A little perspective, please.

We need to step back and let the process take place. No matter how enthusiastic you are for your candidate, it must be allowed to run it's course. We are far from done and as usual, another DUer, Tom Rinaldo said it waaaay better than I could. This bears repeating...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4805803

"At this point in time, in the 2004 contest for the Democratic nomination for President, four Democratic Candidates remained in the race; John Kerry, John Edwards, Dennis Kucinich, and Al Sharpton. With March 2 2004 Super Tuesday approaching, John Kerry had already won 18 out of the 21 contests already held, having lost only in the District of Columbia, South Carolina, and Oklahoma. Senator Kerry was on a bit of a roll at this point, having won the previous 11 contests. All 11 of those victories were by margins of 15% or above, with the sole exception of Wisconsin, where Kerry won by a 6% margin. Over half of Kerry's victories during this run (6) were by margins of over 20%.

On February 28th 2004, none of John Kerry's remaining Democratic opponents had won more than a single primary or caucus in the entire 2004 race, compared to Kerry's 18 total victories by that date. Still, no Democratic Candidate was being pressured to leave the race by forces external to his own campaign, and Senator John Edwards in particular continued to maintain hope of winning the Democratic nomination for President. The media continued to regard Senator Edwards as a serious contender to win the Democratic nomination.

Senator Edwards finally withdrew from the 2004 race for President after the results of March 2 2004, which showed him losing to John Kerry in all ten of the contests held that day. John Kerry won nine of those, and Howard Dean (who had already left the race by that date) won his home state of Vermont."

McCain is already gearing up for the debate. The race isn't over until the voters say it's over. Go Hillary!

on Tuesday. If she loses either TX or OH, it will be near impossible for her to justify staying in the race, and she will hear that loud and clear.

there just aren't that many more contests after next Tuesday. She's smart and she knows that if she doesn't have a good day, she's lost the opportunity to ever get within striking distance.

1) The calendar was moved up this year... so, in reality, we are at the equivalent point of being in mid-March in 2004.

2) The GOP candidate has been decided, and we're giving him a head start that could prove difficult to neutralize.



As an Obama supporter, though, I'm all for letting this play out. Every night that Obama gets to give an victory speech is a night of FREE positive advertising on all of the news networks with no rebuttal by the GOP. McCain is relegated to an "oh, by the way" story given about 5 minutes of coverage.

Still.... I think Pennsylvania won't play a role. 6 Weeks are between the last March primary and PA's. There's no way Hillary will have the money to campaign in PA for 6 weeks with no primaries. Her well is damn near dry now.

She's a real fighter, never gives up, always has her game face on. She's smart and informed and a real challenge to Obama. Her campaigning against him has made him a stronger and better candidate, and is preparing him very well for the General Election later this year. I wouldn't want to see him go there still unvetted and served up to the RNC that way.

It's been an interesting and exciting primary season, hasn't it? But I do think we've had enough debates now--they seem to be just media events that add little to the discussion at this point. But I hope Hillary keeps on going as long as she has the money and energy to run her campaign.

If she does so much better, how come not a SINGLE of the three debates changed the dynamics of the campaign?

In fact... Obama's poll numbers and election market percentages went UP after each debate.


You may think she "won"... but she lost ground after each debate.

is that she thinks that the one who can say the most words wins. She went on and on and on the other night, filibustering, answering questions that weren't asked, making irrelevant points, showing off how much she knows. This has been a failing with Dem candidates for quite some time now. The more effective Dem speakers don't do that--don't recite laundry lists.

Obama speaks with fewer words, which make the words he does say matter more. He focuses on one thought at a time and it is received better by the listener. He knows his audience--knows that at a debate he's speaking to the general public, not a Senate committee or the Brookings Institution. So he doesn't spout out an encyclopedia with each question--although I'm sure he could if he tried.

Bill Clinton, as I remember, also used to follow this tack. He kept it short and simple when campaigning. The old Bill did, anyway. Lately his speeches seem to be whining and accusatory diatribes.

A candidate lacks "substance" if s/he doesn't give wonky dissertations laden with excruciating detail.

Yeah, and Bill is becoming embarrassing.