This week we'll be counting down the top five Hillary Clinton parodies - some made by YouTube users, others by US comedians. Check in daily to see each entry.
Clinton supporters, never fear - we'll be taking on Barack Obama and John McCain next month.
At number 2:
Hattie Garlick writes:
"It is better to be quiet and be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt". Thus spake Dana Milbank (offering a paraphrase from Proverbs before him), summarising the bulk of angry blogs that appeared in the aftermath of Jeremhiah Wright's speech at the National Press Club on Monday.
Beofre 30 television cameras, Wright praised Louis Farrakhan, defended his view than Zionism is a form of racism and that the government created the AIDS virus to eradicate racial minorities, accused the States of terrorism and - according to Victor Davis Hanson his biggest mistake - insulted the liberal corps of reporters who had amassed to record his rantings.
This is one of many reasons that his speech marked a serious turning point in the danger posed by Wright to Obama's candidacy. The rev has made it personal with the press, shifting things up a gear. Expecting a media storm that would inevitably have embarrassed Obama and probably have attempted to reimplicate him in Wright's skewed world-view, Obama was forced to call a press conference to finally denounce his former pastor: "There wasn't anything constructive out of yesterday. All it was was a bunch of rants that aren't grounded in truth." All of which could have been avoided had Obama set an example of moral outrage from the outset.
But the ghost of a moral link with Wright didn't only set Obama up for a fall with the press. "The white poor and middle class Hispanics" writes Hanson - or in other words, the exact demographic with whom Obama needs desperately to make inroads "look at Wright's middle-class upbringing, his mansion and perks, and wonder why he is... so venomous towards the society by which he has done so well." Wright's rants encourage the ordinary voter to turn his gaze away from race and towards class and, perhaps ironically, this could work against Obama's interests. Because here, another ghost of a moral link is forged between Obama and Wright in the shape of Michelle Obama, who's twin-sets and pearls and $1.65 million home grate against her statement that for "the first time in [her] adult life" she is proud of her country. And it only another short leap from her to Obama's own statement about the bitterness of small town America.
Regardless of either of these hazy links, logic dictated a turnaround in Obama's attitude to his former pastor. Context is everything. A press conference is not a church service, and the Press Club carries none of the same immunities of a religious building. In this context, Wright's passionate eccentricities became "an outright attack on the stated beliefs and policies and values of Barak Obama in a secular setting" says Andrew Sullivan. And more personally, Wright's suggestion that "we both know that if Obama did not say what he did [in distancing himself from Wright's own beliefs], he would never get elected" forced the Democratic candidate to defend his earlier statements and his honesty, and thus openly contradict the man he has so far refused to clash with in clear terms.
Which all begs the question: what on earth did he think he was doing? Trying to bring his former disciple down, according to Rush Limbaugh. Obama's success threatens his own. "I think that people like Reverend Wright... [get] really upset that if a black candidate is elected president, that they're going to be somehow diminished in their task, at keeping everybody in the flocks all revved up and angry... what's best for him is that if Obama looses, because then it's easy for him to say, "See, the white power structure doesn't want a black man to rise to the pinnacle of power in the United States."
This week we'll be counting down the top five Hillary Clinton parodies - some made by YouTube users, others by US comedians. Check in daily to see each entry.
Clinton supporters, never fear - we'll be taking on Barack Obama and John McCain next month.
At number 3:
“My vision for the United States in 2015 is an optimistic one. Firstly, I envision a world it will be far more environmentally friendly... My hope is that universal health care will be implemented in the near future... The United States has gained a bad reputation among various countries around the world. We are misunderstood since our actions don't always correlate with our principles. I anticipate that in 2015, America will be looked at differently."
You could call political action the ultimate act of self-confidence. Whether that be a group or an individual, there is a moment, where we are so sure that we have no choice but to make ourselves heard. The trick is knowing that you CAN. You can do anything.
I owe my renewed faith in my ability to express my ideas to Kate Nash's song "Merry Happy." Leave it to the sassy British girl to teach the gay American boy how to speak out.
This week we'll be counting down the top five Hillary Clinton parodies - some made by YouTube users, others by US comedians. Check in daily to see each entry.
Clinton supporters, never fear - we'll be taking on Barack Obama and John McCain next month.
At number 4:
This week we'll be counting down the top five Hillary Clinton parodies - some made by YouTube users, others by US comedians. Check in daily to see each entry.
Clinton supporters, never fear - we'll be taking on Barack Obama and John McCain next month.
At number 5:
WASHINGTON (AP) — A plan to award half-delegates for the disputed Michigan and Florida Democratic presidential primaries will get a hearing before party leaders.
The co-chairs of the Democratic National Committee’s Rules and Bylaws committee sent members a memo Friday announcing a meeting May 31 to consider the idea.
The committee stripped Michigan and Florida of their national convention delegates because they held primaries too early. DNC members in Michigan and Florida have filed challenges to restore the delegates.
Under the challenges, all superdelegates from both states would get to vote. The pledged delegates would only count for half votes.
Seizing on her Pennsylvania primary victory, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton and her surrogates are renewing their efforts to have the disputed Michigan and Florida convention delegates seated and pushing the argument that she now leads in the total number of votes cast when the tallies in those two states are included.
An article yesterday in the New York Times by KATHARINE Q. SEELYE provided an interesting look at the intellect of those who will cast ballots for the next ‘leader of the free world’.
The article was about the importance of age demographics in the hotly-contested race for the Democratic nomination, but mostly focused on those in the older group. Some of the quotes may send even more youth over to the Obama camp:
John Peterman, 85, a former Navy engineer, said he supported Mrs. Clinton because “the world is not ready for a black president.” His wife, Mary, 81, agreed with him.
The US may or may not be ready for a black president, but if the rest of “the world” had any say in it, I suspect that there would be only about a 2% chance that the next president would be white.
Then there’s Arla Hacker:
Arla Hacker, 49, a bank teller, said she also liked Mrs. Clinton because she had Ms. Hacker’s economic interests at heart. “The people who are 18 and 20 years old don’t know what it’s like to sit in a gas line,” she said. “Kids today don’t understand how tough it is. Obama just talks about it.”
Hmmm. Maybe there were a few gas line-ups during what was called “the energy crisis”, which happened during the Carter presidency, but is that the kind of “hardship” that qualifies one to feel more capable of picking a president?
Has last night's win for Hillary Clinton in Pennsylvania altered the dynamics of the Democratic race? The media consensus appears to be that while there has been no substantive change, her solid 10-point victory has raised some awkward questions for Barack Obama.
Why, after a string of phenomenal successes, is he struggling to land a knock out blow on his rival? Is Clinton correct in her assertion that he is unable to carry the big states crucial to a Democratic victory in the autumn? The Obama camp has some strong answers, arguing that the former point could equally be applied to Clinton, the one time presumptive nominee. On the latter, it asserts that there are in fact not three or four battleground states but 10 or 11, a large swathe of which the Illinois senator has won. Nevertheless, it is a case that the campaign is going to have to argue very forcefully over the coming weeks.
Meanwhile, concerns over the destructive nature of the campaign are reaching stratospheric levels. The New York Times today appeared to be backtracking on its initial endorsement of Clinton with a scathing editorial urging her to drop her "mean, vacuous, desperate" tactics now for the sake of the party and calling on superdelegates to end the bloodbath as soon as possible. The Washington Post cited exit polls suggesting that seven out of 10 voters thought Hillary had been unfair in her attacks, while half said the same of Obama. In another article, it appeared to query the utility of Hillary staying in the race, noting that it was almost impossible for her to catch her rival in the delegate count or popular vote. It quoted loyal Clinton supporters privately expressing doubts about her ability to prevail, even in the wake of her Pennsylvania win.
A selection of comment from the web:
"Psychologically, it's a significant result -- one that should cause many leading Democrats to listen a little more intently to her case that she still represents the party's best chance for victory in November."
"Voters are getting tired of it; it is demeaning the political process; and it does not work. It is past time for Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton to acknowledge that the negativity, for which she is mostly responsible, does nothing but harm to her, her opponent, her party and the 2008 election.
If nothing else, self interest should push her in that direction. Mrs. Clinton did not get the big win in Pennsylvania that she needed to challenge the calculus of the Democratic race.
"It is getting to be time for the superdelegates to do what the Democrats had in mind when they created superdelegates: settle a bloody race that cannot be won at the ballot box."
"If the superdelegates had grown concerned after Ohio about Obama's ability to win lower income whites in the general election - these results will not alleviate their worries. Pittsburgh, Scranton, and Erie all swung decisively for Clinton. If Ohio had them worried, so will these results.
"As for whether it will serve Clinton's short-term goal of spinning herself as still having a chance to capture the nomination - that remains to be seen."
"There are no verities, just various forms of spin-dried argumentation. Does Pennsylvania prove that -- like the March 4 Ohio and Texas primaries -- Obama cannot close the deal when he is one big-state victory away from being bathed in triumphal confetti at the Denver Convention? Or does Pennsylvania underscore for Democrats the dangers of scorched-earth politics...?
"Given his delegate lead, Democratic rules divvying up the primary vote proportionally, and the fact that there are only seven states left on the political calendar, Obama might survive a near-wipeout in the remaining delegate contests. But watching Obama stumble across the finish line as the presumptive nominee is not a formula to inspire the Democrats with confidence heading into the fall elections."
Huffington Post:
"How proud the Clintonistas must be. They have learned how to rival what Hillary once termed the "vast right-wing conspiracy" in the effort to destroy a viable Democratic leader who dares to stand in the way of their ambitions. The tactics used to kneecap Barack Obama are the same as had been turned on Bill Clinton in earlier times, from radical-baiting associates to challenging his resolve in protecting the nation from foreign enemies. Sen. Clinton's eminently sensible and centrist -- to a fault -- opponent is now viewed as weak and even vaguely unpatriotic because he is thoughtful. Neither Karl Rove nor Dick Morris could have done a better job."
Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama each claim success in Pennsylvania’s Democratic primary as Clinton wins the most votes but Obama finishes strongly enough to maintain his lead in the race for the Democratic nomination. Candidates’ and voters’ attention now shifts to upcoming contests in Indiana and North Carolina.
Like voters across the nation, Kansas City, Missouri, voters differ in their political party affiliations and their preferred presidential candidates, but they share worries about Iraq and the state of the American economy. America.gov talks with Democrats and Republicans in the Kansas City area about the upcoming election.
By Gerard Baker, US Editor
11.05pm That was a strikingly different speech by Obama. Where Hillary promised to fight, he promised to heal; where she was pugnacious and partisan, he was soothing and consensual. You can see why the media falls for him so helplessly. He can turn a phrase and lift the spirits and certainly he promises something different.
Of course, whether it amounts to anything is another matter. But the two speeches did rather neatly capture the two campaign messages heading into the final days of this primary election. The Fighter versus The Healer.
10.32pm Well Hillary's spoken and I think we've got the message. She's a fighter. A Fighter. A FIGHTER. She's going to fight for you and fight for me and fight against them. She's going to fight them in the shopping malls and in the bowling alleys and in the pool halls. She'll fight until the last dog dies. And then she'll get up and start fighting again. FIGHT!
That, I guess is her appeal. You can't deny it. They keep writing her off and she keeps coming back - displaying the fight you need to win the presidency in November (unlike that elitist, latte-drinking, arugula-buying, bowling-incompetent other guy).,
It was, to be fair, a gracious victory speech, with a couple of nice nods to her opponent. One of her best speeches, I think. And so. On she goes. With just enough of a win , and just enough of a doubt in voters' minds about Obama's electability, to keep this race going for a few weeks yet.
9.40pm Awaiting victory and concession speeches, a couple of thoughts: First, clearly, Pennsylvania has resolved nothing. Hillary did not win by enough to dispel the strong doubts about her viability (she can't win the popular vote; she can't win on delegates; even in Pennsylvania, solid home turf for her in demographic terms, she only ekes out a single-digit victory). But she won by enough to make a plausible case that she should carry on (Obama keeps losing big states, he couldn't convert his huge financial advantage; the doubts about his electability keep growing).
Second, McCain again looks like a winner tonight. The simple truth of the Democratic campaign is that neither candidate has done enough to remove the doubts hanging over them. And we've got at least another month of this.
8.51pm MSNBC, now the semi-official cable channel of left wing Democrats, has called it for Hillary. Less interesting than meets the eye, one thinks, because all depends on the margin.
8.45pm Still very few real results but some slight tweaking of the exits means the margin is a little narrower than an hour ago - 52-48 for Hillary. If that's right it would be the most pyrrhic of victories - nothing like enough to change the fundamental arithmetic of the race that favours Obama. If (that word again) the exits are right, Obama will have done better than in Ohio - a similar state regarded as a kind of benchmark for Pennsylvania. He owes this improvement, according to those iffy exits, to a much better result among white voters than he got in Ohio. Very interesting, after all that's happened in the last few weeks (Jeremiah Wright, the bitter clinging of white working class voters etc.) Still, did I say those exits were not necessarily reliable?
8.15pm Coy as ever, the networks are not offically releasing the headlines from their exit poll results but a quick calculation from the cross-tabulations suggests Hillary has won by about 53-47. In amost all previous primaries these exits have tended to overstate Obama's support. If that pattern is repeated it means Hillary's margin could be anywhere between 8 and 15 per cent, which is an intriguing range. If the result is at the bottom end of that range it'll be a status quo result - not a big enough win to change fundamentally the dynamic of the race or significantly dent Obama's advantage. If it's at the top end, it could be a game-changer, a big enough Hillary win to breathe some serious life into the remaining contests. Stay tuned.
I don't imagine many bets have been placed on Hillary Clinton pulling out of the Democratic race tomorrow. Whether a supporter or not, you've got to admire the former first lady's tenacity - she has the grip of Spiderman on steroids. But a particularly bad result - which at her stage in the game means either a loss or a narrow win - could put her under enormous pressure from senior Democrats to withdraw for the good of the party.
As I explained in my post yesterday, it's not the win but the size of the victory that matters for Clinton in Pennsylvania. She needs to win by some 25 points to have any hope of catching Barack Obama in the popular vote, without which it will be difficult to convince superdelegates to ignore her rival's higher delegate count and pick her as the most electable candidate.
A double-digit victory has been widely touted as the result that would justify her remaining in the race - though surrogates were today suggesting a five or six point win would allow her to claim a success in the face of her rival's much higher spending in the state. While this would still leave her flailing in the mathmatical wilderness, her campaign may well have managed expectations down to a point where this inconvenient fact could be glossed over.
In that case, she would no doubt continue at least until Indiana and North Carolina on May 6th. In both states, she would need to at least hold Obama to a tie or her continued campaign would start to resemble a bad David Lynch movie. With the Illinois senator polling strongly in both states, at present the Obamaite prediction of a May 7 finish to the campaign seems the most likely scenario.
Should her Pennsylvania win be much narrower, however, say two or three points, it would be almost impossible for her to claim any justification for staying in the race. But given Hillary "Rocky" Clinton's almost superhuman ability to keep on getting up off the mat, even that might not be enough to count her out.
Hillary Clinton's threat to "obliterate" Iran, in an ABC interview broadcast just as the voters of Pennsylvania prepared to head to the polls this morning, doesn't appear to have been particularly well received by anyone other than the hard right, which is somewhat telling as to where the former first lady is pitching her policies - or at least campaign pledges - these days. While one assumes that her campaign must have known what she was planning, it too seemed a little taken aback at just how belligerent and absolute her language was: it spent a large part of last night and this morning frantically backpeddling away from her apparent commitment to nuke a large swathe of the Middle East.
The ABC clip can be seen here:
A few key points were repeatedly raised by pundits. First, in exactly what scenario would this obliteration take place? Would a proxy attack, for example by Lebanese Hezbollah, justify the obliteration of which she speaks? Or would a retaliatory attack by Tehran, for example if Israel had launched strikes against suspected Iranian nuclear facilities (a reasonably likely prospect) be sufficient cause? Or, as her statement might be interpreted, would a suspicion that Iran was considering such an attack be met with a preemptive strike? Some also noted that while the second part of her answer (below) made a strike conditional on Iranian aggression, the first part seemed to suggest the only condition was a Clinton presidency.
“I want the Iranians to know that if I’m the president, we will attack Iran,” Clinton said. “In the next 10 years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them.”
Further queries were raised as to exactly what she meant by "total obliteration." Though campaign spokesman Howard Wolfson insisted that she was not alluding to a nuclear strike, the candidate herself appeared to reaffirm the reference during a later interview with MSNBC's Keith Olbermann.
"We used (deterrence) very well during the Cold War when we had a bipolar world and what I think the president should do and what our policy should be is to make it very clear to the Iranians that they would be risking massive retaliation were they to launch a nuclear attack on Israel," she said.
If so, what kind of aggression against Israel does she think would justify an obliteration of entire country and its 71 million innocent citizens? Not to mention the deadly nuclear fallout across much of the Middle East and quite possibly Europe? Given that the US intelligence community doesn't believe that Iran is developing nuclear weapons, perhaps employing genocidal phraseology of the kind that usually gets President Ahmadinejad referred to the United Nations might not be the best way to defuse Mid East tensions? Interestingly enough, her husband doesn't seem to think it's that good a move either.
The interview with Olbermann can be seen here.
Comment from the web:
"To obliterate Iran using nuclear weapons would make the entire Middle East uninhabitable! What Middle Eastern country or any NATO country would agree to this idea????? ...
"Since when is it ok to threaten to kill 70 million innocent people because of what a psychotic government does???? If I assume that Hillary just hadn't considered the effect on all the other Middle Eastern and neighboring countries, why is she ok with the idea of killing even one entire country? What is wrong with her head and her heart?"
"For one thing, I’m a little disappointed that Clinton didn’t take GMA to task for the premise of the question. Namely, the fact that Iran doesn’t actually possess any nuclear weapons to attack Israel with.
"Secondly, I find it a little problematic that Clinton offered an unequivocal commitment to “obliterate” Iran in the event that Iran attacked Israel. What if Israel attacked Iran first? Would we back them unequivocally then? No matter what the cause or reason for Israel’s attack?"
"This is an incredibly dangerous topic. And she made a mess of it, repeatedly, to the point where her staff had to get involved to try to make amends, so that now our enemies and our allies have no idea what Hillary's position is on war with Iran, the defense of Israel, and the possible use of US nuclear weapons. Even more disturbing is the possibility that Hillary made these comments, this apparent flip-flop on US nuclear policy, in order to curry favor with voters in Pennsylvania on the eve of that state's primary. ... It's a possible nuclear war scenario, and Hillary, in an effort to act all tough, win a few votes, and take a jab at Obama, played politics with our national security and sent the wrong message to the world, the wrong message to our enemies. It's 3am, folks, and the phone just rang. And Hillary got it wrong."
"This nation, for the last 5 years, has been in quagmire called Iraq... The tough reality is, that involving this country in another military escalation of this sort would do nothing more than further strain and possibly destroy what military we have left. This is outside of the scope of instituting a military draft. Not to mention, any sort of military action, outside of the approval of the United Nations, would result in further destabilization of that very region. Not to mention the United States' relations with our allies in the region."
"I've often echoed the prediction that Hillary Clinton would make the most uncompromising wartime President in United States history, but here's some evidence that it just might be true...
"If the Iranians are smart, they'll believe her. I think she'd kinda like obliterating somebody.
"I like Hillary best when she shows her hawkishness."
Hattie Garlick writes: As Obama and Clinton begin squaring up (to the sound of the Rocky theme tune) for tomorrow's primary, today's campaign finance reports bare their Achilles heels to the public.
Obama raised $41 million in March and Clinton $20 million. This might sound like good news for Obama, if it didn't represent a roughly $10 million drop from the previous month's figures. Kyle E. Moore puts the dip down to the Wright effect, but as the petulant pastor did little to dent Obama's performance in the polls it seems likely to represent a less phenomena-lead, more long-term trend: general donating fatigue. Demoracts, who have so far reached into their pockets and pulled out a collective $371 million in donations, are contemplating the dregs of their funds and their generosity, even towards the golden boy.
Yet while Obama's Midas touch might be fading, he still has around $51 million in the pot. For Clinton, the sums are far grimmer. The $20 million hauled in by her team in March is offset by reported debts of $10.3 million. If the downturn continues, the pressure to stay down for the count won't only be voiced in terms of risked party cohesion, but of economics too.
Obama has been able to pour $8.6 million into airing 11,788 adverts on Pennsylvanian televisions this month, a figure Clinton has been unable even to halve. By Tuesday, the New York Times estimates that the Democrats between them will have spent $20 million: making this the most expensive primary in state history.
If today's polls and all those preceding them are to be believed, Clinton will win the Keystone State tomorrow. But even here in Clinton's family home the margin has narrowed significantly since the Obama advertising machine kick started on March 25, showing the power of Obama's multiplied funds. And with the polls not looking good for May 6th's primary in North Carolina, Clinton may simply begin to look like a very bad investment: much like a seventh Rocky film.
The U.S. public financing system, fueled by $3 contributions by individual taxpayers, aims to limit the influence of special interest groups on elections and to place presidential nominees on a more equal financial footing. America.gov looks at how public financing has become a political issue in the 2008 presidential campaign.
With under 24 hours to go until the last major contest in the primary season, polls indicate that Barack Obama has little hope of catching rival Hillary Clinton, for whom the state’s large blue collar population is a natural constituency. But certain figures suggest that he has every chance of eating so far into her margin of victory that she can no longer justify continuing in the Democratic race.
Most late polls put Clinton with a 5-7 point lead in Pennsylvania, the only remaining primary state with a healthy crop of delegates – 158 - up for grabs. But with no prospect of catching Obama in the overall delegate count, the Clinton camp knows that winning will not be enough. In order to convince the all-important super-delegates who will decide the nomination that she is the most electable candidate, she must win big.
Today’s Zogby poll – the most recent survey available - shows Clinton leading Obama 48 to 42 per cent, while a poll of polls by Real Clear Politics gives Clinton a 5.3 point margin over her rival. However this is a considerably narrower lead than Clinton commanded at the start of the state campaign and suggests Obama could yet erode her support to a point that a win would be of little consequence.
There is, of course, potential for an upset. One survey conducted over the weekend by Public Policy Polling gives Obama a 3 point lead over the former first lady, and notes his strength in cities such as Philadelphia, where a strong turnout could boost his chances.
Meanwhile an analysis by Politico cites a Democratic voter registration surge that appears to be working in Obama’s favour.
According to the Pennsylvanian Secretary of State’s office, around 217,000 new voters have registered for tomorrow’s primary, an overwhelming majority of whom declared themselves Democrats.
In the state’s largest city, Philadelphia, over 12,000 new Democrats signed up in the final week of registration, compared to just 509 Republicans. Meanwhile across the state over 178,000 voters have changed their party affiliations since January – with 92 per cent switching to the Democrats.
This is excellent news for the Democratic Party and could severely dent John McCain’s hope of taking the state in November. But a closer look reveals a bonus for Obama too.
A poll of the party switchers and new registrants released last week by Franklin & Marshall College found that Obama was the candidate of choice for 62 per cent. Clinton insiders cited by Politico said they were also anticipating a similar split.
Terry Madonna, a political scientist and the poll’s director, said that depending on turnout, those new voters could keep Clinton from the double digit win that is widely thought to be needed to keep her in the race.
If Zogby’s latest poll is to be believed, however, Clinton is scoring highly among late deciders, a trend that if it continues could see her extend her edge in tomorrow’s vote. It shows her widening her margin by 3 points in the space of just 24 hours, with a corresponding 2 point drop in undecideds.
The popular belief is that Clinton needs to win by at least 10 points in order to justify continuing in the Democratic race. Any less, and she would have no chance of winning the popular vote, which even supporters acknowledge is her only hope of convincing superdelegates to ignore Obama’s greater delegate count and award her the nomination at the August convention.
Today, some analysts suggested that even if she scored a landslide win of 25 points or more she would struggle to catch her rival in the popular vote. An analysis by Bloomberg found that even with such a hefty victory she would need to win by over 20 points in later contests such as West Virginia, Kentucky and Puerto Rico. That is assuming she can break even in Indiana, North Carolina, South Dakota, Montana and Oregon, states where she is currently struggling in the polls.
To catch him now, Clinton needed “blowout numbers,” Peter Fenn, a Democratic consultant who isn't affiliated with either campaign, was quoted as saying. “The wheels would have to come off the Obama bus, and the engine would have to blow.”
For those hoping to avoid a messy showdown at the convention, the worst outcome would be that Clinton wins by a margin in single digits but yet significant enough to claim a mandate for staying in the race.
Says Andrew Sullivan on the Atlantic’s Daily Dish: “Given the way the campaign has unfolded so far, you can see the looming nightmare scenario: Clinton wins by nine points. Not enough to alter the dynamics of the race in her favour, but enough to keep the agony going. For all our sakes, I hope we get a real decision soon.”