All he had to do was win New Hampshire . . .
All he had to do was win the popular vote in the Ohio and Texas primaries . . .
All he had to do was win Pennsylvania . . .
All he had to do was contest West Virginia (not walk away and lose 2:1) . . .
And she'd have been gone.
He didn't. Cause he couldn't.
Instead, he's running the most pandering, sectarian campaign I've ever seen in Kentucky. It's as Christianist as anything Rove or Falwell ever dared. Obama's top qualification for office is being a "Committed Christian"? "Faith" goes before "hope" and "change"? It's now okay to discuss the candidate's religious history and background, and vote on that basis? Gee, remember when folks around here used to get upset about subliminal crosses in Republican mailers from the Mittster and Huckabuck?
http://www.cbn.com/...
Face it, if he doen't beat her by over ten percent in Oregon, and hold her to under 10% in Kentucky, she's on the ticket. And, the "May 20: We put it away" party planning may be a tad premature.
BTW - I don't predict that outcome, just the outcome if that's the outcome. And, I'm just wondering: next time a Christian Republican is running against a Jewish, Hindu or Muslim Democrat, is it okay for the Republican to send out a mailer pointing out which candidate is the "Committed Christian"? Somehow, I don't think Kentucky Congressman Yarmuth thinks that would be cool in November.
Update - Hey, Obamacans, you're attacking me personally, but how come no one is defending the "Committed Christian" / "Obama on the Cross" mailer?