PREACH IT!

Another agonizing close loss?

I don't think so.

That's one cherry-picked statistical analysis. There are dozens out there, each saying different things.

I don't get it. You think that's representative of what it'll be like 6 months from now or something?

The idea that McCain is going to win Michigan is ridiculous.  Truly.  Not in a million years.

Anybody analyzing general election polls for a candidate with an active primary underway has too much time on his or her hands.  The general election polls at this point are meaningless.  Make as many little maps as you like.  

From Jake Tapper today:

Obama's Inability to Hire Good Help Rears Its Head ... Again

We started covering Sen. Barack Obama's inability to hire good staffers in June 2007, when he blamed staffers for some opposition research trying to link Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, to outsourcing in India; for injecting some venom in the David Geffen/Hillary Clinton fight; and for missing an event with firefighters in New Hampshire.

In December, we noted again that Obama was blaming the answers on a 1996 questionnaire on a staffer; and was blaming his touring with "cured" ex-gay gospel singer Donnie McClurkin (which antagonized gays and lesbians) on bad vetting by his staff.

Those five buck-passing incidents were apparently not enough.

Yesterday, in an interesting New York Times look at Obama's rise in Chicago politics, we learned that in 2004 some Jewish supporters became alarmed to learn that in a questionnaire Obama refrained from denouncing Yasir Arafat, or from expressing strong support for Israel's security fence....

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/

Methinks we haven't counted all the votes. And when we do, Hillary will win.

Consider this letter from members of Congress in Swing States:

Pennsylvania was not just a victory for Hillary Clinton. It was also a wake- up call for superdelegates, forcing us to ask ourselves two essential questions: 1) Which candidate can carry the magic 270 electoral votes to win in the fall? 2) Which candidate is most likely to help our fellow Democrats in down-ballot races? We believe the answer to both of these questions is Hillary Clinton.

On the first question, Hillary has shown she can win the all-important battleground states like Ohio, Pennsylvania and Florida even while being outspent. This speaks to her ability to connect with voters we must deliver in the fall, including blue collar Democrats who can sway this election as they have in the past.

On the second question, Hillary has won rural and suburban districts which we as Democrats must carry to maintain our edge in Congress. Of the fifteen districts rated "toss up" by the Cook Political Report, Hillary has now won ten. Of the 20 districts we picked up in 2006 that had gone for President Bush just two years before, Hillary has now won 16. She is strong in the places we must win to hold and expand our majority.

This is a historically close race. The candidates are separated by a mere percentage point or two and the path to victory for each candidate is the same: win in the upcoming states and secure enough pledged and automatic delegates to get to the number required to win the nomination.

+++

We Democrats are justifiably proud of both of our candidates, and if Senator Obama is our Party's nominee, we will enthusiastically support him. But our responsibility is not to choose simply to support the eventual nominee; it is to help select the nominee who is best for our party and best for our country. Our choice is clear: Hillary Clinton is that candidate. We believe she should be your choice as well.

http://www.hillaryclinton.com/news/relea se/view/?id=7597

"You need to go through the stages of loss before you will find your DEM roots: denial, anger, bargaining, depression, acceptance."

Can we please stop with the ad hoc psychology and sociology lessons from the far-left?  

I realize Obama and his supporters have an "explanation" (to put it lightly) for anyone who won't vote for him, but this phenomenon is getting out of control.  

It's only sexist if you speak ill of Hillary.

They can bash Michelle all they want and it's ok.

That's why I read their comments for laughs more than
anything else.

I don't understand the animosity to Michelle Obama.

I don't have any "animosity" toward her. I simply supplied the link to a video where she was extremely reluctant to support Hillary Clinton if she were the nominee.

The facts are the facts. It's not an "attack" to tell the truth.

You have a point, she's a strong woman, but Hillary never attacks other women and Michelle has had a high level of vitriol for Hillary, she's quite disdainful.  There is a rule with feminists that we often don't like the woman who attacks the other woman. Of course attacking Michelle isn't any better and ought not to be done, except in the context of calling her out on her anti-Hillary rhetoric. Hillary doesn't make personal attacks, she goes after policies and after her famous and feared 'fact checks.'  he's gone after her on her character, and that's what' upset most women, those of us who are upset and don't think she's 'fair game.'  Michelle is even more sarcastic than Barack. She reminds me more of Teresa Kerry than of Hillary. Hillary hasn't time for gossip and personal attacks, she's a busy beaver.  

After viewing Michelle Obama's video, does it appear to you she'll be vigorously campaigning for Hillary if she's the nominee?