"My point is, "So what" that Barack Obama has won these heartland and southern states? It might look to you as though Obama is "sweeping" across the country, even winning in Red States, but "sweeping" means nothing when placed in historical context, and neither do Red States wins."

Thus, you must believe that since Barack did not win California or New York or New Jersey in the primary, he will not win them in the general election?

If you REAALY HONESTLY believe that, you are an idiot. If you DON'T REALLY BELIEVE THAT, you are dishonest and lying debater.

So, stupidity or cupidity?

I have no idea what anonymous you're referring to but I can say assuredly that your using Seblius votes as

Kansas has had a power struggle between conservative and country-club Republicans for decades. The "cons vs the mods" something documented very well by Thomas Franks in his 2004 What's the Matter with Kansas bestseller.

As the conservative populist wing of the Republican party was rendering the oligarchical self-entitled "mod" wing the way of the passenger pigeon, many of the "mods" opted to vote Dem and hook up with them to form a majority. In 2006, many of the Dem candidates in Kansas were former Republicans. Seblius is famous for brokering this alliance of Democrats with country-club Republians. An alliance, which to many Kansas populists, combined the worst of the Republican party (the robber-barons with the much-loathed social liberal aspects of the Democrats, pro-abortion, gays, etc) and is unlikely to turn Kansas blue anytime soon.

Thus looking at the late, current "Democratic" vote of Kansas a particularly inaccurate way of measuring any real (or imagined) support for Obama among traditional Democrats.

As for sources, I've seen articles frequently cited by others pointing to the rightwing's encouraging hardcore conservatives to meddle in the Democratic primaries, thus I'm sure you have too.

Meddling in each others open primaries is something BOTH parties have been guilty of (Dems did it in Michigan and SC in 2004) but actually bothering to REGISTER as a Dem to do it is something usually only an am-radio sort of rightie will bother with.

Okay, and this is important because...

The thrust of the statement is that he didn't know how he would have voted. So, I think it is disingenuous of Obama to continue letting people believe that he is so "anti-war." And when you look at his voting record carefully, you will see that his rhetoric about the war doesn't match his voting record in the Senate in several significant ways.

You just proved my point that your blinders limit you from seeing the obvious. I'm not about to point it out to you; since you're so "smart" figger it out...

I know how much you like to call people dishonest and liars. But New Jersey is NOT a lock in the general with Obama the nominee. Neither is Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania, New Mexico, Iowa, or several other swing states. And you know it.

I have no trouble believing there are well-intentioned people who believe there are a better alternative to Hillary Clinton.

My issue is with the folks who persist in screaming that Barrack Obama is that person. He never had to vote about preauth, has utterly capitalized on telling the lefties what they want to hear post-facto while leaving out his own subsequent funding votes for the war and has been among the people willfully spreading the misinformation that Hillary voted for Iraq. As others have pointd out he also refuses to offer an substance behind his elegant promises of hope and change, has been caught red-handed instigating the race-card and falsely accusing the Clinton's of "racism" purely to his own advantage in South Carolina - never minding how a divided party would fare in the general. He refuses press conferences and questions and generally has no experience. Add to that a very weak resume and some tight connections with an indicted slumlord in Chicago.

yet these same people insist he'll win against McCain because GE owned MSNBC, the same network that gave us Ronald Reagan and calls Chelsea a pimp, is telling them so.

Ha! What a PILE of STINKING SHIT!!

During the last 3 days, he outright failed to win ME and KS. What's more, the WA Repukeliscum Party is manipulating the results. He is probably losing in WA as well. They STOPPED the count with McCain ahead by 1.1 % with 87 % of the vote counted.

They stopped the count to give McCain a win. Really unbelievable.

John McCain is very weak, very weak indeed. He already has 60 % of what he needs, and he cannot win obviously winning contests. They are cheating for him.

So, let's have no more of the "unstoppable John McCain". I will believe in the "unstoppable" when he demonstrates that he is, in fact, "unstoppable." Right now, he can't get his engine to turn over.

Don't try and reason with dataguyx. He s a clown and a moron. He will twist everything you say and take refuge in his own delusions. But you seem to have figured that out.

Go ahead and underestimate McCain. I hope Obama is getting better advice than you might give him. You are as dumb as a pile of rocks.

The thrust of the statement is that he didn't know how he would have voted. So, I think it is disingenuous of Obama to continue letting people believe that he is so "anti-war." And when you look at his voting record carefully, you will see that his rhetoric about the war doesn't match his voting record in the Senate in several significant ways.

Not to mention his bravado expression of willingness to invade Pakistan. So I guess a preemptive strike against Iraq is bad, but a preemptive strike against Pak is ok.

The guy is a nutball and disingenuous to the core.

But it was the race-card he went along with letting his campaign pull in SC that most bothers me. That's not someone interested in what's best for Democrats. This guy is the Ralph Nader of the late election. The party is just something to ride his own ambitions on and discard at will.