The GOP wants Obama to win so McCain can have a smack down!

Obama will not win over McCain. Promote the most vulnerable candidate and then pit that one against your guy. Classic strategy!

geeegee

Posting something from an unnamed source is questionable. Let Fox News do that. I'd put good money on that unnamed source being James Carville or someone else with an agenda greater than telling the real story. Very disappointing Salon!

you win...Obama will get crushed in the general...worse than mondale...he won't win a single state...not a single american will cast a vote for him (well a few of the ex-pats living in Paris will)...it will be the single greatest electoral defeat in the history of electoral defeats.

you win.

now will you kindly shut the fck up about it already?

The general is a long ways away, folks. This "Obama has only a 10% chance of winning" business is bullshit. Either you are lying or stupid or both. Which is it? It will be a fight for him to win, especially since Hillary will be working against him every step of the way, but I am confident that it can be done.

Lying or stupid, and not even a reason as too why it must be one or the other.

It's simple, Obama can't win the general election because he foolishly threw away key demographics that are required to win .

Even now, Clinton could run the board by simply exploiting this weakness, but doing so would require destroying Obama and alienating a large voting block, a voting block that is needed in order to win in the fall.

The Republicans don't care about the Black vote, because they only get 10% of it. They'll happily write it off as they have in every election since 1972.

It seems silly to left wing Democrats that something like not saluting the American flag during the National Anthem would be a serious issue. That's because people usually inhabit a World of people with similar beliefs.

There are vast segements of the US that won't vote for Obama on this alone.

Then you factor in the numerous and readily exploitable Anti-American statements made by many people surronding Obama, and you have an unelectable candidate.

Look at how Kerry's simple mistake of saying "I voted for it before I voted against it" statement was presented to the general public. He voted for it when it required funding, and against the resolution when funding was removed. He wanted it payed for by the current generation, not passing the bill to today's children. You'd think an easily recoverable gaffe.

While I will grant that Obama has been good at recovering from his mistakes, he has NEVER been really challenged. Not like it will be in the fall.

Think of one good answer for the question, "Senator Obama, why in that video did you not have your hand over your heart during the National Anthem?" There isn't one.

Words of, "I believe overt displays of patroitism such as that have no place in public dialogue" will not suffice in the fall.

How do you answer, "Senator Obama, you have two Black Pastor's in your life who have made statements that many consider an attack on Whites and on American, why do you surround youself with such people?"

How do you answer, "You wife was never proud of America as an adult, till your Wisconsin primary win, do you share those sentiments?"

Those are the neutral ways of asking the question.

The Republican's were on the brink of political destruction, and now they are salivating at the thought of running against Obama.

By late October, Democrats running for lesser office will be doing everything possible to distance themselves from the top of an Obama ticket.

Even a Obama/Richardson ticket can't win, because it can't produce improved results outside of demographics it already carries. The best that ticket can hope for is stellar turnout among Blacks and Hispanics, but that simply doesn't outweigh the loss of women, military, white males, elderly, and indendents that Obama will lose.

In the fall, Obama's negative ratings will reach into the upper 50%, and you can't win an election with those numbers unless you are the incumbent. He's not.

Why no mention on this thread of Richardson's very public judgment that superdelegate votes must bend to the popular vote? This judgment, pronounced just days before Richardson's endorsement of Obama, was in direct contradiction to Richardson's subsequent course of action. Clinton did win the New Mexico popular vote, by however small a margin, so at the very least Richardson has proven to be a hypocrite. Hypocrites have been known to play fast and loose with the truth, so the door is definitely open to charges that Richardson failed to keep his word to the Clintons.

I second dkmoorhead...there's something off with you today. I can usually expect a healthy dose of bile and hilarity spewing forth from your venomous fingertips...today? well you just don't seem to have your heart in it.

best call it a day, don't worry...you'll get 'em next time champ, next time.

Why would anyone believe anything coming from the Clinton people? They are probably still dodging sniper fire

The general is a long ways away, folks. This "Obama has only a 10% chance of winning" business is bullshit.

You're right. Obama has NO chance of winning the general election. Are all Obama supporters this deluded by vague promises of "hope"? (Don't ask an Obama supporter what he's "hoping" for unless you like listening to incessant meaningless rambling.)

Reality: The choices this year are Clinton and McCain.

Teach us a lesson? Are you effing kidding me? A lesson? What, that we should "stay the course" and nominate old-guard loser Democrats every single time so that whatever half-dim homonculus comes out of the jesusfreak primary is automatically given the nomination? Do you really not see the straight line from Walter Mondale to Dukakis to Al Gore to John Kerry to Hillary Clinton as establishment loser Democrats? Sure, her husband won two 3-way elections, but that isn't going to happen again, now, is it?

Mind you, I'm only addressing the rest of Salon's readership, not lolcait, who does very well see the striaght line, and would like nothing more than to extend that line by one more name.