Hillary isn't Bill.

It's ok to say Hilllary is more electable based on polls yet it's not
ok to say that Obama is more electable based on polls.

Typical.

Perot was in the race in which dramatically changed the map. You can not use those years as instructive for this years election.

You're a creepy little serial TR abuser. You make a mockery of the privilege. Go ahead and dish it out -- but know you'll get it back in return.

It's only because of the most ridiculous hypocrisy you can still even rec/rate items. You constantly troll rate everything by Obama supporters you even mildly disagree with, Clinton supporters that agree with Obama supporters, etc.

we had extensive coverage of it. for one of the diaries You can't spin this one. The Obama camp stopped the revote by telling the MI dem delegation that they would support it so it wasn't going to fly. Every dem vote was needed because we knew the Repub. weren't going to vote for it. So when Tupac said no, it was dead.

Zeitgeist, you're being a bit incoherent.

What charity did you contribute to after our friendly wager RE: Pennsylvania? Just wondering.

   You're mixed up. The casino workers endorsed Obama. Bill Clinton tried to STOP the plan to let them caucus where they work.

  You're a bit mixed up. She won that caucus, despite the huge disadvantage of that union endorsing Obama.

  She won b/c she actually WENT THERE AND WORKED FOR IT!!! I give credit where it is due, she fought for Nevada and won it.

  Why the hell didn't she do that everywhere?

"This didn't occur anywhere else."

What about MY state?

Held on a Saturday, and, it's not like Obama supporters don't have to work, or the ELITE folks overwhelmed the poor working class? That's a total myth.

Obama won EVERY COUNTY in WA?  

Of all the completly Bullshit (and, yes, it deserve to be spelt out) arguments the Clinton camp floated, it's "we got beat in the caucus cause OUR voters couldn't get there."

The hard truth is, WunderKind Mark Penn told them "don't worry, it's over on Super Tuesday anyway" so by the time they figured THAT out, they were too late to get a caucus game plan going?

Axelrod knew he couldn't compete with some of the big machine states, so he went where he thought he might win.

And, he did.

voters don't much care about the internal machinations of political parties, so it's hard to see how they can be blamed for them...

Well, maybe after this mess they should start paying a little more attention. In Florida, it was their elected officials that did this to the voters.

impressive, eh?  it is really amazing when you think about just how poorly hillary has done -- especially after she spent eight years planning this thing!  a monumental failure that we will mull over for years.

i understand that you don't really pay attention to campaigns, and you are a defeatist (which definitely has a tradition in democratic politics), but your analysis is fatally flawed.  no, barack is not a woman, but he offers a far stronger contrast to mccain than hillary could.  barack gets the "change" mantle, while hillary could never credibly claim it (because she was a clinton, not because she was a woman).  barack opposed the war and can contrast that with mccain's support of it.  mccain's criticism of bush -- far more vocal than hillary's until she noticed that people didn't support her position -- would have made that a muddled position if he ran against hillary.  in the end, hillary's strengths (leadership and experience) paled considerably when compared to mccain's strengths in the same area.  they would have run on the same message, which would have benefited mccain, since hillary energized conservatives and divided progressives.  

while hillary's campaign was truly awful, barack's campaign clearly outclassed mccain's.  and barack has gotten favorable media attention, something that hillary could never have counted on.  only in bizarro world was hillary a stronger general election candidate than barack.  you are free to believe that -- this is america! -- but all you offer is hyperbole in support of it...

   Montague,

  So far, Obama and Clinton have won 17 primaries each. Hillary has won NO MORE primaries than Obama. That will likely change with West VA, which means she's won ONE MORE than Obama...and I'm not counting Guam, which technically Obama won.

  Against all 50 states, Obama tied Hillary in primaries, and beat her like a drum in caucuses. Your argument that she can win more primaries is nonsense. She hasn't even done that yet.

given your atrocious analytical skills?

you clearly have no idea about political campaigns or what has worked.  while you naively -- but sarcastically -- dismiss voter registration "because it won't be enough" you are dismissing a long history of successful democratic campaigns that changed the electorate and won because of it.

and you naively assume that this is the only element of obama's strategy.  given your previous comments, no one can be surprised at such idiocy.  if you think that obama's strategy is due to axelrod and plouffe, you are beyond naive.  they lost the detroit mayor's race -- one that the axelrod candidate had a 20 point lead -- because they didn't do field.  axelrod's campaigns have consistently neglected field, yet you want to credit barack's tremendous field effort to the team "he hired???"

like i said, you had already shown yourself to possess bad analytical skills.  what you miss -- because you choose to miss it -- is that barack has a strong sense of timing matched only by his ability as a strategic thinker.  he learned the lessons from the dean campaign, from the harold washington campaign, from the clinton campaigns, etc, and has sought to apply them here.  axelrod could have learned them, and there is a reason that steve hildebrand was forceably promoted from national field director to deputy campaign manager.  but you just don't get it.

i don't see how you ever will.  we can lead you to the truth, but we can't make you think...

And my post was obviously more cheer leading than detailed analysis, so I think your criticism is misplaced.  Of course Obama has a team working on this (its not all him), and it is going to take a lot work to make it happen (not just cheering)... but it is DEFINITELY not going to happen if we all take your pessimistic attitude.  Obama's team does have a great record so far with strategic planning, and there are a lot of fundamental currents in the electorate that are flowing in our direction... so there are plenty of reasons to be optimistic.

You're right. Obama doesn't write anybody or anyplace off. He's the 50 state candidate.

most of us knew that...

Let's break it down so you understand the point.

1) The DNC did NOT state that candidates could not campaign.

2) The pledge was NOT written by or required by the DNC.

Obama never got the chance to campaign in Michigan and Florida due to the DNC sanctions

Due, as in responsible for, the DNC sanctions which is incorrect. The fact is the sanctions only dealt with delegate reduction. Others took it upon themselves to take further action but that doesn't make it due to the DNC. If you are found guilty of a crime and sentenced to probation. If other people then shun you because you are a convicted criminal, the shunning is the choice of the people not the court that found you guilty. It is not due to the court. It was not the courts decision to shun you.

And that Obama decided to go along with FURTHER actions is his choice. And thus not campaigning was his choice.

What would the DNC have done had Obama not signed the pledge? Nothing. What would the DNC had done if Obama campaigned? Nothing.

The sanctions were leveled at the DELEGATES of Florida and Michigan. If you would like to review the RBC meeting which includes their decision of the punishment, it is on the CSpan site.

There can be no "interpretation" of who is and is not responsible for the pledge.