CBS: Democrat Barack Obama appears to have rebounded from some of the damage caused by the controversy surrounding his former pastor Rev. Jeremiah Wright, according to the latest CBS News/New York Times poll. On one key measure, Obama has seen a big reversal since his denunciation of Wright's remarks on Tuesday. He now leads presumptive Republican nominee John McCain in the hypothetical fall contest by eleven points, 51 percent to 40 percent.

New CBS Poll: Obama Surges to 11 Point Lead over McCain, 12 points over Hillary. Obama 50(+4), Clinton 38(unchanged). Obama's approval rating jumped since April 30th, back to 44-30, up from 39-34. Obama 51(+6), McCain 40(-5).

lylepink:

"Others have pointed out most every state he has won are Caucus and where X-Overs are allowed. Another thing worth pointing out is many of these states will not go Dem in the GE."

And many states that Clinton won will go Dem regardless of who the nominee it. The truth is that primary results are useless in predicting general election results because the opponent will be completely different--John McCain (and anyone will be allowed to vote and turnout will be far higher). If people want to argue that Clinton is the stronger candidate against McCain, the place to start would be polling data of Clinton and Obama against McCain, not the results of primary contests of Clinton and Obama against each other.

Please see Jeff Greenfield's Slate article on this issue:
http://www.slate.com/id/2186204/

"I have also seen where Hillary is the overall leader in actual votes cast in the Dem only primaries."

And that's relevant because?

If the idea is to have the best candidate for November, perhaps it's better to have non-Democrats participating in the primaries. And in any case, both candidates knew the rules of each state contest going in and had an equal chance of running their campaigns accordingly.

"It is hard to see any possible way Obama can win the GE when you look closely at the EC Map. I find it almost impossible for him to even get close to 200 and Hillary has at least 309."

How did you reach that conclusion? Is it backed up by any data? There are several sites that track Clinton-McCain and Obama-McCain polls by state. Some have Clinton doing better, some Obama. Some of the state polls are older than others, and any polling this far out should be viewed with skepticism, but at least it's a place to start.

Some sites you can check out on this:

www.fivethirtyeight.com/
www.electoral-vote.com/
uselectionatlas.org/

Judith Rose: "Many of my Republican friends voted for Obama in the primaries, especially those in Milwaukee Metro area and Madison because they feel McCain has a better chance against O'bama than Clinton. Those same independents will vote for McCain in November."

Where's the date to back it up? Any overall support or lack thereof should be reflected in national polls, regardless of primary results. And those polls show Clinton and Obama doing about equally well against McCain.

"Secondly, the caucuses do not reflect what will happen when the general election occurs and all voters will have an opportunity to vote, not just those who are available to attend caucuses."

That's true about primaries too. Democrat-Democrat match-ups are useless in determining which Democrat will do better against McCain where everyone is allowed to vote and turnout will be far higher. Again, national head-to-head polls against McCain would be the better place to start.

"I'm sorry, I just don't want someone who can't think on their feet making all the decisions that will come up in the oval office."

How often does a president have to come up with an answer in thirty seconds or less? I think just about never. The question is what will the candidate sign and what will the candidate veto. On the issues, there's not much difference between Clinton and Obama.

"Also, he is somewhat hypocritical. For instance, he continues to slam Clinton for taking contributions from PACs and lobbyists; but a recent article in the Washington post indicated he has over 30 employees of lobbyists working on his campaign as paid employees. Also the list of his contributions show many from the families of lobbyist employees and multi-billionaires and corporations with special interests."

Still, I bet he's better on this score than the Clinton campaign. And do not start me on the purposely deceptive arguments that Clinton has made (for instance, that her primary wins in big states make her the favorite in the general election--it's simply false, and I think the campaign knows it).

Most New Yorkers i know that voted for Hillary have switched to Obama -- Latino, White and Black progressive folk. She cannot win without causing great harm to the democratic process. Hillarys blatant exploitation of racial, age and gender divides for personal gain, threaten not only the democratic party, it is an offense to all Americans. Her baiting comments about iran remind us that she voted for iraq, and she never apologized, but rather justified her vote. First she said she was fooled by GW Bush, then she said she did due dillegence, BUT... If Hillary does not reverse the damages done as a consequence of her negative campaign and speak out STRONGLY against racism and reject the right wingers who now endorse her (as Obama did when Farrakhan endorsed him); vehemently challenge her supporters who seek to blackmail the democratic party by saying they will vote for mccain and war, rather than vote for obama for no real good reason (sure Obama is not perfect, but he is not for the war and has almost the same economic platform as Hillary -- while mccain definitely supports the war and tax breaks for the rich)- she will lose almost all credibility amoung her multi-cultural base of supporters in New York. Those elected officials and super delegates that still support Hillary after the way she has conducted this campaign look rather foolish. At the end of the day you have to account to your constituency. If she wins, we all lose. I am sure the super delegates wont let that happen.

Lylepink:

God alone know how I never thought I would be sympathizing with you. But it seems to me that I said something MONTHS ago about how the MSM was in Clinton and Obama's pocket, and the minute the field narrowed to two, they jumped on the Obama bandwagon big time.

As we've established over the past year or so, I'm in no ways a HRC supporter, but at some point don't thinking Dems have to look at the race to come and ask:

1) if Obama can't win Latinos, how can he win CA, against the GOP candidate with the strongest potential appeal to them?

2) do caucus and primary wins in KS, NE, ND, ID, UT, etc really mean anything at all?

3) Does losses in OH, PA, AR presage a similar weakness in the fall against a candidate who has proven he can attract independents?

If one assumes that the South is essentially out of play, and Obama's argument leaves out MO, OH and FL, why should we assume he can win an EC victory? As I said in a previous post, there is often more said by what is left out than what is included in such scenarios.

What I don't see in a lot of these comments is the fact that in many states, independents who are otherwise stated Republicans can vote in the Democratic caucuses or primaries. I'm in Wisconsin, one of the states where this is allowed. Many of my Republican friends voted for Obama in the primaries, especially those in Milwaukee Metro area and Madison because they feel McCain has a better chance against O'bama than Clinton. Those same independents will vote for McCain in November. Secondly, the caucuses do not reflect what will happen when the general election occurs and all voters will have an opportunity to vote, not just those who are available to attend caucuses. How much of an effect will that have on the results? -- I tend to think it will change dramatically unless Obama starts to give some substance to policies and action plans. I think we all need to keep an eye on who can really win the election, considering all these factors vs the present delegate count and popular vote which do show the whole picture. Obama is a great orator, but when he can't prepare ahead like he does for his speeches, he has difficulty responding "off the cuff"; I'm sorry, I just don't want someone who can't think on their feet making all the decisions that will come up in the oval office. Also, he is somewhat hypocritical. For instance, he continues to slam Clinton for taking contributions from PACs and lobbyists; but a recent article in the Washington post indicated he has over 30 employees of lobbyists working on his campaign as paid employees. Also the list of his contributions show many from the families of lobbyist employees and multi-billionaires and corporations with special interests. He's not as "lily-white" as he claims to be.

Justin,

I don't know what planet you are on, but I'm guessing you are only about 25 and haven't seen too many presidential elections. I am a 45 year old political scientist and lawyer, and have been studying politics for over 20 years.

You probably are too young to remember Ronald Reagen, but I can assure you that it is very possible that McCain would beat Obama. Reagen was the same age as McCain when he first ran and won two terms.

Moreover, the African American vote is less than 20 percent of the democratic electorate. Moreover, most of them live in southern states that will be red in the fall, like Georgia and Alabama. These states don't have a snow balls chance in hell of turning blue for at least another 50 years. So, the black vote that counts in a general election is about 8 to 10 percent of the democratic winning ticket. Additionally, those working class whites in Pa., Ohio, Michigan, and Florida as well as other states, make up about one third of the democratic electorate. Also white women make up about 40% of the democratic constituancy. If you haven't noticed the exit polls in the primaries, you should go see real clear politics. The youth vote everyone keeps screaming about is only about 8%, hardly the majority. So, you need to understand these demographics to predict what is the best chances for democrats to win back the white house.

Obama is not the god you kids think he is. If that were the case, he would have taken Clinton out in Ohio or Texas or even on super Tuesday.

As for Obama having the educated vote, this is a misnomer. Clinton in getting between 60 to 70 percent of the white female vote, more than 40% of which are well educated. What she is not getting is educated white men. These educated white men make up about 15 to 20% percent of the democratic electorate. The blue coller men are going for Clinton by more than 60% and they represent about 25%. Seniors represent more than 30% of the overall electorate and they too are going for Clinton. So learn, before you jump to conclusions.

Obama is only where he is because the republicans are funding him through corporate bundling and the media is in the tank for him. They are in the tank for him because their corporate owners want a sure supporter of the Bush/Chaney energy bill, if by chance McCain loses to a democrat. Obama voted for that horribly distructive energy bill that will keep us slaves to Nuclear power and fossil fuels. He has no intentions of going green any time soon.

Obama is a sellout to the nuclear power industry and big oil. General Electric is the biggest nuclear power invester in the country. They also make big money on war technology, which depends on our continued stay in Iraq and dependance on foreign oil. General Electric owns the Obama network of MSNBC. The saudis have bought into the other Obama network, CNN via Time Warner. And, I can assure you that the Saudis have no interest in america leaving Iraq or getting off our addition to foreign oil.

But all of these things are probably more detailed than you kids understand. Obama seems cool and together, but the truth is that he is just another polition playing the same old politics of the corporate ring masters. Their whole strategy is to hoodwink people like you, who haven't been exposed to enough yet to see the lay of the land.

THANKS for the insight on the memo...

Look:
DEMs are coming out in record numbers. They are angry and yes bitter. McCain is so limited in his views and intelect that he should be in an Alzheimers center. Brittany Spears could come out of rehab and beat him or any Pub this year after Bush/Cheney disasters.

Barrack Obamma is still the one the Pubs are deathly afraid of. Even their voters coem out and vote for Hillary-- to keep Obama off balance and prolong the waste of money fending off (Hillary, Bill, Chelsea, and tired older Dems who are still dreaminng in the 90's).
1- Barack's got the money, backing of a youth movement, black votes, knowldegable educated voters, and at the top of the ticket will create a huge landslide, and super delegates sknow this (and want to win big in Novemeber) So Hilllary math dreamers get over it-- Obama will win it all!

2- If Clinton strong arms this-- they'll eek out a win over McCain, but the senate remains the same. And in 2010, Pubs will win back seats as Congress will be deadlocked again, no progress and Clinton will lose in 2112...

So PLEASE -- look at the big picture.

Obama is the best choice to get anything done in this country and abroad.
3- Don't forget Obama won the American's anboad vote 3 to 1-- because that is how we are viewed outside of the states. The world needs to look at real change in America (not the same two families in power for 24 years)...

Face reality and look beyond November and 2010.
Obama is a guaranteed landslide and will bring our troops home, balance our forces within our borders, make us respectable again with a sensible foreign policy, and provide affordable health care and jobs in this country.

Obama is in dream land if he thinks he can flip these states that he now thinks are in play. North Carolina, what a joke!!!! North Carolina has been a solid red state for more than 40 years, and yes the african americans have been voting there for the last several presidential elections.

I took the time to go over the numbers based on the analysis laid out here by the Obama camp. If you didn't notice, the memo fails to do the math. No numbers adding the electoral delegates were made part of the analysis. It lays out states, but doesn't count their electoral votes. This is deliberate and is because they do not add up to a win!!!!!

Texas is a pipe dream!!! The mexican americans will not vote for him and if you look at the texas primary map the whites won't vote for him either. They all voted for Clinton. Throw in the republicans and indapendants and McCain owns Texas.

Colorado, again he won a caucus, not a primary where the people vote. He will not get the latino vote in colorado either. And even if he does flip this state, it only has 9 electoral delegates, hardly a trade off for Florida or Ohio which have 27 and 20 electoral delegates respectively. Obama argues that Va. is in play, but again it only has 13 electoral delegates and has been a red general election state for a very long time. The fact that Web was elected senator there is inconsequential. Florida and many other red states have democratic senators too. Florida or Ohio are much more likely to go blue given their demographics.

So what is left of his analysis? Penn. doesn't currently look good for him and the demographics favor McCain and or Clinton. He has vertually disenfranchised Michigan by refusing to agree to a revote. This will not bode well in the fall and if Romney is on the ticket with McCain, Obama can surely kiss Michigan good bye.

This analysis mentions that Iowa is in play and would go to Obama easily, but it fails to mention that this state has only 7 electoral delagates. The article also mentions SD and Montana, as if we are all stupid enough to believe that these states will go blue for Obama. What a joke!!!And by the way, both these states combined only have 6 electoral delegates.

So at the end of the day, Obama would have to flip at least 4 to 6 of these states along with winning all the states that Kerry won in order to win the general election. This is extremely unlikely and using his caucus wins as a measure of that likelihood is deceiving and ill-guided at best.

Obama's electoral math is a fairy tail and the superdelegates would have to stupid or bought off in order to swallow this crap. After doing the math, I found that Obama, without Fl. or Ohio, but with MI. only earns 243 electoral votes. Hillary on the otherhand earns 265 elecoral votes, without counting Florida. Hillary earns 292 if she wins Florida. If she loses Florida, she would only have to flip one other state such as Maine or Iowa or West Virginia or Wisconsin in order to win the general election. She is clearly the stronger general election candidate. Like the Black Governor of N.Y. said, its a no brainer!!!!!!Clinton is the obvious choice.

Howard Dean said Michigan and Florida will have some arrangement at the convention, but because of the broken rules, they can't go as is. That's fair, if not split even given that rules were broken. It is the ones in those two states' offices whom are responsible. The DNC didn't do it, they did. The people should be ticked at their own elected officials of their states. I'm curious if they screwed things up on purpose because, surely they knew better. Their delegates will be seated somehow though so it's ok.

Good job Democrats!!

Obama '08

The DNC didn't want my vote in the the primary...they sure as hell not getting it in November....I only hope every democrat in Michigan and Florida feels the same.

It would be a disaster for either Clinton or Obama's supporter to back McCain just because their candidate is NOT the nominee. Voting for McCain is the continuition of Bush's policy. I'd rather see either Clinton or Obama wins the WH.

Perhaps, Obama is slowing down in the race because of all the negatives coming out about him. He is proving not to be the politician of "change" that he has promised. No one is to blame for Obama's slippage but himself. He tells the falsehood that he does not take money from Lobbyists so that he has no debts to pay. Hah!. Where did he get all those millions in donations? Certainly not from people like you and me who can give very little. His big donors are large companies which bypass their own lobbyists by having their execs and employees donate $2300 each. Then, these companies "bundle" the money, give it to Obama with their hands outstretched for favors. Obama has already received an earmark that was especially crafted for General Dynamics, one of his bundlers. He had, at last count, 79 bundlers so , if elected, he is starting with 78 debts to pay.[having already paid back General Dynamics].What change is he offering? Obama has a lot of garbage that he is dragging behind him and the GOP won't have far to go to find it and showcase it! I started questioning his qualifications back in January,when he did things I did not like, did research on him, and found that he is duplicitous, crafty, and, to me, not Presidential material. Thomas Sowell, a black journalist, has said of Obama's smooth performances, " An eel is like sandpaper compared to you." Ken Blackwell, a black politician, has said of him, " Never in my life have I seen a presidential frontrunner whose rhetoric is so far removed from his record". And, I found these statements after I had already come to the same conclusions, myself. As much as I dislike McCain's agenda, I would never vote for Obama. I do not trust him!.

People who don't think Obama has a chance to win the general.....where do you get your information from? I'v seen legitimate polling data which proves otherwise.

As for the issue of Florida, Obama has not even campaigned there, so who knows how well he could actually compete there? When the primary took place Edwards and Kucinich were still in the race. They received about 258,000 votes. Obama around 550,000 and Clinton 850,000. How is it fair that she gets those delegates when there were two other people in the race who now no longer are? There is a good chance that if he campaigned in Florida, he could erode her lead significantly (like he did in PA).

This guy is not only campaigning against Clinton, he's up against Bill, their name recognition McCain, and the MSM. She is lucky to have her husband's coattails to run on, otherwise she wouldn't be where she is right now.

I just saw Fox News Sunday and as I predicted it was another "Puff Piece". I am still in disbelief as to how The Media are supporting this guy close to 100%. Others have pointed out most every state he has won are Caucus and where X-Overs are allowed. Another thing worth pointing out is many of these states will not go Dem in the GE. I have also seen where Hillary is the overall leader in actual votes cast in the Dem only primaries. It is hard to see any possible way Obama can win the GE when you look closely at the EC Map. I find it almost impossible for him to even get close to 200 and Hillary has at least 309. Bottom line on the Dem nominee, Obama loses, Hillary wins.

I'll vote for who I want in November, not who the DNC says I should vote for, who Senators Obama or Clinton say I should vote for. In my heart, I cannot vote for Senator Obama, knowing how his fellow peers all cheered to his reverend's trash talk about the nation that all of us and our ancestors have worked so hard for. I also don't see any real policies, just stage presence. I'm a 40 something lifelong democrat, who will write in my vote or refuse to vote for the first time in my life is Senator Obama and McCain are my only choices. Until I'm happy with any resolution about Florida or Michigan, I've also discontinued any donation to the DNC, maybe for life. Just because somebody is on the democratic ticket doesn't mean we have to like him or vote for him... so this Clinton supporter definitely will NOT democratic in November if her name isn't on the ballot. I don't ever want to be a part of the blame for eight more years of inexperience and ineptitude.

Obie forgot to mention a few more things.

In Kenya he has an insurmountable lead.

In Indonesia, he is running unopposed.

Among ex-smokers who still sneak in a puff, he has a solid majority.

In rural Pennsylvania auto-mechanics, he has a strong following, excepting those that cling to religion and guns.

He leads all comers with black women who have not yet been proud of their country.

He has a majority of the Main Stream Media pundits and columnists in his corner.

Add up all of these, he is a cinch for the nomination and election.

People-
The democrats don't need to win middle America. We just need to win Ohio and Florida, with an electoral total of 47, to reach +270. Coincidentally, Clinton is leading in those two states.

this is to anilmal. Yes, Yes, Yes and Yes. These answers would also apply to Clinton.

The people in Florida and Michigan who went to the polls to vote Knew that their vote would Not count. (I am proud of them for the exercise) Those folks will not be the ones disenfranchised. The voters that would be disenfranchised would be the ones who did not go to the polls to vote because THEY KNEW THAT THEIR VOTE WOULD NOT COUNT!
I say seat the delegates, split them between the canidates.
The canidates agreeded to not promote themselves in Florida. Is it true that Clinton did some fundraising there before the primary? I would hope that is false.
We need to focus on getting Bush out and keeping McCain out.
I have been a Sen. Clinton Backer but I just can't see how this can work for her, the party and the country.
The primary rules cannot be changed after the fact, to arrange it to elect one person over another.
Let's move on after May 6th with the big picture and the general election

Braveheart: "The tide is turning."

There is no tide. Each candidate has won where that candidate was expected to win. There has been hardly a single upset. Candidates can spin all they want, but it sure looks like the outcome is determined more by state-to-state demographics than anything the candidates have or have not done.

It's not momentum. It's scheduling.

When, oh When, will the New York City boys and the Washington Beltway boys believe there is a big country outside your cities? Out there lives Americans and they are not ready for a handsome rookie,raised in Indonesia,ambitious son of a muslim economist, to be President. Too exotic. Yes,Clinton has used attack ads, yes, Obama has some self-inflicted wounds. And yes, blacks want to win control of the White House. In the words of that immortal rotten American, Dick Cheney, "SO?"

Chris

I would ask you to answer the following questions:

a. Would you buy a used car from this person ?
b. Would you leave your teenage daughter with this family?
c. Would you hand over the management of your personal finances to this person?
d. Do you want this persons finger on the nuclear button ?

The answers will tell you who deserves to win

Don't forget, folks. People voted for Obama BEFORE his true character was revealed through the
Rev Wright God dxxx America...
Cling to guns and religion...
Won't wear a flag pin because...
Won't put his hand on his heart during national anthem....
Michelle's "unproud of America" comments...
Michelle's separatist undergrad thesis... other troubling issues.
Those who voted for him then may not vote for him now. So realize what the Republicans will do to smear him (ala swift boating - which may not be entirely accurate, but the mud sticks) and take a good look at how much they have already smeared Hillary who is still standing. The choice this fall is clear. Hillary can stand the heat. The new kid on the block has no idea how vicious the Republicans can be.

So let's look at the argument.

Big States: California, New York, New Jersey and Illinois.

CA: California shouldn't be in play, but with Obama's latino problem, it could be. The others will almost certainly go with whoever the Dem nominee is.

Traditional Battlegrounds: Iowa, North Carolina, Oregon, Wisconsin, Michigan, New Mexico, Nevada, Minnesota and Pennsylvania.

MI: Note that FL is not listed because Obama doesn't perform well there. My home state (MI, where I grew up) is a solid blue state, but I'm not convinced that Obama can carry it, particularly after denying seating of the delegation. PA Dems handed Obama a big loss. Hard to believe that will change in the general.

New States: Colorado, North Dakota, Virginia, Montana and Texas.

Maybe Obama can carry VA, MT and CO. TX is a pipe dream, and there is no way he carries my adoptive home state (ND) polling is notoriously inaccurate, but ND is one of those states where the internet smears have worked. I know dozens of Dem leaning voters who won't vote for him. And all of the battlegrounds that he can win doesn't make up for potentially putting CA in play.

What is particularly noteworthy is the exclusion of MO, FL and OH in this. Sometimes its easier to see the flaws in these types of process arguments by the exclusions than the inclusions.

To Sarah from Indiana: You are right, Hillary is so loyal to her party that she has said many times she will fierce-fully support Obama if he were to get the nomination. However, have you ever heard Obama say the same??

He is so arrogant that when Hillary answered that a chance to a "dream ticket" would be possible, Obama took great offense. And then in one of his rally's he took great pleasure in embarrassing her publicly by distorting her words and accusing her of saying she had already won the nomination. This is just one of the many reasons I have joined with 47% of Hillary supporters who will not cast a vote for Obama. And just before the primaries our family had planned to vote for him had he gotten the nomination. Than he and his wife begin the unsolicited personal attacks. One of the examples is when Michelle Obama attacked Hillary's marriage.

I have voted seven times in Presidential elections and not once have I voted for a Republican candidate but this is different; this is very personal and no one will be able to convince me otherwise.

And by the way I do not believe McCain will be any worse then Obama. At least we know who McCain is and what he stands for. But I do not know who Obama is and do not trust him.

Nevertheless, in quoting Mr Obama own words he said; "any of the us three candidates (Obama, Hillary and McCain)will be better than Bush". Therefore, my vote along with almost 50% of Hillary's supporters will most likely vote for McCain in November; which will tilt the election in his favor.

That famous Senate race that you predicted will not happen until 2010. The laws in the State of Arizona stipulate that Napolitano must appoint someone from the same party as McCain to serve out his term. She could of course appoint a has-been or a never-was but that will not work either because this state has a system of selecting that ends with her picking from a list of (I think four) candidates submitted by the Republican party. Your race for the Senate will probably happen in 2010 when her second term as Governor ends and she MUST vacate the office because of term limit laws. If McCain is President she would run against a person who had been the most junior senator for two years and had accomplished NOTHING to talk about. If he is not elected President he will probably retire at that time (74yrs old). If not, she may take him anyway, she is very popular in this usual Republican state. Time will tell but this State is slowly turning democratic and by that time may just elect her over him.

The tide is turning. Hillary will be the nominee. Just wait and see.

First of all Obama could definitely win Flordia, he hasnt even campaingned there yet, wait until he does..and secondly, as an Ohio resident let me tell you i see more Obama enthusiasm and stickers,signs,etc that McCain and Clinton combined, sure Obama will lose in the rural(racist) areas in Ohio, but he will absolutely dominate the cities-which will more than make up for it

Headline: Obama says YES to Cheney

Foreword: I wrote the following comments about an hour before I heard Olberman report that Rush Limbaugh was promoting on his website: RIOTS at the Democratic Convention in Denver

We all know the ECONOMY is the #1 ISSUE in this campaign season.

Since ENERGY is an important basis of economics our nation's Energy Policy is
EXTREMELY IMPORTANT ... as we have all seen with the increasing cost of FUEL and FOOD engendered by the rise in Oil Prices.

The Mainstream Media has failed to address or air the 3 Presidential candidates' ENERGY POLICIES. (Have YOU heard anything about The Cheney Energy Bill?)

It was passed in 2005 ... while the Republicans still had control of Congress. Obama Voted FOR the Cheney Energy Bill. McCain Voted FOR it.
Clinton Voted AGAINST it.

Most of us, upon hearing of the EXISTENCE of a CHENEY Energy Bill would...assume it to be...NOT in the best interests of our nation or any of us Not Wealthy humans...i.e. some kind of RIPOFF of the American taxpaying public.

It would also seems strikingly ODD tthat Obama,
appearing to be a very LIBERAL DEMOCRAT, Voted FOR The Cheney Energy Bill.

Clinton has brought up Obama's YES to Cheney VOTE several times during the televised debates. YET...the News People asking the debate questions
never followup by asking Obama: WHY DID YOU VOTE FOR THE CHENEY ENERGY BILL?. They Never followup by asking: What IS the Cheney Energy Bill about?

It is by far One of the most IMPORTANT ISSUES
of our time, but the "mainstream media" just doesn't cover it. WHAT is the reason for the mainstream media's SILENCE on an ISSUE so critically important to our future?

I asked myself that question and went looking for the answer. This iswhat I found:

GE owns NBC & MSNBC. Westinghouse owns CBS. GE is the 2nd largest corporation on the planet: BOTH corporations have, for many generations, pumped vast quantities of PRODUCT ... $ADVERTISING Dollars...into all forms of media.

GE and Westinghouse are the Major Players in the nuclear industry. An industry that was set to suffer a Slow DEATH...UNTIL...the Cheney Energy
Bill gave it "a new lease on life". NO new nukes have been built in the U.S for the past 30 years because the banks would not loan money to build them - too risky.

The Cheney Energy Bill Solved That Problem For The Nuke Industry by GUARANTEEING TAXPAYER Payback of any of the nuke loans that default.

(Given that the Congressional Budget Office rated the risk of default at 50%, or greater ...
do you think it was GOOD JUDGMENT for Obama to vote FOR it?)

(Given the already substantial economic damage done by the SubPrime mortgage meltdown -what amount of economic damage are we LIKELY to suffer from SubPrime: Not Credit Worthy - lending - to the nuke industry/compounded by the fact that US TAXPAYERS would PAY the full cost of a SUBPRIME Nuke Lending meltdown?)

The nuke industry's plans to build 29 new nuclear power plants are already far advanced. Licensing hearings for the first few nuke plants have already been scheduled.

Second Level Major Players in the Nuke Industry:
Excelon Corp. of Illinois - one of Obama's largest campaign contributors since his earliest days in politics - biggest nuke operator on the planet;
they own the nukes in Illinois; they own Con-Ed of New York.

Entergy - Owns many utilities in several Southern states.

3 Consortiums of other nuke industry players.

MSNBC & NBC have become more FAUX than FOX, the original Faux "news". All day everyday since last October when the campaign coverage
began ... have seen on MSNBC & NBC...ALL their "reporters" and "news analysts" -(from Joe Scarborough and Mika Berzinski on "Morning Joe"- to Chris Matthews on "Hardball" in the afternoon- to Keith Olbermann in the evening BLATANTLY promoting Pro-Obama PROPAGANDA/ Slamming & smeaaring the Clintons...everyday all day long.

I'm not the only one who noticed. Millions of people noticed and posted their complaints
about it on the internet. Last night Bill O'reilly on Fox news said - "MSNBC has become
the Obama Network".
(I call MSNBC/NBC -- BOP-N --Barack Obama Propaganda Networks.)

In response to...(unspecified...& unreported complaints about "media bias" against the Clintons, Howard Fineman, TIME magazine & MSNBC "News analyst"---whined to Chris Matthews on "Hardball" last week: Gov. Rendell said to me - "you're from the Obama Network"
-they shouldn't be complaining about US being biased against the Clintons WE're Journalists!
WE just report the facts. (Pathetic ... Fineman
...trying... to convince himself he's not
-exactly what he is- a highly paid Propaganda Pusher.)

Obama's 20 year history in politics arose from Chicago, Cook County, Illinois.

The Rezko trial involves charges of extortion, fraud, money laundering, kickbacks, bribes; CRIMES
& Political CORRUPTION (at every level of government City, County, State, National) involving: allegedly,
Rezko, Mayor Daley, Governor Blagojevich, et al for crimes committed in the U.S.; and involving internationally 3 Arabic men: Rezko, Auichi, Alsammarae - for crimes allegedly committed in massive international frauds.

(Auichi was convicted a few years ago in the French Courts of massive fraud/robbery/looting involving the French ELF petroleum company and the U.N. Oil for Food Program. Alsammarae was convicted in the Iraqi Courts of looting the Iraq electricity grid while he was the Iraqi Minister of Electricity ...under Bush-Cheney's Coalition Provisional Authority... Rezko is accused of being Alsammarae's partner in that looting.

The mainstream media is airing...very little coverage...of the Rezko -City, County, State, National, and International Fraud/Looting trial.

For example, the Federal Prosecution's main witness testifed last week that Obama and his wife DID Attend a party thrown by Rezko at Rezko's Chicago mansion for his guest of honor AUICHI. Obama has previously stated that he: doesn't remember meeting Auichi. WHY is the mainstream media (TV, in particular) not covering the Rezko trial; has NOT Asked Obama if he DID or DID Not attend that party? Has NOT asked Michelle Obama if she did attend that party?

The conclusion I have reached -from those and many other FACTS I have gathered from my impartial search is:

GE, et. al; the Corrupt Corporate "establishment"
-is running Obama and McCain for President
because they plan to reap $BILLIONS in RISK-FREE Profits from building 29 new nuclear power plants AND $BILLIONS more in RISK-FREE profits---For The NEXT 30-40 Years---from the HIGHER ELECTRICITY RATES produced by building nuke plants. i.e. The NEXT Big Dick Cheney MONOPOLY POWER
---ENERGY RIPOFF----
just...waiting in the wings...for Obama or McCain to get elected.

Currently, the mainstream media is PUSHING Obama for President and holding a lid on the BAD NEWS about him. If and when it reaches a point where Obama does not get the nomination the corporate-controlled media will drop him and start pumping out PRO-McCain Propaganda.

GE, Cheney, et al prefer it to be a NO-RISK,
Win-Win situation (for Them) Presidential election WITH Obama vs. McCain. The Media is NOW pumping out: the contest is Over, Obama's the Winner; the Nomination BETTER NOT get "stolen" from Obama or there'll be HELL to Pay and the Democrat candidate will lose in November.

The Obama campaign was caught red-handed playing the race card to win the South Carolina primary
...in a 4 page internal Obama campaign Memo published online by the Huffington Post...but the Media went right on PUSHING the BIG LIE -they blamed the Clintons. Obama has repeatedly played the race card every time he is in danger of losing.

There are indications online that Obama: used MOBS of poor black people cramming into small govt. offices in Chicago during his "organizing" days to get some of the "changes" he wanted; that Code Pink and a group named ReCreate '68 are threatening to mass mobs of 50,000 in Denver to protest/incite riots at the Democratic Convention IF Obama does not get the nomination. Obama may have connections to the groups threatenting HELL to pay at the convention if he doesn't get the nomination... that could be covered by ... plausible deniability.

Having already...recklessly, despicably, dangerously, played the race card repeatedly & supposing...Obama does have connections with/control of...extremist left wing groups and mobs...wouldn't electing him President be likely get us -WORSE THAN BUSH- Step 2 in CorporateNazi CONTROL of US... incitement of interracial strife for purposes of Political Control .... incitement of left-wing extremists/riots for purposes of Political CONTROL?

.... with the MEDIA aiding, abetting, lying and distorting ...Reality.... just like they are doing now.

Things that don't add up:

If Clinton is "the establishment" candidate - Why is her campaign constantly running out of money
while Obama has been rolling in CASH thruout the campaign?

The media tries to cover that by saying:
well...her wealthy contributors have already given the maximum amount the law allows -they can't contribute anymore funds. That's ridiculous. The "establishment" has enough cash to hire all the bundlers they need to go out and rustle up more cash from individuals employed at ALL Their Corporations, and from any other source. The media continues to PUSH the BIG LIE that Obama does not accept money from Lobbyists/Corporations (via individuals employed by them) /Wall Street/Oil/Drug Companies/Insurance Industry)

If Clinton is the "establishment" candidate .... WHY isn't the corporate-controlled MEDIA PUSHING her for President?

Obama's got the money. He's got the MEDIA Propaganda. He's the establishment candidate.

What's wrong with building 29 nuclear power plants?

Hillary Clinton: nuclear can be considered in the future IF they can make it CHEAPER and find a way to safely and permanently dispose of the nuclear waste.

Nuke waste/nuke waste dumps have been a steadily deepening nightmare for the past 50 years. (Google: Hanford WA nuclear waste dump; Rocky Flats CO plutonium, Barnwell South Carolina groundwater nuclear waste dump.

ALL the nuke waste dumps are CLOSED. Nuke waste has been stored ON-SITE at the nuke plants for the past several DECADES; providing several hundred terrorist targets vulnerable to devastating consequences from just ONE RPG.

The nuclear industry is already running a modicum of Pro-Nuke Propaganda Ads. They have bought up a few "environmentalists" & manufactured a lot more - for the LAUNCH of their upcoming NUKE PROPAGANDA CAMPAIGN (The Nukes are GREEN & CLEAN Ad Campaign)-that will start- right after the November Prersidential election.

What can YOU do about it? Copy & Paste this message -email it to everyone on your email list. Google: "North Carolina blogs politics" and post it everywhere you can -post it on Newspaper, TV, and radio blogs. Do the SAME for all the upcoming PRIMARY STATES...as far in advance of the Primary Date as you can.

"Getting off coal to go nuclear is like giving up cigarettes to take up smoking crack" (I wish I knew where I read that quote so I could give credit to the author of it.)

Eusibius: "Obama voluntarily removed his name from the Michigan ballot. Don't blame the Michigan voters for Obama's bad decision. Their votes should be counted."

I don't know how anyone can look at the Michigan vote and say it was fairly contested. The party said it wouldn't matter. The voters thought it wouldn't matter. In fact, between 40,000 and 70,000 registered Democrats, and who knows how many independents (probably above 100,000) voted in the Republican primary instead because they were told the Democratic primary wouldn't matter. Only one major candidate's name was on the ballot, and even she had said back in October that the vote wasn't going to matter.

And she didn't leave her name on the ballot out of solidarity with the Michigan voters. Her campaign approved of the sanctions on MI and FL. She left her name because she thought she'd be the eventual nominee and it would make things easier for her in November. Please see this Slate article to see how Clinton was for sanctions before she was against them.
http://www.slate.com/id/2190045/

To count the vote would not only ratify the outcome of an election that was not fairly conducted, but would disenfranchise all those Democrats and eligible independents who voted in the Republican primary. Plus the results would be skewed because of those crossover voters. No way can that result be considered valid by any objective observer.

And because of the crossover voters, it was impossible to to a fair revote. Not allowing those crossover voters to participate would again result in disenfranchisement and skew the results. But having an open primary would allow all the Republicans to meddle with the results. So because of the open Republican primary, a fair do-over was simply impossible.

And to top it all off, Clinton now says she leads in the "popular vote." Why that should be relevant is never explained, since the candidates are battling over delegates and no rational candidate would expend resources on votes that did not lead to delegates. But she also counts zero votes for Obama in Michigan. The idea that Obama would get zero votes in a fairly held contest is, frankly, dishonest. And unfortunately I think it's not atypical of many of the electability arguments she's been making for the past two months.

I've had seven years of nice-sounding but specious arguments from the Bush campaign. If our leaders don't have the courage to level with the people, they won't regain the trust in government necessary to get things done. Clinton's claim that Michigan's votes should count fails that test.

For those Obama supporters who are convinced that he will win Colorado you simply do not know what you are talking about. I spent 2 months in 2004 in Denver working with the Kerry outreah and communications and legal team. We had one of finest political operations I have ever worked with including 100 Texas lawyers who I worked with but none of that mattered Even with Salazar running we did poorly with the culturally conservative Hispanics and rural voters in western Colorado and Pueblo and were trounced in Colorado Springs and I am sure that those same Hispanic, rural and rancher voters who will show up in a general electio will be much less taken by Obama. We won over 70 per cent of the Denver and Boulder vote we had thousands of out of state volunteers bused in and a huge african american turnout and still lost by 3 points and that was not running against a Senator from an adjoining state. Don t count Colorado's 9 electoral votes in your column which is doubtful at best and the Convention site counts for nothing. The Hispanic communications director told me that Colorado Hispanics tend to be rural an culturally conservative which certainly does not fit the Obama narrative.

HA!! Is Obama serious? Oh yeah, like Texas is a new state in contention. What a joke.

If he can't carry Florida and Ohio, he is doomed.

Obviously, he knows he can't carry Florida, or he wouldn't be such a wuss about having a re-do. And obviously, he will not win Ohio, by a long shot.

He has electability problems. I hope superdelegates wake up.

OBAMA IS OUR SAVIOR.

BARAK AND REVEREND WRIGHT ARE RIGHT, GOD D*** AMERICA FOR SLAVERY AND JIM CROW.

NOW IS THE TIME TO RALLY AROUND BARAK AND MICHELLE AND MAKE THEM PROUD!

HE WILL UNITE THE PEOPLE OF COLOR AROUND THE WORLD TO FIGHT THE WHITE OPPRESSOR. THE WHITE MAN HAS HAD HIS DAY. BLACK PEOPLE HAVE BEEN HELD DOWN TO LONG.

NO MORE SO CALLED ELECTIONS WHERE TYPICAL WHITE PEOPLE VOTE IN RACIST PEOPLE WHO DONT WORK FOR US.

AND NEWS FLASH MERICAN, BARAK IS RIGHT, YOUR TYPICAL WHITE PERSON IS A RACIST.

BARAK WILL APOLOGIZE TO OUR MUSLIM BROTHERS FOR ARRAGANT AMERICAN POLICIES OF HATE AND SLAVERY.

NO MATTER WHAT YOU SAY REV. WRIGHT IS RIGHT, ONLY BARAK CAN FORGIVE AN EVIL NATION FOUNDED ON SLAVERY.

REPARATIONS NOW!

OBAMA IS OUR SAVIOR.

BARAK AND REVEREND WRIGHT ARE RIGHT, GOD D*** AMERICA FOR SLAVERY AND JIM CROW.

NOW IS THE TIME TO RALLY AROUND BARAK AND MICHELLE AND MAKE THEM PROUD!

HE WILL UNITE THE PEOPLE OF COLOR AROUND THE WORLD TO FIGHT THE WHITE OPPRESSOR. THE WHITE MAN HAS HAD HIS DAY. BLACK PEOPLE HAVE BEEN HELD DOWN TO LONG.

NO MORE SO CALLED ELECTIONS WHERE TYPICAL WHITE PEOPLE VOTE IN RACIST PEOPLE WHO DONT WORK FOR US.

AND NEWS FLASH MERICAN, BARAK IS RIGHT, YOUR TYPICAL WHITE PERSON IS A RACIST.

BARAK WILL APOLOGIZE TO OUR MUSLIM BROTHERS FOR ARRAGANT AMERICAN POLICIES OF HATE AND SLAVERY.

NO MATTER WHAT YOU SAY REV. WRIGHT IS RIGHT, ONLY BARAK CAN FORGIVE AN EVIL NATION FOUNDED ON SLAVERY.

REPARATIONS NOW!

We as americans have long/short term memmory loss. Long as in if something happened over a week ago and it's contiually in our news or the news don't find it worthy of their news gets lost. Our short term is mostly so we don't have to deal or just go plain in denial. 9/11 is a prime example of this. After 3 weeks or a little longer people were saying enough already don't want to hear anymore about it(on blogs and such). Media took note and quit covering it. Once in awhile you would see a short piece nothing substantial. The heroic people who chose to give their lives so that other innocents could live. We spend so much time on our facts of negative history. How about some good? Iv'e seen some bad history here. Alot i should say. I can't stick up for obama because, he really hasn't done much in his time in office to do a pros and cons. Hillary and bill you can. 16 years as has been said here. For that, i will say, history good and bad. And that said hillary would be our best choice. I believe her pros out do her cons. Which honestly her cons are because of being married to bill. Which to be honest isn't to entirely bad. As in they are what most americans have went through. As someone said zippergate. I don't know to many men having a camera shoved in their face would on national tv and at first say yes i cheated on my wife. What president has not had contersay somehow. Jfk one of our most beloved presidents cheated on his wife big time. Roosevelt wore womens clothes in the white house, jimmy carter...well i'll leave it at that and lastly ronald regan. Iran conta scandal. "I don't remember" was so outplayed that i think wasn't singer collins who wrote a song with clay puppets making fun of regan. All these people now are part of our history and each one did something good that most people will say they loved about them being president. These people also were seen as the not the medias favorite when someone "new" and talked about "change" came into the lime light running for presiden't. This concept has been talked about in primarys and ge's for along time. So that along with knowing all the laundry on clinton has been wrung out to dry over and over again, there's nothing really that can come out. She has been fighting for health care. It's proven history. I would like to see obama instead talking about what he has done to show it. Bills and legislation he has done. I think people who would like to see so that way they can decide for themselves would appreciate it. Again Mr. obama is a great speaker. I'm sure his race speech will make history. But, speeches isn't what will make "change" or "history" for america. It takes 2025 votes to be the elected. Neither can do that. Especially with florida and michigan not be counted. Let's let this play out till the end. Or until we have short or long term memmory loss and McCain wins! lol Oh and to close i was trying to cover alot of differnt posts with my statements here as there is over 300+. so don't bludger me to pieces because you might think it's all over the place. thanks have a great day!

Steve,
To you this looks favorable to Clinton only because you're not looking closely enough at the real numbers, which show she has HUGE problems. The map awards Clinton the electoral votes of 8 states where she has only a slight lead, within the polls' margin of error. She leads in Washington by 3 points, Oregon by 1, Hawaii by 4, Missouri by 1, Ohio by 3, Florida by 1, New Jersey by 1, Connecticut by 3. That adds up to 102 electoral votes---out of the 284 credited to her--that are actually in "battleground" states that, statistically speaking, are a dead heat. She holds a reasonably safe lead of 5 points or more in states accounting for only 172 electoral votes.

On the Republican side, McCain has a solid lead of 5 or more points over clinton in all his states except Kentucky, where he leads by 2, and New Mexico where he leads by 3. That means only 13 electoral votes are "in play" on the McCain side of the ledger. One state, Wisconsin, is a tie.

Adding it all up, that means only 11 states and 125 electoral votes are currently "in play" in a Clinton-McCain race. To get to the 270 she needs to be elected, Clinton needs to win nearly 80% of them. (If we give her the 172 electoral votes where she currently leads by 5 or more, she'd need to win 98 of the remaining 125 "in play"). That's not completely impossible, but it's an improbably tall order, almost like drawing to an inside straight.

Obama, in contrast, has leads of 5% or more in 17 states worth 210 electoral votes. He leads by less than 5% in only 4 states-- Michigan by 2, New Jersey by 2, Massachusetts by 2, and Colorado by 3. North Carolina's 15 electoral votes are a tie. But the big difference is that in a match-up against Obama, McCain is much weaker, with leads of less than 5% in 6 states---New Mexico by 1, Texas by 1, Nebraska by 3, Ohio by 4, South Carolina by 3, New Hampshire by 3. That puts an additional 76 electoral votes "in play." So the total "in play" in a McCain-Obama match-up is 133 electoral votes in 11 states. Of that total, Obama needs to win only a little over 40% to get to the magic number of 270.

Don't just look at the maps which are highly misleading. look at who has big leads, and who has smaller statistically insignificant leads. Clinton has to win almost everything "in play," and less is "in play" if she's the candidate. That's a high-risk strategy to recapture the White House.

Somehow the Obama campaign decided that the superdelegates must endorse the candidate who gets the most pledged delegates in the primaries. Is Obama's campaign making up the rules as we go?!

According to the DNC rules, the superdelegates are free to endorse ANY candidate they choose. Their INDIVIDUAL decisions could be based on the number of pledged delegates, the states won, WHICH states they won, the popular votes, the candidate they think would be strongest in the General Election, or simply the one they like the most. (Those are the rules.)

Some relevant facts:

- Most of the states Obama has won are red to deep-red states that the GOP will win in November.

- Obama has won only ONE large state, IL, which happens to be his home state and a state that Hillary would also win with a comfortable margin in the GE.

- A very large number of delegates pledged to Obama have been from the CAUCUS states. Caucuses are inherently discriminatory, undemocratic and not representative of the general population.

- One way to quantify the claim in the previous paragraph is to look at the number of votes per pledged delegate for each candidate. Based on RCP data: While Hillary has 1,333 pledged delegates and 13,917,o09popular votes, giving her 10,440 votes per pledged delegate, Obama has 1,489 pledged delegates and 14,417,619 popular votes, giving him only 9,683 votes pre pledged delegate. (Just do the math.)

- Why would 9 Obama voters have the same voting power as 10 Hillary voters?!

On the other hand:
- Hillary has consistently won all the LARGE states with the sole exeption of IL (Obama's home state).

- Hillary has won the KEY SWING STATES of Ohio and Pennsylvania. NO Democrat will be able to win the GE without winning three of the 4 swing states: OH, PA, FL, MI. Hillary is well-positioned to win FL. Obama has ZERO chance to win FL and he is extremelly unlikely to win either OH or PA. He may be able to win only MI. Conclusion: Obama is a weak candidate for the GE.

- After the PA primary, Hillary has SURPASSED Obama in the Popular Vote by 122,471 votes ! This is counting the votes in MI and FL, which MUST be counted.

For those in the Obama campaign who say that it would be undemocratic for the superdelegates NOT to favor the candidate with the largest number of pledged delegates, I say, it would be undemocratic not to count the votes of MI and FL (even if the delegates are not seated). The MI and FL voters have the same CONSTITUTIONAL right as any other voter to have their votes counted.

- Four arguments for the superdelegates to decide in Hillary's favor:
1) Hillary is winning the Popular Votes.
2) Hillary is posed to win the key swing states of PA, OH, FL and MI. (Obama is clearly not.)
3) Hillary is clearly the strongest Dem candidate for the GE.
4) Most importantly, Hillary is electable, Obama is not.

If delegates do their job responsibly, it's a no brainer: Hillary should be the nominee!

MEMO TO SUPERDELEGATES

FROM BARACK OBAMA CAMP:

Why I'm more electable:

-I've won Red states.
-I sat in Rev Wright's church for 20 years
-My wife is now proud of America.
-I went to the million man march with Minister Farrakhan
-I bought my house with Rezko's wife.
-I kicked off my 1995 campaign at Bill Ayers' house.
-I toasted Auchi at Rezko's house.
-I was pro-Palestine before I was pro-Israel.
-I sat on a board and approved funds for a Palestinian terrorist group.
-I'm Barack Obama - need I say more?

On February 8, 2008, Sen. Obama told reporters that he would be "fine" with a new primary in Michigan if it could be done in a way that gave him and Sen. Clinton time to make their respective cases and the DNC signed off (see at http://www.youtube.com:80/watch?v=sxiQ2J0fV5). After that, such a plan garnered broad support from top Michigan lawmakers and the DNC gave its blessing. However, it turned out that Senator Obama's comments about being "fine with a re-vote if the above conditions were met" were just words. As the headline in the Detroit Free-Press made clear (Mar. 18), Mr. Obama was the lone standout: "Michigan do-over depends on Obama's backing, Senate leaders say."

The legitimacy of the vote count from the primaries--and the electability of our party's standard bearer--are critical issues for a number of life-long Democrats. Senator Obama's attorneys blocked efforts to count the votes from Florida and Michigan OR to have a revote. The numbers from the reported primaries, therefore, can't be accepted as legitimate since the voices of 9% of the electorate (Florida and Michigan) are being excluded. Beyond the legitimacy issue, the fact that Florida and Michigan (collectively) account for 9% of Americans and more than 8% of Democratic delegates, discounting these votes will damage Democratic chances of victory in the fall. It will be impossible to rally a large part of the electorate around the nominee if he has secured the nomination by blocking the votes of 9% of the electorate. As a life-long Democrat, I will not vote for Sen. Obama if he wins the nomination by this means.

Obama voluntarily removed his name from the Michigan ballot. Don't blame the Michigan voters for Obama's bad decision. Their votes should be counted.

In regards to Floridians, Obama has no excuse to suppress their votes. His name was on the ballot. No candidate campaigned in the state (as they had agreed). Over a million enthusiastic Democratic voters showed up and voted. Again, don't blame the Florida voters. They have the Constitutional right to have their votes counted.

The Dems should place their Party in the high moral ground. ALL votes should be counted!

I look at the map on http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Obama/Maps/Apr25.html and I see Obama in the lead, but not winning.

I look at the map on http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Clinton/Maps/Apr25.html and see Clinton winning without problems.

What happened to the Traditional Battlegrounds Missouri, Florida or Ohio? Clinton would win them, Obama wouldn't. He would even lose West Virginia!

With Obama, even Massachusetts of all places would be close!!!

As I said, Clinton would win, Obama would have to hope for North Dakota.

BTW, who cares how a DEMOCRATIC candidate would do among INDEPENDENT voters in Colorado or other states, if that candidate fails to win the DEMOCRATIC voters in blue states.

OBAMA IS OUR SAVIOR.

BARAK AND REVEREND WRIGHT ARE RIGHT, GOD D*** AMERICA FOR SLAVERY AND JIM CROW.

NOW IS THE TIME TO RALLY AROUND BARAK AND MICHELLE AND MAKE THEM PROUD!

HE WILL UNITE THE PEOPLE OF COLOR AROUND THE WORLD TO FIGHT THE WHITE OPPRESSOR. THE WHITE MAN HAS HAD HIS DAY. BLACK PEOPLE HAVE BEEN HELD DOWN TO LONG.

NO MORE SO CALLED ELECTIONS WHERE TYPICAL WHITE PEOPLE VOTE IN RACIST PEOPLE WHO DONT WORK FOR US.

AND NEWS FLASH MERICAN, BARAK IS RIGHT, YOUR TYPICAL WHITE PERSON IS A RACIST.

BARAK WILL APOLOGIZE TO OUR MUSLIM BROTHERS FOR ARRAGANT AMERICAN POLICIES OF HATE AND SLAVERY.

NO MATTER WHAT YOU SAY REV. WRIGHT IS RIGHT, ONLY BARAK CAN FORGIVE AN EVIL NATION FOUNDED ON SLAVERY.

REPARATIONS NOW!

If Obama is chosen after winning fair and square, I don't see why not. Right is right and fair is fair. I'd say the same for Hillary.

I really do believe Obama has potential and competence, and he can really help call the Diverse crowds together, across parties even!! We are forming an entirely new movement. Right on with that!! Less division, more unity for similar causes.

2008 Presidential Election Weekly Poll

http://www.votenic.com

Results Now Posted Instantly! Barack Obama In the Lead!

Like It? Don't Like It? Vote.

letthemdrinkcrownroyal..........Lesbian president, what about a bi president ,or did you not know obama is being sued by Larry Sinclair and telling that he did a BJ on Obama in a Limo

dsimon,

Good point about the math. There's all too little of this going on these days. The Clinton mantra from the beginning has been "If we start with all the states John Kerry won and then add Ohio and Florida, it's in the bag."

But there are lots of ways to get to a winning 270 electoral votes. Sure, Ohio and Florida are nice because they get you electoral votes in bunches, but they aren't essential. As you point out, Iowa, Montana, and Colorado combined would do it. Or Colorado (9), New Mexico (5), and Nevada (5), for a total of 19--again, Democrat by 4. Or Iowa (7) and Missouri (11), for a total of 18, Democrat by 2. Or Iowa and Virginia (13), for a total of 20. Or Iowa and North Carolina (15), total 22. The combinations are endless. The polls show Obama putting all these states into play; and Clinton for the most part not.

The flip side of the equation, one the Clinton camp doesn't like to talk about, is that she is not in a strong position to win all the states Kerry won in 2004, so you can't just assume that's her starting point. She currently trails McCain by 9 points in Michigan (17 electoral votes) and by 6 in New Hampshire (4). She's dead even with McCain in Wisconsin (10 electoral votes) and clings to narrow leads in New Jersey (15), Connecticut (7), Minnesota (10), Washington State (11), Oregon (8), and Hawaii (4). Lose two or three of those states and she's potentially looking at a map where both Florida and Ohio are "must-wins," essentially replaying the failed Democratic strategy of 2000 and 2004. And neither state is a shoo-in for her at this point; she holds exceedingly small leads, within the margin of error, in both Florida and Ohio.

Obama's electoral map is much broader. At a minimum he can force McCain to defend a number of states that Republicans are accustomed to taking for granted, rather than concentrating all their resources on denying the Democrats one or two "must-win" battleground states. On the upside, he has the potential to break out of the electoral box that has confined the Democrats in the last several cycles, capitalizing on and helping to consolidate recent Democratic gains in the Rocky Mountain West, Upper Midwest, and parts of the Southeast.

If I were a superdelegate from any of those parts of the country (or the Pacific Northwest where Obama also runs strong and Clinton is weak), this would be an extremely easy call. Obama will boost the entire Democratic ticket across broad swaths of the country, while Clinton will be a millstone around down-ticket Democrats' necks.

States are divided into districts, each district has X delegates.So each is allotted the delegates for the district they won.
Why do you think Ca and Tex wanted to reassign districts==to place more republican'ts in districts with the most delegates.
Michigan was not a win for HRC. Obama was not on the ballot there.
All blacks are not voting Obama and not all white women are voting for HRC. If you actually believe that to be true you are just plain silly.

The case is pending in a California court against former President Bill Clinton, with Senator Hillary Clinton as a material witness.

A status conference hearing is scheduled for April 25, 2008, and a trial date is expected to be announced soon.

Discovery in the case is expected to begin in May, 2008 as it proceeds to trial.

The discovery will expose an ongoing cover-up of the campaign finance crimes and the obstructions of justice directed by Hillary Clinton with the help of Bill Clinton and former DNC Chair Ed Rendell. The cover-up rivals Watergate in its corruption of each branch of government and the media.

While McCain has condemned the ad as not having a place in the political discourse Hillary Clinton, great champion for civil rights that she claims to be, has declined to comment on the ad and its appropriateness or inappropriateness in the political arena.

It turns out that Hillary will not fight against incivility and racial stigmatizing if it will benefit her on Election Day. Is this a surprise

All of the Veterans I know who are not on Disability with PTSD, and maybe even some of those, are voting for Hillary Rodham Clinton.

"Iowa, Montana and Colorado won't make any difference if he loses Ohio or Florida."

That's simply not true. In 2004, Kerry lost both Ohio and Florida, and lost the election by 34 electoral college votes. Colorado has 9 electoral votes, Montana has 3 and Iowa has 7. Flipping those states (subtracting them from Bush and adding them to Kerry) would have given Kerry the election by 4 votes.

Sometimes you have to do the math.

For all of you who talk nothing but crap about The Clintons, please remember without Bill Clinton there would be no democratic party, no other democrat has been able to get elected twice since FDR.

I can't believe all the flatly false claims being advanced by Clinton supporters here about what the most recent polling data shows. Oh. wait. I take that back---I can believe that such lies and ignorant statements come from the Clinton camp because that whole outfit has never been fully reality-based, as Hillary's quixotic quest for a nomination that is now clearly out of reach attests.

Believe this:

The most recent poll in Michigan (17 electoral votes) shows Obama beating McCain 43-41, while Clinton loses to McCain there 37-46.

The most recent poll in Oregon (7 electoral votes) shows Obama leading McCain comfortably 51-42, while Clinton essentially ties McCain, 47-46.

The most recent poll in Washington State (11 electoral votes)shows Obam thrashing McCain 53-40, while Clinton holds only a narrow lead (within the margin of error), 48-45.

The most recent poll in Colorado (9 electoral votes) shows Obama holding a narrow lead over McCain 46-43, while Clinton is not even close to being in contention, trailnig 36-50.

The most recent poll in Minnesota (10 electoral votes) shows Obama dominating McCain, 52-38, while Clinton clings to a small lead 47-42.

The most recent poll in Wisconsin (10 electoral votes) shows Obama leading McCain 49-44 while Clinton is locked in a 46-46 tie.

The most recent poll in Iowa (7 electoral votes) shows Obama beating McCain 49-42, while Clinton is losing 42-48.

The most recent poll in Connecticut (7 electoral votes) shows Obama trouncing McCain 52-35, while Clinton clings to a narrow lead 45-42.

The most recent poll in Hawaii (4 electoral votes) shows Obama swamping McCain 61-31, while Clinton clings to a narrow lead 43-39.

And then there are a whole raft of states where Obama and Clinton both currently trail McCain but Obama is within striking distance while Clinton clearly is not, including Virginia (13 electoral votes), North Carolina (15), South Carolina (8), Nebraska (5), North Dakota (3), Montana (3), Nevada (5), New Mexico (5), Alaska (3), and yes, even Texas (34).

Don't believe me? See for yourself at:
www.electoral-vote.com (last updated April 25, 2008)

These polls are by different pollsters in different states, and some of them are getting quite old already. But in each case the Obama-McCain and Clinton-McCain matchups for any state were done by the same pollster over the same time frame; and these represent the latest polls publicly available.

Or, if you prefer to look at an average of multiple polls, go to:

http://uselectionatlas.org/

which presents a rolling average of the three latest polls in each state. The results are strikingly similar, suggesting the same pattern holds over multiple pollsters and extended periods of time.

Bottom line: Obama runs much stronger than Clinton in the Pacific Northwest, Rocky Mountain West, Upper Midwest, and Southeast. Clinton runs stronger in Florida (27 electoral votes); a little stronger in Ohio (20 electoral votes) though Obama is very competitive there; and somewhat stronger in Massachusetts and Rhode Island (16 combined electoral votes) which are likely Democratic territory in any event, although Obama runs stronger in the other 4 New England states (16 combined electoral votes). Clinton also runs stronger in three border states, two of them on the small side: West Virginia (5), Kentucky (8), and Missouri (11). The mid-Atlantic region polls strongly Democratic, with almost identical results regardless of the Democratic candidate.

Is "electability" an issue? Sure. But I'd say the polling data that suggest it's Clinton, not Obama, who has a serious electability problem, because her support is so narrowly confined to California, the Northeast, Ohio, and Florida. She hasn't shown in the primaries or in the polls that she can win in the Pacific Northwest, Rocky Mountain West, Upper Midwest, or anywhere in the Southeast. Yes, she can win some "big states," but if she's the nominee she'll pretty much need to sweep every last one of them because her prospects are only fair to poor in just about all the rest of the country. And that is a very dangerous electoral strategy.

Well if Obama thinks he can win Texas, he is out of his mind, Texas will go republican like it has since LBJ. He did not beat Hillary in Texes, and he sure isn't going to beat John McCain here. His "fierce urgency of now" crap has left this party in a huge mess, when he could have helped get Hillary elected and could have gone on to win after her and perhaps give us 16 years in which to really make a difference. Now he has probably ruined our chances this year and his chances forever perhaps. It's a shame, it really is, that he didn't wait until he was more qualified. It was always going to be hard enough to elect a woman or a black man, but running both together may very well have ruined our chances. Even people who don't have a problem voting for a black man, have a real problem with his associations and his qualifications. He is just not as ready as he seems to think he is.

The poll found 21 percent of those responding were undecided. Obama does better than Clinton against the certain Republican nominee, Sen. John McCain of Arizona. Among Hoosiers who said they would vote in the general election, Obama beat McCain 49 percent to 41 percent. Clinton broke even with McCain, with both backed by 46 percent of those polled. And, by 49 percent to 35 percent, Democratic primary voters said Obama is the candidate best able to win in the general election.

TODAY in California Clinton goes to court on FRAUD charge.

_Obama supporters refrain from labeling/name calling. It does not help our candidate and adds fuel to the HRC fire.__

It never fails to amaze me that when 65% of whites vote for Clinton charges of racism fly. Meantime, when 90%+ of African Americans vote for Obama no such disparsions are cast. Meantime 97% of African American men in PA voted for Obama. Does this mean they are sexist? Why aren't the pollsters asking questions about gender. They only ask about race. Totally bias data collecting. Completely ignoring the reality of sexism and how restictive it really in our society!!!!!

Another thing that so many women find offensive is these charges that Clinton is so privilaged. The fact that she is a woman automatically puts her at the end of the line!!!!!! STOP IGNORING THE BLATENT MISOGYNY IN THIS PRIMARY!!!!US WOMEN OUT HERE ARE NOT IGNORING IT!!!! WE ARE PAYING CLOSE ATTENTION AND ARE MAD AS HELL!!!!!I FOR ONE WILL NEVER VOTE FOR OBAMA UNLESS FL AND MI ARE FAIRLY REVOTED AND HE WINS LEGITIMATELY!!!!!

Once again Obama misses the point. Iowa, Montana and Colorado won't make any difference if he loses Ohio or Florida. His campaign is foolishly fixed on the number of states he wins, rather than the size of those states or the electoral significance. Virginia, Iowa, and Colorado togather don't add up to Florida, and it is highly unlikely that he can flip enough of these states to make the difference.

Additionally, this foolishness that North Carolina is now a swing state is a joke!!!!! ITS BEEN A SOLID RED STATE FOR A LONG TIME AND WILL BE AGAIN IN THE FALL.

As For OBAMA and the sexist race baters in his campaign and on CNN and MSNBC, I'd like to add a little perspective. Obama will not only loss the working class in the fall, but he will also lose women. If the DNC doesn't have the back bone to revote Fl. and MI so a fair winner can emerge, women who have been supporting Clinton will vote for McCain or stay home. We already see this shaping up as men cheating voters out of the franchise as a deliberate effort to ensure that Clinton, the first woman, is unfairly handicapped. Perhaps the sexist good old boys are attempting to repeat history, as they did during the struggle for the franchise. Black men turned on their female allies and cut a deal with white men securing their own franchise at the expense of all women. We may be witnessing this same sexism repeat itself. The differance is that now women have the right to vote and will get their revenge at the ballot box. If democratic men are going to be just as sexist as republicans, there will be no loyalty to the party from women in the fall. They can dangle Roe v. Wade on a string all they want, but at the end of the day it won't matter. Karry was so week that he carried the female vote over Bush by only 3%, while Bill Clinton and Al Gore enjoyed double digits.

The female voting block is much larger than the African American voting block and will devistate any chance for victory if not captured in the fall.

Hillary will defeat Obama because there are more uneducated and rural white voters than students, affluent and educated voters.

Two things tip her way: one, she has a certain per-centage of angry women voters, who view her as legitiomate and Obama as the male who gets the corner office over the more deserving woman. This is super-ironic, because Hillary leap-frogged over Ferraro and Nita Lowey and other NATIVE New York State women to take the Senate seat from a state she never lived in.

And second: everyone who "analyzes" the race assumes that either a. "white Americans are no longer racist." This is patently false. A young friend of mine hates visiting his family because at family parties they play racist games. In 2008 in an all white small town.

or b. "even if whites are racist and won't vote for Obama" and at least 14-20 percent will admit so, "Blacks are more racist because they go for Obama by 92%." Ironically, again, blacks also traditionally vote for the white Democratic candiadte by 92%.

It will be interesting to watch the First Phony, Bill "I did not have sex with that JEZEBEL!!!! LYING INTERN!!!" Clinton, travel around the country trying to repair his reputation among blacks, the young, and the well-educated.

I am white, but, Bill, save your breath. I wish I had never voted for either Clinton.

Hillary Clinton is not Barack Obama's problem. America is Mr. Obama's problem.

He has been tagged as a snooty lefty, as the glamorous, ambivalent candidate from Men's Vogue, the candidate who loves America because of the great progress it has made in terms of racial fairness.

Fine, good. But has he ever gotten misty-eyed over . . . the Wright Brothers and what kind of country allowed them to go off on their own and change everything? How about D-Day, or George Washington, or Henry Ford, or the losers and brigands who flocked to Sutter's Mill, who pushed their way west because there was gold in them thar hills? There's gold in that history.

John McCain carries it in his bones. Mr. McCain learned it in school, in the Naval Academy, and, literally, at grandpa's knee. Mrs. Clinton learned at least its importance in her long slog through Arkansas, circa 1977-92.

Mr. Obama? What does he think about all that history? Which is another way of saying: What does he think of America?

That's why people talk about the flag pin absent from the lapel. They wonder if it means something. Not that the presence of the pin proves love of country - any cynic can wear a pin, and many cynics do. But what about Obama and America? Who would have taught him to love it, and what did he learn was loveable, and what does he think about it all?

Another challenge. Snooty lefties get angry when you ask them to talk about these things. They get resentful. Who are you to question my patriotism? But no one is questioning his patriotism, they're questioning its content, its fullness.

This is an opportunity, for Mr. Obama needs an Act II. Act II is hard. Act II is where the promise of Act I is deepened, the plot thickens, and all is teed up for resolution and meaning. Mr. Obama's Act I was: I'm Obama.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120906741679842493.html?mod=todays_columnists

I will vote in the following order:

Hillary Clinton

write in Hillary Clinton or John McCain

Stay home

To me, Obama is not ready, and he did not have a compelling reason to run now instead of waiting for HIllary to take her turn. No one has answered or asked "why now?" of Senator Obama!

I think that Obama has faith in people! And some people are going to let him down, due to their own demons. They are closet bigets!

When the primaries started, there was a chance that I would have voted for Hillary. Now, I will never vote for her. I see the Clintons in a different light now! The damage is done and there is no way she could repair it.

I just recently come to the conclusion that America will never be ready for a person of color as president. If you're not white the american press will tear you down piece by piece in order to achieve their goal. How many times does Obama have to answer the same questions about Rev Wright? What do they want him to say? He has denounce, reject and disown his statements. What more can he say. I feel that certain people in the media will not be happy unless Obama shots Rev Wright in cold blood on national TV. I know that may sound funny, but what's more important $3.61 gasoline or what somebody Pastor has said. Remember there are 8000 people in that Church. Should they be targets of the news media also.

If there are any real concerns about Obama's electability then one need only see the latest "analysis" from Novak and Krauthammer. Shocker, they are hammering Obama.

I guess they'd rather face HRC as would any semi coherent Republican.

Posted by: Ezetimibe | April 25, 2008 12:52 PM

NOVAK -- now that IS funny ! ! !

I submit that "electability" is not the Key argument that both the Obama and Clinton campaigns say it is.

I believe either Obama or Hillary will defeat John McCain.

Face it: the country OVERWHELMINGLY thinks Iraq was a bad idea, is a bad idea and will be a bad idea.

McCain is FOR it.

When the Dems finally decide on a candidate and it is one-on-one, McCain vs. The Dem, the picture of Landslide will begin to emerge.

Right now, Hillary and Obama are each polling decently against whilst they are bashing each other's brains out! Just wait 'til the Dems have chosen one -- then you will see just how terribly out-of-step John McCain is with the American People. When Obama is facing McCain one-on-one without Hillary ripping at him, McCain will be doomed.

Think about it: McCain pretty much wants to continue George W Bush's policies. What is Bush's approval rating right now?

Chris Please don't leave for Planet O on us. I hear that once you are there you will not want to go back to your spaceship and return to Earth.

Posted by: Words of Wisdom | April 24, 2008 3:43 PM

Words of Wisdom is right, Chris. Once a person crawls out of the bilge and entrails of politics as usual in the Hillary slime-bucket and thoroughly washes and rinses off with the fresh clean soap and water of Hope, Change and Renewal that is the Obamma Campaign there is no turning back.

Can we be clean? Yes We Can!

Senator Obama blames his loss in PA on a problem with seniors...that somehow they are just use to voting for Senator Clinton. That is as much a condescending statement as his "bitter" comment.

If there are any real concerns about Obama's electability then one need only see the latest "analysis" from Novak and Krauthammer. Shocker, they are hammering Obama.

I guess they'd rather face HRC as would any semi coherent Republican.

"Can we expect him to win in the general election without more white votes and a cross-section of other voters that Senator Clinton has obviously won?"

He obviously will win many voters who voted for Clinton; after all, most of them are registered Democrats. The front page article in yesterday's New York Times cited exit polls that said many blue-collar Clinton voters would vote for Obama over McCain.

The main point of the Obama memo is correct, even if polling this far out is suspect. If the argument is that one candidate is more electable against McCain, then we should be looking at head-to-head polling data of the candidates against McCain, not the results of a Clinton-Obama match-up where only some people can vote and turnout is low.

J Sky: "The poll dates are not consistence. And it came from different pollster. He is cherry picking a different poll date for each states to make his case."

I doubt it's deceptive. They're probably the most recent polls from those states. I've visited web sites with state-by-state head-to-head polling data, and some of those polls are recent, some are older. I get the sense that these polls aren't conducted all that often, so what's presented is probably the best available.

Or you could go online and see for yourself. If it is deliberate deception, you have the ability to do the research before making the accusation.

To Rory 4/24 5:52 pm
It is well recognized that sen. Clinton is more capable of winning the battleground states, this means she can beat McCain in the general election, while Obama can not, as shown in the following website (by a NYT blogger) dated 3/25;
http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Obama/Maps/Mar25.html

This contest is about "trust" and "character".

Barack, Hillary & Mac are all three competent, skilled and experienced.

But, I trust Barack & Mac more than Hillary, whom I don't trust at all. I have more faith in their characters. They don't have all the baggage and ethical issues, and they don't pretend to be working class to grab votes.

Barack's stances on the economy, war, climate change & foreign policy are similar to Hillary's and align with mine. But I trust him, not her.

So that leaves Barack. If it comes down to Hillary vs. Mac ("untrustworthy" vs "conservative vision I oppose"), then perhaps I will write in Gore.

I could not in good character vote for Hillary. The end does not justifies the means.

So...what is essentially an Obama campaign memo suitable for distribution as a press release was "obtained by" the Fix? Wow, what a scoop! I'm sure the Obama campaign is upset that this "leaked" and was extensively excerpted in the Washington Post.

C'mon, Chris, don't be such a pushover.

The Obama memo is wonderful reading- but it is fiction.

I hope that the Obama people are not drinking their own coolaid. To think that he could possibly win Texas, North Dakota Florida or NC is insane. From all the polling he will struggle to keep MI and PA.

I give him a shot at the election if he is the candidate, but the reality is that Clinton has the constituency that has the better shot at it. She actually can win Florida and Ohio.

Obama has the support of the constituencies that will give him potentially bigger wins in the Blue States- so what? One vote above 50% would do that. It is in the Red states where he will lose the Independents so it doesn't