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

The End

Justin Webb | 06:02 UK time, Wednesday, 7 May 2008

It really is as simple as that.

Even if Hillary were to surprise us all by performing well in forthcoming Obama-favoured contests in states like Oregon and South Dakota - even then, her victories would change the underlying arithmetic of the race so little that the impact would be minimal.

Her speech began with an odd line about going all the way to the White House and some commentators reached for their hard hats. But Bill didn't look as if he was going anywhere and nor is she.

Having said that, Clintons being Clintons, this could still run and run but only into the ground. One of her fundraisers told me in the middle of the night that a large sum of money to be clinched tomorrow will now be lost.

You stop running when the money runs out and the money will now run out. There is no argument to make to the super-delegates.

Could she run on just to secure the vice presidency, in a more genteel minor key, perhaps, a la Republican runner-up Mike Huckabee?

And talking of Mr Huckabee, I see that he is still doing rather well in the Repubican non-race.

Will that 12% of Huckabee voters go somewhere else in November?


  • 1. At 06:47am on 07 May 2008, Terentilius wrote:

    Hillary's underwhelming victory in Indiana is just as good as a loss. She was supposed to be "in touch with blue-collar voters" etc. etc., but people saw past her gimmicks. Hopefully this is the end of her. As I heard some commentator on TV say, "It's time to make one last trip to the vet with the family pet."

    Complain about this comment

  • 2. At 07:15am on 07 May 2008, Fredcringe wrote:

    So, it looks like Obama v McCain in November. In which case, stand up President McCain, son of Bush. Looks like the mixture as before. Not that it will matter to the UK, so long as His Britishness Brown, or his successor, keeps his distance, and does not, like Tony Blair before him, hang on to the coat tails of Mr. President.

    Complain about this comment

  • 3. At 07:28am on 07 May 2008, RobertNeff wrote:

    It now appears that the 'Voter Disenfranchisement' in Florida and Michigan was a conspiracy by Republican legislatures and Democratic voters should not be punished- According to Clinton's camp anyway, Senator Clinton would NEVER support the disenfranchisement of voters.

    They argue: the no count didn't really not count so the count must be counted- yet supported a recount which would suggest the first count did not count, unless there was no recount then the first count should count.

    The Clinton's have no choice but to beat this into the ground, what other options do they really have?


    The Democrats should follow the Republicans on this one. Reduce the weight of the rouge States delegates by 50%

    (and oh yeah, give Obama the "Not for Hillary" vote in Michigan)

    I have not fiddled faddled with the math to see just how much this solution would help one or the other, but I just cant listen to the Clinton camp try and weasel and squirm and rewrite history - I didn't imagine the threats and warnings that the early primaries in Florida and Michigan would not count did I? Senator Clinton Didn't agree to that did she? I just can't listen to their arguments anymore.


    Complain about this comment

  • 4. At 07:32am on 07 May 2008, polaconyc wrote:

    Aw, I liked the earlier version better with a 'surprise comeback in South Dakota' and an 'Oregon shocker' or some such. Was about to share on f-book when noticed the edit... It was better, more emotional, funnier.

    Complain about this comment

  • 5. At 07:55am on 07 May 2008, RadRevd wrote:

    Monarchy...democracy....monarchy...democracy....the choice becomes clearer as this election cycle continues. One candidate clearly calling us into the 21st century, another harkening back to the last century. His majesty Bill not being able to let go of the power he can re-establish through his wife who he spurned during his reign. Her majesty unwilling to relinquish the quest for power she sought then and seeks now. And a true citizen leader, coming forth and calling these colonists to be the democratic citizens we once were and can be again.

    This election is about war. But not just the one being lost in Iraq. It is about reclaiming what has been lost during the reign of Bush I, Clinton I and Bush II. Our first revolution was fought against our ancestors and loved ones across the shores of the Atlantic; this revolution is being fought against our ancestors and loved ones (within and outside our political parties) across the shores of the Potomac, tonight along the shores of our Great Lakes and coming up, the shores of the Pacific (primary in Oregon). Will the American people have the courage to back a called leader of change? Or will they revert to the safety of their majesty's ways?

    Complain about this comment

  • 6. At 08:27am on 07 May 2008, OnlyHereForTheFood wrote:

    Do we dare to dream that both the Bush and Clinton dynasties are coming to an end in 2008?

    Complain about this comment

  • 7. At 08:49am on 07 May 2008, rupertornelius wrote:

    But for the poison toad of US politics urging his minions to vote for Hillary, Obama would have won both states yesterday- as indeed he would have won Texas on March 4. The primary season has been made a mockery of by Rush Limbaugh. Somebody should call him to account.

    Complain about this comment

  • 8. At 08:59am on 07 May 2008, ynda20 wrote:

    Obama just delivered (another) terrific speech. If the US can get over their racial prejudices - and that is a big "if" - then we may just get some decent leadership from the US. And don't say this doesn't matter to the UK - it does! War, economy plus a whole raft of cultural and world issues are shared between US and Europe and US and UK in particular.

    While Bush inherited a good economy and "the war on terror" - don't even get me started on that: nothing on the war on terror makes sense, Obama inherits a collapsing economy, a real war and 8 years of inaction on environmental matters. Hmm, I know what I would be doing...

    Complain about this comment

  • 9. At 09:11am on 07 May 2008, Board Stupid wrote:

    Watch out for a big consolation prize for Clinton - Senate Majority Leader when Reid resigns.

    Complain about this comment

  • 10. At 09:11am on 07 May 2008, DrCahil wrote:

    A big night for all true Democrats - all those who put in a lot of hard work to seal the deal for Obama! All I can say is THANK YOU!

    The Clinton camp are now talking of using the nuclear option on May 31st. It is a real shame when a politician is so deluded as to believe that she is bigger than the Party, and that the Party will change the rules to suit her during injury time!

    Florida and Michigan will be seated at the convention, but not on Clinton's terms. Further, a candidate only needs 2025 delegates to clinch the nomination, and not the new unilateral Clinton figure of 2208! In fact, it would take a whole article to list the number of times the Clinton camp have tried to move the goalposts during this race. Keith Olbermann eloquently said it all as reported at
    It is now time for the curtain call. This Clinton circus must now end - or be ended.

    News is going round now that Al Gore has declared that he is now ready to make an endorsement. Obviously there are no prizes for guessing who this will be... as sensisble figures in the Party are now calling for unity.

    Complain about this comment

  • 11. At 09:16am on 07 May 2008, pegasus63 wrote:

    Incredibly, multi-millionaire Hillary Clinton managed to depict Barak Obama as an elitist....Obama who was raised by a single mother on foodstamps and who needed to pay back his student loan. Clinton, presenting herself as the champion of blue collar workers and minorities, also managed to play the race card whilst Obama never so much as hinted to the age old misogynic prejudices (irrationality, hysteria etc). If class plays any role at all in this contest, then Obama's natural class, his intelligence, merit and personality, which make him a good candidate for the presidency; Clinton's single minded fanaticism and obduracy on the other hand does not bode well for the world peace should she make it to the White House.

    Complain about this comment

  • 12. At 09:30am on 07 May 2008, chivalrousSamuel wrote:

    Here's a vaguely interesting piece that discusses Hillary's potential motives for dragging out the race this long. It's rather long-winded, starting off with a critique of the caucus system and moving on to Clinton v. Obama by way of Spike Lee and Public Enemy, but I recommend it. It's a good read. Vern rocks.

    Complain about this comment

  • 13. At 09:31am on 07 May 2008, Candace9839 wrote:

    Obama is within 200 delegates of the nomination. Time for the superdelegates to act and put Clinton out of her misery. She is wasting valuable time for the party.

    Complain about this comment

  • 14. At 09:59am on 07 May 2008, Chad Secksington wrote:

    Lets face it, while the democrat polls say it's over for Clinton, most of the national polls say that Obama will get trounced by McCain in any case.

    So the democrats have a choice between a candidate they don't want (Clinton) and a candidate the country apparently doesn't want (Obama).

    Are they about to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory again?

    Obama's "change" and "hope" schtick is laughable, he may be black but he's no Jesse Jackson, Obama's politics are exactly the same as Clinton's and McCain's when you get down to brass tacks.

    I'm not saying that the Democrats should override the wishes of the people, just come up with better candidates.

    If they can't beat the Republicans now, you have to wonder just what it would take.

    Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

    Complain about this comment

  • 15. At 10:17am on 07 May 2008, Ed Iglehart wrote:


    Some folk are already asking what happens if Obama loses to McCain. Will we support Clinton in 2012?

    In fact, if she's not already, I reckon by 2012 HRC will be a truly spent force. Her best option is to try and get re-elected to the Senate, where (who knows?) she might even become Majority Leader, though I suspect any such role in 'higher office' will depend upon how gracefully she accepts the present realities and swings to full-hearted support for Obama's campaign to become President next January.

    Without such a positive demonstration of an ability to put Party before personal ego, I reckon she and Bill had better settle into a comfortable retirement, though with circumstances slightly reduced by having to pay off her campaign's reputedly considerable deficit.

    In short, I don't reckon I'll have to decide whether to support HRC in 2012.

    Salaam, etc.

    Complain about this comment

  • 16. At 10:19am on 07 May 2008, Young-Mr-Grace wrote:

    The Huckabee result is interesting. 12% of voters turning out for a candidate no longer campaigning!
    I'm not convinced that Mike wants the VP slot (although he probably wouldn't turn it down if offered). Hucakbee is building a network to support Republican candidates across the US - see I think this is an attempt to build a national grassroots base for a future Presidential bid. This is a good strategy especially if the Democrats win in Nov. However the experience of being on the ticket (even a losing one) would stand him in good stead also.
    The real Q would be - does McCain want Huckabee to be his running mate? The two men seem to get along on a personal level. Mike comes across well in debate and on television and has been imaginative in his advertising (chuckhuckfacts - inspired. Just Google huckabee norris to see the you tube clip). This would boost the Republican ticket as McCain is not inspirational as a speaker (that most irritating habit of punctuating every second sentence with "my friends" and the cringing "disco granddad" double thumbs up routine). Mike would also plug a gap McCain has with the social conservatives but that could make the ticket less attractive to independents who could be tempted by Obama. Intuition suggests that faced with a direct choice of McCain vs. Obama social conservatives will not vote for Obama but to go with intuition alone would be a gamble and so I'm sure that there is a lot of republican polling going on to determine if the social conservatives will vote McCain or stay at home and if the latter will they do so in large enough numbers to cost McCain states. If McCain feels that any defection my social conservatives will not have a significant effect on the outcome then I think he may go for some one more likely to sway independents from Obama (perhaps the Governor of Louisiana. Bobby Jindal is young and an Indian-American (i.e. his parents came from India as opposed to his being of Native American descent) and so he can give McCain youth and an ethnic minority voice.

    You're all doing very well !!

    Complain about this comment

  • 17. At 10:44am on 07 May 2008, Reuben33g wrote:

    Hillary is getting rather desperate, isn't she?
    Now that it looks like Obama has this almost all sewn up, to what lengths will she go to get back in the white house?

    Mike Huckabee compares better to John Edwards than he does to Hillary Clinton; like the democratic quiter, he a distant third in the primaries, and didn't really have a chance of winning.

    Hillary isn't the vice-presidential type, at least not in the traditional sense.
    It would be really scary if she were the one pulling the strings from behind the scenes like Dick Cheney (AKA: Darth Vader).

    Fortunately Obama is strong and smart enough not to let that happen.

    Complain about this comment

  • 18. At 11:18am on 07 May 2008, hizento wrote:

    When you have Tom Hanks on your team how can you lose?
    Barack must never allow Hillary to run as Vice President because she is so devisive and spitefully vindictive she risk ruining his chance and bringing America down.

    Complain about this comment

  • 19. At 11:31am on 07 May 2008, uselectionaddict wrote:

    It's time for Nancy Pelosi, Al Gore and the prevaricator John Edwards to announe there endorsement of Obama. The trickle of superdelegates would become a flood, finally putting The Clinton's (and us) out of their misery.
    With such a narrow defeat in Indiana I think it's fair to say that Obama is starting to put his 'turbulent priest' behind him.

    Complain about this comment

  • 20. At 11:33am on 07 May 2008, Ed Iglehart wrote:

    Chad (14),

    "So the democrats have a choice between a candidate they don't want (Clinton) and a candidate the country apparently doesn't want (Obama)."

    I don't know which polls you're looking at, but Real Clear Politics averages show a close raceb, but with Obama in the lead over McCain.

    The political betting has had Obama favoured over McCain for months, at the worst around 6 to 5 recently, but mostly at 3 to 2, and I reckon that, now it's one to one, the odds on Obama can only get better. Put your money where your mouth is, if you dare. Presently it's 3 to 2 for a Democratic victory, and 52.9 to 38.2 for Obama against McCain.

    There's still time to place your bets.....


    Complain about this comment

  • 21. At 12:08pm on 07 May 2008, Ed Iglehart wrote:

    I still reckon Jim Webb would be the best choice for Obama's Vice Presidential running-mate. He has served as Navy Secretary to Reagan, served in Viet Nam, and gave crackling reply to Bush's 2007 State of the Union Address.

    Webb would put Virginia in play, and perhaps several other neighbouring states the Republicans would hate to lose.

    Anyway, time will tell.


    Complain about this comment

  • 22. At 12:21pm on 07 May 2008, knowles2 wrote:

    What I am wondering is why the super delegates is letting this go on, they could end it today if they wanted, Obama in just 200 vote of winning. I am guesting it's the publicity, that given everyone is talking about Hilary and Obama in the news and ignoring the Republican candidate.

    I think this will not go on anywhere near August, it will end on 4th of june where we will see all of the remaining super delegates declare for Obama and end the contest. No matter what the Clinton wants.
    I reckon most super delegates made their minds a lot time ago and just letting the race on on so to freeze the republicans out of the head lines and to let Obama continue his energizing of the young voters to for the democratic candidate.

    Complain about this comment

  • 23. At 1:04pm on 07 May 2008, Mike wrote:

    "Lets face it, while the democrat polls say it's over for Clinton, most of the national polls say that Obama will get trounced by McCain in any case."

    An interesting analysis. Care to share some of this polling data? Any I've seen has it pretty close. The state by state polling reflects this. Recent Quinnipiac polls have Obama and McCain neck and neck in Florada and Ohio, Obama comfotbly ahead in Pensylvania, ahead in North Carolina, Colorado, Nevada and competitive in South Carolina.

    And lets not foget that there currently exists a bitterness among some deomcrats who support Clinton. When its down to a straight Democrat v Republican fight, they'll come back.

    If you're going to make claims, at least back it up.

    Complain about this comment

  • 24. At 1:14pm on 07 May 2008, DougTexan wrote:

    Looks like any way we vote we loose

    Complain about this comment

  • 25. At 1:17pm on 07 May 2008, ronaine wrote:

    ChivalrousSamuel (12) - thanks for that link. A truly hilarious piece of writing, with some hard truths, especially in the final paragraph or two. Heartening to see that there's some hope yet.

    One of the best reads of this campaign so far.

    Complain about this comment

  • 26. At 1:56pm on 07 May 2008, Biggus wrote:

    Since it seems unlikely that America will vote for either a black President, or a Female one, who cares which candidate wins the democrat race ? Neither could beat McCain in an arm wrestle, let alone a Presidential race.

    What worries me is that leaves us with a man who makes Bush look like a nun. McCain will do more to damage the already strained relations between America and the Middle East than any of his predecessors, and that can only be very bad for long term stability.

    Complain about this comment

  • 27. At 2:57pm on 07 May 2008, Joann53 wrote:

    I would be thrilled if the Clintons went away. However, given Hillary's latest costume of being Rocky, she'll continue to pretend to be the champion of blue collar workers and 'fight on'. This is just what America doesn't need, i.e. a keen for a fight president vs. a diplomat.

    Should the Democrats be mad enough to run her as vice-president to Obama, they lose my vote. I want a Clinton-free White House.

    Complain about this comment

  • 28. At 3:00pm on 07 May 2008, youngDevilsAdvocate wrote:

    Justin, I don't know if you had heard anything, but I have just seen a couple of blogs on NYT and another blogging site to saying that Senator John Edwards was going to make an announcement this evening about who he will be backing.
    Now I don't know how accurate this information is but if he is then why would he make it now, unless he knew that Senator Clinton didn't have a chance of winning and wanted the race to end???

    Complain about this comment

  • 29. At 3:10pm on 07 May 2008, jem_netley wrote:

    Two points
    1) When did the USA last have a President the rest of the world could admire and respect?

    Given that many Americans go no further than their state boundary and have such a blinkered view of the rest of the world are any of these candidates up to much?

    2) You may be a big country spread over many time zones but why prolong the agony with an election process that has the gestation period of an elephant and only serves as a back scratching exercise for potential donors and costs alot of money.

    How many voters would vote the way they did given what they know now about the candidates? If Russians can all vote on one day so can the USA!

    Complain about this comment

  • 30. At 3:13pm on 07 May 2008, babakast wrote:

    Thank you America for manufacturing dynastic democracy, well packed and soon for export if domestic consumption shows distaste...

    Togo Kasoro

    Complain about this comment

  • 31. At 3:17pm on 07 May 2008, FreddyMorris wrote:

    Wil she ever give up, Justin? Or is she going to keep clinging on by her fingernails until someone stamps on them?

    What with her recent discovery of her God-fearin', gun-lovin', standing-on-a-pick-up-truck side, it now looks like our only chance of Annie Oakley not taking this to the super-delegates is if she accidentally blows off her face while trying to shoot some varmints for Bill's dinner with the rifle held the wrong way round.

    Give it up, woman! You're humiliating yourself!

    Complain about this comment

  • 32. At 3:34pm on 07 May 2008, Emmnues wrote:

    'Clinton loans herself $6.4 million' says the headline on one of CNN's election stories. This brings the total published figure of Clinton loans to her campaign to $11 million.

    This is from a working-class non-elitist presidential candidate. Why, oh why, are the DNC bosses allowing this go on? Its sad, its painful to watch, its pathetic...

    Please could someone out there ask Bill and Hillary to let go the dream, before it bankrupts them and negatively shades Bill's legacy as president for ever.

    The media should take a deep breath, and reflect on their role in pandering to 'tribal' divisive politics - blue collar voters, educated voters, African Americans...

    Could the BBC's Matt Frei give us his Washington insider's view on the Clinton's negative republican style, rather than commenting only on Obama's trouble's!

    Lastly to BBC's Jonathan Beale, no! Clinton has not been the better debate perfomer. The Penn debate was a treacherous sham by Stephanopoulous and you know it...

    Complain about this comment

  • 33. At 3:50pm on 07 May 2008, Richard_Berry wrote:

    #12 Vern's article is great, and he hints at the major flaw of Hillary's candidacy... why didn't she run in 2008?

    She was the leading Democrat in the country, the only one with a real chance of beating Bush.

    She made the excuse that she wanted to serve a full Senate term, but that is simply facetious. She would have been fully justified in running.

    But she didn't because she thought her chances were better in 2008. So the country went to ruin while she waited to do what was best for her.

    You have to applaud someone who cares so passionately about issues like healthcare, as she does, but at a critical moment she put herself first. She'd make a good president but she only has herself to blame that someone better came along.

    Complain about this comment

  • 34. At 4:18pm on 07 May 2008, gunsandreligion wrote:

    It's really hard to have any sympathy for
    either candidate when they agree on so
    many issues that the principle one dividing
    them is that of which person should be entrusted
    with the highest office of the land.

    What Hillary really needs is an endorsement
    from John Edwards. Doesn't he have some
    delegates locked up in a basement somewhere?

    Complain about this comment

  • 35. At 4:35pm on 07 May 2008, NoRashDecisions wrote:

    Fredcringe #2: What is with all these foreigners (British in particular) thinking that the Democrats don't have a snowball's chance of winning in November?!!! I sware to God!!! I use to be so, so very excited and interested to hear what foreigners thought of, and had to say about our elections, but now its just become rather depressing!!! What's it matter anyway, right? According to you all the Republicans will inevedably win, right? And so that begs the question from foreigners '"Why are the Democrats even running?" As far as US-UK relations goes, I couldn't agree more with your asperation that your prime minister hopefully doesn't ride the coat tails of the president with respect of supporting illeagle wars (potentionally against their better judgement and will), or not comprimising on issues that they feel strongly about, and instead just following the president's line on them do to pressure, or fear, or what have you!!!! However, if you are looking for either Brown or his successor, or Bush's successor to publicly how disunity, hten I suggest you get writing your local MP pronto!!! Brown has done I think, a very good job in not following too closely many of Bush's lines, but I hate to break it to you, there was as much "solidarity" shown between Bush and Brown last month as there was shown between Bush and Blair. Now I don't know if it was due to serious disagreements or one needing some kind of support from the other in order to get something done in the world, but regardless, they went out of their way to show unity. I personally think one can show unity without in the slightest bit being blindly subservient to another, but if I were president, I would only carey on this '"special relationship" if it mde the UK prime minister accepted and popular amongst their citizens!! The last thing I as president would want to be labled as is a boss or bully to other world leaders!!!!

    ynda20 #8 writes '"If the US can get over their racial prejudices - and that is a big "if" - then we may just get some decent leadership from the US."

    What!! As if the UK doesn't have "racial prejudices" as well?! Now I'm not denying for one second that we have huge, deep, shameful racial prejudices to overcome (largely thanks to people in the south)!!! And to those potential racests I say: "Grow up and get over yourselves!!!", but that's not to say that every other country around the world is predjidous-free!!! To imply that the US has the biggest predjidous problem in the world is, I think, simply untrue, unkind, unfair, and most importantly, it gives a false negative impression of our country to foreigners!!! Perhaps, just perhaps, if the media would just stop harping on about potential racests in our midst, and instead focus on the issues at hand, then may be, just may be, he'd have an easier chance of getting the nomination/white house!!!

    BiggusDogGus #26: That's it!!! Be judgmentle and insulting!!! Paint all Americans (and their chosen presidencial candidates) with a wide brush!!! Predict the future in a negative, sarcastic, and hurtful way!!! No! Don't worry!! Your comments don't offend anyone!!!!

    Complain about this comment

  • 36. At 5:03pm on 07 May 2008, David Cunard wrote:

    "The End: It really is as simple as that." How many times has that sentiment been written on this blog and elsewhere? Unless there is some astonishing endorsement from John Edwards or Al Gore (and Elizabeth Edwards appears to favour Mrs Clinton) it may well go on to Denver. Lest anyone forget, there is still the matter of Michigan and Florida to be settled. I cannot see how, even if they wished, that super-delegates could settle the matter now; there is no formal forum for them other than the Convention - and between now and then, a good fourteen weeks, anything can happen to upset Mr Obama’s applecart and thus their opinions. I wouldn’t bet on "The End" anytime soon.

    Complain about this comment

  • 37. At 5:15pm on 07 May 2008, tsarmasala wrote:

    I think that the democratic race has been sometimes, a bit racy, but I expected as much. Wake-up Americans! This is the 21st century, where colour doesn't matter and computers connects societies. We are all People. What's more important are a person's moral fibre, personality and love for human beings. I think senator Clinton has done a good job in continuing with the campaign, for it has strengthened Barack (or senator Obama) in his quest for the presidency, but now that her JOB is done, I think it's time for her to support him even if she doesn't get the nod for Vice President in their back-room deas. I'ld recommend to TIMES Magazine Barack Obama as a candidate for Person of the Year 2008. Wishing the Clintons and Obamas all the best!!!!

    Complain about this comment

  • 38. At 5:16pm on 07 May 2008, NoRashDecisions wrote:

    jem_netley #29: Yes, and you, I'm willing to bet, are the most open minded, kindest, fairest, completely void of "blinkered viewes" person on earth!!! Right? News flash!! "Many Americans" may not travel outside their state boundries, but that doesn't mean that they haven't the slightest bit a "blinkered view" of the world!!! And even if, say, the majority of Americans are ignorant of the happenings in the rest of the world, does that mean that the person leading the most powerful country (temporrarily!) on earth has to have the same IQ with regard to the rest of the world as well? No! Of course not!! That is unless the nation's citizens want the world to decend into chaos!! We may be dumb as rocks, but we're not nieeve!! I sware!! Your comment is so judgementle and offensive, I can't even believe I went into all that in an attempt to respond to it!!!

    Complain about this comment

  • 39. At 5:18pm on 07 May 2008, ynda20 wrote:

    No 35, NoRashDecisions wrote: "As if the UK doesn't have "racial prejudices" as well?!"

    I'm not saying that the UK doesn't have racial prejudices. It is the US electors that are voting not the Brits: so your comment is immaterial to the choice the US voters have on the course of the world's only super-power.

    Complain about this comment

  • 40. At 5:56pm on 07 May 2008, righteousmistyfog wrote:

    According to reports, Hillary is campaigning in West Virginia today. They shoot horses don't they? I think that maybe the commentator in your link got it right - she's a sociopath!

    Complain about this comment

  • 41. At 6:04pm on 07 May 2008, MMarcelo wrote:


    I think there is substantial evidence that US voters are well on their way to overcome racial prejudice when electing a candidate to office (we won't address racial profiling and the prison system right now). Indiana was a very close primary and while Obama continues to draw mainly from cities and suburbs, no one should forget his win in Iowa.

    There are racial issues in the U.S. - they are slowly being resolved. In a lot of ways the U.S. discriminates more against those who are poor than those who are not white - even in the South. I think Huckabee's support of Obama during the Wright controversy is an example of how far we've come.

    Complain about this comment

  • 42. At 6:45pm on 07 May 2008, MagicKirin wrote:

    Two points
    1) When did the USA last have a President the rest of the world could admire and respect?

    Given that many Americans go no further than their state boundary and have such a blinkered view of the rest of the world are any of these candidates up to much?

    On your first question, I think except for America haters like George Soros and Cindy Sheehan it's not a major issue. Anymore tham Spainiards or Italians consider weather another country liked their canidate in recent election

    As far as the second, where do you get this notion that most of us never leave our state? I'd say with the exception of lanuguage Americans have a more sophisticated and realistic view of the world than most Europeans.

    Complain about this comment

  • 43. At 7:51pm on 07 May 2008, proles wrote:

    Ironic motto on Sully's blog. "To see what is in front of one's nose is a constant struggle" - especially if one is holding one's nose. Which is apparently is what most of the eligible voters were doing again in primaries yesterday. About 1.6 million turned out in Indiana out of a population of almost 4.7 million eligible voters. Indiana eligible voters turned down all the Duopoly Party candidates two to one. Likewise North Carolina: 2.1 million turnout out of an eligible voter population of 6.4 million. Once again, amidst all the hyperbole about so-called "record-shattering" "heavy turnouts" the media faces a constant struggle in seeing what's in front of it's nose. That most eligible citizens are in effect voting against the whole rigged one-Duopoly Party state. Even if you can't see it, you can at least smell it because the whole rotten system stinks. It has alot to do in fact with the obvious point acknowledged herein that, "you stop running when the money runs out". And you start running when the money comes calling. The whole story of the sordid "election" process in a nutshell. You don't stop running when voters stop voting, as the overwhelming majority have been doing for many years now, you stop running when the money runs out. Because that's what you're running for and that's who you're beholden to when the whole nominal election charade sputters to its foregone conclusion. With or without the voters, the whole sham election process will drag on for a few more greedy months and in the end, no matter who loses, Money will win.

    Complain about this comment

  • 44. At 8:01pm on 07 May 2008, DutchNemo wrote:


    'I'd say with the exception of lanuguage Americans have a more sophisticated and realistic view of the world than most Europeans.'

    I doubt it. The only difference between Americans and 'Europeans' is that both view the world from their own, often very simplified, perspective.

    Complain about this comment

  • 45. At 8:12pm on 07 May 2008, DutchNemo wrote:

    Hilliary Clinton is defeated. Their's no way she can win the nomination. She has less: delegates, States and votes than Barack Obama. Big chance she will lose her lead in Superdelegates the next days to. I don't expect her to quit the race because the words 'losing' and 'quiting' are unknown to her. The Superdelegates should put an end to this long and exhausting race which is seriously damaging the chances of the Democrats to defeat John McCain in November.

    Complain about this comment

  • 46. At 9:16pm on 07 May 2008, turningblueandgrey wrote:


    Cindy Sheehan an America-hater???

    A mother who lost her son in combat has, in America, the right of free speech to protest that war.

    Given her sacrifice, I would say she has far more of an emotional right (but prehaps not more of a consitutional right) than the likes of Anne Coulter have to call Mrs. Sheehan names.

    Why do Coulter, Limbaugh, etc., remind me of Orwell's Animal Farm so much more often than the centrist or liberal citizens they despise?

    Complain about this comment

  • 47. At 10:14pm on 07 May 2008, MagicKirin wrote:

    Cindy Sheehan an America-hater???

    A mother who lost her son in combat has, in America, the right of free speech to protest that war.

    Yes most of her family is against her. She supports terrorism against the U.S and Israel.

    She has betrayed her son's memory

    She is a disgrace to her family and our country

    Complain about this comment

  • 48. At 04:36am on 08 May 2008, davpersona wrote:

    It would appear that these commentators are either copying the U.S. commentators or else they have not done their homework as so many U.S. commentators have not done.
    This current election is about delegates to the party convention,nothing else. Please just remember that .Delegates!
    Todays cnn delegate sheet shows that Mr. Obama has 1836 delegates to his credit and Ms. Clinton has 1681 out of a total delegate count of 3517 delegates. Those counts show us that there is a difference of 155 delegates in Mr. Obamas favor. Q. Just what is this difference with reference to this campaign? If we divide the difference,155, by the total,3517, we find that Mr.Obama has a four,(4%),percent lead at present. This is as it has been for weeks now and most probably what it will be at convention time.
    Four percent is just 40 delegates out of 1000 delegates. By what stretch of the imagination can someone,anyone, call this a mandate? Therefore this current election must go to the convention contrary to the popular media nonsense where the super delegates will be confronted with an extremely serious selection process. They will have to select the most probable WINNING candidate to run in the general election. The name of the game is to WIN.
    Personally I am not charmed by either of these candidates so I am trying to remain neutral.
    As an aside the census notes that Americans of African descent are 13% of the population . While Americans of Hispanic descent are 16% of the population. From this I believe that we can see that Americans of African descent cannot elect Mr.Obama on their own. They absolutely must have a very large number of the rest of the population in their corner. That will be the dilemma facing the selection process by the super delegates. Another Democratic mistake another Democratic loss in the general election.

    Complain about this comment

  • 49. At 04:46am on 08 May 2008, davpersona wrote:

    It simply means that you and others may not select Mr.Obama as the presumed winner,4% lead,. Nor may you and others declare Mrs. Clinton as the presumed loser.
    This is the partys election and the party will have to make that important selection. That is what the convention is all about. It is also what this election is all about.
    Really, all of this speculation is just so much blarney. If there is a caucus of super delegates at the convention which there should be those super delegates who have chosen to try to hurry the process may very well change their minds when confronted with the realitys.

    Complain about this comment

  • 50. At 04:53am on 08 May 2008, Orville Eastland wrote:

    It's ironic that Clinton, who was hated and loathed by Conservative Republicans owes at least one primary win to Republicans.
    It's even more ironic that Conservative Republicans are willing to abandon their party to support a Democrat who they once fought so strongly against.

    Of course, for those of us who remember how Bill Clinton did a lot the Republicans wanted, and how the Republicans have done a 180 on foreign policy since Bush took office, it isn't a surprise.

    And, for those of you who dislike Cindy Sheehan, I wouldn't be surprised if she winds up defeating Pelosi in the fall...

    Complain about this comment

  • 51. At 11:07am on 08 May 2008, DutchNemo wrote:


    'She is a disgrace to her family and our country'

    As far as I know Cindy Sheehan doesn't support Hamas, Hezbollah, Al-Qaida or the Taliban. She doesn't support terrorist attacks on the USA and Israel either. She has every right to protest against the Iraq War just like everybody else.

    Complain about this comment

  • 52. At 8:38pm on 08 May 2008, dennisjunior1 wrote:


    It looks Barrack Obama and John McCain
    in the Fall....

    Hillary can go back to the United States Senate and represent the Citizens of the State of New York.

    {interest of full disclosure: i am from New York


    Complain about this comment

  • 53. At 04:24am on 09 May 2008, Darrell wrote:

    Hillary should stay in the race for party unity reasons. The current date means she is on the remaining ballots. To drop out and then win one of the States she is strong in is dangerous to the DEM's winning in November.

    I live in Durhan NC, here on Tuesday Obama won 75% of the vot, Hillary 23% and change; we trust he will be our new President. Local poll numbers

    Complain about this comment

View these comments in RSS


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.