Political Punch

I agree that Clinton has run/ is running a rotten campaign.

BUT.... Hillary has accomplished so much in "real time" and is so sharp when it comes to solutions and resolutions and plain olde ANSWERS....simple ANSWERS to convoluted conundrums.... that she really HAS to be the winner!

Aside from that, we don't need to question her patriotism!

So I'll sign off by saying:

GIVE 'EM HELL, HILLARY!!!!

The current division within the democratic voters is based on identity voting perpetuated by the Obama campaign and the RNC machine feeding the mainstream media. This divide and conquer strategy has been used by Republicans and other unsavory political figures throughout history as a tool of oppression, politics, and war. Clinton is the only candidate who has been focusing on the needs of all Americans without pandering to a specific demographic. She knows how to beat the RNC machine because she has been a victim of those same tools. She has 29 years experience fighting and beating them at their game. Obama is simply falling in step when it appears to work to his advantage. If he gets the nom, they will use it to beat him. Remember, he has never had to go up against them and has no clue they are using him. The shift to identity voting has been engineered by Rove in his open letters to Obama on how to beat Clinton since last year. Bill Clinton is absolutely correct when he says going all the way to the convention is a good thing and will be a great tool to unite the party at that time. Let the system work the way it is designed to work. I am a Clinton supporter for many reasons. I am an Independent because I refuse to follow wing-controlled parties. The eagle cannot fly on one wing. We need a centrist/moderate to represent our diverse nation. The RNC knows its only possible way to win is to encourage division among democratic voters and hope to get some support for McCain out of anger. Last year, I said this would happen and it has been happening as predicted. This year, we need to let it play out in spite of the push by the Republicans and Obama to prevent the system from working. A unity ticket does not have to include Obama as VP. He might serve another cabinet role better. In any case, it is too early to discuss veepstakes for the dems... the people have not voiced their opinion on the nominee yet in 10 contests. Let the system work, let the voters vote, then let the delegates have a battle of the ballots like they are supposed to have. Either candidate has stated they will support the sinning candidate without question. In other words, the party will unite after the balloting is completed and come out stronger than ever against McCain. I believe Clinton is the most qualfied, accomplished, and electable candidate. If the delegate difference narrows to 2%, as few as 80 delegates can swing the nomination. As designed, 76 additional unpledged delegates may get appointed per the rules in this historic race. See you at the convention!

S.Valenti: Why can't you Clinton supporters face the facts??? If the media is slamming Clinton with stories the last few days, perhaps its because she MADE the stories!! No one grabbed the hospital story (which by the way, has NOT been proven to be true at all....the story should have been vetted, no matter which way you look at it and Clinton did not do that. I was at a san antonio rally for her and she presented a similar story with a live little girl in the front row...the staged exploitation was pathetic).
Clinton waged a very bad campaign - no one's fault but her own. To use ANYTHING like Rev Wright, Mi and FL votes is absolute garbage....you don't need to attack Obama for running a good campaign, raising the money and getting the job done. She might still win PA and IN BIG and eventually become the nominee (although highly unlikely due to the math) but that does not erase the fact that Obama has gotten the job done, she has not - its really very simple.

One of the problems here is that Obama promised Richardson the VP slot...I guess Obama may soon get confronted by a number of insiders that he has promised the VP slot .....Kerry, Biden and Dodd are going to get a shock and Edwards and Gore aren't buying Obama's promises to make them VP
...but Richardson became a "true believer" when the price was right

It seems that both candidates' supporters can't get past the enmity generated during this campaign. I'm hoping that at the candidate's and DNC level that the conversation is more adult and pragmatic. Can these candidates and their campaigns work toward the common goal of finally winning back the presidency. If they can't, then I guess we take our chances.

We know, however, that 2004 was the democrats' race to lose - and we did.

I refuse to vote for ANY ticket with a clinton on it, PERIOD.

I would not support a Obama/Clinton ticket. it would be hypocritical. I am an Obama supporter and he would not change Washington if she was on his ticket. it strange how Clinton supporter's want both on the ticket since Obama is winning but if Hillary had been in the lead they would not have even considered it. She and Bill have criticized him while praising McCain how Obama work with her as his VP No way!!! not now not ever
Obama 2008

Maybe Obama can appoint her to a cabinet position. To show some support.

An ambassador gig, would be good to. How does Ambassador to Bosnia sound?

It seems that every story of the last few days right up until this afternoon - 3:14 p.m. to be exact - EVERY STORY - has been slamming Clinton - insinuations (this story) to picking at the most inane, minor details from her recent speeches.

Now, someone's gotten off their behind and actually learned some details of the hospital story that supports what Clinton had been saying.

I've already cancelled my subscription to my daily newspaper because of its heavyhanded, biased coverage of this campaign. I no longer watch most of the big networks. Pretty soon, I'll be relying solely on NPR.

What I can't stand even more than the huge bias however, is the perception that Clinton's supporters are cranky and oversensitive. We're not AND we have the means to express our displeasure in ways that will affect the bottom line of the media outlets that continue to try to sideline and even derail her candidacy.

STOP RELYING ON DAILY 'TALKING POINTS' FROM THE OBAMA CAMPAIGN AND GET BACK TO THE ISSUES OF THIS CAMPAIGN.

"Anyway, guys, i'm out."

You quit first? ... you lose. So much for fun this afternoon.

Kevin, this is a Presidential election, not a varsity playoff. Never quit. Anger and frustration are part of the process. If Hillary Clinton loses the nomination, I can vote for McCain or stay home. If Obama wins the election, I'm right where I am now: waiting for Jed Bartlett. :-)

This is what you have yet to grasp: this isn't about racism. It isn't about gender. It isn't about rich versus poor or educated versus uneducated. The role of the pollster IS to divide us. I reject that. I want Hillary because I want a competent executive in the Oval Office. That is all I am considering: her very evident skills at governing.

But this is the real issue that Dean and Pelosi and the soon to be unemployed in the DNC don't get:

The 28% is not necessarily voting for Hillary Clinton. They are voting against Barack Obama just as the Republicans once voted for Richard Nixon against George Wallace. They see clearly that this is no time to embrace radical left wing extremists. He has yet to speak to the issue of Black Liberation Theology, to explain why he sat his children in front of men preaching that, or why he refused to confront it before it was politically expedient. The test of character is what you do when no one is watching. It is not figured by what you gain but by what you willingly lose to do the right thing.

That won't change. Even if he wins, that won't change.

I like how Kevin has equated reason with anger. I too have looked at both campaign's websites, listened to both of their speeches and looked at both of their records. Just because I'm a Clinton supporter, I cannot simply make the argument that she is a better candidate because I have done those things, which is exactly what Kevin has tried to do here. Because we are supposedly "less" educated, we cannot form our own opinions and are categorized as angry and crazy because of it.

oh yeah sure this was an "independent" idea

If this was truly a plea for a unity ticket the order of Pres/Vice Pres would not have been so clearly articulated

This is the same sham way Bill and Hillary herself tried to give an illusion that "you can have us both"

Once again - the Clinton campaign under estimates that people are really paying attention this year --

Anyway, guys, i'm out. There is just too much anger in here from the Clinton people. This misplaced anger is not helping. Your candidate, based on the incompetence of her campaign alone, deserves to lose.

Len

I understand your position. But look, Hillary lost this race. Obama didn't win it. Try and direct some of your frustration at the woman, not just Obama. Her campaign made every mistake in the book and allowed this rookie to beat her. Look, i like Hillary and will support her in a heartbeat. But let unfortunately for her she lost this election infebruary when she allowed Obama a free ride in the caucuses and aloowed him to win 11 or so straight contests. How could she expect to bounce back from that? She underestimated Obama the same way Gore underestimated Bush. If you are not an incumbent, don't campaign as one. You respect your opponent, you fight in every state, every caucus because they count. Knowing her sizeable advantage in Florida, she should have agreed to punish the state in the first place. That was an idiotic mistake. Now they have gone an made Puetorico a primary instead of the caucus it once was. Good idea. This is what they should have done in the first place in most caucus states. They had the weight to do it earlier, why now when it's basically too late?

Kris

Go to the man's website if you are interesting in knowing about his plans for the country. I am an Obama supporter, but nearly everyday i go to Hillary's website to see what her plans are.

Kevin -

Know you are tired of arguing with me but I am sick of hearing that you have a college education.

Believe it or not there are Clinton supporters that are well educated and financially well off.

Will you please tell me exactly what changes you perceive Obama making if he becomes President? Please don't give me the pie in the sky speech - I want something of substance that you absolutely are certain he will achieve.

Len -

Spot on.

Len

My position on Wright is the same as Obama's. I think those particular comments played on TV were deplorable and Rev. Wright deserves the criticism. I also think the preacher is arrogant for not coming to the nation and apologizing for thosee comments. In fact, in all honesty, his silence has bothered me more than the comments. But only exposing those comments and neglecting the man's good deeeds, makes a caricature of the man, and is fundamentally unfair. But most importantly, I think Obama is not Wright, and judging a man that has done good his entire life, on the few words of another man not even running for office, is idiocy on a level that even the most average of Americans, can understand. I mean, seriously, you write off Obama because of a few words uttered by his Pastor? If we begin to judge Presidential candidates on such flippant basis, where do we stop? Do we judge Clinton based on her husband’s infidelity? Or what about her friends that might have uttered racist comments? If Obama himself had made those comments, the this is an entirely different issue. But what about the excuse made by Obama that he never heard those particular comments? Are we to dismiss those as lies? See, Obama haters are making a very complex argument regarding this Wright issue. Certainly it will affect Obama in the General election, but it will not have nearly the effect people think it will. Most people that will not vote for Obama because of Rev. Wright, would not have voted for him in the first place.

Clinton had a chance as long as she drove home her argument that he is not ready to lead. Even I, a staunch Obama supporter, began to wonder if he really was ready. This Rev. Wright issue was a distraction to the Clinton campaign and allowed Obama to shine. Adversity, as they say, reveals character. Obama, clearly, has articulated this race issue extremely eloquently and erased doubts from the minds of his most important supporters: liberal educate white dudes like me.

Well Kevin, when a man defends racists and his points go up, it could be he has a strong following among other racists.

And your position on Wright is what?

Len

You sound like a reasonable fellow, so let's reason together on Michigan and Florida. When the rules were made by the Democratic National Party, all candidates, including Clinton, agreed to it. Obama and Edwards took their names off the Michigan ballot and didn't campaign in Florida. So you really think that the Democratic party will change the rules in the middle of the game to favor one candidate over the other? Actually, to favor the losing candidate over the wining candidate? Lol. Mark my words, my friend: That will NEVER happen. Not in this country. Rules are rules whether you like them or not. If Clinton had a problem with it, she should have objected at the beginning. Secondly, Clinton and Obama are tied in the polls in Michigan. There is a huge black population in that state and there is no guarantee that she would have won Michigan. I think most Americans see through her BS on Florida/Michigan and know that she's in it to serve her own self-interest. Why do you think she keeps sliding in the national polls?

Kris

I am done arguing with you. You are extremely stubborn, unreasonable, and unable to see reason.

The thing though is, how on earth did Clinton allow Obama, after this Rev. Wright controversy and uproar, to erase what was more than a 20 point lead in Pennsylvania? This is a state that absolutely plays to her strengths. How did this happen? These are questions Clinton supporters need to ask themselves. There is something fundamentally flawed about their candidate. Obama has never ever lost a 20 point lead in a state he should win. Obama has won every state that he should win. In fact, Obama has exceeded expectation in every state he should win. Obama's head was on a platter for Clinton in Pennsylvania, and now the bloody state is a toss-up. Why is that? If Clinton had managed to extend her Pennsylvania lead to say 30 pointsa nd won by that margin, this entire race would have been flipped on its head. But predicatably, she has allowed Obama, at his weakest, to tie her up in the polls. Now, believe me, this race will be decided based on one thing and one thing only: The debate next week. But regardless of what happensm, one thing we know for sure is that the race will be close. What a shocker! I realylt hought she was going to win by 25 atleast. In a way this Rev. wright thing was a blessing. Clinton was smoking Obama on the "ready to be Commander in Chief" argument. Then this Rev. Wright scandal allowed Obama to dominate the news and show his mettle. Suddenly he looked strong in the face of an uoproar that could have easily killed his campaign. Not completely throwing Wright under the bus showed that he is willing to stand and fight, and if needed, take a hit for it. Suddenly, shocking, nobody is asking whether Obama is ready to lead. Obama's campaign has out-campaigned the Clinton campaign. 50 years from now people wil be disecting this race to see how someone that was such an underdog slayed the might Clintons. Clinton supporters need to be mad at Clinton for blowing her significant advantages, and applauding Obama, if for nothing else, for running a superb, near-flawless campaign. A rookie took on the Clinton machine and has them to their knees. I never expected this.

@LOM:

At least when they wage a war on poverty, they win. When Obama tries that, he gets a Tony Soprano loan... Chicago style! Talk about sub-prime! WHERE'S THE BEEF???

@erin:

Michigan and Florida have already been counted. Hillary won. The remainder is to get their count included. Obama is legendary in Illinois for his divide and drop the remainder strategy. They've been rigging elections in Chicago that way since the days of the Lone Wolves.

Erin,

MI and FL are still very good questions. There are many here who say the rules are the rules and that they should get what they deserve (no votes counted). Although those very same rules give them a path to be seated and be heard, but have to be agreed upon by both campaigns (has not happened to date). The Obama folks say that the will of the people should not be overturned by superdelegates and in the same breath want to leave MI and FL out in their calculation of the popular vote. What a conundrum. What will we ever do?

Here is Obama's solution:

“Senator Obama firmly believes that the Michigan delegation should be seated in Denver. A 50/50 split of the delegates is an eminently fair solution, especially since originally Senator Clinton herself said the Michigan primary wouldn't 'count for anything.' It's now up to the Clinton campaign: they can agree to a fair resolution or they can continue trying to score political points and change the rules. It's time to move forward. Senator Clinton should accept an equitable solution that allows Michigan to participate fully in the convention."

I LOVE moon pies.

Since when is it a crime to be rich? Good for the Clintons. They have accomplished the American dream. I don't remember too many people feeling sorry for them when they left the White House $12M in debt.

I think whoever has the most delegates and popular vote will be backed by the super delegates. I still would like to know how Mi and Fl will be counted

After everything you've tossed at Hillary, she stays calm and she stays on message. THAT is Presidential material. Tough as nails and smart.

Oh.. and she's RICH!!! It's a great combination because she doesn't need Rezko to buy a house for her. She has a working husband! Do you think Michelle is making enough money to keep them both in the style to which they want to become accustomed?

Gad, this IS fun. Poke an Obama supporter and they erupt like a shaken RC Cola. Time to get out the Moon Pie for these college edgy-cated kids. Please keep sending him your rent money. We have immigrants lined up to take your jobs and your apartments in September.

;-)

Gee dl, you might want to give the playbook to the DNC then:

"They should use whatever yardstick they want, that's what the rules provide for." - Howard Dean, April 2, 2008

"These superdelegates have the right to vote their conscience and who they think would be the better president, or who can win, but they also then should get involved in the campaigns and make their power known there." - Nancy Pelosi, April 1, 2008

LOM

Once again I print this until you realize why the superdelegates were formed ...and why the committee that formed them was created...

This is from the Library of Congress... - but it can also be found in "Dictionary of Politics" ---

The purpose of the "Hunt Commission" formed in 1980 -which created today's superdelegate system...was and I quote,

"to streamline the delegate selection process to party conventions and to DEMOCRATIZE the party itself, broadening the base of political participation by increasing input into the process of selecting presidential candidates, to strengthen ACCOUNTABILITY of public officials and strengthen the party itself whose base was weakened by the vigorous activities of the the Republican Party."

Speaker Pelosi's situation is entirely correct... the purpose of changes made to the selection process including superdelegates were in the direct goal of "democratizing the party" and holding public officials "Accountable" (and it references "to the members of the party" later in the section)to the party and therefore it's members/voters.

so really...by the book and why they were created if they follow what their directive was... I think this is almost done.

Abig part of their creation was to make sure that soem weirdness didn't go on taking away the responsibility and respect of the party members...like for instance pinching state delegates in the face of their constituents votes...

Supers aren't necessarily there for the constituents of their states but the overall votes of the party... They should be reinfircing whatever the overall party majority votes were...and the ONLY way to look at those votes is through votes both primaries and caucuses.)

"Superdelegates will overturn the delegate lead of a candidate and award victory to a candidate that lost? Just ask yourself that question. If your answer is yes, then you need to see a psychiatrist"

I'm not sure what the answer to this one is. Why don't you ask Kerry, Kennedy and Richardson? Maybe they should see a psychiatrist.

The blessed Obama cannot win on his current credentials alone (ahead in pledged delegates, states and popular vote). I've done the math for you and you still are claiming something else as fact. Nice try. It's easy to deny your "facts" because they aren't true. Tell me, how does Obama win the nomination in your world of math?

If Clinton does win the nomination, are you going to then deny that it wouldn't be a slap in his face since he was ahead in pledged delegates, states and popular vote or are you going to resort to the "inevitable candidate" argument?

Kris -

You cherry picked the one poll that was the most favorable to Senator Clinton (The Observer/WCNC poll - Obama 35% Clinton 26%).

Other recent polls show a different picture:
Rasmussen - Obama 56% Clinton 33%
Public Policy Polling - Obama 54% Clinton 33%
InsiderAdvantage - Obama 49% Clinton 34%

Source:

"For Clinton to catch Obama in the delegate race, she has to win more than 65% of the remaining delegates"

If you are referring to the remaining pledged delegates in primary races, she doesn't need to win 65% of them to win the nomination. You make a false assumption that whomever is up on the pledged delegates should win the nomination. ALL delegates are weighted equally in this primary race and count as 1.

Whomever has 2,024 after ALL of the delegates (pledged and unpledged) have been counted, you will have your nominee. The remaining primaries will have little impact on the outcome--it's up to the superdelegates at this point. You may not like that, but those are the rules.

According to the numbers being reported here at ABC, that "near-insurmountable lead" doesn't indicate a mandate for the beloved Obama:

Candidate | Delegates | Votes
Clinton | 1,496 | 13,755,568
Obama | 1,631 | 13,858,246
Delta | 135 | 102,678
% Difference | 4.32% | 0.37%

If you factor in the total number of delegates (4,049), his lead would be reduced to 3.33%. When ALL of the delegates have been counted, it is very plausible that she can overtake his "near-insurmountable lead" and clinch the nomination.

Vi

Give us a credible update on the L.S issue and please, cite your sources. You know we Obama supporters actually have college degrees. We are not idiots.

LOM, let me define a near-insurmountable lead for you. For Clinton to catch Obama in the delegate race, she has to win more than 65% of the remaining delegates. If that is not near-insurmountable, then i don't know what is. Of course you are right about Superdelegates. But do you think in this country, Superdelegates will overturn the delegate lead of a candidate and award victory to a candidate that lost? Just ask yourself that question. If your answer is yes, then you need to see a psychiatrist. Look, Clinton can still win. But she needs Obama's campaign to collapse for her to win. The Democratic party will not alienate Obama's supporters (wo make up 50% of the Democratic electorate) from the party by denying the candidate that earned victory. But if Obama collapses, then she wins. Anything can happen. Baring that, she has already lost. And i think she knows it. Clinton lost this arce when she sat back and allowed Obama to win 17 straight contests including nearly all the caucuses. All you Clinton supporetrs angry at Obama need to direct your anger at the real culprit here: Hillary Clinton. It's not Obama's fault that she ran an absolitely incompetent campaign. She was the front-runner, but blew it. Absolutely blew it.

Cindy, it's not the inexperience issue although that is an issue. It's the L.S issue.

"near-insurmountable lead"

A near-insurmountable lead in what? Obama is ahead in pledged delegates, states and popular vote. However, his path to clinch the nomination is the same as Clinton's.

The superdelegates are going to decide how this plays out and their role is to determine who has the best chance of winning against McCain. There are pros and cons for both candidates. So stop spinning this as an implausibility for Clinton because it clearly isn't the case, despite the "near-insurmountable lead" Obama has.

Kris

I never said Obama won California. The fact is he won the votes on February 5th in California (that is, the votes cast on that day). But HRC won early voting big. What happened in California was the exact opposite of what happened in Texas. In Texas Obama won early voting big, but HRC won the voting that took place on voting day. The only difference is that Obama didn't win early voting in Texas by the astronomical margins that Clinton won early voting in California. This is a fact. If you cannot comprehend this logic, then you have emntal problems. Check it if you like. Unlike you, i deal in facts, not foolery. Look, i like Clinton. Not as much as i like Obama, but i will support whomever wins. But the argument by Clinton suporters tends to underesstimate Obama's broad-support amongst blacks and whites, and ignores that fact that he has a near-insurmountable lead.

The democratic voters may have been assuaged on the Jeremiah Wright issue but the Republican Attack Machine is just getting warmed up. Don't think that the issue is going away should he win the nomination. The swift-boating that Kerry got is going to look like child's play.

Kevin and Cindy -

Last, but with Obama certainly not least - Larry Sinclair ring a bell?

BBC is reporting it. Just a matter of time before it gets real coverage from the MSM here.

By the way - never make assumptions. I am not a Clinton supporter. And don't accuse me of being a McCain supporter either - you would be wrong again.

Hillary lied about her daughter being in near the TWIN TOWERS to get the sympathetic vote.

Hillary lied about being against NAFTA to get the "I'm with the little guy" vote.

Hillary cried fake tears in NH to get the women vote.

Hillary lied and said she would never lobby for delegates that were already won by Obama...this weekend she did that in ND.

Hillary lied that she's against the Colombian Trade deal...Penn raises doubts about her stance on that issue.

Hillary lied that she is against the BIG OIL COMPANIES....tax returns show she's profitted heavily from her releationship with oil Companies.

Hillary lied saying she cares about unemployment, but makes hundreds of thousands from her affiliation with TATA CONSULATIONS...an outsourcing company. And proudly proclaims she can run for the senate of Punjab and win.

HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON LIES!

GS

Obama's advantage in NC goes beyond just blacks, you idiot. NC has a high percentage of white liberals that are college educated and also a lot of young people. It has many colleges. Even if NC didn't have a huge black population, Hillary will still lose. She is trailing Obama in NC amongst every single demographics except old white women.

Kevin -

You Obama supporters just can't ever lose can you? Talk about talking out your ass - it's just crazy to say Obama won California.

As for no NC polls showing Obama with a 9 point lead try Real Clear Politics for a change (that includes you too Cindy). Rasmussen is never right.

Buy hang your hats on what you want folks. We'll talk after Penn, Indiana, Kentucky, West Virignia and yes North Carolina.

Kris

if you like, i can cite more polls for you in NC, not currently listed on Real Clear Politics' website. Every poll in America conducted in April 2008, has Obama with an average lead of more than 15 points in NC. When you factor in the fact that 80% of new Democratic voters registering to vote this year in NC are under the age of 30 or black, then you see what fate awaits HRC in NC. Look, if she doesn't win Pennsylvania by at least 10 points, this race is DONE. Why do you think she suddenly accepted the debate in NC? If i was Obama, i'll turn down that debate.

brownie...your just jealous becuase we have a person who wants REAL change not just rhetoric....as Kevin said, we have a college education, we're not stupid...

Kevin - WCNC/Charlotte Observer.

My suggestion to you all is go to Real Clear Politics if you want a cross section of polling.

westcoastmessanger....GIVE IT UP...Wright is old news.....let it go

Kris...don't know where you got your info, but mine just came from Rasmussen, NY TImes and Gallup this morning

Kris-

Whatever you want to believe.

But the news surrounding Hillary can't be helping. She's too untrustworthy!

She cares only power and money and that is no one to trust to be president.

Kris

Could you please tell us what NC poll you are refering to? What kind of person cites a poll and doesn't reveal the source? We are not fools here. Remember we Obama supporters all have college degrees?

"Hillary just wants to be president, so that she can make millions when she's done..."

Yep, that's all she wants.

Just like she only wanted to be Senator of New York so she can get to the presidency...NEVER CARING ABOUT THE PEOPLE, JUST HERSELF

Pennsylvania Votes -

None of those polls have ever been close to accurate.

Remember CNN's poll before CA? They had Obama with an 11 point lead.

HELLO people stop looking at those polls. The most reliable polling is done by Pew and SurveyUSA.

ONVOTE...unfortunately most whites don't understand a thing about the black experience in America. There are so many variables in the black community, and in order to be able to understand everyone's concerns, as Obama trys to do, you have to at least converse with people. That does not mean you agree with everything they say or do.

Kris-

Not so fast...you sould like Hillary, fubbing the truth.

Cindy -

New North Carolina poll. Obama's lead down to 9%.

Michael, you really think Hillary will win Oregon? That's very funny. She has no chance of winning Oregon. Neither will she win Indiana. And looking at the polls, she would be very lucky to pull out Pennsylvania. Look, this thing will most likely end May 6th if she loses both NC and Indiana. Obama has a superb ground game in Indiana. Remember what happened in Wisconsin? Indiana boarders Chicago. Obama has an army down in Indiana. I was there last week. I've never seen anything like the organization he's got down there. His machine will get-out-the-vote. Clinton needs atleast a 15-point cushion in the polls to pull out that state. When the polls tightened in Wisconsin, i told folks that Obama will still win by more than 10 points. Watch and see what will happen.

ONEVOTE
I think you need to see a psychiatrist. Just my opinion.

Kris-

MSNBC, FOX, CNN and CBS are all reporting the polls are tied and others show Obama closing the gap.

VI...I get where you're coming from but when jgaw says Obama is inexperienced....what does that mean....is anyone REALLY ready.....do you think Hillary is ready after her "sniper hit" or Mccain keeping us in a war for 100 more years. Look at Bush and the mess he made...
You are right. the news media LOVES this stuff....and they will run with anything that make people watch...true or not

spock...wasn't it geraline F who started the race card??? MMMmmmmm, I think she knew Hillary didn't she...How about the crying gig? Was that using her gender? They have to play the cards they are dealt by the other team....

Just an FYI...lastest Polls

Pennsylvania: Clinton 47%, Obana 42%..
North Carolina: Obama 56%, Clinton 33%.

Neither Obama nor hilary can be trusted!

they come from the Dem/Lib party who are dividing this country, using the race, gender and social cards!!

Vi....what's the secret? That is will win?

Hey PennsylvaniaVotes -

That poll you are talking about is ARG. It's an outlier poll. It is about as reliable as if I tried to poll voters.

There is a new North Carolina poll you might be interested in. Hillary has closed the gap to 9%.

Briana...you are so right. I expected more of Hillary because she is smart...I think Bill was the "fly in the soup"

Why isn't the news media correcting supporters when they use the "popular vote" defense for Clinton?

Most people would agree that the "popular vote" is Clinton's last leg to stand on.

So if it were proven mathematically that the "popular vote" is relatively irrelevant and absolutely does not fairly represent the will of the voters... then would you agree that she does not have a leg to stand on?

Well its been proven... its sad that it took a regular commenter like us to do the math for them.

Vi-

You're comment is empty! We all know a secret about you!

brianna
why do you say it should have been a slam dunk?
do you say that because you feel hillary should be president.

IT'S ALL TIED UP IN PENNSYLVANIA!

PENNSYLVANIA WILL BE THE ONES TO STAND UP AGAINST THE STATUS QUO!

PENNSYLVANIA WILL STAND AGAINST THE LOBBYISTS!

Blake, I hope people who think Obama is unqualified will vote for Nader. I have never voted republican and I will not start in Nov. Some of us know a secret about Obama.

HoosierSue:

I am with you on this one. I will not sign the petition, if it exists, for the same reason you expressed.

Hillary Clinton has not run a good campaign. I agree. However, GW ran two great campaigns against two democratic heavyweights, Gore and Kerry. And what kind of a president did we get? Running a good campaign and "governing" the country are two different animals. Also, consider Obama has had a great deal of help along the way. Kennedy and Kerry did not merely endorse, they delivered their well-oiled machines, along with their lists of donors. I know this first hand since after their endorsements I was directly hit up by both to contribute and to work.

Note, no one ever spontaneously contacted me on behalf of Clinton. I was an Edwards supporter until he withdrew/suspended his candidacy. Kerry and Kennedy have helped Obama enormously.

Michael...Hillary is in BIG financial problems. She owes every and his uncle money...her campaign has been running on the BIG supporters who legally cannot donate anymore money to her. She is almost 1.0 million in debt for fundraisers. I know, because she owes CT, where I live, money for a fundraiser in Feb....Her machine is in need of repair.

I'm so tired of Hillary Clinton and her botched campaign. It should have been a slam dunk, but because of assumptions, mismanagement, infighting, exaggerations, "misspeaks," "lapses," kitchen sink tactics that no one wants or cares about, she blew it. I don't want anyone who runs their campaign so poorly because it doesn't bode well for how they would run the country. And, the thing of it is, she is a smart woman and should have known better. Obama '08!

Obama cannot win,
the obama/sinclair things just went out in the daily mail-if the usa media will not report about this-the british will.
the dem left dean, kerry,and co.
with the media's help are hijacking the democratic party-and giving this election to obama-he has a messy closet and he is unexperienced.
the sad thing is not so much the election is being unfairly taken away from hillary-as is the sad state of our american media.
I was told-do not trust the american media-if you want the real news
go to the bbc
I guess it is true

Pennsylvania is tied in the polls!

Pennsylvania is figuring it out...Hillary can't be trusted. She's a professional liar that will say anything, do anything to for power!

YOU GO PENNSYLVANIA!!!!!!

It will never be a Hillary/Obama ticket. If she's lucky she might be considered for VP, but I doubt it... sorry Hillary, just your last desperate attempt, you're grasping at straws!

OBAMA HAS TOLD TOO MANY LIES!

Way back when (last month) EVERYONE was watching the South Carolina debate to find out if Senator Obama was “real change” from the politics as usual!

Obama On Tony Rezko: "I only worked for five hours for a client as a junior lawyer." and later, "he never asked me for anything." Is he lying or naïve? Rezko donated $250,000 to Obama!

and more …

If my Pastor said, “America is responsible for 9/11” and "God Damn America", wouldn’t most Americans stand up and walk out.... How can a US Senator Take that... Obama said, "I was never there", and then later, "I was there".

If Obama wins the nomination --- the Republicans are going to dismantle him!

I hear the swiftboats’ bells a-ringing!