Democrat Barack Obama chased Hillary Clinton on a frenzied final weekend of all-out campaigning before 24-state "Super Tuesday," the biggest one-day White House nominating clash in history.

February 5 is an important day for the US presidential hopefuls. The ’Super Tuesday’ refers to the day of presidential election when the majority of US states hold primary elections to select delegates to national conventions at which each party’s presidential candidates are officially nominated. On this day, almost half of Americans from the Republican and Democrat camps go to polls to choose their presidential candidates. Whoever attracts more votes in ’Super Tuesday’, s/he will more likely be nominated for the 2008 presidential election.
In the United States, presidential hopefuls are nominated according to vote tallies they get in caucuses and primaries in the US states. The presidential nominees will be finally introduced by the state party representatives in national conventions. The national convention in the Democrat camp will introduce their presidential nominee during August 25-28 in Colorado. From the 4,049 participants, 2,025 voters will make the final decision about introducing a nominee for the next presidential elections. In the Republican camp, representatives will convene during September 1-4 in Minnesota to choose their nominees by 2,380 voters. Traditionally, the standing party in the White House, i.e. Republicans will hold the final convention in 2008.
One of the most important and at the same time the most challenging tasks of the presidential camps has been defining primary elections table. The higher the status of a state in the electoral table, the more important role that state will play in choosing the nominee.
The 2008 US presidential primaries began in early January and will continue until early June. During 150 days of the contest, caucuses and primaries are held in 50 US states plus Washington DC. Both Republicans and Democrats will be holding eight primaries during January 3 and February 5. On February 5 (Super Tuesday), 24 more states will join primaries. The previous eight rounds of primaries have accounted for only one percent of the total votes. In other words, Hillary Clinton from Democrat camp and John McCain from Republican camp have gained only one percent of the votes over past 32 days. This is while on ’Super Tuesday’, 52 percent of the Democrats’ votes and 41 percent of the Republicans’ will be cast. Fifteen percent of these votes will be cast only in California.
February 5 plays a leading role in determining the fate of the next US presidential nominees. Whoever is successful in the ’Super Tuesday’ elections, s/he will most likely be nominated for the next presidential elections. And in case of failure, the defeated hopeful should give up the competition. Although there will remain almost 30 states for voting, they will have less impact on the results because of their low population. And that’s why the ’Super Tuesday’ is of great gravity for the hopefuls. Clinton, Barack Obama, McCain, Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee are presidential hopefuls looking for a place in the White House located at Building 1600 in Pennsylvania Street?

Listening to presidents reporting on the State of the Union, you would conclude that they came from Lake Wobegon, since every one of them, by his account, is well above average. Just once, I’d like to hear one say what would be true of many: “Because of my mistakes, the state of the union has gotten worse.“
But none ever does. Even the worst presidents prefer to focus on their successes and ignore their failures. The striking thing about President Bush’s final State of the Union address is that even the successes he claims are largely fictional. Judged by his own criteria, the speech was a catalogue of failure in almost every realm.
With one year left in his term, we see a new figure: George Bush, fiscal conservative. He proposed to cut or kill 151 programs at a savings of $18 billion. He threatened a veto if Congress doesn’t curb earmarks. He bragged that his new budget “will keep America on track for a surplus in 2012.“
You would never guess this is the same president who had been in office nearly seven years before he finally vetoed a measure because it cost too much. Or who let non-defense discretionary spending rise nearly twice as fast as it did under Bill Clinton. Or who pushed through the biggest new entitlement program (Medicare coverage of prescription drugs) in 40 years.
The claim that he has set us on the high road to a balanced budget was not a George W. Bush moment but a George Strait moment: “If you’ll buy that, I’ll throw the Golden Gate in free.“ The Concord Coalition, a bipartisan fiscal watchdog group, calculates that 2012 will bring a deficit totaling $485 billion.
The president’s proudest domestic program is the No Child Left Behind Act, which he hailed as a triumph. “Last year, 4th and 8th graders achieved the highest math scores on record,“ he said, referring to the National Assessment of Educational Progress. “Reading scores are on the rise.“ Here, he dodged data suggesting that the law has done nothing to improve educational outcomes.
Since it took effect, reading scores have barely budged among 4th graders and they have fallen among 8th graders.
Math scores have risen, but not as rapidly as before. And in one international test, the Program for International Student Assessment, Americans’ performance in math declined between 2003 and 2006. According to that test, says Andrew Coulson of the Center for Educational Freedom at the Cato Institute, “U.S. students have suffered overall stagnation or decline in math, reading and science in the years since NCLB was passed.“
Bush has spent most of his energies on foreign affairs, but looking abroad does not brighten the picture. Bush claimed that because of the success of his strategy, “the surge forces we sent to Iraq are beginning to come home.“ The next day, though, the White House let it out that not all of them are returning just yet--and that by the time Bush leaves office, the number of American troops in Iraq may still be higher than it was before the surge began.
He said the surge has “achieved results few of us could have imagined just one year ago.“ In terms of violence, he has grounds for that claim. But in terms of political reconciliation, Iraqis have failed to meet many of the major benchmarks that Bush demanded a year ago.
Then, he warned Iraqis that “America’s commitment is not open-ended. If the Iraqi government does not follow through on its promises, it will lose the support of the American people.“ But the Iraqis have balked, and Bush is letting them get away with it.
He bragged that thanks to our help, hope is on the rise in Afghanistan. In fact, 2007 was the deadliest year for U.S. troops and Afghan civilians since 2001. The Taliban has rebounded. One administration official recently told The Washington Post, “We’re seeing definite expanded strongholds. That’s not going to stop in 2008. É If anything, it’s gaining momentum.“ In Afghanistan, things are getting worse, not better.
When he first went to Capitol Hill following his 2001 inauguration, Bush said he and members of Congress should aspire to earn “from our fellow citizens the highest possible praise: Well done, good and faithful servants.“ Whatever he hears from the American people when he leaves office next January, I’m guessing it won’t be that.
CREATORS.COM

Russian President Vladimir Putin (r) and first deputy prime minister and presidential front runner, Dmitry Medvedev (c) light candles at a church.

The first impression created by the beginning of Dmitry Medvedev’s campaign is that there has emerged a certain distance between him and Vladimir Putin.
The presidential nominee has opened a site where the current president is mentioned very seldom. The media reports, however, that the television part of Medvedev’s campaign will consist only of two clips--one will show him with Putin and the other will deal with national projects.
It is obvious that there is a distance between the two, but who is moving away from whom--Medvedev from Putin or Putin from Medvedev? Most likely, Putin is moving away from Medvedev simply because only a stronger man can initiate this. In this case it is completely obvious who is tougher both formally and otherwise.
Outwardly, it seems that the presidential PR campaign has been very quiet after the parliamentary elections. Before them, the president was called a “holy“ figure and the “father of the nation;“ signs of his historic mission were found in the Russian Orthodox religion, numerology, and astrology.
All of a sudden, everything stopped. The president’s most militant and loyal supporter, the Nashi (Ours) youth movement, is dissolving under the guise of reorganization. Needless to say, this quiet atmosphere is in sharp contrast to Putin’s thunderous speech at the Luzhniki Stadium.
Obviously, circuses have come to an end. The successor is promising bread. He said he will double pensions. Medvedev is doing what Putin has always avoided--making specific promises. This alone is reason enough to stay away from such a nominee, just as from any populist, for that matter. Let him be responsible for what he promises.
This is all true, but I would like to paint a more general picture, or at least try to do this.
What will Medvedev inherit? He will receive a certain structure consisting of three parts. All three parts have weak points, which the successor will have to deal with, or is already doing so.
The most important of these is the simulated model of democracy. Its weak spots have already revealed themselves. It seems that everything is in order and Mikhail Kasyanov is out. But it was enough for Gennady Zyuganov to say that he may decide not to take part in the debates or even the elections, and an informal but still unpleasant problem of the elections’ legitimacy emerged. Someone joked on the web--if Zyuganov refuses to take part in the elections, Medvedev will be called the “winner of clowns.“
He will not refuse, of course. Zyuganov is a tested comrade and it is always possible to reach an agreement with him. But he has received a chance to bargain, and, frankly speaking, he is becoming more of a clown with each passing year. The Russian Communist Party largely remains a political brand despite his personal features, rather than thanks to them.
The second component of the Russian arrangement is the imitation model of running the country, primarily, the economy. At first sight, this seems nonsense--Putin has been working to consolidate his control over all spheres of life throughout his eight years. But, his efforts have produced a new oligarchy, which is leaning toward solving problems in a heavy-handed way. It is trying to establish control over major corporations. This is personal control in the guise of governmental. The oligarchy is trying to control even some of Russia’s regions. Yury Luzhkov, Moscow’s Mayor, and Ramzan Kadyrov, the Chechen President, are major oligarchs who have managed to come to terms with Putin.
This system of management is oriented exclusively to Putin and will not accept any other leader. It cannot be reformed for this reason and can only be disassembled, but this will require enormous intellectual and other efforts.
Finally, the most important part of the system is the market economy, which is making steady headway. The current power rests on it, not only on high oil and gas prices. But here the future president may walk into a trap.
Take pension promises, for one. By May 1st, when the government-corporate agreement on the price freeze expires, the doubling of pensions may not make up for a leap in prices. This is not the only problem. It makes sense to freeze prices only if the government compensates corporations for losses, but our government prefers to conduct explicit conversations about business’s social responsibility. If it undertakes something, it will be more in the nature of the Jacobian bread rationing, the Bolshevik surplus appropriation system or the current actions of Hugo Chavez.
As paradoxical as it may seem, this policy may be potentially conducted by a man who is considered a Western-oriented liberal. Circuses have been cancelled and there will be no bread.
There are all ideological prerequisites for this. United Russia’s young supporter--the Nashi movement--has done much for the Russian project. Its site contains accusations of those who love America and Hava Nagila, and appeals to establish an Orthodox Hezbollah.
RIAN.RU