The former friend of David Irving and Elie Wiesel hater should know about opportunism.

Marty you keep posting one liner attacks on Hillary which are too easy to apply to your anointed one. Stop embarrassing yourself. You sound like a teen age heckler.

peretz,

I hate to tell you this but this is loser tallk. Check out my take, and this is from an Obama partisan, on the Texas is for Clinton post on the Plank.

Obama may very well be the Yvon Durelle of American politics. And if you're not up on the Archie Moore v Yvon Durelle fight, let me tell you that this ain't no compliment...

I still support him but he has failed to KO her 3 freakin' times now. I am beginning to think that Our Chosen One just doesn't have it.  Can't close. Can't deliver the coup de grace. Perhaps it is best to find this out now rather than in November.

Loser talk peretz. Whining, excuse making. Obama blew it...again.

Am a fellow Obama partisan, I agree with jaunty. He ran a weak-assed campaign the last couple of weeks and HRC mopped him up.

If she wins Pennsylvania, the 'deal' will be a re-vote in FLA and/or MI, and that will decide it.

Jackson's a firm Clinton supporter w/o being a Hillbot, jaunty and I are Obama supporters without being Obamabots, is it too much to ask Peretz to not be an Obamabot?

"Loser talk"? Obama was down 25% in Ohio and 20% in Texas 3 weeks ago. He closed the margins considerably in both states but just ran out of time. I would be worried about his "closer" status if he had blown a state like Wisconsin, Virginia, or Washington, but the demographics, especially in Ohio, had always favored HRC. Ohio and Texas were Clinton's to lose. Perspective.

mmathog, you're an Obama supporter. Peretz is not a supporter , he's a lapdog.

yeah, I don't get it, different states, different demographics. And if Hillary doesn't win Mississippi next week this means she failed to capitalize on momentum, and we are supposed to rail loser, loser at her? Everyone knows the demographics suck for her, and Obama will simply pocket the delegates. What is the Clinton modus operandi will be to spin however huge a win Obama has there into somekind of loss, because it wasn't bigger.

I agree with Cookie though, he has to go negative on her, big time. Bring up boratgate, income taxes, white house papers, shady deals everywhere, make people relive the excesses of the Clinton years and have them face the prospect of another 4 years of it, but this time in a much worse economic situation. Remind them of the downtimes without a prospect of any good times. If Obama doesn't McCain sure as hell will.

Well, if the 'bad' demogs come in small states and the 'good' demogs come in huge states, then it totally matters. How many Mississippis are there in Ohio or in Pennsylvania?

Campaign strategy? no idea, so no comment.

My contention is though that if HRC wins Pennsylvania like she won Ohio, all the 'math' will be too close to declare a legitimate victor. In that case, it's not like FLA and MI will be forced to sit out in favor of Guam and Super Ds, those states will have to get a vote. My prediction is re-vote.

What jaunty said. Time for Obama to get specific, and tough, and ideological if necessary too. The raving-with-Scarlett stuff is getting old. Show us some steel.

There will not be a re-vote in Michigan or Florida.  The Clintons won't have it.  They are going to try to get close and wring the super-delegates arms out of their sockets.  The whole MI, FL thing is a feint so that no one is paying too much attention to the super-D play and it seems legit compared to the alternatives.

Obama has to kick it up for sure. Jhildner says not too nasty, and I agree, but he has to go after her.  One of the things Americans, especially blue-collar Americans and other right leaners, want to know is whether a prospective president is able to kick some ass when he or she has to.  That's how Bush took McCain eight years ago and Kerry three years ago.  If either had punched Bush's lights out when he got all nasty and dirty, we would have had Gore-McCain or a Kerry victory.  Obama has to take the fight to Hillary if he wants to close.  He's had a good gig so far, but like any playbook, after a while the other side begins to solve the problem presented by your tactics, and then you have to make another move.

Mmathog, the math won't be close even if she wins Pennsylvania unless Obama drops the ball in the other remaining races.  He will have a few percent margin in both delegates and popular votes.  The Clintons are going to try to steal this with arm-twisting, promises, and the Big Dog working it like he's never worked it before.

tep is right.  Obama has to show he has the steel, but also has to thread the needle of doing it with such elan that it does not impeach his end of partisanship shtick.  He can do it if he puts his mind to it.

Its called politics making strange bedfellows, marty. Your enemy of but 2 weeks ago can become your life-long pal at the drop of a hat. Happens a lot more to dems that republicans, though.

A tough old campaigner, was archie moore. Ranks right up there with the all-time great light-heavyweight champions. A notch or two below bob foster, though, in my judgement. For novice boxing fans who wants to see what couragein the face of adversity is, try to catch marciano/moore on espn classics sometime. Yes, its true that rocky won on KO (7th/8th round, can't remember exactly), but archie never gave up, even though he was battered from pillar to post pretty much the whole fight.

I predicted to my friends that obama would finish her off last night, and now i'm left wondering, like mr. cookie, does he have the killer instinct? The worst thing one can do is to let an opponent off the hook when they're ready to fall, and i can't help but think that hillary's 3:00am ad had something to do with it. (In boxing terminology, i liken that ad to a hillary overhand right that caught obama and wobbled his knees.) That, and the canada/nafta thing, allowed clinton to string a few punches together and mount a small rally. I also think that obama has pulled a marvin hagler these last few weeks, and thought he was sufficiently enough ahead on the scorecard that all he needed was to coast to the win.

Now, things are different. We've truly entered into the championship rounds. (what used to be known as rounds 13-15). So he's got to suck it up and get tough, for hillary's camp has decided that going non-stop negative is the way to win this thing. Bring out the smelling salts, use a little enswell if need be, but above all, keep screaming in his ear he's way behind.

It won't be legitimate roi, assuming a Pennsylvania loss, Obama will be 'winning,' but by too small a margin (especially in the face of some serious big state losses) for him to be declared 'the winner.'

The Clintons will both have to and EMBRACE a FLA/MI re-vote.

Why? Because they can win them, and also, they'll see it as their legitimizing path.

The question is, will OBAMA accept a re-vote? I think the Super Ds will say 'yeah, you have to, it's too close.'

1. Clinton will say 'count the 1/29 vote!

2. Obama will say 'don't count the vote at all!'

3. Everyone will say 'neither of you have actually won.'

4. Compromise: Re-vote MI/FLA and see if a clear winner emerges. If 1 candidate sweeps both, the Super Ds will swing to that candidate.

Obama can still win, and if he wins Pennsylvania, he's probably a 90% lock...

One thing Obama really ought to do is get a fast-response team together that can cut a counter-punch ad quickly and get it on the air in no time flat.  And he better have some good stuff in the can.  If he could he countered right away, the 3 am thing might have fallen flat.  It was Bill Clinton who pioneered this technique to great effect.  Obama needs to channel Bill -- they're in any case far more alike than Bill and Hillary and Bill knows it and admires him for it -- mostly secretly of course.

Well, mmathog, we'll see what happens between now and PA.  I don't think the Clintons care much about the "legitimacy" of how they win.  They just want to go to the show by whatever route can get them there.

Roidubouloi - Obama had a counter ad up and running within 8 hours of the 3 AM ad. Hillary was up 20% in both Ohio and Texas just a few weeks ago. I love the new meme circulating, namely that Obama "can't put Clinton away" and that he has had "three chances" to do so. It's simply silly. If you measured Hillary by this same standard, you would be wondering why the "inevitable candidate" can't put Obama down. Nothing really surprised on Tuesday's election except that Obama nearly pulled out a win in Texas (and did win the delegate count).

BSD

bsdespain

I'm not in TX or OH and didn't see the ad or the counter, but the counter sure didn't get any press attention.    Not good enough.

I agree with you that the meme is ridiculous.  But that isn't the point.  The meme exists only in spin world, with some possible emanations into the real world.  But the indications are that in the real world she did claw back some ground on the eve of these primaries, enough so to win the popular vote in TX and give her a strong margin in OH.  If she hadn't won TX, she would be toast by now, scrapping for yet another meme to explain that.

If he wants to win, he has to be at least as effective at neutralizing that sort of thing, or pre-empting it with his own stuff, as her ads/attacks were.  It is just not true that a candidate can succeed without counter-punching effectively.  See, e.g., Dukakis, Kerry, McCain.  Contrariwise, see Bill Clinton.

We don't want Obama to have good spin on why he almost won and came such a long way.  We want and need him to pound her fucking lights out.

Yes but he needs to tread somewhat carefully.  He needs to swift boat her because otherwise his politics of hope mantra becomes completely meaningless.

Anecdote: I have a buddy in Ohio, leaning towards Obama when I talked to him over the weekend. When I expressed my disappointment to him about the outcome Tuesday, he said he had voted Clinton; that he thought Obama's only chance was as the "squeaky clean" candidate, and the NAFTA and Rezko stories had cast that narrative into doubt; that he has doubts about Obama's ability to survive the Republican onslaught in the fall, though he would support him wholeheartedly should he get the nomination. So the timing of the various stories over the weekend (surely by no coincidence) swayed at least one timid soul. I don't think he's unaware that he's reinforcing the paradigm that Obama is trying to subvert (you know, the "truthiness" one); I think he just thinks it can't be done. Some days I have doubts myself.

The meme is not ridiculous. This has been a powder puff campaign. I've never seen a major candidate get by with so much fluff and BS as Obama has-- Gary Hart and Jerry Brown spouted a lot of New Agey nonsense (Hart in 1984 on his fave project of military reform: "less isn't better, more isn't better, only better is better!"), but they didn't preside over raves at which the ravers applauded when they _sneezed_.

There are real and serious doubts about whether Obama's first rate cortex is matched by a first class spine. Time for him to put those doubts to rest.

I agree with jaunty - this was really a knock out punch and I think Obama is done.  He should take the VP now before the window closes for him.  Its only a mater of time.

a MATTER of time.  

A matter of time?  It is curious that when Hillary suffers a massive series of defeats, 13 in a row with the Democrats Abroad, the meme is her ability to come back no matter what. Obama comes back brilliantly after new Hampshire and the meme is that the minor setback of not quite taking Texas after eroding Hillary's double-digit lead is the end of Obama -- despite the fact that he will win more contests and will probably come into the convention with a greater margin in pledged delegates than he had on March 3, a larger popular vote, and polls still showing him doing better than Hillary against McCain.

Obviousy, the press is grossly unfair to Obama.  For Hillary, anything short of political death is brilliant victory presaging her nomination.  For Obama, anything short of total victory is political death, proving that he was but an empty suit.

Back in the real world, Obama has already shown his ability to up his game as needed.  Hillary has shown that she can get dirty as needed.  He needs to start pressing as far as decency allows on her many weaknesses.  She thinks she's tested and vetted.  She isn't.  She'll crack like a walnut.

It's only a matter of time and the consistent application by Obama of lots of pressure.

Man, it's so rare that I agree with roi that I reread his posts to make sure.  First, there will be a re-vote in FL ONLY if the DNC spends the $10 million it costs to put it on.  Hereabouts, Gov. Crist and the GOP legislature are cutting spending, so not too open to footing the bill for a Dem re-vote.  Chairman Dean said he ain't payin'.  Case closed.  Can't say about MI.

HRC will steal the nomination through a deal on FL and MI and buying off enough super-delegates to win.  Never, and I mean never, underestimate the Clintons' desire for victory, their overweening sense of entitlement, and their total lack of ethics in pursuit of their ends.

Of course, by the time HRC does all of teh above, the nomination will be worth nothing, and she'll get beat in Nov.

Roi - I need to be slapped upside the head sometimes.  This is why I don't have the stomach for real electoral politics, say as a living.  I lose heart too easily.

But he - and his supporters - need to get the eff up off the mat and fight to win.  Stop being afraid of being called an angry black man or a hypocrite, since when does Hillary care about consistency or ethics?  He needs to get in the ring and beat her ass.  

He needs to cut an ad that says the following in large white letters on a black background:

HILLARY: NAME ONE FOREIGN POLICY ACCOMPLISHMENT OF YOURS.

how can she be agreeable to taking on as her vice president Barack Obama, whom she has so dishonorably trashed?

Huh? Dishonorably trashed?

In my opinion, this has been one of the cleanest, most congenial Presidential races (so far) since the founding of the Republic (on the part of both Clinton and Obama).  Anybody that seriously believes that Clinton has dishonorably trashed Obama, or that Obama has dishonorably trashed Clinton, has no concept of what the term dishonorably trashed means.

Marty doesn't say a word about Chuck Hagel (who Obama floats as a trial balloon for his administration), but channels his new best friend Christopher Hitchens (woosh goes the windsock) on George Wallace.  Did I miss something or is an African-American woman running Clinton's campaign?  

buffaloboy - personally, I could have done without the blackface Obama (the ad where the darkened his skin) and the Mark Penn "Obama was a coke dealer" shtick.  But for the Clintons, you're right: this counts as pretty honorable.

Hitchens: almost always hungover, almost always right.

I prefer both of these elbows out candidates to the honorable Gores & Dukakises (Dukakii?) of the world who were not ready for a fight.

Ok, I'll try again another way.

After Super Tuesday, HRC and Obama were, for all intents and purposes, tied. Everyone agree? If not, you can stop reading.

During the rest of Feb., Obama ran off a long string of impressive wins, particularly Wisconsin and Maryland; he has HRC on the ropes, but not yet knocked out.

On March 4th, Obama, despite 11 straight wins, 2 weeks to campaign, and a ton of cash, loses to HRC in two big states. I reject the notion the 'Obama closed a big gap' theme at this point. That theme was important wrt Super Tuesday, California, and New Hampshire, but on March 4th? After 11 wins in a row? It was time to close this thing out. He couldn't.

Now, Obama continues to hold a narrow lead, we have a few small primaries and one big primary. If Obama wins the small ones and loses the big one by Ohio-like numbers, we're in the same boat. Obama is clinging to a narrow and not quite legitimate lead.

By definition, neither candidate can win w/o legitimacy, legitimacy is what will swing the Super Ds.

What now lurks? Two LARGE states.... If you think Obama will successfully argue that those two states shouldn't be counted and that he's the winner due to his narrow lead in spite of recent large losses in big important states, well, I think that's nuts.

Those two states will have to come into play ('what, Guam and Super Ds count and FLA/MI don't?')

Like I said before, HRC will say 'seat them as voted' (which of course is totally unfair) and Obama will say 'don't seat them at all' (which won't fly).

We'll see a re-vote., and we'll see who wins.

Obama will say "Eithe don't seat them or re-vote to seat them," as he already has, and the Clintons won't go for it, as they already have not.  They will believe that in the inside fighting over super-delegates they have the advantage and they will not want to go back to the public for a climactic decision by MI and FL.  In all likelihood, even with FL Hillary will still be behind in delegates and popular votes.  No one could possible think of seating MI where only one of them was on the ballot.  FL might get seated if it doesn't actually alter the balance.  Then the super-delegates will make the decision.

My prediction is that if Obama has more delegates, including FL, more popular votes, including FL, and polls showing he has the better shot to beat McCain, which he surely does, the supers will break his way and that, by the time HRC figures out that she ain't going to win it with the supers by threatening to kidnap their children, it will be far too late for any re-voting.

Nedra Pickler broke the 'Obama in Canada' story?

Uh oh... PIckler is a right-wing operative who works at AP....

God I loathe the Clintons.

Yeah, I was just saying over on the "What's it aboot?" thread that this was a Clinton dirty campaign trick and was pooh poohed by a couple of people who seem to think Hillary a woman of valor and honesty.  Maybe she will really get caught doing it and he can crucify her with her duplicitous behavior.  Wouldn't that be cosmic justice!

I'm beginning to hate that word "meme" but the one that has to be kept out there is the one that says, Clinton can't beat McCain in November, but Obama can.  If Democrats realize in their collective cortex that it's not about "legitimacy" but about winnability, then HRC's slash'n'burn techniques will be seen for what they are:  an attempt to strongarm a nomination that will wreck the party and ultimately end up in the ditch in November.

Irony, I used to be sympathetic to that mime (pronounce it a la francaise and you get the same result) but I think it's suspect, in view of how badly Obama got utterly crushed by HRC with latinos in TX. We can't afford to let McCain get north of W's 2000 hispanic vote share, which IIRC was ~43%. If he does, he sweeps the southwest battleground states and also puts CA in play.

We were told that Obama would do better and better among latinos as they got to know him, but the TX outcome suggests the reverse. If Obama cannot show evidence of turning around his big and growing deficit with latinos, the electability dynamic changes significantly, I think.

Seems like a mud wrestling at its best. Even the spectators get dirtied. Why is bashing Hiliary for no reason not the same  thing as going after Obama for being black. Religion and race are bad  to attack while sexual orientation and being an assertive female is ok

Guys, Hillary can say anything she wants about making Obama her VP if it gets her the votes she needs for the nomination.

Once she has it, she can pick whomever she damn pleases.  And, besides, she probably figures he's not going to take it.  (Although I think he might.)