Fascinating, eR. Essentially the vote that is likely to carry over to Clinton from Obama is the progressive vote, not the conservative vote. Again, from these results it is hard to tell is moderate conservatives are actually voting for him. Also, it is debatable if the moderate conservatives are actually going to vote for Obama in the General Election. This is riveting stuff!

eRiposte, Maybe you are going to get to it. The Indie vote will win it for Obama. Will they vote for Clinton?

The recent wins by Obama can be spin up or down and sideways. The data can be analyzed six ways to Sunday but a win is a win is a win. When you are winning like Obama is now, you are a winner. It is unfortunate that Hillary is employing the Rudy G. school of wait and see til Florida tactic. In her case it is wait and see til Texas. I am afraid that if she looses 8 primaries in a row and hopes to win in March; she may have lost the primary by then.

Obama has the big Mo, he is racking up the delegate count and raising funds two-to-one. To quote James Carville "Hillary has to win TX, PA and OH" to maintain her credibility as a viable challenger for the nomination (CNN 2/11). She has successfully dismissed all of the recent wins by Obama which is cool. She may even dismiss the primaries today. But there is something strange about Amerians, we like to support a winner. We don't like losers.

Yeah, eriposte, give it up - you can't fight the Pet Rock. Everyone's just gotta have one. And later, when Obama starts fiddling with Social Security and privatization, people will find the painted rocks on their shelves and wonder "Why the hell did I buy that shit?"

Coyote:
Why are you here. Go vote.

Seven of Six,
Why do you only consider Independents? With McCain in the race, many Democrats are in play for him, and I tend to think that more Republicans will be in play for the Democrat. There's another problem with looking at Independents: the number of self-identified Democrats has gone way up in the last couple of years.
I was just talking with a Republican-leaning independent a couple days ago, and he said no question he would vote for Hillary over McCain---but definitely not vice-versa.

I think the media narrative has been established and I think it will be fatal to the Clinton campaign. The media wants to see Obama vs McCain. Or more accurately, the media doesn't want to see Clinton vs McCain. I think in the hands of the media the momentum shift towards Obama has been great enough that there isn't enough of a difference between Obama and Clinton to sway people back to Clinton. We've heard it here often enough, there's not that much difference between them from a Progressive point of view. One's as good as the other. And, as far as the media interests go, they get an "historic" race either way. Unless there's a major stumble by Obama, which would be bad for Dem prospects in general (making it look like Hillary got the nom on a fluke), I think Obama is gonna be the nominee. I still think Clinton will be a better president but I don't think it's gonna happen. Largely, because I think at this point if Clinton somehow comes up with a brokered nomination the media will use that as a bludgeon to hammer her throughout the general election campaign. I'm actually getting close to hoping that Clinton, if she continues to trail Obama, doesn't force a convention fight. We shall see. I'm prepared to give her through Texas and Ohio.

In any event we are all going to need to get behind whoever the nominee is to regain the White House and increase the Dem majorities in Congress.

My Pet Rock's website says:

Obama is committed to ensuring Social Security is solvent and viable for the American people, now and in the future. Obama will be honest with the American people about the long-term solvency of Social Security and the ways we can address the shortfall. Obama will protect Social Security benefits for current and future beneficiaries alike. And he does not believe it is necessary or fair to hardworking seniors to raise the retirement age. Obama is strongly opposed to privatizing Social Security.

Why do you only consider Independents?

I don't... I count on Hillary supporters as well. (the horror!)

I think in the hands of the media the momentum shift towards Obama has been great enough that there isn't enough of a difference between Obama and Clinton to sway people back to Clinton.

Great comment snark.

I thought with the super delegates that Clinton had this wrapped up, which is still a possibility. But I think that Obama does have some serious 'mo'.

In the end, it still looks like a tie to me.

The one main diference between primaries and caucuses (not the mountains) is that in a primary we have one individual, one vote. In a caucus, there is time to talk, debate, try to convince others to join your in supporting candidate X. Could it be that the Obama supporters are more convincing and are able to attract some of the Clinton supporters?

One of the ironies of all this is that, before the primary/caucus season began, I heard a lot of speculation that Obama would do better in primaries and Clinton would do better in caucuses. Clinton supporters were supposedly older and more likely to have the time to caucus. They had, on average, more political experience and their weighted votes would count for more. And Clinton had more control of the political apparatus in each state. Interestingly, this has phenomenon has been flipped.

The caucus-primary difference is very interesting and I haven't seen a compelling explanation for it yet...."

Having participated in both caucuses and primaries, I think caucuses very much favor candidates with passionate, strongly committed supporters. It's kinda like how pollsters can't measure strength of support very well, just "Candidate A v. Candidate B". Or what professor suggests.

I think it's pretty clear that Obama has generated the passion (and been mostly on the receiving end of mostly favorable media) this time.

SoS,

Actually the other MyDD link I provided in my post talks a little about all of the major demographics that constituted the "swing vote" in 2004 and how things have been trending so far in this primary. Take a look:
http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/2/11/164937/456

I should add....if HRC does not win OH or TX, then I am not sure she has any way to win the nomination. If Obama loses both those states, then he is going to be in a tight spot.

Could it be that the Obama supporters are more convincing and are able to attract some of the Clinton supporters?

No, I think that Obama is simply a far, far more inspiring candidate than Hillary. And if you want to get a bunch of people to come out and spend hours in support of you, it helps to be inspiring.

Hillary Clinton may be more competent than Obama (the jury is out). And she may be more progressive than Obama (the jury is out). But she is not a particularly inspiring person. Yes, for many women, the idea of a woman president is inspiring. But Hillary herself? Not so much. She is pretty boring.

She is pretty boring.

Well, I certainly wouldn't be interested in having a beer with her.

Great link eRiposte! Thanks.
The white catholics surprised me.

Turn out will be huge. It's a comfortable feeling to know that Hillary or Obama will be our next President!

Hammer McOld on the war... it's so closely tied to our failing economny that everything will fall into place.

Space,

Every one is entitled to their views on who is inspiring, but I find Clinton to be far more inspiring than Obama for various reasons. For one thing, Obama would have been totally unable to withstand the kind of scrutiny and negative press that Clinton has gotten over the years. He may very well have had a breakdown if he got even half the scrutiny and attacks that Clinton has gotten in her lifetime. It is easy to be "inspiring" when the media is playing you up every day and making you look larger than life and dumping on your opponent day in and day out.

If you cared about civil rights and health care you would find Hillary Rodham Clinton inspiring.

To say you find Barrack Hussein Obama’s empty rhetoric inspiring says as much about the shallowness of the listener than the speaker.

I saw a stat yesterday about how 60% of Hussein Obama's supporters would not vote democratic if he wasn't on the ticket, and it explained why so many are so baseless...

...they voted republican in 2000 & 2004.

For one thing, Obama would have been totally unable to withstand the kind of scrutiny and negative press that Clinton has gotten over the years.

Hasn't Michelle Obama said that Barack won't run again if he doesn't get the nom this time around? I'd imagine that largely comes from a desire to get out from under the microscope. And coming so early in the process of his first national campaign, indicates you're probably correct eriposte.

I think that more should be made about Hillary's showings in Florida and Michigan in the voting analysis. For example, you see similarities in voting patterns between Florida and California which you will probably see in Texas. I am sure Michigan and Ohio will have similarities. It is truely unfortunate for Hillary that unless she survives March 4 she will get no benefit from her impressive showing in two critical states. Another way of looking at it, is that if Obama wins one of the big states on March 4, he will have effectively dodged what in a normal primary year would have been two significant losses.

Hussein Obama's

An empty xenophobic smear from a person complaining about Obama's "empty rhetoric".

Nice.

In any event we are all going to need to get behind whoever the nominee is to regain the White House and increase the Dem majorities in Congress.

Oh, definitely, I'll vote for whatever dem wins the nom, as I've always said - but if it's Pet Ba-Rock, I'll be voting against the 'puke, not for Obama.

My Pet Rock's website says:

What else is he going to say? Politicians say a lot of things, don't they? We'll see what he actually does.

No, I think that Obama is simply a far, far more inspiring candidate than Hillary.

I'm not one of those that need inspiration, but I understand that the masses need their opiates. The original Pet Rock sold millions. I didn't buy one of those either. But since I want a dem to win, I hope the fad lasts to November.

And before anyone yells "sour grapes," let me just say that I never expected Clinton to win; there's just too much animosity out there, especially in the media, who, ironically enough, has pretty much chosen your candidate for you, despite all the protestations of "I don't want the media choosing my candidate!" Sure, I hoped, and even though Hope is now officially considered a plan, my personal hope was always unfounded considering the sheer volume of loathing the Clintons now "inspire" in the same people who spent 7 years defending them.

No, my disgust comes from the realization that I was stupid enough to believe that the left blogosphere was the "reality-based community," mainly because I hoped it was true. Shoulda known better; humans have always been profoundly disappointing.

But, woohoo! The bright side is that I no long have to worry about getting my facts straight, or feel guilty about deliberately misinterpreting something a talking head says if it furthers my own narrative! It'll make commenting on the issues way easier now, and for that, I'm grateful...

Well, I certainly wouldn't be interested in having a beer with her.

I would be! Still haven't voted yet. I'm taking my son to get braces on, so I guess I'll vote later today. I usually vote in the morning, but I've been busy reading more and listening to the politico/ABC7 interviews from yesterday.

I saw a stat yesterday about how 60% of Hussein Obama's supporters would not vote democratic if he wasn't on the ticket, and it explained why so many are so baseless...

Joe, Could you provide a link to that stat?

How in the world does being "totally unable to withstand scrutiny" have anything to do with the concept of "inspiring"?

Obams's not (currently) inspiring because he would "have had a breakdown" had he gotten half of Hillary's scrutiny?

Makes perfect sense to me. Hillary's more "inspiring" because she's had a (supposedly) harder time of it with "scrutiny"---but the Obamans are the cult. Guess she can say anything and you'll find it "inspiring" under that construct. And certainly that's how most people use and understand the word "inspiring".

Perhaps you'll find Obama more "inspiring" if he wins the nom and starts getting more scrutiny and worse press, ha-ha.

How many Hillary supporters at TLC have decided they now won't vote for Saint Obama (tm) under any circumstances?

SOS,

Give me a minute or two, I will dig up the link.

...and snark, it's funny that YOU find the name Hussein xenophobic, kind of an insight into how you see the world.

...and snark, it's funny that YOU find the name Hussein xenophobic, kind of an insight into how you see the world.

Why did you refer to him that way?

Please, explain it to me.

some interesting things going on in TX. Obama and Clinton due next week for "debate" in Austin. I can't wait to hear the receptions for each. Obama drew 20,000 in the rain last year. Obama just got the El Paso Times endorsement, and and an endorsement from a Hispanic representative. If he cuts into Clinton's hispanic vote, and if the African American communities in Houston and Dallas turn out for him...he could win. But neither group is historically known for robust vote turnout. I think he'll carry the college-age voters. A win in TX may be all it takes to get the nod. Again, look at the total turnout for both Clinton and Obama in TX. The GOP is in disarray in TX and their turnout could be low in the general.

It sounds like the practical conclusion of this post is we can guess who is more electable by juggling numbers, but we don't really know. I think we should learn from our failure to determine who was "electable" in 2004 and just pick the candidate we want.

I thought with the super delegates that Clinton had this wrapped up, which is still a possibility. But I think that Obama does have some serious 'mo'.

Well, it seems that the superdelegates are posing a problem for Billary. Rats leaving a sinking ship comes to mind.

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton and her advisers increasingly believe that, after a series of losses, she has been boxed into a must-win position in the Ohio and Texas primaries on March 4, and she has begun reassuring anxious donors and superdelegates that the nomination is not slipping away from her, aides said on Monday.

Damn anti-Billary media! They should report the facts and not statements from the Billary campaign. You know what I mean, "Hillary, the second coming!" and "Hillary, all is fine in Candy Land!"

The bright side is that I no long have to worry about getting my facts straight, or feel guilty about deliberately misinterpreting something a talking head says if it furthers my own narrative!

Where the hell did I put my itty-bitty violin?

Hillary Clinton is fucking unelectable. Especially against John McCain, where she loses the male vote by 20 points. !!!

The Media loves McCain. He's a "maverick." Even though he isn't.

Hillary by comparison is just not likable. From the cackles to the parsing to the calculative ambition and caucus-thumping excuses, they will not treat her kindly.

The woman will never be president, whether the Democrats nominate her or not. And she doesn't deserve to be. Anyone who pals around with Mark Penn should be barred from the Oval Office.

If the Democrats nominate Hillary, they'll have only themselves to blame when McCain is stuffing the Supreme Court full of Alito mini-me's.

How many Hillary supporters at TLC have decided they now won't vote for Saint Obama (tm) under any circumstances?

This one will vote for the Democratic nominee no matter who it is...Let's reverse it, how many obama supporters at TLC have decided they now won't vote for Hillary Clinton?

I think I read a stat from yesterday's AP poll that said about 3 in 10 of each group made that claim they wouldn't support the other dem candidate if theirs didn't win..But if you looked at the polls results it appears that when each dem candidate is individually pit against McCain it looked like more Obama supporters (he won by a slightly larger percentage over McCain than Hillary did) actually meant it. To me that's a scary sign..no matter what you read into it.

Where the hell did I put my itty-bitty violin?

Oh goodie, you can sing your Hillary Uber Alles song with accompaniment. Yippee!

Shoulda known better; humans have always been profoundly disappointing.

Coyote, What is wrong with supporting an (as PDA say) "enthusiastic, youthful, multiracial movement that has embraced Barack Obama"?

Hillary was the prohibitive favorite last year. It seemed that once the candidates started to drop out Obama picked up their support.

The final reasons for me to favor Obama over Hillary is that I feel she will keep the same powers of the Presidency that bu$h has put into place. I don't think we will see any accountability or transparency, the same amount of secrecy. Nothing new, just the same old "Dino Democratic" policies.

RAM, I've not seen anything that indicates the US is going to elect another Republican in the fall. The current Republican president is perhaps more hated than any in history, and his abysmal approval rating is the lowest in history. Fully 80% of the nation polls that they reject the direction the Bush Admin has taken the country, and a large majority want the Bush War in Iraq stopped. None of those facts indicate that an old man, deeply entrenched in the GOP hierarchy and supporting 100 years more war in Iraq, is the candidate to sweep to victory in the Fall. I don't see the general election as much about Clinton or Obama as I see it a "get those criminal morons out of power" thing.

Coyote, What is wrong with supporting an (as PDA say) "enthusiastic, youthful, multiracial movement that has embraced Barack Obama"?

Nothing at all, SoS. Do what you want, if it makes you feel better. I'm just saying that although I'm not a joiner, I understand that most people need that feeling of belonging to something bigger than themselves. That's why we have religion. I tend to be suspicious of all movements, but that's just me.

(And yes, I'm grumpy today. Three words: blown head gasket. One more: Ford. Nuff said?)

SOS,
What gives you the idea that Obama will have someone different when majority of his advisers are from Clinton Presidency? It has become his campaign theme to say change(as well as bash Clinton presidency) when the coterie he is surrounded are all Washington insiders and now has nothing substance to say other than we will bring change. Hope we will not have the same buyers remorse we had with W.
I am certain now that Clinton is going to loose the nomination but I am not convinced that Obama is great for presidency and I hope he will come up with some substance on his proposals before the GE. If not I really am going independent and may not both McCain and Obama.

Let's reverse it, how many obama supporters at TLC have decided they now won't vote for Hillary Clinton? - emal

Not that there are alot of us here, but I will vote for the Democratic nominee in November regardless, as either is a far better choice than McCain. There may be a few pouting children on the blogs who insist on their way or the highway, but our base will be quite unified in November.

I don't see the general election as much about Clinton or Obama as I see it a "get those criminal morons out of power" thing.

Amen to that. I think the faction of America that wants change, any change, is large enough to win the presidency for either Clinton or Obama.

SOS, I apologize, it was late when I read that last night.

The figure is 33% of BHO goes the other way Vs less than 30% of HRC goes the other way, so about 5% more BHO goes republican.

So I stand corrected, It does NOT explain why so many BHO supporters live in Nixonland

Joe;
You said the following:

"I saw a stat yesterday about how 60% of Hussein Obama's supporters would not vote democratic if he wasn't on the ticket, and it explained why so many are so baseless...
...they voted republican in 2000 & 2004."

That means 60% of Obama's supporters are either Republicans or Republican leaning. I would consider that as a great achievement on part of Obama to attract such big number of people outside Democratic party. I do not believe Hillary can do that.

...snark, I referred to both people by their full names BHO and HRC.

HRC is often referred to by her full name, BHO is not, why is that?

...Barack Hussein Obama, Jr

I do not see why he should be ashamed.

I have a friend at work with a middle name Adolph, and I don’t think of him as a mass murdering fuck head.

"Shoulda known better; humans have always been profoundly disappointing." ...Bingo! Most accurate statement ever posted here.

"Where the hell did I put my itty-bitty violin?"

You mean like the one Midnight the cat used to play faster and faster until Squeaky the mouse who was riding his tiny motorcycle in time to the music finally succumbed to centrifical force?

Sorry, I had a flashback to better times in America; watching the Buster Brown TV show in the "duck 'n cover" 50's.

"I'll be good, I will, I will." (Froggy)

suresh, it was 33%, and it seems they are independents.

What I don't get is that the report suggests each candidate has about 30% independent voters which won't vote for the other democratic candidate if they are gone. Does this mean they have 60% of the independent vote? and if so might a joint ticket keep them?

The independent vote is going to be the decider in the GE, I don't beleive that dem voters would not vote for either candidate.

Pretty unpersuasive stuff, joe. Lame, in fact.

You're not gonna vote for Hussein Jr no matter what, are you? If fact, I think you're a Repub, posing as a Hillary voter.

Interesting.

I know that this blog is Clinton leaning; that's why I come here, for a little balance. But I've got to say, eriposte, that you're kind of reaching in your analysis of the numbers. "in the case of the large primary states, the turnout is running much higher as a percentage of the GE voting population" [vs caucuses]. Isn't that pretty obvious? Caucuses are weird, yes, and not as many people show up for them. I don't think that's anything new. And while I suppose the argument could be made either way, rather than suggesting that "Sen. Clinton tends to do better overall when a much larger percentage of the voting population is voting" it would seem to just suggest to me she has a broad base of support, but she didn't run a very good campaign in the caucus states.

While I realize that the Clinton campaign's meme of the moment is "caucuses are undemocratic, and the Democrats aren't going to win the red states anyway", in Poblano's more recent diary, he points out the importance of Obama's potential to impact down ticket support in potentially close senate races. His conclusion: "Obama has done overwhelmingly better than Clinton in places where we can expect to have a competitive Senate race in 2008." I'll post the link rather than get into it, but I found it an interesting read.

link

CAPolJunkie...I think you underestimate the number of Obama supporters here....just in this thread so far I estimate it to be around 7 ish-Obama supporters to 9ish Clinton supporters. I think there are still some undecideds here and one or two I'm not sure about...Again I may be off but for a site that is constantly bashed as being PRO-hillary and intolerant of other viewpoints...at least I think the comment threads have been more evenly reprensentative of the two candidates...especially compared to other sites.

Joe, Senator Clinton chooses to use her maiden name in addition to her married name. Republicans choose to use Senator Obama's middle name to try to fool people into thinking he is a Muslim. Although Senator Obama himself has pointed out that it is not an insult to be called a Muslim, it is not who he is. He also chooses not to use his middle name for common usage. Do you even know Senator McCain's middle name? If you wish to be taken seriously, you should probably lay off the GOP spin.

Ironic that "Barack" is the name of a biblical character who would not go into battle without a woman at his side.

euzoius

I am an HRC supporter who will ACTIVELY support Obama if he wins the nomination. There is no doubt in my mind. I can't say that many Obama supporters would feel the same if Hillary wins the nomination.

Suresh,

I am not sure if this support will carry over to the General election. That is the main point. It is one thing to carry that support in the primaries and another to carry it in the General Election.

If the goal is to beat the Republican nominee (McCain), then which Democrat has had the best showing in the states that usually trend Republican? States such as - SC, AL, GA, ND, NE, KS, UT? So Hillary has won NY, CA, NJ, MA...In teh general election these states vote for the Democrat no matter who it was. I am not going to argue with anyone regarding who is the best candidate...that is too subjective. The argument of which candicate can get the most votes is a more objective argument. I think that candidate is Obama.

plunk your magic twanger, TIKI. niiiiiice.

Professor, regarding your point that Obama's folks might be more convincing than Hillary's folks at the caucuses.

Something to remember: Primaries are PRIVATE. You don't know who the other people are voting for. There is no possibility of pressure of any kind.

Obama's supporters have a distinct advantage here: They are supremely confident in their man, and this comes across as knowing what they are talking about. Very few people at caucuses would likely be able to look up every Obama claim and see if it is inaccurate and/or hypocritical, so they have to take people's words at it.

I encountered this at a Superbowl party, where a reasonably intelligent friend was telling me all this stuff about Hillary vs Obama, and how Obama wasn't beholden to corporate interests, yadda yadda yadda. I was almost swayed by his energy and confidence. Only when I asked him to send me some sources for his claims did he slow down, and what he DID send me was pathetically empty of substance. Every claim he made was easily debunked within 1-2 minutes of simple googling. When I sent him my findings, he never replied.

There is also the possibility that the Obama supporters, when frustrated with demands of facts/sources, become belligerent. I've seen more than a few thinly veiled threats on boards about being dragged 'kicking and screaming' into the light. How often do the caucuses get turned around by a very vocal minority that can't be placated? How often does 'liberal guilt' come into play, regarding race vs gender issues?

These are fair questions, and nobody seems to have any answers, so I can't say I'm right. You might be correct, in that Obama just has a better inspirational quality, but we won't know for sure.

blogtopus,

I think it is simple group dynamics. Those who are most convinced they are right are usually the most vocal (regardless of whether they are truly right or wrong). The most vocal people are the ones that get heard most often. That leads to those who aren't as convinced being more succeptible to being swayed. Just my simple explanation for the observation...not saying I am right.

blogtopus, every time I hear or read someone extolling the praises of God Obama, I get a picture of the characters in Idiocracy saying "But it's got e-lec-tro-lytes, they're good for you..."

coyote,

So we have "God Obama", "Billary", "John McOld", "Mike Huckleberry"...any other derogatory, ad hominem monikers you think we sould use? Let's get them all out in the open so we can move on from the playground name-calling and have a real debate.

euzoius, adhominem?, why am I not surprised.

your comment personifies the 'name' of the poster directly after yours.

I'm pretty partial to Pet Ba-Rock, (he's got e-lec-tro-lytes!!) myself. I'm going to stick with that one. Like I said, I'm gonna vote for the prophet; but there's nothing in the rule book that says I gotta worship at his feet.

the professor has the key:
Caucuses measure wide support, counting the voters' second choices when their first is unviable.
Plurality voting is a path to Duverger's Law.

You didn't answer the question I notice, Repub Joe.

And is "Repub" adhominem?

You're a Repub---that's the only group that's talkin' about "Hussein Jr".

We get your type all the time here.

I was just praying to my Pet Rock the other day, when my son's ant farm turned to me and said, "Hillary's still a good choice!"

Hearing those little ant voices in unison are really scary!

We are here! We are here!

hey-zous,

"we get your type here all the time"

That tells me you like to label people all the time, probably makes you feel secure?

Barak Hussein Obama is his name, and you find objection to all people using it because SOME people have tried to abuse it, try and break the mold dude, you are sad.

Joe:

As of 2004, the Democratic party was the largest political party, with 42.6 percent of 169 million registered voters claiming affiliation.
So, in round numbers, the breakdown today is:
Democrats: 43%
Independents: 23%
Republicans: 33%

Although the media gives them a lot of importance, the Independents (technicallay called "Declined To State") are a lot smaller than the Democrats or the Republicans.

Repub Schmoe, you're just hanging with your people.

Repub trolls always betray themselves, always.

suresh,

Who are these 60% (30+30) of people who say they will switch to voting republican if their democratic candidate is not on the ballet?

Are you saying the AP poll is lying?

half joke, half serious.

hey-zous,

"Repub trolls always betray themselves, always."

your makin' ma' point!

Joe:

The numbers I gave you are well established numbers from actual data from 2004 election. I cannot figure out the reporting of AP polls so different.

Like I said, I'm gonna vote for the prophet; but there's nothing in the rule book that says I gotta worship at his feet.

Coyote--you're voting for Obama? Why? I don't think I've ever heard you say anything good about him.

Oh, nevermind--I see you were talking about if he were the nominee.

ImJoe,

Slightly off topic, but not really.

We should have a 2 minute silence for democracy.

Alot of argument flying around seems to be based on idealism, when today a bunch dem senators, some of which are obama endorses, voted republican, and Hillary wasn't even present...symbolically pretty sad

Senate Votes to Give Retroactive Immunity for Telecoms

If he's the Dem candidate, CG, I'll vote for him. And I don't have much nice to say about him, except that he's learned well the Rove tactics. Which is what he'll need if he's the nominee.

1. The ability to inspire is ideology-neutral. Many highly "talented" leaders of the 20th C. had morally bankrupt philosophies: e.g. Hitler, Mussolini, Jim Jones.

2. That Obama is able to motivate large swaths of people to support a campaign that is built far too much on vague, positive-sounding rhetoric is a testament to his inspirational talent.

3. That Hillary is unable to produce a similar effect despite being, on paper, more ideologically aligned with many of Obama's supporters is a testament to her shortcomings in the inspiration department. Not finding her inspirational does not mean that you don't care about progressive issues. It just means that you aren't inspired by Hillary.

4. I have no doubt that eriposte genuinely finds Hillary to be inspiring. But I don't. I find nothing inspiring about being a punching bag for the GOP.

5. I find the argument that Obama (or anybody) couldn't withstand the scrutiny that Hillary has to be seriously wanting. Obama has shown no indication that he would have a "breakdown" under similar circumstances. eriposte is engaging in rank speculation here.

6. The flip side of the OFB being annoyingly defensive about Obama in the primaries is that these people will be just as zealous in defending their guy against GOP and media smears later on. Hillary supporters cry into their milk when "their girl" gets attacked. The OFB kicks some ass. It's high time that the media feared a Democratic backlash when they take a cheap shot.

Wasn't NM a caucus? It's a caucus because the party is in charge of the voting, but it was like a primary in that people voted and went home, like regular voting. Other caucuses are like IA though. Hillary has until now a very narrow lead, something like 49 to 48

Think Clinton had general election strategy: lay a foundation in states needed to win electoral college votes (remember Gore) in the General in November.
Obama went after the other states, leads in number of states, about even in delegates, but would be back to square one for the general election.
African American voters, solid part of Clinton's base, abandoned her in '08-big wooshing sound in South Carolina and after.
Solidly Democratic African American voters dominate some Democratic primaries but have not led to victories in the general election in those same states.
Here in Maryland, African American voters voted for white candidate (Ben Cardin for Senate) in '06, over African Americans Mfume, D-in primary, & Steele, R-in general election. '08 is different--polls say Maryland's African Americans will vote for the African American candidate today, not Clinton.
Internet based "progressives," and I am one, supported Democrats of all stripes in '06. In '08 Presidential, they/we have gone for progressive purity, only disdain for Clinton & her moderate DLC credentials.
I vote on policy/substance, sadly lacking in Obama's large gatherings. He has not chosen to inform his supporters of the troubling times ahead but rather to promise everyone something for nothing, leading to rapturous chants.
Today I voted for Clinton.

Hillary supporters cry into their milk when "their girl" gets attacked.

You were doing okay 'til you got to this point. Maybe you've missed the constant stream of Obamabot whiners in here since eriposte has been picking on "their boy." And really, who's been attacking Clinton, right? It's just been 16 years of "misunderstandings," I'm sure. I'm almost hoping Rove's got a video of "Barry" doing something shameful during his party days in college or photos of Michele's secret lover, just because it would be fun to watch your heads asplode.

CG...interesting perspective on your vote. I'm sure you're glad it's over for now.

Iamcoyote

Your attacks on Obama and his supporters are too cute by half, way over the top, smell just like a republican's way of talking, border on racist, and really insult not just Obama but anyone that finds him inspiring.

I'm just sorry you, the left coaster, the DNC, and the current power structure in the Democratic party are not going to get the candidate you were expecting to fill in on the ballot in November but only a little.

news flash for you...

1. your not as smart as you obviously think you are and frankly I find it a bit laughable that you talk like you know what's best for us and the democratic party. You sound like one of those irritating guys that brags about being in Mensa

2. Give us Obama supporters a bit more credit. Most of his supporters like Mrs. Clinton and would be proud to have her as our President. However, we are very concerned about not just squeaking out a win, we want to crush this wing of the republican party and we don't think Clinton is the person to do that.

3. We feel that Democrats have been trying to be Republican lite for too long. Clinton ( no matter how you try to parse it ) voted for the worst foreign policy disaster in our nations history and totally takes that issue off the table in the race against Mccain. Another example of democratic lite is the current FISA cave in by Reed and Palosi.

4. We want to win big to hopefully have a fillabuster proof majority in the Senate and she cannot give us that.

So stop with the snide comments, stop making the republican case against the likely nominee, and get ready to accept that you were wrong to back her as she is not the best candidate to defeat Mccain.

Eric in Austin

Yeah, eriposte, give it up - you can't fight the Pet Rock. Everyone's just gotta have one. And later, when Obama starts fiddling with Social Security and privatization, people will find the painted rocks on their shelves and wonder "Why the hell did I buy that shit?"

Posted by iamcoyote at February 12, 2008 05:39 AM

That is so funny. My mother bought me a petrock. I still have it and the "horrified-WTF?-expression" picture my dad took when I opened the gift. (I don't have a 'poker face.')

Sometimes my mom pretends she didn't give me the pet rock. Like many Republicans who voted for Bush now claim to have been sick that day or actually voted for Gore or Kerry.

Shorter Eric: Waahhhh! You made fun of my god, so you must be DNC or Republican. Now where's my cookie!!

Give us Obama supporters a bit more credit.

Sorry, I tried that a while back, and after 6 weeks of your whining because we refuse to kneel down to your god, I'm done. Like I said, I'll vote against McCain for whoever the Dem candidate will be; after today's capitulation, though, even that's probably more than they deserve.

T2: Good one! Did you actually watch the Buster Brown show in your yute, or did you learn the secret vernacular from doing your thesis on 1950's television?

coyote

we don't need your vote that bad go ahead and support someone else, anyone else.....please?

eric in austin

Speaking of kerry, kerry is speaking on cnn right now.

He's telling wolf that if the number of delegates are in favour of bho, the supers should not vote against that majority.

So then wolf asks him why, when mass voted for hrc that he is giving his super vote against that majority.

Kerry's answer: Because we are a democracy, and we are free to vote for whom we wish.

...Bingo!

So STFU and let the super dels vote for whom they wish.

...tooo funny and sooo transparent.

Disclosure: I'm not voting for Barak Hussein Obama Jr.

And before anyone yells "sour grapes," let me just say that I never expected Clinton to win; there's just too much animosity out there, especially in the media, who, ironically enough, has pretty much chosen your candidate for you, despite all the protestations of "I don't want the media choosing my candidate!" Sure, I hoped, and even though Hope is now officially considered a plan, my personal hope was always unfounded considering the sheer volume of loathing the Clintons now "inspire" in the same people who spent 7 years defending them.

No, my disgust comes from the realization that I was stupid enough to believe that the left blogosphere was the "reality-based community," mainly because I hoped it was true. Shoulda known better; humans have always been profoundly disappointing.

But, woohoo! The bright side is that I no long have to worry about getting my facts straight, or feel guilty about deliberately misinterpreting something a talking head says if it furthers my own narrative! It'll make commenting on the issues way easier now, and for that, I'm grateful...

Posted by iamcoyote at February 12, 2008 07:40 AM

Well, you and I sure think alike on this issue. Though we may have come it by drastically different paths.

I was, until Bush won the nomination in 2000, a Republican. When McCain (the man I supported) got destroyed, it was clear to me that the Neocons and Theocrats had firmly gotten control of my party and there was no way a socially-moderate-to-liberal, fiscally-conservative, isolationist-leaning person such as myself was going to fit in the New Republican Order. So I left.

But I remember the derangement that went around the Clintons. Honestly, it was the same derangement that Carter got, albeit about double what Carter got. I was recently reminded of how distorted the reality was around the Clintons when I recently read a Krugman column about the "Clinton Rules." And while the Obama-philes discount what Krugman is saying, I don't.

I lived it. I watched my family do it. I watched the press do it. I watched the Republicans do it. Everything the Clintons do or say must, and will, be parsed and interpreted in the most negative fashion possible.

So, no, I don't expect Clinton to win. I've never expected Clinton to win. Heck, didn't even support her in the beginning because I knew she had all that baggage and was NEVER going to get a fair shake. Rather, I supported Edwards because he was the only Democratic Party candidate to show competency and a backbone and understand the realities of the situation - you can't compromise with the Borg (Republicans).

They're in it to win. At all costs. And the results will be your assimilation or your freedom. And it looks like the Democratic Candidate will be John P. Quisling.

I used to let my pet rock watch my Betamax while he played with my hula hoop until the day he spun out of control and broke the windshield on my Edsel.

Wow! I just watched Kerry trashing Clinton on CNN. Did he have a nanny in a pant suit that repeatedly spanked him with a large silver spoon when he was a naughty child?

we don't need your vote that bad go ahead and support someone else, anyone else.....please?

Oh, I see, now you're encouraging people not to vote Democratic, eh? How long until Obama starts requiring loyalty oaths, I wonder.

I used to let my pet rock watch my Betamax while he played with my hula hoop until the day he spun out of control and broke the windshield on my Edsel.

Hilarious! Ooops, I mean, bad, BAD Pet Rock!

It's also hilarious that Kerry's a good guy now, after the dKosers trashed him and left him for dead for "stealing" $15 million after giving up on the Ohio recounts. Talk about yer flip-floppers.

Boy you guys are bitter.

I think reality is starting to hit you guys right upside the head.

I will make a prediction for you and you can rub my nose in it after nov. if I am wrong.

Obama will get the nomination, he will win in a landslide and he will go on to be one of the most progressive leaders we have ever had. He will be the leader that HRC wants to be if only she had the strength of her convictions.

Boy you guys are better.

There, fixed it for you. We smug mensa types demand proper spelling, dontcha know!

coyote. that has gotta be a rethug troll because that comment about voting for someone else...please...sounds exactly like something the petulant little cut your nose of in spite of you face FratBoyking would say.

Look at the brightside, you've either exposed him for being a rethug concern troll trying to sow divisiveness (which is what I believe) or you've brilliantly exposed him to be representative of all the things Obama supporters say they hate being called, smug, arrogant, superficial, self righteous cult worshippers. He represents the worst side of the Obama supporters...if that is what he truly is as he claims.

*disclaimer- I am NOT calling all Obama supporters cult members*

I'll have some of whatever eric is smoking...

no need to wait for Nov, you can eat your words after March4th

Hillary's firewall in OH is rock solid.

17 points lead, tied amongst men, and a 29 point lead amongst women.

Disclosure: I am not voting for Barak Hussein Obama Jr. ...in the primary ;-)

I had a nitemare that this whole Obama cult could end up as a huge pile of rotting bodies in a kool aid swamp on a tropical island owned by Tony Rezko.

Oh well, there will be plenty of time to look into that shady Chicago house deal AFTER he gets the nomination.

I'm just sorry you, the left coaster, the DNC, and the current power structure in the Democratic party are not going to get the candidate you were expecting to fill in on the ballot in November but only a little.

news flash for you...

1. your not as smart as you obviously think you are and frankly I find it a bit laughable that you talk like you know what's best for us and the democratic party. You sound like one of those irritating guys that brags about being in Mensa

Spoken with the bitterness of someone whose played that card...

2. Give us Obama supporters a bit more credit. Most of his supporters like Mrs. Clinton and would be proud to have her as our President. However, we are very concerned about not just squeaking out a win, we want to crush this wing of the republican party and we don't think Clinton is the person to do that.

Right. Some of us prefer demonstrated competency. Not a cult of personality with a candidate with no spine. No matter how many times you cry about it, "present" it GUTLESS and says "I'm scared the Republicans will trash me because I voted for Gun Control and Women's Rights." Fuck that. Be hung for a LION, not a Lamb. If you can't take a stand, you're not getting my vote.

3. We feel that Democrats have been trying to be Republican lite for too long. Clinton ( no matter how you try to parse it ) voted for the worst foreign policy disaster in our nations history and totally takes that issue off the table in the race against Mccain. Another example of democratic lite is the current FISA cave in by Reed and Palosi.

Get some experience in real life. The Democrats have never tried to "be anything," never mind "Republican Lite." They've ALWAYS been a coalition party of diverse interests. Including some of the vilest racists and homophobes this country has ever seen.

4. We want to win big to hopefully have a fillabuster proof majority in the Senate and she cannot give us that.

As for filibuster proof, that's got little, if anything, to do with the Presidential race. We've already had about 20 Republicans who have decided to "retire" from the House and Senate. Plus, the Republicans don't have any solid candidates to replace their losses because the country is in the same mood when they flushed the Democrats out of the House in 1994 or when they ran the Republicans out after Hoover. This is an historic event, an inevitability, not part of the Obama movement. For the Democrats, pretty much anyone who runs, in anything but the most partisan districts, this fall will win. Morale is so bad that my Republican-employed nephews who work for Congressmen are looking for private sector jobs. There's just no hope there

So stop with the snide comments, stop making the republican case against the likely nominee, and get ready to accept that you were wrong to back her as she is not the best candidate to defeat Mccain.

Eric in Austin

Posted by ericl at February 12, 2008 01:20 PM

Jesus, Eric, PhD in assholetry? Because that's how you're coming off. You don't know your candidate will win, no matter how much you claim you do. The future is undecided and early "match-up" polls are wrong as often as they are right. Plus, if you Obamaphiles can't take the heat from people nominally on your side, while the gloves are on, how do you think it's going to be when everyone is slobbering McCain's knob and digging the dirt up on Obama? Because you know the second he gets the nomination, his gutless flip-flop on the war, his refusal to stand up for women's rights or support gun control will be on the agenda. Along with his drug use (yes, it IS a big deal to those of us with children - bad message, that) and shady deals while he was in Illinois.

.

emal, the fact that everyone has to add disclaimers when defending Hillary or talking about Obama supporters should show that there's a big problem. Did you see that digby had to close comments for a while because of the rancor and disgusting garbage being posted? Just this weekend, someone dropped the line "Pimp Mama got raped by a black man this weekend," on a thread below. Luckily it was deleted right away, but the earlier posts by that person, under a different name (saying he was an Edwards supporter), were left up. That could be a freeper, or a member of the asshole wing of the Obama party is using the excuse that there's freepers about to indulge their nastier impulses. Either way, it's sickening, and I'm not taking it any more.

Former Senator John Glenn(D-Ohio) has just endorsed Hillary in a common sense point by point discussion with Android Mitchell on MSNBS.

A nice man talking to a snotty "journalist".

TO THE MOON, Andria!

iamcoyote

loved your comment...john glen has come out for Hillary...seems that those Dems who have real courage...and have been tested under fire...identify with Hillary...the wimps...like Tom Daschle...and Kerry...are for Obama...I know I know...pot shots...but I just can't stand Tom Daschle or Kerry...I remember how noble Kerry imagined himself to be as he refused to contest Ohio and examine what had actually taken place there. And Daschle, a real milquetoast..servile to Bush and Republicans as majority leader...why is it these losers are supporting Obama? But I'm not very charitable today or yesterday or tomorrow...given what these progressives have done to Hillary...and debased the entire debate.

By the way, John Glen is a surprisingly good advocate. Check it out. I can't stand Doug Wilder

iamcoyote...I saw that movie on cable...idiocracy...that is the perfect analogy. It should be required viewing. awful movie...so true...depressing..

space...if obama was kicking ass, why did he lose california and new york, mass. new jersey...he is getting hyped...and essentialy free advertising in the media--which is 100% behind Obama...if Hillary had at least 50% of the media behind her, the numbers would look different. And if Florida and Michigan hadn't been penalized with 100% loss of their delegates (also unfair), this would be a different story altogether. This process has been rigged..

T2 the GOP is in disarray in Texas? Are you nuts?
GOP governor, and GOP legislature...and tell me again how many people voted for the Democrat in the recent election for Governor...25%...? Please.

I'll say it again. I will gladly vote for HRC if she is the democratic choice and will be proud to have her as the leader of the free world. I have said it several times on this site. Thats not bitter and is from the heart. I also don't come lately to the democratic party. I was going door to door for Ralph Yarborough when I was 8 years old for god sakes.

I posted on this site because of my anger over the way most of you treat Obama. Just read the first 4 posts in this thread by coyote. They are angry insulting and a bit racist and very dismissive of people that are actually excited by his campaign.

oh and the party has been trying to "be anything" for years now Mosis and they have been getting their asses handed to them. They have been running from the word liberal for a long time and I think its time we stopped.

To criticize Obama as against womens rights and gun control is just laughable and to say it was because he was afraid the republicans would use it against him is kind of ironic given that HRC voted FOR A WAR for exactly that reason. The present votes used in the state house were strategic and I think all of you know that.

Again, the anger in my posts come not from some know it all attitude or at least I hope it doesn't , just a defensive reaction to the way most of you speak of Barak Obama. Just read the comments of coyote moses and Joe about Obama and turn the name to Clinton and tell me it wouldn't piss you off.

One last point and I will be quiet. The drug issue. It is one issue that may be a problem but I think he handled it honestly and in todays society I think that is refreshing and will likely be accepted as youthfull indescretion. Contrast that with the way Bill Clinton delt with it,(a man I voted for twice and feel is on of the best presidents in the last 75 years). He said I smoked but I didn't inhale. That means only one of two things, i.e. he was lying or was a complete idiot. (I suspect he was simply lying) that non denial denial was lame and didn't seem to hurt him much.

So I am sorry that it's very possible your HRC won't get the nomination but I hope all of you Support Obama in the fall. I truly think he will perform much better in the general against Mccain than HRC will for many reasons that have been listed before. The bottom line is our country has been run by truly evil people that have damaged or country and constitution and I just want to bury this wing of the republican party so deep that they will never see daylight again.

Now that didn't sound like an asshole did it?

Eric in Austin

Again with the racism charge, eh? Exact quotes, please, not "borderline feelings."

"Just read the comments of blah, blah, and Joe about Obama and turn the name to Clinton and tell me it wouldn't piss you off"

I think you are mistaken or are intentionally being a jerk.

This kind of sh*t makes me mad.

That means 60% of Obama's supporters are either Republicans or Republican leaning. I would consider that as a great achievement on part of Obama to attract such big number of people outside Democratic party. I do not believe Hillary can do that.

Yeah, the GOP's backing him now because he's doing the one thing they've never been able to do; take down the Clitnons. Just see Kristol's latest column if you don't believe me. Once he's got the nomination, they'll go running back to McCain.

Coyote:

The first post that mentions race I said borders on racism and "your Boy" comes close . I know it was in quotes and referred to another post but its up there and you wrote it. Deal with it.

Sorry it makes you mad Joe but your comments about Obama are distasteful and thats being nice pick any 5 on this thread and reread them if your recall is that bad. I don't think I am the only Obama supporter here that feels that way. I would never refer to Mrs. Clinton that way.

The truth hurts dude. Deal with it. and deal with another three crushing states tonight Eric in Austin

Interesting if somewhat convoluted blog. The one thing that I hear pundits continue to say is that Hillary Clinton's "voters" are more moderate and conservative than Barack Obama's. That's a fact that exit polling from all the contests so far suggest. The idea that a lot of republicans or independents will vote for Obama in November once his record is under the microscope is unrealistic. I'm a moderate democrat and even though I wouldn't vote for McCain, I know a lot of moderate democrats who voted republican previously and who LIKE john mccain. Obama will have a hard time with independents, liberal republicans and moderate/conservative democrats against John McCain bc of McCain's "maverick" status in the republican party. He may move right to get the nomination but i have a feeling mccain will move closer to the center again for the general election. Barack Obama is very liberal, and as everyone knows, the last liberal to win the white house was FDR. Most americans these days are purple and not red or blue. Obama will have to explain his record that so far has been virtually unchallenged.

Yes, and you know what Eric...you may want to try a little more humility when you gloat and rub it in peoples faces after you pretend to apologize or whatever you condidered that.

Reap...what...you...sow. Just remember that. Gracious not only in defeat but in victory too.
Anyway congratulations to Senator Obama tonight.

The first post that mentions race I said borders on racism and "your Boy" comes close.

Bwahahahaha! OMG, that is fucking hilarious! Now we can't even say the word "boy!" You even admit that it's a parallel of the post I was mocking! What a pathetic little whiner you are, Eric! Utterly and hilariously pathetic.

Finally: a post that deals with issues.

Yes kacey, he is a liberal and it could be a big problem. I think if the country was ever ready for a liberal they will be now. The rep. party is broken and demoralized. The republicans just gave us the worst president in this nations history and have absoultely nothing to show for it. 70% of the nation thinks this guy is a total looser and we can hang the Iraq war around Mccains neck like an albatrose.

I would argue that to the right wing it may be hard to paint Obama as that much more liberal than Clinton. Remember, Clinton was their Newt. Its not fair to HRC that they feel so strongly about her but its a fact. I think the right has become so demoralized by this president and their choice to run this time that a lot of them will just sit this one out. 30 to 40% ? No but probably 10 to 15 % is not crazy. Hell, with the last two "liberals " we had running we only needed a few points and votes and we are in.

Also, I know I'm the rah rah Obama guy on this site but this guy has got it. I defy anyone on this blog to go to utube and watch his speech after Ohio and not be inspired. People like this guy and he makes their heart race and the young will be turning out in droves for him. They already have in the primarys.

Yes he will lose a few moderates to Mccain but the potential to pick up ind. voters is big. This year the Dems are turning out in unheard of numbers and they are all going to vote for the Dem. with only a few exceptions.

This could be one of those great shifts that come along once in a generation. I think we need to go for broke here or this country is in big trouble. HRC is the inside the beltway safe choice and I don't mean that in a snarky way. Safe is often good and can work. I just think we need to think bigger this time and take a chance to run the board here. I think the country needs us to do this.

Eric in Austin

Oh, and Eric, whereas I was thinking the opposite of girl, you immediately thought of the derogatory term used against African American males, which makes you the racist. Deal with that, you silly, silly male child.

Coyote you are right :

you did not mean that in a racist way. The historical connotation of boy to a black man we all know but you were referring to another post that said your girl so I was wrong and am sorry.

I always hate it when people throw the charge racist around lightly and I was just guilty of it so sorry. But....

you all still need to lighten up on Obama because I really think he may win this thing. We need to fight together to drive James Dobson's vision of America into the dirt.

Eric in Austin

Eric, if you mean it, I'm willing to bury the hatchet as well, because I, too, think Obama's going to win it. And because we will need to stick together, it's going to have to be as emal says, gracious not only in defeat, but in victory as well. There's a lot of animosity that needs healing, on both sides, and I know I've contributed to it, mainly because I can't just sit and watch as eriposte gets attacked day after day. Just think of it as practice for the GE, when hell's really gonna break loose!

Consider it buried.

I will be at the debate next thursday and will clap for both. I hope this ends soon as well no matter who wins. Eric

Good for you! Have fun!

Sorry it makes you mad Joe but your comments about Obama are distasteful and thats being nice pick any 5 on this thread and reread them if your recall is that bad. I don't think I am the only Obama supporter here that feels that way. I would never refer to Mrs. Clinton that way.

The truth hurts dude. Deal with it. and deal with another three crushing states tonight Eric in Austin

You mis-understand me eric, It made me mad that you seemed rational but still talked crap, meaning you are too stupid or stubborn to have a rational conversation with.

Trying to be as blunt as possible here, I made no comment about BHO, read ALL my posts, not just 5, the only thing you were mad at was/is my using his full name Barak Hussein Obama Jr, and guess what, it's his freakin name dude! if any other note angers you then you are reacting in a juvenile manor. And I'm sure Hillary would not be mad if you called her Hillary Rodham Clinton.

For the record, I do not accept that his name should be taboo, that would be the real xenophobia.

How this country is going to move beyond sexism, racism, anti-semitism is beyond me, you are the reverend al-sharpton.

Three crushing states? puleeez, who talks like that?

This game you perversely enjoy, will give you stomach ulcers on March 4th, when these little pissing matches for 8 delegate swings are finished and the major state primaries begin.

Disclosure: I am not voting for Barak Hussein Obama Jr. in the primaries.

e'rip

i think you have teased out obama's campaign strategy here.

that strategy seems to depend heavily on a fundamental of politics: creating a stampede.

in legislative or presidential politics, a stampede is the best of all possible worlds -

all the cattle are going in the direction you want them to go without any chance they will pause to "reconsider their behavior" - and get run over.

this is how legislation - both good and bad - gets passed 95-5.

i would guess,

creating a stampede was the end game of the Obama Group's strategy from the beginning:

- figure out in what states you had your best opportunity to win (apparently, red, caucusing states mainly, plus some small states with very liberal voters)

- present a compelling public persona of a change-agent not contaminated by current politics (note: this is just another, very clever version of the "outside the beltway" candidate)

- win in those states decisively

and then

try to stampede the rest of the democratic party into accepting the Obama Group's candidate by noting his CURRENT "preeminence" in voter preference

but that's not all of the strategy.

i'd guess that there is yet another important stampede incitor which the Obama Group have not yet deployed but which i expect they will:

that the republicans have "settled" on their candidate and are ready for the general election, while democrats are "quarreling" and "still" have not made up their minds.

is there a stampede factor?

ask yourself this question:

when did hillary clinton win her last important primary?

think about it -

was it two weeks ago? maybe three?.

why, of course,

it was one week ago TOMORROW that clinton won a number of big state primaries.

is there some loss of (journalistic) perspective here?

are the "clinton rules" that paul krugman mentions in full effect?

less than a week ago clinton scored impressive wins in major states.

today she is portrayed in the media as some sort of down-at-the-heels, on her way out, "has been" candidate.

is this Obama Group cool or what?

but, hey, wait a minute,

didn't we go thru this same scenario eight years ago when the media "vetted" george w. bush to the american people?

and how long have we had to wait for bush to learn to be even a tiny bit competent as a president?