Dear American Voters,

Hon. Senator McCain and Obama, besides each having many attributes and characteristics. The critical differences in my professional, political, and personal opinion are as under:

1. Presidential "Temperament and Composer".
2. Little Washington "insider Versus outsider" connectedness.
3. Vision and mission for our nation future rather than past.
4. American policies first USA centric than other countries centric.

In my professional opinion one senator has it and the other does not. We need one for our Greatgrand Nation to address our all these challenges with a fresh, clean and new slate.

God Bless America. its diverse people, and our Greatgrand Nation.

Yours truly,

COL. [retd] A.M.Khajawall
Forensic psychiatrist, Las Vegas NV

all white folks who don't vote for obama are racist. like the inventer of the peanut said, george washington carver, black men will never be free until they live in white house.

Is a Male who didn't vote for Sen. Clinton, then automatically a Sexist?

Alright Obama!!! WOOOOOOHOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!

Come on South Dakota and Montana!!! We anxiously await to hear your voices tomorrow!!! Yes We Can!!! =)

Alright Virginia!!

As a Black voter, I do not fell obligated nor driven to vote for Obama simply because of his ethnic background. Voting is the one thing that is done indivually. It is each individual's right to vote for their bottom line. Poor decisions made by the next president will be no easier to swallow simply because they come from a Black man.

Having said that, I feel that McCain is more experienced and some of his basic platform ideas are closely aligned with my own. However, experience is not what we need now. Experience has our nation in one heck of a bind. Perhaps inexperience will be the jolt that sparks innovation and the resurgence of integrity in the global environment.

The problem Obama has with white uneducated voters is they never had the fine points of race and racism explained to them by learned professors. Not having a higher education to reply upon they must substitute common sense.

1.They have a very hard time understanding how anyone with any intelligence can sit in a Church for 20 years and support ones friend and mentor week after week, month after month, year after year with his money, family and attendance while listening to Hate American, Hate whites, Hate every thing rants, (with the exception of Blacks and Muslins) and still insist that he has not endorsed and does not believe in the Message, and he has not endorsed and does not believe in the MESSENGER. Now 20 years later he throws Weight, his Church, and his poor Grandmother under his campaign bus to serve his lust for power it is 20 years too late!!
2.They do not understand why believing in God, lovering this Nation, supporting the second Amendment, supporting Article IV Section IV of our Constitution against Invasion, and supporting the rule of Law, apparently believing in our Constitution and the Rule of Law, makes them intelligibly inferior, bitter and the object of scorn and ridicule by Obama and his Cult followers!

This is obvious, but Obama needs to reach that old "silent majority". He really crashed in PA,KY,WV,OH,...
Obama must understand that he can not stand back and concede anywhere. Puerto Rico was an unnecessarily wide loss as was KY and WV.
Obama will need to tighten up his game in ALL the states in November or else McCain will get at least 300 electorial votes.

Way to do superdelegates! No one wants to be aligned with a losing enterprise. Clinton will quit when the train reaches the end of the line; otherwise, it will be a train wreck.

'Lakisha' (if that is really your name), a question for you: are there some whites that voted against Obama without knowing his policies simply because of who he is? You bet. Just like there are thousands of blacks who voted for him because of who he is. Stop trying to racebait here buddy. If you vote against Obama because you genuinely believe that he is inexperienced, good for you. Other than that, it all comes down to ignorance and blattant racism to vote based on the color of one's skin.

This is even more stupid than Richardson. Why not just elect a foreigner to be president? Obama has already pissed off all the groups supported him. He is now looking for a REPUBLICAN to be his running mate. Screw democratic party, says Obama.

QUESTIONS FOR SUPERDELEGATES:

1. Why should voters bother voting in the primaries? It appears as though the party bosses disregard the will of the people anyway and select who they want to select just like the Supreme Court did in 2000.

This was evident on Saturday when a committee took delegates that one candidate had won and gave them to another. They REWARDED someone who manipulated the rules who voluntarily took his name off the ballot. Then claimed that Uncommitted votes were ALL for him AND gave him someone else's delegates.

Again I ask, why should people bother voting in the primaries? It couldn't be more evident that it doesn't matter what the people say.

2. Why should there even be a democratic convention? The party bosses have already decided based on money given to them, who they want the nominee to be.

Superdelegates were created to vote at the convention, not to try to influence the primary process before it is over. But since Obama is giving money to the Supers to come out for him beforehand and the supers are accepting the money, why bother having a convention?

3. Why was it ok for Ted Kennedy to take his candidacy all the way to the convention in 1980 against a SITTING DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENT, when he was over 700 delegates behind, but it's not ok for a woman candidate who is ahead in the popular vote, is less than 150 pledged delegates behind,and according to the recent polls beats the Republican nominee handily?

4. Are you TRYING to break up the democratic party?

I could never vote for Barry Hussein because he has renounced his Muslim faith in order to appeal to middle america.

The vote splits this way:

People who want four more years of Bush will vote for McCain.

And people who want change will vote for Obama.

Anything else is just blah, blah, blah.

What really surprises me about the Virginia super delegates is Jim Webb. I was so impressed when he ran for office that even from California, I sent a donation toward his election. Why is he sitting on his hands now. It really seems strange. Come on Jim.Do what you know is right. For heaven sake, give someone your vote or are you also looking for some payback along the way.

I could be wrong, but I have the distinct impression that comment written by "Lakisha" is fake, or at the very least a joke. It contains a lot of ignorance, but in particular the "inventer" of the peanut comment makes me think it's someone trying (unsuccesfully) to poke fun...

Please, can we stop judging people by skin color and/or gender?

Sure, statistically you can put people in little boxes like columns and rows on a spreadsheet. But, really what's that worth.

It's the character and the heart and mind of a person that makes them great or not.

Look, we all have biases. I'm biased towards peace, a cleaner environment, health-care for all, honoring our veterans of military service, etc.

We should all work towards a gender and a racially neutral existence.

What fun it is being the fourth poster when one vaguely supported Obama (but didn't really say), one was clearly racist, and the other clearly sexist. Ok, how about an endorsement, but with clear reasons having nothing to do with prejudice?

* Whether Obama CAN unite the country to address our common purpose is unclear, but that is clearly what his message is, and what he promises to try to achieve.

* Obama promises to be "as careful getting out as we were careless getting in" with regard to the war in Iraq. To those who want our mission to be the beginning of a healing process in the Middle East, this should be a welcome message. He clearly does not wish to abandon our national security interests in the region, nor leave the Iraqis to their own devices (like we did Afghanistan following their war with the Soviets) but a defined mission of ending our combat role in healing the country. This reminds me of Charlie Wilson's doctrine of finishing the end game of building schools and hospitals, not military bases. Our troops come home, humanitarien issues are addressed, and perhaps with a little diplomacy in the right places, a healing process.

* Obama advocates diplomacy with heads of state to hostile governments. By addressing what divids us, pitting our interests against one another, our resources and theirs could instead be devoted toward improving conditions for all our nations. This is no easy task, and there's no guarantee of success, but by talking with their leaders, we improve our image with people everywhere.

* Obama is for ending torture, evesdropping on our citizens, and for re-emerging as a world power that embraces the moral high ground. Our reputation these past 7 years has been damaged tremendously, and all support and sympathy we garnered post 9-11 frivilously cast to the winds.

* Obama makes clear an intention to address health care, the mortgage crisis, rising energy costs, education costs, and a host of other kitchen table issues that our government has ignored.

* Obama has assured us that his cabinet and top governmental appointments will be based entirely on qualifications and skill and not idealogy or loyalty. He will appoint conservatives as well as liberals, Democrats as well as Republicans, so he has the best talent, and the broadest range of opinions and advice at his disposal.

Why not give the fella a chance? Why not give us a chance? Again, there's no guarantee of success, but damn. He certainly has the right ideas.

I hear friends say how could Obama stay in that church for 20 years and listen to hate as though the preacher got up every Sunday and said kill whitey and let's burn America. Obama first met him as a friend then he because his Pastor. You don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. White America truth and Black American truth is inherently difference because of our experiences. But what we have in common is GAS IS HIGH AS HELL.....

Jim Webb is a credit to his party and his state. He will make an appropriate decision soon, I predict. Afterall, Jim has been very busy with trying to get some meaningful legislation passed that has been broadsided by the Bush-McCain bunch.

In response to the following post:

"What really surprises me about the Virginia super delegates is Jim Webb. I was so impressed when he ran for office that even from California, I sent a donation toward his election. Why is he sitting on his hands now. It really seems strange. Come on Jim.Do what you know is right. For heaven sake, give someone your vote or are you also looking for some payback along the way.

Posted by: Lee | June 2, 2008 1:34 PM"

**************************

Lee:

There's been a lot of talk about a VP spot for Jim Webb, and although he has acted indifferent to the idea, he has not turned it down. It's quite possible he wants to appear neutral so as to not appear that his endorsement is a bargaining chip for the ticket.

I think it comes down to, if he doesn't offer it to Hillary, he may choose Webb. Webb brings national security credentials to the ticket, and the South. He's also a former Republican, which is consistent with Obama's "change in the way we do things in Washington" message.

So many of these comments are by provocateurs and trolls that it is a real shame. I agree "Lakisha" is not a real person but an imagined black commenter put together by someone who hates Obama.

Get a life, people. Senator Obama defeated the incredibly powerful Clinton machine, not by much, but by a definite, clear margin. Talk about a stunning upset. Step back and think about that achievement. With all due respect to Senator McCain, this general election will be challenging but nothing like the primaries, where Obama had to constantly pull his punches in the interests of party unity and go up against the ultimate Democratic brand name at the same time.

It has already been reported that he had enough votes on the DNC rules committee to force a 50-50 split on the Michigan delegates, but chose to support the Michigan Democratic Party's recommendation -- which favored Clinton, something you are forgetting -- out of courtesy. Any one of the outcomes, including Clinton's demands, would have left him as the nominee.

I'm glad he didn't give into her demands wholesale, though, because that would truly be "appeasement"--which we've been reminded is giving favors to an opponent to hope they go away. Doesn't work, glad he didn't do it. He's going to win outright.

jp wrote "This was evident on Saturday when a committee took delegates that one candidate had won and gave them to another. They REWARDED someone who manipulated the rules who voluntarily took his name off the ballot. Then claimed that Uncommitted votes were ALL for him AND gave him someone else's delegates."

Huh?? By the rules, NO delegates should have been awarded to any candidate!!! All the candidates should have kept their mouths shut and allowed the DNC to do the job of solving the mess BUT instead someone made a media circus out the of the situation and the process for their own political purposes.

How about a break from the disasters of the past? The choice isn´t about sex or race, it´s about change (Obama) or more of the same (McCain-Clinton).

all white folks who don't vote for obama are racist. like the inventer of the peanut said, george washington carver, black men will never be free until they live in white house.

Posted by: Lakisha | June 2, 2008 1:05 PM

Do you ever get tired of pretending to be a black woman...especially when you are a white man?

Yes, it is a little surprising that Jim Webb hasn't yet come out. Leadership means anticipating developments and taking timely action to thwart the bad or facilitate the good. But I expect Senator Webb will commit tomorrow, with tne end of the primaries or earlier in the day, for he's not one to wait until everyone detects an obvious outcome.

all the white folks are scared of obama. we are taking over once we get inside the white house. get ready!

Yep Black Saint,

We got to toss those Blacks and Muslims out of this country and let the working class run this country! I hate these scientists and evolutionists. We know that the almight God made this Country and that all the animals.

I also don't support healthcare because God will cure us.

Hallelujah!!!

all the white folks are scared of obama. we are taking over once we get inside the white house. get ready!

Posted by: Lakisha | June 2, 2008 2:11 PM
======================================

Noone is buying your rubbish sir. You are quite ignorant to continue posting this drivel and you are offending not just the white community but the black community as well.

It's a Byrd! It's Plame! It's Superdelegate!!
What's next, Giant Economy Size Delegate?

JP, Let me help with the Superdelegate question. First of all, those were NOT superdelegates but a committee put in place by the DNC to set and rule on the functioning of the primary. Secondly, they were having a hearing on something that should NOT have been required in the first place. ALL candidates (including Clinton) already agreed to the ruling they made in the FIRST place, but SHE (Clinton) manipulated the system for her own benefit to get more delegates ... and it worked! She netted 24 more, but she had to do so by negating some every third grader knows -- the rules are the rules -- until you CHANGE them for your own good. Given that, your REAL question should be "Why bother to make rules if people like Hillary will try to change them in the middle of game?" As far as the convention goes, superdelegates aren't "bought" as you insinuate. Actually, they are "strong-armed, persuaded, and intimidated" as Bill Clinton has tried to do, UNLESS they stand on principles, which some DID decide to do.
Lastly, EVERY election is different with many different dynamics at work. Since the Republicans have had a nominee identified for almost three months now, unless the Democrats INTEND to lose the election, why on Earth would you wait until August to identify your nominee? Just so it can be one rather than the other? Not only that, but the polls you cite right now show Obama beating McCain just like they show Hillary beating McCain BUT they show Obama beating Hillary (not to mention the fact that he HAS beaten her in every concievable way)! What would be the reason to continue to drag this thing out just so she can try to be the nominee IF he gets the votes he needs? No one was complaining when SHE was ahead in the superdelegate count by 100 plus, but now that he has a small lead of them over her, it's a major issue, huh? Even though he will get no less than 31 pledged delegates from the remaining primaries, he'll still need about 13-15 more of them. Yet, right now, he only has 42 more than she does. So, even if he got the total 45 more from them, that would STILL be less than the number of them she had over him in the beginning. That same 100+ lead of superdelegates she had over him in the beginning could be making the difference in who won in the end. So they are doing no more now for him (in fact, even less) than they WERE doing for her -- but no one complained THEN! THOSE were ones that the Clintons wielded their undue influence on to bring them onto their side, but who knows, maybe they DID pay them as you suggest. After all, they are worth over $109 million and Obama less than $2 million.

Yet another reason for every VA voter to do their own homework on who they elect to office.... Without relying on mainstream media to educate you...

When was the last time a reporter or newspaper actually gave you all the facts?

So much for the democracy of the U.S. and the concept where citizen's votes matter.
Citizens votes do not matter except for the final election. This proves it once again.

racist white man will no longer have power when obama takes over in november

Fellow Obamanots relax the stake will be driven through her candidacy by June 3rd and that is a solid four days before David Plouffe predicted when I met with him at an event in Miami two months ago. It is painful to watch this b.s. happen around us.

Stay focused on the big prize and get ready to rumble with John Mc War and his hit men. They will be coming at us with all sorts of other lies to make us fear Barack Obama being our President.

You know what to expect:
Barack is too young
Barack is a Muslim
Barack will surrender to terrorists
We wont be safe America
Life begins at inception
We know the economy better than Barack
he will talk to bad guys

Blah Blah Blah. they will put up as many boogeymen as Hillary put up lies.

Barack Obama scares the hell out of the status quo because it is their power that will be usurped and ours as the people will be restored. Thank god he has assembled he best political campaign team in the history of our country. Plouffe, Axelrod and the 1.7 million of us out there pounding the pavement and making the calls for change are unstoppable. Rest you won the first battle against the biggest name in politics and we will need the energy between now and November.

God Bless you and God bless the United States of America the only country where all this could happen. We are truly the people we have been waiting for.

McCain was investigated by the Drug Enforcement Administration after the agency was approached by a former staff member of her charity. The investigation resulted in no charges or prison time for her, and she entered a diversion program. While these records were not made public at the time, Mrs. McCain eventually confessed her drug use when she learned that a reporter was investigating the story.

Is Mrs. McCain to be judged as a pitiable victim or as a criminal felon? This debate is at the heart of the discussion of American drug policy. Should we deal with illicit drug users as victims or as criminals?

Let's examine Mrs. McCain's position in these terms. She was the privileged wife of a prominent family and spouse of an important politician, a person who had her own position of prestige and power. Should she not be held at least as accountable for her actions as an uneducated inner-city drug user? After all, she could enter drug treatment at any time she chose, unlike many drug users who find themselves in prison.

Moreover, Mrs. McCain was violating a position of trust by stealing from a charitable organization, using its money and medical expertise to fuel her drug use. Is this not morally more reprehensible than simply purchasing drugs illegally?

Finally, Mrs. McCain was the mother of four children at the time she admits to using drugs-between 1989 and 1992. Her children were born in 1984, 1986, 1988 and 1991. In other words, Cindy McCain was using drugs while raising small children, one of whom she adopted while she was an addict. In most states, family services will remove children from a woman who is known to be an active drug addict, and she would certainly not be allowed to adopt a child while addicted.

John McCain is a hawk in the drug war. He advocates stricter drug laws, penalties and enforcement against drug sellers. He has had nothing to say about redressing our punitive approach toward drug users. Of course, McCain also supports family values. Yet if John and Cindy McCain were not well-off and influential, they might not have a family at all. McCain's lack of concern for street drug users contrasts sharply with the support and understanding his wife received.

McCain's condescending, dismissive attitude toward medical marijuana patients only exacerbates the hypocrisy. Cindy McCain's powerful husband and high profile probably had something to do with the fact that she didn't get the Richard Paey treatment. But as with Rush Limbaugh, prosecutors likely laid off of her also because she played the drug war game--she admitted she was an "addict," repented, and sought treatment. Paey had the audacity to insist that he oughtn't go to jail for treating his own pain, and that he wasn't an "addict," but a chronic pain patient who was dependent on the medication in order to lead a normal life.

Contra my friend Jeremy Lott, the problem with the hypocritical practice of letting politicians' family members get off for drug crimes that land normal people in prison is that it doesn't seem to do much in the way of making them more sympathetic. It just hardens them into more militant drug warriors. We have to throw Richard Paey in prison so we don't get any more Cindy McCains. See the logic?

He is a good son.
He is a good student.
He is a good citizen.
He is a good lawyer.
He is a good husband.
He is a good father.
He is a good teacher.
He is a good leader.
He is a GREAT campaigner.
He'll be a great President.
May God continue to Bless Barack Obama and the USA.

In the superdelegate endorsements today according to the Daily Kos, Hillary picked up the support 2 superdelegates--one from New York and one from Lousiana for a total of two delegate votes.

Obama picked up the support of two superdelegates--one from Connecticut and one from Virginia. In addition Obama picked up the support of two more superdelegates from Michigan and one from Florida. The delegates from Florida and Michigan each have 1/2 vote per the DNC decision on Saturday.

So for the day, its Obama 3 1/2 superdelegates and Clinton 2 superdelegates.

Some say we cannot afford a McCain administration, so we should vote for Obama. Really? Is it you or us who cannot afford? All we care about is hunting and church, and pocket changes if "change" is of my concern at all in this election. Iraq? I get double payed when I was in Iraq and the danger is almost nonexistent (one in a few hundreds maybe). Of course it was boring there, but you get real chance to shoot real people, which I think is not bad. I have no interest in gays, abortion, or any of the liberal causes. I voted Reagan and Bush and Clinton in the past, and I have no problem voting for McCain. I enjoyed the Clinton years and would vote dem if his wife is the nominee. If not, I will screw the empty suit Obama and vote the only decent man in this race, McCain.

Lakisha's real name is Jim-Bob from Western side of virginia.

Most Obama supporters I know simply want a change from business as usual and will take a chance on fresh face (I think Edwards and Obama are the two who faught it out but Edwards is seen as more of a insider)

As for Obama its funny the things he is attacked for have ZERO to do with his governing ability:

a) His wife
b) reverend wright and phelgher
c) his flag pin (LOL that one is funny)

When McCain tries to get him on a issue he FLOPS... For instance, McCain harped on Obama not going to Iraq.... But a couple of things make that a tricky debate for McCain:

a) Many of the senates leading WAR ADVOCATES have NEVRE been to Iraq
b) Some of his leading VP candidates have never been
c) Not going doe not mean yo udont care (MCCAIN ONLY WENT TO NEW ORLEANS ONE TIME) so basing traveling to a area with caring is risky.
d) When yo ugo soldiers tell you what they want you to hear. I was in the military and when a congressman visited us it is hard to be TRUTHFUL with your commander within earshot.
e) Rudy Gulliani (Mr. Nine-Eleven)who McCain said is now a Sr. Advisor on the war on terror has NEVER BEEN TO IRAQ....

lol... good luck McCain on convincing the un-educated crowd who know nothing of tolerance or equality that Obama is bad for america because he will not wear a flag pin BUT omit he might get you health care though and he might end a messed up war.

What are yo uguys waiting for to happen? How many generals former white house aids and the like have to tell you that this war is WRONG?

"Lakisha" sounds like a Republican trying to fear monger fence sitting voters. Woogedy boogedy! Be afraid of the (biracial) black man! Whatever.

Obama in '08

As you know jp, Hillary did not win the popular vote. Had she played by the rules she agreed to, Obama would be ahead. I laugh at all the people who say Clinton won the popular vote. I feel sorry if you teach your kids that it is okay to break the rules, then change them later.

ask my baby daddy!

Lakisha appears to be another right wing moron (ditto-head) who may very well be the by-product of selective inbreeding.... National Socialist (i.e. Nazi) + Fundamentalist = Republican wingnut case...

I am a retired USAF Officer that will vote for Mr Obama....

If you are new here, I am a stupid white guy, who because I am a bigot and a jerk, continue to post under a name of black woman. I am tremendously stupid, have a gerkin sized member, and sadly, think I am funny.

If you are new here, I am a stupid white guy, who because I am a bigot and a jerk, continue to post under a name of black woman. I am tremendously stupid, have a gerkin sized member, and sadly, think I am funny.

If you are new here, I am a stupid white guy, who because I am a bigot and a jerk, continue to post under a name of black woman. I am tremendously stupid, have a gerkin sized member, and sadly, think I am funny.

If you are new here, I am a stupid white guy, who because I am a bigot and a jerk, continue to post under a name of a black woman. I am tremendously stupid, have a gerkin sized member, and sadly, think I am funny.

Lakisha ....there is no shame in desiring to be a transgender multi-racial bigot...just so long as you are honest with yourself....a man (or woman???) needs to know their own limitations....

You are the one, that you have been waitng for. Fire-it-up and ready to go to the White House.

Robert, thank you. I don't know whether to cry or put on my hood...

The conduct of the superdelegates is in defiance and repudiatiion of the Democratic nomination process. The biased pro-Obama media and DNC in its quest to "make history" interfered in and undermined the Democratic nomination process. Sen. Clinton's campaign was intentionally sabotaged.... I am amazed at how the DNC,Dean,Pelosi,Reid and the superdelegates have blindly fast-tracked the process. Obviously, no one cares about Obama's background, character, associates and beliefs. Nobody cares who he really is. To quote Newsweek "unless he is seen vactioning with Louis Farrakhan in Hawaiii he has the nomination." After Obama crashes and burns in the GE, maybe, the above will do some research, but then it's a little to late. ...
Hear Obama "We're going to reshape America in a way that is less mean-sprited & more generous. Hear Farrikhan "We will never get real freedom and recogniton between black & white without rewriting the constitution". __noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/05/29/the-christian-heresy-of-barack-and-michelle-obama/

The issue with the popular vote is very simple. According to the rules agreed on the vote in Michigan and Florida will not be counted. However the reality is that Hillary is absolutely in her right and is correct when she says that she has received more votes than any other Democrat in primary history including Obam.

And that is the issue Obama will have to deal with if he is the candidate. Those 17,000,000 + people who felt Hillary is the better candidate and the person with the best chance to beat McCain. The recent polling suggests that she would have a better chance of beating McCain but that will be irrelevant if Obama is the candidate.

But what Obama will have to do is slowing bring those 17,000,0000 Clinton voters, especially the ones in the swing states around to voting for him in November. He has plenty of time. But a first step would be to get his supporters to follow his lead and recognize that he needs Hillary to win. Not necessarily on the ticket but unless she actively campaigns for him and talks to her voters he may find the nomination not worth the work.

First it would be great to stop attacking those white and hispanic who are not Obama supporters as racists. Some may be but the most just felt he wasn't ready to be President. He needs to convince them that he is still better than McCain and the best person to do that is Hillary Clinton.

Then he needs to convince his supporters that continuing to attack Hillary Clinton will only harden the feelings of those who say if Obama loses Hillary will be the candidate the next time.

As a Clinton supporter myself I understand that feeling but also know that four years of McCain isn't worth it. We need a Democrat now who can change the direction of the nation. But not all Clinton supporters are there yet.

So cut the attacks and realize we have five months to get those voters to vote Obama and every attack against Hillary just makes that job harder.

Obama understands that - it is time some of those on these chat rooms began to understand that - keep up the attacks and you do more damage to your candidate than you can imagine.

QUESTIONS FOR SUPERDELEGATES:

1. Why should voters bother voting in the primaries? It appears as though the party bosses disregard the will of the people anyway and select who they want to select just like the Supreme Court did in 2000.

This was evident on Saturday when a committee took delegates that one candidate had won and gave them to another. They REWARDED someone who manipulated the rules who voluntarily took his name off the ballot. Then claimed that Uncommitted votes were ALL for him AND gave him someone else's delegates.

Again I ask, why should people bother voting in the primaries? It couldn't be more evident that it doesn't matter what the people say.

2. Why should there even be a democratic convention? The party bosses have already decided based on money given to them, who they want the nominee to be.

Superdelegates were created to vote at the convention, not to try to influence the primary process before it is over. But since Obama is giving money to the Supers to come out for him beforehand and the supers are accepting the money, why bother having a convention?

3. Why was it ok for Ted Kennedy to take his candidacy all the way to the convention in 1980 against a SITTING DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENT, when he was over 700 delegates behind, but it's not ok for a woman candidate who is ahead in the popular vote, is less than 150 pledged delegates behind,and according to the recent polls beats the Republican nominee handily?

4. Are you TRYING to break up the democratic party?
If so, you are succeeding.

MISSING ETHICS AND MORALS IN SOME DEMOCRATS!

Even though I live so far from the US here in Brazil I don't need to leave to know what is happening there. The globalized market and economy is very much dependent on the good functioning of the US economy.

We all want a democrat to win in the November elections with the hopeful outcome of improving the US economy. We are concerned about the divisions in the democratic party for such trivial reasons as the ambitions of some and the apparent absence of ethics and morality in the political stage causing pain and hatred to grow amongst some voters.

Now is not the time for petty differences and prejudice which cause such division... Now is the time for the party to unite! Each one of us needs to let go of our ego, fanatism and preconceptions turning our support to the democratic candidate that has led in the primaries. The rules are the rules. You can't change them now. It's not ethical and it's not moral.

The two candidates are intelligent, well educated and well prepared. Both have great support from their teams and they would both be good for their country. It is not written on their foreheads that one is better than the other: Nobody can predict what the future holds.

For example, look at what is what is happening now. When Hillary Clinton began her campaign for to be President she and her supporters saw an easy victory in the primaries but in fact that has not materialized. That was a poor strategy for beginning a campaign and now they find themselves in debt and desperate. Nobody knows the future! We always need to carefully calculate our risks and count on luck.

It's undeniable that the Barack Obama was an all around better candidate. He was unknown to the majority of Americans and he knew to use his anonymity to his advantage. He showed the world wonderful qualities such as respect for rules, his abilities as a good listener and excellent speaker. He demonstrated that he is a very good strategist and campaign manager along with his ability to deal with the verbal attacks of his opponents and his ability as a negotiator conquering all sides through dialogue.

It is sad, ethically and morally that some who supported Hillary in the primary say that they won't support Obama should he become nominated. This will, later on, prove to be a grave error. It has been eight years of the nonsense and absurdity of the Bush presidency only to see the image of the USA declining into negativity.

It's time of urgent changes thee. The Bush Administration can't to continue with McCain. Want you more wars? More lies, expenses and americans dieing in immoral batles? Or going to down the economy? Obama wining the election in November places a excellent team of democrats in power and raises the hope of change for every one of us...

The world wishes more Obama sowing peace, hopes, changes, love, union of races and union of the Americas. We want USA selling dream and magic to the world again and never selling weapons and wars as always made the republicans...

The Brazil and the Americas are with you, Obama!
Dalmo de Souza Gomes

Obama will be a great president.God Bless him

Why does anyone waste time in a blog claiming to be black or white, male or female, rebuplican or democrat? One person claims they are a white woman but voting for obama instead of Clinton. Another claims to be a black man but voting for McCain. I say prove it or pluck it!

Furthermore, why does anyone care if a Clinton supporter carries out her threat to vote for McCain. If she has such a low regard for her own life under Bush policies, that should indicate that she doesn't give a damn about the rest of us.

Most of us will never accomplish in a lifetime what Obama has in 30 years, but someone had the gall to call him an empty suit. Well, I was raised on the principle that an "empty suit" still trumps an "empty closet".

For all of our technological advancements, such as cyber interactivity, there are some things that cannot improve, namely human behavior. People are selfish creatures of habit. Those with greed will say or do anything to get by or ahead. Our government lies to us and we lie to our government. Corporate America overcharges and consumers shoplift because of greed.

IMHO.

Why Not Give Him A Chance?... are you kidding!!! HE'S NOT RUNNING FOR CLASS PRESIDENT!!!!

CAVEAT EMPTOR!Obama was created by the Wizard of Chicago, campaign strategist, David Axelrod. The same creator of a former South-Side Chicagoan, Deval Patrick, the governor of Massachusetts A campaign of CHANGE and HOPE..including the verbatim speeches of Deval Patrick. Obama's strategy is the same-old, recycled and passed-on platform of the Patrick campaign....Massachusetts Democrats were all excited about this "Different" candidate, this "Historic" candidate, this candidate that was going to "change" things. His rhetoric soared. He asked people to "believe". He eluded to people like JFK, RFK and MLK as if he and his "Words" belonged in in their league. Deval Patrick made plenty of Hope-y Change-y promises and the people of Massachusetts fell for it. They were going to get a new kind of leader, a different kind of politics. What they got instead was a wimp who caved in on every single issue he promised to address.... No surprise to anybody who sees through catchy, mesmerizing rhetoric with precious few details, Deval Patrick is a dismal disappointment to Massachusetts. His flowery speeches and promises have turned out to be Just Words as, issue by issue, Patrick has proven to be either a coward, a liar or inept....
Fool Me Once Shame on You....Fool Me Twice Shame on Me.

Why do voters feel they have to clarify who they are voting for by way of what their actual race?

That racial divide is and was a Clinton Marketing tool... that some of you have obviously brought into.

If you are a true Democrat you will vote your preference and the color of your skin or is not 'a reasonable justification' or classification of how or who you vote (d) for...

Most of us get that... and contrary to Hillary's claim... Most of us "who in fact realize that' are voting for OBAMA!

HISPANIC-BLACK and on TRACK!

OBAMA '08

The DNC broke their own rules when they stripped these States of their delegations. The previous precedent established by the DNC was that the State would not be penalized, but that any candidate campaigning in the state would lose half of their earned delegation. The DNC precedent was never a 50% penalty.

Obama was the only one to break the rules and campaign in and run TV commercials in Florida.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nM5H649fwP4

He was also the only one in Michigan to run radio ads telling people to vote uncommitted. Despite his breaking the rules and campaigning, he still lost both contests.

During the Saturday Coup D'etat, they took 55 Michigan "uncommitted:" delegates and awarded them to Barack Obama. They also took four delegates that Hillary Clinton won in the Michigan primary away from her and switched those four votes to Barack Obama!

This is a truly amazing act for any American political body to do. In the Michigan primary Barack Obama took his name off the ballot when he realized he was going to lose and encouraged people to vote uncommitted so that his votes could be grouped with votes for others. The Rules committee rewarded this manipulation and substituted its judgment for that of the voters. The proper course would have been for the committee to grant Clinton her 73 delegates and to seat the 55 "uncommitted" delegates from Michigan AS UNCOMMITTED. Then, at the Convention, if these delegates wanted to vote for Barack Obama, they could do so.

So why didn't the party bosses do just that? Easy. They wanted not only to give their nomination to Barack Obama, but also wanted to DO IT NOW. They want the nomination to be over & done. They wanted to HURRY UP.

Hurrying up is something that dictators and tyrants do. Dictators and tyrants do not like the inefficient, time-consuming processes that democracies work through. Tyrants and dictators know what they want -- so why wait ? DO IT NOW! HURRY UP! is their ESENTIAL calling card. But the question remains why do the party bosses want to select a nominee that will lead to a McCain victory?

Many Hillary supporters, who have been loyal to the party all their lives, feel abandoned. Abused by a disloyal party, they have finally had enough and many are vowing to not only to not support Obama if he is the nominee but many will be leaving the party they have worked hard to support their whole lives. The Obama supporters are not taking this seriously and Obama insists that Hillary's supporters will support him. Just watch.

The superdelegates should now have a clear picture of the longtime advisors Obama has surrounded himself with... Wright (20 years), Rezco (20 years) Ayers (20years), Pfleger (20 years). These chosen advisors are the best indicators of the views that he holds, the judgement he exercises, the choices he makes and how he would make decisions if elected.

Knowing all these facts, should the superdelegates disregard the will of the people and select Obama as the nominee, despite the fact that Clinton won more votes, (the way the Supreme Court selected Bush as President), the Party will get what it deserves which is a complete crack-up. Once the books are complete about how Obama tried to dupe America, the supers that supported him will all be sent packing.

I could never vote for Barry Hussein because he has renounced his Muslim faith.

let Hillary take her case to the convention. She would be asking that to her donors tomorrow?

If that happens, Hillary would be names Killary?

Let she be the independent candidate. Stupid sexists would vote for her just because she wears a pantsuit. This way the percentage of idiots in this country would be proven

Of this Obama's fellow Senators and other superdelegates who haven't yet endorsed must be aware: A commitment before there's a nominee is worth infinitely more than one afterwards.

I just want all this to end immediately. Hopefully tomorrow.

It may end tomorrow but there will be many Democrats who will not vote or give their support to McCain. Hope, Believe...

lakishi

listen to me and listen good because you don't want to keep going thru life with a closed mind

I voted for Clinton, I am a white woman but I am not racist, just more mature and on the conservative side

I will vote against McCain if he gets the nomination, but I will not pretent that I think Barak will make a good president just to appear "non racist"

Don't lump people into categories, it's called "stereotyping" and it is rooted in racsim, so be careful you yourself do not become a racists with your stereotyping of people who do not think like you.

I congratulate all the Obama supporters as it looks like your guy is going to get the nomination and I wish him the best and pray to god he wins

I will not pretend to be what I am not and don't care what anyone says, except that I think it is important that we lose these "stereotyping" ideas we are forming about sexism and racism.

A Clinton supporter posted a youtube video above:

QUOTE
Obama was the only one to break the rules and campaign in and run TV commercials in Florida.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nM5H649fwP4

He was also the only one in Michigan to run radio ads telling people to vote uncommitted. Despite his breaking the rules and campaigning, he still lost both contests.
--------------------------------------
My friend, what you are doing is LYING. The video that you posted is of an event on April 15, 2007 (as noted in right in the video). Florida voted to move its primary on May 3, 2007. And in the NYT article covering that event (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/04/us/politics/04florida.html) there are two interesting quotes:

"Both parties have been trying to put a halt to the leapfrogging. They have said they would penalize all but a handful of states if they hold a primary before Feb. 5, stripping them of half their delegates to the national nominating conventions. Under Democratic Party rules, the candidates can also be penalized, losing the delegates they won in the rule-breaking state."

and

"Spokesmen for two Democratic presidential candidates, Senators Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York and Barack Obama of Illinois, indicated they would not hold back from campaigning in Florida."

So to summarize:
- Your 'evidence' is not actual evidence - it is video footage of an event held several weeks before the event that precipitated the 'no campaigning' rule;
- The DNC said at the time that the state would probably forfeit half its delegates, and that the candidates could be punished by forfeiting ALL of their votes; and,
- At the time, both the Clinton and Obama campaigns indicated that they intended to continue to campaign.

Add to this the ongoing misstatement that Hillary has "won the popular vote" - apparently states that hold caucuses simply don't count - and it's hard to understand what lengths you folks won't go to to get your preferred candidate nominated. It's just shameful. I certainly hope you can correct or at least answer the facts above, so I can restore my faith just a little in the Clinton wing of the party. Despite my support for Obama, I am a fan of both Clintons, and it has been painful to watch her (and more often her campaign staff and supporters) continue to take terrible positions - on the gas tax "holiday", NAFTA, and of course Florida and Michigan - in her continued pursuit of a goal that is eluding her.

Purple Lips for President!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Why would anyone want to align themselves with Hillary Rove Clinton, the one with the Situational Ethics Under Sniper Fire?

Time to move on!

What a circus.

Take comfort in the fact that despite all the weird, wonderful, and just flat out bizarre posts on this board, and despite all the rancor in this year's race, we are still a great nation, full of beautiful people of all colors and stripes, and blessed with the good sense to chart a correction when we know it's needed.

By God, we will be welcoming President Obama into our hearts and minds next January, as he restores our nation and the goodwill of the people across this planet to believe once again in the great good of humanity, that working together, we can and will shine the light of peace, goodness, and prosperity, on this gift, this blessing, this paradise, we call Earth.

We can do it people, we are the ones we've been waiting for!

And the good news is, it's not just for us in the USA, it's for everyone in this beautiful world!

I know there's some angry folks out there right now, and it's hard to feel the warm glow of the good we're bringing back, but please know you will be in good hands.

God bless the USA, and God bless this Earth!

Michelle Obama is ghetto and lower-middle class. She will lower the tone of the White House.

Wow. Democrat Female voters must feel royally screwed. Obama, a weak male candidate has totally stolen the nomination from a very qualified female Hillary. Democrat voters who have waited their entire lives waiting for the chance to have a candidate to vote for have been cheated. Voter fixing and caucus fraud in the Democrat party... Oh well you get what you vote or don't vote for in the Democrat party. Thank God we have one moral, honest candidate going into the fall.
Democrats!! Vote for someone you can trust when you go to sleep!

The Dems are offering victory to a weak Republican candidate on a plate. The Dems said only delegates counted, the popular votes didn't. But what if the millions of angry Clinton supporters make good of what they said and vote for McCain? It's not easy to make these loyal supporters change their minds.

To "Black Saint"
1.They have a very hard time understanding how anyone with any intelligence can sit in a Church for 20 years and support ones friend and mentor week after week, month after month, year after year with his money, family and attendance while listening to Hate American, Hate whites, Hate every thing rants,"

I guess YOU sat in on every service and heard these rants you speak of? If you are relying on the 1-Sunday sound bite that's been played then you MIGHT just be confused by the media. Let's use a bit of that common sense you say that ya'll uneducated folks use - if there were MORE supposedly racist rants wouldn't THOSE have been playing on UTube also? Wouldn't we see a BUNCH of clips? No? Humm, then maybe, just maybe - that was the only one. And even uneducated folks have TV and can watch the Bill Moyers interview of Rev. Wright - I don't agree with much of what he said, but in context it makes more sense. Please get the WHOLE story before jumping off half-cocked. It makes you look more uneducated than you already claim you are.

Obama is the Manchurian Candidate of our times.

He will destroy the America we love if he were to become president.

Obama will destroy the Democratic PArty is he has not already.

To Noboma in your so well-thought-out and eloquent comment you said.

"Michelle Obama is ghetto and lower-middle class. She will lower the tone of the White House."

That's your view - I'd love to know YOUR background! What university did YOU attend? To me she is classy, Ivy-League educated, intelligent, articulate, beautiful and strong. And God bless her she will be our next First Lady - deal with THAT!!!!

Oh good one Dylan. "Manchurian Candidate." Yes, indeedy, recycle that one we right-wingers used on McCain to get Bush the nomination.

I am not surprised by McCain's opposition to legislation that provides college financial aid to veterans. He never confronted nor experienced the hardship of securing a college education. He never had to borrow money or be dept ridden getting an education. His father was an Admiral and he was assured a spot at the naval academy as the son of the military establishment, paid for by the tax payers, no cost to John or the Admiral. He did not have to do one or two or three tours of duty before getting assistance; it was handed to him on a silver platter. How convenient.

ANSWERS FROM A NON-SUPERDELEGATE:

>>>1. Why should voters bother voting in the primaries? It appears as though the party bosses disregard the will of the people anyway and select who they want to select just like the Supreme Court did in 2000.>>This was evident on Saturday when a committee took delegates that one candidate had won and gave them to another. They REWARDED someone who manipulated the rules who voluntarily took his name off the ballot. Then claimed that Uncommitted votes were ALL for him AND gave him someone else's delegates.>>Again I ask, why should people bother voting in the primaries? It couldn't be more evident that it doesn't matter what the people say.>>2. Why should there even be a democratic convention? The party bosses have already decided based on money given to them, who they want the nominee to be.>>Superdelegates were created to vote at the convention, not to try to influence the primary process before it is over. But since Obama is giving money to the Supers to come out for him beforehand and the supers are accepting the money, why bother having a convention?>>3. Why was it ok for Ted Kennedy to take his candidacy all the way to the convention in 1980 against a SITTING DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENT, when he was over 700 delegates behind, but it's not ok for a woman candidate who is ahead in the popular vote, is less than 150 pledged delegates behind,and according to the recent polls beats the Republican nominee handily?>>4. Are you TRYING to break up the democratic party?<<<

No one is trying to break up any party. Only people who are heck bent on using scorched earth tactics to bring down the house are trying to break up the party. So, who is this YOU that you're talking about? Seems that too much gossip about unsubstantiated rhetoric that's much to do about nothing.

ANSWERS FROM A NON-SUPERDELEGATE - PART 1:

>>>1. Why should voters bother voting in the primaries? It appears as though the party bosses disregard the will of the people anyway and select who they want to select just like the Supreme Court did in 2000.>>This was evident on Saturday when a committee took delegates that one candidate had won and gave them to another. They REWARDED someone who manipulated the rules who voluntarily took his name off the ballot. Then claimed that Uncommitted votes were ALL for him AND gave him someone else's delegates.>>Again I ask, why should people bother voting in the primaries? It couldn't be more evident that it doesn't matter what the people say.<<<

See reply to Question 1. That's a personal decision if that's in your interest, so you don't have to vote in a primary if you don't want to. But, one should do so to that person's favorite candidate to have the best chance of becoming the nominee. Voters who live in states where national political parties hold open elections have it better than those that sponsor elections that are closed to only those persons in the same party. However, everyone should always vote in the presidential elections. Skip the presidential election (assuming that you've not voted in the primary) and you might find yourself re-registering to get back on the voter rolls. But you do get a constitutional say in presidential elections (you'll have to look to the state constitution to determine rights in state elections).

BTW, the primary system is design to weed out the contenders and to select the finalist who will represent the political party for the General Election. Guess you knew that, too.

ANSWERS FROM A NON-SUPERDELEGATE - PART 2:

>>>2. Why should there even be a democratic convention? The party bosses have already decided based on money given to them, who they want the nominee to be.>>Superdelegates were created to vote at the convention, not to try to influence the primary process before it is over. But since Obama is giving money to the Supers to come out for him beforehand and the supers are accepting the money, why bother having a convention?<<<

Yeah...and what else is new and what makes you think that Hillary Clinton or her surrogates aren't doing the same, since I don't particularly find her blameless either. Superdelegates on both sides are trying as we speak to influence support for a particular candidate. And, of course, superdelegates can always change their minds if they want to. As you already know, an endorsement for a candidate means nothing until it becomes a vote on the floor at the party convention.

ANSWERS FROM A NON-SUPERDELEGATE - PART 2:

>>>2. Why should there even be a democratic convention? The party bosses have already decided based on money given to them, who they want the nominee to be.>>Superdelegates were created to vote at the convention, not to try to influence the primary process before it is over. But since Obama is giving money to the Supers to come out for him beforehand and the supers are accepting the money, why bother having a convention?<<<

Yeah...and what else is new and what makes you think that Hillary Clinton or her surrogates aren't doing the same, since I don't particularly find her blameless either. Superdelegates on both sides are trying as we speak to influence support for a particular candidate. And, of course, superdelegates can always change their minds if they want to. As you already know, an endorsement for a candidate means nothing until it becomes a vote on the floor at the party convention.

ANSWERS FROM A NON-SUPERDELEGATE - PART 3:

>>>3. Why was it ok for Ted Kennedy to take his candidacy all the way to the convention in 1980 against a SITTING DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENT, when he was over 700 delegates behind, but it's not ok for a woman candidate who is ahead in the popular vote, is less than 150 pledged delegates behind,and according to the recent polls beats the Republican nominee handily?<<<

This issue has nothing to with Ted Kennedy and the 1980 Democratic Convention. Different issues.

First, only the number of delegates meeting the required threshold meets the requirement for obtaining the Democratic nomination, not on the popular vote as some wish. So the popular vote DOES NOT hold weight in determining the presidential nominee. The logic in your statement about popular vote is like telling Football A that it won the game by holding the ball for every minute of three quarters (i.e., the popular vote) at the same time that Team B shows that it is ahead in the score (i.e., delegate count). The presumptive nominee is the candidate who meets or exceeds the required number of delegates according to the DNC rules. Clinton does not meet that criterion. Her popular vote angle is nothing more than a talking point to sell to her supporters.

Also, the lead in the so-called popular vote that Sen. Clinton claims is questionable, since she subtracted the voting counts from the caucuses (anyway, the popular votes are not reported from caucus states) and added all of the vote totals from one side of the MI vote slate. Are you telling people from caucus states that they don't count too? Hillary Clinton is dismissing them in her count. If so, that's really disrespectful. The votes of people DO count, regardless of whether the votes comes from primaries or caucuses. The other votes appeared to have been allocated to the other candidates (Edwards, Dodd, Biden)on the ballot during that time. These delegates are "free agents," as far as I can determine.

Second, no one took anything away from Clinton that she did not earn. The MI primary WAS NOT sanctioned by the DNC, so that "beauty contest" was not a recognized election. Even Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI) and Harold Ickes called the election "flawed." It is Sen. Levin and the MI state delegation (most of whom are Clinton supporters) that offered a 69-59 split in the vote (the Obama people wanted a 64-64 split, which they didn't get). And, not to mention, the majority of declared Clinton superdelegates on the RBC voted for it, too. So, are you now trying to cast blame elsewhere for the judgment of these Clinton supporters?

You know, MI could have ended up with NOTHING, given that state's arrogance and penchant for rulebreaking. The voters and Clinton supporters should be mad (really, more like PO'd) with the MI politicians who created this situation in the first place. The 4 votes that the Clinton people were screaming about are based on their original proposal for the non-sanctioned, non-recognized beauty contest passing off as an election. Unfortunately, the Clinton campaign came with nothing else but a 1-0 proposed (all for them and nothing for Obama), putting all their eggs in one basket and leaving themselves no room to negotiate in their favor. No one in this world, let alone in this country, believes that Obama, who is major presidential candidate, got ZERO votes in MI (that is, no one ever voted for him during the beauty contest, including write-in votes). That's the reverse argument of "fair representation" -- you know, that discussion that Harold Ickes didn't want to have with Rep. Wexler (D-FL).

Using another example, do you think the that NFL will recognize or sanction a game not on its schedule that was played by two teams in the league, and put up with demands from one of the teams to recognize scores and stats from that unsanctioned game? And, to add insult, putting up with demands from that team to recognize scores and statistics to help that team's standing in the league for a chance to play in the Super Bowl? That's what you're implying with your point of view. No wonder some people are viewing a sense of entitlement on Hillary Clinton's part. Rules are there for a reason - to set the benchmark at which everyone operates.

As for polling data, polls are volatile, so none of us know what a poll months away will look like. Someone in today's lead can find themselves at the back of the pack tomorrow. In other words, I can't rely on a volatile poll that shows who beats whom beat whom based on what people think today, because people might change their thoughts tomorrow to affect a future poll.

>>>2. Why should there even be a democratic convention? The party bosses have already decided based on money given to them, who they want the nominee to be.>>Superdelegates were created to vote at the convention, not to try to influence the primary process before it is over. But since Obama is giving money to the Supers to come out for him beforehand and the supers are accepting the money, why bother having a convention?>>4. Are you TRYING to break up the democratic party?<<<

No one is trying to break up any party. Only people who are heck bent on using scorched earth tactics to bring down the house are trying to break up the party. So, who is this YOU that you're talking about? Seems that too much gossip about unsubstantiated rhetoric that's much to do about nothing.

I have the awful feeling that Clinton will go on inspite of whatever happens tomorro. for someone to say that she wants it all, with Fl and Mi.even tho she was the only one on the ballot in Mi, how can she equate that with 'the popular vote? the uncommitted voted for Obama and Edwards. I don,t trust the Clintons and know she will go on through some dirty politicing through others as her tools until August when she arrives with her team once again to ruin the democratic party in those finals months, I could say the words Go Home but I think it calls for something like "Have at it" continue to make it a circus Hillary.

When you are considering whether Hillary is "beating a dead horse" as is alleged. And whether you should contribute to her campaign even now.

Consider this: Numbers don't lie
Remember: Obama was considered ahead in both So Dakota and Montana, particularly Montana. Well Hillary will landslide in So Dakota and Montana is now just a 4 pt game with 8 percent undecided.

PollResultsSpread
South Dakota Democratic PrimaryARG*Obama 34, Clinton 60Clinton +26.0
Montana Democratic PrimaryARG*Obama 48, Clinton 44Obama +4.0

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the General:

General Election McCain-Obama McCain-Clinton
RealClear Average
Obama +0.7
Clinton +2.0

RCP Electoral Count
Obama +38
Clinton +61

No Toss Up States
Obama +6
Clinton +30

Battleground States McCain-Obama McCain-Clinton
Pennsylvania
Obama +5.8
Clinton +11.7

Michigan
McCain +3.0
McCain +3.0

Ohio
Obama +1.3
Clinton +8.3

Wisconsin
Obama +2.0
McCain +3.4

Iowa
Obama +6.4
McCain +2.7

Virginia
McCain +1.3
McCain +10.4

Florida
McCain +8.3
Clinton +3.0

Hillary is clearly ahead of McCain.

Eugene Robinson, vociferously pro Obama, in his column and on TV, talks about Hillary engaging in "magical thinking" when she says she can still win.

I submit Eugene that it is Obama and friends who are doing just that.

Truth Seeker - One need look no further than Bill Clinton's 1992 campaign (or, say, the current primary contest) to know that poll results aren't a good indication of where votes will fall five months later. The Obama backers' "magical thinking" is simply acknowledging this fact. Besides, the small single-digit differences you're listing above are barely outside the error margins of these polls right now.

On the other hand, Hillary's campaign at this point needs to convince just about every undecided superdelegate that Obama is unelectable in order to win. Not many dispute that she has the right to try. But believing that she will be able to do it is... well... if it's not "magical thinking", it sure seems unlikely.

When I am president, my superdelegates will be allowed to keep their homes at 72 degrees.

-Your Messiah