Then again, if this election has lots of 'improprieties', I can imagine the outrage, nay, CATERWAULING that will occur from the Obama fan base.

If he does lose to election schenanigans, it will be because the election was close enough to allow it, and that would be entirely his own fault.

Not to mention karmic in nature, considering what happened in the caucus states, IMO.

With lives being lived on the net, if he can break apart the party, why wouldn't he?  Where are the voters going to go?  Both parties triangulate, trying to grab issues from each other to weaken each other and get their own party in power.  It confuses voters.  Where are they going to go?  If he can break apart demographics, why wouldn't he?  Wouldn't it take less pandering?  From a politicians stand point, isn't this a good thing?  

It seems issues get pushed to the side and politicians are elected based on consultant driven marketing campaigns.  People seem to have more narrow lives by spending time with issues that reflect their views. The campaigns feed on/use this.  Money spent on MTV, use of the internet, viral campaigns.  Marketing of products...seems very modern, commercialized, a sign of the times.  Very good political move?  

The specific nature of the fundraising agreement suggests that the level of support/help by the Clintons is contingent upon some kind of quid pro quo in terms of power-sharing -- and that a full agreement was not reached.

Thus, I posit that Obama is making a rookie mistake of "projection" -- he assumes that he needs the Clintons to get the Clinton democrats because he sees himself as the leader of a "movement" who has a great deal of control over his supporters.  And since he hasn't reached an agreement with them, he is intent on winning without the support of Clinton democrats.

There has to be at least one sensible person in the Obama campaign.  Right?

She's the only choice that makes sense to name after the Olympics, giving them a huge unity crest to ride up to and through the convention.

however, without the Clintons, Obama will experience

"Gore's Second Presidential GE campaign."

Have people figured out yet that Democrats lose without the Clintons?

"Barack Obama may be the fresh face in this year's presidential election, but nearly half say they're already tired of hearing about him, a poll says

With Election Day still three months away, 48 percent said they're hearing too much about the Democratic candidate, according to a poll released Wednesday by the nonpartisan Pew Research Center. Just 26 percent said the same about his Republican rival, John McCain."

I think Obama needs the Clintons and every darn vote he can get more than he thinks he does.

But their attitude seems to be, `we can win without you.'

Money that does NOT go to the Obama campaign can just as easily, and perhaps far more usefully, go to the DSCC or DCCC or a state party or even some specific candidates.  If the Clintons recommend that "their" money folks shift big bucks to Tom Udall, Mark Udall, Al Franken, Jeanne Shaheen, or Mark Warner then those newly-minted US senators would have powerful affiliations with the junior senator from New York & the former president.

He and his cult followers want to "change the map", purge the Clintons and their supporters, bring in new voters and win red states like Georgia and North Carolina.

This is a fairy tale as they are going to find out in November.

Republican voters will stay with McCain. You will also see McCain winning a big chunk of the Dem base.

Big Tent is going with current polling which is meaningless. McCain is a much stronger candidate than it appears. He is seen as better able to handle crisis. People trust him more as commander in chief. That is a huge advantage. As election day nears people try to picture the candidate in the oval office, handling crisis. They are more comfortable with McCain in that role.

What just happened in the Georgia primary is a very bad Omen for Obama... NOt good..Not good at ALL:

Are Georgia Voters Sending Obama A Message?
Daniel Halper - 08.06.2008 - 10:11 AM

Politicians grabbing Barack Obama's coattails should take note: In the Georgia democratic Senatorial primary runoff held yesterday, Jim Martin defeated Vernon Jones by a 60% to 40%. Martin will now face the Republican senior Senator from Georgia, Saxby Chambliss, in November's election. This doesn't seem to bode well for Obama's presidential quest. Jones's campaign hoped to emulate Obama's impressive primary victory in Georgia (he defeated Senator Hillary Clinton in Georgia, 66.4% to 31.1%), but now he's failed to even make it to November's ballot.

In fact, Jones distributed campaign paraphernalia consisting of a picture of himself and Obama, with the words "Yes We Can!" prominently scrawled underneath the photographs. Also, Jones sent a mass email meant to smear his opponent Martin:

    My campaign has uncovered evidence that my opponent, Jim Martin, did not want Senator Barack Obama to be President of the United States and that Jim Martin voted against Barack Obama in the February 2008 Presidential Primary election in Georgia. [Emphasis not my own.]

He also used this line of attack in a debate, "You say you support Barack Obama, but you voted against him." In the first round of the primary election, Jones's strategy of cozying up to the presumptive democratic presidential candidate paid off. Although he wasn't able to win the race outright, he came out with the most votes (over 40%) and looked poised for victory ...

At least GWB had one policy we knew he was going to try to implement-- his tax cuts.  I cannot for the life of me think of a single Obama policy that I know he will go to the mat for, nor can any Obama supporter I know.  

Withdrawing our troops from Iraq?  Not really, he's explicitly refused to commit to any timetable.

Ending surveillance abuses such as the FISA debacle?  Well, we saw how that one turned out.

Universal health care?  HA.

He barely "won" the nomination with help from the super delegates.

He is acting like Bush after Katherine Harris and the Scalia 5 fixed the election for him. Bush acted like he had won a landslide victory. Obama is acting like he won a landslide primary victory.

It is because he is a member of the Sally Quinn coctail class, along with the rest of WP/Newsweek crowd.

Fineman quotes a Clinton fundraiser saying

He has shown himself to be a terrible surrogate and completely uncontrollable.   His unwillingness to be a team player whatsoever is what sunk the Hillary for VP campaign.

In the Presidential election of 1840 the country was sick of the Democratic Party.  Martin Van Buren's administration ushered in the 2nd worst depression in our history.  Their anti-bank and anti-soft money stances had become wildly unpopular.

The stage was set for the Whigs to take control of the government.  Virtually everyone knew that the Whigs were sure to win.  And Henry Clay, as putative leader of the Whig Party should have been the man for the job. But when the Whigs held their Convention in late 1839, things were not as clear.  And the Whigs fearing defeat using a common name such as Clay and wanting to enforce their theme of changing Washington selected William Henry Harrison.  

Harrison, wishing to unify the party, asked Clay to be his VP but Clay, in a fit pique, would not give him an answer.  Harrison ultimately selected John Tyler.  Harrison died 2 weeks after speaking at his Inauguration.  Tyler became the 10th President of the Untied States and one of the poorest.

This story is illustrative in this case for a few reasons.  First it shows how the change theme has been a powerful force in our politics since the beginning.  Secondly, Clay's decision to be petulant and not accept the VP ultimately cost him the chance to be President.  Lastly because of Clay's intransigence the country was stuck with a poor alternative.

In this election William Clinton is Henry Clay, causing mischief for his wife and ensuring that perhaps the best option for VP will not be selected.