I think Hillary will win by more than 10, which probably means that this thing goes all the way to the convention. Obama can win IN and NC 100 to nothing and it won't matter; we will still be left with a situation where Obama appears unable to seal the deal in a big state that Democrats really need to win.

I hope that I'm wrong. The party is best served if one candidate or the other delivers a knockout blow. Unfortunately, the guy who is probably going to win isn't much of a puncher.

I think he's going to come closer than they're predicting. The fact that he's going to Indiana shows that his people don't expect him to do particularly well, but..my sense is that he'll either come closer than they predict or she'll blow him out pretty bad.

I think the voter fatigue in this one might induce people to break in a manner opposite to what the pundits think (think New Hampshire), but at the same time...it's no longer a matter of "if" but "when" this deal will be over and I wonder how much that'll factor into the minds of people when they enter the voting booth.

If this year has proven anything, it's that the pollsters and pundits know nothing and that the voters hold all the cards.

Should be interesting...

That's what I find frustrating. For all intents this primary is over and Obama will, barring something totally out of the blue, be the nominee. I would love nothing more than have the Pennsylvania voters say "OK, let's get this sniping over with" and get him the win. Don't think it's going to happen though.

I had Hillary -10, but I teased the line and took Obama +4, but I lost because I also had the Wizards +29. Oops.

Fairly interesting article from the Guardian about Philly's "pay to play" system that Obama's not taking part in.

I'm actually hoping Obama does well in Philadelphia, but Hillary wins the state by 10+ points. I'd like to see a candidate prove that you don't need the "machine" to win in Philly. The practice just seems so freaking dirty.

That is interesting. I wonder how many cities have similar machines. I'd imagine Chicago might.

It's interesting to note that in a "winner take all" situation (like the Republican primaries and the Electoral College), Clinton would already have this thing locked up. The only large state that Obama has won is Illinois.

Agreed. The democratic part of the Democratic Party is causing a lot of trouble. Talk about irony.

Might? Do you have any idea how entrenched the machinery has been and continue to be in the Northeastern and Midwestern cities?

+1

Too close to call in Pennsylvania.

OK, so reading the exit polls (and I am well aware how much of an inexact science that can be) it looks like a 5-7 point win for Hilary in PA.

Is that enough? Some people were throwing out 10 as the threshold to see if she was really back in the race or not. Doesn't look like that is going to happen.

The exit polls have her winning by 4, which means she'll probably actually win by about 10 points.

Yeah, Obama has tended to underperform the exit polls by 7-8 points, though he underperformed in Ohio by 12. If that were to happen tonight... 16 point win for Hillary? That would be a pretty staggering hit to Obama.

I think 10's closer to the actual result though.

Well, since numbers are bouncing around, I'll go with Hillary by 8.

MSNBC (oops) has projected the win for Hillary. Question is, by how much.

The folks on MSNBC are indicating that Hillary's campaign is nearly broke.

Obama needed to rack up huge surpluses in the Philadelphia region to have any shot, and surprisingly Clinton is running almost even there in the early returns.

Makes you wonder, doesn't it?

She should've trounced him here. The fact that he made her spend almost all of her cash here and came within 10 is nothing short of a miracle. He was never supposed to win here.

I think this is the operative word.

Didn't Obama outspend Clinton 3-1 in Pennsylvania?

Solutions not hope!

It looks like Obama only carried Philadelphia 60-40, and as the rural votes start coming in, Clinton is now already up by 10 points.

Not really. Haven't researched it before, and it doesn't seem to be the case here in Seattle.

From 20 points down a few weeks ago it seems to have had some effect.

8- or 9-point win by Hillary is about the worst thing that could happen to the Dems. It's too big a win for her to stop running now, but not enough for her to shift the momentum her way--she failed to beat expectations.

Don't know much about history or geography? :)

I think it is one of those things that is so entrenched that is becomes a given but you either had to have experienced it or know the political and social histories of such cities. I will say that it has significantly lost much of its power, compared to 30-50-100-125 yrs ago, esp. as population fled the traditional wards.

Another 15 or 20 wins like this and she's right back in this thing.

She already IS in it... she just won't likely win. Regardless, Obama is going to need the superdelegates to win anyway (and they likely will go for him).

I guess my question is -- why should she quit? It's my understanding that many times before things would go to conventions and crazy crap would happen. That's really the only way Lincoln ever got elected.

Yeah and that was just last year.

Oh wait.

lol @ democrats

He'll most definitely need the super delegates. I think this is going to be a first in political history -- a party nominee who didn't win a single one of the major primary states other than his own.

It's happened more recently as well. As late as '72 if I remember correctly.

It's happened more recently as well. As late as '72 if I remember correctly.

Don't panic. A hotly contested primary is not the end of the world. Never forget that pundits and columnists make their money by spinning you up. Plenty of positives are coming out of this.

1. Obama is getting some seasoning as a candidate that he clearly needed. Better now than in October.
2. Democrats across the board are raising money at astounding rates, far outpacing McCain and the GOP. This race is a big reason for that.
3. Democratic voters in every state in the country have turned out in or near record numbers to vote. Primary election voters almost always turn out in the general election.
4. Obama's message is getting out to every key battleground state and people have been paying attention because the primary election has mattered. That is ground that he doesn't have to make up later, which allows you to go straight to your strategic message in the fall. McCain is going to have to devote a lot of his more limited resources to doing this.

I am not convinced that in November, we won't be looking back at this primary mess and saying that it played a big role in the Democratic victory -- sort of the "all press is good press" viewpoint.

That's a pretty good point. I'm sure Obama's people would rather all the fuss over Rev. Wright and other non-policy issues come out now when he can deal with them in the context of the primary. If Clinton doesn't hit him with anything, then it is left out there on a tee for McCain to blast away in the general election.

So along the same lines, by not bringing up all kinds of Clinton's dirty laundry, Obama is making it difficult for Clinton to win a general election, since I'm sure the McCain camp has a wealth of stuff on Clinton they just can't wait to unload.

The conventional wisdom is that Hillary's dirty laundry has already been aired, having been blasted regularly during her husband's administration. If the GOP had something else on her, it would have been used already.

Why???? They want Hillary to win.

They wanted her to win back in the 90s? Well that's interesting news.

And looking at the polls in Ohio, PA, and FL (the states that will likely decide the thing), I don't think the Reps are rooting for Hillary (Hillary is doing better than Obama against McCain in those states).

I think most Republicans are rooting for a long, drawn out, bitter primary in which Obama wins the nomination. You're right in terms of the polling, and more Clinton supporters say they won't support Obama than the other way around, so it's in the GOP's best interest to have Obama as the candidate.

Yep, exactly and I think that most Republicans realize that. For all the "Hillary will unite the Republican base" stuff, having Obama be the nominee may even work better for the Republicans (yeah, like the base will really stay home when the opposing candidate is proposing all those social programs?)

I am going to have to disagree there. Assuming they had to pick one or the other they would want to face Clinton at this point. Not even counting how ugly things would get in the D side if she were to win it now.

2 Electorial maps

http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp200...aps/Apr23.html

http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp200...aps/Apr23.html

Obama has 211 EVs locked up vs Mcains 178, Clinton only has 172 vs McCains 226. So the battle would be fought over the middle ground in Obamas case that would be 58 votes that are currently his that he has to defend and 76 that McCain has to defend plus 15 NC that is a toss up. Hillary has to defend 117 and only has 13 to attack that are McCains plus 10 that are a toss up.

So while at first glance the extra 20 EVs Clinton has over Obama 289 vs 269 at this point looks strong it is very typical of Hillarys numbers overall. She starts out very strong but she doesnt have any room to improve and she will be facing a defensive campaign in FL, OH, MN, MO, NV, OR, WA, HI, NJ, and CT she can only pick up ground in NM, KY and WI is the tossup.

Obama on the other hand is also in a winning position to start and has to play defense in NV, CO, MI, MA, NJ but gets to attack McCain in NM, TX, SC, OH, NH NE and the tossup there is NC.

Given the fincial advantage that the Dems will likely have this fall if you were the RNC where would you rather this fight rage in traditional swing states like FL, OH, MO, WI or being forced to defend traditional red states like TX, SC, NC, and NE. The last thing you want with limited funds is to be forced to defend your strongholds and thats what Obama forces you to do. Case in point he almost bankrupted Clintons campaign in PA by forcing her to defend it with all the money she had. Granted she would have spent most of it there anyway but he was on the air weeks ago in NC, and IN something she couldnt afford to do because she was so invested in PA.

Of course all of this assumes the Dems can actually finish this thing off nicely which at this point who knows.

Unfortunately on that site, some of the polls are really old. For Texas, for example, the poll is from February 28th. And they seem to only use one poll per state... and a site like realclearpolitics.com shows that they can vary greatly.

In defense of the guy at electoral-vote.com, he's very clear that he doesn't start compiling and tracking the polls until both nominee are established. I think he said a few weeks back that since there are still two Democrats in it, he doesn't put a lot of faith in the current cross-party polls.

Once the Dem nomination is sorted out, it'll go back to being a very good predictor site (it has been a blast, and pretty accurate, the past two cycles).

Those electoral college maps are a joke. I quit looking at them after I saw Nebraska and Texas listed as "Barely GOP", and Massachusetts listed as "Barely Dem". Most of their polling data is stale, and quite a few states only have one or two polls from February.

At this point, these states are locks for McCain and Obama. Feel free to disagree with me if you want to, but I've been seriously following this stuff for over 20 years. So I'll go on record right now and say that these states are certain for both candidates:

McCain (189):

Alabama (9)
Alaska (3)
Arizona (10)
Arkansas (6)
Georgia (15)
Idaho (4)
Indiana (11)
Kansas (6)
Kentucky (8)
Louisiana (9)
Mississippi (6)
Montana (3)
Nebraska (5)
North Carolina (15)
North Dakota (3)
Oklahoma (7)
South Carolina (8)
South Dakota (3)
Tennessee (11)
Texas (34)
Utah (5)
West Virginia (5)
Wyoming (3)

Obama (175):

California (55)
Connecticut (7)
D.C. (3)
Delaware (3)
Hawaii (4)
Illinois (21)
Maine (4)
Maryland (10)
Massachusetts (12)
New York (31)
Oregon (7)
Rhode Island (4)
Vermont (3)
Washington (11)

I think VV's list is pretty sound overall. The only material uncertainty I could see would be that if events (like a bad perceived turn in the Iraq "surge" perhaps) make the whole tide sway against the GOP, then it's conceivable that some of the former swing states could swing blue. In that sort of electoral landslide scenario, I could envision WV and TN (maybe LA?) potentially going Dem. But if we're sizing up to a pretty standard battle for the middle in an overall pretty close race (the likeliest scenario in my view) then I'd agree that those are pretty much the starting point lists for the two parties.

My only quibble is that NJ and NH should be safe Dem states regardless of the nominee. The demographics in southern NH make the more libertarian north less powerful and NJ seems to always be almost a swing state, but I imagine it will be +5 or more Dem.

I agree with JPhillips. NJ, especially, has been trending very Dem for a while. Used to be a swing state, but not anymore really.

I still have this feeling that California will come more into play than the past two elections.

I very much disagree with JPhillips about NH.

Personally, I do think Clinton cared about black Americans... he just felt betrayed when they flocked in massive numbers to Obama over his wife.

Vic, I wouldn't say that some of those states are necessarily a lock for either candidate. OR and ME, for example, haven't been shoo-ins for recent Democratic candidates. Likewise AR, NC, TN and WV for the GOP.

But I would say that if you see caandidates having to sink some money into these "core" states once we hit the high campaign season, that a sign of trouble.

New Hampshire and New Jersey will be very competitive this year. McCain is popular in New Hampshire, which has been close the past few election cycles (Gore narrowly lost it in 2000 and Kerry narrowly won it in 2004). New Jersey is a likely Obama state, but I don't consider it a "lock" at this point.

In the past, I would have automatically listed Virginia and Colorado as republican locks, and while I still think McCain will win them, I don't consider them locks this year. Likewise with Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Minnesota, which I used to automatically check off in the Democratic scorecard. They've been getting closer and closer every election cycle, and I think McCain has a chance in these states, especially in Pennsylvania.

Dems in NH are also aided by a Senate race that looks very competitive. By the end of election night NH will likely have a Dem Gov. and two Dem Senators. In the past four years it's slid decidedly blue.

MN is also a Dem lock as Obama is currently up in double digits and Hillary leads by five or six. The only way it comes into play is if Pawlenty is VP.

As for NJ, it was supposed to be competitive in 2000 and 2004, but it wasn't. It's a tease, but especially with the lackluster senate candidate for the Rep, I don't see it as close at all.

Oregon is a mortal lock for Obama, and he might even get close to a double digit win there. Maine will be closer, but it's safe for him.

Arkansas - Solid republican state unless there's a Clinton running for president. Gore and Kerry got destroyed in this state.

North Carolina - I grew up there, spent the better part of my life there, and there's no way that Obama wins in November, although he'll beat Clinton easily in the primary. Yeah, I know there's a big African American population and a higher than average percentage of college graduates (with the Research Triangle Park area), but this is still Jesse Helms country for now. Maybe in 15 or 20 years it will change over, but it's safe for McCain in November.

Tennessee - No way, no how for Obama. Solid republican territory. People make a big deal about Gore losing his home state in 2000, but fact of the matter is that he barely got elected to the Senate in the 80's, and by 2000 both senators were republican, the governor was republican, and 12 out of 14 congressmen were republican.

West Virginia - This used to be a democratic state years ago, but that's becoming a fading memory, and it's a red state now. There are a lot of "gun loving", "faith clinging" folks there, a lot of "Reagan Democrat" types, and a very low African American population. Bush destroyed Gore and Kerry there, and McCain should win there as well.

Vic - I generally appreciate your takes and feel like you're on the mark more often than most folks, but I'm still not sure your analysis above doesn't sell voter motivation (or lack thereof) too short.

McCain got a whopping 1% of the GOP convention votes in WV, less than 1/3rd of the primary votes in TN, and is now down to arguing with the state party in NC (who would presumably know better how to appeal to their voters than he does) while Hillary is wisely on the stump there playing every moderate card she can think of, and in the Arkansas primary almost as many people voted for a candidate other than Huckabee as voted for McCain (although granted that primary is hard to take much from under the circumstances).

I can't imagine any of those states ending up more than 54-46, and there's still some time between now & November. A few points of change between now & then and suddenly they're all toss ups.

Kerry lost 54-45 and Gore lost 51-46. I wouldn't call that being destroyed. It's a winnable state for a Clinton or a candidate that isn't comatose like those two were.

I agree with you about the gun loving and, somewhat, on the faith clinging. Still, I don't think it is a red state, by any means. Both US senators, 2 of 3 members of the house, the governor, 72 of 100 state reps, and 23 of 34 state senators are Democrats. WV went for Carter in '80, Dukakis in '88, and Clinton in '92 and '96.

I agree that it leans towards McCain, but I don't think it is in the mortal lock category.

Well, let this be a lesson for Bill as to how Hillary felt when Monica gave him a hummer in the White House.

I just don't get this Clinton thing where the feel everyone who supported Bill (10 years ago) should now automatically support Hillary. I saw Carville on Larry King saying that he didn't care about people supporting Obama, and he would support him should he become the nominee, but that Richardson had no excuse for supporting Obama. I think Richardson hit the nail on the head when he was talking about Clinton entitlement. Rather than persuading the voters to choose you based on policy and what you can do, they should support you because your husband did so much for them. Granted, that's not her attitude now, but that certainly is what Bill's been trumpeting on the campaign trail.

And I agree with electoral-votes issue, that right now a lot of dems are saying they won't vote for the other dem candidate, but now that McCain is pushing himself more toward the right in terms of tax cuts, war, etc, people will vote party line more than is suggested now.

Well, I think it is because Bill is feeling unappreciated. Instead of people falling all over themselves and saying, look how good we had it under Bill, we should line up behind him... they aren't. He's feeling more and more irrelevant and is dismayed that folks aren't more loyal to him than he expected.

I don't disagree that this is what should happen. My point is that if these things don't happen -- for example, if McCain has to make a sizeable ad buy in TN or WV in early October -- that means that his own internal polls show that he is in serious trouble. Likewise, if Obama has to spend some time in the fall shaking hands in either Portland, he's got some problems, too.

TN, by the way, has only 9 reps, 5 of which are Democrats. NC also has a majority of Dems in its House delegation, and a long history of electing Democrats to statewide offices. Both states can very easily come into play. The NC Gov and Sen races will also have some effect on the race, depending on the quality of candidates that emerge.

John McCain is Bob Dole 2.0

People aren't going to ignore a chance to make history. Any other candidate runs this year and maybe it's a different conversation. But I'm just not convinced, no matter how many statistics you cite or how many years you want to go back in history that a 72-year old white man is going to trump either a woman or a black guy to become President.

It's seriously the old versus the new and no matter how much Hillary and Barack "fight it out" I think in the end, everyone will come together and realize that "we'd rather have one of these two, than the old guard."

But again, we'll see what happens in November and then we can play that game where we go back and quote people and say "what says you now?" Should be a good time regardless...at least from the pundit game players standpoint. As for the direction of the country? That's another story.

Um... that's why Jesse Jackson won the Democratic nomination in 1988?

This kind of comment still amuses me to no end. The thought that Hillary Clinton is anything but the 'old guard' struck me as very funny. Putting a skirt on a leopard doesn't change its spots.

I'm with you. But people have short memories when they have a chance at "history."

I'm not going to explain it to you just because you don't understand the point I'm making. We'll just let time run its course and in the end, we'll see what happens.

Carry on.

I think that the 'history' effect has worn off over the course of this primary season. Seeing these two bicker and backstab each other over the course of a few months on a national stage quickly reminds people that these are still just politicians at the core in a different outfit.

My mom, who is 60, is a Republican who was gung-ho in January about voting for Hillary to be the first female president. Contrast that to just the other day, where she called her 'the bitch that does nothing but argue' and stated that she would vote Republican in the fall because she couldn't stand Hillary. It's amazing how quickly women voters will turn on other women in any aspect of life, including politics.

It's an absolutely silly idea to say people won't ignore a chance to make history. Almost naively idealistic.

If anything, people who "make history" have to fight against old prejudices to do so (ie, JFK becoming the first, and only thus far, Catholic to be US President).

Yes, the opression of Catholics and the Kennedy family is well documented. You have to feel sorry for them due to the barriers that they had to conquer.

The problem with your McCain/Obama comparisons are that Obama started out as this "mythical candidate" that became whomever a certain person wanted him to be. Run a business? He'll help small business. Sick of politics? He'll bring us all together. Unhappy with health care? He'll fix the system. But, as time has gone on, we are actually getting to know Obama and his policies. And, the more we know about him, the harder it is to mold him into this perfect politician many saw him as. Take the "bringing together" issue. Just look at the Rev Wright, fighting with Hillary and other comments he's made. It's much tougher to view Obama as a uniter after the past 2 months. Once we hit the regular election, even more info will be thrown out on him. There's a good chance Obama transforms from the perfect fiancee to the ole' ball and chain by November.

As to McCain, most people already know about him and most of the initial opinions were negative. Conservatives didn't like his working with Dems in the Senate, democrats were blown away by Obama and looked at him like an old peo-war fossil. Now, conservatives are starting to warm to him (almost out of necessity) and democrats are starting to get tired of seeing their candidates fight each other in the mud.

I still think it's anyone's game (and Barrack will get a nice bump in the polls when he officially wins), but the time between August and November could be harder on Obama than McCain without any "gotchas" being played. No matter what happens in that time, it will be hard for him still be able to transcend politics and be everyone to all voters.

Which was pretty pointedly played upon in the (awful & shouldn't have been done IMO) skit the WWE ran on Monday night.

Obama-as-The-Rock "IT DOESN'T MATTER what you think"
Actor-as-Bill (walking away sadly) to Hillary: "He's right"

I have no idea how many people would vote to "make history", but that has to be one of the dumbest damned reasons to vote for someone and I really hope it wouldn't be a factor for the vast majority of American voters.

I get, btw, that you're not suggesting it's a good thing to base your vote upon. I just hope you're wrong in your assessment of the American people. Personally, I think Obama could be the next McGovern... though he may end up being the next Jimmy Carter.

Drop Out, Obama

I saw it and just had to laugh.

Those of you that said Rev. Wright wouldn't go away are right. Not because the media wouldn't let it die, but because the man himself decided to keep surfacing. He's looking all proud of himself and trying to sound King-like in the media over the past three days.

Wonder what affect it'll have by September.

My conspiracy theory of the day is that they want Obama to lose, so that the civil rights establishment can be all self-congratulatory as if "there was no way that 'white america' was to elect a black guy." It's like a self-fulfilling prophecy.

The moron even said he had been "crucified" by the media... trying to tie himself as a Christ like figure. I'm sure Obama is wishing he had ordered the code red right about know.

I'd really like to read a transcript of the speech at the National Press Club today, but haven't been able to find one yet. This piece from Dana Milbank of the Washington Post suggests it really needs to be seen to be believed.
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/rough.../?hpid=artslot

dola

Another piece from the Washington Post that had me rolling my eyes. It's a Q & A with a couple of contributors to The Root (one of them also attended Rev. Wright's church for seven years).

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...l?hpid=artslot

Given that they both seem to be fans of Obama (and I'm not), it's an odd read. I really don't get the antipathy that this question provoked:


Given that Wright has said this controversy isn't just an attack on him, but an attack on "the black church", it seems that this is a question we should expect to be asked. And instead of trying to impart some sort of knowledge about black liberation theology, these two Obama supporters poo-poo the idea of a "black church" to begin with.

I realize this has nothing to do with the Democrat nomination (other than the fact that we're talking about this because of Obama), but I'm really fascinated by this issue.

double dola: Here's a link to the transcript of his speech at the National Press Club.

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/04...al-press-club/

Just skimming over the speech... I think his prepared remarks were a heckuva lot better than the Q and A afterwards. But my favorite moment had to be this:


It's brand new. That line cracked me up.

Wow, I thought Obama would have a chance to take down McCain. Wright is going to ruin his candidacy.

I agree.

You almost have to believe that Wright does not want Obama to become president.

I think he doesn't. The civil rights establishment know that Obama would put them out of business.

This is an interesting Newsweek article from a guy I really don't like very much, Karl Rove. He does make some good points.

"Even liberal commentators who adore you warn you can't win with a McGovern coalition of college students and white-wine sippers from the party's left wing."

Newsweek Article: "Dear Senator Obama..."

I was going to post the same thing. I do believe he is right on in all points, esp. #1. I like the way he ended

Well I disagree. Rove knows damn well that there isn't a thing that Obama could do in the Senate during an election year that would help him. The only way the Republicans wouldn't attack him or filibuster it so it died and he looked ineffective is if it was so core Republican that he'd alienate his base. Whether or not he has done enough in the Senate, there's nothing he can do about that now.

Ok, I'll give you that but you have to admit that it would look good if he had done something there. What about the other points?

I think it says a lot about the way this country feels about "senate experience" and the current state of politics that a guy who is perceived as having little experience has been running ahead of people who have a "lifetime" of it. I don't see what going back and contributing to the lowest-rated congress (in approval terms) can do.

Lowest rated Congress, but I bet over 90% of 'em will be re-elected. It's the other Congressmen that's the problem, not mine!!

The Senate stuff is tricky. I argued a long time ago that Obama had to run in 2008 before he had a long Senate record that was easily distorted. He doesn't have a big media friendly accomplishment, but he has worked with Republicans and the Independent Democrat on a number of issues.

With Dick Lugar on securing Russian nukes and pandemic preparation

With Joe Lieberman on protecting taxpayer privacy

With Tom Coburn on lobbying reform and no-bid FEMA contracts and making public all government contracts

With Olympia Snow on Veterans Health Care

I don't know why he doesn't publicize this stuff as it would really help with both the "he didn't do anything" and "he's a crazed radical" arguments.

As for the specific points,

1- I don't think it's the words of his stump specch as much as he seems to have been beaten down. The past couple of days he's sounded better and the Fox interview was very good. He can change his speech all he wants, but I think the bigger issue is getting back in control of the discussion. As long as he's constantly on the defensive it really doesn't matter what he says.

2- I don't believe there was a way to handle Wright that would have worked any better. I remember how many people were saying that Obama threw Wright under the bus for political gain. The attacks would have been there regardless.

3 and 4 I've covered.

5- I'd like to see some evidence that he lost ground because of attacks. It may be true, but I'd want some polling data to back that up. My sense is the attacks on him have been far more damaging than any attacks he's made. Again, what's hurting him is that he's on the defensive right now and he looks weak, not that he's being overly aggressive.

6- He does need to highlight his record and policies better, but the 2006 Russert interview stuff is strange to say the least. That sort of gotcha in a supposed advice column erodes his credibility.

But the bigger issue is that Rove is still deeply tied to Obama's opposition. Would you really trust advice for McCain from Mark Penn or James Carville? I just don't see how following Rove's advice will help Obama secure the nomination.

JPhillips, right now, Obama's opposition is the Clintons, which Rove et al wants him to beat.

I think he is going off so Obama can have an opportunity to come out and denounce him like everyone is saying he should have in the first place.

It's basically a photo op setup for Obama. Just guessing.

I don't think so Buc. Hillary is much more likely to leave pieces of the Bush policy in place than is Obama.

Interesting take. So, this could be Obama's "Sister Souljah moment".

Doesn't Hillery's campaign claim Obama isn't capable of doing something like that.
She is the one best able to matching the republican's dirty tricks.