Obama is nothing more than a novelty item, just like Mitt Romney was. Hillary is going to take PA then Indiana and Obama will go back to Illinois. Leaving the damage he caused behind all under the guise of the “uniter.”

Yah, some uniter.

Do you really think the American public, who can’t even wait more than 5 minutes in a fast-food lane, will be able to keep their attention on the rah-rah-rah adolescent cheer “Yes we can” and “Change” for more than a month?

Obama: put a fork in him, he’s DONE.

HILARIOUS VIDEO OBAMA IN HIGH SCHOOL: FREDDY LOCKHART
http://www.superdeluxe.com/sd/contentDetail.do?id=D81F2344BF5AC7BBCF096CA0DA7380ACEFBD9A8640FDF475

But you’d find similar results in other netroots straw polls

the most recent dkos poll

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/3/16/122057/600

the moveon poll after their Iraq Town Hall mtg

http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2007/04/sweet_blog_special_obama_wins.html

Jeff Jarvis writes:The latest Gallup poll shows Hillary Clinton solidly ahead — and rising — in the Democratic race. Yet as Politico points out, if you listen to “the developing media storyline” itÂ’s Obama who has the surging moÂ’. And……

Human interest sells, policy doesn’t.

One could also speculate on whether the MSM has a preferred Dem candidate. If we believe the claims that the MSM is conservative (or at least pro-big business) then from a tactical viewpoint they would want to push the weakest Dem candidate. In my opinion that would be Obama - I just don’t believe that he would attract enough voters given the level of (unacknowledged) racial prejudice that still exists in the US. The same is true for Clinton as well, although sex discrimination seems to be lessening.

Only two:

John Kennedy (and that was a very close election, against a sitting VP - another slot that has trouble moving up)

Warren Harding (who got to run against a Democratic party that had become very unpopular after WWI, the follow on recession, and the League of Nations fight)

Given that track record, I’d say that the media is very much focused on the wrong people. Why do Senators have it so hard? Consider Kerry in 2004, and the many accusations of “flip-flopping votes”. The way the Senate operates, a given bill will come up numerous times, with various amendments attached. Senators will vote for and against the bill numerous times, based on those amendments. Later, in a campaign, the reality of the amendments is easy to lose (and hard for the candidate to explain) when their opponent stands up and says “why look at so and so, who changed votes on the (insert issue here) bill 5 times!”.

That’s why Senators rarely move directly up - and why Governors, who have been busy burnishing their “executive” skills, do.