CHINA ESQUIRE

Got to love the AFL-CIO’s hand in American politics.  Normally, I couldn’t care all that much about what the unions say during the presidential politics season because they don’t say anything interesting.  (around these parts in San Francisco, the unions end up being more of a nuisance because of periodic picketing and because many of my friends in management complain that they have these employees also have the worst work ethic)  So surprise surprise when I saw this CNN blog post today.  Apparently, 50,000 of these things are going out today.

So does anyone really believe that John McCain is sending 2.3 million jobs to China?  That seriously has to be one of the most ignorant views that you can take.  Does any really believe that Barack Obama, rockstar he may be, can bring those jobs back to America?  Sorry, they are gone.  The global village concept may not be in full swing, but multinational corporations know better than to bring jobs back to America.  If not China, there’s always Vietnam, India, etc.  Sourcing is cheaper.  Period.  (okay, not always, but usually)  No president is going to change this trend anytime soon.  Either McCain or Obama.  (sorry folks)  I’ve always said its up to the people in the U.S. to learn value added services and industries.  And that is in fact what has happened over the years as a result of this global sourcing move.  And so I just had to laugh at this ad because I found it so absurd.

What is more disturbing?  Some of the comments that appeared on the post.  Let me quote some:

expose the fruad Mcempty suit for the fool he is.
All for shipping American jobs abroad.
he and his wife have gained millions from selling American jobs.

THANKS AFL-CIO!!!! Keep up the great work and just think you didn’t even have to sink to the repuglicans low and lie, you just simply told the truth. hahahahahah
And john williams san diego, ca. - don’t forget bushy and cheyney and keating 5 (mccainy)

I don’t know why anyone would believe this frankly.  But then again, this is America.  At least many commenters did appear to understand economics:

Haha. Are they serious? One man is to blame for the loss of 2.3 million jobs to China? And that one man is a Republican Senator from Arizona!?! Pfftbahahaha. I wouldn’t expect anyone in the AFL-CIO to understand global economics but come on. If someone is offering to do a service cheaper and more efficient wouldn’t you go to them? It’s why people shop at Wal-mart and not at the cute mom and pop store on the corner. Give me a break. “They took our jobs!”.

And another:

WOW, implementing trade aggreements = job losses. That’s one hell of a conclusion.

DHL maybe chinese, but uh, I don’t see chinese people dropping off packages at my door.

Jobs go overseas because American Unions push them away. That’s right, the truth hurts. Unions might offer some protection to the average worker, but it also keeps the productivity down for employers. 10% of the hardworkers carry the load of the 90% that are slackers. Employers are forced to cater to the lowest demominator and the only person that really gains from it is the slackers and the union bosses.

Well, if American voters look dumb to you in China, perhaps it’s because they may be…  I think I will move back to law and business again tomorrow.

I was about to stop posting about American politics, but then Stan Abrams recent post alerted me to this post at Thomas Crampton entitled “Obama McCain advisors for China and Asia. Know them?”  So I couldn’t resist at least posting this information because it seems that the U.S. presidential election is on the minds of those of here in America.  Even my Chinese friends have been talking about U.S. politics.

The post at Thomas Crampton names the John McCain Asia team as:

Randy Scheunemann as chief of foreign and national security policy is the point man for liaison with former secretaries of state George Shultz and Henry Kissinger.

Former Deputy Secretary of State Rich Armitage enjoys a strong, long-standing personal relationship with McCain and should be listed as a “general guru” with an obvious personal interest in Asia, especially the US-Japan alliance.

Day to day campaign work is done by former Bush Administration defense, NSC and foreign policy officials Peter Rodman, Rick Williamson, Mike Green, the former NSC Senior Director for Asia, now at CSIS, with Dan Blumenthal, former DOD, now at AEI, Armitage International’s Randy Schriver, and McCain personal staffer Rich Fontaine.

And Team Barack Obama is:

Directly in charge of the Asia team is Amb. Jeff Bader, ex-State, NSC, USTR, also in charge of China, and administering the team via Mona Sutphen, of Stonebridge International, directly to the Campaign via Denis McDonough, a former Sen. Daschle expert on energy, the environment and trade.

China is run directly by Bader, with assistance from Richard Bush, ex-AIT now Brookings; Ken Lieberthal, former NSC; Mike Lampton, SAIS; Evan Medeiros, back at RAND again; Bob Kapp, former president of the US-China Business Council; Kevin Nealer, The Scowcroft Group; Bob Suettinger, former NSC and CIA now consultant.

Sounds interesting, though I can’t imagine most Americans caring that much about the team members themselves…

In a recent post entitled “Barack Obama v. John McCain on Foreign Trade”, a number of comments suggested that the pre-election rhetoric was always more populist and protectionist than every president’s actual post-election policy. Well, it seems like we may see this pre-election rhetoric lightening up already, though a tad earlier than most of us thought it would.

CNN Money ran an article entitled “Obama: NAFTA not so bad after all”:

The general campaign is on, independent voters up for grabs, and Barack Obama is toning down his populist rhetoric - at least when it comes to free trade.

In an interview with Fortune to be featured in the magazine’s upcoming issue, the presumptive Democratic nominee suggests he doesn’t want to unilaterally blow up NAFTA after all.

“Sometimes during campaigns the rhetoric gets overheated and amplified,” he conceded, after I reminded him that he had called NAFTA “devastating” and “a big mistake,” despite nonpartisan studies concluding that the trade zone has had a mild, positive effect on the U.S. economy.

Does that mean his rhetoric was overheated and amplified? “Politicians are always guilty of that, and I don’t exempt myself,” he answered.

That tone stands in marked contrast to his primary campaign’s anti-NAFTA fusillades. The pact creating a North American free-trade zone was President Bill Clinton’s signature accomplishment; but NAFTA is also the bugaboo of union leaders, grassroots activists and Midwesterners who blame free trade for the factory closings they see in their hometowns.

The Democratic candidates fought hard to win over those factions of their party, with Obama generally following Hillary Clinton’s lead in setting a protectionist tone.

Of course, John McCain has not changed his tune at all:

Republican nominee John McCain, for his part, is emphasizing his consistent position as a free-trader. In a press conference in Boston this week, he attacked Obama as protectionist: “Senator Obama said that he would unilaterally - unilaterally! - renegotiate the North American Free Trade Agreement, where 33 percent of our trade exists. And you know what message that sends? That no agreement is sacred if someone declares that as president of the United States they would unilaterally renegotiate it. I stand for free trade, and with all the difficulties and economic troubles we’re in today, there’s a real bright spot and that’s our exports. Protectionism does not work.”

Anyways, I just wanted to post this because it follows up on my previous post. In light of this article and the precedent of history, Chinese businesses have nothing to fear if either candidate gets to the White House.

You can hardly click on a U.S. news website or a newspaper talking about Barack Obama’s historical milestone of being the first African-American Democratic Party nominee for President… at least, if you are living in America, this is all you will hear about. This is how CNN put it:

Barack Obama made history Tuesday night when he became the first African-American in U.S. history to clinch a major party’s presidential nomination. But the Illinois senator faces several challenges as the campaign now turns to the general election — notwithstanding a first order of business of helping to heal the wounds of a deeply divided Democratic Party.

So now that we have 2 clear candidates to consider for president, I wanted to go to Going Global, where Craig posted some good information about each candidate, in his post entitled, “Presidential Primary Edition — The Candidates, the Parties and Their Positions on Global Trade”. He posted, however, back when there were still multiple candidates left in the primaries. Now is probably a good time to review what he said about the 2 major candidates. First, America’s new rock star politician (who has nothing about China policy on his website):

Of the 3 U.S. Senators in the race, Barack Obama has the shortest tenure and therefore a somewhat truncated voting record. He was firmly against CAFTA. Although he wasn’t around to vote on it, he has made it repeatedly clear that he thinks NAFTA should be reopened and amended to provide more protectionist labor provisions. In his one departure from a fairly consistent anti-free trade record, he voted in favor of a free trade agreement with Oman. I’m not sufficiently familiar with the provisions of that agreement to understand what it was that distinguished that agreement from other FTA’s in the Senator’s mind, but at least it does indicate that he’s not anti free trade all the time under all circumstances.

And here is Craig’s take on John McCain, who has been on the campaign trail for some time:

Senator McCain . . . has the longest national public record of any of the candidates and therefore has established perhaps the most definitive positions on trade. If one is pro international trade, McCain has a record to be admired. Mccain According to OnTheIssues.org, the Senator has a near perfect voting record in supporting free trade agreements including NAFTA and even the recently defeated CAFTA. Last October he gave a speech making the point that “every time the U.S. went protectionist, we paid a heavy price.” Just this month he gave a speech calling for a continued reduction in barriers to free trade, recognizing that “globalization is an opportunity.”

McCain’s website seems to promise “John McCain Will Lower Barriers To Trade“. This should prove to be very interesting because ironically,

it used to be that the Republican Party was pro-trade and the Democratic Party tended to be more protectionist given its traditional base of support among labor unions

Being a Chinese-American who enjoys politics, that was how I used to view the parties and their stances as well. I have a feeling those who in favor of free trade, which does bring a heavy benefit to China and has helped sustain its burgeoning economy, will be supporting John McCain this November. If Obama does end up being protectionist, it won’t help China. Even in spite of growing nationalism, you’d really have to be blind to think that China doesn’t need America either.

But then again, with the popular coverage on Obama, it’s pretty easy to lose sight of the issues that matter to Chinese businesses…

Okay, I am about to post another potential fire starter.  Everyone has heard about China’s human rights record.  You’d have to be deaf and blind to not hear it in the west, or probably in China as well.  CNN recently did an article about Amnesty International’s annual report, and some of the results are predictable:

Irene Khan, Amnesty’s secretary-general, said that in particular, “the human-rights flash points in Darfur, Zimbabwe, Gaza, Iraq and Myanmar demand immediate attention.”

The report, the group said, “reveals a world riven by inequality, scarred by discrimination and distorted by political repression.”

According to its count, people are tortured or subject to other ill treatment in at least 81 countries, face unfair trials in at least 54 countries and are not allowed to express themselves freely in at least 77 countries.

Of the 150 countries and regions listed in the report, Amnesty paid particular attention to China, the host of this summer’s Olympic Games.

This is nothing really new.  If you don’t know about Darfur, you probably haven’t been following last year’s “Genocide Olympics” rhetoric.  This, however, was the fascinating part.  (and don’t get me wrong, I am a Chinese-American with deep loyalties to both nations, and as an American trained attorney, I have a particular attachment to the U.S. Constitution and the system–this is not America bashing)

Amnesty also criticized the death penalty in the United States, where 42 people were executed last year. It noted New Jersey’s decision in December to abolish the death penalty made it the first U.S. state in more than 40 years to do away with executions.

As it has in previous annual reports, Amnesty criticized the detention of hundreds of foreign nationals at the U.S. naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

“The USA must close Guantanamo detention camp and secret detention centers, prosecute the detainees under fair trial standards or release them, and unequivocally reject the use of torture and ill-treatment,” Amnesty said.

In fact, more is written on the United States than any other country listed in the report. Asked about that at a press conference Tuesday, Khan said, “We certainly devote a lot of time to Sudan, to China, to Zimbabwe and other countries. But we look to the U.S. to provide leadership around the world. Governments around the world look to the United States as a role model for their own behavior.”

Wow.  America got the lion’s share of Amnesty’s annual report about human rights violations?!  Well, it does seem patently unfair given that the U.S. probably has overall one of the best human rights records in all of history.  Even if you hate America, I think you can at least agree that this is pretty good in this regard.

But at the same time, its somewhat justifiable.  The world leader on human rights, which often brings these charges against nations, gets skewered for potential hypocrisy.   Interesting situation indeed.  What does everyone else think?

I have been doing some posts about networking and being able to practice law (unofficially) in China. Well, the Star had an interesting article entitled, “Practising law a risky endeavour in China”. Sure, it involves lawyers who end up taking controversial cases, but I thought it was worth highlighting because the rule of law is not yet established in China, and that is something to consider before you work out there. For example, if you want to be a public interest lawyer, you should be forewarned that there might be some headache and heartache involved.

Here’s the article:

One fine fall afternoon last year, Li Heping was making his way towards a newspaper kiosk not far from his office when a man approached, grabbed him by the arm and said sternly, “Come with me.”

In a matter of seconds, Li had a cloth sack pulled over his head, he was wrestled into a car and driven to the outskirts of town where he was brought down into a basement and beaten.

Li is a lawyer – a partner in the respected Beijing Globe Law Firm.

“They were slapping me about the head, pulling me by the hair and striking me with electrical batons.

“They were yelling, `Sell your house, sell your car and get the hell out of Beijing!’”

Towards midnight, he was bundled back into the car and dumped in a forested area, from which he eventually made his way home.

I would’ve expected that business lawyers would be exempt from this sort of bullying. Well, what did Li actually do?

He’s among a select group of lawyers in China who dare to take on politically sensitive cases.

Li is one of 49 human rights lawyers interviewed for a report released today by Human Rights Watch entitled, “Walking on Thin Ice: Control, Intimidation and Harassment of Lawyers in China.”

Part of me is cynical and thinks that this is part of the territory. But part of me also recognizes that the rule of law, building such a thing into a country that does not really have it firmly established, will involve these sort of personal costs.

Senior government officials routinely proclaim China to be a country of “the rule of law.” Even President Hu Jintao, at the 17th Communist Party Congress last year, stressed “the rule of law constitutes the essential requirement of socialist democracy.”

But many observers see China as a country of “the rule by law” – the law being an instrument that remains largely in the hands of the government.

As a consequence, it remains risky for lawyers to take on certain cases.

“Abuses of lawyers compound human rights violations,” says Sophie Richardson, Human Rights Watch’s Asia advocacy director. “Without due process and genuine defence rights, law remains little more than an instrument of state repression.”

I’ve heard of substance abuse, but lawyer abuse? Interesting.

Two things. First, this should not discourage you from wanting to be a lawyer in China. It shouldn’t really. The rule of law is still marching forward, albeit slowly. But it should make you think about what your motivations are. If you want to be a lawyer in China to change the government and the system, you might actually accomplish that. But there is a high price to pay and you better know that. You also better know that it might not happen in your life time. I am not anti-public interest. But I am opposed to public interest types thinking that they can be aggressive in America, and then just waltz into China and be aggressive there too. Don’t be naive.

In general, I don’t think this applies to most of us who want to practice business law in China. The actions and motivations of someone like that is probably going to be a little different than a crusader.

Second, if you do end up out there as a lawyer, even as a business lawyer, it does not mean you are suddenly immune. You choose your cases. Well, you also choose your causes. And if you insist on choosing causes that the government doesn’t like, just be ready if intimidation comes knocking on your door.

Bottom line: use your head.

As promised, I am going to write my personal impressions of what I witnessed at the Olympic torch tour (or perhaps I should say, the faked part of the torch tour). I was near San Francisco’s Ferry Building during my lunch break, and had a great view of the street (the Embarcadero) where the torch relay runners were supposed to have run on. I stayed out until I realized no torch was coming.

I know I normally write on business, law and other related topics. And I normally tend to shy away from current events because that can be covered better by China Digital Times or other news blogs/news outlets. But considering that the torch was in my backyard and that the media made the protests overblown, I just wanted to write my perspective.

First off, here is SF Gate’s take on the torch run as of 2:53pm yesterday:

Massive protests forced officials to drastically change the Beijing Olympic torch route today, with the flame leaving McCovey Cove by bus instead of being carried along San Francisco’s Embarcadero by runners.

The relay route short was cut short after chaotic morning along the original route, where thousands of people descended to support and protest the torch run. They gave no indication of the route it would take, but City Hall sources familiar with the police response said the Van Ness route had been the plan since at least this morning.

Early this morning, thousands of people gathered along the planned route on the Embarcadero, with pro-torch demonstrators facing off against protesters who are hoping to draw attention to the nation’s human rights record.

Police said no arrests had occurred and that clashes related to the protests had been minor. But the situation was tense for hours before the run, and at least one person was detained in front of the ballpark this morning. A few hours later, a confrontation between the two sides escalated to a physical violence, when a San Francisco man named Kevin Johnson, 48, walked into a crowd of torch supporters and began yelling, “Communists!”

The crowd encircled Johnson and the confrontation escalated when Johnson pulled a Chinese flag off a man’s backpack. Then, someone grabbed Johnson’s throat and another person punched him in the face before police intervened and walked him to safety.

“I know it sounds racist, but if they want the Olympics in China they should go back to China,” he said.

Okay, so we have one racist named Kevin Johnson stirring up trouble. (If you need to caveat something with “I know it sounds racist”, it’s probably because you are… especially if you are willing to swipe something off a backpack, which may well be considered battery) SF Gate also reported some of the “Free Tibet” protesters broke the police line and crowded the Embarcadero.

Yes, there were throngs of protesters. I saw all of them. It wasn’t just Tibet people. I saw people protesting (1) Darfur, (2) Tibet, (3) Burma, and (4) the skinning of Cats and Dogs in China. (no joke) I also heard some protesters yelling about (5) Brazil, but I have no idea what it was about. And of course, there were a lot of (6) Chinese people out, some with flags, others joining with the pro-torch rally. And lots of people. Tourists, families, people who worked downtown–just lots of people.

I walked down Market Street with my Italian salami sandwich and saw throngs of people. And lots of banners and flags: Save Tibet flags, Chinese flags, Republic of China (aka Taiwan) flags, even a large flag from Tsinghua University in Beijing. One lady was handing out Save Darfur signs… with a smile. The cats and dogs banner was manned by two women… also smiling. Near the Chinese supporters chanting when I left were the Friendlies (Fuwa) mascots dancing and taking photos with people. There was a stage set up in Justin Herman plaza–and there were Olympic videos displayed with Chinese music blaring. Until a live band came in around 1:30pm, playing some loud music–all covers of course. Families were out with kids. And while I was waiting in my prime spot (which later became a dud), I was chatting with a corporate consultant in the City and an architect who had just relocated from Seattle. We were having a good time, waiting for a once-in-a-lifetime moment. Even some of the police, when they weren’t busy and stressed, were smiling.

There were plenty of protesters, but also lots of people just there to see the torch. The protesters, many stayed still with signs. Some chanted. There were lines of protesters marching right next to the Ferry Building. (I was across the street) But it was peaceful. At least, for a San Francisco protest. San Francisco Bay Area people will protest over anything–for the sake of protesting. And it’s usually a lot nastier, with trashcans overturned and loud raucous that distracts for blocks. This wasn’t the case yesterday.

I think about the craziest thing I observed was when China supporters had been screaming in Mandarin “China China China! Go go go!” decided to switch chants. The leader had a megaphone. They yelled, “One dream! One peace!” Over and over. And right next to them were some Tibet protesters who screamed “Free Tibet” over and over. What you ended up hearing was “One Dream! Free Tibet! One peace! Free Tibet!” And in the background, nearly drowning out both sides, were the grooves of Michael Jackson’s classic, Billie Jean, being played by the live band on stage. I realize that both sides are quite passionate about their position, but the protest itself was almost comical.

The media has to report the sensational stuff: they sell newspapers and ad space. I understand that. So they will call the protests “violent” and “tense”. But the reality is that this protest was hardly that. (It’s hard to have a tense moment when you have the Friendlies mascots dancing to Billie Jean)

China has denounced these protests internationally. (See here) But really, these protesters can’t hurt China. They don’t even scare me. How can this really affect China? As a P.R. move, China has to defend itself. But the reality–and I think China knows this full well–the only thing China has to be afraid of is fear itself–because these protests won’t make a bit difference to China. And if they are as light-hearted as what I saw yesterday, there isn’t much to fear at all.

I will try to get some photos up later. Because they were taken with my cell phone camera, they need major color correction.

I will have my own post on the China Olympic torch up later tonight or early tomorrow. I was actually at the San Francisco Ferry Building (and the Justin Hermann Plaza) this afternoon with the hopes of seeing the torch pass by. After finding a great spot on the Embarcadero, which was the original torch path, I waited… and waited… and the torch was re-routed.

The press has an interesting spin that the protests were so violent and so forth. They weren’t that bad as there were a lot of smiles and live music going. Will have more details and maybe some cell phone camera pictures up later, but I wanted to let everyone know: the demonstrations were not that bad. More to come soon.

Golden Gate University ( GGU, here in San Francisco) and the Sompong Sucharitkul Center for Advanced International Legal Studies is hosting a symposium entitled “The Politics of International Law”. It takes place at GGU School of Law, 536 Mission Street, Room 2201, San Francisco on 4/18 from 9am-5pm. (with all of these all-day conferences, who has time to bill hours?)

I might just show up for part of it myself. The keynote speaker is Judge Abdul G. Koroma, judge of the International Court of Justice at the Hague. Should be interesting. Other panelists are a slew of academic types–visiting Fulbright scholars and a professor at Thurgood Marshall Law School at Texas Southern University.

They are offering MCLE credit, 6 hours worth, for $80, and if you don’t need MCLE, then its free. (that’s always nice) Registration: contact Shane Weston at sweston@ggu.edu or 415-369-5356.

China Retail News reported last week on that a number of large corporations, including Coca-Cola, Nestle, and Pepsi, are calling on the Chinese government for unified food safety standards. The article says:

In a seminar held by China National Food Industry Association for discussing the draft of Food Hygiene Law, thirty food enterprises, including Coca Cola, Pepsi, Nestle, Wuliangye, Yili, Guangming and Yanjing Beer, called for the launching of unified food safety standards.

With regards to the food safety situation, China has already started to enact a Food Hygiene Law and has made positive progress. An anonymous representative of a company told First Financial Daily that it would be a great challenge for big food enterprises if their food safety is not improved.

Ma Yong, vice secretary general of China National Food Industry Association, says that at present, national, local and company standards are implemented at the same time, which causes confusion in the supervision of food safety. Therefore, enterprises suggest launching unified food safety standards and unified testing standards.

In the wake of so many faux pas for products safety internationally, I am not terribly surprised at this development. We’ve seen the gamut of interesting developments: China’s SFDA passing the buck here, Companies like Toys ‘R Us doing their own safety inspections here, and straight-up boycotts by those like Trader Joe’s here. And of course, China has not been immune to food safety issues domestically.

It’s about time that the companies jointly urged the government to act in such a way. (I assume that such standards would be domestic and of course, have some ramifications for international trade as well)

Now the hard question is this: will it happen? I just don’t see it happening soon. To have Chinese national, local and company standards converging? There are enough problems between the Chinese central government and the local provinces not getting along and the power struggle between them. That would be hard enough as is. And won’t happen in the near future. There is just no way. But to also get private companies on board with a joint government effort? Wow. Call me a cynic, but not anytime soon. Yes, perhaps in the future, but I really don’t see this one happening in the next 2-3 years, maybe even 5 years.

Just my 2 cents.

The AP recently published this article regarding the Baxter Heparin probes that arose from 4 deaths and 300+ allergic reactions. There is actually no real information about the progress in tracking where the problem might be. However, the article did have an interesting little tidbit in there that I just had to highlight.

Straight from the horse’s mouth:

SHANGHAI, China (AP) — China’s drug safety agency, commenting on a probe into the recalled drug heparin, said Wednesday it enforces strict controls on chemicals used in pharmaceuticals, but that importing countries are ultimately responsible for ensuring product safety.

The State Food and Drug Administration, in a statement on its Web site, said it was cooperating with a U.S. probe into a factory that makes heparin, a blood-thinning drug by Baxter International that is subject to a massive recall due to adverse patient reactions.

“We attach high importance to this,” the agency said in its first comment on the heparin recall. SFDA officials have not responded to repeated inquiries about the case.

But the SFDA said that based on international practice, “safeguarding the legality, safety and quality of raw materials imported for use in pharmaceuticals is the responsibility of the importing country.”

Let’s be honest here. The Chinese FDA (”SFDA”) is not going to take any responsibility for pharmaceuticals causing problems. Of course, I am sure they wouldn’t want to. 4 deaths for Heparin. Many deaths in the Panama glycerine cough syrup. This is a nasty can of worms here for the SFDA. And so the SFDA’s response is that they will pass the buck for pharmaceuticals.

So does this mean that the U.S. FDA or your country’s equivalent will be willing to shoulder the burden for a defective product that is imported into the country? Likely not. It will be on the importers themselves. If this is not a wake-up call for importers (and if you are doing China imports, this means you), then I don’t know what is. You must do your due diligence, QC, and constant follow-up.

Is this trinity of QC, diligence, and follow up going to make your imports fool proof? Probably not. But hopefully it will at least shield you from major civil liability from plaintiff’s lawyers who would love to go after your products.

I saw this well-written email from S.B. Woo at the 80-20, which is a Asian American PAC and thought I would share excerpts. I am not a registered Democrat (and am not particularly bound to either party), but found this analysis worth quoting:

As the mainstream media stressed: Obama’s courting of the black vote in SC may cost him the white vote. Exits poll showed that his white support went down by 50%. Since the white vote is still about 75% of the nation’s total, the repercussion dooms Obama on Super Tuesday and later primaries. See NY Times Results

Obama got only ¼ of the white votes, while Clinton and Edwards split the rest. In the 22 state primaries on Super Tuesday, Clinton will get a lion’s share of the white votes, with Edwards getting much less because Edwards is out of time and money to campaign.

High electoral politics is mathematical. The 55% Obama got in SC were almost all from blacks and white Republicans who strongly dislike Clinton, according to a CNN reporter (John King, I believe). Note that in SC, voters may cross party to vote. In contrast, 2/3 of the 22 states allow only Democrats or (Democrats plus Independents) to vote in a Democratic primary. Polls after polls show that Democrats strongly prefer Clinton. In addition, Clinton has very strong infrastructure in all big states, planted since Bill Clinton’s time in the White House.

S.B. Woo concludes:

There are only 9 days left for Obama to play catch up. His strength is rhetorical skills. He can’t use those skills effectively when there are 22 states, some huge, and he has only 9 days left.

Obama has raised $81Million, while Clinton has raised $91 million. My impression is that Obama has been spending much faster than Clinton, because he must do very well in early primaries in order to shock and crumble the Clinton foundation. However, he didn’t achieve his objectives. They each took 2 states (NH and Nevada for Clinton).

Believe it or not, there is an 85% chance that the election is over for Obama!

While I don’t know whether this is reality because elections are hard to call, I found this intriguing given the constant media coverage of the primaries. From what I’ve seen, I have liked Obama, but it will be interesting to see how he actually does. (though I have no plan to vote for the man, I do like him)