A coup d'etat in the making

Obama supporters want the superdelagate rules changed midstream

?? Is it the Obama supporters who want the delegates of Michigan and Florida re-entered into the convention votes?

and are pushing to have Hillary give a concession speech before all the states get to vote.

?? Are you sure that Clinton's people haven't been pressuring Obama to step down as well?

Pro-Obama pundits introduced the race card since New Hampshire then blamed the Clintons for everything.

?? So it is better to blame Obama for everything than Clinton? No sharing of the responsibility? Was it Obama's fault that Bill Clinton compared his campaign to Jesse Jackson's, for example?

AS Shakespeare put it, There's something rotten in the state of Denmark...

It sounds more like you're saying that there's something rotten in the states of Maine, Washington, Louisiana, Iowa, Nebraska, South Carolina, Georgia, Connecticut, Alaska, Colorado, Delaware, Idaho, Illinois, Missouri, Utah, Kansas, Minnesota, North Dakota...

Sounds awfully similar to 'Wait til Florida'

See, experience actually does matter. I know you Obamadroids don't like to hear it, but it does. Serving on the Senate Armed Services committee matters. Visiting Iraq more than once for a token photo-op matters. McCain knows that Clinton is nowhere near as vulnerable as Obama on foreign policy and national security issues. I strongly suspect the folks around Obama know it too. National-security doves do not win general elections. Good luck trying, though.

I dislike equally Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama: they're both far too conservative, or if you prefer, hesistant, for my tastes. We needed a fighter like John Edwards. Regardless, it's either Clinton or Obama, so the question is who stands the better chance of beating that walking nightmare, John "100 Years War" McCain? It looks like Obama is the answer. Moreover, Obama might have longer coattails and bring in more new Democratic Senators and Representatives.

We need to crush the Repugs down as much as possible, preferably beyond the level needed for a fililbuster (and that takes into account that putz Joe Lieberman). Obama stands the best chance of doing that.

Obama 2008! (and a real liberal Democrat in 2012!).

Do you ever worry about sounding sleazy? I read that article and I hate to say it but it was poorly written and did not give sources for your information. Even your sentences were misleading, making it sound as if Obama received over $800,000 from Rezko in exchange for his attorney work. There is no evidence to suggest this. Your story takes away credibility for your cause, and the fact that you just copy and re-paste the same ole' same ole' accusations day after day make people stop listening.

Do you work for Rove? Why would Rove want Obama when he's both more liberal and more popular than Clinton--and Clinton is more likely to motivate the Republican base to vote against her? Which would benefit the Republican Party.

I wish you would both make better sense and give sources for your statements instead of smearing around a candidate's name in the mud for no reason. If Obama wins the nomination are you still going to be writing these unfounded, unsourced screeds against him? What's the difference between yourself and the G.O.P. Smear Campaign? I'm starting to wonder.

...I'll be anxiously waiting for Psychotia45 and NYAmoeba to come in here and issue big, fat apologies to all of us for their empty-headed predictions and other poor-sport antics.

"See, experience actually does matter. I know you Obamadroids don't like to hear it, but it does. Serving on the Senate Armed Services committee matters. Visiting Iraq more than once for a token photo-op matters. McCain knows that Clinton is nowhere near as vulnerable as Obama on foreign policy and national security issues. I strongly suspect the folks around Obama know it too. National-security doves do not win general elections. Good luck trying, though."

If experience mattered, we'd be discussion how Bill Richardson is going to do in the general election.

What matters is the vote on Iraq. You can explain it in detail, you can hash it out at the coffee shop, and you can go through all her votes on Iraq. But when it comes down to a 30 second add on national television, that vote will be a huge albatross. Most voters don't deal with this issue anywhere to the detail we all are today. They see 30 seconds with McCain - a picture of her vote - a sound clip of her saying Sadam must be taken out - it's all over. That commercial will get repeated again and again and again.

I normally don't debate the Iraq vote and it's not the primary reason why I'm supporting Obama. But to suggest that her involvement and experience is somehow going to get to voters and her real reasons for voting for authorization will be explained is a foolish. John Kerry had the same exact problem in 2004. When you start to explain yourself and go over a minute doing it, people turn off because they think you are just trying to weasel your way out what you did.

I know what you are saying and you have some justification for saying it. The problem is a typical voter won't have a clue what you are talking about and it will be a problem for her.

@cythera45:

"McCain knows that Clinton is nowhere near as vulnerable as Obama on foreign policy and national security issues."

Yeah, that's because McCain and Clinton see eye to eye on foreign policy and national security issues. They are both war-mongers.

If he keeps losing core Democratic constituencies by double digits in big-state primaries, I'd call it a flawed campaign. When, when is he going to make a serious effort to reach out to Latinos, working-class Dems, older Dems? Does he want their votes at all?

And what are African-American's, chopped liver? This slicing and dicing has gotten ridiculous. Despite people constantly saying that Clinton has "core constituencies", again, she doesn't have a death-grip on any of them in the way that Obama does on the African American vote. In fact, when everyone said how terrible Obama was going to do in the white vote in SC, he ended up not that much worse off than Hillary Clinton (infact, John Edwards was the only one who walked away with a lions share of the white vote). And then, as Jesse Jackson said, "A black man won Idaho." Clearly he is cutting across racial lines in substantial enough portions to auger what is his amazing polling amongst the African American community, especially when last summer the meme was that he simply wasn't "Black enough".

I think, if anything should be taken away from this primary season, is the ability of the black electorate to move mountains. No longer can any candidate simply take for granted their vote.