Some answers...
WASHINGTON DC: Today's events have prevented me considering your questions.
I had a look at some readers' questions last night, though - the ones collected by the website's team, before I asked for questions via the blog.
Another day I'll try to answer some of those too, but here are my answers to the first batch:
Q How do parties decide on the delegates in those states where they did not conduct primaries or caucuses, and who selects these people? Are they completely free in their choice?
Werner Radtke, Paderborn, Germany
A The answer is that all states hold some form of competition: it is just that they sometimes hold the Republican and the Democratic sessions on different days. But every American (even, on the Democratic side, those overseas) has the right to take part in the process.
Q Which Democratic candidate is better placed to beat McCain, who seems to be the front runner for the Republicans? The Republicans have hinted that they wanted Clinton because she seems easier to beat in the final race for the presidency. What do you think?
Mim Sekandi, Edmonton, Canada
A My feeling is that Mrs Clinton is easier to beat - there is less of a difference between her and him, and while she would do well with her own party base I think, he would steal many independents and those who simply cannot abide the Clintons. So, Obama for a win it seems to me.
Q Do you think Bill Clinton has helped or hurt the Hilary Clinton campaign thus far?
Matthew Hurst, Los Angeles
A He has helped her and hurt her in equal measure: in South Carolina he hurt her at least in terms of the short-term aim of winning the state. But maybe his attacks on Obama had the effect of bringing the Illinois senator down from the heights, made him less of an untouchable star, and took away some of his wider appeal. I really think it is unknowable at the moment: and will one day be the subject of a doctoral thesis or two!
Q Is there any chance of Clinton askimg Obama to become Vice-President or of Obama asking Clinton to do the same?
Terry Brennan, Liverpool, England
A Yes, every chance she will ask him, if he continues to chase her all the way to the convention in the summer - because he will need to be bought off, and he brings people to the voting booth she cannot reach. That is also true of her for him, but I suspect he might go for a white man who can win him some states as well.
Q Could we have a situation equivalent to a by-election for the Democrats if the result is a tie? What happens?
Henry Farotade, Lagos,Nigeria
A It cannot be a tie - because some superdelegates can change their minds, and the pressure on them to do to so would be too huge to ignore. The problem is that a close-fought battle would lead to great bitterness and would remind many Democrats of the Bush 2000 election result, where the courts get involved. This is where the two candidates arrange some kind of deal to avoid such a struggle.
Q How will all the late independent voters sway the course of this election in the long run? Voters like me will make a decision at the end, and would this really affect the outcomes if the delegates have already made their respective decisions?
Raquel, San Francisco, California, USA
A Well you cannot over-rule the delegates! But independent voters are the sexy force this time round are they not? McCain would need them and so would Obama. And Hillary will do her best to get them, or risk going down with only her base onside. So I think you are in the driving seat...
Q Is there any sense over there, from voters, journalists or party members, that at 71 (and a half) years of age Senator McCain is too old for the nomination? He would be 72 by the time of the inauguration and 80 by the end of a potential second term, pretty old in modern political terms.
James Loew, London, England
A Oh yes, there certainly is. It was picked up strongly in the exit polls on Super Tuesday and it matters down the line, however much McCain might make light of it. The view of Grover Norquist - a party bigwig I was talking to this week - is that McCain might well do some deal for a one-term "fix the mess" presidency and then agree to step aside.
Q Is there any difference between the Republican and Democrat nomination process?
Asif Akhteruzzaman, Dhaka, Bangladesh
A There are huge differences of detail but overall the process is pretty similar: both parties are electing delegates to a convention at the end of the summer when the formal vote will be taken for the nominee. One piece of detail that matters this year though - while the Republicans have several winner-takes-all states, the Democrats elect delegates proportionally in all their contests, thus ensuring in 2008 that it goes on and on and on and on and on...
Q Do you think the Obama surge has gone as far as it can? Sure, he won states where there is a strong African-American presence and other smaller states but he is losing where it counts - Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey, California.
Michael Pearson, Nantucket, USA
A There is a legitimate view, I think, that Barack Obama picks up the kind of support that does not necessarily translate into a general election victory. So he won in Georgia and North Dakota but the Democrats are not likely to get those states in the bag in November. He also tends to win wealthier people (nothing wrong with that!) but his failure to excite the blue-collar base of the party is a problem for him. Having said that, he is incredibly well-funded now and he is trying to change not only the US but the mode of selection of candidates, so I am not going to bet against him...
Q I have been following the Super Tuesday elections, but what I don't understand is that Mr Obama has won 13 states and Mrs Cliton 8, so why is Mr Obama not a winner since he got more states? Could you please shed more light on this?
Moses Chama, St-Petersburg, Russia
A Yes it's easy: this election was for delegates (a certain number from each state based on the population) and the number of delegates is what counts. So he won more states but she won bigger states (California and New York for instance) and so more delegates. One issue though: it may be that the number of delegates will be quite even at the end of the process of counting, in which case it is a draw - although please see the answer above for why it might not be!!
Q I would like to know if you think the American media is showing bias and if so, toward which candidate?
Sherry Smith, Phoenix United States
A Not conscious bias, but McCain and Obama are friendly to the press and love is a powerful weapon...
Q Can the party hierarchy override the final delegate votes? For example, if Clinton wins the required delegates before August, could the party still opt to put Obama up as its presidential candidate (likewise for Mccain and Romney)?
Umran, London, UK
A No. Though on the Democrat side, what would happen if Hillary Clinton needed the delegates from Florida to win but those delegates remained barred by the party? (They were barred because Florida held its primary too early and was punished.) The answer is that she could go to court to force the Florida delegates back in (she won there) and have them elect her. Far-fetched? Maybe, but this has been an election of surprises. It could yet end in court.
Hello, I'm 
颁辞尘尘别苍迟蝉听听 Post your comment
Mr Webb, I'm very impressed that you are taking the time not just to blog, but to respond to questions from the public, which makes this a very interesting and informative website, and quite amusing as well. Please keep up the good work.
I have heard others agree with the view that Obama will be harder to beat than Clinton, but I don't understand it.
Everyone seems to agree that McCain and Clinton appeal to the same type of voters. Both of them seem to be more towards the center than the rest of their parties.
That would mean, if Obama was selected, that he would have the left wing of the democrats, McCain would likely get most of the centrist/independent votes, and McCain would probably get most of the rump republicans too.
If Clinton is selected she will get the hard left votes, as Obama would have, and will give McCain a better fight for the centre.
I understand that there are many in America who do not like the Clintons, but I wonder how many of these are swinging voters, rather than people whose views on the Clintons are not significant to the election because they were never going to vote Democrat anyway.
What is this I have been hearing of superdelegates? They supposedly account for nearly 20% of the Democratic Party's delegates and they are not elected. Them seem to be a bit like the Party Elders of the Chinese Communist Party.
The US elections are not for another 9 months. Why is there so much time given on the 麻豆官网首页入口 regarding who will be nominated from each party?
A follow-up question, which is on everyone's minds now that Romney has quit. Who do you think McCain will choose as VP candidate?
-Huckabee -> to get more appeal from social conservatives?
-Rice -> a black woman, Republican, who would deflate both Hillary's first woman and Obama's first black claim at the same time? Is she considered "conservative" enough by the party base? Or too tied to Bush?
With regard to the first question and answer, it's not quite as simple as it appears, although both parties have made it easier - in short, the potential voter must be 18 or over and, importantly, registered. They cannot vote simply because they have American citizenship. These two sites give rather more detailed information:
www.republicansabroad.org and www.democratsabroad.org
I can't agree that Obama will need to be "bought off" by Mrs Clinton should she become the Nominee. In the November General Election, those who have voted for him in the primaries are hardly likely to vote for McCain. She is not obliged to choose anyone who has run, although of course it might be prudent. However, an election between two white men on the Republican side and a white woman and an African-American man on the other could very well give considerable pause to a large number of voters. Although a lot of progress has been made, it is still not a sure thing that the latter combination would be acceptable.
Concerning Florida (and Michigan) Mrs Clinton might not have to go to court, she could petition the Democratic National Committee to change its mind as the rules provide; there are potentially 366 delegate votes at stake, most, if not all, would go to her. As for bias in the media, some newspapers have endorsed one candidate over the other, but this year endorsements do not appear to matter - the Kennedys were rebuffed in Massachusetts and the preference for Mr Obama by The Los Angeles Times and Oprah Winfrey was ignored in California. Thanks perhaps to the internet, voters appear more informed about the issues and personalities than in former years and do not rely on others to form an opinion.
Hillary raised $20 Millions in Gen Election contributions, is she now using them by "Loaning" money to her own campaign? She will be repaid with the Gen Election money if she doesn't get the nomination, so is she just substituting cash she can't use with loans that will be repaid by money she can't use now.
Obama is NOT friendly to the press. On the contrary, Clinton is far more willing to hold press conferences and Q&A's. Obama treats the press a lot like how Bush treats the press. YOUR bias towards Obama is clearly showing.
Amazing to read Mr. Webb's analysis that the media are not showing "conscious bias" against any of the candidates. The US media have been relentless foes of the Clintons since before he was elected president and have spun the news stories and commentary against him consistently for years. You can track this through the web site Daily Howler (www.dailyhowler.com) that has documented the shenanigans over the past 20 years and has excellent archives. There is a corresponding positive spin that has boosted John McCain. Equally baseless and capricious and also documented at the Howler. Clinton's situation with the press (like Gore's before her) is much like what Jesse Jackson lamented when he suggested that if he were seen to be walking on water, the news headlines the next day would be "Jackson can't swim." The news media in the US have been a sorry disgrace for decades. They were foolishly adversarial during the Clinton years and wasted pages of coverage on such nonsense as the Whitewater non-scandal and the private sordidness of the Lewinsky matter. Then the Bush #2 administration came in and the media turned into courtiers and the lies and corruption that were matter of course in that sorry time were downplayed. Future historians may tell us why. I suspect it has to do with the acquisition of the news outlets by corporate America.
You all are too stuck on Romney's religion. The media and other supposed pundits want you to believe it (mormonism) is a problem so as to side track the real issue. Have anyone of you supposed authorities ever read up about mormons on their websites (not others anti-websites), or listened to some of the religious leaders comments (catholics, jewish, presbyterian, muslim and others) that live in SLC? They have many good words for the mormons. You all are too afraid or close minded to learn something new. This is why the world has problems...people like you that want to point and complain. Who knows why people stir up problems...usually for power and money. Thinking of that, evangelicals and other religious leaders make a lot of money...mormons have no paid ministers. What do you think about that kind of motivation.
Actually all the dem races are proportional, so even if florida was introduced things would not change much. She won florida, by a vote of 50% to Obamas 33, and Edwards had 13%. fully 1/3 of those delegates would go to Obama.
Beyond that Edwards delegates will be traded around like beads in the convention. ..so that 13% could theoretically swing either way, as could the others he won before that.
If those delegates were a deciding factor this would be an incredibly close primary. That would mean that superdelegates who can choose as they wish would be able to push it any way they want.
With regard to the first question and answer, it's not quite as simple as it appears, although both parties have made it easier - in short, the potential voter must be 18 or over and, importantly, registered. They cannot vote simply because they have American citizenship. These two sites give rather more detailed information:
www.republicansabroad.org and www.democratsabroad.org
I can't agree that Obama will need to be "bought off" by Mrs Clinton should she become the Nominee. In the November General Election, those who have voted for him in the primaries are hardly likely to vote for McCain. She is not obliged to choose anyone who has run, although of course it might be prudent. However, an election between two white men on the Republican side and a white woman and an African-American man on the other could very well give considerable pause to a large number of voters. Although a lot of progress has been made, it is still not a sure thing that the latter combination would be acceptable.
Concerning Florida (and Michigan) Mrs Clinton might not have to go to court, she could petition the Democratic National Committee to change its mind as the rules provide; there are potentially 366 delegate votes at stake, most, if not all, would go to her. As for bias in the media, some newspapers have endorsed one candidate over the other, but this year endorsements do not appear to matter - the Kennedys were rebuffed in Massachusetts and the preference for Mr Obama by The Los Angeles Times and Oprah Winfrey was ignored in California. Thanks perhaps to the internet, voters appear more informed about the issues and personalities than in former years and do not rely on others to form an opinion.
The sad part for the Florida Democrats is that it's not their fault they are being penalized by the DNC for moving their primary earlier than allowed.
The date was moved by the Republican controlled legislature, not the party. It's was not really fair.
Because of time differences between the east and west coasts on Super Tuesday, results were already announced in the east long before polling stations closed in the west. This will also be the case in November.Why are the results not held back until the last states have voted? Does anyone gain or loose if there is a last minute surge of voters.
If Hillary were to go to court to get those Florida votes, I think it would do her more harm than good.
For one, it would bring back painful memories of Bush/Gore 2000; rocking the Democrats and splitting the party down the middle. A split party is not really the best way to enter the general elections, especially when the Republicans have been perfecting their candidate for the past 8/9 months.
Secondly, it might create a backlash from the 'on-the-fence' (Independents) voters as well as the general public where Hillary is considered a person that will go to any means (however unfair or frowned upon) to get what she wants. This in turn would bring back painful memories of Bush 2000-2008.
Hence the mere inclining of Hillary fighting for Florida (and/or Michigan) would really sour people鈥檚 impressions of her.
Then again, I really wouldn鈥檛 put it past Hillary - it鈥檚 her style and the sooner people realize this, the sooner people can unite behind a strong and (almost) perfected Democratic candidate, i.e. Obama.
Amazing to read Mr. Webb's analysis that the media are not showing "conscious bias" against any of the candidates. The US media have been relentless foes of the Clintons since before he was elected president and have spun the news stories and commentary against him consistently for years. You can track this through the web site Daily Howler (www.dailyhowler.com) that has documented the shenanigans over the past 20 years and has excellent archives. There is a corresponding positive spin that has boosted John McCain. Equally baseless and capricious and also documented at the Howler. Clinton's situation with the press (like Gore's before her) is much like what Jesse Jackson lamented when he suggested that if he were seen to be walking on water, the news headlines the next day would be "Jackson can't swim." The news media in the US have been a sorry disgrace for decades. They were foolishly adversarial during the Clinton years and wasted pages of coverage on such nonsense as the Whitewater non-scandal and the private sordidness of the Lewinsky matter. Then the Bush #2 administration came in and the media turned into courtiers and the lies and corruption that were matter of course in that sorry time were downplayed. Future historians may tell us why. I suspect it has to do with the acquisition of the news outlets by corporate America.
In response to #2, the idea that Hillary appeals more to independents than Obama is ludicrous. As a Democrat in a moderate Republican state (Arizona), I have seen a great number of Republicans express admiration for what they perceive to be Obama's honesty and clean politics. In fact, I have known several Republicans who have switched party affiliations so they could vote for him. On the other hand, I have never, ever heard a SINGLE Republican say anything positive about Hillary Clinton - in fact, you will find that many Democrats don't like her either. Look at the most recent polls. Obama would win over McCain, but Hillary would not, and it all comes down precisely to the group of voters you are talking about: the independents.
I would disagree with you about the media bias not being conscious. For instance, when Ron Paul came in 2nd in Nevada FOX had his name listed at the bottom but put up Huckabee's photo in the 3rd spot.
In addition, I have yet to hear any media mention that Ron Paul came in 2nd in Louisiana.
#12 David Cunard
Interesting analysis, thanks. This is the kind of analysis which makes me read this blog.
Less Puzzled ((UK)
"(B)ecause (Obama) will need to be bought off" -- bite your tongue. He might not be for sale.
Bob Woodward says transparency is the ONLY issue. He damns the Clintons (as secretive, but not very good at it), praises McCain, and says he doesn't know yet about Obama.
Obama has to expose the Clintons, and he's made a good start by suggesting she might wanna cough-up her tax returns -- he has.
Where did she get that $5 million?
More two-for-one teamwork to end-run campaign finance rules? Terry McAuliffe is a very clever bagman, but Obama's holding the catnip.
Ian's right about the superdelegates. Colorado is a good example. Obama won 2/3 of nearly every caucus in the state -- excepting the ultra-Christian Colorado Springs, home to James Dobson's Focus on the Family.
However, Colorado's superdelegates are (all?) likely to be Clinton supporters ... party hacks have outstanding political debts to Billary (or to Peter and Paul who equally owe Billary).
Remember, superdelegates were invented to offset popular upstarts like Obama.
The DNC will decide the candidate -- or maybe the courts, if they reinstate delegates from illegal primaries, breaking a gentleman's agreement relied on by Edwards and Obama. In this instance, Hillary might not be rewarded for breaking the rules.
Is it just me but is Carl Rove pulling a lot of strings and manipulating in the background here?
The day red states turn blue is the day hell will freeze over.
It does not take a genius to work out that the reason that the turnout in republican primaries is much lower than the democrats is that many republicans are switching temporarily - either by active encouragement or subtler means. If Obama were elected Rove will unleash the dogs and Obama will be dead meat.
The media created Obama and it will also destroy him.
In response to #10. Religion should not have anything to do with the elections... I agree. However, before you go and post pro-religion comments, I suggest YOU research the Mormon religion. As an American who lives in a Mormon influenced community, I agree with your views that Mormons can be wonderful people. They have many wonderful family values and are focused on many of the right things. However, when you look past the surface and read the Book of Mormon and other sacred texts (KJV of Bible, Doctrine and Covenants, and Pearl of Great Price) you will discover some horrific beliefs that Mormons have. For instance, Mormons believe Black people have dark skin because of the sin of Cain; therefore, they are damned to hell. Mormons believe that in order for a Black person to be saved, he/she needs to convert to Mormonism and become a zealous Mormon. At this point, his/her skin will turn WHITE and he/she will be saved. If said person's skin does not change colors then he/she was not a 'good' Mormon and they will go to hell regardless of their beliefs. So as a voting American I believe I have the right to not vote for someone who is so obviously prejudice against people of color. It's not about being close-minded.... It's about promoting tolerance and acceptance. So do YOUR research before you start preaching about the Mormon religion. The Sacred Texts are definitely illuminating.
After being critical of your blog content in previous comments, I have to say that I found your answers here helpful and fair. For what it's worth.
PS. Am I the only one who never knows if my comments have got through. My computer ALWAYS tells me that there has been an error which the 麻豆官网首页入口 are trying to sort out. Sometimes I find my post gets through anyway (at some point) and other times not. The 麻豆官网首页入口 won't respond to my comments to their technical department.
I usually only get this problem with 麻豆官网首页入口 sites for some reason.
As I am about to click the "post" button I get that sinking feeling again.
Obama?! Are you kidding me? If he was such a threat, why the corporate controlled press & the republicans just keep on barking against Hillary?
I have always been extremely bewildered by the American notion that money rules everything. Why do the American people not feel cheated that the power in their 'super country' is given to the highest bidder? Does not sound like democracy to me!
re: Which candidate can beat McCain.
You say there is less of a difference between McCain and Clinton, so that she is easier to beat. This is not true. Clinton and Obama's views on 98% of the issues, their voting record, including the bills they have sponsered, and co-sponsered together, are almost identical. Clinton's views on the issues are completely different than McCain's. That is why the liberal wing of the democratic party is exactly split between Obama and Clinton (according to NYTimes poll).
Vote for Clinton or Obama, but the truth is, although their personalities and experiences are different, they are basically the same on the issues, something which they both say.
On Obama's website he claims to have 910 delegates to Clinton's 882. But the 麻豆官网首页入口 are giving Obama 998 and Clinton 1055. Why the difference ? The Obama website gives a precise breakdown for each state saying how many delegates each candidate has.
I love Justin Webb's blog and the
Q & A's as it is helping me understand the process so much better than what I get here at home in the United States. It's our election and I can't depend on the American media to make this any easier. Thanks Justin and the 麻豆官网首页入口!
@ Richard
There could be various reasons for the difference in delegate count. Some of Super Tuesdays delegates haven't been allocated yet, and both campaigns are estimating, based on the percentage of votes won in each district in each Super Tuesday state, how much they will ultimately wind up with.
Also, it's unclear whether the campaigns are adding into their totals the superdelegates--party elite that get one delegate vote each at the convention in November. Clinton currently has more superdelegates than Obama, although many superdelegates have yet to declare which way they will vote, and they can change their minds at any time.
Obama is attracting lot of young pople and the liberals.How can we trust this country to a person who has limited experience. It is easy to promise election time ,when you are actually running the u.s. government the reality comes in front of you.If you make one mistake the world suffers.
Country should be in the hand of the most experinced person as far as possible.
For a chronic ailment find a person who is most qualified and experience then go to that person for treatment..
Country needs a drastic policy change,so let us give a chance to the most experinced person.
God bless america.
This is directed at people who are puzzled about why the candidates are spending many millions. There seems to be a great deal of misunderstanding about the money issue. The need for money is basically about advertising the candidate. TV, print, radio, posters, etc are not free, and the US is big (California population is about the same as UK population; Texas population about like Austria) A candidate without money can run, but his/her name will not be known. The huge amounts of money come from donations (except in the case of Romney and some few others). Obama gathered much of his money in the early days of the campaign from people making small contributions online. Since he gained momentum, wealthier folks and corporations jumped on. He needs their money for advertising; the trick is in walking the line of taking the money without doing their bidding.
I am unable to understand the basis for the claim that Hillary Clinton has more experience than Barack Obama. It would seem that they are roughly equally inexperienced for the position of President.
Mr. Obama was a State Senator for seven years, a US senator for two years (by most accounts, not particularly outstanding). Earlier, he practiced law.
Mrs. Clinton was a US Senator for eight years (also not particularly outstanding). Earlier, she practiced law. She also happened to be the spouse of a President and Governor. (I cannot see how that can be reasonably claimed to count as experience, as her single acknowledged foray into policy ended in embarrassing reversal.)
Please explain the basis for the wide acceptance of this "more experienced" claim.
Thank you.
Obama,the one who can bring faith and hope to all americans and the world in general.the best Obammm.Vote,Vote,Vote for him.the one who can make peace in irak,afganistan,congo,iran talks,that is Obam
I find this question and answer slot very informative
I am really enjoying your blogs, Justin - I have never enjoyed an American elction before because I have never understood it ! Keep up the good work !
Could you you tell me why it's taken the 麻豆官网首页入口 until now, when the Republican nomination of McCain is more or less in the bag to even acknowledge Ron Paul? The 麻豆官网首页入口 always portrays itself as unbiased media. We often hear 麻豆官网首页入口 reports from Africa, Eastern Europe, Russia, Latin America, etc. that elections were far from fair because of the lack of air time given to non-establishment candidates. Ron Paul is either ignored or treated as a bit of a crazy. In actual fact his policy proposals offer a very serious alternative to the status quo offered by ALL other candidates whatever their party, gender or race. Please explain why he was not given more coverage in the early days of this race. Thanks. Jo in Prague.
i will go for Clinton ,no matter what,i cant go for change for the sake of it.
David (#24)
No, you're not the only one who gets the error message. I get it every time...along with that sinking feeling.
thanks for the answers, and thanks to the posters.
I was under the impression that the corporate money and press was flowing to the democratic party, and remember the pretense of impartiality in cnn disintegrating in Florida 2000, when the shock of the loss really got through past the emotions in to their brains,
then we saw the release of a 2 year old clip showing sa police setting dogs on illegal emigrants, to get the black voters out
but we have not yet seen the clip of black staff terrorising old pensioners in an old age home - would not want to mobilise the white vote now, do we?
clinton the clown only won because Ross Perot split the right vote, if you look at he totals of votes cast he did not get much more than normalwhen he won the first time;
ever since the democrats are shocked every time they lose, as their new voters get dwarfed by the republican new voters.
this presumption of being right and entlited to win is reflected in silly hilly billy as she presumed to be the nominee long before the race started...the dems are people who can not see past long words, that is why they are being deceived now...again...
I hope this happens again; I suffered when carter was in power, and again with clinton the clown, so I wish for McCain, Rommney or even Huckabee to confront the genociders disguised as prime ministers and presidents
The media IS biased.
Always has been.
Regarding republican candidates, this circus began with eleven candidates and prominence was given to the 'top' five.
When down to only five candidates, only the top four and when down to four candidates only the top three.
Now there are only three candidates, naturally only the top two are being given coverage.
Why are they scared of? It can only be that Ron Paul, being the only candidate having integrity and wisdom seeks what is best for Americans rather than supporting the interests of the military-industrial complex and the world banks and, of course, personal material gain.
When Ron Paul is the only republican standing how will they ignore him then?
My forecast: head-to head with Hilary Clinton and Ron Paul with Ron Paul to win.
Incidentally, Ron Paul is the only candidate whose campaign not only has cash in hand but is also not in debt.
The debts of the others of both parties run inti millions.
Americans now have an opportunity to enable a great positive change to come to their country and subsequently to much of the world.
I hope they take full advantage of it.
I really wish you you would take the time to do a little more research and not quote McCain out of context like the politicians do. Here is a quote from his Jan 3rd speach.
"Make it a hundred. ... We鈥檝e been in Japan for 60 years. We鈥檝e been in South Korea for 50 years or so. That would be fine with me, as long as American, as long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed. It鈥檚 fine with me and I hope it would be fine with you if we maintained a presence in a very volatile part of the world where al Qaeda is training, recruiting and equipping and motivating people every single day."
Obama's theme of campaigning is HOPE. Hope is not tangible and not proven. It is just like buying a lottery ticket and hope to strike the jackpot. Those people who are moved by Obama's oratorial skill need to wake up and be realistic. What matters are bread and butter issues. You cannot hope for bread and butter to be placed on your table. The bottom line is experience matters, your well-being, your jobs and your medical cost. All these cannot depend on hope. You need money. You need an experienced leader. Like what President Bush had said, "he does not know what Obama believes in". Obama is young and inexperienced and not up to the mark to be President. He is hoping and propagate hope in you to elect him. Do not be taken in to regret later.
So go for the safer option and vote for Hillary Clinton. She is the best candidate for the job of the President of United States.
In one of your responses to a query you state that you do not think the media is showing a conscious bias toward either candidate.
We have just travelled through the USA from Canada to Mexico and have followed Fox and CNN closely. I would beg to differ.
Constantly both stations talk Hillary Clinton down and the sound bites they choose tell a similar story. When it comes to debates and the audience gets to hear the whole event it is a different story- Clinton shines both in substance and sincerity, but you would not think so listening to the 'experts' analyse it.
Constant repition takes its toll(Vice President, Cheney once said if you repeat something often enough people will believe it, and support for Obama grows as his undoubted ability to sway people with emotion takes hold.
Identifying Clinton with older women, the poor the less educated and those who have no voice, i.e. losers, instead of winning acclaim sends people to the other camp.
Bobby Cox
Richard,
The biggest source of variation in delegate counts is whether or not they include the superdelegates that are supporting a candidate.
Chris Bowers at OpenLeft summarises why it may be more accurate not to conflate the pledged delegate and superdelegate counts:
I think Americans need a President who can unite America at all points and just from what we all can see, Obama is doing just that. I would belief Americans should be glad to have another ''Messaya''as we say in Cameroon which is just what we need here in Africa.
How can we claim to have a democracy if unelected officails have such a big role in determining the outcome of the democratic party nomination via super delegates? Obama is winning the citizen delegates and the citizen votes but Clinton is pulling ahead because political insiders or Super delegates who the voters did not choose.
I have realized one thing in this election process. Clearly. Unequivocally. That is, that the voting age should be raised to 45. I thought the cerebral cortex had matured at age 18 but that obviously is not the case.
Why doews the media including the 麻豆官网首页入口 and Bill Clinton keep bringing racial politics into this campaign. The younger voters seem to be wise enough to realize that Obama will be a more competent President. Obama get a lot of votes from whites, blacks, latinos, native americans, asian americans and mixed race americans. Please do your Job and inform us about their positions on the ISSUES and what POLICIES they plan to implement. We are not interested in knowing what states have "large" black populations. Obama gets more votes from non blacks than he does from blacks. Shame on you.
Is there any truth to the rumors that Obama stepfather raised him as a strict muslim?. Also that he went to a Wahabi Madrassa for several years and that he took his professional Oath on the Coran?
why can a party ban a state's delegates from being counted? Isn't that a hostile move against its own membership. And why would a contender to even be allowed to force them to be counted only after his/her campaign is in trouble?
I saw that Democratic Party had barred all delegates from Florida and Michigan, and the Republican Party had disqualified half the delegates from these two states, and from New Hampshire, South Carolina and Wyoming.
Why were they barred?
Q. How likely would Obama be to place Bill Richardson on the Democratic ticket with him? Whilst going far to bridge the latino - african american divide would such a move alienate white america too much for Obama to consider it an option?
I think if the Republicans had super-delegates and the Democrats thought the Republicans were courting them and calling in favors the way the
Democrats are doing, the Democrats would be threatening law suits left and right. Personally, I think we have the worst lot of candidates I have seen in many years. I don't want any of them and don't believe there is anything they can do to change anything. The age issue is ridiculous since most of the senators and representatives who pass the legislation and allocate the money from citizens taxes are old as dirt and nobody talks about that. There is no conversation about how important it is to elect people who share your views to Congress.
These are the people who really matter in government.
I have another question - what happens to delegates for a candidate who ahs dropped out? For example I think Mitt Romney collected a few before dropping out - who do those delegates vote for now? Are they tied to someone (the second choice in their state perhaps) or are they now free agents?
Many analysts have claimed that although Obama is smart, he lucks the necessary experience particularly on foreign policy. But many former presidents who performed quite well were mere ex-Governors of states and surely being Governor doesn't give one the kind of experience people are talking about such as on foreign policy. Some commentators are saying Obama doesn't even have policies on anything, yet information on his quite innovative policies (such as on technology and health care) is readily available on the Web! So, it appears all this talk about lack of experience, blah, blah, is diversionary.
Won't it be ironic, if in the end, the one who wins the election, won't be the first woman or the first black man, but your usual white (old-ish)man.
It is very surprising to me that the press in Britain (and continental Europe) is not talking about the zombie like attitudes of the democratic voters.
They are all following the US press bias (and Hollywood) and supporting a candidate they love but don鈥檛 really know. A candidate they would like to have a beer with and perhaps worship at the same time. Concrete plans, details, facts are not part of Obamamania, everything we hear is words like hope and intangible reasons why we should all support him.
It is incredible that nobody is putting Obama to the test. I am very saddened to see the 鈥渆ducated latte liberals鈥 acting like sheep. I hope we get more debates and people start asking more questions before is too late. Lets not have another Bush like election. No more feelings please, add more common sense and pragmatism. We are not going solve the problems of the world with feelings.
The 麻豆官网首页入口's Culpeper, Virginia interviews stated that you must be a registered Republican or Democrat to vote in a Virginia primary.
This is not true. Virginia holds "Open Primaries". Any registered voter of any affiliation may vote in either the Republican or the Democratic primary.
From the Virginia Board of Elections:
"Do I need to register with a party in order to vote in the presidential primaries to be held Tuesday, February 12th?"
"No. The Commonwealth of Virginia does not require you to register by party affiliation when registering to vote. Virginia holds open primaries. This means that you may vote in either the Democratic Primary or the Republican Primary, but not both.
When you go to the polls on Election Day, if qualified to vote, you will be asked if you want the Democratic ballot or the Republican ballot. You will then be given the ballot
you requested."
麻豆官网首页入口 should check such information before publishing it as fact.
On Super Tuesday the results of polls on the East coast were anounced ahead of those on the West coast which had not closed. I believe that this will also be the case in November.Is this fair to either party? Can it result in a sudden surge of voters who see how the rest of the country has cast their votes?
Whilst i'm enjoying the coverage, i'm beginning to become a little tired of the constant positive spin toward Obama by the 麻豆官网首页入口. Everyone wants a Democrate in charge, but please show some balance. Be it Clinton or Obama, it will be a monumental moment in First World politics, but let's show a bit of balance eh?
I was in the states for the last election and seemed unable to meet a Republican, yet they still got in simply due to the fact that the Democratic vote assumed they'd win. Let's hope they do not make the same mistake again. If Obama wins, it will show an incedible turn around in the Democratic voting base in 140 years will it not?
Just like the lady haidresser interviewed in Culpepper said will Obama winning the race for the White House cost him his life? I to am seriously scared that just like Kennedy, Obama will be a serious target for assination from the evil extreme elements that festered within US society!
I've never really understood why the party that loses a presidential election doesn't get straight down to the business of choosing the candidate for the next one as soon as possible, so that it has in effect a "leader of the opposition" who can hold the president a bit more accountable than he appears to be at the moment. After all, apart from a few presidential election debates and a rebuttal to the State of the Union address every year, it doesn't look to me as if the president ever really defend himself or his policies very much.
Then again, after losing an election I don't suppose any party has enough money for the kind of expensive rigmarole we're witnessing at the moment.
Why do your colleagues at the 麻豆官网首页入口 continue to use the Republican pejorative Democrat where Democratic should be used? I am a Democrat. I vote Democratic and am proud of my Democratic Senator Carl Levin. I wince every time you use that term incorrectly in the same way I would if a newsreader or writer referred to African Americans as "nigras" or gays as fairies. Although I do think it's cute when they pronounce America's greatest state Mitchigan rather than Mishigan.
One reason Clinton is not doing well is that I believe many American voters, myself included, feel like this a Constitutional issue. The U.S. Constitution forbids anyone from holding executive office (the Presidency) for more than 8 years. Even though Hillary is running and not her husband, the fact that her husband will be in the White House and influencing policy is unavoidable. The Clinton's had their 8 years -- they need to go away and let someone else have a chance. It is basically unconstitutional for Bill Clinton to have another term of office, even if it is via his wife. That is the only reason I voted for Senator Obama.
How does someone become a super delegate? How many votes does each supe delegate represent?
You seem to have a better grasp of our political system than the vast majority of our citizens and especially our media outlets.
The United States of America is a federal republic of sovereign states, NOT a democracy! Therefore, each STATE picks its own method of choosing candidates and running elections. Until 1913 Our US Senators (which Clinton, Obama, and McCain are members) were chosen by the individual state legislatures, not a popular vote. I doesn't seem to make sense to a casual observer, but it does work.
For instance, my state, Pennsylvania, votes by closed primary on April 22nd. I can only vote in the party to which I belong. But Virginia (where my sister lives) is an open primary and she could have voted in either party.
Again, It does not seem to make any sense!
But it is fascinating to watch!
The reason Obama has a better shot at McCain than Hillary despite, on the face of it, having a slightly more left wing voter base, is that the Clintons simply have a radioactive effect on swing voters, although they play very well to the partisan base. Obama's appeal to the base is lukewarm, though they still will vote for him, but his appeal to independents almost across the political spectrum, is borderline religious. Actually, religion is a part of it; actively religious voters go for Obama much more than they go for Clinton, I think in part because she simply does not talk about religion at all. It's not as though he talks about it ad nauseam -- he isn't like a Blair or a Bush in that regard. But it wouldn't he hard to talk about religion more than Hillary Clinton.
Other than religion, there's a sense among independents that Clinton is mired in partisan battles and Obama isn't. While this isn't entirely fair and indeed is driven in considerable part by biased press coverage, Obama certainly has a better legislative track record than Hillary of getting bipartisan support for pending bills, both in the Illinois legislature and now in the Senate.
Mr. Webb - I just wanted to share some thoughts I had about Hillary's campaign so far.I have been an ardent supporter of Hillary since the start of the campaign but have noticed several things which have disappointed me and am now disillusioned with her campaign. She was all supportive of NAFTA when Bill Clinton made it happen and now she wants out of it. And she speaks so much about campaign reforms while continuing to accept lobbyist financial support; I wonder what kind of reform she will bring out if she becomes president. She openly distanced herself from Bill Clinton's comments in presidential debates and declined to take responsibility for them; I was expecting better from her. I wished she never blatantly copied Obama's slogan of change while never really adding substance; now that slogan has changed to solutions. She has resorted to petty ads in Wisconsin that Obama won't debate with her; just seems a lowly thing to do while fighting for something so important.She should have managed the finances of her campaign better to sustain her publicity efforts instead. Now that I think of her 'experience' and 'readiness on day one', I think that she's maybe ready on day one but is she ready to be correct and do the right thing on day one? Glad to hear your reactions.
In the Democratic race, what has happened to delegates won by Edwards before he dropped out? I assume that they are now eligible to vote as they choose and as Edwards comes from the left of the party are perhaps more likely to go for Obama. How many are there? Could they be a significant factor in a close race?