When a candidate starts siding with McCain, it weakens the party. "I have a lifetime of experience, McCain has a lifetime of experience, Obama has a speech he gave in 2002." If that kind of garbage keeps up, it will divide the party big time.

I don't necessarily think it's weakening the party, but I do think everyone wants it to be over. If you look at all the money that has been raised thus far, especially last month, it's amazing. Hillary (the complete underdog) almost tripled what McCain (the Repub nominee) raised. There's a whole lot more interest this time around and Democrat turnout has been huge. I honestly think either will win against McCain, even if it lasts a little longer.

What I don't get about hillary is let's say she eventually loses the nomination. How does she handle then having to back Obama? She'd have no credibility backtracking on all the nasty bs she has thrown at him. She has flat out said he's not qualified to be president.

Accused him of plagiarism, yelled at him like a child ("shame on you Barack Obama!"), praised McCain over him, and on and on. If she wins and tries to get his voters by offering him the VP position, I would hope he'd decline it after all the character attacks she's done on him during this campaign. The plagiarism thing, in particular, is pretty disturbing to me. Not only has she attacked his character constantly, she's attacked the intelligence of his supporters by implying that his supporters are a cult. Speaking of which, her supporters sounded eerily similar to a cult tonight during her speech in Ohio.

This is all wrong. Whomever, the Superdelegates decide the best candidate is (Lord help us) will get the nomination. Neither candidate has won any state primary or caucus by a large enough margin to win this thing outright. Obama can't run the table and win it without the Superdelegates, either. The superdelegates have to decide this. Obama has the delegate lead, because he has benefitted from arcane primary delegate allocations (he gets more delegates in mostly AA districts, because he wins those with 75-25% of the vote or better), and caucuses which are very questionable in deciding the best candidate. Basically, for the primaries it breaks down if you get 65% you get an extra delegate, if you win 75% you get an extra delegate and so on. So candidate A might win the entire state 59-40%, but only get an extra delegate for the entire state, but candidate B won district 1 by 75-24%, and he gets 3 extra delegates from that, even though he lost the rest of the state 64-34%. Candidate B gets 2 extra delegates. Clinton has gotten more votes than Obama, if you count all the votes cast so far.

He has not won the large populated states, and he has not done well in primaries that don't have large AA populations. The superdelegates need to sit this out until the dust settles and really look at the entire picture of where these candidates run strong and weak. According to exit polls of voters, Clinton supporters are more likely to sit out the election if Clinton is not the nominee than Obama supporters if the situation is reversed. There are a myriad of factors that need to be considered and I think waiting until the last possible moment is not a bad idea. How many times have either candidate looked unstoppable since Jan. of 2007, yet neither has been able to wrap it up.

Kerry winning so early in 2004 didn't make him a stronger candidate it made him weak, because Edwards never went negative. I am a Darwinist, if Obama or Clinton win they need to be roughed up, to be be better able to handle the GE fight. Survival of the fittest.

This is nothing like 1968, people need to read and understand history in order to comment. Doug Wilder is just making outrageous BS statements like he has for the last 20 years. If anyone wants to know what a Democrat who is only looking out for #1 looks like you can't get a better example than Doug Wilder, Ed Koch, or William Schaeffer. These are Democrats, I can't stand.

How about Kansas and Wisconsin? There are probably others but it's almost 3:30 am...

As to the large populated states, while Ohio is a swing state, New York and California are unlikely to go to the republican in the fall whichever of them is the nominee. Ohio is the only big state she can point to winning as drawing any distinction between her and Obama. And even in that state she won in part because of rural rednecks who probably voted for Bush in 2004 anyway.

With Kerry, what undid him was he ran on his vietnam war era accomplishments. It was just stupid, he was lucky to get as far as he did running such a badly thought out campaign.

Kansas does caucus, but Connecticut is a primary, and it doesn't have large AA populations. He won the Washington state primary too, even though that's just a beauty contest (and less incentive for his supporters to vote, one could argue).

And RealClearPolitics still shows Obama ahead in popular votes, even with Florida counted (wouldn't be fair to count Michigan since he wasn't on the ballot, unlike FL).

I don't buy it either - - it's simply a manufactured product of the media to amp up the drama. Why would we want to cut the democratic process short. Previous primaries such as 1968 and 1952 went all the way to the convention, and up to three votes there. Don't let the media sell you this nonsense.

Besides, keeping the Democrats front and center in the top of the news cycle for months and months is a bad thing how?

Don't cry - - a woman president and black vice president is the Democrat's dream team!

any woman but her.

as of right now Obama still has the delegate lead (1307 to 1175 according to MSNBC).
so i shouldn't be feeling all sad.

that's not exactly funny. :huH:`

yeah but its Christopher Hitchens. he always has something to say about democrates.
i'm sure he's rooting for Clinton to win so he can have ammo for another book.

Hitchens is a Bush fan, so no surprise there. He went from a liberal in the 80s to a neocon in the 00's.

Obama should just go negative and slaughter her to end this. It's a shame though, he did everything he could to bring dignity to the campaign.

$86 million, but the thing about Ohio and Texas is that both of them had females voting off the charts. 57-60% of the vote in both states was females. And guess what, the gender card comes into play almost as much as the race card comes into play for Obama. And there are far more females in the electorate than blacks, so it's an even bigger force. Plus, she had 20 point leads in both states not too long ago. I'm not sure how that makes those states "ready made" for him, particularly when Texas is loaded with Hispanics and Ohio is loaded with blue collar white voters. Those are her BASE supporters.

Yep, get out the popcorn!

i wonder what precentage of the Texas voters who voted last night in the dem primary are registered republicans?
i bet there were alot voting for Hillary thx to talk radio telling them it be easier beating her than Obama.

That's something I am wanting to see because she carried the Texas white rural vote BIG TIME, and I bet some of them were Republicans. I haven't seen any breakdowns other than 10% being the approximate number of Republicans that voted. I'm interested to see the breakdown of the 10% though. Right wing talk radio was definitely pushing for their listeners to vote for Clinton.

I actually think while there are bad things about it, overall it's good.

It keeps the candidates in the news and in the public eye, and people are talking about Hillary and Obama -- one of which will be the candidate in the fall. If one had won by now, they would no longer be headline news for quite a few months. McCain, meanwhile, will be relegated to the back pages much more now that he has the Republican nod.

The bad part is that a lot of the race is becoming negative, so what people are hearing is not good for the democrats. On the other hand, the negative stuff would have come out anyway from the Republicans, but would be later on and closer to November. So if we get the bad stuff out of the way now, by November it will be old news...

While the democrat in me is kind of upset that this isn't over, the political junkie in me is loving this!

From CNN, Hillary is +27 in delegates counted thus far over the states last night. There is still a substantial portion left to count, including the entire Texas caucus. So far it's 117/90

Either one will defeat McCain in the fall.

This picture sums EVERYTHING of the media bias up perfectly:




Rather than dividing it into equal thirds, Obama gets the most space, followed by Hillary, and McCain is scrunched into a corner.

A geez, this is the most trivial thing since the picture of Obama not pledging against the flag. Besides, Obama and Hillary's spacing seems to be the same. Next are you going to point out that that the media is intentionally going for some bad camera shots to make Hillary look less flattering? Only Sam Nasty would point things out like that