A new theory & old comment

A new theory on Hillary: She plans to be so nasty to Obama supporters that eventually, everyone lets her win just so she'll go away.

An old comment: She's lying again. "On a pace" to raise $10M in 24 hours means the campaign did some creative projections based on a few hours of immediate post-debate contributions. It makes a nice sound bite, but I'll bet you dollars to donuts there ain't no $10M.

Mr. Collinson,

Why are you repeating the media's misinformation that Hillary won by ten per cent when it was actually 9.4 per cent? Sure it's close, but one number is double digit and the other is not.

And why do you call Obama's grass roots people who contribute small amounts a "multi-million-dollar financing operation?" Sure, it raised multi millions, but it's still just us little people. On the other hand, when writing about Clinton, you *do* call it a "grassroots movement," which is certainly is not.

You also use the word "touted" when writing of the "Obama team" statements, as well as leaving out the normal contractions making campaign manager Plouffe sound, well, elitist. But when quoting the Pennsylvania governor, you use the friendly, normal contractions.

You're spinning everything in reverse, just as the mainstream media is doing. It's unexpected to find such slippery subtleties on CHB.

You must write for the New York Times: All the News That's Fit to Slant.

Not to mention just flat being wrong. The best scenario possible for Clinton is to win the remaining states by the same margin as Ohio and Pennsylvania. That isn't going to happen. But with the exception of North Carolina, I'll concede the point; in NC Obama will take about 60% a bit less than in neighboring Virginia and South Carolina. If Clinton takes 56% in all other remaining states, including Indiana where her margin at present is about 2, and seat Florida and Michigan by the same formula, Obama ends up with 2060 without taking a attracting a single additional superdelegate.

This "depends on the superdelegates" myth is the only way Clinton has any hope of winning but it is as ephemeral a notion as her marriage.

Knockknock,
We are all a tad sensitive. For instance this morning when it was mentioned Obama was not on the Michigan ballot, BSNBC failed to mention that Congressman John Conyers campaigned for those favoring Obama to vote "uncommitted", which a 40ish per cent did. Sorry, I don't have the exact number.
Florida on the other hand, had everyone on the ballot and while no one actually campaigned there in keeping with agreements, Obama did run one ad.
As far as I am concerned those Florida votes should count.
Michigan and Florida could have a revote, and democrats did agree to pay for it. Obama, however wouldn't agree to this.
He also pulled out of the CBS debate scheduled prior to NC.
I'll bet you weren't upset when Shuster said Chelsea was being "pimped out to the campaign" which he found "creepy"
Olbermann has suggested a DNC leader have a meeting with Hillary to ask her to step aside.
Jeff Greenfield once said, "people process facts through the prism of their own beliefs" We do. We are mother hens guarding all verbage concerning the candidates. We forgive our team. We slam the other.
Frank Rich of NYT is absolutely in the tank for Obama. And don't forget just yesterday the NYT wrote a blistering editorial about Hillary's "low road to victory"
I will say this. I believe the candidates are tired. Obama's last performance, never mind the moderates, was certainly not his best. Of course he is exhausted. Hillary does smaller venues. Shorter stops. I believe this helps her physically. Obama on the other hand, has a rock concert twice a day. Everyone has their physical limits. Poor guy said, "Can I just eat my waffle?" He took heat for that, but I heard exasperation in his voice. Everybody wants a piece of me and I am tired. I would be too, but the public is in pounce mode.
Personally, I would like to get back to the issues. I don't have to love a candidate. I just have to believe that candidate is going to do a good job.

knockknock,
Yes, Senator Obama declined to participate in the CBS debate. He had, however, previously agreed to an earlier debate in NC which Senator Clinton would not accept. She had to have it on her terms. Fair and balanced. They each accepted one and they each declined one. Time to campaign.

33 I agree. Let's get to the issues. Wouldn't it be nice if there was zero personal attacks and it was all about policy?
O silly me. That' half a beer I just had is going to my head.

I would love to see the candidates tell us why we should vote for them and use the attacks on McKKKain.
It's all academic though unless Barack makes a huge blunder he will only need to pick up about 100 Super D's and my guess is that'll happen about the time the last primary is done.
Still plenty of time to pound the Repubs.
Unfortunately the economy and the occupation of Iraq both seem to be getting worse so I'm hopeful a third chimp term will not happen.