Scott Richards wrote: I would rather have a 3rd Bush term *shudder* than a 1st Obama term.

Seriously?  Wow. 

"Pollsters play this game with numbers all the time"

What's that Mark Twain quote? "There are three kinds of lies; lies, damn lies and statistics."

When I was in Media Studies we learned that we should never take a poll at face value. You need to know exactly how the question was asked (the questions are often paraphrased when presented) and how the interviewees were selected (some polls deliberately skew selections, some do so accidentally.) and how liberally the numbers are massaged in presentation.

Al Cook wrote: Obama's integrity is a breath of fresh air.

A whole lot of voters apparently thought the same thing about Bill Clinton before he was elected . . . and now there seem to be a lot of Democrats who are anti-Clinton and pro-Obama who forget that particular "inconvenient truth."

Bill Clinton wasn't a man of integrity. But he was (and this pains me to admit this) a successful president.

Not that they care what I think, but I believe liberals are far too quick to discard the Clinton blueprint. The "left-wing antagonist" might play well to the blogger crowd, but that kind of candidate 1. can't get elected and 2. couldn't get anything done if he did.

By contrast, Clinton was able to make a lot of things happen by adopting a moderate, consensus-building approach. He made liberals mad with his stances on crime and welfare, but time has proven him right on both accounts. More importantly, he was able to win two national elections. If I was a Democrat, I think I'd learn from that.

Regarding superdelegates, I'd be interested to know the number of nonelected superdelegates or those who don't currently hold a political office (e.g. Bill Clinton and Al Gore) versus the elected superdelegates who have something to lose. The former can do whatever they want but the latter will have to consider the impact on their political careers. There are only so many positions in a Clinton/Obama cabinet, and even that sort of gamble is based on Clinton/Obama *beating* McCain in November. I don't think a Congressman wants to risk facing a primary challenge or backlash from his constituents because he was perceived as having gone against the "will of the people."

Of course, even the non-elected superdelegates have to worry about November and the fact that whatever they decide, the Republicans will make it clear that their candidate was chosen by the people -- not party insiders. McCain can state that he won the most states, the most votes, and the most delegates -- no fuzzy math needed.

For this reason, I think that Obama will have to completely disqualify himself or at least lose states he should win so that it appears that the public has turned against him. However, if the race continues as it has been -- with both candidate's supporters fully entrenched and the results being based solely on demographics (Clinton does well where you'd expect; Obama does well where you'd expect), then I think it will be Obama's to lose.

“I said to Barack Obama last year, ‘If you get elected, November the 5th I'm coming after you, because you'll be representing a government whose policies grind under people,’ Wright said.

I guess Obama doesn't even get a single day to make any changes. Wright is a psycho.