The Democrats' long wait
For the Democrats post-Mississippi it all boils down to this does it not...? Forget Pennsylvania. Don't even bother reading about it. Yawn at the result (she wins: 55%-45%).
Nothing will be decided now until 10 June (the last legal day of the primary season). If Hillary wins the popular vote (and all the big states) and Barack wins the delegate count (and more states though smaller), it goes to court and to the streets of Denver. It probably does anyway. I hope I still fit my flak jacket - haven't tried it on since Bosnia.
Meanwhile, American readers will be amused, I suspect, to read of the in its efforts to create model citizens. I see Times readers have already come up with for the pledge of British allegiance.
Hello, I'm 
°ä´Ç³¾³¾±ð²Ô³Ù²õÌýÌý Post your comment
This whole situation is so disgusting - the Democrats can't resist the impulse to hand the election to the Republicans, with the finger-pointing and mudslinging by both Democratic candidates toward one another. Hillary Clinton in particular seems to be forgetting the election isn't just one big ego-trip for her - it's about how to get the hell out of Iraq. She is a total turn off as far as I'm concerned - selfish and arrogant.
As a Canadian watching the US election process with a mixture of awe and bewilderment (more of the former then the latter), I do have a question. Is it a forgone conclusion that Clinton will take Pennsylvania? Are there any circumstances, except for a major scandal in the Clinton camp, that Obama could win?
All the pundits and such (including yourself) seem to think she has the edge. Also, I'm wondering if Clinton repeated the Guiliani mistake. She seems to have concentrated on the big states, Ohio, Texas, Pennsylvania, New York, New Jersey, California, etc. where she does better. If she had paid a lot more attention to the smaller states that Obama snapped up, might she now be the front-runner? Or does that more have to do with her platform and media perception of her? Anyways, fascinating race to watch, and I think I'm addicted to your blog here.
Justin, there are a lot of people in this country who remember the tumultuous Democratic convention in Chicago in 1968. I'm 25, see this election as one representing fundamental change, and am willing to go to Denver to protest were it to come down to Senator Clinton and her influential supporters attempting to hijack the pledged delegates or popular vote counts. This will not be another case in which the "old guard" of the Democratic Party, in this case a large number consisting of those who strolled into power on the coattails of the Clintons in 1992 and 1996, are allowed to decided just who receives that coveted first place spot.
The superdelegates are aware of the concerns someone like myself conveys. They would be nuts to alienate millions of Democrats, more Independents than the Party has attracted in decades, and a surprising number of sympathetic Republicans who are learning more and more about a candidate who captivates the emotions of average Americans in similar ways that President Ronald Reagan did in 1980 and 1984. However, this is the United States, a country that often fails to live up to its democratic namesake. I agree with your "flak-jacket analogy;" I really pray it doesn't come down to that in the end.
Hillary still has a hard slog to win even the popular vote where she is trailing by about 700,000. Primaries in Oregon and North Carolina, where Obama is favored, may help him stem any gains by Clinton in Pennsylvania. Even in the best case scenario Hillary only pulls back to even in the popular count.
The odds suggest a win in the delegate count and a narrow win in the popular vote for Obama. If that turns out to be the case the decision should be clear.
I am a staunch Democrat and am loving every minute of the race to the primary. Why do you or others believe that this tight race is bad for the Democrats? I teach at a university, and I've never seen my friends or students so engaged with an outcome or the process. I had two students miss their night class because they stayed to caucus. No one seems to care that McCain won the Republican nomination--not even the Republicans. If voters are this passionate and this interested in politics, it can only be a good thing for all of us. Frankly, I don't care whether Obama or Clinton wins or if they split the ticket between them. As long as the next President is a Democrat, I think either one will make a better President than the one we've got.
As a Pennsylvannia resident, I feel that many of the pundits are ignorant of the state's demographics with respect to the democratic party. Most are calling this another Ohio full of white working-class voters which are the core of Clinton's constituency. However, if you ask anyone that actually knows the state, the Democratic base that pushes the state in the democratic column come general election time comes not from the "Alabama" portion of the state where you might find working-class dems, but from the political powerhouse of Philadelphia and the surrounding affluent suburbs. Residents from these areas are not the blue coller voters you found in Ohio, but are rather well-educated and prosperous professionals which may be more inclined towards Obama. Obviously Mrs. Clinton is leading in the polls right now by a wide margin, but that doesn't mean Obama couldn't close the gap with over four solid weeks devoted to the state and more resources than Sen. Clinton.
As for the prospects of chaos at the convention, I don't believe they will come to fruition. As is generally accepted now, the only way Clinton could make a case for her candidacy is if she were to win the popular vote. Even this, though, is becoming more of an impossibility. As of right now, Obama leads Clinton by about 600,000 votes (with another 50,000 or so more most likely coming out of Mississippi tonight). Even if revotes were to come out of Michigan and Florida (the former more doubtful than the latter), Clinton's margins of victory would certainly be less than the 300,000 vote margin she won by in Florida simply given the change in momentum from January, where Clinton was percieved to be the front-runner, to now, where Obama is clearly ahead. In addition, most of the remaining contests after Pennsylvannia will likely lean towards Obama, adding further to his already daunting popular vote lead. To put it plainly, Clinton is simply running out of the "big states" she has geared her campaign towards. Besides, most democrats don't want to see a divisive campaign drag on to the convention and are more likely to change there vote for Obama if just to end the infighting and unify the party (no dem wants to lose this election).
I don't understand why you have again written that the issue of delegates could go to court. There appears to be some serious dialogue between the campaigns and the Democratic National Committee about the seating of Michigan and Florida delegates, possibly after a new vote done by mail - see:
I for one do not see why the DNC cannot be forgiving of the two states local party machines - if Jesus could forgive sinners, surely Howard Dean and his colleagues could do likewise. Because neither of the candidates campaigned in either state, it could be said that the results were more valid than others who had been subjected to massive television coverage and where large sums of money had been spent on influencing the electorate, since voters were required to make their own decisions without the dubious benefit of political commercials. The time has come for legislation to be introduced to ban such advertising on the public airwaves - if alcoholic beverages and tobacco products can be barred, why not politicians who could well be more harmful to our health?
Justin,
As a UK citizen I am frankly amazed at how biased the Ö÷²¥´óÐã US election coverage is on this website. I expect impartial reporting of facts and not implied pro Hillary comments against Obama to suit the Republicans come November. Kindly do your job and report the facts impartially concerning for example projected Hillary victories, and please cease downplaying and dismissing Obama victories. Me thinks there is way too much of Republican slant here which is surprising for an independent broacasting station.
Obama still leads the popular vote (substancially), since, generally, the delegate count is reflecting the popular vote.
Something down-right dirty is going to have to happen - some obscene manipulation - is required for a Clinton victory.
Even more than Republicans, there is evidently another Party which is even more willing to employ MUD and CLAWS in battle.
Justin,
Texas caucus results indicate that Obama took that State! Why is there no talk about this on the news? Why should people here think Hilary won that State?
Justin, currently Obama is leading in both pledged delegates and popular vote. Since she is a "student" of Guliani, there is no way she can catch up.
Obama '08
It is interesting. Some people say that Clinton is divisive, in fact by stating that BO could be her VP, she offers unity. She knows that Mc Cain is not easy to be beaten considering his huge amount of military services(hence his patriotism), his governmental experience and his networking to the White House ( that's why Dem has to offer equal capacity that mccain offers). In the other hand, BO would not choose Hillary Clinton to ber his VP if he is nominated, Why? because his uphold propaganda is CHANGE : and in a debate months ago : He and Edwards accused Clinton for being "pro" Status Quo. So Clinton, in BO's view, doesn't represent CHANGE. So BO i think is the divisive one. So who is the potential VP if BO is the nominee? i am sure that it would be unknown person. It would be risky for this 2 years Senator that has no experience at all. Imagine, in just 4 years, he has to change something that begin deteriorating ( Sorry American but it is true that your country is deteriorating : starting in economic sector ). If he is chosen to be a President in the next 4 years and he fails to change, then the momentum will be back to the Republican in 2012.REMEMBER : a country is not something to gamble for : it is not a thing that can be done as a trial and error. And finally : four years is short for Gods sake!
I agree the contest will be a bit boring for the next while. It's like a Champions League final where two teams have played a high scoring draw but now its into extra time and you know that no one will be able to win the match before the final whistle and so it's just a plod until the penalty shoot out when the tension really ramps up and someone has to win.
Clinton might do better in Penn State than 55% over 45%. First, the mayor of Philadelphia, an African American whose city is half black, is refusing to switch from her side. And the city's council is 6 to 6 and 2 undecided in support for Hillary and Obama. Of course, this is best area to go big.
As already mentioned elsewhere, she'll take the west (Penn) by storm and she'll probably do well, if not very good in other areas.
All this talk about Penn being "Clinton Country" is almost right. Actually, Pennsylvania has a "Clinton [i]County[/i]". Really. In central Pennsylvania, one county is called "Clinton" which happens to be 97% white and 51% woman. Visit:
or
I don't know if any one has already asked but when the democrat delegates get to have their say providing no one has already been crowned. What will happen with Edwards delegates, is he likely to endorse a candidate or leave it up to their free will in which case frankly we wouldn't have a clue who is going to win. This is just my own perspective but the democrats should tread carefully over the next few months, you only have to see McCains turnaround in fortunes over the last twelve months to realise that he is one tough candidate to beat, he may seem like a relic of the current political elite but he has his aces (talks about global warming, not liked by the evangelicals etc.) which make him look alot more principalled and electable than 'will say any Mumbo Jumbo Clinton' who apparently arranged The Good Friday Agreement. From what I have seen he can beat Hilary no matter how fed up people have got with the republicans. If someone is going to win because they have REAL experience it would be McCain if he goes against Clinton, her arguments may help her against Obama but she is most definitely shooting herself in the foot for the main event. Yes Obama been around five minutes and changes don't happen overnight but America needs something to happen and no matter how idealistic it sounds he is the spark. McCain has noticed this hence the attacks on Obama have already arrived. May I finish on the dodgey dealings of Obama find me a politician in any country who has not used their position to their advantage one way or the other.
The only certainty is that Clinton will continue to try to close the delegate gap with superdelegates and play the big state versus small state card, but she remains in second place.
The only certainty is that Clinton will continue to try to close the delegate gap with superdelegates and play the big state versus small state card, but she remains in second place.
It Takes MUD and CLAWS to defeat a MONSTER ;-)
Justin, can you explain why neither you nor anyone else on the Ö÷²¥´óÐã website have reported Geraldine Ferraro's extraordinary racially-loaded and ludicrous comments that Obama has only been successful because he is a black man?
It's reported in a number of places, including the Telegraph blog:
Wake up, Ö÷²¥´óÐã!!
I think the republicans, the media, the democratic party and the Clinton campaign are missing the point when it comes to finding a fair measure to seat Florida and Michigan voters.
For a solution that is fair and doesn't jeopardise the chances of any of the candidates as well as disenfrenchising delegates from the two state: I think the discussion should move a gear to, a proportionate distribution of delegates from the two states(i.e 50/50 split).
And to do this the national party should streamline the delegate allocation to this two states to even numbers, instead of 185 at stake in Florida this should be made 184. Some may say this is rather simplitic, but this is the fairest way of levelling the field, the candidates win a fair share and the delegates get seated. But I think this won't go down well with the Clintons.
As much as I enjoy reading the expert opinions and forecasts, I have a sneaking feeling that the most reliable indicator of the outcome of the Democratic contest is the market -- specifically the betting market. This morning Obama was 4/11, Clinton 2/1. If indeed money talks, it is loud in its belief that Clinton will not make it.
Texas will not be calling the results until 29 March.
I am absolutely loving the Democrat nomination battle and I would love it to go all the way to the Convention. I have just read Richard North Patterson's "The Race" and it has actually brought something I would have considered a bore (like our party conferences) to life and ensured that if it is televised over here, I will be tuned in.
I do not consider this fight damaging for the Democrats because they are not concentrating on their Republican opponent right now. Surely they have a party machine that could go to work in the interim, whoever the nominee is, or does it not work like that in the States?
I disagree with David Cunard's assertion that the Florida and Michigan primary results were "more valid than others". If memory serves me right, neither Obama, nor Edwards were even listed on the ballot. Clinton was. To suggest that the results of these primaries must be accepted as vox populii is disingenuous and dangerous.
Cheers.
This primary embodies many themes worthy of note, which would not be possible without the two worthy, but flawed candidates that remain.
One theme is anti-female bias. Here, it is an archaic form that creeps out of the media and leaps out from the hoi poloi on the internet. E.g., Mrs. Clinton is often referred to as "shrill."
A second theme is youthful exuberance, innocence, and naivete. Many supporters in both camps are new to the process. This brings high energy as well as gross overstatements and reactions.
A third theme is that logic and the truth do no matter. For example, with regard to the urban rumour that Mr. Obama is a muslim, Mrs. Clinton was pilloried for saying that she thought the claim was ridiculous, to the best of her knowledge. In other words, she was attacked because she admitted she could not do the impossible, which is to prove a negative. Prove to me that you are not a clone created my sophisticated alien technology. Also, Mr. Obama was attacked for having a public and private view on NAFTA when quite clearly what was said to both groups was that he wanted to renegotiate the deal with respect to labour and environmental concerns, not tear up the deal.
A fourth theme is that the American media no longer reports, rather, it editorializes and entertains. Americans have the unfortunate task of panning for tiny nuggets of truth in a swirl of sandy spin.
A fifth and last theme is that candidates have to be actors caricaturing themselves and morphed into stock types. Mr. Obama is a charismatic, revival televangelist come to heal the soul of the US. Mrs. Clinton has been recast as the little engine that could.
Hery,
When did Obama ever say that he would not select Hillary Clinton as his VP? The answer is never. His statement was that it is too early to make that decision. The only reason Hillary is making that kind of statement is because she is trying to manipulate (she's very good at that) voters into thinking she is in the lead. Well, she's not-she's in second place and she has no business talking about Obama as her choice for VP - what arrogance. Hillary is the divisive one here - manipulative, dishonest, and willing to sell out any convictions she once had for political expediency.
Justin,
Spencer (#11) is correct. Please say something of this. CNN Political Ticker
Give the State to Obama
Thanks, Doug
Justin, Don't forget that there is serious talk going on about a re-do in Florida and Michigan. If Clinton wins Florida and Michigan in addition to the other big states like Pennsylvania, Indiana, N Carolina, then she will lead in popular vote and will have a good case to argue that she has better chances in the General Elections against McCain because she has won important swing states like Ohio and Florida. By the way, I think that caucuses are not a good system, because only a fraction of voters can participate in a caucus, so it's not truly representative of how the voters are going to vote in the General Election.
"If Hillary wins the popular vote (and all the big states) and Barack
wins the delegate count (and more states though smaller), it goes to court and to the streets of Denver. It probably does anyway."
And in the mean time all the while the Republicans will be fine-tuneing their case for the presidency just to be most likely handed it in November, to most certainly set this country and the world up for another four years of sabor rattleing, unilateral action and probably losing what fiew allies we have left!! Europe, aren't you proud to call the USA an ally?
On another note, I know its not really my place, but some rude and insulting comments I read from some British people on a "Have Your Say" message board on the whole British citizenship oath thing about the US's method of handleing such affairs compeled me to put my two cents in on this apparently hot topic in the UK. Personally I think the oath is rediculous. What are the people who came up with this idea attempting to get out of these teens? That's what they have to ask themselves. Government can't, nor should it try to force anyone into doing things. That is what these people accused the US of doing, and its most definitely not true!! We have treditions such as the pledge-but they're not "brainwashing" or anything of the sort, they are completely volentary-and them being so provides a sense of belonging. That is all it is/was ment to do!! And that is what I would recommend as a happy medium for people in this debate. Although I do conseed that (some) Republicans do overblow patriotism way, way too much to the point of nausia, and that is probably what those posters were looking at when they thought of their ideas. Forgive the ergent tone, but its just the whole idea of someone from another country thinking that we're all just a bunch of blind patriotic unintuitave idiots, really erks me!!
But at any rate, government forcing thing upon citizens will most certainly build resistance even stronger. All it can do is provide some kind of a punishment to besto upon particular behaviors (which is what laws are). or example, in countries around the world, people know that if they kill or rape, they'll go to jale. So hopefully that ffear will diswade someone from wanting to do those things.
Although I must say, I do find this whole debate, rather amusing, as Justin so rightly presumed!
Why would anyone want to immigrate to Britain? I was once tempted to utter those very words to a UK immigration agent at Heathrow who didn't believe I was actually passing through on my way elsewhere. My Boston-London ticket erroneously showed London as my destination. I showed the agent my other tickets. She still wasn't persuaded. My US identity papers didn't help. She was fixated on my non-US passport, so she insisted on stamping a 24-hour visa in the passport, a stamp that wouldn't even let me out of the airport!
As for the Democrats: Isn't this what some of us have been saying all along, that neither Clinton nor Obama would win enough pledged delegates to capture the nomination, and that this battle will go on all the way to the convention. Ordinary voters are ahead of pundits, who were Obama's cheerleaders and wanted this race over eight weeks ago.
Thaths (23) commented "I disagree with David Cunard's assertion that the Florida and Michigan primary results were "more valid than others". The writer really should read posts more carefully - it wasn't an assertion, simply a suggestion - there is an argument to be made that they were more valid. Mrs Clinton appeared on the ballot in both Michigan and Florida, Mr Obama in Florida, where he lost by a substantial margin.
Does SP Ward (at 5.42am) actually believe there is a Republican slant to this website??
The left-wing, liberal Ö÷²¥´óÐã??
Unbelievable.
To Spencer:
Obama won the caucus vote in Texas, Hillary the popular vote. The caucus vote does not trump the popular vote.
And btw, the caucuses are not a Republican plot as someone else implied. We aren't stupid enough to have this convoluted a system.
In reply to Poster #23, every candidate was on the ballot in Florida. None of the candidates campaigned in Florida. Obama ran some TV ads in Florida, but that was it.
You might be interested to know that if the Democrats had used a winner take all system for allocating delegates...the current standings would be:
Clinton 1284
Obama 1338
So, the race would be even closer!
How much longer can Hillary claim to have won Texas? CNN is now projecting that Obama will take a majority of the delegates from Texas because of his victory in the caucuses. Doesn't this complicate her campaigns logic that she can win the big states? (Can someone please explain why Texas had to hold both a primary and a caucus, why people needed to participate in both, and how you could have a different result in both contests?)
On the school leavers pledging allegiance debate: I cannot think of a time when I would be less likely to take such a pledge as when I was leaving school. I have a suspicion I was not alone in this... I'd be intrigued to see the Government try and push this through!
Proud Texan:
Your correct that the popular vote is not trumped by the caucus results. However, it's equally correct that the popular vote doesn't trump the caucus results. They're combined. Obama won Texas.
Don't complain to the rest of the country about your messed up process. The states are individually responsible for how they determine their preference for who represents the parties in the general election. If Texans feel the system is unfair, then it is they who need to fix it.
In the meantime the rest of us can only respect the results Texas gives us. Obama won Texas.
In reply to Poster #23 and #34 -- In Michigan, Clinton was the *only* still-viable candidate on the Democratic ballot. The only options on the ballot were Clinton, Dennis Kucinich, Mike Gravel, Christopher Dodd, and "Uncommitted." Obama was not an option.
Furthermore, voters in both Michigan and Flordia knew ahead of time that their votes would likely not count.
For Clinton to say (as she did in a New York Times article 3/12) that "The results of those primaries were fair" -- is ridiculous and deceitful. The results were obviously not "fair" or representative.
Clinton's words:
"If you are a voter from Florida or Michigan, you know that we should count your vote. The nearly 2.5 million Americans in those two states who participated in the primary elections are in danger of being excluded from our democratic process, and I think that’s wrong. The results of those primaries were fair, and they should be honored."
from
She does go on to suggest either counting the results, or holding new primaries in the two states. However, for her to assert that honoring the primaries' results would be "fair" has made me lose a lot of respect for her.
The most recent turn in the Obama-Clinton fight, the one over the remarks by Geraldine Ferraro, brings back an ugly turn in the earlier history of feminism. The women's suffrage movement in the 1870's, particularly after a bruising election campaign in Kansas (I think in 1867) in which both Black suffrage and Female suffrage were on the ballot, took a racist turn, in which famous feminists like Olympia Browne and I believe even Susan B. Anthony, who had earlier distinguished themselves in the fight against slavery, took the position that educated women like themselves should have the vote and uneducated ex-slaves should not. It took a generation to repair the bitterness between the two movements that that strategy caused. Eric Foner's book on Reconstruction goes into a great deal of detail about the racist turn the women's suffrage movement took during the Kansas campaign. (Both sides wound up losing in Kansas anyway, it turned out.)
One problem with your article. Obama actually also leads in the popular vote.
I do not understand why people try to make an issue of who wins the popular vote. The nomination is not determined by popular vote, it is determined by who received the greatest number of votes by the delegates to the nominating convention. "Popular vote" is a red herring, the cry of the loser, as it was in the 2000 Presidential election: It does not matter.
It is as if a baseball team tried to claim it was the deserving winner of the World Series because it scored more runs in the seven games than the other team -- sorry, but "runs scored" is not how the winner is determined, it is who wins four out of the seven games. Or if an auto racing team tried to claim victory of a race based on having led the greatest number of laps.
Yawn is right! A very fitting reaction to the whole soporific nomination process from start to finish. Forget PA, forget MI, forget FL, forget the whole sorry spectacle - most eligible didn't vote in any of them, despite reciting the Pledge of Allegiance since grade school. The press has gamely attempted to whip up some ersatz excitement in the pro forma show elections but most of the American public isn't buying it. So don't bother holding your breath 'til June 10th - everything was already decided long ago. The powers that be have won again, the three remaining pretenders are virtually interchangeable. There's not a dime's worth of difference between them. Even Karl Rove can see that. Only a few naive foreigners and Obama juveniles could be taken in by these quadrennial charades. But wait, not all is lost, there is still one faint glimmer of "hope" for genuine "change" on the distant horizon, the incorruptible Ralph Nader is back to offer a true alternative to the imperialist parties prostituted - in more ways than one! - politics.
Justin.
If the deadlock continues to the convention, is a 'Draft Gore' movement likely or workable at the convention. How would it happen? Do you think either of the current candidates could be inveigled to withdraw for party unity and Al?
Can someone answer this question?:
Now that the republican candidate has been chosen, is it not possible for republican voters to vote strategically in order to weaken the opposite party. For example, is there anything to stop republicans voting for Hillary Clinton who has an embarrassing record and will be much more easily beaten as opposed to Obama who sounds like a breath of fresh air and hence has a better chance of seducing Americans in November? If this is the case American democracy is lamentably flawed and not at all better than most dictatorships.
Dear Justin,
Can you answer the following question?:
Now that the republican candidate has been chosen, is it not possible for republican voters to vote strategically in order to weaken the opposite party. For example, is there anything to stop republicans voting for Hillary Clinton who has an embarrassing record and will be much more easily beaten as opposed to Obama who sounds like a breath of fresh air and hence has a better chance of seducing Americans in November? If this is the case American democracy is lamentably flawed and not at all better than most dictatorships.
All this talk about Obama having no (international) experience, leads me to ask: What experience did Bill Clinton (let alone J F Kennedy) have when he became president in 1992? Answer: none. Yet, Hillary seemed quite happy to move into the White House then. It suprises me that Obama's team haven't made more of that point, coupled to the fact that her 'experience' adds up to little more than kitchen cabinet talk.
In some ways, Obama seems too frustratingly nice and honest to get dirty about Hillary, but I wish he'd ram it all mercilessly down her shrill, hectoring, two-faced throat - including whitewater, Vince Foster, tax evasion, unscrupulous contacts and funding issues, etc.
No.25, Obama is not muslim. I think you know this ,but like all other fear monger you are trying in some way to tarnish this man's persona. Just like the Clinton campaign.
M Howells,
it depends on the state whether republicans can vote in the democratic presidential primary. and, yes, where that is possible (as in texas) the republicans can vote for clinton, as they've been urged to do by right wing radio talk show hosts because they think she is the easier candidate to beat. but it's quite a stretch to equate that with a dictatorship. more like a soft facsism as the former libertarian, now republican candidate ron paul characterized it.
Re: #25. Barak Obama is a Christian. He has Muslim heritage, but he himself is a Christian. I don't really care, but there's no point letting false information be part of this...
Thanks for your meticulous coverage, Justin. I have a general question for you. Why do you think that Clinton is doing better in the more populous states (California, New York, etc.) and states that predominantly have primaries, and why do you think that Obama is doing better in less populous states and states with caucuses? I've been trying to figure this out for a while know, and can't seem to get a thorough and unbiased answer... Thanks!
From the US and with a sympathetic feeling about the Democratic Party I read with dismay how the members of the party are eating each other's entrails with accusations that shold come from the other side of the fence. Give the Democratic Party a chance to win after 8 years of the worst president in the US and they will definitely shoot their own foot. What a shame! If only they could engage in a dignified debate instead of a name calling campaign. McCain has a chance, fellow Democrats, and if you follow the route you have taken, he may indeed be the next president of the US. Go ahead! Make his day! Or, else, learn how to engage in politics in a dignified manner.
Very sorry. Justin. You are very biased towards Hillary (may be you are also having a sex scandal issue in your mind) and the old republican. Bad guy.
Obama netted 100,000 votes in Mississippi. Pennsylvania will probably go to Hillary, but by a narrower margin than anticipated by the pundits. As a former Democratic staffer with five years of experience on Capitol Hill, here's my educated guess: Barack will win the nomination. Most of the undecided superdelegates are leaning toward Obama. By "most" I mean a strong majority. I'm told that Democratic Members of Congress are surprised, dissapointed, and embarrassed by her divisive tactics. This strategy was adopted by the candidate, not the surrogates. The surrogates simply followed her lead. Many now question whether she can lead and unite the party. I don't believe she will be able to assauge those concerns. Given the level of vitriol thus far, it would seem unlikely that she would be added to the ticket as VP, but it is still possible. For what it's worth, here are my odds, Clinton nomination: 20%. Clinton VP: 30%. And if we lose the election in November, I think it's fair to say that the Clintons will not be eating turkey and cranberry sauce at the DNC on Thanksgiving. They also risk tarnishing their legacy.
E Murphy,
I agree in general, except I'm even more sure A Clinton running mate is unlikely. I reckon Obama's far too intelligent and knows she would cost him likeability and votes and add little. Jim Webb (Who he?) seems to be the favourite.
You can get odds of 11.1% on Clinton VP and 24% as Dem nominee at
It's only "fantasy" money, but....
Salaam/Shalom/Shanthi/Dorood/Peace
Namaste -ed
Ed Iglehart,
Your numbers and reasoning are persuasive. I'll check it out. She could hurt him with Independents. Besides, I think he was genuinely offended (and shocked like everyone else) by the latest salvo from GF and subsequent handling by HRC. Can't see how he could do it even if the political calculus favored it...and it doesn't. He has to be wondering if she has any integrity, principle and sense of fair play. And then she always quickly jumps into victim mode. What is it with these people? Do they think we're stupid? I agree, Webb is an excellent choice. Military credentials are helpful. Plus VA is a key state and they could put a couple more southern states in play. They could put some smaller midwestern states in play as well and hold most, if not all of the bigger ones.
#49 Dennis Pottinger & #51 Ron
Given your misinterpretation of my comments, I am surprised either of you can write.
I said the claim that Mr. Obama is a muslim is an urban rumour. Urban rumours are myths. In other words, I said the claim that Mr. Obama is a muslim is a myth.
Hillary offering Obama the VP position was laughable, considering she's trailing him. But that's another matter. If Obama were to consider Hillary as his VP- (or if he were to accept VP with her) AND they were successful, can you imagine how difficult it would be for them to work as a team? Let's not forget that whatever form this pairing takes, Bill is part of the package deal. And Bill is far too dominant a character to take backseat to anyone. I'd predict that the White House would not be a very happy (or efficient) place in that situation.
As a foreigner based in Africa I am astonished and disappointed at Senator Clinton's mud-slinging campaign strategy to attack Obama at every chance she gets. By doing so she has shifted the focus away from the real issues to an almost seemingly immature playground-like "I'm better than you". I think this is an insult to Americans and the world at large. As prospective candidates for the world's most important job they should be debating more serious issues especially after the present administration that has so polarised the world and increased terrorism due to their antagonising approach. Surely Senator Clinton can do better than this - its not about her (or her ego!!) but about policy issues. Lets hear them.
To Steven Mather: yours what not the post that I (and I suspect Mr. Potter) was responding to. It was a short post about Mr. Obama's race and religion and I suspect it was removed, and then the numbers changed; I should have referred to the name of the poster, not just the number. I think your post is insightful, and I'm sorry for any confusion.
In her 2000 campaign for the Senate, Hillary Clinton's campaign demanded her opponent release his tax returns and even sent a staffer dressed as Uncle Sam to taunt him during campaign stops. Today she refuses to release hers. Makes you wonder what crooked and shady characters have been contributing to her funds.
Hillary makes ridiculous claims that she is tried and tested in over 80 countries. As the wife of a visiting US President she simply tried and tested various tea and cookie offerings but she never negotiated anything, in fact she did not even have security clearance. By Hillarys childlike reasoning this means Laura Bush is also tried and tested to be President or that the wife of a brain surgeon is qualified to operate on people!!
Hillary may have answered the White House phone at 3am but I am sure the callers always said CAN I SPEAK TO YOUR HUSBAND PLEASE!!
This is a defining moment for American politics. Will America define her policy by fear and ignorance or by what makes America important, HOPE?