It ends in a cliffhanger...
HOUSTON, TEXAS: A not hugely attended rally in Houston caps it off - the smaller numbers perhaps because it was late at night in the centre of the city.
Obama rambled a bit then caught the mood fantastically with his story about how he came upon the slogan "fired up and ready to go".
"Let's go out and change the world" were the last words he spoke…
So the big day arrives and this is the
And this from one who knows:
"Obama can lose everything on Tuesday and still win the nomination," wrote Democratic pollster Mark Mellman. "Clinton could win all four states and still lose the nomination. But a politically consequential victory for Clinton requires wins in both Texas and Ohio."
The full article is
How apt that this vertiginous roller coaster ride ends - to mix metaphors - with a cliffhanger...
Hello, I'm 
°δ΄Η³Ύ³Ύ±π²Τ³Ω²υΜύΜύ Post your comment
If Hillary losses out....would she want to go it alone..independently??
From Texas, In Community Area, northeast of Dallas, Collin county a normally red republican county has had a blue dem turnout in the early vote. republicans are at the polls today, some voting in the dem primary. Personal observation here is Huckabee's day in Community Area.
Hillary Clinton doesn't just have to win in Texas and Ohio, she has to win big - and I mean BIG!
She has to win every single one of the votes. She has to get at least 80% more votes than Barack Obama. She has to have the sort of big win which results in a CNN projection the second the polls close. She needs to get the sort of win Gordon Brown got in the Labour Party primaries.
And if she doesn't, if she fails to garnish enough votes for a convincing victory... it's curtains for Clinton.
Unfortunately, whoever wins today, the eventual nominees of both major parties will be committed interventionists.
By "interventionist," in American politics I define this as a politician who wants active government management of most human activity at home, and imperialist-style intervention as a hallmark of foreign policy.
These are two sides of the statist coin that have remained the same throughout history, perhaps first surfacing during the time of the Three Kingdoms in China and in ancient Egypt. Individuals on top of the all-time interventionist list include Octavian Caesar, Napoleon, Bismarck, Franklin Roosevelt, Lyndon Johnson and, most recently George Bush. There are, of course, others who merit mention but the list is too long to make here.
While we Americans ponder who may be the lesser of evils - is it the society savior, the national nanny or the commandante? - my suggestion for remedy is simple.
Let's adopt the Swiss plural executive. There are all kinds of advantages in doing so, not the least of which is creating a built-in brake on abuse of executive power by making sure that new committee is populated by bitter political rivals.
Vive la Suisse.
The media since morning saying HC is wining. Is that NH-related spin or a real news.
The above post on "interventionists" is a fine example of the strategy "join and conquer." In this intellectually dishonest strategy two different groups are joined together in order to make them available for attack.
For example, we could define "tallocidists" as people who are tall or who led their countries to genocide. Included among tallocidists are Stalin, Abraham Lincoln, Stalin, Pol Pot and Wilt Chamberlain.
Suddenly Abraham Lincoln and Wilt Chamberlain are in the same group as the scum of the earth!
Or, not inventing a new term, talk of "great" people and include in the list people who were of historical significance or immensely fat.
"Intervening" in the home affairs of one's country is precisely (along with defense) what governments exist for. Protecting the citizenry from criminals, helping the poor and disadvantaged, managing the economy, building roads and schools, etc. Obviously it can be overdone or underdone, but aside from anarchists it is universally considered the proper role of government.
Intervening in the affairs of other nations is far more controversial and dangerous, and a completely different category from managing a country's internal affairs.
Just because we can find a common term for the two "interventionist" (though the label is a poor one for the first category) doesn't mean they are the same kind of thing.
Perhaps the, "Not hugely attended rally in Houston - the smaller numbers perhaps because it was late at night in the centre of the city," is because the bloom is off the rose. It is amazing to see the excuses still being made on behalf of Obami. If this were the reverse it would be reported as "losing, or failing", or some other attempt at humiliation of the candidate. But not here. Just a week ago people were willing to camp out overnight to see him. Stand in line for hours, just to be turned away. A Phenom is born. Phenoms, by the way, don't leave empty seats. But no, let's try to explain away the drop-off of people wanting to see Obami. No menton of the 4, count 'em 4, negative press stories sticking to him reducing his lustre considerably. Were the missing ones the all important "Independent Vote"? Hail, Hail, Truth and Justice for All.
I saw this in the "Have Your Say" section of the website today:
Karol, Southlake, Texas >>
is this scary or what ? How many people do you think are doing this: crossing over to bring Hillary up, simply to boost up McCain's chances? I mean, I'm not surprised coming from a Republican. But wow, the tricks republicans will pull to survive...
Why not take him at his word? He says he's hoping for a miracle. What sort of divine intervention would help him win? Anything that causes John McCain to withdraw from the race (severe illness, scandle etc). Huckabee probably thinks there's sufficient chance of something bad happening to McCain that makes it worth him staying in the race to take his place.
There's another bonus for Huckabee in staying in the race this long. Tonight he may gain enough delegates to put himself ahead of Romney. Amongst other benefits, there has to be some personal pride in achieving that.
I don't understand why journalists and pundits are so eager to see the Clinton-Obama contest conclude. What's wrong with two obviously very popular candidates duking it out until the last day of the convention? I'm sure each side is convinced its candidate is the better choice. Why do so many want Clinton to abandon her bid? Don't give me that nonsense about "hurting" the Democratic Party's chances in November.
Most interesting though is how the polls do not agree either with themselves or right now, with what the Obama campaign says. By going to one can see all the polls by clicking on the appropriate line. The consensus right now (12 noon on the West Coast) is that Mrs Clinton is ahead of Mr Obama. Whether that will be reflected later this evening, only time will tell!
Can someone update the projections in Texas..who is winning?I'm stuck in Manila TV less.
Hello Justin
I was reading some articles on that election from people that voted in Texas
how can they just sign a piece of paper without a voters reg. or drivers lic. and (that vote be counted? Makes absolutely no sense, and also unfair to the American Citizen.Because I did not think you could vote in this country if you were not a Citizen? Can anyone on this comment board explain that?
Thank You