So I'm not following his campaign's thinking.  He did win Colorado.

But he performed very poorly in the Latino community.  Is he assuming he'd win those votes?

I'm not so sure that's true.  That voter group is very socially conservative in many ways.  Good strong Catholic families there.

Lost in all the praise that has been showered on Axelrod & Co. has been the fact that they didn't even attempt to showcase the new guy's bio--something that Bill Clinton ("The Man From Hope") did to great effect in '92.  I know there are some political problems with making that effort--time in Indonesia, dad not a citizen,  not a lot of experience--but that's why you call 'em pros.  If you're a real pro, you can take what you have and make it sing, and despite the problems and rough spots, there are enough notes in Obama's bio for a song.  They just didn't write it.

They thought they could rely on his auto-biography, I guess, but it is admittedly semi-fictionalized and, like any pol's bio, it writes around the hard stuff.

So, even to somebody like me who watches the politicians really hard, even at this late date Obama is something of a cypher--compared to feeling by May of 1992 that I knew Bill Clinton intimately.  In retrospect, the feeling was not false; I haven't significantly re-done my hit on Bill since Spring of '92.

The Carolinas are likely a pipe dream as well. If we couldn't win them with Edwards, we won't win them without him. Most recent Virginia polls have shown McCain with a healthy lead, no?

Obama has in essence written them off...witness his 'bitter/cling' remarks and Axelrod's interview on NPR.

The fact is that the reason McCain the Republican nomination is because he was the only one who could have reached these voters whatever you want to call them (Reagan Democrats, bitter/clingy, etc.). McCain also completely marginalizes much of Obama's appeal to the Republican's and Independents and of course, there's the media.

I think that even the notions of Obama putting Colorado and Virginia into play ignore the fact that if he is the nominee, then MA and PA are also in play and FL and OH are gone.

In terms of electability, you would have to go back to pre-Wright, pre-bitter (prior to March 15) to find where Obama might be considered a viable candidate in the general election.

Newsweek has been in the bag for Obama this primary season and they simply overlook the larger picture and have for quite some time.

Even within the city, we have a lot of Italians, Catholics, Jews, Latinos and Asians who are not necessarily in the tank for Obama.  9/11 is still a big issue to a lot of people here, and McCain will appeal (rightly or wrongly) for that reason alone.  

I belive in the 50 State strategy, but we've only effectively invested two years into that project.

1.  The country is ready for Democratic leadership.  We need a cored Democrat not a so so democrat.

2.  Someone who can run a tough campaign.

3.  Someone who is not weak.

4.  Someone who has real breadth and is not just an autobiography.  

"They're so desperate at Camp Clinton that they want to count all the votes!"

The female voter, who has been marginalized and ridiculed for supporting Hillary, may just decide to either stay home or write in her name.  A certain number of votes may be lost from that constituency who are angry to say the least.

The voters in FL and MI, however that turns out in the end, may show their displeasure by doing the same or go over to McCain to show the DNC their displeasure.

Winning numbers in the caucus states may not be enough to assure a victory.  Those numbers do not wholly reflect the entire electorate of those states.

Texas Caucus Fraud

Is this yet another shoe waiting to drop on Obama's head?

Owner: No no! 'E's pining!

Frankly, it kind of pisses me off that it's become such a struggle, although I tell myself that these are long-overdue growing pains which have no respect for timing; I just hope the pain does not crescendo on November 4th with a crushing defeat that can be tied directly to the Democratic "leadership" that was determined to force an unelectable candidate on us.

Sigh.

I think Hillary is more electable than Obama.  I think Obama is a drag on the ticket even in the #2 spot.  If the GOP is already using Obama as a club in its ads, how much worse will it get in September - or earlier - if he is the nominee?

At this stage of the game, I want a president who is not working out issues of identity on the job.  I want someone who does not begin a fight already willing to compromise.  I want someone who understands that there is a reason some of us are Democrats and some of us are not: we don't favor privatization of Social Security, we do want universal health care, we do want to protect a woman's right to choose, we aren't interested in sucking up to the energy industry, we don't believe Ronald Reagan deserves a pedestal, we aren't interested in GOP talking points. We want a nominee who can lead on issues we believe in - real unity is not finding some mushy middle ground that no one is happy with.

Hillary has already shown that she does not give up, that she is not bored by talking to people about good policy, that she is energized by the wonky details, that she knows who she is and what she believes in, that she does not fall down when she is punched, that she can win the bg states we need in order to get to the 270 elctoral votes that will give us back the WH.

I'm pulling for a convincing win in Indiana, and a squeaker in NC that will have already committed SD's thinking twice and the still uncommitted moving toward Hillary.

She says that a lot of the kids (particularly the guys) were for Ron Paul, and then switched to Obama.  But when it came down to it, nobody actually bothered to vote.  

Wouldn't that be great?

Such a candidate would surely be admired by all Democrats as one of our best leaders, right? As Democrats, we would never trash that person's reputation and act as if that person's eight years in office were a dark age when it was in fact a long period of peace and prosperity, right?

I suppose that would be too much to hope for, given that our transcendent "once in a lifetime" candidate, the promised one who would expand the map to new places, is busy trying to somehow scrape together a bare majority of electoral votes.

Interesting stats:

"As the report noted, a University of Washington study found that 28 percent of African-Americans in the state of Indiana do not have the proper ID to vote. African-Americans make up 9 percent of the voting population in Indiana.

By comparison, slightly less than 20 percent of Indianans over 70 do not have the necessary ID, according to the same study. Older voters tend to favor Hillary Rodham Clinton, while Obama has strong support among youth. According to a recent Rock the Vote poll, 19 percent of people under 30 do not have a valid photo identification with their current address.  Since young people move frequently they are less likely to have identification cards with their current address."

He may win Oregon, SD, and Montana....

so now he talks unity...

too little , too late imo

meanwhile, you have to wonder how the party could be so DUMB to nominate him...just not to offend blacks and the youth vote, but to offend everyone else, especially women