The Trail: A Daily Diary of Campaign 2008

Archives

Dan Balz's Take

For Obama, an Uphill Battle in Pennsylvania


US Democratic presidential candidate Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) and his wife Michelle greet supporters at his Ohio and Texas primary election night rally on March 4, 2008. (Reuters.)

By Dan Balz
Pennsylvania's April 22 primary stands as the next big battleground in the Democratic presidential race and Barack Obama has no good options. He can stand and fight, and probably lose, or try to downplay the contest, and lose by an even bigger margin. In terms of demographics, Pennsylvania is Ohio squared.

Everything that worked for Hillary Clinton in Ohio is there in Pennsylvania in greater numbers. The Post ran a chart in Thursday's editions comparing the Democratic electorates in the two states. Obama's campaign should tape it on every office wall in their North Michigan Avenue headquarters in Chicago as a reminder of the steep hill they have to climb.

Look at some of the comparisons: The black-white mix is roughly similar, meaning Obama will not have a significantly larger African American population to tap. The male-female mix is also roughly similar, with women accounting for nearly 60 percent of the electorate, meaning Clinton will have her solid base upon which to build.

But look, too, at some differences. There are fewer young people and more old people in Pennsylvania than in Ohio, which is good for Clinton and bad for Obama. In Ohio, 44 percent of the Democratic electorate was under age 45 and Obama carried them by 54 percent to 45 percent. In Pennsylvania those voters may represent only a quarter of the electorate. In Ohio, voters over age 65 comprised 14 percent of the electorate and Clinton carried them 72 percent to 26 percent. In Pennsylvania, they may account for a quarter of the Democratic vote.

There are fewer college graduates and more non-college graduates in Pennsylvania than in Ohio, both among the population at large and among white voters. That, too, spells trouble for Obama.

The differences are not hugely significant, but even a slightly less educated electorate plays to Clinton's favor. Again, look at what happened in Ohio. Among white, non-college educated voters, who accounted for almost half the electorate, Clinton beat Obama by 44 percentage points -- 71 percent to 27 percent. Among white, college graduates, who were just 29 percent of the electorate, she won, but by just 7 points.

Clinton has generally done well with Roman Catholics. In Ohio, she won white Catholic voters by 31 points. There they accounted for a fifth of the electorate. In Pennsylvania, white Catholics could be closer to a third of the vote. If she were to match her Ohio performance in Pennsylvania, white Catholics alone would give her 20 percent of the overall vote.

So the deck is stacked in Pennsylvania. A Clinton victory there will intensify a debate among Democrats about whether Obama has a "big state" problem. In states with more than 100 pledged delegates, Clinton has won California, New York, Texas, Ohio and New Jersey. Obama has won Illinois and will be favored in the May primary in North Carolina.

Clinton also claims victories in the disputed states of Michigan and Florida. That's an unfair claim because both states were sanctioned by the Democratic Party and stripped of their convention seats. Both may be headed for do-over contests later this spring.

With Obama continuing to hold a lead in pledged delegates, Clinton will point to her success in big-state primaries as she tries to woo superdelegates to support her candidacy. It is a justifiable argument. When matched head to head in states with big and diverse electorates, Clinton has consistently defeated Obama.

Her advisers argue that shows she will be a stronger general election candidate in some of the major battlegrounds in the fall. Pennsylvania may well add to that record.

What are Obama's counter claims? One is that many of those big states will vote Democratic no matter which candidate is the nominee. California, New York, Illinois and probably New Jersey fit that category. Clinton will point to Ohio and Pennsylvania as evidence of her ability to win critical battlegrounds, but Obama will counter that his victories key Midwest states that have been competitive in recent elections -- Missouri, Iowa, Wisconsin and Minnesota -- show that he's best positioned to compete in key swing states.

Another Obama counter is that he will have a far easier time winning over her voters than she will have winning over his voters. The logic here is that her base of traditional Democrats are hungry to recapture the White House not likely to back John McCain in the fall, but Obama's constituency will be less transferable. Independent voters may be more reluctant to back Clinton, his younger voters may have less enthusiasm for Clinton and his African American voters may feel cheated if he is not the nominee.

Obama also will argue that he has more ability to expand the electoral map. He will point to success in Virginia and North Carolina -- if he wins there -- as partial evidence, and he will highlight his endorsements from prominent red-state politicians -- Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano and Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius among them -- as proof that they see him as a far better nominee in their parts of the country. Clinton will note that she won Arizona on Super Tuesday as well as Arkansas and Tennessee.

Clinton and Obama remain remarkably evenly matched. Neither has shown an ability to consistently peel away the others' voters. Obama could close down the race by defeating Clinton in Pennsylvania and will have seven weeks to make his case to the voters there. But it will be a hard sell, given the landscape and Clinton's support from Gov. Edward Rendell. Which is why the race is could go on well beyond the Keystone state.

Posted at 12:54 PM ET on Mar 6, 2008  | Category:  Dan Balz's Take
Share This: Technorati talk bubble Technorati | Tag in Del.icio.us | Digg This
Previous: Clinton's Blueprint for Victory | Next: A Joint Ticket? Not so Fast


Add 44 to Your Site
Be the first to know when there's a new installment of The Trail. This widget is easy to add to your Web site, and it will update every time there's a new entry on The Trail.
Get This Widget >>


Comments

Please email us to report offensive comments.



Posted by: duchos | April 20, 2008 11:02 AM

Posted by: scuko | April 13, 2008 4:55 AM

Posted by: scuko | April 13, 2008 4:54 AM

Obama is the only choice for President unless everyone wants a president that is again a FLIP FLOPPER like President BUSH. Hillary voted for the war than opposed the war, Hillary would like to keep our troops in IRAQ for longer times than at times says she would pull them out, Hillary wants everyone to pay for HEALTHCARE. Hillary is such a WHINNIER such as on one of the debates stating "it's unfair I get asked the first question" she wants everyone to feel sorry for poor Hillary for getting picked on oh boo hoo!! Or her tearing up at a coffee shop we need a president that will bring change. Hillary needs to grow up and get real. Hillary would be good as VP but I doubt she will go for that since she can't stand to loose oh wait a minute she IS LOOSING!!! Hillary goes on TV and says Obama would be good in 2nd place as VP but like Obama said she could say that if she was in 1st place but SHE ISN'T!! Look at who has won more states Obama!! Yes Hillary has won the big states but still Obama is ahead with 13 states and Obama will stay ahead and Hillary will CONCEDE after Pennsylvania!! IT'S TIME FOR CHANGE OBAMA IS IT!!!!!!!

Posted by: ErnestShively | March 12, 2008 1:35 AM

I'm tired of people busting on Obama because of his middle name. "Hussein". There are other people in the world with the last name Hitler but that doesn't mean they are Nazi's trying to take over the world. It's simply wrong to judge someone by their middle name. Obama is not a muslim like everyone wants to believe.He did attend a school in Indonesia called the Busaki school. It was not a dominatly muslim school. It was a mix of Buddhist, Christian, Muslim, and ConfucionistS among others. That myth has been debunked by several news stations including CNN.Of course, if people actually did a little research instead of believing everything they hear, they would find the truth, and the truth is what's really important.OBAMA08' : )

Posted by: h2overflow | March 9, 2008 12:58 AM

Obama has no experience in politics--and that is exactly the reason I am voting for him. The old clowns have ruined this country--it's time for a change.

Posted by: dualactionblend | March 7, 2008 6:44 PM

55% to 60% white vote
65% to 70% Asian vote
60% to 65% Latino Vote

She doesn't need the Black vote to win.
The Black Vote is OVERRATED.

Posted by: ermias.kifle | March 7, 2008 2:59 PM

Pending Clinton Fraud Trial... November 2008... What a perfect time!

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=56868

Posted by: biracial1 | March 7, 2008 10:45 AM

The standard is who leads in delegates. So who wins PA is not as important as how many delegates can be won or lost in PA. Let us assume Clinton wins big. She will net no more than 10 delegates. But she is down by over 150 delegates.

The only reason we still have a race is the guy in the lead is Obama and he is held to a different, unknown, elusive, shifing, and truth be told unfair standard!

If Clinton had a 140 delegate lead, we will not be talking about PA, we will be talking about Clinton v McCain.

But this is USA, the land of equality!

Posted by: kwakuazar | March 7, 2008 8:31 AM

Does anyone really think that if Senator Obama were the nominee he would lose California? Or New York? Or Massachusetts? I don't think so. When it comes to battleground states, Senator Obama puts more of them into play than Senator Clinton.

Then there's the question of presidential coattails. Who is going to be a bigger boost to downticket candidates? Applying the picture test (will downticket candidates be helped if they appear on the front page of the local paper with the presidential nominee) and the answer favors Senator Obama. Senator Clinton will help in many races, but Senator Obama probably helps more and in more places. (Please see http://alankatzpolitics.wordpress.com/2008/02/15/super-delegates-and-presidential-coattails/)

Posted by: akatz | March 7, 2008 12:16 AM

For everyone here in Ohio and across America who's ever been counted out but refused to be knocked out, and for everyone who has stumbled but stood right back up, and for everyone who works hard and never gives up, this one is for you."

Posted by: ebubuk2004 | March 6, 2008 11:59 PM

Rezko / Obama 08
Rezko / Obama 08
Rezko / Obama 08
Rezko / Obama 08
Rezko / Obama 08
Rezko / Obama 08

Slum Landlord and Drug Dealer 08
Slum Landlord and Drug Dealer 08
Slum Landlord and Drug Dealer 08
Slum Landlord and Drug Dealer 08
Slum Landlord and Drug Dealer 08
Slum Landlord and Drug Dealer 08

They both go to jail

Posted by: ebubuk2004 | March 6, 2008 11:35 PM

BLACK people cannot have it both ways. They can't cried foul when more WHITES vote for Hillary, but rejoice when they band together and vote for BLACK HUSSIEN.

Posted by: ebubuk2004 | March 6, 2008 11:29 PM

In Ohio, Obama won "ONLY" 5 out of 88 counties. Those 5 Ohio counties account for the majority of the "BLACK" vote, the only group of voters Obama won

Posted by: ebubuk2004 | March 6, 2008 11:25 PM

55% to 60% white vote
65% to 70% Asian vote
60% to 65% Latino Vote

She doesn't need the Black vote to win.
The Black Vote is OVERRATED.
May Blacks (men) can't vote, because of the "CRIME" problem

Posted by: ebubuk2004 | March 6, 2008 11:22 PM


55% to 60% white vote
65% to 70% Asian vote
60% to 65% Latino Vote

She doesn't need the Black vote to win.
The Black Vote is OVERRATED.
May Blacks (men) can't vote, because of the "CRIME" problem

She does need Black vote anymore.
The Black Vote is OVERRATED.
The Black Vote is OVERRATED

Posted by: ebubuk2004 | March 6, 2008 11:21 PM

Obama is the real change.
Philadelphia will vote for OBAMA.

CLINTONS are fraud from neck to bottom.

Posted by: tariqahmed | March 6, 2008 11:20 PM

She did get
55% to 60% white vote
65% to 70% Asian vote
60% to 65% Latino Vote
The Black Vote is OVERRATED?????
The Black Vote is OVERRATED?????

Black men can't vote because of the the "CRIME" and Reading problems


Posted by: ebubuk2004 | March 6, 2008 11:17 PM

HRC is wining big without the Black vote.
She doesn't need the Black vote in Nov.

She did get
55% to 60% white vote
65% to 70% Asian vote
60% to 65% Latino Vote

She does need Black vote anymore.
The Black Vote is OVER RATED.
Latino vote counts.

Posted by: ebubuk2004 | March 6, 2008 11:14 PM

CHANGE WE CAN BELIEVE IN


Rezko's bleak financial picture raises the question of how the Rezkos were able to buy a vacant lot adjoining the home of Sen. Barack Obama in 2005, at a time Rezko says he was already in deep debt.

Rezko also reveals in the testimony, before Judge Amy St. Eve on Jan. 16, 2007, that he already knew he was under federal investigation at the time of the land purchase and had hired a criminal defense attorney to deal with the "feds."

Obama says he sought Rezko's help because the house he wanted to buy in Chicago's Hyde Park came with an adjoining lot the seller wanted to sell at the same time.

Unable to afford it himself, Obama says Mrs. Rezko bought it for $625,000, and then later sold a strip of the lot back to Obama so he would have a larger yard. Obama says he paid Mrs. Rezko a fair market price.

According to the court transcript, Mrs. Rezko makes $37,500 a year.

Obama has defended Rezko's role as legal but says it was "a bone-headed mistake" to involve him in the deal.

According to the transcript, Mrs. Rezko sold the vacant lot a few weeks before the hearing, with all proceeds going to pay previous debts.

Asked how he was able to pay his lawyer, Joseph Duffy, Rezko said family and some unnamed "friends" were paying his legal bills.

Duffy told the judge, "Mr. Rezko has not provided us any money since his indictment."

Rezko told the judge he had no current source of income, saying his last business deal involving a proposed power plant in Iraq had been cancelled.

Posted by: enrique1055 | March 6, 2008 11:08 PM

Something everyone should know is that Barack Obama has been the victim of a false e-mail "whispering campaign" that he is Muslim and does not say the Pledge of Allegiance. This has been proven false hundreds of times by newsweek, CNN and other reliable news outlets, and can be checked out on snopes.com and various other urban legend fact checking websites.

The Clinton and McCain campaigns have both been party to this slime by saying Obama's not been "vetted", by emphasizing his middle name, Hussein, and by saying that Obama's wife is not patriotic, thereby keeping the idea viable in the minds of susceptible voters. This country is better than that. Our founding documents declare that must be better than that.

Obama is a committed Christian who speaks openly about accepting Christ into his life, and about the role our individual faiths have in the public domain. He taught Constitutional Law in Chicago, and introduced a bill in Illinois that required high school students to recite the Pledge of Allegiance in school. He's literally putting his life on the line to run for President because he loves this country and the promise it holds for Liberty and Justice for All.

I respect the rights of those who choose not to vote for Obama because of his policies, or simply because another candidate appeals more to their personal ideals. But this country deserves to know the truth, and those who would lie about a good person in order to seek office do not deserve the privilege of serving the people of this country.

One of the men on 60 minutes last Sunday said he liked Obama but was not sure about voting for someone with his "background". I wonder how many others have been fooled?

Posted by: ladyvet | March 6, 2008 11:03 PM

ON THE NAFTA/OBAMA/CANADA ISSUE


1. SOMEONE, AUSTIN GOOLSBY, FROM OBAMA'S CAMPAIGN, MET WITH THE CANADIAN CONSULATE AND DISCUSSED NAFTA. THE PERSON HE MET WITH WROTE AN INTERNAL MEMO ABOUT THE MEETING

2. SOMEONE LEAKED THE INFORMATION ABOUT THE MEETING TO THE PRESS

3. SOMEONE FROM THE CANADIAN OFFICE IN ANSWERING THE PRESS ABOUT THIS SAID THAT SOMEONE FROM CLINTONS CAMPAIGN HAD ALSO CALLED REGARDING THE NAFTA ISSUE

4. OBAMA WAS ASKED ABOUT IT AND SAID THE MEETING NEVER HAPPENED

5. THE MEMO WAS LEAKED TO THE PRESS

6. OBAMA SAID THAT WHEN HE DENIED THE MEETING HE DID SO ON THE INFORMATION HE HAD

7. THE PRESS COVERED THIS STORY..


THE PRESS COVERED THIS STORY. THERE IS SO FAR NO PROOF THAT THE CLINTON CAMPAIGN EVER CONTACTED THE CANADIAN GOVERNMENT.

THE MEMO THAT WAS LEAKED IS AVAILBLE TO READ AND DOES MAKE IT SEEM THAT GOOLSBY WAS TRYING TO INDICATE THAT OBAMA'S COMMENTS ON NAFTA WERE POLITICAL RHETORIC

HERE IS THE LINK FOR THE MEMO:
http://www.slate.com/id/2185753/entry/2185754/

Posted by: chersplace | March 6, 2008 10:43 PM

Obama's supporters seem to believe he's the only candidate who represents "change"
That's crazy.

All non-incumbent candidates run on "change" as a theme, they just usually talk specifics about what they're going to change.

Thinking that only Obama can bring "change" is just plain silly.

Posted by: svreader | March 6, 2008 10:00 PM

Lucky she has lots of support in the Catholic community...she may need to seek Papal intervention.

Posted by: frank | March 6, 2008 9:59 PM

No...some of us heard your boneheaded Gov. Rendell say he didn't think white people in PA would vote for a Black candidate. He is the one who characterized your state as racist amigo. Check your facts and your neighbors...black folk didn't start it...Clinton's crew did...as per usual...you may understand it after you read about it in the history books or your kids explain it to you.

Classic Clinton tacics...divide the races...works in some places...not all...and now the numbers are against you and there is no where to go. Try to steal this one...go ahead and try...watch what happens.


Posted by: frank | March 6, 2008 9:55 PM

John McCain of Keating Five fame and Neil Bush of Silverado fame have a lot in common. I wonder if Neil will endorse McCain? George did.

Wait until McCain is fully vetted.

Posted by: miezer | March 6, 2008 9:52 PM

Just because Obama is inspiring and exciting voters doesn't mean we think he's a savior. We just like him a whole lot better than McCain and lame. Nobody's perfect, but its time for a real change and Obama represents that. The Hillary crowd can't have it both ways.

Keep yackin'...it won't change the fact that despite a win in PA she will lose the nomination unless the party wants to go against the final vote tally of the people. He's won more states, more delegates, and more of the popular vote. Turn the tables and I'm sure you would be singin' a different tune and I would be hoping for a miracle.

Reality Bites!

Posted by: frank | March 6, 2008 9:48 PM

I live in the Lehigh Valley, PA and I cannot wait to vote for HILLARY!!! My wife, friends and family have been waiting anxiously to vote for the one and only choice- Hillary Clinton! Obama's true colors are beginning to show. I noticed how some people tried to paint Pennsylvania as a racist state because they know he won't do well here, yet they overlook the fact that Blacks in Louisiana, Alabama, South Carolina and Georgia voted overwhelmingly for Obama on the basis of his race, nothing else! Does that make every black person who DID NOT vote for Hillary a racist? The hypocrisy is too much sometimes! Black people cannot have it both ways. They can't cried foul when more whites vote for Hillary, but rejoice when they band together and vote for Obama. Hillary will win in PA because PA knows how to pick a presidential candidate, period!


HILLARY,

ALLENTOWN, PA LOVES YOU!

SI SE PUEDE!

Posted by: kccaraballo | March 6, 2008 9:35 PM

Hillary will get the nomination because she will be the best President and has the best chance of standing up to he Republican attack machine.

If the superdelegates look at message boards like these ones, they'll see that Obama supporters more often than not act like immature jerks making personal attacks at anyone who doubts their saviour's divinity, rather than discussing the issues.

The final reason is that Obama's supporters will drop him like a rock once it dawns on them that he's not the saviour they think he is, but just another politician who tells one thing about an issue to one group and the opposite to another.

Posted by: svreader | March 6, 2008 9:26 PM

Hillary will give Barack a sound beating in PA, my home state.

If she is the nominee, she will win PA .

If she is not, and Barack is the nominee, the state will go to McCain.

Check it out - it has been reported in several polls, and I can tell you that is what I'm hearing here too.

Posted by: seustis | March 6, 2008 8:57 PM

It has been told on NPR that Obama has WON more delegates in Texas than Hillary ROVE Clinton. Use the name, Hillary ROVE Clinton.

Posted by: sperrico | March 6, 2008 8:28 PM

Yes, Barak Obama will have an uphill battle especially if these dirty campaign tactics of Hillary continue as they had in Ohio and Texas. However, hasn't he had an uphill battle from the start? I know you may say, "Hey that's politics", but I think we are ready for a different kind of politics.
I'm 49 and a white American and I had original thought a woman as president would be a big step for the US to change its long old tradition in politics (money, money, money). But now I think Hillary represents just the some cub. She has become desperate, power and money hungry. I guess she has really more experience in being dishonest and deceiving than Barak, that's for sure.
Yes, it is also up to the media. During the last couple of weeks I noted again an increase in the support for Hillary in the media. Her negative ads were shown over and over again. I guess the media is happy that the primaries will go on until June. Nonetheless, they should be fair!
Let's continue to support a clean campaign!!

Posted by: peter138 | March 6, 2008 8:23 PM

She may win PA, but not by a landslide...which she needs in every state from here on out to make any claim to the nomination. If she just wins every state I'll even give it to her...not gonna happen.

So MO is not big...VA...MD...IL...NC to come? Give up Clintonians...you're political relics.

Posted by: frank | March 6, 2008 8:18 PM

Hillary's one-way lovefest with John McCain puts her in the position of blackmailing the Democratic Party iunto either giving her the nomination or else she'll pull a Lieberman and try to throw the election to the Republicans.

No loyalty, no integrity, no class ...

Ladies and Gentleman, I present to you ...

The Clintons.

Posted by: Martinedwinandersen | March 6, 2008 8:18 PM

Oops. Said "transcribe" when I meant "transpose".

Posted by: gbooksdc | March 6, 2008 8:16 PM

In the course of reviewing svreader's posts, I noticed a disturbing trend of misspellings. He apparently has a heavy finger, so he might spell success "succcess". I would let that go. He might transcribe letters; unless you're a trained typist, that's understandable too. I do it all the time. But the thing is, svreader regularly misspelled the same word over and over and over. So I started to actually track clear misspellings. I think after a fair reading, you will conclude as I did, that svreader is simply not the person he represented himself to be (these are just since 2/15/08, after the last entry I stopped the fight):

amoung
candidiate
Ceasar
challange (as in intellectually ---d)
comission
comitted
commited
comparisions
contibutor
Farakan (3x)
florish
garentee
garenteed (6x)
goverment
hypocracy
infurating
jucy (as in story)
kama (as in instant)
naiveity (4x)
naivity
priorites
referundum
relection
self-rightgeous (4x)
semitic (2x)
sincerly
sleezy (4x)
sneeky
suprisingly (2x)
telepompter
Thermopoli (d**n you, if you cannot spell it RIGHT, don't front like you know what you are talking about! This is the one that makes me mad, the rest are just amusing)
univeral (2x)

Now, here's the one that put it over the top:
heartship (for the record, tagged at Comment on: The Audacity of Selling Hope at 2/15/2008 1:39 PM EST)

This proves beyond reasonable doubt that when svreader says he has a Ph.D., he is LYING. When he claims to be a CEO, he is LYING. When he claims to be a reader, he is LYING. And when he claims to have hired and fired Harvard Law Review editors, he is definitely LYING. Because even a cursory read of his posts (and I have them all) shows that he is the kind of illiterate most of us know: he doesn't read much, but he heard a word, so he spells it like it sounded.

Posted by: gbooksdc | March 6, 2008 8:15 PM

If Clinton is nominated, McCain would be elected It is not nice to have pro Iraqi war and pro current taxation person again in office, but it is better than murdering, high handed, hypocritical, and sadistic female-psychopath. More than 50% of all American voters share this point, and it is very well known. So, PV people and DNC convention, the choice is clear; and this choice under the current circumstances should be made by you-both.

Posted by: aepelbaum | March 6, 2008 8:13 PM

I do not know one person who is retired who has told me they will vote Obama.
That said - we have a HUGE older group here in PA.

In Pittsburgh a few years ago, a car backfired and 150 people hit the ground. That is what it has come to.

Blacks killing blacks every day. People want to walk the streets of Pittsburgh again.

I wont take my kids to the City anymore, I wont vote Obama for these reasons.

I live 35 miles out of the city in a community that is 99 percent white.

Posted by: fballfn | March 6, 2008 8:11 PM

Is there some reason the person named Posted by: ManUnitdFan | March 6, 2008 01:02 PM capitalized HUSSEIN in Obama's name. Is this the new code language for hate?

Posted by: cheryljay | March 6, 2008 8:06 PM

I think this is a very democratic process, when you slide by with a victory, the votes should go out proportionally.

I look forward to Obama telling it like it is. I am mindboggled by HRC supporters saying Obama's attacks are negative when he uses QUOTATIONS coming from her own lips. He doesn't twist the words of his staff or make vague connections between national security and a committee she is chair of but actually has nothing to do with national security or jump on issues like NAFTAgate. If we have learned anything, it is that the HRC campaign lies to pre-emptively attack to prevent any light from actually being shed on their own immoral activities.

Posted by: chaucharoo | March 6, 2008 8:06 PM

As a Pennsylvania democrat I would like to point out one MAJOR difference between Pennsylvania and Ohio. While Democrats outnumber Republicans in both states, the Ohio Democrats voted for Bush in both of the last presidential contests, while Pennsylvania Democrats went for Gore and then Kerry. We may "look" similar, but we vote much more intelligently. That certainly gives Obama the edge here.

Posted by: steenwe | March 6, 2008 8:06 PM

oops-

my previous post was meant to be addressed to 'catmomtx'. Sorry Mary.

Posted by: ChrisDC | March 6, 2008 8:00 PM

Mary Mcallister-

1. She parsed her words to let the 'muslim' issue continue.

2. She sent her surrogates out to push the NAFTA story after it had been debunked.

3. She essentially lies when she states that Obama's Health Care plan will leave 15 million uninsured (while at the same time not sting how she would mandate the coverage in her plan)

4. Accusing Obama of lying on his Health Care mailers, which contained no inaccuracies.

5. Having her surrogates lie to the press that he hasn't been vetted on the Rezco situation after quite a few investigative journalists of all the major newspapers found that he broke no laws and did nothing unethical. (Months ago, I might add).

6. Whining that the press is mean to her (OK, not a negative attack, but I just felt like mentioning it).


These are the first few that come to mind. I'll go turn on the news and find 20 more.
Back soon.

Posted by: ChrisDC | March 6, 2008 7:56 PM

On the NAFTA allegation--actually, they both may be right. According to MaCleans (Macleans.ca) the Time/Newsweek/USNews of Canada, the story was put out by Harper, who used to pride himself in being thought of as the George W of Canada.
If so, I think the real culprit is Rove--it has his hallmark use of a third party cut-out, so the Republicans can't be blamed, and it sows division.
By the way, for those who talk up Chelsea, how come if staying longer in Iraq is so good she isn't out there clearing rooftops in Anbar? Could it be that like the Cheyney kids, Rove's son, and the Bush girls she'd rather advocate extending reservists time than actually walk the walk? That apple's not too far from the tree.

Posted by: Letscleanhouse | March 6, 2008 7:54 PM

If Hillary really believed that Barack Obama is not qualified to receive that phone call at 3 a.m., then why is she playing coy about dangling the vice presidency (as if it were her's to dangle)?

After all, the vice president is only a heart beat away from such august responsibilities as national security.

Who is she trying to mislead this time?

Posted by: Martinedwinandersen | March 6, 2008 7:53 PM

A few differences. The Hispanics here that are registered are more likely to be from the Islands than Mexico. Also, a LOT of people here despise Hillary--even if they like Bill. Especially in the vast areas between Philadelphia and Pittsburgh. Obama has been more organized on the ground. While big city leaders have gone for Clinton, many democratic precinct people are for Obama.
Finally, Obama polls better against McCain than Clinton--people just don't want to listen to that Susan Standberg/biddy voice for 4 years.

Posted by: Letscleanhouse | March 6, 2008 7:47 PM

Mary Mcallister -
Great post. Thanks for presenting some hard data on the subject in an objective way! Did the Pew poll say anything about how independents would vote in a Obama/McCain vs Clinton/McCain matchup?

Posted by: jcmdstep1 | March 6, 2008 7:45 PM

Remember TRAVELGATE,WHITEWATER,McDougal,
Monica Levisky,Jeniffer Flowers,the BLUE DERSS with WHITE STUFFS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Hillary is one of the MOST hated personality in RED STATES that OBAMA WON>

Posted by: tariqahmed | March 6, 2008 7:45 PM

Dan,

You aren't factoring that the Clinton campaign will only be able to whip up the perfect storm once in their kitchen sink and fling it at Obama.

- Naftagate - Hillary is looking pretty hypocritical now that it turns out her campaign was winking at Canada

- woe is me - The media won't be so complacent after being used in the Ohio runup

- Cleveland ice storm - How did they do that?

But the bottom line is that are 7 weeks for Obama to present himself to the people of Pennsylvania. The more people that hear him speak in rallies (inspiring) and townhalls (would you believe he actually has ideas - often more detailed than Hillary) the more people that realize that he is the best man or woman for the job. And not only that but he's the one to open the process up. Hillary can accomplish a lot on her own writing policy at her desk, but Obama and the nation working together can be an unstoppable force.

The real parallel to draw is not between Ohio and PA, but between Iowa and PA because of the similarities in campaign time.

Posted by: kallen1 | March 6, 2008 7:44 PM

Can someone please tell me what is so negative about Hillary Clinton's campaign. I can't figure out what people are talking about when they say she is so negative. Why?

Posted by: catmomtx | March 6, 2008 7:41 PM

Clintons are fraud--one lied under oath the other supported him.
Vince Foster was murdered for WHITEWATER.

Posted by: tariqahmed | March 6, 2008 7:39 PM

Dear Mr. Balz, I hope you find the following information useful for future articles:

You say, "Another Obama counter is that he will have a far easier time winning over her voters than she will have winning over his voters."

The Pew Research poll of 2/28/08 says this is not the case, although I agree that it has been the conventional wisdom. "The vast majority of Democratic voters say they would support either Obama or Clinton over McCain. But in an Obama-McCain matchup, 14% of Democratic voters say they would support McCain, compared with 8% who would do so if Clinton is the nominee." The differences were even greater amongst white Democrats: "One-in-five white Democrats (20%) say that they will vote for McCain over Obama, double the percentage who say they would switch sides in a Clinton-McCain matchup (10%)" This poll is confirmed by the exit polls (source NY Times) in Ohio and Texas in which 28% of Clinton voters said they would not vote for Obama in November. The comparable percentage for his voters was smaller.
You also say, "Independent voters may be more reluctant to back Clinton." Keep in mind that independent voters will not be allowed to vote in Pennsylvania (according to the NY Tiems).

Finally, you say, "A Clinton victory there[PA] will intensify a debate among Democrats about whether Obama has a "big state" problem." The question is NOT how big the states are. The issue is that these are the states in which Democrats can be expected to win. If an Obama candidacy costs the Democrats these states, that will cost the Democrats the general election.

I hope that the press will not determine the outcome of this important election. Please carefully scrub your articles of your personal preference in this matter.

Yellow Dog Democrat
Oakland, California

Posted by: YellaDog | March 6, 2008 7:36 PM

One of the analysts on CNN had an interesting analogy. If you were racing the Indy 500 and the leader was at 490 and you were in 2nd place at 475, would you quit?

Posted by: jcmdstep1 | March 6, 2008 7:36 PM

The Writing is on the Wall.
Pennsyvania is more like Ohio than Ohio and it will be ANOTHER big state Clinton will capture.
The big states give the candidate all of her electoral votes..unlike the primaries and caucuses where the delegates are divided.
What's moving voters into Clintons corner at this point and the trend will continue..isn't the harsh attack ads, although they help..reality is setting in when voters look past Obamas appeal they see the "Emperor Has No Clothes."
Obama is just not ready for "prime-time."
Pennsyvania will go to Clinton.

Posted by: cookkenusa | March 6, 2008 7:36 PM

Huffington Post suggests that Obama was NOT lying when he intially denied the meeting with the Canadian official. One of his advisors met the Canadian official on invitation without the need for Obama campaign's permission. When he met, he did not say anything about Obama's political posturing on NAFTA. The advisor didn't bother to notify the campaign later, considering the millions of things they are doing at that time. Until it became a contraversy and the advisor confirmed it to Obama, the candidate himself was not aware of it and he denied it. It doesn't change the fact that it was not Obama's campaign but Hillary's aides who said it. Anyway, it was not Obama who passed NAFTA. Why does he need to assure the canadian govt.? It was the Clintons who passed it, then supported it, then trashed it in OH. They should be the one assuring the Canadian govt. through back channels right? It makes perfect sense now.


http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/03/06/738264.aspx

Posted by: jj2000 | March 6, 2008 7:36 PM

If Pennsylvanian are voting for the most experienced candidate, they should take into consideration the following comment I just read: "Between growing up in the White House and in the Governor's Mansion, Chelsea Clinton can claim 28 years of political experience and use any of her father's legislative successes in Arkansas or DC as evidence of her own political strength. So Chelsea could either also run for president or be the VP?" Seriously, when Hillary will agree to cooperate to release her White House records, Pennsylvanian will know that most of Hillary Clinton's experience comes from meeting with lobbyists and that Barack Obama is really the most experienced
candidate with 12 years in the legistlature, 3 years working on the street with people trying to find them jobs, some years teaching constitution, etc.


Posted by: Logan6 | March 6, 2008 7:35 PM

Florida and Michigan should be revoted,DNC and local state parties and the state governments should share the cost. Hower Dean should be fired,he is incompetent, reckless, emotional and opinionated. This whole mess could have been avoided,if DNC were under a different leadership.

Posted by: johnycheng1 | March 6, 2008 7:29 PM

Barak OBAMA has the talent and skill to win Penn.Time is on his side. He has the money. He will get his organization at the grass-root level soon.
He can but just finishing with 50% of delegates from Penn is a STRON victory. Clinton has big lead but if doesnot get 8% win she fall like a thud.
This will happen-old fat lady is already cranky.

Posted by: tariqahmed | March 6, 2008 7:29 PM

I look forward to hearing more and more whining from Obama supporters that the primary season is too long, and she should have quit while Obama is ahead.

In the meantime, will someone set up a 529 for the Florida and Michigan primary? I'd contribute....

Posted by: auntbeth | March 6, 2008 7:21 PM

The Clinton and Obama stalemate case should be resolved by total popular votes, caucus count should also be trace back to records of original head counts.Florida and Michigan definitely should be revoted, funds can be shared by the states, DNC and the local parties.Howard Dean shoulb be fired, he is incompetent, reckless, emotional and lack of vision.This mess could have been avoided.

Posted by: johnycheng1 | March 6, 2008 7:19 PM

The Clinton and Obama stalemate case should be resolved by total popular votes, caucus count should also be trace back to records of original head counts.Florida and Michigan definitely should be revoted, funds can be shared by the states, DNC and the local parties.Howard Dean shoulb be fired, he is incompetent, reckless, emotional and lack of vision.This mess could have been avoided.

Posted by: johnycheng1 | March 6, 2008 7:19 PM

This purely a statistical analysis of numbers. WE already know that the younger college age voter is for HUSSEIN Obama. He does well on college campus because... they are idealistic individuals... I remember all those in the late 60's and early 70's that protested Vietnam.

In many cases today... the college student is not there to DODGE the draft but is there and motivated by HOW MUCH THEY CAN MAKE AFTER they leave college.

Key element is that Hussein Obama's black base will be disappointed if he does not BECOME President... It will then be a BIG RACE issue... not an issue of experience,qualifications and truthfulness.

I wounder how many back room DEALS he has made to get the support that he has. What has he threatened or promised all those BIG BUSINESS FOLKS AND THOSE HIGH POWERED POLITICIANS. They did not offer their support out of the kindness of their hearts.

Beware the Ides of March.

And is Barack HUSSEIN Obama... like Brutus//

Posted by: miller51550 | March 6, 2008 7:19 PM

I wish that Barack Obama would start trying to win me over now. I keep getting mailings from him asking for donations, but not making suggestions which might build my confidence in him. I have been following him and enjoying him for years,(he is my neighbor in Chicago) but he seems to slip up and away, and I don't know what he wants to do, or how he will do it.
For one thing, I wish he would discuss how he would make use of the other half of the Democratic party after he was in office. How would he seek our support?
Obama might well feel this is unfair, why not bug Clinton about how she would use the other half of the party? It is because she has a public record of working with people that he doesn't have yet.
Perhaps he will find it possible to practice on us, building our trust and confidence. Clinton doesn't need to do it for me, because I already am willing to rely on her.

Posted by: bvro | March 6, 2008 7:19 PM

Dick Nixon would be proud. Clinton's dirty tricks puts his to shame. They've taken deceit and trickery to a whole new level. That's what I want in my President!

Posted by: gbooksdc | March 6, 2008 7:19 PM

More Despicable Rovian Politics from the Clinton Camp: Clinton aide compares Obama to Ken Starr. And it is Harold Wolfson, her top spokesperson, who said that on March 6.

But, of course, that was to mask vintage Clintonian Hypocrisy.

Read on: Wolfson also responded to the substance of Obama's complaint, that Clinton hasn't released her recent tax returns, and to the reminder today that Clinton (via Wolfson) attacked her 2000 Senate rival, Rick Lazio, for failing to release his tax returns.

Posted by: kevinschmidt | March 6, 2008 7:10 PM


Did Clinton Win Ohio on a Lie?


if you believe Ian Brodie, Clinton's campaign in fact did approach the Canadians with precisely the kind of covert disavowal of her own public stands for which she attacked Obama.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-loeb/did-clinton-win-ohio-on-a_b_90254.html

Posted by: Conrad1 | March 6, 2008 7:08 PM

Illiterates and geriatrics will decide 2008. They crown the ruling dynasties, send your kids to war, drug them into adult life.

Posted by: ratl | March 6, 2008 7:08 PM

chersplace:

The article is pretty much clear. What is there not to understand? Brodie mentioned about Hillary campaign but some nut case Tom changed it into Obama campaign. Who cares if Hillary denies it now?

By the way, Obama never had any contacts with Canadian govt. Clinton passed NAFTA and it was him who had connections to the Canadian govt.


http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/03/06/738264.aspx

Posted by: jj2000 | March 6, 2008 7:08 PM


Did Clinton Win Ohio on a Lie?


As Matt Wallace writes in the Daily Kos, "this scandal was manufactured out of whole cloth. Goolsbee said something consistent with Obama's official position -- that he wanted protections added, but it wasn't going to be a fundamental change or revocation of NAFTA, and that Obama was not a protectionist. This was morphed somewhat going into the memo, and now the embassy admits they "may have misrepresented the Obama advisor." Even after the memo misrepresented Obama, the Harper government took it a step further and then leaked a completely fantastic version of the story to the press, in order to maximize the bloodletting."

Posted by: Conrad1 | March 6, 2008 7:03 PM

When people said Obama would win SC because it has a lot of black voters and that is his demographic, it was RACIST. Why isn't this article similarly racist? It talks about Clinton's white base.

Posted by: darrren12000 | March 6, 2008 7:02 PM

Please, it's called politics for a reason, if this shows us all anything... it's that Hillary's extremly TOUGH...AND...WHEN HER BACKS UP AGAINST THE WALL...SHE WILL NOT GIVE UP... OR... FOLD UNDER PRESSURE...two great qualities we...(This...Mr. Obama, is the kind of experience that Mrs. Clinton's talking about...in case you wanted to know) ..the American People need...in a Commander In Chief. All Obama's done since losing these three states is complain, cry, and accuse everyone from Hillary's, "negativity" campaigning (it's called campaigning for a reason, Barack) to The Media (Yes, that does include you too, CNN, your guy Obama...turned on you, too...all while you guys were gwetting ready to coronate Obama as King, President and Imperial Emperor too, I assume) as to WHY he lost and then the minute things didn't go his way...guess what...HE FOLDED. Since then, he's talked about going negative against Hillary (He does know that he's running against a Clinton, right...isn't this all par for the course...I mean, what does he think he's going to dredge up that could embarrass her, now?) and complain and cry and point his finger at everyone...but...HIMSELF...never once showing the kind of respect and humility for an opponent by just shutting up, smiling good naturedly, graciously and start campaigning again and just plain sucking it all up...losses and all...much like Hillary Clinton did while she was losing to him. Never once did you see her complain about anything when she was losing, except when in the most televised debate she was on and only when over 85% of the first questions went at her, (just so that Obama could "parrot" something back on everything that she just said, right after her) and it was increasingly obvious that the debate was made for "Emperor, Obama" to grandstand his Issues and Agenda to the American People. Problem is, Barack Obama had no real issues to talk about during his "Sermons" whoops, I mean, "Speeches"...and he has no "Real Agenda" on how to fix this great nation of ours...the "American People" weren't and "aren't" about to just "buy it" just based on the use of generic everyday words...like, "hope" and "change" any longer. Hillary has continously referenced, "actual programs" (like her "Houses for Hope" program) she's got "ready to go" all during her speeches and during debates, while Obama just sat down there...every time, ready to "parrot" again or just change the topic towards what the other candidates were doing at the time, whenever he's pressed on what his actual "Agenda's" are, so that we...the American People...couldn't actually see that he didn't have any. In closing, Hillary has shown to us...the American People...that she's "Gritty Tough" and gracious when dealing and battling against her most formidable rivals' yet, she also's shown us,that she won't fold under presure or cave in like Obama has, apparently, when the going gets TOUGH...Hillary Clinton, "JUST GET'S TOUGHER". These are qualities that even if you don't like it...you still...have to respect it, when you see it in another person...this' something that other nations and people from across our noble globe would see and also respect. PEOPLE OF WYOMING, MISSISSIPPI AND PENNSYLVANIA...VOTE IN HILLARY CLINTON AS OUR NEXT PRESIDENT! THANK YOU!!

Posted by: familyautos | March 6, 2008 7:01 PM

Nope, Pennsyvania is not like Ohio. Namely, there will not be a Kelly Pavlik standing next to Hillary in Pennsylvania. Kelly Pavlik is a God in Ohio. And that is why Hillary won by the margin she did. Other than that she ends up like she did in Wisconsin.
As Far as the 3am phone BS, Hillary would be too busy to answer because she would be on the other line trying to find out where Bill is? Commander-in Chief???????

Posted by: MikeQ2 | March 6, 2008 6:56 PM

jj2000

did you read past the first sentence.
The article disputes that Clinton had anything to do with it.

Obama denied there was even a meeting. It turned out there was and that there was proof of the meeting in the form of a memo.
Then Obama said that was the information he had at the time.
Here is the full article..

From NBC's Domenico Montanaro
Per the Toronto Globe and Mail, in a story that was the lead on the paper's front page today, that call to the Canadian embassy was actually from the Clinton campaign, not Obama's:

"Mr. [Ian] Brodie, [PM Harper's chief of staff], during the media lockup for the Feb. 26 budget, stopped to chat with several journalists, and was surrounded by a group from CTV. The conversation turned to the pledges to renegotiate the North American free-trade agreement made by the two Democratic contenders, Mr. Obama and New York Senator Hillary Clinton.

"Mr. Brodie, apparently seeking to play down the potential impact on Canada, told the reporters the threat was not serious, and that someone from Ms. Clinton's campaign had even contacted Canadian diplomats to tell them not to worry because the NAFTA threats were mostly political posturing. The Canadian Press cited an unnamed source last night as saying that several people overheard the remark.

"The news agency quoted that source as saying that Mr. Brodie said that someone from Ms. Clinton's campaign called and was 'telling the embassy to take it with a grain of salt.'

"The story was followed by CTV's Washington bureau chief, Tom Clark, who reported that the Obama campaign, not the Clinton's, had reassured Canadian diplomats.

"Mr. Clark cited unnamed Canadian sources in his initial report. There was no explanation last night for why Mr. Brodie was said to have referred to the Clinton campaign but the news report was about the Obama campaign."

*** UPDATE *** The Clinton campaign responds: "Unlike the Obama campaign, we can and do flatly deny this report and urge the Canadian government to reveal the name of anyone they think they heard from. The Obama campaign has given a variety of misleading answers to the press and the public about its top economic adviser's contacts with the Canadian government and should come clean about why they did so," writes campaign spokespman Phil Singer.

Posted by: chersplace | March 6, 2008 6:51 PM

amurphy,

Sure, I'll comment. Clinton not only lost but lost badly in a swath of seven heartland states that includes Minnesota (67-33 in a caucus but with record turnout, roughly quadrupling the 2004 level), Wisconsin (58-41 in a primary), Illinois (OK, so it's Obama's home state, but it was a primary and it was a 65-33 blowout), and Iowa (decisively, Clinton finishing 3rd). Obama also won the Missouri primary narrowly, and took caucuses in Kansas and Nebraska by wide margins.

What's more significant than the breadth and depth of Obama's victories in this mix of primaries and caucuses is the depth and breadth of Clinton's weakness---she lost decisively, virtually everywhere, and in every demographic group, except in Missouri which was close. These states matter. Collectively their 79 electoral votes count for a whole lot more than Ohio's 20 or Florida's 27.

Now let's break this down a little further. Illinois (21 electoral votes) looks safely Democratic, and likely either Clinton or Obama would carry it despite Hillary's dreadful showing there on Super Tuesday---just as Barack would likely carry New York, California, New Jersey, and Massachusetts (indeed he generally did better in those states than Hillary did in Illinois). But Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, and Missouri (total 38 electoral votes) are genuine swing states. Wisconsin (10) and Minnesota (10) tilt ever so slightly blue but the Republicans are holding their convention in St. Paul because they think they have a real shot here, and McCain is seriously considering making Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty his VP running mate, so these states can't be taken for granted. Iowa (7) is a real nailbiter, going either way by a few thousand votes in the last several presidential races. Missouri (11) is also a toss-up in the general election, but then Hillary did almost as well there as Barack. Kansas (6) and Nebraska (5) have been pretty solidly red in recent years but Kansas' popular Democratic Governor Kathleen Sibelius insists it will be in play in November if "native grandson" Barack Obama is heading the ticket, and leading Democrats in Nebraska say the same thing there; definitely not so if it's Hillary. Believe them or not, but an Obama candidacy would energize Democrats in those states and at least make the Republicans put some resources in.

The point is, the Democrats have rested their hopes in the last two election cycles entirely on carrying Ohio and Florida, adding them to Democratic base states like NY, NJ, MA, CT, RI, PA, MD, MI, IL, CA, OR, WA. But that's left no margin for error, and if both of those states don't come through, they lose. Twice now, they didn't come through and the Democrats lost. (Well, Al Gore probably did win Florida, but you get the point). That appears to be where Hillary's headed again, arguing that if she can win in NY, NJ, MA, CA, OH, PA, etc., that proves she can win the general election. But in the process she's shown serious weakness in a crucial midsection battleground region that could prove decisive in November. Even giving her Illinois, I don't think she can win in November without winning 3 out of 4 among Minnesota, Wisconsin, Iowa, and Missouri (total 38 electoral votes, more than either Florida or Ohio), and so far she hasn't come close to showing she can do that.

What's more, her campaign has created a lot of ill will in these (and other) states with their constant put-downs and dismissals of "small states" and caucuses as places that "don't matter"---what someone has dubbed Clinton's "insult 40 states" strategy. So even if she does manage to wrest the nomination from Obama, she's potentially facing an awfully constrained electoral map with precious little margin for error come the fall. Like Gore and Kerry, she'll find that Ohio and Florida are must-wins for her. And that's an awfully chancy strategy, given their underlying demographics and their actual voting history in recent elections.

Bottom line, Clinton's win in Ohio was significant, no doubt about it-- though she only got 54% there, so while decisive it wasn't exactly a blowout. But that, New Mexico (5 electoral votes), Nevada (5), and New Hampshire (5) are her only real wins in genuine November battleground states, and she won all of those quite narrowly, suggesting Obama wouldn't be out of the picture in any of them. (Note that in the exit polls 67% of Ohio voters said they'd be satisfied with Obama at the top of the ticket compared to 69% for Hillary, suggesting the result there wasn't an anti-Obama vote at all but rather a slight preference among two attractive candidates). On the other hand, in addition to Minnesota (10), Wisconsin (10), Iowa (7), and Missouri (11), Obama has also won Colorado (9), Delaware (3), Maine (4), and Virginia (13), all of which could be key battlegrounds if Obama is the nominee--though in some cases not, if Clinton is the nominee. In sum, when it comes to who's doing better in the key general election battleground states, it's Obama, no contest.

Posted by: bradk1 | March 6, 2008 6:48 PM

How much money have Saudi sheikhs paid to the Clinton library?

Is it ethical to receive such funding from a nation that contributed 11 terrorists to 9/11?

Why hasn't the entire funding report of it been released?

Can any person with any conscience/ethics, continue with a serial adulterer spouse?

Why didn't she separate after that public round of humiliation with Lewinsky? Was it because she wanted to use Bill as a pawn towards her own ambitions?

I would argue that, so far except for that report on NY Times, John McCain has actually been able to maintain a much cleaner image; the one thing Hillary can't beat is honesty. People like me will vote for McCain, simply because of that, if she is nominated.

Posted by: titindgp | March 6, 2008 6:48 PM

The Pew center released a study last week which shows that Obama loses more of Hillary's supporters if he wins, than vice versa. Why: women, poor, and elderly whites jump to McCain.

Posted by: darrren12000 | March 6, 2008 6:46 PM

People can argue about whether Obama supporters are a cult, but nobody can argue that they display cult-like behavior.

The real Obama is nothing more than a "super salesman" who's snake oil products are vacuous promises of "hope" and "change" ...

Posted by: svreader | March 6, 2008 04:04 PM
__________________________________________________

Here's what Baghdad Bob, the Proven LiarTM, said about Hillary _in just one day_:

Comment on: NOW Again Attacks Obama's Illinois Voting Record on Abortion Bills at 2/5/2008 2:46 PM EST
(also Forum Post: SomeThingsGetBetterWithAge!!! at 2/5/2008 2:03 PM EST)

...Vote for Hillary Clinton!!!!

Come with me if you want to live...

[comment: hold that thought ...]

Comment on: Two Races, One Big Day at 2/5/2008 2:07 PM EST
Hillary is very popular here in Silicon Valley.

...Hillary is a highly respected Senator who was first lady and chief advisor to the most sucessful president in recent history.

Hillary is loved, admired, and respected by people on both sides of the isle up on the Hill.

[comment: out of touch with reality and 47% negatives]

Comment on: NOW Again Attacks Obama's Illinois Voting Record on Abortion Bills at 2/5/2008 1:52 PM EST
In that case, people should vote for Hillary. She's clearly shown herself to be the best in the Debates, in her policy proposals, especially for health care, and for her work in the Senate.

If you vote on Merit, you vote for Hillary.

If you're not voting on Merit, you should be, and you should be voting for Hillary!!!

[comment: and how would a junior high school girl with a crush express this any differently?]

Comment on: Two Races, One Big Day at 2/5/2008 1:33 PM EST
...Today we have a shot at running Hillary because she's so totally off-the-chart brilliant, she's done a great job as Senator from NY, we know her because she was first lady so she has name recognition, and she had and has the backing of the most popular living Democratic ex-president.

The planets don't line up like that very often.

[comment: "off the chart" brilliant? A woman who couldn't pass her bar? A woman who supported Goldwater at a time when Dr. King is getting pelted with bricks near her home?]

Comment on: Obama Campaign Is Finding That Camelot Still Has a Magical Touch at 2/5/2008 3:40 AM EST
...Vote for Hillary Clinton!!!

The life you save may be your own!!!

[comment: so, either vote for Hill or die, huh? Gee, I really don't want to be another in the long line of bodies associated with the Clinton mafia, so I guess I better take this seriously]

Comment on: Two Races, One Big Day at 2/5/2008 2:29 AM EST
...Hillary is one of the most impressive people of our time.

She's brilliant and does her homework more than any other candidate.

[comment: "does her homework more than any other candidate"? Do the words "I didn't read the NIE before I voted on the Iraq War" ring a bell?]

Comment on: Two Races, One Big Day at 2/5/2008 2:05 AM EST
Hilary08 --

I love Hillary, too, and it feels good to say it. She's a great Senator and will be a great President. She's our only path to joining the rest of the "first world" in providing universal health care to our citizens.

[comment: now it comes out. You "love" Hillary. Gets your panties all wet, does she? I know what you want joined, and it isn't the "first world".]

I'll leave it to others to divine who is the subject of cult-like behavior.

Posted by: gbooksdc | March 6, 2008 6:45 PM

The voters have spoken and it is now time for Hussein to withdraw and end his divisive campaign. It has been fun watching the antics of his frat-boy and girls-gone-wild supporters, but it is now time to take the presidential contest seriously.

That means to focus on the fact that Tony's Rezko's partner-in-crime cannot win the presidency by winning in states like Vermont, Iowa, Idaho and North Dakota. To win the presidency, it will take winning the Hillary states of California, Ohio, New York, Michigan, Texas and Florida.

The Hope-Change, Change-Hope, Hope-able Change and Change-able Hope BS and assorted plagiarisms of Hussein (along with his theft of most of John Edwards' ideas) has been a delightful distraction from reality. Now the responsible and mature Democrats must get serious and work to elect a capable president.

Posted by: ImpeachNOW | March 6, 2008 6:45 PM

MSNBC headline news:

Clinton campaign behind NAFTA-gate, not Obama's.

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/03/06/738264.aspx

Posted by: jj2000 | March 6, 2008 6:43 PM

The demographics in Ohio and Pennsylvania have this in common - they are constituted by old, uneducated white people. This is the group that keeps the Democratic Party in the past. It's not just a matter of them being racist, which some are, it is also a matter of them being cynical and jaded about the political potential of our nation. They vote for Hillary because her candidacy is for people who think that America is a big special interests pot where all of us are fighting to get advantage over one another. That's why Latinos won't vote for a man of color. They suppose that a Black president would be 'one up' on them. This is the Clinton School of Politics 101. Keep people divided, micro-promise everybody and cheat to win.

Old uneducated white people gave Ohio to Hillary and they will probably give her Pennsylvania. It is this group that has no vision for a political climate of unity in America. They see America in Black and White while the rest of us experience in HD color.

Posted by: unteal | March 6, 2008 6:42 PM

Posted by: tchanta | March 6, 2008 6:40 PM

simon.buckland

Thank you for the link:

I don't think that Hillary is being disloyal to the democratic party. She is not saying she agrees with John McCain only that he has a lifetime of experience.
He does. We don't have to like anything about the man but you can't deny the mans experience.

I am also glad the link included her speech when she made her vote. I was hoping someone would post that. I think it shows that it was not an easy decision for her and that she was making a decision based on the information she had available.

Excellent Link:

Posted by: chersplace | March 6, 2008 6:40 PM

Some of the highlights of the Clinton's foreign policy and its achievements.
1. American service members naked dead bodies being dragged through the streets of Mogadishu after team Clinton denied them the equipment & support they needed to accomplish their mission.
Soon after the remaining forces were withdrawn in what has become known as our first lost battle in the war against al-Qaeda and Islamic extremism.
2. Rwanda is anything but genocide.
What may be the supreme example of the worthlessness of human life when forced to compete in the semantic driven world of team Clinton.
3. We respect international law.
That is except when we bomb the embassy of a nation with the veto power at the United Nations Security Council.
4. That long term deployments of American armed forces to places like Haiti are in our strategic national interests.
5. Spending time before Monica on the Israeli Palestinian peace process was a waste of time.
6. Reducing the military by 40% and calling it a peace dividend was in the strategic national interests of America.
7. Changing the role of the Guard & Reserve from a strategic reserve to an operational reserve because it is more cost effective.
The results of # 6 & 7 are out there or the entire world to see.
8. That the best way to fight Islamic Extremism was to ignore it.
Hence the reason two of our embassies were bombed in Africa post Somalia and Islamic extremism was able to rage unchecked throughout the 1990's. A few cruise missiles excepted.
9. The unabashed belief that failure to support "W"'s war in Iraq would leave you open to charges that you were soft on national security and nobody is gonna call Hillary soft on anything.
Hence the reason so many in America lay the deaths and maiming of thousands of Americans and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi's right at the Clinton's feet.
If they had courage and conviction of belief they would have stood on principal and damn the torpedoes.
Unfortunately for America's service members and their loved ones the Clinton's could not be bothered with trivialities like reading the intelligence reports or taking a principled stand that would stand up to the test of time.
This is the Clinton's foreign policy in a nut shell.
It does not stand up to the test of time.

Posted by: paul94611 | March 6, 2008 6:38 PM

I worked polls and caucuses in Deep East Texas. For both the Clinton vote was boosted by Limbaugh ordering his "Limbaugh Lemmings" to vote and sign in at the Caucuses for Clinton. Some of them literally held their nose to do it. Sign-in at one caucus we watched was illegally held open for an hour so the REPUBLICAN PRECINCT JUDGE could sign in as a Clinton delegate. Others were illegally delayed for carloads of late arriving "Clinton Republicans".

Posted by: hillkemp | March 6, 2008 6:37 PM

svreader,
The wanna be tv Hillary apologist in WaPo land.

Posted by: paul94611 | March 6, 2008 6:35 PM

I accept your apology, regreen.

Posted by: JakeD | March 6, 2008 6:34 PM

The Clinton supporters who are generating a smear campaign against Obama should be absolutely ashamed of yourselves. After everything the Clintons went through during Bill's presidential term, to resort to these underhanded tactics is appalling. Obama is the first candidate in my voting life (I'm 30) who I'm actually excited to vote for. He is inspiring thousands of new democrats to head to the polls. To make a mockery of this inspiration (it's a cult), to imply that he's a Muslim because of his name, to pin him to an associate in a land deal (you say whitewater was unsubstantiated...you know this drill!!), to minimize his victories, to claim FL and MI should count even against party rules, to blame the media...I could go on. It's truly reprehensible. You want to focus on the issues, his experience, his ability to lead...that's fair game. All of the rest, I guess I just expect better. I'm not going to claim I'll vote for McCain. I'm not going to say I'll give more money to Obama's campaign. I will say that the politics as usual has left me totally disenfranchised as usual. Is that the goal? To continue the red state, blue state, 50-50 divide?

Posted by: jeremy | March 6, 2008 6:33 PM

What many folks do not realize is that there are still KKK marches in places like Pottsville PA each year.
Obama will be lucky to make it out of PA 70-30 or 65-35.
Do not believe the polls.
Most residents of Pennsylvania will never vote for a Negro to the office of dog catcher state wide as they have never voted for one state wide. Ever.
They will never vote for one for president.
Bank on it.

Posted by: paul94611 | March 6, 2008 6:33 PM

ac11

You are posting only parts of the article.

The bottom line is this. A memo about a meeting of Obama's representative with the Canadian Consulate was leaked to the press.

Obama denied a meeting ever took place.

Then the memo came to light and it looked like he lied.. If you would read the entire Memo it does appear that he was saying that the talk about NAFTA was campaign rhetoric.

here is a link to the memo:

http://www.slate.com/id/2185753/entry/2185754/

Posted by: chersplace | March 6, 2008 6:32 PM

GAME OVER. Hillary Clinton can win big in the big states that are the must wins for the Dems in November. Obama is unelectable.

In Ohio, Obama won only 5 out of 88 counties. Those 5 Ohio counties account for the majority of the black vote, the only group of voters Obama won. If you can't win Ohio, you can't win the Presidency. It's that simple. It's over.

It's time for Obama to exit the race before he divides the Dem party and hurts our chances for victory in November.

Hillary needs to choose a white male with strong national security credentials to make her team unbeatable.

**VOTE SMART! VOTE HILLARY!**

Posted by: TAH1 | March 6, 2008 6:32 PM

How can any Democrat still support Hillary when she's so flagrantly and viciously disloyal to the party. Look at this compilation if you haven't seen it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-BDqbPs27As

Who needs the Republicans when you're attacked in this way by your own side?

Posted by: simon.buckland | March 6, 2008 6:31 PM

Oh look, it's svreader, the proven liar! Hi Baghdad Bob, do you think ANYBODY believes ANYTHING you post now that I have outed you as a liar? "Total BS", to use your words? No wonder you support Clinton, she lies a lot too.

If anyone wants details, just post and I'll reprint the excruciating string, complete with cites.

Posted by: gbooksdc | March 6, 2008 6:30 PM

the "big state argument" is inherently flawed. check out Super Tuesday II: Electric Boogaloo at the Church of the Apocayptic Kiwi.

Posted by: bcbeckley | March 6, 2008 6:30 PM

Believe it or not, most Americans don't like Hillary.

Posted by: storyofthefifthpeach | March 6, 2008 06:18 PM
---------------------------------------------
Two thirds of democrats said they didn't want Hillary to get out of the race.

Doesn't sound like 2/3 of the democrats hate Hillary after all. In fact, both Clintons enjoy a 70% approval rating among democrats.

And, a note for the super delegates - Hillary is winning more than 52% of the Democrat votes, in all states except Illinois and New Mexico.

So - superdelegates should all vote for Hillary except Illinois and New Mexico.

For everyone else - Obama fails dysmally as far as "judgement," he received campaign contributions from Rezko, but Auchi, as well, who was Saddam Hussein's co-partner in a conspiracy to kill the then Iraqi president in 1959.

The darkness and murkiness of the Auchi/Rezko/Obama relationship gets deeper and deeper as each day goes by.

And, one thing that really shows terrible bonehead judgement on Obama's part is when he allowed the "kingmaker" of Illinois State Senate to take bills that were going to be offered by other legislators, and who had worked long and hard on those bills, that Jones, the "Kingmaker" to put Obama's name on the bills as if they were his - Why? To enhance Obama's political resume.

Those lawmakers do not feel conciliatory or any sense of unity with Obama to this day.

Don't ask me to quote references - go to Google and read about Auchi, and Rezko/Obama yourself.

In other words, get your head out of the sand or snowbank, whichever applies, and seriously read what is going on. gw.

Posted by: Iowatreasures | March 6, 2008 6:30 PM

chersplace--

In places where they know how to hold Caucuses (Texas is not included in this), it is non-confrontational, and people have a chance to voice their opinions. Also, it stops people from voting who are just doing it to try and put sugar in the gas tank of the Democratic party. Because in Texas a lot of Republicans voted for Hillary not because they wanted her to be president, but because Rush Limbaugh said a "bloodied" Obama would be easier for McCain to deal with.

Posted by: storyofthefifthpeach | March 6, 2008 6:28 PM

For those who care about the truth on the Rezko thing: listen to the Rezko trial segment on NPR on today's All things considered. That should clear any doubts in the minds of sane, positive, reasonable people about Sen. Obama.

But then, reason is definitely not the strong point of Sen. Clinton's supporters. Here are a few questions:

1. How can she expect get anything done with her much touted Health Care plan this time around, when she accomplished zilch when her husband was in office?

2. How can anyone expect her to reasonably fight drug companies to get us a better deal, when she is accepting millions from Special Interests representing the same pharmaceuticals?

3. What exact foreign policy experience does she have, other than the little eyewash of something in China? BTW, she was not actively involved in the Irish thing, as much as they love to claim.

4. How can one expect her to fight for the blue-collar workers, when she represented the worst of their oppressors - Walmart and sat on their board?

5. What other, if any at all experience does she have in running anything, other than a campaign, that went broke by her mismanagement; a campaign that claims victory after winning 3 out of fourteen contests?

6. The fact she lost grounds from 20+ points lead to settle for 4 & 10 in OH and TX, basically says that let alone win - she can't even hold on to a 20 pt lead. How can she beat McCain if that is the trend - the moment any serious challenge comes up she loses ground?

7. Why did she start hobnobbing with Newt Gingrich, during her first years as a Senator - leader of the VAST RIGHT WING CONSPIRACY?

8. Why was she lying blatantly in national TV on her record on NAFTA? Her husband signed it - and she repeatedly supported the trade agreement?

9. What has Tony Rezko got to do with her and her husband, that he merits a giggling photo with her and the ex president? Has he donated directly or indirectly to her campaign as well?

10. Why was she quiet on the Clinton pardons? What was her role in the Edgar and Vonna Jo Gregory pardons? Why did her brother, Tony Rodham, lobby for two convicted felons?

11. Has she returned the $170k she took as a loan from the Gregorys? So far, information available shows she hasn't. This can be construed as a quid pro quo - bribery at best.

12. The pardon of Marc Rich (convicted tax evader, and an active participant in the Iraqi oild for food scheme scandal)- his wife made substantial donations to the Clinton library and her senate campaign. Isn't that quid pro quo?

13. What is her affiliation with Scooter Libby? So much that Libby instructed Marc Rich to lobby Hillary Clinton for a pardon?

That is for starters

Posted by: titindgp | March 6, 2008 6:26 PM

owatreasures---

Have you been smoking rubber-bands again? Provide a link!

Obama won Idaho with 82 percent of the vote! How did Hillary get over 50% of the Democrats then???

Stop lying please.

Posted by: storyofthefifthpeach | March 6, 2008 6:25 PM

storyofthefifthpeach

Why do you say that Caucuses are a good way to vote? I'd like to know your reasons.

Don't you think people should have the right to cast their vote in private.

What about the confrontational aspect of it?
And it appeared that their is no organization or oversight to the process.

Posted by: chersplace | March 6, 2008 6:24 PM

From: Deadline USA
http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/usa/2008/03/clintons_role_in_naftagate.html

Clinton's role in Nafta-gate

It was Clinton's camp that downplayed its own trade bashing, reports the Canadian media

March 6, 2008 12:30 PM

A storm of reports in the Canadian media say that the Nafta-gate flap last week involving Barack Obama was started by a key aide to Canada's prime minister - who told journalists that Hillary Clinton's campaign - not Obama's - had contacted the Canadian government to play down its Nafta-bashing.

The Canadian Press wire service - the equivalent to AP - reports that Ian Brodie, chief of staff to Stephen Harper, was talking to journalists last week: "Brodie was asked about remarks aimed by the Democratic candidates at Ohio's anti-Nafta voters that carried economic implications for Canada." It quotes a witness who reported Brodie's remarks:

"He said someone from (Hillary) Clinton's campaign is telling the embassy to take it with a grain of salt ... That someone called us and told us not to worry."

Here's today's splash in the Globe and Mail, which begins: "The leak of a confidential diplomatic discussion that rocked the US presidential campaign began with an offhand remark to journalists from the Prime Minister's chief of staff, Ian Brodie." It goes on:

Mr Brodie ... stopped to chat with several journalists, and was surrounded by a group from CTV.... The conversation turned to the pledges to renegotiate the North American free-trade agreement made by the two Democratic contenders, Mr Obama and New York Senator Hillary Clinton.


Mr Brodie, apparently seeking to play down the potential impact on Canada, told the reporters the threat was not serious, and that someone from Ms Clinton's campaign had even contacted Canadian diplomats to tell them not to worry because the Nafta threats were mostly political posturing.

Also a Must Read:

Did Clinton win Ohio on a Lie?
by Paul Loeb

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-loeb/did-clinton-win-ohio-on-a_b_90254.html


Posted by: ac11 | March 6, 2008 6:24 PM

To chunkylimey: Two thirds of democrats said they didn't want Hillary to get out of the race.

Doesn't sound like 2/3 of the democrats don't hate Hillary after all. In fact, both Clintons enjoy a 70% approval rating among democrats.

And, a note for the super delegates - Hillary is winning more than 52% of the Democrat votes, in all states except Illinois and New Mexico.

So - superdelegates should all vote for Hillary except Illinois and New Mexico. gw.

Posted by: Iowatreasures | March 6, 2008 6:22 PM

I have been reading Iowatreasure and svreader posts for months now. Always the same. Hinting darkly at Obama misdeeds. Lots of smoke, no fire. It is pretty pathetic if the only way you can make Hillary look good is if you can drag Obama down to her level. Good luck with that.

Posted by: JoeBewildered | March 6, 2008 6:18 PM

Iowatreasures---

You are the shady character. Show me a link to a legitmate newspaper that says Obama has done anything illegal or nefarious in the caucuses? You can't because there isn't one.

You seem to get some kind of kicks off of slinging slime.

In Iowa Clinton came in third. Third. THIRD!

She lost. Completely lost. By a huge margin. She lost because people did not want to vote for her, it is that simple.

Believe it or not, most Americans don't like Hillary.

Posted by: storyofthefifthpeach | March 6, 2008 6:18 PM

As an Obama supporter I'm concerned about his seeming reluctance to get "down and dirty" with Hillary. She has no compunctions about fighing dirty and that has definitely helped her in the most recent big state contests. When a candidate goes negative, it places the other one on the defensive. And she's definitely benefitted from doing that, without a strong response from Obama. I do think she is vulnerable about several things, including her husband's record as president. She includes her eight years in the White House as support for her claim of the "experience" to take charge on "Day 1." If she demands credit for that experience, then why not for the pardons Bill Clinton signed just before leaving office? He pardoned some notorious criminals merely because they had been big contributors. I think Hillary should be forced to answer for these. Furthermore, Hillary played it cute when she had to produce White Water documents after Starr had been appointed special prosecutor. Just as she's refused to release current tax returns, she insisted she couldn't find White Water documents until they just happened to appear one day somewhere in the White House. If Obama had these smoking guns in his closet I'm sure she'd exploit them immediately and often. He should be doing to same to her.

Posted by: marquest | March 6, 2008 6:17 PM

The best thing Obama could do with respect to the Rezko issue is to hold a press conference and rather than walk out in a huff after 6 questions, because he doesn't like the questions, act like John McCain a few weeks ago and answer every single question the press can throw at him and then ask if there are any more to answer. If Obama doesn't address the issue openly with the press, then its just another reason why he doesn't have the experience or judgement to be President... and another reason to filter all his words of change, yada, yada...

Posted by: mo897 | March 6, 2008 6:17 PM

"slightly less educated electorate plays to Clinton's favor"

I like that. Means that the dumb ones are voting for Clinton.

Posted by: postacattiva | March 6, 2008 6:15 PM

Obama seems to be way ahead of Clinton in the Pennsylvania polls. As Ohio goes, so apparently does NOT go Pennsylvania. Neither did Texas, come to think of it.

Posted by: dunnhaupt | March 6, 2008 6:15 PM

>it's the secret Muslim agent thing that bothers me ; )
**********************
Oh I'm sorry for bringing up your post, I realize you're an idiot now and no more needs to be said. Sorry, please continue with your rants. I'm sure the alcohol peddler needs your help, it's just hard to believe this country would elect someone that sales and pushes alcohol on our kids. http://www.cbsnews.com/sections/i_video/main500251.shtml?id=1217547n?source=search_video

Posted by: regreen | March 6, 2008 6:14 PM

The truth is that caucuses are a very good way to vote. There are less likely to be the spoilers there who just want to cause truouble: i.e. those Republicans in Texas and Ohio who voted for Clinton because Rush Limbaugh said that it would be a good idea to do this so Obama would be "bloodied". I saw one on the news just this morning.

Posted by: storyofthefifthpeach | March 6, 2008 05:57 PM
------------------------------------------
I was in Iowa during the caucus there. Obama used every way to "fix" that election. He brought in paid foot soldiers who actually filled out a simple paper the night of the caucus, entered the caucus, illegally, I might add, and actually voted and influenced others.

Obama is a shady character with shady/murky friends - Rezko and Auchi.

Obama will never be the President of the United States of America, fortunately. gw.

Posted by: Iowatreasures | March 6, 2008 6:12 PM

peloton.11---

Didn't you read my post? It was Clinton who had communications with the Canadian government and was doing the Wink Wink, not Obama.

Posted by: storyofthefifthpeach | March 6, 2008 6:09 PM

Does anyone have an opinion on the Caucus process. I had never really paid any attention to it since I live in Pa.
Now that I have seen it though I cannot understand why any state would have it.
It seems like a very confrontational way to do it. I myself would probably feel very intimidated.
It seems like a system that would only be favorable to the young who like pep rally's and those who enjoy confrontation.
I thought all votes were done in private. I really don't understand why any state would have a caucus.

Posted by: chersplace | March 6, 2008 6:08 PM

If Hillary won Ohio, it was in some part because of her claims about Obama and NAFTA, ethics, and her security experience . . .
------------------------------------------
I say, Obama would be lucky to get a security clearance to visit the White House.

At the very least, Obama did not use good "judgement" when hanging around Rezko and Auchi. Auchi was Saddam Hussein's sidekick, trying to assassinate the then Iraqi president in 1959.

Obama can't win. If you vote for Obama now, you are voting so we won't have a nominee at all. See below:
-------------------------------------------
Thursday, March 6, 2008
Follow the Money: Batchelor: Rezko Connections: More Reasons Obama Should Worry

In the third installment of what promises to be a long series, John Batchelor's Rezko Connections:

More Reasons Obama Should Worry published March 6, 2008, by Human Events poses some troubling questions for 2008 presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.)

Today, as the prosecution and defense offer their opening statements in the fraud trial of Obama's patron, indicted political fixer Antoin "Tony" Rezko, Obama's worries are piling up.
-------------------------------------------
Go Google - Auchi Also Rezko/Obama.

I am getting new Google Alerts about all of this all day long. tw.

Posted by: Iowatreasures | March 6, 2008 6:06 PM

These are just a few of my favorite things:

The Canadian government is interfering in our political process? That alone should cause outrage from our media and government, although none seen. There is a reason the memo was leaked by the Canadian government four days before the primary. They want Clinton to run against McCain. Read the full story on CBCNews.ca. The Canadian government has "apologized" and the prime minister calls the leak "blatantly unfair to Obama". Too late for Obama. There is no doubt this story impacted the voting in Ohio and Texas. Now there are questions that it might have been the Clinton team who first talked to Canada. Canadian Brodie saying "people from her camp also told Canadians to take her NAFTA concerns with a grain of salt." The PM of Canada has just announced it will probe the entire NAFTA leak.

Tax returns: taxes aren't due until April 15th and with an extension the Clintons have until Sep 15th to file. They no doubt have some of the best tax attorneys working to block anything that could even suggest improper or questionable alliances, contributions, etc. I expect it will be squeaky clean.

Rezko: You can be sure there are hundreds of reporters investigating every possible angle looking for something--anything. The Chicago media has searched for years. The fact is that no one has found anything to support Clinton's questioning of illegal or shady dealings between Obama and Rezko.

Whitewater, cattle futures...What else is in Clinton's history? If it isn't "vetted" by Obama you can be sure the Republicans will have a field day with the Clintons if she is the nominee. Hillary is in a fantastic position now. Obama can't go negative because he is trying to distance himself from the ugliness of politics, and Clinton has made it clear that she is now off limits to any negative media coverage.

Strong Republican voting in both the Ohio and Texas primaries. I read estimates that 8% of the democratic vote in Texas was Republicans voting for Clinton, and 10% in Ohio voted as a Democrat. The Republicans want to run against Clinton, not Obama. Keith Olberman show noted that Bill Clinton was on Rush Limbaugh on Monday appealing to Republicans to vote for Hillary. Clinton on Rush???? Wow!

A warning to Obama: "Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned."


Posted by: peloton.11 | March 6, 2008 6:04 PM

Hillary scolds, mocks, condescends, cries, drops the "g" off her ings when talking to stupid people, slings mud, sows fear and doubt. Except for the crying part, she is doing a really good imitation of the most despised man on the planet. Is this what the Democratic Party really aspires to?

Posted by: JoeBewildered | March 6, 2008 6:04 PM

storyofthefifthpeach:

I thought Wisconsin had a PRIMARY on February 19?

amurphy:

Barack HUSSEIN Obama won the Illinois, South Carolina, Georgia, Virginia, Alabama, Wisconsin, Missouri, Louisiana, D.C., Maryland, Delaware, Vermont, Connecticut, and Utah PRIMARIES too . . .

Posted by: JakeD | March 6, 2008 6:03 PM

Clinton Nafta-gate
Hypocrisy

From NBC's Domenico Montanaro
Per the Toronto Globe and Mail, in a story that was the lead on the paper's front page today, that call to the Canadian embassy was actually from the Clinton campaign, not Obama's:

"Mr. [Ian] Brodie, [PM Harper's chief of staff], during the media lockup for the Feb. 26 budget, stopped to chat with several journalists, and was surrounded by a group from CTV. The conversation turned to the pledges to renegotiate the North American free-trade agreement made by the two Democratic contenders, Mr. Obama and New York Senator Hillary Clinton.

"Mr. Brodie, apparently seeking to play down the potential impact on Canada, told the reporters the threat was not serious, and that someone from Ms. Clinton's campaign had even contacted Canadian diplomats to tell them not to worry because the NAFTA threats were mostly political posturing. The Canadian Press cited an unnamed source last night as saying that several people overheard the remark.

"The news agency quoted that source as saying that Mr. Brodie said that someone from Ms. Clinton's campaign called and was 'telling the embassy to take it with a grain of salt.'

"The story was followed by CTV's Washington bureau chief, Tom Clark, who reported that the Obama campaign, not the Clinton's, had reassured Canadian diplomats.

"Mr. Clark cited unnamed Canadian sources in his initial report. There was no explanation last night for why Mr. Brodie was said to have referred to the Clinton campaign but the news report was about the Obama campaign."

Posted by: storyofthefifthpeach | March 6, 2008 6:03 PM

$55 Million in February raised by Obama. This isn't getting any coverage, because the MSM doesn't cover news, but instead gossip. Just thought people might like to know.

Go Barack!

Posted by: GoHuskies2004 | March 6, 2008 6:03 PM

Multiple1---

Dude, you need to learn some basic grammatical skills. Also, you can turn of the ALL CAPS. It might give your posts seem just a little less ignorant.

Posted by: storyofthefifthpeach | March 6, 2008 5:59 PM

REPUBLICANS WERE ABLE TO VOTE IN THIS RACE IN TEXAS- THAT'S WHY THEY VOTED FOR CLINTON; THEIR GUY HAS A BETTER CHANCE OF BEATING HER THAN HE DOES WITH OBAMA...CLINTON VOTED TO INVADE IRAQ...SHE IS A REPUBLICAN IN DEMCRATIC CLOTHING!!!

Posted by: pathina | March 6, 2008 5:58 PM

amurphy---

Wisconsin was not a caucus and neither was Kansas. In both Clinton won by much larger margins than she won by in Ohio.

You seem to be interpreting things based more on the way you want to see them, as your ideas don't have much basis in reality.

The truth is that caucuses are a very good way to vote. There are less likely to be the spoilers there who just want to cause truouble: i.e. those Republicans in Texas and Ohio who voted for Clinton because Rush Limbaugh said that it would be a good idea to do this so Obama would be "bloodied". I saw one on the news just this morning.

Posted by: storyofthefifthpeach | March 6, 2008 5:57 PM

storyofthefifthpeach

YOUR WORSHIP FOR HIM DON'T LET YOU SEE THE REALITY OF HIS NASTY ACTIONS.

Posted by: Multiple1 | March 6, 2008 5:56 PM

Prediction: If Obama is the Dem nominee, McCain will win PA in the general election.

As previous posters have stated, including the governor, it is a backwards place. Lynn Swann, a hero in western PA could not win the black vote.

Posted by: Larsen770 | March 6, 2008 5:55 PM

Am I really the only one who sees what happened in Ohio? The republicans voted in the democratic primary in record numbers, according to all of the county election boards. Is it any surprise then that Hillary won? At least the republicans know who the only candidate is that can unite the fractured pieces of their Bush coalition. They would dread seeing an Obama vs McCain contest in the general election. And still this obvious strategy is above all the "talking heads".

Posted by: jkeys | March 6, 2008 5:55 PM

Pensylvania is the land of blue collar and Hillary Clinton has nothing to do with them. She has not worked with them on the street to find them jobs as Barack Obama did! She is loaning her own campaign millions of dollars (much more than a regular blue collar will make in his life time) coming from lobbyists she is working for (and who do not have the interest of working people in mind) while Barack Obama's campaign is fully financed by small donors, regular people. Barack Obama is the man of the people, while Hillary Clinton is part of a dynasty and who would not be in this race without the name of her husband and the support from the establishment and lobbyists. In a fair world, Pensylvannia should be an uphill battle for Hillary Clinton.

Posted by: Logan6 | March 6, 2008 5:53 PM

B. HUSSEIN OBAMA DECLARING FALSE INFORMATION

HE IS DECLARING FALSE VOTERS TO WIN THE TEXAS CAUCUS.

HE IS THREATENING TO ATACK MS. CLINTON.

IS THIS SOME ONE TO TRUST?

Posted by: Multiple1 | March 6, 2008 5:53 PM

Multiple1---

So, I guess they take off the straight-jacket sometimes and let you use the internet. That's cool.

Posted by: storyofthefifthpeach | March 6, 2008 5:52 PM

Sorry but I just cannot shake the feeling that the Obamabots are increasingly behaving like crazed moonies.

Plus I dont get why the Obama supporters claim that he has traction in the mid-western states. He may have won most of the states in that region but they were caucus states which are hardly an indication of depth of support (typically less than 10% of the eligible voters take part and given the process involved it very much suites his candidacy).

Primaries are without doubt a much better test of support and Clinton won both constests in that region hands down.

Anyone care to comment?

Posted by: amurphy | March 6, 2008 5:51 PM

So the great news for Clinton supporters is that she can keep winning the way she has all along - by tapping that rich vein of Bush base demographic: easily manipulated, poorly educated white voters who are wary of that darkened man in the Afghanistan hearings TV ad, and easily scared by the terrorists under their beds.

Go Bush!! I mean Hillary! I mean Bushillary! Willie Horton was great! Karl Rove? National hero, I guess. You go girl. Mislead us into every war the neocon AIPAC lobby wants. All so we can feel better about having had a woman president. (Cause of course, there are no great women on the horizon so Hillary is the only chance, ever. She's the only woman who will EVER run for president. So overlook all of her ugly divisiveness, just look away and it won't exist.)

Posted by: B2O2 | March 6, 2008 5:51 PM

For those who tout Obama's Washington inexperience as a deciding factor I offer this digression. I believe our federal government is dying of cancer. Obama is like an experimental treatment that shows great promise but is untested. Do we wait four or eight more years and hope the patient doesn't die before the potential cure is fully tested?

Hillary is not part of the solution, she is part of the problem. The music (policies) may change but the dance is the same. The tipping point is NOW. Four years of focus-group driven governance (Hillary) or staying the disastrous course (McCain), and the malignancies that affect our country will continue to go untreated and the patient will die.

Posted by: JoeBewildered | March 6, 2008 5:51 PM

Look this interesting exit Polls in Ohio:
Catholics overwhelming voted HRC over BO by 65-35 percentage margin.
Under $$ 50,000 earner, whites and Latinos voted for HRC-what they have in common, religion!! Why this discrepancy compare to other denominations!, is Catholic Church pushing the envelope here!.

Posted by: aed08 | March 6, 2008 5:51 PM

At this point, a knock-out punch is not possible for either candidate, yet I would still rather be in Obama's shoes. He just needs to get to the convention with more pledged delegates and more actual votes - something that the math suggests is very likely. He will then find himself with the stronger argument for being the nominee since having more votes in a political contest is definitely a stonger position to be in. HRC's argument that the superdelegates could and should override Obama's voter-derived advantage is a more convoluted argument. It is certainly possible for the superdelegates to swing the nomination to HRC, but can you imagine how a large portion of the party will react if the black candidate with more actual votes and delegates loses out to the white candidate who has less votes? Forget all the arguments about who won the bigger states or what superdelegates should consider when deciding whom to support. None of that matters. If you want to win the Democratic nomination in 2008, you had better get the most votes because that's the only tangible thing that can justify your nomination.

Disaster is looming for the Democratic party and the best way to avoid it is for party elders and the superdelegates to declare ahead of time that they will support whomever arrives at the convention with the most pledged delegates. That way the superdelegates will be able to put that candidate over the top and it will retain the credibility of a fair and honest election.

Posted by: skrut003 | March 6, 2008 5:50 PM

WAKE UP

B. HUSSEIN OBAMA IS NOT TO BE TRUESTED. he IS A LIER.

If you vote for him you will regret like a lot of Illinois residents. Give us their comments. If there would be a way to take their vote back they would do it with no doubts.

B. Hussein Obama's record dictates that he has CHANGED his rhetoric and his mind. He speaks whatever way he thinks the audience wants.

B. Hussein Obama is not qualified for the office of president. He is as qualified for president as a medical school senior would be for brain surgery (NOT).

He is a liar.
HE IS NOT SOMEONE TO TRUST.
HE LIES, HE TWISTES EVERITHING,
HE IS RADICAL.
HE IS AN INSTIGATOR.
TREACHEROUS
DISHONEST

1. HE MAILED FALSE FLIERS INFORMATION ABOUT MS. CLINTON.
2. NOW HE IS DECLARING FALSE VOTERS TO WIN THE TEXAS CAUCUS.
3. HE IS THREATENING TO ATACK MS. CLINTON.

IS THIS SOME ONE TO TRUST?

LOOK AT HIS ATTITUD WHEN HE SPOKE THE NIGHT OF MAR. 4TH. AFTEER HE LOSE OHIO. THAT LOOK ON HIS EYES WAS SHOWING A LOT OF HATE.
HE WAS THROWING FIRE HIS LOOK EXUDES HATE.

Posted by: Multiple1 | March 6, 2008 5:50 PM

YesweCan1,

You are boring ... nobody reads more than 3 paragraphs per post!

Posted by: trace-sc | March 6, 2008 02:25 PM
--------------------------------------------
Trace - the intelligent ones do. You continue watching the 3 a.m. ads

The man is right. Long winded post a usually overlooked because it is boring and it should not take that long to get your point across. I remember a commanding general once told his Internal Review staff to fit it all on one page.

Posted by: truth1 | March 6, 2008 5:50 PM

regreen:

That's why his VP choice is so important this time around -- also, I am not afraid our next leader will be an American -- it's the secret Muslim agent thing that bothers me ; )

P.S. I haven't even posted here that much today -- you will probably end up posting on this thread more than I have.

Posted by: JakeD | March 6, 2008 5:49 PM

He is a liar.
HE IS NOT SOMEONE TO TRUST.
HE LIES, HE TWISTES EVERITHING,
HE IS RADICAL.
HE IS AN INSTIGATOR.
TREACHEROUS
DISHONEST

1. HE MAILED FALSE FLIERS INFORMATION ABOUT MS. CLINTON.
2. NOW HE IS DECLARING FALSE VOTERS TO WIN THE TEXAS CAUCUS.
3. HE IS THREATENING TO ATACK MS. CLINTON.

IS THIS SOME ONE TO TRUST?

LOOK AT HIS ATTITUD WHEN HE SPOKE THE NIGHT OF MAR. 4TH. AFTEER HE LOSE OHIO. THAT LOOK ON HIS EYES WAS SHOWING A LOT OF HATE.
HE WAS THROWING FIRE HIS LOOK EXUDES HATE.

Posted by: Multiple1 | March 6, 2008 5:47 PM


ameys1 wrote,

It is about time Clinton withdraws from the contest. The Monica Lewisky scandal, and the impeachment trial of Bill Clinton were factors which did cost the democrats the 2000 election. Who wants a rehash of that?

I totally agree with you. The Party must act quickly and decisively on this and put pressures on Hill and Bill to withdraw.

Posted by: Conrad1 | March 6, 2008 5:47 PM

McCain will not last through one debate with Obama, McCain is in his 70's and can't hold more than one thought at a time...

Posted by: regreen | March 6, 2008 5:45 PM

Barack needs to address, with specifics, Clinton's biggest stregnth amogst the constituency that he isn't reaching.

1) The economy, most of the lesser educated folks voting for Hillary believes that she can bring back those magical economic days of the Clinton administration without really knowing what contributed to those conditions.

2) The Health Care Plan, most of the older folks believe that they will get free health care under Hillary.

Can she really deliver on these issues?

I believe that Barack is the democrat's best chance at the white house. Those red states will never vote for Hillary.

Don't be fooled by what you saw in Texas (where I now live), there was a concerted effort by the Replubicans to vote for Hillary in the primaries because they know she could not win the state in the general election. Wait until you see the results of the caucuses, where mostly only democrats participated... they will be decidedly Obama.

Posted by: truthbeknown | March 6, 2008 5:42 PM

To the person who said that the Republicans put Hillary ahead, you should get your facts straight.

Hillary is winning quite convincingly among Democrats. Obama is winning among Republicans and Independents who cross over to vote in the Democratic primaries. Of course, many of those Republicans and Independents who are voting for him now will be voting for McCain come November.

Posted by: chi-town | March 6, 2008 5:39 PM

With regard to African-American voters, it is a true shame that Bill of all people alienated this key segment. However, if Barack is not nominated, I would say there is now chance of large numbers defecting to McCain. Most probably, they would sit it out.
Also, I have heard a lot of support for Hillary from older black people, especially females. The concerns are similar to other people of age :)namely his limited experience.

Posted by: ingbermr | March 6, 2008 5:37 PM

YesweCan1,

You are boring ... nobody reads more than 3 paragraphs per post!

Posted by: trace-sc | March 6, 2008 02:25 PM
--------------------------------------------
Trace - the intelligent ones do. You continue watching the 3 a.m. ads

Posted by: middlerd1 | March 6, 2008 5:37 PM

Obama cannot afford being meek. He has to hit HRC on the sleeze in White House. He must make Bill an issue. Imagin ad with man on street.."I do not want Bill Clinton in White House as I remember him taking advantage of a 18 year intern." etc etc

Posted by: sthorat | March 6, 2008 5:37 PM

During the run up to the Texas primary I recall Hillary and the Alcohol Peddler McCain stating that Obama did not have enough experience and was not qualified to be President, a few days later she said he would be a good running mate for vice president. If Obama isn't qualified to be President then how is he qualified to be vice President? That's because she says whatever to fit the occasion. It's a known fact the Republicans know it would be easier defeating Hillary than Obama, just look at the rant on this thread people like JakeD spending their day condemning Obama. Yes Jake D be afraid be very afraid our next leader will be an American and not someone born in Panama

Posted by: regreen | March 6, 2008 5:36 PM

Obama does not need to win PA. A strong second place finished will do. It seems that HRC only wants to be President of the United (Big) States of America. BHO wants to be President of the United States of America. All 50 of them.

Someone once said, "The advantage isn't lack of experience, its lack of Baggage."

Posted by: moreece | March 6, 2008 5:36 PM

They are both great candidates for the democratic party. Obama has the young people behind him and Hillary has older people and working class, however, Hillary is much better suited to be the next President because she showed that she can come to the top at the time of crisis and that is key to show that you deserve to be a commander in chief. Obama talks only numbers in comparison to Hillary who talks politics. So let Hillary be the President for the next 8 years and there after Obama for another 8 years that would be the best thing to happen to the democratic party. And Obama will gain the experience, have long political records and nobody can claim that against him.

Posted by: sfrasheri | March 6, 2008 5:35 PM

The Texas caucus results will not be available until the end of the month. Reports say the Obama is in the lead but the results are not over. Besides after losing the primary and leading in the caucus does not mean much. Come November, we do not have caucuses -- we have elections similar to the primary. If you cannot win an election in the primary that says a lot about you. In the caucus, you have surrogates speaking for you but in the primary election, you vote your true conscience and that is how the president gets elected in the general election. Obama's track record is winning caucuses and he does very poorly in primaries.

Posted by: gunducosmo | March 6, 2008 5:32 PM

Hey dyinglikeflies, what would happen if Obama held all the democratic states from 2004 but won Virginia and Colorado, two states he smoked the Democratic field in this spring?

He could lose Ohio and Pennsylvania and all the other Red States.

Posted by: steveboyington | March 6, 2008 5:31 PM

PS.....In Texas there was a full page ad about Senator Obama every day up to the election. He was endorsed and promoted heavily by every major newspaper in the state. Of course, the Daily Texan saw through everything and endorsed Senator Clinton!!!HOOK 'EM HILLARY!!!!

Posted by: cbl0213 | March 6, 2008 5:30 PM

If I were an Obama supporter, I sure wouldn't want to support the Clintons in the general election if she steals the nomination.

Posted by: JakeD | March 6, 2008 5:29 PM

The news agency quoted that source as saying that Mr. Brodie said that someone from Ms. Clinton's campaign called and was "telling the embassy to take it with a grain of salt."
The story was followed by CTV's Washington bureau chief, Tom Clark, who reported that the Obama campaign, not the Clinton's, had reassured Canadian diplomats.

AND

Bill's trip to Kazakhstan with Canadian magnate, Frank Giustra, that netted Giustra $3 billion and Bill's foundation a $131 million contribution from Giustra?

The same old Washington corruption = the Clintons.

The Party should tell Hill to get out. The media is too inept.


Posted by: Conrad1 | March 6, 2008 5:29 PM

Obama had the momentum, Texas and Ohio were up for grabs, and yet he lost them both. Obama lacks a knockout blow. Neither he nor Hillary can win on pledged delegates. They are both entitled to use whatever arguments at their disposal to persuade the Superdelegates to back them. There is nothing in the rule book that says the Supers have to back Obama, even if he is the delegate leader. With a re-do in Michigan and Florida, this is looking like Hillary's race to win. Obama is floundering.

Posted by: dhayjones | March 6, 2008 5:23 PM

Breaking News

Its being reported that as a result of Hillary having regained some momentum Howard Dean (DNC Chairman) is promoting the idea of a Michigan and Florida revote.

This has got Bill Clinton written all over it.

Posted by: Maddogg | March 6, 2008 5:21 PM

to jnosike,

IMHO, yawn.........

Posted by: carmenhughes | March 6, 2008 5:21 PM

smartchick:

Ehud BARACK sure is treating his PLO-brethren poorly, and biding his time for some unknown reason, if he really is a secret Muslim agent ; )

Posted by: JakeD | March 6, 2008 5:21 PM

Let's see...

1. he's a different kind of politician but still dissembles when it comes to Rezko and the Iraqi billionaire

2. he is a great orator but his words aren't his own

3. he can't win a big state (except his home state) to save his life (but he is great at winning those little 3 electoral vote states)

4. he's lost 3 states in a row

yet people want HER to get out? I don't get it.

If we were using the electoral college system we will have in November, she'd be up 263 to 199 right now.

People forget that NEITHER of them can clinch it without the superdelegates.

Posted by: chi-town | March 6, 2008 5:20 PM

The Office of the president of the United States is a very important office to be treated lightly. Obama has not shown that he has the command of the policies that will affect the United States. He always uses the teleprompter to read his speeches and yet seems to repeat the same lines over and over again. It is getting old and stale.

Posted by: gunducosmo | March 6, 2008 5:18 PM

THOSE WHO LIVE IN GLASS HOUSES SHOULD NEVER THROW STONES?

IT'S FUNNY THAT THE CLINTONS WOULD BRING UP TONY REZKO? DOES ANYONE REMEMBER PARDON-GATE? ON THEIR LAST DAY IN THE WHITE HOUSE THEY SHAMELESSLY PARDONED THEIR CROOKED FRIENDS INCLUDING THE HUSBAND OF HILLARY'S FRIEND AND FUNDRAISER WHO RAN OVERSEAS TO AVOID PAYING FOR A CRIME HE COMMITTED HERE IN THE UNITED STATES.

Posted by: jnosike | March 6, 2008 5:18 PM

The nomination will come down to Pennsylvania, Florida and Michigan. The latter two will hold primaries in June. The writing is already on the wall. Clinton will win them all.

Posted by: JSnapper | March 6, 2008 5:17 PM

#########

Can you say: President John McCain?


#########

Thanks, Hillary.

#########


Posted by: imright | March 6, 2008 5:17 PM

With respect to Rezko, Senator Obama's name already surfaced in the first day of the trial. The next few weeks will be interesting to see how many more times Obama's name comes up and in what context. I also understand that one of the major Chicago newspapers today published a phone number for Obama to call to address all of the questions that he previously refused to answer. With respect to the old issues from Bill Clinton's years in the white house, the government spent many millions of dollars trying to find something against the Clintons via Ken Starr and ended up completely empty handed. If Senator Obama is truly for change and has nothing to hide, then he will start answering the questions now before the rest of us have to pay the price.

Posted by: mo897 | March 6, 2008 5:16 PM

Dan Balz's analysis is accurate. It is hard for Obama to win in PA, if not impossible. But if he starts attacking Clinton like republicans suggested, he will loose his aura of a positive candidate. That will help Clinton. What he need is more town hall meetings, like what he did before Tuesday, answer more questions person to person. This is the only way to make people to trust him. It worked for Clinton, should work for him. By the end of the day, this will help himself and the party's chance in Nov.

Posted by: sgr_astar | March 6, 2008 5:15 PM

mnteng:

Thanks for the concern -- I didn't get anyone to care whether Obama is lying about being a Christian, and he is secretly a radical Muslim agent trying to take over the Presidency during our war against his tiny fraction of radical Muslim co-horts -- so I'm going to go read up on Sen. Feinstein for now ; )

Posted by: JakeD | March 6, 2008 5:14 PM

re:

I HAVE SEEN SOME COMMENTS ON OBAMA'S MIDDLE NAME HUSSAIN, WHICH OFCOURSE IS AN ARABIC AND ISLAMIC NAME BUT I HAVE NOT SEEN ANYONE COMMENT ON HIS FIRST NAME BARRACK WHICH I BELIEVE IS ALSO ARABIC AND ISLAMIC. IT DERIVES FROM MUBARAK LIKE THE EGYPTIAN PRESIDENT HOSNI MUBARAK. BARACK 'S MEANING IS SIMILAR TO MUBARACK WHICH MEANS BLESSING. SO HIS NAME IS ISLAMIC BECAUSE HIS DAD'S FAITH WAS ISLAM BUT HE FOLLOWED HIS MOTHERS RELIGION WHICH IS CHRISTIAN. SO WHAT IS THE PROBLEM, WHY IS HE ASHAMED OF HIS NAMES ARABIC ROOTS?

Posted by: tahirn | March 6, 2008 02:32 PM

thanks for the all caps, it implies real urgency to your message. fyi: ehud barack, israel's defense minister, must also be a radical muslim according to your calculations. maybe someone should inform the israeli public. SHOCKING!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: smartchick1 | March 6, 2008 5:14 PM

Dear scrappyc20001,
The difference here is that Obama's key contributor is before a court of law today for his indictment. That is why this is not an inconsequential "thing of the past."

I may be a Clinton supporter but I'm an independent and will gladly cross over to cast a vote for the experienced McCain over the unknown sophmore senator.

On-the-job-training does not cut it for me when you are talking about the most important job in the country and world. I think the American people deserve someone who doesn't need training wheels to stay on the bike.

Until we meet again, we can continue the Part II of Rezko, Nafta, Vince Foster, etc.

Posted by: carmenhughes | March 6, 2008 5:13 PM

After outspending Senator Clinton at least 2 to 1, I would say she did pretty well considering all the "preparation" from the Obama campaign to have "staffers" on the ground and ready to help in this deeply republican state!! Even republicans were voting heavily for him. All the "big dogs" came in for Senator Obama. Hillary still rocked! What seemed telling was the picture of Senator Obama trying to head off reporters in San Antonio after answering a few questions the day before the vote. In his face there was anxiety and frankly, he looked shocked and this was just before the election. I want my commander in chief to maintain their composure at all times. You can loose your temper, you can share tears....but you can never look scared!

Posted by: cbl0213 | March 6, 2008 5:11 PM

I'm looking forward to polls taken after Obama panicked and ran from the stage when he got asked a tough question about Rezko.

That's the real Obama.

Posted by: svreader | March 6, 2008 5:10 PM

svreader,

I will and I will let you know what I find...which will be what everyone else has found...very little if nothing. Have a great night! You and Carmen..

NO WE CANT -- Hillary 08

Yes We Can OBAMA-08!!!!

Posted by: scrappyc20001 | March 6, 2008 5:10 PM


What a mess.

Hillary had the nomination locked up and Obama had to come along and screw everything up and now no one can win.

Posted by: chasemonster | March 6, 2008 5:09 PM

So Clintons' base is uneducated idiots, the over 65 almost dead, and using her political power and greed to get lawmakers and superdelegates to go her favor in the event she loses the popular vote and delegate count. Wow.

Posted by: vflex | March 6, 2008 5:09 PM

I just heard on NPR that Obama actually won the Texas Caucus. Stick it up your a$$ Hillary!

Posted by: adrienne_najjar | March 6, 2008 5:09 PM

Obama was whittling away Hillary's lead in Texas and Ohio right up to election day. She only stopped the bleeding with the desperate kitchen sink strategy. The kitchen sink can only be thrown once. Obama may not overtake her in Pennsylvania but he will make it close enough to neutralize her. Meanwhile, he will continue to mop the floor with her in every state that she has chosen to ignore. His lead will widen.

Posted by: JoeBewildered | March 6, 2008 04:58 PM

GREAT COMMENT!

OBAMA 08

Posted by: moreece | March 6, 2008 5:07 PM

Scrappy --

Please Google before you accuse someone.

Google "Rezko Contracts" and you'll find all the info and evidence anyone could want.

Obama and Rezko were "best buddies" and like "two peas in a pod"

As far as cocaine use goes, how do we know he stopped at 15?

Your "tin god" has got "feet of clay"

He's just another Chicago politician.

Posted by: svreader | March 6, 2008 5:07 PM

I think for Dems to start squabbling amongst themselves is distructive. This is a fair fight with both camps well financed.
We should all support the winner unless you want to give the Repubs four more years.
Looming in the wings is the 501(c)(4)'s.
Everyone needs to get a grip.

Posted by: JillCalifornia | March 6, 2008 5:05 PM

This article is wrong. Barack will win the great state of Pennsylvania. I am pumped. I am going to get out there myself and help get the job done. Let's do this. The going got a little tougher, but I am more convinced than ever that Barack is the person best for our country.

OBAMA!

Posted by: GoHuskies2004 | March 6, 2008 5:05 PM

CarmenHughes,

The Great John McCain...you are Clinton supporter. I will rehash something from the past just as you are attempting to do with Rezko but you cannot see the parallel?? Wow...glad I am still young and not living under the mantra..."NO WE CAN'T"

Posted by: scrappyc20001 | March 6, 2008 5:05 PM

Let's call a spade a spade here. PA, like OH, is filled with white trash and hillbillies who don't like black guys who went to Harvard Law. And with Rendell backing Hillary, the Philadelphia organization will siphon off black votes that might otherwise go to Obama. I always thought Obama would lose here, just like Lynn Swann did, on the order of 60-40.

Obama doesn't have a big state problem (though that's the way it will be spun). He has a bigOT problem.

Most whites are not racist. A substantial portion -- particularly the afore-mentioned trailer trash vote -- are REALLY racist. That's a fact we, as a nation, don't want to face. We like to think that blacks, with hard work and education, can advance, and the fact is, amongst the educated and sophisticated, that's true. But it is as American as apple pie to blame someone else and hate, and among the lower class whites, the subject of that hate and blame are blacks. Same as it has ever been.

PA sent Rick Santorum to two terms as Senator. They love their guns and they hate abortion in the part that's not Philly. This state is in play in November.

Posted by: gbooksdc | March 6, 2008 5:04 PM

Obama's connection with the two Muslims from Syria and Iraq should be a big concern for the voters. Americans suffered big time from terrorism. We need a president who is not beholden to people like this. Obama is not a terrorist but he should have had the wisdom to stay away from these kind of people. He kept attacking Hillary about Iraq. He is showing his preference like all the Obamates who can be and who cannot be helped by Americans. And the Iraqis are not good enough for the deaths of American soldiers there.
And now he is dealing with the same people. Are Americans out of their minds or are they so romanticized with Obama that when their love ones were killed in America, not in Iraq mind you, they see it as ok for someone to deal with people like these? Rezko and that Iraqi have very dubious backgrounds. Obama really lacks wisdom at this early stage of his political life.
You cannot learn along the way in American presidency as most of the Obamates claim. You cannot bend and change along the way. Those are naive words. The American president is like the president of the entire planet. And Obama's inexperience might hasten the Armageddon that we have been for so long trying to avoid. His time will come but definitely not in the near future.

Posted by: bobbyvalenz | March 6, 2008 5:03 PM

I don't think his drug use will be a problem... it will make a lot more people empathize with him and support him for being honest, unlike bill clinton he actually owns up to mistakes.

About rezko, what obama said was he only worked for him for a few hours, if he steered contracts towards him, it doesn't mean he was working for him, wasn't he in the state legislature then? We will have to wait to see how it plays out

Posted by: louiscon | March 6, 2008 5:03 PM

carmenhughes wrote:
"Dear artemis26:
That sounds exactly like what George W. Bush said days before entering the White House. For anyone that is naive enough to buy that one hook, line and sinker, than I have some real estate to sell you in a poor Chicago housing project (owned by Rezko)."

Didn't say I buy it, just explaining the difference between systemic change and the kind of change he has spoken of.

Posted by: artemis26 | March 6, 2008 5:02 PM

Obama is a fine candidate, but many of his supporters bother me. They are over-zealous, seeing this not as a political campaign but as a good-over-evil struggle, with only one rightful conclusion. A lot of these supporters are youngsters and political newbies. If Obama doesn't win the nomination, they'll behave like youngsters: they won't accept defeat, won't campaign for Hillary as the party's nominee, might not even vote in the general election. The fight is still on, Hillary has a good chance of winning it. She is not as far behind as the Obama crowd are claiming. And she's winning big states.

I completely agree. I do think that he is a fine candidate, but I do feel that quite a few of his supporters have been doing a lot of "trash talk" which also bothers me. I wish we could discuss the issues as opposed to saying personal things to one another or about the other candidate. I do believe this has to do with youth (I was young once :)).

Posted by: kkarageorge | March 6, 2008 04:50 PM

HRC supporters are putting out more hate than the BHO supporters. So what's good for the goose is good for the gander.

Posted by: moreece | March 6, 2008 5:02 PM

DearScrappy,
First of all, let's remember this Tony Rezko is a slum-lord. He was indicted for kickbacks and peddling political influence. (Sounds a little like Jack Abrahson without the slum-lording.) Obama not only received plenty of contributions from the slum-lord client but now is doing a "no comment" tactic. Bad move that's my call. But i think his recent losses in the great states of OH & TX prove that.

Your Vince Foster conspiracy is about as believable as the Swift Boat smear campaign. As the great John McCain has stated, let's not re-litigate old crap that frankly is not an issue here and the American people have long forgotten. What is at issue is the credibility of your candidate proposing to be a non-politician, hoping to restore credibility in the white house, blah, blah, blah.

Posted by: carmenhughes | March 6, 2008 5:01 PM

ted3 --

Actually Rush Limbaugh has been telling his listeners to vote for Obama since the first primary.

If he did the opposite in Texas or Ohio, good for him, but he'd be doing it to help defeat McCain.

Posted by: svreader | March 6, 2008 5:01 PM

Cocaine use for Obama at 15 will probably not be an issue as cocaine use for Bush at 40 was not. I keep hearing you tell me about all the contracts Obama steered to Rezko but it is funny that only YOU seem to have this information. Wow nobody in the press noticed? Not even Dan? Man keep this up and he will beat Billary and then Gramps in November.

Posted by: scrappyc20001 | March 6, 2008 5:00 PM

Of course Senator Obama should be concerned about Pennsylvania. FACT: HE WON TWELVE OF THE LAST FIFTEEN CONTESTS. SENATOR CLINTON WON THREE OF THE LAST FIFTEEN CONTESTS. Assuming Senator Obama wins WY & MS and loses PA, his score is 14/18 vs 4/18 for Senator Clinton.

Even though Senator Obama lost in TX, nobody can undermine his impressive close second performance in TX. He did win the TX Caucus. Senator Clinton originally had a 30 to 20 point lead in TX over Senator Obama. The Obama campaign has their work cut out for them in PA, but nothing is impossible in this primary election. Remember the rhetoric? - Senator Clinton, the inevitable nominee and Senator McCain is out of the race? I,m holding my thumbs up for Senator Obama.

Posted by: felicitymason | March 6, 2008 4:59 PM

There is absolutely no way the Superdelegates should endorse Hillary, just because she can win two main demographics, over 50 and undere 50k that does not solidify her argument for nomination. March 4 has shown everyone that she is just as polarizing as ever as well as just plain nasty and underhanded. There is no way all of Obama's supporters will support her, they will either vote for McCain or sit this one out. People have to realize that he has single handed brought in thousands of new voters and Hillary does not have the appeal to keep them.

Posted by: Ravensfan1 | March 6, 2008 4:59 PM

Obama was whittling away Hillary's lead in Texas and Ohio right up to election day. She only stopped the bleeding with the desperate kitchen sink strategy. The kitchen sink can only be thrown once. Obama may not overtake her in Pennsylvania but he will make it close enough to neutralize her. Meanwhile, he will continue to mop the floor with her in every state that she has chosen to ignore. His lead will widen.

Posted by: JoeBewildered | March 6, 2008 4:58 PM

Rezko is important because of the millions of dollars of contracts Obama steered his way.

Rezko is important because Obama LIED about his relationship with Rezko, the recipient of those millions of dollars of contracts.

Rezko has been a key campaign contributor for Obama for many years, yet Obama claimed to not know Rezko, and to only have done a few hours of work for Rezko when he was a law associate.

Rezko is a big deal. Make no mistake about it.

At some point, Obama's repeated abuse of cocaine will become a big deal too.

Obama is "simply unelectable"

Posted by: svreader | March 6, 2008 4:57 PM

Hillary acts like she's a winner even though she can never catch up and is losing super delegates daily.

It reminds me of the 2000 Florida pres. election. The votes hadn't even been all counted yet and GW Bush was strutting around and had his cabinet picked. I remember watching him and his cabinet walk toward the camera in lockstep ready to go to work.

I realized then how you can make the unthinking public fall for it if you just keep acting like you won. Hillary hopes it will work for her.

Posted by: bgormley1 | March 6, 2008 4:56 PM


Unless Hillary wins by 50 points, it doesn't much matter, does it?

Hillary will probably win PA but not by much. Obama has time. He widdled 25+ point sure-thing Clinton victories down to 10 and 3 points in Ohio and Texas.

It's the delegates that matter, stupid, not symbolic popular vote wins that make good headlines but ultimately mean nothing in this numbers game.

Posted by: sequoiaqueneaux | March 6, 2008 4:56 PM

Someone mentioned Republicans in TX voting for Clinton because they thought McCain could beat her. My father, who's a dyed-in-the-wool Republican, voted for Obama because he thought McCain could beat him. Just anecdotal, I know, but I wonder if these cross-overs canceled each other out? Any statistics anyone?

Posted by: fannyfern | March 6, 2008 4:56 PM

I am going back to sports blogs. I expect sports fans to appear less intelligent. I thought political blogging would be different. But, it's just name-calling and false statements. Enjoy!

Posted by: OneFreeMan | March 6, 2008 4:56 PM

You state "and his African American voters may feel cheated if he is not the nominee."
Regardless of race, I think that all of Obama's supporters will feel cheated if he goes into the Convention with more fairly pledged delegates and does not get the nomination. I doubt that Hillary would even have to worry about it if she has the most pledged delegates. Given that likelihood, Obama's supporters would feel cheated, and rightly so.

Posted by: Absolute_0-K | March 6, 2008 4:55 PM

As a Pittsburgh resident, I am going all out to help Senator Obama win in Pennsyslvania. I have never been so fired-up about an election before, but when people like Rush Limbaugh start telling people to vote for Hillary, I know it is time to get off my duff and help the Obama campaign.

Posted by: Ted3 | March 6, 2008 4:55 PM

kkarageorge:
I agree, but I don't think that the crazy supporters are the typical supporters. They are just loud and obnoxious so we notice them.

Obama is however polling better than Mccain in polls (he is polling better than Clinton is against Mccain) so i think he will do better than Clinton in the General

Posted by: louiscon | March 6, 2008 4:55 PM

Obama should ask Hillary to name the foreign affairs that she has handled as first lady on behalf of the United States. He has a right to ask her about White Water and her own dealings with Rezko. He has a right to expose all that she has done on behalf of the American people that equals up to the 35 years of experience that she has been touting for months. Obviously the media is not going to ask or pin her down until she gives a specific answer. I would love to see Hillary's time line of events. As for the article saying that African American voters may feel cheated, I challenge anyone to tell me what the differences would be with McCain as our President, as oppose to Hillary? If Hillary should get the nomination, I don't think she would be surprised or expect African Americans to vote for her. The Clintons made the wounds too deep. They went into unchartered territory and totally destroyed our relationship with them as well as the Democratic party. At least we know where McCain stands with us. That is much more appreciated than all of the deceptions from Bill and Hill.

Posted by: Debmood | March 6, 2008 4:53 PM

Dear CarmenHughes,

Why is Tony Rezko such a problem for you. You act as though Whitewater did not happen, travelgate did not happen, Vince Foster is not dead. Well guess what...it did, it did, and he is. Obama supporter are not pressing her to explain ALL of her shady dealings along with her philandering husband...so what do you want him to say. You HRC supporters have such a double standard. You want to talk integrity...then obviously you do not want Hillary included in that conversation.

Posted by: scrappyc20001 | March 6, 2008 4:51 PM

nkla20:
I don't think you can compare those two presidents most famous quotes to Obama's campaign slogan. Wasn't Kennedy's "Leadership in the 60's" Anyway I don't really see your point. Are you saying that there is a specific situation where he wouldn't be able to act as well as Clinton?
Because if you are i missed it.

Posted by: louiscon | March 6, 2008 4:50 PM

Why are people so against the Clintons being in the Whitehouse again? Fact is, we were MUCH MUCH better off as a country when Bill was in office.

Posted by: Thundershock | March 6, 2008 04:28 PM

Stop living in the past. It will not be the same with HRC in the big chair. She is damaging the party for her own personal gain. HRC supporters are just pawns in this senseless act.

Posted by: moreece | March 6, 2008 4:50 PM

Obama is a fine candidate, but many of his supporters bother me. They are over-zealous, seeing this not as a political campaign but as a good-over-evil struggle, with only one rightful conclusion. A lot of these supporters are youngsters and political newbies. If Obama doesn't win the nomination, they'll behave like youngsters: they won't accept defeat, won't campaign for Hillary as the party's nominee, might not even vote in the general election. The fight is still on, Hillary has a good chance of winning it. She is not as far behind as the Obama crowd are claiming. And she's winning big states.

I completely agree. I do think that he is a fine candidate, but I do feel that quite a few of his supporters have been doing a lot of "trash talk" which also bothers me. I wish we could discuss the issues as opposed to saying personal things to one another or about the other candidate. I do believe this has to do with youth (I was young once :)).

Posted by: kkarageorge | March 6, 2008 4:50 PM

Not to nitpick, but Barack (or Barak) is from Arabic Baraka--to bless. Barak means blessing. Someone help me here, doesn't Mubarrak mean "is blessed?" Anyway, what about Ehud Barak? Does his name mean he's an Arab? Fools. A semitic name does not equate to evil. Although when I ws a kid, I certainly thought Algebra (Al Jibra?) was evil!
Now if I can just not screw up that Kalb/Qalb thing again... ;)

Go Obama!

Posted by: OwainOzymandiasBuck | March 6, 2008 4:49 PM

This is the most incredible Obama video ever. Anyone who supports Obama has to see this so they can share it. Enjoy. It's absolutely great!


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YuB_W8o_UsU


Posted by: Thinker | March 6, 2008 4:47 PM

Dear artemis26:

That sounds exactly like what George W. Bush said days before entering the White House. For anyone that is naive enough to buy that one hook, line and sinker, than I have some real estate to sell you in a poor Chicago housing project (owned by Rezko).

Posted by: carmenhughes | March 6, 2008 4:45 PM

Obama is a fine candidate, but many of his supporters bother me. They are over-zealous, seeing this not as a political campaign but as a good-over-evil struggle, with only one rightful conclusion. A lot of these supporters are youngsters and political newbies. If Obama doesn't win the nomination, they'll behave like youngsters: they won't accept defeat, won't campaign for Hillary as the party's nominee, might not even vote in the general election. The fight is still on, Hillary has a good chance of winning it. She is not as far behind as the Obama crowd are claiming. And she's winning big states.

Posted by: dhayjones | March 6, 2008 4:45 PM

I'd like you all to read and consider the following I call "Just Words" which Obama used in a speech:

The only thing we have to fear is fear itself.
Said by FDR after:
20 years in the NY Senate
7 years as Assistant Sec of the Navy
6 Years as Governor of NY
Nation in the Midst of a great Depression

Ask not what your country can do for you - ask what you can do for your country
Said by JFK after:
Joining the Navy in 1943 and Naval Officeer of the famed PT 109 (We all know that story)
6 years in the US House of Representitives
7 years in the US Senate
1956 almost won VP nod

Yes We can
Said by Barack Obama after:
7 years in Ill. State House
2000 failed bid for seat in the US House of Reps.
3 Years in the US Senate.

Seems like he falls well short of being able to compare himself to those other great quotes.

Posted by: nkla20 | March 6, 2008 4:45 PM

I saw MSNBC's Chris Matthews interview Carl Bernstein, the notable journalist who broke the Watergate scandal and penned a well-research book about Hillary Clinton. He went on the air to underscore that when Bill Clinton pushed NAFTA, Hillary was against it and lobbied the president not to go down this path. Despite her not supporting NAFTA, Bill Clinton, as the President made his own decision. So for the Obama camp who are trying to paint Hillary with the same wink-wink, typical politian trickery that exposed Obama and his lobbyists lying recently about NAFTA to the Canadian government, you'll have to find another avenue.

Posted by: carmenhughes | March 6, 2008 4:42 PM

Posted by: louiscon |
I'll buy your stick of bologna. What a crock?

Posted by: bnw173 | March 6, 2008 4:41 PM

Obama is touting his "judgement". What about that "sweetheart deal" he had with Tony Razco? He said it's a "boneheaded" deal. That's his superior judgment? with a bonehead?

Or, he is just another corrupted Chicago politician?

Posted by: gwshening | March 6, 2008 4:40 PM

eabpmn:
Ok fine i concede he wasn't a public defender. So? The argument you made makes no sense... you did not show where he lied and didn't say that he worked for him more than Obama himself admitted

Posted by: louiscon | March 6, 2008 4:39 PM

carmenhughes wrote:
"If he cannot change racism, how can he in a single term change how the systemic ways Washington works?"

It isn't Obama's responsibility to change racism, just as it isn't Clinton's (H not B) to change sexism (and her track record at even trying isn't so good, is it?). Further, Obama isn't talking about changing the system, he's talking about changing the way things are done: bipartisanship, scandal, arrogance, etc. (i.e., the Bush and Clinton administrations).

Posted by: artemis26 | March 6, 2008 4:38 PM

Dan Balz forgot one other crucial fact about Pennsylvania: only Democrats get to vote in the primary, no Independents or Republicans which have made up the bulk of Obama's base. Oh, and it is a primary not a caucus. Taking all these facts together, Obama indeed has an uphill battle in the Keystone state.

Posted by: Skkye | March 6, 2008 4:37 PM

Seasoned. Experienced. Ready from Day One.

SOCKS for PRESIDENT in 2008!

www.socks08.com

Paid for by Socks for President.

Posted by: nunyo555 | March 6, 2008 4:37 PM

Posted by: Thundershock Why are people so against the Clintons being in the Whitehouse again? Fact is, we were MUCH MUCH better off as a country when Bill was in office.
________________________________________


thunder shock- I guess we're wasting our time trying to get these liberal fool to realize their continuing mistake. Who was the last Liberal president? Why do we continue nominating liberal losers?

Posted by: bnw173 | March 6, 2008 4:35 PM

PA is a huge state with large metro cities, and just about everything else in between.

Here in PA we're excited to have the spotlight in the election. As a registered Dem. in York County - 9th in the state for registered Dems. at 95,000 - we're happy to have the attention so we can give the candidates a piece of our minds.

I think it's anybody's game in PA. Hillary and Barack need to get on the ground and talk to Pennsylvanian's about issues we're concerned about. Who ever can communicate the best with blue-collar classic Democratic issues will win PA as a whole.

PA did go to Kerry in 2004! We thought we'd done it when those idiots in Ohio ruined everything. Let's not put Ohio up on a pedastal!

Posted by: sonicpixie417 | March 6, 2008 4:35 PM

He didn't lie about REZKO that was a load of crap he was a public defender... it was his job... and also he didn't do much work for him...

Posted by: louiscon


(1) He WAS NOT a public defender. He was an associate for a public interest law firm - that is a PRIVATE law firm that does certain areas of the law. Being a 3 year associate means he stayed in the library doing research and 'carried the partner's briefcase.' He most certainly did not do litigation on his own as lead counsel or even 2nd in charge of a case.

(2) He hasn't "lied" about Rezko.

He refuses to answer questions about the relationship and stomped out of the room when reporters kept asking. That is called 'concealing his connections to someone indicted for kickbacks and peddling political influence.'

I know Chicago politics. I want to know how much money Rezko raise for him, gave to him and who was at these affairs. He won't answer. (And that is a LOT more important than boring tax returns.)

And, oh yes, why was he marching with Louis Farrahkan at the repeat of the Million March in 2005? If he disapproves of Farrahkan, then what was he doing in the march up the streets of DC?

(Louis Farrahkan is a dangerous scary racist agitator who goes everywhere with 30 bodyguards and rules the projects on the south side of Chicago - just where Obama was doing 'church sponsored' community organizing, - and is the leader of the Nation of Islam in the US.)

Posted by: eabpmn | March 6, 2008 4:34 PM

svreader
Lets get what Obama said and what happened right.

You said it yourself he claimed "to have only done a few hours of work for him" and what was recently revealed was that Rezko gave money to his campaign. Obama worked in a firm that did work for Rezko but he didn't work with him (except what he said which was that he did do some small thing for him)

Just because Rezko gave him money it doesn't mean Obama worked for him... The other thing is about him dodging questions about Rezko, he obviosly doesn't want to make it even a deal. He wants to eliminate it from the eyes of people so that people don't buy into it. Its not like he got scared and ran off stage wetting his pants... he just didn't answer questions about him thats not lying and he isn't panicking he is actually acting quite smartly

Posted by: louiscon | March 6, 2008 4:32 PM

JakeD --

What's going on with you? You're off your game, getting beaten to the punch by ManUntdFan, misspelling McCain's middle name ... are you OK?

Thanks to you, I think I'm going to vote for Obama just because he has an interesting middle name. What ever happened to the great middle names like:

Richard MILHOUSE Nixon
Franklin DELANO Roosevelt
Warren GAMALIEL Harding
Rutherford BIRCHARD Hayes

and my personal favorite:

Harry S. Truman

Posted by: mnteng | March 6, 2008 4:32 PM

Obama should get Michelle more involved - Pennsylvanians would LOVE to hear how she doesn't respect America, how she thinks the Country is mean-spirited, how anyone not engaged in "social work" (?) is selling out, and how we all have holes in our souls.

Posted by: pgr88 | March 6, 2008 4:31 PM

THIS REPORTER FORGET TO MENTION ONE IMPORANT THING. IN OHIO, REPUBLICANS JUMPED AND VOTED FOR HILLARY TO MAKE HER THEIR OPPONENT IN NOVEMBER (see the link below). Now, in PA, Republicans are not allowed to vote in Democratic primaries.

http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/news/1204709601137420.xml&coll=2


Posted by: jj2000 | March 6, 2008 4:31 PM

I agree with the many posting here that Obama's eloquence has spellbound many. Though he falls short in spelling out his change promise. If he cannot change racism, how can he in a single term change how the systemic ways Washington works? My concern is his focus will be on trying to change Washington when our country needs real solutions not promises to massive problems facing our country domestically and internationally. I think Hilary's message resonates stronger with me: Turn promises into action, words into solutions and hope into reality. I don't vote on hope or race but vote on the ability for the candidate to actually accomplish meaningful solutions that will fix our country. I don't have faith that an unknown, freshman senator who wants to fix Washington can focus on the real problems at hand.

Posted by: carmenhughes | March 6, 2008 4:30 PM

There is one significant item that Mr. Balz did not mention; Pennsylvania has a closed primary system. Independents, or unaffiliated voters are banned.

As I look at both sides, Clinton's strongest argument is that she can win the big states and that she appeals to the center of the country. She is saying that she can hold all the states that Kerry and Gore won, plus she says she can win Ohio and Florida. Hers is also easily understandable to most voters. Most voters don't like to think too hard about the details. They want to know what the candidates will do for them -i.e., pocketbook politics.

However, I think that Obama's argument, although more nuanced, may be more interesting to the superdelegates and party elders who tend to be more focused on the party's future.
He puts some elusive states and interest groups into play for Democrats Kansas, Missouri Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, New Mex., Wis., Ia., as well as independent and youth voters nationally. Look, even in PA, voters merely have to sign up as a Democrat and they can vote. The party adds new voters to their rolls.


Posted by: Anadromous2 | March 6, 2008 4:28 PM

Why are people so against the Clintons being in the Whitehouse again? Fact is, we were MUCH MUCH better off as a country when Bill was in office.

Posted by: Thundershock | March 6, 2008 4:28 PM

Hope and change. Yes. Back to the good, good old nineties. 1992-2000. Weren't they great. Surplus, peace, welfare reform, 26,000,000 new jobs, low poverty, many more police, great economy, cheap gas, global respect, high wages, Etc, etc, etc... Yes, "hope" for those great days and "change" to those great days again. That's the hope and change I want. We know what we get from Hillary. I don't really know about Obama. Pretty words? George Bush? JFK? who knows? I don't want to roll the dice.

Posted by: bnw173 | March 6, 2008 4:26 PM

This is the first serious campaign that Obama has had in his brief career, 7-8 years in the Illinois legislature and 3 years in the U.S. Senate.

Back in 1996 when he was 35, during his first foray into politics, "Obama hired fellow Harvard Law alum and election law expert Thomas Johnson to challenge the nominating petitions of four other candidates, including the popular incumbent, Alice Palmer, a liberal activist who had held the seat for several years, according to an April 2007 Chicago Tribune report.

Obama found enough flaws in the petition sheets -- to appear on the ballot, candidates needed 757 signatures from registered voters living within the district -- to knock off all the other Democratic contenders. He won the seat unopposed."

And during his campaign for the U.S. Senate, during the primary and election, the two major candidates imploded because of revelations revealed in unsealed divorce documents. "Obama spent several weeks facing no opponent as the Illinois Republican Party exhausted a laundry list of replacement candidates that included former Chicago Bears coach Mike Ditka. The GOP ended up recruiting two-time failed presidential hopeful Alan Keyes from Maryland to fill the slot."

[Ref: http://www.houstonpress.com/2008-02-28/news/barack-obama-screamed-at-me/full]

What a joke. Beginning your political career by knocking off all of your opponents on technicalities. And later winning your U.S. Senate seat against an out-of state candidate/jokester, Alan Keyes!

The Republicans and McCain will eat this guy alive. After all, see what they did to the previous two Democratic candidates, Al Gore and John Kerry.


Posted by: David2007 | March 6, 2008 4:25 PM

The whole premise of this article essentially accepts the Clinton camp's spin, that only the states of their choosing matter. Excuse me, but there are also some delegates being handed out in Wyoming and Mississippi -- enough delegates to wipe out the four-delegate bump that Clinton got out of Tuesday. But the media has basically let the Clinton camp convince them to repeat their spin.

More broadly, it's really incredible how the Clintons have convinced the media that legitimate oversight of their behavior is tantamount to the second coming of Ken Starr. I mean, we're not talking crazy conspiracy theories here. It's a matter beyond dispute that Hillary's brothers were paid literally hundreds of thousands of dollars by wealthy individuals pardoned by Bill. And it's a matter of public record that Mark Rich, having been pardoned by Bill, funded over $70,000 in independent advertising for Hillary's first Senate run. The Burkle and Giustra shenanigans are awfully transparent too. And nobody has even pondered how it would affect a Clinton candidacy or presidency if another sex scandal breaks, in spite of his long history of being unable to keep his hands to himself. I mean, sheesh, in the Rezko case, Obama bought his property for *above market value*, and there haven't even been any accusations of wrong-doing against him, yet the media has turned that non-scandal into a major issue; why can't the media turn the same scrutiny on the Clintons?

It's sad to watch the whole media pee down their legs about following these legitimate stories about the Clintons, because nobody wants to be labelled as part of the vast anti-Clinton conspiracy. It's incredible how effective intimidation can be.

Posted by: davestickler | March 6, 2008 4:25 PM

Well, if anyone knows rural, depressed counties like PA it's Hillary.

She's been running from them and her empty promises regarding jobs in Western New York for years.

Remember when Tim Russert asked her about the jobs she promised Buffalo?

She just blamed everybody else for her failure.

Posted by: HoracePManure | March 6, 2008 4:24 PM

Sure Senator Obama is eloquent, handsome, talented, and charming, but I don't think he is qualified to be president. Yet. Maybe in a few years. Frankly, I am very afraid of handing the presidency over to someone because he makes promises that sound good. I'd like to see a basis for believing that he can deliver, and so far, I don't see it. Americans elected Bush because he seemed more personable and charming than Gore, and look at where that got us.

Posted by: emily111 | March 6, 2008 4:24 PM

Obama did not lose Ohio and Texas, since he was never winning there to begin with.

Posted by: dee5 |


Yep and he will blow it in Ohio in Novemeber if nominated.

That is a 'must win' state for the Democratic candidate and he coldn't close the deal in the primary even though he had been publicly running for well over a YEAR!

(Texas has been solid Red for decades general - as have been most of his 'wins'.)

Both candidates are lousy choices. It is now the question of which is the lesser of 2 evils.

Posted by: eabpmn | March 6, 2008 4:23 PM

I think Hillary would look real nice if she wore a blue dress to her next appearance instead of a pants suit. Oh, I forgot, a blue dress and a Clinton name only lead to a "sticky" situation.

Posted by: acindc007 | March 6, 2008 4:23 PM

Even though both candidates were pandering on the NAFTA issue, Obama is the one who is always "holier than thou" to talk about old politics versus his post-partisan politics. The whole NAFTA/Canada thing just showed how much "old politics" Obama himself is really practising. It's like a Bible-thumping preacher saying one thing on the pulpit and practising the exact opposite of what he preached once outside of the Church.

True that Hillary is no saint. But she's been criticized so long as being so sinister that people already have a certain expectation. Obama, on the other hand, has been shrouded in this squeaky clean image that any double talks on this part becomes rather jarring.

Posted by: ryip | March 6, 2008 4:22 PM

Given Bill and Hillary's proximity to the Candian bigwigs, a good look should be taken at how a secret Canadian govt memo leaked out. Assume that bonehead Goolsbie did meet the Canadians.

How much does it take for a former Prez or first lady to dial someone in Canada and get a memo produced, twisting a part of it, to nail home the distortion of Sen. Obama's stand; then making sure that the secret memo somehow leaks out?

If anyone watched the Ohio debate, Hillary was completely cornered and caught lying on her NAFTA record. This could be a good of turning the tables, wouldn't it? Obama should spend some resources finding that out...

Posted by: amitavar | March 6, 2008 4:21 PM

to chunkylimey
you say 1/2 the dem party hate&despise Hillary...not so dude.
If you truly count on who is supporting Barack, alot are republicans (who do hate Hillary) and independants.
Your candidate just doesn't have the dem. base and Hillary does. You will not be happy with the PA results in that only Dems can vote, no republicans, no independants.

Posted by: NanFan56 | March 6, 2008 4:21 PM

Yes, Senator Obama does have an uphill battle. Check out the comments from his Sr. Foreign Policy Advisor when appearing on MSNBC:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TumIz2bajus

Posted by: mo897 | March 6, 2008 4:21 PM

All this talk about her winning TX is more of the same BS we always get from the Clintons - Obama came damn close in the primary, I'd call it a tie, in fact. He did far better than could have realistically been expected.

And the nerve of Ickes to start throwing out the victim card already, before Obama can even throw the next punch, by comparing him to Ken Starr if he should drag any of Hillary's baggage out into the public. Give me a giant, freaking break. Pathetic. Shameful.

Hillary is now bragging about how much money she has raised since she started the ugliest part of her campaign, so let's give Obama the ammo to fight back. We need to make a statement that slimy Clinton tactics will not be taken lightly by we the people. All of us Obama supporters need to start making donations, no matter how small, so he'll have enough ammo to battle the Clinton beast in PA. And keep the reminders of the Clinton slime machine coming.

Posted by: artemis26 | March 6, 2008 4:21 PM

louis --

I guess you haven't heard the news. Obama LIED about Rezko, claiming to have only done a few hours of work for him, but it turns out that Rezko was one of his key sources campaign cash, over the years, and in what looks like a quid-pro-quo Obama steered millions of dollars of government contracts to Rezko.

Obama lied, his chances have died.

Obama panicked and ran off the stage during a press conference when reporters tried to ask him tough questions about Rezko.

Posted by: svreader | March 6, 2008 4:20 PM

vivaldo_latoche:

First of all even though he lost Ohio and Rhode Island (they are saying now he might have one Texas in both votes and delegates) that doesn't mean he cant win a political battle... he is winning the battle for nomination right now. And what attacks is he vulnerable with? Clinton is far more susceptible to attacks because of her time as first lady and the whole Monika Lewinski thing (republicans are not afraid to use those kind of tactics)

Posted by: louiscon | March 6, 2008 4:20 PM

These comments about PA voting for Obama are hilarious. He certainly will have some number of voters supporting him, as in any state, but I am from rural PA, I know rural PA, and that state is not voting for this man. He speaks of populist issues, but that is not going to cut it in PA. These people live in a permenantly depressed economy. They are a mix of Catholics and Protestants, but Methodists and Lutherns, not Baptists and Evangelicals. (Of course there are Baptists and Evangelicals in PA, not in the same numbers however). Many of the older population mentioned earlier educated their children, who now probably live out of state. These people are not rhubs, they are people who likely used to had a comfortable amount of money who hit harder times when the economy went south in PA in the early 90s. And Rendell? He is a still extraordinarily well liked. Want to know the final reason they won't vote for him? Pennsylvanians was not happy about being cut out of the decision-making process. I don't think average joes in PA liked how entitled Obama acted, thinking he could seal the deal without hearing from them, a traditionally important state in elections. We'll see what they do, but I highly doubt it's going in his favor.

Posted by: speaker2007 | March 6, 2008 4:20 PM

Obama will counter that his victories key Midwest states that have been competitive in recent elections -- Missouri, Iowa, Wisconsin and Minnesota -- show that he's best positioned to compete in key swing states

______

If you are going to offer an argument - do not offer a stupid argument. That is Rule Number 1 in practicing law and doing litigation.


Lets see - Wisconsin and Minnesota have gone Dem in the past 4 presidential elections and that makes them solid Blue. Iowa has gone Dem in 3 out of the past 4 elections which makes it odds on Blue. They are NOT representative of the swing states - the ones critical to winning the general.

Arguing that these states show an ability to win in the swing states is false sophistry.

The swing states who have had primaries or caucuses to date are:

Florida (No the delegates do not count BUT they were both on the ballot, there was a large turnout, he'd been all over the news for a year so he can hardly claim that no one knew who he is and he flat lost very badly. You can bet your booties the super-delegates are considering that in electability.)

Ohio - he lost

Georgia -(keep in mind that the Dem primary voters are not demographically representative of all voters in the state. The primary demographics were skewed towards black voters in a higher proportion than in the general population of the state. This raises a question as to whether he can carry the cross-over white voters.)

Missouri - TIED on delegates

Tennessee - he lost

New Mexico (One of "The" 2 caucuses he lost)

Nevada ("The" 2nd caucus he lost.)

Out of the 7 true swing states (those that have gone Dem 1-2 times out of the past 4 elections), he has LOST 5 and tied 1. In the 7th the Dem primary voter demographics were not the same as the state populaiton as a whole.

He has a SWING state problem of mammoth proportions.

Doesn't matter if the Dem candidate carries NY, Il, Ca and other solid Blue (4 out of 4) states. If they can not win in most or all of the swing states in the general, they are TOAST.

-----

FOr all this 'oh Obama supporters will stay home and sulk if they don't get their way" nonsense, there is a far more pressing problem. Obama fanatics may very well stay home and sulk - of course, historically, the under 29 age group have an abysmal turnout record anyhow so that is not significant if they do it again. The real problem is that the demographics of the CLinton supporters (older, below the 80th% in income, and not college educated) are the very demographic which has easily switched to the Reps. over the past few years. Alienate that group and they don't stay home, they vote for McCain.

And for all those Obama devotees who have a thousand excuses for everything and who pride themselves on being younger, wealthier and more educated, got some news for you. Every single one of those demographics are in the MINORITY in the US. More people have an income under $75,000 than over - like 65% of the US. More people are over 29 than under. More people do not have a college degree (72%) than do (28%.)

Posted by: eabpmn | March 6, 2008 4:19 PM

Dan Balz continues to shill for Hillary. PA is completely irrelevant. Hillary cannot catch up on delegates and needs to drop out before she takes the party with her. Congratulations Ohio, you may have just elected John McCain.

Posted by: nshafroth | March 6, 2008 4:19 PM

Josey wrote: Obama has done well in 2 & 3 hour caucuses that college students and teenagers can easily attend.

The elderly, young parents, shift workers, etc. - are disenfranchised via caucuses.


Yes, that is a big problem for the Texas caucaus and there is a post article about this. Unfortunately, a lot of Hillary's voters left the caucauses before voting because they have children to get to bed or they are on second shift. This is a significant portion of the population that shouldn't be disregarded. You may call them uneducated or older, but they (we) matter.

Posted by: kkarageorge | March 6, 2008 4:17 PM

not just "less likely" to vote Clinton, I won't vote for Clinton.

Look, Obama has brought a lot of new voters into the party -- people like me who have never voted for a Democratic president, too disgusted by the Clinton's morally bankrupt white house and strategy of triangulation that turned Democrats into the other party for big business i voted for Nader in 2000, in the 2004 I wrote in "Stetson Kennedy" instead of voting for the other pro war candidacy of John Kerry.

Some how Obama is able to span the breadth of voters from left to right.

After the mistakes of 2000 and 2004, I am amazed some democrats seem so eager to relive those doomed contests.

Posted by: ronjondon | March 6, 2008 4:15 PM

svreader:

Why do you think he panics under pressure? I have never seen barack panic... also He didn't lie about REZKO that was a load of crap he was a public defender... it was his job... and also he didn't do much work for him...

Again for the empty suitcase people... i challenge you to come up with one of the important issues that he hasn't talked about specifics for

Posted by: louiscon | March 6, 2008 4:14 PM

Sen. Obama's three political defeats on Tuesday have shown that he lacks two main political ingredients to become President of the United States.

First, he is not tough enough to fight a political battle.

Second, he will be very vulnerable to Republican attacks if he wins the Democratic nomination.

There can be no question that he is very smart, but he is also showing that politically he needs to mature.

Posted by: vivaldo_latoche | March 6, 2008 4:12 PM

Obama has encouraged Republicans and Indys to "be a Democrat for a day" and vote for him.
But will they vote for him in Nov?

Please God - save us from empty suit Oblahma!


Posted by: JoseyJ | March 6, 2008 4:10 PM

Hillary has tried everything from injecting race to trying to sight plagiarism into this race. She will do anything to win. It is alright to bring out what you have to offer and what your opponent(s) lack but race, religion and falsehoods should not be apart of any political race. You should want to win but not sell your soul to do it. This just shows what Hillary's true colors are. I have even seen FOX news try to associate Senator Obama with terrorists (and they say Hillary had more bad press). You cannot go anymore negative than to portray someone as a terrorist like FOX news (and the Clinton campaign) tried to do with Senator Obama. Hillary never had to go through anything nearly as horrible as that. I have seen them play the video of Hillary on SNL at least 50 times yet no one has played this positive video http://youtube.com/watch?v=jjXyqcx-mYY about Senator Obama. It seems like she is receiving much more positive press than Senator Obama is receiving.

Posted by: shaolinprince | March 6, 2008 4:08 PM

PA Gov. Rendell has said previously on national television, that "PA Whites will not vote for a black man" very! very! sad comment!

That simply means, the vote will be 98% to 2%.
------------------------------
He's been to Allegeny County and north to the border with NY. T

Posted by: love80sdance | March 6, 2008 4:06 PM

Males have always controlled the media, Congress, Wall Street, the White House, etc.

Time for a woman!!

Posted by: JoseyJ | March 6, 2008 4:06 PM

Two things

I don't think that Independents will necessarily vote for Obama over Mccain (well i hope they do but i don't have any reason to think they will that is as good as a poll). What I think is that more independents will vote for Obama than Clinton if he were to be the nominee.

And for the McCain-Feinstein ticket (which i think is incredibly unlikely considering she is a democrat and it would hurt her party (and she supports clinton)) i still think Obama would win because you vote for the president more than the vice president... but i think that is well outside the scope of conceivable

Posted by: louiscon | March 6, 2008 4:05 PM

I have the feeling this is going to get kind of nasty. The Clintons are very good at nasty. Obama will have to fight and bring out that side to show the people that behind her words " I am proud to be on the stage with Obama" Etc. She doesn't really mean a thing she says and will literally say or do anything to get elected. When that becomes clear as Clinton gets nasty it will backfire. But only if Obama doesnt sink too far to that level.

Posted by: cmsatown | March 6, 2008 4:05 PM

I think both Clinton and Obama are AWESOME candidates. However, I do prefer Clinton; but if Obama is my consolation prize, then I am still a big winner.

I hope that both Clinton and Obama do not bruise and batter each other so badly during this intramural game called a primary that are too wounded and tired to take out McCain and his VP choice in November.

This is little discussed, but when the next president takes office at least six of the nine Supreme Court Justices will be seventy or more years old and it is likely that there may be up to three new appointments to replace retiring justices during that president's first term. Democrats do not want McCain to make those appointments that will affect the court for decades to come.

This contest for me is not so much Clinton or Obama; but it is about having a Democratic administration to address both our foreign and domestic policies and to appoint Supreme Court justices and federal judges.

Beni Dakar
Duluth, GA

Posted by: wedaconnectionmoderator | March 6, 2008 4:04 PM

Obama has done well in 2 & 3 hour caucuses that college students and teenagers can easily attend.

The elderly, young parents, shift workers, etc. - are disenfranchised via caucuses.


Posted by: JoseyJ | March 6, 2008 4:04 PM

Obama supporters are in denial about their candidate.

The real Obama is when you seen him in unscripted situations like debates and press conferences.

His running of the stage when faced with a few tough questions about REZKO speaks volumes.

Obama panics under pressure. That's not what we want in a commander in chief.

Obama lied on national tv during the debates when asked about Rezko, and it was a really stupid lie as well.

People project their hopes and dreams onto Obama, just like cult members do with any cult leader.

People can argue about whether Obama supporters are a cult, but nobody can argue that they display cult-like behavior.

The real Obama is nothing more than a "super salesman" who's snake oil products are vacuous promises of "hope" and "change"

I sincerely HOPE that Obama's supporters will CHANGE and start thinking rationaly.

There's simply no way Obama can win a national election against McCain, especially if there's a "terrorist alert" close to election day.

Posted by: svreader | March 6, 2008 4:04 PM

Sixtiesfeminist wrote:
"Those of us who support Obama do so...because he appears to have a solid set of core principles that he will notcompromise in order to gain power."

Unfortunately, those are just the qualities that people don't vote for. I'm beginning to think that people like to be deceived (or at least that portion who voted for HRC). Let's face it, good people do not make good politicians, and there are no honest politicians.

I'm still supporting Barack, though, because I'm not afraid of change like those who have voted for Clinton, and I'm not letting my cynicism get in the way - that's what the Clintons would want.

Posted by: artemis26 | March 6, 2008 4:04 PM

That's Dianne EMIEL Feinstein, in case anyone was wondering ; )

Posted by: JakeD | March 6, 2008 4:02 PM

Those rich voters looking forward to having a candidate they can manipulate still backing Obama. Hillary beat Obama in Ohaio because Obama is an empty suit candidate and some of us may be poorer and not as well educated as Obama's supporter but we can see right through it.

It's the arrogance of the "educated elites" that kept Bush in power and they may continue to keep a republican in power if they back Obama.

Posted by: nanaterra | March 6, 2008 4:02 PM

Who was is that said that Obama cannot take a political punch from Hillary because he has a glass jaw?

Well, well!!

Hillary has shown more gumption, cojones in this contest than Obama and all his handlers.

At 3am, I'd go with her beside Bill, rather than Obama with Michelle!

Posted by: rbayola | March 6, 2008 4:00 PM

Obama is ahead in delegates and continuing their "Obama is Victim" mantra, his disciples claim the Clinton machine will try to "deny" him the presidency.
And if that occurs - Obama's disciples say they'll riot and boycott.
Scary disciples.

Obama/Rezko08


Posted by: JoseyJ | March 6, 2008 4:00 PM

I disagree with the assumption that independents will vote for Obama over McCain. Independents tend to be critical thinkers. They don't vote blindly down party lines. They look at the person and his/her record/policies/etc. For many of us it is not an emotional or gut-feeling kind of thing but more of an analysis.

Posted by: jcmdstep1 | March 6, 2008 3:58 PM

louiscon:

What if it was McCain-Feinstein against Obama-some unknown?

Posted by: JakeD | March 6, 2008 3:58 PM

PA Gov. Rendell has said previously on national television, that "PA Whites will not vote for a black man" very! very! sad comment!

That simply means, the vote will be 98% to 2%.


Posted by: obinam | March 6, 2008 3:58 PM

Hillary has a resume of not being able to deliver. Such as 1993 Health Care Reform and then she helped pass NAFTA. Why a working class person would support Clinton is dismaying. But such is the case.

Obama's challenge is to find out why many folks prefer a person known not to deliver. Especially one that helped to take their jobs away.

Posted by: Maddogg | March 6, 2008 3:57 PM

Oh also, with the people who think Obama is all words... If you bothered to pay attention he has proposals for all the major issues, its not like he says "lets get out of Iraq" he says "I am going to remove two brigades out per month"

If you think he is all words, then you aren't listening to all of his words.

Posted by: louiscon | March 6, 2008 3:56 PM

Sixtiesfeminist:

Excellent posting. Well written, cogent and spoken like a patriotic feminist.

Yes we can win in November if Senator Obama is the Democratic nominee.

Posted by: jovitman | March 6, 2008 3:55 PM

I still don't think he could win it... its like Obama trying to win Texas... i just don't think its even conceivable... there are no polls that indicate that McCain would win... i think people get confused with the primary and general election, because some people think that because Obama couldn't carry Ohio in the primary he wont carry it in the general or that same with California... its just not the same, all polls indicate that more people would vote for Mccain if Hilary was the nominee

Posted by: louiscon | March 6, 2008 3:53 PM

To mikejd @ 3:13 pm:

Jus so that you under stand the electoral calendar and this process, the next batch of contests isn't ideally set up for either candidate to gain momentum. Before PA, you have WY and MS which will probably be won by Obama (effectively erasing any delegates Sen. Clinton may have picked up this past Tuesday). Then you have PA which she'll probably win and close the gap slightly. After PA, the contests are split evenly between the two of them (she would get IN, KY, Puerto Rico and possibly WV and he would get OR, NC, SD and MT).

Even if you re-run FL and MI (probably both as caucuses because the states are reluctant to pay the $15million it would cost to redo a primary), those would probably split as well with FL going to Clinton and MI going to Obama. So, effectively, you're in the same place you are today. One last thing to make you aware of, the popular vote is not how the nominee is decided upon, you need 2025 delegates (a similar scenario applies for the presidency).

Posted by: dtsb | March 6, 2008 3:53 PM

I think Pennsylvania is MUCH more important for Obama and may be actually a proving ground for the relevance of his entire candidacy.

In many ways, Clinton is the Democratic version of McCain. She scores high with the same demographic on the left that McCain does on the right. BUT, when Obama has TIME on his side he can sway that demographic very well (as in Iowa).

While Clinton succeeded in Texas & Ohio, she polled at 20-30% above Obama just 14 days before those primaries - yet both races ended up much tighter than the early polls predicted. I wonder what would have happened if he a 30-45 days to work Texas & Ohio like he did Iowa - as he does in Pennsylvania.

Pennsylvania is a proving ground for Obama's powers of persuasion. If his oratory is capable of providing more hope that his adversary can provide rhetoric - then he has the same chances as Robert Kennedy to come out of nowhere and move a nation in a whole new direction. Suggesting that Obama cede Pennsylvania to Clinton because she has demographics on her side is the same as the Democrats ceding the general election to McCain for the same reasons. Duh.

I think the options for the Democratic Party are clear. McCain sits on the left of the Republican platform and Clinton in the center of the Democratic. The 'fence' is not where this election will be won. From Limbaugh to the RNC - NO ONE in the Republican camp wants Obama to win the Democratic nomination. He will give McCain too much trouble with 4 full months to campaign against him on a national scale.

I do not think Hillary can differentiate herself from the Washington status quo enough to convince voters that her presidency would be any more of a "Change" than McCain's. Obama is the Democratic Party's best hope for the White House. And the Republicans know it.

Posted by: jbennett | March 6, 2008 3:53 PM

Everybody should listen to both candidates very carefully. Obama spits out beautiful words with NO CONTENT. Clinton is after detail specifics, which shows how much actual VISION she already has about the challenge she would face as the president.

Posted by: ynmisc | March 6, 2008 03:18 PM


HRC is a bold-faced liar and a hypocrite. She is hiding something from the voters. HRC supporters need to stop believing in this selfish, all about me person. She thinks because her last name is Clinton that the Presidency is her birthright.I don't see her winning in Nov if she is the nominee. The voters that dislike HRC out number the ones that does.

Posted by: moreece | March 6, 2008 3:52 PM

From: Deadline USA
http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/usa/2008/03/clintons_role_in_naftagate.html

Clinton's role in Nafta-gate

It was Clinton's camp that downplayed its own trade bashing, reports the Canadian media
March 6, 2008 12:30 PM

A storm of reports in the Canadian media say that the Nafta-gate flap last week involving Barack Obama was started by a key aide to Canada's prime minister - who told journalists that Hillary Clinton's campaign - not Obama's - had contacted the Canadian government to play down its Nafta-bashing.

The Canadian Press wire service - the equivalent to AP - reports that Ian Brodie, chief of staff to Stephen Harper, was talking to journalists last week: "Brodie was asked about remarks aimed by the Democratic candidates at Ohio's anti-Nafta voters that carried economic implications for Canada." It quotes a witness who reported Brodie's remarks:

"He said someone from (Hillary) Clinton's campaign is telling the embassy to take it with a grain of salt ... That someone called us and told us not to worry."

Here's today's splash in the Globe and Mail, which begins: "The leak of a confidential diplomatic discussion that rocked the US presidential campaign began with an offhand remark to journalists from the Prime Minister's chief of staff, Ian Brodie." It goes on:

Mr Brodie ... stopped to chat with several journalists, and was surrounded by a group from CTV.... The conversation turned to the pledges to renegotiate the North American free-trade agreement made by the two Democratic contenders, Mr Obama and New York Senator Hillary Clinton.

Mr Brodie, apparently seeking to play down the potential impact on Canada, told the reporters the threat was not serious, and that someone from Ms Clinton's campaign had even contacted Canadian diplomats to tell them not to worry because the Nafta threats were mostly political posturing.

Posted by: ac11 | March 6, 2008 3:52 PM

Hilary won the big states, which is what you need in the winner-take all Presdential election. She won the swing states of Ohio (which decided the 2004 election) and Florida (which decided the 2000 election).

Barack wins perennially "Red" states, caucuses, and states with lots of Black voters (many of which are also Red States). None of these things will help in the Presidential election this fall.

Democrats need to unite the blue collar voters and the college-educated voters, not divide them - get it ednyo2000? Clinton does this better than Barack.

I like Obama, but for the Democrats to run a candidate who is a minority with an Islamic name is not exactly what I would call thinking tactically or playing it safe.

To those who think the Dems can win with anybody this year, just remember, Democrats fall in love but Republicans fall in line. The Reps will be out in force for McCain this fall, you can count on it. It's simply safer to vote for Clinton.

Sometimes I think Dems have gotten so used to losing the Presidency they just give up and vote for whoever they like the most without thinking of practical considerations. Far better to vote for the one most likely to win.

Posted by: jvuren | March 6, 2008 3:52 PM

Obama will have a tough time in PA. Stop beating around the bush with terms like 'working-class' and 'no college degree.' There was a significant percentage of people in Ohio exit polls who went for Hillary and these were people who said 'race of the candidate matters.' Look it up. There is definitely a portion of the Ohio and PA electorate who have issues with race. I grew up outside Philly, and I am sorry to say it is the only place I have EVER heard the 'N' word used on a regular basis (much worse than any southern state by far). It's appalling but it's true. Just call it what it is - old school racism. That's an uphill battle for sure. He'll win everywhere else though. Ohio 'working class' went for her. TX was a draw. The only people who think she has momentum right now are the media and her campaign, and they created that spin. Obama will get it right back! He's a class act and her slime won't stick for long.

Posted by: jak2 | March 6, 2008 3:51 PM

How about you report the news?

Obama's campaign just announced it raised $55 million in February! More than any campaign has ever raised in a single month. Gobama, go!

Where are the Billary Bots now?

Posted by: thecrisis | March 6, 2008 3:51 PM

louiscon:

What if John SINDEY McCain selected a high-profile Californian for his running mate?

Posted by: JakeD | March 6, 2008 3:48 PM

PA is a primary (vs caucus) state which is good for Hillary. She has not had the ground forces Obama has used to ... 'help'... with the caucuses. Alot will be determined by the money she can raise. That will be uphill for her since Obama has the 'latte liberals' behind him. However, got to assume she is learning her lessons by getting more ground supporters in place. Also, public awareness of the importance of the financial piece to the campaign (eg knowing Obama is outspending her 2-1, etc) will get her more donations, especially after Tuesday. Amazing race!

Posted by: jcmdstep1 | March 6, 2008 3:47 PM

zackart1 (if you are still around):

If Obama is lying about being a Christian, and he is secretly a radical Muslim agent trying to take over the Presidency during our war against his tiny fraction of radical Muslim co-horts, that would not concern you in the least? Let me ask it this way: if FDR had had a secret Soviet agent as Vice-President (rather than Harry S. Truman), don't you think that would have been just a bit relevant to the Cold War?

Posted by: JakeD | March 6, 2008 3:47 PM

Also whoever thinks that California would go to Mccain over Obama is totally wrong. Even if states elect republicans or democrats to their local offices they cant change so dramatically. Kerry even carried California... its no question whatsoever

Posted by: louiscon | March 6, 2008 3:46 PM

Hey HRC,

Clinton does need the black vote. If she had it, she would not be in the condition she's in right now. Try that one on for size. And you might want to check your fact and figures for accuracy.

Posted by: blessedbobi | March 6, 2008 3:45 PM

As Senator Bill Bradley recently commented, "Senator Hillary Clinton is a floor candidate with high negatives." She has little or no appeal to indeoendents or republicans.

I have always been willing to give Senator Clinton the benefit of the doubt when it came to all the nagative comments being made about her and her husband but her uninspiring, enervating and negative campaigning the last week, highlighted by her 60 Minutes Interview, where she seemed to imply that Senator Obama was lying about his faith was the last straw for me.

If she were to prevail as the eventual democratic nominee, you will be looking at a Democratic party that is bruised, battered and dispirited. The voters that Senator Obama has brought in will be discouraged and feel cynical and will reach the sad conclusion that politics indeed is just dirty pool and the Clintons excel in this game.
It will be a pryhhic victory for Senator Clinton if she were the nominee and the Demorcats once again will snatch victory from the jaws of defeat by losing a general Prsidential election that by any historical measure they should win.

To the voters who have yet to vote in the upcoming caucuses and primaries, vote for the candidate who will bring this country and this world desperatley needed tarnsformational change. Vote for Senator Barack Obama.

Posted by: jovitman | March 6, 2008 3:45 PM

I would like to remind the Obama lawyers and lobbyists who are posting on this site about seeing the Clinton's taxes, last time I checked the deadline for taxes is April 15 so back off and take a chill pill. I haven't even started my taxes. Maybe the press should ask more questions about Obama's church leader and "advisor" who awarded Louis Farrakhan, who incidently calls white people "blue eyed devils," a lifetime achievement award.
Investor's Business Daily, a national business newspaper:
http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=285292746454291

Core to his church is a dedication and commitment to Africa. This does not sound like a uniter to me. In fact, I see Obama as a huge divider and the real election hasn't even started.

Posted by: mci252002 | March 6, 2008 3:45 PM

There is no realistic mathematical path for Clinton to lead Obama in pledged delegates, regardless of PA, MI, or FL.

Clinton will discover the ultimate momentum killer: coming in 2nd at the finish line.

Posted by: egc52556 | March 6, 2008 3:44 PM

ermias.kifle,

You sound like a Hillary Clinton supporter. Enough said.

Posted by: burgundee | March 6, 2008 3:43 PM

HIS NAME IS ISLAMIC - wrong!

Obama's name has Arabic elements, but that doesn't make it islamic. Many people of Arabic descent have a religion other than Islam, such as Bahai or Christian. My own name 'Alan' is common in England and North America but it comes from a 3rd century Persian tribe. That doesn't make it Islamic or Zororastern either.

Posted by: TigerPaw1 | March 6, 2008 3:42 PM

The Democrats are making a huge mistake if they think that the hardcore liberal leftist Obama is guaranteed of taking California against McCain. 4 of the last 6 governors of California have been (moderate) Republicans. McCain blends in very nicely with Arnold Schwarzenegger, Pete Wilson, George Deukmejian and Ronald Reagan. Remember, Californians kicked out the last liberal Democratic governor (Gray Davis) after less than 18 months of ineptitude. Obama vs. McCain will give California to the Republicans, probably Ohio and Florida as well.

Posted by: spam | March 6, 2008 3:41 PM

It makes no sense to seat the delegates from Michigan and Florida because neither of them campaigned in Florida (which could have dramatically changed the results) and he wasn't even on the ballot in Michigan because they were boycotting it. If they want those states to have a say they need a do-over. Also, I ask of all these Hillary supporters that say she is the voice of experience... is her being a first lady experience? or is it her failure to chance the health care situation? or is it her vote for the war in Iraq? Her support of NAFTA? or what? And also... since when has time in Washington been correlated with good presidency? Since neither candidates have been vice president you have to look to something more quantifiable, like judgment. Obama seems much more able to correctly assess situations for what they are and was someone who actually did not support the war. And even if people do say that Clinton is more experienced, what situation would arise in which you can necessarily say he would act differently and wrongly because of his lack of experience?

The last thing is most democrats would agree, even if they support Clinton, that Obama is better than McCain. not all those that would vote for Obama would vote for Clinton. In the new Washington Post-ABC News poll he leads Mccain by 12 points nationally and she only by 6 which, because it is in the margin of error (+/-3) is a statistical tie. He is far more electable and would carry more of the independent vote.

Posted by: louiscon | March 6, 2008 3:41 PM

Give the forecasting up, trends in weather change daily, so will the Democratic election process.

If people want to staunchly stand their ground without giving the other side benefits and beliefs, no wonder some are stuck in the bad economics, low spiritual, failing personal goals and political hole their in.

Those claiming to be conservative,yet their political champion has 30% polls. Voters have to change when it matters.

Posted by: gmrk | March 6, 2008 3:40 PM

So, in other words Pennslyvania is full of poor trailor trash?

Posted by: bobby20 | March 6, 2008 3:38 PM

If anything, Obama won in Texas and Ohio. The Clinton campaign needs to re-examine the results of the election in those states and the acquisition of delegates. As the old adage goes, the end will justify the means. We shall see who is going to emerge as the nominee.

Posted by: guskebbie | March 6, 2008 3:38 PM

hhkeller in your DREAMS.PA is all Hillary's she took 83 countys out of 88 in Ohio. right next door please think with your brain not your heart.GO HILLARY

Posted by: McNamara1508 | March 6, 2008 3:35 PM

My guess is the white folks in PA won't be overlooking BHO's affiliation with his ethnic based hate church, like the guilt ridden white liberal yuppies would. PA is mostly blue collar union democrats.

Posted by: FreedomFighter1 | March 6, 2008 3:32 PM

Obama will not have any problems in carrying the state of Pa. PA is neither Texas nor Ohio. The electorate recognizes the good works of Bill Clinton,but Bill is not Hillary. Obama epitomizes change and hope, and we are ready to give him the support to work for us. It is only Obama who can unify this country and make decisions that will prevent this country from going to unneceassary wars. Republicans make money when the country is at war because they own the big companies that produce the war equipments. Look at all the Republican presidents 20 years back; each of them went to war. Obama does not encourage unncessary war, and that is why we love him.

Posted by: guskebbie | March 6, 2008 3:32 PM

HRC is wining big without the Black vote.
She doesn't need the Black vote in Nov.

She did get
55% to 60% white vote
65% to 70% Asian vote
60% to 65% Latino Vote

She does need Black vote anymore.
The Black Vote is OVER RATED.
Latino vote counts.

Posted by: ermias.kifle | March 6, 2008 02:39 PM

How very racist of you. You must be related to Adelfa Callejo.

Posted by: moreece | March 6, 2008 3:32 PM

Pennsylvania's demographics are challenging for Obama but not impossible. He'll romp in Philly which with 1.55 million makes up a larger share of the state than Cleveland does of Ohio. He should do well in the Philly suburbs which are more liberal and more solidly anti-war than Ohio suburbs; in fact, he carried the Philly suburbs on the New Jersey side in that state's primary. Some reports (which I haven't verified) indicate Pennsylvania has a higher percentage of college graduates and a higher percentage of college students than Ohio, and more of its colleges are of the upscale type where Obama does particularly well. Also, college spring break will be over by April 22, a factor that hurt Obama in Ohio. And while Pennsylvania's primary is open only to Democrats, Ohio's open primary didn't help him; according to exit polls he split the crossover Republican vote (9% of the total) with Clinton 49-49, and barely carried the Independent vote (22% of total) 50-48. These totals included a ton of Rush Limbaugh/Bill Cunningham conservatives heeding their broadcast call to take Democratic ballots and vote for Hillary to keep the Democrats fighting each other a while longer. Consequently keeping "Obamacans" and Independents out won't hurt Obama nearly as much as conventional wisdom suggests, since it also keeps out Limbaugh conservatives.

Still and all, Obama needs to do well in growth areas like south central PA and the Lehigh Valley and make inroads into Clinton's base in western PA, which does look a lot like Ohio, to secure a victory. With nearly 7 weeks to work it, it's possible, but yes, an uphill struggle. If he does it, it's over. If he falls short, it goes on.

Posted by: bradk1 | March 6, 2008 3:30 PM

Two weeks ago it did not matter to me who the Democratic candidate would be, until Hillary turned so negative reminding me of the Carl Rove tactics. I ended up voting for Obama here in Texas and though a life long democrat I would never vote for Hillary now. Hillary and McCain are like two peas in pod growing on a Bush.

Posted by: regreen | March 6, 2008 3:29 PM

Can I have my phrase back
YES WE CAN

Bob the Builder

Posted by: lalexakis | March 6, 2008 3:28 PM

Obama 90+ black support are already threatening to vote McCain. Obama's achilles heel is that he unknown, unproven, untested, with only 1 year in Washinton. As an independent, I cannot see casting a vote for the freshman senator when our coutry faces grave international risks and acute national problems. I will support McCain and am already hearing staunch female democrats behind Hillary who will also move to support McCain. There is a greater population of women voters that could tip the presidency in McCain's favor than Obaman's constituency who are sabor-tooth rattling already.

Posted by: mci252002 | March 6, 2008 3:27 PM

mikejd said:

but there is no state or planned event thereafter where momentum is likely to shift back to Obama.

______________________________________

Let me clarify this a little more because I know math is not on the LSAT. Next sunday morning, Clinton will be further behind than she was Tuesday morning. The same thing will happen after PA. That's not the kind of momentum that will make her win. Her strategy has run its course.

Posted by: wharwood | March 6, 2008 3:27 PM

Many people are finally seeing through Obama. Obama is superficial, his words and promises are empty. He lied about NAFTA and continue lying about Rezko. It's true, Hillary has been vetted and no surprises about her. Obama only experience that he claims is "working a community organizer in the streets of Chicago", something that most of us ordinary people do in day-to-day . Obama's dirty laundries are yet to come from the Republicans and he won't stand the heat!

Posted by: MAUFIT | March 6, 2008 3:26 PM

BHO needs to get to places like Pottsville, PA. Kennedy visited it in 1960. Only person from The White House who's been there since (correct me if I'm wrong) is Dick Cheney several years ago. It's an old former coal mining town in central PA. It's not rural. It's not Amish country, but it's not Mainline either. Many people there will be attracted to him despite the efforts of fearmongers. He may not win a majority, but he can cut into HRC's base if he goes to places like this. Other great places besides the naturals like all the progressive college towns, Pitt, Philly would be Hershey and Harrisburg.

My prediction still no matter what happens in PA, HRC stays in until the Rezko trial is over in June. If BHO can take the heat (he should do what McCain did and call a 1 hour press conference and answer any and all questions...that killed the NYT story for McCain quite effectively), he'll be the nominee. His people need to show that they can fight with their gloves off otherwise, HRC will win.

Posted by: BillfromLA | March 6, 2008 3:26 PM

I think it is time people realized that Caucuses are capricious events and donot give a verdict of the people at large, but simply of a limited number of people who can find enough time to chat for a few hours in a cafeteria. It is not a proper democratic election because of the limited number of participants in the caucuses and the lack of proper control in the process. Therefore super-delegates should weigh the results of the primaries rather than the caucuses in their overall judgment of popular sentiment is a very valid assessment. If Obama can win some important battle ground primaries, he will be a winner. He hasn't done that yet. He should try to win in the remaining major primeries like Pennsylvania before asking to become the nominee for the democratic party. Winning republican states like Wyoming, Kansas, Utah etc. adds a few delegates for your delegate math, but doesn't add to electibility in national elections. He can still demonstrate his popular appeal in the primaries in Pennsylvania, which is a true battle ground state. If he can't win in the democratic base in Pennsylvania, he is not electible in November. So let us see how Pennsylvania votes. Any attempt to muzzle the delegat math to pressure the super delegates is likely to cause disaster in November polls. He already had a golden chance to show that he is more electible in the crucial state of Ohio, but the people didn't buy into it. Delegate math is not going to protect him from competition and momentum. He still can win Pennsylvania and get back the momentum. He can also promote the idea of new primaries in Florida and Michigan and defeat Hillary there. His delegate math without the supper-delegates and Florida-Michigan delegates is not going to give him the nomination of the democratic party. If he sees racism in Ohio, Pennsylvania or Texas, I have news for him. He will have to confront racism by the Republican right in its true manifestations in the contest prior to November just as it found expression in the monolithic black votes for him in the primaries and caucuses. He may be satisfied being a nominee for the democratic party, but the democrats want a winner in November. So the nominee should be a winner in battle ground state contests in which Hillary is now the leader. Let Obama show that he can win in crucial states like Pennsylvania, Indiana, Florida, Michigan etc.. If he fails, he has to move over for Hillary, and accept the VP spot. If he wins especially in the crucial test case state of Pennsylvania, he should be the nominee. I hope he accepts his challenge and confronts Hillary head on in Pennsylvania, and demonstrate that he is a winner.

Posted by: vaidyatk | March 6, 2008 3:25 PM

BCFS:

Good post. I don't think the adviser told the Canadians what was reported. It has been reported that the Clinton campaign called the Canadians. It appears to be a false flag operation.

If he did, then Obama now knows the Canadians are NOT to be trusted.

Posted by: OneFreeMan | March 6, 2008 3:25 PM

Can someone please post some substantial political accomplishments that Obama has achieved while in office? Thanks.

Posted by: exitstage | March 6, 2008 3:25 PM

I am a Republican and we are gloating over the way the democrats are tearing themselves apart. Keep up the good work! When will you wake up? Obama will beat the pants off of anyone while billary is a crook who will ignite the base and draw independents. If Republican "dirty tricks" are a worry, look at the bull's eye she has painted on the front and back of herself. Do you really think, the clintons are going to just walk away from their lust of power and let this fine man walk in their place? I don't think so, but please continue to believe this is "vetting" your ultimate choice (billary). I think you are tearing yourselves apart (again).

Posted by: djudge1 | March 6, 2008 3:24 PM

Its 3:00 AM. A phone rings in the White House. Clinton answers the phone saying "what are you wearing, baby". Its a booty call for Bill!

Posted by: edweirdness | March 6, 2008 3:24 PM

###

Republicans are voting Hillary in the primaries so they can mop the floor with her multiple personalities in November.

###

Posted by: HoracePManure | March 6, 2008 3:24 PM

Barak Obama's Accomplishments:

1. Bought a cheap house with free garden, saved 300k.
2. Successfully delayed 15 parking tickets for over 20 years (think how much gain he could have made investing it)
3. Invented a way to vote on tough issues without jeopardize his political future (voting present, he should patent it)
4. Secured most campaign funding among all candidates from big insurance co.
5. Successfully (for a while) fooled US voters on NAFTA rhetoric.
6. Made people faint in rallies. (repeatable results)
7. Made his wife feel proud of US for the first time.
8. Successfully held on to the subcommittee chair position for over a year without holding any hearings.

Posted by: hgogo | March 6, 2008 3:23 PM

"Voting for Hillary is tantamount to voting for McCain to win."

------

Polls indicate that either Obama OR Clinton would beat McCain, including one that appeared in today's Washington Post (guess you missed it).

However, this Democrat will be voting for McCain if Obama is the candidate. I always thought he lacked the experience for the job, and the past week has shown us just how much.

McCain may be the "same old, same old", but that's better than a having a babe in the woods.


Posted by: bhirsch3 | March 6, 2008 3:23 PM

You underestimate the intelligence and judgment of the good folks who reside in Pennsylvania. This is the Quaker state--thrifty, resilient. Each state is different, and voters simply can't be reduced to equations made up of age, education, gender, race and income.

Obama will do well in Pennsylvania by getting across the message that he is closer to the ground than HRC. He's not a lavish spender. He has run an amazingly efficient and cost-effective campaign. He has, quite remarkably, overcome the constant and subtle racial subtext used against him by bigots and reinforced by one or more of the core narratives of the Clinton campaign. He has solidly practical policy positions and he will turn the page on a failed foreign policy.

Many voters in rural Pennsylvania have sons and daughters who are in Iraq, have been wounded there, or have been killed there. Clinton voted for that war, and all clear-sighted analysts agree that her vote was "strategic." It reflected her judgment at the time that she needed to authorize force in order to be viable as a political candidate later on. Those of us who support Obama do so because he opposed the war and because he appears to have a solid set of core principles that he will notcompromise in order to gain power. He was not willing to wager the lives of American soliders and of innocent Iraqis to fight a war that did not need to be fought.

As for the red phone at 3 a.m., I'll take the prudent and principled candidate any old day, and that candidate is Obama.



Posted by: Sixtiesfeminist | March 6, 2008 3:21 PM

Phone rings in White House, Hillary answers: Caller: "It's 3 a.m., do you know where your husband is?"
Moral: If you can't control your own family, how the heck to you expect to run a country?"

Posted by: pskk | March 6, 2008 3:21 PM

Where are your tax returns, Hillary? Hidden, because you know it's more of the same. The same old deception, the same old misinformation, the same old truth-bending.

Vote for a change. Don't look back, turn the page.

Obama 08

Posted by: alexander.ivey | March 6, 2008 3:20 PM

It is all going to boil down to the political insider superdelegates vs. the majority of democratic voters. In simulations of possible outcomes of the remainder of the primaries there is essentially no way that Clinton will win the majority of delegates. Even if Hillary got 70% of the votes in every primary and caucus starting this past tuesday she would not have enough delegates to win. Obviously Hillary is counting on her connections in the Democratic party to get her the superdelegates she needs. Unfortunately, Hillary is one of the few people the democrats could run for president that might lose against McCain.

I don't think that Hillary would be a bad president, but she will not draw in the new voters or independents that Obama can. Hillary is as much of a Washington insider as one could imagine, while Obama is as little of an insider as one could be and still have a chance of winning the democratic nomination.

An interesting thought I had is that Bill Clinton was somewhat of an outsider when he ran in 1992. He had little experience (only Govenor of a small state), little name recognition (I had actually never heard of him prior to the primary), and he was young. Now Hillary is old, well connected, as much an insider as can be, and has the name recognition. I think she should step aside, unless she can get Obama to be her running mate.

Posted by: bjuhasz | March 6, 2008 3:18 PM

Everybody should listen to both candidates very carefully. Obama spits out beautiful words with NO CONTENT. Clinton is after detail specifics, which shows how much actual VISION she already has about the challenge she would face as the president.

Posted by: ynmisc | March 6, 2008 3:18 PM

""SO BARACK SUFFERS A CRUSHING AND HUMILIATING DEFEAT IN OHIO,TEXAS AND RHODE ISLAND AND THE DELEGATES DON'T CHANGE. THIS IS RIDICULOUS. WHAT AN UNDEMOCRATIC AND NONSENSICAL PROCESS. FAIR AND SQUARE AND WINNER TAKE ALL, WITH THE WINS IN ALL THE MEGA STATES CLINTON HAS IT ALL WRAPPED UP BY NOW.""

A crushing defeat?? Hilarious. The primary vote was close and the caucus votes are going to Obama by a good margin. Good grief, she only picked up 3 or 4 delegates in the 4 states that voted. She is still behind with the math showing that she can't win unless she wins at least in double digits in PA, which she can't. It will go to the convention, and ruin the democratic party (again).

Posted by: wly34 | March 6, 2008 3:18 PM

Barack Obama likely to Win Texas
Things may not be as bad for Obama as they seemed Tuesday night. In the Texas primary Hillary Clinton leads in primary delegates by 65 to 61. But Obama is leading by a whopping 12% in the Caucus count. So far only 40% caucus results have come in and he is greadually increasing his lead. Even if the ultimate caucus result remains the same i.e. Obama's 56% to Clinton's 44%, Obama will win Texas overall (not counting the Super delegates). This is how the math works out:

Delegate Allocation:
Primary (99% results in) Clinton 65 Obama 61
Caucus (40% results in so far
Obama 56% Clinton 44%
assuming total 67 delegates
allocated on this basis) Clinton 29 Obama 38

Total Delegates Clinton 94 Obama99


Once all the caucus results are in, Obama should claim victory in Texas.

Also he needs to fire his advisor Goolsbee who damaged him tremendously in the Ohio primary by telling a Canadian Consulate employee in Chicago that Obama does not mean what he says about NAFTA. Obama should also address this issue in his next speech and take it head on to put this controversy to rest.

Posted by: bcfs | March 6, 2008 3:17 PM

Has anyone noticed how much of Hillary's vote comes from Republicans who are voting because they feel that McCain can beat her? Yet Obama is getting Democratic votes...get real. She is only where she is due to Republicans who are laughing behind her back. If they "do over" Michigan and Florida, then Obama's name should be on the ticket running against her.

Posted by: shirleyholt1 | March 6, 2008 3:16 PM

I am waiting for Hillary's head to pop off and a milky substance to come squirting out (like in the movie Alien).

Posted by: hamishdad | March 6, 2008 3:15 PM

If Clinton wins Pennsylvania by a healthy margin, it's hard to imagine how Obama can capture the nomination. By then, Clinton will not only have regained sustained momentum, but there is no state or planned event thereafter where momentum is likely to shift back to Obama. More importantly, by then she will either be on the verge of eclipsing Obama in the popular vote, or well on her way to doing so, with primaries in Kentucky, West Virginia, and Indiana right around the corner. Do-overs in Michigan and Florida also strongly favor Clinton, and absent some unforeseen extenuating circumstance, will cement her lead. In turn, superdelegates would be remiss to back the candidate who fails to prevail in the popular vote -- the clearest signal and most legitimate measurement of whom a majority of Democratic Primary voters prefer.

Posted by: mikejd | March 6, 2008 3:13 PM

That's really intelligent to state his middle name as derogatory...JAKE.
Who cares about Pennsylvania & Ohio (and I'm from Ohio), they are 2 of 52ish states. Barack has a huge base, and a lead. People need to relax & stop making so much of this. Hillary has brought up the negative adds that so many people have been sick of, and hopefully that will bite her in the end. Hillary is getting votes by fear (like some other party I know) & Barack is getting votes of hope.

Posted by: jlooser | March 6, 2008 3:08 PM


It seems that Ken Starr is blogging as "Yeswecan1" in this blog area and is an Obama supporter.

Obama is once again trying to deflect hard questions from himself by attacking Hillary Clinton!

Where is this so called "new politician" that he has Obama supporter in Ken Starr.

Simply put: Obama is not qualified to be president at this time.

Posted by: carlw1 | March 6, 2008 3:06 PM

It is real sad that the Democrats would vote someone that plays the Republican card of attacking the other guy to bring his negatives and there by moving his votes to her. It happened to Gore and Kerry and now Hillary is doing to another Democrat! It is a shame that her backers are allowing her to play the Republican play book of attacking the messenger! Her backer has shown that they are no different than the Republicans and they content with the status quo! Obama can really put the established Democrats in a hole, if he goes negative on her, because she is the most dislike candidate remaining in the race. By bring her negatives much higher than it is now (currently at 49%), it would be evident to her backers that they may win the battle against Obama, but they will surely loose the war to McCain.

Posted by: Riaz-Danish | March 6, 2008 3:05 PM

I went to Google this morning and read some of the Auchi information. Auchi was Saddam Hussein's sidekick in 1959 where the two were conspiring to assassinate the then president of Iraq.

There was so much information to read, it would take weeks to absorb it all. So, I had the Google Alert system set up to forward new alerts to me at my e-mail address.

This afternoon, there were a dozen or more resources about Auchi, Rezko, Obama. It is such a convoluted mix of information and it is mind-boggling to read.

The second Rezko shoe has definitely started dropping, just like the New Year's Eve ball. It will take some time for it to actually hit the ground, but it is coming down, slowly but surely.

We had better hang onto Hillary, or we may not even have a Democratic nominee. I am trying to bring the alerts forward for you, but so far have not been able to. I will try again, if not, just go to Google, you will be shocked and dismayed.

Like John Kass said on the Glenn Beck show, this is Chicago politics. They even have a picture of George Washington somewhere in city hall with his hand out.

Obama is definitely in the middle of this mess - and innocent or not, it reflects his "judgement," associating with the likes of Rezko and Auchi, for 17 years.

One of the things that strikes me as important is the fact that when Obama first came to the senate, the "kingmaker," Jones took bills that others had worked on for a long time, and put Obama's name on them as the sponsor, to help Obama build a good resume for his political career.

Whether you go to Google or not, Auchi did contribute funds to Obama right after he became a freshman in the Senate. Why after?

That is dishonest as well as poor judgement in my estimation, and since those lawmakers who were cheated out of their bill recognition hate Obama, it doesn't say much for Obama being able to reach across the aisle, or to rid of Washington of corruption, or to tell the truth, and not "fix" things as he is always trying to do in this election. gw.

Posted by: Iowatreasures | March 6, 2008 3:05 PM

If Obama gets the nomination, Latinos will back McCain.

That's understandable.

Posted by: OneFreeMan | March 6, 2008 3:04 PM

###

Hillary is more Republican than McCain.

###

Posted by: HoracePManure | March 6, 2008 3:04 PM

Just in, new report on PA- Hillary is showing improvement on the Internet, as the visitors to her web page have a wider demographic background. Barack appears to still lead the charge though. See;

Pennsylvania Primary- Hillary vs. Barack:
The Google Factor

http://newsusa.myfeedportal.com/viewarticle.php?articleid=57

Posted by: davidmwe | March 6, 2008 3:01 PM

HILLARY ALL THE WAY!!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: Hillary08 | March 6, 2008 3:01 PM

To: ermias.kifle about your comment below - Point to remember is that, right now Black vote is staying within Democratic party due to Obama, but if they feel cheated that the nomination was stolen from Obama, they can cross over party line and Democratic party will lose. Also McCain does well with Independents, Obama WILL win those but not Clinton. :

Your Comment below:

HRC is wining big without the Black vote.
She doesn't need the Black vote in Nov.

She did get
55% to 60% white vote
65% to 70% Asian vote
60% to 65% Latino Vote

She does need Black vote anymore.
The Black Vote is OVER RATED.
Latino vote counts.

Posted by: ermias.kifle | March 6, 2008 02:39 PM

Posted by: yogeshina | March 6, 2008 3:01 PM

What is McCain going to do to get any media attention over the next 5 months?

Posted by: vmathis | March 6, 2008 2:59 PM

Let the American PEOPLE see your TAX RETURNS Clinton ! What are you afraid of ?

Posted by: PulSamsara | March 6, 2008 2:59 PM

Hey "Hillary is the one"- Aren't you used to this kind of banter? That's all your girl Hil shells out! You will be following the Clinton's back to the rock from which they crawled out from when this is all said and done!

Posted by: mhackett01 | March 6, 2008 2:58 PM

ManUnitdFan -- ROFL!!! [I pull for Sheffield Utd, hopefully we won't suffer the drop two years in a row.]

tahirn -- Barack's father was Kenyan, not arabic. It's an African name meaning blessed and is unrelated to Mubarak (which is a surname, not a given name).

By the way, I think you left your key caps key on. It's the net equivalent of leaving your fly open.

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | March 6, 2008 2:57 PM

Yesterday's press conference where Obama ran off the stage when presented with tough questions about Rezko is the beginning of the end for Obama's campaign.

OBAMA LIED ABOUT REZKO during the debates. Obama tells Americans one thing about NAFTA and tells the Canadians something else.

Obama is so "puffed up" he's got nowhere to go but down.

His supporters will abandon him like rats leaving a sinking ship once they realize he's just a slimy politician.

Posted by: svreader | March 6, 2008 2:56 PM

MARCH IS WOMEN HISTORY MONTH

Posted by: ermias.kifle | March 6, 2008 2:53 PM

It's about education. College grads tend to vote for Barack and less educated voters back Hillary. 62% of the voters in Ohio had less than a college degree.

Posted by: OneFreeMan | March 6, 2008 2:52 PM

Dear YesweCan1(and all your repeats) plus all the other feeding frenzy "Obammamaniacs".

Give it up!

After 35 years of public service and the opposition's use of every high tech microscopic magnifying glass available to them, (how come you didn't throw up that wasteful White Water investigation)all calculated to hang both Hillary and Bill, Nothing---Do you understand?---Nothing!!! What don't you understand about that word?
The Republicans couldn't do it and don't you believe that they would have if they could have, especially after having a special prosecutor spending how many millions of Federal dollars? Talk about wasteful spending!
You people not only sound like a broken record but one whose righteous fury is directed to the wrong target. Focus your emotional concern on the thin-skinned reaction of the Senator from Illinois to any questioning about a-n-y-t-h-i-n-g without petulantly complaining about it.
Isn't it about time to face facts and address the issues?
Apparently you don't have the hindsight to know where you've been, the foresight to know where you're going---and the insight to know when you're going to far!
And while you're at it---Grow up!!!
HillaryistheONE!

Posted by: les.einhorn | March 6, 2008 2:51 PM

"Super Tuesday 2 is the beginning of the end of Cult Obama campaign. Going forward, it's vision and experience (Hillary Clinton) over leap of faith and inexperience (cult leader Obama).

Cult leader Obama should do the patriotic act of stepping down now and ask Sen. Clinton to consider him for the #2 slot on her ticket."

What???? You have bumped your head! Obama has the delegate lead and he should settle for veep with Hillary because . . . ??? Since Hillary is "more comfortable with McCain . . . " then I'm willing to make Hillary much more comfortable. Another pillow, Hillary, for your head?

Posted by: crat3 | March 6, 2008 01:30 PM

Posted by: meldupree | March 6, 2008 2:51 PM

There is now some reporting that Clinton's campaign contacted the Canadians saying both campaign's NAFTA comments were just 'political posturing.' (The Globe, the Mail, CBC, the Daily Kos), although even that may be wrong. But what does this mean: that Clinton is counting on misinformed, and dupable voters. Not a very pretty sight, and certainly not what we were hoping for after the cynical way the Republicans have manipulated misinformation....

Posted by: big_O_Other | March 6, 2008 2:50 PM

I know, I can't wait to vote OBAMA too! If I have to see one more orange or yellow pants suit on that phoney liar I will be sick!

Posted by: mhackett01 | March 6, 2008 2:49 PM

Crushing defeat indeed in TX. Obama is leading the TX Caucase vote by almost 13 points if not more with about 50% of the vote counted. Hillary lost 12 in a row before the RI win, yet her first major win in almost a month was celebrated with confetti and a lot of drama, rightly so, because wins are rare for Hillary.

Obama has had double digit wins in about 17 contests, when Hillary wins, majority are narrow. There are so many scandals surrounding the Clintons, but the media will choose to ignore - Have you heard about Peter Paul - No that is not important, Rezko is more important. No one even mentions any more, that Bill Clinton (lied under oath - felon?) was impeached when he was president, pardoned convicts for cash - the media does not care about those kinds of things any more. Yet, they waste ink writing about how difficult one state will be for Obama, what about writing about how difficult all the other states will be for Hillary. Dan Balz obviously moonlights at Hillary's campaign after business hours at Washpost. Keep up the good work, you are doing well with the talking points from Mark Penn. You deserve a salary bonus from the Clinton campaign!

Posted by: ezboy03 | March 6, 2008 2:47 PM

Nice article. All the polls also show Obama beating McCain by huge margin in general, while Clinton loses. I believe, here is critical argument from this article: " Another Obama counter is that he will have a far easier time winning over her voters than she will have winning over his voters. The logic here is that her base of traditional Democrats are hungry to recapture the White House not likely to back John McCain in the fall, but Obama's constituency will be less transferable. Independent voters may be more reluctant to back Clinton, his younger voters may have less enthusiasm for Clinton and his African American voters may feel cheated if he is not the nominee."

Posted by: yogeshina | March 6, 2008 2:47 PM

This analysis is flawed as it leaves out a critical point: a very large number of Obama's delegates come from deep Red states which will NOT go Democratic in the general election, and does not count as "crossover" support which will help in November. These delegates were low hanging fruit from states where the Democrats have been marginalized in Presidential elections for decades. They do not show Obama as having support which will be helpful to the Democrats in the election. If Obama wins the vote of EVERY Democrat in Kansas, Montana, Idaho, South Carolina, Georgia etc. etc. it doesn't matter at all, McCain still gets his victory call at 9:01 PM on election day. It is very troubling that Obama does not receive support or any enthusiasm in states which can be expected to vote Democratic in the election, and which are needed to win. Indeed, he has lost in some of these states to Clinton by very large margins.

Posted by: dyinglikeflies | March 6, 2008 2:44 PM

I am from Pennsylvania and can't wait to vote for Obama. Many of my friends and family are voting for him too. Can't stomach the thought of that sneaky Hillary and Bill) and having to look at her phony smile any longer. And where are her tax returns? Out with Billary! Go Obama!

Posted by: formiglia2100 | March 6, 2008 2:44 PM

Why not ask a totally unaffiliated disinterested party what to do. Like Vladimir Putin, for example. WAKE UP -- THE RULES ARE THE RULES. By the way, given Florida's history with democrats wasn't SOMEONE thinking that breaking the rules was not a good idea??

Posted by: DennisMC | March 6, 2008 2:43 PM

If only the 9 other states remaining were all like PA. But they're not.

She'll win PA, probably like in Ohio.

But he'll win 7 other states.

The ned of the day: He'll win 310 remaining pledge delegates, she will win 301 remaining.

The media is buying her "firewall" nonsense hook line and sinker.

But unfortunately for her, there's no more "firewalls" after PA.

Only the end of the primaries and a gap of 100 delegates that she can't overcome.


Posted by: info23 | March 6, 2008 2:43 PM

So what about PA? The devastating 6 or 7 delegate two state haul Clinton won by "vanquishing" Obama Tuesday will be obliterated when Wyoming and Mississippi vote this weekend. Clinton will be back to square one. And after PA will come Indiana and North Carolina, when her small clawback of delegates will be again obliterated and reversed. The only thing that will stop this cycle is Obama's abduction by aliens.

In the meantime McCain and the republicans are getting their hate on and unifying. McCain's awkward pres op with GW yesterday should have queued a withering assault on his commitment to a failed administration from dems. we silence.


Posted by: wharwood | March 6, 2008 2:42 PM

And I guess CLINTON's 13 straight losses in a row was not crushing or humilating? Oh that's right Hillary NEVER addressed that-so I guess it didn't happen!

Posted by: mhackett01 | March 6, 2008 2:42 PM

Canadian government has exonerated Obama of the false NAFTA charge. Globe and mail and CBC have been reporting this since Wednesday. Those citing this as an excuse to oppose Obama need to read the foreign press. My question is why hasn't the WaPo or any other mainstream media organization covered this continually breaking story in Canada, especially given its effect on Tuesday's outcome.

Posted by: ecostarr | March 6, 2008 2:40 PM

WHAT IS THIS BALONEY ABOUT PLEDGED DELEGATES. A DELEGATE IS A DELEGATE. THEY ALL COUNT THE SAME. WHEN YOU GET 2025 YOU WIN THE NOMINATION. LETS NOT COUNT OUR CHICKENS. CLINTON WILL GET THE 2025. OBAMA WON'T.

Posted by: tahirn | March 6, 2008 2:40 PM

HRC is wining big without the Black vote.
She doesn't need the Black vote in Nov.

She did get
55% to 60% white vote
65% to 70% Asian vote
60% to 65% Latino Vote

She does need Black vote anymore.
The Black Vote is OVER RATED.
Latino vote counts.

Posted by: ermias.kifle | March 6, 2008 2:39 PM

i have lived in pittsburgh my entire life. For anyone that wants a true indicator of what will happen on April 22, please refer to the comment posted above by
love80sdance .

PA is one of the more racist states in the union. This will come out in April. Blind faith in democratic politicians on the local and state level will hold true, and the racist sheep in this state will pull the Hillary lever.

its sad. i watch other states and all of the youthful energy that is found surrounding obama and think of the same old antiquated and provincial logic applied here.

if the national mindset still believes that obama can win this, most will sing a different tune when they wake up on April 23.

Posted by: bubbathirtyone | March 6, 2008 2:39 PM

I am going to go donate some money to Obama when I get home today. He can win. He must win or we will have 4 years of Bush lite with either Hillary or McCain.

Posted by: nibaizi | March 6, 2008 2:39 PM

First off, I've got to admit that this has been the most exciting campaign in my lifetime. While the divisiveness in the party right now bothers me, I'm happy the Dems have two great candidates.

Both Clinton and Obama made strategic errors in trying to knock the other out too soon. Clinton tried to end the race on Super Tuesday and Obama tried to wrap things up on March 4th. Neither candidate wants to take this thing all the way to the convention.

I think it'll be a longshot for Obama to win PA but he has more than enough time to close the gap. A loss within 5-8% is a victory for him. Clinton may end up winning PA but she needs to win by a pretty big margin in order to make her case to the super D's that Obama can't win in PA...

Posted by: panehesy | March 6, 2008 2:37 PM

SO BARACK SUFFERS A CRUSHING AND HUMILIATING DEFEAT IN OHIO,TEXAS AND RHODE ISLAND AND THE DELEGATES DON'T CHANGE. THIS IS RIDICULOUS. WHAT AN UNDEMOCRATIC AND NONSENSICAL PROCESS. FAIR AND SQUARE AND WINNER TAKE ALL, WITH THE WINS IN ALL THE MEGA STATES CLINTON HAS IT ALL WRAPPED UP BY NOW.

Posted by: tahirn | March 6, 2008 2:36 PM

Are you really sure of your analysis? First Pennsylvania is bigger than Ohio. Two large cities and their metropolis, ie , Pittsburgh and Philadelphia are cities favorable to Obama. Obama has done pretty well in farm counties and college or university towns in other states.

Second, the arithmetics or maths is stacked against Clinton unless nobody likes Obama in the coming contests. Clinton will have to win 60-40 in all the coming contests to overtake Obama in pledged delegates in the rest of the contests.

It is the big states strategy which has put Clinton in the deficit she finds herself in. These big states normally vote for democrats, ie, California, New York, Massachusetts. George Bush won Ohio in 2000 and 2004, so Ohio is a swing state which can go to any party. In 2008, Ohio will not vote for McCain because of his Nafta stance. People want real change not experience as the deciding factor in 2008. The folks in Iowa set the tone. They wanted change and a new direction for the country. 2008 is a leap year which means people want change in the world!

It is about time Clinton withdraws from the contest. The Monica Lewisky scandal, and the impeachment trial of Bill Clinton were factors which did cost the democrats the 2000 election. Who wants a rehash of that?

Posted by: ameys1 | March 6, 2008 2:35 PM

Of course it will be an uphill battle for Obama in Pennsylvania. Two weeks ago, Clinton was ahead of Obama by 20 points in both Texas and Ohio. He closed the gap in both those states in stunning fashion. This is the real story of the primaries in Texas and Ohio: how Obama, a relative unknown black man cam within a few percentage points of unseating the leading Democrat of the decade. Obama did not lose Ohio and Texas, since he was never winning there to begin with. Rather, Clinton came very close to blowing her monumental lead in those states which were initially strongly favorable to her. I hope that in the next few days we will see some more analysis on how Clinton managed to almost lose Texas and Ohio.

There is every indication that Obama would also close the current gap in Pennsylvania. He has in fact more time to make this effort and more resources to do so than he did in Texas and Ohio. Seven weeks to the Pennsy primary is an eternity and Obama will make very good use of the time as he wages an uphill campaign, the kind that he has pursued for the past 12 months.

Posted by: dee5 | March 6, 2008 2:34 PM

Tell Clinton to release her tax returns-talking about transparency and honesty??? HA HA HA
Oh what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive!

Posted by: mhackett01 | March 6, 2008 2:33 PM

I HAVE SEEN SOME COMMENTS ON OBAMA'S MIDDLE NAME HUSSAIN, WHICH OFCOURSE IS AN ARABIC AND ISLAMIC NAME BUT I HAVE NOT SEEN ANYONE COMMENT ON HIS FIRST NAME BARRACK WHICH I BELIEVE IS ALSO ARABIC AND ISLAMIC. IT DERIVES FROM MUBARAK LIKE THE EGYPTIAN PRESIDENT HOSNI MUBARAK. BARACK 'S MEANING IS SIMILAR TO MUBARACK WHICH MEANS BLESSING. SO HIS NAME IS ISLAMIC BECAUSE HIS DAD'S FAITH WAS ISLAM BUT HE FOLLOWED HIS MOTHERS RELIGION WHICH IS CHRISTIAN. SO WHAT IS THE PROBLEM, WHY IS HE ASHAMED OF HIS NAMES ARABIC ROOTS?

Posted by: tahirn | March 6, 2008 2:32 PM

Now its Republican Vs. Democrat, and Democrat Vs. Democrat! Republican party candidate McCain won his parties nomination. Now he can begin campaign against the still contending Democrats- Clinton & Obama, who are still attacking each other, with neither having enough delegate votes to win their nomination. Thus, there will be "elite" superdelegates who will make Dem. party final decision, not the voters! Is this fair? You should have heard the screams from the Democrats in Dallas, TX precinct 4417 convention caucus, when participants discovered their voted candidate may not be supported or reflected for support in the state convention. Overall, the Republicans have addressed more issues and informed voters of their positions more fully. The Dems. are still fighting each other and addressed very few real issues. The Republicans win on issues, but they better register more voters if they want to win. Come on voters, get registered, get informed, get involved, and get to the polls (and vote Republican)!! Monty Ousley Weddell

Posted by: jhutt123 | March 6, 2008 2:28 PM

I understand the post about western pa-but things are really changing-OBAM is stricking such a cord with people. I'm telling you there are more people here that can't stand the Billary tag team and have changed their party to vote for Barack in the Primary. The Clintons are disgusting! Their reign is OVER!

Posted by: mhackett01 | March 6, 2008 2:28 PM

All I can say is if the superD's reject the people and give the nomination to Billary I'm voting for Panama Mac!

Posted by: aschifter1 | March 6, 2008 2:27 PM

Now that Obama's deceptiveness is exposed, many young voters are losing trust and confidence in him. His transparency and honesty is just rhetoric as proved by his stance on NAFTA. He told us that he was against it but later sent his emissary to the Canadian embassy to say that it was just election posturing. His connections to corrupt people in Illinois is in contrast to his stance that he want to change politics in Washington. If he cannot change it in Illinois then how can he change Washington? Does he think people are dumb to believe that Rezko's wife whose annual income is $35,000 could donate $19,000 to his campaign or purchase on the same day an adjacent lot to his house for $600,000? Give us a break. As a Senate chairman of the foreign relation committee he did not have a single hearing to safe guard our troops in Afghanistan. He voted to allow to allow porn stores close to schools and churches and allow early release of sex offenders. He runs on "words matter" but lifts them from others. He has admitted to pressing the wrong button on several crucial votes in the legislature. How can we trust him with the nuclear button?

Posted by: utworcurious | March 6, 2008 2:26 PM

i want to see some tax returns, witch....

Posted by: christopher.keller | March 6, 2008 2:26 PM

Try this

do an image search using google for "rezko clinton" Yep, there he is, the guy Clinton's say is in bed with Obama has a nice picture with Hill and Bill.

Try this.

Go to youtube and search "peter paul"

Think of this

Some of the popular vote in texas (absentee and early voters) took place over weeks---and Hillary won!! But the evening caucuses on Tuesday were won by Obama--now if the candidates switched places Im sure the Clintons would say that the caucuses show the MOST RECENT intent of Texans--in other words--the tide has turned!!!

Finally, on that fear mongering 3am add which appears to be directed at women---why isn't anyone talking about the point that Hillary will be thinking of keeping your babies safe but she'll actually, even if she has forethought, send your husband, brother, or grown son or daughter to war--like Iraq for instance

Posted by: DennisMC | March 6, 2008 2:25 PM

This article contains the one hard truth that Hillary supporters just don't get. Despite the loyalty of her voters she is despised across the nation in almost equal measure to Bush himself. Voting for Hillary is tantamount to voting for McCain to win. She is hated by almost half her own party (ie the ones who vote Obama), cannot win over independents and loathed by Republicans. Even if McCain loses some of the Conservative base it will be nothing compared to he hemorrhage of support that the Democrats will see if the party is foolish enough to let Hillary be their candidate. Hillary may well win the nomination but she will lose the election and if she does I hope every idiot who backed her will send their paychecks to Obama as an apology for being so stupid (so he can take on McCain in 2012 if there is anything left of America to fight for).

Posted by: chunkylimey | March 6, 2008 2:25 PM

of course, hillary's folks are bone headed, someone compared barack to ken starr today. if you are their campaign, why bring up that name? we know what that does - it reminds people why they didn't want to vote for her. stupid, stupid move. things are going well, ride it.

Posted by: isometruman | March 6, 2008 2:25 PM

YesweCan1,

You are boring ... nobody reads more than 3 paragraphs per post!

Posted by: trace-sc | March 6, 2008 2:25 PM

Remember: THERE ARE NO CAUCUSES IN NOVEMBER.

Obama doesn't win the big primary states. He didn't win Ohio, Florida or New Mexico, all three of which have gone for the GOP in recent years and will be key to a Democratic victory in November. He has the press dancing to his tune now but that is changing and will be a lost advantage come the fall.

Clinton can get it done. She doesn't fold when hit, she stands firm and fights. That's what we need as Democrats: fighters.

You want "change"? Great. So do I. But we're gonna have to FIGHT for it cuz the GOP won't give in as easily as the Democrats have during the Bush Administration. And what we truly need is a fighter in the White House to undo some of the mess that has been made since 2000. There's only one choice: GO HILLARY!!!

Posted by: tracyandreen | March 6, 2008 2:24 PM

I grew up in the Keystone state in a suburb of Pittsburgh. SIGH!

I left in the early 90s because having a college degree worked against me getting a job. Secondly, I could not handle the closed minded - stuck in a time warp thinking that prevails with both blacks and whites. When I go back to visit now it is still the same thing. Try and talk about the wider world and you get crazy looks for Fox news answers.

The bigotry, prejudice and racism is the Burg was awful. Imagine being a nine year old having adults scream the N word at you while speeding by at 45mph. Hearing it on the school bus, in school, in the mall, in restaurants. Most of those people are still there and many of their offspring.

Guidance counselor (singular) "You don't have what it takes to go to college - so why don't you take all general classes and be done with it" I have a masters by the way. He tried his best to keep as many black kids out of school as possible. He was just one in one school but that is too many.

I worked at a job for almost six months answering phone for a famous doctor's office. I was the only one besides the nurses and doctors of course who had a degree and I was the only chocolate chip. I told them I was quitting because I could see that they were happy to keep me answering phones indefinitely. The problem with this is NOT that they acknowledged this but could NOT see the issue with it. If you are going to be a bigot, at least be a smart bigot.

But all that is in the past. My point is there are still too many who will not vote for a black person in and around western PA.

The bigger problem I stated is the backwards thinking. Fellow burgers who've moved from PGH and moved to a more enlightened city back me up here. Reason, facts, research beyond Fox, MSNBC, etc. is a foreign concept. That there are new textures, experiences and opportunities beyond the now dead city (economics) that can be explored.

I heard Chris Mathews the other day say: "You've heard the old adage about PA. It's PGH and Philly with Alabama in the middle". DANG so true. For it to be a "city" the majority of thought is small town mentality - or small town I ain't gonna change no matter what" I like this familiar misery and I am sticking to it. I don't care what you "so called smart people think". If there was an experiment on fear of change - PGH is your test subject.

I will be surprised if Obama does very well.

Posted by: love80sdance | March 6, 2008 2:18 PM

Barack Insanes O'Bombing! ;~)

Posted by: rat-the | March 6, 2008 2:15 PM

If Obama wins that will be two coke heads in the Presidency in a row. With millions in jail for the same crime it seems a bit two faced politically speaking.

Posted by: hhkeller | March 6, 2008 2:13 PM

I tell you, I really love how people love to kick someone when they're down and are so quick to say "I told you so".

Are we really that cynical/heartless?

It will be an uphill fight for Obama, but understand this, he is the outsider candidate and his whole strategy has been geared towards being the underdog.

He still leads in pledged delegates and his campaign expected a delegate fight on the convention floor FROM THE BEGINNING.

Momentum is only as effective as the last word that you say.

Posted by: alabamasloanfan | March 6, 2008 2:12 PM

crat3,
You Clintonite idiots have no brains whatsoever or you're delusional. After losing 12 straight and still hundreds of delegates behind, you still think you're going to win.Get off the couch, throw away the beer cans, and go get a job.
We will not let the Clintons still this nomination!

Posted by: ednyo2000 | March 6, 2008 2:10 PM

Pennsylvania will be different that Ohio. Clinton will have a fight for sure here. The recent comments from our wonderful Governor Rendell will affect Hillary very negatively here in PA. He stated that PA is not ready to elect Obama. He's in for a big surprise! There is such a feverish grassroots effort going on here for Obama it is simply amazing. He stong armed the newly elected Mayor to support Clinton, Rendell is as crooked as they come. What a loser! I can't wait till Obama smokes her here in PA.

Posted by: mhackett01 | March 6, 2008 2:05 PM

Obama should his nasty groupies descend on Pennsylvania. That'll teach them a lesson.

Posted by: hhkeller | March 6, 2008 2:04 PM

It will be an uphill fight for Obama to win Pennslyvania, especially with most of the Penn. Democratic Party establishment supporting her, but Obama will fight for the votes. He has demonstrated thus far that his campaign is focused on making his case to be the nominee and president, state-by-state. Obama's not cherry-picking which states as important or non-important. To him they are all important, because they all make-up the United States of America...

Posted by: ajtiger92 | March 6, 2008 2:04 PM

In the aftermath of Barack Obama's and Hillary Clinton's threats to "renegotiate" NAFTA -- or pull out -- the usual suspects have been activated to tell the world how wonderful the deal has been for Canada and the United States.

There is no doubt that the sector that devised the scheme in the first place and sold it to politicians have benefited greatly from this investors' rights agreement and its predecessor. The continent's largest corporations have greatly reduced regulatory impediments to their profits, radically lowered labour costs, gutted Canada's sovereign capacity to pass new environmental legislation and, in terms of investment restrictions, virtually erased the borders.

All of those corporate benefits, however, have been extremely bad for other aspects of Canada and for ordinary Canadians.

But first, let's dispose of a myth about free trade -- the notion that it was responsible for massive increases in trade between the U.S. and Canada. According to an Industry Canada study, 91 per cent of the increase in trade in the 1990s was due to the cheap Canadian dollar and the sustained economic boom in the U.S. Now that our dollar is at par or higher, our manufacturing exports are plummeting.

Related Articles
Recent

Globe editorial: To write about crime is also to act
Ontario court orders newspaper to hand over sensitive documents
National Post's anonymous package could be used to identify source
But even if NAFTA were responsible for increased trade, Canadian workers have paid a huge price. Throughout the 1990s, federal governments trumpeted the need to be "competitive" under NAFTA as an excuse to implement some of the most Draconian rollbacks of Canadian social programs ever undertaken. In the name of "labour flexibility," Paul Martin implemented drastic changes to EI eligibility, and repealed the Canada Assistance Plan, freeing the provinces to gut their welfare programs. His extreme low-inflation policy deliberately kept unemployment at high levels (8 per cent to 9 per cent) for most of the 1990s.

That meant that, throughout the decade, workers' real wages actually declined. They still have not caught up to 1981 levels. And the highly paid 220,000 industrial jobs lost as a result of NAFTA are gone forever, replaced by lower-paid jobs.

NAFTA was supposed to unleash a flood of foreign investment -- boosting our industrial capacity and productivity. Instead, since the first trade agreement was signed, more than 95 per cent of direct foreign investment has been used to buy up Canadian companies. Head offices and research and development money has headed south, and Canada has seen a steady decline in manufactured goods as a percentage of its GDP for the past 10 years.

Our productivity has fallen behind that of the U.S. in virtually every year since the FTA came into effect in 1989.

The environment has also suffered almost continuously since the deals were signed -- and this is according to the Commission for Environmental Co-operation, the NAFTA agency responsible for monitoring the impact of the new regime. The North American Mosaic: The State of the Environment Report, released in 2001, declared that "North Americans are faced with the paradox that many activities on which the North American economy is based impoverish the environment on which our well-being ultimately depends."

It might also have mentioned that Canada has not passed a major new environmental protection law since NAFTA came into effect -- at least not successfully. In two instances where it did try, NAFTA's investment chapter forced it to back off. In the Ethyl Corp. case, Canada tried to ban a gasoline additive, MMT, that damaged cars' catalytic converters (not to mention our health). The company sued under NAFTA and Canada withdrew the law. The resulting chill effect means we have no idea how many proposed new laws have been killed in their cribs.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper says Canada is an energy "superpower." But NAFTA virtually guaranteed that the U.S. would be the beneficiary of our energy, and it unleashed a massive increase in energy exports to the U.S.

Canada now exports 63 per cent of the oil it produces and 56 per cent of its natural gas to the U.S. And because of NAFTA's proportionality clause, Canada is legally obliged to continue exporting the same proportion of our oil and gas forever even if we face a shortage.

Next up is our water. The U.S. is already officially into its supply problems and it will, over the next 20 years, become a catastrophic crisis, outpacing even their predicted energy crisis.

NAFTA defines water as a good -- meaning that, as soon as any provincial government signs a contract to export bulk water to the U.S. (by river diversion or tanker), nothing can stop further exports.

All of this, and for what? Allegedly, it was for guaranteed, predictable access to the U.S. market. But, of course, as the softwood lumber saga proved, there is no such thing.

Posted by: marthadavidson | March 6, 2008 2:01 PM

Balz:
"Clinton also claims victories in the disputed states of Michigan and Florida. That's an unfair claim because both states were sanctioned by the Democratic Party and stripped of their convention seats"
====================

First of all, that's a remarkably forceful statement for a news reporter to include in a news piece. Second, it's "unfair", she did win and not seating the delegates doesn't change that.

Posted by: zukermand | March 6, 2008 1:53 PM

Google "Peter Paul" and "Clinton."

Posted by: flarrfan | March 6, 2008 1:38 PM

Zack:

Read my post again. I'm trying to stave off the fear-mongering from our friend JakeD, not exascerbate it.

Posted by: ManUnitdFan | March 6, 2008 1:36 PM

Obama will stand and fight in Pennsylvania. While Hillary dismissed half of the electoral map and thanked none of her supporters in the neglected states, Obama has proven that he can win anywhere in the country. He'll have a long stretch of time to introduce himself to Pennsylvania voters. The more they see of him, the better he'll do.

Then its on to North Carolina, where Obama will deliver the KO ya'll have been waiting for.

Posted by: Republicus1 | March 6, 2008 1:34 PM

Have any of her Democratic opponents, including Obama, sought more detailed answers from her about stories such as:
• Norman Hsu and his bundling of money for her campaign?
• How "dishwashers, waiters and others" poured "$1,000 and $2,000 contributions into Clinton's campaign treasury?"
• Bill's trip to Kazakhstan with Canadian magnate, Frank Giustra, that netted Giustra $3 billion and Bill's foundation a $131 million contribution from Giustra?
• How powerful foreign donors to Bill's presidential library, such as the Saudis, may pose a serious conflict of interest to Hillary's foreign policy actions as president?
• How Bill's tangled ties to an investment concern of Clinton friend, Ron Burkle, and it's dealings with Dubai may yet, again, threaten to compromise Hillary Clinton's execution of foreign policy as president?
• The fact that with all of these questionable financial dealings, the Clintons have been unwilling to release their tax returns, especially in light of Hillary Clinton claiming that the $5 million she lent the campaign was "her own money?"
• And, finally, though we, as Democrats, don't care who Bill schtupps (and, no, none of us believe he has kept his fly zipped the last seven years), you can be damn sure the Republicans will be digging hard (no pun intended) to see just what Bill has been up to since leaving office.

Posted by: YesweCan1 | March 6, 2008 1:30 PM

Super Tuesday 2 is the beginning of the end of Cult Obama campaign. Going forward, it's vision and experience (Hillary Clinton) over leap of faith and inexperience (cult leader Obama).

Cult leader Obama should do the patriotic act of stepping down now and ask Sen. Clinton to consider him for the #2 slot on her ticket.

Posted by: crat3 | March 6, 2008 1:30 PM

ManUnitdFan, by writing Barack's middle name in caps, are you trying to imply that Obama is Saddam Hussein? That Obama is going to be like Saddam Hussein? Let's say your name was once a name of a serial killer...does that mean you are going to be a serial killer?
So what if his name is Hussein. What are you afraid of? Oh right...you are a Hillary or McCain supporter so you live in world ruled by FEAR!

Posted by: zackart1 | March 6, 2008 1:22 PM

He has somewhat of an uphill battle, but Hillary needs a big win there, more so than Barack (If he keeps it to a single digit loss, he "wins");

Keystone is key- Barack vs Hillary:

http://newsusa.myfeedportal.com/viewarticle.php?articleid=53

Posted by: davidmwe | March 6, 2008 1:20 PM

Still no one from the Post looking into Hillary's hypocricy on NAFTA - http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080305.wharpleak0305/BNStory/National/home

Posted by: RollaMO | March 6, 2008 1:19 PM

To all of my fellow bloggers, I have been doing a little digging and ran into a particular website with some really disturbing questions of which I have copied, and pasted from www.mydd.com. This websites presents some very serious and interesting questions about Hillary being vetted, and the fact that she and her camp continues to claim that Obama isn't vetted enough and that their aggressive attacks are the very attacks that the Republicans will use against him. In addition, they have stated that there are questions about his dealings with Rezno (sp?) that poses some questions. Well after reading this site, I have listed some of those very important questions regarding Hillary and Bill in which the American people have a right to know the TRUE answers. In addition, the democratic party (especially a life long democrat as myself who actually voted for Bill both times) really want the media to do their job and determine on a fair base if both parties are fully vetted and hold them accountable to answering very important questions that all voters need to know. Specifically if these questions could hold a conflict of Interest in a Hillary's Presidential position. I am posing these questions to you, as the concerned voters of whom I am sure are intelligent enough to determine the truth from accusations and to think outside of the box when we chose our Democratic nominee who is going to go up against John McCain and the Republicans. I have copied and pasted the following:

Have any of her Democratic opponents, including Obama, sought more detailed answers from her about stories such as:
• Norman Hsu and his bundling of money for her campaign?
• How "dishwashers, waiters and others" poured "$1,000 and $2,000 contributions into Clinton's campaign treasury?"
• Bill's trip to Kazakhstan with Canadian magnate, Frank Giustra, that netted Giustra $3 billion and Bill's foundation a $131 million contribution from Giustra?
• How powerful foreign donors to Bill's presidential library, such as the Saudis, may pose a serious conflict of interest to Hillary's foreign policy actions as president?
• How Bill's tangled ties to an investment concern of Clinton friend, Ron Burkle, and it's dealings with Dubai may yet, again, threaten to compromise Hillary Clinton's execution of foreign policy as president?
• The fact that with all of these questionable financial dealings, the Clintons have been unwilling to release their tax returns, especially in light of Hillary Clinton claiming that the $5 million she lent the campaign was "her own money?"
• And, finally, though we, as Democrats, don't care who Bill schtupps (and, no, none of us believe he has kept his fly zipped the last seven years), you can be damn sure the Republicans will be digging hard (no pun intended) to see just what Bill has been up to since leaving office.

So has Hillary really been vetted? Shouldn't she be fully vetted on these stories and others for no other reason than as a public service to the Democratic Party? (The same logic Camp Clinton continually throws out for its "vetting" of Obama.)
Shouldn't the press be asking her about these stories and their potential impact on the race, should she garner the nomination? Shouldn't Democratic superdelegates take into account these items that may present themselves in "full bloom" during a race versus John McCain in the Fall?
Is $150,000 (since returned) from Tony Rezko more important than hundreds of millions of dollars in secret transactions?
I think for the sake of the Democratic Party, Hillary Clinton needs to be fully vetted.
I am sorry. I am not taking her or her surrogates at their word that there are "no surprises" and that she has been "fully vetted."
The facts are, she has not. Certainly not to the extent she will be on these stories -- and more -- in a general election versus John McCain.
Let the "vetting" begin.

Posted by: YesweCan1 | March 6, 2008 1:15 PM

If Hillary won Ohio, it was in some part because of her claims about Obama and NAFTA, ethics, and her security experience. Obama has done well with a lot of the very demographics she carried. To the extent he has 7 weeks to contrast with her on these issues and make the case to PA, that is a lot of time on his hands. He has not had that kind of luxury of time yet. Hillary needs a big win in PA, not just a 2-4% to make her claims. If she can do that, I will be very very surprised.

Posted by: cg_tgt | March 6, 2008 1:13 PM

Seems to me there are several races before PA. Obama will win them, he'll have more delegates, more victories, more money. Big State Democrats aren't going to move to McBush?

As Hilary falls further and further behind, she stands there, arms raised, claiming victory? I don't get it? Reality check! She's like Bush on the aircraft carrier with a banner saying "Mission Accomplished!" except it isn't. How about a reality-based President this time.

Posted by: thebobbob | March 6, 2008 1:07 PM

Not looking good for Barack HUSSEIN Obama ; )

- JakeD

There. Maybe if I beat him to it, it won't actually happen.

Posted by: ManUnitdFan | March 6, 2008 1:02 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 

© 2009 The Washington Post Company