Obama as "spoiler"? KO points to his comments that HE'LL get Clinton voters after the primary,

but she may not get HIS. Keith read it as a subtle threat.

Wow. Obama needs to clean that up (once again), so we know what exactly he's talking about.

even cross-over Republicans that will vote for him that may not vote for her. It wasn't a threat about Democrats. It is more about the demographics.

I've been a bit surprised by Keith so far during the election session. He seems to miss some obvious things sometimes.

Craig Crawford came on. No thanks re Crawford.

I think he knows its over after SC.

but his puppet candidate still wasn't able to win the primary. In the general election, Sharpton told his voters ti STAY HOME. That's how NYC has a GOP mayor.

Good luck to the Clintons in winning the GE if they get the nom.

Very progressive to threaten to pull support from party nominee. Who (except his sycophants) didn't see this coming?

its little things like this that break campaigns, you know, stupid little things and he keeps doing them.

Again, if Lil Dog gets the nom don't blame anyone else for the loss of congress, and the possible loss of the White House.

Our country gets what it deserves.

So he is right.

when they picked 2 divisive candidates. If they lose the GE, they'll have no one to blame but themselves.

he does not know when to shut up and he takes a pop at BC for it.

This has nothing to do with Obama, i felt this way before he joined the race. Fact: I have talk to many Dems who feel the same way and it doesn't make us bad Dems. We are just sick of them.

pick your candidates for you too...

he has a chance to explain that he didn't mean what it sounded like...he really meant blah, blah, blah. He's a neophyte and needs to learn how to talk in those damn sound bites. Short, concise, accurate and to the point. No do overs.

one needs to be very specific and direct in their statements. Nuance doesn't work well in this competitive election environment.

He really needs to sharpen this skill. I'm sure he will.

It's darn hard to explain yourself in a sound bite. But that's what politicians have to learn...some times the hard way. I really think he shouldn't have made the comment in the first place. Live and learn! That's the reason he has to do so much explaining. He didn't really mean to say what it sounded like. I don't hold that against him but one can't complain that it was a good political opportunity. That's smart mean down in the dirt politics. That's what it will take to beat the nasty rough and tumble Rethugs in the GE.

They are not all that different, and both are sucking out loud right now. That's fine by me! They are making Edwards look better and better all the time! Keep it up you two!

She would not get those votes. Obama would. Simple as that.

the most obvious explanation is likely right. Senator Obama does appeal to, among others, a segment of the population that is not going to vote for Senator Clinton if she is the nominee. The same is true for John Edwards. (And, in fact, for Senator Clinton, if she is not the nominee, cannot assign all of her supporters to either Obama or Edwards.) That is not because either of these two would refuse to campaign for her if she is the nominee. It is because she has very high negatives, and has had them for longer than the three of them have been in the campaign.

If Senator Clinton is the nominee, the democratic party will not be contesting the exact same states as they would if Senator Obama or ex-Senator John Edwards is the nominee. The Clinton campaign understands this, and is confident that they can win. The truth is Senator Clinton does not need 50+% of the votes to win; the "official" outcome in the 2000 election showed that the popular vote alone does not determine the outcome.

I think Senator Clinton can win the popular vote. It could be a strange contest if there is a Bloomberg run, in which case it may be where neither Senator Clintor or the republican get to 50%.

on the terror threat card, I thought he was no longer carrying water for HRC, but it's obvious now he is. Yesterday it was the "good ideas" flub, today he mucks up an obvious reference to what the media has widely reported in the primaries, the independent and republican support obama has received. hillary winning the primary puts a lot of congressional seats in play in red states that would otherwise be safe. And in 2010, it sets us up for a drubbing in the house/senate if she managed to win the general, which would be a longshot against mccain since he does appeal to those independents and republicans that have/will vote for obama in the primaries.

I guess he's just going to get this no matter what he says or does. Maybe his view of things is just different from yours. I know that's a radicaal concept, but it's just a thought.