Comments on None Taken!

Hillary is just a moderate Republican. Please deal with it. I mean she runs attack ads like a Republican, votes for GOP wars like a Republican (and still has never ever appologized for it) has played the race card like a Republican..guess what? She is a Republican!!

Before someone points out that Harrisburg is not a small town: Yes, I realize that, and that's why I included the specific location the survey was taken (unlike TPM, which just said "Pennsylvanians.") But I actually think that's one reason people aren't taking offense: they just don't think they fit into the category Obama was describing.

Andrew hit the nail on the head.

I'm so glad that Hillary keeps running. Her ads and rhetoric are keeping the media and the party discussing important issues, like ... errrrrm, well, anyways, she's certainly entitled to run. Even if she keeps embracing Republican frames. And even if she can't seem to do so without putting forth ads that might as well have been aired by Republican 527s.

Hillary is not a Republican. She uses Republican tactics, but tactics do not a policy make.

3 delegates plus 55 more for winning the state, according to CQ

But Annie is actually understating her case. Clinton could win PA by 50 or 60 delegates and she'd STILL be toast. She has NO CHANCE.

Thanks, clarified.

obama is the first dem in a long time to stand up and respond to these kind of lame attacks, as opposed to either ignoring it defensively back-tracking. i think people respond more positively to these actions, rather than negatively to those words.

i also think since the guy's been in the news every day now for over a year, people know better than to be hoodwinked by the asshats in the media who want to pick apart a single sentence and instruct people to be offended, while kindly disregarding every other thing he has said over the course of the campaign. i just don't think people are as stupid as the media wants them to be.

I'm kicking myself for not buying into Obama on Intrade months ago.

I don't usually post comments but today I will simply because I'm sick of hearing the same idiotic nonsense from the Obama fanboys: "She has NO chance", "she should quit already, she's hurting the party", "mathematical impossibility."

First, it's not true that she has no chance. She has virtually no chance and that's just when it comes to pledged delegates. Second, I seriously doubt this is hurting the Democrats' chances. Third, you know whose chances to win a majority of pledged delegates are also a "mathematical impossibility"? SEN. OBAMA'S. What's this rubbish about him having the nomination wrapped up and Sen. Clinton being finished?.

The last time I checked, you need a MAJORITY of delegates to secure the nomination. I don't remember it being "get a plurality and then whine about how you should automatically get the rest of them, 'cause you know?, you wouldn't want to "reverse the will of the people!." Oooh, spooky language. Well, let me tell you what the will of the people has been so far: to split almost in the middle all across the board. Some states voted overwhelmingly for Sen. Clinton, some for Obama, some were nearly equal. Like it or not, this looks as if it's going to be decided by the superdelegates. Since neither Sen. Obama nor Sen. Clinton won a majority, they should make their case to them because.

As far as I know, the superdelegates were created so that prominent figures in the party would have a say in who would be the best nominee not to be useless ceremonial automatons who vote exactly like their respective contituencies. You can argue on the usefulness of superdelegates and whether it should only be the voters who count, they're valid points. Keep them to advise the party or get rid of them, just don't go around demanding that they instantly vote for your guy when he wasn't able to scare up the necessary delegates for himself.

Before a flame war starts, let me point out that I'm NOT a Clinton supporter, I'm an independent liberal and I actually rather dislike both of them for a myriad of reasons. For once I'd like to see a liberal in the White House.

She has virtually no chance and that's just when it comes to pledged delegates. Second, I seriously doubt this is hurting the Democrats' chances.

Well then! I stand corrected. Clearly, Democrats are likely to benefit from having one candidate with "virtually" no chance at the nomination buy one ad after another telling voters that the virtually certain Democratic nominee is elitist, naive, and not as experienced as McCain.

My mistake.

I'm using "locked up" because the odds are vastly in his favor, but I'm not claiming he'll have the pledged delegates he needs to put him over the top. Both candidates need superdelegates. That said, there's very little evidence the remaining supers will exercise their will to thwart a perfectly viable candidate who leads in the popular vote, pledged delegates earned, states won, and superdelegates won since Super Tuesday--each of which Obama is on track to achieve.

HRC has every right to continue the contest. I was mostly replying to doubters in the comments over the last couple of days who seem to think the race has swung in Clinton's favor. It hasn't.

Thanks for the heads-up, Annie. So it has been written; so it shall be done. Now I can scrape the Hillary bumpersticker off and get on with my miscreant life.

right, so I think of the 55 based on the state vote, she nets a handful more, and i think there's 29 supers

Josh @11, the problem with your "she could win with the superdelegates" scenario is that it ignores the facts. Fact number one: Obama is going to end up with something like 2/3 of the superdelegates. Fact number two: he's beating the pants off of her in superdelegates recently. Fact number three: almost all of the undeclared superdelegates are undeclared for the stated reason that they're waiting to see who wins the pledged delegate race -- which is Obama. So he's going to get almost all of them.

Seriously: she cannot win. If she wins PA by thirty points, she's still toast. She has to win EVERY REMAINING STATE by thirty points.

She's done.

Yes, she is entitled to carry on; no one can make her do anything she doesn't want to do. The question is, WHY does she want to do this? Well, obviously, no one wants to lose, and she's hardly the first candidate to have trouble seeing the inevitable. But she is destroying the Democratic Party and its chance at winning in November -- not by prolonging the contest, but by the incredibly negative tactics that are divisive in a way that Karl Rove would (and probably does) adore. She's tearing down the winner, which is boosting McCain.

I dont' think it matters in the end, because I think the economy and the imploding war are going to put an end to McCain. I think the Republicans are headed for a Goldwater-style implosion.

I'm in Pittsburgh campaigning for Obama. My interactions with folks has been positive. There have been a few negatives, but the organizations that I'm working with discussed inaccuracy of the ARG poll. I'm feeling positive about his prospects here. I've been out all day canvassing, so I have not had the chance to catch up on media clips. I'm pleased that he's not running away from it. He's got to talk about it more and in a manner that engages economic issues. I would also like to point out Hillary's vote on bankruptcy reforms earlier this decade. How does it affect the working class? It makes it harder for them to file for bankruptcy. Corporations are not burdened in the same way. Also, what is McCain's bullshit with reducing the federal gas tax? What happens when the gas tax is reinstated? What if gas prices are higher afterwards? Does that cause more shock later? Does it mean that we're living on more credit? Immediately, it sounds great, but over the long term, that would not be a viable solution for our energy concerns.