"And the post about how much better Obama performs in Colorado than Clinton is...where?"

OK here's a little math for you.

Ohio - 20 electoral votes

Colorado - 9 electoral votes

And while we're at it, pissing off Florida and Michigan looks this way:

Michigan - 17 electoral votes

Florida - 27 electoral votes

You really think Colorado is as important as Ohio; not to mention MI and FL?

Posted at March 19, 2008 4:35 PM in response to SurveyUSA: Obama Losing Big To McCain In Ohio, Missouri And Kentucky

"I think that the first step to any constructive plan, is to look at what Biden will propose, and then set it aside as ignorant, superficial and wrongheaded.

...

Posted by Valdron"

It's thinking like Valdron's that's gotten us into one jam after another for more than half a century.

Posted at February 19, 2008 2:05 PM in response to Democracy in Pakistan, Despite Bush Policies

Hopefully Edwards will not endorse anyone.

The man who should have been the party's nominee, the only candidate who was truly transformative, should give a speech at the convention urging party unity AFTER the party's nominee is selected.

A plea for unity is the best use of Edwards' and for that matter Gore's standing within the party.

Obama supporters who insist that Edwards endorse their candidate are demonstrating that they are seeking anything but reconciliation and want victory at any cost.

Posted at February 18, 2008 12:08 AM in response to Obama Meets With John Edwards

Off this subject but on this page. TPM has chosen to show the outlier ARG poll that shows Obama ahead of Clinton in Texas. The ASG poll is an outlier compared to two other contemporary polls that show Clinton with leads from large to very large.

A not so subtle hint of where TPM's advocacy lies.

Disgusting. Why not just come right out and admit it.

Posted at February 15, 2008 6:46 PM in response to McCain: No Plans To Resign From The Senate "Right Now"

Yeah. That's it. Extortion. That makes us all feel real good and clean.

Posted at February 15, 2008 6:13 PM in response to Obama Supporter Jesse Jackson, Jr: Black Super-Delegates Who Back Hillary Could Face Primary Challenge

I haven't read any other comments here, the hatred on this and other sites is sickening and unnecessary.

The popular vote numbers at this stage really only illustrate a running number due to change when the 2nd, 6th and 7th largest states vote. This article seems more a case of TPM's Obama boosterism.

The nine most populous states account for just over 50% of the nation's population.

Of that group Obama has won only Illinois and Georgia. Illinois because it's his home state and Georgia because of favorable demographics.

If Clinton wins Texas, Pennsylvania and Ohio by comfortable margins she will have the majority of popular votes. Wins by comfortable margins in a couple of other states (probably Kentucky and West Virginia) may make her popular vote lead insurmountable.

If that is the case the only just outcome is for enough superdelegates to support Clinton to secure the nomination.

What's happened in this race has become clear. Obama's campaign people should be congratulated for organizing in those states that the Clinton campaign people didn't think would be necessary. Maybe that can be chalked up to overconfidence among the staff.

It's quite plain that our primary system is in serious need of reform no matter who wins this race.

At the very least caucuses should be eliminated and delegates should be awarded on proportion of popular votes only. Certainly all primaries must be closed. Independents and crossovers should not have a voice in picking our nominee.

After this primary season maybe that's something that Democrats and Republicans can actually agree upon.

Posted at February 14, 2008 2:18 AM in response to Obama Leads In The Total Popular Vote — Even With Florida And Michigan

Frank Rich also ripped into Bill Clinton during his time in office and joined the mainstream media chorus in castigating Al Gore without cause during the 2000 campaign.

We can thank Rich in part for George W. Bush.

Rich writes well and as long as he's concentrating on Republican perfidy he's fine but he has the same sub-rational mainstream animus for Clinton, Gore, Kerry and Edwards.

Now he'd like to do a knockout punch on Hillary Clinton. I read all of his columns but I have to say that the last few weeks he's gone over the edge again. It's 1998, 2000, 2004 all over again with him. If a candidate is earnest and specific about policy and various issues, Rich will tear into them like a mis-treated pit bull. He hates policy wonks and makes no bones about it.

I have a nasty little theory about Rich that goes like this: Rip into the Democratic candidate and make sure a Republican is elected in order to provide ample material for future columns.

Rich is as cynical as the rest of the crowd.

Posted at February 11, 2008 5:05 PM in response to Hating Hillary:We've Become What We Detested

I fully appreciate what John has said regarding the vile treatment of Hillary Clinton. What's more troubling is that bloggers themselves have applied the same treatment to Ms. Clinton and have seemed to encourage their charges to do the same.

I've put a few of those blogs on probation (so far no double secret probation) until they recover.

I consider myself a liberal and I don't really believe that all liberals by any means support or condone the tawdry behavior we've witnessed. In fact much of what I've read from people making comments lead me to believe that these people aren't really Democrats but are rather the independents and politician haters that Obama has cultivated.

Read their comments carefully and they betray a lack of fundamental knowledge of politics, government and public affairs. Basically the doofus set.

I am floored by the notion that the great majority of his followers are liberals. I don't believe that they are in any way. They are self described liberals but I really don't think they know, from a political standpoint, what that means.

If they were in fact liberals I would have to ask them why they're supporting the most conservative Democratic candidate for the nomination that I can recall and I've followed politics since 1952. The media characterized the policy positions of all three front runners as nearly identical. That is, quite frankly, horsesh*t. Obama is to the right of Hillary Clinton and was significantly to the right of John Edwards (disclosure: I'm an Edwards supporter) and that is illustrated by tyhe candiadtes response to actions they would take in the event of a recession. Obama's cut was straight out of the GOP playbook as was his response to the sub-prime mortgage crisis. Obama later added to his recession remedies but they still fell short of the comprehensive actions proposed by Edwards and Clinton.

There are other elements including his lack of a proposal for a government run health insurance offering to compete with private plans. Edwards and Clinton both proposed government plans. Edwards' may well have lead to single-payer.

Also overlooked by self-described liberals is Obama's declaration that Social Security is in crisis. That notion came from one of Obama's economic advisors who favors privatization of Social Security. In fact Obama's economics advisory staff consists entirely of market oriented economists. Obama has made no effort to reach out to center-left economists.

So I don't believe in any way these people represent the Democratic wing of the Democratic party (AKA New Deal liberals like me).

They may be social liberals mistaking those ideas for political liberalism. Most of us and probably most of the people in the country are at least to some degree socially liberal. I'm 65 and witnessed a whole different world and I can testify that this nation is FAR more socially liberal than in the past. To be a political liberal means not just social liberalism but a whole LOT more.

So please stick around John I don't think these people are in any way honest to God liberals.

Posted at February 11, 2008 4:29 PM in response to Hating Hillary:We've Become What We Detested

I would hope he would endorse no one. It would be more helpful if he spoke at the convention for party unity after the nominee is chosen.

It's hard to see how he could trust anyone on domestic issues especially Obama whose chosen group of economic advisors are very much right of center, free market types.

Given the Wall Street money behind both Obama and Clinton and the nuclear power industry money behind Obama and to a degree Clinton it's difficult to see how he'd have leverage on either.

Endorsement is just a bad idea, there's no real need and the impact on his supporters would probably be minimal.

Posted at February 10, 2008 6:13 PM in response to Edwards Aide: John Having Private Endorsement Discussions With Hillary, Obama; "Greater Than 50% Chance" He'll Endorse

Incredible. And Obama's supporters are following along like lemmings.

Ms. Obama's remarks are not surprising considering what Barack Obama said a couple of weeks ago when he said that if he isn't nominated many of his supporters wouldn't support Clinton.

Obama was, in effect, releasing his supporters to go elsewhere.

He backpeddled slightly after making the remarks just as his wife did in the video.

It's not surprising. The entire Obama campaign from his basic premise, to the style of his pitch to independents, to his assaults on core Democratic Party values, his portrayal of himself as a messianic figure and his strident arrogance should indicate to any thoughtful observer that extortion is part of his campaign.

The Obama campaign has the feel of a parasite that's attached itself to the Democratic party.

God help us.

Posted at February 5, 2008 1:57 AM in response to Michelle Obama: "I'd Have To Think About" Supporting Hillary As Nominee