Who's Stronger in November Against McCain?

My own view is that Hillary Clinton is the stronger candidate in November because she is more likely to bring a win in Ohio, Pennsylvania or Florida, she wins in the big states, and she wins with rural, blue collar and women voters. Her win in PA yesterday was a mirror of her win in Ohio.

Barack Obama simply is not connecting with these critical groups of voters.

Lanny Davis today gives his reasons. The New York Times will have this article on who can better win the swing states in tomorrow's paper -- and this one on electability.

Why do you think Hillary is stronger -- or not-- against McCain in November? The superdelegates need to know.

Here's the latest electoral map for Obama. Here's the map for Hillary. (Hat tip to My DD.)

< How Does John McCain Really Feel About Hillary's PA Win? | Change: Indiana May Say "No Thanks" >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    I think Obama's bad attitude (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by MarkL on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:14:21 PM EST
    will bite him if he goes against McCain.
    I'm talking about his glowering and head-shaking during debates, and his disrespectful comments.
    He does not treat Hillary with respect, but he gets away with this because the media generally hates Hillary. With McCain, the storyline will be completely different, IMO.

    That's a good point... (none / 0) (#11)
    by Exeter on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:23:07 PM EST
    ...Now that you say that, he is kind of a *ick during debates.  Plus the "John McCain is old" will work for Hillary, but not for Obama.

    He wouldn't be disrespectful to McCain (none / 0) (#66)
    by Prabhata on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:49:01 PM EST
    cause he's a man.  Hillary cannot be taken seriously cause she's a woman.

    But he pulled out her chair at that... (none / 0) (#74)
    by Exeter on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:51:39 PM EST
    ...debate. Doesn't that count?

    Sure! (none / 0) (#136)
    by felizarte on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 01:34:24 AM EST
    After he was roundly criticized for past snubs.    Obama can't seem to empathize with the people who talk to him about their problems in the same way that Hillary listens which shows in the way she addresses those concerns.  He acts like a spoiled brat when he whines "can't I just eat my waffles?!" I wonder if he even accused his white side of the family of racism to get away with spoiled brat behavior or get what he wants, much like the behavior of a child of divorced parents--playing mom against dad and getting more than what he deserved.  I am just wondering if that is one of the reasons he acts so elitist.

    Hillary (5.00 / 6) (#3)
    by AnninCA on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:16:22 PM EST
    is way more formidible.  She's attracting a lot of the women who might have voted Republican in the past.

    I think she'd clean McCain's clock.

    To quote my Republican Mom today (5.00 / 2) (#106)
    by davnee on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 11:23:05 PM EST
    "I'm sick of old white men ruling the world."  She followed up with, "but you don't correct for that problem by electing an unqualified, un-American man to rule the world."  She's all-in for HRC or back to sighing as she sends the old white man to the White House.  Now my Mom is not a soccer mom.  Too old for that.  But these ladies are out there in Republican land, and they are just dying for their suffragette moment.  And the commitment to leaving Iraq responsibly, the commitment to health care and the commitment to children doesn't hurt either.

    Wehave enormous opportnity to (none / 0) (#39)
    by cawaltz on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:36:39 PM EST
    win over soccer moms. Hillary has an impressive resume' regarding women and children. I was impressed with it even before I decided she was my second choice(The female and child demographic compris a large portion of those in poverty which along with her/John edwards health care plan pretty much clinched it for me). Furthermore, its about time the men were called on their bogus "partial birth abortion law"(that basically takes an already horrifying decision and makes it a decision that could affect a womens future reproduction or even risks their lives just to score political points.) and their refusal to pass a law that makes it clear that paying a person less based on their gender will not be tolerated in tis country and companies that engage in such behavior will have repercussions.

    Does anyone think (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by Kathy on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:43:59 PM EST
    that Clinton would've allowed that law to be struck down?  She would've already made it an executive order.  Done deal.

    As for the so-called "partial birth" (a phrase that brings bile to my throat) law, the only thing more disgusting than the politically motivated sell-out of gutless dems is the fact that women are now suffering grievous bodily harm because reproductive rights are no longer in fashion.  

    Does anyone with half a brain think Obama will use political capital to get back some of our-women's-rights?  That "table" he keeps talking about is so full now, I predict they'll fall on the floor alongside LGBT rights and equal pay for women.

    Thank God Clinton is still in this thing.  Rise, Hillary!  We need you!


    Hill (5.00 / 1) (#153)
    by cawaltz on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 06:43:39 AM EST
    Hill represents every woman who ever had to balance a career with a family. She is every woman that had to work twice as hard to get half as far all the while hearing some man whine about how unfair it was that she was there so they couldn't disuss conquests instead of working.

    She's gaining (none / 0) (#105)
    by AnninCA on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 11:20:46 PM EST
    thanks for the link (none / 0) (#149)
    by kempis on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 05:53:52 AM EST
    Loved it.

    (And welcome. I've seen you taking hits at HuffPo for supporting Hillary. I'm sure you'll appreciate the climate here much better. I know I do.)


    Obama is another Dukakis (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by myiq2xu on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:18:09 PM EST
    He'll win the "true blue" states, but not the critical battleground states.

    He may lose some, like California, that have been blue recently but were red not long ago.  No Democrat wins in November without California.

    His delegate lead is due to winning the solid red states that HE WILL NOT WIN in November, like South Carolina and Mississippi.

    Don't forget Georgia, Idaho (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by bjorn on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:19:32 PM EST
    and Alaska!!

    Obama ties McCain in MA -SUSA 4/11-13/08 (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by Prabhata on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:53:49 PM EST
    Clinton has been thoroughly vetted (5.00 / 3) (#6)
    by cawaltz on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:18:48 PM EST
    They've already thrown the kitchen sink at her and we already know all her skeletons in all their glory. She was under the GOP microscope while her husband served as President. Obama is an unknown quantiy. We've only just seen the tip of the opposition research iceberg with him. I'm betting they will dig even more junk up on him and throw everything from the fact that he was "made a Senator by someone who basically put his name on other people's work" to his associations with people like Wright(who I feel confdent is probably a fairly nice person who is being depicted in a horrible matter) and his association with Excelon(they will laugh his rhetoric about change right into next week).


    Ambient noise (5.00 / 3) (#124)
    by p lukasiak on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 11:58:28 PM EST
    Back in late February when SUSA did its 50 state poll, Obama had a small but clear advantage over Clinton.  

    But that is changing (gonna blogwhore again, but because its relevant.


    Last week, SUSA "revisited" nine of those states, all of them ones that Dems could/should win.  In February Obama's average margin over McCain in those states was 7.1%.  Clinton's was only 3.6%

    But in the past six months, Obama's margin over McCain has shrunk to an average of 2.2%.  Clinton's held steady at 3.7%

    Like I said, these are all states that the dems SHOULD win in a good year for Democrats, and Obama is tanking in them while Hillary holds on.

    People are finally starting to ask "who is this guy?" and they don't like the answers they are getting.  

    IMHO, Clinton fatique will turn out to be a blessing -- if Clinton is the nominee, people aren't going to want to hear the same old crap about Hillary rehashed, or new variations on the old themes.  They are TIRED of that crap -- and they want a new president, who will bring a change in the direction of the country.  So they'll tune out the right wing noise machine, and listen to what she has to say.  Clinton fatigue has made the GOP smear merchants just ambient noise.

    But they will listen to crap about Obama because they haven't heard it before and they are trying to figure out who he is.  They'll just suck everything in and process it, while with Clinton the smear attempts will go in one ear and out the other.


    Obama was not a hit at first (5.00 / 1) (#135)
    by felizarte on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 01:28:29 AM EST
    with the AA community.  Only when he won Iowa did they get energized and they supported his candidacy wholeheartedly when the thought occurred to them that he could actually win! And where Bill Clinton used to be the darling of the AA community to the extent he was dubbed "the first black president" their enthusiasm practically all got transferred to Barack.

    The same phenomenon with women is happening to Hillary.  She has convince them that she could win therefore her support is growing among the voters of all parties.  It will now be a question of whose support is more steadfast.

    That is why I think that media bias will be made to disappear by "women through lobbying and pressure. Women from all groups and  liberated men will form the core group of her support becausse they believe in the solutions that she has laid out for the country's problems.


    The black community in my (5.00 / 1) (#176)
    by FlaDemFem on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 01:36:23 PM EST
    neck of the woods is slowly turning towards Hillary and away from Obama. Why?? They don't like Wright either, and they don't like the promises with no back up. They do like that Hillary can say what she is planning to do, say how she is planning to do it, and can say how she plans to pay for it. So far, all they have heard from Obama is "Hope, Change, ME, ME, ME!!" and they don't think that makes for a good President. I agree with them.

    Bingo! (none / 0) (#128)
    by AnninCA on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 12:08:56 AM EST
    I've been waiting on just this turn.  Nobody wants to even talk about the past.

    Good grief......we lived through it.  Enuf already.

    We want to look forward.

    We have serious problems.  Let's get into solution.


    I really like your statistical work.... (none / 0) (#139)
    by Oje on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 01:58:50 AM EST
    If your the same p_lukasiak who took down that Edwards' staffer, Catfish so-and-so, on Time's Swampland, then you have two notable blog contributions to the Democratic nomination this year! Thanks for the interesting work.

    *you are (none / 0) (#140)
    by Oje on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 01:59:06 AM EST

    Mudcat (none / 0) (#152)
    by p lukasiak on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 06:26:33 AM EST
    that was Mudcat Saunders.

    And actually, we made nice, eventually.  


    I call it the Water Cooler Effect (none / 0) (#159)
    by ccpup on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 07:43:57 AM EST
    If someone at the water cooler has new, interesting, juicy gossip, everyone's ears perk up and everything is digested for future sharing around the office from desk to desk and cubicle to cubicle.  Massive extra bonus points if it's about "the new guy".  Doesn't have to be true, of course, just something titillating to talk about.

    On the other hand, if someone has gossip everyone already knows about regarding someone they're already familiar with AND the gossip is really, really old, people shrug and turn their attention elsewhere.  Kind of like "oh, yeah, I already know that (how boring)"

    New gossip on the new guy is always more interesting and more likely to stick and be discussed endlessly, whether it's true or not.


    My mother-in-law live in Colorado and (5.00 / 0) (#9)
    by gish720 on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:19:47 PM EST
    she does not think it's possible for Obama to carry that state...it's not as conservative as it used to be, but still Coors runs things out there and while it's better its still a very conservative state, don't see how it's possible for Obama to count Colorado as part of his plan to win in November. I do believe Hillary is a better betto win in the fall, her one drawback is how much the press hates her. They hold her in utter contempt.

    We need to start battling it out with media (none / 0) (#19)
    by cawaltz on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:27:10 PM EST
    It is about time they get called on the fact that they were so busy being "shocked and awed" that they dropped the ball on WMDs. We need to continue to deride them for covering Britney and Lilo more than they cover what Washington is doing on behalf of its citizens. They need to be called out and cowed until the change or people realize THEY are part of the problem and why instead of substantial debates on issues affecting Americans, we get stuck with who raised how much where which will have absolutely no bearing past 2008 going into 2009. It's time Americans get serious about their leadership insted of determinig it based on who they want to have a beer with.

    Hostle Media (none / 0) (#162)
    by mmc9431 on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 07:58:33 AM EST
    I believe Hilary can and should use the hostility of the media to her advantage. We've had a seven year love fest going on where this administration has gotten a free ride even though they have corrupted and destroyed everything they've touched.With Hilary there would be no free ride. There would be accountability. I think she should flaunt this!

    Most people have heard the press trash her (none / 0) (#83)
    by Prabhata on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:56:54 PM EST
    Those who hate her, might not vote for her, but I know many who hate her, respect her abilities.

    Look at Richard Mellon Scaife (none / 0) (#109)
    by myiq2xu on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 11:25:01 PM EST
    if she can charm him, she can win anyone over.

    Hillary's strengths against McCain & Obama (5.00 / 9) (#22)
    by andrys on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:28:32 PM EST
    The country needs solutions, yesterday.  Hillary's mind is filled, it would seem, with all kinds of ideas she wants a chance to implement and she can, on request, come up right away with specifics, how to accomplish something, listing factors that need to be considered and balanced, on almost any issue of importance to us.  Her enthusiasm for detail and the tedious process of problem-solving is huge, and her focus is obvious.  She wants to tackle the problems and is ready because she's been thinking about them a long time.

      And has learned from previous experience to listen to others this time.

      Obama's only focus seems clear in a set stump-speech that hasn't changed in 15 months.  He's inspirational there but I can recite his speech along with him, including last night's.  When not following a script, he halts and stumbles because he's not thought about things enough.  She is fluent because she's mulled these problems and possible solutions for some time -- they're a part of her.

      He specializes in vagueness and has shown no interest in details; his chance in Nevada to explain his health plan on stage along with other candidates a few months ago was wasted because, as he explained, his staff would soon have a plan ready on the website.

       McCain has principles but they change from one political environment to the next -- and his positions today reflect the need to cater to the more conservative base of his party.  He has not thought much about the economy and is not well-versed there, as he admits.  His inability to get straight the complex entities operating at odds in the middle east is darn scary.

       The one person who understands these things in detail and can speak about them very well, in understandable ways, is Clinton.  I was against Clinton until New Hampshire, hoping Edwards and Obama would trounce her so I wouldn't have to hear about the Clintons ever again.  But once I heard her speak about her ideas, her concerns, in such terrific detail  that showed exactly how much thought she has put into this, I've been with her.

       She also KNOWS how things work from White House to Congress and back - as well as how the various government departments work or don't work.  She wouldn't have to be taught or have to depend on old dependables to get her up to speed.  

       She wouldn't be unduly influenced by staffers trying to explain issues to her in order to get her approval - she'd know them backwards and forwards but now that she's tasted defeat due to a certain rigidity of mindset and has said she learned her lesson, I'll bank on that rather than the confused mind I see operating with a very nice McCain.

       Moreover, she is one tough candidate and is probably the one person who could weather the kind of lies the 527s would throw at her or any other Democrat candidate.  Obama cannot take even the softest fluff if called to answer these, complaining for days about being questioned so.  If the question is stupid, say why it is.  

       Her supporters are Dem stalwarts and would vote the whole ticket.  As we saw in Texas, his new young people tended to fill in only the presidential boxes and skipped the rest of the ballot.  We need a candidate who will bring votes for the rest of the Democrats on the ticket.

       Obama talks only about a 'movement' (his) and not about the party.  He has spent months trashing the one Democrat Administration that did good things in the last 20 years.
    He did it again with the explanations for Pennsylvania about how the Clinton and Bush administrations had not done anything good by them while clear government statistics showed exactly the opposit for the Clinton administration.

       So, yes, Clinton for the Democratic Party and for this country.

    Here Here! (5.00 / 2) (#65)
    by davnee on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:48:31 PM EST
    Terrific post.  I'd add the obvious point on the demographics of the Reagan Dems in her electability column.  She's been re-branded as a populist.  That shouldn't be wasted in a time of economic crisis when populism sells.

    And on a personal note, I just can't stomach the thought of a long march to November with a thin-skinned Obama and his cultist, whining supporters taking to their fainting couches every 5 seconds to protest negative ads and the racism, my god the racism(!), everywhere and in everyone that challenges him.  Like the Republicans will care.  Sure the R's will try to rip HRC up too if she gets the nom, but she'll take the punches and turn around and punch right back without complaining about it.  The D's need to stop running wimps.  And if we can get a Dem that isn't a wimp, and who also happens to be a woman, then that's a frakking awesome two-fer!


    Obama (none / 0) (#72)
    by AnninCA on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:50:27 PM EST
    was humiliated in PA.  He'll knock off the whining, trust me.

    He got the message, even if his supporters did not.


    Obama, not Axelrod, getting the message (none / 0) (#165)
    by andrys on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 08:24:52 AM EST
    That's borne out in the section on what Obama concedes re this, though Axelrod shocks the reporter and anyone with sense, when he says

    "The white working class has gone to the Republican nominee for many elections, going back even to the Clinton years," Axelrod said. "This is not new that Democratic candidates don't rely solely on those votes."

    I'm not sure Obama would stop the whining, since he hasn't stopped about last week's debate for days now and that was just nothing compared to what he's facing if he's the nominee,  -- and he's getting a taste of that already in North Carolina with the two Repub ads I saw on Matthews' show yesterday.


    Hear! Hear! (none / 0) (#129)
    by cymro on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 12:15:52 AM EST
    See this.

    (And I like what you said, too ;-)


    Great Rationale! Totally Agree! (5.00 / 3) (#113)
    by felizarte on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 11:37:44 PM EST
    And as to media bias?  Watch what women can do once Hillary becomes the nominee.  Millions of women complaining to advertisers of shows that show such bias; with threats of product boycotts.  Watch how quickly those sexist programs shape up.  Hillary can attract most of the Obama voters even without Obama on the ticket.  She has after all supporters like Mayor Nutter, Sheila Jackson Tate, Diane Watson, Andrew Young and Vernon Jordan.  The elder politicians in the black community who were intimidated by the younger leaders into switching votes to Obama, will surely be back and will be instrumental in coalescing behind Clinton.  Hillary would know what to do.  This is just a situation that I am sure she has already thought of and has the solution.

    Hillary is tough; courageous; she fights and she does not get rattled.  She will be a real unifying personality.  I have no doubts whatsoever that can implement her proposed policies:  get them through congress (because she knows how things get done in that branch of the govt.) she will protect and respect the intent of the and letter of the constitution.  She will restore US goodwill around the world.


    Amen! (5.00 / 2) (#116)
    by AnninCA on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 11:44:51 PM EST
    She has not a stupid bone in her body for retaliation, except when it's highly personal.

    I wouldn't want to be Richardson.

    However, the AA guys who abandoned her?

    No problem.  Jeesh*, the woman gets along with Gingrich and just won an endorsement from her arch press enemy.

    She's a uniter.


    If Hillary is the nominee.. (none / 0) (#177)
    by FlaDemFem on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 01:43:14 PM EST
    However, the AA guys who abandoned her?
    They were originally Clinton voters, Bill took the AA vote almost 100% when he ran, so they will just go back to Hillary when Obama is out of the race.

    Further on media bias: (none / 0) (#138)
    by felizarte on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 01:54:28 AM EST
    consider Oprah.  Her ratings took a dive when she involved herself heavily in Obama's politics.  Ellen deGeneres has surpassed her shows ratings.  It is going to take her more time to recover from this.  Although her financial empire is not going to suffer that much because she is fairly media diversified, still the prestige . . .!

    And I have noticed that lately, she has pretty much focussed herself on her show and not being political.  I should also add that another AA star in Hillary's circle of supporters are Magic Johnson and Whoopi Goldberg whom I consider one of the most intelligent women TV hosts.


    Yup (5.00 / 1) (#144)
    by facta non verba on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 03:23:24 AM EST
    Pretty my story as well. An ABC voter (Anybody But Clinton) and supported Edwards until he suspended his campaign but Clinton caught my ear in New Hampshire and the more I looked at Obama the less I cared for him.

    I like that she is a policy wonk and a political operative. She understands Washington, how it works, she knows that the road ahead is tough, no President save Lincoln and FDR perhaps will confront a worse situation upon taking office. She's a fighter. She's tireless. Won't quit. A real American in all the best sense of that word. She has those mid-Western values and small town working class roots. An Wellesley and Yale education and a lifetime of service with the energy and drive of a twenty-five year old.

    I'm with Joe Scarborough I'm in the tank for Hillary. She's my gal. I like Edwards a lot but you know what she won me over.


    She's (none / 0) (#37)
    by AnninCA on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:34:36 PM EST
    truly excited, isn't she?  I so agree with your assessment.  She's been thinking about this for absolutely years.

    The woman truly has been training for this job her entire life.

    Get her with McCain?

    He'll probably just concede the race to her and offer to be that Republican on her cabinet.  :)


    Is There Away To Change Obamabot's Mindset? (none / 0) (#51)
    by PssttCmere08 on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:43:02 PM EST
    So many of them spew such hate against Hillary; and I would venture to say many of them cannot even give a rational reason why.

    A good start... (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by sweetthings on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:48:15 PM EST
    Might be to stop calling them Obamabots.

    My theory (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by AnninCA on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:49:11 PM EST
    is that, "No, Obama is to that group what Nader was to my son his first time out voting."  He was such a believer.  It was sweet, in a way.

    I have a theory they are mostly people raised by Republican parents who are rebelling.  :)


    I think Hillary needs to confront the sexism... (none / 0) (#80)
    by Exeter on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:54:18 PM EST
    ...much the same way Obama did with his race speech. I think it would pry away alot of Obama's voters, but keep her base.

    A speech on sexism would not work for HRC (5.00 / 2) (#91)
    by Prabhata on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 11:04:42 PM EST
    Most people would discount what she says as sour grapes.  We'll leave that for Chelsea.  She's getting the taste of the political arena, and my impression is that she likes it.

    Thats' true... (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by Exeter on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 11:13:04 PM EST
    ...but I do think she should do more of the women's civil rights stuff she did in her victory speech last night.

    Civil rights (none / 0) (#107)
    by AnninCA on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 11:23:07 PM EST
    as she did in her speech was pitch perfect.

    There is NO doubt that Obama's campaign has been equally impressive.

    Neither should diss the other.

    She's right.  This is historical.  Wisdom is knowing when you're in the middle of an historical moment.

    She absolutely charmed everyone with that speech.


    Frank Luntz's reaction to Hillary's speech (none / 0) (#168)
    by andrys on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 08:47:24 AM EST
    The Republican pollster, not known to be a fan, said, "Fantastic" ... "You cannot ask for a better speech than that"...
      Here's a videoclip of that.

    Chris Matthews said again yesterday "I loved her speech" and what was so funny was his being so impressed that she didn't have to yell and how, although he realizes (he said) that he himself yells, her calm and nicely modulated voice showed a confidence he'd not seen before.


    I should have said: most people would dismiss it.. (none / 0) (#92)
    by Prabhata on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 11:05:34 PM EST
    All women should confront sexism (none / 0) (#142)
    by felizarte on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 02:03:09 AM EST
    individually and collectively.  This is the moment.

    It's obvious (5.00 / 0) (#25)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:29:18 PM EST
    that Obama is unelectable. The demographics are undisputable on this.

    FL and MI have to be counted for either to have a fighting chance but I think even with them counting Obama would lose both states due to the fact that he has given McCain a club to beat him with.

    Ron Fournier with the AP did an article today that basically said: Obama is likely to win the election but also likely to lose against McCain. That seems to be the conventional wisdom.

    That (none / 0) (#26)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:29:54 PM EST
    should be Obama win the nomination but lose the general election.

    No, really, that should be (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by Kathy on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:31:39 PM EST
    Dems who don't see this are frackin' deluded.

    I know (none / 0) (#50)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:42:52 PM EST
    The pundits and the dem elite seem absolutely clueless as to how unelectable Obama is. Wright is enough to wipe him out alone and that's even before all the other negative stuff gets aired.

    There (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by sas on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:30:08 PM EST
    is a substantial group among the Democratic electorate who are offended by Wright, and clinggate.  Picture the towns of Johnstown, and Washington, PA for an idea of these die-hard Dems who do not like Obama.  These people went 70-30 for Clinton last night.  Picture West Virginia , Arkansas, Pa and Ohio, which would go Democratic under Clinton, and Republican for McCain.  Obama cannot win these people over by any means at this point.  

    Florida is lost to Obama, and Hillary can win it.

    (Obama is barely beating McCain in Massachusetts according to SUSA - this is a sign of how bad things are for Obama.)>

    Some are more liberal, but most are moderate and/or conservative.  They swing between parties, often voting values and economics.  Hillary is stronger on the economy and with the values types.  

    Anbother question is what will women do? - the largest part of the Democratic electorate.  Hillary is winning women by about 2-1 (give or take 5 % or so).  Why would these women continue  to show allegiance to the Democratic party?  What has the party done for them in recent years?  ( a barely hold the line on Roe V Wade ain't much).  A shift toward Obama will lose some of these people, not to mention the moderate Republican women and single women she has brought into the party.

    Consider the liberals and the black voters - the Obama voters.  IMHO, these folks would be least likely to migrate from the party in November to McCain.

    Hillary holds the group which we are most likely to lose in November.

    Oh, Oh! (5.00 / 3) (#84)
    by AnninCA on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:56:58 PM EST
    Rendell went after Obama today on FL and MI with Chris Matthews.

    He COWED Matthews.  Absolutely blew him out of the water.

    Matthews tried saying, "Well, FL and MI don't count."

    And Rendell came back like a bull and said, "Gee, what is Obama afraid of.  We've offered a revote.  It's still on the table.  Either he's afraid of a blow-out or count the delegates.  End of story.

    I'm excitedly paraphrasing here.

    But it was a thing of beauty to watch Matthews smile and shut up.


    Hillary (5.00 / 2) (#53)
    by nell on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:43:27 PM EST
    Because she carries the key swing voters who move elections every four years.

    She carried Latinos huge and I do not believe that Obama would have the same success in the fall as McCain is popular among Latinos as well. I think you would see more of an even split between Obama and McCain, while I think Hillary would win big against McCain.

    She carries so-called working class Dems and I am not sure at all that Obama could carry this demographic in the general election. In fact, exit polls seem to suggest that he won't. People like my parents will not vote for him, no matter what, they don't trust him to have the best interests of the country at heart (silly as it is for them to think this), and they are under the incredibly mistaken impression that McCain is a centrist. And before someone says it, no, they are not racist, but they are hardworking and they are suspicious of someone who could rise so fast with so little record.

    She carries white women huge, and if I remember correctly, Bush and Kerry narrowly split this demographic in 2004. I have no doubt that she would win white women big, I am certain a significant number of Republican women would vote for her in the booth. One thing I have heard over and over again from Republicans this primary season is that they are really coming to admire her toughness.

    And finally, the electoral math simply looks better for her. If she wins all the Kerry states plus Arkansas, she is golden. She won't get NH against McCain, I don't think, but I do think she will get Ohio (and I know Kerry may have too, but he didn't fight for it, I have no doubt she will). She puts Florida into play in a major way, while it is pretty clear now that Obama does not. Now I know his path is supposed to look different, he thinks he can carry states like VA, CO, NM, and according to Richardson tonight, Kansas (???), but I don't see it. Virginia, no way, not after the right wing machine starts, maybe Colorado, but I do not see how he gets New Mexico. If he loses OH, PA, and FL he is in real trouble...and that to me seems the most likely scenario, with or without Rendell or Strickland's machines...

    As far as why McCain seems to want to run against her, based on a conversation I had with a friend who works with the McCain campaign, they think Obama is way easier to beat, but they are actually afraid of him being in control of the country. In case you missed the run in Obama and McCain had over bi-partisan legislation, it is no secret that McCain does not have a whole lot of faith in Obama. If he has to lose, he would much rather lose to President Hillary than President Obama.

    Bingo (5.00 / 3) (#111)
    by AnninCA on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 11:27:08 PM EST
    I heard some very centrist Republicans talking the other night, and they really don't think McCain will win.

    They are truly frightened of Obama.

    They admire Hillary and trust her a lot more.

    They know she's progressive, too.  But they are very willing because they trust her judgment in military matters.

    She did her homework.  She got on that committee and got close.  She understands the issues.

    That's leadership.  No doubt about it.

    When the opposite side gives you grudging respect, you got a winning deal.


    Has anybody considered that Clinton (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by davnee on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 11:02:40 PM EST
    might put WV and even KY in play?  This goes along with a way, way better than even chance of winning AR.  I think Clinton in WV is as good a bet as Obama in VA and CO.  With the economy in the tank, WV and KY are exactly the kind of states that want the populist.  Way more so I'd bet than CO or VA want to fall in love with the high-minded Arugula eater.  Obama would be a luxury vote for idealistic people doing just fine in thriving states.  Clinton would be a survival vote for realistic people barely getting by in hard-times states.  I think that cuts in favor of Clinton.

    There are (none / 0) (#112)
    by AnninCA on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 11:28:10 PM EST
    no thriving states right now.

    And yes.....She's strong in KY and WV.


    Clinton (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by Donna Darko on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 11:18:53 PM EST
    Electorally, she has the big states and swing states. Her coalition is bigger than Obama's.

    Women (51%), working class (33%), Latinos (15%), elderly (12%)

    Blacks (13%), youth (25%), Creative Class (13%)

    Some groups overlap and not all women vote for Clinton but if you add up the population percentages it's 111% to 51%.

    Gender and class (5.00 / 1) (#132)
    by Donna Darko on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 12:38:04 AM EST
    And not all youth vote for Obama. 60% voted for Obama. 50% of women voted for Clinton.

    Gender and class are more decisive in this election than race. Women put her over in NH, OH, TX and PA. The working class put her over in OH and PA. Clinton rec'd only 8% more white votes than Obama. Another decisive class issue is education. 12% more noncollege graduates voted for Clinton, 12% more college graduates voted for Obama.

    120% more Republicans and 50% more Independents voted for Obama, putting to rest any notion Republicans chose Clinton as the weaker general election candidate. If almost 3 times more Republicans and Independents voted for Obama, Republicans think Obama is easier to beat.

    Obama is untested, unvetted, prone to gaffes, considered elite, soft on national security and unpatriotic. He's a combination of Stevenson, McGovern, Dukakis, Gore and Kerry. He should run in '12 or '16, not now. There's too much at stake and Clinton is a sure thing. She has succeeded at every stage of her life and will surely make a great President.

    All data from this link.

    Unpatriotic? (none / 0) (#160)
    by andrys on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 07:53:42 AM EST
    I'm not an Obama fan, but I don't think his being unpatriotic can be assumed at all from what I've seen - I didn't see any of them wearing a flag pin at that debate ...

    Flag pin (none / 0) (#179)
    by Donna Darko on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 03:18:46 PM EST
    He's said he doesn't need to wear a flag pin because he's patriotic but perception is everything. "Pay attn to the jugheads not the eggheads."

    I think Obama is best, and then (1.00 / 7) (#14)
    by 1jpb on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:25:23 PM EST
    throw in Strickland or Rendell, to unify the HRC people, and expand BO's demographic appeal, beyond the independents and new voters that he brings, but HRC doesn't.

    NYT weighs in, too.

    The thing HRC supporters don't understand is that she can be torn apart by wingnut attacks, just because BO doesn't use them (unlike HRC against him) doesn't mean they don't exist.  

    For example, we've now seen that HRC likes to run these fear mongering ads immediately before the elections (and if you deny they're fear mongering, please explain why they only get sprung at the last minute.)  But, it was WJC who refused to take custody of Bin Landen when he was offered it.  And, the 9-11 report says Bin Laden was inspired to do 9-11 because of WJC foreign policy mistakes.  Then throw in sniper-gate.  Now you know why Rs are supporting HRC.  They will rip her to shreds.  And this is only one issue of many where the Rs will have a field day.

    You're wrong (5.00 / 0) (#24)
    by jen on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:29:02 PM EST
    to think Hillary has been rough on Obama. He ain't seen nothin' yet as far as attack ads.

    And blaming 9/11 on Clinton is straight out of right wing play book. Is that all you've got?


    I am (none / 0) (#167)
    by Claw on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 08:34:40 AM EST
    Getting so tired of the "he ain't seen nothin yet," argument.  Yes, either nominee will see more vicious and unfair attacks in the GE.  That's how it always works.  
    Not to mention...at the moment he's winning*.
    *Please don't bring up the phony math that puts Clinton ahead by giving Obama zero votes out of MI.  If you want to include FLA, fine.  If you want to include MI, fine.  But surely some voted uncommitted as a show of support for Obama.  Please factor that in, and explain how you divined which uncomitted's were for Obama, which for Edwards, etc.  

    you guys are just boring (5.00 / 4) (#28)
    by Kathy on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:30:02 PM EST
    the ever loving crap outta me with these talking points.  PLEASE MOVE ONTO TOMORROW'S!  We are close enough to midnight that no one will notice.

    Ah yes (5.00 / 3) (#32)
    by andgarden on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:32:32 PM EST
    and I'm sure we'll hear lots about Monica too. Because, you know, that was such an effective electoral strategy in the 90s.

    LOL (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by cawaltz on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:40:44 PM EST
    Isn't there some theory out there among the male pundits that Hillary got her Senate seat because people felt sorry for her? They'll tiptoe around Monica.

    Good analytical (5.00 / 0) (#33)
    by AnninCA on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:32:33 PM EST
    piece of Huffington.  Better check fast.  It'll disappear soon.  :)

    He ran non-stop negative ads attacking her character.

    She only ran ads that rebutted him on falsehoods on issues.  

    Even Zolgby, considered to be a staffer for Obama by many, said that whatever negativity Obama had was self-generated.


    NO! (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by Kathy on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:37:28 PM EST
    They said that--that he ran negative?  Has Huff been hacked?

    I think there needs to be a phrase created to define what we are seeing here--something relating to "blind liberal hysteria," because there are certain parts of the dem party who are absolutely deluding themselves if they can't see that (1) Wright, by himself, is absolute death to Obama's campaign  (2)  Ayers is the tipping point for a deadly fall from grace and (3) the demographics are telling the story of a catastrophic loss.

    The funny thing to me is that the thing that will tank him is the right-wing netroots.  They have been working the channels with the Wright stuff for a solid month now and look what it's doing.  Wait until they really step it up.


    Believe it or not (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by AnninCA on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:46:16 PM EST
    2 pieces today that analyzed this.  Zolgby was one.  He was firm about the fact that any negative came from Obama himself.  

    However, not many Hillary supporters left over there.  The replies were mostly the usual fuming that Zolgby was obviously racist.  :)


    Yes, the ad today by the PAC (none / 0) (#62)
    by AnninCA on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:47:18 PM EST
    was pretty creepy, and they are just getting revved up.

    Just so you know (5.00 / 2) (#34)
    by Steve M on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:33:30 PM EST
    There are millions of Clinton voters who don't know who Strickland or Rendell are and don't care.

    The stuff about Clinton and 9/11 just leaves me slackjawed.  Even Sean Hannity might not slime a Dem as brutally as you just did.


    Obamabots Don't Want To Believe He Is Vulnerable (5.00 / 0) (#36)
    by PssttCmere08 on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:34:25 PM EST
    In fact, they refuse to believe he is anything but the messiah and perfect in every way.  Sen. Clinton's supporters know her baggage and they also know she is better versed on the issues and is a problem solver, AND a fighter for the rights of Americans.

    Can't Decide If You Are A Republican Troll (5.00 / 2) (#38)
    by MO Blue on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:36:08 PM EST
    or just a troll. There are so many right wing talking points in that  comment it is hard to tell.

    The ads are not fear mongering (5.00 / 1) (#104)
    by Prabhata on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 11:20:12 PM EST
    the ads go to the heart of her message in a different form:

    She is ready from day one
    She is capable to deal with the unexpected
    She has the experience to deal with the problems
    She has the solutions

    Initially her message was BO is all talk without substance.  Then she changed to a positive message saying she was ready. That's what I get from the 3AM phone and the last with the catastrophes.  I think they chose OBL image instead of the towers because it's less upsetting.  I personally would have used the date on that ad.


    When (1.00 / 1) (#120)
    by 1jpb on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 11:52:43 PM EST
    has she dealt with an unexpected foriegn policy disaster?  (You do know she wasn't "instrumental" to the Irish peace process, she didn't dodge sniper fire, she didn't even read the classified NIE before she voted to authorize war.)  When has she been able to push, and pass, legislation where she demonstrated that she is an experienced legislator and coalition builder who can overcome opposition?  (You do know that she didn't create SCHIP or FMLA.  Also, health care reform didn't work out because she didn't know how to work with other people--at the time Ds controlled everything, but that changed.)  During her career when has she demonstrated that she's been a successful manager?  (Don't forget that her campaign is the biggest organization that she's ever managed, and we all know how that's gone.)

    Why do you express your approval of HRC by reciting campaign slogans?


    heh, more boring talking points. (none / 0) (#126)
    by RalphB on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 12:04:14 AM EST
    Obama is best? In a dream perhaps! (5.00 / 1) (#117)
    by felizarte on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 11:50:11 PM EST
    and more and more voters are speaking out.  He has made himself unelectable even as a running mate.  He will have to spend some years to show that he has learned from his mistakes.  Just like Hillary has learned from her mistakes with Healthcare the first time around and that is why she was able to come up with a more doable proposal.  Plus at least she succeeded in getting the sChip program for children.  She has learned the wisdom of incremental changes.

    For indeed, making changes in govt. policy is very much like doing remodelling in a house that you live in.  It is not possible to tear down the whole govt. to make the changes.  It has to be incremental because we all have to still live in this country as we make it a better place for everyone. Just like remodelling a house, you have to know where all the electrical wires are before you tear down the walls; and make it so that parts of the house are still serviceable while remodelling is done.  

    Anyone who promises to make radical changes is just fooling everyone.  And that is the the impression that Obama has created in young people's minds who have not lived enough years to know what is what and want to tear down something they don't understand the workings of.

    I shudder at the things that Obama says sometimes.  It makes me think that perhaps, he himself does not really understand how things work.


    Bingo! (5.00 / 1) (#122)
    by AnninCA on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 11:56:14 PM EST
    Speaking out is the key.  Finally, after slogging through months, it's OK to support Hillary!

    That was the turning point.

    I have made a personal promise to myself to send money to Rendell, even though I'm not from PA.

    Good golly, but she needed him to have the guts to support her.

    He did so with aplomb.  Ditto for Nutter.

    It's been almost intimidating for politicians to support her!  The Race Card was played hard and heavy.  Play it against Bill and get by with it?

    Oh man.....that scared people.  Bill Clinton is so not a racist.  If that card would work on him, politicians were shaking.

    We're starting to creep out from under that blanket.

    I will always credit Ferarro for being staunch on this.  Man, she was one mad "old white lady."


    She was willing to let everyone in the country call her a racist, but she wasn't about to let Obama get by with pulling that one on her.

    The tide is turning.


    Rendell and Nutter are getting personal (5.00 / 2) (#131)
    by nycstray on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 12:32:50 AM EST
    'Thank You' notes from me. AKA, the snail mail kind. They were great, along with the other PA folks for her. Rendell really has a way with words, lol!~  I know he's not perfect, but damn he was good. And very likable in the process. So pleasant while he cleaned someone's clock.

    That's funny, (1.00 / 2) (#127)
    by 1jpb on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 12:08:11 AM EST
    Orin Hatch is much more responsible for SCHIP than HRC is.  WJC refused to agree with it because of budget reasons.  So Kennedy and other supporters (such as Hatch) did two things.  First, and most importantly, they changed the funding so the budget issue went away.  And, secondly they recruited HRC to help them as they pressured the White House to get on board.

    This wasn't HRC's baby, sorry to break the news to you.  In this case it was Kennedy and Hatch who were building a house, and HRC was a paint brush.  

    BO has more legislative experience than HRC.  He's the one who knows how to build the house.  Since he's been in DC he's been the key D on 1) government accountability legislation where all spending is posted online for citizens and the press, and 2) international arms control.  He was also one of the four (WaPo editorial) Senators who passed the most meaningful ethics reform in decades.


    BO has more legislative experience than HRC (none / 0) (#130)
    by nycstray on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 12:28:00 AM EST
    prove it.

    There is a difference between... (none / 0) (#35)
    by Exeter on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:34:24 PM EST
    ...disaffected Obama voters and disaffected Clinton voters. Obama voters could theoritically be lured back to vote for Clinton. Clinton voters, however, are alot different. Sure, there are a few liberal women that will come around and vote for Obama, but the conservative working class whites that view Obama as "liberal elite," will probabaly feel more at home voting for "moderate" John McCain.

    Bingo (none / 0) (#41)
    by AnninCA on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:37:28 PM EST
    I fall into the "mad liberal woman" who could be calmed down if forced.  :)

    But a lot of her supporters?

    No, they wouldn't view the issues in the same way.  McCain will pretend his health care program is good, and they'll go for it.  


    I'll vote down ticket (5.00 / 2) (#54)
    by nycstray on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:43:34 PM EST
    but I really can't see myself voting for him.

    Many may just sit out. He may be able to convince them on health care etc against Obama, but just maybe Obama will campaign different in the GE and he won't be able to? . . . I know Clinton would put his plans to shame and people would get it. Obama, eh . . . not so sure.


    NYCStray (5.00 / 3) (#73)
    by Kathy on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:50:59 PM EST
    I am with you--I will vote downticket but I will not won't vote for him.  He's not qualified, he's arrogant and he hasn't earned my vote.  My support is not obligatory, and the potential of Pelosi, Reid, etc, united behind a weak and ineffective Obama scares me a heck of a lot more than a galvanized Clinton, Pelosi and Reid fighting tooth and nail against everything McCain tries to do.

    We are at war.  Americans are living in dire poverty.  We are torturing people in the name of America.  We are in serious trouble here.  We need someone to pull us out of this mess, not another egotistical, spoiled child who thinks he knows everything but understands nothing.

    Keep going, Hillary!  We need you!


    I'm in fighting mode (none / 0) (#102)
    by nycstray on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 11:18:22 PM EST
    If I have to sit here and listen to someone pontificate for four years, I'll go nuts. We need someone with a spine and grit to get us out of this mess.

    I'll deny this (none / 0) (#75)
    by AnninCA on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:52:15 PM EST
    the next time I am upset.

    But I'm a die-hard Dem.  I have a personal record here of having NEVER voted Republican in my entire life.  For anything.

    I have forgotten to vote a time or two.  :)


    Ill write her in (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by nycstray on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 11:14:05 PM EST
    Keep my Dem voting record intact  ;)

    considering the gaps in Obama's (none / 0) (#60)
    by cawaltz on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:46:05 PM EST
    health care plan why wouldn't they vote for McCain? I mean it isn't like Obama has made it clear that every American will get affordable health care(heck, he's intimated that he's not going to make you get it because that would be tantamount to taking rent money from your pocket.)

    This is (none / 0) (#42)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:37:35 PM EST
    just pure hysteria.

    What slime! (none / 0) (#69)
    by RalphB on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:49:15 PM EST
    and it's boring slime at that.  Please make up a new pack of lies.

    Check this out if you think Obama can win.. (none / 0) (#86)
    by FlaDemFem on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:57:29 PM EST
    it is the ad that they are running in NC against the  candidates that have endorsed Obama. And it will get worse in the GE. Obama cannot win it. It is even doubtful if he can get re-elected to the Senate after this stuff is circulated nationally. Obama is unelectable due to his own past associations and his disdain for the working American people. And he will take down the rest of the Dem candidates with him. That is not the sort of party unity we are looking for.

    The ol' "It's Clinton's Fault" for OBL (none / 0) (#119)
    by LHinSeattle on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 11:51:40 PM EST

    1jpb (none / 0) (#133)
    by ding7777 on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 12:44:21 AM EST
    Are you really an Obama supporter?

    Please explain why your using discredited right-wing talking points about Bill Clinton's Presidency when its Hillary who is running?

    But, it was WJC who refused to take custody of Bin Landen when he was offered it.  And, the 9-11 report says Bin Laden was inspired to do 9-11 because of WJC foreign policy mistakes.

    Strickland? (none / 0) (#155)
    by Munibond on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 07:27:23 AM EST
    First of all, he is a rabid Clinton supporter, and second, while so far he is doing great as governor even buckeyes don't think he is qualified for the presidency.  And he is worse at debating than Obama.

    Obama, Hands Down (1.00 / 2) (#57)
    by Spike on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:44:23 PM EST
    Obama is far more electable in November because of the combination of Clinton's stratospheric negatives and Obama's ability to attract young voters and independents. There is no doubt that any Democratic nominee will take Ohio, Pennsylvania and a host of traditional Democratic states this year. This should be the strongest Democratic year since 1974. Obama's strength will be in his ability to attract support in purple states. That's how Democrats will expand the map this year. And the electoral college isn't the only game in town. Even in red states that won't vote Democratic for president, Obama will help down-ticket candidates for the Senate and the House -- strengthening the hopes of a strong progressive majority in Congress. Even if Clinton were to eke out a victory, she would have to govern a 51-49 America. We would see nothing but continued stalemate. It's time to turn the page on the Bush-Clinton-Bush years...

    What are the numbers on (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by bjorn on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:47:25 PM EST
    young voters, I mean how many does it take to win a presidency?

    Heh (5.00 / 5) (#88)
    by RalphB on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:58:18 PM EST
    more than are currently alive  :-)

    LOL* (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by AnninCA on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 11:11:37 PM EST
    I posted earlier that the Dem strategy seems to be that all the older voters will die.  :)

    lol!~ (none / 0) (#95)
    by nycstray on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 11:10:27 PM EST
    So a 2 pt difference in negative (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by MarkL on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:49:25 PM EST
    ratings makes the higher one "stratospheric"?
    Nice spin.

    Facts only confuse them (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by Kathy on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:53:07 PM EST
    "Bush-Clinton-Bush" (5.00 / 1) (#141)
    by Steve M on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 02:00:22 AM EST
    Why don't you just refer to the "Hoover-Roosevelt years" while you're at it.  It would be equally coherent.

    Turn the page on budget surplus, (none / 0) (#121)
    by LHinSeattle on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 11:54:01 PM EST
    which he made out of a budget deficit, turn page on prosperity, lowered unemployment, sensible foreign policy. We can live off hope instead.

    What (none / 0) (#123)
    by AnninCA on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 11:57:39 PM EST
    stratospheric negatives?

    There is no question (none / 0) (#4)
    by bjorn on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:17:21 PM EST
    in my mind that Hillary is stronger. I think she has people's confidence when it comes to the economy and the war, more than Obama.  Partly because she has excelled in the debates, and the media meme is that he inspires but she is a relentless, tireless worker bee.  In times of war and recession I think competent worker bee beats inspirer.  I agree with your reasons on the big states.  I think she will be stronger in the debates with McCAin and even though Obama and KO find it offensive when she talks about the CIC test, I think she can go toe-to-toe with McCain.  It makes me sad to write this though because maybe I watched too much TV today, but I truly don't see how she is going to get the nomination at this point.

    Today (none / 0) (#12)
    by AnninCA on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:24:06 PM EST
    the pundits are going to whine.  :)

    She'll get the message out that super delegates will be deciding.  They are suggesting that the only thing that counts is the delegates.

    That simply is false.


    any new SD's for Hillary? (none / 0) (#15)
    by MarkL on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:25:26 PM EST
    Yes! (none / 0) (#27)
    by AnninCA on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:30:00 PM EST
    Virginia.  :)



    Montana (none / 0) (#31)
    by sas on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:32:13 PM EST
    Montana (none / 0) (#45)
    by AnninCA on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:38:28 PM EST
    wasn't superdelegates, I think.  I could be wrong.  Virginia was.

    she got tennessee super d too I think today (none / 0) (#85)
    by athyrio on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:57:15 PM EST
    one of the founders of the blue dogs....

    Watching too much tv today showed (none / 0) (#44)
    by andrys on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:38:20 PM EST
    ... showed spin from pundits who don't understand that both candidates must get 2025+ delegates from the primaries and caucuses before they can win.  The rules say nothing at all about the candidate having most delegates, upon failing to reach 2025+, being the ones that must be selected (!)

      As with any race, some are fast finishers.  In politics, doing best NOW rather than earlier is more important to the consideration of an election in the near future.

      Dem leaders are worried about losing one bloc if they have reason to believe that Obama will lose against McCain once the GE vetting becomes intense and with all that's been shown about the blocs and states that we must win in the all-important electoral college finale.

      Obama partisans know this, which is why they keep wanting Clinton to drop out.

      Exit polling will show that Obama is heavily favored in the early exit-polling always, but that even then Clinton voters say that about 25% of them will vote for McCain rather than Obama and about 19% will not vote at all.

      This is less so with Obama voters.  He was non-unifying enough to say glibly too often earlier on that he was sure he would get Clinton supporter votes but it wasn't clear to him she would get his.  This was not leadership but


    Even so (5.00 / 2) (#49)
    by AnninCA on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:42:04 PM EST
    Her coalition has firmed up.  We're no longer in speculation territory, and it's quite clear that she's the one attracting the swing voters.

    Not him.

    He's about down to young people and AA voters.  He's failed to win women, union, Jews, gays, Latinos, Asians, and now........white guys.  :)

    That pretty much covers the entire spectrum, doesn't it?

    AND......get this.  She won the artsy suburb and another high income burb in Philly.

    Watch out.......Hillary is headed to NC.  :)


    You forgot Seniors and Catholics :) (none / 0) (#58)
    by nycstray on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:45:04 PM EST
    LOL* (none / 0) (#77)
    by AnninCA on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:53:43 PM EST
    And senior and Catholics, yes indeedy.

    Man, do I love Catholics in Penn tonight.  :)

    I wonder if the Pope helped a bit.  


    If they were paying as close attention (none / 0) (#89)
    by nycstray on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 11:01:22 PM EST
    as folks here were, prob so. I have several senior Italian Catholics in my building and they were watching all the broadcasts. Every time I was in the halls I could hear the music etc. And the church down the street was overflowing into the street to listen to the Yankee Stadium broadcast. They may have been spared all the program interruptions in PA though. Our local stations were at His disposal  :)

    I'm guessing a good chunk of the Hispanics and Polish population in my 'hood were also listening. And I mustn't forget the Irish!

    Demographics can be such a b*tch at times  ;)


    Colbert said in jest (5.00 / 3) (#59)
    by bjorn on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:45:18 PM EST
    Obama's unifying message was that Clinton was too divisive, then he said something like, how is that working for ya?

    delegate numbers ... (none / 0) (#52)
    by andrys on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:43:02 PM EST
    I should add that if we did 'math' the way the Republicans did and (I think, the way Dems used to before a rules change), then it would be a winner-take-all situation for each state and Clinton would have been the nominee by now because of the situation with the big states.

      That's one reason they should not be so disdainful when neither one can come up with 2025+ delegates through the primary/caucus process...

      Most important is the ability to win the big states we must against a Republican who is perceived to be 'liberal' enough or moderate enough to take a lot of conservative Democrat and Independent votes in those.

      I do think a Clinton/Obama ticket is also the one sure way to win, bringing 3 times the numbers of voters to the poll than McCain can.  


    I agree... w/out FL or OH... neither BO or HRC... (none / 0) (#8)
    by Exeter on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:19:42 PM EST
    Have a reasonable path to winning in November. Even if Obama picks up two states that Kerry lost -- Iowa and Colorado -- he still can't win.

    Trust me (none / 0) (#93)
    by dissenter on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 11:06:17 PM EST
    He can't win Colorado. I live here and the state isn't Boulder

    Takin' Takin' Back Back The White House (none / 0) (#10)
    by makana44 on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:20:48 PM EST
    Alex Drummond with the best music video.
    Ya gotta see it!!!
    "Taking Back the White House"
    Let's sing and laugh and keep the momentum rolling.

    Donna Darko turns up in supporting role.
    Her blog is here:

    Oh my god (none / 0) (#17)
    by bjorn on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:26:06 PM EST
    thank you so much, this made my day!!! Who is this woman?

    holy mother! (none / 0) (#21)
    by Kathy on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:28:20 PM EST
    it's MILF rock!

    That is freakin' hilarious.


    it was pretty funny... (none / 0) (#81)
    by white n az on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:55:43 PM EST
    especially the ending

    Fixed Link


    alex drummond (none / 0) (#114)
    by Prabhata on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 11:40:25 PM EST
    Ha ha (none / 0) (#137)
    by Donna Darko on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 01:41:45 AM EST
    I'm not in it BUT I SHOULD BE!

    RIDDLE ME THIS PLEASE.... (none / 0) (#16)
    by PssttCmere08 on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:25:40 PM EST
    Has there ever been a time when a candidate wins the nomination, and at some point it is felt that person is doing a horrible job of campaigning and it is believed that person cannot possibly win, can the nomination be rescinded.

    Has someone been nominated? (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by andgarden on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:28:43 PM EST
    You better alert the two campaigns. They don't seem to know.

    Yeah, that happened in the NJ (none / 0) (#20)
    by MarkL on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:27:28 PM EST
    Senate race a few years ago, and there was a huge stink. It couldn't happen here; however, in theory there's no reason the party apparatus couldn't organize a write-in campaign.

    Thanks MarkL (none / 0) (#43)
    by PssttCmere08 on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:38:16 PM EST
    The maps tell you what we need to know (none / 0) (#18)
    by andgarden on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:26:58 PM EST
    Thankfully, Obama is looking at little stronger in PA, now. But I expect that, as with Ohio, he will drop against McCain, and Hillary will not.

    Fundamentally, neither Hillary nor Obama will be a real "map changer." Virginia is off the table, and so Obama MAYBE has a shot at the EV poor states in the northwest. But Hillary Brings FL and OH to the table. Plus, I think PA is a gimmie for her. Simply put, she wins the states that Democrats have won in recent memory at the Presidental level. Obama wins a hope and a prayer in the west.

    Of course, they have complementary coalitions at the end of the day. Hillary can't win without blacks, and Obama can't win without women and white ethnics. So we come to BTD's joint ticket idea--a workable one I think. But in order to win those big states, especially Florida, I think Hillary has to be at the top.

    Eh... I agree with everything you say... (none / 0) (#46)
    by Exeter on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:39:19 PM EST
    ...except the joint ticket. I think Obama would obviously help Clinton, but what does Clinton bring Obama, realistically?  Yes, there will be a few women that come back into the fold, but white working class conservative Dems aren't going to vote for Obama just because Hillary is on the ticket. They think of McCain as a moderate and, at worst, a conservative Democrat.

    Obama (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by sas on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:44:01 PM EST
    would be a drag on the ticket with HRC.  It would speak poorly of her judgemeny, with groups the Dems have to hold.  Wright, clinggate, Ayers, Rezko...too much bad baggage.

    She needs African Americans... (none / 0) (#71)
    by Exeter on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:50:08 PM EST
    ...but I doubt Obama would ever agree to be on the ticket.

    She had African-Americans before (none / 0) (#108)
    by FlaDemFem on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 11:23:08 PM EST
    Obama, and if he is out of the race, they will go with Hillary. Especially the women. The Clintons, both of them, have always been popular in the A-A community. It is just since Obama came along and started the "Clintons are racist" crap that people think the A-A community has turned away from them. Yes, they will vote for Obama over Hillary, if he is running. But Hillary will have their votes if he is out of the race. So she doesn't need him. He is becoming more toxic by the day, between his past associations and the Wright controversy, etc. Add to that his own foot in mouth disease and he is nothing but a detriment to any ticket he is on. I think he will be lucky to get re-elected to the Senate after all this stuff comes out about him. It is a state-wide election, after all, and he won't be preaching to the choir like he was in Chicago. He will have to explain himself to his constituents. That is going to be very interesting.

    Did you read (none / 0) (#48)
    by andgarden on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:41:01 PM EST
    the last clause of my last sentence?

    Ooops -- missed that (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by Exeter on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:49:03 PM EST
    Obama (none / 0) (#79)
    by halstoon on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:54:17 PM EST
    Washington State


    North Carolina

    Even California, which she won, he's doing better.

    Not to mention the fact that at this point Sen. Clinton managed to pick up only 16 delegates at most in PA and barely crossed the double-digit threshhold, and even then only with generous media rounding.

    He has tons more cash, appearing to gain more new donors after his loss than she did after her win.

    More delegates. More states. More money. More donors. More votes that are actually sanctioned by the DNC. A lead in the national polls.

    Aside from the 6-17% chasm, he wins. Here's my response to that chasm in PA.

    At this point, it's pretty clear to everybody but the most diehard Clinton fans that this game is over.

    ignoring... (5.00 / 2) (#94)
    by white n az on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 11:09:05 PM EST
    the fact that Rasmussen seems to be off on the polls...

    and that NC and CO haven't voted Dem for Pres in eons...

    I'd have to say that what I see is a complete repeat of 1972 where blacks, youth and intelligentsia voted for McGovern and he got creamed by the war mongering Nixon.

    Ignoring that - you have the utter stupidity of David Axelrod on NPR this morning stating that Democrats don't ever win white working class voters anyway.

    Obama is certain to get creamed in November.


    Noted Axelrod on NPR (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by RalphB on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 11:15:19 PM EST
    Who does he think voted for Clinton in '92 and '96 in order for him to win?  Seemed like he was even stupider than normal.

    it did sort of have... (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by white n az on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 11:25:10 PM EST
    that how is that you don't know when to STFU feel to it, like the scene in 'A Few Good Men' when Demi Moore argues with the judge..."I strenuously object"

    It's no accident that Obama talks about 'bitter and clingy' people when the campaign manager is telling the nation that these people don't vote for Democrats anyway.


    Money (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by AnninCA on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 11:12:22 PM EST
    can't buy you love.

    As he learned.  :)


    it's worse than that... (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by white n az on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 11:18:12 PM EST
    what PA says that with 6 weeks and all the money in the world, Obama is incapable of appreciably moving the needle.

    Why on earth would anyone believe that Obama wins more than 2 or 3 states in a general election?


    CA is Clinton country (5.00 / 1) (#118)
    by Prabhata on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 11:51:08 PM EST
    I live here. Rass polls are awful.  SUSA is better and it shows Clinton 53 McCain 40
    Obama does well too, but he is 50 to McCain 40
    Obama has not been hammered in CA because it was a very civil primary.



    Only Because (none / 0) (#146)
    by BearerofBN on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 04:06:06 AM EST
    The primary got moved up, if Edwards hadnt dropped out it probably would have been Edwards country. If the primary were held today it would be much closer than Pennsylvania, PA and CA are completely different in terms of political views.

    Neither. (none / 0) (#82)
    by sweetthings on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:56:47 PM EST
    Look, if one of them were clearly stronger, then they would have won by now. Clinton should have crushed Obama on Super Tuesday. She failed. Obama should have put Hillary away on March 4th. He failed. They're running almost exactly neck and neck now, by virtually every metric...and we every reason to believe that will continue. This simply wouldn't be the case if one were significantly stronger than the other.

    I suspect the Supers are going to have to look elsewhere for guidance on which one to choose. An analysis of bowling skills, perhaps?

    Hillary is stronger - but it will still be tough (none / 0) (#87)
    by LCaution on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:57:51 PM EST
    I don't much care about the electoral map, looking at subgroups of voters, or any of the complex and admirable statistical analyses that are being done - all of which, strangely enough, end up supporting the designer's favorite.

    No.  My gut tells me Obama will lose.  Not  because he is African American (think Colin Powell) and white Americans are racists.  (Sure, some are, but not enough to matter given everything else.)

    Voters will look at Obama and McCain and ask themselves who is the better person? The man who spent 5 years in a Vietnam torture camp or the guy who has pretty much had his life handed to him on a silver platter but has a wife who only now is proud of America.  

    They will see a relatively young man with relatively little experience belittling the war hero's lifetime of service. There will, of course, be Republican attack ads that will make all of this talk about Hillary's unfair attacks look like love letters. And some of the ads will have just enough truth in them to hurt Obama badly.

    And if, heaven forbid, there is some major terrorist attack anywhere in the world in Sept. or Oct., Americans are not going to hand over the reins to a guy who insists that living abroad for 4 years as a pre-teen is all the experience one needs to be President.

    Will Hillary have an easy time beating McCain? No. The media loathe her and love him, but she has shown that she can win in spite of that.  Besides, she has a not-so-secret and grossly underestimated constituency: all those unimportant "old ladies" who go to the polls and will vote for her.

    Not even a pre-teen... (none / 0) (#166)
    by K Lynne on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 08:28:58 AM EST
    My older son, at 12, is a pre-teen.  He's starting to have at least some general sense of the world around him and an ability to read the newspapers and comprehend the basics.

    My almost-10 year old (the same age Obama was when he LEFT Indonesia) cares mainly about playground soccer games, the latest Wii game, and is just learning the basics of fractions.   It is a struggle to get him to get him to wear a clean shirt every day.  He's just finishing up 3rd grade - an elementary-school kid - most definitely NOT what I would consider even a 'pre-teen'.


    my apologiies (none / 0) (#175)
    by LCaution on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 01:07:41 PM EST
    I was writing from memory and had thought he started school at the age of 10.

    And I most definitely bow to the greater expertise of a parent of one such child.  

    It does, however, make me wonder about people like Fareed Zakaria who have insisted (in Newsweek) that Obama's experience living abroad is more important than Zakaria's own academic background.


    LOL (none / 0) (#115)
    by manys on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 11:40:48 PM EST
    How about this: both of them have a better chance against McCain. Seriously. If the Dems manage to lose the Presidency this year I'm going to start putting my resources into a third party.

    Like someone else said, elsewhere, right now would be a good time for Democrats to come out for repealing the 22nd Amendment.

    Not so sure (none / 0) (#154)
    by Munibond on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 06:59:14 AM EST
    If McCain picks a relatively fresh face like Rob Portman, I think that could be a formidable ticket.  I don't think Dems have the luxury of assuming that any Dem can beat McCain.

    Who's stronger? (none / 0) (#125)
    by Stellaaa on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 12:02:15 AM EST
    According to Obama only the kitchen sink.  

    One thing BETTER change (none / 0) (#134)
    by Dadler on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 12:45:53 AM EST
    And that is the war.  Whomever is President, continuing the war in Iraq will completely destroy this nation.  The economy will make a recession seem quaint.

    Americans need to wake up and connect the dots.  Until these pols are held to the fire to END this war and now, then all else is moot.  There is NO future economically in this nation if this war continues.  None.  And we keep allowing these candidates to talk about the war in the most cowardly and hedging of ways.  Truth is, neither Democrat has shown an ounce of the spine that will be necessary to end the war and revive the nation.  

    To Super D's (none / 0) (#143)
    by Donna Darko on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 03:22:03 AM EST
    Lanny Davis' Top Ten Reasons are killer if you missed it in the original post.

    Im sorry but (none / 0) (#145)
    by BearerofBN on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 03:49:14 AM EST
    If Hillary steals the nomination with less delegates. Then the African American community will not turn out, thus you will lose the election. Not to mention that half of the educated Democrat white vote will probably vote for Nader or not vote at all. But pursue your pipe dream to the detriment of the democratic party. Its more important that you "get your girl" than America elect a democrat right? Oh and if Im wrong, and by some ludicrous turn of events Hillary wins, Democrats will lose the congress and the senate, I guarantee it.

    You can't guarantee Squat! (none / 0) (#164)
    by RalphB on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 08:21:35 AM EST
    The Super Delegates (none / 0) (#170)
    by misspeach2008 on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 10:02:55 AM EST
    using their votes to bring Hillary Clinton the nomination is not "stealing".  It's following the rules.  The Super Delegates were created to handle just this kind of situation.

    If "Party Elders" Force SDs To Decide (none / 0) (#178)
    by Donna Darko on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 03:15:51 PM EST
    Clinton supporters will not vote for Obama in November. It goes both ways but people always assume women will "kiss and make up." Not on your life.

    Hillary's more formidable (none / 0) (#147)
    by GOP Lurker on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 04:24:47 AM EST
    Take it from a Republican McCain supporter: Hillary's a much more formidable opponent than Obama.

    Eight months ago I would not have said this but Hillary's performance in the primaries has sparked some serious respect for her on the other side. She's shown herself to be determined and tough, and no coward in the face of adversity.

    That the press is so clearly in the tank for Obama has put Hillary in the position that all Republicans face so there's genuine sympathy. Even Terry MacAuliffe has praised FoxNews for its fairness, if only because they regard both Dems with equal skepticism.

    For me, personally: Hillary is my Senator here in NY and although I did not vote for her I think she's done an excellent job. I actually think she would make a good President. Obama... NO WAY.

    FWIW. Cheers.

    Please Help Me Understand (none / 0) (#148)
    by aufdeb on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 05:09:32 AM EST
    I am a father of two lovely daughters.  I want them to do and be who ever they can be when they grow up.  It would be incredible to have them see a woman as president to show that all things are possible to them. Yet I cannot support Hillary.  I am totally lost on how so many of you can be so unwavering in your support for her.  This is not a diatribe.  I would love to hear rational comments to explain a few things she has done.  I do not want comments taking down McCain or Obama or someone else as rationales for her own actions.
    1. Iraq War.  She voted for it.  She did not read a 92 page classified report on it.  She has not even admitted it was a vote for war let alone been contrite for the 4000 dead and nearly 40,000 wounded from our country (let alone the multitudes of Iraqis).  Bush lied to us and did not do his due diligence. (Albeit on a lesser scale) is this not true for Hillary too?  
    2. Foreign Policy Mind Set. It is not only the Iraq war that concerns me.  There was a bill to ban cluster bombs and land mines from heavily populated civilian areas.  Hillary opposed it.  Hillary voted that the Iranian Army were terrorists.  And now she has made comments that Israel and other Middle Eastern countries will be under our protection - even stating that we would drop nuclear bombs if one should go off in the region by Iran or some other country.  Doesn't this scare the crap out of some of the people here?  Is this really what we democrats want in our leader?
    3. Bosnian Sniper Fire.  So ridiculous and yet so incredibly preposterous.  She did not "mispeak".  She lied. There is no way to reconcile it.  She did it over a three month period in prepared speeches.  She lashed out at Sinbad when he refuted her.  She took a week to "apologize" after video footage clearly contradicted her. And perhaps worse of all (which never gets mentioned) she had surrogates corroborate these lies including her very own daughter.  Chelsea was asked point blank on wether her Mom's account was accurate.  Had Chelsea dodged sniper fire too?  Chelsea replied that she was with her Mom so her account is right.  How many of you would actually have your children lie for you over something which is so obviously incorrect?  Again please make me understand how your support for Hillary can be so steadfast.  I simply do not understand.  
    4. MoveOn.org.   I do not even know where to begin with this.  Perhaps one thing to keep in mind when everyone feels the press is out to get her.  The New York Times and several other leading papers did not - I repeat - did not even cover this story when it came out.  Hillary slandered the organization that has done so much for democrats, for justice, and for truth.  It has taken on the "right wing conspiracy" like no other group in the country.  It was founded in large part to help the Clintons during the impeachment.  Hillary used it as a talking point to donors.  An excuse for poorer performances at caucuses and fundraising.  All of you should know this already but perhaps not...  MoveOn held its own election system to determine its endorsement.  The first candidate to reach 60% of the members support would be endorsed.  There was no agenda.  No ads for one candidate over another.  And surprise surprise Hillary was the leader for most of the early election process.  In fact, she once was over 50% but did not quite get to the 60% threshold.  She has praised the group for being stalwarts of democracy and truth well at least she did a year ago.  In her talk to fundraisers where she slammed the organization, she claimed fundamental differences with MoveOn.org especially in the area of foreign relations.  Her campaign has been asked several times to explain or elaborate on these "differences" or allegations of intimidation that she had made.  There has not been one single answer yet.  Again help me understand how you can be unwavering in your support for Hillary?  She is brilliant, she is tough, but can you honestly in your heart trust her to do what is right?  Can you honestly say that she would not get us into another ridiculous war?  Can you honestly say she will own up to the american people when she makes a mistake?  I don't see it.  

    Yeah (5.00 / 1) (#150)
    by kenoshaMarge on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 06:12:32 AM EST
    I can and do support her. And so far as I know, it is not up to anyone to make you understand why we support her. You have listed why you don't. Your reasons, your business.

    And yes, I do trust her to do what's right. I do not trust Obama, I do not like Obama, and I don't think he has the right stuff to be President.

    I believe that she will fight for women's rights, civil rights and will fight like a tiger for Universal Health Care. Those are my reasons and I don't have to justify them to you or anyone else.

    As for the Bosnia "lie", take a look at the Obama lies and then we'll talk about it.


    I bid one Selma "lie" (none / 0) (#156)
    by magisterludi on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 07:27:46 AM EST
    for your Tuzla "lie". Or maybe I should play the Kennedy connection card instead?

    I see no difference between all the candidates when they seek to burnish their personal stories. It's what pols do. I wish they didn't, but they do.

    I disagree with the rest of your post, too. But anyone who brings up Tuzla as a reason not to vote for Hillary, while they ignore Obama's own "mis-memories" shows me that person is not coming from an intellectually honest place.


    Tuzla and Selma (none / 0) (#169)
    by Claw on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 08:59:53 AM EST
    Both stupid, both SHOULD be non-issues.  A fundemental difference is that Clinton was in Tuzla and "misspoke" several times about her experience there.  Obama was, if I'm not mistaken, referring to an event that occured before he was born.  I think it's likely he was relating a family story, but maybe he was just lying.  
    The biggest problem with Tuzla is that Hillary will have to sit with McCain in a debate and be asked (you know it'll happen) what exactly happened with Tuzla.  Then McCain will have a chance to make some comment about his service and his time as a POW.  It could be a "Where's the beef moment," and that's a very sad commentary on our media...but it's true.

    The economy (none / 0) (#163)
    by Coral on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 08:11:28 AM EST
    is the major reason why I support Clinton. She proposes very concrete steps to improve economic conditions for the vast majority of Americans. Her health care proposals--with a mandate--would not only bring all Americans under an umbrella of coverage but would improve business's ability to compete with overseas companies whose workers have some kind of national health care.

    I also trust her policies more to bring the Iraq war to an end and improve the situation in the Middle East through diplomacy.

    Obama has not convinced me that he can do any of the above, though I have been waiting and hoping that he would offer solid policy proposals. He speaks very vaguely about just about everything except his opposition to mandates on health care, which I think are essential to bring down costs.

    I am still open to Obama if he would start talking more about policy and less about "hope" and "change." I've lived long enough to know that "hope" doesn't solve many problems (though it is good to be optimistic even in the worst of times) and "change" can often be for the worse.

    I do think that having an African-American president would be healing for this nation.


    Trust Her (none / 0) (#173)
    by AnninCA on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 11:39:26 AM EST
    I do.  I personally feel that Hillary has run a very transparent campaign.  She knows better than to try any tricks.

    Bosnia?  That was her ego getting the best of her.  She's got a good-sized ego.  That was not, in my opinion, a sign that she's not trustworthy.

    She's done some pandering.  She's made some gaffes.  She tried a few things and backed off when they didn't work.

    But there is one thing I am sure about, and that is that SHE is the one truly passionate about our country.

    Obama is passionate about Obama.

    Hillary is passionate about making a real difference.


    Does everyone think Clinton is stronger? (none / 0) (#157)
    by Truth Partisan on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 07:36:19 AM EST
    Sure, look at all the new people suddenly posting here that support Obama. The Obama internet campaign volunteers are out in force, trying to shore up his loss.
    Obama would do better running on what he plans to do with specific policies, because he can't really run on his short record as yet--and because his record is a little bit of a mixed bag, with unusual "present" votes and not showing up here and there, and the odd supporting of big oil, gas and coal interests. He's just too inexperienced, hasn't learned how to play the game, to both find balance and express his bedrock principles. He himself said he was too inexperienced to run for President yet.
    Although Barack's advisor Axelrod has said he is basing his campaign on Bush's run, Axelrod made a mistake when he said that the Democrats don't win lunchbucket voters. Democrats did win lunchbucket voters the last time they took the White House. And Hillary Clinton is winning them now.

    Hilary can (none / 0) (#158)
    by yourkidding on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 07:40:00 AM EST
    Don't think it's much of an argument. Watching Obama during those debates in which it was just the two of them convinced me he's not tough enough to take on the Repugs.

    More important (none / 0) (#174)
    by AnninCA on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 11:40:36 AM EST
    to me is that Hillary's latest reminder that the job of being president is very tough is resonating because it's founded on truth.

    He's just too whiny.


    Risky comment since I have not read (none / 0) (#161)
    by Molly Pitcher on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 07:55:45 AM EST
    the preceding ones:  BUT one article you linked to was surely written by someone who needs glasses and a hearing aid.  It ain't just the economy (or the skin color), stupid; it's the misogyny!  Sent my Hillery-favoring son a note yesterday giving chapter and verse on why I will sit out the Nov. election if O. is on the ticket.  O. is so thoroughly sex-centric that he does not even recognize the stupid things that come out of his mouth.  (Not to mention the fluidity <s> of his speech.  Nor the lovely gestures I have read are intended for a hip-hop audience.)  No, I will not behave; I don't want that kiss; and YOU are NOT likeable enough, Barack!

    Denial is a self defense mechanism that sheilds (none / 0) (#171)
    by Salt on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 10:23:06 AM EST
    truths, someone in the Democratic Party needs to admit that the Base knows that Obama can not probably win in Nov. remember it is they we who know because it is they who do not support his candidacy and that 420 million dollars investment was not a grown the Party contribution for Party expansion as job one it is for the White House in Nov make no mistake.  Ohio and Pa have provided the empirical data of demographics so spinning Obama capability for Nov. along with the arrogant social justice lesson the neo progressives keep scolding the peasantry on, and the poo poohing of Obama résumé and radical associates, and rulzgate is looking like more and more like a Party scam.

    If I may be so bold... (none / 0) (#172)
    by Slado on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 11:17:53 AM EST
    To speak for my fellow repusblicnas.

    Obama -  has the obvious weakness of losing "Regan" democrats to McCain.   Republicans will pound Obama on his ties to dirty chicago politicans, Wright, inexperience, lack of military background etc...   He will be labled a populist, a super liberal on and on (in my opinion rightly so).   That will be the gameplan and the NC GOP add is just a sign of things to come.

    Hillary - She's Hillary.   Simply looking at her speak and talk makes most repulicans (myself included) run for cover and brings up all the Clinton hatred from the 90's.   We could never, ever vote for her and her negatives are so high it will be a feat to win the popular vote in a general election against a moderate republican.  In my view Obama is not capable of attacking her like repulicans will in the fall (just like she can't attack him in full) so we haven't seen the gameplan yet but we all know what's coming.

    The Bill factor cannot be understated.   Again the GOP machine will ask what will Bill do when Hillary is president?   What did Bill do between 2000 and 2008?  Who does he owe favors to?  Have we forgotten what he did in the 11th hour of his presidency?   ETc....   His actions during this campaign only make these attacks easier.  He can't be controlled on the campaign trail so how will he be controlled when in the whitehouse.

    So I'm torn as who is more electable.  

    Hillary looks better on paper to me but I know that in the background the true Hillary hatred has not been unleashed.   However I think that her baggage is a given so she may be able to overcome it because she is ultimately a Clinton and common sense never seems to apply to this couple in an election.

    I give it to Hillary.   This seems correct because Dems will ultimately choose to not nominate her and instead will send a Modale/Dukakis nothern liberal senator out again to be beaten in an election they should win.  Makes sense to me.