A lot of people can overcome a lot of money!

Almost 1.5 million people have donated to the Obama campaign with an average of 95 dollar contributions; Obama's come from nowhere to be 300 delegates from snagging the nomination over the most well-known Democratic candidate since 1940; he slices in half her 22 point PA lead; and yet, according to Josh, she's got the people!

Ladies and gentlemen, Josh Kardon, Oregon's own Mark Penn!

And why did she start with a lead in the first place? Were you born under a rock or have you forgot the last 16 years of Hillary Clinton being in the spotlight? She has name recognition.

1. There is no correlation to winning a primary and winning a state in the general election. This has been shown over and over.

2. Obama may have outspent Clinton, but Clinton also had the PA democratic establishment on her side, and has the name recognition of an incumbent. Obama was able to cut a deficit above 20% to less then 10%.

3. Obama cannot deliver a knock out punch because Hilary continues to carry White Women by a margin close to 66% to 34%, who made up 47% of the voters.

4. OH demographics were better for Obama then PA, and Obama did better in PA.

5. The number of new voters voting for Obama shows a lot of promise for the party in the general.

The dynamics of the race won't change. Neither candidate can deliver a knock out punch because neither candidate can make inroads with the other's base. If Hillary wins NC, that would be huge. As it is, both candidates continue to maintain the status quo in the race, which favors Obama because he is winning both in Pledged delegates and the popular vote, even if you count FL.

Josh, I'd love to hear how you'd spin this explanation of why she won.

January 8. February 5. March 4. Three dates. Three opportunities for Barack Obama to close the deal and solidify his status as the presumptive Democratic nominee. And three failures.

Wow, some amazingly pathetic spinmeistering going on here, Mr Kardon. Have you ever heard of a candidate named Hillary Clinton who told us all last fall, and going into the early primaries, how she was going to wrap things up on February 5? Geez Louise, it would appear that Sen. Clinton failed to "seal the deal" when she said she would. Maybe you need to write some sort of smart-ass commentary about that.

Are you suffering from selective amnesia, or simply cranking out the spin "talking points" that just showed up on your fax machine?

Candidates receiving...a wink from kingmaker, Jon Stewart, are supposed to cruise to victory.

Jon Stewart, the host of a comedy show, is a "kingmaker"? Good Gawd, how pathetic.

Is Sen. Obama truly "the One" (Oprah's words, not mine)....?

Oh, right, I remember that, especially the CAPITAL LETTER in "One". Didn't Oprah also kiss the hem on Obama's robes?

Congratulations to Hillary Clinton on her Pennsylvania victory. Let's get on with the campaign, folks. Kardon is going to keep forwarding those talking points from his fax machine. Obama's local campaign is going to do the same thing. I'll take Kardon's arguments more seriously when they emerge from his own brain instead of from his fax machine.

.

Stuff it. Take your BS elsewhere.

.

Why hasn't SHE sealed the deal?

.

Why is her campaign in debt and poorly-run?

.

Why is she smearing MoveOn?

.

Why is she running a dirty campaign?

.

Why is she trying to poach pledged delegates?

.

Oh that's right - Hillary's campaign is above responding with real, logical answers. Just more spin and talking point hogwash.

I am an Obama supporter, and like others posting here, I recognize that Josh is spinning events to benefit his candidate. I also recognize that he's the best at it.

Whether you support Obama or Clinton, please treat Josh with more civility and respect. The guy has done more for the progressive cause in Oregon than any non-elected I know.

Hey Josh,

Thanks for replying to my comment. And yes, I do dispute the central theme of your post! Sen. Clinton is the poorer candidate only in terms of energy, enthusiasm, and money given to her campaign! The Clintons started this election expecting to have everything wrapped up in a few weeks. They started with money, contacts, leverage, and the most noted winning brand in the Democratic party. What other candidate, without those advantages, could survive 12 straight losses?

In a race between Obama and the Clintons, winning states like California, Ohio and PA was practically pre-ordained. Especially PA, with the excess of older, more Clinton-friendly voters who do not prefer a young black Senator from Chicago over the moost prominent elected Democrat in the country. Especially older voters, who don't have to lose friends or children in Iraq, and don't define Clinton's unabashed support for the war as a critical issue.

Look, I know your esteemed boss in the Senate got his career started advocating for seniors, and I think that's admirable. But Democrats aren't just looking for the candidate "best able to win seniors' or "best able to win the White House" in 2008. (What does that even mean right now? Obama polls better than Clinton nationally, and is more competitive everywhere but AR, OH and KY.) We're looking for someone we can trust, who won't sell us out on Iranian saber rattling and the DOMA. We're looking for someone to get us out of the pointless Red-Blue divide, not accelerate it, and run a 50-state strategy that leads to Democratic pickups in congressional districts and Governors races. If Obama can't beat McCain after eight years of Bush, then Americans deserve more of what we've got. But that isn't going to be the case, because Obama's got the integrity, ideas, and charisma- i.e. what it takes to win.

PS and thanks Josh for getting involved in the discussion on the comment thread. It's certainly appreciated.

Sounds like somebody really wants a White House job.

Guys, I hate to break it to you, but when your candidate loses and you're out there the next day slugging away on the blogosphere to paint the rosiest possible picture, you should go easy with the "spin" word.

If that isn't the most hypocritical statement of the day I don't know what is. Clinton won PA fair and square. She blew a 20 point lead from 2 weeks ago but she crawled to the finish still ahead. If that campaign had had 1 more week she probably would have lost the way Obama was covering ground. You're on this blog trying to paint the rosiest picture possible while still ignoring the fact that she didn't get a big enough win and now she's heading into states she isn't favored to win AND she's out of money. Who is painting the rosiest picture in the blogosphere here? Let's see a hard analysis from you on what Hillary has to do to win enough delegates to have the superdelegates overcome the will of the voters without having a full fledged revolt in the party. Paint me a rosy picture on that.

Nice try, Josh! It doesn't cut. I suppose you are entitled to a little gloating. But, ... your candidate is broke! She has no realistic path to the nomination. She gets a win by 9 pts. She has 15 wins to Obama's 30 and suddenly you think she's going to be coronated by the supers, which will take about 80% of them. They are not impressed with her divisiveness. And if you think they are going to trump the primary results and run the party over a cliff, I don't think so.

She will lose big here in Oregon. People in Oregon don't like the Clintons. And after her statement about "obliterating Iran" I sure don't want her finger on the button. Keep her as far away from the White House as possible. Any appeals for Dem. unity seem to ring pretty hollow as she is joining forces with Richard Mellon-Scaife and his associates to swift-boat Obama in NC. So go tell your boss, Hillary, that these "activist" people she has such contempt for are unimpressed. She gets a total of 10 delegates out of this, big deal! She has to win 71% of the remaining delegates to catch up.

Post Pennsylvania Reality Check

We Are Electing Delegates. She won, at the most, 12. Obama still leads by over 100.

Pennsylvania is also the 12th state Hillary has won. That's right, TWELVE. Obama won IA, NV and SC. They tied NH. Obama won TX. Hillary has only won 12 states. She is proposing we nominate a candidate who will have won, at the most, 15 states when this is done. Jesse Jackson won 11.

Hillary will need 67% of the remaining delegates to overtake Obama's delegate lead.

To continue to solicit money from people, based on the premise Hillary can win, is fraud as far as I'm concerned.

This has got to end.

Sounds like somebody really wants a White House job.

can I at LEAST get josh to ADMIT to the FACTS that hillary is LOSING in pledged delegates, the popular vote AND contests?

First you MUST fucking admit the truth and then I might listen

Personally, I think it is more important that Obama can win smaller, more rural states than Clinton saying that winning big states makes her more competitive. In the end,the bigger states will support the democratic candidate. You think California is going to go for McCain over Obama? I don't think so.

Thanks for the post Josh. I'm getting worried about the prospect of Obama in the general - he sure couldn't handle the tough questions at the debate the other night and he doesn't seem to do well with the democratic base. I was actually suprised Clinton won by as much as she did last night, given all the $ Obama spent in Pennsylvania.

FYI- I think a lot of anger is explained by the fact that in the past month Hillary has netted 5 delegates on Obama's 133 delegate lead, and yet deigns to say that "the tide is turning." There's a bankable dishonesty to Clinton campaigning that just makes people who pay attention (partisan or no) very incredulous.

I am disappointed that Obama didn't win Pennsylvania and finish this contest. But not only has he the best chance in November but he is the better leader for our country now. And that is the key. As Taylor says above "Obama's come from nowhere to be 300 delegates from snagging the nomination over the most well-known Democratic candidate since 1940; he slices in half her 22 point PA lead..." The future of the Democratic party is in the new voters that Obama has energized. And the many people who abandoned the Democrats in disgust after Bill Clinton failed them and congressional dems sold out to special interests. Obama will have more pledged delegates, more states and a far stronger chance of winning the presidency this summer. In dealing with attacks, he has shown his ability to stay calm and focused. He has class. Once Democrats get our heads out of our asses, we can focus on why McCain would be a disaster for this country. Take a look at the current issue of Harpers to see how he deceitfully rakes in money from special interests such as the telecoms while claiming to be independent of big money lobbyists. It would be a big mistake for the superdelegates to abandon the majority of voters -- who have come out for them only because of Obama. Democrats will lose young voters and Black voters. They too are the core Democratic constituency and let's not forget it. The big states will come out for Democrats if Senator Clinton truly throws her weight behind Senator Obama. I'm not suggesting she get out now. But if things don't change. If Oregon and North Carolina go to Obama -- and some of the other states too -- then she should do the right thing.

what will katy and josh say when Hillary loses NC?

Hillary and her supporters are unashamed liars

Clinton is losing ground among her base, out of money, in debt, and needs 71% of remaining delegates to win.

If the primary were about winning electoral votes, Obama would have changed his game to win electoral votes. But it isn't about electoral votes, so Obama played to win the game that exists. It's too bad Hillary's campaign wasn't smart enough to do the same. That's why they lost Super Tuesday: they played to win in the electoral college but there is none.

hgjhffgh, don't be angry at the supporters of Clinton because your candidate can't wrap this thing up.

First, I'd like to echo the comment above that we all need to treat Josh with more respect. Disagree with his analysis all you want, but ad hominem vitriol is a sign of a weak mind.

Second, as an Obama supporter I just can't get on the spin-mobile this time. Obama lost by 10 points after outspending Clinton 3 to 1. That is a resounding defeat. Period.

I take cold comfort in the fact that "Hillary can't win the nomination." So what? Neither can Obama win in places like Ohio and PA, contests that would have ended the race. And as PA shows, it's not for lack of trying. He is simply unable to capture large segments of the Democratic party, and his failure to do so is allowing Clinton to continue her quixotic, damaging campaign.

We have all said that Obama is running a brilliant campaign. That's no longer true. Candidates need to be able to pivot, to retool their messaging in order to win. Obama KNEW from Ohio that his message was not winning over white, working class, older Democrats. He had 7 weeks and untold millions to figure out how to convince those Democrats that he was the strongest candidate. He failed.

There are going to be dozens of places all over the country where Obama trails McCain in the general election with 7 weeks to go. If the best he can do is cut McCain's lead in half, like he did with Hillary, that's still a loss. I can only hope that Obama's campaign is taking this devastating loss seriously and figuring out what it needs to do differently in order to win.

I am so tired of hearing money is everything. If Casey and Rendell had not been involved, that might have been a valid argument. But did Obama's money trump Rendell's political machine? Is Obama the first statewide black candidate ever to lose in Penn. when parts of the state are compared to Alabama? Did Hillary win by her original 20 point lead, or closer to half that?

As far as "If you are sick of losing in November and want to work for the candidate who is best prepared for this immensely complex job on Day 1, " this is why I have been disappointed by Hillary's campaign. As I have said to a variety of people, Obama strikes me as a combination of Eugene McCarthy and Bobby Kennedy, while Hillary reminds me of Mondale and I was part of the Hart campaign! That line sounds like straight out of the "inevitable" Mondale campaign.

Clinton folks may not like that attitude, but tough luck!

Everyone who works with kids (parents, teachers, daycare, etc.) knows the saying "Rules are rules". I am a native of Michigan, but was also part of the effort to rewrite delegate selection rules in the period from 1984-88.

And I'm sorry, Howard Wolfson, but saying Democrats should go along with the saying "the votes of 2 and a half million people should count" when nominees are selected by the number of DELEGATES chosen according to rules which many people of good will spent years working on will not gain my vote for your candidate! Part of our work re-writing rules over 20 years ago had to do with action at the convention after many people were angry at what they saw as Mondale manipulating rules--esp. in Wisconsin.

I agree with this:

Posted by: Jefffrane | Apr 23, 2008 10:48:30 AM

Three opportunities for Barack Obama to close the deal and solidify his status as the presumptive Democratic nominee. And three failures.

That's one of the most amazing pieces or revisionism I've seen this year. In what fantasy universe was Obama the presumptive nominee at the beginning of 2008?

I also agree with this: Posted by: James X. | Apr 23, 2008 10:50:08 AM

Clinton is losing ground among her base, out of money, in debt, and needs 71% of remaining delegates to win.

If the primary were about winning electoral votes, Obama would have changed his game to win electoral votes. But it isn't about electoral votes, so Obama played to win the game that exists. It's too bad Hillary's campaign wasn't smart enough to do the same. That's why they lost Super Tuesday: they played to win in the electoral college but there is none.

He is simply unable to capture large segments of the Democratic party, and his failure to do so is allowing Clinton to continue her quixotic, damaging campaign.

i don't think that's true, actually. first of all, the segments of the democratic party which have given clinton her leads in the states she has won do not really add up to a "large" segment, by any stretch.

and secondly, a good chunk of those segments are made up of well-entrenched political machines, especially in places like PA, NJ, and LA.

the democratic machinery isn't going to up & evaporate in november when obama is the nominee.

they'll turn out for him. to say that because he can't wrest them completely away from clinton, given her establishment connections, history &c, he won't have their support in november is ludicrous.

now there may be some white democrats who will defect to mccain rather than vote for a black man^h^h^h^obama.

but do those numbers constitute a "large" segment or even a significant one? we'll find out in november, but i seriously doubt it.

oh, and josh, do you really want answers to your questions as to "why couldn't he win in PA" or "why was she the frontrunner in the first place?" or were they rhetorical? if the former, the answer can pretty easily be summed up in 2 simple words: party machine.

josh runs away in response to everyone calling him on his lies

He insults us by refusing to acknowledge our comments and respond directly to our points and questions

That is bullshit

Personally, I would prefer that Clinton drop out of the race after the April 29 registration deadline. The prospect of a relevant presidential primary in Oregon is a great thing for Democratic registration numbers, though it comes at a high cost nationally.

Charlie, that's just not fair. I don't want to miss my chance to vote for Senator Clinton in this primary and to pretend that she is "diverting our attention" simply by campaigning just does not make sense to me. How many new democrats are there across the U.S. right now because this campaign has gone on so long? How will that be bad for us in the general?

Josh,

Did you really intend to write this:

"to ask how someone who hasn't been able to win any of the battleground states of Ohio, Pennsylvania, or Florida" ????

Florida? FLORIDA? Is that an actual Clinton talking point - she won Florida so she obviously has the ability to win the general? FLORIDA?

I don't remember there being a contested race in the Sunshine State. I do remember a pledge to not campaign there through.

Come on man, I respect all you have done for progressive politics in Oregon, but you should send a memo up the line to drop Florida from Hillary's resume .

Seriously, FLORIDA? Taken to the next level McCain should send out a press release touting his overwhelming victory in Pennsylvania last night.

James Mattiace

jfdcbj, I'm going to stay out of this tit-for-tat argument between supporters, but I don't think Josh Kardon was running away from you--he does have a job. Seriously, what's with the disrespect?

katy, surely you know josh's reputation is in the shitter after this disgraceful display.

Hey josh and katy - is Oregon one of the "important" states even after Hillary loses? Tell us now.

Yes or no. .

What Oregonian need to ask themselves is "who would we hire"?

This is the longest job interview for any position. And it's rightly so. Not only because it's the toughest job in the world, but also because we will be stuck with that person for 4 years at least.

We can't fired the President, we can't dock the paycheck, we can't freeze the bonus and the goodies that come with the position. We can't tell the first family don't let so and so sleep in the White House. We will be stuck with our choice for 4 long years.

Who would we hire to solve the economy problem, the universal healthcare, and bringing the troop home?

Who would we hire to protect the American interest, and national security?

It's our future. Make the choice wisely.

the disrespect comes from this continuous stream of willful lies from josh and his campaign and their utter refusal to acknowledge facts, especially in response to direct questions. It is like talking to Dana perino.

I hope there's another debate, that the moderators come out once again with some screwball "do you still beat your wife?" style questions, and that Obama just blows them off--tells them he's only going to address substantive matters. Put up a fight, Senator Obama. Show the voters you want to keep a tight focus on issues that matter, especially issues that matter to the voters you're not reaching now. Let Clinton spend as much time talking about flag pins as she wants.

McGuire sez: Exactly Florida. The latest Rasmussen poll conducted 4/10/08, shows Clinton winning Florida 45 to 44 and Obama losing Florida 38 to 53.

Well that's it then, folks, roll up Obama's tent. This single poll is undeniably the most awesome, infallible bit of evidence that the super-delegates should need.

if that's not good enough for you, here are some other infallible polls:

Public Policy Polling--for Pennsylvania:

April 19/20: Obama +3% April 14/15: Obama +3% April 7/8: Clinton +3% March 31/April 1: Obama +2% March 15/16: Clinton +26%

That last one is correct: a 26% spread.

The tabulation is here.

The PPP results are just, like, totally awesome and stuff, just totally accurate, like every poll.

Should the person with the fewest pledged delegates win?

Yikes! I don't know where to start! I'm supporting Hillary because I believe she is stronger, more politically savvy, and doesn't have to ask which door leads to the bathroom when she enters the White House. In other words, she is battle tested and vetted, she knows precisely how to get the things done that she has set out to do because 1) she lived and breathed it for the 10+ years she lived in the Governor's mansion, 2 she learned the ropes during the 8 years she lived in the White House, and 3) she's established working relationships and connections in the 8 years she's spent as an active, working, successful Senator for New York (they like her--they really really like her), and she doesn't need the 3-6 months of White House acclimation that most new Presidents need. And right now, we need someone with the knowledge, talent, and comfort level to take off running on day one.

I have been an active supporter: financially, phone calling, outreach, volunteering at rallies, and blogging. The people I work beside who also support Hillary in these ways are neither racists nor idiots. In fact, after making at least 1000 phone calls to voters all over the country, I have learned something very interesting: The same people who won't vote for a Black man will also not vote for a woman. In other words folks, for the most part, we democrats are mostly progressives; and those of us who choose to support Hillary are doing so for the same reasons I outlined above. I resent the implication that we choose Hillary for any other reason.

Now, the facts are clear. This race is neck and neck. He who yells the loudest or is more computer literate is not necessarily winning by a mandate. In fact, the difference is so slight that the front runner can't even get the minimum delegates needed to prove he has even the slightest go ahead from this nation's Democrats.

For those of you Obama supporters who seem to have slept through your government classes, there is good reason that the minimum 2025 delegate count must be reached--if it is not, it means there is not enough consensus among Democrats to trust the primary and caucus votes alone. The DNC members (aka Superdelegates) must take into consideration other aspects of candidacy. These include which states were won by whom and how that may come into play in the general election; they include foresight into the Republican attack machine; and they include a professional politician's gut about which candidate can actually beat the Republican in November, and which truly knows how to get done what needs to be done.

Right now, with emotions running high, progressive Democrats are threatening to vote Republican if their candidate is not the nominee. I don't buy that from either side right now. When reality sets in, so will sanity.

Inspirational promises are nice, but Obama has not produced one answer to show HOW he will get all the other DC politicians to go along with all of his so-called changes and new reforms. It's one thing to talk about it, another to say how he's going to do it. If he was truly a consensus building genius who was an expert at bringing the country together, 1/2 of us would be not be supporting Hillary, and the Republicans would not be salivating.

And anyone who believes that the Republicans, in their Trojan horse mode, would give away their winning strategy by insisting that they'd rather run against Hillary, is as naive as they come.

I guess I did know where to start.

Right now, with emotions running high, progressive Democrats are threatening to vote Republican if their candidate is not the nominee. I don't buy that from either side right now. When reality sets in, so will sanity. They won't vote Republican. They'll either vote for Hillary or a 3rd party. I see a large portion of them not participating though. The only way Hillary can win is by the superdelegates overturning the will of the voters which will most likely cause a revolt inside the party because insiders overturned the will of the voters.

Inspirational promises are nice, but Obama has not produced one answer to show HOW he will get all the other DC politicians to go along with all of his so-called changes and new reforms. It's one thing to talk about it, another to say how he's going to do it.

How has Hillary said she would bridge this gap exactly? From her experience it's painfully obvious she has trouble making inroads with Republicans. Frankly they hate her guts. They don't hate Barack's guts and that's a step in the right direction I'd say.

It's one thing to talk about it, another to say how he's going to do it. If he was truly a consensus building genius who was an expert at bringing the country together, 1/2 of us would be not be supporting Hillary, and the Republicans would not be salivating.

The Republicans are salivating because of the way the Clinton campaign has turned this into a negative campaign. Whomever emerges from this will get a 10 point bump in the polls against McCain almost immediately.

The fact still remains that there is a LARGE portion of the country that really, really hates Hillary and won't even look at voting for her regardless of her positions. Many of those people will consider voting for Barack simply because he isn't Hillary. Hillary has won in plenty of Democratic strongholds and I don't see NY, MA, CA, NJ swinging red. Obama has beat Hillary in a majority of swing states and not only beat her but wiped the floor with her on several occasions. I don't want another President elected by a 51-49 majority. That's probably Hillary's ceiling. Barack's ceiling is much higher.

Should the candidate with the fewest pledged delegates win?

Florida? Rasmussen has consistently placed Florida in the GOP camp. I have not seen this poll that gives Clinton a statiscally insignificant advantege in Florida.

However, Obama seems to be ahead of McCain in both Pennsylvania and more importantly, in Colorado. He will be helped by the gaffes made by GOP fools about immigration - specifically the "illiterate peasants" comment recently made by a GOP minion.

I suspect that Mcain will take Florida and Ohio, but htis time Colorado is in play. If we Dems can get both Colorado and New Hampshire, we don't need Florida and Ohio. Winning also in Nevada would be an added plus.

Anyone who thinks the Dems will lose in the West Coast States or the liberal states like New York and Massachusetts if Clinton isn't the nominee is just out of touch with political realities. Obama also will get a huge bounce once he becomes the nominee. Of course, this presupposes there is no sabotage coming from disaffected Clinton supporters.

Remember that the real stakes here are two words:

SUPREME COURT!

Should the candidate with the fewest pledged delegates win?

Paddy,

Is Oregon "a big state that iscritical to victory in the fall"?

IF YES, what are you going to say when Hillary loses Oregon?

IF NO, why is Bill Clinton coming here? Is it because Hillary continues to compete for pledged delegates, when you assert that the pledged delegate count is irrelevant?

Why bother competing for pledged delegates if pledged delegates are irrelevant? Save your money and wait for August.

Paddy, I think you are living on another planet, when you talk about the coups by super-ds. It's a recipe for civil war and the end of the Dem. party as we know it. It would make 1968 look like a Sunday School picnic and the supers know that.

The AA community already knows very well how the Dem. party takes their vote for granted. The Clintons are already toast with them for their behavior during this primary season. And Hillary has said how she regards the progressive "rabble" of Obama supporters like Moveon and the blogosphere. I really think the party leaders know suicide when they see it. Proceed at your own peril.

If the 30 contests and overwhelming lead in every cateogy of pledged delegates, finances, etc. are enough to pull in 80% of the presently uncommitted super-ds to rig the nomination, (which I highly doubt), if primary voters and elections don't mean anything, then be prepared for an Armageddon. A rigged convention in Denver will make Chicago '68 look tame. I remember it well. And when Obama takes Oregon handily and Oregon Dems witness a rigged nomination all hell will break loose on the Clintonites who participated in it and the party insiders here in this state.

It's pretty ironic that the Obama argument is now focused on "pledged delegates" and not counting the votes in Florida. Substitute "pledged delegates" for "electoral votes" and it sounds an awful lot like Bush/Cheney 2000.

He's running against a woman with majority unfavorables nationally and he has a 10-1 cash advantage, outspent her 3-1 in the latest contest, and he can barely come within single digits in a big swing state?

Obama has proven time and again that he is not effective at closing the deal in critical states. If he can't put away Hillary Clinton with all of her baggage, and with the cash advantage he has, how are we supposed to believe that he can beat John McCain?

Just a thought.

So a candidate who outspends his opponent by 3-1 and still gets crushed is somehow the winner? Nobody is talking about the push Obama got for weeks on end by the media on how the polls were closing in on Hillary, just a day or two before they proclaiming a TIE in Pennsylvania.

It's really sniveling politics to play the game of "we're closing in" in an effort to create false momentum and get that momentum of going for the winner, then smugly say "well, we did close the lead" even though they outspent the other candidate 3-1.

Why does Hillary continue to press for the seating of the MI and FL delegates, if her position is that the supers are the only delegates that matter and the supers make the decision as to who the nominee will be?

If only the supers matter, then there is no need to seat FL and MI.

And Hillary outspent Barack as of Super Tuesday and she got crushed on Super Tuesday.

Paddy McGuire worked his way into a fat Fed. job back into '92 by making himself a Clintonite and heading the Clinton primary campaign. I don't know what Josh's ambitions are but I am skeptical there is not exactly a selfless disinterest here. I would be glad to find out that isn't the case here for this Hillary shilling for either. Mostly your presence here confirms the worst suspicions of what the Clinton campaign is up to and determination to rid the party of this kind of influence.

Regarding electoral votes and the ever-shifting Clinton criteria. The rules of nomination are pledged delegates and super-delegates, which were always intended to ratify the choice of voters, not electoral votes, not even popular vote. ( The Clintonites conveniently want to disenfranchise all caucus state voters.)

Even solid Clintonite supporters like Maria Cantwell and Barney Frank have said the nomination should be decided by June and it should be the candidate with the most pledged delegates.

This is echoed by a number of other party leaders, such as Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid. So, Paddy and Josh, your plan for a coups by super-ds has no support where it matters, either at the grass roots or the leadership. Party suicide is not what even the most cynical hardened insiders really want. I suggest you pedal your candidate with the Rush Limbaugh crowd, since they seem to be sending so many voters her way.

To anonymous:

If you count winning California, New York, New Jersey, and the majority of votes cast as getting crushed, then sure, Hillary was crushed on Super Tuesday.

Both candidates are behaving childishly, moving the metrics based on when it advantages them personally.

Clinton talks about national popular vote now that it's the only thing she can win.

Obama talks about pledged delegates because it's the only way he's guaranteed to win. He should be confident in a popular vote win, and if he can't get there, then frankly he probably doesn't deserve to be the nominee.

What should (but can't since in many states Democrats didn't even get the opportunity to vote) be the metric: whoever is supported by the majority of Democrat primary voters nationally. Unfortunately, it will be the archaic and indecipherable party rules, and not the voters, that will determine who the nominee will be.

The "win the big states" argument is getting really tired. You know what matters in the democratic nomination and in the general election? Who wins the most delegates (or electors.) And oh, hey, that's Obama. The fact that he's also leading the popular vote and is ahead by miles in terms of fundraising is nice, too.

Fact is, Hilary can't win the nomination by really any means. Obama's even catching up in terms of superdelegate endorsements, making the possibility of them overturning the popular result more and more remote.

All Hilary can do is wait and see if Obama will commit some gaffe that will be so damaging that he'll have to withdraw. That's fine, that's the same thing John McCain did. The difference is that Hilary has apparently decided she's going to do everything she can to goad Obama into making that gaffe.

Trishka and T.A. have, respectively, argued that Obama lost PA due to the Rendell political machine and dirty campaigning. I don't think the explanation is that simple, but for sake of argument let's say that it is. Isn't that an indictment of Obama's ability to win in November? There are Republican political machines throughout this country, and we all know that the GOP will play dirty. Obama's inability to overcome that highlights a weakness.

Before you attack me, I think Hillary's chances in November are worse, as she is a polarizing figure with high negatives and the ability to unite the conservative base. But as an Obama supporter, I'm not happy about the fact that he can't overcome Rendell's endorsement of Clinton and some negative attacks. That is the sign of a weak campaign, and we need to be honest about that if we're going to be successful in November.

josh/paddy/katy/whomever -

is there any reason to believe rendell and casey not campaign for obama as hard in november as they did for clinton leading up to the PA primary? why would the democratic party machinery in states like PA, NJ, or CA abandon the democratic nominee?

If my math is correct (based on totals from CNN), here are the current delegate percentages: BHO 51.7% (1719) HRC 47.7% (1586) JE .54% (18)

Granted, that's only a 4% gap between Obama and HRC. However, there are fewer and fewer opportunities for HRC to catch up. I haven't done the math, but I hear people quoting numbers like 71% of the remaining votes needing to go HRC's way in order for her to pull even or ahead of Obama in terms of delegate counts (can anyone provide some figures to support/discredit this percentage?).

Even if she wins every remaining contest, if her numbers are not high enough, her supporters must understand the great risk the party would run in terms of alienating and disgusting the great numbers of new young voters should she win the nomination without at least reaching a parity with Obama on delegates.

Obama supporters: I assume you would not feel "robbed" if HRC won the same or more delegates as Obama and then got the nomination. What if she were only 1% below Obama and the Super-Ds pushed her over. Would you be okay with that?

HRC supporters: If HRC does not win an equal or greater number of delegates, how much of a percentage deficit would you allow her to have and still be able to argue the system was fair and representative of the "will of the people". 2%, 5%, 10%?

As Jeff states, Obama has won more states, delegates, and votes. I will gladly support HRC should she be able either win more delegates (without needing a disproportionate number of Super-Ds) or at least within 1 or 2%. She has every right to remain in the race as long as she wants. And I have every right to question the strategy she employs. -tl

Should the candidate with the fewest pledged delegates win?

Possibly, if neither wins the minimum 2025. That's why there is a minimum...because otherwise there is not a strong enough mandate to decide the nominee by delegates alone. And back we go to the other considerations...

She has every right to remain in the race as long as she wants. And I have every right to question the strategy she employs.

Obama has every right to remain in the race as long as he wants. And I have every right to question the strategy he employs as well, and I sometimes do. -tl

The Clintonites are talking electability now. Forget the 30 contests she lost.. Forget that she polled last week in Newsweek 19 pts behind Obama and Obama was rated by 59% as the stronger Nov. candidate against McCain.

Okay.. here's what a wonder Hillary is in match-ups:

Colorado- Rasmussen. 4/16. Likely voters. MoE 4.5% (3/17 results)

McCain (R) 43 (46) Obama (D) 46 (46)

McCain (R) 50 (52) Clinton (D) 36 (38)

North Carolina:

Rasmussen. 4/10. Likely voters. MoE 4.5% (3/20 results)

McCain (R) 47 (42) Obama (D) 47 (51)

McCain (R) 51 (50) Clinton (D) 40 (34)

What about those "big states" that Clinton thinks only she can win? How about California?

Rasmussen. 4/16. Likely voters. MoE 4.5% (3/12 results)

McCain (R) 43 (38) Obama (D) 50 (53)

McCain (R) 42 (39) Clinton (D) 47 (46)

What about the purple states, like Minnesota?

SurveyUSA. 4/11-13. Likely voters. MoE 4.3% (3/14-16 results)

McCain (R) 43 (47) Obama (D) 49 (46)

McCain (R) 46 (46) Clinton (D) 47 (49)

And here in Oregon in the latest Survey USA (I don't have it in front of me, Mar.) Obama beats McCain, Clinton loses in match-up

And you guys want to pull a coups in the party for this?

But as an Obama supporter, I'm not happy about the fact that he can't overcome Rendell's endorsement of Clinton and some negative attacks.

He overcame a 26 point deficit to lose by 9 and against huge name recognition in a state that has been regarded as Clinton country for 16 years. I'd say Obama did pretty good considering most of the elected officials in that state were endorsing Hillary. What's Rendell going to do in the general? Endorse McCain...don't think so.

6 out 10 voters don't think Hillary is trustworthy. Nice spin job Josh, but I don't see how you ever overcome that, or the delegate math. She only netted about 10 delegates last night w/ her 9.2% victory margin. That doesn't get it done.

Senator Clinton excites the republicans to vote against her much more so than John Sidney McCain III excites them to vote for him. So much for electability.

When we get to the end of the primary season Obama will have more delegates and more popular votes. If the super-delegates overturn the wishes of the majority of democratic voters in a coup, many Dem voters will revolt and Senator Clinton will have no chance at winning whatsoever. There is no plausible scenario out there that ends up with her as the nominee.

Envision the debates; Grandpa John Sidney McCain III on stage; grey, puffy, grumpy and mumbling 'my friends, my friends' vs a young, sharp, articulate Obama. Big advantage Obama. On the other hand McCain vs Clinton, more of the McSame, not so much of a contrast and the voters sit on their hands.

I just think Mrs. Clinton started out this race with all the advantages, money, more overpaid consultants, name recognition, power, infrastructure, party support and she just blew it by running a horrible campaign. Ms Clinton and her supporters should just deal with it and stop blaming everybody else for their own failures.

And another thing......being the wife of a Governor, then the wife of the President and then a United States Senator means she has been inside a political bubble, hermitically sealed off from real life and real people for the past what, 35 years? Another reason not to elect her or John Sidney McCain III.

That's what I'm thinking today.

Josh and Paddy's candidate- a graduate of the Dr. Strangelove School of Diplomacy (great subtlety here- she's aching to have her finger on that nuclear trigger.)

"I want the Iranians to know that if I'm the president, we will attack Iran," Clinton said. "In the next 10 years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally
obliterate them."

"Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, said that the U.S. "should be looking to create an umbrella of deterrence that goes much further than just Israel. Of course I would make it clear to the Iranians that an attack on Israel would incur massive retaliation from the United States but I would do the same with other countries in the region."

[Obama] overcame a 26 point deficit to lose by 9 and against huge name recognition in a state that has been regarded as Clinton country for 16 years. I'd say Obama did pretty good considering most of the elected officials in that state were endorsing Hillary.

So is only losing to McCain by 9 points good enough for you, Garrett? I'm serious. It's great and all that Obama came from behind to lose by less than he was losing before, but with a 3 to 1 spending advantage and 7 weeks to campaign, why didn't he win? In November, are we going to be happy if Obama just manages to keep it close? What does he need to do to convince Reagan Democrats and independents to support him?

My point is not to argue for Clinton; I don't want to see that. But we need to admit that from two weeks before Ohio until now, Obama has run a weak campaign that hasn't figured out how to convince large segements of the Democratic party to vote for him. That's a problem.

miles, again, i think you're dead wrong on that last assertion.

i won't repeat my above post on why i think that; am just sayin'

Hillary fully expected to seal the deal on Super Tuesday. She failed. She has run an inept, weak and negative campaign.

She still has not been able to seal the deal, and she also has not been able to convince the superdelegates to come out in favor of her. The supers are coming out for Obama.

we need to admit that from two weeks before Ohio until now, Obama has run a weak campaign that hasn't figured out how to convince large segements of the Democratic party to vote for him. That's a problem.

Come on Miles. All Ohio and PA results tell you is that older white Democrats, especially those in Rust Belt and Appalachian states, greatly support Hillary and Bill. That's it. In a general election campaign, for Obama it would be the equivalent of winning Utah and Idaho. They're Hillary's natural base against the future of the Democratic Party!

Obama's run a very strong campaign. It happens that old folks make up a huge amount of the PA Dem electorate. And as weak as he is against Hillary in the Rust Belt and Appalachia, he is that much stronger in places like the Atlantic South (NC, VA), the Northwest, the Midwest (MO, IA, NE, SD{!}) and the Mountain West (CO, MT, ID).

Maybe that's what bugs me most about the Paddy McGs of the world- they seem intent on mortgaging the Democratic Party's future, which is young voters 30 and under (who overwhelming support Obama). All for another go-round of Clinton-ing that doesn't make us any stronger nationally?

And the coup stuff is really out of line. Paddy's argument against "pledged delegates" deciding the election is as undemocratic as it is vaucuous. Yes, allowing superdelegates to overturn the voters is technically allowed, but that wouldn't make it right. Most importantly, it would be a mess that would dramatically undermine the eventual nominee, whether Obama or Clinton or anyone else.

"Pledged delegates" are not the voters. Clinton won more votes in both Nevada and Texas, and fewer delegates. Assuming that one is equal to the other is factually inaccurate.

Superdelegates will "overturn" the voters only if they support the candidate who doesn't win the popular vote, which may or may not be the candidate who wins a plurality of pledged delegates. Either way, it will be difficult for either of them at this point to claim definitive support.

The lesson from this whole fiasco is that the party rules are terrible at conferring legitimacy to the winner of close elections.

What kind of wave is Hillary riding? Looks kinda racist, a good deal militarist, with a heavy under current of unreasoned fear.

The Democrats cannot win without the African American vote, you mean.

Paul- Hillary may be running stronger against McCain in OH right now, but losing a Democratic primary to a Clinton has little to no bearing on the general. Even the undeclared Sherrod Brown has pointed out that Ohio's in such an economic funk, there's no way they're choosing for a Republican.

And I'll argue for North Carolina among the surely contested states in an Obama-McCain matchup. Thanks Ben, even if you are a Californian, for saying that we shouldn't write off those other states, especially when we're ahead in the polls right now.

Look, I know there's very little historical reason for us to be excited about the chances a Democrat taking NE, SD, MT, and ID. But the bottom line is that these states will be close enough to affect Senate and Congressional races in those states. Hell, even Texas is almost in play, which makes Rick Noriega's run in the Senate a whole lot more viable. And Obama's going to win enough of the western states to balance any losses in Appalachia and the Rust Belt.

The Clintons offer a chance to maybe hang onto a trending-red Florida and OH-PA, gain Arkansas, and give up our advantage in every Western state besides CA (including OR). I'd happily take a Democratic party built on solid majorities on the Pacific, the Mountain west, the Upper Midwest, and the Eastern seaboard. That's where we should be winning.

Why Obama can't win!

 Hillary Builds Her Case

Trying to prove Obama can't win. by Fred Barnes 04/23/2008 12:00:00 AM

FORGET DELEGATES AND the popular vote for the Democratic presidential nomination. The most important thing Hillary Clinton gained by winning the Pennsylvania primary yesterday was a better argument--indeed, a much better argument.

Chances are, Clinton will trail Obama in the delegate count when the primaries end on June 3, as she does now. And while she may cut into his lead in the popular vote in the Democratic contests, she's not likely to exceed his vote total. So the only way she can capture the nomination is by convincing roughly 300 uncommitted super-delegates that Obama cannot defeat Republican John McCain in November but she can.

This isn't an easy case to make, especially with the super-delegates who will provide the margin of victory for whoever captures the 2,025 delegates needed to win the Democratic nomination. And at the moment, they appear strongly inclined to back Obama if he leads in delegates when the primary season is finished.

But after Pennsylvania, Clinton's argument that she's a stronger opponent against McCain will be impossible to ignore or dismiss. And it's not just because Clinton was outspent by nearly 3 to 1 by Obama and got tougher coverage from the media, yet trounced him by a substantial margin in a state that the Democratic presidential nominee must win in November.

The key was how she won in Pennsylvania. She clobbered him among the voting blocs that are critical to a Democratic victory: union households, women, Catholics, working class and downscale voters, and those who didn't attend college. The Democratic nominee who doesn't win a solid majority of these voting groups is all but certain to lose in November.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Utilities/printer_preview.asp?idArticle=15019&R=13A271C2E8

Introducing Christines- Weekly Standard cut-paste troll!!! Bring on the FoxNews and National Review next!

Unless Hillary plans to run on a joint ticket with McCain, you don't have much of a point. Are all those Democratic women going to flock to McCain after Hillary's out? And doesn't PA have a sizable registered Independent base that couldn't vote in this election? Are working class and union household voters going to support the ultimate GOP "wine-track" candidate, one who wanted war more than Bush, and says that Americans are better off now under Bush than they were seven years ago?

Seriously Christines. If BO readers wanted crack opinion, they'd go to WS, ie crack opinion central. At least have the temerity to quote a Clinton surrogate.

It's a mark of what's happened to the Clinton campaign when surrogates start putting wingnut Fred Barnes articles up here, or when Bill Clinton starts appearing on Rush Limbaugh's program, when the Clinton campaign teams up with Richard Mellon-Scaife in Swiftboating smears in NC, or when Terry McAuliffe is doing commercials now for Fox News. They are actually using his statement now about how "fair and balanced" Fox news is. Yup.. real progressive those Clintons are ... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hJ2nVor0bSI

The kicker and deal breaker for me is when Hillary tell us how much she wants to nuke Iran. Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran... She's talking like W now, or was that McSame. Yup.. party unity.....

Hillary outspent Barack as of Super Tuesday and she got crushed on Super Tuesday.

Hillary won a net of 10 delegates in PA.

10.

Will Barack net more than 10 delegates in NC? If so, will Hillary supporters eat their shorts?

Since I did not get an answer before:

<hr/>

Paddy,

Is Oregon "a big state that iscritical to victory in the fall"?

IF YES, what are you going to say when Hillary loses Oregon?

IF NO, why is Bill Clinton coming here? Is it because Hillary continues to compete for pledged delegates, when you assert that the pledged delegate count is irrelevant?

Why bother competing for pledged delegates if pledged delegates are irrelevant? Save your money and wait for August.

I find it hilarious that someone who supports the Democratic candidate you don't like is a "troll." This Blueoregon. Blue. Democrats. Come on already.

And to abcdefg, anon, whatever you're going by at 7pm as opposed to whatever you were going by this morning - do you really expect people to engage with you when you can't just pick a name and stick with it? It doesn't even have to be your real name! But for the sake of consistency, please just pick one?

Wow. So three things that I have to say:

1. It's going to cost a whole bunch of money for an unknown candidate to overcome a known entity.
2. Most of that money has come from about 1.4 million voters who have given an average donation of $96 to the Obama campaign. That's called grassroots, participatory democracy.
3. Barack did not campaign in Florida. As much as Josh Kardon would like to paint this off as an outright Clinton victory, there was no opposition to a Hillary win. I guess that's what you bank on when you're a losing candidate. What was that? A 12-state winning streak that wasn't mentioned in this entire post? Oh, they clearly must all be latte-drinking liberals.

trolls are those who call themselves democrats but use Karl Rove tactics, and then say "what? What's the problem? I don't understand what's wrong with what I'm doing." When you know full good and well what you are doing.

I think that they call them irreconcilble differences. If Hillary Clinton is a democrat, I am not!

OH yes, the lattes. Let us remember the words of Tom Buffenbarger introducing Hillary Clinton:

“The Barack show is playing to rave reviews sold out at college campuses after college campus. Standing room only crowds to hear his silver-tounged orations. Hope, change, yes we can? Give me a break! I've got news for all the latte-drinking, Prius-driving, Birkenstock-wearing, trust fund babies crowding in to hear him speak. This guy won't last a round against the Republican attack machine. He's a poet, not a fighter!”

Yep, trust fund babies. I hear Portland State University, OSU, UO, and Portland Community College are simply awash in trust fund babies. Undoubtedly it was trust fund babies who filled Memorial Coliseum when Obama spoke in Portland last month. And of course Obama supporters here on Blue Oregon don't have real jobs either. They just spend their time checking their accounts at the stock brokerage and collecting their trust fund dividends.

I'd like to quote Buffenbarger again:

"Give me a break!"

It is interesting that a member of Hillary's Oregon steering committee, Paddy McGuire, says that Oregon doesn't matter!

We're not one of those big, important states the supers need to "take into consideration", and our pledged delegates just don't matter.

Clinton campaign says Oregon is irrelevant - don't waste your time voting for Hillary.

The winning strategy for Hillary Clinton.

Take advantage of the rivalry, that is if you all can stop your petty little self-righteous schemes. Anti-War Campaigners Have to Change Electoral Tactics

By Naomi Klein and Jeremy Scahill, The Guardian Posted on April 1, 2008, Printed on April 2, 2008 http://www.alternet.org/story/80890/

"So?"

So said Dick Cheney when asked last week about public opinion being overwhelming against the war in Iraq. "You can't be blown off course by polls."

His attitude about the the fact that the number of U.S. soldiers killed in Iraq has reached 4,000 displayed similar levels of sympathy. They "voluntarily put on the uniform," the Vice-President told ABC news.

This brick wall of indifference helps explain the paradox in which we in the anti-war camp find ourselves five years into the occupation of Iraq: anti-war sentiment is as strong as ever, but our movement seems to be dwindling.

Sixty-four per cent of Americans tell pollsters they oppose the war, but you'd never know it from the thin turnout at recent anniversary rallies and vigils.

When asked why they aren't expressing their anti-war opinions through the anti-war movement, many say they have simply lost faith in the power of protest. They marched against the war before it began, marched on the first, second and third anniversaries. And yet five years on, U.S. leaders are still shrugging: "So?"

There is no question that the Bush administration has proven impervious to public pressure. That's why it's time for the anti-war movement to change tactics. We should direct our energy where it can still have an impact: the leading Democratic contenders. Many argue otherwise. They say that if we want to end the war, we should simply pick a candidate who is not John McCain and help them win: We'll sort out the details after the Republicans are evicted from 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. Some of the most prominent anti-war voices--from MoveOn.org to the magazine we write for, The Nation--have gone this route, throwing their weight behind the Obama campaign.

This is a serious strategic mistake. It is during a hotly contested campaign that anti-war forces have the power to actually sway U. S. policy. As soon as we pick sides, we relegate ourselves to mere cheerleaders.

And when it comes to Iraq, there is little to cheer. Look past the rhetoric and it becomes clear that neither Barack Obama nor Hillary Clinton has a real plan to end the occupation. They could, however, be forced to change their positions--thanks to the unique dynamics of the prolonged primary battle.

Despite the calls for Clinton to withdraw in the name of "unity," it is the very fact that Clinton and Obama are still fighting it out, fiercely vying for votes, that presents the anti-war movement with its best pressure point. And our pressure is badly needed. For the first time in 14 years, weapons manufacturers are donating more to Democrats than to Republicans. The Dems have received 52 percent of the defense industry's political donations in this election cycle--up from a low of 32 per cent in 1996. That money is about shaping foreign policy, and so far, it appears to be well spent.

While Clinton and Obama denounce the war with great passion, they both have detailed plans to continue it. Both say they intend to maintain the massive Green Zone, including the monstrous U.S. embassy, and to retain U.S. control of the Baghdad Airport. They will have a "strike force" to engage in counterterrorism, as well as trainers for the Iraqi military. Beyond these U.S. forces, the army of Green Zone diplomats will require heavily armed security details, which are currently provided by Blackwater and other private security companies. At present there are as many private contractors supporting the occupation as there are soldiers so these plans could mean tens of thousands of U. S. personnel entrenched for the future.

In sharp contrast to this downsized occupation is the unequivocal message coming from hundreds of soldiers who served in Iraq and Afghanistan. Iraq Veterans Against the War, who held the historic "Winter Soldier" hearings in Silver Spring, Md. earlier this month, are not supporting any candidate or party. Instead they are calling for immediate, unconditional withdrawal of all U.S. soldiers and contractors. Coming from peace activists, the "out now" position has been dismissed as naive. It is distinctly harder to ignore coming from hundreds who have served--and continue to serve--on the frontlines.

The candidates know that much of the passion fueling their campaigns flows from the desire among so many rank-and-file Democrats to end this disastrous war. It is this desire for change that has filled stadiums and campaign coffers.

Crucially, the candidates have already shown that they are vulnerable to pressure from the peace camp: When The Nation revealed that neither candidate was supporting legislation that would ban the use of Blackwater and other private security companies in Iraq, Clinton abruptly changed course. She became the most important U. S. political leader to endorse the ban, scoring a point on Obama, who opposed the invasion from the start.

This is exactly where we want the candidates: outdoing each other to prove how serious they are about ending the war. That kind of issue-based battle has the power to energize voters and break the cynicism that is threatening both campaigns.

Let's remember: unlike the outgoing Bush administration, these candidates need the support of the two-thirds of Americans who oppose the war in Iraq. If opinion transforms into action, they won't be able to afford to say, "So?"

Naomi Klein's latest book is The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster capitalism

I'm really hoping Obama accepts Senator Clinton's invitation to two debates here in Oregon, one focused specifically on the needs of rural Oregonians. Nobody on BO can deny that it's nice to have a Presidential campaign focused on the issues specific to our part of the country. We're in a very unique and exciting postion here and I think we should take advantage of that, soon we'll be the focus of the country.

Hillary just wants to play more "gotcha" Karl-Rove style flag-pin politics.

So spare me your transparent BS. You obviously think voters are stupid.

STK, How is wanting to debate the issues of our state "gotcha politics?" I'm really confused right now. I think we should all welcome this once in a lifetime chance to have the our Democratic Presidential candidates debate the issues that are so very important to us. Why in the world would pass that up? I'm pretty sure the Clnton camp didn't plant the flag pin question. I get the whole wanting to be above all that attitude, but you must know it turns an awful lot of folks off. Especially the very week you call a major portion of the Democratic base "bitter" and "clinging to religion."

I want to know why Sen. Clinton couldn't "seal the deal" in all those states she lost. She lost all of these 30 contests so it proves she just couldn't win in the fall there against McCain. (e.g -The stupidity we're hearing today from the Clinton spin machine.) She lost by 17 pts. in WI so that proves that she can't win in the Midwest in large cities or agricultural areas. She lost by a huge margin in WA and CO in the primary so that proves she can't win in the West. It just points out the absurdity and lack of logic in what we're hearing from the Clinton spin machine JK and PM and with the talking heads.

I have seen Hillary's performance in the 21 prior debates. 21. I have seen her gotcha politics in action, and she is so desperate she will most certainly go even lower, if that is possible. (Renounce AND reject! Change you can xerox!)

So again, spare me your mendacious, utterly transparent BS. Your strawman arguments don't fool me or anyone else. Cut the crap.

STK, I've also seen Senator Clinton's performance in the debates. I've also seen Obama's. I think it's pretty clear why he doesn't want to participate in any more debates.

Don't ask me the first question! Why do I always get the first question! No one asked me if I wanted a pillow!

Yes, that WAS an awesome display of whining by Sen. Clinton.

How does one shatter all fundraising records by a mile, and run a "weak campaign?" How does one manage to defeat the consensus candidate with the huge machine behind her and run a "weak campaign?" And how does one win twice as many states and likely a million more voters with a "weak campaign?"

TJ, turn those questions around. How does one raise and spend as much money as Obama, yet still not score the knock-out punch against a rival who literally has no chance? How does one spend 7 weeks campaigning in a state as the presumptive nominee, yet still lose by 10 points? How can a candidate who wins so easily in some places fail so miserably in others?

Obama's campaign since just before Ohio (note the important time caveat) has been weak because he was unable to adjust to the new political reality, which is that as the favorite all he needed to do was make some inroads among white, working class Democrats and this race would be over. Seven weeks, and he loses by 10 points. This isn't name recognition anymore since today Obama is one of the most recognized figures in politics. It's substantive. These Democrats have watched Obama, they've listened to him, and they've voted against him.

That has to be troubling to any Obama supporter who is being honest.

miles, again, i think you're dead wrong on that last assertion.

Trishka, why don't you think that white, working class Democrats make up a large segment of the Democratic party?

Most Obama supporters believe these Democrats will "come home" in the general election. I want to believe that too. But the exit polls in PA show that many of them will defect to McCain. These are the same folks who voted for Reagan -- twice! -- even though it was against their economic self-interest to do so. Why the certainty that it won't happen again?

I think Clinton would be even weaker. What I want to see if some recognition from the Obama campaign that what they're doing to pull in white working class Dems and older Dems isn't working. They need to figure out what will, or McCain will have a serious chance of winning in November.

Here is a good piece written by Josh Marshall of Talking Points Memo and well documented on this specious argument presented here today by Team Clinton that winning a primary state means you will win it in the GE and vice versa. It's a dishonest argument and simply amplifies the antagonism here and growing and possibly permanent split in the party as they justify their move towards an attempted coups by SDs. I am inclined to think that there is no interest in really thinking this through but simply using an argument of what is politically expedient to justify the nonsense and betrayal you have in mind.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/190967.php

Key points: "...it is simply a fallacy to claim that winning a state's Democratic primary means you're more likely to win that state in the general election or that your opponent can't win it....And it's really not a big mystery that the argument doesn't hold up because it wasn't devised or conceived as an electoral argument. It's a political argument -- one that only really came into operation at the point at which the Clinton campaign realized that it was far enough behind that it's path to the nomination required making the argument to superdelegates that she's elected and Obama is not.

"Hillary's new pollster/strategist Geoff Garin (though himself not working with either candidate), comes much closer to the mark when he says in the Times article, "Hillary goes deeper and stronger in the Democratic base than Obama, but her challenge is that she doesn't go as wide. Obama goes much further reaching into the independent and Republican vote, and has a greater chance of creating a new electoral map for the Democrats."

"Clinton is running a bit better against McCain in the rustbelt states that sit just above the Mason-Dixon line. That's principally Ohio (see Ohio polls) and Pennsylvania (see PA polls). ...... In a whole arc of territory stretching from the Great Lakes through the upper Midwest down into the inter-mountain West Obama consistently runs stronger than Hillary. Some of these states are ones Democrats really must win in order to win a general election -- states like Iowa, Wisconsin and Michigan.

Others are states red states that have been trending blue but which Obama appears able to put in play while Hillary can't. Colorado is a good example. The last four polls of the state show Obama tied or ahead of McCain while McCain beats Hillary handily."

It's a good read and sheds some light on the dishonest spin that's been presented here today by Josh and his compatriot, Paddy McGuire.

I have to tell Team Clinton again that what you're up to is a road to disaster. If you think you can rig this thing based on a dishonest and fraudulent "electability" argument and sell that to core constituencies in the Dem coalition, think again. Your candidate's electability in the GE under that scenario of a stolen nomination would be non-existent, the convention, a literal battleground, and the Dem. party without those constituencies will be reduced to a minority party in the long term. The consequences will be felt from the national to the state levels. As Keith Olberman has stated to Hillary so emphatically, "This way lies madness."

My hope in this is the SDs will recognize this strategem as insane and a majority of them will soon take the position formally, as several have done informally, that they will cast their vote for the candidate with the most pledged delegates at the end of this process. That includes some Clinton SDs already, by the way, like Maria Cantwell and Barney Frank. That will effectively neutralize this Tonya Harding strategy that Hillary is inflicting on us.

The NY Times drives a truck through the hole in the Josh Kardon "electability" argument:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/24/us/politics/24clinton.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

"Yet for all of her primary night celebrations in the populous states, exit polling and independent political analysts offer evidence that Mr. Obama could do just as well as Mrs. Clinton among blocs of voters with whom he now runs behind. Obama advisers say he also appears well-positioned to win swing states and believe he would have a strong shot at winning traditional Republican states like Virginia.

According to surveys of Pennsylvania voters leaving the polls on Tuesday, Mr. Obama would draw majorities of support from lower-income voters and less-educated ones — just as Mrs. Clinton would against Mr. McCain, even though those voters have favored her over Mr. Obama in the primaries.

And national polls suggest Mr. Obama would also do slightly better among groups that have gravitated to Republican in the past, like men, the more affluent and independents, while she would do slightly better among women."

Hillary's campaign is flat broke. She wants debates for the free publicity and air time.

It's a tactic, and her press release is just manufactured baloney. And to pretend otherwise - it's dishonest and we see right through it. Stop acting like voters are stupid.

It's so sad to watch someone I used to love put our Party at risk in the general election. If Obama loses in November, I will never forgive Hillary for weakening him during this crucial period. Hillary has no chance to win the nomination...She is down 150 pledged delegates and over 500,000 votes. Obama cannot "close the deal" because Hillary and Bill are entrenched politicians with a very loyal constituency that won't give up. What is Hillary trying to accomplish though? She has no path to win the nomination. If she takes this thing to the Convention, she will doom the Party and re-elect the Bush cronies.

Um- the better question to ask is: Why couldn't she close the deal ? She was the inevitable candidate going into this campaign. Only six months ago she led in the national polls by 20 %. Why can't she pay her bills ? Why is Obama better at fundraising ? How come he has won more votes ?He's not married to the ex- President.

History will look back at Obama's candidacy and marvel at how this upstart was able to surpass the woman who had every single advantage and blew it. Part of the problem, of course is that she has very high unfavorables. In New York City, where I live, I know many people are angry with her negative attacks and will not vote for her in her next senate race. And with the New York Times savaging her yesterday for her negative "mean, vacuous and desperate" campaign yesterday, watch for them to rescind their endorsement. They've put her on warning. Watch for it. It's gonna happen.

No need for debates in Oregon because after North Carolina, the contest is over. It's already over but Mrs. Clinton, who is cloaked in a state of denial, and delusion can't accept it.She's in the throes of one of those stages of grief. She's gonna have to get to the acceptance stage, and when she does, watch for her to emotionally crash.

No need for debates in Oregon because after North Carolina, the contest is over. It's already over but Mrs. Clinton, who is cloaked in a state of denial, and delusion can't accept it.She's in the throes of one of those stages of grief. She's gonna have to get to the acceptance stage, and when she does, watch for her to emotionally crash.

Hillary can't afford to get her message out in Oregon unless she bullies Barack into debates, giving her free air time across the state. Hillary cannot afford to reserve large venues like Barack or run the same time of media advertising. That's her fault for her own mismanagement, and the fact that contributors simply don't want to support her.

When Barack was in Oregon, he talked about Oregon issues. He already communicated directly to us, the voters. No need to go through Hillary's tainted intermediary of a debate. When Hillary was here in Oregon, she wasted time whining about Michigan and Florida.

"No need for debates in Oregon because after North Carolina, the contest is over."

Bad political move for BHO. The candidate who ducks debates, particularly after a bad performance like he had in the last one, invariably looks weak, timid, and scared. Is that the message he wants to sent to voters and superdelagates as the primaries wind down?

Ducking debates feeds into the soft, elitist, can’t-take-a-punch portrait that he’s in danger of having hung around his neck. Not a strong position to be in for the general election.

it's not barack's fault that Hillary has no money to campaign in Oregon. We see thru Buckman's BS.

I think it would really serve our part of the country to have debates focused on the issues important to the Pacific NW. For everyone complaining that the campaign has gone on too long, I would hope that this is one aspect of the campaign we could agree is positive. Guess not? I'm suprised so many don't think it's a good thing. I'm wondering how many of Clinton's 60,000 donors (50,000 of those were new donors) who gave from Tuesday night until noon on Wednesday are from states that have already held a primary and were feeling a bit of voter's remorse?

Obama supporters: I assume you would not feel "robbed" if HRC won the same or more delegates as Obama and then got the nomination. What if she were only 1% below Obama and the Super-Ds pushed her over. Would you be okay with that?

HRC supporters: If HRC does not win an equal or greater number of delegates, how much of a percentage deficit would you allow her to have and still be able to argue the system was fair and representative of the "will of the people". 2%, 5%, 10%?

So, no one responded. These are the conclusions I could draw:

1. HRC supporters see no issue with their candidate winning the nomination through a surge of Super-D votes, even if she loses the popular vote and/or pledged delegate vote by 2, 5 or even 10%.

2. Obama supporters would not support HRCs nomination, even if she were to win an equal number or very close to equal number of pledged delegates. (I doubt this, as many have posted they will vote for her if she wins the nomination).

3. People are more interested in arguing perceived "electability", reasons to or not to debate in OR, $$$ spent or left in campaign budgets, etc.

4. My questions were too poorly worded for people to understand and respond to.

I'm hoping #4 is the reason for lack if response/interest.

Anyone?

-tl

This post from Al Giordano's The Field, explains the scam that Josh Kardon, Paddy McGuire and the rest of the Dem. Party power structure is pulling on us. And why, if they are successful, we will witness the death of the party. Hillary has made herself unelectable by destroying the party coalition. Maybe it's time for it to end. Josh and his pals, Hillary and Bill, have lifted the veil on what this party is about. To quote a formidable revolutionary, you can't put new wine in old wineskins. Pay particular attention to the quotes from the Jack and Jill Blogger, Michele. She tells what these power folks are up to and how it is perceived in the AA community. Enjoy!

http://ruralvotes.com/thefield/?p=1112

Here's one SD that doesn't want to see the party to die, David Wu endorses Obama;

Superdelegate Wu Backs Obama In Oregon
Oregon Rep. David Wu, one of Oregon's 12 Democratic superdelegates, announced Thursday that he'd back Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, citing Obama's stand against the Iraq war "from the very beginning."

Wu joins Oregon Rep. Earl Blumenauer in backing Obama. Gov. Ted Kulongoski and Rep. Darlene Hooley are supporting New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton. The rest of Oregon's superdelegates have not yet announced their choice.

"We need new policies both at home and abroad," Wu said in a statement. "Like Americans, the international community wants to see real change in America and I believe that Senator Obama embodies that change."

The endorsement is an important win for Obama in one of the few states still to vote. Oregon's primary ballots are counted on May 20. FFox 12

What baloney. Debates are not necessary to address the issues. Barack's addressed them when he was in Oregon - no debate needed!

Believe it or not you can become President by winning just 11 states: California, Texas, New York, Florida, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Ohio, Michigan, New Jersey, North Carolina, and Georgia.

Of those, Clinton has won California, New York, Ohio, Florida and Michigan (which didn't count), New Jersey, Pennsylvania, the popular vote in Texas. If the Democrats ran a winner-take-all system like the Republicans, she'd have clinched the nomination. Barack would look like a regional candidate who couldn't win much outside his home state and a few southern states. I realize its upsetting to the B.O. choir here at blue oregon, but Clinton is the stronger candidate, and the more likely to actually win the presidency.

Were People Intimidated in Penn?

A friend In Penn wrote this:

When looking at the points in the polls in NC & IN, there is something I want you all to keep in mind, and it is something we saw here in PA, and it goes beyond the "white guilt" that has been discussed many times already.

We all know that the polls were all over the board for PA, and as it got closer to Tuesday, they were not calling for a 10 point win. I want to tell you about something that we noticed happening as we got closer and closer to Tuesday.

When we started out weeks ago, people were more than willing to tell you who they supported. As we got closer to Tuesday, people in PA were clamming up, refusing to say who they supported with comments like "I don't divulge that info". "I don't discuss politics with strangers". "That's private", etc. and we heard it more and more, the closer we got to the Primary. Some of the "undecideds" we encountered seemed almost afraid to admit that they were leaning towards Hillary.

Anyhow, the girls that were helping me from CA commented on it over the weekend and asked me if it was some sort of PA thing to not admit who you were supporting, because they ahd not encountered it in any other state. It is not. Normally, people here a very vocal about this, because there is no fear of a backlash.

Here is what I think happened. Race was a factor and a certain amount of white people were afraid to admit that they were not going to vote for a black man, whether or not they were actually bigots - so this impacted polls. Then, the race got ugly and the intimidation tactics were out of control. People who supported Hillary were screamed at, insulted, had yard signs stolen, etc. If you went to rallies for her, you were harassed by Obama supporters who in many cases looked and acted like thugs, holding signs that said Go Home Clinton, and ruder things. They circled rallies in cars screaming "Obama" and "F*** Hillary". Anyone wearing a Hillary button or with a bumper sticker on their car suffered their own share of abuse. If you wrote a letter to the editor in support of Hillary or questioning Obama on anything and it got published, you or your family became the victims of harassing phone calls if your phone number was not unlisted.

So, would you tell a stranger who you were voting for if you supported Hillary? Yes, there are those of us who are simply not going to back down and will take whatever comes for supporting Hillary, but I truly believe there were a lot of people in PA who supported Hillary, but were afraid to say it (and you really can't blame them) and as a result, the polls were simply wrong, because people were either lying or when people refused to say, this showed up as an extremely large number of undecideds. In the end, perhaps some people were simply afraid to publicly support Hillary. And, remember, our side doesn't harass Obama supporters, so there is no reason for them to be quiet about who they support.

So, my point (after that long diatribe) is this: I think the same thing will happen in IN & NC, and she will do better than expected. In a race like this, the polls will simply never be a true indication of what is actually happening on the ground.

Hillary has no money to campaign so she wants debates for free air time. She thinks voters are stupid.

It may have been forgotten that only the political junkies really know Barack Obama. Hillary has been around a long time and is either greatly admired or not. Obama is not well known outside Illinois. He has done an amazing job organizing and managing a campaign, growing the party, keeping his team together as an indication of how his cabinet will work, and speaking to voters in more states and more communities than Hillary has even bothered to consider. He will win in Oregon and he will win in November. Go Obama!

Hillary the stronger candidate? Thats not what most of teh polls say. In a head-to-head contest with McCain, Obama polls a lot better in the contested states.

Both Clinton and Obama lose in Florida and Ohio. In past elections this would mean defeat, but Obama is leading in Colorado and is competitive in Nevada and New Hampshire. If he wins these states he can lose in both Ohio and Florida and still become president. The key state is actually Colorado, where there is a huge difference in favorable ratings between Obama and Clinton.

One odd thing about the polls is that both Obama and Clinton now best McCain in Pennsylvania, where McCain had an edge before the PA primary.

Hillary doesn't have a chance to get the nomination. Once Obama is nominated expect a big bounce in his favorable ratings. He appeals to progressive independents and new voters. He might even win Missouri with that appeal.

Kardon sez: The Obama campaign thinks it's just fine that not a single debate has been held in either the Pacific NW or Rocky Mountain states. I'm guessing Oregon isn't going to be very satisfied with that answer.

Apparently, according to Mr. Shapiro at Obama Central, debating is just more Washington, DC talk, more of the old politics. Who knew?

There have been 21 debates in...what? 30 states? And more than one in some states early on, right? SO which states got stiffed? Obviously we need to do a re-run.

California has about 12 times the population of Oregon, so obviously on a per capita basis--which Kardon will have to agree is the only possible fair basis--Clinton should have proposed holding several dozen debates in California. BUT SHE DIDN'T! GOTCHA. Obviously she WANTED to deny the folks in Stockton, Modesto, Bakersfield, Crescent City and Tule Lake a chance to hear out both her and Obama.

Josh Kardon said: "...one of the thousands of progressive, loyal Democrats who have now signed up to help Hillary in Oregon."

"Progressive" is an endangered word. It will die the death of "liberal" if people keep misusing it. The reason why this thread is dominated by horserace "issues" is because there is very little difference between these two "moderates" on anything substantive.

Both have promised to: increase military spending; maintain a large military presence in or near Iraq; refuse to treat Palestinians and Israelis even-handedly; refuse to support single-payer-universal, non-corporate health care; nuclear options "on the table" for Iran; refuse to crack down on corporate crime and end corporate welfare; refuse to cut the bloated, wasteful military budget; refuse to oppose nuclear, and place solar first; refuse to push for impeachment of the war criminals in the White House; refuse to adopt a Wall Street securities speculation tax; refuse to work to end corporate personhood.

At the very least, you should be honest enough to label wolves in sheeps' clothing as wolves.

Maya Angelou support Hillary Clinton.

I am Honored to Say I am With Hillary for the Long Run by Dr. Maya Angelou4/24/2008 2:39:10 PM Dear Friend:

I am writing to tell you about my friend, Hillary Clinton, and why I am standing with her in her campaign for the presidency. I know the kind of president Hillary Clinton will be because I know the person she is.

I am inspired by her courage and her honesty. She is a reliable and trustworthy person. She is someone I not only admire but one for whom I have profound affection.

Hillary does not waver in standing up for those who need a champion. She has always been a passionate protector of families. As a child, she was taught that all God’s children are equal, and as a mother, she understood that her child wasn’t safe unless all children were safe. As I wrote about Hillary recently in a praise song: “She is the prayer of every woman, and every man who longs for fair play, healthy families, good schools and a balanced economy.”

It may be easy to view Hillary Clinton through the narrow lens of those who would write her off or grind her down. Hillary sees us as we are, black and brown and white and yellow and pink and relishes our differences knowing that fundamentally we are all more alike than we are unalike. She is able to look through complexion and see community.

She has endured great scrutiny, and still she dares greatly. Hillary Clinton will not give up on you, and all she asks is that you do not give up on her. She is a long-distance runner. I am honored to say I am with her for the long run.

I am supporting Hillary Clinton because I know that she will make the most positive difference in people’s lives and she will help our country become what it can be. Whether you are her supporter, leaning towards her, undecided, or supporting someone else, I believe Hillary Clinton will represent you – she will be a president for all Americans. It is no small thing that along the way we will make history together.

Vote for Hillary Clinton and show your support at www.hillaryclinton.com. I know she will make us proud.

I am part of the "activist wing" of the Democratic party, and I am tired of my vote being taken for granted.

I am tired of the politics of 50.01% and the belief that only fifteen states really matter. Mine isn't one of them.

I am tired of triangulating, equivocating, vacillating.

I am tired of the politics of division, the politics of fear, and the Bush/Clinton/Bush dynasties.

I am tired of the endless spin, spin, spin: black is white, up is down, bad is good, and winning 15 out of 45 contests is losing.

I'm tired of politicians and their apologists mocking the idea of hope, inspiration, and unity.

I believe in Obama because he believes that every state matters.

I believe in Obama because he's not afraid to speak hard truths, even if they're not politic.

I believe in Obama because he hasn't spent the last 35 years (almost as long as I've been alive) wrapped in a bubble of old-style politics, influence, money, power, and privilege.

I believe in Obama because he believes in the power of hope.

Don't expect me to swallow the insults, forget the realities, and vote Clinton. It's not going to happen this time.

Stacy 6, did you just say that Barack Obama believes every state matters? Come on, is this some kind of joke?

<h2>The only states the matter to Barack Obama are the caucus states and the cheating he did in them, and not counting Michigan and Florida because he knew he was going to lose in both of them. Barack Obama took his name off of the ballot in Michigan specifically because he was going to lose in that state.</h2>