I don't understand why so many people think it's perfectly fine to use such offensive language when talking about women, but if you used the N-word, we would all be in agreement that it should be condemned.

Now, I understand he's our nominee, but that's been the problem for so many Hillary supporters - Obama will say one thing, and then do something else.  Obama pledged to take public financing, but now he won't.  There's only one way to describe that - hypocritical.  I think this highlights the favored media treatment Obama is getting.  Can you imagine if Hillary did the same thing?  She would have been crucified by the media...again.

Now, again, I understand he's our nominee, but this calls into question many other things he's said on the campaign trail.  If he so easily shirks this pledge, what will keep him from shirking others?  I will be giving to Democratic candidates running for the House and Senate, so hopefully they can hold a double-talking Obama accountable.

Just so you know, many blacks believe in the one drop of blood rule.  I know that may seem crude and offensive to you because I'm sure you don't interact with black people, but it's true.

Don't get me wrong, I'm no fan of Hitchens.  But I did read some of Michelle Obama's thesis and it was terribly written.  Further, her analysis was pretty bad and the conclusions she made were a bit troubling.  I think that was what caught me about it.  So I find it hard to take seriously her arguments she makes now.

http://www.slate.com/id/2190589/

Here's a line, just for color:
"I direct your attention to Mrs. Obama's 1985 thesis at Princeton University. Its title (rather limited in scope, given the author and the campus) is "Princeton-Educated Blacks and the Black Community." To describe it as hard to read would be a mistake; the thesis cannot be "read" at all, in the strict sense of the verb. This is because it wasn't written in any known language.  Anyway, at quite an early stage in the text, Michelle Obama announces that she's much influenced by the definition of black "separationism" offered by Stokely Carmichael and Charles Hamilton in their 1967 screed Black Power: The Politics of Liberation in America. I remember poor Stokely Carmichael quite well. After a hideous series of political and personal fiascos, he fled to Africa, renamed himself Kwame Toure after two of West Africa's most repellently failed dictators, and then came briefly back to the United States before electing to die in exile. I last saw him as the warm-up speaker for Louis Farrakhan in Madison Square Garden in 1985, on the evening when Farrakhan made himself famous by warning Jews, 'You can't say 'Never Again' to God, because when he puts you in the ovens, you're there forever.'"

Fear --> bad, bad, bad; Separationism --> quite all right

Michelle Obama is a joke.

What was the kitchen sink strategy that you mention?  That whole "kitchen sink" garbage was manufactured by the Obama campaign and the press and then promoted over the internet as if she did something out of the ordinary.

I'm sorry but at the end of this campaign, Hillary will have received the votes from half of those who participated in the primary.  I don't know how you can say that she is disconnected.  Many Democrats feel that Obama is disconnected.  In Obama world, poor people have nothing else but loathing to do.  Also, many Hillary supporters (again, half of the party voted for her) DO want this to go to the Convention, if only to strip the party from the hands of those who desire to take our party down a path we cannot follow.

Clyburn was another Donna Brazile - undeclared, but not uncommitted.  From the beginning Clyburn has inserted himself to advocate for Obama and to criticize the Clintons.  Anyone could see that he was an Obama supporter.

It's highly illustrative that Linda Douglass, a journalist for the National Journal, is now going to work for the Obama campaign.  http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail /2008/05/21/douglass_joins_obama_campaig n.html

I'm sure many other supporters are jealous b/c they'd like to work for his campaign, too.  It's just disgusting the bias the press has shown in favor of Obama and the slant and negativity they've shown toward Hillary is remarkable.

When all this is said and done, the real losers in this process have been the media.

Your story suggests that the Clinton Campaign obtained analysis of the general election map by Karl Rove that favors Clinton and the Clinton Campaign sent it to the press.  Whoa!  Red alert!

This sort of reminds of something to do with a picture, Rezko, Bill and Hillary, Matt Lauer...I wonder who sent that picture of Tony Rezko with Bill and Hillary to Matt Lauer for the Today Show?  You don't think that the Obama campaign got it from Tony Rezko, a man who's facing corruption charges, and sent it to their good friends at NBC, do you?

The Clinton Campaign puts out press releases.  All this time I thought that the Clinton and Obama campaigns didn't feed stories to the media, but you just debunked that myth.  The next thing you're going to tell me is that Michelle Obama practiced corporate law despite her imploring others to go into public service.

I might be more inclined to accept that argument if the undecided numbers matched up.  Among those that declared "undecided" in the Presidential race was only 3%.  As I'm sure you know, 3% does not equal 12%.

According to the poll, 12% of those who already voted were "undecided".  I'm not sure if you just chalk that up to polling error, or if that means that these people just didn't vote.  I'm guessing it's due to both, but more due to those who voted in the Presidential primary, yet didn't vote in the Senate primary.  If we are to buy Obama's and the media's argument, that he is bringing in new voters, it's likely that many of these non-voting voters are Obama supporters.  If Obama's the nominee, he may not bring the support to his down-ticket Dems b/c his voters are only coming to vote for him.

Of course, it's just me thinking out loud.  Obviously, the cross-tabs are limited so they don't show which voters support which other candidate.  However, it would be interesting.  Also, it's hard to say that the PPP poll is highly accurate (though it might be) b/c it has Hillary with 50% of black voters.

The way we frame the issue among the community and its allies is important.  This is an issue of equality and civil rights, not special preference.  By coining something as "gay", that connotes that is something particular only to that community, which marriage isn't.  Also, it allows those opposed to suggest that this is something special being requested by that community, again which it isn't.  By saying "marriage equality", you are talking about an issue that is universal to all Americans.  This is a right that should extend to all Americans.

Just wanted to put that out there.

1) You left off Arkansas in Hillary's win column.  She netted 19 delegates from that contest.

2) New Mexico is a "caucus" in name only.  It really is like a primary, so to lump that in with the other caucus states seems a little incorrect.

3) You fail to count Michigan and Florida, where 2.5 million voters went to the polls to express their support.  Hillary netted 73 delegates from Michigan and 38 delegates from Florida.  Even if you allocate all the uncommitted delegates to Obama, which is probably unfair, then Hillary would net 18 delegates.

4) After seeing the results from WA and NE primaries where Hillary lost by small margins (5 and 2 points, respectively) compared with the WA and NE caucus results where Hillary lost by large margins (37 and 36 points, respectively), it seems clear that caucuses inflate the real support for Obama and depress the real support for Hillary.  If  you assume that is true across caucus states, it's highly likely that neither candidate would have netted any delegates from the caucus states.

The criticism of caucuses is legitimate, and you should recognize that.