The 2008 presidential field at-a-glance

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by nate2512

Yeah, he better get ready for November because if things keep going as they are McCain is going to tear him up.

Eh, everything that Hillary's thrown at him has had little effect on the election results. Even in PA after Wright, "bitter" etc. she still lost ground from when she started. McCain hasn't had any real pressure for a while and he can't directly attack Obama because he's promised to run a clean campaign. If he can't control the 527s then that can be used against his leadership abilities.

Should be interesting either way, I think that if the Democrats successfully paint McCain as Bush/Cheney II then they win.

[nate2512]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

Eh, everything that Hillary's thrown at him has had little effect on the election results. Even in PA after Wright, "bitter" etc. she still lost ground from when she started. McCain hasn't had any real pressure for a while and he can't directly attack Obama because he's promised to run a clean campaign. If he can't control the 527s then that can be used against his leadership abilities.

Should be interesting either way, I think that if the Democrats successfully paint McCain as Bush/Cheney II then they win.

McCain already leads Obama in the exit polls. So Obama when/if he does ultimately get the nomination, already has a deficit.

[jon1856]

Originally Posted by nate2512

McCain already leads Obama in the exit polls. So Obama when/if he does ultimately get the nomination, already has a deficit.

He does??
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/publ..._tracking_poll
http://rasmussenreports.com/public_c..._tracking_poll

[nittanyalum]

Originally Posted by jon1856

He does??
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/publ..._tracking_poll

Interesting to see that Clinton's strength against McCain has grown fairly impressively of late as well... http://rasmussenreports.com/public_c...tch_up_history

[starang21]

Originally Posted by DaemonSeid

Not saying it to you....but reading the news....they are saying.....


"So...?"

exactly. i prefer her as a candidate.....but mathematically she can't win.

[DaemonSeid]

By Ruben Navarrette Jr.
Special to CNN

SAN DIEGO, California (CNN) -- In claiming victory in West Virginia last night, Hillary Clinton reiterated her last best argument as to why she should be the Democratic nominee: because only she can win in November.

Don't confuse that with what Clinton said in a debate just a few weeks ago about how she was confident that either she or her opponent could win in November.

How's that for chutzpah? She's arguing that the same person who couldn't win enough states in the spring against Barack Obama can win enough states in the fall against John McCain.

At least in West Virginia, Clinton chose her words more carefully than she did last week when she blurted out to USA Today that "Sen. Obama's support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again" and how whites who had not completed college were supporting her.

Clinton sounded less like George Washington and more like George Wallace. Imagine a presidential primary where, after more than 16 months, almost two dozen debates, hundreds of speeches, millions of dollars, and countless chicken dinners, the rationale for electing someone boils down to this: Vote for me. I'm white. I can win because other whites will vote for me.

Why, this could be the new affirmative action. Whatever happened to merit?

Clinton's message in West Virginia was smoother. "I'm winning Catholic voters and Hispanic voters," she told supporters, "and blue-collar workers and seniors, the kind of people that Sen. McCain will be fighting for in the general election."

Meanwhile, some white Americans are turning themselves inside out to come up with excuses for why they're not supporting Obama. It seems like just yesterday that these folks were arguing there is no racism in the immigration debate, and now they're insisting there is no racism in the presidential election.

Some want to know why it isn't racist when 70 percent of African-Americans vote for Obama but it is when 70 percent of whites vote against him.

The answer has to do with history. Over the decades, black Americans have had plenty of opportunities to vote for white people for president. And they have done so. But this is the first time that white Americans have a chance to vote for an African-American with a shot at the presidency. And what are they doing?

Many are responding quite well. Obama won the votes of many -- to borrow a phrase -- "hardworking white Americans -- in Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, Nebraska and Wyoming. But, elsewhere, as Obama said in a recent interview, people may need to get their head around the concept of an African-American even seeking the presidency, let alone winning it.


http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/05/...ef=mpstoryview

[starang21]

Originally Posted by DaemonSeid

By Ruben Navarrette Jr.
Special to CNN

SAN DIEGO, California (CNN) -- In claiming victory in West Virginia last night, Hillary Clinton reiterated her last best argument as to why she should be the Democratic nominee: because only she can win in November.

Don't confuse that with what Clinton said in a debate just a few weeks ago about how she was confident that either she or her opponent could win in November.

How's that for chutzpah? She's arguing that the same person who couldn't win enough states in the spring against Barack Obama can win enough states in the fall against John McCain.

At least in West Virginia, Clinton chose her words more carefully than she did last week when she blurted out to USA Today that "Sen. Obama's support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again" and how whites who had not completed college were supporting her.

Clinton sounded less like George Washington and more like George Wallace. Imagine a presidential primary where, after more than 16 months, almost two dozen debates, hundreds of speeches, millions of dollars, and countless chicken dinners, the rationale for electing someone boils down to this: Vote for me. I'm white. I can win because other whites will vote for me.

Why, this could be the new affirmative action. Whatever happened to merit?

Clinton's message in West Virginia was smoother. "I'm winning Catholic voters and Hispanic voters," she told supporters, "and blue-collar workers and seniors, the kind of people that Sen. McCain will be fighting for in the general election."

Meanwhile, some white Americans are turning themselves inside out to come up with excuses for why they're not supporting Obama. It seems like just yesterday that these folks were arguing there is no racism in the immigration debate, and now they're insisting there is no racism in the presidential election.

Some want to know why it isn't racist when 70 percent of African-Americans vote for Obama but it is when 70 percent of whites vote against him.

The answer has to do with history. Over the decades, black Americans have had plenty of opportunities to vote for white people for president. And they have done so. But this is the first time that white Americans have a chance to vote for an African-American with a shot at the presidency. And what are they doing?

Many are responding quite well. Obama won the votes of many -- to borrow a phrase -- "hardworking white Americans -- in Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, Nebraska and Wyoming. But, elsewhere, as Obama said in a recent interview, people may need to get their head around the concept of an African-American even seeking the presidency, let alone winning it.


http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/05/...ef=mpstoryview

obama is winning way more than 70 percent of the black vote. people should vote for who they want, and not worry about being scrutinzed as to why they voted for a particular candidate. and 70 percent of whites aren't voting for hillary.

[Tom Earp]

Still gag and choke on the candidates, all of them!

I got rid of my red phone along time ago.

[Munchkin03]

John Edwards is going to endorse Barack, apparently.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by nate2512

McCain already leads Obama in the exit polls. So Obama when/if he does ultimately get the nomination, already has a deficit.

Depends on the day, the weather and the pollster. He hasn't had much in the way of competition as of yet.

[DaemonSeid]

Edwards is indeed endorsing Obama...and depending on who you talking to, in essense he may pick up 13 delegates as 12 had already endorsed Edwards...so will they stay on to endorse Obama?

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/05/...ama/index.html

[nate2512]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

Depends on the day, the weather and the pollster. He hasn't had much in the way of competition as of yet.

This is true, I saw on Fox News monday where they McCain basically raping Obama.

[jon1856]

Originally Posted by DaemonSeid

Edwards is indeed endorsing Obama...and depending on who you talking to, in essense he may pick up 13 delegates as 12 had already endorsed Edwards...so will they stay on to endorse Obama?

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/05/...ama/index.html

I was just about to post this:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24628847/

[Thetagirl218]

Originally Posted by nate2512

This is true, I saw on Fox News monday where they McCain basically raping Obama.

ABC News this morning on Good Morning America has the exact opposite with Obama leading McCain by like 20 points!

All in the eye of the news beholder, I guess!

[jon1856]

Originally Posted by Thetagirl218

ABC News this morning on Good Morning America has the exact opposite with Obama leading McCain by like 20 points!

All in the eye of the news beholder, I guess!

A campaign worker told me today the Obama's own polls show about a 10 point lead.