home

The Nomination Path

These are days of danger for the Obama nomination. Today he is the likely nominee. But what happens if next Tuesday he loses by 10 in Indiana and wins by 5 in North Carolina? Despite the decree from the now supposedly all important Joe Andrew, the race will continue. And what is up after Indiana and North Carolina? West Virginia on May 13. Clinton leads by 2-1.

On May 20, Kentucky and Oregon. Clinton leads by 36 in Kentucky and Obama leads in Oregon in the last polling there. Will he still on May 20? Oregon will become Obama's firewall. His must win I think. Right now, it seems unlikely that Obama can be be out of the woods until May 20 and Oregon. And only if he wins. If he loses Oregon, all bets are off I think.

By Big Tent Democrat

Comments closed.

< What's The Magic Number? | D.C. Madam Apparent Suicide >
  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Only me (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by AnninCA on Thu May 01, 2008 at 01:05:17 PM EST
    speaking for me.

    I'm done with this Democratic party.

    I'm so done.  They have toasted me.

    Latinos are under the firing line of minority attacks.

    We're sidelined by talking about AA preacher style?

    Give me a flipping break.

    I'm done with Democrats.

    Absolutely toasted.

    Done.  Out.  Won't give a penny.

    Not just Latinos every issue facing this country (5.00 / 4) (#9)
    by Salt on Thu May 01, 2008 at 01:10:05 PM EST
    the air has been sucked out of the race by Obama dramas other than Obama and grievance nothing is above the line.  

    [ Parent ]
    Let's be fair (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by cawaltz on Thu May 01, 2008 at 01:27:47 PM EST
    Drama IS not limited to just tew Obama camp. The media has made this election cycle into something you would see at the three ring circus.

    [ Parent ]
    That's not totally accurate. (none / 0) (#68)
    by 1jpb on Thu May 01, 2008 at 01:30:12 PM EST
    The McCain/Clinton-care-about-and-fight-for-working people-gas-tax-holiday has seen a fair amount of attention, especially for those who see HRC's ad about how she's ready to take action to help the hurting people, but BO says "no."  And, he says "no" to the [voluntary to corporations] HRC mortgage solution.

    Although, I suppose that this is an example of grievance politics too.  You're right!  This is a campaign dominated by grievances.  It's a blessing to have the time to look at the big picture and see this stuff for what it is (sensationalism), and what it is not (thoughtful debate of problems and solutions--this is different than SOLUTIONS, which is the (expensive) work product of the HRC/Penn sloganeering factory.)

    [ Parent ]

    Axelrod was a editor greivance and race baiting (5.00 / 2) (#102)
    by Salt on Thu May 01, 2008 at 01:42:48 PM EST
    was and is the communication strategy of Obama's camaping, check back to the Mass Patrick campaign samestunt , if you need more confirmation read Obama's own words from his book, politicians know Race baiting covers up much, or something along those lines this is no accident it's just finally backfired.  

    There is a limited audience willing to play along as co dependents in this saga the rest of the country is feed up with it and see in the Wright drama the campaigns strategy come to life.


    [ Parent ]

    Would you be so kind as to (5.00 / 1) (#167)
    by 1jpb on Thu May 01, 2008 at 02:04:35 PM EST
    provide quotes/proof from Axelrod or Obama that demonstrate race baiting "is the communication strategy of Obama's camaping (sic)"

    I'm sure you're a fine person, but this kind of unfounded allegation is rather low.  The talk of race is not to BO's benefit, it benefits his opposition, so it's particularly offensive to have his opposition claim that they're some how damaged by not being black.  And, for the record Axelrod's consistent advice has been to avoid too tight a connection with "black politics" because doing so is obviously self-marginalizing.  Again, I'm sure you're a loyal HRC fan; but it's unconscionable to push the idea that BO wants this to be about race, when doing so helps his opposition (After winning with whites in Iowa BO won large support from AAs, this predates the race focused comments of his opposition, so BO didn't need to talk about race to gain AA support, and talking about this could only help his opposition, by framing him as a "boutique candidate."  And, Wilentz is wrong.)

    [ Parent ]

    Catch up on past threads on your own ... (5.00 / 4) (#184)
    by Ellie on Thu May 01, 2008 at 02:11:58 PM EST
    ... Obama's speeches, discussions of those, Michelle's stumping, discussions of those.

    Obama supporters seem incapable of keeping up with ongoing discussions and continue this ridiculous stomp for linkage ... THAT'S IN DISCUSSIONS not even 24-48 hours old.

    Alternate: use the same "crack" research behind the "conspiracy" to register women voters ... who might actually VOTE (oooh!) in a year a woman has overcome every wrench unfairly thrown her way to remain a serious contender.

    If you're too petty to applaud that, at least keep up with the discussion on your own.

    [ Parent ]

    Rubbish. Utter rubbish. (5.00 / 2) (#196)
    by MarkL on Thu May 01, 2008 at 02:19:06 PM EST
    Obama's camp has been ruthlessly pushing the notion that the Clinton's are racists for months.


    [ Parent ]
    Since you seem to agree with the person (none / 0) (#220)
    by 1jpb on Thu May 01, 2008 at 02:42:47 PM EST
    I was responding to.  And, you indicate there's a lot of evidence please:

    provide quotes/proof from Axelrod or Obama that demonstrate race baiting "is the communication strategy of Obama's camaping (sic)"

    The support for this statement remains absent.

    The Huffpo memo (that references news stories about the Clinton team) written by some BO person (not directed from the campaign headquarters) in only the SC office, and was circulated internally, doesn't at all match this accusation.  Weak!

    While you're at it can you point to some memos from the BO campaing that show the BO campaign planned to play "the race card" on WJC all along:

    I think that they played the race card on me. We now know, from memos from the campaign that they planned to do it along."

    I know that WJC is now denying that he said this, even though it's on tape.  But, it seems that some of the HRC supporters disagree that he should deny his statement, so you can feel free to provide proof for a statement WJC doesn't believe, since he's denying that he ever said it (even though we can hear him saying it on tape.)


    [ Parent ]

    Well, you must agree then that there is (5.00 / 1) (#223)
    by MarkL on Thu May 01, 2008 at 02:46:31 PM EST
    absolutely nothing to support the accusation that the Clintons were running a racist campaign.
    How do you think that idea got started, hmm?

    [ Parent ]
    If you don't think (5.00 / 1) (#224)
    by cmugirl on Thu May 01, 2008 at 02:47:35 PM EST
    the memo in the campaign office had the blessing of the campaign headquarters, then I'm not sure you understand how campaigns work.

    [ Parent ]
    And don't forget JJ JR's remarks--- (5.00 / 1) (#227)
    by MarkL on Thu May 01, 2008 at 02:50:13 PM EST
    Obama's co-chair.
    Or all the people who, at Obama campaign stops, made references to various supposed racist remarks.. uh huh.

    [ Parent ]
    Michelle Obama (none / 0) (#236)
    by themomcat on Thu May 01, 2008 at 03:08:34 PM EST
    took the "fairy tale" comment out of context and twisting what Pres. Clinton said into something racial. And there is nothing you can say that will convince me that she was not coached. It is not Bill Clinton who is he racist.

    [ Parent ]
    Sorry, Mark (none / 0) (#238)
    by themomcat on Thu May 01, 2008 at 03:11:56 PM EST
    That comment was supposed to be directed to 1jpd.

    [ Parent ]
    Exactly (none / 0) (#241)
    by nell on Thu May 01, 2008 at 03:22:43 PM EST
    and she told the New Yorker that after Bill Clinton made the fairy tale comment (that she twisted) she wanted to tear out his eyeballs.

    So sweet.

    [ Parent ]

    the huffington post (none / 0) (#192)
    by DJ on Thu May 01, 2008 at 02:15:14 PM EST
    published the race memo sent to them from someone at the obama camp that listed false claims of clinton racial comments this was when? january or february?  

    [ Parent ]
    Link here (none / 0) (#233)
    by tree on Thu May 01, 2008 at 03:00:47 PM EST
    Ahh... thoughtful debate! (none / 0) (#219)
    by jackyt on Thu May 01, 2008 at 02:40:52 PM EST
    Does this mean Obama is agreeing to meet Hillary on the back of a flat bed?

    [ Parent ]
    So you've been saying, in 55 posts today (none / 0) (#252)
    by cymro on Thu May 01, 2008 at 04:14:45 PM EST
    We've got the message now.

    [ Parent ]
    The Voters Don't Matter anymore (5.00 / 4) (#4)
    by Edgar08 on Thu May 01, 2008 at 01:05:41 PM EST
    This is turning into a backroom deal.

    The point is obvious though, they can't stop votes from happening and what votes remain will only be nails in the coffin of the DNC.

    If only Supers/party "leaders" could rip the vote out of the hands of the people in the GE too.


    Back-room (5.00 / 3) (#34)
    by AnninCA on Thu May 01, 2008 at 01:17:54 PM EST
    is so accurate with his supporters.  Look at Richardson.  All about hate Clinton.

    Ditto for the latest.

    I'm done.

    I'm officially one of the women Hillary supporters who definitely means......

    Obama won't get my vote.

    What's happened is that it's gone beyond Obama.

    I really don't think the guy is evil.  He's a poltiician.

    But.......

    The endorsement messages have pushed me "emotionally" over the line.

    I am offended.  Deeply.

    Deeply enough to change my 30 year voting pattern.

    I will make my statement loudly.

    I am no longer a die-hard Democrat.

    That affiliation ended with this campaign.

    I'm for principles.

    Hillary represents those.

    If she's the nominee, then I'm Democrat.

    If not, then, I'm not.

    I have concluded my own journey with this decision, and I thank everyone for helping me along the way.

    Even those who disagreed...

    But I'm sure now, that a vote against this Demcratic Party is a vote FOR

    True Democratic principles.

    I am at ease.

    [ Parent ]

    I understand. (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by DJ on Thu May 01, 2008 at 01:29:55 PM EST
    and you may be correct.

    [ Parent ]
    Do me a favor (5.00 / 3) (#66)
    by Marvin42 on Thu May 01, 2008 at 01:29:57 PM EST
    Hang out for a bit, see how this plays, see what happens. It ain't over yet. I understand emotions run high, I've had those days. But its a little early to decide imo.

    [ Parent ]
    If Clinton's the nominee (5.00 / 7) (#92)
    by litigatormom on Thu May 01, 2008 at 01:38:34 PM EST
    she needs support from Obamacons, and if Obama's the nominee, he needs support from Clintonites.  So far, his camp has been the one that has been claiming that disaffected Clintonites aren't necessary to an Obama victory because "he'll bring in new voters."

    Hey, Barack, ever hear the old adage, a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush?  You shouldn't be alienating loyal Democratic voters for the prospect of new, possibly less loyal voters. Hillary isn't taking Obama supporters for granted; she's telling them why they ought to support her if she's the nominee. That's what I like, someone who doesn't take me for granted.  But I still couldn't ever vote for McCain, who barely acknowledges that I or my concerns exist.  

    [ Parent ]

    EXACTLY...Let's See What The Voters In IN (5.00 / 2) (#210)
    by PssttCmere08 on Thu May 01, 2008 at 02:33:44 PM EST
    and NC have to say.  If obama loses both, he has nowhere to go but down and the "backroom dealers" will not be able to cover for him.  Chill little ones....let's take a deep breath, watch and wait.

    [ Parent ]
    Marvin...... (none / 0) (#140)
    by AnninCA on Thu May 01, 2008 at 01:55:34 PM EST
    You are my "zanax".

    :)

    [ Parent ]

    People do say I put them to sleep! N/T (none / 0) (#149)
    by Marvin42 on Thu May 01, 2008 at 01:57:53 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Thanks for the memories (1.80 / 5) (#39)
    by Jlvngstn on Thu May 01, 2008 at 01:18:59 PM EST
    Methinks we can beat the right without ya.

    [ Parent ]
    LOL* (5.00 / 7) (#50)
    by AnninCA on Thu May 01, 2008 at 01:23:39 PM EST
    You go right ahead and discount me.

    I'm so not impressed with anything other than my own personal vote.

    I speak for me, only.

    All I can really claim is that my family is amazed.

    You're talking to one staunch Dem here who has totally flipped.

    I'm no longer a Democrat.

    Amazing stuff.

    But heck, I'm in my 50's.

    So flipping at this stage means you've only got to deal with me for what.....20 years?

    wink

    [ Parent ]

    Me too! (5.00 / 3) (#80)
    by alexei on Thu May 01, 2008 at 01:34:10 PM EST
    I am a Dem for Hillary and no other reason and this from a life time Dem and a daughter of FDR Dems.  I will not stand by whilst voters are disenfranchised.

    [ Parent ]
    Me, three -- and I'm the daughter (5.00 / 7) (#116)
    by Cream City on Thu May 01, 2008 at 01:49:49 PM EST
    of a past state Dem party chair.  Bygones.  I think my parents, were they here, would be with me on this.

    [ Parent ]
    I know exactly what you're talking about Ann (5.00 / 4) (#119)
    by kempis on Thu May 01, 2008 at 01:50:55 PM EST
    I'm holding off on changing my registration from Democrat to Independent until I see for certain that this utterly out-of-touch party leadership is foolish enough to reach past the most electable, best-prepared candidate to hand the nomination to Obama.

    But I've already begun to stop thinking of myself as a Democrat. I'm sure I'll continue to vote primarily for Democratic candidates, and I will vote for Obama over McCain this fall. But my vote really won't do Obama any good anyway. He's going to be swiftboated into a loss "for the ages." And if McCain implodes and Obama does manage to win, he's going to make some disastrous rookie mistakes--right at a pretty perilous time for our country.

    I'm disgusted with this party and with myself for being "played" for 32 years. These people don't want to win. I don't know what they're about, but winning and actually doing something to solve the health care crisis and get us out of Iraq and develop a coherent and productive Middle East policy and push for a Manhattan Project for alternative energy--all those things they must not really be that interested in because they sure don't seem to want to put themselves into a position where they could control the Congress AND the White House and actually, you know, DO STUFF. It's apparently more lucrative to talk about what they'd do if only they could....

    So I've had it too, Ann. The minute the superdelegates hand the nomination to Obama, this life-time Democrat is an Independent. My protest will not be to withhold my vote for Obama and hurt the country, but I will voice my disgust with this nomination process with my feet and leave the Democratic party.

    [ Parent ]

    Changing to Independent (5.00 / 4) (#199)
    by stefystef on Thu May 01, 2008 at 02:22:26 PM EST
    if Hillary wins the majority of the remaining states and the party STILL ignores her for Obama.

     Then I'm done with the Democratic Party.  I think more people are thinking this way.  So you are not alone.

    [ Parent ]

    Not really (5.00 / 1) (#136)
    by Jlvngstn on Thu May 01, 2008 at 01:55:03 PM EST
    you have to deal with republican policy for 20 years.

    I have no issue with it.  I cannot stand Bush's policy for the past 8 years but this country reaps what it sows.  Policy only indirectly affects me, and most financial policy by dems is not in my favor.  But having grown up poor, I definitely understand how welfare made a difference in my life then, so I will most likely always vote demo.

    What makes me callous about your feelings is that your feelings as expressed are selfish.  50% of the dems are voting for Barack that is half the party.  So you think your candidate should be nominated OR ELSE, and the other 50% are supposed to cave?  No.  We pound the pavement to replace a stubborn voter.

    you are certainly not the first to feel as passionate about an issue so important as this but with half and half arguing, methinks entitlement and selfishness are mean things to say but entirely appropriate.  Same goes for any dunderhead saying the same thing about Obama.

    I love both candidates and voted for Barack in my primary. I will happily vote for Hillary should she win.  If McCain wins, goodbye AMT TAX HOORAY for me, that is a significant financial gain for me.

    So I am not casting you aside nor is the party, you are casting yourself out to live with a party that is non supportive of single mothers, callous about healthcare for all, dismissive of the significance of welfare and equal rights in education.  For every one of you out there, there are 3 people who don't know the difference between the parties and Barack has one thing right, mobilize, knock on their doors and tell them the difference.

    [ Parent ]

    Here's another perspective (5.00 / 3) (#193)
    by cmugirl on Thu May 01, 2008 at 02:15:39 PM EST
    If Obama is the nominee and by a miracle wins the election:

    He will have to deal with a war on two fronts, a bad economy, the mess with the Constitution and Justice Department, China, North Korea, the situations in Africa, etc.

    More than half the Democrats in the party do not believe Obama has the chops to deal with these and other issues because he has little experience, and frankly, doesn't seem to interested in any job he's ever had for very long.

    In many of our opinions, he will make such a mess out of the war and the economy (not to mention health care and who knows what kinds of judges he'd appoint), that in 2012 the Republicans will sweep into power, and he will devastate the Democratic party for at least 20 years. So, while I won't vote for McCain, really, what's the difference if it's going to be a mess either way.

    Will Hillary be perfect or be able to deliver on everything she's promising? No, but most Democrats believe she is better equipped to handle the enormous tasks before us.

    [ Parent ]

    Exactly... (5.00 / 3) (#204)
    by Stellaaa on Thu May 01, 2008 at 02:27:24 PM EST
    within two years of nothing the RNC will take back Congress and we are cooked again.  This is not a there is no difference in policy anymore between Obama and Hillary.  Obama will collapse if by a miracle he is elected.  Nothing will happen.  This is not the right time for another amateur.  

    [ Parent ]
    More than (5.00 / 1) (#205)
    by Jlvngstn on Thu May 01, 2008 at 02:28:45 PM EST
    half the party thinks that Hillary is not up to the job either.  More than half of the voters have voted for Obama.  

    By your argument, "our half is the smarter half so the party better stick with the smarter half"

    Sounds a bit elitist to me.

    I have news for you.  No president is up for the job at this point.  American credit debt is at an all time high and people are starting to pay their credit down.  When people pay their credit down, they are not buying the GI Joe with the KungFu grips and the accessories that go with it.

    When the largest consumption country slows down its consumption, companies slow down their mfg and products to market.  People stop spending money freely because they are paying down their debt.  Job losses follow because people are not spending.  People spend even less because they are worried about losing their jobs, vicious cycle you see.

    Now when Bill C was pres (i loved Bill and still do) he had the largest productivity gain since the early 1900's as a result of the information age and all the interconnected parts that go with it.  you want a computer, how about s/w, h/w, maint, wiring, laptop, desktop, printer, gadget after gadget.  New companies sprouted to service and mfr everything.  Did Bill create that?  Of course not.

    Now where is that kind of "boom" going to come from?  What product out there in design is going to create a supply and demand mania that comes around every 60-70 years (methinks solar but repubs are too stupid to see the light and pushed us back 5-10 years).  

    So we don't have an industrial revolution in our pocket as we did during Bill's presidency.  What we will have for the next 10-14 months is controlled spending by the american public until they can get out of debt to a major degree.  People are carrying more debt than ever and until that debt goes down, new jobs and casual spending will be on hold.

    We have been here before, there is no magic bullet of the early 90's (thank you Bill Gates - Steve Jobs) to fall back on.  And we are in a really stupid war that neither candidate has said the right thing on, which is END IT RIGHT NOW.  Bring them home 2 days after being in office.  12 billion a month can create a lot of gov't jobs to fix roads, bridges and schools while we wait for the private market to develop the next industrial revolution.

    [ Parent ]

    Incorrect (5.00 / 4) (#207)
    by cmugirl on Thu May 01, 2008 at 02:31:11 PM EST
    A majority of Democrats voted for and support Hillary. Obama got his from  "Dems for a Day" and such. I don't want them deciding the Democratic nominee.

    [ Parent ]
    Than change the (5.00 / 1) (#212)
    by Jlvngstn on Thu May 01, 2008 at 02:33:56 PM EST
    way the primaries are held.  Your party created it, your party lives with it unless you stand up to change it.  You gonna do something about it or just stand there and bleed?

    [ Parent ]
    need i remind you (5.00 / 1) (#217)
    by Jlvngstn on Thu May 01, 2008 at 02:40:14 PM EST
    that "independents" swung the last two elections "right".  As much as you might like to separate them from your party you ought to know that you need them to win the big one.  

    [ Parent ]
    True (4.50 / 2) (#222)
    by cmugirl on Thu May 01, 2008 at 02:46:10 PM EST
    We need independents to win the GE, and I have no problem with indpendents who truly want to participate in the Democratic process (although, then they should register - not just the day of the election).

    However, especially as of late, Hillary does better with independents and moderates (of whom there are many more) than Obama. And right now, she's outpolling Obama andoutpolling or tied with McCain.

    [ Parent ]

    I have never (5.00 / 1) (#226)
    by Jlvngstn on Thu May 01, 2008 at 02:48:22 PM EST
    argued that we should not let the race play out as long as possible, in fact i am in favor of it.  If Hill can keep a sustained momentum and close strong and raise more money there is a valid argument.  But the "either my candidate or i go right" is either immature or narcissistic or both.  On either side.

    [ Parent ]
    I guess we disagree (5.00 / 4) (#229)
    by cmugirl on Thu May 01, 2008 at 02:54:55 PM EST
    A candidate doesn't get my vote just because he has a "D" next to his name - he has to earn it. And if I think someone is going to hurt the country and the party in the long run, it is my absolute duty to not vote for him. (I won't vote for McCain, but I will not vote for someone who doesn't seem to take an interest in what people like me need and care about).

    [ Parent ]
    and I won't cower (none / 0) (#237)
    by Jlvngstn on Thu May 01, 2008 at 03:10:11 PM EST
    to someone who says my candidate or else.  As i said, a repub in the office does me a world of financial good, I would rather see Barack or Hillary in that order but I lose no sleep over people who threaten to leave the party.  Being that there is very little difference in the platforms of BO adn Hill i find the arguments from demos on both sides histrionic and immature.  If BO has not earned your vote I would never expect you to vote for him.  I voted Nader 8 years ago and Kerry only because of my disdain of the policies of this admin, not because i was enamored with Kerry.  

    My message remains the same, don't like the candidate of the party, don't vote for them.  I will be stumping for either one and will find at least one to replace ya and hopefully 2 just in case.  

    [ Parent ]

    It's not the 50% (3.66 / 3) (#198)
    by Manuel on Thu May 01, 2008 at 02:19:46 PM EST
    Even if it were 90% it is hard to stomach the unfair process and the uneven playing field. If the democratic party doesn't stand for fairness, what does it stand for?


    [ Parent ]
    Me Thinks (none / 0) (#43)
    by dissenter on Thu May 01, 2008 at 01:21:03 PM EST
    You are delusional

    [ Parent ]
    Does Joe Andrew's decree have anything to (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by Joelarama on Thu May 01, 2008 at 01:07:09 PM EST
    do with this new fundraising deal that's been struck between the Obama campaign and the DNC?  Has anyone seen an article that explains it?  I've only seen a brief article at Time.com, via Riverdaughter.

    I haven't heard about this (none / 0) (#75)
    by BarnBabe on Thu May 01, 2008 at 01:31:52 PM EST
    But I would be livid about the Democratic Party if this is the case. What is wrong with them? Are they really trying to disenfranchise entire voter blocs besides Florida? And I thought Howard Dean would be a new type of President and I really thought he was the future. I am so disappointed in him. And the DNC.

    The amazing thing is that even when Hillary wins Indiana and maybe NC, they are still going to be asking her to resign for the sake of the party. What party, we are two as it is. In fact, if someone wanted to create a 3rd major party right now, this would be the time.

    [ Parent ]

    Yeah, I really have no respect for Dean anymore! (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by alexei on Thu May 01, 2008 at 01:37:21 PM EST
    I worked everywhere for Dean both for his Presidential run and the DNC Chairmanship.  I also joined DFA and stayed until this election cycle.  He is not the leader or fighter I thought he was.  I've seen a real leader and fighter, that is Hillary Clinton.  I'm only a Dem for Hillary now.

    [ Parent ]
    The DNC is raising money for Obama? (none / 0) (#95)
    by litigatormom on Thu May 01, 2008 at 01:39:16 PM EST
    Jeez.  {{runs off to find article}}

    [ Parent ]
    It was up last week -- Obama and DNC (5.00 / 3) (#125)
    by Cream City on Thu May 01, 2008 at 01:52:06 PM EST
    linked in fundraising.  An appalling bias toward one candidate, all for the sake of the party coffers -- which means self-perpetuation by Dean, Brazile, Pelosi, et al., while dissing half the Dem voters (so far, maybe more than half soon).  

    [ Parent ]
    The reason the coffers are empty (5.00 / 4) (#181)
    by litigatormom on Thu May 01, 2008 at 02:10:31 PM EST
    is because they are screwing two states.  I guess it hasn't occurred to them to open the spigots by unscrewing two states.

    [ Parent ]
    The DNC isn't raising money, period. (none / 0) (#113)
    by sweetthings on Thu May 01, 2008 at 01:48:45 PM EST
    That's the problem. While Obama and Clinton are busy raking in the cash, the DNC is getting nada. And they need money now to start gearing up for November.

    Last week the DNC announced a deal with Obama where they would basically tap into his money pool and use the funds to help power the DNC and other down-ticket races. They were reported to be 'in talks' with Clinton on a similar plan to tap into her money supply. I haven't heard anything else about that, though, and I'm not sure Hillary has a whole lot of money to give them in any case.

    [ Parent ]

    I used to give them a little money every so often. (5.00 / 2) (#138)
    by Joelarama on Thu May 01, 2008 at 01:55:20 PM EST
    I've responded to their recent requests by stating they get nada unless and until Florida and Michigan voters get a full say in who is the nominee.

    I'm fed up with Dr. Dean.

    [ Parent ]

    Understandable. (5.00 / 1) (#159)
    by sweetthings on Thu May 01, 2008 at 02:01:31 PM EST
    But surely you can understand why the DNC needs money. There are important downticket races to fund, infrastructure to put in place, bribes..uh...'contributions' to be paid. These things have to be done regardless of who wins the nomination, and they can't wait until convention. They need to start happening now.

    So they'll go where the money is. Trust me, they'll take Hillary's money just as happily as they take Obama's. It's not about the candidate...it's about the money.

    [ Parent ]

    We'll see about that. (none / 0) (#242)
    by Joelarama on Thu May 01, 2008 at 03:24:50 PM EST
    If Florida and Michigan are disenfranchised and Obama wins the nom because of that, I may just leave the party.  Not to become a Republican, but that outcome would make me question whether the party has left me.

    [ Parent ]
    I Use To Be A Monthly Contributor (none / 0) (#214)
    by MO Blue on Thu May 01, 2008 at 02:37:02 PM EST
    Cancelled that puppy when the DNC started playing games with MI and FL. Right now I'm so angry about what the party has been doing, it may be a long time before I contribute to any Dem organization again. I'm now an Indie and they better start doing something to win my vote or they will not get it.

    [ Parent ]
    Doesn't she have more money for the GE than BO? (none / 0) (#244)
    by ineedalife on Thu May 01, 2008 at 03:34:11 PM EST
    I thought Hillary had much more money for the general because of donors that maxed out for the primary but gave more anyways.

    [ Parent ]
    I Would Not Consider Sending Any Money (none / 0) (#215)
    by PssttCmere08 on Thu May 01, 2008 at 02:37:34 PM EST
    to the DNC until IN and NC primaries are completed; and maybe not even then.  Let's wait and see.  However, I am sending more money to Sen. Clinton.

    [ Parent ]
    Oregon is in play, the Big Dawg has been .. (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by alexei on Thu May 01, 2008 at 01:11:10 PM EST
    all over the rural and small towns and they are eating it up.  BTW.. don't forget about Guam - she's up this Saturday.  I know, very small in number of votes and especially delegates, but a big win is nice going into another Super Tuesday battle.

    The Oregon Governor (SD) (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by cmugirl on Thu May 01, 2008 at 01:42:28 PM EST
    endorsed Hillary in December.

    [ Parent ]
    wow - I didn't know that (none / 0) (#213)
    by Josey on Thu May 01, 2008 at 02:35:40 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    I Hope The OR Governor Stix To His Guns (none / 0) (#216)
    by PssttCmere08 on Thu May 01, 2008 at 02:38:50 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    New Mason Dixon Poll For NC - Obama By 7 (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by MO Blue on Thu May 01, 2008 at 01:12:28 PM EST
    MyDD

    NC, Mason-Dixon has polled the primary. They find Obama leading Clinton by a 49-42 margin.
    87 percent of African Americans plan to vote for Obama, while 62 percent of whites said they will vote for Clinton. There has been very little evidence suggesting either candidate can cut into those numbers before Tuesday.



    Gallup has been tied for about a week (5.00 / 3) (#21)
    by Josey on Thu May 01, 2008 at 01:12:59 PM EST
    Today - Hillary 49, Obama 45


    are those the Oregon numbers? (none / 0) (#109)
    by ccpup on Thu May 01, 2008 at 01:45:54 PM EST
    not clear if they are or not

    [ Parent ]
    National; see Gallup.com (nt) (5.00 / 2) (#127)
    by Cream City on Thu May 01, 2008 at 01:52:33 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Democratic Party returns to its roots (5.00 / 4) (#24)
    by Jim J on Thu May 01, 2008 at 01:13:18 PM EST
    as a self-perpetuating patronage-oriented machine party for which electoral victory is a fungible commodity.

    As with Tammany Hall, it is expected that an election must be lost occasionally to make sure the machine remains intact.

    Clearly the Dem old guard is behind Obama, all the "insurgent" talk early on notwithstanding. They have run the calculus: We'll gladly saddle McCain with the war and the recession in exchange for the grandest fundraiser in American history: Barack Obama.

    His beautiful loser persona can keep the war chests full for years on end while the masses are warned of the dangers of continued Republican rule in fundraising letters and e-mails.

    Obama's campaign -- the dry run of which was Deval Patrick -- is a prefabricated, Axelrod-managed template designed to separate suckers from dollars. Just the newest cog in an old machine.

    I wish people would stop bashing Deval (none / 0) (#31)
    by CST on Thu May 01, 2008 at 01:16:53 PM EST
    He really isn't that bad. Casino plan not the best, but other than that, he has done a pretty good job.  Massachusetts has one of the best economies in the country right now.  We have really low unemployment and violent crime is down.  Also, he's not Obama, and he wasn't running for president.

    [ Parent ]
    Deval (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu May 01, 2008 at 01:30:08 PM EST
    well according to SUSA the voters in your state don't agree with you. He's 41/56 approval disapproval. It's one of the main reasons I think Obama will have a hard time carrying MA.

    [ Parent ]
    I agree that it hurt Obama (none / 0) (#82)
    by CST on Thu May 01, 2008 at 01:34:53 PM EST
    That doesn't mean they are right.  The casino thing got a lot of bad press - rightly so, but it really doesn't paint the whole picture.

    Also, I have a really hard time believing Massachusetts will go Republican no matter what the polls tell me.  We were the only state to vote for McGovern...  When all the primary crap blows over, MA will be as blue as ever.

    [ Parent ]

    Sorry (5.00 / 2) (#117)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu May 01, 2008 at 01:50:03 PM EST
    I'm not so sure because if the full force of Kennedy/Kerry/Patrick couldn't pull Obama over the hump in a Dem primary I'm not so sure that it'll work in a general. Yeah, McGovern carried MA but you are also forgetting that Reagan carried it twice. There are lots of blue collar democrats in MA are they not? I think that's why Hillary polls a lot better than Obama there.

    [ Parent ]
    Endorsements (none / 0) (#142)
    by CST on Thu May 01, 2008 at 01:55:52 PM EST
    Kennedy/Kerry... Ahh senators.  We vote for them out of habit.  They have been there for a while.  But no one really pays that much attention to them.  Most of the Mayors in MA came out for Hillary.  These are people on the ground with great sway in their community.

    Yes there are blue collar dems, I still don't see it going Republican, but that's just my opinion its not based on any facts.

    [ Parent ]

    Wasn't there a governor - a Republican - (none / 0) (#122)
    by inclusiveheart on Thu May 01, 2008 at 01:51:11 PM EST
    named Romeny or something like that elected in Massachussetts?  /s

    Blue isn't always so true.

    [ Parent ]

    Mitt (none / 0) (#131)
    by Manuel on Thu May 01, 2008 at 01:53:03 PM EST
    Wasn't he the governor?  I recall he was also popular.  If McCain shifts enough to the center, MA could be in play.


    [ Parent ]
    Not Popular (none / 0) (#147)
    by CST on Thu May 01, 2008 at 01:56:53 PM EST
    Especially not when he left.  Not at all.

    We had a number of republican governers.  Mitt is the reason we don't currently have one.

    [ Parent ]

    He is an Axelrod creation (5.00 / 2) (#73)
    by Jim J on Thu May 01, 2008 at 01:31:30 PM EST
    down to the speeches, which were simply transferred over to Obama. This is simple fact.

    [ Parent ]
    Great economy in MA -- not! (none / 0) (#106)
    by Coral on Thu May 01, 2008 at 01:45:00 PM EST
    In MA waiting to see if my husband brings home a pink slip from his teaching job today. The economy sucks, and Patrick has done nothing to improve it.

    We desperately need money for education. School districts are in dire straits after years of cuts, this year we are being asked to cut more.

    We're losing jobs. Gas prices are through the roof.

    Patrick's heart may be in the right place, but he is an ineffective governor.

    [ Parent ]

    Polls Indicate That Others In MA Agree (5.00 / 1) (#121)
    by MO Blue on Thu May 01, 2008 at 01:51:06 PM EST
    Boston Globe

    A mere 31 percent felt that Patrick has shown he can deliver on his campaign promises, and 48 percent of those interviewed said he has not met expectations, including 42 percent of Democrats. The poll, conducted March 31 through April 4, has a margin of error of plus or minus 4.4 percentage points
    .

    [ Parent ]
    Polls (none / 0) (#153)
    by CST on Thu May 01, 2008 at 01:59:20 PM EST
    Tell us public opinion, not right and wrong.  Polls also told us to go into iraq.

    I am not saying Deval isn't a liability.  I am saying he shouldn't be.

    [ Parent ]

    Darn Those Pesky Voters Having An Opinion (5.00 / 1) (#191)
    by MO Blue on Thu May 01, 2008 at 02:14:58 PM EST
    Must be wonderful going through life knowing that you are the only one who is right.

    [ Parent ]
    Me and the other 40% or so (none / 0) (#203)
    by CST on Thu May 01, 2008 at 02:27:07 PM EST
    I also am not saying he "lived up to his campaign promises".  I am saying he's not a bad governer.  He is subject to a lot of baseless attacks and I just wanted to defend against that.

    People are entitled to their opinion, I am not trying to say he is well-liked, that's obviously not the case.  I am just saying, that doesn't mean he is bad at his job.

    [ Parent ]

    economy (none / 0) (#114)
    by CST on Thu May 01, 2008 at 01:49:17 PM EST
    It's not perfect, we are in a national recession.  We are still above and beyond other states.  A little perspective helps.  We have very low unemployment figures, some of the best education in the country.

    Gas prices are lower here than most surrounding states.

    [ Parent ]

    I'm so sorry -- we go through this every year (none / 0) (#137)
    by Cream City on Thu May 01, 2008 at 01:55:07 PM EST
    with brother and sister-in-law, art teacher and school social worker, respectively.  Those jobs have been cut back and cut back for years now, so every year is nailbiting time in their school boards' debates.  We need more and better teachers, not fewer.  I hope all goes well for your family today.

    [ Parent ]
    Has there been any more revelations... (none / 0) (#124)
    by Exeter on Thu May 01, 2008 at 01:51:52 PM EST
    ...that Axelrod's "artificial grass" company (an ad agency that makes ad campaigns seem like they come from the grassroots) is working overtime on the Obama campaign?  

    [ Parent ]
    as goes oregon (5.00 / 2) (#28)
    by Turkana on Thu May 01, 2008 at 01:15:10 PM EST
    so goes the world. it's time everyone realized that!

    Oregon is the new Pennsylvania ;-) (5.00 / 3) (#32)
    by andgarden on Thu May 01, 2008 at 01:17:10 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    according to the new york times (none / 0) (#54)
    by Turkana on Thu May 01, 2008 at 01:25:31 PM EST
    our restaurant scene makes us the new new york art scene of the '50s!

    http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/26/dining/26port.html

    [ Parent ]

    heh (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by andgarden on Thu May 01, 2008 at 01:28:08 PM EST
    only in the New York Times can you read about "restaurant immigrants."

    [ Parent ]
    to be compared to the '50s ny art scene (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by Turkana on Thu May 01, 2008 at 01:31:01 PM EST
    is about as high praise as is possible from the nyt!

    [ Parent ]
    How come HRC had to win PA by 10, but O has no (5.00 / 2) (#30)
    by jerry on Thu May 01, 2008 at 01:16:06 PM EST
    How come HRC had to win PA by 10, but O doesn't have to win NC by 10?

    I am not asking for fairness, just what is the difference between PA nad NC such that anything less than a 10 point win was a loss for Clinton and nothing of the sort has been mentioned for Obama?

    I would like to think that a 5 point win or less should dramatically change the situation wrt sooper delegates.

    Because Clinton was behind (none / 0) (#37)
    by CST on Thu May 01, 2008 at 01:18:35 PM EST
    Before PA she was significantly behind in popular vote and delegates, so she needed a big win to catch up.

    Obama isn't, so he doesn't.

    [ Parent ]

    I think it is because she is so far behind (none / 0) (#38)
    by maritza on Thu May 01, 2008 at 01:18:45 PM EST
    in pledged delegates.  Obama is so far ahead in pledged delegates that he just has to split the delegates with her over the next few states.

    [ Parent ]
    Pledged delegates one of several factors (5.00 / 2) (#111)
    by Manuel on Thu May 01, 2008 at 01:48:17 PM EST
    In a contest this close, the pledged delegates are no longer the only consideration.  The pledged delegates are flawed as a metric (e.g. Texas).  SD's must and should consider.

    Popular Vote.
    Electability.
    How they finish.

    BTW  Note how we stopped hearing about superdelegates following their constituents/states.  Hillary would win if they did that by virtue of her large states victory.

    [ Parent ]

    "so far ahead" (5.00 / 2) (#168)
    by Stellaaa on Thu May 01, 2008 at 02:04:37 PM EST
    Can you post the numbers here?  
    Can you also tell us about MI and Fl?  

    [ Parent ]
    Wrong N/T (none / 0) (#76)
    by Marvin42 on Thu May 01, 2008 at 01:31:58 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Obama needs to win both (5.00 / 2) (#33)
    by maritza on Thu May 01, 2008 at 01:17:28 PM EST
    North Carolina and Oregon.  If he wins both even by 1 vote, I think that Obama will be the Democratic nominee.  If he loses one of them, Hillary will be the nominee.

    I agree with you (none / 0) (#78)
    by Marvin42 on Thu May 01, 2008 at 01:33:04 PM EST
    That is a very clear and honest assessment. But I think if he wins NC barely and loses IN badly then its a mess again.

    [ Parent ]
    so it's not a mess right now? (none / 0) (#174)
    by diplomatic on Thu May 01, 2008 at 02:06:31 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Order your popcorn (5.00 / 2) (#36)
    by herb the verb on Thu May 01, 2008 at 01:18:35 PM EST
    by the truckload.

    IN and NC will be all night ordeals before a winner is declared. This will hurt Obama badly and much worse than Hillary (but only if she wins Indy). NC was supposed to be a blow out for him and Illinois borders Indiana. Why can't he win anything anymore will be the meme and they will have all night long to squawk about it. Then WV where he will get trounced in a no-doubter. Then what? More trickle of SDs either way?

    How can the party give the nomination to someone who gets creamed in 95% of the elections leading up to his "win"?

    Despite what Dean, Brazille, etc.. want, this WILL come down to Florida and Michigan deciding the nominee. Either through being disenfranchised, or through being counted and either way, disaster is likely.

    Do we need more proof that Donna Brazille is the most damaging Democrat in America?

    I think after Wright, the media isn't expecting (none / 0) (#42)
    by maritza on Thu May 01, 2008 at 01:19:46 PM EST
    Obama to win Indiana or have a blow-out in North Carolina.  Thus if he just wins North Carolina, he will be okay.

    [ Parent ]
    Nah (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by diplomatic on Thu May 01, 2008 at 01:21:47 PM EST
    It will still matter a great deal how he wins.  The superdelegates and the media will be looking at the white working class % for Obama.

    [ Parent ]
    Everyone keeps talking about Teh Math (5.00 / 2) (#83)
    by Jim J on Thu May 01, 2008 at 01:35:10 PM EST
    but the math also shows us that it is impossible to win a general election with weak white support. Throw in Obama's weakness with Latinos and that's ball game.

    But as we've established, Obama's dollars and downticket appeal (read: increased AA turnout) easily trump winning the White House for this feckless party.

    Bottom line, the Dems are happy to have Congress and its pursestrings. They are too lily-livered to want actual responsibility for the executive branch.

    [ Parent ]

    I agree (5.00 / 2) (#99)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu May 01, 2008 at 01:41:32 PM EST
    Over the course of many elections, I think to myself, "why aren't the Democrats fighting over <whatever election issue>" in this election?  Do they not want to win?

    Finally, I've come to terms with, Ohhhh, they DON'T want to win.  It's either money or it's something else, but they really don't want to win.

    [ Parent ]

    agreed (5.00 / 3) (#155)
    by diplomatic on Thu May 01, 2008 at 02:00:14 PM EST
    I have come to the same conclusion.  If you think about it, what have Democrats really "won" at the national level if we take Bill Clinton out of the equation?  Congress in 2006? Hah, that now seems more like a loss.

    [ Parent ]
    You didn't get (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu May 01, 2008 at 01:25:16 PM EST
    what she was actually saying?

    She was saying that in the context of wealth redistribution, that if the wealthy gives back, they get more in terms of an investment in their country.

    Please, next time, listen to the interview rather than taking what KOSsites tell you at face value.

    take it easy with that Poster (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by ccpup on Thu May 01, 2008 at 01:39:36 PM EST
    Do you know how hard it is to type with one hand clutching a tippy-cup of Kool-aid?

    Seriously.  I've seen bootleg YouTube footage and it looks downright terrifyingly treacherous!

    (snark)

    [ Parent ]

    ccup (none / 0) (#132)
    by libfighter on Thu May 01, 2008 at 01:53:30 PM EST
    Kool-aid comes in Clinton flavour as well, but then from your post I guess you already know that.

    [ Parent ]
    I'm actually allergic (5.00 / 1) (#175)
    by ccpup on Thu May 01, 2008 at 02:07:11 PM EST
    to Kool-aid.  One sip and I break out in hives and start having delusions of grandeur.

    Oh well.

    [ Parent ]

    Clinton chose not to be pretentious (5.00 / 2) (#55)
    by diplomatic on Thu May 01, 2008 at 01:26:00 PM EST
    ...which falls in the opposite of elitist category.

    She acknowledges she is rich and blessed for what she has instead of pretending she was just another working class middle-class American in 2008.  Her and her husband earned their way to wealth so I don't see how anyone would take issue with them being rich.

    But Michele is being sent out to gather (none / 0) (#112)
    by BarnBabe on Thu May 01, 2008 at 01:48:20 PM EST
    the middle class in. Reuters reported this morning
    Obama's wife joins push to court working class
    Then later the Yahoo headline was :  
    Michelle Obama describes years of working to 'keep up with bills'
    Listen, most of went through the struggle to become our own. Neither Bill or Hillary were from wealth. Michele saying this is conscending mainly because so many have struggled all their lives to keep up with the bills. She would have a point if they were still struggling, but not now. Not for a long while.

    BTW, headine now is:

    Reverend Wright's Honorary Degree Canceled by Northwestern
    Well that should make him unhappy quite a bit more. They are siding with BHO and not the Rev Wright. That has to hurt.

    [ Parent ]
    Michelle (5.00 / 2) (#130)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu May 01, 2008 at 01:52:58 PM EST
    is exactly the wrong person to try to court the working class. I guess they have to give it a try though. I wonder if she thinks they are all "sloths and complacents"?

    [ Parent ]