He is not working full time on the campaign even though Senator Clinton is not in the lead. Taking into account the millions of dollars the Clinton campaign has paid Mark Penn's company he is not even a hard working 'volunteer'.
I have no idea what the ratio is between the policy, class, gender, generation and race factors in votes for the Democratic candidates, but I reckon it would be self-deceiving to believe that race was insignificant.
As for racism, never supporting a candidate of a different race, setting aside young first time voters, I would not be a surprised if a higher proportion of Senator Obama's black supporters have previously supported a white candidate than Senator Clinton's white supporters have ever supported a black candidate.
OK, as I believe regina1983 post deserved to be rescued from the hidden comments section I will explain why:
I think I understand what regina1983 is saying here - NOT that Senator Clinton is trying to get racist people to vote for her, but that unfortunately some people are voting for her because they never would vote for a black man. I think that is true.
regina1983 is not even claiming that Clinton is getting all the racist vote, only 30% of it.
I think the person who pulled the zero rating trigger was too hasty, sometimes we have to get to grips with the idea that it is NOT only some Republicans (or Obama supporters etc. etc.) who are racist.
'tis up to other voters if they think regina1983's post should be sent back to the hidden comments section.
The hospital did not call Hillary a "big fat liar". It did not even say Hillary misspoke.
Now, perhaps the hospital was implying a politician had used a story that had not been checked - and a Clinton spokesman agreed with that implication "In this case, we did try but were not able to fully vet it".
Kinda of ironic that a diary was not reporting the truth when it said the hospital had called Hillary a "big fat liar".
I heard Hillary tell this story a couple of times while watching her stump speeches on CNN Internet streaming.
I have got to say that at the time I thought I hope she has double and triple checked the facts.
This is not a matter of hindsight, somebody in her campaign team should have stepped in the first time she told the story. If she wins the nomination she will have to up her game if she (we) are to win the general election.
Hillary was going to win big in PA before the Wright affair, so her winning in PA will not be much of an indication of how much damage Wright has done to Obama.
But if somebody gave me a free bet I would bet that by the time of the PA vote enough time will have passed for both the Wright and Tuzla affairs to play very little part in voting preferences.
As for the people you talk to, I reckon the important thing to remember is that people who spend much time talking about politics, posting about politics on the Internet, may not be representative of the voting population as a whole.
And the people who you talk to and tell you what you want to hear may not even be representative of the people who talk about politics.
That is why the posted poll is interesting, most of the people responding to it are not political 'junkies' such as we are.
I do not think it is the best idea to be always wary of candidates who raise a lot of money.
Far better to restrict your wariness to somebody that raises big donations from few people rather than small donations from a lot of people.
(indeed, one of the tactical problems that Senator Clinton has at the moment is that her campaign team relied too heavily on big donations from fewer people. At the moment Senator Obama's campaign has shown itself to have a better solution by going for small donations from lots of people)