Polls good for Barack Obama in NC and for Hillary Clinton in IN

We've learned from the start of his campaign cycle that the presidential polls have not been a reliable predictor of votes, and we offer this with the usual shroud of skepticism. Fresh poll aggregates on Real Clear Politics show solid support for Barack Obama in North Carolina, and strong reason for hope for Hillary Clinton in Indiana.

Which would make Tuesday yet another draw, with neither candidate likely to mount more than an incremental change in the delegate count. This begins to sound a bit like a broken record, but what else can you call this but a stalemate? There aren't enough delegates left in the remaining contests for either to seal the nomination.

Superdelegates -- let's just call them SuperDs, shall we? easier to type -- are watching, at least those who haven't committed. The SuperDs (imagine them in tights and capes) also have to be getting concerned that all that good mojo from the start of the campaign cycle, when everybody got along and made nice, might be gone for good.

The Democrats are very anxious to win the White House in the fall. But is all this discord setting them up for something akin to political self-immolation?  From the pragmatic outside perspective, the nation's in the midst of an unpopular war and is dragged down by a dicey economy. The Republicans hold the White House and their presumptive presidential nominee, John McCain supports the war and has admitted economics isn't his strong suit.

If the Democrats can't turn that into a victory, then it might be time for little intervention. And a very large mirror.

-- Scott Martelle

Comments

[mariann]

The media have failed to focus and make it their center piece of discussion, the fight that is going on with the Democratic Party as a whole. You have the Moderates (Clinton) versus the Liberals (Obama) wing of the Democratic party. Hillary, as I see it, is only a Democrat by the letter (D) after her name and the irony is that she is being aided and abated by the Republicans. Rush Limbaugh would like a 1968 "riot" at the Democratic Convention this August. He may just get one, if Clinton keeps it up. The Clinton campaign hasn't had to go negative, as the recent Republican ad in North Carolina targeting Democrats' association with Obama and Rev Wright, is working most effectively.

It may well be a 'Bush 3rd term' with McCain, as the Clinton v. Obama fight will cancel out each other's electibility. If Obama gets the nomination, I may continue to decide on voting for him but if Hillary gets the nomination, I will make it a point to vote for McCain (aka McSame).

-mariann ('typical', 'bitter', and uh, oh, 'clinging')

[Core Democrat]

I am a Hillary Clinton supporter and have voted Democrat in every election. But I stop at Obama. As does my husband. It is unthinkable that a candidate that has followed such Anti-American rhetoric for 20 YEARS, right up till NOW, would expect Americans to vote for him to run America. And even more unthinkable is the Democrat Party, that we have stood behind and beside, would expect us to back such a candidate!

[julie]

"core democrat"
The things Wright said were lame, i agree, but to call him "anti-american" is to say that loving your country is the same as loving your government. It's not the same. Wright was talking about the government's foreign policy. When Hitler took power in Germany, you can be sure that those who resisted him were called unpatriotic. My point is, to be critical of our government is not un-American or un-patriotic- it is sometimes the most patriotic thing to do, protecting your country from those who would take it down the wrong path.

Furthermore, being tolerant of someone else's freedom of speech doesn't mean you "follow" it, or even agree with it.

[Bryan]

I hate to break it to my fellow middle-aged white people, but most of what Rev. Wright said is true. You think napalming Vietnamese civilians isn't terrorism? You think Abu Graeb isn't moral collapse? Get over your childish and ignorant racism. Moreover, uneducated whites probably aren't the people we should be following at the polls. That's what we did last time and we ended up with Bush.

[True Blue Democrat]

I donated money to Hillary's campaign, but Oh my God, do I have buyer's remorse! She completely lost my vote and my support. I have switched to Obama. I can't imagine Hillary getting the nomination, but if she somehow schemes her way to it, I will stay home on election day.

[Bore Democrat]

Core Democrat is a sock puppet. Real Democrats call it the "Democratic" Party, and real Democrats do not support a guy who is a carbon copy of Bush, the worst president with the lowest approval rating in history.

[John L. McNeil]

It is nearly impossible for me, having voted for 47 years, watching the kinds campaigns and candidate behavioit being waged in the Demo camp this year. I'm dissappiinted that Obama (or his managers and advisors)have felt it necesary to respond "in kind". Looking at what has gone on should automatically eliminate Clinton, as she was solely responsible for the turn the tone of their campaign took, If McCain wins, which now is looking more likely, we can lay the entire respnsibity at the feet of none other that Hillary Rodham Clinton.

[simon]

both of the previous comments are completely ridiculous.

a) to mariann: from a policy perspective, it's extremely difficult to argue that obama is much more liberal than hillaray. he's to the right (just slightly) on health care, and basically the same everywhere else. i don't know where this myth comes from, but it's clear that their differences are almost totally in style. also: it's "abetted" you mean, not "abated", and if it's true that republicans are helping her, it's only because they think she's more beatable. certainly they don't love her policies.

b) to core democrat: i'm not sure what you mean by "followed" anti-american rhetoric, but COME ON. it's so incredibly disappointing to see people care about these weightless inflated wedge issues. grow up already: a flag pin is meaningless, and going to an angry black church doesn't make you unamerican. if you genuinely think obama is unpatriotic, fine. but if you think he also has a duty to adopt the worthless trappings of patriotism for appearances sake... i don't know, you suck.

[Andrew L. - Des Moines]

"Core" Democrat -- You're not a core Democrat or you wouldn't be espousing such vitriol against the man who has won the most contests (30 of 45), the most votes (by 800,000, of the contests where he campaigned), and the most pledged delegates.

You're probably another Operation Chaos plant trying to get Republicans to vote for Hillary because you know she will do down to defeat against McCain. I wish people would just be honest.

Barack Obama is a breath of fresh air for the real Democratic Party. Hillary has insisted on her way but her husband cost us the majority in Congress in 1994, and the Presidency in 2000 and probably 2004. We Dems were drug through the muck by the Clintons and the Repubs wish they could have finished him off with the impeachment.

She's shown her true colors numerous times -- a power monger and willing to divide the party if we don't corinate her the queen. Oh, she's not really all that bad, but Obama is going to cream McCain in November -- 341-197. With Clinton as nominee, all bets are off. She's too much like Bush-lite for me, "Core" Democrat. I'm surprised you don't see that.

[Stilll Catholic after 36 years and Still Don't Rape and Abuse Little Boys.]

I am Catholic -- YES, even after the disgusting things that were covered up for decades by the Catholic church (and yes I knew all of my Catholic life that abuses were happening). I certainly don't believe that Wright preached as in those clips EVERY Sunday. I am sure sermons such as these are not only being taken out of context but also that they are only occasional. Further, people are hearing what they want to hear; what they have been trained to hear (and cling to) and THAT is what is meant by "structural racism" - some absolutely cannot hear what was actually said for the intolerance of different thought and people that has been ingrained in them and they cannot help but gravitate toward.

No one of us walking this earth would have any friends at all if they severed every relationship where someone said something offensive, ignorant, mean. Each of us has longstanding friends about whom we roll eyes when they get on a roll. And each of us laughs behind their back and loves them just the same.

Further, the Black church is a family. People don't just attend a church for the pastor. In some Black churches members are often times argumentative and in discord with the pastor. But members don’t up and leave the church because they’d be leaving an entire family.

Obama like the rest of us (Catholics, Jews, Protestants, etc.) doesn't have to abandon his church family as he is independent enough of a thinker that he could easily simply wait out a sermon or ten that didn't reflect his own values.

Folks out there holding him accountable for Wright or stating that you think Wright has influenced him to be unpatriotic because of his 20-year membership in the church are simply not being honest with yourselves - you are "clinging" to a way to be intolerant.

Catholic for 36 years and I still don’t rape and abuse little boys. And yes, I knew it was happening and I still don't do that.

Clinging to Hope....

[Wierd democrat]

core democrat, I choose to respond to you because of your bitterness. Belonging to a church does not necessarily mean you agree with your pastor and neither does it mean attending church each day. You and your husband should stop hating Obama. It is naive for you to believe that America is imperfect. A lot of anti-american president have ruled the US. By anti-American, I mean terrorists that approved the workings of groups such as kkk etc. Are you proud of this? If you think Wright is radical, what would you call those types of leaders?

[Edwin Enciso]

It is ridiculous that anyone judge Obama's character by the most controversial comments his pastor has made. Every person who is so outraged has clearly not looked at the comments of the close associates of the Clinton's or of McCain. The irrational animosity of the supporters of both of these candidates speaks very poorly for the them as leaders.

Obama has repeatedly elevated the conversation when he could be bashing Hillary for the lies about sniper fire. The difference between these two candidates is so obvious. It is shameful that Democrats behave so nastily toward a man who has given so much to public service of our country. Even if he does not have your support, it is disgraceful that so many are being so disrespectful of an American Senator.

There are so many who behave in such a holier than thou fashion, who would be resentful if they were made accountable for everything their close associates said. We are Americans because we believe that a person is innocent until proven guilty. If you feel you have reasonable cause to call Obama a Black Supremacist, then if falls to you to show that when you look at all his associates you see this trend. It is also your obligation to show how Obama's actions support this claim. If you cannot do this then you have to be willing to have Obama supporters dig up everything that anyone who has ever been close to Hillary has ever said that is controversial, like what Ferraro said. Then when anything is found to be as damning, you must be willing to repudiate her for it.

I doubt that most of the people setting this ridiculous expectation have the integrity to hold to their own standard. Further, how is it that you can claim to be an American; a nation where we do not convict people by association, and then devolve Presidential discourse in this fashion? The world is burning, we are at war, the economy is floundering, and you are so obsessed with what amounts to high school character assassination by associate.

This is how a George Bush gets elected. Because he can swift boat a man like McCain and people allow themselves to be distracted by the most idiotic points instead of demanding that everyone stick to the issues. Until you demonstrate yourself capable of rising above this you don't deserve anything better than a President Bush.

[Chop Susie]

Obama is unelectable.

He'll never escape being tagged an extreme liberal with radical ties. Swiftboat times 100.

If the voters in the rest of the states fail to get a clue and vote for Clinton....

It's so over.

[Linda T.]

For every day that goes by, I find more and more reasons to be glad that I voted for Senator Obama. He has shown poise and strength in the face of the low blows from the Clinton machine.

Mrs. Clinton seems to think that an occasional win, such as the one in Pennsylvania, would convince the superdelegates to illegally give her the nomination. She is absolutely wrong.

Despite all the fear-mongering and hate-mongering by Mrs. Clinton, Senator Obama has steadfastly stayed on message: he will defeat the divisiveness that has plagued politics in the past.

When Mrs. Clinton became a state senator, much of it had to do with her opponent, Rick Lazio, intelligently pointing out all her faults. Some women said that he reminded them of their ex-husbands, and he consequently lost the run for state senator.

Now, Mrs. Clinton is up against an honest candidate who refuses to spew the lies that the Clinton machine is famous for. This is her downfall.

And hopefully, more people will come to see that she is loyal to only one person: herself. She is causing huge problems for the Democratic party and the country, but she cares for neither.

Let's hope that Democrats in the remaining primaries understand that there is only one capable candidate: Senator Barack Obama. He has four more years of experience in a political office than Bill Clinton's wife.

The Clintons are trying to drag him down by showing excerpts of Reverend Wright's speeches, entirely shown out of context. If you want the truth, go to YouTube to hear the entire speech, where the reverend is actually QUOTING a white man... Edward Peck, who was a former ambassador to Iraq...saying the now-infamous words about 9/11. They were NOT Reverend Wright's words.

And please remember: Reverend Wright and Senator Obama are two separate people.

If you want to accuse someone of things someone else said, then let's not forget Bill Clinton's vicious lies about Senator Obama's so-called "fairy tale," and Mrs. Clinton's three-time lies about her so-called "sniper fire" experience in Bosnia. Check out YouTube to see her tell the lie with ever-expanding embellishments.

Vote Obama - an honest man who wants what's best for the Democratic party, and what's best for our country.

[K30]

I cannot vote for any body with the name as Hussein. Call Saddam Hussein syndrome.

[Dennis]

We've had 8 years of Bush because of rural middle class democrats. Anyone disagree that THAT experiment didn't work? I like the idea of a new kind of politics. It couldn't be any worse than what the old way has gotten us.

[Tony S.]

The point is that obama stated earlier that Indiana is the crucial state primary. He pinned his belief that he could win there a state with a lower black population and show that he can win a primary with the type of pop of people who will decide the general election. He is now nearly conceeding the state despite again holding a major money advantage. A loss in IN will solidify the fact that he cannot win in Nov. Also, the latest Gallup shows McCain w/6% lead over obama, while tied w/Clinton.

So, the question becomes will delegates vote for a person who gains poor support among Hispanics, & whites just to not anger blacks and elite liberals? Or, do they give their vote to Clinton who has been winning the states and people needed for November? The point of the convention is not to affirm the intelligence of their party's nomination process (& if this nomination process were a person, it would be placed no higher than remedial education classes), OR is their purpose to nominate a person who can win the White HOuse?!

If the delegates decide on the latter, then they nominate Clinton. If they decide on the former, then they are democrats and the party deserves to lose!

Personally, I think that they will choose the former, because being elitist at its core (my family are Kennedy/Humphrey democrats by the way), they will be more afraid of offending their black members and as with U.S. history, they will conclude that women members will not be so offended and the women will accept that their turn must wait so that another group can instead enjoy the limelight (eg, see women's voting rights history; also consider the 1964 Civil Rights Act did not originally include women because the leaders did not want to have the bill defeated if they included women with blacks and other minorities. Women were included by Sen. Smith from Virginia as a means to defeat the bill. He thought that having gender as a factor would make the bill a laughing stock. Instead, it passed so women are included in the Civil Rights measure.).

I'm a male and I have 2 daughters. I will not accept obama and since McCain is not the usual GOP nut case, I and my wife will join the others and vote for him.

[jlynne]

A Catholic wouldn't attend a Catholic Church for 20 years then claim to be anything other than a Catholic. Can you imagine anyone saying I've gone to the Catholic Church every Sunday for the last 20 years but I'm actually a Southern Baptist?

A Catholic who had personal knowledge that sexual absue was occuring and failed to report it to the authorities is as guilty of child molestation as the Priest he or she was protecting. I don't put much stock in the words of criminals.

I don't agree with Reverend Wright's views but he has been more honest about who he is and what his church stands for than Obama, his supporters, or the news media. His sound bites along his subsequent public appearances are consistent with the church website, Reverend Wright's publications, and with statements made by his friends and supporters.

Either Barack and his family shared Reverend Wright's views or they were members of his church for political expediency. If Barack shares Reverend Wright's views, then I question his judgment and his sense of identity and purpose. If Barack doesn't share Reverend Wright's views, I question how we will ever know what this man stands for. If your minister of 20 years can't vouch for you, who can?

As a person, I am fine giving Barack the benefit of the doubt. But I can't grant him the same leeway as a presidential candidate. If you count Michigan and Florida, more than 50% of the Democrats feel the same way. If Obama can't get the Democrats to unite behind him to end the primaries, how will he ever mobilize the party to vote in the general election?

A year ago Hillary Clinton was a sure thing. Today the Democratic Party is split in half and the DNC can't even raise enough money to host the convention. But Obama is sitting on a database of voter information worth $200 millions. It seems to me like he is the only one coming out ahead in this process--win or lose the nomination/general election.

[Marks]

>Posted by: Tony S.

>I will not accept obama and since McCain is not the usual GOP nut case.

Your a Democrat ready to switch? Good! See ya!

>This is what your willing to set in motion.

When Conservatives again choose how wars *of choice* are run and paid for. McCain economics how to fund wars is different from Bush?

McCain used to hate forever tax cuts voted against them repeatedly for years, now as the GOP nominee he's for them.

Trade is damaged by GOP beliefs with China and other Asian countries. Look at the meat export industry. GOP has lost "face" with Asian countries on trade matters.

It's not just Bush, whole GOP is to blame for the economical problems existing in this country. Rubber stamping GOP Congress on Bush economic plans without disagreement.

GOP likes to get their kind of folks on the Supreme Court and in state Appellate Courts. GOP likes those oaths of office to include loyalty statements to the Republican party.

Political offices run with Republican values has meant what to you hearing that?

I want fair and impartial values in the court system. I don't like how GOP starts to redistrict communities in states either.

Tony, you and family and your friends will be signing on to those views and GOP ways of governing.

McCain has a lot of areas to prove himself more to Conservatives in the Republican party.

If your not going to vote for Obama already, stop talking about him. Only talk about goals of Hillary or McCain since that's where your heading politically.

If Obama has the lead in delegates and popular vote at end of this contest, he has to win and super delegates must choose him.

Obama has the popular vote lead and caucus states vote numbers aren't added to that total right now. They can be added! Obama has potentially larger popular vote lead over Hillary. Some states just had caucus events.

Florida and Michigan delegates ultimately will be split between the candidates. Florida Democrats were harmed by Republicans there moving up the primary date.

Florida Democrats had a year to figure out how to pay for a separate primary date. They didn't do a thing about it.

Michigan was a terrible decision trying to get ahead in the primary system, Obama wasn't on the ballot at all there.

Hillary "big states" argument isn't real.

It's only real to your kind of sell out Democrats somehow finding cause to vote for McCain and GOP party.

Bush has low polls proves GOP has lost "face" to most Americans.

It's ludicrous to believe McCain is something you imagine him to be, "not a GOP nutcase" when he can be and votes that way already.

This is McCain quote while touring New Orleans damaged areas recently.

McCain said to reporters on his campaign bus that if the disaster had happened on his watch, he would have landed his plane "at the nearest Air Force base and come over personally."

There is McCain's thinking. As a long time member of Congress he considers Hurricane Katrina disaster didn't happen on his watch.

He personally has access to a corporate jet at the ready, can fly commercial or military plane if it was absolutely necessary when a tragedy occurred.

McCain didn't do much while Bush said " Your doing heck of job Brownie" to former FEMA head Mike Brown.

McCain voted against Gulf Coast restoration bills that could have helped those damaged states more. He found reasons in a GOP way of thinking to say no.

Go Tony, your wife and friends to that side and Obama is not the blame for your feeling that way.

You feel Hilllary will be cheated by super delegates, there is no recourse from that way of thinking. I see if she doesn't have popular vote or delegates, Hillary lost a fair contest.

Who had the clearer advantage when this started? The Clinton's did by a large margin in money, name recognition and sense of entitlement.

It's your own life decision to abandon political beliefs, from the family of " Kennedy/Humphrey Democrats" before it ever hurts Obama.

Democrats want to come up with a national Health Care plan and your willing to deny them the chance to do that Federal legislation from the White House.

I hope your wife and friends completely agree with you on all these kind of concerns! Don't flip to the GOP so easily.

Democrats have to win the White House is the most important thing.

Your reasons to vote for the GOP are no better than this lame excuse either!

>I cannot vote for any body with the name as Hussein. >Call Saddam Hussein syndrome.

>Posted by: K30

[Andrew L - Des Moines]

Barack Obama will win the nomination because he is hands down the better qualified of the two. Then he will handily defeat John McBush in November. Trust me, the Dems will begin to rally around Obama after August because there have been no perfect candidates -- ever -- and he is certainly the lesser of two evils.

I personally don't believe he's evil at all, but for those who want to think so, if you're comparing objectively this man against the other two, well there's just no comparison. He comes out smelling like a rose. The MSM digs for shirt-tail dirt like the Willam Ayers story because they've got to have sensation.

If you're a Dem, Look at which candidate has been indicted the most and the decision to support Obama should be an easy one.

How DID the Clintons succeed in delaying the next step of the Paul vs. Clinton trial until November? I don't want a power monger as President. I want someone who represents "We, the little people ...".

Indiana, North Carolina -- come on, you can do this. Put this contest to bed and let us get on with electing the greatest statesman since JFK (for Dems) or RR (For Repubs).

[Jared]

Obama is unelectable.

[Jim]

Clear example of media's blind passion to create an artificial "close race" with "no clear leader:"

Obama wins 30 out of 45 states
Obama cannot lose popular votes (forget "moving goalpost new math")
Obama cannot lose pledged delegates
Obama will lead all valid categories

And the media, this blog included, calls it a "stalemate?"

Does the media have only short term memory going back two weeks, and hits a reset button on all election statistics?

Hillary won PA, her second or third "home state" (lost count on how many state she advertises as "my own"), but all the states Obama dominated before don't count, I guess, when media makes a living on fanning a close race illusion....

[BuckBurris]

I wonder why more interest isn't focused on Hilolary's habit of lying. For one serious trhing, ity means that she cannot be trusted. She does it so often that it must be pathological.
But she now realizes that she can get away with it! That makes it all the more dangerous for us.
That she is never remorseful and only jokes when caught underlines the above stastements.
She, like too many successful politicians, is an obvious sociopath. Please read the classic work on sociopathy, Harvey Cleckley. They are attracted to politics because power appeals to them. But like ex-Gov. Spitzer, they cannot control their own impulses to takle silly risks. And they can do great damage to others without blinking an eye.
We've hads enough of GWB. We don't need t6o suffer through HRC.

[John's Son]

The four reasons I would not vote for Barach H. Oboma are:
(1) Tony Rezo: indicted Fixer.
(2) Rev. Jeremiah Wright: the racist reverand.
(3) Williasm Ayers: Unrepentanrt terriorist.
(4) George Soros: Billionaire who believes he can buy anybody.

[edavis]

in response to tony s

if you care so much about the democrats winning back the white house then with all due respect your outright dismissal of hillary is counterproductive and troubling. the fact is, obama's inability to win a single large electoral state, other than his own, is unmistakable evidence showing his problem of electability. so far, he has failed to achieve a broad, and deep enough coalition especially in traditionally democratic must win states. this is just a simple fact. dismiss it at your own peril, assuming you truly want a democrat to win this fall.
if you care about the party winning and not just a specific candidate you should look more closely at the actual numbers. obama has lost by substantial margins among white and latino voters in almost every demographic category in the larger, more heterogeneous states. the fact is, hillary has done much better attracting a broader coalition and certainly much better in attracting a larger percentage of the democratic base.

also, i should remind you since you go on so long about why it is so important to defeat the republicans that there are only three things that matter in winning a general election: states, states, and states. as things stand right now, it's almost impossible to see how obama gets to the
magic number of 270 electoral votes given that he has lost so convincingly in traditionally democratic states. if you remember, john kerry won pennsylvania by just slightly more than 1%. exit polls from the pennsylvania primary showed that over 40% of white catholic voters there said they would not vote for obama if he is the nominee. even if this number goes down by election day it's not going to zero. but this is what it will have to fall if the democrats are to pick up this state. this is not an isolated trend, the same is true in ohio and new jersey. the democrats cannot win without two of these three. also, given obama's aggressive opposition in allowing florida democrats to express their will even in a revote it is a certainty that obama will lose there as well. a similar assessment could be made about almost every electorally necessary big democratic state, including new york and california - just go look at the exit polls. obama, as much as we would like it not to be the case, cannot win. he just can't get 270 electoral votes.
so i would suggest you broaden your view and accept hillary as the likely and necessary nominee.

[edavis]

in response to tony s

if you care so much about the democrats winning back the white house then with all due respect your outright dismissal of hillary is counterproductive and troubling. the fact is, obama's inability to win a single large electoral state, other than his own, is unmistakable evidence showing his problem of electability. so far, he has failed to achieve a broad, and deep enough coalition especially in traditionally democratic must win states. this is just a simple fact. dismiss it at your own peril, assuming you truly want a democrat to win this fall.
if you care about the party winning and not just a specific candidate you should look more closely at the actual numbers. obama has lost by substantial margins among white and latino voters in almost every demographic category in the larger, more heterogeneous states. the fact is, hillary has done much better attracting a broader coalition and certainly much better in attracting a larger percentage of the democratic base.

also, i should remind you since you go on so long about why it is so important to defeat the republicans that there are only three things that matter in winning a general election: states, states, and states. as things stand right now, it's almost impossible to see how obama gets to the
magic number of 270 electoral votes given that he has lost so convincingly in traditionally democratic states. if you remember, john kerry won pennsylvania by just slightly more than 1%. exit polls from the pennsylvania primary showed that over 40% of white catholic voters there said they would not vote for obama if he is the nominee. even if this number goes down by election day it's not going to zero. but this is what it will have to fall if the democrats are to pick up this state. this is not an isolated trend, the same is true in ohio and new jersey. the democrats cannot win without two of these three. also, given obama's aggressive opposition in allowing florida democrats to express their will even in a revote it is a certainty that obama will lose there as well. a similar assessment could be made about almost every electorally necessary big democratic state, including new york and california - just go look at the exit polls. obama, as much as we would like it not to be the case, cannot win. he just can't get 270 electoral votes.
so i would suggest you broaden your view and accept hillary as the likely and necessary nominee.

[RobinL]

I think it's interesting that Rush Limbaugh and his Dittoheads are committing election fraud in broad daylight---in huge numbers, by the way-----skewing the election results in Hillary's favor and, in the process, validating her as a candidate in the Fall.

The Dittoheads been very active in this effort (Operation Chaos) since Obama's 11 state win. They've been positive that Hillary is the better candidate to beat in November. However, some of them are beginning to realize that she's as dirty a politician as any in the GOP and are getting a little nervous about her rise as she could clean McCain's clock in the general election.

My point is this, these dumbed-down minions of Rush do comprise part of the white, uneducated, blue-collar demographic that Democrats are ringing their hands over and that Hillary is touting as her strength. They do not tend to vote Democratic and the majority of the ones voting for Hillary will likely vote for McCain in the general. It's a bunch of smoke and mirrors.

So she may effectively steal the nomination (and, sorry Rush, defeat McCain)---but Obama remains the candidate who can really inspire turnout. This is why the Right is so focused on him and the Jeremiah Wright nonsense. The less educated do fall for these tactics. But I don't see McCain inspiring turnout against either of the other two given his strong association with Bush. The turn off factor of Bush is the GOP's blind spot. Thank God.

[Evista]

Personally, I think the TV channels who are supporting and pushing Obama down our throats are the same ones who have been complaining daily about George Bush. They know if they don't have a president to criticise they will be out of a job, especially MSNBC.
So they are pushing Obama down our throats.
No Thank You
He is an amateur who has not even completed being a Senator were he spent his time being 'present'.
Unless you are black I cannot believe you really think he will be a worthwhile President.
Remember he says he loves 'THIS Country' I love OUR COUNTRY.
You know it is true, notice all the US flags he surrounds himself with?

God Help Us!

[Phanny]

Barack Obama has been on this high pedestal. Now, it has been yanked underneath him. Is he electable? In my opinion, yes and no. Yes he will be electable in his core constiuency but will not be electable to win the November election. I will admit, I voted for Hillary Clinton because I looked at the issues pertaining to me: and to me is breaking a huge glass ceiling that Hillary clearly understands. I am a gay man trying to break a glass ceiling that society has caste on those that are different. Yes, Barack is a black man. Yes, he too has his own glass ceiling but as of you all know, it is harder for a woman to break a glass ceiling than a man. And Barack Obama does not understand the gay issues that are happened in the past as well as now. Hillary Clinton was the only presidential candidate that discusses gay issues and brought it to light. That is why many big named gay organizations have endorsed her. I will always stand by her for taking that huge risk (look back at 2004 elections, even though Kerry jumped around the issue, the Republicans swift boat gay issues). I applaud Hillary for staying in the race. It shows the plight of those that are living in the shadows that are trying to break the glass ceiling.

[Analy]

I don't understand this comment:"Barack Obama is a breath of fresh air for the real Democratic Party".Breath of fresh air? Real Democratic Party? I thought that, when deciding for a candidate, we were looking at the issues that pertain to us,and not at slogans and made up phrases. I also think that the real Democratic party would be the one that takes some leadership and finds a real solution for the Florida and Michigan fiasco.

[Mary]

The news now goes like this: "the black voters will not be happy if Obama does not get the nomination". I think this is another way to play the race card. It is another way to intimidate voters of other races and colors. And what is worst, it is a way to push the black voters to revolt. Should we, the "other color" voters say: the "other color" voters will not be happy if Hillary does not get the nomination? Black voters be aware! You are going to be used by the "politician for change". The truth is that if we count the votes of Florida and Michigan, Hillary is clearly ahead in the popular vote.

[DEBB]

"So, the question becomes will delegates vote for a person who gains poor support among Hispanics, & whites just to not anger blacks and elite liberals? Or, do they give their vote to Clinton who has been winning the states and people needed for November?"
TONY .S
Based on your statements, you are saying that "to hell with the blacks and elite liberals" because they are not as important as the hispanics and whites? By the way what color are the elite liberals..purple, pink or green?

[Ana]

Why is Reverend Right so angry?

He is angry because he has lost his job due to the Obama controversy. have you asked yourself why he does not have anymore his job of so many years? Who forced the Trinity Church to fire Reverend Right? Why after so many years he has lost his job? The Church must have known what he was preaching, right? Why then?

If it is what we all think, he has the right to be mad. He was betrayed by the person he had helped and was still trying to help. He was betrayed by Obama. Obama the "politician for change', the "politician for hope", and the "real politician" chose Reverend Right because he new his congregation would be an asset in his running for the White House. Obama has already used R. Right, and even if he shares his views, he can't admit it because it could cost him the nomination. Therefore, he threw Reverend Right (no, not under the bus) out of the church.

I ask those voters who can still use their brain tho think, wake up please! Obama is the politician for change, a change that is convenient for him. Obama is the politician for hope, he hopes that no one catches him on his wrong doing. Obama is the real politician, a real politician of the worst kind.