Obama demo weaknesses:
Blue collar white voters
Rural white voters
35+ women
Latinos

Clinton's demo weaknesses
Urban (or should it be urbane) and upper middle class whites
AA's
Youth

It's not that he mentioned the existence of rednecks - he was saying that people who don't vote for him are all racist, xenophobic rednecks, which was why he was doing so poorly in PA.

If I were in some hair-razing battle for my life i'd prefer to have Edwards and the old crew around than what passes for personal and fraternal loyalty as exhibited by the likes of Richardson.

We could have gone anywhere and done anything with Edwards.

"It is not hard to figure out why American intellectuals have not had a Marxist tradition. Traditions of political theory-whether liberal, conservative, or Marxist-are grounded in a perception of political possibility. This is axiomatic with Marxism, which is a philosophy of political action whose verification rests upon the possibility of capitalism being superseded by socialism."

And, only the most ridiculous and partisan wingnuts (who like Judis have no basis for their conspiracy theories) are claiming that BO is the gateway to socialism.

It seems like Judis has been on the look out for Marxists even longer than Kristol (and the Kristol copy cats on Fox and wingnut blogs.)

His assessment is all about conjecture.  He retells the wingnut story against BO.  Which neglects the reality that  1) There will never be a D where the wingnuts don't have a plan of attack.  2) He implies that Ds are weaklings who can't win against any real competition unless they are pro-life and the rest of the culture war stuff or they are able to convince the public that they are a mommy/daddy that can help them (where the public are the babies in the analogy--isn't this the kind of elitism BO is being accused of, I love irony.)  

I hope the the HRC supporters are only looking at these kind of arguments out of political expediency, the alternative is that Ds really believe this stuff and they are a bunch of super wimps, that let R talking points blow them about like a feather in a tornado--that's precisely why blue collar folks get nervous about the Ds, imo.  Buck up!

Your statement "Obama can not win beer track white working class voters, women, seniors or Latinos" should actually finish with "as well as Hillary can head to head".  But do not be fooled, he will do well with them against McCain (as will Clinton if that is the case).

Whats wrong with saying both Obama and Clinton have their own different strong constituencies in the dem party which will both rally to the primary winner as long as the outcome of the primary is considered valid (obviously valid differs for many people - which is the crux of the real argument here).

And if you look at general election electoral vote tickers right now, neither of our candidates win head to head.  But surprisingly, Obama picks up more EV votes than Clinton against McCain (and that includes now PA for both and OH for neither).  Both our candidates have natural paths to the white house which are slightly different but equally valid.  Clintons is without a doubt the more traditional route, but by no means is it the most assured route.

There is so much hand wringing here that 'Obama is the doom of our party forevs' that doesnt come close to reality.  Its the last ditch argument (next to the 'Ill take my ball, go home and not vote' one) of those who no longer have a clear shot at the nomination.  Seriously, it sounds weak and desperate.  Sure I am for Obama, but I know full well Clinton will equally trash McCain.  But to imply Obama is somehow not a true dem and will be our unholy demise is ludicruus or the one that he has somehow played unfairly, give me a break.

If any of you have actually watched John McCain for more than a 10 second sound bite in the last few months you will quickly realize he has zero chance in the general.  Clinton or Obama will blow him away.  No one wants to vote for their crazy, grumpy, angry grandfather.  John McCain will not stand up to the lights of a country-wide televised campaign.  And I stress the sad fact of television and charisma.  While I hate to admit it, how you are on television and your natural charisma is more important than anything else.  Sure McCain gets a break from the press, but he wont from TV and standing next to Clinton or Obama.  He will be toast against either.

Of course both Clinton and Obama have negatives but to somehow believe Obama's are higher or deeper than Clintons is ostrich territory.  Please stop trying to somehow blame Obama for trying to win the primary.  He did exactly what he should have done, fight for delegates.

Oh, and blanket statements like "idiotic Obama moves like blocking revotes in FL and MI" are dishonest, and thats being generous.  Stop stoking that flame as if its Obama's to bear on his own.  Each party in the primary has an equal share of blame.  To lay the blame solely at Obama's feet does nothing but continue to stoke this unnecessary internal hatred.  Before this process started Obama had nothing to do with the outcome of FL and MI.  Once they became important again (I wonder why that was?  Hmmmm?  Because someone now needed them desperately?) they were used in a seriously flagrant and disingenuous way by ONE campaign to stoke uncertainty and hatred.  While Obama can be criticized for not being as proactive as possible, to somehow absolve all the other parties (especially the Clinton campaign for  pushing poor solutions which 3rd world countries would scoff at as valid) is erroneous.

Its the pushing of these one sided arguments that is really the problem.  Once the dust settles and the spot light is one dem on McCain, the spotlight will be unkind to McCain.  He will lose.  And he will lose badly.  Its not overconfidence that says this - its TV and charisma that does.  Never go against the fact that our presidential race is primarily a beauty contest.  Sad as it is, that is probably the biggest truism.