If the President is from a different pary, they don't have to actually solve any problems.  They can just blame him.  

That's my best guess.  Seriously.  

Those are, IMHO, admirable sentiments.  The question is whether it's worth rewarding a campaign like Obama's run, blowing off the women's vote and losing the White House in what should have been any easy Dem year.

they are afraid of HRC because she smarter and would be an even better President than Bill and that scares the likes of Dean.

No, they're afraid of a civil war at the convention.  Why on earth would Dean be afraid of a successful Democratic president?  Her success would be Dean's success and he'd been seen as the best DNC chairman in decades.

Bottom line they do not want to yield power to a woman who is 110 times smarter than they are.

because it mean's he'll lose his job.

There has been a battle in the DNC every since Dean took over about Party resources.  Washington-centric party officials don't like Dean's 50 State strategy, because it gives the lions share of Party resources to the state Democratic organizations.  

A lot of Obama's super-delegate support comes not from people who think Obama will make the best candidate/president, but from supporters of Dean's 50 State Strategy, which to date hasn't been (and, as a long term strategy, wasn't expected to be) a rousing success because it takes time to build state and local party organizations and make them competitive.

The Obama cult provides an opportunity to jump=start the 50 state strategy, because the interests of President and The Party are perceived as identical.   All the little Obots scurrying around to show up at caucuses and/or do GOTV in deep red states will (theoretically) be absorbed into the party apparatus, as the interests of the Party and a President Obama merge into one.

He was meant to knock her out fairly early, Iowa, the race-card played before South Carolina etc, and the very "convenient" timing, of having all those little caucus states all lined up in a row after Super-Tuesday, with MI & FL conveniently excluded.  

Timing is everything. The media momentum from that string, was meant to have taken him to victory in Ohio and Texas, and have him crowned alongside McCain. And the escalating media storm around minor gaffes, racism/sexism/MI & FL issues and so on, could have all been put to rest and quickly forgotten and smoothed over, before it got out of control.

Didn't quite go according to The Plan, Hillary was still too close a second, with some impressive state wins, but The Plan to nominate Obama was set in concrete long ago. From Obama, his campaign, and senior Party backers, has been increasing bored frustration at her wins keeping her too close a second-runner, and feeling forced to go through a farce of the rest of the primary season just for appearance's sake.
Doesn't matter how many she wins, or how good her polling, or what her totals on any metric is, the matter was decided last year, or even earlier.

In my view, speaking for myself only, the Obama-wing of the Party played this second half,  as being far too impatient. It got old, and turned too many off. Now they are in a pickle for the GE.

But I dont think they are that concerned with the GE. The 'must-have' was the power-grab in the take-over of the Party itself, the GE is 'nice-to-have', as a bonus.  

A political faction in a power-struggle that will go to such enormous lengths, using bribery/threats, on states like Florida, on groups like NARAL etc (the list goes on), isn't going to allow any power to anyone from the Clinton-wing, let alone Hillary herself.

sorry, but this is just paranoid nonsense.

The primary schedule was a 'grand compromise' -- the DNC didn't want to lose the chance of winning Iowa and New Hampshire's EC votes, so they continued to get preferential treatment.  And because those states are overwhelmingly White, an Affirmative Action approach to the calendar was taken -- one state with lots of Hispanics/Latinos (and the Senate Majority Leader -- Nevada), and one state with a huge percentage of African Americans (South Carolina) were given preference over the rest of the states.

Florida and Michigan were stripped completely of their delegates to keep the focus of the candidates -- and the media -- on the states that the DNC had compromised on as having the greatest influence on the election.   But that was never intended to be permanent -- the assumption was always that the nomination would be settled on Super Tuesday, and once that decision was made, all the delegates from FL and MI would be seated.
(If the sanctions were intended to be permanent, they would have gone with the DNC's standing 50% loss rule.)

You know, I was really wrong about two things in this election - that Obama could hold his own with working class voters, and that Hillary clinton would not become the terrific GE candidate she has become.

Let's face it - I was wrong. Clinton is more electable than Obama. I underestimated the backlash to Obama's becoming the Elite Media candidate. And his inability or unwillingness to try and reach out to certain segment of voters. I also underestimated how toxic his supporters, which include the Media would be.

I also underestimate how good a candidate Hillary Clinton could be. Right now she is hands down a better politician than Obama.

If Clinton was the nominee, the election would be a foregone conclusion now. But part of that is precisely because of the challenge Obama presented. Mark Penn blew it so bad in not letting Clinton, Hillary Clinton, be Clinton. He is truly the worst political operative in the business.

Obama is likely goping to win, but he COULD lose. Clinton would be a lock now.

Ironic.

And yet, he seems to be the choice of Democratic primary voters as well as the Dem Establishment. I think he will achieve a narrow popular vote win and a more comfortable delegate win.

But if the only criteria is who is more likely to win, I think any honest observer would now have to admit Clinton is the more electable candidate. Heck, a lock in November.

Both the income and college variables are related to Obama's share of the white male vote. Combined, they account for 40% of the variation in Obama's share of the white male vote. From this, we can infer that socioeconomic status makes a difference with the white male vote. The wealthier and more educated the population, the better Obama does among white males.

I wonder how much of the hate coming from some quarters of the blogs is they realize it too and are worried about looking stupid in November.

I wonder how much of the hate coming from some quarters of the blogs is they realize it too and are worried about looking stupid in November.

Mu gawd, she is beating McCain by 9 in Kentucky!!

I wasn't leaning Obama, but I could have voted for him until the Rev. Wright episode. It had nothing directly to do with what the Rev was saying, and certainly nothing to do with race. It was the betrayal. If he had nothing to hide, why didn't he respond with an honest summary of what his relationship with Rev Wright really was. That pattern of refusing to answer simple and direct questions has continued while his distraction tactics have grown.

But then, I couldn't go with him 'way back last fall, when it was the religiosity -- that faux Southern preacher style he soon abandoned -- that did it for me.  After all these years of hearing that stuff from Republicans, I could stand it even less from a Dem.  That got me looking more closely at him, and at his church's website . . . and I just had to wonder when that would collapse upon him, too.

Considering that they have been assuming they'd be going against her in the 2008 general election since 2000, I find it impossible to believe they haven't got a ton of ammunition to fire against her, be it legitimate or otherwise.

As it stands, the man clearly peaked in mid-February, and since that time has been content to run out the clock rather than close the deal with Democratic voters.

We just concluded our three-day-long state Democratic convention here in Honolulu yesterday, and I made no attempt to hide my serious misgivings about both the course our party leaders have set for November, and the brash, almost unseemly overconfidence exuded by my fellow delegates regarding Obama's chances come November.

I reminded people repeatedly that Hawaii's support fot its native son "Barry" Obama was wholly disproportionate to that expressed by the rest of the country; he holds a 33-point lead over John McCain here in the islands, which is nearly double the lead he now enjoys in his current home state of Illinois.

I've no doubt that we can win this thing in November, but it's not going to be easy.  We will have to work very, very hard to do so -- far harder than most convention-goers were capable of imagining, given their celebratory mood this past weekend.

but they respect toughness.

there's the irony, the one Dem candidate who does not have a toughness problem is Hillary Clinton.

He still doesn't like Bill. But he's turned completely around re: Hillary.

Here's the thing - it is over.

I don't think it's over. I think that there are a lot of folks who want it to be over...to appear as though it's over. Cause that helps with the "perceptions game."

And yes, I know the media darling argument.

They are really upset that SD's haven't just come out now, as they were expected to after the big announcement he had reached the majority of pledged delegates.  That's why Arianna started a big campaign to get the SDs to commit NOW, before the other 3 states vote.  (There'd be even more on Clinton's side by then.)

 The myth they're hammering, so that it will work to convince people (SDs and voters), is that the SDs must go according to leader of elected delegates, but that is not at all in the rules.  

I tell you what I think. when I think it.

  You are repeating what ObamaCamp hopes everyone will
repeat.  It's over.  But I just wrote about this above.

  Think about why you're saying it.  It's a wish to get ahead of the results.  The sage thing -- going with what seems will happen, almost for sure.  There is so much danger in it when you know Obamacamp is really worried about why the SDs are hesitating and when Arianna is throwing a fit and having everyone write the SDs as a result.  The polls are certainly having an impact on a few SDs.  Who knows how many?

  And, again, with what is happening that I see on other websites following various investigations, it really is not over until August, but I know you mean the June 3-4 deadline after primaries.

  Even then, the SDs do not at all automatically make the magic total marker for Obama when Florida and Michigan are included; if they're not included, good-bye November and America's better future for 8 years.  Is it worth it to help the march of Obama that way?  It's a form of chant, which helps to set minds.

I know I might have just implied you might not be honest there, and I apologize.

But the fact that you are being as honest as you always are about the things that you think doesn't make me feel any better about the comment.

It still bugs me just as much.  I don't like it.  Others seem to.