Primaries
Obama Predicts a Race Through June

Senator Barack Obama, his wife Michelle and Pittsburgh Steelers Owner Dan Rooney greet customers at Pamela's diner in the Strip District April 22, 2008 in Pittsburgh. (Getty Images)
By Paul Kane
PITTSBURGH -- Girding for defeat in the Keystone State today, Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) predicted the primary campaign would last through June and suggested that no knockout blow of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) would be forthcoming.
"I've come to the conclusion that this race will continue until the last primary or caucus vote is cast, and that's not that far away," Obama told reporters while eating pancakes at a local diner here as voters began casting their ballots.
Those last primaries, in South Dakota and Montana, come on June 3, after which Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean has asked any undeclared superdelegates to make public their choice by July 1 to avoid a drawn-out fight throughout the summer.
Questions about Obama's ability to attract white, working-class voters have haunted the candidate since Super Tuesday, keeping the race in play. Obama told reporters today that those voters would come around to him in a general election campaign and not side with Sen. John McCain of Arizona, the presumptive Republican nominee.
"This whole notion that somehow because there are some voters -- whether it's older voters or blue collar voters -- who prefer Senator Clinton over me, that somehow that means I can't get their vote, that just isn't borne out by the polling," Obama said. "And it's not borne out by the history of people's voting patterns. The party's going to come together after the nomination is settled."
But a large loss in Pennsylvania would reopen the debate about the Democratic front-runner's ability to connect with these voters, a theme the Clinton campaign has hammered away it in recent days. Obama will have outspent her by a more than 2-to-1 margin in advertising -- blanketing everything from network television to Philadelphia Phillies games on local cable -- and, according to the Clinton campaign, may not have changed many votes.
Obama steered clear of making predictions but noted that his campaign "has to consider ourselves the underdogs." He did, however, suggest that he would pick up enough pledged delegates today to maintain a very strong lead over Clinton in that total, making it all but certain he would end up, in June, with leads over her in pledged delegates, states won and total votes.
"If you take a look at how the delegates play themselves out at the end of the night, you should be able to measure, given how many contests are left, whether they can make up that ground," he said.
While some Democrats question whether a prolonged primary campaign hurts Obama in the general election, the candidate said that for now it has helped him build get-out-the-vote operations in many states.
"The bright side of that is we're seeing record turnout, record involvement. We're building organizations that are getting tested," he said. "Should I end up being the nominee, the work that we've done here in Pennsylvania, I think, will be extraordinarily helpful in the general election."
Posted at 1:05 PM ET on Apr 22, 2008
| Category:
Primaries
Share This:
Technorati
| Tag in Del.icio.us | Digg This
Posted by: Harry | April 23, 2008 12:32 PM
Stay Hillary and if Democrats wanted Hillary to leave why has she won more democrats than Obama...His majority is not from democrats but independents and caucus states...So Hillary you have evry right to stay
Posted by: Harry | April 23, 2008 12:19 PM
Americans, mostly White, are not ready for mix-race or African American President. It is true and they don't like to hear the true. They would rather see the dynasty Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clintons, move the country backward, don't care about job loss, jobs moved oversea, the rising of China, India, etc and don't care if the Clintons as US presidents (Hillary & Bill) taking America $$ to pay their debts to Saudia, India, China, wealthy CEO friends. They will robe the poors and pay the wealthy. Pen's governor Rendell was right, white Pen, won't vote for Obama.
I am an independent, neither support Rep / Dem and over 50.
I am concern about the country and next generations.
Posted by: Katy | April 23, 2008 10:58 AM
GET HILLARY OUT of the race. This megalomaniac is destroying the Democratic Party -- with no gain to herself except temporary delusion that lightening will strike and she will be back in the White House, this time as the most powerful woman in the world.
Democrats watch in horror as Hillary continues to diss Obama and as John McCain consolidates his own party.
The Democrats are eager to move on to an Obama-McCain race. But they can't because no one seems to be able to show Hillary the door.
Posted by: Kristin | April 23, 2008 4:18 AM
Corrupt Clinton and her culture of corrupt cronies continue clinging to her con.
Do we really need a liar like her in the White House?
Dodgin' sniper fire... indeed !!!
Posted by: NickAtNight | April 22, 2008 10:38 PM
What do the war in Iraq and the Clinton's campaign have in common?
They both saw the goal post move.
Reasons for going to war in Iraq listed in a chronological order:
1. WMDs
2. Link to Al Qaeda
3. Spread of Democracy
4. Getting Rid of Saddam
5. Stop the civil war
6. Stop Iran from having influence in Iraq
Reasons Clinton gave to keep her campaign alive listed in a chronological order:
1. Obama can only win Caucus races
2. Obama is just Good Talk
3. Obam cannot win big states
4. Obama is not ready on day 1 (i.e. He never went to Bosnia)
5. Florida and Michigan must count
6. He is outspending her in PA. ($109 million of her own money is untouchable)
The media tries to portray it as if the race is not over yet, but the experts know that unless there is a divine miracle in favor of Clinton, the race is history.
Posted by: TooLittleTooLate | April 22, 2008 9:47 PM
will the obama people please stop spreading disinformation? it's getting old.
Posted by: | April 22, 2008 9:03 PM
will the obama people please stop spreading disinformation? it's getting old.
Posted by: | April 22, 2008 8:57 PM
She NEEDS to win BY 20% to have a "slim" chance to win the nomination.
Posted by: | April 22, 2008 6:52 PM
Nobody said that it would be an easy ride for Senator Obama. It is Senator Clinton that should have wrapped up this nomination by now given all the advantages she has on her side. Senator Obama has no choice but to spend a substantial amount of money to stay competitive - he is running against the wife of a former president. In the end, Senator Obama will win the nomination. The primary does not reflect how Senator Obama will perform in November. He will be running against a different horse, Senator McCain.
Posted by: Gigi | April 22, 2008 5:58 PM
It still comes down to the numbers. Unless she wins by 20 points she won't convince superdelegates and they're the only ones who can save her. She doesn't have the delegates.She doesn't have the money, she doesn't have the states, she doesn't have the votes. What she does have is spin...loads of spin. Time to call it quits Hillary.
Posted by: thebob.bob | April 22, 2008 5:35 PM
I got it from the Beeb. Worldwide coverage already.
Clinton's poll day threat to Iran
(note that the headline has been changed)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7359957.stm
"If I'm the president, we will attack Iran...we would be able to totally obliterate them."
She's gone off the deep end. Her Goldwater roots now show, and it's scary.
"The Polarizer" has done it again, and it is becoming clear that she might say anything in an attempt to become president.
Arrogant and irresponsible.
Posted by: RC in Washington State | April 22, 2008 5:33 PM
IT is pretty sad, Hillary is threatening to nuke iran and people are voting for her. Where is the media coverage on this? doesn't anyone care about their own children sons and daughters. I for one DO NOT want another Bloody war!
Posted by: Nancy | April 22, 2008 5:20 PM
jacksmith said "And I could go on, and on..."
But you do, Jack, you do.
Posted by: John from CA | April 22, 2008 4:57 PM
If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen! that is right. If you can't stand the spending heat, get out of the race and stop saying "he outspent me 3 to 1. What the hell were you doing when he was raising all these monies? Playing some soccer game with Monica lewinsky?
Posted by: Adjaloo | April 22, 2008 4:46 PM
This man, no matter what happens in the PA primary, ill become the President. It's been too much resistance and too much spreading of malicious rumors to hurt him. He has to overcome the GREAT MONSTER OF RACISM, however. But whoever GOD is for, let no man be against. He will prevail. Keep hating him, speaking negatively against him, wishing him ill will if you wish. He will prosper.
Isaiah 54:17
New American Standard Bible (©1995)
"No weapon that is formed against you will prosper; And every tongue that accuses you in judgment you will condemn. This is the heritage of the servants of the LORD, And their vindication is from Me," declares the LORD.
King James Bible
No weapon that is formed against thee shall prosper; and every tongue that shall rise against thee in judgment thou shalt condemn. This is the heritage of the servants of the LORD, and their righteousness is of me, saith the LORD.
American King James Version
No weapon that is formed against you shall prosper; and every tongue that shall rise against you in judgment you shall condemn. This is the heritage of the servants of the LORD, and their righteousness is of me, said the LORD.
American Standard Version
No weapon that is formed against thee shall prosper; and every tongue that shall rise against thee in judgment thou shalt condemn. This is the heritage of the servants of Jehovah, and their righteousness which is of me, saith Jehovah.
Bible in Basic English
No instrument of war which is formed against you will be of any use; and every tongue which says evil against you will be judged false. This is the heritage of the servants of the Lord, and their righteousness comes from me, says the Lord.
Douay-Rheims Bible
No weapon that is formed against thee shall prosper: and every tongue that resisteth thee in judgment, thou shalt condemn. This is the inheritance of the servants of the Lord, and their justice with me, saith the Lord.
Darby Bible Translation
No weapon that is prepared against thee shall prosper; and every tongue that riseth against thee in judgment, thou shalt condemn. This is the inheritance of the servants of Jehovah; and their righteousness is of me, saith Jehovah.
English Revised Version
No weapon that is formed against thee shall prosper; and every tongue that shall rise against thee in judgment thou shalt condemn. This is the heritage of the servants of the LORD, and their righteousness which is of me, saith the LORD.
GOD'S WORD® Translation (©1995)
No weapon that has been made to be used against you will succeed. You will have an answer for anyone who accuses you. This is the inheritance of the LORD's servants. Their victory comes from me," declares the LORD.
Jewish Publication Society Tanakh
No weapon that is formed against thee shall prosper; and every tongue that shall rise against thee in judgment thou shalt condemn. This is the heritage of the servants of the LORD, and their due reward from Me, saith the LORD.
Webster's Bible Translation
No weapon that is formed against thee shall prosper; and every tongue that shall rise against thee in judgment thou shalt condemn. This is the heritage of the servants of the LORD, and their righteousness is from me, saith the LORD.
World English Bible
No weapon that is formed against you will prevail; and you will condemn every tongue that rises against you in judgment. This is the heritage of the servants of Yahweh, and their righteousness which is of me," says Yahweh.
Young's Literal Translation
No weapon formed against thee prospereth, And every tongue rising against thee, In judgment thou condemnest. This is the inheritance of the servants of Jehovah, And their righteousness from me, an affirmation of Jehovah!
Posted by: President Obama Is Inevitable | April 22, 2008 4:42 PM
Barrack Obama. He came,he saw, he conqured. The unsinkable SS Billary Clinton has hit the Obama iceberg, and is slowly taking in water, sinking,submerging. The passengers have started taken life boats and others are jumping to escape the coming disaster. How was this FOOD boiled, but turned out raw? How can Hillary lose to Obama? I still cannot make any sense of it. It just seems like I am watching a film unfolding and don't believe its real.
Posted by: siam | April 22, 2008 4:37 PM
I was surprised (I'm over it now) the clintons thought nothing of throwing out the A. Amercian vote with the water if it meant getting the nomination...so much for years of having the critical vote for Bill, affectionately said to be American's "first black president" as he was not afraid to be associated with the political side of A. Americans middle class groups.
Politics is not about friends but political interest of the moment is still true. Hope A. Americans are taking notes on this one.
McCain '08!
Posted by: working class of capitol hillq | April 22, 2008 4:27 PM
Well jacksmith, I see that you are posting the same post again here. Seems like you would be smart enough to make up something new and exciting. But since you are idiot enough to post the same thing on every blog, I will post this again:
Quote: "You see, back in 1993 Hillary Clinton had the audacity, and nerve to try and get quality, affordable universal health care for everyone to prevent the suffering and needless deaths of hundreds of thousands of you each year. :-)
Why the smilie face after this paragraph on your posts over and over, jacksmith? Could it be because Hillary Clinton failed to even consult the experts in her own party in 1993 and her health plan was laughed off the agenda, even by her own party.
Let's see what is different this time around? Oh, yeah, she says she may decide to garnish your wages to pay for her health plan this time. If you think medical care is expensive now, wait till Hillary would make it "FREE"
Hillary Clinton's quote from February:
"Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., this morning left open the possibility that, if elected, her government would garnish the wages of people who didn't comply with her health care plan. "We will have an enforcement mechanism, whether it's that or it's some other mechanism through the tax system or automatic enrollments," Clinton said in an appearance on "This Week with George Stephanopoulos".
Posted by: | April 22, 2008 4:22 PM
when I hear people writing or saying that "obama outspent Clinton 2 to 1, or 3 to 1, I get very irritated, and that assertion appears very interesting to the point of ridiculous. What was Clinton doing when Obama was raising his monies?. Who had all the institutional support and Washington insiders' backing when elections began? If Hillary, with all the backings she had could afford to sit down and allow Obama to outraise her and outspend her, then she does not qualify to offer the leadership that she thinks she does. Bill Clinton gave her a good franchise to build upon and what did she do to it? She just mess it up! Please don't blame Barrack. He just happened to be a much smarter person than people thought him to be. He was just too good for the Clintons to handle
Posted by: siam | April 22, 2008 4:22 PM
Obama has won all his states BEFORE it was revealed that he's been worshiping in the church of God Damn America for 20 years!!! That's a boulder, not dandruff, so spare your suit, apologize and resign from the race and the senate.
Posted by: LoveUS | April 22, 2008 4:20 PM
Quote: "My dog could run as a democrat in California and win the state in the general election."
LOL, now you know what the term "a yellow dog democrat" means in Texas. Used to be a yellow dog could run in Texas as a democrat and be elected. There were not even Republican primaries in a lot of areas.
No longer. Every major elected office in the state is held by republicans and the democrats did it to themselves.
Posted by: | April 22, 2008 4:16 PM
I find Clinton's (and some posters') continued argument that if Obama can't win in certain states against Clinton (another Democrat) he cannot win against a Republican. That is a complete tautology. Democrats are going to be much stronger all over unless they self-destruct through vicious infighting.
Again, a win or loss Obama vs. Clinton means absolutely nothing in respect to the general elections and whether a candidate can carry a primary.
Another piece of demagoguery cranked out by the political spinmeisters.
Posted by: Rolf Ernst | April 22, 2008 4:10 PM
MY FELLOW "BITTER", STUPID, WORKING CLASS PEOPLE :-)
If you think like Barack Obama, that WORKING CLASS PEOPLE are just a bunch of "BITTER"!, STUPID, PEASANTS, Cash COWS!, and CANNON FODDER. :-(
You Might Be An Idiot! :-)
If you think Barack Obama with little or no experience would be better than Hillary Clinton with 35 years experience.
You Might Be An Idiot! :-)
If you think that Obama with no experience can fix an economy on the verge of collapse better than Hillary Clinton. Whose ;-) husband (Bill Clinton) led the greatest economic expansion, and prosperity in American history.
You Might Be An Idiot! :-)
If you think that Obama with no experience fighting for universal health care can get it for you better than Hillary Clinton. Who anticipated this current health care crisis back in 1993, and fought a pitched battle against overwhelming odds to get universal health care for all the American people.
You Might Be An Idiot! :-)
If you think that Obama with no experience can manage, and get us out of two wars better than Hillary Clinton. Whose ;-) husband (Bill Clinton) went to war only when he was convinced that he absolutely had to. Then completed the mission in record time against a nuclear power. AND DID NOT LOSE THE LIFE OF A SINGLE AMERICAN SOLDIER. NOT ONE!
You Might Be An Idiot! :-)
If you think that Obama with no experience saving the environment is better than Hillary Clinton. Whose ;-) husband (Bill Clinton) left office with the greatest amount of environmental cleanup, and protections in American history.
You Might Be An Idiot! :-)
If you think that Obama with little or no education experience is better than Hillary Clinton. Whose ;-) husband (Bill Clinton) made higher education affordable for every American. And created higher job demand and starting salary's than they had ever been before or since.
You Might Be An Idiot! :-)
If you think that Obama with no experience will be better than Hillary Clinton who spent 8 years at the right hand of President Bill Clinton. Who is already on record as one of the greatest Presidents in American history.
You Might Be An Idiot! :-)
If you think that you can change the way Washington works with pretty speeches from Obama, rather than with the experience, and political expertise of two master politicians ON YOUR SIDE like Hillary and Bill Clinton..
You Might Be An Idiot! :-)
If you think all those Republicans voting for Obama in the Democratic primaries, and caucuses are doing so because they think he is a stronger Democratic candidate than Hillary Clinton. :-)
Best regards
jacksmith... Working Class :-)
p.s. You Might Be An Idiot! :-)
If you don't know that the huge amounts of money funding the Obama campaign to try and defeat Hillary Clinton is coming in from the insurance, and medical industry, that has been ripping you off, and killing you and your children. And denying you, and your loved ones the life saving medical care you needed. All just so they can make more huge immoral profits for them-selves off of your suffering...
You see, back in 1993 Hillary Clinton had the audacity, and nerve to try and get quality, affordable universal health care for everyone to prevent the suffering and needless deaths of hundreds of thousands of you each year. :-)
Approx. 100,000 of you die each year from medical accidents from a rush to profit by the insurance, and medical industry. Another 120,000 of you die each year from treatable illness that people in other developed countries don't die from. And I could go on, and on...
Posted by: jacksmith | April 22, 2008 4:09 PM
If you can't defeat Hillary now, how can you defeat McCain? Whoever wins the Democratic primary will win the GE. That's because Hillary's voters are all McCain voters. Hillary voters won't vote for Obama in the GE. Just sayin...
(Clinton's people have been making this loony-tunes argument for months.)
Posted by: Chuckie | April 22, 2008 4:07 PM
I think many people misunderstand the significance of Obama outspending Hillary. The real significance is that people are giving Obama much more money than they are giving Clinton. Clinton is the one with the years of "experience" and political connections, yet Obama has consistantly raised far more money than Clinton. How is a one term Senator with little in the way of Washington connections able to raise way more money than Clinton, it's because people like him. They like what he is saying, what he wants to do, that he wants to unite rather than divide. I know this all sounds a bit touchy feely to some voters, but not so many decades ago America was much more coheasive than it is today.
Posted by: captbilly | April 22, 2008 4:03 PM
Obama is an empty suit with an empty mouth on policy. Just let me eat my waffle I don't want to do any work. He will not speak on the issue probably because Hillary hadn't spoken first on it and showed him the way.
Posted by: Mary O'Bryan | April 22, 2008 3:40 PM
The Clinton Dynasty cannot even run a clean and successful campaign, with its Presidential brand and party machine, its lies and gender and race gaming, and deep pockets. Hilalry is now in debt, has lost more states, more delegates and more popular votes to Obama. What do we the people have to do for her to lose her sense of dynastic entitlement and to stop her scorched earth, dog in the manger, if she can't win it make Obama lose in November, race? The Democratic Party elders MUST do the right thing and listen to the voices of the majority. Turn the page against politics as hateful and divisive and for the 21st century to a more perfect union.
Posted by: shirl | April 22, 2008 3:30 PM
Everybody shut up! Let the people vote. Wait for the results. Report the results. Then there is News.
Clearly News. No advocacy.
Posted by: statute | April 22, 2008 3:16 PM
http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news/politics/blog/2008/04/obama_fingers_a_gotcha_debate.html
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/04/obamaflipsoffcl.html
Posted by: Truth Seeker | April 22, 2008 3:08 PM
Posted by Tired of Whiners:If Barack Obama is so strong politically, and has been able to outraise Clinton by so much, why has he failed to knock Clinton from the race in Ohio, Texas and now Penn?
Because there is still a great number of people out there who will not give their vote to a black man, if their lives depended on it. So stop your whining!
Posted by: tydicea | April 22, 2008 2:58 PM
Any Democratic nominee probably can win in California but Obama can win or not, it's not clear yet.
Everyone talks about "The Bradley Effect". This term started in California and never resolved it to date. California election is something like tribal warfare.
In California, Latinos represents more than any minority groups including blacks, they went 66% to Clinton. Asians (the one state where this voting block can make significant dent in close election) in California voted Clinton in primary by 71%.
There is no historical trend how these groups will vote if Obama is the democratic nominee. For many of these groups, McCain is not really automatic thumbs down kind of candidate at all.
No one should take California for granted in November.
Posted by: | April 22, 2008 2:50 PM
The margin doesn't matter? According to Hillary Clinton, the margin in the Pennsylvania primary doesn't matter. Numerically, she cannot win the nomination unless she wins PA by double digits and all the rest of the primaries. She's not going to do that nor win PA by the margin she needs. So perhaps it doesn't matter since she has no chance anyway. It is one thing to lie to people and yet another to lie to them and yourself. Politicians like Hillary Clinton need to learn hard lessons about lies. Today will be a day for lessons.
Posted by: Richard Prince | April 22, 2008 2:48 PM
Why should Obama and McBush agree with the medical establishments. Afterall:
Obama not only believes he is God, doing God's work (like stupid president GWB) but as a simple minded, no nothing senator he really has the arrogant, self supior nerve to take on the whole medical profession! iF IT WEREN'T SO sad, i WOULD HAVE A GOOD LAUGH. hOWEVER, MY TEARS ARE GETTING IN THE WAY!
Posted by: LYNN PARKER | April 22, 2008 2:44 PM
If Senator Obama can't win the so-called Reagan democrats--the white vote, or blue collar vote--he can't win the general.
Well, let me say this. If Clinton can't win amongst African Americans, new voters, voters under 50, liberal democrats and voters with a college education, how can she win the general?
Give me a break, please.
If Clinton was so electable, why can't she beat Obama? She is the former First Lady, has a beloved former President on the trail for her. Has all the establishment machinery behind her. Started out with all the money, and was ahead in all the polls yet she is losing in states won, delegates and popular vote. Add in Florida and she is still losing. Nope, can't add in Mi because Obama wasn't on the ballot.
And Florida would have been much closer if there was a campaign. Because one thing has been proven this primary season: the more Clinton campaigns in a state the more ground Obama picks up.
If Clinton were to win more delegates or votes that would be one thing. But if supers overturn contests in 50 states and give her the nomination, you can bet Obama supporters will stay home. And what would be the point of ever voting in another democratic primary if that vote doesn't count?
Clinton is a weak candidate. If she were a strong candidate she would be winning.
Posted by: edzo2 | April 22, 2008 2:43 PM
And what a pathetically obvious thing to come out of the mouth of one supposedly SO SO wise. Kind of Bushlike to state what everyone else has been saying. Bush has a habit of doing that. Saying what others HAVE BEEN saying and acting like its HIS wisdom. Dude, acting like Bush, thats not good.
Posted by: Jason | April 22, 2008 2:43 PM
RE: JP2 | April 22, 2008 2:11 PM
¡Exactly! one must spend a lot of money to compete against such name recognition that HRC has.
Posted by: Pío | April 22, 2008 2:42 PM
Obama is unelectable in the general election and I think he's starting to see the writing on the wall. It is just a farse that he has gotten this far especially when you consider that fact that he is barely qualified to be a senator much less commander in chief. This guys is a lying hypocrite. Senator Clinton is supremely more qualified and she is the only one who can win in November. Vote smart, vote Clinton.
Posted by: Tobias | April 22, 2008 2:41 PM
Where to these people in the Obama camp come from!? Have they concocted a mixture of their own brand of koolaid? I read this same refrain thoughout the Democratic leaning blogs. That Hillary Clinton is ruining the Democratic Party FOREVER! For crying out loud people grow a pair and grow up! Now if Obama can't beat Senator Clinton in PA AFTER outspending her 4 - 5 to one then he's toast. The embarassment of all embarrassments will happen and that is McNastyMcSameMcCain will beat him in the general. If you whine now my my my how you will whine on Nov 9th. In Penn. Hillary Clinton is proving herself to be the stronger candidate for the general.
Posted by: Jason | April 22, 2008 2:40 PM
If Barack Obama is so strong politically, and has been able to outraise Clinton by so much, why has he failed to knock Clinton from the race in Ohio, Texas and now Penn?
Why should anyone expect a Clinton to get out of the race when her opponent fails to knock her out? This is still America. You have to earn what you get!
Posted by: Tired of Whiners | April 22, 2008 2:34 PM
If one projects a low range in the remaining primaries for Obama, he needs about 100 - 130 more superdelegates to endorse him.
Go get them.
Why aren't the superdelegates supporting Obama??? What is going on there??? It is clear this race is hurting the democratic party, possibly destroying it forever.
AND the superdelegates are dithering.
Get the superdelegates to end this race.
Posted by: Words of Wisdom | April 22, 2008 2:28 PM
I work in Reading PA (both candidates were here over the weekend) and I am amazed by the Hillary get-out-the-vote effort here (I voted for Obama). There are supporters holding huge signs at the bridge leading into town and on the major shopping street. There are Hillary pamphlets on all of the cars in the parking lot. Not a sign of Obama anywhere. I wonder if this is typical across PA??
Posted by: Steve | April 22, 2008 2:23 PM
This truly is a battle of spin.
But at the end of the evening we'll be faced yet again with the math. And the math doesn't work for Hillary. She still will behind in delegates and popular vote.
I guess it's her right to keep running, but the delegate math is unlikely to change.
Posted by: Alex | April 22, 2008 2:17 PM
Stephen Gianelli, Clinton lost her birth state Illinois to Obama with more than 20% gap. I am from this state, and I know. Clinton was very well known in Pennsylvania within last 20 years. Nobody knew Obama there before he started his presidential campaign. He, according to all media channels, decreased the gap with her to something like 5-6%. He looks , certainly, as the winner of the nomination and our future president.
Posted by: aepelbaum | April 22, 2008 2:12 PM
Obama has had more votes than the entire republican primary in a variety of states. All of these fearmongering tales about Grampa Munster, er, I mean McCain, being a formidable opponent are made up by the media who want a compelling story.
Posted by: Obamabot | April 22, 2008 2:12 PM
If a person spends three to one over a six week period and is running against someone who has never campaigned in the state before, then yes, the reasonable expectation would be for the person to win.
In this case, Obama is running against an opponent who had 100% name ID coming into the contest (which is expensive to build up); whose husband was a popular political figure amongst party voters, and who has invested 16 years in cultivating relationship with state politician.
If Obama overcomes a 16 year ahead start and a TWENTY point deficit in just 6 weeks that would be absolutely incredible.
The bottom line is that Clinton must win PA by TWENTY points just to stay on track to get back to parity in the popular vote and pledged delegate counts (and needs to do that for every single remaining contest).
If Clinton wins by 10 today it means that her victory threshold will go up to the 70 to 75 percent range for the remaining contests.
That's what happens when a candidate hires staff that burns through money recklessly, fails to make contingency plans, and then cedes contests left and right for over a month. Never mind that the candidate was running on years and years of political "experience". Not exactly ready on day one.
Posted by: JP2 | April 22, 2008 2:11 PM
"Correction: Obama has spent approximately $9 million in TV ads in PA to Clinton's $3 million, (a 3-to-1 advantage--not 2-to-1) and Obama has spent countless additional millions on the ground with his new voter registration drive, get out the vote efforts, and door-to-door campaigning."
Now Stephen, you're forgetting to figure in the amount of money ABC and Hillary campaigner George Stephalopolopolop spent on that roller derby of a debate. Also, Hillary led by 25% in the beginning, so who's changing minds?
Posted by: Stephen's Mother | April 22, 2008 2:09 PM
Obama has closed the gap from a double digit Clinton lead of over 20 points in PA a month ago to less than 5 points in the latest poll. In each state Clinton won (and there aren't that many) her huge double digit lead was cut at least in half by Barak Obama. She's losing ground in every state while Obama is gainin ground and support in every state. I'm so sick of the Clinton "spin" that Obama can't win because he can't win "key" states. Last time I looked this election was for the President of all the United States of America. My dog could run as a democrat in California and win the state in the general election. Take the negative, viral attacks of both Clintons out of the mix and Obama will beat McCain in November.
Posted by: Jennifer | April 22, 2008 1:54 PM
Agree with poster gianelli: Obama loses by a couple of points and thats it, he's fine. But if he out-spent Clinton 3 to 1 and loses by around 10 points in Pa. he's a cripple in the general election in the states where a Democrat has to win, ie. Pa., Ohio, Michigan and New Jersey. There is no spin needed, nor will it matter, as the results will speak for themselves.
Posted by: dyinglikeflies | April 22, 2008 1:54 PM
Through JUNE?!
Noooooooooooooooooo!!!!
Dear God in HEAVEN!
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!! :-o
Posted by: RAT-The | April 22, 2008 1:51 PM
Correction: Obama has spent approximately $9 million in TV ads in PA to Clinton's $3 million, (a 3-to-1 advantage--not 2-to-1) and Obama has spent countless additional millions on the ground with his new voter registration drive, get out the vote efforts, and door-to-door campaigning.
Moreover, Obama had six weeks to campaign exclusively in PA, and pulled out the stops in his knock-out try.
If he cannot stop a Clinton double digit route with all of that muscle and money he cannnot win in November, period.
Posted by: Stephen Gianelli | April 22, 2008 1:48 PM
The organizations that Obama has put together are formidable. They've run circles around the most entrenched, well known Democrat, Hillary. They're going to very difficult for the demoralized kool-aid drinking Republicans to counter. All over the West, counties are switching from Republican to Democrat because people recognize what a mess the Republicans have made of everything. Name it. Foreign policy, domestic policy, economic policy, environmental policy, politicization of the Federal Government by unqualified, incompetent right-wing evangelical ideologues. Anyone disagree? Then you must 'hate America' or 'love terrorists'.
The Democrats will be strengthened by the long primary. The energy and the new voters will lead to Obama being sworn in January, 2009. The world will be a different place on that day.
Posted by: thebob.bob | April 22, 2008 1:34 PM
Post a Comment
We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.
User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.

Also if Obama is so concerned with being different why is he spending so much on his campaign and now why is he ducking away from public funding..Obama your just the sameand it seems to me Hillary and Barrack should have been limited to 100,000 million each to fight there campaigns evenly and the rest of the money not wasted on TV ads but used in homeless shelters ...sad day in America when the change guy spends more money than the Washington candidate...where are you taking us OBAMA...Vote Hillary