Charles of Lakeview,

I'm an African and sometimes i really wonder what the American people want. I got this quote from one of the mags I get from the states; 'hope is an important virtue but its no strategy'.

The greatness of America is being sacrificed on the altar of 'feeling good' it seems to me that the people have chosen not to ask themselves or any of the candidates the right questions.

I 'm guessing that Mr Obama might win the democratic nomination I think America just lost a good opportunity of having an experienced competent patriotic hard working president in the name of Hilary. I wonder what part of the constitution that says 'cos once a first lady note the presidency is off.

Well cheers America to another eight years of Yo-Yo ... By the way I really think America really loves................ they actors.

adedamola, lagos, Nigeria

Mr Baker is correct in his analysis. There has been strategic and tactical errors in Hillary's campaign. However, while Obam has run a very good campaign, overconfidence , bordering on arrogance will be his undoing....
Exit polls show that late deciders have consistently gone to Hillary by a narrow margin. This is contrary to all expectations.
In my view it is due to the fact that as one sees Obam for the first or second time we are taken by his inspiring words and great oratory. But as the "stupor"dissipate we ask ourseleves "where is the beef" ? What is the vision? Change to what? and then a little doubt sets in: is this man ready for the job? Is this the man I prefer in the White House in case of emergency??? That more than anything is giving Hillary her best shot ot regain momentum even as time is running out..

Francois, Miami Beach , Florida

It's clear from my reading of all these columns that Mr Baker is a republican. Obama would be a disaster for the republicans because he is more likely to motivate white middle class moderate males like myself & other mainstream independants who want a distinct change of course in politics. All the poles show that McCain has a much better chance of defeating Clinton. However as Baker pointed out you should never dismiss Hilary Clinton and her political machine.

benjamin Franklin, Philadelphia, USA

I hope a Conservative does not get the job as President. I question whether Obama would win against McCain. The Jewish lobby may find it difficult to vote for him. As for Hillary.... too many US men could NEVER vote for her! So I reckon when all is said and done....McCain should be the next President.

graciekelly, Stirling, UK

Her Campaign for President is the biggest and most important thing Hilary has run.

A campaign that started with $100 million, has run out of money. Those leaving her campaign this week have revealed in-fighting, and internal politics that make even Washington insiders wince. And those that remain admit they were so confident they would win by Super Tuesday they had no strategy when they did not.

Ready from Day 1 indeed. After all, we have low expectations of administrative competence these days.

Early in his campaign, the complaint about Obama was that he was too detailed in his answers about policy. Now, he is accused of empty rhetoric.

Throughout, he has remained inclusive in his appeal. His belief in what is possible is creating a coalition that crosses party lines, racial divides, age gaps and gender groups.

Perhaps he'll be terrible, destructive, divisive, incompetent. Or worse - a Hope Monger.

But isn't the possibility that it might actually BE different worth that risk?

Charles, Lakeview, US

It's likely Hillary will win, despite the clamour or the MSM, bloggers and the bravado of the Obama Cult.

The beer-drinking workingclass Democrat and middle class women are going to push Hillary over the top.

Obama will not go away soon, but he will not prevail. Obama cult members will need to adjust their fanaticism to support Hillary, even if they don't like her.

It will be their only real choice in the end, since McCain = Bush.

Mark Woods, Miami Beach, Florida, USA

As an Obama supporter, I don't like to hear his campaign manager make an argument about inevitability, even though he's literally won 15 states by 20-point margins. (2 for Hillary.)

Larry from Purdue, Lafayette, Indiana

..."far too overconfident"?

What is the right amount of overconfident that they should have been? Maybe they were worried about being under-overconfident, and that's why they overdid it?

James Brownley, london,

Obama represents nothing, He is hollow. And McCain and the republicans will slaughter him. The Clintons are winners They can win elections and take the White House back for the Democratic party . dont ruin it by supporting the Obama empty bandwagon.

martin shane, dallas, USA

All very interesting but..... can the USA survive another GOP administration, I think not. The rest of the world has a view that USA strength is based on rewarding success and discarding failure. That means that a Democrat must win, which one is not that relevant.

the munz, mosman, australia

Of course, as many have pointed out, that the general population simply do not want her to win? Would that perhpas be feasible?

This is not after all a simple regressionary exercise on some remote and impersonal dataset. This is a realtime reflection of the perceptions of the people. The majority of the people, it would seem, just do not like or trust her. Goodbye and goodnight Mrs Clinton.

Shocker, Cambridge,

I don't believe the american people so far are voting on issues. Once again the american people are involved with personalities, gender and race. What doesn't seem to be important in this race are issues. Change is a wonderful idea, but the word change must be backed up with experience and workable ideas. I don't believe Sen. Obama has the experience to bring this country out of thedepression we have been in for the last eight years.. He has ideas, but it seems all we hear are ideas, because his experience is weak. I would certainly consider him a possiblitiy for president in four or eight years, but not now.
I trust Hilliary more than Obama because she has been in the fire, and come through on the other side on many occasions. If we,as the american people are looking for perfect, then we are a very sad people.
Hillary will at least govern with years of experience. George W. was a bag of ideas and look at where we are. Don't be pushed around my PR people, look to the facts.

Joan Minisce, Ormond Beach, Fla

Obama is a puffed up Harvard boy, not the salt of the earth rising from the ashes. He is every bit as arrogant and "entitled" as Hillary in his demeanor. His politics are not simply "liberal," which would not earn him the mistrust he will soon begin to inspire. His politics are social democratic and statist in the extreme. He has therefore kept these views behind the curtain of his fluffy, feel-good Oprahized demogoguery, which our anti-intellectual chattering classes deem a sign of eloguence and brilliance, a quality of theirs that explains their verdict that one Harvard (and Yale) man is dumb and another Harvard man is brilliant.

Meanwhile, John McCain, who is indeed a liberal on some things and a conservative on others, will be well positioned to make the Obama behind the curtain come out for all to see. Nixon, after all, defeated McGovern in a landslide, and McCain is more credible than Tricky Dick by a long shot. The Democrats are again heading for the cliff.

Jon Burack, Stoughton, Wisconsin

I suspect that neither candidate will have enough votes to win the convention without the 'super delegates'. Obama's team are presuring these to vote for the one in the lead - which they assume will be Obama. However the key question that the 'super delegates' must ask themselves is who can beat McCain. In this respect Clinton would be the choice, since she has won the majority of the states that the Democrats need to win to elect a President.
From this side of the pond a Obama vs McCain fight would be an easy victory for McCain, since Obama would struggle to win the key Democrat states against an opponent who only just fits into the Republican mode.

Alan Dow, Fleet,

Since when can "self-confidence" be "sagacious," and since when do informed people go around implying that a power-hungry sociopath is sagacious?

redmanrt, Atlanta,

We don't want her bacon to be saved. Go Obama!

Farrukh, Woking, UK

It would be a travesty if the superdelegates overturn Obama's overall victory in the primaries. Many Democrats would abandon the party or not show up to vote in the general elections. This would ensure a victory for McCain -- a total disaster. Let's hope enough superdelegates understand this basic equation.

Harry Reed, Washington, D.C.

Up to now, the force of Sen. Obama's physical presentation has so dazzled audiences that it has been hard to focus on precisely what he is saying. "Yes, we can! Yes, we can!" Can what?

Mike, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA

She's been running for President for since her husband took office and she thinks she's entitled to it. People don't like HRC. She's going down.

Mike, NYC,

"Mr Obama clinging to a current lead . . of a little more than 100"
According The New York Times, his lead is a very slender 42 delegates. Mrs Clinton is poised to overtake that - remember New Hampshire! There is no good reason why the voters of Michigan and Florida should be disenfranchised simply because some central party elite decided that the local party was naughty. If she is denied the nomination because their votes don't count, it won't show democracy in action and will reflect poorly on those who tried to enforce the rule. Mrs Clinton is the only candidate who can beat Mr McCain in November.

David Cunard, Los Angeles, United States

The biggest problem is that Clinton doesn't persuade voters that she'd be an effective leader. Her campaign has been all over the place, and she's had to replace two senior managers. This reminds everyone of the mess she made of health care reform, and her well documented failure to persuade and build coalitions - both of which are evidently Obama's strengths.

No amount of policy wonkery will make up for this - the economic and political landscape may look very different in January 2009, which is why character and the ability to lead and inspire are properly the issues at the moment.

Simon Buckland, washington, DC

Thanks for telling us to come to our senses. Hillary maintains significant leads in Texas, Ohio and Pennsylvania. She may make it close in Wisconsin. But the enduring factor in her favor is this: the Clintons never give up.

Bill, Dallas,

Thanks to the Philanderer-In-Chief's racial inuendos about BO during the SC primary...Hillary now finds herself in this predicament. Once a narcissist...always a narcissist!!

DAB, St. Louis,

I cringed when I read Plouffe's remark. It carried the same smug tone that has been so off-putting about Clinton's declarations of her inevitabile nomination and election. Obama would do well to remember Mayor Daley's advice to him to always think of himself as the underdog right up until the moment he's sworn in. In politics anything can happen -- and usually does.

Jack, Chicago, IL

We love you Brits, our cousins across the pond. But it is astonishing that so many of you fail to remember that Americans won their freedom through self-confidence (and also, not lining up in the woods in bright red coats). We don't want a leader who projects tentativeness. Humility, yes, which there is no doubt Sen. Obama projects far better than Sen. Clinton. His is a gentle self-confidence based on a compelling backstory. Hers is an abrasive self-confidence based on sticking with her egocentric husband through thick and thin. In other words, Sen. Obama is by far the more attractive candidate, and his political future (and ours) is swiftly becoming a movement of swelling proportions across all demographics (I, for example, am a 60-ish white woman, like Hillary). We don't anoint our leaders or confer monarchy status over here in the US of A, and one of our candidates has behaved like Queen Hillary for too long now. As you Brits used to say, "Off with her head!"

Marti, Los Angeles, CA

If Hillary wins she beats McCain 51 to 49 and the country remains divided, albeit moving back to the left (where it was going before 9/11 and the fear fear fear politics of the Publicans). Additionally, Dems pick up 4-6 senate seats and 12-14 seats in the house.

If Barack wins he beats McCain 57 to 43, and picks up 8-10 senate seats and 22-26 seats in the house, and passes sweeping progressive legislation not seen in this country since FDR.

The only problem with Barack winning is that he will not address all of the illegality and unconstitutional behavior of the current administration, due to a need to look forward and appear bipartisan, whereas Hillary will help save the constitution and go after the Bush administration for its hundreds of illegal and immoral acts.

DanA, Bergen, NJ

This is what is going to happen to Mrs. Clinton: She will lose Texas and Ohio on the same day. Why? Well, this is why - she has no money, no momentum and her "friends" are going over to the other side.
On March 4th she will suffer twin loses. On March 7th she will withdraw from the race. Her husband will be the next out the door. When she married Bill Clinton she entered a sunny but cold world. She will soon discover how cold it all is.

Thomas Resick, Bellingham, Washington, USA

Should Mrs. Clinton "win" the nomination by means of breaking the rules in Michigan and Florida, plus using a majority of (appointed) superdelegates, the black voters would unanimously claim they were robbed of Obama's chance, and leave the Democratic party--or at least Hillary's candidacy--en masse. It is well to understand that Democrats have not received a majority of the white vote for president since Lyndon Johnson in 1964... Without their monolithic black vote in 2008, John McCain become a heavy favorite, even if the blacks merely stay home and do not go all the way over to vote against Clinton, which they might. .

Larry Hughes, Calhoun County, Michigan, U.S.

People like a winner so each campaigns wants to appear to be just that. It's a campaign tactic, not hubris. I'm not sure it translates outside the US, where we take great pleasure in rewarding winners.

Kady, Santa Clarita, CA, USA

Both Hillary & Barak will loose the general election. If Hillary is nominated it will unite the Republicans like nothing has before. If Barak wins he will actually have to start talking and actually say something

Art Nasta, Los Angeles, California

It is important not to discount the delegate lead. Sentor Obama's lead is currently 137 elected delegates -- or more than the total elected delegates at stake in Ohio. The Democratic primary is based upon a proportional system, so even in her "home state" of New York she only got 46 more delegates than Senator Obama.

The argument that Senator Clinton can be only 30 delegates behind yet still make a case for the nomination is nonsensical. That would be like pretending that there was some other New York sized victory out there for her -- and frankly the lopsided victories have all been on the other side. It is also worth pointing out that Illinois, Virgina, and Washington are not small states by any stretch of the imagination.

Also, the argument that Clinton is better in the general because she won the staunchly blue state of New York is silly -- I don't know what will happen this season, but I do know that New York is not going to vote for McCain.

George, Seattle, Washington

It is not hubris at this point, it is a numbers issue. She would have to win Texas and Ohio by historic margins just to stay in the game. It could happen, but you should recall that Jesse Jackson tied in the Texas primary -- and a tie anywhere from now on out is fatal to her campaign.

New Hampshire was the second state and less than a week after Iowa. It was silly to count her out after Iowa, and the Obama campaign did not. They just didn't have time to translate their win into votes. It is also worth noting that New Hampshire was a tie in the delegate count (and that Obama actually won Nevada by that score.)

George, Seattle, Washington

"It really takes a fantastic warp of language that "Liberal" can become a politically derogatory word in "The Land of the Free".

Yes, the meaning of 'liberal' as applied to US politics has completely turned around from the days of our Founding Fathers. Back then, Jefferson, Franklin, et al. were termed 'liberals' because of their belief in individual rights endowed from our creator. As applied today, the term 'liberal' applies to the opposite political outlook - someone who advocates statist solutions and emphasizes entitlements (Free health care to all! Universal pre-kindergarten!) rather than freedoms.

But this change in the usage of liberal happened decades ago and doesn't really confuse Americans when we talk about about US politics. What has changed more recently is the realization that big government 'solutions' don't work - individuals make better choices than bureaucrats - so 'liberal' is successfully used as a criticism of statist politicians.

Jerry, Virginia, USA

Thank you, Mr. Baker, for writing this article. I've been saying "it ain't over til' it's over" for a long time now. I'm tired of the American media trying to elect our candidates for us, especially when they're too gutless to subject Mr. Obama to the same litus test they've imposed upon Mrs. Clinton since even before she declared her candidacy.

Robbie, San Diego, CA

Even if Hillary Clinton were to persuade David Axelrod to become her campaign manager rather than Obama's she would still struggle.

Americans do not like underdogs as much as the British but they love winners and to display confidence at this point in the campaign is probably the best strategem for sowing discord in the Clinton campaign.

Fred Keeling, Almunecar, SPAIN

Isn't it interesting how Obama haters insist on using his middle name but never the middle name of any other candidate? I would ask "what's your point," except that your point is painfully obvious, as well as irrelevant and reprehensible.

King, Austin, Texas, USA

John Curd, why would you use Barack Obama's middle name but not Hillary Clinton's or John McCain's?

I wonder is this foreshadowing a campaign of insinuation by the American right should Obama secure the Democratic nomination. He's black and he's got a strange sounding name, he surely can't be trusted!

Fergus Connolly, Cork , Ireland

John Curd of Southport USA sums up why America is turning from the Republican Party: "Conservative" is good and "Liberal" is bad - that is the sum total of the argument!

It really takes a fantastic warp of language that "Liberal" can become a politically derogatory word in "The Land of the Free".

Matthew, New York City, England

One of the problems with the Clinton campaign is that she ran as if she were ENTITLED to be president. Not even the greatest 20th century president, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who of anyone was entitled, ran as entitled.

This feeling of entitlement is a problem with Americans...many of my students suffer from it, and somehow people in the middle class in gated communities think they, too, are entitled.

Conversely, Americans love an underdog. And a self-made person who comes from nowhere. They are also moved by the good old oral tradition that characterized the 19th century and seems to be a skill limited now to Black leaders.

And Americans are tired of the negativity and being pitted against one another. If Clinton or Obama think that negative campaigns are going to work, well, let us see. They remind too much of G.W. Bush and Karl Rove.

There are lot's of hidden factors. Also, the American middle class is scared as well as it should be.

stephen Petty, santa rosa, U.S/California

As an American living and working in the United Kingdom right now, I would like to congratulate you on your terrific article.

However, I would like to point out that all of the main three candidates for the highest office on the planet; Barack Hussein Obama, Hillary Clinton and John McCain, are all liberals and so this does not leave much of a choice for the American people.

All three of them supported George W. Bush's amnesty bill for the twenty million illegals now residing in our nation and all three of them are in favour of the killing of unborn babies and all three of them are in favour of regulating the internet.

Dr. Ron Paul is the only true Conservative who is campaigning to get into the White House but he has no chance of even being in the running for the Presidency because absolutely all of the media completely ignore him.

John Curd, Southport, England