rather anti-climatic. For weeks we have known this is coming and that Gordon Brown has been a "dead cert" or "slam dunk"(the equivalent phrase on this side of the pond), to move from No 11 Downing Street, the residence of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, next door to "No 10". Today, the Labour Party announced that no-one had enough support to challenge Mr Brown , so de facto, he is the next PM. No contest, rather a somewhat belated coronation. And, very unusually, for British politics (a first, I think), there will be a "transition" between Prime Ministers, which is the norm for a change in US Presidents.

To my American friends it all appears very odd. Isn't there going to be a General Election? Aren't the public electing a new Prime Minister like they would elect a President? The answer to both questions is "No". The Prime Minister is the Leader of the majority party in Parliament, which the public already chose back in 2005. The Leader is elected by party members – if there are enough contestants for a vote! The Queen, the Head of State, asks the reader,

The nearest analogy in the US to the party leadership role is the position of Speaker of the House. At the start of a session of Congress, the majority party in the House of Representatives elects the Speaker and that person is seen as the Leader of the Party, but unlike the majority leader in the UK Parliament they have no power to run the "executive" functions of Government, that's the President's job. The Speaker does run the legislative agenda, which in the UK is the Government's job! The Speaker is also the "second in line" to the President should anything happen to the President and Vice President.

But for British ears, the term "Speaker" means something very different. The Speaker of the House of Commons is voted for by all members of the House of Commons and can be from any party. He (or on one occasion she) occupies this formal and non-partisan role to maintain the peace and the smooth running of the House of Commons. The Speaker is most famously known for the phrase "Order, order" when things get a bit raucous, which, from time to time, they do. Once elected, the individual remains Speaker until they retire, and retains their Parliamentary seat whilst Speaker.

All of this highlights the differences between a Presidential and Parliamentary system of government. I shall be bilingual soon!

Red Elephants, Blue Donkeys

Mon, 30 Apr 2007 02:16:08 GMT

Given the recent news domination of the shootings at Virginia Tech, the sacking of a DJ the week before, the Presidential election seems to have left the headlines for the last few weeks, which we all probably needed! So I thought I would start looking into party symbols and colours. As a Brit, when I hear the phrase, so and so is a "Red State", I immediately think red = Labour = Democrat. But not so. Red is the colour of the Republicans. Blue, which has until recently been the colour of the Conservatives, represents the Democrats.

Colours

There seem to be two stories on the colours. Firstly the colour has depended upon who is in the White House and switched over time… and is due to switch in 2008! How confusing is that! The other is that there never have been formal colours and that different media stations used different colours to represent the parties. In 2000 they all used the same colours, which have stuck-mainly because the electoral map was the subject of so much controversy.

An elephant and a donkey

No, not Shrek and Donkey, nor an Aesop's Fable! These are the party symbols. According to a website I came across, the use of a donkey to represent the Democrats started with Andrew Jackson campaigning for President in 1828. Opponents called him a jackass, he "was amused" and used it as a symbol on his election posters. Thomas Nast, a cartoonist for Harpers Weekly, used a donkey to represent the Democrats in 1870 and by 1880 it had stuck. Prior to this, the Democrats had been represented by a tiger. You can see the original cartoon here. It was supposed to be a negative image tied to those who wanted to avoid the Civil War and keep on lucrative trade with the south. The Democrats website says that donkeys are "humble, homely, smart, courageous and loveable", but cite the Republican view that donkeys are "stubborn, silly and ridiculous". That is not the view of those taking donkey rides on English beaches! Or Jesus entering Jerusalem.

Nast also created the Republican's elephant symbol during the mid-term elections of 1874 when Democrats suggested President Ulysses S Grant would seek an unprecedented third term in office. See here for the cartoon. One website says that Nast chose the elephant "because it was believed that elephants were clever, steadfast, and easily controlled, but unmanageable when frightened," another that it was innocent and powerful. The contrary (Democrat) view is that an elephant is "bungling, stupid, pompous and conservative". No elephants on English beaches or in the Bible, but up close in Africa it's a spectacular and powerful animal.

Just goes to show there are two sides to every story!

Skagit Valley Tulip Festival

Sun, 15 Apr 2007 02:04:37 GMT

Yesterday I (Claire) went with my friend Jena to the Skagit Valley Tulip Festival, which runs for all of April. The tulip fields are 60 miles north of Seattle. We have seen stunning photos of the tulips and they did not disappoint, even in spite of the grey weather we are having in Seattle at the moment.

We had a great lunch at the Rexville Grocery, which was an unassuming shop with a great deli and a good selection of English goodies (including Hobnobs) - such places are always worth knowing about! We visited an English feeling nursery called Christianson's, which had excellent plants at much more reasonable prices than locally. It was certainly the best place I've seen since we arrived. We then drove between the tulip fields admiring the swathes of blooms and taking pictures. There are two formal gardens of tulips that can be toured but we just took in the fields which were stunning.

We have had some sunshine today, so Mark and I got the bikes out for a short ride. Tomorrow, we are going to our first baseball game of the season and to Jazz Alley in the evening.

Money...It IS a Rich Man's World

Thu, 12 Apr 2007 02:00:50 GMT

Last week as I was travelling into Seattle on the bus, I was reflecting on the differences between US and UK politics. I was struck again by MONEY. At the end of the first quarter, each candidate running for President has to submit a report to the Federal Election Commission on how much money they have raised. The numbers that emerged last week have been staggering - Hillary Clinton $26m, Barack Obama $25m, Mitt Romney $23m....and then comes Rudy Giuliani $15m and John Edwards at $14m, a number which would have been headline news in 2004.

What do I conclude from all of this?

1. Hillary Clinton may not be the dead cert everyone thought. I liked this cartoon in last week's Seattle PI where Sen Clinton gets upset with Sen Obama. Previous elections have shown that he who has the most money does not always win.

2. John McCain has been left behind after raising (only!) $12.5m and is having to revitalise his campaign, which is heavily focusing on why the surge in Iraq is the right policy and is working.

3. More broadly the Republican candidates look rather a mess. Although Giuliani remains ahead in the opinion polls, there still seems a lot of uneasyness over all the candidates and a scrabble to find a new candidate to come over the horizon on a white charger. So I will refer you to another cartoon looking for a candidate at the bottom of a barrel.

4. The public funding open to candidates needs a revamp or complete withdrawal as the limits are so severely below the levels individuals are able to raise outside of this system.

I can't imagine these numbers in UK politics. I checked what the three main parties spent in the UK 2005 General Election - £40m between them, which at the current exchange rate is around $80m! There are still legal limits on what can be spent and expenses are declared after the event, so it's not clear before the election what money each party has. As there has been much scandal about loans and "cash for honours" it shows that even raising that money is pretty tricky. The US population (300m) is around five times the UK (60m) and the UK does not have the primary election cycle, but $80m versus what is expected to be $1 billion (spent and raised) is quite a difference. Sir Hayden Philips' Review of Funding Political Parties reported last month and proposes some new public funding for elections and reduced party expenditure! Not yet agreed but it show how the two systems are very different.

Edwards Continues his Campaign

Sat, 31 Mar 2007 01:02:23 GMT

John Edwards has been making headlines on the Presidential election campaign for the last week for the very sad reason that his wife’s breast cancer has returned, this time in her bones – just like Mark’s mum. He and his wife made the announcement last Thursday and said “the campaign will go on”. Since then there has been much written about the pros and cons of their decision. They are between a rock and a hard place.

The concern is that either his campaign will get distracted by Mrs Edwards’ illness or, if he did win the election, he would not have the right judgement in the White House should she die. All valid concerns, as the Edwards themselves have conceded, but the voters do not seem to be ruling out Hillary Clinton because Bill has a heart condition, Mitt Romney because his wife has MS, John McCain who has had skin cancer or Rudy Guiliani who has had prostrate cancer. Life throws all sorts of stuff at us and we don’t know when it will come. Each day around the world people are facing difficulties. A bit of humanity would not go amiss in the White House.

The cynical side of me says, well, yes it would be very convenient for the Democrat coffers if Edwards dropped out, and for the Republicans if the field narrowed challenging Sen Hillary Clinton, as she seems to be such a polarising force. The other side says, maybe it just goes against the “American Dream” to have a president that is anything less than perfect (to start with).

John Edwards, currently polling 3^rd amongst the Democrats, is a 53 year old trial lawyer and was the Vice-President running mate of John Kerry in 2004. He was a senator for North Carolina at the time of the decision to go to war with Iraq and has apologized for his vote – thus distinguishing himself from Sen Clinton. We watched John Edwards on the 4 February C-SPAN Road to the White House program when he was in New Hampshire. We thought he came across as “a nice guy”, honest, not afraid to say that he didn’t know all the answers, which was refreshing. He is reported as one of the most Internet savvy of the candidates (although had to fire two of his bloggers), to be polling strongly in the key state of Iowa (see my last blog entry), the Democrat candidate with the best thought through policy on healthcare, the closest to the unions, and a focus on tackling poverty, but with a controversially large house, which he claims is energy efficient!

He has five themes on his campaign website, http://johnedwards.com/ which I’ve summarized below:

Restoring America's Moral Leadership in the World – including immediate withdrawal from Iraq and tackling genocide in Darfur;
Guaranteeing Affordable, Quality Health Care for Every American – he has a 7 page policy proposal to tackle the outrageous fact that there are 47 million uninsured Americans with no health care;
Eliminating Poverty in the US within 30 years “by creating and rewarding work, strengthening families, helping workers save and get ahead, transforming our schools, expanding access to college, breaking up areas of concentrated poverty, reaching overlooked rural areas, and expecting people to help themselves by working whenever they are able.”
Strengthening America's Middle Class – policies “must reward work, help families save for the future, and fight the rising costs of middle-class life” (ie childcare, health and education)
Leading the Fight against Global Warming and Our Addiction to Foreign Oil.

On Road to the White House, 4 March, Mr Edwards talked said by the time of the General Election everyone in America would know what he stands for, and if that was not what the voters wanted, they should not vote for him. It will be interesting to see how this develops.