These last few weeks, he seems to be missing.  Not literally, but his presence in the national dialogue has receded.
Now I'm not a Clinton troll.  In fact, I've been an avid Obama supporter since the beginning.  And I will continue to be.  
But all I see and here out there is an angry Hillary.A mad narcissistic Bill.  Both acting like they're  bigger and more important than their own party.   
I expected a defiant Barack Obama to challenge that notion.  I expect him to stand up for our party at a time when no one else will, or can.  
But all I hear is the rallying cry of Hillary and Bill, both of whom are a little astonished that the democratic party isn't rallying around them.
Both of whom are thinking "What in the heck is wrong with all you people?" as "all us people" are  thinking the same about them.  
So where is Barack Obama?  

I know he's busy in NC and IN working every day for every vote.   
I turn on the tv and listen to the pundits reciting Clinton talking points and questioning his electability, using old electoral models and Clintonian logic.  I don't know why they're so confident about their speculation.  They have yet to be right about anything this election.  
But where is Barack Obama right now as the corporate media walks all over him?
He's busy winning.  I got that.  
But he seems distant. 
He talks about a broken system in Washington philosophically, but it doesn't feel like his feet are on the ground, in the present, demanding that the Attorney General either take the lead in all these investigations,  or get out of the way.  Asking how in the world a bill that would ensure voters had a paper trail was stopped in its tracks.  Demanding that the EPA allow each state to set their own cafe standards.  

I'd like to see him step up a little right now and show a lot more fortitude.    
You can only rope-a-dope so long.  At some point, you have to throw an uppercut.

So much obliterating, so little time.  
Let's start with Iran.
Now that the Joint Chiefs Chairman and the Pentagon are preparing military options against Iran, it's not surprising that Hillary has jumped on the bandwagon.  (I wonder if the word "obliterate" tested better than "attack".)
She is beyond hawkish now.  And she's distanced herself from the imaginary sniper fire in Bosnia fable.  
Actually, Hillary has been distancing herself from so many things her whole life it's surprising she's still within broadcasting range. 
So what or who else is on her obliteration wish list?  Well, David Shuster was for saying it was like the Clintons were "pimping out" Chelsea, but she only achieved suspension with him, not all out obliteration.  
The Democratic party is in Hillary's line of fire.  It's a big target so she divided it in half and is picking off one democrat at a time.  She assigned Bill Richardson to James Carville so that she could focus all her energy on Barack Obama.  And the DNC election rules.
So we'll see how all this turns out.  If she doesn't get nominated,   her job prospects look good. 
She's got a hell of a career as a wrecking ball.  

$5 and $10 dollar donations on the internet add up Just heard a rumor on MSNBC. If it's true, they raised $10 million in 3 days. It's good marketing even if they did have the money all along.

No one expected the Republicans to stop committing character assassination.  The latest tries to paint Obama as soft on crime by voting no on a death penalty bill that even the Republican Governor at the time thought unconstitutional.  They even attempt to connect it to 9/11.Here's a link to the story below.  Keep up the mediocre work, Republicans.  See you in the Fall. 
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/04/how-republicans.html


What Brown's TV ad doesn't mention is that the state's Republican governor, George Ryan, largely agreed with Obama, and he vetoed the bill in August 2001, saying the bill raised constitutional issues, that most gang related killings were at the time covered by the state's existing death penalty statute, and because of concerns that the bill would unfairly and disproportionately affect minorities.

Remember why she stayed in this race?  Because she wanted to let the American people decide who their nominee will be.  
But that ship has sailed.  So she's not as much a champion of that anymore.   
So what is she still doing in the race?  Why is she even in Indiana?  Beats me.  If Obama wins there, she loses.  If she wins there, she loses.  
Don't get me wrong.  I want every voter in Indiana to be heard.  
But regardless of what you decide, she wants superdelegates to overturn the results of this election.  
So if you think she's reaching out to you, if you think Bill is reaching out to you, it looks like you're being played. 
They're both going over your heads and taking it to party elders.  

Howard Wolfson is spinning so hard he can't even see straight.  Flooding the media with 'more people have voted for Hillary than any other candidate' when you include the disqualified primaries of FL and more impressively, MI., which begs the headline:
"Michigan.  Proof Hillary can win as long as no one else is on the ballot. 

This is the first time I've ever seen so much talk about how someone who's winning is going to win, as opposed to how someone who's losing is going to win.  

If the MSM is going to report Clinton talking points questioning how Obama could possibly win the GE based on the primary's White/African American voting preferences, are they not obliged to question how Clinton would win based on those same preferences?

I don't mind it if they extrapolate and ponder if Obama can get more white voters.  

But where's the discussion about Hillary getting African American voters?
There was a poll of Obama supporters being more likely to support Hillary vs. the other way around, but it's certainly not enough to exclude the discussion from both points of view. 

I posted this earlier but the comments seem to have drifted off topic.  I'm trying to assess how the Republicans will attack Hillary if she gets in the GE.
Have a look.  

http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/04/superdelegates-maybe-hillary-c.php

Could someone explain the difference in reporting that as 10%, not 8%?

Is she more electable in a General Election?  She wants you to think so.  Why?  Because she isn't electable in the primary.
Here's how the Republicans will look at it should she even make it past August:
In a Washington Post survey, people were asked whether the following statement applied to Hillary Clinton: She is honest and trustworthy. There was a 39-58 yes/no split. This is only one of the commercials we can expect from the Republicans should Hillary become the nominee. Breaking the agreement she made with her own party about FL and MI is another one. I can hear the VO saying "If her own party can't trust her, how can America?" Or maybe they'll do one about her forcing the party elite to overturn the voice of the voters because she didn't quite like the way the delegate count turned out. If she puts herself before her own party, where will she put America? While she was giving a speech opposing Colombia free trade, her chief campaign strategist was in Colombia lobbying in favor of it. And her husband was getting paid a million to support it. If she wants change, why has she accepted more money from lobbyists and special interests than any other candidate? She tried to steal pledged delegates from a member of her own party.    The most influential endorsement John McCain has to be commander in chief comes from Hillary Clinton.   How does she debate someone about a war she authorized? Lying about "sniper fire" in Bosnia? That's gift-wrapping the election for an american war hero. And warning a country of total obliteration? Is this the diplomacy we've been waiting eight years for? There's a reason the Republicans want so desperately to run against her in the general election. She's become the most divisive figure in American politics at a time when Democrats are capable of uniting in unprecedented numbers.

First, I congratulate the Clintons and their supporters for holding on to 10% ( + or - a few percentage points) of a 33pt. initial lead.  
But the delegate math doesn't lie.  
Obama wins this primary no matter how you slice it.  
Unless she appeals to superdelegates and says the voters are wrong and she should be handed the nomination.  
So now what. 

If the DNC chose to enforce the rules they started with before this whole thing started, this would be over.  
You can only indulge the Clintons so much before you start sabotaging the Democratic party.  And since it's another party's job to do just that, our own efforts would be redundant.  
I don't buy that a longer race is good for the party. Especially if one of the campaigns is doing more harm than good.  
I don't buy that Obama can't win the big states necessary to beat the Republicans.  
The Republicans have spent the last eight years beating themselves into a minority.  Their party has a weaker foundation now than it has in recent history.  What leg can they stand on?  Stay the course with the  bloodletting in the middle east?  Stay the course with a devastating financial crisis?  Stay the course with tax cuts for the super rich?  Stay the course with oil profiteering?  
And Karl Rove?  Architect of the Republican minority?
One thing more destructive than taking a page right out of the Karl Rove playbook is the administration ripping a page out of the constitution.
I have faith that enough Americans are enraged about the latter to dismiss the former. 

Rendell can befriend Louis Farrakhan but Obama gets ostracized for it?  
Sorry, Governor.  That's not how it works.  Being a panderer is a lame excuse for hypocrisy.  
We'll see you standing on that stage tonight with Hillary, beaming with pride,  but your lack of integrity, along with your comments about Obama's Kool-aid drinkers won't soon be forgotten. 

Pundits have been saying if you wanted to design a state tailor-made for a Hillary win, it would be Pennsylvania.  
All the demographics are in her favor.  
Why did she lose 25pts in a matter of weeks?  
Obama's advertising?  Are her supporters that disloyal?

How hypocritical is this?  She uses the Farrakhan guilt-by-association  against Obama but it's okay for Rendell to praise Farrakhan on stage?  
Hillary has not only lowered the standards.  She's doubled them.
Why is this video only coming out now?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/21/ed-rendell-clinton-surrog_n_97784.html

In one of my posts last week, I predicted that Clinton would win by 20-25pts.  I stand by that because politics is all marketing.  
Have a look, let me know what you think:
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/04/take-pa-polls-with-a-grain-of.php

Since 2004, or maybe even earlier, Hillary and Bill have been preparing to move back into the White House. At the time, it was perceived that we would need the Clintons, Bill really, to save us from the disaster called the Bush administration. The perception was that only the Clinton machine could beat that Republican attack machine and enormously powerful Republican majority. But things changed, as Chuck Todd pointed out on Meet the Press this morning. In 2006, the democrats did something they hadn't done in over a decade. They won majorities in both the house and the senate. These new reps and senators weren't conventional politicians, they offered a peek at the emerging younger stronger generation of Democrats. Jim Webb, for example. He stands strongly against the war, as do many others, and no longer are democrats folding like lawn chairs.
Barack Obama has brought millions of new voters into the process and there have been record turnouts across the entire country.
Especially the younger generation. (Historically, they've been no -shows.
Hillary and Bill aren't carrying the weight leading the way for democrats anymore. 
In my opinion, they're doing the opposite. Dividing the party and holding us back.

Bill and Hillary's likability ratings have plummeted and I believe it's in part because of how they've been behaving throughout this campaign.