http://www.consortiumnews.com/...

First, Clinton is ahead in the polls in Pennsylvania and Indiana. She won by, what, 10 points in Ohio? I get your point about Pennsylavania being a closed primary, but if people were so inclined toward Obama, they had a an opportunity to register as Democrats to vote for him up until a couple of weeks ago (as I understand the rules -- I might be wrong there).

The point is there is considerable support for Hillary Clinton out there.

Second, while I do not claim to understand the Republican mentality, the idea that they would break so overwhelmingly for Obama in the general strikes me as odd.

If the Republicans you spoke with don't care about gay marriage, religion in schools and abortion, and are so sanguine about the potential for a tax increase, they sound like atypical Republicans -- probably a tiny minority.

This isn't an anti-Obama post -- I honestly hope I'm wrong. And in the end, I think Pennsylvania is more solidly Democratic than generally believed for general election purposes, but we should not kid ourselves about the voters.

In any event, the risk for Democrats is not whether Obama will attract some amount of Republicans in the Fall -- he obviously will, but how many Democrats he will drive away in places like PA and OH.    

Yes, some, like Quinnipiac, show it tightening.

Yet others concurrently show Senator Clinton appreciably ahead:

SurveyUSA 4/14:  56% Clinton vs. 40% Obama

ARG 4/13:  57% Clinton vs. 37% Obama

As to how solidly Democratic Pennsylvania might be in the general election, well, they did vote in Republican enfant terrible Rick Santorum as their senator, twice -- and he was one of the biggest meat heads* around.  But, then again, Pennsylvania also voted him out in a huge drubbing.

So maybe what's accurate about these Pennsylvania polls is that they are all over the place ... just like Pennsylvania.

*Intelligent design legislation, Terry Shiavo, his Lord of the Rings Iraq analogy and his claim that he had uncovered the missing Iraqi wmd are all, well, classic Santorum -- and don't say much for the perspicacity of Pennsylvania voters.

SANTORUM: I have no problem with homosexuality. I have a problem with homosexual acts. As I would with acts of other, what I would consider to be, acts outside of traditional heterosexual relationships. And that includes a variety of different acts, not just homosexual. I have nothing, absolutely nothing against anyone who's homosexual. If that's their orientation, then I accept that. And I have no problem with someone who has other orientations. The question is, do you act upon those orientations? So it's not the person, it's the person's actions. And you have to separate the person from their actions.

AP: OK, without being too gory or graphic, so if somebody is homosexual, you would argue that they should not have sex?

SANTORUM: We have laws in states, like the one at the Supreme Court right now, that has sodomy laws and they were there for a purpose. Because, again, I would argue, they undermine the basic tenets of our society and the family. And if the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything. Does that undermine the fabric of our society? I would argue yes, it does. It all comes from, I would argue, this right to privacy that doesn't exist in my opinion in the United States Constitution, this right that was created, it was created in Griswold - Griswold was the contraceptive case - and abortion. And now we're just extending it out. And the further you extend it out, the more you - this freedom actually intervenes and affects the family. You say, well, it's my individual freedom. Yes, but it destroys the basic unit of our society because it condones behavior that's antithetical to strong healthy families. Whether it's polygamy, whether it's adultery, where it's sodomy, all of those things, are antithetical to a healthy, stable, traditional family.

Every society in the history of man has upheld the institution of marriage as a bond between a man and a woman. Why? Because society is based on one thing: that society is based on the future of the society. And that's what? Children. Monogamous relationships. In every society, the definition of marriage has not ever to my knowledge included homosexuality. That's not to pick on homosexuality. It's not, you know, man on child, man on dog, or whatever the case may be. It is one thing. And when you destroy that you have a dramatic impact on the quality -

AP: I'm sorry, I didn't think I was going to talk about "man on dog" with a United States senator, it's sort of freaking me out.

SANTORUM: And that's sort of where we are in today's world, unfortunately. The idea is that the state doesn't have rights to limit individuals' wants and passions. I disagree with that. I think we absolutely have rights because there are consequences to letting people live out whatever wants or passions they desire. And we're seeing it in our society.

AP: Sorry, I just never expected to talk about that when I came over here to interview you.  

"Santorum defends Iraq war", Bucks County Courier Times, October 17, 2006

I have also read that the unions are really angry that Clinton has not completely gotten rid of Mark Penn. I also suspect that they aren't too happy about Bill's position on the Columbian trade deal either. So there may still be room for movement.

The other interesting one is when did Obama's trend line hit that knee early in 2008....

Contrary to what some people think, the super delegates are pragmatists who want to see the Democrats win the election in November.  They don't have an interest in tearing the party apart or overturning the popular vote or the will of the voters.  These are people who don't like to lose.

Then, it will be our job to convince the 26 percent or the 19 percent that McCain is a really bad choice.

Chadwick Matlin has on article on SLATE that he posted yesterday indicating that we will really not know the effect, if there is one, of Senator Obama's words until later this week.

Here is the article.  Please be sure to click on the link to pollster.com to read the summary by Mark Blumenthal.

http://www.slate.com/id/2175496/

Earlier this month, Ellen Malcolm, founder of EMILY's List and a Clinton supporter, said:

"It's astonishing to me that she's doing as well as she is" when Obama is outspending her five-to-one on TV, Malcolm said of the former first lady and New York senator. "If she can pull off a win at all, that's an incredible victory." USA Today

Others have been pushing this same line (when they aren't asking Pa. voters if they'd rather be "better" then "bitter"), so clearly the Clinton campaign is trying to temper expectations of a large win by spinning any win for Clinton as some sort of "come from behind" victory snatched away from Obama.

For Clinton, the odds are the ["bitter"] incident is too late to save her candidacy. But more Bittergates would increase her chances of drawing enough support in the April 22 Pennsylvania primary to justify, or even guarantee, her continued run.

There are likely to be more gaffes for each of the candidates as this campaign progresses, but in a race like this, each one is exceedingly costly and, cumulatively, can become fatal. As of now, I still believe that Obama has about a 95-percent chance of clinching the Democratic nomination. The only way Clinton can win is to get enough pledged delegates through the remaining primaries and caucuses so that superdelegates can perceive the race as a virtual tie and vote for her.

However, the window for that is pretty much closed.

She can't win the remaining contests by sufficiently large-enough margins to appreciably close the gap, and superdelegates appear to be breaking more toward Obama. So again, short of a Rev. Jeremiah Wright-level embarrassment visiting Obama each week for four or five more consecutive weeks, this thing is over.

End of story.

Obama wins voters wherever they get to see him, and she needs to wake up and Let the general election begin.

She's fought a good fight, but if she's proven one thing, it's that Rovian politics are no longer sufficient to douse the hopes of America.

Or is Hillary Dominating?
http://www.surveyusa.com/clien...

Interestingly enough, both polls show Obama with about 40 percent.  SurveyUSA has Hillary at 55, while the LA Times/Bloomberg has her at 35.  What's with the 20 point difference?

The survey found the New York senator leading Barack Obama by just 5 percentage points in Pennsylvania, which votes next Tuesday. Such a margin would not give her much of a boost in the battle for the party's nomination.

What is more, the poll found Clinton trails Obama by 5 points in Indiana, another Rust Belt state that should play to her strengths among blue-collar voters.

In North Carolina, an Obama stronghold, he is running 13 points ahead.

And then there's this:

In Pennsylvania, the flap seems to have marginally helped Obama more than hurt him: 24% said his handling of the issue made them think more highly of him; 15% said it made them think less highly of him; 58% said it made no difference in their views.

Wow, that's a pleasant surprise!

She said (about 2:35 into the report):

I read the quote in the newspaper, and my first reaction was "Wow! I can't believe he actually said it.  It's insightful and it's...it's accurate."  And then I thought, "Oh my God, I can't believe he said that.  Here it comes."  And they took it, and they spun it, and he became an elitist.  And that's what I'm a little concerned about with Obama.  I think his honesty and the fact that he is so forthright, I think it could get him into trouble once we get into a national campaign..."

What have we come to when a candidate being honest and forthright is seen as a negative?!?  Have we become that jaded and cynical?