Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Obama Memo: On Electability

Seeking to rebut the argument that Sen. Barack Obama's recent primary losses in Ohio and Pennsylvania endanger Democrats' chances of wining the White House in the fall, the Illinois senator's campaign is circulating a memo to superdelegates chock full of polling data that suggests just the opposite is true.

Entitled "The Strongest Candidate to Face John McCain," the memo, which was obtained by the Fix, casts Obama as the clear favorite for the Democratic nomination and better able than Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton to break Republicans' eight-year lock on the White House.

After reciting the now familiar litany of leads Obama holds (pledged delegates, popular vote, number of states won), the memo adds: "He's inspired Democrats, Independents, and Republicans, building an unprecedented coalition of more than 1.4 million contributors."

When it comes to the general election campaign, these demonstrated advantages make him the better choice for Democrats looking for a candidate to reclaim the Oval Office. "His ability to expand the Democratic base, and his ability to capture the crucial Independent vote, make him a stronger general election candidate than Senator Clinton, who would enter the fall campaign with the highest unfavorable ratings of any nominee in half a century," reads the memo. OUCH!

The memo goes on to detail polling from across the country that makes their case -- breaking down the map into "big states," "traditional battlegrounds" and "making new states competitive."

Here's how the memo breaks down the states within those categories:

Big States: California, New York, New Jersey and Illinois.

Traditional Battlegrounds: Iowa, North Carolina, Oregon, Wisconsin, Michigan, New Mexico, Nevada, Minnesota and Pennsylvania.

New States: Colorado, North Dakota, Virginia, Montana and Texas.

The memo, citing polling data from each of these states, argues that Obama runs either as well or better than Clinton in hypothetical matchups with McCain, due largely to his appeal among independents.

In Iowa for example, Obama leads McCain among independents by nine points while Clinton trails by 31 points, according to a Rasmussen Research poll. In Colorado, Obama led McCain by nine points among independents while Clinton lagged behind the Arizona senator by 13. And so on.

Two states that are not mentioned in the Obama memo are Florida, the key battleground in the 2000 presidential race, and Ohio, the Florida of the 2004 contest.

According to, the average of all polling in Florida puts McCain at 45 percent and Clinton at 42 percent, while Obama trails McCain, 49 percent to 38 percent. The same is true in Ohio, where Clinton leads McCain, 49.5 percent to 43 percent, while McCain led Obama, 45.5 percent to 43 percent.

Over the last 24 hours, the Clinton campaign has sought to make much of numbers like those. On a conference call yesterday, Ohio Gov. Ted Strickland, a Clinton supporter, said he hoped "superdelegates are paying attention" and called it a "no brainer" as to which Democrat had the better chance of carrying the Buckeye State in the fall.

"I am convinced that she is the candidate who can win Ohio," said Strickland. "Senator McCain will not be a pushover in Ohio. It will be a hotly contested race in Ohio."

Clinton herself is huddling today on Capitol Hill with undecided House members -- all of whom are superdelegates. Among the members she has met with, one-on-one: Reps. Jason Altmire (Pa.), Dan Boren (Okla.), Ron Klein (Fla.), Heath Shuler (N.C.), Brad Ellsworth (Ind.) and Ike Skelton (Mo.).

Remember that as Clinton and Obama fight publicly for votes in North Carolina and Indiana, there is also an active behind-the-scenes battle for the hearts and mind of superdelegates. Obama is pressuring undecideds to get behind him now for the sake of the party; Clinton is asking them to hold off on any decisions until the nominating fight draws to a formal conclusion on June 3.

Which side will win out?

By Chris Cillizza  |  April 24, 2008; 3:36 PM ET
Categories:  Eye on 2008  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: FixCam: Debut of The Fix T-Shirt!
Next: Friday Line: McCain's Best Strategic Moves


CBS: Democrat Barack Obama appears to have rebounded from some of the damage caused by the controversy surrounding his former pastor Rev. Jeremiah Wright, according to the latest CBS News/New York Times poll. On one key measure, Obama has seen a big reversal since his denunciation of Wright's remarks on Tuesday. He now leads presumptive Republican nominee John McCain in the hypothetical fall contest by eleven points, 51 percent to 40 percent.

Posted by: Bob, DC | May 4, 2008 7:09 PM | Report abuse

New CBS Poll: Obama Surges to 11 Point Lead over McCain, 12 points over Hillary. Obama 50(+4), Clinton 38(unchanged). Obama's approval rating jumped since April 30th, back to 44-30, up from 39-34. Obama 51(+6), McCain 40(-5).

Posted by: Bob, DC | May 4, 2008 7:03 PM | Report abuse


"Others have pointed out most every state he has won are Caucus and where X-Overs are allowed. Another thing worth pointing out is many of these states will not go Dem in the GE."

And many states that Clinton won will go Dem regardless of who the nominee it. The truth is that primary results are useless in predicting general election results because the opponent will be completely different--John McCain (and anyone will be allowed to vote and turnout will be far higher). If people want to argue that Clinton is the stronger candidate against McCain, the place to start would be polling data of Clinton and Obama against McCain, not the results of primary contests of Clinton and Obama against each other.

Please see Jeff Greenfield's Slate article on this issue:

"I have also seen where Hillary is the overall leader in actual votes cast in the Dem only primaries."

And that's relevant because?

If the idea is to have the best candidate for November, perhaps it's better to have non-Democrats participating in the primaries. And in any case, both candidates knew the rules of each state contest going in and had an equal chance of running their campaigns accordingly.

"It is hard to see any possible way Obama can win the GE when you look closely at the EC Map. I find it almost impossible for him to even get close to 200 and Hillary has at least 309."

How did you reach that conclusion? Is it backed up by any data? There are several sites that track Clinton-McCain and Obama-McCain polls by state. Some have Clinton doing better, some Obama. Some of the state polls are older than others, and any polling this far out should be viewed with skepticism, but at least it's a place to start.

Some sites you can check out on this:

Posted by: Anonymous | April 29, 2008 4:14 PM | Report abuse

Judith Rose: "Many of my Republican friends voted for Obama in the primaries, especially those in Milwaukee Metro area and Madison because they feel McCain has a better chance against O'bama than Clinton. Those same independents will vote for McCain in November."

Where's the date to back it up? Any overall support or lack thereof should be reflected in national polls, regardless of primary results. And those polls show Clinton and Obama doing about equally well against McCain.

"Secondly, the caucuses do not reflect what will happen when the general election occurs and all voters will have an opportunity to vote, not just those who are available to attend caucuses."

That's true about primaries too. Democrat-Democrat match-ups are useless in determining which Democrat will do better against McCain where everyone is allowed to vote and turnout will be far higher. Again, national head-to-head polls against McCain would be the better place to start.

"I'm sorry, I just don't want someone who can't think on their feet making all the decisions that will come up in the oval office."

How often does a president have to come up with an answer in thirty seconds or less? I think just about never. The question is what will the candidate sign and what will the candidate veto. On the issues, there's not much difference between Clinton and Obama.

"Also, he is somewhat hypocritical. For instance, he continues to slam Clinton for taking contributions from PACs and lobbyists; but a recent article in the Washington post indicated he has over 30 employees of lobbyists working on his campaign as paid employees. Also the list of his contributions show many from the families of lobbyist employees and multi-billionaires and corporations with special interests."

Still, I bet he's better on this score than the Clinton campaign. And do not start me on the purposely deceptive arguments that Clinton has made (for instance, that her primary wins in big states make her the favorite in the general election--it's simply false, and I think the campaign knows it).

Posted by: dsimon | April 28, 2008 3:46 PM | Report abuse

Most New Yorkers i know that voted for Hillary have switched to Obama -- Latino, White and Black progressive folk. She cannot win without causing great harm to the democratic process. Hillarys blatant exploitation of racial, age and gender divides for personal gain, threaten not only the democratic party, it is an offense to all Americans. Her baiting comments about iran remind us that she voted for iraq, and she never apologized, but rather justified her vote. First she said she was fooled by GW Bush, then she said she did due dillegence, BUT... If Hillary does not reverse the damages done as a consequence of her negative campaign and speak out STRONGLY against racism and reject the right wingers who now endorse her (as Obama did when Farrakhan endorsed him); vehemently challenge her supporters who seek to blackmail the democratic party by saying they will vote for mccain and war, rather than vote for obama for no real good reason (sure Obama is not perfect, but he is not for the war and has almost the same economic platform as Hillary -- while mccain definitely supports the war and tax breaks for the rich)- she will lose almost all credibility amoung her multi-cultural base of supporters in New York. Those elected officials and super delegates that still support Hillary after the way she has conducted this campaign look rather foolish. At the end of the day you have to account to your constituency. If she wins, we all lose. I am sure the super delegates wont let that happen.

Posted by: Harriet | April 28, 2008 1:34 PM | Report abuse


God alone know how I never thought I would be sympathizing with you. But it seems to me that I said something MONTHS ago about how the MSM was in Clinton and Obama's pocket, and the minute the field narrowed to two, they jumped on the Obama bandwagon big time.

As we've established over the past year or so, I'm in no ways a HRC supporter, but at some point don't thinking Dems have to look at the race to come and ask:

1) if Obama can't win Latinos, how can he win CA, against the GOP candidate with the strongest potential appeal to them?

2) do caucus and primary wins in KS, NE, ND, ID, UT, etc really mean anything at all?

3) Does losses in OH, PA, AR presage a similar weakness in the fall against a candidate who has proven he can attract independents?

If one assumes that the South is essentially out of play, and Obama's argument leaves out MO, OH and FL, why should we assume he can win an EC victory? As I said in a previous post, there is often more said by what is left out than what is included in such scenarios.

Posted by: leuchtman | April 28, 2008 11:46 AM | Report abuse

What I don't see in a lot of these comments is the fact that in many states, independents who are otherwise stated Republicans can vote in the Democratic caucuses or primaries. I'm in Wisconsin, one of the states where this is allowed. Many of my Republican friends voted for Obama in the primaries, especially those in Milwaukee Metro area and Madison because they feel McCain has a better chance against O'bama than Clinton. Those same independents will vote for McCain in November. Secondly, the caucuses do not reflect what will happen when the general election occurs and all voters will have an opportunity to vote, not just those who are available to attend caucuses. How much of an effect will that have on the results? -- I tend to think it will change dramatically unless Obama starts to give some substance to policies and action plans. I think we all need to keep an eye on who can really win the election, considering all these factors vs the present delegate count and popular vote which do show the whole picture. Obama is a great orator, but when he can't prepare ahead like he does for his speeches, he has difficulty responding "off the cuff"; I'm sorry, I just don't want someone who can't think on their feet making all the decisions that will come up in the oval office. Also, he is somewhat hypocritical. For instance, he continues to slam Clinton for taking contributions from PACs and lobbyists; but a recent article in the Washington post indicated he has over 30 employees of lobbyists working on his campaign as paid employees. Also the list of his contributions show many from the families of lobbyist employees and multi-billionaires and corporations with special interests. He's not as "lily-white" as he claims to be.

Posted by: Judith Rose | April 28, 2008 11:28 AM | Report abuse


I don't know what planet you are on, but I'm guessing you are only about 25 and haven't seen too many presidential elections. I am a 45 year old political scientist and lawyer, and have been studying politics for over 20 years.

You probably are too young to remember Ronald Reagen, but I can assure you that it is very possible that McCain would beat Obama. Reagen was the same age as McCain when he first ran and won two terms.

Moreover, the African American vote is less than 20 percent of the democratic electorate. Moreover, most of them live in southern states that will be red in the fall, like Georgia and Alabama. These states don't have a snow balls chance in hell of turning blue for at least another 50 years. So, the black vote that counts in a general election is about 8 to 10 percent of the democratic winning ticket. Additionally, those working class whites in Pa., Ohio, Michigan, and Florida as well as other states, make up about one third of the democratic electorate. Also white women make up about 40% of the democratic constituancy. If you haven't noticed the exit polls in the primaries, you should go see real clear politics. The youth vote everyone keeps screaming about is only about 8%, hardly the majority. So, you need to understand these demographics to predict what is the best chances for democrats to win back the white house.

Obama is not the god you kids think he is. If that were the case, he would have taken Clinton out in Ohio or Texas or even on super Tuesday.

As for Obama having the educated vote, this is a misnomer. Clinton in getting between 60 to 70 percent of the white female vote, more than 40% of which are well educated. What she is not getting is educated white men. These educated white men make up about 15 to 20% percent of the democratic electorate. The blue coller men are going for Clinton by more than 60% and they represent about 25%. Seniors represent more than 30% of the overall electorate and they too are going for Clinton. So learn, before you jump to conclusions.

Obama is only where he is because the republicans are funding him through corporate bundling and the media is in the tank for him. They are in the tank for him because their corporate owners want a sure supporter of the Bush/Chaney energy bill, if by chance McCain loses to a democrat. Obama voted for that horribly distructive energy bill that will keep us slaves to Nuclear power and fossil fuels. He has no intentions of going green any time soon.

Obama is a sellout to the nuclear power industry and big oil. General Electric is the biggest nuclear power invester in the country. They also make big money on war technology, which depends on our continued stay in Iraq and dependance on foreign oil. General Electric owns the Obama network of MSNBC. The saudis have bought into the other Obama network, CNN via Time Warner. And, I can assure you that the Saudis have no interest in america leaving Iraq or getting off our addition to foreign oil.

But all of these things are probably more detailed than you kids understand. Obama seems cool and together, but the truth is that he is just another polition playing the same old politics of the corporate ring masters. Their whole strategy is to hoodwink people like you, who haven't been exposed to enough yet to see the lay of the land.

Posted by: Kendall A. Johnson | April 28, 2008 5:08 AM | Report abuse

THANKS for the insight on the memo...

DEMs are coming out in record numbers. They are angry and yes bitter. McCain is so limited in his views and intelect that he should be in an Alzheimers center. Brittany Spears could come out of rehab and beat him or any Pub this year after Bush/Cheney disasters.

Barrack Obamma is still the one the Pubs are deathly afraid of. Even their voters coem out and vote for Hillary-- to keep Obama off balance and prolong the waste of money fending off (Hillary, Bill, Chelsea, and tired older Dems who are still dreaminng in the 90's).
1- Barack's got the money, backing of a youth movement, black votes, knowldegable educated voters, and at the top of the ticket will create a huge landslide, and super delegates sknow this (and want to win big in Novemeber) So Hilllary math dreamers get over it-- Obama will win it all!

2- If Clinton strong arms this-- they'll eek out a win over McCain, but the senate remains the same. And in 2010, Pubs will win back seats as Congress will be deadlocked again, no progress and Clinton will lose in 2112...

So PLEASE -- look at the big picture.

Obama is the best choice to get anything done in this country and abroad.
3- Don't forget Obama won the American's anboad vote 3 to 1-- because that is how we are viewed outside of the states. The world needs to look at real change in America (not the same two families in power for 24 years)...

Face reality and look beyond November and 2010.
Obama is a guaranteed landslide and will bring our troops home, balance our forces within our borders, make us respectable again with a sensible foreign policy, and provide affordable health care and jobs in this country.

Posted by: Justin | April 27, 2008 9:30 PM | Report abuse

Obama is in dream land if he thinks he can flip these states that he now thinks are in play. North Carolina, what a joke!!!! North Carolina has been a solid red state for more than 40 years, and yes the african americans have been voting there for the last several presidential elections.

I took the time to go over the numbers based on the analysis laid out here by the Obama camp. If you didn't notice, the memo fails to do the math. No numbers adding the electoral delegates were made part of the analysis. It lays out states, but doesn't count their electoral votes. This is deliberate and is because they do not add up to a win!!!!!

Texas is a pipe dream!!! The mexican americans will not vote for him and if you look at the texas primary map the whites won't vote for him either. They all voted for Clinton. Throw in the republicans and indapendants and McCain owns Texas.

Colorado, again he won a caucus, not a primary where the people vote. He will not get the latino vote in colorado either. And even if he does flip this state, it only has 9 electoral delegates, hardly a trade off for Florida or Ohio which have 27 and 20 electoral delegates respectively. Obama argues that Va. is in play, but again it only has 13 electoral delegates and has been a red general election state for a very long time. The fact that Web was elected senator there is inconsequential. Florida and many other red states have democratic senators too. Florida or Ohio are much more likely to go blue given their demographics.

So what is left of his analysis? Penn. doesn't currently look good for him and the demographics favor McCain and or Clinton. He has vertually disenfranchised Michigan by refusing to agree to a revote. This will not bode well in the fall and if Romney is on the ticket with McCain, Obama can surely kiss Michigan good bye.

This analysis mentions that Iowa is in play and would go to Obama easily, but it fails to mention that this state has only 7 electoral delagates. The article also mentions SD and Montana, as if we are all stupid enough to believe that these states will go blue for Obama. What a joke!!!And by the way, both these states combined only have 6 electoral delegates.

So at the end of the day, Obama would have to flip at least 4 to 6 of these states along with winning all the states that Kerry won in order to win the general election. This is extremely unlikely and using his caucus wins as a measure of that likelihood is deceiving and ill-guided at best.

Obama's electoral math is a fairy tail and the superdelegates would have to stupid or bought off in order to swallow this crap. After doing the math, I found that Obama, without Fl. or Ohio, but with MI. only earns 243 electoral votes. Hillary on the otherhand earns 265 elecoral votes, without counting Florida. Hillary earns 292 if she wins Florida. If she loses Florida, she would only have to flip one other state such as Maine or Iowa or West Virginia or Wisconsin in order to win the general election. She is clearly the stronger general election candidate. Like the Black Governor of N.Y. said, its a no brainer!!!!!!Clinton is the obvious choice.

Posted by: Kendall A. Johnson | April 27, 2008 8:13 PM | Report abuse

Howard Dean said Michigan and Florida will have some arrangement at the convention, but because of the broken rules, they can't go as is. That's fair, if not split even given that rules were broken. It is the ones in those two states' offices whom are responsible. The DNC didn't do it, they did. The people should be ticked at their own elected officials of their states. I'm curious if they screwed things up on purpose because, surely they knew better. Their delegates will be seated somehow though so it's ok.

Good job Democrats!!

Obama '08

Posted by: Obama2008 | April 27, 2008 5:49 PM | Report abuse

The DNC didn't want my vote in the the primary...they sure as hell not getting it in November....I only hope every democrat in Michigan and Florida feels the same.

Posted by: lucygirl1 | April 27, 2008 3:25 PM | Report abuse

It would be a disaster for either Clinton or Obama's supporter to back McCain just because their candidate is NOT the nominee. Voting for McCain is the continuition of Bush's policy. I'd rather see either Clinton or Obama wins the WH.

Posted by: bigben1986 | April 27, 2008 12:50 PM | Report abuse

Perhaps, Obama is slowing down in the race because of all the negatives coming out about him. He is proving not to be the politician of "change" that he has promised. No one is to blame for Obama's slippage but himself. He tells the falsehood that he does not take money from Lobbyists so that he has no debts to pay. Hah!. Where did he get all those millions in donations? Certainly not from people like you and me who can give very little. His big donors are large companies which bypass their own lobbyists by having their execs and employees donate $2300 each. Then, these companies "bundle" the money, give it to Obama with their hands outstretched for favors. Obama has already received an earmark that was especially crafted for General Dynamics, one of his bundlers. He had, at last count, 79 bundlers so , if elected, he is starting with 78 debts to pay.[having already paid back General Dynamics].What change is he offering? Obama has a lot of garbage that he is dragging behind him and the GOP won't have far to go to find it and showcase it! I started questioning his qualifications back in January,when he did things I did not like, did research on him, and found that he is duplicitous, crafty, and, to me, not Presidential material. Thomas Sowell, a black journalist, has said of Obama's smooth performances, " An eel is like sandpaper compared to you." Ken Blackwell, a black politician, has said of him, " Never in my life have I seen a presidential frontrunner whose rhetoric is so far removed from his record". And, I found these statements after I had already come to the same conclusions, myself. As much as I dislike McCain's agenda, I would never vote for Obama. I do not trust him!.

Posted by: afed | April 27, 2008 12:30 PM | Report abuse

People who don't think Obama has a chance to win the general.....where do you get your information from? I'v seen legitimate polling data which proves otherwise.

As for the issue of Florida, Obama has not even campaigned there, so who knows how well he could actually compete there? When the primary took place Edwards and Kucinich were still in the race. They received about 258,000 votes. Obama around 550,000 and Clinton 850,000. How is it fair that she gets those delegates when there were two other people in the race who now no longer are? There is a good chance that if he campaigned in Florida, he could erode her lead significantly (like he did in PA).

This guy is not only campaigning against Clinton, he's up against Bill, their name recognition McCain, and the MSM. She is lucky to have her husband's coattails to run on, otherwise she wouldn't be where she is right now.

Posted by: noahsmom823 | April 27, 2008 10:41 AM | Report abuse

I just saw Fox News Sunday and as I predicted it was another "Puff Piece". I am still in disbelief as to how The Media are supporting this guy close to 100%. Others have pointed out most every state he has won are Caucus and where X-Overs are allowed. Another thing worth pointing out is many of these states will not go Dem in the GE. I have also seen where Hillary is the overall leader in actual votes cast in the Dem only primaries. It is hard to see any possible way Obama can win the GE when you look closely at the EC Map. I find it almost impossible for him to even get close to 200 and Hillary has at least 309. Bottom line on the Dem nominee, Obama loses, Hillary wins.

Posted by: lylepink | April 27, 2008 10:19 AM | Report abuse

I'll vote for who I want in November, not who the DNC says I should vote for, who Senators Obama or Clinton say I should vote for. In my heart, I cannot vote for Senator Obama, knowing how his fellow peers all cheered to his reverend's trash talk about the nation that all of us and our ancestors have worked so hard for. I also don't see any real policies, just stage presence. I'm a 40 something lifelong democrat, who will write in my vote or refuse to vote for the first time in my life is Senator Obama and McCain are my only choices. Until I'm happy with any resolution about Florida or Michigan, I've also discontinued any donation to the DNC, maybe for life. Just because somebody is on the democratic ticket doesn't mean we have to like him or vote for him... so this Clinton supporter definitely will NOT democratic in November if her name isn't on the ballot. I don't ever want to be a part of the blame for eight more years of inexperience and ineptitude.

Posted by: pmck | April 27, 2008 7:27 AM | Report abuse

Obie forgot to mention a few more things.

In Kenya he has an insurmountable lead.

In Indonesia, he is running unopposed.

Among ex-smokers who still sneak in a puff, he has a solid majority.

In rural Pennsylvania auto-mechanics, he has a strong following, excepting those that cling to religion and guns.

He leads all comers with black women who have not yet been proud of their country.

He has a majority of the Main Stream Media pundits and columnists in his corner.

Add up all of these, he is a cinch for the nomination and election.

Posted by: Krishna | April 26, 2008 10:13 PM | Report abuse

The democrats don't need to win middle America. We just need to win Ohio and Florida, with an electoral total of 47, to reach +270. Coincidentally, Clinton is leading in those two states.

Posted by: ro | April 26, 2008 9:03 PM | Report abuse

this is to anilmal. Yes, Yes, Yes and Yes. These answers would also apply to Clinton.

Posted by: Helen in Kansas | April 26, 2008 2:52 PM | Report abuse

The people in Florida and Michigan who went to the polls to vote Knew that their vote would Not count. (I am proud of them for the exercise) Those folks will not be the ones disenfranchised. The voters that would be disenfranchised would be the ones who did not go to the polls to vote because THEY KNEW THAT THEIR VOTE WOULD NOT COUNT!
I say seat the delegates, split them between the canidates.
The canidates agreeded to not promote themselves in Florida. Is it true that Clinton did some fundraising there before the primary? I would hope that is false.
We need to focus on getting Bush out and keeping McCain out.
I have been a Sen. Clinton Backer but I just can't see how this can work for her, the party and the country.
The primary rules cannot be changed after the fact, to arrange it to elect one person over another.
Let's move on after May 6th with the big picture and the general election

Posted by: Helen in Kansas | April 26, 2008 2:49 PM | Report abuse

Braveheart: "The tide is turning."

There is no tide. Each candidate has won where that candidate was expected to win. There has been hardly a single upset. Candidates can spin all they want, but it sure looks like the outcome is determined more by state-to-state demographics than anything the candidates have or have not done.

It's not momentum. It's scheduling.

Posted by: dsimon | April 26, 2008 2:28 PM | Report abuse

When, oh When, will the New York City boys and the Washington Beltway boys believe there is a big country outside your cities? Out there lives Americans and they are not ready for a handsome rookie,raised in Indonesia,ambitious son of a muslim economist, to be President. Too exotic. Yes,Clinton has used attack ads, yes, Obama has some self-inflicted wounds. And yes, blacks want to win control of the White House. In the words of that immortal rotten American, Dick Cheney, "SO?"

Posted by: zaney8 | April 26, 2008 1:02 PM | Report abuse


I would ask you to answer the following questions:

a. Would you buy a used car from this person ?
b. Would you leave your teenage daughter with this family?
c. Would you hand over the management of your personal finances to this person?
d. Do you want this persons finger on the nuclear button ?

The answers will tell you who deserves to win

Posted by: anilmal | April 26, 2008 12:15 PM | Report abuse

Don't forget, folks. People voted for Obama BEFORE his true character was revealed through the
Rev Wright God dxxx America...
Cling to guns and religion...
Won't wear a flag pin because...
Won't put his hand on his heart during national anthem....
Michelle's "unproud of America" comments...
Michelle's separatist undergrad thesis... other troubling issues.
Those who voted for him then may not vote for him now. So realize what the Republicans will do to smear him (ala swift boating - which may not be entirely accurate, but the mud sticks) and take a good look at how much they have already smeared Hillary who is still standing. The choice this fall is clear. Hillary can stand the heat. The new kid on the block has no idea how vicious the Republicans can be.

Posted by: Voice of reason | April 26, 2008 11:12 AM | Report abuse

So let's look at the argument.

Big States: California, New York, New Jersey and Illinois.

CA: California shouldn't be in play, but with Obama's latino problem, it could be. The others will almost certainly go with whoever the Dem nominee is.

Traditional Battlegrounds: Iowa, North Carolina, Oregon, Wisconsin, Michigan, New Mexico, Nevada, Minnesota and Pennsylvania.

MI: Note that FL is not listed because Obama doesn't perform well there. My home state (MI, where I grew up) is a solid blue state, but I'm not convinced that Obama can carry it, particularly after denying seating of the delegation. PA Dems handed Obama a big loss. Hard to believe that will change in the general.

New States: Colorado, North Dakota, Virginia, Montana and Texas.

Maybe Obama can carry VA, MT and CO. TX is a pipe dream, and there is no way he carries my adoptive home state (ND) polling is notoriously inaccurate, but ND is one of those states where the internet smears have worked. I know dozens of Dem leaning voters who won't vote for him. And all of the battlegrounds that he can win doesn't make up for potentially putting CA in play.

What is particularly noteworthy is the exclusion of MO, FL and OH in this. Sometimes its easier to see the flaws in these types of process arguments by the exclusions than the inclusions.

Posted by: leuchtman | April 26, 2008 8:58 AM | Report abuse

To Sarah from Indiana: You are right, Hillary is so loyal to her party that she has said many times she will fierce-fully support Obama if he were to get the nomination. However, have you ever heard Obama say the same??

He is so arrogant that when Hillary answered that a chance to a "dream ticket" would be possible, Obama took great offense. And then in one of his rally's he took great pleasure in embarrassing her publicly by distorting her words and accusing her of saying she had already won the nomination. This is just one of the many reasons I have joined with 47% of Hillary supporters who will not cast a vote for Obama. And just before the primaries our family had planned to vote for him had he gotten the nomination. Than he and his wife begin the unsolicited personal attacks. One of the examples is when Michelle Obama attacked Hillary's marriage.

I have voted seven times in Presidential elections and not once have I voted for a Republican candidate but this is different; this is very personal and no one will be able to convince me otherwise.

And by the way I do not believe McCain will be any worse then Obama. At least we know who McCain is and what he stands for. But I do not know who Obama is and do not trust him.

Nevertheless, in quoting Mr Obama own words he said; "any of the us three candidates (Obama, Hillary and McCain)will be better than Bush". Therefore, my vote along with almost 50% of Hillary's supporters will most likely vote for McCain in November; which will tilt the election in his favor.

Posted by: Lindagr | April 26, 2008 3:21 AM | Report abuse

That famous Senate race that you predicted will not happen until 2010. The laws in the State of Arizona stipulate that Napolitano must appoint someone from the same party as McCain to serve out his term. She could of course appoint a has-been or a never-was but that will not work either because this state has a system of selecting that ends with her picking from a list of (I think four) candidates submitted by the Republican party. Your race for the Senate will probably happen in 2010 when her second term as Governor ends and she MUST vacate the office because of term limit laws. If McCain is President she would run against a person who had been the most junior senator for two years and had accomplished NOTHING to talk about. If he is not elected President he will probably retire at that time (74yrs old). If not, she may take him anyway, she is very popular in this usual Republican state. Time will tell but this State is slowly turning democratic and by that time may just elect her over him.

Posted by: Opa2 | April 26, 2008 2:28 AM | Report abuse

The tide is turning. Hillary will be the nominee. Just wait and see.

Posted by: Braveheart | April 26, 2008 2:16 AM | Report abuse

First of all Obama could definitely win Flordia, he hasnt even campaingned there yet, wait until he does..and secondly, as an Ohio resident let me tell you i see more Obama enthusiasm and stickers,signs,etc that McCain and Clinton combined, sure Obama will lose in the rural(racist) areas in Ohio, but he will absolutely dominate the cities-which will more than make up for it

Posted by: Anonymous | April 26, 2008 1:41 AM | Report abuse

Headline: Obama says YES to Cheney

Foreword: I wrote the following comments about an hour before I heard Olberman report that Rush Limbaugh was promoting on his website: RIOTS at the Democratic Convention in Denver

We all know the ECONOMY is the #1 ISSUE in this campaign season.

Since ENERGY is an important basis of economics our nation's Energy Policy is
EXTREMELY IMPORTANT ... as we have all seen with the increasing cost of FUEL and FOOD engendered by the rise in Oil Prices.

The Mainstream Media has failed to address or air the 3 Presidential candidates' ENERGY POLICIES. (Have YOU heard anything about The Cheney Energy Bill?)

It was passed in 2005 ... while the Republicans still had control of Congress. Obama Voted FOR the Cheney Energy Bill. McCain Voted FOR it.
Clinton Voted AGAINST it.

Most of us, upon hearing of the EXISTENCE of a CHENEY Energy Bill would...assume it to be...NOT in the best interests of our nation or any of us Not Wealthy humans...i.e. some kind of RIPOFF of the American taxpaying public.

It would also seems strikingly ODD tthat Obama,
appearing to be a very LIBERAL DEMOCRAT, Voted FOR The Cheney Energy Bill.

Clinton has brought up Obama's YES to Cheney VOTE several times during the televised debates. YET...the News People asking the debate questions
never followup by asking Obama: WHY DID YOU VOTE FOR THE CHENEY ENERGY BILL?. They Never followup by asking: What IS the Cheney Energy Bill about?

It is by far One of the most IMPORTANT ISSUES
of our time, but the "mainstream media" just doesn't cover it. WHAT is the reason for the mainstream media's SILENCE on an ISSUE so critically important to our future?

I asked myself that question and went looking for the answer. This iswhat I found:

GE owns NBC & MSNBC. Westinghouse owns CBS. GE is the 2nd largest corporation on the planet: BOTH corporations have, for many generations, pumped vast quantities of PRODUCT ... $ADVERTISING Dollars...into all forms of media.

GE and Westinghouse are the Major Players in the nuclear industry. An industry that was set to suffer a Slow DEATH...UNTIL...the Cheney Energy
Bill gave it "a new lease on life". NO new nukes have been built in the U.S for the past 30 years because the banks would not loan money to build them - too risky.

The Cheney Energy Bill Solved That Problem For The Nuke Industry by GUARANTEEING TAXPAYER Payback of any of the nuke loans that default.

(Given that the Congressional Budget Office rated the risk of default at 50%, or greater ...
do you think it was GOOD JUDGMENT for Obama to vote FOR it?)

(Given the already substantial economic damage done by the SubPrime mortgage meltdown -what amount of economic damage are we LIKELY to suffer from SubPrime: Not Credit Worthy - lending - to the nuke industry/compounded by the fact that US TAXPAYERS would PAY the full cost of a SUBPRIME Nuke Lending meltdown?)

The nuke industry's plans to build 29 new nuclear power plants are already far advanced. Licensing hearings for the first few nuke plants have already been scheduled.

Second Level Major Players in the Nuke Industry:
Excelon Corp. of Illinois - one of Obama's largest campaign contributors since his earliest days in politics - biggest nuke operator on the planet;
they own the nukes in Illinois; they own Con-Ed of New York.

Entergy - Owns many utilities in several Southern states.

3 Consortiums of other nuke industry players.

MSNBC & NBC have become more FAUX than FOX, the original Faux "news". All day everyday since last October when the campaign coverage
began ... have seen on MSNBC & NBC...ALL their "reporters" and "news analysts" -(from Joe Scarborough and Mika Berzinski on "Morning Joe"- to Chris Matthews on "Hardball" in the afternoon- to Keith Olbermann in the evening BLATANTLY promoting Pro-Obama PROPAGANDA/ Slamming & smeaaring the Clintons...everyday all day long.

I'm not the only one who noticed. Millions of people noticed and posted their complaints
about it on the internet. Last night Bill O'reilly on Fox news said - "MSNBC has become
the Obama Network".
(I call MSNBC/NBC -- BOP-N --Barack Obama Propaganda Networks.)

In response to...(unspecified...& unreported complaints about "media bias" against the Clintons, Howard Fineman, TIME magazine & MSNBC "News analyst"---whined to Chris Matthews on "Hardball" last week: Gov. Rendell said to me - "you're from the Obama Network"
-they shouldn't be complaining about US being biased against the Clintons WE're Journalists!
WE just report the facts. (Pathetic ... Fineman
...trying... to convince himself he's not
-exactly what he is- a highly paid Propaganda Pusher.)

Obama's 20 year history in politics arose from Chicago, Cook County, Illinois.

The Rezko trial involves charges of extortion, fraud, money laundering, kickbacks, bribes; CRIMES
& Political CORRUPTION (at every level of government City, County, State, National) involving: allegedly,
Rezko, Mayor Daley, Governor Blagojevich, et al for crimes committed in the U.S.; and involving internationally 3 Arabic men: Rezko, Auichi, Alsammarae - for crimes allegedly committed in massive international frauds.

(Auichi was convicted a few years ago in the French Courts of massive fraud/robbery/looting involving the French ELF petroleum company and the U.N. Oil for Food Program. Alsammarae was convicted in the Iraqi Courts of looting the Iraq electricity grid while he was the Iraqi Minister of Electricity ...under Bush-Cheney's Coalition Provisional Authority... Rezko is accused of being Alsammarae's partner in that looting.

The mainstream media is airing...very little coverage...of the Rezko -City, County, State, National, and International Fraud/Looting trial.

For example, the Federal Prosecution's main witness testifed last week that Obama and his wife DID Attend a party thrown by Rezko at Rezko's Chicago mansion for his guest of honor AUICHI. Obama has previously stated that he: doesn't remember meeting Auichi. WHY is the mainstream media (TV, in particular) not covering the Rezko trial; has NOT Asked Obama if he DID or DID Not attend that party? Has NOT asked Michelle Obama if she did attend that party?

The conclusion I have reached -from those and many other FACTS I have gathered from my impartial search is:

GE, et. al; the Corrupt Corporate "establishment"
-is running Obama and McCain for President
because they plan to reap $BILLIONS in RISK-FREE Profits from building 29 new nuclear power plants AND $BILLIONS more in RISK-FREE profits---For The NEXT 30-40 Years---from the HIGHER ELECTRICITY RATES produced by building nuke plants. i.e. The NEXT Big Dick Cheney MONOPOLY POWER
just...waiting in the wings...for Obama or McCain to get elected.

Currently, the mainstream media is PUSHING Obama for President and holding a lid on the BAD NEWS about him. If and when it reaches a point where Obama does not get the nomination the corporate-controlled media will drop him and start pumping out PRO-McCain Propaganda.

GE, Cheney, et al prefer it to be a NO-RISK,
Win-Win situation (for Them) Presidential election WITH Obama vs. McCain. The Media is NOW pumping out: the contest is Over, Obama's the Winner; the Nomination BETTER NOT get "stolen" from Obama or there'll be HELL to Pay and the Democrat candidate will lose in November.

The Obama campaign was caught red-handed playing the race card to win the South Carolina primary a 4 page internal Obama campaign Memo published online by the Huffington Post...but the Media went right on PUSHING the BIG LIE -they blamed the Clintons. Obama has repeatedly played the race card every time he is in danger of losing.

There are indications online that Obama: used MOBS of poor black people cramming into small govt. offices in Chicago during his "organizing" days to get some of the "changes" he wanted; that Code Pink and a group named ReCreate '68 are threatening to mass mobs of 50,000 in Denver to protest/incite riots at the Democratic Convention IF Obama does not get the nomination. Obama may have connections to the groups threatenting HELL to pay at the convention if he doesn't get the nomination... that could be covered by ... plausible deniability.

Having already...recklessly, despicably, dangerously, played the race card repeatedly & supposing...Obama does have connections with/control of...extremist left wing groups and mobs...wouldn't electing him President be likely get us -WORSE THAN BUSH- Step 2 in CorporateNazi CONTROL of US... incitement of interracial strife for purposes of Political Control .... incitement of left-wing extremists/riots for purposes of Political CONTROL?

.... with the MEDIA aiding, abetting, lying and distorting ...Reality.... just like they are doing now.

Things that don't add up:

If Clinton is "the establishment" candidate - Why is her campaign constantly running out of money
while Obama has been rolling in CASH thruout the campaign?

The media tries to cover that by saying:
well...her wealthy contributors have already given the maximum amount the law allows -they can't contribute anymore funds. That's ridiculous. The "establishment" has enough cash to hire all the bundlers they need to go out and rustle up more cash from individuals employed at ALL Their Corporations, and from any other source. The media continues to PUSH the BIG LIE that Obama does not accept money from Lobbyists/Corporations (via individuals employed by them) /Wall Street/Oil/Drug Companies/Insurance Industry)

If Clinton is the "establishment" candidate .... WHY isn't the corporate-controlled MEDIA PUSHING her for President?

Obama's got the money. He's got the MEDIA Propaganda. He's the establishment candidate.

What's wrong with building 29 nuclear power plants?

Hillary Clinton: nuclear can be considered in the future IF they can make it CHEAPER and find a way to safely and permanently dispose of the nuclear waste.

Nuke waste/nuke waste dumps have been a steadily deepening nightmare for the past 50 years. (Google: Hanford WA nuclear waste dump; Rocky Flats CO plutonium, Barnwell South Carolina groundwater nuclear waste dump.

ALL the nuke waste dumps are CLOSED. Nuke waste has been stored ON-SITE at the nuke plants for the past several DECADES; providing several hundred terrorist targets vulnerable to devastating consequences from just ONE RPG.

The nuclear industry is already running a modicum of Pro-Nuke Propaganda Ads. They have bought up a few "environmentalists" & manufactured a lot more - for the LAUNCH of their upcoming NUKE PROPAGANDA CAMPAIGN (The Nukes are GREEN & CLEAN Ad Campaign)-that will start- right after the November Prersidential election.

What can YOU do about it? Copy & Paste this message -email it to everyone on your email list. Google: "North Carolina blogs politics" and post it everywhere you can -post it on Newspaper, TV, and radio blogs. Do the SAME for all the upcoming PRIMARY far in advance of the Primary Date as you can.

"Getting off coal to go nuclear is like giving up cigarettes to take up smoking crack" (I wish I knew where I read that quote so I could give credit to the author of it.)

Posted by: elme | April 25, 2008 10:14 PM | Report abuse

Eusibius: "Obama voluntarily removed his name from the Michigan ballot. Don't blame the Michigan voters for Obama's bad decision. Their votes should be counted."

I don't know how anyone can look at the Michigan vote and say it was fairly contested. The party said it wouldn't matter. The voters thought it wouldn't matter. In fact, between 40,000 and 70,000 registered Democrats, and who knows how many independents (probably above 100,000) voted in the Republican primary instead because they were told the Democratic primary wouldn't matter. Only one major candidate's name was on the ballot, and even she had said back in October that the vote wasn't going to matter.

And she didn't leave her name on the ballot out of solidarity with the Michigan voters. Her campaign approved of the sanctions on MI and FL. She left her name because she thought she'd be the eventual nominee and it would make things easier for her in November. Please see this Slate article to see how Clinton was for sanctions before she was against them.

To count the vote would not only ratify the outcome of an election that was not fairly conducted, but would disenfranchise all those Democrats and eligible independents who voted in the Republican primary. Plus the results would be skewed because of those crossover voters. No way can that result be considered valid by any objective observer.

And because of the crossover voters, it was impossible to to a fair revote. Not allowing those crossover voters to participate would again result in disenfranchisement and skew the results. But having an open primary would allow all the Republicans to meddle with the results. So because of the open Republican primary, a fair do-over was simply impossible.

And to top it all off, Clinton now says she leads in the "popular vote." Why that should be relevant is never explained, since the candidates are battling over delegates and no rational candidate would expend resources on votes that did not lead to delegates. But she also counts zero votes for Obama in Michigan. The idea that Obama would get zero votes in a fairly held contest is, frankly, dishonest. And unfortunately I think it's not atypical of many of the electability arguments she's been making for the past two months.

I've had seven years of nice-sounding but specious arguments from the Bush campaign. If our leaders don't have the courage to level with the people, they won't regain the trust in government necessary to get things done. Clinton's claim that Michigan's votes should count fails that test.

Posted by: dsimon | April 25, 2008 9:28 PM | Report abuse

For those Obama supporters who are convinced that he will win Colorado you simply do not know what you are talking about. I spent 2 months in 2004 in Denver working with the Kerry outreah and communications and legal team. We had one of finest political operations I have ever worked with including 100 Texas lawyers who I worked with but none of that mattered Even with Salazar running we did poorly with the culturally conservative Hispanics and rural voters in western Colorado and Pueblo and were trounced in Colorado Springs and I am sure that those same Hispanic, rural and rancher voters who will show up in a general electio will be much less taken by Obama. We won over 70 per cent of the Denver and Boulder vote we had thousands of out of state volunteers bused in and a huge african american turnout and still lost by 3 points and that was not running against a Senator from an adjoining state. Don t count Colorado's 9 electoral votes in your column which is doubtful at best and the Convention site counts for nothing. The Hispanic communications director told me that Colorado Hispanics tend to be rural an culturally conservative which certainly does not fit the Obama narrative.

Posted by: Leichrman | April 25, 2008 8:57 PM | Report abuse

HA!! Is Obama serious? Oh yeah, like Texas is a new state in contention. What a joke.

If he can't carry Florida and Ohio, he is doomed.

Obviously, he knows he can't carry Florida, or he wouldn't be such a wuss about having a re-do. And obviously, he will not win Ohio, by a long shot.

He has electability problems. I hope superdelegates wake up.

Posted by: monique | April 25, 2008 8:29 PM | Report abuse










Posted by: Obamamama | April 25, 2008 8:28 PM | Report abuse










Posted by: Obamamama | April 25, 2008 7:52 PM | Report abuse

We as americans have long/short term memmory loss. Long as in if something happened over a week ago and it's contiually in our news or the news don't find it worthy of their news gets lost. Our short term is mostly so we don't have to deal or just go plain in denial. 9/11 is a prime example of this. After 3 weeks or a little longer people were saying enough already don't want to hear anymore about it(on blogs and such). Media took note and quit covering it. Once in awhile you would see a short piece nothing substantial. The heroic people who chose to give their lives so that other innocents could live. We spend so much time on our facts of negative history. How about some good? Iv'e seen some bad history here. Alot i should say. I can't stick up for obama because, he really hasn't done much in his time in office to do a pros and cons. Hillary and bill you can. 16 years as has been said here. For that, i will say, history good and bad. And that said hillary would be our best choice. I believe her pros out do her cons. Which honestly her cons are because of being married to bill. Which to be honest isn't to entirely bad. As in they are what most americans have went through. As someone said zippergate. I don't know to many men having a camera shoved in their face would on national tv and at first say yes i cheated on my wife. What president has not had contersay somehow. Jfk one of our most beloved presidents cheated on his wife big time. Roosevelt wore womens clothes in the white house, jimmy carter...well i'll leave it at that and lastly ronald regan. Iran conta scandal. "I don't remember" was so outplayed that i think wasn't singer collins who wrote a song with clay puppets making fun of regan. All these people now are part of our history and each one did something good that most people will say they loved about them being president. These people also were seen as the not the medias favorite when someone "new" and talked about "change" came into the lime light running for presiden't. This concept has been talked about in primarys and ge's for along time. So that along with knowing all the laundry on clinton has been wrung out to dry over and over again, there's nothing really that can come out. She has been fighting for health care. It's proven history. I would like to see obama instead talking about what he has done to show it. Bills and legislation he has done. I think people who would like to see so that way they can decide for themselves would appreciate it. Again Mr. obama is a great speaker. I'm sure his race speech will make history. But, speeches isn't what will make "change" or "history" for america. It takes 2025 votes to be the elected. Neither can do that. Especially with florida and michigan not be counted. Let's let this play out till the end. Or until we have short or long term memmory loss and McCain wins! lol Oh and to close i was trying to cover alot of differnt posts with my statements here as there is over 300+. so don't bludger me to pieces because you might think it's all over the place. thanks have a great day!

Posted by: lori in ohio(cwa) | April 25, 2008 7:29 PM | Report abuse

To you this looks favorable to Clinton only because you're not looking closely enough at the real numbers, which show she has HUGE problems. The map awards Clinton the electoral votes of 8 states where she has only a slight lead, within the polls' margin of error. She leads in Washington by 3 points, Oregon by 1, Hawaii by 4, Missouri by 1, Ohio by 3, Florida by 1, New Jersey by 1, Connecticut by 3. That adds up to 102 electoral votes---out of the 284 credited to her--that are actually in "battleground" states that, statistically speaking, are a dead heat. She holds a reasonably safe lead of 5 points or more in states accounting for only 172 electoral votes.

On the Republican side, McCain has a solid lead of 5 or more points over clinton in all his states except Kentucky, where he leads by 2, and New Mexico where he leads by 3. That means only 13 electoral votes are "in play" on the McCain side of the ledger. One state, Wisconsin, is a tie.

Adding it all up, that means only 11 states and 125 electoral votes are currently "in play" in a Clinton-McCain race. To get to the 270 she needs to be elected, Clinton needs to win nearly 80% of them. (If we give her the 172 electoral votes where she currently leads by 5 or more, she'd need to win 98 of the remaining 125 "in play"). That's not completely impossible, but it's an improbably tall order, almost like drawing to an inside straight.

Obama, in contrast, has leads of 5% or more in 17 states worth 210 electoral votes. He leads by less than 5% in only 4 states-- Michigan by 2, New Jersey by 2, Massachusetts by 2, and Colorado by 3. North Carolina's 15 electoral votes are a tie. But the big difference is that in a match-up against Obama, McCain is much weaker, with leads of less than 5% in 6 states---New Mexico by 1, Texas by 1, Nebraska by 3, Ohio by 4, South Carolina by 3, New Hampshire by 3. That puts an additional 76 electoral votes "in play." So the total "in play" in a McCain-Obama match-up is 133 electoral votes in 11 states. Of that total, Obama needs to win only a little over 40% to get to the magic number of 270.

Don't just look at the maps which are highly misleading. look at who has big leads, and who has smaller statistically insignificant leads. Clinton has to win almost everything "in play," and less is "in play" if she's the candidate. That's a high-risk strategy to recapture the White House.

Posted by: Brad K | April 25, 2008 7:25 PM | Report abuse

Somehow the Obama campaign decided that the superdelegates must endorse the candidate who gets the most pledged delegates in the primaries. Is Obama's campaign making up the rules as we go?!

According to the DNC rules, the superdelegates are free to endorse ANY candidate they choose. Their INDIVIDUAL decisions could be based on the number of pledged delegates, the states won, WHICH states they won, the popular votes, the candidate they think would be strongest in the General Election, or simply the one they like the most. (Those are the rules.)

Some relevant facts:

- Most of the states Obama has won are red to deep-red states that the GOP will win in November.

- Obama has won only ONE large state, IL, which happens to be his home state and a state that Hillary would also win with a comfortable margin in the GE.

- A very large number of delegates pledged to Obama have been from the CAUCUS states. Caucuses are inherently discriminatory, undemocratic and not representative of the general population.

- One way to quantify the claim in the previous paragraph is to look at the number of votes per pledged delegate for each candidate. Based on RCP data: While Hillary has 1,333 pledged delegates and 13,917,o09popular votes, giving her 10,440 votes per pledged delegate, Obama has 1,489 pledged delegates and 14,417,619 popular votes, giving him only 9,683 votes pre pledged delegate. (Just do the math.)

- Why would 9 Obama voters have the same voting power as 10 Hillary voters?!

On the other hand:
- Hillary has consistently won all the LARGE states with the sole exeption of IL (Obama's home state).

- Hillary has won the KEY SWING STATES of Ohio and Pennsylvania. NO Democrat will be able to win the GE without winning three of the 4 swing states: OH, PA, FL, MI. Hillary is well-positioned to win FL. Obama has ZERO chance to win FL and he is extremelly unlikely to win either OH or PA. He may be able to win only MI. Conclusion: Obama is a weak candidate for the GE.

- After the PA primary, Hillary has SURPASSED Obama in the Popular Vote by 122,471 votes ! This is counting the votes in MI and FL, which MUST be counted.

For those in the Obama campaign who say that it would be undemocratic for the superdelegates NOT to favor the candidate with the largest number of pledged delegates, I say, it would be undemocratic not to count the votes of MI and FL (even if the delegates are not seated). The MI and FL voters have the same CONSTITUTIONAL right as any other voter to have their votes counted.

- Four arguments for the superdelegates to decide in Hillary's favor:
1) Hillary is winning the Popular Votes.
2) Hillary is posed to win the key swing states of PA, OH, FL and MI. (Obama is clearly not.)
3) Hillary is clearly the strongest Dem candidate for the GE.
4) Most importantly, Hillary is electable, Obama is not.

If delegates do their job responsibly, it's a no brainer: Hillary should be the nominee!

Posted by: Eusebius | April 25, 2008 6:59 PM | Report abuse



Why I'm more electable:

-I've won Red states.
-I sat in Rev Wright's church for 20 years
-My wife is now proud of America.
-I went to the million man march with Minister Farrakhan
-I bought my house with Rezko's wife.
-I kicked off my 1995 campaign at Bill Ayers' house.
-I toasted Auchi at Rezko's house.
-I was pro-Palestine before I was pro-Israel.
-I sat on a board and approved funds for a Palestinian terrorist group.
-I'm Barack Obama - need I say more?

Posted by: Obama Who? | April 25, 2008 6:56 PM | Report abuse

On February 8, 2008, Sen. Obama told reporters that he would be "fine" with a new primary in Michigan if it could be done in a way that gave him and Sen. Clinton time to make their respective cases and the DNC signed off (see at After that, such a plan garnered broad support from top Michigan lawmakers and the DNC gave its blessing. However, it turned out that Senator Obama's comments about being "fine with a re-vote if the above conditions were met" were just words. As the headline in the Detroit Free-Press made clear (Mar. 18), Mr. Obama was the lone standout: "Michigan do-over depends on Obama's backing, Senate leaders say."

The legitimacy of the vote count from the primaries--and the electability of our party's standard bearer--are critical issues for a number of life-long Democrats. Senator Obama's attorneys blocked efforts to count the votes from Florida and Michigan OR to have a revote. The numbers from the reported primaries, therefore, can't be accepted as legitimate since the voices of 9% of the electorate (Florida and Michigan) are being excluded. Beyond the legitimacy issue, the fact that Florida and Michigan (collectively) account for 9% of Americans and more than 8% of Democratic delegates, discounting these votes will damage Democratic chances of victory in the fall. It will be impossible to rally a large part of the electorate around the nominee if he has secured the nomination by blocking the votes of 9% of the electorate. As a life-long Democrat, I will not vote for Sen. Obama if he wins the nomination by this means.

Posted by: Wilson | April 25, 2008 6:55 PM | Report abuse

Obama voluntarily removed his name from the Michigan ballot. Don't blame the Michigan voters for Obama's bad decision. Their votes should be counted.

In regards to Floridians, Obama has no excuse to suppress their votes. His name was on the ballot. No candidate campaigned in the state (as they had agreed). Over a million enthusiastic Democratic voters showed up and voted. Again, don't blame the Florida voters. They have the Constitutional right to have their votes counted.

The Dems should place their Party in the high moral ground. ALL votes should be counted!

Posted by: Eusebius | April 25, 2008 6:54 PM | Report abuse

I look at the map on and I see Obama in the lead, but not winning.

I look at the map on and see Clinton winning without problems.

What happened to the Traditional Battlegrounds Missouri, Florida or Ohio? Clinton would win them, Obama wouldn't. He would even lose West Virginia!

With Obama, even Massachusetts of all places would be close!!!

As I said, Clinton would win, Obama would have to hope for North Dakota.

BTW, who cares how a DEMOCRATIC candidate would do among INDEPENDENT voters in Colorado or other states, if that candidate fails to win the DEMOCRATIC voters in blue states.

Posted by: Steve | April 25, 2008 6:48 PM | Report abuse










Posted by: Obamamama | April 25, 2008 6:43 PM | Report abuse

If Obama is chosen after winning fair and square, I don't see why not. Right is right and fair is fair. I'd say the same for Hillary.

I really do believe Obama has potential and competence, and he can really help call the Diverse crowds together, across parties even!! We are forming an entirely new movement. Right on with that!! Less division, more unity for similar causes.

Posted by: Obama2008 | April 25, 2008 6:38 PM | Report abuse

2008 Presidential Election Weekly Poll

Results Now Posted Instantly! Barack Obama In the Lead!

Like It? Don't Like It? Vote.

Posted by: votenic | April 25, 2008 6:21 PM | Report abuse

letthemdrinkcrownroyal..........Lesbian president, what about a bi president ,or did you not know obama is being sued by Larry Sinclair and telling that he did a BJ on Obama in a Limo

Posted by: kasco03 | April 25, 2008 6:07 PM | Report abuse


Good point about the math. There's all too little of this going on these days. The Clinton mantra from the beginning has been "If we start with all the states John Kerry won and then add Ohio and Florida, it's in the bag."

But there are lots of ways to get to a winning 270 electoral votes. Sure, Ohio and Florida are nice because they get you electoral votes in bunches, but they aren't essential. As you point out, Iowa, Montana, and Colorado combined would do it. Or Colorado (9), New Mexico (5), and Nevada (5), for a total of 19--again, Democrat by 4. Or Iowa (7) and Missouri (11), for a total of 18, Democrat by 2. Or Iowa and Virginia (13), for a total of 20. Or Iowa and North Carolina (15), total 22. The combinations are endless. The polls show Obama putting all these states into play; and Clinton for the most part not.

The flip side of the equation, one the Clinton camp doesn't like to talk about, is that she is not in a strong position to win all the states Kerry won in 2004, so you can't just assume that's her starting point. She currently trails McCain by 9 points in Michigan (17 electoral votes) and by 6 in New Hampshire (4). She's dead even with McCain in Wisconsin (10 electoral votes) and clings to narrow leads in New Jersey (15), Connecticut (7), Minnesota (10), Washington State (11), Oregon (8), and Hawaii (4). Lose two or three of those states and she's potentially looking at a map where both Florida and Ohio are "must-wins," essentially replaying the failed Democratic strategy of 2000 and 2004. And neither state is a shoo-in for her at this point; she holds exceedingly small leads, within the margin of error, in both Florida and Ohio.

Obama's electoral map is much broader. At a minimum he can force McCain to defend a number of states that Republicans are accustomed to taking for granted, rather than concentrating all their resources on denying the Democrats one or two "must-win" battleground states. On the upside, he has the potential to break out of the electoral box that has confined the Democrats in the last several cycles, capitalizing on and helping to consolidate recent Democratic gains in the Rocky Mountain West, Upper Midwest, and parts of the Southeast.

If I were a superdelegate from any of those parts of the country (or the Pacific Northwest where Obama also runs strong and Clinton is weak), this would be an extremely easy call. Obama will boost the entire Democratic ticket across broad swaths of the country, while Clinton will be a millstone around down-ticket Democrats' necks.

Posted by: Brad K | April 25, 2008 4:50 PM | Report abuse

States are divided into districts, each district has X delegates.So each is allotted the delegates for the district they won.
Why do you think Ca and Tex wanted to reassign districts==to place more republican'ts in districts with the most delegates.
Michigan was not a win for HRC. Obama was not on the ballot there.
All blacks are not voting Obama and not all white women are voting for HRC. If you actually believe that to be true you are just plain silly.

Posted by: Katerina Deligiannis | April 25, 2008 4:46 PM | Report abuse

The case is pending in a California court against former President Bill Clinton, with Senator Hillary Clinton as a material witness.

A status conference hearing is scheduled for April 25, 2008, and a trial date is expected to be announced soon.

Discovery in the case is expected to begin in May, 2008 as it proceeds to trial.

The discovery will expose an ongoing cover-up of the campaign finance crimes and the obstructions of justice directed by Hillary Clinton with the help of Bill Clinton and former DNC Chair Ed Rendell. The cover-up rivals Watergate in its corruption of each branch of government and the media.

While McCain has condemned the ad as not having a place in the political discourse Hillary Clinton, great champion for civil rights that she claims to be, has declined to comment on the ad and its appropriateness or inappropriateness in the political arena.

It turns out that Hillary will not fight against incivility and racial stigmatizing if it will benefit her on Election Day. Is this a surprise

Posted by: Katerina Deligiannis | April 25, 2008 4:35 PM | Report abuse

All of the Veterans I know who are not on Disability with PTSD, and maybe even some of those, are voting for Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Posted by: AnotherVeteran | April 25, 2008 4:31 PM | Report abuse

"Iowa, Montana and Colorado won't make any difference if he loses Ohio or Florida."

That's simply not true. In 2004, Kerry lost both Ohio and Florida, and lost the election by 34 electoral college votes. Colorado has 9 electoral votes, Montana has 3 and Iowa has 7. Flipping those states (subtracting them from Bush and adding them to Kerry) would have given Kerry the election by 4 votes.

Sometimes you have to do the math.

Posted by: dsimon | April 25, 2008 4:10 PM | Report abuse

For all of you who talk nothing but crap about The Clintons, please remember without Bill Clinton there would be no democratic party, no other democrat has been able to get elected twice since FDR.

Posted by: The Clintons | April 25, 2008 3:39 PM | Report abuse

I can't believe all the flatly false claims being advanced by Clinton supporters here about what the most recent polling data shows. Oh. wait. I take that back---I can believe that such lies and ignorant statements come from the Clinton camp because that whole outfit has never been fully reality-based, as Hillary's quixotic quest for a nomination that is now clearly out of reach attests.

Believe this:

The most recent poll in Michigan (17 electoral votes) shows Obama beating McCain 43-41, while Clinton loses to McCain there 37-46.

The most recent poll in Oregon (7 electoral votes) shows Obama leading McCain comfortably 51-42, while Clinton essentially ties McCain, 47-46.

The most recent poll in Washington State (11 electoral votes)shows Obam thrashing McCain 53-40, while Clinton holds only a narrow lead (within the margin of error), 48-45.

The most recent poll in Colorado (9 electoral votes) shows Obama holding a narrow lead over McCain 46-43, while Clinton is not even close to being in contention, trailnig 36-50.

The most recent poll in Minnesota (10 electoral votes) shows Obama dominating McCain, 52-38, while Clinton clings to a small lead 47-42.

The most recent poll in Wisconsin (10 electoral votes) shows Obama leading McCain 49-44 while Clinton is locked in a 46-46 tie.

The most recent poll in Iowa (7 electoral votes) shows Obama beating McCain 49-42, while Clinton is losing 42-48.

The most recent poll in Connecticut (7 electoral votes) shows Obama trouncing McCain 52-35, while Clinton clings to a narrow lead 45-42.

The most recent poll in Hawaii (4 electoral votes) shows Obama swamping McCain 61-31, while Clinton clings to a narrow lead 43-39.

And then there are a whole raft of states where Obama and Clinton both currently trail McCain but Obama is within striking distance while Clinton clearly is not, including Virginia (13 electoral votes), North Carolina (15), South Carolina (8), Nebraska (5), North Dakota (3), Montana (3), Nevada (5), New Mexico (5), Alaska (3), and yes, even Texas (34).

Don't believe me? See for yourself at: (last updated April 25, 2008)

These polls are by different pollsters in different states, and some of them are getting quite old already. But in each case the Obama-McCain and Clinton-McCain matchups for any state were done by the same pollster over the same time frame; and these represent the latest polls publicly available.

Or, if you prefer to look at an average of multiple polls, go to:

which presents a rolling average of the three latest polls in each state. The results are strikingly similar, suggesting the same pattern holds over multiple pollsters and extended periods of time.

Bottom line: Obama runs much stronger than Clinton in the Pacific Northwest, Rocky Mountain West, Upper Midwest, and Southeast. Clinton runs stronger in Florida (27 electoral votes); a little stronger in Ohio (20 electoral votes) though Obama is very competitive there; and somewhat stronger in Massachusetts and Rhode Island (16 combined electoral votes) which are likely Democratic territory in any event, although Obama runs stronger in the other 4 New England states (16 combined electoral votes). Clinton also runs stronger in three border states, two of them on the small side: West Virginia (5), Kentucky (8), and Missouri (11). The mid-Atlantic region polls strongly Democratic, with almost identical results regardless of the Democratic candidate.

Is "electability" an issue? Sure. But I'd say the polling data that suggest it's Clinton, not Obama, who has a serious electability problem, because her support is so narrowly confined to California, the Northeast, Ohio, and Florida. She hasn't shown in the primaries or in the polls that she can win in the Pacific Northwest, Rocky Mountain West, Upper Midwest, or anywhere in the Southeast. Yes, she can win some "big states," but if she's the nominee she'll pretty much need to sweep every last one of them because her prospects are only fair to poor in just about all the rest of the country. And that is a very dangerous electoral strategy.

Posted by: Brad K | April 25, 2008 3:38 PM | Report abuse

Well if Obama thinks he can win Texas, he is out of his mind, Texas will go republican like it has since LBJ. He did not beat Hillary in Texes, and he sure isn't going to beat John McCain here. His "fierce urgency of now" crap has left this party in a huge mess, when he could have helped get Hillary elected and could have gone on to win after her and perhaps give us 16 years in which to really make a difference. Now he has probably ruined our chances this year and his chances forever perhaps. It's a shame, it really is, that he didn't wait until he was more qualified. It was always going to be hard enough to elect a woman or a black man, but running both together may very well have ruined our chances. Even people who don't have a problem voting for a black man, have a real problem with his associations and his qualifications. He is just not as ready as he seems to think he is.

Posted by: Cathy Williams | April 25, 2008 3:32 PM | Report abuse

The poll found 21 percent of those responding were undecided. Obama does better than Clinton against the certain Republican nominee, Sen. John McCain of Arizona. Among Hoosiers who said they would vote in the general election, Obama beat McCain 49 percent to 41 percent. Clinton broke even with McCain, with both backed by 46 percent of those polled. And, by 49 percent to 35 percent, Democratic primary voters said Obama is the candidate best able to win in the general election.

TODAY in California Clinton goes to court on FRAUD charge.

_Obama supporters refrain from labeling/name calling. It does not help our candidate and adds fuel to the HRC fire.__

Posted by: Anonymous | April 25, 2008 3:11 PM | Report abuse

It never fails to amaze me that when 65% of whites vote for Clinton charges of racism fly. Meantime, when 90%+ of African Americans vote for Obama no such disparsions are cast. Meantime 97% of African American men in PA voted for Obama. Does this mean they are sexist? Why aren't the pollsters asking questions about gender. They only ask about race. Totally bias data collecting. Completely ignoring the reality of sexism and how restictive it really in our society!!!!!

Another thing that so many women find offensive is these charges that Clinton is so privilaged. The fact that she is a woman automatically puts her at the end of the line!!!!!! STOP IGNORING THE BLATENT MISOGYNY IN THIS PRIMARY!!!!US WOMEN OUT HERE ARE NOT IGNORING IT!!!! WE ARE PAYING CLOSE ATTENTION AND ARE MAD AS HELL!!!!!I FOR ONE WILL NEVER VOTE FOR OBAMA UNLESS FL AND MI ARE FAIRLY REVOTED AND HE WINS LEGITIMATELY!!!!!

Posted by: Anonymous | April 25, 2008 2:59 PM | Report abuse

Once again Obama misses the point. Iowa, Montana and Colorado won't make any difference if he loses Ohio or Florida. His campaign is foolishly fixed on the number of states he wins, rather than the size of those states or the electoral significance. Virginia, Iowa, and Colorado togather don't add up to Florida, and it is highly unlikely that he can flip enough of these states to make the difference.

Additionally, this foolishness that North Carolina is now a swing state is a joke!!!!! ITS BEEN A SOLID RED STATE FOR A LONG TIME AND WILL BE AGAIN IN THE FALL.

As For OBAMA and the sexist race baters in his campaign and on CNN and MSNBC, I'd like to add a little perspective. Obama will not only loss the working class in the fall, but he will also lose women. If the DNC doesn't have the back bone to revote Fl. and MI so a fair winner can emerge, women who have been supporting Clinton will vote for McCain or stay home. We already see this shaping up as men cheating voters out of the franchise as a deliberate effort to ensure that Clinton, the first woman, is unfairly handicapped. Perhaps the sexist good old boys are attempting to repeat history, as they did during the struggle for the franchise. Black men turned on their female allies and cut a deal with white men securing their own franchise at the expense of all women. We may be witnessing this same sexism repeat itself. The differance is that now women have the right to vote and will get their revenge at the ballot box. If democratic men are going to be just as sexist as republicans, there will be no loyalty to the party from women in the fall. They can dangle Roe v. Wade on a string all they want, but at the end of the day it won't matter. Karry was so week that he carried the female vote over Bush by only 3%, while Bill Clinton and Al Gore enjoyed double digits.

The female voting block is much larger than the African American voting block and will devistate any chance for victory if not captured in the fall.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 25, 2008 2:42 PM | Report abuse

Hillary will defeat Obama because there are more uneducated and rural white voters than students, affluent and educated voters.

Two things tip her way: one, she has a certain per-centage of angry women voters, who view her as legitiomate and Obama as the male who gets the corner office over the more deserving woman. This is super-ironic, because Hillary leap-frogged over Ferraro and Nita Lowey and other NATIVE New York State women to take the Senate seat from a state she never lived in.

And second: everyone who "analyzes" the race assumes that either a. "white Americans are no longer racist." This is patently false. A young friend of mine hates visiting his family because at family parties they play racist games. In 2008 in an all white small town.

or b. "even if whites are racist and won't vote for Obama" and at least 14-20 percent will admit so, "Blacks are more racist because they go for Obama by 92%." Ironically, again, blacks also traditionally vote for the white Democratic candiadte by 92%.

It will be interesting to watch the First Phony, Bill "I did not have sex with that JEZEBEL!!!! LYING INTERN!!!" Clinton, travel around the country trying to repair his reputation among blacks, the young, and the well-educated.

I am white, but, Bill, save your breath. I wish I had never voted for either Clinton.

Posted by: tjproudamerican | April 25, 2008 2:21 PM | Report abuse

Hillary Clinton is not Barack Obama's problem. America is Mr. Obama's problem.

He has been tagged as a snooty lefty, as the glamorous, ambivalent candidate from Men's Vogue, the candidate who loves America because of the great progress it has made in terms of racial fairness.

Fine, good. But has he ever gotten misty-eyed over . . . the Wright Brothers and what kind of country allowed them to go off on their own and change everything? How about D-Day, or George Washington, or Henry Ford, or the losers and brigands who flocked to Sutter's Mill, who pushed their way west because there was gold in them thar hills? There's gold in that history.

John McCain carries it in his bones. Mr. McCain learned it in school, in the Naval Academy, and, literally, at grandpa's knee. Mrs. Clinton learned at least its importance in her long slog through Arkansas, circa 1977-92.

Mr. Obama? What does he think about all that history? Which is another way of saying: What does he think of America?

That's why people talk about the flag pin absent from the lapel. They wonder if it means something. Not that the presence of the pin proves love of country - any cynic can wear a pin, and many cynics do. But what about Obama and America? Who would have taught him to love it, and what did he learn was loveable, and what does he think about it all?

Another challenge. Snooty lefties get angry when you ask them to talk about these things. They get resentful. Who are you to question my patriotism? But no one is questioning his patriotism, they're questioning its content, its fullness.

This is an opportunity, for Mr. Obama needs an Act II. Act II is hard. Act II is where the promise of Act I is deepened, the plot thickens, and all is teed up for resolution and meaning. Mr. Obama's Act I was: I'm Obama.

Posted by: Peggy Noonan | April 25, 2008 2:14 PM | Report abuse

I will vote in the following order:

Hillary Clinton

write in Hillary Clinton or John McCain

Stay home

To me, Obama is not ready, and he did not have a compelling reason to run now instead of waiting for HIllary to take her turn. No one has answered or asked "why now?" of Senator Obama!

Posted by: Hank in PA | April 25, 2008 2:07 PM | Report abuse

I think that Obama has faith in people! And some people are going to let him down, due to their own demons. They are closet bigets!

When the primaries started, there was a chance that I would have voted for Hillary. Now, I will never vote for her. I see the Clintons in a different light now! The damage is done and there is no way she could repair it.

Posted by: Avoice | April 25, 2008 1:43 PM | Report abuse

I just recently come to the conclusion that America will never be ready for a person of color as president. If you're not white the american press will tear you down piece by piece in order to achieve their goal. How many times does Obama have to answer the same questions about Rev Wright? What do they want him to say? He has denounce, reject and disown his statements. What more can he say. I feel that certain people in the media will not be happy unless Obama shots Rev Wright in cold blood on national TV. I know that may sound funny, but what's more important $3.61 gasoline or what somebody Pastor has said. Remember there are 8000 people in that Church. Should they be targets of the news media also.

Posted by: Jerry | April 25, 2008 1:39 PM | Report abuse

If there are any real concerns about Obama's electability then one need only see the latest "analysis" from Novak and Krauthammer. Shocker, they are hammering Obama.

I guess they'd rather face HRC as would any semi coherent Republican.

Posted by: Ezetimibe | April 25, 2008 12:52 PM

NOVAK -- now that IS funny ! ! !

Posted by: Rosie | April 25, 2008 1:33 PM | Report abuse

I submit that "electability" is not the Key argument that both the Obama and Clinton campaigns say it is.

I believe either Obama or Hillary will defeat John McCain.

Face it: the country OVERWHELMINGLY thinks Iraq was a bad idea, is a bad idea and will be a bad idea.

McCain is FOR it.

When the Dems finally decide on a candidate and it is one-on-one, McCain vs. The Dem, the picture of Landslide will begin to emerge.

Right now, Hillary and Obama are each polling decently against whilst they are bashing each other's brains out! Just wait 'til the Dems have chosen one -- then you will see just how terribly out-of-step John McCain is with the American People. When Obama is facing McCain one-on-one without Hillary ripping at him, McCain will be doomed.

Think about it: McCain pretty much wants to continue George W Bush's policies. What is Bush's approval rating right now?

Posted by: AdrickHenry | April 25, 2008 1:33 PM | Report abuse

Chris Please don't leave for Planet O on us. I hear that once you are there you will not want to go back to your spaceship and return to Earth.

Posted by: Words of Wisdom | April 24, 2008 3:43 PM

Words of Wisdom is right, Chris. Once a person crawls out of the bilge and entrails of politics as usual in the Hillary slime-bucket and thoroughly washes and rinses off with the fresh clean soap and water of Hope, Change and Renewal that is the Obamma Campaign there is no turning back.

Can we be clean? Yes We Can!

Posted by: Westmoreland | April 25, 2008 1:15 PM | Report abuse

Senator Obama blames his loss in PA on a problem with seniors...that somehow they are just use to voting for Senator Clinton. That is as much a condescending statement as his "bitter" comment.

Posted by: Boston Kathy | April 25, 2008 1:06 PM | Report abuse

If there are any real concerns about Obama's electability then one need only see the latest "analysis" from Novak and Krauthammer. Shocker, they are hammering Obama.

I guess they'd rather face HRC as would any semi coherent Republican.

Posted by: Ezetimibe | April 25, 2008 12:52 PM | Report abuse

"Can we expect him to win in the general election without more white votes and a cross-section of other voters that Senator Clinton has obviously won?"

He obviously will win many voters who voted for Clinton; after all, most of them are registered Democrats. The front page article in yesterday's New York Times cited exit polls that said many blue-collar Clinton voters would vote for Obama over McCain.

The main point of the Obama memo is correct, even if polling this far out is suspect. If the argument is that one candidate is more electable against McCain, then we should be looking at head-to-head polling data of the candidates against McCain, not the results of a Clinton-Obama match-up where only some people can vote and turnout is low.

Posted by: dsimon | April 25, 2008 12:51 PM | Report abuse

J Sky: "The poll dates are not consistence. And it came from different pollster. He is cherry picking a different poll date for each states to make his case."

I doubt it's deceptive. They're probably the most recent polls from those states. I've visited web sites with state-by-state head-to-head polling data, and some of those polls are recent, some are older. I get the sense that these polls aren't conducted all that often, so what's presented is probably the best available.

Or you could go online and see for yourself. If it is deliberate deception, you have the ability to do the research before making the accusation.

Posted by: dsimon | April 25, 2008 12:47 PM | Report abuse

To Rory 4/24 5:52 pm
It is well recognized that sen. Clinton is more capable of winning the battleground states, this means she can beat McCain in the general election, while Obama can not, as shown in the following website (by a NYT blogger) dated 3/25;

Posted by: austin | April 25, 2008 12:41 PM | Report abuse

This contest is about "trust" and "character".

Barack, Hillary & Mac are all three competent, skilled and experienced.

But, I trust Barack & Mac more than Hillary, whom I don't trust at all. I have more faith in their characters. They don't have all the baggage and ethical issues, and they don't pretend to be working class to grab votes.

Barack's stances on the economy, war, climate change & foreign policy are similar to Hillary's and align with mine. But I trust him, not her.

So that leaves Barack. If it comes down to Hillary vs. Mac ("untrustworthy" vs "conservative vision I oppose"), then perhaps I will write in Gore.

I could not in good character vote for Hillary. The end does not justifies the means.

Posted by: Steve W | April 25, 2008 12:34 PM | Report abuse

So...what is essentially an Obama campaign memo suitable for distribution as a press release was "obtained by" the Fix? Wow, what a scoop! I'm sure the Obama campaign is upset that this "leaked" and was extensively excerpted in the Washington Post.

C'mon, Chris, don't be such a pushover.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 25, 2008 12:23 PM | Report abuse

The Obama memo is wonderful reading- but it is fiction.

I hope that the Obama people are not drinking their own coolaid. To think that he could possibly win Texas, North Dakota Florida or NC is insane. From all the polling he will struggle to keep MI and PA.

I give him a shot at the election if he is the candidate, but the reality is that Clinton has the constituency that has the better shot at it. She actually can win Florida and Ohio.

Obama has the support of the constituencies that will give him potentially bigger wins in the Blue States- so what? One vote above 50% would do that. It is in the Red states where he will lose the Independents so it doesn't matter that he wins them in some blue states.

Obama will have a difficult time winning more Hispanic votes than Kerry did and we need those votes. Is this racism, most likely but then pretending to ignore the realities of the electorate is a sure disaster for the Democratic party.

Clinton has a constituency of Women, Catholics, white men and Hispanics as well as seniors. These are the voters the Democrats need to win the Presidency. She can win Arkansas as well and has a better shot at Florida and Ohio.

So even though Obama does have a chance, as Doug Wilder said it won't be easy, but putting out this kind of a memo makes his campaign seem like they want to fool people and it really is silly.

Posted by: peterdc | April 25, 2008 12:16 PM | Report abuse

I am an African-American and supporter of Hillary Clinton. After reading our local paper (News and Observer) yesterday, Senator Obama only had a sizeable number of white voters in 7 of the 30 state he won. Can we expect him to win in the general election without more white votes and a cross-section of other voters that Senator Clinton has obviously won? Several months ago, one of the political observers (African-American at Univ of Maryland) wrote about the large number of black votes received by Obama and whether this could help or hurt him. I for one do not necessarily feel that if he is the candidate in the General Election that all of a sudden primary/caucus voters for Senator Clinton will automatically throw their vote behind Senator Obama--he obviously feels this way.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 25, 2008 12:12 PM | Report abuse

You all fail to miss something important. Senator Obama is not fighting or is not perceived to be fighting for the democratic citizens of MI and FL. Right now he is playing it conservative keeping what he has and not risking any loss. Smart in the short term..dumb in the long term. If he does not fight for the voters of Michigan and Florida now, why should the voters fight for him come November.

Senator Obama has decided not to participate in any more debates after his disastrous performance. Now claiming that they are silly. After 20 debates he has decided they are silly and a waste of time. Again smart in the short-term ...dumb in the long term. He will not take a chance on getting on the horse that threw him no matter what one thought about the questions. Instead of admitting he just had a bad night, he chose to blame others. Senator Obama could not explain his tax policy or foreign policy philosophy. Those are real issues. What is he going to do against McCain?

Posted by: Linda C | April 25, 2008 12:02 PM | Report abuse

This is most bloody stupid argument I have even seen.

The poll dates are not consistence. And it came from different pollster. He is cherry picking a different poll date for each states to make his case.

He used Feb Poll for CA & NY, Mar for NY, and Apr for IA. How can one have a good benchmark for comparison if all the states are not polled on the same date and not by the same pollster.

I'm upset at the way Obama tries to deceive people.

Posted by: JSky | April 25, 2008 11:54 AM | Report abuse

Is this memo a joke? I ask honestly because it's so poorly argued that it's laughable.

Whoever in the campaign wrote it needs to be replaced. If this is the best argument for Obama they can come up with the SD should all just go to Hillary now!

The misuse and misrepresentation of very old data and overt omission of very relevant data makes the entire memo null and void.

Using data from Feb/March exposes the truth that the most recent data contradicts just about every claim made in that memo! That is, most of the claims made are now null and void based on the most recent polls and data.

Someone needs to tell the author of the memo that we are nearing the end of APRIL. And using data from February is completely useless!

Posted by: ECM | April 25, 2008 11:52 AM | Report abuse

FlaLady wrote: " bet there are millions of people who voted for Obama early in the election process who wished they could get those votes back..."

Yes, and I'll bet there are probably TWO million who voted for Hillary before she started working for McCain and eviscerating the party's likely nominee who wish THEY could get their votes back.

Posted by: jac13 | April 25, 2008 11:33 AM | Report abuse

"aamittal, spot on about polls v. voting. I can't believe, Chris, that you're writing about politics and are basing decisions on polls, rather than voting."

You can criticize polling (though it's usually more accurate than not), but looking at primary voting is even more useless for the general election. The candidates won't be running against each other; one of them will be running against McCain, and that presents a completely different choice for voters. In addition, the voting population will be far larger, and turnout far higher.

The idea that whoever wins a primary somehow has an advantage in a completely different contest is fallacious. I'm amazed to hear so many people parroting it. And I find it hard to believe that those in the campaigns who promote it don't know that the argument is invalid.

Posted by: dsimon | April 25, 2008 11:12 AM | Report abuse

aamittal, spot on about polls v. voting. I can't believe, Chris, that you're writing about politics and are basing decisions on polls, rather than voting. Step back and look at what you're writing.

Posted by: newddle | April 25, 2008 10:55 AM | Report abuse

"Regarding Florida: Obama's numbers are lower there because he's never campaigned there. Yet it's been shown over and over again that the more time Obama spends in a state, the more people get to know him and support him. If he wins the nomination, he will spend plenty of time in Florida, for sure, and will be able to pull ahead."

Sorry, the demographics would NOT favor Obama. Too many seniors, whites, Jewish... and sane people.
I bet there are millions of people who voted for Obama early in the election process who wished they could get those votes back...

Posted by: FlaLady | April 25, 2008 10:51 AM | Report abuse

Does anyone else think it's interesting that FL and OH are totally left out of the Obama memo? While neither are necessary for a Dem win in the fall, they certainly are battlegrounds worth a fight. While ND's and MT's 3 electoral votes apiece are strangely attractive to Sen. Obama, I'm curious as to why his campaign is totally writing off high payoff battleground states.

Posted by: HillaryGuy | April 25, 2008 9:32 AM | Report abuse

From "Head of State"

"Friday, April 25, 2008
Garin on Negative Campaigning

Just as there is a "Fog of War", the "Fog of Campaigning" can also breed short (and at times false) memories.

Geoff Garin claims that there has been "one campaign...that has been mean-spirited" and "unfair" and that it is "not ours".

Garin, who seems to be a genuine and decent professional who has been dropped to the helm of a listing ship, attempts to right it not by changing the direction of the boat, but by trying to reverse reality.

Let's take a look:

Clinton at the Jefferson-Jackson Day Speech:

"I'm not interested in attacking my opponents, I'm interested in attacking the problems of America. And I believe we should be turning up the heat on the Republicans -- they deserve all the heat we can give them."

November, 2007:

New York Times: "Hillary Rodham Clinton's presidential campaign, which is now attacking Senator Barack Obama on a daily basis." [New York Times, 11/30/07] NBC's First Read:

MSNBC: "Another day, another Clinton campaign knock on Obama." [First Read, 11/29/07]

December 2007 (leading to the January 6 Iowa primary, including the notorious use of an essay that he wrote in Kindergarten):

Chicago Tribune: "This Clinton Attack On Obama Could Boomerang." "The Clinton people are citing a kindergarten essay by Obama as evidence against him in a presidential campaign. Good thing he was born before widespread pre-natal ultrasounds. Who knows how they might've used that against him? Clinton's people have thrown similar jabs before at Obama but it hasn't fazed him. So their seems to be a little more fury behind the punches as now that Obama's may have taken the lead in Iowa according to the Des Moines Register's most recent poll." [Chicago Tribune, The Swamp, 12/3/07]

Washington Post: "Losing Ground In Iowa, Clinton Assails Obama." "With a new poll showing her losing ground in the Iowa caucus race, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) mounted a new, more aggressive attack against Sen. Barack Obama." [Washington Post, 12/3/07]
New York Daily News: "Hillary Clinton Attack On Barack Obama Comes After She Loses Iowa Lead." "Hours after a new poll showed her falling behind for the first time in Iowa, Hillary Clinton launched a blistering personal broadside on rival Barack Obama." [New York Daily News, 12/3/07]

New York Times: "An Attack, From the Candidate's Mouth" [New York Times, 12/2/07]

New York Times: "Battered by Poll, Clinton Hits Back" [New York Times, 12/2/07]
Clinton Release: "In kindergarten, Senator Obama wrote an essay titled 'I Want to Become President. 'Iis Darmawan, 63, Senator Obama's kindergarten teacher, remembers him as an exceptionally tall and curly haired child who quickly picked up the local language and had sharp math skills. He wrote an essay titled, 'I Want To Become President,' the teacher said." [AP, 1/25/07]

And what did the voters think?

Which Candidate is the most negative?
Hillary Clinton 21%
John Edwards 9%
Dennis Kucinich 9%
Barack Obama 8%
Joe Biden 3%
Mike Gravel 3%
Christopher Dodd 3%
Bill Richardson 3%
None/Not sure 43%

Source: The Iowa Poll
[Des Moines Register, 12/2/07]

What about after Iowa? She surely must have changed her tactics then...

After Iowa Loss, Clinton Ramps Up Attacks:
January 06, 2008

AP: "Hillary Clinton Comes Out Swinging, Politeness Lost Along With Iowa Caucuses" [AP, 1/6/08]

Los Angeles Times: "Clinton lets arrows fly at Obama"..."Staggered by her third-place finish in the Iowa caucuses, the New York senator was the aggressor throughout a 90-minute session" [LA Times, 1/6/08]

Washington Post: "Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton tried repeatedly to knock Sen. Barack Obama off his footing during a high-stakes debate here on Saturday night" [Washington Post, 1/6/08]

AP: "Clinton criticizes Obama in NH mailer" [AP, 1/5/08]

Newsday: "Clinton sharpens attack on Obama" [Newsday, 1/5/08]

Reuters: "Obama under attack ahead of New Hampshire debates" [Reuters, 1/5/08]

Newsday: "After weeks of playing nice in Iowa, the Clinton camp sharpened their elbows when the campaign went wheels-down in New Hampshire, readying TV ads targeting Obama that were expected to focus on health care and his legislative record." [Newsday, 1/4/08]

Washington Post: But she and her aides also signaled their intention to now ratchet up the race, aggressively countering Obama in the five days ahead. She is also now planning to draw even sharper distinctions between herself and Obama on the question of change, after watching voters who wanted a new direction select her main rival for the nomination on Thursday night. [Washington Post, 1/4/08]

Well...that must have been just a momentary reaction to January's surprising defeat. She surely didn't continue that strategy...

The State: "Clinton camp hits Obama -- Attacks 'painful' for black voters. Many in state offended by criticism of Obama, remarks about King" [1/12/08]

New York Times: "Clinton's Campaign Sees Value In Keeping Former President In Attack Mode" [1/25/08]

Greenville News: Ex-Democratic Official Criticizes Clintons' Attacks On Obama [1/23/08]

CNN: "Clinton Sharpens Attacks On Obama" [CNN, 2/14/08]

Concord Monitor: "Clinton Attack Still Riles Some" [2/4/08]

Guardian Unlimited: "Clinton Goes On Attack As Obama Closes Gap" [2/3/08]

First Read: "Clinton Justifies War Vote, Hits Obama" [1/13/08]

Politico: "Hillary Clinton attacks Barack Obama" [1/13/08]

Perhaps it became more substantive and dignified in February:

Feb 25, 2008

2008 Presidential Election

Clinton Circulates Pic of Obama in Somali Garb: Report
For some, Barack Obama's "Hussein" middle name has been something worth picking on. For others, it has been pushing the unsubstantiated rumor (debunked by Snopes) that Obama is or was a "radical Muslim." But this - this is truly low. ..Clinton campaign manager Maggie Williams said, "If Barack Obama's campaign wants to suggest that a photo of him wearing traditional Somali clothing is divisive, they should be ashamed."


The Politico, Ben Smith, March 2:

"A weird moment of TV, partially captured in the clip above. Clinton denies she thinks Obama's a Muslim, but her denial seems something other than ironclad, and the interviewer goes back at her on the question...

"You said you'd take Senator Obama at his word that he's not...a Muslim. You don't believe that he's...," Kroft said.

"No. No, there is nothing to base that on. As far as I know," she said."


MSNBC: April 14: Clinton Attacks Obama On Air

Sun-Sentinal: April 22: Clinton attacks, Obama hopes

And what of recent words of Mr. Garin himself?

From the April 20 Meet the Press:

MR. AXELROD: ...Did you not put a negative ad on this weekend in Philadelphia? The--100 percent negative ad attacking Senator Obama?

MR. GARIN: No. I don't believe we did.

MR. AXELROD: Yeah, you did. Go back and check with your people, and it was, it's an ad on lobbying, and it's circulating...

MR. GARIN: It's not. It, it ends up, I believe, with...

MR. AXELROD: No, no, it's 100 percent negative ad, Geoff. Go back and ask your people. I understand you're new in the campaign, and I love you, man, you're a good friend of mine. I know you to be a good, positive person.

MR. GARIN: Right.

MR. AXELROD: But I think that there's some vestiges of the old regime still in place.

MR. GARIN: Well, look, when, when, when...
(Garin never answers this question--Axelrod later in broadcast: "The--well, first of all, that's what's in your negative ad that you didn't know about in Philadelphia.")

Note: This of course leaves self-inflicted attacks (i.e. sniper fire) aside. Incidentally, while I have known people to err when they are tired (for example to say "sniker" instead of "sniper"), I have never seen anyone invent and repeat an entire episode that did not occur as a result of exhaustion--although, of course, this commonly does occur when people are completely asleep.

Hendrik Hertzberg, in this weeks "Campaign Trail" (New Yorker) has noted the tragic and inevitable game here, whereby Obama, who has tried to run a different type of campaign--explicitly principled and positive--has been drawn into defense by the incessant attack. This attempt to now flip and revise history in this very fundamental manner is something that we have seen in our recent Presidential past--and is something that should give us pause.

Head of State:

Posted by: Robert Hewson | April 25, 2008 9:14 AM | Report abuse

Why can't she just QUIT?!! Whhaaaaaa!!

Posted by: straightmedia | April 24, 2008 8:06 PM


Given that Hillary literally cries on camera and Obama won't even stoop to explaining why the states that don't vote for him don't count, it's pretty funny that Hillary supporters try to portray him as whiny.

Posted by: aleks | April 25, 2008 9:14 AM | Report abuse

Yes, state polling head-to-head against McCain is going to be unreliable this far out from November, and polls have varying degrees of reliability (though most predicted the PA results pretty well; people shouldn't point to the NH primary and then conclude all polls are invalid.)

But the polling data provides a far better starting point than primary results for analyzing the general election prospects. The Clinton argument that her victories against Obama in big and swing states makes her the better candidate against McCain is, in my view, knowingly fraudulent.

It should be obvious that how candidate A does against B in an election where not everyone can vote and where turnout is low tells us little about how people will choose if either of them runs against C where anyone can vote and turnout will be far higher. If you want to see who the better candidate would be against McCain, one should start by looking at head-to-head polling against McCain, not primary results of Clinton against Obama in contests where voting is often restricted. And from what I've seen, there's no significant difference in the overall results when the candidates are matched up against McCain.

But what disturbs me is that the Clinton campaign continues to bring up the primary results in various states as indicative of general election strength. They must know it's not true. There was a front page article in yesterday's NY Times which basically took the argument apart. I've had seven years of an administration that was willing to make bogus arguments to deceive people to support their views; I don't want four more.

The sad thing is that Clinton does have electability arguments to make. But her willingness to make arguments that are patently invalid is a consistent source of disappointment and frustration for me.

Posted by: dsimon | April 25, 2008 8:39 AM | Report abuse

Heres a scenario for you, Obama drops out, declares himself an independent and joins McCains ticket as VP - McCain spends one term, Obama gets a bit more flavor and the public will have emerged with three candidates in 2012.

Let HRC take the DEM nod and see who wins in the fall.

Posted by: Huh | April 25, 2008 6:53 AM | Report abuse

As a life time democrat, I think it is time for us to admit the obvious. The 2008 Presidential campaign is lost. Hillary supporters will not support Obama and Obama supporters will not support Hillary. I would suspect that we will spend the bulk of the next 4 years debating who's fault it was which makes it questionable if we will be able to put the party back together in time for the 2012 campaign. The only thing left for us to do is to work hard to win as many Senate and House seat as possible to counter the policies of President McCain.

Posted by: wingood | April 25, 2008 6:52 AM | Report abuse

Some have picked up on this, others haven't.

Point 1: Since polls have been historically established as inaccurate, why should we start trusting them now?

Point 2: Issue-based voters who are either Hillary or Barack should vote for which ever Democrat gets nominated or submit a blank ballot. It's a two party system, and we all know that means the choices usually suck, but the similarities between the candidates far outweigh the differences from McCain's standpoints. This is the difference between being unhappy with the situation and making it worse.

Posted by: Alex van Ommen | April 25, 2008 5:43 AM | Report abuse

Seems to me ole Harry won one election as Pres. I don't agree that Hillary is a lying cow, the bovine part is wrong.

Posted by: CW | April 25, 2008 2:04 AM | Report abuse

Yes, we had Bill Clinton. Do you know when the last two full term democratic president was before Bill? 1945, Harry Truman--before most homes had television and Coca Cola cost 23 cents for 6 bottles at the grocery store. Democrats had better start embracing the fifty state plan and working hard for it or else come up with a new one that works better, because that old handful of big states plan doesn't work very darn well! All of Clinton's machinations are based on old history. We need a new plan folks. If we don't start getting innovative about this, we'd just better get used to the idea of being ruled by war like rich people, because we aren't destined to win very often. I'd support Hillary if she had won fair and square, but she didn't and now she can't. She's throwing this election in hopes of winning the next one. I wonder if she's considered that if she makes Obama lose this one by trashing him with all her negativity, that maybe he'll come back in 2012 and kick her hiney again?

Posted by: karela | April 25, 2008 1:23 AM | Report abuse

TYPICAL MEDIA - playing the yoyo game - with the public - this is your way to keep selling ads - hate hillary this week, hate obama next week and so on... do us all a favor and realize that no one is hated more than the media at this point for trying to control the election with all of your windbag predictions and polls - you are all full of hot air.

REPORT THE FACTS, and give it a rest - we'll decide who we want as the nominee - we are not idiots.

Posted by: Lettie | April 25, 2008 12:48 AM | Report abuse



Posted by: MISTER CAPS | April 25, 2008 12:38 AM | Report abuse

To: cheersdk | April 24, 2008 11:47 PM

Please look at your candidates scandalous past before you start throwing stones. If you enjoyed defending the Clintonians during the 90's; I think you are in the minority!
We have finally found a candidate who truly believes in what he stands for. He is ethical, honorable; has integrity; is a Christian; married faithfully for 15 years; a father of 2; a man who has inspired us rather than tear us apart. He can throw the kitchen sink but; I just don't know if there are enough Home Depots out there to purchase them from...LOL

Posted by: Sue, Elyria,OH | April 25, 2008 12:31 AM | Report abuse

I respectfully ask the media to report on the situations that have happened during this Democratic Primary season.

Let's examine: The Democratic primary was essentially tied in delegates between Barack Obama & Hillary Clinton. She was presumed the strong front runner. She and her campaign thought the nomination process would be over on Super Tuesday. WHO WAS OUT OF TOUCH THEN? Barack Obama won 11 states in a row!! Any other candidate would have gracefully joined his campaign as a supporter and the Democratic Party would be clobbering John McCain. Instead, with the GOP already deciding their nominee; Hillary wins OH and TX (unless you count the delegate vote). Why?? Because the republicans know their only chance to win in the fall is to have Hillary as the Dems candidate.

Please start exploring how the voting changed once John McCain wrapped up the GOP nomination.

DO YOU JOB!! QUIT LISTENING TO THE CLINTONIAN SPIN!! Your generation may be willing to overlook the appalling and disgusting ethnics of the Clintonians; Your generation may still harbor deep seated racial divides; Your generation is paranoid about homosexuals; Your generation was willing to overlook Bills many affairs, bribes, pardons, corruption, $109 million in the bank- yet she goes on TV and taunts her website asking ME for $25?? The Clintonians have earned $109 million over the past 6 years!! Can she give me $50 so I can fill up my gas tank? If they believe they are the better candidate, its not Hillary you are voting for-it's both Clintons and the elders with all the money; McCain or Sillary. Both of those options scare me. Their recent positions on National Security are both showing to be Hawkish. One so strident she emphasized using Nuclear bombs!! The other, McCain thinks 100 years would be good for the American People. Barack Obama is taking on 2 Republicans. Can we explore the reasons why Sillary flunked the bar exam?? Could it be she has never lived up to anyones expectations of her and she is so vain she thinks she is the only one who can change this country around. How without US? The American people. If you truly count the popular vote, of all people who voted including the Americans who voted in the caucus states, Barack wins by 551,000; HALF A MILLION!! I am sorry to go on, but to have this as the choice to represent me as a woman........NOT THIS TIME

Posted by: Sue, Elyria,OH | April 25, 2008 12:09 AM | Report abuse

Chris, I want to know WHY you or your paper or any of the networks aren't showing the video of Hillary Clinton clearly breaking campaign laws, see Paul vs Clinton. She's on the phone for crying out loud and clearly states that she's so happy for what they are doing for them, the Clintons' this should be shown just like that 30 second soundbit of Jerihmia Wright, if the news claims to be fair and blanced then someone needs to report this story period, otherwise I would say for Hillary the fix is in!

Posted by: Sue F | April 25, 2008 12:01 AM | Report abuse

I'm getting tired of all you arm chair political commentators bloviating on "bitter." I have family in NJ, PA, OH, IN, and MI and they ARE bitter. Some of them are working three part time jobs trying to make it. They see their jobs going overseas and neither the Republicans (figure the odds) or the Democrats are doing anything about it. They don't have health care, many of them have lost their pensions as CEOs loot their pension funds to run companies in the ground. So yes, they do cling to traditions, something stable in their lives. They cling to religion to help them get through the hard times, they cling to hunting (guns) in part to help feed their families, in part because they were raised with them. These unchanging traditions are things they can hold on (cling) to during, for them, a period of unprecedented change all around them. And yes, they don't like aliens or free trade agreements. There is nothing elistist about what Obama said...its the truth, at least as seem from many in my family. These people aren't stupid and they understood exactly what Obama meant and they agreed with him.

Posted by: Repub | April 24, 2008 11:57 PM | Report abuse



Somebody, better check what kind of "GRASS ROOTS" ACTIVITY Obama has been doing on that extra lawn space that REZKO helped him get!

Obama and his IMPASTOR WRIGHT are content with their reverse discriminating JEREMIAH CROW LAWS DISENFRANCHISING MICHIGAN AND FLORIDA!

Posted by: cheersdk | April 24, 2008 11:47 PM | Report abuse

If Clinton is the stronger candidate, why are Karl Rove, Sean Hannity, and other Republicans siding with Hillary against Obama?

Posted by: Andrew | April 24, 2008 11:42 PM | Report abuse

pinepine: The add will be all over Cable, running in "Bits and Pieces" no matter what the locals do. I've seen some other analysis from Pa. in that 97% of Black men voted for Obama and yet his campaign continues to claim "Race" is not a "Factor". Fox News Sunday have him on this week, and you can bet he will get a "Puff Piece" done by Mr. Wallace, as all The Media tend to do. A few days ago I posted I had some folks thinking Ca. would be in play, as crazy as it sounded, but I have others bring this up due to the high makeup of Latinos. I am not saying I agree or disagree, only posting what I have seen and heard as legitimate arguments.

Posted by: lylepink | April 24, 2008 11:35 PM | Report abuse

I am not sure this country is ready for a Lesbian president.

Posted by: LetthemdrinkCrownRoyal | April 24, 2008 11:32 PM | Report abuse

Leichtman again compares Apples to Pears. The Research 2000 poll showed a drop for Clinton to 1%. The Survey you cited was another poll with different methodology. Each poll has its own quirks and comparing close numbers between polls is not nearly as revealing as looking at trends with the same polling methodology. The Research 2000 numbers are likely all in the level of noise, but they certainly don't suggest a major bump as a result of the mistake in PA.

Posted by: Sigh | April 24, 2008 11:18 PM | Report abuse

I'm not sure the country is ready for a Lesbian president.

Posted by: LetthemdrinkCrownRoyal | April 24, 2008 11:14 PM | Report abuse

Hillary is terrible through and through. She's been warped and disfigured morally by power and the lust for it.

Obama is what he's always been. Basically gets it, but not very experienced.

McCain is worse than Bush--will bring the country to its knees. Bush went to Iraq to one-up his daddy and reclaim honor. McCain will continue the war for every year he can stay in office to maintain the pride of the military when what we need to do is maintain our democracy and our sanity.

Where did Biden go?

Say it ain't so. Say it ain't so.

Posted by: JP | April 24, 2008 11:14 PM | Report abuse

I'm an Obama supporter, but some of his polling analysis seems pretty questionable. I live in North Carolina and take it from, it's no battleground state. Bush won here by more than 12 points in 2000--and again in 2004, even with John Edwards on the ticket.

But state-by-state polling in the heat of the primary battle does not overly concern me. What encourages me is that Obama has consistently led McCain and Clinton in the national polling. And historically speaking, the candidate who wins the nationwide popular vote is almost certain to carry enough states to win 270 votes in the electoral college. Except for 2000, it's happened that way in every election since 1892.

The 2000 outcome was an anomaly that can be attributed to equipment failures and voter confusion in Florida that Republicans were able to take advantage of to carry off a judicial and electoral coup. I'm optimistic that if Obama carries the country as a whole on election day, he'll win enough states and enough electoral votes for a victory in the electoral college.

Posted by: Lee | April 24, 2008 11:13 PM | Report abuse


For your info, the NC GOP ad has been refused to run by the TV station. By the way, BHO can win PA.

Posted by: pinepine | April 24, 2008 11:08 PM | Report abuse

breaking news bob
last week's Indiana polls showed Obama with a 5 point lead so HC actually had a 4 point bounce.

and this from you;
'from your N. Carolina sources' what your tarot cards.

And bonjedi now spews more nonsense; breaking news Obama garned more votes in Fla and Michigan;from those same tarot cards?

Posted by: Leichtman | April 24, 2008 11:05 PM | Report abuse

Why be surprised that Hillary would enter the fall campaign with the highest unfavorable ratings of any nominee in half a century?

Bill Clinton's "Zippergate" showed a great deficit of loyalty and responsibility--really the foundations of civil society.

Hillary's campaign has shown the same yawing deficit of loyalty and responsibility to the Democratic Party.

It's time the Party greybeards stepped up to the plate and put an end to the farce the Clintons are trying to foist upon us.

Posted by: MARTIN EDWIN ANDERSEN | April 24, 2008 11:01 PM | Report abuse

JNoe1002: Ohio and Pa. are must win states for the Dems. From everything I have seen and heard over many months, Hillary was the only Dem that could carry these two states against the Repub nominee. losing either in the GE and it is very hard for the Dems to get the Electoral College Votes needed. The Rev. Wright story is not going away, and I am more than curious abouthow it will play in NC if the Repubs run the add starting Monday.

Posted by: lylepink | April 24, 2008 10:45 PM | Report abuse


O.K., fine. I respect that. If supers break on their own judgment, by all signs, it appears they are free to do that.

Posted by: Comment | April 24, 2008 10:40 PM | Report abuse


I've never said or believed that the supers should follow their states or districts -- or that they should side with the elected-delegate leader, for that matter.

However, I think they will side with the candidate with the most elected delegates -- not because of some supposed moral imperative, but in their own self-interest.

Posted by: jac13 | April 24, 2008 10:36 PM | Report abuse

Any mathematician will tell you that the math is good only if the formula is good.

Show me the universal formula that gets either Hillary or Barack to 2025.

All the formulas I see seem arbitrary, because there is no universally accepted formula for the super delegates.

Posted by: Comment | April 24, 2008 10:35 PM | Report abuse

It is virtually mathematically impossible for HRC to win. I would suggest Obama simply cheer up, ignore Hillary, and run against McCain.

Let HRC squeak on the outside and no one will pay attention, because she really has become irrelevant. Obama paying her any attention (and the news media) is the only thing propping her up. She only picked up 10-12 delegates after all that noise in Pennsylvania and that is obviously not enough to make a difference.

Sorry to bring the bad news. Math is unforgiving.

Posted by: michael4 | April 24, 2008 10:31 PM | Report abuse


I think you missed my point. She is leading in the super delegate count, but maybe she shouldn't be, but what rules allowed this in the first place? What allows Ted Kennedy to break from the will of Mass?

I am pointing out that maybe there are no rules for them to follow.

Why do superdelegates have to follow the will of national pledged delegate total? Why not the will of the State total? Why not the will of the District total?

It all seems arbitrary.

Posted by: Comment | April 24, 2008 10:30 PM | Report abuse

Comment says: "Hillary has more super delegates than Obama, so that shows a preference to her over the pledged delegate count already."

Have you been living under a rock since February 5? Obama has picked up some 75 super delegates since then, while Hillary has picked up 5 or so. Her once-commanding super delegate advantage is down to 23. Get real!

Posted by: jac13 | April 24, 2008 10:22 PM | Report abuse

There have been numerous reports that the remaining SuperDs are leaning heavily towards Obama. They are just reluctant to go public because they are after all politicians and they fear that if they are wrong and Hillary somehow pulls out a miracle they could be finished.

Posted by: Bob, DC | April 24, 2008 10:21 PM | Report abuse

Feast or Famine, or Words of Wisdom,

You guys seem to know alot about the pledged delegate process, but what about the super delegates?

I've heard it proposed that if the national pledged delegate total favors a candidate, then the remaining pledged delegates should just follow suit and push the winner to 2025.

What about State by State? For example, Hillary has more super delegates than Obama, so that shows a preference to her over the pledged delegate count already.

And I'd imagine that Kennedy and Kerry did not follow the overall will of Massachusetts, and are for Obama. I think I saw the governor in Oklahoma do the same.

So if the superdelegates are already all over the map, why should the remaining break on the national totals? And if they did, why wouldn't the super delegates in each state just break, all of them, based on their state totals? IE all CA superdelegates break for Hillary, all PA for Hillary, all IL for Obama, etc.

The math seems a mess.

Posted by: Comment | April 24, 2008 10:16 PM | Report abuse

BREAKING: New Indiana poll conducted after PA primary -- NO BOUNCE FOR HILLARY!!!

Barack Obama: 48 percent
Hillary Clinton: 47 percent

The WSBT-South Bend Tribune poll was conducted by telephone April 23-24 by Research 2000. It included interviews with 400 voters who expect to vote in the May 6 Democratic primary. The margin of sampling error was plus or minus 5 percentage points.

A similar poll conducted March 31-April 2 found 49 percent support for Clinton, with Obama's support at 46 percent. The new poll asked which candidate had run the more negative campaign, with 48 percent saying Clinton, 23 percent Obama and 21 percent equal.

Posted by: Bob, DC | April 24, 2008 10:13 PM | Report abuse

Obama's ambiguity is not news! It's an integral part of his character and personality!

Posted by: Realistic | April 24, 2008 10:09 PM | Report abuse

Words of "Wisdom" (that's a good one!)

I've been reading different pages and seeing you post your cute little "Obama has 103 extra delegates" theory over and over COMPLETE WITH CAPS WHERE NECESSARY FOR EMPHASIS, along with this Hillary-invented popular-vote bulls**t.

Give it a rest. It would be interesting if we could go back and change the rules of any process that didn't work out the way we like. Unfortunately, life doesn't work that way.

Obama is where he is today because he and his campaign learned the rules, played by the rules, and won more of what one needs to get the nomination, i.e. delegates. You can scour the Dem party rules and I'll bet you won't find a single reference to the popular vote.

This is so Hillary: Don't like the result? No-o-o-o problem. Just change the rules.

Michigan and Florida don't count. Oops -- my campaign screwed up and I didn't wrap up the nomination on February 5. So now I need their delegates. I'll make a lot of noise about voters being "disenfranchised," and the media won't notice that I'm doing a complete 180, or if they do they'll just ignore it. Never mind that all those other saps took their names off the ballot in Michigan. How stupid! They should have known better, with me and Bill in the race.

This nomination fight is about DELEGATES, damn it! Oops -- I can't get enough delegates. What to do? Oh, yeah, there's the popular vote. But I'm BEHIND in the popular vote. No-o-o-o problem . . . we'll just count Florida and Michigan.

And on and on and on. Makes me sick, as does the thought of looking at that smirk and hearing the lies for the next 4 or 8 years -- IF she could beat McCain, that is.

Posted by: jac13 | April 24, 2008 10:07 PM | Report abuse

After all is said and done, the EC Map tells the story about who will be our next POTUS. Hillary wins and Obama loses against McCain.

After all is said and done more is said than done. The primary is effecively over. Hilary cannot catch up. McCain is a pathetic candidate. Obama will win easily. It's a done deal.

Posted by: Bob, DC | April 24, 2008 10:07 PM | Report abuse

After all is said and done, the EC Map tells the story about who will be our next POTUS. Hillary wins and Obama loses against McCain.

Posted by: lylepink | April 24, 2008 10:02 PM

Where do you come up with this fairytale?

Hillary supporters: Back away from her website and for once have a single glorious original thought.

Posted by: JNoel002 | April 24, 2008 10:06 PM | Report abuse

If Obama wins the nomination I will leave the plantet!

Posted by: Realistic | April 24, 2008 10:05 PM | Report abuse

After all is said and done, the EC Map tells the story about who will be our next POTUS. Hillary wins and Obama loses against McCain.

Posted by: lylepink | April 24, 2008 10:02 PM | Report abuse

Well, I just have one comment... It seems like Clinton ressembles more a republican candidate than she does a democrat, not only because of her vicious tactics, but also for the type of supporters she generates. Unlike the typical democrat who attracts mainly the educated, Clinton relies in most her campaigns on the elderly, the uneducated, the farmers and the blue-collar / unskilled workers. I guess when people read about her, and find out all the dirty games she plays, and what she's really about, they switch candidates.

Posted by: Neutral2 | April 24, 2008 9:59 PM | Report abuse

Words of "Wisdom" wrote:

It boils down to this the Popular vote without Florida and Michigan the two candidates are 1.8% apart

That 1.8% after the formula turns into 5.4% more delegates for Obama - a difference of 103 delegates.

My Comment:
And has been pointed out to you, this is counting Apples and Pears. Caucus states (even Democratic Caucus States) have a lower turnout on a percentage basis. Thus the States that hold primaries are given more weight -- in your somewhat insane approach. As for the rest of your claims, that's sheer and utter nonsense. The States that have gone Democratic do get more of a say. And those States have been going for Clinton. If we went to a "straight electoral college" set of values, allocated as each State chooses (ie Caucuses or Primaries) and Obama actually would have a greater lead. (New York and California both greatly benefit from this preference.)

Posted by: Confused? | April 24, 2008 9:57 PM | Report abuse

Why would anyone think that Hillary, with her sky high negatives, having trashed Obama and the half of the Democratic base that supports him, will have any shot at all to beat McCain? I truly hope Obama, excoriates her for the rest of the primary season, and after he's done everything he can to ruin her "electability", he should withdraw on the eve of the convention, and let her have the nomination. He should refuse to be her VP which will really screw her. (I think Hillary would like to win the nomination, and then drag Obama along to pick up his supporters, her only hope of beating McCain.) Let Hillary twist slowly in the wind with her "rust belt " racist white voters and the Florida "Nuke Iran" crowd, while Obama's supporters and donors work to elect a good majority- Democratic Congress, which will effectively neuter McCain.

Go Obama 2012!!!

Posted by: Susan E. | April 24, 2008 9:53 PM | Report abuse

My Response to the poster named feastorafamine:

Thank you for your post - you are right, there is a equalization process with the pledged delegates on a statewide basis - thereby the pledged delegates ARE supposed to (by DNC rules) mirror the popular vote.

My position is that this is not happening and the process is off by 103 delegates.

THE RULES provide for a proportional system, however the proportional system is off track.

As I described above this matters first within the debate for the superdelegates, and second on the legitimacy of these 103 delegates which is a separate issue and valid to be discussed.

I have the position that these pledged delegates should be adjusted just like the district-level pledged delegate results are adjusted to mirror the popular vote.

Got it????

Posted by: Words of Wisdom | April 24, 2008 9:46 PM | Report abuse

I wish some of these uncommitted Superdelegates would tell Clinton that if she continues with the negative campaigning, broadcasts the 3:00 a.m. ad, the bin Laden ad or anything like it, that they will commit to Obama, and go public with the reasons for it. Enough of them do that, I bet she cleans up her act quickly.

Posted by: Tom S | April 24, 2008 9:45 PM | Report abuse

Reports coming in that the Clinton campaign is using deceptive Republican style push-polling in North Carolina. It won't work and will likely anger many superdelegates. Dumb.

Posted by: Bob, DC | April 24, 2008 9:31 PM | Report abuse

Response to the poster named confused

Or is it? If there are more democrats in a state, it makes sense to give that state more delegates - this is based on voting records in the past three election cycles.

However, other factors come into the electoral college numbers used - number of Republicans in a state for instance.

The more Republicans a state has by percentage the greater number of delegates per democrat. That is unusual to say the least.

In addition, small states get a bonus.

Yes, I am saying that the formula is not legitimate, and to use a perfect word, undemocratic.

All democrats should count equally - each state should have delegates based on the democrats in the state, NOT the republicans.

Obama has 103 Extra Delegates it is that simple.

It boils down to this the Popular vote without Florida and Michigan the two candidates are 1.8% apart

That 1.8% after the formula turns into 5.4% more delegates for Obama - a difference of 103 delegates.

The whole thing is significant because the Obama people have been telling the Superdelegates not to overturn the "Will of the People" then they cite the pledged delegates.

The pledged delegate totals DO NOT represent the "Will of the People" by the tune of 103 extra pledged delegates for Obama.

That is a central deception. Plain and simple.

So - the first level is what has Obama been telling the Superdelegates - and what should the superdelegates factor into their decision.

The second level is I would argue that those 103 pledged delegates are not legitimate and there should be some adjustment process.

DNC delegate selection rules have adjustment processes all over the place - everything has to be adjusted down to the American Indians represented. Also there has to be a certain amount of gays and lesbians there.

Adjustment process is nothing new to the DNC

We have to get this nomination right - we do not want a tainted nominee.

Posted by: Word of Wisdom | April 24, 2008 9:28 PM | Report abuse

The close coordination of the Hillary campaign and right-wing con media is not going unnoticed by the superdelegates. That in itself may sway many to Obama.

Posted by: Bob, DC | April 24, 2008 9:25 PM | Report abuse

The statewide PA pool is 25% of the 138 delegates, the district pool is 75%. With rounding, the statewide pool comes to 35 delegates, the district pool comes to 103. That's where we get our first numbers - 103 district-level delegates and 35 at-large pledged delegates. One is representing the congressional districts, another is representing state-wide voting. Winning the state's popular vote, thus, gives an added bonus. That is why you see Obama winning more delegates from a state while winning fewer counties than Clinton - he is winning the highly-populated areas with a high percentage, while Clinton is winning lowly-populated areas with various margins. This gives Obama an extra boost, as we will see when it comes to winning congressional districts.

When all else fails blame the rules. Is this the new talking point? The RULES are not fair. Like the RULES of the pledge signed about MI and FL? The rules seem to only matter after you LOSE or fall behind.
There is NOTHING wrong with the rules. Everyone agreed to them before we started this nifty process. I guess you just demand to change them midway through when it benefits you? Interesting stuff.

Posted by: feastorafamine | April 24, 2008 9:22 PM | Report abuse

My, there are so many nitwits on this board desperately trying to revive the old Rev Wright issue. Pathetic.

Posted by: Bob, DC | April 24, 2008 9:22 PM | Report abuse

I remember before PA primary everyone was saying that HRC needed to win every contest left by 20% to 30% in order to net enough pledged delegates. Now HRC just won by 9.4% (she led BHO by 20% 6 weeks ago), all of sudden she should win the nomination? What happened? This so-called electability in the Clintons' sense is nothing else but being white and being a Clinton, which are the two things that they believe the "bread-and-butter" oriented "Reagan Democrats" in PA and OH could "cling". Since when PA became the single one decisive state that determines the Dem's presidential nomination? Was it expected by everyone that Obama would lose PA primary? Obama had only hoped to lose by 5%. Now this 9.4% loss should end his candidacy? What is everyone hinting here? I hope BHO be just patient and simply hang on there.

Posted by: pinepine | April 24, 2008 9:19 PM | Report abuse



Posted by: STEW118 | April 24, 2008 9:19 PM | Report abuse

-- Besides Obama supporters don't care. -- mean the vocal minority left, of Af/Americans,
persons under 28 & college professors?

In addition to interjecting himself back into the contest
just when Obama had deluded himself that it was past
him (despite an emptying tent), Wright says on Moyers
tomorrow that Obama faked his denouncement of
Wright Crazy-Talk in his 3/18 speech, for political

Problems in Small Town IN - John Mellencamp



Posted by: straightmedia | April 24, 2008 9:18 PM | Report abuse


We are talking about the delegate distribution among the states - the small states have been given extra delegates - the large states have had delegates taken away - based on a DNC formula that is quirky.

This has led to Obama having 103 delegates based not on the votes in the primaries and caucuses but on the formula out of thin air.

Got it?

Posted by: Words of Wisdom | April 24, 2008 9:16 PM | Report abuse

I don't know why anyone is counting polls
between McCain and Obama yet. McCain has had a free ride so far. Wait til Obama gets a chance to campaign against him as the nominee of the Democratic party. Then people will see that John McCain represents a continuation of Bush Cheney. And nobody in the USA wants any of that.
The worst ever in the History of the USA.

Posted by: Bill from Mich | April 24, 2008 9:15 PM | Report abuse

The "Math" everyone is refering to is simple. Try for yourself and see.
Truth is truth, and math does not lie. In order for Hillary to win the nomination she MUST win ALL the remaining 9 states by a margin of at least 17-19 percentage points (67-69%) and then she must win 64% of the superdelegates. All this talk back and forth cannot change the math. Hillary's efforts to get the nomination will be an exhaustive uphill battle. Before all you Hillary folks start to jump down my throat you should know I LOVE Hillary. I am constantly pleading for unity within the Dem party. I do not have a bias. What I have is a calculator, and a willingness to add things up the way they are, not the way I want them to be. Ironically Hillary's win in PA actually HURTS Hillary in more ways than one. (Kudos though for winning it!) First off it leaves only 9 contests to cut the margin. A 14% point win in PA wasnt merely one of expectation but more of necessity. Failing to reach the margin of 14% now changes her margin for the rest of the contests. In fact the change is rather drastic. As of Tuesday April 22nd she needed 14% wins in ALL states left. Now she needs 17-19% point wins. Use this delegate calculator below and do the math yourself. Adjust the slider to 67-69% wins from here on out and see what you get. The magic number of delegates needed to win the Democratic nomination is 2,025 out of 4,049 total number of delegates. If the race stays remotely the same as it is now, Hillary will be in the hole by 23% in superdelegates, plus she would need the 51% margin of those superdelegates for victory. That means Hillary would need 74% of all the superdelegates. As I stated, big big wins are needed in ALL 9 contests from here on out. Otherwise she cannot catch him with the superdelegates. Again crunch the numbers with the delegate calculator below.
The delegate count used is the same as MSNBC and CNN

Posted by: feastorafamine | April 24, 2008 9:13 PM | Report abuse

Words of "Wisdom" wrote:
Obama is trying to steal the election:

1) By benefiting from 103 pledged delegates that do not match his popular vote count.

2) By attempting to deceive superdelegates about these 103 pledged delegates which came from the formula and then attempting to bully the superdelegates by warning them that they should go with his delegate count and they should not "Overturn the Will of the People"

My Comment:
Repeating a lie over and over again does not make it true. You continue to combine Apples and Pears. Delegates are allocated based on State Population and on prior support for the Democratic Party. The small states get the benefit of two electoral votes. But the large states won by Hillary get a much bigger boost from the "historic" democratic preference. In sum, a resident of a State like New York has a greater say than a voter in, for example, Texas or Idaho.

However, States allocate delgates differently. Some use primaries, other use caucuses. Primaries have a higher turnout. Thus the weight of a caucus goer may be greater then that of a primary voter, but that doesn't change the relative weight of the State. That is calculated above.

What you have done is to take the weight of the individual who voted (as opposed to the weight of the State resident) and argued that this shows that delegates were mis-allocated. However, if we follow your allocation scheme, all caucus states immediately lose most, if not all, of their votes. And that would be unfair.

Posted by: Confused | April 24, 2008 9:12 PM | Report abuse

-- The answer is: the voters really have not given us those delegate totals - the numbers are off by about 103 delegates.
Posted by: Words of Wisdom --

I believe the states assign an amount to
the state winner, above the proportional
delegates, which varies by state.

Fortunately, the Obama surge was stopped
by Media Inc. finally directing some
scrutiny on him, and voters seeing past
the facade to a regular, lying politician.
Had the lunatic-Wright mentorship and
20-year association emerged before Super
Tuesday, Hillary would now be past 2025.

As it stands, neither will get there.
Therefore the delegate totals are academic.
The determining statistic to Supers, will
be votes cast.

You can see on the blog today, how terrified
Obamaphytes are of that. They want this to
end before the rest of the electorate speaks
for chrissakes!



Posted by: straightmedia | April 24, 2008 9:07 PM | Report abuse

The Obama people refuse to talk about the inflated delegate totals because they have deceived so many superdelegates - and tried to bully them into a theme which was not really true.

Hard time talking numbers with anyone today.

Posted by: Words of Wisdom | April 24, 2008 9:06 PM | Report abuse

In a sign of Senator Obama's broad, statewide organization, the Obama campaign today announced the endorsement of 43 North Carolina mayors, mayors pro tem, and former mayors, representing cities large and small, from Raleigh to Roper.


Terry Bellamy, Mayor, Asheville
Leni Sinick, Former Mayor, Asheville
Linda Blackburn, Mayor, Ahoskie
Frank Wilson, Mayor, Bolton
Loretta Clawson, Mayor, Boone
Kevin Foy, Mayor, Chapel Hill
Mark Chilton, Mayor, Carrboro
Harold Weinbrecht, Mayor, Cary
Harvey Gantt, Former Mayor, Charlotte
Linda Ingram, Mayor, Conetoe
Darryl Moss, Mayor, Creedmoor
Malcolm Johnson, Mayor, Dover
N. Carnell Robinson, Mayor Pro Tem, Dunn
William Bell, Mayor, Durham
Cora McFadden, Mayor Pro Tem, Durham
Perry Blanks, Mayor, East Arcadia
Warnie Bishop, Mayor, Enfield
Roy Bell, Mayor, Garysburg
Yvonne Johnson, Mayor, Greensboro
Keith Holiday, Former Mayor, Greensboro
Mildred Council, Mayor Pro Tem, Greenville
Horace Reid, Mayor Pro Tem, Hertford
Matthew Block, Mayor, Laurinburg
Phil Bazemore, Mayor Pro Tem, Monroe
Eulis Willis, Mayor, Navassa
Lewis Brown, Former Mayor, Navassa
Jerry Merrick, Mayor Pro Tem, Navassa
James Knox, Mayor, Northwest
Randolph Voller, Mayor, Pittsboro
Charles Meeker, Mayor, Raleigh
James West, former Mayor Pro Tem, Raleigh
Estelle Sanders, Mayor, Roper
Perry Dixon, Mayor, Sandyfield
James Mill Sr., Mayor, Scotland Neck
Melvin Broadnax, Mayor, Seabord
Howard Morgan, Mayor, Sedalia
Wilbert Harrison, Mayor, Speed
Ethel Clark, Mayor, Spring Lake
Donald Davis, Mayor, Snow Hill
Betty Gholston, Mayor, Wagram
George Draper Jr., Mayor, Weldon
Robert Spivey, Mayor, Windsor
Vivian Burke, Mayor Pro Tem, Winston-Salem
Carl Lee Sr., Mayor, Lewiston Woodville


NC will go big for Obama. He will gain more votes and more delegates than Hillary got from ger "big" win in PA. Hillary is finished.

Posted by: Bob, DC | April 24, 2008 9:00 PM | Report abuse

Obama is trying to steal the election:

1) By benefiting from 103 pledged delegates that do not match his popular vote count.

2) By attempting to deceive superdelegates about these 103 pledged delegates which came from the formula and then attempting to bully the superdelegates by warning them that they should go with his delegate count and they should not "Overturn the Will of the People"

3) By blocking, stalling and refusing any attempt to have a re-vote in Florida and Michigan

This whole process is out of control -

Obama should never be afraid of counting the votes of American citizens in Florida and Michigan.

You all have been fooled.

The reason Hillary is not leaving this race is the bogus process - if these elements had not been present she would have left a long time ago.

Obama's campaign had got to be kidding.

Posted by: Words of Wisdom | April 24, 2008 8:26 PM | Report abuse

Wright issue is old news. His interview on PBS was relatively tame. Besides Obama supporters don't care. Wright could shout ten thousand of the nastiest cuss words and it won't matter. Obama will still win. Sorry Rush freaks, your dumb strategy isn't working! ;-)

Posted by: Bob, DC | April 24, 2008 8:13 PM | Report abuse

There is no absolutely question who the Superdelegates will select.

With Obama they have a real legitimate shot at the presidency.

With Clinton they have a fractured Democratic party that would take decades to repair and zero chance at the presidency.

Seems pretty clear cut to me.

Posted by: gthstonesman | April 24, 2008 8:10 PM | Report abuse

-- The remaining SuperDs are mostly leaning Obama --


Sure. With Jeremiah back today. No problems

You will be lucky if he even holds on in NC. With Wright now undercutting Obama's
subject-changing speech of 3/18 (says
basically he faked it), and Hillary's
new cash & momentum after a resounding
defeat of the demagogue in PA, he will
be fighting uphill now everywhere else.

It's just a shame, that all the states
get to vote and Hillary gets to make her
best case. Darn that democracy!

Why can't she just QUIT?!! Whhaaaaaa!!



Posted by: straightmedia | April 24, 2008 8:06 PM | Report abuse

I will repeat the earlier posting because some people have indicated they do not know what has been going on


It really started to make me wonder why the massive Pennsylvania win would mean so litte in the delegate totals so I did some number crunching last night.

I found out something very curious.

There is a 1.8 % difference in popular vote in the states which awarded delegates - however that has produced a 5% difference between the candidates in DELEGATES - that does not seem to be

Does anyone realize this ???

1.8% would yield a 51 difference between the candidates in pledged delegates - as opposed to the 154 difference in pledge delegates we see on all the charts.


Apparently the DNC Delegate Allocation Formula is producing a result which is not the "Will of the People" and is in this case about 103 delegates off in Obama's favor.

The bulk of Obama's lead is coming from a DNC formula, not from the votes of the people.

Why - it appears that half the formula is based on electoral college votes, which includes both an accounting for the population of Republicans living in the state, and a bonus for small states.

This causes additional delegates to shift from large states to small states - and then when those delegates are calculated - shift to Obama in magnified amounts in the small states.

HOWEVER - a corresponding number of delegates has come from the large states and thus are not available for Hillary in her wins - those delegates in small numbers would have been awarded to Hillary with her wins in the large states.

The idea that Obama's lead is the "Will of the People" is simply not true - it comes directly from the DNC formula - at least 103 delegates of his lead.

Then the DNC refuses to count the delegates which were ELECTED BY THE VOTERS IN Florida or Michigan which is another 70 delegates by all calculations.

The numbers are not what they appear to be - And it makes sense - Many people I have spoken to wonder how the results we have seen in the primaries have yielded the delegate totals we see.

The answer is: the voters really have not given us those delegate totals - the numbers are off by about 103 delegates.

Posted by: Words of Wisdom | April 24, 2008 8:03 PM | Report abuse

The American Presidency has been held hostage by the Mossad and it's agents for a long time now,in fact it has been building for years,predating the Bush Administration.This can happen in an electoral democracy and the President has taken a lot of hits because of actions of these agents that he has been unable to control.It is hard to say if another President could have done a better job of eliminating this Mossad threat.In the end he can only do what Congress will permit him to do.Most Americans don't realize that this threat exists.No matter,sooner or later we will clean house.

Posted by: interpol | April 24, 2008 7:59 PM | Report abuse

-- And Obama won Texas.
Posted by: bondjedi --


Actual, real TX election / source;



Vocal-minority-dominated TX Caucus;



If you can't add these up, let me know...


Hint: Obama received fewer votes. Darn.


Posted by: straightmedia | April 24, 2008 7:57 PM | Report abuse

Barack Obama has accepted an invitation to appear this week on the FOX News Sunday hosted by Chris Wallace.
This is a good move. It is time to begin to build the bridges to the confused, abused, demoralized Republicans.

Posted by: Bob, DC | April 24, 2008 7:57 PM | Report abuse

The remaining SuperDs are mostly leaning Obama but they are still politicians and are unwillng to stick their necks out to endorse Obama until they are absolutely sure he will be the nominee. They know if they go for Obama and Queen Beatch Hillary wins, it will be "off with their heads!".

Posted by: Bob, DC | April 24, 2008 7:55 PM | Report abuse

"Facts are stubborn things. the truth will out."

Yes, indeed. Let's hope that this is the case on Sunday when Obama finally graces us with his presence on FNS!!!!!

Go Wallace! Obama watch netted the big one.

(expect more non-answers and's his favorite breakfast!)

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | April 24, 2008 7:53 PM | Report abuse

"These few this week, are where he's now
down to the bottom of the support barrel.
James Wu? Who?!"

He's a nobody, just some superdelegate, one of the 75% remaining HRC needs and who she would claw her mom's eyes out just to have in her corner.

Posted by: bondjedi | April 24, 2008 7:51 PM | Report abuse

nice figures and some are impressive. but the reality is that despite this being 2008, racism still exists in this country. as was pointed out here two months ago:, and the NY Times learned today, does anyone really believe that five of the states, and a sixth to come, where obama won the primary with Democrats voting would actually vote for him in the general? that row of southern states from louisiana up to north carolina will have a third of the electoral votes this fall. think the superdelegates not yet committed won't see that?

Posted by: rapswork | April 24, 2008 7:49 PM | Report abuse

-- He's picked up 3 more since Pennsylvania, with more on the way. --


When Obama is in trouble, he picks up
the phone and offers jobs in his imaginary
admin, in exchange for endorsements. That
is what happened with Richardson (VP) and
Lee Hamilton (Defense Sec).

These few this week, are where he's now
down to the bottom of the support barrel.
James Wu? Who?!

Check back here, when those "more on the
way" total 2025.

Meanwhile; happen to see where Jeremiah
Wright is back today? Says the Obama
Can-I-Please-Change-Subject speech of
3/18 where he disavowed Wright, was only
political necessity.


LOL - real shame that is...


Posted by: straightmedia | April 24, 2008 7:47 PM | Report abuse


Finally we are in agreement. It will take the independent super delegate to put either in as the nominee.

The primaries in MI and FL did happen. We can't un-ring a bell, we can only choose to ignore we heard it.

Posted by: Comment | April 24, 2008 7:43 PM | Report abuse

Holy Cr*p!!

House Democratic Whip James Clyburn, of South Carolina and the highest ranking black in Congress, described Hillary Clinton's campaign tactics as
"Scurrilous" and "disingenuous" and has heard speculation that Clinton is staying in the race only to try to derail Obama and pave the way for her to make another White House run in 2012.

"I heard something, the first time yesterday (in South Carolina), and I heard it on the (House) floor today, which is telling me there are African Americans who have reached the decision that the Clintons know that she can't win this. But they're hell-bound to make it impossible for Obama to win" in November, Clyburn told Reuters in an interview.

Yikes! This is getting ugly.

Posted by: Bob, DC | April 24, 2008 7:34 PM | Report abuse

"I amazed at how many Obama supporters dumb down for a few moments when it comes to the nomination and will only look at pledged delegates."

Obama is looking at pledged and super delegates. Hillary Clinton is looking at phantom votes and primaries that didn't happen.

Posted by: bondjedi | April 24, 2008 7:32 PM | Report abuse

Latest GE matchup polls show Obama much stronger than Hillary against McCain. I suspect these numbers will get even better once Obama is the official nominee and the party rallys around him and begins to focus on McCain.

McCain: 48%
Obama: 43%

McCain: 49%
Clinton: 38%

Obama: 52%
McCain: 38%

Clinton: 47%
McCain: 42%

Obama: 46%
McCain: 43%

McCain: 50%
Clinton: 36%

New York:
Obama: 45%
McCain: 40%

Clinton: 46%
McCain: 42%

Posted by: Bob, DC | April 24, 2008 7:29 PM | Report abuse


Are you a Republican? Because I have my doubts that a fellow Democrat would ever make KKK accusations against a fellow Democrat. It's an immature and rude comment.

Of course winning NY, CA, does not preclude Obama from winning those states. Just as Hillary will carry Illinois.

This is a very close race. If we want to use a kindergarten analysis, and just count the pledged delegate count, which there is absolutely no rule that says we have to, be my guest.

Intelligent people take all the data possible to come to the best decision. And all the data could favor Obama, but let's look at.

I amazed at how many Obama supporters dumb down for a few moments when it comes to the nomination and will only look at pledged delegates. ESPECIALLY since we have states that had caucuses, and Florida and Michigan have been left out.

We need to look at more if we want to come to the best decision. To not do so is proceed at our own peril. We want to win the white house. Period.

Posted by: Comment | April 24, 2008 7:26 PM | Report abuse

FL & MI will be dealt with once all the others states, who followed the rules, have completed voting. Get over it.

Posted by: Bob, DC | April 24, 2008 7:25 PM | Report abuse

"Go ahead Democrats Go ahead Obamaniacs Keep on telling Michigan Voters that some dispute in Washington means their votes do not count."

Why don't you just tell them for us, because no one here knows what the hell you're talking about.

Posted by: Unity '08 | April 24, 2008 7:23 PM | Report abuse

The truth is Obama is about to steal the election by getting 103 delegates that do not come from the popular vote and by working to keep Florida and Michigan out of the process.

Obama's nomination is not legitimate unless Florida and Michigan votes are counted when they make a difference, not as a part of some seating chart.

Go ahead Democrats Go ahead Obamaniacs Keep on telling Michigan Voters that some dispute in Washington means their votes do not count. That is the way to win there in November.

Have the Obamaniacs gone completely mad ???

Posted by: Words of Wisdom | April 24, 2008 7:21 PM | Report abuse

I see that notorious Republicans like ProudtobeGOP and King of Zouk are all boosting Hillary and trashing Obama.

That tells me all I need to know.

Obama's the one they fear!

Thanks for your input, you horrible Republicans. Obama it is.

Posted by: OD | April 24, 2008 7:19 PM | Report abuse

"How many of Obama's small States could you roll up into PA?

I guess how many states you win doesn't show the whole story.

Look at Brad K's map above, tell me, how many of Obama's wins are now red states?"

Man, I am so getting this now. Thanks everyone! Hillary has a strategy of winning an electoral majority with just PA and OH. Why didn't John Kerry or Al Gore think of that?

Again, if you think that Hillary's winning CA, NY, and the few other states she has picked up preclude Obama from winning them in November, what does that say about Hillary related to McCain? Is this why so many deadenders say they will be voting for McCain, because there is no difference between him and Hillary?

Why don't you think your arguments through to their conclusions, instead of just repeating the latest Clinton campaign e-mails making the rounds? Nothing the Klinton Kamikaze Krew (KKK) says about Obama makes sense, which is probably why she polls so well among people that haven't finished 8th grade.

Posted by: bondjedi | April 24, 2008 7:16 PM | Report abuse


I figured out the meaning of the Electability memo you are talking about.

Just as Obama needs to exclude Florida and Michigan from the primary process, his campaign is figuring out a why to exclude Florida and Ohio from the November election.

It all makes sense now.

AND why not?? The DNC has made clear it is comfortable with 48 state elections - so Obama appears ready to go for it.

Posted by: Word of Wisdom | April 24, 2008 7:12 PM | Report abuse


Losing 29 States and still standing! She is tough! And smart!

How many of Obama's small States could you roll up into PA?

I guess how many states you win doesn't show the whole story.

Look at Brad K's map above, tell me, how many of Obama's wins are now red states?

Posted by: Comment | April 24, 2008 7:10 PM | Report abuse

If I was Florida and Michigan I would never let some spoiled Washington insiders set the dates for my primaries.

I would ALWAYS hold the primaries before SuperTuesday.

I would also complain to everyone why Nevada gets to go first.

By the way, they were attempting to say that Nevada had Hispanics and that is why Nevada got to jump.

Doesn't Florida have a hispanic population?

I disagree that those 4 states should go first. The initial decision was bad. The penalty was stupid.

The Democrats need to get their priorities straight. To do this to Florida and Michigan is insane, politically and democratically.

It is too bad that it is affecting the outcome of the race - it is too bad.

Harry Reid deserves the blame. I hope you guys blame him in November.

Posted by: Words of Wisdom | April 24, 2008 7:07 PM | Report abuse

Obama or any Democrat should beat McCAin easily.

Here is McCain's foreign policy:
1) Stay in Iraq for 100 years.
2) Bomb-bomb-bomb, bomb-bomb Iran
3) When all else fails, consult GW Bush.

On the economy:
McCain admitted he knows nothing about the economy. His solution is buy a book "The Economy for Dummies" available at your local bookstore.

Issue of age:
There are reports McCain is showing signs of senility -- forgetfulness, confusion, moodiness, irritableness. I suspect by Nov he will be a basket case. Lieberman and Cindy will be taking all questions.

I suspect it will be a landslide Dem victory this Nov both for the WH, congress and other downticket races.

Posted by: Bob, DC | April 24, 2008 7:06 PM | Report abuse

The reality is any Democrat can beat Mt Magoo McCain. McCain is pathetic candidate. He still is not trusted by most conservatives. Many independents & libertarians are abandoning him due to his hardcore Iraq/Iran positions. Plus with the economy being the biggest issue in America -- McCain provides nothing there except tax cuts to the wealthy and big corporations. His age will also be an enormous factor especially in contrast with a youthful and vigorous Obama. McCain has very little chance of winning in Nov.

Posted by: Bob, DC | April 24, 2008 7:03 PM | Report abuse

"Why would we want some guy who used cocaine to be President of the United States of America?"

Ask George W. Bush. Snap!

Posted by: bondjedi | April 24, 2008 7:02 PM | Report abuse

Florida and Michigan disagree with the "decision" that you talk about - the DNC decided then to impose its will on states that are supposed to govern their own elections.

Florida and Michigan had established positions between New Hampshire and SuperTuesday for many election cycles.

In some smoke filled room, some DNC hacks decided to change the established schedule and impose their will on the states.

This effort was led by Harry Reid - who pushed for Nevada - with the motivation to get the inside track for his political operatives in Nevada.

Florida and Michigan never agreed to be pushed back - obviously.

1) the initial decision was made improperly without enough consensus among the parties.

2) to push up Nevada given Harry Reid's influence smells.

3) When this whole thing developed, an agreement should have been sought, instead the DNC decided to hold the VOTERS hostage until the states did what the Washington Insiders wanted.

Don't you get it? Its a Washington Power Play

Go Ahead

It smells.

Posted by: Words of Wisdom | April 24, 2008 7:02 PM | Report abuse

Why would we want some guy who used cocaine to be President of the United States of America?

Posted by: New Question | April 24, 2008 7:01 PM | Report abuse

Obama can't pick up western states.

Thats just more Barry Obama snake-oil.

Obama's been "outed" as the most left-wing member of the Senate.

He's never "reached across the isle"

He doesn't "unite people"

That's his sales pitch. He does the opposite.

Obama's a salesman, nothing more.

The stuff he sells is fake.

America's tired of him.

Its over.

Posted by: Obama can't pick up western states | April 24, 2008 6:58 PM | Report abuse


Clinton's numbers in both states are close enough to McCain's that the voter irregularities could make the difference and as we all know that means that the Republicans win those states. If Clinton loses in either OH or FL she loses the general election because she has no other states in play to replace them. The only way we can start beating Republicans is to find a way to make these two states unimportant to the Democratic path to the White House.

Obama is showing how we can do that by picking up Western states something Clinton cannot do.

Posted by: Deb | April 24, 2008 6:50 PM | Report abuse

"The delegates need to be adjusted in such a close race. "

Thank you for distilling the Hillary argument so well, WoW. NOW we get it. You don't like her coming in second place, so you're going to tweak the numbers so she is in first place.

You are loony, but I will give you much props for being the only deadender here that understands delegates are the heart of the matter, and that Hill can not take the lead unless she lies about who has how many. Good work.

Posted by: bondjedi | April 24, 2008 6:50 PM | Report abuse

To Words of "Wisdom":

The Democrats decided a long time ago to add one Southern state (South Carolina) and one Western state (Nevada) to the early end of the calendar to balance off and dilute the longstanding influence of the traditional early-voting states, (Midwestern) Iowa and (Northeastern) New Hampshire. I didn't make that decision, and I have no position on whether it's fair and sensible. what I do know is that this was the decision made by the DNC. Some "big" states including Michigan, Florida, and many others insisted this was unfair because all the early states are fairly small. Fair point, and if I were deciding the thing I'd have probably agrred with them, but they made that argument to the DNC and they lost. So the rules were clear, the rules were well established, and everyone agreed to abide by those rules. Except Michigan and Florida, which went off like a bull in a China shop and recklessly put their voters' right to be heard at risk by scheduling their primaries in direct contravention of the rules, arrogantly calculating that they were so "important" that they could bully, browbeat, and blackmail the DNC into baking down and recognizing their illegal (under DNC rules) primaries. They lost. My only point is that it's just plain hypocritical of them to now whine that the DNC---or the Obama campaign--are disenfranchising their voters, when in fact it was the political and party leaders of those states who took the precipitous action that led to their primaries not being recognized.

My position has nothing whatsoever to do with the merits of allowing Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Nevada to go first. But that that's a bad ruyle, there's a right way to change it: line up enough votes at the DNC to change the rule, and then proceed with the rules laid down. You don't go ofdf half-cocked, violate the rule, and think you can get away with it; and you most assuredly don't change the rules after the fact, to credit an electoral process in which the results were clearly distorted by the fact that voters and candidates alike were being told that the results wouldn't count, resulting in an enormous skewing of the outcome that is impossible to repair. That's just hugely undemocratic in its own right. Govs. Granholm and Crist, the legislative leaders in Michigan and Florida, and the party leaders in both states are to blame. If they want to change the process the next time, let them do it in a legal way, not through an illegal election, post-election blackmail, and giving retroactive credit to a profoundly flawed and undemocratic process.

Posted by: Brad K | April 24, 2008 6:49 PM | Report abuse

So, the cutoff is two. He has three "bad" associations (Wright, Ayers, and Rezko), but we'll cut it off at two.

John McCain:

Charles Keating
John Hagee
Ron Parsley
Vicki Iseman & Lowell Paxson

Oops. He's out too.

Posted by: JamesCH | April 24, 2008 6:47 PM | Report abuse

bondjedi and all:

We have been talking all day how Obama's delegate totals do NOT match his popular vote -

Obama has 103 EXTRA delegates due to the formulas and other quirky rules.

Seriously, is this how you want to select a nominee ???

Sorry, however, the process needs to be fixed. The delegates need to be adjusted in such a close race.

Posted by: Words of Wisdom | April 24, 2008 6:45 PM | Report abuse

"How did Hillary survive the Obama juggernaut twice?"

How did she get clobbered 29 times by him?

Posted by: bondjedi | April 24, 2008 6:45 PM | Report abuse

Florida and Ohio are absolutely critical.

Hillary has done a great job at creating strong positions of her electability in key states.

That shows great political ability.

People know that money can steamroll a win for any candidate.

How did Hillary survive the Obama juggernaut twice?

Great political ability by her. She is the Dems srongest political warrior.

Posted by: Comment | April 24, 2008 6:43 PM | Report abuse

"Hate speech? Like the stuff we hear (or have heard) from the likes of Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell?"

For every Obama association that you throw at me, I'll give you two "conservatives".

Posted by: JamesCH | April 24, 2008 6:23 PM

I am not aware that any Republican candidate has declared either of these two to be his uncle, his mentor or his spiritual guidance. and what they say does not compare to what Obama tolerated in his local church all that time.

I can forgive him one or two bad associations, we all have them. but he has a lot more and a lot badder than most. and when confronted, he sticks with them.

Imagine having a bomb throwing klan member holding the first fundraiser of your nascient Senate campaign at his house.

After so many of these, a pattern develops.

but we don't even need to flaunt his poor judgment and bad choice of friends and associates. simply examine his uber left voting (or not voting in many cases) pattern, his false claims of working across the aisle (never happened although McCain is famous for this), his urgency of the now(no major legislation in his Senate career, not even an urgent committee meeting, although McCain is famous for this).

there is finally no where else for PT Obama Barnum to turn.

Facts are stubborn things. the truth will out.

Posted by: kingofzouk | April 24, 2008 6:39 PM | Report abuse

Black activists are picketing Planned Parenthood - accusing them of black genocide.

Black Liberation Theology here we come.

Posted by: Words of Wisdom | April 24, 2008 6:38 PM | Report abuse

TV ratings don't impress me, especially when you look at what tops the ratings for network TV.

Once again, you name call people when they disagree with you.

Yes, I am a liberal. In the true sense of the word. I respect all of the Bill of Rights, including the Second.

And, I wonder, has it occurred to you that the size and scope of the federal government has increased more under the Bush Administration than at any time since the New Deal?

I'll tell you what. You can have the Second Amendment back if you cons will give us back the Fourth. Deal?

Posted by: JamesCH | April 24, 2008 6:38 PM | Report abuse

"Caucuses are undemocratic
processes that involve peer pressure not
secret ballot, and skew to those who can
spend several hours of their evening to
attend. That leaves out working parents,
and 2nd shift workers."

Garbage. Most caucuses were done on weekends, and none lasted "several hours."

This is the standard stupid Clinton argument, and you can tell how half-a$$ it is because the same deadenders moaning about how undemocratic caucuses are think that Hillary's wins in FL and MI where no one was allowed to campaign are legit. The truth is Clintons hate caucuses because her campaign and its members proved hopelessly inept at managing them.

And Obama won Texas.

Posted by: bondjedi | April 24, 2008 6:37 PM | Report abuse

So Obama's campaign puts out a memo on Electability which does not mention his electability in Florida or Ohio??

What does that tell you?

Seriously Chris why did you print this?? Obama's campaign has run out of things to say.

Their transcendent theme has disappeared.

Their entire campaign themes are out the window.

Posted by: Words of Wisdom | April 24, 2008 6:36 PM | Report abuse

For you Hillary supporters, if the only states that matter in selecting a nominee are the "large states," why do we just have primaries in those states and write off the rest?

Of course this makes no sense. New York is going Democratic no matter what. California is going Democratic no matter what. North Carolina is a toss up with Obama, but not Hillary. There are different ways to make the necessary numbers to win the Presidency. If Ohio likes Bush policies, vote for McCain and continue to lose houses and jobs.

Florida state representatives in the Democratic Party voted overwhelmingly to move the primary up, so blame those people. Michigan voted to move the primary up, so blame those people. If Michigan people are so stupid and childish to continue the Bush policies with the vote for McCain, they can do so and lose their jobs and houses.

The rules apply to everyone, so stop whining!

Posted by: Ann C | April 24, 2008 6:36 PM | Report abuse

Caucuses are a measure of the strength of grass roots efforts which is important in a general election campaign. Apparently Hillary has very few people willing to work hard at the grass roots level for her. Obama has millions!

Posted by: Bob, DC | April 24, 2008 6:35 PM | Report abuse

Who am I? Why am I here?

I'm a moron. I have no life.

Done and done.

Posted by: kingofzouk | April 24, 2008 6:35 PM | Report abuse

Response to Brad K

On the other page, I asked you to explain your position as to why Nevada and South Carolina should be allowed to vote in January and not Florida or Michigan.

I asked you to justify your support for Harry Reid's power-play to cause this dispute with the apparent motive to assist political operatives get the inside track in presidential appointments.

Why are you supporting this?

Characterize the dispute properly -

I see no reason why the voters have to get caught in the middle of this dispute.

Posted by: Words of Wisdom | April 24, 2008 6:33 PM | Report abuse

-- Obama did not win Texas. He won with the caususes, which is not a measure of how he will do in the general election.
Remove caucuses, and he crumbles. --

Well said. Caucuses are undemocratic
processes that involve peer pressure not
secret ballot, and skew to those who can
spend several hours of their evening to
attend. That leaves out working parents,
and 2nd shift workers.


Posted by: straightmedia | April 24, 2008 6:31 PM | Report abuse

"All I said was that it is entirely possible to believe that something is wrong without forcing that belief on others who believe otherwise. Try it sometime."

In this case, we actually have an enshrined law that protects this, much as the cherished freedom of speech law. guns are protected from your beliefs. and Obamas. that is why they create such disdain in your elitist circles. Religion too. you Libs may be able to take over the schools and indoctrinate the children of the poor to your feeble notions of right and wrong but our religion, our guns, our speech remain off limits to you. and therefore the freedom that we enjoy, mostly the freedom from big government intrusion - you know the thing you want to do to us, will remain in our personal perview indefinately. and the refutation of the Obama and clinton candidacy will prove this point.

the whole notion that fox news is somehow, bad information is ludicrous. It is the Libs trying once more to reign in free speech and eliminate the competition of ideas in any fashion possible.

We don't blame them for this, it is expected given the strength of the underlying arguments for liberalism. you must cheat, lie and dissemble to garner any support. the truth is simply your enemy.

and besides, the ratings tell the real story. fox news channel has 9 of the top ten cable shows. so much for the appeal of liberalism. you have to have mush for brains to go for that stuff.

Posted by: kingofzouk | April 24, 2008 6:30 PM | Report abuse

None of what the Obama people say matters much.

They list states that Hillary would win anyway -

That is not the standard - the standard is how the match-ups compare in the few toss-up states and leans Democratic.

Obama's numbers are falling apart.


Posted by: Words of Wisdom | April 24, 2008 6:30 PM | Report abuse

The latest Rasmussen Reports survey in MN shows that Barack Obama is the better candidate against McCain. He leads McCain by double-digits, 52% to 38%. A month ago his lead over McCain was just four points. Clinton leads McCain by only five percentage points, 47% to 42%.

Posted by: Bob, DC | April 24, 2008 6:30 PM | Report abuse

If Obama wins the nomination, I will vote for McCain, so says Carl Rove.

If Clinton wins the nomination, I will vote for McCain, so says Rush Limbaugh.

Posted by: Mary | April 24, 2008 6:27 PM | Report abuse

"Inka dinka doo
Hillary will be the president for you!"

If we say this 1000 times Hillary will deserve the nomination. Pass this on to a hundred friends or you will have bad luck.

Posted by: straightmedi-duh | April 24, 2008 6:26 PM | Report abuse

Next Week. North Carolina. Clinton sways the Superdelegates not by proving she's electable but by proving Obama is not. She'll tag team with Jesse Helms Republican clan members to prove Obama is a terrorist. She won't be able to get a conviction, but the Grand Jury (the Superdelegates) may bend to the cigar smoke filled interrogation and kneecapping of James Carville & Asses.

While onlookers gasp, Hillary will prove she knows enough dirty tricks to make Carl Rove envious. She'll get the nomination after running Obama out of town on a rail, and take Raliegh the same way Sherman took Atlanta....scortched earth, leave no Obamaite alive, man, woman, or child.

Hooray. Victory is Hers. Can't wait to see the highlights.

Posted by: will | April 24, 2008 6:25 PM | Report abuse

Hate speech? Like the stuff we hear (or have heard) from the likes of Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell?

For every Obama association that you throw at me, I'll give you two "conservatives".

Posted by: JamesCH | April 24, 2008 6:23 PM | Report abuse

"Golly. That would even matter, if Obama
could reach 2025.

He cannot. Supers will decide."

I know. He's picked up 3 more since Pennsylvania, with more on the way. How many has Hillary received since her "blowout"?

Will you be taking your arguments to the Green Party convention? Maybe they will let Hillary run on their ticket, with Nader as her VP. Good luck!

Posted by: bondjedi | April 24, 2008 6:22 PM | Report abuse



Posted by: HILLARY CLINTON HAS THE MOST VOTES | April 24, 2008 6:21 PM | Report abuse

Thanks for making a generalization about me. It's much easier to call you out for putting words in other people's mouths.

I didn't say that his views on guns were irrelevant. All I said was that it is entirely possible to believe that something is wrong without forcing that belief on others who believe otherwise. Try it sometime.

Besides, gun control is not a position that makes a candidate unelectable. Candidates win elections while holding that position all the time.

Just because you disagree with a candidate's positions doesn't mean that only people without a brain should vote for him. It means that you shouldn't vote for him. And that's fine by me. When Obama is president, feel free to leave the country. You won't be missed.

Posted by: JamesCH | April 24, 2008 6:20 PM | Report abuse

-- Texas delegates (what count)
Obama - 99
Clinton - 94 ---


Golly. That would even matter, if Obama
could reach 2025.

He cannot. Supers will decide. If Hillary
ends the primaries with more votes (sorry,
NotGonnaQuit... ;-), Obama's "will-of-people"
argument is over.

Supers will slide to her in that event -
more votes / tougher fall candidate / no Wright
albatross / Obama on her undercard / unity /
party set up for 16 years

Meanwhile, Obama did not "win Texas". He lost.
This is what happens, when you receive fewer votes...


Posted by: straightmedia | April 24, 2008 6:18 PM | Report abuse

"work for peanuts organizing on the south side of Chicago."

Is this the same time he bought that million dollar mansion he couldn't qualify for, with the help of his friend the sleazy slumlord?

I am beginning to see your point, although it is not the one you set out to make.

"listening to the voices of the people. "

If he is such a good listener, how is is he sat for 20 years listening to hate speech in church, yet, even with those enormous ears, never heard a word.

It makes me wonder if he is able to hear that Ahmidinajad wants to kill us. Maybe we have a new candidate for spirtual mentor with that attitude.

Posted by: kingofzouk | April 24, 2008 6:17 PM | Report abuse

-- Hillary has lost 29 contests. --

Not lately...



Posted by: straightmedia | April 24, 2008 6:15 PM | Report abuse

Obama-mania is like sushi.

It doesn't age well.

The more people find out about Obama's real thoughts and his real history the more they run away from him.

Obama is over.

Obama can't win the national election, he can only cause Democrats to lose it.

Hillary Clinton for President.

Darwin Award for the Obama campaign.
Posted by: The more people find out about Obama the more he loses | April 24, 2008 6:10 PM

Interesting, seeing as how the people of PA got a chance to know Obama over the last six weeks and turned a 25% deficit into a 9% one. Seems to be the opposite of your claim.

I particularly enjoy how you make such an outrageous claim with absolutely no evidence to back it up.

Posted by: JamesCH | April 24, 2008 6:13 PM | Report abuse

Obama did not win Texas. He won with the caususes, which is not a measure of how he will do in the general election.

Remove caucuses, and he crumbles.

Posted by: independent voter | April 24, 2008 6:13 PM | Report abuse

Elitists don't turn down a sure road to higher pay to work for peanuts organizing on the south side of Chicago.

Elitists don't spend their time campaigning in those "fly-over" states, listening to the voices of the people. "


It seems you may be to busy doing homework and not paying attention to the world around you. In fact that is exactly what elitists do.
then you stunnigly go into some sort of snit about the 2nd amendment which boils down to his view on that matter is irrelevant. Result - any view that makes him unelectable is irrelevant. ANy view that gets votes is the one to consider.

this is very conveneient for a snake oil salesman who has no views that anyone with a brain can vote for. but I fear I have just described you and your ilk to a T.

Posted by: kingofzouk | April 24, 2008 6:12 PM | Report abuse

Obama-mania is like sushi.

It doesn't age well.

The more people find out about Obama's real thoughts and his real history the more they run away from him.

Obama is over.

Obama can't win the national election, he can only cause Democrats to lose it.

Hillary Clinton for President.

Darwin Award for the Obama campaign.

Posted by: The more people find out about Obama the more he loses | April 24, 2008 6:10 PM | Report abuse

Bill Clinton won IL and MO and WA in 1996. Those votes that Obama won in those states are part of Hillary's popular vote majority.

Posted by: straightmediaIMPOSTER | April 24, 2008 5:50 PM


I saw a man on TV in Nevada saying he thinks Hillary is the better candidate.

Hillary gets all of those delegates.


Posted by: straightmediaIMPOSTER | April 24, 2008 5:52 PM


Translation: losing on facts, you co-opt
someone else's username. Pathetic.

I just reported your IP to WAPo dude.
Keep it up -


Posted by: straightmedia | April 24, 2008 6:10 PM | Report abuse

Wait a minute. Obama is telling people that he can win Texas? Is he nuts? He can't even win Florida but he thinks he can win Texas.

Posted by: Larry | April 24, 2008 6:09 PM | Report abuse


It is articles like this that keep the Hillary Electability Fantasy going.

Obama is well on his way to the nomination. Only Clinton and Clinton and Clinton (Chelsea) pretend that her nomination is possible. It is not.

Read the Simon "analysis" and be merry:

Posted by: piktor | April 24, 2008 6:09 PM | Report abuse

Why be surprised that Hillary would enter the fall campaign with the highest unfavorable ratings of any nominee in half a century?

Bill Clinton's "Zippergate" showed a great deficit of loyalty and responsibility--really the foundations of civil society.

Hillary's campaign has shown the same yawing deficit of loyalty and responsibility to the Democratic Party.

It's time the Party greybeards stepped up to the plate and ended put an end to the farce the Clintons are trying to foist upon us.

Posted by: martin edwin andersen | April 24, 2008 6:08 PM | Report abuse

"and your idol is losing elections in March and April now that he's receiving a little scrutiny."

Hillary has lost 29 contests.

Posted by: bondjedi | April 24, 2008 6:08 PM | Report abuse

I do, in fact, dispute your dime store psychological analysis.

Unlike you, I do my homework.

Elitists don't turn down a sure road to higher pay to work for peanuts organizing on the south side of Chicago.

Elitists don't spend their time campaigning in those "fly-over" states, listening to the voices of the people.

If he thinks that guns are wrong, so what? You think he's going to repeal the 2nd Amendment? Last time I checked, the president doesn't have that authority. Unlike some people, Senator Obama has the ability to think that something is wrong, but not believe that it is his place to say that it's wrong for everybody.

Posted by: JamesCH | April 24, 2008 6:07 PM | Report abuse

In the NBA, in most recent seasons, basketball fans ackowledge that the Western Conference is stronger and deeper than the Eastern Conference. A team could lose in the Western Conference finals and argue with some validity that it could beat the Eastern Conference champion. Now imagine Obama as the Western Conference champion and HRC as the Western Conference runnerup. While either could beat the Eastern Conference champion (i.e., McCain), you don't get to play for the NBA championship if you are not a conference champion. So you're left to wonder what could have been and to prepare for next season. Sorry HRC!!

Posted by: The Franchise | April 24, 2008 6:05 PM | Report abuse

so in other words, let you eat your waffle.

Typical Lib coward retreats when forcibly confronted.
Is that the best you can do?

hide under the "rush ditto head" reply. Even if that were true about me, it doesn't obviate the argument.

no wonder you Libs can't answer a single tought question. answer - did Rush say that on the afternon drive?

How do you think that resolves anything that was asked. you are a pinhead and unworthy of a response.

Posted by: kingofzouk | April 24, 2008 6:05 PM | Report abuse

Regarding Florida: Obama's numbers are lower there because he's never campaigned there. Yet it's been shown over and over again that the more time Obama spends in a state, the more people get to know him and support him. If he wins the nomination, he will spend plenty of time in Florida, for sure, and will be able to pull ahead.

Posted by: Carrie | April 24, 2008 6:05 PM | Report abuse

I vote for the candidate, not the party.

All of you Democrat goofs that complain about independents and right-leaning Democrats switching to McCain if their favorite Democrat is not elected can kiss my rear as I leave the room and go to the other party.

I am not a Democrat, I am an independent who will play with the Democrats up to the point when they nominate someone I do not like. I am the audience that you must please. Pleasing the hard-core Democrats is a waste of time, because they are no going over to the other side.

So go ahead, nominate the junior guy with no track record and a basket full of stupid issues just because he gives all of you dreamy-eyed Democrats the warm fuzzies. That is all you will get from him because that crap does not win with the independents. The independent need a reason to go with the Democrats. We don't stick with you because of your party name.

Posted by: independent voter | April 24, 2008 6:05 PM | Report abuse

Texas delegates (what count)

Obama - 99
Clinton - 94


Posted by: bondjedi | April 24, 2008 6:03 PM | Report abuse

Hillary will win out because she has the best argument - she will make a great President, and Obama will make a great President of the Senate. This will allow him, she will say, to age in the public eye for eight years or so before we giving him the launch codes to nuclear oblivion...

Posted by: Anonymous | April 24, 2008 6:03 PM | Report abuse

Here's another independent analysis from Dave Leip's Atlas of U.S. Presidential Elections. Taking an average of the three most recent match-up polls for each state, Leip finds Clinton leading McCain in 13 states, good for 174 electoral votes. McCain leads in 27 states good for 239 electoral votes. And 11 states, good for 125 electoral votes, are toss-ups. That mean Hillary would need to win 96 of the 125 electoral votes in "toss-up" states to win the election, or nearly 80% of them. A tall order indeed, with little margin for error.

In an Obama-McCain match-up, Obama leads McCain in 17 states, good for 217 electoral votes. McCain leads in 23 states, good for 189 electoral votes. That leaves 11 states as toss-ups, worth 132 electoral votes. That leaves Obama needing to win just 53 of the 132 "toss-ups," or about 40% of those up for grabs.

So once again, the "electability" question clearly favors Obama. Once again, the key difference is that Obama is much stronger than Clinton in the Pacific Northwest, the Mountain West, the Upper Midwest, and parts of the Southeast---parts of the country the Clinton campaign never wants to talk about, because their candidate has performed dismally in all these regions in the primaries and caucuses, and continues to poll poorly there on a consistent basis. It's fine to talk about the general election being decided in Ohio and Florida if you've already got places like Washington, Oregon, Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan sewed up---but Hillary doesn't, she's in trouble in all those states, while Obama leads in all of them. And unlike Obama, Hillary's not able to expand the playing field by putting states like Colorado, Nevada, Iowa, and Virginia in play. Let's not fixate on one or two states until we get a better look at the larger electoral picture. Once we do that, the conclusion is pretty obvious: Barack Obama is the stronger candidate in the general election.

Posted by: Brad K | April 24, 2008 6:03 PM | Report abuse

-- And people - as evidenced by Obama's lead in states, popular votes, and delegates - have told her to stick it up her a$$. --


You cling to that. The facade is off,
Americans see that now, and your idol
is losing elections in March and April
now that he's receiving a little

...but, but why can't she just QUIT
like Media Inc. SAID?!! Whaaaaaa!!



Posted by: straightmedia | April 24, 2008 6:03 PM | Report abuse


Because I live in a world that is not black and white, issues change. Arguments are developed, and positions morph as a result of new information.

Since your ideas come from GOP talking points instead of from your own mind, you don't have the burden of changing your mind. Somebody else takes care of that for you.

Posted by: JamesCH | April 24, 2008 6:01 PM | Report abuse

There is not a person alive that has said something that failed to match the thought that was intended.

Posted by: JamesCH | April 24, 2008 5:53 PM

But Obama's problem is that his actual thoughts and feelings keep leaking out. He doesn't bother to correct them in his arrogance. why should he, thay are accurate as stated. He is elite, he does think that fly-overs are rubes, that guns are wrong, that religion is a crutch for the ill-informed. do you dispute that this is his and most of the coastal brie and chardonnay notions?

Posted by: kingofzouk | April 24, 2008 5:59 PM | Report abuse

speaking of redefining words, I noticed this week that 'global warming' has morphed into 'climate change', perhaps due to the sunspots and the impending cooling.

Dem science news flash - the climate changes. this does not necessarily have to wreck your first world economy.

If you are confused about this terminology change, examine how abortion was morphed into 'choice' to make it more palatable and seem preferable.

Posted by: kingofzouk | April 24, 2008 5:56 PM | Report abuse


Must I repeat the vast number of misspoken statements of George W. Bush? I'll crash the server.

There is not a person alive that has said something that failed to match the thought that was intended.

Posted by: JamesCH | April 24, 2008 5:53 PM | Report abuse



Mainstream Democrats will not vote for Obama.

If we have to put up with four years of McCain we will.

Hillary has her record, Bill's record, and the American people's memory of the good times of the 90's to run on.

Obama only has hype.

Obama lost every debate.

He crumbled in the most recent one.

America saw it and rejeced him.

Obama means defeat for Democrats.

The rest of us Democrats will never forget the "Hit Job" Obama and his supporters did on the Clintons.












Posted by: OBAMA'S FELONY HARD DRUG HISTORY MAKES HIM UNELECTABLE | April 24, 2008 5:53 PM | Report abuse

I am quite surprised that many, many people posting here do not realize that while Obama didn't win NY, CA, and PA in the primary, he will most certainly win them in a general. The traditional Democrat states will still go to the Democrat! At the beginning of March, SurveyUSA had a really good head-to-head GE poll that included polls from each state. Both Dems win, but Obama wins by more. They're a little outdated now:

Posted by: Rory | April 24, 2008 5:52 PM | Report abuse

I saw a man on TV in Nevada saying he thinks Hillary is the better candidate.

Hillary gets all of those delegates.


Posted by: straightmedia | April 24, 2008 5:52 PM | Report abuse

-- Obama won Texas. --

Actual, real TX election / source -



Vocal-minority-dominated TX Caucus



If you can't add these up, let me know...


Hint: Obama received fewer votes. Darn.


Posted by: straightmedia | April 24, 2008 5:51 PM | Report abuse

"conveying the thoughts he intended to convey in the first place."

I love how you Libs always have to issue clarifying statements. If you all are so smart and all Ivy like, why can't you get it right the first time?

Here's the answer. you did get it right the first time and we all heard it loud and clear. then you realized that what you really think makes you unelectable. Lib solution - redefine the meaning of "is"

Posted by: kingofzouk | April 24, 2008 5:50 PM | Report abuse

Bill Clinton won IL and MO and WA in 1996. Those votes that Obama won in those states are part of Hillary's popular vote majority.

Posted by: straightmedia | April 24, 2008 5:50 PM | Report abuse

We are at that dark moment in a Clinton campaign that many of us have seen before. The Clinton war machine is running 24-7 and every event, every comment, every breath anyone takes, every gesture or non-gesture, every phase of the moon is spun and spun and spun. If Obama does X or Y or doesn't do X or Y, or, or, or................ This kind of campaigning composed of slander, innuendo, emotional outbursts, back-room corruption, long policy statements filled with pseudo-facts, all designed to captivate the talking heads of the 24-7 media has worked in the past. Spokespersons of every creed, color, nationality, etc. are ready to talk on TV and explain, complain or whatever. Persistent screaming children do get their way in America, don't they?

I hope that with this election we get the Clintons out of our politics forever.

Posted by: rusty 3 | April 24, 2008 5:49 PM | Report abuse

Dear Chris,
One of the earlier posters on this blog mentioned his disapointment at the USA two party system. May I tell him he's wrong!
In Holland there are so many parties in government very little gets done at an appropriate pace.It's called a "Purple government".
Just think- The Reds , Blues, greens, browns, party for the animals, ,pinks, off whites, 65+, save the whale, possibly even a bring back 16track LPs and 45rpm group. Around 16/17 parties of which with luck 2 or three will find a middlepoint to rule, but I believe it has gone as high as a coalition of 5.
Imagine every high office being filled by someone from another party!!! Everybody pulls in a diferent direction. Total compromise politics.
I believe the same goes for Italy.
Think about going through all this trauma every few months.
They attempt a remix of all the parties to make a governing coalition but it invariably falls.
Keep what you've got! It ain't pretty now but it works.

Posted by: not convinced | April 24, 2008 5:47 PM | Report abuse

-- I don't even think there ARE 200,000 people in Kentucky, West Virginia, and Puerto Rico --

No doubt you don't think so.

...hey, do you know about a website



Posted by: straightmedia | April 24, 2008 5:46 PM | Report abuse

I think that Obama should say the same thing he said in SF, but face to face to the crowds in IN, conveying the thoughts he intended to convey in the first place.

"Politicians have spent years using wedge issues to distract voters. Year after year, they promised to fix our healthcare system. They promised to promote alternative fuels and reduce our dependency on foreign oil. They promised to bring jobs to our communities, to make college more affordable, and to fulfill the promise that our children will prosper even more than we have.

"Instead, when crunch time comes, when it is time for us to vote, they prey on the darker side of our minds and hearts. They send out their mailers, and make their robo-calls, telling you that we want to take your guns away, or that they want unlimited abortion and gay marriage. Republicans call Democrats ultra-liberal God haters, and Democrats accuse Republicans of theocratic fascism. These 'wedge issues' are the weapons of a political war that prevents real solutions to our most grievous problems.

"But these arguments are not that simple. They've never been simple, and they certainly don't fit on a 3x5 card in your mailbox, or in a 30-second phone call. It's time to talk about the real issues, the ones that affect our personal economies as well as our nation's. Let us come together and fix what is truly broken, instead of battling over personal ideology.

"We put on our blinders when these 'wedge issues' are brought out. They make it easier to forget that our factories are closing and our homes are foreclosing. Now is the time to change not only the tone in Washington, but the debate."

Posted by: JamesCH | April 24, 2008 5:45 PM | Report abuse

"all the states
get to vote and Hillary gets to make her
best case to them. "

And people - as evidenced by Obama's lead in states, popular votes, and delegates - have told her to stick it up her a$$.

Posted by: Unity '08 | April 24, 2008 5:45 PM | Report abuse

That's right Darrell...nothing shocking out of PA...or OH. TX and MO were good fights that show Obama has broad appeal...people that fall for Clinton's game are the same ones that helped elect Little Bush twice...remember Obama is the guy that has come from way behind to beat these old school fools.

Posted by: Redline | April 24, 2008 5:42 PM | Report abuse

-- If Hillary steals this thing --

She will end the primaries with 100,000
more votes, including FL and excluding MI.
See my breakdown above.

Obama has 1 good state left - NC. Hillary
has 3, KY, WV and PR. IN and OR will both
be close.

You will still be on here after that,
crying that she "stole" it. Regardless
of your own view however, all the states
get to vote and Hillary gets to make her
best case to them. Darn.

Meanwhile she will create unity by putting Barack on the ticket, which he will accept
when he is on the losing end of the
will-of-people case after OR.

Then Dems can hold the office 16 years.
Which is the goal, not personalities.
This is about reversing Trickle Down as
Bill did, and keeping it reversed this


Posted by: straightmedia | April 24, 2008 5:38 PM | Report abuse

What about the alien threat? Nobody's talking about he issues.

Posted by: Mork | April 24, 2008 5:37 PM | Report abuse

Look, I am so tired of hearing about low-income white voters or "Regan Democrats" who will not vote for Sen. Obama.

These are the same people keep leaving the part to vote for Republians; while, we Afrian-Americans stay and provide the foundation for the Dem. Party.

Tell me, who would put your money on when times get rough, people who leave or people who stay and fight. The Dem. party don't owe anything to people who want support them when times get rough...yet they owe African Americans, because we stayed and support the Candidate.

To the Regan Democrats...go to Bleep!

Posted by: darrell | April 24, 2008 5:36 PM | Report abuse

"You may not agee with Obama or me on this point"

What matters is the people in Pennsylvania who absolutely voted their disagreement in large numbers just two days ago! And the people in IN...ya'll better pray those stupid bigoted bible-thumpin' Deliverance folk are too stupid to remember.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | April 24, 2008 5:35 PM | Report abuse

You go away for a while and return to the same old flogging of the beast.

don't you Libs get it yet. Even Dems don't like their own candidates, One is way to liberal for the common man and the other is so replete with baggage, she can't move forward.

I proclaimed a long time ago that this election was a foregone conclusion, that snObama would make amatuer mistakes and say things he wished he hadn't. It was predetermined. He can't hide from himself and the truth forever.

The simple fact is that we, the Americans, don't elect extreme liberals to run the country. We tried that once (peanut) and the result was ignominious failure of a scale not likely to be ever repeated.

I am not particularly in love with McCain, nor was I with bush, but if you Libs keep nominating these clowns, we will always settle for average, above average or acceptable and never strive for tremendous.

I mean really - gorebot??? Kerry waffler??? Dukaksis, Mcgovern, Mondale????

Obama??? get real.

Posted by: kingofzouk | April 24, 2008 5:35 PM | Report abuse

My question is...who is ready on day one to protect us against the alien treat? They're and traveling among us...have you seen the lights in the sky...they will be announcing themselves soon.

Posted by: Mork | April 24, 2008 5:34 PM | Report abuse

"People are voting pocketbook now dude."

Unless you own a Dunkin Donuts franchise or are in the sidewalk salt business, Hillary has demonstrated absoultely nothing she can do for you economically.

Posted by: bondjedi | April 24, 2008 5:34 PM | Report abuse

"Sure. That's what happened in OH, TX and PA..."

Obama won Texas.

Posted by: bondjedi | April 24, 2008 5:30 PM | Report abuse

I think Obama would clearly do better in a general election. After all, all the states that Clinton has won, Obama has cut into her lead. Clinton hasn't cut into Obama's lead in ANY of the states he has won. Just the opposite, he outdoes expectations.

Furthermore, he is winning! It is absurd to say that the person who has won more delegates is the person who isn't doing as well. Clinton has proved that she is incapable of winning many states. She only got 16 percent of the vote in Idaho!!!! He got over 80. Where has she received over 80 percent of the vote? Nowhere.

Posted by: Brendan | April 24, 2008 5:30 PM | Report abuse

Obama overpolls, so any poll is deceiving. I think Hillary could win Florida and Texas if she tried hard, but Obama won't win either.

I think there will be a backlash against the media portraying any criticism about Obama as racism. I have spoken to democrats who have switched from Obama to Hillary because they are sick of the Obama/victim/race card. I am trying to get them to be McCainiacs, but they aren't that smart.

If the DNC is going after McCain on his age, being shot down, being Bush 3rd term, etc. why the heck can't republicans or anyone go after Obama? Because he is a VICTIM! uggh

Posted by: Karen | April 24, 2008 5:29 PM | Report abuse

-- The more Hillary goes into attack mode, the less people like her and the less electable she becomes. While she inflicts some damage on Obama, she fatally wounds herself. --


Sure. That's what happened in OH, TX and PA...


Perhaps now you'd like to defend Barack's
"Harry & Louise" attack mailers in OH,
that took TV ad form in PA. Golly, those
were Kumbaya ads - that worked! He won!

People are voting pocketbook now dude.
In addition to hypocrite associations,
Obama is a blank-slate for the looming
deep recession. No wonder an economy-
dunce like Jimmy Carter, thinks he'd be
a better president than Hillary...


Posted by: straightmedia | April 24, 2008 5:28 PM | Report abuse

If Hillary steals this thing the Democrats are going to see mass defection on a very permanent scale.

As an Obama supporter who believes that Hillary is doing all she can to damage Obama, I do not understand how the superdelegates could ever reward her for such bad behavior by giving her the nomination.

This scenario (Hillary getting the nod) would be absurd and would definitely keep me very far away from the Democratic Party even though I have never voted for a Republican Presidential candidate.

Furthermore, I have been voting for over 30 years.

Posted by: Doug M | April 24, 2008 5:26 PM | Report abuse

One minute Obama was bowling in Pennsylvania with nice, ordinary people wearing "Beer Hunter" T-shirts, and the next thing you know, he was issuing a report on the psychological traits of normal Americans to rich liberals in San Francisco.

Watch out Hoosiers, you're next...he's wooing you gun-toting God nuts in Indiana now. I think you may fall into his category of places "like a lot of small towns in the Midwest".

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | April 24, 2008 5:24 PM | Report abuse

"with FL in and MI out -
which is fair."

Sure, that's fair. As long as we're counting fantasy vote totals, though, you have to include Obama's 90 point blowout of Hillary in Ohio. We'll trade you Hillary's 110% of the vote in Never-Neverland.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 24, 2008 5:23 PM | Report abuse

anybody who would vote for mccain if their candidate does not get the dem nomination
Is already lost to the democrats.

Obama needs to get the racists to vote for him. If he does, he deserves the presedency.
If he doesnt, get used to 4 more years of the kleptocracy we all love!

Posted by: pvogel88 | April 24, 2008 5:22 PM | Report abuse

To Posted by: proudtobeGOP | April 24, 2008 5:07 PM
I don't consider his SF remarks a "scandal" just because it was flogged to death by the media. Obama was not denigrating religion or gun-ownership. He was pointing out (accurately INHO) how some people are influenced by hot-button issues (he could have easily added abortion, flag-burning,gay marriage etc...) because they have lost faith in the government to solve real problems, (outsourcing, healthcare, social security solvency ...). You may not agee with Obama or me on this point - that is fine. But I think that to call his effort to make this point a "scandal" is ridiculous.

Posted by: NM Moderate | April 24, 2008 5:21 PM | Report abuse

I also don't understand how a Democrat says they'll vote Republican if their candidate isn't the nominee. What kind of commitment to principles is that, how can you say you have the principles of a Democrat than vote for a Republican who has completely opposite principles?

Posted by: Mark Cantor-Colorado | April 24, 2008 5:21 PM | Report abuse

The vast majority of Clinton supporters will back Obama once he's the nominee. Likewise, the vast majority of Obama supporters will back Clinton if she's nominated.

Why? Because the loser will back the winner 110%.

Neither has a choice. If either were to hedge on their support, their political careers would be over and done with. They would be blamed for costing the Democrats the presidency.

Posted by: JamesCH | April 24, 2008 5:19 PM | Report abuse

'Nope, never. Man, your revisionist history is amazingly quick.'

You rightwingers are so great with projection. Talk about 'revisionist history'.. what a joke. You guys invented revisionist history.

Agree with Mark Cantor. Let dems get past the divisions and not put another radical righwinger in office.. nothing could be worse than four more years of the same old sh*t. We won't live through it.

Posted by: Cal | April 24, 2008 5:19 PM | Report abuse

I'll be happy with either Hillary or Barack, just as long as the White House is filled with a Democrat who will do the things needed to improve everyday life for an everyday person like me. The only thing I've ever admired about the Republicans is how they can get past their differences and pull together to secure the post sought. I wish that the Democrats would do the same, get past the bickering and work together to get the victories that are needed.

Posted by: Mark Cantor-Colorado | April 24, 2008 5:14 PM | Report abuse

Eeeeeeewwwwwww, Hillary!
(somebody get a mop!)

Posted by: Anonymous | April 24, 2008 5:13 PM | Report abuse

Agreed. HiLIARy is a fat lying cow.

Posted by: Clinton F. | April 24, 2008 5:13 PM | Report abuse

Hey straightmedia -

I don't even think there ARE 200,000 people in Kentucky, West Virginia, and Puerto Rico... but let's assume there are, in each. Of those, probably 45% are voting age, and of those about half are Democrats. And of those - I'll be generous - even if 60% vote Cllinton, that's - what?

Of course I'm exaggerating the smallness of those three places, I know that. But not by much. And Her Shrilliness is NOT a lock to win three places that are very unlike a spoiled suburban soccer mom-liberal who grew up in the Midwest. Yes, I said it - shot'n'a beer for the camera notwithstanding, there is NOTHING "good ol' boy" about Hillary, at least nothing authentic.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 24, 2008 5:10 PM | Report abuse

In case no one remembers

Only 35% of voters believe Clinton is trustworthy.

Can we really take another four years of deceitfulness in the White House?

That's what Hillary offers.

Posted by: NCLWTK | April 24, 2008 5:10 PM | Report abuse

-- It is never about anything Obama has said or done --


I believe the fault is found on Obama's
actions in relation to the divisive
ideology, not the drivel itself. As in:
20 years / patronage / didn't know / mentor

That tallies up as a credibility problem.

Hard to believe he never heard it before
2007, and hard to see how an Inclusion
Candidate retains his membership there.

The man ran for national office 4 years
ago already. Was in state politics 8 years
prior to that. He should have joined a
church he'd never have to denounce, long
ago. More "bonehead" I suppose...

And for Wright's part, yes there is a
truth behind it - one that fits into
1958. To be that shrill and angry
about oppression from the "white man",
denies the vast progress made on civil
rights and racial equality over the
last 50 years. It denies ALL of the
caucasians - which is most of us -
that in that time have found our way
to enlightenment: a person is a
person is a person.

That happened on the backs of MLK and
many, many other civil rights warriors of
both ethnicities, as well as the parallel
struggle of Hispanic Americans. We have
had racial evolution, and the society is
far more balanced now in terms of
attitudes and opportunity, than it
was 50 years ago.

Yes, that evolution and progress is yet
incomplete. But tirades deny how far
we've come as Americans, and in 2008
do more to divide again, than they do
to push the ball forward.

Obama could have left. Instead he attended.
Talks as a uniter, walks with divider. Americans
know a hypocrite.


Posted by: straightmedia | April 24, 2008 5:09 PM | Report abuse

NM Koolaiddrinker writes "It is never about anything Obama has said .."

Nope, never. Man, your revisionist history is amazingly quick.

He called small town Americans bigoted gun-toting bible-thumpers, and typical white people?? (but he meant it in a good way.) Is that what you were referring to?

Barack Obama said at a fundraiser in San Francisco, explaining working class voters' frustrations, "You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them, and they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. And it's not surprising, then, they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."

I love how he talks about people behind their backs as "They".

How profound! How compassionate! How condescending!

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | April 24, 2008 5:07 PM | Report abuse

Oh, and this just in: a new Siena (College) New York poll shows Obama doing slightly better than Clinton in match-ups against McCain in New York State, Obama with a 5-point lead and Clinton with a 4-point lead.

Also, significantly, Sen. Clinton's negatives have now caught up with her positives in her adopted "home" state, with 48% saying they have a favorable view of her and 46% unfavorable. This is a stunning erosion from January 2008 when 60% of New Yorkers viewed Clinton favorably and only 35% unfavorably.

In contrast, 54% view Obama favorably and only 34% unfavorably. McCain's numbers are similar to Obama's, 54% favorable and 35% unfavorable.

The more Hillary goes into attack mode, the less people like her and the less electable she becomes. While she inflicts some damage on Obama, she fatally wounds herself.

It's over.

Posted by: Brad K | April 24, 2008 5:06 PM | Report abuse

The superdelegates have no one to blame but themselves for their current dilemma. Four weeks ago, they could still have lined up behind the clear winner without being blamed. Now that the candidates are more evenly matched, the superdelegates alone must make the final decision, and thereby receive all the blame from an infuriated Democratic electorate.

Posted by: bodo | April 24, 2008 5:04 PM | Report abuse

Just let me go on the record as saying that Hillary IS, in fact, a lying cow.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 24, 2008 5:03 PM | Report abuse

- Counting FL, where both were on the ballot
and neither campaigned, Hillary now trails
Obama by 200,000 votes

- Despite NBC trying to tell you Wednesday
that Indiana was "do or die" for Hillary,
this deficit projects to be little changed
after IN/NC

- Then comes KY, WV, and PR where she is
way ahead presently

- After those contests, Hillary can easily
be up 100,000 or 200,000

- OR is the last significant vote left.
Barack may need a blowout there to catch
her popular total, with FL in and MI out -
which is fair.

Yet he will be lucky to win it close - so
much for his "will-of-the-people" case
to Supers. He will finish the primaries,
with about 100,000 less votes than Hillary,
bookmark it.





Posted by: straightmedia | April 24, 2008 5:03 PM | Report abuse

I'm sure Hillary will have no trouble enlisting the support of superdelegate Dan Boren.

As the son of a governor and senator himself, he's a great believer in dynastic politics.

Dan Boren understands that Her Royal Highness Hillary is the rightful heir, according to all the rules of aristocratic succession.

Obama is an outsider and a peasant. How dare he approach the throne? Guards! Take him away! Off with his head!

Obama is an elitist peasant. Only millionaire dynasts like Clinton and Boren are in touch with the common people.

Posted by: God, not Dan Boren | April 24, 2008 4:50 PM

I believe that Sen. Boren's Dad endorsed Obama over the weekend - no? This meeting was clearly orchestrated to try to get them to hold off on making a decision, rather than her trying to convince them that they should go with her.

Posted by: NM Moderate | April 24, 2008 4:59 PM | Report abuse

Boycott Pennsylvania!

Posted by: cyclopsina | April 24, 2008 4:59 PM | Report abuse

After IN and NC, Obama will need just 16% of the votes in the remaining contests to be the nominee. If the nomination is stolen from him even Maryland will turn red in November.

Clinton knows the race has been over since Feb 19th. Tuzla Jane wants to weaken Obama so she can run in 2012 against McCain. It won't happen.

Posted by: tchanta | April 24, 2008 4:58 PM | Report abuse

"If you allow your uber-liberal leanings to sway you to rationalize forcing the "superdelegates" to back Obama "for the good of the party", and you disenfranchise the majority of Democratic voters who have voted for Clinton."

Let me get this straight: Hillary Clinton is right in asking supers to ignore Obama's majority of delegates, popular votes, and states won and pick her as the nominee, but Harry Reid is a dictator for asking superdelegates to make up their minds before the convention. Is that the argument, now?

It hasn't taken long for the Clinton lackeys to resuscitate the FL & MI fibs, except now instead of having the delegates seated, they're trotting out the vote totals to add to the popular votes.

Those vote totals are completely worthless. If Obama were as desperate as Clinton, he could make up his own vote totals, and use them to pad his numbers. If I were to trot out the "fact" that Obama won Florida by 50 million voters in an election conducted by the Easter Bunny and Yoda, you would say I was balmy. But the world is supposed to find you credible when you certify the FL primary voting as credible? Please.

And for Michigan - oy. It's undemocratic to disenfranchise a vote that is straight out of Stalinist Russia, I know.

Posted by: bondjedi | April 24, 2008 4:55 PM | Report abuse

The National Review is not a news site, but a rightwing propaganda machine, no different than rush limbaugh or sean hannity. for sock puppet dittoheads only. They just make sh*t up.

Posted by: Cal | April 24, 2008 4:52 PM | Report abuse

I'm sure Hillary will have no trouble enlisting the support of superdelegate Dan Boren.

As the son of a governor and senator himself, he's a great believer in dynastic politics.

Dan Boren understands that Her Royal Highness Hillary is the rightful heir, according to all the rules of aristocratic succession.

Obama is an outsider and a peasant. How dare he approach the throne? Guards! Take him away! Off with his head!

Obama is an elitist peasant. Only millionaire dynasts like Clinton and Boren are in touch with the common people.

Posted by: God, not Dan Boren | April 24, 2008 4:50 PM | Report abuse

Words of "Wisdom":

You're flat wrong when you say "everyone knows by now Obama's numbers in the match-ups with McCain are horrible." This statement just reflects the degree to which you've been taken in by the Clinton campaign's phony propaganda.

See for yourself:
(updated daily with latest polling data)

Obama runs significantly ahead of Clinton in general election match-up polling in the following states: Connecticut, Hawaii, Washington, Oregon, Nevada, Colorado, Nebraska, Montana, North Dakota, Minnesota, Michigan, Iowa, Wisconsin, North Carolina, Virginia, Texas, and Alaska. Obama runs slightly ahead of Clinton in New Jersey, New Hampshire, Delaware, South Carolina, and New Mexico.

Clinton runs significantly ahead of Obama only in Florida, Massachusetts, Ohio, Kentucky, and West Virginia, and slightly ahead in Missouri.

The Clinton campaign yammers constantly about Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida, as if those are the only states that count in the general election. (They used to talk about Michigan, too, but now that Clinton's fallen far behind there, they no longer mention it). In fact, the general election match-ups show Obama running just as strong in Pennsylvania as Clinton (47-39 for Obama, 47-38 for Clinton). While it's true Clinton does somewhat better in Ohio (though Obama's still very competitive there) and a lot better in Florida, these advantages are easily offset by Obama's strengths---and Clinton's disturbing weakness---in the Pacific Northwest, the Mountain West, the Upper Midwest, the Southeast, and even in such improbable places as Texas where polls show Obama competitive, and Clinton not.

Adding it all up, current match-ups show Clinton with a significant lead over McCain (over 5 points) in just 11 states, worth 172 electoral votes, while McCain has significant leads in 27 states good for 232 electoral votes. That leaves only 12 states with 135 electoral votes as "battlegrounds" in a Clinton-McCain match-up, and Clinton would need to win about 2/3 of those contested electoral votes to be elected---a tall order, with very little margin for error.

In contrast, Obama starts with significant leads in 17 states worth 211 electoral votes, as against 20 states and 172 electoral votes for McCain. In that match-up, 14 states and 155 electoral votes are "battlegrounds," and Obama needs to win only about 1/3 of them to be elected.

Bottom line, Hillary probably needs to win BOTH Ohio and Florida to win the general, and even then it's no sure thing because she's so weak in so many other key battlegrounds like the Upper Midwest and the Pacific Northwest. In contrast, Obama could lose BOTH Ohio and Florida and still win the general election, because he starts with solid leads in more states and he puts so many more competitive states "in play" where he can make up the difference. If I'm betting on "electability," I'll go with Obama's map over Clinton's any day of the week.

Posted by: Brad K | April 24, 2008 4:49 PM | Report abuse

While I agree that a Carter endorsement wouldn't be terribly helpful to Obama right now, I find it stunning that so many Clinton supporters are willing to attribute to Obama, the actions of people who endorse him. That is what is at the root of all of his "scandals": Wright, Rezko, Ayers, Farrakhan. It is never about anything Obama has said or done (sorry, I forgot about his refusal to where a dime store flag made in China on his lapel)rather, it is all about words or deeds of people who know him. Seems pretty flimsy to me.

Posted by: NM Moderate | April 24, 2008 4:48 PM | Report abuse

Be afraid, Dean/Pelosi/Reid, be very afraid. If you allow your uber-liberal leanings to sway you to rationalize forcing the "superdelegates" to back Obama "for the good of the party", and you disenfranchise the majority of Democratic voters who have voted for Clinton, the nomination will not be worth a warm bucket of you-know-what to him. He'll be the guy who ran against President McCain for what used to be the Democratic party.

Posted by: dyinglikeflies | April 24, 2008 4:47 PM | Report abuse

Golly Barack, polls! Wow!!

You mean, like the ones that said you were
"up 12" 2 days before NH? "Closed to 2" in
CA? Gonna give Hillary trouble in NJ? "Up 4"
in TX? "Clinton lead evaporated" in OH and

This is similar to when at the PA debate
last week, Obama tried to say he'd proven
he could "take a punch".

When was that, Barack? Since the beginning
of scrutiny on you in late Feb - that
produced legitimate questions on associations
with Resko, Wright, elitists and Ayres -
you managed a caucus win on 9000 total
votes in WY, and a Af/Am tilted win in

In that same period, you have lost actual,
big-state elections in TX, OH and PA -
the later 2 by 10 points each.

Hillary is Rocky, whilst you are Clubber

I pity da fo...



Posted by: straightmedia | April 24, 2008 4:46 PM | Report abuse

I grow weary of Clinton supporters trotting out her wins in New York and California as reasons why she has to be the nominee. No Democrat will lose New York or California in the 08 election, regardless of who it is. That's kind of like saying Huckabee has to be the Republican nominee because if McCain can't win Kansas, Louisiana, Tennessee, Alabama, and Georgia, he'll never win the general election.

Primaries are totally different than the general election. If Obama runs his campaign properly, and ties McCain closely enough to Bush, he'll win the general - and he may even win Pennsylvania and Ohio, despite Clinton's claims that only she can win those states for the Dems.

Posted by: ManUnitdFan | April 24, 2008 4:43 PM | Report abuse

Hey, another super today for Obama. That's three since PA. Hillary's convincing W got her one super. Nice.

Better hit those phone lines some more, Leichtman. Your gal blew a 20 point lead, and now she's blowing what's left of her PA "victory."

Posted by: bondjedi | April 24, 2008 4:42 PM | Report abuse

"reality" wrote:
'Obama can't carry the democrats.
Unless you can win the whole election on independent and black voters, he can't win.'

'PRINCETON, NJ -- Barack Obama leads Hillary Clinton in national Democratic preferences for the nomination, 50% to 42%, in Gallup Poll Daily tracking from April 20-22.'

Obama has led Clinton AMONG DEMOCRATS in Gallup daily tracking every day this month, except Apr 18, when she led by one percent.

Obama's support AMONG DEMOCRATS has never dipped below 45%. Hillary's has never risen above 46%.

All polls agree that nationally, more Democrats prefer Obama than prefer Hillary. That's just a fact.

Posted by: B.Kaufmann | April 24, 2008 4:40 PM | Report abuse

Hot off the presses at HuffPo:

Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Howard Dean May Intervene In Dem Primary!!!

(Oooooooh the drama!!!)

Harry Reid took his comments about the state of the Democrat primary one step further today, suggesting that he and other prominent Democrats would intervene in the race if primary season concludes without a clear winner.

Reid said he would consider writing a joint letter with Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi demanding that superdelegates make their endorsements public.

"The three of us, we may write a joint letter [to superdelegates]," said Reid. "We might do individual letters, we are in contact with each other."...

However, when asked by a reporter if he would be forced to intervene if the undecided superdelegates did not make up their minds, Reid replied "I might have to."

Hear that Dems? You vaunted leader "might have to" do something!!!

This oughta be good.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | April 24, 2008 4:40 PM | Report abuse

pull out all those calculators folks, in order to determine the black vote and how it will play out for Dems vs. Repubs in November.... for example, PENN is 10 percent black, while NC is 20 percent black... TX is about 13 percent black... NY, NJ, Illionois, Ohio and Michigan are all about 13 to 16 percent black... virginia 26 percent black.... Alabama and Louisiana are 33 to 35 percent black, SC and MISS are about 37 percent black.... Tenn is about 18 perent black, KY maybe 5 to 7 percent black.... so, many of the states which have been in safe Repub hands for quite a few years (since Nixon), due to their large black vote, could end up in play for the DEms IF obama is their candidate...while other States that were safely in the DEms hands for quite a few prez races could go to mccain....and yes, race will be a factor, although no one is willing to admit it...but if MISS blacks go for Obama at 92 percent vote, is this a racist vote? ditto if PENN Catholics (mostly white, of Italian, IRish, Bohemian and Polish ancestry) go for HRC at 70 percent, is that a racist vote? in both cases, may be yes....but may be no.... but the issue of how the black population votes in all 50 states is the big issue that the media needs to pull out their calculators, head to the US census bureau racial data from the 2000 elections, and start pondering.... fyi, FL is only about 15 percent black, due to the large influx of northern voters in the past 20 yrs (including many Jewish voters).... it is no secret that the key to Clinton primary win in Texas was due to 30+ percent of all TX Dems being Latino (also Catholic) and less than 16 percent of TX population being black.... this election cycle has been shaped on race-based election results, and will also be shaped that way in November...if Obama is the nominee....Obama has a good chance at pulling a win in Alabama, and MISS, and Louisiana, and SC, all States once solidly Repub in prez elections, because all 4 of these States are 28-35 percent black vote....pull out those calculators, folks... now if Ms. Rice were the Repub Veep choice, all bets are off, since she could really dig deep into the black vote,,,both urban/professional and rural/traditional - remember she grew up in Alabama in a very traditional Baptist household, which is very conservative socially but politically liberal....

Posted by: dave | April 24, 2008 4:35 PM | Report abuse

Let's hope Carter endorses Obama and fast. Clinton needs a boost to her momentum, and nothing will galvanize the vote of sane people against Obama more than his being endorsed by Carter.

Posted by: dyinglikeflies | April 24, 2008 4:35 PM | Report abuse

Blarg and JNoel002, you should be ashamed of yourselves for trying to exchange ideas like that.

Posted by: Danny | April 24, 2008 4:19 PM

Sorry, I didn't mean to interrupt the non-stop rants by actually agreeing with someone.

Posted by: JNoel002 | April 24, 2008 4:33 PM | Report abuse

Back a few months ago, Sen. Clinton seemed to many of us like kind of a shoo-in, given she led by a fair margin in most polls and had huge name recognition.
How come she couldn't close the deal? Maybe she doesn't have what it takes to run the country? Just asking.

Posted by: Bill | April 24, 2008 4:31 PM | Report abuse

Which Democratic Nominee do you believe has the largest demographic appeal, hence most electable?


Posted by: Frank, Austin TX | April 24, 2008 4:30 PM | Report abuse

Let me throw one out there for the Clinton nuts: Since Obama is going to win the Demo nom, do you plan on storming the GOP convention, asserting that Hill has more (insert Clinton campaign metric of the moment here) than McCain, and she should be the GOP nominee?

I know it sounds silly, but you are making the same argument with regards to Obama. It's not working here; maybe the Repubs will buy into it.

Posted by: bondjedi | April 24, 2008 4:27 PM | Report abuse

Hopefully the superdles are giving this some consideration as well...

Jimmy Carter Hints At Obama Endorsement

The Nigerian paper This Day reports that the former president all but came out for Obama, speaking to reporters in that country.

Carter and Obama are cut from the same mold...

"That Carter would defy the wishes of both Congress and the president in meeting with a group the U.S. has defined as "foreign terrorist organization" since 1995 demonstrates, at best, a tremendous lack of judgment and, at worst, something far more sinister.

He says he went as a representative of the Carter Center, his charitable foundation, and not as a former president or representative of the U.S. government. The proposition is absurd on its face, since Carter's ex-president status is not something he can take off and put on as he chooses.

If he was hoping to rekindle a flagging peace process, Carter is doomed to failure. But is that really what he was attempting to accomplish?

A hint lies in the very organization he said he was representing on this trip, the Carter Center. His not-for-profit research and activist organization has prospered as a direct result of Arab largesse.

Saudi Arabia, the source of 15 of the 19 plane hijackers on 9/11, and whose royal family has funded terrorism outside the kingdom, has channeled tens of millions of dollars into the Carter Center.

In 1993 alone, the late King Fahd gifted $7.6 million. More recently, the King's nephew, Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal, donated at least $5 million. The Saudi Fund for Development is a recurring supporter, as is the family of Osama bin Laden.

The list doesn't stop with Saudis. Another million-dollar-plus backer is Sultan Qaboos sin Said, absolute monarch of Oman.

Considerable financial support comes from the United Arab Emirates, and in 2001, Carter traveled there to receive the $500,000 Zayed International Prize for the Environment.

In 2002, Carter praised the efforts of the Abu Dhabi-based Zayed Center for Coordination and Follow Up, which has repeatedly hosted anti-Semitic speakers -- these speakers have denied the Holocaust, supported terrorism, and asserted that there is an international conspiracy of Jews and Zionists for world domination.

The center has made the outlandish assertion that Zionists, rather than the Nazis, "were the people who killed the Jews in Europe" during the Holocaust and that a Jewish-American conspiracy perpetrated the atrocities of 9/11.

The long list also includes Pakistani Agha Hasan Abedi, founder of the Bank of Credit and Commerce (BCCI), which in the late 1970s bailed out the National Bank of Georgia (NBG). NBG's largest borrower at the time was the Carter-family peanut business (of which Jimmy Carter was a 62 percent shareholder), and NBG's chairman was a Carter friend and future director of the Office of Management and Budget, Bert Lance.

In 1982, Abedi gave Carter $500,000 to establish the Carter Center at Emory University and has contributed more than $10 million to the center since, including $1.5 million after BCCI was convicted for laundering drug money -- which didn't deter Carter from accepting the gift from his "good friend."

It would seem that all of this money is not without its influence.

Carter appears to have become increasingly pro-Arab, pro-Islamist, anti-Israel, and anti-Semitic in both his actions and his words.

It would seem Carter is acting as a lobbyist for foreign interests and should be required to register as such.

At the very least, he should come clean and disclose the amounts and sources of all foreign funding for his center.

It is indeed a sad day in American history when a former president lowers himself to becoming a propaganda tool for terrorists bent on harming our country and the democratic principles by which we live."

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | April 24, 2008 4:27 PM | Report abuse

Chris, thank you for your analyses. They are always meaty, informative, and most often provocative.

Posted by: Old White Guy | April 24, 2008 4:26 PM | Report abuse


Polling data and vote analysis are irrelevant to making Obama's case... the PA data skew sharply in Hillary's favor.

PA was a game-changer. Obama thought he'd take urban Phila. but he only managed about 60 percent. In the Phila. 'burbs, Clinton won handily, by 20 points in key Bucks County.

In rural PA, the Obama shellacking was worse -- 75 to 25 percent in many rural counties. Hillary's got the Reagan Dems and the women.

If Obama's on the ticket as VP, his people will hold their nose and come along.

Bitter-gate, Wright-gate, Rezko-gate, Rookie-gate, even Gutterball-gate -- it's all caught up to Obama. If he doesn't meet expectations in North Carolina, and if he loses Indiana, he's toast with the supers.

Because Al Gore lacked the kahones to enter the race, all the Dems are left with is Hillary. If she stops attacking Obama, the Dems can recover with a Hillary-Obama ticket. The other way around, not so much...

The only way Gore could come to the rescue is if the process continues until the convention, and Obama himself throws his delegates to Gore and runs as his VP -- BUT Hillary's PA win seems to negate that scenario.

Just as the Dems can't throw Barack completely overboard, so too can't they alienate the Gray Panthers who are Hillary's most ferocious constituency.

As of now, the only viable option seems to be Hillary-Obama. She's a fierce competitor and yes, a dirty fighter...

... but a dirty fighter who can win is preferable to an effete intellectual who has trouble "relating" and who cannot or will not mount an effective defense against the sliming.

Obama says he's winning according to the "rules."

Problem is, there are no "rules" when it comes to perception and electability. It's all in the gut.

Posted by: scrivener | April 24, 2008 4:24 PM | Report abuse

I'm 100% right and you're 100% wrong.

Posted by: Danny | April 24, 2008 4:23 PM | Report abuse

"Minnesota, Connecticut, Vermont, Maine, Missouri, Iowa, Wisonsin, Oregon, Washington (state and DC), Maryland, and Delaware. "

You left off Nevada and Texas.

Also, since Hillary is manufacturing wins in Michigan and Florida, let's not forget how Obama beat here there, also.

Posted by: bondjedi | April 24, 2008 4:23 PM | Report abuse

Here's a copy/paste of just one extremely typical Obama supporter's argument for their candidate:

"Hillary Clinton is a lying cow."

You Obama supporters are right, your candidate has indeed "changed the tone" of politics. Never before has such hateful bile been spewed by one candidate's supporters against another candidate (at least not since Hitler left politics for other planes of existence).

Obama has done nothing to rein this in, any more than he tried to rein in his pastor's racist venom. Obama should not be allowed anywhere near the White House, even as a tourist.

Posted by: dyinglikeflies | April 24, 2008 4:19 PM | Report abuse

Blarg and JNoel002, you should be ashamed of yourselves for trying to exchange ideas like that.

Posted by: Danny | April 24, 2008 4:19 PM | Report abuse

North Carolina, a traditional battleground? I don't think it's gone Democratic since LBJ in '64...

Posted by: pjf0226 | April 24, 2008 4:17 PM | Report abuse

Re: Mike Meyer
What do you think about a democratic candidate who failed (or will fail) to win Minnesota, Connecticut, Vermont, Maine, Missouri, Iowa, Wisonsin, Oregon, Washington (state and DC), Maryland, and Delaware. Clinton supporters seem to think their arguments only work one way: That Obama can not win any states that Hillary won in the primary. The same "logic" if applied to Hillary would mean that she will not win the General either.

Posted by: NM Moderate | April 24, 2008 4:16 PM | Report abuse

Obama can't carry the democrats.
Unless you can win the whole election on independent and black voters, he can't win

Posted by: reality | April 24, 2008 4:15 PM | Report abuse

doing a quick read of the various articles and op-ed pieces in today's W.Post during lunch, it seems that the post is almost now posing the question: How can the Demos somehow dump Obama without a terrible loss of the black/student/idealist vote? and if the Post is making or framing the argument with this underlying theme, what about far less liberal, and far less influential papers, across the USA....for a variety of reasons, first being the current DNC prez selection rules, the DEms have made their choice of obama and now look likely to be stuck with him, (no buyers remorse allowed, and No > to quote howie dean on the FL and Mich revotes)..., unless the SuperDs somehow figure out a legitimate, rational reason to deny the nomination to obama....which would cause a massive internal bleeding in the maybe tip the hat to Gore? or some one else? Dianne Feinstein? the OK governor who just endorsed Obama? Gov Strickland in OHIO? a dream team of the governors of Ohio and oklahoma, one who endorsed Hillary, and one who endorsed Obama? because whether obama or hillary is selected, 30 to 40 percent of the Dems involved might just leave home....

Posted by: dave | April 24, 2008 4:14 PM | Report abuse

I wonder if she's gonna attend some black church in NC and start talkin' with a southern drawn and what she thinks is southern black lingo. When I saw her do that last year I almost puked! But some folks still believe she's genuine.

Posted by: Redline | April 24, 2008 4:14 PM | Report abuse

Wait a minute.

So rather than trust the Primary results, we are asked to trust polls. These are the polls that had Hillary closing to 5% in Wisconsin when she lost by 17. They had Obama winning New Hampshire by average of 10 and she wins by 3. Polls had Obama within low single digits of Clinton or even winning in many of the big states which he went on to lose by double-digits. Heck, EVEN EXIT POLLS that are based on people who have infact already voted were off in the case of PA by about 6%. They had Clinton winning by about 4 and she won by 10. Same was the case with most exit polls in other big states. So what kind of crap are we being fed here, Chris?

Is it a crime to talk intelligence? Are you barred from even the barest common-sense analysis, Chris. I mean you are robbing your readers.


Posted by: aamittal | April 24, 2008 4:13 PM | Report abuse

As someone from Indiana, I can tell you all that I know Obama will get the win there.

If Clinton gets the nomination, I'll vote for her, but until then I'm for Obama all the way.

If you ask me, voting for McCain just because Clinton/Obama don't get the nomination shows tha tyou WEREN'T SUPPORTING THEM FOR THE RIGHT REASONS in the first place. Clinton will support Obama (when) he gets the nomination, and so should you! Being stubborn about it is only going to make it worse for the democratic party while the republicans laugh at our divisions.

If you really care about getting us out of the war, if you really care about getting health care figured out, if you really care about our economic crisis... you'll vote DEMOCRAT. Don't cheer for a candidate when they say they will get us out of these problems, then vote for a candidate who believes the total opposite! It makes NO sense.

Obama has what it takes to bring everyone together. He focuses on what democrats and republicans can agree on - that's what's going to help our nation. Not petty arguments about who's friends with who.

* OBAMA '08 *

Posted by: Sarah from Indiana | April 24, 2008 4:12 PM | Report abuse

This is just sad...if folks are really feelin' just reminds me that this is the country that elected Little Bush. I almost forgot where I was...that chick is such a fake, lying, opportunist. Every time I see her she's spewing some BS. Talk about a con artist. Watch the Daily Show and you might see why I'm so ill. I think John puts that chick in perspective every night.

Posted by: Redline | April 24, 2008 4:10 PM | Report abuse

Which Side Will Win Out?
Just Ask 2000 of our vets/military.
They Know Who They Want Answering That Phone at 3:00 AM. Sen. Clinton now has the endorsement of over 2000 vets/military personnel.

One of our nation's top military figures, General Shelton served two terms as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff under Presidents Clinton and George W. Bush. In announcing his endorsement, General Shelton said, "I've been with Senator Clinton when she has been with our military men and women. I know from those experiences that she understands the demands and sacrifice of military life. I am confident she will always put the readiness and well being of our troops first. SHE IS READY TO BE COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF".General Shelton joins General John Shalikashvili as the second former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to have endorsed Senator Clinton. General Shelton is the fourth flag officer to endorse Senator Clinton.

In a conference call with reporters, former Admirals, Generals, and senior defense officials gave their reasons for supporting Senator Clinton to be our next Commander-in-Chief. Their testimonials highlight Senator Clinton's QUALIFICATIONS, EXPERIENCE & STRENGTH OF CHARACTER.

Why They Support Hillary Clinton to be the Next Commander-in-Chief:

General Wesley Clark
"She Has Done Her Homework On National Security and I know from my personal discussions with her and with many other friends that go in and brief her in her role in the Senate Armed Services Committee. She knows the facts, she knows the details, plus she has the big picture. She is a strategic thinker but she has the building blocks of the strategy in her personal knowledge. This is someone that when she is president our military is going to respect very highly, and when our Senior Officers brief her and meet with her they are going be very, very impressed by what she knows and the intelligence that she brings to these problems."
Brigadier General John Watkins, Jr.
"As I think about the challenges facing the nation and having been in uniform for almost thirty years, worked with a number of presidents to include the last four, I can't think of a single person - those generals included - who s better qualified to walk into the Oval Office than Hillary Clinton. I don't make that statement very lightly. She is more qualified, in my view, than her husband Bill was when he entered the office. It is no surprise to me that you would have as many flag officers who serve this country and Secretaries of the Army and Navy who have served this country who would come out and support Hillary."

Major General Paul Eaton
"On a personal note, I have a Special Forces Captain son and a Sergeant Paratrooper both in Afghanistan and I find Senator Clinton the perfect choice to be their Commander-in-Chief and to display the loyalty to command our armed forces and to rebuild them after the conflicts in which we are engaged right now."
Lieutenant General Claudia Kennedy
"I support her because I trust her. I trust Hillary Clinton because of her judgment and her leadership. I have confidence that she is responsive to the needs of people. I believe that she understands leadership the way we do in the Army and that is that it's about building connections and relationships and establishing guidance and leadership for others. I think she'll rebuild relationships with other countries that have been suffering for the last seven or eight years; those relationships have really been strained beyond anything I would have anticipated. Another part of Hillary Clinton that I think is just tremendous is that she knows our reality. She is in touch with people, she listens to people. She decides what she believes about policy based on what's right, she has integrity, and on what works, so she's practical."

Lieutenant General E. Vollrath
"I support Senator Clinton because I believe it's time for change in our country, a new direction. And I know change carries with it risks. Senator Clinton is the candidate, in my opinion, with the proven experience that truly understands the risks and how to possibly cope with those risks to get the job done. We shouldn't shirk from change because of the risks, but we absolutely have to have a leader with the proven experience. America, in the area of national defense, must be successful and Senator Clinton has that experience to create change, to understand the risk, and to get the job done."

Admiral William Owens
"In this world that we face today, very complex as all of us know, I think experience will be really at a premium, especially at the level of the Commander-in-Chief. There's not time to learn. The phone rings and you have to be ready. You have to ready with intuition, with experience and with skills. And this world will have the complexities that perhaps we've never before seen. I've been impressed with and admire Hillary Clinton for her work in the Senate. And we need people with great judgment. I think she brings the best of talent, intuition and experience to handle these unknown threats in the future."

Hlllary`s also gotten the endorsements of two distinguished, retired admirals, Vice Admiral Donald C. Arthur and Rear Admiral Stuart F. Platt. They join an eminent group of 30 retired admirals and generals who have endorsed Senator Clinton to be our nation's next Commander-in-Chief...and the list continues to grow:General Wesley Clark General John M. Shalikashvili General Henry Hugh Shelton General Johnnie E. Wilson Admiral William Owens Lt. Gen. Joe Ballard Lt. Gen. Robert Gard Lt. Gen. Claudia J. Kennedy Lt. Gen. Donald L. Kerrick Lt. Gen. E. Vollrath Vice Admiral Donald C. Arthur Vice Admiral Joseph A. Sestak Major General Roger R. Blunt Major General George A. Buskirk, Jr. Major General Edward L. Correa, Jr. Major General Paul D. Eaton Major General Paul D. Monroe, Jr. Major General Antonio M. Taguba Rear Admiral Connie Mariano Rear Admiral Stuart F. Platt Rear Admiral Alan M. Steinman Rear Admiral David Stone Brigadier General Michael Dunn Brigadier General Belisario Flores Brigadier General Evelyn "Pat" Foote Brigadier General Keith H. Kerr Brigadier General Virgil A. Richard Brigadier General Preston Taylor Brigadier General John M. Watkins, Jr. Brigadier General Jack Yeager

Posted by: Anonymous | April 24, 2008 4:05 PM | Report abuse

Blarg, you are correct about the head to head polls.

But I am more intrigued by the head to head views of Independents, because it seems they have made up their minds.

How much change will we see in that specific demographic?

Posted by: JNoel002 | April 24, 2008 4:04 PM | Report abuse

A presidential nominee who failed to win Florida, New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Texas, and California is not one who can be trusted to win a general election.

Posted by: Mike Meyer | April 24, 2008 4:02 PM | Report abuse

It seems to me that Obama is strengthening Hillary's swing state strategy.

In your opinion should S.D. vote Strategically or Ideologically?


Posted by: Frank, Austin TX | April 24, 2008 3:58 PM | Report abuse

This is a very bad time to take head-to-head polls. Right now, there are some Democrats who hate Clinton, and some who hate Obama. People on each side swear they'll never vote for the other candidate. I'm sure most of them will change their minds in the next 6 months, but right now that's what they say, and their views are reflected in polls. Meanwhile, nobody's attacking McCain, so he gets more support by default. You really can't rely on these polls.

Posted by: Blarg | April 24, 2008 3:57 PM | Report abuse

If Obama wins the nomination, I will vote for McCain.

Posted by: Matt | April 24, 2008 3:56 PM | Report abuse

I'm sorry, but if Hillary "wins" the Democratic nomination, I will vote for McCain.

Posted by: Independent | April 24, 2008 3:51 PM | Report abuse

"Which side will win out?"

Anymore, who cares? The two-party system is a DISASTER for the citizenry.

Te Power Elites in this country know they hang on to their privileges and power REGARDLESS of who "wins". With the two-party system, it's e-a-s-y as pie to divide the people and conquer. It creates an artificial conflict (a la Iraq) that will distract people from knowing how much they are bent over by the powerful.

Much Ado About, in the end, Nothing.

Posted by: phoenixresearch | April 24, 2008 3:47 PM | Report abuse


This Obama memo is a pile of crap - Why did you print it??

I think everyone knows by now that Obama's numbers in the match-ups with McCain are horrible.

Really bad. Even in Massachusetts. Obama has some eye-popping incredibly bad polling numbers in his match-ups with McCain in the key states that are must-win.

Chris Please don't leave for Planet O on us. I hear that once you are there you will not want to go back to your spaceship and return to Earth.

Posted by: Words of Wisdom | April 24, 2008 3:43 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company