Leaders prepare for the first television debate

The leaders of the three main political parties are preparing to hold their first TV debate on Thursday evening.

The live broadcast will see Gordon Brown, David Cameron and Nick Clegg answer questions chosen by a 200-strong audience, and from viewers' e-mails.

Being filmed at Granada Studios in Manchester, the focus for the 90-minute programme is domestic affairs, but leaders can air other issues.

It is being shown on ITV 1. Sky and BBC 1 will broadcast the other two debates.

The US-style televised debates between the three party leaders are the first of their kind in the UK.

'Huge job interview'

Gordon Brown told ITV 1 "he was not nervous, but determined to get our views across".

"You gotta be realistic and honest that nothing will be the perfection you want it to be, but I'm determined to get my message across," he said.

Asked why he had agreed to do it, Mr Brown said: "I think the public in this television age have got a right to see the different parties' prospectuses through their leaders, and I think people will be able to judge whether our policies are better."

Conservative leader David Cameron said he was "looking forward to it".

"It is an historic first for our country to have live televised debates between the people putting themselves forward to be prime minister.

"It is a great opportunity to try to communicate to those millions of people in our country who are switched off politics."

Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg said he "wouldn't be human" if he wasn't excited about the live debates.

"It's like having one big huge job interview in front of the whole nation," he said. "But the main thing is I know myself well enough, I've actually got to enjoy it.

"That's what I want to do, instead of constantly worrying about saying this or that or getting that fact wrong or right."

Rehearsals

BBC political editor Nick Robinson said both Labour and the Conservatives were resorting to mind games, playing down how well their leaders are likely to perform, each saying that the other will have the better debate.

Yet he added all three leaders had been hard at work practicing for the big night.

For Mr Cameron's rehearsals, he said shadow immigration minister Damian Green had been playing the role of Mr Brown; while the prime minister had enlisted Alistair Campbell, Tony Blair's former director of communications, to play the Tory leader.

"But they know that when the big moment comes they are on their own," said our political editor.

He added that it was also a big night for Mr Clegg, and a question of whether he has just a "walk on part", or if he can show he should be treated as someone ready to claim his place in high office.

The debates are bound by more than 70 rules agreed after weeks of negotiations between senior Labour, Conservative and Liberal Democrat officials, and the broadcasters.

Before the questions begin, Mr Brown, Mr Cameron, and Mr Clegg will be allowed to make a one-minute opening address, and a 90-minute closing statement at the end of the show.

The audiences will be asked to applaud at the start and end of the programmes, and will not be allowed to make any response to the answers or comments given by the three leaders.

They will also not be allowed to ask their questions directly, instead they will be presented on their behalf by the presenter of each show, which in ITV 1's case is Alastair Stewart.

Mr Brown, Mr Cameron and Mr Clegg will have a time limit enforced on their answers.

With the three only set to face eight questions on Thursday night, Mr Cameron said he was concerned the debate risked being "slow and sluggish".

Most of the 200-strong audience in each debate will be picked by pollsters ICM from the local area to ensure a balance of gender, age, ethnicity, social class and voting intention.

Broadcasters drew lots on the order in which debates will be screened and the themes.

Sky News will be showing the second debate on Thursday, 22 April, which will look at foreign affairs. The final debate on BBC 1 on Thursday, 29 April will focus on the economy.

The first debate follows after two opinion polls said the Conservatives had seen an increase in support.

The YouGov daily tracker poll for The Sun said on Wednesday night that the Conservatives had extended their lead over Labour to nine points.

It puts the Tories on 41%, up two points on the previous day, with Labour up one on 32%, and the Lib Dems down two on 18%.

A separate poll for the Daily Telegraph said the Conservatives were leading Labour in 100 key marginal constituencies. It put the Tories on 43%, with Labour on 31%, and the Lib Dems on 20%.

• The First Election Debate programme will be shown on ITV 1 on Thursday, 15 April, starting at 2030 BST. In Scotland it will be shown on STV, and on UTV in Northern Ireland.

Southern Sudan Party Widens its Boycott of Sunday's Election

The main political party in Sudan's southern region – the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement (SPLM) – has decided to widen its planned boycott of next week’s national elections.

The SPLM announced Tuesday it will not participate in any legislative or local elections in the north of the country.

Ezekiel Lol Gatkuoth, head of the Southern Sudan mission to the United States said the SPLM decision is based on concerns for electoral irregularities.

“The SPLM’s northern sector, they have decided that since Yasir Arman is withdrawing for the same irregularities and the problems that are facing the electoral process, they have concluded the same thing will apply to other positions. So the SPLM northern sector they have decided they are going to boycott the elections,” he said.

Gatkuoth said the SPLM southern sector has decided to participate in the elections in southern Sudan line with the Comprehensive Peace Accord (CPA).

“It is very important for the world to know that CPA was also meant to address the grievances of the people of southern Sudan. That’s in 2011 we are going to go for a referendum. And then in that referendum we will decide if we are going to be part of Sudan or we are seceding,” Gatkuoth said.

SPLM secretary general Pagan Amum told reporters Tuesday the SPLM will still participate in local elections in the south and in the border states of South Kordofan and Blue Nile.

Gatkuoth said the decision is also in line with the CPA.

“It is very important for you to know that the CPA states that the elected parliament of the two states in Northern Kordofan and Southern Blue Nile they will be the ones to actually decide the future of the two states through a popular consultation, the same as having elections in the south,” Gatkuoth said.

He said southern Sudan will take part in the national elections scheduled for April 11-13) and predicted that President Salva Kiir of the autonomous southern Sudan will be re-elected.

“Yes, we are going to take part in the elections. From the president of the south to the members of parliament, SPLM is going to win in the south and President Salva (Kiir) will be re-elected as the people’s president of the south,” Gatkuoth said.

Security Concerns Remain as Southern Sudan Approaches 2011 Referendum

A recent report on disarmament indicates a security vacuum exists in parts of southern Sudan that could plague the region as it approaches the 2011 referendum.

As voting draws to a close in Sudan's first multiparty elections in more than 24 years, the prospect of an independent southern Sudan draws closer.

The elections are the last major step in the Comprehensive Peace Agreement before a 2011 referendum in the south to determine whether it remains part of Sudan or forms its own state.

The peace agreement, which was signed in 2005, ended more than 20 years of fighting between Sudan's government and the Sudan People's Liberation Movement.

Many hope that the south will be able to tap into its vast natural resources, which include oil, to drive development in the region.

But a recent Issue Brief released by the Geneva-based Sudan Human Security Baseline Assessment project says that southern Sudan must continue to disarm and provide badly needed resources to its security forces if it is to ensure stability.

The Issue Brief is based on the results of a 2009 survey of 2,400 households in southeastern Sudan.

Disarmament and securtiy

According to the brief, disarmament remains one of the south's most pressing concerns. The government of southern Sudan has been attempting to disarm the region since the signing of the peace agreement, but the process has been difficult.

Almost 40 percent of the households surveyed admitted to owning firearms. The survey indicated doubts about the government's ability to provide security have hampered the disarmament initiative.

The survey found only 27 percent of the respondents relied on the police force for protection in the region. The majority instead relied upon traditional leaders for safety.

Security consultant and author of the report Irina Mozel says this attitude stems from a lack of government support for the police of southern Sudan.

"The preparation for elections has enhanced some of the means and resources available, especially for the police," said Mozel. "But there are huge challenges, which still remain with regard to the police. Specifically because both donors and the government have not focused enough on building up a strong police force, which has led to the current security vacuum."

Much of the violence in the surveyed region stems from resource scarcity. Cattle theft and the ensuing cycles of revenge are a constant cause of unrest in Eastern Equatoria.

The report urges the government of southern Sudan to address the causes of violence in the region through community engagement. According to the Issue Brief, the cooperation of traditional community leaders with police can help to ensure peace in the region.

If the south achieves independence in 2011, more resources and attention can potentially be focused on security in states like Eastern Equatoria. But Mozel says that international assistance will be needed in the interim as the buildup of an effective police force could take up to 10 years.

US Congressional Elections Look to Be Referendum on Obama

US President Barack Obama's ability to pass future legislation
will depend on the outcome of November's congressional elections (file photo)

Public opinion polls suggest Republicans will make gains in November; 40 seats needed to retake control of House of Representatives

President Barack Obama faces a major political test later this year when U.S. voters go to the polls in the November midterm congressional elections. Public opinion polls and political experts suggest Republicans will make gains in November, and that would have a significant impact on how Mr. Obama is able to govern over the next two years. Republicans are confident about their chances of gaining seats in the November elections.

All 435 seats in the House of Representatives will be up for election, as well as more than one-third of the 100 U.S. Senate seats. Republicans need to gain 40 House seats to retake control of that chamber, which they lost in the 2006 congressional elections. John Fortier is a political expert at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington. He spoke on VOA's "Encounter" program. "I think the number of seats Republicans are likely to gain right now looks like 20 or 30, and I do not expect them to take a majority unless something different happens. But that will still be a very significant win if they do that and it will change Barack Obama's presidency," Fortier said.

Some analysts predict Republicans have a good chance to win the 40 seats they need to win a majority in the House. A Republican takeover of the House would drastically curtail President Obama's ability to get his agenda through Congress. Republicans are also likely to gain seats in the Senate this year. Democrats currently control 59 of the 100 Senate seats, but Republican gains would make it easier for the minority to block or defeat Democratic legislation, another potential setback for the president and his agenda. At the moment, much of the energy looking ahead to the midterm elections seems to be with Republicans, thanks in part to the grassroots conservative activities of the so-called Tea Party movement. The Tea Party is not an actual political party, at least not yet. But it is a loose confederation of conservative and libertarian groups opposed to taxes, deficit spending and government interference in the economy.

Independent voters who generally supported Democratic congressional candidates in the 2006 and 2008 elections now seem to be leaning toward the Republican Party, says David Wasserman of the Cook Political Report. "And I really think the key to this midterm election is independents, and independent voters, those voters who don't necessarily affiliate with either party, they basically behaved at the polls like Democrats in 2006 and 2008. And in the public opinion surveys, the data that we are seeing, they are behaving more and more like Republicans lately," Wasserman said. The party that controls the White House historically loses congressional seats in the first midterm election of a president's term. Political experts say President Obama and the Democrats are going to have to work harder to make sure their supporters get out and vote in November to match the energy on the Republican side.

The president and Democrats are expected to highlight the recent passage of health care reform in hopes of motivating their supporters, says Tom DeFrank, the Washington bureau chief for the New York Daily News. "The White House is hoping that now that something has passed and Obama will go into the history books for it, for better or worse, and that the White House can now pivot to the economy. They understand that Obama's future as a one-term or two-term president rides not really on what people think about health care but whether the economy turns around and I believe you are going to see a huge effort on the part of the White House to increase jobs, reduce unemployment and to get the economy moving again," DeFrank said. Historically, another key to the midterm elections is the president's approval rating. President Obama's approval rating in several recent polls has dipped under 50 percent. That can be a danger sign for Democrats looking ahead to the November elections, says John Fortier. "I think you see still a very strong base for Barack Obama but not a majority supporting him. Somewhere in the 40 percent range support the health care plan, somewhere like 48, 49 percent support him as president.

But the energy is a little stronger on the Republican side. He is not as unpopular as George W. Bush was by any circumstance, but he is not nearly as popular as he was at the beginning of his presidency. And those numbers at the end of the day are going to be important in those midterm elections," Fortier said. Democrats hope that signs of encouragement in the U.S. economy will improve their chances to hold their congressional majorities in November.

But another political distraction could come in the form of a Supreme Court confirmation battle in the Senate once President Obama nominates a successor to take the place of retiring Justice John Paul Stevens.

Sara Palin proudly described herself as Pit ball with lipstick

by Nath_BC

Sara Palin proudly described herself as Pit ball with lipstick. Is that what America needs, after eight years of Bush Cheney administration, a self proclaimed vicious bitch in a Vice President? Have the Americans or indeed not have enough of that? Do we need another four more years? Given John McCain’s age and the state of his health, who will keep her on a leach if god forbid she becomes the president by default and that is very likely. Not that McCain can likely reign in on her in his old age. She is extremely dangerous not only to the America but also the rest of the world being clearly loose cannon with zero experience in the world affairs and without any inclination to learn and understand the rest of the world, especially the delicate art of diplomacy and co-cooperation. She is know it all and promises to use the Military might of the USA to get her way, including the nuclear arsenal, as that is what she claims God wants.
She promises extensive social engineering, impose her extreme religious views, ban abortions including in case of incest and rape. She considers that to her direct calling from God. Such extreme views have been responsible for the assassinations by her likeminded religious zealots of Doctors whose only crime was to perform legal medical procedures, namely terminate unwanted pregnancy. She is opposed to abortions and that is admirable as no woman is for abortion, but she is also opposed to sex education that may help reduce unwanted pregnancies and thus need for abortion.
What kind of mother is she? What kind of values did she teach her daughter? Did she give her any information on birth control and STD? Or was she too busy with her own career? Any woman can produced kids but it takes a real woman to raise responsible kids and that type of mother Sara Palin was defiantly not. She has learned nothing from unwanted pregnancy of her own teenage daughter, to whom she was neglectful mother, as she is neglectful of her five months old baby with Dawn syndrome. Her passion is producing children, moose hunting, and perusing her political career, but not putting family first in her list of priorities.
As to her ethics, she has none. Like John McCain, it turns out that Sara Palin brings her own contradictions, she was for the “bridge to nowhere” in Alaska and bosom buddy of the corrupt Senator from Alaska but the she became against all that to gain political advantage. While she was pretending to fight corruption she was secretly instructing the man her sister was having custody battle to be fired and she lied about it, except she got caught on tape. How typical of Bush/Carle Rove like behavior.
Republicans are going Gaga over the selection of Sara Palin but then they represent ever decreasing fringe extreme of America. It is hard not to notice that less than two percent of delegates at the republican convention are of African Americans or other minority, rest are all whites, when whites represent barely fifty percent of the American population. Is it any wonder that the Republicans are so out of touch with the electorate? Their party is dominated by special interest groups and extreme fringe right and intolerant religious demagogues. In Sara Palin they have found their poster Pit ball with lipstick, a proudly self described vicious bitch.

If Obama Loses

If Obama Loses, Racism is the only reason McCain might beat him.

By Jacob Weisberg

What with the Bush legacy of reckless war and economic mismanagement, 2008 is a year that favors the generic Democratic candidate over the generic Republican one. Yet Barack Obama, with every natural and structural advantage in the presidential race, is running only neck-and-neck against John McCain, a sub-par Republican nominee with a list of liabilities longer than a Joe Biden monologue. Obama has built a crack political operation, raised record sums, and inspired millions with his eloquence and vision. McCain has struggled with a fractious campaign team, lacks clarity and discipline, and remains a stranger to charisma. Yet at the moment, the two of them appear to be tied. What gives?

If it makes you feel better, you can rationalize Obama's missing 10-point lead on the basis of Clintonite sulkiness, his slowness in responding to attacks, or the concern that Obama may be too handsome, brilliant, and cool to be elected. But let's be honest: If you break the numbers down, the reason Obama isn't ahead right now is that he trails badly among one group, older white voters. He does so for a simple reason: the color of his skin.

Much evidence points to racial prejudice as a factor that could be large enough to cost Obama the election. That warning is written all over last month's CBS/New York Times poll, which is worth examining in detail if you want a quick grasp of white America's curious sense of racial grievance. In the poll, 26 percent of whites say they have been victims of discrimination. Twenty-seven percent say too much has been made of the problems facing black people. Twenty-four percent say the country isn't ready to elect a black president. Five percent of white voters acknowledge that they, personally, would not vote for a black candidate.

Five percent surely understates the reality. In the Pennsylvania primary, one in six white voters told exit pollsters race was a factor in his or her decision. Seventy-five percent of those people voted for Clinton. You can do the math: 12 percent of the Pennsylvania primary electorate acknowledged that it didn't vote for Barack Obama in part because he is African-American. And that's what Democrats in a Northeastern(ish) state admit openly. The responses in Ohio and even New Jersey were dispiritingly similar.

Such prejudice usually comes coded in distortions about Obama and his background. To the willfully ignorant, he is a secret Muslim married to a black-power radical. Or—thank you, Geraldine Ferraro—he only got where he is because of the special treatment accorded those lucky enough to be born with African blood. Some Jews assume Obama is insufficiently supportive of Israel in the way they assume other black politicians to be. To some white voters (14 percent in the CBS/New York Times poll), Obama is someone who, as president, would favor blacks over whites. Or he is an "elitist" who cannot understand ordinary (read: white) people because he isn't one of them. Or he is charged with playing the race card, or of accusing his opponents of racism, when he has strenuously avoided doing anything of the sort. We're just not comfortable with, you know, a Hawaiian.

Then there's the overt stuff. In May, Pat Buchanan, who writes books about the European-Americans losing control of their country, ranted on MSNBC in defense of white West Virginians voting on the basis of racial solidarity. The No. 1 best-seller in America, Obama Nation by Jerome R. Corsi, Ph.D., leeringly notes that Obama's white mother always preferred that her "mate" be "a man of color." John McCain has yet to get around to denouncing this vile book.

Many have discoursed on what an Obama victory could mean for America. We would finally be able to see our legacy of slavery, segregation, and racism in the rearview mirror. Our kids would grow up thinking of prejudice as a nonfactor in their lives. The rest of the world would embrace a less fearful and more open post-post-9/11 America. But does it not follow that an Obama defeat would signify the opposite? If Obama loses, our children will grow up thinking of equal opportunity as a myth. His defeat would say that when handed a perfect opportunity to put the worst part of our history behind us, we chose not to. In this event, the world's judgment will be severe and inescapable: The United States had its day but, in the end, couldn't put its own self-interest ahead of its crazy irrationality over race.

Choosing John McCain, in particular, would herald the construction of a bridge to the 20th century—and not necessarily the last part of it, either. McCain represents a Cold War style of nationalism that doesn't get the shift from geopolitics to geoeconomics, the centrality of soft power in a multipolar world, or the transformative nature of digital technology. This is a matter of attitude as much as age. A lot of 71-year-olds are still learning and evolving. But in 2008, being flummoxed by that newfangled doodad, the personal computer, seems like a deal-breaker. At this hinge moment in human history, McCain's approach to our gravest problems is hawkish denial. I like and respect the man, but the maverick has become an ostrich: He wants to deal with the global energy crisis by drilling and our debt crisis by cutting taxes, and he responds to security challenges from Georgia to Iran with Bush-like belligerence and pique.

You may or may not agree with Obama's policy prescriptions, but they are, by and large, serious attempts to deal with the biggest issues we face: a failing health care system, oil dependency, income stagnation, and climate change. To the rest of the world, a rejection of the promise he represents wouldn't just be an odd choice by the United States. It would be taken for what it would be: sign and symptom of a nation's historical decline.

If Obama LosesRacism is the only reason McCain might beat him.

Jacob Weisberg