Well, that comment establishes you as a beacon of credibility.

His healthcare proposal is sufficiently wishy-washy that we don't know where it stands with respect to McCain's (whose is also wishy-washy).  Only Hillary's is clear.

On Iraq, Samantha Powers made it clear that he's not prepared to make any promises about a timetable for withdrawal.

Hillary already has and McCain, I believe, will do it because he knows he has to, to get elected.

He's proven himself to be a typical politician, if not worse, while feeding his devoted followers a diet of fluff.   Obama is -- and he has said himself -- "a blank slate on which the people project their hopes and dreams."

I seriously suggest that you get informed because if you believe that John McCain is a better choice for Democrats than Barack Obama, then you are seriously deluded, and I say the same of those who say that John McCain is a better choice for Democrats than Hillary Clinton.  Both Democratic candidates are indeed far superior to John McCain, as should be clear to any informed observer with critical thinking skills intact.

Yes, there is a vast concerted conspiracy among Republican voters to answer poll questions in a way that is favorable to Obama.

This isn't a strike.  No one to my knowledge pays people to write diaries at Daily Kos and if the atmosphere is that abusive, chances are there wouldn't be too many "consumers" either.

In the end, all that you are acheiving is making Daily Kos more of a pro-Obama echo chamber, since all you are doing is silencing your own opinion.

And 90% of African Americans voted for Gore in 2000.  88% for Kerry in 2004.  I was not aware that those two were black, but now that you mention it, it makes a lot of sense.  African Americans main criterion is how black a candidate is, while white voters make rational choices based on the economy.

Thank you for your insight.

I think such sentiments would be justified a month or so ago, but as time goes on, her chances narrow.  While Obama didn't win the Ohio and Texas primaries, the momentum accumulated by a month of friendly contests allowed him to take a major chunck out of Clinton's support there.  Those victories actually took her further away from the nomination as those were one of her few chances to catch up in the delegate count.  She utterly failed.  Within a week, those minimal gains have been cancelled by delegates from two smaller states.  And that's not including the strong super delegate tide in Obama's direction.

So,

She is going to WIN. I can feel it - she's over the hump.

I can't see either Obama-Clinton or Clinton-Obama being a particularly good ticket.  Sure, there is some bitterness in the echo chambers of the Internet and racially polarized states like Mississippi.

The argument you use is that X candidate does well in states A, B, and C, while Y candidate does well in D, E, and F, so an X-Y ticket would likely do well in A, B, C, D, E, and F.  But the problem is that this wouldn't necessarily have an additive effect.  It could be that instead of gaining A, B, C, D, E, and F, most or all of those states are likely to be lost.

Why?  Well, even in this primary, people are voting  against one candidate or the other.  Putting Obama on a Clinton ticket would likely lose some of a particular kind of White voter that's found in the South stretching up to southern Ohio and probably into Pennsylvania.

There would likely be a reverse effect in the Midwest and mountain west with adding Clinton to an Obama ticket as well as having a weakening effect on some of his main campaign arguments.

In general, I think of this "Dream Ticket" as a "Nightmare Ticket".

Seems to.  Polling shows him neck and neck with Oberwies.

This was my favorite part of the JJ speech:

And we Democrats, we believe in protecting the environment and we believe in solving the energy crisis. So, when the Republicans turn over our energy policy to the oil companies and deny global warming, what do we do?

Turn up the heat!

Hmm...I wonder if this one will make the rec list.

I assume that the gap between the results here and Daily Kos have narrowed a bit.  But the results are interesting nonetheless.  Obviously Daily Kos has a pro-Obama bent while the opposite is true here.  An interesting note is that so far 49 have voted here versus 331 at Daily Kos (I voted on both polls, for the first option).

It has been interesting watching the how the two communities react to the race as it goes along.  Supporters of candidates that are down tend to be more strident and inflammatory than those of the candidate or candidates who are performing well.  Furthermore, the supporters of the candidate whose talking points dominate a community tend to have a rosy prognosis of their candidate's future performance.  At Daily Kos pre-Iowa, there was a generalized consensus that Edwards was going to win Iowa, despite polling to the contrary.  Currently, at Daily Kos, there is a significant block who think that the race is over, while here at MyDD, some people actually think that the race is even.

So, yes, the tone is absolutely ridiculous.  When netroots users can't muster a supermajority that say that they will support the Democratic nominee if it not their candidate, we have a problem.  How can the 10% here or 5% at Daily Kos say that they would vote for McCain?  Are you insane?  Are you being a troll voter?  What are you thinking?  Do you actually believe the hateful, inaccurate bile that is spewed against the opposing candidate?  If so, that is very disappointing.

In November, I will either be saying "Go Hillary!" or "Go Barack!"

The fact that 41% of MyDD users and 35% of Daily Kos users can't say the same is pathetic and disgraceful.

On a daily tracking poll.  I wonder what will happen tomorrow.  Have you ever heard of outliers?  Those are very common in daily tracking polls.  It's why they combine multiple days of data at a time when formally releasing results.

No candidate for President of the United States is not an egomaniac.  It takes egomania to think that you are the best person for such an important job.  Raising Obama's egomania would only turn focus to her own.  I think you're grasping at straws.

I think it best to avoid shooting for the gutter.  This diary may be inane, but "hysterical hillbot harpees[sic]" is no better than the "obamabot cultists" that I've seen floating around this site.

There has been a rather disingenuous movement in the Clinton camp to mark Barack Obama as a plagiarist who just copies others ideas and brings no new ones to the table.  This is disingenuous, not because Barack Obama is a breakthrough thinker who has come up with a great degree of new material, but because Hillary Clinton is no different.

You point out correctly that the line that Clinton used was not originally from John Edwards...it goes back much further.  It's not a new idea.  In fact, it's a very much recycled idea.  But apparently, it's a well agreed upon idea.

The plagiarism accusation against Barack Obama is pretty silly.  Facing a nearly identical line of attack, Obama deflected it with an argument that Deval Patrick used in his 2006 campaign.  Because it was an effective argument then, the Obama camp, which includes Governor Patrick, decided to use it again.  And it was effective.  That was the problem for the Clinton camp.  It is an effective argument against the Clinton line of attack.  So the only way to discredit it was to treat it as if using it was wrong.

They've gotten a lot of mileage out of this argument...apparently a majority or at least substantial minority of the MyDD community has bought into it.  But it's a vacuous line of argument because it holds onto a strange standard for how to judge candidates.  Presidents are not the inventors of ideas...they are the ones who implement them.  They implement the ideas of others and they use arguments formulated by others to get there.  Holding a candidate to such a ridiculously high standard is irresponsible and frankly naïve.*

Here's the bottom line: candidates are not original.  They use the ideas of others and the arguments of others to get their ideas across.  There are a finite amount of arguments that are available and there are a finite number of ways to formulate them in the English language.  Do you think that Hillary Clinton came up with "Change you can Xerox"?  Do you think she came up with "Ready to Lead on Day 1"?  Do you think that

Some people (including some who made the rec list on this site) have posted a YouTube video showing Obama using similar language to previous speakers in several settings.  I'm here to tell you that everyone does that.  Ideas are meant to be reused and Barack has done that.  Hillary Clinton has done that.  John Edwards has done that.  In fact, just about any politician you can think of has done that.  They are not philosopher kings (or queens).  The real philosophers reside in the background.

So back to the beginning.  Why doesn't the diarist get this?  Because this diary just pointed out why the accusation that Hillary Clinton plagiarized John Edwards is ridiculous while not recognizing the same for Barack Obama.  They happened to be voicing the same opinions and happened to be using the same words to do so.  Obama used words that had been used by a campaign co-chair two year previous and Clinton used words to express a similar sentiment as one of her former opponents for the nomination.

Now, you may argue that the sentiment Clinton used was much more simple and banal and thus not as bad to copy, but that just raises the question: What is your threshold?  Do you really have a solid standard in place or are you rationalizing a dislike for a candidates actions generated by his rival's campaign?  I believe that those who are calling out Senator Obama for "plagiarism" use the latter category as their basis, despite claiming that they use the former.  The accusation that Clinton was using plagiarism is merely a demonstration that exposes this fact by forcing hypocrisy.

*Hey, what can I say...the sentiment applied.