People are sheep apparently.

I'm thoroughly disgusted. Obama needs to make a strong point of the fact that NONE of her top advisors could name a single instance of her being tested.

Why are so many people so stupid that they will just assume Hillary is stronger on national security and more experiences JUST because she says she is??

HELLO PEOPLE! WAKE UP!!

The pendulum will swing back. Obama had a bad week. Let's hope he realizes where he misstepped and what he has to do to regain his footing.

The press is going to (hopefully) go after Clinton in regards to the NAFTA kerfluffle, tax returns, shady donors. And it still appears as though her inner team is falling apart.

Six weeks is a hell of a long time. Obama took a hit but there are a lot of openings now for him to take advantage of.

Isn't the real news here that 15% of DEMOCRATS in a crucial state like PA would rather have the Republican nominee answering the 3 AM call?

Yep. Thanks to Hillary for reinforcing Republican frames among a significant portion of our own base.

In Pennsylvania, Hillary Clinton has opened a fifteen percentage point lead over Barack Obama. The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey shows Clinton attracting 52% of the vote while Obama earns 37%.

In late February, before Clinton’s comeback victories in Ohio, Texas, and Rhode Island, the former First Lady’s lead in the Keystone State was just four percentage points. The big difference between that poll and the current result is found a among men. Clinton now leads by seventeen percentage points among women and eleven among men. In the previous survey, she was ahead by fifteen points among women but trails by fourteen among men.

The Clinton bounce is consistent with the national trends where she has recently taken the lead in the Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll. A Rasmussen Reports video notes that the race for the Democratic nomination is now all about the Super Delegates. It is possible that when the primaries come to an end, Obama will have won the most pledged delegates while Clinton will have won the popular vote. That is especially true if she wins by a significant margin in Pennsylvania.

GO HILLARY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

THIS COULD HURT HILLARY IN PENNSYLVANIA! Check it out and forward it around!:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/3/6/12851/87143

I can't wait until Hillary wins by, say, 8 points, and is heralded again as continuing her "comeback" to the nomination.

I haven't wanted to go here, but all this Commander-in-Chief nonsense provokes me:

This is a woman, after all, who was not able to stand up to her own sex-addict husband, but instead enabled and defended him to the detriment of the party in order to secure her future political career. THIS is the kind of Commander-in-Chief we want? The kind who can't even get her husband to keep his snake in his cage? I mean, come on.

Obama's needs to get more detailed on his policy positions. People are starting to come out of the Hope and Change fog. It is now being seen more and more as a gimmick. He needs to go toe to toe with Hillay on policy and issues. I don't think he thought it would go this long, and he figured he could just ride his speeches to the nomination.

If I were in Florida, I would sit at home for the general. If my vote isn't good enough now, it won't be good enough then.

I love all the whinning from the Obama supporters.

They say that the super delegates need to 'listen to the will of the people'. Apparently that means everyone except those who happen to live in Michigan, Florida or the vast majority of people who just happen to live in caucus states.

Hillary seems to have a big lead in Pennsylvania, so now their just sheep.

When the convention comes around, whoever seems to have to best chance of winning in November will get the supers.

Obama needs a strong series of ads making the case for himself as a military leader.... and he needs them fast. Otherwise HC is gonna sink him on this issue.

It is not really fair (because he can assemble military advisors once elected), but the fact is HC's husband's network of military /strategic advisors already do exist. She WILL have her husband whispering in her ear on matters military and foreign policy. That in any case, is the perception.

Obama needs to make the case for himself as a leader of the armed forces of America in time of war... or he is sunk.

He also needs to make a case for himself as someone who can do something for blue collar America.

In short he's got to go after HC where she is winning.

Except you don't anything about her tax returns....

why doesn't obama attack hillary on the "politics of fear" bit, and try to turn the 3am add against her?

If she is allying herself with McCain against Obama, why doesn't he take them both on in a response add?

POLLS SHOW THAT HILLARY CLINTON IS 11% TO 20% IN THE LEAD IN PENNSYLVANIA AND NOT 1 POLL SHOWS OBAMA IN THE LEAD.... INTRADE REAL TIME QUOTES:
CLINTON HAS A 74% CHANCE OF WINNING WHILE OBAMA HAS A 27% CHANCE OF WINNING PENNSYLVANIA.
THINGS DON'T LOOK GOOD FOR OBAMA IN THAT STATE.
RASMUSSEN POLL CAME OUT TODAY SHOWING THAT HILLARY CLINTON HAS A 15% LEAD:))

I THINK SHE IS GOING TO WIN HUGE IN THAT STATE... POOR OBAMA AND POOR OBAMA SUPPORTERS..... HE IS GOING TO HAVE TO TAKE AN DROP OUT AFTER THAT:)

So using the handy dandy Slate Delegate calculator saying she beats him by a margin of 16%
She nets 22 delegates. Not counting in whatever gains he makes in Wyoming and Mississippi. That leaves him still at around 120 pledged delegates in the lead. See where this is going. She can't catch him.

So, let me get this straight.

They accomplished maybe, maybe four worthwhile things in eight years (amongst many negatives on the continued corporate giveaway of America).

At the same time, they so thoroughly tore the left half of the spectrum apart that nearly no Democrat, much less a progressive, could get elected for a decade to any state or national office outside of the bluest of the blue areas like NYC. So much so that it took until Howard Dean and 2005/2006 to start putting it back together.

Calling that anything other than destroying the party, and more importantly, setting back the progressive cause twenty years, is simply absurd on its face. It's absurd. It's dishonest. The Clintons are GOP enablers, and if you don't think history is going to repeat itself you are in for a rude awakening.

Hillary has a very good path to the election. It all depends on where the candidates stand at the end. Neither one will get 2025. The supers are not there to just go with the popular vote, otherwise you wouldn't need them. They have to see who at that time has the best chance and who is in the best position to win in the general. The fact that neither candidate was able to secure the election without the supers means you have two very good candidates. Obama's problem is that he is seen as weak and Hillary as strong, because she is a fighter. Everytime he should knock her out, he doesn't. After NH he got cocky and let the media tell him he was going to win. All he had to do was win Texas and again he already thought he had it in the bag, so he didn't go hard enough. You never let up until your opponent has stopped moving. He has to land a knockout blow before the convention. Winning Pennsylvania would end this nomination in his favor. Winning Mississippi means nothing when he's is getting 90% of the black vote and blacks are over 50% of the eclectorate.

So, let me get this straight.

They accomplished maybe, maybe four worthwhile things in eight years (amongst many negatives on the continued corporate giveaway of America).

At the same time, they so thoroughly tore the left half of the spectrum apart that nearly no Democrat, much less a progressive, could get elected for a decade to any state or national office outside of the bluest of the blue areas like NYC. So much so that it took until Howard Dean and 2005/2006 to start putting it back together.

Calling that anything other than destroying the party, and more importantly, setting back the progressive cause twenty years, is simply absurd on its face. It's absurd. It's dishonest. The Clintons are GOP enablers, and if you don't think history is going to repeat itself you are in for a rude awakening.

My goodness! Bret Favre is on bawling like a baby over his own self induced retirement.

Now if a football quarter back can bawl like a baby, a candidate should be able to get a little misty eyed once in a while yet the Obama crowd and some media really crucified Hillary for that teary eyed moment.

Bet you won't hear any criticism over Brett Favre's break down on national t.v.! why? Because he's a man of course. And they are allowed to cry on national tv.

Double standard applies of course.

Jonathan Alter lays it out in very simple numbers to show that Hillary hasn't a ghost of a chance to vault past Obama, barring a collapse of historic proporations.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/119010

All she is doing is making herself look petty and vindictive because in the end she just can't make up the delegate gap.

Last night on Countdown Richard Wolfe said the media had not done it's job explaining to the public that states don't really mean anything in the Democratic primaries. I found this to be an excellent point.
Much of the public is viewing these primaries like the general election, where "battleground states" are winner take all. When Hillary "wins" a large state like Texas, the perception is that she's put all of Texas in the back pocket of her pantsuit. The reality, glossed over by the media, is that she in effect tied Obama. If this continues, Hillary's supporters will feel cheated when the superdelegates vote with Obama, almost certainly the pledged delegate leader when this ends. They have no right to feel this way. They simply don't understand the contest as it's played.

Three things:

1) The double standard is that men aren't supposed to cry, not that women aren't supposed to cry.

2) As I recall, those that attacked Hillary for crying almost uniformly did so because they suspected it was a political ploy, not because she's a woman who was crying.

2) The crying episode worked to her advantage.

3) If Hillary cries when her back is up against the wall in a primary, what does this say about her composure when answering the 3 AM phone call?

Mississippi has a 38% black population that historically turns out in big numbers for primaries. Hillary has already suffered landslide defeats in the deep South from Georgia, Alabama and Lousianna.

I could see Obama picking up 21 out of 33 delegates.

I don't see Wyoming seperating itself too much from Idaho (80% Obama, 17% Hillary), Colorado (56% Obama, 42% Hillary), and Utah (56% Obama, 39% Hillary).

I see Obama picking up 8 out of 12 delegates.

"Momentum" is about to come to a screetching halt in the next few days.

Clinton folks are trying their best to paint Obama supporters as being upset or in despair about Clinton's wins in TX and OH. But it's just not happening.

If you saw the CNN post-race coverage, Clinton-adviser Lanny Davis accused Jamal of being "angry". It was boggling because Jamal was just smiling and happily stating that Clinton's blew her lead in both states and failed to net gain a lot of delegates. There wasn't a shred of anger.

Sure, Obama folks wanted a win in TX and/or OH so this thing could be over. But with Clinton's paltry net gain of +5 to +10 delegates total for the day, and her "momentum" about to be stopped bigtime at the next two contests, why should they be upset?

If I was a Clinton supporter, I would be seriously upset that she didn't gain around 50-100 delegates like her campaign people suggested they would only a couple weeks ago. I would be upset about sending her money for a failed strategy which may be winning a few battles, but losing the war.

If I was a Clinton supporter, I would be writing thank you letters to all the Republicans who voted for her (~8% of her vote in TX per latest estimates, and totally disproportionate to their usual support) thanks to Rush Limbaugh. I would be thanking her for all the negative fear ads which she's proven has some effect.

As for PA, I would rather Obama loses it by a small margin rather than winning it by going negative and stooping to Clinton's level.

One of the things I admire about the Obama campaign is that they seem to be paying more attention to and giving value to the smaller states. I live in a small state. I like to feel important!

Yeah people are sheep. What is new?

Obama should resist the temptation to go negative. It will destroy what his candidacy claims to be about.

I grew up in Ohio and I think I have a little insight into the thinking there. People are very, very VERY VERY VERY resistant to change, even liberals and progressives. They want things to go back to the way they were in the rosier past, twenty, thirty, sixty whatever years ago. Trouble is, the economy has sucked there for the entire time I've been alive, with a brief pause in the 90s. Someone needs to break it to them that those manufacturing jobs are not coming back. Nobody wants to be that messenger.

The state is not young - the young ambitious people leave. It's filled with little old ladies who wonder, 'who is this young upstart slick man who wants to be president, and is (whispers) blaaack?' 'I remember Bill Clinton and even though I don't care much for his wife at least she's the devil I know.'

It wasn't a vote against Obama (although the race thing did play a part but only to the extent that it makes him seem even more EXOTIC, and exotic in Ohio is bad). He lost because he didn't close the deal. He didn't make the case: "I am one of you. I understand your concerns. I will make you feel safe and secure."

That's what he has to do in PA as well. Exactly the same dynamics are at work there. He has to do, dare I say it, what Bill did in 92, say I feel your pain and pretend to mean it. If he rolls in the mud with Hillary he loses big.

Hillary will win Penn. by anywhere between 12 & 15 points.

She MAY even pick up N.C. that had Obama up by only 4 points BEFORE her March victory. Those polls should pull closer now and she may even overtake him there.

And when Fla. and Michigan re-vote, she will win big there and overtake Obama in the pledged delegates.

Obama should go ahead and concede now, and the party work out a Hillary/Obama ticket in the interests of party unity.

Rae

Of course you'll make this assertion with absolutely no evidence.

The right had a motivating hate for the Clintons and turned out to vote, write letters, and call in to radio and TV shows in record numbers. At the same time, the Clintons and more generally the DLC governed as GOP-lite "deregulators" and pushed anyone interested in stupid things like economic justice and the first amendment into the root cellar of the Democratic party (and to Ralph Nader, though I didn't vote for him). Between these two effects, we got where we were before the combo of Iraq and the fifty-state strategy started to turn things around.

Let me add that it's not only right-wingers that saw the Clintons for a couple of transparent phonies the whole time. Some of us (especially those that knew anything about AK) already knew it, and knew that they were corporate whores to boot. Why, pray tell, do you think the DLC "strategy" is to only worry about big state, and big donors--and lose elections? They curry that favor because they're only interested in money, and they lose elections (everything, at every level, everytime, except when the conservatives happened to split their vote twice with Perot) because it's the GOP mentality--and there's already one GOP. There isn't room for a second.

This is, at a basic level, incontrovertible. If you disagree it'd be nice to see an actual argument.

Hanksf wrote: I'm sick and tired of your type keeping us down. I don't want to call you a McGovern, Dukakis, Mondale type ...."

Exactly! I think that many of these Obamamites are either too inexperienced in politics to know this yet or either its just never sunk in that the far left candidate cannot win the general election. And my goodness, now of ALL times in our history they are trying it yet again with another inexperienced, far leftist candidate. And look at his baggage! Farakhan, his church pastor, Rezko, and many other things that will come out soon. Even without the baggage, he is the typical dem the far left always fall in love with who ultimately cost us the general elections.

This is exactly WHY Bill Clinton was able to win. He was never viewed as the far left candidate. And that is one reason the Clintons are so hated. They are moderates. The extreme lefties hate them for it and the radical right wing hates them. But they are the only ones who have figured this all out. He, as you said, has been the only two term democrat in recent history. And if Hillary can get the nomination, she will keep the white house for 8 years. Her V.P., if she has a good one, should then be able to get it for the following 4 (at least). Hopefully she will have someone more electible than Gore was.

p.s. (Not to talk bad about Gore, but man did he run a horrible campaign. His debate performances were downright embarrassing. Walking over to Bush during Bush's comments like he was going to clobber him or something. No one was ever able to understand the point of that! And then the sighing... oiee. It was painful. But he accomplished far more outside of office. Cheers to him now. )