did any of you notice the strange pattern following the narrow wins of mrs clinton?
with two straight wins, her national lead is still dwidling. she is the only candidate in recent presidential primaries whose national polls do not improve overall even after two wins.
there is something else going on here. the party elders want her to stop criticizing obama so harshly. why? because even if she wins more delegates prior to convention, she may not get the nomination. the party leaders are concerned with her lack of appeal to independents, and in contrast very pleased with obama's strong showing in northern nevada, a traditional republican stronghold. so, the superdelegates may swicth their votes to obama even if after clinton manages to win more delegates from the primaries. after all, superdelegates are more loyal to the party than to hillary.
after the showing in northern nevada, many democratic leaders are starting to think that they may be better off with obama in the national elections.
there is now real concern with the electability of hillary in november. the superdelegates were invented exactly for that kind of scenario-- in which one candidate appears to be a strong primary, but consistently fares very weakly in national match-ups.

she does get support beyond the very core and reliable and traditional democratic voters.
this is a real concern!!!

wow!!! i was proud of obama last night for standing up for his record. he really set the record straight. he made them look like idiots.
the tough bill that they claimed obama voted present for was initially sponsored by obama. somehow, there was some added clauses in the bill that obama had some reservation about; so obama could not either vote for or reject the bill in its modified form.
this is somehow equivalent to not answering yes or no to a non-applicable question on a federal form.

tom, you really got it, the sun-editors must have been under the influence of the unconscious mind when they chose this very operational and descriptive word for the clintons' camp.
obama has been doing something for the democratic party that many democrats could not do. he ventured into the hard and untouchable parts of northern nevada and convinced rural and northern nevadeans to vote democratic. that is revolutionary. his next move is with the evangelicals. he believes that the evangelicals have a lot in common with democrats, and for too long we have let right-wing politicians take advantage of them on the issues of obortion and gay marriage. in fact, he argues that evangelicals have some very important things in common with democrats; things such as poverty concerns, and other social problems such drug rehabilitations centers insteas of prisons for drug-addicts and so on.
obama can win this all the way to the white house!!!

it may not be that racially polarized if we look deeper.
the majority of blacks in nevada is relatively young. many blacks come here to work in the counstruction and entertainment industry; and because young voters tend to gravitate toward obama, this huge turn-out in favor of obama may have a lot to do with generational differences that appear to be racial polarization only superficially; similarly, the large percentage of the white vote that went for hillary may have more to do with educational level and older age rather than race. for instance, the vegas strip workers are in majority blue-collar democrats, and a significant portion of that percentage is hispanic. since there seems to be pattern of blue-collar democrats gravitating toward clinton, the huge hispanic support for clinton may not be that ethnic-based as suggested by many commentators.
we have to remember that it was not easy to campaign in nevada, and the caucus thing is vey new here; and we also know that hispanics here watch a lot spanish television. neither obama or clinton have had enough media coverage here prior to their speedy campaigns in latin television stations. so, given the fact that obama is a new comer in term of national politics, and has had insufficient time in terms of campaigning, the hispanic support for hillary may reasonably be viewed as a choice for a better known candidate with a popular ex-president as a husband rather than as an ethnic rejection of obama.
for example, in california clinton only has a nine-point lead; in light of that, obama would not be that close to clinton unless he had some significant hispanic support there.
so, it may well be a myth that hispanics do not support obama or blacks do not clinton.
many blacks are very young, so the generational gap be a bigger factor for their support of obama. in fact, when it comes to older blacks particularly women, clinton and obama are quite even.
so, i believe that the media may be tapping into our historical racial obsessions in order to increase ratings. in conclusion, the statistics when viewed in their proper context suggest that race is quite a minor issue in this presidential race.

i agree with you on the unity part. i support obama, and denounce clinton bad tactics; i may consider to vote for hillary if she wins the nomination, but she has to stop the mischaracterization of Obama. if she continues in that manner, i am done with her whether she wins the nomination or not.
she has so far distorted obama's record very efficiently; and i am getting pissed off with the obama strategists for not counter-attacking as efficiently.

for god's sake, bill clinton should be the last person in politics questioning the moral standards of others.
by the way, walden, what happened to bill's argument. after all, the people that he claimed that would be undercounted in the caucuses overwhelmingly voted for obama-- that is the people of northern nevada.
does he still believe that the people of the vegas strip have had un unfair advantage after they handed her wife the victory in nevada? not at all, because union bosses are great leaders when they endorsed the clintons but arm-twisting dictators when they defy the clintons.

walden, you are denouncing affirmative action while hillary is in full support of it. this is kind of hard to apparently support someone with such a zeal that you disagree with on such a major issue. your double coat somehow leads me reconsider my reverse psychology hypothesis. could it be that you are supporting hillary behind a screen, but in fact waiting to vote against her in the general election coming november? that is not an unreasonable question; after all, you disagree with her on a major socio-political hot-button. i would not be able to support obama if i disagreed with him on a major socio-political hot-button. by the way, hillary went to yale on the basis of a gender-based affirmatime action structure.
by the way, hillary supports affirmative action as it is whereas obama would support more of a class-and-income-based affirmative action. but either, you are intentionally ignoring those facts for your own hidden agenda, or you are vastly misinformed.
my social observation of the past ten years suggests that people that would fervently denounce affirmative action tend to be conservative republicans.
walden, we do not need to be personal. my fellow obama supporter did not have to insult you; let's keep our exchange civil; but you are wrong in assuming that obama's educated support is solely among the college teens. i may be slightly off, but the number of graduate students that has so far supported obama would triple that of clinton.
walden, it is not paranoia! you are using the full name of obama for the opposite reason that you would use the shorter version of hillary's full name.
you omit the hillary's maiden name to intentionally create a much closer link to the former president.
come on!!!!
let's not get personal, let's analyze the candidates'record!!!

"12/12/2007
Her list of favorite presidents - Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Lincoln, both Roosevelts, Truman, George H.W. Bush and Reagan - demonstrates how she thinks. As expected, Bill Clinton was also included on the aforementioned list."

the above statements are from hillary's official press releasse on her own website.
anyone who can read would see that ronald regan is also a favorite president for hillary, but she would never mention that in spoken words because she has no courage; it is only safe in written press-release because the educated part of the democratic party would understand, but the illiterate part would not know that she admires reagan; but as a hypocrit, she would denounce obama for being honest in public; after all, most people do not read but just hear!!!

that is one of the reasons that she would never be president because she is hypocritical to the core!!!

if you guys are thinking, then you should be thinking about the following:
remember clinton's argument that the location of the caucuses on the las vegas was unfair, and that votes cast there would be counted for more than those cast elsewhere. remember the-one-vote-per-person line advocated so angrily by bill clinton. now, since the majority of the voters on that strip voted for the clintons, does bill still believe that those votes were unfair? does he still believe that they counted for more than others? of course not; after all, the clintons thanked the voters for voting their conscience.
those voters moved from having unfair voting advantage to having great conscience!!!!
what a bunch of hypocrits!!!

if you guys are thinking, then you should be thinking about the following:
remember clinton's argument that the location of the caucuses on the las vegas was unfair, and that votes cast there would be counted for more than those cast elsewhere. remember the-one-vote-per-person line advocated so angrily by bill clinton. now, since the majority of the voters on that strip voted for the clintons, does bill still believe that those votes were unfair? does he still believe that they counted for more than others? of course not; after all, the clintons thanked the voters for voting their conscience.
those voters moved from having unfair voting advantage to having great conscience!!!!
what a bunch of hypocrits!!!

if you guys are thinking, then you should be thinking about the following:
remember clinton's argument that the location of the caucuses on the las vegas was unfair, and that votes cast there would be counted for more than those cast elsewhere. remember the-one-vote-per-person line advocated so angrily by bill clinton. now, since the majority of the voters on that strip voted for the clintons, does bill still believe that those votes were unfair? does he still believe that they counted for more than others? of course not; after all, the clintons thanked the voters for voting their conscience.
those voters moved from having unfair voting advantage to having great conscience!!!!
what a bunch of hypocrits!!!

obama actually got more delegates in nevada because he did better overall in the state of nevada than in highly concentrated areas around las vegas.
remember the gap is less than 5-percent after substancial distortion of obama's record, and subliminal negative ads.
yet, the national party recognizes that doing good overall is better than doing great in a few places and very bad in a lot of other places.
that is the case of hillary, she only has pocketed support built over her husband's popularity; her narrow win is not reflective of cross-over support; that is the reason that with her narrow win, she still gets less delegates than obama in nevada.
the smart people that designed this caucus arithmetic recognized that pocketed supports do not win national elections, but cross-over appeal does.
so, it makes sense to consider overall performance within a particular state. the logic here is similar to college graduation standards: one does not get to graduate because one gets a few A's in a few courses while flunking everything else.
all the statistics suggest big trouble for hillary in any national race because she has no cross-over appeal.
now imagine hillary with the same level of experience without a popular former president as a husband. where would she stand in the polls?