RKMBs Forums .::Important::. Politics and Current Events Hillary in 2008

7 percentage points in PA is pretty doable at this point for Hillary. The polls show quite a spread though. Some show Hillary maintaining her comfortable lead while others like Zogby have the race much closer. Obama's recent remarks should help Hillary either way. I wonder if we're due another big speach from Obama to stem some of the damage?

However, MEM, that "doable" big win only keeps her in the race, it doesn't put her in the lead.

One step closer though. It would also cement her big states arguement. Obama at this point should be winning PA if he had the nomination sewn up.

ABC News

The great thing about Obama's bitter remarks is that he still hasn't said he made a mistake saying it. Each day there has been a step towards doing that but he's definitley keeping it in play by stretching it out.

McLaughlin Group, Friday, April 3 broadcast:
http://www.mclaughlin.com/library/transcript.htm?id=649




and





So.. here's a panel of 4 political experts, along with host John McLaughlin, who think it's too close a race for Hillary to quit and concede to Obama, that either Hillary or Obama's candidacy could implode over the next 3 months up till DNC convention-time.
And that it would just not make sense for her to concede when it's so close and she still has cards to play.


I find the calls by Democrats for her to quit before the primaries play out is... well... undemocratic!

I find it amusing that they want to bypass primary voters and the democratic process, just so their guy can win.
NEWSFLASH: This is the United States, not the Soviet Union. Much as they'd like to push us in that direction.

WB, does it really surprise you that Carter and Gore would want someone to give up their rights?

Consciously or unconsciously, liberal Democrats (consistent with their socialist-rooted ideology) all have a little Lenin/Stalin/Trotsky in their blood.

Lip service about defending democracy is their way, but when push comes to shove, they'll bypass the Constitution and our national freedoms, to further their socialist/globalist agenda, and slap a muzzle and slanderous labels on anyone who gets in their way. Including their own Hillary in this case.

quotable!

I'm skeptical about the Carter/Gore teamup to ask Hillary to step down. Gore not to long ago said this race will resolve itself & he wasn't going to step in. However if it's true, well it's a free country. Doing such a thing however would probably cause the damage that their trying to avoid. They would also damage themselves since such an act would cause hard feellings among Hillary supporters.

While I agree with you that this story is seemingly contradicted by earlier reports that Carter and Gore would stay above the fray, do you really think that either Carter or Gore give a damn about "hard feelings among Hillary supporters"?

At this point, does ANYONE give a fuck about Hillary supporters?

They seem quite satisfied and comfortable with bringing the Democratic Party down if their struggling candidate doesn't have her way.

Hillary refuses to say when she last went to church or fired a gun - after touting her faith and saying how pro-gun she is compared to Obama

Hillary yesterday:



Hillary today:



Fucking pandering psychopath... Al ready to launch an ill thought out attack using more lies that she's unable to back up.

In all fairness, maybe church was canceled because of sniper fire.

To add some fucking context to fucking Hillary's lies and panderings....



In her latest effort to win votes by changing the color of her spots, Hillary has just announced that she's been a lifelong gun nut. Yes, you heard it right. The women who led the Million Mom anti-gun March on Washington is now a pistol-packing momma.



Of course, Hillary couldn't let the moment go without a wee bit of parsing:



This isn't the first time she's made the claim - there's this from this past February:



Now, maybe Hillary's telling the truth. Maybe she stood at the crack of dawn "in the cold water" waiting to bag her first bird. Maybe she's a proud member of America's gun "culture." Maybe. But after her extremely detailed, and totally false, Bosnia sniper-fire snafu, I'd like a little more detail on her latest gun tale before we're going to believe that Ms. Gun Control is the new Charlton Heston.

Let's revisit Hillary's actual history with guns and gun control, which, you'll be surprised to find out, involves an awful lot of rewritten history:

ABC, February 2008:



CNN, May 2000: Hillary Clinton renews call for gun licensing and registration

NYT, May 1999: Hillary Clinton Appeals For Gun Control Lobbying

NJ.com, February 2008:



Gail Collins, NYT, February 2008:



So now Hillary says she's really pro-gun after a life of being one of the most anti-gun politicians on the planet. Show of hands: Anyone surprised?

This pathetic, almost weekly habit of lying and pandering and then being called out on her dishonesty and bullshit is really growing wearisome.

This is what MEM calls a winning campaign??



Being a flat out liar and opportunistic weasel?

Whomod, how are Hillary's distortions of her record to appeal to voters, exaggerations, evasions and outright lies, really any different from Obama's doing the same on any number of issues:

• pandering to immigrant voters by expressing solidarity with illegal aliens;
  
  vowing to abolish NAFTA then assuring the Canadian government that was just campaign rhetoric;
  
  downplaying his 17-year relationship with Tony Rezko despite his joint-purchasing his house through him at $300,000 below market value;
  
  evasively hiding his muslim past;
  
  touting his good judgement in opposing Iraq invasion, but talking tough about invading Pakistan;
  
  touting his good judgement in opposing Iraq invasion, when he has at several points expressed that Bush was right to invade, before shifting back to an anti-Iraq-war stance;
  
  talking about "finding the middle ground" while having a career as a far left politician (the most liberal-rated of all 100 senators), who can't even compromise with Hillary Clinton, let alone the Republicans, saying (in your own provided YouTube clip) that Hillary is "too tainted to have a place in my White House";
  
  reaching out to white America as a moderate conciliatory to all sides, despite having an autobiography that reads like Mein Kampf, in its seething hatred and resentment of a white America he aches to lash back at, including tooward black-friendly white classmates, and even toward his own white mother, that he says he had to hold back the urge to "punch in the face" for simply expressing understanding and solidarity with his personal experiences as black minority among whites.

Or similar inconsistencies in John McCain: embracing many W.Bush-republican political stances he previously reviled, such as tax cuts, pundits of the religious right, NAFTA, and many other issues that alienated him in 2000, that he has now embraced to reach a wider base in 2008.



Or for that matter, the paradoxes, panderings, evasions, exaggerations and outright lies of Bill Clinton, Al Gore, and every presidential contender before them.

The level at which you vindictively and personally snipe at Hillary is just obnoxious, and I don't see why you single her out for special treatment, even as you've said previously that if Obama were not the nominee, you'd vote for her as your second choice over any Republican nominee.


What you say about Hillary really makes no sense. I see no superior integrity in Obama, who you've all but nominated for being the 2nd Coming. Or in McCain who you've panned to a lesser degree, while focusing your venom on trashing Hillary.

she acts like she's running for president or something? whats going on?

She just talked about hunting with her dad Whomod. You & other Obama people are exagerating a bit on Hillary & then calling her a liar. All because your precious Obama had a closed door fundraiser in San Fransisco & talked about bitter people clinging to guns & religion. He fucked up & won't own up to it.

This is the first concrete sign, I've seen, of a voter backlash against Hillary. Well, perhaps not a backlash as much as a realization that it's over for Hillary, she lost the race two months ago. Not only do voters want to back a winner, they really don't want to back someone who has already lost - at some point, no matter how ardent a supporter, when you realize that your candidate doesn't have a chance, you hang it up and go home. This is the first sign that Hillary's strongest supporters, white women, are going home. From McClatchy:



This part of the story is particularly interesting:

Y'know, you really need to alert the media that Bin laden is trying to sneak in a Manchurian candidate before it's too late. they're really dropping the ball on this story. Except for the more 'patriotic' far right web sites of course..

If you promise to do something about it yourself, i'll alert the authorities and make sure you get plenty of back up.

This never stops being funny.

Voter's in PA are not stupid Whomod, they can see Obama for the flim flam man that he says. Pretty words though.

RAW

This is actually pretty funny. For the past few weeks, Hillary Clinton has become the great defender of Michigan voters. She went to Detroit last month to deliver the message that she alone was fighting for them:



Huh. Interestingly, the people of Michigan have a different take -- and it's not good for Clinton. From Political Wire:



EPIC-MRA is the polling firm for Michigan.

ABC catches him in the act. Gotta tell you, after being lied to this many times by the Clintons, I'd be bitter too.

I give her credit for at least trying to help the voters with a chance to revote for whoever. That's more than can be said for Obama.

That's a lying cocksucker's answer, Whomod, that bypasses a legitimate question.

I didn't just criticize Obama, I criticized all three candidates, and said that the current crop of presidential contenders are really not really that different from those running in the last 20 years or so.

But you partisanly defend Obama. And you vilify Hillary in a bitterly personal way, while partisanly saying you'd still vote for her on kneejerk reflex over any Republican contender.

The only consistency in your partisan venom is your blatant dishonesty.

Here's Hillary at the Sheet Metal Local 19 union hall in Philadelphia today, just hanging out, munching on some Slim Jims while simultaenously smoking a pack of L&M's and drinking a case of beer. And then this huge American flag just had it, and it ate her alive, the end. [AP Photo/NBC 10]

Three cheers to the Wonkette.

Yes. I've repeatedly discussed this. Even as G-Man keeps trying to make it a flip-flop issue on my part rather than the candidate flip-flopping himself.



When someone is outright dishonest I'll say so. when someone is being attacked unfairly I'll defend them. Kerry's war heroism being twisted beyond all recognition and semblance of reality was something so vile and despicable that I still shake my head at. That he ran a crap camapign that allowed it to go on unanswered is something that I thought deserved attack as well. It showed a lack of directness and backbone that is needed in responding to todays political climate.

Al Gore said he invented the Internet is an outright lie that i still challenge. Attacks on his personal lifestyle in relation to his environmentalism, while I don't agree with them, are fair game I suppose. To me it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to carry out a schedule as demanding as his while riding a bicycle to remain 'pure' to his critics is unrealistic I think, but there you are.



Part of the reason I post all the polls, in addition to showing that her great advantage,simply isn't there, is to show that I'm not alone in being disgusted by Hillary Clinton and Bill as of late. This is a general feeling among a lot of Democrats and is not just limited to Obama supporters. To have gone thru 2 elections with the kind of slime machine used against Gore and Kerry, only to see it incorporated by Clinton is not just dispiriting but abhorrent and something to be shunned. To compound it with not just exaggeration, but outright deception over and over and over again is just too much for any reasonable person to sit idly by and see these 2 people as pretty much equals.

You may see Obama as a liar as well but honestly, the only people who see controversy and deception there are the very people actively trying to dig it out of innuendo. If that wasn't so, you'd see it being the stuff of daily political fodder in mainstream circles and not just among the usual suspects in the right wing media (and the Clinton campaign sadly enough).



As I said, I'd vote for Hillary because frankly I see nothing good coming out of 4 more wars. Which is what it essentially boils down to with McCain. McCain for the most part has run a respectable campaign. What I've addressed with him is his campaign finance shenanigans and his seeming confusion over basic foreign policy facts. Which I hope you agree, isn't in the realm of unfairness. I'm not delving in innuendo, just quotes and mainstream news stories. If I've ever gone into questionable territory with McCain is in regards to his age which I'm sure as the election progresses, will become a bigger issue just as it was briefly with Reagan. And I'm sure as the election progresses, those very flip-flops to appeal to the GOP base are going to be brought up as he I'm sure flips back into "Maverick" mode. I think one has to be upfront on who you are, whether it was a NAFTA supporter or immigrants rights person. What you're all about shouldn't change with the crowd you're trying to get to vote for you.




In all honesty, I didn't read your post the 1st time. Why? Because it's always soemthing overly long filled with 'Obama is a Muslim sympathizer' and a black supremacist racist etc.etc. with little to no actual fact, just distorted opinion from the usual right wing suspects. So now i read most of it and answered in kind. I like to think I single out Hillary here in this thread because it's a thread devoted to Hillary. Nothing more,nothing less.




I like to think that Hillary reaps what she sows. And she plays hardball to the nth degree.

which is still better than 4 more wars.

Funny how the plight of Florida and Michigan only became a concern for Hillary AFTER she fared so poorly everywhere else. Before that, her, Obama and the rest of the Democratic Party were pretty unanimous on holding MI and FLA to task for violating party rules.

Before that, even I admit i was unaware as to why everyone was prohibited from campaigning there as I was unaware of the primary being bumped up in defiance of DNC rules. I found it weird but as I recall from countless newscasts, everyone, including Hilary Clinton was in lock step agreement on that point.

Again, until she fared so poorly on that inevitability thing. Then suddenly you have her and supporters like you challenging any rule that if overturned may work to her advantage. From re-voting in states that all the Democratic candidates agreed were null and void to forgoing the delegate votes for the popular vote, to the superdelegates being free to crown her in defiance of the pledged vote.....

....whatever happens to be going Hillary's way at the moment.

And if the momentum shifts to Obama, then it's off to the next thing that will make Hillary win. It's inconsistent mumbo-jumbo and arbitrary rewriting the rules because Hillary HAS TO WIN.

Thanks for your lengthy response, Whomod.

It might surprise you that I actually agree with your responses on all three candidates for the most part. This was much less inflammatory and much more specific than much of what you've posted to the Hillary and Obama topics recently, among others.

Even where I disagreed with you in this post, you at least acknowledge that opinions vary on whether Obama or someone else is the best candidate. But whether or not I fully agree, your respectful (!) expression of your own perspective is far better received than your partisan gloating and taunts.


On the subject of Gore...



Al Gore also said on one photo op with farmers that he was raised on a farm. When in fact, he never lived on a farm and --like Hillary landing in Bosnia "under fire"-- manufactured a folksy image, to give himself middle-America voter-appeal.
In fairness, maybe Gore only told his fake farmboy story once, and Hillary repeated hers a few times, unrepentantly. But the Hillary-"under fire" story got one hell of a lot more media-play, and I think that had to do with Obama support among the media reporting it, that wanted to crush her barely-surviving candidacy by disproportionately over-reporting it.


The other point about "no legitimate media source" reports about Obama's hidden muslim past, ignores that the media is upwards of 80% liberal, and that Obama is their man, and they just don't want to report it.
But every mainstream conservative media source (FOX News, Newsmax, Wall Street Journal, Washington Times...) has reported it. I would say that the portion of the media that isn't partisanly liberal/pro-Obama, has reported this story regularly.

And while you would like to say that these are "wild conspiracy theories that Obama is an al qaida Manchurian Candidate", I don't see that anyone has suggested that he's a secret agent of Al Qaida, but simply that he's been dishonest about his muslim beliefs and has (by the words quoted from his own autobiography and elsewhere) a hidden anti-white/anti-European/anti-American liberal agenda, that he has been dishonest about, as many of his sourced friends from grade school, high-school, college, and early career years are quoted, and many even from their online linked blog websites.

Whether you agree or like it, it is not sleazy to ask legitimate questions about what Obama truly believes, and contrast that with what Obama says, and often waffles or reverses himself on, in his speeches.




I have about equal admiration and disgust for Obama, Hillary and McCain at this point. Even though I agree with McCain more than the other two, you and others (including Ann Coulter and Pat Robertson) make legitimate points about McCain's being a bad representative of true Republicanism, and arguably not the sharpest pencil in the drawer, and I'm still deciding whether it would be better to let a Democrat take the blame for the next 4 years, rather than elect another Republican (like W. Bush is) that misrepresents what Republican conservatism is all about.

Of the three, at this point I think Hillary might be the fastest on her feet, the most moderate (by her Senate record), the most tenacious, and the most resourceful. She is a true politician, and while none of us are admirers of manipulative politicians, she might have more of what it takes to deal with domestic and global leaders than the other two candidates.

At various points I've thought that McCain, Hillary, and even at points Obama, might be the best choice of the three. But the truth is, none of them is who I would have chosen, it's just down to the lesser of three evils now.

And my opinion on which is the lesser evil changes often, at this point.

In all honesty, this is the 1st time I've heard of that. It's of the stripe of Hillary's beer swigging and gun toting, Obama's bowling and Bush's brush clearing. Why do they do this crap? Obama answered this yesterday but really, he did not just go bowl on the fly either. And he was roundly criticized and ridiculed for it.




I have to disagree here as well. Just like the Bosnia story, since Friday night it's been wall-to-wall "bitter" talk on the cable outlets. Today being the 1st day after the weekend, it' just flared up to the point where I was sick of the word "bitter" being repeated ad naseum ALL DAY LONG. It's not so much favoritism I think as it is exploitation of slip-ups and smelling blood that the media thrives on with anyone.




Well I side with David Brock on this one when he says that as a Republican attack dog, part of the strategy to substantially increase a right wing presence was to accuse the media of being liberal. I certainly see a more balanced mix now but just a few years ago, it was a running joke among liberals that most of the pundit shows would feature 3 conservatives repeating the Bush talking points against one liberal criticizing them and then being outshouted and attacked by the three.




It'd be easier to take them seriously if since Obama emerged on the national scene, the right wing (and Clinton) strategy was first to exploit his middle name, then exploit the fact that lived in Indonesia, then exploit the fact that he once dressed in traditional African garb as part of a Congressional junket. All in an attempt to reinforce a whisper campaign and try to paint him as a Muslim. Not with any facts like you state. But with that. His middle name, his childhood school, and then an out of context photo.

First he was a closet Muslim, then he was a radical Baptist and now this week, he's a condescending atheist.



Legitimate questions are fine. An orchestrated indirect campaign to create an impression in peoples minds about Obama is quite another. He's already responded to these questions and the media for the most part are satisfied. Except for the right wing sources you cite there which frankly IMO I think are trying to create this impression no matter what Obama says or no matter that they and only they see anything there, there.



I think I brought that up as part of a response on Obama's patriotism. Why on Earth would someone who HATES America want the thankless job of the next few years. The economy, the military, our relations and reputation all lover the world, and I think the Government are in such sad shape that the next president pretty much has a mess on his hands. And it's a mess his/her opponents will seize and use against them no doubt. Even though it was a mess inherited. I'd almost like Obama to not get stuck in that mess. But then I think of Franklin Roosevelt. He inherited so much more and so much worse and he did legendary work despite the odds.



Well if you've been reading my posts, that's my problem with her. She's part of a a machine. I honestly and without exaggeration or malice cannot for the life of me see a real person there. It's all scripted, focus group tested, calculated political machinations. And that was revealed even when it came down to her flip one liners in debates. It was Mark Penn not Hilary Clinton. Even when Bill was talking candidly to the media. it wasn't Bill making the slyly veiled racial remarks. it was Mark Penn. Scripted, tested and released out of the mouth of the machine. It is fake. I don't get that feel from Obama. And I'd rather see the guy fumble around because of HIS OWN misstatements than to think that the missteps and gaffes and face saving as well as the successes are all being choreographed by the man behind the curtain.



That's how i felt pretty much up until the weekend of my state Primary. Then Clinton really started pissing me off. Like Richardson, I too thought Hilary was the best choice. Not my favourite but among the best of the remaining 2, even though I was for Edwards. Then Hillary started lying, dirty tricks started being played, Hillary started getting downright unlikable and thus started slipping and Obama stared ascending because for all her negatives, Obama had positives and actually inspired people. And then suddenly, Hillary started turning into a faux Republican with her attack ads, rhetoric, and fear mongering. Still, I was happy with my candidate, wished Obama luck and started eyeing Clinton more warily. Then even more shenanigans finally was one shenanigan and odd coincidence to much. And as I posted in that last link, I still was mulling Clinton over up to the 11th hour. Bill Clinton's dishonesty that final weekend before the primary crystallized everything and Obama looked so much better. his grass roots campaign and message of inspiration was a stark contrast to Hillary, who as I demonstrate over these links, just descended down a level that a growing number of people didn't want to follow.

I note that thru it all, MEM has remained a one note Hillary machine. No matter what she does or is linked to, she smells like a rose every time. And he still dares to speak ill of Obama supporters as being akin to cultists and the like?

This campaign was always Hillary's to lose. And lose it she did. In every sense of the word. Or maybe, as thedoctor and other suggest, this is the real Clinton's. Nothingmore than a ruthless pandering lying political machine.

..and speaking of Richardson, 'Judas' speaks. He has a story on him in the new GQ magazine where he talks of his decision to endorse obama.

Bill Richardson tells “GQ” magazine he was on the verge of endorsing Hillary Clinton, but what happened behind the scenes ultimately made him back Barack Obama. The main reason? Obama wasn‘t afraid to pick up the phone himself. Richardson says Obama always called him personally, while Bill Clinton or surrogates always called on Senator Clinton‘s behalf.

And when Obama did call, Richardson says, he liked what he had to say.

Obama says: “Hey, man, I know this is tough for you. I understand loyalty. But you know what he said that I liked? He said, but this is about the country. This is about the future.”

Richardson says that was in contrast to the Clintons. “Hillary and Bill were always very proper. The discussions were more tactical. You know, if you endorse us now, maybe we win Texas, because you‘re Hispanic.”

MSNBC's Joe Scarborough says "Pretty interesting. If that in fact is a window into how the Clinton's operate vs. Obama, obviously, it certainly puts Barack Obama in a more positive light".

"The fact is, though, the one thing you do learn in politics very early on is, you can have surrogates. You can have other people call for you, but when you want to close that deal, you have got to pick up the phone and make the request yourself or go knock on somebody‘s door and shake their hands themselves. That‘s how you close them. If Bill Clinton is making these calls instead of Hillary, that makes a big difference".

So Obama speaks of the future and in more idealistic terms while with the Clinton's, it's that clinical making strategic moves to pick up endorsements in order to sway blocs of ethnic votes.

Frankly I don't see how a Richardson endorsement compels anyone, much less Latino's to vote for you. I know I'm not swayed by anyone just because they happen to be Latino. It's the same b.s. strategy of showing up to the 1st AME church right before an election and expecting all the black people to vote for you because of it. It's a bit condescending actually.

See, I sing with black people. See, a Latino likes me. Vote for me then. and then you go back and vote for wars and trade deals that devastated their community. Oh, but you sang with them and got one of them to endorse you. Isn't that enough?? Doesn't that show you care?

I honestly hope we've moved beyond that point where politicians can manipulate people by merely making superficial gestures like downing beers and singing at black churches and trying to get ethnic endorsements to somehow show that ____'s as one monolithic group stand with you. Hopefully it comes down to people actually voting their economic interests more than voting for the best campaign tactics.

Not true but it doesn't really matter does it Whomod? Your just going to plow on throwing as much mud at Hillary while ignoring Obama's flaws. You stopped being critical of him not long after Edwards dropped out. Whatever, I don't hate Obama but he isn't perfect nor is Hillary the evil machine talking points you go with.

Yesterdays word was 'bitter".

Todays word is "teflon".

The Los Angeles Times and Bloomberg just released their latest polls from Pennsylvania, North Carolina and Indiana. Here are the head-to-head numbers:



Many interesting nuggets, but this is probably the most interesting:



Let's see how the painfully pompous pundits dissect that number. Of course, they'll all have to wait for Time Magazine's chief pompous pundit, Mark Halperin, (and for the RKMB's, MEM) to explain what it means. But, he'll have to wait for the talking points from his high level source at the Clinton campaign to explain it to him.

Remember, Clinton is supposed to win Pennsylvania by 20 points. That's the margin she needs to declare victory.

I don't think the bitter comment is going to hurt Obama in the primaries as many snobby Democrats already hold the same concepts of middle America. It's the general election that that comment is going to come back and bite him in the ass.

Again, it seems Hillary overplayed her hand. It was't enough for her to see the media pounding away at Oama over the weekend, she herself had to pile on and metamorphosed into a frankly comical gun enthusiast in the process. Of course it was going to backfire.

That she then went and released a very negative campaign ad against Obama in a desperate bid to slow and destroy him where Obama never did in regards to her pattern of lies, clearly shows that every setback this bitch reaps she wholly deserves.

The Low Road.


Vile, sickening, and filthy. And "she approves this message".

The High Road


..and just outstanding.

hang it up Hillary.

Congressional Quarterly has just released an analysis predicting that Hillary will only win 3 delegates more than Obama in the Pennsylvania primary next week. We'll be watching carefully to see which reporters try to spin Hillary's victory next week - a 20-poin victory that the polls have predicted for 12 months now - as a "stunning upset" that "changes everything." We'll be memorializing those "journalists" by name on election day, next Tuesday.

Current delegate tally
Obama: 1,632
Clinton: 1,489

Pennsylvania may give Hillary a 3 delegate bump. That's a 0.2% increase in her number of delegates, meaning that rather than losing to Obama by 143 delegates, she'll be losing to Obama by 140. Yep, it's going to change EVERYTHING. Stay tuned.

And for the Hillary spinmeister here, here are the actual polls from PA over the past 18 months.



Note that up until just recently, Hillary had a nearly 20 point lead. If she wins by 20 points, then she meets expectations, she doesn't beat them. We already know that Hillary is going to win PA, that is the conventional wisdom and has been the conventional wisdom since the beginning of 2007. Meeting that conventional wisdom is certainly a "win" for Hillary, but winning a state you're supposed to win does not an "upset" make. The only "news" that may come from next Tuesday is whether Obama beats expectations by cutting into Hillary's 20 point lead that she held for a year. The other real "news" is how Hillary has squandered her lead in PA over the past three to four months. Look at those polls. It's a disaster for her. And more recently, not only has Obama been catching up to her, but her numbers are dropping. Again, hanging on by the skin of your teeth is not an upset.

Polls for PA have shown quite a spread. The last one I posted from a day ago showed her with a 20 point lead. Either way the race is close enough where Obama can still lose. The doctor may be right though about this being more of a general election problem for Obama than one for the nomination.