I find it strange for people here to argue or at least imply that because Obama didn't win CA, NY, MA, NJ, and other big states, that somehow means that he wouldn't win them in a general election. Does anyone really think that four of the most liberal states in this nation are somehow not going to go for whoever is the democratic nominee? Those states are an absolute given, and everyone knows it. The dems can readily pencil in all of those states right now. To suggest otherwise defies logic.

The difference with Obama is that not only will he win those states, he can possibly turn swing states into blue states and light red states into swing states. Southern states may be back on the table. He might not win any, but just making the GOP have to expend energy and money to keep them might be enough to prevent them from getting Ohio this time around.

Hillary can't do that. The only places she is strong is in locked in blue states like the above mentioned. The Dems must win a swing state or two, and at least draw some fire in some red states. As split as the GOP looks right now, they will line up at the polls for a mile simply to vote against Hillary. That means, just like in 2004, the south is totally off the table, as is the midwest, the southwest, Florida, and Ohio. Pennsylvania is not even a certainty. All she'll have is the coasts and New England. And as 2004 showed, they are not enough.

And another thing: I am tired of this Obama only wins caucus crap. He has eight wins in primaries, compared to nine by Clinton. If everything goes as anticipated Tuesday, he will have won more primaries than Clinton has. So he can win both.

I would have been right there with the Clintons on this one point, if Chelsea had not spent her recent lunch time making googly eyes with some young 21 year old super delegate to try to gain his support. You say totally innocent and I say bullshit. Maybe its not exactly calling a *** a ***, but if she's going to play in the public domain, don't complain.

I also would have been right there with the Clintons if I had not been making the comment myself that Bill was out pimping for his wife for at least a month already before the term became an issue. Does my using the pimping term mean that I was referring Bill as some kind of whore? On second thought, don't answer that.

The term 'pimping' really has little sexual context left, as it has been incorporated by mainstream mentality far too much. All it means anymore is a form of mindless promotion that I still think Shuster should have known better for using, but was not anywhere close to horrible.

We've all read or listened to Shuster reports, grasped his opinions, and he is one of the good journalists. Nobody can say that David Shuster has ever misrepresented his facts for his own gain. He fucked up, admittedly, but come on kids, lets not go nuts with this. His fuck up is using a term that was taken too liberally, ie. in a way that we all have used it within the last few years, and not in a the way he intended.

I found Obama's entire MLK speech online, and I'm off to watch the magic again.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kf0x_TpDris

In case you feel like being inspired.

Anyone who suggests, implies, or outright says that Obama will not win CA, MA, NY, NJ, or any of these other huge LIBERAL states simply because Clinton won them in the primary should be completely ignored, because they truly have no idea what they are talking about. Obama not winning California, one of the most democratic states in the nation. That kind of thinking is the sheer height of stupidity.

I don't think this is going to work for Hillary. She has this passive aggressive way of attacking that really makes her look worse than normal. Like not only is her opponent wrong, but barely worth her lofty comment. She really looks like a self centered snob when she does it. Never mind that every time she attacks it sounds like she is talking about herself and her own issues more than Obama. I mean, accusing someone of being in the pocket of a special interest and screwing over unions? That sounds more like Clinton than anyone else.

But I suppose she has nothing left. She can't win the charisma or character game. The experience argument has obviously been seen through as bunk. And they are barely different in any real way on any policy issues. So I suppose character assassination is her only hope.

I do hope that if she tries this crap in the next debate that Obama doesn't pull any punches when responding. Smack back with Peter Paul, Iraq, health insurance lobby, and the FISA vote this week for starters.