Obama has no one to blame but himself

Ohio was probably never winnable, but Obama's margin of defeat should have been about the three percent margin he lost in Texas.  And he should have won the Texas popular vote.  Why didn't he?  Because instead of taking Clinton head on, apparently channeling Michael Dukakis and John Kerry, he adopted a "turn the other cheek" tactic.  He struck a frontrunner's pose instead of fighting back.

And they did throw the kitchen sink at him.  From questioning whether he was a Muslim (not that there's anything wrong with that), to questioning his experience (even though he has more elective experience than Clinton), to claiming he is unprepared to be president, Obama failed to respond.  In addition, he let lackeys and flunkies like Mark Penn, Terry McCauliffe and Howard Wolfson, dictate the terms of the news coverage through daily conference calls.  Nary a word from the Obama camp about Clinton's failure to release her taxes.  Obama made the time-worn mistake of not finishing off his opponent when he/she is down.

What should he do now?  Wins in Wyoming and Mississippi will help.  But he needs to go on a full scale attack on Clinton, not only to finish her off, but to show that he's tough enough to take on McCain and the Republicans.  The following points should be hit on over and over again:

Clinton's failure to release her taxes  This will put her on the defensive as nothing else.  What is she hiding?  Either she'll release them, or have to explain every day why not.

Clinton's 35 years of experience  35 years of bullshit is more like it.  If you live 35 years, you have 35 years of experience.  Her chief experience has been working for an ethically challenged law firm, the biggest anti-union corporation in the world, screwing up health care reform, voting for an illegal war, and standing by, and defending, her philandering husband.  She is not any more experienced than Obama.  Being first lady is not "experience."

Clinton's Wal-Mart years  The biggest joke of the campaign is Clinton posing as a friend of the worker.  She did nothing in her years on Wal-Mart's board to change the company's anti-union policy.  She instead sat silent.

Clinton's pro-Iraq was vote  Return to this one.  Make her failure to admit she was wrong into a character flaw.

Rapid response  Obama needs to read up on the '92 Clinton war room.  Every attack should be responded to by him personally, as well as by commercial.

If the Obama campaign does these things, they not only can finish Clinton off, but install confidence in the superdelegates and rank and file Democrats that he has what it takes to take on McCain.  If he doesn't, he could still lose the nomination.

•  I disagree

  I think he fought back very admirably. When the 3 a.m. commercial came out, Obama's team had put together a response ad spot within a matter of hours.

  by droogie6655321 on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 06:02:45 AM PDT

  •  I agree with the diarist,

    and might go a step further by asking voters:

    Do you really want the Big Dog back in the White House with lots of free time on his hands?  Do you really want the trauma of these small, narcissistic people running our country again?

    by benthos on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 06:07:12 AM PDT

    •  I agree with the diarist too

      Obama, if he is to survive, must hit back - hard. If they come at you with a prod, hit 'em with a baseball bat; if they come at you with a knife, hit with a gun; if they come at you with a gun, detonate them. It's the only thing that works. If Kerry had done this, he'd be President today.

      You CAN have the politics of hope balanced on a very sharp sword. I believe it's one of our Presidents who put it very concisely and precisely:

      "Speak softly. But carry a big stick."

      by ccr4nine on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 06:33:26 AM PDT

    •  No Worry

      Clinton won't beat McCain anyway.

      Bigger worry is a Repub president back with a Repub majority.

      by pletzs on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 06:40:15 AM PDT

  •  I thought so at the time

    I remember last week being elated at how fast that response came out.  It was amazing.  Then I was very busy over the weekend and didn't pay attention to anything political.  By Monday, the whole narrative had done a 180!  It was all Rezko/NAFTA-gate/He's-a-Muslim/Slimefest and there was simply no reponse....  That's where it turned.  

    Losing TX and OH wasn't about the 3 am ad... that was minor and he countered it effectively.  In fact, IIRC, the ad wasn't even shown in OH, anyway.  But all the other slime kept percolating up out of the bog and was never answered.  Handling that stuff effectively and turning it back on his opponents is where he's got to improve his game before PA.

    by SLKRR on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 06:16:21 AM PDT

    •  And "NAFTA-gate" was self-inflicted /nt

      by SLKRR on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 06:28:22 AM PDT

  •  Agreed.

    He has the rapid response down.  Unfortunately the media and the pundits focused more on Hillary's ad in historical context, instead of the response, which gave the ad more traction.

    by Scoopster on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 06:31:29 AM PDT

•  I disagree

  This mess is primarily a result of Goolsbee and NAFTA. Obama did a poor job defending himself, and better step up to the plate.

  by grrr on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 06:04:47 AM PDT

  •  I don't know what Goolsbee is,

    But I suggested a week ago that Obama should make his NAFTA positions more clear to people. I was told at the time that this was uneccessary, but I think the people of Ohio viewed an Obama vote as a gamble, and a Clinton vote as a sure thing.

    by droogie6655321 on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 06:06:10 AM PDT

    •  Gooslbee

      He's the advisor who told the Canadian diplomat that Obama didn't really mean what he said about NAFTA.

      by brittain33 on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 06:33:34 AM PDT

    •  Goolsbee is Obama's senior economic advisor

      He is the one that spoke to the Canadian diplomats. I smell a right wing rat (Harper govt) leaking the memo...but Obama did not choose to clarify that a conversation did take place. I would guess Goolsbee may not have said this was all political posturing...but it was naive to believe that the right wing govt in Canada wasn't setting him up.

      by grrr on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 06:37:25 AM PDT

  •  In 2 weeks

    Obama cut Clintons lead in half in Ohio and shaved off 16 points of a 20 point lead in Texas.

    Go look at the Leaked Memo from the Obama camp that shows wha there predictions are and you'll see last nights results were nothing except EXPECTED.

    by ctkeith on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 06:17:01 AM PDT

    •  Obama's spin machine missed this opportunity

      They let everyone think they could win Texas and Ohio, rather than saying the obvious:  She was ahead by 20 points in both states 2 weeks ago. For him to finish within 5 in Texas was a win; so was the 10 point difference in Ohio.

      Inevitability didn't work for Clinton, and it won't work for Obama.

      To win a fight, you've got to fight.

      I agree with the diarist.  

      Obama still hasn't articulated a good enough argument why Goolsbee wasn't winking at the Canadians and telling them Obama was just kidding about reforming NAFTA.

      by hockeyrules on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 07:04:27 AM PDT

  •  Nonsense.

    First off, that issue didn't make it into the mainstream media far enough ahead of the primary to make an impact - it was briefly mentioned on the news on Monday.  The shift was based on the punditry from the Sunday talk shows focusing on Hillary's 3AM ad and its historical context while ignoring Obama's response.

    by Scoopster on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 06:33:50 AM PDT

    •  The Dallas Morning News

      thought it was important. I think Obama really blew the response. He should have said, when it first came out "I didn't say that, I don't think that, and I never authorized anybody to say that either." Then when Goolsbee was ID'd he should have renounced the position and let Goolsbee defend himself as being misinterpreted, if necessary. But he waffled, and for that matter is still making excuses for Goolsbee. Bad mistake.

      by curtadams on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 07:03:14 AM PDT

    •  His answer, imo, needs to be

      something like

      "The conservative pro-NAFTA govt of PM Stephen Harper is hanging on to a slim minority govt and are understandably worried that both Americans and Canadians are concerned about the lack of envtal and labor standards of NAFTA. It is a sad statement to the nature of politics that their fear of losing the argument would result in distorting the truth by attacking the candidate, myself, who plans to renogotiate NAFTA"

      Then he should announce John Edwards will be representing his govt when renegotiating NAFTA.

      This is a serious charge and MUST BE ANSWERED.

      by grrr on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 07:14:24 AM PDT

  •  He doesn't have to go full out NEGATIVE

    He just needs to bring up legitimate questions about her tax returns, her former dealings.  If she is claiming transparency what is there to hide Hill? Each day he should request her tax returns and I think I might set up a website with a counter.  So the racist part of the party came out last night, okay, give them a reason to go back to their holes.

    by oak510 on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 06:58:25 AM PDT

•  Blame Canada!

  And racists!

  by Aqualad08 on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 06:05:00 AM PDT

•  Senator Obama seriously needs to become far more

  available to the media (traditional and blogs) answering questions and keeping on message loudly and clearly if he wants to overcome much of the issues that some people have, which are often issues of ignorance that he can address by getting more fact time, listening time and radio address time.  His campaign needs to make time to have him available to bring his message TO THE PEOPLE, all the people.  

  Right now his message is being heard by those that attend his political rallys and some of the sound bites are making it into the media, but for the most part he is not making himself available.  John McBush makes himself available, and even though half of what he says is BS, he will stay and answer all the medias questions until they are done with him.  
  Senator Obama does not have to answer with any BS, just with his ideals and his plans to make things better.  That will allow him to show what he is made of and how he can overcome misunderstandings regarding his platform.

  (I posted this response in another diary this morning, but it seemed to fit here as well).

  by funluvn1 on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 06:05:24 AM PDT

  •  I agree wholeheartedly

    The polls showed that people voted for Clinton in spite of what they felt were unfair attacks on Obama because they also felt she had a clearer plan for fixing government.

    Obama has good ideas, but let's face it, some people aren't going to go to the Web site and read about them. He needs to use his great communication skills to spell out his plan -- thoroughly and repeatedly over the next few weeks.

    by droogie6655321 on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 06:07:57 AM PDT

    •  The TV bump was also in the mix

      Hillary did a pretty good job of using SNL both times, then Jon Stewart on Monday, to play the old Rodney Dangerfield (and Republican) "I don't get no respect" mantra.  Obama seemed to have been left under a cone of silence over the weekend, losing important swing votes.  At this point in the race, he needs to spend less time rallying giant crowds in person, and more time facing the public in electro.  

      by Eikyu Saha on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 06:25:05 AM PDT

  •  i think that was a strategy thing

    CW, if you are ahead you limit access.  but i agree.  if he runs on transparency he should be more available.

    by hn on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 06:12:04 AM PDT

•  Exactly

  Say,

  Why isn't anyone pointing out and blaming the 20 % of racist trash Democrats in Iowa who said Race was the main factor in their vote for Hillary? Hmmm? Why no comment on that one?

  Why did White Independents and White Republicans go for Obama , but White Democrats did NOT in Ohio?

  Why aren't we talking about THAT one?

  Hmmm? Go look at the Exit Polls again and explain that one instead of blame Obama!

  by WeBetterWinThisTime on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 06:05:27 AM PDT

  •  Did you mean Ohio?

    Why isn't anyone pointing out and blaming the 20 % of racist trash Democrats in Iowa who said Race was the main factor in their vote for Hillary? Hmmm? Why no comment on that one?

    by xndem on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 06:40:40 AM PDT

  •  I don't know about "racist trash"

    but I suspect you are talking about Ohio, and not Iowa.

    by indybend on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 06:41:46 AM PDT

•  he lost because of the nafta flap

  i know most supporters think it was debunked, but he runs on trust and not the same old politics.  that story really hurt him.  his "politics of hope" gets tarnished and so voters say lets go with experience and that's where the 3 am call helped.  without canada/nafta, i don't think the 3 am commercial would have been effectve.

  by hn on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 06:05:51 AM PDT

  •  Hmmm, he's a flawed candidate

    said as much back in a February comment:

    He smacked himself down (2+ / 0-)
    with, "you're likable enough, Hillary."  He needs to be careful, not get cocky.  I think the span of time between now and Texas/Ohio spells more peril for Obama than Clinton.

    by cka on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 11:52:45 AM PST

    What's he do?  Gets cocky at a press conference last week.  And he still thinks he's running against McCain already!!

    by cka on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 07:24:19 AM PDT

•  True, but . . .

  The points made here are all valid.  I too think the 35 years line is total crap.  16 of those years are as first ladies; then you have the Rose Law Firm and the Hubbell and McDougal mess.  Remember, her associates were convicted.  And how about the $100k she made on pork belly futures?
  She has less experience than Obama, and bad judgment.  He has to attack her on her positions, her electability, her judgment, and her ties to corruption.  

  by daninoah on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 06:06:06 AM PDT

•  Hillary Clinton is a strong candidate

  Ignore that at your peril is the lesson here. Now can we beyond all of this and just run them together now?

  by belly on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 06:07:13 AM PDT

  •  I think of her...

    ... as the "safe" candidate. Voters who are going through a lot of hardship, like many Ohioans are, are less likely to take what they view as a "gamble" on Obama.

    To counter this, he's got to make his plans to improve the economy and the job market more clear and more explicit, as Clinton has been doing.

    by droogie6655321 on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 06:11:05 AM PDT

  •  It is my opinion Republicans in Texas

    swung the vote for Hillary. Limbaugh told them to so they did. If the caucus I attended was in any way representational my opinion is right. We had almost 300 people there, about 70% for Obama. I live in Round Rock, a very red area of a red state. The republicans would cast a secret ballot for Hillary but wouldn`t appear in public where they could be seen supporting her.
    The final delegate count won`t be decided for another month, after the state convention.Our precinct gets 26 delegates to the county convention 17 of which are for Obama. I am an alternate delegate for Obama.

    by Wino on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 06:23:08 AM PDT

    •  it is funny though how Obamamaniacs

      are enthused about a highly convoluted (read:not very democratic) caucus (or primacaucus) "system" whereby their candidate does well.

      Yet howl at the thought of (undemocratic) "superdelegatres" deciding the nominee.

      It is like the Electoral College, an undemocratic institution, but will Obamamaniacs howl if he wins the popular vote but loses the Electoral vote? What about the other way around?

      We should have a national popular vote primary to decide some delegates, and maybe rolling regional primaries to decide the rest of the delegates.  Then, a popular vote to elect the President.  No more caucuses, primacaucuses, duperdelegates, gerrymandered congressional districts, and no more Electoral College.

      I think most people just want their candidate to win when it comes down to it, including the Obamamaniacs.

      by libertyisliberal on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 06:31:08 AM PDT

    •  What do you base that opinion on?

      Because the exit polls show 9% of the total was cast by Republicans and they broke for Obama 52-47.

      Obama would have lost by a larger margin if this was a closed primary and no Repub had voted.

      Exit Poll

      by zed on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 06:32:52 AM PDT

      •  I base My Opinion on what I have seen.

        Do you believe the polls, how accurate have they been so far? It is my opinion, you are entitled to your own even if it is not the same as mine.

        by Wino on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 06:55:46 AM PDT

        •  The poll lines up with everything we've seen

          Since Obama has consistently outperformed Clinton among Repubs in every primary thus far (wait, wasn't that a selling point for Obama??) I have no reason to doubt that he won among Repubs in Texas as well.  I can't discount the exit poll when it is telling us the same thing every exit poll has said since the start of the primaries has begun.

          by zed on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 07:00:42 AM PDT

      •  Republicans are liars

        I expect that if they went into the polls to vote for Hillary to hurt Obama, they would be likely to lie about it to pollsters.

        My grandmother-in-law called last night to gloat and tell us that she and all her wingnut friends in Houston had turned out to vote for Hillary to screw that "muslim communist".   I'm sure if they were asked by some pollster who they voted for, they would have said "Obama" just to make it even more entertaining for themselves and their ilk.

        by Mad Kossack on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 07:10:41 AM PDT

        •  So all the previous exit polls...

          that show Obama with support from Repubs should be discounted as well?  I thought a selling point for him was that he could bring Repubs into the tent.

          So much for that talking point.

          by zed on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 07:17:56 AM PDT

          •  I have no idea, and neither does anyone else

            Because Republicans are a bunch of liars.

            I do not, and have never, put my faith in the idea that we can sing kumbaya with the Republicans. I put my faith in the idea that people will stop being Republicans and join our side.

            There is a difference between Republicans voting in the primaries to fuck with our process and people voting in the Democratic Primaries because they are abandoning the Republican party to become "former Republicans".

            by Mad Kossack on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 07:42:55 AM PDT

    •  Limbaugh

      He told his minions to vote for Romney because McCain and Huckabee would "destroy the party." How did that turn out?

      Your guy lost, fair and square. I know it's a new feeling just as it isn't new for Hillary supporters. We don't need to hear Penn-esque comments about how a certain race "doesn't count" for one thing or another.

      by brittain33 on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 06:36:08 AM PDT

  •  She's not particularly strong

    She just has the advantage of not feeling beholden to any sense of loyalty to the party or any high road while she's in competition with someone who is so burdened.

    Kind of like calling oneself a "strong" competitor when playing volleyball against someone who respects the rules of sportsmanship while you yourself have no problem throwing sand in opponent's faces.

    Obama's problem is that he's still running as if his opponent is a Dem.  She might be a Dem ideologically, but her tactics are Republican.

    by GN1927 on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 07:21:44 AM PDT

•  Tim Russert had a list from the...

  Obama camp that he kept referring to. The list contained all the states that the Obama campaign thought they would win and lose. According to Russert, it was pretty accurate. Three that were on the list in the losing category were the following: Ohio, Texas, R.I.

  Maybe that's why Obama's campaign was pushing so hard for Hillary to drop out prior to March 5th.

  by leftbird on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 06:08:50 AM PDT

  •  So what's next on the list?

    by droogie6655321 on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 06:15:15 AM PDT

    •  I think the next two coming up

      Obama wins according to the list. WI? Sorry, can't remember.

      by leftbird on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 06:17:46 AM PDT

      •  wins wyoming and mississippi

        loses pennsylvania

        by hn on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 06:18:59 AM PDT

    •  This list came out right after Super Tuesday

      It was leaked "accidentally" to the media.  So far, it has been spot on except it showed Hillary winning Maine.  In most cases, it was fairly conservative - Obama outperformed it throughout February.  

      Here's a linkto it.

      by SLKRR on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 06:22:43 AM PDT

•  He had a rapid response

  Remember when he responded within hours of her 3am ad?  How people say he would not be swift boated?

  What happened?  Hype.  He was never in the lead in OH and he was always tied in TX.  What else happened?  Racist fvckers in OH and TX who wouldn't vote for a black man. What else happened?  NAFTA memo.  That along with the negative media the last two days didn't help.

  Please, before yesterday everyone sung the praises of how Obama ran his campaign and how Clinton's was totally messed up.  He also has the sense to know you can't destroy another democrat while the republicans are watching.  Questioning her "35 years experience" would greatly hurt her if she was the nominee.  Though all  bets are pretty much off now.

  by Into The Stars on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 06:11:05 AM PDT

  •  Are you serious?

    Questioning her "35 years experience" would greatly hurt her if she was the nominee.  

    But she can say that McCain is more qualified to be president than he is?!  You don't think that won't be in a Republican ad.  Haven't we learned from the Dukakis and Kerry campaigns that you can't win by turning the other cheek and being noble?

    by Paleo on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 06:15:22 AM PDT

  •  His response ad looked

    too much like HRC's original one. After I see the first few seconds of an ad I know, I tune out ...which in this case would have me miss the Obama counter-punch that came at the end.

    by mveit on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 06:46:10 AM PDT

•  Kyl-Lieberman Kyl-Lieberman Kyl-Lieberman!

  He needs to push her hard on what is basically AUMF-II.  It's not enough to show that she demonstrated poor judgment in 2003, he needs to show that she hasn't learned a DAMN THING and basically made the same mistake about Iran.  The only thing that saved us this time was the intelligence report released in the following weeks that said Iran was definitely not pursuing nukes.  

  by DaveV on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 06:11:53 AM PDT

•  Thank goodness Obama's smarter than most of you.

  Obama closed a huge gap in Ohio. He will probably win more delegates than Hillary in Texas. In fact, for the day, he may win more delegates than she did.

  Gee. That's terrible execution. All of you "sky is falling" naysayer are simply adding to the narrative that Hillary did something miraculous yesterday. Ya. She didn't have her lead totally erased and she may manage to not lose in net delegates (but probably not).

  Geesh.

  by Travis Stark on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 06:15:35 AM PDT

•  He is not going to win every damn state.

  Ohio, never thought he would.  That state reminds me of Iowa.  Meaning?  They need to know you and you must spend time there.  Time was not on his side for that state.

  Texas?  I always felt is was tied and in the end he will win.  The race that counts, DELEGATES.

  RI?  Never thought he would win, just a decent showing.

  VT, was his.

  In the end, the delegate math does not change.  Does Obama need to get tougher?  YES.  Expect this coming, all gloves are ON.

  by icebergslim on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 06:16:13 AM PDT

  •  Hillary needs to win every remaining contest...

    by more than 25% to even HOPE to beat Obama. (Oops... there's that word again.)

    by Jimdotz on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 06:19:38 AM PDT

  •  I hope he manages toughness

    without sinking down to Clinton's level.  I don't want a Clinton-lite nominee.  I want him to stick to the essence of why he is winning: he is proposing a transparent government and respect for citizens.  I hope he does not adopt Clinton's less than stellar cynicism, because we don't need it.  He's in the lead for the nomination because he brings something better to the table than tricks, shenanigans and lies.

    by GN1927 on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 07:25:02 AM PDT

•  I remind the diarist...

  Last night was NOT a Clinton victory. It was a tie.

  By how much did Clinton close the delegate count gap last night? Right now, it looks like one, count'it one, delegate. 158 more "Clinton victories" and she'll be tied with the next President of the United States.

  by Jimdotz on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 06:18:15 AM PDT

  •  Not the point

    Obama was in a position to finish her off just by winning the Texas popular vote.  Now she's still in the race for at least another seven weeks.

    by Paleo on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 06:23:13 AM PDT

  •  To survive is to

    fight another day.

    It's all about who can best pay off the super delegates.

    by HomeBrew on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 06:38:58 AM PDT

    •  There's only so many ambassaborships to...

      Switzerland that Hillary can peddle.

      by Jimdotz on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 07:00:41 AM PDT

•  If Obama wants to win

  the gloves must come off.  The high road isn't going to work anymore.  

  Hillary will say and do anything to take him down.  Hillary's a fighter alright, but she's fighting for her own selfish ambition, not for the good of the country.

  If Obama isn't willing to go after her now, I can only assume what I feared about Obama from the get go.  He doesn't want it as much as he should.  

  by bunny99 on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 06:20:16 AM PDT

•  You forgot a few issues....

  like Paula Jones, Monica Lewinsky etc.

  If Clinton wants to keep beating a dead horse like Rezko and making insinuations about his religion, it's time for Obama's people to get nasty.

  by cometman on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 06:20:44 AM PDT

•  The difference between a crisis and opportunity

  is one's skill level.

  OK Barack, now you can show your stuff.
  She's hurting you with negative campaigning so you'll have to
  take Hillary down, but still do it with class.

  The trick is how to beat old school politics without becoming it.

  by crystal eyes on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 06:23:05 AM PDT

•  Victim Bully 101

  This was  a poor showing on the part of BHO this week. He let HRC define him all week. I was shocked that he did not handle this.
  She plays the victim and bully as it suits her.
  Go around the MSM and get your message out and he did not do that. Man up Barack.

  by kiki236 on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 06:31:01 AM PDT

  •  the Republicans and 527s will unload

    with both barrels on him, you can bet on it.

    by libertyisliberal on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 06:35:30 AM PDT

•  rezko and canada

  besides the 3am ad which he did respond to in the most rapid fashion ive seen any attack respond to an attack , the rezko trial and the canadian governments interference in our primary were fortutious ocurances that the clinton campaign capitilized on. I dont really know how Obama could of responded differently to either.    

  by gatti on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 06:32:22 AM PDT

•  Ohio was tough

  but everyone (including Clinton and Obama) knew that 3/4 (except for Vermont) would be good for Clinton. So, really, where Obama did worst was play the expectations game.

  And that's why Pennsylvania (gasp) has become important. I think Clinton can only win 3 of the remaining states: Pennsylvania, Kentucky, and West Virginia. Even if she does win them, she'll still be behind in delegates. And consider this, she has won 17 states (IF you count Michigan and Flordia) to his 24, So at the end of this, the most likely outcome is that he'll win 30 states to her 20. Some would argue that most of his wins have been in small states, but the fact is, that doesn't matter BECAUSE it's not winner-take-all. Obama got a sizable chunk of his delegates from California, New York, New Jersey, and Massachusetts. By racking up big victories in small states, he also built a delegate lead. Obama is running a race according to the rules that were given to him, which is to say, that he needs delegates.

  But if he wants to put this thing away, he also needs to change the narrative. It's not entirely fair, and it's outside of the "rules", but it's the only thing that will keep this from dragging out. Obama needs to win the showdown in Pennsylvania.

  Luckily, if you look back, you'll see that his campaign anticipated this. (They've been talking about it for a while). Let's see if they can pull it out. I look forward to my vote counting on April 22...

  by JMS on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 06:36:13 AM PDT

•  Democracy is tough

  it set's barriers to one candidate claiming victory simply by showing up. You don't win the presidency by fiat.

  If you want to win, you have work hard for it.

  Unfortunately for Senator Clinton, she's not emerging with the delegate totals she needed from yesterday. Not even close.

  She's talking about Pennsylvania already, skipping over Wyoming and Mississippi!  (Same old tactics, only count the states that favor you.)

  Will Obama hit back and change his campaign? I hope so. I'm sure he will.

  But we can too. Anyone who has volunteered or donated should follow that link, it's a way you can fight back.

  by kid oakland on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 06:47:57 AM PDT