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.

Judging by the trajectory that the Barack Obama campaign has taken so far, it doesn't appear that the Hillary Clinton campaign has any effective counter-strategy. After Obama's Iowa breakout, New Hampshire was supposed to be Clinton's firewall. Then Super Tuesday was her firewall. Now Texas is her firewall. And after that the superdelegates will be her firewall. Obama has sounded his trumpet and the firewalls of Hillary have come tumbling down!

Number six wrote:

"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?"

________________________________________________________

Thank you! That's the part I don't get too. These states are already in the democratic camp. CA go for McCain? Really?

I live in NJ and I wish more of my fellow citizens had voted Obama but so what? We have a Dem governor and a strongly democratic population. They will go for virtually any democrat over a right-wing reincarnation from John McCain. The more he beefs up his right-wing cred, the more votes he loses in places like PA and NJ. I'm not enamored of HRC but I won't vote for anyone who spouts Reagan-era nonsense right up to the general election. Of course, I predict a strong flip-flop from McCain after the dems select a nominee. Sad really.

"From 20% below to front runner...

So far, Obama is running the perfect campain.

Such a good strategy is a strenght if he get nominee, for the general elction.

-- Cecile"

So much for the claim that Obama's supporters are the more highly educated.

It is important to remember the fact that Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama were in vastly different phases of their careers in 2002. At the time, conventional wisdom was that Clinton, as a highly visible senator with an eye on the presidency, would be committing political suicide if she didn't back the resolution. If Obama had been in her position, it would have taken not only great foresight but astounding political courage to oppose the war, and I'm not certain he would have had the courage to challenge the resolution under those circumstances.

I'm not so sure that, had Obama been in Hillary's position, it would have been as difficult a call as you suggest. Both my Michigan senators - Levin and Stabenow - voted against the resolution. Stabenow, like Clinton, was a first-term senator from a relatively progressive state.

My guess is that her vote was motivated by her presidential aspiration: as a woman, she needed to be on record as tough on security.

Dick Durbin, the other democrat senator from my state of Illinois, also voted "no" on the Iraq war. Durbin has been one Obama's most ardent supporters, and many of their votes are the same. I don't think it stretches the the imagination to envision Obama casting a "no" vote on the Iraq war.