goodness, maybe she has been talking to lieberman too much.

Maybe after this election she'll become an independent, or start her own party like Lieberman did.  

Of course, I also think it is one of the nastiest things you can say about a Democrat. :)

I am baffled about why Obama's comments have generated any controversy whatsoever. Perhaps I am elitist, but what exactly did he say that was so terrible?

That said, I am obviously missing something about it that others see. With this in mind, I also don't see why Clinton's criticisms are out of bounds.

Yes, Gore won in 2000 (except where it counted -- the Supreme Court), and yes, Kerry was Swiftboated in 2004.

But isn't it also true that both were successfully painted, fairly or not, as elitists out of touch with the attitudes and feeling of Americans between the coasts? I mean, this has been a staple of GOP politics, with mixed success, since Stevenson.

who's crossed the line, not comparing her to Joe Lieberman.

but I still think the comparison was inapt.

As I have noted, with each passing day Clinton's window gets narrower and narrower. She is just playing the cards she is being dealt at this point, IMHO.

This entire discussion of elitism is so silly, I neither think it will do her any good nor have any lasting effect on Obama.

As with so much else, I just don't understand all the gnashing of teeth over each and every criticism of Obama by Clinton that has marked this campaign. But, of course, Clinton crossed my own personal Rubicon in the Rev. Wright controversy, which others might not have viewed the same as me.

My point is, however, when EVERY criticism elicits this kind of "how dare she" response, the substance of any critique of Clinton loses meaning.

I mean, why not just just say this line of attack is idiotic, and move on, rather than try to place it in some larger overall narrative of Clinton's unfitness for the nomination?

For me, the answer is that I am soooo disappointed in the Clintons, I can't even tell you.  Remember, I started 2007 supporting Hillary Clinton, continued to support her through the summer and fall, and only switched to Obama in early 2008.  That was, in part, because of what I saw from the Clinton campaign.  Now, I'm very concerned that these constant, outrageous attacks by Clinton on our 95% likely nominee are harming the party and ratcheting up anger and that might kill us in November against John McCain.  Yeah, that makes me "bitter" alright.

My own view is that this campaign is not as bitter as it might appear for several reasons (which I won't go into here), and that once a nominee is chosen (which I am quite certain will happen no later than mid-June, if not sooner) -- most likely Obama -- these criticisms will not matter.

Will McCain (or some 527) run an attack ad in the fall containing video of all the bad stuff that Hillary Clinton or other Democrats said about Obama, using her own words against him? Perhaps, but in all likelihood, he won't. McCain is too susceptible to the very same tactic.

Has Clinton given the GOP guidance to an avenue of attack that they would not have otherwise thought of? I doubt it.

For me, one of the lessons of 2000 and 2004 is that attack ads about Democrats ground in actual gaffes and facts don't work. The devastating ones are the attacks made up out of whole cloth.

The media likes those kinds of made-up attacks better, because they tend to be better stories, since there are no actual facts that require researching, both require less work on their part and provide the illusion that this is information available to reporters, not the rest of us, by virtue of their insider status. And then, the news arc migrates into a story about the spreading of the story itself, it which our media, without a hint of shame or admission of their own rule, is able to further advance the fiction that they have some greater understanding of the process than the ASOTS (average schmuck on the street) like me.

I'd like to add that attacks on Democrats usually work best when the Democrats don't fight back.  It wasn't the Swiftboating that hurt Kerry, it was his lack of timely response that did.

The story goes on and on when the liar isn't called out and exposed.

Is that there was enough of a germ of truth to fuel the attack on Kerry's Vietnam record.  That's why these right wing attacks can prove so insidious and even lethal.  Yes, both Obama's father and stepfather were Muslim -- though the reality was that they were both secular men who read Newsweek and sipped scotch and were lapsed or non-practicing Muslims at best.  But there's enough there for the right to build up a web of utter bs and outright lies to convince a chunk of the great unwashed masses that there's something unsettlingly un-American about Obama.  Yes, Kerry volunteered for dangerous Swiftboat duty in Vietnam and he acquitted himself admirably in combat.  But, apparently, with an eye on a future political career, there was a sense that he was on the hunt to acquire some medals.  And it appears that he did game the three purple hearts system and managed to get out while the getting was good and he was still in one piece after only four months in combat.

Who spoke up against a war he realized was wrong. But he served bravely.  There was little truth in what the Swiftboaters said.  Their claims were proven lies and the public did not believe them.  But that public was concerned that Kerry never spoke up and defend himself.

Obama has not made that mistake and I hope he doesn't.  It doesn't matter what his father or grandfather were.  Obama was not raised a Muslim.  He did not go to a Madrass.  And he became a Christian as an adult.

But the way to turn it around, when the Swiftboaters attack, is to to turn the attack on them by calling them the small minded lying bigots they are.  

And with Bob Shrum, Tad Devine, and Mary Beth Cahill not running Obama's campaign, I'm pretty sure that will be done.

The Clinton Legacy .... pathetic!!

As a gun owner and hunter, I have to say that the very idea of Hillary Clinton trying to make a populist pitch to gun owners like this is absolutely absurd. This crap from a woman who spent years supporting various efforts to ban firearms that I happen to own and hunt with. It's disingenuous pandering. Like nearly every other position that she has claimed to hold, it is one that she expressed for the sake of political convenience rather than any actual conviction. She would throw me and every other gun owner in America under a bus the very second that it became inconvenient.

Of all possible people to tell me that they are the antithesis of 'elitist' and 'out of touch' politicians, HILLARY CLINTON? I'm pinching myself. This has to be some kind of weird dream. Any minute now this room is going to turn into my old high school and I'll be able to float in the air.

I don't trust Barack Obama on guns either. But at least he doesn't lie or pretend to be something he's not. Now if you put Jim Webb on that ticket with Obama, then suddenly my level of trust in that area shoots right up.

Jack - Quite apart from the Constitutional issue of whether the Second Amendment expresses an individual or a collective right to bear arms, do you sincerely believe that either Hillary Clinton or Barak Obama really want to take away the rifles with which you hunt or the guns with which you might reasonably defend yourself?

I mean, leaving aside the extremist view that all firearms ought to be banned, the argument about gun control seems to me to take place for the most part on the margins -- over certain types of particularly deadly weapons or ammunition.

I'm not asking about whether Clinton (or many other politicians, for that matter) is full of s*it when it comes to pandering to gun owners, but rather your assertion that you "don't trust" Clinton or Obama on guns.

I mean, within the realm of what is likely to be possible on this issue over the foreseeable future, what exactly do you think they are going to do that is an issue of trust for you?

I am a life long hunter and gun owner too, and I have no concerns that my ability to own a gun that I use for hunting will ever change.

I'd like to see more control over some types of weapons and improvements to keeping track of weapons, and their owners for that matter.

Aznew,

Sorry for the slow response here.

Actually, yes.  Hillary Clinton has supported banning the SKS, which I and many other people use for low-cost target practice as well as to hunt deer in thick brush. In that hunting situation, ranges are very short, which makes the relatively low power of the cartridge acceptable, while the fast follow-up shots that the semi-auto action provides are key because the deer can get into thick cover within a second or 2 of the first shot.

I also use a Ruger Mk. III Hunter .22 pistol for hunting small game. When I'm on a long hunting/camping trip for deer, I like to be able to pot small game for food during the trip. Shooting a rabbit or a squirrel with my deer rifle will result in a smoking crater and some scorched fur around it. Carrying 2 rifles is not very practical, so I keep the Ruger pistol on my belt in case an opportunity to bag dinner presents it's self.

Obama has spoken in favor of banning ALL semi-automatic firearms while he was in the Illinois legislature. Hillary Clinton has also supported measures against semi-autos and handguns in general.

Many of the gun control proposals out there look perfectly reasonable to people who have no significant experience with firearms. But to people who actually understand the technical issues involved, they are utterly absurd.

For example, you mention particularly deadly ammunition. Well, there is none. 'Cop-killer bullets' are a myth.  The bill against this imaginary ammunition that Ted Kennedy has been pushing for years would ban any bullet capable of penetrating a cop's vest. Sounds fair, right?  Except that those vests are only designed to stop low-power handgun cartridges. Any centerfire rifle made in the last 100 years will punch right through them. The bill would actually ban EVERY SINGLE DEER CARTRIDGE in existence. I doubt that this is the intent of the bill, bit that would be the effect.

This is the sort of nonsense that I and other American hunters have to plow through constantly. I could give you a dozen other examples, but I've gone on long enough here already. Imagine that the FCC suddenly took over control of the internet and it was chaired by Ted Stevens. Idiotic regulations proposed by people who have no idea what they are talking about and whom make policy based on knee-jerk fear rather than any actual expertise. Such is the frequent experience of gun-owners.

So yeah, gun control issues really do affect American hunters.  Especially those of us who hunt multiple types of game and in different seasons and habitats, because we need many different firearms at our disposal just like a handyman will end up with a dozen different hammers. One for roofing, one for masonry, one for finishing nails, one for framing, etc.

Obama at least does not pander or lie. He also seems to have backed off of his more extreme views as he's learned more.  But Hillary Clinton stabs me in the back one day with support for banning the tools that I hunt with and then smiles at me the next day, pretending she's some serious duck hunter who 'supports my rights.'

I'm going to make a caveat to your "smoking crater" comments ;)

I've on more than one occation taken a rabbit with a deer rifle.  Just hit the head and it's fine.  Course, it does make a big racket...

Your point is taken, however.  Just wanted to say that.

With a .22 it doesn't make too much noise and won't scare off everything in the woods. If you shoot that deer rifle at the rabbit, you're basically giving up on getting a deer.

On at least one occasion I have hit my prey with something heavier than was advisable and wound up not be able to use the meat at all. I felt really bad about it, since the animal had then died for absolutely no reason. Not something I'd care to repeat. I won't pass judgment on someone else for hunting rabbits with deer loads, but it's not for me.    

Hunting turkeys with a .22 pistol is not to be dismissed, either, by the way. Especially if you're pretty certain that you can make a head shot on a target that small.

First, a very informative post.

Your post, in fact, demonstrates the practical disconnect on this issue. On the one hand, your position is thoughtful and fact-based. Reading your post, I completely understand your perspective, even though it is somewhat outside my own experience.

At the same time, there is a serious problem in this country that undeniably results, in part, from the ready availability of firearms. I don't say that easy availability of weapons is the only cause, but common sense dictates that when it is easy for someone disposed to crime and violence to obtain a weapon, it is more likely that they will both seek and be able do so.

All too often, however, the response of the NRA to any effort to regulate the availability of weapons is opposition. alternatively, it proposes more prison,  more severe penalties as deterrents and most absurdly, IMHO, the greater spread of weaponry so that a larger proportion of honest, law-abiding citizens are armed in self-defense.

Each of these approaches is deceptively appealing on an individual level, but has proven impractical and ineffective on a societal one. For example, Jack, you have mentioned that you carry a weapon in self-defense, which is fine, but I have read that a weapon in the home ostensibly for self defense is statistically more likely to injure its owner or a family member through a mishap or domestic dispute than ever be used in actual self-defense.

I am not sure where the solution lies. Once you get beyond the people who sit at the extremes (those who would confiscate and ban all weapons for any purpose, and those who would oppose any limitation or restriction whatsoever based on a tortured reading of the Second Amendment and a serious misunderstanding of the basics of Constitutional law), the more I am baffled why a consensus solution cannot be formed.

AZNew,

Acutally, I think a consensus solution has been formed. We have thousands of gun laws on the books in America. We have mandatory background checks, bans on purchase by violent felons, bans on automatic weapons, different age limits for handguns versus long guns, a 10% federal excise tax on every firearm made or imported, mandatory hunter education courses and mandatory safety training for concealed weapon permits. I think that most of these regulations are a good idea, as do most NRA members.

We've reached the point of diminishing returns in regulating firearms.  I don't think that many of the proposals for tighter gun control will result in any measurable increase in public safety, although they will tend to be a huge pain for law-abiding people.  But what we have in terms of federal gun laws is, for the most part, a pretty good compromise.

As far as that statistic about weapons in the home for self-defense goes, that sort of thing is true for a lot of things. If you have a circular saw in your house, your odds of cutting your finger off with a circular saw go way up. 40,000 people end up in the ER every year due to chainsaw injuries, most of which could have been prevented if those people did not own chainsaws.  But you know, work has to get done. Many people find power tools scary and unnecessary, but I need them around because I'm building a house (which I am, actually).

Those who feel that they have no need for power tools should not keep them around. But another person's lack of need for dangerous tools and personal fear of them should not be translated into government policy that dictates what I or anyone else does.

I do have to wonder about the veracity of that statistic, by the way. The only things that go on record are when the gun-owner shoots at the bad guy and the police get involved. But if you ask people who have carried concealed weapons for years, many of them have stories about conflicts that came to a halt when the weapon appeared. The bad guy/drunken frat boy looking for a fight/whoever backed off, nobody got hurt and the police never got a call. Incidents like that would, in all fairness, need to be considered when weighing the relative risks and rewards of possessing a weapon for self defense.  Of course, I have no idea how you would go about gathering such data.

Certainly I would agree that people who are not committed to learning and maintaining safe use of a firearm should not choose to own one. A handgun in a dresser drawer owned by people who never practice shooting and who cannot rattle off the 3 major rules for handling a firearm can be like a ticking bomb. Even if an intruder showed up, they probably couldn't manage to hit him properly. The gun will never do them any good and they should get rid of it. But for millions of people in America, firearms in the home are more like power tools than ticking bombs. We know how to safely handle them, we have practical uses for them and those practical uses outweigh the small level of risk that possession entails.

I would take issue with you analogy to power tools, however, in the terms of risk/reward. I've also heard the same argument leveled against automobiles. It is a variation of,  "Guns don't kill, people do."

There is a grain of truth to the argument. We give people the means to hurt themselves and others all the time through nothing more than negligence and stupidity without a thought toward regulation.

I think the argument falls apart once you get into the issue of purpose. The purpose behind owning a circular saw or a car is inherently good -- to build something, or to get somewhere you need to get.

With guns, however, they can be used as designed for a variety of purposes, good and bad. I understand that your intentions with a gun (hunting, self-defense and collection) are good, but the object itself is neither exclusively designed or intended solely for those good purposes.

Circular saws are not built to chop off fingers. Cars are not bought or sold for the purpose of getting into an accident or driving intoxicated.

You could argue that the people who manufacture and sell guns intend for them only to be used in "lawful" ways, though with certain types of arms I think you would have a hard time making that argument, or at least showing that it was not willful ignorance.

What a pathetic role module for our youth, a female presidential candidate drinking hard liquor in a bar with a bunch of middle aged men. Wonder what the church goers think about that?

Next thing you know she'll be eating possum stew.

No problem here with a female drinking hard liquor.  I don't see that as a gender issue.

My grandma sure did love her Manhattan's!

I originally rated it troll, but upon thinking about it, I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt that you were simply being sarcastic and change it.

The point is in many rural areas there is a different standard for women than for men. I'm not saying its right, but I'll bet that most parents in these areas would not want their teen age daughters going out to a bar and drinking hard liquor with these guys. If I had a daughter I wouldn't want this to be a role model for her and I'm one of the "elitists".

I understand the culture. Obviously, Hillary doesn't.

and so are his two sisters.  I assure you that your stereotype of rural women is off base.  Just as your stereotype of Hispanic women was wrong a few months ago.

You really ought to write about what you know, not what you guess.

n/t

I guess we knew different people.

If anyone is appealing to stereotypes it is Hillary Clinton.  

The Clinton legacy .... please wash my mouth out with a Whiskey shot .... after I say anything I want .... it's tough campaigning being pinned down by sniper fire.
Pathetic

but alas, apparently, it was not. I should have known better.

But, to simply respond to one point:

The point is in many rural areas there is a different standard for women than for men.

This may be true. It is also sexist. As is your statement about Clinton.

As is this statement:

I'll bet that most parents in these areas would not want their teen age daughters going out to a bar and drinking hard liquor with these guys.

Again, probably true. I don't have a daughter. But I do have sons, one teenager, two younger. I don't want them going out and drinking shots with these guys either. In fact, every parent I know probably feels that way, whether they have sons or daughters.

If you want to say that any political candidate drinking or smoking or admitting to drug use as something to do when you are young and foolish, or whatever, sets a bad example, fine.

I'm not quite sure what gender has to do with it.

There is a difference between admitting drug use in the past and posing for a photo op in a presidential campaign doing drugs. The same can be applied to drinking hard liquor in a bar. Of course this is a bad example for both boys and girls and I think most parents, be they in Pennsylvania or not, would not agree.

But then you are a die hard Clinton supporter and she would have to be found in bed with a dead boy or a live girl before you would change your opinion.

In fact, I publicly repudiated my support for her at this site over the comments she and her supporters made regarding Rev. Wright.

But I said I would continue to defend her from unfair attacks.

Your ethics are situational. To say, as you do, that there is a difference between admitting illegal drug use in the past and legal and responsible consumption of alcoholic beverages says nothing at all. Of course they are different. The salient question is why one sets a bad example and the other does not.

In fact, it is arguable that admitting illegal drug use sets a much worse example. How many kids read that and say, "Well, I can do some coke today, because I can always quit tomorrow and still become president." For the record, these are not my feeling about it -- he wants to be president, and he needs to be honest about stuff like that. And given my own experience, I sure ain't judging him about it.

But when it comes to the relative value or damage of the examples being set,  I wonder how many parents out there are willing to share the derring-do of their drug and alcohol-addled youths with their children. I'm not. But I don't mind them observing me today drinking a legal beverage in a responsible and sociable manner.

For the record, neither Obama's confession nor Clinton's shooters bother me much either way. Given my own experience, I'm in no position to judge anyone.
 

I support Obama, but this is ridiculous.  

I would just like to note that it is perfectly acceptable to drink hard liquor in bars with bunches of us.

which I can't because I appear to be allergic to anything stronger than vodka, wine, or beer, I wouldn't mind standing in a bar drinking hard liquor with bunches of middle aged men.  I don't see what the big deal is.  It's legal, and as long as everyone's of age, not wasted, and not acting stupid, an occasional shot with a beer is fine.  

Any chick that can take a shot of hard liquor like a pro is hot.  I'm serious, I like my girls to be fiery and fierce.  If she can down a shot of whiskey like she knows what she's doing, my interest is roused. :)

On your other comment, if Hillary Clinton DOES ever eat possum stew, however, I think my head might explode.  The lies would just be too much to take.  

Hillary is a poor example for the young. Check out this story about Chelsea:

http://www.wweek.com/wwire/?p=...

too funny aznew!

is the J. Edgar Hoover tape of Marilyn Monroe .... but hey we're entering Monica territory.

The buyer said it ain't going online.  Of course, that is, unless somebody breaks into the buyer's house and finds it...

Anyone?

a few shots, and I'll do it.

If the guy doesn't want anyone to see the video, why doesn't he just distroy it?

We all know the answer to that. ;)

It's also been reported that Hoover was obcessed with the video and watched it over and over and over.  Not sure who [or what] in the movie he was most interested in, but.....

OK.  Sorry for the hijack...back to topic :)

Yup. Hillary Clinton's hotness factor increased by 6% at that moment. It doesn't make anyone any more likely to vote for her, but it does mean that her next drink will probably be on someone else's dime.

I'm irrevocably pissed off, furious, and BITTER that self-centered opportunists like HRC are even given press coverage for their utterly STUPID and degrading comments. And I don't live in a small town!
This woman is a DINO supreme. How can anyone say such DUMB things and be called a Democrat? I almost feel sorry for her, if it wasn't for all the millions she and Bill hustled after leaving the WH. What a sad pathetic human being. Please stop and go away!
And if she runs again in '08 (if Barack loses) I'll be working against her from Day One. What a miserable excuse for a human being.

I've been pretty neutral to HRC, but lately she's begining to really chap my azz.

As recently as a month ago I was saying I thought she'd be a good majority leader. Now I honestly think she deserves to be challenged in the next primary for her Senate seat. And is it just me or does she just SOUND completely disingenuous recently? The tone of her voice has completely changed and every time I hear her talk or say "You know. . . " followed by some ridiculous story about her all-American upbringing it's like freaking nails on a chalkboard. GRRRRR

Clinton and Lieberman should get together with Zell Miller some time. I think they all have a lot in common.

Give racists in the  racist closet something they can hold onto to not vote for Obama, and still be in the racist closet.

So its  not "Dont vote for that black guy"

its "dont vote for that eleitest"

I calls em as I sees em

She's unelectable herself, and she's working overtime to make Obama unelectable.

Oh well, the party leadership and the superdelegates don't care, why should we?

On the other hand contrasting her with Obama makes him look better and better.

May just be the last straw for Gore.  Don't be surprised if we see an endorsement soon.  Up until now, Gore could stay above this, since it was between HRC and Obama.  If Hillary is going to call out Gore specifically and say "Well, we certainly don't want another candidate like Al Gore", that draws him in directly.  If he says nothing, he implicitly agrees with her assessment of the 2000 results.

Maybe just wishful thinking.  

He holds more credibility then among the superdelegates, who will inevitably make the final call on this.  But this, I think, pretty much certifies he won't be trying to help the Clinton's at all.

She said large segments of the electorate concluded he did not relate to them or understand their way of life.

This is accurate. Isn't that what the whole "Who would you rather have a beer with" argument for George Bush was all about?

Whether that perception was justified is certainly arguable. Whether he actually lost the election is arguable. But I simply do not see how Clinton is dissing Gore here or how it would be the "last straw" for him, unless you think he would be offended by being called a "good man" and a "man of faith."

She said that people didn't vote for the 2000 and 2004 Democratic nominees because of their "way of life."  What the hell is THAT supposed to mean?  And, again, why is Hillary Clinton buying into total right-wing framing of Democrats, almost like she read Thomas Frank and is applying the lessons she learned, but against her own party!

the millions and millions currently in her personal bank account.  So as not to seem "removed" from the rest of our struggling society.  Which she is.

I sincerely hope he steps in and takes a side. That influence would do a lot to end the primary. A lot of people really respect him and his insight into politics. It's no secret that while he is issue-based in his decisions these days, he has no love for the Clintons.

Hillary's comments about Gore were meaningless to me though. It sounded like a bunch of fluff about how Gore and Kerry were simply unable to blend in with the electorate. Frankly, I think Bush stole both elections so it doesn't matter what Clinton says about it.

Does anyone besides me have trouble watching CNN cover this race any more?

I have always thought that they were fairly well balanced, but it seems to me that they are just trying to sensationalize every little detail to create controversy.

I had a very difficult time watching their post game coverage last night. One talking head (I didn't stay long enough to see who it was) was insisting that the "bitter" issue was a big problem for Obama. Maybe it is and maybe it isn't. My frustration is that, who in god's green earth actually knows anything? It has become like professional sports draft. We declare that X team had a great or terrible draft and we all talk about it for a few weeks. And then...nothing happens. We don't go back one, two, five, or ten years later to see if they were right. There is no accountability.

If someone said, "This may be an issue and here is why...," I would be ok. But suddenly, these dopes know the future, and I am tired of watching the feeding frenzy.

This election cycle I've found myself watching MSNBC more than anything else.  They really do have the best political analysis.  Two words: Chuck Todd.  He's a political genius.

Anyway, I'll be anxiously awaiting the voters reactions in the polls 8 days from now.  I can only hope they're becoming fed up with the Clintons as well.  I'm sick and tired of this infighting, and I'd love for the Democrats to rally around Obama united against McCain.

entirely my own...

Chuck Robb (former Senator)
Robb Tim (WHFS fame)
Chuck Todd (MSNBC)

Sigh...

It seems finally to have dawned on Murdoch and his fellow MSM magnates at CNN, CBS, ABC, NBC, MSNBC (which permits the token alternative of Keith Olbermann's Countdown), the WaPo, and the NYT that Obama has against all odds created an alternative to the funding of campaigns and buying of influence by Big Money Boyz. Suddenly the Big Money Boyz are very, very worried.

Key advertisers, especially from Big Guns, Big Oil, and Big Pharma (the new G.O.P.) are likely putting enormous pressure on the MSM magnates to take down this "uppity" Obama. I can offer no concrete proof of such pressure, but Bill Moyers has meticulously documented how such advertiser and corporate  pressure worked during the propaganda campaign before Bush's invasion of Iraq. Now that a candidate has appeared who seems to have the intent--and potentially the political clout--to end the corporatist looting of the economy and to return to a New Deal approach (promoting the greatest good for the greatest number), the Big Money Boyz are bound to strike back, and hard.

They were no doubt stunned by Hillary's failure to dominate on Super Tuesday, and it has taken them a full two months to crank up the Mighty Wurlitzer to full, thunderous volume. Whether McCain or Hillary wins makes no difference to them, as long as it is not Obama.

The horrendous, sketchy MSM coverage of last night's "compassion forum," at which Obama was no less than brilliant in substance and tone, is a case in point. Obama stands a legitimate chance of attracting 40 percent of the evangelical vote--those who care about the poor, protecting the environment for future generations, avoiding pointless invasions and military occupations, etc. If Obama succeeds in attracting their votes, he will be able to coast to a 57-43 victory over McCain. The corporatists are clearly running scared.

The punditry's off-base coverage on the "bitter" remarks is another example of the MSM effort to take down Obama. There will be even worse coverage to come.

But perhaps it is too late for the Big Money Boyz to stanch what may have already become a historical tide. With YouTube and the blogosphere, not to mention an exceptionally talented campaigner like Obama, it has become harder for the MSM to censor and control the message, especially when 81 percent of the public think that the U.S. is heading in the wrong direction, and only 28 percent approve of George Bush's job performance.

There really is bitterness throughout the land.

That's my prediction...

And that is despite massive funding from your Big Guns, Big Oil, and Big Pharma lobby (BTW - I completely agree with your brilliant insight that this is the new "GOP"), and despite blanket negative coverage by the corporate owned MSM of Obama in an attempt to undue the run-away revolution Obama's campaign is enabling.

We are bitter, because we are sick and tired of nearly 30 years of government by the lobbyists for the corporations and ready for change.

Viva la revolution!
Yes We Can.

Any Democrat rather than McCain.  

I believe either Clinton or Obama would make a superb president.

I think that your 64-35 prediction (one percent divided between Nader and Barr?) is an interesting one and cannot be dismissed out of hand.

For the past couple of years I've been saving odd polling numbers that seem to shed some light on electoral reality. My focus has been Karl Rove's slicing and dicing, which is very similar to Mark Penn's slicing and dicing. Some of these polling numbers are now a few months out of date, but the basic parameters seem to remain fairly steady.

The absolute floor of support for today's G.O.P. is approximately 30 percent, the carefully assembled Rovian Hard Core. Here is why:

--35 percent of Americans (and 67 percent of Republicans) still think that invading and occupying Iraq was a good idea

--35 percent approve of the use of torture against insurgent or terrorist suspects

--67 percent (or even 74 percent, depending on the poll) of Republicans think that Bush's troop "surge" to escalate the war in Iraq is a good idea

--30 percent of Americans think that Big Business has the right amount of influence (22 percent) or too little influence (8 percent) in the Bush Administration

--29 percent disapprove of interracial marriage

--32 percent consider themselves to be "born-again" Christians

--25 percent thought that the Rapture/Second Coming will occur in 2007 (presumably the same 25 percent think that it has been slightly delayed and will now occur in 2008, though I have seen no recent polling data on the question)

--24 percent think that automatic assault weapons should continue to be sold to the public

--20 percent (and 81 percent of evangelical fundamentalists) believe the creationists' literalist dogma that God created the entire cosmos 6,000 years ago

--37 percent think that the teaching of creationism (or the latest version, Intelligent Design) should replace the teaching of evolution

--17 percent think that abortion should be illegal even in cases of rape or incest

--39 percent admit to harboring prejudice against Muslims

--27 percent of Illinois voters cast ballots for the certifiably extremist Alan Keyes rather than for Barack Obama in 2004

--74 percent (yes--three-fourths!) of Republican voters and an astonishing 84 percent of Republican members of Congress deny that the human release of greenhouse gases causes global warming

These polls reflect what Karl Rove has spent his life creating:

A  rock-solid hard-core base of credulous gun-totin', SUV-drivin', Bible-thumpin', home-schoolin', Rapture-awaitin', ignorance-embracin', global-warming-denyin', evolution-dismissin', science-rejectin', contraception-and-abortion-rights-opposin', tolerance-refusin', gay-bashin', Constitution-shreddin', civil rights-denyin', Bill-of-Rights-ignorin', anti-race-mixin', Confederate-flag-displayin', Fox-News-believin', Rush-Limbaugh-admirin', foreigner-despisin', Muslim-demonizin', militia-joinin', perpetual-war-lovin', torture-approvin', war-and-oil-profit-cheerin', robber-baron-servin', Fuehrer-enablin' social conservatives.

The groups represented by these poll numbers would surely largely, though not perfectly, coincide on a Venn diagram. Some abortion foes will feel even more strongly about the loss of life resulting from the unnecessary invasion and occupation of Iraq. Some gun enthusiasts will feel strongly about protecting the environment and curbing global warming. A few viewers of even the Foxist Noise Channel's official propaganda outlet will have doubts about skewing economic and tax policies primarily for the benefit of big business and the wealthiest one-tenth of one percent.

All the same, it is clearly possible for Rove and the Foxist Noise machine (and other corporatist news outlets) to fool 30 percent of the people 100 percent of the time. But they can also fool an additional 5 percent of the voting public almost all of the time. When polled a certain number of people will be embarrassed to admit to racism or bigotry, but they will express their true feelings in the privacy of the voting booth, i.e., the "Bradley" or "Wilder" effect. In short, any Democratic national candidate simply has to write off 35 percent of the voting public. This hard-core is simply unreachable.

Still, Rove's effort to apply a Texas-style political formula of divide-and-rule to the whole country has left fully 65 percent of the population within the reality-based community. Rove's apparent heir, Mark Penn, has clumsily been trying to wield the same kind of electoral strategy to his personal profit, but not so much to the benefit of his client, Hillary. Was Penn trying to co-opt part of the Rovian Base and then triangulate to a 50.1 percent majority in two or three key swing states, such as Florida and Ohio? (I use the past tense, for Penn and Hillary have clearly lost to Obama; they just refuse to admit it.)

This fall in some areas the unreachable Rovian Hard Core will amount to more than a majority. But even in the Deep South, Kentucky, Oklahoma, Utah, Idaho, and Wyoming there will be the odd Congressional seat or local urban election that can be competitive for a Democratic pragmatist or even a progressive. Consider, for example, Rocky Anderson, the progressive mayor of Salt Lake City. And in the rest of the country there are increasingly bright prospects for Democratic sweeps. Even Montana and the Dakotas may be in play for Obama.

Karl Rove has ensured that the Republican Party has adopted the values and antebellum outlook of the Deep South, thereby turning it into more of a regional party than a national one. Rove's G.O.P. has become the official political home for the country's remaining racists, bigots, and xenophobes, and it is doubtful that Mark Penn could have lured many of them to vote Democratic in the fall. But Rove has handed pragmatists and progressives a historic opportunity elsewhere.

Can they seize it?  Can they organize the reality-based community--fully 65 percent of the voting public?

If they, with Obama's leadership, fund-raising, and organizational skills, do seize the opportunity, your 64-35 prediction just might be on the money. Everything would have to go perfectly in Obama's campaign, and McCain would have to make a continuing series of bumbling, inattentive misstatements or suffer an obvious health crisis, but it seems at least possible that Obama has a chance to forge a whole new dominant coalition, just as FDR did in 1932.

And I'm enough of a populist to almost buy it.  Except when articles like thisappear.

It's much like the meme that Obama's actual positions on policy are so radically different from Clinton's, except they are not.  Or that Clinton is a corrupt insider while Obama is storming the gates alongside Kos and all the bloggers, except for all the former Clinton administration officials who serve as his advisers.

Obama does represent a fresh voice and a different style of politics.  But on substance, he's a moderate centrist, not that different from the hated Clintonistas.

I think some of you would be more convincing if you had your facts and applied logic rather than emotion to all your arguments.  Passion is good. Emotionalism that distorts facts is not. It weakens your argument.

The actual platform of Obama is not very leftist. That is true. But neither was that of FDR when he ran for president.

The key in this election is that it has been more or less a people-powered campaign. People who never participated in politics in their life are doing it now.

It is almost like having a national version of the Web campaign. It gives me hope that there will be more chance of real needed change rather than have a rehash of Bill Clinton's presidency: a lot of compromising in the face of an organized corporate lobbying effort and a strong right wing grassroots.

In contrast, Hillary didn't have a strategy for a campaign. She had a strategy for an annoitment. When the annointment didn't happen because she was out-campaigned by Obama, the only thing that she seems to have access is to negative campaigning when the odds are stacked against her.

I was going to say that Hillary seemed reluctant to attack Obama in the video, but if the ad that was diaried today is legitimate, then Hillary has once again engaged in a negative campaign that is turning people off from her.

I love CNN but at some point you have to realize that they're in this for the money and not the news.

Plenty of the people who work for CNN care deeply about the news itself but the people who decide what goes on air and how it is played out are those who want the ratings and the money.

This is why I read a lot of blogs and newspapers in addition to CNN coverage. I actually like to read comments from people too. The commentary is pretty hilarious usually.

Her ground organization is so bad her only option is to tear Obama apart.

She is playing on Racism.... While she may nt be racist, she knows there are a lot of racists out there, Its not PC to admit your racist, so shes throwing  lifevets for folks to grab onto , so they can vote against Obama and clain "They are not racist"

Bad enough they are racist, but the dishonesty is  really  bad news. Hillary does not have the organization to turn the superdelegates.  The chess game that is the primary season is maybe two moves from checkmate.

I noticed a couple of news items a few weeks ago about how Clinton insists that pledged delegates can switch their votes.

It seems that someone has counted the superdelegate votes, and she ain't winning. So maybe if they get some operatives to clobber the newbie delegates, they have a chance.

If this were chess, Clinton would resign and shake hands.

Clinton's race is finished.  It is time to measure the real race.

...but I hope you're right.

There's a new poll in Michigan, and it has Barack Obama leading Hillary Clinton 42%-37%.   It also has Obama leading John McCain 43%-41%, while McCain leads Clinton 46%-37%.  Looks like Michigan isn't Clinton country after all.