Comments for en-gb 30 Sun 21 Dec 2014 06:08:46 GMT+1 A feed of user comments from the page found at gunsandreligion I believe that HIlary's make-over is refreshing.She is testing the thesis that a Democratwho rides a horse (and/or) a pick-up truck,shows off a six-pack of beer, and can shoota gun and hit an inanimate object withoutdisturbing bystanders while chewing tobaccocan get elected in any state.I don't plan to vote for her, but I am hopingthat the inventor of the "trailer trash barbie doll"will come out with the "Aunt Hillary" doll,just so that I can reaffirm my connection withthe "American Family."Now, don't take me seriously, I'm just makingfun of her strategy, but could it possibly work? Sun 04 May 2008 21:10:43 GMT+1 MarcusAureliusII KimperativeWhat would the US do if Israel having been told by Iran's president that their country should be wiped off the map felt sufficiently threatened by Iran's impending acquisition of an atom bomb that might be used against them actually launched their own pre-emptive nuclear strike and obliterated Iran? What would the US do? Breathe a sigh of relief that it doesn't have to do the job itself. Iran is as great a threat to the US as it is to Israel. In fact, Iran says the US is the "Great Satin" while Israel is the "Little Satan." Of course, Israel might be told by the US military to get the job done, that's also a possiblity. Iran just doesn't believe it. Why should it. So far it has gotten away scott free every time it has made an aggressive move. Sun 27 Apr 2008 22:28:08 GMT+1 Kimperative Hilary's comment about obliterating Iran was well rehearsed and easy. Would someone ask ask her (also Obama and McCain) what their response would be if the opposite happened and Israel attacked Iran? Any guesses? Sat 26 Apr 2008 23:25:05 GMT+1 Gyvate Mr # 75, have you been to say, Brooklyn? Sat 26 Apr 2008 09:52:54 GMT+1 Gyvate "Obama is lost in his narcistic believes that the American society owes him the presidency because he is black... It is a kind of a Presidential Affirmative Action. Doesn't matter that the others are far more prepared than him..."What kind of "narcisist" declines to run, until his superiors urgings are overwhelming? Why Obama? Razor smart, wisdom, cross-cultural experience for a multicultural world, ability to unify people, to inspire hope and excitement for the future. The anti-cynic: that's magnetic, unfamiliar even. He didn't bring up race in this election- that would be Bill Clinton as well as Fox news. I think Obama is running as a candidate who incidently happens to be half black- I don't think he thinks anyone owes him anything-- did you listen to his speech on race? And I mean the speech, not the sound bytes. Compare approach to that of Hillary, The Woman Candidate for First Female President. I saw Illinois Senator Obama in downtown Chicago just before he announced his Presidencial candidacy. He got out of a nondescript govt van, and though wearing sunglasses (practical, being already obviously famous), walked almost a full city block unescorted to the main courthouse/federal building in Chicago, with a stack of papers under his arm. Of course people on the street recognized him and started to react- but he DID NOT take this opportunity to wave, act charming, smile, smooze support for votes, shake any hands, or even really acknowledge the attention- and he soooo easily could have. He wasn't rude one bit- he had his sunglasses, his focus, and his job to do. His face subtley suggested that he was aware of the attention, but at the same time it was obvious that he was primarily concerned about whatever it was that he was working on. Not distracted, campaigning time and work time were kept distinct. He just calmly and politely walked straight into the courthouse/federal building to attend to whatever business he had to take care of that afternoon with his pile of papers. It struck me after this encounter, he doesn't want to simply win popularity contests for the sake of them- he doesn't even want to gloat in his power over people-- he wants to WORK, and he obviously takes his work seriously. THAT'S why he wants to be President. Sat 26 Apr 2008 09:50:09 GMT+1 Gyvate A month or two ago, conservative commentator Ann Coultier discussed her decision to support Hillary Clinton on a morning news show in the US. (Good Morning America, if I remember correctly.) She wasn't kidding- And her rationale? "Hillary's more conservative than John McCain!" And she made some comments about how Hillary wouldn't ever be caught as being the "girl" who pulls us out of war "now that we are finally winning...", she's the candidate most likely to keep the war going, etc. "I think Hillary's our girl!", Ann beamed to the bemused interviewer.Looking forward to the book due in May about Hillary's church, which is called "The Family"; it's said to have much in common with many cults in how it operates. Lotta nerve then, to point fingers at Obama's pastor, saying the two- and the church itself even- are out of touch with normal Americans. Well, this "normal American" lives in Chicago and knows a small handful who attend Trinity Church- they are lovely, friendly, normal working people. Not elitists, not millionaires --not even rich by any stretch-- not militants, not separatists, and not hate mongerers of any sort. Very normal and positive people. Guests are warmly welcome at Trinity, whereas, unless I am mistaken, there is a secretive and exclusionary element to Hillary's church (?) Such are rumours, in any case.What is "elitist"? Educated? Educated at top schools? Too much time hanging around with other intellectuals from across the US and from countries around the world, at world class institutions of higher education, such as the University of Chicago: a place where they debate theory and logic for fun? There ARE worse places to hang around.... Gosh, wouldn't want any intellectuals in charge of anything- like a law professor from a tip top law school in govt. Why should he "dumb down"? Obama's not "slick" or making "pretty speeches"-- despite a handful of widely reported goofs (ie, those gun clingers...)-- he's an unusually precise and skilled speaker, the real thing-- like many from the U of C community. It's a sorry situation when people don't trust intellectuals- for what, being too smart and polished?If "elitist" is social/economic class, the Clintons have NO business to claim the Obamas are elitist.Wonder if Hillary's religious beliefs have anything to do with why she stuck with Bill after Monica L. and Gennifer Flowers before that. Or if leaving him would have dampened her claims of 'experience' in the White House. I mean, having Bill around now suggests "White House" better than a sea of waving flags ever could. Hillary supporters have made comments in the media and on blogs, equating "Clinton" with "it's going to be nothing but peace and giddy prosperity, (just like before that bummer dot com bust)!!!" What an illusion THAT all was. A lot was simmering beneath the surface during the 90's, and Hillary can't simply whip up a new equivalent to the .com mania of times past, to rev the economy. During the Clinton years, of course, the terrorist plots were being prepared-- so I don't know what to politely make of her assurances that she'd be good at foreign policy due to her "experience". I'd rather have a wise President with a flexible and open mind, than one who has met many world leaders at nice dinners a decade ago, everyone there already friends and feeling good. I rather suspect Hillary's foreign policy in less friendly situations might consist of shrill demands to conform to her program, judging by how she has run her campaign. As if, the one with the loudest unwavering insistence "wins". I don't know if she understands nuance or compromise. I don't think Hillary's so mainstream, experienced, or promising as she attempts to portray herself. If she wrangles and wrestles the nomination for herself, no way would I vote for "the most conservative candidate", to paraphrase Ann Coultier. I'd vomit before voting for someone who consitently struck such low and hypocritical blows. Sat 26 Apr 2008 09:18:48 GMT+1 BarryHaley This post has been Removed Sat 26 Apr 2008 03:27:59 GMT+1 jenmead The popular vote? Wouldn't that include *ALL* of America. Has all of America voted? I live in Oregon, we haven't voted yet. Not to mention she won huge in Florida and that won't count for delegates, but why discount the actual votes? I can see why they are not counting Michigan, but at the same time why didn't young Mister Obama put his name on that ticket? I think we should count that state because he chose NOT to include his name. You snooze you loose buddy. Obviously both are equal on the popularity meter, but I believe that the popular vote has Hillary ahead. So let's not do a repeat of Bush in office without the popular vote and put in anybody who doesn't carry the popular vote. I will vote for anyone that tops the Democratic ticket and I fully and unconditionally support Hillary in 08 !!! Fri 25 Apr 2008 19:36:11 GMT+1 mmanwar Clinton won Ohio and specially PA because of race. Most of the voters are not college educated. Like third world countries, you can exploit people in the name of religion and race when they are not educated. Fri 25 Apr 2008 14:52:03 GMT+1 kelvin103 On Hiliary's electability.Where are her 2007 tax returns?Why aren't her papers as First Lady being released from the Clinton Library?And speaking of the Clinton Library, where is the donors list?Why can't we get straight answers out of this woman?How much more is there to come out?Quite staggering! Fri 25 Apr 2008 07:59:23 GMT+1 Greta_Hansen ** don't print **Regarding Post 26, pending moderation:Can't discuss torture in here, eh? The story I referred to has been aired on Countdown April 24: Ashcroft at Knox College, Galesburg, Illinois.I requested post 25 NOT be printed in the first place. Thank you for removing it. Fri 25 Apr 2008 05:26:32 GMT+1 MarcusAureliusII Streathamite in Milano #75Methinks thee do protest too much.Sure, sure, sure, I know, some of your best friends are black. Tell it to the judge. Got any black generals in Britain? How about a black leader of a large corporation? Think you could have a black Queen? How about a black Prime Minister. OK there may be a few token back benchers. Now tell me about why so many Moslems born in Britain identify more with Pakistan than they do with London. Why do they consider themselves Moslems first and Brits second....or not Brits at all? And what would I find if I dared visited one of those places you call housing estates? Of course things are far worse in say France where you can't get a job no matter how qualified you are if your name is Mohammed or you are from North Africa. Or in Germany if you are a Turk. In fact, in Germany race crimes are rarely if ever even prosecuted. is probaby the best spin that can be put on the Zinedine Zidane incident. Funny how neither of them would talk about it except for Materazzi saying "It is absolutely not true, I did not call him a terrorist. I'm ignorant. I don't even know what the word means" Yeah, right! Thu 24 Apr 2008 23:30:28 GMT+1 Streathamite @ MarcusAureliusII :some friendly advice: Refrain from making sstatements about race issues in the world outside of America in general, and the UK in particular, because it is abundantly clear that you really, really don't know your stuff, and you'll end up looking silly. here are the actual facts of the matter:1) Britain has been a multi-racial, multi-national society for (effectively) 50+ years, The US for near 400. I know from my frequent visits to the US, and from living in multicultural South London as I do, that we have already made a much better fist of being a harmonious multi-racial society than the US. I have NEVER heard overt, shocking displays of prejudice as I heard in some southern states, from whites. Nor have I seen examples of resentment and bitterness justified, IMO) on the highly multiracial streets rahnd my manor, or in any company I've worked in with non-white workers, as I came across in the US.There is one thing that has happened, by and large, in Britauin, especially London, that does not seem to have happened stateside, and that is the winning of the anti-racism war where it really counts most; at street level, at the level where we live our everyday lives, working, shopping, playing, eating. Here, notwitstanding a tiny, much-derided racist lunatic fringe, we all rub along perfectly fine. My flatmates are nigerian and afghan, my local grocer an indian. In fact, as part of a process that started in the 1980s and accelerated with the fallout from the Lawrence affair, racism has been repudiated in virtually every part of British life.There's not much more Britain - govt, people, institutions, can or neecd to do about this; every big company has an equal opps policy, and many small ones too. In fact, there has never in living memory a law enacted to enforce racial discrimination - only to outlaw it and punish perpetrators.And this has happened, to lesser and greater degree for the most part throughout europe; racism banished to the fringes. You mentioned football (the REAL football that is): you're about 20 years out of date. I am an Arsenal fan, and intermittent matchgoer I've heard barely any racial sledging from the terraces in England in the past decade, and scarcely more at european games (in fact, only on trips to turkey and spain in recent memory): There has been a 'kick racism out of football' campaign running for the past 14 years, with great success. My club's greatest ever player was a black Frenchman (Thierry we still love you!); Black players have captained england; the League is like a mini united nations (Arsenal famously so).finally, France did NOT lose the world cup due to racial chanting, they lost it cosa) The Most boring Team in the world got 11 men behind the ball and choked the game to death and b) Thierry Henry, zinedine zidane and Patrick Viera all played like complete tarts. It is simply not true to say racism is and racial discord is everywhere. It is NOT universal.and here, it looks like we've beaten the problem. Thu 24 Apr 2008 17:37:14 GMT+1 rabbittybunnypinky I'm not convinced by her at all. Why do the politicians centre on discrediting the other guy?Have they no dignity? Thu 24 Apr 2008 16:05:45 GMT+1 Ed Iglehart Ninita (64),The strength of your support for Hillary should mean you would respect her wishes:Clinton, speaking to reporters in Conshohocken just now, said she'd campaign for a united Democratic Party, no matter who's the nominee."Anybody who supports Barack or me would be very foolish to think voting for Senator McCain makes any sense," she said. Thu 24 Apr 2008 13:08:19 GMT+1 Ed Iglehart Marcus (63),"I heard Obama's entire speech. It actually doesn't matter even if I agreed he had distanced himself sufficiently, in the public's mind, Obama is now wedded to his pastor."But did you listen to Rev Wright's "entire" sermon? was my point. Listen/watch, and THEN tell me he's not an admirable man of peace, love and harmony.Salaam/Shalom/Shanthi/Dorood/Peace Namaste -ed Thu 24 Apr 2008 13:02:29 GMT+1 turningblueandgrey I wish we would stop repeating sound bites about Obama and instead read or listen to his actual words.His lack of Clinton-Bush hubris is his most refreshing and encouraging aspect. He's presented plans, and we call that rhetoric because he is generally as well spoken as Eisenhower but sometimes approaches TR, King, or RFK, and we just aren't used to any of that these days.He soldiers on after months of pounding by cable news and spammed lies, and AM radio still urges Republicans to support Clinton in open primary states. Where is the pro-Obama bias that's being complained about here?The first family records I know of are from one of my self-reliant, farmer-hunter white ancestors from rural Pennsylvania serving and receiving wounds in the Union, abolitionist cause. I've touched his name in brass at Gettysburg. I'm a generation removed from the Keystone State but I still regret that some of my 'race matters' countrymen there were so quick to let bias and suspicion cloud their choice about a new success in the cause that united our forebears, and a step towards a stronger America.I'm still trying to understand the problem with a smart and inspiring president who wants above all to reunite America as we face crises, and build a better future. With the current state of the economy, environment and global affairs, are we really better off divided, either continuing current policies or having new ones presented as "what's best for us" by the other 2 candidates? Thu 24 Apr 2008 07:20:07 GMT+1 rbcamaj I am not surprised by the content of this specific writing. Mr. Webb definitely since in the beginning has been bias and an Obamatic...Obamatics have become so blind, they can not see further than their noses...Ideological rhetoric without the any solid plan of how to deal with those three major issues (1. the WAR; 2. weak Economy; 3. the Environment) that are affecting our lives is just a hole in the water...Obama's speech after he lost in Pennsylvania, was long, boring, repetitive, talked more against McCain than analyzing why he is not able to win in big states and metropolitan cities!!! Obama is lost in his narcistic believes that the American society owes him the presidency because he is black... It is a kind of a Presidential Affirmative Action. Doesn't matter that the others are far more prepared than him... Thu 24 Apr 2008 05:23:52 GMT+1 shrinkrapt #67,One of the reasons he can't deliver the coup de grace is because of the blue collar white voter. Here in Pennsylvania, they are, for the most part, intolerant and strongly pro-union. I suspect the same applies to the other states.The Jewish vote is another reason why Hillary won't go away. There is a long history of emnity between Blacks and Jews and with a middle name of Hussein....well, you catch my drift.Also, Hillary has had free press from the time her husband took office. In a country with the attention span of a sitcom, that's significant. Through all the embarrassment she endured with Bill's escapades, she has developed a strong core constituency of angry women voters(read ninita #64-one gets the feeling that she would like to "obliterate" Obama).In fact, its amazing he's done as well as he has. True, this is dragging out longer than it should and I worry that it will leave the party fragmented but, hey, this would not be possible anywhere else in the world. God, I love this country! Thu 24 Apr 2008 04:09:31 GMT+1 alaskaness As of five days ago, I became a supporter of Hillary Clinton. I don't dislike Obama; if he wins the Democratic nomination I will vote for him.That said, I've decided to support Hillary because I believe that she has the wherewithall to actually get things done. I couldn't give two shakes about who is the "nicer" of the two Democratic candidates and frankly, I worry that should Obama reach the presidency he would spend four years beating his head against a wall trying to figure out how to implement his policies and effect real change, with little result. I have likewise spent a great deal of time looking over and comparing both of the candidates' voting records and their stances on issues from health care to the wars in the Middle East and Central Asia, ultimately finding few differences. Perhaps more telling is the fact that every Obama supporter, and I mean that literally and not figuritively, with whom I have spoken could not give me one concrete example of a difference in policy between the two that ultimately made them choose Obama.Which brought me to the very disconcerting realization that a great many people don't actually pay any attention to the issues, but instead prefer to base their decision on what they feel. Personally, I don't want to be wooed by the oratory and charisma of my politicians; I don't care what they say, I care that they demonstrate a capacity for action and result.And of course the fact that Obama has conveniently been afforded the ability to sit prettily on the sidelines whilst the Media beats up Clinton, only to turn around and accuse her of taking low-blows when she sticks up for herself does not make me a fan. Such trends, coupled with incidents like the time two college-age boys attended a Clinton rally only to bellow "iron my shirt" at her from the crowd sit almost as badly with me as the complete lack of attention or reprimand given to it. In taking the course of inaction, it is implied that such things are, when all is said and done, ok. Now, imagine if someone had yelled an equally crass and offensive remark at Obama on the subject of his race, as it was with Clinton and her gender, such as "go pick cotton." What a minor crisis THAT would have created. Thu 24 Apr 2008 03:37:09 GMT+1 cmgmoserchmo1 Since when does subsistence equate to an overwhelming victory. I credit Hillary for running to the finish. Any competitor who is sincere to themselves and their supporters should. However, her campaign is lapsing into desperation and farce. The popular vote claims: Farce; using Osama Bin Laden in an a` la October surprise move: desperation. Whatever happened to retiring to a hospital room to await grim death? I guess that is out of fashion in America. What mystifies me is why he can not land the killing blow. She is ripe for it. In fact, after the Texas debate, she seemed prepared for it. I'm perplexed. Thu 24 Apr 2008 01:52:17 GMT+1 MarcusAureliusII nickstu #65"I guess my main point is one of shock at just how many people allow race to influence their vote heavily."Why? It's that way all over the world. Why should Americans be different in that regard from other people? We understand we have a race problem. We've had one since Brits brought the first black slaves to Jamestown 400 years ago. We recognize it, we're trying to deal with it. We think it's undeniable that progress has been made. We still have a long way to go. In other countries they don't even accept that they have a problem. At that rate it will never get solved. And in many countries it is blatently overt. How about all the animal noises fans and even players on European soccer teams use to taunt black players on other teams. Didn't France lose the world cup a few years ago just for that reason? You NEVER see anything like that in the US. And discrimination in many countries is not only based on race but also religion, sex, class, ethnicity. This is a universal problem. What are other countries doing about it? What is Britain doing about it? Thu 24 Apr 2008 01:46:47 GMT+1 nickstu MarcusAureliusII I accept that in many states with large black populations Obama was carried to a strong victory by the black population which helped him greatly. However in Pennsylvania although Obama carried almost the entire black vote that black vote does not make up a large section of the vote and polls suggest he lost a lot of white votes because of his race. I guess my main point is one of shock at just how many people allow race to influence their vote heavily. Thu 24 Apr 2008 01:18:19 GMT+1 ninita Count me as a Democrat who would rather vote for McCain, despite my dislike for Republicans, than for Obama. Beware of the depth of our support for Hillary. Thu 24 Apr 2008 00:00:08 GMT+1 MarcusAureliusII Ed Iglehart #23I heard Obama's entire speech. It actually doesn't matter even if I agreed he had distanced himself sufficiently, in the public's mind, Obama is now wedded to his pastor. So far ALL of the candidates in both parties have gotten a free pass not only by the press but by each other AND their organizations. Things will get much dirtier and down in the mud after the conventions though when the real campaign begins and the gloves come off. Remember what happened last time with the forged letter about President Bush the Democrats planted with Dan Rather and how he was forced to retire over his incompetence as a reporter after he fell for the ruse? Remember how it was discovered to be a forgery?nickstu #62"..just how long ago would this race have been over if Obama was white?"The answer is Obama would have been out of it on day one. He has won most of the black votes BECAUSE he is black. The Clintons were very popular among Blacks in America and some said William Clinton was America's first black president. If Obama was white, nearly all of his support in inner cities would have gone to Clinton. That's what she and a lot of pundits expected would happen at the beginning. SURPRISE! Wed 23 Apr 2008 23:56:57 GMT+1 nickstu Justin, I am a British student currently studying in the US and have become fascinated by this race. However one thing has struck me as going largely unnoticed and in my opinion is rather shocking. According to CNN's analysis of yesterdays exit polls 20% of voters named race as an issue that helped decide their vote of which 59% voted for Clinton which in crude terms means nearly 12% of the vote went for Clinton because Obama is black which would have otherwise won him the state. Whilst there is no guarantee that if Obama was white these voters would have gone for him, if 20% of people are willing to admit to race being a factor (which in my view is a controversial statement to make) just how many see race as an issue but aren't willing to admit it or even realise it themselves?There have been many arguments made throughout this campaign that Obama wouldn't be in this race if he was white but when a proportion of the vote larger than the margin of defeat use race as a factor against him (a statistic also true of Ohio) my question is just how long ago would this race have been over if Obama was white? And why in this day and age are 20% of democrats from Pennsylvania still admitting to seeing race as an issue in this campaign? Wed 23 Apr 2008 22:56:30 GMT+1 anagra In the early part of April you wrote incorrectly saying "The Thunderbirds" was an American TV program. Maybe you remember the later series Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons and later "The Terrahawks" from the same group was indestructible and the Mysterons were never really seen. Zelda in Terrahawks was more present did not do much except look very ugly., Both of course concerned "goodies and baddies".In the current US campaign it would be interesting to match the players in the election to the the chracters of these two puppet childrens programs Wed 23 Apr 2008 22:47:59 GMT+1 nico1872 I am an American Hillary supporter, and I will sit on my hands if Obama is the nominee. If the fight had been fair, I would consider Obama, but I don't feel the fight has been fair. The media is very pro-Obama. He got a pass on a LOT of things, and a lot of positive HRC news was not covered, or covered in a backhanded complimentary way. The media understood not to make racial remarks, so they took that frustration out on HRC and made ad-naseum misogynist remarks. I understand some people hate the Clintons, but that doesn't make them Obama supporters. It just means Obama has a lot of the not-HRC vote. And a lot of that passion will dissapate once their target is gone. I guarantee a lot of that venom does not exist against McCain. And I don't think she should drop out. If Obama wants it, let him come and earn it. Wed 23 Apr 2008 22:35:55 GMT+1 ronaine I'm not sure Sen. Clinton is being blamed for Sen. Obama's weaknesses. I get the impression people are angry with her, at least during this campaign, for turning it negative and taking dubious policy stances.I also understand that Sen. Obama, as well as Sen. Clinton, are already attacking McCain - on policy. On issues. Isn't this what you would expect? Isn't this what the US electorate would hope for?Surely the questionable associates accusation is ridiculous - a strip of garden is hardly Whitewater and he's admitted his mistake. And the rest are patently non-issues. For God's sake, I once had dinner with Michael Hesletine at a charity function - does that make me a pro-Falklands war Tory? I once hoped for a Clinton Presidency - anything for a potential shift in foreign policy. After learning about Obama, reading his views and seeing that his campaign was capturing voters' imaginations, I began hoping for an Obama presidency. But I'm now starting to think that we'll end up with a McCain presidency. I'm dismayed by the Democrat factionalising. Wed 23 Apr 2008 21:40:31 GMT+1 Nathan_Sachair Mr Webb, and those who are puzzled by the American electoral system--This system is a reflection of the heart of this amazing country. We must not forget that "US" stands for "United States"-- in an election, it is the states that elect the federal government, not the citizens. The government represents the United STATES of America, which is why it is sensible and logical-- if a little confusing-- to allow states so much freedom in, for exemple, primaries. Secondly, and synoptically, you have to wonder at the logic of voting for "far-left" candidates with platforms centering on domestic/social reform, as most of the powers concerning those isssues are delegated to the states, not the federal government. For exemple, the department of education is really a futile manifestation of bureaucratic obstination, as states set curriculums, fund schools, train teachers, etc... This is why the US can afford to spend 50% of the federal budget on defense and why it makes no sense to spend 25% on education. It's also why there have only been two Democratic presidents in the past forty years, for a total of three terms. Sincerely Wed 23 Apr 2008 21:11:30 GMT+1 slubberdegulion Two sides of the same coin.I`ve just scanned these threads and am saddened that what appears here is like a blow by blow account of a sports match.Featuring such items as colour,gender,flag pins,pastors,bitter ness etc. etc..This is all rubbish. The US is ruled by a class dictatorship which puts into office those who are desparate to reach that high status. They will then follow their orders by the ruling financial and corporate oligarchy which is capital intensive and international.The elections are a distraction to create the illusion of choice but when its all over nothing will change.There is no debate on these threads or among candidates on the continuation of imperial military power.Nor on rebuilding the Constitution and reversing Bush`s destruction of American peoples liberty,nor on the provision for martial law, building of detention centres,illegal wall building to Mexican border just to mention a few domestic issues.No criticism is made of HC and her position on her husband`s role in the bombing of Iraq as a continuation of Bush senior policy,the destabilising of Bosnia to create pipeline routes in Kosovo with a new US military base,his role in East Timor or his relation ship with the neo cons who emerged on his watch.Obama may represent hope but this will be far from destiny.Lastly ,the elephant in the room. The US economy which is finished. When WC took office he readily stated that he would not touch the Fed as did Bush. But this is privately controlled. Forget the annual budget deficit or the cost of Iraq war-these are nothing-the inter generational debt has been assessed at 56.9 trillion dollars. (When the treasury secretary under Bush 2 calculated these figures they were buried and later he was fired.) This liability can never be met. In short the US is bankrupt and the current sub prime crisis is merely a symptom of a bubble failure that was waiting to happen. These bubbles (housing,techno stocks, savings loans etc) have been manipulated to obscure the demise of the monetary system which began under Nixon (sponsored by Prescott Bush) when he was forced to close the gold exchange window in 1971 following gold withdrawals resulting from the VN war.America cannot use the power of a debtor nation forever challenging the world to replace the single currency while enjoying the position of borrowing without paying back. Whatever the candidates say the US can never become a manufacturing giant again with a positive trade balance in credit to the world. All it can offer is continuous war sold as pre emptive action against terror and regime change when in reality it steals nations natural assets- the true creators of wealth. In effect the US must prepare to be part of a multi polar war and not the worlds` bully but where is the debate on this?These issues are too great for the US to resolve alone. The near century old fed has managed a currency which now buys 3-5 cents what it did in 1913. The spin meisters continually refer to rising commodity prices when its the dollar thats falling.(Every one ignored candidate (R) Ron Paul because he was right !) A run on the dollar could begin within 2/3 years leaving no choice but to encourage hyper inflation and a possible depression which Wall street and the City are aware of. It matters not whether a republican or democrat wins -just listen to the dems hone up their military speak to out do Mc Bush as this punch and judy show develops.Its a soft cop hard cop routine which is how the consumers compare Bill Clinton and Bush. An illusion of course.A financial disaster waiting for the world,coupled with a cynical manipulation of food imputs by agri bus. with a poss view to de-population (eugenics) while the television euthanised consumer units discuss flag pins.Is that it? Wed 23 Apr 2008 20:56:38 GMT+1 AndreaE I'm not sure why Hillary is being blamed for Obama's weaknesses. He will have these weaknesses (ex., his questionable associates) whether Hillary is in the picture or not. Democrats are quite eager to remove Hillary, as though her removal will remove the focus on his faults. Not so.She does, however, prevent Obama from attacking McCain, which is ironic, since it's keeping him from behaving in the very same manner he is denouncing. Wed 23 Apr 2008 20:10:23 GMT+1 Streathamite justpam said:And for the millionth time: Senator McCain never said the U.S. would be in Iraq definitively for 100 years. He was stating an opinion that it wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing, considering half the Middle East wants to "wipe the U.S. off the map". Don't we have just as much right to exist as you do? **********************sure, but don't the Iraqi people, and the palestinians, have a right to exist without you or your Israeli allies, occupying their land and making their lives awful.And don't you think it might be more useful to proceed from the assumption that their brains and emotions are wired the same way as yours, and ask yourself why the arab and muslim worlds feel that way? That they might have good reason?on't you think that might do more to resolve the problem? Wed 23 Apr 2008 19:16:43 GMT+1 Reuben33g To many in the middle (moderate to conservative democrats and liberal to moderate republicans), the differences between the two parties matter less than their own judgment of the worthiness of the candidates.It's not like cheering for a rival football team if you vote for someone outside your own party, especially if that candidate’s values are comparable to your own.That is why Joseph Lieberman can support John McCain for president instead of the candidates from his own party.I myself have always voted republican (so far), but I contributed to Lieberman’s independent campaign. Wed 23 Apr 2008 18:31:14 GMT+1 BShelby I am amazed at how the Clinton spin is being sucked up by the news media. The results in Pennsylvania changed little or arguably nothing. Indeed no result in the upcoming primaries -- unless there's a complete and utterly unexpected landslide for either side -- is going to change this. It all comes down to super delegates.But if you go the LA Times website you can use a delegate calculator (click on 'delegate math') to predict the outcome. I plugged in a scenario, which seems plausible; ie, literally neck and neck in the remaining primaries (except North Carolina, where Obama should win by more than double digits). I gave him slightly more of the undeclared super dels and left out the Florida and Michigan delegates entirely. Guess what? Obama gets to the magic target of delegates needed to secure nomination. Perhaps someone could do a similar exercise, tweak the numbers slightly and see Clinton hit the mark, too. But I doubt it. She needs nearly all the undeclared super dels and significant victories in Indian, W. Virginia, Kentucky, and Oregon to barely hit 2025. No wonder they are desperate for Florida and Michigan to count. Obama should show more confidence, perhaps, and actively encourage the race to go to the last primary. He might just win it without Clinton dropping out while benefiting from the exercise and honing his campaign skills further still. Wed 23 Apr 2008 18:17:15 GMT+1 rupertornelius I think those hundred mayors corralled people into voting for HillBill. Those endowed by their creator with free will went for Obama. Nice to see the NY Times telling a story straight for a change, too. Keep up the good work, Justin. Wed 23 Apr 2008 16:59:45 GMT+1 SheffTim It could be another frustrating election in November. Many Republicans won’t be thrilled about voting for McCain; it’s difficult to see the religious or neo-conservative right endorsing him with much enthusiasm. The Democrat voters seem split so badly that even a joint Obama/Clinton Clinton/Obama ticket might alienate some rather than please all. Independent candidates could slice votes away from both parties. It could well come down to another record low turnout and weeks of chad counting again. Wed 23 Apr 2008 16:58:42 GMT+1 Streathamite I am a) a Brit and b) too far left to vote for mainstream candidates - I'd vote for Obama tho. He really does seem fresh new and inspiring, and the US badly, badly needs to restore a battered image Wed 23 Apr 2008 16:55:08 GMT+1 bookladyfromct Hilary may think that she is the one to beat MCCain in the race to the White House...In my humble opinion that is not reason enough to elect her to the Presidency. I am concerned that she is more interested in the comannder in chief title and will be more a of a sabre rattler and preemptive warrior than the present administration. I urge people to look beyond the campaign to what we are going to get for another 4 years. I am not interested in the Hill and Bill show for another 4 years . He was smart, a politician, some say even bordering on stateman like qualities. I find him to be calculating and scheming - sly like a fox. I do not think a co presidency would work and that is what we get. Let us send the Clinton's into early retirement with their chances of making millions by writing their memoirs and working on lucrative speaking engagements. Go home Wed 23 Apr 2008 16:53:40 GMT+1 Glenn Reuben I'm sure this has been asked before, so I apologise for being a little obtuse, but why exactly can't all the Democratic caucases/primaries occur on the same day? Surely it would prevent the race dragging on and on? Or is the Democratic system too complicated to attempt this? Wed 23 Apr 2008 16:39:02 GMT+1 justpam # 17:Barack Obama is dragging himself down by his association with known home grown terrorists and racists, he doesn't need any help. He throws a hissy fit if the press isn't fawning at his feet, and asks actual *gasp* questions about the problems we face as a country. And for the millionth time: Senator McCain never said the U.S. would be in Iraq definitively for 100 years. He was stating an opinion that it wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing, considering half the Middle East wants to "wipe the U.S. off the map". Don't we have just as much right to exist as you do? Wed 23 Apr 2008 16:33:05 GMT+1 tighey If I were to sum up my perception of Democratic Nomination process in three 3 words I would use- Complex- Convoluted- Unfair? (I expect you could argue all day on that one!)I would love to know: -a) If the US citizenry generally love or hate the way the nominations work. b) If there is any serious intent in the Democratic Party circles to review the process once this is all over? Wed 23 Apr 2008 16:14:21 GMT+1 dukeofAnkh Does anyone care?The future thrust of foreign policy is determined by America's inevitable decline in the face of a rampant Asia.Whichever of the 3 is elected will struggle to keep a lid on recession and inevitable humiliation when the US leaves Iraq Wed 23 Apr 2008 15:56:26 GMT+1 ronaine Thanks for the link DianneB - but if you notice - it is an old story (Feb 1), comes with its own disclaimer at the end (that there is no inference that Auchi had direct links with state officials) and is even discounted by an Illinois Republican commenter who describes Sen. Obama as 'the real deal'.What is it with these smears on Sen. Obama? Sure, if you think he's inexperienced, or disagree with his views etc. then that's fair game - but why do people, both Sen. Clinton supporters and Republicans insist on these acrimonious tactics? Does it really serve your interests over there in the US to do so?Strange... Wed 23 Apr 2008 15:50:31 GMT+1 CantGetOverHill Justin Webb your scrappiness has reached the pits. It doesn't get worse than this. You are so biased against Hillary that it sickens me. I detest even reading your posts anymore. They completely lack journalistic ethics. They're completely in the realm of Yellow journalism, and beyond. When will you get a life?! Wed 23 Apr 2008 15:44:56 GMT+1 MikeCotton25 Disapointing result for Obama but of course not unexpected. Clinton may have won but did not win by a huge margin. 200,000 out of 2 million! Obama represents the hope of not only America but also the world. Like it or not who the US President is matters to the rest of the world. Wed 23 Apr 2008 15:22:11 GMT+1 chicagoguy Whomever is the democratic candidate , I will still vote Democratic . I couldnt stand four more years of of the same nonsense from McCain as we have had from Bush .Its about issues not personalitiesEnd the warStop the decline of our economy Health care reformTax reformrenegotiate NAFTABy the by I was a republican for all of my adult life . No more . I am white, sixty and fed up .I dont care what colour or sex of the candidate . I want change ! Wed 23 Apr 2008 15:17:09 GMT+1 ronaine I'm kind of intrigued by the fact that some US contributors here - and certainly plenty on US media sites - feel that Sen. Obama is 'far left'. It seems obvious from his book and from various old colleague commentaries that he does not sit easily with entrenched points of view - and here and there has some conservative leanings. What I get from his thinking is that he believes in consensual politics. Which is a long way from hard left. And actually seems to be closer to the "third way" that President Clinton espoused. In fact a fair bit of what he says reminds me of President Clinton. And to me, the terrible association a lot of the US has with liberalism is hilarious - but that's probably just semantics.However isn't it the rejection of these stereotypes that Sen. Obama's candidacy is supposed to represent? And what exactly is so scary about that? Wed 23 Apr 2008 14:59:02 GMT+1 superjegmeister I can't believe any true Democrat would vote for a candidate who talks about "obliterating Iran". Even hard-line neocons might baulk at such language.How can anyone trust someone who is prepared to say anything, do anything, smear anyone to get elected? Talk about unprincipled - she couldn't be more so if she tried.What amazes me is that some people (including some Democrats) appear to be buying her ridiculous argument that, as this is what Republicans would do to Obama, this justifies it.Fine - so Obama could fling mud after piece of mud at Clinton, smear her, lie, cheat - whatever it takes - and that's ok because it's all part of the campaign. I bet if that happened we would suddenly hear lots of bleating from Clinton about unfair criticism. She is a hypocrite through and through.Sorry guys - this neocon style argument doesn't even register with me. It is not acceptable to me and should not be acceptable to any decent-minded individual.Let's hope the Democrat Party has the courage not to be bullied and intimidated by these tactics and to back someone with principle - Obama.Oh - and to answer those people who keep whineing on about the no vote count at Florida and Ohio. These two states BROKE THE RULES - simple as that. Why should they be counted? And in any event in one of those Obama did not even contest it because the votes were discounted. If that's the best people can up with for Clinton, then it's pretty feeble. She will be behind in the vote in August prior to the superdelegates - regardless of this result. And she knows it. She should shut up, accept the reality and pull out before she hands the Republicans an even bigger victory in the presidential election. Or maybe her Iran pronouncement shows she wouldn't mind a right-wing party triumphing after all! Wed 23 Apr 2008 14:38:44 GMT+1 Ed Iglehart This post has been Removed Wed 23 Apr 2008 14:11:19 GMT+1 DianneB FINALLY some of the media have stopped protecting him... ... hmm...UK has to wonder why the US media haven't run with the real facts before now. Come on Super dels, wake up and smell the coffee, because Obama,"your chickens are coming home to roost"! The states won by Obama will go back to the control of the repulicans in the elections, therefore making Hillary the most electable! Especially when you consider who financially supports Obama...he is nothing but a smooth talking crook and probably wouldn't get security clearance for the White House! ... !GO HILLARY!!! Now the voters are with you All the way to the White House! Wed 23 Apr 2008 13:41:39 GMT+1 kburns_ireland I don't put much stock in this spin. Obama is goin to pretty much landslide North Carolina, and there's still a whole raft of states that favour him.Clinton can talk all she likes about the 'big states', but as Obama's campaign has demonstrated, the 'flyover' states matter too. Obama also rightfully pointed out that a Democrat will win New York, will win California. Clinton is trying to confuse Democrat-territory with 'Clinton-territory', she needs to be able to have a broader appeal, but she dosn't.She's relying now on the brag-factor from Pensylvannia, even though her lead there had plumetted by about 14 points in a tiny period of time. And that Osama-ad, never would have expected that from her party - the superdelegates won't like that, surely she must realise that by now.Obama is often accused of being messianic - but what could be more so than Clinton desperately scraping to a win a nomination that so obviously won't be hers? Wed 23 Apr 2008 13:12:05 GMT+1 Not so pretty polly Am I missing something here?Is it really the case that registered Democrats would either not vote, or vote for the enemy (i.e. a Republican) than vote for the candidate chosen by the majority of their party? It seems childish (or worse) to effectively I will not play on the team if I don’t get the Captain I wanted.Confused Polly of Manchester (England) Wed 23 Apr 2008 13:07:10 GMT+1 bobgodwin Like l said before the democrats should bring an end to this duel because it is seriously risking their chances of winning the white house race in November. Hillary Clinton cannot beat McCain for the white house race. And she lacks trust in the financial world.. I mean in the wall street! America needs a change of orientation a change of mind and someone people could look at for hope. For goodness sake this is not time for dirty veteran politicians trying to shift votes from one camp to the other. I think the democratic leaders should stay clear from this race and let the people select their choice! Most media organization are shifting cameras towards Clinton playing along with democratic leaders the same dirty game of politics! This should STOP! It is not good for America! I just can’t understand why Clinton supporter should'nt vote for Obama if he wins the democratic nomination? Please tell me why? There is too much of media information manipulations in this race. The democrats are wise enough to vote for the right person in order to bring an end to this present economic dictatorship in America. Democrats think carefully and vote wisely! [Today’s Exchange 1euro = $1.61] America needs to be rescued from this economic Plunder!!! Wed 23 Apr 2008 12:58:41 GMT+1 DrCahil And yet many Obama supporters were left disenfranchised in the urban areas, where his support was strongest, what, with all the machines breaking down and no one available to fix them for hours!! This is what we call election rigging (in what is meant to me the world’s strongest democracy)! Hillary has done so much damage to the Democratic party, and so much so that a lot of this will be irreparable before first Tuesday in November! But she isn’t entirely to blame for this. Much of the blame also lies in the hands of all those so-called superdelegates, who have been sitting on the fence, chicken enough to not take a stand – people like Al Gore, John Edwards, Gov. Phil Bredesen of Tennessee, and many others… who would rather proclaim from the pulpits how this increasingly negative race is destroying the chances of electing a Democrat President, only pointing a finger by implication to Senator Clinton as the cause, but not putting a conclusive stop to the skulduggery by endorsing the obvious unassailable winner, Barack Obama. The wimp charge clearly sticks on these superdelegates, and they will have only themselves to blame when John McCain is sworn in as the 44th President of the United States! Wed 23 Apr 2008 12:56:41 GMT+1 hants_gw Did 25. and 26. get posted here by mistake? I don't see what they have to do with the Democratic Presidential candidates. Wed 23 Apr 2008 12:50:01 GMT+1 boscoman It appears to me that the media have jumped on board this Obama bandwagon from the outset, wishfully thinking or perhaps even hoping that they can dare to be on the right side, whatever that may turn out to be. Is this because they believe that the time is right to play the race card or are they fearful of not doing so? Who remembers the same old nonsense when Jesse Jackson was the "up and coming"? What happened to him? Could it be an anti woman thing or is this their way of hitting back at Bill Clinton for proving them all wrong when they were adamant that he would be impeached? They were wrong then! Most decent Americans don't want candidates to roll over. If it's worth having then it's worth fighting for. The female population of the USA should be encouraging their menfolk to rally round this good lady called Hilary. She's a breath of fresh air who tells it how it is.David_Cunard (Comment 1 at 0634) was right, in my opinion. There must be more "meat on the bones" Obama certainly talks the good game BUT..........? Wed 23 Apr 2008 12:32:26 GMT+1 Streathamite right now McCain must be laughing himself silly right now.The two Dems tearng chunks out of each other publicly. All he has to do is sat back, fundraise and prepare. Wed 23 Apr 2008 12:10:10 GMT+1 akajameswood Well.for those of us who would prefer Obama, I guess we must look to Big Bill to say something outrageously stupid and scupper his wife's chances.Come on, Bill. England expects . . . Wed 23 Apr 2008 12:04:47 GMT+1 Greta_Hansen Oh! I forgot along with adoring Ed ... you were massively charming and utterly delightful with the young college student (the only one I can view). Great interview. You like the kids, don't you. Me too. Politics, civic life is alive in the university, and the high school ... thank Zeus.Be careful of the Denver cops, should this be a brokered convention. Despite our wonderful Mayor, former Gov Romer brought the LA police force home with him after failing as LA Superintendent of Schools. Pack your gas mask. Wed 23 Apr 2008 11:59:04 GMT+1 beready66 Why is it that when it comes to Hillary Clinton, nothing she does is ever good enough? She continues on in this campaign because she is above and beyond the best candidate for the Presidency. She clearly wins another big state with a large number of people and she's considered a failure. Yet, Barack Obama leaves the state after declaring her victorious in the afternoon and makes it seem like Pennsylvania wasn't that big a deal. He spent nearly 3 to 1 over Hillary, and still lost by a large margin yet he is still the savior of the democratic party. How does he expect to win the Presidency if he continues to cast off his loses of the big states. People in Pennsylvania should be bitter over the way he discards them. If he gets the nomination, will he come back and then tell them how important they are? Just like in Florida/Michigan, in November's election if he's the candidate for the Democratic Party their actions will reflect his treatment of them - they will discard him, too. Wed 23 Apr 2008 11:46:49 GMT+1 Greta_Hansen This post has been Removed Wed 23 Apr 2008 11:41:59 GMT+1 Greta_Hansen This is a fairly typical campus story (well, not at Bob Jones or Brigham-Young, perhaps). Those with tender eyes are forewarned. War, torture and privacy are key issues for these MoveOn children."Domestic Terrorist"Reminds me of a common bumpersticker in Prague and Plzen, Czech Republic: AMERICAN TERRORIST ... and a picture of a particularly unpopular American president.Lots of demonstrations against the radar base, which constitutionally requires a national referendum but will be officially signed and sealed (illegally) during the first week of May, despite 2/3 popular opposition.Big demonstrations against the base are planned for Plzen during the VE celebrations May 6 -- a rare moment to speak directly to the American Ambassador, who rarely leaves his compound. And a rare opportunity to speak with the much-honored and gallant American Veterans who return each year, despite age and air-fare. I adore these old fellahs ... time to dig out my cribbage board.This year, I'm a bit worried about the co-incidence of these events. Opposing the base is a symbol of Czech independence ... not anti-Americanism ... but I wonder how these elderly men will interpret it?I'll let you know. Wed 23 Apr 2008 11:31:30 GMT+1 john3gold I live in Pennsylvania currently and I can tell you this; that the Pennsylvania Primary is a debacle that has not only risked the Democratic Party's chances of winning the White House but has proved that when someone is to strong willed it listen it is dangerous. Right now Hillary has acted alot like President Bush becuase she has not listened to many people who have told her to get out of the race. If she had gotten out of the race before the Pennsylvania Primary she could have focused on a very very strong 2012 election; but instead she is still in the presidential race; determined to make a name for herself; determined to make history and instead what she is doing is she has divided the party and even made many here and elsewhere bitter and entrenched; supporters of Obama may not support her now because she has used every tactic to win and has not dropped out of the race; supporters of Clinton will not support Obama because they will hang on to every chance they think they have and now neither person may end up winning the presidency.Obama both before and after Pennsylvania's Primary has the delegate lead; the primary didn't change a thing; as a result Clinton's victory was a punic victory because nationally she didn't gain anything; no large number of delegates or even momentum; she only saved face.Here in Pennsylvania Clinton's victory was expected in a very very odd way and unless you are reporting from here its hard to see it. Pennsylvania's democratic political leaders are very liberal; considerably more liberal than the people who live here; as a result they have backed Hillary Clinton heavily and the local press has jumped on the support bandwagon which gave Clinton a boost; but the people largely voted for Obama. What you have is the politcal leaders saying one thing;pushing one person; Hillary and the people pushing another; Obama; which is why the Pennsylvania Primary was so close and if the state government stayed relatively neutral the democratic race may have very ended on 22 April 2008.Instead what has happened is thus; Clinton; who should have seen she was behind in the delegate counts and in the polls should have dropped out of the race for the good of the party; but she has not because she want to be strong will so now the Democratic Party is divided. Both delegates are spending time, money and resources on each other instead of getting ready to face the Republicans in November 2008. The Democratic Party is heading towards the Democratic Convention divided, entrenched, neither side wanting to give up or support the other and will not have enough time to heal to face the Republicans.Clinton is an expensive distraction that is keeping the Democratic Party from moving ahead towards the White House.All the while John McCain is storing up money; raising support; and studying the two candidates with nothing distracting him. Wed 23 Apr 2008 11:16:26 GMT+1 Ed Iglehart Marcus (21),"his association and refusal to completely disassociate himself with a black pastor who clearly and outspokenly hates America. ..."You obviously haven't gone beyond the most selective of sound bytes.Check out the Whole man. Wed 23 Apr 2008 11:14:35 GMT+1 johnnybliss Okay, two things which are bothering me:1.) 10% or less is not a "bounce back" when that means she's *lost 10%* of her 20% lead in... what? 2, 3 weeks? These results are basically what we were all expecting, and so all the media spinning this as some big surprise is...(Just imagine that I am sighing very deeply, with a look of intense irritation.)2.) I find it funny that people who bring up Florida and Michigan as a sign of Hilary's electability or whatnot, almost universally neglect to mention two things: that Obama's name did not even *appear* on the ballot in Michigan, and that he nevertheless would still hold the popular vote anyway! Wed 23 Apr 2008 11:12:22 GMT+1 MarcusAureliusII From where I see it, Obama cannot become President. Not now, probably not ever. He lost even among Democrats in every major state. Many who voted for Clinton will vote for McCain before they'd vote for Obama. He is an elitist, far left ultra-liberal, inexperienced, and does not represent the main stream of the American body politic. If he is nominated, I may just vote myself (for McCain of course) to save the country from what would be a disasterous Obama administration. Not that I expect McCain to do an outstanding job, he's the best of a sorry lot. These detractions of Obama's are not outweighed IMO by his obvious intelligence and charisma. Race will play a factor for some voters but not nearly so much as it once did. The comments about bitterness turning Pennyslvanians to guns and religion will haunt him. So will his association and refusal to completely disassociate himself with a black pastor who clearly and outspokenly hates America. This is a throwback to the darkest days of the 1960s which the far left baby boomers who are now becoming the geriatric generation remembers with fondness. Obama is set up for a landslide loss just like George McGovern. You cannot win a Presidential election in America if you are from the far left.Obama's evasion of taking any hard positions on every major issue except Iraq by saying he wants to go beyond politics will not fly in the general election. He may have gotten a free pass in the press and among the Democrats in the nomination campaign but during the general election campaign the Republicans will take him apart. They will have an enormous warchest of hundreds of millions of dollars contributed by the nation's wealthiest, and by major corporations and they have demonstrated as in the campaign against Dukakis they know how to use it effectively. Wed 23 Apr 2008 10:32:02 GMT+1 Reuben33g Michigan and Florida's voes would not give Hillary enough delagates to catch or beat Barrack because, as we've seen in the states that have been counted, the delagates from those states are awarded proportionally to the votes in those states; even though Hillary 'won' those states, she didn't win all of their delegates, and Barrack has enough of a lead today that the numer that she's gain would be offset by the number that he too would also gain.Super Delgates aren't required to vote acording to their state's popular vote, so this Primary is still up in the air.Sure there are racists out there who won't vote for Obama because he's black, but Obama has other image problems with votors that arn't based on race: He's about as far left as one can get and still call oneself a Democrat. Wed 23 Apr 2008 09:50:38 GMT+1 Greta_Hansen Obama broke Hillary's bank, though I'm sure Rupert Murdoch and Richard Mellon Scaife will bail her out. After all, a new war in Iran works for their wallets. Quite a choice we Dems have. A NeoCon to rival Cheney ... or an actual Democrat.Hate to see the problems with voting machines; talk about subverting Democracy.I might add that the elimination of paperless balloting is an key MoveOn issue ... if we can't double-check or spot-check, results are suspect. Again.Maybe Blackwater and Halliburton will contribute to Hillary ... or at least supply tanks and body armor for Denver. Wed 23 Apr 2008 09:44:41 GMT+1 Sunchilde Also her maths doesn't add up. Unless she has all the super delegates in her pocket, she needed to win 67% of all elections to get enough delegates to challenge Barack before Pennsylvania even occurred. An 8.6% (or even 10%) lead is not 67% of all the votes. So she splits the Democratic voters further, for no possible gain. WHat would her required percentage need to be now, higher than 67 I would hazard.Fasten your seatbelts, McCain is on his way. In my opinion it's time to end the 'special relationship', or at least put it on hold. Wed 23 Apr 2008 09:41:07 GMT+1 Sunchilde I'm 100% behind Barack (apart for being British and unable to vote), but it is a very good point that Barack is being dragged down when he loses his patience and responds to Hillary in kind, such as the Annie Oakley comment.Then again, the news coverage over there is abysmal, and if Hillary keeps doing what she is doing, McCain will win. But then again, she seems to feel she has a divine right to the presidency, so maybe that is her plan, 4 years of McCain and then she can step up again. Lord help the entire world if that happens, McCain has been quoted saying 'we'll have a 100 years of war if we have to'.And guess who will be dragged into it after the Americans? Us. Wed 23 Apr 2008 09:35:07 GMT+1 Ed Iglehart Chad (9),Even counting Florida and Michigan, Obama leads in popular vote AND elected delegates."Obama is the best of a pretty mediocre bunch, mind you we've got dour, uninspiring Gordon Brown ...."A good smile makes a huge difference! Wed 23 Apr 2008 09:33:30 GMT+1 vswvsw True, Mr. Obama leads Mrs. Clinton in the race for delegates, but it's a very close race. America is a country whose populace is easily and eagerly swayed by the media, and this media is both blatently and venemously anti-Clinton. Afterall, how many times do we hear about Mr. Obama's frumpy looks or poor taste in attire? The fact that this race is indeed so close makes it seem that, were it not for the media's bias, Mrs. Clinton would have a significantly higher number of votes. I'd venture to say that it's not the American Democrats who want to have Mr. Obama as their presidential candidate, it's the American media. Wed 23 Apr 2008 09:18:26 GMT+1 DavidGinsberg Hi Justin, I liked the Fred Barnes article but I wondered if you noticed the ads in the piece for lap (treadmill) pools. It showed someone swimming in a tiny pool getting lots of exercise but ultimatly going nowhere. Was this a coincidence? or was some clever sub-editor making a comment about the Clinton campaign expending a lot of effort for no real gain? And I thought Americans didn't do irony or satire..... Wed 23 Apr 2008 09:16:47 GMT+1 Board Stupid #6 Obama outspent Clinton by almost 4 to 1 - it just shows that you can't always buy votes. Wed 23 Apr 2008 09:01:57 GMT+1 Ben_Dem According to the New York Times, the actual margin between the candidates is 9.4%. It is only if you round Clinton up and Obama down that you get the 55/45 magical "ten point victory". It is this "double digit" margin that seems to be so important in today's reporting, and yet the actual margin being 9.4% should be rounded down to 9%. A case of the success of Clinton's spin team, or the media keeping a good story going? Wed 23 Apr 2008 08:50:45 GMT+1 akajameswood Clinton has stooped to trawling for votes and support from US Jews, Zionists, neoCons and pro-Israel Christians by threatening to obliterate Iran when she's Pres and if it attacks Israel.Be very afraid of such blatant bribery. Wed 23 Apr 2008 08:42:58 GMT+1 peterm99 I am amazed at the political spin.Recall that Sen. Clinton started in Pennsylvania with a greater than 20 point lead, enjoyed the support of the most powerful political machine in decades, had a popular ex-President campaign on a continuous basis, and had the backing of a popular governor and his political machine. With all of this, her margin of victory is less than 10 points.It seems delusional to claim that this is evidence that the tide is turning in her favor. If anything, her tide is receding according to polls, as the longer she campaigns, her negative ratings continue to rise faster than those of Sens. Obama and McCain. Wed 23 Apr 2008 08:37:24 GMT+1 Chad Secksington At the end of the day, for all the Obama camps talk of popular votes and delegate counts the fact is that his lead is entirely due to two of Clinton's victories not being counted because "the states voted too early" which speaking from this side of the pond must be about the most fatuous reason for ignoring an election result I've ever heard.You can argue election rules all you like but unless those votes were nakedly corrupt or flat out wrong then ignoring them makes a mockery of the whole campaign, and it's damaging to the Democrats as a whole.I see the race issue is starting to creep into the argument more and more, if Obama was to go down that route it would be electoral suicide even if he won the nomination, inferring that Clinton voters were racist would be a huge disincentive to them to switch their votes in the Presidential election and he'd get larruped by McCain.I have to say watching the race as an outsider, none of the candidates are exactly stellar, Obama is a decent orator but he's not great, he's elevated by the paucity of his opposition for the nomination, the Presidential race and the incumbent President, Obama is the best of a pretty mediocre bunch, mind you we've got dour, uninspiring Gordon Brown so maybe the political scene is just in a dull patch at the moment. Wed 23 Apr 2008 08:31:52 GMT+1 Candace9839 The superdelegates need to put Clinton out of her misery so Democrats can rally round Obama and stop wasting valuable time. Wed 23 Apr 2008 08:17:07 GMT+1 ukcowgirl What all the democrats have to remember is that there are LOTS of skeletons and baggage in 'that woman's' closet. IF the super delegates were to be swayed, contrary to popular vote, the Republicans will have a truckload of dirt to throw at the American people about 'that woman' and her partner. When all is said and done, that will turn many democrats away from her. Obama is still in the lead. He is still a more inspirational candidate, and once 'that woman' is out of the picture, 'her type of democrats', will see this. Wed 23 Apr 2008 08:11:21 GMT+1 OnlyHereForTheFood It wasn't a "trouncing". 200,000 votes more out of 2.2 million cast isn't a massive victory - especially when Clinton has historical routes to a state (a massive factor) and nearly all the Penn. Democractic Party behind her. Yes, Obama outspent but diminishing returns starts making an effect when you start spending so much.And all this effort from the Clintons gains them... 16 delegates. Still way behind Obama which he'll make back up in North Carolina - but wait, that doesn't count because it's got too many African Americans in it... my bad.Oh well, it keeps the press happy at least, and in the end isn't that what matters? Wed 23 Apr 2008 08:02:56 GMT+1 akatribbles A note: the margin doesn't look to be 10% as widely reported, but 8.6% with 98.91% of the districts reporting: is significant--as has been reported elsewhere, and even giving her the 10%, Clinton needed to win by (much) wider margins to have a substantial impact on the outcome of the race: Wed 23 Apr 2008 06:59:08 GMT+1 babyloislane In Pennsylvania, as elsewhere on the US campaign trail, many voters, especially working class white males, perceived their options as "avoidance-avoidance": they didn't like Hillary because to them she seemed an aggressively mouthy woman. But they disliked Obama more because he is Black. (That his mother was white does not affect that perception.)In a word, racism is embedded in the US, and even the fact that Barack Obama is an elitely educatred, cultivated man does not affect that ingrained prejudice. Wed 23 Apr 2008 06:51:08 GMT+1 Copeland1974 Its interesting in one of the articles they discuss Clintons rhetoric concerning core Democratic voters...and that her voters wont vote for Obama. Surely by pushing on that issue she will polarise the Democratic vote and ensure a republican presidential victory. Seems to me she should be prepred to tell her voters to vote for Obama when the time comes. Shes biting her nose off to spite her face. Wed 23 Apr 2008 06:47:50 GMT+1 Alec_Ryrie I'm becoming alarmed by your uncanny ability to predict the future. Getting McCain's resurrection right was one thing: predicting the precise margin of victory in Pennsylvania back on March 12, though?Could you put the rest of us out of our misery and tell us who the Democratic nominee will actually be, and when it'll be settled? (I'm not entirely joking ...) Wed 23 Apr 2008 06:40:44 GMT+1 David Cunard Rather than a link to the prickly and bandwagon Editorial at the New York Times, it would have been more appropriate to link to that same paper’s headline "Clinton Outduels Obama in Primary With Clear Victory, She Has Rationale to Fight On" (see ) a statement which rather negates the sentiments expressed on its Opinion page and which the other link underscores: (she) "trounced him by a substantial margin in a state that the Democratic presidential nominee must win in November." The latter is not a new opinion but has been expressed by thinking readers if not by the would-be moulders of opinion in the press. Although of little importance to American voters, except that it a News Corp publication, The (London) Times started the evening with the headline "Early exit poll spells bad news for Hillary Clinton" and altered it twice, finishing with "Clinton wins and lives to fight another day" - yet another example of how reluctant the press is to recognise that Mrs Clinton is just as likely as not to be the Nominee and next President of the United States. It must be galling for pro-Obama writers on both sides of the Atlantic to realise that their man cannot forever promise “hope and change” but must put some meat on the bones of an increasingly slender body, hence his substantial defeat in Pennsylvania. Wed 23 Apr 2008 06:34:56 GMT+1