Campaign "Theme Song's" strike up controversy amongst artists

by Jack Cooper



The chief songwriter and founder of soft rock heroes Boston, Tom Sholz, has slammed Mike Huckabbe for using their classic track “More Than A Feeling” in his campaign.

Huckabee’s band Capitol Offense recently required the services of former short term member Barry Goudreau. What seemed like a chance to capture the hearts (and votes) of middle aged men everywhere, Sholz claims the band has performed the song at campaign events around the country despite his permission.

In a letter to the presidential hopeful he stated “Boston has never endorsed a political candidate and with all due respect, would not start by endorsing a candidate who is the polar opposite of most everything Boston stands for. In fact, although I'm impressed you learned my bass guitar part on More Than a Feeling, I am an Obama supporter.”

Fred Bramante, chairman of Huckabee's New Hampshire campaign, called the allegations ridiculous. He said he attended dozens of Huckabee rallies in New Hampshire and other states and never heard Huckabee play "More Than a Feeling," other than when Goudreau campaigned with him in Iowa in October.

He’s not the only Republican in hot water. Last week, McCain's campaign agreed to stop playing John Mellencamp's songs "Our Country" and "Pink Houses" at his rallies after the liberal rocker complained.

The Democratic candidates have had better luck however. Celine Dion said she was “thrilled” that Senator Clinton has chosen her track “You and I” as her official campaign anthem.
Bono has yet to comment on Obama’s preference of U2’s “City of Blinding Lights” at his events.

Rock effect crumbling Labour's poll standings

An Opinion poll in today's Independent by Com Res has put the Tories 11 points ahead of Labour enough to get a small majority if an election was held tomorrow.

The poll which places the Tories ahead on 41%, Labour second on 30% and the Lib Dems on 17% will make worrying reading for Gordon Brown, not just because of the overall results but because it shows the Tories ahead of Labour in every region bar Scotland.

The Lib Dems whose overall poll position hasn't changed since the last Com Res poll will be boosted by the fact that 80% of their identifiers say they will vote for the party at the next election.

This poll shows the first sign of a backlash against Labour for their handling of the Northern Rock crisis and its nationalisation and perhaps shows how much of an albatross the bank could become for the Labour Party, with much banking on the success of the bank for the Labour Government.

David Cameron will have to be careful about reading too much into this one poll, but if these polling figures are repeated in polls such as ICM, which generally higher polling figures, and the Lib Dems and Labour does badly in May's local elections, in particular the Mayoral election in London; then Brown could be facing the same fate as Jim Callaghan who dithered over calling an election when it could have been won and in the end lost in '79 to Thatcher leading to 18 years of Tory rule. For Brown it's not too late to save his Premiership, but he'll have to turn the tide pretty fast.

-Adam Evans, Chief Political Correspondent

Editorial: Ralph Nader announces his entry into the Presidential Race

by Tom Hinton



Ralph Nader has officially announced his candidacy for the President of the United States as an Independent candidate on an NBC talk show “Meet the Press.” This will be the fifth time that Nader has stood for the presidency; he stood once in 1992, then in 1996 and 2000 he stood for the Green Party, and in 2004 he stood as an independent. Nader has expressed his concerns with the current situation in the United States, stating that a “Jeffersonian revolution is needed”, citing Thomas Jefferson in his belief that you should enter the electoral arena when you lose your government. When logging onto Nader’s website at votenader.org, it is simple to see the kind of concerns this candidate is highlighting. One word comes into mind when thinking of the Nader campaign; Corporate. Ralph Nader gives the impression that he is against all things corporate, and the profit orientated nature of America. He highlights the corporation dominant nature of both the leading parties in the US, and in a list of his most important issues he lists an “Aggressive crackdown on corporate crime and corporate welfare.”

So who exactly is Ralph Nader? Ralph Nader is a 73 year old Arab-American attorney from Connecticut, who has made his name as a political activist. Nader has ties with the Reform Party, the Green Party and has been known to stand for Consumer Rights, Humanitarianism, Environmentalism, and Democracy all round. If you have never heard of Ralph Nader, you may find it hard to believe that this the man who determined the outcome of the 2000 presidential election, sued the General Motors corporation for privacy infringement and the man who led an entire generation of inspired investigative writers. These writers were known as the “Nader Raiders”; they published a number of successful books inquiring into the government corruption of Washington D.C. Ralph Nader symbolises a number of things in the USA. For one, he is a symbol of rebellion; he is never afraid to speak his mind and stand up against the corruption present in America and the corporate world. A symbol of environmentalism, Nader is an openly anti-nuclear activist and has various Green Party properties in his agenda. However Nader is less concerned with single issues and seems to address the problem with America from the outside, giving him a sense of distance from the world of politics. This poses as an obvious downside for many voters who seek politically experienced candidates and Washington insiders such as John McCain.

In an election as close as the 2000 Presidential Election, it was, and still is so easy to think of endless ways in which the vote could have been swayed. The first year of the new millennium saw the closest election in the history of US politics, with the decision going to the Supreme Court after stopping re-counts across the board. Obviously, George W. Bush was announced as the winner, but what did this mean for Ralph Nader? At the time, Nader was standing as a green party candidate, and many democrats feel bitter towards him, as his left wing policies attracted sections of the electorate away from the Democratic Party and to the green party, resulting in a loss of voters for them, and in 2000, Al Gore. However, this criticism of Ralph Nader’s is but a superficial one. Democrats fail to remember that their candidate still won the popular vote, and are more concerned in speaking negatively about a candidate that could harm their campaign than address the dubious and suspicious irregularities that really lost them the election in 2000.

In 2004 the re-election of George W. Bush was a questionable one. John Kerry looked like a promising candidate for the Democrats, and the controversies surrounding the presidency of Bush’s first term, as well as electoral irregularities made the Election one of the most interesting re-election campaigns in history. Ralph Nader stood, this time as an independent. Nader expressed his concerns with the bureaucratic Washington of the 21st century, claiming that “There's too much power and wealth in too few hands.” His candidacy was met with great hostility after the delicacy of the 2000 election, and Nader’s part in it, but Nader fought strong and maintained his right to stand. The worries of his election “spoiling” in 2004 were soon proved insubstantial as the margins between Bush and Kerry were considerably larger than the percentage of votes given to Nader, which dropped dramatically from his 2.7% in 2000.

Now, in 2008, Ralph Nader faces the same judgement from The Democratic Party. Republicans welcome his candidacy as they think they can “cash in” on his attraction of left wing voters away from the democrats and take advantage of his significance. This was shamelessly expressed by Republican presidential contender Mike Huckabee, in which he stated; "[Nader] would probably pull votes away from the Democrats and not the Republicans, so naturally, Republicans would welcome his entry into the race". What is most concerning for the Democratic Party is the thin margin between candidates Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. Their contest for nomination is so close, that Nader’s candidacy poses a threat to their nomination as the party is clearly split between the two candidates; resembling the split of the nation in 2000 between Bush and Gore. Both of the democratic candidates have spoken out against Ralph Nader’s bid for the presidency, as they both fear that it could effect their campaigns in a bad way come November. It is disappointing that such inspirational candidates as Barrack Obama have spoken to ruthlessly about Nader’s announcement, with little signs of respect. Credit is to be given to Hillary Clinton in that she has addressed her natural concern for Nader’s candidacy and what it could do for her Party, but also highlighted that “it’s a free country” and he should exercise his right to run.

One of the key attractions to Obama’s campaign is the inspirational and positive atmosphere that has accompanied it. His history as a civil rights lawyer and idealistic compassion combine to create possibly the greatest most motivational speaker that US politics has ever seen. However, over the last week or so, there has been some negative criticism to the methods used in Obama’s campaign when attracting negative criticism to his opponents. In various campaign literatures against Hillary Clintons health care proposals, the Obama campaign have suggested that Clinton will provide health care for all who can afford it, alienating the poorer American. In response the Clinton campaign has angrily back lashed, calling Obama a liar and that his negative campaign against Clinton is completely misleading and untrue. Hillary Clinton herself even compared Obama to former Deputy Chief of Staff to George W. Bush, Karl Rove; who is known for his ruthless strategic campaigning for various Republicans.

Obama has said that Ralph Nader “did not know what he was talking about” in 2000, and that Nader is someone who “thinks you’re not substantive” if you “don’t listen to [him], and adopt all his policies.” A harsh judgement from Obama, who has also expressed that Nader “seems to have a pretty high opinion of his own work”. Nader’s announcement to run for President should be met with a welcoming smile by the American People, who need to be provided with a suitable alternative to yet another conservative republican who wants to stay in Iraq, and two democrats who cant seem to stop fighting with each other and squabbling over their differences. The candidates need to stop highlighting their differences, and start unifying America and sorting out the real problems on the inside, as well as addressing the endless list of issues put on the table this election. The democrats in particular have been too critical of Nader’s presidential proposal; they need to stop attacking him for his decision and concentrate on compromise, representation and union. Obama still remains a source of primary inspiration for the American People, and it should be highlighted that he is probably the best chance America has of a righteous government.

Ralph Nader’s presidential candidacy seems to have brought out the worst in all the candidates from both parties, and once again he is seen as a controversial figure in yet another American Election. It will certainly be interesting to see how many Ballots he manages to get his name onto, and indeed how many people will be confident to vote for this man in November. Nader should be seen as a symbol of inspiration to voters and politicians everywhere, as a man who is not afraid to stand up to corporate America, a man who will not sit back and allow corruption to take place in the government, and also a man of active professionalism, who can make informed decisions and judgements on behalf of the people.

However, despite what Nader could and could not do, he is seen as simply too radical and his judgements are slated by conservatives across the board. The issues at the top of his proposals include an impeachment of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, to “cut the huge, bloated, wasteful military budget”, and “work to end corporate personhood.” These issues are understandably controversial and may be a little over the top, and too activist-orientated to be incorporated into the White House. Maybe this is what is at the heart of Nader’s campaign, the fact that Nader’s activism is seen as incompatible with the American government is surely an outrage in itself. The sad truth is, however, that America is not ready for a liberal such as Ralph Nader, for his activism is too radical. He may stand for what human nature tells us is right, but I’m afraid to say that corporate America will not allow such a candidate to be elected, at least not as long as the people demand conservatism.

As Obama wins tenth consecutive primary, McCain starts to criticise his likely opposition for November

by Tom Hinton



Last night saw the last primary in the month of February this election, with northern liberal states Washington and Wisconsin both up for grabs for both party candidates. Hawaii – Hometown of democrat frontrunner Barack Obama also held a democratic caucus.

Going into this election, the northern liberal states were safe territory for Barack Obama, and his campaign has paid off. Obama managed to take his ninth and tenth consecutive win in Wisconsin and Hawaii, further progressing his lead ahead of New York Senator and former First Lady; Hillary Rodham Clinton. These results, and the fact Clinton hasn’t won a primary since Super Tuesday on February 5th, now make winning Texas and Ohio even more crucial to the Clinton Campaign than ever before. Wisconsin is similar to Ohio in demographics, and Obama victory in such a state has proven to be a cause for concern in the Clinton HQ. Clinton and Obama are now focusing their attention on the two delegate rich states of Ohio and Texas in an attempt to secure their likely nomination, and excel them that extra step ahead in a race that is barley past neck and neck status.

Obama now holds a 70 delegate lead past Clinton, including Super Delegates who have stated support for a particular candidate. The Illinois Senator is also swaying votes from sections of society that were secure for the Clinton campaign. Older, Blue collar, working class voters have joined the young, educated and highly paid voters in support for Obama. In Wisconsin last night, Obama secured 53% of the white vote, 48% of the female vote, and 39% of white seniors with a considerable rise in Catholic and rural voters, increasing by a half and a third since Super Tuesday, respectively. Another issue in demographics to take in to account, is the Latino vote that is so important to the state of Texas. In the Virginia and Maryland primaries, we saw Obama sweep up the Latino vote, which have been a Clinton security from day one. With the current demographic trends in Texas, as well as Obama’s success with the Latino vote in other states, Hillary Clinton and her team will need to campaign vigorously in the state to feel confident about walking away with delegate rich pockets. Obama has also managed to detract the economy vote away from Clinton, with 55% of voters declaring the economy as their most important issue this election voting for Obama. These gains on Obama’s part will certainly add momentum to his campaign, but he still needs to focus on Texas and Ohio as crucial states if he expects to maintain his lead over Clinton.

In Hillary Clintons post election speech, she mentioned that Barack Obama was all about rhetoric where as she was more concerned with solutions. She stated that she is the candidate who possesses the solutions for America, where as Obama simply delivers upbeat speeches and lacks specifics. On the other hand, Obama has defended his ground and said that the election is not just about making speeches and promises, but more so reforming Washington D.C into a place better suited for the political ideals needed to save America. “Washington [D.C] has become a place where good ideas go to die” Obama said.

Taking a look on the other side, the GOP is in a state of confused disunity, in which the most popular candidate is suffering from nothing but… unpopularity! Although experienced Sen. John McCain has a considerable lead and grasp on the Republican presidential nomination, conservatives see him as not right wing enough, and have mixed feelings about his ideologies. In 2002, McCain, along with Wisconsin democrat Russell Feingold created the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, known as the BCRA. These changes in campaign finance, along with John McCain’s stances on immigration, have been enough to make some Republicans weary of his almost certain nomination. However, McCain has portrayed himself as the man who can not only best lead the USA, but also unify the GOP in this time of divide. But will this be enough, come November, to stop the Democrat nominee accessing the White House, therefore causing democrat domination of both the Legislature (Congress) and the Executive(The Presidency)?

As for GOP results, McCain took a 55% win in Wisconsin to Huckabee’s 37%, and a 49% to 22% win in Washington; even more substantial gains for the Senator who already holds a largely tight lead on the republican nomination. With Obama’s progressing lead against Clinton, and McCain’s obvious stronghold, it is becoming more likely that White House outsiders will occupy the seat of the presidency in 2009, as Hillary Clintons campaign slowly emerges from a rock road of constant loss, and onto an empty road of un-pledged delegate hope and reliability. As Obama becomes the more likely candidate for Democratic Nomination, Super Delegates also taken into account, John McCain has begun to criticise his likley opponent. McCain told supporters in a victory speech; “I will… make sure Americans are not deceived by an eloquent but empty call for change.” The words of an experienced politician and Washington expert give a foreboding tone to what may very well be to come in October as the two parties campaign for the presidency.

Editorial: A Breadbasket destroyed

As the US elections continue to dominate the media alongside Northern Rock and Castro's resignation, it can be easy to forget about one of the great tragedies of recent decades that is continuing before our very eyes in Africa. Yes, I am talking about Zimbabawe once labelled the breadbasket of Africa and now a desolute, poverty stricken nightmare ruled by the iron fist of a murderous despot, Robert Mugabe.

Mugabe, whose successful guerilla campaign against the leader of the apartheid regime in Rhodesia, Ian Smith, and has led ever since 1980 has overseen a disastrous economic collapse leading to mass poverty, famine and deaths due to an inability of many Zimbabweans to afford treatment for the HIV/Aids epidemic which has mercilessly resulted in the deaths of thousands of people. It is this economic collapse which has led to me writing this post today, why? Because of a BBC News story, entitled "Zimbabwe inflation hits 100,000%". This report shows how torrid life has got for ordinary Zimbabweans, with 80% of the population living in poverty and a mass exodus of 3 million people to neighbouring South Africa.

As we sit down in our warm houses with little inflation, high levels of employment and a relatively prosperous economy it is worthwhile remembering the plight of those people. For them every day is a challenge to survive under a corrupt and malicious dictatorship that has destroyed their country, once the hope of Africa but now the shame of a continent. Mugabe's record on human rights is also appalling with his Government attacking and murdering opponents, homosexuals and even charity workers sent to aid the ailing population.

Next month President Mugabe will be standing for re-election in an election where the results are already known. He faces opposition from Simba Makoni, his former Finance Minister, and the leader of the Movement for Democratic change, Morgan Tsvangirai whose arrest and brutal treatment at the hands of Mugabe's police and security forces caused international outrage. The only people who matter aren't Zimbabweans or even Mugabe himself, it is the South African Government which has failed to use the authority and influence at its disposal to remove Mugabe and ensure even basic levels of human rights and living standards.

As the Presidential race in America moves on and issues of the US economy and Iraq dominate the agenda, the successful candidate must put Zimbabwe at the top of the agenda as well. The people of that tragic land need salvation and their resiliance and hope can only last so long without real action by the world's leaders. If that candidate does take on this mission, they can make their name in history as the person who saved not just the next generation, but a country from the horror of Mugabe and his regime, only then can a continent which has seen so much death and tyranny be healed.

-Adam Evans, Chief Political Correspondent

Cuban Chief Castro stands aside

One of the most divisive figures in global politics, the Communist leader of Cuba Fidel Castro, has announced his decision not to seek the Presidency again after years of being the ruler of the American country.

Castro who has been in power for 49 years, since the success of his guerilla campaign against the dictator, Batista, in 1959, has taken the decision ahead of a meeting of the Cuban National Assembly on Sunday to appoint a new President. In a letter to Granma, the Cuban Communist Party newspaper, he pointed to his deteriorating health as the main reason for standing aside after so long in power saying, "It would betray my conscience to take up a responsibility that requires mobility and total devotion, that I am not in a physical condition to offer."

Castro's health has been a major issue since July 2006, when the reigns of power were temporarily given to the 81 year olds younger brother, Raul, to undergo emergency intestinal surgery and since then he has not made any public appearances since. It is Raul who is now favourite to succeed his brother as President though 59 year old Vice President Carlos Lage Davila is also considered to be a candidate for the post.

Fidel Castro's announcement has been welcomed by long term nemesis, the USA with George Bush calling for the announcement "to begin a period of a democratic transition." Gordon Brown mirrored those remarks by stating that he hoped "that a new path will open up after this withdrawal and that there will be more democracy in that country."

Today's announcement marks the end of a reign which has led to both human rights abuses and oppression alongside a high quality universal free health care service and an impressive education system and along the way has divided many not just at home, but across the world.

-Adam Evans, Chief Political Correspondent

Is it a bird? Is it a plane? No! Its Super delegates!

By Tom Hinton

As the days press on, and the nights get shorter, the race for the Democratic Presidential Nomination becomes increasingly intense, with an almost neck and neck competition. It has been a great month for Barack Obama, and his constant wins in this favourable last few weeks has just about shot him ahead of Clinton in delegate counts. Despite this, Clinton remains strong, campaigning in delegate rich Texas and Ohio hoping to secure her chance of the nomination. However, the issue of “Super Delegates” has been cropping up in the media quite recently, and it has caused quite a stir. Some people oppose them, others support, and some simply don’t know what they are.

So what exactly is a Super Delegate? First we need to establish that the votes cast in the primaries and caucuses are for delegates; people who are pledged to vote for a candidate on behalf of the public at the National Convention, which for the Democrats, is in the August of 2008. Now, onto Super Delegates; a super delegate is just like a regular delegate, only it does not have to commit itself to the candidate the public has voted in favour of. Twenty percent of the elected delegates are Super Delegates, meaning that 20% of the elected delegates will not have to vote for the candidate the public have voted for. Pretty undemocratic, pretty confusing.

Barack Obama has spoken out against the independent nature of the Super Delegates and has said that he urges the Super Delegates to “respect the voters wishes” where as Hillary Clinton has urged the Super Delegates to use their expertise in making an independent decision. Clinton’s attitude towards Super Delegates is quite an obvious one, as generally the Super Delegate process tends to favour her. However, many of the African American Super Delegates have recently abandoned the Clinton campaign and have been seen to be backing Obama, giving even more of a hopeful lead both in Delegates and Super Delegates. Super Delegates can mean a lot to the candidates in the Democratic race. For one, it is possible with the percentage of Super Delegates at stake, that they may be able to determine the outcome of the election. For example, the popular vote could entail Obama the winner of the Nomination, but Super Delegate votes could tip the nomination over to Clinton, regardless of the publics vote and vice versa; somewhat like Al Gore’s loss of the presidency in 2000.

In the 1984 presidential primaries, the two front runners for the democratic nomination were Gary Hart and Walter Mondale. Although both candidates won various primaries and caucuses, Hart was just slightly behind Mondale in the number of votes cast. However, Mondale had the backing of almost all the Super Delegates, and won the nomination. Super Delegates are being met with a largely negative response in the media and by the American people. They are seen as a negative because the process of Super Delegate votes undermines the vote of the people, and therefore undermines democracy in the United States. If the electorate feels that their vote can be easily over ridden so to speak, it takes away a lot of the significance of voting, and de-motivates the voter to go out and vote. This can have a negative effect on spirit, turnout and party loyalty, as people may be turned off the Democratic Party in the primary season due to Super Delegates.

In a recent poll, 80% of Democrats have stated that they are more enthused to go out and vote, where as 50% of republicans expressed less motivation. The democrats are experiencing a revolution on social and civil rights, with the two front running candidates being a Black man and a white Woman, the first of their kind, and both running in the same Primary season. Also, the unpopularity of President George W. Bush has urged people to cry out for change, and as we saw in the 2006 Mid Term Congressional Elections; the Democrats have been the alternative for change after the abysmal Republican presidency of the last eight years. This leads us onto the Republican Party; where turnout is dropping as party unity falls to pieces. The party is completely split, and the drop out’s of Huckabee and Romney have shown weakness in the GOP, because the Republicans are left with one front running candidate they are very uncertain about; Sen. John McCain. The scepticism from conservatives surrounding John McCain has further highlighted the split in the party, with conservatives like former Secretary of State Colin Powell expressing his uncertainty on his vote for the GOP. However, one thing the Republicans don’t have to worry about is Super Delegates, as they originate in the Democratic National Convention of 1968, and the separate conventions outline separate rules for each party.

The controversy surrounding Super Delegates could effect the presidential election in November. If the feared does happen, and the Super Delegates do vote against the popular vote, the Democratic candidate will face a legitimacy issue, and their mandate will be questionable. Can the Democrats afford this kind of unrest at such a crucial time in their party’s history? Can the party let the Republicans take hold of the presidency for yet another term? Let’s hope not, because the party divide in the Republican Party is so hectic, that it would be comforting to think there is at least one semi-stable party in the country. In all these senses, Super Delegates do not seem fair at all. However, they are often seen as one of the many reliable checks and balances in American Politics that ensure that no single branch of government can become too powerful. For example, it can be seen that Super Delegates are used to prevent any extremist dictators of such ideologies as communism or fascism getting elected, even if they do manage to captivate the public vote. Although a credible balance, it simply isn’t enough to account for the undemocratic image that Super Delegates have attained this Primary season. Super Delegates have been around for decades, but the unpopularity of the Bush administration has raised interest and therefore awareness into the electoral process, and many corruptions and questionable processes are now being met with some hostility.

Speaker of the House of Representatives Nancy Pelosi has been seen to be speaking out against the use of Super Delegates, and she has suggested that they should be pledged voters like the rest of the delegates. It would be extremely ideal for all the Super Delegates to vote according to the popular vote, but if this was so, why are they there in the first place? Do we even need Super Delegates? What we do know, however, is that although Obama is ahead in the Polls for both of tomorrows elections in Wisconsin and Washington State, which could push him even further ahead in the nomination; Clinton continues to maintain a likely win on delegate rich Texas and Ohio, and still has many Super Delegates backing her campaign. This brings the candidates back to the neck and neck status they have been in for some time. All we can do is keep waiting and watching to see what happens in August; this contest is long from over, and if anything, it is only just beginning.

Yes we can: The success of Obama’s call for change

By Dominic Turner



Three words; Be they “Yes we can” or the resounding chant of “We want change!” sum up the mood and the sometimes exaggerated adoration of Barrack Hussein Obama. He is greeted onto the stage not as a politician, but as a rock star, not as a relic of the 90’s like Senator Clinton but a cult figure engaging in the arena of politics unprecedented since the reverend Martin Luther King Jr. or JFK or RFK. The screams are of “we want change” are whilst utterly sentimental are not always rationalized. Change from what? On policy Clinton and Obama are not that far apart. The Clinton machine, and rightly so is seen as a political dynasty of the 90’s; a pre-historic relic of a confrontational decade where the divisive nature of the baby boomers was bright into the public arena from the most divisive of generations; Clinton v Gingrich, Moore v O‘Reilly, White-water, and ultimately impeachment. As Obama puts it in his best seller book the audacity of hope, “I somehow felt as if I were watching the psychodrama of the baby boom generation. A tale rooted in old grudges and revenge plots hatched on a handful of college campuses years ago - played out on the national stage”

Here in lies the key to Obama success. Many of America’s youth see this as the defining moment in their short lived lives. The passing of the torch from one generation (the baby boomers) to another (Generation X) The washing away of the detritus of the past 8 years and starting the 21st century fresh with a new age politician. Whilst its easy to get caught up in the emotional rollercoaster of all this it is important to remember however the Clinton machine is still very powerful and is betting on Texas, Ohio and Pennsylvania to fire her back into the lead with renewed momentum. Something is changing in America however conservatives riled by the selection of Jon McCain are starting to be inspired by Obama. People are beginning to not vote with their wallets or even their brains, which surely tell them to vote in the far more experienced Clinton, but with their hearts. Conservatives as well as liberals are attracted to this guy maybe just as a protest vote but maybe they do actually believe. It is careful to not however that even if Obama were to win a sweep if he made it to November it would not be a huge Liberal mandate for America, but a reconciliation rather; To heal the wound of the 90’s and the 00’s. To engage as Obama puts it in the “politics of hope and unity not fear and division… Brick by Brick, Block by Block, Calloused hand by Calloused hand.”

He will need a lot of luck and the cynics still believe that Clinton will ultimately overhaul Obama but until March 4 when the delegate rich states of Texas, Ohio, and Pennsylvania vote. When asked can Obama go the distance, When asked if America is ready to pass the torch, When asked if they are ready to accept that their history is written by them not for them the answer, the same as always is the three immortal words “whispered by slaves and abolitionists as they blazed a trail towards freedom through the darkest of nights.”
Yes We Can.

Caught between a rock and a hard place: Darling announces nationalisation of Bank

Northern Rock, the troubled highstreet Bank, is to be nationalised the Chancellor announced to the House of Commons in a statement today following months of speculation about its future after huge market falls led to massive government investment and safeguards in the firm.

In his statement the Chancellor defended the move as in his words the two other proposals from the private sector, including the Virgin Money bid, didn't offer "sufficient value for money to the taxpayer" with sums of £55 billion of tax payers money already invested by the Government to safeguard the depositors and mortgage holders in the Bank.

The decision has already proved controversial with many Labour MPs from the North East having been hostile to the very idea of nationalisation, the Conservative Party is also hostile towards the plans and has accused the Government of overseeing "months of dither and delay" which has worsened the situation and have called Nationalisation a "catastrophic decision" and have promised to oppose the emergency Bill to nationalise the Rock tomorrow alongside calling on the Chancellor to resign or be sacked from the Treasury with David Cameron saying "I don't think this chancellor has any credibility left and that's not good for the country and not good for the economy."

However, the Government will be able to rely on support from the Lib Dem benches due to their Treasury Spokesman, Vince Cable, being a long term advocate of this solution who had previously said that it was "clearly preferable to take this bank into temporary public ownership rather than have a bad private sale to somebody like Sir Richard Branson under which the taxpayer would continue to have all the risks and the liabilities and a private owner would take all the benefit."

It is expected that taxpayers investment in the Bank will rocket from around £55 Billion to around £110 Billion, a cost of £3.5 thousand per taxpayer, with the Chancellor stressing that this is very much a short term and temporary situation with the private sector as the place where "the long-term ownership of this bank must lie."

The Prime Minister has also announced the former Lloyds of London CEO, Ron Sandler, who is widely respected in the City will become the new Chief Executive of Northern Rock. Mr Sandler, who met with staff of the Bank today,promised that he will be "getting on with the job" and said that despite all the problems and challenges of the post it was an "exciting" one.

-Adam Evans, Chief Political Correspondent

George W. Bush orders missile launch to destroy a broken US spy satellite

by Tom Hinton


Everybody’s favourite chimpanzee, George W. Bush has ordered the pentagon to begin plans on bringing down a broken spy satellite with a missile. This action by Bush is ringing bells of familiarity to anyone aware of China’s controversial actions last year in shooting down one of its own broken satellites without the consent of any other countries and their heads. This action was met with great hostility from the US and various other nations, so it is interesting that Bush has ordered the shooting down of one of his own broken satellites, especially considering it’s a spy satellite. So far, so Star Wars, but it has been legitimised in the reasoning for its destruction; that the rocket fuel could cause potential harm to people.

There has not been an official date set by the DoD, but it is expected that the operation will be over with, with the satellite hitting earth in the first weeks of March. The Missile will be shot from a US Navy ship, with a “window of opportunity” for the operation opening up in the next couple of days, and lasting for approximately one week according to the vice chairmen to the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. James Cartwright. The order is a controversial one for a number of reasons. Not only because of the similar actions of the Chinese last year, but this is also the first time the US have ever used a tactical missile on a spacecraft, and it is likely that there could be faults in the operation. The timing of the missile firing is crucial. The missile is to be fired as an interception with the satellite as it briefly re-enters the earths atmosphere, at any other time, the satellite will be near impossible to hit.

There is also a second motive in the execution of this operation. The US also aims to destroy the fuel tank on the spy satellite in an attempt to minimise the amount of fuel on its re-entry and return. This decision is not something that has been taken lightly by the US, and there will have to be a careful second decision made if the first attempt at shooting down the satellite fails, Cartwright stated in a press briefing.

Another controversy surrounding this take down, much like that of the Chinese mission last year, is the falling of the debris of the satellite. The debris is said to fall in pieces over a space of 100 yards, but of course it is difficult to pin point a specific location for the impact.

This being the last year of his presidency, GWB doesn’t seem to be laying off the controversial decisions! Some might say that the destruction of a “broken” spy satellite is a tad suspicious; could his satellite contain any secret information the US don’t want the rest of the world to see? Who knows! The launch will be in the coming weeks, so keep watching the skies!