home

Obama's Potential Path To The Nomination

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Blog Related
Posted on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 04:58:22 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

By Big Tent Democrat

Speaking for me only

Noam Scheiber's much cited piece contains a discussion of how Obama can finish Hillary off:

To make it happen, Obama would have to overtake Hillary among superdelegates--a key psychological barrier. He'd have to limit his margin of defeat in Pennsylvania to ten points, then hold serve two weeks later in North Carolina and Indiana, a pair of states he's slightly favored to win. At that point, Hillary would face nearly impossible odds of overtaking him in the delegate race. . . . MORE

. . . Unfortunately for anyone who wants the race to end soon, there are several problems with this scenario. For one thing, even if all this comes to pass, Hillary would still have to bow out voluntarily--an unlikely twist in any event, but highly implausible if the limbo states of Florida and Michigan still offer her hope. Meanwhile, any one of the aforementioned steps could easily fall through. Polls currently show Obama trailing by double digits in Pennsylvania; the good Reverend Wright could make that tough to change. And, though Obama now leads in North Carolina and Indiana, his advantage is either small or, in the latter case, based on a single, flimsy poll. . . .

(Emphasis supplied.) What Scheiber is saying and not dealing with is the fact that he does not think THE VOTERS will end the race. And boy is that terrible or what? How dare they vote for their favored candidate? Yet again, we get this attitude from some parts that Clinton voters would do well to listen to their betters. Keep that up and watch Obama lose Pennsylvania by 20.

NOTE - Comments closed.

< Memo to SuperDelegates: There is No Frontrunner, the Race is Open | Self Interest >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Obama's Potential Path To The Nomination | 208 comments (208 topical)
    I get a sense from some Obama followers that (5.00 / 3) (#2)
    by nellre on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 05:03:43 PM EST
    I get a sense from some Obama followers that HRC does not have the right to beat their chosen man.
    BTD hits on something important (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by andgarden on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 05:05:50 PM EST
    They have very little left to throw at Hillary (now they're obsessed with photo ops), so they have to start attacking her voters (past and potential).

    Parent
    HRC getting negative coverage on (none / 0) (#6)
    by oculus on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 05:07:16 PM EST
    Huff Post for not saying yes to debate in NC.

    Parent
    Because that worked so well (5.00 / 6) (#14)
    by andgarden on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 05:12:12 PM EST
    for Hillary last time?

    Side note: The Obama people really don't do the inevitability thing as well as Hillary did last year; they're just really unpleasant about it. People who are actually frontrunners shouldn't have to behave that way.

    Parent

    "Actually Frontruners" (5.00 / 6) (#22)
    by BDB on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 05:17:32 PM EST
    I think you've hit it on the head, Obama isn't the frontrunner, he just plays him on television.  The actual contest is essentially tied.  Which is why Obama is engaging in negative personal attacks and other things that he would never do if he really did have the nomination all sowed up, e.g. if Hillary really couldn't win.  

    When it comes to politicians, I'm a believer in actions and not words.  Obama and his supporters say there's no way for Hillary to win, but their actions - including the need to scream that she must get out NOW - tell a very different story,

    Parent

    You wanna talk about unpleasant? (5.00 / 1) (#162)
    by litigatormom on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 06:49:58 PM EST
    Read this:

    (CNN) -- Senior Clinton advisers blasted Sen. Barack Obama's campaign Monday after a major Obama supporter in Iowa compared Bill Clinton unfavorably to Joe McCarthy and referenced the blue dress at the heart of the impeachment scandal.

    "When Joe McCarthy questioned others' patriotism, McCarthy (1) actually believed, at least aparently, the questions were genuine, and (2) he did so in order to build up, not tear down, his own party, the GOP," wrote Gordon Fischer, a former chair of the Iowa Democratic Party, wrote on his blog. "Bill Clinton cannot possibly seriously believe Obama is not a patriot, and cannot possibly be said to be helping -- instead he is hurting -- his own party. B. Clinton should never be forgiven. Period. This is a stain on his legacy, much worse, much deeper, than the one on Monica's blue dress."

    So it was okay to compare Bill Clinton to Joe McCarthy because Joe McCarthy was sincere about his McCarthyism, and Bill Clinton got a blow job.

    Parent

    lol, I thought everyone was sick of over (none / 0) (#12)
    by Teresa on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 05:10:47 PM EST
    twenty debates (imagine Olbermann's voice).

    (Did she really turn that one down?)

    Parent

    Heh (none / 0) (#28)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 05:20:37 PM EST


    Parent
    well they attacked Carville today (none / 0) (#173)
    by dotcommodity on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 06:58:25 PM EST
    someone who is not part of her campaign, right?

    Before they start on us voters they'll still have many possible remarks by hundreds of bystanders to spin into a frenzy till August...

    Parent

    Do you? (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 05:20:02 PM EST
    Well, I think you are projecting your hostilities there.

    Parent
    if the Wright flap hadn't blown up (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 05:57:56 PM EST
    and if pigs flew you would have to shoot down your bacon.
    also, you are reading the Wright thing far to narrowly.  its about racism, yes.  but its about a lot more than that.
    its about judgement and honesty and, possibly most importantly, its about religion.

    Parent
    I really take exception (5.00 / 3) (#121)
    by hookfan on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 06:19:38 PM EST
    to people calling Hillary supporters racist when they take exception to anybody saying publicly g-d America. That type of anti-patriotic smear of a whole nation, including those who have actively opposed many actions of our government is inexcusable. It also overlooks the many good things this nation has done, and those who have promoted it.
      Secondly, I'm tiring of black "exceptionalism" by continuously playing the victim card. Part of my family is Chinese-American. Another part is Jewish-American. Another part is Native-American. All have suffered in their American experience. Don't lecture me about racism. Don't lecture me about suffering. Don't lecture me about supporting AntiAmerican religious smears.

    Parent
    but he is right about one thing (none / 0) (#94)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 06:03:14 PM EST
    I am salivating

    Parent
    Where is that (none / 0) (#147)
    by PlayInPeoria on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 06:40:11 PM EST
    UNITY theme? We sure need it after that!

    Parent
    Did you listen to Obama's speech? (none / 0) (#170)
    by Manuel on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 06:55:46 PM EST
    He rejected a lot/most of this framing.  Or do you think he agrees with you and he is just another politician saying things he doesn't really believe.

    Parent
    Who does Hillary pray with? (none / 0) (#188)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 07:10:16 PM EST
    The Hillary people here, presumably "liberal," don't seem to be able to address H. Clinton's prayer partners.

    She spent eight years in Washington praying in a sex-segregated circle of wives of the rich and powerful, like the wife of a guy who's a union-buster in Christian kind of way. Does that mean that Clinton's time on the board of Walmart or the use of anti-union folks in her campaign may actually be reflective of some of those prayers? "God, don't let them organize!"

    Or maybe she really believes that there needs to be a Constitutional Amendment about flag-burning. I'm sure that's something that Jeralyn can get behind.

    Or maybe Clinton's sponsorship of that dreadful religious freedom in the workplace act is true and honest to her beliefs. She really wants to give a pharmacist the right to refuse to give women birth control if it offends his beliefs.

    I wonder what it is about Clinton that attracts people who claim to be liberal. Is it because she's a woman? Is it because she's not a black man?

    Parent

    please give me a link on your claim (none / 0) (#192)
    by MarkL on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 07:12:05 PM EST
    about pharmacists.
    Thanks.

    Parent
    Do you mean this bill which (none / 0) (#202)
    by MarkL on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 07:20:35 PM EST
    John Kerry co-sponsored and Teddy Kennedy supports?
    link

    Parent
    "rely on dumbed down voters" (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 05:24:21 PM EST
    please -PLEASE- keep this up.
    pretty please?

    Parent
    Then explain (none / 0) (#193)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 07:12:21 PM EST
    sex-segregated prayer groups to me. I'm not smart enough to understand it. Why did Hillary pray in a circle of reactionary women? I can't figure this out.

    Parent
    Didn't you bring this up (none / 0) (#209)
    by waldenpond on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 07:28:00 PM EST
    the other day?  I believe this was addressed.

    Parent
    Huh? (5.00 / 4) (#119)
    by Athena on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 06:17:37 PM EST
    What "complexity?"  This could not be more simple.  Obama kept a huge electoral liability hidden from primary voters for more than a year, with the slavish cooperation of the press.

    How many voters would have wanted to evaluate Obama as a nominee knowing about the Wright issue?  Many I would dare guess.  But they didn't get that chance.

    The late-breaking Wright issue will now spell doom for the general; the press kept it hidden until Obama had won enough primaries with under-informed voters.

    Parent

    I am a supporter of Hillary and (5.00 / 1) (#196)
    by dotcommodity on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 07:15:07 PM EST
    I found Wright very reassuring.

    My worry has been that Obama is too bipartisan and nice to Republicans: even floating the idea of a Republican VP, for instance, and too loose about who decides what his administration will enact (per his debates).

    But Wright told me that beneath it all Obama really is a progressive, so that makes him much more attractive, and I'd support him in the GE, no problem.

    I still prefer Hillary's votes on eco issues, and prefer her energy plan which is exceedingly clever in simply forcing a huge change in how all businesses report risk - to include carbon risk as a fiduciary responsibilty to shareholders, opening up direct consumer control over CO2 levels for the first time.

    (It will force oil companies to drill for geothermal power instead, and force mountaintop removers to put up turbines instead.)

    I'm still a climate voter, but Wright is on the right side. And I thought Obama's subsequent speech was outstanding, and not just 'about race'.

    Parent

    Taking into account (none / 0) (#17)
    by Edgar08 on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 05:14:44 PM EST
    The complexity of it still doesn't bode well for Obama.

    But that's off topic.


    Parent

    Well, (none / 0) (#19)
    by andgarden on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 05:15:43 PM EST
    I can't speak for others, but I'm personally on the record saying that what Obama's Reverend has no bearing on what I think of him. I think the Wright thing WILL pose trouble in the fall, however, because voters are shallow and stupid.

    Parent
    Wright was on Obama's advisory (5.00 / 0) (#24)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 05:19:17 PM EST
    committee while spewing hatred directly at Hillary from the pulpit.  He was not directly denounced by Obama for having done that.

    That fact has bearing on what I think of Obama.  The rest, yes, simply goes to the electability problem.  Still a huge issue in that realm.

    Parent

    And Obama Never (5.00 / 4) (#135)
    by BDB on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 06:25:53 PM EST
    Feared being raped on a date or had to worry about the boss calling him "hon" and putting his hand on his thigh under a conference room table.

    I actually have little problem with Wright himself, I don't much care what any minister thinks, but nobody wins these "I'm more oppressed than you" contests. But that's essentially what Wright was doing and in so doing, whether intentional or not, he was denigrating the struggles women, including African American women, have gone through.  The truth is that it's not easy being a woman of any color or a black man (or other man of color) in our society.  I'm sure there have been many times when Barack and Hillary have been the smartest person in the room and treated as if they were the dumbest because of his skin and her sex.  Wright, however, set out to make his point in the most divisive way possible.  

    Again, I don't care because I don't care what Wright thinks about anything, but I do understand why others are so offended.

    Parent

    She earned a National Merit Scholarship (none / 0) (#205)
    by echinopsia on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 07:21:37 PM EST
    And that's why she went to Wellesley. Would her father have sent her there? Who knows? but she earned it. All by herself.

    She went all the way through law school and graduated as a single woman, she did not marry Bill and follow him to Ark., she turned down his proposals for months. He was not so sure she should follow him, since she was already a rising star and could have been senator or governor. After they married she was the one who made more money and supported the family until he became president.

    Not that this has anything to do with anything, but you are sadly bereft of the facts of her life and her marriage.

    There are over 60 books out there about her. Read one.

    Parent

    What was the legitimate point that (5.00 / 3) (#179)
    by litigatormom on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 07:03:49 PM EST
    Rev. Wright was making when he said that Hillary wasn't a poor black man, or that she'd never been called a n***?  Has she ever said she was, or had been?  

    Rev. Wright also said that, because she was not black,  Hillary had never had to work twice as hard as a white man to show that she was qualified. Rev. Wright has apparently never heard of sexism.  You don't have to debate whether racism is worse than sexism to know that both African-Americans AND women have to work twice as hard as white men in the same profession to get ahead.  The evils of racism can be understood without minimizing the evils of sexism.

    BTW, you don't have to threaten physical violence, or say that someone is worthless or unfit to live, to someone in order to be speaking hate. You can speak hate by minimizing or marginalizing individuals or groups, by making derogatory comments about them, by doing or saying any number of things.

    Parent

    Have you seen the sermon? (5.00 / 2) (#189)
    by dianem on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 07:10:40 PM EST
    I challenge you to watch it and then tell me that it's not hate speech. Oddly, the thing that bothered me the most was fairly innocuous. He said that Clinton had never experienced the pain of being called a "n***r".  This seems ironic to me, given that Hillary Clinton has been called "bch and "c**t" for over a decade, plus a long list of other insults. Those don't count to Wright. Apparently it's only hurtful to insult somebody if you use racially pejorative words, not gender based insults.

    Parent
    Oh, Please. (5.00 / 0) (#191)
    by AmyinSC on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 07:11:20 PM EST
    Clinton did not grow up being privileged. Her family did not have money. She worked hard for everything she got.  She put HERSELF through law school.  Stop trying to diminish her accomplishments.

    Wright gave his speech in December.  HOW does that relate to Ferraro and her comments???  Uh, yeah.  It doesn't.

    Women in this culture do NOT have it easy, whether they are poor or privileged.  Any woman can be assaulted in this country and watch as their attackers, if convicted, get lesser sentences thans omeone who robs a company; most women are paid less than men for the same work; most women have to watch as less qualified men get positions for which they are overqualified; most women have to put up with insensitive, boorish, often sexist, comments every single day.

    Wright's sermon WAS hate speech, plain and simple.  Its intent was clearly to incite and antagonize.  

    That kind of speech has no place in a church - period.

    Parent

    I'm happy to acknowledge (none / 0) (#64)
    by badger on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 05:44:24 PM EST
    the role of black churches and black ministers.

    I just didn't support Obama before I ever heard of Rev. Wright, Rev. Wright has done nothing to change my mind one way or the other, but I think the Rev. is a serious political liability for Obama that Obama hasn't dealt with very effectively.

    Whether I think the Reverend's statements were justified, misquoted, or whatever has nothing to do with whether he's a political liability.

    Parent

    Neither did Obama! (none / 0) (#174)
    by Manuel on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 06:58:25 PM EST


    Parent
    I'm sorry. If I were going to a church in which (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by derridog on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 05:40:03 PM EST
    the pastor made shockingly denigrating comments about blacks, gays or women, I would not come back a second time, much less for 20 years.  I would certainly not have that person as a mentor, have him baptize my child and advise me in my campaign for ANYTHING.   Racism is the same no matter who is spouting it.  

    Parent
    Don't forget (5.00 / 0) (#73)
    by cmugirl on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 05:48:54 PM EST
    When talking about Hillary and Bill, he was (pardon the term) "dry humping" the pulpit.  Never saw anything like that in any church I've gone to.

    Parent
    and said "dirty ride"... yea, I guess (none / 0) (#177)
    by DandyTIger on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 06:59:44 PM EST
    it's "new religion" just like "new politics". Well, I'm going to be doing a "new vote". Namely, no.

    Parent
    Dry humping the pulpit? (none / 0) (#182)
    by litigatormom on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 07:06:23 PM EST
    What does that mean?  And did he actually use those words?

    Parent
    Yes (none / 0) (#195)
    by Grey on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 07:13:14 PM EST
    And, while he did that, he said "Bill was riding dirty.  He did us like he did Monica."

    The video of that was in the original FOX News story about the IRS investigation.  I'm sure it's in YouTube still.

    Yup.  Here it is.


    Parent

    first comment I've seen from you (none / 0) (#39)
    by jes on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 05:28:23 PM EST
    that I strongly disagree with. On the Wright issue, I do not believe the voters are shallow and stupid.

    Parent
    Transferring that reaction (none / 0) (#42)
    by andgarden on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 05:31:04 PM EST
    to the way you feel about Obama is pretty shallow and stupid, in my opinion.

    Parent
    ah. I should have read more carefully. (none / 0) (#63)
    by jes on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 05:44:13 PM EST
    Some will directly make the transference - those are shallow and stupid. Those who were willing to listen to the speech and find it lacking are not, I think, making that transferrence. And those whho look a bit further into Black Liberation Theology, may futher find the arguments valid or invalid.

    Parent
    I am much more interested to see that (none / 0) (#35)
    by MarkL on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 05:23:52 PM EST
    Obama has totally run out of positive reasons to vote for him---no surprise, consider how little he has done. What can he say. "Hillary went to Bosnia.. um, me too!!"? LOL

    Parent
    I thought he was emphasizing she (none / 0) (#54)
    by oculus on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 05:38:46 PM EST
    went, but it was a tourist trip.

    Parent
    She wasn't wounded or captured (none / 0) (#67)
    by badger on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 05:47:13 PM EST
    so it doesn't count.

    If ever there was an argument in favor of McCain ...

    Parent

    She has no admitted she lied, (none / 0) (#175)
    by fuzzyone on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 06:58:42 PM EST
    I mean "misspoke" so you may want to drop this one.

    Parent
    Call me "Goofy" (none / 0) (#87)
    by zyx on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 05:55:27 PM EST
    I consider myself very liberal.

    I consider myself to, uh, not be a racist.

    But the Wright business actually does bother me.  I suspect it has to do with underlying churchgoing and religious attitudes, to some extent.

    I don't appreciate being thought that I'm some kind of dumb cluck for not thinking Wright and the "black church" are so different from my own cultural reference that what I see as hate speech is to be condoned.

    Parent

    She had the right (none / 0) (#141)
    by magster on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 06:32:29 PM EST
    and blew it.  The question is whether she has a right to help McCain beat Obama.

    Parent
    Wright's sermon unspliced (none / 0) (#166)
    by 1jane on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 06:54:13 PM EST
    It doesn't take much effort to find several of Wright's sermons on line instead of listening to a video clip. I watched most of the sermon and others too. Wright's words are taken totally out of context and are being used skillfully to exploit hatred; but what else is new in this dirty campaign season? Obama has stated on several campaign stops that the two people he admires most are Nelson Mandela and the Dali Lamma. Very different men and very different styles than Wright's style. I like to make up my mind based on as much information I can find, not on a video clip.

    Parent
    Ferraro's and Bill Clinton's comments (none / 0) (#181)
    by Manuel on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 07:06:16 PM EST
    were quoted out of context too.  It's kind of late to put the genie back in the bottle.  That's the nature of politics and media in our culture.  The question is how can we transcend it?  I am afraid I don't have an answer.  Pointing fingers and acting hurt doesn't work, however.  Perhaps Obama is right.  Not this time.

    Parent
    Obama Can't Win (5.00 / 5) (#4)
    by BDB on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 05:05:45 PM EST
    That's why there are all these calls for Hillary to drop out, because he can't win.  He's had three opportunities so far and has failed every time.  He has another in Pennsylvania and will likely fail again, most likely by double digits. He could have two more after that if he'd agreed to a Florida and Michigan re-vote, but since he wouldn't agree, I think it's safe to assume he wouldn't have won then either.

    The pressure coming for Hillary to drop out is coming because Obama's supporters are scared, not of a split in the party (no one has acted more divisive than some of the Obama supporters, once you call someone racist, that tends to leave hard feelings), but because they know he can't win this thing.  Which means he might lose it.  

    Because at a certain point, automatic delegates might start to ask themselves why a guy with more money, better press, and just about everything going for him can't put her away.  With everything that has gone Obama's way, he should have clinched the nomination by now, not be hoping to lose Pennsylvania by less than double digits.

    All this talk about The Math is really an attempt, IMO, to paper over Obama's big weakness - he can't win.

    To Be Clear (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by BDB on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 05:07:22 PM EST
    That doesn't mean he can't become the democratic nominee, it just means he cannot do it by beating Hillary at the polls - either in pledged delegates alone or by winning a must-have state that would appear to break her base.

    Parent
    Hide the Weaknesses (none / 0) (#124)
    by Athena on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 06:20:03 PM EST
    Agree - PA will be a snapshot of his electoral weakness in November - and his campaign would prefer to keep that out of sight.  Hence the calls to end it all sooner, rather than later.

    Parent
    Maybe he can win; just a rough patch; (none / 0) (#9)
    by oculus on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 05:08:28 PM EST
    but the pilot hasn't announced it will level off in X minutes either.

    Parent
    Earn it? (5.00 / 4) (#8)
    by ricosuave on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 05:08:05 PM EST
    You mean Obama actually has to finish this election out and earn the nomination?  How absurd!  We all know that he deserves it!  If Hillary would only drop out, it would be his!

    We have to end this thing before he loses more elections, and possibly the nomination! For the sake of the party!

    Easy (5.00 / 0) (#145)
    by Cayey on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 06:38:14 PM EST
    Since Hillary will not quit, I suggest Obama  removes his name from the remainig states primaries and call Keith Olbermann to have a "special comment" to declare him the winner, forget the SD, forget the Convention, game over, is November here yet?

    Parent
    I thought she was the anointed, inevitable (none / 0) (#10)
    by oculus on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 05:09:03 PM EST
    one.

    Parent
    Really? I bet you heard that on MSNBC. (5.00 / 2) (#31)
    by derridog on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 05:22:12 PM EST


    Parent
    Pennsylvania by 20 (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by PennProgressive on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 05:09:20 PM EST
    may not be possible for Clinton. But BTD, you are  absolutely right, this type of argument and MSM's constant suggestion that it is only Hillary who cannot mathematically get to 2024 deligates (but somehow Obama can) and that for party unity Hillary should drop out, is making a lot of voters in PA absolutely mad. Today, outside our local Wal-Mart I saw a number of  people  registering (today is the last day for doing so) and pledging their support for Clinton to the Clinton volunteer. I do not think that Hillary can win by 20, but by a margin of 14-16 is not impossible.

    Quite nefarious. Clinton volunteer (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by oculus on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 05:13:42 PM EST
    registering voters in front of Wal Mart, of all places.  

    Parent
    Registration in front of Wal-Mart (5.00 / 0) (#96)
    by PennProgressive on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 06:03:25 PM EST
    You know the narrative--Hillary supporters are Wal-Mart shoppers not the Starbucks customers and also they donot have high level of education! Actually, one woman switched her registration and said she would vote for Hillary!

    Parent
    Wait, Clinton's Team Was Registering Voters? (5.00 / 5) (#16)
    by BDB on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 05:13:55 PM EST
    I thought only Obama brought new voters to the democratic process.  

    It is a novel concept to hope to win an election by insulting voters.  Between telling them they don't matter and insinuating they're racists, I bet there are a lot of Pennsylvanians (is that right?) who aren't all that interested in getting a Unity Pony.

    Parent

    yup, that's right (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by andgarden on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 05:17:30 PM EST


    Parent
    Oh he can get there (none / 0) (#20)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 05:16:21 PM EST
    if she drops out completely and he gets all the rest of the delegates!!!

    /snark.

    Parent

    The path to the nomination is the superdelegates (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by Prabhata on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 05:20:04 PM EST
    The superdelegates will decide on their judgment.  Obama or HRC will have to win one superdelegate at a time.  We the voters need to recognize that reality and not allow the partisan pundits to poison how we view the vote of the superdelegates.

    panic . . . the whole hill . . . . (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 05:26:24 PM EST
    smells like . . . victory.

    Parent
    Equal chances (5.00 / 0) (#43)
    by ClassicLib on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 05:31:37 PM EST
    Hillary has just as good a chance of winning the nomination as Obama seems to at the moment. She may well win the popular vote and may tie or surpass Obama in delegates. The SDs will decide in any case and their job is to choose the candidate who is best able to win in the fall. That means, the one who can command the most electoral votes. That's what the primary season is all about: who can win in the fall.

    It's becoming quite apparent that Obama has no chance to win against McCain when viewed from the electoral perspective. He would be, without a doubt, the weakest candidate since Dukakis in 1988.

    If you want change, that'd be Hillary, the first woman president in US history.

    Well, not exactly. (none / 0) (#76)
    by thinkingfella on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 05:50:03 PM EST
    Speaking as someone who would vote for either Clinton, or Obama in the GE, I think it is a pretty well established fact by now that Clinton has a substantially smaller chance of winning the nomination then Obama, as apparently her own advisers are now conceding:
    http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0308/9149.html
    I'm not trying to rub salt into the wound here, just pointing out that what you are saying "Hillary has just as good a chance" doesn't jibe with reality.

    And again, speaking as a supporter of either candidate, I think it is a bit of an overstatement to suggest Obama has no chance to win against McCain. He has certainly come from farther behind before (ahem, Hillary).

    Although I do think that if the Democrats can't unite behind a candidate fairly soon, we do run the risk of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory regardless of who the nominee is, and this goes for both Hillary and Obama.

    Parent

    Name that advisor (none / 0) (#113)
    by RalphB on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 06:13:31 PM EST
    If you can't, then who cares?  It's just another anonymous supposed Democrat.  It is not an overstatement to say that McCain will most likely wipe the floor with Obama.  Since all but the most partisan will vote for the person they believe will be the best president, via different routes, I can't see Obama winning at all.
     

    Parent
    Hillary is change? (none / 0) (#103)
    by ItsGreg on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 06:07:44 PM EST
    If you want change, that'd be Hillary

    Hillary would be Clinton II. I have no real problem with that; I rather liked much of Bill's two terms and I like and respect Hillary. But it's not really change; it's just a return to an earlier administration, with a lot of the same players in the same roles. Better than Bush by an order of magnitude...but change? Not so much.

    Parent

    how can you possibly (5.00 / 0) (#105)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 06:08:38 PM EST
    say that the first female president would not be change.
    really?

    Parent
    My parents had nothing in common politically (5.00 / 0) (#117)
    by Dancing Bear on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 06:17:06 PM EST
    but remained married for over 50 years.  Happily.  Do women just vote the way their husbands do? They can't think for themselves?

    Parent
    What? No One's saying she should drop out! (5.00 / 3) (#57)
    by katiebird on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 05:40:08 PM EST
    That's what my mom's best friend a former County & District Democratic Chairwoman said today.

    I said, "oh, yes -- it's all over the blogs."

    She went on, "Oh, no -- there's no reason at all for HER to drop out.  Neither of them should."

    She and I ran our local caucus (to the degree it was possible) and she may not be famous but she's a very sophisticated politician.

    I can't tell you how shocked she was at the idea that Hillary should drop out.

    I've spent so much time reading about politics, it was fun to spend some time talking to someone with a real on-the-ground sense of political reality.

    Among the people not saying (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by AF on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 05:48:11 PM EST
    that Hillary should drop out are Barack Obama and his campaign staff.  

    My fellow unaffiliated Obama supporters are taking it upon themselves to make this argument, and I wish they would shut up.  

    Parent

    you will pardon me (none / 0) (#80)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 05:51:59 PM EST
    if I hope they do not

    Parent
    Right (none / 0) (#85)
    by AF on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 05:54:38 PM EST
    Because they're pissing off Hillary supporters and hurting the Obama campaign on the margin.

    I can pardon you for hoping that happens, but be careful what you wish for.  I don't think you will enjoy a McCain presidency.

    Parent

    IMO (none / 0) (#93)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 05:59:36 PM EST
    the only we will have president McCain is if Obama is the nominee.


    Parent
    By all means (none / 0) (#99)
    by AF on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 06:04:39 PM EST
    Vote for Hillary if that is your opinion.  

    However, if Obama does get the nomination, he will be the only thing standing in the way of a McCain presidency. Any Democrat who does not vote for him will be helping McCain.

    Parent

    I think they have had paid shills (none / 0) (#212)
    by dotcommodity on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 07:29:40 PM EST
    commenting at dailykos.

    I would notice the same phrases repeated over and over by those with user ID's registered around Dec 2007. 146,000, 147,000 and 149,000 and something.

    Eventually I started pointing it out, and now I hardly ever see those UID's.

    It was too much of a coincidence that those with the same UID's used the same phrases and concepts, and ran 9 or 10 identical Hillarybashing stories up the diaryroll daily.

    shrill
    antics
    should drop out
    will do anything to win

    I forget the rest - but really: it was the same 10 phrases over and over...

    Parent

    I appreciate (none / 0) (#60)
    by Lil on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 05:43:05 PM EST
    your comment, because I often ask regular folks what they think is going on, because I don't trust that what I hear, actually read, is representative of the average folks who get their news in short sound bites. or even just through gossip.

    Parent
    He will always be wiping something from his shoe. (5.00 / 1) (#132)
    by Dancing Bear on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 06:24:34 PM EST
    I am not feeling united in any way whatsoever. I have less hope than I have for a very long time.

    He will never, even if elected, be my President.  

    Is that.... (none / 0) (#152)
    by scarpy on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 06:46:19 PM EST
    ...a "No Country for Old Men" reference?

    Just wondering.

    Parent

    This is apostasy! (none / 0) (#1)
    by andgarden on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 05:02:42 PM EST
    How dare he imply that the race isn't over yet?!

    you could almost say (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 05:20:01 PM EST
    an Obamanation

    Parent
    Cute. (none / 0) (#34)
    by derridog on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 05:23:50 PM EST


    Parent
    Oh NO! (none / 0) (#33)
    by tree on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 05:23:15 PM EST
    Bring out the comfy chair!

    Parent
    Obama favored to win Indiana?!? (none / 0) (#3)
    by Exeter on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 05:04:42 PM EST
    Obama didn't even win southern Illinois and that was at the peak of Obamamania. I would be suprised if he got within ten points of Clinton in Indiana.

    I'm thought that the CW, (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by zyx on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 05:47:36 PM EST
    and pretty reliable (though I'm not sure what the source is, actually) was that Clinton and Obama were expected to go 50-50 in Indiana, as of, oh, a month ago--well before the Wright flap.  I don't know the area, so I wondered about that.  Indiana is deep red in Presidential elections, and I close to Ohio and TN and etc. etc., so I would think Clinton would do better.  OTOH, it is an Illinois neighbor, too.  I just don't have any idea, and I gather that nobody does any polling there to speak of.

    6.3 million residents (90% white), 15th most populous state

    85 delegates at stake.

    Parent

    Difficult to Say (5.00 / 1) (#107)
    by BDB on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 06:11:31 PM EST
    Unlike the other states in the region, Indiana (where I'm originally from) is red and has had little polling.  As is so often the case it'll depend on voter turnout.  I think these questions are likely to decide it:

    1. Turnout in Indianapolis and Chicagoland/NW Indiana, both have strong AA populations and should favor Obama.  NW Indiana is practically part of Illinois and is served by Chicago media.

    2. Rural & Working Class Whites - Indiana has a lot of rural and working class folks, will these voters, who often vote Republican, turn out for Hillary or does the Hillary hate run too deep?

    3. Rev. Wright controversy - will it have any long-term impact here?  In the early 1900s, Indiana had one of the largest Klan populations in the country, while it's not that bad now, it's also a conservative state overall.  The word that comes to mind when I think of my Indiana family members is - restrained.  They are polite, kind, nice, and very religious in a private, quiet way.  I don't think they'd vote against Obama because he's black, I've never seen or heard anything particularly racist from any of them, but I do think they would've been upset by the tone of Wright's sermons.  It was all so confrontational, not something they like or are used to (but that might just be my family, who believe that if you can't say something nice you should say nothing at all, obviously, not a trait I inherited).  So it might not hurt Obama because of race, but because it makes folks doubt his unity message.

    4. Cross-over voters - will Republicans and independents cross over to help Obama, will they help Hillary (especially after Wright) or will they simply stay home.  Most of Indiana is Republican.


    Parent
    One More Issue (none / 0) (#111)
    by BDB on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 06:13:07 PM EST
    Hispanic turnout.  Indiana has twice the hispanics (~4%) as Ohio.  Will they turn out and will Hillary carry them by a large margin as she did out West (I believe that as in the Western States, they are predominantly Mexican American).  A small voter segment, but they could be an important one.

    Parent
    And will Richardson's endorsement of (none / 0) (#120)
    by oculus on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 06:17:45 PM EST
    Obama influence some Latinos to vote for Obama who otherwise would have voted for Clinton?

    Parent
    Richardson Couldn't Influence Hispanics (none / 0) (#136)
    by BDB on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 06:27:43 PM EST
    In his own favor.  One of his problems is that he never got any traction in Nevada.

    Parent
    Flat Endorsements (none / 0) (#200)
    by countme on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 07:19:33 PM EST
    I agree with you. Obama has an uncanny ability to gather endorsements from high profile politicians that do not help his campaign (i.e. Kennedy, Kerry) Richardson with hispanics will not help. He is just more window dressing.

    Parent
    Flat Endorsements (none / 0) (#201)
    by countme on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 07:20:06 PM EST
    I agree with you. Obama has an uncanny ability to gather endorsements from high profile politicians that do not help his campaign (i.e. Kennedy, Kerry) Richardson with hispanics will not help. He is just more window dressing.

    Parent
    Great Info -- Thanks! (none / 0) (#122)
    by Exeter on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 06:19:40 PM EST
    If I remember correctly, Obama did not win white Democrats outside of the Chicagoland area in Illinois and, as you say, Ohio is to the East and Kentucky to the south, so it doesn't seem to bode well for him in areas outside of NW Indiana and Indianapolis.

    Parent
    But That's Where the Dems Are (none / 0) (#143)
    by BDB on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 06:33:05 PM EST
    in NW Indiana and Indy.  So the issue will be if Clinton can get enough voters to the polls to offset those areas of Obama strength.  Of course, without a recent poll, this is conjecture.

    Parent
    True, but... (none / 0) (#153)
    by Exeter on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 06:46:24 PM EST
    I think it will be like Ohio, where he does well in a few urban pockes but loses the non-urban counties by huge margins, translating into a good Clinton victory.

    Parent
    True, but... (none / 0) (#154)
    by Exeter on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 06:46:36 PM EST
    I think it will be like Ohio, where he does well in a few urban pockes but loses the non-urban counties by huge margins, translating into a good Clinton victory.

    Parent
    HRC (none / 0) (#78)
    by cmugirl on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 05:51:24 PM EST
    has the backing of Sen. Evan Bayh (a former popular governor) and he has been working tirelessly for her. If endorsements will mean anything (his name has also been bandied about as a possible VP choice).

    Parent
    You conceded yesterday (none / 0) (#18)
    by digdugboy on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 05:14:50 PM EST
    that Hillary's chances of winning the nomination are now somewhere between slim and none. In other words, the voters have already decided who the nominee is going to be. For those voters who slightly favor Clinton over Obama but feel strongly that a democrat should be in the White House come 2009, the only rational vote for that voter is a vote for Obama. Their vote will not help Clinton win the nomination, and will only serve to prolong the campaign for nomination.

    THe problem is that some people (Jeralyn included) keep suggesting, contrary to all known fact and calculation, that this is still a winnable race for Hillary. It's not, and you, at least, will admit that much.

    I asm not a candidate (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 05:18:11 PM EST
    so my stating MY opinion is not conceding.

    Let me repeat this again for you folks, pundits like me BLOVIATE, VOTERS decide.

    I have bloviated my opinion. Voters are still deciding.

    Parent

    You conceded the point (none / 0) (#29)
    by digdugboy on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 05:20:46 PM EST
    that Hillary's chances of getting the nomination are remote. It's the first time I've ever seen you concede a point in a debate, so I feel mighty proud of myself for getting you to do so.

    I am assuming, since I take you for a rational person more or less, that the reason you were willing to make that concession was because you are aware of the pledged delegate math from here on out. Is that correct?

    Parent

    That sounds like you're more interested (none / 0) (#44)
    by Edgar08 on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 05:31:41 PM EST
    In getting BTD to concede something.

    Part of the reason why he conceded that point is also because BTD had established in his mind some culpability with the Clinton folks for not screaming at the top their lungs for revotes even though they had put up the money for it, and approved revotes, it wasn't their place to scream that loudly for it.

    Anyway, BTD's concession on the issue in question is more of product of him sticking too the revote an issue than it is a product of his analysis of the primary in general.

    Parent

    How about we let him (none / 0) (#46)
    by digdugboy on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 05:33:12 PM EST
    speak for himself?

    Parent
    If he feels like it (none / 0) (#51)
    by Edgar08 on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 05:35:30 PM EST
    I'm sure he'll put us both in our places.


    Parent
    You can speak for yourself there (none / 0) (#71)
    by digdugboy on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 05:48:34 PM EST
    Me, I'm looking to give him another in a long line of whuppings.

    Parent
    Thanks for the laugh (5.00 / 1) (#148)
    by standingup on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 06:40:37 PM EST
    I needed one after the day I have had.

    Parent
    Why won't BTD come out and play? (none / 0) (#197)
    by oculus on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 07:15:45 PM EST


    Parent
    Here are the facts... (none / 0) (#138)
    by Exeter on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 06:29:54 PM EST
    1. Neither candidate has enough delegates to win through the delegate route.
    2. No candidate in the modern nominating era has ever won the nomination without winning the popular vote.
    3. After everyone has voted, Clinton can win the popular vote if Michigan and Florida are included in her tallies, she will DEFINITELY win the popular vote.


    Parent
    Uh, Exeter... (none / 0) (#206)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 07:23:06 PM EST
    1. Clinton can't catch up to Obama in delegates.
    2. Obama is winning the popular vote. He's got the most states. He's got the most delegates.
    3. Michigan and Florida don't count.

    Here's another:

    4. Her campaign is broke.

    H. Clinton is not going to win the nomination. But she is making enough enemies by extending her death act that she will never have any support within the party after this last gasp. She'll be 61 this fall, 65 in 2012, 69 in 2016.

    Whatever it is about Clinton that floats your boat, I suggest you look around for a younger version of her. Her time has past. Over. Gone.

    Parent

    The problem is (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by cmugirl on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 05:21:35 PM EST
    Obama does not win among Democrats.  It would be nice if the people who crossed over to vote for him are actually going to vote for him in the fall, but I would guess that most of them aren't.  And, since he has managed to anger many HRC supporters who will not vote for him (nor McCain, but may sit this one out), he doesn't look like he has a good chance of winning in the fall.

    HRC is a known quantity - you either love her or hate her.  Her negatives won't go any higher, and for all the Obama-bots who say if you care about a democrat in the WH in the fall - I think you're best bet is actually a vote for her.  She's a proven winner.

    Parent

    Obama does not win among democrats? (none / 0) (#40)
    by digdugboy on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 05:28:27 PM EST
    That's nonsense.

    Parent
    Have you seen the numbers? (none / 0) (#45)
    by Edgar08 on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 05:32:58 PM EST
    n/t

    Parent
    Yes. (none / 0) (#48)
    by digdugboy on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 05:33:41 PM EST


    Parent
    Good (none / 0) (#50)
    by Edgar08 on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 05:35:01 PM EST
    Then you know that amongst Democrats Clinton has the edge.


    Parent
    It means nothing of the kind. (none / 0) (#53)
    by digdugboy on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 05:38:01 PM EST
    And even if Clinton did have some slight edge amongst democratic voters, a claim that is plainly belied by the results in the primaries so far, it does not translate into greater electability in November vs. McCain.

    Parent
    The edge (none / 0) (#55)
    by Edgar08 on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 05:38:57 PM EST
    Is taken from Primary voters so far.


    Parent
    It's meaningless (none / 0) (#59)
    by digdugboy on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 05:40:42 PM EST
    come November.

    Parent
    Not at all (none / 0) (#61)
    by Edgar08 on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 05:43:17 PM EST
    It cuts both ways really.

    Having more Democrats behind you can be an asset.

    Having independents get behind you is great, too.  But we're talking about people who will also be more inclined to jump ship if a certain aura gets tarnished.


    Parent

    Hence it's meaningless (1.00 / 1) (#75)
    by digdugboy on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 05:49:39 PM EST
    in other words it adds no weight to your argument that Hillary should be the nominee. That kind of meaningless.

    Parent
    Not at all (none / 0) (#77)
    by Edgar08 on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 05:50:56 PM EST
    It means that Clinton's support would be more willing to stick with her tarnished aura and all.


    Parent
    That's kind of funny (none / 0) (#84)
    by digdugboy on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 05:53:25 PM EST
    when most of the posters here talk about Obama's followers being a cult. That's where one might expect the loyalty to really lie.

    Parent
    That's his (none / 0) (#86)
    by Edgar08 on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 05:54:57 PM EST
    Online support.

    And his support on the internet has a certain feel to it.


    Parent

    It's way more than mere (none / 0) (#95)
    by digdugboy on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 06:03:15 PM EST
    online support. Look at the youth vote he's attracted, as well as the older voters who've been cynical for so many election cycles. Look at the large number of small dollar donors to his campaign.

    Parent
    its amazing (none / 0) (#101)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 06:06:11 PM EST
    that is always only Obama who is causing excitment and bringing new people in when we have had record turnout in every SINGLE primary and the candidates are basically tied.
    just amazing.


    Parent
    Well... (none / 0) (#160)
    by Exeter on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 06:49:07 PM EST
    ...the thing is, is that, there are LOTS more African Americans than women; )

    Parent
    You're kidding...right? (none / 0) (#213)
    by echinopsia on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 07:33:54 PM EST


    Parent
    I know (none / 0) (#106)
    by Edgar08 on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 06:10:41 PM EST
    Those are the kinds of folks who might be likely, either a small percentage, or a large percentage to jump off the bandwagon.

    Democrats are not as likely to do so.


    Parent

    What Primary (none / 0) (#98)
    by PlayInPeoria on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 06:04:11 PM EST
    demographics have you been watching... it certainly isn't the same percentages that I've seen and heard.

    Believe me... either of these candidates CAN LOSE the GE.

    The Dem nominee CAN NOT WIN the GE without the DEM BASE.... no matter who they are.

    Parent

    I believe it's something like a million and a (none / 0) (#62)
    by derridog on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 05:43:51 PM EST
    half votes. Anyone have a link?

    Parent
    No. That's a fact. (none / 0) (#112)
    by Dancing Bear on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 06:13:25 PM EST
    I will never vote for him. Or McCain.

    Parent
    Why not? (none / 0) (#116)
    by digdugboy on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 06:15:39 PM EST


    Parent
    Obama didn't even win (none / 0) (#140)
    by Exeter on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 06:32:09 PM EST
    non-African American Democrats outside of the Chicagoland area in ILLINOIS. Large numbers of Dems will either stay at home or vote for McCain if he is the nominee.

    Parent
    Shorter you: (4.00 / 4) (#32)
    by andgarden on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 05:23:02 PM EST
    People who vote for Hillary from this point forward are stupid.

    Parent
    I am totally stupid. (5.00 / 0) (#115)
    by Dancing Bear on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 06:13:58 PM EST


    Parent
    Me to, I suppose. (5.00 / 0) (#127)
    by RalphB on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 06:22:26 PM EST


    Parent
    So, you are conceding? (none / 0) (#178)
    by oculus on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 07:01:13 PM EST


    Parent
    Conceding (none / 0) (#198)
    by RalphB on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 07:17:43 PM EST
    that I could be stupid, but I'm writing in Clinton in November, no matter what.  Just say No to Barack!

    Parent
    Tincture of time plus looming (none / 0) (#203)
    by oculus on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 07:21:08 PM EST
    all conservative SCOTUS will surely change your mind.  No?

    Parent
    It depends on what they want (none / 0) (#38)
    by digdugboy on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 05:27:51 PM EST
    If they want to increase McCain's chances of winning in November, it's a smart vote.

    Parent
    On the contrary (5.00 / 3) (#41)
    by andgarden on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 05:30:00 PM EST
    Some of us think that the only way left to prevent a McCain presidency is to nominate Hillary.

    I know BTD doesn't share that opinion, but he has enough respect for the primary process that he isn't going to close ranks until he thinks it makes sense to.

    Parent

    Hillary's chances (none / 0) (#52)
    by digdugboy on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 05:35:44 PM EST
    of getting the nomination now are remote at best. BTD acknowledges that. Speculation about who is more electable in November is simply that -- speculation. On the other hand, the harm being caused by prolonging the primary race when the outcome has been effectively decided has a deleterious effect on election chances in November, and that is not speculation.

    Parent
    Obama can't win it either, without the (5.00 / 2) (#66)
    by derridog on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 05:46:22 PM EST
    Superdelegates.  If he could, he wouldn't be so insistent on Hillary dropping out.  Let's see -when in the history of the country has any candidate dropped out because his opponent is upset that he might get beat?

    Parent
    Staying In (none / 0) (#133)
    by Athena on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 06:24:36 PM EST
    Ted Kennedy didn't do it in 1980.  Why should Hillary?

    Parent
    Obama hasn't been the President (none / 0) (#144)
    by oculus on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 06:33:54 PM EST
    the last four years, has he?

    Parent
    Speculation (5.00 / 0) (#81)
    by ricosuave on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 05:52:01 PM EST
    Actually, both the assertion that he has already clinched it and the assertion that prolonging (or, I would say, finishing) the nomination process is bad for democrats are both speculation as well.  And mighty poor speculation.

    Obama is severely damaged goods, and not just among "low information voters" or racists or republicans--lots of democrats are disgusted with him for sitting idly by while his mentor spewed vile comments about whites and Jews, about his country, about his opponent.  The best thing for Democrats in November (both for winning the presidency and for keeping down-ballot folks from getting smoked by coattails) is for Hillary to win.  We all know it ain't over, so let's salvage this thing while we still can and make Hillary the nominee.

    Parent

    BTD agrees with me (none / 0) (#108)
    by digdugboy on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 06:11:42 PM EST
    that Clinton has at best a slim chance of getting the nomination. I can only speculate on his reasons for so concluding, but here are mine. First, she cannot close the pledged delegate gap between now and the end of the primaries. Second, unless the pledged delegate difference is minimal, and barring any kind of outrageous scandal involving Obama, the enough super delegates will feel constrained to vote with their constituencies that Hillary can't pick of the number of superdelegates she will need to get the nomination.

    The pledged delegate math the rest of the way out is virtually insurmountable for her.

    THe most recent opinion polls do not support your assertion that Obama is extremely damaged goods by reason of the Wright controversy.

    Parent

    slim chance? (none / 0) (#215)
    by Arcadianwind on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 07:40:39 PM EST
    I'd say the odds are about even here, now that Obama is seen as a Changeling you can believe in. Wait, I take that back; I'd say it's maybe 60/40 now.

    Parent
    That is speculation too (none / 0) (#58)
    by Edgar08 on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 05:40:19 PM EST
    Even if Obama wins the nomination a lot of things will have come out in the Primary process that would have done more damage during a GE process.


    Parent
    No it's not speculation (none / 0) (#65)
    by digdugboy on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 05:46:04 PM EST
    1. millions of dollars are being spent now that could be saved for the general election campaign.

    2. both candidates and their campaigns are taking below the belt shots at each other. Hillary, in particular, with her claim that she and McCain have a lifetime of experience and Obama has a speech he gave in 2002. She's saying that the republican is more qualified than Obama. Do you not think this will come back in the general election as a weapon against Obama?

    3. What goes on in campaigns is not really vetting. Nobody's interested in exploring the actual record of their opponent as much as they are interested in attacking it regardless of what it really is.


    Parent
    Obama (5.00 / 0) (#129)
    by lilburro on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 06:23:01 PM EST
    will NOT be hurt in the GE (if he is the nominee) if he retools his campaign to be strong and outspoken on issues such as how to deal with the economy.  Tying our economic woes to Iraq is not going to cut it.  If he does that, the final verdict on who is the more negative person, the kind of person you don't want to talk to at a party, or who doesn't make you feel quite as good as others and is thus a waste of your time, will not matter anymore.  It is up to Obama to actually win, and if he wins, to act like a winner and be ready to get to work.

    Read this article.  It's his own bloomin words.
    Obama's promise of a new majority

    "Obama said: 'What I'm certain about is that people are disenchanted with a highly ideological Republican Party that believes tax cuts are the answer to every problem, and lack of regulation and oversight is always going to generate economic growth, and unilateral intervention around the world is the best approach to foreign policy. So there's no doubt the pendulum is swinging.'

    Still, he added, 'The Democrats have to seize this opportunity by showing people in very practical terms how a different set of policies can deliver solutions that will actually make a difference in their lives. I think the jury is still out right now.'"

    There is no way in H3LL that the jury should be out!  How can we even say that!  Being certain that people are unhappy with Republicans is starting out so deeply in the obvious that it is entirely unclear whether he will come out and show people the wonderful things Dems can do.  All the great ideas we have as a party (oh yes, we - not YOU, Obama).  They're there!  It's all there!  

    Right now Obama's rallies to me are the stalest thing on TV.  It's like a KISS reunion tour or something.  I understand that everyone wants to see him campaign, wants to have the Obama 08 experience, but at some point he's going to have to push our ideas.  It's not about believing, it's about telling people what we will do.  That is what people want to hear.  

    Some of this crying for Hillary to get out strikes me as Obama-loving progressives ("liberal" is dead don't you know) not wanting to fight.  Wanting Obama to be the nominee now, so that he can by some miracle of attrition on the American mental landscape, convince everyone he should be president by late September.  

    You want the pendulum to swing, push it.

    Parent

    Ok (none / 0) (#69)
    by Edgar08 on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 05:48:10 PM EST
    1.  Obama can raise 100 million online in 24 hours just by all his supporters donating another 100 bucks each.

    2.  Clinton's right.  Obama lacks experience.  

    3. What goes on in GEs is the same.


    Parent
    So does Clinton (none / 0) (#100)
    by digdugboy on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 06:05:27 PM EST
    None of her claims to greater experience have made the slightest bit of sense.

    Parent
    Obama doesn't even have a visit (none / 0) (#102)
    by Edgar08 on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 06:07:43 PM EST
    To misspeak about.

    We'll disagree on that one.

    Parent

    So the score is (none / 0) (#125)
    by digdugboy on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 06:20:54 PM EST
    Clinton: 1 visit to misspeak about (lasting about a day, singing with Cheryl Crow and Sinbad)

    Obama: No visits to misspeak about.

    Better get that red 3 am phone to Hillary!

    </snark>

    Parent

    You people (none / 0) (#164)
    by Edgar08 on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 06:51:20 PM EST
    Don't really have discussions.

    I'll give you credit for extremely well organized and knowing what to say to everything.

    But if it came down to it, and it doesn't, but if you want to put it your way, Clinton is still better than Obama.

    Obama is nothing.


    Parent

    Obana has a pledged delegate (none / 0) (#169)
    by digdugboy on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 06:55:41 PM EST
    lead of over 150. That's something.

    Parent
    We were discussing (none / 0) (#176)
    by Edgar08 on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 06:59:20 PM EST
    Experience.

    Parent
    Obama doesn't have the experience (none / 0) (#180)
    by digdugboy on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 07:05:30 PM EST
    of casting a vote in favor of AUMF for the Iraq war. He doesn't have the experience of lying about landing under sniper fire. He does have longer legislative credentials than Hillary. Better academic credentials, too. He has an apparently solid marriage. He has a demonstrated commitment to community activism and service.

    In my view it is complete folly to say that athe experience factor weighs heavily in Hillary's favor. Complete folly.

    Parent

    LOL (none / 0) (#186)
    by Edgar08 on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 07:09:49 PM EST
    You brought up solid marriage.

    Just start yelling "blue dress" like the rest of camp Obama.


    Parent

    That's not my style (none / 0) (#194)
    by digdugboy on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 07:12:43 PM EST
    but it's interesting that you focus on that as a diversion to ignore the rest of what I said.

    Parent
    If you hadn't have brought it up (none / 0) (#199)
    by Edgar08 on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 07:18:34 PM EST
    I wouldn't have the opportunity to do so.

    Parent
    You think it's irrelevant (none / 0) (#208)
    by digdugboy on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 07:25:10 PM EST
    to his qualifications for the office or his appeal to voters?

    How about the rest of the experience I mentioned?

    Parent

    Actually, she made other trips (none / 0) (#207)
    by nycstray on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 07:23:56 PM EST
    while there that Sinbad and Crow to not accompany her on.

    more visits to misspeak about:

    http://tinyurl.com/2ycf2f

    Parent

    What goes on in campaigns is not really vetting (none / 0) (#74)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 05:49:29 PM EST
    really?
    when does that happen exactly?


    Parent
    It's not vetting (none / 0) (#79)
    by digdugboy on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 05:51:52 PM EST
    in the sense that somebody's record is being honestly investigated. It's vetting in the sense that it will reveal who's tough enough to fight and win in a campaign.

    Parent
    so (none / 0) (#83)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 05:53:05 PM EST
    when, exactly, would you imagine this would happen?


    Parent
    When Ken Starr starts (none / 0) (#90)
    by digdugboy on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 05:57:09 PM EST
    issuing subpoenas again.

    Seriously, it's up to the media -- that poor caricature of itself -- to investigate the candidates. That is, when it's not too busy eating John McCain's barbecued baby back ribs.

    I certainly don't expect James Carville to do any real vetting.

    Parent

    Me too (none / 0) (#190)
    by PennProgressive on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 07:10:48 PM EST
    and  most of Pennsylvania, I suppose. Thank you for pointing out my shortcomings and thanks for elevating  the level of discussion here. This  is the reason, during my busy schedule (doing other stupid stuff) I come back  to  TL.

    Parent
    Where's Kathy? (none / 0) (#49)
    by Lil on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 05:34:46 PM EST
    off topic, but I've been wondering?

    Breaking: first photo I've seen of (none / 0) (#72)
    by oculus on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 05:48:37 PM EST
    Obama in the Caribbean was posted at 6:00 p.m. EDT.  He's on the phone, natch.

    Which, on further reflection, is a (none / 0) (#97)
    by oculus on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 06:04:05 PM EST
    brilliant stragegy.  What, me worry?

    Parent
    Hillary quit ???? (none / 0) (#89)
    by Cayey on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 05:55:50 PM EST
    Hillary is fighter. PA is looking good for her and  she must keep campaigning there to keep or widen her margin of victory, Obama is throwing all his money in PA trying to make it 10% or less He knows he is damaged goods and he is desperate. His only chance is if Hillary quits. Remember Boston down the first 3 games in the world series and they did not quit. Or Rocky Balboa vs Apollo Creed, Rocky did not quit. America loves a fighter. Go Hillary

    Don't forget the coal miner grandpa. (5.00 / 0) (#104)
    by oculus on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 06:08:37 PM EST


    Parent
    Obama might buy the nomination (none / 0) (#118)
    by nellre on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 06:17:16 PM EST
    He's got a lot more money.

    Parent
    Im getting discouraged (none / 0) (#109)
    by scarpy on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 06:11:51 PM EST
    and starting to think we should just focus our energies on winning a bigger congressional majority. The presidency seems like a lost cause.

    I'm an Obama guy mostly. But let's be honest -- the coattails he may have had have been shredded by the Wright business. He'll never be an inspirational blank slate that can sweep through the red states now, because his patriotism will forever be doubted. That will kill him with centrists/independents and the "Obamacans" he's based his candidacy on.

    Meanwhile, you Hillary backers who ever thought she had a chance in hell of winning the election are completely, absolutely deluded. It would have been tough no matter what, but combine her idiotic praise for John McCain -- reinforcing him on all the traits most of the country thinks she lacks -- and the way her campaign has managed to alienate a large portion of black voters, and she's dead. I don't care how much of a "fighter" she is. Enough people flat out hate her or don't trust her, even among Dems, that she just cannot win, barring a far-right third party candidate sapping McCain's strength.

    Finally, throw in the fact that every Hillary or Obama partisan I know says he/she would rather vote for St. John than back their primary opponent. If even 1/3 of the people who feel that way follow through, McCain takes it.

    Y'all can call this a "concern troll" or whatever, but I'm just depressed. We're watching a catastrophe unfold here.

    Yes we can (5.00 / 1) (#123)
    by Dancing Bear on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 06:19:43 PM EST
    I mean Yes we are watching a catasptrophe.

    Parent
    Im getting discouraged (none / 0) (#110)
    by scarpy on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 06:11:51 PM EST
    and starting to think we should just focus our energies on winning a bigger congressional majority. The presidency seems like a lost cause.

    I'm an Obama guy mostly. But let's be honest -- the coattails he may have had have been shredded by the Wright business. He'll never be an inspirational blank slate that can sweep through the red states now, because his patriotism will forever be doubted. That will kill him with centrists/independents and the "Obamacans" he's based his candidacy on.

    Meanwhile, you Hillary backers who ever thought she had a chance in hell of winning the election are completely, absolutely deluded. It would have been tough no matter what, but combine her idiotic praise for John McCain -- reinforcing him on all the traits most of the country thinks she lacks -- and the way her campaign has managed to alienate a large portion of black voters, and she's dead. I don't care how much of a "fighter" she is. Enough people flat out hate her or don't trust her, even among Dems, that she just cannot win, barring a far-right third party candidate sapping McCain's strength.

    Finally, throw in the fact that every Hillary or Obama partisan I know says he/she would rather vote for St. John than back their primary opponent. If even 1/3 of the people who feel that way follow through, McCain takes it.

    Y'all can call this a "concern troll" or whatever, but I'm just depressed. We're watching a catastrophe unfold here.

    I'm not deluded (5.00 / 1) (#126)
    by dianem on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 06:22:15 PM EST
    I know what Clinton's chances are of winning the primary. Slim to none. Unfortunately, I also know that Obama has about as much chance of winning the general election as she does of winning the primary. The right wing has hardly even started attacking him and his negatives are above 50. It took them 15 years to get Clinton's negatives that high. I think Obama had a chance, although a slim one, before Wright, but by not getting in front of that story he handed them an issue tailor-made to turn voter's away from him. He has no leadership credentials to speak of, and we are, like it or not, at war and in the midst of an economic crisis. Clinton would stand a chance in the general election, Obama doesn't. He would have had a chance if he had waited a few years and build up some real leadership experience, but he wanted it all and he wanted it now, and unless McCain completely implodes he will not win this time nor will he be given another chance.

    Parent
    I really don't see.... (none / 0) (#134)
    by scarpy on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 06:25:31 PM EST
    ....how Hillary could win the general. That's what I'm talking about in my message. I don't think she ever had much of a chance for it, but now I'm convinced she's at least as hopeless as Obama probably is.

    Parent
    Sure doesn't help (5.00 / 1) (#146)
    by zyx on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 06:38:21 PM EST
    that while Obama was running this "new kind of politics", positive, election, that he painted Clinton (through Axelrod and Jackson, Jr., etc.) swipes, as a terrible racist, which she is not.

    Parent
    It's the test of time (none / 0) (#163)
    by dianem on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 06:50:04 PM EST
    In spite of all of the attacks by the right wing and by the media, Clinton has garnered a huge amount of support from voter's. Think about it. During most of the primary season, the media were fawning all over Obama and Clinton was constantly under attack, but she is virtually tied with him. She is supported by most of her Senate co-workers, and nobody had to threaten them with primary challenges to get them to endorse her. She is widely respected even by some right-wingers. He biggest negative is the right-wing, and they have been using the same tired arguments against her for over a decade. Her negatives started out high and have stayed pretty stable.

    Obama came to this race a virtual unknown. He has received the kind of publicity a candidate can only dream of and was given every break the media can give a candidate. But as his positives rose, so did his negatives, and the first time he was seriously attacked by the right he blew it. He gave a wonderful speech that was so long that most American's only heard a few sound bites - and he didn't provide any really good tags to carry his message (Four score and 20, I have a dream, thousand points of light, etc.).

    I believe that the only chance Democrats have is a Clinton/Obama candidacy. I think that Clinton has the experience and Obama the charisam to bring this home for us. But I'm not sure that his ego will allow this to happen. I suspect that he has started to believe his own press releases, and that he will insist on all or nothing. In that case, I really hope that he has some tricks up his sleeves, because the "vetting" he has received at the hands of the Clinton campaign is going to seem like a gentle massage compared to what the right wing has in store for him, and he has not so far shown that he is capable of fending off attacks with anything but pretty words and attacks on his opponents character. That won't work against people who have made character attacks their stock in trade for the last 20 years. Clinton is an amateur at character assassiantion (her heart isn't in it) - Rove is a pro.

    Parent

    yeah, but.... (none / 0) (#210)
    by scarpy on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 07:28:18 PM EST
    ....we can make the same case from the other side.

    Clinton came in with a huge advantage in terms of name recognition, party apparatus, SD support and fundraising, and she's been taken to the wall by someone her own campaign calls an "amateur." Obama hasn't been blown out of the water yet, as big a blow as Wright may have been. And for all the talk that he can't close the deal, seriously -- this was her fight to lose from the start. If she had ever managed to strike a major blow, the party would have given it to her. This should not have been a hard fight for Clinton.

    But it has been, to the point where she now seems more likely to lose the primary than win it. Why did this happen if she's as strong as you say? Too many Clinton supporters suggest it's because Obama has excited the know-nothing loons of the party, or act as if he's stolen something that is owed her. I think both perspectives avoid looking at her real weakness, which is that she's just not a very talented politician.

    That said, I wish we could have a joint ticket too. I wouldn't care too much which way it should go, but I also see no reason why she should be presumed to take the top slot. I don't buy the experience argument, and I can't see why Obama would want to be VP with Bill floating around as the defacto second-in-command. And I see no indication that she's willing to be VP either, so I can't fault the man's ego for turning it down.

    Finally, there's little recognition that Obama and his camp has gone easy on the Clintons, too. Until this week, there's been no Monica, no questions about pardons, no real digging up the ugly side of the Clinton years. Sure, that's old news and we know all about it. And the truth is, it wouldn't be much good to Obama in a Democratic primary. But like you say, Rove is a pro. And most of the country hated that stuff -- maybe not enough to back impeachment in 1998, but possibly enough to say, "Not again" ten years later.

    But here I go, getting into the argument I claimed to be bored by.

    I'm really wondering if there's any way to fix this situation short of the joint ticket, because I don't see either one being able to set aside her or his ego long enough to take second. Is there anything Hillary could say in defeat, for instance, that could get you to back Obama, presuming he won fair and square?

    Parent

    I disagree strongly with this: (5.00 / 2) (#128)
    by oculus on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 06:22:41 PM EST
    and the way her campaign has managed to alienate a large portion of black voters

    Except for possibly Bill Clinton's Jesse Jackson comment in SC, in my opinion, any alienation stemmed from the efforts of the Obama campaign and/or the media.

    Parent

    Well, we'll have to agree.... (none / 0) (#131)
    by scarpy on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 06:24:19 PM EST
    ....to disagree. I don't see the point in rehashing the same old arguments over. We all know what they are.

    Parent
    No, actually the argument is over: (5.00 / 1) (#137)
    by MarkL on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 06:29:05 PM EST
    John Kerry, Claire McCaskill and Obama himself ("typical white woman") proved that racist sounded gaffes can come from ANYONE in this country.
    What McCaskill said in particular---that she was happy to have a black candidate not be a victim---is probably the most offensive comment of the whole campaign, in terms of race.

    Parent
    Yep (none / 0) (#150)
    by scarpy on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 06:43:07 PM EST
    Anyone can make a gaffe. And yeah, McCaskill's comment was pretty ugly and stupid.

    You all think Obama's campaign has manufactured outrage over Clintonian slip-ups. I and other Obama types think many of the Clintonian slip-ups were designed to "activate" the race issue by pissing off blacks and getting whites to say, "Oh, there they go again."

    You say that Obama scores by getting black voters on his side in a racial contest. I say that there's no way the race issue can help Obama mathematically, cuz there are just so many more pissed-off white people, and he knows that. The only reason people don't see it in those terms is because we're not used to thinking of "pissed-off white people" as an identity niche.

    You all think Obama wants it both ways -- to play "the race card" while claiming to transcend the issue. I think the Clinton team knows perfectly well that Obama's most vulnerable if he looks like the black candidate, and that they win if they can attach that stigma to him through careful insinuation.

    So no, the argument isn't over. But it sure is f'in boring.

    Parent

    Where is the EVIDENCE that (none / 0) (#157)
    by MarkL on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 06:48:17 PM EST
    there was any planned use of race by the Clintons?
    They made no more gaffes in that area than anyone else---and Obama's supporters made the most offensive statements.
    The argument is over.

    Parent
    I have never heard a more (none / 0) (#168)
    by standingup on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 06:55:03 PM EST
    illogical argument.  The Clintons have no benefit in making the African American voters so angry they would not vote for her in the general.  Why would they intentionally alienate such a strong group within the Democratic base?  

    And there is no way to know if the white voters who are angered will vote for the Democrat or the Republican.  

    Can you honestly say that this makes any sense?  

    Parent

    Don't want a rehash (5.00 / 2) (#139)
    by RalphB on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 06:31:20 PM EST
    then stop bringing it up.  That's a first step.


    Parent
    Then why include that in your comment? (5.00 / 0) (#142)
    by oculus on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 06:32:37 PM EST


    Parent
    because.... (none / 0) (#158)
    by scarpy on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 06:48:20 PM EST
    ....regardless of how it got put into play (which is the argument I'm referring to), it remains a fact that Hillary is now damaged among African Americans.

    And that is part of the overall picture of why neither Dem can win in November.

    Parent

    I'm not as convinced of that as you (none / 0) (#167)
    by oculus on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 06:54:39 PM EST
    are.  

    Parent
    dems shoot themselves in both feet AGAIN! (none / 0) (#130)
    by pluege on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 06:23:28 PM EST


    Parent
    Obama has no chance (none / 0) (#149)
    by ClassicLib on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 06:41:39 PM EST
    It's understandable for Obama supporters to be depressed. He has a 50/50 chance of winning the nomination but no chance of winning the GE. His negatives are insurmountable and the media has only begun to scratch the surface. The truth will out.

    As the SDs come to realize who the strongest candidate is, Hillary will become our nominee and she will win against McCain.

    Some links that may be of interest:

    The Obama Crash and Burn
    If he acts as if the Wright controversy is behind him, it's over for Obama.

    http://tinyurl.com/26mssp

    Barack Obama: toxic mentors start to corrode pristine campaign
    The Democrat was surging ahead but now revelations about the men who helped shape him are putting voters off

    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/us_elections/article3602710.ece?print=ye s&randnum=1206387305904

    This is priceless (5.00 / 0) (#155)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 06:46:43 PM EST
    Hillary supporters using the "His negatives are too high for him to win" argument.

    What's next?  McCain supporters arguing that Hillary is too old to be President?

    Parent

    It's a good argument. Hillary's negatives have (none / 0) (#161)
    by MarkL on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 06:49:16 PM EST
    been stable. Obama's? Going up and up for months.
    Where is his ceiling?

    Parent
    Obama is the new Michael Jackson (none / 0) (#171)
    by Exeter on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 06:57:15 PM EST
    There are those that still are still deep inside their little blog or pundit bubbles that have no idea of the massive shift that occurred after the Wright video. They don't understand that 90% of the general public saw the Wright videos and only 10% of people heard or saw the Obama race speech -- and not that many that saw the speech had that big of a change of heart.

    When I went home for Easter and talked to a very large extended family and alot of hometown friends, the change was truly unbelievable. Before everyone was for Obama, not everyone is saying they were never for him, always knew this and that, that they always liked Clinton, ect. Before it was embarassing to admit you liked Clinton, now its embarassing to be in the Obama camp.

    I mean this purely in the pop culture sense and in no way a racial sense, but in the "real world" Obama really has become the new Michael Jackson.

    It will take more polling to show it, but he's toast.  

    Parent

    Oh goodie (none / 0) (#151)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 06:45:12 PM EST
    Another Obama support bashfest.  We haven't had one of these in a few hours.

    What Scheiber is saying and not dealing with is the fact that he does not think THE VOTERS will end the race. And boy is that terrible or what? How dare they vote for their favored candidate?

    Uhh, BTD, the voters WON'T decide this race.   Even if every single delegate went to Obama from this point forward he would STILL need politicians to vote for him to get the nomination.

    I don't understand why you feel the need to keep trying to beat Obama supporters over the head with the "let the will of the people decide" when the fact is that the will of the people CAN'T decide.

    Interesting article from LA Times (none / 0) (#156)
    by oculus on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 06:47:07 PM EST
    about the speech, Obama's memoir, and his relationships with AA activists in Chicago:

    LA TIMES

    New Obama Girl Vid (none / 0) (#159)
    by OxyCon on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 06:48:34 PM EST
    There's a new Obama Girl video out and it's really over the top. The whole thing is done to demonize Hillary and to try and force her to drop out of the race. It's very reminiscent of Tokyo Rose.
    They use video clips and pictures of Hillary that paint her in a negative light.

    Should Obama renounce and reject? (none / 0) (#172)
    by oculus on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 06:57:42 PM EST
    Will he?

    Meanwhile, Carville says:  I sd. it, I wasn't misquoted, I standby my statement, and I'm not resigning from anything.  Gutsy.

    Parent

    Nagourney on HRC's (none / 0) (#165)
    by oculus on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 06:52:04 PM EST
    only pathway to victory:

    NYT

    Including Puerto Rico.

    The punditry on this has been absurd... (none / 0) (#184)
    by Exeter on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 07:07:42 PM EST
    ...even the Hail Mary tone in this piece is absurd. Niether candidate can win through the delegate route. Clinton has a good chance of winning the popular vote -- even without including Michigan and Florida. And no candidate has ever lost the popular vote and still won the nomination in the modern political era. Those are the facts and that difficult to discern outside of the pundits echo chamber.

    Parent
    The Path to the Presidency (none / 0) (#183)
    by Tortmaster on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 07:06:30 PM EST
    My concern is that HRC will try to throw too much mud on Barack, untrue stuff no less, and McCain will be able to use it for the November election. In example, remember Hillary's claim during the Texas debate in February 2008 that Obama was a plagiarist?

    There was an article in The Boston Globe back in April 2007 in which it was noted that Obama used Deval Patrick's "just words" theme:

    " 'We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal' -- just words," Patrick said at a rally in Roxbury right before Election Day. " 'We have nothing to fear but fear itself' -- just words. . . . 'I have a dream' -- just words. They're all just words."

    To call the agreed-upon use of a campaign advisor's idea "plagiarism" is an untruth if your campaign had done even a minimal Google search, and I cannot believe that nobody on Hillary Clinton's staff knew about The Boston Globe article. If the campaign knew about it, then the attack on Obama claiming plagiarism was a lie.

    {Note: Hillary's a lawyer and a very smart person -- she knows the real deal here -- it can't be plagiarism when The Boston Globe announced Deval and Barack's agreement to the world 10 months earlier).

    Now, McCain can sit back and say, "I'm not calling you a plagiarist, I think that's not true, but people in your own party have said so."

    McCain can also cite HRC's endorsement of him as a better candidate for Commander-in-Chief than Obama. He can usurp the words of Clinton surrogate, Geraldine Ferarro. Mind you, he can now call the claims lies or racist dogma, as he discusses them with the public.  

    That's one reason why HRC needs to gracefully leave the stage (the opportunity cost is another), and that's why Obama supporters want to see it happen as soon as possible. I know the constant chatter requesting an exit probably seems like sniper fire to Clinton and her supporters, but she should just hunker down and run off the stage.    

    The RNC won't have to excuse it (5.00 / 1) (#214)
    by RalphB on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 07:34:27 PM EST
    when they use it, because they don't care about the easily bruised feelings of liberals.  They will embrace it and play it to the hilt, along with the lovely hatemonger Wright and his anti-American screeds.  If Obama turns out to be unelectable, and I think he is, there's no one to blame but himself.


    Parent
    Why doesn't Obama leave? (none / 0) (#187)
    by Exeter on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 07:10:12 PM EST
    Hillary didn't make Obama go to hate-monger for 20 years and make him his "mentor."  Obama's the one that has self destructed and made himself unelectable. He's the most drop out.

    Parent
    Stalemate (none / 0) (#204)
    by faux facsimile on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 07:21:14 PM EST
    Can't we just call it what it is?

    The superdelegates will decide, individually, for their own reasons (which will remain unstated) and in their own time. The next 8 weeks of campaigning is just jockeying for position. Even in that race, it's going to likely be a wash - Clinton wins some, Obama others, and both spin like mad to explain why their wins really matter.

    Meanwhile, John McCain will have months to fundraise, organize and campaign while Clinton and Obama try to render each other unelectable. It is likely they will succeed.

    Clinton's Path To Victory (none / 0) (#211)
    by Coral Gables on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 07:28:57 PM EST
    If Clinton beats Obama by a sizable margin in Pennsylvania (and the last poll there has Clinton at +16), the headlines will be all Hillary all the time leading into North Carolina and Indiana.

    A big victory in PA will also once again renew talk of Clinton victories in Florida and Michigan. The last poll out of NC only had Obama at +1. A huge Pennsylvania win and the talk of her leading West Virginia at +28 could very well swing that contest into the Clinton column.

    No one knows what is happening in Indiana but 2 months ago it looked solidly Obama. Today it remains a question mark.

    Victories in PA and NC, along with the anticipated huge victory in West Virginia, along with the talk again about the popular vote being the will of the people is what keeps the Clinton nomination moving forward. The Obama camp can claim pledged delegates and Clinton needing SD's to overturn the contest, but the Clinton camp would be on sound footing saying the SD's shouldn't overturn the will of the people.

    The contest will continue on and Obama is likely to lose three of the next four keeping the momentum with the Clinton camp right to the end of the primary season.

    Obama's Potential Path To The Nomination | 208 comments (208 topical)