I think that Sen Obama and Sen Clinton have pretty similar visions. I just think Sen Obama is the most likely to realize that vision. Ideas like Health Care Reform aren't 50% +1 ideas. They are beat a fillibuster, convince a vast majority of Americans that they are getting the new New Deal, ideas. In order to get them realized we need to have the best possible advocate in the White House. Sen Obama is the best possible advocate right now. I firmly believe he can reach out to Republicans and everyday people who are suspicious anytime the government wants to be involved in their lives, even when the involvment is benificial.

I think if Sen Clinton tried to hand out envelopes stuffed with money a good number of people would refuse on the assumption that they were laced with some sort of contact poison.

All deserve to be heard and I think it would be great to get a clear mandate for the Dem candidate. I just don't think it is clear what advantage Sen Clinton has in future contests.

I think what is going on with the Republicans right now shows the weakness of crowning a candidate early. It is probably better to wait until either candidate gets 2025 delegates or the Montana primaries, whatever comes first. No "presumptive" candidate.

Don't forget that Obama really needs to win by convincing margins at this point to clearly get the nomination (ie, not based on Superdelegates or the absence of the sham MI and FL primaries). So even if you think the race is going in his favor still get out and vote. Every vote still counts in this contest because margin of victory is the key.

It is delegates that CNN is showing for Maine, not voters. Delegate represent a fraction of the participants. Didn't we have this discussion yesterday, vis a vis, Washington state?

Maybe I'm getting a skewed picture from the Clinton supporters posting here, but is Hillary really betting the farm that Latinos have some sort of blind hatred for black people that they won't vote for Obama and she will end up winning Texas?

Is her expectation of "blue collar" support in Ohio based on the idea that people in Ohio are somehow less educated than people in Washington state?

I don't see much good coming from pinning presidential hopes on prejudice.

I'm just not sure where the confidence that Hillary will win Texas, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. I get "hoping" she'll win. I just don't get "knowing" that she will win. Is it based on any polls later than Dec 07? Even polls before Feb 5 would be suspect at this point. Even ones conducted today probably wouldn't be indicative.

Obama always seems to do better as he spends time with voters in states holding the primaries and March is a lot of packed arenas away. He has a lot of time to take his case directly to the voters of Texas, Ohio, Rhode Island, and Vermont. I'm not saying he'll win, but I wouldn't count him out just yet.

I guess my growing up a Cubs fans makes me less expectant of wins. I'm not even betting that Obama will win the DC, VA, and MD primaries. I'll just wait for the polls to close.

So what you're saying Jax, is that in parts of Washington State with high Latino populations Obama merely wins convincingly rather than stunningly?

Adams: 52% to 45%

Franklin: 51% to 48%

Grant: 55% to 45%

Yakima: 55% to 43%

All favoring Obama, if anyone missed the point.

What I have to ask is: If Adams is 52% Latino and Franklin is 56% Latino, isn't it more likely than not that Obama got the Latino vote in those counties?

I'm sure that CEOs have been picked that have less time in the company that other candidates. Especially against other candidates with only 4 more years in a position and with a big mistake on their resume.

Again, Lincoln's national experience prior to 1860 was 2 years in the house of representatives.

I'd say judgement counts more than experience. This isn't Dungeons and Dragons where Hillary gets the nod because she is fourth level to Obama's third.

And that is not counting his elected experience in the State Senate of Illinois, because lord knows that doesn't compare to being First Lady of Arkansas.

But hey, keep pushing that "Experience = Time Served = Should be Elected" meme. I'm sure it won't come back to bite us against McCain in Novemeber.

Shocking!

BTW, what make my support of Sen Obama that of a cult of personality and others support of Sen Clinton not? It is just because I don't believe fours more years in the Senate trumps voting for the Iraq war?

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/02/11/clinton-dismisses-weekend-losses/

Really? She can't just say they were well fought contests, congratulate Sen Obama, and look towards the Maryland, Viginia, and DC primaries? She has to marginalize the 19 states that voted for Obama? I mean seriously, Oklahoma and Texas are more competative for Democrats than Kansas? That must be news to Kathleen Sebelius.

I've yet to see Obama use identity politics to explain a loss, certainly not as blatantly as Clinton.

This is what I don't like about the Clinton/DLC mindset: The idea that some states are gimmies, others aren't worth fighting for, and only a handful are worth courting.

Not only is it a strategy that hurts and marginalizes wide swaths of citizens in this country, it has proven to be very realistic. Howard Dean has shown that a 50 state strategy can secure a legislative majority. Hopefully Barack Obama will show that it can work in a national election.

The character of a politican is more important to voters than the color CNN says your state is.

not "proven to be realistic"