The whole she-wins-the-big-states argument is bananas! They're all so close. Like Obama wouldn't win CA and the Northeast in a general election.

I think the polling has gotten out of control. There is a new poll every day! In one, it says Hillary is ahead....but in another, it says that if the GE were held today, Obama has a better chance against McCain than Hillary does.

I just think they are doing so many polls that I quit paying attention. What the facts are now is that Obama is ahead in the popular vote and pledged delegates, and that Hillary would have to win every state coming up by substantial numbers in order to get the nomination. So, he's ahead but it is not impossible for her to come out on top. No one knows how the cards are going to fall, so all of these polls trying to make predictions are just irritating. At least to me!

Whooo boy....here we go again.

All this proves is that:
(1) Democrats have an attitude of "I want it my way or I'm not going to play", and
(2) Republicans are better at working together to come to a consensus, whether it's an ideal solution for all of them or not.

::flame on::

(Please note that I'm just instigating!)

I think that since the supper delegates have never applied their presumed wisdom in these matters for all of us to see there really isn't a way to gauge the out come.

Personally I choose not to get caught up in the semantics of it all because in the end we'll have a candidate that we're satisfied with. Most people have said when polled that they would be happy with either Sen. Clinton or Sen. Obama. Besides it's the National Committees job to handle such issues not mine. I'm just going to worry about voting for the one I think is best for the job.

As for who would be a better match against Sen. McCain not sure, but I wouldn't count Sen. Obama out so soon. His strength is getting people to think outside the box and if he can get enough people to do that than he will be a formidable opponent to Sen. McCain.

There have also been polls saying that Hillary supporters are going to switch to McCain. I'm really tired of all these polls.

I agree, Im getting poll fatigue and its not even the summer yet!

Poor Harmonyfrance... the last Clinton fan on Earth...

AMEN HYPNOTICMIX! Let's just all let this play out and stop freaking out at every twist and turn.

That's alright cabaker! She could do way worse than me!

This is a pretty weird year, and as much as I hate to admit it as a Democrat, Lainetm has a point: the Republicans are better at pulling together to get what they want. Broadcast journalists benefit from the Dems appearing to have a close race, where's the news in the nominee being decided this soon? I'm pretty liberal so I totally don't get a Dem going for McCain but I guess that's what the problem is: middle of the road Dems vs. the liberals - a fight that's been going on for decades.

"journalists "have become partners with the Clinton campaign in pretending the contest is closer than it really is."

cough*CNN*Cough

cnn AND msnbc are all in love with Obama, all this show is that people not bot ready for this race to end

poll fatigue....LOL! Sorry ladies guttural humor from a gay man.

hypnotic you dirty bird! i didn't even think of it that way... i do now thanks!! haha!

There are so many polls, but they're FICKLE.

We'll know later for sure when the votes are out (not the polls), until then..GOOD GOD. Stop with the crazy amount of polls, it's driving me mad

As I say every two years: Never underestimate the Dems' ability to totally blow an election that was theirs to lose.

Jeez Bella...

I really can't fault you for say that.

Stephley and Bella: Absolutely, I think Dr. Kevorkian must work for the DNC.

Believe it or not, this is the first election in which I've actually identified as a Republican--and I've been voting since 1976. I always considered myself independent. Mostly, I still do. (Hey, I found a good site for some nostalgia: 4president.org)

Unfortunately, the Democratic Party has moved so far left, and so far out of touch with reality, that I can't see any hope of it returning while I'm still coherent enough to vote. It seems to me as though many or most of them have given up on trying to function in the big, bad, difficult world and have been busily constructing a happy alternate reality. There, Al Gore is a selfless expert on ecosystems and John Kerry is a handsome, philanthropic war hero.

Well I don't think the two candidates did anything to make this a mess. This is more a matter of circumstances not candidates. You have to candidates that are equally liked and there for you have this set of circumstances. If another republican candidate was as equally liked as Sen. McCaine you'd have the neck and neck horse race on that end too. So, I really don't see this as any ones fault or race to loose. It's just an unfortunate set of circumstances.

I think the anger between the two camps will subside once the Dems have a nominee. It's the natural product of a long primary process, this threat to vote for the Republicans.

You are right-- the math is not there for Hillary. That said, the only way either one can get the nom is through Superdelegates. But I'd rather it be the one who's ahead in pledged, supers, and popular vote than the one who isn't.

"I think the anger between the two camps will subside once the Dems have a nominee."

I agree.

The math is not there for either of them without supers. And it's clear the media is biased...some say for Clinton, some say for Barack.

I don't think it's particularly fair to call this the news portion of Sugar since Liberty herself is clearly biased. Op ed fine..but not straight up news.

And yes, everyone needs to calm down. New day, new polls, new reasons to sling mud. Let them do what they do and we'll see what happens.

I think the division plays well for the media, and is dividing the base a bit - but I don't think the Dems have as much to worry about as the Reps. I think the two Dem candidates are splitting hairs to find their major differences and to distinguish themselves, they ultimately believe in the same vision for the country and will have the same people working for that future.

The Republican party has been fractured into factions repeatedly, Reagan was able to form a loose coalition that tried to meet a lot of differing needs, and McCain is not a consensus candidate that can glue and cobble together the Rs. There are the 1) socially conservative Christian base with 2) those that are fiscally conservative wealthy with 3) the neoconservatives foreign policy hawks with 4)those that are more libertarian and smaller fed govt advocates. McCain has thus far been a moderates within the GOP, tending to be, to varying degrees, working with the Dems, fiscally conservative and socially liberal (though in his pres positioning has backed up a bit on these issues).

The R party has shown these fractures and dissent, through their primary, though it was a much less messy race (partially the media wrote off the opposition early on, and partially that the whole system is less messy without the superdelegates, partially that it just wasn't as close a race).

A lot of who wins the swing state in a general election will be which party gets out the vote, and I don't think the McCain cry will resonate with everyone in the R party as either Dem will be a beacon to many as a 'historic' candidate.

It will also be interesting, as we get to know the two main candidates, where the churches put their support. Bush won Ohio, Wisconsin and Florida in his reelection by wider margins of the black vote after courting the black churches - black church leaders not only endorsed Bush, but in some cases they actively worked for his re-election, and encouraged members of their congregations to do the same.

Only time will tell though...

Argh. Can it all just please STOP?!?!?!!!

Hey, Daisie! Whenever we do a post that's overwhelmingly analysis, we try to call it out by labeling it a "check this."

I think it's an important story happening right now: that the winner based on who the everyday voters chose, as represented by pledged delegates or the popular vote, could differ from who wins when superdelegates weigh in. While it's completely within the rules set up by the Democratic Party, I was commenting on the political repercussions it could have for the Democrats this November, and for years to come.

Thank you for stopping by and sharing your perspective!

Hey, Liberty! By pairing a Clinton pic with a "death wish" title you are effectively blaming Clinton for the divide and thereby showing your stripes.

And Dems don't win the nod on popular votes - I wish all elections were based on this but they are not. They BOTH must win with delegates, both regular and super. They both need supers because neither could gain the needed number without them. So again by pointing out things said by the Clinton campaign and neglecting the Obama campaign...well let's just say I don't dig your analysis.

I don't see the big deal you're making here. What did Liberty do that was so wrong?

Yet another case of camp Hillary crying foul. Camp Barack is always on the defense but rarely, if ever, complains.

I don't really see the problem with Liberty posing a question to incite debate - I love the discussions on here... I think it is a great way to try to share ideas, discuss potential consequences, and try to see where other people are coming from.

I think this is really a good discussion to have, whether or not the Dems have a system that hurts them. It is much like the question that comes up every 4 years about the electoral college system and whether that is the best system to decide the president. These are interesting discussions, and I don't really think of blogs as the place to find unfiltered news, but an open community to discuss what is out there in the news.

Please don't generalize Hillary supporters. You certainly wouldn't appreciate if Obama supporters were generalized.

I don't see how the picture and headline indicate bias. The information is about Clinton and raises a fair question: what is the party thinking if it's about to anoint one person their nominee while another is polling as more popular? A picture of Obama with a story that focuses on Clinton's poll numbers would be confusing.
And I'm not sure it's 'clear' the media is biased if people can't determine if it's in favor of Clinton or Obama.

Sorry, harmony, but I've already generalized how Obama supporters are. We're not going around spouting how unfairly he's been treated and he's faced much seemingly debilitating situations. From what I've seen Hillary supporters like to complain about everything under the sun. That's MY opinion. If you want to count yourself out of that group, by all means do so. I'm not claiming to know you, I'm just being observational. Always loved connecting the dots as a kid...it stuck with me.

haha that's alright indie.

The funny thing is I never liked coloring inside the lines. Isn't it weird that you can track things like that to adult personalities?

Meaning that I don't like being put into a box. JEEZE I'm having a hard time communicating tonight...time to go to bed!

Lol, yeah I get what you're saying. I always tried to say within the lines but never could do so, although I never did a really bad job staying inside. Maybe that sheds a little light on why I'm somewhat of a perfectionist. I like doing this perfect the first time, or else...why bother? I don't really think that's a good thing in some cases though. Hm.

This has been a tough week for BO... i have no doubt that he has time to recover... what did one expect the polls to say after the week he went through... if he thinks he can be president, then he better be able to pull through the reverend...

If Obama gets the nomination, I'm defecting and voting for McCain! I guess that makes me the 1 in 5.

Daisie - I wouldn't really consider Liberty bias in this case. To be honest, she's not the only one saying this.

The fact of the matter she asked if the Democratic party as a whole has a death wish, and at the current rate, YES, the DO.

They are so divided and hateful towards each other right now that they are teaching each other apart so quickly that the GOP can sit back and basically say "We've got it in the bag."

It didn't seem to me that she was, in any way, blaming this on Hillary or saying it's the H-Camps fault. She was, however, pointing out the fact that in reality, Hillary really is lagging behind and is grasping for straws.

Look at how desperately she was pulling for Florida & Michigan to be counted, after saying months ago that it wouldn't really matter. Now, suddenly, since she's behind and those were states that actually counted towards her, she's pulling for them.

It's not a lie, it's not bias, it's fact. The Clinton camp is getting desperate. However, the Obama campaign has it's problems too, especially in light of Reverend Wright's comments.

The fact of the matter is, instead of ripping each other apart and screwing our chances at getting the White House back, the Democratic party is screaming bloody murder at each other, scaring off potential independent voters who might be interested in the Democratic party, and making most of non-Democratic America think that we're all a bunch of indecisive, uppity, naughty yuppies who are so high strung over siding with our candidate and bashing the other that even though they are so much alike, we refuse to work together for the greater good.

Yes, the DEMOCRATS have a death wish, not the Clinton campaign.

Uggh, I apologize for all of the grammar and spelling mistakes in that post. My new pain medication is really, really doing a number on me as I adjust to it. I wanted to fix that last paragraph, so I apologize for the double post...

It SHOULD read:

The fact of the matter is, we're ripping each other apart and screwing our chances at getting the White House back. Instead of working together and having a friendly race and supporting whichever candidate ultimately comes out on top, the Democratic party is screaming bloody murder at each other, scaring off potential independent voters who might be interested in the Democratic party, and making most of non-Democratic America think that we're all a bunch of indecisive, uppity, naughty, loud mouthed, yuppies who are so high strung over siding with our candidate and bashing the other that even though they are so much alike, we refuse to look at our common interests and work towards the greater good.

Yes, the DEMOCRATS have a death wish, not the Clinton campaign.

I think it's a false assertion that Obama and Hillary are alike, especially after what has been brought out about her record.

There are a lot of people who are on the Obama train who aren't traditional Democrats, they're Independents like me. The concept of needing to vote for Hillary to make sure the party stays unified eludes me.

I'm voting based on my principles not on party politics.

The fact that so that Obama has a lot of Independents in support of him (not all, but a lot) could be one of the reasons it looks like the Dem party has a death wish because there is this tug-o-war between the more traditional Democrats and the fringe made up of non-traditional Dems and those who identify as other politically.

This is also the reason why Hillary supports, who seem, IMO from what I've read a lot on blogs, to think in terms of the party politics and more willing to turn a blind eye to Hillary's obvious flaws because she wears the Democrat label, whereas some Obama supporters are venomous toward Hillary because they simply don't trust her and could care less about her party affiliation because in reality the Democratic party isn't their party anyway.

"So, the only way she can win is if the superdelegates decide that they know best, and effectively take the nomination from Barack Obama."

The fact that she appears ready to allow that to happen just shows how far she would go, as far as tearing the Democratic Party apart from within, to win. And that only makes her look even worse in my book.

I'm confused...what is so terrible about Barack?

Let's remember that the president we have now was not inexperienced, he was just not consistent with the promises he made, and the intentions behind them.

In my opinion, it is not the quantity of experience or even the variety (war veteran, etc) but the quality of that experience and how that person took charge of the situation.

Democrats who want McCain if not Hillary: Do you really want to elect a president who doesn't understand the basics of the Middle East Crisis?

and,

Do you really want to elect a president who gets overwhelming support by this administration?

By the way, the posts are obviously not indicative of what's going on. If CNN can pull what they did off, I wouldn't put it past poll takers to tweak results. It happens all the time.

HarmonyFrance certainly isn't the last Clinton supporter. So far in my HILLARY 08 group there at least 18. Obama has been getting such light treatment. He hasn't been in politics that long. He is bound to screw up. Give him time. Just because they look at Hillary Clinton's time in office and mention her mistakes doesn't mean Obama won't make any mistakes. He has made several. The Rezko thing for one. The pastor thing I understand. Although I know America wouldn't. However Clinton should not back down. Hillary can win this thing and she is a lock to win Pennsylvania. The race isn't over until its over and thats all I have to say. You can cuddle Obama and praise the man for nothing but SPEECHES. Lets face it. The only thing he has ever done is make good SPEECHES. People are just kissing Obama's butt. They are and I am sickened by that.

I as much as I don't like him. I would never vote for McCain. If he got the nomination. I will vote for him.

However this thing isn't over until it's over and I am not counting Hillary out just because the media and Obama's supporters want to.

"The only thing he has ever done is make good SPEECHES."

I've got to take issue with that. Here are some highlights from Obama's record--things he has done.

For American jobs: Barack Obama introduced the Patriot Employer Act of 2007 to provide a tax credit to companies that maintain or increase the number of full-time workers in America relative to those outside the US; maintain their corporate headquarters in America; pay decent wages; prepare workers for retirement; provide health insurance; and support employees who serve in the military.

To help low-income working families: Obama created the Illinois Earned Income Tax Credit for low-income working families in 2000 and successfully sponsored a measure to make the credit permanent in 2003. The law offered about $105 million in tax relief over three years.

For healthcare: In 2003, Barack Obama sponsored and passed legislation that expanded health care coverage to 70,000 kids and 84,000 adults. In the U.S. Senate, Obama cosponsored the Healthy Kids Act of 2007 and the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) Reauthorization Act of 2007 to ensure that more American children have affordable health care coverage.

For women's health in particular: Obama worked to pass a number of laws in Illinois and Washington to improve the health of women. His accomplishments include creating a task force on cervical cancer, providing greater access to breast and cervical cancer screenings, and helping improve prenatal and premature birth services.

On Iraq: In January 2007, Obama introduced legislation to responsibly end the war in Iraq, with a phased withdrawal of troops engaged in combat operations.

The list goes on and on. Obama has a clear and definite record of things that he has done and not just said, and the charge that he is all talk and no action is nothing but talk from the administration. Check out his record. Check out his career, from his early days as a community organizer until today. He has certainly done much in the service of this country and its people and interests.

In addition, as for the Clinton camp's claims of her far superior experience, let's not forget that the release of her White House papers has so far shown her "experience" to be either exaggerated (her claims of being instrumental in bringing peace to Northern Ireland) or twisted and falsified for current political interests (her stance on NAFTA).

"You can cuddle Obama and praise the man for nothing but SPEECHES."

I praise him for his specific stances on issues that are important to me, the things he has already done in regards to those issues, and the clear, specific, and implementable plans he has in regards to the future of those issues. I can't speak for any other Obama supporter, but I know that I am definitely not a supporter of his for his pretty speeches.

eloquently done, Jude!

Whoo! GO Jude! You know you can speak for me anytime. I always agree with you.

PrObama all the way!

So he sponsored a few bills while in the Illinois senate. How many did he himself draft??? Everyone agrees that no one heard of the man until Jack Ryan disgraced himself and was forced to leave the race. I live in Chicago and was here when all that happened. He really appeared out of no where and yes he sponsored a few bills while in Illinois senate. What did he do when was elected to US senate??? Why don't read up one Obama's time in US senate.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/09/us/politics/09obama.html?_r=2&ref=poli...

Taoiseach Bertie Ahern of Ireland affirms Hillary's role in helping Northern Ireland achieve peace.

Here it is on video. Hillary Clinton huge in bringing peace to Ireland. He even says the Obama campaign was WRONG, when they downplay Hillary's involvement.

http://teamsugar.com.com/group/1087675/videos/1127531

and what about NAFTA what about his economic adviser going to Canada talking to there government. What about that??? Did Obama ever explain that one or did the media just forget about it??? The Tony Rezko thing is also far from over.

First of all, who cares what the NY Times says? They're so smutty. Case in point: McCain and the lobbyist story, written with no merit whatsoever. I take what the NY Times says with less than half a grain of salt. I won't even think about clicking on that link.

Another story that holds no merit is the one about Obama's campaign camp giving the ol' wink-wink to Canada about NAFTA. That tidbit of info was discredited, even by the Prime Minister of Canada himself. You want to bring up the NAFTA debate? What about this?

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/nation/politics/bal-te.canada07mar07,0,... :Top Canadian official: Clinton's campaign assured Canada on NAFTA

What's to be said about this? If you want to say that THAT holds no virtue, then same goes for the Obama allegations. Tit for tat.

I don't think Clinton's claims about her role in Northern Ireland's talks strengthen her position - Ahern didn't give her much credit and other important participants give her less:
http://www.observer.com/2008/what-hillary-did-northern-ireland
She's also been called on her claims of the 'dangers' she faced in Bosnia (and frankly, you look pretty lame if Sinbad can call you out with back up by the Washington Post) and on her support of NAFTA. She has had her own donor issues (e.g., Hsu). She supported a war based on what, if she was so knowledgable and experienced, she should have been able to discern were lies.
The only thing I worry about these days with Obama is is he too smart, too intellectual and too well-focused to be elected president of this country. What scares the hell out of me is that the U.S. is going to get the president it deserves.