Don--I like the idea of getting Dean involved.
Wish the DNC had been more involved before Kucinich and JOhn Edwards got outta the race.
But Hilary's done the best job of adopting John Edwards' platform of the two.
Dean needs to follow the Obama money (like the 3 mil that went to Bob Casey's sister's print shop in Scranton). You could lead him. Take a trip to the caribbean island the obams went when the demands for tit for tat tax returns were imminent. And the Rezko trial was heating up--viva the tropics! What a great place to hide clues and cash when you have an armed Secret Service escort past the renta-security guards at the airport!
Read it and weep. Obama = McCain! We will LOSE if he's at the top of the ticket.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-rezko-court-story,0,7957753.htmlstory
- - - -
- Witness tells of mysterious ‘consultant’
- Investment firm received contract from Caribbean.
-
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-rezko-court-story,0,7957753.htmlstory
- - - -
- Witness tells of mysterious ‘consultant’
- Investment firm received contract from Caribbean.

Hopefully, Clinton and her Big Liar and Exaggerator Campaign Bus will be mothballed by the time Puerto Rico comes around...

If we're lucky, Clintons campaign won't even make it to Puerto Rico.

During this long primary campaign, Hillary Clinton has always been penned-in (no pun intended) by her own history. Years of being a target by media sources and Republicans raised her unfavorability numbers to near 50%, usually hovering around 45%-48%. This history makes it difficult for her to go on the attack because to do so plays directly into her unfavorables.

Clinton supporters have told me, over and over, that Clinton is a "known quantity," and, therefore, voters who don't like her already don't like her. In other words, her negative numbers were topped out.

Frankly, I never bought that argument. Her numbers could always go higher. And they have.

Which brings us to Obama's "bitter" comment..

As I wrote in a number of early posts by Hillary loyalists pumping Obama's "bitter" comment:

We'll see how it plays out. But I'm wondering if Hillary's fierce and repeated denunciations play into negative perceptions of her already held by many voters.

... on this subject, regardless of what one thinks of what Obama said, Hillary and her surrogates, particularly a hack like Vilsack who is counting desperately on a Hillary win so he can be the next Secretary of Education (or, who knows, maybe even VP pick), are at risk of overplaying their hand on this.

Hillary has high negatives for a reason. If voters don't think this as serious as Hillary and company continue to claim it is, this may come back to bite her.

We'll see. Judging by the Sunday morning shows and today's PA newspaper endorsements, Clinton and her pals may be in danger of simply looking desperate.

As I noted, the next few days will tell...

I have no control over what anyone says. It appears Hillary thinks she's onto something big. I am not convinced, judging by reactions in PA.

"Mountain" and "molehill" come to mind. Maybe this will really be Obama's undoing. Who knows?

Still, I think Hillary runs the risk of:

Appearing desperate, and
Playing into her negatives.

A look at the Rasmussen rolling favorable/unfavorable numbers show that Clinton's unfavorable number has dipped below 50% only eight days since February 11. And, in fact, her unfavorables have gone from 51% on April 13, the day Obama's comments broke, to 56% today.

Couple that with all of the latest Pennsylvania polls showing little or no movement among the electorate (and, yes, Clinton is headed for a win with only the margin to be determined), and Obama's continued strength in the Gallup, Rasmussen, Reuters and ABC/WaPo national Dem nomination polls, and the conclusion is that Hillary going on the attack drives up her unfavorables.

The boomerang effect that is unique to Clinton because of her history appears to be in full effect.

Out of the three news stories that have dominated the primary campaign over the last several weeks -- Wright, Tuzla and "bitter" -- it appears that Tuzla has had the biggest impact on the electorate. Today's ABC/Washington Post poll includes this paragraph:

Clinton is viewed as "honest and trustworthy" by just 39 percent of Americans, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll, compared with 52 percent in May 2006. Nearly six in 10 said in the new poll that she is not honest and trustworthy. And now, compared with Obama, Clinton has a deep trust deficit among Democrats, trailing him by 23 points as the more honest, an area on which she once led both Obama and John Edwards.

The Tuzla fable played to Hillary's biggest weakness among voters: the belief that she is not honest/can't be trusted.

I know Clinton backers will tell me that Michelle Obama's comments, the Wright story and "bitter" will doom Obama in the general, but that is a hypothetical. He may be doomed, he may not be doomed. But he has shown an ability to respond to these crises which inevitably arise in a campaign.

What is a fact are Clinton's rock-solid negatives. And, yes, they can go up. Because voters have preconceived notions about her and every time she attacks or gets caught in even the mildest inaccuracy, all of these doubts about her bubble to the surface again.

Now, I think McCain is an eminently beatable candidate. Regardless of what polls show today, McCain has yet to be tested. (We've been too busy in the primary.) Frankly, he is a lousy candidate and a lousy campaigner in a very, very bad year for Republicans. The economy is not going to be improving before the general. We know Iraq will be the same, or, more likely, worse. McCain is the second coming of Bob Dole and he will meet the same fate as Dole, regardless of who the Democrats nominate.

But Clinton is hamstrung by her past. Would Hillary beat McCain? Of course! Even with her high negatives. But for her campaign to be making the argument that Obama is unelectable is laughable in light of her own problems. And saying that Obama is not electable, doe not, conversely, mean that she's more electable.

The flip side every superdelegate should be asking her/himself when Camp Clinton makes this argument in private conversations is, "But what are Hillary's chances versus Obama's?"

Given the last six weeks, I'd say Obama's chances are better than Clinton's. And both of their chances of becoming president are better than McCain's.

EasyRider---(silly sexist film about nothing) you were distracted, stoned, or like the gobamas, not reading newspapers.
Or you missed that thing called the electoral college? 3 things.
1. Polls aren't how we vote. Caucuses are a great way for Repugs to 'fake' Barry up the ticket.
And that might hav e worked, but now even the DIXIECRATS are worried about oldman McCain.
(Hilary's taken good care of herself and women age better than men--particularly a closet smoking ADDICT like Obama).
2. People are wise to the Obama WORM pattern (what I really meant): Say something stupid and unstatesmanlikel, do the WORM, wait for Hilary to be asked about it (she gives a statesmanlike pass as much as she can) and then pounce on Hilary and call her (basically--a bi***).
By the way--Parents and teachers are noticing the effects of the Obama brainwashing on 20 somethings and are not impressed.
3. He seems really, really dirty.
That trip to the Caribbean in the middle of all this mess?
Was he dumping cash or documents offshore like the tobacco companies did for decades to avoid prosecution?
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-rezko-court-story,0,7957753.htmlstory
- - - -
- Witness tells of mysterious ‘consultant’
- Investment firm received contract from Caribbean.
- - -
And those of us on the blogs are sick of the Obama trolls (Elizabeth Edwards' word, I think--she developed it but not for Obamites--for trolls) shooting emails at the news organizations like tshirt cannons?
Bad form.
Speak when there's something real to say.
HRC not your enemy.
But you won't get a Rezko discount flat.
How's the Rezko career working out for Obama?