Dickerson wrote: "As the debate plays out with remaining undecided superdelegates, the Obama campaign has other arguments against the big Clinton win. Clinton won impressively in a swing state, but Obama crushed her in the swing states of Colorado, Minnesota, and Virginia."

We've been through this before: victories in primaries are not predictive of success in the general election. This faulty argument has been put forward repeatedly by the Clinton camp, but repetition doesn't make it any more valid. The Obama campaign has said that he puts more states in play, but not on the basis of primary results against Clinton.

I also don't understand the article's claim that Obama has a problem attracting working-class whites. Dickerson says "he's been trying to woo working-class whites for months and months—arguably since the start of the campaign—and he can't get a handle on them." But he also recognizes that polls say he does almost as well as Clinton with that group in head-to-head match-ups against McCain. So it seems to me that just because working class whites trend towards Clinton over Obama, they still like him enough to vote for him when it matters in the general election. Just because I prefer A over B doesn't mean I don't like B.

I'm sure in 1972, McGovern said the same thing, and maybe even tried to make himself believe it...

Ah, Real Slim K, doesn't your comment work against Clinton? McGovern won tons of primaries (including NY and CA), and lost them in the general. Doesn't that show that primary results cannot be extrapolated to the general election?

Didn't you read Slate's own article on the subject, Primary Lessons? It's right here: <link>

I admire people who can save things and share links. It's a (right brain) skill that I don't have. So, since I am not pudgy comedian Keith Olberman, I interpret this article to suggest just what I said: Obama will win NY too--just like McGovern did, and lose the same red states and swing states that McGovern lost. I don't see a difference other than Obama will gain a larger share of the black vote.

No, it simply shoes that extremely liberal candidates can't win, and in this case you add the fact that too many white voters don't want to vote for Obama, and you have a recipe for disaster for the Dems.

It's worth keeping in mind that his "extremely liberal" votes included:

• voting to withdraw troops from Iraq (Clinton and Obama voted identically)
• immigration reform that included a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants (Clinton and Obama voted identically)
• supporting the party's positions on health care, the economy, energy, education and the budget (Clinton and Obama voted the same way as far as I can tell).

If you believe that Clinton is less vulnerable to republican attacks about her liberal record, I think you are wrong. As much as Hillary has recently morphed into a gun-toting, beer-swilling white male from a blue collar family, we need to remember that our two candidates are essentially identical on the issues.

I don't think so,..I know an awful lot of my family members both young and old who wanted Hillary from my mother down to my grown daughter to my teeange grandaughter..sll want Hillary and I don't think either they or any of my friends, my Teamster Union companion of 27 years, also loves Hillary too and many of my female friends do too,.

They all are angry about the way the media has carried Obama's water for him and made him look weak by doing that and they resent the media dn the DNC for how they treated Hillary.

I don't think they will vote for Obama not because it's anything to do with race but because they resent the media trying to force it on us.And we just don't think it's very good.

I interpret this article to suggest just what I said: Obama will win NY too--just like McGovern did, and lose the same red states and swing states that McGovern lost.

Real Slim K, you need a fact check: McGovern lost EVERY state except Massachusetts, and DC.

And polls right now show Obama up in lots of states, and doing better than Clinton in many of them (including Michigan).

But I take it you don't dispute that primary results cannot be extrapolated to the general election, which was the main point.

it simply shoes that extremely liberal candidates can't win, and in this case you add the fact that too many white voters don't want to vote for Obama, and you have a recipe for disaster for the Dems.

How can Obama be "extremely liberal" when he's very close on most issues to Clinton? And on their most significant policy difference--a mandate for having health insurance--Obama has the more moderate stance.

I keep hearing about how Obama is left-wing, but I never see much evidence to back it up. Moreover, if he were so liberal, he would not have the backing of independents. Yet independents far prefer him to Clinton.

And as for a "disaster for the Dems," I don't see how one can conclude that based on the evidence. He leads McCain in polling nationwide, and he certainly is within reach of the necessary electoral college votes. And that's while he's in the midst of a fairly contentious primary.

I don't think they will vote for Obama not because it's anything to do with race but because they resent the media trying to force it on us.

I think the tendency of people to see what they want to see is tremendous. One could also say the "media" forced Reverend Wright on us for far longer than the story warranted.

When it comes to November, the media is not going to force people to decide whether they want an indefinite occupation of Iraq or a timetable for withdrawal; or a market-based health care system versus one that puts patient outcomes over profits; or the appointment judges that will restrict abortion rights to ones that will maintain the status quo. These are all Clinton's issues as well as Obama's. Clinton supporters will have to decide what is really important, but I think if you asked Clinton herself, she'd say we can't afford for more years of a Republican administration.

and let's toss that "electability" argument under the bus too. We get it that Hillary is tenacious and that she's still got a ton of supporters rooting for her - in the end they're all just procrastinators. And damn right Obama is electable and its time she ceded the nomination and endorsed him so we can all move towards a Democratic victory in November.

has so far indicated that she will vote for BO in November, IF it comes to that. The rest, including her mother & all my adult g.f's & my sister who are PRO-Hillary & strongly so, are in an ethical quandary but most are saying they will either ABSTAIN or write in HRC's name. Remember the old expression, "We wuz robbed?"

Hmmmmm, "if the shoe fits, wear it," right? As with your relatives, "racism" has nothing the Hell to do with it; they just don't like him or feel he is too inexperienced. (Sound familiar?) "L."

we had really bad weather & ice storms that kept a lot of the older & WORKING voters home -- our caucuses didn't start until 7pm, on the books, and nothing really started until 9pm, due to the horrendous disorganization. (This was our first year & experience w. caucuses, it was awful...) People who had to be at work by 7 or 8 am the next day, as is common here, as opposed to students who can goof off or show up to later a.m. classes, were not about to risk driving in an ice storm and WAY sub-zero weather, to attend their caucus.

So the young people & coll. students all came out for BO, thanks to their excellent phone tree & free ride organization (I will credit him/them w. that) BUT if we had had decent weather, better information as to where the caucuses would be held (**) and IF BO hadn't blanketed our state & Den. metro area with inaccurate, phony promise/bad info. paid ads, he may have eked out a "victory" over her here but it would have been narrow. (**) This was Colorado's first experiment with official caucuses & it was a disaster. There are already several movements underway to return to regular primaries & printed ballots, including absentee ballots which the older voters, stuck at home in horrendous weather, could have used.

Again, and to prove your point, Colorado will NOT go for Obama in the General. There are far too many conservative rural voters (ranchers, farmers, well-to-do escapees to the wealthy mountain towns like Aspen, Vail & Telluride, and a huge military population, both active duty & retired) to ensure that. And NOW, there are also quite a lot of pissed-off, insulted, disenfranchised Hillary Clinton supporters, especially in the City & County of Denver.

Obama's got a HUGE problem with "working-class whites" dsimon and also with quasi-professional workers of all colors. He just doesn't speak to them. And he isn't even trying. The Repub. attack machine is going to go after him with massive weaponry & his weakness, well-known pacifism & goofy elitism are going to do him in. (Not even going near the Rev. Wright mess & the anti-American snotty wife, either)

As to John Dickerson -- he wouldn't know or recognize a 'working-class white" person or one of any color, if they came at him in four blazing orange Hummers with Hillary & Bill screaming from the lead vehicle. :-). Did you ever see where he grew up? He is a child of privilege beyond most of our imagining ... look up his parents & his upbringing sometime! And that mansion. Incredible. He shouldn't even be discussing the topic, with any seriousness.

He's still going to be the candidate, come August. With or without you.

The rest, including her mother & all my adult g.f's & my sister who are PRO-Hillary & strongly so, are in an ethical quandary but most are saying they will either ABSTAIN or write in HRC's name. Remember the old expression, "We wuz robbed?"

Well, if all those in the Clinton camp want to see two more anti-abortion rights judges on the Supreme Court, that's their choice.

Really, Obama and Clinton are very close on almost all major issues. I don't see the ethical quandary.

As for being "robbed," both candidates competed under the same system, both knew the rules, and both campaigned accordingly. Perhaps you can tell me more specifically what was unfair--especially when she had all the advantages of name, money, and connections going into the process.

Colorado will NOT go for Obama in the General.

He's leading there as of the last poll. Far ahead of Clinton in head-to-head matchup against McCain. If you've got an assertion, where's the support, and what explains the polling results?

Obama's got a HUGE problem with "working-class whites" dsimon and also with quasi-professional workers of all colors. He just doesn't speak to them.

Then why does the LA Times/Bloomberg poll, cited in the Dickerson article, show Obama doing almost as well with that group against McCain as Clinton?

Did you ever see where he grew up? He is a child of privilege beyond most of our imagining

You know who else had that upbringing? FDR, who did more for social equality than anyone else in our nation's history. Can't judge people by their backgrounds. Nor can one judge someone's writing by their backgrounds. The arguments and facts stand or fall of their own accord. If I disagree with what Newt Gingrich said, I won't dismiss it because it came from Newt; I'll show where I think he's wrong. (Because occasionally, anyone can be right.)