disagree.  This race would've been decided awhile if the media hadn't decided to try and make it seem like a close race.  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.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

How is it not a close race?

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.

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

So should Obama step aside if he gets the nomination and trails in very poll? I wouldn't step aside and neither would any of you if you believed you were the best candidate and still had a shot to win. And like it or not, Hillary does. Her chances may be slim but they are very real.

I'm still behind Obama but he's not the second coming and Hillary isn't evil personified no matter how much some people here want to make it so.

I don't think the media is trying to keep things interesting.  They are the ones who caused this.  They pretty much gave Obama a free pass in the beginning.  Had all the issues that have come up been brought up before the big slew of primaries, there wouldn't even be an issue now because Clinton would already be the Democratic candidate.

The media holding back is what allowed Obama to get where he is.

I disagree.  This race would've been decided awhile if the media hadn't decided to try and make it seem like a close race.  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.

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

SER: I think it is a close race big picture-wise but I think the media does try to heighten the drama. I thought it was ridiculous that Ohio and Pennsylvania were painted by CNN as "too close to call" -- the exit polls and the margin of victory in both cases made such a statement absurd on its face.

I don't think the media is trying to keep things interesting.  They are the ones who caused this.  They pretty much gave Obama a free pass in the beginning.  Had all the issues that have come up been brought up before the big slew of primaries, there wouldn't even be an issue now because Clinton would already be the Democratic candidate.

The media holding back is what allowed Obama to get where he is.

I think you are minimizing the strength of Obama's candidacy.  I agree that in the early going the media was "easier" on Obama than on Clinton but I also think he brought a message (and type of campaign) that resonated with people, including the media. 

No. He'll be seen as a man who was given it because he was Black. Over two decades I've seen many young professionals of his color judged unworthy of the opportunities they worked for. I'm talking about Affirmative Action, which has helped far fewer people than Americans think. It will not matter whether Obama ever was the beneficiary of a quota or race based scholarship.

As it pertains to this election I don't think you could be more wrong.  I don't think anyone believes he's won because he was black -- I think many think he is winning in-spite of his being black (or really in spite of the racism which is insidious in this country). 

I disagree.  This race would've been decided awhile if the media hadn't decided to try and make it seem like a close race.  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.

**********

Sorry to pile on, but I have to disagree, Adam. Under the rules set forth by the Democrats themselves, Clinton still has legitimate shot to win what remains a close, undecided race. She's hardly a Ralph Nader-like spoiler figure. She and her supporters deserve the right to let this election play out until it's over.

It's not close though.  Obama is ahead in Pledged Delegates, ahead in the popular vote (discounting Michigan where Obama wasn't on the ballot and Florida where he didn't campaign), ahead in Fund Raising and Spending, has won the majority of the states' primaries and Clinton is losing Super-Delegates to Obama at least weekly.  By all standards Obama is ahead.  I will say it's a heated and dramatic race, but not a close one.  The term "close" goes out the window when it is for all intents and purposes mathematically impossible for a candidate to catch up to their opponent in Pledged Delegates or the popular vote. That's what I was talking about.  You won't get an argument out of me that the Super-Delegate system throws the Democratic Primaries out of whack. 

For the record, if their positions were reversed I would say Obama should bow out as well for the good of the party.

No worries about "piling on"  I'm a Democrat in rural upstate NY, I've got a pretty thick skin about politics.

(discounting Michigan where Obama wasn't on the ballot and Florida where he didn't campaign)

This is something the DNC did that REALLY doesn't sit well with me.  I understand that the national party wanted to penalize the state parties that moved their primaries up -- but by so doing they also penalize (and potentially disenfranchise) voters who had little or no say in the change of primary date.  Couldn't they have found a way to penalize the state parties whilst not keeping Michigan and Florida voters out of the process of selecting a presidential candidate? 

It doesn't sit well with me either, but I don't know how you would penalize the state without also either penalizing the voters or candidates.  It's a fine mess those states and the party got themselves into. 

Personally I think the entire primary system has to be re-examined, but that's another topic.