Go Hillary
Clintons RULES
Obama i SAD (2008-2016)
-
walkabout
- Posts: 7869
- Joined: 19/05/2007 00:46
#1077
Jah...djeca cvijeca...to ti je "losh" uticaj raje...
Nego, evo taze haber iz mahale...odlican...za demokrate...
-------------
US President George Bush endorsed Republican nominee-in-waiting John McCain, two bitter rivals from the 2000 presidential race joining together now in hopes of preventing Democrats from winning the White House in November.
"John showed incredible courage, strength of character and perseverance in order to get to this moment and that's exactly what we need in a president - somebody who can handle the tough decisions, somebody who won't flinch in the face of danger," Bush said, appearing with McCain in the White House Rose Garden.
Bush's embrace of the Arizona senator as the party's next standard-bearer comes a day after McCain clinched the Republican nomination by getting the requisite 1,191 convention delegates.
Republicans will not officially nominate McCain until early September at the party's national convention.
"A while back I don't think many people would have thought that John McCain would be here as the nominee of the Republican Party," Bush said.
"Except he knew he'd be here and so did his wife, Cindy."
With his low poll ratings and an unpopular war on his shoulders, Bush could hurt McCain with some groups, while helping with others.
"They're not going to be voting for me," Bush said.
"I've had my time in the Oval Office."
"It's not about me," Bush said. "I've done my bit."
McCain said he looked forward to campaigning with Bush at his side and said the president could be helpful in states such as Texas.
Bush pledged to do whatever he could - even getting out of the way when that would help.
"I got a lot to do, but I'm going to find ample time to help," Bush said.
"I can help raise him money, and if he wants my pretty face standing by his side at one of these rallies, I'd be glad to show up."
"But they're going to be looking at him. I'm going to be in Crawford (the location of Bush's Texas ranch) with my feet up," Bush said.
"He's going to be sitting in behind that desk making decisions on war and peace."
McCain's Washington visit amounted to a victory lap of sorts after a bruising 16-month Republican presidential primary.
He was visiting not only the White House he hopes to occupy but also the Republican National Committee headquarters that he essentially assumes control of now that he is the expected Republican nominee.
He was essentially laying claim to the entire force of the Republican Party apparatus as he plots his general election strategy and sets in motion his campaign - and that of the party - to keep a Republican at the White House helm.
For McCain, the general election campaign starts now even though Democrats still have not chosen a candidate.
Senators Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton continue a protracted battle for their party's nod, leaving McCain an opportunity to unify his party.
To that end, Bush's support sends a strong signal to Republican critics of McCain to fall in line.
The party's conservative base has resisted rallying around McCain, long viewing him sceptically for working across the aisle with Democrats on issues that the right flank detest.
Bush is the head of the Republican Party and he remains a well-liked figure with Republican rank-and-file.
Thus, he could be an asset in raising money and rallying the party base for McCain.
However, his job performance rating is at a low point and he is unpopular with the general public.
AP
Nego, evo taze haber iz mahale...odlican...za demokrate...
-------------
US President George Bush endorsed Republican nominee-in-waiting John McCain, two bitter rivals from the 2000 presidential race joining together now in hopes of preventing Democrats from winning the White House in November.
"John showed incredible courage, strength of character and perseverance in order to get to this moment and that's exactly what we need in a president - somebody who can handle the tough decisions, somebody who won't flinch in the face of danger," Bush said, appearing with McCain in the White House Rose Garden.
Bush's embrace of the Arizona senator as the party's next standard-bearer comes a day after McCain clinched the Republican nomination by getting the requisite 1,191 convention delegates.
Republicans will not officially nominate McCain until early September at the party's national convention.
"A while back I don't think many people would have thought that John McCain would be here as the nominee of the Republican Party," Bush said.
"Except he knew he'd be here and so did his wife, Cindy."
With his low poll ratings and an unpopular war on his shoulders, Bush could hurt McCain with some groups, while helping with others.
"They're not going to be voting for me," Bush said.
"I've had my time in the Oval Office."
"It's not about me," Bush said. "I've done my bit."
McCain said he looked forward to campaigning with Bush at his side and said the president could be helpful in states such as Texas.
Bush pledged to do whatever he could - even getting out of the way when that would help.
"I got a lot to do, but I'm going to find ample time to help," Bush said.
"I can help raise him money, and if he wants my pretty face standing by his side at one of these rallies, I'd be glad to show up."
"But they're going to be looking at him. I'm going to be in Crawford (the location of Bush's Texas ranch) with my feet up," Bush said.
"He's going to be sitting in behind that desk making decisions on war and peace."
McCain's Washington visit amounted to a victory lap of sorts after a bruising 16-month Republican presidential primary.
He was visiting not only the White House he hopes to occupy but also the Republican National Committee headquarters that he essentially assumes control of now that he is the expected Republican nominee.
He was essentially laying claim to the entire force of the Republican Party apparatus as he plots his general election strategy and sets in motion his campaign - and that of the party - to keep a Republican at the White House helm.
For McCain, the general election campaign starts now even though Democrats still have not chosen a candidate.
Senators Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton continue a protracted battle for their party's nod, leaving McCain an opportunity to unify his party.
To that end, Bush's support sends a strong signal to Republican critics of McCain to fall in line.
The party's conservative base has resisted rallying around McCain, long viewing him sceptically for working across the aisle with Democrats on issues that the right flank detest.
Bush is the head of the Republican Party and he remains a well-liked figure with Republican rank-and-file.
Thus, he could be an asset in raising money and rallying the party base for McCain.
However, his job performance rating is at a low point and he is unpopular with the general public.
AP
-
pitt
- Posts: 27093
- Joined: 03/12/2002 00:00
- Location: Steelers Nation
#1078
Obamanomics
Dr Obama's patent economic medicine
Feb 28th 2008 | WASHINGTON, DC
From The Economist print edition
Is Barack Obama a populist, or just pretending to be one?
Is Barack Obama a populist, or just pretending to be one?
Get article background
BUILD a better mousetrap and the world will beat a path to your door. The chap building inferior mousetraps, however, will go bust. Many people want the benefits of technology and trade without the disruption. Politicians often feed this delusion. Barack Obama is no exception.
He is not against technology, of course. That would sound stupid. Nor is he against Americans trading with other Americans. Nor, even, does he oppose trade with foreigners. But he has found an artful way of signalling to those who do that he agrees with them: he denounces NAFTA (the North American Free-Trade Agreement).
To many ears, this sounds like shorthand for denouncing globalisation—though that is not what Mr Obama actually says. More important, because NAFTA was signed by Bill Clinton, Mr Obama can blame his wife for it.
He does so in a reassuring tone of voice but in hysterical terms. During a debate this week in Ohio, where Mr Obama was wooing working-class whites before the state's primary on March 4th, he spoke of “entire cities that have been devastated as a consequence of trade agreements that were not adequately structured to make sure that US workers had a fair deal.” To workers in a cold warehouse, he claimed that NAFTA has destroyed 1m American jobs, “including nearly 50,000 jobs here in Ohio”. As president, he vowed, he will not “stand idly by while workers watch their jobs get shipped overseas.”
Mrs Clinton finds this hard to parry. During the debate, she said she had been “a critic of NAFTA from the very beginning” but didn't say anything publicly out of loyalty to her husband's administration. No one believes this, not least because she publicly praised the deal several times. Mrs Clinton now says NAFTA was bad for America, that she always thought so and that Mr Obama is lying when he suggests otherwise. “Shame on you, Barack Obama,” she added.
Mrs Clinton was right in the 1990s and is wrong now. Trade hurts some people, but helps many more. It raises overall income and allows Americans to buy a wider range of better goods more cheaply. And NAFTA has helped make Mexico less poor, which has contributed to its stability and democracy—something that should matter to Americans.
Mr Obama understands economics better than he lets on. In his book “The Audacity of Hope”, he recognises that a tariff on imported steel may provide temporary relief to American steelmakers, but it will also make every American manufacturer that uses steel, from carmakers to housebuilders, less competitive. When put on the spot and asked whether he would repeal NAFTA, he says that would cause more job losses than gains.
So what would he do? Like Mrs Clinton (who calls for a “time-out” on trade deals, whatever that may mean), he is maddeningly vague. He would use the threat of pulling out of NAFTA, he says, to force Mexico and Canada to renegotiate. This is alarming them (see article) and raises wider worries about America's reliability as a trading partner. In all trade deals, he would demand tougher labour, environmental and safety standards. Whether this means small tweaks or the wholesale shutting out of imports remains to be seen.
Optimists shrug that politicians always talk populist claptrap during primaries and that Mr Obama has actually committed himself to very little. Pessimists reply that his eloquence encourages protectionist sentiment. Polls show that a majority of Americans believe that more foreign trade hurts American workers. One reason why they believe this is that politicians such as Mr Obama keep telling them that free trade means sending American jobs to China and getting toxic toys in return.
At best, it is hard now to imagine a President Obama using his golden tongue to revive global trade talks and push them forward. More likely, during the general election he will out-argue John McCain, a stout but not especially articulate free-trader, and nudge global opinion in a depressingly protectionist direction.
Mr Obama's other economic policies defy easy categorisation. His chief economic adviser, a respected young academic called Austan Goolsbee of the University of Chicago, is sensible and pragmatic. His plan to save millions of people from struggling to fill out their tax returns is a gem. Anyone who earns only a salary and bank interest, both of which are automatically reported to the taxman, will be sent a tax return that has already been filled in, which they can accept or reject. At a stroke, countless headaches would be averted. Mr Obama's health-care plan is more gradualist than Mrs Clinton's and may be more realistic (see article).
Influenced by Mr Goolsbee, Mr Obama offers a more measured response to the housing crisis than Mrs Clinton does. She would freeze interest rates on subprime mortgages for five years, which would hike rates for everyone else, accelerate the collapse of house prices and deter banks from lending to the impecunious. Mr Obama is content merely to set up a $10 billion fund to help homeowners avoid foreclosure, and to subsidise mortgage-interest payments for those who miss out on the existing tax break because they do not itemise their interest payments.
Mr Obama seems to approach economic questions with a keen intellect, an open mind and an aversion to radicalism. But he sometimes lets politics trump good sense. Last year, hoping for the support of Tom Harkin, a senator from the early-voting state of Iowa, he co-sponsored the Fair Pay Act, which would have obliged firms to pay men and women the same wages, not for the same work, but for work the government deemed “equivalent”. That bill failed but Mr Obama supports an almost equally bad one, the Patriot Employers Act, which would reward American companies for not expanding overseas.
Another concern, often raised by Republicans, is that Mr Obama would raise taxes. Mr Obama retorts that he would cut taxes for the middle class, and that he would pay for his health, infrastructure and other programmes partly by pulling American troops out of Iraq and partly by increasing taxes on the rich. Sceptics doubt that pulling out of Iraq will be easy, however. And they fret that Mr Obama's tax hikes for the rich, who already pay nearly all the income taxes in America, would have to be so high that the economy would suffer. By letting the Bush tax cuts expire, Mr Obama would hike the top rate of income tax from 35% to 39.6%. If he were to let the payroll tax apply to high incomes, too, he would add another 12.4%, split between employee and employer. Add state and local taxes, which are over 10% in New York City, and marginal tax rates for the well-off would be steep indeed.
Dr Obama's patent economic medicine
Feb 28th 2008 | WASHINGTON, DC
From The Economist print edition
Is Barack Obama a populist, or just pretending to be one?
Is Barack Obama a populist, or just pretending to be one?
Get article background
BUILD a better mousetrap and the world will beat a path to your door. The chap building inferior mousetraps, however, will go bust. Many people want the benefits of technology and trade without the disruption. Politicians often feed this delusion. Barack Obama is no exception.
He is not against technology, of course. That would sound stupid. Nor is he against Americans trading with other Americans. Nor, even, does he oppose trade with foreigners. But he has found an artful way of signalling to those who do that he agrees with them: he denounces NAFTA (the North American Free-Trade Agreement).
To many ears, this sounds like shorthand for denouncing globalisation—though that is not what Mr Obama actually says. More important, because NAFTA was signed by Bill Clinton, Mr Obama can blame his wife for it.
He does so in a reassuring tone of voice but in hysterical terms. During a debate this week in Ohio, where Mr Obama was wooing working-class whites before the state's primary on March 4th, he spoke of “entire cities that have been devastated as a consequence of trade agreements that were not adequately structured to make sure that US workers had a fair deal.” To workers in a cold warehouse, he claimed that NAFTA has destroyed 1m American jobs, “including nearly 50,000 jobs here in Ohio”. As president, he vowed, he will not “stand idly by while workers watch their jobs get shipped overseas.”
Mrs Clinton finds this hard to parry. During the debate, she said she had been “a critic of NAFTA from the very beginning” but didn't say anything publicly out of loyalty to her husband's administration. No one believes this, not least because she publicly praised the deal several times. Mrs Clinton now says NAFTA was bad for America, that she always thought so and that Mr Obama is lying when he suggests otherwise. “Shame on you, Barack Obama,” she added.
Mrs Clinton was right in the 1990s and is wrong now. Trade hurts some people, but helps many more. It raises overall income and allows Americans to buy a wider range of better goods more cheaply. And NAFTA has helped make Mexico less poor, which has contributed to its stability and democracy—something that should matter to Americans.
Mr Obama understands economics better than he lets on. In his book “The Audacity of Hope”, he recognises that a tariff on imported steel may provide temporary relief to American steelmakers, but it will also make every American manufacturer that uses steel, from carmakers to housebuilders, less competitive. When put on the spot and asked whether he would repeal NAFTA, he says that would cause more job losses than gains.
So what would he do? Like Mrs Clinton (who calls for a “time-out” on trade deals, whatever that may mean), he is maddeningly vague. He would use the threat of pulling out of NAFTA, he says, to force Mexico and Canada to renegotiate. This is alarming them (see article) and raises wider worries about America's reliability as a trading partner. In all trade deals, he would demand tougher labour, environmental and safety standards. Whether this means small tweaks or the wholesale shutting out of imports remains to be seen.
Optimists shrug that politicians always talk populist claptrap during primaries and that Mr Obama has actually committed himself to very little. Pessimists reply that his eloquence encourages protectionist sentiment. Polls show that a majority of Americans believe that more foreign trade hurts American workers. One reason why they believe this is that politicians such as Mr Obama keep telling them that free trade means sending American jobs to China and getting toxic toys in return.
At best, it is hard now to imagine a President Obama using his golden tongue to revive global trade talks and push them forward. More likely, during the general election he will out-argue John McCain, a stout but not especially articulate free-trader, and nudge global opinion in a depressingly protectionist direction.
Mr Obama's other economic policies defy easy categorisation. His chief economic adviser, a respected young academic called Austan Goolsbee of the University of Chicago, is sensible and pragmatic. His plan to save millions of people from struggling to fill out their tax returns is a gem. Anyone who earns only a salary and bank interest, both of which are automatically reported to the taxman, will be sent a tax return that has already been filled in, which they can accept or reject. At a stroke, countless headaches would be averted. Mr Obama's health-care plan is more gradualist than Mrs Clinton's and may be more realistic (see article).
Influenced by Mr Goolsbee, Mr Obama offers a more measured response to the housing crisis than Mrs Clinton does. She would freeze interest rates on subprime mortgages for five years, which would hike rates for everyone else, accelerate the collapse of house prices and deter banks from lending to the impecunious. Mr Obama is content merely to set up a $10 billion fund to help homeowners avoid foreclosure, and to subsidise mortgage-interest payments for those who miss out on the existing tax break because they do not itemise their interest payments.
Mr Obama seems to approach economic questions with a keen intellect, an open mind and an aversion to radicalism. But he sometimes lets politics trump good sense. Last year, hoping for the support of Tom Harkin, a senator from the early-voting state of Iowa, he co-sponsored the Fair Pay Act, which would have obliged firms to pay men and women the same wages, not for the same work, but for work the government deemed “equivalent”. That bill failed but Mr Obama supports an almost equally bad one, the Patriot Employers Act, which would reward American companies for not expanding overseas.
Another concern, often raised by Republicans, is that Mr Obama would raise taxes. Mr Obama retorts that he would cut taxes for the middle class, and that he would pay for his health, infrastructure and other programmes partly by pulling American troops out of Iraq and partly by increasing taxes on the rich. Sceptics doubt that pulling out of Iraq will be easy, however. And they fret that Mr Obama's tax hikes for the rich, who already pay nearly all the income taxes in America, would have to be so high that the economy would suffer. By letting the Bush tax cuts expire, Mr Obama would hike the top rate of income tax from 35% to 39.6%. If he were to let the payroll tax apply to high incomes, too, he would add another 12.4%, split between employee and employer. Add state and local taxes, which are over 10% in New York City, and marginal tax rates for the well-off would be steep indeed.
-
pitt
- Posts: 27093
- Joined: 03/12/2002 00:00
- Location: Steelers Nation
#1079
John McCain's obstacles
No country for old men
Feb 28th 2008 | WASHINGTON, DC
From The Economist print edition
The Republican candidate has a difficult path to the White House
Get article background
JOHN McCAIN, an enthusiastic gambler and inveterate collector of lucky charms, has the luck of the devil. For him to win the Republican nomination for president, Mike Huckabee had to beat Mitt Romney in Iowa, Rudy Giuliani had to pursue a deranged strategy, Fred Thompson had to contract narcolepsy, and the “surge” had to go well. Mr McCain has run the tables.
But will the senator's luck outlast the primary season? The past week or so has produced some ominous signs. On January 21st the New York Times ran a story alleging that Mr McCain had a too-close-for-comfort relationship with a female lobbyist. Four days later the Democratic National Committee filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission, suggesting the McCain campaign had violated the law on spending restraints.
The short-term damage has been limited. The New York Times poisoned its own story by nods and winks. The debate about Mr McCain's campaign-finance behaviour is so convoluted that only lawyers understand it. The McCain campaign is now hoovering up more cash than ever, thanks to conservative rage at the “liberal media”.
Yet both stories point to a long-term problem: money, not sex. Mr McCain sells himself as a scourge of special interests and hammer of lobbyists. He also styles himself a hands-on reformer who has tried to fix America's campaign-finance system. For a presidential candidate, this might prove the equivalent of attaching a sign to your behind saying “Kick me”.
Mr McCain is no stranger to the world of lobbyists. Several members of his staff, including his campaign manager, Rick Davis, are lobbyists. So are about 60 of the most generous contributors to his campaign. The senator is not averse to taking lifts on corporate jets. The public-finance system Mr McCain helped design is so unwieldy that even the man who invented it finds it a nightmare.
The New York Times article points to another worry for Mr McCain: that swooning journalists may soon abandon him for a candidate even more to their liking. Mr McCain had no trouble wooing the media when his rivals were George Bush and Mitt Romney. A few hours shooting the breeze with the senator on the Straight Talk Express and most journalists are eating out of his hand. But what happens when his rival is the coolest kid in town?
Mr McCain's problems go further. In a normal year he would enjoy a huge advantage on national security. Mr McCain is a war hero who has spent most of his professional life cogitating on matters of war and peace. He is also a hawk in a country where hawkishness is normally considered a virtue. He was calling for “rogue state roll-back” in 1999 when Mr Bush was arguing for a more humble foreign policy (remember that?).
But this natural advantage has been upended by the Iraq war. Mr McCain is more closely identified with the war than anybody except Mr Bush and Dick Cheney. He was one of the loudest supporters of the surge. Exit polls show he is first choice among Republican primary voters whose top concern is Iraq. He has said it is “fine with me” if American troops remain in Iraq for “maybe a hundred years”.
But can you base a successful presidential bid on defending an unpopular war? Recent polls show that around two-thirds of registered voters want to bring the troops home within a year. That includes a third of Republicans as well as more than 90% of Democrats. The success of the surge has done almost nothing to reduce Americans' desire to leave Iraq to the Iraqis.
Mr McCain has recently bowed to public opinion on this. He has “clarified” his hundred-years remark (he was referring to a military presence rather than full-scale occupation). He has even suggested that America's involvement in Iraq will be “over soon” and that the insurgency will be handled by Iraqis. But this opens him up to charges of flip-flopping—or at least terminal confusion—on the issue that is at the heart of his campaign.
Mr McCain is on equally treacherous ground when it comes to domestic policy. The voters are in a strongly anti-Republican mood: they prefer Democrats on everything from health care to taxes. Democrats are more united than Republicans, who are at each other's throats over immigration and global warming. They are also more fired up: they have been raising more money and packing in bigger crowds than Republicans for over a year now.
The Dwight stuff
If Democrats were to deprive Mr McCain of the chance of running against Hillary Clinton, that would be the cruellest blow. Mrs Clinton would be a one-woman solution to the Republicans' problems, a guarantee that money will flow into the party's coffers and that true-red voters will troop to the polls. She has also proved to be an ineffective campaigner. It hardly bodes well for Mr McCain that he is using the same line of attack against Mr Obama—eloquent but empty—that Mrs Clinton has used, so far without stopping her rival's run of primary victories.
Dwight Eisenhower held on to the White House, in the face of Democratic majorities on Capitol Hill, because he was a war hero and national-security heavyweight. Mr McCain undoubtedly has a chance to repeat that feat. He has a natural constituency among white working-class men. His national-security credentials are second to none. But to pull it off he needs to halt Mr Obama's extraordinary political machine. Otherwise he risks looking like another Republican war-hero candidate—not Dwight Eisenhower, but the hapless Bob Dole, who lost in 1996.
No country for old men
Feb 28th 2008 | WASHINGTON, DC
From The Economist print edition
The Republican candidate has a difficult path to the White House
Get article background
JOHN McCAIN, an enthusiastic gambler and inveterate collector of lucky charms, has the luck of the devil. For him to win the Republican nomination for president, Mike Huckabee had to beat Mitt Romney in Iowa, Rudy Giuliani had to pursue a deranged strategy, Fred Thompson had to contract narcolepsy, and the “surge” had to go well. Mr McCain has run the tables.
But will the senator's luck outlast the primary season? The past week or so has produced some ominous signs. On January 21st the New York Times ran a story alleging that Mr McCain had a too-close-for-comfort relationship with a female lobbyist. Four days later the Democratic National Committee filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission, suggesting the McCain campaign had violated the law on spending restraints.
The short-term damage has been limited. The New York Times poisoned its own story by nods and winks. The debate about Mr McCain's campaign-finance behaviour is so convoluted that only lawyers understand it. The McCain campaign is now hoovering up more cash than ever, thanks to conservative rage at the “liberal media”.
Yet both stories point to a long-term problem: money, not sex. Mr McCain sells himself as a scourge of special interests and hammer of lobbyists. He also styles himself a hands-on reformer who has tried to fix America's campaign-finance system. For a presidential candidate, this might prove the equivalent of attaching a sign to your behind saying “Kick me”.
Mr McCain is no stranger to the world of lobbyists. Several members of his staff, including his campaign manager, Rick Davis, are lobbyists. So are about 60 of the most generous contributors to his campaign. The senator is not averse to taking lifts on corporate jets. The public-finance system Mr McCain helped design is so unwieldy that even the man who invented it finds it a nightmare.
The New York Times article points to another worry for Mr McCain: that swooning journalists may soon abandon him for a candidate even more to their liking. Mr McCain had no trouble wooing the media when his rivals were George Bush and Mitt Romney. A few hours shooting the breeze with the senator on the Straight Talk Express and most journalists are eating out of his hand. But what happens when his rival is the coolest kid in town?
Mr McCain's problems go further. In a normal year he would enjoy a huge advantage on national security. Mr McCain is a war hero who has spent most of his professional life cogitating on matters of war and peace. He is also a hawk in a country where hawkishness is normally considered a virtue. He was calling for “rogue state roll-back” in 1999 when Mr Bush was arguing for a more humble foreign policy (remember that?).
But this natural advantage has been upended by the Iraq war. Mr McCain is more closely identified with the war than anybody except Mr Bush and Dick Cheney. He was one of the loudest supporters of the surge. Exit polls show he is first choice among Republican primary voters whose top concern is Iraq. He has said it is “fine with me” if American troops remain in Iraq for “maybe a hundred years”.
But can you base a successful presidential bid on defending an unpopular war? Recent polls show that around two-thirds of registered voters want to bring the troops home within a year. That includes a third of Republicans as well as more than 90% of Democrats. The success of the surge has done almost nothing to reduce Americans' desire to leave Iraq to the Iraqis.
Mr McCain has recently bowed to public opinion on this. He has “clarified” his hundred-years remark (he was referring to a military presence rather than full-scale occupation). He has even suggested that America's involvement in Iraq will be “over soon” and that the insurgency will be handled by Iraqis. But this opens him up to charges of flip-flopping—or at least terminal confusion—on the issue that is at the heart of his campaign.
Mr McCain is on equally treacherous ground when it comes to domestic policy. The voters are in a strongly anti-Republican mood: they prefer Democrats on everything from health care to taxes. Democrats are more united than Republicans, who are at each other's throats over immigration and global warming. They are also more fired up: they have been raising more money and packing in bigger crowds than Republicans for over a year now.
The Dwight stuff
If Democrats were to deprive Mr McCain of the chance of running against Hillary Clinton, that would be the cruellest blow. Mrs Clinton would be a one-woman solution to the Republicans' problems, a guarantee that money will flow into the party's coffers and that true-red voters will troop to the polls. She has also proved to be an ineffective campaigner. It hardly bodes well for Mr McCain that he is using the same line of attack against Mr Obama—eloquent but empty—that Mrs Clinton has used, so far without stopping her rival's run of primary victories.
Dwight Eisenhower held on to the White House, in the face of Democratic majorities on Capitol Hill, because he was a war hero and national-security heavyweight. Mr McCain undoubtedly has a chance to repeat that feat. He has a natural constituency among white working-class men. His national-security credentials are second to none. But to pull it off he needs to halt Mr Obama's extraordinary political machine. Otherwise he risks looking like another Republican war-hero candidate—not Dwight Eisenhower, but the hapless Bob Dole, who lost in 1996.
-
jeza u ledja
- Posts: 50317
- Joined: 29/12/2005 01:20
#1080
Evo sad opet citam suplju po novinama o 'sljedecoj velikoj drzavi', tj. Pennsylvaniji (koja je btw tek za mjesec i po dana 
). Kao e tu ce tek da se vidi ko ce pobjediti. Prvo su to govorili za Iowu, pa za NH, pa za SC, pa za Super Tuesday, pa evo juce, pa sad opet prave famu ni od cega. A svi zaboravljaju da jedna drzava ne cini proljece i da se glasovi dijele proporcionalno. Pricaju o Clintoninom 'come back', pa koji crni come back?! Primakla se za jednu petinu od ukupnog vodjstva Obame. I gdje su tu druge drzave? North Carolina daje 115 delegata (Penn daje 154). Niko ne spominje NC?! Da ne govorim o drugim drzavama.
Ma jok, nego mediji fino sebi pumpaju gledanost stvarajuci famu oko jednog velikog dana, pa ono raja se napale i gledaju pred nadolazak bas tog dana 'koji ce odluciti sve' ne bili sta saznali novo.
). Kao e tu ce tek da se vidi ko ce pobjediti. Prvo su to govorili za Iowu, pa za NH, pa za SC, pa za Super Tuesday, pa evo juce, pa sad opet prave famu ni od cega. A svi zaboravljaju da jedna drzava ne cini proljece i da se glasovi dijele proporcionalno. Pricaju o Clintoninom 'come back', pa koji crni come back?! Primakla se za jednu petinu od ukupnog vodjstva Obame. I gdje su tu druge drzave? North Carolina daje 115 delegata (Penn daje 154). Niko ne spominje NC?! Da ne govorim o drugim drzavama.Ma jok, nego mediji fino sebi pumpaju gledanost stvarajuci famu oko jednog velikog dana, pa ono raja se napale i gledaju pred nadolazak bas tog dana 'koji ce odluciti sve' ne bili sta saznali novo.
-
walkabout
- Posts: 7869
- Joined: 19/05/2007 00:46
#1081
Stigla poruka zafalnica od Kemice:
"Tu hum it mej koncrn,
Mi, mala bosanska community naovome forumetu izmoje mahale, smo vrlo sretni i zadovoljni sto nas nashi US forumashi stite od ubleha i shupljih...
Nezelimo da bidnemo neupucheni, slagani, prevedni zedni preko vode i hocemo da nash kandidat insallah pobijedi sve...Te da nam donese zasluzenu bolju buducnost (koja nam napravdi Boga i pripada), kako sebi tako inama - a drugijem ako stigne.
Nedozvolte ako morete izmoci da pale raju jer kad ja raja uspaljena onda ona gori tojes raja je ubehutu inezna zakog glasa.
Vamo kod naske na Balkanskome poluostrvetu je puno lakse - mi znamo zakog cemo glasati i prije nego smo poceli glasat.
Molijo bi danas idalje informisete u vezi tije boba i novog odlucujuceg glasanja jer mi zelimo dasmo informisati od nasije ljudi na terenu tojes boznien graund trups.
Jors fajtfuli
Vas Kemica Internetlija"
-
krivorijek
- Posts: 688
- Joined: 13/02/2008 11:58
- Location: Iščašenja ili preloma?
#1084
Britain is Repossessing the U.S.A.
A Message from John Cleese
To: The citizens of the United States of America:
In light of your failure to nominate competent candidates for
President of the USA and thus to govern yourselves, we hereby give notice of
the revocation of your independence, effective immediately.
Her Sovereign Majesty Queen Elizabeth II will resume monarchical
duties over all states, commonwealths, and territories (except Kansas ,
which she does not fancy).
Your new prime minister, Gordon Brown, will appoint a governor for
America without the need for further elections. Congress and the Senate will
be disbanded.
A questionnaire may be circulated next year to determine whether
any of you noticed.
To aid in the transition to a British Crown Dependency, the
following rules are introduced with immediate effect:
You should look up "revocation" in the Oxford English Dictionary.
1. Then look up aluminium, and check the pronunciation guide. You
will be amazed at just how wrongly you have been pronouncing it.
2. The letter 'U' will be reinstated in words such as 'favour' and
'neighbour.' Likewise, you will learn to spell 'doughnut' without skipping
half the letters, and the suffix -ize will be replaced by the suffix
-ise. Generally, you will be expected to raise your vocabulary to acceptable
levels. (look up 'vocabulary').
3. Using the same twenty-seven words interspersed with filler
noises such as "like", “cool” and "you know" is an unacceptable and inefficient form
of communication.
There is no such thing as US English. We will let Microsoft know on
your behalf. The Microsoft spell- checker will be adjusted to take account
of the reinstated letter 'u' and the elimination of -ize. You will
relearn your original national anthem, God Save The Queen.
4. July 4th will no longer be celebrated as a holiday.
5. You will learn to resolve personal issues without using guns,
lawyers, or therapists. The fact that you need so many lawyers and
therapists shows that you're not adult enough to be independent.
Guns should only be handled by adults. If you're not adult enough
to sort things out without suing someone or speaking to a therapist then
you're not grown up enough to handle a gun.
6. Therefore, you will no longer be allowed to own or carry
anything more dangerous than a vegetable peeler. A permit will be required
if you wish to carry a vegetable peeler in public.
7. All American cars are hereby banned. They are crap and this is
for your own good. When we show you German cars, you will understand what we
mean.
8. All intersections will be replaced with roundabouts, and you
will start driving on the left with immediate effect. At the same time, you
will go metric with immediate effect and without the benefit of
conversion tables. Both roundabouts and metrication will help you understand
the British sense of humour.
9. The Former USA will adopt UK prices on petrol (which you have
been calling gasoline)-roughly $6/US gallon. Get used to it.
10. You will learn to make real chips. Those things you call French
fries are not real chips, and those things you insist on calling potato
chips are properly called crisps. Real chips are thick cut, fried in
animal fat, and dressed not with catsup but with vinegar.
11. The cold tasteless stuff you insist on calling beer is not
actually beer at all. Henceforth, only proper British Bitter will be
referred to as beer, and European brews of known and accepted provenance
will be referred to as Lager. South African beer is also acceptable as they
are pound for pound the greatest sporting Nation on earth and it can only be
due to the beer. They are also part of British Commonwealth - see what it
did for them.
12. Hollywood will be required occasionally to cast English actors
as good guys. Hollywood will also be required to cast English actors to play
English characters.
Watching Andie McDowell attempt English dialogue in Four Weddings
and a Funeral was an experience akin to having one's ears removed with a
cheese grater.
13. You will cease playing American football. There is only one
kind of proper football; you call it soccer. Those of you brave enough will,
in time, be allowed to play rugby (which has some similarities to
American football, but does not involve stopping for a rest every twenty
seconds or wearing full kevlar body armour like a bunch of nancies). Don't
try Rugby - the South Africans and Kiwis will thrash you, like they
regularly thrash us.
14. Further, you will stop playing baseball. It is not reasonable
to host an event called the World Series for a game which is not played
outside of America . Since only 2.1% of you are aware that there is a
world beyond your borders, your error is understandable. You will learn
cricket, and we will let you face the South Africans first to take the sting
out of their deliveries.
15. You must tell us who killed JFK. It's been driving us mad.
16. An internal revenue agent (i.e. tax collector) from Her
Majesty's Government will be with you shortly to ensure the acquisition of
all monies due (backdated to 1776).
17. Daily Tea Time begins promptly at 4 pm with proper cups, never
mugs, with high quality biscuits (cookies) and cakes; strawberries in
season.
God save the Queen.
Only He can.
John Cleese
A Message from John Cleese
To: The citizens of the United States of America:
In light of your failure to nominate competent candidates for
President of the USA and thus to govern yourselves, we hereby give notice of
the revocation of your independence, effective immediately.
Her Sovereign Majesty Queen Elizabeth II will resume monarchical
duties over all states, commonwealths, and territories (except Kansas ,
which she does not fancy).
Your new prime minister, Gordon Brown, will appoint a governor for
America without the need for further elections. Congress and the Senate will
be disbanded.
A questionnaire may be circulated next year to determine whether
any of you noticed.
To aid in the transition to a British Crown Dependency, the
following rules are introduced with immediate effect:
You should look up "revocation" in the Oxford English Dictionary.
1. Then look up aluminium, and check the pronunciation guide. You
will be amazed at just how wrongly you have been pronouncing it.
2. The letter 'U' will be reinstated in words such as 'favour' and
'neighbour.' Likewise, you will learn to spell 'doughnut' without skipping
half the letters, and the suffix -ize will be replaced by the suffix
-ise. Generally, you will be expected to raise your vocabulary to acceptable
levels. (look up 'vocabulary').
3. Using the same twenty-seven words interspersed with filler
noises such as "like", “cool” and "you know" is an unacceptable and inefficient form
of communication.
There is no such thing as US English. We will let Microsoft know on
your behalf. The Microsoft spell- checker will be adjusted to take account
of the reinstated letter 'u' and the elimination of -ize. You will
relearn your original national anthem, God Save The Queen.
4. July 4th will no longer be celebrated as a holiday.
5. You will learn to resolve personal issues without using guns,
lawyers, or therapists. The fact that you need so many lawyers and
therapists shows that you're not adult enough to be independent.
Guns should only be handled by adults. If you're not adult enough
to sort things out without suing someone or speaking to a therapist then
you're not grown up enough to handle a gun.
6. Therefore, you will no longer be allowed to own or carry
anything more dangerous than a vegetable peeler. A permit will be required
if you wish to carry a vegetable peeler in public.
7. All American cars are hereby banned. They are crap and this is
for your own good. When we show you German cars, you will understand what we
mean.
8. All intersections will be replaced with roundabouts, and you
will start driving on the left with immediate effect. At the same time, you
will go metric with immediate effect and without the benefit of
conversion tables. Both roundabouts and metrication will help you understand
the British sense of humour.
9. The Former USA will adopt UK prices on petrol (which you have
been calling gasoline)-roughly $6/US gallon. Get used to it.
10. You will learn to make real chips. Those things you call French
fries are not real chips, and those things you insist on calling potato
chips are properly called crisps. Real chips are thick cut, fried in
animal fat, and dressed not with catsup but with vinegar.
11. The cold tasteless stuff you insist on calling beer is not
actually beer at all. Henceforth, only proper British Bitter will be
referred to as beer, and European brews of known and accepted provenance
will be referred to as Lager. South African beer is also acceptable as they
are pound for pound the greatest sporting Nation on earth and it can only be
due to the beer. They are also part of British Commonwealth - see what it
did for them.
12. Hollywood will be required occasionally to cast English actors
as good guys. Hollywood will also be required to cast English actors to play
English characters.
Watching Andie McDowell attempt English dialogue in Four Weddings
and a Funeral was an experience akin to having one's ears removed with a
cheese grater.
13. You will cease playing American football. There is only one
kind of proper football; you call it soccer. Those of you brave enough will,
in time, be allowed to play rugby (which has some similarities to
American football, but does not involve stopping for a rest every twenty
seconds or wearing full kevlar body armour like a bunch of nancies). Don't
try Rugby - the South Africans and Kiwis will thrash you, like they
regularly thrash us.
14. Further, you will stop playing baseball. It is not reasonable
to host an event called the World Series for a game which is not played
outside of America . Since only 2.1% of you are aware that there is a
world beyond your borders, your error is understandable. You will learn
cricket, and we will let you face the South Africans first to take the sting
out of their deliveries.
15. You must tell us who killed JFK. It's been driving us mad.
16. An internal revenue agent (i.e. tax collector) from Her
Majesty's Government will be with you shortly to ensure the acquisition of
all monies due (backdated to 1776).
17. Daily Tea Time begins promptly at 4 pm with proper cups, never
mugs, with high quality biscuits (cookies) and cakes; strawberries in
season.
God save the Queen.
Only He can.
John Cleese
-
jeza u ledja
- Posts: 50317
- Joined: 29/12/2005 01:20
#1088
Clinton's NAFTA-gate?
Posted: Thursday, March 06, 2008 3:37 PM by Domenico Montanaro
Filed Under: 2008, Clinton, Obama
From NBC’s Domenico Montanaro
Per the Toronto Globe and Mail, in a story that was the lead on the paper’s front page today, that call to the Canadian embassy was actually from the Clinton campaign, not Obama’s:
“Mr. [Ian] Brodie, [PM Harper’s chief of staff], during the media lockup for the Feb. 26 budget, stopped to chat with several journalists, and was surrounded by a group from CTV. The conversation turned to the pledges to renegotiate the North American free-trade agreement made by the two Democratic contenders, Mr. Obama and New York Senator Hillary Clinton.
“Mr. Brodie, apparently seeking to play down the potential impact on Canada, told the reporters the threat was not serious, and that someone from Ms. Clinton's campaign had even contacted Canadian diplomats to tell them not to worry because the NAFTA threats were mostly political posturing. The Canadian Press cited an unnamed source last night as saying that several people overheard the remark.
“The news agency quoted that source as saying that Mr. Brodie said that someone from Ms. Clinton's campaign called and was ‘telling the embassy to take it with a grain of salt.’
“The story was followed by CTV's Washington bureau chief, Tom Clark, who reported that the Obama campaign, not the Clinton's, had reassured Canadian diplomats.
“Mr. Clark cited unnamed Canadian sources in his initial report. There was no explanation last night for why Mr. Brodie was said to have referred to the Clinton campaign but the news report was about the Obama campaign.”
*** UPDATE *** The Clinton campaign responds: "Unlike the Obama campaign, we can and do flatly deny this report and urge the Canadian government to reveal the name of anyone they think they heard from. The Obama campaign has given a variety of misleading answers to the press and the public about its top economic adviser’s contacts with the Canadian government and should come clean about why they did so," writes campaign spokespman Phil Singer.
Opa!
Posted: Thursday, March 06, 2008 3:37 PM by Domenico Montanaro
Filed Under: 2008, Clinton, Obama
From NBC’s Domenico Montanaro
Per the Toronto Globe and Mail, in a story that was the lead on the paper’s front page today, that call to the Canadian embassy was actually from the Clinton campaign, not Obama’s:
“Mr. [Ian] Brodie, [PM Harper’s chief of staff], during the media lockup for the Feb. 26 budget, stopped to chat with several journalists, and was surrounded by a group from CTV. The conversation turned to the pledges to renegotiate the North American free-trade agreement made by the two Democratic contenders, Mr. Obama and New York Senator Hillary Clinton.
“Mr. Brodie, apparently seeking to play down the potential impact on Canada, told the reporters the threat was not serious, and that someone from Ms. Clinton's campaign had even contacted Canadian diplomats to tell them not to worry because the NAFTA threats were mostly political posturing. The Canadian Press cited an unnamed source last night as saying that several people overheard the remark.
“The news agency quoted that source as saying that Mr. Brodie said that someone from Ms. Clinton's campaign called and was ‘telling the embassy to take it with a grain of salt.’
“The story was followed by CTV's Washington bureau chief, Tom Clark, who reported that the Obama campaign, not the Clinton's, had reassured Canadian diplomats.
“Mr. Clark cited unnamed Canadian sources in his initial report. There was no explanation last night for why Mr. Brodie was said to have referred to the Clinton campaign but the news report was about the Obama campaign.”
*** UPDATE *** The Clinton campaign responds: "Unlike the Obama campaign, we can and do flatly deny this report and urge the Canadian government to reveal the name of anyone they think they heard from. The Obama campaign has given a variety of misleading answers to the press and the public about its top economic adviser’s contacts with the Canadian government and should come clean about why they did so," writes campaign spokespman Phil Singer.
Opa!
-
EI Presidente
- Posts: 765
- Joined: 17/11/2004 21:24
#1091
jos cemo preventivno napast kanadjane budu li se nastavili zajebavatjeza u ledja wrote:Clinton's NAFTA-gate?
Posted: Thursday, March 06, 2008 3:37 PM by Domenico Montanaro
Filed Under: 2008, Clinton, Obama
From NBC’s Domenico Montanaro
Per the Toronto Globe and Mail, in a story that was the lead on the paper’s front page today, that call to the Canadian embassy was actually from the Clinton campaign, not Obama’s:
“Mr. [Ian] Brodie, [PM Harper’s chief of staff], during the media lockup for the Feb. 26 budget, stopped to chat with several journalists, and was surrounded by a group from CTV. The conversation turned to the pledges to renegotiate the North American free-trade agreement made by the two Democratic contenders, Mr. Obama and New York Senator Hillary Clinton.
“Mr. Brodie, apparently seeking to play down the potential impact on Canada, told the reporters the threat was not serious, and that someone from Ms. Clinton's campaign had even contacted Canadian diplomats to tell them not to worry because the NAFTA threats were mostly political posturing. The Canadian Press cited an unnamed source last night as saying that several people overheard the remark.
“The news agency quoted that source as saying that Mr. Brodie said that someone from Ms. Clinton's campaign called and was ‘telling the embassy to take it with a grain of salt.’
“The story was followed by CTV's Washington bureau chief, Tom Clark, who reported that the Obama campaign, not the Clinton's, had reassured Canadian diplomats.
“Mr. Clark cited unnamed Canadian sources in his initial report. There was no explanation last night for why Mr. Brodie was said to have referred to the Clinton campaign but the news report was about the Obama campaign.”
*** UPDATE *** The Clinton campaign responds: "Unlike the Obama campaign, we can and do flatly deny this report and urge the Canadian government to reveal the name of anyone they think they heard from. The Obama campaign has given a variety of misleading answers to the press and the public about its top economic adviser’s contacts with the Canadian government and should come clean about why they did so," writes campaign spokespman Phil Singer.
Opa!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3EonjqFPKVU
-
repeater
- Posts: 1634
- Joined: 04/07/2005 04:59
- Location: Yoknapatawpha County
- Contact:
#1094
steta. nije njena krivica.
An adviser to Barack Obama has resigned after a Scottish newspaper quoted her calling rival US Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton "a monster".
Samantha Power has expressed "deep regret" over the comments and said she had tried to retract them.
The Scotsman newspaper quoted Ms Power as saying: "She is a monster, too - that is off the record - she is stooping to anything."
Ms Power is a Harvard professor who has advised Mr Obama on foreign policy.
Announcing her resignation, she said: "Last Monday, I made inexcusable remarks that are at marked variance from my oft-stated admiration for Senator Clinton and from the spirit, tenor, and purpose of the Obama campaign."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7283965.stm
-
walkabout
- Posts: 7869
- Joined: 19/05/2007 00:46
#1095
U nedostatku boljeg evo ovaj post...
Malo o ostavci uvazene preofesorice iz Obaminog kampa, malo o nevaznim drzavama koje najednom postaju vazne zbog izjednacenosti glasova, pa da li to Obama gubi "momentum"...
Uzbudjenje se nastavlja...
----------------
BARACK OBAMA struggled to recover from an aide's miscues after the adviser called Hillary Clinton "a monster" and said Mr Obama might not be able to withdraw all US combat troops from Iraq within a year as he has promised.
But Mrs Clinton faced her own hurdles. She back-pedalled from comments she made in October suggesting Mississippi was a backward place for women's progress, and tried to downplay her remarks during a campaign swing through Mississippi before the state's Democratic primary on Tuesday.
The developments came as the two Democrats - one of whom will face Republican John McCain in the November presidential election - braced for a vote this weekend in Wyoming, a thinly populated state with few Democrats, that, under different circumstances, would most likely have been of little interest.
Twelve delegates will be awarded in Wyoming's caucuses, followed by 33 in Mississippi on Tuesday.
The relatively small number of delegates in these states, not seen as important weeks ago, has gained value now that the excruciatingly tight race is down to a numbers game, following Mrs Clinton's triple-win last week in Texas, Ohio and Rhode Island, where she narrowed the gap on Mr Obama.
Yesterday marked the second time in a week that Mr Obama's campaign struggled to explain remarks by an aide as the two Democrats fought it out. Mr Obama's top foreign policy adviser resigned on Friday after calling Mrs Clinton, "a monster". The adviser, Pulitzer Prize-winning author Samantha Power, caused a further awkward moment when she said in another interview with the foreign media that Mr Obama might not be able to withdraw all US combat troops from Iraq within a year, as he has promised on the campaign trail.
Ms Power, a Harvard University professor, told a Scottish newspaper that Mrs Clinton was "a monster". She tried to retract the remark and then apologised for it when it was splashed across the headlines.
"She is a monster, too - that is off the record - she is stooping to anything," The Scotsman quoted Ms Power as saying.
Ms Power's comments about Iraq came in an interview with the BBC. She said Mr Obama's position is that withdrawing all US troops within 16 months is a "best-case scenario" that he will revisit if he becomes president. Mr Obama has shortened his original 16-month commitment to say he will end the war next year.
Malo o ostavci uvazene preofesorice iz Obaminog kampa, malo o nevaznim drzavama koje najednom postaju vazne zbog izjednacenosti glasova, pa da li to Obama gubi "momentum"...
Uzbudjenje se nastavlja...
----------------
BARACK OBAMA struggled to recover from an aide's miscues after the adviser called Hillary Clinton "a monster" and said Mr Obama might not be able to withdraw all US combat troops from Iraq within a year as he has promised.
But Mrs Clinton faced her own hurdles. She back-pedalled from comments she made in October suggesting Mississippi was a backward place for women's progress, and tried to downplay her remarks during a campaign swing through Mississippi before the state's Democratic primary on Tuesday.
The developments came as the two Democrats - one of whom will face Republican John McCain in the November presidential election - braced for a vote this weekend in Wyoming, a thinly populated state with few Democrats, that, under different circumstances, would most likely have been of little interest.
Twelve delegates will be awarded in Wyoming's caucuses, followed by 33 in Mississippi on Tuesday.
The relatively small number of delegates in these states, not seen as important weeks ago, has gained value now that the excruciatingly tight race is down to a numbers game, following Mrs Clinton's triple-win last week in Texas, Ohio and Rhode Island, where she narrowed the gap on Mr Obama.
Yesterday marked the second time in a week that Mr Obama's campaign struggled to explain remarks by an aide as the two Democrats fought it out. Mr Obama's top foreign policy adviser resigned on Friday after calling Mrs Clinton, "a monster". The adviser, Pulitzer Prize-winning author Samantha Power, caused a further awkward moment when she said in another interview with the foreign media that Mr Obama might not be able to withdraw all US combat troops from Iraq within a year, as he has promised on the campaign trail.
Ms Power, a Harvard University professor, told a Scottish newspaper that Mrs Clinton was "a monster". She tried to retract the remark and then apologised for it when it was splashed across the headlines.
"She is a monster, too - that is off the record - she is stooping to anything," The Scotsman quoted Ms Power as saying.
Ms Power's comments about Iraq came in an interview with the BBC. She said Mr Obama's position is that withdrawing all US troops within 16 months is a "best-case scenario" that he will revisit if he becomes president. Mr Obama has shortened his original 16-month commitment to say he will end the war next year.
-
jeza u ledja
- Posts: 50317
- Joined: 29/12/2005 01:20
#1100
repeater wrote:izgleda da je jez poslije poraza u TX i OH izgubio nadu u Obamu.
pokupismo WY a on ni da se oglasi.
Prvo ispravka, u Texasu je pobjedio Obama, a ne Clintonova. Obama je dobio 99 delegata, a Clintonova 94. Hillary je u Tx primary uzela 4 delegata vise, ali je Obama u Tx caucus uzeo 9 delegata vise. Tako je konacan skor +5 za Obamu.
Dakle, uzeo je Texas, uzeo je Vermont, uzeo juce Wyoming i sve su prilike da ce u utorak uzeti Mississippi, plus jos 12 drzava tokom druge polovine februara. Za to vrijeme Clinton je uzela samo Ohio i Rhode Island.
Vise od 80% drzave je glasalo, i postalo je ocigledno da Clinton nema sanse da stigne Obamu u broju izabranih delegata. Da bi ga stigla, morala bi pobjediti svaku preostalu drzavu sa preko 60%, sto je, osim ako se ne desi neko cudo, neki orgoman skandal ili slicno, prakticno - nemoguce.
Sta onda ostaje?
Ostaje pitanje Floride i Michigana. Kako sada stvari stoje izbori u te dvije velike drzave ce se ponoviti. Sad je pitanje ko ce za to platiti, da li ce biti primaries ili caucuses ili nesto trece, te kad ce se izbori desiti, ali sve su prilike ti izbori ce se ponoviti. Nemam pojma koliko nosi koja drzava, ali vjerovatno Fl nosi oko 200, a Michigan oko 150 delegata. Na Floridi ona sigurno ima prednost, u Michiganu takodje, mozda ne toliku.
E sad, ostaje pitanje, koliko ce Clintonova do kraja preostalih drzava stici Obamu, i da li ce uopste upsjeti smanjiti vodjstvo, na jedno <50 delegata. Ako to uspije, sa pobjedama na Floridi i Michiganu ona bi pobjedila. Ali, to ce se tesko desiti.
Na kraju ostace pitanje superdelegata, oni ce morati odluciti pobjednika kako god da se desi. Ako se ovo vodjstvo Obame u broju delegata na kraju balada smanji na svega nekoliko desetina, onda ce biti pravo gutavo sto se tice superdelegata.
Sve u svemu, mislim da ce se stanje strahovito zakomplikovati u narednih 2-3 mjeseca, jer sta god da se desi, jasan pobjednik Demokratskih primaries nece biti poznat do juna/jula, premda u broju izabranih delegata, a ne racunajuci Floridu i Michigan Obama ce sigurno biti pobjednik.