Hillary appears bound and determined to stay in the race, come Hell or high water. Hell has come as has high water. She and Bill continue {in Kentucky today!} to use 'ELECTABILITY' arguments. I had rather hoped that she would no longer use those arguments. Since the math doesn't lie and she can't win, then saying that Barack Obama is unelectable is unethical for her to do. . According to Andrea Mitchell, her campaign admitted (even the closest advisors) that they know that she can't win. If they know this, then why make electability arguments.

She couldn't know if they were true in any event.

Consider this a call on Hillary supporters to stop for a second, and try to understand why many of us do not support her being chosen as VP. And it’s also a call on you Obama supporters to start trying to use more reasoned, logical excuses for opposing Hillary as VP. "We don’t like her", or even, "We don't like her policy stances," aren’t good enough reasons.

And lest anyone have any doubt, I think it’s now pretty clear that is what Hillary and her campaign are angling for... pushing for the VP spot. She’s not stupid. She understands that it’s impossible to catch up in the delegate count. She understands that it’s impossible to catch up in the popular vote count -- unless, that is, they include Florida and Michigan (based on the original results), and exclude some of the caucuses. Yet Hillary continues to push on, saying "This thing is far from over." So what’s up? Is she delusional or what?

Nope. She’s just trying to make the case for this being "so close" that Obama has to pick her as his running mate.

This Poll was posted earlier. But the previous post, only gave brief outlines. But for those, who can't read the whole 17pg ABC poll. I just wanted to highlight a few excerpts right here! You won't regret my companion post, or the ABC/WAPO Poll. I'd like to thank, Max NYC, for his original post earlier.

Don't let the media dictate, false talking points.

In general election matchups, Obama leads McCain by 51-44 percent, similar to the last
two ABC/Post polls. Standings in a Clinton vs. McCain race are 49-46 percent, again
roughly similar to previous ABC/Post results.

Obama also leads in electability vs the struggling Clinton. The ABC poll states, Obama maintains his 12 point lead from ABC previous polls 53 to 41%

Democrats by a 12-point
margin would rather see Obama as the nominee, a lead that’s held steadily in ABC/Post
polls since early March. Instead it reflects a rejection of the notion that the drawn-out
contest will hurt the party’s prospects.

There's more highlights below. http://www.abcnews.go.com/...

or Mom and Dad, as the case may be.

This probably comes as a shock to nobody, but the MSM is doing a disservice to you.  This of course is putting it mildly, as what I am about to discuss goes beyond just doing a disservice, but when it comes to this "working class white" narrative, they are really putting themselves over the top when it comes to creating a nonexistent news story.

What does this rant on the MSM have to do with Grammy and Grampy, or Mom and Dad as the case may be?  You’ll have to follow me over the fold...

Since Obama (an "elitist" who only a few years ago finished paying off his student debts; a "Muslim" who is blamed for his Christian pastor) did not win most big states, he may be not electable.

Is that true?

Hillary’s entire candidacy has been reduced to her arguing for her own electability. Today her campaign went so far as to circulate this PowerPoint presentation to super delegates outlining the rationale. At this point, I think it’s important to revisit something Bill Clinton said about electability a few months ago. And wouldn’t you know it. Back in September, he said something very different than the current campaign.

Taylor Marsh, Lanny Davis, Joe LIEberman, Mark Penn, Harold Ford, Susan Hu, Alegre, etc...  It is disgusting people like the aforesaid who are precisely why Democrats never attained more than 50.8% of the vote in any presidential election since 1964 and it is people like this whom we need to make a clean break from as Democrats.  It is their attitudes, their euphoria for being Stockholm Syndrome democrats, and their immoral characters that gave us 12 years of Bushes, 8 years of Reagan, and two terms of Nixon.  And it's time we make a clean break from these cancerous types.

If Democrats want to be a majority party for the next 40 years, and I think we will be, then we need to distance ourselves from these one percent dead enders and stick to our core FDR/Truman/JFK principles of being honest in the presentation of our ideas, applying ethics universally, implementing pro middle class domestic policies, protecting everyone's civil liberties, and making foreign policy decisions based on facts and national security instead of opportunism and Halliburton spreadsheets.

Roland Martin on CNN finally wrote what I have been screaming inside my head for over a week. Clinton today came out with her "working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again, and how whites in both states who had not completed college were supporting me."

Mind the gap

Senator Clinton has her fair share of supporters, and we are delusional if we think Obama doesn't need them in November. That said, a big reason why Clinton supporters feel that they cannot support Obama is because of:

Electability. They believe he absolutely cannot win against McCain.

Electability is a hypothetical, intangible marker that cannot be accurately measured. Daily tracking polls, anecdotal goodies, and polls conducted six months before elections are not accurate indicators of electibility. To somehow demonstrate the concept of electibility, one must simply be able to prove that they can win elections. In the end, of course, the ability to win is what electability is all about.

Clinton supporters have constantly maintained that Obama is not electable, and firmly believe he cannot win the general election and use this to justify supporting Clinton. But again, since elections are the best way to measure electability, Obama has won more contests than Senator Clinton. He demonstrates an ability to win where Clinton does not.

In the days since Pennsylvania and the months since Ohio and Texas, we have been witnessing an electability "debate" that has universally promoted Hillary Clinton, despite all evidence to the contrary.

So I have decided to respond with a message that I have been emailing to every cable news show that I know:

For those of you who were (needlessly) worried about the Tony Rezko trial providing some sort of secret bomb that would blow up in Obama's face, rest easy.

From the Chicago TRIBUNE less than an hour ago:

"With surprising swiftness, testimony at the corruption trial of Antoin "Tony" Rezko concluded Monday. Prosecutors rested their case after more than nine weeks of testimony, and Rezko's lawyers quickly followed suit without calling a single witness.

"We do not believe the government has met [its] burden proving the charges against Mr. Rezko, plain and simple," Rezko's attorney, Joseph Duffy, said in explaining his tactical decision not to mount a defense case."

The pundits have been going on and on about Obama's problems winning over working class white voters, older voters, and hispanic voters. Although I despise these pundits for the political over analysis and infotainment that they call the news, I couldn't help but thinking, maybe they're right, maybe Obama can't win these folks.

In the weeks following the "rebirth" of Senator Clinton's campaign with her March 4th victories (though the validity of her claim to Texas is perennially questioned), we have seen nothing but vitrolic, baseless attacks from both camps. The exploitation of the "Bitter" remarks and the denunciation of Geraldine Ferarro, a highly respected party elder are miniscule examples of the infighting in the Democratic Party. The most recent debate to date was a disgrace simply for its lack of substance and plethora of pointed personal questions for BOTH Obama and Clinton. However, one thing that is not often fairly examined during this battle for the helm of the Democratic Party, possibly because of the difficulty in predicting the general election , is the electability of each candidate. Because this is a large, subjective and thus volatile task, I will examine each candiate's potential electability by region of the United States. Please feel free to share thoughts but keep vitrolic denigrating comments to yourselves.

A new poll out by the New York Times and CBS News is shedding some light on the electability question, but not in terms of Obama. It highlights the real electability problem Clinton has if she manages to become the Democratic nominee.

The following NY Times article has a very good chart highlighting her problem. Here is a snippet:

The question is this: Have white Democrats soured on Obama? Apparently not. Although his unfavorable rating from the group is up five percentage points since last summer in polls conducted by The New York Times and CBS News, his favorable rating is up just as much.

On the other hand, black Democrats’ opinion of Hillary Clinton has deteriorated substantially (her favorable rating among them is down 36 percentage points over the same period).

While a favorable opinion doesn’t necessarily translate into a vote, this should still give the Clintons (and the superdelegates) pause. Electability cuts both ways.

When the Superdelegates decide whom they are going to support, if electability factors into their decision at all, they should consider the constituencies and who can unite those constituencies and the party.

Senator Obama has accomplished more than anyone is giving him credit for. Defeating both Senator Clinton and President Clinton is a real sign of strength.

You may not be aware of this, but Michelle Obama is a strong woman.  

She is a myriad of other things as well of course, but her strength and forthrightness, and its attendant positive benefits (or negative consequences, depending on your perspective) as it relates to the campaign is likely the trait that's been most debated.

In fact, no less an authority than David Axelrod has acknowledged the latter, saying, "Occasionally it gives campaign people heartburn."

However I am a firm believer in the former, and it's clear the campaign shares that view as well.  In fact, I have commented before with great admiration on how Michelle came to be known both inside and outside the campaign as "The Closer."

Well, that Michelle was on full display last night during Countdown's segment featuring more exclusive clips from the Obama's interview with Meredith Vieira.

And Meredith Vieria evidently forgot who she was dealing with.

T'was indeed a thing of beauty... come hither with me after the jump, won't you?

Politico just posted an article about Hillary hypocrisy -- essentially the baggage Barack would like to bring up, but can't.

http://www.politico.com/...

The article begins:

"Thrown off his game by the Rev. Jeremiah Wright uproar, Barack Obama’s strongest answer to Hillary Rodham Clinton is one he won’t give: Senator, do you really want to get in a contest with me over who has more unsavory personal associations?"

VandeHei and Harris explore her law firm associations, Whitewater, Mark Rich and other pardons, her brothers as well as Bill Clinton's foundation and international involvements.

They also tackle the electability arguments for Hillary in light of the above history and her current truthfulness gap.

This is a must-read article.