BBC BLOGS - Justin Webb's America
« Previous | Main | Next »

Clinton's struggle

Justin Webb | 05:40 UK time, Wednesday, 20 February 2008

MIAMI: I must say, I am finding it increasingly difficult to visualise a Clinton victory. What would have to happen? A turn-around in Ohio and Texas, I suppose, and a collapse in Barack Obama's support in all subsequent contests. Looks unlikely in the extreme. As our colleagues at ABC put it:

Hillary Clinton speaks at a rally in Youngstown, Ohio, 19 Feb 2008"Clinton struggled in her base groups - barely winning white women, losing less-educated and lower-income voters - while Obama swept up younger voters, winning those under 30 by one of his biggest margins yet. He beat Clinton by 31 points among independents in Wisconsin's open primary, as well as by seven points among Democrats."

Anyway, here in Miami we are interested still in the future of an even less politically predictable contest and the Miami Herald has the detail you would expect on the outside choices the Cuban authorities could still make.

I wonder if they will opt for change. Something's going on...

Comments   Post your comment

  • 1.
  • At 07:39 AM on 20 Feb 2008,
  • John Kecsmar wrote:

Yes I agree...it is all gravitating to Obama. Question, should she wait until the end, or be humble and concede?
Better to jump or be pushed?

  • 2.
  • At 07:41 AM on 20 Feb 2008,
  • Kevin Burns wrote:

Clinton has to endure two weeks before the Texas and Ohio contests which she is still banking on, and I can't forsee her maintaining momentum for that long, because two weeks is a very long time in politics - especially with no good news to buoy her up.

The writings on the wall, time to think about sucking up to her next boss.

  • 3.
  • At 08:22 AM on 20 Feb 2008,
  • ayo emmanuel wrote:

Clinton is an establishment candidate and a divisive figure who does not embody the change America desperately needs now.

Obama an outsider, has the vigor and momentum to destroy Mccain in next Nov' general election. She should be told the basic truth now: withdraw for the sake of the Democratic party.

  • 4.
  • At 08:33 AM on 20 Feb 2008,
  • michael yates wrote:

So, Justin, what do you say about Obama's 'brew', which you smelt so strongly? Is it time to turn our attention onto that?

  • 5.
  • At 08:37 AM on 20 Feb 2008,
  • Eyasu Gizaw wrote:

she accuses him of making speches.Does she want him to keep quite and win the nomination? She also accused him of borrowing words-I never new there was plagiarism when one spoke and on top of that she never came up with any new idea.On those words again I think originally it was J.J.Rousseau, the French thinker not Deval Patrick who said that all men were born equal.So what is wrong with that if Barack uses them? YES WE CAN!

  • 6.
  • At 09:51 AM on 20 Feb 2008,
  • Sebastian wrote:

Clinton is paying the price for her ill conceived vote in favor of the Iraq war and her subsequent support of it. She bowed to Neocon pressure and now they won't be able to save her. She has other problems too but I won't detail them. She has a lot of political baggage and unless it is all favorable that is not good for a candidate.

I think Hillary set the stage for her own struggles. Firstly, she started this campaign not considering Barack (president-in-waiting) as a viable candidate. Secondly, her style of negative campaigning is really hindering her campaign (take for instance her recent charge that Barack 'stole words'). Though i pity her condition, i think she's getting what she really deserves. She truely belongs to the past!!!!!!!!!

  • 8.
  • At 11:02 AM on 20 Feb 2008,
  • The Observer wrote:

I'd just like to congratulate the media, Barack Obama and the Republican Party for demonstrating that you can fool all of the people some of the time.

It has been increasingly apparent to me as an outsider what has happened in this election.

Firstly, the media have been absolutely appalling in their cheerleading of Obama. Fundamental questions about his character, for example his relationship with Rezko, are left unanswered. So-called analysts don't analyse his policies but instead sit in awe of his plagiarised rhetoric. I listened to his speech this morning and felt the need for the sick bucket - how many clichés can this man get into one speech?

Secondly, it is quite clear that Obama has taken advantage of the caucus system to manoeuvre himself into the position he is in the first place. Caucuses are not a democratic way of electing a candidate. They disenfranchise those have family and work commitments. They are dominated by the fanatical who bully and guilt-trip individuals into voting for their candidate. They are an affront to democracy.

Lastly, we have the Republicans, who must be laughing up their sleeves at how they have managed to get Obama as the democratic candidate. It does not take an idiot to work out that, with the Republican contest tied up at the beginning of February, many Republicans have voted for Obama because they know that he is the easier candidate to beat come November. That is not wishful thinking but the reality that the GOP will have no inhibitions about tearing Obama's character and policies to shreds. They won't adopt a kid gloves strategy that the press have done so far.

I seriously believe that if Obama does become the democratic candidate then we are in danger of seeing a humiliation of the Democratic candidate not seen since McGovern.

If that does happen I believe there will be a root and branch reform of the nomination process within the Democratic Party. What we have seen here is how the system can be manipulated and that the failsafe of Superdelegates does not work.

My own view is that the Democratic candidate should be selected by Democratic Party members only, on a one member, one vote basis, nationwide without any Superdelegates. At least then there would be no argument about who was the real choice of the Democratic Party. The present system gives some individuals too much power, and some states too much power. Another advantage of such a ballot would be an end to this nonsense of republicans/independents deciding the Democratic candidate. It would also mean that candidates would have to campaign nationwide for every single vote not just in "states that matter".

It might also be a damn sight less expensive to run as a candidate as the campaign would be over a much shorter timescale than at present.

  • 9.
  • At 11:07 AM on 20 Feb 2008,
  • Khonda wrote:

And to imagine that the Clinton camp thinks that their negative campaign ads are working! I bet you Hilary needs to work more at salvaging her image than the election otherwise at the end of it all she wont have much of a career at the rate she is going! I bet she wont win any more states even if a rerun was to be ordered in Florida and Michigan
KC, Cali.

  • 10.
  • At 11:21 AM on 20 Feb 2008,
  • KC wrote:

And to imagine that the Clinton camp thinks that their negative campaign ads are working! I bet you Hilary needs to work more at salvaging her image than the election otherwise at the end of it all she wont have much of a career at the rate she is going! I bet she wont win any more states even if a rerun was to be ordered in Florida and Michigan
KC, Cali.

  • 11.
  • At 11:56 AM on 20 Feb 2008,
  • Brian Robson wrote:

Obama's campaign has been amazingly well organised (especially for a candidate who was supposed to be up against an 'inevtiable' nominee).

His message has been really tight - he's strongly identified with one word - Change. By contrast, Clinton's message has been all over the place. She's 'Ready' one minute, she's into 'Solutions' the next, the next minute it's all about 'The Hillary we know'. Look at her website now - 'Make History' - a good USP if she was up against another white man, but against Obama..?

In short her one USP seems to be her own C word - the fact she's a Clinton, and her campaign doesn't seem to be making great play of that!

  • 12.
  • At 01:01 PM on 20 Feb 2008,
  • Michael B. E wrote:

Clinton is losing because of the negative energies she is exuding. I am what you would call 'a highly educated person' with two doctorate degrees. At the beginning of the campaign, my passion was with Clinton. But somehow, she lost me along he way. What goes around comes around. If you exhibit negative energies, it will come back to you. If you indulge in positive energies, it will come to you. Good for Obama - the reward of positive energy. Each day, it becomes more disgusting as the Clinton camp goes to any extent to hurt their opponents. What she forgets is that in hurting others, she is merely pulling the 'other' down but that does not translate into a credit for her. I think she needs to show a more humane face, she needs to focus on positive energies. Negative ad ipso facto, will not yield fruitful results. At best, she buries herself in the pile of rubbish she has accumulated. She is a great woman, she can do better, she surely can do better by being 'human' first. She just need to change her style and she would be surprised!

  • 13.
  • At 01:09 PM on 20 Feb 2008,
  • Dennis Lane wrote:

A couple of years ago I was looking ahead and hoping for a HRC victory. She was the best of the bunch available.

That was before Obama. Since I first heard him speak and read his policies (yes, it doesn't take THAT much effort!) I have been convinced that he is the best candidate to unite the broadest section possible of the American people.

His record so far seems to be proving me correct. The more people hear him, the more they are drawn to his side.

As a Brit living in South Africa I have no vote, but as a citizen of the world I certainly have an interest and, to me, Obama is the best prospect for REAL change.

  • 14.
  • At 01:10 PM on 20 Feb 2008,
  • Casimir Nystrand wrote:

Ten straight losses!??!

I mean there are only 50 states. Hillary will have to win every state left and not only win, but also win them big. She has won 13 and lost 25. She has lost 25, that's....wait....wait....wait, half of the states already. Not bad for a candidate that had everything going for her, she was up double digit in most of these states and could only watch the lead slip away, what ever she did. She is now banking on young men in pick up trucks driving mile after mile to 'Vote for Hillary', yes I can see them doing that.....NOT. She is looking like a magician fumbling for that white rabbit from a worn out top hat in front of a half filled room of drunks, still being able to see that the trick isn't going to work. She has lost and how graceful that is going to make her will be interesting to watch. It's time for the party's leadership to give her a hint of what to do and rally behind he whom has won most caucus, most primaries, most votes, most states, most delegates and would be a nightmare for the GOP to face. Obama-McCain it is and the WAR will be the topic.

  • 15.
  • At 01:57 PM on 20 Feb 2008,
  • Des FitzGerald wrote:

What a shame that after 8 years of a President not up to the job the US is again leaning towards picking two men with a similar lack of ability.

John McCain puts huge emphasis on being a war hero, never mind the fact he spent most of the war as a prisoner so in effect he sat it out and while I feel sorry he was torured it's no worse than what he inflicted on innocent civilians during his bombing missions. He offers no solution for Iraq save to bomb Iran and he offers no hope to the returning soilders who need medical care and jobs and support to readjust to normal life. How on earth can we expect someone turned into a killing machien to simply flick back to a civilian mindset. His main economic policy is to make the Bush tax cuts for the rich permanent.

The poor and marginalised have much to fear from a McCain presidency and then lets not get into his bizarre temper tantrums.

Whereas with Obama? So he says the right things and is telegenic. He plays on being an African-American but he isn't. If he grew up in the deep South and lived the life of, say Bill Clinton or even a 'real' African-American, and had got where he is in life then I'd admire him more. No dobut he faced racism in his comfy middle class neighbourhood and when he was surfing but he can hardly claim to have lived through the same 'struggle' as his black brothers.

He talks the talk on change. But what exactly will he change? What are his plans for the first 100 days of his administration?

Oh don't get me wrong I know Clinton isn't perfect. There is no such thing as a perfect politician because it requires us, the voters to face the truth, that if we want all the things we claim to want we have to pay for it and no one wants to vote to pay more tax so the whole charade goes on.

But can you seriously picture Barrack Obama or John McCain sitting at a cabinet table and being able to know what everyone is up to and being up to date on their brief while keeping the momentum going. I can't.

If McCain wins he'll be a one term President as it seems he just wants to win for the sake of it and if he wins he won't know what to do then.

If Obama wins the joy of that will be followed by such a massive wave of disappointment, as he utterly fails to deliver on any of his promises, the Republican can pretty much look forward to holding the White House for as long as they like and Congress too.

I think the US will come to rue the day it again chose style over substance.

  • 16.
  • At 02:03 PM on 20 Feb 2008,
  • Des FitzGerald wrote:

Why is your blog so slow that any comments have to be refreshed and you are never sure they went through.

Anyhow, it seems yet again, despite 8 years of Bush the US is posed to pick style over substance.

The choice will it seems be McCain, a failed war veteran who sat the war out in a prison, who plays this for all its worth as if his pain is worth more than that of the people he bombed or his suffering is worth more than thel vies of those who return and are expected to flick a switch from being killing machines to normal well adjusted humans all by themselves.

Or it will be Obama, the African-American who isn't African-American by any sense of what that terms means and who goes on about change but has never once stated what exactly he will change or how?

Sure Clinton is far from perfect but I can't quite picture McCain or Obama having the intelligence to direct a full cabinet, deal with a congress and push an agenda to completion in quite the same way as Clinton would.

I think the US will rue the day it picked McCain or Obama - one term Presidents who will leave office having massively let down those who fell for their fake charms.

  • 17.
  • At 02:11 PM on 20 Feb 2008,
  • Nathan wrote:

I agree that it will be difficult if not impossible for Clinton to win the nomination. She is, however, in a position with the power to damage the chances of the democrats winning the election. How far is she willing to go in her attacks of Obama to improve what little chance she has of winning the election? Will she follow her ego or her party? I think thats probably the best question to ask at this stage.

  • 18.
  • At 02:12 PM on 20 Feb 2008,
  • Justin wrote:

I want America to elect Barack Obama their next President. However, I am a bit worried about something his wife said. Michelle Obama told a gathering of supporters yesterday that "for the first time in my adult life I feel proud of my country." If a politician in Britain were to say that, it would make no difference because people in Britain are, by nature, pessimisitic and don't care whther or not people feel proud or not. However, in a country as patriotic as America, could this do real damage to his campaign? I hope not. Michelle Obama clearly loves America and obviously would be honoured to be First Lady. She has always been proud of America. She later rectified the comment by emphasizing the fact that she meant for the first time she feels really proud of her country because Americans are opting for real change. Nevertheless, I am concerned that this comment could be twisted by her political opponents and come back to bite the Obama's in a big way. The McCain woman has already started using it as a political weapon and earth's greatest spin doctor, Bill O'Reilly, has already started banging on about it.

  • 19.
  • At 02:35 PM on 20 Feb 2008,
  • Alistair Blunt wrote:

It seems unfortunate that people in the US and elsewhere are carried away by a form of mass hysteria that sweeps a person into or out of power. Musharaf in Pakistan and now it seems Obama in the race for the Democratic candidate foir President. Obama is charismatic, attractive, articulate and young. Clinton is a woman, older, intelligent, experienced. Obama offers something new, even if this means absolutely nothing until he is in power. I mean, what is he offering, can anyone tell me but CHANGE? Clinton would be a change, and she has a record, not always perfect, but she understands the system. Obama offers to try and bridge the gap with the Republicans, but not with the core of Republicans...he can't. It would betray his principles. Then with the Liberal republicans, I think these are solidly behind the Republicans own front runner. So will he be the best of the candidates? My guess is not. But this won't stop him being chosen.

  • 20.
  • At 02:44 PM on 20 Feb 2008,
  • Craig McKee wrote:

Seems like Obama is gathering the fabeled momentum and it is looking more difficult to imagine Hillary winning. There is a lot of talk about how he has great rhetoric but little substance. I seem to remember the same comments being made in the UK about another young candidate who talked of change and it didn't do Tony Blair any harm. IF the mood for change in the US matches that of the UK in 1997, and from across the pond I can't judge if it is, then Obama will be unstoppable.
On UK comparisons why is it that when I see McCain I can't help but think of Iain Duncan Smith? (Non UK readers may want to "google" him....)

  • 21.
  • At 02:46 PM on 20 Feb 2008,
  • CD, Cardiff wrote:

It’s becoming increasingly clear that Hillary Clinton benefited greatly from postal votes in the early primaries, some of which were cast several weeks before election day itself and before the ostensibly unstoppable Obama juggernaut really got going.

It begs the question, how many Clinton ‘postal voters’ would have stuck with their decision had they voted on polling day? Would the race be over already had all voters cast their ballots at the same time? It would be an interesting poll, one to add with all the others!!

I would be interested to read your views

Casimir (11),
"Obama-McCain it is and the WAR will be the topic."

And not before time!

Salaam/Shalom/Shanthi/Dorood/Peace
Namaste -ed

  • 23.
  • At 03:05 PM on 20 Feb 2008,
  • Chuka Konwea wrote:

Clinton is paying today for the presumptions of the past. Barak Obama should take heed of this so- called Front-runner's malady lest he too become a victim.
Truly the Clinton machine is a lean, mean fighting machine which takes no prisoners. Obama should beware of the two upcoming live debates. They may yet prove to be someone's waterloo. The debates will sorely test his capability of remaining graceful under pressure much more than his mastery of substance.

  • 24.
  • At 03:17 PM on 20 Feb 2008,
  • Ben wrote:

Obama- I support you strongly not because I am a Kenyan but because I see a man who sees clearly- can differentiate the left from the right- one who can articukate his ideas in a most admirable manner. Very few American Presidents have been as eloquent as he is- Pres Clinton falls way behind him- We need a change in the World. Obama- GO FOR IT !

  • 25.
  • At 03:20 PM on 20 Feb 2008,
  • Alice wrote:

Obama was inspired by Hillary's policy making motivational speech's and he jumped at the opportunity to use them in his own. -Hey anything to get the vote right? Hillary is just saying "hey these are my idea's, my policy, he's not the only one, not only that but I was said it first did it first" People and media are reading this as "negative campaigning" the vilification of Hillary is very disturbing and unwarranted. If you want to see negative campaigning Obama's fact skewing false information against Hillary in his speeches and commercials. Its outright misleading the public, Hillary has a detailed fact checker on her web page thats brings justice to Obama's falsities. Obama's a sweet talker, and some people are falling for it. Obama supporters, take the time to line up the real world policy making and accomplishments on capitol hill, and its clear, Hillary's has done better for the US, for longer and with more success. She has the specific. plan, she has the substance. Change is realistic with Hillary Clinton Kudos to the comment by "THE OBSERVER"

  • 26.
  • At 03:31 PM on 20 Feb 2008,
  • Ryan wrote:

While what "the Observer" said has some elements of truth and insight in it, I feel compelled to point out a couple problems.

Open primaries--in which independents and even members of the opposite party can vote--have been controversial since their inception, but the type of sabotaging that the Observer is talking about has proven over time to be statistically insignificant. It's always talked about, always feared, and never seems to happen when we look at the raw numbers. For more information, a Professor at the University of Oregon just recently published a book outlining the many ways in which what the Observer just concocted is thankfully quite dissonant with reality. Most people who choose to vote for a candidate in a different party's primary vote for a candidate that they would later go on to support in the general election. Since a federal election requires more than the votes of registered party members to win, open primaries are considered by many to be a good practice for gaining a candidate viable in more elections than simply inner-party ones.

But just in case you really don't buy it, and are lazy like I am and don't want to go through the trouble of actually looking up the study, the Observer's implications still don't hold that much water, because many states that Obama has won were closed primaries, including today's win in Hawaii.

It's hard to take criticism of Obama's grandiloquence seriously when the critic uses that haughty of an avatar name, but all of that said, the Observer does raise some good points. I don't think anyone would be worse off if the process were shortened and simplified dramatically, and caucuses are not the most transparent or representative means of choosing a candidate. It's also true, as Mr Webb himself put, that Obama is kind to the media, and that kindness is hard not to reciprocate, but to get from there to McGovern is a pretty big stretch that I'm not sure I or more reasonable people are willing to make.

  • 27.
  • At 03:31 PM on 20 Feb 2008,
  • Anonymous wrote:

#8 is right. I've been wailing for months about the inappropriate role Republicans have played in the Democrats' primaries and caucuses. Obama can thank the GOP for his edge. Will the Republicans back him in November? Highly unlikely. In the meantime, the battle continues. This thing is unlikely to be settled before the convention. Despite all the hype about Obama's Tuesday "sweep," the delegate split is 38 for Obama and 27 for Clinton. Here's the delegate count so far, according to AP, via the NYT,(count includes super-delegates):
Barack Obama: 1,319
Hillary Clinton: 1,245

Disclosure: I'm a non-voting, neutral observer.

  • 28.
  • At 03:38 PM on 20 Feb 2008,
  • schmarn wrote:


Hillary is going to lose in Texas and Ohio. Her 20 point leads in both states are already down to single digits and Obama has only just started campaigning there.

In the early hours of March 5, she will withdraw from the race and endorse Obama. All talk of this going to the convention is nonsense. Ever since Super Tuesday when it was impossible for Obama to match her name recognition in so many states at one time, she has been soundly beaten. Texas and Ohio are her perfect demongraphic and following defeat in both states, she will do the decent thing.

You only need to listen to the words of McCain to know that it is now implicit who will contest the general election in November.

  • 29.
  • At 04:00 PM on 20 Feb 2008,
  • Jeannette Isabella wrote:

I like Hillary Clinton and respect her achievements and intelligence.

I did NOT like her negative attacks on Obama and they have deservedly backfired.

So...much as I like and respect Ms. Clinton, I do not want her as the Democratic nominee for President. I just cannot stand the thought of another four years (minimum) of the Clinton White House soap opera. Moreover, I don't think she can beat McCain in the general election. Obama can and will (and if McCain is so foolish as to pick Huckabee as his running mate, he will lose in a landslide).

  • 30.
  • At 04:08 PM on 20 Feb 2008,
  • Gerard Tranquille wrote:

If Obama does become the Democratic candidate then I think the world can say bye-bye to any change in the White House. The Republican's are just rubbing their hands to have him, and not Clinton, face McCain as they know that the majority of Americans will vote for someone who has experience and a program. Obama reminds me of Segolene Royal who portrayed herself as glamorous and promising change but not actually having any real ideas on how to bring about this so-called change. It's a pity that people can be so easily misled by apperances and miss completely the real issues at stake in such an election.

  • 31.
  • At 04:37 PM on 20 Feb 2008,
  • Elaine wrote:

I noticed that Hillary didn't thank the voters that braved the weather to vote for her OR publically congratulate Obama for his win, which is the protocol. Tsk, tsk Hillary, your bad manners are showing. I guess these voters don't count, just like the ones in caucus states, red states and so on? Isn't it ironic how "invisible" these voters become once she has no use for them? Stirring words about how ALl Americans are visible to HER but, oh yeah, she "plagerized" that line from her husband's campaign speech, too. Nothing original here, Hillary is just the same old, same old.

  • 32.
  • At 05:21 PM on 20 Feb 2008,
  • Juliet wrote:

Unfortunately if the Democrats don't get it together we are going to have another 4 years of the Republicans. I don't believe Obama can win the Presidency. He has won small, mainly Republican States. The Republicans are very loyal to their base, and while the might vote for Obama now (likely to skew the vote), they will not vote for a Democrat. I am just shocked at the Democratic party. We have once again allowed the Republicans to dictate who our President is going to be. Do we not learn. Republicans are not stupid enough to elect a 2 year Senator, with one bill under his belt, no foreign policy experience. Unless you consider where he tried to intervene in Kenya last month and they laughed at him. God help us all

  • 33.
  • At 05:24 PM on 20 Feb 2008,
  • David Cunard wrote:

There's a saying here in the US that "it's not over 'til the fat lady sings" - and as yet, the "fat lady" hasn't sung. The media is just, only just, beginning to look at Mr Obabma more closely - 'The Observer' is absolutely correct that so far he has been given a free ride. When the rose-tinted glasses are off, the electorate will see that Mr Obama is not the candidate who can beat John McCain. Mrs Clinton would be well advised to take her campaign all the way to the Convention; if Mr Obama supporters were so sure of his nomination, they shouldn't worry about Michigan, Florida or the the super delegates - but of course, they are concerned that Mrs Clinton might actually prevail, even if it takes multiple ballots as in the past: only she can put a Democrat in The White House.

  • 34.
  • At 05:29 PM on 20 Feb 2008,
  • Boy wrote:

Justin, can you or Matt please give us an idea of how the US administration sees Musharraf's refusal to step down? I know they love spreading democracy, I just don't know if they like the results that much, what with refusing to engage with the democratically-elected Hamas but pallying up with the dictatorial Musharraf. Are the US and Pakistani leaders still best buddies?

  • 35.
  • At 05:31 PM on 20 Feb 2008,
  • Kizito Chiwala wrote:

PROMISES

Did I hear RDM say the health policy was her "solemn PROMISE...."? Why has it taken her so long to realize that all campaigns are about promises? Am I the only one who thinks that the solution business comes way after nomination and election? Obama is promising people what he is going to do in order to change their lives, whilst she keeps singing about some achievements (which are not clearly visible). Today's people are not yesterday’s and they worry much about their tomorrow, not days past. What is it that she has done for the Latinos that they feel so loved by her? Why are there so many of them on the streets, exploited and without medical attention if she really has worked for them? This "firewall" thing in Texas is just "palabras" as we would say in Spanish. Just words

  • 36.
  • At 05:32 PM on 20 Feb 2008,
  • ChubbyCheshire wrote:

I posted this on the R4 message boards and Anna suggested I ask you, Justin -

Is the cheering on the coverage of the Primaries canned ?

I have noticed from the coverage of the American Primaries that when any of the candidates make a speech, the crowd's reaction is identical.

There appears to be identical whooping and squealing reaching a crescendo at the same point - is it a recording put on by the American press to avoid accusations of favouritism in their coverage, or is the original crowd noise blanked out to ensure the speech can be heard and cheering added later ?

What has caused my question is that they certainly sounded the same when, on Today this morning,the speeches by the main contenders were played back to back.

  • 37.
  • At 05:34 PM on 20 Feb 2008,
  • Anil wrote:

It has been increasingly apparent to me as an outsider what has happened in this election

Firstly, the media in the US seem to have been zeroing in on popularity rather than fundamental questions about policy and being able to do the job.

Secondly, Obama has realised the mechanics of the caucus system to charge forward into first place. We have seen caucuses working and they are are not the best way of democratically electing a leader.

Thirdly, the Republicans, must be laughing there asses off at how the Democrats have managed to get it wrong again. Republicans know that he is the easier candidate to beat come November.

Fourthly, The republician will use negative advertising to hint at hime being Muslim and you will see the democratic party implode and loss all chance of changing America.

Remember that Americans are fearful of everything, some change is OK, but major change is scarey. A woman, is more acceptable that a coloured christian, with muslim roots candidate in the US. Obama will be defending himself in November rather than attacking the Republicians

In the UK we have not seen a Asian hold and major Ministry, but we have seen a woman lead a country ( Margaret Thatcher)

  • 38.
  • At 05:37 PM on 20 Feb 2008,
  • Paul, Benoni wrote:

Have they specialised on the message to the point where Obama and Patrick basically are just a big let down afterwards – too late for the people to throw them out, after seeing them as aspiring actors? Or do they simply revert to the blame game afterwards, in the absence of true understanding of reality, and lack of innovation that will work? Anybody can put together an hope speech…

And the position applied for is not speech maker…

It is a gross miscalculation that a mass of people can reach out together for the same goal, that is why mass movements are often AK-47 dictatorships; but having specialised in “ power to the people “ it is at best a grandiose lie, a deception, at worse a total shambles, as masses of people reach out for different goals,

And the minimization of government is than right, “ you put your own money where your mouth is “ , where your feet are.

Shelman at Globe, do you understand? Or do you need to read Solznetsin? - shame, I can not remember the spelling…

God bless

Paul Sabino

  • 39.
  • At 05:47 PM on 20 Feb 2008,
  • Paul, Benoni wrote:

There is a basic problem here: the democrats want to implement socialist policies a la europe, but the USA was not bombed or destroyed in the 1 and 2 world wars.
It therefore follows that european socialist malaise is not the solution to the problems of the USA.
I have not forgoten the public admission of failure of the european socialists, a short while ago, failure of their 'political class'?
The mere mention of a political class is admission of gross failure after 60 years since WW2.
My conclusion is that the dems will destroy the USA, not build it up.

  • 40.
  • At 05:49 PM on 20 Feb 2008,
  • Mike McFee wrote:

I think you are nuts along with all the other political hypesters trying to declare a winner of the election before a single ballot is cast. The two main candidates each have enough votes at the present time to carry on to the convention. The decision as to who will lead the Democrats in the presidential election will be chosen by the so-called super delegates at the convention.
Stop all the hyperbole. Give us facts not game-show ranting.

  • 41.
  • At 05:56 PM on 20 Feb 2008,
  • Jason Kendell wrote:

This entire campaign is, as usual, an entertainment more so than coverage of what's important.

The big 2 questions I have are:
1) Can either Obama or Clinton stand up (and alone) to McCain in the Election? I don't think so. Why? McCain was a prisoner of war. He's an 'elder statesman' with more years of experience - and the American Public (not to mention the global press) love that.

2) Rather than all is in-fighting in the Democratic camp - wasting resources, money that could go to housing for the poor, food for the poor, social safety nets, medical care, etc - why not have Obama and Clinton stop for a moment and commit to the country rather than the win and join on a ticket? The victor in the Primaries runs as the President, the other as Vice President. They both have strengths, and not the same strengths. And as long as they put their egos aside and focus on what's good for American citizens - They would win hands down.

With all this campaigning I see such a waste of resources that could be applied to much better purposes elsewhere.

And I am neither a Republican or a Democrat. I'm a Canadian.

  • 42.
  • At 06:11 PM on 20 Feb 2008,
  • Tony Fyler wrote:

Am I missing something here? According to the BBC News site, McCain has stopped canvassing for the nomination and turned himself to running for President. And what's the first thing he does? He hits out, albeit in a wussy, delicate, vague and veiled way, against Obama - one of two possible candidates. If he's running a Presidential campaign, does that mean he's now completely given up on the possibility of a Clinton nomination?

Is there ANYONE left, outside of her campaign, that still thinks Hilary Clinton is going to be the next President? Come to that, do THEY even fully believe it?

  • 43.
  • At 07:05 PM on 20 Feb 2008,
  • Sinisa wrote:

To listen to Hillary Clinton you would think she had climbed Everest without oxygen. What exactly is her great record of achievement anyway (aside from persuading some people that she has a great record of achievment)? Can someone please enlighten me?

It's also interesting how the mainstream media, out of deference to the Clintons, refuse to write her off. Please abandon your British politeness Mr. Webb. It is painfully clear that she is finished.

  • 44.
  • At 07:12 PM on 20 Feb 2008,
  • Andrew Puckering wrote:

Speaking as a Brit, I have to admit I'm so jealous of you Americans! There might not be many things Americans do better than the British - bigger yes, better no - but politics is one thing you do very very well indeed. I wish we had primaries and caucuses like you. I wish we had powerfully motivating, inspirational, world-class leaders like Obama. I wish Yorkshire, Kent, Devonshire, and Cornwall could have a say in electing party leaders instead of leaving it to backroom boys in smoke-filled rooms - what you might alternate between calling 'special interests' and super-delegates.

But let's look at the reason Clinton is failing - the difference between Clinton and Obama is that Clinton unites people against something, Obama unites people behind something. For the most part, at least. As a result, Obama's campaign highlights his strengths, whereas Clinton, when up against the wall, highlights her opponent's weaknesses. This is all well and good when your opponent is playing by the same rules - but Obama has torn up the rulebook. As a result, most of the attention, directed by both Hillary and Obama, is on one man - Obama. All the bad publicity Clinton gives Obama is still publicity - it gets his name more recognised than her, it gets him in the headlines more, and that contributes to the Obama phenomenon, and when voters go to the polls, they pull the name out of the hat that they recognise best, that used to be Clinton, but thanks to her tactics it is now Obama. Of course, concentrating on the smaller states and doing things 'bottom-up' helped Obama too...

In short, Clinton's more experienced at playing the game, but Obama's saying 'We want to play a new game, a better game, we don't have to settle for the old rules'.

Obama also seems more reflective and thoughtful, guess that appeals to me as a Cambridge philosophy graduate...

But since I'm a Christian, I wouldn't have minded socially conservative dudes like Huckabee or McCain either (love McCain's policies by the way, especially on immigration, Iraq and abortion, he just lacks that Obama spark).

  • 45.
  • At 07:37 PM on 20 Feb 2008,
  • rudi wrote:

Hillary's campaign has so many negatives, but the biggest problem was over confidence, playing the role of the presumptive heir. The experience claim was also stretched at best. Anchored in the past she mistimed the need of the people to wipe the slate clean of the past eight years. Strategically and message wise her handlers failed to introduce her campaign, then, build on her message. It has been a grinding presentation built around the cornerstone of healthcare, only interrupted by tears and negative comic relief.

  • 46.
  • At 07:38 PM on 20 Feb 2008,
  • Markymark wrote:

Its Connecticut 2006 all over again at the moment! Anti war insurgent candidate vs party hack with pro war stance, and insurgent comes in first. Then party hack fights tooth and nail. In the end Lieberman the party hack gets re-elected as an independent, and then goes on to back John McCain in 2008. (I am not sure what the end of the Connecticut story says about 2008, but it shows that the Democratic party faithful want a new direction!)

I don't exactly know if Hillary is done with yet, but its becoming increasingly hard for her to win the nomination in a way that will prove useful to her. The 3008 election will be won by the candidate who is least like George W Bush, and if Clinton is perceived to have won the nomination in a less than glorious, even dubious way, she will struggle to seem the least Bush like. I guess the only question might be if the Democratic Party has enough big hitters to lean on her to concede before an ugly convention?

But even if she did get the nomination, is she going to command te party in the way she would want. I can imagine Obama rousing the convention and many indepedent minded types preferring to wait 4 years for a chance to vote Obama than vote for Clinton in '08.

On top of all of this is just how shattering a defeat for Clinton's negative tactics Wisconsin was. She spends the weekend hammering Obama, and he extends a 5% poll lead before the weekend to a 17% election victory. The only moment in the campaign were Clinton has really held back the Obama tide was the tears in NH. Almost everything else from her has beennegative. She needs to reconnect in a positive way with voters quickly if she wants a chance to win the nomination.

  • 47.
  • At 08:05 PM on 20 Feb 2008,
  • Mary wrote:

Des FitzGerald #15: O my! If all your thoughts on this country's candidates are, in fact, true, then there is really, truely no hope for this nation and the wider world!-Too pessimistic, don't you think? Perhaps you should think before posting such extreme comments in the future-just a suggestion.

Its sad, because I was actually hopeing that if Obama wone, the world would start to begin to think about likeing us again.

Although I must say, I think it a bit rich of you to predict what he will do, or in that case the Republican nominee for that matter, before either one actually gets into office. No one has any way of knowing for sure until that happens.

  • 48.
  • At 08:14 PM on 20 Feb 2008,
  • Marcio Ferreira, Brazil wrote:

Mrs Clinton is making the same mistake made by Brazilian candidate Mr. Serra, who runned against Mr. Lula. His campaign was based on his skills and he was always pointing that Mr. Lula wasn't prepared to be Brazil's president. The result, he lost, of course... as she will loose. I believe that now, she should try to control herself and learn when to give up, they are in the same party, and I believe that the DEMOCRATS wining the White House is far more important than she wining the nomination. All signs indicates that she will loose against McCain and that Obama can win. That should be the discussion right now. If the Democrats insist and point her to be their candidate, I'm sure that Mr. McCain will be US next president and I don't think we can spare another four years with the Republicans in the White House.

  • 49.
  • At 08:22 PM on 20 Feb 2008,
  • TWB wrote:

I'm seeing bitterness engendered by the frustration of entitlement emerge as the nomination seems to be slipping away from Senator Clinton. There is a feeling that she was entitled to the nomination and the growing groundswell of popular support for Senator Obama as the Democratic candidate is not legitimate, or even somehow engineered by enemies.

The fact is that Senator Clinton has no special entitlement to the nomination. Her reputation is mostly the product of her own repeated assertions of her intelligence, involvement, and accomplishment rather than any substantitive achievements. I would challenge a Clinton supporter to list her actual accomplishments in public life - other than the failed health care initiative of her husband's early presidency and twice being elected to the Senate from New York, they are few. Senator Obama also has few real successes to take credit for, but he has not positioned himself as the "smartest", "most experienced", or the "proven" candidate.

I think this attitude speaks to Senator Clinton's weakness as a candidate, and perhaps the electorate is wiser than political insiders or partisans in finding Senator Obama more attractive. I really don't think the average voter is looking for a leader that is going to dictate policy based on self-assumed intellectual and moral superority; but is willing to vote for the kind of hope that seems to resonate from Senator Obama's campaign.

If Senator Obama ultimately prevails, I find some hope that he and Senator McCain might provide an energizing campaign of ideas and discussion rather than personal destruction. Given the realities of politics, that is a slender hope, but the Clinton record suggests no such hope should Senator Clinton be the Democratic nominee.

  • 50.
  • At 08:32 PM on 20 Feb 2008,
  • Joe wrote:

Des Fitzgerald- what a load of rubbish mate. That was all speculation without a hint of evidence. Were is the evidence that Obama is inexperienced? So was JFK, but that didnt stop him. And were is the evidence that Hilary is so much more experienced? Thats like saying Bush Jr was more experienced because he is the son of ex President Bush Sr! Garbage!

If you were to judge ability (which is surely much more important) take a look at how they have run their campaigns. The campaigns have been the biggest thing that either have run. Obama has made all the right calls, strategised incredibly well and organised his finances to a tee. Look at Hilary. Terrible strategy, funds running at the baseline, looking more and more desperate. Unable to stop her campaign representatives from resigning and bickering like fools in public. It really has, up there with Romney, been a very very attempt at managing a campaign! I say on that Obama has demonstrated that he has more ABILITY than her in terms of management! Haha I take that anyday over "experience". Experience is no good if it is the wrong kind of experience! As Chris Rock said "Living in the White House for 8 years does not make her good at her husbands job"!

  • 51.
  • At 08:59 PM on 20 Feb 2008,
  • Brett wrote:

All the misleading hoopla about "near-record turnouts" at the polls helps to obscure the fact that the turnout in Wisconsin, as everywhere else so far, was well below one-half of the eligible voters; in this instance, in fact, only 35%. Two-thirds of the electorate couldn't be bothered. It's interesting to note, that the "record" turnout for a Wisconsin primary - 39% - came in '88 after another eight years of Republican misrule. Michael Dukakis captured the Democratic nomination that year with boisterous promises of "change"...and went on to lose the general "election" in November in a near landslide. By the time Republican hatchetmen (and women) were done carving him up, George-the-father was a shoo-in. You think Billary can get negative - you ain't seen nothin' yet! (Bush, Sr.'s endorsement might not be as valuable as his campaign advice.) In any event, the Cuban Batista Brigades needn't fret. Obama Copacabana is on board. As he asserted at a recent rally in Little Havana, "...it makes strategic sense to hold onto important inducements we can use in dealing with a post-Fidel government, for it's an unfortunate fact that his departure by no means guarantees the arrival of freedom on the island". The Obama/Clinton/McCain cabal won't be satisfied until Cuba is "induced" into NAFTA and their patrons in corporate America have the "freedom" to plunder the island, once again. Interesting, however, that Cuba should also be choosing a new president at the same time as the U.S., but with potential candidates there not enjoying the same luxury of deciding America's fate by discussing whether or not they should end a spiteful embargo on us. But then again, the candidates in the Iraqi election didn't discuss whether they should invade and occupy America either, or rid the American president of his vast arsenal of Weapons of Mass Destruction. Obama Copacabana wouldn't stand for it, anymore than Clinton/McCain.

  • 52.
  • At 09:10 PM on 20 Feb 2008,
  • scott wrote:

Why does it seem that everyone is acting like children? It seems that everyone knows Hillary is the best canidate for the country but are treating the election process like a rock concert or American Idol....she messed up this day, Bill said something wrong this day...ect. I agree with many blogs the media is at fault. There are just too many news avenues that reporters are grasping for the next mistake to write. We are all HUMAN. Stick to the facts and stay with your original convictions is all I am saying. Look beyond the surface... this is someone who is going to run the country not preform in front of a mic for concerts.

  • 53.
  • At 09:15 PM on 20 Feb 2008,
  • Carlos Lopez wrote:

Senator Clinton is an awsome Democratic candidate, she is also a great person. THerefore, she should gracefuly aknowledge the people's demand for change as well as the poeple's support for Senator Obama as our new Leader in the White House. She should step down honorably, thus keeping the Democratic Party strong and solid.

  • 54.
  • At 09:17 PM on 20 Feb 2008,
  • Jay wrote:

Following up on #8 and #26, I lean conservative and voted in the recent Virginia OPEN primary. Most state primaries are closed. While I toyed with the idea of voting for a more beatable Dem candidate I ultimately cast my vote for my beliefs, which I believe is what most "normal" voters do. This notion that opposing parties mobilize large groups to raid the ballot box to pick opponent's less desirable candidates in open primaries is in my opinion not true. I would be interested in reading the study referenced that appears to back me up. And by the way, I would have voted for Clinton as the more "beatable" candidate had I gone down that route.

  • 55.
  • At 09:30 PM on 20 Feb 2008,
  • Callie Orgeron wrote:

As an avid Obama supporter, of course I'd like to see Clinton drop out for the sake of the Dem. party. However, if we are to be the democracy we claim to be, she should stick it out & give all the voters a chance to declare their choice. Regardless, I think that in the end, Obama will still have more delegates than Clinton to secure the nomination.

  • 56.
  • At 09:35 PM on 20 Feb 2008,
  • Lisa wrote:

Clinton is out--and I don't say that as an Obama supporter (although I am) but as a realist. To answer a question posed in one of the comments above, I don't see many outside of Clinton's campaign that truly believe she can win the candidacy.

McCain, however, is stepping on his own feet. By his own words he is annointing Obama as the Democratic candidate. And judging from the most recent national polls which favor Obama in a matchup between him and McCain, it would serve McCain better to assume the Democratic candidacy is up in the air. McCain should also reserve his best hits against Obama for the general election. Wait until some of Obama's momentum has died down. Right now, any negative attack on Obama will be lost in the excitement of Obama's strengthening campaign. And McCain winds up looking more like Clinton (and, indeed, vice versa) because of their similar stands against Obama. Essentially, McCain is playing his best cards too early, and by the time the general election rolls around, any blast against Obama about campaign financing will be old news. The voters simply won't care.

  • 57.
  • At 10:49 PM on 20 Feb 2008,
  • michael wrote:

i still find this notion of a Republican conspiracy quite astonishing. A few weeks ago we had people solemnly assuring us that the Repulblicans wanted Hilary because she would unite the Repulicans around McCain, she was too divisive to win. Now Obama is front and of course he's the candidate the Republican's want.
Isn't just possible that rather than some machiavellian plot peole are voting for Obama because they want him ot win? Not to mention the relative numbers voting in Democrat and Republican primaries, or all those extra Democrat voters just covert Republicans evilly undermining the process? So busy with it that they didn't vote in their own primaries?
A far more realistic scenario is that independents voted for McCain to keep the Christian Conservative right out of the White House regardless of what happens in November. With that task completed who knows where they will cast their votes.
The funny thing is that When Bill Clinton was running for the nomination and pulled out in front I'm quite sure there were people sagely explaining this was a Republican plot and Bush the elder would demolish him in the election.

  • 58.
  • At 11:19 PM on 20 Feb 2008,
  • Mary wrote:

Andrew Puckering #44: Do my eyes disiev me? Or did I actually just read a truely (positive) comment from a British person towards us, but most plesently surprising towards our electoral system!!

Although I disagree with you on which system is fairer and more equal (I personally think yours is the better one), but nevertheless I am appreciative of a (foreign, and not just American) positive thought of our system-especially since it looks as if we'll be stuck with it for a while!!

O, one more thing: I'm afraid a have to disagree with you on the hole counting how many things certain nationality may be better at than others. I mean certain specific things are certainly, undeniably true, like the French and food, but the majority of the things are all in the eye of the beholder (I.E. many more Americans may think that they are better at music than Canadians or Britains and vice versa). I just think these types of discussions should all be taken in stride and with caussion, so as not to hurt people's feelings.

  • 59.
  • At 11:53 PM on 20 Feb 2008,
  • Penny wrote:

"Des Fitzgerald- what a load of rubbish mate." Poster # 50

Actually #50, I found his post rather honest and to the real point. He mentioned some serious considerations we Americans need to make. The real question is do we have the courage to vote intelligently rather than emotionally. Some compare Obama to Kennedy but I am "young" enough to remember the Camelot myth and Kennedy was not one of our best; he was just the most charismatic. Forget the rhetoric and pretty face, we need proven leaders and the choices are scarey all around.

  • 60.
  • At 12:02 AM on 21 Feb 2008,
  • CD, Cardiff wrote:

It’s becoming increasingly clear that Hillary Clinton benefited greatly from postal votes in the early primaries, some of which were cast several weeks before election day itself and before the ostensibly unstoppable Obama juggernaut really got going.

It begs the question, how many Clinton ‘postal voters’ would have stuck with their decision had they voted on polling day? Would the race be over already had voters from the same state cast their ballots at the same time? It would be an intriguing poll to conduct, one to add with all the others!!

I would be interested to read your views

  • 61.
  • At 12:29 AM on 21 Feb 2008,
  • Russ Wollman wrote:

Every four years the US people get snockered on the two top possibilities for the next Jesus-in-Chief. There is so much wrong with the US government that it is far beyond the ability of one man—or one woman—to fix it in four, or even eight, years. But that's show biz, folks. There is so little substance in US politics. The nation and the world pay a heavy price when people don't think deeply.

  • 62.
  • At 12:32 AM on 21 Feb 2008,
  • Marjo Miller wrote:

The difference between Obama and Clinton is each one's capacity to listen.
Obama is sensitive to the people's needs and their mandate at the polls two years ago to end the Iraq war.
Clinton continues to bumble on in the Senate and in her projected promises. This candidate is a "retread" in the Washington world where she has squandered her years to be an effective leader.
Clinton voted for the Iraq war with Bush and Obama did his own research and voted emphatically against the illegal pre-emptory strike by Bush against a sovereign nation. .
Obama's solution to misunderstandings is to negotiate utilizing all of his diplomatic prowess. He visualizes a world of peace for all of the world's children.
I choose the leader with the character and integrity to accomplish the best things we can dream of, as opposed to the pragmatist who has had a generous amount of time to lead and has not. . . . . .

  • 63.
  • At 01:07 AM on 21 Feb 2008,
  • Michael wrote:

Two points. All this talk about experience, change and all the rest of it is irrelevant when disscussing who will win in november. To put it bluntly the man (or woman) who will win will be the candidate who looks, sounds, talks etc.. the most different from the current US President!(crude but true)

Second, to all those who say Obama will be taken apart in a general election, polls saying he would beat McCain but Hillary would lose to McCain says your wrong.

  • 64.
  • At 02:11 AM on 21 Feb 2008,
  • Jeannette Isabella wrote:

Anil (and others) greatly underestimates the American public to think they'll run away from Obama because someone tries to portray "hime (sic) as Muslim" and that "Americans are afraid of everything." Typical anti-American drivel Europeans find de rigueur to spout, no matter how inaccurate.

McCain is NOT going to have a cakewalk to the presidency if Obama is the Democratic nominee. For one thing, McCain has only managed to get as far as he has by portraying himself as Mr. Ethical. If he goes into negative attack mode, he'll be surrendering the moral high ground, which is really all he has going for him besides his (admirable) war record. And that's not enough--Kerry's service record was far, far, far superior to that of Bush II, but he still lost.
If McCain panders to the ultraconservatives and launches a slew of negative attack ads, he'll be sabotaging his own campaign. Yet he can't offer the positive message for change and opportunity for hope that Obama can--only Obama offers the clean slate that millions of Americans clearly want. McCain is too closely allied to so many failed Bush policies.

  • 65.
  • At 02:28 AM on 21 Feb 2008,
  • Doug MacHutta wrote:

Today I was at Reunion Area in Dallas Texas for an Obama rally,..love fest. If Hillary loses the nomination it is hers to lose. I am a republicanicrat, lost to both parties, but thinkin' republican house and senate votes from me and an Obama vote for the main event. Can't see that change, even if just of the old guard is better than a Clinton or McCain win. They are both just more of the same. The rally had black and white, young and old,..it was America like I haven't seen since it was all rock 'n roll and blues in the 1970's. People say he has no experience, Ronald Reagan had no experience. Its just words and words have no meaning,...did "I have a dream have no meaning"?, Did "...take down this wall." have no meaning? My thoughts may jump, but my support is for Obama, for change, for The United States of America!

  • 66.
  • At 02:53 AM on 21 Feb 2008,
  • Roslyn Perkins wrote:

I voted for Hillary. But I think it is over for her. It isn't surprising, considering the amount hatred and abuse she have suffered by the media and the American people in general. I admire Hillary because she has proven time and time again that she is a very smart and strong woman. I like Obama but I just don't think he is ready to deal with what the media have in store for him. He will understand before this election is over just how brutal and unfair the American media and people can be. He will learn to appreciate what Hillary have been through for most of her political life. The media haven't really gone after him yet but it is coming and I hope he is ready for it. Because as soon as she is out there will be nothing or no one in his life that will be out of bound. If not Hillary, I hope Obama will be our next President.

  • 67.
  • At 05:10 AM on 21 Feb 2008,
  • Misty L. Dean wrote:

Ms. Clinton will have a better chance competing with McCain. I think that she could obtain many votes from the Republican side.

  • 68.
  • At 05:30 AM on 21 Feb 2008,
  • Phil Crosby wrote:

I really cannot understand America's seemingly headlong rush to anoint Obama. 8 years ago Bush was elected because he was perceived as the most likeable & charismatic candidate, and he has been an unmitigated disaster for the US both domestically and internationally. Now again, the US seems determined to choose Obama because he is likeable and a fine public speaker. I hold no brief for Hillary and can understand the concern she raises in some quarters, but she is far more experienced and of proven competence. It worries me when the post the American's like to term "The Leader of the Free World" is chosen based on likeability not a rational assessment of competence and experience: would anyone choose the CEO of a major company on such risible grounds? I'm not anti-Obama but the prospect of another charismatic, personable but inexperienced and incompetent president is quite scary: if he does not work out well (and we have no way of knowing!) the US may genuinely take a generation to recover

  • 69.
  • At 05:38 AM on 21 Feb 2008,
  • Ray Cervantez wrote:

Ms.Clinton is barely hanging on, she was the "inevitable nominee", her staff fell for the hype.She has never fully recovered from the media's prophetic miscalculation.

  • 70.
  • At 07:58 AM on 21 Feb 2008,
  • V S Mani wrote:


Mr Obama has made giant strides in winning but so far it has been only promises. Being young he pulls in voters. He will not be able to deliver like pulling out troops from Iraq and Afghanistan - in that aspect he displays naivety.

All black voters sensing he might get nominated vote enmass. Whites, men and women, being fair split their vote. That fairness would not be there amongst black voters for Hillary. So Americans have to watch and ask - is she being treated fairly?

Mr Obama's wife, a talented and professional lady only realised two days ago that she felt like an American - showing that she didn't trust Americans would chose her husband as a nominee. Would Americans want such a person as potential First Lady?

Hillary should focus only on issues and IGNORE Obama and attack McCain. She should also focus on women and appeal to them.

Unlike normal housewives it is not easy for a lady to leave the husband when he happens to be the President. Also, she cut a deal with her husband makes a mockery of her talents. Deal alone would not have made her to perform well as a senator and be able to contest nomination.

Mr Obama's win over Hillary only pave way for Mr McCain to win the election for the Republicans. Americans are not ready for a Black president and the 'swing' vote of 5-6% would go Republicans way. Mr Obama's win over Hillary is a certainty for Democrats to lose this election.

V S Mani

  • 71.
  • At 08:11 AM on 21 Feb 2008,
  • Gerard Tranquille wrote:

If Obama does become the Democratic candidate then I think the world can say bye-bye to any change in the White House. The Republican's are just rubbing their hands to have him, and not Clinton, face McCain as they know that the majority of Americans will vote for someone who has experience and a program. Obama reminds me of Segolene Royal who portrayed herself as glamorous and promising change but not actually having any real ideas on how to bring about this so-called change. It's a pity that people can be so easily misled by apperances and miss completely the real issues at stake in such an election.

  • 72.
  • At 08:34 AM on 21 Feb 2008,
  • John Crumley wrote:

Wisconsin doesn't count I think because it is not part of her 'firewall' -so she's quite right to ignore it. The polls showing leads for Clinton in those 'firewall' states,however, I predict will be turned completely on their heads - Obama has 2 whole weeks of campaigning in Ohio and Texas! Which means 2 more landslides, I'm afraid!

  • 73.
  • At 09:54 AM on 21 Feb 2008,
  • Martin McGonigle wrote:

I think Hillary has to hold on until Mar 4, if for no other reason than to keep her pride intact. I think if she loses either Texas or Ohio, she might try and make a deal with Obama to at least work at the White House. Vice President might have one word too many in it for her liking, but it might be all she can hope for at this stage.

  • 74.
  • At 10:59 AM on 21 Feb 2008,
  • Steven McCann wrote:

I would have liked to see Hillary elected as president, however I fear that if she did win the nomination she would lose to McCain as many Americans simply will not vote for her. I think that this is grossly unfair, and the US media and right wing Republicans are to blame for demonising her. She also carries a lot of baggage from Bill Clinton's administration. Maybe if she had divorced Bill years ago she would have had a better chance? Anyway, it looks like Obama will win the nomimation, I hope that he can also win in November.

  • 75.
  • At 01:47 PM on 21 Feb 2008,
  • Ayo Ayodeji wrote:

Waooh!they said a time like this will never come...a time when americans will come together and rally round for change.a time when americans will forget about race and colour of your skin to choose their president.well the time is now,the time is here.go on Barack Obama,we are behind you and we are loving it.

  • 76.
  • At 01:53 PM on 21 Feb 2008,
  • Edward wrote:

It is high time Clinton gives way for Obama. It is impossible for her to make up for the delegate gap. This will keep the Democratic Party united and ready for McCain in November, and White House in January.

  • 77.
  • At 06:58 PM on 21 Feb 2008,
  • Dr. Rahul wrote:

Yes! I am a supporter of Hillary Clinton,but lately I found that Bill Clinton spoiled her chance by running negative campaign. This shows that Hillary is under the shadow of Bill Clinton. I have to think twice before I cast my vote. Thank you Justin and please now I deeply appreciate your blog. Sincerely

Dr. Rahul

  • 78.
  • At 08:49 PM on 21 Feb 2008,
  • michael wrote:

I think Clinto is partly the victim of changing electoral calculs as much as her own campaign style. Last year McCain was regarded as broke and practically out of the running, Obama was interesting but more likely for '12 than '08, and Huckabee? Who the heck was HucKabee?
The polls pointed a Guiliani v Romney fight on the Republican side, potentially spiltting the party, and Clinton v Edwards on the Democrat side with Clinton strolling to the nomination. In a Clinton/Guiliani or Clinton/Romney fight she would probably have won fairly easily.
Now with McCain as the Republican Candidate and Obama eating into her support base Hilary must be more than a little bewildered, no wonder she sounds so tetchy all the time!

  • 79.
  • At 08:54 PM on 21 Feb 2008,
  • Melody Hanson wrote:

This is what I would say to Hillary:

Dear Hillary,

I felt a strange guilt when I chose not to vote for you yesterday in the Wisconsin Primary. That a woman is running for President of the United States and I didn't vote for her has caused me quite a few sleepless nights.

As a 41 year old woman the idea that you have crashed through the "glass ceiling" is incredible! The question that I keep coming back to in those sleepless hours is whether you left a big enough hole in that ceiling, that other women will be able to follow you into this role even if you aren't elected? What if it closes with a resounding clatter? Is this the "chance" for women that will be lost if you don't make it? Would my vote help Women?

I don't know! And I don't know if I should be able to resolve that in my own mind. I must ask what is in my estimation a far greater question. When did politics become so strongly about gender, race, education and personal wealth?

The Presidency is or should be about LEADERSHIP. About inspiration. About hope in the American dream. About possibilities, creativity, faith in the greater good of humanity. Belief that we can work on making America better, that my involvement in my community will change it for the better. That I can someday travel overseas with my children and not feel ashamed of "the leader of the free world" as some describe the presidency. Ashamed of our standing in the world to be sure.

I have One vote. One life. But I am starting to believe again that One person can make a difference.

I have searched my heart and know that I must vote for Obama and I did cast my One vote for him in the primary here in Wisconsin.

On Tuesday, at local restaurant I asked the server if she was voting today? She yes, but for who? I was taken aback. She hadn't decided? She was from a minority group, it was hard to tell which one, but clearly her life working at a fast food restaurant did not provide her time for in-depth political analysis or even perhaps reading the paper. I doubt that she listened to politics on the radio on the way home from work more likely rode the bus. When and where was she supposed to learn the right person to vote for - the person that would advocate for and change her life and her children's lives for the better? Perhaps I was one of the only places she'd get some perspective.

I suggested Obama. And she said, "Yes I think so but why?"

Why vote for Obama? Here's what I said, feeling put on the spot a little but I had asked for it. "For the first time in such a long time, here is a leader that offers hope for the future. Not my future, but the lives of my children. I hear a new or different kind of politics coming from him and more importantly a style of LEADERSHIP that is refreshing and full of determination and faith in people." She okay, she'd vote for him. Was it that simple?

Divisions. Distractions. Old school. Experience vs.hopefulness. Government as usual. Political maneuvering and mudslinging. Accusations vs. crossing the isle and having a conversation.

This moment is astounding. Feels strange and new. I do feel hopeful. And then in the dark of the night the doubts return. Doubt that Obama can win. Fear that the Clinton Political Machine will destroy Obama in some way. Doubt over voting conviction rather than gender. Maybe we should vote into office someone who knows how to play the political games. Someone who was married to the President. Someone who has been in politics for 35 years. Maybe.

But now, just for a moment as I write this in the light of day and feel again hope for the future, I have to say to you and all the voters out there "Dare to hope!" Dare to lay aside petty partisanship. Dare to speak to our "enemies." Dare to let go of your partisan hatred and believe that if we, each of us, decided to step into this time to make history, the lives of our children, my children ages nineteen, ten, nine and six will be different.

The environment slowly eroding due to global warming, inner city schools in total disrepair with teachers buying textbooks and supplies with their own money, homelessness among Veterans and many other groups, America's standing in the world significantly shattered, the occupation of Iraq and more than ten thousand faithful soldiers dead or maimed and severely traumatized, the trillion dollar national debt, Social Security, our failing economy -- and I haven't even gotten to the broken health-care system where it's better to have cancer than an emotional breakdown, because it's covered by insurance. Is this the legacy we will leave to our children? No.

I say a resounding no! It just isn't right. Putting it more strongly. It is wrong. It is disgusting. It is quite horrifying.

Let's change the future.

Hillary, you are strong capable woman. A leader. An incredible politician. Hillary, please dare to listen to the voice of the people of this country who want, who are voting for, something more than politics as usual.

Step aside.

Allow us to make America different for our children and our children's children.

Melody Hanson
Madison, WI

  • 80.
  • At 10:03 PM on 21 Feb 2008,
  • Kanisha wrote:

You know what is sad about the whole thing. So many people are following Barack Obama as if he has done so much for America. I mean who is he really? When Hillary was out there fighting for healthcare back in 93' no one wanted to listen to her. Now that's the only thing everyone is talking about. This should prove to people that she knew what was best for America even way back then. What was Mr. Obama doing then? What was he working on for the American people? Why are so many people willing to follow a man that just comes out of the blue and decides he wants to be President? What makes him deserving of the most important job in America. Just because what he's saying SOUNDS GOOD? I mean if most of you people owned a business and was looking for a new CEO would you really look at his resume and say YES THIS IS WHO I WANT BECAUSE HE SAID HE COULD DO IT? People say that Hillary's time in the white house can't be considered as experience. Why not? What's the difference between her time in the white house and a person having an internship at a job? Is that not considered experience when you go to put it on your resume? Maybe more people should should view this as a job and choose your President like you would choose your next employee.

  • 81.
  • At 10:10 PM on 21 Feb 2008,
  • Nolbaz wrote:

It's really amusing. Candidates are blindly associated with their slogan if they echo it enough. Obama with 'change' and Hillary Clinton with 'experience'. That being said, I don't understand what exactly Mrs. Clinton has done to be considered experienced. If I am not mistaken she's a junior senator from New York who has not really accomplished much. Since when is naming schools and courthouses a solution for America's problems? She also claims that Obama doesn't have any specifics. Where are her specifics? Last, I will literally throw up if I hear her say 'ready on day 1' one more time.

  • 82.
  • At 02:36 AM on 24 Feb 2008,
  • M Pijnenburg wrote:

Hilary is struggling!!
Hilary you can fool people once through tears.
First you place yourself above other candidates.
Hautain behaviour will be punnished sooner or later.
Quit now Hilary and except times changed.
Accept a job as vice president.


  • 83.
  • At 02:45 AM on 26 Feb 2008,
  • Marisa Landau wrote:

How wonderful it would be if Hillary bowed out gracefully right after losing 2 more states and accepted to run as Obama's vice-president. Unfortunately, after all her mud-slinging against Obama such civilized attitude does not seem very likely. Also, I guess it's in the nature of every politician to want to be nr. 1, to grab that bone and never let it go. A pity. Obama-Hillary would make an unbetable ticket and the 2 of them could get a lot of work actually done in the White House, applying their different & complementary skills.

Whoever it is, **the world is rooting for a Democrat White House**.

  • 85.
  • At 09:14 PM on 26 Feb 2008,
  • Manoj Dhanda wrote:

Has everyone ( democrat voters ) in america gone crazy. I have a lot of respect for obama . It will look really cool to have a black person fighting for the white house but an obama victory will hand the republicans an easy victory in November. When it comes down to the crunch america will NOT vote a black man into the oval office. Democrats are you crazy !!! an obama victory now will mean another four years of a republican president.

This post is closed to new comments.

BBC iD

Sign in

BBC navigation

BBC © 2014 The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.