Just as in 72 the GOP push us toward the weaker Obama via "open primaries" and

[papau]

the loose caucus rules states (re: who is allowed to vote).

The GOP controlled media is nicely repeating that Obama's "solidified his base" when what they mean is that Obama and friends have nicely played the race card via nicely pretended outrage at innocent remarks - Obama truly knows how to "solidified the base" so as to make Hillary's chances slim.

The GOP push to knock Hillary out of the race (as Pat Buccanan has related, in 1972 Nixon accomplished this with Muskie whom he feared because he wanted to run against Mondale) is once again working in our open primaries. I suspect the Democratic Party will indeed once again allow the GOP to chose the flag bearer via these "open" primaries and loose caucus rules re being a Democrat.

Indeed in the current run of Obama wins it comes down to either independents (as in GOPers), red state liberals that can't deliver their state in the general, and Obama's great success from his playing the race card to "solidify" his base (I refuse to accept the idea that black racism is reason for 90% Obama vote - and I note that any person gets a kick from their ethnic group - albeit not a 90% to 10% edge as in this case in Delaware).

Unfortunately such block voting makes some suggest Obama only wins in heavily black areas and college towns and with better off folks that are liberals, or in caucuses with a tiny percentage of the vote in the general to which only those with flexible schedules can go to, usually in red states that those same voters can't deliver in the general.

The party of the working man is going to nominate the person that can not carry the "working man" - and some folks like Kos think this will mean victory in November because the Hope and Vision but little about policy speeches will sell as long as the crowd chants "yes we can"

[skipos]

1. Yes, Ann Coulter, Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Rupert Murdoch,etc all endorse Obama

because they want him to be our nominee.

[Colobo]

2. LOL!

[papau]

11. Read the Pat Buchanan book on 72 - yes - they are doing the same they did to Muskie and what Pat

recommended then.

Only there is no hope of our learning from History - on learning from history it is no we can't.

[cottonseed]

24. These guys can't even keep McCain from the nomination.

I doubt they've got the pull to control the Dem nomination. Besides, they're all pulling for Hillary anyways.

[jackson_dem]

25. Murdoch's flagship newspaper did endorse Obama

[skipos]

33. And Murdoch raised money for Obama too

After all, Obama is the establishment candidate that was voting for the IWR while Hillary was speaking out against it.

[southern_dem]

3. Give it a rest

the GOP didn't come up with the nominating rules and the media isn't GOP controlled, it's $$$ controlled.

[bellasgrams]

4. The GOP is $$$ party.

[Tellurian]

7. You expect them to connect the dots?

you're not series.

[southern_dem]

10. they are

but we have our share of corporatists as well.

[papau]

12. "For profit" media accepts a $25 million a year loss from Rush's show

[Bicoastal]

5. I was just in FreeperLand looking for misspellings of Obama's name (don't ask)...

...they are PISSED as hell that Hillary might not be the nominee. Most of them consider Obama to be the stronger candidate, and many are worried that all they have to smear him with is his name--and even THAT isn't working any more, except among racists who wouldn't have voted Dem anyway.

(BTW, one of them indirectly called Hillary a B*tch and Obama a towel-head N***er...they are HURTING over there.)

[anigbrowl]

29. Yep...

they have been planning to run against Hillary since Kerry wiped out in 2004. All those who see a conspiracy against Obama should talk to more actual Republicans more often. If this is a conspiracy, it's one they've been planning since before half of the Democrats even knew who Obama was, never mind the GOP. When I suggested to some republican acquaintances back in November 2004 that in 2008 they migth be running against a ticket with a first-term black senator from Illinois they laughed at me for a week.

Go to some Republican-themed websites like Freeperville or WND. Never mind what the columnists and bloggers are muttering about - look at the adverts. Hillary-hating is still huge business in the GOP. The average dittohead still thinks that the Clintons are going to go on a blackmail campaign campaign and threaten their cronies with exposure for unspecified misdeeds (hardcore Republicans assume that anyone who has ever been involved with the Clintons politically must have enriched themselves illegally to get there).

[Tellurian]

31. Neocons are the decision makers, not Republicans..

Al Gore was hugely hated by the Freepers.. So your examples prove nothing.

[anamandujano]

34. Exactly, Karl Rove was probably not among the "republican acquaintances."

[thunder rising]

6. I was ahead of the curve signing on with Obama in Feb last year.

[jody]

8. IMO BO is an easy GOP win. n.t

[papau]

15. I think you are correct - the Dem party abandons the working man at its peril

[Proud2BAmurkin]

9. We've all seen this movie

you're right of course

[C_U_L8R]

21. wow. got enough hearts?

you sure are loved P2B.

[anamandujano]

35. I'd send one if I hadn't maxed out on Hillary and DU.

Wow, what a sight!

[Arugula Latte]

13. Hillary is the weaker candidate by far. nt

[AX10]

14. It's a replay of 72' and 84'.

McCain will squeak by Obama in the GE (most likely). 1% and 275-280 EV's.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

16. sorry, no dice

its bull crap, and if it were true - SO WHAT?

OBAMA has what it takes to wipe the floors with the republicans.

He reaches more people than the plain old establishment codgers and codgerettes.

Obama will increase the turnout and help us gain members in the House, where Hillary is
running a "big state" campaign.

Obama appeals to a broader group of people.

We have had 28 years of Bush Bush Bush Clinton Clinton Bush Bush, its TIME FOR CHANGE!

[BlackVelvet04]

18. You'll enjoy President McCain then....

it's a change.

[BlackVelvet04]

17. I've been reading the book

The Hunting of the President: The Ten-Year Campaign to Destroy Bill and Hillary Clinton......some pretty amazing stuff.

What we are witnessing couldn't have been orchestrated better by Atwood himself.

If the Democratic party falls for this again then they deserve to lose the G.E.

[FrenchieCat]

19. Your candidate can't even run a campaign...her and her name rec

up the yang-yang.

A barely known is kicking her ass, and can't even get any recognition from the willfully blind. :eyes:

[book_worm]

20. It must be tough coming up with new excuses as to why HRC is losing.

[The_Casual_Observer]

22. Obama reinvented something called "new politics" in the last few months.

And it's being taken as reality by college students, black Obama voters & yuppies. He's singular in proffering this "new politics" thing, nobody else seems to even acknowledge it, it's like he is going to push it through by shear force of will. It's a replay of old Jimmy Carter ideas that didn't work.

[AX10]

28. He had to make up something to run on.

This "new politics" is nothing new, it's just a tired old recycled theme from elections past.

[The_Casual_Observer]

30. The voters falling for this are unaware that this has been tried.

The whole idea sounds brand new, like it never occurred to anyone but Obama before, like it's a new "vision".

Obama has started to promise the moon to his believers now. Big expensive changes to the education system and so on, shit that he would never be able to deliver.

[hfojvt]

23. it's hard to compare this to 1972

First, Nixon was an incumbent
Second, he also campaign as the person who would end the war, unlike McCain
Third, McGovern was from a tiny red state vs. Obama being from Illinois.
Fourth, McGovern got the nomination by winning a bunch of "winner take all contests"
Fifth, there was the whole Eagleton debacle.
Sixth, Obama is not nearly as weak as Hillary according to the polls and common sense.

[jackson_dem]

26. Obama is probably weaker

[Hippo_Tron]

27. You might get your history right first, McGovern was the nominee in '72 not Mondale

And Ed Muskie wasn't exactly a top tier opponent either. He might have done better than McGovern but most people still think he would've lost to Nixon.

The Democrats had been hoping on Ted Kennedy throwing his hat in the ring that year but he refused.

IMO both Clinton and Obama are far better politicians than Muskie or McGovern were.

[Beregond2]

32. Just as...

Nonsense. There is nothing the GOP would like more than for HRC to be the candidate. They haven't spent the past fifteen years convincing a huge chunk of the electorate that she is evil incarnate for nothing. Not to mention, they can dredge-up all the anti-Bill feeling by planting the idea that her election would really be his. She is their dream candidate.