I just got my reminder call last night from the Obama campaign, to go to the legislative district caucuses on the 5th of April...

This defies logic. Everyone knows that the delegates are too offended by the Obama internet flames to ever go over to him. It is a known fact that the warm and kind Hillary comments have been drawing people off the fence to her. Known fact: Obama posts are mean. Hillary posts are nice.

This story must be wrong. I bet it's really Clinton +9, Obama -1. That is the only thing that fits with the proven facts.

Remember what what a huge smash hit Snakes on a Plane was, due to the powerful effect of internet posts? Same thing.

Go over to realclearpolitics and check out how that polling is going.

A taste of what's coming from the right wing:

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/opinion/columnists/datelinedc/s_557516.html

Obama's going to eke it out in the pledged delegate count and win the nomination. Here are suggestions as to how to go on to win the general election:

1. Say he intends to compete with HRC but only by making his case against McCain, on the war and the economy, and not by addressing her or what she says. Nor will he get into delegate math every day. This campaign is about more than that.

2. Be a bit more specific about the changes in foreign policy and the economy. Spell out what basing our foreign policy on true American ideals means. condemnt that pastor a bit more strongly esp. where he said we fought WW2 the wrong way. We use force when needed, Bush used it when not needed and that made things worse. We use diplomacy and our moral leadership and that's the long term solution to the war on terror -- in fact, that's how we won the cold war, by being a beetter society it made them want to join us.

Or some such. The point is, show us the road forward don't just invoke vague "change" meme.

3. Say yes, he needs to do better among blue collar whites and he will go on a listening tour to do better. Say something nice about GF and yes, being black is obviously part of what makes him who he is and how he got where he is and yes, damn it, American electing a black dude is a great thing and is one part -- part! -- of all the change he will bring.

4. Say HRC is expected to be on the short list for VP -- of course !! -- and on the list for the cabinet -- he expects there will be some 100 people on the list of potential VP or cabinet. He'll say no more till announcements are made. Oh a question -- what about other Democratic candidates? "Well, I'd think most of them shoudl be on that list too. Maybe all but one or two" [laughter in audience]

As to HRC yes, obviously anyone who has gotten 48-49% of the popular vote or pledged delegates by now, and has as much experience as she does, should be considered.

5. Say FL should be seated with pledged delegates split 50%-33% just like the vote that we already had. It's intolerable for Americans to not have voting rights and he's not going to play games for political advantage. He supports a revote in Michigan, too.

All this says he is strong, he is our national leader, he is starting change right now, and he is different than the politics of the past that focuses on division and fighting. He's fighting for all of us but in a new way -- with our heads held higher, looking to the future.

This helps us win in the Fall.

Spending from now till the end of August responding to attacks, attacking HRC, and talking about 9 delegates here and 2 delegates there -- not as helpful.

Isn't this what an amalgamam of FDR-JFK-AL-MLK would do?

You're welcome!

McG, you linked to an article dated today, March 16, 2008. It isn't from the future. It is not what's coming. It is right now.

So you are publicizing today's dirt, and you're doing it today. You should take responsibility for that. It isn't a prognostication and it isn't from the right wing. It is here and now and it's coming from you, not them.

You know, I was halfway through post #2, without knowing who posted it, and I thought "Jesus Christ, what a flaming asshole - posts like this are exactly what turns people off to Obama." And then I saw whn wrote it. Silly me for expecting better.

I remember reading a high-ranking Clinton campaign official, speaking anonymously, saying that they were going to make a play to get pledged delegates to switch--to essentially go back on their pledges. Might've been in Newsweek. Disturbing, although you have to wonder, even if they were going to do such a thing, why any of them would admit to it.

For me as an Obama supporter, what's so frustrating is that this campaign has entered a kind of purgatory. You know there's no way Clinton is catching up in terms of popular vote or pledged delegates, but you also know there's no way Clinton is going away. No matter how divisive and destructive Hillary and her campaign get, there's a solid, sizable bloc of voters in the remaining states that just will not leave her.

Take Texas. Obama had momentum, he had the endorsement of the seven largest daily newspapers in the state,* and then in the last few days things got really dirty, and Hillary ended up winning the popular vote.** And even if things hadn't gotten dirty, she probably still would have come away with the primary vote. I see Pennsylvania being a lot like that.

* I guess we can all agree that daily newspapers' endorsements aren't worth the paper they're printed on.
** What reinforces the purgatorio aspect of this is the fact that Obama came away from Texas with more delegates, thanks to the caucus. It's like the guy can't win for winning.

Uncle Shirley, the sum total of your efforts on the Slog has been to call somebody an asshole. To realistically expect better, you would need to contribute something yourself.

I read the link. Mc Cain will not be polite or stop at any messages. Because Washington is a blue state, most of the attack Obama messages will not come to our state.

They will use them in mailings and on cable TV - internet sites, and at rallies.

It will be an attack heavy, negative campaign.

I can handle either Democrat, and will vote and work for the winner of all this campaigning.

Clean driven snow is getting hard to find.

Michelle might be a real liability. I wonder what else she has said that, now, has negative value.

Buch up folks, it is a close race, and many miles to go. Feel so strange to think the real presidential election is just getting started and will go 7 1/2 months. God, give us endurance and the will to keep up the fight.

Too busy today to watch Mc Cain in Iraq. The war monger is going to make it the war. Well, I guess he can't use the economy, now can he.

(metaphor, I am agnostic)

A little more civility among you Dems today. What gives?

elenchos pointing to stories on a pro Obama blog is publicizing the dirt? Obama supporters should know what's out there, no? They are just starting. Sand boxes available at every park.

It has been my point of view that Obama has been given a pass by the press and even Hillary hasn't hit like the Reps will.

BTW apparently Obama went after Edwards' delegates who has only suspended his campaign. The horror.

Cressona you sound more and more like Fox - people say....

For all the applause and/or worship heaped upon Obama, rightly or wrongly, I must credit him for making me finally love MATH.

@7-- don't forget to mention

1) Rush Limbaugh's push to get Republicans to turn out for Clinton (since their own candidate is already decided) just to "bloody up" Obama (Rush's own words) and

2) Bill Clinton himself going on the Rush Limbaugh show (even if Rush was out "sick" that day)

which could have affected last-minute turnout and blunted Obama's upward momentum in Texas.

And it bears repeating for the umpteenth time that only months before the Texas primary that Obama was down TWENTY points and erased it with his hard work and campaign organization.

And it bears repeating for the umpteenth time that though Obama lost the primary vote by 3 points, when combined with the caucuses, he ended up tied or winning the actual delegate count.

And yes, kids, it's the delegates that count toward winning the nomination.

But yes, there is a purgatory miasma hanging over the current impasse, and I don't expect Pennsylvania to break it unless Obama pulls off a surprising win (very unlikely) or there's a dramatic endorsement from Gore or Edwards and/or a sudden migration of super-delegates (or "automatic delegates" as the Clinton camp wants them called).

If Pelosi's recent statements are any measurement of what's going on behind closed doors for Democratic circles, that could happen... soon.

Pelosi has not been what I expected.

Too rich?? Doesn't like to use her authority?? Too SFO??

Too bad.

@3

That's small beans, son.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keating_Five

remember this? not pleasant.

plus, john maccain is OLD. an old man. really old. no one likes old.

one more thing to remember....GOD is trying to kill mccain, and has been for nearly 40 years.

remember the USS Forrestal, July 29, 1967? 134 dead. it was john mccain's plane that was hit by the bomb that triggered the chain reaction.

god's work.

oh, remember vietnam? POW 6 years?

god's work.

oh yeah....9/11? United Airlines Flight 93 heading for the Capitol? "McCain noted that the hijackers on Flight 93 may well have had the U.S. Capitol as their target. The actions of Bingham and others aboard to bring the flight down in western Pennsylvania, he said, may well have saved McCain’s life that day. “Such a debt,” he said, “you incur for life.”"

god's work.

god doesn't want mccain to live, let alone be president.

@11 McG

"Pointing out" on the Internet is publicizing. Stories meant to hint at scandal without evidence are "dirt."

You are publicizing dirt.

Which is "just politics," as they say. But you refuse to own up to it. You think publicizing the dirt you heard from others washes your hands of it. You think making the Republicans into a bogeyman you are nobly trying to warn everyone about washes your hands of it.

No dice. If the dirt comes from you, it's your dirt. Own it.

Elenchos, I hear what you're saying--I really do get it. But I think McG's point (and McG can certainly correct me if I'm wrong) is that we Obama supporters should be aware of what puddles of mud the right wing is going to throw at him if he is the eventual nominee. It doesn't matter whether there is any substance to it; Rush and Faux News and the rest have got their sheep trained like Pavlov's dogs (pardon the mixed metaphor) to howl at Hillary at the mere mention of the words Whitewater, Vince Foster, Paula Jones or Monica Lewinsky. Never mind that the Clintons were found by a jury to have done nothing wrong in the first "scandal", the second is too ridiculous to be taken seriously by any intelligent person, and that Hillary was an innocent bystander in the last two--the right has a selective memory and will believe what it wants to believe. You can be sure these words will be repeated like a mantra by this crowd in the unlikely possibility that Hillary is the nominee. And if Obama is the nominee we should be aware that the word Rezko will be enough to similarly send the right into an anti-Obama frenzy even if they don't have the intelligence to understand even the foggiest details of their connection. I have already seen evidence of this on the actual right wing blogs--and yes, I do occasionally check them out to see what is on their dustmite sized minds. And then I go soak in a tub full of Lysol...

Oh bullshit.

"Should be aware." As if you're the only ones who gots the Internets and the Cable TV at your house. Rest assured, every Obama supporter, and their grandmother, and their dog, and their distant cousin in Nepal is aware. But you knew that.

You also know that this, "Oh, as your friend, let me just kindly make you aware" argument fails. For months and months trying to scare everyone away from Obama because of the big bad wolf has failed. I refer you to the popular vote, states won, and delegates pledged as proof that this argument doesn't work.

But I assume you're smart enough to know it has failed. So why keep doing it? Why keep bringing up dirt and innuendo and hearsay and guilt by association? Why?

All this pretense at being a loyal friend just out to warn us of the attacks to come is total bullshit. You are not warning anybody of the smears that are in store for us. You are making the smears yourself right now.

You're right elenchos, looking towards the possible future is nothing but a conspiracy against your preferred candidate. How silly to assume otherwise.

@18: For the record, Elenchos, I am an Obama supporter. I am sorry if that wasn't clear from the 5,793 previous posts I have made on Slog saying so.

elenchos popular vote and delegates yes but total states are not an important measure.

Why is it that when Barrack's campaign brilliantly went after red and caucus states within the rules that is fine but Hillary going after the big states and super delegates also within the rules that's not legitimate?

I can't ask what is dirt because that would publicize it but perhaps I'm allowed to put a link to the Village Voice.

http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0811,374100,374100,2.html

This article points out that right wing republicans have been supporting Barrack in primaries because of their hatred for Hillary with no promise to vote for him in the general. How is this not as bad as Reps voting for Hillary in Texas?

Haven't finished it yet but had to share.

@20 Sorry, I meant to switch to addressing McG & Co again, after first responding to you.

@21 I don't know. Who said it isn't legitimate? Not me. All I know is that Hillary's strategy didn't work. Didn't net enough delegates in a contest whose purpose is to win delegates. Too bad.

As far as whom the right wing pundits support, the question to me is "How is this not as bad as Reps voting for Hillary in Texas?" I don't know. I don't answer for what right wing pundits do. Ask them.

If somewhere in there you've got an argument for why the super delegates should throw the election to Hillary over the will of the voters, sure, make that argument if you like. Love to hear it.

You don't need my permission to link to the Village Voice or anywhere else. I'm only saying I think it's dishonest to say, link to stories about Hillary being a lesbian Satanist who had an affair with Vince Foster before killing him, while pretending it is really somebody else saying it -- I'm just bringing it to your attention in case you hadn't been warned. For your own good, 'cause I'm your friend and all.

I could be wrong. Maybe out of loyalty to my friends in the Clinton camp I should be finding stories about Clinton scandals and warning everyone about them. Preparing you to deal with them. Making sure as many people as possible have been exposed to every salacious detail for their own good. Especially the phony stories. The more outrageous the lie, the more it is my duty as a loyal Democrat to whisper it into the ear of every single Hillary supporter, so they will be steeled and ready.

Should I do that? Would that help?

McG, shame on you for posting that sort of information dirt. Obama is our annointed leader now and anyone who stands in his way or points out anything contrary to that is a traitor and destroying the democratic party.

Hillary obviously has no experience in anything, including running and winning federal office twice against competent and well funded republicans with strong independant support. She should in no way count any experience she has gained being a major part of two other successful campaigns for President. As opposed to our Dear Leader of course, who has had one federal race against super candidate Alan Keyes thus making him the most qualified and experienced candidate when it comes to actually running for President.

All she's doing by staying in this completely non-competive race is sowing decisiveness. Anytime she points out that our Dear Leader could possibly maybe potentially have flaws in his character, platform, or comptency it just exposes her as an egotistical monster. Compare this to our Dear Leader who is a model of selflessness and modesty who would never dream of being a politician but instead only wants the office because he loves us all so very very much.

Seriously McG, sometimes I doubt your committment to Sparkle Motion.

Never fear, the Great and Powerful Oz will take care of everything. Wait, don't look behind that curtain. . . .

elencos you are being very dishonest. Hillary hasn't lost the contest even if we take the rules to be, he who wins the popular vote wins the nominaion. This push of the Obama campaign to say super delegates must vote with the majority is nothing but a tactic. Just as the DNC allowed disproportionate advantage to winning in small red caucus states it also allowed for supers to vote for say a more electable candidate or one that has done more for the party over the years or for whatever reason.

Will the Obama supporters swear to back Clinton if she passes him in popular vote? And what about him going after Edwards pledged delegates?

Could you please tell me what I have linked too even in the wildest imagination, say say that of Will of Seattle, approaches Hillary being satan?

What really struck me about the Village Voice article is how many of the Republican points the Obama people also use.

I have read on this very blog about Whitewater, Marc Rich, Foster, TAX RECORDS, option trading, library donations, Kazakhstan (?) etc etc.

Months of Clinton bashing but nothing can be said about Obama. Give me a break.

Not exactly falling like a rock more like a pebble but check it out. I'm sure pointing this out somehow is helping the enemy or maybe my posts here have caused it but so be it.

http://www.pollingreport.com/wh08gen.htm

OK, I get it. You're a nutter like unPC. Plink!

That's right McG! You're a nutter! Wow, you sure showed him your awesome powers of reason and logic elenchos! Keep at it man!

(Is this the part where Obama gives us all cake?)

Donolectic-

First off, the retarded don’t rule the night. They don’t rule it – nobody does. And they don’t run in packs. And while they may not be as strong as apes, don’t lock eyes with ‘em, don’t do it. Puts ‘em on edge. They might go into berserker mode, come at you like a whirling dervish, all fists and elbows. You might be screaming, ‘No, no, no,’ – all they hear is, ‘Who wants cake?’ Let me tell you something: They all do. They all want cake.

elenchos, willful ignorance is never pretty. I've said all along that the fatal flaw of the Obama supporters is the assumption that Obama will change the political dialog in this country. Your hysterical reaction to someone pointing out what the enemy is doing proves my point.

And I WILL make the argument that the supes should "throw" the election- they should use the vote that THEY HAVE BEEN GIVEN- to choose Clinton over Obama. He's a state senator who won a non-election against a retard and immediately started running for President. All the while getting a free pass / sloppy blowjob from the press. She won *two* heavily contested elections against well funded candidates despite fifteen years of taxpayer funded Republican smear campaigns.

1. McG. ain't me, ain't anutter me. He cites facts, while I argue and get snarky "at will".

2. the anti American pastor problem is out there -- it being laughable to claim "um, aw, I didn't actually hear those things while sitting in the pew...guess I missed out on hearing the fundamental philosphy of my own pastor over 20 years"

As Josh said, that's obvious bullshit.
Now we see a 5 point drop in the Gallup tracking poll for Obama. Either this will continue and we will end up praosing superdelegates for doing their job and not robotically reflecting the pledged delegate count -- or at best we'll have a tough fight against McCain with Obama as nominee.

3. So, instead of standing around in a post-transcendent fog, maybe we should figure out how to win in the fall?
I mean other than crying at people who point out negative news and calling them names. So, earlier today I offered a specific plan for Obama to become mroe electable, by beefing up his positives. Stay on message against McCain, flesh out the change we are buying if we elect Obama. Do not focus on HRC. End and rise above intra party infighting. Seat FL and float HRC as VP now and sort of declare victory in the nomination contest; pivot and shift to making case against McCain. Be fucking presidential already.

Damn some of those ideas are good.

4. Now I hear about how Obama gave away a US Senate internship -- insde the office access -- for a $10,000 donation arranged by Rezko? They guy on trial for .....getting his buddies placed in office, in return for donations?

Great.
OK. Obama took $250K in donations from Rezko, over the years, took his help buying that mansion, and sold an internship, and all the time never thought Rezko would ever call up with an itchy back because ... well, because I guess that wasn't part of the chicago culture.

BZZZZZT wrong answer.

Because....he hadn't called up yet.

Great.

Great judgment.

What a narrative of change, and the new politics. "I took his help before he could ask me for favors! I am really different! I am the change we seek!"

See no. 3 above. I mean, if you want to win in the fall or anything.

I was told a while back that a 10% Obama win qualified as a landslide. So what happens if Clinton wins PA in a landslide? Supes roll over like Kristin Ashley Alexandra Dupre...

Hey, unPC, got a ref for that Gallup poll?

Sven you hurt me so bad.

I linked to the poll above.

You only care about unPC and elenchos thinks I'm a nutter.

@30,

Obama polled well even when Ryan was still in the race.

Lazio was not a real candidate and Hillary barely beat him. She would not have beaten Giuliani.

Thanks, McG. But I think unPC is talking about some other poll. Yours doesn't show a 5 pt drop, does it?

kesh@35

Lazio was not a real candidate and Hillary barely beat him. She would not have beaten Giuliani.

Giuliani/Lazio outspent Clinton $60m to $30m. Keyes spent a total of $50k against Obama. Clinton was ahead of Giuliani when he withdrew from the race.

Better luck next time.

Oh, and Kesh? Hillary faced a candidate who had previously won a US House seat.

Obama almost lost the primary to a candidate who had never won an election (Blair Hull, who had to drop out due to allegations of spousal abuse), ran against a candidate who had never won an election (Ryan) and then Alan *Fucking* Keyes.

You see what I'm saying?

He's. Un. Tested.

Oh, and Kesh, one more thing? Clinton beat Lazio by twice the margin (55-43%) that Obama currently commands in pledged delegates (53-47%).

Un. Test. Ed.

Above - WHAT THE ASS CRACK - OR, THANKS SEVEN, WHAT THE SLOPPY BLOW JOB -

Someone said Clinton did not have a solid win for the Senate - DEARS - if Clinton won 55 - 43, that is a stunning win in todays divided races.

Ask Gov. Gregoire about that margin ... What is all this denial about the political past of Clinton? It is very Republican, and what a hoot, digging up all the old slander as fact. Hoot, hoot hoot.

Clinton will enlarge her margins in Pa. as she can tackle the economy with some great skill. Her plan to fight the Mortage meltdown is much stronger than Obama. AND SHE CAN PLAY THE CLINTON GOLDEN YEARS FOR JOBS AND A BALANCED BUDGET, CANT SHE?

If you want to stick her with all the old Clinton poison, then, she gets to take all the positives, yes?

Elenchos, you are getting a bit stressed, take a break. The race is still on.

@37,

So? Hutchison outspent Feinstein in '96, using his own money, the moron. He wasn't a real candidate, so he didn't win.

And @38 and 39,

Are you going to dispute that Obama has run an incredible campaign? Ver. Y. Test. Ed.

He's beating the presumpted candidate and has shown incredible organizational and campaign skills. He is Ver. Y. Test. Ed.

Finally, candidates have to run on an actual message and an actual campaign. This is the main reason Lazio was a joke candidate. He didn't run on anything other than "I'm not Hillary." "She's been vetted" is hardly an inspirational slogan and is not helpful in the ultimate fight for the White House.

It would seem the move to the first concern of voters is the economy - that does work well for Hilary.

From what I have hears so far, Obama can claim getting a good deal on his house and added lot, not much else ref. the economy.

Hilary as wonk will talk circles on the economy, including more time in the Senate working on massive budgets. Solid policy vs. glam.

I'd also like to see your stats on Hillary outpolling Giuliani in May 2000, because this link shows that they were in a dead heat.

Giuliani was (inexplicably) popular in New York City. You don't win the state without it.

Any person with one modicum of political sense MUST say Obama has run a BRILLANT campaign .... so.

And he has a great future ..... as.

@42,

Do you really think Americans want wonkishness or policy or any of that boring shit?

The one and only thing we really share is an interest in our pocketbook and its contents.

Jobs, cash to spend, food on the table, house pmt. on time - yes, it is the economy.

Wonk is just a word meaning some skills and knowledge in that area.

The elders in my extended family still talk of the Great Depression and are getting ready. Which of the two can position correctly the issue of the economy might be very important.

Kesh - he's run an incredible campaign against other democrats for democratic votes and there's been lots of mashing of teeth about how unfair it all is to him.

Running against republicans? Completely different arena. Sven is right, he's untested. The primaries are like comparing preschool to graduate school. So Obama can color in between the lines - great, let's see him paint a masterpiece.

times of war, recession = status quo

and who is that

Look, no matter who runs, the democrats have already lost in 08 with there blatant race baiting and gender politics.

oops I was wrong. There is no link that directly supports what I said about Gallup tracking poll. My error. It waas due to mishearing what someone told me, all my fault. Must set out actual facts now:

Turns out, the Gallup tracking poll merely says Obama failed to sustain a five point lead ..... not quite what I said.

I mixed in my head, that misheard factoid with the realclear national head to heads, which show Obama dropping against McCain over the time period of the pastor problem:

Below we have name of poll, no. of likely voters asked, McCain % Obama % undecided % & spread from realclearpolitics site, and I number the lines for easy reference for my overly long comments later (damn, just can't get this ADD/internet video game blam blam way of thinking/talking, how boooring):

1. RCP Average 03/05 - 03/15 - 45.8 45.0 6.3 McCain +0.8
2. Rasmussen Tracking 03/12 - 03/15 1700 LV 47 43 10 McCain +4.0
3. Gallup Tracking 03/11 - 03/15 4393 RV 47 44 4 McCain +3.0
4. NBC/WSJ 03/07 - 03/10 1,012 RV 44 47 5 Obama +3.0
5. Newsweek 03/05 - 03/06 1,215 RV 45 46 -- Obama +1.0

sooo......
1. McCain is now AHEAD of Obama.
Where are all those R's and I's that Obama folks said wouldd flock to Obama?
They ain't doin' it. Compare to Clinton v. McCain at http://www.realclearpolitics.com/
Gee whiz Molly, Clinton is up over McCain by 0.2!
Clinton is BEATING Obama right now! There is NO EVIDENCE AS OF TODAY that Obama wins, or even does better than Clinton. Guess his ties to an ultra lefty pastor show that he's perceived as more partisan and divisive than Clinton, and SHE'S getting more R's and I's, or keeping more D's, whatever, than he does.

Damn those facts.

2-4: This shows from March 5 to March 15 Obama dropped from being 1-3 points AHEAD OF McCAIN (lines 4-5) to being 3 or 4 points BEHIND McCAIN in the second two polls (lines 2-3).
Of course it is totally false wrong deceptive and and slimey of me to compare different polls across time this way. So just saying what I just said was yet another "error." Saying outright Obama dropped 5 points or seven points or such, in one tracking poll or implying it was in one poll, is what we call "obvious bullshitting" (like Josh said Obama did when he claimed to never have heard his pastor condemn America).

So sorry! But I was trying to be subtle and all cool about it, so, like Obama, it's really OK, if you know what I mean. The corrected accurate statement would be that "poll*s*" "might indicate" Obama has dropped "significantly" "perhaps" from being up 3 points (NBC) to being down 4 (Rasmussen) due to the pastor problem in the last few days, though "some claim" comparing polls like this "may be" a "flawed" technique.

Boy, the way I handled that error by subtly obviously bullshitting a bit, but immediately correcting it shows signs of genius, and it turns out, I like myself even more after I have addressed this problem so quickly and so subtly, while obviously bullshitting. A little bit.

The overall point remains: my pastor is a decent man who helps the poor and who brought me to Jesus -- um, oops, I mean, the point remains -- what the Obama folks sold us after Iowa -- that Obama Is A Transcendent Candidate Who Will Get Lots of Votes From Republicans And Independents And Will Like, Totally Change!! the Political Dialogue, Dude, and Be Vastly More Electable Than The Old Divisive Bitch Hillary Who Will Win If At All Only By a Tiny Margin -- that's all total bullshit and just wrong.

Oh well once again I have written too much, yet another error. Regrets! The short story is this:
Obama-NOT beating McCain.

Word.

@47,

If Hillary is so tested, and those tests are so indicative of her superiority as a candidate, why isn't she winning?

In 2000, she had name recognition that even money can't buy, she was married to an incredibly popular President, and she had the success of the '90s to rely upon, not to mention that she was running against a joke candidate who no one had heard of before he entered the race. (Lazio was polling at 30 percent when he threw his hat into the ring.) In 2006, she was an incumbent.

Today, she still has name recognition, people's old fondness for Bill, and their nostalgia for the '90s, not to mention the full force of the Machine behind her. What does it say about her tested-ness that she can't beat some upstart, "untested", "unqualified" candidate?

All I know is that I have a lot of friends and family in Pennsylvania, and if what they've said to me over the weekend counts for anything, Obama's road kill there.

The Gallup tracking poll is linked below. It is a rolling average of five days with a total of 4400 polled or about 880 per day. On Weds. the 11th Obama was leading by 2% by Friday he was tied and by Sunday he was behind by 3%. That is a swing of 5%. Further it means that the Sunday results must have been well over 3% behind to drag down an even race to down 3. Perhaps margin of error, we'll see.

In the same period Clinton went from 2 up to even.

http://www.pollingreport.com/wh08gen.htm

@51

you are missing the point, perhaps, or perhaps making a different point to distract from having to admit that the point we are making is valid.

1. In saying Obama is untested the point is not that HRC clearly is Vastly More Electable no one said that, the point is, Obama's NOT so vastly more electable, etc. CONTRARY to claims of his supporters, and indeed, his campaign, that he can win by winning traditionally non-blue states.

2. Untested ?? Yes, but worse: pretty much unknown.
Haven't heard one person write back and tell me what in heck he actually did as a community organizer or a lawyer, for example.

The Obama candidacy is a bit at risk right now because of his close ties to his anti-American-church which today has a press release condemning the media and lying that the media has attacked its social ministry.

No -- pastor Wright was attacked for being Anti American and part of the defense was he's out, pastor Otis or whoever it is now, is different.

So another blunder. Otis (forget the real name) is taking up for Wright. Another blunder: saying the critique was their social ministry when, no, it was because of blaming America for 9-11, preaching God Damn America, and saying America was wrong to bomb Japan.

3. HRC's record includes winning in general eletions after being defined by her sucky past and all her sucky negatives.

Obama: has no such record of winning general elections after being defined by his somewhat sucky past and somewhat sucky negatives.

Seeing the urban northern liberal lose over and over (Humphrey, Mondale, McGovern (okay not urban but defined as hippy loving and ultra liberal), Dukakis, Kerry, Gore (ok not northern but defined as ultra liberal and elite growing up in hotel etc.)) and now perhaps......Obama (urban, northern and totally fucking ultra liberal now with the pastor blaming 9-11 on America) gives me pause.

Who've we won with?

A. Carter in post watergate era against Ford the pardoner.
B. "Clinton" twice (both with curcial advice from Hillary) due to his being a fighter, and focusing on the economy and somehow escaping that "frame" or "definition" that's a super liberal who cares more about the ACLU and "rights" of the downtrodden as opposed to helping real working class whites get ahead.

Those Archie Bunker types who otherwise are totally fucking alienated form the Democratic party whetn the candidate is defined for them as being totally alien to them and not caring about them because they care more about urban northern liberal values.

Like, ahem, blaming America First.

See WSJ today on how Catholics are the big swing vote constituency and HRC is winning them -- as noted here earlier.
And as advised here yesterday, Obama's going to specifically go on a roundtable listening type tour to reach those voters. Cool. Maybe he'll get the rest of my memo, too and rise above the infighting by seating FL as is, floating HRC as VP, and getting the fucking media message off the church and off the infighting and off attacking HRC for ethical lapses (we know, she sucks ethically, it's sooooo boring to rake over it all again and it makes him look like an old style politician) and get off the delegate math (no one wins more voters with process stories) and onto what is the change he brings on the economy and on the war and foriegn policy so his damn numbers go UP against McCain and stop GOING DOWN.

Donolectric - You're saying that Obama is still untested, despite his impressive primary performance, because it's not a general election, implying that he is not up to it. But Clinton ran such a craptastic primary campaign that whatever we don't know about Obama, we certainly know it about her. She can't - to use your analogy - even color between the lines, so she definitely can't paint a masterpiece.

Kesh-

Thus the hazards of one poll. This very detailed Salon piece about the 2000 race says

At the start of the month (March), a Zogby poll had still shown Giuliani in the lead statewide; by March 25, another Zogby poll had Clinton 3 points ahead. An early April New York Times poll gave Clinton an even larger lead, 8 points... After Dorismond, the bad news never stopped for Rudy.

To call Lazio, a sitting US Congressman from Long Island, "a joke candidate who no one had heard of before he entered the race" is, I'm sorry, nonsense. Ever heard of Dave Reichert, Kesh? Yes?

But you've covered yourself by saying that Clinton shouldn't win over Obama because she's not winning over Obama, thus completely eliminating any discussion of experience or battle testedness and equating Democratic caucus victory with general election victory (as unPC so verbosely noted). Bravo.

Phoebe-

Clinton ran such a craptastic primary campaign

Do you really believe that? Craptastic? When she has something like 49% of the overall vote (not counting MI and FL) and 47% of the pledged delegates? Including victories in big states like CA, TX, OH, etc, etc, etc?

The truth is that your candidate can't close the deal with Democratic voters. He can get progressives that pop up for caucuses, but blue collar Democrats- you know, the 50% of the party that you are all so quick to write off as racist- have not yet warmed to your candidate. And rather than figure out how to expand his appeal, you just keep drinking the koolaid and inventing charming new invectives.

Great revolution you've got there.

Obama needs a blimp.