She's ready to go "toe-to-toe" with McCain? Who would all those blue collar workers rather have go toe-to-toe with Medvedev/Putin, Ahmadinejad, Musharraf, and Chavez?

On the contrary, it is energizing democrats and bringing new members to the party.

There is no evidence whatsoever that this contest is hurting dems, in fact its two on one against McCain.

I think if he can't focus his attacks on one ofthem but they can both go after him, it's better for the democrats.

All McCain has to do is wait until after the brokered convention and then use all those negative ads the Dem nominee used on the loser. They're doing his work for him.

Maybe I am standing alone here but...He doesn't have to spend his time attacking them or deciding who to attack. Hillary, Wolfson and Penn have seen to that. Unfortunately Obama puts the people, the party and the country in front of his own legacy.
I can't believe people don't see that he is who he says he is. With all the things he could go after with Hillary and her character he says he doesn't want to do that. If it were me, I would have taken her down on every last issue and I think the RNC is like me.

Steve - McCain is a moderate who leans right which seems ok in itself even if I dont agree. But he has shown in this campaign that he is willing to let the party control him and force him to pretend to be conservative. He is also more old school and set in his ways with nothing but military and congressional experience. He has no experience with real America as a result and admits to being weak on the economy. All things considered, cowering down to the party and trying to pretend he is something he is not just to get elected is what knocks him out of the running because if the party controls him now... they will control him in office like they did Bush Sr which lead to the situation we are in today with his son being worse.

lynn and others - i dont think you are understanding the small state versus large state argument. The popular vote count of all those who have voted goes to Hillary. The states with the most electoral college impact goes to Hillary 2-1. Winning lots of small states of which most will vote Rep in Nov is irrelevant to electability. The DNC and the SDs have always said they have to consider the end goal and that is to ensure the candidate chosen (when the popular vote is close) is the one that has the greatest electability.

Take a moment and take a look at where each candidates delegates have come from. Hillary has been the clear favorite in states with primaries, with the vast majority of Obama's delegate lead being obtained through the caucus process, which greatly magnifies the influence of core supporters.

Unless a change has been made that I'm not aware of, there won't be a caucus to determine the next president of the US in November. Those Dems who are stating that the Superdelegates need to reflect the will of their party need to very careful in interpreting what exactly it is.

As I lifelong Republican, I must admit to enjoying watching the Democrats take an election year that should be a slam dunk for them, due to the demoralized status of the Republican party, and turn it into a close contest through the horrible performance of Congress and the idiotic rules the party has set up to nominate their candidate. Thanks!!!

dl - Obama's campaign premise is his judgement. If he cant hold up under fire with simple facts about him being made public and actively participating in lies perpetrated by his own camp and not firing them immediately proves he is not ready to be a President. His judgement is proven to be flawed on several fronts: Rezko, NAFTA/CTV, and the subcomittee. That is why he is losing momentum.

Bill Clinton is a great speech maker, shrewd politician, connects with the voters, extremely intelligent, had 12 years of experience as a Governor, 14 years running against the RNC, experience with the attorney general's office, and was a young outsider in his first term. Obama cant hold a candle to him no matter how hard he tries to run a similar campaign.

He professes to be the candidate of change yet as time goes by we see he is just another politician. He criticized Dynasties as bad for the country (the Clinton's are not a dynasty but the Bush's are). Yet when he wasnt competitive early in the campaign he reached out to get himself adopted by the largest dynasty in our history - the Kennedys (and only half of them bought that ticket).

His popularity in the Senate is with the liberal Dems like Kennedy and Kerry clans. To think that he can accomplish anything after this campaign against the system is foolish. He is a junior senator easily controlled by his advisors by his own admission - this is Ted Kennedy's chance to control the WH.

Change for the sake of change is not always a good thing... in most cases it is bad. Smart change is incremental and based on a vision combined with experience and proven track record of bipartisanship without sacrificing the needs of the base. With Clinton, she has been vetted, she knows how to beat the Reps, she is not a blank slate. Clinton represents that smart change.

CONGRATULATIONS SENATOR HILLARY CLINTON. YOU ARE OUR FUTURE PRESIDENT!

Let me point to a few very important things here:

1) Senator Obama really has no message apart from the word CHANGE. The JUDGEMENT ARGUMENT has now proven to be weak. His judgement is flawed (remember REZKO AND THE MANSION - IF YOU CANNOT AFFORD A MANSION, BUY WHAT YOU CAN AFFORD. OR ELSE, WAIT, SAVE, AND THEN BUY LATER. SIMPLE JUDGEMENT BASIC 101 WISDOM.

2) The Canadian-NAFTAGATE has also proven that Senator Obama's slogan to change things in Washington, DC - well, He is just another politician telling people to hear what they want to hear, and then he tells foreign countries something else. This is not how to restore America's honor around the world.

3) Senator Obama is not in charge of his own campaign. How can his own Sr. Economic Advisor meet with a foreign country without his knowledge? WHO IS IN CHARGE OF HIS CAMPAIGN? IS HE JUST A FRONT FOR SOME OTHER POWERFUL FIGURES IN THE SHADDOW? This could turn out to be another BUSH-CHENNEY thing!

4) When Senator Clinton stressed experience and policy, Senator Obama talked about how much money they have raised. They outspent Sen. Clinton by 4-1, and yet they lost. That tells me something.

5) Sen. Obama said he will not serve "Special Interests" in Washington, DC. Well, now we are discovering that whe "HIS PERSONAL INTERESTS" are at stakes, he is willing to bend the rules. THIS IS NOT CHANGE. IT IS POLITICS AS USUAL.

6) Last night, we all saw that Sen. Obama is not capable of FIGHTING. He panicked. His supporters did not applause when he congratulated Sen. Clinton or Sen. McCain. It speaks volumes: THE AIR IS OUT OF THE BUBBLE.

Hello Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, VOTE FOR HILLARY CLINTON!

FLORIDA AND MICHIGAN MUST BE SEATED!

Hillary Clinton squeaky clean???? You are kidding right?
She is as dirty as politicans come and that is quite filthy. However, Senator Obama chose to try and run a campaign that was positive and issue driven. His personal mea culpa. I think that if she wants the kitchen sink approach he should accomodate her in that. He has been very kind and considering what the press has on Mrs. Clinton, the charges of being overly tough on her just don't stick.
As to some on these boards (and if you frequent here you know who they are) they are paid and volunteer members of the Clinton campaign. That is ok. Everybody needs a job and a hobby I guess, but don't try to insult our intelligence by pretending you are just plain John or Jane Q. American.

And, if you think that repeating the line often enough that all the dems and indies will come together in the fall in support of Hillary as a nominee versus McCain will come true, well you can dream on. The "party" might well be over for many. Nothing and I repeat nothing will unite the Republicans like Hillary Clinton.

And to answer that McCain supports the war and the surge and is unelectable because of it, dream on. As proven by the success of these attack ads, racist e-mails and "code" speak used by the Clintons and their campaign, the electorate is just not that bright as proven by yesterday's Ohio, Texas, and Rhode Island totals.

No, the republicans aren't totally thrilled with McCain but they will unite (have united) and they will drag out their nice big fat notebook of "stuff" on Hillary and the Clintons and it will be ugly and bloody. But it will work.

For the sake of discussion, let's identify which candidates appeal to which voters:

McCain - (moderate right maverick pretending to be conservative) old guard republicans, maybe some of the conservative base (many are disgruntled), and a good portion of the military voters - puts the party first, wont be more than a 1 termer due to age/health (this is his last hurrah)

Clinton - (moderate left with no pretense) core democrats, moderate democrats, disgruntled moderate republicans, disgruntled moderate indies - puts beating the Rep first in the interest of the party, young/healthy enough to go two terms

Obama - (left wing liberal with some pretense) new young voters, liberal lattes (rich left wing), disgruntled liberal independents, anti-Clinton disgruntled republicans - puts his own political ambitions first (even hinted at this several times saying he is an ambitious politician with an ego), young/healthy enough to survive two terms but could also run again in 8 years and survive two terms after gaining experience and vetting

It is pretty clear that a unity ticket could beat McCain just on deographics alone. The electoral picture shows Clinton 2-1 on electoral votes compared to Obama based on the voting so far. So even if you dont vote the issues or qualifications, all things considered... if you want the Dems to win the WH, vote smart and vote Clinton to ensure for a clear nomination. She will do the right thing and offer Obama the veep slot if he vets clear of the Rezko deal.

Chip - here is some glass cleaner for those rose colored glasses... you cant be seriously believing Obama is above the fray and has not gone negative LOL... the RNC started the negative attack machine last June so last year's attacks are not hers... this year, Clinton's negative campaigning has always been in response to his negative attacks... she is just better at it than he is... he cant take the heat so far!... if that is true, he is not ready to be Prez... the primaries are not just about the will of the voters... it is also a way to prepare candidate to run in the GE... things are looking bad for him based on his own inability to handle things.. on with the race!

I think there's a problem with the argument that winning "democratic" states in primaries is more important to electability in a general election. It really breaks down to the make-up of the electorate. It would seem that winning independents in those hotly contested states would be the best barometer rather than being the choice of party faithfuls and clearly, Obama has been dominant among this group. The majority of non-democratic support for Hillary is malicious in intent and would not likely translate to general election support.

Winning Independents is certainly a factor for all the camps - after all we represent 44% of the electorate. However, where the Indies are located within the electorate is just as relevant because of the electoral college makeup. Even considering that, the latest estimate gave Clinton 263 electors whereas my more conservative analysis gives Clinton 252 electors because I try to consider the Indies and the cross over Reps trying to "fix" the primaries.

The RNC knew going in that their only chance is to divide the dem voters (which include most of the Independents) and hope for disgruntled dem voters and indies to vote for McCain in anger come Nov.

The DNC knew going in that they needed to present a variety of candidates to the voters and let the process play itself out with a goal of unity to the broadest base. Their key factor is unity but the core is the stronghold. There are enough in the core and the disgruntled indies and reps who support Clinton to beat the Reps in the battleground states. The primary last night proved she can lose part of the core and still win. Every expert is saying this is "re-start" time.

If there is no unity at all behind Clinton, statistically, the new voters who are disgruntled will likely not vote. The Indies will likely split the vote since they have no allegiance. Could it be enough to tip it for McCain? - possibly but not likely. Clinton is too smart for that now. If she gets the nom, she and her surrogates and the SDs will ensure the running mate and the convention will bring the party voters together with enough unity that they can win.

Remember Steve, 80% of the dem voters are satisfied with either Clinton or Obama. What you see here as divisive is hogwash and fabricated by the Obama and RNC camps.

Here is the ongoing analysis I am keeping track of: For states that have held primaries/caucuses for both parties so far -

Red States in 2004 with higher Dem turnouts account for 78 electors. 52 Clinton, 26 Obama
Blue States in 2004 with higher Dem turnouts account for 142 electors. 102 Clinton, 40 Obama
Blue Battleground States in 2004 with Higher Dem turnouts account for 74 electors. 36 Clinton, 38 Obama
Red Battleground States in 2004 with Higher Dem turnouts account for 102 electors. 62 Clinton, 40 Obama

Electoral totals so far: 252 Clinton, 144 Obama

As you can see, I did not include Rep strongholds. I did include Dem strongholds to give fair consideration to Clinton and Obama both. In 2004 the clear Red states accounted for 150 electors and the clear Blue states accounted for 140 electors. This time, 3 of the Red states I predict will be battleground states. The primary voter turnouts are proving to be bad news for the RNC because those states may swing even if they didnt meet swing criteria. Bottom line? McCain will have a hard time no matter who he is up against unless the RNC succeeds in splitting the Dem votes. That is his only chance.

I/m not sure I get the logic of counting electors based on primary results as if that had relevance to a general election result. Is that what you're doing or am I missing something...

I will try to explain... for the GE, it is all secret ballot (like primaries) and the electoral college determines the winner not the popular vote. In the dem primaries, delegates are apportioned based on popular vote. In the dem caucuses, delegates are apportioned also but as we are seeing they do not represent the popular vote.

The SDs are in the mix to offset that discrepancy. Their goal is to use their best judgement as to what is good for the party and vote for the candidate who is most electable (providing party unity). A strong consideration is therefore based on which candidate can win states with enough electoral impact to get the 270 electors in Nov to win.

So to compare, we look back at 2004 and states that had greater than 5% difference in the vote between Rep and Dem nominees in the GE, are strongholds. States with less than 5% difference are swing (battleground) states. The only way to compare is to look at voter turnout comparisons between the parties and percentage each dem candidate took. Rep primary wins in blue states with high dem turnout are irrelevant. Dem primary wins in reed states with high rep turnout are irrelevant. Only the states in the breakdown I gave are relevant wins for Obama and Clinton.

The battleground states in most cases are the big states with diverse populations and lots of electors. Clinton proved she can win enough to win. She has 252 of the 270 needed and there are 10 states left in the primaries. Obama only has 144 and there are not enough electors left for him to compete on that point. Does that help?

But I don't *want* Democrats and Republicans fighting each other for the next four years. I want them to sit down and solve the issues this country is facing.

If Clinton is the Democratic Nominee, I will vote against the party and go towards McCain. This probably will be his only term, and therefore would not be beholden to anyone in either party. I'm going to go with the choice that has the best chance of getting things done. Clinton will not do this. Even now she speaks of "fighting the republican machine". Our problems are far beyond party ideology right now.

I'm not a disgruntled liberal independent DCVoter, I'm *terrified*. We're in deep doodoo. No amount of party backwash from either side will sway me.

Luckily Obama has painted himself into a corner by saying he didn't want to get into dirty politics. Basically he has run on that notion from the beginning. For him to go negative against Clinton makes him a liar. If he goes negative then all he has been spouting has been words. There is no change there.

He get a little negative press now he's whining like a baby.

Hillary has been erratic since Iowa. Her message was erratic, her ground game was non-existant. They had no long term plan or vision beyond Super Tuesday when the "inevitable" was suppose to happen.

How many tears, loans and negativity will she need to put out to stay in this race?

Now it looks like Michigan and Florida are coming into play, because the high-up in the DP dont want to make the tough decision toward or the other.

Someone get me some Airbourne.
I think I'm going to be sick.

It is obvious the Democratic primary process is not over. Senator Clinton has done well in the large states. Senator Obama has only been in the lead for ~ a month. He has only been vetted by something now approaching an unbiased press for a week. This rush to candidacy, without sufficient, unbiased vetting, could cost the Dem’s the election come November. I have heard admissions over and over again from the press this past week about the biased (against Senator Clinton) reporting that has been ongoing. The polls have been turning around (again), and one of the latest polls I heard indicated she was more likely to beat McCain than Obama. Perhaps THE DEMOCRATIC FRONTREUNNERS COULD AVOID DAMAGING THE PARTY BY DOING MORE CAMPAIGNING AGAINST McCAIN. Who does a better job at that would be voteworthy. Moreover, the press needs to get done to the job of unbiased investigation and reporting. [PS ABC has been the least offensive in the bias regard IMO, and one of the quickest to respond to the lack of balance.]