so by your logic, there are some new voters who are somehow not participating in the polls, but once the general election starts, they will magically appear and carry Obama to presidency?

Never mind what I REALLY want. What I want is for someone to show me how exactly Obama is going to get electoral votes necessary for presidency?

Obama has more money and more people donating to him, I agree. But he greatly outspent Hillary in both Ohio and Pennsylvania and still lost those states. Why is general election going to be different?

Thanks, that's the kind of analysis I was hoping for. And thanks to "Uncle Fester" for the links.

However: I see you listed North Dakota, Virginia, Nevada, and Ohio as necessary for Obama to get to 278-260. That's not one, but four very difficult states for Obama to win. I would add New Hampshire to the mix also. Out of them, Ohio is the crucial one, that's the one I was asking about.

For Hillary, it is necessary to get Pennsylvania and either Ohio or Florida - two out of three, not all three. And for her Ohio is actually doable.

I looked at electoral-vote.com and it is not very reassuring. According to it, Obama and McCain are tied, with the tie being in Indiana. While Hillary is winning rather easily.

It's easy to discount the damage that the Wright controversy has caused, but if you talk to people who actually go to church, they do not buy that Obama somehow didn't know his pastor's views. He went there for 20 years! And once the republicans start to actually spin this, I don't see how Obama can counter this.

I think Gore actually lost Ohio, but he concentrated all his efforts on Florida. Kerry lost both. You have to win at least one, either Ohio or Florida, and I don't see how Obama will win either.

And yes, I'm assuming that Hillary will win Pennsylvania, just because it's so close to NY.

where Wright talks about 9/11 that "the chickens have come home to roost"? It would be very easy to make an ad out of it and start spinning it. We haven't seen it because McCain is waiting till the general election.

I don't believe watergate has any legs by now, I think everyone has formed an opinion on Hillary by now, it's not likely to change much either way.

then it's all good. Otherwise he has to win states like Virginia and North Dakota that never went to republicans AND keep New Hampshire and Pennsylvania. Maybe he can do magic and excite people and win states that no democrat won before, but it's hard for me to see this. I can see how Hillary could win, yes, with difficulties, but her road is similar to others who came before her.

An ad using Wright on some random Democrat of course would not be effective. But if he's tied to Obama, it's another story.

I don't know. I guess it's impossible to prove anything until the election comes.

when it elicits praise from Gordon Wagner.

In case you don't know, Gordon Wagner is one of the purest antisemites you will encounter on these forums. I've been reading salon long enough to know.

Glenn, the reason 'evenhandedness' elicits such a bad reaction from those sympathetic to Israel is that this was the favorite term in Europe at the time Dean said what he said. Since then, the sentiment in Europe actually moved much more to the Israeli position. This however does not apply to the leftists in the US.

When both sides see negotiations as zero sum, those proposing 'evenhandedness' most often just want Israel to lose. Make it as weak as possible, abolish it, make it give up as much territory as possible, whatever. Some generously allow Israel to retain some territory, which varies from one commenter to the next.

for your convenience, here's the link to Gordon Wagner's post

http://letters.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/07/20/israel/permalink/a574d8064cbf94571c78cc566d4e1aee.html

omoex:

it is not my position that Israel/Palestinian negotiations is zero sum, but it is position I see in most posts I see in these forums, which usually run along the lines of "Let's cut all support to Israel, then they'll be forced to make concessions and then there'll be peace." I'm simplifying a bit. I think there was a post relatively recently about "abolishing zionism". Trust me, I'm not making it up.

I was referring to a specific post calling for abolishing Zionism, by Ché Pasa. Here's the permalink:

http://letters.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/07/20/israel/permalink/0050654e38cc318eca09606c93d2f6da.html

I believe I did say I was talking about a specific post. Are you deliberately dense to not grasp it?

The global trend I see in these forums is not calling for abolishing Israel, but rather weakening it in order to force it into concessions. Post after post bashes Israel and calls into question why US should support. What is the intended consequence of that? To force Israel to give in to whatever Palestinians demand of it. The 'evenhandedness' in this case comes in the form of generously allowing Israel to exist in some form, on some territory.

As far as Israel is not Zionism -- when arabs hostile to Israel refer to Israel as "Zionist entity" I don't think they're pretty clear that abolishing Zionism is abolishing Israel.