There is no reason for Obama to change his schedule to help the Clintons. Get real.

The Clinton campaign keeps touting experience, so why is HRC making the campaign about snagging headlines?

Where is her policy that should win me over? Why isn't she pushing her record?

What we see here is that Obama is so clean (at least relatively speaking to her), that the Clinton's are trying to get support in another way.

I sure wish she'd run on her extensive record.

Eeek. I am not a fan of that response, one bit. I think an acceptance conditioned on an HRC disclaimer of her war vote would've been more appropriate.

We'll see how many people get caught up in this storyline.

Does he have much of a chance in ME anyway? I ask because I guess that I am sort of expecting ME to be like NH, only without the college students, so I have to wonder whether unfavorable press headlines can really hurt him anyway. Surely he has more to lose from tying himself up in Clinton's knots than from risking the ire of an incensed newspaperman.

I love his response -- his schedule "won't be dictated by the Clinton campaign."

I really hate HRC -- didn't vote for her in Illinois. But Obama has this way of dealing with her, like she's dog poop on his shoe. The way he looks at her, the way his campaign talks about her. If I didn't know better, I'd say it was sexist. But Oprah wouldn't support him if he were a sexist, would she?

Honestly, couldn't Mr. "I'm-a-Uniter-Not-a-Divider" (or is that someone else) have just said no?

Yes he does greg d, maine is a caucus. You will get the anti-war base and motivated dems out to caucus for him. Of course he has a chance.

By the way, I disagree with your florida analysis in that other thread. Florida is far more purple than you think. It's not like alabama or mississippi, it's a purple state and is totally in play for obama, not clinton though. The registration split between republicans and dems is almost 50/50. You get republican cross-overs and independents and obama can easily win florida, so it is not a total write-off.

Greg, you get a lot of flack for your headlines. So, I'd just like to recognize that this is an excellent headline:

Obama Nixes Hillary's Invite To Town Hall Meeting

Unrelated, did you see the post over at Andrew Sullivan noting that James Carville is actually advising the Clinton campaign. It's an inside baseball story -- but you guys love that stuff.

Clinton is fighting against his likability, so she's trying to create an us -vs- them story line. The only angle she has is his difference on health care. Now, it's refusal of debates and town hall. The problem is that these only rile up her base and have little effect on the undecided and either-or voters. Obama handcuffed her after South Carolina as she must smile and keep Bill in check. We're watching history with his campaign and I'm not talking about his being a black man. It's brilliant!

I can't decide if it the sanctimonious nature of most of Obama supporters on this site or just their incredible naivite.

Hillary and Obama are both attacking one another and trying to win the nomination. When Obama appeared to dismiss her in New Hampshire for being a woman, did most of you complain about unfair attacks? I didn't think so. Its only when she attacks him that I hear calls of mudslinging.

Personally, I don't like the vagueness of Obama's message. Everything is 'change' or 'inspirational' without defining what that means. After dealing with vagueness and a so-called 'freedom agenda' for the last 8 years, I need something more concrete.

Just because he talks of somekind of new politics, what make anyone thinks the Republicans are going to just go along with what he wants?

Dear Kevin H:

Where did Obama dismiss her for being a woman?

I assume you are talking about "you're likable enough?" Well, it's fair to say that the comment rubbed you wrong but please remember (a) Hillary was acknowledging that she needed to work on being likable and (b) she addressed her comment to Obama.

On the contrary, however, it's Hillary that keeps bringing up that "change is having a woman president". Really, it's not change when your last name is Clinton.

It is in the best interest of the United States to prevent dynasty control over the White House. This applies to the Bushes. It applies to the Clintons. Dynasty control is where you get your corruption. The only way of truly dealing with corruption is brining in fresh people. Otherwise, you can have entrenchment like we have already seen from the Bushes and all indications the Clintons as well.

Having said that, Obama as the de facto leader of the Dem Party is good for broadening the Dem Party beyond 2008. That is why many Sr. Dem's are endorsing him. It remains to be seen who is the nominee, but these are the reasons for the events you see played out.

Dear Barry Lyndon,

Having voted twice for Bill Clinton, I was not waiting for a return of a Clinton in the White House.

I am amused, however, that you are trying to play generational politics. I assume you are for Hillary? That is the camp that tends to try the divide-and-conquer techniques to win at all costs.

Clearthinker:

The disaster of the last 8 years has nothing to do with Bush being the son of a former president. He would have been terrible whoever his family was because after 7 years he still has no idea what how to do his job.

You can't charge that this so-called two family dynasty is a problem without showing specifically how Bush being the son of a former president or Hillary being the wife of a former president is a problem. Don't just say it leads to corruption without showing how.

Hey Barry, wanna talk about Hsu, or Rich, or all the other scandals the Clintons have had their hands all over? Nope, didn't think so. Also, last time I checked Rezko (you might try to spell it correctly) isn't being investigated or tried for anything related to Obama, in fact, Obama did nothing illegal whatsoever. The whole Rezko story is nothing but hyped up old news repackaged as a desperate attack plan for the faltering Clinton campaign, which of course is pretty ironic considering the Clintons have more skeletons in their closet than any political couple in recent memory, so playing the mud flinging game probably isn't a strong game to play. Kinda like throwing stones from a glass house, or the pot calling the snowman black.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/huffpost/20080124/cm_huffpost/083040;_ylt=Auo_ukcrYdhKQ7hhxK2mcYf9wxIF

http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=076fd56f-4aca-4683-a9d1-3c55d748946e

Oh, and on the debate thing, he did the right thing. There is no reason he should rearrange his schedule every time Hillary decides she wants to pull some unnecessary stunt to stay control of this campaign. What do you want him to do in the general election, let McCain control the schedule? Hell no, and he isn't going to let Hillary get away with that either.

Hillary's latest ploy, setting up straw issues about debates.

Dear Clearthinker,

Due to the limitations of our political system I find myself having to support Democratic candidates (I wish there was a much greater diversity of parties with a legitimate chance of wielding power). But I have to hold my nose to some degree every election season. Look, I am younger in age than Obama. I think that the battles that occurred in the 90's (a whopping 9 years ago) have not been settled. I relish the thought of Hillary and Bill back in office with a democratically controlled Congress. These are incredibly bright and talented people. Besides the "vast right wing conspiracy" there continues to be an irrational hatred for the Clintons on both sides of the aisle. I don't believe in abandoning people that have fought honorably for this country in favor of the savior du jour.

1. 70 percent of the country wants us out of Iraq. Methinks your logic is flawed.

2. Bullshit rankings make for a bullshit talking point.

3. Bullshit talking point is still a bullshit talking point.

4. This is a change election. Everyone's talking about it. It's been in all the papers. Really.

5. Whatever.

In conclusion, if that's the best slime you've got, Obama will win this thing going away.

Kevin H:

1) Learn some history on who GWB has in his cabinet and as advisors. Find out what they did in the 1980s-1990s. Start with the names Rumsfeld, Cheney, Rice, Wolfowitz. This group exercised tremendous power precisely because they were entrenched and, during off years, were tight with places like Halliburon and some of the oil companies.

It was the dynasty control of the White House that allowed the Iraq War (which was already in the planning before 9/11) to happen as easily as it did, with little in the way of due process.

2) Dubia and the Clintons:

http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/3/2/121350.shtml

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCommentary.asp?Page=%5CCommentary%5Carchive%5C200603%5CCOM20060302b.html

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/60414c4c-a95e-11da-a64b-0000779e2340.html?nclick_check=1

Most presidents rake in millions of dollars post-presidency, but now you will have that entrenchment feeding back into the system. The easiest way of fighting this is to simply prevent it from happening: no dynasty control of the White House.

Kevin H:

1) Learn some history on who GWB has in his cabinet and as advisors. Find out what they did in the 1980s-1990s. Start with the names Rumsfeld, Cheney, Rice, Wolfowitz. This group exercised tremendous power precisely because they were entrenched and, during off years, were tight with places like Halliburon and some of the oil companies.

It was the dynasty control of the White House that allowed the Iraq War (which was already in the planning before 9/11) to happen as easily as it did, with little in the way of due process.

2) Dubia and the Clintons:

http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/3/2/121350.shtml

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCommentary.asp?Page=%5CCommentary%5Carchive%5C200603%5CCOM20060302b.html

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/60414c4c-a95e-11da-a64b-0000779e2340.html?nclick_check=1

Most presidents rake in millions of dollars post-presidency, but now you will have that entrenchment feeding back into the system. The easiest way of fighting this is to simply prevent it from happening: no dynasty control of the White House.

Kevin H:

1) Learn some history on who GWB has in his cabinet and as advisors. Find out what they did in the 1980s-1990s. Start with the names Rumsfeld, Cheney, Rice, Wolfowitz. This group exercised tremendous power precisely because they were entrenched and, during off years, were tight with places like Halliburon and some of the oil companies.

It was the dynasty control of the White House that allowed the Iraq War (which was already in the planning before 9/11) to happen as easily as it did, with little in the way of due process.

2) Dubia and the Clintons:

http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/3/2/121350.shtml

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCommentary.asp?Page=%5CCommentary%5Carchive%5C200603%5CCOM20060302b.html

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/60414c4c-a95e-11da-a64b-0000779e2340.html?nclick_check=1

Most presidents rake in millions of dollars post-presidency, but now you will have that entrenchment feeding back into the system. The easiest way of fighting this is to simply prevent it from happening: no dynasty control of the White House.

(Apologies if this appears more than once here.)

When Hillary's husband is off hanging around dictators in Kazakhstan in order for his buddies to get uranium mining deals, you start to see the dynasty/entrenched power problem rearing it's ugly head. Especially when those friends of Bill decide to give his foundation money as a Thank You gift. There are plenty of issues like that one floating around or else why would they not release the BC Library funding records? You think Bill is distancing himself from Ron Burkle for no reason at all?

Bush would have never been elected without his family name and connections...who are you kidding? Of course he would have been terrible even if he wasn't a Bush, but he would have been a terrible car salesman or something, but not President of the United States! The "disaster" is that he became President.

Kevin H:

1) Learn some history on who GWB has in his cabinet and as advisors. Find out what they did in the 1980s-1990s. Start with the names Rumsfeld, Cheney, Rice, Wolfowitz. This group exercised tremendous power precisely because they were entrenched and, during off years, were tight with places like Halliburon and some of the oil companies.

It was the dynasty control of the White House that allowed the Iraq War (which was already in the planning before 9/11) to happen as easily as it did, with little in the way of due process.

2) Dubia and the Clintons:

http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/3/2/121350.shtml

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCommentary.asp?Page=%5CCommentary%5Carchive%5C200603%5CCOM20060302b.html

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/60414c4c-a95e-11da-a64b-0000779e2340.html?nclick_check=1

Most presidents rake in millions of dollars post-presidency, but now you will have that entrenchment feeding back into the system. The easiest way of fighting this is to simply prevent it from happening: no dynasty control of the White House.

(Apologies if this appears more than once here.)

I agree about not trusting the youth vote too much in the GE...by then, Obama buzz will be old news and they'll be onto new things. We Gen Y do have a short attention span after all...look at Obama girl - Youtube sensation - she didn't even bother to vote on Tuesday! Obviously her Obama love was all about her love for publicity ;-)

KevinH said "The disaster of the last 8 years has nothing to do with Bush being the son of a former president. He would have been terrible whoever his family was..."

What? The point of course is that George Bush could never have been considered or elected president unless it was for his father's political machine. And Mrs. Bill Clinton would never in a million years be a viable candidate for president if she she was not married to Bill.

We have a good example of what a presidency built on lies, family connections and corporate dollars is like. Why in the world would we want another one? Bush-Clinton-Clinton-Bush-Bush-Clinton is a ridculous formula for leadership in this nation. Those families have developed a brand of deep divisive warring politics that prevents any majority in the nation on any issue and protects the unchecked greedy profiteering of the corporations who support them. The only difference in the Clintons and the Bushes is the minor detail of party registration.

We do not need more of the Clintons or the Bushes. Enough!

Kevin H:

1) Recall the history on who GWB has in his cabinet and as advisors. Find out what they did in the 1980s-1990s. Start with the names Rumsfeld, Cheney, Rice, Wolfowitz. This group exercised tremendous power precisely because they were entrenched and, during off years, were tight with places like Halliburon and some of the oil companies.

It was the dynasty control of the White House that allowed the Iraq War (which was already in the planning before 9/11) to happen as easily as it did, with little in the way of due process.

2) Dubia and the Clintons:

http://tinyurl.com/244grm

http://tinyurl.com/29t5zc

http://tinyurl.com/2fh5u6

Most presidents rake in millions of dollars post-presidency, but now you will have that entrenchment feeding back into the system. The easiest way of fighting this is to simply prevent it from happening: no dynasty control of the White House.

(Apologies if this appears more than once here.)

Kevin H:

1) Recall the history on who GWB has in his cabinet and as advisors. Find out what they did in the 1980s-1990s. Start with the names Rumsfeld, Cheney, Rice, Wolfowitz. This group exercised tremendous power precisely because they were entrenched and, during off years, were tight with places like Halliburon and some of the oil companies.

It was the dynasty control of the White House that allowed the Iraq War (which was already in the planning before 9/11) to happen as easily as it did, with little in the way of due process.

2) Dubia and the Clintons:

http://tinyurl.com/244grm

http://tinyurl.com/29t5zc

http://tinyurl.com/2fh5u6

Most presidents rake in millions of dollars post-presidency, but now you will have that entrenchment feeding back into the system. The easiest way of fighting this is to simply prevent it from happening: no dynasty control of the White House.

(Apologies if this appears more than once here.)

Right lombard, Limbaugh is all knowing and all powerful - that's why McCain will be the Republican nominee.

independentmeans,

I don't listen to Rush for my presidential choice. One of the reasons so many are voting for Obama is the fear generated by these common talking points repeated by the right wing and the Obama movement.

I pick my candidate based on who I think is the most meritorious, knowledgeable, strong, and has the best leadership qualities. I'm not going to pick based on fashionable chic or fear based on Republican talking points.

I'm picking who I feel is the best and most deserving person. If that's not good enough to win, I have a clear conscience. But, I think that might just be good enough to win.

Just a comment from Maine....

I predict that Barack will win here.

We are not New Hampshire. (Actually, it's more accurate to say New Hampshire is not typical of northern New England.) Mainers have a contrarian, anti-establishment streak which enables candidates like Nader and Dean and -- just last week -- Ron Paul to run fairly strong here. I think this tendency will work against Hillary.

I haven't seen any polls, so this is just a forecast based on my own sense of who, among my neighbors, is going to turn out for a caucus on a cold Sunday afternoon -- and how strongly people seem to feel about things.

To Barry Lyndon:

You wrote:

Besides the "vast right wing conspiracy" there continues to be an irrational hatred for the Clintons on both sides of the aisle. I don't believe in abandoning people that have fought honorably for this country in favor of the savior du jour.

First of all, you may want to change your hypothesis: if they tend to polarize everyone, maybe "everyone" isn't the problem?

Also, you don't say how old you are, but you might want to not use the words "Clinton" and "fught honorably for this country" in the same sentence. This was a major campaign issue for Bill in 1992.

This notion of using the word "savior" in application to Obama tends to be from the HRC side.

If you take a step back, you will see that most people don't feel like holding their noses for Obama.

I voted for Bill Clinton twice, so I am "pure". But he ruined his 2nd term by foolishly playing into the other side's hands. Simply, none of the country's business got done because Bill couldn't focus on the country at key moments. For being a wonk, he should have known better.

The 2000 election wouldn't have been so close and the Dems probably would have won had not Clinton provided all kinds of fodder for the GOP. HRC's line about "cleaning up after Bushes" is disingenuous. Bill's policies were more along the lines of GHWB (remember, it was Bill C who hacked the Federal government *smaller*). And we might not have had a GWB had Bill C been able to control himself. (And, yes, Bill and Hillary are a pair -- I'm taking them at *their word*.)

Please do this thought experiment: you claim HRC will continue to fight honorably for this country. If she loses the nomination, or the GE, do you think she will continue to be in the Senate after 2012?

The Clinton's had their chance. If they were truly committed to the country, they would have helped reshape the party for the collective future, not their personal past.

Clearthinker said:

The Clinton's had their chance. If they were truly committed to the country, they would have helped reshape the party for the collective future, not their personal past.

Very, very good quote. People need to remember the clintons gave us delay, newt the nazi, and the king. The dems lost control of congress under their stewardship of the party in 94 and weren't able to recover until 06 and because of a war!!!!! Do we really want to go through this again? I don't.

Genghis writes:

2) I'm constantly perplexed as to why some people complain that Obama is too progressive (the liberal ranking) and others that he's too conservative (health care plan, Reagan comments, unity message).

Right on! It's surprising that the supposedly mesmerized Obama masses keep thinking more clearly than the Clinton stalwarts.

Senator Obama can be linked up remotely if he cannot change his travel plans for this opportunity to educate the American public. He ought to be happy to have this or any other opportunity to speak to the citizenry without a script. American people would like to see these two on live TV one more time. We want to make sure we do not have another President who cannot speak without a teleprompter or cue cards. Senator Obama, Please let yourself be heard right along side Senator Clinton. What do you have to lose?

In the general election, if god forbidden Obama is the nominee, are you Obamabots really stupid enough to think his voting records and his NJ No. 1 ranking will not be taken apart? Are you simply out of your mind? What will be his defence? "Oh, that's funny. Clinton attacked me for being to much on the right in terms of healthcare". Do you think that will fly?

Of course, in a primary, Obama would be attacked for his right-wing position. On the GE, the other side will be attacked and exposed. Do you think he can effectively defend his thin but extremely liberal records in IL senate and U.S. senate?

Lombard,

You are naive if you think "latinos" vote in a block. They don't any more than the middle class votes as a block.

For example:

Latinos in CA voted 2:1 for HRC over Obama.

Latinos in NM (the state with the highest number) voted 1:1 for HRC over Obama.

Latinos in FL are with the GOP.

Get it? Target micro-demographics are old school and very Clintonesque. Think broader. The Dems need to recover the Reagan Democrats lost in 1980 and Obama happens to appeal to that group strongly.

It would re-align the parties for a generation. That simply wouldn't happen with Clinton who is old school with the 50%+1 thinking.

It's like a Professor once told me: Don't try to get an "A". Just learn the material. If you learn the material, you'll get the "A".

The Dems can win the election *and* govern effectively if they don't micro-demograph us to tiny slices. We are, after all, one country.

Senator Obama can be linked up remotely if he cannot change his travel plans for this opportunity to educate the American public. - Soren at 8:07PM

Dear Soren,

Why didn't you watch the 18 debates (does that include the NPR radio debate which I listened to in my parked car on a Brooklyn street)?

Don't drink the kool-aid. It was a political trick, not meant to be taken seriously by voters who are supposedly paying attention to the past YEAR! That was for the low hanging fruit.

Clearthinker wrote:

"The Dems need to recover the Reagan Democrats lost in 1980 and Obama happens to appeal to that group strongly."

Your talking to a Reagan Democrat (twice!). And don't talk to me like I'm stupid. I'm very likely to be far more educated (both in terms of advanced degrees and in life) than you.

If you think Reagan Democrats are going to melt for Obama, your knowledge of Reagan Democrats is second hand and third rate. And, remember, we're all at least middle aged now.

Clearthinker:

You're talking to a Reagan Democrat (twice) and if you think Obama will melt Reagan Democrats your knowledge of them is second hand and third rate. And, remember, we are all at least middle aged now.

And stop talking to me like I'm ignorant. I am very likely to be more educated than you (Ph.D. in a technical field) and have more life experience.

I know many of you Obama supporters think we are a bunch of poor old ladies who are high school dropouts. Like most movements, you believe far too much of your own press.

Dear Lombard:

Actually I have a PhD in EE and am a business owner. So you pulled that line on the wrong person, sorry!

I happen to be around Obama's age.

But, unlike you, I don't try to rely on credentials to intimidate people and push my agenda. I prefer logic and clear thinking.

However, I now understand why a brand name (the ultimate credential) might make a candidate so appealing to you.

Please let's not have board become one of personal attacks. I never talked to you like you were ignorant. I did say you were naive if you thought latinos voted in a block and then offered evidence of that position.

Polls have clearly shown that Obama appeals to those earning > $50K/yr salary while HRC appeals mostly to those earning less than

The Reagan Democrat types are those in Obama's appeal group.

To cswartout: I believe you are correct, that Sen. Clinton has more money designated for the general election than Sen. Obama does. As you note, however, that shouldn't be a problem if he is the nominee, especially with whole the Dem. party behind him (or, I guess I should say, most of it plus just a few newcomers who aren't Dems - yet - but will be supporting him).

All this talk of dynasties and how long Sen. Clinton has 'fought' for her country and all that keeps reminding me of a quite good line that Maureen Dowd had in a column some months ago. I'm going to bungle it because I don't have time to look it up, but it's something like this: "If it weren't for nepotism, Hillary would be running for president of Vassar. But then, if it weren't for nepotism, our current Commander in Chief would be pumping gas in Texas -- and I don't mean from out of the ground."

I think many people voted for GWB because they thought it would 'sorta' be like getting GHWB back. And certainly people are voting for HRC because they believe - and she tells them! - it will 'sorta' be like getting WJC back. It just doesn't work that way, folks. Talk about rolling the dice! And we did SO well the last time we tried that kind of crap shoot.

Granted, Bill will be right there in the White House with her whereas GHWB kept an admirable distance, but I'm not sure that's really a bonus .... plus (the only Mitt Romney line I'll ever quote) it really is a bit upsetting to imagine "Bill Clinton in the White House with nothing to do." How awful it would be if the only true re-play of the 1st Clinton administration turned out to be ... well ... "that" part. Sadly, it doesn't seem like Bill has acquired a great deal of self-restraint over the years.

I know it's not good manners to refer to that uncomfortable episode, you know -the one that managed to paralyze our nation for months and months. (At least it's not good manners for a Dem to do so) But the possibility does hang over all this like a quite unsavory spectre. And it will CERTAINLY be brought up - repeatedly - by the Republicans.

(For any of you too young to remember all the particulars about Bill Clinton's impeachment, as nasty as the Republicans were, they did not create the situation out of whole cloth. It was recklessness and bad - beyond bad!! - judgment on a truly tragic scale. And a drama no one wishes to remember, much less revisit.)

Dear Mikey,

When was the last time we had 2 candidates splitting the pie 50-50 at this stage of the game? Your argument is failing against the current political landscape.

Obama is not running scared and neither is Hillary. They both see that they have a path to the nomination.

Hillary's achilles heel is that Obama could rack up enough wins this month to give him the aura of a winner. No candidate has had a true winning streak yet, and if Obama gets into one then she could get into a must win situation in both Ohio & Texas. He is flooding both states with staff right now.

Obama is now trying to manage expectations and Hillary's team is the best in the business. She still leads him in name ID by a wide margin and her base has a record of showing up to the polls. Her money woes seem to be overblown now.

As for losing NY and CA, those states will safely be Dem in the fall. Not to worry.

Mikey,

There were only 2 states that Obama didn't campaign in for SuperTuesday:

a) NY

and

b) Alaska

That is not cherry picking. He is working to try to get votes in *all* states. This is a good indication of his "uniter" theme. He is certainly *not* going after the 50%+1 strategies we've seen for 16 years now.

I thought we can refine the discussion here:

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reagan_Democrat

"The classic study of Reagan Democrats is probably the work of the Democratic pollster Stan Greenberg. Greenberg analyzed white ethnic voters (largely unionized auto workers) in Macomb County, Michigan, just north of Detroit. The county voted 63 percent for John F. Kennedy in 1960, but 66 percent for Reagan in 1984. He concluded that "Reagan Democrats" no longer saw Democrats as champions of their middle-class aspirations, but instead saw them as working primarily for the benefit of others..."

As much as the press wants to make out the Obama surge is based solely on youth, they miss the middle class component to it.

Now, does this mean that *all* middle class people who were once Dem are "Reagan Democrats"? Of course not. But let's agree (because we've seen it from the polls) that there is a large group in the middle that have been energized by this primary season. The question is, does the Dem Party want them back in as key players? So far, Obama has appealed to this group as Genghis eloquently points out.

I thought we can refine the discussion here:

From Wikipedia under "Reagan_Democrat"

"The classic study of Reagan Democrats is probably the work of the Democratic pollster Stan Greenberg. Greenberg analyzed white ethnic voters (largely unionized auto workers) in Macomb County, Michigan, just north of Detroit. The county voted 63 percent for John F. Kennedy in 1960, but 66 percent for Reagan in 1984. He concluded that "Reagan Democrats" no longer saw Democrats as champions of their middle-class aspirations, but instead saw them as working primarily for the benefit of others..."

As much as the press wants to make out the Obama surge is based solely on youth, they miss the middle class component to it.

Now, does this mean that *all* middle class people who were once Dem are "Reagan Democrats"? Of course not. But let's agree (because we've seen it from the polls) that there is a large group in the middle that have been energized by this primary season. The question is, does the Dem Party want them back in as key players? So far, Obama has appealed to this group as Genghis eloquently points out.

Mikey said:
If it was winner take all, he'd be down 300 delegates.

If I was younger and better looking (picture sure proves that!), I would be sleeping with Scarlett Johanssen.

Your point is...?

She sounds like a mother-in-law, living with you coz her husband went broke.

I think he should win as many delegates as he can-hopefully 60% of the delegates in the states before the TX and Ohio primary- and then hit her hard.

The policy wonking is a problem and I think he can close the gap. The bigger problem for him is the perception especially among female voters. They seem to percieve either as too weak or too condescending. For these NOW NY-Freaks, it annoys them if he breathes. It's been a tight rope to walk on;So better he not do any debates until he finishes the next nine primaries.

Some numbers to think about:

In 1992, when Bill C won the election with 43% of the vote (compared to GHWB with 37%), Ross Perot grabbed 19% of the vote. That 19% broke down as follows:

57% of his votes came from people earning $23K-75K (in 2007 adjusted dollars)

29% of his votes came from people earning more than $75K

Does this group sound familiar? It's the same economic stripe that Obama appeals to... only Obama is running as a Democrat!

In 1996, when Bill C won the election with 49% of the vote (couldn't get a majority as an incumbent!) over Dole with 41% of the vote, Ross Perot grabbed 8%.

Do you see the pattern? That key middle portion, the middle class is up for grabs.

This group can be brought firmly into the Democratic Party and change the alignment for a generation. This is what I believe Obama was referring to with his comments on Reagan.

If Bill C couldn't bring this group in, as either an unknown or as an incumbent, how is Hillary going to do it? She obviously can't.

In my view that is reason enough to like Obama even if he weren't running against a dynasty.

Greg...it's the other way around. Obama won a lot more caucus states than Billary.I'm more hopeful about Maine than NH for two simple reasons

1) I'm guessing- a reasonable guess- he has stronger on ground organization than she does.

2)If it's a open caucus like Iowa- people are less likely to act on their race-based prejudices, when they stand to caucus along with their friends, neighbors and community.

This is my theory for why he does so well in Caucus states.

BTW I hope Maine,Nebraska are open caucus states?

To be honest, I wish Obama were a little better at the debates. He's not bad, but Clinton's very good. Meanwhile, he kicks her ass at public speaking and gets a ton of press when he sells out stadiums, so limiting the debates is the smart strategy for him.

Clinton's going to try to tag him as afraid to debate, but I think it will be hard, as he's certainly done his share and will do at least one more. Moreover, it could backfire on her the same that it backfired on Gore against Bush by lowering the expectations for his debate performance. That is to say, if Clinton is perceived as eager to give Obama an ass-kicking in a debate, then she will be expected to actually kick his ass, which she has never been able to do, and her failure to do so will be perceived as an Obama success.

Regarding SC, I agree the Democratic primary vote exceeded the Republican primary vote. However, my point was not related to the primaries, but to beating the Republican nominee in the general election. In 2004, W. won 967,000 votes to Kerry's 662,000, winning by 17 pts. Do you really think Obama can carry SC in the general?

Regarding the strategy you've laid out, there's a good reason Democrats have not been competitive in these states for a long time --- there's not enough democrats and independents period to be competitive against Republicans. A general election is a very different challange and for a relative newcomer, who beat Allen Keyes (the guy didn't even live in IL) to win his Senate seat, we'll see how he looks in ID,SC,AK,GA,ND,UT,and AL after six months of attack ads by Republican 527s.

Mikey,
Yes, Obama COULD win SC. And maybe AL and GA too. He is excenlent at getting people who normally would not vote out to the polls. When the SC primaries happened, both the Dem and Rep races were still close and exciting, so there was high turnout for both, but Obama (and Dems in general) still got more votes than Repubs. Same w/ GA and AL

Mikey, either you're a 14 year old guy or just back from Himalayas. There is nothing wrong in calculating what's best for the campaign. He is likely to win most of the next 9 states and irrespective of whether he is a good or bad debater it doesn't make sense to risk your lead. BTW, remeber the debates of early 2007, when 'inevitable" Billary behaved as if she was invincible, staying above the fray? That's a legitimate campaign strategy. When you're winning, you win period.

BTW if you're looking for a messaish make sure to cast a write-in ballot for Jesus. But if you're looking a past-baggage-free candidate, who can give us a fresh start-Go for Obama.

Go for Hillary- if you want to feeling of a empty soul at the end of the day. Clintons have a history of throwing people (Gays, Blacks, etc) under the bus when done and dusted. So any argument or 'evidence' to present Barack as a bad evil guy will fall flat, when you look at the alternative.

buddhistfist13, I think that your hope is a little too audacious. SC would be very tough to win. But it's besides the point. Obama's popularity may not carry SC, but the popularity that he demonstrated there will carry him in the borderline states. Clinton was impressive in TN (which I don't fully understand), Arkansas, and OK. Other than that, she captured blue states that will go Dem either way.

By the way- I'm less worried about General.If Obama can win the primaries- he can pull it off in the General. Worst case scenario- at least Clinton dirt-bags will not be able to screw this country again.

If this country goes down the flush- better it be Republican McCain and not Clintons.

Call me a Neocon, feels less offensive than Clinton-backer. I'm a New Yorker BTW.

if Barack leads among pledged delegates which looks very likely, and these establishment based super delegates pick Hillary- she can count her general election votes with her fingers anyway.

Why do you all continue to respond to Mikey? Like tapper, he's just looking to get a rise out of you.

Just ignore him. It works.

mikey500, I'm glad that you're here and give you credit as a lonely voice in a field of Obama supporters. I also appreciate that you have a brain and that you're not calling Obama "Hussein" or engaging in the usual trash talk. So where on the web do the Clinton supporters hang out?

Genghis,
Thank you. I have no intention of trash talking. I think Obama is a fantastic talent and a good Democrat. I wish he would have waited to allow Hillary to make her run to become the first woman President of the United States.

First and foremost, I'm a Democrat. If Obama wins the nomination I will enthusiastically support him. However, I personally do not believe he is what the Democratic party needs at this point in time. Since JFK, and perfected by Reagan and Clinton, we've been fixed on finding the pesonality cult president -- it's TV, Cable news, Internet, etc. when what should be important is not the messenger, but instead, the message, the party, the values of the party. In my opinion, Obama is another personalty cult persona who will bind the party for 4-8 years; the focus will be on the ups and downs of the messanger and not the message. Hillary is a skilled and experienced manager who will build the party that transcends her time in office. I could talk more on this, but it's getting late.

As far as where Hillary supporters hangout -- I have no idea. I learned long ago that I don't learn much hanging around with people who think like me and agree with me. It's just not very interesting.

Likewise, I think that Hillary Clinton is extremely intelligent and capable and would, in many respects, make an excellent president. If she wins, I'll vote for her without hesitation.

Your point about the obsession with personality is a more nuanced and interesting version of the standard "Obama is just a rock star" line. I would argue that we need a messenger and a message. The presidents you mention--JFK, Reagan, and Clinton--are easily the most important and influential presidents of the second half of the last century, which belies your contention that the messenger is unimportant. In a pure rational world, we would evaluate words based only on their literal content, but human beings aren't pure rational beings. We respond to poetry and music. We feel that it gets at some inner truth that dry prose cannot provide.

What I admire about Obama and what gives him such potential, in contrast to Bill Clinton, is that he is messenger with a message. True, it's vague and ethereal, but it has heft, and it resonates. As opposed to "I feel your pain" and "It's the economy stupid", which are nice soundbites but offer no vision for the future.

Hillary Clinton, by contrast, is a poor messenger, and she has no message. (If you know what her message is, please share.) I like her policies, I think that her leadership would be shrewd, but I see no potential for her to be a great president. I may ultimately be disappointed and disillusioned by Obama, but I do see in him the potential for greatness, something that I've never seen in my lifetime.

Likewise, I think that Hillary Clinton is extremely intelligent and capable and would, in many respects, make an excellent president. If she wins, I'll vote for her without hesitation.

Your point about the obsession with personality is a more nuanced and interesting version of the standard "Obama is just a rock star" line. I would argue that we need a messenger and a message. The presidents you mention--JFK, Reagan, and Clinton--are easily the most important and influential presidents of the second half of the last century, which belies your contention that the messenger is unimportant. In a pure rational world, we would evaluate words based only on their literal content, but human beings aren't pure rational beings. We respond to poetry and music. We feel that it gets at some inner truth that dry prose cannot provide.

What I admire about Obama and what gives him such potential, in contrast to Bill Clinton, is that he is messenger with a message. True, it's vague and ethereal, but it has heft, and it resonates. As opposed to "I feel your pain" and "It's the economy stupid", which are nice soundbites but offer no vision for the future.

Hillary Clinton, by contrast, is a poor messenger, and she has no message. (If you know what her message is, please share.) I like her policies, I think that her leadership would be shrewd, but I see no potential for her to be a great president. I may ultimately be disappointed and disillusioned by Obama, but I do see in him the potential for greatness, something that I've never seen in my lifetime.

Genghis:

Bill C rode in on a wave of more than "I feel your pain". He very shrewdly went after the youth vote, played his sax, kept pumping the idea of the new generation taking over. (GHWB was from WWII as we were constantly reminded.)

Here was a "regular" guy who obviously had smoked pot (yes, that was a breakthrough notion).

Here was a guy inspired by JFK.

Here was a guy who ate fast food and loved it.

There was a LOT of excitement about Bill C when he campaigned. That makes the irony all the more amazing now:

He is the old school. His wife's viral videos look like media products and not "cool". He represents the past.

I do agree, however, that Obama "looks" more presidential with a gravitas that neither Hillary or Bill have/had.

I will make an off topic note: I am struck about how amateurish the debates look these days. There is something about the informality of them which takes some of the weight out of them. Compare, for example, the Reagan/Mondale debate with those of this year, or 2004. Something is missing for me. Now we have the presidential candidates trying to look like your next door neighbor.

People have said they would like it when their president doesn't need cue-cards. I would like it when the president doesn't need polls!

I don't think that prospective Obama Republicans will necessarily belong to the same demographic as Reagan Democrats.

Obama appeals to small-l libertarians like myself because he is good on issues of government accountability -- way better than Clinton, way better than today's authoritarian Republicans.

Televising health-care deliberations, putting prospective legislation and such on the web where concerned citizens can exercise oversight, that's red meat for limited-government types. As Megan McArdle put it:

He's slightly to the left of Hillary on goals, but he's well to the right of her on process. His goal is not more government so that we can all be caught up in some giant, expressive excercise of collectively enforcing our collective will on all the other people standing around us in the collective; his goal is improving transparency and minimizing government intrusion, while rectifying specific outcomes.

I'd be happy to be part of an Obama-led supermajority. If the Dems put up Clinton, though, I'm voting for McCain.

Annon at 5:13, you are right on target. I don't believe in just throwing money at a problem. If you shed light on the government and reveal the inefficiencies people in government will want to not be embarrassed, by human nature, and increase efficiencies. The healthcare problem is controlling costs and doing away with inefficiencies built into the system, like insurance companies for example. A mandate is a joke and just lines the pockets of carriers. The point is to control costs, which obama wants to tackle first and foremost. Lobbyists are totally inefficient and in fact even big business wants to get rid of them. They cost money. There are a host of issues that can easily be rectified by full disclosure and the embarrassment factor. Same thing with senate votes. Full disclosure. I still don't know clinton's senate voting record and the dribs and drabs I do find out make me cringe.

In any event, very good point and a very good reason for an obama presidency. Clinton just offers more of the same old, same old. I think the kazakhstan story concerning mr. bill is a glaring testimony to what we could expect. They'll say they want to do all these wonderful things, but in the smoke filled rooms it will be you scratch my back, I'll scratch your back. We have major problems that need to be dealt with not more of the status quo.

Of course Barack Obama will not debate Hillary. He has no substance to his candidacy. Inspirational speeches are nice, but I think we would all do better if the wealthy white men and college kids who are supporting him went to listen to a good preacher on Sunday and left someone who knows what they are doing to run the country. We need some specifics from him. I am waiting for him to say "We are changing the way that change is changed..."