I agree completely....Super Tuesday was all about who is strong in blue vs. red states.

Hillary showed dominance in the traditional Democratic strongholds.

There are obviously differing opinions about just what the results of Super Tuesday means. Dave Nalle characterized the results as a "disaster" for Clinton.

I personally think it remains unclear. Certainly, Obama has gained a good deal of ground over the last couple of months, and his funding is impressive. But the fact that Hillary carried California by a strong margin and won in Massachusetts despite the Kennedy endorsement of Obama is a significant plus for her. As with the current delegate count, I just don't see a significant advantage for either of them.

Obama's surge may have spent itself to some degree. Clinton remains a strong campaigner. Her appearance Monday night on Letterman went well. She seemed relaxed and engaging. She is, if nothing else, a pro at campaigning.

Dave made mention of Hillary's tearing up again as though it is significant. I think it's odd that I have found no mention whatsoever that Romney has done so at least 2 or 3 times in the past couple of weeks. Double standard? I think so.

B-tone

I do believe Obama will be a victim of his own rhetoric and hype

"Super Tuesday was all about who is strong in blue vs. red states"

Right idea but the wrong lesson. Obama will win the blue states as easily as Clinton would in a general election, but he will also be competitive in a lot of purple states - where Clinton would not only lose but give the angry Repugs a rallying cry for thier base and potentially an overall republican victory. In a general election, Obama is clearly the more competitive candidate.

Hillary showed dominance in the traditional Democratic strongholds.

Which is exactly the PROBLEM with the Clinton campaign.

To win the presidency, the Democrats need a candidate who is dominant in the traditional REPUBLICAN strongholds. So far, that looks to be Obama.

If anyone thinks that a Democrat would win Arizona and Alaska and Utah and North Dakota and Idaho and the Bible belt states in the general election are seriously misled or misleading others.

"Dave Nalle characterized the results as a 'disaster' for Clinton."

Yeah, and you know how often he gets it right. [stifles giggle]

Obama's speech (October, 2002):

Good afternoon. Let me begin by saying that although this has been billed as an anti-war rally, I stand before you as someone who is not opposed to war in all circumstances.

The Civil War was one of the bloodiest in history, and yet it was only through the crucible of the sword, the sacrifice of multitudes, that we could begin to perfect this union, and drive the scourge of slavery from our soil. I don't oppose all wars.

My grandfather signed up for a war the day after Pearl Harbor was bombed, fought in Patton's army. He saw the dead and dying across the fields of Europe; he heard the stories of fellow troops who first entered Auschwitz and Treblinka. He fought in the name of a larger freedom, part of that arsenal of democracy that triumphed over evil, and he did not fight in vain.

I don't oppose all wars.

After September 11th, after witnessing the carnage and destruction, the dust and the tears, I supported this Administration's pledge to hunt down and root out those who would slaughter innocents in the name of intolerance, and I would willingly take up arms myself to prevent such a tragedy from happening again.

I don't oppose all wars. And I know that in this crowd today, there is no shortage of patriots, or of patriotism. What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other arm-chair, weekend warriors in this Administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.

What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income - to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression.

That's what I'm opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics.

Now let me be clear - I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity.

He's a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.

But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history.

I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda.

I am not opposed to all wars. I'm opposed to dumb wars.

So for those of us who seek a more just and secure world for our children, let us send a clear message to the president today. You want a fight, President Bush? Let's finish the fight with Bin Laden and al-Qaeda, through effective, coordinated intelligence, and a shutting down of the financial networks that support terrorism, and a homeland security program that involves more than color-coded warnings.

You want a fight, President Bush? Let's fight to make sure that the UN inspectors can do their work, and that we vigorously enforce a non-proliferation treaty, and that former enemies and current allies like Russia safeguard and ultimately eliminate their stores of nuclear material, and that nations like Pakistan and India never use the terrible weapons already in their possession, and that the arms merchants in our own country stop feeding the countless wars that rage across the globe.

You want a fight, President Bush? Let's fight to make sure our so-called allies in the Middle East, the Saudis and the Egyptians, stop oppressing their own people, and suppressing dissent, and tolerating corruption and inequality, and mismanaging their economies so that their youth grow up without education, without prospects, without hope, the ready recruits of terrorist cells.

You want a fight, President Bush? Let's fight to wean ourselves off Middle East oil, through an energy policy that doesn't simply serve the interests of Exxon and Mobil.

Those are the battles that we need to fight. Those are the battles that we willingly join. The battles against ignorance and intolerance. Corruption and greed. Poverty and despair.

The consequences of war are dire, the sacrifices immeasurable. We may have occasion in our lifetime to once again rise up in defense of our freedom, and pay the wages of war. But we ought not - we will not - travel down that hellish path blindly. Nor should we allow those who would march off and pay the ultimate sacrifice, who would prove the full measure of devotion with their blood, to make such an awful sacrifice in vain.

Lets turn the page,

VOTE OBAMA FOR PRESIDENT!

Its very easy to give a speech sitting in the state legislature where your actions have no real consequences. He saw no real intelligence and did not have to weigh in the consequences of getting it wrong. So although that speech by him is being touted by his supporters, I don't see any real substance to it since he has not followed it up after he got into the Senate. His votes have basically mirrored Clinton's.

Michael,

You may be correct about Obama and Clinton and the red and blue states. But what is at present unknown is, of course, who will be the republican candidate? McCain looks very strong, but now I don't think you can count out Hucklebuns.

But either one of those as nominees presents a problem of division within the party. McCain has strong detractors who feel he's too liberal. Poor Rush has become hoarse spewing out his vitriole against McCain. Some middle of the roaders are not too keen on McCain's hawkishness regarding Iraq. The evangelicals feel that he's not godly enough, nor socially conservative enough.

(Just a side note: I would think that Osama bin Laden would fill the bill for many of the more conservative members ot the party. He's VERY godly, would certainly not condone abortion and gay marriage, and is also VERY hawkish about the conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq, and could probably come up with the money to run a strong campaign. Sounds like a good fit to me.)

Hucklebutter may well turn off the middle of the roaders and the Iraq hawks. A small # may well remain in support of Ron Paul even if he drops out of the race.

The point being, of course, that the Republican vote has great potential of being split to the extent that even the hated HC might win out in November. Some, I suppose, who hate her enough that they will bite the bullet and vote for McCain or Hucklebean, if under protest.

I really don't believe that there is any clear cut scenario that anyone can predict with any confidence.

Go Hillary! (or failing that) Go Barack!

B-tone

I think Rapchat and Michael make a valid argument. Any Democrat is going to carry California in the general election, and any Republican will win Texas. It doesn't matter which primary candidate wins those states. You'd like to see your candidate strong in, say, Florida.

But ultimately that doesn't matter either. No one cares how you reach the necessary number of delegates, and even if they do care, they can't do anything about it. Endorsements and momentum are matters of perception, and perception doesn't get you a nomination. We're too far along in the process to worry about anything but getting 51% of the delegates.

The fact is, neither party has a dominant candidate. That's because each candidate appeals to a different part of his party, and lacks appeal to another part.

no radio show - ?

If anyone thinks that a Democrat would win Arizona and Alaska and Utah and North Dakota and Idaho and the Bible belt states in the general election are seriously misled or misleading others.

Perhaps so. But it's not less absurd than your suggestions in this article, Krutic.

That's because your article, coupled with the statement I quote above, suggests that you somehow believe that California, Minnesota, Illinois, and the Northeast wouldn't vote Democratic if Obama was the nominee. Which is outlandish. Regardless of who the nominee is, the Democratic stronghold states will vote Democratic.

What you want to see is who has the better chance in the swing states. Missouri is a great example, as are Kansas and Iowa. This year, Virginia is widely considered a purple state, too: traditionally Red, but now with a Democratic governor, one Democratic senator, and likely a second Dem senator come November. The same for Colorado and Ohio.

In short, if you want to know who is a more viable Democratic candidate in the general election, the LAST place you should look is at how the Democratic base votes.

So by that logic John McCain has a great chance to win in New York, Illinois and California in the general elections since he won those handily in the primary.
My point is the Democratic stronghold states went with Clinton on Super Tuesday and that is an advantage. It means that the voters who will matter in November went with Clinton in the Democratic base states. As for the swing states, winning Missouri and Minnesota against Clinton doesn't mean Obama will win those against McCain. You can't replace the Republican nominee with Clinton and use that as an argument in favor of Obama.
P.S. I wouldn't consider Kansas a swing state.

troll,

No show. I didn't know myself until about 10 minutes after 5. I thought I'd tuned into the show with Dave prattling on, but I couldn't get through on the phone. Then Dave answered an incoming call, and it was me. I was listening to last weeks show. I think the show might be moving to Sunday, but, frankly, I don't know any more than you. We'll see.

B-tone

There ought to be a note over there. No show this week as we work on rescheduling so we can get John B back on with us. Didn't I email about that too?

Dave

Of course, BTR is so hellishly organized I'm not sure that anyone has ever seen any of the notes I've put on there.

Dave

Dave,

Not a one.

B-tone

Notes?

What notes?

Probably a stick on thing that fell of the refridgerator?

Of course, the big problem in all this is that I still don't think that America, still deeply conservative despite its claims to be both enlightened and progressive, is ready for a) its first black president, or b) its first woman president.

I hope I'm wrong but I reckon both candidates are about a decade too early, at the least, sad to say. Perhaps a generation would be a better call.

So I'm tipping John McCain and another republican in the White House come the REAL election.

I agree that McCain will probably win, but not because we're too conservative for a black or woman president. I think Obama could win, but the problem with Hillary is who she is not what gender she is.

A conservative woman or a black conservative would have it made, but to be both ethnic and left-leaning or female and left-leaning might be too much.

Dave

With respect to whether or not this country is "ready" for a black or a woman as chief executive, I would replace the word "conservative" with "backwards" or "Neanderthalic."

This country used to be considered progressive, especially coming out of WWII. We were the recognized leaders in just about every aspect of human endeavor, and we were rightly proud of that perception. But then, in angry response to the civil rights and youth movements of the '60s and '70s the old guard christians and other social conservatives said, "Hold on just a cotton-pickin' minute," in much the same way the traditionalist muslim mullahs said in Iran (although presumably without the southern drawl) in response to the westernization of that country through the influence of the Shah, which has since spread throughout most of the muslim world.

So, since that time the christian right has done everything within its power to put the brakes on progress with its efforts to stifle social liberals at every turn including opposition to abortion and gay marriage, its avowed war on science and the reestablishment of the dominance of men and the subjugation of women by the SBC and other evangelical/fundamentalist/charismatic groups. It is largely these people - or their antecedents - who opposed the civil rights movement, many of whom have not, in their minds at least, given up that fight.

So, yes, there is a large block of people who harken back to a mythical "good old days" who are not now, nor will likely ever be "ready" for a black or woman president.

While much of Europe and eastern countries including Japan, China, S. Korea and even Vietnam are looking forward, the social conservatives in this country want fervently to move backward in an effort to assuage the feared anger of their god.

B-tone

the Democratic stronghold states went with Clinton on Super Tuesday and that is an advantage. It means that the voters who will matter in November went with Clinton in the Democratic base states.

Again, the voters who will matter in November are not in the Democratic base states. They are in the swing states.

That the Democratic stronghold states went with Clinton on Super Tuesday is to Clinton's advantage in the PRIMARY. It has no bearing, and no predictive significance, on her chances in the general election. None. Whatsoever. Zero.

Clinton is doomed. As Obama momentum builds anything she does to take the election away from him will alienate so many core left voters that she'll be screwed when the general election comes up and they go vote for the socialist/green alternative.

Obama will win, that's all America knows.

Does anyone find it disconcerting that the Clintons love to play the game of being unfairly attacked by the media, while acting holier-than-thou?

Today was the second time that a memeber of the MSNBC organization had to come out and apologize for comments he made about the Clinton campaign.

Sure, it may be a little distasteful to say that Chelsea Clinton's being pimped by her parents (even if we all believe and know it to be true).

But what about the Clinton surrogates that have gone on multiple TV stations to call Obama a coke-dealing, pot-smoking adolescent. For such an intelligent group of people, apparently the Clintons have failed to understand the definition of hypocrisy.

The truth is that they would sacrifce, and crucify, anything and anyone to maintain their so-called pinnacle of power and name-recognition.

Oh, by the way...

How many different Clintons does Obama have to contend with for this nomination...?

Zack,

"Sure, it may be a little distasteful to say that Chelsea Clinton's being pimped by her parents (even if we all believe and know it to be true)"

And you "know" this how?

Do you believe that a 27 year old woman should NOT involve herself in her mother's political campaign?. Do you assume that she is not capable of making an informed decision about what she does and how she does it? Or do you just assume that she is of the same ruthless bolt of cloth from which her parents were woven?

I'm curious how most of the people here and elsewhere who love to vilify the Clinton's claim to "know" so fucking much about their actions and motives. Have you all employed some kind of high tech "fly on the wall" that listens in on all of the Clinton's nefarious plot machinations? Do you consult your Ouija boards?

To my mind, it is rumor mongers, tellers of half truths, or NO truths such as yourself who do the election process much more harm than the supposed dastardly Clintons and other politicos you decide to lambast.

I like Barack Obama, and will vote for him should he win the nomination. I can't say I "like" Hillary. I would probably enjoy say, having dinner with Obama more than with Hillary. Although, I'm sure she can be very engaging. However, I don't count either scenario as likely. I imagine Clinton can be hell on wheels (or in a stylish pant suit) when she feels the need. Frankly, I don't mind that in a president.

For the past 7 plus years we have had a meely-mouthed chief executive. It would be refreshing to have one who doesn't mince words (and one who can actually pronounce them,) and who isn't afraid to make heads roll.

We don't have to like our president, or even be inspired by him or her. What we need is someone who can get things done. Obviously, the jury is still out on that count, but Hillary has the street cred of being unflinchingly determined and unafraid to tackle controversial issues while still being able to bring opposing factions together. That's not bad.

B-tone

Actually, this is the first I've heard anyone even SUGGEST that Chelsea's being pimped by her parents.

Actually, now that I think about it, this is the first time I've ever heard anyone even SUGGEST that Chelsea -- who, by the way, is a grown woman with a mind and life or her own -- would be involved in the campaign for any other reason except that she wants to.

I agree Clintons like to play the victim now and then but with MSNBC I wouldn't blame them. That network is so biased and in love with Obama that it probably makes Michelle Obama jealous.
All you have to do is watch Chris Matthews and that other guy (Olberman?). Tim Russert and Brian Williams are the only real journalists there.
By the way -
No one had a problem bringing up Bush's DUIs but no one can bring up Obama's drug use..
Bush and Cheney's military service were a big issue in 2004, will Obama's and Clinton's be; considering the tables are turned and they are running against a war hero (McCain)?
Somehow I think not. Can I say hypocrisy?

David Shuster of MSNBC has been suspended from the network, because he said that the Clintons were "pimping out" their daughter. It's not something I said... I would have said much worse.

I don't like Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, or any other Clinton. Period. They play dirty politics, but cry foul when they're on the receiving end.

And as far as tackling controversial issues... the woman won't even say her vote for the Iraq War was a mistake. Oh, wait a minute, now she says that she didn't vote for the war itself. What a load of bullshit...

She's just like her husband: she sticks her thumb in the air, and follows whichever way the wind's blowing.

Bush and Cheney's military service were a big issue in 2004, will Obama's and Clinton's be; considering the tables are turned and they are running against a war hero (McCain)?
Somehow I think not.

Uh...Obama and Clinton's military service won't be an issue because there is no issue.

Bush and Cheney's military service were in question for one very specific reason: They were both accused of having sidestepped the Vietnam draft.

Women were not included in the draft, thus there's nothing to accuse Hillary Clinton of avoiding.

The draft was terminated when Barack Obama was 12 years old, thus there's nothing to accuse him of avoiding either.

"Bush and Cheney's military service were in question for one very specific reason: They were both accused of having sidestepped the Vietnam draft."

And it's always been a non-issue, anyway, except on the part of the Bush haters. Practically every middle class kid in the sixties "sidestepped" the draft.

Among the middle class, only idiots like me wound up in the military.

And it's always been a non-issue, anyway, except on the part of the Bush haters.

Well, yes, but those Bush-haters are also playing tit-for-tat after all the fuss over Bill Clinton's draft foibles. Not that that makes it any less of a non-issue on either side.

I'm frankly thrilled that both nominees in 2008 will be immune to this issue, so we can all shut the fuck up about it.

(Of course, W. wasn't exactly a middle-class kid, either, but I digress.)

Hey Clavos:

Don't feel too bad. My dad was a "middle-class kid" too, and he was drafted. Luckily, this didn't happen until the early 70's. He told me his unit was training for deployment when Nixon announced the withdrawl of troops.

As far as talking about a candidate's military service, or lack thereof, I think it's a relevant topic. There's nothing worse, in my opinion, then a politician who perfunctorily starts a war, when he did everything in his power to avoid figthing in the wars of his own time.

I understand this is a historic election but why do we have to make everything in to a black and white issue. I hate talk to some of my friend about the election because they always say stupid shit like "i'm voting for obama because he's black" that makes me so mad. and if you ask them to talk about something he stands for then their stumped. I don't think that people should vote for Clinton because she's a woman and i really don't think we should vote for obama because he black we need the best person for the job not color or gender. Obama seems like a shade man to me. He had crocks paying is way into office.

I doubt anyone really knows what Obama's policies are beyond the one line rhetorics. To me his candidacy is media driven to a large extent.
It is all flash and no substance.