Insider Advantage PA Poll: Hillary Up By 10

The New Insider Advantage PA poll out today (results here , pdf) has Hillary at 48 and Obama at 38. It concludes she is gaining ground.

InsiderAdvantage’s Matt Towery: “Sen. Clinton has made progress among both men and among all white voters. Her support among women also appears to be consolidating.

“My guess is that whatever damage she might have sustained by recent gaffs and media missteps have been largely discounted by the public. The race in Pennsylvania is clearly still fluid. But, at least for now, it’s tending back towards the result that was originally anticipated by most – a Clinton lead.

< American Idol Gives Back: Open Thread | Obama Decides on Olympic Stance: Calls for Bush to Boycott Opening Ceremonies >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    It is just amazing how much the public (5.00 / 8) (#2)
    by athyrio on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 09:59:08 PM EST
    makes up their own mind and votes for whom they wish to be president....Noone else on earth could endure this type of trashing and come out this well...Go Hillary!!

    She survived it as First Lady (5.00 / 3) (#3)
    by nellre on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 10:01:16 PM EST
    We're used to baseless accusations and double standards when it comes to her.
    Just think! Come November we'll be able to call her the Teflon candidate. She'll be untouchable.

    I wonder (5.00 / 7) (#6)
    by Kathy on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 10:09:54 PM EST
    if BTD's media darling theory beats Clinton's Energizer Bunny-ness.  Let's face it, in a ge match-up, the media can only have one hero and we all know that's going to be McCain.  Clinton's ability to keep fighting, and more importantly to keep winning, surely means more.  At least that is what I am going to think!

    The lady just keeps going and going.  Go, Hillary, go!


    I agree: that's the question (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by andgarden on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 10:12:28 PM EST
    of this election.

    I'm on the fence, but decided almost 5 months ago that Obama wasn't getting my primary vote--so here we are.


    In all honesty (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by RalphB on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 10:50:15 PM EST
    I agree with a poster who said here a couple of times that Obama may be a media darling but Hillary is the media disinfectant.  People seem to disregard bad things they hear about her, after all the crap from the '90s.  That would seem to me to be the common sense approach.

    She does better with Mark Penn demoted (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by andrys on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 11:17:15 PM EST
    Wow, a 5-point increase in lead (well, depending on which poll we're discussing) once Penn is half-removed.

      I like the trend toward quieter talking as in her effective Iraq hearing questioning, which people inside said was 'electrifying' in the hall if not on tv.  When she left her notes and questioned from what she was thinking, she was at her best.

      Contrast that to Obama, who kept halting because he could not remember what it was he was trying to remember, even with the notes there.  During one of those times, checking his notes, he said "the Iraqi government" rather than "the Iranian government"...  I thought, "huh?" but no one mentioned it.  

     Later that night, I saw Olbermann drawing attention to it though, out of fairness, he said, to McCain.


    Hmmmmmm, if she fired him (none / 0) (#56)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 11:38:01 PM EST
    how much better could everything get ;)?

    Acttually I think this year is rather the e (5.00 / 4) (#4)
    by MarkL on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 10:08:19 PM EST
    exception. I don't think Kerry was the candidate the Democrats really wanted in 2004, and I hope Bush wasn't the President they really wanted in 2000 and 2004.
    Seeing the public stick with Hillary in spite of calls from almost everyone not to is rather amazing.

    it's amazing... (none / 0) (#62)
    by DawnG on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 11:54:09 PM EST
    ...but is it enough?  It's all well and good that Clinton has been able to keep up support, but is that enough to get a win for her?  Obama has been very talented in building support too, and so far he's had a bit more than Clinton.  Unless that trend reverses itself VERY soon, Clinton will find herself being unable to make up the deficit she has with Obama.

    I don't really care who wins.  I'm completely ambivilant at this point, but I don't see how Clinton can defeat Obama.


    Personally I think if we had true (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by hairspray on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 11:55:33 PM EST
    primaries and not caucuses, she would have this wrapped up by now.

    Reality based people (none / 0) (#83)
    by felizarte on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 12:48:28 AM EST
    are generally not easily distracted by political rhetoric.  They are insightful.  I predict that all the voters feeling the pain of the current economic condition (which will probably worsen) will push her through to the nomination.  They will vote their pocketbooks.  They know they cannot afford to take a chance on the unspecified promise of "change." And where specifics are mentioned as in the healthcare policy proposals, the choice is crystal clear.  The polls are beginning to reflect this.  

    She's only leading by 10 percent? (5.00 / 4) (#13)
    by lambert on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 10:22:27 PM EST
    Obviously, she should quit immediately!

    Quit? Heck NO! (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by NO2WONDERBOY on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 11:03:52 PM EST
    To be ten points ahead today, or 5 points ahead a couple of days ago, is a big deal, given the relentless bashing from the media, Obamarobots, defectors, you name it. Not to mention that her campaign is being outspent 4 to 1 by the Obama camp!
    Her steadfastness, conviction, perseverance, and DETERMINATION are certainly among the most desired characteristics I want in a leader of my country, the best in the world. She believes she can win, and you know, so do I, in spite of all the adversity, and to the chagrin of enemies.  

    NO2WONDER---lambert is being facetious (none / 0) (#127)
    by lookoverthere on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 02:11:25 PM EST
    lambert is either the host of the site or the host of the great WWTSBQ challenge at Corrente.

    Everytime someone calls for Sen. Clinton to drop out, you have to donate to her campaign.

    We've kicked in $600 to date.


    B-b-but all of those undecideds (none / 0) (#17)
    by badger on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 10:35:59 PM EST
    will break for Obama so she's really trailing by 4.

    Or leading by 24. Not counting the margin of error.

    It doesn't seem to say much more than "people are likely to vote for Obama or Clinton. Or maybe not."


    Undecided normally break in same proportion (none / 0) (#54)
    by Prabhata on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 11:34:00 PM EST
    as the decided.  The word is normally.  Because she is a known quantity and is leading, she has the advantage.  She's leading by 15 points which is lower than SUSA's 18, but close.

    Rise Hillary! Rise!


    or they don't vote at all.. (none / 0) (#63)
    by DawnG on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 11:54:55 PM EST
    ....becuase they remain undecided.

    I weigh undecideds (none / 0) (#89)
    by Kathy on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 05:34:06 AM EST
    more heavily for Clinton.  I think they just don't want to say they aren't backing O because he's supposed to be the cool one or, in some cases, they think they will be presenting themselves as racist if they state a preference for Clinton.

    This election is a goldmine for sociologists, behaviorists and linguists who will one day study what has been going on.


    That hasn't been the case so far (none / 0) (#92)
    by Marvin42 on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 08:03:36 AM EST
    They have broken at the end, and specially lately most of them go to Sen Clinton.

    On another note, ahem (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by blogtopus on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 10:37:11 PM EST
    Isn't it funny how the media seem surprised at how the population seems to ignore them when it comes to 'gaffes', especially when they're made up / trumped up?

    I live \ (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by sas on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 10:49:46 PM EST
    in PA.

    I'm telling you he couls spend all of his life and every nickel he has and he would still lose here.

    We are hard workers, who have faith and strength.  We are not quitters.  And we stand up for what we believe.  She is our candidate and she will win here.

    He is style and no substance,  She is the work horse and he is the show pony.

    He will not win.

    SAS (none / 0) (#65)
    by Prabhata on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 11:55:53 PM EST
    It seems to me that the people of PA go beyond the narrative to the essence of the candidate.

    Uh huh... (none / 0) (#68)
    by DawnG on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 12:00:54 AM EST
    ...and you're commenting as a completely impartial observer in this matter are you?

    I don't know for sure, but I have a feeling that people who support Obama don't do it because they think "He is style and no substance".  

    I like hearing about why people like a certain candidate over another, but I most certainly do not like hearing why a person DISlikes a certain candidate.  Because usually the dislike of one candidate is an extension of the like of the other candidate.

    People dislike Clinton because they like Obama, and people dislike Obama because they like Clinton.  But they don't generally dislike either because Obama or Clinton are actually bad. the whole race has just been turned into a freaking superbowl where you root for your team and heckel the opposition.

    I'm just here for the commercials (I like the Emerald Nuts ones best).


    Both candidates (none / 0) (#96)
    by kayla on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 08:29:32 AM EST
    are going to try to shake off these negative perceptions of them.  Obama's tries to bowl them away and Hillary tries to SNL them away.  So whether there is substance to Obama or not, there's still a perception that his campaign is driven by celebrity more than concrete issues.  He's going to have to fix that.  Not everyone has time to read his website.

    Well (none / 0) (#97)
    by sas on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 08:33:02 AM EST
    Dawn G,
    Here is what you are looking for from me  perhaps....

     We in PA like Hillary because she is a tireless worker who speaks in specifics about what she will do.  She has plans.  Her Healthcare and Economic plans are more progressive than Obama's and do much more to enure a safety net for our most needy citizens.  She wants to dismantle No Child Left Behind (Obama wants to provide more money for this educational boondoggle).  She wants to mandate kindergarten, which is similar to the very successful Head Start programs.  She addresses the mortgage mess, she is out in front on the Olympic boycott discussion, etc

    She is a workhorse wth direction.  He is a show pony.  
    Example - Obama, tell us specifically what you plan to do!  Don't tell me vagues - like hope and change, without specifics.  Tell me your plans, your ideas.  It isn't enough to say "I agree with Senator Clinton."  Where is he ahead of her on policy?  Why is he alway following her, parroting her ?  Show me where he has come up with Original Plans , ideas of his own.  

    He gives a good speech, and follows her on the actual work part.  I dont like that about him - covinces me think he is not ready, that he rally doesn't know what he is doing.


    Yes they do (none / 0) (#112)
    by echinopsia on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 09:29:54 AM EST
    I have a feeling that people who support Obama don't do it because they think "He is style and no substance".  

    They just aren't aware of it.

    You try to pint hem down on specifics, and all you get is "he's very charismatic, and intelligent and will lead us and unify us."

    Style. No substance.


    Today was my first day back (5.00 / 2) (#40)
    by facta non verba on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 11:12:21 PM EST
    in the US after 3 weeks and I took it easy and watched a few news shows. I could stomach about 5 minutes of KO who quoted much different polls numbers from PA 5 point Clinton lead and dropping fast. On Bill O'Reilly, Dick Morris was the guest. He wasn't much better. He predicted a flat out Obama victory in PA so much so O'Reilly did a double take and asked him to repeat himaself. Morris backtracked a bit saying wasn't going to bet on Obama victory only make the prediction that Obama will win by 5 points. Whatever.

    Polls differ, but look at the trends ... (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by cymro on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 12:04:11 AM EST
    ... within each poll:

    InsiderAdvantage 4/2 Clinton 45 Obama 42
    InsiderAdvantage 4/8 Clinton 48 Obama 38
    Clinton gain = 7

    SurveyUSA 3/31 Clinton 53 Obama 41
    SurveyUSA 4/7 Clinton 56 Obama 38
    Clinton gain = 6

    PPP 4/1 Clinton 43 Obama 45
    PPP 4/8 Clinton 46 Obama 43
    Clinton gain = 5

    Rasmussen 3/31 Clinton 47 Obama 42
    Rasmussen 4/7 Clinton 48 Obama 43
    No change

    This way of reading the polls eliminates a lot of the confusion that arises when you try to compare their results. But assuming that each poll sticks to their own particular methodology, three major polls are reporting an encouraging trend towards Clinton over the last week.

    For more about polls and polling data, check out pollster.com. I am not affiliated with them, but I do believe their data and analysis is the most complete and accurate available online.


    Pollster like RealClearPolitics (none / 0) (#105)
    by white n az on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 09:11:22 AM EST
    is about averaging various polls with a concept towards the average perhaps being more accurate than individual polls.

    While that makes sense in an abstract way, the problem with the averaging method assumes validity of the sources and clearly there is a problem when a poll such as PPP shows Obama +3 and SUSA shows Clinton +18

    At some point, you have to figure out who is providing a level of accuracy you're comfortable with and it seems evident that SUSA has been pretty much telling it like it is this whole cycle.


    If Clinton starts gaining ground in PA (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 11:14:29 PM EST
    this race is SOOOOOO far from over!

    Major polls show that she IS gaining (none / 0) (#74)
    by cymro on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 12:05:39 AM EST
    See my comment above

    Debate is Saturday night (none / 0) (#98)
    by ruffian on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 08:35:03 AM EST
    Hope she has another great night.  He can't touch her on substance.

    Another duel (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by barryluda on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 11:21:59 PM EST
    Looks like the SUSA poll showing Clinton with a commanding lead in PA over Obama wasn't an outlier after all.  And if we look at Jeralyn's Dueling PA Polls (but with the Public Policy Polling this time instead of the Quinnipiac poll) you still see the trend with Clinton moving up.  Not sure how much it matters since, unless Clinton loses big in PA (which she won't) this thing will be decided by the Super Delegates.

    Assuming neither gets enough "regular" delegates, I'm not sure how relevant the polling or even results in the remaining states will be, unless that ends up being a deciding factor in how the Super Delegates vote.  Since I personally think either one would be a good President, and certainly better than McCain, I'd like to think they'll go with the one with the best chance of beating McCain.

    So, I'm really curious what the factors will be that the Super Delegates will use in deciding.  Here's what I think would be rational:  if neither candidate wins both the majority of the delegates and popular vote (so, in other words, they split them) then I'd try to determine which I really thought had the best chance of beating McCain and go with her or him.  If, on the other hand, either one won both, then I'd vote for her or him since, although it will be hard for voters supporting the "loser", at least it won't feel like the election was stolen.  In any event, you'd have to include the votes (or do re-votes) in both FL and MI.

    I think both sides get so caught up (5.00 / 2) (#91)
    by ChrisO on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 07:59:58 AM EST
    in all of the ins and outs of the debate that we forget how many people just have a passing familiarity with the issues. Every time I see Obama supporters crowing about how the Tuzla story is the death knell for Hillary, I have to laugh. They think all they have to do is say "Bosnia" and the voters will run to the booth to vote for Obama. I think it's already fading away, just like most of ther issues that we all get so hot and bothered about.

    By the same token, although the Wright issue is big enough that it will continue to haunt Obama, things like his comments about his grandmother are probably meaningless to most voters.

    Both sides engage in this stuff, although I will say that I read more declarations from Obama supporters that Hillary is "toast" every time she hits a bump in the road (or just says something they don't like). I guess the fatal blow du jour is that Bill still supports the Colombia deal, just like he has all along. Obama supporters seem to think that after all this, that's the issue that will sway voters.

    I think everyone, me included, needs to step away from the keyboard once in a while. Talk to friends and co-workers, and instead of getting worked up at how uninformed they are, realize that it's people with their level of knowledge who will decide this election.

    And my question is (5.00 / 2) (#106)
    by kenoshaMarge on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 09:15:56 AM EST
    How can she still be standing after all the crap thrown at her from Right, Left and Media? She proves, again and again, that she is an incredibly strong person.

    I chose her for that reason. I do not now and did not from the gitgo hear anything coming from Obama that made me think he would be a good president.

    I don't like that he sat in church while anyone said what his mentor and Minister said. That's just me and so far as I know I don't need anyone's permission to think like I think. And I sure don't need someone lecturing me about how and why I make my choices.

    My response to that is: (5.00 / 1) (#108)
    by madamab on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 09:20:03 AM EST
    1. The media has given him a free pass, while feeling free to smear HRC at every turn.
    2. His only big blue state win is Illinois, and he has not won a single swing state in a primary - and won't.
    3. Caucus wins are not predictive in the General Election. Most of those states will not even be in play.
    4. Obama's lead is based on a 48-state strategy, while 50 states will vote in the GE.

    I do give him credit for having a good marketing campaign, good oratory skills and a lot of charisma. None of that will matter in the GE, IMHO.

    I do think the facts will matter the most. (5.00 / 1) (#117)
    by madamab on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 09:53:30 AM EST
    And the fact is, that Obama does not actually have a significant lead in either delegates or the popular vote. He achieves his current count by pretending that MI and FL do not exist. They do and they WILL count in the GE.

    The fact is that most of Obama's caucus wins are in red states.

    The fact is that he hasn't won one single swing state in a primary. He hasn't even won a blue state except for his home state, IL.

    Now, I personally don't see these facts changing much. That is where I agree my statements are speculative. Who knows, Obama could pull out surprise wins in the remaining primaries. But to ignore the fact that my speculations are based on facts, is disingenuous.

    All the MLK specials are over (none / 0) (#1)
    by nellre on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 09:59:02 PM EST
    The magic is fading and reality takes hold.
    MLK had a gift much like Obama's for public speaking.
    And feeling extra supportive of Obama out of respect for MLK might be expected.

    She started running 5 different ads (5.00 / 3) (#5)
    by nycstray on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 10:08:49 PM EST
    there yesterday. That should also help as the ads are on target for her voters.

    Obama needs to walk in her shoes a bit to really understand who he's trying to reach. That's a problem with his 'blank slate' on the big stage. She goes in living rooms, hospitals, schools etc and really TALKS and LISTENS to the people. And has   been working for them all along.


    I have to think that O's (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by Kathy on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 10:12:06 PM EST
    monster media buy must be irritating the crap outta folks by now.  No one likes political ads unless they're the mudslinging type and get lots of media play.  If it's just all "feel good about me!" stuff, viewers tend to mute.  After four weeks of this, they're ready to vote for the other guy (or woman, in this case!) just out of spite.

    Watching BO's ads (none / 0) (#59)
    by Prabhata on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 11:45:44 PM EST
    would drive me up the wall.  I never turn the TV, but on Feb 5, I did.  His ads were like the Monty Python Spam skit, hope, change, unity...unity change, hope.

    And Hillary is the one accused of (5.00 / 0) (#10)
    by MarkL on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 10:14:16 PM EST
    running scripted events. SHE is not the one who has been giving virtually the same stump speech for how many months now??

    Come on, Mark (none / 0) (#11)
    by Kathy on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 10:18:32 PM EST
    he's got it memorized by now--doesn't even need the teleprompter!

    Did you see the political ticker on Yahoo? (5.00 / 3) (#21)
    by BarnBabe on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 10:39:40 PM EST
    Obama urges Bush to boycott Olympic ceremonies
    Why is he always a day behind her? I mean, she says new economy bill, he says new economy bill. She says boycott OC. He says boycott OC. I know it is to make them look so alike that people will vote for either. But come on, does he have a original idea of his own? It is almost embarrassing now to see this.

    Are you F****** kidding me?? (none / 0) (#23)
    by MarkL on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 10:43:13 PM EST
    Poor Steve Clemons.. now he's going to have to spank Obama too.
    That is REALLY pathetic, because I'm not sure that Hillary's call for a boycott is a vote-getter.
    Of course, it may be the right thing to do (I don't know), but I have mostly seen negative comments about it.

    Are the negative comments about (none / 0) (#35)
    by nycstray on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 11:03:02 PM EST
    the boycott, or the fact 'she' said it?

    People at TWN say it's a bad idea. (none / 0) (#38)
    by MarkL on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 11:08:44 PM EST
    For instance, one Chinese man pointed out that for every 1 Tibetan who is treated badly in some way, there are 1000 Han Chinese who receive the same treatment. Singling out the Tibetans rubs them the wrong way.

    1 to 1000 (none / 0) (#95)
    by Imelda Blahnik2 on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 08:16:25 AM EST
    Re: for every 1 Tibetan who is mistreated, another 1000 Han Chinese are also abused.

    I believe it. And I understand why it rubs Han and other Chinese the wrong way. As I said before, what the Tibetans need is good, non-corrupt, responsive government that respects their rights to freedom of religion. And so do the rest of the Chinese people.

    A number of people I have talked to lately (taxi drivers, shopkeepers, non-profit workers, Muslims, Buddhists, etc) actually do think their current leaders, especially Hu Jintao, are more responsive and open than they have been in the past. Believe it or not. They are not naive. But they also feel there is real progress. And they are all, to a person, even the cynics I know, amazingly proud that the Olympics will be in Beijing.

    The Opening Ceremony boycott ploy is a bad one.


    I think the latter (none / 0) (#100)
    by ruffian on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 08:37:02 AM EST
    I'm sure Ed shultz will now think it is a great idea becauise Obama is for it.

    I guess that is leadership, in some twisted kind of way.  Personality driven.


    unbelieveable (none / 0) (#30)
    by bjorn on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 10:58:36 PM EST
    He didn't say that. That was (none / 0) (#32)
    by Joan in VA on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 11:00:40 PM EST
    too straightforward for him. He said to wait until closer to the Olympics and boycott only if China hadn't improved. Which they won't. He had to make it  a little different than hers so it wouldn't seem like copying. Yahoo is wrong. Guess they couldn't fit the whole wishy-washy statement on the ticker.

    Wait for them to what? (none / 0) (#46)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 11:17:56 PM EST
    I think that's just silly.  "Hey, China, if you don't free Tibet and arrange peace in Darfur in the next 30 seconds, we may not come to your Olympic opening ceremonies."

    Good grief.


    Berkeley people (5.00 / 3) (#51)
    by Stellaaa on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 11:28:30 PM EST
    I wonder how all my Berkeley neighbors are feeling?  Just walk around my house and a few blocks here and see all the Priusses with the Obama and Free Tibet bumper stickers.  Gee, Hillary is standing up, but O bama is hedging.  Makes ya think.  

    Unfortunately, that was the top story there then (none / 0) (#66)
    by BarnBabe on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 11:57:36 PM EST
    Someone changed or voted it out. Ha. Now it is Obama and Clinton are calling for California delegate lists scrutinized.  All along, they have been trying to blur the difference between on the issues. Hopefully other people will see the same trickery as  we do and there is a lot. It is becoming so obvious now.

    Check their news updates (none / 0) (#34)
    by nycstray on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 11:01:39 PM EST
    on their sites. On the beef recall, she had him by a day, and still had more teeth in her statement than his. I compare their sites daily and recently signed up for his emails to see the dif. The tone of her emails are more personal and she's def more on top of news releases.

    The scripted candidate (none / 0) (#61)
    by Prabhata on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 11:51:46 PM EST
    BO: unity, change, hope.
    HRC dodges bullets and gets creative with her stories so that they don't exactly match the original story. Not bad for being scripted.

    Rise Hillary! Rise!


    totally agree (none / 0) (#8)
    by nellre on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 10:12:15 PM EST
    I concur with everything you say, but my post was more about impulse responses to the polls based on one's current emotional state.

    But you are right... her grassroots approach makes people think... and that's what she (and America) needs.


    even Kos said she's nice and (none / 0) (#79)
    by thereyougo on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 12:19:26 AM EST
    personalble and when she smiles, its looks genuine.
    Contrast Obama when that guy approached him for a photo, he was annoyed "just take it"he told him. It was not one of his kodak moments.

    and Obama hems and haws, which is annoying. semi stutters, chops off the end of words.

    nice guy, but not ready for prime time.


    You're right (none / 0) (#86)
    by IzikLA on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 02:18:50 AM EST
    I forgot about this instance and it was merely a couple weeks ago if that.  Imagine if Hillary had been that way to someone (whether warranted or not) -- we would have never heard the end of how awful she was!!

    Obama-Odinga 50-50 Split Demands---eerily familiar (none / 0) (#14)
    by SunnyLC on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 10:23:49 PM EST

    Obama-Odinga:50-50 Split Demands Sound SOOOO FAMILIAR...

    The news that Odinga wants a 50-50 split in Kenya's cabinet made me dig deeper...and wow, there are some interesting Obama-Odinga similarities/links....and they way Odinga ran his campaign sounds eerily familiar, too!(see the Newsweek Intl. article link)


    Please don't call names (none / 0) (#16)
    by blogtopus on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 10:35:11 PM EST
    I mean, we call people Obamabots, etc, but Obama-odinga? Maybe I'm being too sensitive, hell.

    No no no (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by blogtopus on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 10:36:01 PM EST
    Please, allow me: [kicks self in butt, smacks head against wall]

    LOL (none / 0) (#22)
    by Josey on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 10:40:07 PM EST
    You apparently need a quick lesson (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by facta non verba on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 10:45:29 PM EST
    on Kenyan politics. He's referencing Raila Odinga, the leader of the Kenyan opposition party, the Orange Democratic Movement.

    Yes I do (none / 0) (#27)
    by blogtopus on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 10:53:56 PM EST
    And you need a lesson in reading, just like me. ;-P

    It must be said (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by Kathy on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 05:30:34 AM EST
    "An Obama-dingo ate my baby."

    It has an interesting ring to it (none / 0) (#72)
    by Prabhata on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 12:05:09 AM EST
    But nothing namby-pamby. (none / 0) (#15)
    by MarkL on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 10:24:13 PM EST
    What if Obama ran ads saying that Hillary has the blood of hundreds of thousands on her hands because of Iraq? You know, i might like that!
    It sure beats "she's shrill" as an argument.
    I won't opine about what ads Hillary could run against Obama, but I think her arguments are more on target, in terms of giving reasons that Obama shouldn't be President.

    Blood of 100 thousands Iraqis? Who? (none / 0) (#69)
    by Prabhata on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 12:03:04 AM EST
    That might not go well to those who supported the war.  Don't forget that most Americans (like 72 percent) supported the war.  Yeah, good idea tell all those Americans in the 72 percent that they have blood on their hands.  OB's numbers will soar into the ground.

    From Wikipedia:

    April 2003

    A poll conducted by the Washington Post and ABC News found that 72% of Americans supported the Iraq War...


    Yes, I know that; however, I would respect (none / 0) (#78)
    by MarkL on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 12:13:08 AM EST
    Obama more if he made that argument, which has substance, instead of using innuendo and slurs to advance his case.

    Substance? (none / 0) (#81)
    by echinopsia on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 12:39:18 AM EST
    When their voting record on the war in the Senate is identical? (except for one?)

    When most of his advisers and bigtime Dem endorsers also voted yes on AUMF?

    Oh, I HOPE he tries that. Just so she can point out that his vaunted speech was to anti-war people at an anti-war rally in an anti-war district, and then she can detail his actual record on the war.

    Please, Br'er Obama, don't throw her in that briar patch.


    Obama ad (none / 0) (#19)
    by nellre on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 10:36:47 PM EST
    I Want To Put An End To The Game Playing posted at TPM

    If he's ever tied to any special interest group he's toast. He looks clean though.

    If Obama has already won the nomination (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by Josey on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 10:57:27 PM EST
    why is he spending so much money and time in PA?
    Two weeks ago, Obama was calling for Hillary to - GET OUT!  He had already won the nomination and her insistence on staying in the race only made it harder for Democrats to win in Nov.
    There have been no primaries during the past 2 weeks - so nothing has changed.
    Obama is still the "winner" - the "nominee" - that he claimed to be 2 weeks ago. So why is he spending bakoodles of money attacking Hillary - if he's already won the nomination?

    he hasn't won... (none / 0) (#70)
    by DawnG on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 12:03:16 AM EST
    ...until he's hit the magic number.

    The fact that Clinton can't (arguably) win doesn't mean Obama has won by extension. He needs to close and he needs to keep going until he does close.


    The weeks of victory dancing get old fast, huh? (none / 0) (#82)
    by Ellie on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 12:41:29 AM EST
    Pretending he's won -- as a tactic to pressure Sen Clinton to get out of the race -- would have been a sweet coup for Obama.

    It would have eliminated the need for to explain so much (ie, disenfranchising MI/FL voters, slOwmentum, pandering to the right etc. etc.)

    Now he has to actually win. Not be ahead. Not have an "insurmountable" lead (if, if, if, if and if). Not look good in polls.




    WTF?! Didn't he receive more from Pharma (none / 0) (#39)
    by nycstray on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 11:10:17 PM EST
    than her? In one of the debates, Edwards called them both out on donations, her for Insurance, him for Pharma.

    Only 10 points? (none / 0) (#28)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 10:57:02 PM EST
    I thought she was up by 18 yesterday. Shouldn't she be up by 30 by now?

    with Obama's red carpet treatment (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by Josey on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 11:01:32 PM EST
    by the media and press - he should have wound this thing down a month ago!
    But - oops!  the people voted - and Hillary is still in the game.

    well...he is winning. (none / 0) (#73)
    by DawnG on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 12:05:36 AM EST
    ...and you can blame the media all you want.  But Obama is currently in the lead.  The people voted, and more have voted for Obama.  

    Hillary is still in the game because she thinks she can still win.  But she has an uphill battle convincing people of that.  And it gets more uphill by the state.  She can't just win PA, she has to win BIG in PA.


    Actually (5.00 / 2) (#87)
    by IzikLA on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 02:40:10 AM EST
    Sorry to keep stating the obvious but if you count the people that actually did vote in FL & MI it is very close to an equal race.  I won't even mention the votes in caucuses because that would tilt this argument in favor of Clinton and that would send some people over the edge.

    I still believe whole-heartedly that Clinton comes out of this with the Popular Vote in the end if she is not pushed out.  She wins PA, IN, WV, KY, PR by more than he wins the smaller states and NC, so  I still wonder what happens if she leads in the Popular Vote and he leads in the Pledged Delegates when all is said and done.  I believe that that is the scenario that keeps the Obama campaign spending profuse amounts of money and keeps them telling people that Clinton has already lost.


    Guess what? (none / 0) (#104)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 09:10:53 AM EST
    Florida and Michigan don't count.

    Weep, wail, whatever. For the purposes of the Democratic nomination they don't count. Hillary even agreed to that... before she hypocritically violated her own pledge. She pledged not to participate in those in those non-primaries. Not says participation like demanding delegates from those non-primaries.

    They don't count. Come back off the ledge, IzikLA.


    Guess what again (none / 0) (#115)
    by Marvin42 on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 09:39:54 AM EST
    They do count. You can say they don't, but unless you have a crystal ball....

    Ways they count in order of importance:

    1. SD: they ain't dumb, they can read, they understand.
    2. Perception: if Obama is behind in pop vote when this is over, or is ahead so little that FL would tip they count BIG TIME.
    3. Convention and rules: it ain't over.

    Try to pedal backwards to the ledge Bob ;)

    Wrong (none / 0) (#93)
    by Marvin42 on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 08:09:55 AM EST
    She has to convince the super delegates, exactly the same way Sen Obama has too. What do you think this is all about? Trust me, 10 points is a big win in a big state. More importantly if Sen Obama pours MASSIVE resources into PA and can't even close the race up he will be left with the very real damage to his electability in the GE.

    If he spends like this against Sen Clinton in PA and can't make a dent what will it do against McCain? You don't think the SDs are watching PA for that exact reason?

    It ain't over. I know you say you are ambivalent, so it shouldn't be an issue if Obama doesn't end up winning as predicted.


    FL and MI (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by Kathy on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 09:25:00 AM EST
    are certainly going to count in the minds of the SDs and the rest of the dem party (at least the sane part) if what it comes down to is that with those two states counting, Clinton wins the nomination.

    An O ascendancy would be illegitimate otherwise, and I will not vote for him.  We already had Bush steal one election.  I will not reward the same behavior in my own party.


    DawnG, the contest is not over (none / 0) (#128)
    by lookoverthere on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 02:31:40 PM EST
    The nominee will be chosen at the convention. Right now, neither candidate has the requisite number of delegates, so neither can claim the title of presumptive nominee. Unless one or the other campaign has a meltdown before the final contests are completed, neither will have the delegates to do so. Both will need the superdelegates to get to that number.

    Those superdelegates may vote before the convention. They may not. But until the end of the convention, no one has won the nomination. Each candidate has an uphill fight and if you don't think so, then why Sen. Obama is spending so much money and working so hard in Pennsylvania?

    Because he has to show the superdelegates he can win big states, which he has not done outside of his home state of Illinois.


    SUSA has HRC by 18 (none / 0) (#75)
    by Prabhata on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 12:08:51 AM EST
    Insider Advantage by 10, but with the undecided that normally break in the same proportion, the difference is really 15...
    The word is "normally"

    Has anyone seen the granny ad? (none / 0) (#31)
    by Stellaaa on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 10:59:33 PM EST
    I want to see the granny ad.  Apparently, granny has surfaced.  Turns out granny was a bank vp in the 60's, wow.  Hmm, calling Dr. Freud.  

    Sure, in the '60s -- but that was after (5.00 / 2) (#43)
    by Cream City on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 11:14:40 PM EST
    his years as a street urchin in Jakarta. . . .

    Link to ads (none / 0) (#37)
    by nycstray on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 11:07:48 PM EST
    Typical White Person (none / 0) (#41)
    by Chimster on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 11:13:34 PM EST
    Yes. I saw a portion of the video and the brief snippet of his white grandmother. But the CNN  news reporter Jeanne Moos that covered the grandma story, showed and mentioned "Typical White Person" over and over and over. It's the only thing I remember about the piece. If Obama thought people had forgotten about this, CNN just brought it right back to the forefront.

    That is one of Obama's many (5.00 / 2) (#48)
    by MarkL on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 11:24:07 PM EST
    "dean screams".
    Personally I think his claim that he is qualified to conduct foreign policy because he was in Indonesia as a child is the most self-important, ludicrous pap  I have ever heard a Presidential candidate say.

    Typical White Person (none / 0) (#45)
    by nycstray on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 11:17:17 PM EST
    is hard to forget when it comes from one who has 'transcended race'. Plus the fact he threw is Grandma under the bus.

    It was strange (none / 0) (#50)
    by Chimster on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 11:27:11 PM EST
    The video I'm referencing is described as follows: It's Obama's grandmama! CNN's Jeanne Moos introduces the granny who inspired Obama's "typical white person" remark.

    She seems to "mostly" trash Barack during this piece (not that I'm complaining) but I never would have expected this type piece from CNN that portrays Obama this way.


    What does the granny say??? (none / 0) (#55)
    by athyrio on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 11:35:25 PM EST
    4 seconds of Gramama (none / 0) (#57)
    by Chimster on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 11:40:38 PM EST
    I'm pseudo-phrasing, but it sounds like she says "I think it's given him a lot of depth and a broadness of view". She was only on for 4 seconds.

    Preparing for (none / 0) (#121)
    by scoff on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 11:31:05 AM EST
    the McCain Ascendancy.

    Call it a premonition.


    Dunno for sure if it was true then (none / 0) (#49)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 11:24:31 PM EST
    but VP in most banks now is basically the first step up from teller.  They have hundreds of them.  It's a decent job, but it's not by any means a "bank executive" with all that implies in money and status.

    Well (none / 0) (#53)
    by Stellaaa on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 11:33:30 PM EST
    In the old days, the vp's used to do all the hard work in banks.  USA Today story

    She sounds like a really neat lady (none / 0) (#58)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 11:43:46 PM EST
    As I say, I have no idea whether VP at that bank at that time was a high-level position or not, but it mostly isn't these days.  There's been some yak-yak here about how the fact that his grandmother was a "banking executive" meant he lived a privileged life in Hawaii.  May or may not be true he led a privileged life, but can't assume that from Grandma's title at the bank is all I'm saying.

    I think we all know lots of women in that era who basically ran the show but were paid peanuts and never got the credit they deserved with a good title, either.  Sounds from the USA article she may have been that type of super-bright, super-competent woman who watched all the men she trained get promoted over her.


    Grandpa had a thriving business (none / 0) (#60)
    by Stellaaa on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 11:46:47 PM EST
    I worked at a bank in 1969 (none / 0) (#80)
    by Prabhata on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 12:20:50 AM EST
    Hey, I was young.  VP's were middle managers.  Banks are notorious low salaries, so the reward is a great title.  I worked in the international money transfer department, and my boss was a VP.  I was a simple low paid clerk doing grunt work reporting to a VP.  Later in life, after I got my BA degree, I ended up working in a mid-size manufacturing company and reported to a real VP who reported to the president of the company.  I had a good salary.

    I just hope the superdelegates take into (none / 0) (#52)
    by athyrio on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 11:32:58 PM EST
    account the fact that the 527's of the GOP haven't really started on him yet....He is unknown and not used to alot of criticism...he will drop (IMHO) like a stone...She on the other hand, has been criticised to the point that the public just mostly ignores it anymore...The more garbage they throw at her, the better she does...Instead of being the "media darling" she appears to be the "voter's darling" which is appearing very powerful indeed...

    I think that's an exaggeration. (none / 0) (#76)
    by DawnG on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 12:10:04 AM EST
    the GOP will sink to any depth no matter who the nominee is.  The argument that one candidate would fare better against the GOP machine was the very same argument people made for Kerry in 2004, and we see how well that worked.

    Anymore, it's not enough for candidates to defend themselves in the media, we the people need to call it out ourselves.

    A united democratic party would be unstoppable, it matters little whether it's Obama or Clinton at the helm.  What matters, is us.

    Obama would do fine, if we have his back.  Just as Clinton would do fine, if we have her back.  But without that, we'll receive president McCain and the third Bush term.


    I really don't see how much lower (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by echinopsia on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 12:55:01 AM EST
    the GOP could sink than the "progressive" blogger boyz for Obama. And the media.

    Give me a break! (none / 0) (#85)
    by DawnG on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 01:49:19 AM EST
    Clinton supporters aren't being any less jerky than Obama supporters.  Why are you guys (for Clinton and Obama both) keep indulging in this divisive garbage??

    You are tearing each other apart!  The only person getting a free ride with the media is McCain.  He's getting a free ride from democrats too because you guys are too busy squabbling about who's a stronger leader and who has substance and who invokes hope and who excites young people.

    I'm tired of it!  you've totally lost sight of what we're fighting for!  No matter who wins the nomination we have GOT to unify behind them.  But this back and forth sniping and snarling is going to make that nearly impossible!



    I know this isn't what you want to hear (5.00 / 5) (#90)
    by ChrisO on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 07:51:27 AM EST
    but the level of vitriol from Obama supporters is way worse than that coming from Clinton supporers. I'd be happy to provide examples, but at this point I think most people on this board are getting tired of the topic.

    I'll support Obama in the fall, but the viciousness of Obama supporters is something I will never forget.


    Dawn - I hate to tell you this, (5.00 / 3) (#101)
    by Anne on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 08:46:46 AM EST
    but your attempts to cast yourself as an impartial observer of the political process are not working; despite your constant disclaimers that it doesn't matter to you which one is the nominee, clearly it does.  Newsflash: it's supposed to.  When it doesn't matter, that translates to apathy not energy, to low voter turnout, not high.

    We are not required to make our decision about which candidate we support in accordance with your standard in order for that choice to be valid, so you really need to back off.  We may be Democrats, most of us, but we did not roll off the assembly line with identical configuration, and you are not the authority on the best way to pick a candidate to support.  You seem to have totally bought into the idea that both sides of an issue are always equally valid and equally credible, but they are not; while both of these candidates have something to offer, they are not the same, and it is the differences that are putting us on one side or the other in accordance with what is important to us - as men, as women, as older or younger, as successful or struggling.

    And while we really do get the whole Democratic unity thing, and understand that a divided party cannot win in November, many of us believe that it is incumbent upon the candidates to lead on that issue.  And on that issue, I have heard Hillary Clinton make numerous comments and statements that clearly show that she understands the importance of party unity - her desire to stay in a race that has not been decided is not a divisive one, but a small-d democratic one.  I am sorry to say that I do not hear this from Obama, and I have some doubt that he will be able to not just be gracious in defeat if he fails, but to rally `round the nominee and devote the full force and energy of all that is at his disposal to working for Democratic victory in November.

    All the hair-pulling and screaming is not going to make anyone see it your way; we've tried many times to explain to the Obama supporters that this is not a tactic that moves us in his direction, but since many of them seem not to be listening, I guess it will just have to be something learned the hard way, and too late.


    I don't expect (none / 0) (#107)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 09:16:48 AM EST
    I don't expect any argument to move Clinton True Believers towards Obama. This site is so full of anger and self-deception that logic will not prevail.

    What will prevail is reality, and when Clinton's campaign folds and Obama wins most CTBs will begin to notice that the political world that they have imagined is not the world that exists. Then they will begin to allow themselves to realize that a McCain victory will be terrible for them. And they will vote for Obama. Some here are beyond reclamation, but that happens in all cult movements.


    Don't count on it. (5.00 / 1) (#109)
    by echinopsia on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 09:21:58 AM EST
    We'll see what happens. (none / 0) (#111)
    by madamab on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 09:28:29 AM EST
    I just don't think Obama will win the GE. I'll vote for him if he's the nominee, but I think his support is a lot smaller than he and his supporters think it is. Doesn't he brag about his Republican and Independent support? Guess what, McCain will get it in the GE after the right-wing scream machine plays those Wright videos 24-7.

    I think the SD's had better consider the GE very carefully before making their decision. Otherwise, we could see a McCain blowout of epic proportions.


    Why the masochsim, then? (none / 0) (#119)
    by Boia on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 10:50:44 AM EST
    This site is so full of anger and self-deception that logic will not prevail.

    Try this elegant and simple response:  stay away.


    This is OT, but.... experts define Obamamania... (none / 0) (#120)
    by Josmt on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 10:52:23 AM EST
    - Carl Raschke , a religious studies professor at University of Denver, states:
    "There is a very cult-like situation: a population longing for absolute certainty and truth [that] is incapable of taking control of their own lives and wants someone to do that for them - a Magic Man.


    - Scott Jaschik , a writer for the online publication, Insidehighered. com , writes: "Some student life experts are worried that campus excitement and idealism over Barack Obama's campaign has reached such high levels that students are sure to be let down by either an Obama presidency or an Obama loss.


    - When asked by U.S. News & World Report

    columnist Deborah Kotz if whether or not Obamamania could actually cause people to lose consciousness, Thomas Swift , the president of the American Academy of Neurology, replied: "Yes. Being extremely excited can trigger a sudden large surge of adrenaline and other stress hormones...You might feel lightheaded, clammy, and a bit nauseated before your vision dims and the world goes black.



    I know what I'm fighting for (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by ruffian on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 08:49:45 AM EST
    A strong leader who has substance.  That is what I want.  It is the fact that a lot of us have not lost sight of what we want that has kept Clinton in the race this long.  I'm not going to apologize for that because just it delays the arrival of the unity pony by a few weeks.  We'll deal with McCain when the time comes.

    Disagree (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by Marvin42 on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 08:13:36 AM EST
    The damage to a an unknown person is much much larger than to a known. Kerry was not known in the national stage, and he had no real issue, and look at what happened to him. Obama will get destroyed in the GE. Hillary Clinton has been through it already, that is why she has higher negatives right now than Obama.

    Anyone who thinks Obama and Clinton would fare the same against the Repub attack machine is really just dreaming.


    Comeback (none / 0) (#99)
    by heftylefty on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 08:36:07 AM EST
    How she could be losing to a guy that has endorsementd from the likes of The New Black Panther party and Ludacris is beyond me. This almost made me wet myself - http://nationalsquib.com/index.php/barack-obama-ludacris/

    Hefty (none / 0) (#113)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 09:32:42 AM EST
    This is ultimately the argument that should convince you that Obama has been thoroughly vetted.

    So much of the attack on Obama is on people who aren't Obama, only people who are used to tar him. Obama has no connection to the New Black Panther Party. At all. Racists like you want to imagine a connection. That's the best you can do.

    For months Clinton's campaign was run by Mark Penn, a union-busting attorney who was "secretly" working for an international trade deal with a regime that routinely kills union organizers. How does Clinton not know this? Incompetence? No, she's not that incompetent. She knew that Penn was a union-buster just as surely as she knew what work he and his gang were doing on the side. Clinton supporters' willing suspension of disbelief allowed the farce of a "liberal" candidate headed by an anti-labor lawyer is still in place, at least here. While Big D can celebrate Penn's departure he can't honestly and rationally explain why Penn was ever heading Clinton's campaign. And the answer is simple: He isn't repugnant to Hillary.

    Penn's position at the head of Clinton's campaign was the tell about Clinton's true nature. She is not for the working class. Those here who do not see Penn's place on Clinton's team are trumping reality with delusion.


    I do not think it wise (5.00 / 1) (#116)
    by Kathy on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 09:46:52 AM EST
    to start talking about advisors, as that would lead others to mention Obama's myriad lobbyist friends who now work for his campaign.

    Also, it seems rather desperate to be throwing around the word "racist."   I suppose if you don't have much ground to stand on, it's a convenient crutch, but that word has extremely awful connotations and, speaking for myself, it carries the same weight as tossing around the word "pedophile."  You should be d*mn sure you're right before you level such a nasty charge at someone.

    Obama's connection to these hate groups comes through allowing them a forum on his official website and employing an open member of the Nation of Islam in his senatorial staff.  Unless you can dispute these facts with credible sources, then I think you owe the poster an apology.


    Fascinating logic (none / 0) (#118)
    by Marvin42 on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 10:01:07 AM EST
    Advisors or associates on Obama = no reflection
    Advisors or associates on Clinton = true reflection of candidate

    Yeah, I don't see any problems with this one.


    Beyond the pale, so to speak (none / 0) (#125)
    by Camorrista on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 11:54:33 AM EST
    Racists like you want to imagine a connection...

    I would have thought that even posters as mechanically and repellently abusive as "Bob in Pacifica" might hesitate before calling another poster a racist.

    Which shows how little I know.

    But then, if you want to get a sense of Bob's notion of race relations, check around the web and read his inumerable fanatical comments on the case of the Duke lacrosse team.  And, of course, his inumerable fanatical comments on Tawana Brawley.  

    No doubt, in Bob's feverish mind he's simply a vigorous seeker of truth, but why are two of his designated detestable liars black, female, young and poor?  (The third, of course, is Al Sharpton.)

    But what am I saying?  Since Bob in Pacifica loves Senator Obama (and surely loves Michelle Obama, black, female, middle-aged and rich) he's definitely no racist himself, and that naturally gives him the right to label somebody else racist.   Sure.

    Well,as Miranda says, "Oh Brave New World that has such people in it."


    Your facts are incorrect (none / 0) (#122)
    by IndiDemGirl on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 11:37:20 AM EST
    He did win a primary in Wisconsin -  a swing state and a blue state.    Let's also not forget the primaries he won in Missouri and Virginia, both considered swing states.  

    So will you correct your statement:

    The fact is that he hasn't won one single swing state in a primary.  He hasn't even won a blue state except for his home state, IL.

    MO and VA appear to be red states... (none / 0) (#129)
    by lookoverthere on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 02:55:00 PM EST
    Please see the electoral vote map.

    Maybe they'll be swing states later in the fall. But they're not now.


    Yes, you are right, but (none / 0) (#131)
    by IndiDemGirl on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 06:22:44 PM EST
    My comment was in answer to madamab's comment
    "His only big blue state win is Illinois, and he has not won a single swing state in a primary - and won't."

    Wisconsin is a blue state that had a primary and Obama did win it.  So "his only big blue state win is Illinois" is not correct.

    And he did win MO and VA which were considered swing states in the last presidential election.  Whether they will swing red or blue this fall is still to be determined.  But, they have been and will be considered swing states.  
    So "he has not won a single swing state in a primary and won't" was also incorrect.  


    Hillary Helped by Silence of Pelosi et al ? (none / 0) (#123)
    by Terry M on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 11:39:20 AM EST
    Perhaps Hillary's poll numbers are improving b/c folks like Pelosi, Leahy, Dodd, et al, are not carping anymore about how she should quit the race.  I think the suggestion that Hillary was running a "scorched earth policy" unfortunately was taken by many as true.  Fortunately, such non-sensical talk has stopped for the time being. Certain Democratic party elites were starting to sound an awful lot like Robert elections-be-damned Mugabe, which brings me to 2 slightly off-topic questions: why is nobody talking about Florida and Michigan anymore and where is Donna Brazile?  She's been MIA since her emails went public - not that I mind her silence.  

    Obama does not want every vote counted (none / 0) (#130)
    by Terry M on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 04:46:49 PM EST
    Let's not pretend that the Obama campaign has nothing to do with the call for Hillary to throw in the towel.  Obama wants this race to be over.  He is dragging his feet on Florida & Michigan and would only be too happy to see Penn, WV, NC, KY, PR, OR not vote.  If he really did believe in a new kind of politics, like he glibly professes, he'd be doing some community organizing down here in Florida so our votes are counted.

    And can't you just see the Republican ads in the falls should Obama be the nominee? Obama is wimp - he doesn't like a fight.  That's not a pretty label for a presidential candidate in a country with a two-front war.