【唐】李贺
男儿何不带吴钩，
收取关山五十州？
请君暂上凌烟阁，
若个书生万户侯？
2007, 地球暖化引发全球高度关注,戈尔获得年度诺贝尔和平奖,次贷金融危机深不见底, 股市沉浮.
2008, 北京奥运,西藏起事,中国同西方全面爆发舆论战--大国崛起面临新世界观的考验. 能源危机加剧,纽约油价高涨至127美元一桶. 缅甸风灾和四川汶川8.0地震,罹难人数合计约二十万.陆港台全力救助四川，世界各国也伸出援手.5月19日起全国哀悼三天. 中国江河水全面污染, 昔日鱼米之乡癌症蔓延. …… 2008之后的地球恐怕无法复制中国印度的崛起模式 ……
无法战胜的希拉里 (unbeatable Hillary)
所有人都在谈论希拉里,从2000年起,甚至从克林顿还没下台之前.希拉里是以胜利者的姿态宣布砍拼的.历史上没有一个参选人如此自信.她在宣布砍拼的第一时间就征服了全球主要媒体,大地为之变色.没有一个女人如此Powerful.放眼美国,没有一个纯种白人男性,黑人男性,或者墨西哥男性可以战胜她.她是“征服者”希拉里!“领导者”希拉里!
天纵英才奥巴马 (eloquent Obama)
芝加哥有一个社区, 社区里有一个喜欢演讲的社区领袖,他46岁,父亲是黑人,母亲是白人,和当年的克林顿一样,有一个收入比他高的读律师科的太太.那是2007年一个阳光明媚的日子, 他身穿黑色风衣向全国发表了砍拼宣言，他叫Obama.
2008民主党砍拼
是年1月3日,美国民主党初选砍拼在IOWA以党团会议的形式热烈引爆.世界各地的人们热烈地投入地球村上唯一的强权国家的民主选战:一场决定地球上女人和男人,少数族裔人和多数族裔今后一千年共处方式的战争打响了!各路各色人等鱼贯出场!在这场不流血的砍拼中,欣逢其盛,我为理想一路相挺,义无反顾. 微薄的个体汇入洪流，在历史转捩点亲身参与了历史走向。
爱州党团初捷 — 关键字: 男儿何不带吴钩 / 青出于蓝 ；
选战伊始，在民主党内影响力非凡的希拉里被视作总统候选人的最可能人选，甚至可能在最初几个州预选中提前迫使对手出局。奥巴马竞选经理戴维·普洛夫回顾说，在一切势头都倾向于希拉里之时，“我们必须尽早扰乱她”，防止希拉里凭借最初4个州获胜的势头击垮所有党内对手。而改变这一强势的策略，就是在选举中让选民看到“成功希望”。预选第一州艾奥瓦州以党团会议这一形式举行预选，基层助选工作往往比直选更能决定竞选人成败。奥巴马阵营利用希拉里在这一认识上的疏忽，大打基层牌，赢得开门红。得票只列第三的希拉里遭遇重挫。
新州初选翻盘 — 关键字: 希拉里的眼泪 / 吊诡的民调；
克里的支持 — 关键字: 第一个大佬 / Clinton's Enemies；
Michigan 半价 — 关键字: 便宜没好货 / 独角戏；
内华达党团失利 — 关键字: 破涕为笑 / 浮云遮蔽眼；
希拉里在新罕布什尔州预选中扳回一城，但由于民主党预选规定竞选人按比例获得代表名额，而双方差距非常小，结果两人获得同样9名代表名额；11天后的内华达州预选，希拉里胜出6个百分点，但奥巴马获得13个代表名额，比她还多一个。奥巴马高级助手、代表名额事务分析师杰弗里·伯曼向《华盛顿邮报》解释其中玄机说，内华达州分成多个选区，各选区代表名额有奇数和偶数之分。在奇数代表名额选区，奥巴马尽力取胜，以获得多一名代表名额；而在偶数代表名额选区，如果希拉里强势，奥巴马则争取做到以微弱劣势败选，这样在按比例分配名额时两人仍然平分代表数。总体上看，虽然希拉里多胜，但还是少拿代表名额。“让他们去欢呼胜利，然后我们拿走代表名额。”奥巴马一名助手说。
南卡狂胜 — 关键字: 黑人兄弟 / 支持度特别高；
Florida 不懂选举 — 关键字: 乌骓马不肯走 / 遗憾之地；
超级星期二逆境追平 — 关键字: 加州老中尽稀饭 / 大州与小州；
波托马克河流域十连胜 — 关键字: 二月攻势 / 首都人民觉悟高；
2月5日“超级星期二”预选中，奥巴马面临严峻挑战。根据奥巴马阵营估计，最坏情况下，在加利福尼亚州、纽约州等大州优势明显的希拉里这一天将比奥巴马多赢下大约100个代表名额；即使是最乐观预计，奥巴马也只能和对方打平手。奥巴马阵营竞选经理普洛夫回忆说，奥巴马曾考虑集中精力在加州“翻盘”，给予希拉里重击。但经过慎重考虑，他们认为风险太大，决定转攻被对手相对忽略的小州，如堪萨斯州、爱达荷州。在堪萨斯州，奥巴马竞选团队比希拉里阵营早到3个月，到2月5日投票时，奥巴马与希拉里在堪萨斯州的各自阵营工作人员比例已经悬殊到18比3；在阿拉斯加州，为接近更多选民，奥巴马竞选团队甚至通过因特网与生活在北极圈的选民沟通。希拉里一名高级助手在“超级星期二”前曾宣称，在小州取胜很难带来大优势。然而，事实证明，凭借奥巴马在小州积累的代表名额，希拉里在大州的优势被一下子抹掉。在爱达荷、佛蒙特、内布拉斯加、密西西比等9个小州，奥巴马赢下118个代表名额，远超希拉里的57个；在人口870万的大州新泽西，希拉里虽胜，但按比例只比奥巴马多获11个代表名额，而奥巴马则在人口仅150万的爱达荷州取得大胜，按悬殊优势比例多赢12个名额。
凌晨 3 点钟的电话 — 关键字: / 经验主义 / 激怒 Obama；
德州党团胜利 — 关键字: 愤怒的公牛 / 人民力量；
Wyoming 党团再胜 — 关键字: 转折关头 / 党团常胜；
分裂的密西西比 — 关键字: 中兴之役 / 这里的老乡有点黑；
神父门和草根门 — 关键字: 信仰危机 / 认同考验；
花落宾州 — 关键字: 傲慢与偏见 / 最后的高潮；
关岛有人家 — 关键字: 只多了 7 票 / 最遥远的支持；
连赢接下来的10场预选后，逐渐掌握优势的奥巴马一度面临希拉里在得克萨斯、俄亥俄和宾夕法尼亚等三大州的连胜局面。此时，奥巴马的“精确瞄准”手段依旧发挥重要作用。由于得州预选先后举行直选和党团会议两种形式，奥巴马将主要精力集中在希拉里阵营相对忽略的党团会议上。结果，希拉里虽然赢下最先举行的直选，但稍后的党团会议却给了奥巴马更多代表名额，最终以99人的代表总数超过对手5票。
Indiana 和 North Carolina — 关键字: 真正的决战 / 重获信任；
超级代表选边 — 关键字: 大佬们终于来了 / 克嫂的稻草；
West Virgina 也疯狂 — 关键字: Despearated Hillary / 个人与政党；
Edwards 背书 — 关键字: 迟来比不来强 / 蓝领领袖；
Kentucky 2:1 — 关键字: KFC鸡肋之争 / 顽抗到底；
Oregon 扳回一城 — 关键字: 送走 Hillary / 迎向 McCain；
Party committee — 关键字: 幻灭/ 团结还是分裂；
通往胜利途中，奥巴马曾遇到最后一关“危险地带”。希拉里在宾州获胜后，一系列民调显示奥巴马在接下来的印第安纳州、西弗吉尼亚州、肯塔基州和美国联邦领地波多黎各将遭遇失败。奥巴马助手担心，这些失败可能使势头转向希拉里。而一旦对手重获领先，还未作出表态的“超级代表”们可能在最后关头一边倒地支持希拉里。意识到在某些州劣势难改，奥巴马干脆回避西弗吉尼亚和肯塔基两州。助手说，如果奥巴马这种情况下还与希拉里迎面对抗，然后输掉预选，那么他的惨败可能给予希拉里更多动力。在印第安纳州和北卡罗来纳州预选中，奥巴马意外拿下北卡州。当希拉里还在等待印州加里选区的最终计票结果时，奥巴马的获胜讲话正在被电视媒体大篇幅报道，希拉里稍晚宣布的胜利气氛一下子被冲淡。 “避其锋芒、攻其要害”的灵活策略，让希拉里一步步丧失优势，也让奥巴马积累越来越强劲势头，最终使100多名“超级代表”一边倒地倾向自己，锁定胜局。
Puerto Rico, Montana, 与 South Dakota — 关键字: 收取关山五十州/会当同饮庆功酒。
尾声
5月21日,Clinton: Neither candidate has reached 'magic number'
一个星期前,泰晤士报：希拉里已经结束了！
| 1st place delegates earned | Withdrew prior to contest |
Event date  | Location | Uncommitted[1] | Hillary Clinton | Barack Obama | Mike Gravel | John Edwards | Dennis Kucinich | Bill Richardson | Joe Biden | Chris Dodd |
| 01/03/2008 January 3 | Iowa 01 Iowa caucuses Pledged delegates: 0 (of 45) [A] [B] | 0% | 29% | 38% | 0% | 30% | 0% | 2% | 1% | 0% |
| 01/08/2008 January 8 | New Hampshire primary Pledged delegates: 22 | – | 9 39% | 13 36% | 0% | 17% | 1% | 5% | 0% | 0% |
| 01/15/2008 January 15 | Michigan primary Pledged delegates: 64 (was 128) due to 5/31 penalty from DNC[6] | 40% | 34½ 55% | 29½ – | 0% | – | 4% | – | – | 1% |
| 01/19/2008 January 19 | Nevada 01 Nevada precinct caucuses Pledged delegates: 0 (of 25) [A] [B] | 0% | 51% | 45% | 0% | 4% | 0% | – | – | – |
| 01/26/2008 January 26 | South Carolina primary Pledged delegates: 45 | – | 12 27% | 33 55% | 0% | 18% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% |
| 01/29/2008 January 29 | Florida primary Pledged delegates: 92½ (was 185) due to 5/31 penalty from DNC[6] | – | 52½ 50% | 38½ 33% | 0% | 1½ 14% | 1% | 1% | 1% | 0% |
| 02/05/2008 February 5 | Alabama primary Pledged delegates: 52 | 0% | 25 42% | 27 56% | – | 1% | – | 0% | 0% | 0% |
| 02/05/2008 February 5 | Alaska 01 Alaska caucuses Pledged delegates: 0 (of 13) [A] [B] | 0% | 25% | 75% | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| 02/05/2008 February 5 | American Samoa caucus Pledged delegate votes: 3 | – | 2 57% | 1 42% | 0% | – | – | – | – | – |
| 02/05/2008 February 5 | Arizona primary Pledged delegates: 56 | – | 31 50% | 25 42% | 0% | 5% | 0% | 0% | – | 0% |
| 02/05/2008 February 5 | Arkansas primary Pledged delegates: 35 | 1% | 27 70% | 8 26% | 0% | 2% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% |
| 02/05/2008 February 5 | California primary Pledged delegates: 370 | – | 204 51% | 166 43% | 0% | 4% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% |
| 02/05/2008 February 5 | Colorado 01 Colorado precinct caucuses Pledged delegates: 0 (of 55) [A] [B] | 1% | 32% | 67% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% |
| 02/05/2008 February 5 | Connecticut primary Pledged delegates: 48 | 1% | 22 47% | 26 51% | 0% | 1% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% |
| 02/05/2008 February 5 | Delaware primary Pledged delegates: 15 | – | 6 42% | 9 53% | – | 1% | 0% | – | 3% | 0% |
| 02/05/2008 February 5 | Georgia primary Pledged delegates: 87 | – | 27 31% | 60 66% | 0% | 2% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% |
| 02/05/2008 February 5 | Idaho 01 Idaho county caucuses (6/12-14 conv.) Pledged delegates: 12 (of 18) [A] [B] | 3% | 2 [ 3 ] 17% | 10 [ 15 ] 80% | – | 1% | – | – | – | – |
| 02/05/2008 February 5 | Illinois primary Pledged delegates: 153 | – | 49 33% | 104 65% | – | 2% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% |
| 02/05/2008 February 5 | Kansas 01 Kansas local unit conventions Pledged delegates: 21 (of 32) [A] [B] | – | 6 [ 9 ] 26% | 15 [ 23 ] 74% | – | 0% | 0% | 0% | – | – |
| 02/05/2008 February 5 | Massachusetts primary Pledged delegates: 93 | – | 55 56% | 38 41% | 0% | 2% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% |
| 02/05/2008 February 5 | Minnesota caucuses Pledged delegates: 72 | 1% | 24 32% | 48 66% | – | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% |
| 02/05/2008 February 5 | Missouri primary Pledged delegates: 72 | 0% | 36 48% | 36 49% | 0% | 2% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% |
| 02/05/2008 February 5 | New Jersey primary Pledged delegates: 107 | – | 59 54% | 48 44% | – | 1% | 0% | 0% | 0% | – |
| 02/05/2008 February 5 | New Mexico caucuses Pledged delegates: 26 | 0% | 14 49% | 12 48% | – | 1% | 0% | 1% | 0% | 0% |
| 02/05/2008 February 5 | New York primary Pledged delegates: 232 | – | 139 57% | 93 40% | – | 1% | – | – | – | – |
| 02/05/2008 February 5 | North Dakota 01 North Dakota precinct caucuses Pledged delegates: 0 (of 13) [A] [B] | – | 37% | 61% | – | 1% | – | – | – | – |
| 02/05/2008 February 5 | Oklahoma primary Pledged delegates: 38 | – | 24 55% | 14 31% | – | 10% | 1% | 2% | – | 1% |
| 02/05/2008 February 5 | Tennessee primary Pledged delegates: 68 | 1% | 40 54% | 28 40% | 0% | 4% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% |
| 02/05/2008 February 5 | Utah primary Pledged delegates: 23 | – | 9 39% | 14 57% | 0% | 3% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% |
| 02/09/2008 February 9 | Louisiana primary Pledged delegates: 56 | 1% | 23 36% | 33 57% | – | 3% | – | – | 2% | 1% |
| 02/09/2008 February 9 | Nebraska 01 Nebraska precinct caucuses (6/20-22 conv.) Pledged delegates: 16 (of 24) [A] [B] | 0% | 5 [ 8 ] 32% | 11 [ 16 ] 68% | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| 02/09/2008 February 9 | U.S. Virgin Islands territorial convention Pledged delegate votes: 3 | 3% | 7% | 3 90% | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| 02/09/2008 February 9 | Washington 01 Washington precinct caucuses Pledged delegates: 0 (of 78) [A] [B] | 1% | 31% | 68% | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| 02/10/2008 February 10 | Maine 01 Maine municipal caucuses (conv. 5/31) Pledged delegates: 0 (of 24) [A] [B] | 1% | 40% | 60% | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| 02/12/2008 01 February 5 – February 12 | Democrats Abroad primary Pledged delegate votes: 7 | 0% | 2½ 32% | 4½ 66% | – | 1% | 1% | 0% | 0% | – |
| 02/12/2008 02 February 12 | District of Columbia primary Pledged delegates: 15 | 0% | 2 24% | 13 75% | – | 0% | 0% | 0% | – | – |
| 02/12/2008 03 February 12 | Maryland primary Pledged delegates: 70 | 1% | 27 36% | 43 61% | 0% | 1% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% |
| 02/12/2008 04 February 12 | Virginia primary Pledged delegates: 83 | – | 29 35% | 54 64% | – | 1% | 0% | 0% | 0% | – |
| 02/19/2008 February 19 | Hawaii caucuses Pledged delegates: 20 | 0% | 6 24% | 14 76% | – | 0% | 0% | – | – | – |
| 02/19/2008 February 19 | Wisconsin primary Pledged delegates: 74 | 0% | 32 41% | 42 58% | 0% | 1% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% |
| 03/04/2008 March 4 | Ohio primary Pledged delegates: 141 | – | 74 53% | 67 45% | – | 2% | – | – | – | – |
| 03/04/2008 March 4 | Rhode Island primary Pledged delegates: 21 | 1% | 13 58% | 8 40% | – | 1% | – | – | – | – |
| 03/04/2008 March 4 | Texas 01 Texas primary Pledged delegates: 126 (of 193) [B] | – | 65 51% | 61 47% | – | 1% | – | 0% | 0% | 0% |
| 03/04/2008 March 4 | Texas 02 Texas precinct conventions Pledged delegates: 0 (of 193) [A] [B] | 0% | 44% | 56% | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| 03/04/2008 March 4 | Vermont primary Pledged delegates: 15 | – | 6 39% | 9 59% | – | 1% | 1% | – | – | – |
| 03/08/2008 March 8 | Wyoming 01 Wyoming county caucuses Pledged delegates: 7 (of 12) [A] [B] | 1% | 3 38% | 4 61% | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| 03/11/2008 March 11 | Mississippi primary Pledged delegates: 33 | 0% | 13 37% | 20 61% | 0% | 1% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% |
| 03/14/2008 February 19 – March 14 | North Dakota 02 North Dakota legislative district conventions Pledged delegates: 0 (of 13) [A] [B] | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| 03/15/2008 March 15 | Iowa 02 Iowa county conventions Pledged delegates: 0 (of 45) [A] [B] | – | – | – | – | – | – | |||
| 03/17/2008 February 20 – March 17 | Colorado 02 Colorado county assemblies/conventions Pledged delegates: 0 (of 55) [A] [B] | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | ||
| 03/29/2008 March 29 | Texas 03 Texas county and senatorial district conventions (see 6/6-7) Pledged delegates: 0 (of 193) [A] [B] | – | [ 30 ] | [ 37 ] | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| 04/06/2008 April 4 – April 6 | North Dakota 03 North Dakota state convention Pledged delegates: 13 (of 13) [B] | – | 5 | 8 | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| 04/12/2008 February 23 – April 12 [7] | Nevada 02 Nevada county conventions Pledged delegates: 0 (of 25) [A] [B] | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | ||
| 04/22/2008 April 22 | Pennsylvania primary Pledged delegates: 158 | – | 85 55% | 73 45% | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| 04/26/2008 01 April 5 – April 26 | Washington 02 Washington legislative district caucuses/county conventions Pledged delegates: 0 (of 78) [A] [B] | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| 04/26/2008 02 April 26 | Iowa 03 Iowa district conventions (see 6/14) Pledged delegates: 29 (of 45) [B] | – | 9 [ 14 ] | 20 [ 28 ] | – | [ 3 ] | – | – | – | – |
| 05/03/2008 May 3 | Guam territorial convention Pledged delegate votes: 4 | – | 2 50% | 2 50% | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| 05/06/2008 May 6 | Indiana primary Pledged delegates: 72 | – | 38 51% | 34 49% | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| 05/06/2008 May 6 | North Carolina primary Pledged delegates: 115 | 1% | 48 42% | 67 56% | 1% | – | – | – | – | – |
| 05/13/2008 May 13 | West Virginia primary Pledged delegates: 28 | – | 20 67% | 8 26% | – | 7% | – | – | – | – |
| 05/16/2008 May 13 – May 16 | Colorado 03 Colorado congressional district conventions Pledged delegates: 36 (of 55) [B] | – | 13 | 23 | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| 05/17/2008 May 17 | Colorado 04 Colorado state convention Pledged delegates: 19 (of 55) [B] | – | 6 | 13 | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| 05/17/2008 May 17 | Kansas 02 Kansas state convention Pledged delegates: 11 (of 32) [B] | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| 05/17/2008 May 17 | Nevada 03 Nevada state convention Pledged delegates: 25 (of 25) [B] | – | 11 | 14 | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| 05/17/2008 May 17 | Washington 03 Washington congressional district caucuses (6/13-15 conv.) Pledged delegates: 51 (of 78) [B] | – | 17 [ 26 ] | 34 [ 52 ] | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| 05/20/2008 May 20 | Kentucky primary Pledged delegates: 51 | 2% | 37 66% | 14 30% | – | 2% | – | – | – | – |
| 05/20/2008 May 20 | Oregon primary Pledged delegates: 52 | - | 21 41% | 31 59% | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| 05/24/2008 May 24 | Alaska 02 Alaska state convention Pledged delegates: 13 (of 13) [B] | – | 3 | 10 | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| 05/24/2008 May 24 | Wyoming 02 Wyoming state convention Pledged delegates: 5 (of 12) [B] | – | 2 | 3 | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| 05/31/2008 May 31 | Maine 02 Maine state convention, (caucus 2/10) Pledged delegates: 24 (of 24) [B] | – | 9 | 15 | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| 06/01/2008 June 1 | Puerto Rico primary Pledged delegates: 55 | – | 38 68% | 17 32% | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| 06/03/2008 June 3 | Montana primary Pledged delegates: 16 | 2% | 7 41% | 9 56% | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| 06/03/2008 June 3 | South Dakota primary Pledged delegates: 15 | – | 8 55% | 7 45% | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| 06/07/2008 June 6 – June 7 | Texas 04 Texas state convention (see 3/29) Pledged delegates: 67 (of 193) [B] | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| 06/10/2008 June 1 – June 10 | Nebraska 02 Nebraska county conventions Pledged delegates: 0 (of 24) [A] [B] | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| 06/14/2008 June 12 – June 14 | Idaho 02 Idaho state convention (2/5 caucus) Pledged delegates: 6 (of 18) [B] | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| 06/14/2008 June 14 | Iowa 04 Iowa state convention (4/26 conv.) Pledged delegates: 16 (of 45) [B] | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| 06/15/2008 June 13 – June 15 | Washington 04 Washington state convention (5/17 caucus) Pledged delegates: 27 (of 78) [B] | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| 06/15/2008 June 21 | Puerto Rico 04 Puerto Rico commonwealth convention Pledged delegates: 0 (of 55) [B] | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| 06/22/2008 June 20 – June 22 | Nebraska 03 Nebraska state convention (2/9 caucus) Pledged delegates: 8 (of 24) [B] | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – |
政客和媒体
老牌政客的利益是捆绑在一起的，他们组成利益集团,试图操控媒体，进而影响选情.媒体虽然了解政客的偏好，但是竞选者的策略因素加上选民的固执个性,却使媒体无法准确对选民的想法进行干预.媒体对选民的态度只能”不断揣摩”.
新型领导
Obama漂亮的口号“变革华盛顿”,喊出了砍拼的最强音。人们愿意看到美国的政治回到草创时的青葱年代。于是，平等的领导关系代替了大佬政治. Hillary的经验主义被摒弃了.所谓竞选机器,有老旧的嫌疑. 我以为，经验主义、草根主义、精英主义必须结合。优秀的新团队和充满魅力的领袖相得益彰,团队无形有力，无往不胜。
民主党的100%民主
按比例分配选票、党团会议和超级代表--民主党拥有复杂的选举制度。这一切的确体现了民主的多样化。尤其是古老的党团会议，称得上是一种悠久但是原始的民主形式.它是不记名投票之外,有益的民主形式.但是,共和党的胜者通吃体现了团结一致、少数服从多数的精神，实效其实高于民主党纯粹的民主选举方式。
选民和民调
民调在08砍拼中的攻守现象非常显著. 也许同时间(或一次)竞选会降低民调的这种影响.象08砍拼这样类似联赛的形式, 民调的平衡作用明显. 民意的反复无常,证明成熟的民主是难以预测的.选民是最有个性的，即使在Hillary大势已去的最后时刻，政客们纷纷投向胜利者，但是死忠的保守派白人选民，尤其是顽固的白人老年女性仍然给了她排山倒海似的的支持。
和台湾选举类似的是，各方的基本盘都很稳固,变化的是此消彼长的投票积极性。死忠选民的热情影响他们是否出来投支持者一票，这部分选民是不容易换边的。独立选民、自由派和年轻选民同样关键，他们的高投票率带来了最大的变数。Obama在这部分选民中的影响造就了他最后的胜利。
不能说的秘密
砍拼本身包含民族(种族)和性别等不能说的秘密。
统计显示，奥巴马的支持群体主要是黑人和年轻人。而希拉里的支持来自女人，老人，西班牙裔和亚裔. Obama 作为黑白混血儿,他在竞选之初本意是跨越种族.但是民意难违,必须承认黑人的强力支持是Obama胜选的关键;而白人女权主义者则是Hillary最忠诚的同盟.最终两个竞选人被迫屈服于种族和性别的现实.滑稽的是,如果Hillary和白人男性竞选(无论民主共和),Hillary将因为性别优势(而非劣势)胜出.男性不如女性团结.今时今日,在男性当中要求女性来统治世界的比比皆是,而想统治男性的年长女性又四处可见.然而,反对Hillary的势力其实一直在寻找机会.最终,凭借种族的团结超越了性别的团结.上演了小众超越大众的精彩一幕。
因为Obama的朝气勇气,我一路相挺.在历史的转折处,我为Obama喝彩;作为男性,我的历史责任感让我义无反顾。
/>
