Thats a delusional statement.

If Obama lets this get out of hand , it would do a lot of damage to his campaign.

So if Jesse Jackson thinks by going on tv and saying yes we are going to south carolina now and we should analyze her tears because she didn't cry for Katrina and this racial nonsense his surrogates are pushing to all of this journalists , is a winning hand for him and Obama , by no means he should continue it.

I haven't seen a lot of Obama surrogates talking about the Bradley effect.  What I saw immediately were some pundits unrelated to any camp try to use that as a reason to explain the polls.  The Bradley effect, which I personally don't believe, has nothing to do with voting and everything to do with polling.  

Lori,

I've got to question with your contention that "A lot of Obama surrogates were all over the networks saying he lost New Hampshire because of the bradley effect." -- From what I saw, the folks raising the "Bradley effect" were television talking heads (and pollsters like Andy Kohut trying to explain their performance away).

The only person I saw on TV raising that question who could remotely be considered a surrogate for Obama was Michael Eric Dyson -- and he isn't a campaign spokesperson, he's an independent agent who supports Obama, and his is frequently a guest on MSNBC and others because they know he will come on and be provocative (on all matters and topics, not just the election).

I don't spend my life in front on the TV, so maybe I missed something, but can you cite any specific Obama surrogates who raised this? (I'm not being rhetorical here, I'd really like to know).

I think it is really important to separate messages that actually come from campaigns (or campaign sanctioned surrogates) vs. those that a bunch of guys on cable "news" shows start throwing out there. I haven't heard the Obama campaign claim that NH voters were racist for not supporting him (any more than I heard Clinton campaign people say that Iowa voters were sexist for not supporting her).  Let's not confuse what comes out of the mouth of idiots like Chris Matthews with the expressions of the candidates or their campaigns.

You would have to identify who those Obama "surrogates" were. I don't necessarily believe in the "Bradley effect" without further evidence in this case. I know that Obama himself simply said that the voters of NH indicated they wanted a closer scrutiny of the candidates "look under the hood, kick the tires, etc.". He did not attribute the discrepancy between polls and the result to the so-called Bradley effect. That satisfies me. I do think that when Billy Shaheen, Clinton's campaign chair in NH talked about Obama's possible history as a drug seller, that was divisive and I have to believe, not done without approval from higher up. Or when Cuomo uses the "shuckin' and jiving" language, or when the leaked comment from a Clinton staffer refers to the fact that Obama appeals to someone who wants a "secret hip black friend" then that's divisive, coded language.

It was not Obama supporters.  

In fact, the first mention of the "Bradley effect" was by a professional pollster, unaffiliated with any campaign.  If someone chooses to quote this professional who has done much polling, they are perfectly able to do so.  Andrew Kohut, possibly the most reputable pollster working today, is the first I have heard raise this possibility.

The "Bradley" effect is not divisive, in and of itself, by the way. It's simply a phenomena of how people work with pollsters.

It's not reasonable to blame Obama's campaign for quoting a professional evaluating fairly odd results.

Obama's lifetime ranking of 24th for progressive bonafides shows that early on he pursued a more progressive agenda.  However, that has dramatically changed, as his current ranking of 43rd for the 07/08 Senate session and his ranking of 44th "when the chips are down" proves.  

A candidate who appeals across the spectrum can get elected.  What's not to like?

We sit here in the blogosphere, talking about the candidates.  Our differences in outlook, values and perspective run from A to A.01.  If everyone in the blogophere voted for their favorite candidate today, I could count those votes in 20 minutes.

We need the votes of Ben Nelson, Tim Johnson, Tom Daschle, Harry Reid and many other conservative Dems.  Some wack like Kucinich would have no chance.

I cannot understand why any reasonable person would not want appeal across the spectrum.  We are talking about the President of the US, not the President of myDD.  That's the question. Who will pull in the votes of conservatives, independents, and progressives?  If we get the perfect candidate for progressives, that person would stand 0 chance of being elected president.

NO PURE PROGRESSIVE WILL BE ELECTED PRESIDENT IN MY LIFETIME.  That's my belief.

So, the charge that "Obama is bad BECAUSE he attracts conservatives" is surely the stupidest one that I can think of.

Do you want to have a better chance to win in November and shift the country to left of center?  The country is just not where you are on the spectrum.  

HRC would probably win but can she shift the country to the left?  

I'm not saying you shouldn't keep fighting for the progressive agenda but this is boiling down to a choice between Obama and Clinton.

I'm a progressive voter supporting Obama

I'm under no illusions - Obama is a centrist-- and so are Clinton, Edwards and everyone else who was in the Democratic race except Kucinich. We're all making our own choice among these centrists candidates based on our assessment of who will do the most to advance progressive politics and policies.  Maybe candidates are our version of a Rorschach test -- we each see something different in them.

That's the reality of American politics -- any Democrat who can win a national election will be a centrist (do think Bill Clinton won his two plurality victories by running or governing left?)  Triangulation, "the era of big government is over," DOMA, ignoring the science of clean needles, welfare reform, Dick Morris, sitting by for  Rwanda, etc??? Is that supposed to be the model of a "progressive" presidency that we are aiming for?  Bill Clinton may have been the best president we've seen in a while, but we really can do much much better from a progressive point of view.

And sorry, ProgressivePunch is not a credible assessment of who is progressive and who isn't ... Diane Feinstein scoring higher than Ted Kennedy? Bob Casey more progressive than Russ Feingold? Get real....