That's terrible!  Registering black voters is contrary to everything the Democratic Party stands for.

He can compete there; he has the money and he is a great campaigner.

The facts you mentioned are somewhat skewered.

First:

PA Catholic Primary Electorate: 33%
PA Black State Makeup: 10% ; similar to Ohio (11%)
PA Age Makeup: 3rd Oldest in Nation after FL, ?
PA Income Makeup: Similar to Ohio
PA Education Makeup: Similar to Ohio

IT IS SIMILAR TO OHIO! Finally, the economy is NOT that great. I live in PA and it is good, but similar to Ohio and not NJ.

Obama's campaign had geared up for a "Be a Democrat For A Day" campaign in Florida - where you have to re-register to vote Democratic in the primary. There's a lot of magical thinking going on in those ranks.

http://correntewire.com/bush_latte_obama _democrat_for_a_day_scheme_in_florida_no t_only_in_nevada

What is important about Penn is the very fact they lament.  and that is its a closed primary, this will show if Obama can unite the democratic party.  If he can get a win in Penn, then maybe he could, but I'm thinking he has yet to show that he can even get the democrats to vote for him, sure the far left, but the base?  Not so far he hasn't.

If you have a problem with a diary on DKos, take it up over there. There is no point in bashing someone if you don't have the guts to do it to their face.

Tomorrow in MS the cracker Dems will get their chance to vote against Obama...

As a nation..as a party..thanks to the young as it was in the the 60's.
We were outraged..but we chose ideals over hate..
This is another generation doing the same..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TmR1YvfIG ng

I am lifelong Ohioan, and a lifelong Democrat.  

I knew six months ago not only that Hillary Clinton would carry my state, but I even predicted the point spread!

There is nothing truly prescient here. It is simply that anyone who truly knows Ohio politics would also understand that an untried, unvetted neophyte like Barack Obama wouldn't have a prayer against Hillary Clinton--very well known, and whose husband's administration most Ohioans found to be far better than the one that has succeeded it.

When the returns came in, Clinton had won 83 of 88 counties, whereas save for the areas where there were heavy concentrations of African-Americans, Obama won no other counties at all.

Now, why is this devastating for Obama?  It means the obvious: he cannot carry the state if in the primary he does this dismally and John McCain is also quite popular state-wide.

We are probably the single most reliable bell-weather state in the country.  Ours is a state with every conceivable element of the larger nation.  

There are represented here both the rural and urban, the farming and industrial, the university and cultural, the fundamentalist and the libertarian, and all ethnic groups and religious affiliations.

It is a superb cross-section, and has invariably called the shots for presidential elections going back a century or more.

Ohioans also know neighboring Pennsylvania quite well, and it far more mirrors Ohio politics than differs from it.

That is why Hillary is much favored there as well.
She has the support of the Pennsylvania governor, of the Philadelphia mayor, and of most of the demographics which blanket the state.

And these are not elements that can be superseded by large spending and imported crowds, such as caucus-goers which work so well for Senator Obama.

In Ohio, Senator Clinton was outspent at least four to one, had the backing of all but two of the state's major newspapers, and had wall-to-wall advertising on his behalf for some two weeks prior to the primary.

Yet it moved his numbers only marginally.  

The Obama camp would have us believe that their candidate moved up by some ten points, but that also assumes that twenty-point leads in any highly contested race ever hold up--and my seasoned status comprehends that they never do.

In other words, remarking that Obama was defeated in Ohio by ten points rather than twenty points isn't much of a way to argue on behalf of his candidacy.

It means, in fact, that for all his campaign's massive advertising, endorsements, and dollars spent, Senator Obama yet lost Ohio by a commanding margin.

That does not bode well here for the fall.  Especially if one believes--and not just Ohioans--that "as Ohio goes, so goes the nation."

From the outset, I have always believed that Senator Obama would bring in many independents and GOP cross-overs, inspire the normally apathetic young, and receive a vary favorable press.

All of that has happened.  

But, alas, Senator Obama will go into the Convention having lost primaries in Michigan and Florida (every voter in those states knew very well whom they were voting for--regardless of the Obama camp's efforts to dismiss those results), California, Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey, and Texas (the popular vote is winner-take-all in the fall; caucuses have nothing to do with presidential electorals).

Among large state primaries, assuming that Clinton carries Pennsylvania, Obama will have won only his native Illinois and Missouri (in a squeaker, and what became a tie in delegates).

Thus, the super delegates will be faced with a true dilemma: grant the nomination to the clear champion of Red States and Fringe States, or to the clear champion of Blue States and Bell-weathers like Ohio and Florida.

By the time of the Convention, Senator Obamas may well have under one hundred more delegates.

But that, unto itself, will simply not be sufficient.

The question will be: how can he be the nominee if has not demonstrated an ability to carry the large state primaries, aside from his own Illinois?

In the general election, there will be no caucuses, and virtually every state will be winner-take-all.

Thus, as in my native Ohio, even one vote gives a candidate that state.

And Obama's case will be that he is better prepared for the general election, because he has independent and cross-over backing, even though he lost 83 of 88 Ohio counties in the primary?

Even the popular vote in the primaries is not sufficient unto itself to grant him the nomination.

Remember that in the general election of 2000, Albert Gore bested George Walker Bush in the popular vote nationally by several hundred thousand.  

And yet Florida, by a hand-full of votes (shenanigans aside), determined the winner.

In short, to win in November means that a candidate need not win either the popular vote, nor be popular with the crowds (be they caucus-goers or other party-faithful).

One must win the key states--with back up from the bell-weathers.

That is how Bill Clinton won in 1992 and won again in 1996.

The Obama camp would have us believe that blue states he hasn't won will somehow still gravitate towards him.  This, even though Obama is largely a Red State and Fringe State champion.

Don't bet on it.  John McCain is far more palatable to many Democratic voters than was George Walker Bush.

Just as I predicted Senator Clinton's easy Ohio win some six month ago, so do I now predict that if Senator Obama is the Democratic nominee, he will lose in a landslide.

It will be, sadly, racially charged (much as my fellow Greek-American Michael Dukakis' run became ethnically charged).

In the end, we Greek-Americans knew in our minds what our hearts wouldn't let us reveal: America wasn't ready for a man named "Dukakis."

And I believe that now America isn't ready for a man named "Obama."

It may not be the way it should be.  But alas, it is the way it is.