I'm seeing the Clintons display the 50%+1 but the other 49.999% can screw off mentality.

Those other 49% vote for than just one office people; it's why we lost Congress as soon as Clinton got into the White House.  

Steve Harrison for Congress, NY-13, Staten Island and Brooklyn, NY

I agree.  It's one of the reasons I'm supporting Obama.

And it really pisses me off to hear Mark Penn say that my state doesn't count.  You can bet he would have counted it if one percent of the vote had swung in his candidates' favor.

Help me raise money for Jay Nixon, the next Democratic governor of Missouri

Jerome Armstrong is unwilling to concede that Obama is using the 50 State Strategy, even effectively.  

And thank you for pointing out that Bill Clinton won Georgia.  This morning, I posted how Sen. Clinton, for whatever reason, uses Bill Clinton's losses to explain away her losses:

Then there's the coattail riding that is wrong headed.  Earlier this week, Clinton said  "my husband never did well in caucus states either,", to which I reply:  "And?  Who cares what your husband won or didn't win?  This is supposedly you running.  Remember?"  Well, she just can't let ol' Bill's loses go unmarked:

During a news conference, she smiled as she brushed off Tuesday's defeats, noting that her husband had lost Maryland in 1992. "Some weeks one of us is up, and the other's down, and then we reverse it," Clinton said.

Look, if I wanted to live in '92, there'd be a Bush in the White House, an astronomical deficit and US troops in Iraq.

Oh.

Okay, well now I'm heavier and married with two kids.  My hair has gone through more changes in the last 16 years than the way a Clinton campaigns.

To me, it's clear that they are unable or unwilling to look to the future.  To contine more from my blog post above:

What's telling is this:

Top Clinton strategists dismissed the idea that Obama's momentum is strong enough to carry him through the next three weeks, noting that perceptions have swung wildly from week to week depending on the outcome of state-by-state contests. Walter Mondale in 1984 and Jimmy Carter in 1980 lost key primaries before winning the nomination, chief strategist Mark Penn reminded reporters during a conference call.

Marinate on that one for a bit.

Hey! Let's play Trivial Pursuit faboo mama Edition:

In Politics:  Who won the general election for president in 1980 and 1984?*

Do they really want to there?  Is that the association Mark Penn, Clinton's chief strategist, really wants to make?  Is the Clinton campaign all about her getting to the GE only to lose to McCain?

Remember this is the candidate who, in addition to saying that she won "the important states", also dismissed black voters and stated that activists don't represent the electorate.  

Oh, what's a black activist from Kansas City or Seattle to do?  

Blogging While Brown Convention Atlanta, GA July 25-27, 2008

Likewise, since momentum greases the wheels of a successful campaign, the big wins in the little states have emotionally cascaded right over and smothered the big win in CA. It's the Liliputians overwhelming Gulliver here and who can resist cheering on the Liliputians after living through 8 years of being stomped and manipulated by Rove? The very essence of this race is the voice of the little people.
 

No Hillary, you were outspent by the people not the Obama campaign.

Well I'll be damned, Steve Soto weighs in

http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/011957.php

No Hillary, you were outspent by the people not the Obama campaign.

.

≈ Cross-posted from Steven D's diary -- Obama Supporters ≈

"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."

As we work thru this primary season, it seems to me that one of the biggest strikes against Clinton is what has happened to the Democratic party in the past 16 years. They have NOT lead the party, they have destroyed it. And that, if for no other reason, is enough to choose Obama over Clinton.  The party will be here long after the next presidency, and we need leaders and stewards who will strengthen the party, not continue down the same path of feckless and piss poor opposition to a Republican party run amok.

Jake

obama just picked up the endorsement of ex-sen lincoln chafee today:

Former GOP senator to endorse Obama

Former Republican Sen. Lincoln Chafee endorsed Democratic Sen. Barack Obama on Thursday, saying he is the best presidential candidate to restore the nation's credibility.

In a conference call with reporters, Chafee announced his backing of the Illinois senator. Chafee, one of the more liberal Republicans in the Senate, lost his seat in 2006 to Democrat Sheldon Whitehouse. Chafee left the GOP last year and became an independent.

"I believe Senator Obama is the best candidate to restore American credibility, to restore our confidence to be moral and just, and to bring people together to solve the complex issues such as the economy, the environment and global stability," Chafee said.

Despite losing, he remains popular in the Ocean State and his approval ratings on election day were 63 percent.

Rhode Island holds its primary March 4...

In an odd bit of timing, Chafee announced his endorsement on the same day likely Republican nominee Sen. John McCain was campaigning in the state.

link

lTMF'sA...the revolution will not be televised...Peace

I look at it like this.

I figure there is about a 30% chance that Clinton would loose in November. However, if she wins the nomination, it is a 50% +1 Stategy, and the country remains divided. Things get better, but only by degrees.

I give Obama about a 35% chance to loose in November, but he also has the chance to win in a landslide. Carying new Senators and Congresscritters with him. I just don't see Obama winning a close election, I see him either loosing, or winning in a route.

I give Clinton slightly less odds to loose, because she will play dirty, she will fight nasty, she will stoop to their level, and it has been proven to work.

Ill take my chances. I am sick and tired of this split down the middle crap.

The Republicans are just wrong, on EVERYTHING. I don't want to have to deal with Clinton in the WH, and 48 Republican Senators then nothing gets done, no real progress is made.

If I could pick the President, its a no-brainer, either Feingold or Gore, but since we actually have to go out and win this thing, Obama has the chance to inspire America, and frankly, I think America is ready to be inspired.

I'm glad that I live in an important, umm, significant state.

Fear will keep the local systems in line. -Grand Moff Tarkin Survivor Left Blogistan

I don't want to sound overly dramatic here, but because the red state / blue state ideological divide matches up quite conveniently with a geographical divide, continuing on with the abandonment of some states and the catering to others really only has one eventual logical conclusion, and that's splitting into two separate countries.

Whether or not that would happen through another civil war or not, who knows.  But isn't that really the logical endgame?

i'll make two points.

1. i can find, without real effort, threads in the blogosphere (& @ blogs of this size) that make very similar, if differently focused, arguments about why hillary is "truer to the democratic process." there are a lot of ways of making this claim, and both camps are right now claiming this. i find this ironic for many reasons.

2. has it occured to people that there are legit gripes coming from "big state" people? states with large populations are screwed, every year by every candidate and both parties. if big states aren't forced to wait till the latter end to participate, they get disenfranchised for thinking they have a right to be part of the process. and when that's not happening, they're mashed in with a bunch of smaller states on the same day and "all victories are alike." the media seems to be pretty good at telling us, and it changes from year to year, "which states are important." almost never, do you really learn about what the general will be like from just one small state. but you wouldn't know from the media! iowa is america, after all.

i am not a supporter of either candidate, but i can't say either of them are on High Moral Ground on this issue. the process itself is dominated and directed by faceless unelected party higherups and insiders, people who don't understand that are kidding themselves. other people will determine who is the nominee, not us Little People. the rules here are arbitrary, and it's a power play every season to determine which campaign will ultimately get to make the rules. i wish both candidates luck.

Other than the Monte Python song running through my mind, this brings up a topic that does not seem to have gotten much attention on the national media - coattails.

Has the Clinton campaign considered what message this sends on "possible coattails" of the two campaigns?

If you are already in a State so democratic it just doesn't matter, we will be right there with you.

If you are not, tough.  YOYO baby.  

If I was running in a presidential red or purple state, what help should I count on from a Clinton presidential campaign based on their current and likely future analysis and strategy?

Think of our constitution as a levy. Think of our democracy as New Orleans. Now, what are you prepared to do?

This is so spot on.

And the next time you hear about him being so-called naive, say: "That charge just shows your inability to get the job done."

The laziness and the fear is just astounding. If you don't lay the groundwork in the so-called red states, they will always BE red states.

But I suspect the Begalas and the Carvilles of the world know they're not that smart, nor that dedicated. Their bullshit artistry only works short term. And that's why they are kryptonite to the Democratic party, and the sooner the rest of the party realizes this, the better off we'll all be.

Can't hear ya, Peach!

I think the Penn comment, like those of the other Clinton honchos, makes sense, depending on the agenda they support. If your primary concern is not about change or policy or principle, but about keeping your own small circle of cronies in power, you don't get any points for rocking the boat. It is rational to opt for minimum risk to barely hang on to a minimum edge, rather than take real risk and avoid getting trounced. Taking a stand on principle or policy -- or even criticizing the status quo -- is a risk that promises big victory as well as big defeat. If the game is really just about who get to go through the revolving door to the Elitise Cafe next, it's not a game worth playing.

Bush is "the first President to admit to an impeachable offense." --Former Nixon counsel John Dean

Once Obama receives the Democratic nomination, and he WILL receive it, I hope that he spends the majority of his time proving the 50-state strategy right. Don't just go to democratic strongholds to make his case. Go to Alaska and Kansas and Missouri and Mississippi and other crazy red-states to make the speeches. And while there, heavily plug the local candidates for congress/senate. This is crucial. He needs to enter office with a new congress that is loyal to his cause. His first two years in office could be truly revolutionary. Forget about his published "positions" on "the issues" if he gets the congress of his choosing. He could easily pass things like single-payer healthcare and whatever else he knows to be appropriate, but would never fly with a strong opposition party in office.