I think it's really too close to call. Since I'm a big Obama supporter I can't breathe easy until it's clear he's ahead AND THEN it's a done deal in Denver at the convention. I still worry about those superdelegates.

Thanks again for the postings.

Go Obama!

And that “strategy” relies on freezing the campaign in its place. No momentum is allowed, no further campaigning accepted.

It's a long shot, but it could happen.

Still, if I wandered into this dogfight and was forced to choose sides, my money would be on Obama.

“….she is simply unwilling or unable to concede that she has lost fair and square.”

She hasn't lost yet and is more or less even with Obama.

“Should she at this point somehow pull off her own win, it will have been at a cost that might serve to redefine the term pyrrhic.”

Well… she has already shown she is willing to be polarizing and resort to other dirty tricks to win the nomination (if she does). And that could be enough to discourage enough Dems from voting, energize the republicans and have McCain win the presidency (again, assuming she gets the Dem. nomination).

In this case, the important issue is Deval Patrick's permission granted to Obama to use these lines. In fact, they are close friends and they have each borrowed from the other in the past. There is nothing inappropriate here at all.

More importantly, let's think about the purpose of speechmaking. Politicians give speeches in order to move public opinion. All the listening public cares about is that the words are accurate. The public is not grading the politician on an academic speech assignment (where using others' lines would be a big problem). No, the public wants to see how the politician incorporates those words into a larger message. This isn't plagiarism and should not be spoken of in such terms.

I'm beginning to think her campaign actually is willing to wage a 1968-style knock down drag out convention fight, because she is simply unwilling or unable to concede that she has lost fair and square. Should she at this point somehow pull off her own win, it will have been at a cost that might serve to redefine the term pyrrhic.

http://dictionary.reference.com/wordoftheday/ar...

Hillary is in full desperation mode, and that is turning off more and more Indies.

Hill's campaign theme seems to be: If we cannot use inspiration, try desperation!

I'd like to point out a major distinction: Sen. Obama has received major media attention specifically for his speeches and rhetorical skills. Hillary has not.

The “change” theme and comparisons to JFK are based largely on Obama's power to “inspire” people via words. The media hasn't built up Hillary in that way.

Obama's “inspirational” and “change”-related themes are base largely on the notion that Obama is saying something new — and presumably ORIGINAL. Now, we're finding that his words aren't so original.

It's no big deal if your car performs like a Toyota if you bought the car knowing that it would. I've you've shelled out twice the price for a different car, wouldn't you be a tad disappointed to find that it performs like a Toyota?

NO OFFENSE to Toyota owners: I've owned a few.