wnyc.org / 93.9fm / am 820

Inded, it seems that much of the party leadership is beginning to panic. The more Clinton wins the votes of rank & file Democrats, the more obvious it becomes that this is an extra-ordinaryily tight race & the more obvious it is that Obama can only win if the 2.3 million voters of Florida & Michigan are not counted, the more they pile on. If they want ALL Democrats to unite behind the nominee in November, the party leaders & the superdelegates would be well-advised to wait until ALL rank & file Democrats have had a chance to vote (i.e. before the polls close) & to find a just solution to the mess they created by excluding Florida & Michigan. Why was the schedule of primaries set up to run from January to June to begin with? Was it intended that the voters of states after Iowa or New Hampshire or February 5th, or March 4th or Pennsylvania - WHEN EXACTLY was it intended that voters should stop having a voice in the selection process? In a race this close, it makes no sense, it is NOT RIGHT & it is not in the tradition of the Democratic party's commitment to genuine democracy to stop the voting before the polls close - i.e. before the last state has had a chance to have it's say. It is counter-productive to final party unity to be seen to be attempting to rail-road an outcome.

It will be interesting to see what impact Senator Edwards' endorsement has on the voters of Kentucky, Oregon, Puerto Rico, South Dakota & Montana. If they are as pliant as the voters in Massachusetts were in the face of the enthusistic endorsements of Obama by Senators Kennedy & Kerry as well as Governor Patrick, Clinton will likely lose little sleep from this most recent attempt by the left-liberals to impose their choice on the party.on the party.

mc
sorry to disagree on this again but i have to say the delay is preventing healing. if it's over as most agree then let it be over. the superdel's are part of the democratic party process, you shouldn’t deem them less than "actual...voters." where are our leaders? do the superdel's have confidence in Senator Obama or not?
An SD endorsement won’t prevent voters in Kentucky or Oregon from voting for whomever they wish to vote for.

it's not over until one of them gets 2,025 delegates

Thank you John Edwards!!!!!

Hillary, come out with your hands up, you're completely surrounded!! It's time for you to surrender!!

To 103 mc
Hillary covered up for Clinton's womanizing and rationalized it for her own political gains. I think it's valid that she share blame for Bill's personal failings. Maybe if we had a President who controlled his libido, we may have had more success against Al Qaeda. No guarantee of this, but impeachment crisis weighed Clinton down and took time, energy, and resources away from fighting Al Qaeda. In my book, Bill Clinton and George Bush are equally guilty of gross negligence for not getting UBL and Zawahiri and bear blame for 9/11 attacks.

Maybe this will move more voters in KY his way. That could be a good thing, in the interest of wrapping this up with actual votes from voters.

I don't think the delay is damaging. I think the jumping on the bandwagon at this point when it's almost over anyway is damaging.

then they should be leaders and support clinton. i know that's not going to happen and it might even be wrong but they need to lead. if obama is the nominee then everyone should start supporting him. the delay is damaging. if they are going to support clinton they should do that now. their silence is shameful.

They are probably studying the same map you are.

i think it's time for superdel's to come out of the closet! what are they hiding from?

This iterview is an infomercial for the Clinton campaign. Why don't u tal about the polls for real match ups? Is really weird. What does the guy have to do to win the nomination. Very very strange.

I'm disappointed in Edwards. He said over the weekend that he thought it would be more polarizing for party leaders to do this now rather than wait. This looks like an about face. It reminds me of why I wasn't all that enthused about him months ago.

so edward will now endorse obama. where are the rest of our party leaders?

seth,
Look, I'm not going to defend Bill Clinton's bad personal behavior here. But before there was a Lewinsky scandal the GOP congress made it clear they were not going to tolerate any military projects initiated by Bill Clinton. That is one reason it was so hard to get us into Rwanda, one reason we didn't stay in Somalia and one reason it took so long to go to Kosovo.

You are missing my point. These are Bill Clinton's failings, not Hillary Clinton's. The MSM is the MSM, I don't hold either of them responsible for that.

To # 100 mc - You're missing my point. Of Clinton clearly bears most of the responsiblity for the scandal. She initiated, but he should have shown the self-restraint of an adult. Dealing with Al Qaeda is a huge problem. He shouldn't have made it harder to solve by getting enmeshed in a scandal of his own making and having expend so much time and energy to avoid getting kicked out of office. Bill's womaninzing distracted the attention of Republicans, the MSM, and the nation from Al Qaeda's threat. Hillary should have to address this issue.

seth
not that that's senator clinon's issue but maybe u should have asked why the gop harasssed the president about a private sexual matter while he should have been focused on al Qaeda

Oh, I see. So the impeachment and the bad behavior by Bill with Lewinsky was her fault? Hmm.

If Obama's ties to Wright, Ayers, and Rezko are fair game for the MSM to dissect why not examine the impact Bill Clinton's impeachment defense had on his ability to deal with the Al Qaeda threat. I can't say the 9/11 attacks would have been prevented if the Lewinsky scandal hadn't occurred. Honestly, does anyone think the hard task of destroying Al Qaeda was made simpler by the time and resources Clinton and co, had to expend to deal with the Lewinsky mess. I don't think Hillary deserves a free pass concerning this issue.

hjs,
I would really like to see viable alternatives to these two parties. The both look like 4 parties at this point now. For me the tragedy of Nader is that he insisted on trying to build it from the top down. Instead of running for president we need other party members running for City Council, NYS Assembly, NYS Senate etc.

I'm afraid that Nader will always be remembered for this instead of for his wonderful work as a consumer and worker advocate, largely responsible for the fact that we have an OSHA.

yes samla,
And also the almost lockstep on the part of left wing talk, at least what I've been exposed to. I sawa a piece of an interview with John Edwards. He said something that I really appreciate which is that superdelegates stepping in now and "putting a stop to this thing" would actually be even more harmful and polarizing to the party because HRC's supporters will see it as strong-arming her out of the race or as Olbermann puts it "someone takes her into a room and only one of them comes out." Nice imagery. Edwards speaks wisdom.

What I have found amazing, aside from the fact that my candidate John Edwards still managed 7% of the WV vote, is the utter disdain that the pundits on MSNBC, CNN, and Fox News are showing to the remaining voters, especially the implication that the voters in WV and KY are a bunch of dumb hillbillies. Obama has not reached the 2025 mark yet - until he does, let the process play itself out. I'm sure the voters in the remaining states would like to be heard.

hjs,

That was my version of supposition.

And... YES! The same page! YES!

Literally and figuratively!

November and beyond!

Let's go people!

awm 93
i was refering to your comment 86. but glad we're on the same page.

James,

I'm arguing with you, I'm not trying to silence you. We need more people to put as much effort as you have into the process.

hjs,

????????????

I don't care about who stays in and for how long. What I care about is what kind of country my children will grow up in. Personally, I prefer Obama. But if Hillary wins the nomination she's got my vote.

james
you're not 'superfluous' i'm sure awm just wants to have a civilized dialog

Josh
come on nader DID take votes from Gore. but that's not the point. why should we be trapped in a 2 party system (is it any better than a 1 party system.) anyone has a right to run and NAder had every right to run in 2000. people are welcome to vote for him. clearly that had a cost in 2000 but to those who vote for nader im sure the cost is worth it.

Well, AWM (#s 78, 83 & 86 above), I'm not sure I need to bother to post anything here as others seem sure to know what I should be saying & what I would be saying etc.... I'm feeling 'superfluous'....why DO 'they' even let me vote ;)

AWM
and u'd be saying wait until the end, let it play out, won't u!

I agree with James #84
The perception that most of the voters are behind Obama is important. That is why the primaries need to play out and FL and MI need to be settled in a way that at least somewhat reflects the preferences of the voters there.

I also think that the Democratic Party needs to take a very hard look at how the nominee is chosen and if changes are made they need to not be as a reaction to this year. Every time they do that we end up with unintended consequences which we are experiencing now.

Well, AWM (#s 78 & 83 above) the DEMOCRATIC process is VERY important to me. Whether I support the candidate of the party or not will be determined by many factors - not the least of which is whether I believe that they have actually been the choice of ALL Democrats. At this point, my commitment to the nominee very much hinges on how the party decides the Florida & Michigan issues. If revotes are not scheduled (admittedly a nearly impossible task now because of the party leadership's foot-dragging to date) then the January primaries MUST be allowed to stand. I haven't heard any other plan that seems fair to the voters of Florida & Michigan (& consequently for me).

Hmmm... I don't know, James.

You're parsing and relying too heavily on supposition.

If the candidates were switched you'd be calling for Obama to drop out so Hillary and her supporters can realize their destiny.

Brian Lehrer, mouthpiece for fallacious establishment wisdom. Nader did not "take the votes away" from Gore, "costing him the election." Check the historical record, sir. More registered Republicans than registered Democrats voted for Nader in Florida. Sheesh. Brian, like most hypocrites, is afraid to place proper blame. Because thta would lead to the Supreme Court, which implies a coup, which is scary.

The numbers I've posted of course DO include the vote totals from BOTH Florida & Michigan - (in Michigan giving Obama 75% of the votes cast for 'uncommitted' & 25% for Edwards & 'others'). They include those totals because no matter what anyone says, the ONLY way that many Clinton supporters (myself included) would have accepted throwing out the January primaries for those two large states would have been if new primaries were held in their place. Together, Florida (18.3 million) & Michigan (10 million) have nearly 9.5% of America's population. No election will be seen as legitimate which excludes 9.5% of the electorate - particularly if there is VERY good reason to suspect (i.e. NOT 'polls' but ACTUAL votes cast) that that 9.5% is more inclined toward one rather than another candidate. That exclusion, together with the distorted "caucus" method of delegate selection, has made many of us question our party's commitment to real DEMOCRACY where elections are decided by letting EVERY voter vote. Consequently, many Clinton supporters may find it difficult to enthusiastically embrace Obama if he is rammed through to the nomination by these obviously unfair means. Obama & his supporters may avoid this disaster by at least conceding the closeness of the contest & allowing the remaining contests to play out & demanding that the party find way to let the people of Florida & Michigan vote.

James,

So I guess you don't agree with that?

hjs,

Independents and disgruntled republicans may counter the anti-gay marriage and fear of terror vote. We'll see.

Bill #75
Your last point is well taken, however I think it is useful to remember that the "lead" that Clinton had that was being touted in the media was based on polls before a single vote was cast. I think that people misread that as her feeling "entitled." I disagree with this analysis. I also don't idealize either candidate; I have no reason not to believe that the Obama campaign would not be fighting tooth and nail if the tables were turned. It is unknowable, of course, because that's not what happened, but I have no empirical evidence to believe otherwise.

Oh, I AM sorry (post # 78) .... I didn't know that I'm "supposed" to say anything other than what I wanna say. My bad!!!

AWM
true, but i was thinking of those who vote against gay marriage or fear of terror stuff rather that voting for minimum wage or for modern healthcare or bigger school budgets

CORRECTION to my post (#73 above) I meant to say: After W. Va., that was down to approx. 155,000, or less than .5% difference between them. Obama has gotten approx. 17,156,000 (48.6%) & Clinton 17,001,000 (48.2%) of the total of all caucus & primary votes cast.

James #73,

You should add...

"And in times so dire and crucial to the future of the country no DEMOCRAT should be saying that they refuse to vote for the party's nominee in the general election just because their candidate lost using the accepted methods of the Democratic party."

"you've been reading too much fantasy sci-fi man!

"tell me, do you beleive the moon landing was faked on a sound stage too?"

You got me! Or at least some straw man....

#55: So, if Obama won in caucus states but doesn't lead in the polls he should be the candidate? Remember, this is the United States, a country that values democracy - not some authoritarian state where party bosses rule. Every day that Hillary stays in the race the topsy turvy logic of Obama supporters gets weaker. And if she does not get the nomination his position of weakness will quickly become evident.

hjs, what's with capping senator?

Also, I think mc's post is right on: by this stage in the game it would be better for Obama for things to play out to the end (see also the post above about how much more damaging losing West VA to a withdrawn Clinton would have been). But the point remains that if, months ago, the tables were turned and it was Hillary who had the lead and Obama was the one choosing to keep fighting rather than concede the nomination and offer his support, it would be Obama who would be regarded as the spoiler. I don't see any indication that Obama would have done that. Indeed, in that scenario, I think we might have seen Obama as Clinton's running mate. But that's not how it happened, and Clinton wasn't about to concede or accept second-fiddle to him. Clinton reeks to me of entitlement.

Bush was never elected

Going into W. Va. Obama had a 302,000 lead over Clinton in the total cumulative popular vote. After W. Va., that was down to approx. 155,000, or less than .5% difference between them. Obama has gotten approx. 17,156,000 (48.6%) & Clinton 17,151,000 (48.2%) of the total of all caucus & primary votes cast. W. Va. showed clearly why it is necessary to play this out through the very last primary. The race has been & remains a near dead heat in the total cumulative popular votes cast. Obama's seemingly insurmountable lead in the "pledged delegate" total is ENTIRELY a consequence of the peculiar "caucus election" method of delegate selection which has clearly been discriminatory against the Clinton demographic much more so than Obama's - Texas being the poster child example! Not until ALL of the states & Puerto Rico have voted can we know who has won the most actual votes cast. The winner of the popular vote will & should have a strong moral claim to the nomination in the eyes of many superdelegates. All the more so if that person is also the candidate who has won significantly more of the large historic base Democratic states. In a race so close no DEMOCRAT should be calling for "closing the polls" BEFORE the scheduled hour i.e June 3!

"the alter of her ambition"!?!?!?

you've been reading too much fantasy sci-fi man!

tell me, do you beleive the moon landing was faked on a sound stage too?

hjs,

Well, they have plenty to fear...

Bill,
I think that is a legitimate theory but let me propose another: if she drops out because of pressure from other Democrats it could make Obama look like he can't take her in a fair fight. Imagine what it would have looked like if he had lost to a phantom last night. Seeing this through to the end makes him look stronger if he continues to pick up the popular vote, delegates and superdelegates. I think he gets this now, which is why he's not asking her to drop out and has instructed his campaign not to do so.

bill
i hope you don't mean if SENATOR Obama loses in the Fall it's all senator clinton's fault.

and why should either of them drop out until someone has the delegate count to win the nom?

My question is regarding bio-degradable garbage bags, for those moments when you really have to throw stuff away. (Food scraps, cat litter clumps, used recyclable napkins, etc.) A company called Biobags makes huge bags, but what about bags that will work for an under-the-sink NYC garbage pail? I've been searching for this for years! I know that Organic Avenue on the LES carries this brand, but not the size us studio-dwellers really need...

Jtt 63, see 62! (nyuk nyuk)

But, seriously, I think there's merit to seth #2 above: what Clinton's doing isn't good for Obama or the party, and if you're not down with McCain winning the election, not at all good for the country either. There's plenty reason for Obama supporters to be bitter and angry and plenty reason for Clinton supporters to be embarrassed.

I can buy the theory that she's campaigning now for the nomination in 2012: 1) she's so protracted the nomination run and elevated her profile thereby that she can appear virtually as an also-ran in the '08 general election; 2) and, in 2012, citing her own "prescient" (read self-fulfilling) judgment on Obama's inability to beat McCain, she can say I-told-you-so and present herself not just as an also-ran but as an almost-won; 3) the division she's created by protracting the nomination, her campaign tactics, and her imputation of Obama's viability, all ammo handed McCain and the Republicans, can be seen as sacrificing her own party at the altar of her ambition.

AWM 64
oh but don't forget americans don't always vote for what is in their interest. some often vote out of fear.

oh, and parinoid.

Clinon will not get the nomination, and she will not sabatouge Obama's run.

Once the GOP gets going, some of you delicate creatures might have strokes, but Obama will handle it ok.

hjs (#58)

Depends on how many center right Americans are hurting economically. Many people say they feel as if the country is in recession. Technically we're not (the overall economy "grew" by 0.6% Q1), but we will be and it's gonna be ugly. Who ever has the right plan for the middle class and poor will have an advantage.

jtt,
read obama supporters posts they seem 'bitter and angry' and they won, so far. hard to understand that one.

bill he already cleared that up see 57

"I meant Bob (#50)"

Whew!

AWH #56.

Are you disagreeing with me? Because your post agrees with mine. In the event that Clinton gets the nomination in spite of all the facts you just outlined, Obama supporters will have the more legitimate cause to withhold their votes from Hillary in the general election than would Hillary supporters to withhold theirs from Obama.

Wow.

Obama seams like a really civilized kind of guy. He has apparantly won the nomination, on his own terms, after a long, tough, but fundementally fair primary.

So how come so may of his supporters are so bitter and angry?

baby 54
we'll just have to hate them, won't we

AWM 56
it's not trick he won the very liberal dem nomination, but is he too liberal for a center right american?

I meant Bob (#50)

Bill (#48),

Obama now leads in every category: state contests, delegates elected in primaries, superdelegates who get convention votes because of their status as elected or party officials, and the nationwide popular vote.

He already led in pledged delegates and pulled ahead of Clinton this week for the first time in superdelegates as more came out to support his candidacy.

He also leads in the nationwide popular vote — even if the disputed primaries of Florida or Michigan are added to the total for the sake of argument, as Clinton did until recently.

Wow! That is some trick he pulled.

@ Bob how is coming up with a plan to get people to the caucuses a trick. Clinton supporters have spent the last few months trying to change recent history. Also if Clinton has this big coalition where is the money. It seem's that more people are voting against Obama instead of voting for Clinton.

Don't forget about all the people that if Obama gets the nomination, will not vote for him and will stay home or vote for McCainn.

Bob #50:

"Obama's tricks like busing in people to caucuses won't work in the general election"

GMAB. And you say tricks plural. Name some more, please.

hey bama loons
you won. he's going to be the nominee. get off senator clinton back, give her a break already. if senator obama was as nasty as some of you board posters I would NEVER consider voting for him.

hjs,
I'm watching the same map and it's making me nervous too. It seems to be getting worse. We have to hope that this year is different enough that they will be wrong this time.

BORED,
Whether you like it or not Obama cannot win without most of Clinton's supporters. She has just under half of the Democratic voters behind her. If her supporters don't feel like he represents their interests they might stay home which would be almost as bad as voting for McCain. He needs to make a better case. His domestic policies look very squishy. The good news is that McCain's look squishier. So he needs to press his advantage, do his homework and take it to them.

Obama's tricks like busing in people to caucuses won't work in the general election, and despite talking about transcending race, he has let himself become the "race" candidate, able to win in states where working class whites left the Democratic party years ago, but with weak appeal to working class voters on key issues and policies. His "lead" in super delegates reeks of back room politics. I am an independent and I cannot see voting for "Tricky Barak." Maybe I will write in Hillary...

in some swing state race will be THE issue.

"the question is whether the party will allow Hillary to strong man him as a candidate or possibly ruin his chances in order to satisfy her insatiable quest for power."

And if she does Obama supporters will have the far more genuine grievance and reason to abstain in the presidential election than will Clinton supporters who claim they won't vote for Obama.

se brian u only mention R paul when u can give a lil dig...do u know ANTHING that Ron paul stands for...read book will ya...how bout his?
http://www.amazon.com/Revolution-Manifesto-Ron-Paul/dp/0446537519/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1210776523&sr=1-1
NYT best seller btw #1!

What possible value add can this commentary by Juan Williams add to the discussion of our current politics? Can anyone really say that McCain's acceptance of the endorsements of fascist theocrats like Rod Parsley and his ilk is less important or powerful a statement of McCain's hypocrisy than Obama's demonstrated loyalty to his home church and his home pastor of many decades despite his shortcomings? Why does Williams find it his duty to bat down every argument in favor of Obama?

in what universe is bob barr a libertarian?
look at his right wing record.

Bob Barr is running for the Libertarian party nomination - he hasn't won it. They have a convention.

No one claimed that race doesn't play as an issue, but there are a lot of other factors.

The polictical discussion should be about whether Obama can bring more of the white vote in the general if polarizing Hillary steps out. Will Obama be able with the help of his vice presidential candidate, to bring most of those white democratic votes back w/n the fold for the general election. All things being equal, Obama leads in all the party's metrics and therefore he is winning...the question is whether the party will allow Hillary to strong man him as a candidate or possibly ruin his chances in order to satisfy her insatiable quest for power.

there is no god...lets get on to some real issues people and deal with real world issues...

The soundtrack from that last McCain commercial makes me think he's got the flugelhorn players' vote locked up. I'm going to puke from the impending "surge" of uber-patriotic music.

Bush took WV in '04. Acknowledge here that Obama needs to work very hard to flip other states (e.g., OH,CO,VA) that also went Repub, but to devote much time to places like WV unless trying to make a broader point seems ill-advised. Based upon what I heard from some of the voters in WV on yesterday's BBC report, to write it off to McCain seems like a "badge of honor" situation to me. For diff reasons, feel that FL would be a waste of time as well. FL time & resources should be spent on MI.
Does Mr. Williams realize that working for Rupert Murdoch taints his credibility?

@ mc & susan. The two of you try to give the impression that Obama needs to make his case to Clinton supporters and that then they will make up their minds. Thats crap and the two ogf you know it. This race has turned into a sports contest. Real diehard clinton suporters just dont like obama supporters or Obama. The only thing he can say to make them happy is that HRC should be the nominee.

Hillary has a problem with the black vote, Obama has a problem with the white vote. The reason that Obama has a problem with the white vote is because of race. It is not a policy problem, nor a campaign problem. If anything, the Wright and Clinging problems did not move the meter of the white vote for him. His performance with whites has been w/n the 34% points with the exception WVA and AK. On the otherhand Hillary gets less than 8% of the black vote b/c of race pride and race baiting by herself and her campaign drove blacks away.

Thus, Hillary and Obama both need to bring those opposing groups back to them in order to beat McCain. The polictical discussion should be about whether Obama can bring more of the white vote in the general if polarizing Hillary steps out. Will Obama be able with the help of his vice presidential candidate, to bring most of those white democratic votes back w/n the fold for the general election. All things being equal, Obama leads in all the party's metrics and therefore he is winning...the question is whether the party will allow Hillary to strong man him as a candidate or possibly ruin his chances in order to satisfy her insatiable quest for power.

The demographic issue is not a red herring since you are comparing white vote in the Democratic primaries with general election voters. So perhaps a lot of whites who OTHERWISE would vote for a Democrat may not this year as opposed to all the whites that are Republicans and don't vote for Democrats no matter what.

Republicans nationwide are on life support....even Mullah Omar would win against John McCain.

The race/tribe issue is real. So in what should be a landslide year for the Democrat, I am not so sure. Hillary also had her own issues with the electorate to make it tougher than it should be. But on the other hand, the Republican brand is poison so they are in trouble. They just lost a special election in Mississippi in a district Bush won in 2004 by 25 points.

Obama has a challenge with this nation and its legacy (i.e. whitey) but he keeps showing, generally, that he is up to it and can overcome it.

Seth, your elitism and arrogance is really boring. If you are supporting Obama just because he is half African American and not the issues then it seems that you are raciest yourself. So cut he crap.

Sprezzatura -- #17, above -- is on the right track.

It's not that Obama -- or any Democratic candidate -- has to WIN the "white working class" vote. He simply has to do well enough.

And "well enough" might not even mean Gore's 36%, if Obama is able to sufficiently drive up voter turnout among his "natural" base -- young voters, college-educated voters, African-American voters, urban dwellers -- to offset any weakness among other groups.

For the record, I hate the fact that this whole thing has devolved into identity politics. In an ideal world people would examine the candidate's positions and policies, decide what is important and vote on that basis. But reality being what it is, he has to not worry about the people who will not vote for him because of race and make a strong case to those who are unsure but might come over. He also needs to look like a real winner that can go through the rest of the primary process. He has already started to do that.

Obama needs to expand his base to the rural, economically-challenged, blue collar, etc., and finally women, particularly those who support Clinton's candidacy. So far, he hasn't. If he is not able to to so, many people will gravitate toward McCain or not vote at all.

For many, particularly those who have been described as "downscale","undereducated" and the like, resent these characterizations and will not vote for a candidate whose supporters designate them as such. Obama has yet to distance himself from this type of rhetoric which is as divisive as the comments made by the Christian right.

BORED,
For the sake of accuracy, I said unsteady, not shaky. I think a lot of people forget that this is not just about white and blue collar voters, but also about female voters and older voters. The base of Obama's coalition looks like college educated whites, younger people and blacks across class lines. That is roughly the same coalition that McGovern had in 1972 and he only won D.C and Mass., if my memory serves me. I don't think that the coalition itself is unsteady, what I think is that the chances of victory in Nov. are unsteady. He needs to make a more compelling case to the voters who are not on board with him now. Not all of them are voting on race. He needs those supporters to beat McCain. He also needs to make a very focused pitch to her female voters.

As always, there is too much of a focus on the recent past, the present and the immediate future.

By November the Democratic party will unite over the issues (supremes, health care, etc.), the economy will be in even worse shape, Iraq won't be any better and we will have seen Obama and McCain head to head in debates.

Advantage Obama.

Juan Williams? You're kidding, right? This is the guy who, in an interview with bush, prefaces a question with "You know, people are praying for you; people – the American people want to be with you, Mr. President..."

Why is this bush/fox/murdoch lapdog on this public radio station as a supposed 'news authority??'

http://mediamatters.org/columns/200710020005

Obama has won I beleive 32 States. Why is Juan Williams stating that he has lost the white vote in every contest after Super Tuesday. I guess people who live in states such as Vermont and Wyoming are some other color. I wish I had the memeory to list all of the states with populations over 80-90% that Obama has won. In my view it is not so much the Clinton Campaign that is pushing this race division issue to the voters, it is the shameless media.

Let's get real, Juan, Brian and other talking heads -- the Democrats will win in a landslide. How many of the 82% of the people who think the country is on the wrong track are going to vote for McCain and any other Republican? The Democrat was elected to Congress in MISSISSIPPI yesterday! The Dem won Hastert's seat. Barack (or Hillary) will win big and the Dems will hav HUGE majorities in both houses of Congress.

Can it be that Obama lost by such a wide margin in WV, as well as a higher than usual percentage among his otherwise more typical constituency, simply because he didn't campaign much here? I think he should have followed his very wise strategy all the way through WV (and by the way, to KY!) and keep running his great campaign even in states were he has only dim chances. He improved margins considerably in PA and IN (where he almost won) simply by sticking to his guns and his message, and continued campaigning in those states tirelessly. Perhaps if he would have done that in WV (and will in KY) we now wouldn't drool so much over this big win by Clinton...

is obama electable ?
http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Obama/Maps/May14.html

Why is no one mentioning that Huckabee won Republican primaries in key GOP states (LA, KS, AR, TN, GA, AL, WV, IA)... yet didn't try to challenge the rules to become the party nominee, despite McCain's "base" weaknesses??!! Democrats should take a lesson from the Republicans here and unite NOW.

I don't see how being a Navy pilot who was shot down and held as a POW for 5 years gives one any credible foreign policy/national security experience. In fact, it is the opposite in McCain's case. As the missile was heading towards his plane, he ignored the "Take Evasive Action" warning since he was only seconds from his target and releasing his bombs. As a result of this stubborness and bad judgment, he was shot down and the US lost a plane and a pilot. But that qualifies him as President? Only in la-la land US of A.

David!:
Accusations of "elitism" against Obama are pure nonsense. U.S. senators, by definition and circumstance, are part of the elite, political posturing to the contrary notwithstanding.

New polls in California and New Jersey show that voters in those states -- whose primaries Clinton won -- now prefer Obama.

In the California primary, for example, Clinton edged Obama by 8+ points, 51% to 43%. But in response to a new Survey USA poll that asked how they would vote today, California voters now prefer Obama by 6 points, 49% to 43%.

A similar New Jersey poll, conducted two weeks ago, found that, although Clinton defeated Obama there by 10 points, 54% to 44%, Jersey voters now prefer Obama by 7 points, 45% to 38%.

Uh, sure Juan, the Democrats will lose California when McCain wants to be in Iraq for 100 years.

Come on, Brian, surely there is a better commentator to speak to.

A question for Brian and his producers:

Isn't this entire discussion about Obama and the "white voter" a bit of a red herring? Didn't Al Gore win in 2000 with something like 36/37% of the white vote? Isn't that number more or less the recent history of democratic presedential campaign votes? So why do we want Obama to somehow manage a majority of white voters? Isn't the arguement about maintaining and increasing from 37 to say 40-45%?

Thanks

Obama's challenge is not "white working class" voters -- it's Appalachia.

The counties, throughout this primary, that Clinton has won 65% or more track remarkably closely to the contours of this region.

This explains why Obama has been able to do well in central and western regions of Ohio and Pennsylvania.

Further, Obama has done perfectly well with rural, economically challenged, and undereducated white voters in regions that are outside Appalachia.

mc please elaborate how Obama's coalition is shaky. If anything its clintons coalition is shaky. These uneducated whites she loves so dearly voted for bush twice.

Hillary may be doing Obama a favor because if she dropped out last week or earlier, and he lost W.V. by 40 points against a dropout, it would have looked a lot worse. Same with Kentucky...

Remember many of Mrs. Clinton's supporters left the party a long time ago...the silent majority, Reagan democrats, Bush value voters.
Enough about them.....

It's time for a new coaliton.

Obama will get the nomination and then loose against Mccain. Do i want that? no i do not, but if people are stupid enough to vote bush into office they are stupid enough to vote mccain.

I am with David! on this one. Obama has a very steep climb ahead of him. I will support him unflinchingly if he is the nominee but so far there is a very unsteady McGovern-like coalition supporting him. He needs to make his case to her supporters, his supporters need to back of the nastiness (hers do too), and he needs to sharpen his domestic policies. There are legitimate reasons to be nervous about him

After last night's speech, Hillary showed that what matters most to the Clintons are the Clintons. Yes, she has the right to stay in the race. But at this point, all she is doing is stoking animosity among Democrats.

Once again this show is legitimizing Clitnon's false arguments. Obama has won large portions of white voters in many states...just not in Appalachia.

Let's move on and go after McCain!

HRC supporters do not need to be sucked up too. Its simple, if HRC supporters rather McCain over Obama then vote for him. HRC is a fighter, she fights for herself.

Imagine if Gore showed 1 percent of Hillary's determination in 2000.

Or imagine if Clinton had stood up for Gore in 2000 in "The Name of The Party" the way she is standing up for herself now.

If there is one correspondent who has not grown over the many years in this business, it's this one.

seth, my caution to you is this: if Obama does secure the nomination, as he likely will, he will need votes of those of us who have supported Clinton. You may be frustrated, but the attitude your posts convey will turn many Americans away.
If this attitude reflects the campaign's position, then the accusations of "elitism" are correct. Instead of ranting, listen to the concern.

Yes, let's listen to Juan earn that Fox paycheck...

[[Moderator Note: Just a gentle reminder - please read the WNYC posting guidelines before adding your comments. Make sure what you contribute is civil, productive, and relevant to the discussion on the air. Thanks! -BL Show-]]

URGENT BREAKING NEWS....

Nash “Flag Lapel Pin Groupie” McCabe and Larry the Cable Guy have agreed to become national co-chairs of Hillary’s campaign.

Hillary won’t bow out gracefully because she’s a typical James Bond villain. Name any Bond film in which the villain says “OK, Mr. Bond I give up. You win.”
Hillary wants to go out in a blaze of glory like James Cagney in White Heat.
She’s on a kamikaze mission to destroy Obama so she can say I told you so and run again in 2012. The pathetic trickle of SDs declaring for Obama is a disgrace. The hear-no-evil, see-no-evil SDs must stop sucking their thumbs and get off the fence. We need an avalanche of SDs endorsing Obama to slam the door shut on Hillary and her race-baiting, fear-mongering campaign. Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Howard Dean, James Clyburn, John Edwards, Joe Biden, Jimmy Carter, Al Gore, Barbara Boxer, and Mary Landrieu need to hold a joint news conference and announce that they are endorsing Obama. These “leaders” need to show some blanking guts already and stop cowering and quivering in fear of Hillary. The Clintons don’t own the Democratic Party.

WV should be renamed the “Land that Time Forget”. While every metric points to Obama winning the nomination, facts don’t matter to most WV voters. Based on news reports (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/05/12/obama-in-west-virginia-wh_n_101306.htmlhttp://us.ft.com/ftgateway/superpage.ft?news_id=fto051120081526533438&page=1 , http://www.mcclatchydc.com/251/story/36624.html ) many people voted against Obama because of his race or questions about patriotism. These warped, frustrated people have so much hate in their hearts that they’d rather throw away their votes on Hillary than cast them for Obama and end this ugly nomination fight . These voters are a disgrace. The WV results were an anti-Obama vote not a pro-Hillary vote. These people would have voted for Bugs Bunny or Mickey Mouse over Obama.