Hillary seems the right leader for a nation ready to go to work to get us out of hard times. Okay, I'll say it: she seems tougher than the 'guy' candidate.

That's because a lot of Clinton hating is irrational.

I suppose it is a truism that for many right-wingers, Hillary's major negatives are her last name and the (D) behind her name--and nothing more specific than that.

Otherwise, it's pretty well documented that one of her highest negatives as a senator was her vote on Iraq and her general lack of counter-balance to Bush's pro-war aggressive posture. The point can be argued whether she took the correct action but those were significant negatives.

And I need not mention the campaign events of the the past few months which have incurred a fair amount of rancor.

So I don't understand the suggestion that "they very often can not give you a specific answer."

That's an amazingly tin-eared comment.  Yeesh.

I'm a democrat and a Democrat.  I don't believe in "showing respect" unless it's earned, and winning an election doesn't earn it in my book.  Hell, the gropinator got himself elected.  Chimpy actually won in 2004, but I don't respect either of them.

It's just this kind of comment coming from Obama fans that annoys me.

I think it's hilarious that you want a dystopian future today enough to name yourself for it and you support Obama.

Earn it.

Good grief!  Do you really think this campaign has been characterized by dirty tricks?  This has been a remarkably gentle campaign.  What "dirty tricks" has Clinton engaged in?  Backstabbing?  HOw?  Name one instance.  Lies?  About what?  

The damage done to Obama (Wright Rezko, etc.) was not generated by the Clinton campaign.  Obama has accused her, in a blanket way, of being willing to say anything to get elected.  And his surrogates have sometimes been brutal in their personal attacks (ex. Jesse Jackson, Jr.).  What has the Clionton campaign done that is terribly nasty or constittues a dirty trick?

Just repeating this complaint is not very convincing, and I think it has started to get some Dems to wonder if Obama and his supporters just aren't ready for the normal conflicts of a campaign.  If you think the primary has been tough, you're in for a shocking general election if Obama is the nominee.  

The misogynism and Republican sound machine came first, of course.

Many Obama suppoters, many of themn too young to be that aware of Hillary in 1992-96 have bought into the Hillary-bashing bullshit.  I think that a significant number of older people have shifted their position on Hillary in the past year in a positive direction, as they have gotten to know her in the course of the campaign, as her vote totals indicate.  Obama supporters have moved from less knowledge of Hillary to an unfavorable opinion because of the inevitably partisan nature of the campaign.    

No offense, but that is very naive.

We're not going to win an election by sending the nominee to Fargo and Oklahoma City in hopes of planting the seeds to win those states 50 years from now.  

Treating all the states in this electoral strategy equally is as foolish as pretending that every piece on a chessboard is exactly the same.    

No, it does not.  It is up to vote in November and is being pushed by a California group.  

However, even if it does pass, it will not make it, as it is unconstitutional as "such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct."  Thus, only the Legislature has the authority to perform certain functions as a matter of national law.

I agree....  I am a little tired of this whole fear of McCain meme...  

It's a long way until the general election...  and both Democrats have a good chance of trouncing McCain...  he is the incumbent party in a year when nothing, repeat nothing, economically is going well.  That does not bode well for him.

Beyond that, I simply cannot stand Ickes.  Yet another person that Hillary is succeeding despite not because of.

If Clinton wins by superdelegate coup overturning the peoples vote then that changes the equation.

It wouldn't be a "coup". They would be doing what their contingency was set up to do in a situation like this, which at rock bottom is to make the final call about which candidate is most likely to win in November.

Obama supporters are keen on citing "the rules" when it comes to such things as seating FL and MI delegates, but when it comes to the "rules" regarding super delegates you aren't so keen-- at least not if it might adversely affect your candidate. Thoroughly understandable, but disingenuous.

The Democratic Party created the super delegate contingent for just such a case as we have now. If we don't like the way it turns out, we as a party have only ourselves to blame for inventing such a stupid system. It's a kind of "unintended consequences" thing. So change the "rules" already.

And before you jump all over me, no I don't like it one bit. I think the whole Dem primary system needs a serious overhaul, and I've thought that for many years.

when super delegates realize who's more electable -- not a "coup." Just ordinary Party selection process.

Representatives, whether at conventions, or in Congress are supposed to make informed choices.  In the first case for their Party, in the second for their country.  Often this goes against the popular consensus.

Clinton will lose no significant proportion of the AA vote. They have nothing against her; currently, they just have a lot "for" Obama.  They're solidly in the Democrats camp.

Obama on the other hand is bleeding, as I type, white voters.  He will not gain any white voters in FL, OH, PA, or TX.  In contrast, Clinton will at the head of a Clinton/Obama ticket, which will also keep all those AA voters you erroneously presume will defect.  Plus Hispanics and Catholics who are not enamored (won't vote) for Obama will vote for such a ticket.  Clinton as the nominee is far and away the stronger winning head of ticket.  Obama is far and away a larger liability than she is as head of ticket.

The Republicans are not afraid of any new Dem voters; they've known for a long time, as have we all, that the mood of the nation is no longer with them.  They have been aware that they're going to lose the WH, regardless of their nominee, and many seats in Congress since last year -- long before these johnny-come-lately Democrats were registered.  So have non-Republicans known this.

It was all worked out long before John Edwards dropped out of the race.

not responding to you, just the general thread as a whole. Sorry.

Why go for a triple bank shot when you can give yourself a number of different ways to win? This theory of focusing all your resources on 2-3 states hasn't accomplished much in the last two presidential elections. We have to be competitive everywhere!

Wisconsin was the closest state in the country in 2004 and one of the top three closest, right behind Florida, in 2000.  

Wisconsin has been teetering on the edge of evil for years now.  

Pacific Northwest, particularly Oregon, is always considered swing.  No surprises there.  

I think you haven't been to "Hope" lately.

Arkansas is definitely trending Clinton -- Obama.... not so much.

Arkansas has major Clinton slants in all of their polls except one outlier, which happens to be the most recent.  Gore lost AR by 5% and Kerry by 9%.  Clinton outperforms them both in her home state by miles.