Obama has won more delegates in "red" states.

AND he has won more delegates in "blue" states.

And he has a winning record in both red and blue states.  

I also don't understand the logic that says that since Hillary is already known and already has high unfavorables she is at an advantage of Obama.  Huh?  

And I have absolutely no clue what Progressive Involvement is suggesting. According to the link provided by PI McGovern won the following states...

California
New York
Mass
Texas

He didn't win MO, Maryland, LA, or Alabama.  It seems that the only similarity is that they both won the sparsely populated but very large states, thus giving an impression of similarity between the 2.

Yes he won a lot of the Big Sky Red States.  But he also won the big core blue states as well.  

Do you really agree that Obama's positions are notably more liberal than Clinton's?  I sure don't. On almost every position they are so close that it is hard to tell which one is which.

This isn't 1972.  The nation isn't looking to reel itself in from 15 years of liberalism.  They are looking to reel itself in from 8 years of irresponsible Conservatism.  It's time to stop shying away from the word Liberal.  

Other examples of her wingnuttery are here,  here, and here.

That last article, by the way, is entitled "Do-or-die Hillary turns bully as Obama starts to pull away."

My other concern is that while I think Obama does have some good policies, he's run a campaign focused on him - it's been about his ability to bring people together.  This concerns me because his opponent will be McCain, who also is a very personality-driven candidate, he too seeks to appeal to voters because of who he is, and, while I think he's a war-mongering loon, I also think he has one of the most powerful personal stories in politics.  

Obama beats McCain on the issues, easily, but will this be a campaign decided on the issues?  Obama hasn't run a particularly issue-focused campaign, which doesn't mean he can't in November, but I do worry more about Obama against McCain than I would've against, say, Romney.

Fast forward 36 years later. I'm not a new mom but a grandmother of five. I've watched this ENDLESS campaign from the beginning. I started out admiring Obama and ended up supporting and voting for Hillary.  I've always voted for the Democratic ticket regardless of the hapless candidates on the ticket.

Last week I changed my voter registration to Independent. No longer will the Democratic Party be able to count on my dollars, time or vote.  Howard Dean has messed up the whole primary season and quite frankly the Democrats, who are notorious for shooting themselves in the foot, deserve to get their collective butts kicked in November.

I will either write in HRC or vote for McCain in the G.E. if Obama is the Dem nominee. There is a lot that people do not know about him.  Since I practice law in Illinois, I have some idea of what goes on in Springfield and Chicago.  No one gets anywhere in Illinois politics without being dirty.  It doesn't matter if you are a Dem or a Republican.  They all go to jail regardless of party affiliation.  

Obama has played dirty in the past (ever wonder why Jack Ryan's divorce papers were unsealed?)and he will continue to do it.

McGovern was shown to be indecisive right after the nomination following the Eagleton incident (and guess why McCain fed the media the story of their Senate incident, reported a few days ago).

I agree also that the GOP will have a layered approach in defining Obama, using absolutely everything from his record to character assasination.

But even though I support Clinton with heart, mind and wallet, I'm not yet sure the similarities will result in the same outcome.

Consider: McGovern ran against the incumbent (not the case with Obama). Obama has, for all intents and purposes, been proclaimed the avatar of JFK by The Family, with the resulting halo. Obama is lucky McCain is very weak on domestic agenda, but this I'm sure will be fixed with a strong VP candidate.

I wonder if a comparison of rhetoric and message can complete the picture. Did McGovern campaign as "uniter, not divider" too?

"I now think that the trial of Tony Rezko, which is due to begin on March 3rd, will have a bigger impact on this campaign than any of us foresaw."

He talks a good talk, but that talk backfires. This isn't a chicken in every pot, or a car in every garage, this is spending billions of dollars to "aid" the poor in other countries.

Hello, Obama, how about the US poor? Forgot about them from that 1.6 million home???

Carville is right. Folks like Obama can't understand this nation's needs, when he thinks more about helping Kenyans than Americans.

A lot of things went wrong in 1972 and not all of them were McGovern's -- or his supporters -- fault.  While I've been worried that things will turn out the same way they did that year one thing is very different.  We're not running against an incumbent this year.

the right wing is set to attack Barack Obama s the ultimate "liberal socialist" in the mold of George McGovern.

This is why it is so important to minimize divisiveness during the primary season.  Whatever you think of that fact, Obama might be the Democratic nominee.  He will need a united Democratic party behind him as he goes up against the inevitable Republican attack machine.  Good hard campaigning -- eg, Hillary's contrast ads in WI -- is healthy.  Personal attacks -- eg Robert Johnson's drug references -- are not.  They make it more likely that the Republicans will win in November.  

I think that the GOP smears the Dem with all that they've got no matter what.

I do think that McCain will the hardest to beat because of his maverick reputation and genuinely being to the left of all of the other Republican candidates.

Having said that, I think that Obama has a better shot than Hillary.  A large amount of the GOP base thinks McCain is too liberal and may sit out the election (as many have threatened already).  However, there is a huge anti-Hillary streak in that population (undeserved, but thats besides the point) which might make them come out.  Obama, on the other hand, as a certain non-offensive quality about himself.

"Privately, her {Clinton's] mood has darkened after losing eight primaries and caucuses in a row. The realisation that without a series of huge victories in the remaining contests it is impossible for Clinton to win enough "pledged" delegates to clinch the nomination has sent her staff into shock."

or

"Her chief strategist, Mark Penn, got into a slanging match with the media consultant Mandy Grunwald at Clinton's campaign headquarters. "Your ad doesn't work," he fumed.

'Oh it's always the ad, never the message,' Grunwald shot back. Insiders say the atmosphere is dark, even though the fight is not over yet. Loyalty to Clinton remains strong, but there have been too many chiefs and not enough."

or

"In Ohio, Clinton has the backing of Ted Strickland, the governor and a superdelegate who is often mentioned as a possible vice-presidential running mate. He said in an interview: "I tell you, when I go to the convention I'm going to vote for Hillary Clinton come hell or high water."

and they would lie about hillary and they would lie about john edwards, just like they've lied about Iraq, bankruptcy, their fake tort reform, clear skys, the death tax, rich pig tax cuts

the problem is NOT their lying and their stealing cuz THEY ARE LYING THIEVES, and that is what lying thieves do - they steal and they lie.

the problem is the chickens and incompetents and sell outs who claim to be on 'our' side and who are going to burn through 400 or 800 million dollars by 4 November AND who aren't gonna hire people to bury these lying stealing scum.

the problem is us chumps who are gonna be scared and keep supporting chickens and incompetents and sell outs.

rmm.

From googling 'nixon congress red scare'

Tricky Dick and the Pink Lady : Richard Nixon vs. Helen Gahagan Douglas - Sexual Politics and the Red Scare, 1950
     by Mitchell, Greg

Regardless of whether you prefer Clinton or Obama, let's pick our own nominee and ignore the commentary and spin from the Radical Right.  OK?

1. Obama is a much better speaker and campaigner than George McGovern.
   
2. In 1968 the Democratic coalition had fractured over civil rights. The solid south would no longer be solidly Democratic. While this true today, the landscape has changed significantly. The GOP cannot win without the solid south. Today it is possible for Democrats to win Virginia or Florida.
   
3. In 1972 California was a likely GOP state (Nixon was a Californian). California is more likely to go Democratic today.
   
4. Democrat disunity. In 1972, new nomination rules angered many prominent Democrats and those politicians refused to support McGovern's campaign (some even supporting Nixon instead), leaving the McGovern campaign at a significant disadvantage in funding compared to Nixon. Funding is not an Obama problem, though a potentially messy primary could be. I think we are more united today than in 1972.
   
5. McGovern's VP was a complete disaster from day one. I don't think this will be the case for either Democrat.
   
6. Nixon was a relatively popular incumbent. Bush is an anchor on McCain.

Also, Illinois is not the only big state Obama has won.  He won Virginia, which has one more electoral vote than Massachusetts.

Assuming we can keep him away from campaign consultants, he's one of the most likely guys to handle smear jobs well.

Anyway, these right wing nuts have jumped the shark and don't know it. Our problem isn't them, but the propensity of Democrats to act weak against the onslaught.

But her "toughness" is not really the issue. This is not some literal steel-cage death match. Maybe metaphorically it is. But these type of attacks are not countered, these battles are not waged in some one on one confrontation with McCain.

They are waged out there in the country, over the airwaves, in peoples mailboxes and inboxes, fighting for the hearts and minds of the swing voters.

It makes no difference how "tough" your candidate is, nor whether he or she will still be fighting after the election (perhaps it will only be in the Senate).

The issue of concern is simply this - to what extent will these attacks gain traction in the minds of those swing voters. And that is a function of their propensity to believe these things.

John Kerry, for instance, given his general persona, did not come across as a war-hero-type to the average person. That is why he had to try to drive home the point as much as he did - with that odd military-themed convention. And that in itself was problematical, since most people sense that true war heroes are not the type to go around bragging about it. So when the attacks came that tried to undermine his service, it struck enough chords in enough peoples mind to probably swing enough votes to maybe cost him the election.

Obama as young, inexperienced black man - I certainly recongize that those facts might predispose some people to believe all manner of things. On the other hand, there are aspects of his life, and of his message that are deeply connective to the personal stories and to the aspirations of lots of people. There are many who wont want to beleive the slime.

Hillary does have problems in this regard. Nearly half the country already has a negative view of her. Any slime thrown at her, even if it has been thoroughly refuted by the Starr report, will be beleived, because it somehow resonates with what those people already believe. Will the attacks gain further resonance with the extra few percent needed to push those negatives up to 50, such that she will lose the election? Fair chance - and her "toughness" has nothing whatsoever to do with it.

Her toughness might mean that after a defeat she would go on and continue the good fight in the Senate for years to come, with her head high. But I dont see how it would protect her from the swiftboating to come.

Like Kennedy, Obama is young, handsome and inspiring and he represents the passing of the torch to a new generation. But it is not just that Obama reminds them of Kennedy, it is also that the Clintons remind them of Lyndon Johnson. And if there is anything that the Kennedys don't like, it's a bunch of hillbillies in the White House, which is being kept in trust until a competent Kennedy can be groomed to take it back for its rightful owners. Until that time Obama will do.

=

As a member of the VRWC I must say that none of the D candidates impress me. I'd be worried if we had to run against Joe Lieberman. Since activists turned him into an honorary Republican that will no longer be a problem. To think he was once the Dem Veep Candidate.