Washington DC says No to Clinton

Well that's the "Potomac Primary" over. I visited Washington DC back in 2000 during another Presidential election year but the only political conversation I had was with a Vietnam veteran protesting because his friend was sent to Vietnam in Bill Clinton's place and died. He was pretty scathing about the Clintons and last night's results suggest that this dislike of them is shared by many in the city.

Hillary Clinton is now badly blooded and on the back foot, although if you believe that this well connected Washington insider with stackloads of "super delegates" is an "outside challenger" in this contest then I guess you'd believe Bill did not have sexual relations with that woman. If the super delegates give her the nomination over the popular choice of the primaries, then the party's demands that it be called "Democratic" will become even hollower.

But this seems unlikely. Clinton is now basically ignoring the next round of primaries and focusing all her efforts on a state often included in the South. (BBC News: Defeats push Clinton onto back foot) Hmm sound familiar? But this strategry backfired on Rudy Giuliani failed and it will probably backfire on Clinton as well.

As for Barack Obama, I saw his speech last night but can't see this "great new hope" that so many think he is. Is it just that he's a new name on the scene? Or that he talks about unity across a very divided country? He certainly didn't win me over.

Bye bye Romney

I've not had much time to blog about the US Presidential election, especially given how fast it's gone. But right now I'm watching as Mitt Romney announces his withdrawal from the race. I never warmed to Romney - he always comes across as a bit of a robot on stage. As you can probably guess, of the remaining candidates I want Guliani, although Ron Paul's campaigning techniques and youth support are not something to be ignored. Now that the contest is formally down to John McCain, Ron Paul and Mike Huckabee it can only be McCain - that will come as little surprise to my readers.

Meanwhile the Democrat race goes on and on, with the absurdly complex rules of their side of Super Duper Tuesday leaving everyone still trying to work out who "won". Had November's election been Romney vs Barack Obama, I'd want Obama to win, but now that McCain will be the Republican nominee I want him instead. And anyone would be better than another four years of the Clintons.

So is the term to be "First Gentleman"?

The race for the White House has shifted a gear. (BBC News: Hillary Clinton joins 2008 race)

Whilst I doubt Hillary Clinton will actually win her party's nomination (recent history is not the side of the early favourite Democrat) invariably people will be speculating on what to call the husband of a female US President. There aren't too many precedents and the husband of governors who use "First Lad" and "First Dude" don't seem likely to be trend setters. However Daniel Mulhern, husband of Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm, seems to officially billed as "First Gentleman" and so maybe that term will catch on.

On a more pertinent question, just what is Hillary's given name this week? Her Senator website calls her "Hillary Rodham Clinton" but her campaign website calls her "Hillary Clinton". Studies have shown that "Hillary Rodham Clinton" polls better than "Hillary Clinton", (CNN.com: Poll: Spare the 'Rodham,' spoil her election) yet "Hillary Clinton" carries far more name recognition. Is she trying to have her cake and eat it?