BBC Blog Network

User Profile

felixdare

Listed below are comments made by felixdare between Thursday, 17th April 2008 and Thursday, 4th September 2008.

«Newer
Older»

America's answer to Thatcher? 5:11pm on 04 Sep 2008 Sorry, but I'm really struggling to make the "sexist" connection with the attacks on Sarah Palin over the past week. Why exactly is it sexist to point out that her executive experience to date might not be adequate in the context of a role which could require her to take over the world's most powerful job at a heartbeat's notice? And why, by the same token, is it not "racist" for her supporters to question Sen. Obama's qualifications for the presidency for much the same reasons?

I agree it's clearly undesirable for so much attention to be focused so quickly on Sarah Palin's private life but this is no different from the treatment meeted out to every other candidate - witness Obama/Rev Wright, Edwards' affair, the unceasing attacks during Bill Clinton's presidency... the list goes on. Do Sarah Palin's supporters really expect her to get special treatment? Personally I fail to see what could be more patronising or sexist than that.
The weapon of choice 1:32pm on 11 Jul 2008 Justin, after reading successive plugs for the new book I have finally given in and pre-ordered it from Amazon - I look forward to reading it. May I have a sweetie as a reward?

Best regards,

Felix Dare
Keeping the supers sweet 2:08pm on 08 May 2008 The superdelegates were introduced to enable senior Democrats to intervene in the primary contests to stop the party faithful from selecting a populist but ultimately unelectable nominee. Yet, at the risk of stating the obvious, any candidate in any year who won a presidential nomination battle against the popular vote through winning a majority of the superdelegates would always be completely hamstrung by a lack of democratic legitimacy and thus be doomed to fail in the national poll.

It seems, therefore, that giving so much power to unelected party grandees can only have two effects on a presidential nomination campaign; (1) to select a candidate who cannot win; or (2) encourage with false hope a candidate who cannot win to persist in dragging out his or her campaign to the point where its only effect is to damage the eventual nominee.

Either way, the Democrats would be well advised to scrap this arbitrary and unhelpful franchise.
Yes and No 7:34pm on 17 Apr 2008 It seems to me that the pattern throughout the Democratic primaries has been pretty consistently that Obama does better than the pollsters are predicting about a month before the vote (when Hillary has her massive entrenched lead still intact) but worse than predicted immediately before the vote (once the hysteria has set in and expectations become unrealistic).

The trend was set at Iowa/New Hampshire, where Obama was considered a no-hoper until shortly before Christmas but was never going to beat Hillary by the margins predicted later on. All the votes at the major stages since then have followed suit, whether on Super Tuesday or Texas/Ohio. On each occasion it always looks like Hillary is making a "come back" but in reality this is just an illusion brought about by the over-reaction of the pollsters just before each vote.

What this disguises is a continual shifting of the goalposts (apologies to American readers for the "soccer" analogy) by the Clinton campaign. Each time we are told weeks beforehand that she is "certain" to win by a huge margin and "has to" do so to stand "any chance" of making up the ground she needs to win. The problem is, of course, that this cannot continue indefinitely. She will in all probability limp home to a single-digit victory in Pennsylvania, but as with Texas/Ohio will no doubt try to sell this as a "triumph" and an excuse to try and steal the nomination at the Convention.

«Newer
Older»

^ Back to top

BBC MMVI

The BBC is not responsible for the content of external internet sites

BBC.co.uk

BBC Blog Network

Find and talk to the BBC's bloggers.

User Profile

felixdare