Tuesday's contests: Setting the CW

Billy Braggs, Baltimore MD — Mon, 19 May 2008 13:32:38 GMT

Obama can only win select states. States with a high black population, or states with extreme white liberals. In heartland states, he fails miserably. The only heart-land state he wins this fall is Illinois with the rest going to a true American John McCain.

Tuesday's contests: Setting the CW

Steph, Tn — Mon, 19 May 2008 13:32:42 GMT

Can someone tell me what CW stands for????

Tuesday's contests: Setting the CW

Pat Huntington NY — Mon, 19 May 2008 13:33:28 GMT

Hillary, you would've made a great president, but for some reason, the cards were stacked against you this time around. Between Florida and Michigan being unfairly punished, and the baggage that your husband made for you [Lewinsky, etc.], it looks like it's not gonna happen. I suggest, my dear, you start planning an exit strategy that unites the party behind Obama.

Tuesday's contests: Setting the CW

Jack — Mon, 19 May 2008 13:34:39 GMT

Major Buyer's Remorse here!

I can't believe Democrats are about to nominate a guy (Obama) who's got serious problems w/ Catholics, Jews, and blue-collars, and more importantly, w/ Hispanics and older white women (the two most important voting blocs that determine who wins in Nov.)!!

Hillary's supporters are bigger and more important in determining who wins than Obama's supporters (young people and blacks... BIG DEAL!... that's not a winning coalition)!

Only Democrats would do something this stupid!

Tuesday's contests: Setting the CW

MSierra, SF — Mon, 19 May 2008 13:35:54 GMT

'...her media reputation as "nasty" and "ruthless...'

Hillary Clinton: Vicious..... (but fair ?)

'...But by running a racially tinged campaign, lying
about her foreign policy experience and repeatedly
seeming to favor McCain over her Democratic opponent,
Clinton didn't just break through the "glass floor,"
she set a new low for floors in general,...'

racially tinged.... ?
racially tinged.... ?
Does that mean 'race-baiting' ?

'...We didn't really need her racial innuendos and
free-floating bellicosity...'

WORD !

'...the woman to get closest to the Oval Office has
promised to "obliterate" the toddlers of Tehran...'

THAT'S A NEW LOW !
"obliterate" ?

Genocide a-go-go ?

From theNation.com:

'...Hillary's Gift to Women By Barbara Ehrenreich

May 12, 2008

In Friday's New York Times, Susan Faludi rejoiced over
Hillary Clinton's destruction of the myth of female
prissiness and innate moral superiority, hailing
Clinton's "no-holds-barred pugnacity" and her media
reputation as "nasty" and "ruthless." Future female
presidential candidates will owe a lot to the race of
2008, Faludi wrote, "when Hillary Clinton broke
through the glass floor and got down with the boys."

I share Faludi's glee--up to a point. Surely no one
will ever dare argue that women lack the temperament
for political combat. But by running a racially tinged
campaign, lying about her foreign policy experience
and repeatedly seeming to favor McCain over her
Democratic opponent, Clinton didn't just break through
the "glass floor," she set a new low for floors in
general, and would, if she could have gotten within
arm's reach, have rubbed the broken glass into Obama's
face.

A mere decade ago Francis Fukuyama fretted in Foreign
Affairs that the world was too dangerous for the West
to be entrusted to graying female leaders, whose
aversion to violence was, as he established with
numerous examples from chimpanzee society, "rooted in
biology." The counter-example of Margaret Thatcher,
perhaps the first of head of state to start a war for
the sole purpose of pumping up her approval ratings,
led him to concede that "biology is not destiny." But
it was still a good reason to vote for a
prehistoric-style club-wielding male.

Not to worry though, Francis. Far from being the
stereotypical feminist-pacifist of your imagination,
the woman to get closest to the Oval Office has
promised to "obliterate" the toddlers of
Tehran--along, of course, with the bomb-builders and
Hezbollah supporters. Earlier on, Clinton foreswore
even talking to presumptive bad guys, although women
are supposed to be the talk addicts of the species.
Watch out--was her distinctly unladylike message to
Hugo Chávez, Kim Jong-Il and the rest of them--or I'll
rip you a new one.

There's a reason it's been so easy for men to overlook
women's capacity for aggression. As every student of
Women's Studies 101 knows, what's called aggression in
men is usually trivialized as "bitchiness" in women:
men get angry; women suffer from bouts of
inexplicable, hormonally-driven, hostility. So give
Clinton credit for defying the belittling stereotype:
she's been visibly angry for months, if not decades,
and it can't all have been PMS.

But did we really need another lesson in the female
capacity for ruthless aggression? Any illusions I had
about the innate moral superiority of women ended four
years ago with Abu Ghraib. Recall that three out of
the five prison guards prosecuted for the torture and
sexual humiliation of prisoners were women. The prison
was directed by a woman, Gen. Janis Karpinski, and the
top US intelligence officer in Iraq, who also was
responsible for reviewing the status of detainees
before their release, was Major Gen. Barbara Fast. Not
to mention that the US official ultimately responsible
for managing the occupation of Iraq at the time was
Condoleezza Rice. Whatever violent and evil things men
can do, women can do too, and if the capacity for
cruelty is a criterion for leadership, as Fukuyama
suggested, then Lynndie England should consider
following up her stint in the brig with a run for the
Senate.

It's important--even kind of exhilarating--for women
to embrace their inner bitch, but the point should be
to expand our sense of human possibility, not to
enshrine aggression as a virtue. Women can behave like
the warrior queen Boadicea, credited with slaughtering
70,000, many of them civilians, or like Margaret
Thatcher, who attempted to dismantle the British
welfare state. Men, for their part, are free to take
as their role models the pacifist leaders Martin
Luther King and Mahatma Gandhi. Biology conditions us
in all kinds of ways we might not even be aware of
yet. But virtue is always a choice.

Hillary Clinton smashed the myth of innate female
moral superiority in the worst possible way--by
demonstrating female moral inferiority. We didn't
really need her racial innuendos and free-floating
bellicosity to establish that women aren't wimps. As a
generation of young feminists realizes, the values
once thought to be uniquely and genetically
female--such as compassion and an aversion to
violence--can be found in either sex, and sometimes
it's a man who best upholds them.

Tuesday's contests: Setting the CW

philip — Mon, 19 May 2008 13:36:45 GMT

what the eff is a CW? it's inexplicably never been explained.

Tuesday's contests: Setting the CW

Pa voter — Mon, 19 May 2008 13:37:16 GMT

Clinton lost far more state by margins as big as WV and expected win in KY. He has won she can not win! Unite our party NOW!

Tuesday's contests: Setting the CW

Bill (Hussein) Jones — Mon, 19 May 2008 13:38:25 GMT

Obama only needs 16 primary pledged delegates to have the majority....then watch the superdelegates back the winner....and watch Puerto Rico back the winner...all 55 delegates....

All we have to do is believe....
Obama'08

Tuesday's contests: Setting the CW

Demarcus J., Columbia, Tennessee — Mon, 19 May 2008 13:38:41 GMT

I am an Obama supporter, but I think he should have campaigned harder in Kentucky. Indeed, I think he made a mistake not campaigning harder in West Virginia, even though the chances of his winning the state were very small. Still, the margin of victory for Clinton did not have to be so huge. It has been shown that when Obama goes to the people and introduces himself and his vision for America that the polls trend upward. If he had done that in Kentucky, then perhaps Clinton's expected win in the Bluegrass (for the record my birth state) will not be close to another 40-point spread. The truth is, Obama must win over the so-called "White Working-Class Without College Degrees", a label that I find personally offensive, but a voting block whose importance has been highlighted as of late. But, I think the Obama campaign has been wonderfully well ran and I have faith that they are thinking up a practical strategy to win over working-class folks in the general election.

Tuesday's contests: Setting the CW

Cheryl L, Columbus, GA — Mon, 19 May 2008 13:40:34 GMT

No matter who wins someone is going to be disappointed. It seems that most articles I have read are saying the the rural white voter decides who the President will be. That might have been in the past but the dynamics are very different now. I forsee more people getting registered to vote this November to turn the tide.

Tuesday's contests: Setting the CW

Jack — Mon, 19 May 2008 13:40:53 GMT

OH WOW - a rally of 75,000 people, most of whom are probably young and didn't register in time to vote????

Can anyone say Pennsylvania???

Tuesday's contests: Setting the CW

David — Mon, 19 May 2008 13:49:17 GMT

Hillary is doing Obama a favor by staying in the race-otherwise he would lose overwhemlingly to somebody that had already quit. He's written off the entire Appalician region-Western New York, Penn., Ohio, West Virginia, Kentucky, Tennesse, Western North Carolina& Western South Carolina and Northern Georgia, Northern Alabama and Northern Missippi. So much for a 50 state campaign. BTW if Al Gore had managed to win WVa he would have been President Gore-but he was too busy being a snob to bother campaigning there.

Tuesday's contests: Setting the CW

Lisa in New Britain, CT Joyfully for Obama — Mon, 19 May 2008 13:49:25 GMT

If I were a voter in one of these states, I'd be eagerly awaiting my moment. I hope the GOTV is alive and well in both of those states.

But I voted on Feb. 5th, truthfully, my heart (and head) has moved on to the general.

Obama needs to shore up his weaknesses while counting on his strengths and HE WILL. But he is running two campaigns, still against multiple opponents. He will be stronger when he can concentrate his needed messages and narrow his focus.

I look forward to his maintaining that energy unleashed in Portland (GREAT CITY!) yesterday and I am jealous that Oregon gets to put him over the edge.

Let the games begin...

Tuesday's contests: Setting the CW

Rennie Petersen, Denmark — Mon, 19 May 2008 13:51:02 GMT

What does CW mean?

Tuesday's contests: Setting the CW

Cindy Lou, TX — Mon, 19 May 2008 13:51:27 GMT

I think Tuesday will be important in two ways. First, Obama should amass the majority of pledged delegates, an important milestone because no Democrat has ever been denied the nomination once reaching it. Second, it will add more meat to the debate Hillary raised about her constituency being "hardworking white Americans." In Oregon, Obama will probably do well among hardworking white Americans, too. So the discussion will have to turn to other factors--probably the role of race, which most pundits want to avoid. I know the press doesn't like to focus on the positive, but I think, overall, Obama has done well--there are only a few states in which race has been an overwhelming issue. If this were 1950, Obama probably wouldn't have won anywhere.

Tuesday's contests: Setting the CW

Campdog — Mon, 19 May 2008 13:54:06 GMT

Oregon will go Democrat nomatter who hte nominee might be. Kentucky is another question.

The importance of Tuesday will be found in the demographic information it provides every bit as much as who may win the popular vote or delegates.

Tuesday's contests: Setting the CW

David — Mon, 19 May 2008 13:56:29 GMT

Didn't Barry have a HUGE turnout at a rally just before the Penn. Primary? How many folks there were just killing a pretty Sunday afternoon? If all 75000 to 80000 of them vote for him I'd think the gap in Oregon would be a lot wider that the polls suggest-like a lot of things about Obama it just don't add up.

Tuesday's contests: Setting the CW

TJ, Baltimore, MD — Mon, 19 May 2008 13:58:30 GMT

People seem to forget that Obama beat Clinton by similar margins in many, many contests, why are Kentucky and West Virginia more important than say Hawaii, Georgia, Virginia, Kansas, Minnesota, etc., etc? Anyway, good luck in the primaries tomorrow Obama! Even if he loses Kentucky by 30 points, he's still going to get enough delegates out of Kentucky alone to have the majority, his big win in Oregon is just going to be icing on the cake.

Tuesday's contests: Setting the CW

Ron, TX — Mon, 19 May 2008 14:08:52 GMT

It's worth pointing out that the Kerry-Edwards event had -Bruce Springsteen- headlining. What's First Read's guess as to how many people in that area of the United States are going to go see a free Bruce Springsteen concert no matter who the opening band is? Obviously that would have inflated the numbers. Oregon was all Obama.

Tuesday's contests: Setting the CW

Debbe, Ewing, NJ — Mon, 19 May 2008 14:12:48 GMT

I didn't see any headlines or articles highlighting Obama's wins. Obama has won 32 of the 50 contests so far, including 5 of 12 primaries where blacks made up less than 10% of the voters. He also won in caucus states that are overwhelmingly white – places like Iowa, Idaho and Wyoming. Obama beat Hillary 75% - DC, 67% - Georgia, 65% - Illinois,
64% - Virginia, 61% - Mississippi,60% - Maryland,
59% - Vermont, 58% - Wisconsin, 57% - Louisiana, 57% - Utah, 56% - North Carolina, 56% - Alabama,
...and 18 other victories over Clinton.

Tuesday's contests: Setting the CW

PP, Amherst, MA — Mon, 19 May 2008 14:16:38 GMT

Read this one from the NYT's board:

I was THERE and it was like being at the Vatican on Easter, with lots of sunscreen, hats, and water bottles. There were TONS of white republicans — both young and old — in addition to Libertarians and independents. I was surrounded in line by republicans. And, believe me, there was plenty of time to get to know them. We waited in line together for 3.5 hours and walked (very slowly) 12 blocks to get in. The line stretched for blocks and blocks behind me. The overall atmosphere was elation, rather than impatience at the wait. When I first got in line, I happened to be in line across the street from the hotel where Bill Clinton was staying. He came out as we were there and waved to everyone on the street. Many people around me expressed their disappointment that it had to be a choice between Hillary and Obama. It has been a long and grueling campaign. A surprise for me has been the knowledge that my grandmother, who has been a life-long republican, switched her party affiliation so that she could vote for Obama.

— Posted by Jennifer

Tuesday's contests: Setting the CW

Eloise, Clearwater, Florida — Mon, 19 May 2008 14:19:25 GMT

This spin on Hillary Clinton getting 67% of the vote in West Virginia has gotten old. West Virginia does not represent the majority of the people in the United States of American. This is a “bubba” state that will vote republican in the general election anyway. Now the media is starting the same crap with Kentucky. Neither of these states represents the total population of the United States....

Yes, Clinton will win Kentucky...only because the Clinton Machine has ties there not based on Hillary Clinton being the best candidate...she will win because it will be given to her...the Clinton Machine has bought and paid for this win...see for yourself:

The Bluegrass Battle
By: Howard Fineman

“Steve Henry, a former lieutenant governor and prominent Democrat, told me that he had organized for Clinton in western Kentucky—and failed to find a single county judge (that's the local chief executive) "who wasn't willing to support Hillary." In other words, most of the party structure in the state is for her, thanks in part to the Clintons' long, friendly ties to the state.”
Read The Full Story: http://www.newsweek.com/id/137291/page/1

Now take a look at the Obama and Clinton wins over 60%.....

States & elections won with 60% or more of the vote:

BARACK OBAMA:
15 STATES + DC + VI
* Virgin Islands (89.9%)
* Idaho (79%)
* Hawaii (76%)
* Alaska (75%)
* District of Columbia (75%)
* Kansas (74%)
* Washington (68%)
* Nebraska (68%)
* Minnesota (67%)
* Colorado (67%)
* Georgia (67%)
* Illinois (65%)
* Virginia (64%)
* Maryland (62%)
* North Dakota (61%)
* Wyoming (61%)
* Mississippi (61%)

HILLARY CLINTON:
2 States
* Arkansas (70%)
* West Virginia (67%)

So let’s start talking about all of the wins that were 60% or more...this is not all about the Clintons...and Hillary’s 67% win in West Virginia of all places.

Tuesday's contests: Setting the CW

Eric, Salinas, CA — Mon, 19 May 2008 14:27:25 GMT

What's "CW" stand for? The "Clinton Watch" as in her deathwatch as to when she's officially dead in the water without a paddle? Heck that was back at the end of February. Just two more weeks of this nonsensical deadend campaign to stay afloat helping "Bush Hugger" McCain.

Go Obama 08/12!

Tuesday's contests: Setting the CW

Mark Murray — Mon, 19 May 2008 14:35:40 GMT

All who asked -- CW stands for "conventional wisdom."

Tuesday's contests: Setting the CW

Merry — Mon, 19 May 2008 14:40:11 GMT

Dear Billy Braggs:
You need to explain to us how Obama won Idaho and Iowa.
I

Tuesday's contests: Setting the CW

Bobbi, Eau Claire, WI — Mon, 19 May 2008 14:41:27 GMT

Clinton wins k by 38pts and wins O by 4pts. The "bitter" turnout will be overwhelming. Tuesday will be a preview of Nov. If our party insists on giving the nomination to obama we will have McCain for 4 years.

Tuesday's contests: Setting the CW

Diane from Illinois — Mon, 19 May 2008 14:46:16 GMT

Ky isn't going to matter any more than West Virginia did. Oregon is going to put him where he needs to be and will be the news of the day, not his loss in another racist state. He knew he wouldn't win in either states due to racism, so why spend the money there? Rewrite the electoral map and get there another way, which he did. This man is SMART and draws crowds of 75,000 young, old, middle, repubs, independents.....a cross-over of ALL voters. He WILL be the next President and I will be proud!

Tuesday's contests: Setting the CW

Mitchell Feldman, Vestal, NY — Mon, 19 May 2008 14:48:49 GMT

Wow, wow, wow! I was truly moved to see the turn out for Obama. Everyone should realize (I'm sure that Barack does) that this crowd is not about idol worship of Obama. Oh, no way. What it this represents is a thirst by patriotic Americans to take our country back again. It represents a movement of people dedicated to the re-establishment of the principles of the Constitution that have made our country great. We no longer want to be lied to, we no longer want to be manipulated, we no longer want to sacrifice our future and the future of our children to the special interests who have managed a strangle hold (under Republican administrations - with some Democrats [who shall remain nameless] being complicit) on the economy of this country.

The time for the next transformative administration is upon us...Reagan revolution, move over; it's time for the Obama movement...it's time for the season of hope. God bless America, this is the greatest nation ever conceived on God's green earth and it's time to make this nation more Godly and more green. This is not about Obama (although he's the catalyst), this is about America and how we re-establish ourselves as the beacon of light on this planet.
Obama '08

Tuesday's contests: Setting the CW

Bobbi, Eau Claire, WI — Mon, 19 May 2008 14:50:41 GMT

Anyone else who wants to proudly proclaim and list all of the states obama won should do GE delegate count on those states. No caucuses in Nov either! Also, how many of those states would he have won if those contests were done today, knowing all we know about him now? If we pick him as our candidate we will lose in Nov!

Tuesday's contests: Setting the CW

PT, Kennebunk — Mon, 19 May 2008 14:52:40 GMT

the more I read about the divisions that some bloggers seem to have, the more it re-enforces the nations need to come together. There's nothing wrong with siding for one candidate over another. There's nothing wrong with being passionate about the person that you support, but when I read about such things as, "senator Obama can't get the blue-collar vote, or the white vote", etc.... it's disturbing. How much hatred does one need to have to not support the nominee? And regardless of whether he was your choice or not, if elected, the attitude, tone and future decisions will be influenced by him. If your hatred is so strong that you'd rather maintain a divide, cause a nation to suffer, stay the staust quo, instead of trying to find solutions that face a nation and perhaps your own family issues, than it re-enforces the concept that the nation needs desperatly to unite..... red state or blue state. black or white. Man or woman. Young or old, etc, are all part of the United States...... regardless of the differences from one state to the other, from one person to another, the only thing that can prevent this nation from acheiving the visions that our founding fathers had and the visions of our citezens and those that would be citizens, is the feableness of our minds. We can detemine what type of country we can be. We can detemine that direction we want to travel. And when it's done with a sense of unity, it makes a very powerful statement.

Tuesday's contests: Setting the CW

Bobbi, Eau Claire, WI — Mon, 19 May 2008 14:53:21 GMT

Msierra, get a grip!

Tuesday's contests: Setting the CW

Lisa in New Britain, CT Joyfully for Obama — Mon, 19 May 2008 14:55:50 GMT

CW = conventional wisdom, guys. As far as I know :)

Tuesday's contests: Setting the CW

Rob G — Mon, 19 May 2008 14:57:33 GMT

CW means "Conventional Wisdom"

I don't usually do this, but I need to respond to Billy Braggs' comment above.

So by your reasoning, one might say that Barack Obama is favored only by more educated, better informed voters. I'm not sure I'd have a problem with that if I'm the Obama campaign.

Is it elitist to appeal the the intellect of the electorate? Or is it just such a novel idea, we can't even conceive of it?

The world is a complex place. As much as we may want it to be black and white, it just doesn't work that way.

Obama is guilty of nothing more than acknowledging we face some difficult problems and difficult choices. I don't think he should have to apologize to people who don't have the mental facility to understand this.

Tuesday's contests: Setting the CW

Eric — Mon, 19 May 2008 15:00:42 GMT

Forget polls... I am now confident the party will come together... Thank you Pat Hunington, NY

Tuesday's contests: Setting the CW

Jack Hussein Donovan, Cedar Rapids, IA — Mon, 19 May 2008 15:03:16 GMT

Billy Braggs

Obama can only win select states. States with a high black population, or states with extreme white liberals. In heartland states, he fails miserably.

You conveniently ignore Iowa, among others.

Tuesday's contests: Setting the CW

Nj — Mon, 19 May 2008 15:07:53 GMT

Billy Braggs
get a clue
Obama will win Wisconsin, Minnesota, Missouri, Iowa and Indianna as well as Oklahoma, Mississipi, Louisiana and possibly Kansas.
He will win all democratic states as well and will win Colorado, New Mexico and possibly Texas.

He mau lose Ohio but will get Penn..
So where is your logic???

Tuesday's contests: Setting the CW

Margaret, Columbus, Ohio — Mon, 19 May 2008 15:13:00 GMT

Demarcus, you're right - he should have campaigned harder in WV and KY. It's not like he doesn't have the money. Now, in addition to Florida and Michigan, people in those States will feel ignored by Obama.

There is no State pissed off by Hillary Clinton. That says something.

Tuesday's contests: Setting the CW

Jack Hussein Donovan, Cedar Rapids, IA — Mon, 19 May 2008 15:13:31 GMT

Eloise in Clearwater

Good point! Also consider that Obama probably would have received over 60% in Iowa and other states if the choice were limited to Obama vs. Clinton rather than the wide field in the early contests.

Tuesday's contests: Setting the CW

Kahn, Forestville,md — Mon, 19 May 2008 15:14:24 GMT

To be blunt, this heartland jargon is overated. It seems that these are a flock of people who are stuck on the old ways of doing things. Due to globalization the old way is dead. Let try a new way.....Throw sexism, racism and any other ism out of the window and start fresh.

Tuesday's contests: Setting the CW

Kay Milwaukee — Mon, 19 May 2008 15:14:46 GMT

I am a woman of a "certain age" , i.e over 60 and I will vote for Obama. Not all "older women" are Clinton supporters. I can't wait until this fallacy dies a normal death.

Tuesday's contests: Setting the CW

Mel — Mon, 19 May 2008 15:17:26 GMT

I'm so tired of this ridiculous narrative the media has concocted - that Obama doesn't appeal to working class white voters...be honest - He doesn't appeal to low-income, poorly educated white voters IN APPALACHIA. Take a look at the photo of the rally in Oregon and tell me he doesn't appeal to working class white voters.

I'm afraid though, that if the media repeat it enough - it will become a self-fulfilling prophecy - They are beginning to create the story they are reporting...probably to the detriment of the country.

Tuesday's contests: Setting the CW

Greg - Connecticut — Mon, 19 May 2008 15:19:22 GMT

Don't forget, the rally Kerry/Edwards had in Wisconsin, Bruce Springsteen was there. A lot of people that turned out were there to see "The Boss" not so much John Kerry.

Tuesday's contests: Setting the CW

Molly — Mon, 19 May 2008 15:24:03 GMT

Obama ignores states he does not need - KY, WV - FL MI - denied a re-vote - does he really think he can win without ALL these people??? How ARROGANT! Maybe he should go to these "working class" states and ask for a vote or two. Hillary has EARNED her votes - all of them even the ones that the DNC won't count!
Obama is arrogant to even suggest he has won - he has NOT - nobody has reached the magic number to get the nominatin - being "close" does not count - otherwise Hillary would of won long ago!

Tuesday's contests: Setting the CW

Andress — Mon, 19 May 2008 15:24:03 GMT

Billy Braggs is deranged: Colorado, Wyoming : very white states.

Think again and make intelligent statements.

Tuesday's contests: Setting the CW

Andress — Mon, 19 May 2008 15:25:19 GMT

Jack is a republican: Chaos type.,

Tuesday's contests: Setting the CW

Thomas, Louisiana — Mon, 19 May 2008 15:28:23 GMT

Almost every southen state that Obama won big had a closed primary where Blacks make up about 80% of the democratic electorate, Obama will not win any southern states in the General Election.... The primaries were a facade, the majority of whites in the south are either registered Repubican or Independent and will certainly not go for Obama.

Tuesday's contests: Setting the CW

PMc in Dallas — Mon, 19 May 2008 15:29:11 GMT

Had Barak Obama not entered the race, I very likely would have backed Hillary Clinton. I have generally agreed with both her and Bill's ideological stances. Where I have disagree with them is: when Bill Clinton stated when running in '92 that he was NOT pro-NAFTA (correct me if I am wrong), and later, backed it! And, Hillary's pandering to the perceived fears of the general public and voting for what should have been obvious...a totally misguided and wrong decision to attack Iraq. Also, her voting for a resolution which could have pressed the US into taking military action against Iran last fall for similar reasons. Selling out to the top corporate/military industrial interests are Not in the best interests of a strong and moral America. Obama came along and has offered rational and honest stances and approaches to our collective problems. And, Mr. McCain has suddenly morphed into a Bush clone! Really! I used to consider the man as sane and honest. I wonder now.
Barak Obama does show to be both sensible and honest. And, this is what America needs.
Citizens who consistently view "FIXed News" are absorbing consistently skewed information and the drum beat rhetoric which only increases cyincism and polarization.

Tuesday's contests: Setting the CW

OBwan, In — Mon, 19 May 2008 15:29:39 GMT

Mark,

I thought is was code word, control words, or Clinton watch - thanks for the clarification. Of course to me it could mean cold water, cold war, chemical warfare, carrier wave, concealed weapons, call waiting, clockwise or curb weight among others.

Tuesday's contests: Setting the CW

Lou, NH — Mon, 19 May 2008 15:33:55 GMT

What many have failed to sieze on is the fact that Obama has been running a two front race for months now. How often do we hear the republicans going after Hillary? The answer is never. Barack Obama has managed an incredible campaign against the machine and will win by the rules. It would have been nice to spend time in WV and KY but there is a general election to win also. John McCain has been able to tour the U.S. without contest because of the democratic parties rules. HRC's unwillingness to concede has forced Obama to skip certain states to focus on general election states. No doubt these states would be closer if they were actually being contested.

Tuesday's contests: Setting the CW

Paula Miller — Mon, 19 May 2008 15:34:50 GMT

No one wants to evaluate the one main thing that distinguishs Kentucky and West Virgina from other states for Clinton over Obama. I think it is all about race. I am so happy it is only two states that have this component in its make-up to give an exaggerated vote for one candidate over the other.

Tuesday's contests: Setting the CW

Namaste, Vancouver, Washington — Mon, 19 May 2008 15:35:23 GMT

I was at the Portland rally yesterday and was fortunate enough to meet both Barack and Michelle. It was a wonderful experience and solidified my positive impressions of both. They believe in the common good and are working very hard to achieve it. I saw wisdom and goodness yesterday.....in the Obama's and in my fellow Americans.

I don't know if it was the largest rally ever...but I DO know that the amazing diversity of those attending makes false the assertion that Barack Obama has a problem with any single group per se. I spoke to farmers, business people, health professionals, laborers, black, white, native American, Asian, male, female.. the oldest voter there was a 96 year old white female, the youngest voter was a black male who had just turned 18 and was voting for the first time...they were there because so many of us shared the same sentiment....we are thrilled to be voting for someone we believe in as opposed to voting for the lesser of two evils. For many, this is the very first time we are voting FOR instead of against.

It is a false assumption to extrapolate primary results to a general election. There are those that will not vote for Barack Obama. Some of those will be because of ideological differences. There will probably be those who cannot get over the idea that a mixed race individual is somehow less qualified, less capable or has less integrity. Those individuals cannot seem to overcome their own faulty thinking and/or background...that is a problem, as I would guess that the type of "reasoning" that they are utilizing does not serve them very well in daily life either. All we can do is to continue to welcome all into the process and hope that facts and the truth remain in the forefront and to hope that the truth can break through whatever barriers they have.

Yes We (the People) Can....and We (the People) Will!

Tuesday's contests: Setting the CW

Lou, NH — Mon, 19 May 2008 15:36:07 GMT

Tuesday's contests: Setting the CW

AP — Mon, 19 May 2008 15:40:59 GMT

yeah. they don't care for all the blowouts that O has had. she has had 3 and that is all we hear about. And as for those that think young people and blacks are no big deal. Hmm. Blacks vote and do so in large numbers. They have been a loyal base of the dem party, and some may come out for HRc, but the whole thing will fizzle if she somehow becomes the nominee. there will be no more excitement in the campaign. sure, the old women will come, but there is a base of young and middle aged women like me, who will not vote for HRC no matter what, because of her behaviour during the clnton years. I think she is a severe woman and if anyone is an empty suit, I think it is her. it is sad to see her go out by slamming Obama. But, it is who they are, the clinton's.

Tuesday's contests: Setting the CW

Cut the Spin Bull — Mon, 19 May 2008 15:53:21 GMT

Thank you Eloise in Clearwater, Florida! I'm sitting here laughing at how hard people are trying to stretch the importance of Kentucky to the task at hand (obtaining the majority of pledged delegates aka cross the finish line first) to downplay ALL the other losses Hillary received when "little" states were of no importance to her or her campaign.

Why can't this woman win or lose without all the spin, excuses, flip-flop goal post changes? It's easier to claim all this garbage against Obama and his supporters rather than hold Sen. Clinton and her people responsible for there lack.

Tuesday's contests: Setting the CW

J. Gordon — Mon, 19 May 2008 15:54:37 GMT

CW = Conventional Wisdom