Well, of course turnout is light... the Obamamaniacs are all hungover from spending their welfare checks on weed...  You know... 'cos they don't work...

I mean, that's what Hillary and her supporters are saying, right?  That democrats don't work for a living... and are "welfare queens" and all that?

I mean, there was a quote by RedState editor today that could have been written by Hillary herself:

Erick Erickson, editor of the popular conservative megablog RedState, conceded that progressives currently enjoy an advantage over conservatives online-though he attributed it to an asymmetry in free time, since conservatives "have families because we don't abort our kids, and we have jobs because we believe in capitalism."

Hillary channels Redstate... who would have thunk it... It's shameful and embarrassing that such right wing lies are being spread by a supposed Democrat.

How can I support Hillary after what she's said about us?  Tell me?

I don't understand the love for private insurance "mandates".  That is the most un-Democratic idea ever to be proposed.  Have the government force you to pay for an insurance company CEO's swimming pool?...  It sounds like a Republican dream idea, and, in fact, it is...

Romney, Schwartzenager, and even our friend in Ohio Ken Blackwell have all either endorsed or implemented "mandates".  A bet a bunch of other Republican gubernatorial candidates were for it, too.  Romney's plan was all the rage a couple of years ago. Why not?  Taking money from private citizens and giving it to the rich?  That's a Republican dream plan!

Mandates would be so unpopular, it would set the cause of universal health care at least a generation.  Ask people in Mass. how they like their "mandates" for overpriced junk insurance.  Yet, too many Democrats have been duped into this very Republican and authoritarian "government get involved in every aspect of your personal life" position.  It is a sure loser in so many ways, as well as being an affront to our values as Democrats.

Now, maybe there's a way that "mandates" can be made more Democratic, less invasive, and more fair, but at the moment, I don't relish the government putting the gun at my back to pay some rich guy a lot of money for overpriced junk insurance.  I'd like a better option.

Thanks,

Mike

But will she work hard and campaign outside the 14 blue states?  THAT is what bugs me... She's going to  kill our downticket races, not because of her being "disliked", but she is not going to even try!  Look at how she disrespects the smaller states in this primary!  She ignores them, then insults their voters...  

The 50 state strategy works, but Hillary is stuck in 1996...  it will be a missed opportunity to grow the party.  She simply won't do it, not will she even try.  That's not the DLC way.

Thanks,

Mike

No, the DLC way is caving to every republican demand... the Obama way is that we'll work with you if you actually work with us, and if you don't... well, we'll beat you down until you will.

Big difference...

Without fanfare?  Please....  Even if a Clinton didn't want the attention, they always are going to get it... They are always big news.

I gotta say I cringe when I hear, "It's her turn"  Ugh!  It was Bob Dole's "turn", too in 1996 and look at how that turned out.  

If you let someone win the nomination out of entitlement, you will most surely lose the general.  

Ironically, while hillary supporters are always saying, "It's her turn,"  I've never heard an obama supporter say, "It's an african american's turn".

Unfortunately, especially the older clinton supporters really hold on to the entitlement mentality, with the excuse that Obama hasn't "earned" it... I try to remind them about JFK's "experience", but for most of my family, "not earning it" is code for, "I'd rather not vote for a black person if I can help it."  Some of the new deal generation still aren't very good at the great society.

Thanks,

Mike

Popular votes are skewed since they don't count the caucuses...

Huckabee's in it for the long haul... He loves the attention!  He ain't dropping out... unless McCain makes him his VP.

Thanks,

Mike

He was biased against Bill Clinton, too... which is what made his polls so accurate in the 90's... he always overperformed republican votes, which tended to more accurately match the vote results... Since then, his polling has been absolutely horrid!

Thanks,

Mike

Someone should tell Republicans to be careful what they wish for...  She might just turn out to be great...

Personally, I think she'd do much better than Bill did as president... she won't make the same mistakes...  Although, she has made some seriously bad moves lately...

Thanks,

Mike

NY Post endorses Obama... the reason being that they feel that Clinton would be more successful implementing "liberal" agenda...  they must also feel that he will lose.

Whenever a Republican concern troll suggests something, it is always wise to do the opposite...

This is not a good mojo for Obama at all.

Thanks,

Mike

Yeah, but the press absolutely adores him... he'll get a complete free ride to the election...

Unfortunately, considering how unhappy democrats are with Hillary and even Obama, he may get a significant chunk of votes... enough to give the election to the GOP yet again!

Isn't there any way to make peace with this guy?  His timing seem to coincide with Edwards dropping out... Maybe Nader thought that Edwards would have been good enough to keep him from messing with our elections.

Thanks,

Mike

The media love McCain to the point of it being classified as a fetish...  It's a serious concern.. they are going to continuously let him slide on everything... By contrast, the media hate clinton as much as Republicans do.  A Clinton/McCain matchup will be the most media biased election ever.

I do think that a Clinton/McCain matchup is better for us, since Hillary will slice him to shreds, while Obama will play nice/nice...  Since both Obama and McCain are supposedly "above the fray", undecideds will probably go for the name they know over the newcomer.

Thanks,

Mike

All I know is that I want the News anchors to look like sterotypical conservatives.  I want people flipping the channels to be totally confused at first glance which channel is Fox News and which is ours.  If we come off looking like stereotypical "liberals" (i.e. Alan Colmes), we aren't going to get zippo for market penetration.  

Fox News wasn't always the hyper-right-wing outfit it is today.  Their early years were much more subtle... just slightly blurring the distinctions between them and other media... sucking average Americans in, before they unleashed the torrent of right wing propoganda a few years later.

That is what we need to do... If our team makes progressive news look like a Jehova's Witnesses convention, then there will be enough cognitive dissonance in the mind of viewers to both keep watching and listen to what we have to say.

I hope we also borrow the Fox News concept of confrontation.  Their confrontational style is one of the reasons they've been able to bring in so many viewers.  It makes the news interesting, and it also helps advance an agenda.

Thanks,

Mike