I just pointed it out because it sums up exactly where things stand. The media puts Obama in the spotlight, followed by Hillary, and tucks McCain into a corner.

You can say it's trivial, but why do it? Why not just divide it equally into thirds?

CNN now has a cool Democratic delegate counter game up, allowing you to slide counters and figure out where the nominees would land in delegate counts based on how many delegates you think they will win in the remaining states. Pretty neat.

Peace,
Mike

You ask why Obama can't knock his opponents out. It could be the fact that he doesn't take cheap shots like she does. Like siding with John McCain in an effort to make Obama look bad. Or bringing up the Rezko thing even though her husband got paid $20 million by the Emir of Dubai for a supposed "buyout" even though the Clintons are STILL to this day the Emir's personal financial advisers. Obama will not hit her on this like she does with him, and that's why he never delivers knockout blows. Negativity worked for Hillary in Ohio and Texas.

All it shows is that Ohioans are susceptible to fear politics but we already knew that from the 2000 and 2004 elections.

Exactly, Redbird. But he may be forced to by her tactics.

AP is reporting this:

A senior Obama adviser, speaking on condition of anonymity, said Obama's team will respond to Tuesday's results by going negative on Clinton -- raising questions about her tax records and the source of donations to the Clinton presidential library, among skeletons in the Clintons' past.

That's a badddd move on Obama's part if true. You can't run as this candidate of change, this person who wants to change Washington, and then go and do the same crap all other politicians do, it just looks soooo hypocritical.

For the first time in a while I agree with you, that's not the right move.

What I think he should do is just start calling her the insider's candidate (which objectively speaking, she is, her main strength is power brokers and old ties), and highlight how much money she has openly accepted from lobbyists.

edited for confusing phrasing.

Bullshit. She's run all-out character assassination on his integrity. Her refusal to release her tax returns and the $20 million deal with Bill and Dubai WILL come up in the general election. Might as well get it out of the way now.

whats absolutly hilarious is depsite these appearent, she is still down by over 100 delegates

I love how people have gone from calling these "must win states or shes done" to "major combeack for Hillary".

I find it funny because she lead by 15 points or more in both states 2 weeks ago; she was obviously expected to win the popular votes. As I said before, his lead in delegates and popular votes is virtually impossible for her to top, and whoeve rhas those will win the nomination at the convention.

What's even funnier is that Wyoming and Mississippi could go heavily to Barack and cancel out her 15-17 delegate gains from last night.

And give me a break. Obama has what it takes to win. Hillary had 15 point leads in both of these states 2 weeks ago. The fact he had only lost Texas by 3% shows just how effective he was in his campaigning there.

Bigger than that actually. 25 in Ohio and 20 in Texas.

Meanwhile, I really want to see the breakdown of Republican votes for the Texas Dem primary. I read that they made up 10% of the vote, but I have not seen who they went with. Limbaugh, Hannity, and the other right wing radio guys have been telling their listeners to vote for Hillary. In Texas that might have made a difference.

Ah OK. That's what I was expecting before the Limbaugh stuff started, so that's good to hear. At least he didn't impact it.

Indeed. You never know -- perhaps another week and he would have beat her.

except that CNN said 61% of the votes who made up their minds in the last 3 days went with hillary, not barack.

Some of the most recent polls had Obama winning Texas; I also remember there being a delegate breakdown website which showed Obama winning the delegate race, even if he lost the popular vote, based on his strongholds. And now it looks like Obama has lost both the popular vote and the delegate vote in the Texas primaries, which really surprises me.

Recent Ohio polls also had Clinton barely winning, and Obama narrowing in. But she won that state more convincingly than the polls indicated.

So, while Obama during his momentum surge was no doubt narrowing Hillary's lead greatly, he took a step back ultimately in this past week and from the latest polls. If Hillary can take the momentum away and keep it, then she could still get the nomination.

This is ultimately still only in the back of my mind however, since I still think Obama will win the nomination. And I'm glad that Clinton is not dropping out, because even if she doesn't manage to win, I consider the close and thus prolonged race to be a really good thing for Obama. He needs this experience to toughen him up for the general election. Obama having to fight for the win will only make him better for the general election, in my opinion, and give him even better odds at crushing McCain.

Peace,
Mike

No Republican has ever won the White House without winning Ohio, and for the past 100 years, only two presidents have lost Ohio: FDR in his fourth term and JFK. Both died in office, coincidentaly.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/20 ... nce-claim/

Finally, Obama is challenging her experience claims. I've been saying it all along that I thought it was a crock of BS. Her 35 year claim for one thing is very misleading. She graduated from law school 35 years ago, and much of her time was spent as a corporate lawyer and later on the board at Wal-Mart. She essentially has around 15 years of experience, though her First Lady experience gets overplayed when you consider a New York Times article that revealed her role was not necessarily as important as a lot of people think.

To be fair, neither party's candidate has ever been black or a woman either. If there's ever been a election for breaking precedents, this is going to be it.

From CNN on Bush endorsing McCain after clinching the Republican nomination:





Peace,
Mike

That seems highly unlikely, since he won 60-40% in early voting (which ended up being about 30% of the total votes) and then lost by 55-45% on the election day voting. According to CNN or MSNBC, Clinton won 60-40% of voters that made up their mind in the last three days.

About my post last night, it was late and I might not have been as clear as I should have been. I was stating Obama generally doesn't win in those states that have primaries without large AA populations. Sure he has won in states like Connecticut, Vermont and a few others that held primaries (as Xia stated Kansas was a caucus). However, take Connecticut as an example. Ned Lamont won the primary in 2006 and then lost the general election to Lieberman. In some of these states the primary and caucus voters are not a good reflection of the voters in the Fall. They are too liberal and their candidates can't win in the Fall. I think Obama is very similiar to Lamont. Clinton is built more for the GE and Obama built more for the Primaries, IMHO.

The total votes was wrong. I had heard the RCP number, but didn't realize it included Michigan and Florida. Sorry, it was late. I gotta get on the road. Take care everyone, good luck to all.