you wrote:

"One of her biggest supporters, Ed Rendell says that "You've got conservative whites here, and I think there are some whites who are probably not ready to vote for an African-American candidate," Rendell told the editorial board of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette in remarks that appeared in Tuesday's paper."

__________________________________________________________

Isn't it sad? You didn't post the entire quote but basically Rendell correlates his dominating win over Lynn Swann (hahaha!) in the last contest to the democratic primary now. Lynn Swann. Yes, a brilliant political mind to battle. Get real Ed.

Well, of course you do Hillary. It's called FREE PRESS. When you are short on funds, what better way to get lots of free publicity on major netowrks?

If Obama wants to take on Clinton again within the next few weeks, that's fine. I fail to see how debates in and of themselves will help Hillary since they haven't work gangbusters thus far, have they?

My prediction is that Obama will respond that he needs to get to know "the people" since he has not had the advantage of being in the White House for several years and enjoying that bright spotlight. That would be a good move since Obama seems to win voters as he gets out into communities and speaks with people face-to-face.

Pesky details wrote:

"But let's turn it around for a moment. What can we learn from the troubles of Mrs. Clinton's campaign?

She started with huge advantages in name-recognition, polls, fund-raising. How many times did we hear about the fearsome Clinton political machine?

And with all those advantages, she's locked in a tight battle with Obama. Her campaign blew through its money at an alarming rate that left it unable to compete effectively in many states. Her fund-raising has lagged. Obama's "ground" game has run circles around hers.

Yes, Obama's got amazing momentum. But Clinton's campaign has also been very poorly run, rife with strategic mistakes and a failure to recognize new realities.

And this from the candidate who is running on "competence."

__________________________________________________________

Great post! For those of us who recall the Clinton years in the White House, there were numerous stories of this kind of backroom in-fighting. I never really associated it with HRC because I always thought she was the disciplined one in that duo. But her campaign has made a number of gaffes, not the least of which was unleashing Bill. This turmoil yet again reminds me that I really want someone else in the White House. I expect conflict but not from within. The HRC campaign has seemed confused and rocked back on their heels from the moment Hillary lost her crown of "inevitability."

That's the problem for McCain. Exactly what ideas is he espousing that are supposed to trump Barack Obama's ideas for 1) reforming our healthcare system, 2) pulling us out of Iraq 3) job development and 4) restoring the U.S. as an influential symbol of fairness and honesty on the world scene.

Oh, that's right. McCain has NO NEW IDEAS. The entire GOP has no new ideas. They are clinging (in vain I might add) to the slim hope that the American people really really don't want to toss the Bush/Cheney admin out on its collective rears. I mean, if you are welding yourself like glue to Bush, exactly how do you distinguish yourself from this failed, deceiptful and corrupt administration.

This is amazing. Now, Clinton's campaign advisers can't even come up with their own attack ads. Or perhaps they're just frightened on possible blowback. Either way it reeks of desperation.

Huckabee is defintely not tilting at windmills. He is giving a strong voice & lots of press time to a substantial swath of the GOP: the Christian conservatives. Huckabee's continued presence serves as a reminder that the GOP owes this faction of voters and they better not forget it...and by forget it,I mean in the months leading up to the general election. Republicans have a habit of softening the rhetoric that turns off the middle-of-the-road suburban voters.

That's it. That's all.

Very funny. John McCain better watch out or he could easily become a punchline in similar fashion. Tamping down expectations, standards and yes, hope is a very poor strategy to win an election.

What about the women, like myself, who don't care for Hillary? I find her hardworking, smart, ambitious AND calculating, dishonest and frankly a pathetic excuse for a "modern" woman. She actually makes me mad and sad at the same time. I frequently have trouble looking at her when she stands with her husband. That feeling has existed since 1992. I often feel guilty about it because I don't have the same visceral reaction to Bill. Perhaps I've always expected/wanted better from her.

When you and your husband were in office, what did YOU do to effect these very changes?

That's Hillary's key problem with her "the other guy just talks" speech. She and her hubby proved awfully light on the progessive action when they actually had the White House...for * years. Lots of compromise and let's not forget NAFTA. Thanks Bill!

This is the crux of why so many, including Edwards and Obama supporters, simply aren't buying HRC's "I'm the candidate that will provide real solutions" act. She certainly didn't when she had every opportunity to do so. The real question from those of us with long memories is this: Why were the Clintons so remarkably unambitious during their tenure?

My theories are this:

1) a distrusting electorate that used a Republican-led Congress as a check on Bill.

2) A deep-seated need by the Clintons for attaining power and keeping it over fighting for principles.

3) A high degree of unecessary and bitter sideshows over their personal lives that diminshed Bill's (or Hill's) ability to take their case straight to the American people.

That's exactly the problem. Her campaign's silly yet negative ad exposes her for being desperate. I mean who cares to watch yet another and another and another debate. Yeah Hillary, that's a great "issue" to focus your limited funds upon.