that was supposed to end.....;)

Ok since you decided to quote a decidedly right leaning source that is no fan of Obama. I'll give you the opposite argument from a more liberal source.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-cre amer/obamas-path-to-victory-in_b_103880. html

this shows Obama winning with 290 EC votes.

That plus record fundraising plus a great voter registration and turnout engine makes for a compelling case for superdelegates to give Obama what he's earned.

"...fact that she finished second in pledged delegates and total delegates, has alienated a key base for the Democratic Party, and has shown the courage to disregard unfortunate facts that get in the way (ie Caucus voters dont REALLY count)  Let us also not forget her concern for racial issues, especially those hard working WHITE voters.  Such blind ambition and arrogance must be rewarded"

politicians in the country but somehow he'll lose to McSame.

do you not understand? Sorry, if you don't perform well enough in the primary you don't get to play in the general.

Richard Baehr is pro-McCain just like fellow Israel-centric neo-neocon Joe Lieberman.

He wonders: "Can anyone stop Obama?"

http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/02/c an_anybody_stop_obama.html

But soon after he says that Obama is weaker:

http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/04/m ccains_electoral_college_math.html

He laments that Ann Coulter isn't helping Republicans enough.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/10/a nn_coulter_is_not_helping.html

I say this in part based on the number of emails I have received today from Jews, many of whom I have been working with for years to consider switching to the GOP, given President Bush's very strong  record of support for Israel, and the much stronger commitment to national security on the GOP side of the aisle. If a strong US-Israel relationship and promoting a tough American response to the global jihad are the main issues that move you, then the GOP should be your party.

So... I don't care what he has to say.

The right will do anything to try to stop Obama.  Sheme on you for bringing Rove style politics to a progressive blog, and shame on the Clintont for using a Rove spreadsheet to make their case to the supers.  That is very sad, and speaks to me that I no longer know who the Clintons really are.

... Hillary Clinton is also weaker than Obama in VA, WA, OR, MN, IA, WI, and ME (I believe) -- all states she must win to be the 44th President.  WA has an important governor's race (redistricting), and VA, OR, MN, and ME have important Senate races.

But more important:  Hillary Clinton starts the GE $20 million in debt while John McCain starts the GE $20 million in the black.  We all remember what Hillary's husband did to Bob Dole in 1996 when he was out of money.

I know the end-times proclamations about the Obama nomination are almost always disingenuous, but I still wish for more courageous Democrats.

The bed-wetting is absurd.  We all know a Democrat is winning the White House this year.

Barack Obama is on the brink of pulling off one of the biggest upsets in modern American politics.  Weak candidate?

/  Class Dismissed
By MARK MELLMAN
Published: May 29, 2008
New York Times

DOES Barack Obama have a problem with the white working class? Despite the ubiquity of the term during this presidential campaign, it's hard to say what, exactly, "working class" means. If you define class by education, which is polled more consistently than occupation or income, Mr. Obama certainly seems to have trouble with these crucial swing voters. In almost every Democratic primary, he has lost white voters who didn't graduate from college to Hillary Clinton. But that doesn't mean those voters will snub him in the fall.

First, there is no relationship between how candidates perform among any particular group of voters in primaries and how they do with that segment in the general election. In 1992, Bill Clinton lost college-educated voters to Paul Tsongas in the early competitive primaries, but he went on to win that group in November by the largest margin any Democrat ever had. Similarly, John Kerry lost young voters in the competitive primaries in 2004 before going on to win them by a record margin in the general election.

Second, Democrats running for president have been losing white, non-college-educated voters since before Mr. Obama was elected to the Illinois legislature. Al Gore and Mr. Kerry each failed to win a majority of this bloc in the general election. With these voters, the size of the losing margin is what matters.

Mr. Gore lost them by 17 percentage points while winning the national popular vote. Mr. Kerry lost them by 23 points and the country by fewer than two and a half points. The last Democrat to win white, non-college voters was Bill Clinton, who carried them by a single point in the three-way races in 1992 and 1996.

By comparison, Mr. Obama is only two percentage points behind John McCain among these voters in the latest New York Times/CBS News poll. Another recent survey shows him down seven points.

In other words, Mr. Obama is faring better today with the white working class than did either Mr. Gore or Mr. Kerry.

Although Mr. Obama leads Mr. McCain in almost every national poll published this month, he cannot afford to take any constituency for granted. But he plainly has a path to victory. And the white working class does not seem poised to block his way./
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/29/opinio n/29mellman.html?_r=1&ref=opinion&am p;oref=slogin

Hopefully the superdelegates will have the vision to act bravely and nominate her despite the

...will of the people?

...actual results of the primary?

...metrics of victory that have been fine and dandy forever except when Clinton might lose?

Just trying to help you finish your final sentence.

In other news, a dog bit a man today.  Film at 11.

Clinton would easily trounce McCain, while Obama is most likely beat McCain. It's a Democratic year, and even a weak Democrat will probably win.

Obama's strength among young people is important. Clinton is strong among the fast growing demographic groups of Latinos and Asian-Americans. Combine the two coalitions, and the Democrats are in better shape for the long run. Perhaps, the long awaited realignment will occur.

I checked your source:
Richard Baehr and the American Thinker

one Obama hit piece after another, not exactly an unbiased look at the election

http://www.americanthinker.com/

that Obama is our nominee, and we have to support him best we can.

As a long time and strong Clinton supporter who never got the "Obamenon", it is saddening but not surprising that his path to the White House is not the "transformative" one that he sold us early in his candidacy but more of a traditional "50+1" approach based on coalitions and a divided electorate.  

That said, the SDs have made the preference known, they have done their job and appointed a nominee - Barack Obama.  They did so with two candidates who had a good case for the nomination, having decided that his was stronger.   Anyone who thinks that McLame would be a better option than Obama, or who wants to take a chance on McLame for 4 years so that Clinton can run again in 2012, is playing with fire.

Excuse me if I don't find this terribly credible. A op-ed piece from a conservative webzine? Yeah, just cause his name isn't ROVE doesn't mean he isn't spewing the same crap.

Do you really want to rely on maps provided by Rove, and analysis by the conservative arm, FOX and the "American Thinker" as the rational for nominating Clinton. I would thing such things would send up red flags.

sources better....

~Richard Bauer

Hillary unites the GOP

The other shot-in-the-arm for the GOP in recent months has been the realization among Republicans that Hillary Clinton is the likely nominee. Nothing unites the GOP faithful more than a race against a Clinton, particularly Hillary.  I expect that when it becomes clear who the GOP nominee is, that the party's fund raising problems will begin to disappear. At that point, the nominee to be will be perceived as the head of the party, not a lame duck President with low approval ratings.

Finally, on the congressional front, the GOP has had some success recruiting top tier candidates for two open Senate seats: former Governor Mike Johanns in Nebraska, and Congresswoman Heather Wilson in New Mexico.  This may limit the extent of the party's likely losses in that chamber next year, when the GOP has to defend 22 of the 34 contested seats.  In addition, a GOP challenger outspent by 5 to 1 still came within 6% of winning an open house seat in Massachusetts in a district that has been about a 60% democratic district in recent years.

Overall, Hillary Clinton's ability to pull into a big lead at this stage of the race has energized Republicans, freed up some independent voters to consider GOP nominees in that party's primaries, and created more media attention for the GOP race, providing national exposure to its candidates.  

For the GOP, Hillary may be the gift that keeps on giving until next November.

** bold emphasis is mine

http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/10/h ow_hillary_revived_the_gop.html

The person you quote has no interest in seeing a Democrat winning the election.  So we can assume the opposite of anything he says.

"American Thinker" is all about Israel all the time.  

http://www.americanthinker.com/

http://rasmussenreports.com/public_conte nt/politics/election_20082/2008_presiden tial_election/general_election_match_up_ history  Hillary manages a tie today against McCain, but Barack is down by 5 points to McCain.

Hillary leads in having a lower "highly unfavorable" rating.  She's at 32, Barack is at 35.  On January 30, Barack's "highly unfavorables" were 20% and Clinton's were 35%

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/05/29/o bamas.first.campaign/index.html

just FYI

Why is Obama weak?

  1. Kentucy, Arkansas, West Virginia (rinse and repeat)

Seriously?  Nothing against the fine folks in these states, but two are going red in nearly every scenario, and the one that used to be part of the Democratic base (but really isn't anymore) is only 5 EVs.  While I don't want to write off any state prematurely, these are not keys to winning the general election.  

2. Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania (rinse and repeat)

Even the biased front page maps have Obama winning two of these.  That would be plenty to reach 270.

3. Bill Clinton had 370 and 379 electoral college votes - remember those good ol' days? when Dem nominees like Gore and Kerry weren't in photo finishes each time.  HRC is on the Bill Clinton track to a trouncing of McCain in the fall.

Let's not hold up the two elections with the strongest third party/independent candidate in a LONG time as examples of success.  Obviously Bill did well, but he never got over 50% of the vote, so it's tough to know exactly what his EV total would have been in a more traditional two party matchup.  

4. Because of the incredible closeness of this election, it is imperative that the SDs look closely at how delegates were awarded in the caucuses

Yes.  They were awarded according to the rules.  Superdelegates should look at that as evidence that Obama has done a much better job of running a campaign.