It's Either President Clinton or It's President McCain

The Obama campaign loves to talk about the math of this race -- the math as it stands now, prior to 10 more states voting and the selective disenfranchisement of Michigan and Florida. There is a math however which all Democrats need to consider. It's the Electoral College reality.

If we are honest about this primary election and agree that Hillary won Michigan and Florida, the race is now a draw.

As Obama supporter and owner of Daily Kos, Markos Moulitsas Zúniga, wrote regarding Michigan and Florida:

"Clinton was the only top-tier candidate to refuse the ultimate Iowa and New Hampshire pander by removing her name from the Michigan ballot. That makes her essentially the de facto winner since Edwards and Obama, caving to the cry babies in Iowa and New Hampshire, took their name off Michigan's ballot. Sure, the DNC has stripped Michigan of its delegates, but that won't last through the convention. The last thing Democrats can afford is to alienate swing states like Michigan and Florida by refusing to seat their delegates. So while Obama and Edwards kneecap their chances of winning, Clinton is single-mindedly focused on the goal."

Given that reality, the question the superdelegates need to ask themselves is, Who can win the general election? I'll make this as simple as possible: Obama cannot win.

Regardless of how well Obama did in some deep-red state Democratic caucuses, the truth is that the Wright fiasco, McCain's appeal to independents and Hispanics, the fact that nearly 1 in 3 Hillary voters may defect to McCain, and the
well-oiled Republican attack machine will leave Obama, at best, where John Kerry was in August 2004, that is fighting desperately to reach 270.

Here's the best case scenario for Obama: He wins all the states John Kerry won
except New Hampshire. It's McCain 290, Obama 248.

Here's a list of states Hillary would likely win: Missouri, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Ohio, Arkansas, Florida, Iowa, and Pennsylvania. It's Hillary
315, McCain 223. With Obama on the ticket, McCain is likely to carry most of these states. Kerry won Pennsylvania by less than 2% in 2004 and only 12 out of 67 counties. Giving Obama Iowa, it's McCain 300, Obama 238.

The worst case scenario for all Democrats, but perhaps the most likely is a McCain landslide. This would be facilitated by the DNC's selective disenfranchisement of Michigan and Florida, and the likelihood of McCain selecting Mitt Romney as his vice presidential running mate. Romney is originally from Michigan and has shown an ability to connect with
the economically vulnerable voters in that state. Add Michigan and New Hampshire, it's McCain 320, Obama 218.

My hunch is that the Democratic leaders like Pelosi, Dean, and others are aware of this reality. That's why they want to shut the process down now and begin the formidable task of taking on McCain sooner rather than later. Their first task, of course, is to consolidate the base; no easy job considering many Hillary supporters think an Obama nomination illegitimate by denying her Michigan and Florida. It's also why DNC Chairman Howard Dean is saying that the most democratic process is hurting Democratic chances in the Fall.

The simple fact is that Hillary is our nominee or McCain is our next president.

[editor's note, by JFK464] On methodology. Don't make assumptions based on current polling. The contours of the electoral college are likely to be the same as 2000 and 2004, particularly after a series of devastating attack ads run by the Republicans. Obama supporters have not grasped the damage Revered Wright has inflicted on their candidate, not to mention Obama's "typical white person" comment.

Tags: 2008, electoral college, Hillary Clinton, mccain, obama (all tags)

Comments

349 Comments

I think that's the growing consensus

among serious-minded Democrats.  Thanks for a thoughtful diary.

by Beltway Dem 2008-03-28 09:12AM | 0 recs
serious democrats

so 13 million who voted for Obama are what?

by kindthoughts 2008-03-28 09:13AM | 0 recs
Obama will survive this..

and I am sure that as he gets older, he'll also get wiser. I think he will be President someday soon.

Maybe 2016

by architek 2008-03-28 09:24AM | 0 recs
right...

he is like 46 you know, not 20.

And what you think there is a line to be president?

by kindthoughts 2008-03-28 09:27AM | 0 recs
Re: right...

Of course... and Hillary got in line 35 years ago. Obama is just trying to cut in line by starting in Kindergarten instead of College, like she did.

by dantes 2008-03-28 09:33AM | 0 recs
but but

she cut inline before Dodd ;)

by kindthoughts 2008-03-28 09:36AM | 0 recs
Whoever wrote this diary is delusional
If we are "honest" about MI and FL?  If we are "honest," MI and FL do not exist.  Their legislatures cheated, and they pay the price.
Your assumption that this means their voters will go over to McCain is ludicrous.  It is March. The election is in November.  If you think that people will change their worldview regarding Dems vs. Reps because of a spat between state legislatures and the DNC, you are delusional.
"The contours of the electoral college are likely to be the same as 2000 and 2004?"  That is an even bigger kneeslapper.  Wright hasn't hurt Obama.  Period.  Clinton's own pastor supports Wright.  That will get out eventually, and you will not be able to hide it.  You people are so delusional, it is sad.
by Carcas 2008-03-28 08:14PM | 0 recs
Re: Whoever wrote this diary is delusional

Speaking of being honest: Senator Clinton signed a pledge that she would not campaign or participate in the MI and FL primaries.  She said she kept her name on the MI ballot just to avoid offending MI voters, since it was clear the primary wasn't going to count.

Oh, and I agree completely with the subject header.

by deminva 2008-03-29 08:12AM | 0 recs
Re: Whoever wrote this diary is delusional

and she kept that pledge, Obama didn't...

by zerosumgame 2008-03-29 05:08PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama will survive this..

Which is funny, because he's older than Bill Clinton was in the '92 election. So did you vote for Bush because of Clinton's "lack of wisdom"?

by Johnny Gentle Famous Crooner 2008-03-28 10:46AM | 0 recs
Clinton had been governor

with management experience.  Not junior senator "present" experience, "gee I didn't know my preacher of 20 years was racist," "oh, I thought that nuclear safety bill I told the voters in Iowa passed, passed.  You mean it didn't?" "Wow, I got in a financial deal with the most notorious crook in Illinois.  What a bonehead I am!"

by blah blah 2008-03-28 11:09AM | 0 recs
oh yes, and

"How did I know that Canadian jerk would blab when I told him to ignore the speeches I was giving in Ohio.  And then the Canadian government FINKED on me, after I lied and said it didn't happen!  You just can't trust ANYBODY these days!"

by blah blah 2008-03-28 11:12AM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton had been governor

Right. So you considered his experience superior to fellow governors Jerry Brown and Bob Casey? And to longtime Senators Tsongas, Kerrey and Harkin? Experience does matter right? Because when Clinton ran, he was basically the Obama of '92--the young, outside-the-belway guy who impressed people with his speeches and political abilities. (Or to put it more flatteringly, Obama is the Clinton of '08.)

You think Clinton didn't come with his own negative issues? Remember the attacks about draft-dodging? Pot-smoking? Women coming forward with claims of his infidelity? Remember how they later tried to tar him with all manner of fake "scandal" like Whitewater?

See, back then, we called this for the B.S. that it was. Now, these very same Clinton Democrats are the ones doing the smearing, attacking and accusation-by-association.

And finally, do you really think Hillary's own legislative record is squeaky clean? The problem with Senators is that they vote on things. Governors don't have to get their hands messy with a voting record that will inevitably come back to bite them. So unless you're going to just rule out anyone but Governors, you'd have these same problems regardless of who's running.

by Johnny Gentle Famous Crooner 2008-03-28 11:26AM | 0 recs
No, he was much better than Obama

And he appeared more knowledgeable, too.

by lombard 2008-03-28 05:31PM | 0 recs
Clinton?

Obama, my friend, is no Clinton!

Go Hillary!

by Scope441 2008-03-29 03:50AM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton?

Thank goodness!

Perhaps if he wins the presidency we won't lose the house and senate in two years.

by Renie 2008-03-29 09:40AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama will survive this..

You are missing the point completely -- he will not win in the general election. He doesn't have the demographic support: MI and FL won't vote for him because he's standing in the way of their re-voting or being counted, his campaign of Hillary-hate has royally pissed off half of the democratic party who support her and so at least 25% won't vote for BO because they're mad as hell, Hispanics aren't voting for him, veterans aren't and it looks like he's going to lose significant white vote because he's made a close friend and mentor out of his pastor -- an anti-american, anti-semitic, and racist loon.

This has nothing to do with whose turn it is -- it has to do with who can win. People have been saying for years that Hillary can't win because people don't like her...well, when she has the opportunity to meet with and talk to people they find out she isn't the monster they've been told she is and they like her, are impressed by her and even inspired. Over and over again she proves to people that she can win, she doesn't shy from the fight like Kerry and she'll campaign for every vote.

This is about who can win in November -- and Hillary is the Democrat's only and best shot at the white house.

by seattlegonz 2008-03-28 12:23PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama will survive this..

If people like her so much when they see her, how come her favorability rating has fallen to 37%.  

by Toddwell 2008-03-28 12:30PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama will survive this..

Toddwell, have you ever gone to see Hillary as I have and judged her for your self instead of letting Russert, Matthews and Olbermann form yout opinion?

But don't fear the GE, MS (Microsoft) boys will be pushing McCain in the GE, and your candidate will be an afterthought.

by ncvoter34 2008-03-28 12:34PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama will survive this..

Do you think Hillary wont be an afterthought and even if she does win, how could she possibly govern effectively?

by Toddwell 2008-03-28 12:44PM | 0 recs
She has some chance. Obama has none.

by lombard 2008-03-28 05:33PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama will survive this..

Toddwell, have you ever gone to see Hillary as I have and judged her for your self instead of letting Russert, Matthews and Olbermann form yout opinion?

They're lying about her vote for the Iraq War?

Now that is a scandal. It's a wonder no one's mentioned it before.

by BlueinColorado 2008-03-28 12:53PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama will survive this..
Hit a nerve did I?
Can't think for yourself?
by ncvoter34 2008-03-28 01:31PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama will survive this..

Nope. Your point was stupid.

Hillary Clinton voted for Bush's war. Neither Russert nor Olbermann nor Matthews made that up. That happened, and that's the primary reason she lost my vote. I opposed the war in 2002. And I decided that all by myself, without sticking my proverbial finger in the wind, without consulting polls, worrying about hat Tom Friedman or David Broder would say about me, without wondering how it would affect my political future or my image. I just decided between right and wrong.

Can Hillary Clinton say the same about what she 'thought for herself' with regard to the AUMF? Nope.

by BlueinColorado 2008-03-28 01:49PM | 0 recs
Russert-- supported the war and still

does far more.  He had on Dick Cheney, secretly quoting his own leaks to the New York Times scaring everybody that there were WMD's.

But Hillary voted for inspections, not for a pre-emptive war.  She had solid reasoning and described the situation with nuance and GREAT JUDGEMENT.  

Now, JACK MURTHA AND JOE WILSON ARE SUPPORTING HER....WHY, PARTIALLY BECAUSE THEY ACTUALLY READ HER SPEECH.  AND THEY KNOW SHE CAN GET US OUT SAFELY.

http://clinton.senate.gov/speeches/iraq_ 101002.html

HOW MUCH MORE CLEAR DID SHE HAVE TO BE?

"My vote is not, however, a vote for any new doctrine of pre-emption, or for uni-lateralism, or for the arrogance of American power or purpose -- all of which carry grave dangers for our nation, for the rule of international law and for the peace and security of people throughout the world.

Over eleven years have passed since the UN called on Saddam Hussein to rid himself of weapons of mass destruction as a condition of returning to the world community. Time and time again he has frustrated and denied these conditions. This matter cannot be left hanging forever with consequences we would all live to regret. War can yet be avoided, but our responsibility to global security and to the integrity of United Nations resolutions protecting it cannot. I urge the President to spare no effort to secure a clear, unambiguous demand by the United Nations for unlimited inspections."

by chieflytrue 2008-03-28 02:05PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama will survive this..

I've gone to see her in person, and have followed her political career since she was the First Lady.  She's a samrt, dilligent, and admirable public servant.  Overall, she's an excellent candidate.

That said, I voted for Obama in my primary, and will vote for him in the General once he's secured the nomination.  Why?  I think he's the better choice this time around, will fare better against McCain, and will be able to govern more effectively.

by fogiv 2008-03-28 01:59PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama will survive this..

If you believe that one poll then I've got several bridges I'll sell ya.  The corporate media that are currently coddling Obama will turn on him once he has the nomination, and then let's watch HIS negatives.  It's actually McCain that they want as POTUS, to protect their corporate interests - and it's Hillary Clinton they most fear.

by Benjamin3 2008-03-28 02:14PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama will survive this..

You're quoting the poll where African Americans were grossly over sampled. Polls have incorrectly favored BO since IA...look at the polls before NH, CA, NY, MA, TX, OH and you'll see what I mean.

BO has had everything supporting him: the press, the pollsters, money -- it's all been supporting him and he comes up short when it matters. If he can't win critical states against Hillary with all the supposed Hillary hate out there he doesn't have a chance, not a single one, in Nov.

The false polls are starting to show him closing in PA...do you think it's happening? He's talking about how she has to win by 20% to be a victory?! It's hysterical...win by 20% to be a victory? He's nuts. If he can't even compete in PA that's bad...really bad.

by seattlegonz 2008-03-28 02:40PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama will survive this..

When someone has "everything supporting him" it is generally because they're more popular, which Obama is.  And guess what - this is a popularity contest.  The alternative is a monarchy, which Americans have resisted for the better part of 230 years.  

by zadura 2008-03-28 02:55PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama will survive this..

"everything supporting him" means there is an agenda...and the agenda in this case has NOTHING to do with a "popularity contest" and everything to do with making John McCain the next president

by cplummer 2008-03-28 07:25PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama will survive this..

Now, c'mon, are you really that naive? You do realize if we recognized the people in FL and MI who voted for Hillary she'd be more popular. And, caucus  votes do not reflect popular candidates because so many people are disenfranchised from voting...WA is a clear case where the vote was a 50/50 split and the caucus "victory" was 60/40.

Plus, as the other poster noted, media "popularity" has to do with the manipulation of power and the voter.

This isn't a popularity contest and even if it were, believe it or not, BO is not the most popular candidate -- at the very least he and Hillary are equally popular. Really she's more popular among voters...that's why so many of us are getting pissed off at the fact that BO is trying to shut down voting. WTF? I know that's how he likes to win, by eliminating competition...but, Hillary isn't going to go anywhere because she's going to win this thing.

by seattlegonz 2008-03-28 10:14PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama will survive this..

Oh please, the WA primary was nothing more than a straw poll. Many people didn't bother to vote because we'd already indicated our preferences at the caucus.

by ces 2008-03-29 02:53AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama will survive this..

Yeah, right. You BO supporters don't miss an opportunity to sing and dance around your messiah. It cracks me up that BO supporters said they threw out their ballots. To many of us a ballot is like a flag -- you don't dishonor it.

Anyway, your comment isn't a response to what I said. I was talking about shutting down voting, excluding FL and MI. I'll say it again -- you guys have no idea how to win a general election and if you think you are going to do it by winning red states and losing FL and MI, you are absolutely wrong.

by seattlegonz 2008-04-02 07:28AM | 0 recs
47%

That's the number of African-Americans and Hispanics in Texas. Bill Richardson will be Obama's VP and they will put Texas in play.

Obama is going to win and in doing so he is going to change the electoral college math in this country for a generation. He is the one that is going to completely destroy the GOP's tried and true "Southern Strategy". He is going to marginalize wingnut GOP wackos and make them outcasts again like they used to be.

Don't worry, us Obamatrons will do the heavy lifting while some of Hillary's supporters have a temper tantrum and vote for McCain. Our guy played by the rules and won. Your candidate went from being inevitable to being inconsequential in the span of 4 months. Deal with it.

by johnnyappleseed 2008-03-28 12:48PM | 0 recs
Nada. Richardson never had the Hispanic vote

to GIVE to anyone. This was diaried here last week in excruciating detail (you can look it up).  Hillary is more popular with Hispanics than Richardson is.  That's the irony of Obama's deal with Richardson.  Look at his approval rating in his own damn state!

http://www.surveyusa.com/50State2006/50S tateGovernor060321Net.htm

He is no Jodi Rell....

Richardson will not seal the deal for BO.

by Molee 2008-03-28 01:28PM | 0 recs
Is this post a parody?

Or do you really have such dementia?

by lombard 2008-03-28 05:40PM | 0 recs
Great post seattlegonz!!

Mr. Obama's supporters have been perpetuating the Right-Wing talking points as they pertain to Hillary Clinton's "image, manner, morals, truthfulness, etc., etc." So, I'm just really tired of his supporters and he himself complaining that we (Hillary and her supporters) are trashing him for the General Election.  I just don't like the man...I don't like that he continually takes every opportunity to put the Clinton Presidency down, that he makes his "oh, you're nice enough" comments, that his wife has to "think about" supporting Hillary if she is the nominee...I feel as though Mr. Obama has chosen to pit the young Democrats against the older ones in this election, and I think it is dangerous for both our country and for the Democratic party.

by cplummer 2008-03-28 07:20PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama will survive this..

Most of the polling so far indicates Clinton would loose WA and OR to McCain whereas Obama would carry those states.

Now I don't know about you but WA is usually considered a reliable blue state and OR a lean blue.

I also doubt the average voter in either FL or MI gives a damn about the delegates being seated or not.

Polls seem to show MI as solid blue this year with FL being lean red.

by ces 2008-03-29 02:49AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama will survive this..

You're being stupid on purpose right? You don't think MI and FL care whether or not their votes count? Watching and listening to Obama supporters is like listening to children talk about how if they take a big box and put a big firecracker under it and tape it up real good then it will shoot up and go to the moon and everything will be great because then we can pick up moon rocks and everything.

I want to nod and tell them that that sounds wonderful and really good but at the same time I want to explain that the box won't really make it to the moon. It was a nice idea and dreams are good and why don't they thing of other really fun projects and places they'd like to go and things they'd like to do.

Even though OR should be firmly in BO's column, I'm not sure that being a 20 year member of an anti-American, racist church will go over well with Oregonians. BO has been buying pollsters and they've been oversampling African Americans in order to justify all the bogus and poor polling stats we've had this year. You can quote polls that say that WA will vote for McCain and that BO is going to win all the midwest states and he doesn't need MA, NY, FL or MI and I'll laugh while watching the new democratic party that is being built without women and older people as they are horribly crushed. It won't make me happy but like any parent I know that I can't keep my children from learning the hard lessons of life.

by seattlegonz 2008-04-02 09:56PM | 0 recs
Re: serious democrats

 Wrong
by gunner 2008-03-28 09:36AM | 0 recs
Re: serious democrats

Some of them are Republicans.  Some of them are independents.  Many of them are quite young and looking forward to graduation.

by Beltway Dem 2008-03-28 09:49AM | 0 recs
High School graduation

for many of them.

by izarradar 2008-03-28 10:14AM | 0 recs
middle school for far too many of them

by 18, they really should have moved on.

by Beltway Dem 2008-03-28 10:14AM | 0 recs
Re: middle school for far too many of them

That's helpful. Obama's supporters are children.

Now if one of us made some similarly derogatory claim about Clinton's supporters, they'd be calling in the troll-rating brigade.

by Johnny Gentle Famous Crooner 2008-03-28 10:48AM | 0 recs
Re: middle school for far too many of them

I agree. A bunch of double faced SOB's!!!!!

by zep93 2008-03-28 12:26PM | 0 recs
Re: middle school for far too many of them

Meh. I'm of a more forgiving disposition. This bitterness is really all they have left. Maybe if they spew all their resentment with "According To Jim" quality zingers in these threads, they'll be better able to get over their crankiness and do the right thing after Clinton concedes.

by BlueinColorado 2008-03-28 12:57PM | 0 recs
Re: middle school for far too many of them

Indeed.

by fogiv 2008-03-28 02:02PM | 0 recs
Actually, if you made

a claim like that about Hillary's supporters, it would be false.

by Beltway Dem 2008-03-28 02:57PM | 0 recs
So arrogant------------the poster is

talking about themself as a "serious Democrat" NOT impugning you.

Obama supporters should really stop thinking everything is a slight against them.

Sometimes praise of one thing is just praise.

From a serious Democrat, who knows Obama can't win this election.  Disenfranchising 2 states WILL win McCain FL and if he choses Romney as a VP he'd win Massachusetts and Michigan too.  Then he'll run the table all across the West and South.

Obama can't win FL now that he's disenfranchising them, and his 20 year pastor's comments God Damn America will lose him the South and Heartland.

Just ask the Dixie Chicks how soon they forget-- 5 years later they still cannot tour there.

by chieflytrue 2008-03-28 10:52AM | 0 recs
Re: So arrogant------------the poster is
Do you seriously believe any Republican will win Massachussetts? That's just nuts.
You Clinton boosters are hard to believe. You're scrabbling desperately for any shred of hope that your candidate can pull her campaign out of the toilet.
She's run a truly awful campaign so far, and I see no realistic way that she can win the nomination.
And lest you throw your Obamabot epithets at me, I was--and am--an Edwards backer. We lost our shot at having a truly great president when he dropped out. Now we have to choose between so-so (Obama) and execrable (Clinton).
I have to say, watching you guys flail around in your panic is fun. You had enough shitty things to say about Edwards when he was still running, and about his backers, too. Now we can watch you go down in your turn. What fun--in a bitter kind of way...
by Mumphrey 2008-03-29 11:32AM | 0 recs
Serious minded Democrats.....

In other words, those who prefer hillary rather than most of those who have voted -- for obama.

Electability is an argument that is always made from whole cloth to fit the desired result.

by Liberal Avenger 2008-03-28 09:20AM | 0 recs
Obama is too right wing..

He just is not enough of a change. He is not the change his voters voted for, many of them, months ago.

BTW, WHY IS OBAMA AGAINST REVOTES IN FLORIDA AND MICHIGAN?

by architek 2008-03-28 09:26AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama is too right wing..

Compared to whom? Hillary voted for the 2001 Bankruptcy Law, NCLB, the Patriot Act, and Iraq Authorization -- the very worst of Bush's agenda.

"He just is not enough of a change."

The Clintons are the very embodiment of the Democratic establishment.

"He is not the change his voters voted for, many of them, months ago."

They themselves are the best judge of that. You can't speak for them.

"BTW, WHY IS OBAMA AGAINST REVOTES IN FLORIDA AND MICHIGAN?"

Many who prefer Hillary has said such, but not one has ever backed it up with a word of fact.

by Liberal Avenger 2008-03-28 09:44AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama is too right wing..

Why was Clinton against them until less than a week before the efforts fell through?

GOD, people here have a tenuous grasp on irony. The rallying cry throughout MyDD a month ago was "Seat the delegates as is!" Now it's "Evil Obama killed the revotes that we've always wanted since last week, even though they were voted down massively by Republicans."

by Gimmeliberty 2008-03-28 09:44AM | 0 recs
Re: I think that's the growing consensus

I think that's the growing consensus among serious-minded Democrats.

I think that the growing consensus among Clinton supporters is to spread fear that white people won't vote for a black man, despite the fact that Obama has a net positive rating among white people whereas Hillary scores 51-39% unfavorable. Of course, these are the same "serious-minded" Democrats that are incapable of understanding polling and statistics, as evinced by that embarrassingly-ignorant diary y'all rec-ed yesterday.

by RP McMurphy 2008-03-28 09:24AM | 0 recs
race has NOTHING to do with it...

Zero, zilch..

Its all about INTEGRITY.. deception, pandering to the corporate interests, and unwillingness to show flexibility on things like universal healthcare.

Obama is AGAINST universal healthcare while 70% of Americans support it!

by architek 2008-03-28 09:27AM | 0 recs
Obama's camp is UNDERESTIMATING THE INTELLIGENCE

of its black supporters..

Taking them for granted JUST AS WRONGLY as the Democrats are sometimes accused of doing so.

If the Obama camp thinks that black people wont realize what they are doing, they are wrong.

Many already have....

by architek 2008-03-28 09:30AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama's camp is UNDERESTIMATING THE INTELLIGEN

Lol. Obama isn't underestimating the support of blacks. Can you admit that maybe blacks like what he has to say? NO we are not robots.

Also,  explain to me why 25% of HRC's supporters don't like blacks?  Sounds racist to me.

by kristannab 2008-03-28 09:33AM | 0 recs
Please cite a source

that is libel.

Also,  explain to me why 25% of HRC's supporters don't like blacks?  Sounds racist to me.

Is this a poll somewhere - 25% of HRC supporters don't like blacks? Do you realize the racism card is played so much it will lose its potency before the G.E.?

by catfish1 2008-03-28 09:57AM | 0 recs
Re: Please cite a source

Pew and NBC polls. The only person playing the race card is Clinton.

by kristannab 2008-03-28 10:11AM | 0 recs
Link, please. Nope - sorry she's not

Please provide a link to a poll which said "25% of Clinton supporters said they do not like blacks."

If a poll said "25% of Clinton supporters would vote McCain if Obama is the nominee, and 25% of Obama supporters would vote McCain if Clinton is the nominee" then you have no case. In fact, you're making Obama look bad by crying racism.

It's possible those 25% are like me (though I'll force myself to vote Obama if I have to) who are concerned that my generation and the one following mine were raised to be too soft, too obsessed with instant gratification and self-esteem.

McCain may have screwy ideas about the economy, but we do respect his service in the Navy and Congress, as we do Hillary's service in Arkansas bringing wider access to healthcare for children, in the Children's Defense Fund, her willingness to stand up for women's rights in China and India, and her two terms as U.S. Senator from New York.

Some voters like upstarts with style. Other voters like rugged Americans who've worked within the system, paid their dues and proved themselves. It's a matter of taste, not race.

by catfish1 2008-03-28 10:44AM | 0 recs
Re: Link, please. Nope - sorry she's not

Please provide a link to a poll which said "25% of Clinton supporters said they do not like blacks."

Here ya go:
http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/a rchives/2008/03/the_obama_skeptics.php

Some voters like upstarts with style. Other voters like rugged Americans who've worked within the system, paid their dues and proved themselves.

Let's assume the "upstart" thing isn't tinged with racism. Using your criteria, Biden and Dodd are both far better qualified than Hillary Clinton. Were they your first and second choice?

As for "proving themselves", what her Senate career proves to me is that she's a cautious, middling centristm with one eye on David Broder and one eye on Joe Lieberman, very anxious to offend neither. I never saw any evidence of her much touted "fight" and "toughness" until she saw Obama taking away what she, and you, apparently, believe is somehow her "due".

by BlueinColorado 2008-03-28 01:06PM | 0 recs
Upstart is now racist

Like I said upthread, you may want to save a few racism cards for the G.E. They lose potency every time you play them.

by catfish1 2008-03-28 06:09PM | 0 recs
Re: Upstart is now racist
No. I said let's assume it isn't. But the implication that Hillary was entitled to a free pass b/c it was her "turn" is just idiotic. Biden and Dodd have more years in Washington and have shown more leadership. But let's leave that aside:
How about you point me to some of the "fighting" and "leadership" Hillary Clinton has shown in her seven-plus years in the Senate while George W. Bush was lying this country into a war and shredding the Constitution.
by BlueinColorado 2008-03-28 07:43PM | 0 recs
'Let's assume it isn't racist'

is basically saying you think it's racist.

by catfish1 2008-03-28 07:54PM | 0 recs
Re: 'Let's assume it isn't racist'

Okay, address the utterly non-racist, but brain-dead stupid implication that HRC is entitled to take the nomination without serious challenge.

Also, any time one of you want to point out what she's done to lead the fight against Bush in the last seven years, I'm all ears.

Just imagine if she (or her husband) had showed some of the anger and determination she (and her husband) are directing against Obama and his supporters.

by BlueinColorado 2008-03-28 08:00PM | 0 recs
You called me a racist

why should I type it all out for somebody who just insulted me? Are you really open to persuasion?

by catfish1 2008-03-28 08:35PM | 0 recs
Hillary or Obama entitled to free pass

this pressure for Hillary to drop out so Obama can glide to the nomination while blocking Michigan revotes tells me Hillary isn't the one who thinks she's "entitled to a free pass".

She has a demerit in my book as I don't like dynasties, but after falling out of love with Obama I had to find another candidate and she was it.

by catfish1 2008-03-28 07:58PM | 0 recs
Re: Please cite a source

I don't remember that, but I do remember seeing that 25% (+/-1) of Hillary supporters think Obama's a Muslim.

by Rorgg 2008-03-28 11:29AM | 0 recs
Re: I think that's the growing consensus

If Obama is nominated, and Hillary would have been if Michigan and Florida were counted, I will vote against Obama. Not because he is black, but because he will be a wholly illegitimate nominee in my eyes.

Hillary has been the victim of a screwy process and a fawning media- for Obama.

by arkansasdemocrat 2008-03-28 11:03AM | 0 recs
Re: I think that's the growing consensus
You would rather have a third term of Bush, with constructionist judges and '100 years' of war with Iraq because ... Obama played by the rules and Clinton did not?!?  
Hmm - maybe you should vote for McCain ...
by stryan 2008-03-28 11:49AM | 0 recs
Re: I think that's the growing consensus

Then you are not a democrat, you are a hillary supporter.  I support Obama, but I'm a democrat first, and even though I think her campaign has done some despicable things this primary, I know she would be better than McCain in the white house for my values.

by shalca 2008-03-28 12:00PM | 0 recs
Re: I think that's the growing consensus

I'll just say I find the comment incredibly patronizing.  Think about how you would react if you read something the other way -- because some goober out there is saying it, too.

by Rorgg 2008-03-28 11:26AM | 0 recs
Re: I think that's the growing consensus

Who are these "serious-minded" Democrats?

Are any of them not HRC partisans?

by Carl Nyberg 2008-03-28 11:34AM | 0 recs
Re: I think that's the growing consensus

You've go to be kidding.

by chatters71 2008-03-28 01:18PM | 0 recs
Funny statement...

It reminds me about all the "serious people" who still support the Iraq war.  I guess all Obama supporters are DFH's now too.

by you like it 2008-03-28 01:31PM | 0 recs
I disagree.

Both Clinton and Obama have strengths and weaknesses agaisnt McCain.  Neither are sure winners or sure losers.  Both will have a tough battle, but either could win.  McCain may win also.

by TomP 2008-03-28 01:50PM | 0 recs
Obama is as popular today as he was...

... before the so-called Wright "fiasco."

Unless one only reads pro-Clinton polls and ignores those that don't fit the script of this diary. (Kind of the same way that Clinton only counts the states she won.)

Indeed, Obama thoughtful and compelling response raised him in the estimation of many Americans.

by Hudson 2008-03-28 03:14PM | 0 recs
Re: I think that's the growing consensus

This diary and its assumptions are pretty much pure fiction.  But then Serious minded Democrats already realize that and vote for Obama rather than the most polarizing politician in recent history.

by yitbos96bb 2008-03-28 04:30PM | 0 recs
How the Hell is this On the Rec List?

You've got to be kidding.  The Clinton supporters on this site have gone and sniffed too much cat urine.   Because they believe their candidate is superior, they ignore any facts that get in the way of their fantasy of Clinton winning the general election.  

Face it, she lost.  The primary was set up with certain rules in place before it began.  She lost by those rules that she agreed to .  She lost despite having several large advantages starting out.  

All I see in this diary is a fantasy.  The Clinton supporters here love to make fun of Obama supporters as being unrealistic.  Looks to me that they're projecting there own issue.

by VogonPoet 2008-03-28 06:02PM | 0 recs
Re: I think that's the growing consensus

Despite how much I have always been a Hillary supporter, this diary speaks to exacxtly how I have always felt about this race. ONLY HILLARY can possibly go up against mcCain and win.

by rrs11215 2008-03-28 05:59PM | 0 recs
Wholeheartedly agree

Hillary can win Florida, Michigan, Ohio, and WILL win Arkansas.

Obama would probably lose all four of those states.

A lot of things can change between now and November, but some things won't change - Democrats must win pretty much the same states we won in 2000 or 2004, and more...or else we will suffer 4/8 more years of damage to this nation by the right wing.

We lost Florida in both 2000 and 2004.
We lost Ohio in both 2000 and 2004.
We lost Arkansas in both 2000 and 2004.
We won Michigan in both 2000 and 2004, and certainly can't afford to lose it in 2008.

If Hillary would win all the states that Gore won, and just Arkansas, she wins.  And she will win Arkansas - no one in their right mind could possibly think otherwise IMO.

John

by SluggoJD 2008-03-28 06:00PM | 0 recs
Re: Wholeheartedly agree

Hillary aint winning Florida.  That state is moving further and further to the right every day.  

by Toddwell 2008-03-28 06:03PM | 0 recs
Maybe not

But she is certainly more competitive there than Obama.

BTW you wrote a diary titled "Hillary = our Richard Nixon."  I am deeply offended by the title of your diary.

by SluggoJD 2008-03-28 06:44PM | 0 recs
LOL

You're an idiot.

by bigdcdem 2008-03-28 06:37PM | 0 recs
Never trust

anyone whose allegiance is to a politician, rather than the ideas that the politician supposedly espouses.

The people on MyDD are willing to let the Democratic party die, before they can fathom the Clinton presidency slipping away.

It's really pathetic.

by highgrade 2008-03-28 08:52PM | 0 recs
erm,

counting Michigan as it is with "uncommited" at 40% is not right.

by kindthoughts 2008-03-28 09:13AM | 0 recs
Re: erm,

I don't even bother anymore.

by Johnny Gentle Famous Crooner 2008-03-28 09:14AM | 0 recs
Re: erm,

indeed.

i got sucked back in here the other night ~ i chalk it up to exhaustion, but the time has come to just let the primaries finish up, and THEN i'll be able to enjoy MyDD again.

unless of course, she wants to continue the fight after that.

at Kos, someone joked about an editorial cartoon he'd like to see: obama in the oval office in '09, looking out the window at HRC still campaigning . . . cartoonish, that's what this is becoming...cartoonish.

by pholkhero 2008-03-28 09:35AM | 0 recs
So by winning 3 of 4 states on March 4

Hillary is "tearing the party apart" by not agreeing to drop out?

When did Americans stop respecting competition?

by catfish1 2008-03-28 09:58AM | 0 recs
it was 2/4

she lost Texas

by kindthoughts 2008-03-28 11:10AM | 0 recs
Re: it was 2/4

You guys are a piece of work. Even the MSM says Hillary won Texas.

Yes, another reason to not vote for Obama.  Disenfranchisement by caucus (Obama bullys as well as the nature of caususes being undemocratic as Dean agreed with in 2004) as well as the MI and FL fiasco.  I can't believe that this is the Democratic Party and Obama followers continue this disengenuous meme.

by anya109 2008-03-28 11:27AM | 0 recs
erm

the winner of the state is the winner of pledged delegates.

by kindthoughts 2008-03-28 11:50AM | 0 recs
do not

blame Obama for hillary lack of desire to compete in caucuses.

She went for big states strategy and it back fired.

by kindthoughts 2008-03-28 11:51AM | 0 recs
Re: erm,

I think the Soviet Union would've approved of such a ballot.

by mikeinsf 2008-03-29 01:19PM | 0 recs
Re: It's Either President Clinton or It's Presiden

Rules are rules. The law maybe a a-- but it is still the law.

Can HRC supporters explain to me however why HRC has stamped her foot on the certification of Texas caucus results?

by KathyM 2008-03-28 09:15AM | 0 recs
Re: It's Either President Clinton or It's Presiden

There was no 'certification' since not even half of the 'caucus vote' totals were turned in.  Some supposedly are still missing.

Much of this will be resolved in the county/SD conventions this Saturday.

Clinton's camp asked for a delay so that the TDP could complete the work they are required to do in order to validate the information they have as correct -- even as scarce as it is.  State law prevented TDP from complying (though I suspect they wish they could).

There were widespread problems with the Texas Caucuses (delegates chosen who were not even registered to vote, much less voted in the primary --a requirement).

The length of the caucuses will be affected with all of the challenges (from both sides) that have been presented.  If TDP had been able to postpone the County/SD Conventions, much of that would have been sorted out prior to Saturday.

Too bad... this may be the first 2 day County/SD convention in Texas History.

by TxKat 2008-03-28 09:42AM | 0 recs
Re: It's Either President Clinton or It's Presiden

The lack of precinct votes being turned has to do with TDP stopping the collection process, not any problems in the caucuses.

There were not "widespread problems". There were apparently a very few precincts with problems, and even then it appears strongly that the "problems" were due to people making a good-faith effort to respect the voters and do the best they could to be efficient, not voter fraud.

I doubt very much that any of the caucuses will go an extra day. I suspect the credentials committees will make short work of the vast majority of the challenges, simply because, from what I've heard, most of them are absurd on their face.

But yes, it'll be a two-day caucus, if what I've heard about Collin County having theirs on Sunday is correct.

I'll have to write a report from the Williamson County caucus tomorrow. I'm not expecting any major problems beyond the very large turnout.

by Texas Gray Wolf 2008-03-28 05:09PM | 0 recs
Can Obama explain screaming

"they tryin to disenfranchise the Culinary Union" and now being the sole person who is disenfranchising FL and MI.

Get to the table and work it out.  

As is, Obama can't win-- his polls have already been in freefall in FL (where Democrat was once 20 POINTS AHEAD in a purple state).

Now, he can't win FL, the South, ANY Republican votes (the top rationale for his campaign), Independents and many Democrats.

He's constantly berated a popular Democratic President which is not what Ronald Reagan would have done (his 11th commandment) which has lost him support among the Democratic base, his 20 year Audacity of Hate Pastor has him as popular in the heartland and every southern state as the Dixie Chicks (he would lose every southern/heartland state), and he is now disenfranchising 2 states.

Nobody can win a General Election by disenfranchising FL and MI.

by chieflytrue 2008-03-28 10:59AM | 0 recs
Re: Can Obama explain screaming

Obama has never campaigned in Florida. Give him a few months as the Democratic nominee, and Florida will be back in play.

by ScottEmerson 2008-03-28 12:18PM | 0 recs
Re: Can Obama explain screaming

Excellent post.

The blind faith in Obama's campaign skills is just that, blind faith.

The kool-aid is just not as tasty since the Pastor Wright flap and the Republicans see Obama as an easy target, and he is.

Like you said, no chance in the South.

by ncvoter34 2008-03-28 12:57PM | 0 recs
Re: Can Obama explain screaming

He's campaigned the crap out of Clinton in the primaries so far.

She's gone from the inevitable nominee to the inevitable second place candidate.

by bawbie 2008-03-28 05:21PM | 0 recs
Re: It's Either President Clinton

Yes, trying to instill fear in us with these blunt and factually dubious ultimatums is a great campaign tactic.

by rfahey22 2008-03-28 09:17AM | 0 recs
Re: It's Either President Clinton or It's Presiden

Here's a list of states Hillary would likely win: Missouri, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Ohio, Arkansas, Florida, Iowa, and Pennsylvania.

What a joke this diary is. According to most polls, Hillary is currently behind in New Hampshire, New Mexico, Iowa, Nevada, and Florida. She's even with McCain in Pennsylvania, and, according to Rasmussen, trailing McCain in Arkansas. So no, there's absolutely nothing to suggest that Hillary would "likely" win most of those states.

by RP McMurphy 2008-03-28 09:18AM | 0 recs
Close your eyes because it is ugly

http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Ob ama/Maps/Mar28.html

And I think there is no way Obama will take Colorado. I say that based on on the ground data (sorry no link, personal experience) but conversations with Catholics there indicate that while the 50 state strategy is a nice thought, we are in no way winning that state where pro choice is a BIG deal - so it is CRAZY for Obama to bank on a November victory depending on such things.

by Molee 2008-03-28 01:35PM | 0 recs
Hillary has Character to be THE leader

Take it from this New Hampshirite

Obama WILL NOT win this state.

We have long memories - We haven't forgotten Obama broke 2 Laws regarding Robo Calls and then tried to blame it on Clinton, when in fact it was former NH Reps who complained.

Nor will we readily foregive the fact that he broke the law and was "bribing" our young people with cash, which was termed Gas Money.

And for those who have no clue on how important we take our environment - The first offense a $250 fine for littering - then it goes up to $500, then $1,000.  Obama and his savages literally left trash everywhere, and now that the snows have melted - we are once again sharply reminded about how disrepectfully our state was treated.

Lastly - we truly despise "dirty tricks" type politicians, and Obama busing in people from out of state for those states who had Caucuses, and his supporters literally slamming the doors and locking out an opponents supporters - in our world view is reprehensible and unforgivable.

As the Greeks used to say the "Character" of a leader will predict the well being of the "City State". Well Obama has over and over again shown us his extreme lack of character as well as integrity of any kind.

NH will support the real Professional we can be proud of to call our Leader and that is Hillary

by Grandma M 2008-03-29 07:12AM | 0 recs
Re: It's Either President Clinton or It's Presiden

Who said the Clinton campaign was reality-based.  Just sayin' things makes it true!

by mikeinsf 2008-03-29 01:37PM | 0 recs
Re: It's Either President Clinton or It's Presiden

Who said the Clinton campaign was reality-based?  Just sayin' things makes it true!

by mikeinsf 2008-03-29 01:38PM | 0 recs
No.

Obama outperforms Clinton in recent polls. Wright is over. There's no correlation between winning primaries and winning general elections.

How many more times are these debunked talking points going to be regurgitated? The only way we can lose in November is if some Democrats do the republicks a huge favor and stay bitter over the primary.

by MBNYC 2008-03-28 09:18AM | 0 recs
Re: No.

I was going to reply to this "anal"ysis, but it's so wrong in so many ways that I don't know where to begin.

Fortunately, this will all be over soon enough. With Hillary's campaign in free-fall: Leahy, Dodd, Casey, and a shitstorm of new polls that show that the voting public is much less likely to vote for a serial liar than someone whose preacher is a bit inflammatory, my sense is that we can expect a flood of supers signing on to ending the sham that this is still a close race.

by vermontprog 2008-03-28 09:23AM | 0 recs
Wright will be forgotten in the South

and heartland as soon as they forgive the Dixie Chicks--- now on tour in Canada, Europe, and Massachusetts.

And it will be forgiven even less easily.

"God Damn America."  Hell no, God Damn the Anti-Amercian.

Plus, those polls oversampled African Americans.  1 out of 4 were African American!  Using NBC and desperate media polls can't help Obama in an election.

by chieflytrue 2008-03-28 11:04AM | 0 recs
Re: Wright will be forgotten in the South

Plus, those polls oversampled African Americans.  1 out of 4 were African American!  Using NBC and desperate media polls can't help Obama in an election.

Wow...just...wow.

I can't believe people are still pushing nonsense about this poll.  Please check out these links and rejoin the reality based community.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/18 5977.php
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2 008/03/27/827746.aspx

by you like it 2008-03-28 01:40PM | 0 recs
Uh hum.

Ignoring the oft-debunked tripe that 'oversample' is the same thing as 'over-represent', which it's not, here's a clue: the people who boycotted the Dixie Chicks for saying they were ashamed Bush came from Texas are not the ones who are going to be voting for any Democrat. These are the same people who now own The Clinton Chronicles on DVD, my friend, and they are ready to crawl over broken glass to defeat your girl.

So yeah, Obama it is. Good thing he's winning :-)

by MBNYC 2008-03-28 02:14PM | 0 recs
Re: Uh hum.

They are also the same people who will crawl over broken glass to keep anyone who isn't white out of the white house.  

Or are we talking about a different group of "southerners"?   mmm-hmmmm

by SoCalVet 2008-03-28 06:28PM | 0 recs
Believe me, Wirght is not over

Neither is Michelle.

These characters aren't just some unfavorable gossip of the day.  Their negative impressions have enduring legs.

by lombard 2008-03-28 05:36PM | 0 recs
Which must be why

Hillary is losing the primary, I suppose.

by MBNYC 2008-03-28 06:14PM | 0 recs
And furthermore

explain to me how someone can be a stronger candidate in the general than the person who is beating them in their own primary. Hillary was supposed to walk away with this thing, wasted every advantage she had to the point where she has no chance of winning the electoral contest, but after that, she's going to win a general election with a more unfavorable voter universe?

Give me a break.

by MBNYC 2008-03-28 09:21AM | 0 recs
Re: And furthermore

Maybe the Limbaugh Democrats will vote for her in the general too.

by the mollusk 2008-03-28 09:32AM | 0 recs
If we ignore two states and popular vote

Obama wins the nomination!

by catfish1 2008-03-28 09:59AM | 0 recs
Re: If we INCLUDE two states and popular vote

Obama still wins the nomination!!!

by kristannab 2008-03-28 10:12AM | 0 recs
Michigan/Florida?

Oh you mean if we steal votes from Hillary by dividing Michigan and Florida 50/50 Obama wins!

by catfish1 2008-03-28 10:36AM | 0 recs
Re: Michigan/Florida?

"Michigan counts for nothing," said Hillary Clinton.

by vermontprog 2008-03-28 11:00AM | 0 recs
I'll seat Florida delegates, said Obama

Obama: Seat Florida Delegates

By WILLIAM MARCH and ELAINE SILVESTRINI The Tampa Tribune

Published: September 30, 2007

TAMPA - Barack Obama hinted during a Tampa fundraiser Sunday that if he's the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, he'll seat a Florida delegation at the party's national convention, despite national party sanctions prohibiting it.

Obama also appeared to violate a pledge he and the other leading candidates took by holding a brief news conference outside the fundraiser. That was less than a day after the pledge took effect Saturday, and Obama is the first Democratic presidential candidate to visit Florida since then.

by catfish1 2008-03-28 11:29AM | 0 recs
Re: I'll seat Florida delegates, said Obama

and he will. he'll reach 2025 through the rest of the contests and the superdels. Then MI & FL will get seated.

by grover738 2008-03-28 01:42PM | 0 recs
Did Obama's Red State wins and

use of "Democrat for a Day" Republicans have something to do with that?

How ironic, that the Republicans in the Red states that we will not win in a General Election filled with Republicans are now the ones who hate Obama enough that they are ready to bury him twice.  In any state primary they can.

But in a General?  Obama will not win one single Republican vote.   Reverend Wright just shored up McCain's base.

Thanks Obama.  Next you could help Democrats by disenfranchising 2 states.

Huge, important, swing states that we need in a General Election.

You all thought that strategy was so funny before, and we told you it was bad for the Party.  Now it's Republicans who will bury Obama-- funny how karma works.

Karma 2.  Obama, the voice of the Culinary Union's right to vote is now disenfranchising 2 states.  Singlehandedly, he is the only one standing in the way of the right to vote (count em, or revote, your choice).

Funny.  Karma 2 is that Obama will never win thanks to trying to disenfranchise FL and MI.

God Bless America.

by chieflytrue 2008-03-28 11:13AM | 0 recs
Re: Did Obama's Red State wins and

Could someone provide me a credible link that shows how Obama is preventing re-votes in FL & MI?

by grover738 2008-03-28 01:43PM | 0 recs
Ha!

That's right, we should ignore those Rs willing to cross over and vote for Obama because he inspires them - and they are real, trust me - ,

but

those republicans who wouldn't vote for a Democrat anyway, the ones who still think Wright is a story, are the ones we need to listen to.

Is the weather on your planet pleasant this time of year?

by MBNYC 2008-03-28 02:09PM | 0 recs
Re: It's Either

the Obama followers don't "believe" in the Electoral College.  Therefore, it doesn't exist. (They are going to win Idaho and Wyoming, and North dakota when buffalo are given the right to vote)

There are some good maps at www.electoral-vote.com

that show what the diarist is talking about.  Projections, of course, based on polls, which could change, but for those who like data, there it is.

There will be a lot of crying if Obama wins the popular vote but loses the Electoral Vote, because they denied its existence.

by WolfmanJack 2008-03-28 09:22AM | 0 recs
Re: It's Either
the Obama followers don't "believe" in the Electoral College.  Therefore, it doesn't exist.
...
There will be a lot of crying if Obama wins the popular vote but loses the Electoral Vote, because they denied its existence.

And from where did you get this rather amusing line of argument? Is it because everyone laughed at Evan Bayh's suggestion that we choose a party nominee based on the electoral college?
by Johnny Gentle Famous Crooner 2008-03-28 09:24AM | 0 recs
Re: It's Either

What a straw man argument. No Obama supporter denies the existence of the electoral college.

by politicsmatters 2008-03-28 09:25AM | 0 recs
Re: It's Either

they seem to be counting on wins in states like Idaho and Wyoming, which also won't happen,  but seemingly blissfully unaware of the Electoral College.

The same three states will determine the outcome as in 2000 and 2004, FL, OH, and PA. The Idahos "matter" but they can't offset a loss of any one of these large states in the Electoral College.

by WolfmanJack 2008-03-28 11:12AM | 0 recs
Re: It's Either

If all we do in the GE is focus on FL, OH and PA, then we are doomed to lose. It's what got us in trouble with Gore and what got us in trouble with Kerry. We have to get out of this mindset that a couple of states are critical to getting elected.

I'd much rather focus on a broader group of states such as NV, NM, CO, IA, MO, VA and yes, OH that are trending blue than to put all of our eggs into the basket that is FL. Florida is going in the opposite direction.

by kjblair2 2008-03-28 11:32AM | 0 recs
Re: It's Either

given unlimited time and money...sure...focus on the most states possible. But it harder to win 4 states than to win one.  Just probability dictates that, odds are, you might win 2 of the 4 but not all 4.

The OH, PA, FL triad is a result of the Electoral College, not any particular "strategy".  

by WolfmanJack 2008-03-28 11:58AM | 0 recs
Re: It's Either

Wrong conclusion.

If you have to win 3 specific states, then losing any 1 state makes you unsuccessful. Especially if one of the 3 states (FL) is going to be very difficult for either Clinton or Obama to win. We shouldn't be planning on winning FL this fall unless it's a landslide. (And then it won't matter.) Now in actual practice, you don't have to win FL to get to 270. So under your scenario, you're back to the Kerry approach of having to win OH. And leave no doubt, it is a strategy.

If on the other hand, you can get to 270 by winning OH, or by winning IA, NM and CO, or by winning IA, NV and CO, or by winning CO and VA, or ... you're not stuck with only one route to getting elected.

by kjblair2 2008-03-28 12:31PM | 0 recs
Re: It's Either

as I said...given unlimited time and money.  I think what happens is candidates run low on both towards the end of the election cycle.  

I know I would be tired as hell and looking like crap with all that flying around the country every day.

I don't think Kerry or Gore didn't spend time in those states because they didn't want to, or didn't think they could win.  Probably their time and maybe money was limited.

But if Obama supporters want to keep writing checks, fine by me. Maybe this time will be different.

by WolfmanJack 2008-03-28 01:02PM | 0 recs
Re: It's Either

This time will be different. Obama will have at minimum FOUR TIMES as much money as McCain.

by brimur 2008-03-29 04:47AM | 0 recs
Re: It's Either

So I take it that your solution would be to not allow any states that may go red a vote in the primaries? Yeah, that's what I thought!!!!

by zep93 2008-03-28 12:31PM | 0 recs
Re: It's Either President Clinton or It's Presiden

well said!

by engels 2008-03-28 09:29AM | 0 recs
Two big holes in your talking points

You don't give us any indication as to how you arrived at your conviction that "With Obama on the ticket, McCain is likely to carry most these states." How can we evaluate the strength of your argument without this information?

You conclude that Dem leaders are trying to wrap things up now in order to begin "the formidable task of taking on McCain sooner rather than later." This implies that you are aware of the fact that the election is a dynamic process, that everything will change when it's a two-person race, and that voters' opinions are not yet hardened despite current emotions running high.

by Petey 2008-03-28 09:29AM | 0 recs
really?

While I think HRC is the better candidate, to suggest that Obama cannot win in the fall is a bit overboard.  There's no concrete evidence that would support that, rather just suppositions and possibilities.

Put it this way - I think both candidates can win ... and I think both candidates could lose.

by toonsterwu 2008-03-28 09:35AM | 0 recs
He can't win a GE if he has to disenfranchise

2 states to do it.

There is also the fact that he will get no Republican voters, he will lose vast numbers of Independents, and core Democrats.

Not in NBC polls that oversample with 1 out of 4 African Americans when they are 1 out of 10 in actual population, but look at Jerome's numbers next time he puts them up.

Reverend Wright is a bit worse than the Dixie Chicks, and they don't even sell records or concert tickets in the South and heartland anymore.  

But saying F.U. to Florida too?  Unwinnable in a GE.

by chieflytrue 2008-03-28 11:18AM | 0 recs
Re: He can't win a GE if he has to disenfranchise

Did you actually look at that poll? If you did, you'd recognize that they oversampled African Americans to get statistically relevant data for that group but weighted them in proportion to their share of the voting population when calculating the overall Obama-Clinton numbers.

by kjblair2 2008-03-28 11:35AM | 0 recs
Re: He can't win a GE if he has to disenfranchise

You clearly don't understand what oversampling means or are choosing to ignore the many times your point has been debunked on MyDD.  They oversampled AAs but did not over represent them in the poll.

by interestedbystander 2008-03-28 11:53AM | 0 recs
Re: He can't win a GE if he has to disenfranchise

Have you even taken a f'ing statistics class???????

by zep93 2008-03-28 12:32PM | 0 recs
Re: He can't win a GE if he has to disenfranchise

Not in NBC polls that oversample with 1 out of 4 African Americans...

Someone really needs to make a list of all the people who honestly believe this so we know not to take seriously anything else they say.

by RP McMurphy 2008-03-28 01:02PM | 0 recs
I'm starting to doubt...

that honesty has anything to do with it at this point.

by you like it 2008-03-28 01:47PM | 0 recs
open lies

"If we are honest about this primary election and agree that Hillary won Michigan and Florida, the race is now a draw."

this is an absolute lie. Hillary Clinton did not win these states. SHE HERSELF SAID THE ELECTIONS WOULDN'T COUNT. now she's changing her mind, and lying, and so is this diarest. if you say things that are obvious lies you can't convince ANYBODY.

this is all the Clinton campaign and their supporters have left: openly lying and trying to steal the nomination.

again, these are the people the netroots were created to stop! LET'S STOP THEM!

by catchaz 2008-03-28 09:43AM | 0 recs
Calm down. Take a pill, Kossak.

by lombard 2008-03-28 05:43PM | 0 recs
classy

by shef 2008-03-28 09:21PM | 0 recs
Say hello to President McCain

Because in the real world the polls, the pledged delegaes, the Superdelegates and, yes, the math are all unanimous that Sen Obama will be the Democratic Party nominee this fall. In the last 24 hours or so, Sen Dodd, Sen Levin, Gov Dean,  and (on local Wisconsin radio) Sen Feingold have all applied public pressure on Sen Clinton to give up the ghost, soon.  This pressure will continue to build.  Sen Obama has earned the nomination, and he will be the nominee.

Since you've proven Sen Obama cannot win, we can now put all this time to advantage preparing for the next four bleak years.  Off to dig the root cellar a little deeper.

Of course there's always the slim hope your prediction is wrong...

by Quicklund 2008-03-28 09:50AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama--the new George McGovern
Obama is not the new Jack Kennedy, as his supporters like to say. He's really the new George McGovern, who will go down in flames to McCain in November.  
Obama could not win before the truth about Rev Wright came out. Now he is less than toast.  However, I don't put it past the Pelosis and the Dodds  of the party to saddle us with an unelectable nominee.  Everyone should be grateful to Hillary for not abandoning the fight.
by ulsterdem 2008-03-28 09:52AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama--the new George McGovern

You mean like his supporter, Caroline Kennedy, JFK's daughter, who compared him to her father?  Supporters like those?

by you like it 2008-03-28 01:51PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama--the new George McGovern
agree!
Mcgovern, Dukakis, Kerry, Obama
by ginaswo 2008-03-28 02:12PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama is no JFK

..the comparison falls short when voters consider the key question for 2008: foreign policy experience. It's true that Obama, like Kennedy, is a youngish senator (at 46, three years older than Kennedy when he ran for president), but the parallel falters after that. The more one looks into Kennedy's lifelong preparation for the job, the more one realizes how misleading it was, then and now, to describe him as inexperienced. Everyone who has stressed Kennedy's youth, from Dan Quayle in 1988 to Obama today, has bumped up against the uncomfortable fact that JFK was an extremely well-informed statesman in 1960...

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/feature s/2008/0801w.widmer.html

McGovern, too, had lots more experience (he had served in the US Congress 13 years before running for president):

He volunteered for the United States Army Air Forces during World War II and served as a B-24 Liberator bomber pilot in the Fifteenth Air Force, flying 35 missions over enemy territory from bases in North Africa and later Italy, often against heavy anti-aircraft artillery. McGovern was awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross for saving his crew by crash landing his damaged bomber on a small Mediterranean island... After two terms in the House, he unsuccessfully ran for the Senate in 1960, losing to Republican incumbent Karl Mundt 52%-48%. The election loss made him available for appointment as the first director of President John F. Kennedy's Food for Peace program. In 1962, he stood for election to South Dakota's other Senate seat and won, serving his first of three Senate terms.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_McGo vern

by Larissa 2008-03-28 02:22PM | 0 recs
Re: It's Either President

So Obama is going to lose because up to 1/3 of Hillary's supporters are going to throw a monumental sized crybaby temper tantrum and refuse to vote Democratic is the most important election in a generation?  Great, gee, thanks, get ready for the "million woman hissy fit" followed by 4 years of McDubya...

by NJIndependent 2008-03-28 10:15AM | 0 recs
Re: It's Either President

hissy fit??? how freakin sexist can you get???

FOOL

I'm not voting for ODRAMA cuz he's a liar, a fraud, mean and loves, admires, respects and follows a clearly militant racist pastor who's embarrassing AMERICANS each day more comes out from his filthy mouth (or his wife's)!!

I am not voting for ODRAMA because he is NOT what I consider AMERICAN or worthy of the great post of CIC.  He can diss America all he wants from his Senate seat like Kennedy and Kerry.  I don't care.  But he's NOT getting my vote (and millions of others) for President.  He's not QUALIFIED or DESERVING!!!

PERIOD

(has nothing to do with race, only in HIS mind and the mind of his followers)

Half of the Democratic Party disagrees with him.
The OTHER half will learn more in the next few months and probably start buyers remorse.  It happens.

The REST of the Sean Penns will just keep bitching and moaning and crying about the CRAPPY USA and how terrible we are........... instead of trying to FIX the problem.  Just bitch and moan.

GET OVER IT
HILLARY is in it to WIN IT!!

by CarolinaDawn 2008-03-28 10:23AM | 0 recs
Re: It's Either President

btw

I still won't vote for McKOOK

I just won't vote

If McKook gets in by ONE vote - I'll just grin and bear it cuz NO ONE can be as bad as GW DOUCHE.

But I won't vote for a fraud (not one I've already uncovered)

Hill at perfect but she's a hard ass worker and LOVES her GD COUNTRY and appreciates all she's been blessed with because of this country.  She's not complaining or blaming some one ELSE for it. She's ready to FIX it.

People should just shut UP and get to work.
jmo

by CarolinaDawn 2008-03-28 10:26AM | 0 recs
Re: It's Either President

"Hissy fit" is probably a bit much from the commenter above, but I'll be damned if you didn't respond with a full-blown hissy-fit.

by amiches 2008-03-28 11:02AM | 0 recs
Re: It's Either President

If you "THINK" that was a hissy fit you are sadly mistaken

that is rage!

but you go ahead and mistake the two (just like most Odramatrons are mistaking the effects of Wright)

keep believing and watch how it DOESN'T make it so

(reflections of gwdouche)

ignore the facts until the brick wall of truth comes up to meet your face  - slam!  "How did that happen?"  dee, dee, dee.

by CarolinaDawn 2008-03-28 11:26AM | 0 recs
Re: It's Either President

Jesus. You need to seek some kind of help.

by amiches 2008-03-28 11:32AM | 0 recs
That was another of those

"high minded" Obama insults.

You all degrade women all the time (if you're a 20 year old male one of your Obama elders should tell you why that's going to lose this election for your candidate, if you're anything else there is no hope).

But listen up, you all are sealing your man's fate and showing his hypocrisy.  You all are supposed to represent him, because he is you.  You are he.  He says it's all about "we."

His online supporters jerkish stuff will be part of the equation because you're supposed to have been something higher and more perfect and I don't like watching you trash women.  

I won't vote for your movement, because stuff like that is closer to a bowel movement.

by chieflytrue 2008-03-28 01:32PM | 0 recs
Re: It's Either President

"The REST of the Sean Penns will just keep bitching and moaning and crying about the CRAPPY USA and how terrible we are........... instead of trying to FIX the problem.  Just bitch and moan."

Bitching??? How, um, sexist of you!

by zep93 2008-03-28 12:34PM | 0 recs
Re: It's Either President

I was with you until that last line. There's really no reason to make that kind of comment.

by Johnny Gentle Famous Crooner 2008-03-28 10:52AM | 0 recs
Re: It's Either President

Thanks for being "with me until the last line"

can't please everyone all the time right?

lol

by CarolinaDawn 2008-03-28 11:28AM | 0 recs
Re: It's Either President

He wasn't replying to you.

by Kysen 2008-03-28 12:30PM | 0 recs
Re: It's Either President

I'm replying to you.

Great post!

Agree!

by ncvoter34 2008-03-28 01:07PM | 0 recs
Re: It's Either President

people vote for whomever they are going to vote, and for whatever reasons.

we don't even have to decide until we are in the voting booth.  we don't have to discuss our vote either before or after.

If Obama is the nominee, it will be the first time the Dem Party has nominated someone I just don't like. I maybe can vote for him, but maybe not. I am not enthralled with Hillary either, just that I think she would be a better President.  

by WolfmanJack 2008-03-28 11:18AM | 0 recs
Re: It's Either President

"million woman hissy fit" doesn't sound very nice toward women.  

by WolfmanJack 2008-03-28 11:43AM | 0 recs
Re: It's Either President

Sometimes the truth isn't pretty.  I bear no malice towards women in general, just those that are willing to throw away the biggest election in a generation in a big hissy fit over their candidate's historic failure.

by NJIndependent 2008-03-28 12:25PM | 0 recs
Re: It's Either President

What you said was wrong - people have pointed out to you it was wrong - yet you keep repeating it.

This sort of thing is why both women and men are rejecting your candidate.

by Larissa 2008-03-28 02:36PM | 0 recs
Re: It's Either President Clinton

Markos is entirely ignoring his own logic about Obama because he is so deadset against Hillary.  He was never impressed with Obama until he had no choice.  

Kos believed:

- Obama was part of the problem for pandering to IA and NH

  • Hated Obama's post-partisan non-sense
  • Was disapointed in his passive role on the war after becoming a US Senator
  • Felt Obama spoke too much like a Republican (i.e., declaring SS needed fixing)
  • Nailed Obama for campaigning with the gay, no I'm not gay, gospel singer (sorry can't remember his name)

I'm sure there are other examples.  But Markos has always been clear about disdain for Hillary as a candidate.  His obsession with not having a Clinton presidency is his backing of Obama.  He won't even state that he'll vote for Hillary if she is nominated which goes against the mantra of dailyKos - elect Democrats!

by oc 2008-03-28 10:25AM | 0 recs
Re: It's Either President Clinton

he's just keeping his audience happy to make money for himself. plain and simple.

by owl06 2008-03-28 10:37AM | 0 recs
Re: It's Either President Clinton

You are correct, and Kos would probably be the first to tell you so.

Kos had always been lukewarm on Obama--and in fact, had criticized him repeatedly. However, he is against Clinton because of the bankruptcy bill, her Iraq vote, and because she simply wasn't a "netroots" candidate. (I can elaborate on that last one more if anyone cares.)

So yes, once your choices get whittled down, and you really don't want one of them, you pick the other. Isn't that common sense?

by Johnny Gentle Famous Crooner 2008-03-28 10:55AM | 0 recs
Re: It's Either President Clinton

Actually, it doesn't make sense. If one is not terribly passionate about either candidate, then one should not nuke the one you favor least.  Hillary could win and Markos would help her defeat in the General.  Isn't Hillary a Democrat?  Isn't she far better than McCain?

Obama was never a netroots candidate either.  As a matter of fact one of Markos' complaints about Obama was that he did not take the netroots seriously.

bankruptcy bill?  Right or wrong it is not even an issue in this election.

Iraq?  I'm sorry, I wasn't aware Obama tried to end the war by filibustering it's funding.  Oh, that's because he didn't.  Great leadership, eh?

by oc 2008-03-28 11:13AM | 0 recs
Re: It's Either President Clinton

"If one is not terribly passionate about either candidate, then one should not nuke the one you favor least.  Hillary could win and Markos would help her defeat in the General."

Who said he wasn't passionate? He didn't take a public position until around the time of the South Carolina primary. Now he's sure as heck passionate against Clinton.

Having said that, Markos NEVER said he wouldn't help and support her if she somehow wins the nomination. Please don't even go there.

bankruptcy bill?  Right or wrong it is not even an issue in this election.

It's not an issue in this election, it's an issue in forming an opinion of someone as a potential presidential candidate.

Iraq?  I'm sorry, I wasn't aware Obama tried to end the war by filibustering it's funding.  Oh, that's because he didn't.  Great leadership, eh?

Your argument is "Hillary didn't do squat to end the war, but Obama didn't, either, so he's no better"? Look, I really wasn't intending to get into an issues debate with you. You said something about Kos, I clarified it.

But my opinion on the AUMF vote in a nutshell: Obama stood up when most other Democrats were afraid to voice dissent for fear of being Cleland-ized. For an obviously ambitious young politician, that's quite a risk to take. Clinton's efforts to end the war since then are commendable, and I have no doubt she'd be effective in ending it as president. But I intend to reward someone who had it right from the get-go.

It might seem silly to some people, but it means a lot to me. It shows good political judgment and instincts. And no, Rev. Wright has no more to do with it then freakin' Monica Lewinsky does with Clinton's political abilities. They are not remotely equivalent.

And do you think de-funding the troops was the answer? I'm no military expert here, but I wasn't comfortable with it, and am glad neither of our candidates proposed i

by Johnny Gentle Famous Crooner 2008-03-28 11:41AM | 0 recs
Re: It's Either President Clinton

Hi Johnny, Markos had a mild disdain for Obama and if his main passion FOR Obama is his passion AGAINST Clinton, well, that's sad.  He listed Clark, Gore, Richardson, Dodd, Warner and maybe some others way above Obama (I too).

and yes, Markos has stated he would not vote for Hillary if her nomination was determined by SDs.  Also, he has not clearly stated that he would vote for Hillary - I think the readers of Kos need to hear that.  Markos is a leader, what he says is equally important to what he does not say.

And you right, it is a bummer that between Clinton and Obama I am taking a 'he's no better' argument regarding AUMF on Iraq.  But it's true.  I do give Obama credit for his speech in 2002(?), but once he became a Senator he needed to step up.  Show his passion for disagreeing and ending the war.  I'm sure you are annoyed that he did not?  be honest?  and Yes, I do think defunding the war is the answer.  If you are not a military expert (I am not) lean towards no war.  There might be risk, but I would take the risk of defunding the war v. funding it everyday, and twice on Sunday.  That's courage and that what I wanted from Obama and he did not deliver.

by oc 2008-03-28 12:27PM | 0 recs
Re: It's Either President Clinton

Show his passion for disagreeing and ending the war.  I'm sure you are annoyed that he did not?  be honest?  and Yes, I do think defunding the war is the answer.  

Thanks for the comment. It's nice to discuss issues peaceably.

I am not annoyed that he didn't end the war. To the contrary, I think Clinton and Obama both made commendable efforts to end it. Both offered their own bills to do so (she: Iraq Troop Protection and Reduction Act, he: Iraq War De-Escalation Act), and I have no doubt that both could get our troops out of there once elected president.

De-funding the war may well have worked, but it still makes me uncomfortable to consider ending the troops' funding. Considering how badly the war was executed at every stage, I would be afraid that the funds would run out before we had withdrawn everyone.

by Johnny Gentle Famous Crooner 2008-03-28 12:54PM | 0 recs
Re: It's Either President Clinton

I agree with you, it does make me uncomfortable as well to end the funding for the war because I am not quite sure what that means for the troops.  It just makes me more uncomfortable to keep funding the war because it does mean more troops killed and injured as well as Iraqi civilians.

Thanks for the mini-debate, it was a pleasure.
Enjoy your weekend.

by oc 2008-03-28 01:14PM | 0 recs
Re: It's Either President Clinton or....

Obama would lose the electoral vote if the election were to be held today; Hillary would win it. The party is walking right off a cliff.

by owl06 2008-03-28 10:36AM | 0 recs
Re: It's Either President Clinton or....

In other words,

we are doomed! Doomed! Doooooooomed!!

Thanks...I hadn't gotten a chance to type that in a while.

by Johnny Gentle Famous Crooner 2008-03-28 10:55AM | 0 recs
Re: It's Either President Clinton or....

Source please!

by amiches 2008-03-28 11:02AM | 0 recs
President Clinton or It's President McCain

Obama is a flip-flopper and he is showing more every day. he was at his church when Wright was there but now that he's gone, he said he would have left if he was still there.

That's like I voted for the war before I voted against the war.

He has an anti-abortion endorser he's running around with in PA. He's no change agent. More of the same. I don;t want an American Idol I want a president.

come join the discussions at and read the article on the Flip-flopper

http://hillaryisourchoice.com/flip_flop. htm

by druidmary 2008-03-28 10:39AM | 0 recs
Re: President Clinton or It's President McCain

What the hell is wrong with Obama having a pro-life supporter like Casey?  We should respect pro-lifers and encourage them to join our party and get with us on economic issues, which are the most important issues.  

by Toddwell 2008-03-28 12:22PM | 0 recs
Re: President Clinton or It's President McCain

Yeah, I guess if you are not a WOMAN it's not important, OR economic.

If you are, it's both, and MORE.

by splashy 2008-03-28 07:51PM | 0 recs
Stop playing pollster

At the beginning of the primary race, polls had Hillary easily winning the primary. So let's put a lid on this electability crap. The last few elections have shown most guys here have no clue what they are talking about when it comes to electability.

by Pravin 2008-03-28 10:54AM | 0 recs
No way I'm voting for the media's candidate.

Especially that he's turned a blind eye to the people of MI and FL. What's the matter, Baracka baby? You wanna disenfranchise 'em cuz you didn't win?

Say landslide in the general again if Baracka baby is the nominee. The bulk of Latinos will go McCain, so will blue-collar lunch buckets who are dreaming about wringing Wright's chicken neck as we speak.

Lastly, bitches like me, who've been the fulcrum of the Dem party for years and are now being told to shut the fuck up by Deanie. Us bitches are gonna vote Nader or write Hillary's name in on the ballot as a show of female solidarity.

by Mariel 2008-03-28 10:56AM | 0 recs
Re: No way I'm voting for the media's candidate.

hahahahahaha

by amiches 2008-03-28 11:03AM | 0 recs
Re: No way I'm voting for the media's candidate.

God. Y'all just keep beating that drum.

Three things.  First, I have NEVER heard a Hillary partisan explain the sudden shift in her attitudes towards those primaries. Do you really believe that it's about 'enfranchisement'?  Or is it political opportunism?  Do you really believe that Hillary would give a hoot if she had this thing sown up like he expected? .

Second, what exactly has Obama done besides say he'll play by the rules?  Any solid evidence?

Finally, do you really think that those seats won't be seated somehow.  They will be.  The party and the Obama campaign is more than aware that these states are vital, and something will be done.  I might not be handing over all the delegates that Hillary demands, but it'll be something.

After that, all this nattering on about disenfranchisement will evaporate  instantly. You'll be left with nothing on this talking point and the election will move on.  Poof!

by mikeinsf 2008-03-29 01:35PM | 0 recs
Re: It's Either President Clinton or McCain

It took my whole adult life to discover I'm not a Yellow Dog Democrat. I never expected to see a time when I would consider voting Republican. Live and learn (sigh). I love my country too much to have my conscience tainted by voting for a man who would bring this Democratic party down just to suit his own selfish goals. If Hillary Clinton is not the nominee, I'll turn my back on the DNC and never look back.

by PortiaElizabeth 2008-03-28 10:56AM | 0 recs
Bye!

Don't let the door hit your ass on the way out!

by amiches 2008-03-28 11:04AM | 0 recs
Re: Bye!

Man, I love that response. Obama supporters will be crying in November when they remember comments like "well, we don't need Clintonistas--just HIT THE ROAD", as they fall to a general election defeat. It's kind of funny--I'd feel alot more comfortable walking into a McCain campaign office and telling them I was a former Hillary supporter than walking into an Obama one and doing the same thing.

by zcflint05 2008-03-28 11:32AM | 0 recs
Re: Bye!

I would rather have McCain win and we keep Congress than Hillary winning, giving us nothing, and then losing us Congress in 2010.  

by Toddwell 2008-03-28 12:21PM | 0 recs
Re: Bye!

But He'll lose congress too.

All those seats in the South - gone!

But we won't let the door hit us on the way out!

by ncvoter34 2008-03-28 01:14PM | 0 recs
Re: Bye!
Man, I love that response. Obama supporters will be crying in November when they remember comments like "well, we don't need Clintonistas--just HIT THE ROAD"
Oh, we'll need the vast majority of Clinton voters -- and we'll get 'em. Angry, obsessive, and delusional Clinton supporters? Don't want 'em, don't need 'em.
It's kind of funny--I'd feel alot more comfortable walking into a McCain campaign office and telling them I was a former Hillary supporter than walking into an Obama one and doing the same thing.
Well then why don't you do that? The sooner the 5th column jumps ship, the better.
by RP McMurphy 2008-03-28 01:15PM | 0 recs
Re: Bye!

But we're the activists- kind of like the Swift-boaters.

Dislike the man so much, think he is so unqualified, corrupt, and un-American that we will do anything to see he is not elected.

Like I said, we won't let the door hit us on the way out.

by ncvoter34 2008-03-28 01:41PM | 0 recs
Re: Bye!

kind of like the Swift-boaters.

Our party can do without the values of the swiftboaters.

by you like it 2008-03-28 02:02PM | 0 recs
Re: Bye!

An interesting thought. Considering recent polls have Clinton supporters defecting by 29% to McCain, you might want to re-think that position, considering I think it would be tough to pick up a general election victory without more than a quarter of the Dem party base. Oh wait, I forgot, Bambi's picking up a quarter of the GOP base, right? LOL

Man, I'll have fun watching you guys crying...maybe Dean can give you a hug after you see the unity pony trot off into the sunset. (b-b-b-b-b-uut HOW DID WE LOOOOOOSE? WAHHHHHHH)

by zcflint05 2008-03-28 09:56PM | 0 recs
Re: It's Either President Clinton or McCain

Heh.  This must be the first time your candidate hasn't won the primaries.  Your conscience won't let you vote for a man who wants to be president, but your conscience is OK with 100 years of war, overturning Roe v Wade, tax cuts for the rich, and screwing over people who work for a living?  Ummm, right...

I'm guessing there is are reasons you are a Democrat, and those reasons will be more or less equally fulfilled if either Clinton or Obama becomes president.  

by CA Pol Junkie 2008-03-28 05:07PM | 0 recs
Re: It's Clinton or McCain

Where did the House of Lords come from?  When did we over throw Democracy in the Democratic party?  When did we say "f***" the vote and the voters?  Are we the party of voter registration, voter rights and "one voice, one vote?"  

No coronations for me, thanks.  The only valuable thing to come out of the entire damn Iraqi mess was a purple finger ... well, my finger will be purple in November and if the Democratic leadership isn't careful, the finger they'll be seeing is the middle one.

by beebop 2008-03-28 11:09AM | 0 recs
Re: It's Clinton or McCain

And I guess you had no problems with Clinton getting almost 100 superdelegate endorsements before anyone had voted in the primaries?

Look, you can't be arguing that the superdelegates have the right to make an independent judgement and then complain when they do.

by kjblair2 2008-03-28 11:40AM | 0 recs
Wow. This adjustment process better begin soon.

The reason we need to end this soon is so Clinton supporters have all the time they need to adjust to the fact that Obama is going to be the nominee. This is over folks. No need to argue about it. I know you don't believe it yet. That's Hillary's fault. Any day she's going to help bring you to reality. I hope sooner rather than later, because I think it's going to take a while.

by Travis Stark 2008-03-28 11:15AM | 0 recs
Obamabots say that every time

he's looking down the barrel of a huge or embarassing loss.

PA?  Or whether or not he can try to disenfranchise 2 states (I thought he was able to reach across the aisle to do the right thing).

The last time they told Hillary to drop out it was for her own good, so she wouldn't be embarassed in Ohio and Texas.

Oops.

The time before that you guys said Hillary is done was before NH (Obama had won 1 state then, yet every newspaper said that).

So pardon us if we know your pattern.  Is Obama about to lose in some sort of huge and important contest or something?  

by chieflytrue 2008-03-28 11:37AM | 0 recs
Re: Obamabots say that every time

Clinton is further from getting the nomination now than she was before March 4th and unless she starts winning every state from here on by 20+%, her chances are going to gradually get smaller and smaller.

There just aren't that many more delegates to be chosen and proportional distribution of those delegates makes it very difficult to run up huge margins unless you start winning by something like a 60-40 margin. Each time Clinton fails to do this, her chances decrease. So "winning" PA by 10% actually doesn't help her.

Now you may not like this, or feel it's unfair, but that's how the system is set up. (And has been for a number of years. It's not something the DNC thought up last fall to make it more difficult for Clinton to win.)

by kjblair2 2008-03-28 11:51AM | 0 recs
Re: It's Either President Clinton or It's Presiden

Excuse me for jumping in with this, but it's that important.

(OpEdNews)

Barck Obama - The Wizard of Oz

by jen 2008-03-28 11:16AM | 0 recs
Well, THAT was underwhelming

What a piece of breathless insinuation passing for "important".  Can anyone point to some real journalism showing Obama to be corrupt and evil?  

{crickets}

Oh well.

by David in AK 2008-03-28 01:45PM | 0 recs
With All Due Respect JFK...

It is certainly your right to opine and wish as you will, but to create a laundry list of opinion and conjecture and then use it all to state an end as "a fact", defies the scientific method on many levels.

We have 8 months to get the issues discussed against McCain.  We could run ME or YOU against McCain and win given:

1) The Economy

  1. Home crisis
  2. THE WAR in Iraq
  3. The REAL war in Afghanistan
  4. Energy prices
  5. Environment
  6. Did i mention the War in Iraq

As many will tell you around here, While I am an Obama supporter, I also am a fair-minded broker of reason.  

We ARE getting to an endgame here.  Between Dodd, Richardson, Pelosi's position,  Bob Casey, and now ANOTHER party Elder (Lahey) saying publically what his perception of it is... it seems that we soon may see an end to this.  Certainly within a number of weeks.  

I respect HRC to this day, and part of me still wishes she had run LAST cycle against Bush.  I bet we'd not be talking about Obama today, he she done so.

by a gunslinger 2008-03-28 11:20AM | 0 recs
Jack Murtha and Joe Wilson

endorse Hillary Clinton.

To see an impressive woman on Iraq, see this

http://clinton.senate.gov/speeches/iraq_ 101002.html

A speech filled with understanding of the entire situation.  A vote for inspection, not for pre-emptive war.

"My vote is not, however, a vote for any new doctrine of pre-emption, or for uni-lateralism, or for the arrogance of American power or purpose -- all of which carry grave dangers for our nation, for the rule of international law and for the peace and security of people throughout the world."

Why hasn't Obama held any hearings on NATO?

by chieflytrue 2008-03-28 11:44AM | 0 recs
Re: It's Either President Clinton or It's Presiden

I just sent money to her

by engels 2008-03-28 11:24AM | 0 recs
Re: It's Either President Clinton or It's Presiden

So did I.

by oh puhleeze 2008-03-28 12:09PM | 0 recs
Love it.

The simply fact is that Hillary is our nominee or McCain is our next president.

Great stuff. I have been laughing all day reading posts here.

Here's the real "simply fact": Democrats could run Daffy Duck this year and crush McCain. He's a lousy candidate in a very bad year for Republicans.

As I noted in another diary, McCain is the second coming of Bob Dole (no pun intended about Senator Viagra).

by Bob Johnson 2008-03-28 11:26AM | 0 recs
Re: Love it.

I know you support Obama, but I want to add that Obama should be our nominee not because even daffy duck could beat McCain, but because Obama is the best candidate for president.

by David in AK 2008-03-28 01:48PM | 0 recs
Why don't you get or do your job?

Or do something else constructive with your life instead of being just being a constant source of snark and irritation on a Web site?  Is that what you live for - poking sticks at people online?  What a loser.

by lombard 2008-03-28 05:48PM | 0 recs
Poll: 25% Floridia Dems will not vote Dem IF

their primary vote doesn't count.

From the WSJ:

According to a Miami Herald poll earlier this week, 24% of Florida
Democrats say they are less likely to support the ultimate Democratic
candidate if their votes in the primary don't count.

by catfish1 2008-03-28 11:28AM | 0 recs
Re: Poll: 25% Floridia Dems will not vote Dem IF

So which is it?

25% of Florida Dems will not vote?  - your interpretation  

-or-

24% are less likely to vote? - what the article that you posted ACTUALLY SAYS!

Sheesh!

by FlashStash 2008-03-28 12:24PM | 0 recs
Re: Poll: 25% Floridia Dems will not vote Dem IF

Ouch!

Facts hurt.  Better get to the bargaining table Obama.

Michigan and Florida are really important.  Can I believe my eyes though, I saw several here yesterday argue that we should give up on Florida, which we were set to win by an astronomical 20 points in the beautiful purple state (various reasons working in our favor, including George Bush who actually counted the state's votes at least once).......but what a humongous shift occurred since Obama

1) Did his South Carolina "I'm a winner" speech by mentioning Florida first-- shout out to FL, national ad buy on CNN, and fundraising!

2) Lost and called it a "beauty contest."  

3) The Republicans wisely decided to show the state enormous respect (and challenge us to honor our own primary)

4) Reverend Wright

Now politicos here (maybe I'm overly kind) say who needs FL?

We do!  Winning FL is probably a must.  So read that poll and remember how fast we've dropped since all this.

by chieflytrue 2008-03-28 01:44PM | 0 recs
Re: It's Either President Clinton/McCain

gunslinger:

You may need a little more koolaid after you read Kirsten Breitweiser's take on Senator Obama's anti Iraq war stance.  Kirsten -- a 911 widow -- WAS involved in the lead up to the war, the protests after the war and continues -- even in the Huffington Post -- to post this opinion earlier in March:

'Now forgive me, but I do not recall the help (or the voice) of any Barack Obama from Illinois. Indeed, I cannot recall hearing or feeling the impact of any one speech from the Illinois Senator. Did he attend the rally on the mall in Washington? The marches and protests in NYC? Did he conduct national press interviews? Did he write any editorials? Organize any protest rallies? Mobilize the people? Did he write any petitions? If he did, I never saw any of them.'

And, before you want to fault Senator Clinton ALONE for her vote, Kirsten also writes:

Indeed, more than 75% of our Senate voted for the authorization to go to war -- including Senators Daschle, Dodd, Kerry, and Rockefeller I might add -- all of whom work as advisors on Barack Obama's campaign. And yes, so did Senator Hillary Clinton.

Revisionist history is beautiful, but don't be fooled by it.

by beebop 2008-03-28 11:34AM | 0 recs
Nothing more than worthless fear-mongering

I vote my conscious, thank you.  Only in this world of rampant punditry with so much sophistry disguised as all-mighty "truth", do you hear common voters spewing the electability arguement.

You prefer Hillary, that's fine.  But don't give me the vote for Hillary or else (cue Linda Blair a la exorcist voice) arguement.  It's bullshit, intellectual dishonesty.  We all know Obama would win.  Hell, I even admit Clinton would likely win if she were the legitimate nominee.

The problem is that there is no way for her to become the legitimate nominee at this point.  Therefore your electability arguement (while being a stupid thing to argue in the first place)is nothing more than tripe.

by Tenafly Viper 2008-03-28 11:36AM | 0 recs
Iligitimate is disenfranchising FL and MI

and trying to make Hillary drop out every time you see a win on the horizon.

Pundits did it before NH (every newspaper and magazine, and Obama only won 1 contest--hubris)

Obama desperately tried to make her drop out before March 4th (he spoke out "I'd have to drop out, if I were her," he had John Kerry and Richardson go on t.v. and tell her to drop out, then Axelrod released an insulting memo telling her to drop out).

Now, you want her to drop out before PA, and you don't want to count FL and MI!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  (Not even a re-vote?????????????)

Obama would be totally illigitimate.  

And Hillary voters don't ever, ever tell you not to vote for Obama.  Obama supporters keep trying to tell her to quit, but you have to win.  You can't force her out.  

MI and FL.

by chieflytrue 2008-03-28 11:50AM | 0 recs
Re: Iligitimate is disenfranchising FL and MI

Hey, its up to the candidate to decide when to drop out. Edwards, Dodd, Biden, Richardson and others all have dropped out before the end of the primary schedule. Have they disenfranchised voters in the later states? But at some point, the math is going to be so bad that it's going to be obvious that the candidate doesn't have a chance. When a particular person reaches that conclusion may vary, but it will get here sometime between now and the middle of June.

My guess is that point will be after PA, NC and IN have voted.

by kjblair2 2008-03-28 12:00PM | 0 recs
Re: Iligitimate is disenfranchising FL and MI

The "MI and FL" cry falls flat. It is disingenuous. Clinton and Obama agreed to the rules before the voting started.

You say Obama will be illegitimate if he wins, even though he is following the rules. And you argue that if we change the agreed upon rules, after the contests have started, Hillary could be a legitimate winner.

Arguments like this only hurt Hillary. They make her look like a desperate cheater.

by Mojo Risen 2008-03-28 12:02PM | 0 recs
Re: Iligitimate is disenfranchising FL and MI

Wrong!

The Hillary camp and the DNC had agreed to a revote in Michigan and Obama nixed it. He and he alone disenfranchised them and they know it.

As Hillary says, she doesn't know how the vote would have turned out, but she was all for it. The only party who opposed the revote was Obama.

So get off the kool-aid for a moment and face reality.

Obama could have tried to peddle his message and spend money until the cows came home just like he did in Ohio and Texas, and he might have won. But we'll never know because he didn't let it happen.

Oops there goes Michigan!

by ncvoter34 2008-03-28 01:26PM | 0 recs
Re: Iligitimate is disenfranchising FL and MI

You don't speak for the people of MI.

What I know about it is that the state legislature couldn't get its act together and come up with a viable solution.  That isn't Obama's fault.

by you like it 2008-03-28 02:20PM | 0 recs
Re: Iligitimate is disenfranchising FL and MI

This is political double-speak. I know it may hurt your eyes to read anything critical of the anointed one, but the DNC and Hill both approved it and if not for Obama there would be a revote. His supporters (out of Detroit?) blocked it in the legislature. If he would have allowed it so would they.

Get off the kool-aid. I know it's hard.

by ncvoter34 2008-03-28 03:08PM | 0 recs
Condescending much?

There was overwhelming opposition in the legislature to the idea.  Also, to implement it would have required Republican votes in the hyperpartisan state senate.  The Senate Majority Leader came out against the plan as well.

So no, what you are saying is not true and people from MI who are paying attention know it.

by you like it 2008-03-28 04:16PM | 0 recs
Re: Condescending much?

If Obama had been for it, it would have happened.

Don't make excuses for him.

Your argument would have been better if he had OK'd it, told his support in the legislature to go for it, and it had been stopped some other way.

As it is, he blocked it, and they are enraged, and rightfully so.

No one forced him to take his name off the ballot. He did so to court favor with the voters of Iowa and NH.

He ran an advertising campaign in Michigan suggesting his supporters vote "uncommitted."
Again, his choice. He didn't have to run those ads.

by ncvoter34 2008-03-28 05:05PM | 0 recs
Re: Condescending much?

If Obama had been for it, it would have happened.

Don't make excuses for him.

Your argument would have been better if he had OK'd it, told his support in the legislature to go for it, and it had been stopped some other way.

How so?  Does Obama have control over MI State Senate Republicans?  Or State House Republicans for good measure?  The proposal required 2/3 vote in both chambers.

As it is, he blocked it, and they are enraged, and rightfully so.

Wrong, as I have shown.  And once again, you don't speak for the voters of MI.

No one forced him to take his name off the ballot. He did so to court favor with the voters of Iowa and NH.

And no one forced Hillary to say that Michigan's primary didn't count for anything or to sign the pledge not to participate in that primary.

He ran an advertising campaign in Michigan suggesting his supporters vote "uncommitted."
Again, his choice. He didn't have to run those ads.

Categorically wrong.  There was no Democratic candidate advertising in MI.  Doing so would have been against the agreement that the candidates signed.  Now you're just lying.

by you like it 2008-03-28 06:04PM | 0 recs
illegitimate is also attempting to disenfranchise

TX and to marginalize other states and voters whose support Clinton could not muster.  

Obama has never attempted to disenfranchise (Peewees playhouse word of the day!)anyone.  Florida and Michigan unfortunately disenfranchised themselves.  But this new attempt by the Clinton camp is particularly sleazy in light of their supposedly moral stance concerning MI and FL.

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/ dws/dn/latestnews/stories/032808dnpoldel egatechallenge.6f1680d.html

Clinton can only win by declaring a civil war within the party.  Clinton can only remain viable in TX (and come away with extra delegates) by disenfranchising voters.  So illegitimacy IS her path to the nomination.  Maybe Clinton partisans can justify that, but I guarantee discerning voters will not.

Maybe we can't call the race at this point but Dean will and he'll do it by June.

by Tenafly Viper 2008-03-28 12:14PM | 0 recs
Re: illegitimate is also attempting

See above reply to Mojo Risen

by ncvoter34 2008-03-28 01:28PM | 0 recs
Re: illegitimate is also attempting

How about a link, my friend.  Oh, and how about a response to the clear hypocrisy of attempting to disenfranchise TX voters.  Hillary again defies all rules: never a slave to consistency. Moral lassitude seems to be her strong point.

by Tenafly Viper 2008-03-28 03:08PM | 0 recs
FL + MI = 0 delegates

If you have a problem with that - take it up with HRC's strategist Harold Ickes. He represented Clinton in the discussions regarding MI/FL/IA/NH.

He agreed to the DNC's rules last summer. Completely hypocritical to try and change the rules given that the HRC campaign agreed to them (when it was in their self interest to do so). The brazen hypocrisy is almost Rovian.

by johnnyappleseed 2008-03-28 12:35PM | 0 recs
Re: It's Either President Clinton or It's Presiden

You don't help Hillary or the Democratic party or the nation by writing diaries like this. Encouraging her to stay in the race is bad for her.

It appears she is going to stay in the race until she is absolutely forced out - maybe after she takes the DNC to court.

Her career will be destroyed and the Dem party seriously damaged.

If you care about Hillary and her future, you should ask her to withdrawal.

by Mojo Risen 2008-03-28 11:46AM | 0 recs
Re: It's Either President Clinton or It's Presiden

Bad for her? Hahahahaha, like you have any idea what is best for her, over and above what she knows.

Rich, really rich!

by splashy 2008-03-28 08:06PM | 0 recs
that is a foolish argument,

So you are saying that Obama would lose CA?

Obama would lose NY?

Are you MAD?  

New polls have Obama doing better than Clinton against McCain in CA.

This diatribe is just plain silly

by Silence Do Good 2008-03-28 11:53AM | 0 recs
If he loses all the southern

states (Reverend Wright), FL and PA which we nearly lost in the last election you will be enjoying a President McCain.

And I won't argue the merits of that right now, but Obama's past and record, is so murky.  He's so inexperienced.  Voters have a right to make up their minds.

And carrying California is a must, but it can't save him.

by chieflytrue 2008-03-28 01:49PM | 0 recs
You are right about one thing

oters have a right to make up their minds.

Voters do have a right to make up their minds.  And so far a majority have made up their mind in favor of Obama, so much so that Hillary most likely can't catch up.

Now, I don't think Hillary should necessarily drop out, just like I didn't think Edwards had to drop out.  But it is incumbent upon the Clinton team to explain how staying in helps the party and how they can legitimately get from here to the nomination.

by bawbie 2008-03-28 07:04PM | 0 recs
The truth---

is Obama can't win pledged delegates either 2025 is the magic number.

So on it goes.   If Obama can't figure out how to beat Hillary, he will also not win a General Election.

Too much hubris is why the man can't win Democrats either.  He lost Republicans last week.  Reverend Wright is the Farrakhan that will never be forgotten.  

But, the major insult is Obama IS TRYING TO DISENFRANCHISE DEMOCRATS.  He can't win because of that.

Number 1-----------Let FL and MI vote.

Number 2----------Telling Hillary to quit every time a contest look tough for Obama is why he'll lose core Democrats

THIRD TIME, NOT CHARMING.

1) NH CALLS FOR HILLARY'S END
Pundits did it before NH (every newspaper and magazine, and Obama only won 1 contest--hubris)

2) OH-TX MARCH 4TH CALLS FOR HILLARY'S END

Obama himself desperately tried to make her drop out before March 4th (he spoke out "I'd have to drop out, if I were her," he had John Kerry and Richardson go on t.v. and tell her to drop out, then Axelrod released an insulting memo telling her to drop out-- to which she replied with a memo of her own).

Now, you want her to drop out before PA, and you don't want to count FL and MI!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  (Not even a re-vote?????????????)

Obama's not going to win a General Election as an illigitimate candidate who has to disenfranchise 2 states and force out a wildly popular and historic candidate like Hillary to win.  

by chieflytrue 2008-03-28 11:59AM | 0 recs
Re: The truth---

Then by that reasoning, I guess Clinton can't win the GE either since she hasn't figured out how to beat Obama. (And if you follow that logic to it's ultimate conclusion, you'd say her chances are even lower against McCain since she's behind Obama in the delegate count.)

by kjblair2 2008-03-28 12:04PM | 0 recs
Re: The truth---

"crickets"

by zep93 2008-03-28 12:38PM | 0 recs
Stop the bullcrap


   Obama has not disenfranchised anyone. He had nothing to do with MI and FL being stupid and violating DNC rules. Nothing. Nada.  Zip. Quit blaming Obama for the dipshit moves of Jennifer Granholm, Carl Levin, Debbie Stabenow, Harold Ickes (Clinton supporter after all) Bill Nelson and others. They knew what they were doing and they didn't care. You reap what you sow.

   Obama has repeatedly said that he'd support any plan the DNC had for seating those delegates. Clinton's bending and backsliding through this issue is simply embarassing.

    Now to the diary. For what's it's worth, by Clinton's own logic, she'd lose Missouri and IA. Remember she said if you can't win the primary, how can you win the general. So scratch those two.

    Arkansas? Are you joking?  A Democrat has won PA 4 elections in a row, and you're claiming Clinton can win it, but Obama can't? The logic is just ridiculous.

    Obama has not opposed a re-vote. He has opposed a revote based on what Clinton thinks is fair (such as excluding voters who might possibly back Obama).  He's said many times that he's open to whatever plan the DNC approves to get those delegations seated. It's amazing how blind the Clintonites are that they either don't see that, or don't care. Either way, that's bad news.

by southernman 2008-03-28 12:48PM | 0 recs
Re: Stop the bullcrap

As for revote in Michigan, see my reply to Mojo Risen above.

by ncvoter34 2008-03-28 01:44PM | 0 recs
Re: Stop the bullcrap

The DNC and Clinton camp approved a plan. Obama got his supporters in the Michigan legilature to block it.

She's vowed to take the issue of the Florida and Michigan delegations all the way to the convention. Of course those states support her in that effort.

He should have approved a re-do.

He left a big opening here politically for her. Dems can't win without those states. Bad move on his part.

Sorry. Stop the kool-aid for a second. It was bad.

by ncvoter34 2008-03-28 03:18PM | 0 recs
Re: The truth---

Hillary is wildly popular?  Why do only 37% of Americans have a favorable view of her?  

by Toddwell 2008-03-28 03:06PM | 0 recs
Re: It's Either Pres Clinton or It's Pres McCain

Everyone I talk to who is not under 25 is wholly unimpressed with candidate Obama.

"A flim-flam man full of platitudes with thin experience."

Among us older folks it's "if we fell for that kind of crap, we'd be pan-handlin' on the street for nickels and dimes."

Funny thing, people (not just dems, but Republicans and Independents too) say they do really want change from Bush, but not from a first-term senator with nothing to recommend him but a racist pastor, and a few puzzling endorsements.

A republican voter told me today, "I could vote for a Democrat against McCain who was a moderate, not a far-left. Someone who had experience to run a government properly. I don't trust Obama. Maybe Hillary. She gets bad press. It looks like many in her own party don't like her."  He then  referred to Casey's endorsement, and was puzzled why so many dems were endorsing this candidate of minimal credentials.

by ncvoter34 2008-03-28 12:09PM | 0 recs
Re: It's Either Pres Clinton or It's Pres McCain

Everyone I talk to who is not under 25 is wholly unimpressed with candidate Obama.

You must not talk to very many people, then.

"A flim-flam man full of platitudes with thin experience."

Well, at least he isn't selling hair tonic and mummy powder -- I don't even want to think about how many times you were had by the traveling gypsy caravan.

Among us older folks it's "if we fell for that kind of crap, we'd be pan-handlin' on the street for nickels and dimes."

Then throw a hickory log on the fire, roast us up a couple of chestnuts, and regale us with political tales of yesteryear. No seriously. I'd love to hear more nuggets of wisdom from you "old pros" who know diddly-squat about electoral politics.

by RP McMurphy 2008-03-28 01:29PM | 0 recs
Re: It's Either Pres Clinton or It's Pres McCain

Yeah, it's all about demographics and "the One." What a load of crap.

You fell for the Corporate Press kool-aid.

Now salute President McCain.

by ncvoter34 2008-03-28 01:52PM | 0 recs
Re: It's Either Pres Clinton or It's Pres McCain

Understand how you can fall for this...

Just feel bad for you.

It's a tough world, ain't it?

Everything is not always what it appears to be.

If McCain goes on like Bush, with the economy and the war....

Obama said "we don't want to go back to the nineties."

And Hillary replied, "What part didn't you like, the peace or the prosperity?"

by ncvoter34 2008-03-28 02:03PM | 0 recs
Re: It's Either Pres Clinton or It's Pres McCain

Most people live in a bubble of like minded people - I wouldn't extrapolate much from your conversations with friends and neighbours.  It's why we have polls.

by interestedbystander 2008-03-28 01:32PM | 0 recs
Re: It's Either Pres Clinton or It's Pres McCain
Thanks for the thought.
Just don't see anything in the guy.
by ncvoter34 2008-03-28 01:54PM | 0 recs
Re: It's Either Pres Clinton or It's Pres McCain

That has been my experience, as well, ncvoter.

People shake their head in wonder.

What a lost opportunity, because I was seeing undecided people lean Democratic before this media/party push for Obama began.

If Obama is the nominee, they say they are voting for McCain.

by Larissa 2008-03-28 02:47PM | 0 recs
Re: It's Either President Clinton or

I would rather have McCain than a Republican-lite like Clinton.  

by Toddwell 2008-03-28 12:19PM | 0 recs
Re: It's Either President Clinton or

Then that's what you'll get - McCain.

I would rather McCain over Obama, but I don't think Obama has a chance in the GE anyway.

Many Hillary supporters well... you know.

Hope Kerry goes to.

by ncvoter34 2008-03-28 12:31PM | 0 recs
Re: It's Either President Clinton or

Fine, we probably will get McCain.  I don't see what the big problem everyone has with him is anyway.  

by Toddwell 2008-03-28 12:45PM | 0 recs
Re: Its a CONSENSUS DEMOCRAT THAT CAN WIN

DEMOCRATS do not disenfranchise voters.  If you can't win by counting all the votes, you're not a Democrat.  Just plain simple.  That is what this party has always been and always will be.  If you can't live with those facts, don't get in the game.  We're DEMOCRATS and that's what we stand for.

by beebop 2008-03-28 12:20PM | 0 recs
Ridiculous

Pelosi is chomping at the bit to endorse Obama, have him become the nominee, and then have the sit down with Obama where they talk about fund raising and how to help down ticket candidates like he helped in IL-14. To think that Pelosi is going to line up behind HRC is ludicrous. It's amazing that she hasn't endorsed him yet, particularly after he helped them in taking Denny Hastert's old seat last month. What do you think Pelosi is thinking about - some convoluted argument as presented by the diarist, or real results like in IL-14. Yeah - IL-14 a district that is GOP +10 that goes Democratic in a special election and was Round 1 of Obama vs. McCain. And FYI - you almost never see seats flip in special elections which are most times low turnout affairs which are decided by the base. Imagine what is going to happen against the backdrop of a General Election. That is what Pelosi and Reid are thinking about and Clinton doesn't figure anywhere in their calculus.

Over a hundred and twenty million dollars in the last two months - with most of it coming from small donors. To think that Pelosi and the other Party elders aren't salivating at the thought of Obama doing events with Democratic challengers, you'd have to be completely naive. The money race is way more important than any remaining Primary.

This entire diary is divorced from reality. Obama is going to be the nominee. The only thing that would change that likelihood would be if HRC wins in NC and IN in early May and gets a huge boost to her fund raising efforts. The party elders and remaining super D's are waiting for Obama to deliver one more blow - and then that is it. Frankly, they would end this now but they want the Obama wins to set the tone.

by johnnyappleseed 2008-03-28 12:20PM | 0 recs
Re: It's Either President Clinton or It's Presiden

Sorry, but your analysis is pure fantasy.

Based on polling, Obama is 49.6% to win against McCain, and Clinton is 39.8%. I defy you to try to find an analysis even as remotely as comprehensive as:

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/

by mattw 2008-03-28 12:29PM | 0 recs
Re: It's Either President Clinton or It's Presiden

That's really comprehensive. Thanks for the link!

I disagree with them about Texas. I'd up Obama's chances to about 33% -- enough that McCain will have to spent time and resources playing defense. Similarly, California is Obama's solid, but Clinton will need to play significant defense (they don't have current CA numbers, which significantly change the game from what they're using).

I'm not convinced that Obama's that far down in Florida, nor that Clinton is either. Virginia's eye-opening though.

Interesting that they have Michigan a swing state between the two.

Overall this looks like what nearly anyone who actually takes a serious look at the numbers has been saying: Clinton's high-end for EV is well lower than Obama's, it's a much tougher road for her to get to 270, and Obama has more solid EV than Clinton.

by Texas Gray Wolf 2008-03-28 01:29PM | 0 recs
Re: It's Either President Clinton or It's Presiden

One of the points that the guy who does fivethirtyeight.com made after the first SUSA national poll (which showed clinton narrowly winning the general and obama winning by ever so slightly more) was that the states obama was "winning" he was winning by larger margins, meaning he had more safety there. That would mean he can go out and contest more McCain strongholds and force mccain to use his money to play defense.

Obama's general election fortunes have plummeted in the wake of the Wright scandal, but of course, that news is going to be worst just in the wake. His Gallup head to head number has now rebounded to its peak lead, though, so if that gets reflected against McCain also, his numbers at 538 could rebound.

by mattw 2008-03-28 06:15PM | 0 recs
I have a proposal

Why don't we all act lke adults and stop telling the other half of the party that their candidate is not electable?  Both candidates have a viable path to election in November.

I happen to agree that Obama feels like a "Swift Boat" candidate to me.  So I share that fear.  But to say that he can't win?  That's just silly.  I mean, let me put it in a way that will appeal to the pro-Hillary crowd: he has demonstated such brilliance as mindwashing that he has been able to: convince liberals that opposing racism is racist, convince progressives that universal healthcare is bad, convince America that being qualified for a job is bad.. I mean, it goes on and on.  So, love him or hate him, but don't pretend his political talent doesn't exist.

I prefer to focus on the fact that Hillary is the best qualified candidate.  I like the fact that, while the Obama camp was busy trying to smear her character, she was out talking to America about her newest plans to keep folks in homes, or be the first candidate to detail a substantive plan for how we fix the mess in Iraq.  I like the fact that, while Obama supporters are busy repeating the chorus that universal healthcare is bad, Hillary was sitting down to explain how the premium caps in her healthcare plan benefit working class Americans.

And if Obama supporters want to argue with me why his plans, point for point, are superior, then lets have that argument.  I like arguing.  But this nonsense about what's possible and what's impossible is getting really tired.

by bobbank 2008-03-28 12:59PM | 0 recs
Re: I have a proposal

Good point!

But as I am also a Hillary supporter, I have no argument with you!

by ncvoter34 2008-03-28 04:09PM | 0 recs
Re: It's Either President Clinton or It's Presiden

Unless you are a pro-life Democrat . . . we WILL KUMBAYA in JULY!

The Supreme Court is too important to vote the GOP in for four years.

HRC or OBAMA . . . DEM '08!!

by Veteran75 2008-03-28 01:00PM | 0 recs
I won't single-issue vote

and Obama's credentials on judges?  At least McCain was on the Gang of 14 that pushed through moderate judges (and got him the ire of arch conservatives), Obama would swing so much with the public opinion polls.

Hillary is staunchly pro-choice.

If Obama needs and still believes he could get pro-life voters, what would make you think he wouldn't pander away.

Ronald Reagan gave us Sandra Day O'Connor.  

Single-issue voting on that might make sense for anyone but a person with such a slight background and check on Obama's recent history w/judges anyway.

by chieflytrue 2008-03-28 01:57PM | 0 recs
Re: I won't single-issue vote

I respect your right to vote for whomever you choose. I am not going to roll the dice with a McCain 100-year war.

by Veteran75 2008-03-28 02:10PM | 0 recs
Re: It's Either President Clinton or It's Presiden

A summary:

"Here's a list of states I think one candidate would win.  Here's a list of states I think the other candidate would win.  I have provided absolutely no numerical backing for them.  As you can clearly see, only the second candidate will win!"

by GavinBrown 2008-03-28 01:02PM | 0 recs
It's Neither President Clinton or President McCain

Here's a list of states Hillary would likely win: Missouri, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Ohio, Arkansas, Florida, Iowa, and Pennsylvania.

Clinton has essential no chance in Nevade or New Mexico. Obama is likely to win both, along with Colorado. Clinton makes California and Connecticut near-even; Obama carries them handily. Arkansas is still a tough sell -- McCain's polling well ahead of Clinton.

But we'll give her Arkansas. That's likely the only state she brings to the table that Obama doesn't. Obama brings quite a number that Clinton doesn't.

There's a reason that national polling shows McCain beating Clinton and Obama beating McCain.

by Texas Gray Wolf 2008-03-28 01:18PM | 0 recs
Link to Hillary Deathwatch


Down to a 12% chance of her getting the nomination.

http://www.slate.com/id/2187558/

by chatters71 2008-03-28 01:20PM | 0 recs
re

Obama will lose FL, OH, PA and MI. His task for winning 270 is going to be mighty tough given he will also get shut out everywhere in the Southwest except CO because he has zero appeal with Hispanics. Heck Bill Richardson couldn't even deliver NM to Kerry over Bush and McCain is from the Southwest. McCain-Pawlenty will even make the Democrats sweat in MN and WI

by rossinatl 2008-03-28 01:42PM | 0 recs
Re: re

really? How exactly do you know this? Because the match up against McCain looks much better for Mr Obama than they do for Mrs Clinton.

by TMP 2008-03-28 05:06PM | 0 recs
Re: It's Either President Clinton or It's Presiden

What flagrant self-delusion.

I was a "I'll flip a coin in the booth" primary voter because I liked all our candidates, but now that it is down to two O seems like a much better option. Likely to disempower rather than empower the right-wing hate machine, great soft-power advantages among those who hate use most, calls to our best rather than our worst, and much more likely to win the GE against McCain.

I was already uncomfortable about Hil's ties to money. Failure to disclose has for me been fatal.

I just don't get what powers this Hil cult: sexism, identification with a victim, desire for control via money?  Really, what is it?

Why aren't we getting together behind the obviously better candidate and doing something meaningful: kicking pub azz.

by wrb 2008-03-28 01:44PM | 0 recs
Re: It's Either

Obama is unelectable. We can still nominate him but we have to face the fact that if he is the nominee, that we will lose this election. He'll do worse than lose, he's destroying the brand people have worked to change for years. It will take us a long time to overcome an Obama nomination. Wright isn't the only problem he has. He has a ton. Look at the numbers and how they've dropped already. There's no going back for him.

by Ga6thDem 2008-03-28 01:56PM | 0 recs
This is the top recommended diary???

Wow.  Folks, if a similarly vapid diary supporting Obama showed up over at Daily Kos, I strongly doubt it would have gone anywhere--indeed, I think it would have been largely ignored except for a few cheerleaders.  Your support of HRC and our eventual nominee, which could be her, would be much better served by more sober and better supported arguments attesting to her merits.  People who write or recommend such diaries should get some air, methinks.

by David in AK 2008-03-28 02:00PM | 0 recs
Re: This is the top recommended diary???

Don't think many Hillary supporters care to increase traffic at DailyKos.

Thought we had a good discussion.

I know Obama is the DailyKos, HuffPost, CNN, MSNBC, ABC candidate.

And yes these discussions will go on until June, if not the convention.

After that, if Obama is the nominee, my time and money will be my own.

by ncvoter34 2008-03-28 02:13PM | 0 recs
Petulant post

I hope you'll change your mind.  Meanwhile, your response didn't really address my point, which is that this diary's assertions were so poorly backed up that it simply amounted to a strongly worded statement of opinion, not a diary worth recommending.

by David in AK 2008-03-28 05:27PM | 0 recs
Not so fast - check out Kos rec diaries

You want to see the kind of diaries being rec-ed on Daily Kos?  Your wish is granted.  A picture is worth a thousand words:

http://www.correntewire.com/527_5#commen ts

Now onto this diary - This is a reasonable and worthy diary.  There is a drum beat for Hillary to drop out.  Hillary dropping out would be wrong on a number of levels.  The author has advanced a case that supports this.

by Larissa 2008-03-28 02:55PM | 0 recs
Re: Not so fast - check out Kos rec diaries

Here is a better link to the picture - the above link went to the comments.

http://www.correntewire.com/527_5

by Larissa 2008-03-28 02:57PM | 0 recs
Those are nasty titles, but good diaries

I agree that some of those titles add little to the discourse, but if you go find the diaries themselves, you'll see something different:  well-sourced arguments.  For example, "SYFPH" is unnecessarily offensive, I agree, but the diary itself is essentially a linked series of quotes from MSNBC used to support the diarist's point that HRC's tactics are turning off some superdelegates.  That's a fair point.

The author has advanced a case that supports [that Hillary dropping out would be wrong].
Please.  "Only Hillary can beat McCain" is a far cry from "Hillary is the best D to oppose McCain".  I think both Clinton and Obama can beat McCain, though I happen to favor Obama.  

by David in AK 2008-03-28 05:18PM | 0 recs
Re: Those are nasty titles, but good diaries

Quote Olbermann!
Great! Just what I love reading! Not!

We call him Obamaman and have stopped watching him. Don't you love to hear about Chris Matthews tingling leg and hear him fawn over "the speech" as Lincoln-esque?

Personally I like the assessment of the speech here.

I also prefer boosting O'Reilly's ratings which are always higher anyway. He loves talking about Obama's pastor and Rehko.

90% of O'Reilly's viewers thought the Rev. Wright story was important!

Fair and Balanced!

by ncvoter34 2008-03-28 09:44PM | 0 recs
Re: Those are nasty titles, but good diaries

Personally I like the assessment of the speech here.
Seriously?  I only made it 2 paragraphs before I concluded that the author understood neither how to listen nor how to write.
I also prefer boosting O'Reilly's ratings which are always higher anyway.
Whoa.  That's the first time I've ever seen a statement like that on a liberal blog.  O'Reilly?!?  Have you never watched "Outfoxed", or checked Media Matters for America?  You don't cringe when he tries to intimidate anyone with a better argument (e.g., Paul Krugman and Al Franken come to mind)?

Are you supporting McCain?

by David in AK 2008-03-28 11:35PM | 0 recs
"1 in 3 Hillary voters may defect"

"the fact that nearly 1 in 3 Hillary voters may defect to McCain"

So what you're saying here is that Hillary's supporters are NOT good Democrats?  Would YOU vote McCain over Obama?

Me, I'd vote for six pounds of dog barf over McCain.  He's quite possibly the worst choice America could make for president.

And you BRAG that a full third of Hillary supporters would prefer McCain?  I guess this race is about judgement after all.

by fat lady singing 2008-03-28 02:12PM | 0 recs
Ovama vs McCain would be

Republican lite vs Republican

A lot of dems won't catch the nuance, and like McCain for his Viet Nam heroism, and aren't
interested in voting for a student idol.

by squid 2008-03-28 02:18PM | 0 recs
nuance?

"Republican lite"?

What's so Republican lite about Obama?  And how can the same not be said of Hillary?  Frankly, there's very little difference policy-wise between the two.  Already, GOP versus Democrat is mostly Pepsi versus Coke.  Obama versus Hillary is New Coke versus Old Coke.  

It's about style, not issues.  And I don't see ANYTHING in Obama's style that looks Republican.

by fat lady singing 2008-03-28 02:25PM | 0 recs
Re: nuance?

Exactly.  The attacks flying around against Obama are seemingly self-contradictory.  He can't be "Republican-lite" and "the most liberal senator" at the same time, yet I hear both arguments used against him from the same camp.

by barath 2008-03-28 05:16PM | 0 recs
Re: Ovama vs McCain would be

"a student idol"

Really working overtime aren't you you to split the party?

I'm 47, I judge him wiser, less tainted, and having better policies and that insults me.

I suppose next Obama supporters should demand that Hillary renounce every feminist who wrote something sexist in the 70s?  They should just start searching Lexis/Nexis for "phalucentric"?

Get a grip

by wrb 2008-03-28 02:28PM | 0 recs
Re: Ovama vs McCain would be

"less-tainted"
Oh, please.

He's a pol out of Chicago.

But you'll find out soon enough if he gets the nod.

by ncvoter34 2008-03-28 04:25PM | 0 recs
ageism?

I'm 43, and I think McCain is the most obnoxious, pandering whore in Washington - and THAT is a high standard to reach.  "Wiser"?  On WHAT issue is McCain wiser than, say, my 14 year old daughter?  The man is a fracking moron.  He's wrong about EVERYTHING, from Iraq to taxes to abortion to Jeebus.

by fat lady singing 2008-03-29 06:05AM | 0 recs
Re: "1 in 3 Hillary voters may defect"

Actually, Hillary voters make up the majority of the true registered democratic voters in this country. If there is not a good choice of candidates when we get to the fall, I will simply not vote.  I would sooner cut off my hand than vote for McCain.  That doesn't mean I'm going to vote for Obama, instead.  Your definition of a good democrat is apparently a democrat who rolls over and lets the party hacks run over them and pick the candidate for them,too.

by Scotch 2008-03-28 02:51PM | 0 recs
Re: "1 in 3 Hillary voters may defect"

Your definition of a good democrat is apparently a democrat who rolls over and lets the party hacks run over them and pick the candidate for them,too.
You mean like if the superdelegates go against the pledged delegates?  You're right--we shouldn't stand for that.

by David in AK 2008-03-28 05:35PM | 0 recs
party hacks?

Hillary is the one counting on party hacks, not Obama.  He went to the VOTERS.  But apparently only the little people vote.

by fat lady singing 2008-03-29 06:07AM | 0 recs
Amen

The party better start addressing what got us into this mess.  The crossover republicans who voted for Obama and are going to cross back to vote for McCain.

by squid 2008-03-28 02:15PM | 0 recs
Hillary is a Republican

Mark J. Penn presents another unbelievable tale from Hillary Clinton: the sequel to Hillary ducks sniper fire in Tuzla, Bosnia

Coming to a superdelegate near you Summer 2008.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SBCmKkLdC uA&eurl=http://www.dailykos.com/stor y/2008/3/28/134518/720/978/486159

Nobel winner: "Hillary Clinton's 'silly' Irish peace claims"
By Toby Harnden in Washington

"Hillary Clinton had no direct role in bringing peace to Northern Ireland and is a "wee bit silly" for exaggerating the part she played, according to Lord Trimble of Lisnagarvey, the Nobel Peace Prize winner and former First Minister of the province".

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jht ml?xml=/news/2008/03/08/wuspols108.xml

by Jeff Y 2008-03-28 02:20PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary is a Republican

The corporate chattering heads (CNN, MSNBC) and you have tried to make this into something.

She agreed she may not have remembered the exact details, but there was substance to her story, according to her spokesman, Jamie Rubin.

Nothing about this is going to change voters minds. This is less than nothing compared to Rev. Wright.

As far as experience, she has lived in the White House for 8 years and was an important advisor to her husband. Ask him.

Jamie also addressed the gentleman you mention  in the UK article. Everyone associated with this problem in Northern Ireland gives Hillary credit, except for this one guy, who is a cranky protestant.

by ncvoter34 2008-03-28 04:38PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary is a Republican

Obama has opened up an 8 point lead on Clinton in national polling according to Gallup:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/105814/Gallup -Daily-Obama-Back-Into-Lead-Democratic-R ace.aspx

Sorry but as much as Wright hurt Obama Tuzla lying hurt Clinton much much more. Clinton alraedy has high negatives. What do you think will happen when the right wing attack machine gets at her wit this. Oh and that blue dress will be comming out of moth balls.

by TMP 2008-03-28 04:50PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary is a Republican

I actually give Clinton credit for some part of Northern Ireland. Not all of it -- she clearly wasn't the key player or the like -- but she had a clear role that mattered.

But this:

She agreed she may not have remembered the exact details, but there was substance to her story, according to her spokesman, Jamie Rubin.

made me laugh. What in the world would her spokesman say but that there's substance to her story? That's what spokespeople do. Honestly, that line makes it look more like a false claim than the video you're responding to.

Ditto "she has lived in the White House for 8 years". That's the Laura Bush argument. Mind you, I am absolutely not making the Laura Bush argument -- Laura Bush is not qualified, Hillary Clinton is qualified, period.

And I have no idea what him being a "cranky protestant" has to do with anything. If he were a "cranky catholic", would that make it more accurate? How about a polite protestant? (And yes, I know this about catholics vs. protestants, just not sure how the religion of one or the matters).

I wouldn't say it's less than nothing compared to Rev. Wright. Wright is pretty much a nonsense story by this point. The substance of what he actually said has been hashed out, the inflammatory remarks have been thoroughly denounced, no one who thinks at all about thinks believes that Obama shares those views or is a racist or a bigot or a conspiracy theorist in Wright's mold.

That leaves people who don't think all that much about it. And to them, "Hillary lied" is pretty much just as powerful an argument as "Obama's got a wacko minister".

by Texas Gray Wolf 2008-03-28 05:20PM | 0 recs
Re: It's Either President Clinton or It's Presiden

Hillary Shills get more ridiculous by the week. This must the Denial Phase kicking in. Hillary is DONE. Your candidate was caught L Y I N G. Whatever you want to say about Obama's Pastor, the fact of the matter is that Obama is not on tape saying anything negative about America, white people, black people, blue people. In fact we have Obama on record giving one of the great speeches on the status of race in American History when they tried to knock him off his peg. However, we have HILLARY CLINTON LYING HER FACE OFF about being under sniper fire on multiple occasions, complete with the video evidence to the contrary.

She had more money, more machinery in place, more name recognition than Obama and here she is L O S I N G in every metric. You all can cry about Florida and Michigan being seated but way back when FL/MI broke the rules, Clinton had no problem agreeing that they would be stripped of their delegates since she was running on the "inevitability aura". Obama has run an excellent campaign and has followed all the rules.

And now that clinton supporters are eating sour grapes all of you, like your Candidate, would rather destroy a progressive Democrat who really has done nothing wrong but run a better campaign and sacrifice our country and Democratic ideals because YOU LOST. You'd rather the Republicans get to pick another supreme court justice and have Roe V Wade overturned (cuz thats whats going to happen) which will affect MORE THAN YOU because YOU LOST. You'd rather support the inevitable attack on IRAN, more of our soldiers getting maimed and killed, more of our economic treasure thrown away, because YOU LOST.

So at the end of the day you're all just sore losers. No wonder you were drawn to the Clintons.

by mjamal97 2008-03-28 02:45PM | 0 recs
Why was this Rec'd?

The fact that this Diary is top of the Rec'd shows how embarrassing mydd has become.  There's no facts, no insight just "cheerleading" without any evidence.  

Here's the best case scenario for Obama: He wins all the states John Kerry won
except New Hampshire. It's McCain 290, Obama 248.

Here's a list of states Hillary would likely win: Missouri, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Ohio, Arkansas, Florida, Iowa, and Pennsylvania


Polling directly refutes your claims.  First, in the general election polls, Obama outperforms Clinton head to head and against McCain.

Second, your state examples are simply wrong.  On this very site Obama was deemed more likely to win based on SurveyUSA  polling.  

This diary is simply factually wrong.  

by PantsB 2008-03-28 02:45PM | 0 recs
Re: It's Either President Clinton or It's Presiden

We are along way from 2000 when Bush was able to pass.
Hell, look how the talk show screechers treated McCain in the Primary...anyone remember how crazies went crazier over immigration?
There is the FEC thing...
The economy thing
The Surge thing..
The Bush Kiss
YOUTUBE folks...

Clinton is light years ahead of McCain..
and she is losing to Obama.

by nogo war 2008-03-28 02:50PM | 0 recs
I hate that word "electable"

It reminds me of the 2004 primary when Kerry supporters were screaming about how unelectable Dean was and how Kerry was the ONLY electable one becuase of his military experience and yadda yadda yadda.

We see how well that worked.

"Electability" is not something that anyone can OBJECTIVELY quantify.  millions of people (many of them "serious democrats") are not voting for Obama because they think he's unelectable.

You want to argue for or against someone, you better have a hell of a lot more than your personal views of electibility becuase I've heard it before and it didn't win us when it counted.  

by DawnG 2008-03-28 03:17PM | 0 recs
Re: It's Either President Clinton or It's Presiden

Makes sense to me.  It's what I've been saying for a while.  Not that my opinion matters.  But Obama cannot win.  Until the Wright mess he may have had a slim chance, but it's over now.  Pretty words cannot cover that up.  All the Repubs have to do is play the tape.  The only question is:  Will Obama take the Party down with him?

by PlainWords 2008-03-28 03:56PM | 0 recs
Re: It's Either President Clinton or It's Presiden

I know Clinton would take the party down with her, just like Bill did in the 1990's.  Even as Bill was winning in 1992, Democrats had an awful year downticket, losing seats everywhere.  I don't want that again.  

by Toddwell 2008-03-28 04:32PM | 0 recs
Re: It's Either President Clinton or It's Presiden

The Clintons have been bombarded with bad corporate press, then and now. Remember the nothing that was Whitewater, with Ken Starr putting Susan MacDougall in chains for refusing to lie about the Clintons? Perhaps you've only read about this? It was a Republican witch hunt.

And making the Monica Lewinsky happening into an impeachable offense, but we have no impeachment from Pelosi?

We have the Congress now, and they do us no good.

Are you getting all your news from Kos and MSNBC?

by ncvoter34 2008-03-28 04:47PM | 0 recs
Re: It's Either President Clinton or It's Presiden

The Congress is stopping the Republicans from passing Social Security Privitization and a national sales tax.  The Clinton's laid the path for George W. Bush and his Social Security Privitization plan of 2005.  The only thing stopping it is a Democratic Congress.  

by Toddwell 2008-03-28 05:03PM | 0 recs
Re: It's Either President Clinton or It's Presiden

A devastating McGovern-type loss could be much, much worse for the party than what happened during the Clinton years.

Even Reagan, as popular as he was, did not have a Republican Congress.

by ncvoter34 2008-03-28 04:51PM | 0 recs
Re: It's Either President Clinton or It's Presiden

Democrats thrived after the McGovern loss.  They went on to gain supermajorities in both the House and Senate in 1974.  

by Toddwell 2008-03-28 04:58PM | 0 recs
Re: It's Either President Clinton or It's Presiden

Got me on this one. Not knowledgable on the McGovern loss.

You're right about SS of course.

These races are complicated.

I just can't see things going well for Obama. Confess I don't like him either. Watched what he did to the Clintons in SC. Right out of the Rev Wright, Chicago playbook. Really nasty, calling the Clintons racists.

He says the "baddest guy" will win, and he is definitely bad.

The cute uniter is gone. He's been exposed in the South. And the Rev Wright flap only confirmed our suspicions.

by ncvoter34 2008-03-28 05:17PM | 0 recs
Re: It's Either President Clinton or It's Presiden

He would do far less harm for the Democrats than Clinton ever would.  The Democrats should be finished with the Clintons after what they did to the party in the 1990's.  

by Toddwell 2008-03-28 05:20PM | 0 recs
Re: It's Either President Clinton or It's Presiden

Did you live through the nineties?

Were you an adult then?

It was a period of great prosperity and peace. We balanced the budget. Americans were loved around the world.

We had competency in the executive branch.

You don't know what you're talking about.

Sorry, but you don't.

Nothing bad was done to the party by the Clintons. Yes the other party controlled Congress and hated the Clintons and made big deals over nothing like they are doing with the Bosnia plane trip story now through the corporate press.

These attacks were funded by right wing people with money who had been trying for years to dig up anything they could on the Clintons because they were so enraged that a dem (and a poor guy at that) got into the White House.

When one side controlls the media and pushes Obama big time--Todwell, please see the forest for the trees.

Where do you think all that oil money and tax breaks for the rich went? Who's got all the money and owns the media?

So their boy Bush, who hated government, got in, and didn't know how to run it and got in trouble with the people. He also started a preemptive war and that didn't go that well either.

So how do you keep Republican-let-people-with money-do-whatever-they-want control of the White House. Well, it would help if the opposition was someone the people would never accept. Someone with Muslim connections, who has a pastor who says G-D America. Someone who calls his opponents racists at every turn.

But first you've got to get this guy nominated.
Get the best promotional guys in the world to help him sell his schtick.

And make sure he's got plenty of money. More than anyone else. You write the rest of the story yourself.

PS ther's a fun conspiracy theory website that was in the comments at Taylor Marsh.

Here it is: Obama as Frankenstein
http://www.thecityedition.com/Pages/Arch ive/Winter08/2008Election.html

by ncvoter34 2008-03-28 05:49PM | 0 recs
Re: It's Either President Clinton or It's Presiden

I did live through the 1990's and saw the Democratic party go down in shambles.  Yeah, the economy was good, but the Republicans ended up taking all of the credit.  

by Toddwell 2008-03-28 05:52PM | 0 recs
It is back to the Dream Ticket...

If the 2 of them would just come together...this whole issue would be solved and the Democrats would win a 40+EV mandate.

by dvogel001 2008-03-28 04:49PM | 0 recs
You're right, HRC raised this right after

Ohio - why has BO and his surrogate Pelosi dismissed this?

by Molee 2008-03-29 06:58AM | 0 recs
Superdelegates Have Been Hinting

that Democrats should not be surprised at the convention outcome if neither candidate has a clear victory come August.

Sen. Bill Nelson of FL announced he is going to introduce legislation calling for a constitutional amendment that would replace the Electoral College system with a national popular vote when the Senate returns from its recess.

Regarding the realpolitik in the key swing state of Florida:

If the Decmocratic Party wants to select a candidate who can deliver the I-4 corridor among Democrats, Clinton can and Obama cannot.  If it wants the candidate who can deliver the most populous counties to the Dems in sufficient numbers to suppress the Republicans' historic I-4 influence, Clinton can and Obama cannot.  If it wants to garner the female, black, non-Cuban Hispanic, Jewish, Catholic, younger voters, and other minority demographics, Clinton can and Obama cannot.

Clinton is the only candidate who, in Florida, can substantially undermine the Pale Males vote.  A vigorous campaigning effort in FL will not go to waste with Clinton as the nominee; unfortunately, Obama's nomination drives too many Democrats into the Republican camp.

Like it or not, that's the way it is in Florida.  

by Limelite 2008-03-28 04:55PM | 0 recs
Re: Superdelegates Have Been Hinting

No Democrat is going to win Florida.  That state is getting more Republican by the day.  Even Bill could not carry it in his lonely landslide of 1992.  

by Toddwell 2008-03-28 05:00PM | 0 recs
Re: Superdelegates Have Been Hinting

What the hell are you talking about?  Do you realize that a constitutional amendment has to be ratified by 3/4 of the states?  You think that we're going to change the Constitution before the general election?

by rfahey22 2008-03-28 06:26PM | 0 recs
Obama unelectable

An Obama nomination would hurt races down-ticket in the GE. Not a tenable position. Obama can't be on any ticket in any combination. He'd be an albatross.

Jeremiah Wright continues to hurt Obama in a Missouri matchup with McCain; good news for Jay Nixon

http://primebuzz.kcstar.com/?q=node/1073 8

If Hillary were the nominee, not only would she win the election but would also be very helpful to other Dems.

by Nobama 2008-03-28 05:02PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama unelectable

Jay Nixon still leads by double digits.  http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_c ontent/politics/election_20082/2008_gove rnor_elections/election_2008_missouri_go vernor

Clinton will do nothing for downballot candidates, just like her husband.  

by Toddwell 2008-03-28 05:06PM | 0 recs
Re: It's Either President Clinton or It's Presiden

great diary!  The only thing that matters is the general election, and Obama has NO chance.  God help us all if they hand him the nom.  

by atomic garden 2008-03-28 05:13PM | 0 recs
Re: It's Either President Clinton or It's Presiden

So Congressional races dont matter?  It doesnt matter if we lose seats in the House, giving our new Democratic President a big black eye?

by Toddwell 2008-03-28 05:21PM | 0 recs
Re: It's Either President

So Congressional races dont matter?  It doesnt matter if we lose seats in the House, giving our new Democratic President a big black eye?

by Toddwell 2008-03-28 05:22PM | 0 recs
Methodology? We don't need no stinking ....


On methodology. Don't make assumptions based on current polling.

Polls taken in March (or earlier!) certainly leave much to be desired in the way of methodology. But what would the author of this diary propose as a more reliable predictor?


Here's the best case scenario for Obama: He wins all the states John Kerry won
except New Hampshire. It's McCain 290, Obama 248.

Here's a list of states Hillary would likely win: Missouri, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Ohio, Arkansas, Florida, Iowa, and Pennsylvania.

Likely? Malarkey. This scenario is utterly at odds not only with available polling data, but by comparison with the results of 2000 and 2004.

First of all, neither Hillary nor Obama is likely to win Florida. It's going to be a strong state for McCain, and Hillary lacks advantages that might promise a better finish there than Gore or Kerry.

Missouri's a classic swing state, but again: What has Clinton got that Gore and Kerry don't? (Hint: It's not a lead in MO polls against McCain.)

Iowa and Nevada are within reach for either candidate, although Obama is showing stronger than Clinton, and much stronger in Iowa. (Yeah, based on polls, but what else you got?) Same goes for New Hampshire, with the added caveat that McCain owes his candidacy to this state, knows it well, and will fight for it.

Ohio and Pennsylvania may well be the battleground states this year, and will be tough for either democratic, with Pennsylvania slightly toughter.

I can't believe the author missed West Virginia: Clinton has an opportunity to pick up this state. However: She stands a serious risk of losing Oregon. Obama, on the other hand, puts Colorado into play.

Whoever the candidate is, McCain will put Minnesota, Wisconsin and Michigan to the test. Now that McCain has got the nomination tied up, he won't have to spend all his time pandering to the Republican base, and he will set his eyes on states that all too many people have come to think of as safely "blue", but which in reality have only been kept in the the fold by the most narrow of margins.

by baudelairien 2008-03-28 05:59PM | 0 recs
Re: It's Either President Clinton or It's Presiden
For me, McCain is looking a lot better than Obama these days.
Especially I don't have to put up with Obama's Wright on day one.
by JoeySky18 2008-03-28 06:33PM | 0 recs
Re: It's Either President Clinton or It's Presiden

Why are you so insecure that a presidential candidate's pastor causes you that much angst?

by bawbie 2008-03-28 07:05PM | 0 recs
Re: It's Either President Clinton or It's Presiden
For me, McCain is looking a lot better than Obama these days. Especially I don't have to put up with Obama's Wright on day one.
Go ahead and vote for McCain because of Obama's pastor; you belong among the frivolous and superficial sheeple of Ohio who voted for Bush despite their massive job-losses because they couldn't stomach gay marriage.
by RP McMurphy 2008-03-28 07:10PM | 0 recs
Re: It's Either President Clinton or It's Presiden

Great. So you want many years more of fighting in Iraq, plus probably an attack on Iran. Its nice to know you are willing to sacrifice so many Americans and Iraqis because your favorite Dem loses.

by berkeleymike 2008-03-28 07:11PM | 0 recs
Go ahead and vote

For McCain.  You deserve what ever happens to you especially if you vote against your economic interests.

by SocialDem 2008-03-29 12:21PM | 0 recs
Supporting McCain over Obama means

that you are not a real Democrat or a progressive.  You should re-register as an Independent if you feel that way. You are on the other team.

by bigdcdem 2008-03-28 06:39PM | 0 recs
Interesting scenario. Lacks basis in

reality.

Senator Clinton was up by only 3 points in what are supposed to be solidly blue California and Connecticut in the latest polls.

It's going to be worse in states with higher black populations.

by bobdoleisevil 2008-03-28 07:13PM | 0 recs
Pres, Clinton or McCain

A lot can change between now and November, but I think you are right: if it's Obama, say goodbye Florida, perhaps goodbye to Ohio, and maybe even goodbye to California. Even Obama supporters admit he has no chance of winning Florida, and that Sen. Clinton does.

by Ben and Mindys Dad 2008-03-28 07:38PM | 0 recs
Re: Pres, Clinton or McCain

Clinton has little chance of winning Florida.  That state is moving further and further right every day.  

by Toddwell 2008-03-28 08:29PM | 0 recs
Re: Pres, Clinton or McCain

Also, did you look at the poll that had Clinton up just three in California and Obama up double digits there?

by Toddwell 2008-03-28 08:31PM | 0 recs
Adios New Jersey, big time too,

and Colorado, despite the 50 state strategy, they ain't votin' for us - WAY too pro-life out there.

by Molee 2008-03-28 08:50PM | 0 recs
naive

The contours of the electoral college are likely to be the same as 2000 and 2004

Are you really so naive as to think that a race with either a woman or an African American as the democratic nominee is really going to be run under the same conditions as a race between two male white southerners who only got where they were because of wealthy, political fathers, or a post 9/11 election between a pro-war incumbent and a man famous for opposing one war who then supported another and opposed it at the same time?

by brooklyngreenie 2008-03-28 08:09PM | 0 recs
FL and MI petition on HRC's site

http://www.hillaryclinton.com/action/flm i/

Please log in and state that you think the votes should be counted BEFORE the nominee is chosen.

by Molee 2008-03-28 08:46PM | 0 recs
Re: It's Either President Clinton or It's

Actually, it's either President Obama or President Clinton.  

If your candidate doesn't get the nomination, fight for the Democrat.  This election is too important to even think about voting for 4 more years of Bushy Mc100YearsinIraqerton.

by chewie5656 2008-03-28 09:24PM | 0 recs
Does anybody else remember these maps?

http://webweaversworld.blogspot.com/2008 /03/clinton-vs-obama-head-to-head-matchu ps.html

I went googling for them.  They are based on the last set of SUSA state by state head-to-head matchups.  They show Obama beating McCain with MORE electoral college votes than Hillary beats McCain.

So I think the premise of this diary is totally baseless.

You can pick and choose other polls to try to prove your point, I guess.  SUSA is good, one of the best, but it's not always right.  And this is three weeks out of date now.  But if you want to persuade me that things could change that much for Obama in three weeks time, well, let me try to persuade you, a lot can also happen in the seven months we have until the general election.  So you go ahead and assume that things will be worse for Obama, and I'll assume that they will be the same as the SUSA numbers or better for Obama.

In other words, we're all jerking each other off.  Feels good, doesn't it?

If the Clintons can't beat Obama, how can they possibly beat McCain?  And if the only way they can get the nomination is by seizing it at the last moment at the convention through a brokered floor fight, what happens to Hillary's poll numbers and chances then?  They plummet.  So there really is no way to fairly assess her chances in a race against McCain.

And, also, please realize, there's a good chance that if Hillary gets the nomination (can't happen, but let's assume) that McCain will take a black running mate like Steele or Condoleeza or J.C. Watts, just to rub it in, all the way to the November election.

So please don't calculate things out for me so many months in advance and tell me for sure who can and can't win.  And don't think you can use it as a justification for robbing the nomination from our country's first African-American president.

by Dumbo 2008-03-28 09:57PM | 0 recs
Re: It's Either President Clinton

Things will be a lot worse for BHO if the major media would talk about Rev. Wright's comments regarding Natalie Holloway. He will never win the GE once this is broadcast nationwide. http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/articl e.asp?ARTICLE_ID=59887

by rocketqueen 2008-03-28 10:45PM | 0 recs
Re: It's Either President Clinton

You're quoting World Net Daily? You should be ashamed of yourself.

by elrod 2008-03-29 03:12AM | 0 recs
Re: It's Either President Clinton or It's Presiden

I can't believe all the bitterness and alienation in this Democratic Party.  I was for Kucinich until it was obvious he wasn't going anywhere.  So I decided that Edwards was my candidate.  Well the media paid no attention to him and his progressive ideas regarding taking our country back.  So then I was left with Obama and Clinton.  I reluctantly chose the former, but that was because of the bitterness and alienation.  We, as Democrats are acting like spoiled little babies that quite frankly, should have been thrown out the window with the bath water!  Sorry, but that's the way I feel.

by yowsta1 2008-03-29 01:11AM | 0 recs
Desperation in HIllaryland

I've been out of the country for a few days and haven't been able to check in in the blogger world. I read the big news stories here in the British media and the USA Today/Herald Tribune stories so I got the mainstream international perspective. And here is what the big story is on the Presidential election:

1) Hillary's Tuzla lie is comically ridiculous and people here think she's pathetic

  1. Sen. Bob Casey endorsed Obama
  2. Obama weathers Wright controversy unscathed except among conservative Republicans; Hillary's negatives keep going up.

So, knowing the character of MyDD, I expected to see all sorts of spin over this - or maybe some revelation not covered in the big US/UK press. But this diary is even better: just pure clap louderism and absurd denial. Sure, McCain has done well of late because he can consolidate his support while Clinton desperately flails around tries to blackmail the superdelegates. It was supposed to be her nomination after all. She was entitled. It was written by James Carville himself. So diaries like these fall even deeper into denial land.

Hillary cannot win. Get your mind around it. If she wants to be Obama's sparring partner as Chuck Todd says, then fine. But will not be the nominee. And unless you want four more years of George W. Bush it's time to start facing reality.

by elrod 2008-03-29 03:12AM | 0 recs
Fantasy in Obamaland

When pigs fly will he be in the White house.

Watch the Corporate Press turn if he gets the nomination.

It will be Wright, Rezko, no experience, no skills, no patriotism and no accomplishments 24/7.  Threw his grandmother and Clintons under the bus, but stood by his racist anti-American pastor. That's our Obama.

And this time the Corporate Press will be right and Obama will go down in flames as he deserves, served up to President-elect McCain on a platter.

by ncvoter34 2008-03-30 01:29PM | 0 recs
On "The Math"

Let's see... the teacher gives Obama fifty things to add together.  He adds the first forty (but leaves out two items) and then turns in the problem before adding the last ten and he expects and "A"?  Yep, folks always get A's for doing that in math class.

by RobinLB 2008-03-29 08:08AM | 0 recs
Re: On "The Math"

Well, the Clinton campaign has written off states that are small, medium-sized, red, and/or caucus states.  So, if you wanted to carry your analogy further, Obama would probably get a B/C and Clinton would be in remedial classes.

by rfahey22 2008-03-29 09:27AM | 0 recs
Re: It's Either President Clinton or It's Presiden

Clinton's own screwups have wrecked her chances in November should she be the nominee. It started with her foolish suggestion that she might garnish wages to pay for her healthcare plan. The McCain ad on that alone will be devastating. But her latest faux pas re Tuzla reinforces the Clinton brand of being slick and disingenuous. This is tailor-made for the McBush attack machine.

No doubt McSame has plenty with which to attack Obama but most of it relates to race and Dems weren't going prevail among the racists anyway. Obama offers a stark contrast to McInsane - young and energetic vs old and tired. Fresh ideas vs. more of the same old Bushit. Unfortunately for Hillary, she's been too long in DC and will not offer that same contrast with McCain. In her case it will be unfortunately, dishonest vs straigh-shooting.

McSame may look good now but his flubs and cranky temper are already beginning to show. That helps identify his brand with "old" and "stale" and Obama is best positioned to exploit that.

by Ian S 2008-03-29 12:11PM | 0 recs
Re: It's Either President Clinton or It's Presiden

You do realize how ridiculous you sound quoting polling this far out in November? Especially when the media hasn't been paying attention to McCain.  As for your 1-in-3 won't vote for Barack...There is similar polling if Barack does not win.  Does that mean Hillary can't win?  I love how this diary just takes favorable numbers and uses them while at the same time TOTALLY disregarding other facts that would repudiate them.  Not only is this diary full of fallacy and assumptions, it is totally opinion that you are trying to imply as fact.  Maybe take off your partisan blinders and realize that they both are going to win in November.  Also, all the hype about Democrats being divided by the MSM, is total bullshit and WAY over blown.  You wait until we have a nominee how united this party will be.  I am sure like most DEMOCRATS, I do not want to see another Republican even near the WH.  In other words, if you are going to argue electability...try using evidence that is based in reality.

by SocialDem 2008-03-29 12:15PM | 0 recs
Re: It's Either President Clinton or It's Presiden

"On methodology. Don't make assumptions based on current polling."

Oh, of course. Why point to anything that might actually say something about the state of the race today, when we can predict the future based upon your biases, assumptions, and a race that took place our years ago.

by mikeinsf 2008-03-29 01:17PM | 0 recs
Re: It's Either President Clinton or It's Presiden

Please go to Sen. Clinton's site and make a donation today. If you are pissed off at the lack of leadership shown by Dean in resolving the Fl& Mi issue, please donate.

by shark 2008-03-29 02:34PM | 0 recs
Clinton's Supporters are More Vindictive

Obama's Supporters take a longer view.

All I can say to the McCain turncoats is have fun with McCain's Supreme Court.

by Lefty Coaster 2008-03-29 02:47PM | 0 recs
Then let it be McCain

The Hillary clan hasn't faced how much damage her blatent lies have done to her..who can believe a word out of her mouth even on small issues never mind on keeping her campaign promises that seem to have evolved greatly since the start of this cycle...Now she is even talking about getting rid of special interests and lobbyist power, at first she was defending them as useful  $$$$$$$$.

Not only has she shown to be a habitual liar, she is also shown to be a traitor, by talking McSame's creditals as being Presidential while silently suggesting that Obama does not possess these qualities...okay Benedict..thanks.

The Wright situation will die down because Barack is not like what you would love to suggest.  All through his career he has worked in harmony with all races, as a Professor he also taught all manner of races.  Nobody who has had any associations or engagements with him has ever accussed him of showing any bias tendancies.  

Let me be real clear...unless Obama has an extreme meltdown or Hillary finds a way to politically and underhandedly extort the super delegates to her side...She will not win the nomination.  The super delegates naturally are dispositioned to support the candidate with the more pledged delegates, whether you like it or not..that is fact and the way it should be.

Vote for McSame if you want, but you are only hurting yourself...well me too if he wins. You will cut your nose off to spite your face and that is simply less than smart..okay maybe even unbelievably stupid beyond belief.  

by netgui68 2008-03-29 03:29PM | 0 recs
Re: Then let it be McCain

Blatant Obama Lie#1

I guess this just slipped by while you were drinking the Koolaid. But then you've swallowed so many.

He was never a professor.

Keep dreaming. With Corporate Press's help he may get the nomination, but never the White House. Reality bites.

by ncvoter34 2008-03-30 01:17PM | 0 recs
Re: Then let it be McCain
I think it is Obama who is lying about what he takes from lobbyists. Employees of lobbying firms allowed to contribute?
"While Obama doesn't accept money from registered federal lobbyists, five of his 10 biggest sources of funds are groups of employees at law firms that lobby in Washington...Among Obama's top donors were employees of the Chicago-based law firm of Sidley Austin LLP, who gave $105,750 in the first quarter. The firm was paid $4.5 million last year" for lobbying the federal government." Bloomberg, 6/7/07.
"The Public Citizen report listed the following ten bundlers for Sen. Obama who have registered as federal lobbyists: Frank Clark, Commonwealth Edison; Scott Harris, Harris Wiltshire and Grannis; Allan J. Katz, Akerman Senterfitt; Robert S. Litt, Arnold & Porter; Thomas J. Perrelli, Jenner and Block; Thomas A. Reed, Kirkpatrick & Lockhart Preston Gates Ellis LLP; Paul N. Roth, Schulte Roth & Zabel; Miriam Sapiro, Summit Strategies; Alan Solomont, Solomont Bailis Ventures; and Tom E. Wheeler, Core Capital Partners." Public Citizen, 1/29/08.
"And he uses registered federal lobbyists such as Broderick Johnson, who lobbies for AT&T and Shell Oil, among others, as a campaign adviser. Because Johnson isn't giving money to Obama, his name won't show up in Federal Election Commission records."
Just check it out at the FactHub at HillaryClinton.com or you can also read about it at StopObama.com.
by edbrymaharaj 2008-04-01 12:22AM | 0 recs
Obama's the liar
If you think Obama's the truth teller, you've definitely been drinking the kool aid. Take a look at the list of Obama's lies. http://audacityofhypocrisy.com/?page_id= 15 As far as Dems needing to come together and vote for Obama, if he manages to finagle the nomination, see this one. http://thehorizontalworld.blogspot.com/
by aroundtheblock 2008-03-30 07:33AM | 0 recs
My delusional democrats

I left this site two weeks ago and just got back to see whether you all have come to reality or not.  I guess not.  I'll be back after Clinton drops out.

by drjk 2008-03-30 07:42AM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads


----------- myDD - skin -----------