To the referees

In her victory speech in Kentucky, Clinton insisted that the race is not over until “all votes are in and every vote is counted”. Her emphasis on counting every vote is a challenge to the current interpretation of the party’s rules. She is demanding that the party revisit the rules to count votes from Michigan and Florida.

The party’s national committee had decided to disregard the results from these two states after they advanced their primaries in defiance of central guidance. Clinton won both states. Obama’s name was on the ballot in Florida but not in Michigan.

By making these two states count, Clinton hopes to reduce Obama’s lead in the delegate count and overtake him in the popular vote. For precisely that reason, Obama opposes any redefinition of the rules. Clinton argues that the party cannot afford to ‘disenfranchise’ two populous states that will matter so much in the November general elections.

Clinton has rejected speculation that she is staying on in the race to bargain for vice president’s slot in the Democratic ticket or for a say in drafting the party’s platform at Denver.

Clinton appears to be betting on the prospect that political lightning might yet strike her opponent and that ‘buyer’s remorse’ among the Democratic delegates might force the party to rethink their preference for Obama.

Against globalisation

As the battle between Obama and Clinton dominates the headlines, some political issues are finally forcing themselves onto the debate. In the last few weeks, the two Democratic candidates hardened their positions against free trade, while John McCain, has come out in its defence.

According to political tradition, Democrats speak against free trade during the elections, but once in office they turn into believers. During the polls they need the support of the working class and after elections it is all about being practical. Republicans, in contrast, are for free trade by ideological conviction.

This time, however, it might not be business as usual. More and more working Americans blame free trade for the loss of jobs and stagnant wages. Meanwhile, the notion that America might be a net loser in the current wave of globalisation has begun to gain some intellectual currency as well.

The biggest political play in these elections has been for the white working class, and the two Democratic candidates are outbidding each other with tough positions on trade. McCain’s bold defence of free trade is welcome in the rest of the world. That, however, is of no consolation to McCain amidst the charges that he is out of touch with the blue collar folk in America.

Israel and Iran

All the recent controversy about Obama ‘abandoning’ traditional American support to Israel and ‘appeasing’ Iran is unlikely to change, even by a bit, the strong American commitment to Tel Aviv and intense hostility to Tehran.

The noise is really about Republicans projecting the old argument that the Democrats are weak on national security. It is also about Clinton suggesting that Obama is a foreign policy neophyte.

Having opened himself up for these attacks, with his fleeting suggestion of moral equivalence between the Israelis and Palestinians and talk of engaging Iranian leaders, Obama has begun to retreat. In the last few weeks, he has repeatedly reaffirmed unconditional support for Israel and has put in any number of caveats about talking to Iran.

By the time this campaign gets going in the fall, we might find Obama sounding even more pro-Israel and anti-Iran than President George W. Bush.

The writer is professor at the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore