Clinton maintains her lead among women. Obama has lost his lead among men. The only "trend" I see favors Hillary.

"If you feel so strongly about media bias in general or Broder in particular post a diary about it."

Actually, that's not necessary, because most people around here (and in left-liberal circles in general) know enough not to use a senile, hack, Clinton-hater like Broder to buttress one's views. Thanks for reminding me of my options, though.

"The point he [Broder] was making was that Obama is likely to survive the 5th and the contest gets easier for him from that point on, until Texas and Ohio. I agree with those premises."

Actually, the material you quoted also included a gratuitous dig at President Clinton. But yes, I understand that you "agree" with the premises espoused by the estimable Mr. Broder. I assume you would not have bothered to quote him if you did not.

The point that you just don't seem to be able to grasp is that Broder (because of his bias and dotage) is simply not a credible authority on matters pertaining to the Clintons. That being the case, your opinion is functionallly equivalent to just that, simply your opinion. While you are certainly entitled to it, Broder's concurrence with it adds no authority whatsoever. Again, unless you can specifically address this issue, it seems to me you have nothing further to say.

"If you feel so strongly about media bias in general or Broder in particular post a diary about it."

Actually, that's not necessary, because most people around here (and in left-liberal circles in general) know enough not to use a senile, hack, Clinton-hater like Broder to buttress one's views. Thanks for reminding me of my options, though.

"The point he [Broder] was making was that Obama is likely to survive the 5th and the contest gets easier for him from that point on, until Texas and Ohio. I agree with those premises."

Actually, the material you quoted also included a gratuitous dig at President Clinton. But yes, I understand that you "agree" with the premises espoused by the estimable Mr. Broder. I assume you would not have bothered to quote him if you did not.

The point that you just don't seem to be able to grasp is that Broder (because of his bias and dotage) is simply not a credible authority on matters pertaining to the Clintons. That being the case, your opinion is functionallly equivalent to just that, simply your opinion. While you are certainly entitled to it, Broder's concurrence with it adds no authority whatsoever. Again, unless you can specifically address this issue, it seems to me you have nothing further to say.

"If you feel so strongly about media bias in general or Broder in particular post a diary about it."

Actually, that's not necessary, because most people around here (and in left-liberal circles in general) know enough not to use a senile, hack, Clinton-hater like Broder to buttress one's views. Thanks for reminding me of my options, though.

"The point he [Broder] was making was that Obama is likely to survive the 5th and the contest gets easier for him from that point on, until Texas and Ohio. I agree with those premises."

Actually, the material you quoted also included a gratuitous dig at President Clinton. But yes, I understand that you "agree" with the premises espoused by the estimable Mr. Broder. I assume you would not have bothered to quote him if you did not.

The point that you just don't seem to be able to grasp is that Broder (because of his bias and dotage) is simply not a credible authority on matters pertaining to the Clintons. That being the case, your opinion is functionallly equivalent to just that, simply your opinion. While you are certainly entitled to it, Broder's concurrence with it adds no authority whatsoever. Again, unless you can specifically address this issue, it seems to me you have nothing further to say.