April 24, 2008

Pennsylvania Hurt Obama’s Electability

The New Republic: Tuesday’s Loss Shows Dems' Growing Disillusionment With Ill. Senator

  • Play CBS Video Video Obama Attacked On All Sides

    As Sen. Hillary Clinton continues to hammer at Sen. Barack Obama, North Carolina Republicans have gone on the attack before the state's upcoming primary. Chip Reid reports.

  • Video Obama Looks To N.C., Indiana

    Coming a close second in the pivotal Pennsylvania primary, Barack Obama is looking forward to North Carolina and Indiana in a race that is far from over. Dean Reynolds reports.

  • Video Obama Feels GOP Heat

    John McCain has denounced GOP ads questioning Barack Obama's patriotism. And as Dean Reynolds reports, the scandal is giving Obama a bitter taste of what a Democratic nomination could mean.

  • Democratic presidential hopeful, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., acknowledges his supporters at his Pennsylvania primary night rally Tuesday, April 22, 2008, in Evansville, Ind. Photo

    Democratic presidential hopeful, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., acknowledges his supporters at his Pennsylvania primary night rally Tuesday, April 22, 2008, in Evansville, Ind.  (AP)

  • Photo Essay Barack Obama

    A look at the life and meteoric rise of the president-elect.

  • Timeline Democratic Campaign Trail

    Notable events in the race for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination.

(The New Republic)  This column was written by John B. Judis.
Hillary Clinton won a decisive ten-round decision over Barack Obama in Pennsylvania's Democratic primary, but she didn't score a knockout. The struggle continues. Clinton still has virtually no chance of overtaking Obama's delegate lead or his edge in the popular vote. And the superdelegates will be loath to ignore this advantage. Meanwhile, Obama's weaknesses as a general election candidate grow more apparent with each successive primary.

Clinton's best chance of winning the nomination was to win Pennsylvania so decisively that she would have set off a media firestorm about Obama's electability - one that would lead superdelegates to wonder whether she would not be a much, much stronger candidate in November. In the wake of revelations about Obama's relationship with Pastor Jeremiah Wright, Clinton was ahead by 15 percent or more in polls. I visited Pennsylvania during this time, and could feel the growing disillusionment with Obama.

Obama, of course, cut into Clinton's lead through outspending her two-to-one on advertisements, but Clinton seriously damaged her own cause by going negative on Obama during the April 16 debate - and probably, too, by her subsequent ads. ABC moderators George Stephanopoulos and Charles Gibson had already done sufficient damage without Clinton piling on. According to the exit polls, 68 percent of Pennsylvania Democrats thought Clinton attacked Obama unfairly, and they backed Obama by 55 to 45 percent. It's hard to know for sure, but these tactics probably cost her among white college-educated voters who don't like to think of elections as prize fights. (The editorial in this morning's New York Times, entitled "The Low Road to Victory," reflects this dissatisfaction with the way Clinton conducted herself.)

For his part, Obama cut into Clinton's advantage, but couldn't erase it. Even though he campaigned extensively among white working class Pennsylvanians, he still couldn't crack this constituency. He lost every white working class county in the state. He lost greater Pittsburgh area by 61 to 39 percent. He did poorly among Catholics - losing them 71 to 29 percent. A Democrat can't win Pennsylvania in the fall without these voters. And those who didn't vote in the primary but will vote in the general election are likely to be even less amenable to Obama.

But Obama also lost ground among the upscale white professionals that had helped him win states like Wisconsin, Maryland, and Virginia. For instance, Obama won my own Montgomery County, Maryland by 55 to 43 percent but he lost suburban Philadelphia's very similar Montgomery County by 51 to 49 percent to Clinton. He lost upscale arty Bucks County by 62 to 38 percent.

My colleague Noam Scheiber attributes Clinton's success among these suburbanites to the influence of Governor Ed Rendell, who campaigned with Clinton, but I wonder whether Obama's gaffes and his suspect associations - whether with Wright or former Weatherman Bill Ayers or real estate developer Tony Rezko - began to tarnish his image among these voters. If so, the electoral premise of Obama's campaign--that he can attract middle class Republicans and Independents - is being undermined.

Indeed, if you look at Obama's vote in Pennsylvania, you begin to see the outlines of the old George McGovern coalition that haunted the Democrats during the '70s and '80s, led by college students and minorities. In Pennsylvania, Obama did best in college towns (60 to 40 percent in Penn State's Centre County) and in heavily black areas like Philadelphia.

Its ideology is very liberal. Whereas in the first primaries and caucuses, Obama benefited from being seen as middle-of-the-road or even conservative, he is now receiving his strongest support from voters who see themselves as "very liberal." In Pennsylvania, he defeated Clinton among "very liberal" voters by 55 to 45 percent, but lost "somewhat conservative" voters by 53 to 47 percent and moderates by 60 to 40 percent. In Wisconsin and Virginia, by contrast, he had done best against Clinton among voters who saw themselves as moderate or somewhat conservative.

Obama even seems to be acquiring the religious profile of the old McGovern coalition. In the early primaries and caucuses, Obama did very well among the observant. In Maryland, he defeated Clinton among those who attended religious services weekly by 61 to 31 percent. By contrast, in Pennsylvania, he lost to Clinton among these voters by 58 to 42 percent and did best among voters who never attend religious services, winning them by 56 to 44 percent. There is nothing wrong with winning over voters who are very liberal and who never attend religious services; but if they begin to become Obama's most fervent base of support, he will have trouble (to say the least) in November.

The primaries, unfortunately, are not going to get any easier for Obama. While he should win easily in North Carolina, where he benefits from a large African-American vote and support in the state's college communities, he is going to have trouble in Indiana, Kentucky, and West Virginia, where he will once again be faced by a large white working class vote. He can still win the nomination and lose these primaries. Pennsylvania was the last big delegate prize. But if Obama doesn't find a way now to speak to these voters, he is going to have trouble winning that large swath of states from Pennsylvania through Missouri in which a Democrat must do well to gain the presidency. That remains Obama challenge in the month to come.

By John B. Judis
If you like this article, go to www.tnr.com, which breaks down today's top stories and offers nearly 100 years of news, opinion and analysis.



If you like this article, go to www.tnr.com, which breaks down today's top stories and offers nearly 100 years of news, opinion, and criticism.

Video and Galleries from Opinion

Add a Comment See all 46 Comments
by tbweb April 24, 2008 12:23 PM PDT
Pennsylvania Hurt Obama%u2019s Electability

Sen. Clintons refusal to drop out of the race and rally around one candidate the way wise Republicans have hurt Sen. Obamas electability! Right now neither Sen. Clinton or Sen. Obama can win against Sen. McCain, thats how much damage has been done! Sen. McCain will be the next President thanks to Hillary Clintons me, me, me attitude!
Reply to this comment
by shirk3-2009 April 24, 2008 12:31 PM PDT
Pennsylvania Hurt Obama%u2019s Electability

Obamas refusal to drop out of the race and rally around one candidate the way wise Republicans have hurt Clintons electability! Right now neither Sen. Clinton or Sen. Obama can win against Sen. McCain, thats how much damage has been done! Sen. McCain will be the next President thanks to Obamas me, me, me attitude!


Reply to this comment
by irliberal April 24, 2008 12:32 PM PDT
Posted by tbweb at 12:23 PM

The sky is falling the sky is falling!!!

Moron.

Hillary and Obama are competing. One will get the nomination. Whoever gets the nomination will easily trounce McCain... nobody wants another Bush except a minority of bitter, partisan repugs.

So shut the he.ll up already and sit down and quit flapping your lips. Have some cake. Or something.
Reply to this comment
by tejasdemo April 24, 2008 12:38 PM PDT
I think Obama has done a great job and if Hillary wants to continue to get mad and nasty and tear herself down-go ahead.

If Obama wins, great. If Hillary wins, great.

Reply to this comment
by jon2012-2009 April 24, 2008 12:38 PM PDT
tbweb: Don''t be simplistic. The race for nomination is a bit closer than you might prefer because Hillary still enjoys a lot of support. It''s not all about her, you know. Please don''t insult the folks in Pennsylvania and other big states.
Reply to this comment
by tbweb April 24, 2008 12:43 PM PDT
Posted by tbweb at 12:23 PM

The sky is falling the sky is falling!!!

Moron.

Hillary and Obama are competing. One will get the nomination. Whoever gets the nomination will easily trounce McCain... nobody wants another Bush except a minority of bitter, partisan repugs.

So shut the he.ll up already and sit down and quit flapping your lips. Have some cake. Or something.

Posted by IRLiberal at 12:32 PM : Apr 24, 2008,,,

Dumb azz! Obamas supporters will not support Hillary and Hillary supporters will not support Obama! The only hope is that they run together and fat chance of that, the only way that will happen is if its a shotgun marriage! Hillary supports McCain for President over Obama anyway from her own mouth and may be sabotaging the Democratic Primary for McCain knowing she can''t win unless Super Delegates steal it for her and they won''t! And guess what? The sky is falling, its falling on the Democrats hopes of regaining the White House!

Reply to this comment
by ramos937 April 24, 2008 1:14 PM PDT
Obama lost the PA because of one individual thoughtless move he made on Monday (the day before the primary). On Monday, he conceded that he would not win the PA primary and relocated to Indiana. There was a very large block of undecided voters Monday night and when they woke up to these news Tuesday morning, they showed their anger by voting for Clinton who had stayed in PA campaigning up to the last minute. Also, it is hard to imagine the effect of this thoughtless act on the many unpaid Obama volunteers who were still expected to get out vote in favor of Obama when their candidate had thrown in the towel - what was the point?
Reply to this comment
by mattalankane April 24, 2008 1:36 PM PDT
YOUR ON LIBERAL FANTASY ISLAND IF YOU THINK EITHER WILL BEAT MCCAIN COME NOVEMBER....IN THE END THE HEART OF AMERICA WON''T TRUST THEIR CHARACTER...JUST LIKE GORE AND KERRY WENT DOWN IN FLAMES FOR THE SAME REASON. SHE HAS TO MANY NEGATIVES TO WIN THE GENERAL...AND HE IS A BORDERLINE COMMUNIST THAT BELIVES THE U.S.A IS THE ROOT OF ALL EVIL..NOT GONNA HAPPEN FOLKS
Reply to this comment
by jaybs3 April 24, 2008 2:43 PM PDT
Electability? some people seem to just get too carried away! - do you remember the lead Hillary had when she started her Pennsylvania campaign 27 POINTS where did all those supporters and voters GO ????

Monday evening Clinton''s spokesmen where holding briefings telling that their private polling was showing unlike the predicted 8% lead it was IN FACT A 17 PER CENT LEAD - where did the supporters and voters Disappear to overnight????

At Tuesday night''s Victory Rally in PA Hillary and Team were celebrating the "Magic" Win of 10 PER CENT and how important a double digit win was, when The Truth Wednesday was the win margin was 9.3 PER CENT!

Now we are being told that Hillary had raised $10 Million in 24 Hours, then is that is TRUTH she should pay off all the DEBTS she has built up across many States.

Ask yourself WHAT IS TRUTH WITH HILLARY? avoiding bullets in Bosnia, the untruth to promote her health care plans of the death of a 35 year old lady and her unborn baby, like the LIES Husband Bill had the audacity to tell the American Public when in the White House, Hillary is the same, they do not know what TRUTH MEANS!
Reply to this comment
by cbsespo April 24, 2008 3:02 PM PDT
Clinton gained 10 delegates in P.A. It changed nothing and did not hurt anybody.She did not get a "double digit lead". Obama has gained more support by the super delegates since the Pennsylvania primary because they realize that Barack Obama is the one to defeat the Republicans and end this era of economic madness and gridlock.
Reply to this comment
by darrren12000 April 24, 2008 3:21 PM PDT
You overstate his support among church-goers in MD (versus PA). MD Dems are heavily African American, who are frequent church-goers. Obama does poorly among Catholics - and that''s a large church demographic in PA.

Also - you cite to exit polls showing 68percent believe Clinton was "too hard" on Obama, and that 55 percent of them voted for him. Don''t you suppose these were his voters from the start? So a majority of Obama voters believe that Clinton was too hard? Not surprising. Another stat -- most of the voters who made their decisions the last week voted for Clinton - when all of the fuss about the harshness of the debates and her campaign were in full swing. If the harshness issue was so influential, why didnt those voters go for Obama?
Reply to this comment
by jb4peace April 24, 2008 4:06 PM PDT
Obama has left us with enough hints as to what he''s about, hurting his own electability. He has stated that the reason he''s running for president now as opposed to later is because "in eight years from now, 10 years from now, we may still be nice people, but we may be in this orbit where we just don%u2019t remember, we don%u2019t hear people%u2019s voices anymore." Apparently, being a Washington politician will change him and his wife, but this is not the change we were hoping for!Hillary may have her faults, but at least we know that over the long haul she''s still listening and willing to fight hard for us all.
Reply to this comment
by Razzl April 24, 2008 4:21 PM PDT
Rubbish, it does nothing of the kind. Both Clinton and Obama are drawing voter turnout that will smoke McCain in November. Surely members of the media can see the difference between the choices people make in the primaries and their choices in the election?
Reply to this comment
by paris1969 April 24, 2008 4:40 PM PDT
I think the disillusion began when the Obama campaign tried to label Bill Clinton as a racist to get black votes. This was brutal and totally dishonest and has hurt Obama''s credibility badly, especially since he has a race issue himself. Many of the people I know have changed their mind and are now Clinton supporters.
Reply to this comment
by marymansour April 24, 2008 4:46 PM PDT
This is a woman whose hubby got a *** and phoned Monica Lewinsky during those post midnight hours...all in the White House - our seat of government. How can we even be considering this creature for our next president?
Reply to this comment
by jy2008 April 24, 2008 4:53 PM PDT
Hahahahahahahahaahahaahhaahahahha
You have got to believe this.
So much to say. Let us lay it out one by one
http://www.newsweek.com/id/133557/page/4


said Davis, who was friendly with Palmer at the time.
"She went out and recruited Barack."
...................
She filed petitions to get on the ballot for the spring 1996 primary,
but Obama took steps to make sure voters wouldn''t get a chance to pick her.
...................


1. Is this so called NEW politics?
No one blames you if just say it is politics.
You call it new politics? hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm


2. Good, Bad, and Ugly
Someone tells you where treasure is.
It is fine you just take all and run away.
But instead you kill that poor person.
Wow, speechless
What a character


3. Gentleman
He is really a ''nice gentleman''
fight hard with Woman with SKILLs
You follower should be very proud. LOL


More coming.....
Reply to this comment
by p-syrus April 24, 2008 5:07 PM PDT
Obama can''t win in November.

His appeal is primarily to the far left & african-american communities. He is at best a charismatic, yet inexperienced, first term senator.

His proponents liken him to John F. Kennedy. Kennedy functioned poorly as president. His native charm and the tragic circumstance of his early death are the principle reasons he is memory is romanticized by so many today.

Hillary would be a far superior president as well as a far better candidate for president.

McCain would trounce Obama. McCain will surely lose to Hillary.

Reply to this comment
by skyk-2009 April 24, 2008 6:04 PM PDT
The Fascist are scared to death of Obama! They know Clinton with all her negatives would be a much better target for their slime machine. The only chance they have is that slime machine AND if the democrats divide against each other. LOL
Reply to this comment
by skyk-2009 April 24, 2008 6:08 PM PDT
Rubbish, it does nothing of the kind. Both Clinton and Obama are drawing voter turnout that will smoke McCain in November. Surely members of the media can see the difference between the choices people make in the primaries and their choices in the election?


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by razzl at 04:21 PM : Apr 24, 2008
+ report abuse

LOL You are right! I just don''t get it. There hasn''t been this kind of excitement in this state in my memory! People are lining up to vote and they vote for the one they think is best at that point. THEY will vote in November the same way. It''s stupid but the Media has got to keep it going or else they have nothing to talk about.
Reply to this comment
by observantx April 24, 2008 7:41 PM PDT
So we have the Neoconservative rag, our dearly beloved Weakly sunStandard trying to steer the curious and naive to their not so chosen candidate, John (GWredux) McCain.

(sigh)

Guys. Really. You have to own up to the fact that your days are numbered. Your time has passed. Please, retire. Go to Switzerland, Paraguay or wherever there is no extradition. Take your greasy piles of $$ and just try to live out your remaining days in comfortable obscurity.

Let the rest of us try to repair the near mortal damage you have inflicted on our country. Hide. Stay below the radar. There will come a time where if you are seen, we will come for you. And then we will have our justice.
Reply to this comment
by dudzim April 24, 2008 8:25 PM PDT
An absurd premise.

Barack Obama loses (by ~10% of vote) in an election he always was expected to lose (by an intial estimate of ~20%) ... in a state whose demographics always favored Hillary Clinton. Duh.

The media spin machine spins ...


M

Reply to this comment
by ranger1948 April 24, 2008 8:57 PM PDT
obama hurt himself by lying and getting caught. My voter is for Hillary. If the democratic party runs obama i will vote for McCain even thought i do not want him, he is a better choice than obama, anyne is a better choice than obama.
Reply to this comment
by ranger1948 April 24, 2008 9:02 PM PDT
Why should the superdelegates choose who is best. We the people are supposed to be electing the president. It should be decided by popular vote.
Reply to this comment
by blkpresident April 24, 2008 9:33 PM PDT
Hillary-Steinem ''08?

America can do better than this. Wonder who these broads would tap as Secretary of Defense, Jane Fonda?
Reply to this comment
by iamthequeen- April 24, 2008 9:47 PM PDT
Ironic isn''t it that the superdelegates were created to prevent a candidate like Obama (too liberal for we bitter folks from PA) from getting the nomination. But because Obama is black (I mean African American), they are being intimidated into voting for him under risk of being called racist. Of course Kennedy, Kerry and Richardson saw no reason to follow the pledged delegates of their states but Obamacan''ts don''t see that logic. Obama wants the rules to favor him every time. But we voters see the duplicity of his arguments for the nomination and will vote accordingly in November.
Reply to this comment
by mcvet April 24, 2008 9:57 PM PDT
But we voters see the duplicity of his arguments for the nomination and will vote accordingly in November.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by iamthequeen- at 09:47 PM : Apr 24, 2008
+ report abuse

Well of course! The people will vote for 4 more years of "Trickle Down", watching Social Security fail, seeing the 9.3 TRILLION Dollar debt continue to grow until their kids don''t have a chance, seeing their neighborhood kids go off to fight a needless war in the middle east.. they will do all this because some Talking Head tells them Obama is to "liberal"? RIGHT! Could I make a suggestion?? IF you honestly feel like that soak your head... a LONG time!! Sieg Heil Bush
Reply to this comment
by mcvet April 24, 2008 9:58 PM PDT
McCain would trounce Obama. McCain will surely lose to Hillary.




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by p-syrus at 05:07 PM : Apr 24, 2008

Why in the world would Rush ask his people to vote for Hillary then??? Hummm??? Sieg Heil Bush!
Reply to this comment
by mcvet April 24, 2008 10:01 PM PDT
Why should the superdelegates choose who is best. We the people are supposed to be electing the president. It should be decided by popular vote.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by ranger1948 at 09:02 PM : Apr 24, 2008
+ report abuse

So we do not count those states who pick deligates by other means? That''s not fair to them now is it?? But then you hate the black guy so bad... you being klan, any means to get him out of the race huh? Sieg Heil Grand Wizard.
Reply to this comment
by creeper00 April 24, 2008 10:15 PM PDT

Let the rest of us try to repair the near mortal damage you have inflicted on our country. Hide. Stay below the radar. There will come a time where if you are seen, we will come for you. And then we will have our justice.

Posted by ObservantX at 07:41 PM : Apr 24, 2008

Good to see you again, OX.
Reply to this comment
by Jerrycnet April 24, 2008 10:50 PM PDT
Neither Obama or McCain can fix the ever deeper financial trouble America''''s facing. Unfortunately maybe one of these could be the next president. America is still too macho to have a female president, even though HRC smarter, more thoughtful and sensible than either of the guys. When that happens, the dollar will sink more, prices of everything will rise more, taxes will be higher despite whatever politician promises on campaign trail, wages will stagnate, and everybody get pinched harder financially except the very riches who make money by outsourcing globally. Despite sleazy attacks from left and right on the Clintons. History will remember them as decicated public servants who done public mostly good. Which ex president ever took office in poor black neighborhood? How many presidents ever engineered recovery to great propsperity all at the same time turning big deficit into big supluses? Of course our young "educated" supporters of Obama won''t know that and won''t value that until one day they face the painful reality of without a job in this capitlst society with minimum finacial safety net. Clintons of course have their humanly flaws, but I believe them to have better integrity than 70% of the population. Eager stone throwers are usually sinners themselves, like that Republican congressman Barr who tried to impeach Bill but having three extramarital affairs himself.
Reply to this comment
by ranger1948 April 24, 2008 10:56 PM PDT
Mcvet
ou don''t want this to go to a personal level again between us so don''t push it or it will. I am not a knan member or supporter. I said i was stationed with people who were and it is something they are taught as soon as they are old enough to learn about the klan and they push it down from one generation to the next so they don''t know ay way different. I worked for a man in Lousiana who was a grand wizard and a member of the klan. He treated blacks decently and we became friends, but i didn''t agree with his views of the klan.
Reply to this comment
by wwsword April 24, 2008 10:57 PM PDT
We pick who is best because we want to win. This isn''t the general election. This is where we pick who goes to battle in the general election. Picking Obama is political suicide, not just in this election, but for many elections to come. It sends the signal to America that the Democrats stand for identity politics and not for working class interests. It not only guarantees McCain a win, but a mandate. Why should the rest of us pay for the wishful thinking of
Reply to this comment
by ranger1948 April 24, 2008 10:58 PM PDT
McVet
I didn''t say anything about not cunting anyone. I asked why the superdelegates got to choose who is the nomination instead of the American people. You and i disagree on many points but i respect your right to have a diferent opinion, so respect my right to do the same.
Reply to this comment
by pongo151 April 24, 2008 11:45 PM PDT
Rush Limbaugh said for some Republicans to vote for Hillary to create controversy, unrest and dissent in the Democratic party. Looks like his comment is working to cause the young obama campaigners to diss Hillary far and wide and go on the negative barage offensive attacks. I''ve yet to meet anyone who switched their party registration because of what Rush said.
Reply to this comment
by tawpdawg11 April 25, 2008 1:03 AM PDT
Pongo - Crossover voting with the sole intent to nominate the least qualified candidate stinks of fraud, disloyalty, unpatriotic anti-americanism. Anyone who participated (and I believe that there are at least tens of thousands of them in Texas, Ohio, and Penna) is definitely going to keep it on the down-low. They ain''t gonna say "Hey, Pongo....Guess what I did!!" They''ll go to Hell for this. Young Americans throughout our history have been killed and maimed to PRESERVE democracy....not to have it SUBVERTED. You slime out there know who you are and God will judge. Good luck with that. As far as the stupid election goes, Obama would''ve been able to sew it up BEFORE the convention if not for this despicable act. Every time I hear someone call in to Limbaugh and call him a great american i want to smash my radio. the devil will bend him over.
Reply to this comment
by tawpdawg11 April 25, 2008 1:04 AM PDT
Pongo - Crossover voting with the sole intent to nominate the least qualified candidate stinks of fraud, disloyalty, unpatriotic anti-americanism. Anyone who participated (and I believe that there are at least tens of thousands of them in Texas, Ohio, and Penna) is definitely going to keep it on the down-low. They ain''t gonna say "Hey, Pongo....Guess what I did!!" They''ll go to Hell for this. Young Americans throughout our history have been killed and maimed to PRESERVE democracy....not to have it SUBVERTED. You slime out there know who you are and God will judge. Good luck with that. As far as the stupid election goes, Obama would''ve been able to sew it up BEFORE the convention if not for this despicable act. Every time I hear someone call in to Limbaugh and call him a great american i want to smash my radio. the devil will bend him over.
Reply to this comment
by tiredofthebs April 25, 2008 2:59 AM PDT
We pick who is best because we want to win. This isn''''t the general election. This is where we pick who goes to battle in the general election. Picking Obama is political suicide, not just in this election, but for many elections to come. It sends the signal to America that the Democrats stand for identity politics and not for working class interests. It not only guarantees McCain a win, but a mandate.

Posted by wwsword at 10:57 PM : Apr 24, 2008

Why is it SOOOOO HARD for the OBAMA nation to understand this ?! Barack Obama is toast !!!!!!

Reply to this comment
by lakwildd April 25, 2008 4:09 AM PDT
Pennsylvania result has said it all.It has proved that after this 2008 Election America will be more divided than ever before.RACE issue is real playing big and the World is watching.
This is indeed a trying moment for the Supperdelegates,the writting is already on the wall for them,should they decide otherwise then that will be the beginning of the fall of America because it will be more divided than ever before.And Hillary campaign is not helping that either.God Bless America!!!
Reply to this comment
by cfcarlos April 25, 2008 6:45 AM PDT
Barack Obama%u2019s association with the fanatical Jeremiah Wright, his serving on a board with the terrorist William Ayers, his marriage to a less than patriotic woman, his alleged elitism have provided much fodder for talk show hosts and the news media. They%u2019ll be feeding off it for months to come.

But the blue collar crowd Obama needed to win over in Pennsylvania could have cared less about any of that. Obama lost their vote because he came across to them as a wimp. Throughout that sham ABC debate in Philadelphia, Hillary Clinton relentlessly beat up on Obama, like the gutter fighter she is, and he meekly took it. He could easily have crushed once and for all by dredging up the well-documented sleaze and corruption of the Clinton years, yet he chose to keep to the high road.

His forbearance, if that%u2019s what it was, may be perceived as strength by his more affluent, better educated supporters, but to the former mill workers in Pennsylvania struggling to make ends meet, it was a sign of weakness. Those folk may not be well versed in economics and foreign affairs, but they know from experience that the world is a tough place and that when diplomacy fails, as it often does, a Commander in Chief needs to have what it takes to wield a big stick.

If Barack Obama doesn%u2019t start showing some cojones real soon, he should step aside and let John McCain deal with Hillary. The old warrior, we can rest assured, isn%u2019t going to take any gruff from her.
Reply to this comment
by joe1022joe April 25, 2008 9:12 AM PDT
Hillary Clinton is not only untrustworthy she is dishonorable. We can''t elect a person with these personality traits.
Reply to this comment
by susan10001-2009 April 25, 2008 9:25 AM PDT
NO, IT DIDN''T!

THOSE are the CLINTON TALKING POINTS *** MOrris SPELLED out MONTHS AGO! He said they would DO THIS! And the MSM is PLAYING their TUNE!

MEDIA BIAS is SICKENING!

You ALL are using CHARACTER ASSASINATION on OBAMA!

You should be ASHAMED of YOURSELVES!!
Reply to this comment
by susan10001-2009 April 25, 2008 9:27 AM PDT
IF...after WINNING MORE STATES and MORE DELEGATES, the nomination is STOLEN from OBAMA...

the DEMOCRATIC PARTY IS TOAST!!

Mark. My. Words.
Reply to this comment
by efarris38 April 25, 2008 10:35 AM PDT
The controversy is over Florida and Michigan folks! Florida voters have to be feeling like they shouldn''t even bother voting. The fact of the matter is that they should COUNT! Clinton clearly has won the popular vote if you count every one who went to the polls!!!!! The media and the few elite politicians at the top of the food chain need to keep their mouths shut and let people''s votes count!!!! This delegate stuff and electoral college should be scrapped. Remember Al Gore in 2000?? That should have been a good lesson but apparently things never change. We should have a winner take all in the popular vote just like most other democracies in the world. If you get under 50% then you have a runoff. QUIT discounting people''s votes!!!!!!! Florida and Michigan are states and ClINTON WON them out right!
Reply to this comment
by julieelu April 25, 2008 11:30 AM PDT
EFarris38: The only reason Clinton "won" Michigan is because Obama and the others were not on the ballot! Michigan held an illegal vote regardless of your stance on DNC rules and the electoral college, etc. The other candidates backed out due to party rules. Clinton violated convention rules and left her name on the ballot, thus the supposed "win." Obama has the support of Detroit and much of southern Michigan--even in the great white north where I live he receives support from the few dems up this way. Clinton does not deserve any votes from Michigan, period.
Reply to this comment
by julieelu April 25, 2008 11:31 AM PDT
EFarris38: The only reason Clinton "won" Michigan is because Obama and the others were not on the ballot! Michigan held an illegal vote regardless of your stance on DNC rules and the electoral college, etc. The other candidates backed out due to party rules. Clinton violated convention rules and left her name on the ballot, thus the supposed "win." Obama has the support of Detroit and much of southern Michigan--even in the great white north where I live he receives support from the few dems up this way. Clinton does not deserve any votes from Michigan, period.
Reply to this comment
by suzyqj1 April 25, 2008 1:41 PM PDT
It is time for Barack Obama and his media cronies to "drop out of the race!" Hillary has more of the popular vote (if you count all votes), more super delegates at this time and has won the big states which have more electoral votes - Barack Obama should be toast, but the media keeps popping up the toaster!!!
Reply to this comment
See all 46 Comments
  • MOST POPULAR
  • Viewed
  • Commented
Latest News
Featured Blogs