couple of random comments

[ginnyinWI]

First, both Hill and Bill getting up and hinting around that a "dream ticket" might be possible. Really? With the guy who can't answer the phone at 3 a.m.?? Bill's saying that Obama can draw in new voters and the cities and she can do the rural areas. They admit, then, that they are not getting the urban vote. And they are trying to say that a vote for her is a vote for both of them. Has anyone asked Obama about this arrangement? Why yes, as a matter of fact--and he's turned it down. Ain't gonna happen. And she wouldn't have followed through and offered it to him anyway.

This shows the level of desperation going on in the Clinton camp. They can't get traction with real people out there. Which brings me to my second point:

They still do have considerable sway with the media. Why is CNN so afraid to say anything against the Clintons? What magical hold do they have over this network? I was listening to it via the CNN feed on XM radio, so I was hearing rather than seeing it. And you can detect more from the voices when you only listen. Call me stupid, but I detected a sort of tense, tip-toeing around by the person talking about the caucus and how Obama was winning it. Like they are being oh-so-careful not to be getting one of those nasty phone calls from the Clinton camp later. I don't think they are biased toward the Clintons as much as they are feeling intimidated.

MSNBC seems to be more fearless, particularly Keith and his guests. And I watch that network more of the time. CNN has a different tone to their coverage. Both networks want the horse race, but only CNN seems to not want to admit Obama's winning anything. When they do it's with a sad, regretful tone. It's like they can't believe the "establishment" is losing this time over the "upstart" as Obama likes to call himself. It's starting to dawn on people that this actually could happen, and it's shaking everybody up.

[ladym55]

1. She can do the RURAL areas????

Like the heavily REPUBLICAN rural counties in Ohio who crossed over to vote for her??? The ones who plan to vote for McCain in the fall??? THOSE voters????

okey-dokey.

As I have seen analysis here and elsewhere, Hillary carried Ohio with the help of Republican crossover votes. I'm not sure why they crossed over ... maybe to mess things up for the Democrats or because Rush Limbaugh told them to (that I got from the two very conservative brothers of a friend) or because they think she'll be easier to beat in the fall.

If I were on Hillary's campaign, I'd be looking long and hard at the numbers, and I'd be really, really nervous.

I am so very, very tired of the crazy spinning of the Clinton campaign.

[ginnyinWI]

2. I'd say the reason is "easier to beat".

They've got their nominee, and they know HRC and how to beat her. Obama is new and they don't have an angle (yet). So yeah I'd say they'd rather go against her. And they have eyes--can see the huge crowds at those Obama rallies and the fund-raising numbers.

I'm sick of it too. I wish the media would just give in already and call it Obama's.

[Inuca]

5. Well.....

she DOES seem to do better in rural areas in quite a few states, even without republican crossover. I remember the nail bitter in Missouri where Barack was behind by quite a lot, until the St. Louis votes started pouring in. Their pattern of wins/losses matches quite well (with exceptions, of course) the blue/red areas in the general. So yes, she is winning among the DEMOCRATS in these areas, but in the GE most of these places will stay red, no matter who is on the dem ticket. A case in point is where I live, rural area in southern IL, heavily republican. Yes, there was an usually large vote in the primary, BO won (IL after all :-)) but barely, but come November I doubt that even BO can carry this district, even less Hillary.

The bottom line: I think that a counter-argument can be made that these rural areas are the within-state equivalent of states like WY that "do not count".

Edited to add BC's actual comment from yesterday (via Kos http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/3/8/10717/36921/773/472134)

"She said yesterday and she said the day after her big wins in Texas and Ohio and Rhode Island that she was very open to that and I think she answered explicitly yes yesterday," Clinton began, referring to Hillary's own answers on the topic in recent days.

"I know that she has always been open to it, because she believes that if you can unite the energy and the new people that he’s brought in and the people in these vast swaths of small town and rural America that she’s carried overwhelmingly, if you had those two things together she thinks it’d be hard to beat. I mean you look at the, you look at the, you look at the map of Texas and the map in Ohio. And the map in Missouri or -- well Arkansas’s not a good case because they know her and she won every place there. But you look at most of these places, he would win the urban areas and the upscale voters, and she wins the traditional rural areas that we lost when President Reagan was president. If you put those two things together, you’d have an almost unstoppable force," Clinton went on to say.

She would win back the Reagan democrats?? :rofl: :rofl:

[ladym55]

11. Let me add what was reported in our local paper today

The Akron Beacon Journal ran a front-page story today that had the Democratic vote split on racial and economic lines. Hillary carried the blue-collar white areas, and Obama carried the African-American areas and the more educated areas. These patterns were repeated across the state.

But then again, Hillary had a MUCH bigger lead in Ohio earlier, up to 20 points, and Obama brought it within 10.

http://www.ohio.com/news/top_stories/16427196.html

[MarjorieG]

3. Joe on Maher last night said as much.

Joe reacted to maybe the shift in media which seemed dramatic the last week, and he agreed immediately the Clintons hold sway and are relentless. The he realized he had to include both campaigns. But I know what I saw.

Also, upset the pundits and Hill supporters still repeat the Nafta as only Obama problem. Not admitting the Canadian interference, their apology the day after Primary, and possibility it was all bogus. Mostly they don't repeat that the Globe and Mail story mentioning just Hillary, and THAT was wink-wink, don't pay attention to what I say.

Obama mentions his same position of renegotiating to audiences for and against Nafta, so some benefit of doubt should have been given.

How did Hill get the memo? I missed the lead-up. Was it everywhere for a while?

[sandnsea]

9. I saw it too

and I'd have to say that if we had some people who belonged to NOW, Emily's List, etc., it might be useful to put pressure on those groups to stop manipulating the press. It's like there are Dem groups that have respect and Dem groups that don't. Maybe we need some unions to make some phone calls.

[Inuca]

4. About the nightmare ticket

as I was listening to BC pushing it yesterday (and I am almost sure he did it after BO had already said that he is not interested in being VP), ir dawned upon me that there may be another reason they keep saying it. Yes desperation, yes manipulation to convince people (and SDs!) that by voting for her they get 2 (pr actually 3) for the price of 1, but also maybe to position her as the "nice one" who is all for unity, getting the party together, etc., while that bad boy of an upstart does not want to play ball. With the complicit support of the media (ratings!), they try to manipulate perception, and they are good at it.

And speaking of media bias: here is the first sentence I saw this morning as I opened my browser (Google news). It's from a WP article, Reuters (so it will be all over the place

"Democrat Barack Obama beat rival Hillary Clinton in Wyoming's nominating contest on Saturday, bouncing back from a string of losses that gave Clinton new life in their hotly contested presidential battle". WTF? He lost 3 (actually 2), one of which was admittedly a biggie, and in the SAME DAY, and now we are talking about a STRING of losses?!?!?!

[ginnyinWI]

6. yep that quote illustrates my point perfectly

It's getting really sickening. If anyone's got a string of losses stuck to her shoe, it's Hill.

But as she says, "that's all in the past!" :eyes:

I was saying to my husband this morning how it's a good thing we have the internet or we'd be stuck believing these bozos. He answered that maybe we should just stop watching TV. And he has a point. At least stick to c-span or some other non-invested-in-a-horse-race source.

[Inuca]

7. The problem is that

whether we like it or not, most people still rely on TV as a main source of "news". Not us "latte-drinkers", but most people still do, or at least so I believe...

[marlakay]

8. He is doing the VP thing to get AA to vote for her

in Mississippi...

[Kukesa]

10. Absolutely. They're brilliant strategists. n/t

[Inuca]

12. No

They are brilliant TACTICIANS, they are poor STRATEGISTS. This IMHO is one of the major problems. They are very good at finding ways to get over the next hurdle, but without thinking of the longer term implications, and how that particular move would fit into an overall strategy of whatever it is they want to achieve (other than personal gain and aggrandizement, and even then). Sometimes the tactical move also makes sense as part of a longer term strategy (the O as VP idea may be an example of that), more often than not it does not (O as unqualified to be president, if eventually they manage to get him as VP, which unfortunately may still happen, would be an example, also the 3am ad, and, and, and...). Even the way the campaign was planned is an example of this short term vs. long term approach. Being REACTIVE vs. being PROACTIVE, which is also one of the main criticisms various smart people have with the current approach to foreign policy. Anyway... I could go on and on speculating about the various implications of all this, but I am sure you got my point :-).