Clinton's 'lifesaver:' Media 'jumping ship'

WHY can't Hillary put HIM AWAY? HE is WINNING! HE is AHEAD!

There will be backlash at the Media swallowing whole Clintons talking points! Its a travesty!

Character assassination by MSM. Period.

It's about time the media got on Oboma. No one even knows who he really is. The media has an obligation to the American People to let them know all the facts and his past....

This is all bad statistics. Sen. Clinton is winning white Women 2 to 1. They are the so called 'blue collar' Democrats you are talking about but they are actually retirees who make less than $50,000 a year. The fact that Obama splits with Clinton among white men shows there is far less a problem than the media is making out. Of course there are racists; but they are 3% of the electorate and most wouldn't vote democrat anyway. Furthermore in general most racists are a bit sexist as well? Why won't anyone point out that Clinton is losing in a Primary that has been 60% Female? If she can't win with a built in advantage such as this (remember she has won them by 2-1 in most contests); how would she do in the General Election???? The answer is not very well.

Just as there is a "Fog of War", the "Fog of Campaigning" can also breed short (and at times false) memories.

Geoff Garin, the replacement on the Clinton team for Mark Penn, claims in today's WP that there has been "one campaign...that has been mean-spirited" and "unfair" and that it is "not ours".

Garin, who seems to be a genuine and decent professional who has been dropped to the helm of a listing ship, attempts to right it not by changing the direction of the boat, but by trying to reverse reality.

Let's take a look:

Clinton at the Jefferson-Jackson Day Speech:

"I'm not interested in attacking my opponents, I'm interested in attacking the problems of America. And I believe we should be turning up the heat on the Republicans -- they deserve all the heat we can give them."

November, 2007:

New York Times: "Hillary Rodham Clinton's presidential campaign, which is now attacking Senator Barack Obama on a daily basis." [New York Times, 11/30/07] NBC's First Read:

MSNBC: "Another day, another Clinton campaign knock on Obama." [First Read, 11/29/07]

December 2007 (leading to the January 6 Iowa primary, including the notorious use of an essay that he wrote in Kindergarten):

Chicago Tribune: "This Clinton Attack On Obama Could Boomerang." "The Clinton people are citing a kindergarten essay by Obama as evidence against him in a presidential campaign. Good thing he was born before widespread pre-natal ultrasounds. Who knows how they might've used that against him? Clinton's people have thrown similar jabs before at Obama but it hasn't fazed him. So their seems to be a little more fury behind the punches as now that Obama's may have taken the lead in Iowa according to the Des Moines Register's most recent poll." [Chicago Tribune, The Swamp, 12/3/07]

Washington Post: "Losing Ground In Iowa, Clinton Assails Obama." "With a new poll showing her losing ground in the Iowa caucus race, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) mounted a new, more aggressive attack against Sen. Barack Obama." [Washington Post, 12/3/07]

New York Daily News: "Hillary Clinton Attack On Barack Obama Comes After She Loses Iowa Lead." "Hours after a new poll showed her falling behind for the first time in Iowa, Hillary Clinton launched a blistering personal broadside on rival Barack Obama." [New York Daily News, 12/3/07]

New York Times: "An Attack, From the Candidate's Mouth" [New York Times, 12/2/07]

New York Times: "Battered by Poll, Clinton Hits Back" [New York Times, 12/2/07]

Clinton Release: "In kindergarten, Senator Obama wrote an essay titled 'I Want to Become President. 'Iis Darmawan, 63, Senator Obama's kindergarten teacher, remembers him as an exceptionally tall and curly haired child who quickly picked up the local language and had sharp math skills. He wrote an essay titled, 'I Want To Become President,' the teacher said." [AP, 1/25/07]

And what did the voters think?

Which Candidate is the most negative?


Hillary Clinton 21%

John Edwards 9%

Dennis Kucinich 9%

Barack Obama 8%

Joe Biden 3%

Mike Gravel 3%

Christopher Dodd 3%

Bill Richardson 3%

None/Not sure 43%



Source: The Iowa Poll

[Des Moines Register, 12/2/07]

What about after Iowa? She surely must have changed her tactics then...

After Iowa Loss, Clinton Ramps Up Attacks:

January 06, 2008

AP: "Hillary Clinton Comes Out Swinging, Politeness Lost Along With Iowa Caucuses" [AP, 1/6/08]

Los Angeles Times: "Clinton lets arrows fly at Obama"..."Staggered by her third-place finish in the Iowa caucuses, the New York senator was the aggressor throughout a 90-minute session" [LA Times, 1/6/08]


Washington Post: "Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton tried repeatedly to knock Sen. Barack Obama off his footing during a high-stakes debate here on Saturday night" [Washington Post, 1/6/08]

AP: "Clinton criticizes Obama in NH mailer" [AP, 1/5/08]

Newsday: "Clinton sharpens attack on Obama" [Newsday, 1/5/08]

Reuters: "Obama under attack ahead of New Hampshire debates" [Reuters, 1/5/08]

Newsday: "After weeks of playing nice in Iowa, the Clinton camp sharpened their elbows when the campaign went wheels-down in New Hampshire, readying TV ads targeting Obama that were expected to focus on health care and his legislative record." [Newsday, 1/4/08]

Washington Post: But she and her aides also signaled their intention to now ratchet up the race, aggressively countering Obama in the five days ahead. She is also now planning to draw even sharper distinctions between herself and Obama on the question of change, after watching voters who wanted a new direction select her main rival for the nomination on Thursday night. [Washington Post, 1/4/08]

Well...that must have been just a momentary reaction to January's surprising defeat. She surely didn't continue that strategy...

The State: "Clinton camp hits Obama -- Attacks 'painful' for black voters. Many in state offended by criticism of Obama, remarks about King" [1/12/08]

New York Times: "Clinton's Campaign Sees Value In Keeping Former President In Attack Mode" [1/25/08]

Greenville News: Ex-Democratic Official Criticizes Clintons' Attacks On Obama [1/23/08]

CNN: "Clinton Sharpens Attacks On Obama" [CNN, 2/14/08]

Concord Monitor: "Clinton Attack Still Riles Some" [2/4/08]

Guardian Unlimited: "Clinton Goes On Attack As Obama Closes Gap" [2/3/08]

First Read: "Clinton Justifies War Vote, Hits Obama" [1/13/08]

Politico: "Hillary Clinton attacks Barack Obama" [1/13/08]

Perhaps it became more substantive and dignified in February:

Feb 25, 2008

2008 Presidential Election

Clinton Circulates Pic of Obama in Somali Garb: Report:

For some, Barack Obama's "Hussein" middle name has been something worth picking on. For others, it has been pushing the unsubstantiated rumor (debunked by Snopes) that Obama is or was a "radical Muslim." But this - this is truly low. ..Clinton campaign manager Maggie Williams said, "If Barack Obama's campaign wants to suggest that a photo of him wearing traditional Somali clothing is divisive, they should be ashamed."

March:

The Politico, Ben Smith, March 2:

"A weird moment of TV, partially captured in the clip above. Clinton denies she thinks Obama's a Muslim, but her denial seems something other than ironclad, and the interviewer goes back at her on the question...

“You said you'd take Senator Obama at his word that he's not…a Muslim. You don't believe that he's…,” Kroft said.

“No. No, there is nothing to base that on. As far as I know,” she said."

April:

MSNBC: April 14: Clinton Attacks Obama On Air

Sun-Sentinal: April 22: Clinton attacks, Obama hopes

And what of recent words of Mr. Garin himself?

From the April 20 Meet the Press:

MR. AXELROD: ...Did you not put a negative ad on this weekend in Philadelphia? The--100 percent negative ad attacking Senator Obama?

MR. GARIN: No. I don’t believe we did.

MR. AXELROD: Yeah, you did. Go back and check with your people, and it was, it’s an ad on lobbying, and it’s circulating...

MR. GARIN: It’s not. It, it ends up, I believe, with...

MR. AXELROD: No, no, it’s 100 percent negative ad, Geoff. Go back and ask your people. I understand you’re new in the campaign, and I love you, man, you’re a good friend of mine. I know you to be a good, positive person.

MR. GARIN: Right.

MR. AXELROD: But I think that there’s some vestiges of the old regime still in place.

MR. GARIN: Well, look, when, when, when...

(Garin never answers this question--Axelrod later in broadcast: "The—well, first of all, that’s what’s in your negative ad that you didn’t know about in Philadelphia.")

Note: This of course leaves self-inflicted attacks (i.e. sniper fire) aside. Incidentally, while I have known people to err when they are tired (for example to say "sniker" instead of "sniper"), I have never seen anyone invent and repeat an entire episode that did not occur as a result of exhaustion--although, of course, this commonly does occur when people are completely asleep.

Hendrik Hertzberg, in this weeks "Campaign Trail" (New Yorker) has noted the tragic and inevitable game here, whereby Obama, who has tried to run a different type of campaign--explicitly principled and positive--has been drawn into defense by the incessant attack. This attempt to now flip and revise history in this very fundamental manner is something that we have seen in our recent Presidential past--and is something that should give us pause.

From:

Head of State:

http://headofstate.blogspot.com/2008/04/garin-on-negative-campaigning.html

Hillary needs to take on Michael Moore. His normally laudable website (stick to documentaries, Mike---we still BLAME YOU for lying to college kids that Al Gore = George Bush with that stupid Ralph Nader/Jello Biafra crap).
http://recreate68.04g/album1 dnc 002.htm
= = ==
This needs some looking into—and it mentions the campaign on one of its pages.
“Recreate 68?”
Why?
That’s when we LOST the country to NIXON! For the next 8 years---and then again for the next 12 years!
What will be nexst?
Recreate the ‘Days of Rage’—gee that was sure brilliant!
From the Weather Underground documentary:
“Narrator (probably Walter Cronkite?)
“The weathermen SDS have been trying to give the impression that the Black Panthers are on their side. But the panthers deny this:
(Unnamed panther speaks)
“We believe that the weathermen acted in an ancrachistic, opportunistic, iindividualitic, chauvinistic, it’s uh, uh, “Custer-istic.”
“And that’s the bad part about it. It’s ‘Custer-istic’ in that its leaders take people into situations where the people can be massacred and they clal that revolution. Ain’t nothin’ but child’s pla. It’s folly. We think these peole may be sincere, but they’re misguided! They’re mullet-heads and they’re scatter-brained.”
And then a quote form an SDS representative (a woman).
“Weathermen have totally distorted the concept of militancy. They see it as attaciking the people. We’re trying to ally with working people and they’re out there attacking them. You know, it’s a very simple thing. You know the police couldn’t do a better job. You know, I tend to think their purpose is to make SDS a dirty name. And, uh, they’ve managed to do a pretty good job of it.”
- - - -
Obama supporters--or any Democrat--but particarly young ones--if you’re thinking of joining ANY group—particularly one with a white fist on its website---do some research first.
And learn how movements can go wrong!
Watch the documentary on Weather Underground (posted at this link for free viewing—but it’s a HORRIBLY biased and otherwise stupid website hosting the video).
http://rezkowatch.blogspot.com/2008/04/one-degree-of-separation-obamas_24.html
AND EDUCATE YOURSELF.
There’s the peace movement.
And then there’s selfish narcissists who want to feel good about THEMSELVES.
And that’s all they’re about.
Watch the doc.
Remember all those ‘really smart’ underground bombings?—all that did was intimidate good people from participating in anti-war or pro – environment activities—THEY WERE AFRAID TO DO SO! Law enforcement went nutso overboard—but under the current USA Patriot Act provisions—all those people not able to be prosecuted due to law enforcement misconduct could be prosecuted.
Even still---all that could have been avoided--maybe if they’d let a few people over thirty interact with them.
Don’t be sheep.
Even it if it’s in fashion right now.

One item that has yet to surface, Obama is one of Daley's boys. Nothing happens in Chicago without the Mayor's machine's approval. It's also interesting that Obama won his seat in the Senate as a result of a mysterious disclosure of sealed court documents regarding his Republican opponent who was forced to withdraw. That is the Obama way.

The media wants to sell newspapers so they're going to infuse as much drama as they can. It's a shame the media doesn't just report the news anymorem they want to create it.

On the other hand, Trey, Clinton was the choice of 3 in 5 white voters in Pennsylvania. Only the black vote for Obama made it a respectable loss.

Now that people are getting familiar with the absentee Senator from Illinois, his non-black support is eroding.

I fear the U.S. is about to pay a heavy price for buying-in to the whole idea that political talk radio and television is some form of journalism. Just a few short weeks ago I continued to believe that some of the political talk hosts were at least willing to make an attempt at objectivity. Sadly, it has become clear that all who participate are either shills for the establishment or concern trolls attempting to bait the discussion. As I watched the shift occur it became so obvious that the talking heads were somewhat like a hoard of starving rats running from one irrelevant story to the next. I watched grown men and women [once assumed to be serious journalists] argue over lapel pins with a passion once reserved in journalism for topics like The Bay of Pigs invasion. I've just about quit watching. They do not provide any useful information. Every time I discover that some new nonsense is erupting - I just send another $25 to Obama. There isn't anything else I can do.

All of this assault on Obama was calculated from the beginning.....Hillary Clinton's strategy if you have noticed is
attack hard, do the damage, then retreat and call a truce...... repeat again when necessary.

Well, some media have been pointing out that the math doesn't work for Hillary, and that stealing the nomination from the frontrunner would destroy the party and keep large blocs of voters at home this fall. But it's true that, on the whole, the media have been giving Clinton's 9-point win in Pennsylvania far more significance than it deserves.

Yet another supporter Daddy Obama needs to take back to school.
Cara--your methodology for this 'analysis' is well, is pretty crappy.
Define 'attack'--if you go BACK and look at the TEXT of the things you're analyzing (not the headlines--those are misleading) i think the shoe's exactly on the other foot.
Barack mis-spoke, didn't reveal some things he maybe shoulda years ago. The media jumped on it. Hillary was ASKED about it.
And then the media FRAMEDit as an attack. You can learn about media framing of an issue from Todd Gitlin's book The Whole World is Watching.
You need to look at the ENTIRE context of the ENTIRE media text. Who did what first counts.
And, despite the effective media frame the Axelrods and whatnot created about the race--all that whining--Hillary didn't attack Obama. His staff attacked her though.
So did he.
He even flipped her off and MSNBC distorted the ORDER of that tape, turned down the volume where he was doing the prep boy '
scratch my face while flip you off' trick, and even some VERY misleading copy about that.

I prefer to think of it as the media FINALLY doing its job -- and I'm in the business, by the way. Had there been far more critical, FAIR coverage much earlier in the race, I htink Obama would have wilted by the wayside and the race would now be between Clinton and Edwards.

I believe, strongly, that in years to come this race will be examined in journalism schools for the pathetic way in which reporters failed to do their job in a world-altering way. Reporters covered the "Obama movement" instead of taking a critical eye at him, as was cast on the other candidates.

It's shameful, really.

The media can't protect Obama anymore. The Rev. Wright and bitter remarks killed the love affair.

If Hil-Billy gets nomination for presidency - McCain is going to win. She is playing to the poor white people who think the government is going to bail them out. She will drive if not the majority of the democrats who voted for Obama, but a significant amount to vote for McCain. Why, because the people who are trully affected by the war and George Bush policies are the same people that Hillary Clinton is going after - uneducated, unemployed, and poor individuals who believe everything she says, just like Bush said to them. She did vote yes for the war. Obama was right, people who have no hope are clinging to their guns and religion. There is too much reliance on government and I will gladly vote for McCain before another Clinton is president. Are you people going to vote for Chelsea Clinton when she runs for president? Shame on every democrat who thinks Hillary Clinton is going to make a difference!!!!

Operation Chaos strikes again!

Bwahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!

It's just more media spin. Really, it seems the press has ADHD. They got tired of reporting the same old status (Obama's ahead, but Hillary hasn't quit), that it only took the faintest hopeful sign in Hillary's campaign to make them "jump ship".

Watch what happens on May 6th. And we'll wonder yet again, why we paid any attention to them :)

Clear as day, Senator Obama and his cabal are little more than race-baiting collectivists looking to brand their opponents and critics as racists so that they can advance their McGovern-like leftist agenda unabated. Thankfully, Americans (blue collar and otherwise) are not nearly so unsophisticated as these elitist thugs think. If he ends up with the nomination, he'll have one more thing in common with George McGovern come November -- humiliating and overwhelming defeat.

Wake up, people!

The "media" do not have any interest other than prolonging this ridiculous three ring circus of a campaign.

They are not "rooting" for anyone in particular, they are rooting for ratings. Conflict creates viewership. Controversy creates viewership. Viewership creates money. Corporations, like media conglomerates, love money.

We are being manipulated and nobody seems to notice.

Wake up, America!

About time some of these people in the media wake up. I don't consider this a tsunami of change by any sort. More like, maybe we are wrong about Barrack and maybe he will be the reason the Dems lose in Nov.

Wake up America. This man is a fraud of the first degree.

The media has completely abdicated its role as constructive critic of Obama's candidacy . . . until now. I suspect Obama supporters will be furious when the harsh light of day is shown on aspects of Obama's candidacy heretofore given scant attention by the media.

Why is the media not reporting the fraud case of Peter Paul involving Hillary.
At a time like this ,It is very important.
Please do your job!.

Here come's the bandwagon! I beleived in Hillary all along. I knew Barach would choke up. This doesn't mean I wouldn't vote for him. He just needs seasoning.

This is a time we just can't afford the Republicans to win if at all! Look what they have done to our country... They made a great part of America feel it is alright to kill because of their religious beleifs! Tight Now We Need to Band Together and learn how to love our neighbors even if we don't agree on their lifestyle. Also we need to heal the differences between us and use them as blessings rather than a point to further us apart.
We were mae different for a reason andall have a purpose here on Earth. We also need to make it so the Earth can still sustain us and stop killing those we don't understand.

I realize that I even have more to learn. When you stop learning you stop living. So let us remember that what makes us different makes us GREAT! Let's live in Peace and stop judging one another.

Obama is a hypocrite. Obama is a Socialist. The media has been covering up for him for over a year now, paving the way to the Presidency. The Long Con is finally coming to an end. It is now the responsibility of the superdelegates to withhold their support from this dangerous con man.

This is not true. A google search will show the black community is still ticked at Bubba for his use of the race card. The media knows the win in PA should have been by double digits, but was not. The NYT, HRC's hometown paper is becoming less impressed by the day. This is not true.

If elected Barrack will make Jimmy Carter look like a good president, if that's possible.

Tray, if the 3% of racially descriminating voters will not vote Democratic, where does that leave Obama in the general election. He is in trouble because people are realizing what his hidden persona happens to be. I have said from the beginning of this race that we were not seeing Obama's true self. It is sad that now it could be too late to nominate the only person that can reunite and reestablish this country to what it should be, Hillary. And she is the only one that will be able to beat McCain in the general. You obamanites hopefully will not reap what you have mistakenly sown. If you do I will watch the out come with a smile of satisfaction that says you are getting what you deserve for being so blinded by fluff and his cynical smile. This includes the media that has been so biased that it sickened all of Hillary's supporters (not fanatics).

Shouldn't the job of the media be to report the news and not jump on band wagons?

When I heard Obama's speech at the 2004 Democratic Convention, I knew he was going to be our next president. Little people can get all carried away with their little petty gossip stories, but this is the kind of leader our country needs to dig out of the hole created in the last 7 years.

As much as I want to support Clinton, I can't support the office of POTUS becoming a family dynasty.

WHY IS THE MEDIA IN ANYONE'S SHIP?????

Is this an admission that many members of the press are partisan and will distort the news in an effort to help their candidate or hurt the opponent?

David Hillman,
"Only the black vote for Obama made it a respectable loss". So black people's vote dont count as much as white people's. Bottom line 55% Hillary to 45% Obama, Hillary needed in the upper 60s, therefore Hillary is done.

Cara Prado -- All the examples you state just reinforces how the media has been acceptionally biased against Hillary, and they can blame themselves for the negative attitude of the voters who can't make up their own minds and have to be swayed by the media. I for one am a grown up who learned a long time ago to use the brain God gave me to make decisions. Media, what's that, I only read it for amusement, not direction. You poor foolish lemmings.

Obama lost rural Pennsylvania 70-30% to Clinton, and Catholics by 74-26% (Exit Polls). He is in real trouble because of this Reverend Wright business. A standard candidate like Al Gore or John Kerry would win easy in this year of bad economy, high gas prices, and Iraq, but Obama might lose a sure thing to McCain. Like it or not, Hillary is the stronger candidate for November.

WHY IS THE MEDIA IN ANYONE'S SHIP?????

Is this an admission that many members of the press are partisan and will distort the news in an effort to help their candidate or hurt the opponent?

Posted by: Dan C | April 25, 2008 11:27 AM

Have you been in a coma since the mid-90's? The media's been taking sides for a long time now.

The Telecommunications Act of 1996 paved the way for the roaring return of Yellow Journalism.

SWIFTBOATING, as the liberal LUNATICS like to call substanative questioning about their candidates, is UNDER WAY. And after all the talk of preparing for it, THEY DON'T EVEN SEE IT ONGOING---NOW!

Operation Chaos.

It is looming LARGE in Indiana and Montana.

Already it has pushed Hillary to the needed 10pt WIN in PA. It gave her life in Texas and Ohio as well.

It took the "messiah gloss" off Obama, slowed his momentum, and is causing a STORM of bad press for the effete candidate from Illinois.

And this is just ONE front of the JUSTIFIED assault on Obama.

I love it!

Well, it's certainly about time that people started thinking seriously about who can actually WIN the White House. Obama will most likely suffer defeat as he will NOT be able to carry crucial votes from big states necessary to be elected. HRC WILL be able to carry these votes and will have a much, much better chance of defeating McCain in general election. I support HRC much more now that she has proven to be a much greater warrior than Obama. Obama apparently folds like a cheap suit whenever it gets a little bit hot.

Obama's 'inspiring' little speeches are now stale and downright boring. He has nowhere left to go now but down down down. What ever credibility he once had is diminishing as people start to see him for what he really is. A weak politican with a huge chip on his shoulder. His close associates like Jeremy Wright and Tony Rezco bring him down even further.

I have a question for the people who visit this forum who say they either hate or will not for Obama under any conditions. This question is sincere, not snippy or sarcastic.
If somehow Clinton wins the nomination, who will you vote for in November?
I'm a lukewarm Obama supporter (lesser of three evils) who cannot and will not vote for Clinton under any circumstances.
If Obama is the nominee, he gets my vote. If Hillary is the nominee, McCain gets my vote.

Amazing - Hillary gets the corner on the aging feminists, the Floyd Turbos in the duckblinds and the undereducated blue collar laborers who prefer feeling sorry for themselves and whining than going back to junior collee and learning a new occupation - and the media pundits are ready to annoint her as empress. None of these three demographics is determinative of a national election in a country where a minimum of 70% of the population lives in the cities and suburbs. And to all of the Hillary supporters who say they'll vote for Mccain if their girl can't steal the nomination: my, how far-seeing you are - you end up voting with all the huckstering, praise-the-Lord-and-pass-the-collection-plate neo-Elmer Gantry's and every other catagory of ignorant rube. You people are precious - you deserve the depression that will inevitably occur if the Republicans are kept in power.

It is preposterous that an Obama loss is indicative of American racism. I oppose Obama and Clinton, not because of race or gender, but because of their positions on the issues that matter to me as well as potentially serious character flaws due to their relationships to questionable people: Obama's to Rezko (and his minions), Blago, and Emil Jones -- I actually don't have too many issues with Rev. Wright; he sounds like a bold preacher trying to lay out the truth as he can best mine it from God's Word -- and Clinton's to her husband and all of the baggage she carries from his administration.

As a note on Wright, whether or not he agrees with this position, why should America expect God's blessing when we've strayed so far from Him? Abortion, casual sex, violence, government enabling to the breakdown of (minority) families, senseless violence masquerading as entertainment, racial estrangement, affluence for self-pleasure and security rather than leveraging it for a greater good (i.e. investing in communities as opposed to higher taxes -- putting our "skin" in the game). The list can go on and on. It is delusional for us to invoke or lay claim to God's blessings when our behavior is so contrary to His plans and purposes for us. To that end, I feel a heart bond with Rev. Wright even though his UCC theology and priorities likely differ significantly with my evangelical sensibilities. I nevertheless believe that the love of Christ compels him; as a watchman on the wall he has to tell hard truths, truths that are often difficult to hear.

Back to Clinton and Obama. Most commentators agree, often begrudgingly, that the US is center-right. Gingrich said it this way: the US is not composed of red and blue states; rather, red, white, and blue states. Most Americans agree overwhelmingly with a center-right policy direction, though we may differ on specifics. Why, then, would we want to elect a relatively inexperienced Senator with the most liberal voting record to the highest office in the land? I suggest that doing so would require factors that would force us to disregard the objective evidence. Someone who can speak well (more WJC or JFK than GWB), is fairly attractive and carries certain (in)tangibles. I believe the electorate would love to elect a non-white male to the Presidency, provided s/he possessed values and policy positions more in line with our own. If I don't want Edward Kennedy or Robert Byrd for president, why oh why on earth would I want Obama? HRC's positions and baggage sink her ship as well.

Americans of all political stripes should stand up in unison to tell people like Anatole Kaletsky to stuff it. What does he know? Who is the highest profile person of African descent in the British or even European governments? What gives him the credibility to spout his nonsense?

For me, I would love to draft JC Watts for president but he has chosen a higher path than all of his peers.

What about the republican influence on who their prefered candidate of contest would be? Since the GOP wrapped up their contest what feels like ages ago, talking heads have been asking GOP voters to switch to Dem ticket and vote for HRC in Primary elections. This inflated HRC's numbers not just in PA but in previous contests.
Obama is leading not because of deception or race or cultism. He's leading because folks, currently the majority of folks, of all races and religions have voted for him. Period. PA is one state. Don't forget about the other 49 (plus DC and PR), the majority of whose contests (so far) he has won.

The media is spinning Sen Clinton's PA win WAY TOO HARD.

Sen Obama has flat blown Sen Clinton out in NUMEROUS states (such as here in Illinois) and Sen Clinton has not been able to eclipse 60% of the vote even in her home state of NY. The fact of the matter is that Sen Obama does EQUALLY as well with white men as Sen Clinton does. However Sen Clinton has strong support among white women and older voters, and Sen Obama has strong support with black voters and younger voters, so when you look at the demographics in PA (2nd highest avg age) and the fact that he came into April down 20 points (which he cut in half) the fact that ANYONE is acting suprised Sen Clinton won PA and that it actually infers any weakness in the Obama campaign is just pure spin.

The fact of the matter is that Sen Obama has won in states that have 95%+ White populations, actually he has cleaned Sen Clinton's clock in many of them. Sen Obama also has the appeal of making more "battleground" states (VA,NC, KS, CO).

Even the idea that working class white voters in OH and PA will easily support Sen McCain after he is exposed in the general election as the ELITIST, anti-labor politician that he is, is just spin, HARD spin. Lets get off of the wedge issues and bs and move on with what really matters.

God Save Us From Hillary!!

the GOP wants HRC to win the nomination... doesn't that set off any alarms with anyone?

seriously, people. think about it.

either way, if the republicans win in november, there will be no one to blame but HRC.

Didn't we hear this same "new McGovern" argument back when Bill Clinton ran in '91?

Obama wouldn't get security clearance fro an entry level job with our top agencies for his associations with Wright, Ayers, Rezko and Farakhan due to his relationships with these terrorists, anti-American zealouts and felon. They interview "colleagues, neighbors, friends, associates, family, etc.." If he wasn't an elected official, he would be denied!!! He shouldn't get the top job in this country!!

you can say what you want but the fact is that obama is winning. it is as simple as that.why can't hillary beat her? blame it on her poor political skills. she got no chance.