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

End in sight?

Justin Webb | 05:36 UK time, Wednesday, 21 May 2008

Hillary Clinton's win in Kentucky was slightly stronger than expected, but so was Barack Obama's win in Oregon - so where does that get us?

To put it crudely, better-informed people - college-educated etc - tend to vote for him. That is not something to be ashamed of.

Mind you, it helps to be agile in the maths department to see quite how she gets to her claim that she is ahead in the popular vote - this table is useful if you really want to follow her logic.

You'll note that her best figure excludes the caucus-goers and includes the two states the party decided should not be included (Michigan and Florida).

I wonder if enough superdelegates might decide now that it is over and come across to him, thereby allowing us to see an actual result on 3 June when he'll win - we assume - South Dakota and Montana.

If the party bosses decide at the rules meeting on 31 May that the Michigan and Florida votes will definitely not be counted, it seems entirely possible that the magic hurdle might be there to be jumped on 3 June.

The New York Times meanwhile has a good stab at explaining why she might be carrying on...

Comments

  • 1. At 07:18am on 21 May 2008, kecsmar wrote:

    Americans don't like cricket. Most comments are around...how many days...5, and it could still be a draw!!..i hear, and then profess their love of baseball and basketball. Not so much for the fact that the game is over in a few hours, but there is a winner.

    The last 5mins of basket ball often decides the winner fate. The action before, is mere foreplay and a test of stamina. This leads to an exciting finish...so I'm told.

    So, when there is a "race" with a clear end game in sight, why is it that many wish the current "team" in second place to suddenly stop? This behaviour would not be tolerated on the game of basketball, so why should there be any difference in the political game?

    It's not over 'til the fat lady sings.....otherwise why have a finishing line if those not leading near the end are told to quit??

    Complain about this comment

  • 2. At 07:36am on 21 May 2008, jaybs1 wrote:

    The behavior of a someone losing in a game of basketball acting in this way along with rants from an also deluded Husband would lead to being Sent Off for Fowl Play!

    Yes we laughed at the bullets claims in Bosnia, we didn't find it funny Hillary's story of Lies to promote health plans, but now she is starting to look a fool! and someone whose political career will never recover, how gracious is it to be Sporting!!!!

    Complain about this comment

  • 3. At 07:49am on 21 May 2008, kecsmar wrote:

    Perhaps HRC is then just copying those in the sporting field, such as Marion Jones, Barry Bonds et al. If they can't win in a decent fair fight, they resort to 'other' means to win. I wonder what the political equivalent of BALCO is?

    Complain about this comment

  • 4. At 07:50am on 21 May 2008, peterm99 wrote:

    re: #1 kecsmar

    It's not that most people are concerned about Sen Clinton staying in until the bitter end, it's that they are afraid that in her end-game desperation, she will damage Sen Obama in ways that cannot be overcome when the "real" electioneering begins against Sen McCain.

    Even as recently as a few weeks ago, she was putting him down as inexperienced, less qualified than Sen McCain, etc., etc. Imagine the impression of a McCain campaign ad on many voters where they show a clip of Sen Clinton saying that McCain would be a better qualified President than Obama.

    To be fair, in the (very) recent past, she has moderated her Obama attacks. This has reduced the number and the harshness of the calls for her to withdraw before the end.

    Yet, the Clintons' reputation for willingness to pull out all stops for political advantage still leaves many uneasy about what she might do in what could be a scorched-earth, final attempt to wrest the nomination from Obama.

    We shall see what transpires.

    Complain about this comment

  • 5. At 07:59am on 21 May 2008, David Cunard wrote:

    "Slightly stronger than expected"? It was a landslide: 65 to 30% in her favour! In Oregon I suggest that Mr Obama did rather worse than expected - 58 to 48% for him. Minimising Mrs Clinton's huge victory will not make her go away. As for suggesting that college-educated voters are better informed, Justin has a poor grasp of the limitations of American college education. Many universities are at the level of UK sixth forms and a baccalaureate about the same as an A level GCE. The New York Times article does allude to the possibility of a scandal in the Obama camp, and interestingly, not one news broadcast tonight mentioned the supposed "whitey" comment by Mrs Obama. Perhaps it's waiting in the wings. If the Rules Committee does not seat the delegates from Michigan and Florida, it could well be taken to a floor vote at the Convention. The Party would look very foolish to nominate a candidate chosen by only forty-eight of the fifty states. Even if a number of superdelegates did "come across" to Mr Obama in June, they could readily change their minds before August. Second thoughts seem to be the rule this year.

    About the future though, The Washington Post suggests an interesting scenario should Mr Obama ever become President, headed Next Stop, Supreme Court. It could be her most powerful post, since a Supreme Court member is there for life, which for her could well be another twenty-five years; an influence on America far longer than any presidency.

    Complain about this comment

  • 6. At 08:29am on 21 May 2008, sortalikenathan wrote:


    It is time to put to rest the media spin that Obama cannot win the working class white vote. Or, as Mr. Webb puts it, "better informed, college educated people" tend to vote for Obama. Yes, they do, but this does not mean that Obama has not won "working class" white voters (ie., voters without a college education) in many states. Let us consider Oregon:

    By the way David_Cunard, Obama won by a margin of 58-42% in Oregon. I don't know where you get your information from, but it is wrong. This is a large win for Obama in an overwhelmingly white state (whiter than Kentucky). And it's a larger win than many of the polls were predicting.

    Ranked by per-capita income, Oregon is ranked 23rd in the nation, two slots behind Ohio, and a single slot ahead of Pennsylvania. And since Ohio and Pennsylvania are apparently the gold standard of white working class-ness in this election, Oregon is little different than those two on the economic front.

    Obama's problem is not that he cannot win working class whites. If that were the case, there would be no way he would be at the cusp of gaining the nomination (he won this demographic in Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, and Virginia). His problem is geographic--he cannot win working class whites in Appalachia. This is certainly a potential problem for him--but not insurmountable.

    Mr. Webb, are you not the professional journalist here? Why so careless with words and data? Do the proper research. Get the facts right before you post your blogs.

    Complain about this comment

  • 7. At 08:42am on 21 May 2008, tezzley999 wrote:

    You can feel the democratic primary grinding to a halt, less a Roman triumph than a sluggish inevitability (sort of like holding a suprise party for a person who shows up three hours late when most of the booze has been drunk). I find Clinton's logic for her being the winner a bit skewed. It's like claiming victory in a football game for having the most possession when the other team scored the most goals.

    The competition isn't exactly damaging, but it is shielding Mccain from the scrutiny that bama is currently recieving.

    I noticed something quite worrying on a radio summary of the West Virginia primary last week. A number of voters claimed they weren't ready to vote for a black candidate. True perhaps, but it was the exact use of the phrase 'i'm not ready' that was most disturbing. That soundbite has been plucked straight from the media; since when did biggoted people speak in such wooly language. The media is providing a palitable vernacular for racisist views to be expressed. Clinton's use of 'the whites' was worrying enough, allowing white people to consider their concerns in a racial context is very disturbing.

    Any thoughts?

    Complain about this comment

  • 8. At 09:01am on 21 May 2008, OnlyHereForTheFood wrote:

    Is there any chance a deal between Obama and Clinton is already in place? She has toned down her attacks a lot and even jumped to Obama's defense after Bush's appeasement comments.

    I know the Democractic party normally does its best to scupper itself the closer it gets to winning but maybe they've actually got a bit canny this time and are going to "play this out" how they will feel will give them the best chance to win come Novemember? Hmm, probably wishful thinking!

    Complain about this comment

  • 9. At 09:04am on 21 May 2008, righteousmistyfog wrote:

    #5 David_C

    You talk about Hillary's "huge" victory in Kentucky the same way that she talks about her victory in Michigan, where Obama's name was not even on the ballot. The truth is that she's behind in every measure that is meaningful. If you want to play your personal game of baseball by only counting the runs scored after the seventh inning stretch, then go right ahead - but the real score is apparent to the rest of us.

    Complain about this comment

  • 10. At 09:07am on 21 May 2008, gunsandreligion wrote:

    Perhaps viewing the following link
    from Saturday Night Live will provide
    the answer (apologies to those who
    saw the show):

    http://weblogs.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/blog/2008/05/snl_gives_clintons_3_reasons_f.html

    Complain about this comment

  • 11. At 09:16am on 21 May 2008, Candace9839 wrote:

    Clinton needs to bow out gracefully, rather trying to move the goal posts. The popular vote argument and 'my states though fewer in number are more important than Obama's' is desperate and time-wasting. Playing the gender and race cards is nonsense - recent polls suggest women, working class voters and hispanics are all shifting toward Obama. Now if she could only get over the fact she has lost and get on with helping rather than hurting her party.

    Complain about this comment

  • 12. At 09:23am on 21 May 2008, rupertornelius wrote:

    I wonder if there's an argument for votes of better-educated people's votes counting double. They presumably have made a more-informed decision.

    Complain about this comment

  • 13. At 09:41am on 21 May 2008, bobgodwin wrote:

    Hey guys there is no need to be anxious about these results.. This is pure mathematics.. Hillary is out of the race and l think she should play this game as a real sports man and take the defeat. Popular vote? no poplar vote? It does'nt make any sense at this point in time we need to look ahead. Obama is the presidential nominee for the democrats and this is a good sign for America!!! Time for CHANGE!!! For those who don't like this idea of CHANGE l pray that GOD should open your mind to understand that there is a difference between POLITICS! and POLITICAL CHANGE!!!

    Complain about this comment

  • 14. At 09:45am on 21 May 2008, watermanaquarius wrote:

    Why is Hillary staying on? 20 million+ in debt but I think Justins' link says it all. The ones who can bail her out, invest peanuts in comparison with what they can earn in perks.
    The game of life and politics is a comical mish-mash of positives and negatives, where we all hope to promote, defend and survive its' tribulations. From one side HRC stays on to be seen as the champion of the old, the downtrodden, of the opposite sex, of Israel?, the Diana of the Gods with bow and arrows, and to refute the laws of mathematics that she and many of her followers have a difficulty in understanding.? On the other as the defender of corperate greed, the defender of the family, [hers not yours], and to obtain a further extension to any future legal proceedings that may be awaiting?
    I am reminded about a story, an optimistic approach of mine, that I believe was told to HenryVIII, by one of his wives.
    A fellon, awaiting his execution, came up with the suggestion that he could help the king, who loved horse riding, by making the kings' horse talk. Imagine, man and beast as one when they rode after the fox. His boasts reached the ears of the king who saw the benefit in the suggestion and the fellon was released. His sentence was commuted for one whole year, on the understanding that if he did not succeed, he would be returned, to meet the executioners'axe. Removed from the death row cell, and now living a life of comparative luxury he was asked by a servant if he really could make the kings' horse talk. His answer :- In one whole year, the king may die, I may die, the horse may die, ...or the horse may talk.
    Peas in a pod! Both Hillary and I are hoping for the horse to talk.

    Complain about this comment

  • 15. At 09:50am on 21 May 2008, gunsandreligion wrote:

    Apparently McCain is pleased.

    http://www.nbc.com/Saturday_Night_Live/video/play.shtml?mea=252556

    Complain about this comment

  • 16. At 09:53am on 21 May 2008, Mark_WE wrote:

    "By the way David_Cunard, Obama won by a margin of 58-42% in Oregon. I don't know where you get your information from, but it is wrong. This is a large win for Obama in an overwhelmingly white state (whiter than Kentucky). And it's a larger win than many of the polls were predicting."

    Simple, he is using "Official Clinton Maths" where somehow a margin of 58-48% is possible. It is all part of HRC's new plan to claim she has won the popular vote. In a state where the vote is split 50-50 HRC will win because she will present the vote as 50-55%

    I am not sure what David is trying to say when he comments that "Many universities are at the level of UK sixth forms and a baccalaureate about the same as an A level GCE.", it doesn't reflect too badly on Obama voters (many sixth formers in the UK are highly political although idealist) but it does reflect badly on the level of education amongst Clinton voters.

    Complain about this comment

  • 17. At 10:20am on 21 May 2008, U11846789 wrote:

    Doesn't Clinton have a major point though? And good reason to fight on?

    Look at the maps on the NY Times: Obama has won all the states which will vote Republican in November. Clinton has won the states that will vote Democrat.

    Assuming that a lot of people who voted for her - on grounds of race - will NOT vote for him, the likely outcome - with Obama as candidate - is a massive victory for McCain in November.

    (And, before anyone says anything, I prefer Obama).

    Clinton looks right; only she can beat McCain.

    Complain about this comment

  • 18. At 10:39am on 21 May 2008, Board Stupid wrote:

    "To put it crudely, better-informed people - college-educated etc - tend to vote for him. That is not something to be ashamed of. "

    Just because you have a college degree does not make you any better informed. It does not give you any common sense - I've see people with first class degrees who were completely clueless when it came to dealing with real life and the real world.

    In fact, going by some of the comments on these sorts of blogs, some so-called "educated" people are downright ingorant with their sneering condescending attitudes towards blue collar workers. If Obama's supporters continue with these attitudes they are going to have a hard time convincing many blue collar democrats to back a candidate who appears to be an elitist. That's not saying he is - just a perception and one that is fueled by some of his more idiotic supporters.

    They should stop dissing those in WV and KY who voted Clinton as racists, rednecks and hillbillies and recognise that many are still not ready for Obama - not because of prejudice (although there are some that will be) - but because they are not ready to take that leap of faith with Obama. Obama needs to address the fact that he is struggling to win over blue collar workers and seniors.

    Complain about this comment

  • 19. At 10:47am on 21 May 2008, Board Stupid wrote:

    #16 David - he is saying that many so-called "educated" voters are not - that their degrees don't have the rigor that they do here.

    It's a sad but true that some US college "degrees" are not worth the paper they are written on.

    I'll give you an example to illustrate. My cousin was an excellent athlete - a runner. She was offered a scholarship to go to college in the States - this was despite the fact that she left school without a single qualification at the age of 16 and had been working as an office junior. She was worried about coping with the course but was told that it did not really matter and that she would "pass" each year. The college were more interested in her athletic than her academic ability. When she was there she was not unique - she met several college football players who were, in her words, "thick as pigs**t".

    Complain about this comment

  • 20. At 11:13am on 21 May 2008, watermanaquarius wrote:

    David_C,
    My noble opponent in this game of the century.
    I quote The Reverend Charles Lutwidge Dodgson.
    "The sea was wet as wet could be
    The sand was dry as dry
    You could not see a cloud, because
    No cloud was in the sky
    No birds were flying overhead-
    There were no birds to fly"
    I know you recognise it! Another great author who shares the same astrological character that you and I have. A head full of brain cells that refuse to work according to the norm as suggested by others. Feet firmly planted on the ground but a head that reaches for the stars.
    His previous lines that have a lot in common with the Democrat elections that are now at hand were -
    "The moon was shining sulkily,
    Because she thought the sun
    Had got no business to be there
    After the day was done
    "It's very rude of him she said
    To come and spoil the fun!"

    Have a wonderful day
    [ The authors' pen name -It's Lewis Carroll]

    Hey Board Stupid- I'm was a University Rugby football player in my youth. I did end up with a couple of reasonable degrees though. Will you settle for a pig with wings?

    Complain about this comment

  • 21. At 11:17am on 21 May 2008, Adrian_Evitts wrote:

    Justin, I notice that the photo at the top of the blog has changed. I haven't seen the telly for quite a while. How much did you pay for that haircut?!

    Oops ... it was a question about Hillary's hair which prompted her to shed a tear! I wouldn't want you to do that, friend!

    How about using the blog to debate the contribution that American Mus***s make to US society? Hope that ain't a word - and I don't mean "Musicians"! - forbidden by moderation. Pretty please, with lots of sugar on! If you do that for me, I won't mention your haircut, ever, ever, ever again!

    Islam has millions of followers, many of them decent people.

    Complain about this comment

  • 22. At 11:46am on 21 May 2008, SlashDashUnderscore wrote:

    Firstly, I should point out that the 'popular vote' measure is next to worthless with so many caucus states, and with Texas being a primary-caucas hybrid. Similarly, the 'states' measure is pretty unpalatable, one of Obama's states (Wyoming) is worth as much as one of Hillary's (California), despite the great disparity in electoral votes - and in any case, the delegates are divided on proportion to the vote. The delegate count is the only creditable measure.

    Secondly, there is the matter of Michigan and Florida. Frankly, sucks to them. Their state governments broke the rules, and they knew what the result would be. The sheer audacity of the Clinton camp (after the agreement between the three candidates not to campaign in either state) to cast herself as a champion of democracy while relying heavily on superdelegates, is laughable. Perhaps next time round, other states will be less eager to move the primary timetable around (which this contest will only encourage).

    Finally, there is the question of Obama's electibility. In some ways he is less electable than Mrs Clinton, in some ways more. For example, she has Appalachia and he has the Midwest; she has the Rust Belt, but he has the Sun Belt (that is to say, New Mexico and Colorado). I believe that he will be marginally less electable, but not so much so that it should be a major factor in the thoughts of the superdelegates.

    Complain about this comment

  • 23. At 11:47am on 21 May 2008, Ed Iglehart wrote:

    David (5),

    I hate to be pedantic, but 48%+58%=106%

    ;-)
    ed

    Complain about this comment

  • 24. At 11:58am on 21 May 2008, Ed Iglehart wrote:

    David,

    "As for suggesting that college-educated voters are better informed, Justin has a poor grasp of the limitations of American college education. Many universities are at the level of UK sixth forms and a baccalaureate about the same as an A level GCE."

    Oooooh! Well slap mah wrist! It seems it only takes an A-level (or two) to be able to see past mah prejudices!

    I've had the dubious pleasure of teaching in the renowned British tertiary education system, and found both the overall quality of intake and output somewhat unimpressive - certainly no better than my own experience (albeit some decades before) in America.

    I've also noted from long experience that British tolerance and broad-mindedness is sometimes indistinguishable from condescension. Not that Americans are immune from the same failing.

    This is far more obvious to the objects of condescension than the condescenders realise, and, in my not-so-humble-opinion, lies behind a good deal of the esteem in which we are NOT held abroad.

    Salaam, etc.
    ed

    Complain about this comment

  • 25. At 12:09pm on 21 May 2008, MarcusAureliusII wrote:

    Ed Iglehart #23

    "I hate to be pedantic..."

    It doesn't thrill me either.

    Complain about this comment

  • 26. At 12:16pm on 21 May 2008, watermanaquarius wrote:

    Dear Ed,
    I think David_Cs' figures were an estimate for Obamas' result, not an Obama / Clinton result.
    Thanks by the way for the excellent links over the last couple of days. I don't know how you find the time to search out and get all the figures.
    Do they have a 28 hour day in Scotland ?

    Complain about this comment

  • 27. At 12:29pm on 21 May 2008, Ed Iglehart wrote:

    Waterman,

    "Do they have a 28 hour day in Scotland ?"

    Being this far north, we do get longer days, but....

    Actually I seem to have two obsessions: the present American political festival, and Justice in the Middle-East. Sadly, only one has a clear endpoint.

    I'm glad you've found the links either informative or amusing, and by the way, David's figures were %, but I suspect a typo (or wishful thinking?)

    ;-)
    ed

    Complain about this comment

  • 28. At 12:51pm on 21 May 2008, jaybs1 wrote:

    It is rumoured that Hillary is pushing to have some of her campaign team in Barack Obama's Election Campaign Team, I definitely Hope not on there record !!!!

    Complain about this comment

  • 29. At 1:00pm on 21 May 2008, Rama76 wrote:

    Hillary is just staying in the race to try and spoil it for Obama, she is also encouraging her supporters to chuck the toys out the pram by saying they wont vote for Obama, are they really that racist or just stupid? They know that saying that Obama is not electable in so-called "Redneck America" is the only chance they have to overturn the voice of the party. The have to vote Obama because his policies mirror Clintons. She has to save her reputation by resigning from the race, she just looks deluded and I fear for her sanity if she ever admits to herself that she lost. When Obama appoints a Blue-eyed aryan VP then some oft he fears of Redneck America might be placated. He has done an amazing job to win this, as an African I am so proud

    Complain about this comment

  • 30. At 1:27pm on 21 May 2008, Justianus wrote:

    Why is it that people so often feel sports analogies to be pertinent? It seems to me that this nomination contest resembles a game of chess more than any bout of baseball or basketball. And in chess, the ultimate goal may be delivering checkmate, but it rarely needs to be achieved: the loser will concede long before that happens.

    Yesterday, Obama won the battle for the pledged delegates. Insofar as the nomination can be determined by the voters, it has been determined.

    After all, Obama is leading in the pledged delegate count by about 156 (though not all the Oregon delegates have been allocated, so that should go up a bit). There are 86 pledged delegates still up for grabs in the remaining three contests. Even if they miraculously all go Clinton's way, she's behind by 70.

    And if the gods then decided to favour her even more and the full results from both Florida and Michigan somehow got factored in, that would add only 44 delegates to Clinton's tally.

    And she will still have lost.

    In short, this battle is over.

    The only question remaining is whether the choice of the voters will be overturned by the superdelegates.

    A few months back, the possibility of that happening was met with a howl of outrage by just about everyone. Now, however, a fair number of them seem quite willing to forgo their principles in order to see their candidate win.

    It's a funny thing, democracy.

    Complain about this comment

  • 31. At 1:30pm on 21 May 2008, powermeerkat wrote:

    The embarrasing fact is that merely 6 months ago everybody and ther grandmother predicted that it was going to be a Democratic walkover.

    And look at the situation now: hillbillies voting for Billies, educated young voters voting for Obama, and older ones (who usually vote in much larger numbers than any other segment of US population) prefering McCain, the only guy who actually knows something about combat, rough times and national security.

    P.S. I don't have to tell ya who the overwhelming majority of US military is going to vote for.

    Complain about this comment

  • 32. At 1:35pm on 21 May 2008, gadfly55 wrote:

    Praise be the powers that be, at last this comment system is working, I had given up on it. Living in Ireland, with a Yale '72 B.A. and watching Channel 4, RTE and BBC as well as extensive and relentless broadband access to US media such as NYT, RCP, Politico, Huffington, etc. this Democratic primary has been fascinating, and at this point inscrutable in the rationalisations of the Clinton mind. After the string of defeats in the mid-Atlantic states, anyone with a modicum of analytical skill could see that she would not win the nomination by fair means. This has continued relentlessly but with less personal attack on Obama. The only hope now is that superdelegates will in sufficient numbers declare and commit for Obama to resolve the conflict rather than allowing Clintonites to remain deluded, and further deepen divisions in the Democratic Party. There is a substantial battle ahead to enlist the support of the 35% of voters who usually are not interested or able to vote in the general election.

    Complain about this comment

  • 33. At 1:36pm on 21 May 2008, Richard_Berry wrote:

    I wonder what Justin thinks the legacy of the various failed primary campaigns will be?

    'Doing a Giuliani' - going from favoutire to also-ran overnight by purusing an utterly disastrous campaign strategy?

    'Doing a Huckabee' - a deliberate attempt from the outset to win the vice presidential nomination by offering a narrow vision that fills a perceived gap in the appeal of your main competitors?

    'Doing a Romney' - performing an absolute u-turn in policy terms, making yourself even less electable than you would have been if you had stuck to your original positions?

    'Doing a Clinton' (1) - invoking your own racial origins as a means of convincing members of your race to vote for you?

    'Doing a Clinton' (2) - deliberately damaging your own party in the hope that you'll be the one in place to pick up the shattered remains.

    'Doing a Clintion' (3) (may also be known as 'doing a Brown') - failing to accept that the job you have devoted your life to obtaining all your life is simply beyond your abilities.

    Complain about this comment

  • 34. At 1:41pm on 21 May 2008, ronaine wrote:

    powermeerkat

    "P.S. I don't have to tell ya who the overwhelming majority of US military is going to vote for."

    Hopefully for a candidate who supports Sen. Webb's GI bill and would treat returning veterans with dignity, respect and opportunity.

    Like Sen. Obama

    Complain about this comment

  • 35. At 1:49pm on 21 May 2008, ronaine wrote:

    Richard_Berry

    Fabulous! Especially enjoyed the Clinton 3.

    Poor Gordon, poor Hillary.

    Complain about this comment

  • 36. At 1:53pm on 21 May 2008, Ed Iglehart wrote:

    Meerkat,

    "P.S. I don't have to tell ya who the overwhelming majority of US military is going to vote for."

    Are you sure? Do you follow the military blogs?

    And, if it's all so peachy and supportive, why this?
    or this?

    Truthfully, I don't know, but I do hear there are problems getting re-enlistment and resentment of "stop-loss". I wouldn't count on overwhelming support, especially from the families of reservists, especially dead ones.

    Salaam, etc.
    ed

    Complain about this comment

  • 37. At 2:01pm on 21 May 2008, powermeerkat wrote:

    powermeerkat

    "P.S. I don't have to tell ya who the overwhelming majority of US military is going to vote for."

    Hopefully for a candidate who supports Sen. Webb's GI bill and would treat returning veterans with dignity, respect and opportunity.

    Like Sen. Obama

    Returning with a sword or on the shield?

    I seriously doubt that anybody who've experienced actual combat first hand is going to opt for overcoming our differences with murderous thugs during Obama/Osama/Ahma/Assa direct talks without any preconditions.

    Complain about this comment

  • 38. At 2:18pm on 21 May 2008, Ed Iglehart wrote:

    Clinton supporters surrender!

    ;-*
    ed

    Complain about this comment

  • 39. At 2:33pm on 21 May 2008, bethpa wrote:

    Some of the vote for Hillary is based in racism. Some commentators are asking her to renounce those votes.

    If Hillary plays this to win votes any way she can she will not help bring America together.

    What she may be doing is firming up her support for the future but her political strength will be stronger if she can deliver votes to Obama now after she leaves the race.

    Personally from what I have seen, she is a dangerous person to have on your "side"...she will do what she needs to do and say to get power. I don't trust her...or her husband. (And I voted twice for him)

    Complain about this comment

  • 40. At 3:16pm on 21 May 2008, chewbaccadefense wrote:

    kecsmar:

    Was it a fair fight considering the bias in early reporting towards OB. Perhaps you think MSNBC yielded a fair and balanced coverage.

    As for OB's Iran comment, this just shows he is clueless.

    Complain about this comment

  • 41. At 3:17pm on 21 May 2008, MaryS-NJ wrote:

    This campaign has been very illuminating, both positively and negatively. It has been historically significant, as an energetic, inspiring African-American man and an tenacious, accomplished and inspiring woman have both vied for the nomination for the Democratic party and one of them will indeed be our nominee for the first time in our nation's history.

    However, it is disturbing to me personally that Hillary Clinton's candidacy and her supporters are so easily dismissed by the Media, the big blogs and some of Obama's most ardant supporters as "racially motivated", less educated or less well informed than Obama supporters while they smugly appoint themselves members of the "creative class".

    I find it troubling the extent to which the Media have parrotted the Obama marketing strategy without performing a thorough examination of the facts of regarding the situation in Florida and Michigan (and the possible implications for the Democratic nominee to win those important swing states in November), the delegate math (neither candidate will have enough pledged delegates to win the nomination by the end of the primary season) and the likely strength of these candidates in the General Election campaign in view of the electoral math (neither Democrat will win Alabama, North Carolina, Wyoming, and traditionally Republican states despite Obama's impressive victories in those primaries).

    I agree that Senator Obama delegate math looks more favorable given our convoluted system. I don't think he's inevitable, and I believe Senator Clinton is and would be the stronger candidate in the General Election campaign.

    For what it's worth, I'm a University- educated professional woman, 6 months younger than Senator Obama. While I'm an age peer of Senator Obama, and appreciate the excitment he has brought to this campaign season, I find Senator Clinton's candidacy just as inspiring and exciting and think that she has best understanding of policy issues, the articulated and most progessive platform and an ability to understand the problems faced by working class Americans and others who have been most harmed by the appauling mismanagement and negligence of the current Bush/Cheney regime.

    While Senator Obama crowns himself and rests on his laurels basking in the glow of his "rock star" status, I know that Hillary is a fighter who keep focused on those issues that are most in need of attention; health care reform, ending the occupation of Iraq, ensuring that our troops and veterans are provided proper care, respect and dignity, and an economic policy that will start to reinvigorate the middle class.

    That's why I hope Hillary fights all the way to the convention despite the best efforts of the Media to discourage her and us. Letting the primary season continue until it's natural end may be inconvenient to Senator Obama, but I believe it is beneficial to the democratic process and the Democratic party overall.

    Complain about this comment

  • 42. At 3:18pm on 21 May 2008, legendaryeggman wrote:

    At #17 - Surely Democrats would rather go for someone who is winning convincingly in traditionally Republican states rather than someone who is winning convincingly in traditionally Democrat states. States like California will vote Democrat no matter who the nominee is, so, once again, surely Hillary's arguments have no basis.

    Complain about this comment

  • 43. At 3:19pm on 21 May 2008, chewbaccadefense wrote:

    Bethpa,

    Some of the vote for OB is based on racism too. What is the difference? Oh yeah HRC is White. So what does that make you?


    90% of blacks vote for OB, why do you think this is?

    Complain about this comment

  • 44. At 3:29pm on 21 May 2008, chewbaccadefense wrote:

    Richard_Berry:

    Doing an Obama: Speaking like a priest on sunday morning. Little in the way of detail. But we have hope, a dream, a different way, an illusion. Yet is able to con normally intelligent people in to voting for him.

    But as we know illusions don't last. A vote for OB is in reality a vote in November for McCain.

    Complain about this comment

  • 45. At 3:30pm on 21 May 2008, Muckduckmike wrote:

    Team Billary are going to fight to the very end, and have never let the truth get in their way before ("I did not have sex with that women").
    Watch for some very tricky maneuvering at the Democratic convention to get the Florida and Michigan delegates seated and all voting for her. Perhaps even a lawsuit or two will be filed by "third parties" on her, er, the party's behalf.

    As for our UK friends who have decided American universities are worthless, send a memo to Harvard, Yale, or Stanford and give them your opinion. There are as many universities here as there are fish and chip shops in England. Like the chippies, some of them are bound to be bad.

    Complain about this comment

  • 46. At 3:40pm on 21 May 2008, chewbaccadefense wrote:

    21 May 2008, Justianus wrote:
    "Why is it that people so often feel sports analogies to be pertinent? It seems to me that this nomination contest resembles a game of chess more than any bout of baseball or basketball. And in chess, the ultimate goal may be delivering checkmate, but it rarely needs to be achieved: the loser will concede long before that happens.

    Yesterday, Obama won the battle for the pledged delegates. Insofar as the nomination can be determined by the voters, it has been determined.

    After all, Obama is leading in the pledged delegate count by about 156 (though not all the Oregon delegates have been allocated, so that should go up a bit). There are 86 pledged delegates still up for grabs in the remaining three contests. Even if they miraculously all go Clinton's way, she's behind by 70.

    And if the gods then decided to favour her even more and the full results from both Florida and Michigan somehow got factored in, that would add only 44 delegates to Clinton's tally.

    And she will still have lost.

    In short, this battle is over.

    The only question remaining is whether the choice of the voters will be overturned by the superdelegates.

    A few months back, the possibility of that happening was met with a howl of outrage by just about everyone. Now, however, a fair number of them seem quite willing to forgo their principles in order to see their candidate win.

    It's a funny thing, democracy"


    I think you will find more people voted for HRC:

    So again, the Dem nomination is not a democracy stop kidding yourself. More people in the end would have voted for HRC without Michigan. OB may well win but he will lose in Nov. McCain has already shown him up once.

    I say again to all you OB supporters the super-delegates job is to OVERTURN the decision of the primaries if the candidate would lose the GE. That is their reason for existing period.

    Complain about this comment

  • 47. At 3:48pm on 21 May 2008, chewbaccadefense wrote:

    Muckduck...

    Yale, Stanford and Harvard degrees are not equivalent to those in the UK. That is just the way it is. I teach in a US university but I'm a UK graduate there is no comparison. There is no grade inflation in the UK, there is in the US. There is no students arguing for a grade in the UK, I have queue outside my office daily during class. I have told my classes how the UK system is and they can't believe, how difficult it is.

    Those are the facts.

    Complain about this comment

  • 48. At 3:49pm on 21 May 2008, Ptrsln wrote:

    Slash: I completely disagree with you on the proper way to count votes. The popular vote is really the only fair way to determine the winner in an election because it counts each vote equally. With the huge disparity between turnouts in caucus states and primary states, under the delegate system you end up with each caucus delegate representing far fewer voters than his corresponding primary delegate. This means that their votes count more than primary voters' (the extreme example of this is the superdelegate who represents only himself, making his vote about 10,000 times more powerful than the average voter).

    The fairest and simplest way to deal with this election is to hold a nationwide primary and give the person with the most votes the nomination (certainly this saves us the trouble of a 6 month primary season). But since states determine their own voting procedures, the best we can do is to count each caucus and primary vote equally.

    Of course, the problem with Michigan and Florida, as well as some caucus states inexcusably refusing to count or report the total number of votes, causes some disputes in the the total count. However, unless you unfairly refuse to count caucus results at all (as Clinton has done), it's clear that Obama has won the popular vote. But it was a lot closer than the delegate count would have you believe: He has about 1% (350,000) more of the popular vote than Clinton. And she may even cut into that by June 3rd.

    Complain about this comment

  • 49. At 3:52pm on 21 May 2008, Ed Iglehart wrote:

    MaryS,

    The denial of delegates to FL and MI was decided by the DNC, where Clinton supporters were among the most enthusiastic advocates of a 100% penalty. The rules were set before the campaign, and agreed by all candidates.

    The rules are certainly arcane and to a degree stupid, but they are the rules.

    As to understanding working class concerns, I find it hard to believe HRC is better placed than OHB, and their respective support bases (1,500,000 individuals Vs fewer individuals, but quite a few with loadsamoneyandinfluence) would indicate otherwise as well.

    Don't worry, Consult Kubler-Ross

    ;-)
    ed

    Complain about this comment

  • 50. At 4:05pm on 21 May 2008, Dan_de_Douvres wrote:

    "To put it crudely, better-informed people - college-educated etc - tend to vote for him. That is not something to be ashamed of."

    Or, as they'd put it: that's not something of which to be ashamed.

    Complain about this comment

  • 51. At 4:13pm on 21 May 2008, voxlapidis wrote:

    What is it with this "college-educated i.e. better informed" presumption?

    Just because someone didn't have the money to get the four-year piece of paper doesn't mean one is better informed.
    I know PHD's. who don't have a clue as to what is going on in the real world. They may be better informerd in their subject matter, but not neccesarily in politics or world affairs.

    It's that elitist concept that people who went to college are somehow better than the lower classes that creates animosity.

    The phrase "Vox populi, vox Dei" doesn't refer to the better informed college-educated but I guess to the secularist such a notion would be a non sequitur.

    If there were a "None of the Above" to select, that category would win in both parties.

    Complain about this comment

  • 52. At 4:23pm on 21 May 2008, SlashDashUnderscore wrote:

    About Obama's 'white working class problem'. It does exist - up to a point. Hence, states like Mississippi with a large black population saw the white population side with Clinton. But, as this article argues, Obama's problem is not so much 'white working class', it's specifically Appalachian.

    http://tinyurl.com/5sobnd

    Looking at the main areas of Clinton's strength geographically, a lot of it is coming from Appalachia - that is to say southern New York, southeast Ohio, West Virginia, eastern Kentucky, eastern Tennessee, western Virginia, western North Carolina, northern Georgia, northern Alabama, northeastern Mississippi.

    In all of these areas, Obama lost heavily (even if he won the state overall). If you care to peruse the county-by-county results on the map provided by the link below, you will see what I mean.

    http://politics.nytimes.com/election-guide/2008/results/demmap

    West Virginia is emblematic of this, since it is at the very heart of the region.

    On the other hand, you have very white states like Iowa, which he of course won, and which will probably go to him in November, but would not do so for Hillary. I again refer you to the marvellous FiveThirtyEight.com

    http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/

    While you're at it, look at how Obama is predicted to do in Pennsylvania. After the Pennsylvania primary and 'bittergate', you'd presume that he was buried in the Rust Belt (granted, Ohio is still a bit of an uphill struggle, but not impossible).

    Thinking that with a race this close, a painful battle in the House of Representatives is not so far away,

    /-_

    Complain about this comment

  • 53. At 4:25pm on 21 May 2008, bethpa wrote:

    #43 chewbaccadefense

    You are right on this. America is racist. and sexist. Hillary's strength is with white women and Obama's strength is with blacks. McCain has strength with older voters. Many people are not voting based upon principles.

    but I wrote about Hillary since that was today's topic.

    I vote for Obama based upon principles. I opposed the war and so did Obama.

    Complain about this comment

  • 54. At 4:25pm on 21 May 2008, Mark_WE wrote:

    "I think you will find more people voted for HRC:

    So again, the Dem nomination is not a democracy stop kidding yourself. More people in the end would have voted for HRC without Michigan. OB may well win but he will lose in Nov. McCain has already shown him up once.

    I say again to all you OB supporters the super-delegates job is to OVERTURN the decision of the primaries if the candidate would lose the GE. That is their reason for existing period."

    Looking at the numbers linked to in the original blog it seems that HRC only had the advantage if you include Florida and Michigan (that might change by the end).

    Considering that she had the name recognition and neither candidate campaigned in these states it is hardly a fair competition - how many people would vote for a candidate that they know little about especially when they were running against a candidate who had the level of exposure HRC has had.

    Who knows how many voters in Florida would have voted for Obama if they had heard him speak?

    You mention that the super-delegates job is to overturn the will of the people if they feel it is in the party's best interests - now I am not sure about other people but I would have serious concerns about voting for a party that cared so little for the opinion of the electorate that they would disregard the people's choice in favour of their prefered candidate.

    If they don't care enough to respect your choice of candidate how can you trust them to stand up and fight your corner?


    Complain about this comment

  • 55. At 4:51pm on 21 May 2008, Ed Iglehart wrote:

    Well spotted, Dan!
    ;-)
    ed

    Complain about this comment

  • 56. At 5:17pm on 21 May 2008, ronaine wrote:

    It's funny, you know, I'd have thought somebody with the name Chewbacca would understand the wisdom of Obi.

    ;)

    Complain about this comment

  • 57. At 5:25pm on 21 May 2008, bethpa wrote:

    He's a wookie...

    Complain about this comment

  • 58. At 5:31pm on 21 May 2008, DougTexan wrote:

    I feel like the 'fool on the hill'.
    Education in the Uk?
    Degrees in America? (The States for you educated folks)
    Is being brainwashed and bigoted a requirment to vote for Obama? Is it racist to say that in this blog yesterday someone stated that 90% of blacks are voting for Obama, so then the logic of 'you' professors (we know who you are, your braggerts) 90% of Black Americans are college educated.
    Now whose the fool on the hill?
    Heh Heh, and you all wonder why we NEED HRC to stay in the race(ist).

    Complain about this comment

  • 59. At 5:34pm on 21 May 2008, Ed Iglehart wrote:

    Justin,

    From your NY Times link of reasons for HRC to carry on: "Advisers say that continuing her candidacy is partly a means to show her supporters — especially young women — that she is not a quitter and will not be pushed around."

    Nowhere in the article does it mention that every time she speaks she takes the opportunity to solicit donations via her website, and that the loans she has made to her campaign are interest-bearing loans, no less.....that's even better than letting a kid sell his bike and games - getting "ordinary hard-working white people" to contribute to investment income from a millionaire's loans to herself.

    Wow!

    Complain about this comment

  • 60. At 5:41pm on 21 May 2008, Ed Iglehart wrote:

    It seems the "Florida problem"
    is over, so perhaps the end is in sight.

    Gator Ade may mix with Kool Ade
    xx
    ed

    Complain about this comment

  • 61. At 6:07pm on 21 May 2008, AnonymousCalifornian wrote:

    American news is reporting that the percentage of blue-collar, 'white,' Democratic Oregonians who voted for Obama was in the high sixties. The BBC just states that around 60% of 'whites' in Oregon voted for Obama, without mentioning economic status.

    Complain about this comment

  • 62. At 6:09pm on 21 May 2008, AnonymousCalifornian wrote:

    bethpa wrote:

    "He's a wookie..."

    ----

    "Let the Wookiee win." - C-3PO ;-) .

    Complain about this comment

  • 63. At 6:27pm on 21 May 2008, righteousmistyfog wrote:

    #5 David_C

    Forgive me for picking you up again but, "The Party would look very foolish to nominate a candidate chosen by only forty-eight of the fifty states." Yeah right! Obama's already won the majority of states, so why quibble about the last two? Seems like your big on changing the party rules to suit your preferred candidate. Not sure I'd want to elect a party that didn't play things straight

    Complain about this comment

  • 64. At 6:41pm on 21 May 2008, Ed Iglehart wrote:

    When you've been hanging out with Bulls, it's hard to keep your boots clean of their droppings...


    It just keeps coming!

    xx
    ed

    Complain about this comment

  • 65. At 7:02pm on 21 May 2008, Ed Iglehart wrote:

    Still hiring, Apply Within

    Today's Talking Points


    The Issue: Time for Solutions
    John McCain will put the national interest ahead of partisanship, he will work with anyone who sincerely wants to get this country moving again. If John McCain is elected President, the era of the permanent campaign will end. The era of problem solving will begin.


    Just copy and paste under your favourite bridge....trip trap, trip trap....

    Complain about this comment

  • 66. At 7:21pm on 21 May 2008, David Cunard wrote:

    #20 watermanaquarius - Who would have guessed that Lewis Carroll would grace this column! I wouldn’t say that we are actually 'opponents' but choose to disagree on some points.

    #24 Ed, the consensus appears to be on my side; with a few notable exceptions, American degrees have a lesser value than those of the United Kingdom. A production in which I played had among its backstage staff a young lady who had been taking her "bachelors" at a local university. To celebrate the newly acquired BA, her mother was taking her to Europe and she told me that she was flying to "Londonparis". I enquired whether she meant London or that she was to arrive in Paris, explaining that they were two separate cities. The proud bearer of the post nominal letters did not know that. So much the university education!

    My percentages were typed from a CNN report so the error may have been a typo, but definitely not wishful thinking. Those of us who prefer Mrs Clinton aren't blind to the numbers, but Mr Obama's supporters appear to ignore the reality as #17 The Midland 20 notes. MaryS-NJ, #41 sets out Mrs Clinton's appeal far better than I am able - and obviously went to a better university than the example mentioned above :)

    #50, Dan, is not necessarily correct; there is the oft cited example of Winston Churchill's note to an over-zealous secretary "This is the sort of English up with which I will not put." Incidentally, it appears that it's now OK to criticise Justin's grammar, but not his spelling. Where are you Jacksforge?

    #63 righteousmistyfog - I can't see that democracy, especially when it gives its name to the party, should not be invoked. Why should millions of voters be disregarded just because local party officers decided to ignore the DNC? If anyone should be punished, it is they/them (!) How many times have we read that "the race is over" but, like the phoenix, Mrs Clinton rises out of the ashes. I don't think anyone can deny that her victory in Kentucky was of enormous proportions, 65:30, rather better than 59:41 which Mr Obama received in Oregon (CNN 10:55 a.m.) It's that kind of unnecessary denial which his supporters revel in; credit should be given where it is due.

    Complain about this comment

  • 67. At 7:24pm on 21 May 2008, proles wrote:

    That's puuting it crudely, alright. But then, so-called "educated people" often put things crudely. Maybe in fact, they're just as crude at base as the proles - and a whole lot more pretentious. Anyhow, the most recent primaries contiued the dismal turnouts of the preceding ones. In "crude" KY, turnout or eligible voters was slightly under a third of those eligible. In 'upscale' Oregon, the percentage was just the same, and it was also reported that turnout among students in Oregon was below average. Once again, despite the absurd media spin about "heavy turnout", voters in both demographically diverse states, by a margin of two-to-one, overwhelmingly repudiated the Duopoly Party and it's hand-picked cloned candidates. Once again, no one won the popular vote. So all the rest in the end, doesn't really matter, it's business as usual.

    Complain about this comment

  • 68. At 7:28pm on 21 May 2008, Ed Iglehart wrote:

    UNBELIEVABLE!

    BOO!

    ;-)
    ed

    Complain about this comment

  • 69. At 7:55pm on 21 May 2008, kenneth jessett wrote:

    I have enough degrees and an IQ high enough to be counted among the better educated and informed, and being so, I voted for Clinton in the primary and if Obama gets the nod, will vote McCain in the general election. And so will many others.

    Obama, being the sly, arrogant, calculating autocrat that he is, and relying on the sycophants and simpering liberals as he does, will never be elected president.

    Complain about this comment

  • 70. At 8:21pm on 21 May 2008, AAlvinTwiningham wrote:

    Sly, arrogant, calculating autocrat? Sounds like Clinton to me.

    Complain about this comment

  • 71. At 8:40pm on 21 May 2008, PlumeOfThePegasus wrote:

    A lot of people ascribe all kinds of malice to Hillary Clinton's decision to go on. I don't agree with that assessment, she's behaving no differently than any other primary candidate within striking distance of the nomination. They took it to the convention floor, she'll do the same in the hopes of a last minute reversal. Nothing surprising about that and on the flip side, it's not evidence of "testicular fortitude". However, something that rarely gets mentioned as a motivation is the chance of making history as the first female president of the United States of America. It's like the elephant in the living room pundits and her critics don't want to talk about. I'm all for Obama but that doesn't mean I'm naive enough to think he wouldn't push on if the roles were reversed. Is that really supposed to be evil?

    The one thing that really saddens me though is that Hillary has on occasion acted against her nature, like that uncomfortable pause before taking the plunge and saying "white workers". It came across as something she didn't want to say, a desperate gamble based on some godawful rationalization of her campaign management. It could have really damaged her legacy and standing though I think it will eventually blow over.

    Aside from the above points I do have to thank Hillary for staying on, helping to generate a lot of excitement and enthusiasm for the Democratic party's cause and hardening Obama into a superior general election candidate. Thank you.

    Complain about this comment

  • 72. At 8:59pm on 21 May 2008, quietlaurieann wrote:

    I believe that in pointing to popular vote tables which are in part based on caucus results, you neglect to consider other factors such as this: Republican interference in the early race.
    This for example is an email:
    Attention All Texas Republicans and Independents!! On March 4th, Texas Republicans and Independents will have an opportunity to end Hillary Clinton's (and Bill's) presidential ambitions once and for all! Since Texas has on open primary, Republicans and Independents should sign in at their polling place and request a Democratic ballot. They should then vote for Barack Obama. Even James Carville admits that if Hillary loses Texas, "she's done!" Republicans can help make this a reality!!! Just think, no more Clintons in the White House! Voting Democratic this one time will have NO effect on your ability to vote in the next Republican primary or obviously on your vote in November. Since John McCain has the Republican nomination locked up, voting for McCain or Huckabee at this point will have no effect on the outcome on the Republican side. After you vote during early voting or on March 4th, you ARE NOT done! Report back to your regular polling place at 7PM on March 4th to sign the Barack Obama list for caucus delegates. In a little known Texas voting quirk, 67 delegates to the Democratic convention will be seated because of these caucuses. This is a full one-third of the total number of Texas delegates. For Hillary to lose, she has to lose the primary votes AND the caucus votes. I urge you to vote against Hillary Clinton by voting for Barack Obama. Please forward this e-mail to all your Texas Republican and Independent friends so that we can help ensure the Clinton's defeat on March 4th!!! You think maybe this had something to do with Obama's caucus gains in Texas?

    This race is very close. I am tired of Obama's supporters moaning on about Clinton's racism. When the Clintons say they appeal to white bluecollar workers, that is because they both come from that kind of family. Hillary’s grandfather was a Welsh coalminer who emigrated to Pennsylvania and worked in the mines there. We all know that Clinton’s father was a taxi driver who died before he was born. In a similar way Obama appeals to Blacks and college kids because that’s what he is.

    I am very tired of Axelrod’s underhand tactics saying over every blog and in every paper, that Hillary should pull out gracefully, because otherwise she will split the party. Of course it's much easier for you if your opponent just shuts up and goes away.. But that’s not what a political race is about.

    I have serious doubts about Obama's team, in particular about Samantha Power. She seems to me (I am a graduate in Politics, but of an older generation) to be a typical representative of the terrible political science that was taught in college during the eighties.

    Much of this mess has been caused by Howard Dean, and his prissy insistence on rules. Did you ever hear of two States arbitrarily being denied the vote in that way. Voters having their votes cancelled in a cutting edge, swing state like Florida. Hillary made a lot of mistakes, for sure, and those were paying too little attention to the caucuses, accepting the DNC's arbitrary rules, and paying too little attention to what Axelrod was cooking up, and, of course, being off hand with journalists.
    That said, neither Hillary nor Obama will win in November. Perhaps they could both become a little bit more intelligent and place the good of the nation first.
    Wake up HOWARD DEAN, what everyone wants is a FAIR fight and a CLEAR result, not a BITTER MESS because the system is too BACKWARD. They should hold flash primaries in both Michigan and Florida. That should clear the air of toxins.

    Complain about this comment

  • 73. At 9:08pm on 21 May 2008, Ed Iglehart wrote:

    David,

    "the consensus appears to be on my side; with a few notable exceptions, American degrees have a lesser value than those of the United Kingdom"

    That consensus is as ill-defined and elusive as HRC's chances of success. Both countries have a good number of excellent universities and a large number of mediocre and poor ones. The USA, being six times as populous has probably six times as many of each.

    Need I mention all the polytechnics which have been magically transformed into universities?

    The British, who I like in general, and among whom I have chosen to live, have remarkable ability to look down their noses at everything American, while at the same time rushing to adopt and emulate all the most unattractive American characteristics. e.g. Blair. It is ill advised to hurry while looking down one's conk.

    Salaam, etc.
    ed

    Complain about this comment

  • 74. At 9:13pm on 21 May 2008, Ed Iglehart wrote:

    Laurieann,

    There was also an effort to get Repugnacans to turn out and vote for HRC, as the weaker candidate. The two efforts may well have cancelled each other out, and simply inflated apparent Democrat turnout.

    ;-)
    ed

    Complain about this comment

  • 75. At 9:30pm on 21 May 2008, MagicKirin wrote:

    Justin:

    Your premise that colleges make one is better informed is ludicrous. Colleges are intellectually dishonest. The average college supporter of Obama can't list his accomplishments and his ecomic stimlus package.

    Barack's supporters comprise many naive people who refuse to acknowledge his lack of qualifications.

    The fact that Ward Churchill, Howard Zinn and Norm Chomsky teach at colleges proves your argument is flawed.

    Complain about this comment

  • 76. At 06:14am on 22 May 2008, MarcusAureliusII wrote:

    The end is definitely in sight, it is staring us squarely in the face even if we don't recognize it. Among the stupid things the next president will probably do, undoubtedly do if it is Obama is sign a global warming treaty and create a CO2 cap and trade system in the US. When American farmers trade their CO2 credits to power companies because it is far easier and cheaper to sit back and collect a check for doing nothing than to work their land and because the power companies will need those credits to keep America's cities lit and its businesses running, the world will suddenly face a food shortage the like of which has not been seen probably in about 150 years. The price of food will go through the roof because in many places around the world there simply won't be any. Of all of America's exports, (it is both the largest exporting and importing nation) food is its number one export. Probably about 2% of Americans, around 6 million work in agriculture yet American farms, by far the most productive feed much of the 6 1/2 billion people. The end of the era since 1945 when rising standards of living and rising expections prevailed all over the world is about to come to an end. If Obama becomes president, it will just happen sooner rather than later. When Americans are forced to spend most of their available disposable income on food and fuel and have none left over for an ocean of cheap electronics and textiles, China Inc and its factory outlet store Walmart will go broke and much of the world's economy with it. From where I sit it looks very bleak. Oil hit about $135 a barrel today. Some say it is a bubble but the growing gap between supply and demand suggests it will go much higher. Yes the end is very near.

    Complain about this comment

  • 77. At 07:53am on 22 May 2008, powermeerkat wrote:

    "The fact that Ward Churchill, Howard Zinn and Norm Chomsky teach at colleges proves your argument is flawed" [#75]


    You forgot ANGELA DAVIS. [UCSC] :-)

    Complain about this comment

  • 78. At 10:14am on 22 May 2008, MagicKirin wrote:

    The fact that Ward Churchill, Howard Zinn and Norm Chomsky teach at colleges proves your argument is flawed" [#75]


    You forgot ANGELA DAVIS. [UCSC] :-)

    Sorry about that. for those interested there is a book by David Horwitz listing the worst 100 professors in the U.S.

    In my generation I had many liberproffessors but they knew their job was to teach not indotrinate.

    Elimnate tenure!!

    Complain about this comment

  • 79. At 10:44am on 22 May 2008, newtopolitics wrote:

    Don't think Hillary should go now, she should stick out til the end, however damaging this may be. We have seen her fight like no one else, and even though I am a hearty Obama supporter, she does have the right to remain, although it is evident she will lose.

    Justin, thanks. The world of politics and American seems far less intimidating, for a girl everyone believes knows nothing.

    Complain about this comment

  • 80. At 11:39am on 22 May 2008, Ed Iglehart wrote:

    New,

    I second your sentiments entirely. It's also worth noting that Obama has NEVER been among those calling for an early exit.

    As with any election, only when all the voters have spoken and the polls have closed, then is the time for counting the result.

    xx
    ed

    Complain about this comment

  • 81. At 12:00pm on 22 May 2008, Ed Iglehart wrote:

    Elimnate [sic] tenure!! Down with Academic freedom!! Burn the books!!! Repeal the first amendment!!! Repeal them all!!

    Yes we can!

    Complain about this comment

  • 82. At 12:17pm on 22 May 2008, jdkidd wrote:

    Hilary - please save yourself and your party a shred of dignity and stand aside whilst strongly endorising Barack Obama. Do it now and lets get on with the real election and stop wasting time talking about election rules and super delegates. John McCain is beatable but you're making him look better all the time.

    JK
    concerned british observer!

    Complain about this comment

  • 83. At 7:55pm on 22 May 2008, LesParke wrote:

    At this point there's no reason why Hillary shouldn't be allowed to continue until June 3rd, as long as she maintains her more moderate campaigning of recent days. If she steers clear of claims that Obama can't relate to the white working-class, or that McCain would be the better President, there's no downside for the Democrats. As long as the race continues then so will their domination of the news coverage - which at this point basically adds up to free advertising - while McCain and the Republicans can hardly get a word in edgeways.

    As for Clinton being more electable against McCain, I can't say I agree. Her only real advantage over Obama is experience - an area neither candidate will be beating McCain in - and she lacks Obama's capacity for fund-raising and his grass-roots movements all over the country. With these he can force the McCain and the GOP to spend money they don't have to defend traditionally red states - Virginia, North Carolina, Colorado, Nevada, South Dakota, Missouri. If he wins Pennsylvania and Ohio (and with a Clinton endorsement and a united Democratic party he should do) he only needs one, maybe two of the above states to switch for a comfortable victory.

    Complain about this comment

  • 84. At 8:09pm on 22 May 2008, Streathamite wrote:

    @ ed iglehart, post 73.
    Ed, what you're overlooking is that the old polytechnics were set up specifically to focus on technological, vocational and correspondingly 'modern' subjects, rather than traditional arts, pure sciences, classics etc.
    This is why in many such fields (engineering, surveying, IT, design to name but a few) many ex-polys are AT LEAST the academic equal of the original unis. Mine own, Thames as was, greenwich Uni as is now, has an IT dept that is the envy of most universities, and a 'milk round' which resembles a scrap between all the major IT firms. Those degrees are prized (I work in IT recruitment, this is my home turf, but it also applies to many other fields).
    Voational subjectshad been perceived as reaching a sufficient standard by the late 80s, hence the 'universitization'.
    And sorry, much as I love America the country (and, by and large, its' people) - there is a REAL big drop off in academic standards once you get past Ivy League, State and the next 20 or so down - and this is straight from the horse's mouth of my US corporate and academic contacts.

    @ quietlaurieann # 72;
    if there should be no sanction when previously agreed rules are knowingly and brazenly broken, why have 'em in the first place?
    you got me baffled, genuinely

    Complain about this comment

  • 85. At 8:41pm on 22 May 2008, Ed Iglehart wrote:

    Streathamite,

    "Ivy League, State and the next 20 or so down"

    That's quite a few, considering CalTech, MIT, UC(various), etc.

    I agree about the traditional snobbery towards "vocational" subjects, but still consider at least some of the techniversities no better than local US mid-quality 'colleges'...Of course, by its nature this is a subject even more immune to objectivity than most.

    My Daughter went to Edinburgh, My son to Oxford Poly (now Oxford Brookes University) Both were fine. I'm a product of U Florida (plus several partials elsewhere), and have never felt inadequate in any company, but I would say that, wouldn't I?

    Enjoy Milano
    ed

    Complain about this comment

  • 86. At 11:56pm on 22 May 2008, chewbaccadefense wrote:

    Firstly I agree, let the wookie win!

    On which Uni you go to, it really doesn't matter the cream always rises. However it is used as a way to discriminate. This is just the way humans are. Going to a so called top Uni does make it easier.

    I agree with tiggertoo, why does the press keep going on about this.


    Ed,

    You are remarkably ill informed on the education systems in the US and UK. Most of the talent in the US Universities is not of US origin. The UK does not believe in a liberal arts education, therefore specialization occurs much faster. The average age of a PhD graduate is 25. A PhD lasts 3 years in the UK and 5 years in the US. The reason for this is that the US students lack the knowledge the UK students have. You can sum this up as, the UK students know a lot about a little and US students know a little about a lot. There are pros and cons in both approaches. Also the UK degrees in science are run like a car production line, there is very little choice on what you can take, compared to the US modular system. In the UK the best mark is >70% with a pass normally 40%. Undergraduate degrees are classified as 1st, 2:1, 2:2, 3rd Class with Hons. It use to be that a student would be taught for 3 years then have in the final year examinations over the whole 3 year period. In recent years the 2nd years has also been used in awarding degree class. If you fail an exam in the UK system , you can't retake the exam for full grade the maximum mark to can attain is a pass, 40%. You cannot re-take a specific class normally. In short the UK system is, you have one shot, one time. I can tell you the pressure is pretty high. Failure of any exam is not an option in the UK system. The above is in relation to science. Additionally GPA is not used the same as it is in the US. Students leaving college or school at 18 in the UK would decide to go to Uni or as you say in the US med-school. This is in contrast to the US system. Complaining about a grade, when I was at Uni in the UK simply did not occur. This was due to the grade if you did complain going only in one direction, down.

    My first lecturer (this is the same as an assistant professor in the US) said "if you expect to get a good mark by regurgitating what I write on the board you are mistaken. I expect you to get in the library and read. In the exam I expect primary references." This is an undergraduate course! To study a subject in a UK university you can say I am reading biology etc. This is for a very important reason, you basically teach yourself by reading. Lectures are simply to point the way.


    Complain about this comment

  • 87. At 01:26am on 23 May 2008, Ed Iglehart wrote:

    Chew,

    "You are remarkably ill informed on the education systems in the US and UK."

    And you, sir, are both presumptuous and rude as well as ignorant. There is NOTHING in your huge undifferentiated paragraphs which is at all new to me. I have considerable experience of both systems, and you are in no position to tell me I'm "ill informed."

    Do not presume to teach your grandfather to suck eggs.

    With all due respect (minimal)
    ed

    Complain about this comment

  • 88. At 11:56am on 23 May 2008, Streathamite wrote:

    Ed,
    I assumed you'd know I give the thumbs up to the 'elite' specialist places like MIT, Caltech etc, and certain other business, law, medicine performing arts etc institutions, and was pressed for time so didn't sopell it out. apologies, teaches me to cut corners.
    (erm and UC IS what I mean by 'state', hence the 'C' which stands for 'California' not 'camerondiaz', no?
    (and I DID enjoy milano, specifically seeding them get spanked at home by the north London football club I happen to support)

    Complain about this comment

  • 89. At 2:22pm on 23 May 2008, Ed Iglehart wrote:

    Streathamite,

    In fact I did recognise UC as "State", but a rather superior one in many respects. There are, in most states, two "State" universities, e.g. University of Florida and Florida State University, both of good standard. That means approximately 100 universities in that class to add to the Ivy League (not invariably excellent) and a good double handful of 'elites'.

    Have you any experience of the "A and M" universities? They began as an exercise in "separate but equal" provision under segregation, but have, so I understand in some cases, developed into class acts. The A and M stood for "Agricultural and Mechanical" - gives an idea of underlying attitudes and prejudice!

    I wonder what it feels like to attend one of these institutions as a "White" person?

    I wonder that Chew can bear to teach in the US system, considering his obvious contempt for it and his students. It's usually a poor craftsman who blames his materials, tools, or working conditions.

    Salaam, etc.
    ed

    Complain about this comment

  • 90. At 04:31am on 24 May 2008, dennisjunior1 wrote:

    Justin,

    When in the future? Probably after the 3 June 2008, last primaries and or the latest the conventions....

    Complain about this comment

  • 91. At 5:59pm on 12 Nov 2008, Bloofs wrote:

    @ Streathimite post 84

    "Ed, what you're overlooking is that the old polytechnics were set up specifically to focus on technological, vocational and correspondingly 'modern' subjects, rather than traditional arts, pure sciences, classics etc. "

    -It's not quite so simple. Most polytechnics (and nearly all post - 92 universities) had departments of English and departments of History. And a lot of them had art schools.

    They weren't just technical institutions. Frand Skinner did a degree in English Lit from Birmingham Poly, for example.

    In the UK the polytechnics always had a broader remit than just technical institutions (unlike in many countries) and thats why they could make the transition to Universities.

    Complain about this comment

View these comments in RSS

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.