It says stuff like Clinton's toughness and resilience make no difference. It also fails to acknowledge the fact that the two contests where Obama and Clinton had a real fight (March 4 and Penn) Clinton won decisively. I think the lead story on Politico is a far more realistic and unbiased one.

If the House members were going to do this it would have been much more effective before Obama had lost a bunch of contests.

With every week the rationale she suggests is becoming more tenuous.

They have always given lip service to working people, church goers, gun owners, etc., while in reality absolutely loathing those people.

Obama gives them the chance to openly wear their elitist prejudices on their sleeves.

Sometimes people mean what they say. We are being told in no uncertain terms that Hillary's voters are NOT a part of the party moving ahead.

When your reaching out to Independents looks like that I have no idea how to assess your commitment to progressive issues.

Come on guys.  These are politicians.  If they thought much, they'd never survive this game.

It's a rare politician who actually thinks.  Now, I happen to think Hillary is one of those rare birds.

But Pelosi?  Dean?

And is it really that hard to figure out that a giant mass of working class, Catholic, somewhat culturally conservative voters have recently arrived in this country and become voters?  The Latinos are up for grabs.  This is a staggeringly important base to capture going forward, particularly in the Southwest and the Mountain West.  They are growing in population at a faster rate than AA's and the "creative class."  (Heck probably combined!)  Why are we not running their favorite candidate?  Talk about changing the electoral map for a generation.

The ipod kids are for the most part going to be Dems anyway.  Why obsess over pumping up their turnout now when you got bigger fish to fry in holding and consolidating your traditional base and capturing Latinos.  

Congressional Democrats are backing away from healthcare reform promises made by their two presidential candidates, saying that even if their party controls the White House and Congress, sweeping change will be difficult.
...
"We all know there is not enough money to do all this stuff," said Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.), a Finance Committee member and an Obama supporter, referring to the presidential candidates' healthcare plans. "What they are doing is ... laying out their ambitions."
...
Sen. Charles Schumer (N.Y.), a member of Senate Democratic leadership and a key Hillary Clinton ally who also sits on the Finance Committee, said he is "not sure we have the big plan on healthcare."

"Healthcare I feel strongly about, but I am not sure that we're ready for a major national healthcare plan," Schumer said.

I've had doubts about Obama's ability to hang on to Independents and Republicans for a while now. I cannot IMAGINE that these out-of-the-Democratic party Obama-supporters, who tend to be moderates, will choose him over McCain in the fall--not after Reverend Wright, Ayers, Michelle's thesis, and Obama's own obvious cluelessness.

Are any polls showing a falling-off of their support thus far?

And it's not independents and Republicans who swing elections, its moderates who swing elections.  This is where it gets really scary because while Obama used to win or hold his own among moderates, he lost moderates by 20% in Pennsylvania.  The only ideological group he won were self-identified as very liberal.  If he can't win democrats with ideologies and demographics closest to the non-dems, and who are in the same demographics, then what magic is going to win him those non-dems.  Unless there are enough African American, college, and very liberal people in Pennsylvania who aren't democrats.

Idiots.  No wonder we always lose elections, no one can read an exit poll.

And the other way to support Obama would be?

[rimshot, laughter]

Whose to say their idiocy isn't on purpose? As politicians, who by nature lie and deceive all the time I'd say its better than a 50-50 chance they know exactly what the story is, they don't like what it tells, and hence make up stuff to try to influence a different outcome.

For many in the democratic "leadership" the primary has been way more, almost exclusively about dethroning the Clintons as democratic principles than it has been about winning the presidency in November for America and Americans.