Just go listen to "Raised to be Lowered" by Saul Williams on the album "The Inevitable Rise and Liberation of Niggy Tardust"

It's the soundtrack of the present.

Sent by Jody Sol | 3:05 PM ET | 04-28-2008

But if McCain runs the right kind of campaign, says Fabrizio, "he could win in a landslide."

The "right kind of campaign" to produce a landslide would have to include a generous amount of swiftboating, repeated lying and misdirection - and plenty of magic.

Sent by Sean | 3:10 PM ET | 04-28-2008

Clinton is temporarily 'electable' because no one is attacking her... because she's irrelevant... because she's not going to get the nomination.

Sent by anonymous | 4:04 PM ET | 04-28-2008

McCain will never get my vote without changing his ideas on foreign policy. Let's not focus on what the polls say please because all they do is bias peoples viewpoints. Let's not focus on what kind of campaign McCain will run but what McCain will do as president. Thats even scarier.

Sent by Justin F | 4:32 PM ET | 04-28-2008

The democratic party should stop the nomination process (of voting) from hence forth and choose the most "electable" candidate every 4 years. This so called "electibility" agenda is nothing but a ploy, the Clinton's and their foot soldiers ( who control the party via the clintons long held influence over the DNC) are preparing as to accept it. Why waste peoples time and money.
We the electorate are smarter than they give us credit for.
Currently they send them to make the media rounds drumming electability into our heads....nonsense.

Sent by Ty | 5:38 PM ET | 04-28-2008

The race is NOT tight. There is absolutely no way Clinton can win the nomination without blowing out Obama in every remaining primary on a scale she hasn't managed to date.

Even if you threw a Florida and Michigan revote into the totals, Clinton would need more than 60% in EVERY remaining state to beat Obama in total delegates. Remember Clinton couldn't even capture 60% in those states when Obama wasn't on the ticket!

There is no way Clinton can beat Obama in delegate count. The only way she could beat Obama would be by convincing a huge number of super delegates to vote for her. And like many have noted, if super delegates override the will of the voting public the Democrats will disillusion and lose a huge number of voters, sending McCain straight to the White House.

In short, there is absolutely no way Clinton can win the election. She will be beaten either by Obama, or by McCain.

Howard Dean needs to take control of this situation NOW. His inaction is allowing the Democratic party to destroy its chances of victory in the general election. If McCain wins, it won't be McCain or Rove or Clinton that caused it, it will be Dean's inaction. And then Dean will have nothing to scream about come November.

Sent by Chris K | 5:42 PM ET | 04-28-2008

IF

if McCain runs the right kind of campaign, says Fabrizio, "he could win in a landslide."

AND

if Barrack runs the right kind of campaign, says me, he could win in a landslide.

"Bold Deceit and Bizarre Logic" / Hillary '08, WRONG for America

Sent by chokora | 6:07 PM ET | 04-28-2008

Great analyst Fabrizio should also add that "on condition McCain's progressive forgetfullness does not worsen". example Iran supporting Sunnis or Putin as the president of Germany. I wonder what four years of pressure in the whitehouse could do to him. "Talk about grumpy oldmen part 4"

Sent by Christy | 6:48 PM ET | 04-28-2008

McCain will have to explain, at least to me and millions more, his flip-flop on making "permanant" bush's tax cuts. He opposed them in 2001 because it was obvious then and now that they would explode the annual deficits and the national debt. This gave him credibilty as fiscally responsible. It seems that his flip-flop is meant to pander to his right wing base. Why should either group, the deficit hawks or the tax cut hawks, trust him? The usual lame "cut spending" rhetoric (cut yours, not mine) is undercut by his many years as part of the gingrich-delay congress that exploded spending so that their seats would stay bought. (I guess that didn't work out.)

Sent by Mike Fleissner | 9:26 PM ET | 04-28-2008

Chris K,

If you look at the voting public up to now which includes Michigan and Florida(after all, every vote should count) the race is close...now how the DNC determines the "value" of each vote in MI and FL is anyones guess...none of us would want our vote to count as a "fraction of a vote" so the situation is challenging at best to obtain consensus...now on to your statement...

"if super delegates override the will of the voting public the Democrats will disillusion and lose a huge number of voters"

This so called overturning of the popular vote IS within the power of a Superdelegate...if they did not have this special authority, there would be NO NEED for a Superdelegate especially if as you suggest, that they go with the votes of the people in their state...doing that means they serve no real purpose...their role is complex even if the decision process is not, if they use your method of making their final decision...however, Superdelegates could vote against the vote of their constituency, as is the case of several Superdelegates to date...Superdelegates get to decide anyway they choose and I have a feeling this current process will be completely overhauled...just not in time for this election.

Sent by ard | 11:02 AM ET | 04-29-2008

ard,

The Florida and Michigan votes cannot count as they stand, because the ballot wasn't complete. A revote is the only solution if you want those two states to count.

Lets say there's a revote. If Florida and Michigan revoted, do you think Obama would get zero votes in either, as Clinton seems to be assuming with her "I have more votes" talk? What WOULD Clinton get? 55%? 60%? Even if she managed a 20 point swing in both states, she'd have to pull off the same gains in every remaining state to beat Obama in delegates.

Skipping the revote idea and handing Clinton a ton of free votes from the farcical one-sided Michigan and Florida primaries is the only way Clinton could be considered close to Obama today. I don't think anyone expects the DNC to drop votes into Clinton's back pocket like this.

The way I see it, Clinton is just trying to hang in the race as long as possible, hoping for some major scandal she can use to absolutely destroy Obama. She's not going to leave the race until forced out.

As far as super delegates go, I dislike the system. In fact, I'd take it a couple leaps further, and say I dislike delegates in general, and the electoral college system as well. I'd be happy to see a nationwide popular vote for federal elections. But that eliminates the ability to play district-shaping games that might help usher in Rove's "permanent majority", and I'm not so delusional to believe that Democrats aren't itching to play the same game, should they be given such a mandate.

I find it disappointing that the American public is saddled with these delegate systems that makes some votes count more than others. But I'm going off-topic.

Sent by Chris K | 2:24 PM ET | 04-29-2008