As you probably know, he said the troubles of the working class allowed by both the Bush and Clinton administrations (fact-check: unfair cheap-shot equation of the two presidencies)

Bill Clinton was enormously popular when he left office, more popular than Reagan. And still Obama in his ignorance, self-agrandizement, and stupidity equates Bill Clinton, the greatest and most popular president since Kennedy with arguably the worst president in the history of the nation. Pathetic.

What is Obama going to do next to win the primary - throw his grandma under the bus? Wait he already did. He falsely called her out as a racist (read his book). No wonder Obama supporters call anyone and everyone a racist at every opportunity. If Obama can call his own grandma racist, then hell, anything goes!

...all the time.

I was surprised Cheney didn't say once al-Qaida "captured" the Iraq oil reserves, the next thing they were going to do was come to America and capture Washington, or at the very least Walmart.

"When you attest that Obama cannot win because of the electoral map, you are wrong. I actually don't know where you get this from."

Current polling, which for many states is old, as in almost ancient in political terms, McCain is beating Obama by 7 electoral votes and Clinton by 8 electoral votes.

This is supposed to be the compelling argument for either candidate - "I can lose by less"?

There are five possibilities for the Democratic party:

Dems lose if:

~ Clinton supporters refuse to support Obama if nominated.

~ Obama supporters refuse to support Clinton if nominated.

~ RNC thru marketing magic is able to sell either candidate as a wishy-washy, atheist supporting, gay supporting, anti_Christmas, liberal extremist.

Dems maybe win if:

~ Obama and Clinton supporters fully support whichever candidate is nominated.

Dems Win if:

~ Republican voters do not come out in support of McCain.

I do not know where the Democratic arrogance comes from.

...and Jim Acosta reports it as John McCain cooling the earth and contributing to the fight against Global Warming.

Reagrdless of the fawning press coverage, a point in McCains favor is that he takes clearer stands on issues. He is not as weasely as the democratic candidates, especially Obama. All I know about Obama is that he gave an inconsequential speech 5 years ago on Iraq and his votes have supported the Iraq occupation ever since. Clinton gave Bush authority to wage war as a last resort and the man-child went and had hisself a little war. Big surprise. They both talk against the occupation while supporting it. That is weasely. McCain at least comes out and says he supports it and wants it to succeed. It maybe delusional but it is clear consistent position.

On the DC hand-gun ban case, McCain filed an amicus brief with the supreme court. Whether you agree with him or not, you know where he stands on that 2nd ammendment case. Obama and Clinton? Empty general platitudes. Obama is especially good at making empty platitudes ("individual rights are important, common sense safety measures, blah blah blah") sound specific without ever taking a specific position. (those not present "votes" were no accident). Unlike McCain, neither democratic candidate has taken a clear position on this case. to be clear, taking a clear position means coming down on side or the other, court cases do not allow you to be on both sides.

McCain does talk straighter (for a politician) and it is an advantage for him. So anyone who thinks McCain cannot win in the general election is as delusional as McCain is about Iraq. If the choice comes down to a delusional straight talker and a smart and clever weasel, who knows who the electorate will pick.

"Instead, we are locked in a campaign that is difficult for Clinton to win and near impossible for anyone to end."

Not sure what this means. If it is impossible to end that means it is difficult for both Clinton and Obama to win. So you are not saying it explicitly, but implicitly you are proposing that since no one can win, then someone should quit?

In that case I think Axelrod should quit, he like Rove is much to adept at selling unqualified candidates. He could sell snow to Eskimos as well as he sells empty-suits to Democrats.

were obviously made for each other and virtually guarantees a loss in the general election.

Why is Obama against a re-vote in MI and FL?

Why did Obama campaign and support for the uncommitted candidate in MI?

Why did he break the rules in FL and advertise there.

Why is he for rules when they favor him and against the rules when they don't?

If Obama had ethics he would act ethically but why after Obama slips and falls in the mud, so many people are convinced it is the next best thing and so fall in line to slip and fall into the mud as well?