Not only did Obama give Hillary a total pass on all of this, so did the entire right wing. Instead, talk radio was a 24-7 Obama Bash fest. That certainly had a lot to do with her strength in Appalachia, where Rush and Fox run strong. If at any point the right had decided it would rather run against Hillary, we’d know. But as of today its still anti Obama all the time.

Older women may be mad. (Weren’t they called security moms last time when those terror alerts scared them into backing Bush?) Some may vote against their best interest and back pro-life McCain, but who knows how many. If Hill is the nominee, Blacks, who are actually reliable Dems, will be highly pissed. If they stay home, a lot of close House, Senate and Gov races could tip Red. Conversely, Super D’s know Obama has the ability to draw millions of new voters and boost African American turnout dramatically. And since redistricting is gerrymandered based on low black turnout, boosting it puts dozens of congressional races in play.

If polls in June meant anything, Presidents Dukakis and Kerry would have saved America a lot of grief. Hillary’s arguments are very much like Rush Limbaugh’s…built on a house of cards and a network of half truths. If a smart person challenges them, they just don’t hold up

The next President of the USA will be a mixed race man from the southside of Chicago, not Black or White but American. A person not raised by parents with Post Slavery Syndrome, not beaten in childhood so he’ll know ‘how to act’, not told to be silent and ‘not get smart’. A person who faces the world with a Black face who is not downtrodden and ashamed. A person who has proven he is as smart as any person in America or the World. A person who knows how to play by the rules and win. A person who knows the rules, can teach the rules and edit the rule book.

Just showing two pretty pictures, and hopefully being done with the whole matter.

I frequently see this assertion on forums or blogs, usually tossed off casually, and never backed up with examples or explanation of exactly how Obama is more left than say, Clinton. Those who bother to read Obama’s proposals and compare them with Mrs Clinton’s will see that there is little difference between them on their core issues: getting more Americans covered by offering affordable Health Care Insurance (the difference actually puts Obama’s plan in a more “conservative” light by giving Adults the choice to opt out of the plan, Mrs Clinton makes it mandatory with a fine for those who don’t opt in), Obama wants to give tax breaks to the middle-class, and like Clinton, he would let the Bush tax cuts to the 1-2% Americans in the top tax bracket expire, etc. In fact, during the time Obama and Clinton have served in the Senate their votes matched in all but 2 cases, one of which involved Tort Reform (an issue beloved by Conservatives); Obama voted yes, Clinton, No. Another area of difference of course, is the War: although he wasn’t in the Senate for the Vote, Obama made his opposition public, while Mrs Clinton, as we know, Voted Yes, which calls into question HER judgement, IMO.

They never brought up Marc Rich, but could have.

They never smeared Hillary with lies about Vince Foster but could have.

They never brought up the millions of dollars in speaking fees that Bill Clinton has earned from Saudi Arabia, but could have.

They never brought up Whitewater, but could have.

They never brought up Monica Lewinsky, but could have.

They never brought up Gennifer Flowers, but could have.

They never brought up Kathleen Willey, but could have.

They never brought up Hillary’s potential ethics problems from the early 1970s while in Washington as a lawyer, but could have.

They never brought up Juanita Broderick, but could have.

They never brought up Hugh Rodham but could have.

They never brought up impeachment but could have.

They never brought up Sandy Berger and the files in his socks but could have.

They never brought up the instance in which, as a young lawyer, Hillary Clinton attacked the credibility of an alleged 12 year old rape victim beyond an ethical standard. But they could have.

They never brought up the fact that Democrats saw a 30% decline (from 30 governorships to 21) in the number of state houses controlled from the time the Clinton’s came to power to the time they left office. But they could have.

They never brought up the Canadaian tycoon Frank Giustra and his ties to the Clintons but could have.

They never brought up the Rose Law Firm, but could have.

They never brought up Somalia but could have.

They never brought up the fact that when the Clintons came to power the Democrats controlled the Senate but that changed just two years later. But they could have.

They never brought up Webb Hubbell but could have.

They never brought up Doug Coe but could have.

They never brought up Bill Clinton’s foreign business dealings but could have.

They never brought up Tyson chicken but could have.

He could have really trounced on Hillary’s RFK June remarks but didn’t. Instead he chose to give her the benefit of the doubt.

They never complained when the Clintons had over 100 party insider delegates endorse them before a single vote was cast in either Iowa or New Hampshire. But they could have.

They never made a big deal out of Norman Hsu and tried to unfairly tie him to HIllary the way the Clinton campaign played guilt by association with Tony Rezko. But they could have.

They never made a big deal about Peter Paul and his ties to Hillary. But they could have.

They never expressed concern over Hillary’s problem in getting the votes of “hard-working black Americans.”

They never flip-flopped on the issue of the Michigan and Florida delegates to try to manipulate the issue to their political advantage, or tried to unfairly blame Hillary for the DNC’s ruling on the state’s delegates.

They never praised John McCain while at the same time criticizing Hillary Clinton on an issue.

They never called the Republicans more “progressive” than the Democrats.

They never accused the media of a “cover up” against Clinton.

They never brought up that Hillary failed the DC Bar Exam. But could have.

They never brought up Ron Burkle but could have.

Do you think the Republicans will be so courteous in a general? Right now Obama is taking it from both sides and holding his own. Hillary would be decimated in a General Election once the repubs open fire on her.

Like many centrist Dems I have two concerns. One is that Obama, too lefty and too untested, won’t win in November. The other is that he will. I keep coming back to the question of why we’re nominating him and why we’ve been so breathlessly told that we must nominate him. What would he bring to the presidency? A pretty face? A clever autobiography? An angsty (and apparently unresolved) search for racial identity? Are these suddenly the primary qualifications for being CEO of the world’s most powerful country? Do they make up for such a thin resume devoid of any major accomplishments?

“…’til human voices wake us, and we drown.”

DNC rules prohibited candidates from campaigning in Florida and Michigan because these states violated DNC rules. Well in advance of moving up the date of their primary elections both states and all candidates were advised of this – and were warned of the consequences if they moved up their election date. If the candidates, including Senator Clinton, didn’t agree with her party’s rules – they shouldn’t have signed the DNC’s agreements concerning Michigan and Florida. I say that it’s too late to change the rules of any contest in the final ten seconds of play. Does this mean that the voters in Florida and Michigan are being disenfranchised? Frankly yes. But then if these states had complied with the rules of their party this wouldn’t even be an issue.

On a side note, I must agree that in my opinion you have to be brain-dead to contribute money to a campaign in debt for over 20 million that owes over 10 million to the candidate that is losing and most of the rest to the political consultant that engineered the loss.

As for electability, take a gander at http://www.fivethirtyeight.com ; it is a blog run by an Obama supporter that has been fairly good at predicting election results. Clinton cleans McCain’s clock; Obama actually loses.

Your parallel to Kerry fails for a number of reasons. Mainly, the Obama and Clinton campaign have campaigned in ALL states except MI and FL. Kerry wound up the nomination well before that. So while Obama and Clinton have been duking it out and getting their message out everywhere, Kerry didn’t have that burden. So the polls were a static look at a static campaign in 2004. Here, people have a much clearer idea of where Obama and Clinton stand.

As for trending, Clinton has been the one trending upwards for months.

Anyway, there are a ton of other issues with this post. I am sad that RealClearPolitics linked to your post as a “best of the blogs” post. You are obviously a reactionary Clinton hater who cannot see that Clinton has a legitimate claim to being the nominee. Now whether she gets the nomination, that’s a different story.

m

Remember what Hillary said in October 2007?:

“I pay absolutely no attention to what any poll says or what any pundit on TV says.”

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21183958/

Now general election polls in May are supposed to determine the party’s nominee? Why even have the primaries?

It’s an almost defiantly breathtaking assault on logic and history.