If Mr. Obama is the Democratic nominee, I plan to cross party lines to vote for him. I do have graduate degrees, but have never been accused of being a "Liberal" except in my political economy seminars, and I still wondering if the instructor meant it as an insult. I see Mr. Obama as one chance of ending the culture war and beginning anew in US politics, and a chance like this does not come often.

Jack Kalpakian, Ifrane, Morocco

This is nonsense. Maybe it works in Cali, but there aren't too many "latte liberals" in Idaho, Kansas, Maine, Minnesota, Utah, and Iowa - states that Obama won by landslides. Working-class whites dominate every one of those populations, and they voted Obama by up to 40% margins.

In fact, if you look at overall state/regional performance, its Clinton who wins more coastal elites (plus Arkansas and two contiguous states), while Obama takes the working-class heartland.

Lauren, Michigan, USA

It is very simply style over substance. People who are not voting based on strong beliefs are voting for Obama the person. It is pure bull to think that these current polls are any indication of what will happen in November. Obama will have to go up against the GOP machine and survive with his unity message, and good luck to him. I am voting for Hillary.

Shara, Athens, GA

I'm a liberal from Atlanta. I think the socio-economic distinctions you made are oversimplified. Obama has great appeal for Americans, regardless of class, who are tired of our sociopathic political system, and I think this will be more evident as the selection process continues. It's unclear whether this is a politics of hope or mere desperation. I keep thinking how many of our political problems would be minimized in a parliamentary democracy.

Charles Conway, Atlanta, USA

I'm in California actively working for Obama by phoning all over the states for various primaries and caucuses. This is the first election I've been involved in where we call cross-party and independants and I'm hearing over and over support for Obama among those groups and a vicious "anybody but Hillary" sentiment not directed at any other candidate from either party.
By the way, we (early adopters and progressive types) not drinking Lattes anymore. We're drinking green tea. Get with it. Latte is so "90s. So Clinton era.

Cheryll Dudley Roberts, Los Angeles, Ca

Obama has his appeal. My seventy-one year old father, a lifetime republican (and something of a racist) is voting for Mr. Obama. His chances of beating McCain, according to recent polls, suggest he would be in a better position to retake the White House than Mrs. Clinton. Yet, he's very inexperienced and his campaign, one bustling with hope and promises, could feasibly implode in his first term leaving the Democratic party in the cold in four years.
Clinton is clearly more experienced. Her time spent in the beltway and then as a senator of New York grants her the experience in the political field that would allow her to wield her office with a confidence that Mr. Obama might lack. Yet, she's devisive, she polarizes the electorate and would probably spend election night conceding to McCain.
Obama may prove to be an excellent president, despite his lack of experience.
Clinton may flop.
I will be voting for Obama.

David Hamer, Rehoboth Beach, Delaware

I AM a latte-liberal, and I was raised in a dunkin-donut home with two blue and pink collar parents working multiple jobs to get me the education that has enabled me to be one of those sushi-and-panini-eating, overeducated, white-collar West Coast pinkos, and I am Clinton all the way. For me, there's no distinction between latte liberals and dunkin donut liberals.

I may get blended mochas at my local coffee house and buy custom designed jewelry and work a white-collar job and have a developed career, but I will vote blue and pink collar interests every single time. I will ALWAYS stand with labor unions and the working class, and I would crawl on my knees over broken glass to vote for Hillary Clinton.

Janis, Burbank, CA

Obama reminds me a lot of Duval Patrick, the governor of Massachusetts who was elected last year on a campaign of "hope" and "change" with the slogan "yes we can." Do what? Now that he's elected, not much.

Obama is long on charisma and short on substance. He is vague, vague, and more vague. I'd never vote for him.

MT, Massachusetts, USA

A starbucks in the US is usually less than 2.50USD.

Stephen H Smith, London, UK

From California's votes you can draw an equally crushing blow to Mrs. Clinton's hopes: since the more you're educated, the more you vote Obama, you can also see current Obama voters as "early adopters" (vs. "late adopters" and "laggards"). And as time goes by, as information is diffused through the voting population, more people will "adopt" Obama. Some polls actually show that the more people know about Obama, the more he is preferred to Clinton. Having time on his side now that Obama has blocked Clinton during Super Tuesday, he has time to be better known. And clinched the nomination. Have you checked prediction markets such as Intrade lately?.....

Guy Goldstein, New York, NY

Re: Raising Taxes on the Rich:

For those of you who think the "rich" in the US don't pay their fair share of taxes, try reading the facts about it, instead of listening to the political sound bites:

According to the IRS' 2007 figures:

The top-earning 25% of taxpayers earned 67.5% of the nation’s income, but they paid more than 86% of all income taxes.

The top 1% of taxpayers earned approximately 21.2% of the nation’s income, yet paid 39.4% of all federal income taxes.

That means the top 1% of tax returns paid about the same amount of federal individual income taxes as the bottom 95% of tax returns.

Why is pouring more tax burden on the top income brackets the answer to all your evils? At what point do you think they pay enough? When will we stop punishing the "rich" for their success?

The answer is not more taxes, it's less spending, and you won't get that with a Dem in office.

Hold your nose and vote McCain.

MB, Dallas, TX

Spot on article, factual, incisive. In short, excellent analysis.

But the internecine warfare has begun, as was predictable. Ms. Clinton will not release her tax information as requested by Obama today any more than the Clinton library will release information on the Clinton years. Too much caca would be dredged up.

Ms. Clinton, aided by Mr. Clinton, will, I predict, self-destruct. In short, the democrats will consume their own. There will be a train wreck in Denver come this August. Probably be as ugly as the democratic convention of 1968 sans the Chicago police force. For a party that "wanted every vote counted" in 2000, it would appear that the super delegates will be the determining factor as to who emerges as the nominee. Most un-democratic process as the people who actually voted will be in effect disenfranchised. Obama would be a far more onerous challenge to the republicans. Ms. Clinton carries too much baggage (Mr. Clinton). Yet many democrats cling to the old.

The Observer

The Observer, Schertz, TX

>>Mrs Clinton's voters are the strugglers, the class that feels itself left behind by an increasingly unfair global economic system.<<

Ironic. Bill Clinton helped usher in the increasingly unfair global economic system with trade deals that put the USA at a competitive disadvantage, and the victims of his folly now support Hillary Clinton.

Larry, Eugene, Oregon, USA

I drink Dunkin Donuts and prefer Senator Obama

heather, Williston, VT

Has anyone done an analysis of first time voters? What proportion are obama supporters? The impression I get is that the huge surge in democratic voters is as a result of the enthusiasm that obama has inspired in first time voters. This is surely by far the most significant statistic, yet it is not mentioned. Why does a so called political anaylist ignore such an elephant in the corner? Maybe they don't have a catchy marketing phrase to desribe them? How about the "thirsty hopefuls" Nah maybe not!

Mike Peters, Newcastle, UK

How about...."Hungry Hopefuls"....?

Mike Peters, Newcastle, UK

Mr. Baker, All in all, an excellent column, accurately insightful and well based on solid facts, I think. Thanks very much for your largely successful efforts to understand the politics over here. However, there ARE a couple of key aspects of the subject that you overlooked. First of all, :-), the coffee at Dunkin' Donuts, at least over here in the U.S., has a stellar reputation. Coffee lovers (among whom I am not) rave about it. Secondly, I'd encourage you to take a look at some of the data describing the 'spectra' of the respective contributions [the distribution of number of contributors as a function of amounts contributed] to the Obama and Clinton campaigns, including the total number of contributors and total number of contributions to each of the campaigns. The differences between the two campaigns in these regards is quite simply _galactic_.

Regards.

Tim, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA

This latte conceit is getting more than a little tired. What's probably happening here is that poorer voters probably are short on the time, inclination and, well, reading material needed to follow politics. (We are calling them, patronizingly but honestly, "low-information" voters.) Believe it or not, many people do not know who Barack Obama is --- and some who do actually believe he's a Muslim. Everyone knows the Clintons. When in doubt, vote on name recognition. The results have been terrible, but it's a pattern that's been repeated for 200 years in American politics, and probably in the UK, too. It has nothing to do with people's hopes and fears, or with rational choices.

Lindsay, Philadelphia, PA

If Obama thinks controlling costs is the way to make health care universal, than he must respect Nixon as much as he does Reagan. The last time price controls were tried in this country was by Richard Nixon in 1974. Many remember the recession that followed. Government is the least capable of controlling costs, just look at the latest federal budget. Clinton's proposal is the most likely to reduce health costs by prompting universal demand and hence volume savings.

paul page, san francisco , ca

Matt, catch a clue. The tax cuts pulled us out of a mild recession very quickly. It seems that no matter how many time America benefits hugely from tax cuts, liberals ignore this and demand higher taxes (rather than reduced spending). Reagan cut taxes during his presidency and deregulated the economy - to use him as you shill is ridiculous.

As to the article, I hate it when Brits try to analyze our politics. They are usually far off the mark as is the case here. Hillary's supporters are every bit the latte liberal. To paint them as dunkin' donut coffee drinkers is farsical. its just a matter of degree. Hillary's crowd sits in Starbucks and pontificates- Obama's sits in Peet's. Both want to rewrite America to look something like Animal Farm. Be very afraid.

Michel, London,

Obamas Statement in one of his speeches " We will CHANGE America and THE W O R L D " was quite a mouth full. Didnt G.W.Bush do that allready?( all the World Loves the USA now) Obama will make the WORLD LOVE the Good ol USA even more than Bush did-just what is needed. Obama vs Mc Cain - cake walk for the old POW. Good luck Naighbours!!

Adam, Vancouver.,

"not one voter in a hundred could name... a single difference between the two candidates' stances... That's because there isn't one."

Um, wrong. Clinton supported the war in Iraq and wants to leave 50k US troops there indefinitely. Barack opposed it and wants to narrow to about 20k troops in extremely limited roles. Clinton wants the Federal Government to force people to buy healthcare, Barack wants to lower the cost so people can afford it. There are many serious policy differences, perhaps most importantly the fact that while Clinton takes more money from special interests than any candidate of either party, Barack doesn't accept federal lobbyist or PAC money. How's Clinton gonna get meaningful reform passed when she owes millions of dollars in favors to the drug companies, the oil lobby, weapons manufacturers and every other corporate interest in America. It's fine to say people can't name the differences, but that doesn't mean there aren't any.

Evan Sutton, Las Vegas, NV

I don't like McCain...I am a Republican..but..I will vote for him. Obama does not have enough good experience and the Presidencey is not a training ground. Other world leaders will eat his lunch. Hillary is a socialist and will mire our country in years of scandel. Ergo..McCain.

Golfchaos, Tucson,

Don't vote Dem because of Bush!!!

The real problem is most people, Americans included, vote for the candidate who tells them what they want to hear, rather than what is reality. Tax cuts or hikes, Troop withdrawal or surges, etc - we need to open our minds and listen to the REALITY and reasons for a candidates views on the important issues.

I disagreed with the Iraq invasion from the beginning, but the failures shouldn't be addressed by withdrawing (or increasing) without understanding the fallout of either action. I feel a withdrawal is a poor response to a tough situation. Like taxes I "want" to hear we are going to find a way to stabilize or keep more money in my wallet, I am open to the arguments as long as a candidate backs up their view with convincing reasoning.

I have been a McCain supporter going back to 2000 and will likely continue in 2008 because his strength of character and history of facing reality is the best course.

Michael, Boca Raton, FL, USA

Don't vote Democrat just because of Bush!!!

Too many Americans won't open their minds to the views and reasoning behind any Republican because they are dissatisfied with Bush.

While I have been a fan of McCain since the 2000 primary, if Obama is the Dem nominee, I will hear him out. However telling us what we want to hear, as opposed to what is the reality, shouldn't be sufficient. We need to be open to the arguments each candidate provides for issues aside from abortion or other moral/ethical views. Without being open minded, we are doomed.

McCain has shown strength of character since he chose to stay as a POW in Vietnam rather than be released without the other prisoners just because his father was a naval Admiral. (I probably would have been out of there as fast as possible - not proud of it, just trying to be honest about it)

He will not tell us what we want to hear but what we need to hear.

Michael, Boca Raton, FL, USA

"..We should understand that racism will endure until we stop thinking in terms of groups and begin thinking in terms of individual liberty." - Ron Paul

Robert Jaeger, Lynn, U.S.A / MA

In regard to Eric s comments, don t be too sure about the Democrats coming out in numbers. After seeing the Clinton s true colors before S.C., many of us life-long Dems and ever moreso the independents--we re pretty disgusted by them. Ive never passed on an election, but this could be the first time.
Worse yet, I think the young voters who are motivated for the first time will have their first taste of disillusion and will either go fo McCain or stay home.
While it is true that the Republicans have not voted in big numbers, the anti-Hillary sentiment is much stronger among Dems and Independents than you are counting on. Also, the Republicans have such a huge arsenal of dirt on them that they will solidify behind their candidate to beat her.
How any Clinton-backer can not see this is hard to grasp.
If there had never been an Obama, we would have lined up behind Hillary and hoped for the best. Obama has converted us now, though, and the Yes We Can movement will not be stopped.

Patricia Rich, Boise, ID

I think people are missing a point re electability.

Some are saying that Obama is more electable because he'll be able to reach across and pick up moderate Republicans - in other words he's less of a polarising figure. However, if you look at the voting numbers beween the two parties, the Democratics are attracting a far larger turnout. This interest from Dem voters under Hillary or Obama will wipe out what is a fairly lukewarm response to McCain.

This analysis can be supported by the fact that Hillary is polling well against McCain even though she's still mired in her battle, and McCain is in the clear.

A Dem will be elected in November. The focus should be on choosing the right one. Personally, I'd go for Hillary: I like her health plan and she's far more batle-hardened and experienced.

Daniel Jenkins, Phnom Penh, Cambodia

I love Dunkin' Donuts, but I can't stand Hillary. Maybe that's why I'm an independent.

Eric, Austin, USA

Wolcott, I have yet to hear "The Queen's" (Clinton) "Cross of Gold " speech. Do you think she will get to that at the Convention? Oh, as for deep pockets, Romney has them, and he is out. As noted by a famous movie "You have all the lobbyists in your pocket, like so many nickels and dimes, Don Clinton", to paraphrase a scene in the "Godfather", and still she is just about tapped out! So perhaps there is hope. As my freshman politics and economics prof. said: "You have something that even GM doesn't have as a corporation, a vote" Maby this year that statement has some truth in it. But I am still going for McCain, he is a straight shooter and a maverick, and we need one in the White House.

jim , framingham, USA

Obama is clearly more popular with more educated voters, Clinton with less. Funny, though. Obama's average campaign contribution is $206. Only 5% of his donors are maxed out; 60% or so of hers are.

Matt Weiss, Pittsburgh, PA

Roman,
From where I sit (as an independent), Sen. Obama does a pretty good job of demonizing Sen. Clinton, so let's not get ahead of ourselves in terms of his "post-partisan" approach.

Dave, Cleveland,

Oh, she'll raise taxes, David, but on whom? Maybe some of the people earning over 2 hundred grand a year who have seen their taxes cut 18 different ways in the past seven years (and I really love the boost it's given our slow-growing (now recessing) economy. Besides, the 5 grand I pay and the 7 grand my employer doesn't pay me for my family's health care would offset even a $5000 tax hike to help fund universal health insurance. Our crumbling infrastructure is a real incentive for businesses to stay in the US, too. Same with college tuition spiraling out of reach of many Americans. This'll make us more competitve.

Yeah--Clinton and Obama would each raise taxes, just like Ronald Reagan did when he realized he had to. It's one of the reasons I'm voting for whichever one of them wins.

Matt Weiss, Pittsburgh, PA

I belong to the demographic that Hillary is supposed to get: a white woman over 50 who makes under $50,000 a year and does not have a college degree. I support Obama because what Mr. Baker states at the beginning of his column is true: the candidates' positions are virtually the same, so either would be an acceptable Democratic nominee. I happen to believe that Obama is not only more able to beat Mr. McCain (since many independents like Obama), but that once in office he will be able to reach across the aisle and get more done than Mrs. Clinton. The fact that he is inspiring young people is also important, as it injects new life into our tired system. That being said, I will certainly vote for Clinton (and in fact campaign for her) if she turns out to be the nominee. The first change we need in the White House is a change in party! I believe that most of my fellow Obama supporters feel the same way.

Lori, Portland, OR

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it's Hillary that's raised the vast majority of her campaign cash from wealthy donors who have maxed out their contributions. As for Barack, his campaign has brought in most of its cash ($30 million in January alone) through smaller contributions in the $50 - $100 range (many from political newcomers).

It seems to me that working class Democrats that have very little time to follow every detail of the campaign start out supporting Hillary because of the familiarity of the Clinton brand. However, as polls have shown, as voters become more familiar with Barack and his message, the gap between the two quickly shrinks.

Brian, Toledo, OH

Anyone who thinks that a politician can control the economy and give them a "job" is quite the idiot. It doesn't work that way. Hillary voters are people who want free healthcare and something for nothing. I think her and Obama are so far to the left, that McCain will sail into the White House.

Kevin, North Brunswick, NJ, USA

What does it say about Hillary that the less educated you are, the more she appeals to you? Personally, I think it's an important point. People with better educations understand that Hillary is not going to be able to do all the things she wants to do, because the GOP will be adamantly opposed to her in a way that Obama doesn't match. Better-educated people understand that conservative hatred for anything Clinton will most likely lead to a GOP win in November, and may also bring in enough GOP voters to swing some of the Senate and House seats their way. For a true Democrat who wants to see a Democratic president with a strongly Democratic congress, Obama is certainly the better choice.

Jim, Cary, NC

> America is losing its identity as a European-derived culture, as show by the massive support among White voters for Mr. Obama. Not only is his father from Kenya but he has a very Muslim name and background.

Matt in CO, welcome to pluralism, behold the Enlightenment. Yes, we are very Euro-derived indeed... well, some of us.

> Either Clinton or Obama will be a disaster for the U.S. if elected. Not only with this be a slap in the face to the Founding Fathers but America will begin to go down the same socialst road as Europe and Canada.

Ryan in OK, way to expound, bro.

> Is there anyone who can name one of Mr. Obama's achievements in the past two years? Is there anyone who can seriously state that Hillary won't raise taxes by a huge amount?

David in Tulsa. Re: Obama's achievements, how about being a leader on the ethics reform bill? Re: Hillary & tax hikes, which income bracket? ... I've got dollars to your donuts that a Dem tax hike doesn't affect you.

Justin Grant, Expat,

It seems to me that Mr. Baker is missing a couple of obvious point in his CA analysis. Baker writes:

"Mrs Clinton's largest single demographic voting bloc was those who did not complete a high school education...The more educated you became...the more likely you were to vote for Mr Obama. ... Income was another crucial determinant of whom you voted for: 59% of those earning below $50,000 went for Mrs Clinton against 33%for Mr Obama."

The uneducated and the low income voter is generally the same voter. So saying that Mrs Clinton did well with the uneducated AND with the low income voter is like saying the Mrs. Clinton does well among female AND women voters.

Baker's analysis also ignores the fact that many studies suggest that the lower your level of education, the more likely race is a factor to you. I am a college educated white male, and most of the time the race card bothers me, but in the demographic that Baker uses to make his point, Obama's color is very likely an issue.

Rick, St. Paul,

I agree with Ted that the biggest difference between their policies is the mandate on healthcare. But I disagree with his idea that Hillary has a better plan. She has not said how she will require all Americans to join her universal plan. As an American I believe we should all have access to healthcare if we want it (as we would under either plan), but I don't want to be punished or fined if I chose not to take the governments plan...this is the land of the free, right? And what about those who can not afford to enroll in the plan even with subsidies? Will they be fined or punished for not enrolling? Hillary has stealthily dodged answering questions about how she would require all americans to be a part. I think because she knows this is the weak point of her plan. We need a plan there for all those who want it, but Americans should not be forced into taking the gov. offered plan. Advantage Obama, I say.

Shawnee, Chicago, IL

To be honest, I wish Barack had spent a bit more time working on situations here at home before jumping into the Presidential fight.

Chris Anderson, Buffalo Grove, Illinois, USA

One item of interest--Clinton beat Obama in the heart of Starbucks territory, where you can practically pluck PHDs off the trees--and that was in the Silcon Valley of California. I believe that we are seeing a trend to Clinton that is based on her economic specificity. People in the Silicon Valley are mortgaged to the hilt, their jobs are going to India, and they have cut back on Lattes it seems. The Clinton victory here, which was sizable, is very clearly a bellweather indication of trending Clinton strength with the liberal, educated voting sphere, if there ever was one!

Swoosie, Raymond, California

Sir, take a look at your own country's single payer system and ask:
1) Why are more Brits opting for medical treatment in India?
2)Why must a Brit go blind in one eye before he/she can get treatment for macular degeneration?
3) Why is your single payer system shooting to have patients treated within eight weeks? A goal they have yet to reach.

The single payer system in Canada is not better off with more doctors driving taxi cabs than treating patients.

No single payers system currently in place works.

Advantage: USA Not everyone is covered, but everyone can get treatment, and it does not take eight weeks.

Harold, Apex, North Carolina

It always stimulates the bile duct to be reading along in an interesting article and be stopped short by a phrase such as "increasingly unfair global economic system." What does this mean? That in the past (distant? recent?) the US (or global?) economic system was less unfair? How much less and under whose guidance, I wonder? Is it Reaganomics the writer pines for? Thatcherism? Or simply an (unexplained) preference for an economic system that is less interconnected and more regional or in some other way more "fair?" Why not write a story that describes the economic fault line between the support for the two candidates without a santimonious dig at the "global" economy? Ooo scary, "globalization." Musn't have such a thing; all the best people say so. Without the hope of participating in global markets my local economy would have a future bleaker than its bleak present. I think (I hope) both candidates grasp that truth. Given the global impact of US policy you should hope so to.

Paul M. Newcomer, Detroit, MI USA

This was an interesting article, but there is another dimension that the author missed. Namely, that Barack Obama suffers from a lack of name recognition. Senator Clinton has been a household name for almost two decades, but Senator Obama is relatively new to the national (and international) scene.

It stands to reason that voters who pay more attention to politics (educated and well-off people) are more likely to have heard of Barack Obama and want to vote for him. That, I think is the main reason for the split.

Nate, Sacramento, CA

Actually Ted, a mandate is unnecessary--all Americans would purchase health insurance if they could afford it. In Massachussets where health insurance is mandatory, many folks choose to pay a fine because it's less expensive. It does nothing to make a mandate if we can't work out a solution to lower prices. We have to worry when Senator Clinton is the biggest recipient of drug company money out of all the candidates. Can we trust her? She also voted for the war. Senator Obama takes no money from federal lobbyists or their spouses, or from PACs and showed excellent judgement when he opposed this terrible war from the start. The choice is clear.

Carolyn, Chicago,

Starbucks is no longer a reserve of the people whom we consider as having a bunch of disposable income.

On any day in Texas, from which I moved to Florida, the drive thru's at 6AM were filled with the vehicles of construction workers who thought the $5 price worth the quality.

Latte's are not the preserve of left wing liberals. Witness the convenience stores which now have a half dozen gourmet coffees and whipped cream and Irish Creams to add to the basic coffee.

Good taste and an enjoyment to good things is NOT class oriented. Starbucks knows this well.

Bob

Bob Fitzgerald, Naples, FL

i always preferred the term "lear jet liberal".

brendan, charleston, sc

There is a difference between the two candidates and it isn't just identity. Clinton UNWISELY supports a mandate for everyone to have insurance and will GARNISH (take) YOUR WAGES if you can't afford it, while Obama WISELY will target costs as the means to insure everyone instead of threatening them with more costs that they can't afford.

In addition, Clinton brings baggage of hate from every single Republican and a majority of independents which would make winning the general election an impossibility, Obama does not and as a result can get an actual conversation going with the opposition where they will at least listen.

William, Gurnee, Illinois

I call baloney.

How do you figure that young people and African Americans are riding some sort of economic high? Sure young voters may be mobile, but that is because they are young, not because of their financial strength. And young people might qualify as more educated, but that has more to do with the common expectation of some sort of college education for all.

The only evidence cited is exit polls from California. Although it might like to think so, California is not the end all and be all of America. These polls represent how one state, one rather unique state, voted. You should extrapolate out to the rest of the country.

And enough with the cliches. It may make a pretty picture, but it is false and deceiving.

Chip, Winchester, Va

Couple of misconceptions in the article and in recent posts:

1st, Dunkin Donut voters are not unconcerned about global warming and Iraq. They care very much about global warming, and Hillary's promise of "green collar jobs" sounds appealing, as does reducing emissions by improving weatherization on homes to reduce heating bills. On Iraq, Hillary and Obama have voted EXACTLY the same on Iraq...Obama's only talking point on Iraq is that he said he wouldn't have voted for authorizing force...well, people realize that most Dems at the time voted the same way Hillary did, and care more now about how troops are going to come home and who they can rely upon to bring them home safely and securely - Hillary's record on the Armed Services Committee helps

2nd- Obama did win in small red states that the Dems cannot win in the fall. Hillary also won in red states: Tennessee, Arkansas, Nevada, Arizona, Oklahoma...and she won in the red rural areas of Missouri, while Obama won in blue cities

Jonathan, Boston, MA

I find it interesting that those less well educated support Hillary. I was a democrat until I saw the massive corruption and duplicity of the Clinton's in the White House. Perhaps the less educated are not aware of how truly noxious the Clinton's are and would be returning to the White House.

Obama is in my view a much better pick based on his economuic policies. he is actually quite pro small business.

The only chance the republicans have of winning the White House is if Hillary is the nominee. Obama will landslide a very flawed McCain.

Monica L., Washington, US

It is intriging that that the candidate who valorizes content over style and who apparently can provide in detail a raft of policy initiatives with footnotes to the the general ennui of the listener is capturing the very demographic that is purported to favour image over substance. Educated people like to talk about vision without necesarily getting their hands dirty in detail, and at the same time people who rely on expertise as opposed to claiming they have expertise want thier professionals to act like proffessionals. In times of uncertainty the detailed explanations and solutons might be more preferrable to Obama's rhetorical flourishes for people who expect the manager to work hard as opposed to being masters of rhetoric. Bush was famous for his right wing idealism with Obama I feel we get more of the same. Bush let the working class down badly perhaps Clinton truly does present as an alternative. I am worried by Obama's manner, he seems to a litle manipulative and theatrical.

pETER jENSEN, Brisbane, Australia

it is not true to say there are no substantive policy differences between Hillary and Obama. Their healthcare policies are fundamentally different. Hillary Clinton's plan will create universal healthcare in which everyone will be covered. Barak Obama's plan will leave millions still without insurance coverage because he will not mandate everyone to be covered. Obama's plan will fail to achieve universal healthcare, Hillary's plan has the best possible chance of suceeding.

jenny, boston, MA

Wow... this idea has been kicked around so much by pundits on this side of the pond, that it's virtually plagarism. Sadly, it's only a half-truth.

Interestingly enough, you forgot to mention that Obama's financial support comes less from people who give the $2300 maximum than Clinton's financial support. Only 1/3rd of Obama's money comes from these super-donors who have maxed out. Over half of Clinton's support comes from these people.

Obama's average donation is just a little over $200 and he has over 650,000 individual donors-- eclipsing Clinton's donor numbers.

So much for 'latte liberals' vs. 'dunkin donut dems.' No doubt Clinton gets votes from less educated and poorer voters. But only Obama inspires them enough to get their money-- and that is a huge difference.

Most of Clinton's cash comes from the super rich. With 8 years in the White House, she knows "all the right people." She even takes money from lobbyists. And in spite of it all, she's still being outraised!

Paul, Elko, Nevada

By my count so far, responses to this article are at least 2-1 in favor of Obama. That, however, doesn't surprise me. My guess is that a healthy majority of the people reading this article are at a Starbucks somewhere, sipping a latte, reading and responding to similar articles on their razor-thin laptops, as Clinton supporters struggle to earn another buck. A gross-generalization? Maybe. But the exit poll numbers are awfully compelling.

Kyle, Chicago, Illinois, USA

It's wonderful how the droning bromides of the academic class are so indestructible, whatever the context.

"Mrs Clinton's voters are the strugglers, the class that feels itself left behind by an increasingly unfair global economic system."

Last time I checked, only Americans vote in the Democratic primary. I don't think they're too concerned about the inequities of globalization. As the article began to suggest before it veered off the road, the candidate's policy points are identical so the contest has become cosmetic; Latinos and white women are more comfortable with Hillary, blacks and white men connect more readily with Obama, with the general white vote splitting by age.

Jon, Philadelphia, USA

Have to agree with both Ryan and Steve. I am a resident of Illinois and I cannot honestly think of one thing impressive Obama has done while either an Illinois politician or as a US Senator representing this state. He earned his seat in part as a result of some personal issues surrounding his compeititors, and now is a major political figure based on a speech he gave in 2004. That being said, he would be a breath of fresh air compared to Clinton. I just hope it is neither of them.

Chuck, Chicago, USA

If by raising taxes a huge amount, you must mean restoring them to the pre-2001 levels when our books were balanced and our economy was in the midst of creating 27 million jobs. I cannot for the life of me understand why we want to saddle all this debt on our grandchildren so we middle class voters can put 100 in our pockets while the multi-millionaires make out like robber barons under the bush tax cuts. Enough is enough. If conservative, laissez-faire economic policies failed in the 1890s, 1920s, and 1980s, what makes us think it will work today. It doesn't. This American is sick and tired of maxing out our credit card, devaluing our currency and sending our jobs overseas, while some laud these tax cuts. Our middle class is undermined and the strength and fabric of our nation has been destroyed by Bush and his catastrophic tax cuts.

John McCormick, New Rochelle, NY/USA

Another 4 years of the Clintons, with more of what we have experienced politically for the last 20 years, sorry. And, please do remember, those Starbucks Dems were the ones that placed Bill C. in the white house. The poor, what did Bill Clinton ever do for them???

Chris Veith, Miami, Florida

Actually, there is one major domestic policy difference between the candidates: Senator Clinton wisely supports an individual health care mandate (i.e., imposing a duty on individuals to purchase insurance); Senator Obama does not. It is difficult to see how we can use the private market to cover all Americans without the mandate, and neither candidate is brave enough to speak up for single-payer health care. So on this issue, I say: advantage Clinton.

Ted, Boston, Massachusetts

Actually Dana, there are at least 95 Starbucks' stores in Alabama.... I know because I've worked at several of them....

Jonathan, Birmingham, AL

This is a great article, and this angle should be getting a lot more coverage. I think it's very true that what we're seeing now is a fight for the future direction of the Democratic Party. It's funny how Bill Clinton was criticized from many on the far left for some policies being too "conservative" or "moderate," while in reality the income gap between the rich and poor decreased during several of his 8 years in office for the first time in decades. I think it's very true that Hillary Clinton would pay more attention to the struggles of those who have traditionally been the base of the Democratic Party, and find it scary that others in the party would turn it over to the educational and economic elite. What then for real people?

Carlos, Phoenix, AZ/USA

While the author of this article hits on some valid points (economic uncertainty especially), he gets too bogged down in tired cliches. Obama's appeal is much wider then he has been led to believe. He consistently wins amongst independent and right-leaning voters. He has dominated in Republican (red) states. He has raised more funds from small donations then Hillary Clinton from big-money donors and lobbyists.

The reasons behind this are quite obvious. After 8 years of Rove-style hyper-partisan politics, America is ready for a leader who doesn't demonise those who disagree with him. America is ready for a leader who looks to find the common ground instead of someone who divides us along wedge issues. For all of Hillary's detailed policy proposals, none of them will ever pass through congress due to her highly polarized nature and instinctively partisan approach. For all of her "experience" how much of it can be attributed to riding on the coattails of her powerful husband? Gobama!

Roman, Philadelphia, PA

This isn't rocket science, and no finely honed demographic breakdown is required...almost all of Clintons support is in places that will vote democratic no matter who the Democratic contender is, Obama's support however, includes lots of people in purple states that will vote for McCain over any Clinton. The Republican base WILL rally to fight the dreaded Billary, but is surprisingly indifferent to an Obama win.

Therefore, Clinton is likely to lose to McCain in a general election - but Obama will almost certainly win. Easy choice.

rapchat, seattle,

What bunk. Obama won white male Dems in Alabama and Georgia, and whomped Hillary in the mountain west where the Clintons have never been popular.

Incidentally, I'm a white male in Tennessee for Obama and I'll take a cup of Dunkin Donuts coffee over a latte any day.

Brendan, Knoxville, TN, USA

Carol,

And didn't Clinton recently have a line item of $400 at Stabucks? I don't have a link. Someone help me out here.

S, Boston,

Interestingly in an article published today about the two candidates expenses - there was a line item in Mr Obama's of $375.00 paid to Dunkin Donuts !

Carol Shorrock, Minneapolis, USA

Matt from Denver is incredibly wrong about "Obama do[ing] the best among this voting block in U.S. states that have the smallest Black populations (e.g., Iowa, Idaho, etc.), and therefore the least direct experience with Blacks." Obama won in Alabama and Georgia, both of which have huge percentages of black population, at 27% and 30% respectively. Given that fact, I doubt Mr. Baker's premise as well. You could count the number of Starbucks in Alabama on both hands. Some of us remember the Clinton years too well to take a chance on them again.

Dana Howell, Dothan, AL USA

Americans dont care as much about a candicate's skin color as the media pundits like to make out. That just sells ad copy. I find it interesting that Clinton appeals so largely to the struggling blue colar dropout., all the while Bill commands $300,000 per appearance. How many millions did Bill and Hillary each make off their book deals? How come she wont release their tax returns for public viewing? Its unbelievable how gullible we are.

Joe , Charleston, USA

America is losing its identity as a European-derived culture, as show by the massive support among White voters for Mr. Obama. Not only is his father from Kenya but he has a very Muslim name and background. As an indication of the cluelessness of his White supporters, Obama does the best among this voting block in U.S. states that have the smallest Black populations (e.g., Iowa, Idaho, etc.), and therefore the least direct experience with Blacks.

Matt, Denver, CO, USA

Either Clinton or Obama will be a disaster for the U.S. if elected. Not only with this be a slap in the face to the Founding Fathers but America will begin to go down the same socialst road as Europe and Canada.

Ryan, Tulsa, OK

Barack Obama is all talk and no action. Inexperienced is an understatement. Americans are not going to vote for him when it comes out that he is the most liberal Senator in the Congress. The media has given him a pass, scrutinizing only Clinton on the Democrats' side. It is unfortunate how the American media shapes each and every election.

Steve Howard, Calumet City, Illinois, USA

It is stated that a large section of Clintons voters were high school dropouts . Those must be particularly high in California the national average being 7% .. mike in atlanta

mike , atlanta, Ga

The world, and America's standing in it, has suffered from the past 7 years of Bush and his strange brand of Republicanism. I'm not American, but would be much happier with a Democratic president in the White House. Frankly, I don't care too much who that is, but it is more likely to be Clinton than Obama.
The worst outcome for me (and, I suspect many, many others) is the sight of Democrats fighting each other until August, while the Republicans gear themselves up for the real fight in November. Already, McCain has had his coronation.
Is it too much to ask for Obama and Clinton to talk seriously to each other, arrange a dream Clinton/Obama ticket and leaving Obama clear to run (with much greater experience) in eight years' time.
This election is the Democrats' to lose and it looks like they're doing that right now.

Charles Vincent, Bandar, Brunei

Is there anyone who can name one of Mr. Obama's achievements in the past two years?
Is there anyone who can seriously state (without cackling or having a coughing fit) that Hillary won't raise taxes by a huge amount?

David Chorley, Tulsa, Oklahoma USA

I think Mr. Baker's meticulous analysis misses one big point. The real difference between Obama and Clinton is how they project themselves - projections that American voters understand quite clearly.

Senator Clinton sees herself essentially as a mechanic: she claims to be the one who can make the creaky, leaking, corrupt mechanism of federal government work, more or less.

Senator Obama, on the other hand, sees himself as someone who can transcend the sad, partisan shambles U.S. government has become, to reunite the nation. Call him a would-be prophet - a role that has a great tradition in the United States, sometimes successfully, as with Lincoln, sometimes not, as with William Jennings Bryan.

I suspect that the American voting public, irrespective of their own practical interests, may be tired of mechanics and ready for a prophet.

Wolcott Gibbs Jr., Bath, Maine, USA