Based on how the majority of the American people dislike how Bush has handled things, is he more damaging to McCain than Wright is to Obama?

Not in my mind, but I can't speak for anyone else.  Bush wasn't McCain's mentor for the last 20 years.

Kevin Brown Said:

QUOTE: Newsmax/Zogby Poll has Clinton & Obama tied in IN and Obama with a very healthy 16% lead in NC.

I was just about to post that!  My work has had Zogby conduct some surveys for us, and as a result I get daily emails about their latest polls.

Here's the text from the Zogby Press Release:

QUOTE: UTICA, New York—Five days before the important Democratic presidential primaries in North Carolina and Indiana, Barack Obama of Illinois enjoys a substantial lead in one state and remains tied with Hillary Clinton of New York in the other, a new Zogby daily tracking poll shows. Obama leads by a 50% to 34% margin over Clinton in North Carolina, while the two are tied at 42% support each in Indiana. The telephone surveys, conducted over two days, began on April 30 and were completed May 1.... The survey carries a margin of error of +/- 3.9 percentage points. In Indiana, 680 likely voting Democratic primary voters were surveyed. That poll carries a margin of error of +/- 3.8 percentage points.

...or was it just being portrayed as an uphill battle for Obama because of the "blue collar" voters?

This is the real issue, I think -- how it was portrayed.  I wonder how much of this is manufactured by the media to "keep it interesting" and thereby "keep themselves working"?

I wonder how much of this is manufactured by the media to "keep it interesting" and thereby "keep themselves working"?

No doubt the media is benefiting -- but I don't think the problems the Democrats are facing selecting a president is a creation of the media.  I think its a monster of the DNC's own making.  The whole mess is one that could have been avoided.

Of course I think the whole thing is exacerbated by Hillary not acting like a responsible member of the party and stepping aside and endorsing the candidate that the majority of the voters supporting.

I think thats bull within the context of the rules the Democrats made for themseleves.  The whole Superdelegate system was put in place to try to put forth the candidate not with the most votes but the candidate with the most votes and the best chance to win the general election.  If the party wanted  to follow the "will of the voters" the candidate would be selected simply by who won the most votes (or delegates if you prefer).  Instead the party wanted a way to "correct" the voters if the party insiders thought differently.  I think its not for anyone to tell Clinton to quit.  Its for Obama to bury her and convince the party he can win in November.

I know Obama has been ahead of Hilary in North Carolina for awhile, but wasn't there an issue with Indiana?  Was Hilary ahead or was it just being portrayed as an uphill battle for Obama because of the "blue collar" voters?

************************

Indiana's been a crap shoot for awhile now.  Depending on the day and time, either one has been in the lead.  This is one state I can see being exactly 50/50.

NC is firmly Obama's though.  So whatever inroads Clinton made in delegates in PA will disappear here.

I'm an Obama supporter (voted for him Ohio) and I agree with Geoff. Obama has to beat her soundly and fairly.

But notice how no such onus exists for Hilary.

There is no onus on Obama either. He could lose every primary left and still get the nod, if the Superdelegates want him.  Or he could win them all and still lose if the Superdelegates want Clinton.  The Superdelegate system is unfair by its very nature.