Well the local news in Las Vegas, NV today reported that the main Democrat running against Jon Porter in CD3, was dropping out due to "family reasons". Robert Daskas was to be the opponent was had a strong chance to beat Porter. This was kinda dis heartening to hear until....

The news added it is very likely Dina Titus, a State Senator, would take his place to run against Porter. Titus came close to winning the Governorship in 06 and beat the now most un-popular Governor in the nation in CD3 on election day.

Democrats hold a 22,500 voter registration advantage over Republicans in the district and in 06 Porter barely won his district against a political new comer by 1%. Titus, who is well recognized throughout the state and again, won CD3 against Gibbons in the Governors race would surely be able to user Porter out and add another Democrat to the House.

There's more...

I honestly have a question for all of the people posting Obama hit diaries that are premised on his lack of electability; what do you suggest we do?

I'm being serious, because if Obama is unelectable than so is Hillary, just because Obama is torn down doesn't mean Hillary is lifted up (in the general), notice that while she has risen relative to Obama in the last week she has fallen even father behind McCain (indeed, even post-Wright she trails McCain by a larger margin).

The argument seems to be that since Obama is undefined this episode smears him, and nothing will stick to Hillary because she's already been defined, let us suppose this is true (I don't belioeve either portion but for the sake of argument): I again ask how does this make Hillary electable, if the impression of her is set in stone then she is never going to win, the majority in the country (according to the latest polling) view her as untrustworthy and as person who neither cares about them nor shares their values. And so I ask how do you think that a person who the majority of Americans view as a sociopahtic liar (its untrue, but as her supporters state she has fought the right for 15 years, what they don't add is that she has by and large lost that fight-- she isn't her Husband she doesn't have his Charisma or likability), especially against a man that the same majority views as a straight talking war hero. Remember, you have all argued that the press is biased against Hillary, and this is probably true, so I ask you if she has a negative image, and its set, and the press is against her by what logic can she beat a man the press loves (more than they love any politician I have ever seen), who has an incredible image and story, and who is viewed as a paragon of the very quality (integrity) that Hillary lacks?

If instead you are arguing that we should choose a third canidate, then by all means go ahead, I and many others will listen to you, indeed you may have a very good point.

There's more...

The purpose of this diary is to facilitate a discusions that's been underpinning of sveral recent entries:
 Are we doomed as a party? Basically, my question is that if this Wirght stuff ruins Obama's crossover appeal, adn if the Ferraro dog whistle ruined Hill among African Americans, have we in the last week committed mass suicide?

Or is this all just blog hype, Obama and Hillary both remaining viablility adn the seeming polarization only an online phenomenon?

There's more...

This was sent out by Team Obama communications dept. This is the best answer to this crappy Clinton memo.

From: Bill Burton
Sent: Wed 3/12/2008 6:36 PM
To: Bill Burton
Subject: FW: The Clinton Memo... as annotated by the Obama communicationsdepartment

To: Interested Parties

From: Clinton Campaign

Date: Wednesday, March 12, 2008

Re: Keystone Test: Obama Losing Ground [Get ready for a good one.]

The path to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue goes through Pennsylvania so if Barack Obama can't win there, how will he win the general election?

[Answer: I suppose by holding obviously Democratic states like California and New York, and beating McCain in swing states like Colorado, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Virginia and Wisconsin where Clinton lost to Obama by mostly crushing margins. But good question.]

After setbacks in Ohio and Texas, Barack Obama needs to demonstrate that he can win the state of Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania is the last state with more than 15 electoral votes on the primary calendar and Barack Obama has lost six of the seven other largest states so far - every state except his home state of Illinois.

[If you define "setback" as netting enough delegates out of our 20-plus-point wins in Mississippi and Wyoming to completely erase any delegate advantage the Clinton campaign earned out of March 4th, then yeah, we feel pretty setback.]

Pennsylvania is of particular importance, along with Ohio, Florida and Michigan, because it is dominated by the swing voters who are critical to a Democratic victory in November. No Democrat has won the presidency without winning Pennsylvania since 1948. And no candidate has won the Democratic nomination without winning Pennsylvania since 1972.

[What the Clinton campaign secretly means: PAY NO ATTENTION TO THE FACT THAT WE'VE LOST 14 OF THE LAST 17 CONTESTS AND SAID THAT MICHIGAN AND FLORIDA WOULDN'T COUNT FOR ANYTHING. Also, we're still trying to wrap our minds around the amazing coincidence that the only "important" states in the nominating process are the ones that Clinton won.]

But the Obama campaign has just announced that it is turning its attention away from Pennsylvania.

[Huh?]

This is not a strategy that can beat John McCain in November.

[I don't think Clinton's strategy of losing in state after state after promising more of the same politics is working all that well either.]

In the last two weeks, Barack Obama has lost ground among men, women, Democrats, independents and Republicans - all of which point to a candidacy past its prime.

["A candidacy past its prime." These guys kill me.]

For example, just a few weeks ago, Barack Obama won 68% of men in Virginia, 67% in Wisconsin and 62% in Maryland. He won 60% of Virginia women and 55% of Maryland women. He won 62% of independents in Maryland, 64% in Wisconsin and 69% in Virginia. Obama won 59% of Democrats in Maryland, 53% in Wisconsin and 62% in Virginia. And among Republicans, Obama won 72% in both Virginia and Wisconsin.

But now Obama's support has dropped among all these groups.

[That's true, if you don't count all the winning we've been up to. As it turns out, it's difficult to maintain 40-point demographic advantages, even over Clinton]

In Mississippi, he won only 25% of Republicans and barely half of independents. In Ohio, he won only 48% of men, 41% of women and 42% of Democrats. In Texas, he won only 49% of independents and 46% of Democrats. And in Rhode Island, Obama won just 33% of women and 37% of Democrats.

[I'm sympathetic to their attempt to parse crushing defeats. And I'm sure Rush Limbaugh's full-throated endorsement of Clinton didn't make any difference. Right]

Why are so many voters turning away from Barack Obama in state after state?

[You mean besides the fact that we're ahead in votes, states won and delegates?]

In the last few weeks, questions have arisen about Obama's readiness to be president. In Virginia, 56% of Democratic primary voters said Obama was most qualified to be commander-in-chief. That number fell to 37% in Ohio, 35% in Rhode Island and 39% in Texas.

[Only the Clinton campaign could cherry pick states like this. But in contrast to their logic, in the most recent contest of Mississippi, voters said that Obama was more qualified to be commander in chief than Clinton by a margin of 55-42.]

So the late deciders - those making up their minds in the last days before the election - have been shifting to Hillary Clinton. Among those who made their decision in the last three days, Obama won 55% in Virginia and 53% in Wisconsin, but only 43% in Mississippi, 40% in Ohio, 39% in Texas and 37% in Rhode Island.

[If only there were enough late deciders for the Clinton campaign to actually be ahead, they would really be on to something.]

If Barack Obama cannot reverse his downward spiral with a big win in Pennsylvania, he cannot possibly be competitive against John McCain in November.

[If they are defining downward spiral as a series of events in which the Clinton campaign has lost more votes, lost more contests and lost more delegates to us - I guess we will have to suffer this horribly painful slide all the way to the nomination and then on to the White House.]

[Thanks for the laughs guys. This was great.]

There's more...

Time magazine's Halperin strongly implies this:

http://thepage.time.com/2008/01/27/teddy -is-ready/

This is very, very big and sustains a bounce.  

Five reasons:

1)  Symbolism:  One can knock the Kennedys as the past.  There's some powerful symbolism there among a great deal of Democratic voters -- particular older ones.

2)  Credibility:  He's still one of the leading D's out there in the Senate.  He's what many thought HRC was going to be in the Senate -- a major power broker in the D party,

3)  A nudge to superdelegates:  This provides momentum and provides a signal to others in Congress:  hop on board.

4)  Media:  This is two days of free media -- and provides an incredibly strong media narrative for one if not two of the nine days remaining,

5)  Massachussets:  It matters.  With Patrick, Kerry and Kennedy, that puts Obama in much stronger shape in MA.  The polls that took place before this endorsement and before SC?  Utterly meaningless.

There's more...