Political Punch

This is what I read from the 24th april Herald Tribune issue : Top hedge fund managers are betting on... Obama. Further the explanation is this one :" So why is Obama such a popular choice among the hedge fund crowd? In a word, access. Unlike Mc Cain and Clinton, Obama is relatively new to national politics and is therefore open to bringing new people-and new money-into the tent. For money types who want a table, or at least to look involved and get an invitation to the right parties,Obama is the candidate." This probably explains why so much money is poured into Obama campaign and why he struggles hard to have the support of the blue collar voter. It explains why his voters have been reported all along as upper and educated class, elite in a way. The voter has to see for self interest, and if some of the billionnaire see more to get from Obama, the worker and the median class want to see someone who can fight hard for them and Hillary Clinton's profile looks more like it. But even though she won most of the big states, some would insist that she steps down because they just want to see Obama as the nominee. It's up to the popular vote to speak up and tell again and again that their real interests are what counts. And never give up just like Hillary. Isn't everything a fight in this world even more in politics?

Another example of the paradox you illustrate is the case of Texas. The Clinton campaign got more of the popular vote. The Obama campaign netted more delegates.

Which won the state? Because of the superdelegates, both have a claim, one direct (Obama campaign -- clearly got more pledged delegates) and one indirect (Clinton campaign -- getting more of the popular vote may have helped to pull some superdelegates over to their side).

I agree with the posters that the system is ridiculous, in part because the complexity and the huge variety between states makes it difficult for the voters to understand how their vote gets translated into delegates.

However, given the game is what it is, and the goal is to accumulate delegates, the winner will likely be the campaign that has kept its focus on accumulating delegates rather than running up other metrics that are only tangentially related to the outcome.

Example: Turnovers are good and can contribute to a winning game. But games are won on points, not on a tally of turnovers.

If the delegates were awarded based on number of counties won, both campaigns would presumably have used a very different strategy in their campaigning.

it clearly indicates the absurdity of the system we dems have for allocating delegates - give delegates to the person who loses not only the state and almost all of the counties in the state, but also the person who lost all the constituencies needed to win a general election.

but evaluation of the results reveals who can and cannot win a general. hillary can. obama cannot. he loses pretty much all groups except african-americans, kids, and latte liberals. and in pennsylvania his proportions of kids and latte liberals went down.

bye bye obama, if not for the nomination, then certainly for the general. go back to the senate, finish your term, lose your bid for reelection, try making a living as a motivational speaker....

When I saw Bob Casey, I thought he was much like Senator Obama---a pretty speech and a big smile. People want substance, not showmanship. Casey probably made a big mistake with his endorsement.
Some voters listened, read and were educated about Senator Obama then voted for Hillary Clinton--simple as that.

If you count the states delegates as winner-takes-all, like in the in the general election, clinton is 1800+ and bho 1100+.
ugh, oh...

I think inspiration is great and there is no doubt that Obama has done a fantastic job energizing so many more people in this election cycle. I do not trivialize that in anyway. However, at the end of the day, for me it's about who can deliver solutions to a wide range of issues. Clinton has time and time again demonstrated a commanding knowledge on a range of issues and when she talk about solutions for these issues, she has a confidence that Obama seems to lack when he is off script.

Confidence is what inspires me to vote for Clinton and in a general election with Obama and McCain, it will be confidence again that will decide my vote and that vote would be for McCain.

I took a look at ABCNews's report that Hillary has taken the lead in popular vote.

There is a problem: They only get that result by including Michigan, where Obama wasn't even on the ballot.

How dishonest! But based on the Obama-bashing debate of last week, that appears to be the tact that ABC/Disney has decided to take.

DavidS: I actually have read every word on Obama's website about the issues. Many positions are similar to Clinton's -- some are not. I prefer her health care plan, as an example. The real problem is that I have never seen him discuss his positions with any level of authority. I don't think he really has the grasp of those issues like Hillary.

I really don't see how anyone watching debates (and I've watched all of them) would see someone ready to be president. And he certainly doesn't come across as "inspirational" in those forums.

You don't see that in Obama . . . but lots of people do. If you go to his website and take a look at his position on the issues, you will see that he has VERY details proposals on the serious matters of today. I suspect you have never bothered to actually examine the issues, you just like putting the man down.

The point I was making is that either Mrs. Clinton or Mr. Obama would be better than John McCain. The reason why I support Obama is because he inspires me. You asked what I meant, and I told you.

On the issues themselves, there is little difference between Barack and Hillary. So how does one choose between the two? For me, it's Barack's inspirational character. Why do you mock that? Why do ALL Hillary supporters mock that concept? Don't they remember what Bill Clinton meant to Democrats back in the early 90s? We haven't had this much reason to be optimistic about the future of America until now!

DavidS: sounds exciting. Now how exactly does "inspire the citizenry to greatness" relate to the real world and real challenges we face? Yes, Bill Clinton was also inspiring -- but he also had a firm grasp of the issues, realistic plans, experience and more. I don't see that in Obama.

Greg observes: "[Obama's] spiritual mentor for 20 years Pastor Wright said America is responsible for 9/11 and "god d@#$ America", wouldn’t most Americans stand up and walk out...."

And Obama denounced those comments. And said that if he were present when Wright said those things he would have walked out (he was in DC on the day of that speech, as has been documented . . . not that you care about such things).

The curious thing is that Reverends Robertson and Falwell ALSO blamed 9/11 on America! Remember that? But that didnt' stop the Republicans from continuing to go to their churches and even from inviting them both to the White House on numerous occasions. Funny how those Republicans have double standards. Funny how you seem to be buying into their playbook.

RS: You might be right about Hillary supporters not voting for, as you say, a "radical left wing" candidate. But as Hillary and Barack HAVE NEARLY IDENTICAL POSITIONS ON THE ISSUES, if you are right, then her supporters are simply cutting off their nose to spite their face!

The Rev. Wright matter is a non-issue. Obama has denounced Wright's comments, and that's good enough for me. Frankly, your post sounds like it comes from a Republican, not a Democrat. I suspect thats what you are. Republicans have been pushing HARD for a HIllary Clinton nomination - in my opinion, because they know they have a better chance of beating her.

No true Democrat would vote for John "100 years in Iraq is fine with me" McCain, against somebody like Obama who has virtually the same position on the issues as Hillary does.

DavidS, great post. That's exactly how I feel too.

What Obama and his campaign are mortally wounded, (just like in gladiator) , and they don't know it yet. The Rev. Wright story and Obama's membership in his racist, anti-semitic, Hamas promoting, hate-mongering church is the end of Obama's campaign. Obama's entire campaign is based on the idea of unity and bringing people together, but the reality of Obama's actions speaks to who Obama the man truly is. Obama's condescending, arrogant comments that he made in San Francisco only deepen the wound. The Radical Left Wing of this party is so out of touch with regular Americans, that they don't understand how Obama's "speech" could somehow make up for Obama's 20 years of sitting in a cess pool of hatred. The slow drip, drip is the end of Obama's campaign. If Obama were a true democrat and a true man, he would bow out gracefully now in order for the party to come together before he and Howard Dean and the DNC completely tear the democratic party apart. Hillary supporters WILL NEVER VOTE FOR RADICAL LIBERAL LEFT WING ELITE OBAMA!!!

Cappamore: Sure.

Inspiring means "to fill with an animating, quickening, or exalting influence"

It's what Bill Clinton had . . . in spades. When Bill Clinton gave a speech, he made one feel that America's best days were ahead of us, not behind. When Bill Clinton told a story, it resonnated, it caused me to compare it to the world in which I live. He made me proud to be a Democrat. He caused me to imagine the exciting possibilities of what government could do when run by people who cared. He made me believe in the future, and made me eager to see that future arrive!

That's what I mean when I say that Obama inspires me. He causes those same feelings that I felt when I heard a Bill Cliton speech. Rather than campaigning on fear ("vote for me or you'll die a horrible death"), like Republicans do, or campaining on past glories like Mrs. Clinton does.

It's not that complicated. The primary job of a PResident is to inspire the citizenry to greatness. I feel that with Mr. Obama, but not (as much) with Mrs. Clinton.

Thats what I mean. Understand now?

DavidS - Can you please describe for me what "Obama is inspiring" means? Seriously.

Excellent question, Hank. I don't know, but I have a suspicion:

Most of the Democratic nominees for President since 1980 have been chosen based on perceived "electability". Mondale, Dukakis, Gore, Kerry. Only Bill Clinton broke the mold: He won not because he was considered to be electable (the argument at the time was that he was NOT), but because he inspired people.

That's what does it for me - Obama is inspiring. He reminds me more of Bill Clinton than any other person who has run for the Presidency since 1980. Thats why I think he will win against McCain in the fall.

The animated red state vs blue state map can be found if you Google.

Robert Vanderbei at Princeton University's website.

The link is 'Purple America'

The 2006 Election maps has the animated map showing the results of elections from 1960 to 2006.

Your analysis just goes to show how convaluted and just plain wierd is the democratic electoral process. I can now see how George Bush, jr. gets elected twice and no democrat except Bill Clinton gets elected twice since FDR.

Maybe what we need here is a little investigative reporting. I can't believe the margins were that great in Bob Casey country.

I'm just saying maybe PA needs to check for some missing ballots or machine malfunctions don't ya think? Remember the Bronx in New York where there were 80 precincts that didn't get counted.

You're welcome DavidS.

I was just going to check out yours..lol.

I haven't a clue about what standards they have. Some of my posts have been pulled and even reappeared. I've tried editing others and placing them up again, and rarely they stay.

It seems some are yanked for not staying on topic of the header, others seem to be pulled because they reference or answer another post they yanked, and even that isn't a guarantee.

I'm just as confused as you on some of them that are yanked, while others are allowed to stay.

Greg: If hillary's supporters REALLY would rather vote for Grandpa Munster than Barack, then they're not real Democrats.

But I suspect most of that is bluster. Real democrats will vote for the nominee in November. Count on it. Just like Republicans will vote for McCain regardless of what brainless idiots like Ann Coulter say today.

And finally, stop saying "lastly". You do not have the authority to determine when a conversation ends (with you having the last word, of course).

Cali-girl: Very good link. Thanks for posting it!

I do wonder why the moderator of this blog keeps deleting posts? What are the standards they use?

Why do comments keep disappearing from this blog? I've seen about a dozen disappear in the past few hours. What are the standards that moderators are using here? It seems quite odd.

Anyway, for those Democrats out there who are (for some reason) still bothered by the whole Rev. Wright business, I highly recommend this article by Marty Peretz, the publisher of The New Republic (and a Clinton supporter)

Cool link...

I suspect it will be pulled soon, but here is a map that goes through the red state vs blue state votes from 1960 to present.

They don't have the most current primary info on that particular map, however one is animated as it goes through the elections.

Another observation, Greg: What has happened since Ohio's primary? Let's look at the numbers:

OH PA
60 and older 28 38
White 34 38
White men 39 44
White women 31 34
Less than $50K 42 46
No college 40 38
College 51 49
Catholic 36 31
Protestant 36 53

You seem to argue that because Mrs. Clinton beat Mr. Obama in Ohio, that means Obama would not be able to win Ohio in November against a Republican. But the trends seem to indicate that he is INCREASING his support in the demographics that concern you.

This seems to indicate increasing strength. And if that is happening even while he is locked in a tough battle with a strong opponent, then I see nothing but up-side once he is nominated and is running against the error-prone, highly flawed John McCain.

greg -- i completely agree. enough said.

Greg:

As for your statment that "obama cant win catholics" . . . perhaps you could explain Maryland, then? Maryland is even more Catholic than Pennsylvania is, but Obama won there handily.

No, Social Justice Catholics will vote Democrat in November, whether the nominee is HIllary or Barack.

davids we'll end it here ok... sadly, i voted for dukakis, gore and kerry and was a loser... i don't want to vote for another loser -obama- the rep dirty triks machine will grind him up into soup meat... and they have more than enough ammo... with or without him smoking crak or cocaine.... if hill smoked crak, obamaniacs would be all over the blogs with it....

you can't win in nov... with PA FL MI OH

Greg: Yes, and Alabama voted for a Democratic governor. But that doesn't mean they are likely to vote Democrat for PResident, no matter WHO our nominee is.

Face it: Massachusettes (like Alabama) is not in play in November.

davids -

mass voted for a GOP Gov. so obama could easily lose a reliably dem state... he's 15% points behind hill... he can't win catholics, he can't win the white house... can a dem win in nov without fl?

no way... what state is most like FL ... PA

Greg: I did not say that it is "ok". I simply pointed out that your reliance on that fact is disingenuous.

Mr. Obama used illegal drugs when he was young. As did I. As did many people. As did Bill Clinton (and probably Hillary too, although she has never written or spoken about it). It is a non-issue.

And the fact that you keep bringing it up leads me to believe that you are not really a Democrat supporting HIllary but rather are a Republican in diguise, spreading dirt on our primaries.

davids

are u saying using crack is ok because gwbush did as well???

no crack smoking or cocaine smoking in the white house

Barack will be painted quite easily as less than american - wright, rezco, ayers (terrorists who said they wanted to bomb more), dohrn, farrakhan, HAMAS in the church bulletin, and the list goes on...

That's why Hillary won't quit and why the superdelegates haven't put Barack Over the Top.

A vote for Barack is another vote for four more years of bush.
there are many Americans are voting for hillary out of concern that they don't know the real barack and there may be something sinister lurking...
and all these present votes don’t help

he's never gone through a tough election. he only won his senate seat because the republican incumbent scandalously dropped out of the race... and
In a time of war

john maccain's American credentials blow Barack out of the water when you consider what the republican sleaze machine will do with Obama’s connections to and with:
-James Wright's "god damn America" sermon,
-Antoine' Rezco, jailed political fixer
-domestic terrorists Ayers and Dorhn
these guys blew up 25 bombs in the US
-bitter small town Americans
-HAMAS in the church bulletin No more bush, means no more mccain. And Barack just gave the Republicans Swift boat Machine More ammunition.

Barack may be nominated, sadly DOA or on life support ELECTORALLY (McCain Crushes hime in big swing states). especially with the women leaving.

Barack will be painted quite easily as less than american - wright, rezco, ayers, dohrn, farrakhan, HAMAS in the church bulletin, and the list goes on... That's why Hillary won't quit and why the superdelegates haven't put Barack Over the Top.

Greg: the "smoking crack" reference is from the Larry Sinclair allegations. By the way, has Obama ever been asked about that? You can be sure the republicans are all set with the Sinclair files -- true or false doesn't matter to them.

Greg: Obama did NOT admit "smoking crack" - he admitted to using cocaine (a slight difference there).

George W. Bush also used cocaine as a young man. That didn't seem to stop Republicans from supporting him. But different rules seem to aply to Democrats, huh?

HoosierSue: If we assume that Clinton primary voters will NOT support the Democratic candidate in November if it is not Mrs. Clinton, then you are correct. But I have more faith in my fellow Democrats than that.

Just because one's first choice doesn't win the nomination is no reason to jump to the GOP. It is sad that so many Hillary supporters have indicated just that. Hopefully, it is nothing more than sour grapes. But I am still convined that they will return to the fold come November.

take your Massachusets example: Mass is a HUGELY "blue" state. Do you REALLY think that Massachusettes will go GOP in November rather than vote for Obama? I seriously doubt that. But this seems to be the argument we're hearing from Clinton supporters. I just don't buy it.

if obama can't win the catholic vote - hillary has 65% - he CAN'T win the white house...

Current total votes from abcnews.com

Clinton 1585 15,013,846
Obama 1716 14,900,819

PA PUTS CLINTON BACK ON TOP

clinton takes over nationwide popular vote numbers in Pennsylvania and wins nomination.

FLORIDA and PENNSYLVANIA are identical demographically speaking.

Who is more likely to win FL and all the other big states? That should be the dem nom.

Barack will be painted quite easily as less than american - wright, rezco, ayers, dohrn, farrakhan, HAMAS in the church bulletin, and the list goes on...

the draft dodging darth cheney and bush swiftboated a congressional medal of honor winning john kerry,,,
the rovian dirty tricks bag is limitless and they can't kill hillary --- her ideas wont die.
Hillary got tough questions for 16 months as the front runner, now obama cant handle the heat unless its from the end of his pipe or cigarette.

no smoking in the whitehouse

and yes ... he admitted smoking CRack in his youth.... if hillary did, she would be gone a long time ago.... Hillary fired her campaign manager in NHampshire for talking about it.... though ..the republicans are going to grind him ito soup meat, if he wins ... a vote for barack is a vote for mccain.now u can't win in November WHEN IT COUNTS THE MOST
with out FLORIDA
and PENNSYLVANIA

I just watched an interesting interview of Claire "my daughter called me a slug" McCaskill. Chris Matthews asked why Obama isn't really driving home the bread and butter issues, etc. Just moments after doing the "Obama is authentic.. doesn't just say things to win" routine, she said that right now he's got to be careful what he says so he'll be able to bring the Clinton supporters into his fold. Then, she said, we'll see a sharp pivot as he runs against McCain. Right. Mr. Authenticity.

I think the wild card in Pennsylvania is that Obama outspent Clinton 2 and 3 and 4 to one in different media markets and still couldn't win. In a general election, that's a problem anyway you look at it.

Tina D: I wouldn't be too sure of what you call "the catholic vote".

After all, Rev. Hagee (a vocal McCain supporter, somebody who McCain has said he is "proud" to have endorsing him) has called the Catholic Church "a non-christian cult". Do you suppose Catholics would vote for McCain over Obama?

What we learned in Penn is that Catholic voters prefer Mrs. Clinton to Mr. Obama. But this does not necessarily mean that they will jump to McCain if Clinton isn't the nominee.

Most "social justice" catholics (by which I mean Democratic Catholics) will vote for Mr. Obama in November, in my opinion.

DavidS, I've actually been listening to Rush Limbaugh (didn't think I'd ever say that!) and I think his point to Operation Chaos is to try to get the Democratic party to "crack up" as he puts it. Of course, he doesn't like either Clinton or Obama and has told his "operatives" to hold off early voting awaiting last minute instructions from him. He says this whole thing is too volatile to determine today how a vote could best be used on the actual day of the primary. He just wants to keep this thing going until disharmony is so high among the Dems that neither candidate can win no matter what. The Old Windbag is absolutely full of himself... and kind of entertaining... and kind of sad because his tactics just might work.

His big problem is he can't win the Catholic vote. Even with Casey at his side, he just can't win the Catholic vote.

jacksmith: "Crushing defeat in Pennsylvania"??

Five weeks ago, Mrs. Clinton was ahead by 22%. Since then, we've learned about Rev. Wright and gone through the non-issue of "bitter-gate". And what was the result? Obama lost by 9.5%.

It's still a loss . . . but cutting his deficit by over half over five weeks despite the "scandals" (mostly invented by the right-wing media) shows strength not weakness.

It's all a guessing game, but I suspect that Obama would in fact be the stronger candidate in the fall. that's the one and only reason I have been supporting him.

DavidS, Obama's campaign manager David Axelrod got an inexperienced, unknown, attractive, charismatic candidate elected Governor of Massachusetts by running on a platform of "Hope and Change". He has been a miserable failure as he wasn't prepared for the job. The voters rejected this recycling of that platform by voting against Obama. While it's true that Deval Patrick is also an African American, I really don't think color is why the MA voters rejected Obama.

Stockcraft: So you are saying that Obama is not a patriot? Because the former pastor of his church said mean things about America?

What about the fact that Obama DID distance himself from those comments? Obama has said, many times, that he categorically rejects the words of Rev. Wright. Why isn't that enough for you? What more do you want?

Also, isn't it curious that all the right wingers who are so angry about Rev. Wright's America-bashing had nothing but EXCUSES for Revs. Robertson and Falwell when THEY (like Wright) blamed America for 9/11? it's all politics. How sad that you are fallin into their trap.

IT'S TIME AMERICA:

It’s time for everyone to face the truth. Barack Obama has no real chance of winning the national election in November at this time. His crushing defeat in Pennsylvania makes that fact crystal clear. His best, and only real chance of winning in November is on a ticket with Hillary Clinton as her VP.

Hillary Clinton seemed almost somber at her victory speech. As if part of her was hoping Obama could have defeated her. And proved he had some chance of winning against the republican attack machine, and their unlimited money, and resources. In all honesty. I felt some of that too.

But it is absolutely essential that the democrats take back the Whitehouse in November. America, and the American people are in a very desperate condition now. And the whole World has been doing all that they can to help keep us propped up.

Hillary Clinton say’s that the heat, and decisions in the Whitehouse are much tougher than the ones on the campaign trail. But I think Mr. Obama faces a test of whether he has what it takes to be a commander and chief by facing the difficult facts, and the truth before him. And by doing what is best for the American people by dropping out of the race, and offering his whole hearted assistance to Hillary Clinton to help her take back the Whitehouse for the American people, and the World.

Mr. Obama is a great speaker. And I am confident he can explain to the American people the need, and wisdom of such a personal sacrifice for them. It should be clear to everyone by now that Hillary Clinton is fighting her heart out for the American people. She has known for a long time that Mr. Obama can not win this November. You have to remember that the Clinton’s have won the Whitehouse twice before. They know what it takes.

If Mr. Obama fails his test of commander and chief we can only hope that Hillary Clinton can continue her heroic fight for the American people. And that she prevails. She will need all the continual support and help we can give her. She may fight like a superhuman. But she is only human.

Sincerely

Jacksmith... Working Class :-)

Crisis08: As opposed to Mrs. Clinton, who every time SHE loses she insists that the state that voted against her really doesn't matter anyway.

Davids, they, Clinton and Obama are both better than John McCain but McCain and Hillary both have patriot while Obama doesn’t. Otherwise, He will distinct himself from Wright before the story leaked out. In real world, people often make mistake and the mistake could be changed or it could correct by itself in time but some never will and can.

HoosierSue: You might be right. It's hard to say who will be the stronger candidate against Mr. McCain. Some people (like Rush Limbaugh) are certain that Mrs. Clinton will be easier to beat in November, which is why he has been campaigning hard to convince Republicans to switch party affiliation for the primaries to vote for Clinton over Obama. But he could be wrong.

My concern is that the GOP has been preparing to run against Hillary for the past 4 years. They have loads of opposition research ready to go, and the sad fact is that Mrs. Clinton has huge negatives (mostly undeserved, but there you have it).

I told you so,

Every time he lose he will beg a superdelegate to endorse him.

Kevin, I'm betting you don't have a problem with Superdelegates going against the votes of their constituents ala Kennedy and Kerry.

Since I'm hearing no outcry from Obama supporters over those and similar instances, then I say no SuperD has to look at the vote counts when making their decision as to which candidate to support.

A bit of history: SuperDs were created in order to select the strongest candidate for the general election, regardless of what the voters themselves had to say. Read it and weep.

Clinton is the strongest candidate. The Dems nominate Obama at their peril.

LOM: So you're neither a Democrat nor a Republican, but you support Mrs. Clinton? GREAT! I suppose that means you support her policies.

But HOW CAN THAT BE if you reject Mr. Obama? They have the same policy priorities. And they are both better than John McCain.

So what's up? or are you nothing more than one of Rush Limbaugh's false Democrats voting for the person who you (he) thinks would be easier to beat in November?

Total popular votes per ABC:

Hillary- 15,013,846

bho- 14,900,819

whoa...........

I'm not republican either. I just don't support Obama.

If you play, by counting the states delegates as winner takes all, as in the general election,clinton is 1800+ and bho 1100+.
ugh, oh...

Before Wright story, I think I can have Clinton/Obama ticket. Now, my vote is for John McCain if Obama name is on the ballot either way.

LOM: Yes, we can all see that you are no Democrat. Your posts on this list prove that fact.

Rush Limbaugh has been advocating for Republicans to switch to the Democratic side and vote for Hillary in the primaries because he believes that she would be easier to beat that Barack would be. I suspect you are one of those. If I am wrong, I apologize . . . but that's the way it seems.

If you truly support Mrs. Clinton's policies, then your insistance that it's her or McCain for you simply doesn't make sense. Learn about the issues. Clinton and Obama have very similar positions on all the major issues. McCain is nothing but Bush-Light. HOW COULD THAT BE BETTER FOR THE NATION THAN OBAMA?

I am no democrat and will now whole-heartedly cast my vote for McCain should Obama win the nomination.

Obama, the uniter, has left a lot of people feeling this way.

Barack Obama is simply unelectable!

DavidS -- You don't care what anybody posts. You are here to play the race card which you have done. No one cares what you think anymore.

Statecraft says: "I just care who has the experience and patriotism to lead and rescues the America"

Well, I hope you mean that. The fact is that Hillary and Barack would both do a fine job as President. Either one of them would be many orders of magnitude better than the current disaster-in-chief occupying the White House.

And either one of them would be many times better than Grandpa Munster would.

The problem, as I see it, is that Mrs. Clinton's supporters (well, many of them anyway) are so eager to see her win in spite of the fact that she is behind right now in the bottom of the ninth inning, that they are convincing themselves that Mr. Obama is some kind of anti-Christ. You are blinding yourself. He will make a fine president. As would Hillary.

But only one of them can win, and he is winning, and the game is almost over. Will you ruin the chance for the winner just because that winner is not your first choice? Would you damn our country with another 4 years of republican misrule simply out of pique?

DavidS, DEMOCRAT or NO DEMOCRAT, we don’t care. I just care who has the experience and patriotism to lead and rescues the America.

"boy"?? Haven't black men been called "boy" by white people for long enough? Does that really have to continue?

CAN YOU IMAGINE what your emotions would be if somebody called Mrs. Clinton "a girl"? I suspect you would be ranting and raving about misogyny. And you would be right.

As I pointed out, for some strange reason, the Clinton campaign has been bringing out an uncomfortable amount of hidden racism from "democrats" who support her.

That boy can't stand the heat!

Is Obama in fact "unelectable" as LOM insists? I really don't know. YOU seem to be sure that you know, but I have a bit more humility. I cannot see the future, being (unfortunately) a mere mortal.

There is one thing that I do know: Obama is in the lead in the Democratic primary. That should mean something. Unfortunately, for Clinton supporters such as you, it appears that you cannot accept the fact that your candidate is losing. So you are flinging your hate and vitriol against the man who is beating her. It's sad, really.

The bottom line is that Mrs. Clinton will have to earn aprox two thirds of the remaining superdelegates in order to catch up to Mr. Obama and take the nomination. This seems unlikely to me, and so I conclude that Obama will be the nominee. AND THAT IS THAT.

I, you see, am a Democrat. Which means that I support with my whole heart the person who is the Democratic nominee. Mrs. Clinton is losing and likely will not get the nomination. But your loyalty (normally a good thing) to her is causing you all to cast aspersions on Mr. Obama and hurt his chances in November.

As I said, the Democratic party doesn't need a bunch of sore-loser crybabies. We need to come together to win in November, but if all you Clinton supporters insist that it's YOUR CANDIDATE or you're leaving the party, then you are NO DEMOCRAT.

The fact remains he can't seem to knock her out of the race...and that says more than any numbers, spin, pundit, money etc.

Can we trust anyone to lead and change America if he can’t change himself or his closed relation people to love America and proud to be an American.

Geevil: No, YOU DID. Just a few posts down, you said that "Massachusettes elected their own version of Obama as governor...."

I simply pointed out that the ONLY SIMILARITY between Mr. Obama and Mr. Patrick is the color of their skin.

Don't even TRY to feign innocence, Geevil. We are DEMOCRATS here, not Republican morons. We can read between the lines just fine, thank you very much.

neither, it's telling.

it tells who can easily win the big states and who may have a bit of trouble. HRC being the former, BO the later.

Amen DavidS!!

Geevil: the only way in which Devall Patrick and Barack Obama are "the same" is the color of their skin.

But of course THAT is what you mean, isn't it? For you, all black people are alike, I guess.

It is quite sad how Mrs. Clinton's campaign has been bringing out the hidden racism inside of even the most liberal Democrats. It makes me very sad.

DavidS,

Massachusetts elected their own version of Obama as Governor. You know, the one Obama re-cycled the speeches and slogans from.

Well this Governor Patrick is a miserable failure and the MA primary results reflect Democrats dissatisfaction with the Axelrod candidates of "change".

That is why Obama would be a huge underdog in the only state McGovern won.

Actually, geevil, in exit polling the majority of voters said they thought Obama would BE the nominee.

Just because you're salivating for mcbush, doesn't mean the rest of the country is that gullible!!!

Obama 2008 -- Yes, WE CAN!!!

DavidS -- The pledged delegate difference may be insurmountable, but how does either candidate clinch the nomination? They both need the superdelegates to push them over the threshold.

If the difference in the pledged delegates remains static from now until the end of the primary elections, Clinton will have effectively decreased Obama's margin to about 3%. The popular vote differs by about 1%.

There won't be any pressure by the superdelegates feel they are overturning the will of the people with such small margins. Besides, that hardly matters as folks like Kennedy, Kerry and Richardson have demonstrated that superdelegates can vote as they please.

I agree with the following observation.

Obama is much weaker than Mondale in his background.

Working class still constitutes about 48% of voters, more moderates in Dems than radical liberals.

No matter what, only radical liberals are not enough for a dems GE win.

---------------------------
russel:
I just got back from PA where I helped my gal get out the vote and win an impressive victory last night!! It is obvious that if Hillary is not the nominee Democrats will lose the working class vote and we will have another Mondale on our hands! So if the superdelegates go with Obama and we lose then the moderates will be able to say I told you so and maybe then we can take back this party from the radical left and give it back to mainstream Democrats! Unless we do we will continue to lose the White House to the Republicans!

DavidS - Why was Obama ever down by 22 percentage points in the first place, especially being the front-runner with the most pledged delegates, states won and popular vote?

LOM asks: "Why don't you tell us how Obama clinches this nomination when it he demonstrated once again last night he can't garner the support of white blue-collar voters despite being the front-runner with more pledged delegates, states won and popular vote AND mas