Good. There is an information gap, the Clintons have been known for almost 2 decades. Do people expect Obama to overcome that information gap by spending less than her?

I don't like the implication that this is somehow an unfair advantage for Obama, which is what the Clinton campaign is already whining about, and if they lose or if Obama comes in close, they will use this as a scapegoat, totally ignoring the fact that they had every advantage going into the race.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/106360/Obama-Dominates-Clinton-Among-College-Graduates.aspx
Gallup did a poll nationally on what education groups support who in the democratic party.

It reflects exit polls mainly.

When you have to show people who you are because you haven't been in Politics for 35 years like Hillary Clinton has, you have to SPEND more.

This story is a COVER for when Hillary Loses Pennsylvania or comes VERY CLOSE to losing it.

What is occuring is that Obama has doubled-down and then some in Pennsylvania, maybe even betting the house. Is he hoping to buy a knock-out win in the upcoming primary? If he can win with 3+ times spending advantage then he might claim victory but what happens if he cannot buy the election or close the deal and loses the primary?
I seriously doubt Obama can win Pennsylvania any more than he could win any of the other closed primary, big states that are traditional Democratic states. If he should lose even with the overwhelming spending spree and with the adoring media attention, I suggest that he should graciously see the writing on the wall regarding his electability.

Matthew
http://www.TheIndependentView.com

Wasting your money and will lose by 20 points.

ACLU and charities would be better spent.

FlyOnTheWall,

Regarding Obama's wins in open primary states, most of these are states with minimal Democratic voters and in many cases no history of voting for a Democratic candidate in the general election. These are false victories for Obama as no one suggests he has any real chance of winning in states like Idaho, Montana, and so forth.

Not being able to win in the bigger states that Democrats typically can win is more important and telling. If he can buy a victory in Pennsylvania, great, but can he do so in these other big states that he has already lost? Are you willing to push a $1B campaign in the fall to buy his election?

Matthew
http://www.TheProblemWithObama.com

Yikes! gotalife and Weaver tag-teaming....Troll Critic, HELP!

Obama is wasting his money.

Clinton is polling so well in Pennsylvania for the same reason Pennsylvanians sent pRick Santorum to the state in the first place.

McCain-Clinton '08

Keeping fascist plutocracy safe from Americans worldwide!

O go back to LittleGookFuckers.

Anti-affirmative action statements like that belong on LGF.

well, I see no evidence that Obama is all that smart either. actually, I have yet to encounter a single smart African-American, although I have met plenty of Ivy educated blacks. Eh, most Americans are pretty stupid, but AAs are really the bottom of the barrel.

and Rice IS a dumb bunny. A few years ago Ole Russia Hand Condi was on Echo Moskvi radio, and tried speaking Russian and could not even pit out a full sentence. This from a PhD in Soviet scholarship. And if you read any of her so called scholarship you would see what hacks affirmative action produces. Oh but you folkds are too ignorant to tell the difference....

Fly on the Wall is a respected election analyst, like Poblano on Daily Kos. Fly extends respect to mega-trolls like Matthew Weaver (and goatlife sticks his upper appendage in). And what does Fly get back?
Anything but respect.

What will these people do when Obama wins the nomination? Will they switch to McCain, in defiance of their own claims to be Dems? All I know is that despite the best efforts of some very funny people (like Troll Critic or Genghis), they don't respond in any normal conversational way, and their grammar and syntax reveal them as poorly educated. They seem incapable of proofreading their own posts.

They get attention because of the physical nature of comment threads. If they were at a cocktail party they would simply get pushed against the wall.

I still have some residual curiosity about these trolls. Are they posting on lots of blogs? Is that why they don't correct their grammar and spelling mistakes? Are they getting paid? Is that why they repeat the same slanders and GOP talking points over and over and over and over?

I used to have a landlady who was crazy. She liked to get me on the phone and accuse me of lying to her and stealing from her. What she really liked was having someone to talk to. But I got tired of her behavior, and so one time I set her up so that there was a third person, someone she knew, on the same line. She went completely ballistic because her complaining shtick could only be sustained as long as there was no reality check - no third person in the conversation, no other voice to say, what you're saying is impossible, or simply abusive.

In some ways the trolls reveal the artificial nature of comment threads as something that could be better, and this should be considered sometime. But the more I look at it (and I'm about done looking at it) the more obvious it is that they are here for one reason alone, and that is to make our conversation more difficult. They are really classic trolls, in the sense of the word that comes from "trolling" and not just from the name of an ugly humanoid beast that says Fee-fi-fo-fum. They are trying to distract people that are having a conversation.

They don't really think what they say they think. They don't really think at all. I see normal people in these threads trying to talk to them in a well-intentioned way. But it doesn't work. THis kind of outreach is less common on Daily Kos, for example, and I have theorized that it's the avatars that provide a minimum degree of humanization, and that leads people to reach out to the trolls. But then look at what they do with their avatars. Gotalife switched over from Scalia telling us to get fucked in the ass, to Obama and Wright (which we must not be allowed to forget). Matthew Weaver has a no-Obama photo (perhaps in response to someone's no-Matthew Weaver photo.

The funny-troll movement has been worthwhile, and it could go on if the trolls would cooperate! But as teh funny winds down, maybe it would be better to boycott the trolls. Pretend they aren't there.

Truth hurts, don't it Weaver? gotalife?

You've been hanging around here pretending to be something you aren't forever, from what I can tell. I know the type - your type is a permanent fixture on every liberal blog out there. Your name is: Toby, America's Memory, annieshoelimpy, and every single other troll handle I can remember.

Ads are effective. That's good news for Obama in Pennsylvania. But swift boat ads are effective as well. Bad news for Obama in the Fall.

Clinton supporters have taken over this blog.

Resistance is futile, you are trolls like Milo now since you play the race card like him.

Obama supporters are the trolls.

He's closed the gap in Pa in just two weeks. Wasn't she 20 up just two weeks ago? Now it's 5.

That's stunning, really.

Matthew Weaver has a point. He does have his own blog. His positions on a number of issues is stated there (although these could change).

For example, he appears to be a committed anti-Semite who challenges Israel's right to be a member of the "community of nations". He's not a Holocaust denier; he's a Holocaust minimizer, though. Just visit his site, TheIndependentView.com and click on "personal views". (I don't think you're going to crash his server.)

You know, we really don't get into issues much here anymore...of course if some significant debate arises, we will be all over it...but in the meantime, I suggest we debate this: Resolved: Matthew Weaver, as a self-confessed anti-Semite and Holocaust minimizer, has taken a position that would make even HRC gag. As such, he should be banned from this site.

Let's kick one of them off the island.

Hey, guess what? Matthew Weaver isn't a full-dress homophobe; he's willing to go as far as George Bush in terms of civil unions. But he thinks that marriage is something that involves a man and a woman only (and maybe a ferret).

Here is a direct question, not for Matthew Weaver, but for HRC her own self: Dear Hillary, will you now reject and denounce the support of Matthew Weaver, who on his blog has incorporated your public statements (on video) as HIS OWN PERSONAL VIEWS, in view of the fact that he holds positions you supposedly disagree with as regards Israel and gay rights?

Matthew Weaver is your biggest supporter on one of the leading Democratic blogs. If the past years are any clue, he's on his way to becoming a major opinion leader in the Democratic Party (hawk...gag...snort). It would hardly be credible if your campaign professed ignorance of Weaver's activities.

Is Weaver a contributor? More to the point, have you employed or paid Weaver in any capacity, ever? What is his status with regard to your campaign? What e-mail and conference-call lists is he on?

This is not an Obama issue; it's just part of the vetting of the candidate, should she win the nomination. Surely, Hillary, you realize that the Republicans will not hesitate to use the Matthew Weaver issue against you in the fall.

TPM, PLEASE POST THE STORY HEADLINED ABOVE THIS ONE.

in idiotic's absence

THIS IS EXCELLENT NEWS FOR HILLARY!!!!

Get your t-shirts here....

http://www.zazzle.com/tre2k3/product/235456910823818404

Hillary Clinton can't keep up in fundraising. The Clinton's are the big money people they thought they were.

THAT'S the real headline.

RE: Matthew's Avitar

I agree the avitar is offensive. But I've notice a dearth of HRC-oriented avitars on this site. What does this say Obamites or Clintonistas? Could it be that it's easier to make an offensive visual statement about Obama than it is about Clinton?

FYI everyone - if you care:

Theme: Obama's words vs. actions, in context of his discredited oil ads in PA. Obama's ad says:

I'm Barack Obama. I don't take money from oil companies or Washington lobbyists, and I won't let them block change anymore. They'll pay a penalty on windfall profits. We'll invest in alternative energy, create jobs and free ourselves from foreign oil.

Rooney: Obama says in his ad that he's never taken any money from oil companies. No one does, because it's illegal. Yet he has taken $213k from employees of oil companies. Two of his bundlers are top execs at oil companies. (See Newsweek on this or my earlier post.)

Obama sided with Dick Cheney in voting for Dick Cheney's energy bill -- the best bill that oil companies could buy. Hillary voted against the bill.

As a Hoosier, let me please say it really helps Hillary's campaign for her to keep explaining how Democrats in strong GOP states should be considered irrelevant. Because nothing helps motivate us to go out and vote in November more than a candidate that considers our votes to not even be worth fighting for.

That said - that's the least of the reasons I've switched from supporting Clinton to Obama - my skin is thicker than that.

First and foremost is Hillary Clinton's slash and burn campaign. I'm a pragmatic guy - I don't *care* if she plays as rough or rougher than McCain will.

But if there is anything that campaign has highlighted, it's that Barack Obama is *very* good at defending himself against those tactics.

Which means one thing about the election itself into stark contrast. Hillary Clinton's strengths as a fighter match up (quite well imo) against the GOP's strengths. Obama's Strengths match up against the GOP's weaknesses. Maybe it's cynical for me to consider the GOP the 'enemy' here (Although considering they've cost us one city, allowed a terrorist attack, collapsing mines, lead in toys, and on and on and on, "With 'friends' like these . . ." is a factor.), but in any battle, it's much better to match your strengths against the enemies weaknesses than try and mathch them strength on strength.

We know, in general, the GOP's strengths lie in hardball politics, and we have the good fortune of knowing exactly what candidate we will face. Against John McCain, playing hardball, Barack Obama is a better bet.

If I believed that Hillary was, objectively, a better candidate for the presidency, that wouldn't be enough. But as it happens, they are both strong candidates, and I will be happy to have either of them as a president. That being the case, I have the luxury of thinking tactically, and tactically, yes, I think Obama can take McCain and make it look easy. I think Hillary Clinton can take McCain, and it will be a knock-down drag out fight (Which could be fun to watch too), and the risk of another four years of the same policies we've had will be significantly larger.

Given those two options - I'm choosing Obama.

Jonnan