home

How Obama Could Lose PA and the Nomination

However unlikely, it's still possible Obama could lose PA and the nomination. If nominated, he could lose the election. Here's how, by a senior editor at The New Republic. It begins:

Some liberal commentators have downplayed the effect of Barack Obama's recent fundraising speech in San Francisco. But that's wishful thinking. Along with the revelations about Obama's pastor Jeremiah Wright, his remarks in San Francisco will haunt him not only in the upcoming primaries in Pennsylvania, Indiana, Kentucky and West Virginia, but also in the general election against John McCain, assuming he gets the Democratic nomination.

Go read the rest, and let us know what you think.

(Comments now Closed)

< Obama to Spend Millions on PA Ads Over Next Four Days | Slate's Proposed Springsteen Ad For Hillary >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Acceptable Democrat (5.00 / 3) (#1)
    by DaveOinSF on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 07:46:40 PM EST
    THe example in the piece of Bob Casey winning because he was the "acceptable Democrat" I think is misguided.  The 2006 Senate race was much more about Santorum having become the "unacceptable Republican".

    As a Pennsylvanian, I completely agree. [nt] (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by ahazydelirium on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 08:08:10 PM EST
    As a former Pennsylvanian... (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by DaveOinSF on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 08:56:18 PM EST
    I feel I know a little about Pennsylvania.  Wish I'd stayed registered to vote there...

    Parent
    DaveO in SF (none / 0) (#92)
    by athyrio on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 09:18:50 PM EST
    What is your prediction since you used to live in Pennsylvania? How do you think Tuesday will go?

    Parent
    Having lived most of my adult life (none / 0) (#100)
    by lilburro on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 09:36:12 PM EST
    in PA, having travelled around, having lived in Philly and out...I think it goes to Clinton no question.  Probably by at least Ohio margins.  Interesting though that in what some pundits have hailed as Ohio all over again both candidates have run strikingly different campaigns from their Ohio campaigns, which were heavily NAFTA oriented.  

    Parent
    Amen to that DaveOinSF (4.75 / 4) (#31)
    by PssttCmere08 on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 08:13:16 PM EST
    Rick Santorum came across as completely off his meds and his supporters left him and dry.

    My problem with Casey is that it is a well-known fact his dad has a real problem with The Clintons and after saying he would not endorse a candidate, turned right around and endorsed Obama, on the say-so (supposedly) of his children.
    I prefer politicians that think for themselves.

    If PA turns out like MA, Sen. Clinton can phone it in.  Kerry, Kennedy and Gov. Patrick had Obama's back and he still could not win the state.

    Parent

    Not from PA, but there was a strong (none / 0) (#121)
    by nycstray on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 10:07:36 PM EST
    anti-Santorum push in the Animal Welfare circles because of his proposed PAWS legislation. AKC, Breed Clubs, etc were actively against it/him. We were happy to see him go. Too bad it wasn't to a pro-choice Dem though.

    Parent
    We didn't have a big choice ourselves (none / 0) (#216)
    by BarnBabe on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 12:15:18 AM EST
    We had a sitting Republican who was totally off the wall and we had the one guy who has name recognition and we knew could knock Santorum out. We took Casey. He is ok, but Specter is a lot more liberal than Bob. That is why Specter wins so easily.

    Parent
    I would have made the same choice (none / 0) (#223)
    by nycstray on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 12:38:59 AM EST
    but it just would have been sweeter if he had been pro-choice ;)

    I wouldn't have know much about him except for the PAWS legislation. That made many outside of PA pay more attention to him, believe it or not. Durbin had also signed on to it, but gain back positives with his actions during the pet food recall.

    Parent

    It is amazing (5.00 / 15) (#4)
    by Kathy on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 07:50:36 PM EST
    how many well-educated, normally pragmatic, dems are blinded to these facts.  Talk about being out of touch with the rest of America!  I think the reasons stated in this piece are the very reasons the super d's are hesitant to fall in line behind Obama.  I think many of them are waiting for these contests to play out, and to see how Obama holds up under scrutiny.  What we saw on ABC was just a glimmer of the kind of scrutiny an Obama ge candidacy would have to endure.  The press may be with him now, but if it comes down to O and McCain, then we know who gets the donuts with the sprinkles on top.  Dems should know better than to fall for this.

    I heard a great line on HBO's John Adams the other night: A mob is still a mob, even when it's with you.

    Yeah, the old fogies have seen the (5.00 / 4) (#6)
    by MarkL on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 07:53:33 PM EST
    Dems walk of the cliff in their choice of nominee too many times.


    Parent
    So, nominating a candidate with ... (none / 0) (#33)
    by Tortmaster on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 08:15:03 PM EST
    ... a 54% national unfavorability rating would not be "walking off the cliff"?

    This guy, along with his buddies Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Karl Rove and Mark Levin, want HRC to win the nomination. They want her to win for a reason.  

    Parent

    you have it EXACTLY backward (5.00 / 10) (#40)
    by angie on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 08:23:10 PM EST
    the GOP is chomping at the bit to go against Obama because HRC's negatives aren't going to go up against McCain -- in the GE, everyone is going to remember that McCain is old as dirt, that the economy is in the toilet and the war in Iraq needs to end.  That is going to drive McCain's negatives up higher then HRC's and she wins in November.  However, if McCain is up against such an easy target as Obama, McCain's age, the economy & ending the war is going to pale in comparison to Ayers, Wright, and "bittergate." By election day, Obama's negatives are going to be higher then McCain's, and McCain wins.  

    Parent
    What you (5.00 / 2) (#56)
    by sas on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 08:43:43 PM EST
    state is not the case.

    The Republican internal polls show that Barack O"bama would be more easily beatable at this time, after clinggate, and Wright.  The Repugs do not want Hillary,  They see losing the election to her, even tho it would be close.
    The want Barack to be the nominee.

    Parent

    With Obama at 51% unfavorable... (5.00 / 4) (#66)
    by white n az on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 08:51:22 PM EST
    I'm not sure you have a point.

    I must be stupid because I simply couldn't care who Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Karl Rove and Mark Levin (how did Levin make this list anyway?) want to win. Sheesh...

    Seriously though...with Obama lagging in unfavorably by only a few points and given the fact he has yet to be in the sights of the right wing attack machine, I have every confidence that he can match Hillary in the unfavorable category.

    Parent

    I predict her numbers will get better (5.00 / 2) (#124)
    by nycstray on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 10:11:36 PM EST
    when Obama's camp isn't pumping out daily negatives about her. It's one thing coming from the Republicans, expected and something to fight against. It's another thing when it's coming from within the party with the intention of making her unelectable.

    Parent
    Limbaugh, Hannity, Rove (none / 0) (#132)
    by flashman on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 10:23:54 PM EST
    This is who they want chosing our candidate.  Screw 'em!

    Parent
    I think you mistake the reason ... (5.00 / 4) (#73)
    by cymro on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 08:56:00 PM EST
    ... why those RW spokesmen invest so much time attacking Hillary. It's because they fear her.

    If she were an opponent of little consequence, they would not spend nearly as much time focusing on her. I'm sure they disagree even more vehemently with the views of (say) Dennis Kucinich or Barney Frank (for example), but how much time do they devote to attacking them?  

    The degree of anger they exhibit for Hillary is a very good measure of the level of respect they have for her as an opponent. Someone like Kucinich or Frank may be their worst nightmare as POTUS, but Hillary as President is an unpleasant (in their eyes) possibility that they know could easily become a reality.

    Parent

    I don't think we know who the GOP wants (none / 0) (#199)
    by hairspray on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 11:40:48 PM EST
    to win.  Different people have different takes on this.  However, if Obama wins the nomination the contrast between McCain and Obama will be striking.  Obama is young, inexperienced, vague, and a little ethereal.Its that hope and unity thing.  McCain is gruff, experienced and noted as a "no-nonsense guy". He is a war hero and a known commodity.  These will be the memes.  large swathes of Americans outside of the liberal coasts will have to choose between these two scenarios.

    Parent
    I agree... (5.00 / 1) (#209)
    by Alec82 on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 11:53:55 PM EST
    ...with your analysis, although I don't know what the proper conclusion is.  

     The truth seems (to me) to be that we have one relatively predictable candidate in Senator Clinton.  She would probably win the GE, although I don't agree that it would be an easy win or an enduring one for Democrats.  On the other hand, Senators McCain and Obama will be stark contrasts.  We are also talking about an election year where the popular "meme" as one would have it is inhosbitable to the status quo.  The polls have proved themselves unpredictable.  And Senator McCain has his own problems with independents, ironically.  

     I still believe this is unknown territory.  At a national level, the consensus appears to be "change."  What that constitutes is of course a matter of debate, but ultimately I would bet on the Democratic nominee, whoever she or he may be.  

    Parent

    The GOP view (5.00 / 3) (#38)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 08:20:42 PM EST
    I've heard two well-connected Republicans in two days, Mike Huckabee last night and Todd Harris (strategist type) today, say that when the primaries started, GOPers were rubbing their hands with glee at the thought of running against Hillary in the general, but that the opinion has changed around and they now think Obama is much more easily beatable both because of the "bitter/cling" remarks, Wright, Ayers et al.  The strategist type was positively gleeful at having been handed the opportunity to whack him as an elitist on a silver platter by Obama himself.

    Parent
    That's just great (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by Seth90212 on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 08:47:28 PM EST
    and you expect them to say that their likely oppenent in November is unbeatable? If Obama's and Hillary's roles were reversed they'd be spouting the same garbage about Hillary.

    Parent
    I think the point is... (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by white n az on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 08:53:39 PM EST
    who cares which the Republicans would rather face?

    I thought the Democrats get to pick their candidate.

    Parent

    Don't let them fool you (1.00 / 2) (#82)
    by Seth90212 on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 09:01:49 PM EST
    they want Hillary but they can't have her. Why did they not attack Hillary on Tuzla if they want to help Obama? Here is a former war hero who could've gone to town on Tuzla but he certainly doesn't want to damage her in the dem primaries. Isn't that obvious? And to suggest that Hillary somehow has less baggage than Obama is laughable. Just because Obama has not attacked her on these issues I think is giving Clinton supporters a false sense of security. If she were the nominee she would be eviscerated.

    Parent
    shame on me... (5.00 / 6) (#86)
    by white n az on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 09:07:41 PM EST
    for thinking that you actually were capable of getting even a little beyond Obamabot.

    Did you want to just pile on some more negative nonsense against Hillary or are you done?

    Obama has spent the entire primary trying to eviscerate her so in my thinking, I fail to see a difference between Obama and anything the Republicans would do.

    But I suppose that is his right...to run a campaign any way he sees fit. I wish the media wasn't so anti-Clintons but hey, not much hope there.

    Parent

    I have yet to see the Obama commercials (none / 0) (#134)
    by Seth90212 on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 10:24:40 PM EST
    on Tuzla, nor has the candidate mentioned it himself. Keep in mind, Hillary attacked Obama directly on Wright when even McCain wouldn't go there. And of course she jumped all over bittergate.

    I hope you are not suggesting that Obama has been as negative toward Hillary as she has been toward him. If so, the evidence does not support it. I'm not saying that Obama is a saint. He is a politician like the rest of them. Maybe his political calculation is that negative campaign won't work for him, particulary in this cycle. Maybe he's betting that he can stay mostly positive and win. His instincts have been on the mark so far. On the other hand, Hillary's negatives go up in proportion to the number of dirty dishes in her kitchen sink. And supers tend to flock to Obama the more negative Hillary gets.

    Parent

    just because you say it... (5.00 / 4) (#145)
    by white n az on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 10:35:17 PM EST
    doesn't make it true.

    Obama has surely been the equal of negative, not always from his own lips but from his campaigns daily press briefers, to be sure.

    Obama resorts to ridicule (Annie Oakley, knife digging, bird flipping) and outright negative attacks, the debate the other night, the debate in South Carolina...

    His entire campaign has used the predicate of eviscerating Bill and Hillary which is why he disses the 90's presidency of Bill. Each time he tries to be subtle (invoking the politics of Reagan and GHWB but ignoring Bill's accomplishments).

    The simple truth is that their campaign is splitting the party apart because they have to ruin the Clinton legacy to get the nomination...so sad.

    He has every right to be as negative as he wishes. I am just not blinded to the negativity.

    Parent

    Bird flipping? (none / 0) (#167)
    by Seth90212 on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 10:47:57 PM EST
    And you expect to be taken seriously?

    Obama has been reactive. He has tried to push back when attacked. But he has shown restraint. Again, not that Obama is an angel. Being positive and hopeful is his shtick.  Also, he has been the frontrunner for a couple of months. Frontrunners generally do not go negative.


    Parent

    No now (5.00 / 2) (#174)
    by facta non verba on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 10:53:50 PM EST
    and not in the past. Ask Alice Palmer and the four others he knocked off the ballot in 1996. And in his run for the Senate, David Alexrod knocked out two opponents with scandals and innuendo. Result he got Alan Keyes as the loyal and insane opposition.

    Look at his tactics in Nevada, in California, in Texas. The real Barack Obama is far different from the image that David Alexrod is selling.

    This is an ad campaign where as Andre Aggassi use to say "image is everything."

    Parent

    Uh, reactive? (5.00 / 1) (#240)
    by IzikLA on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 01:17:56 AM EST
    Is that what he was in the SC debate when he was the first to slam for Hillary for being on the board at walmart?  I think not.  Although the media was quick to pounce on her for her slumlord comment that came as a retaliation, we all seem to easily forget and assume it is Hillary that goes into attack mode first.

    And you are right, positive and hopeful is only his schtick.  He does not practice what he preaches I am afraid to say.

    Parent

    They've both been negative (5.00 / 5) (#162)
    by kayla on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 10:44:14 PM EST
    She's just more up front about it.  Sometimes I think the reason people don't see the negativity in Obama's campaign is because he plays the victim card whenever she criticises him, so he can shame her for playing the "old politics", cristylize his supporters' disdain for her, turn the attention away from the criticism she made about him, and build up the old "she'll do anything to win" meme all at once.

    Parent
    Look, Tuzla and Jeremiah Wright are (none / 0) (#202)
    by hairspray on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 11:44:53 PM EST
    NOT the same.  You lack proportion on this.

    Parent
    In her element (none / 0) (#224)
    by nellre on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 12:39:42 AM EST
    Obama said HRC was in her element at the debate that's been so soundly criticized.

    The Obama followers are deaf to how negative Obama has been. He's more subtle, granted. That way he can have his cake and eat it too. But he can't have this voter!


    Parent

    You will learn (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by Leisa on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 09:57:53 PM EST
    that there is more in the kitchen than a sink.  

    Clinton learned her lesson about the Tuzla story.  
    She even apologized...  hmm imagine that, apologizing.

    Parent

    I think the reason they're no longer attacking (5.00 / 1) (#188)
    by RickTaylor on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 11:22:52 PM EST
    Hillary Clinton is because she's currently in second place, so number one they don't expect her to be the nominee, and number two, a long Democratic primary helps them. If the situation was reversed and Barack was in second but running a vigorous campaign against her, I'm pretty sure they'd be holding their fire on him as well; I don't think it has much to do with which they consider to be the easier to run against in the general election. And even if it did, why would they have any better insight into which candidate would be the easier to run against than we do?

    Parent
    Ha ha ha (none / 0) (#83)
    by myiq2xu on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 09:06:19 PM EST
    That was good snark - Friday Funnies, right?

    Parent
    See, this is what undermines Obamabots' (4.33 / 6) (#87)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 09:08:18 PM EST
    arguments here and elsewhere, the inability (or refusal) to address what's actually been said.  Nobody used the word, or even suggested, "unbeatable."  You just made that up yourself.

    And if you actually followed these things, you'd know that similar GOP types have been saying all along, right up until pretty recently, that they'd rather run against Hillary than Obama.

    So your argument fails on its own.

    But that's OK.  If he gets the nomination, you will find out.  Going to be quite an education for all you newbies to politics.

    Parent

    Don't let your advocacy blind you (5.00 / 1) (#155)
    by Seth90212 on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 10:37:46 PM EST
    I can cite a ton of quotes from GOP operatives saying they feared Obama much more than Hillary. In fact, I can cite quotes from the same types saying that in what should be a Democratic year, Hillary will galvanize much of the electorate against her and probably ensure a GOP victory. Rush Limbaugh said they would be "doomed" if Obama is the nominee.

    What some of your are interpreting as GOP glee at the prospect of facing Obama is nothing more than the actual GOP general election campaign against Obama. They have not been running against Hillary. In fact, they have mostly ignored Hillary since the math became inexorable in Obama's favor.


    Parent

    Oh, they did say that (5.00 / 2) (#181)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 11:06:58 PM EST
    quite a while ago.  The point of my comment, if you'd bothered to read it, is that they've changed their minds post-Wright, post-"bitter/cling," and since they've realized he's a complete putz at dealing with criticism.  Exhibit A, the ABC debate.

    I do not trust these people and I do not discount the possibility that they're funnin' us, but these two particular sources I take more seriously than others, like Rush Limbaugh or Karl Rove or that twisted moron Dick Morris.

    Obama is just a sitting duck for these people, as you are likely to find out.


    Parent

    Oh, Tiparillo (none / 0) (#182)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 11:08:59 PM EST
    On this site, unlike the Obama sites you're used to, we don't troll rate people just because we disagree with them.  Hard for you, I know.

    Parent
    I think you're wrong (none / 0) (#187)
    by Seth90212 on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 11:22:20 PM EST
    I think they've just started to wage the campaign against him in earnest. You're telling me that they believe that Hillary, who has been checkmated at every turn by a guy nobody had heard about until a couple of years ago, that she would be more difficult to defeat? Hillary who did not plan well, who ran a horrible campaign? Hillary who still has not come up with a viable campaign theme or vision or even campaign slogan? Hillary who has not managed money well? Hillary who has had multiple staff shake ups and drama?

    I assure you, they fear Obama. And by the way, that debate did a couple of things. It brought all that garbage out in the open and the network was vilified for it. The vilification has been so intense that no one will dare mention Wright, Ayers, flag pins or any other such nonsense in the GE. Moreover, the reaction from the Obama grassroots has sent shockwaves through both the GOP and the MSM. They're now beginning to understand the massive tsunami movement they're dealing with.


    Parent

    Do you honestly think the GOP (5.00 / 1) (#196)
    by RalphB on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 11:33:29 PM EST
    will give a whit about your vilification?  If so, then you are delusional.  The media will play it to the hilt as well when it's brought out by McCain and the GOP hit machine.  Dude, nobody fears Obama.  :-)

    Parent
    McCain may have more skelatons than even (none / 0) (#204)
    by Seth90212 on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 11:47:07 PM EST
    HRC. It's a two way street. And let's not even get started on his wife. The man has about 40 years of very dirty laundry and scandals. Even his age will cost him votes. Yes, many people think he's too old, especially older people who know what it is to be old. Hate to say it, but he is short (knock another 5% off). He is seemingly decrepit physically. He has a combover. He is not an attractive man. To point these things out is not to be shallow. Elections are won and lost on height alone. And with all these disadvantages he has chosen to run on the record of one of the most unpopular presidents in history. Contrast that to the sharp, young, vigorous, witty, likeable and good looking Obama.

    Instead of debating whether Obama can win, you ought to be debating the size of Obama's landslide.


    Parent

    Having fun tonight are you? (5.00 / 1) (#225)
    by BarnBabe on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 12:41:46 AM EST
    It is always fun for Obamabots to come over here when there is no one to argue with anymore. Heh. But as to your thought that Obama is young, nice looking,I guess, (Althought I thought John was hot) etc., that is a problem. No one really knows who he is. McCain, warts and all, people know who he is. He might not be the Maverick anymore, but people know he knows Washington and has a long life of experience. They know he was in Viet Nam and in captivity and tortured. They know he is strong. The country is in deep Bandini right now. The worse it has been in my lifetime. It scares me because we are on the brink of turning it around or going down the tubes. So who would you prefer to operate? The Pre-Med student or the Doctor? McCain will be hard to beat but he will tackle BHO with his experience. When he said that empty suit comment in his win speech, you saw what was coming and you saw who he was thinking he was going to be running against. It was not the other Doctor.

    Parent
    Oh my... (none / 0) (#266)
    by Fredster on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 02:38:06 AM EST
    He is seemingly decrepit physically.

    primarily due to the torture he endured at the hands of the North Vietnamese.   Think: War Hero.  You will hear a lot of it during the general election.  Americans love war heroes, a la Eisenhower, JFK, Washington.  

    Parent

    Cite away (none / 0) (#164)
    by kmblue on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 10:46:11 PM EST
    but keep the links to TL standards.

    Parent
    I would think that you ... (none / 0) (#131)
    by Tortmaster on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 10:23:09 PM EST
    ... would want to think up ways for Hillary to win rather than claiming, impossibly, that the Republicans fear her more than Obama.

    I would stick to her strengths rather than make arguments that nobody will believe.

    If I were pro-Hillary, I'd be over at Republican websites getting them to vote for her in the upcoming primaries.

    I'd keep talking about Michigan and Florida or how HRC wins the important states. I would not suggest that the Republicans aren't helping Hillary, because they obviously are. It's a credibility thing.  

    Parent

    Credibility. that's really rich (5.00 / 1) (#159)
    by RalphB on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 10:39:45 PM EST
    coming from the Obama side.  HaHa

    Parent
    The way for her to win is to (5.00 / 4) (#163)
    by bjorn on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 10:45:42 PM EST
    count all the votes and NOT to listen to people who are telling her to quit before the race is over.  The most important thing she needs to do is stay positive by blocking out all the crap from MSNBC, DKOS, and HUFFPOST. And I am sure she does that already!

    Parent
    Thanks for the advice... (3.66 / 3) (#141)
    by Maria Garcia on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 10:33:09 PM EST
    ...your post is so amusing in so many ways. As for going to Republican sites, most of us have sworn off  DK.

    Parent
    You live in your own world (none / 0) (#183)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 11:10:03 PM EST
    You will find out.

    Parent
    Well (5.00 / 7) (#7)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 07:54:11 PM EST
    after the debate and Obama's misteps lately, I think it's looking more likely that Obama won't be the nominee unless the party has decided that they aren't going to win this election no matter what. He's given voters so many reasons not to vote for him in the general election that I just don't see how he wins against McCain. Also, voters have the comfort of the Dems controlling congress and the senate. Some people like divided government and since the 2006 elections I have believed that it would be much harder for us to win in Nov.

    Ga6th (5.00 / 7) (#12)
    by Kathy on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 08:00:20 PM EST
    Another GA here, but 5th district, who could not agree with you more.  It is gobsmacking how out of touch the party echelon is on Obama's electability problems.  Ayers and Rezko make it very tricky, but Wright alone will sink Obama.  Though I speak as as an agnostic, I am not so deluded as to not understand that religion is the universal language of the dominant American culture.  Wright is absolute poison.

    Clinton must win the nomination or we all will lose.

    Parent

    In am in Ga. also (grad school) and (5.00 / 5) (#55)
    by kenosharick on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 08:43:03 PM EST
    I agree as well. No way Obama wins my home state of Wis. now-these scandals have ended it. These superdelegates are committing political suicide rather than preventing it as they were meant to. Every day I am seeing supers announce for Barack, and I am stunned-what are they thinking? The media seems oblivious as well. I am really hoping that Penn helps prevent a disaster. BTW- shouldn't these many scandals hurt him in NC as well?

    Parent
    No, won't hurt him (5.00 / 4) (#76)
    by waldenpond on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 08:56:20 PM EST
    in NC.  Demographics favor him.  35% AA.  With that kind of demographic he should have taken Clinton 15 pts or more. He is projecting to win NC by 8 pts which is 88% of the AA vote to 37% of the white vote.  For the GE, he will need Clinton's voters.

    Parent
    i think your numbers are wildly wrong. (none / 0) (#105)
    by cpinva on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 09:50:12 PM EST
    according to the 2000 census, AA's constitute 21% of NC's population. perhaps that % has increased in the intervening 7 years, but i doubt it's by 14 points.

    yes, the AA population of NC favors obama in the primary, but not by nearly as much as you would have us believe.

    Parent

    Perhaps 35% of registered dems are aa? (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by Kathy on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 09:54:51 PM EST
    It seemed high to me (GA was 30%, I think) but you never know.

    Still, I don't think NC will be a resounding victory, especially when Clinton cleans up in PA and the media tide subtly shifts.  

    I think attacking ABC was the stupidest thing to come out of the blogosphere.  Nothing makes those guys circle their wagons like one of their own being attacked.  And this is Charlie Gibson we're talking about, folks.  You don't bash Chuck.

    Parent

    Kathy's (5.00 / 1) (#127)
    by cal1942 on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 10:17:57 PM EST
    probably right. In SC 50% of Democrats are African-American but not 50% of the total population.

    Parent
    Census (none / 0) (#122)
    by waldenpond on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 10:08:13 PM EST
    numbers 22%, I forgot to note on my spreadsheet where the dem registration number came from.  Flipped the AA to 25% (little higher for turnout) that means for him to get his 8 pt win he would get 44% of the white vote?  

    Parent
    not all will lose, SDs are voting their benefits (5.00 / 1) (#269)
    by boredmpa on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 02:57:59 AM EST
    I have to assume some people are looking at possible state and federal reps/senators and downticket changes if obama brings out more folks in some districts.   I mean it's obvious to me that the unions went obama because of the movement glow and the coattail riding (even if he doesn't win they've brought in young people and exposed them to unions at rallies).

    I think SDs may be calculating/hoping for local benefits even if we lose the presidency.

    Parent

    The New Republic? (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by Citizen Rat on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 07:57:58 PM EST
    First of all, Obama will lose PA. The only issue is by how much and how that margin will be spun. Nobody is predicting an Obama victory in PA. There is not that much Kool-Aid in the world.

    But TNR has seen its circulation go down, down, down...and down. And there is a good reason for that.

    TNR has always been the magazine of the moderate wing of the Neo-Cons. In fact, on foreign policy, it has been almost (not quite) but almost on the same page as all the Neo-Con organs.

    And it has always been bitterly, unalterably, inexorably opposed to any kind of progressive politics (at least as long as I have read it) starting with supporting death squads and contras in Central America.

    Ah yes (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by Kathy on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 08:02:00 PM EST
    Sam Nunn is a thoughtful, intelligent dem for supporting Obama.

    TNR is a right-wing shill machine for raising valid questions about Obama's electability.

    Parent

    Definitely Not A Fan Of TNR, BUT... (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by PssttCmere08 on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 08:20:20 PM EST
    They have some valid points that should be considered.  And honest, objective voters will do just that, others will try to tear them a new one, but they have nothing to gain by posting this.  It could very well be the scenario coming down the pike.

    Parent
    Sam Nunn is not my guy (1.00 / 2) (#42)
    by Citizen Rat on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 08:26:35 PM EST
    I have never called Sam Nunn a thouhgtful Democrat. On the other hand, Sam isn't going Zell or Lieberman on me. So I can deal with him.

    Now, Hillary's just gone Zell. That's a deal breaker.

    Parent

    Hillary has gone Zell?? (5.00 / 3) (#115)
    by Josey on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 09:59:29 PM EST
    That's as rabid as Obama supporters claiming John Edwards is a "warmonger."
    After Obama entered the Senate, he turned right and began voting to fund the war after promises on the campaign trail a few months earlier that he'd vote against funding it.
    Obama on the Iraq War - really is a fairy tale.

    Parent
    you don't know what you are talking about (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by BostonIndependent on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 09:42:30 PM EST
    As a long time subscriber I can tell you that I'm actually appalled at all the shilling the TNR is doing for Obama -- go read their blogs, and articles in their archives. If they are neo-cons they wouldn't be doing that now, would they?

    The only article against him -- that I can recall of late -- has been Sean Wilenz's article on how Obama's campaign used race before SC and since.
    But I doubt that will change the MSM behavior or other Obama supporters'.

    And yes, I read National Review too.. and can tell the difference.

    Equating people (esp. Democrats) who supported/support the war w/ Neo-con policy reflexively -- is naive.

    Parent

    So You've Demonstrated (5.00 / 1) (#152)
    by cal1942 on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 10:36:40 PM EST
    that you know almost nothing about The New Republic and especially the individuals who contribute.

    "TNR has always been the magazine of the moderate wing of the Neo-Cons"

    Always? Do you know how long TNR has been around.  For many decades before there were neocons. For many years it was the premier liberal political magazine. It's slipped over a period of time, especially the last few years, due to absolutely deranged owners.

    But that doesn't mean that everything in the magazine is crap.  On foreign policy they've been off the mark for some time but the magazine still has some good articles about domestic matters.

    John Judis, the author of the cited article is no con; neo, paleo or otherwise. He's one of the sharper people around.

    You would be rewarded and may even learn something about the way stuff works in public life by reading his very good "Paradox of American Democracy."  Although written in 1991 (as I recall) it could best be described as Civics 401.  I believe Judis says something like that in the preface.  He's right, but it may even be Civics 501.

    When discussing The New Republic it's best to understand that there are a number of contributors and almost always something of value.

    Parent

    You're telling me (5.00 / 1) (#157)
    by Stellaaa on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 10:39:38 PM EST
    You should see what is lurking around at TPM, Kos, Huff, Ameriblog, wow.  All those anti feminist, anti Democrat, anti giving everyone the right to vote, anti universal healthcare, anti all kinds of things I thought no one was anti.  Wow, scary things you find on the internet.  

    Parent
    A recent artticle by Judis on the (5.00 / 0) (#212)
    by hairspray on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 12:03:36 AM EST
    problems Obama faces in the general election was excellent. It was a measured and well researched  piece and was not reasurring to the Democrats who want to win in November.

    Parent
    Ed Schultz (none / 0) (#160)
    by Stellaaa on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 10:41:08 PM EST
    wannabe, ex sports guy, just like KO, found religion, panders this way, panders that way, but man, found the anti Hillary thing, that just turned him on to talk against a Democrat and a woman.  That just got him all Rush and everything.  

    Parent
    Schultz, another former Republican (none / 0) (#265)
    by thereyougo on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 02:36:23 AM EST
    you can take the guy out of the party but increasingly thise former Rs, you can't take the party out the guy.

    Parent
    Dick Morris is a joke (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by stillife on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 08:00:42 PM EST
    I don't think he has credibility with anyone.

    Dick Morris created the Hillary hate Virus... (5.00 / 1) (#126)
    by Exeter on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 10:15:47 PM EST
    ...that causes Hillary Derangement Syndrome (HDS).  

    Parent
    Dick (none / 0) (#64)
    by sas on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 08:49:22 PM EST
    Morris is deep in debt.  The only reliable source of income for him is to be a daily Hillary basher.

    Parent
    He's insane! (none / 0) (#94)
    by stillife on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 09:21:54 PM EST
    I knew he had turned on the Clintons, but my God!  When asked a question about Obama, he'll turn the answer back to Hillary, so he can bash her.  It's so ridiculously obvious.  He's wasted as a Fox commentator.  He really ought to apply for a job at MSNBC.

    Parent
    Even O' Reilly (none / 0) (#129)
    by Leisa on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 10:20:05 PM EST
    has rolled his eyes when Dick Morris talks.

    Parent
    At this stage... (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by white n az on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 08:03:34 PM EST
    pundits and polls in PA are irrelevant because the real poll is all that matters and it's only a few days away.

    I think that Judis is fairly accurate but it all depends upon how much Hillary wins PA by...and if she wins in double figures after 6 weeks of nothing but PA and being outspent at least 4:1, there could only be 1 conclusion...Obama can't win.

    But it does come down to how much Hillary wins by...if it's only 5-9 points, it won't be a decisive blow to Obama.

    Hilary just might be the nominee (5.00 / 6) (#21)
    by Saul on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 08:07:21 PM EST
    As I watch the contest go down to the finish line, every day we learn more and more about Obama.  Recently there is something in the wind that tells my gut instincts  that if Obama becomes the nominee he could not honestly win the GE. I see a lot of Obamas's luster diminished as compared to how it was when he began his campaign.   I think as time goes on this will become more evident.   The Wright incident, his wife's remarks, and this current Bitter fiasco and now the Ayers underground scandal all will have a negative effect in the GE.  First impressions on controversial issues are hard to shake off no matter how you try to explain them off.  Moreover no telling what we will learn on from the Rezko trial that involves Obama. I do not agree with everything that Hilary has done or said in this campaign, however  I  feel that Hilary can be a better candidate to win the GE.  She will do better in winning those critical states.  The GE is all about electoral votes.  If you can't win the big states all the charisma in the world won't help you.  The super delegates just might have to choose down the line on who really is more electable.  The Gallup polls dropped considerably in the last 2 days in favor of Hilary. Only 3 points difference when it was 11 just the other day.  Time is on Hilary's side since time is bringing out more and more things we do not know about Obama.  

    It's because Obama is following WS rules (5.00 / 4) (#25)
    by TheRefugee on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 08:09:13 PM EST
    In baseball every manager will keep throwing their best pitchers on as little rest as possible even if they wear them out thinking:  nothing matters if we don't at least get to the World Series.

    Obama is doing anything and everything to get to the GE, not thinking about how he is damaging his campaign by doing so.

    But what is most surprising is that neither he, nor his supporters, understand that burning up goodwill with half of dem voters isn't the real problem...the real problem in every single election is the swing voters and swing voters pay attn to the things that the Obama camp thinks are trivial or capable of being swept away by a speech; things like flags, and pledges, and condescension, and playing both sides of the political fences.

    He's burning out his bullpen (5.00 / 2) (#133)
    by nycstray on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 10:24:28 PM EST
    The Dem party AND swings. He'll be walking to the mound with rookies he pulled in from triple A.

    Parent
    This should have been 1964; it's becoming 1972 (5.00 / 4) (#29)
    by tdraicer on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 08:11:26 PM EST
    What Judis is saying is not only true but obviously true-but I'm not sure it matters since the party leadership seems to be in a suicidal frame of mind (not for the first time).

    Obama can win in November ONLY if the GOP is so damaged any Dem could win. Possible, but it is extremely risky to bet the next four years on it.

    But I'm frankly starting to think Pelosi or Dean don't really want to win-they are much more important figures with a Republican in the White House than they would be with a Democrat.

    wow (5.00 / 9) (#30)
    by Kathy on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 08:12:43 PM EST
    that's so true.  Pelosi and Dean are going to be in BIG trouble if Clinton and crew get back in the White House.  They're going to have to finally act on something.

    Parent
    Kathy (5.00 / 5) (#179)
    by cal1942 on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 11:04:35 PM EST
    That's nothing compared to the tide that will drown Donna Brazile.  

    She's literally the poster child for Democratic foolishness over the past few years.

    You're right that the Speaker and Majority Leader are less prominent when their party holds the White House.  

    I believe they think they'll remain prominent with someone as weak as Obama in the White House.

    They'd definitely drop a notch or more with Hillary in the White House.

    Kerry's remark that Universal Health Care is a non-starter and Dodd's (D-Insurance Industry)early Obama endorsement tell me that in the Senate they're scared as hell about being put on the spot. With Hillary in the White House and the public clamoring for UHC, these people will sweat bullets.  They'll be caught between their constituents and their principle sponsors.

    Parent

    Obama is not the new McGovern (5.00 / 4) (#78)
    by DaveOinSF on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 08:59:33 PM EST
    Obama may be a lot of things, but he is not the new McGovern.  He is the new Dukakis.

    Parent
    Dukakis won Mass, not sure he can ;) (5.00 / 3) (#135)
    by nycstray on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 10:26:50 PM EST
    It is very likely they (none / 0) (#81)
    by waldenpond on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 09:01:31 PM EST
    don't want the White House right now.  They will not be able to resolve the Iraq war, we are still in Afghanistan with not enought troops to deal with it, there is a messy economy over which the govt has limited recourse, they will be unable to do any tax increases to support any changes in programs with the economy the way it is, etc.  The economy will even out over time and the Dems can continue to blame our bogged down military on the Repubs.  eh....

    Parent
    I sometimes think so, too -- holding it in 2012 (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by Cream City on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 09:06:36 PM EST
    for Obama, for the reasons you give that then will not be the Dems' mess to fix -- and figuring that McCain can only do one term.

    I think that is very dangerous thinking for Dems, as McCain will pick a younger VP who will have a semi-incumbency to take it for the GOP again.

    Parent

    that's exactly what the TL kid said (5.00 / 3) (#165)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 10:47:09 PM EST
    at dinner tonight. (He is not a fan of Obama, thinks he's fluff and no substance). His point: No dem can fix Bush's mess in 4 years, it might be better if a Republican got stuck with it.

    Parent
    all in all (none / 0) (#197)
    by TheRefugee on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 11:38:02 PM EST
    I'd rather a dem tried to fix it and failed...but between O and McCain?  I think it is a crapshoot that either will better or worse for the country.  I think Clinton could actually do enough in four years to warrant a second term while I think the other two would be certain one term admins.

    Parent
    And Judis didn't even mention (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by Coldblue on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 08:47:21 PM EST
    the fourth branch, which will be an active participant in influencing the outcome.

    ding! ding! ding! (none / 0) (#211)
    by Josey on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 12:03:16 AM EST
    Relax HRC Supporters - He's Toast in PA (5.00 / 6) (#89)
    by cdalygo on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 09:13:20 PM EST
    I just cruised around and caught her response to debate on local PA station. (Yes, a Fox station. But given the Obama network at NBC who cares at this point.)

    She laid out the truth. If he and his supporters can't handle 90 minute debate, how will he and they handle pressure in white house. Before the Obama folks cue up with "she lied" when she said he could president , remember the crap he spewed about her yesterday and in his robo-calls.  

    That type of airtime is priceless in a campaign because it catches more people paying attention to things like weather and traffic. It also kicks the hell out of his ads running monotonously on a loop. Thus she doesn't need to waste her money responding back with scripted commercials.

    My money is on the SUSA poll of 14, with an even higher margin due to undecideds breaking her way late (as they have done in every other state).

    But please continue to insult her and us. It only strengthens our resolve to get her the nomination.If we can't pull it off due to the disenfranchisement of key states and media onslaught it aids us in other ways. We are building a coalition that will emerge from the certain debacle in November ready to either retake the Democratic party or start a viable third party.

    Oh and I agree with a poster above. Don't insult McGovern with the comparison. McGovern was a war hero who took a necessary stand against an immoral war back when it hurt to be that brave. Obama is Dukais if he's lucky. Even that comparison is unfair to Dukais, who at least delivered for his home state as governor.

    I agree with you (5.00 / 1) (#143)
    by nycstray on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 10:33:34 PM EST
    I've sworn off cable (except food/sports programing) and have been watching local broadcast news. Much different perspective. Still slanted, but not extreme. And Fox adds balance. Heh, I grew up in a Republican household, I know how to 'watch' it  ;) Local news is what many hit first in the AM and when they come home from work.

    I'll be a part of that new coalition if need be.

    Parent

    Dukakis (none / 0) (#185)
    by cal1942 on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 11:14:47 PM EST
    was also a Korean War veteran.

    Parent
    Dems ought to win the presidency this year (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 09:37:17 PM EST
    in between taking naps but they've managed to once again push through, annoint, and shove down everybody else's throat the guy who is going to lead us to a neck and neck race that he is going to lose in the end again.  Fricken sad........so sad.......how pathetic!

    Obama should wait until 2016 (5.00 / 1) (#117)
    by Exeter on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 10:02:24 PM EST
    I actually think he could be a good candidate, his main problem is that he simply does not have the resume to be president.  They like to compare him with Kennedy, but while he may be Kennedy's age, Kennedy was a war hero, pulitzer prize winning author of two best selling books, served six years in U.S. House, eight years in the U.S. Senate, and narrowly lost a bid for the vice presideny in 1956.

    In this vacuum of nonexperience, Obama will continue to be defined by things that may be irrelevent, but will stick, because voters simply do not know him like they know Clinton and McCain. Plus, although it is always dismissed by Obamanation, every imaginable scandal of both Clinton and Obama has already been born, lived its life, and died many years ago. Obama does not have this luxury-- but he would if waited and took another run at it.

    He also needs to (none / 0) (#153)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 10:36:47 PM EST
    grow some nerve.  Every time things get hard, he runs and hides.  Did it after Wright, did it by refusing debate.

    Parent
    would you debate more at this point? (none / 0) (#253)
    by AgreeToDisagree on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 01:47:47 AM EST
    the ABC debate wasn't even a debate for god's sake.  

    How many debates have they had?  I haven't looked that up but seems like a lot more than usual.  

    Parent

    I'll make it quick (5.00 / 1) (#154)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 10:37:39 PM EST
    The cahones to be president matter.  Obama is afraid to debate Hillary again, he's definitely afraid to be president.

    after the questions on the last few debates... (none / 0) (#180)
    by white n az on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 11:05:25 PM EST
    I don't think ANYONE wants to see another.

    In fact, I would suspect that it will be less than an enthusing prospect for whoever is the Dem nominee to agree to a debate against McCain

    Parent

    The debate last week (none / 0) (#245)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 01:29:05 AM EST
     won the 8:00 timeslot.  Yes, indeed people are just beginning to want to see debates.

    (Of course, American Idol won the 9:00 timeslot.)

    Parent

    The ones who know her best... (5.00 / 1) (#186)
    by diogenes on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 11:19:52 PM EST
    Robert Reich went for Obama, and he knows the Clintons well.  Sam Nunn went for Obama.  You wouldn't know it from this site.  Is Hillary plucking any actual endorsements lately?

    Aside from the 100 Mayors of PA, and their (5.00 / 1) (#206)
    by Radix on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 11:48:06 PM EST
    Governor, none that I can think of.

    Parent
    Not to mention the 3 Supers she just picked up. (5.00 / 3) (#208)
    by Radix on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 11:52:37 PM EST
    Because there are no facts, there is no truth, Just data to be manipulated

    Don Henley-The Garden of Allah

    Parent

    You wouldn't know it... (5.00 / 1) (#249)
    by IzikLA on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 01:32:52 AM EST
    And that's why these people keep getting away with all their attacks on things other than the issues.  As long as they can make it seem like Clinton has no support they think the problems with Obama as the nominee will just go away (hello DNC, Pelosi, Dean, etc.).

    Parent
    Only six superdelegates (5.00 / 1) (#247)
    by echinopsia on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 01:31:18 AM EST

    Former Pittsburgh mayor, Sophie Masloff
    Bill Burga, a former president of the Ohio AFL-CIO
    California congresswoman, Jackie Speier
    Former New Jersey governor, Jim Florio
    Former New Jersey governor, Brendan Byrne
    Representative Betty Sutton of Ohio


    Parent

    yes (none / 0) (#214)
    by sas on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 12:05:52 AM EST
    100 Pa mayors endorsed Clinton the other day...

    say, didn't you hear about that in the MSM?

    MUST HAVE BEEN AN UNINTENTIONAL OVERSIGHT BY THEM

    Parent

    The youth vote and crossover voters (5.00 / 1) (#194)
    by Radix on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 11:29:01 PM EST
    I wonder if the 18-24 year olds will show up this time? From past election, it appears, this age demographic looses interest in voting around November. Do we also really believe the crossover Republicans are going to turn out for Obama, in the same numbers as they have been in the primaries? My guess is that he looses between 15-30%, adding both groups loses together. Perhaps we can ask that the GE be pushed back a bit? As I don't think that will give Obama, should he be the nominee, enough time to explain to the women Democrats why they should get over their unreasonable anger over being trivialized, after they're done making sandwiches and laundry of course. /snark  

    Because there are no facts, there is no truth, Just data to be manipulated

    Don Henley-The Garden of Allah


    If HRC wins (5.00 / 1) (#279)
    by nellre on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 03:52:31 AM EST
    If HRC wins the nom, we have a chance.

    If not, the toxicity of the blogs like kos and huffpo will cost the dems the election.

    My humble opinion.

    I trust myself (5.00 / 1) (#283)
    by nellre on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 04:30:35 AM EST
    It's hard sometimes  when people you respected go against what you think is right.
    But the bottom line is that I must respect and trust myself.
    I don't think I'm stupid. I don't know why folks like Reich, whom I have respected, go against what I perceive is right. I do believe that Obama is an empty suit, so this sort of thing really gets me confused.
    But then I remember that sometimes I trust too much and perhaps I am gullible to a fault to think these guys know what is right and real.

    I do know I'm not seeing what they're seeing.

    At this point, I think Obama is as toxic as his followers!

    FWIW (4.50 / 2) (#32)
    by stillife on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 08:14:01 PM EST
    Don't kill me for watching Hannity & Colmes, but KKKarl Rove has interesting commentary.  Unlike the insane Dick Morris, who always has to bring the subject back to his obsessive Hillary hatred, Rove offers relatively impartial commentary.  He says that Obama's big problem as the potential nominee is that he won't be able to attract conservative Dems and Independents.  I disagree with his assertion that Obama is the "most liberal member of Congress" - personally, I think he's more conservative than Hlllary - but that will be the perception among many voters.

    Now they have Ed Rendell on.  Love him!

    "Rove offers relatively ... (none / 0) (#36)
    by Tortmaster on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 08:18:08 PM EST
    ... impartial commentary." Right. Karl Rove wants HRC to win. I wonder why?

    Parent
    No, I don't think he does (none / 0) (#41)
    by stillife on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 08:23:43 PM EST
    he certainly hasn't said that he supports her.  But he is the ultimate political realist.  You don't have to be a rocket scientist to see that Obama will be unelectable in November.

    Sure, he has charisma (for some people).  But he lacks experience and he's temperamentally unsuited for the job.  

    Sean Hannity and Newt Gingrich think she doesn't have much of a chance, which should be of some comfort to you. =)

    Parent

    Karl wants Obama to win (none / 0) (#267)
    by Davidson on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 02:42:14 AM EST
    Remember when Karl wrote that op-ed on how Obama can beat Clinton?  Did you scream a hissy fit about that?  I'm guessing no.  In this case he only offered his "analysis" of the situation--which is sadly the truth--about Obama's GE chances and you're claiming that somehow it means he wants Clinton to win the nomination?  What the...?

    And to this day Karl still trots out lies (by omission) about Clinton's chances for the nomination, harping about the pledged delegate count, while conveniently ignoring the popular vote count and the disenfranchisement of MI and FL.

    Parent

    I Vote for McCain If Obama is Nominated (3.00 / 2) (#192)
    by awang on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 11:28:52 PM EST
    The democratic party has clearly been hijacked by the extreme leftwing. For left-leaning independents, this is very frustrating. The extreme righwing nuts of the Republican party took control of the party and they gave us George W. Bush. The democratic party is in danger of repeating the same mistake---not electing the most capable person into the white house. Our country needs Clinton NOW. There is no time for the empty "hope" talks. In Wednesday debate, it was obvious that while Hillary has provided detailed and substantive proposals, Obama spent most of his time describing this country's problems that we already know. He provided little insight on the solutions to these problems. Obama, I am afraid, is quite hollow in terms of his plan to lead this country to a better future. We need to alarm the democratic party that many independent voters could turn to McCain if Obama is nominated. I think this scenario is quite real and it has not been talked about enough in the main stream media. Take a look. http://ivotemccainifobamaisnominated.blogspot.com/ (I vote for McCain if Obama is nominated)


    that is an insane comment (none / 0) (#252)
    by AgreeToDisagree on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 01:46:11 AM EST
    Both Clinton and Obama are so far away from McCain on the "issues" that a vote for McCain from either of their supporters is irrational, at best.  

    don't vote if you want to exercise that action.  but don't push absolutelyu silly scenarios for no reason.  McCain (more iraq, more bush tax cuts, more bush foreign policy, more bush economics, etc.).

    wont win many fans here (i hope) with this line....

    Parent

    Seems to be a spammer. Jeralyn (none / 0) (#275)
    by eleanora on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 03:33:45 AM EST
    will probably delete after she see the multiple posts of the same thing. I swear, the Repubs must be paying these people by the word to disrupt Dem sites.

    Parent
    Obama would been fine in the general... (1.00 / 5) (#218)
    by RosaLuxemburg on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 12:17:35 AM EST
    If Clinton weren't deploying her entire marketing team to brand him as an effete, latte-drinking liberal with shady, scary associations with scary, radical black men.

    You're smoking reefer if you think this branding won't endure through the general election.

    Face it: Clinton basically has no path now to the nomination. She wants Democrats to lose this round so she can run again in 2012. That's why she's the most loathsome person on the planet right now, with the possible exception of Rupert Murdoch, the Burmese Junta, and Chris Matthews.

    Well..I guess (none / 0) (#220)
    by Stellaaa on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 12:21:58 AM EST
    they are both branded, and Hillary's branding gonna play much better in the GE.  So, tell him to just drop out.  

    Parent
    why is that? (none / 0) (#259)
    by AgreeToDisagree on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 01:55:18 AM EST
    how are her negatives?

    thought so.  

    She's lost... get over it.  

    Parent

    nice to see you again... (none / 0) (#227)
    by white n az on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 12:47:04 AM EST
    weren't you suspended?

    stay classy!

    by the way...

    Mark Levin is the one that called Obama a p***y

    Ayers is white radical, hardly scary at this point but clearly a controversial person to have any association with as John Ridley points out

    Hillary called him elitist...the effete, latte drinking labels are your own supply.

    the path to winning the nomination is starts with a big win in PA 4 days from now...I understand that you can't see the possibility of that happening.

    Parent

    Tell us what you really think (none / 0) (#233)
    by kaffied on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 01:04:46 AM EST
    Obama supporters are so boring (none / 0) (#250)
    by echinopsia on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 01:34:14 AM EST
    they always say the same things. Always. It's like they're reading from a playbook.

    Not an independent thought in a thousand of them.

    Parent

    Thank you (none / 0) (#256)
    by IzikLA on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 01:52:42 AM EST
    It's almost too hard to argue sometimes when you just know it's not going to get through.  Who really thinks that this is not how Obama would be branded in the General? In fact, I'm sure none of these things Obama is catching heat for now would've come up against the Republicans, right?  And of course Hillary Clinton brough them all to light single-handedly didn't she?

    Seriously? This talking point from Obama and his supporters and his campaign I must say has been Very effective.  However, it is extremely misleading and unfairly damaging to Hillary Clinton as a person.  

    Parent

    Independent (1.00 / 1) (#270)
    by plumberboy on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 03:06:36 AM EST
    I am a independent or liberterian so I have no loyalty to any candidate or party.I will tell you this though I use to be a pretty solid conservative until a few years ago and if Hilliary Clinton wins the nomination I truly believe the Democrats will not see the white house she is to polarizing and there is to much history there.I hear right wing friends even say they like Obama and may vote for him it's better than Mccain but anytime you talk Clinton they will vote for anyone but her I think Clinton will make this a chad counting election but Obama would slide into the white house with about five to ten percent more of the vote than Mccain in a general.

    re Independent (none / 0) (#281)
    by tnjen on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 04:10:22 AM EST
    The things is.. anyone that hates Clinton with a passion is already a die-hard GOPer that's going to fall in line and vote GOP regardless of the candidate. That said, Obama is becoming everything the GOP always feared Clinton was -- radical, in their eyes racist, marxist leaning, associated with domestic terrorists etc. He will be turned into just as big a boogey man as Clinton as far as the base is concerned. Now, once you add in racism and those that aren't a part of the base but genuinely worried about Obama's seedier connections he has the potential to bring out more GOP support than Clinton ever thought about bringing.

    In either case, they're going to be energized. It doesn't matter how much or how little you hate someone -- you only get to vote once.

    Parent

    I don't think it's effected the polls at all (none / 0) (#2)
    by AgreeToDisagree on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 07:47:55 PM EST
    from what i've seen.  and Obama seems to be gaining momentum nationally against Hillary. And bashing MoveOn (whether or not you like the org or not) is not the best thing to do in the primary...

    The general election will also present how far away the Dems and McCain are (Iraq, tax cuts, economy, etc) - it will be completely different than now.  

    Gaining nationally? Why has Gallup (5.00 / 1) (#146)
    by nycstray on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 10:35:26 PM EST
    closed to 3 over the last couple days?

    Parent
    McCain in the GE (5.00 / 1) (#191)
    by cal1942 on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 11:27:01 PM EST
    Don't be surprised if McCain moderates after the Republican Convention.

    The press won't call him on it. They'll bill it as 'realistic straight talk from the maverick.'

    Republican rank and file will 'line up' as they always do. Only a small hand full of extremists will stay home.

    Parent

    Maybe im wrong (5.00 / 1) (#234)
    by Chisoxy on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 01:05:14 AM EST
    But moveon.org, if its known at all, is known as activist/elite/ and liberal wing of democrats. I dont see how this hurts her right now, and I think they are overshooting here. Mind you, Im not complete 100% on SanFran hurting him now either, but its potentially deadly in the fall. So shes blaming activist liberals of intimidating regular people at caucuses. This hurts how? It wont trun any liberal supporters away, most of her supporters agree with that.

    Parent
    where have the progressives gone on this (none / 0) (#255)
    by AgreeToDisagree on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 01:51:48 AM EST
    site?  

    MoveOn - bad, elite
    San Francisco - bad, elite
    Activists - bad, elite

    ???  

    Why not add in Iowa, Georgia, Minnesota, Nebraska, etc.?


    Parent

    uh, what? (5.00 / 1) (#263)
    by Chisoxy on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 02:23:13 AM EST
    I didn't say moveon was an evil or bad org. But in terms of regular voters/conservatives its viewed as very liberal. Her being upset at a liberal organization for voter intimidation isnt very damaging. I dont see her losing votes over this.

    Parent
    The MSM (none / 0) (#98)
    by bjorn on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 09:34:12 PM EST
    has been pushing the idea that it is definitely over for Hillary, but even they admitted the Newsweek poll was definitely not reflective of what is going on. That poll gave Obama a 15 point National lead.  On the other hand, the daily tracking poll shows the national percentages closing and now a statistical tie.  So there is so much info out there from every end of the spectrum but the MSM tends to emphasize only the info that favors Obama.  I have a gut feeling that Clinton may have actually turned this around. I will be surprised if she does not win by 10 points or more in PA.

    Parent
    McCain + October Surprise (none / 0) (#5)
    by santarita on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 07:53:28 PM EST
    The article in New Republic doesn't directly mention it by a national security emergency in October makes McCain's military experience a huge advantage over Obama's overall lack of experience.  

    No need for any of that: (5.00 / 4) (#9)
    by MarkL on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 07:56:05 PM EST
    just blanket the airwaves with some of Obama's best hits: the several "no one has done more than me.." comments; the "I"m more qualified than McCain because of Indonesia" nonsense; the "bitter" comments, of course---and these will be shown in the context, which is that Obama was explaining why people weren't voting for a "46 year old black man";
    etc.
    Truly, no major candidate has ever given the opposition so much ammunition, and so freely, as Obama.

    Parent
    OT -- How old is Obama? (none / 0) (#20)
    by angie on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 08:06:55 PM EST
    in SF he called himself a "46 year old" at the PA debate he said what Ayers did was "40 years ago when [he] was 8 years old."  So, is he 46 or 48? or does he lie so much he even lies about his age?

    Parent
    He's 1 month older than me---46. (none / 0) (#23)
    by MarkL on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 08:07:44 PM EST
    Man, you're old (5.00 / 2) (#58)
    by waldenpond on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 08:46:24 PM EST
    I'm only 45... get out of the way, we young people are taking over the party.  woohoo!

    Parent
    By the convention, he'll be 47 (none / 0) (#60)
    by Cream City on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 08:47:00 PM EST
    just looked up the birthdate -- as I've seen both 46 and 47 lately -- so as to avoid confusion then. :-)

    Parent
    Exactly (none / 0) (#19)
    by ruffian on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 08:05:55 PM EST
    Bush still has some cards left to play in this whole thing.

    Also, I thought of one big thing McCain can do to thwart Obama's plans to win Colorado.  He could select former CO governor Bill Owens as his running mate. Owens was close to Bush, and thought of as potential running mate material in the future for him if Cheney had dropped out in 2004. He's popular with the influential  Colorado Springs contingent of the religious right.  He left office on good terms in Colorado - he was term limited out. He's fairly moderate, bland, and an attractive enough candidate.

    Anyway, I just think the things Obama is counting on to win without Ohio and FL are not going to materialize. There are too many ways for McCain to out-maneuver him.

    Parent

    McCain is going to choose someone (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by MMW on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 08:22:25 PM EST
    younger, successful, and can cover his ass on the economy.

    He'll choose Romney. East coast, got Michigan, brought Massachusetts healthcare. Say goodbye to Michigan, Massachusetts and all the other states in between. And a chunk of the blue collar dem vote.

    Huckabee (sp) could work too.

    Parent

    You said it (none / 0) (#43)
    by Stellaaa on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 08:27:41 PM EST
    Romney dropped out and made a deal.  He will be the VP, one term then the Pres, when McCain will be too old for second term.  Romney will give him Republican style econ credentials.  Simple.

    Parent
    That's been my thought from the (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by MMW on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 08:35:04 PM EST
    moment he dropped out. I've always thought it was obvious, but then again I think President HRC is a no-brainer.

    Parent
    Hagel (none / 0) (#48)
    by Forlorn Hope on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 08:35:23 PM EST
    Could he possibly go with Chuck Hagel? Hagel is the only Republican that I respect. I know he is conservative but I think he is honest and honorable. I won't vote for Obama but I would feel better about McCain if he did not pick a nut for vice president.

    Parent
    I think he needs economic cover (none / 0) (#59)
    by MMW on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 08:46:29 PM EST
    more than anything else. And I don't see Hagel giving him that or bringing in a large enough voting block.

    With Romney, he has a good chance of taking states bordering MA, and the blue collar dems.

    Parent

    SUSA (4.50 / 2) (#74)
    by sas on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 08:56:06 PM EST
    has McCain behind Obama by only 2 in MASS....so much for the power of Kennedy and Kerry.  Plus, our good sisters in that state are ticked off at those two knuckleheadsq over the Michigan/ Florida delegate problem.

    SUSA has Hillary up in Mass by a large margin over McCain.

    Parent

    Never Hagel (none / 0) (#175)
    by zyx on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 10:55:59 PM EST
    Hagel is anti-war.

    Parent
    Ayup--AND (none / 0) (#26)
    by Kathy on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 08:10:18 PM EST
    Rezko trial will probably end in Oct.  That'll be but one more nail by then.

    Parent
    ps: not to imply Obama is under investigation (none / 0) (#28)
    by Kathy on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 08:11:10 PM EST
    for anything related to Rezko, but that the trial will conflate his "questionable associations" problem.

    Parent
    McCain could choose Colin Powell as VP (none / 0) (#34)
    by felizarte on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 08:15:44 PM EST
    in which case at least half of the AA vote will leave Obama if he is the nominee.  

    Parent
    Half, I don't think so. (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by Maria Garcia on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 08:42:20 PM EST
    ..for sure the Republican African Americans will, but that's about it.

    Parent
    No, Powell also is 70 (5.00 / 2) (#63)
    by Cream City on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 08:48:22 PM EST
    and, as I've noted before here and as the NR notes, age will be the obstacle for McCain.  So he needs a younger VP to balance the ticket re that concern.

    Parent
    Also, he was one of the guys (none / 0) (#72)
    by madamab on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 08:55:59 PM EST
    in the room with Cheney when they were discussing exactly how they would torture "suspected terrorists."

    Not an ideal choice for supposedly anti-torture McCain.

    Parent

    I don't think... (none / 0) (#198)
    by Jerrymcl89 on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 11:39:31 PM EST
    ... it's possible for a GOP ticket headed by McCain to poach AA votes from Obama, even if Powell or Rice was on it. McCain will seek to chip away at Obama in other ways.

    I still think McCain will choose Romney, since that automatically puts 20-30 million in his campaign coffers, and relieves the need to work so hard on fundraising. Plus, Romney has economic credentials, and strikes most people as capable of being President, even if they don't like him all that much.

    Parent

    The (none / 0) (#67)
    by sas on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 08:53:23 PM EST
    Republican internal polls show McCain winning Colorado over either Democrat.  The Repugs are quite happy with the numbers they see there.

    Parent
    Colorado (none / 0) (#91)
    by ineedalife on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 09:15:15 PM EST
    I actually think the anti-affirmative action amendment is going to eliminate CO for Obama. Same for Missouri.

    Parent
    Don't Think Obama Could Win MO Even Without (none / 0) (#125)
    by MO Blue on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 10:13:51 PM EST
    he anti-affirmative action amendment. IMO he would just win the typical Dem strongholds and that would not be enough to squeak out a win. Of course, the Republicans added the amendment for extra insurance just to make sure.

    Parent
    owens isn't a popular guy in CO (none / 0) (#170)
    by TheRefugee on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 10:49:52 PM EST
    except with the crowd that would already vote McCain anyway.  He is definitely not capable of creating a bump.

    Four years ago Owens was the Obama of the GOP, fast riser, money raiser, popular with talking heads and party leaders...then he had some personal issues, CO's economy (run by Dem Gov Romer successfully ((kinda like Clinton nationally)) tanked and he alienated his base by doing what was fiscally responsible for the state:  freezing TABOR.  Owens is a pos hack but the funny thing was is that he didn't create TABOR, Mr. Kix Reporters did (Douglas Bruce).

    Parent

    actually (none / 0) (#173)
    by TheRefugee on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 10:52:05 PM EST
    Owens longtime support for TABOR and then freezing it may make Owens a liability to McCain in CO.  Kinda like 'no new taxes' did in Bush1.

    Parent
    I agree santarita- (none / 0) (#70)
    by kenosharick on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 08:54:52 PM EST
    bush might still be cooking up some attack against Iran, and I cannot see voters going for Obama in the middle of an international cricis such as that. BTW Camille- Hillary has been vetted for 15+ years and Barack's MANY scandals are NEW!!!

    Parent
    Maybe Osama's death will be announced then (5.00 / 1) (#128)
    by felizarte on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 10:18:27 PM EST
    even if he may have died some time before.  It will be touted as the sign of success of the Bush policy.  Then McCain can say there is success in Iraq and he is all for withdrawing the troops.

    That is why, Hillary was smart to say:  "If this administration has not ended the war in Iraq by the time I am president; I will end it."  That is experience talking.

    Parent

    This article rings true, (none / 0) (#8)
    by Salt on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 07:54:23 PM EST
    I'm already hearing it already McCain is an acceptable Republican and Obama is now considered an unacceptable Democrat to what degree I do not know and we are in a battleground.  And my district is now again leaning RED according to some poll today, ARGH!

    I'm heading out for the night soon, but (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by MarkL on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 07:57:31 PM EST
    let tell you: even many months ago you could find lots of Dems who like McCain. I believe he is far more popular with Democrats than any other Republican in decades. And now? This election is his to lose if Obama is the nominee.


    Parent
    I do believe his VP matters a great deal, however (none / 0) (#14)
    by Salt on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 08:01:35 PM EST
    And as NR sort of implies, Vietnam vets (none / 0) (#68)
    by Cream City on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 08:53:34 PM EST
    may bring in some numbers for McCain, as worked for vets to get to Congress in usually red states.  Of course, there are many Vietnam vets antiwar to this day.

    But I've heard some say that they haven't had a Vietnam veteran in the White House yet -- since Gore and Kerry didn't get there -- while there were many World War II veterans who won the presidency.  It does seem to be a significant point of pride, in a group that didn't get deserved recognition in their time.  

    Parent

    too bad McCain's not a black woman.... (none / 0) (#119)
    by Maria Garcia on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 10:05:28 PM EST
    ...cause then we could all be happy. <snark>

    Parent
    I agree. (none / 0) (#107)
    by BostonIndependent on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 09:52:24 PM EST
    In fact, after the way Obama and the MSM has been treating Senator Clinton, I'm seriously warming up to the idea of voting for McCain if Obama is the democratic nominee. So are several of my friends. I don't know if MA will go solidly blue this year -- it still might.. but I believe it's not going to be a sure thing that Obama will win MA.

    Parent
    So, ya'll disagree ... (none / 0) (#142)
    by Tortmaster on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 10:33:24 PM EST
    ... with Hillary when she says "Yes, yes, yes"?

    Parent
    YES! (5.00 / 1) (#239)
    by echinopsia on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 01:16:06 AM EST
    John Judis' crystal ball doesn't wor k so well (none / 0) (#17)
    by AdrianLesher on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 08:05:29 PM EST
    In the fall of 2007, he said:

    Front-loading large Northeastern, Midwestern, and Western states like this will probably benefit the current front-runner, moderate Rudy Giuliani. But GOP convention rules that benefit more conservative states will aid his opponents, thus encouraging stalemate.

    The result of this would be:

    [W]hen the Republicans meet in Minneapolis-St. Paul in September 2008 to choose their nominee, they might be looking at a brokered convention.

    The Democrats would have a much less eventful primary:

    Democrats seem far less likely to face this sort of challenge next year. Indeed, Hillary Clinton appears to be putting her competition behind her, and none of her challengers has a built-in regional advantage that will ensure a respectable block of delegates. Barack Obama can probably count on Illinois, but nowhere else. And John Edwards may not even be able to win the Carolinas.

    .....Obama, for all his celebrity, is still a junior senator who will be pressured to bow out by his home-state Democrats and colleagues in Washington if he doesn't look sufficiently competitive after February 5.


    pundits are universally disappointing... (none / 0) (#22)
    by white n az on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 08:07:44 PM EST
    and clearly here is no exception.

    Parent
    nice. n/t (none / 0) (#139)
    by Faust on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 10:29:35 PM EST
    I need to remember this link... (none / 0) (#18)
    by white n az on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 08:05:46 PM EST
    the next time some Obamabot makes a comment about using right wing talking points.

    Thanks for wasting my time.

    What is it about Obama? (none / 0) (#27)
    by Maise7 on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 08:11:07 PM EST
    Okay, he's a great speaker. The mantra about hope and change are great and all, but really, what else is there? I just don't see it. And no matter what he does, it doesn't seem to really effect him in the polls. I mean, c'mon, he insulted an entire group of people in PA. Nothing. His pastor has made controversial statements. Nothing. He's thrown his own punches to Hillary. Nothing. But when Hillary exaggerates the Bosnia trip. She's a liar. When Bill misstates, SHE is a liar. When she makes a jab at Obama, her campaign tactics are Rovian like. I mean, get real! Obama isn't as innocent as he looks. People need to get off the Obama trip and think rationally. He can't win the big states in the GE. You think Hillary is bad, just wait until the GOP gets a hold of him.

    I will vote for him if he gets the nom. I just think Hillary is being unfairly attacked on some things.

    I urge both Obama and Hillary supporters: Whoever gets the nom, don't get 'bitter' (haha) and vote for McCain.

    What is it about Obama? (none / 0) (#44)
    by Citizen Rat on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 08:31:09 PM EST
    He was to be honest, always my third or fourth choice.

    Clinton was my fifth.

    But over time, he has grown on me.

    He is smart enough to understand the complexity and depth of the issues. He can think on his feet. He is articulate. He can take a punch and he can throw a punch. He's not going to back down against right wing Republican smears.

    And while he takes stances that are more conservative than I would like, I believe that in the end, he will change the discourse in American politics. He will open up the system and he will be a change agent.

    Hillary will crush the grass roots, progressive base. She just said so.

    She is smart. She is tough. And until just now, I was prepared to pull a lever for her and then go home and wash my hands in the strongest anti-bacterial soap I could find.

    But now, she has told me she does not want the support of people like me.

    So, I'm thinking if she wins-its Nader time.

    Parent

    Current grass roots (5.00 / 3) (#45)
    by Stellaaa on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 08:32:38 PM EST
    are neither grass nor progressive.

    Parent
    You're so right (1.00 / 1) (#49)
    by Citizen Rat on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 08:38:38 PM EST
    I mean those grass roots are dominated by people with college educations, or who are members of labor unions, or active in anti-war movements.

    You know-those out of touch, latte sipping, orange juice orderin', anti-global warming activist, prius drivin, Kerry votin', Gore draftin' supporting, and now, Obama voting and going to caucuses...kind of people.

    Not like those good, stalwart activists of the Democratic Party who haven't voted for a Democrat since Jimmy Carter.

    Parent

    You have no idea what you're talking about. (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by madamab on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 08:41:16 PM EST
    It's embarrassing.

    HRC is getting more Democratic voters than Obama. Why do you think that is?

    I have no intentions of voting for McCain, but Obama will most certainly lose the GE to him.

    Parent

    Astro turf (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by Stellaaa on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 08:41:17 PM EST
    Created by Axelrove:  

    Just like your careerist Community Organizer Obama, who did not notice affordable housing in his own district going to rot.  

    Parent

    The Dem base is the working class (none / 0) (#71)
    by Cream City on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 08:55:35 PM EST
    so you simply make no sense, CitizenRat.

    Parent
    Unemployment @3.8% (5.00 / 1) (#136)
    by flashman on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 10:28:20 PM EST
    When Clinton left office.  He created jobs.  Bush lost them.

    Parent
    you need to get your facts straight (none / 0) (#190)
    by TheRefugee on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 11:25:57 PM EST
    on NAFTA, it wasn't a Clinton brainchild.  He supported it because it had the potential to expand the economy and create jobs--which it DID.  The parts that Clinton/Obama want rewritten are the loopholes and tax incentives that, in essence, reward companies for relocating.  But on the whole, free trade is a good thing.  There is plenty of new industry to take the place of the old so job loss hasn't been across the board.  The problem is that new types of industry have new types of manufacturing/needs...it is cheaper for them to build new plants etc in states that offer tax breaks to lure businesses (like CO in the 90's, WY and TX is doing now), cheaper to build new plants than remodel an existing plant (auto manufacturing isn't gone from the US it just isn't based in MI anymore).  

    Parent
    I diasgree (5.00 / 2) (#104)
    by MichaelGale on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 09:44:30 PM EST
    with just about everything you stated.

    He can think on his feet?  Did you watch the debate?
    He can take a punch and give a punch?  1 point; he does punch but take a punch?  Did you watch the debate? Smart enough to understand the complexity of the issues? DYWTD Change the discourse in American politics? Are you reading anything on this site? A change agent? I can't even begin to list why that is wrong.

    You are speaking a robotic language and I have heard it stated almost exactly a 1000+ times.

    Parent

    Well (none / 0) (#77)
    by sas on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 08:59:30 PM EST
    the grass roots is certainly not progressive.  I don't see how one can be progressive and anti-female, or anti people of color for that matter.

    Parent
    you need to inform CNN (5.00 / 2) (#114)
    by white n az on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 09:59:08 PM EST
    because their portrait of Hillary tonight (AC 360) had a ton of plaudits for her feminist efforts and actually said that she has long been one of the major voices for feminist issues.

    They obviously don't have your incisive analysis...

    and one other point that they raised was that in 1991 (pre-first lady, in fact, pre-announcement of Bill's intentions to run), she was rated as one of the 100 most influential people in the country.

    I'm sure you'll just chalk that up to her being the governor's wife.

    Imagine what a stretch it would be if you could find some nice things to say about her.

    Parent

    sort of reminds me... (none / 0) (#210)
    by white n az on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 11:55:57 PM EST
    of the "No one has been more outspoken in denouncing anti-Semitism" comment...

    First of all, MoveOn.org has injected themselves into this campaign.

    Second of all, you probably missed his Annie Oakley ridicule because it was just this week so your claim that he hasn't attacked her for being a woman is simply not credible.

    I appreciate the fact that to win the nomination, that Obama has had to eviscerate all things Clinton, the only Democrat to be elected since 1976.

    It's rather pathetic that to get what he desires, he has to destroy a segment of the party but that's the choice he made and we all have to deal with it.

    The superior choice is clearly a debatable point. The problem is that he cannot win in November. What good would it do to win the nomination and lose the general? Will that make you feel better because I simply cannot see a way that he can win in the general election...of course, I am not all knowing and I've been wrong before.

    The fact that you don't see the sexism is because you're a guy...women NEVER miss it.

    PS: I'm a guy and I see some of it.

    Parent

    Beholden (none / 0) (#231)
    by Stellaaa on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 01:01:30 AM EST
    To Nuclear Power companies, coal and nice big pharmas.  Beholden to Wall Street, that's why they want him, he will not have the back bone to fight them.  Seeing all that shiny future $$$$$. Beholden to Oprah.  Beholden, beholden.  Rezko, so that he did not see what Rezko was doing in his own neighborhood, when poor black tenants lost their housing.  Beholden.  Did not take much for him to be beholden.  

    Parent
    I hope you are paid by the word... (none / 0) (#232)
    by white n az on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 01:04:02 AM EST
    because you're making more money than points here. I guess I don't understand the amusement of coming around just to say things that no one else believes, no one really wants to hear with no chance of changing anyones mind.

    I don't understand your desire to come here and post this stuff up.

    20 points eh? PA? I don't think she's gonna win by that much and neither does anyone else. How is anyone to take you seriously when you put up straw man arguments?

    Well, she will win decisively in PA, BIG in WV and KY, comfortably in IN, MT she will lose in NC, and finally, OR and SD are close.

    She isn't going to quit...no matter how much you want her to. You live in fantasy world...I hope it's rewarding.


    Parent

    You object to her policies? (none / 0) (#254)
    by IzikLA on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 01:48:36 AM EST
    Yet aren't those the same policies that Obama has adopted and made his own with a shinier finish or hope and unity (with a hefty helping of tearing down the democratic party and the Clinton years)?  

    And sorry, but your man Obama is just as politically motivated and savvy as she is.  He is not some great example of the far left ideals and even if he was that is not the way to a winning ticket in November, I hate to point out.  I am extremely left, more so than these candidates, but I know you need to project something much more centrist to actually win in the General.

    Parent

    On just one point (5.00 / 1) (#207)
    by cal1942 on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 11:52:31 PM EST
    there are certainly many more.

    Have you read the speech Hillary gave in Beijing?

    I didn't think so.

    Nothing personal Skex, but you're trying to bat way out of your league here.

    Parent

    Hahaha! Bared! (none / 0) (#106)
    by Kathy on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 09:52:20 PM EST
    I was hoping you'd get banned, but now I'm kind of hoping you stick around because your typos and bad grammar are pretty freakin' entertaining!

    Parent
    Kathy - please... (none / 0) (#116)
    by white n az on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 10:00:07 PM EST
    this is about ideas, not about spelling/grammar.

    If you want to argue ideas, I say go for it.

    Parent

    You a Hardball watcher? (none / 0) (#177)
    by nycstray on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 10:57:35 PM EST
    You don't seem to know much about NYS politics. For starters, we've been more of a red state than blue . . .

    Nor do you seem to know much about her experience.

    Parent

    Oh my God (none / 0) (#201)
    by cal1942 on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 11:43:59 PM EST
    "He is smart enough to understand the complexity and depth of the issues"

    You're kidding, right?  

    That goes for the rest of it as well.

    Parent

    Too late re the bitterness.... (none / 0) (#57)
    by Maria Garcia on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 08:45:44 PM EST
    ...I'm already there...but not voting for McCain.

    Parent
    Third party... (none / 0) (#80)
    by reynwrap582 on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 09:00:59 PM EST
    I'm not going to vote for McCain, but after this campaign I don't think I could stomach a vote for Obama.  Every other dem on the ticket is getting a vote, but my vote for President is going to probably directed to a third party candidate (not Nader).

    Have no fear, though, Washington State is undoubtedly going for Obama if he gets the nom.  If polling indicates that it's going to be very close, though, I may revise my plan, but I won't be happy about it.

    Parent

    I'm from Washington state too (none / 0) (#140)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 10:31:18 PM EST
    (Seattle area) and I suspect it could go either way.  Yes, he'll take Seattle in a heartbeat, but the rest of the state could be different.

    Parent
    By the time the election rolls around... (none / 0) (#278)
    by reynwrap582 on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 03:50:53 AM EST
    True...whenever I think of how well Obama did here, I tend to automatically consider the caucus results...  But I guess the primary results show he's not quite as solid here as it would seem.  I'd like to avoid voting for him if possible, hopefully there'll be some state-wide polling shortly before election day that will help me finalize my decision.

    By then I'll be living in Eastern Washington (my wife is going to the Criminal Justice Grad Program at WSU, I'll probably finish my bachelor's in CJ there too), which is pretty red...it feels like a whole different state!  We ought to split the state down through the cascades!

    Parent

    Write in Hillary. I am. (none / 0) (#178)
    by nycstray on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 10:59:36 PM EST
    I figure I may as well vote for who I want to vote for this year if the Dem officials sell me out.

    Parent
    That's one of my options... (none / 0) (#280)
    by reynwrap582 on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 03:52:54 AM EST
    If I can't find a third party that isn't too nutty for my tastes (not that the two major parties aren't ridiculously nutty in their own rights), I'll probably end up writing in Hillary...or Wes Clark.

    Parent
    Thought Money Was Given To The PLO ..... (none / 0) (#35)
    by PssttCmere08 on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 08:16:27 PM EST
    ....when Kahlidi funneled it to them after getting it from the Woods Fund that Obama and Ayers (weather underground) were on the board.

    Dick Morris is a dick.

    That is some pretty successful spin (none / 0) (#46)
    by sphealey on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 08:34:52 PM EST
    6 weeks ago Senator Clinton was up 18 points in PA.  Her lead has now dropped to 3 points, which is an astonishing collapse of support.  But now the spin is somehow back to Obama needed to outright win PA?  When did that happen?

    sPh

    Survey USA says she leads by 14. (5.00 / 3) (#50)
    by tigercourse on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 08:40:24 PM EST
    Survey USA has been the best this year.

    Parent
    One of Camille's (none / 0) (#53)
    by waldenpond on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 08:42:15 PM EST
    choice comments...  [Hillary a Dem? I think KOS is voicing, perhaps in an over-the-top fashion, the disgust of many Dems in seeing Hillary taking her cues from Karl Rove and Co.]

    You can guess what BTDs response was.

    Lots of people seem to be bored with Kos lately.  Does anyone know what is going on over there?  Lots of frustration leaking out.

    I'll (5.00 / 3) (#65)
    by sas on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 08:51:15 PM EST
    remember Hillary's Republican talking points every time I remember how Obama praised Regan, and asked Repugs to "Dems for a Day" here in PA, so they could vote against Hillary.

    Parent
    The Republican Party has no winning issue (none / 0) (#79)
    by downtownted on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 09:00:25 PM EST
    If the Dems cannot nominate a Presidential candidate who can garner at least 340 electoral votes and bring about a veto over ride Congress, what do the voters in the center do? The Democratic party machinery is much more difficult to overcome than that of the Republicans in the 60s and 70s that allowed the Goldwater backers to take over.

    If the Dems should lose this election, where will the center go?  We want to win. We want the presidency and veto proof majorities in the House and Senate. How could a leadership be so corrupt that it would allow a candidacy that could lose this election? The democrats should have won easily in 2004. We didn't. 2008 is a slam dunk. Name one issue where any poll shows a Republican is ahead (war, economy, dollar, etc.). But the leadership gets to full of itself and hubris raises its worrisome head. What do we do with a party that snatches defeat from the jaws of victory. I will vote for the nominee. What do we do is that nominee is too weak to win?

    The campaign won't be about issues (5.00 / 1) (#108)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 09:53:07 PM EST
    It will be about politics and personality.


    Parent
    what do you mean-- (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by Kathy on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 09:56:06 PM EST
    about politics and personality?!  Why, that's never the case!  No one cares about perceptions!  It's all about talent and skill.  Oh, wait, I thought you were talking about American Idol.  Nevermind.

    Parent
    No foul language (none / 0) (#90)
    by waldenpond on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 09:14:50 PM EST
    go check out the rules.  Use symbols a$$ etc...
    :)

    I deleted that comment (none / 0) (#169)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 10:48:49 PM EST
    thanks.

    Parent
    Historical Defection Rate (none / 0) (#93)
    by waldenpond on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 09:19:22 PM EST
    Here's an interesting piece that goes to Obama's chances... BTD might like this one...

    WILL DISAPPOINTED DEMS VOTE FOR MCCAIN?

    [Since 1992, however, the Democratic defection rate has been much lower -- less than 10 percent, which is about the same as the Republican defection rate.]

    Obama has no problem surviving a 10% defection rate. His other issues would be the switch of indies and the Republican turnout increase.

    Oftentimes (5.00 / 2) (#193)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 11:28:54 PM EST
    I can only speak for myself.  My experience here is that I start out thinking I'm the only one thinking what I'm thinking and then I'm proved wrong to a certain degree.  A lot of other people seem to think the same things I do about all this.  Not everyone.  Just a lot, and maybe enough to hobble Obama in the GE.  This is not a self-absorbed thing.  It is merely a realization that I am not alone in having certain impressions about this Primary.

    There's some good history in that link.  My guess is all of us have experienced not getting our way in a primary before.  I know I have.

    The question now is that experience now substantively different than what we've experienced in this Primary?

    Primaries have been nasty, but something stinks here.  Maybe if it was just one thing less.  Take away the media environment.  Take away the disenfranchisement of MI and FL.  Take away the destruction of the Clinton legacy.

    Just take one of those things away, and maybe things are different.

    I think there was a tipping point here.

    I can only speak for myself.  For me there has been a tipping point.

    Parent

    I don't believe (none / 0) (#109)
    by MichaelGale on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 09:54:41 PM EST
    the 10% is valid this time.  I am betting he loses 25%, at least.

    He will lose PA, Fl, MI, OH, MA.  He can't win.

    Parent

    That's not what Hillary ... (1.00 / 1) (#156)
    by Tortmaster on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 10:38:21 PM EST
    ... said in the debate. Obama sure can win -- "Yes, yes, yes." Now let's all get behind him.

    Parent
    You mean get behind her surely. (none / 0) (#176)
    by RalphB on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 10:56:58 PM EST
    So, how do these two answers differ? (none / 0) (#237)
    by cymro on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 01:15:24 AM EST
    Debate transcript

    MR. STEPHANOPOULOS: But the question is, do you think Senator Obama can do that? Can he win?

    SENATOR CLINTON: Yes. Yes. Yes. Now, I think that I can do a better job. (Laughter.) I mean, obviously, that's why I'm here.

    ...

    MR. STEPHANOPOULOS: Senator Obama, do yo think Senator Clinton can win?

    SENATOR OBAMA: Absolutely, and I've said so before. But I too think that I'm the better candidate. (Laughter.) And I don't think that surprises anybody.

    To me, these answers are exactly equivalent. So can you explain why you (and others in the media) have emphasized Clinton's answer and ignored Obama's?

    Are you assigning more weight to Clinton's response because she said "Yes" three times, while he said "Absolutely" just once? Or do you just grasp the meaning of "Yes" more readily than "Absolutely,"  perhaps because it is a smaller word?

    Just wondering.


    Parent

    Interesting article (none / 0) (#123)
    by stillife on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 10:09:52 PM EST
    but I would question the assertion that Dems have become more liberal since the 70's.  Both parties have moved to the right.  The reason why hardcore Dems (like me) have stuck with the party up till now is because liberal Republicans are a thing of the past.  


    Parent
    Yoohoo! (none / 0) (#97)
    by aequitas on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 09:33:56 PM EST
    More states, more votes, more delegates, more money, bigger crowds, a better campaign organization, and higher poll numbers.

    Now, tell me again how he's unelectable.......

    The GE is not the same as the (none / 0) (#99)
    by bjorn on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 09:36:01 PM EST
    primary.  I think Obama can win the national election but it will not be easy.  He actually will have a much tougher time than most supporters like yourself seem to think.  And he does have more states and more money, but don't be surprised if Clinton ends up with the most votes.  

    Parent
    Barack "No Mas" Obama? (none / 0) (#102)
    by ineedalife on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 09:42:17 PM EST
    The  first debate that he gets asked a tough question and he goes running, crying into the night.

    That is why he is un-electable.

    Parent

    All we need (none / 0) (#147)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 10:35:28 PM EST
    is one little terrorist threat and I'll be shocked if he wins Illinois.

    Parent
    why? (5.00 / 1) (#257)
    by AgreeToDisagree on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 01:53:53 AM EST
    that attitude is what is wrong with this place.

    And Hillary's experience in this area is what?

    judgement.  

    She's lost - get over it.  

    Parent

    I think you missed the point (5.00 / 1) (#277)
    by cymro on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 03:43:58 AM EST
    that attitude is what is wrong with this place.

    There was no "attitude" as you put it. There is, however, a genuine concern that the Repubs will demolish Obama in the GE. Summoning up a convenient "October Surprise" that plays into McCain's campaign  strategy is just one of the tactics they are likely to use.

    Many of us don't believe Obama is ready to be President, and his immaturity will be highlighted (even more than it is already) if he is the nominee.

    And btw, isn't this:

    She's lost - get over it.

    an example of someone with an "attitude"? Glass houses, and all that ...

    Parent

    Don't worry about it (none / 0) (#271)
    by Edgar08 on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 03:08:06 AM EST
    We're not trying to destroy anyone.


    Parent
    good analysis, but (none / 0) (#113)
    by ghost2 on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 09:58:07 PM EST
    Anytime, an article mentions that something (in this case, losing PA by 15 points) will start media questioning Obama's credibility (or electability or preparedness...), I lose interest.

    I promise you, Obama could lose by more than 20 points in PA, and the next morning media again will write stories on "why she just won't quit" and "the math is against her".  I promise they all ignore FL and MI yet again.  

    If Hillary just gets neutral press, never mind favorable, she'll eat his lunch.

    Yeah, try doing a google news (none / 0) (#118)
    by Exeter on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 10:05:04 PM EST
    search for Clinton and then Obama. Every other Clinton story the last two months has been either that she has no chance or that she should quit. Yet, every other Obama story is about how he is "gaining" in Pennsylvania.

    Parent
    If she wins by 15 (none / 0) (#120)
    by bjorn on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 10:07:22 PM EST
    points or more, I do think the press, not MSNBC, but everyone else will really start a new narrative.  I think if she pulls that off it will be the beginning of the end for Obama.  But we aren't there yet, although I am keeping my fingers crossed.

    Parent
    I'd respond to this... (none / 0) (#137)
    by white n az on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 10:28:40 PM EST
    but since it will be deleted because of language, it would be a waste of time.

    exactly (none / 0) (#172)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 10:50:18 PM EST
    It was deleted for languange and Citizen Rat is warned to read the comment rules if he wants to comment here.

    Parent
    you could have deleted my comment too... (none / 0) (#205)
    by white n az on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 11:47:09 PM EST
    it was sort of a marker in case you missed the vulgar reference in the original comment

    Parent
    This is not the GE (none / 0) (#138)
    by barryluda on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 10:28:41 PM EST
    I agree with The New Republic (and why, again, do we care what TNR thinks?) that it's unlikely but possible for Clinton to win the nomination if she wins PA by over 15%, and then the media -- instead of rallying around Obama which it so often seems to do -- starts a "firestorm" that leads to other primary defeats which convinces enough Super Delegates to support Clinton.  Certainly seems possible.

    What I don't agree with is that with all of the struggle between Clinton and Obama today, that we have much of an idea of how things will play out when it comes to McCain vs. Clinton or McCain vs. Obama.  Right now, the republican's are as unified as they're going to be and the democrats are (tongue firmly in cheek) as divided as they're going to be.

    I'm starting to think the real issue that the Supers have to deal with isn't who has the most delegates, or who has the most momentum, or who is polling the best.  I think the important question to determine who has the best chance versus McCain, may well be to figure out which one becoming the democratic nominee does the least damage to party unity.

    I also think there are enough people on both sides that understand that this will weigh on the minds of the Supers, so that any analysis today about which does better against McCain needs to take that into account (that is, someone might say today that they'd never vote for Obama/Clinton, when in fact they will when the alternative is staying home or voting for McCain).


    I live in republican territorry (5.00 / 3) (#161)
    by Leisa on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 10:42:08 PM EST
    many female republicans I know said they will vote for Hillary, not Obama.  Why does no one discuss this?

    Parent
    we discuss it (5.00 / 1) (#171)
    by Kathy on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 10:50:11 PM EST
    but if it's something positive about Clinton winning voters, you won't see it talked about elsewhere.  I've got a handful of women republican friends who are switching to vote for Clinton.  They are excited and energized and will run right back to McCain if Obama gets the nom.

    Which I don't think will happen, so we're glad to have them in the fold.

    Parent

    Good question (none / 0) (#166)
    by bjorn on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 10:47:55 PM EST
    and for the record I think you are right!

    Parent
    Disagree (none / 0) (#158)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 10:39:42 PM EST
    I suspect the superD's are as polarized as anyone else.  They're embedded with their candidate and will justify in their own minds their vote for whoever that is.

    Parent
    But, being politicians, ... (none / 0) (#261)
    by cymro on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 01:57:05 AM EST
    ... I suspect that most of the supers would much prefer to pick a winner in the GE and have a Democrat in the WH. So once there is serious doubt that Obama can actually beat McCain, that will weigh heavily in the supers' decisions.

    Parent
    but you are convinced (none / 0) (#144)
    by Stellaaa on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 10:35:12 PM EST
    they will vote for Obama and that you will all hold hands and walk down the seashore singing, some Disney song.  

    I don't understand the relevency of your post (none / 0) (#148)
    by kayla on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 10:35:31 PM EST
    "Any Democrat who runs is going to have to deal with a barrage of Republican attacks-just like the centrist Clinton had to deal with it. And just wait to see what they have in store for Hillary."

    Well, duh.  The most annoying Obama supporters who come here are the ones who think they're profound.

    Were you replying to a comment ... (none / 0) (#244)
    by cymro on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 01:25:56 AM EST
    ... that was later deleted? If so, OK.

    If not, please reply to comments (and not just to the original post) because comment order gets adjusted by people's ratings.

    Parent

    Wayy to many (none / 0) (#150)
    by Stellaaa on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 10:36:27 PM EST
    exclamation points, that scares me even if you are on my side.  One is enough.  

    That was not an Obama campaign ad (none / 0) (#184)
    by Seth90212 on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 11:11:47 PM EST
    The union supporting Obama ran the ad. They were upset that Hillary was threatening lawsuits in order to somehow change the established rules. You could say that Obama should have disavowed the ad. But then again the climate had been poisoned by that time. After all, Hillary sent a last minute mailing in NH falsely stating that Obama was anti-choice. These mailing may have won NH for her. This, by the way, has caused lingering enmity within the NH democratic establishment.

    They were upset so they played a (5.00 / 2) (#217)
    by hairspray on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 12:15:54 AM EST
    radio ad essentially calling Clinton a f***ing W**e? Being upset does not allow anyone to do that.  No matter how upset Clinton has been I have never heard her campaign call Obama a racial slur. So it was okay to let it run, because they were so upset? Pathetic and your response is unacceptable.

    Parent
    No one called her that (none / 0) (#219)
    by Seth90212 on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 12:17:51 AM EST
    on that ad? Why would you even suggest that? What do you hope to gain?

    Parent
    You obviously don't understand the ad (5.00 / 3) (#229)
    by LatinoVoter on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 12:51:58 AM EST
    and yes indeed the ad was calling her a "F'ing W." Not only did it resort to a disgusting attack but the ad was also trying to drive a racial issue between Hillary and Latinos. I got the dog whistle in the ad when they said Hillary doesn't respect our people but Barack does.

    That ad was so disgusting that even John Edwards called on Barack to tell his supporters to knock it off and Barack remained silent. I can never forgive him for that and if that silence is any indication is what he is like on women's issues...

    Parent

    B.S. (none / 0) (#230)
    by Seth90212 on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 12:55:16 AM EST
    and we're just supposed to take your word for it? A billion Spanish speakers in the world and only you made this inference. I don't think so.

    Parent
    B.S. yourself (5.00 / 3) (#235)
    by echinopsia on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 01:07:45 AM EST
    A billion Spanish speakers in the world and this is the first time you've heard this about the ad?

    You've just heard from two Spanish speakers. I have heard this from many more. They're telling you the truth.

    You need to get out more and read something other than The Gospel According to Obama. Your guy is one of the dirtiest campaigners ever, but he keeps telling his supporters he's running a courteous, clean campaign, and they believe without question.

    Wake up.

    Parent

    Don't insult people's intelligence with this stuff (1.00 / 1) (#241)
    by Seth90212 on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 01:25:22 AM EST
    This is a fringe opinion at best. A fringe, kooky opinion.

    For its part, Clinton's campaign hosted a conference call yesterday afternoon with two members of its Hispanic Leadership Council, Dolores Huerta (a co-founder of the United Farm Workers) and Maria Echaveste (who served as a deputy chief of staff for President Bill Clinton). The women called on Obama to distance himself from the ad, which they labeled "desperate."

    So Hillary's most fervent Latino supporters did not gleen this same insult.

    And by the way, John Edwards denounced the ad, not its content.

    Parent

    Here's what you can do (5.00 / 1) (#258)
    by echinopsia on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 01:54:54 AM EST
    You live in LA. So go down to South Central, or heck, just walk up to an Hispanic  woman - preferably with her family around - and tell her "no tiene vergüenza."

    If it means she has no shame, you might make her and her family angry.

    If it means "You are a f*uckin wh*ore" - and she isn't - you're gonna be dead.

    Parent

    Here's what you can do (none / 0) (#260)
    by echinopsia on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 01:55:30 AM EST
    You live in LA. So go down to South Central, or heck, just walk up to an Hispanic  woman - preferably with her family around - and tell her "no tiene vergüenza."

    If it means she has no shame, you might make her and her family angry.

    If it means "You are a f*uckin wh*re" - and she isn't - you're gonna be dead.

    Parent

    Here is a (none / 0) (#242)
    by LoisInCo on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 01:25:34 AM EST
    link to John Edwards denouncing it.

    Parent
    Did you read the comment by #168? (none / 0) (#221)
    by hairspray on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 12:31:28 AM EST
    What did he say about what the ad meant?

    Parent
    Seth (none / 0) (#243)
    by IzikLA on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 01:25:40 AM EST
    Do you live in Beverly Hills?  If so I am just down the street!  Although I kind of think your assertions are a bit shoddy.  I'm actually a bit surprised Hillary won California.  Almost everyone I know is an Obama supporter and is quite the bully about it.  In fact, every Hillary supporter I know is quietly and steadfastly for her and I am proud to respectfully count myself among them.

    Parent
    No, my office is in that zip code. I live in (none / 0) (#248)
    by Seth90212 on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 01:31:53 AM EST
    West LA. Most people in this area and in BH were Hillary supporters at least during the primary. I suspect Obama might win CA if a vote was held in the present day.

    Nothing wrong with supporting Hillary. I'd be supporting her too if it weren't for Obama. I've always been a fan of hers. That probably describes millions of Obama supporters.

    Parent

    Camille (none / 0) (#195)
    by cal1942 on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 11:30:52 PM EST
    Nothing personal, but, you haven't been paying much attention.

    Ever hear the names Khalidi, Ayers, Obama?

    John Ridley... (5.00 / 1) (#200)
    by white n az on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 11:43:36 PM EST
    thinks that Ayers is a big problem for Obama...

    John Ridley on HuffPo on Obama's Ayers Issue

    Parent

    Verrry interesting (none / 0) (#222)
    by nellre on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 12:34:35 AM EST
    This shows a sufficiently devious mind consistent with that video of Obama flipping HRC and half the democratic voters off.
    As one Obama follower expressed it: '...perfect. Nobody can say for sure whether it was an intentional insult or just a cheek-scratching. It has deniable plausibility!'


    This is better than (none / 0) (#226)
    by onemanrules on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 12:46:24 AM EST
    Larry the Cable Guy. "Obama cant win", Give me a break. Last fall nobody even knew who the hell he was and now he is the front runner against HRC (not saying she still can't/won't win)and the very powerful Clinton machine. He has almost 1.4 million donors (don't think superdelegates aren't taking his fund raising abilities into account)to his campaign (that's how he outspends HRC). I think either HRC or Obama would make a lot better President than McCain would. Regardless of who wins the nomination I believe we need to realize that if McCain wins, there will be: A lot more dead and wounded troops in a farce of a war. His continuation of the Bush economic policies will further destroy our economy.
    We need to ask ourselves. Imagine your sitting at your kitchen table and you see two service men walking up the sidewalk to your neighbors house (or maybe your own house). They say, I'm sorry to inform you that your son/daughter has been killed in Iraq.
    Do we honestly want to say to ourselves: If I voted for HRC or Obama in the General I could have helped prevent this, but I just couldn't get past his/her tabloid issues. It is a must that we pull together for either of them this fall to prevent this.

    Anyone but Obama (5.00 / 1) (#272)
    by Serene1 on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 03:14:14 AM EST
    Give one good reason why people should vote for Obama over McCain. A Democrat should vote for a Democrat is not enough.

    Obama from all indications is another Bush Jr. Under tough questioning and conditions he looses his cool and is not able to handle pressure. His past record doesn't show any accomplishment or achievement whatsover based on which one can take a call on his so called superior judgement. In fact if one were to go by the nytimes article on Obama's record, one gets the distinct impression that Obama was too scared at most times to take a stand lest he left a paper trail.

    Besides, I really believe team Obama conducted a very disgusting campaign. Their whole campaign was centred around swiftboating of Hillary using republican talking points. I remember reading an article in Slate in which the journalist claimed that Team Obama used to corner a lot of journatist prodding them to find out more about Bill's post WH extra marital affairs. The reporters fortunately didn't take the bait. Team Obama have tried their level best to deride the clintons and rewrite History by saying that Clinton WH years are somehow comparable to Bush WH years.

    I ask you is this the new way of doing politics?

    Parent

    i just did above (none / 0) (#273)
    by onemanrules on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 03:25:41 AM EST
    vote for whomever you like, this is america. obviously you could care less about how close both dems are together on the issues. It has become personal for you. You also must not have noted that I put both Obama and Clinton as the nominee. Oh by the way, Obama is the frontrunner, he has to tread lightly when it comes to attacking in the debate. Hillary would do the same if she were in his position. If your hatred for Obama overrides the fact that McCain = more dead and wounded troops and a status quo economy that's your right.

    Parent
    I will vote present (none / 0) (#276)
    by Edgar08 on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 03:42:09 AM EST
    Or rather I might not find the time to vote because I'll be campaigning.

    That's my right, too.

    One of the reasons why Kerry lost is he did nothing to repair damage with loyalist Dean supporters.

    If it all works out the way I think it will, you'll have the choice to either blame Clinton supporters for being stubborn, selfish, prideful and shortsighted, or you can blame Obama for implementing a strategy that equated Clinton's econ policy with Bush's.

    Yes.  Lives are at stake.


    Parent

    that is a disgusting red herring (5.00 / 1) (#274)
    by boredmpa on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 03:31:48 AM EST
    I didn't volunteer to grow up queer, but if I hadn't and I was in the military, I would still vote to uphold democratic ideals over my own life.  That is, after all, the point.

    Obama and the DNC have gone against basic democratic ideals and pursued racist, misogynistic, and blatant disenfranchising actions to serve their own goals over that of the larger party and of democracy itself.  They made clearly incorrect ethical decisions and in the process they attempted to revise/reframe reality to fit their own selfish agendas--and they have largely succeeded by sacrificing the ideas of democracy and merit.  I cannot reward such action and I will not be threatened with Roe V Wade or guy-next-door scenarios.

    Politics is about choice, values, and the allocation of resources...and regardless of my inability to serve I hold an informed/functional democracy as substantially more important than any number of lives.  So I will not sacrifice my values just to support a party that failed itself and the most fundamental democratic ideals.  That is my choice, and if it bites me because there's a terrorist attack in my city or FEMA is staffed with a moron, so be it.  Hell, I considered closeting myself and joining the military and I still wouldn't vote obama.

    I know I'm not making any friends with this post, but thems the breaks.

    Parent

    Well let me say... (none / 0) (#268)
    by Double Standard on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 02:51:01 AM EST
    I hung out with a person who has worked with Clinton for a long time but resigned recently from the campaign due to his loyalty to Patti Solis Doyle and his hatred of Mark Penn but when I asked him about Pennsylvania and about the recent polling he said he was confident she would win by at least double digits...I then asked him if there was one polling outfit that the campaign or him trusted (without naming) and he said point blank survey USA.

    So again, survey USA is the polling outfit to watch.  He hasn't heard any internals (though he is dating a current worker in the campaign, so go figure), but the Clinton campaign clearly thinks highly of survey USA.  Thought you guys would be interested to know.

    comments now closed (none / 0) (#282)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 04:30:01 AM EST