Hello P.A. Registered to Vote?

I hate the primary system and agree it should go.

Clinton has always seemed like a scoundrel and thief (not making any specific references, just how I perceive her when she speaks). The problem with both parties is the machine aspect as I think of it. Choose a charismatic leader, get the popular vote and elect a candidate who benefits the party rather than progresses the nation with much needed reforms. Additionally can any of these politicians have an accurate understanding of what the rest of the country is going through when they never have to worry about money. It seems we continually elect millionaires. Citing NJ governor Corzine the man who wants to cut state funding to colleges, and eliminate the department of agriculture. The garden state with no department of agriculture. Brilliant Plan.

When was the last time we had a presidential candidate who at any point in their life wondered what was going to be for dinner because they had no food and no money. 

Bear in mind that the primary system is determined by each political party, as is their right. There is no constitutional control over the process because it isn't an election. In the 19th century the parties just selected a candidate from among their own inner circle without doing any kind of voting - imagine just the superdelegates getting together at a closed-door meeting and sorting out the nominee.

As far as millionaires running for office, you generally have to be wealthy to be able to put your career on hold and make an attempt at Congress. Obama is not very wealthy. I don't know about McCain. The Clintons are very rich now, but were not when Bill Clinton became president.

Finally, just because it doesn't seem likely that Clinton will catch Obama in the delegate or popular vote count doesn't mean that she won't find a way to get the nomination. Losing Pennsylvania doesn't seem like a big deal if you look purely at the delegate math, but it's much bigger when you consider how it could bolster her claims to be the nominee more likely to succeed because of her victories in big battleground states.

Of course, the trap for Obama is that if he fights too hard in PA and loses, he will have imbued the contest with the kind of importance he'd rather it not have. He has a fine line to walk, between trying to win it in the hope of finally knocking her campaign down for the count, but not lending so much gravity to the contest that if Clinton wins it, she can use his own effort as proof that her victory is deeply important.

Matt is exactly right on both points, the first being Clinton beating McCain, But I think an election between Obama and McCain will be a sight to see, and will hoefully raise the level of debate in this country. While I am a democrat and like Obama, I think McCain makes some great points, and I was upset when he got beat out by bush in the last election, and personally would ove to see a real debate between the two.

On the second point. It is a very fine line for Obama - He needs to campaign but not make it a I need to win battle. For Clinton she is once again against the wall...It will be this way the rest of the way for her. Before Texas she was actually quoted on discussing the vice presidency...but that is a whole other can of worms entirely relating to the pros and the CONS.

In the end it is going to be difficult for Obama in PA mainly because the of the fine line Matt was discussing. The media is already starting to discuss this same point. Therefore Obama will not only have to decide how to campaign, but with what ever choice he makes, he will need to mask it from the juggernaut  that is the media. And from what we have seen recently, be it stress or be it exhaustion from the campaign, he has made some PR mistakes that have allowed Clinto to generate some momentum...

Obama can win in the south, as the ethnic demographics favor him (there are more black people who will come out and vote for a black candidate than white folk who will vote against a black candidate).  This will reverse a decade of Republican sweeps.  His negatives are less than Clinton's.

McCain has the support of right wing idealogues (witness Rick Santorum's latest op-ed piece in the Phila Inquirer), but will not ignite the Christian Taliban extreme wing.  While they will not vote for either democratic candidate, they might stay home, not realizing that the 2/3 a loaf represented b y McCain is better than going hungry.

The need to win in Pa (and most states) for a democratic candidate is not as great as for the republican candidates, due to the winner takes all of the latter and the splitting of delagates among the former, based in percentage of votes received.    The real issue is the super delagates. 

but will not ignite the Christian Taliban extreme wing 

I am an athiest, and I am not personally offended by that statement Charlie, but someone else reading the boards might be. It is statements like that that are the reason why we are not supposed to discuss politics and religion on the boards.

Christian Taliban is a specific term, not directed against Christians, but only those who, like the Taliban, believe that their particular interpretation of the religion (and natuarally, the only correct one) should be law.  Literalists if you would like a further label.  Those whom I call friends include many who are Christians, without beingidealogues intent on forcing me to compply to their particular belief system.

Taliban is a handy label, as a few in this nation understand what their politics and agenda is.