More backpedaling after getting caught saying something you shouldn't.

OK, they've both done that now on this very subject so can we move on?

If there's one thing I hate, and I think I've probably proved that into overkill, it's "electability."

Wolfson = Judas.

wait a minute. Did Wolfson actually say that the campaign believes "he can win", or are putting words in his mouth?

I think this post demonstrates everything that is wrong with your journalism.

Saying it is not the official position of the campaign does not mean that the opposite is true.It may mean, saying he's unelectable is the UNofficial position of the campaign (what we say in private to the superdelegates, for example), and we won't say anything one way or the other officially. If they don"t affirm it directly then how can you attribute it to them.

Can someone find me one single quote where Hillary has said Obama is qualified to be President, let alone can be elected., by name. Greg?

The spin has made them dizzy.

That's a generous interpretation of Wolfson's comment, Greg.

A more justified interpretation would be to say, it's not Clinton's official position that Obama will lose the general election. That's in fact what the man said.

Why don't you ask Wolfson tomorrow about Clinton's unofficial position?

And simply put this is why she should get out. Every time she has a choice of help herself but hurt the party or do nothing she chooses the former. Tim Russert said that with them metrics where they are electability is the only argument she has left but whenever she uses it she hurts the parties chances in November.

It would be nice to hear Hillary actually say it.

Well OK then.

Since the Clintons say that Senator Obama can beat John McCain, there is no reason for the Super Delegates to go against the majority of elected delegates.

The Clintons just blinked.

Senator Obama is the rightful nominee.

Why does this article list (5) comments, but I see none? I am assuming another bonus feature from the new and improved TPM

Or, indeed, if it's not their OFFICIAL position, why they are saying it to superdelegates and the media? Did Hillary NOT tell Halpern Obama couldn't win? Was Halpern lying? Did she not tell Bill Richardson that? Or are they committing to a public strategy of talking out of both sides of their mouth. Inquiring minds want to know...

It's not a difficult balancing act at all. The Clinton campaign will follow the Shaheen-Kerry-Penn model. Clinton herself will publicly say "Of course Obama can win a general election".

Meanwhile, Clinton surrogates will talk to TPM, POlitico, The Page, etc, and say "We keep hearing from concerne

O yeah you have got that just right. Sleeziest damn campaign staff the Democrats have to offer.

Life ain't easy sometimes.

Especially when you're an awful person and a wretched candidate.

Saying that either Obama or Clinton couldn't get elected in November, right now on April 3, is based on nothing more than speculation. That's all it is. It is utter bullshit.

Enough about this - Where are the tax returns??????????????????

April 3, 2008
Carter hints at supporting Obama
Posted: 12:19 PM ET

(CNN) — Former President Jimmy Carter all but said Wednesday he plans to cast his superdelegate vote for Barack Obama.

Speaking with a Nigerian paper while in Abuja, Carter noted several reasons why he might be leaning toward the Illinois senator.

"Don’t forget that Obama won in my state of Georgia," Carter said. "My town, which is home to 625 people, is for Obama, my children and their spouses are pro-Obama. My grandchildren are also pro-Obama."

"As a superdelegate, I would not disclose who I am rooting for but I leave you to make that guess," Carter added.

Responding to the comments, Clinton campaign spokesman Howard Wolfson said Thursday, "Both Senator Clinton and President Clinton have a great deal of respect for President Carter and have enjoyed their relationship with him over the years, and obviously he is free to make whatever decision he thinks is appropriate with regard to presidential choice."

Wolfson also acknowledged "people will be interested in the choice that he makes."

Carter's remarks are the latest from the former president that suggest he is backing Obama over rival Hillary Clinton, although he has made no official endorsement. In an interview with the Wall Street Journal in January, Carter said Obama's campaign has been extraordinary and titillating for me and my family."

He also said then that Obama "will be almost automatically a healing factor in the animosity now that exists, that relates to our country and its government."

Then why according to Gallup’s numbers is he the one the Republicans fear to run against. Two to one they would prefer to run against Hillary. Oh and what lies. Nothing as big as claiming an 8 year old with a poem was a sniper I bet. And guess what no matter how hard Hillary's people have tried both Rezko and Wright turned out to be nonstarters. He'll win both the nomination and the general because he has by far more money and a better organization than either of his opponents and that is what wins elections. Sorry.

Another headline bust.

Saying "Obama can't win" is not the campaign's official position is not the same as saying "Obama can win."

Obama bad, Hillary less bad, Republicans good.

See the truth at www.rightwingtalkingpointsmemo.com

Sincerely,

Matt W.

No elaboration? That was it? Just "No."

How about asking him if what Halperin said was true?

Schmedley,

I'd suggest that either McCain or Clinton have more standing to talk about race--especially in terms of "post-racial" that some folks like to use. Obama has 20 years and continued membership with a blatently racist and America-hating church. He also has personal ties with Rev. Meeks who has even more inflammatory comments. Obama uses racist terms, such as 'typical White person', and has yet to apologize for any of this. Further, he seems to blame everyone else and he and supports ask for a pass on his racism because he is Black and to atone for White guilt. Pathetic.

Yes, let McCain or Clinton lead this conversation as they are more credible and do have have a history of racism and hate.

Matthew
http://www.TheProblemWithObama.com

Race is going to be a huge issue, and Obama did not settle it with his speech. The Democrats have become silent on it. The GOP will not be silent. They are just waiting.

No, I don't think so . Not when we're in a recession.

The economy always prevails in everyone's thinking on election day. I actually liked some of Clinton's economic ideas - though of course, NAFTA stinks really bad - right up until she said she was bringing back Alan Greenspan. That's all I need to know.

I do not want Hillary Clinton and Alan Greenspan blowing up another bubble economy.

Matthew Weaver:
"That is, Yes, let McCain or Clinton lead this conversation as they are more credible and do NOT have a history of racism and hate."

I'll just assume you're joking about McCain. Have you checked out any of Hagee's sermons? Or the fact that he's trying to associate himself with Ronald "Welfare Queen/Philadelphia, MS" Reagan?

As to HRC: I don't know. If you really have to assume that

A) two statements out of a 30-year sermonizing career constitute racism (and I have a hard time understanding how saying even ridiculous crap like "the US Government created HIV" is actually all that racist in any way), AND

B) that it is appropriate to hold Obama somehow liable for those two statements; then...

..we should hold HRC liable for the Family's views on Nazism. Feel like doing that?

He won't say who, but it starts with O. A little silly. . .

For several days I was wondering why the Clinton Camp would want to keep this whole Richardson story alive when it makes them look so desparate. But now a possibility occurred to me: they want to make the supers, especially those with ties to the Clintons, think twice before going public with an Obama-endorsement. They signal: do you want to go through the same abuse as Richardson? This may be a serious threat for many. It may keep some from endorsing Obama for a while. As often in politics, a reputation for being merciless can be a useful reputation.

"For some time now, the Hillary camp has been in a bind on this front. As her odds grow longer, it becomes necessary to sound the alarm about Obama's chances in a general election ever more loudly, to the point where the argument risks straying over the line into an assertion that he can't win at all."

Greg: "sound the alarm?!?" Give us a break, OK? She's not Paul Revere. In the first place, the only reason it would be "necessary" to "sound the alarm" is because the Clintons have been ACTIVELY WORKING to make Obama unelectable. The have done this precisely so they can make that case to the superdelegates. Her argument doesn't "risk" straying over the line. They strayed over the line long ago, Greg, and it was INTENTIONAL. That's the whole point of her campaign. She's campaigning like a Republican against a fellow Democrat.

Your biases cause you to say some incredibly stupid things sometimes, Greg. You're not really this naive, are you?