Being "skinny" is a negative for presidential candidates?

Let's make "Maverick" take on a new meaning for McCain!

As long as she concedes by mid-June, its good for the Dems. The party can make-up, Obama has weathered the storm and came out stronger, and every state had its chance to rev up the base and get out new voters.

Its gotten a little nastier than I'd like, but a net gain I think.

It wasn't an argument, more of a compliment.

I don't think there is a "easy" choice for VP.

Webb intrigues me because he would further Obama's populist post-partisan message (Webb was in the Reagan administration) while also subtlely filling in some of Obama's perceived weakness. Webb's military background and his appeal to the Scots-Irish electorate (notably found in Appalachia) could help, as long the team keeps the focus on their similarities.

You don't want a VP pick to highlight perceived weakness. Ideally, they should complement each other while championing the same message.

Excellent job managing endorsements by the Obama campaign.

I know people have been critical of Edwards sitting idle, but I think its obvious that once he made up his mind the O-team asked him to wait until the most opportune time. Well done!

With the amount of supers trickling in(or pouring in) to Obama's column, Clinton's chances are getting thinner by the day. I think Clinton should remain in the race until its mathematically impossible to win (but I will not endorse any funny business).

Your team might have kicked more field goals, but my team had more Yards After Catch (YAC). So take that!

What I don't understand is how people think primary season popular vote is a fair measure. Texas had twice as many people vote in their primary than New York becuase New York had an closed primary (Dems only) and Texas was open. Not to mention caucuses where states like Minnesota have approximately one tenth the voters as other relative states with primaries. It just doesn't make sense to use this metric.

If Nebraska used these primary results to allocate delegates (and did not use a caucus), the primary results would not necessarily be the same.

For example, Scott Kleeb got high turnout from his base in CD-3 which is the large western rural area of Nebraska. Hillary could be expected to do better here than in the more densely populated CD-2 and CD-1. This could inflate Hillary's numbers in the primary results.

Obviously primaries get higher turnout than caucuses becuase they are easier. But if this primary "counted", how do we know that the Dem turnout would not be 120,000 instead of 90,000. People did not show up to this primary to support a president, but other candidates on the ticket. Obviously, if the election counted for president  then the results could be remarkably different.

Lugar and Obama have worked togetehr in the Senate. I believe they both went to Russia for that nuclear disarming information visit (remember, the local authorities refused their aircraft to take off and leave).

I think its rather unlikely that Lugar would publicly endorse him, but if he did it would be huge. Indiana would turn from a Solid-to-Lean GOP state to a straight up Toss-up with Obama on the ticket.

With all due respect, I read through this entire diary and I have no clue how Axelrod's comments are hypocritical.

Okay, I can see what you are saying. Obama lost OH, split Texas (thanks caucuses!), and overall HRC gained delegates. (Obama did net more delegates for all of March, however.)

The common nomenclature is that February 5th, 2008 was Super Tuesday. This is because this is the earliest date the DNC would allow 'not-special' states to hold their primaries.

The date you are talking about is March 4, 2008. It had been referred as Super Tuesday 2 or Mini-super Tuesday, given its importance.

So while I don't fully agree with your assesment, I understand your perception of Obama's meltdown. Thanks!

Look, personally I don't see the race baiting.

Could it be that I am an Obama supporter and I sub-consciously overlook it. It is possible.

I think it could also be possible for a Clinton supporter to sub-consciously misconstrue the intent of the opposition on items like this.

I just hope that after all is said and done, we can rejoin for our common cause and get all of this sillyness out of our system (and I say this collectively for supporters of all candidates).

Barack Obama suffered a meltdown on Super Tuesday? When did that happen? Didn't Barack win more pledged delegates, something like 847 to 834. He won 13 states to HRC's 10 (including territories).

I guess if you say American Samoa, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Massachussetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oklahoma, and Tennessee were the only states that REALLY mattered on Super Tuesday, then yes, you are right. BO did have a great super tuesday meltdown.

Kind of off-topic and a bit anal, but Wisconsin and South Carolina have too many squares in the Poll Tracker maps. Wisconsin has 10 votes and South Carolina has 8. The calculation appears to be correct.