Last week, HRC called North Carolina a gamechanger, saying that NC would be sending a strong message to the nation about who the democrats want as their next president.  When I heard it, I was immediately and deeply puzzled.  Why would she say something like that when she knows that she has little chance of winning the state?  She didn't even mention Indiana, suggesting that NC would change the game regardless of what happened in Indiana.

I thought about it for a bit, and then I came to a possible explanation.  By calling NC a gamechanger, knowing the steep odds of winning, HRC was providing herself with an exit strategy for bowing out of the race on her own terms.  

More below.  

I'm a relatively new member of Kos, having joined right when the manufactured "bittergate" scandal was taking place.  I'm an academic who writes about issues of racial equality, affirmative action, and school segregation.  So, yes, I'm one of those SF liberal elite types who are overwhelmingly supporting Obama.  

I don't drink lattes, though, and I'm actually a relatively new Obama supporter, having come on board shortly before Super Tuesday.  Early in the primary season, I believed that Obama was indeed too inexperienced to become president, and that in an ideal world, HRC would become the nominee with Obama as her running-mate, setting him to become President in 2016.  

I don't believe that anymore.  After watching Obama's press conference yesterday and hearing him talk about the gas tax holiday, I now firmly believe that Obama has what it takes to be president, and while Clinton has lots of experience in insider politics, she seems to be lacking a quality that is essential for good leadership: good judgment.  

During this ugly primary race, HRC's actions have proven to me only that she has a very bad sense of judgment.  And if you have bad judgment, all the experience in the world doesn't count for anything.  More below the fold.

Supporters of Obama who keep thinking and writing about the latest manufactured controversy are actually helping to keep the controversy alive.  

Don't unwittingly reinforce the negative frames the unholy alliance consisting of the mainstream media, repubs, and HRC is using to define Obama.  Because if we're not careful, our response may be as effective as asking someone to not think about an elephant.  Think how hard it is to not think of an elephant if you kept saying to yourself:

Stop thinking about an elephant,
Stop thinking about an elephant,
Stop thinking about an elephant,
Stop thinking about an elephant.

And, think about how hard it is to stop thinking about the famous reverend if you kept thinking to yourself:

Stop thinking about Reverend Wright.
Stop thinking about Reverend Wright.
Stop thinking about Reverend Wright.
Stop thinking about Reverend Wright.  

See?  More below the fold.
   

I read all the polls suggesting a Clinton victory in PA, and they just don't seem right to me.  Having followed the race very closely the last few weeks, I believe momentum is on Obama's side heading into today, which is very different from what happened in Ohio.  Below are the possible outcomes in descending order of likeliness, imho:

1. Clinton wins by 1-4%

2. Clinton wins by 5-7%

3. Obama wins by 2% or less

4. Clinton wins by 8-10%

5. Clinton wins by double digits

6. Obama wins by more than 2%.

So, I predict Clinton will win a close race with Obama having a better shot of winning outright than Clinton winning by 8% or more. How can I make that prediction given what the polls are saying?  I think the polls may turn out to be wrong because they all may have made faulty assumptions in determining who's likely to vote and therefore underestimated turnout for Obama.  More analysis below.