I know quite a number of Filipinos (Filipino-Americans), and they all seem to gravitate towards Hillary. One of them told me that Filipino women hold a lot of power in their families and communities, and they are just more comfortable with women leaders than the average American.
Witness Corazon Aquino and their current president, Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo. They adore women leaders. (Oh, and there's Imelda Marcos too ...)
There must be a million Fil-Ams in California ... I'm sure they'll come out in force today.
This is just about the most cogent and thoughtful defense of a vote as I've seen online. No screaming, no propaganda, no over-the-top pontifications and accusations.
I've spoken to many of my friends, from Florida, New York City, San Diego, Chicago, San Francisco ... they're all awed by Obama, but they feel that, like you, we will find ourselves in a better position if Hillary is president. Thus, they're all tending towards the "PC" of candidates ... but still glancing wishfully at the shiny new "Mac" nearby.
I'm deeply suspicious of Obama's bipartisan bent, and with much respect look to Prof. Krugman for guidance in matters of policy. He seems to have been for John Edwards, based on the hints he's dropped in his many articles criticizing Obama, but now that Edwards has dropped out, I have a feeling he'll vote for Hillary. Krugman is deeply partisan, but partisan for the true ideals of the Democrats, willing to fight for our core beliefs.
Odd that Obama, who poo-poohs the bridge to the 20th century, is the beneficiary of the endorsement of a solid 20th century political clan. The Kennedys are THE thing of the past. If the endorsement is really just about getting even, then THIS IS SAD for all sides.
Rank-and-file Dems will decide this one. Not wine-sipping guilt-ridden liberals. Whoever speaks to the ills of the middle and lower middle class better wins this race. If Obama continues to speak in abstract terms about change, he won't be able to win Edwards voters. He must start talking about specifics, and the specifics of the specifics.
Edwards may throw his support on Obama, but his voters will split evenly between Obama and HRC, or may even break for Hillary in a wide margin.
Downscale Dems don't trust Obama. I have firsthand anecdotal data, from where I sit. The few people that would have wanted to vote for Edwards on Super Tuesday-- all of them look at Obama and don't see a fighter for them. They're looking for a fighter for the little people. And Hillary seems like she's a greater advocate for these important issues.
Clinton is running the clock. Obama can't be in two places at once. Everyone talks about how magical it is to be in the audience for one of Obama's speeches. Unfortunately for him, there are only 24 hours in the day, and 7 days till the big day. Even if Oprah comes out and campaigns, the deficit is just too large for them to overcome.
It's Hillary's to lose ... or more precisely, it's Bill's to lose. (And if I were a top Clinton adviser, I'd be arranging for the Big Dog to go take a little vacation in Arkansas, for a month or so.)
If I had just come back on Earth from a 10 year vacation on Mars, and seen and heard the campaigns the past couple of weeks, I'd certainly cast my vote for Edwards in a heartbeat. I love his rhetoric. He is persuasive. He seems to understand, and more, he seems to care.
I just wish he had the same populist record in the Senate, which was the last time he had real power to do something about poor people.
No one is campaigning? Will that be Obama's reason for not winning New York, New Jersey, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Alaska, Colorado, New Mexico, next week?
We're done with retail politics and diner talk. I suspect a great majority of voters that will vote from this day onwards have not and will not find themselves within 100 miles from any one of our three candidates.
There is no more one-on-one campaigning, no more speeches in school gyms. But you betcha there's campaigning in the air. Last I checked, Kennedy's endorsement yesterday was also covered by the Florida press today. Almost as much as the "snub" that really was Claire McCaskill's fault.
"Again, I would caution that many of these subsamples are so small that the differences between them are not statistically significant. That said, these numbers are rather interesting and shine a bit more light on the race for the Democratic presidential nomination."
I find this statement odd. What kind of light is shed on anything if you're using potentially statistically meaningless numbers? A lot less real knowledge is gleaned when one looks too closely at the data. In other words, WEAK STATISTICS = BS.