If you watched the complete speeches by both Clinton and Obama yesterday on C-Span, you may have noticed that the audience in the bleachers were divided into two sections, Obama supporters on the left, Clinton supporters on the right.
Clinton spoke first. After she spoke, more than half of that section left.
This was a major event for the party in NC. 
I think that the Obama people would have stayed had Obama spoken first.

It was only a matter of time. Here comes Nader and Bob Barr with numbers that help Obama, hurt Clinton but show a real problem for the Dems.

With Clinton's recent advantage, and Obama's slow responses to crisis, Zogby has wisely started polling the potential elephant (growing larger) in the room.

The numbers:
Obama  45- McCain 34, Barr 4, Nader 1
McCain 44 - Clinton 34, Barr 4, Nader 3
A Clinton win in the primary means Nader can get enough numbers to win. Obama's starry-eyed liberals will flock to Nader.

Meantime, McCain is running a smart campaign beneath the radar. Talking healthcare as if he meant it. Good by half the blue-collar vote.

Obama. Get real about where we are in this. Stop coasting. Start getting into the trenches. 


   

Barack Obama has to explain why he didn't leave Rev. Wright's congregation. I want to know why Hillary Clinton didn't leave a serial sexual abuser.
Let's have a Moyer's roundtable interview with Bill Clinton's women. Who are they going to vote for? I don't think it will be Hillary. Let's have a Larry King show with these women.
What do they think Hillary should do about her association with the abuser of these women? Shouldn't she reject and renounce? 
Wouldn't it be fair for the press to raise these questions? is it not unfair that they do not?

There is a profound double standard in play. Obama can't and shouldn't bring it up. But his surrogates should.

Most dems say it's unfair to bring up Clinton's  past. But that was before Hillary and Bill turned against their own party by encouraging race- baiting and saying that McCain was more qualified than Obama.

Bill is having quite the laugh this morning over this Wright thing as he eyes his next victim.

This is a repost from Democraticunderground.com . There hasn't been much discussion on it.
Remember how Edwards said he would call out Congress to give up their healthcare if they couldn't provide universal healthcare for Americans? Well, now that Edwards is no longer in the picture, look what Congress is concocting behind our backs. They take us for fools. Where is Edwards when we need him. Alternatively, I want to hear Obama and Hillary explain how they will handle Congress on this issue. Universal healthcare now. We cannot wait. This is the real crisis. Terrorism is also a crisis, but it people are not suffering from terrorism every day. Many Americans suffer from lack of access to affordable healthcare EVERY DAY OF THEIR LIVES. This is unacceptable. Who does Schumer think he is? Where is Edwards?

Congressional Democrats are backing away from healthcare reform promises made by their two presidential candidates, saying that even if their party controls the White House and Congress, sweeping change will be difficult.

. . . 
Sen. Charles Schumer (N.Y.), a member of Senate Democratic leadership and a key Hillary Clinton ally who also sits on the Finance Committee, said he is “not sure we have the big plan on healthcare.”

“Healthcare I feel strongly about, but I am not sure that we’re ready for a major national healthcare plan,” Schumer said.

Schumer said he would focus “on prevention above all and cost cutting until we can get a national healthcare plan.”

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/dems-hedge-on-healt... 

Obama supporters: Please recommend this blog ! I don't say this for personal reasons, but want the message to be discussed. Thanks, Maria
Dear Barrack,
I'm one of your donors. I send what I can every week, no matter what. 
I have a suggestion for how our money can be used to move the campaign against Clinton and McCain more forcefully.
Start running ads against McCain in states you have already won. In these adds, lay out detailed plans for social security, health care, revising Nafta, and other economic issues. Include supporters in such ads who are now in congress. Steal a page from Newt's "Contract With America."

Place these ads especially in districts where a local super-delegate is up for re-election or will be in the next two years.

This will show the strength of what the Obama movement can do in a general election. It will squeeze  Clinton's finances in a new way. This will show a new kind of "toughness." Target vulnerable dems --Nutter for one , for one. This is a good way to fight back without going negative -in my opinion. Many of your supporters want some kind of "payback" against Clinton's tactics and the kind of vile things said by Carville and group. This would be a positive way to accomplish that.

Go back into Pa. and other states NOW in selected districts. 
You are already running ads here in Oregon. Clinton has nothing. She has no money. Let's make the same statement in Ca. and other states. Start selective ads in Latino districts. Don't go crazy. Just enough to make the point.

She raised money? Let's show them real money.
Thank you,  Maria Gomez

A journalist in the Swamp has another story about what happened in Texas that counter's Wolfson's claim that Hillary was unfairly pushed around in the caucuses. In part:

I am a print journalist with 24 years experience in reporting Texas politics, admittedly more rural politics. Wolfson's comments are off-base. The Clinton campaign began attacking the process almost before it began. 

....the Texas Democratic Party primary system has been the same since 1988. The party, the campaigns and the media published extensive explanations before the primary to educate the public about the do-it-yourself nature of the precinct comventions (caucuses.) The problem came with an unbelievably large turnout. And no one could have predicted that Texas even would have a voice in the election when the convention (caucus) sites were selected and certified.

At the precinct caucuses in March, both Clinton and Obama supporters claimed the other side had manipulated the extraordinarily complicated "prima-cacus" or Texas two-step (really a four step with one still to go.) However, At the county convention, the only people who seemed to be trying to create dissension rather than solve problems associated with massive success, was the paid Clinton campaign worker who was not from Texas.

 She kept calling foul on delegates, some of whom were not legitimate, but they were dealt with by the credentials committee, a process already in place.
And throughout the day, she continued to shuttle back and forth among the precinct caucuses meeting to elect state delegates and me, giving me little digs against Obama and his campaign, all "off the record, but ... and I'm not suppose to say anything, but ... and please don't print this but, this is not working I know there are more people who shouldn't be here, I just can't find them. "
The system in Texas was created by the long-time party workers, many of whom are Clinton supporters.

Morning Joe, the show with the least substance on MSNBC, spent three hours this morning bashing Obama's performance in the debate. Everyone had a reason why Clinton "won."
Meantime, as they talked, the crawler beneath them reported their own call- in poll which had Obama 4 to 1 over Clinton for the debate.
They blamed Obama for being defensive in what will be remembered as the worst debate for any news organization in history. No credit was given Obama for responding to an hour of questions about Clinton's "he -can't-get -elected" points. I've never seen anything like it. And it was a few days before and important primary. Shameless. 

David Gergen on CNN, always a reasonable voice, saw the debate in another light, pointing to Hillary's phoniness in these constant attacks.
What's up with MSNBC? Ratings. For all these people, ratings mean more than responsible journalism. They're all afraid of being cancelled. They all want the Clinton-Obama mess to go on so they have something to talk about.  They want Clinton to win by a big margin. They want to cover controversy. 
This is shameless stuff. And an insult to viewers that want real issues discussed. Maybe it's time for all is news junkies to get a life and stop watching this crap. Let's read a book.

Do you think this picture is racist--Yes or No?
http://www.ocweekly.com/columns/ask-a-mexican/ask-a-mexican/19246/

EUGENE Hillary Clinton comes to Eugene, Or. today to a high school gymnasium that holds 2,700 people. Two weeks ago Barack Obama spoke at McArthur Court, a college sports arena  that held 7,000 while more than 3,000 people were turned away. A Clinton spokesperson defended today's smaller venue as more desirable for the senator's purpose: 

Val Hoyle, a member of Clinton's Oregon steering committee, said she has no doubt that the New York senator could fill McArthur Court with more than 9,000 people as Obama did on his March 21st stop in Eugene.

 "Hillary speaks to regular people and coming to a regular high school means the people who are there actually get to be more of a participant than if they were at a larger venue."

The remarks were reported in the local paper, The Register Guard. Crowd size is rarely mentioned in the mainstream press these days, though on the local level, it seems to be noticed.

I'm re-posting something written by "livelongdem" yesterday as a response.

The white working class is shrinking, especially the body of traditional union blue-collar workers.

In the primaries, Hillary is getting blue-collar whites through longtime political relationships with unions, transparently false denial of support for NAFTA in the 1990s, and exploiting racial divisions based on pre-existing prejudice and simmering resentment over things like affirmative action and busing (noted in Obama's speech on race).

So far you'd have to say Clinton has played this issue like a virtuoso. It's like she's convinced mainstream media to talk primarily about Pennsylvania, and when talking about Pennsylvania, to talk only about white blue collar guys and what a problem they are for Obama. Haven't heard a peep about how the surges in voter registration are historic, favor Obama, and favor the trend you are talking about.

Today her propaganda basically says the big news isn't that Richardson prefers Obama to her, whom he has known for years and clearly has big reservations about. No, the real news is that a shrewd politician like Richardson is so insane he staked his political future on a guy he thinks is going to lose. It paints Obama as a loser and Richardson as a madman all in one sentence. Nice. Wouldn't matter if MSM didn't eat this stuff up.

What happened to news reports about the size of crowds at rallies? Obama appeared in Eugene, Or., in an arena that held 14,000 with 3,000 (or more) turned away. The event happened while many college students were away on break. Hillary Clinton comes this week to a hall that holds 2,700. Will such a difference make national news? No. The media has stopped pointing out crowd size. They've been pressured by the Clintons I believe. This should be news. Shouldn't the super delegates see what's going on? Doesn't crowd size count for something? Turn the camera on the crowd. Let's see who's there and how many. Not just the on stage group chosen by the campaigns. 

There is no question that Obama needs part of the working class white vote. There is no question that he will NOT do as well as Hillary in some states with this group in the general election. But that doesn't mean he can't win. Obama is forging a NEW demographic that includes people like me, younger Hispanics who will break with our parents. Add other young people and independents. This race should not be reduced to "who gets the white working class wins." He will get enough. And the country has had enough of this kind of thinking.

I don't the conflicting information Im ready about PPP.
This is from the PPP:
"Public Policy Polling had the most accurate numbers of any company in the country for
the Democratic primaries in South Carolina and Wisconsin, as well as the closest
numbers for any organization that polled the contests in both Texas and Ohio."

I found a lot of detail at this site.

fttp://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/PPP_Release_031908.pdf

Chelsea is angry. Who cares?  Die hard Clinton supporters see it and cry more victim stuff. But my friends don't see it that way. We're pissed that Chelsea thinks she is above these questions. Whenever she blows young people off, guess what, her mother loses votes. And when you see the back to back video of Chelsea today and in  the video with Hillary "ducking bullets"back then, well, the impression is made more negative. The whole thing makes many people think "here come the CLintons again."Blame everything on someone else. Do yourselves a favor, Clintons, keep the girl out of it.