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

Unknown territory

Justin Webb | 07:12 UK time, Wednesday, 5 March 2008

obamas_ap203b.jpgThis election enters the territory now where people look back on it for their whole lives. Bathed in the warm Texas breeze, I stood in the line for a caucus here in San Antonio and chatted to people who simply cannot remember anything like it. In fact, several had no idea about the caucus system - it had never occurred to them to take part before. Now they are in a queue of hundreds of people - some carrying small children, some elderly people sitting on chairs they had brought with them.

It was not always good humoured, I have to say - there was real tension over who had the right to get it started and open the door and do the counting etc - but it was still a rather wonderful sight.

The Obama rally was less wonderful - largely because nobody knew what was going on. It was held outdoors in the rather lovely Spanish-style centre of San Antonio - you could have been in old Malaga or Cordoba - but we waited and waited for the candidate to appear and it got colder and colder and there was less and less for the crowd to cheer. He won Vermont! Not a high spot... (sorry Vermont).

Comments   Post your comment

  • 1.
  • At 07:53 AM on 05 Mar 2008,
  • Mike Soar wrote:

It is a very sad day when the old guard, sleeze and fear turn round a message of hope. Hilary Clinton and her team are only intetested in their agenda and thier power. If she gets the nominatrion the backlash will be defeat for the Democrats and very bad news for the world.

  • 2.
  • At 08:44 AM on 05 Mar 2008,
  • raffy wrote:

Justin I think you are so sad. Sorry but really what do you expect? Obama supporters to cheer that he loss Texas? They aren't dumb people you know

  • 3.
  • At 09:17 AM on 05 Mar 2008,
  • john wrote:

So it all comes down to Obama winning the small caucuses, which are led and attended by true 'believers', and Clinton winning the large, anonymous primaries which are attended by millions (California, New York etc.). And Obama is the better candidate because he is new and 'spiritual', whereas Clinton is well known and 'old school', supported by old folks, women, hispanics and lower income groups, who are regarded as second rate citizens who should shut up and leave it all to shiny Barack and the well-off? How strange. Maybe Obama tries to get his bid in the wrong party. Maybe Obama's profile better fits a European style Green party, which are also supported by the wealthy, the young and also have candidates from minority groups. And I heard barack say some things that were not very nice at all, not very 'unifying'. I don't know, I don't like him claiming the moral high ground.

  • 4.
  • At 10:24 AM on 05 Mar 2008,
  • Laurence Wegner wrote:

In my view this is could be a a key night in this contest. Now Clinton has won the big states of Ohio and Texas, she has won the big states that she needed to win. i think Barack is the massive underdog now. She has got a better connections in Pennsylvania and will attract more super delgates .

  • 5.
  • At 10:31 AM on 05 Mar 2008,
  • Hank wrote:

It is a shame that, in the U.S.A., the politics of destruction still beats the politics of honesty and hope. If Obama continues to fight a different battle, he will likely loose.

  • 6.
  • At 11:27 AM on 05 Mar 2008,
  • Paul wrote:

Good to hear the competition is not over; will be hard for the Democratic Convention to reach a decision who of these two men is the best candidate to represent the Democratic Party for the November elections.

  • 7.
  • At 11:27 AM on 05 Mar 2008,
  • David Smith wrote:

Hi Justin,

A question: What about the Florida delegates? HRC won Florida and there are nearly 200 hundred delegates available I think - but the democratic party has stripped them of their status... If it stays as close as it is now, when/how/what if those ineligible votes come into play?

  • 8.
  • At 11:36 AM on 05 Mar 2008,
  • Justin wrote:

Whoa! Hang on a second. Considering Barack Obama was originally twenty points behind in Ohio and Texas he actually performed quite well last night.

He managed to eat into Hillary Clinton's lead despite the fact that Texans allowed themselves to be influenced by a negative propganada ad about some hypothetical telephone call.

Barack Obama still leadd in pledged delegates and in the popular vote.

Hillary Clinton still has an uphill struggle if she is to succeed in telling Barack Obama "um, actually... no you can't."

  • 9.
  • At 11:36 AM on 05 Mar 2008,
  • James H. McCann wrote:

I have been a Democratic Party activist and ---yes, a LIBERAL (which is now a four-letter word in the U.S.)--- all my life. I live in an intensely political state (Massachusetts: which is, unfortunately, politically dysfunctional from its having become virtually a one-party state: the Democrats have dominated elected offices here forever and the result is that the place is driven by the politics of personality) so I find it WONDERFUL to read of people being turned on for the first time and getting involved for the first time and learning how this peculiar system of ours really works. (Wasn't it Churchill who said that the democracy's the worst possible form of government--- except for the alternatives?) And even though personally I am a "yellow dog Democrat" (meaning, I'll vote for a yellow dog before I'll vote for a Republican) I think this year, thank God, ALL the candidates for President are OK. More or less. (I do think it is a shame that the only good news coverage available here is the BBC).

  • 10.
  • At 11:40 AM on 05 Mar 2008,
  • David Smith wrote:

Hi Justin,

What about the ineligible florida delegates? If it stays this tight, then at some point surely, someone will start to ask about how those votes are to be dealt with. HRC won in Florida with 50% of the vote... Doesn't that give her some 90 odd delegates - if they are eligible?

  • 11.
  • At 11:53 AM on 05 Mar 2008,
  • Ganpat Ram wrote:

Yes, the real losers are the conformist and cowardly media people who just wanted the ordinary voters with doubts about their Obama-god to shut up and go away.

One in the eye for them !!

Well done, Hillary, well done !!

Give em hell, Hillary !!

  • 12.
  • At 11:55 AM on 05 Mar 2008,
  • Joseph Clift wrote:

The spin on this reminds me very much of Super Tuesday and the sparkle of the Californian win for Clinton, seen as a comeback after some ridiculously poor polling by John Zogby and a few others.

Now, more than ever, it's the delegate count that is crucial. Vermont and Rhode Island cancel each other out. It looks likely that the delegate margin of victory for Clinton in Ohio will be about 5 or so out of the 144. The Texas primary has a lead for Clinton of about 4 with 16 precincts to report. The caucus will probably see this all but evaporated, possibly even overturned.

The result tonight then, rather than being a win for either, has left Obama's lead virtually unchanged, but with less states available for Clinton to catch up. What will be really interesting now is to see whether the Superdelegates decide enough is enough. With McCain now confirmed as the Republican nominee, serious questions have to be asked about whether this can be allowed to continue.

  • 13.
  • At 11:58 AM on 05 Mar 2008,
  • Richard O'Reilly wrote:

I was trying to look up this thing about delegates and all and I came across something interesting and strange. Just go to http://www.newsweek.com/id/118240

  • 14.
  • At 12:05 PM on 05 Mar 2008,
  • Edward S wrote:

Barack Obama may have been late in arriving at the San Antonio rally. But when he did appear, he thanked Texas in his speech, while noting that the counting had not been completed.

By contrast, I can’t recall Hillary Clinton saluting Texas or to Vermont while speaking to her voters in Ohio. Only to Ohio and Rhode Island where she had won.

This reminded me of other speeches she has made on primary nights – no references to the states in which she loses, not even thanks to those who have voted or worked for her in those states or to their inhabitants for their hospitality and services.

I may be too European in finding this an uncharacteristic lack of grace and style on her part. To spontaneously thank people in states in which she loses would also show that she has not turned her back on them, and expects to return as the Democratic presidential candidate. Self-confident people can afford to show goodwill.

  • 15.
  • At 12:19 PM on 05 Mar 2008,
  • kb wrote:

Her win is good for the race. Hope the best person wins.

  • 16.
  • At 12:32 PM on 05 Mar 2008,
  • Tommy wrote:

It is sad that all this hype is all about who will stand as a candidate. The real question will be in November when they decide who will run the country.

  • 17.
  • At 12:34 PM on 05 Mar 2008,
  • greg white wrote:

I find it strange that in all the media scrumm surrounding this not one mainstream media outlet (bbe included as far as i can see) has pointed out that the 3 remaining candidates, Barack, Clinton and McCain are all memebers of the CFR (council on foreign relations). Unfortunately people aren't aware of this body and what it actually is and who are members of it.
Please BBC can you do an investigative report on the CFR and why all 3 front runners are members of this non-goverment funded think tank that holds so much sway, and not just the CFRs view of what the CFR is. Thanks.

I like Barak Obama and love to hear him speak! Boy oh boy, he is such an inpirational role model!

However, to me now, he is just that, so far.

Whether he can deliver as The President, is an unknown!

Sentimentally, I would love him to have a chance to have a go, but due to the disaster of the last eight years of the Republican, I don't think we want to gamble another four years! Thus, I am going for a safer route - voting for Hilary Clinton!

  • 19.
  • At 12:41 PM on 05 Mar 2008,
  • Rob wrote:

Re Paul 11:27

I know Margaret Thatcher was supposed to have "the balls" in the Conservative Party back in the 80s but I had not heard similar comments re Hilary Clinton.

  • 20.
  • At 12:48 PM on 05 Mar 2008,
  • Emmanuel Nuesiri wrote:

Its almost becoming a contest between the staus quo, the old brigade represented by Hillary, versus the avant-garde, the younger generation inspired by Obama.

The old (Hillary and McCain) have experience and can be nasty, the young have drive and energy. Obama should remind America that its time the next generation took over.

This new century needs fresh inspiration to catalyse solutions to the challenges we face. A President Obama will inspire not only America but billions around the world.

The other candidates create anxiety. The Democratic nomination could now go either way. Voters in primaries to come will have to decide the American future they want.

  • 21.
  • At 01:02 PM on 05 Mar 2008,
  • Doug MacHutta wrote:

As a Texas Republican I fear we have no way out of the 'Bush-Clinton' dy'nasty' that is bent on socializing the Uniter States. I find no hope for Obama in stopping the 'machine'.

The worst of the show was the Hillary camp ready to sue when the numbers here in Texas were not in her favor. Even this morning the Clintons are complaining of caucus irregularities.

The best of the show is still a left leaning republican with a socialist agenda. Now the hope of conservitives lies in the un-elected (primary) Vice President. Doug

  • 22.
  • At 01:03 PM on 05 Mar 2008,
  • Taylor wrote:

I'm not sure why the English seem to blindly support Hillary. She seems really disingenuous to me, and my opinion of Bill has gone down markedly in the past few months. Obama's work has been truly inspirational up to this point. Hillary's touted experience consists mainly of her talking about how she has experience. I like the idea of the Clintons putting down Obama's experience when Bill was just the Governor of Arkansas when he won.

  • 23.
  • At 01:29 PM on 05 Mar 2008,
  • Alex R wrote:

What a shame that a few posters on here are so petty. Hillary won those states because her message was the right one for their voters. Anyway... If you look at the actual content of Obama's rhetoric, he is actually very negative. I think Hillary is a great candidate for President. If Hillary gets the nomination, I think we will have the Clinton-Obama dream ticket... So America gets hope, experience etc all in one.

  • 24.
  • At 01:32 PM on 05 Mar 2008,
  • Di wrote:

Bad luck Bwark Obama...
The Come Back Queen with be the next PRESIDENT!"As goes OHIO..so goes the Nation" GO HILLARY!

  • 25.
  • At 01:54 PM on 05 Mar 2008,
  • Michele wrote:

The Democrats should be doing a cakewalk to the White House. Instead they've started mudslinging, tearing each other down, and handing the presidency over to McCain.

Justin, is the EU considering taking in American political refugees come November?

  • 26.
  • At 02:24 PM on 05 Mar 2008,
  • Mary wrote:

Well this is just great! Now this will most-likely go on to the convention, with the Republicans getting stronger all the while and the Europeans laughing and gawking at our long drawn-out (according to them) system where only the richest of the rich are permited to run, and can only be chosen from an extremely narrow political spectrom, even more with every day that passes. We may as well just hand it to the Republicans in November and the world comunity better start looking for other international partners to work with to solve the world's problems. Sorry world-I truely am.

  • 27.
  • At 02:37 PM on 05 Mar 2008,
  • Nemo the Fish wrote:

This contest is far from over. Hillary Clinton did win Texas and Ohio but Obama still has more delegates and a lot of chances left te beat Clinton.

  • 28.
  • At 02:43 PM on 05 Mar 2008,
  • Nick wrote:

This is going to get ugly. The longer the race continues - and there no longer seems to be any likely forseeable dropout points - the more each side's supporters will have invested in their respective candidate. I can't imagine that either groups is going to be all that willing to bandie together behind a figure they have been so virulently attacking for so long.

Equally, although I don't think the Dems have anything like as divided a party as the GOP, McCain is going to use the time he has to spin the idea that they're a big ol' fragmented mess. It'll get coverage and maybe gain traction in voters' minds.

Therefore, the longer this race goes on the more likely and/or necessary the idea of a joint ticket becomes. Neither Hillary or Obama may want to take it but for the sake of a Democrat victory in November, they may have to.

  • 29.
  • At 02:52 PM on 05 Mar 2008,
  • Mary Clarke wrote:

I think the politics of FEAR caused the Clinton revival - particularly the "3 a.m. call" she pushed over with dramatic effect. The US will never forget 9/11 and when they reach the ballot box, security is the item which seals the voters' cross. American has now proved it is not ready for CHANGE - in fact we may end up with two war-acceptance candidates in the push for the White House (plus both of them don't accept dialogue with opponents). Sad day for Obama and all of us who wish to see a change in US politics. I fear that Americans still haven't learnt from past mistakes, and for that, we in Europe and the world suffer in the end.

  • 30.
  • At 02:53 PM on 05 Mar 2008,
  • JV wrote:

Hillary Clinton likes to say it might take another Clinton to clean up after a Bush; have people forgotten this campaign is as much about the Clinton legacy? The Clintons behave like they still have something to prove and that all in their path must yield to them. Hillary has been dismissive of Obama's supporters, as if we have no clue how the world works and how the American presidency works. We do know, and we do know that Bill Clinton did not get foreign policy right for most of the 1990s, that the Clintons inflamed partisanship even when they decried it, that Hillary-care was an elite, behind-closed-doors operation doomed from its inception, and that NAFTA has come back to haunt them. Clinton, claiming she is a fighter, is saying "Trust me, I know what I'm doing," and when her comeback rallies are done, she is hoping this electorate gives in to her. At a very deep level I do not trust Hillary Clinton.

  • 31.
  • At 03:01 PM on 05 Mar 2008,
  • Linda wrote:

When all is said and done, Hillary will be the Democratic candidate. Pretty much everyone sees Hillary / Obama as the Democratic dream team, and I truly believe this will happen and after 7 years of George Bush, who is our worst President, and to have a President like Hillary will be like going from night in to a new day for America.

  • 32.
  • At 03:10 PM on 05 Mar 2008,
  • DC wrote:

What Europeans may not realize:

Obama leads in the number of states won, with a much larger number of DELEGATES which is truly the most important factor here (as even stated earlier by the Clinton campaign), he leads in donations by an overwhelming amount along with the number of people at the grassroots level donating and he leads in the popular vote. His constituents also lead in diversity and education and he leads among republicans/Independents willing to cross over. He leads in all major cities including NYC, San Fran, LA, New Orleans, Chicago, Dallas, Austin, Houston, Columbus, Cincinatti, Cleveland, our capital D.C., Madison, Milwakee, Seattle, Baltimore and Boston. He has won the most progressive state, Vermont to the most conservative state, Idaho. He has run a positive campaign and has still endured the Clinton attack machine as he is STILL far far ahead. Most importantly, he leads in the national poles against Mccain. Why? Because Obama leads in sound judgement. Hillary leads in splitting the dem party that will hand over a victory to Mccain.

Hillary cannot win without the Dems like Howard Dean changing the rules and letting her get nasty at the convention. For now she is a Huckabee.

  • 33.
  • At 03:16 PM on 05 Mar 2008,
  • JimW wrote:

It's interesting to read this from a UK perspective. Clinton's win is not being presented in quite the same way here in the US.

She made an impressive comeback, but the battle continues. It is far from over. These posts seem to suggest that Obama has now lost. That is not the case. It is a virtual tie at this point.

  • 34.
  • At 03:22 PM on 05 Mar 2008,
  • michael wrote:

There may be advantages to the contest goign to the wire. it will keep attention focused on the Democrats and deny McCain what Mrs Thatcher called the 'oxygen of publicity'. The downside could be if they keep sniping at one another. The hope has to be that Clinton has learned her lesson and will focus on the calmer more measured strategy she deployed in the days before Texas/Ohio, and for the love of god don't call in the lawyers over the Florida delegates!

  • 35.
  • At 03:29 PM on 05 Mar 2008,
  • Devlin wrote:

I think that for once we should be happy that it is going like a knife edge in the primaries with the democrats. How often do (any) voters in the late primaries get a real choice between 2 or more candidates where their vote actually matters? Not often from what i remember.

but unfortunately, I think that the real winner of this close nomination election are not the voters but the republicans who can show that they are "united" and the democrats are "not"....


  • 36.
  • At 03:33 PM on 05 Mar 2008,
  • Peg wrote:

In Michigan our only choice was Hilary Clinton or "Uncommitted." Would you have trusted your vote to "uncommitted" so long ago? I have written the state Democratic party TWICE requesting a caucus to rectify this situation. Despite my requests for SOME kind of response, I've gotten no response response at all.

The state party and leaders are willing to hand the delegates over to Clinton. They are ignoring the voice of the voter, they took my voice away by not giving me options! If they give this state's delegates to Clinton I promise you that I will not be voting Democrat in the November election.

My family and neighbors feel the same way. My motto? Anyone but Hilary Clinton. Her partisan attitude is a huge detriment and Clinton2 is not what I want. It saddens me that she is the first strong woman candidate for president in the U.S. Ladies, we can do better!

Now Democrats listen up: Michigan needs a caucus. Our state has been in a recession for 3+ years. Do you want to depress us more by taking away our voice and vote? Disenfranchise? Yes, you are doing a great job of disenfranchising me as a voter. If you seat the delegates from Michigan for Clinton you do this state a huge disservice. We have had a Clinton supporter for governor for 2 terms with no positive results. The ongoing recession in this state is a crime. Why would we trust Clinton to help this state out? Her husband cared little for helping Michigan.

As for Obama, wouldn't it be great if he lives up to being who we hope he is? I have cheered him on because he is inspiring. Yes, he is a skilled speaker. The true appeal is more in that he seems to be a LEADER. He does not get ruffled easily. He is patient and works well with legislators on both sides of the aisle. He does not appear partisan like his opponent. He is supported by a majority of the electorate (thus far he still has more delegates despite TX and OH). He has the ability to make Americans feel good about being American (often Democrats fall into the trap of blaming the US for all that is wrong in the world. Sure, the US makes mistakes, but the US is not responsible for all of the ills on this earth!). Obama seems to have the makings of a leader who will draw us together as a nation.

We do want change. We do want leadership. He seems like the one who can provide it. I want to believe. I don't get this from Clinton2, do you?

We see all the talk about the Florida delegates -- I sure would like to have a voice here in Michigan too!

/Sorry for the rant, I simply could not restrain myself any longer on this topic.

  • 37.
  • At 03:34 PM on 05 Mar 2008,
  • Paul Ference wrote:

This may sound like sour grapes, but I feel it's important to mention. Yesterday, Rush Limbaugh (a nationally broadcast conservative talk show host) encouraged listeners to go out to the primaries and vote on the other side of the fence for Hillary for the purpose of dragging out the Democratic primary election.

In both Ohio and Texas, CNN exit polls showed that 10% of the voters identified themselves as Republicans.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/03/04/exit-polls-in-key-states-1-in-10-democratic-primary-voters-republican/

Also, according to their numbers, Hillary won by 10% in Ohio, and 3% in Texas.

If anyone was wondering why so many people are disgusted with the political system in America, this is a good example.

  • 38.
  • At 03:38 PM on 05 Mar 2008,
  • Les Tarr wrote:

Perhaps someone needs to actually evaluate Clinton Foreign Policy experience, which has to be based on when her busband was meeting with a Head of State she was taking tea with the mans missus.

She has only been in the Senate a few years more than obama.

Perhaps people have forgotten the poor judgement that took Bill Clinton the the brink of impeachment.

Obama is a man who will bring change not more of the old political traditions. McCann is old school, and will perpetuate the Bush legacy.

  • 39.
  • At 03:47 PM on 05 Mar 2008,
  • Mark wrote:

I am an Obama supporter, but I see nothing bad with Hillary winning. In fact she was fighting hard and aggressive and Obama somewhat disappointed me with his weak response to all those attacks. When it comes to general elections, he will be attacked much much more viciously, so maybe he is just a little too much of a “nice guy” to win at the moment….yes it would be great that we can elect the president, based on hope and principles, but let’s be honest this is USA and it is all about dirty politics and power. Maybe Obama needs to be VP for a while before he gets ready to fight dirty, and before America accepts his name and his whole package. I am not happy with this but this is reality of our country. So, Hillary-Obama sounds like a dream ticket for me now.

  • 40.
  • At 03:50 PM on 05 Mar 2008,
  • Nirmal wrote:

Paul wrote:

will be hard for the democratic convention to decide between these 2 "MEN"

Paul, one of the candidates is a WOMAN, surely you can't have missed that piece of news......

  • 41.
  • At 04:00 PM on 05 Mar 2008,
  • Andy Tickner wrote:

The only thing I am surprised about is how the media on both sides of the pond seem to be skipping over the fact that Hillary was always planning to win big in Texas and Ohio.

It's hardly a tale of a woman winning against the odds, a few weeks ago she was going to sweep these primaries and sow up the nomination.

The truth is that she lost a commanding lead in both states and failed to pick up delegates in the numbers she needed to close on Barack.

For the democratic party the position of superdelegates is looking a little hypocritical given that they feel they were 'robbed' in 2000. Should Barack have the pledged delegate lead (and it does look like he will) how can the party superdelegates overturn that decision?

  • 42.
  • At 04:02 PM on 05 Mar 2008,
  • Ben Cameron wrote:

Hi Justin

I have a theory that a long contest between Clinton and Obama may be a good thing for the Democrats, whichever one becomes the nominee, as long as it doesn't get too vicious. Almost nobody is talking about McCain while all of this is going on and there are two great public speakers on the news and in the papers every day talking about their policies, which are virtually identical. After the convention, when McCain finally gets to be heard it may be too late.

Possible?

  • 43.
  • At 04:07 PM on 05 Mar 2008,
  • P Kohler wrote:

Interesting that no one is up in arms about disenfranchising voters in, not again!, Florida as they were in the 2000 election. Of course now it's the Democrats disenfranchising their own voters by denying Clinton the 200 delegates she won in a free and fair primary election there as well in Michigan. So much for the Great Right Wing Consiracy and hanging chads when the Democratics prove themselves to be well schooled in Stalinist election practices already.

  • 44.
  • At 04:13 PM on 05 Mar 2008,
  • hm roche wrote:

HILLARY CLINTON IS CLEARLY THE BEST CANDIDATE; SHE IS FOCUSED AND CAN ARTICULATE IDEAS CLEARLY. SHE ABOVE ALL EXUDES AUTHORITY AND CONFIDENCE, AN ABSOLUTE MUST FOR AN US PRESIDENT.
SHE HAS SHOWN THE WORLD HOW STRONG A WOMAN CAN BE IN THE FACE OF SO MUCH NEGATIVE PUBLICITY AND VICIOUS PERSONAL ATTACKS IN THE MEDIAS,AT HOME AND ABROAD.

  • 45.
  • At 04:20 PM on 05 Mar 2008,
  • Henry wrote:

A caucus system many voters knew nothing about? This and other issues help make the case that Democrats need to reform their nomination procedures. For one thing, Republicans have had way too much influence in the nominating process.

  • 46.
  • At 04:21 PM on 05 Mar 2008,
  • James wrote:

I'm enjoying the blog immensely. You are NOT sad. It's great to hear your thoughts and the way you paint pictures... brilliant stuff. J

  • 47.
  • At 04:49 PM on 05 Mar 2008,
  • John wrote:

I'm fixated by this democratic contest for the nomination.

I'm a little mystified why the Obama campain hasn't hit back with the fact that at 3am in the morning, when the phone rings, would you be happy with someone who cries in frustration at things not going their way answering the call? What if the phonecall doesn't go her way? Will she throw a tantrum?

  • 48.
  • At 05:06 PM on 05 Mar 2008,
  • Andrew wrote:

No one should underestimate what happened yesterday. Yesterday, John McCain won the Presidency of the United States. Yes, I know you are thinking that I'm just being overly dramatic, a day is a lifetime in politics, but let's just assume that all things remain equal by November.

For Barack Obama, who I support and think will represent a change from the status quo, the problem is that losing Ohio (where according to some exit polls by a margin of 8 to 1 most voters said that race was an issue for them) and Texas raises some uncomfortable questions about race which taking from what happened yesterday IS an issue. This means that come general election time, Obama, if he is the candidate, would have to defend places like Pennsylvania, West Virginia, and even dare I say Massachuetts, and who knows what the Latino Population might do.

For Clinton, the problem is the youth vote and the Black vote. Latinos and white women alone cannot win elections for the Democratic party. One vote that has always been steady and reliable has been the black vote. If the black vote is absent then suddenly states like Maryland, Missouri, and to some extent even Ohio and Pennsylvania will be difficult to win. Regarding the youth vote, the question remains whether they will be as excited to vote for Hillary as they do currently for Barack. Another problem for Hillary lies ironically in one of the factors allegedly responsible for her triumph in Texas and that is the 3am ad. In a general election against Hillary, John McCain just needs to run the same ad and people will shift to his side. Hillary Clinton cannot win the argument, that she has used to effect of late, that age and longetivity in Washington equals experience. To use that argument would simply mean to coronate John McCain, a Vietnam Veteran and Prisoner of War, and a member of Congress for over 20 years.

What is going on in the Democratic party can be seen as either a tragedy or a comedy of errors depending on which side you are on (that includes Republican observers). It appears that race and gender are at war, minority (Latino) and minority (Black) are at war, social class (over &50,000) and social class (under $50,000) are at war. It is as if someone just said let us expose this seemingly happy family for what it truly is. The problem for the democrats is that damage has been done and as Clinton and Obama rip at each other (yes, I would advice Obama to get tough), good old John McCain just keeps watching and waiting and to quote that most eminent of philosophiers Mike Huckabee, when two dogs are fighting let them be and when they are done just walk over them. I hope I will be wrong come November.

Hey, John up in slot 3.

Popular vote count so far.

Obama: 12,946,615
Clinton: 12,363,897

Seems to me that your bias is showing. Not to mention your ignoring the Clinton's campaign spiteful remarks while they were losing. On the flip side Obama openly congratulated his opponent.

  • 50.
  • At 05:18 PM on 05 Mar 2008,
  • Shane wrote:

What a great night, I know trust isn't a word you can use when it comes to politicans, however I really believe that Obama is coming across a little to cool for school. I really don't believe he has the necessary clout or experience to make a good President. Clinton on the other hand has real credentials and more importantly has laid more on the table in terms of her poitical intentions. Ok she made a mistake with Iraq but she wasn't the only one! In my opinion Obama is all style and no substance and it is Clinton who has the charisma and intelligence to change America for the better!

  • 51.
  • At 05:18 PM on 05 Mar 2008,
  • spikeaustin wrote:

Good perspective on our U.S. democracy at work Mr. Webb. Primaries and delegate counts are sometimes confusing. At the end of the day the Texas caucus and final delegate numbers determine last nights REAL winner and results this morning have put Mr. Obama in the winners column for Texas. So Hillary won Ohio and Rhode Island and Barack won Vermont AND Texas. The updated results are available on the Austin American Statesman web page.

  • 52.
  • At 05:24 PM on 05 Mar 2008,
  • Richard wrote:

Its a two step process to win Texas. Clinton only has 4 more delegates after the primary, wait till the Caucus results comes in, Obama will win over all.

  • 53.
  • At 05:25 PM on 05 Mar 2008,
  • Richard B wrote:

Wasn't the entire political punditry saying before Ohio/Texas that Clinton had to win both states by "double digit" margins. She hasn't, yet there is universal acknowledgement that she is now back in the race.

I'm not saying she isn't, because that clearly is the case. What I'm saying is that the pundits have been going into far too much detail looking at delegate counts.

Clintion could have won Ohio by 0.1% and it would have been enough to put her back in the race, because the media build it up as a set-piece event, so the win is all that matters.

  • 54.
  • At 05:36 PM on 05 Mar 2008,
  • Susan wrote:

I do not feel that Ms. Clinton is the right couple for the job. Don't kid yourself, a vote for Hilary is a vote for Bill. I'm sure she's intelligent and genuine, but that's just too weird of a situation having an ex-almost impeached President hanging around in the background. I don't trust it. Obama will probably break our hearts, too, but at least he's easy to listen to. A Clinton-Obama ticket, and wait for 2012? Oooof, I guess so....

  • 55.
  • At 05:36 PM on 05 Mar 2008,
  • Joshua Kewish wrote:

Let's not forget who has won more pledged deligates. True Clinton won the evening (sort of) but not by the kind of margins necessary to truly change the game. Obama still leads by nearly as many deligates as he did the day before and even though Clinton narrowly won the primary portion of Texas, she also narrowly LOST the Caucus portion, meaning that Texas is essentially a tie.

In order for Clinton to overtake Obama in pledged deligates she needs to win every remaining contest at around 70% to his 30%. This is not likely.

Also, we should have a little perspective regarding these results. Clinton had something close to 20 point leads in polls only a few weeks ago and in that time Obama cut that in half in Ohio and eliminated it in Texas.

To be fair, Clinton did better than I expected and earned the right to continue the fight. It is going to be an interesting finish for the Democrats.

  • 56.
  • At 06:00 PM on 05 Mar 2008,
  • Leon Krevel wrote:

I must say, not good news for the Democrats. Next significant primary is on April 22, so we have a month and a half of event-less fighting ahead. And there are several scenarios possible, none of which yield very positive results. Hillary will most likely continue with her Obama attacks, as they seem to have worked, and Obama has two choices: either he sticks to his principles and the principles of a clean campaign or he attacks back. If he doesn't attack, well, he loses. The American voters like their big words and displays of aggressiveness. If he attacks back, he might just sacrifice his moral high ground for a nomination and the end result will be that in October-November, McCain will have plenty of material to use against whoever wins the nomination without having done that much work finding it.

And then there's the whole issue of a month and a half. Chances are, the public will simply gradually lose interest and the Democrats lose momentum, all playing in McCain's hands. To tell the truth, Hillary should step down now, if they are to have an easy victory in November. Then again, I doubt she'll be willing to give up the power she is now coming to taste...

  • 57.
  • At 06:05 PM on 05 Mar 2008,
  • Andrew Mogrelia wrote:

Why is the BBC not reporting the dirty tricks in this election campaign? It's bad enough that the US press reports nothing, but we expect more from the BBC. Investigate the republicans (thousands) who voted as democrats for Clinton in Texas to keep Obama out and then they discovered they could not vote Republican - all encouraged by Rush Limbaugh. This is manipulation of the electoral system . please investigate it.
The BBC gave Bush a free ride in it's recent interview - it's time to get back to decent fair investigative reporting that is expected from the BBC.

  • 58.
  • At 06:33 PM on 05 Mar 2008,
  • Adrian Aguirre wrote:

Justin,

I think that is a good observation. I'm tired of this campaign. I think that the longer it lasts the more disillusioned Americans will be. If Clinton wins the nomination, we will see the turnouts return to normal in November, and if Clinton or McCain are president little will change in government.

  • 59.
  • At 06:36 PM on 05 Mar 2008,
  • Tommy-VA wrote:

Anyone that votes strictly by party even if their own candidate is a yellow dog is a moron....I know its sarcasism but come on...be open minded here.

  • 60.
  • At 06:38 PM on 05 Mar 2008,
  • Peg wrote:

Justin, please talk about the Michigan fiasco. The state party and leaders are willing to hand the delegates over to Clinton. They are ignoring the voice of the voters; they took my voice away by not giving me options! It was Clinton or “Uncommitted” in our primary. They are not listening to calls for a caucus either. If they give this state's delegates to Clinton I promise you that I will not be voting Democrat in the November election.

Democrats listen up: Michigan needs a caucus. Our state has been in a recession for 3+ years. Do you want to depress us more by taking away our voice and vote? Disenfranchise? Yes, you are doing a superb job of disenfranchising me as a voter. If you seat the delegates from Michigan for Clinton you do this state a huge disservice. We have had a Clinton supporter for governor for 2 terms with no positive results. The ongoing recession in this state is a crime. Why would we trust Clinton to help this state out? Her husband cared little for helping Michigan.

You bet your bippy I wanted to vote Obama. Unfortunately, the state Democratic party silenced my voice. I hear the talk about Florida’s delegates – who will stand up for Michigan? Ugh. I’m so frustrated.

  • 61.
  • At 06:54 PM on 05 Mar 2008,
  • Rick wrote:

It's about time!!

  • 62.
  • At 07:29 PM on 05 Mar 2008,
  • KKV wrote:

Long time lurker of this interesting blog and a fan of "Justin" (the poster) and "Greta".

I support Obama and I hope he doesn't get forced to take the running mate (VP) role to Hillary.

Of all the talk about his lack of foreign policy experience or international experience, well, that's exactly what they said about Bill Clinton and his Arkansas experience!

Now Obama has to prove he can handle this set back, and with his delegate-lead advantage, keep fighting. I hope he prevails.

  • 63.
  • At 07:30 PM on 05 Mar 2008,
  • Tony Peck wrote:

My strategy would be to create a win win ticket for the Democrats and have the O & C team joint President/Vice President candidates to take on old man McCain? Either combination you have a new (youthful) image, never happened before in the USA - a women and a black person in the top 2 positions in the country!

  • 64.
  • At 07:42 PM on 05 Mar 2008,
  • Keith Miller wrote:

Hillary Clinton reminded me of Tracey Flick from the movie Election during her victory speech last night.

The odds and math seem to favor Obama still. But you just have to feel that the Clinton's have something up their sleeve.

  • 65.
  • At 07:44 PM on 05 Mar 2008,
  • tony otogo wrote:


barack seems to me someone you will want to have a fling with... (he is so flashy!) but hillary is someone you want to have a secure future with. (she is reliable.) & you bet she is ready to fight for what she believes in, not 'voting present' or refuse to 'rock the boat' due to 'political exigencies'.

america should think right, vote right...vote hillary.obama can be veep.

Experience? Obama has held elective office longer than Shrillary Clinton. Fact.
xx
ed

  • 67.
  • At 07:59 PM on 05 Mar 2008,
  • Brett wrote:

Yes, indeed, a very fitting summation of the Obama campaign, "nobody knows what's going on". It's been very difficult to pin down Obama Copacabana on any real issues so nobody really knows what this campaign by a rich preppie who lives in a lavish mansion and wants to "change the world" somehow or other is all about, other than hype and hope. So for many, it may be the kind of night they'll forget for the rest of their lives. The ones who don't live in multimillion dollar mansions don't have alot at stake in these showpoll "elections". Which despite the strained attempt by the media to legitimise them with spin about "record turnouts", didn't turn into much of a record. Once again, most eligible voters stayed away from the polls - and the pol's - turnout in Ohio was about 3.2 million out of a total voting age population of about 8.4 million. Ditto Texas, a little over 4 million in both primaries out of an eligible total of 14 million. So if the vast majority who didn't bother again, in these states as in every other, "look back on this night for the rest of their lives", it will be for much better personal reasons than these sham "elections" between the rich xerox candidates.

  • 68.
  • At 08:02 PM on 05 Mar 2008,
  • David wrote:

"Pretty much everyone sees Hillary / Obama as the Democratic dream team, and I truly believe this will happen"

I haven't come across many people who think that to be true.

And where is the dream in the team when Hillary Clinton let's it hang in the air, as she did recently, that, maybe, Barack Obama is a muslim. It is an insult to muslims because she implies that this is automatically a bad thing...and it is an insult to Obama because she infers that he is not telling the truth, when she KNOWS he is.


This deceipt alone (not that it is an isolated example) is enough to make her unworthy of such a high office. GW Bush was a goon used by manipulators behind the scenes. Hillary would be chief manipulator with personal power her only goal. In my opinion.

The media appear to be eating out of Clinton's dirty hands right now.

  • 69.
  • At 08:09 PM on 05 Mar 2008,
  • Sam wrote:

With very few exceptions, most people have used these comments as a soap box, and in some cases are engaging in some serious reality distortion and self-deception.

I currently live in the US but am not eligible to vote, so admittedly it is easy for me to sit on the sidelines and throw stones at all sides.

  • 70.
  • At 08:39 PM on 05 Mar 2008,
  • Rik wrote:

So Hilary is on the rebound. It's a damn shame that she won these victories only because Republicans, now sure of McCain, were voting for her because they know she cannot beat MaCain in the election. If she honestly cared about the party she'd stand aside and let the Obama run. Poll after poll has shown that he can beat McCain whereas she will not. It's unfortunate for America and for the world that she cares more about her own vanity than she does about the Democratic cause.

  • 71.
  • At 08:40 PM on 05 Mar 2008,
  • Ripudaman Bains wrote:

I want to make a general point that I have not seen addressed. Hillary Clinton once famously said that she would rather McCain got the White House than Obama. Surely it can be seen that this woman is out for herself. She would rather see the Democratic party fall apart because of this mudslinging than have a Democratic victory.

People in the UK used to say that Tony Blair was obsessed with his place in history, I believe that this applies to Mrs Clinton too. She would rather be known as the first historic candidate to secure the White House as a woman than Obama as a black man. As this contest heats up I believe that this woman will stop at nothing to secure a place in history over her own concern for voters and for her own party. I hope the American public will see through it and stop rewarding her. It seems that in such a heated contest Obama is the only gracious candidate. Even Romney and McCain were bitter and Hillary Clinton has lost any ounce of integrity she could have once claimed to have had by being so ungracious. I sincerely hope that she does not make the nomination - for the sake of more people than we may currently realise.

  • 72.
  • At 08:48 PM on 05 Mar 2008,
  • Ripudaman Bains wrote:

I want to make a general point that I have not seen addressed. Hillary Clinton once famously said that she would rather McCain got the White House than Obama. Surely it can be seen that this woman is out for herself. She would rather see the Democratic party fall apart because of this mudslinging than have a Democratic victory.

People in the UK used to say that Tony Blair was obsessed with his place in history, I believe that this applies to Mrs Clinton too. She would rather be known as the first historic candidate to secure the White House as a woman than Obama as a black man. As this contest heats up I believe that this woman will stop at nothing to secure a place in history over her own concern for voters and for her own party. I hope the American public will see through it and stop rewarding her. It seems that in such a heated contest Obama is the only gracious candidate. Even Romney and McCain were bitter and Hillary Clinton has lost any ounce of integrity she could have once claimed to have had by being so ungracious. I sincerely hope that she does not make the nomination - for the sake of more people than we may currently realise.

  • 73.
  • At 09:00 PM on 05 Mar 2008,
  • Rik wrote:

So Hilary is on the rebound. It's a damn shame that she won these victories only because Republicans, now sure of McCain, were voting for her because they know she cannot beat MaCain in the election. If she honestly cared about the party she'd stand aside and let the Obama run. Poll after poll has shown that he can beat McCain whereas she will not. It's unfortunate for America and for the world that she cares more about her own vanity than she does about the Democratic cause.

  • 74.
  • At 09:01 PM on 05 Mar 2008,
  • Mark wrote:

Obama suppoters still have much to cheer about. Clinton will not win the nomination and that reason being the numbers. (not including TX since the caucus is still up in the air and Michigan since Obama was not on the ballot)Obama has won 25 contests vs. Clinton's 14. perhaps what is more important is how, 17 of Obama's wins were by a 20% or greater marhin in comparison to Hillary who was only two 20% or more wins. If you think the undecided superdelegates aren't looking at that then you are mistaken. You also have to take into consideration the fact that even in the states Obama has lost he generaly always wins the dense city districts. By the same token Hillary supporters really do not have much to cheer about. She needed to win BIG in TX and OH and not just get a W in her column. She hardly won big leaving the delegate gap she has with Obama unchanged. Not to mention that as of right now if the TX caucus stays as is and Obama wins it, Obama will end up walking away with more TX delegates than Hillary.

  • 75.
  • At 09:20 PM on 05 Mar 2008,
  • Miss America wrote:

Justin,
Just how much Kool Aid did they give you on that Obami bus?

  • 76.
  • At 09:39 PM on 05 Mar 2008,
  • Rik wrote:

So Hilary is on the rebound. It's a damn shame that she won these victories only because Republicans, now sure of McCain, were voting for her because they know she cannot beat MaCain in the election. If she honestly cared about the party she'd stand aside and let the Obama run. Poll after poll has shown that he can beat McCain whereas she will not. It's unfortunate for America and for the world that she cares more about her own vanity than she does about the Democratic cause.

  • 77.
  • At 09:41 PM on 05 Mar 2008,
  • Jay wrote:

Obama still leads in popular vote and delegate totals.

He has shown himself to be the most calm, intelligent, prepared, and balanced candidate in every appearance, displaying qualities most important in our president.

His 'baggage' is a tiny carry-on compared to Clinton's over-weight steamer trunks full of Whitewater, impeachment, health care part 1, etc., (would the 3 AM call be Bill seeking a lawyer?). She is competent, maybe more so than her husband, but she has an intensely polarizing effect on many Americans that will work against bringing in swing voters.

Obama just made a good, close (down to the wire in Texas) showing in states that had huge leads forecast for Clinton - and he did that after AM radio hosts here in the USA repeatedly urged Republicans to go vote in the open democratic primaries for Hillary, in order to help stop the man those right wing talk show hosts spend all day calling "Hussein Obama"

I don't understand why the Clinton / Obama choice seems to be almost as polarizing as the Bush / Democrat choice.

Prejudices large or small seem to enter into this - woman first or black man first; latino and older white voter perceptions of the two candidates; and more. Almost all of my 50-ish and older (baby boomer) professional women collegues get misty-eyed and wistful about Clinton as if gender was the main issue in their vote.

I see more prospect for a sweeping fresh start and inspired nationwide action with Obama, so I hope he perseveres, and voters look beyond all the big and little prejudices and attacks to judge the character and abilities of the candidates.

  • 78.
  • At 09:43 PM on 05 Mar 2008,
  • Justin wrote:

I agree with myself and comment #61 (KKV).

Baack Obama is a legend in his own lifetime. He is too high profile to accept a VP slot. VP is just a stop gaffe for minor politicians who plan to move on to better things.

If Hillary Clinton manages to convince the Super Delegates to back her and clinch the nomination in that way, I'm going to sell my copy of Clinton's autobiography as a protest.

I want the Democrat Party to be able to rub the 2000 election in the Republican Party's faces for the rest of their entire lives. They won't be able to do that, however, if they be hypocritial and ignore the popular vote.

  • 79.
  • At 10:06 PM on 05 Mar 2008,
  • Kevin Burns wrote:

Are my eyes decieving me, or are you now being accused of pro-clinton bias from some posters on this entry? Seems the primaries aren't the only thing full of twists and turns.

People who cry media-bias are just as ridulously flippant as the very thing they complain about.

NB: Obama is still going to win, for my money. Clinton won't have long to enjoy this little bit of momentum, since Obama is going to win the states to come - it's a long time between now and pensylvania, and not long at all until wyoming or mississippi.

  • 80.
  • At 10:11 PM on 05 Mar 2008,
  • Michael Thomas wrote:

The Democratic Party is entering an exciting era. The overall interest in the primaries and caucuses are like none I can remember. The problem is that now the party will fight it out until the election, whilst McCain has the nomination for the Republicans. This is problematic because party divisions will materialize when the nomination is finalized.

Obama unites the Democrats and Hillary divides us. This is why Hillary should step down immediately. For the good of your fellow man, or in this case for the good of the party. We dont want a leader with strong ties to Bush for another two terms potentially do we?

OBAMA '08, the best for the country. P.S. Hillary and Day 1 rubbish is pure comedy her sleazy strategies will destroy the party.

  • 81.
  • At 10:22 PM on 05 Mar 2008,
  • Art wrote:

As a UK resident reading comments here, I'm constantly reminded of how democratic the whole US election process is compared with the Russian presidential 'election'. Do our US cousins realise that we're riveted by the contest on this side of the pond. Fantastic! And at last, an overdue and superb example to the world of what democracy is all about. Go U.S. go, go, go!

  • 82.
  • At 11:11 PM on 05 Mar 2008,
  • Tom wrote:

Obama can't win the nomination either based on numbers alone. If you look at the math, neither one can win based on the "rules." Both have legitimate excuses when they fall short. Clinton can claim that Florida and Michigan would have put her over the top. Of course, she knew from Day 1 those wouldn't count. Obama will claim that he's ahead in pop. vote and delegates, but that's like saying you should win a marathon because you were ahead in mile 24, though no one managed to finish. This is going to get ugly. There's no room for compromise here and neither one is going to back down.

  • 83.
  • At 11:15 PM on 05 Mar 2008,
  • Mary wrote:

Mary Clarke #27: If your looking to a leader-of this or any country in the world-who will promise, and carey out that promise, never to go to war with any nation no matter what the circumstance intales, then I'm sorry, but I think you'll be looking for quite some time. Its widely known that conservitives are far more trigger-happy than liberals (me personally a huge liberal), but for anyone to suggest that, say, if a nation declared war directly on the nation of which they were leading, that they wouldn't at least verbally respond, I think is a bit of a stretch, and I'm sure would be seen around the world-in every country-as relletively weak. Clinton doesn't promise, and most likely will not if elected, talk to our adversaries-and that, I think is a grave, endangering mistake, and is why I don't want her, but that aside, overall, worss case scinario, between her and Mccane, who would you rather your leaders and those around the world have to work with to get things done in the international comunity?

Also, I don't think all Americans are obsessed with 9/11 as your posts suggests, and I'm certainly not one of them! True we will never forget, but terrorism, for me at least, isn't the end all and be all of life either!

  • 84.
  • At 11:49 PM on 05 Mar 2008,
  • Sam wrote:

The idea of an obama vice presidency is crazy at best. Why would anyone even contemplate such a thing. See, even after the headline-grabbing Clinton wins, she's ended up gaining just a net of 4 delegates, and she now trails by 105 delegates, by conservative estimates. With Wyoming and Missisipi coming next saturday and Saturday, it's almost certain the 4-delegate gain will disappear.

If the worst happens and Hillary gets the nomination through the back door (this is the only way she can get it), it will be suicidal and kissing the dust, not gaining the high ground, for Obama to take a VP slot. To really take the high ground, Obama would rather bow out with dignity with a statement that his supporters should support Hillary in the general election, for the party's sake. in reality, majority of his supporters will not support Hillary under such circumstance, and, with McCain winning in November, Obama, with his moral high ground, can stage a come-back in 2012.

  • 85.
  • At 11:49 PM on 05 Mar 2008,
  • Sarah wrote:

It will be a great shame if the Presidential race ends up "politics as usual". That is the feeling I have today. It is sad, but not surprising that the Clinton(s) campaign resorted to negative, dirt digging and shamefully but very subtly played the race card to pull back some momentum. From this side of the pond there is something quite wonderful in seeing a candidate ignite the democratic process - which is what Obama has done so far. He should carry on fighting and fight to win. If it goes to the wire then so be it. That's democracy.

  • 86.
  • At 12:01 AM on 06 Mar 2008,
  • olivia wrote:

I agree with an earlier poster (#56) - I would love to see some reporting about the Republicans who voted for Hillary, encouraged to do so by Rush Limbaugh and others.

Justin, will you step up to do this?

  • 87.
  • At 12:23 AM on 06 Mar 2008,
  • Marco Borg wrote:

Let's see. It seems there are caucuses and as well as normal voting. Caucuses is for a few people. The Chosen People? On the other hand hundreds of thousands of people vote especially in the larger States.

It also seems that in America when
someone loudly mouths meaningless words like "change" and "repair" and "heal" instead of being pelted with rotten tomatoes he is praised as an orator and American journalists so quick to criticise better-educated nations like Russia somehow did not ask what the heel those words meant.

We are also told that Obama has received tons of money. Who are the donors? Arab Oil-states? Rappers? People who employ journalists?

It could just be that the people who want "change" will get a clique of people whom they despise and a figure-head, non-expeienced person muttering inanities.

  • 88.
  • At 01:55 AM on 06 Mar 2008,
  • Anonymous wrote:

So, Justin, in an effort for the "Democrat" party to be able to "rub the 2000 election in the Republican's faces for the rest of their lives" you are suggesting that instead of just disenfranchising 200,000 Florida voters (as was done in 2000) that the 'Democrat' party now disenfranchise the 1,749,920 Florida voters who voted in the 2008 Florida primary? This is what you call democracy?

Art (78),

It's democratic IF you've got the money!

  • 90.
  • At 06:14 PM on 06 Mar 2008,
  • Patrick Nyebile wrote:


I am hoping that this turn around American with the Democracy will not made an error like our country Liberia.

That make an choice but little regret by realizing that they have done a selection against their very selves.

American are crying for both political &
economic change.

Think American, think American, like the white house be consider as an American house, and not alway white house.
Democracy party most bring a change for American future.

Patrick B. Nyebile- Liberia

  • 91.
  • At 07:16 AM on 07 Mar 2008,
  • john guthrie wrote:

How do superdelegates vote at the Convention. In secret? I am wondering about delegates pledging support in public for one candidate and then voting for the other in private

  • 92.
  • At 06:47 PM on 09 Mar 2008,
  • Therese wrote:

The American Presidential campaign reminds me of the Presidential campaign in France and the bias of the media against women in politics… journalists (mainly male journalists from CNN) enjoy undermining Hillary Clinton, criticizing her hairdo, how she is dressed, how she behaves, etc. focusing too much attention on her appearance rather than on the substance of her discourse…. Compared with a Barrack Obama whose emptiness is appalling… but I guess American people want to dream of a better future… even in a vacuum…. In 2008, it is still difficult to be a woman in politics and reinvent politics in a male-dominated environment that lacks female role models. As Robin Morgan writes: "Me, I'm voting for Hillary not because she is a woman, but because I am (a woman)."

This post is closed to new comments.

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.