I hate to sound stupid, but given how very early the Mi and Fl votes were, am I the only one that thinks that Obama would have a better showing now (as in anytime since Feb) than he did then? It seems like his campaign, the press, HC's campaign, everyone, seems to assume that the numbers will be the same and I think that is not true.

Why wouldn't Obama support a re-vote? And where has Weinstein been? Couldn't we have used his threats and money a month or so ago?

Posted at May 10, 2008 9:51 PM in response to Harvey Weinstein to the Rescue

I have to say that on principle the idea of paying off her campaign is not good for me. However, much as I hate to admit it...she has had a tremendous amount of support. Whether this is because of name recognition and warm fuzzies from her husband's stint (my theory) or what - doesn't matter. What does matter is that out of all the delegates possible (not including Mi, Fl) Obama's lead is around 4% or 5% (I think that's right). Not exactly a landslide. So in that respect, maybe there should be some acknowledgment that we dems are still a pretty diverse group and we should try to remember that we can pick this particular battle and how it ends up. We don't have that luxury against the repubs in the general election.

Posted at May 10, 2008 9:19 PM in response to N.O.P.E. (Not One Penny, Ever)