I think it is unfair to the people of Maine, Iowa, Washington, and all those who voted in caucus states for Hillary Clinton to say (according to the Associated Press) "Caucus states[...] are undemocratic and cater only to party activists". Especially unfair to the percentage that did go out of their way to caucus for her. If she truly had support of the people in those states, she would had a big enough grassroots organization to send a lot of people to those caucuses. It is unfair and does not explain her overwhelming loses. Here's the link to the article
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080212/ap_on_el_pr/campaign_dems_analysis;_ylt=Ai6wUbhHdoKmd0ODF5ppzwph24cA
P.S. Notice how her Ohio and Texas strategy is starting to show some similiarities to Rudy Giuliani's Florida strategy. It will backfire unless she can show (highly unlikely if we put in the effort we've been putting in all this time) that she can win most contests in between.
I'm hearing a lot of media outlets saying that Hillary had double digits leads over Obama in California. What frustrates me is that many of these polls being cited were mostly done before Barack's victory in South Carolina. I do not understand why local media are citing outdated polls or why in many cases they fail to even tell us the dates those polls were conducted on. The media in So Cal are is creating a false impression of an overwhelming Hillary Clinton lead. But according to a more accurate and recent Rasmussen poll, Obama is within striking distance of Hillary assited in good part from the huge endorsements he got and the momentum from South Carolina. He is now within 3 points of Hillary in California and within 4 points nationwide. But much of the media continues to use outdated polls, many of them taken before the South Carolina primary. What can we do about being able to set the record straight so that the Clinton campaign won't get a false sense of momentum?
