Your NH poll on the right from Rasmussen is messed up...it has clinton twice, and no Obama. It should show that Obama is beating McCain and Clinton is stat. tied.

Limbaugh? Is that you?

The very definition of "concern troll"

LOL. Don't vote for Obama! He's SUPER popular!

cmpnwtr: the point is that even if Michigan and Florida count, and even if Obama gets no credit for the uncommitted votes in Michigan, he's still ahead. Which means that according to the rules he is way ahead.

So it is hardly pathetic.

It's not time to count Clinton out yet.
Ultimately, she has the core democratic policies, she is capable of bringing out the key demographics for winning the general - security moms, hispanics, the white working class. I'm sorry, but we already won 88% of the african american vote last time around, and we're already going to win the affluent liberals. I'm not a fanatic for clinton, but it makes a lot more sense for us NOT TO GET CARRIED AWAY WITH THIS OBAMA STUFF _ we're still going to have to fight a general election against the republicans. They're still going to exist in obama-land, and i have to say i'd rather have a tough older candidate who appeals to the swing demographics than a three year seanator who appeals to people on an emotional level - the republicans might just not let him make the election about hope! they might just make it about who you trust to be your advocate on the international stage, who you trust to keep your children safe in bed at night...

"Hey everyone on Talking Points Obama
Check out the cult meme that is spreading like herpes in a whorehouse
HE will lose in Texas, Ohio, & Penn."

hey, bluepuppy, hiding behind JFK, I'll take the herpes over Clintons in a heartbeat. FYI last time I heard at least there were treatments for herpes.

I don't mean to be snarky, Eric, but I posted this math on my reader blog at 4am this morning. It shouldn't be too hard to find - thanks to the wonderful community at TPMCafe, it's currently topping the most popular blog list on the right hand side of the page.

I confess to finding this a bit discouraging. Earlier this week, I took the trouble to explain why the pledged delegate race was effectively over, only to have Josh surprised to hear that conclusion when the cable pundits voiced it last night. This morning, I took the time and effort to calculate the popular vote lead, only to see it posted as breaking news in the evening.

Is it too much to hope that the reader blogs won't just be resources for each other - but that the good staff at TPM might read them, too? As things stand, I'm half-inclined to take these insights and put them in e-mail to TPM instead of a TPM blog. That way, someone on TPM staff might actually read them. But I like the community that TPM Cafe offers, I consistently learn new things from the responses that other readers post, and enjoy the conversations we have. I just wish that TPM Cafe could be integrated into the rest of the site, so that I could shake the impression we're having two entirely disconnected conversations.

Notice what David Wilhelm, Bill Clinton's campaign chairman in 1992, said when he announced his support for Barack Obama today? From the NY Times:

He [David Wilhelm] said in a conference call today that Mr. Obama was more electable than Senator Hillary Clinton. Mr. Obama’s campaign is evidence of his leadership, he said, calling it “masterful.”

“He has out-worked her, out-organized her and out-raised her,” Mr. Wilhelm said. “I know organizational excellence when I see it, and the Obama campaign, win or lose, will serve as a model” of execution of strategy, message discipline, application of new technology and small-donor fund raising.

This is an important point that has been overlooked too often, I'd say. This kind of leadership, this kind of 'organizational excellence,' is nice to see in a presidential candidate (and even nicer to see in a president!).

Heh. Nice.

This is one of my favorite memes:

Clinton supporter:HEY, [SOMETHING OFFENSIVE AND INSULTING,] YOU [ADJECTIVE, ADJECTIVE, NAUGHTY WORD] CULTISTS

Obama supporter: I TAKE OFFENSIVE AT THAT REMARK, YOU YELLOW-BELLIED FLY-BITTEN POLTROON!

Clinton supporter: SEE, PROVES MY POINT! YOU [ADJECTIVE ADJECTIVE] CULTISTS ARE SO RUDE!

Noticing something happening today from Hillary die-hards, like m weaver and blue pup:
as per the impotent frustration on the Hill-cult sites, the newest effort [other than gaining new hope from the predictions of an astrologer] is to take it upon themselves to 'do the job the media refuses to do' and to spread whatever ginned-up stuff is supposed to 'prove' how really awful is Hillary's nemesis, Barack Obama.

I didn't comment on an earlier thread when weaver posted the ginned up Rezko, etc stuff, but I did notice that he could not or would not answer to the points made which refuted his list of stuff. Rather he just swerved around those rebuttals in order to plop down another ginned-up Hillaryland talking point, and, um, left.

There is something sad about this behavior. Republicans like Michelle Malkin buy into the idea that the world of people is filled by only two opposing possibilites, us or them, good or bad. I am beginning to understand that at least some Hillary supporters are like Malkin, i.e., if Hillary is 'good', then Obama must be 'bad'.

What does this do to the superdelegate argument? I think it's game Obama.

If the super delegates throw the nomination to the loser of pledged (real) delegates, then I may not vote in 2008, or will vote for a 3rd party candidate out of protest.

I hate to say that, becasue I'm usually a strong supporter of the lesser of evils and incremental change strategy. I've derided many Nader supporters for thier foolishness in helping elect GW Bush. I supported Gore and held my nose and voted for Kerry, as much of a dud as he was.

But, the whole premise of the lesser of evils and an incremental strategy is that things eventually get better. That by holding our noses once, the next candidate doesn't stink quite so bad.

I have to draw a line when it becomes apparent the party has become too corrupt and is so rotten to the core that it's willing to slide further into decay, and keep putting up stinkier insider candidates, rather than reform itself. Even if it means losing elections.

At that point, it becomes clear the party is not going to improve, and in fact has a vested interest in maintaining a corrupt system which fails to motivate a healthy and informed democracy. That produces apathy, low voter turnout, and an uninformed electorate. Which is the worst thing one can do to democracy becasue it's a vicious cycle. Worse than any individual position, becasue it ensures more and more bad decisions will be made in future.

If we continue on this path of cynicism and insider corruption then our democracy is dysfuntional and incapable of electing good candidates.

We'll inevitably elect more hacks and crooks like GW Bushes and Tom Delay, and continue to see important institutions like unions, corporations, and state infrastructure infested with hacks and crooks, becasue the "good guys" aren't doing their job or even trying.

Hellbots is over.

testing

Allowing superdelegates to determine the outcome IN THE EVENT OF A TIE seems fair. In no other situation does it seem reasonable.

Why should there be an asterisk on Michigan that Obama was not on the ballot? He pulled himself off (like others) so that he wouldn't piss off the Iowans and New Hampshirites, and because he (like others) saw that Hillary was way ahead in the polls and that wouldn't change if he didn't campaign. There was no deal requiring them to pull off the ballot.

If the obamatrons are really concerned about following "the rules" and therefore not mentioning Florida and Michigan, then they must also accept "the rules" that the superdelagates have huge sway in the decision even though lots of them like Hillary. But you can't run around claiming that the popular vote is all that is important and then pretend that Florida and Michigan don't exist. Maybe with your math here they will feel comfortable recognizing the existence of those voters without massive cognitive dissonance.

The votes from Michigan shouldn't count but Florida is a different story. All the candidates names were on the ballot and the only one who's TV ads were shown in the state was Obama. Although he said he couldn't help it as they were national ones. You can't discount all those people who voted. Many floridians will take it as a snub. Of course if Obama won you probably would feel differently.

I'm posting on a political blog lol

If Obama wants to avoid a fair competition for the votes of the super delegates he need only attain the majority of elected delegates.
Failing that he plays by the rules which he agreed to.
Isn't that the Obama argument being used against seating the FL and MI delegations?
Now we can understand why Obama and his supporters have been forced to take a stand on the primacy, come hell or high water, of the DNC rules. Even a self proclaimed "neutral" like Sharpton has now come out insisting that the rules be followed to the letter.
As many have noted, Obama has set himself up to be hoisted on his own petard, clever fellow that he is. Yes I know, "hoist" like "fairy tale" is now a racial slur in Chez Obama. Oh well!

Simply put, DNC rules, the rules Obama has agreed to and insisted be followed slavishly, do not say that the super delegates must or even should be delivered to a candidate who has not obtained the needed majority but nonetheless leads in some other metric. To the contrary.

But fear not Obama fans!
If Obama has a commanding lead in elected delegates (fuzzy word that "commanding" but only a few percent I would think) the super delegates will not overturn the judgement of the primary and caucus voters if only for purely political reasons. If I were a bettor my money would be on Obama having that commanding lead.

On the other hand, with a narrow difference in count, with both candidates well below the magic number, I trust that everyone, Obama and HRC fans alike, will agree that the rules must be followed, every jot and tittle observed, avidly and in good humor.

After all, fair is fair, yes?

I'm not normally speechless, but I heard the most revealing interview of the campaign season this year on NPR.

Michele Norris interviewed Mark McKinnon who is a senior advisor to McCain (formally advisor to the Bush campaign that destroyed McCain in 2000). He candidly admits that he will not actively work on the McCain campaign if Obama is the nominee.

Money quote:

"I met Barack Obama, I read his book, I like him a great deal,'' McKinnon said. "I disagree with him on very fundamental issues. But I think, as I said, I think it would a great race for the country, and I would simply be uncomfortable being in a campaign that would be inevitably attacking Barack Obama. I think it would be uncomfortable for me, and I think it would be bad for the McCain campaign.''

You can listen to the interview here:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=18958535

Let me understand please.
Am I to credit the words of a man, an admitted liar, who had a hand in spreading the "illegitimate black baby" smear against McCain in SC in 2000?
But he has an out: he no doubt thought that was wrong as well. But he did it.
And of course his words become more absurd.
He doesn't say McCain shouldn't attack Obama (horses already out of the barn in any case) he says that he, McKinnon, shouldn't be involved in those attacks.
Well dohhhh!
I'm sure Obama would love the opportunity to use McKinnon's presence and past to play the race card against McCain just as he has in the primaries.
And why should we credit McCain with even wanting McKinnon's assistance in his campaign after 2000?
Sounds like just a lot of self serving promotion from a piece of slime mold and more Rethugican disinformation.

Any chance this (below) simply means he would have mixed allegiances in a race specifically between Obama and McCain?? Have to admit I don't know the first thing about McKinnon, so I'm only taking these words at face value -- usually a dangerous thing to do in politics, that's for damn sure.

"I would simply be uncomfortable being in a campaign that would be inevitably attacking Barack Obama. I think it would be uncomfortable for me, and I think it would be bad for the McCain campaign.''

So the Obamatrons are trying to eliminate influence of Dem superdelegates while actively expressing thrill for the support of their republican equivalents? Explain to me why I want to vote for the guy that the republicans all love and want to vote for?

I don't want to make the republicans happy or compromise with them. They are the ones stopping us from attacking climate change; they are the ones who are opposed to universal health care (obama is already slipping their way on this one); and they are the ones who want to "privatize" (ie kill) social security; they are the ones that want to teach Christianity in public schools. But let's vote for the guy that says he will compromise with these folks and attract them to his campaign.

Have the republicans under Bush (and all the way back to 1994) been folks that you want to attract to a broad coalition, or the ones you want to oppose?

Hey...maybe if Obama wins he can pick McCain for his running mate and pick up ALL of McCain's advisors! Maybe Rove will support him next!

I a voting for Hillary. The Clinton years weren't bad and Hillary was a nice First Laday. She raised a half descent daughter.I like Hillary's family values.

I guess after the mess of the GWB admin. the nation has to be lulled by stories of Camelot and 'hope'. to steal from Jesse Jackson's let hope come alive, vote for a Clinton - whose been there done that and has the pulse of the nation.

People too often forget GWB, the promises and the now the lies. I can't. Ask yourself in the voting booth, are you better off now than you were 7 years ago when the Clinton's were in charge of the country? I did. This defined my support for Hillary.

Obama supporters are in full force around the internet and it shows. They're all over the blogs, but thinking working class people know what it feels like to spend 3+ per gallong of gas and it wasn't that way when the Clintons were custodians of the country.

The Empire that was Clinton is coming to an end. EJ Dionne had a extraordinary op-ed piece on the failings of the campaign from strategy to organization to reading the electorate to managing their money and people. One could call it 'Campaign Hubris'...haven't we just experienced eight years of outright Hubris based governance from the WH?

I wonder is that the price of american family political dynasties?

So Wait... The Winch says the Washington Post vote totals show that CLINTON IS THE LEADER IN THE POPULAR VOTE?

Hmm. And WHY are we not hearing this on the news?