Fair minded people have known that Obama has a lead that can't be beat in terms of elected delegates states and popular vote and that Obama was going to win, either now or later.
Having said that, if Obama had lost North Carolina or barely won and lost big in Indiana, then it would have been damaging, even if it would not ultimately stopped him from the nomination, it would have been a matter of whether how long and how damaging the fight would have become.
Regardless, in terms of expectations, it was a question of now or later.
We've seen the media created controversy about Barack Obama's relationship to Bill Ayers, a 60's radical who has now become a well regarded education professor in Chicago.
While an embarrassing association in some respects, it is hardly worth getting upset about for most thinking and reasonable people.
But the right-wing freakshow and their water carriers in the MSM raised it up, Li'l Georgie Stephanopolous dutifully carried out Sean Hannity's errands and sandbagged Obama with Ayer's association in the now infamous Philly debate and Hillary Clinton and John McCain sanctimoniously piled on. Their cheap-shots were the worst sort of hypocrisy especially considering their own relationships with unsavory characters.
A great article in the Chicago Tribune just came out that mentions one such relationship that St. John of McCain has that is much worse than the virtually non-existent relationship that Obama has with Ayers.
It isn't McCain and Hagee - which the media is just coming around to - but it is McCain and G. Gordon Liddy.
Well, I have to say that I am a bit surprised by the latest Clinton Pennsylvania advertisement that goes after Obama's admittedly sloppy statement on rural voters. Basically, it attacks Obama by using the right-wing frames in a manner I don't think I've seen used by a Democrat on a Democrat before.
I was surprised, but given what we've seen in the race, maybe I shouldn't have been.
This type of behavior has been a pattern of behavior by the Clinton campaign throughout the primary process.
Well, we saw the "miraculous" Clinton victory in New Hampshire. Some people felt that Clinton's tearing up moved many women, some people speculated that the backlash from press misogyny helped her, some people felt that there may have been a "Bradley Effect". Perhaps it was a combination of all of these factors.
We may not know till the heat of the campaign is finished and time and perspective allows for a full review what the real reasons were, but now the Washington Post reveals that there may have been something more mundane - old school dirty tricks done by a Democrat to another Democrat, by the Clinton campaign to the Obama campaign.
I am sure that I will be called down on suggesting this, but I can see no other reason why Obama loses the NH primary after being up on nearly every poll.
Well, we have seen the consistent attacks by Paul Krugman on Obama due to his perceived issues with Obama's rhetoric, though Obama has an extremely progressive record (moreso than even Clinton and Edwards).
More specifically, one of Krugman's issues is the claim that Obama uses 'right-wing talking points' in how he defends himself against Clinton's policy attacks.
Fair enough, I disagree with Krugman's analysis but everyone is entitled to their own opinion and Krugman is a progressive icon and guru that we all admire.
The question I have is will Krugman speak out against Clinton for attacking Obama for being too progressive in terms of actual belief and record? Too liberal in his core beliefs?
I've been following the last couple days the reaction from Paul Krugman's opinion piece when he jumped into the tiff between Obama and Edwards on the 527 spending on Edwards' behalf.
Krugman's article has sparked a lot of back and forth and more than one diary on this topic but I think that the essential issues have been overlooked somewhat so I thought that I'd throw in my USD $.02 cents and also since the 527 in question now has its ad up.
There's been a lot of debate going back and forth over Bill Clinton's comments yesterday
"...I approved of Afghanistan and opposed Iraq from the beginning..."
Of course, I think that this statement is hogwash but I listened carefully to the defense.
I've seen the back and forth on threads and Clinton's surrogates making spirited attempts to back him up by pulling up various statements and explaining them carefully, when I started chuckling to myself at how absurd this debate is when you took a step back to think about all of this in perspective.
Of course, the issue is a word. OPPOSED. As Clinton once famously said, it depends on what the meaning of 'is' is, so we need to look at what the meaning of "oppose" is.
When I listen to Senator Clinton, she always refers to her strength and experience and her 35 years of fighting for causes as the rationale to favor her over the other candidates.
I myself originally bought into that as a favorable plus for her till I started thinking about it and thought to myself, that shouldn't strength and experience and 35 years mean an impressive list of accomplishments? Isn't that the point of speaking to your experience? A record of achievement?
