Agreed, so why is the continued primary *bad* for Obama?  Now when McCain brings this up, he'll be able to say "the voters understood what I was trying to say, they aren't going to be destracted with you rehashing it now"?  

I would note that nobodsy reeks of "elitist, contemptuous-of-religious people who aren't leftist" more than David Shuster and Keith Olbermann...

I want someone to hand Hillary a hunting rifle and ask her to demonstrate how to clean it. I would wager money that she would either (A) refuse to touch the nasty dangerous gun or (B) start handling the gun without first opening and clearing the action. Fair enough to try to score points against Obama here, but suddenly posing as a shooter and a church-goer feels like yet another slap in the face. Does she really think I'm _that_ stupid? A fantastically wealthy corporate attorney pretending to be a good ol' boy and then going down to get her picture taken drinking a shot of whiskey like George W. Bush playing bar-buddy with a bottle of O'Doul's, that's the real elitist condescension on display here.

Don't forget the "I'm not bitter!" buttons they handed out.

Nothing says "I'm probably pretty bitter!" than wearing a button that says "I'm not bitter!"

Exhibit A for how her ongoing campaign, and the way she's decided to run it, is hurting the Dems.

But, if she wants to go that route.....Let's remember she and her husband banked over $100 million in the last eight years, a period during which Obama and his wife were still paying off their student loans. Who's the elite, out-of-touch candidate???

The part that received groans was before this snippet...

See the video with this report...

firstread.msnbc.msn.com/.../888068.aspx

"This was unquestionably a serious stumble on Obama's part." I want some evidence.

Seriously.

Obama's comment was a stumble only if you observe politics through Karl Rove's lenses and react according to Bob Shrum's. But it's not if you are watching what Obama is doing with this stuff.

He's transformed it into an opportunity to mop the floor with Hillary and McCain WHILE SPEAKING DIRECTLY TO BLUE COLLAR VOTERS, an audience with whom he has been desperate to have a more direct conversation, i.e., one that highlighted his labor cred and exposed Hillary as a bullshit artist phony.

Meanwhile his HQ is getting flooded with cash, and his national numbers are steady. Sounds like a good weekend to me.

"If this were going to do Obama in, it would have done so without her help. "

The media is not going to jump on Obama.  It's Obama who doesn't need to attack Clinton directly. He has tnr and the rest of the media for that. It's really remarcable  that with so much money and overwhelming support of the media Obama still is unabled to to end this contest. He is so weak candidate.

I don't think it's because people want Clinton. People just don't want Obama in spite of all attempts of indoctrination by the media.

Jacobt1,

They don't want him so much that they keep sending him $40 million per month, that is a sweet trick!

Peace

Even with all money that Obama cultists send to him,  and with 90+ % automatic support of Black voters  he just can't close the deal with Democratic voters.

jacob -- if Obama is an unpopular failure for "only" finishing in first place, what does that say about a candidate who is losing to him?

Yeah, it's like one of those elections where somebody stays on the ballot although they died -- but it's too close to the election to change the names.  Then they win -- and if you're the opponent you've lost to a dead guy!

If Obama's massive army of small-sum contributors are "cultists," what does that make the Clinton the supporter base?  Kamikazi pilots?

And fwiw I think there's something insidious about jacobtl's juxtaposing of "Black" and "Democratic" voters as if they were two completely different entities.

Rhubarbs,

The point Jacob was making almost makes itself when you think about the effusive, fulsome praise Obama has been given by the press for months!  And he still can't win?  Clearly, Hillary has not been given this kind of coverage.  For Obama, we've had respectable journalists in this country do everything short of falling prostrate in worship.  

Yet he's been unable to win ANY large diverse primary state beyond his home state.  That's a problem.  And it's a problem that we should care about if we're hoping to win in November.  

We don't hold caucuses in the general election, nor do African-Americans make up 60 some-odd percent of the general electorate, as they did in certain Southern Democratic primaries.

People should think long hard about how weak Obama actually is if he can outspend Hillary by two and three times (and in Pennsylvania, by three and four!), if he can receive laughably biased media coverage, and if still goes on to defeat by double degits!  

Jacobtl... we all know the Jewish rag on Obama (and I am one)... I've never seen as many people turned on by a candidate, BECAUSE of his intelligence, his decency, his willingness to see complexity and not talk down to and condescend to people... close the deal?  Watch him close the deal... there are an awful lot of us who would never vote for HILLARIOUS for dog catcher after her taking a page from the Rovian playbook, which was highlighted on these pages... in the magazine interview with a men's fashion magazine...Let's attack Obama as an elitist it suggested, thus turning strengths into weaknesses.  Hillarious took it and ran with it.  WHO the hell cares about truth or anything else?  YUK!  Everytime she pulls a stunt like this one, I just get angrier and angrier and more and more BITTER about what our political discourse has become with the likes of the Bush tag team which now includes not just Rove but Hillarious as well.

Let's just face it.  This guy is REALLY good, and Hillary is as flat-footed and tin-eared.

He really is wiping the floor with her -- and using this incident to do it.  This is the sort of hitting back that I have been hoping for, making her pay for it when she attacks.

The end is nigh!, and I just cannot imagine that anyone who really is a Democrat and wants the party to capture the White House, even a Hillary supporter, is not relieved that we have a candidate who knows how to slip a punch and hit back without seeming to be nasty.  It is a great political gift -- AND HE"S ON OUR TEAM!!!!!!

nturner,

That's just friggin ridiculous.  Certain voter groups have particular preferences for particular reasons.  By your cockamamie analysis, a candidate who raises and spends more money, because he has many more devoted supporters, but doesn't get the votes of everyone in every jurisdiction is weak.  If Obama is weak, then Hillary is a helluva a lot weaker -- she can't hold onto her constituency, can't manage a campaign, can't raise nearly as much money, and can't keep her foot out of her mouth or recover once she gets it in there.  

There is such a thing in electoral politics as a "base," meaning the people you pretty much cannot lose no matter what you do.  Hillary's is in the Rust Belt.  So what?  Overall, she is losing despite having begun the campaign with much higher numbers in the polls and more name recognition than almost anyone in American politics.  Do you remember how PA was going to be a double-digit blow-out for Hillary?  Well it isn't going to be because, as a candidate for public office, SHE FLAT OUT SUCKS.  NOT WEAK, SUCKS!

Hillary gets shitty coverage because she is a shitty candidate and most people cannot bear her, even journalists who are, in some sense, human beings.  That is not a sign of her strength.  If she were not married to Bill Clinton and trading on that legacy, she never would have gotten started, and, if somehow she had, she would have disappeared months ago.  The problem for her is that she is not Bill Clinton and it just doesn't rub off.  The longer she stays on stage, the more obviously unfit she is to be the party's nominee -- because she is a terrible politician with no political talent.  Give here the lifetime wonk achievement award if it makes you happy.  That is not what succeeds in electoral politics.  She should maybe be someone's chief of staff.

Annabella2,

There are there are an awful lot of us who would never vote for Obama for dog catcher after her taking a page from the Rovian playbook from the start of this campaign.

I don't deny that Obama can walk on water. I don't know. However, with all his his intelligence, his decency, his willingness to see complexity you would think that he should point to at least a single miracle he is responsible for.

Don't you remember that Jesus, who was also a community organizer, was able to demonstrate non trivial achievements. So why with all  his talents Obama  has not demonstrated any achievements with exception of his ability to get elected?

yeah jacobt,

The "people" who don't want Obama are the minority of Democrats who are Hillaristas -- like you.  The majority of Democrats don't want Hillary and do want Obama.  In elections, the majority wins.  Didn't you know that?  

It is emblematic of the fantasism of Hillary that her supporters continue to believe she is winning by losing and that Obama is losing by beating her.  If you say, "it's over already" they screech that she has a "right to run" as long as the rules permit.  Then they tell you that Obama "can't close the deal" because Hillary is still running.

What in the world are these people imbibing?

My schadenfreud is in overdrive.  I so LOVE watching Hillary sink herself.

roidubouloi,

"how to slip a punch and hit back without seeming to be nasty."

This is example of an Obama cultist elitist attitude.  You think that the rest of country wouldn't notice because we are uneducated morons

This whole process is madness and is making everyone involved into foaming-at-the-mouth lunes.  It is torture and has devolved in to waiting around for the next gaffe/frenzy cycle. I am relieved Hillary was booed today for her embarrassing behavior.  She's making such an ass of herself.

So, somehow 40 million a month of donations mostly in the $50 to $250 range is simply a bunch of cultists huh?  

What elitist drivel describing millions of Americans in such a condescending manner.  

I think Hillary's supporters are great for being involved with their country.  I may not agree with their choices, but I commend their commitment and energy and patriotism.  

I wish I heard more concrete, positive cases being made for their candidate rather than just calling Obama and his supporters names.  I rarely, if ever, read anything by her supporters describing the actual substance of her stands on issues, what positive qualities she brings to the table, any ideas she has for tough issues, what inspires them about her.  Nothing. Everything revolves around demonizing Obama's suporters and turning Obama in to Beezlebub.  It's weird, sad.

How about a positive case for your candidate?  No name calling, try and leave Obama and his supporters out of it - are you capable of that?  Just a straight-forward, positve, substinative case for Hillary - not just generalized words like "experience", substance.  Concrete stuff - experience doing what and when?  Can you name a time she really took on  the Republicans as an elected official, because I can't.  Is there a real case to be made for her that isn't just grade school side picking and name calling?  Are you able to leave Obama out of this case entirely?

When McCain close the deal, he stopped paying attention to Huckabee.

The fact that Obama has to outspend Clinton 4 to i on PA just to lose by a small margin, is telling anybody who has brains that Obama has not closed the deal.

"This is example of an Obama cultist elitist attitude.  You think that the rest of country wouldn't notice because we are uneducated morons."

Here is more of this weird class insecurity disguised as a problem with a Presidential candidate.  

So - because you support Hillary, this means that the big bad Harvard patrol is mean to you - and you won't let them get away with it!  Makes you feel tiny inside?  The thing is, Hillary went to Yale, has been a member of the elite for most of her life, is a multi-millionaire, laughs about what morons YOU are in her strategy meetings and plays expertly in to that class insecurity.  Suddenly she's a good old boy?  She's working you like a violin.  

This isn't even about the Presidency anyore, it's about whatever you feel you don't have that someone else does and isn't it all so unfair.  Hillary isn't going to fix that for you.

Hillary does not wear well when on the attack....most politicians don't. But some are even worse....

Wandrey, don't bother asking jacob to come up with something concrete.   I mean...

"I don't know. However, with all his his intelligence, his decency, his willingness to see complexity you would think that he should point to at least a single miracle he is responsible for."

Good point, m'boy!  You are right- he hasn't cure leprosy.  Hillary 4-Eva!

Seriously, jacob, you do your candidate a vast disservice.  

lets no forget that is has been half of forever since the last primary. I will feel so much better when this is all over, and though I know Hillary will do her best to sabotage Obama in the fall, I think considering how horrendously bad Bush has been the Democrats can run a potted plant and still win. Hillary knows this which is why she is so desperate to get the chance now, she knew 4 years ago she would have gotten whipped (or was it her then 31 years of public service were not enough?). So I certainly understand her desperation, it is now or never. Now if she truly cared about America and believed Obama could not win, then she should step aside and ask her delegates to pledge themselves to Al Gore. But such a thought is impossible to her, she would never do it.  I say that is incumbent upon her since she is saying that Obama can't win, but he has not said the same about her.

Wandreycer1,

"Hillary isn't going to fix that for you."

You are probably corrrect. SHe is not much better than Obama.

jacob, no I don't think the country is full of uneducated morons, just you.

Hillary is worth over 100 million dollars, and she probably hasn't done a single normal thing (like grocery shopping) for decades. 4 years ago at this same time, nobody had even heard of Obama. He was just a state senator from an inner city district in Illinois. Yeah, sure, Hillary has a lot more in common with me than Obama does. uh huh.

And why does Obama have more money? Hillary pissed through her supporters money. She had raised nearly the same as Obama this campaign season. Where did the money go? Answer that and you can see how utterly unfit she is.

Honestly, if HIllary were to piss on your head you would call it rain.

oh and jacob, if Obama were to piss on me, I would rip his nuts off. I will admit, Obama screwed up in San Fran, he told the truth. The lesson he should take it just because there are no cameras and it is a private fund raiser doesn't mean you are among friends. Hillary though, bald face lied on camera multiple times about Tuzla.

jacobt, you quote me staying that Obama knows

"how to slip a punch and hit back without seeming to be nasty."

and you respond with this?

"This is example of an Obama cultist elitist attitude.  You think that the rest of country wouldn't notice because we are uneducated morons."

You're babbling.  

nturner, your comments about the big bad manistweam media are both insulting -- as if we're all automatons fooled by our television masters and only you and the Hillarista minority can see the truth -- and depressing. Blaming the media is a tired old trope of the sore-loser, sore-winner conservative movement. Typical of Hillary's Rovian campaign that her supporters would wind up whining like Coulter-loving elitist dittoheads about media bias and the stupidity of the damn voters.

"I will admit, Obama screwed up in San Fran, he told the truth. "

I see, You agree with me that Obama  bullshits  today  when he say that didn't mean what he said.

Don't make me wrong. Clinton is not great. She is OK. Nothing special.  Obama is not acceptable.

You know, the nineties were a nice time and all and certainly Bill can claim some credit for them, although we should be honest that sometimes "the man makes the times" and while other times, "the times make the man."  Bill Inherited a post cold war world and an economy that was coming out of recession with the Internet boom (a game changer economically).  Yeah, he didn't screw it up and did some good things and you would not be embarassed to talk to foreigners about your government.

On the other hand, there was so much drama with that administration that we tend to forget about and this Hilary campaign is just repeat of all that drama.  With all the externalities we have now, we have no time for drama.

When I watch Hilary, I cringe.  My wife cringes.  My parents cringe.  My in-laws cringe.  My co-workers cringe.  It's enough.  The Democratic party is just proving again that it cannot be trusted to go out and win national elections.  The superdelegates are supposed to be the adults who could have put an end to this.  They are too afraid of their own shadow (or maybe its the Clintons) to put us out of the misery of watching Hilary taking every step necessary to make sure that neither her nor Obama win in the fall.  And its ironic because the Republicans were showing every inclination to choose a lunatic which would have made the Democratic disfunction irrelevant.  But what do they do?  They choose McCain, who I will gladly support this fall if Hilary steals the nomination.

For all of you who fondly remember the the Clinton wins in the 90's, please remember that they only won because of Perot.  Otherise, Bush 41 wins in 92.  I cannot and will not support Clinton 44.

BTW, Rhubarbs, keep up the good work.  My wife and really enjoy your posts.

jacobt,

In the Republican party there are no super-delegates.  If there were not this wildcard in the Democratic race, Obama would without question have "closed the deal" as no one believes that Hillary can overcome his lead in delegates.  The race is in fact over, but you Hillaristas insist that Hillarious must keep running because "she owes it to herself" or some such nonsense.  Since the rules permit this, and the super-delegates are abstaining lest people like you claim that your chance to vote was "cut off" by their deciding the race, you get to pretend that there is still a contest.  There isn't.  But enjoy your delusions as long as you like.

"Level the playing field and begin acting like Americans again"?

Is it me, or does this gem of a sentence make really make no sense (talking about Obama, Bush, blah blah.)

Bush is not American, or Obama?  Which is actung unAmerican?  Or is it the American people who elected and relected W?  Level what playing field?  Where did that come from?  

"I don't think he gets it" ... what, that some people go to church because they enjoy their faith?  He goes to an African American church for God's sake ... he said himself that they sing and dance and do comedy sketches there.  Or perhaps he does not "get" that people enjoy target shooting?  

Common person to Common person, could Jacob or even PCC try to decipher this for me?

And if in fact this was a "serious" stumble, "unquestionably" or not, how come Mrs. Clinton is so awful at capitalising on it?  Regardless of whether Mr. Obama is a good candidate or a closer or whatever, does the Democratic Party want someone who's so lame at counter-attack, when her opponent is allegedly, "unquestionably" and "seriously" down?

jacob, sure, you can't tell the truth in politics and survive for long. I mean, really. I don't believe any politician. The most we have is a general sense of ideology and the rest is how we feel about the candidate.

surely you know the joke. How do you know if a politician is lying? They opened their mouths and spoke.

JAMILLER: One quibble in respect of an otherwise great post: what is the measure of "he didn't screw it up"?  Gays in the military as his first policy choice?  The health care debâcle as his second?  Warren Christopher as his Sec State?  Bosnia?  Losing the House and the Senate in one fell swoop (I was in Denmark then, listening to short-wave radio ... went into a funk for a week)?  How about the Monica roadshow for the last two years of his Presidency?  The US posted budget surpluses?  We in Canada have been doing that for thirteen years straight under three different prime ministers and two different governing parties; takes bare competence and no genius.  

Finally, if Gore lost by 600 votes in Florida, this is as much a statement on the Clinton years as it is on butterfly ballots and Jeb Bush and the Republican Machine.  Clinton decimated the Democratic Party to gain his re-election; his triangulation politics kept him alive at the cost of Congressional Democrats and Democratic policies.  And so on ...

I have a hard time conjuring up the positives ...

Rhubarbs,

"Blaming the media is a tired old trope of the sore-loser, sore-winner conservative movement."

as well as Democrats afrer 2000 as well as DEmocrats in 2002 for spreading Bush propaganda about the war and so on.

You have a very short memory. Just because the media is helping your candidate you are willing to overlook  anything.

"ike Coulter-loving elitist dittoheads about media bias and the stupidity of the damn voters."

Voters are not stupid. At leasrt I hope that voters in PA are not stupid. Let's wait and see.

I agree with you that voters were not stupid when they  elected Bush over Gore and Kerry, Reagan over Carter and Modale and so on. Voters just made a mistake by electing Clinton.

roidubouloi,

"In the Republican party there are no super-delegates.  If there were not this wildcard in the Democratic race, Obama would without question have "closed the deal" as no one believes that Hillary can overcome his lead in delegates."

They have winner takes all.

In this case, it would be over for Obama long time ago.

If we had only primaries, Obama wouldn't had a chance, See TX .

So, what's your point?

Scheiber:

" This was unquestionably a serious stumble on Obama's part. But the high-percentage move would have been to get out of the way and let the media run with it. If this were going to do Obama in, it would have done so without her help..."

Noam, Noam, Noam!  This is either intellectual dishonesty or lack of clear thinking. Which one of you at TNR has so far shown signs of "running with it" in a way that benefits Hillary? Look at this post itself.  It is negative but against Hillary. Obama is the press's boy and unless Hillary goes after him, he would get yet another free pass. Is she overdoing it now, I think so, but regardless of what or how much she did, it would have been considered too much by TNR and the Obama press, which have been in full damage control all weekend long (should've checked out the ObamaPost, which first broke the story, go overboard in pillorying Hillary and Bill all weekend long to contain the damage.)

This is an obvious and recurrent pattern that an objective mind has seen over and over again, so please give us some credit for having just a little bit more intelligence than that!

So I guess you're a Republican jacobt.  Figures.  No wonder your "advice to Democrats" is so upside down.  It was very hard to make sense out of your posts on the assumption that you actually support the Democratic party.  Now all is clear.

Democrats blamed the Media in 2000?  I thought it was the Supreme Court, Jeb Bush, Katherine Harris, James Baker, Al Gore, Tipper Gore ... With so many great candidates, why blame the media?  Any way, to this day, Gore does not "blame" the "media" for all the distortions and all the manifest lies about his candidacy.

In 2002, the Democrats were listless and dejected.  In 2004 they blamed not the media, but President Bush and whatshisnames' colour coded warnings.  

Your last paragraph drips with sarcasm even as it is incomprehensible.  

Why is it that Hillary supporters always sound like those 13-yo twerps one sees on TV so much?  Brimming with 4 parts resentment, three parts sarcasm and three parts unrealistic idealism all at the same time ... Odd ...

"give us some credit for having just a little bit more intelligence than that!"

It's not going to happen.

The point, jacobt, was your obscure point that McCain no longer had to talk about Huckabee.  I didn't really think you had any point to make.  The Democratic rules with delegate apportioning are far more democratic than the Republican rules -- with the exception of superdelegates -- but they do permit people like you to entertain the delusion that the Hillary still has some chance to win.  In the Republican party, your particular brand of delusion would not be possible.

I have every confidence that even if the Democratic rules had called for winner-take-all primaries, Obama would have beaten Hillary.  He organized to win under the extant rules and so he is winning.  Hillary did not because in pretty much all matters political she is incompetent, lackluster, and talentless.  If it makes you feel better to think that Obama is only winning because Hilllary is so incompetent, go right ahead.

dcshungu, yeah, God forbid the Democratic candidate be the favorite of the largest delivery of free media in the world, the press. Better one who is detested by the media to be nominated.

Honestly, how do you square the circle: Hillary is not given good coverage by the media. With. Hillary should be the nominee?

Objectively speaking, for Democrats the candidate of the media is preferable. So either say Hillary is being treated well by the media or don't say anything at all.

roidubouloi,

First, Obama has no chance to win under the current rules.

Second, Obama is sligtly ahead only due to support of 90% of Blacks.

White Obama with the same message as Obama would never get more than 30% of Black votes.

Check Gore vs. Bradley.

blackton,

My point is that in spite of all media support Obama can't close the deal.

If Clinton wins , most of liberal press will start to support her. Therefore, today is the floor for Clinton and the ceiling for Obama.

Possible new Clinton campaign songs:

"I Am Bitter, Hear Me Roar!"

"Bitter in Paris"

"Standing in the Shadow of Bitterness"

"Johnnie B. Bitter"

"Bitter Vibrations"

"A Bitter Shade of Pale"

"Oops!...I'm Bitter Again!"

"Night Time Is the Bitter Time"

"Little Bitter Corvette"

"Sergeant Pepper's Bitter Hearts Club Band"

"Mamas, Don't Let Your Babies Grow Up To Be Bitter"

"Have Yourself a Bitter Little Christmas"

"Let's Get Bitter and Screw"

"Bridge Over Bitter Water"

"Bitter Fun in the Summertime"

"All the Bitter Dudes"

"Born To Be Bitter"

"Bitter in New York"

"I Got You (I Feel Bitter)"

"Bitter Haze"

"Sunday Bitter Sunday"

"Dazed and Confused and Bitter"

"Are You Bitter Tonight?"

"Try a Little Bitterness"

"Smells Like Bitter Spirit"

"River Deep--Mountain Bitter"

"Let the Bitter Times Roll"

"Reach Out, I'll Be Bitter"

you know what jacob - I get it.  Obama's chilliness stings.  I am so busy arguing for him to be allowed to have a distinctive personality (Obama is no backslapper ala my beloved Bill, he IS astringent. I get it) I finally get the undercurrent of some of this craziness.  I see Obama as my favorite professor who usd to kind of yell at me and really wasn't all that nurturing, even if he was brilliant and bascially kind.  Others see him as looking down on them.  Who is right?  I don't think Obama has a snobby bone in his body.  

He doesn't pander and has almost a tick-like reaction to someone expecting him to.  He cannot equivocate, when he tries he looks very uncomfortable.  I can see that he can seem rude.  I am so defensive about unconscious racial bias, that it is me that is not seeing the whole personality of the person.

He's so goddamned clever and verbally different that it's weird and overwheliming and he doesn't have the full sensitivity of time to see it .  Someone unable (not unwilling, a big difference) to come out of the literary fog for TWO seconds. THAT is what the white working class people see, not an elitist.  The facts just don't back that up.  Obama is a freak. A Mozart. He fits in nowwhere really.

They aren't wrong and neither is Obama.  Obama is only powerful when he sticks to his truth, when he hits the bowling alley and tries to be someone he isn't, he is weakened.  The best he can do is just be himself 100% and hope people have patience with his weaknesses.  Kind of like all candidates I guess.

We'll be in fine hands if Hillary pulls this off. But this contest is making people insane, it's not right.

William Y - I laughed so hard I cried -

Yard, the one you forgot:

"Bittertown"

Wandreycer1,

" Obama is only powerful when he sticks to his truth, "

The problem is that nobody knows what is his truth. Therefore he has no bussiness to be President. It's not entry level job.

jacobt says

"First, Obama has no chance to win under the current rules."

You really are delusional, jacob.  

If you apply the current poll figures to the races in PA, IN and NC, the net change in the delegate count is most likely to be ----- zero.  Obama is 160 pledged delegates ahead now and will most likely be 160 pledged delegates ahead on May 7 -- in any case well above 140.  At that point, even if Obama drops dead he cannot lose to Hillary Clinton.  Thank god.  The Democrats do not need another wonkish candidate in the great tradition of McGovern, Carter, Mondale, Dukakis, Gore, and Kerry.

Dream on, jacob, dream on.

And no, jacob, today is not the floor for Clinton,  She keeps sinking and will continue to sink.  You should take a look at the opinion polls sometime.

hey jacob, you are right about Gore versus Bradley, but that sure as hell doesn't mean Bradley wouldn't have been a great President, and he would have won as well. Gore had the VP post which helped him greatly, but hurt him in the general since he was saddled with Clinton's shameful legacy (the whoremongering kind). But you can be sure as hell if Bradley won the primaries blacks would have turned out for him in droves. I mean he was a Knick who played for a championship team. How much more cred can you want in the black community?

blackton ,

Sure, Blacks vote Democratic ticket, but they would not vote for the white Obama.

roidubouloi,

"You should take a look at the opinion polls sometime"

Thank you. I've just looked:

The new world's greatest pollster, SUSA, releases a new Indiana poll:

   [T]hree weeks until the [Indiana] primary, Hillary Clinton defeats Barack Obama 55% to 39% . . . Clinton had led by 9 at the beginning of April, leads by 16 mid-month. Here's where the movement is occurring: Among men, Obama had trailed by 2, now trails by 12, a 10-point swing to Clinton. . . . Among Democrats, Obama had trailed by 12, now trails by 27, a 15-point swing to Clinton.

Not to be pedantic, but the title of Scheiber's post "How You Overplay Pocket Aces" reflects his apparently limited poker knowledge.  In Texas Hold'em, the overwhelmingly more common way to mishandle pocket aces--that's an opening, two-card hand of AA--is to UNDERPplay them, betting too little in the opening round and thereby allowing more than one opponent to see the flop thereby increasing the likelihood that one of them picks up a winning hand.  Aces are the strongest opening hand, no question, and heads-up they'll come out the winner after the all the cards are dealt better than 60% of the time, but with just two aces remaining in the deck, they leave little room for improvement.  It's simple zero-sum mathematics to see that the greater the number of who remain in a given hand, the smaller a given player's chances of taking the pot.  Put that all together and it means the smart way to play AA is to make your opponents pay to play; shut them down with a big opening raise.  If they call, great, you're guaranteed to be at an advantage, and they've just made a poor investment. If they fold, that's great too, less chance that somebody gets a cheap look at the flop and catches 2 pair.  

A better headline would've read "How You Overplay Pocket Tens."  Now THAT'S a sucker hand.

Following on the Bradley comments, what about Shane Battier, currently of the Houston Rockets, as a future pol?

Here he is talking to ESPN Magazine: "I don't know what I will end up doing post-basketball. I've always been intrigued by politics. I may be a bit too idealistic to run for office. We'll see."

He graduated Duke with a major in religion and a 3 point something average.  I seem to recall he had about a 1200 SAT.  He led Duke to the 2001 NCAA Championship, won the player of the year award, and had a rep on the court as one of the most selfless "star" players ever to play in the Final Four.  I was at Duke at the time, and Battier had a reputation around campus for being a genuinely engaged and articulate human being.

First black senator from Michigan?  Just saying.

blackton  said:

"dcshungu, yeah, God forbid the Democratic candidate be the favorite of the largest delivery of free media in the world, the press. Better one who is detested by the media to be nominated.

Honestly, how do you square the circle: Hillary is not given good coverage by the media. With. Hillary should be the nominee?"

I am not sure you realize how utterly pathetic those two statements are. What you are saying is that we should nominate someone because the press tells us to or because s/he is the media's darling. In your world the media and not the people would be the 'King makers.'  

You are loving the press now, but wait until they start hammering at your boy's inexperience vis-a-vis McCain in the Fall... In fact, it will be interesting to see who the press would anoint this time, considering their long love affair with McCain.

The media made Gore into a serial fabricator (remember "Love Canal"), weakening him against the Village Idiot; what makes you think that their lovefest with Obama would be long-lived, especially in view of the their long love affair with the other guy?

Beware what you wish on your enemy, for you might some day become the 'enemy'...

Well jacobt, you should be happy that you have fodder for your fantasy life.

In PA, the most recent polls show Obama down only 3-4%.  That's about a 14% swing for Obama -- and each point in PA is worth more than double IN.  Meanwhile, NC is steady as a rock. You should listen to that video of Obama in front of the steelworkers too.  Those are steelworkers jacob.  You know, the people in western PA who work for a living.  The people who are supposed to be offended by Obama -- and they're cheering Obama and laughing at Hillary and her new gun-totin' persona.  Even if Obama weren't so good, you can pretty well count on Hillary of Bosnia to land in a bed or roses and come up smelling like manure.  She can't even convert a single good opportunity be shutting up.  

Who is this guy?

Other than the fact that he's super-glib, and W's a super-turkey, why is he running for president now?

What's he passionate about? Whom does he champion? Why is he running now, when his background and experience are so conspicuously thin?

thx in advance to anyone who can explain this to me,

t

Hey tep,

What's Hillary passionate about other than Hillary?

You ask the questions tep but there is no indication that there are any answers that could ever satisfy you.  You have decided that Obama does not have a long enough resume to run for president.  I disagree.  But he cannot lengthen it to your satisfaction other than by "waiting."  And we cannot wait.  We have to win now.  My own political experience tells me that Hillary would be trounced by McCain because he trumps her on everything she claims as a strength.  I give Obama a better than even shot.  And at least he doesn't try to pad his resume with ridiculous fibs like his nemesis, Hillarious of Bosnia.

Why is Hillary running other than her own ambition?  Do you think healthcare reform, that she mad a botch of the last time, is the most important issue facing the nation?  Does she give a damn about the kids she sent to die in Iraq for no good reason?  Does she have the slightest idea what she wants to do to eliminate our budget and trade deficits or mitigate the impact of globalization on domestic employment?  Even more important, does she have the political skill and relationship with the voters that would let her accomplish any of it, or is "surviving" Republican attacks the alpha and omega of her political talent?  

Are you able to answer any of those questions for me?

idonotsupporthillaryeitheridonotsupporthillaryeitheridonotsupporthillaryeitheridonotsupport

What roid said.

Hillary Clinton, who is this gal?  Why does she want to become president?  And that other guy, that McCain guy, who's he?  What gets his rocks off?  And Bush before him, what was that joker all about?  We know he liked Jesus and that he used to like the booze, but WHY did he want to follow Dad to the White House?  What was motivating him?  And speaking of Poppy, why'd HE want to be president?  What did he hope to accomplish?  And Reagan, same thing, WHO was he?  And Carter, and Nixon, and FDR?  What motivated these men?  Who were they?  Who was George Washington for chrissake?

Talk about jumping the shark.  The shark could be in freaking orbit, tep, and you'd be over it.

Why's Obama running now "when his background and experience are so conspicuously thin?"  

Because unlike you, he's astute enough to recognize that the kind of background and experience that could win the teplukhin2you stamp of approval is immaterial to his chances of getting elected and, more importantly, immaterial to his likelihood of being a successful president.  

The US presidency isn't about fine detail.  It's about broad strokes.  As a friend of mine put it, the president sets the key to the music being played, but the melody is written by others.  With that in mind, all that one can and, more importantly, all that one SHOULD ask of one's presidential candidates on a policy level is that their broadly defined goals stand in rough harmony  with your own.  Obama has stated his goals in as specific terms as a reasonable person can expect.  And you know that he has, too.  That's why your "what's he passionate about" question is such specious nonsense.  

As for Obama's ability to be effective once in office, over the guy who's memorized reams of subcommittee reports and who knows the Senate rules cold, I'll take the guy with the ability to move people any day of the week.  

Why's he running now?  Because he knows he can win and because he understands that another four or eight years in the Senate won't make him a better president and will probably hurt his chances of getting the gig in the first place.  Why's he want the job?  Who the hell knows.  Why does anybody?  But at least he does want it, which is worth something.  GW Bush most definitely did NOT want the job.  It was written all over him back in 2000, that deer-in-the-headlights, get-me-back-to-Crawford look of his.  The vacuum created by W's not wanting the job is why we've been afflicted with 7 years of misrule by the unelected Cheney cabal.

I'm sorry to run off at the mouth, but honestly, tep, you're getting to be like a broken record.  I almost think you have some deep-seated need to play the well-informed contrarian, as with your repetitive calls for a second look at Biden.  You get to be the smartypants who sees oh so much more clearly than us partisan lemmings.  Enough already.  Give it, and us, a rest.

Boy oh boy, do I long for the days when the comments after the feature articles were a functioning entity.  Tep would have something else to talk about besides his bewilderment with Obama, and I would certainly appreciate the opportunity to read what, under those circumstances, tep might have to say.

dcshungu, I like McCain and in no way view him as an enemy. In fact, that is kind of a sick thing to say. If we are loyal Americans than no other loyal American is our enemy (provided their loyalty is of the understandable type). This is what is worst about this election, half the Democrats hate the other half.

But it will be over soon enough. The Democrat will win in November, the only danger the party faces is that McCain will run as a conservative Democrat and make it stick. As such, McCain's only threat to the Democrats is the court. Even the war he will bail.

roidubouloi,

"Well jacobt, you should be happy that you have fodder for your fantasy life."

http://rasmussenreports.com

Clinton now attracts 50% of the vote while Obama earns 41%.

Clinton leads by twenty-seven points among White Voters while Obama attracts 78% of the African-American vote.

BTW, Notice that so far Clinton got  majority of White, Hispanic, Asian, Jewish votes nationally.

.

tep,

"Who is this guy?"

Barack Obama is a dynamic young Senator from Illinois with a gift for oratory, a good core set of principles and a willingness not to demonize people who disagree with him.

"Other than the fact that he's super-glib, and W's a super-turkey, why is he running for president now?"

Putting aside the "glib" comment, Obama is running now because his time is now. His speech at the DNC in 2004 is still well-remembered and admired, his positive ratings remain high (in spite of some nasty hits from Hillary and the GOP) and this is a pivotal moment that demands major change, which is his core mesage.

"What's he passionate about? Whom does he champion? Why is he running now, when his background and experience are so conspicuously thin?"

Obama is passionate about finding common ground among moderate Democrats, Republicans and Independents who are sick-to-death of the death match struggles that have consumed Washington for nearly two decades. He champions those who are able to see that neither liberals nor conservatives have a total monopoly on Truth and who are willing to hear and respect the opinions of others. His record may be "thinner" than some Senators, it's true, but what he loses in Senate longevity he more than makes up for with sound judgment. (And, frankly, after the last eight years, I think most voters won't give a damn how many years a candidate has spent in Washington, so long as they spent their time there well.)

BHLnyc,

"He champions those who are able to see that neither liberals nor conservatives have a total monopoly on Truth and who are willing to hear and respect the opinions of others"

Obama and his supporters  in the media have advocated that Obama has a total monopoly on Truth.

Their hate for Clinton have no limits.   They have not demonstrated any respect of the opinions of others. Obama words are just words.  

A very good example of "respect the opinions of others" is the  "respect" of Paul Krugman opinions by Obama and his supporters.

jacobt:

"Obama and his supporters in the media have advocated that Obama has a total monopoly on Truth."

Hearing those voices again, are you?

BHLnyc,

"Hearing those voices again, are you? "

Exactly.

When people dare to disagree with Obama, he and his supporters start  attacking such people pesonally.

They allege that such people "cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them"

or hear those voices or they ask questions what's wrong with Krugman. When everything else fails

they call such people  racists or McCartysts.

jacobt1,

I'd love to see where Obama "attacks" people who disagree with him as "racist." Please send me the YouTube links. From what you say, I'm sure there must be plenty of them out there.

BHLnyc,

www.tnr.com/.../story.html

jacob, ever hear the phrase, day late and a dollar short? you are just howling at the moon brother. Waiting for your opponent to self-destruct ain't the best strategy. The fact that she got herself in this mess (having to win everything the rest of the way, hoping Obama says something stupid daily) is pretty pathetic. So keep pulling up these polls, it ain't going to happen.

Please, feel free to support John McCain. I look forward to you joining me in defending him here this fall season.

jacob,

Even in the Democratic party, the African American vote is not more than 20%.  80% of 20% is 16%.  In order to be beating Hillarious in the Democrat national polls by 50 to 41, that means that Obama has to be pulling about 34% out of the other 80%.  34/80 is 42.5% of everyone who is not African American.

Contrariwise, Hillary gets 4% from the African American vote and has to pull 37% from elsewhere in order to compose her 41% total.  37/80 is 46.3% from everyone not African American.  Big deal.  When you take into account the fact that something like 53% of Democratic voters are women, it is much ado about nothing.  Apparently Hillarious is losing because she counts the way you do.  

But for boomer women, she would be toast already.  Come to think of it, she is toast.  Walking toast.  But boomer women are not going to be voting for McCain in big numbers come November.

Dream on.

How does one slip a punch? In boxing, you do it by good lateral movement. I've always believed its a skill that, to a large extent, can't really be taught, based, as it is, on reflexes and instinct. You either have it (in which case in can be honed to some extent) or you don't. Some fighters have great instincts (duran as lightweight comes to mind, as does wilfred benitez). Ali was a fighter with great reflexes, but as he got older and his skills started to erode, he became somewhat flat-footed, relying on his chin to keep him in the fight. Benny leonard was a great champion who had all the tools, and if you happen to watch one of his fights, you'll see how difficult he was to hit with a solid shot. A true all-time great was old benny.

Now, what does slipping a punch have to do with obama in this latest dust-up? Nothing that i can see. To *slip a punch* is to counter your opponents attack, but this is all on obama. A self-inflicted wound, as it were.

Some posters who thinks this is no big deal and will blow over soon, i'd suggest you don't bet the farm on it.

NOT all self-inflicted, wldct, and yes Obama's slipping punches.  

1) Obama makes some injudicious statements--i.e. he leads with his chin.

2) Seeing an opportunity, McCain and Clinton swing, calling Obama an elitist, out of touch with small-town America.

3) Obama takes the hits (It's still an open question how solidly they landed), but he does not back down and he does not apologize for anything other than his lack of clarity.  Instead he punches back, calling McCain an out-of-touch pollyanna for his refusal to acknowledge that ANYONE in small-town America could possibly be at all unhappy about the economic challenges they face, and making Clinton look like a self-deluding fool for her sudden embrace of gun culture and whiskey shots, painting her as Annie Oakley with a six-gun, hanging out in a duck blind.  

Who will get the best of it?  Too early to say, really, but my money's on Obama.  

yeah, wldctfan,

I hope you didn't wager anything against Obama on this one because the initial post-"bittergate" poll results show that he is still gaining ground against Hillary and holding his own against McCain (even while being attacked by Hillary).

Hillary and McCain throw punches, but Obama was too quick laterally and they don't land.  Then he counterpunched and Annie Oakely looks like the flat-foot that she is. THAT's what I'm talking about.  Seems like a great analogy to me.

roid,

"there is no indication that there are any answers that could ever satisfy you"

I have said again and again that my main beef with ALL the candidates, to varying degrees, is what I see as an endemic phoniness to our national political debate-- what I call fibs 'n' fairytales and coy or not-so-coy codewards and shout-outs to the twin tribalists that dominate Tweedledum and Tweedledee.

For our party, the core tribalists are the identity-politics lobby. Obama was supposedly going to transcend that. Instead, we have a surreal situation where the identity politics rift in the party is greater than at any time since 1968. That's not progress in my book.

As to fibs 'n' fairytales, I and many others have pointed out again and again how Obama could easily have taken on one of the bigger and more damaging frauds perpetrated by our party's identity-politics addicts, the notion that racial discrimination, not the extraordinary decline in working-class representation among students at major colleges, is the urgent problem. Ditto for the fiction that importing 10m+ unskilled, desperately poor semi-literates is not a threat to public support for social services, unskilled laborers' wages, and those social services themselves. Zero, zip, nada from your brave truth-teller on this colossal failure.

My remedy? Again, I've made that clear dozens of times here over the past two years or so. STOP FIBBING. ENOUGH WITH THE FAIRYTALES. Start speaking honestly about not just OtherSide's failures but our OurSide's identity-politics fixation, and how it blinds us to huge problems and obvious, albeit hard, solutions staring us in the face. Start addressing the concerns of the most important group of all in this country, the core demographic that now, bizarrely, leans Republican but that ought to be ours: two-parent moderate income households int he suburbs and exurbs.

My preferred candidate? A Bobby Kennedy straight shooting tough guy who never backs down from either a fight or a tough problem, with enough brains to recognize when old shibboleths-- on Mexico/immigration, aff action, schools policy etc-- are wanting and desperately need to be replaced by new thinking. I find laughable the comparison of BHO to RFK. I can't imagine RFK writing not one but _two_ autobiographies-- before he had achieved anything significant. And RFK had vastly more to be proud of in the way of achievements by the time he was 38 than BHO has at the age of 45.

I'm sorry if my barbs at Obama hurt you. I don't want to lose your friendship, virtual though it may be. But I'd ask that you at least recognize my complete consistency on this point, and cease with the distortions and nasty personal attacks.

Don't know if this is still live, but I am not "hurt" by barbs thrown at Obama.  But I do feel a responsibility to do my part in conditioning public debate in a manner that leads to what I believe is the best outcome for the party -- nominating Obama to go up against McCain.  People who feel otherwise do their best to shape collective opinion accordingly.

Tep, I cannot imagine that I think I have attacked you.  You've got to be thinking of someone else.  I don't necessarily agree with you, although often I do, but you have never to my recollection said things I regard as hypocritical, plainly contrary to reality, or an invitation to ridicule.  Nor do you attack others.  Thus, I wouldn't even have a reason to attack you.