570 days ago

570 days ago, I was right. November 12, 2006, I put my support behind Barack Obama – maybe even earlier. However, that was when I first documented it here. Towards the end. It’s almost a footnote, certainly an aside, but it was the beginning of this wild, crazy adventure lived vicariously through polls, news reports, blog posts, and CNN.

Barack Obama has officially passed the delegate threshold to win the Democratic primary. He did it off the back of his win in Montana and superdelegates earlier today. Actually, he did it off the back of a fantastic campaign, true politics, and relentless inspiration. If you want more confirmation than the CNN article, here’s over 5,000 others.

The race was long, it was tough for the candidates, and there were parts that were (and still may be) regrettable. Neither candidate ran the perfect race, but Obama ran the better one by a country mile. He needs to keep the message of hope going into November, where all attention is being drawn as the general election begins now.

On a personal note, I want to say the following: I told you so. St Ives, who wavered not once, not twice, but now three times; the Ombudsman, who never had faith; to my boss Michael; to my coworkers Margaret, Sonny; to my mother; to my father; to my sister; to all 3 of my grandparents; to the hundreds of people who left disgusting comment that I marked as spammed; to channels 7, 9, and 10; to the hundreds to customers I told my prediction to over the year; to all these and anyone else who said Obama would not win, and, thus, I had no clue: I told you so.

All eyes are looking towards November. I’m backing Obama to the final vote. I want to go 3-from-3 (Rudd, Obama primary, Obama general). I’ll be trying my best to stay on top of the long road to victory.

Thomas.

McCain’s VP – Rice?

Readers here know that ever since the Republican primary race ‘finished up’ (in that John McCain became the presumptive nominee), I focused on the Democratic side of things. Not only because it would prove to be more interesting, but because I genuinely want to see Barack Obama win the primary race, and go on to win the presidential election.

Anyway, when irregularly I’ll rope in some Republican news, but today, this post is all concerned with Republicans. In as much as the same way Al Gore’s name was brought up to create buzz around the impending presidential election, and who would be the running mate of who, another name has been mentioned as to a possible running mate of John McCain. While I still think it’s safe to assume Mike Huckabee is in the first position, and Mitt Romney the 2nd (though this doesn’t mean either are guaranteed the position yet), a new name might have jumped up to the top 5 considerations. The person?  Condoleeza Rice.

For a long time, Rice has been dogged by the question of will she run, especially after she got her promotion to Secretary of State, and when Hillary Clinton became front runner in 2005 for the primary race. The idea of woman vs. woman was such a compelling thought that a few books came out, saying that that would be the November race: Rice vs. Clinton. I thought the idea was ludicrous on two levels – first, that the Republicans would nominate a woman; second (and the biggest of the two), that Republicans would nominate a black person.

That idea floated in the pool for a while, until eventually it drowned. Rice regularly said that she had no intention of running. Over and over again, until the idea just died. Then it was given a breath of life when the primary campaigning kicked to life in November/December of 2007, which just prior to, Rice was rated the most powerful person in Washington (by political polling) due to her position, influence, and ability. And, again, she had to keep denying the idea of her running for office. It died down again, but would pop up every now and then. Like in February:

Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice … made a rare appearance at the State Department’s press briefing room Friday and talked politics. She told the packed room of reporters that she has no interest in running for Vice President on the 2008 Republican ticket. Instead, she says, her next stop will be California.

“I have always said that the one thing that I have not seen myself doing is running for elected office in the United States,” Rice said. “I didn’t even run for high-school President, Rice joked, “It’s not in my genes.”

Rice added that there are “very good people running for the American people to make their choices. I will be making my choice as a voter and that’s going to be fun after a campaign in 2000 in which I was extremely involved.” Rice says she is not involved at all in this campaign.

It was the same sort of answer, though “It’s not in my genes” was a new line. Anyway, I never got caught up in the idea that it could happen as much as others (though I would actually be very interested in the race if it did happen).

Finally, come April, Dan Senor, a Fox News contributor and of various political associations (all Republican), said that Rice has been, in recent weeks, maybe months, positioning herself to be the pick for vice president on McCain’s ticket. Transcript of Senor’s interview here. Basically, here are the arguments in his theory (edited by me for brevity) from Hannity and Colmes:

SENOR: And I think it’s a very difficult job to campaign for or ask for. I think if she were asked to do it, she would do it. I think the challenge for her, which she recognizes, is that there are some concerns among some conservatives about her being on a ticket. So she’s actually been pretty good recently about reassuring conservatives that she would be there for them and her message and narrative are compelling as far as they’re concerned, and she — and I heard from a number of conservative political leaders in the last couple of weeks, who have met with her, who have seen her speak, and that she felt very reassured by her and want her to run.

HANNITY: Well, you’ve got the Americans for Tax Reform, Grover Norquist, that … meet and they are conservatives and she went there.

SENOR: Right. So there’s about 100 or 150 of these conservative political leaders that aren’t — it’s not necessarily foreign policy issues. They deal with economic issues.

HANNITY: Mostly taxes.

SENOR: Mostly taxes, right. Socially political issues, and he organizes meetings every Wednesday. It’s sort of a “who’s who” among some of the political leadership within Washington and they typically have political types come briefed on various policy issues and political issues. She came.

HANNITY: She came. On her own?

SENOR: Well, I.

HANNITY: Was she invited?

SENOR: I presumed they negotiated something. But it’s rare for a secretary of state. You can’t imagine Secretary Baker or Secretary George Schultz or one of these former Republican.

And:

SENOR: There have been a couple of people close to her who have made the case to me in the past that she would be a good vice president. But this is coming — keep on, this is reporting that is coming from conservative political leaders that have met with Secretary Rice, who incidentally think she would be great if she’s on the ticket.

COLMES: Has she told them she wants the job?

SENOR: You would have to ask them.

Also:

SENOR: The McCain campaign as some point is going to have to consider, what is the right profile for the ticket? Right? You can go one route, which is the sort of unknown, fresh face, outsider, someone to balance out McCain, balance out his Washington experience, or someone to reinforce all of his years of experience and security.

Anyone who has watched Hannity and Colmes knows that it’s a left-wing host and a right-wing host, talking about political news, and they have guests on through the show. Colmes is the lefty, Hannity is the righty. Colmes was quick to point out that Rice’s office had said Senor has no connection with Rice, and doesn’t know anything about her future plans, that she had repeatedly denied wanting the job, has said she wants to go back to lecturing, and that (most glaringly obvious) it would be McCain hooking up with a President Bush-confidant. Already Democrats are saying that a vote for McCain is another vote for Bush, but with someone from his administration as responsible for his foreign policy mess-ups as Bush himself, then it will be impossible to create distance between a McCain administration, and the Bush administration.

I, for the record, have believed for some time in what Colmes has to say about picking Rice. It would be a gutsy, but quite possibly suicidal decision.

The fallout from this interview began early. Rice coped it first, and she said:

I very much look forward to watching this campaign and voting as a voter. I have a lot of work to do and then I’ll happily go back to Stanford.

Then McCain got the questions. He said, of the rumours that she was maneuvering for the position, that he must have ‘missed those signals’, and:

I think she’s a great American. I think there’s very little that I can say that isn’t anything but the utmost praise for a great American citizen, who served as a role model to so many millions of people in this country and around the world.

Political pundits weighed in on the decision too. I won’t quote them all, just Gloria Borger, CNN political analyst, as a segway:

Obviously, as an instantly recognizable national figure, Condi Rice would have to appear on any vice-presidential list.

And she certainly would add star power to a ticket. The next day, polling data came out that indicated the McCain/Rice ticket would beat a Clinton/Obama or Obama/Clinton ticket by 3% or 5% respectively in the state of New York! I know it would be presumptive to say this would be the finite outcome, but for any poll to not lean towards the Democrats in New York is quite a shock, especially with Clinton leading the ticket. Witha  +/- 4% error rate, and a sampling size of 576 registered New York voters, it was quite a surprise to read this. Any ideas of the Democrats winning the White House back includes the assumption that New York and California don’t even have to be defended, much less brought into question. If any Republican ticket could challenge one of the bluest of blue states, I think the party and the candidate would have second thoughts about saying no to that prospect straight off the bat. CNN carried the story, and it topped the most read article section for quite a few days. It seemed like a popular hypothetical, much like Al Gore getting in on the race too.

Anyway, Rice was then trotted up to the Hill to give evidence on the use of torture by U.S. officials on detainees and prisoners. The documents of discussions tabled by Rice (discussions and meetings that she herself chaired) indicated that the use of torture by Americans has been so thought out as discussed that there is no way to remove Rice, Bush, or the current administration from the pro-torture argument. The specific methods and amount of times CIA agents could use torture as a method of interrogation was approved by Rice, Vice President Dick Cheney, former National Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, former Secretary of State Colin Powell, former CIA Director George Tenet, and former Attorney General John Ashcroft. These documents pretty much sealed the fate of Rice not getting the V.P. slot with McCain – McCain is one of the few Republican politicians that genuinely oppose and speak-out against torture. Maybe it’s because he was tortured at the hands of the Vietnamese as a P.O.W.?

Anyway, as much as a great hypothetical race as could be thought up when Rice’s name was in the mix, it seems out of reach now. I know that you should never say never in politics, but this is a very, very, very remote possibility. I don’t expect it or think it will happen. I still think Mike Huckabee is heading McCain’s “list of 20″, with Romney coming in next. The problem for McCain is that he doesn’t have as much free-reign in picking his running mate if he wants to win. He is struggling with his party base still, so he needs someone secure with them. If he himself was sound in getting the hard-right’s vote, he could probably run with a woman or a more moderate. But he really has that ‘outsider’ position saved for himself, so he needs to pick an insider. Tim Pawlenty (Governor of Minnesota), and Charlie Crist (Governor of Florida), both from swing states, are probably up the list too. Pawlenty is currently serving as co-chairman of John McCain’s campaign – so he is positioned well for the slot. So too Crist – he endorsed McCain early, and regularly receives praise from McCain. Rounding out the five would be Governor of Texas Rick Perry. He should be very sound with the party base. Just check out his policy positions. While Texas isn’t a swing state by any shot, this is a candidate who is a sure-fire favourite among conservatives and the sort of person to be set-up for in 4/8 years time, should the Republicans stage the impossible and win. A long shot (though maybe not as long as some might think) is Governor of Alaska Sarah Palin. She’s not as conservative as some of the previous names mentioned, but probably more than McCain. Again, not from a swing state, but a woman, a conservative, a record of cutting government spending, good positions (for her party, and for winning independent voters) on some policies, and young and ‘attractive’ all helps her in getting a mention on the list I would think.

Oh the possibilities. I could go on for some time, but I think my list of 6 (Huckabee, Romney, Pawlenty, Crist, Perry, Palin) is something I’m happy to settle on. If it isn’t one of them, then it’s a wildcard.

Thomas.

The entertainment of politics – Geraldine Ferraro

When I read news about the goings on in U.S. politics, I like to get my news from Google first, and then check what CNN has to say. Google provides a heap of articles on current events, so you can formulate the ‘real’ picture in your mind. But I turn to CNN for one thing in particular: Entertainment.

The CNN Political Tracker is a WordPress blog that they run, where they post entries on the news. And then the readers are free to comment. Sometimes the comment thread is a good discussion of the events, but as is the case with most news items, sometimes they become a source of division.

I want to take the latest case of Geraldine Ferraro. Some weeks ago, she came out and had this to say about Barack Obama and his primary campaign in an interview with The Daily Breeze:

If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position. And if he was a woman [of any color] he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept.

The Obama campaign took these remarks and spun them for all they were worth. The Obama campaign said that were ‘divisive’ and weren’t in the spirit of the Democratic party, and were hurtful. Then news outlets and 3rd parties to the affair started calling the remarks racist. There were calls for her resignation from nearly everyone, and the Hillary Clinton supporters, in the comment threads concerned with the comments, all recommended that she take a long vacation and stay out of the media’s focus. If not that, at least shut up.

So what did Ferraro do? Being attacked from all fronts for different reasons, Ferraro said:

Any time anybody does anything that in any way pulls this campaign down and says let’s address reality and the problems we’re facing in this world, you’re accused of being racist, so you have to shut up. Racism works in two different directions. I really think they’re attacking me because I’m white.

Now there’s a right and a wrong way to address the issue of race. The wrong way is to get an interview and say that Obama is riding the coattails of his ‘race’ to success. The right way is how Obama did it at a later date, with his ‘More Perfect Union’ speech. Note that even after this, she was yet to step down from her position on the financial board of Clinton’s campaign.

The comments that followed this article on CNN were rather amusing though. In what was a rare show of solidarity between both Obama and Clinton supporters, they all had things like this to say:

Teresa in Kansas – March 11th, 2008 7:55 pm ET
Ferraro just kissed her political career good-bye!

Judy – March 11th, 2008 7:57 pm ET
She needs to just stop starting to explain her words. She said it move on. She is digging deeper and deeper. Next we will here she lost her bid for Prez because she was old. She lost because of comments like this.

HH – March 11th, 2008 8:00 pm ET
Geraldine who? Oh, that’s right: Geraldine and Mondale, the duo that carried 1 state and DC in the ’84 Presidential election.

Cindy – March 11th, 2008 8:00 pm ET
I now think she’s nutz. I’m sorry I voted for her.

Amy in Iowa – March 11th, 2008 8:02 pm ET
No one is attacking Ferraro because she is white. She is being criticized because she made a racist statement. If she wants to resort to playing the victim card like Hillary, it is a sad day for women in this country. Ferraro made a dumb statement. Own up to it, apologize, and move on.

SAM in CommonSense – March 11th, 2008 8:03 pm ET
I guess you are being attacked because your ideas are out of touch! Even Clinton thinks you were wrong. Is Hillary and her campaign saying you are racist, then? or they might be picking on you too because you are white and an old woman? its time to move past racism and sexism in our societies!

While there was still some patience for the woman, and some normal discussion, it seemed that everyone thought common sense would prevail, Ferraro would be removed from Clinton’s campaign team, and everyone would move on. Well, Ferraro hung around for a another day, then finally walked away from the Clinton campaign. But did she take responsibility for her comments? No sir. Here’s what she had to say again:

I do think this was a mistake on part of the Obama campaign. They didn’t have to do this, and they did it to hurt Hillary. I just think that’s bad. I think it’s bad business, and I think it’s bad politics. I was accused of being divisive. I think those tactics are divisive. And the amazing thing is it’s not something I started, its something they did in reaction to this.

Instead of blaming herself, or the media, she blamed Barack Obama. Well, in the mind of someone like this woman, that probably makes sense. She didn’t have the intelligence to shut up and disappear into the shadows, she didn’t have the right of mind to avoid causing more damage to the Clinton campaign, and she didn’t see a problem with going on about how she was being witch-hunted by everyone who wasn’t a Clinton supporter.

The first comment I read in reply to this story had me laughing like crazy, and it just kept getting better:

Darth Vadik, CA – March 13th, 2008 6:55 pm ET
The Rule of Holes is: When you are in a hole, stop digging

Adam, Los Angeles – March 13th, 2008 6:55 pm ET
Lady, do yourself and the world a favor: sing your song in the shower where no one else can hear you!

Tim – March 13th, 2008 6:57 pm ET
I’m sorry, but with all due respect, why is CNN still posting anything the woman says?

Cathy- March 13th, 2008 6:59 pm ET
Ferraro needs to stop talking to the media and go on a nice long vacation in some quiet out of the way place.

Rich in Seattle – March 13th, 2008 7:00 pm ET
I so love you Geraldine Ferraro. As an Obama supporter, you’re the best thing that could have happened to us!! Thanks!

Adam, Los Angeles – March 13th, 2008 7:02 pm ET
I’m pretty certain the words you spoke were meant to hurt Obama and his supporters!

RickytheGriff – March 13th, 2008 7:05 pm ET
Exactly what planet does Ferraro exist on? Man, it must be nice in FantasyLand. Maybe I can build a Summer home there!

I could go on and on and on with the comments. There were 304 of them, and 90% of them were humourous ways of telling Ferraro that she was wrong, should take responsibility for her words, stop trying to explain them, and shut-up for a long time.

We all thought that might be the end of Ferraro – her resignation and the final blame game she played. But no. She was back, and with vengeance! Anyone who watched Obama’s magnificent speech from two days ago will remember that he cited the examples of Ferraro and Reverend Jeremiah Wright as ways the primary race has been clouded by issues of race, and how the people of America have been divided time and time again. He didn’t say that Ferraro and Wright were the same, or that their comments were the same, or that they had the same meaning. But, in true Ferraro style:

Ferraro: I am no Jeremiah Wright

To equate what I said with what this racist bigot has said from the pulpit is unbelievable. [Obama] gave a very good speech on race relations, but he did not address the fact that this man is up there spewing hatred.

What [Wright] is doing is he is spewing that stuff out to young people, and to younger people than Obama, and putting it in their heads that it’s OK to say ‘Goddamn America’ and it’s OK to beat up on white people. You don’t preach that from the pulpit.

Wright isn’t exactly ‘spewing hatred’, but he isn’t planting roses either. But he definitely didn’t say it was ‘OK to beat up on white people’. Obama distanced himself from the man when he said some awful things though, about 9/11 and Pearl Harbour. But what was even more entertaining was what else she had to say about Obama’s speech:

Ferraro said she had “no clue” why Obama referenced her in the speech. She also expressed surprise the Illinois senator said he had heard his white grandmother utter racist remarks.

“I could not believe that. That’s my mother’s generation.”

This last statement, that the generation prior to Ferraro’s (who was born in 1935) wasn’t at all racist, was what garnered the most surprise, amusement, and ridicule:

Nate in Mpls – March 20th, 2008 5:15 pm ET

She’s BAA-ACCK!!!!!

matt – March 20th, 2008 5:15 pm ET
Why won;t she just disappear. No one cares what you have to say.

Diane in Buffalo, Wy. – March 20th, 2008 5:18 pm ET
Go home, no one is interested in what you have to say any more.

Wayne, Greenville TX – March 20th, 2008 5:18 pm ET
No – you’re far worse.

Irishspacemonk – March 20th, 2008 5:19 pm ET
Please, someone take this woman back to the nursing home. She’s lost, wandering around and telling anyone who’ll listen she’s not racists, just ‘cuz she points out blacks have it so easy when running for pres. You can’t teach an old dog new tricks and she’s not worth the attention the media is giving her.

CR – March 20th, 2008 5:19 pm ET
It would be best for Ms. Ferraro to take a long vacation away from the media.

Matt – March 20th, 2008 5:20 pm ET
Oh just shut up and go away already Ferraro. I know this is the most attention anyone has ever given you since 1984, but your fifteen minutes is up. So just shut up and go back into obscurity.

Issues Please – March 20th, 2008 5:20 pm ET
Not again. Please go away.

tiredofthecrap – March 20th, 2008 5:20 pm ET
Former VP Candidate Ferraro. Goodbye. Go away.

Greg – March 20th, 2008 5:21 pm ET
As has been said, the number one rule of holes is: When you are in one, stop digging! Some one give her The Rules of Holes.

raj – March 20th, 2008 5:21 pm ET
What does Ferraro mean that she does not believe that Barak’s grandmother said something racist? She says it was her mothers generation. Does she mean that the generation was pristine pure and not racist? What world is she living in? She should go back and check the history books!
Really? – March 20th, 2008 5:21 pm ET
Wow, Ferraro, you are incredible. Feigning surprise over overt racism? Maybe she’s just incredulous that people actually express their bigotry out loud and not hidden behind some silly claim of reverse racism and affirmative action. Ferraro, take my advice: BE QUIET.

It was obvious that observers of the race were sick and tired of the woman about a week ago, and then when she stuck her head up above the trenches again, people were just out of patience. There was little-to-no defense of Ferraro in the last thread comment, while the first one had some, and then a little less in the second. People were over what she had said, and had probably forgotten it, to be honest. But no, she wanted more.

Anyway, looking at the articles and the news reports on the primary race is interesting enough, but for a good dose of entertainment and laughs, I like to check out comment threads, and what the ‘people’ have to say about it all. I recommend it to anyone who might be interested, though finds a lot of it ‘dry’.

Thomas.

Super Tuesday IX – Some fallout

So what happened? Who were the winners and who were the losers? There’s only one clear winner today, and that’s John McCain. The man has all but stitched up the Republican nomination. Mitt Romney is the only clear loser today. As one man on CNN (who provided, by far, the best coverage of the day) put it “The only thing Mitt Romney can spin about today is that he’s got good hair.” That’s about all that Romney won. Mike Huckabee also came out ahead – streets further than I would have put him at – but it wasn’t enough to challenge the nomination. And, of course, Ron Paul plain old sucked. Really, I want to know where all those Internet people (also known as nerds) got off thinking that Paul had any real chance. While I said that he would be the best Republican candidate, I never for a moment thought he’d win the nomination.

The only murkiness that remains surrounds the Democrats. Neither Hillary Clinton nor Barack Obama have come out of this with any significant lead. Granted, the Obama campaign was never expecting to come out with a significant lead, but I can remember even a month ago that Clinton supporters were claiming she’d have the nomination in the bag by this hour. It must be disappointing for their campaign that she now finds herself in a rather tight race.

What the Clinton campaign will take hope from is the staying power of their candidate. As you read here, there was a late surge by Obama in polls everywhere. In places where Clinton wasn’t campaigning hard, that can be understood. But in places where she was supposed to win, that’s something that’s pretty rare. I had been saying for the past few days that if Super Tuesday actually was Super Friday, Obama would have won hands down. The momentum that he had over the last days of campaigning was huge, and as a results, if there was even two extra days, those surging poll numbers would have translated into actual votes.

Unfortunately, Obama didn’t pick up enough of the crucial states to make a real impact on Clinton. He needed any combination of two of these:

  • Win/split the New York delegates;
  • Win/split the Californian delegates;
  • Win/split the Massachusetts delegates;
  • Win/split the New Jersey delegates;
  • Win/split the Connecticut delegates

Some of those, going by the polling numbers that were coming in, were very much on the cards. He pulled off a win in Connecticut, which was very welcome, but he needed another North-East state to show that it wasn’t a fluke. I’d be very disappointed in the Massachusetts Democrats – a state where he was endorsed by both Senators (Kennedy and Kerry) and the Governor, and he couldn’t get more than % of the vote. Splitting the vote here should have been an outcome. And California. And New Jersey. The polls pointed towards that as an outcome.

I wonder if the polls were premature or if they scared more Clinton supporters out to the streets. New Hampshire was like that – the Obama win in Iowa actually brought more Clinton supporters to the booths. It’s exactly the same as what will happen if she runs as the Democratic nominee – her presence scares Republicans out to the polls in droves. Either way, it looks like it happened in the pro-Clinton states this time around.

What is good is that Obama won more states than Clinton. This will feed the fires of electability. The argument has been raging, but has received less attention than the who race/sex debate on T.V. so far. The primaries should really be who is more electable. And, if that’s the judge, then from today’s performance, you’d say Obama, and give him the nomination. He won more mid-West states, has won as many Southern states in the whole race (and will likely win more than Clinton), he has snagged a couple of North-East states too. All-in-all, he has delivered in all the different parts of the U.S. at a better rate than Clinton.

However, the biggest disappointment, and probably the only legitimate one, is how he fared in California. I suspect the campaign was expecting a really tight race there so that he split the delegate count. If he had won it, then it would have been a whole new race. But that was never on the cards until the last polls came out. What was always expected was a close race. Closer than what was the outcome – 10% between the two (52% to 42%). A 5% or less difference would have been ideal; a win a dream. But it didn’t fall that way.

Obama’s big percentage wins in Alaska (75% to 25%), Utah (57% to 39%), Colorado (67% to 32%), Idaho (79% to 17%), Minnesota (67% to 32%), Kansas (74% to 26%), North Dakota (61% to 37%), Illinois (65% to 33%), and Georgia (67% to 31%) are what kept the big loss down. Obama has won significantly more delegates than Clinton across all of these, especially Illinois. These states kept his losses in the ‘big’ states to a reduced impact. Those ‘big’ states that Clinton won – California, New Jersey by 10%, Massachusetts by 15%, New York by 17%, Tennessee by 13% – might have hurt a lot more if those large percentage wins in the rest of the smaller states wasn’t so high or frequent. Similarly, those states where the two have split the vote (Connecticut, New Mexico, Missouri) have helped Obama stop any more of a lead that Clinton might establish. And finally, by picking up states that could have, had Clinton won them, created momentum for the opposition (Delaware, Alabama, New Mexico, Missouri), he has created momentum for himself, gained more delegates, and come out with an advantage.

So, to wrap this up. A week ago, if someone had shown me these results, and the end numbers, I would have been quite happy. I guess that when the polls started to suggest something miraculous, I should have been more wary. The day wasn’t an Obama sweep in terms of delegates. But thankfully, neither was it a sweep for Clinton either. And with more delegates to be factored in, though a current delegate count of 825 to Clinton and 732 to Obama (93 difference), I’d say that it was a very good day for Obama. Then remember that he won 13 states, possibly 14, and it turns into a fantastic day for him. Momentum and news cycles going into the next phase of the race. And that phase is in 3 days time, where Washington, Nebraska, and Louisiana vote for the Democrats. For the Republicans, it’s the same day, but Louisiana and Kansas. But John McCai, I suspect, won’t be worried. Though Clinton may very well be. The next few states are all favourable for Obama in terms of location, demographics, and delegates. The primary race for the Democrats is far from over. And it’s going to start up again tomorrow.

Thomas.