Who will (not should) be the Democratic presidential nominee in 2008?

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by Vegas Vic

I'd say that Thomas Dewey's collapse against Harry Truman in 1948 would still rank as the biggest failure in U.S. political history. Going into the election season, Truman's approval rating was at 36%, and he was nearly universally regarded as incapable of winning the 1948 election.

In addition to the Rudy thing, I would throw George Bush losing to Clinton up there. His approval rating was like 70% a year in advance.

My one hope left is that Obama wins more delegates and Hillary gets the nomination because of super-delegates. Clearly Obama is the most inspirational candidate, but I'm a PoliSci major and there are just so many examples of charismatic, inexperienced speakers winning elections - none of which end well. Shucks, we've got a very similar governor here in Deval Patrick, and to put it nicely, he hasn't exactly fulfilled the promise he showed on the campaign trail.

[rowech]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

That's the thing that I think will make such an interesting thing to read the insider views on after it's all over. If she wins, of course, those won't be written for a long time if ever but if she loses I have to think some people will be willing to talk about how they let it happen.

I suspect she got some bad advice from "experts" who weren't part of her original enclave, as she seemed to regain momentum for a while once she brought back in some of her old clique but now that seems to have stalled too.

My instinct is that the rifts inside her campaign have been significant and they ended up pulling her in too many directions trying to be everything to everybody (that she figured might eventually vote for her). She's also been running to beat McCain IMO, and overlooked the fact that she had to win the nomination first.

If she loses, it'll be because she's a threatening, manipulative, and scary woman.

[Malificent]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

In addition to the Rudy thing, I would throw George Bush losing to Clinton up there. His approval rating was like 70% a year in advance.

My one hope left is that Obama wins more delegates and Hillary gets the nomination because of super-delegates. Clearly Obama is the most inspirational candidate, but I'm a PoliSci major and there are just so many examples of charismatic, inexperienced speakers winning elections - none of which end well. Shucks, we've got a very similar governor here in Deval Patrick, and to put it nicely, he hasn't exactly fulfilled the promise he showed on the campaign trail.

Heh, if Obama wins the most regular delegates from the states and Hillary wins because the "insider" superdelegates give her the win, there might be rioting in the streets. Not completely serious, obviously. But nothing like a populist movement derailed by politics as usual to get the outrage flowing.

[Toddzilla]

I think Rudy's collapse would be far greater than Hillary's, at least in terms of expectations. Wasn't Rudy the clear leader in terms of polling as recently as a year ago? And didn't he lead all leading Democratic candidates in head-to-head matchups?

Yet here we are in 2008, and Rudy didn't only not even get nominated, he wasn't ever even close to sniffing 2nd place in any primary, and then he had to quit.

So he went from president to be to hopeful nominee to loser, ex-mayo, quitter, all within 6 months.

At least if Hillary loses the nomination, she put up an inkling of a fight.

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by Malificent

Heh, if Obama wins the most regular delegates from the states and Hillary wins because the "insider" superdelegates give her the win, there might be rioting in the streets. Not completely serious, obviously. But nothing like a populist movement derailed by politics as usual to get the outrage flowing.

I agree this is the most compelling plotline that may be developing. Especially considering the nature of the situation... where quite a lot of people have come from out of the political realm to get involved for Obama, getting genuinely inspired by a politician... and then to have their hopes dashed by the establishment. Could be very rough, both for those particular voters, and definitely for the party.

[flere-imsaho]

Agreed with QS. Democratic primaries & caucuses are showing record turnout this year, and I'll bet good money it's inspired by Obama more than Hillary. A lot of these people will be disappointed if she gets the nod over Obama on regular delegates, but if she wins the nomination through the use of what people are going to see as "backroom tactics", I think it could be a detriment, on the balance, for her.

[Dutch]

If the Democrats used the winner take all method (like the Republicans), would that swing the balance more decidedly towards Obama?

[Racer]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

In addition to the Rudy thing, I would throw George Bush losing to Clinton up there. His approval rating was like 70% a year in advance.

My one hope left is that Obama wins more delegates and Hillary gets the nomination because of super-delegates. Clearly Obama is the most inspirational candidate, but I'm a PoliSci major and there are just so many examples of charismatic, inexperienced speakers winning elections - none of which end well. Shucks, we've got a very similar governor here in Deval Patrick, and to put it nicely, he hasn't exactly fulfilled the promise he showed on the campaign trail.

I think Hillary has little chance of winning the regular election if that happens. I think that would piss off and turn away voters in November who had voted in the primaries for Obama that probably would have otherwise voted for Hillary if she won under normal circumstances.

[Racer]

Dola, I don't think there is anything that could make the Republicans more happy then to see the Democrat presidential primary be decided by super delegates.

[Toddzilla]

Originally Posted by Racer

Dola, I don't think there is anything that could make the Republicans more happy then to see the Democrat presidential primary be decided by super delegates.

And seeing as how the thing that could make the Democrats the most happy by seeing a GOP-outsider and party-reviled candidate sew up the Republican nomination has already come to pass, it makes for a most interesting election.

With Clinton v McCain, we may set a new low in voter turnout.

[path12]

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud

From the Washington caucuses today:

Precinct 702 in Port Townsend, WA

Obama v. Hillary

There were three times the number of people at my caucus this time over the one in 2004. And our precinct went 80%-20% Obama.

[path12]

Originally Posted by rowech

If she loses, it'll be because she's a threatening, manipulative, and scary woman.

I think it's just unfortunate timing more than anything else if she loses. People are frustrated and tired of the uber-partisan shit of the past 16 years.


Edit: That's a little simplistic, but it's early and I don't have the mindset to articulate better right now.

[digamma]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

I agree this is the most compelling plotline that may be developing. Especially considering the nature of the situation... where quite a lot of people have come from out of the political realm to get involved for Obama, getting genuinely inspired by a politician... and then to have their hopes dashed by the establishment. Could be very rough, both for those particular voters, and definitely for the party.

It also plays right into a pretty compelling Republican narrative for the general. "We've always said a liberal government does what it thinks is best for you, rather than enabling you to do what you think is best for you. Now they've gone so far as to pick the candidate they think is best for you..."

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by Malificent

Heh, if Obama wins the most regular delegates from the states and Hillary wins because the "insider" superdelegates give her the win, there might be rioting in the streets. Not completely serious, obviously. But nothing like a populist movement derailed by politics as usual to get the outrage flowing.

Agreed on the rioting or at least, some crazy chaos. The Dems know that and as Obama continues to pick people off, you're going to see massive defections if he manages to get closer. There won't be a backroom deal here, the holdouts are the black leaders and people beholden to the Clintons from the past. Once it seems clear they can leave them behind because the "new guy" wins, they'll defect or start to commit to him, since the superdelegates don't have to vote until that actual day.

They're just going to want a seat at the table with Obama and wants he starts to give them some of that, they'll be okay with him, in the same way McCain has to appease the social conservatives of the GOP.

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

My one hope left is that Obama wins more delegates and Hillary gets the nomination because of super-delegates. Clearly Obama is the most inspirational candidate, but I'm a PoliSci major and there are just so many examples of charismatic, inexperienced speakers winning elections - none of which end well. Shucks, we've got a very similar governor here in Deval Patrick, and to put it nicely, he hasn't exactly fulfilled the promise he showed on the campaign trail.

Other than race, the Obama and Patrick have nothing in common. Deval Patrick had previously never served in elected office before now.

I don't think Obama is just platitudes. He can bore you on tax policy if you want him, it's just not conducive to crowds of 15,000+ to start talking about the intricacies of substantive policy issues. Those folks are coming to hear a rock star talk and they want to be 'inspired' to leave and do his bidding in the streets.

Typical of a movement with disaffected kids who haven't lived much or do much? Sure thing. But it's what's working for him and giving him his momentum, so he can't go against that to make the pundits happy.

Though he is addressing the criticism leveled at him a lot more in speeches now, so clearly someone on his team is listening and is having him address it head on. I don't know if the attack dog mentality will have an appreciable effect on his lasting prospects, but...it's at least evidence that he has the ability to do something more than "inspire hope".

He can fight with the best of them, too.

[Calis]

Pardon my ignorance here, but I know absolutely nothing about super delegates.

Why is it such a certainty that they'll vote for Hillary? Guess I need to read up on it.

[Buccaneer]

DC, thank you for posting that map from 1988. I think that map would be appropriate to post in the Rep thread since a similar scenario is happening there.

[Galaril]

Originally Posted by Racer

I think Hillary has little chance of winning the regular election if that happens. I think that would piss off and turn away voters in November who had voted in the primaries for Obama that probably would have otherwise voted for Hillary if she won under normal circumstances.

I agree. I am a moderate Democrat and if that happened I would vote for McCain.

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by Calis

Pardon my ignorance here, but I know absolutely nothing about super delegates.

Why is it such a certainty that they'll vote for Hillary? Guess I need to read up on it.

Super delegates in the words of Donna Brazile, "Don't wear capes and you wouldn't want to see them in spandex."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18277678/

Voters don’t choose the 842 unpledged “super-delegates” who comprise nearly 40 percent of the number of delegates needed to clinch the Democratic nomination.

The Republicans do not have a similar super-delegate system.

The category includes Democratic governors and members of Congress, former presidents Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter, former vice president Al Gore, retired congressional leaders such as Dick Gephardt, and all Democratic National Committee members, some of whom are appointed by party chairman Howard Dean.

These super-delegates don’t have superhuman powers, but unlike rank-and-file Democrats, they do automatically get to cast a vote at the convention to decide who the party’s nominee will be.

Although dubbed “unpledged” in Democratic Party lingo, the super-delegates are free to come out before their state’s primary and pledge to support one of the presidential contenders.

Why did the party adopt this partly undemocratic system?

Super-delegates were supposed to supply some Establishment stability to the nominating process.

Before 1972, party elders, such as Chicago Mayor Richard Daley and Charlie Buckley, the boss of The Bronx who helped John Kennedy clinch the 1960 nomination, wielded inordinate power.

But in early 1970’s, the party’s rules were reformed to open the process to grass-roots activists, women, and ethnic minorities.

Sen. George McGovern, the leading anti-Vietnam war liberal, won the 1972 nomination. McGovern turned out to be a disaster as a presidential candidate, winning only one state and the District of Columbia.

So without reverting to the days of party bosses like Buckley, the Democrats decided to guarantee that elected officials would have a bigger voice in the nomination.

[Young Drachma]

I'll say this. Hillary on the stump is a smart strategy, because she understands how the media works. The media only shows Obama singing platitudes and talking about hope a lot. When you see her on the stump, it's all about the issues. She might tell a story or three, but it's all about the issues.

We'll see how he contrasts today when he gives his speech in Alexandria.

[flere-imsaho]

Of course, at the end of the day, how important are the issues? Virtually all presidents come to power and instead of implementing a slate of clear-cut changes based on "issues", make incremental steps, if any, towards changes that reflect a general philosophy.

That's not including stuff they just lie about.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by Dutch

If the Democrats used the winner take all method (like the Republicans), would that swing the balance more decidedly towards Obama?

Off a quick look, it would almost certainly help Hillary. Obama's winning states by a large margin - winner take all in IL/GA/MN would only give him 99 more delegates. Cali alone would give Hillary 163, and NY would be another 93.

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud

Other than race, the Obama and Patrick have nothing in common. Deval Patrick had previously never served in elected office before now.

I don't think Obama is just platitudes. He can bore you on tax policy if you want him, it's just not conducive to crowds of 15,000+ to start talking about the intricacies of substantive policy issues. Those folks are coming to hear a rock star talk and they want to be 'inspired' to leave and do his bidding in the streets.

Typical of a movement with disaffected kids who haven't lived much or do much? Sure thing. But it's what's working for him and giving him his momentum, so he can't go against that to make the pundits happy.

Though he is addressing the criticism leveled at him a lot more in speeches now, so clearly someone on his team is listening and is having him address it head on. I don't know if the attack dog mentality will have an appreciable effect on his lasting prospects, but...it's at least evidence that he has the ability to do something more than "inspire hope".

He can fight with the best of them, too.

Yeah, the race thing probably has a little to do with my impression, but I disagree that's where the similarities end. Having seen Deval give numerous speeches out here the way they speak to the way their people on the ground operate is very similar.

Obama may have won elected office, but his record in the Senate isn't too deep. I don't know how he performed in the Illinois state house, but from what I've read of his time in Washington it's been more about keeping his head down and preparing himself for bigger things than trying to pass policy. He is a freshman senator though, so that's not all on him.

It doesn't help that I'm philosophically opposed to his Iraq strategy, but I just don't even see how he could fully enact it. His economic policies and health care stance also seem fairly untenable. People are going to be massively disappointed with his actual performance once he's in office.

[rowech]

Originally Posted by Galaril

I agree. I am a moderate Democrat and if that happened I would vote for McCain.

I think this is exactly what would happen as well. If Obama gets the nod, I think he has a chance. If Hilary gets the nod, I think McCain wins because many of those who are voting for Obama are going to vote for McCain instead.

[Young Drachma]

Hillary's campaign manager is stepping down to become a "senior adviser", apparently.

[BishopMVP]

The new rumor is that the Clinton campaign is going to try and get the 366 delegates from Florida and Michigan (where Obama wasn't even on the ballot) votes at the convention.

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

It doesn't help that I'm philosophically opposed to his Iraq strategy, but I just don't even see how he could fully enact it. His economic policies and health care stance also seem fairly untenable. People are going to be massively disappointed with his actual performance once he's in office.

Hillarycare contains mandates. It'll never pass Congress. Never. Americans will never settle for health care policy shoved down their throats. And GOP will skewer her on that point.

And all of her "ideas" are nice and dandy (if you're a modern liberal who is into that) but she says nothing about paying for them.

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

The new rumor is that the Clinton campaign is going to try and get the 366 delegates from Florida and Michigan (where Obama wasn't even on the ballot) votes at the convention.

They will have to hold a caucus to do it. Primaries are too expensive and they won't put those votes back in play based on that beauty contest held a few weeks ago. They'll have to seat those people in some manner, but only after a fair fight is staged.

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2...es-vote-again/

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud

Hillarycare contains mandates. It'll never pass Congress. Never. Americans will never settle for health care policy shoved down their throats. And GOP will skewer her on that point.

And all of her "ideas" are nice and dandy (if you're a modern liberal who is into that) but she says nothing about paying for them.

Oh, don't take my pessimism regarding Obama as me supporting Hillary over him in any way. After looking over the candidates, I was going to give Ron Paul a protest vote until I saw the racist stuff come out, so I wrote in Colbert.

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud

They will have to hold a caucus to do it. Primaries are too expensive and they won't put those votes back in play based on that beauty contest held a few weeks ago. They'll have to seat those people in some manner, but only after a fair fight is staged.

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2...es-vote-again/

Originally Posted by article

Under the current rules, there are only two ways Michigan and Florida could get convention delegates. The states could resubmit a selection plan that is consistent with DNC rules. That could include holding another primary or a party-run caucus, for example.
The states could also appeal to a DNC panel that deals with convention credentials. Neither state has done so, DNC spokesman Damien LaVera said.

Depending on who's on that DNC panel, there is potential for shenanigans.

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

Oh, don't take my pessimism regarding Obama as me supporting Hillary over him in any way. After looking over the candidates, I was going to give Ron Paul a protest vote until I saw the racist stuff come out, so I wrote in Colbert.
Depending on who's on that DNC panel, there is potential for shenanigans.

I didn't. I was just putting it out there. I'm not a fan of any of them either, I was just saying it.

And in other news, John Edwards apparently met with both campaigns about a possible endorsement. The conventional wisdom was clearly for him to back Obama, but...I don't think it'll be that easy, though his stock isn't what it was a few weeks ago in terms of an ability to help.

I could see Hillary wanting it more and promising everything but the moon to him if she backs him and I could see him taking the bait. But I guess we'll find out once he decides.

[Young Drachma]

Veepstakes speculating from the AP

[Young Drachma]

57-42% in Maine for Obama with 44% of the precincts reporting.

[Vegas Vic]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

In addition to the Rudy thing, I would throw George Bush losing to Clinton up there. His approval rating was like 70% a year in advance.

Yes, but when the primary season actually began in 1992, Bush did not have what was deemed to be an insurmountable lead. Dewey's collapse against Truman occurred after the start of the presidential campaign in 1948.

[Vegas Vic]

Originally Posted by Anxiety

Al Gore in 2000 would be massively bigger.

Al Gore never had more than a single digit lead over Bush during any polling cycle during the 2000 campaign, and most of his "leads" in the summer were within the margin of error. In fact, Gore trailed Bush in the polls for a majority of the 2000 campaign.

[Grammaticus]

It is interesting to see how Hillary's campaign manager, Pattie Solis Doyle quitting in the middle of a critical time in the campaign will affect things.

She is a hispanic member of Hillary's team and in the most senior or key role. Obviously the campaign has hit a massive hurdle with Obama and they are not doing well. Whether she was sacked or just threw in the towel, it doesn't seem like it will help.

[Young Drachma]

Hillary and Barack are both on 60 minutes tonight.

[Young Drachma]

"Do you like Barack Obama?" Katie Couric is really throwing her some questions that are seemingly aimed at that "womanly touch" or something. The interview isn't as serious as Obama's was for Mike Wallace or whoever it was that was on interviewing him. Asking her about whether she drinks coffee or tea, what sort of hand lotion she uses or some stuff. What the hell?

But, both of them seemingly got what they wanted out of this deal, but she's coming out of this looking strong. I wonder how much this will run on cable news, because as it stands right now, the sound bites she's getting here are making her look human and likable.

That said, Katie Couric is really annoying. "What kind of girl were you in high school?" "Your dad was really mean to you growing up? How did you handle that?"

Are you kidding me?

[Galaxy]

Katie Couric: The Ryan Leaf of Media.

[Galaril]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

Katie Couric: The Ryan Leaf of Media.

[Young Drachma]

Frank Rich in the NY Times: Next Up for the Democrats: Civil War

He too, mentions the idea that the Clintons don't care about collateral damage. They're gonna give America what "they need" whether they like it or not.

[Galaxy]

I think people are starting to see through Hillary, looking at Obama's impressive showing in the last few days.

[Young Drachma]

Some background on Hillary's new campaign manager:

American Spectator

Huffington Post

Washington Post story about her from 1994.

Obama better watch his back. She's going for blood.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud

Some background on Hillary's new campaign manager:

American Spectator

Huffington Post

Washington Post story about her from 1994.

Obama better watch his back. She's going for blood.

I'm not doubting what you're saying but are there any credible sources out there from later than 1994. I mean, Ariana Huffington and a story that leads its second paragraph with the sentence "Yes, there is an ethnic component here, as Maggie is an African American, which makes her, in the inane Democrat worldview, the answer to Obama."

These aren't exactly something I would trust a whole lot. I'm not saying Clinton isn't above a smear manager. I just would like to get my facts filtered from someone a bit less biased.

SI

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

I'm not doubting what you're saying but are there any credible sources out there from later than 1994. I mean, Ariana Huffington and a story that leads its second paragraph with the sentence "Yes, there is an ethnic component here, as Maggie is an African American, which makes her, in the inane Democrat worldview, the answer to Obama."

These aren't exactly something I would trust a whole lot. I'm not saying Clinton isn't above a smear manager. I just would like to get my facts filtered from someone a bit less biased.

SI

I know, it's all internet gossip. American Spectator is a useless rag especially. I wanted to post it anyway. At this point, is there anything credible out there?

I do think it's interesting that she was so closely related to the Clintons from back in the day, though. But that's par for the course when you've been in Washington that long.

It just seemed to contrast her drum-beating that she's a big change from the current status quo. Not just that, but even what the pundits are starting to talk about, related to them.

Just makes me think they are licking their chops to start spinning against them.

[Young Drachma]

Dola --

I ran a search of the NY Times from 1994 to 1999 and most of the articles are related to Whitewater. Yeah, that's all come and gone. But the sheer fact that we're going back in time and that she's that intertwined with them. And there are a few stories about Maggie Williams and accepting $50,000 for her legal fees from Johnny Chung, a Democratic fundraiser. Ordinary people don't care about this and the media's already gotten one spin cycle out of it.

I just seems like more of the same related to her past and all of the places where her fingers have been linked doesn't exactly give me the belief that she was only brought in as a loyal Clinton confidante. She is that, but she's also a proven PR spin doctor who is a veteran of Washington.

The Clintons might feel like it's their "duty" to take out Obama now, rather than let the Republicans do it. They might believe that sure, he'll be sullied a bit now, but that it would be better to have it happen now and the sooner people can start to forget and he has a shot after they 'remake America' to run in eight years as they keep imploring him to do.

I can't see why that would be a good idea for him, thinking it would be far wiser for him to give it this go now and be done with it win or lose...but, there is enough evidence out there if one wants to find it coupled with enough punditry from more reputable sources than internet blog trash to indicate that the Clintons are indeed stepping up their game, have pulled out their clubs and D.C. insiders know that if they're not going in for the kill now, that they'll never do it.

That's just what it looks like, but I guess we'll see whether it's true or not when this dust settles.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud

"Do you like Barack Obama?" Katie Couric is really throwing her some questions that are seemingly aimed at that "womanly touch" or something. The interview isn't as serious as Obama's was for Mike Wallace or whoever it was that was on interviewing him. Asking her about whether she drinks coffee or tea, what sort of hand lotion she uses or some stuff. What the hell?

But, both of them seemingly got what they wanted out of this deal, but she's coming out of this looking strong. I wonder how much this will run on cable news, because as it stands right now, the sound bites she's getting here are making her look human and likable.

That said, Katie Couric is really annoying. "What kind of girl were you in high school?" "Your dad was really mean to you growing up? How did you handle that?"

Are you kidding me?

Seriously, Republicans have been complaining about this shit forever, but of course, for them, it's even worse. At least she will speak with Obama.

Katie Couric: Welcome to today's show! I have two guests, one's Democrat...nice hair...tee-hee, and one's Republican.

Democrat: Hiya, Katie!

Republican: Hi.

Katie Couric: Okay, now let's get to the journalistic part of the show where I ask investigative questions, k?

Democrat: Ok.

Republican: Sure.

Katie Couric: Okay, first a question for the Democrat. What is your favorite TV show?

Democrat: Oh, I just love the West Wing!

Katie Couric: Tee-hee, that's lovely, me too! Well, that's all the time we have for today's show. Bye!

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud

Frank Rich in the NY Times: Next Up for the Democrats: Civil War

He too, mentions the idea that the Clintons don't care about collateral damage. They're gonna give America what "they need" whether they like it or not.

It won't surprise me a bit (about the coming civil war and the Clintons forcing the issue). Through most of tht 1990s, we had endure the charade of a President that "cared" about African-American concerns where he was only using them for his personal political gains.

So far we have had the ghetto card, the Jesse Jackson card and the black mam card. What will we see in Texas?

[Raiders Army]

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud

Hillary's campaign manager is stepping down to become a "senior adviser", apparently.

Did she step down or was she fired? I keep hearing both, depending on what channel you watch.

[Jas_lov]

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...-wont-endorse/

CNN is reporting that the only Democrat endorsement left that could actually mean something will not happen. Al Gore will support whoever wins the nomination.

[Swaggs]

Has Jimmy Carter given an endorsement yet?

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by Raiders Army

Did she step down or was she fired? I keep hearing both, depending on what channel you watch.

She stepped down, officially. But c'mon. You don't quit in the middle of political campaign, at this phase of the game unless 1) there is a major family emergency or 2) you're asked to make a change or 3) assess that it's time for you to go.

Given Hillary had a replacement fired up and ready to go after a few hours, it's clear it was a planned move.

Either way, it is not a good situation to have to do this.

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

It won't surprise me a bit (about the coming civil war and the Clintons forcing the issue). Through most of tht 1990s, we had endure the charade of a President that "cared" about African-American concerns where he was only using them for his personal political gains.

So far we have had the ghetto card, the Jesse Jackson card and the black mam card. What will we see in Texas?

They've taken to ignoring black folks again, now that they're voting for Obama in droves. They're focusing hard on trying to maintain their constituency of white men, older white women and Hispanics. Texas and Ohio will be about trying to maintain that grip on those groups.

Texas is going to be a big surprise for her, though. Especially if Obama keeps getting wins. The momentum is going to be a tide for him, if he can keep it up and the snowball effect might be too much for her, if she's essentially trying a Guiliani strategy of focusing on events a few weeks away, rather than trying to find some edge to fight in upcoming places she can win. Naturally, Ohio and Texas would put her back in play and would return the veneer of "the presumptive nominee" back to her camp.

Being the underdog isn't fun or good, but...given he hasn't had much heat, maybe she wants him to enjoy this next week or two in the frontrunner spot, just to see how he handles it. I'm afraid that might be another miscalculation.

I'm waiting for them to break some kneecaps of someone, somewhere though.