Financial Times endorses Senator Obama

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Hillary, Obama, what's the difference? Their policies are very similar.

Hillary has better connections than Obama - therefore a better chance of making things happen.

The Financial Times argument sounds logical to me...

Mrs Clinton’s campaign, in contrast, has been a shambles. She and her team expected to have it all sewn up long ago; they made no plans for a long struggle, ran short of money and had to reorganise on the run.

Her speaking style is pedestrian, when it is not actually grating. Those who dislike her tend to do so with a passion: her disapproval ratings started high and after months of campaigning are climbing still. It is a tribute to her tenacity and to the loyalty she commands in the party that her fate was not sealed weeks ago.

How much the way that a campaign is run tells you about a candidate’s fitness to be president is debatable – but it does tell you something, especially if the candidate with the misfiring strategy is running on a claim of management expertise."

[no name 1]

Hillary, Obama, what's the difference? Their policies are very similar.

Hillary has better connections than Obama - therefore a better chance of making things happen.

The Financial Times argument sounds logical to me...

Mrs Clinton’s campaign, in contrast, has been a shambles. She and her team expected to have it all sewn up long ago; they made no plans for a long struggle, ran short of money and had to reorganise on the run.

Her speaking style is pedestrian, when it is not actually grating. Those who dislike her tend to do so with a passion: her disapproval ratings started high and after months of campaigning are climbing still. It is a tribute to her tenacity and to the loyalty she commands in the party that her fate was not sealed weeks ago.

How much the way that a campaign is run tells you about a candidate’s fitness to be president is debatable – but it does tell you something, especially if the candidate with the misfiring strategy is running on a claim of management expertise."

And yet, he is outspending HC 3-1 in PA & STILL NOT WINNING.

She has a debt of $10M & he has $45M & yet he is STILL NOT running away with it.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Hillary, Obama, what's the difference? Their policies are very similar.

Hillary has better connections than Obama - therefore a better chance of making things happen.

The Financial Times argument sounds logical to me...

Mrs Clinton’s campaign, in contrast, has been a shambles. She and her team expected to have it all sewn up long ago; they made no plans for a long struggle, ran short of money and had to reorganise on the run.

Her speaking style is pedestrian, when it is not actually grating. Those who dislike her tend to do so with a passion: her disapproval ratings started high and after months of campaigning are climbing still. It is a tribute to her tenacity and to the loyalty she commands in the party that her fate was not sealed weeks ago.

How much the way that a campaign is run tells you about a candidate’s fitness to be president is debatable – but it does tell you something, especially if the candidate with the misfiring strategy is running on a claim of management expertise."

And yet, he is outspending HC 3-1 in PA & STILL NOT WINNING.

She has a debt of $10M & he has $45M & yet he is STILL NOT running away with it.

How is he able to outspend her? Where's he getting all this money?

[no name 1]

Hillary, Obama, what's the difference? Their policies are very similar.

Hillary has better connections than Obama - therefore a better chance of making things happen.

The Financial Times argument sounds logical to me...

Mrs Clinton’s campaign, in contrast, has been a shambles. She and her team expected to have it all sewn up long ago; they made no plans for a long struggle, ran short of money and had to reorganise on the run.

Her speaking style is pedestrian, when it is not actually grating. Those who dislike her tend to do so with a passion: her disapproval ratings started high and after months of campaigning are climbing still. It is a tribute to her tenacity and to the loyalty she commands in the party that her fate was not sealed weeks ago.

How much the way that a campaign is run tells you about a candidate’s fitness to be president is debatable – but it does tell you something, especially if the candidate with the misfiring strategy is running on a claim of management expertise."

And yet, he is outspending HC 3-1 in PA & STILL NOT WINNING.

She has a debt of $10M & he has $45M & yet he is STILL NOT running away with it.

How is he able to outspend her? Where's he getting all this money?

From his rich white supporters!

Point is, it's still not enough.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Hillary, Obama, what's the difference? Their policies are very similar.

Hillary has better connections than Obama - therefore a better chance of making things happen.

The Financial Times argument sounds logical to me...

Mrs Clinton’s campaign, in contrast, has been a shambles. She and her team expected to have it all sewn up long ago; they made no plans for a long struggle, ran short of money and had to reorganise on the run.

Her speaking style is pedestrian, when it is not actually grating. Those who dislike her tend to do so with a passion: her disapproval ratings started high and after months of campaigning are climbing still. It is a tribute to her tenacity and to the loyalty she commands in the party that her fate was not sealed weeks ago.

How much the way that a campaign is run tells you about a candidate’s fitness to be president is debatable – but it does tell you something, especially if the candidate with the misfiring strategy is running on a claim of management expertise."

And yet, he is outspending HC 3-1 in PA & STILL NOT WINNING.

She has a debt of $10M & he has $45M & yet he is STILL NOT running away with it.

How is he able to outspend her? Where's he getting all this money?

From his rich white supporters!

Point is, it's still not enough.

You think it shows that he's less capable of managing a campaign than Hillary? Interesting.

[Gigli2008 70]

Hillary, Obama, what's the difference? Their policies are very similar.

Hillary has better connections than Obama - therefore a better chance of making things happen.

The Financial Times argument sounds logical to me...

Mrs Clinton’s campaign, in contrast, has been a shambles. She and her team expected to have it all sewn up long ago; they made no plans for a long struggle, ran short of money and had to reorganise on the run.

Her speaking style is pedestrian, when it is not actually grating. Those who dislike her tend to do so with a passion: her disapproval ratings started high and after months of campaigning are climbing still. It is a tribute to her tenacity and to the loyalty she commands in the party that her fate was not sealed weeks ago.

How much the way that a campaign is run tells you about a candidate’s fitness to be president is debatable – but it does tell you something, especially if the candidate with the misfiring strategy is running on a claim of management expertise."

And yet, he is outspending HC 3-1 in PA & STILL NOT WINNING.

She has a debt of $10M & he has $45M & yet he is STILL NOT running away with it.

How is he able to outspend her? Where's he getting all this money?

Campaings cost money; He is little known in PA so he has to spend big time to reach out to most everyone. Where is he getting his money? Come-on you already know the answer, yet you still ask. He gets his money from the american people-u-and-me-everyday-peole who donate $25-$100 dollar amounts (power of the internet) Not from the rich white folks as someone else put it. But you know this already.

[no name 1]

Hillary, Obama, what's the difference? Their policies are very similar.

Hillary has better connections than Obama - therefore a better chance of making things happen.

The Financial Times argument sounds logical to me...

Mrs Clinton’s campaign, in contrast, has been a shambles. She and her team expected to have it all sewn up long ago; they made no plans for a long struggle, ran short of money and had to reorganise on the run.

Her speaking style is pedestrian, when it is not actually grating. Those who dislike her tend to do so with a passion: her disapproval ratings started high and after months of campaigning are climbing still. It is a tribute to her tenacity and to the loyalty she commands in the party that her fate was not sealed weeks ago.

How much the way that a campaign is run tells you about a candidate’s fitness to be president is debatable – but it does tell you something, especially if the candidate with the misfiring strategy is running on a claim of management expertise."

And yet, he is outspending HC 3-1 in PA & STILL NOT WINNING.

She has a debt of $10M & he has $45M & yet he is STILL NOT running away with it.

How is he able to outspend her? Where's he getting all this money?

From his rich white supporters!

Point is, it's still not enough.

You think it shows that he's less capable of managing a campaign than Hillary? Interesting.

Steven - It is as clear as the words on this page. She is still poised to win yet another state & it very much still in the race, despite being outspent 3-1!

Clearly she has a following , as evidenced by her big state (must wins for November) wins & the current dead heat for the nomination.

Edited April 21, 2008 by illumine

[Sheriff Uling 3]

The Democratic party has waited an awfully long time for a politician like Barack Obama. Enough already.

Like what? A junior Senator with no experience? He has no track record. This is a culture of personality only. I mean really. The dems have so many other people that at least could fill out more than one page on a resume. I don't understand why they would pick an ultra-liberal unknown like this. He is the worst (well, second worst) person they could pick.

Gary,

Do you watch Hanity and Colmes? Hanity has been rattling off the same stuff for weeks in addition to the Wright statements, his wife's statements, and the small town bitterness thing. We shall all see how this plays out in the general election. This should be very interesting.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Steven - It is as clear as the words on this page. She is still poised to win yet another state & it very much still in the race, despite being outspent 3-1!

Clearly she has a following , as evidenced by her big state (must wins for November) wins & the current dead heat for the nomination.

In your opinion, how do you think the nominee should be chosen, if we are to accept your argument that they are in a virtual tie?

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Clearly she has a following , as evidenced by her big state (must wins for November) wins & the current dead heat for the nomination.

An insurmountable lead by one candidate over the other is not exactly a dead heat. Again, only a decision by the party elite contrary to that of the sum of voters would enable Hillary to claim the nomination. Thye majority of voters in the majority of states have decided against her resulting in a majority of pledged delegates in Obama's column. If the party elite overturns that, then she's going to be the appointed but not the elected nominee. The primaries will then be nothibng but a show put on to pretend that the vote of the people actually matters. Not a desirable scenario by any means.

[Dan J 277]

Hillary, Obama, what's the difference? Their policies are very similar.

Hillary has better connections than Obama - therefore a better chance of making things happen.

The Financial Times argument sounds logical to me...

Mrs Clinton's campaign, in contrast, has been a shambles. She and her team expected to have it all sewn up long ago; they made no plans for a long struggle, ran short of money and had to reorganise on the run.

Her speaking style is pedestrian, when it is not actually grating. Those who dislike her tend to do so with a passion: her disapproval ratings started high and after months of campaigning are climbing still. It is a tribute to her tenacity and to the loyalty she commands in the party that her fate was not sealed weeks ago.

How much the way that a campaign is run tells you about a candidate's fitness to be president is debatable – but it does tell you something, especially if the candidate with the misfiring strategy is running on a claim of management expertise."

And yet, he is outspending HC 3-1 in PA & STILL NOT WINNING.

She has a debt of $10M & he has $45M & yet he is STILL NOT running away with it.

How is he able to outspend her? Where's he getting all this money?

From his rich white supporters!

Point is, it's still not enough.

You think it shows that he's less capable of managing a campaign than Hillary? Interesting.

Steven - It is as clear as the words on this page. She is still poised to win yet another state & it very much still in the race, despite being outspent 3-1!

Clearly she has a following , as evidenced by her big state (must wins for November) wins & the current dead heat for the nomination.

Long bike races are done in legs. You don't win the bike race by wining the last leg. You win the bike race by having the lowest overall time.

Its the same case here. The demographics favor Hillary and she will likely win tommrrows "leg". But she will still be behind in the overall race. Performance in a single state doesnt get you the nomination, only your delegate count at the end of the race does. It will be incredibly difficult for her to make up the gap she currently has in the remaining races.

The only way she can win, is with superdelegates, but winning with such means will have a negative impact on her standing in the general election.

[no name 1]

Hillary, Obama, what's the difference? Their policies are very similar.

Hillary has better connections than Obama - therefore a better chance of making things happen.

The Financial Times argument sounds logical to me...

Mrs Clinton's campaign, in contrast, has been a shambles. She and her team expected to have it all sewn up long ago; they made no plans for a long struggle, ran short of money and had to reorganise on the run.

Her speaking style is pedestrian, when it is not actually grating. Those who dislike her tend to do so with a passion: her disapproval ratings started high and after months of campaigning are climbing still. It is a tribute to her tenacity and to the loyalty she commands in the party that her fate was not sealed weeks ago.

How much the way that a campaign is run tells you about a candidate's fitness to be president is debatable – but it does tell you something, especially if the candidate with the misfiring strategy is running on a claim of management expertise."

And yet, he is outspending HC 3-1 in PA & STILL NOT WINNING.

She has a debt of $10M & he has $45M & yet he is STILL NOT running away with it.

How is he able to outspend her? Where's he getting all this money?

From his rich white supporters!

Point is, it's still not enough.

You think it shows that he's less capable of managing a campaign than Hillary? Interesting.

Steven - It is as clear as the words on this page. She is still poised to win yet another state & it very much still in the race, despite being outspent 3-1!

Clearly she has a following , as evidenced by her big state (must wins for November) wins & the current dead heat for the nomination.

Long bike races are done in legs. You don't win the bike race by wining the last leg. You win the bike race by having the lowest overall time.

Its the same case here. The demographics favor Hillary and she will likely win tommrrows "leg". But she will still be behind in the overall race. Performance in a single state doesnt get you the nomination, only your delegate count at the end of the race does. It will be incredibly difficult for her to make up the gap she currently has in the remaining races.

The only way she can win, is with superdelegates, but winning with such means will have a negative impact on her standing in the general election.

I feel like a broken record but Snobama supporters can't seem to grasp that he, too, CANNOT get 2025 delegates. So now what?

[no name 1]

Steven - It is as clear as the words on this page. She is still poised to win yet another state & it very much still in the race, despite being outspent 3-1!

Clearly she has a following , as evidenced by her big state (must wins for November) wins & the current dead heat for the nomination.

In your opinion, how do you think the nominee should be chosen, if we are to accept your argument that they are in a virtual tie?

We were talking about managing a campaign, not how to decide a winner.

Nice deflection.

[GaryC 7]

The Democratic party has waited an awfully long time for a politician like Barack Obama. Enough already.

Like what? A junior Senator with no experience? He has no track record. This is a culture of personality only. I mean really. The dems have so many other people that at least could fill out more than one page on a resume. I don't understand why they would pick an ultra-liberal unknown like this. He is the worst (well, second worst) person they could pick.

Gary,

Do you watch Hanity and Colmes? Hanity has been rattling off the same stuff for weeks in addition to the Wright statements, his wife's statements, and the small town bitterness thing. We shall all see how this plays out in the general election. This should be very interesting.

No, I work 2nd shift so I don't get to watch TV in the evening. I don't need a pundent to tell me these things. Its obvious to anyone that looks. Contrary to popular opinion, I form my opinions on my own. I don't need someone to tell me what to think.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Hillary, Obama, what's the difference? Their policies are very similar.

Hillary has better connections than Obama - therefore a better chance of making things happen.

The Financial Times argument sounds logical to me...

Mrs Clinton's campaign, in contrast, has been a shambles. She and her team expected to have it all sewn up long ago; they made no plans for a long struggle, ran short of money and had to reorganise on the run.

Her speaking style is pedestrian, when it is not actually grating. Those who dislike her tend to do so with a passion: her disapproval ratings started high and after months of campaigning are climbing still. It is a tribute to her tenacity and to the loyalty she commands in the party that her fate was not sealed weeks ago.

How much the way that a campaign is run tells you about a candidate's fitness to be president is debatable – but it does tell you something, especially if the candidate with the misfiring strategy is running on a claim of management expertise."

And yet, he is outspending HC 3-1 in PA & STILL NOT WINNING.

She has a debt of $10M & he has $45M & yet he is STILL NOT running away with it.

How is he able to outspend her? Where's he getting all this money?

From his rich white supporters!

Point is, it's still not enough.

You think it shows that he's less capable of managing a campaign than Hillary? Interesting.

Steven - It is as clear as the words on this page. She is still poised to win yet another state & it very much still in the race, despite being outspent 3-1!

Clearly she has a following , as evidenced by her big state (must wins for November) wins & the current dead heat for the nomination.

Long bike races are done in legs. You don't win the bike race by wining the last leg. You win the bike race by having the lowest overall time.

Its the same case here. The demographics favor Hillary and she will likely win tommrrows "leg". But she will still be behind in the overall race. Performance in a single state doesnt get you the nomination, only your delegate count at the end of the race does. It will be incredibly difficult for her to make up the gap she currently has in the remaining races.

The only way she can win, is with superdelegates, but winning with such means will have a negative impact on her standing in the general election.

I feel like a broken record but Snobama supporters can't seem to grasp that he, too, CANNOT get 2025 delegates. So now what?

Not what you want to hear but it's actually yery simple: The party's elite respects and joins the vote of the people. Plain ans simple. Otherwise, why waste the time and effort on the primaries to begin with?