huh?

I agree. I keep hearing that Hillary's winning states that are Dem stronghold therefore she's the stronger candidate for the general. I think it's just the opposite. Most of her big wins came in states that usually go Dem. Obama's taking huge chucks of independants and even some GOP votes in typically GOP states. I think who ever ends up being the Dem nominee will win states like New York. But Obama has a decent shot at states where she simply has little or no support.

Plus most polls show Obama beating McCain and Hillary losing to McCain.

I think that makes Obama a stronger candidate.

No, Hillary, You Can't
 

Despite my being in the Barack Obama camp and his streak of 11 blowout victories in February, Hillary Clinton still had my support to compete in the Mini-Tuesday primaries in OH, TX, RI, and VT. Perhaps these voters would show their support for Clinton akin to the 15 and 20 percentage point victories Obama's supporters demonstrated in February. Maybe these voters would spin the race around 180 degrees by emphatically giving the senator from New York huge margins. As the results trickled in yesterday, the aforementioned clearly did not occur. In Rhode Island and Vermont, the size of the states and victory margins means they almost offset each other. Clinton, with the help of longtime ally Governor Strickland, did indeed win Ohio by 10 percentage points. Texas, however, was a split decision as Clinton won the primaries by four percent and Obama took the caucuses by 12 percent. The net result is a Clinton gain of four or fewer delegates out of a possible 228. One doesn't need a calculator to realize that just won't cut it. It's laughable to see headlines about Clinton's "huge" victories in both Texas and Ohio. That's like saying 98 Degrees has a "humongous" fan base (Sorry having now-25 year old women using your CD as a coaster doesn't count as being a fan).


Despite being a political science major, I have never donated to a candidate in my life. That streak came to an end this morning when I logged onto barackobama.com and sent in a contribution. Every major media outlet from the Wall Street Journal to CNN to NBC to Congressional Quarterly claims that it is essentially mathematically impossible for Clinton to make up the pledged delegate deficit. This bitter intra-party fighting has done enough damage to the Democratic cause and needs to end now before Bush's party gets more time to fundraise and campaign for McCain. If Clinton wants to influence a national contest, then she needs to pick up the phone and vote for the next American Idol because the people have chosen their Democratic representative. The Democrats cannot continue to drain their limited resources against each other during the primary rather than in the November election.


(Aside: I don't understand why North Carolina's primary on May 6 is not getting more attention. NC is the 9th most populous state in the nation and its 91 delegates exceed Wyoming, Montana, South Dakota, and Oregon combined.)

I just sent him more cash this morning as well. Got lots of room before I hit the $2500 mark. The more she plays cheap and dirty the closer I'll get to that number. At this point Hillary can get me to donate simply by dragging this thing out. Too bad for her my donations will be going to her opponent.

I don't get why NC isn't getting more air time either.

I have to say I'm almost hoping it drags onto North Carolina, because that's where I live. It would be nice to get a chance to vote in this primary. Also we're teaching our kids about elections this year, and it would be great to take them to hear the candidates speak once or twice.

We also have the fastest-growing population of native Spanish speakers of any state in the country. So it'll be an interesting primary, as well as an important one.

None of the above. I don't know if Root will get the nomination from his party, but there are a couple of strong points I dont agree with him on. I may be with ARTelevision and not voting. I'll have to see what happens in terms of independents. I also think there should be a rethinking in the vote counts; I don't trust where it is at now. There needs to be more than 2 podiums on the stage during the primary debates.

Pan, I do not wish to derail this conversation anymore, but I want to make clear that I am only giving my honest observations, accumulated over time. I would not make such a statement lightly or with malicious intent (unless I thought you were a hateful person, which I don't).

I am not one to pore over long-dead threads to 'gather evidence' to make a case against a person. Suffice it to say that I am speaking honestly and I am not the only person who has made these same observations.

Maybe if you weren't so defensive, you would take a moment to ponder what it means that you are so often coming across this way when you are talking about issues of race and culture that you deem to be 'un-American.'

This the last I have to say on this subject. I hold no hard feelings against you, but I understand if you cannot say the same for me.

I have seen his record and read through the bills. What I am forced to wonder is if he is that good at getting bi-partisan support or if he has just chosen issues which are something of no brainers for legislators to sign onto. In all the articles I read (and I know I have hardly read them all, far from it) the examples given seem pretty straight forward to me. I have fallen on the conservative side of politics pretty much all my life, although it is definitely a more centrist view than true GOP conservativism and I would have no issue with voting for most, if not all, of Obama's legislation.

I also see McCain's record where he has gone against the grain of both parties with campaign finance reform and immigration reform. I will grant you that neither of these solutions were or are perfect by my standards but they do represent progress. More importantly, they were focused at big, hot button issues of the day that were getting big press. McCain knew when he went after them his position was an exposed one and he was opening himself up for shots not just from his opponents but also from his own party.

Do you watch presidential politics much? This is SOP at this point in the process. Every 4 years the candidates for the two parties slide right or left, respectively, to appeal to the party faithful and then move back to the center for the general. Granted, the degrees to which they move either way differs but they do move.

McCain has had no choice but to distance himself from somethings he has done that the party faithful are angry about in order to get this far in the process. Now that he is presumptive nominee we will see what happens. If he continues to distance himself from his own past, you might be correct.

I do not believe he has gone "neocon", at least not the point you seem to think. I could be wrong though and I will be watching to see what he does/says between now and November.

His slide could also be the result of oncoming dementia, but it's really hard to say. What I do know is that McCain was running for president before, but wasn't taking these stances. Either he's realized you have to be out of your gourd to get the nomination or he's gone soft in the melon.

Suddenly I'm hungry for gourd and melon.

Does it matter to you that he's breaking the campaign finance law that bears his name?

Whether or not he is breaking it has yet to be decided as I understand it although I will grant that he is, at the very least, walking a fine line and that does not sit real well with me.

However, neither of the other 2 are lily white at this point either. If I were holding out for someone truly squeaky clean then I would never vote for anyone now would I?

Sadly it is almost always the lesser of evils.

Was that a black joke? I don't get it.

Correct! It is arguable that in every election since 1984 the American people have not so much elected a President and voted against the loser.

No, it is not a black joke. It is an expression. In this case it indicates that both Obama and Clinton have their own issues with ethical matters.

I know. I was kidding.

Still, I'm unaware of any real ethical issues with Obama .

Every heard the name Tony Rezko?

At best Obama's association with him is an example of a poor choice in friends and I, for one, am tired of that being an issue for the White House. I think Bush's biggest mistakes have revolved around his choice of advisers and I don't want to see it repeated by the next President.

Obama bought some land without thinking. I'm still not 100% sure why people consider it an issue. There's no evidence whatsoever that there was a back room deal or anything.

I'm from Chicago, and I really don't see anything to be concerned about whatsoever with regards to Obama and Rezko. This kind of stuff easily gets blown out of proportion in the national media, where Rezko himself isn't a big news story overall. Here, however, it's much more clear that if there's any major politician who needs to be looked at with suspicion when it comes to Rezko ties, it's Public Official A....er, I mean, Governor Blagojevich.

That said, Obama's not squeaky clean...but no one is, politician or not. I'm much more comfortable with his level of ethical imperfection than I am with Clinton or McCain's.

Our last 8 years of precedent notwithstanding, friends != advisors.

Obama has named some of the names of people he'd like surrounding him in his administration. He's included some prominent, if moderate, Republicans. Curiously, he hasn't included Tony Rezko. What do you make of that, Seymour?

What I make of that is that Rezko was indited a while ago and Obama knew the trial was coming so of course he would not include him. We will never know if Obama would have chosen to include him or not but we do know that Obama took money from him before the indictment.

And please understand, I am not saying there was definitely anything funny business going on but after years of things just like this I am skeptical and I tend to think that if there is smoke there maybe fire.

Money that he donated to charity upon the indictment.

Yeah, but what charity? I'm betting by the time August rolls around, if he's still in it, the charity will be rumored to be something like "Islamic Freedom Bombers for Virgins"

Absolutely. And there are two things to note about this too.

1. This was the best political move he could make under the circumstances. Any political strategist from either party who was worth their paycheck would have advised him to do this.

2. By the time the allegations became public enough for him to be called on it, money was not issue for him and so giving this money up was not really a big deal. I can't help but wonder what he would have done if money had been tight at the time. Fortunately for him, he did not have to make the hard choice here so we will never know.