Too little, too late

A win in both states, however, will give her a brief reprieve and keep alive the slim chance of taking the fight to the convention floor at the end of August in Denver. No wonder she staked everything on Tuesday night’s debates in Ohio. She tried hard to find decisive lines of attack against Obama who kept his cool and refused to vacate the high ground.

As premature post-mortems on the Clinton campaign begin, one major flaw stands out. Clinton assumed the nomination was hers to keep and was never really prepared to fight and win. By the time she was forced into a fight, it was too late.

Trade wars

Clinton’s belated offensive produced for the first time a real, if scrappy, debate between the Democratic contenders on a range of issues from free trade to health care.

On free trade, which should be of primary concern for India in these elections, there is bad news. In trying to malign each other as favouring free trade, Clinton and Obama might have pushed the Democratic platform towards protectionism.

Clinton and Obama, like good politicians anywhere, want to hunt with the hound and run with the hare. Both have a record of supporting free trade agreements. Yet they painted the other as siphoning American jobs to Latin America and Asia.

At issue has been the North American Free Trade Agreement that President Bill Clinton pushed through in 1993 in the teeth of opposition from Democrats in the Congress. Hillary’s staffers are now putting out the word that she did not like the agreement; but as the first lady she had to support it. They point to her opposition to NAFTA since she chose to run for the US Senate in 2000. During his campaign for a Senate seat in Illinois in 2004, Obama had supported NAFTA, but his campaign now puts out the spin that he was ‘consistently’ opposed to the pact.

As they woo the working class vote in Ohio, where nearly a quarter of a million manufacturing jobs have been lost in recent years, neither wants to be seen as pro-free trade.

It is no surprise, then, that most Asian chancelleries prefer the Republican frontrunner, Senator John McCain as the next US President. McCain is a genuine free trader, who refused to bend even when he was under intense pressure in January on the question of trade related job losses from his ex-rival governor Mitt Romney.

Run Nader, run

Ralph Nader, once a legend among American activists for his campaign on consumer rights, is now an unforgivable villain for all the liberals rallying around Obama. Over the weekend, Nader announced his decision to run, for the fourth time, amidst jeers all around.

The Democratic Party holds him responsible for the victory of George W. Bush in the 2000 elections. It is true that Nader got just enough votes to tilt the balance in a few key states against Al Gore, the Democratic nominee.

The Democrats, however, have selective memory. Without Ross Perot’s candidacy in the 1992 election, Bill Clinton might not have been elected president.

Nader dismisses the suggestion that third party candidates on the left help the right. He is challenging the very notion that the two-party system is sacrosanct.Calling the present system ‘triple rigged’ against third party candidates, Nader vows to push ahead. He hopes that American democracy will eventually find its way towards a multi-party system, proportional representation and public funding of elections.

The writer is professor at the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore iscrmohan@ntu.edu.sg