It's not important. Hillary doesn't have a real shot at winning the nomination by overtaking Obama's pledged delegate lead. On her "big comeback" day she cut his lead of 150 delegates by about 3%. A few votes in Philly aren't going to turn this around for her increasingly delusional campaign.

More Hillary talking points.... I guess that's why they call it Talking Points Memo.

You're right. For example, I bet African Americans in the city will fall right in line behind Bill and the mOnStEr. They will forgive the race card dealt earlier in the campaign. They will forgive the darkening of Obama's skin in a recent ad. They will forgive comparing him to Jesse Jackson and calling him a fairy tale. Yes, you're right, a "misstep" from last year will certainly haunt Obama from here on out.

"I don't know a darn thing about Philadelphia politics" That is the key line. Would you care to switch it to the title?

attention "bias" cops: is Atrios biased against Obama for writing...

"I highly doubt Obama ever imagined his courtesy endorsement of Chaka Fattah in the mayoral race would end up being such an important misstep."

would love an answer to that one. of course, you'll probably say he is biased, sadly

How is this news?

Just what I was going to say John SFL! I called Nutter's office yesterday to ask if he planned on running for re-election ever: thw woman who answered gave me the fax machine number in his office to send that question to. If he hasn't convinced the people in his own administration, he's gonna need a whole lot more persuasiveness for the people whom he owes for his job.

This really is a non-story. I think the term reverberating is a little over the top. Maybe you should get the clintons to change their talking points greg. Reverberating? That's plain silly.

my point was that this is an interesting theory being floated by philly bloggers who know what they're talking about. it wasn't meant as any huge deal

Neither candidate has enough delegates to put them over the top, so Obama being slightly ahead is irrelevant....especially since Hillary is now slightly ahead in the popular vote. It's going to be up to the super-delegates, plus the Michigan/Florida re-do's.
As far as Mississippi and Wyoming are concerned.....they won't change things much, simply not enough delegates. Pennsylvania is what everyone is looking at, because it is a key battleground state. Speaking of which; Obama hasn't won any big battleground states. Hillary has won all the big battlegrounds, including Ohio, Texas, and Florida. Pennsylvania is another she will likely win. She won New York and California... but they generally are considered Democratic strong-holds. It's these other big prizes, the ones that can swing red or blue, that will really matter in the fall. Hillary is stronger in these states, and can beat McCain because of it. How can Obama win the general election without holding any of these states? The short answer is....he can't. He could lose Ohio and Texas, maybe Florida and Pennsylvania to McCain. The super-delegates will have to consider this reality. The primaries exist in a vacuum. Obama's delegate lead is unspendable currency in the general election. Hillary's wins in the key battleground states is spendable currancy, they translate into potential to beat McCain in the real fight ahead. The primaries are the minor leagues, Hillary is a much stronger candidate in the important contest against McCain.

On July 27, 2004, Obama told the Chicago Tribune on Iraq: "There's not much of a difference between my position and George Bush's position at this stage." In his book, The Audacity of Hope, published in 2006, Obama wrote, "...on the merits I didn't consider the case against war to be cut-and- dried." And, in 2006, Obama clearly said, "I'm always careful to say that I was not in the Senate, so perhaps the reason I thought the war was such a bad idea was that I didn't have the benefit of US intelligence. And for those who did, it might have led to a different set of choices."

Now that Obama is being asked tough questions by the Press he is sounding very much like a little child that is wondering why everybody is picking on him. He is going down in Flames.

Hako wrote:

Neither candidate has enough delegates to put them over the top, so Obama being slightly ahead is irrelevant....especially since Hillary is now slightly ahead in the popular vote. It's going to be up to the super-delegates, plus the Michigan/Florida re-do's.
As far as Mississippi and Wyoming are concerned.....they won't change things much, simply not enough delegates. Pennsylvania is what everyone is looking at, because it is a key battleground state. Speaking of which; Obama hasn't won any big battleground states. Hillary has won all the big battlegrounds, including Ohio, Texas, and Florida. Pennsylvania is another she will likely win. She won New York and California... but they generally are considered Democratic strong-holds. It's these other big prizes, the ones that can swing red or blue, that will really matter in the fall. Hillary is stronger in these states, and can beat McCain because of it. How can Obama win the general election without holding any of these states? The short answer is....he can't. He could lose Ohio and Texas, maybe Florida and Pennsylvania to McCain. The super-delegates will have to consider this reality. The primaries exist in a vacuum. Obama's delegate lead is unspendable currency in the general election. Hillary's wins in the key battleground states is spendable currancy, they translate into potential to beat McCain in the real fight ahead. The primaries are the minor leagues, Hillary is a much stronger candidate in the important contest against McCain.

Greg,

Honestly, I've tried to avoid claims of bias on this site, because I don't believe that you're personally biased against Obama.

But, just for grins, I'd like you to compare the number of posts that are "bad for Hillary" versus those that are "bad for Obama." I'm betting Obama comes up on the short end probably three out of every four posts, on average.

Again, I don't think this is because you're biased. I think it's because you're locked into a method of reporting that breathlessly reports every attack in this race (and Hillary is doing 90% of the attacking), with a tone of "Hillary said what?! Oh, no she din't!"

Granted, you usually toss in a clarifying sentence at the end of the post. But, after your headline (Obama Attacked as Lying About Nafta, e.g.) and a full recitation of the charges, this simply doesn't cut it.

This is basically the type of reporting that we all came to the blogs to get away from. It really would be helpful if you could get away from this he said/she said style. It unfairly helps Hillary, because she's working the media by throwing out bullshit attack after bullshit attack (again, see "NAFTAgate") and all of these attacks are constituting the basic coverage of this race.

Spend a little more time analyzing the claims, and less rushing these distortions into print, and I'm sure that reasonable readers will stop claiming bias on your part.

Greg,

You are correct that Obama endorsed Fattah. However, you're missing a very large piece of the story. The **reason** why Nutter endorsed Clinton was because Obama did not call him on election night to congratulate him. Both Hillary and Bill did (separately) and Obama did not. I have talked to numerous people inside team Nutter and this story has been corroborated across the board.

There is going to be major backlash against Nutter for this. In fact, there are organizers right now planning protests of the mayor that will send a pretty strong shot across his bow.

Nutter is riding a big wave of popularity following his victory, but he will be very out of step with his constituents in the battle between Obama and Clinton. Philadelphia will be Obama country.