Chuck Todd (msnbc) predicts SUPERDELEGATE SURGE for Obama...

[polichick]

He says there will be a constant trickle until PA primary so that he's even with Clinton in supers.

[SoFlaJet]

1. somethin's up

You can feel it in the air can't you democrats?

[K Gardner]

8. Yes.. too much is being "signalled", too much being leaked out with all indicators

pointing to a SD surge over the next few weeks. HRC will lose NC, when all are now saying she HAS to win it - the supers will have gone for Obama, and she'll have to drop out after NC.

[tishaLA]

10. the Harry Reid story tells me it's a done deal

It's all over except for the crying.

[EmilyAnne]

15. Harry Reid story? What have I missed?

I have a feeling that the superdelegates will keep coming his way, too. Richardson, Peolosi, etc all have their ears to the ground and they know the general mood of the party. Its time for change.

[SoFlaJet]

19. here Emily

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/03/25/reid-things-are-being-d_n_93369.html

[InsultComicDog]

36. lol

"Things are being done"

"By who?"

"By Top Men"

"Who?"

[CreekDog]

49. Why, the Trilateral Commission after all

once the supers decide, it then goes to the 5th level Masons. :evilgrin:

[tabasco]

65. They're going to send in the guys with white coats to tell Hillary "it's over."

[crispini]

95. Ahahahahah!

"Things are being done."

o.O

[tishaLA]

22. here

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x5255435

[grantcart]

16. I also don't think Bill Richardson is that courageous politically -

think he just wanted to get ahead of the curve

[comrade snarky]

32. I think Richardson was slimed

To send a message to other super delegates.
Carville calling him a Judas and the claims by the Clinton campaign he is no longer relevant are a clear threat to the other supers, many of whom will face reelection campaigns.

[Diane R]

35. I think you're right. Carville was sending a message to other potential 'deserters'.

[K Gardner]

39. He flat out admitted that on TV today.. said Richardson needed to be "branded" correctly..

[Window]

59. Yeah, but I think the party sent Richardson out first to try and stop the

bleeding. I think he was the beginning of the SD trend toward Senator Obama.

[comrade snarky]

66. Why oh why?

Did you just put the image of James Carville with a branding iron in my head?

I really didn't need that :-)

[grantcart]

74. Maria Cantwell WA just slipped a little today its comeing apart

[damndude]

106. reinforcing the idea that obama is better for the party than clinton

[CreekDog]

52. considering how they treated him afterwards

can we say that any previous value they ascribed to him was based solely on utility?

[journalist3072]

17. What a sexist comment. "All over but the crying." As if Obama won't be crying if Sen. Clinton wins

[PylesMalfunction]

23. Excuse me?!!

How the hell is that sexist? I'd expect Obama to cry if he didn't get the nomination.

Seriously people. :eyes: Sexism is real and a huge problem for women - I've dealt with it and it sucks. But arguing over shit like this just dilutes the message.

[Adelante]

78. Really nt

[mckeown1128]

79. You on to something here...

I feel that all these hypersensitive remarks about how this is sexist or that is sexist... has little to do with men or woman being equal and everything to do with spinning for a particular candidate.

[sniffa]

24. You should start a thread about this

[tammywammy]

53. I second that motion

You should really start a thread on it.

[sniffa]

69. We can only hope

:D

[tammywammy]

72. ...

[LowerManhattanite]

26. Um...it's a cross-gender term...

Last time I heard it used was during a blowout football game last year after a team intercepted an opponent's pass and ran it back for a touchdown with a few minutes left in the contest.


Kinda like “It ain't over til the fat lady sings” (An operatic term for the third-act big finish in operas usually sung by a zaftig diva)?


And um...you might wanna up your dosage too. Yeesh.

[tishaLA]

40. I think I learned the phrase from sports, in fact

but you know, when people seek offense, they can always find it.

[DUyellow]

27. When did crying become exclusive to women?

[Alexander]

33. Only women can cry? Sounds like you're the one making sexist comments.

[SoFlaJet]

45. no but Kiss said

"only women bleed"

[kcdoug1]

48. KISS?

NOPE that was Alice Cooper (Welcome To My Nightmare)

:evilgrin:

[roguevalley]

38. so, journalist3072, you're one of those types that don't think men

should cry? God. We are all insane.

[gort]

46. it's an old sports cliche

eom

[Window]

60. ..

:rofl:

[Window]

62. No dear, he won't cry. Sorry.

[Forkboy]

64. That's gold, Jerry! Pure GOLD!

[Recursion]

105. It's a phrase from football, which at most levels is 100% male

Men cry too, you know.

[flpoljunkie]

47. That, and the report that Obama has other endorsements waiting in the wings.

[Window]

56. Yep. Sure can. One thing for sure and two things for certain,

we cannot continue down this path, and Hillary needs to be stopped with her scorched earth tactics.

[cyndensco]

89. oh i hope......

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

2. I doubt the supers will let it go to the convention.

They'll come out in force after all the states have decided, if not earlier.

[TheDoorbellRang]

3. That makes sense to me

I'm thinking they'll keep trickling in until round about Oregon, so that his state primary win will put him over 2025 instead of the super D's.

[Cha]

11. I'm sorry I thought that

it was mathematically impossible for Obama to reach the magic number of 2025 without the SuperDees?

[XemaSab]

14. I think TheDoorbellRang's comment

is that instead of seeing a FLOOD of superdelegates after Puerto Rico, or even a FLOOD at the convention, the superdelegate tide is going to rise gently so that it will be a state primary that puts him over instead of a single superdelegate endorsement.

[Cha]

76. AHA! Thanks for the explanation, Xema!

[TheDoorbellRang]

50. He needs the super D's, but how and when they come in

will change the perception of how he wins it. Right now, per AP's totals, Obama has 1406 pledged delegates and 214 super delegates, for a total of 1620. There's about 330 uncommitted super D's left. We've got 476 pledged delegates available in the upcoming races:

4/22 PA for 158
5/6 NC for 115
5/6 IN for 72
5/13 WV for 28
5/20 KY for 51
5/20 OR for 52

For the sake of simplicity, say Obama and Clinton split 50/50 so he gets 238 pledged delegates. 1620 + 238 = 1858. He's now only 167 super D's short of 2025. Now say those 167 trickle in BEFORE 5/20. It will be perceived that the contest win in Oregon puts him over the top, as opposed to the super D's deciding it for us.

Maybe it won't happen by Oregon. Maybe it'll got thru to Puerto Rico on 6/1, but I'll bet the super D's will be in position first so that a primary race "decides" it rather than them.

Just my take on it. :)

[Cha]

77. Thanks so much for you indepth "take" on

this, DoorBell..:)

[davidpdx]

82. Doorbell

Nice analysis, it will be interesting to see if that happens. I'd LOVE for Oregon to put him over the top since I'm from there. We'll see though.

[TheDoorbellRang]

87. Here's a new site I tripped across tonite that also thinks it'll be over by the end of May

I just posted the info on it here.

This part is reassuring:

There are not very many impact primaries left on the calendar. After Pennsylvania, there are only two real "impact primary" dates on the Democratic calendar - May 6th in Indiana and North Carolina, and May 20th in Kentucky and Oregon.

That said, we should be able to wrap this up by Memorial Day at the latest.

[neverforget]

88. You forgot Montana and South Dakota on June 3.

[TheDoorbellRang]

94. I didn't forget them

I just think it'll all be settled before it gets to them.

I did kinda forget Guam, tho. :blush: Their 4 delegates are up for grabs on May 3rd.

[ericgtr]

4. Chuck is usually on the mark

I always dig his appearances on KO.. Looking forward to hear what he has to say tonight.

:kick:

[polichick]

5. Thanks for the reminder!

[Cha]

75. Is it my imagination or did Chuck Todd

use to carry a bit of water for the bushites? If he did then he has evolved..if he didn't then Mea Culpa:)

[Johnny__Motown]

6. He also said that the more personal this gets the less likely they are to announce

Maybe this is part of the Clintons strategy to keep them from committing. The uglier the rhetoric the less likely a SD is to announce support for a Candidate

[JimGinPA]

7. Yeah, Mrs. Clinton Shot Herself In The Foot Today Bringing Up Wright...

That probably pissed a lot of them off.

[Johnny__Motown]

9. The story was ending, she can stretch it out a bit longer this way.

[Botany]

12. From 3-23

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/22/us/politics/22richard ...

<Mr. Richardson is the 62nd superdelegate to endorse Mr. Obama since Feb. 5, compared with fewer than five who have moved into Mrs. Clinton’s column since then.

The move by Mr. Richardson could give license to other superdelegates who had been holding back, at the request of the Clintons. His endorsement could prove particularly potent with this group because of the way he chastised Mrs. Clinton for the tone of the campaign, and his call for the party to unify around one candidate.>

[SoFlaJet]

13. Here is what he said-I just rewound it....

"better shot at getting them one by one by one" and

"the more this gets personal and frankly if it is seen that the Clinton's are using the Reverend Wright issue in a way that's unfair to Obama by some of these super delegates, that's actually the easier way they're going to lure these people out"

[Tropics_Dude83]

43. Where is Al Gore? Calling Al Gore!

We need him badly, unless he's planning to be the consensus nominee in which case he would need to keep quiet.

[TheDeathadder]

18. Chuck Todd predicts SUPERDELEGATE SURGE

Chuck Todd also predicts Obama is the greatest ever...that's what Obama supporters do.

[SoFlaJet]

21. way off

not even close-did you even watch it? No...thank you and adios

[TheDeathadder]

37. yeah every day

Chuck Todd and the magazine he came from to join MSNBC are Obama supporters. You didn't know that?

[Bigleaf]

20. I used to like the trickle theory but not now. They need to come out united all at once

and make a fucking statement! Hold a presser. At that point they can make the spiel that the Party is being harmed to the point that we will lose if this shit is allowed to continue and that Hillarity has at most 5% chance to win, if the heavens open up and the choirs start singing for her.

[K Gardner]

25. That's exactly what needs to happen. This is freakin INSANE ! The Clinton

surrogates and supporters are, I'm sorry, fucking nuts. They are laughable with their Rovian Orweillian bullshit on TV and elsewhere.. no one, not one thinking person, takes them as anything but a laughing stock anymore. this obnoxious drivel needs to stop by mass protest..

[Tropics_Dude83]

31. I agree

But I don't buy a superdelegate surge for one moment.

[polichick]

41. I'd like to see that too - forget the trickle, give us a BLAST!

[TheDoorbellRang]

55. If they come out all at once it would be a huge slap in the face to Hillary

and consequently to all her supporters.

Much more tactful to keep it a steady trickle.



Edit for typo

[Life Long Dem]

28. Could be. Push this sniper statements

The sniper statements prove she "LIED" nothing else. Not a "MISSPOKEN" comment or she didn't make no "MISTAKE"! more of a problem than Dean's scream speech. It's bigger than the swift boating. MSM wants this to continue for ratings.

Today during a press conference and on the 29th of Feb In TX. She said the same exact message.

[knixphan]

29. yep-

I knew it the moment Pelosi looked into the camera and winked.

They're not gonna let it be stolen.

[ChimpersMcSmirkers]

30. I think we have reached the tipping point, thank god.

[slinkerwink]

34. great to hear!

[knixphan]

42. We'll finally be able to say

'The surge is working'

[polichick]

44. Lol - perfect!

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

51. Wait... So Is It A Surge Or A Trickle?

Never before have I seen such a quick contradiction within an OP...

[polichick]

54. Just reporting - Chuck Todd used those terms.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

57. It's Kinda Funny Though Ain't It?

I mean, I think it's pretty obvious Obama will win this thing and it will be over by June etc, but ya can't tell me calling something a surge while explaining it will be a trickle, ain't just a bit funny LOL

[polichick]

61. Well, the first was his official "prediction" - and then he explained...

...how it would unfold, admitting that maybe it's a small surge ending with at least a tie in supers by the PA primary. I'd rather see them all come out at once myself and have a mega-surge! :)

[FlyingSquirrel]

73. Is this a sexual joke?

:hide:

[C_U_L8R]

58. If we've all had enough of this brouhaha

I imagine the SDs are just as fed up with it.

Surge away!

[Unsane]

63. They could end this crap tomorrow by moving towards Obama.

[Raine]

67. This needs to end...fast

before the Democratic Party is ruined for generations.

[David Zephyr]

68. Chuck Todd has credibility.

He doesn't make reckless statement. He must know something.

[dempartisan23]

70. more great news

GOBAMA

[angie_love]

71. Yes, please lets put htis nightmare to bed.

[loveangelc]

80. when did he say this?

[polichick]

81. Tonight on David Gregory's show, Race for the White House.

[loveangelc]

104. ooo I didnt see that. I just saw where he said if Obama wins IN the race is over.

[ORDem]

83. Well, there's really no better time for it to happen, in this lull before the PA primary. n/t

:dem:

[chinesedemocrat]

84. Why are you happy about superdelegates voting for your candidate?

i thought superdelegates were bad for democracy.

[SoonerPride]

85. Welcome to DU!

No, Super Delegates going against the will of the people, that is bad for democracy.

Reinforcing the will of the people IS democracy in action.

Don't worry. You'll catch on soon enough.

[Indenturedebtor]

97. Ni Hau Chinese Democrat :D

Welcome aboard :wave:

Super D's going against the will of the voters is bad for Democracy. So is lying to the people, distracting from the issues with nonsense, and pushing for elections with one candidate on the ballot to be validated.

However, due to the mathematical realities at this time, she is done done done anyways ;) It seems that HRC won't bow out for the good of the party until the "Magic Number" is reached. She'll keep spending Dem money to do the work of the Republicans, and lessening our chances in the GE. Since it's pretty much decided anyways it's time to give it a gentle nudge.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

86. For the new young Obama supporters.Chuck Todd is part of the RW machine always has been always will

16 years as editor in chief of Hotline and National Journal

He is a RW pig

[SoxFan]

90. Hotline was founded by Dems and GOPers

It was started in the 1980s by people from both the Mondale and Reagan campaign teams.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

96. Republican Doug Bailey, founder National Journal Group and Hotline...Link

Republican Doug Bailey, once an campaign consultant to Gerald Ford and founder of the National Journal’s ‘Hot line”

http://www.washingtonian.com/articles/people/2934.html


he is a rethuglican from cradle to grave

[SoxFan]

110. Bob Balkin was editor in chief

He was a Mondale operative, and he ran the operation on a daily basis. My buddy used to slide him all sorts of scoops because they had worked together in '84.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

113. hah yeah and he did oh so fucking well for Modale .....jays'us

[SoxFan]

114. Who's Fritz supporting this year, anyway?

Oh, right, Your Gal.

[democrat2thecore]

92. was with THE HOTLINE from '92-2006...The HOTLINE is not "Right Wing" -nt

[ElsewheresDaughter]

98. Founder Republican Doug Bailey, of Hotline and we have been played like cheap violins

Bailey, 72, was born in Cleveland, where his father ran a manufacturing company. After receiving a bachelor’s degree from Colgate University, Bailey went on for master’s and doctorate degrees from the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts.

He helped create the field of political consulting in 1968 when he and John Deardourff founded Bailey, Deardourff & Associates. Among the campaigns they worked on were Gerald Ford’s 1976 presidential race against Jimmy Carter; Senate campaigns of Ed Brooke, John Chafee, and Richard Lugar; and gubernatorial races of Thomas Kean, Lamar Alexander, and Richard Thornburgh.

After the firm closed in 1987, Bailey partnered with Roger Craver to establish the Hotline, a daily political briefing, now online. In 1996, it was sold to National Journal; Bailey continues as an adviser.

During the 2000 and 2004 campaigns, he launched organizations to encourage online dialogue between candidates and the public, including Rolling Cyber Debate, Freedom Channel, and Youth-e-Vote. In 2002, he and Mike McCurry—White House press secretary under Bill Clinton—launched the nonprofit Freedom’s Answer to spur voter turnout by mobilizing high-school students.

Recently, with Republican Jim Jonas and Democrats Hamilton Jordan, Gerald Rafshoon, and Roger Craver, Bailey founded the Unity08 movement to put a unity ticket—one Republican and one Democrat—on the 2008 presidential ballot. The first online virtual convention would nominate the candidates in spring 2008, with every registered voter qualified to sign up and be a voting delegate.

Bailey lives in Arlington. His wife, Pat, was a member of the Federal Trade Commission and a lawyer in private practice before retiring. They have two children: Ed co-owns the DC gay bar Halo and is a sought-after disc jockey; Kate Bailey Roeser runs a Boston event-planning company.

In the Atlantic Media common room, outside the Hotline offices, we talked about what Bailey has learned.
What wins elections?

That has changed over 40 years. When I started, winning elections meant getting votes in the middle. Elections were fights over your ability to get the swing voter. But the trick since then has become getting more of your base to turn out on Election Day.

That’s a good way to win elections but a dreadful way to govern. Today’s campaigns most easily turn out their base by attacking the other side. Candidates focus almost exclusively on special issues that fire up their people and turn off the rest of voters.
What’s caused that change?

Television is the answer to almost any question on changes in politics. Before, we had three networks competing for the most support. Their programming moved toward the middle. Now with hundreds of channels, TV programming appeals to niches. So TV is also now geared toward the extremes.

Granted, a dozen or so Democratic governors still preside in “red” states, and a similar number of Republicans in “blue”—so there’s still some swing vote out there. Nonetheless, today’s consultants advise candidates that the easiest way to win is through polarization.
Who goes into politics?

Many people who entered politics 20 or 30 years ago did so for idealistic reasons. They really wanted good government. Fewer people today are motivated by simple public service. More seek to spread their ideology—pro-life, pro-choice, pro-gun control, whatever.

Many people in the middle are turned off by our political process. They won’t even consider public service.

Campaigns now overrely on consultants. Candidates listen too much to consultants, because they’re driven by winning and money, without caring all that much about views on issues apart from their own appeal. Oh, they’ll use ideology and wedge issues, because consultants say they can win that way, but they don’t seem to care that much.

Plus there are too many consultants. When John Deardourff and I started, our main contact was the candidate. Maybe there’d be a pollster or two, perhaps a media consultant. But usually we filled those roles. That was it—a few of us interacting with the candidate.

Then along came direct-mail consultants. Then fundraising consultants. Then Web-site consultants. Now any major campaign has so many consultants that it’s either a disastrous shift of focus every day or it’s governed by committee, which results in mush.

That’s a huge problem, as the 2004 John Kerry campaign showed. His lead consultant, Bob Shrum, didn’t give very good advice, and Kerry listened too much.

Whoever’s in charge of television needs to get close to and really understand the candidate so that’s what viewers will see. TV’s greatest value is parting the curtains—letting the candidate be seen as he is. Often consultants can’t get close to the candidate, so they substitute polling information for the candidate’s judgment.

In my early years, we’d plop the candidate in the middle of a group of randomly chosen voters. We’d film more than an hour of that conversation. Then we’d pull out the 30-second interchange that reflected personality and priorities.

You never see that today. Consultants don’t trust candidates to say the words their pollsters conclude need to be said. So the message is delivered by the candidate from a TelePrompTer or by a voice-over on a political ad.
Why do candidates need consul-tants?

Consultants bring technical skills. How to put together a TV spot. Buy ad time. Do a reliable poll. Acquire a direct-mail list for fundraising. Set up a Web site. All are tasks a modern campaign needs.
Is it true that consultants get 15 percent of the cost of campaign ads?

Few get 15 percent any longer. That’s standard commission for buying a commercial ad, but almost all campaigns cut that down. Nevertheless, if you’re Bob Shrum and earn just 8-percent commissions on $100-million-plus advertising, you’re still making lots of money.

So, yes, big consultants on big campaigns make big money.

Thirty years ago, for the Ford presidential campaign, our firm billed a total of $75,000. Granted, we got in during the last ten weeks. But nowadays it’s inconceivable to do a presidential campaign for a flat fee under $50,000 a month.
Talk about the importance of money to winning an election.

It’s a lot but not everything. Your candidate doesn’t have to match the other guy. You can be outspent ten to one—as long as you have enough money to communicate your case.

With several million dollars, you can compete in a statewide Senate race against some billionaire spending $40 million or $50 million of his own bucks—as long as you can buy enough advertising so people get to know who you are.

Another point: Incumbents now stash money from past campaigns to scare off the opposition in coming campaigns. They raise more money—even millions more—to have some left over. It sits there, scaring off anyone tempted to run against them.

All this talk about Washington lobbying—about Duke Cunningham and Jack Abramoff, as awful as they are—isn’t as bad as incumbents able to create a war chest to deter anybody from running against them.

Look at 2004. Four hundred and one House incumbents ran. Of those, 396 won. Those 401 spent on average more than $1 million for a House race, with 250 outspending opponents better than ten to one. Moreover, most of the congressional incumbents’ money is raised not just outside their districts but outside their states. Most comes through dealings and events involving Washington lobbyists.

Just who do the incumbents represent? If the congresswoman is from, say, the 14th District of New York, those are the people who elected her to represent them. Does somebody from the 14th District have ready access to her? No. But someone in Washington who’s given her money does.

I’d support requiring at least half of all campaign contributions to come from within the candidate’s district. That’s where most of a challenger’s money comes from, since that’s the only place he can get it.
What about campaign finance reform?

The McCain-Feingold reform didn’t do anything. It formally kept big money out of political campaigns, but the big money went to “527” attack groups instead.

Since McCain-Feingold became law, more candidates have waived federal matching funds in order to get more money in their campaigns. In 2008, I’d expect that both presidential candidates will waive federal funding, since they can get more outside that system—which means this reform law will have no impact.

One reform that appeals to me is Howard Baker’s position: Nobody who’s not eligible to vote for a candidate should be allowed to give a contribution to that candidate. That would cut down lobbyists’ power.

A lot of this will change by the next presidential contest. In our increasingly Web-dominated world, candidates will have to provide full disclosure of all contributions and expenditures within 48 hours. That way, opponents and the media can track them. The system will no longer depend on the Federal Election Commission. That’s good, since the FEC never does anything.

Candidates will adopt reform because today’s political world, in both parties, is so negative. Whatever candidate steps forward with new ways—more transparent and authentic—will benefit.

I expect that between the 2006 campaign and that of 2008 will be a period of extraordinary political change—foremost, the emergence of a third party.

Internet politicking will dominate. Sure, TV advertising will still be powerful, but it’s becoming less so for many reasons—too many channels, less viewing, less believability to everything on television, more use of TiVo, which cuts out ads. And now there’s video on demand.

If I want to hear a candidate speak on some particular issue, I’ll do a Web search to hear him speak on that topic. If he’s talking about something else or merely attacks his opponent, that’s not what I’ll get when I do the search. This will infuse some responsibility into the political system. It’ll force candidates to become more direct and talk about real issues.

There’ll be a new capacity for cyber debates. We’ll be able to watch both candidates address the same issue, back to back—even if they never get in the same room together during the campaign.

There will be more interactivity between candidates and voters. Watch for candidates to issue daily video Weblogs—a report at the end of the day of whom they met with and what went on.

Campaigns will have tighter organization and instant feedback. They’ll recruit, nurture, organize, direct, and facilitate on-line. The political organization will carry messages door to door, block by block, through volunteers who report back on the Web.

Created around each campaign will be an online community that engages people in politics in areas they care about. They’ll be taking their country back.

Into that mix will come, in 2008, a third party in the middle. Of all the things in Washington, what most upsets the public is the perception of constant bickering. These politicians get nothing done. They have virtually no time to meet in a collegial effort to reach rational conclusions. That calls out for a unity ticket.
Your big lessons of politics?

That the American experiment has thrived not because of some prescription in the Constitution but because we’ve found a way for each generation to redefine freedom for its own times.

I fear this isn’t happening with young people now. They’re not getting into the political system to update it with their own practices and priorities. I want them to participate more in the political system. If that means forming a new party, so be it.

Our system needs a jolt. This must come from people who haven’t yet participated, which means mostly younger people. The brightest in our society have chosen to stay clear of politics.

Our society never asked the question “How can television best serve our democracy?” Those of us in politics answered that television serves by electing our candidates. But that’s not completely true.

Let’s not make this mistake with the new technologies. Going online, podcasts—these present us with new opportunities for public involvement: interactivity, transparency, responsibility, for new leaders to enter the system by raising money and support in new ways.
Big lessons of life?

I’ve learned that the most valuable public servants are those whose minds remain open to new ideas. They have their beliefs, but they remain open.

Don’t be afraid to change, to admit mistakes, to adjust. Otherwise you won’t survive—both in politics and the real world.

http://www.washingtonian.com/articles/people/2934.html

[slinkerwink]

93. do you even know that the National Journal is the liberal go-to-magazine

where the National Review is the conservative go-to-magazine? Listen to yourself, seriously.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

99. read about the Republican founder of National Joural Group and Hotline Doug Bailey...Link

http://www.washingtonian.com/articles/people/2934.html

[slinkerwink]

109. uh, he didn't start the National Journal

that article you linked me to says that the Hotline, that was created by Bailey, was sold to the National Journal.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

100. ****crickets****

[anamandujano]

108. If Cheney said the Dem race should be called for Obama now, they would

all cite the comment as more good news.

[Adelante]

91. Does anybody know if Rep. Lynn Woolsey switched to Obama?

I saw this rumor yesterday

http://ruralvotes.com/thefield/?p=932

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

101. At least remove the thumb on the scale that is her SD lead.

It puts Obama near a 200 overall delegate lead.

[krkaufman]

102. Interesting. And the news coverage from that sort of superdelegate shift ...

... might be enough to put Obama within striking distance in PA (or at least within single digits).

[meow mix]

103. K&R

[chyjo]

107. I hope so

I'll believe it when I see it. Hopefully they will start following Richardson, and sooner rather than later. Someone has to stop the Kamikaze pilot from hitting the ship.

[Major Hogwash]

111. Shit! I could have predicted that now with Hillary acting like she's a version of Xena-Bosnia style!

It's a no brainer.

The S.S.Hillary struck an obstacle last week and sunk - her big mouth!

[Scurrilous]

112. K & R

:thumbsup: