Just checked census figures - both states are 90% whites - a good "natural experiment" for the claim that Obama can't get votes from white voters.

please note that at no time was HRC or her campaign cited as saying that was how they would play it., it was purely Todds speculation. One day it is hoped that more people learn the difference...

My understanding is that Oregon will have much higher level of voter turnout, given mail-in ballot, of about 70-75% compared to much lower turnout in Kentucky.  I've seen local media estimating as low as 25% in Kentucky, with wide variation between counties (some expected much higher than 2004, some lower based on absentee ballots).  So, even though HRC will thrash BO in Kentucky, his likely smaller advantage as a % of voting in Oregon may offset much of HRC's potential net gain there.  

she isn't ignoring Oregon, she's there too.  I'm not sure that it's accurate that she cancelled anything, it's nothing from her campaign. so I don't know what that's based on.  He's actually ignoring Kentucky, he admits it. it's like not studying for an exam and explaining your failure on  not having studied. he says that in response to his humiliating defeat in WV.  He's positioned to spin his loss. hillary, in contrast, is campaigning everywhere, she has a Oregon campaign plan that is about state issues, and she's clear about where she stands on the issues that affect Oregon.  She'll keep showing her momentum and keep increasing her lead in popular votes and it'll go to the convention, and we'll then have the summer to see how Barack stands up to pug attack ads (and how she does too).  It's fun, I think she'll come out the winner, the only way they can end it sooner is to bully her out, and that's been tried, too many times.  Barack will make a huge mistake if he does go to Iowa and proclaim mission accomplished. he's already looking arrogant and game-playing in his eagerness to debate John McCain but he's too cautious about his slim lead to debate Hillary. He's trying to win, and that's how he's playing it.  He gets to pick his own campaign style, but she gets to pick hers too, and she's going for all votes still out there.  Go Hillary!!

I don't know. I wouldn't write off WV.

Obama got like 29 percent of the Dem vote there and McCain got like 79 percent of the Repub vote there and Obama still got more votes than McCain.

What part of the state?

He and Hillary are campaigning together Monday night in Louisville, and I am so going! I can't wait to see them together.

Give me a break, John Edwards was going nowhere while Hillary is running neck to neck with the Obama. Not only that Hillary is doing this with Chris Matthews and the rest of the blo-dry cable queens sniping at her every statment. If we had a truly unbiased media Obama would be toast by now.

I think Kennedy got a lot of goodwill during the tail end of his run against Carter.

He was beat, but he kept going and made a great speech at the convention ("The cause endures, the dream shall never die....").

Reporters even started calling him "Gallant Teddy."

(I know everybody gets in a snit about Kennedy challenging Carter now, but that's the way it was then--everybody knew Carter wasn't going to have a second term. It was just a question of whether Kennedy or Reagan was going to have a first.)

Off the top of my head, here are a few:

1) Give everyone a chance to vote for her while she's still actively campaigning.  It'll make it easier for her to get her supporters to be for Obama if she gives it her absolute best shot and gets beat fair and square.  If she quits on them, it'll be that much harder.

2) Burnish her own reputation as a fighter-not-a-quitter.  If she folds her tent now, that can't happen.

3) Amass enough delegate and popular vote strength to go to the convention to convince Obama to either put her on the ticket as the VP or put one of her supporters on it in her place.  Yes, Obama can win outright at the convention but he'd be stupid to ignore the 47% or so of the country who wants Hillary, and hopefully he and his top advisers have better sense than some of his more fanatical and vindictive supporters who not only want Hillary to lose but they want to do a public sack dance and humiliate her (and her supporters) as a bonus.

Sorry, they're not "censoring" her. They've simply made a judgment about what is news and what's a sideshow. Why is that censoring? Every news organization makes judgments like that all the time.

Lordy how short our memory spam is sometimes.

Just who was it that was the anointed one who we were all told would be our nominee, for the first 8 months after they all started this primary thing?

Who was it that had so much backing from the start and the race was theirs to lose?

Jog your memory just a little bit and see if you can recall.

Hell I even supported her at first, but then Edwards drew me more to him. Once he dropped out Obama was the only one left offering real change.

Sad to say it but Hillary could have had this race won a long time ago if she had just read the handwriting on the wall. The people do not want anymore of the business as usual in the white house.  

HRC lost me with her standing up for the money lobbyist in Washington.

The media did not keep Hillary from wining this primary. Hillary kept Hillary from winning.

When people are upset with the way Washington is being run, they do not just want a lighter version of it, they want real change.

Peace
:)

Yes, they censored Huckabee, too!!!  He hasd a .0001% shot a the nomination, and they deliberately CENSORED him!  Horrible!

You've got a good point, and I sympathize, since the media has also blatantly decided to censor me by not covering the story of how I learned to belch the star spangled banner!

Enjoy your protest - that'll show them.

I have seen some Hillary commercials on local TV in Oregon but they are from another organization and not the campaign.  I can't remember the name of the organization?  Anyway they are just very pro-Hillary and not anti-Obama.

She doesn't have enough money for commericals in both States. Its coming out of her bank account.

She is all over the TV in Oregon!!

It may be hard to accept, but Obama will have the lead in pledged delegates after Tuesday. It would be virtually impossible for him not to, since he's behind by around 17 now and there are  25 delegates allocated Tuesday.  

I thought "the unwashed" was Hillary's base.

Hell, she's probably doing shots with them in Bowling Green right now.

Do you really think you should be calling them that?

I can't take many more of these Tuesdays.

Please. End. It. Soon.

Don't they have vote by mail in Oregon?  Meaning you don't have to go to a polling place.

will basically nullify any appeal for big bucks.

There are plenty of signs that the two campaigns are making efforts to plan for a future Obama candidacy.  Clinton may find a rich uncle to pay her debts but this won't energize her campaign, which doesn't promise to perform very well after next Tuesday.

LOL!

You wouldn't be doing a little spinning there, would you?

 "she might as well throw in the towel."

of college students? Huh? Where'd you come up with that?

School is out?  What schools are you referring to?
Not the U of O, for sure.

There are 113,000 new Dems in Oregon since December and 7,000 fewer Republicans.

Turnout was 29% through Thursday but that is overall and includes Dems, Reps and Indys.  The state doesn't publish party breakdown, only total ballots returned.

Benton County where Oregon State is located is was at 34% as of Friday but Dem turnout was at 45% in that county so if that differntial is applied statewide, I'd guess Dems to be close to 40%.

Lane County (Univ of Oregon) is at 38% overall, not sure what the Dem % is.

Overall, turnout so far is right about half way between a normal primary and the general election.

The big college county ballot returns are actually much higher than I would have guessed given how much later young voters tend to turn in their ballots.

And one of Eugene's big-time Republicans came out for Barack today in the newspaper.

You are correct. Senator Clinton has the good fortune of being able to dispatch a former President to campaign in Oregon while she campaigns in Kentucky....not that there is anything wrong with that.

Do you want the unvarnished truth?

They're pushing the popular vote thing because of Al Gore and 2000.  It's that simple.  Their argument does not have basis in fact for myriad reasons, but that's the point of it - Al Gore, Florida, and 2000.  It's a fact.

To clarify - the objective is to stir up those emotions.  Gore won - we know that - and they're attempting to tap into that emotionally.  That argument is a bit cynical, but it's politics.

They're pushing it because they're running out of metrics... they know that if they're seen as winning via superdelegate coup that the Party will explode in a shower of sparks.  So they have to portray it the same 2000 - "the election was stolen."

You're right that it's specious, but they're out of "pledged delegate math" arguments.

It's all they've got.

Webb will be VP.  He is on MTP today.

Because he already got what he wanted from Obama?  And I don't recall him promising to stump for Obama.

Ummm, this kind of argument baffles me. No one has ever, ever claimed that the primary process is based on principles of democracy. It is the process by which a party picks their nominee. Yes, the process has flaws, but your broader principal is just bizarre in my view. It doesn't show a mature understanding of the American political process.

As for shoving democracy down other country's throats, it's interesting to observe that since 1776 not a single country has adopted the American political system. Even when we help set up the system, it's based more on the British parliamentary model.

Quoting BTD - well that's convincing.  I guess this was a horrible system when Bill Clinton won in it too.  Of all the people who should have known how to win caucuses - jeepers they have been incompetent to an unimaginable degree.