The Democratic primary has thus far been fun, entertaining, annoying and at times ugly because of the wild partisanship of some. This thing is winding down and we will have a nominee soon. If the people who support either Hillary or Obama have a brain in their heads cut out the bashing! We need to get ready to back the Democratic nominee to defeat the Republicans. All of this B/S and competitiveness will be nothing but a meaningless exercise in futility if we do not unite and win the election.

Enough is enough!

Victory for the Democrats in 2008

you remind me of, what was his name?, droopy dog.

Why on earth did either Mike Madden or Salon think the remarks in this piece are the least news-worthy? Talking heads have been trumpeting for weeks now that Obama needs to win working class whites, while lesser talking heads have been pointing out that he won them in Wisconsin (and actually elsewhere.) But you know what? I bet if Obama won Indiana by doing really really well with some other demographic, that would help his chances too.

Was great on O'Reilly last night.

then we might as well declare the monarchy and be done with it.

"I wonder why Obama decided to run this time...The only answer I can come up with is that he has a towering ego". maybe he thought the country needed him. that this was a crucial time. that we have gone down so far, economically, militarily, imperially in the sight of the world that if it lasted 4 more years of the same political culture (which hillary hasn't disappointed in applying), it would have reached an irrevocable "it's too late". but then, Obama is my candidate while Clinton is yours.

This article misses the obvious. You assume that white working class people are all the same (you must be an elitist).

Look at the map, look where Obama has won and where Hillary has won. He does exceptionally well from Illinois to the west coast, Hillary does exceptionally well from Ohio down to Kentucky.

Indiana is right between these two strongholds, so I imagine we'll get something close to a tie.

Well, OK not now, but after Indiana and NC if he doesn't do well. (If he does, my comments will be moot, I guess.)

Why? If he doesn't do well in those states -- a loss in IN and a loss or narrow win in NC -- it will be shown that he can't win in the fall. Period.

If he loses in the fall, he's gone for good. Same is true for Hillary, if she lost to McCain. The parties do not like to nominate previous losers. The Dems have lots of those, unfortunately. But if Obama withdraws "for the good of the party," he will have a good chance in future contests. Plus he will have more time to gain experience and put garbage like Wrightgate well behind him.

Sometimes I wonder why Obama decided to run this time, knowing that Wright, etc. would emerge as a serious issue. The only answer I can come up with is that he has a towering ego and thought he could overcome all that trivia with the force of his personality. We'll see.

You're right about one thing in this piece, Mike. Wisconsin is an anomaly. "Progressive" there means unknown or better yet--not the status quo. That's what opened the door to Obama. It's reached the point of being a political culture of its own. The usual definitions and political identifications do not apply.

It's closest to Northern California, but that's about it. I don't say that critically, but to use it as a way to guage what's going to happen in Indiana is a waste of electrons. North Carolina is another matter entirely.

What I love about the local activists is they give themselves credit for the "campaign" when it's more impressive than that. How did they arrive at such a liberal consensus when so much of the rest of the country is trying to return to the 19th century?

I think we're going to see the pattern that has already emerged continue; the stalemate will not be broken. The margin of victory in Indiana will be the most discussed since it follows Barack's bad news.

The focus now is on the end game. The superdelegates, the convention, the ticket, the consequences of Fla. and Mi.,and whether or not the Dems can hold together. Does "progressive" mean "tolerance" or does it mean "third party?"

Is there any difference in the MSM coverage Obama has gotten in these states? Newspaper endorsements? Local TV news, local talk shows? I would think this would be an important factor in his success or failure.

You scribbled: Barack Hussein Obama: What is that accomplish for you when you use his middle name as an epithet! You're a fucking Republican tool, like that whino coward that McCain threw under the bus. Someone ought to throw you under a bus, literally! You are racist, ugly, and probably very fat. Go read a fucking Anne Rice novel or some shit like that, you fatass pig!--Baloo"

Yeppers, nothing like hitting the target dead-center to bring out the racist trolls. Screen it, homie:

Barack Hussein Obama IS his name...P & S. People refer to Hillary Rodham Clinton with all three of her names; Barack Hussein Obama is his complete name. Zip lip, fool; I liked it bettah when you just went k'caw.

So, because I disagree with you I'm a Repub? I've been a Democrat for twenty years and contributed big dollars to the party and to individual candidates in that period. Yo b donkadonk, y'heah?

Oooh, "racist, ugly and very fat"? There you go with mo' bay bay shit, Baloo. If I was as b fuggly as you, I'd stay inside.

Matter of fact, why doncha just go kick rocks?

by some of the statements here about HRC's "experience"--35 years, some posters point to--35 years of what exactly? First of all, she is about 15 years older than BO. What elective experience did she have before running for the Senate? What was her reason for being elected then if she had no legislative experience? Why is it a different standard for BO? She was a lawyer, sat on Walmart's board; ok, she was married to Clinton--how is that relevant experience?

And if people are going to attack BO re Wright, it seems just as fair to go after someone who projects herself as a strong woman but was publicly humiliated by her philandering husband. Can't we ask how could she stay with him? Does that mean she supports men who stick cigars in women? It's as relevant as attacking someone for their religious practices--I liked elections before the right wing made religion fair game for smears.

I was fairly neutral until Super Tuesday and felt I could support either candidate, although I was put off by Clinton's sense of being entitled to the nomination. Since that time, I watched how her campaign fell apart and went broke--how is her lack of foresight supposed to reassure me about how she would run the country? Then I watched her shamelessly lie about her previous commitment to not counting FLA or MI-had BO done the same, I would have written HIM off. Does she think no one is paying attention to what she said before? That people would think it is fair to count votes in primaries where other candidates weren't even on the ballot? A real indication of elitism, if you ask me--she thinks voters are too stupid to pay attention.

Finally, to see her get down in the gutter with Republican tactics ("As far as I know, he's not a Muslim"--I mean, come on), even COURTING scum like Scaife, praising McCain, and now we see her supporters are spreading lies to voters in NC--we just spent 7+ years with corrupt sleazy Rethugs running the country--I don't want to vote for someone who is so at home with Rovian tactics, who presents herself in such a phony fashion (just a working class girl!)-- this is what "regular guy" Bush did to get (s)elected,--this country needs something different, that;s for sure and we won't get it with Clinton.