If Hillary Clinton was to win the Democratic nomination with a majority of valid elected delegates, she would have a reasonable chance of winning the general election. If she won the nomination any other way, well, remember the Titanic?

If Senator Clinton can not win a majority of valid elected delegates and can not win the general election with an illicit or suspect nomination, why is anyone still supporting her campaign?

It appears to be time to move on.

MY, my, Barry is so cozy with the press?  What's a matter Barry cat got ya tongue?
You are so special, why answer questions, no debates, no questions, NO DEAL CLOSER!!!  

You mean some a-hole reporters are STILL asking about Wright? Could you name names? The answers have been given many times; any further questions are just political hit jobs which reporters should not be in the business of delivering.

http://twocanpete.blogspot.com/
Don't you get it? It's only important if Hillary wins.

Obama said "They're favored to do well in Pennsylvania. We're favored to do well in North Carolina. So I guess Indiana will be the tie-breaker." Clearly he meant break the tie of 1-1 after NC, not break the tie of the entire nominating contest. Still, he should have expected that that's what Carville and the Clintons would spin it into. But that doesn't mean MSNBC should report the spin as fact.

Obama = Chicken.

He's supposedly the great orator.  Where's his elequence now that people are asking the tough questions?  The media gave him a free pass for much of this campaign, and that was the biggest reason for the divide we have in the Democratic Party now.

If Obama had been subject to the same scrutiny in the beginning of the contest that he is now -- things would be much, much different.

Why doesn't Obama want to debate?  Because he knows the issues that would be discussed without a moderator are the same ones that will make him unelectable in November.

If he's scared of Hillary now, imagine what the Republicans will put him through in the fall.  Voters like Obama because of what he stands for -- but once he's forced to speak to the facts instead of flowery oratory -- he is easily pinned down as someone with little practical experience and out of touch with both his peers in Washington and the majority of the American people.

9.2 points is not double digit. Stop reporting Hillary's win as 10 points when it was a NINE point win. 9.2 rounds DOWN to 9. Don't legitimize her lying about the score by parroting her lies!
http://www.electionreturns.state.pa.us/
Hillary Clinton 54.6
Barack Obama 45.4
9.2 is the difference, NOT 10! 9.2 is a double digit win if 2+2=5.
REPORT FACTS, NOT BIAS

Go Hilllary.  You can do it???  YES WE WILL!!!!

SIGH. Don't you so-called journalists GET IT? You are playing right into Clinton's plan to distract the media in teh coming week to Obama's "negatives": "Why won't he debate? Is he a wimp?" Why won't he condemn Rev. Wright? Is he a racist?" This is checkout journalism of teh worst kind. You in the media are doing a profound disservice to the free press' role in the democratic process by pandering to one candidate's political tactics instead of INFORMING voters about BOTH candidates' stand on teh ISSUES. The mainstream media in this country needs a huge slap in the face to shake it back into reality. GET A CLUE!

The "close the deal" talk is meaningless.

Both Obama and Clinton have strong core constituencies that are relatively balanced.  

MSNBC has discussed this in depth.  Obama has ounger voters, african-american voters and voters with more education.  Clinton has blue-collar voters, older voters and for the most part, women.

Once the nomination is secured, strong democrats will vote democrat, strong republicans will vote republican and the middle 10-20% will control the election.  Right now, independents are leaning strongly to the dems.

The only way the dems lose the presidential race is if Clinton is allowed to turn the party against itself and turn the country against the eventual democratic nominee.

Another comment: You want to play "Gotcha" now with the "tie" remark? You in the media are playing right into Clinton's kitchen sink strategy of distracting the media in the coming week to a "perceived" negative. DNC Chairman Dean today is harping on this race being "pretty close to a tie." It's NOT. Not even close. Are you guys reading from the same script? Clinton's lawyers got to all of you. Pathetic. You in the media are doing a profound disservice to the free press' role in the democratic process by pandering to one candidate's political tactics instead of INFORMING voters about BOTH candidates' stand on the ISSUES. The mainstream media in this country needs a huge slap in the face to shake it back into reality. GET A CLUE!

When you have so little experience in Federal
government,It's understandable why you don't want to
debate Hillary.
All the way with Hillary.
What the Democrats don't need is another loss like
Carter-Reagan or Nixon-McGovern.

When you have so little experience in Federal
government,It's understandable why you don't want to
debate Hillary.
All the way with Hillary.
What the Democrats don't need is another loss like
Carter-Reagan or Nixon-McGovern.

I think we know the real reason why he doesn't want to debate.

Smart move Obama. You know you will fail at debates again, especially if the debate will take a fluid course.
Citizens should demand to see how Obama and Clinton fare against each other - let's base it just on policies and no personal critiques.

As an independent, I cannot fathom the blind loyalty Democratic voters are showing to the Clinton's. From Whitewater, the Vince Foster "suicide" issue, Bill's philandering and lying to a grand jury, and the fact they left the White House with $80,000 worth of gifts donated to the White House which they had to return, should be more than enough to raise huge doubts about their honesty and credibility. This power hungry couple have basically lied and cheated their way through life without ever doing an honest day's work. They know nothing about what the middle class is going through to just make ends meet.  

Obama in 08 !!!! It's a no brainer

Will someone please answer this question for me?  Why is it that the media keeps asking why Obama supposedly can't seem to "close the deal" with voters, when in every one of these "big states" Hillary has held high double-digit leads at the outset and Obama has continually narrowed her lead considerably running up to the vote.  It seems to me the more appropriate question is, why can't SHE hold onto a lead, and "close her deal"?

In addition, call me crazy, but I'm fairly certain all of you in the media were saying 6 weeks ago, Clinton needed to score a high double digit win in order to prove she was "still viable".  What happened to that thesis?  Now, she scores a single digit win, (which you biasly refer to as a nearly double-digit loss by Obama), and still HE'S the one who can't close the deal?  Of course, I do realize what drives the MSM to cover this campaign in the way you have....it's dollars.  As long as you can portray this as still a tight race, you make money.  Are there no real journalist left in this country?  Perhaps you all need to go back to school and learn what it means to be a journalist, rather than a group who DRIVES false perception and propogates misinformation.  Edward R. Murrow is turning over in his grave because of the way you conduct yourselves.  SHAME on all of you!  

Interesting how as the campaign has progressed, the media attention has focussed on those races deemed to be close. Indiana is getting much much more attention than Carolina. Seems a bit unfair- Obama is slated to do very well in North Carolina, but nobody seems to be asking Clinton why can't she close the deal in the remaining states in order to pull ahead of Obama in the delegate count.

The last think I want to watch is another debate. Perhaps if they gave each candidate paint ball guns and let them at it... but otherwise (Yawn), more than 20 debates is certainly over kill

Obama won't risk another poor debate performance!  :)

He is a fatally flawed candidate and always has been.  It is just more evident now.  He and his wife's comments have betrayed them and so has Jeremiah Wright.

After listening in depth to the Moyer interviews of Jeremiah Wright and Cone, it is easier to understand where Obama is coming from.

Cone:

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/11232007/watch.html

Jeremiah Wright:

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/04252008/watch.html

Obama cannot win the general election but he will hand it to McCain if he is the Democratic nominee.  It is your choice Democrats.  Hillary Clinton or John McCain 08!  :)

Clinton ad raps Obama adviser
Campaign criticized for using ex-state Democratic leader who works as a lobbyist
By Tom Davies / Associated Press
Posted: April 27, 2008Read Comments(28)Recommend E-mail Print Share  Del.icio.us  Digg  Reddit  Yahoo  Google A         A Hillary Rodham Clinton's campaign has taken a swipe at a top Indiana adviser for Barack Obama in a television ad attacking Obama for getting political help from lobbyists.

The issue is Obama's stance that, in contrast to Clinton, he does not take contributions from federal lobbyists or special interest groups. The Clinton campaign bristles over that argument -- often repeated by Obama in his speeches and ads -- and is trying to show that Obama is not so pure on the matter.


The Obama adviser, former state Democratic Chairman Kip Tew, says his work as an attorney and a state lobbyist at an Indianapolis law firm is not inconsistent with Obama's positions.

The Clinton ad, which aired in Pennsylvania in the days before that state's primary, said that Obama in the past 10 years had "taken almost $2 million from lobbyists, corporations and PACs. The head of his New Hampshire campaign is a drug company lobbyist; in Indiana an energy lobbyist; a casino lobbyist in Nevada."

Tew led the effort to collect the 4,500 petition signatures needed by a February deadline to place Obama's name on the primary ballot. He said he has been a volunteer adviser to the Obama campaign since paid organizers arrived in Indiana in late March.

He said he believed the Clinton campaign was "grasping at straws" by making an issue of his work.

"I've never lobbied the White House and have no intention of ever doing it, so I can't understand why the Clinton campaign, which is taking lots of money from Washington lobbyists and is being funded by political action committees, wants to get into a fight about this," Tew said.

The Clinton campaign made no allegations of wrongdoing by Tew but pointed to what it sees as inconsistencies by Obama.

"You wonder why Senator Obama feels, apparently, that he can have it both ways," Clinton spokesman Jonathan Swain said. "That he can criticize the presence of lobbyists on one campaign but allow them to be involved in his campaign. Senator Obama is the one who has stood up and established this criteria or test."

Swain said the commercial with the Tew reference has not aired in Indiana. He did not know whether it or a similar ad would be used in the state before the May 6 primary.

Obama campaign spokesman Kevin Griffis defended Tew, saying he gave advice about politics, not policy. Griffis said the Clinton campaign was trying to misrepresent Obama's refusal to take contributions from Washington lobbyists.

Tew is a partner at Krieg DeVault, one of the largest law firms in Indianapolis, and previously was manager of government affairs for Plainfield-based PSI Energy. He had been the Marion County Democratic chairman before then-Gov. Joe Kernan, who is supporting Clinton, tapped him to head the state party during the 2004 gubernatorial campaign.

Krieg DeVault's clients include the Association of Indiana Prosecuting Attorneys, Roche Diagnostics, casino company Pinnacle Entertainment and Duke Energy, which owns the former PSI Energy, according to Indiana Lobby Registration Commission records.

Although the Clinton ad referred to Tew as an energy lobbyist, he said he worked for many other businesses and organizations as well.

"I'm not running away from the fact that I'm a lobbyist," Tew said. "I have a healthy client list, and I'm proud of it."

Prominent figures in Clinton's campaign also have ties to state-level lobbying.

Joe Hogsett, who preceded Tew as state Democratic chairman and is Clinton's Indiana co-chairman, is not a registered state lobbyist but is a member of the government services group at the Indianapolis law firm Bingham McHale.

Another active Clinton supporter, former Indiana House Speaker John Gregg, is a registered lobbyist for Bingham McHale.

http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080427/NEWS0502/804270353/1304/frontpagecities

Oh it is ok for Obama to win by one vote in Indiana but he and his campaign would not give Hillary a win in PA unless it was by double digits.  This sounds like a double standard to me.  Now the Obamaites are gleefully saying she only won by 9 not 10 points.

Obama will win the black votes by over 90%-----how many states are left with large black populations?It is true this is a black-white,rich-poor,young-old election.

Obama hasn't closed the deal yet. But, Clinton can't close the deal.  The overall race is not close.  She is behind, and can't catch up.

She had this race won a long time ago, and lost it because of a bad strategy.  Strategy wins wars; strategy wins politcal battles as well.

Ask her why she can't close. Ask her why she lost it.

Obama hasn't closed the deal yet. But, Clinton can't close the deal.  The overall race is not close.  She is behind, and can't catch up.

She had this race won a long time ago, and lost it because of a bad strategy.  Strategy wins wars; strategy wins politcal battles as well.

Ask her why she can't close. Ask her why she lost it.

The MSM is the one that's elitist.  Cover the facts and not the Clinton spin.  Some blue collar workers in middle America are not stupid.  We don't consider arugula exotic and most of us don't bowl.  Please quit insulting our intelligence when talking about what it takes to "connect"  with us.  We care about the war and the economy just like college grads do.  (I'm waiting to see which town in South Dakota Clinton grew up in!)

The deal IS closed.  So Obama couldn't win in the one state that was the strongest, demographically, for Clinton.  Big deal.  He did better in PA than he did in OH, a state that was strong Clinton, but less strong than PA.  So he's gaining strength among her base, her among his, not so much.  Not that it really matters.  Anyone who can add, knows this was over several primaries ago.  Yawn.  Let's move on already.

Do not say McCain is out of touch and then say Obama knows how to speak to voters.  He is an elitist, a watcher not a doer, he will not lead but he will talk.  He will talk us into a worse position than we, as a nation, are in now.  This man scares me.  He does not appear truthful, sincere, or caring.  Just a lot of talk, but no real backbone.

By Susan Page, USA TODAY
RALEIGH, N.C. —

The end could be near.

Why the Democratic race could end in North Carolina
Or the endgame, at least, of a surprisingly drawn-out Democratic presidential contest. Four months and 42 states after the opening Iowa caucuses, the primary in North Carolina on May 6 now looms as a pivotal final showdown between Illinois Sen. Barack Obama and New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton.
Obama starts with a double-digit lead in polls here, a state where 2,400 free tickets to his rally at the War Memorial Auditorium in Greensboro last week were gone within three hours of the announcement he would appear. But Clinton has appeal in the Tar Heel State, too, and is competing hard. The day after Obama's rally, she drew 1,000 supporters to the gym at Terry Sanford High School in Fayetteville for a town hall meeting.

"I really believe May 6 has the potential to be everything," says Joe Trippi, a strategist for the presidential bids of former North Carolina senator John Edwards this year and Howard Dean in 2004. "Every day you see increased pressure on Hillary Clinton about why she's staying in, and if she could win in North Carolina it would shut down that kind of talk and open up the possibility she could get there" to the nomination.

"But if he wins in North Carolina," Trippi says of Obama, "I think you're going to see things close up very quickly. You'll see a lot of superdelegates line up behind him."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1st,of all;this campaign is the most interesting in several decades.And it is so scrutinized that there's No foul play either.I guess U, have to hand the credit to the press;for their due-diligence.Whoever wins this race; will have truly earned it. Republican or Democrats both earn praise.

The train-wreck of American democracy now appears to be back on track. Brought to you courtesy of Bill and Hillary Clinton.  At minimum, none of the newly registered voters are going to give a damn by the time of the election, convinced that it's going to be business as usual so there's no reason to participate.  Sadly, it appears that we're going to see the bloated terrible twosome again in 2012.

Why do you analysts and reporters continue to ask Obama about "closing the deal"? If the Los Angeles Lakers were up by 20 points, and there is 20 seconds left in the game...just because their opponents hit two 3pt shots, does this mean they can't close the deal? If Tiger Woods was up by 8 strokes after the 17th hole, and his closest competitor hits an Eagle on 16 to move with 6 strokes, do you question whether he can "close the deal"? You know who is going to win. Get over it. You all exaggerate and show bias in your logic and in your rationale. Grow up and start being journalists. Tell it like it is and move on.

Amazing that prior to the PA primary anything less that strong double digits would of marked a defeat by Hillary Clinton.  Now that the final ressult bear out a less than double digit lead it is Obama that is on the verge of losing, according to the press, because he can not win the big states or attract enough Blue Collar voters.  Well in Texas he won( you can not discount the process that was a bifurcated primary and caucus) but according to the Press it was a loss.  The truth is Obama and Clinton will do equally weel in traditional blue states.  It is his ability to pick up a Missouri or Virginia or a western state that changes the dynamic in Obama's favor.  Add to this that this is a nomination of all states( yes a compromise needs to be reached for FL and MI not the one by Hillary that is they go along the "vote" in the discredited primaries.  More along a 50/50 split so they can be seated) where he will hold an elected delegate lead and most likely the popular vote.  

It goes to show how classy Obama is.  The man deserves to be President of this great country.  Please, voters do not deny him the chance.

Hilliary challenged Senator Obama to a no-moderator debate and "we will make rules that are fair".  Humph!  She cannot abide by the DNC rules and she says the rules would be fair in such a debate??  Humph!  She is full of her usual BS!  Hillary NEEDS the free air time so she can directly pander for donations, votes, and invitations to her website.  She did this in the last several debates!!  Debates should NOT allow any candidate to directly sell their potions to donors, voters, and supporters.  Why has Hilliary gotten away with this kind of underhanded advertising?   Hilliary is contemptabile, and that is putting it mildly!!

Senator Obama is smart to keep to the agenda of issues affeecting our country and our people.  He will be our next President!  And a great President too!!

This from earlier today regarding the Clintons:

(QOUTE) LETTER FROM WASHINGTON
If Hillary is vanquished, Bill will feel his own pain
By Albert R. Hunt Bloomberg NewsPublished: April 27, 2008
Hillary Rodham Clinton will have nightmares about her botched run for the presidency; it'll be worse for Bill Clinton.

Senator Clinton's impressive Pennsylvania primary victory last week exposed Barack Obama's general-election vulnerabilities. However, there is nothing to suggest Clinton would be the stronger nominee.

Thus, Obama remains the clear favorite to win the nomination, and the New York senator's painful legacy, in the most important professional endeavor of her life, will be picking the wrong people and putting together a deeply flawed campaign.

In time she will have fresh opportunities; perhaps a Senate leadership role, or she may emulate Edward Kennedy as a truly great lawmaker, or, if Obama loses, make another run for the White House with lessons learned.

It's going to be tougher for her husband. The most talented and resilient politician of this generation has damaged his standing with gaffes, political miscalculations and a series of paranoiac, volcanic eruptions.

Today in Americas
Obama dismisses Clinton debate challengeLawyers for terror suspects wary of eavesdroppingCIA has leeway on interrogation methodsA common question these days among political heavyweights - including longtime Clinton devotees - is this: How can a guy this smart act so dumb?

Since January, he has been a regular feature on YouTube, face flushed, finger wagging and veins pulsing as he lashes out at some reporter or voter. Bill Clinton has accused the Obama campaign of putting out "a hit job on me," of playing "the race card" to "breed resentment" against him, and most everyone this side of Mark Penn of engaging in one "cheap shot" after another.

This is the stuff of a Philadelphia ward leader or an troubled adolescent, not a former president revered around the globe.

Three people who have spent time around him in recent months, all of whom insist on anonymity, describe him as irrationally angry and extremely bitter about the press.

The latest episode was on Pennsylvania primary day when he blew up anew, expletives and all.

In this, as in most of the others, the record suggests that Bill Clinton is more the cause of the problem than the victim.

The genesis of the April 22 outburst was the simmering controversy over the comment he made the day of the South Carolina primary in January when it was clear that Obama, an Illinois senator, was going to score a big victory. Bill Clinton discounted it; after all, Jesse Jackson won twice in South Carolina, he said.

When a furor ensued over his suggestion that Obama's appeal, like Jackson's, was essentially racial, the former president at first insisted it was the press that had raised the issue. A transcript revealed otherwise.

Moreover, as Clinton knew, any parallels were a reach. Jackson didn't win South Carolina primaries, they were basically low-turnout caucuses. By contrast, Obama, Hillary Clinton and John Edwards waged a huge battle in this year's South Carolina primary and produced a record number of voters, more than 10 times as many as 20 years ago.

To be sure, the old Clinton political magic is still there. The campaign now uses him more in small towns and secondary markets away from the media limelight. In economically strapped Ohio and Pennsylvania, voters responded to his message that things were a lot better in the 1990s when he was in charge.

He's treated like a rock star in places that rarely, if ever, have seen a president. A few weeks ago in Laurinburg, North Carolina, St. Andrew's Presbyterian College suspended all classes for his appearance, and he got a rousing welcome.

(My severely disabled son, a student, was in the front row at that rally, and Clinton, who didn't know who he was, gave him a warm greeting. It's one of the former president's very attractive traits: He instinctively seeks out those most vulnerable.)

This has been much more of a mixed blessing for his wife's campaign than some recent adoring profiles suggest; polls show his standing has plummeted. Especially grating is the alienation of blacks, a group that was the biggest source of support during his presidency and who he thought would follow his political guidance this year.

Last week, Representative James Clyburn of South Carolina, the House majority whip and the nation's top-ranking black politician, charged that his "bizarre" behavior might be causing "an irreparable breach between Clinton and an African-American constituency that once revered him."

His performance has also afforded political conservatives an opportunity for a we-told-you-so moment, where the claims they have always made about his disreputable behavior are apparently being proved.

Bill Clinton is a survivor. He survived an embarrassing sex scandal and left office as popular as ever. He took another hit when he unconscionably pardoned Marc Rich, a fugitive crook, just before leaving office. A few years later, Clinton was acclaimed across the globe.

Still, he pays a price for these transgressions. Before the Rich pardon, he had planned to serve on some blue-chip corporate boards, and discussed this with his former Treasury secretary, Robert Rubin.

After the pardon, he became an untouchable in prestigious circles and instead has spent much of the last seven years cavorting around with ethically challenged billionaire sycophants.

Before this campaign, he was an international statesman extraordinaire and the guru for ambitious Democratic politicians. His conduct in recent months has devalued this gifted politician and his future.

Although he has a decent relationship with John McCain, given the continuing partisan resentment of Bill Clinton, he would remain largely in exile under a Republican president.

If Hillary Clinton upsets the odds and wins the presidency, it is likely to prove an unhappy time for her husband. He would be vigorously scrutinized, politically and personally; inevitably, political strains between the president and first spouse would emerge.

A President Obama would drive him crazy. If not irrelevant, it would make Clinton a secondary figure within his own country and own party.

There is little that would make him more frustrated or angrier. (UNQUOTE)

You want to play "Gotcha" now with the "tie" remark? You in the media are playing right into Clinton's kitchen sink strategy of distracting the media in the coming week to a "perceived" negative: "Why won't he debate? Is he a wimp?" Why won't he condemn Rev. Wright? Is he a racist?" "Obama said Indiana is a "tie breaker" What if he loses in Indiana? Hillary is the victor, right?" DNC Chairman Dean is harping on this race being "pretty close to a tie." It's NOT. Not even close. Seems to me the media is all reading from the same script. IS THERE ANYONE ON MSNBC (TV OR INTERNET) REMOTELY CAPABLE OF HAVING AN ORIGINAL THOUGHT OR INSIGHT? Clinton's lawyers got to all of you? Pathetic. This is checkout journalism of the worst kind. The media in this country is doing a profound disservice to the free press' role in the democratic process by pandering to one candidate's political tactics instead of INFORMING voters about BOTH candidates' stand on the ISSUES. GET A CLUE!

Obama's a class act.

He refuses to play victim and continues to seek to unite, not divide--both qualities a refreshing change from that offered by his opponent.

When will Washington stop debating what America wants and finally meet with us one to one?

We need a president who knows the importance of meeting with us and listening to us.

Not a president who wants to debate what we've been trying to tell them for years.

are all the Obama snivlers getting ready for their weekly spitball fights?You have a lot of Obama doo-doo to defend this week.Wright,Rezko,Clyburg,

Seems like every state will be the tie-breaker - BUT never really is.  OBama just cannot seem to knock her out - even with all his $$$$ - he has NOT WON!
Hillary Clinton is the best candidate - I think the last debate proved that.  Obama can give a prepared speech from the teleprompter but - does not do well in question/answer sessions - that is why his campaign will not let him ever again.  Obama says he wants to sit down with terrorist leaders - how can he do that when he can't even talk to Hillary??

I and  -MILLIONS-  like me will vigorously campaign against Hillary Clinton should she STEAL the Democratic nomination.  Carve this in stone - she will NOT be elected after this display of Egomania at the expense of the American public.   Carve it DEEP in stone !

-and I voted her into her senate seat.   Fool me once...  NEVER again.   Never.

What's Hillary Clinton up to now? She must have a reason to want this debate so badly. Please no more debates! I for one have been watching this "politics" game since January. The debates are boring and to long. One tends to change the channel after 30 minutes. Stick with your guns Barack Obama.

Why is everone constantly saying IN and NC are tie breakers? Obama is ahead in delagates and Clinton has no chance of making up the difference.  The popular vote is meaningless, especially when you don't consider the caucus states, which would sling shot Obama so far ahead this would never have been a talking point.  When is Hillary going to call it a day and bow out with some dignity?  Please for all of the democratic party, I hope it's soon.  

I don't understand why MSNBC portrayed Pennsylvania as the greatest upset since Mike Tyson losing against James 'Buster' Douglas? Everyone knew that Clinton would win and win big! Now, Obama is favored to win N.Carolina, so MSNBC chooses to treat the state as irrelevant and focus on Indiana. Will MSNBC consider Obama a closer, if he wins N.C. by 10+ points, and wins Indiana? Or, will MSNBC set S. Dakota as a state that he must close? When will America ever have a Network that report the news instead of providing the public with created garbage?

Obama was a "flash in the Pan" who's newness to the
race was "an emtional High", but as the American People re-think of who is better qualified--they are
shifting back to Sen. Hillary Clinton--and rightly So.
His unwillness to debate without a moderater in NC
shows his ultimate weekness--he is NOT and intellect,
who, can truly answer the difficult questions....he's
is NOT fit to be Commander-In-Chief.

Doesn't ANYONE at your network (and CNN and FOX) have anything else to do but engage in this non-stop hand-wringing over which candidate scores "gotcha" points more than the other, or this incessant pre-occupation with predicting race outcomes? If you are truly the journalists you profess to be, don't you at least believe that you are doing a grave disservice to your audience, and the American voters, by failing in your most privileged mandate: to present a FAIR and BALANCED presentation of the ISSUES, and how EACH candidate differs on them? We all are more than up to speed, and WELL-INFORMED about Rev. Wright, "bitterness," and Bosnia. For pete sakes, WHAT has MSNBC done lately to talk about the REAL issues of electing the next president, and how that individual will get us out of the profound quagmire we're in? I am begging you people to please -- GET A CLUE!

After weighing the costs versus benefits of another debate, I suggest that Obama continue to stay on message and get back to his basic approach of reaching out one-on-one to voters.  At this point the debates will not help him, and can potentially serve to hurt him.  Truth is, the debate environment, regardless of format, favors Hillary.  If he comes on strong, she is viewed as the victim who is getting "piled on."  If he fights back he risks being labeled as a "typical old politician."  If he coasts through the debate without fighting, then folks say he "isn't tough enough" in comparison to her.  However, if he agrees with her policies during the debate or happens to get the rebuttal question versus the FIRST question, then SNL and other critics are surely going to spoof him as a mindless "empty suit." OR the moderators could focus on the political distractions (i.e., former pastors, flag tie pins) that have haunted him for the past few months, which will only serve to keep us ALL frustrated about the campaign's "silly season" that will never end. Meanwhile she'll use the opportunity to twist the knife even further, seemingly to ensure her candidacy in 2012, and causing even more angst over division in the party!

So for God's sake, let's not have a 22nd debate!!!

At long last the topic of racism as a factor in this election was discussed on Meet the Press. Gwen Ifill and Andrea Mitchell both testified to white racism as a reason for Obama's weak showing in Ohio and PA. I believe this approximately 25% of Clinton voters constitute Reagan Democrats who might have voted for Bill Clinton but deserted the Democrats in 2000 and 2004. It is foolish to award Hillary the nomination in hopes of winning these ignorant and unfaithful Democrats. Obama will bring in even more new and independent voters that will make up the difference, and then some.

Tie-breaker... look how he has challenged more Democrats and Republicans and Independents to step up to the plate....What a great leader...Barack (the Inspired One) Obama...
We see you Barack Obama and we are impressed...

Obamacans Unite!!!
Obamapends Unite!!!
Obamacrats Unite!!!

GOD Bless Barack Obama!!!!!

If Obama fails to win Indiana, people will continue to question whether he can win in a general election.  

The long and short of it is: Hillary cannot "win" the nomination - she can only continue to divide the party. For those of you who are on the fence, please vote to reunite the party. Obama will be the nominee and the sooner we can unite, the better for all of us.

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):