OK, but why? Why not concede after losing NC, and Indiana being so close? Financially this must be really starting to hurt.
There's a theory that she's negotiating her exit and how much of her campaign's debts will be paid for by Obama, so a few more days may not hurt her much or even help her financially. And there's the other reason just stated of not conceding until after Kentucky in order to not hurt the nominee.
If you go back to her speech in Indiana, the first item was an attempt to spin the day as a huge victory by using a dumb Obama quote, but it was really lame and came out flat; the second was a request for money; the third one was a pledge to campaign for the nominee. I was struck by that last one in particular, we hadn't heard it from her in a while. I think she was pretty much conceding then. And when she came back the next day with that unseemingly reference to white voters, you could interpret it as a way to tout her support, and therefore how much she still matters to the party and to Obama, rather than an act of campaigning for the nomination per se.
She's not dumb, she knows she's done. Anybody who thinks she should have given up before North Carolina and Indiana is crazy, though.
The statements that I've seen have basically been "I'm going to win". Which might just be statements to rark up the supporters and keep them going, but as far as I can tell basic maths and logic disproves this. I hope there's a better reason not being publicly stated.
Apologies if this comment has been made before, but so long as she's campaigning along those lines (if you say anything less than "I'm going to win", effectively you're not running!), instead of giving us the spiel about hard working white voters of the immediate post-Indiana and North Carolina phase, that's a help to Obama. As very many pundits have observed, she's going to win in West Virginia and Kentucky by several country miles, and it wouldn't look good if the presumptive nominee got trounced by somebody who is not even campaigning. That said, nothing I've heard coming from her after the white voters comment makes me think she's going to take this to the convention. McAuliffe himself suggested they're going to stay through to June 3rd. Barring some huge surprises in the upcoming primaries, she won't go further, and might in fact very well concede after Oregon.
It does feel very much like life imitating the West Wing however.
True that. And is McCain the perfect match for Alda's character or what? If I lived near a nuclear plant in the States I'd be a little nervous just about now.
I've been using salvia most Thursdays since I was a young lad and no, I don't think I could very easily give it up. Mixed with butter it's the perfect accompaniment for gnocchi. Mmmhhh... in fact I think I'm going to have some right now.
For some reason, Michael Law's latest column, A Pakeha Fights Back, is among the editors' picks on Stuff this morning.
I've often wondered about those picks, though. They seem pretty random. (Currently, the editor is quite proud of "Showdown will put Tua back on the map" and "Sky TV Web service to be open to non-subscribers")
Dear Cate Brett: I can write equally stupid columns...
Oh, no, you couldn't. It takes a very special kind of person. We all think we could be that person if we chose to, but really we couldn't, which is why that particular type of scum rises to the top, as it were.
Good luck for the Qantas Media Awards tonight.
Yes, the All Blacks lacked composure when things went wobbly, and yes there were failures of leadership and selection. But why can't you acknowledge that the referee's performance also had a significant impact on the result?
I don't think anybody is saying that the referee had a great day, and it's pretty obvious that in a two point game you don't need many calls to go against the losing team in order to say that the referee had a significant impact on the result. Hell, the correct call on the forward pass alone makes that score a pretty big mountain to climb for the French. But I think it was you who quoted the Haka message of support to the ABs which blamed the whole thing on the ref, and I'd say that it's not what it's about; that refereeing mistakes are part of high pressure games (low pressure ones too), let alone against the tournament hosts; that in hardly any game the score actually starts at nil-nil, in that regard. You ride your luck and luck wasn't on the AB's side, but to say that the best team didn't win on the day (quoting the guy from Haka here) still seems counter to the culture somehow. It's more of a soccer thing, and believe me I grew up among that rubbish - I'd rather it weren't part of the discourse at all than on the few occasions when it makes a certain amount of sense.
To me the McAlister action (all the more so the way he explained it) looks exactly like the picture here, except he had his back turned to the guy. I still think it was harsh, mind you, but not out of this world.
You don't often get to gloat in NZ, so I'll just say...
DUCKS! 4-1! The Stanley Cup! Haha!
Dude, that is HARSH.
And BTW, is there seriously anyone out there who still thinks the McAllister check was purely accidental?
He himself admitted it wasn't, that he merely positioned himself and held his ground in the other guy's running lane - surely the definition of what obstruction is? You do that kind of stuff near the try line at your own peril I would have thought.
Kind of the opposite in 2002 where the ref didn't bottle and stood up and awarded a legit penalty to minnows that Italy never expected would be given because they were playing minnows.
Nothing wrong with that initial penalty. The ref totally lost his cool in extra time, starting off when he red carded Totti for supposedly diving in the box while looking at the action from 50 metres away. Again, an inexperienced guy, like yesterday, who under pressure started favouring the home team. I wasn't particularly shocked then, and I certainly wasn't shocked yesterday.