No right turn
Did the political landscape really change last week, asks Seumas Milne? Immigration aside, there's little sign of any underlying shift to the right. On the contrary, when it comes to issues such as inequality, taxes on the rich, privatisation, rights at work and foreign wars, public opinion is clearly to the left of both major parties. There is no sense that we are on the threshold of a new Conservative era, as in 1979. At a time when public regulation and ownership are coming back into fashion on the back of the credit crunch, that would run against the social grain. Of course, that doesn't mean the Tories can't capitalise on hostility to New Labour to return to power. But it does help lay the basis for a new, progressive coalition, inside and outside Labour. Seumas Milne The Guardian
Phillip Blond: Cameron must reject policies of Thatcher and Blair 
Obama stumbles
While the Clintons' failure to change the course of the nominating process is the main message of these primaries, it is important to remember that Obama has failed too, says James Forsyth. His campaign predicted it would win Indiana and lost - the first time that this has happened. And Obama's failure to seal the deal is personal. A vote for president, the head of state, is no longer about party politics; everything from the candidate's family to his manner of speaking is taken into account. After all, the American people are inviting this person into their living-room for the next four years. At first this worked in Obama's favour; few wanted the Clintons back in their living- rooms. But as his string of victories made him the focus of attention people became less sure.
James Forsyth The Spectator
US election: latest news, analysis and gossip
Growing up well
Results from the quantitative research recently done by the lobby group Survey of War Affected Youth (SWAY) are disconcerting, says the New Scientist - especially the claim that child soldiers have acquired some positive motivations and skills. Far from plaguing their countries, it seems that they may be more politically engaged and economically productive than their peers who were not forced to fight. But we should not reject findings just because they make us uncomfortable. The strongest message from projects like SWAY is that aid in a conflict zone should be directed to the community as a whole, rather than to returning soldiers - which can create resentment. Assistance should focus on those with the greatest need, whether or not they were former combatants. Leader New Scientist
Boy soldier under fire
Hillary’s pride
If you've found the election hard to follow of late, writes Anne Applebaum, that's because the only real issue at stake is Hillary Clinton's extraordinary, irrational, overwhelming ambition. Clearly, she wants so badly to win that she will try anything - and we know that "anything" includes adopting positions and methods of a kind she once claimed to abhor. She is not above smear tactics, she is not above hints, verging on racist, that a black man can't win the general election. She is not above exaggerating her achievements, claiming to have helped "bring peace" to Northern Ireland and to have dodged sniper fire in Bosnia. It would take a psychologist, not a political analyst, to explain why she does this. To prove some feminist point? To show that she's the equal of Bill? To take revenge for Monica? If John McCain beats Obama in November, it is not the Republican Party but Hillary Clinton who will be blamed. Anne Applebaum The Times
Alexander Cockburn: It's all but over for Hillary
Shattering a contract
New Labour was born with a simple phrase, claims James Purnell: let's mean what we say and say what we mean. The Tories have learned exactly the opposite lesson. They have learned that they can't get elected by saying what they believe. So they say what we say, usually three years after we've said it, but hope that no one realises they don't mean it. They tell each audience what it wants to hear, no matter how contradictory. In David Cameron, we see the convergence of the worst trends in modern politics and the worst traits of traditional conservatism - an empty space filled for the moment with rhetoric. But if words ever have to be turned into deeds, then the conservatism will reassert itself. It is bound to, as his answers to straight questions make abundantly clear.
James Purnell New Statesman
A common problem
Clinton and Brown have both suffered from the same thing, says Anatole Kaletsky: Iraq. This is the elephant in the room that has been inexplicably ignored in much of the commentary on where Clinton and Brown went wrong. If Mrs Clinton had not backed President Bush at the start of the Iraq war and for most of the period since, the challenge to her candidacy would never have got off the ground and Barack Obama would still be an obscure local politician from Illinois. If Mr Brown had broken decisively with the Blair-Bush foreign policy that he inherited, as many of his supporters (including me) hoped, then the disillusionment with his leadership, among both traditional Labour activists and the champagne-socialist intelligentsia, might never have set in. Anatole Kaletsky The Times
The Mole: Will Gordon go for the good of the party?
Scottish dancing
Referendums hardly ever happen, but the prospect of them causes mayhem, says Steve Richards. Ms Alexander's move has alarmed ministers. She sought to expose the manoeuvrings of the SNP, but in an attempt to be wilier than Mr Salmond she landed in an awkward place. Bring on a referendum, she cries at a time when Labour loses elections on the same scale as it did in the early 1980s. If Mr Brown were to lose it, the consequences would make the recent disastrous election results for Labour seem like a pleasant night out on the town. It will be a long, hot dance in Edinburgh and London. Do not count on a referendum being held at the end of it. Steve Richards The Independent
The Mole: will Gordon quit?
Sixty-eight and eighty-nine
Was 1968 a significant revolutionary moment, asks Timothy Garton-Ash? Politically, 1989 changed far more: the revolution succeeded. And the rhetoric of 68 was largely irresponsible. It was, to quote George Orwell, a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot. On the other hand, 89 was more of a restoration of the old status-quo, and 68 did catalyse a profound cultural and social change, in eastern as well as western Europe. Sharply contrasting though the two movements were, it is the combined effect of the utopian 68 and the anti-utopian 89 which has produced, across most of Europe and much of the world, a socially and culturally liberal, politically social democratic, globalised version of reformed capitalism. Yet in this anniversary year of 68, we are seeing trouble in the engine-room of that reformed capitalism. What if the trouble gets worse next year, just in time for the anniversary of 89? Now, that could be a revolution. Timothy Garton-Ash The Guardian
Opinion: Can't get no satisfaction
Women are less ambitious
Women are putting motherhood before pushing at the glass ceiling, says Camilla Cavendish. We mothers hold a steady course, fearing that any deviation will send our households veering out of control. While most of the men we know have their feet clamped hard on the career accelerator, their eyes in almost permanent rotation between the conquests ahead and the rear-view mirror. Maybe gender difference is biological. Some of the men who have driven the world forward have been loners almost incapable of communicating - not attributes to which most women aspire. What does that mean for our current notions of equality? If women choose not to be corporate CEOs, does it matter? How can we find ways to better value what they do decide to do? Camilla Cavendish The Times
Rosie Boycott on why so few women attain positions of power
