You don't get it. Obama IS the establishment candidate.

"I'm sure the mistake was made by some low-level staffer"

That sounds sooo Bush administration.  Blame the little guy for everything.  A few bad apples and all that.

EXCUSE ME.

"free" market and 'self-reliance' ARE right wing talking points and have been for many many years.

Try reading Schlesinger's Collapse of the Old Order and The Coming of a New Deal.

Kick out 95%?  I don't think so. Not in the Democratic party I belong to. My Democratic Party still supports the New Deal.

Take a good look at Obama's economic advisors.  David Cutler, Austen Goolsbee and Jeffrey Liebman; all 'free' market right-of-center economists.

Free market means free for all, winner take all, no limits, great if you're rich and self-reliance only works if you were born on third base.

The rest of us aren't 'self-reliant,' it takes a community.

We've had bases in South Korea, Germany and Japan following conflicts that are over. And because of the Cold war. Over because of a win and in one case a draw.

Iraq is not over.  I understand what McCain was talking about but the only way this conflict is over is for us to leave just as we had to leave Vietnam.  Don't see any of our bases there do ya.

"... why is he so intent on changing right-wing foreign policy conventional wisdom yet so content to buy into right-wing frames on domestic policy, from taxes to Social Security to healthcare and now government, in what he considers to be a winning strategy; why is it OK with progressives that he does this on domestic issues ... "

A major puzzle. But a few thoughts.

The media and too many left-of-center bloggers peddled the notion that Edwards', Clinton's and Obama's domestic policy/agenda were nearly identical.  That was always nonsense from the start. There were and are very wide differences.  See especially the response to the mortgage crisis from Edwards, Clinton and Obama.  Incredible gap and telling.  See also Edwards', Clinton's and Obama's take on heading off/reversing a possible serious recession.  The gulf is enormous and even more telling.  The list goes on and what appears to some media types as small differences in other areas are, on examination, huge.  Put aside the mandate/no mandate debate in healthcare and notice that Edwards had a government health insurer to compete with private insurers.  In time, no constest, we'd have single-payer.  Clinton also had a government insurer in her plan.  Obama had none and in fact one of his economic advisors, David Cutler, promotes keeping health care industry profits at a very high level. It gets worse when Obama's other economic advisors Austen Goolsbee and Jeffrey Liebman (who promotes Social Security privatization) round out the three man right-of-center free market economics team.  In much of the critical economic policy areas this group is as right-wing as Bush & Co.  In short, the media and many left-of-center bloggers sold the 'very little difference' meme and it stuck. For this reason I think that his supporters manage to ignore much of this even when they hear it in his speeches.

All too many of Obama's supporters project. I've seen this even among intelligent people who should know better.  I know a couple of lawyers, involved in Democratic politics, who stare back in disbelief when you lay out Obama's real positions. I think the rhetoric and the books have caused them to project their own policy beliefs on a man who has completely opposite intentions.  When you point it all out they get angry.  It's as bad as pointing out inconvenient facts to Bush supporters.  They get furious.  People really hate to have their myths shattered.

There is also the fresh face phenomenon, that may count for more today than at any time in the past. He's the new face with a very very thin record and people don't stop to think about what he's really saying.

The foreign policy gimmick is, I believe, just that. Remember that through much of 2007 he wasn't all that eager to pull troops out of Iraq with all dispatch. When he sensed that people honed in on Clinton's vote, he emphasized that and went straightaway to a policy of more rapid withdrawal. Actually Clinton has adopted a rapid withdrawal plan as well and in this one area they may actually be very close.

Going one step further I believe that many of his supporters see Iraq as the ONLY issue in the campaign.  Especially those well-to-do independents, many of the very young and the previously uninvolved who've flocked to his banner. These people don't even bother to listen to domestic matters.

Amazing that as it's gotten down to these two, Hillary Clinton is the liberal. How's that for irony? The other irony is that the truly transformative candidate was always John Edwards. An Edwards win would have meant a federal government turned completely around, a new governing consensus established.

It should be remembered that Hillary Clinton has an big popular vote lead among Democrats.  Even after tonight she still leads in this category by well over 600,000 votes.

After this one is over, party leaders are going to have to sit down and really think through the whole primary process.  This may be one area where both parties can agree.

"Clinton would have to be a fool of a politician to drop out when she still had half of of Democrats lined up behind her"

Actually Clinton has a significant lead among Democrats, far more than half.  

Coupled with her resounding victories in closed primary states is her wider victory margins in those open primary states she's won when only Democratic voters are considered.

For example, her 3 point win in New Hampshire becomes a 12 point win among Democrats only.

I strongly believe that only Democrats should be allowed to pick Democratic Party candidates.

On two occasions in the past, my state's Democratic primary has been gamed by independents and Republican crossovers.

Our primary system is in serious need of reform and among those reforms should be closing every primary.

"I have to say it sure looks like she's closer to having won a comparable area of the country to that which Obama gas won than she actually is. Not that area correlates to population or delegates bu psychologically, it's a powerful image seeing Clinton's and Obama's maps next to each other and with FL and MI colored in, you really have the sense that they're even; but if MI & FL weren't included, you would get a far different effect."

I really have to say that this is a bit tiring.

This sounds so much like the red-blue maps, those showing red and blue nationwide by county, that made it appear that Bush had beaten Gore 98-2.

Several of those monstrosities were emailed to me by gloating Republican Schmucks. My response was that tumble weed and prairie dogs don't count.

So I have to say that lamenting the fact that Michigan and Florida are colored in on Clinton's map and making the comparison in terms of geography reminds me all too much of those Bush vs Gore maps. That square miles somehow count more than people and Obama won more square miles so it's really really awful to include those states that don't count on Clinton's side because it minimizes Obama's square mile victory.

Given everything I've read in this series of posts, I would wager that if Obama had won Michigan and Florida that there would be an ongoing continuous howl of protest that Michigan and Florida were unfairly excluded and every conceivable rationale would be employed to "prove" that those votes should be counted.

I believe that arguments would include the unfair disenfranchisement of people who cared enough to get out and vote, that the DNC was foolish to zero out the delegates of the 4th and 8th largest states in the union, etc.

But of course Hillary Clinton won those states and they should therefore be stricken from the map, their inclusion degrades Obama's square mile triumph.

But, the fact is that Clinton did win those states, with 55% and 50% of vote and 2.2 million people did bother to go out and vote.  If 2.2 million people got out and voted even though they knew that their votes would yield no delegates; I believe it indicates that they felt strongly about expressing their choice and deserve to be recognized, at the very least, on some network's map.

It's my understanding that she personally opposed NAFTA.

Remember Franklin and Eleanor didn't always agree.

Hooking Hillary Clinton with all of Bill Clinton's decisions doesn't cut it and also fails to account for the fact that we have some old problems and very many new problems. She's already recognized that some of the decisions of the recent past need to be revisited.

It's a recognition that a position can and should be changed in the light of new information.

I've heard some people say that Clinton would take us back to the 90s. I would like to know how those people make that determination. Much has happened in the invening years and many of the CW assumptions of the period, embraced in some manner by both parties, have been weakened or discarded based on evidence.

There is a real world problem with Obama's statement about Social Security.

I have a slight disagreement about why he said it.  I believe he said it to attract yet more of the confused and poorly informed to his campaign.  Many young people bought into the notion that there is a dire Social Security problem, that there would be no Social Security for them.  It's a notion that's been pounded into them constantly. Even after the 'debate' of 2005 I still hear many younger people say that Social Security is broke, they'll never see it, etc.

I was very angry when Obama made his remarks.  I regarded it as his selfish attempt to garner more support for himself at the possible risk of Social Security itself.

Bringing Social Security up again in that manner only gives conservatives another opening to make yet another assault on Social Securtity.  This matter had been laid to rest after conservatives made their biggest run in 2005.  The atttempt to privatize Social Security was the beginning of Bush's tumble in the polls and conservatives were reluctant to make another assault.

And now a candidate for the Democratic Party's nominee for the Presidency is giving them an opening.

It should be kept in mind that conservatives have wanted to eliminate Social Security since its inception. It is strictly ideological.  They don't care about its efficacy, about its triumphant role in drastically reducing poverty among the aged.

I regard that flip statement as a terribly selfish act that had the potential to put millions of people at risk.

One of the most impressive things that Clinton said (a few weeks ago, not in any debate) was that she would ditch the contractors and replace them with civil servants.  Thats HUGE.  That's really 'getting it'

I'm an Edwards supporter but I have to say her statement about contractors told me that she has a deep understanding of what makes good government.

Bush has done great damage to the departments and agencies of the executive branch.  These are agencies that effect people's day to day lives.

Her declaration tells me that she's acutely aware of the damage and means to fix it.

No one has ever bothered to mention that her experience reaches beyond 7 years in the Senate and her time hanging around the White House and the state house.  She was also an attorney on the joint committee that investigated Watergate during the Nixon years.  She's seen government from a lower level as well as the higher level.

She has an understanding of the importance of policy and a passion that is totally lacking in Obama. He was reluctant at the start to commit to any sort of policy agenda and even now at this stage is uncomfortable discussing policy matters.

No offense to Obama and his followers but there really is no comparison between the two.  Clinton is in a completely different league.

I just don't think that Obama's ready for prime time. He needs more time, more study, more experience.  He's young (he has a 15 year shelf life of presidential opportunity) and would benefit from at least one full term in the Senate and perhaps should consider running for Governor of Illinois at the earliest opportunity.

I'm an Edwards supporter. Our primary is past, but if it were ahead I would NOT be pulling the lever for Obama.

There was a poll on this subject.

40% for Clinton

25% for Obama

35% undecided

In any primary my vote always goes to the most liberal of the VIABLE candidates.

Of the two remaining, Clinton comes closest to satisfying that criteria.

In the House, 28 incumbent Republicans are retiring compared to only 5 Democrats.

In the Senate, Republicans have to defend 22 of the 34 seats in this election.

Look at the numbers.  Not gonna happen.  We'll retain control of Congress.

I wouldn't allow Maureen Dowd to kiss my ass.

I don't believe that Edwards should endorse anyone. That would be a mistake.

This Edwards supporter and old Democrat believes that after the nominee is selected Edwards should address the convention and call for unity in the larger task ahead, to take the first step to righting the ship of state by putting the Democratic candidate in the White House.

That's what John Edwards should do.