Wait, I'm from Texas. Am I a real American or not?

That makes perfect sense if this election is about being president of half the country

I guess I'm just an imaginary American because I'm supporting Obama.

So only fake Americans voted for Obama? Got it.

Wait a second, why do blue state votes count for more? This seems exactly the opposite of reality to my mind. What we need is a candidate who can win in swing states (MO, OH, PA, IA, FL, NM, CO, VA, WI, MI, WA) by any margin at all, not someone who can run up impressive margins in states that we will win automatically. Maybe Clinton is that candidate; maybe Obama is. One way or another, however, being able to win solidly blue states by a larger margin than the other guy counts for nothing at all.

Yeah S1 - thank you for articulating pretty much EVERYTHING that's been wrong with the Democratic party for, oh, about 25 years.

Wait, so Hillary Clinton isn't a Real American?

And where the votes matter -- in big blue states -- she's well ahead.

Can't get enough of that "Hillary wins the states that are big/blue/[insert latest Mark Penn generated adjective____]" meme. Remember that according to polls the vast majority (~75%) of Dem voters said they would vote for either Obama or Clinton. So if it's already a Dem stronghold (e.g. CA or NY), we don't have data showing either of the candidates won't carry it in November.

Real Americans

Translation: White people who unquestioningly accept a system of private tyranny where one's worth is measured by their usefulness to the purpose of wealth production.

If that's what a Real American is . . . and you realize, don't you, that only in totalitarian societies can terms such as 'Real American' be employed with a straight face . . . then I'm glad to be unreal.

So you're saying that if Obama gets the nomination, all the Dems in CA, NY, et al will vote for McCain?? Riiiiight.

Why do votes there matter more? let's not have any crap about these primaries meaning anything about the November election. Obama will carry CA, NY, and MA; Hillary would lose TX, and carry IL and MD. The results mean nothing for November; only for the nomination, and all votes count the same for that.

then why have a primary there in the first place?

should there be a primary in Illinois or new york since everyone know who the winner will be in those states?

Why do Hillary's talking points always sound like they were written by Karl Rove?

As someone who lives in one of those no-count pink states that have an un-American caucus system --- you know, where you have to interact with your fellow citizens for two hours as if you cared about the result -- I can confirm that Hillary will lose here easily. "Here" is a wretched little state in the Pacific Northwest of no special note except for its unnaturally large population of kids who hardly know how to wipe their noses let along distinguish right from wrong, much less apprehend god's own truth that Hillary Clinton is the best thing to come along since Betsy Ross, Amen. But, hell, what with Texas, Florida, Missosuri, and Virginia to fall back on, Hillary won't be needing us anyway. Eleven electoral votes. What a joke.

Wow. "Real Americans," huh? Whew. I guess you're the one to make that call.

Let's see.... I was born 57 years ago in Saint Mary's Hospital in Long Beach, California, and grew up on a succession of military bases around the world and in many states. I went to high school in Reno, Nevada, and Citrus Heights, California. I did my undergrad at UC Santa Cruz and my graduate degrees at UC San Diego. I now live in Florida, holding on for dear life to a job I don't like simply because the economy here has utterly tanked and there are precious few places hiring in what I do. I have a wife and two step kids. My kid wants to join the Navy but wants to wait until Bush leaves office, but he's being tempted to join early because not even McDonald's is hiring right now. I'm a board member of my local Democratic Club.

I was a strong, contributing supporter of John Edwards. After he dropped out, I was initially somewhat indifferent as between Obama and Clinton. Hillary changed that for me when she began channeling Karl Rove.

I guess I'm not a "Real American" because I don't like the crap that Hillary's been shoveling.

This kind of "Real American" comment is the kind of politics of which I am thoroughly sick and tired and why I wouldn't vote for Hillary if you paid me.

If you are a Democrat living in a red state, the primaries are your *only* opportunity to be heard in presidential selection. I am very disturbed by this assertion that we don't matter because we'll go red in November. This is the season where we actually do matter...We will be heard.

The whole discussion about "winning" primaries by narrow margins completely misses the important issues.

What's far more important is who is turning out independents and generally increasing the Democratic vote in preparation of running against McCain in the GE. Whether the Dem nominee can win swing states hinges on Independents and overall turnout.

Obama (or any Dem nominee) will easily win CA, NY, and IL and other safe blue states. Any Dem nominee will also win the existing partisan Democratic voters in swing states already motivated by Bush, such as Ohio.

However, Hillary's problem, and the problem of the DLC generally, has been their inability to win independents. In a nut shell: they're great at turnign out a majority of Democrats who represent a minority of the overall electorate in the GE. Not a great strategy for actually winning the GE.

Obama will also do better in OH and FL against McCain because he appeals to independents, who will be decisive in those states. Hillary can win Democratic primaries there, but she can't win against McCain in the GE, because she flip-flopped on Iraq, has NAFTA and such on her record, can't hold a candle to him on the "experience" issue, and will have alienated young and black voters if she takes the nomination by Super Delegates overruling the majority.

In 2000 and 2004 the Dems won only the safe states, and lost close elections everywhere else. Hillary has has again relied on the well established Democratic machine in CA, NY, and other large states. That's the same DLC mistake as before.

Obama has equaled Hillary with partisan Democrats, despite her huge advantages in name recognition and long time alliances. He's won independents by huge margins in more swing states like Iowa, Missouri, Virginia, and others in play in 2008. He's brought in new voters who can decisively move those swing states into the Democratic column.

A Hillary nomination by Super Delegate will be a disaster.

Americans are strange fellow humans. From South Africa, where I live, you all come across as a bit mad... actually a bit out of control - perhaps its chemical (yet it is sometimes what we like about you. But how easily you lose your national sense of perspective and get bogged down in all sorts of ridiculous debates, complications and calculations. From here there is only one simple calculation for a democracy - whoever wins the popular vote wins! Simple and essential. You learnt nothing from Gore winning the popular vote but losing the Presidency. With you the loser can win! Why do you allow this to happen, where is your democratic backbone?

At the end of the day if the popular vote is not what decides the primaries your election system will be tainted once more, your happy democracy exposed once more as a dough-nut, tasty but hollow.

Worst of all, young Americans will soon become cynical old Americans.

This sort of silliness needs to stop. Hillary gets the older voters and you think the way for them to break for Obama is to insult them? Puh-leeze.

So how does Obama get females and older voters that are reliable Democrats to break for him. These folks back off and then go for Hillary right in the last days. If you aren't worried about this, I would submit that you absolutely need to be. And I would bet you that Obama is just as damned worried about what he has to do to close the deal with these folks. It is a problem.

The red states, no matter what size, are really charged up and I would like to see that continue. It may not mean the state is won for the Prez race, but it could be very beneficial for down-ticket Democrats.

Obama would have sewn this up if he could rely on a majority of either females or older voters. My take is that you have to refer to their grandmother status (who is your little darling supporting--answer, Obama). I don't view the 3AM ad as fear-mongering as much as recognizing that moms out in America worry about their kids and appreciate that a candidate recognized that worry and said I'll take care of it.

I think PA is the next crucial contest.

Michigan, like Ohio and PA, is a classic Rust Belt state.

I can't imagine why it would not incline in the same way as OH and PA, and for much the same reasons.

One difference would be that Obama no longer has the perception of momentum on his side.

LOL, "our" plans aren't ruined yet.

Hillary won, what, 10 delegates last night?

Break out the champagne! Hail to the Chief!

Obama supported Lamont:

"Ned Lamont has waged an impressive grass-roots campaign to give the people of Connecticut a choice in the November Senate election," Obama wrote. "Please join me in supporting Ned Lamont with your hard work on-the-ground in these closing weeks of the campaign."