The Trail: A Daily Diary of Campaign 2008

Archives

Dan Balz's Take

Three Turning Points on the Road to Denver

By Dan Balz
Democratic politicians should have three dates circled on their calendars: April 22, May 6 and July 1. Each represents a potential turning point in the nomination battle between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.

April 22, the day of the Pennsylvania primary, is Clinton's next chance to make a strong case for staying in the race to the end. Conversely, it is a critical opportunity for Obama to show that he continues to expand his appeal within the party, as someone who hopes to become the nominee must do.

May 6 is when North Carolina and Indiana hold their primaries. It has gained significance over the past two weeks as a potential make-or-break day for both candidates, perhaps the only date between now and the end of the primaries that could deliver a seismic jolt to the trajectory of the nomination battle.

July 1 is Democratic National Committee chairman Howard Dean's deadline for superdelegates to get off the fence and declare whether they will vote for Clinton or Obama.

Start with Pennsylvania. Nothing underscores the significance of the Keystone State's primary more than the current bus tour that Obama is taking from one side of the state to the other.

After Obama lost to Clinton in Ohio by 10 percentage points, there were questions about how hard he would play in Pennsylvania. Clinton has family roots in the state. She has the support of Gov. Edward Rendell and Philadelphia Mayor Michael Nutter. The state's demographic profile fits Clinton almost perfectly.

The polls offer a bleak landscape for Obama. Clinton has enjoyed a double-digit lead in the state for months. Obama is braced for a loss in Pennsylvania but his campaign team has concluded he cannot afford another loss of the magnitude of Ohio.

Obama has retooled his campaign in Pennsylvania, bringing in Paul Tewes as his new state director. Tewes was Obama's state director in Iowa and later in Ohio. He has seen what worked and what didn't and he has the full trust of Obama's Chicago headquarters team.

More telling are the changes in Obama's campaign style. He is more focused on bread-and-butter issues and is spending more time in informal settings with working people. He went bowling -- for the first time in decades -- over the weekend and has shown up in cafes and bars in an effort to connect with working-class Pennsylvanians.

His hope in Pennsylvania is something often heard during the early stages of a presidential campaign -- to exceed expectations. That's an odd objective for someone who purports to be the Democratic front-runner, but he is seeking to define down his prospects in the hope that a relatively narrow loss can be spun into victory.

Clinton needs Ohio plus -- an outsized victory that silences for a time any talk that she should get out. As Ohio showed, there is nothing like a decisive victory to change the conversation.

Clinton spent the weekend beating back such talk after Vermont Sen. Patrick Leahy had publicly called for her to get out. On Saturday, she made an emphatic statement to the Post's Perry Bacon Jr. that she's taking her fight all the way to Denver and that she will continue to press for a resolution to the problem of Michigan and Florida. Her husband urged Democrats to chill, to let the race play out according to the calendar and not attempt to disenfranchise the voters in the remaining 10 contests.

May 6 looms as an even bigger moment. Nobody expects a significant change in the race before Pennsylvania and, given Clinton's prospects of victory there, Obama loyalists may have a harder time immediately after that primary to argue that she should quit.

That could leave it to voters in North Carolina and Indiana to change the status quo. Obama is favored in North Carolina and The Wall Street Journal reported Monday morning that the entire congressional delegation is moving to endorse him. If he wins Indiana as well, a state that fits neither candidate perfectly, he will then argue that he has broken through. At that point, Clinton would face real pressure.

But Obama has let these opportunities slip away before. Should Clinton manage to win both Indiana and North Carolina, she and Obama will be in slugfest through the rest of the campaign. If Democrats have been worried about some of the attacks going back and forth between the two campaigns in the past two weeks, they should expect even worse at that point.

Any kind of muddled conclusion to May 6 virtually assures that the race goes through to the end. That will leave it in that hands of the superdelegates, and it was to them that Dean was directing his comments last week.

By nature, many of these superdelegates will not be profiles in courage. Obama is doing is best to pry some of them loose. If he continues to do so over the next few weeks, and performs well in the upcoming primaries, he will gradually consolidate the nomination.

Whether Dean has the clout to push the superdelegates to a conclusion by July 1, if the primaries end with the race notably closer in delegates and popular vote than it is today, is a real question. He may need the help of other senior Democrats who have not previously taken sides.

Al Gore, on CBS's "60 Minutes" Sunday, laughed when asked by correspondent Lesley Stahl whether he would step in to try to resolve the nomination. "I'm not applying for the job of broker," he said. Perhaps Gore still harbors a smidgen of hope that the party might eventually turn to him, not to broker a deal, but to become the nominee to unite a party fractured by the Obama-Clinton duel.

Depending on what happens on April 22, May 6 and by July 1, Democrats will know whether they have their nominee, or whether they are truly in need of either a broker or a uniter

Posted at 3:02 PM ET on Mar 31, 2008  | Category:  Dan Balz's Take
Share This: Technorati talk bubble Technorati | Tag in Del.icio.us | Digg This
Previous: Michigan Pol Proposes Solution to State's Delegate Stalemate | Next: Tears and Talk of War's Cost as McCain Bus Rolls Through Mississippi


Add 44 to Your Site
Be the first to know when there's a new installment of The Trail. This widget is easy to add to your Web site, and it will update every time there's a new entry on The Trail.
Get This Widget >>


Comments

Please email us to report offensive comments.



Quit it wil you! Obamas claim to the nomination is based on a majority of caucus states where the real die-hard Obamafanatics showed up and took over the voting. Any legitimate state where the voters actually got to cast a vote, Obama lost. Look at Texas - Popular vote to Clinton. Caucases - Obama. Too bad the national election wasn't all cacauses - Obama might stand a chance. I was caught up in the nitial euphoria of Obama. Unfortunately in the past month he has totaly unraveled. For the good of the party he should withdraw.

Posted by: willygoo46 | April 1, 2008 9:40 AM

I believe the reason they want Hillary out now is because Hillary will win 7 or 8 of the last ten contest and this race will be very close. This is the real reason they want her out.

Posted by: marshall320 | April 1, 2008 3:09 AM

I believe the reason they want Hillary out now is because Hillary will win 7 or 8 of the last ten contest and this race will be very close. This is the real reason they want her out.

Posted by: marshall320 | April 1, 2008 3:09 AM

I believe the reason they want Hillary out now is because Hillary will win 7 or 8 of the last ten contest and this race will be very close. This is the real reason they want her out.

Posted by: marshall320 | April 1, 2008 3:09 AM

I believe the reason they want Hillary out now is because Hillary will win 7 or 8 of the last ten contest and this race will be very close. This is the real reason they want her out.

Posted by: marshall320 | April 1, 2008 3:09 AM

Celebrating Women: A Note from Dr. Maya Angelou


"You may write me down in history
With your bitter, twisted lies,
You may trod me in the very dirt
But still, like dust, I'll rise.

This is not the first time you have seen Hillary Clinton seemingly at her wits end, but she

has always risen, always risen, much to the dismay of her adversaries and the delight of her

friends.

Hillary Clinton will not give up on you and all she asks of you is that you do not give up on

her.

There is a world of difference between being a woman and being an old female. If you're born a

girl, grow up, and live long enough, you can become an old female. But, to become a woman is a

serious matter. A woman takes responsibility for the time she takes up and the space she

occupies.

Hillary Clinton is a woman. She has been there and done that and has still risen. She is in

this race for the long haul. She intends to make a difference in our country.

She is the prayer of every woman and man who long for fair play, healthy families, good

schools, and a balanced economy.

She declares she wants to see more smiles in the families, more courtesies between men and

women, more honesty in the marketplace. Hillary Clinton intends to help our country to what it

can become.

She means to rise.

She means to help our country rise. Don't give up on her, ever.

In fact, if you help her to rise, you will rise with her and help her make this country a

wonderful, wonderful place where every man and every woman can live freely without

sanctimonious piety, without crippling fear.

Rise Hillary.

Rise. "
Maya Angelou


Posted by: mjno | March 31, 2008 03:46 PM

Posted by: dsclinton | April 1, 2008 3:04 AM

Celebrating Women: A Note from Dr. Maya Angelou


"You may write me down in history
With your bitter, twisted lies,
You may trod me in the very dirt
But still, like dust, I'll rise.

This is not the first time you have seen Hillary Clinton seemingly at her wits end, but she

has always risen, always risen, much to the dismay of her adversaries and the delight of her

friends.

Hillary Clinton will not give up on you and all she asks of you is that you do not give up on

her.

There is a world of difference between being a woman and being an old female. If you're born a

girl, grow up, and live long enough, you can become an old female. But, to become a woman is a

serious matter. A woman takes responsibility for the time she takes up and the space she

occupies.

Hillary Clinton is a woman. She has been there and done that and has still risen. She is in

this race for the long haul. She intends to make a difference in our country.

She is the prayer of every woman and man who long for fair play, healthy families, good

schools, and a balanced economy.

She declares she wants to see more smiles in the families, more courtesies between men and

women, more honesty in the marketplace. Hillary Clinton intends to help our country to what it

can become.

She means to rise.

She means to help our country rise. Don't give up on her, ever.

In fact, if you help her to rise, you will rise with her and help her make this country a

wonderful, wonderful place where every man and every woman can live freely without

sanctimonious piety, without crippling fear.

Rise Hillary.

Rise. "
Maya Angelou


Posted by: mjno | March 31, 2008 03:46 PM

Posted by: dsclinton | April 1, 2008 2:44 AM

Hillary won the popular vote in Texas. That is what counts in the generals. the superdelegates will decide who the nominee is based on their winnability. SO IT IS OLD NEWS HILLARY WON TEXAS. GET OVER IT ANTI-AMERICAN HUSSEIN OBAMA

Posted by: dsclinton | April 1, 2008 2:39 AM

Hillary won the popular vote in Texas. That is what counts in the generals. the superdelegates will decide who the nominee is based on their winnability. SO IT IS OLD NEWS HILLARY WON TEXAS. GET OVER IT ANTI-AMERICAN HUSSEIN OBAMA

Posted by: dsclinton | April 1, 2008 2:39 AM

Hillary won the popular vote in Texas. That is what counts in the generals. the superdelegates will decide who the nominee is based on their winnability. SO IT IS OLD NEWS HILLARY WON TEXAS. GET OVER IT ANTI-AMERICAN HUSSEIN OBAMA

Posted by: dsclinton | April 1, 2008 2:39 AM

Hillary won the popular vote in Texas. That is what counts in the generals. the superdelegates will decide who the nominee is based on their winnability. SO IT IS OLD NEWS HILLARY WON TEXAS. GET OVER IT ANTI-AMERICAN HUSSEIN OBAMA

Posted by: dsclinton | April 1, 2008 2:39 AM

Hillary won the popular vote in Texas. That is what counts in the generals. the superdelegates will decide who the nominee is based on their winnability. SO IT IS OLD NEWS HILLARY WON TEXAS. GET OVER IT ANTI-AMERICAN HUSSEIN OBAMA

Posted by: dsclinton | April 1, 2008 2:34 AM

Hillary won the popular vote in Texas. That is what counts in the generals. the superdelegates will decide who the nominee is based on their winnability. SO IT IS OLD NEWS HILLARY WON TEXAS. GET OVER IT ANTI-AMERICAN HUSSEIN OBAMA

Posted by: dsclinton | April 1, 2008 2:34 AM

OBAMA HAS NOW WON TEXAS.

And he has won way more states than Hillary. And he has won 165 more elected delegates than Hillary has won. And he has won 700,000 more popular votes than Hillary has won. And he has won more overall delegates than Hillary has won.

AND, HERE'S SOMETHING MOST PEOPLE DON'T KNOW... since Feb. 5th, 2008, Obama has won the endorsements of 64 more superdelegates. In this same time period, Hillary has won the endorsements of only 4 more superdelegates !!!!

Posted by: MarthaP1 | April 1, 2008 2:02 AM

OBAMA HAS NOW WON TEXAS.

And he has won way more states than Hillary. And he has won 165 more elected delegates than Hillary has won. And he has won 700,000 more popular votes than Hillary has won. And he has won more overall delegates than Hillary has won.

AND, HERE'S SOMETHING MOST PEOPLE DON'T KNOW... since Feb. 5th, 2008, Obama has won the endorsements of 64 more superdelegates. In this same time period, Hillary has won the endorsements of only 4 more superdelegates !!!!

Posted by: MarthaP1 | April 1, 2008 2:02 AM

OBAMA HAS NOW WON TEXAS.

And he has won way more states than Hillary. And he has won 165 more elected delegates than Hillary has won. And he has won 700,000 more popular votes than Hillary has won. And he has won more overall delegates than Hillary has won.

AND, HERE'S SOMETHING MOST PEOPLE DON'T KNOW... since Feb. 5th, 2008, Obama has won the endorsements of 64 more superdelegates. In this same time period, Hillary has won the endorsements of only 4 more superdelegates !!!!

Posted by: MarthaP1 | April 1, 2008 2:02 AM

OBAMA HAS NOW WON TEXAS.

And he has won way more states than Hillary. And he has won 165 more elected delegates than Hillary has won. And he has won 700,000 more popular votes than Hillary has won. And he has won more overall delegates than Hillary has won.

AND, HERE'S SOMETHING MOST PEOPLE DON'T KNOW... since Feb. 5th, 2008, Obama has won the endorsements of 64 more superdelegates. In this same time period, Hillary has won the endorsements of only 4 more superdelegates !!!!

Posted by: MarthaP1 | April 1, 2008 2:02 AM

OBAMA HAS NOW WON TEXAS.

And he has won way more states than Hillary. And he has won 165 more elected delegates than Hillary has won. And he has won 700,000 more popular votes than Hillary has won. And he has won more overall delegates than Hillary has won.

AND, HERE'S SOMETHING MOST PEOPLE DON'T KNOW... since Feb. 5th, 2008, Obama has won the endorsements of 64 more superdelegates. In this same time period, Hillary has won the endorsements of only 4 more superdelegates !!!!

Posted by: MarthaP1 | April 1, 2008 2:02 AM

Barack Obama, and NOT Hillary Clinton, has won Texas. Primary and caucus results are mostly finished, and Obama has pulled ahead of Clinton in delegates won in Texas. Just thought I'd share that.

And HERE'S SOME VERY INTESTING NEWS: Since February 5th, 2008, Barack Obama has won the endorsements of 64 superdelegates. In this same time period, Hillary has won the endorsements of only 4 superdelegates.

Slowly but surely, Obama is erasing the lead Hillary has in superdelegates, and now he needs only about 30 more superdelegate endorsements to overtake Hillary. I PREDICT that within a month to 6 weeks, Obama will overtake Hillary in superdelegate endorsements.

MORE STATES WON, MORE POPULAR VOTES WON, MANY MORE ELECTED DELEGATES WON, MORE OVERALL DELEGATES WON.

AND SOON, MORE SUPERDELEGATES WON !!!

OBAMA '08 !!!

Posted by: MarthaP1 | April 1, 2008 2:02 AM

We have a nominee, but the Lying Clintons just haven't finished trashing him yet. They are focused on 2012 because they are not so stupid as to think the super delegates will pick her when Obama will have won the most elected delegates, the popular vote and the most states. When the videos of Hillary's "sniper fire" landing started being played over and over and over, it bacame impossible for the media to continue to ignore all her lies. Not a chance the super delegates would pick her now and continue to watch those videos all fall. Once it's clear a candidate is a pathological liar, there is little hope for winning anything after that.

Posted by: dolph924 | April 1, 2008 1:43 AM

We have a nominee, but the Lying Clintons just haven't finished trashing him yet. They are focused on 2012 because they are not so stupid as to think the super delegates will pick her when Obama will have won the most elected delegates, the popular vote and the most states. When the videos of Hillary's "sniper fire" landing started being played over and over and over, it bacame impossible for the media to continue to ignore all her lies. Not a chance the super delegates would pick her now and continue to watch those videos all fall. Once it's clear a candidate is a pathological liar, there is little hope for winning anything after that.

Posted by: dolph924 | April 1, 2008 1:43 AM

We have a nominee, but the Lying Clintons just haven't finished trashing him yet. They are focused on 2012 because they are not so stupid as to think the super delegates will pick her when Obama will have won the most elected delegates, the popular vote and the most states. When the videos of Hillary's "sniper fire" landing started being played over and over and over, it bacame impossible for the media to continue to ignore all her lies. Not a chance they super delegates would pick her now and continue to watch those videos all fall. Once it's clear a candidate is a pathological liar, there is little hope for winning anything after that.

Posted by: dolph924 | April 1, 2008 1:33 AM

We have a nominee, but the Lying Clintons just haven't finished trashing him yet. They are focused on 2012 because they are not so stupid as to think the super delegates will pick her when Obama will have won the most elected delegates, the popular vote and the most states. When the videos of Hillary's "sniper fire" landing started being played over and over and over, it bacame impossible for the media to continue to ignore all her lies. Not a chance the super delegates would pick her now and continue to watch those videos all fall. Once it's clear a candidate is a pathological liar, there is little hope for winning anything after that.

Posted by: dolph924 | April 1, 2008 1:33 AM

Celebrating Women: A Note from Dr. Maya Angelou


"You may write me down in history
With your bitter, twisted lies,
You may trod me in the very dirt
But still, like dust, I'll rise.

This is not the first time you have seen Hillary Clinton seemingly at her wits end, but she

has always risen, always risen, much to the dismay of her adversaries and the delight of her

friends.

Hillary Clinton will not give up on you and all she asks of you is that you do not give up on

her.

There is a world of difference between being a woman and being an old female. If you're born a

girl, grow up, and live long enough, you can become an old female. But, to become a woman is a

serious matter. A woman takes responsibility for the time she takes up and the space she

occupies.

Hillary Clinton is a woman. She has been there and done that and has still risen. She is in

this race for the long haul. She intends to make a difference in our country.

She is the prayer of every woman and man who long for fair play, healthy families, good

schools, and a balanced economy.

She declares she wants to see more smiles in the families, more courtesies between men and

women, more honesty in the marketplace. Hillary Clinton intends to help our country to what it

can become.

She means to rise.

She means to help our country rise. Don't give up on her, ever.

In fact, if you help her to rise, you will rise with her and help her make this country a

wonderful, wonderful place where every man and every woman can live freely without

sanctimonious piety, without crippling fear.

Rise Hillary.

Rise. "
Maya Angelou


Posted by: mjno | March 31, 2008 03:46 PM

Posted by: dsclinton | April 1, 2008 1:11 AM

to nnia

Your calculations don't take several things into consideration. By the time Clinton gets enough delegates, Obama will have secured the nomination. I've already done the calculations using your math.

First, if Clinton wins 151 votes from the Kentucky, West Virginia, Puerto Rico and Penn primaries then Obama will receive 141 delegates bringing him to 1766 compared to Clinton's 1637.

Then in the other primary if Clinton receives 122 delegates, then Obama will receive 152 putting him at 1918 still ahead of Clintons 1759.

Using Michigan's current proposal, the delegates would be 82 to Clinton and 75 to Obama. Without the super delegates this would put the total at Obama at 1993 (32 short of the the 2025 needed) and Clinton at 1881 (144 short).

The only way that Clinton can win using your calculations is if:
1. The Florida vote is not counted at all.
2. Less than 32 super delegates vote for Obama and the other 334 go to Clinton.

Face it, the only way that Clinton can legally take the nomination is if she can close the pledged delegate lead from 150 to 50. Given the current polls for the states, I don't think that's possible.

Posted by: dsaafir1980 | April 1, 2008 12:47 AM

The media is not so unfair to Hillary. Unfortunately, she has earned much of her bad press by running a flawed campaign, which is now reflected in her increasingly negative poll numbers. Nor is Hillary being bullied, as calls for her exit are based generally on math and politics, not sexism. The reality is that at this point her remaining path to the nomination treads through ground that will almost certainly be more divisive for the party, as it must involve tearing down Obama and/or having superdelegates flip the election to her. In that instance, someone with her negatives would have a very hard time uniting the party , and sadly, she stands an even slimmer chance of uniting the country.

Posted by: MShaughn | April 1, 2008 12:41 AM

svrepeater - once again your desperation shows. You will likely find tinkerbell and santa in her camp. After all, she is down to any illusion she can find.

You should start looking for a good therapist. I can tell you are soon to be in deep denial. Please get help while you can.

Posted by: infuse | April 1, 2008 12:23 AM

September 13, 2004: Private detective Anthony Pellicano was hired by the Democrats in 1992 to squelch "bimbo eruptions" about Bill Clinton, and CBS accepted his assurances that the Gennifer Flowers tapes were fakes.
September 10, 2004: At the time of the Gennifer Flowers scandal, KCBS, the network's owned-and-operated affiliate in Los Angeles, took her tape and submitted it to private detective and forensic tape expert Anthony Pellicano for analysis. Only later was it learned that Mr. Pellicano had no formal training in evaluating tapes and was at the time being paid by Democratic sources to squelch "bimbo eruptions" surrounding Mr. Clinton.
January 4, 2004: Pellicano was the audio recording "expert" hired by Hillary Clinton to analyze taped conversations between then-President Clinton and Gennifer Flowers. Pellicano falsely claimed the tapes were "selectively edited" by Ms. Flowers. Ultimately, of course, the recordings were found to be 100% authentic. Pellicano, who is known as the "investigator to the stars" was in the habit of illegally wiretapping his targets. Many in Hollywood, and in Washington, are concerned about what these tapes might reveal.
November 23, 2003: Mary Matalin, now a senior advisor to President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney stumbled across the Clinton-Pellicano link while she was political director for President Bush's 1992 reelection campaign."I got the letters from Pellicano to [various women linked to Bill Clinton] intimidating them," Matalin said in 1997, when she was the host of her own nationally syndicated talk show on the CBS Radio network. "I had tapes of conversations from Pellicano to the women. I got handwritten letters from the women...I got one letter from one of the women's dad's saying, 'This is so horrible. Here's what they're going to do to us,'" . Matalin wasn't the only one who knew about the Clinton's employment of Pellicano. In fact, before Pellicano's name became politically toxic, his identity had been widely reported. "Shortly after the [Monica Lewinsky] scandal broke, Lucianne Goldberg was in her office in New York when, she says, she got a call from David Kendall, Clinton's lawyer on Whitewater matters," reported Newsweek's Michael Isikoff in 1998. "Kendall, a gentlemanly lawyer, politely asked Goldberg if he could send someone by her New York apartment to pick up her tapes of her conversations with Linda Tripp. "Goldberg was furious. A few days earlier, one of her famous clients had already been approached by Anthony Pellicano, seeking information about the tapes. The detective had said that he was 'working for Clinton.'" New York Sen. Hillary Clinton's Washington attorney David Kendall denied that Anthony Pellicano ever worked for the Clintons.
Anthony Pellicano Web Links
This is where this info came from

This should say it all along with the Peter Paul scandal in California Google both and read.

Posted by: bennie1 | April 1, 2008 12:06 AM

infuse --

Like "Santa Claus" or "tinkerbell", you can say it all you want.

That's not going to make it any more real.

Posted by: svreader | March 31, 2008 11:59 PM

New Gallup poll released today.

Democrats, by a whopping 59% to 30%, believe Barack Obama will be more likely to beat John McSame. TAKE THAT supers!

More math. More Hillary delusions. She can't beat the math. One of her staffers said today that it's only a matter of time whether she walks out the door, or whether people will show her the door.

Barack Obama will be the next president. I like the ring of that: PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA!

Posted by: infuse | March 31, 2008 11:51 PM

svrepeater - Of course their coverage lapsed. It's the law. Aetna reinstated it. But only because there was no added risk. Just imagine if one of her staffers had discovered a malignancy in early January or February. Aetna would never have allowed that staffer back in the policy.

Hillary doesn't care about anyone else. She is cold. Cruel. Heartless.

Posted by: infuse | March 31, 2008 11:41 PM

On this silly talk of the party "turning to Gore" in Denver as the nominee, the only way that could happen is if either Clinton or Obama endorsed him. They will control all the non-super delegates there, and the kind of people who get to be convention delegates will stay loyal to their candidate.

And even if Clinton endorsed Gore, he'd still have to pry lose a lot of Obama supers.

So realistically, the only chance for Gore to become the nominee is if Obama would ask his delegates to vote for Gore. Chances of that?

The Gore talk ignores the reality of who controls the convention: the candidates who control the delegates, not "the party."

Posted by: lappzimm | March 31, 2008 11:34 PM

infuse --

Karl Rove would be proud of you.

Do you really feel a late insurance payment with no lapse in coverage compares with Obama letting his voters freeze in slums?

Posted by: svreader | March 31, 2008 11:32 PM

infuse --

Their coverage never lapsed.

You're really desperate to get your guy elected, aren't you?

Why don't you find out who he really is, first?

Posted by: svreader | March 31, 2008 11:30 PM

She has the wisdom, the experience, and the knowledge to bring peace and smiles to every family. WITH LIES AND ILLUSIONS. And she risked the lives--yes the very lives--of her campaign staff by letting their health insurance lapse. There is no automatic reinstatement of insurance.

Health policies lapse after 30 days of non-payment. It's a good thing one of her staffers did not have a positive mammogram. Aetna would probable have not reinstated the policy if any of her staffers had discovered a serious health risk.

Hillary does not care about anyone but herself. She doesn't have to worry about her insurance. Bill is raking in tens of millions with secret deals in Asia. They're still trying to find a legal way to hide all that money. Or at least hide its sources. That's why the Clintons have not released their tax returns.

Hillary is just heartless to put her staffers at risk. Absolutely cold and cruel. She looks more like a Karl Rove Republican every day!

Posted by: infuse | March 31, 2008 11:21 PM

I have been thinking of what to say to the hateful comments being made by supporters of each of the candidates and the best I can think of is say nothing.

Posted by: lylepink | March 31, 2008 11:20 PM

Barak has served his purpose.

His running has allowed the big money interests in America - who own the media fyi - to make this nomination a race between him and Hillary.

Hillary was never the target of Barak's being run as a nominee.

Edwards was.

Barak's being run as a nominee allowed for the media's blackout of Edwards in the debates, letting them relegate the true candidate for change to the shadows, as an inconsequential "third wheel".

Make no mistake - it was Edwards who represented real change, and it is for precisely this reason he had to be eliminated.

Once again, Barak never had to be electable - he shall lose by a wide, wide margin to McCain - all he had to do was eliminate real change before it could start.

The real battle is already over.

Change has lost.

America has lost.

Posted by: eloquentrave | March 31, 2008 11:02 PM

It is sad to say that both democratic canidates will sling it out until the convention in Denver and severly hurt there chances for election in November. While John McCain is sitting back and watching these two literaly give him the presidency.

That is sad!!!!!

Posted by: hcfd03 | March 31, 2008 10:47 PM

Admiration and respect? For what? Her only significant accomplishment to date was being the First Lady.

Posted by: zcxnissan | March 31, 2008 10:40 PM

I have no right to vote for the nomination, but I do have a wish for her!Mrs. Clinton deserves our admiration and respect!
She has the wisdom, the experience, and the knowledge to bring peace and smiles to every family.

Posted by: sjh_set | March 31, 2008 10:10 PM

YES WE CAN!!

AND NO SHE DID'NT.

THANK GOD

Posted by: mscaife | March 31, 2008 9:59 PM

McCain will more than likely based on current polling and electoral vote projections beat either Obama or Clinton especially if that primary battle continues much longer. By the way to the previous poster, Carter was the worst President we ever had at the worst possible time. Stop drinking the Kool Aid.

Posted by: zcxnissan | March 31, 2008 9:57 PM

Obama Supporters --

Before you send any more of your, or your parent's, hard earned money to Barry Obama --

Please Watch this report on Obama, Obama's slums, Rezko, and $100M of wasted taxpayer money, from NBC news, Chicago's most respected TV news program.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rDHsHM0laT8&feature=related

How do you explain away the fact that Barry Obama never followed up on the 11 slums that his friend Rezko was supposed to repair in Obama's district in Chicago, and continued to do nothing about the 40 slums that Rezko was supposed to repair or replace in Chicago, even after Obama joined the US Senate?

From the Chicago Sun Times:

For more than five weeks during the brutal winter of 1997, tenants shivered without heat in a government-subsidized apartment building on Chicago's South Side.

It was just four years after the landlords -- Antoin "Tony'' Rezko and his partner Daniel Mahru -- had rehabbed the 31-unit building in Englewood with a loan from Chicago taxpayers.

Rezko and Mahru couldn't find money to get the heat back on.

But their company, Rezmar Corp., did come up with $1,000 to give to the political campaign fund of Barack Obama, the newly elected state senator whose district included the unheated building....

The building in Englewood was one of 30 Rezmar rehabbed in a series of troubled deals largely financed by taxpayers. Every project ran into financial difficulty. More than half went into foreclosure, a Chicago Sun-Times investigation has found.

"Their buildings were falling apart,'' said a former city official. "They just didn't pay attention to the condition of these buildings.''

Eleven of Rezko's buildings were in Obama's state Senate district....

Rezko and Mahru had no construction experience when they created Rezmar in 1989 to rehabilitate apartments for the poor under the Daley administration. Between 1989 and 1998, Rezmar made deals to rehab 30 buildings, a total of 1,025 apartments. The last 15 buildings involved Davis Miner Barnhill & Galland during Obama's time with the firm.

Rezko and Mahru also managed the buildings, which were supposed to provide homes for poor people for 30 years. Every one of the projects ran into trouble:

* Seventeen buildings -- many beset with code violations, including a lack of heat -- ended up in foreclosure.

* Six buildings are currently boarded up.

* Hundreds of the apartments are vacant, in need of major repairs.

* Taxpayers have been stuck with millions in unpaid loans.

* At least a dozen times, the city of Chicago sued Rezmar for failure to heat buildings.

Posted by: svreader | March 31, 2008 9:56 PM

CABAL !

What is happening today - insistence of Hillary Clinton to continue the race to the end; is all the result of a plan drawn years back when Bill Clinton was at the end of his second term.

Like Bushes, Clintons was thinking of propagation-of-inheritence theory now being practiced in the largest democracy of the world and also in several republics and comunist countries like N.Korea and Cuba. They had to wait in giving
Son-of-Bush a second term and the Lady to mature with her first Senatorship.

NOW CLINTONS MUST RE-OCCUPY THE WHITE HOUSE FOR THE NEXT EIGHT YEARS!

I prey to God for US, for the World and for Humanity

Posted by: dchatterjee100 | March 31, 2008 9:54 PM

consignjp is a Hillary supporter and yet watchs Bill O'Rielly and knows exactly what he said. Come one, I know a snake when I see one. consignjp is a Republican just trying to help Hillary because he or she knows Obama is the stronger candidate. Naughty Republicans you should know that Obama WILL win the Primary and then the General Election and there is not a thing any of Hillary's or McCain's supporters can do about it.

Posted by: mscaife | March 31, 2008 9:51 PM

Hillary has tried the "kitchen sink" attack, and all that's happened is her poll numbers continue to sink.

She pretends she is the best qualified to get a phone call at three a.m., then blames Bosnia-gate on being sleep deprived.

And today we find the "universal health care" champion put her campaign workers' own insurance policy at risk.

Even with his lousy bowling score, it is clear that Barack Obama remains a far better candidate.

Obama-Webb, 08!

Posted by: Martinedwinandersen | March 31, 2008 9:47 PM

Hey eveybody I can do math.

Obama has 170 more pledged delegates than Hillary.

Obama is now about even in Superdelegates with Hillary.

Obama is way ahead in the populor vote.

Obama is ahead by double digits in North Carolina and Indiana.

A new Gallup Poll that came out today shows Obama with a 10 point lead.

Face it Hillary is dead as dead. Obama has won and will soon be know as President Obama and will be the first President since Carter that American's can be proud of.

Posted by: mscaife | March 31, 2008 9:46 PM

Will be real Obama please stand up?

I find it interesting that some of Obama's current positions directly contradict what he ran for while a politician. Of course, if anyone brings out such discrepancies they will be accused of being a racist. When you look at what Hillary actually said about President Johnson signing the Civil Rights Act:

"Dr. King's dream began to be realized when President Johnson passed the Civil Rights Act," Clinton said. "It took a president to get it done."

The way that the Obama people turned such a factually correct statement into a racial flap, shows that the Obama people will label any critism as racist.

Do we want a president that we can't speak up against without being called a racist?

No Kool-aid for me.

Posted by: dcpsychic | March 31, 2008 9:45 PM

WE The People, generally cannot allow the mistake of another Bush in the White House. Period. =)

(They really just handed the nomination to him the first time around definitely. Somehow people didn't end up fired or giving Gore the nomination he downright won).

Posted by: Obama2008 | March 31, 2008 9:44 PM

If Clinton failed to pay her medical insurance premiums did the staffers lose their insurance? If insurance was not cancelled due to failure to pay premiums, why not? There are millions of Americans who have lost their insurance becuase they could not pay their mopnthly premium. This is one mistake after another. I just don't want thiese kinds of mistakes in the White House.

Posted by: cherlesq | March 31, 2008 9:40 PM

Obama or Hillary '08

In the meantime, GO OBAMA!!!!! =)

Posted by: Obama2008 | March 31, 2008 9:37 PM

My name is Hillary Clinton. I think I'm Jesus. I think Bill Richardson is Judas and has betrayed me. I also can not remember if I got shot at by snipers. I mean, I remember being shot at but nobody else does. When I get asked the first question at a debate I cry and complaign like a little school child. Then I complaign that everyone is mean to me because they point out the obvious (that being that I have lost). After that I complaign the press is mean too because I do not get all the attention like I like and the fact that they for some reason thought the fact that I lie all the time is a big deal.

Posted by: mscaife | March 31, 2008 9:37 PM

Obama supporters will do anything to supress the truth about him.

Its not going to work.

Obama's guaranteed to lose the national electon.

It would be nuts for Democrats to nominate him, regardless of what the current vote totals are.

The more we find out about Obama, the more we find that his "accomplishments" aren't his at all, but that he was given credit for the work done by others to make him look far more impressive than he actually is.

Obama is like a "Potemkin Village"

He looks good on the surface, but there's nothing behind it.

He's spent his entire political career running for office, and strong-arming people into putting his name on bills he never even did any work on.

The WP says so themselves in their recent article.

The NYT says "big image, little results"

All this will come out before the general election.

As will the truth about how his negligence led to people who voted for him freezing in slums in his district that Rezko, and in the rest of Chicago, that Rezko got $100M to repair, but never touched.

He can't win the general election.

But he can cause Democrats to lose it.

Everyone interested in the Presidential election should read the article that there's a link to at the bottom of this message.

Its from a Chicago reporter who's known Obama since the beginning of his career and has followed Obama's career ever since then.

The take-home message is that Obama is a total fraud, a manufactured product of the chicago politicial machine.

It tells about him stealing credit for bills he never worked when he was in Chicago, just like he did in Washington.

It talks about "Obama's Slums" and fact that Barry didn't care one bit about the people who elected him.

Its about the fact that Chicago Barry Obama is the one of the most clever con-men in the world and the biggest fraud that's been put over on the American public since Bush.

Its filled with facts about Obama from someone who has known him for years.

The title's cute. Obama isn't. He's a fraud.

news.houstonpress.com/2008-02-28/news/barack-obama-screamed-at-me/

Posted by: svreader | March 31, 2008 9:30 PM

For the person who quoted Maya Angelou to describe Hillary Clinton, she should know that Maya Angelou is a supporter of Obama. She is not and has never been a supporter of Hillary.

Posted by: mscaife | March 31, 2008 9:29 PM

HILLARYL IS NOT QUITTING UNTIL THE LAST VOTE IS COUNTED


LIVE WITH IT!

Posted by: consignjp | March 31, 2008 9:26 PM

I cannot figure out why Clinton supporters still think she has a chance. The latest Gallup Poll shows Obama 10 points ahead. Polls also show that Obama is ahead in Indiana and North Carolina by double digits. This is on top of the fact that he is leading by over 170 pledged delegates and is well ahead in the populor vote as well. Furthermore, Obama has almost pulled even among the Super-Delagetes. Better yet, he just picked up one more key endorsement from a Senator and Super-Delegate in the Mid-West.

Face it! Hillary has lost. If she had any honor she would admit so, endorse Obama, and start campaigning for him as Mitt Romney has done for John McCain. Instead she has none and has simply decided to play the part of Tonya Harding in this election.

Posted by: mscaife | March 31, 2008 9:24 PM

Bill O'Reilly said tonight that he personally knew of at least 4 journalists from different newspapers who were urged by Obama people to put out headline stories calling for Hillary to quit and they of course were more than happy to oblige. That is just despicable. Here is a candidate that is rinning on a platform of change and then he pulls tricks like this??? Where is the change???? He is a low down lying American hating P-O-L-I-T-I-C-I-A-N. Not someone who is going to "unite" us. That is a big laugh. I would not vote for him no matter what.

Posted by: consignjp | March 31, 2008 9:22 PM

Yes, by all means Hillary should listen to Senator Leahy of Vermont.

Vermont, number one in the nation on the highest taxing states in the USA.

Hillary should listen to Leahy and do the opposite.

How can anyone other than an Obamanut, Obamarobot or member of the Cult of Obama vote for Obama? The man of the "new" politics and "change and hope" attracts the worst supporters. They are more vicious than GOP swift boaters in thie hate attacks on Hillary. Judging him by his supporters who supposely know him best tells me he is not qualified to be president.

Posted by: wj_phillips | March 31, 2008 9:19 PM

Dear Minions, I have again spent away all your money. Please send more money so I can spend it away again and be in debt. I do not believe in saving or fiscal responsibility.

Your Majesty, Queen Hillary

Posted by: BethesdaMD | March 31, 2008 9:14 PM

the delegate count will never be owned purely by any one of these candidates
w/o florida or michigan being counted

and...

if obama's supporters do NOT understand the difference between weighted proportional delegate counts

and national presidential elections in which major swing states like OHIO, PA and
michigan and florida and a very very few others...[none of obama's 'wins states, except maybe missouri which was not a convincing win for him]

...there will be MAJOR PROBLEMS within that dem convention...ok?

whom do you love?

a guy who makes you feel good but gets trounced in the general

like george mcgovern and/or walter mondale

or...

a true winner...

its not "THE GAY MATH GUYS" of the delegate counting bean heads here

its the meat and potatoes of national swing state [can you spell midwest for Karl Rove please]

....elections that determines this big leagues game

so put away you stupid obama "almost wins everything all the time from here on out"

but doesn't...ideas

and come in for the actual true math


ohio ...84 out of 88 counties for Hillary

by 65% or better..in each and EVERY demographic

EXCEPT THE URBAN VOTER...

i.e this trends kills the idea of wisconsin and iowa and upper virginia
which was flooded by republican and urban voters on oprah juice steriods

...the educated and the uneducated of Ohio's largest cities and towns and rural regions

simply did not buy into the oprah boy goes to washington slave narrative...

Posted by: BigTimeOhioan | March 31, 2008 9:07 PM

I am not surprised by media coverage suggesting that Sen. Clinton could pull this out without destroying the party. Why? Because it's in the interest of the old establishment. Sen. Obama is a threat to the way politician haven been running Washington for the last 200 + years. "Big Money"!

Well, now there is some one who seems to challenge this tradition. Consequently, Sen. Clinton has been getting all the support and coverage she can get. She needs to win for "Big Money". And as it has been in the past, who has the power to override even verdicts from the supreme courts (Libby pardon) "Big Money" does. So do you think it will be any different this time around if Sen. Clinton or Sen. Mc Cain would be elected?

Michigan and Florida is a good example how some people are trying to give Sen. Clinton an advantage.

Sop using Sen. Obama's middle name to scare people. Haven't we had enough of this old scare tactic of the Bush government for the last 7 + years?

Let's have dialogue, not just a fight! We are no children anymore. We should be able to solve problems with dialogue not with muscles.

Why do we still talk about the Rev. Wright. I believe in the separation of State and church!

Popular vote? Are all the votes for Sen. Clinton really Democrats vote? Or are some Republicans voting for Sen. Clinton so the battle goes on and Sen. Mc Cain can win in November? Then we really will continue with the same "Big Money" in Washington.

It's not just about Sen. Obama vs. Sen. Clinton! It's about a new era in Washington.

Posted by: peter138 | March 31, 2008 9:03 PM

JakeD posted:

"According to Pennsylvania Republican Committee Spokesman Michael Barley, the GOP will mount a "pretty aggressive voter registration effort right after the primary," to get those who have switched sides back into the Republican fold."

Well, if they only changed affiliation in order to "game" the system, why would an "aggressive voter registration effort" be required to get them to re-register as Republicans? Wouldn't they do so automatically to avoid the continuing "stigma" of being registered Democrats?

Sounds more like the Republican Committee is worried sick that once they switch, they ain't comin' back. Who'da thunk'it? ;-D

Posted by: jk5432 | March 31, 2008 9:01 PM

in a word

only three urban centers of Ohio voted in majority for obama

none of the major rust belt cities and towns voted for him and they have sizable african american voter bases

in youngstown the voter percentages for Hillary was over 68%

in steubenville and related like smaller towns and cities..the totals almost exceeded 70% at times

in region after region, all across Ohio

in nice white affluent educated suburbs of Akron

obama's cross over voter appeal took a dive into the river of no return

if this actual "no white cross over" trend continues past ohio...into pa and indiana

its obama the freshman that ought to leave

and perhaps leahy could write his "exit strategy"

its NOT ABOUT DELEGATE COUNTS GIRLS AND GUYS

...its about who can win the big muscular states in teh fall...

and if you lose Ohio's 84 counties out of 88

its a good time to start thinking

"gee ted, gee john, gee bill .gee senator dodd

i kind of thought i could win something outside of wyoming and idaho and nebraska in the fall

but i guesss there's always vermont....

so much for a national "howard dean" 50 state strategy obama

50 states minus ohio, pa and indiana equals

a major loss in the GE

Posted by: BigTimeOhioan | March 31, 2008 8:53 PM

Brains, not Balz, are required to be an effective president. Hillary has neither.

Posted by: vmunikoti | March 31, 2008 8:53 PM

Clinton did not win every region of Ohio with 65%. She lost the cities pretty handily. She did, however, crush Obama in all the rural counties and suburbs of Ohio. This shouldn't come as a surprise, given that these areas are populated by some of the most willfully ignorant people alive. They are the reason most intelligent people get the hell out of Ohio as soon as they're done with college. Seriously, if Ohio is supposed to typify the US, we're in big trouble.

Posted by: finkmo | March 31, 2008 8:52 PM

Stealing from their own employees... They have no shame whatsoever. And she's waging this furious battle to be crowned "Loser In November".

BTW, In contrast to the Democratic (BOY ! is THAT a misnomer !) Party, the Republicans have a very weird primary system. Their primary system is that whichever candidate gets the most popular votes, wins ! How Neanderthal is that ? !

Posted by: smithtownlady | March 31, 2008 8:49 PM

Dr. Maya Angelou originally supported Hillary but after witnessing Barack's speech on race she now supports him so lets change the refrain to Rise Barack Rise....

She will be at his inaugural and will bring better prose than she used for Bills inaugural

While on the subject Happy 80th Birthday Dr. Angelou. Happy Birthday to a true American Icon.

Posted by: pedraza1 | March 31, 2008 8:47 PM

I have been a republican since I graduated College. I have NEVER voted for a demo-crat... until now.

I will vote for OBAMA.
That is why he will win.

I would NEVER vote for H. Rodham.
I am from NY. I know better.

I can deal with McKain. Obama is my choice.

Posted by: jonesp13 | March 31, 2008 8:46 PM

Why do you think that most of the media is "in the tank" for Obama?
Note: The media is largely controlled and owned by conservative types.
Answer= Republicans would much rather run against Obama than Clinton.
Why? They know beating a man with little experience and racial hate connections would be easier than beating an experienced, moderate, tough, intelligent problem solver with women on her side.

Posted by: astone4 | March 31, 2008 8:45 PM

Hillary is dreaming. Will she realease the tax returns with her hubby bringing home millions in saudi cash? I doubt it and if she doesn't that will throw her in the barrel as well. Barack may lose PA but he won TEXAS as confirmed today and the loss in PA will be slim or none folks. Then:
Ladies and Gentlemen it is without question that Barack Obama will be the Democratic party nominee. He won more votes, more pledged delegates, more states. You cannot simply move the goaI posts any longer just ask Bobby Bowden or Nancy Pelosi. I for one appreciate the tempering Senator Obama has received from Billary's "kitchen sink, Tonya Harding" strategies. Senator Obama will be stronger for having risen above her divisiveness and our candidate will thus be prepared for the Karl Roves and their fear be afraid be very afraid techniques. The Democrats lost the House of Representatives, the Senate and of course the White House. Do we really want more of those results for our country?

John McCain a.k.a. Senator "McWar" cannot create more make believe boogeymen; the American people are now on to that b.s..

I fought in Iraq in the All Americans 82nd Airborne and join the now legions of my comrades opposed to the war which has cost 4000+ of my comrades in arms their lives and maimed another 25,000+. How much does a trillion and counting cost each American family? I ask any citizen who doubts the price of this war to visit the nearest Veterans hospital to them. The one I visit for therapy has a plaque on it that states The price of freedom is clearly evident here. The price for Iraq is way too high for a war which we should not be in. No WMD, No ties to Al Qaeda Etc. Etc. I pray that our country is really prepared to show courage and turn the page away from the dismal George W. cowboy with no guts or sense years and put our great nation on a better path.

Vote Barack Obama America!

Posted by: pedraza1 | March 31, 2008 8:41 PM

Why is it that most of the media in "in the tank" for Obama?
The major media is owned by conservative types.
What does this mean?...........
The conservative types would much rather run against Obama.
Why?
Because they know Hillary, even with her perceived negatives that the media loves to magnify, is a more substantial candidate and will definitely win in November.
Think about it.
The Republicans know they have messed up big and that they deserve to be put out of office for their mismanagement of our government under their watch.
The only chance they have short of a major catastrophe that they can spin to their advantage, is to have an inexperienced man linked to white and America hating as the democratic candidate.
Hillary has substance, intelligence, courage, and women in her corner. Very difficult to defeat.

Posted by: astone4 | March 31, 2008 8:33 PM

on the 'poll shows obama winning in new york and california vs hilary"

.remember...the same usa today poll

showed obama winning the dem primary by 13% points vs hillary...

he lost by that margin ...did he not?

in california?

and he lost big time in OHio to Hillary

84 out of 88 counties

does this MEAN ANYTHING TO ANYONE WHO UNDERSTANDS WHAT OHIO's demographics mean to national elections

just ask Karl Rove and W2 ...if they understand what this means and i will tell you exactly whom do they fear

as the dem nominee..its not obama's moma

....and it ain't no body w/ the middle name that matches some of our worst media driven "hated" arabic names...

...its just bizarre..guys...

when Hillary wins in pa, and wva and kentucky

it will be a lot more clear than what some of these folks who have drunk too much oprah juice ...can fathom right now

you must be in your first ever national prseidential race...

because..if you don't understand

what 84 counties of 88 counties in ohio

w/ EVERY region and EVERY sector of Ohio

going over 65% for Hillary means...

...just ask Ed "i can't find my voice"
Kennedy

and John, "i did not know much about Ohio either" Kerry...

they did not understand ohio either...

go figure...who would have known?

Posted by: BigTimeOhioan | March 31, 2008 8:33 PM

on the 'poll shows obama winning in new york and california vs hilary"

.remember...the same usa today poll

showed obama winning the dem primary by 13% points vs hillary...

he lost by that margin ...did he not?

in california?

and he lost big time in OHio to Hillary

84 out of 88 counties

does this MEAN ANYTHING TO ANYONE WHO UNDERSTANDS WHAT OHIO's demographics mean to national elections

just ask Karl Rove and W2 ...if they understand what this means and i will tell you exactly whom do they fear

as the dem nominee..its not obama's moma

....and it ain't no body w/ the middle name that matches some of our worst media driven "hated" arabic names...

...its just bizarre..guys...

when Hillary wins in pa, and wva and kentucky

it will be a lot more clear than what some of these folks who have drunk too much oprah juice ...can fathom right now

you must be in your first ever national prseidential race...

because..if you don't understand

what 84 counties of 88 counties in ohio

w/ EVERY region and EVERY sector of Ohio

going over 65% for Hillary means...

...just ask Ed "i can't find my voice"
Kennedy

and John, "i did not know much about Ohio either" Kerry...

they did not understand ohio either...

go figure...who would have known?

Posted by: BigTimeOhioan | March 31, 2008 8:33 PM

on the 'poll shows obama winning in new york and california vs hilary"

.remember...the same usa today poll

showed obama winning the dem primary by 13% points vs hillary...

he lost by that margin ...did he not?

in california?

and he lost big time in OHio to Hillary

84 out of 88 counties

does this MEAN ANYTHING TO ANYONE WHO UNDERSTANDS WHAT OHIO's demographics mean to national elections

just ask Karl Rove and W2 ...if they understand what this means and i will tell you exactly whom do they fear

as the dem nominee..its not obama's moma

....and it ain't no body w/ the middle name that matches some of our worst media driven "hated" arabic names...

...its just bizarre..guys...

when Hillary wins in pa, and wva and kentucky

it will be a lot more clear than what some of these folks who have drunk too much oprah juice ...can fathom right now

you must be in your first ever national prseidential race...

because..if you don't understand

what 84 counties of 88 counties in ohio

w/ EVERY region and EVERY sector of Ohio

going over 65% for Hillary means...

...just ask Ed "i can't find my voice"
Kennedy

and John, "i did not know much about Ohio either" Kerry...

they did not understand ohio either...

go figure...who would have known?

Posted by: BigTimeOhioan | March 31, 2008 8:33 PM

on the 'poll shows obama winning in new york and california vs hilary"

.remember...the same usa today poll

showed obama winning the dem primary by 13% points vs hillary...

he lost by that margin ...did he not?

in california?

and he lost big time in OHio to Hillary

84 out of 88 counties

does this MEAN ANYTHING TO ANYONE WHO UNDERSTANDS WHAT OHIO's demographics mean to national elections

just ask Karl Rove and W2 ...if they understand what this means and i will tell you exactly whom do they fear

as the dem nominee..its not obama's moma

....and it ain't no body w/ the middle name that matches some of our worst media driven "hated" arabic names...

...its just bizarre..guys...

when Hillary wins in pa, and wva and kentucky

it will be a lot more clear than what some of these folks who have drunk too much oprah juice ...can fathom right now

you must be in your first ever national prseidential race...

because..if you don't understand

what 84 counties of 88 counties in ohio

w/ EVERY region and EVERY sector of Ohio

going over 65% for Hillary means...

...just ask Ed "i can't find my voice"
Kennedy

and John, "i did not know much about Ohio either" Kerry...

they did not understand ohio either...

go figure...who would have known?

Posted by: BigTimeOhioan | March 31, 2008 8:33 PM

on the 'poll shows obama winning in new york and california vs hilary"

.remember...the same usa today poll

showed obama winning the dem primary by 13% points vs hillary...

he lost by that margin ...did he not?

in california?

and he lost big time in OHio to Hillary

84 out of 88 counties

does this MEAN ANYTHING TO ANYONE WHO UNDERSTANDS WHAT OHIO's demographics mean to national elections

just ask Karl Rove and W2 ...if they understand what this means and i will tell you exactly whom do they fear

as the dem nominee..its not obama's moma

....and it ain't no body w/ the middle name that matches some of our worst media driven "hated" arabic names...

...its just bizarre..guys...

when Hillary wins in pa, and wva and kentucky

it will be a lot more clear than what some of these folks who have drunk too much oprah juice ...can fathom right now

you must be in your first ever national prseidential race...

because..if you don't understand

what 84 counties of 88 counties in ohio

w/ EVERY region and EVERY sector of Ohio

going over 65% for Hillary means...

...just ask Ed "i can't find my voice"
Kennedy

and John, "i did not know much about Ohio either" Kerry...

they did not understand ohio either...

go figure...who would have known?

Posted by: BigTimeOhioan | March 31, 2008 8:33 PM

on the 'poll shows obama winning in new york and california vs hilary"

.remember...the same usa today poll

showed obama winning the dem primary by 13% points vs hillary...

he lost by that margin ...did he not?

in california?

and he lost big time in OHio to Hillary

84 out of 88 counties

does this MEAN ANYTHING TO ANYONE WHO UNDERSTANDS WHAT OHIO's demographics mean to national elections

just ask Karl Rove and W2 ...if they understand what this means and i will tell you exactly whom do they fear

as the dem nominee..its not obama's moma

....and it ain't no body w/ the middle name that matches some of our worst media driven "hated" arabic names...

...its just bizarre..guys...

when Hillary wins in pa, and wva and kentucky

it will be a lot more clear than what some of these folks who have drunk too much oprah juice ...can fathom right now

you must be in your first ever national prseidential race...

because..if you don't understand

what 84 counties of 88 counties in ohio

w/ EVERY region and EVERY sector of Ohio

going over 65% for Hillary means...

...just ask Ed "i can't find my voice"
Kennedy

and John, "i did not know much about Ohio either" Kerry...

they did not understand ohio either...

go figure...who would have known?

Posted by: BigTimeOhioan | March 31, 2008 8:33 PM

on the 'poll shows obama winning in new york and california vs hilary"

.remember...the same usa today poll

showed obama winning the dem primary by 13% points vs hillary...

he lost by that margin ...did he not?

in california?

and he lost big time in OHio to Hillary

84 out of 88 counties

does this MEAN ANYTHING TO ANYONE WHO UNDERSTANDS WHAT OHIO's demographics mean to national elections

just ask Karl Rove and W2 ...if they understand what this means and i will tell you exactly whom do they fear

as the dem nominee..its not obama's moma

....and it ain't no body w/ the middle name that matches some of our worst media driven "hated" arabic names...

...its just bizarre..guys...

when Hillary wins in pa, and wva and kentucky

it will be a lot more clear than what some of these folks who have drunk too much oprah juice ...can fathom right now

you must be in your first ever national prseidential race...

because..if you don't understand

what 84 counties of 88 counties in ohio

w/ EVERY region and EVERY sector of Ohio

going over 65% for Hillary means...

...just ask Ed "i can't find my voice"
Kennedy

and John, "i did not know much about Ohio either" Kerry...

they did not understand ohio either...

go figure...who would have known?

Posted by: BigTimeOhioan | March 31, 2008 8:33 PM

Stealing from their own employees... They have no shame whatsoever. And she's waging this furious battle to be crowned "Loser In November".

BTW, In contrast to the Democratic (BOY ! is THAT a misnomer !) Party, the Republicans have a very weird primary system. Their primary system is that whichever candidate gets the most popular votes, wins ! How Neanderthal is that ? !

Posted by: smithtownlady | March 31, 2008 8:33 PM

Stealing from their own employees... They have no shame whatsoever. And she's waging this furious battle to be crowned "Loser In November".

BTW, In contrast to the Democratic (BOY ! is THAT a misnomer !) Party, the Republicans have a very weird primary system. Their primary system is that whichever candidate gets the most popular votes, wins ! How Neanderthal is that ? !

Posted by: smithtownlady | March 31, 2008 8:33 PM

Stealing from their own employees... They have no shame whatsoever. And she's waging this furious battle to be crowned "Loser In November".

BTW, In contrast to the Democratic (BOY ! is THAT a misnomer !) Party, the Republicans have a very weird primary system. Their primary system is that whichever candidate gets the most popular votes, wins ! How Neanderthal is that ? !

Posted by: smithtownlady | March 31, 2008 8:33 PM

I find it interesting that the pro-Clinton commentators are getting as shrill and abusive as their Hillary, while the pro-Obama crowd keeps calm, cool, and collected. As my grandmother used to say: In any argument, the one who shrieks is wrong.

Posted by: dunnhaupt | March 31, 2008 8:31 PM

If you only count the primaries where Hillary won, you can see quite easily that Hillary is going to win the nomination! All you need is a kindergarten education to realize this logic.

Sincerely,
Kindergartners for Hillary 2008!

Posted by: BethesdaMD | March 31, 2008 8:17 PM

I saw Eddie Rendell being interviewed. He actually resorted to the "32 minute basketball game" analogy used by James Carville. Imagine that your personal argument is so weak that you feel you must resort to borrowing lines from JAMES CARVILLE! (Ann Coulter without hair!)

Where's the barf bag???

Posted by: togaent2001 | March 31, 2008 8:14 PM

I know I will be voting for McCain if Barack H. Obama is nominated. I also know that the media machine is favoring Barack so that McCain can squish him come November.

Posted by: ekjon_us | March 31, 2008 8:14 PM

Clinton finance committee member leaves after unauthorized charges
By Kathy Miller | The Hillary Project
Posted 21 hours, 15 minutes ago email to friend tool nameclose
tool goes here
By: Matt Friedman

Politicker NJ - A member of the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign's finance committee resigned last month after she said the campaign billed her credit card thousands of dollars in unauthorized charges. She is now backing Barack Obama, according to a post she made on Bluejersey.com.

Kathy Callahan, a Psychotherapist from Ridgefield, said that after making an initial donation of $2,000 to the Clinton campaign with her credit card, she was repeatedly charged at least $3,500 more.

"They had my number on file and they kept using it like it was their own. I was blindsided," she said in a telephone interview with PolitickerNJ.

After trying to get her money back, Callahan said that a Clinton official said ""Kathy Callahan, you are going to be with us all the way to the White House...So let's leave the money where it is and we'll save time on inevitable future donations and transactions!"

Reports filed with the Federal Election Commission show Callahan donating $5,500 to the Clinton campaign between March and October of 2007 - that's $900 more than the legal limit of $4,600 for the primary and general elections combined. She received $5,800 back from the campaign -- $1,200 on November 2nd and three separate checks for a total of $4,600 in December.

After a month of trying and failing to get the bulk of her money back, with the exception of the one refund in November, Callahan eventually filed a report with the Ridgefield Police Department - at which point she said she was reimbursed her money by the campaign.

Posted by: tiskono | March 31, 2008 8:13 PM

I bet most of the people squabbling over whether Obama or Hillary should get the nomination are either Republicans mounting a covert campaign to divide the Democratic party, or Democrats who have stupidly joined the fray and don't realize that they are doing the work of Karl Rove.

The most important improvement that the country can achieve in 2008 is the election of a Democratic president -whoever that may be. The alternative is pretty obvious from the results of the last 7+ years - more unnecessary war, recession, corporate cronyism, and reckless spending. The amount of money that this administration has borrowed from foreign countries is greater than all previous administrations combined.

McCain has dropped so many of his principles pandering to the far right, he will soon have as many values as he has constructive policy ideas - roughly zero.

Posted by: ArmyBrat68 | March 31, 2008 8:12 PM

There should be another two dates just as important if not more,that is the revote dates in Michigan and Florida. Obama is trying to steal the nomination by disenfranchize 4 million voters. Howard
Dean and Obama are so afraid of revotes, because they know the people will select the right nominee, that is Hillary, so they do every thing to block the process,first they said there was no money, now they said there is not enough time and not allowed by law. I have a suggestion here, send letters to all those Dem voters who already voted, tell them if there is no revote, than their votes should be counted as they voted in the first ballot. It is not the voters fault that the primary dates were moved up, why they should be punished, besides it was the GOP administraion made the decision,even if Hillary made the agreement to go by the rules, because she has no right to do so, neither does Howard Dean. That is in violation of the US constitution. If DNC still does not allow the revotes, all the disenfranchised voters should vote for McCain instead of Obama, as Obama is not a legitimate nominee under the equal protection act in the constitution without Florida and Michigan.

Posted by: johnycheng1 | March 31, 2008 8:11 PM

Latest polls head-to-head with McCAin show that Obama is actually doing better than Hilary in many of the big blue states lke CA, NJ and NY. See Rasmussen and Survey USA.

Posted by: zbob99 | March 31, 2008 7:57 PM

All the major polls are turning in Obama's favor, several reports indicate the Clinton campaign is running out of money; and the supers are getting anxious. This all points to a quicker end than many think.

Posted by: zbob99 | March 31, 2008 7:54 PM

Let's see - the big populous staes of Connecticut, Wisconsin, Virginia, Missouri as cited by jac13.

Electoral votes Connecticut - 7; Missouri-11; Virginia - 13; Wisonsin-10 won by Obama. Now let's compare with ... California -55; New York - 31; New Jersey -15; Massachusetts -12; Ohio - 20; soon to be PA - 21; Florida ... 27 ... Michigan ... 17 ... I don't know, but when I do the math here, it sure seems like Hillary has won the states with the biggest electoral votes.

Kind of going to be hard to win in November without the states Hillary has won. Idaho-4, Wyoming-3, Montana-3, Iowa-7, So. Carolina-8... hmm, I don't know those states aren't likely to vote blue in November and even if they do ... that's a hard way to get to 270 ...

Posted by: cate58 | March 31, 2008 7:53 PM

The turning point already happened. We are now waiting for Ms Inevitable to withdraw.

Posted by: zbob99 | March 31, 2008 7:52 PM

mo897:

My sentiments exactly.

Posted by: JakeD | March 31, 2008 7:48 PM

Mr. Balz forgot to mention, Barack Obama is now ahead in delegates in Texas. And, Bob Casey's endorsement of Obama holds a lot more weight in Pennsylvania than Fast Eddie Rendell does for Hillary. (The more we see of Rendell all over the tube, the more we understand Clinton "machine" politics.

Posted by: joy2 | March 31, 2008 7:48 PM

However the votes fall in the remaining primaries, it will be a great example of democratic process to have the nomination open at the time of the Democratic convention, so that we can see how ALL the delegates end up voting, as well as how the credentials committee handles Florida and Michigan. If Obama is the right person for President, then he and his supporters should have absolutely no problem with allowing this scenario to happen. And, this scenario is completely allowed and supported by "the rules."

Posted by: mo897 | March 31, 2008 7:47 PM

gorgegirl:

Arguably, the CAUCUS selection method is MORE democratic (i.e. mob rule) than primaries or even the Electoral College. Maybe you are just upset about the non-secret ballot thing instead? Would you be upset about the caucus method if she won them all?

Posted by: JakeD | March 31, 2008 7:39 PM

If it wasn't for my kids and grandkids, I would like to see Obama elected, and let some of you see what he would do. He want be able to do anything constructive. The congress would not go along with anything he wants for the good of the country. I think in two years of his leadership, they would be trying to get him out of office. I have said before that there are several blacks that would be good presidents. Some are J.W. Watts, Condi Rice, Colin Powell and probably others, but not this Arab. He has too much baggage. Four years ago Jesse Jackson won SC in the primary, but look up the records and see how bad Bush won in the general election. This is the way it will be in the southern states.

Posted by: barefootboy | March 31, 2008 7:37 PM

What's the rush Obama? Afterall, we have a total of 50 states and all voters should have an opportunity to voice their choice of a candidate for president and that includes Michigan and Florida. And then, you need to remember that there are no caucuses in the general election-those easy to win, undemocratic meetings you won so easily. How in the heck are you going to be able to deal with that? The bias of the media has been absolutely disappointing to those of us who believe in freedom of the press but believe firmly that the job of the press is to leave their personal feelings out and report the facts. So naturally you will not be prepared for the 527's that will be unleashed in the general election. You are not prepared to be president. You have LIED about legislation you said you passed (Nuclear bill) and you have lied about legislation you said you helped with (Immigration) and you have lied about your relationship with Rezko and the amount he gave to your campaign, and you lied about taking lobbyist money, you campaigned in Florida for 2 weeks prior to the primary there. Your patriotism is a question for me as is that of your wife, Michelle. I can't get her words out of my head "For the first time in my adult life, I am really proud of my country" and I remember that for 20 years you sat in Rev Wright's church and listened to his words of hate for white people and your country and you did NOTHING...like walk out, like talk to the pastor about the influence his speech has on dividing black from white. It isn't that we aren't ready for a president who is black, you just don't have the experience or my trust.
I hope the Super Delegates see that Hillary Clinton is the agent of change and support her candidacy for president. Or else, I'm relegated to stay home or vote McCain.

Posted by: gorgegirl | March 31, 2008 7:35 PM

WHY DO PEOPLE KEEP SUGGESTING NEW RULES AND DATES TO WATCH. WE HAVE A LOT OF PRIMARIES. IF THEY ARE THAT CONCERNED THEY SHOULD TALK TO THE JERKORAMA TEAM AND FORCE THEM TO HAVE REDO PRIMARIES IN MICHIGAN AND FLORIDA. WITHOUT THEM, THE CLAIM OF BEING AHEAD IS A HOAX, A LIE AND FRAUD.

VOTE NO TO JERKORAMA AND HIS BAND OF LIARS.

Posted by: tahirn | March 31, 2008 7:29 PM

Quite a coincidence that these politicians from Arkansas never know when the game is over. First was Huckabee hoping for a miracle, now the Clintons wishing for a disaster for Obama. Somebody please tell me what it is with this state's politicians. It's unforgivable that the Clinton camp wants superdelegates to vote their conscience and then when Gov B. Richardson did, they thought he owed them. Incedible.

Posted by: woodfree1 | March 31, 2008 7:25 PM

storyofthefifthpeach, Yes I knew Obama won some southern states. He did not win TN, AR, TX, FL and a couple of others. But what I was trying to tell you is most of these states are now Republican states. Check their voting records for the last 30 years. I live in Clay County FL and it is a large county. They never have anyone even run on the democratic ticket. If you vote in this county, you vote for a republican. Get your facts straight before you accuse me of not knowing what I'm talking about.
Obama will not be your president.

Posted by: barefootboy | March 31, 2008 7:24 PM

Well, svreader, if you asked Hillary what her MIDDLE name is, I doubt she would say "Rodham" -- I do agree with you that only the Electoral College numbers count -- see you around.

Posted by: JakeD | March 31, 2008 7:18 PM

JakeD --

You used her pre-marriage middle name, and capitalized it for emphasis.

You didn't understand my post.

I said that many women take their original family name as their middle name when they get married.

Her name is Hilllary Rodham Clinton.

As far as Ricks comment goes, it doesn't matter what the current numbers are.

Florida and Michigan need to be counted as do the states that haven't voted yet.

The most important issue, though, is that Obama's completely unelectable in a general election.

The issue of him going to a racist, ant-semitic, anti-white church for 20 years isn't going to go away, and neither is his comment about "typical white people" or the fact that he lied about his connection with Rezko and the fact he let the people who voted him into office freeze.

This isn't a high-school football game.

Barry Obama's not Presidential material and may never be.

He can't win a general election and Democrats can't afford to lose yet again.

Posted by: svreader | March 31, 2008 7:15 PM

I have a strange feeling that Obama is nothing more, nothing less than a romantic soap bubble. Such bubbles usually last for only a few month and then it´s too late. Think twice.

Posted by: royrichard | March 31, 2008 7:14 PM

Bruce:

If you are interested in how the Electoral College (the only vote that counts) is lining up so far:

McCain (324) vs. Obama (205)

http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Obama/Maps/Mar31.html

McCain (278) vs. Clinton (229)

http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Clinton/Maps/Mar31.html

Posted by: JakeD | March 31, 2008 7:13 PM

Please, the Clinton hypocrisy is getting old. How many more times will she say out of one side of her mouth that the voters in FL and MI need to be heard, and immediately turn around and argue that the super delegates should overturn the rules and the voters, and anoint her the nominee. At this point, it's difficult to determine which is more offensive, her ongoing lies about Bosnia, NAFTA, SCHIP, FMLA or the hypocrisy.

Posted by: Foxfire1 | March 31, 2008 7:12 PM

The Democrats are going to lose this election. In the first place because they're obsessed with George Bush. It is simply amazing how deep this obsession goes. The man isn't even running for office but everything for the Democrats is about George Bush.
Sen. Obama has just spent days-or is it weeks trying to convince voters that McCain is secretly George Bush. No one who is actually awake and paying attention can possible buy that baloney. McCain doesn't even LIKE George Bush and for the last eight years has consistenly criticized his policies-particularly about Iraq. Obama bases his statement,that McCain is Bush in disguise, essentially on McCain initially voting against the Bush tax cuts but now McCain supporting them. Well yes, Sen. Obama, but that might just be because the country is currently teetering on the brink of a recession and ending the tax cuts now would be disastrous to the economy.
The second reason why the Democrats will lose is because they will not allow Michigan and Florida to vote. Perhaps the "party elders" feel that their future candidate doesn't need these states in a general election because the residents of both states will surely favor the nominee that they have had an opportunity to vote for-John McCain. The "party elders"-as evidenced by this past weekend's posse of pompous spokesmen, who all appeared to look like Sen. Dodd, have also called upon the first really qualified female candidate for the presidency to stop campaigning against their choice for president-the former member of the Rev. Wright's congregation, Sen. Obama who thinks John McCain is like George Bush.
The final reason why the Democrats will lose this election is because their current two candidates simply don't measure to the giant of a man who they will have to face. This a dangerous time for our democracy and the steely naval commander who spent five years being tortured at the Hanoi Hilton in the service of his country while only giving name, rank and serial number will be a hard man to beat.
Against the straight-talk express, the Democrats plan to field either a candidate whose very appearance on television causes a large proportion of the population to similtaneously clench its teeth; or,if the "party elders" have their way an inspiring public speaker who is inexperienced, shows questionable judgement, and when confronted often appears to be the proverbial deer in the headlights.
The "party elders"-who will soon be appearing with the three stooges-should withhold their superdelegate votes on the first ballot at the Democratic convention. What do they have to lose? A new name might be placed in nomination-perhaps someone who can even win.
If they don't, they might just find themselves under the wheels of the straight-talk express. They can always blame it George Bush.


Posted by: BruceMcDougall | March 31, 2008 7:08 PM

svreader:

I am not "bothered" when women still use their maiden name (as in "Rodham Clinton") when they get married. I don't even mind if they refuse to use their married name at all. But, why do you think that my pointing out the difference between a MIDDLE and MAIDEN name means I am "bothered" or sexist in any way?

infuse:

The "math" whereby she can still secure the nomination was posted (several times) above -- see "Rick Sloan" -- why are you ignoring that?

Posted by: JakeD | March 31, 2008 7:07 PM

Copyright Reverend Irving Wright with twenty years of Amens from Barry Obama

While the storm clouds gather far across the sea,
Let us repudiate a land that's so called free,
Let us all be hateful for a land that's so called fair,
As we raise our voices in a solemn prayer.

God Da-mn America,
Land that I loathe.
Stand astride her, yet despise her
With a chip on a shoulder from above.
From the plantations, up to Harvard
To the Jews rich from our blood
God Da-am America, keepin' us down down down.

Posted by: rahaha | March 31, 2008 7:03 PM

Sorry ... can't post now ... sniper fire ... send marines ...must ... keep ... head ... down.

Posted by: BethesdaMD | March 31, 2008 6:58 PM

Now our reporters are Cultist.

If Obama loses NC he is done. Hillary gets the popular vote and Obama is the "black" candidate. I don't think he is going to lose NC.

The margin in Pa is important - IN is important.

We will see what happens but the media just can't add. Good article in USnews on votes. That is what people care about.

Posted by: mul | March 31, 2008 6:51 PM

infuse --

Nothing is as cold as what Barry did in Chicago.

How can anyone support Barry Obama when he let the poorest of the poor who elected him in Chicago freeze in slums in his district his friend and campaign contributor Rezok got $100M to repair or replace?

Obama knew, but did nothing.

That says everything.

Before you send any more of your, or your parent's, hard earned money to Barry Obama --

Please Watch this report on Obama, Obama's slums, Rezko, and $100M of wasted taxpayer money, from NBC news, Chicago's most respected TV news program.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rDHsHM0laT8&feature=related

How do you explain away the fact that Barry Obama never followed up on the 11 slums that his friend Rezko was supposed to repair in Obama's district in Chicago, and continued to do nothing about the 40 slums that Rezko was supposed to repair or replace in Chicago, even after Obama joined the US Senate?

From the Chicago Sun Times:

For more than five weeks during the brutal winter of 1997, tenants shivered without heat in a government-subsidized apartment building on Chicago's South Side.

It was just four years after the landlords -- Antoin "Tony'' Rezko and his partner Daniel Mahru -- had rehabbed the 31-unit building in Englewood with a loan from Chicago taxpayers.

Rezko and Mahru couldn't find money to get the heat back on.

But their company, Rezmar Corp., did come up with $1,000 to give to the political campaign fund of Barack Obama, the newly elected state senator whose district included the unheated building....

The building in Englewood was one of 30 Rezmar rehabbed in a series of troubled deals largely financed by taxpayers. Every project ran into financial difficulty. More than half went into foreclosure, a Chicago Sun-Times investigation has found.

"Their buildings were falling apart,'' said a former city official. "They just didn't pay attention to the condition of these buildings.''

Eleven of Rezko's buildings were in Obama's state Senate district....

Rezko and Mahru had no construction experience when they created Rezmar in 1989 to rehabilitate apartments for the poor under the Daley administration. Between 1989 and 1998, Rezmar made deals to rehab 30 buildings, a total of 1,025 apartments. The last 15 buildings involved Davis Miner Barnhill & Galland during Obama's time with the firm.

Rezko and Mahru also managed the buildings, which were supposed to provide homes for poor people for 30 years. Every one of the projects ran into trouble:

* Seventeen buildings -- many beset with code violations, including a lack of heat -- ended up in foreclosure.

* Six buildings are currently boarded up.

* Hundreds of the apartments are vacant, in need of major repairs.

* Taxpayers have been stuck with millions in unpaid loans.

* At least a dozen times, the city of Chicago sued Rezmar for failure to heat buildings.

Posted by: svreader | March 31, 2008 6:26 PM

svrepeater - I gave the link. Try to do a little something for yourself.

But I don't know how anyone could be so cruel as to allow health insurance for her staff to lapse. That's just so cold. Heartless.

Posted by: infuse | March 31, 2008 6:15 PM

The only thing Hillary's campaign can hope for is for some unknown event or discovery that makes Obama worse than the devil. Of course that can happen, though it is not at all likely. If there were dirt, the Clintons would have been all over it by now.

The math does not support her contention that she can win. But she can still hold on to the illusion that Obama will somehow self-destruct and still be available in August. All she has to do is SUSPEND her candidacy.

That will allow the party to unite. She will have shown some grace and be recognized as a better person than what she shows now. But don't anyone hold your breath waiting for that to happen. She will take down the party with her stubbornness and inflexibility. That's only arrogant and vain. She has not shown any class.

Posted by: infuse | March 31, 2008 6:12 PM

check out this...

did Hillary truly mis speak about entering bosnia in a war time and high security moment on a fire base in Tuzla?

w/ snipers near her?

i wonder..

check it out and maybe the national media
needs to apologize to the first lady...

and the world needs to know she did NOT just greet a young woman but she actually traveled under the intense security of fighter jets and sniper assignments...http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/3/25/224531/594 Lexis-by Ron Fournier, AP, March 25, 1996 Protected by sharpshooters, Hillary Clinton swooped into a military zone by Black Hawk helicopter Monday to deliver a personal �thank you� to US troops�Mrs. Clinton hosted a USO show with comedian Sinbad and singer Sheryl Crow�highlight of her trip were visits to two fortified posts outside the US base in Tuzla. Even President Clinton, restricted to base by bad weather in Jan., did not see as much of this war-wracked region as Mrs. Clinton�Riflemen rushed to brush line as the helicopter landed and surrounded her as she walked in the post. Located in a �separation zone,� the US outpost nestles between two tree lines�Security was tight-fighter jets accompanied her C-17 cargo plane to Tuzla�


its an ap story found in the archives of Lexis who would have known????

maybe sindbad is the true poor memory guy after all?

Posted by: BigTimeOhioan | March 31, 2008 6:11 PM

Obama WILL NOT win:
Pennsylvania
Florida
Ohio

In fact, McCain is only single digits behind Obama in New York.

McCain by an electoral landslide.

Posted by: dyend | March 31, 2008 6:08 PM

svreader:
Why do I smell rev. Wright in your post? The only difference is Rev. wright was teh US hater and you are teh hater of US future-- i.e., teh young people of the USA. Don't spread such filth--
I forgot the name but remember teh post of few days back. The person wrote you had all teh fun in your youth and left an aids affected generation.
This group of youth are not the same as you have seen in your time. They can think too!!

Posted by: BASAB.DASGUPTA | March 31, 2008 6:07 PM

infuse --

I'm still waiting for that link.

As far as heartless goes, nobody is as cold as Barry.

He let the people who elected him FREEZE.

Posted by: svreader | March 31, 2008 6:03 PM

infuse: you mixed determination with stubbornness. Politics is never about flexibility if it matters to the politicians ambition. I can understand that. The same apply to Obama. Remember he was behind Clinton by 20% sometime not long ago? Did he give up? Things just change, and all you can do is do what you have to do.

BTW, I never like Clinton personally, but I think she is ready to do the job because she works really hard. This is the quality that differs greatly from Bush. For the rest, I really do not expect her to entertain me, but there is alway Bill, right?

Posted by: work2play | March 31, 2008 6:03 PM

It is utterly absurd to push Senator Clinton to quit the race. I am brought up to believe in the spirit of competing to the end, give your best, never give up regardless whether you win or lose in the end.
In this Democratic Party race, it is clear that the surrogates for Senator Obama push for Senator Clinton's premature departure. I hope she keeps on running.
Having said this, both Senators need to make sure that they and their supporters do not injure the other candidate so severely that the ultimate winner has no chance to compete in the general election.
See on this,
http://www.reflectivepundit.com/reflectivepundit/2008/03/clinton-and-oba.html

Posted by: bn1123 | March 31, 2008 6:02 PM

svrepeater - now that you know Hillary doesn't care who has health care, how can you support her? Her plan for health care is just like her landing in Bosnia. She made it up.

She dumped on her campaign staff. You know she will dump on you and more. She is really heartless.

Posted by: infuse | March 31, 2008 6:01 PM

You libs are DOOMED!

Posted by: cschotta1 | March 31, 2008 5:58 PM

Trying To Remain Optimistic

The media is so unfair toward Hillary Clinton. Across the board, everywhere you turn, the deck is stacked against Clinton.

If Clinton was to wish her Mother a happy Mother's day, the press would report it in a negative way: "Clinton was late in wishing her Mother a happy Mother's day;will this hurt her 2008 bid for president." I am not exaggerating. I am tired of watching, haring and seeing it on the TV.

Think about it, does anything happen for Clinton good? It's obvious, the media hates her and the Republicans fear her. The Obama campaign tried to counter Clinton's camp complaints by adopting their complaint. CNN's Anderson Cooper endorsed the Obama claim the media wants to run against Hillary so they are attacking Obama. I did not know he had so many blind supporters. It is so obvious who is being attacked 24/7.

The media will get to Barack Obama soon enough; they must make sure Clinton is out of the picture. For now, I dare WP to write something positive about Clinton.

Joseph

Posted by: joseph_b26 | March 31, 2008 5:57 PM

work2play - you present stubbornness as though it is always a virtue. Most of us got past that idea by watching Bush.

If you believe Hillary is like that, I can't imagine why you would support her. INFLEXIBLE is not what I want to see in a president.

Posted by: infuse | March 31, 2008 5:55 PM

So Hillary lost 50 cents as a supporter. That will probably help her. Sometimes certain people hurt you when they support you. I remember one time a sheriff running for re-election and he asked a certain barber not to support him, that he did more harm than good.

Posted by: barefootboy | March 31, 2008 5:50 PM

Perhaps Gore still harbors a smidgen of hope that the party might eventually turn to him, not to broker a deal, but to become the nominee to unite a party fractured by the Obama-Clinton duel.

It appears some journalists are getting bored with the Obama-Clinton showdown story, and are now spinning another web of intrigue. Al Gore appears to be far too happy and satisfied with his life today and especially not having to be the topic of these banters. I recall the press hammering the "too stiff" Gore during his 2000 campaign and in some cases "mispoke" re his credentials. Unless topic election wants to include 3rd party candidates to bring fresh meat to the feeding frenzy, I think I'll unplug for awhile or go to alternative sources. It's time I see what the economy's up to anyway. Keeping up with this campaign coverage is like being distracted by one tagger while the other runs off with your wallet.

Posted by: FaroutDC | March 31, 2008 5:50 PM

Jake - YES! If imagination is all that counts, then how many Democrats switched?

As for those 87,000 who switched in Pennsylvania, there is not enough information from the story to tell what the original party was. Some were likely to be Greens and others who like Obama. And some of them are likely to be Republicans who like Obama.

But, even if all were Republicans who intend to switch back, that number is only 2% of 4 million. That doesn't come close to changing the 2 to 1 difference in turnout favoring Democrats.

Posted by: infuse | March 31, 2008 5:50 PM

barefootboy---

So your qualification as a political analyst is that you live in Florida?

Wow. Did you by any chance notice that Obama has won every southern state but one?

Posted by: storyofthefifthpeach | March 31, 2008 5:49 PM

Um, a Maya Angelou poem about Black American women and slavery's past is not meant for Hillary Clinton. The last line is I am the hope and the dream of the slave. Please research before adding poetic lines to your posts.

Posted by: memyselfandI1 | March 31, 2008 5:49 PM

actually, the more that I get to see and know Senator Clinton, the less I like her. I was going to hold my nose and voter for her in November a year ago (I still will, if she gets the nomination) but right now she reminds of the person at the PTA that has to control the agenda and be right all the time and just ... won't ... shut up!

Posted by: johndinhouston | March 31, 2008 5:49 PM

The punishment visited on Sen. Hillary Clinton for her flagrant, hysterical, repetitive, pathological lying about her visit to Bosnia should be much heavier than it has yet been and should be exacted for much more than just the lying itself. There are two kinds of deliberate and premeditated deceit, commonly known as suggestio falsi and suppressio veri. (Neither of them is covered by the additionally lying claim of having "misspoken.") The first involves what seems to be most obvious in the present case: the putting forward of a bogus or misleading account of events. But the second, and often the more serious, means that the liar in question has also attempted to bury or to obscure something that actually is true. Let us examine how Sen. Clinton has managed to commit both of these offenses to veracity and decency and how in doing so she has rivaled, if not indeed surpassed, the disbarred and perjured hack who is her husband and tutor.

Read the whole article: http://www.slate.com/id/2187780/

Posted by: storyofthefifthpeach | March 31, 2008 5:46 PM

The talk about Clinton dropping out is wishful thinking. She is, as you expect, a person who never give up. It really does not matter if she win or lose. Her followers just love the Clinton brand name, not the dem party. She can be an independent candidate going into general election, and could still win it. In a three way contest, Obama and McCains have the largest contrast and they can attack each other fairly easily and get bloody soon. Clinton on the other hand, can be affected very little by attacks from either side. Democratic party need reform, and it is a good time now.

Posted by: work2play | March 31, 2008 5:46 PM

the dems have demonstrated a lack of mature judgment in this campaign, ironically, which still places them head and shoulders above the unbelievably foolish judgment of the right.

Posted by: e9999999 | March 31, 2008 5:45 PM

tintin --

The sad thing is that if Obama wins the nomination, Democrats will lose the general election.

By the way, you say your a hard-core Obama supporter.

Once you learn his real record, you won't be anymore.

Posted by: svreader | March 31, 2008 5:44 PM

svreader

turn. your. computer. off. now.

Posted by: jac13 | March 31, 2008 5:43 PM

I am a hard-core Obama-Supporter, and I have every confidence that he is going to win. I am convinced of this and I know that you too will be happy in the end.

Posted by: tintin08 | March 31, 2008 5:39 PM

Posted by: IndependenceEveWonderlandBallroom | March 31, 2008 5:38 PM

I wish I could see the faces of all the hard-core Obama supporters who post here when they find out what kind of guy he really is.

He's going to lose.

The only question is whether its before the nomination or in November.

How many Obama supporters even know that he worked to prevent the Impeachment of Bush?

How many of them know that he "won" his first election by using legal tricks to force everyone else off the ballot?

Posted by: svreader | March 31, 2008 5:38 PM

Hillary has been told that if she plays nicely she can stay in the race until June when the adults in the Dem party will agree with the logic that in a democracy you go with the winner.

Her only hope is to sweep the remaining primaries but since she is out of money, that'll be tough to do.

If she decided to go negative again she'll be pressured out after North Carolina.

Can she go through the motions in a civil fashion in order to save face or will she go extremely negative and rip the Dems in two.

The two questions for Hillary remain the same as they have been for the past month:

1. when (not if) will Hillary drop out?
2. how low will she go in the meantime?

Peace!

Posted by: matt_ahrens | March 31, 2008 5:36 PM

I live in Florida and travel this state all the time. Everyone I talk to says it is either Hillary or McCain for them I never talk to anyone that is voting for Obama, but I'm sure there are a few. No way can Obama carry Florida and McCain has the upper hand. I also feel if Al Gore was the nominee with someone besides Obama he could carry the state. I'm also familiar with the southern states and we all know they will not vote for Obama. Even though he got the vote in the primaries in AL, GA, MS, LA SC they are Republican states. I say democrats need to wake up.

Posted by: barefootboy | March 31, 2008 5:36 PM

Hi Leon,

Thanks for taking the time to answer my post. I wasn't suggesting that Obama's campaign has had no control of the narrative of the race. If that had been the case, he'd surely be dramatically down in the race, just as any candidate would be.

What I was talking about was very specifically managing expectations about his performance in upcoming states. His team has done little to play down expectations before votes happen, while hers has consistently tried to set the bar as low as possible. The result is that, at several points, those expectations have created the impression that Hillary has surprised people when anyone who was following the race could have expected the outcome she got.

I was interested to observe his campaign sending signals that they'll try to manage expectations for vote outcomes ahead of time, and am wondering whether they'll actually follow through with their expectation-setting, or if, like with the promised contrast-drawing this past fall, they'll talk about it without really getting around to doing it.

Posted by: davestickler | March 31, 2008 5:36 PM

"Grace?" "Dignity?" Hillary?

Posted by: jac13 | March 31, 2008 5:35 PM

Hillary has been told that if she plays nicely she can stay in the race until June when the adults in the Dem party will agree with the logic that in a democracy you go with the winner.

Her only hope is to sweep the remaining primaries but since she is out of money, that'll be tough to do.

If she decided to go negative again she'll be pressured out after North Carolina.

Can she go through the motions in a civil fashion in order to save face or will she go extremely negative and rip the Dems in two.

The two questions for Hillary remain the same as they have been for the past month:

1. when (not if) will Hillary drop out?
2. how low will she go in the meantime?

Peace!

Posted by: matt_ahrens | March 31, 2008 5:34 PM

Dan Balz:

You're joking about Clinton possibly winning North Carolina, right ? Have you seen the poll numbers there ? Obama ahead by almost 20 points. Not gonna happen for her

Posted by: vbalfour | March 31, 2008 5:34 PM

infuse --

Can you provide a link to info regarding that?

JakeD --

Lots of women take their original family name as their middle name when they get married.

Why does that bother you so much?

Posted by: svreader | March 31, 2008 5:33 PM

How many Democrats switched to GOP?

Posted by: JakeD | March 31, 2008 5:33 PM

According to the daily Gallup Poll, Sen. Obama leads Sen. Clinton by a statistically significant margin for the fourth straight day this primary season. Also noteworthy in that poll: Sen. McCain leads Clinton by only two points and Obama by only one point, in other words both Obama and Clinton tie McCain in the national contest at this moment.

For me the most interesting number is the way the super delegates have been rolling in a tremendous tidalwave toward Sen. Obama. Since Super Tuesday, he has picked up a whopping 64 super delegates while Clinton has picked up just nine. It is this decisive movement of super delegate support toward Sen. Obama that will decide the ultimate outcome of the contest.

The primary in PA will go for Clinton by a large but not overwhelming amount; if Obama can keep her victory margin there to 10 percent or less that should be counted as a startling "come from behind win" for him. Obama should win handily in NC and Oregon, and will come extremely close in Indiana.

The devastating effect of the Bosnia sniper fire lie was to undermine the efforts of Sen. Clinton and her followers to tell a game-changing positive story about herself or a meaningful negative one about Sen. Obama. She has effectively lost the battle for favorable public opinion through her own misguided actions.

Having thus effectively kneecapped herself, Sen. Clinton is left with spinning out the remaining weeks of the primary season in the hopes of doing little further damage to herself or to the Democratic party. I do think she should stay in the race until the final primary then suspend her campaign with grace and dignity.

Posted by: dee5 | March 31, 2008 5:32 PM

infuse:

In Pennsylvania, however, we do know that Democratic voter registration is up by about 4 percent since last November, in large part, due to nearly 87,000 voters who've switched parties this year. At the same time, Republican registration is down about one percent.

According to Pennsylvania Republican Committee Spokesman Michael Barley, the GOP will mount a "pretty aggressive voter registration effort right after the primary," to get those who have switched sides back into the Republican fold.

http://publicbroadcasting.net/wpsu/news.newsmain?action=article&ARTICLE_ID=1252752§ionID=1

Posted by: JakeD | March 31, 2008 5:31 PM

Jake, being possible is all you've got? So why have you chosen to ignore all those Democrats who switched to Republican just to build their lousy turnout?

Just reporting. You can decide.

Posted by: infuse | March 31, 2008 5:31 PM

"While Obama has won virtually every caucus state (Wyoming, wow nearly 7,000 Democrats participated ...) he has yet to demonstrate that he can win a big, populous diverse state, with the exception of his home state of Illinois." cate58

Ahem. Virginia. Missouri. Connecticut. Wisconsin.

Posted by: jac13 | March 31, 2008 5:31 PM

Howard Dean should resign as chairman of the DNC. The whole DNC should be dismissed and re-election be hold. These people are responsible for the mess today. Dems need to weed the DNC before the convention.

Posted by: work2play | March 31, 2008 5:30 PM

tintin08:

I would never vote for Hillary DIANE Clinton in a million years.

Posted by: JakeD | March 31, 2008 5:29 PM

svrepeater - Hillary REFUSED to pay the health insurance premiums for her campaign staff. If she won't keep them insured, you can bet she won't keep you insured. You should have saved all that money you said you gave to her campaign. You're probably going to need it when you get sick.

Posted by: infuse | March 31, 2008 5:28 PM

JakeD,

There only 10 contests left, and Clinton is not going to win all of them, in fact, not even half of them. You people should stop this nonsensical grudge and fight and try and unite the Dem-Party.

Posted by: tintin08 | March 31, 2008 5:28 PM

infuse:

My point was that North Carolina and Indiana both allow for this kind of mischief -- other than that, I have no idea how many Republicans are switching party registration -- I simply report, you decide.

Posted by: JakeD | March 31, 2008 5:27 PM

HRC's gonna win PA by 10 or so -- not the blowout she needs. BHO will probably win NC by a comparable, or maybe a slightly bigger, margin (PPP out today has him up 18). Can't say who will win IN, but given their respective likely strengths there I don't think either has a big advantage, so whoever wins, it will probably be close.

Am I missing something, or doesn't that leave things pretty much where they are right now?

Posted by: jac13 | March 31, 2008 5:25 PM

Jake - I went to your link to NC voter registration rules. What's your point? You seem to be making an argument that you can offer irrefutable evidence of at least a ballpark number of Republicans who have voted for Obama. WHERE is your evidence?

Posted by: infuse | March 31, 2008 5:24 PM

The glee Obama supporters take when they report rumors of other's misfortunes speaks volumes about the kind of people they are.

They have turned potential allies into hardened enemies.

If Obama gets the nomination, McCain will be the next President.

The long term damage to the Democratic Party itself will be enormous.

Posted by: svreader | March 31, 2008 5:22 PM

While Obama has won virtually every caucus state (Wyoming, wow nearly 7,000 Democrats participated ...) he has yet to demonstrate that he can win a big, populous diverse state, with the exception of his home state of Illinois. Those superdelegates Ted Kennedy and John Kerry, representing Massachusetts, said supers should reflect the will of the people. Massachusetts was a double-digt win for HRC. Will of the people guys ...?

A quick look at the Electoral College map is quite revealing. Yes, great, let's take those 3 votes from Wyoming and put them in the Democratic column, right? Doubtful come November. But if you look at the states won by HRC versus those won by BHO to date, both primaries and caucuses, Clinton has a pretty substantial edge. Add in FL and MI and she would have nearly 230 electoral votes to date.

Of course this is still primary season and we cannot predict that Red States will vote Blue, or very reliable Blue States like CA or NY or NJ will be "in play" in the fall.

But for the Obama supporters, why is it that your candidate can win Idaho, Wyoming, Nebraska, Kansas but has yet to break through in the must-win states?

Look, we Democrats have two superb candidates. Fear that competition is somehow bad or should be curtailed is very strange, especially in a democracy. Strange too is the drum beat from certain quarters that the race should "be over" by now. Let the rest of us voters who have yet to go the polls have our say. It is actually a wondeful thing to cast a meaningful vote!

GO Hillary 08
Go DEMS 08
In the end, whomever we support now we will support in November. The stakes are far too high to let the disgrace and arrogance and ineptitude continue in the guise of another GOP white house.

Posted by: cate58 | March 31, 2008 5:22 PM

Sounds sort of like nonsense. There are no more "make or break" days. Obama IS the nominee. Even Bill said that if Clinton didn't win Texas she would probably not make it. Well, she didn't win Texas. Results are in and Obama got 5 more delegates.

Posted by: storyofthefifthpeach | March 31, 2008 5:21 PM

charko825:

If you are interested in how the Electoral College (the only vote that counts) is lining up so far:

McCain (324) vs. Obama (205)

http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Obama/Maps/Mar31.html

McCain (278) vs. Clinton (229)

http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Clinton/Maps/Mar31.html

Posted by: JakeD | March 31, 2008 5:21 PM

tintin08:

There are still contests left for Americans to vote in.

Posted by: JakeD | March 31, 2008 5:17 PM

McCain beats Obama and Clinton in National polls according to Gallop and Real Clear Politics. McCain dominates among independent voters....America is tiring of the dog and pony show called the democrat party....

Posted by: charko825 | March 31, 2008 5:17 PM

I really don't get the logic of many of these people here... Sen. Obama has WON MORE Primaries than Sen. Clinton! What are you guys talking about? The only difference is that Obama has CRUSHED Clinton on the Caucus states. Get your facts right be4 you open your mouths. Obama's strategy is a national one, Clinton opted out herself... she thought that some of these states were not important and so she saw no need of wasting her "precious" time in them. Get it clearly and loudly:

OBAMA HAS WON MORE PRIMARIES THAN CLINTON! PERIOD. OBAMA HAS CRUSHED CLINTON IN CAUCAS STATES!

In the end, what really matters is that Obama has won this race fairly and squarely - and now let's concentrate our efforts in competing with McCain. You guys are acting as if Obama is the Republican! We supporters of Obama believe in a unified D-Party and we hope that you all can STOP these insults toward our candidate. We need your support in the fall!

Posted by: tintin08 | March 31, 2008 5:15 PM

JackSmith1 - Just because you assert it, doesn't make it so. When you wrote, "As much as 30% of Obama's primary, and caucus votes are Republicans trying to choose the weakest democratic candidate for McCain to run against." you reached deep into the bottom depths of your imagination. There is absolutely no evidence to demonstrate your assertion. NONE!

Give it up dude. It is over. Hillary cannot win. Barack Obama has won the nomination. The remaining math will never add up to her nomination.

And Barack Obama will make McSame look like an also ran. That's over too. You might as well get used to hearing PRESIDENT Barack Obama.

Posted by: infuse | March 31, 2008 5:13 PM

Obamabot Dummiecrats? How many soldiers and people died in Iraq while you were coming up with this ridiculous insult, THINKER?

I could offer a long list of insults for a Bush supporter like yourself but thats not what my politics are about. Just get out of the way and let America heal.

Posted by: windycityward | March 31, 2008 5:09 PM

The 'crucial dates' Dan Baltz highlights are more crucial for Clinton than Obama. It might become more difficult for Obama were he to lose PA, IN, NC, but he could lose all three and still wind up ahead in pledged delegates and popular vote.

PA is a critical win for Clinton-- she can't lose it (and probably won't) and would like to win it big (if she doesn't, it will likely be spun as a loss).

The expectations for NC are that Obama will win, so arguably if he loses, and Clinton wins this would have a *psychological* impact on the dynamics of the race (a la OH and TX) without actually changing the fundamental dynamics of the delegate counts.

IN will be seen (although PR?) as the last true primary battleground, all the remaining primaries being heavily favored for one candidate or the other. Again, the difference here in shifting the delegate count will likely be minimal-- the real impact will be on the spin going into the convention.

Again, the significance of these contests is greater for Clinton than for Obama-- she has to try to win *all* of them, if possible, like getting an inside straight--while he just has to manage expectations.

BTW, Baltz writes: "But Obama has let these opportunities slip away before..." But: Remember that *Clinton* came in as the favorite. She could have put Obama away either in Iowa or Super Tuesday, but did neither. Obama *conceivably* could have pulled insurmountably ahead in NH, and perhaps if he'd won the primary (rather than just the caucuses) in TX.

Both candidates *could* theoretically have clinched the nomination earlier on, but it's useful to remember that Clinton came into the contest with huge name recognition, a husband as President, a substantial bloc of superdelegate support even before Iowa. What Obama has done-- apart from whether or not you support him or not-- is remarkable. Examples of where a relative outsider beats the odds-on favorite of the party establishment for the nomination are few and far between in either party. The odds have been longer for Obama from the beginning-- that he's been able to gain the lead and keep it, is really phenomenal.

Posted by: mj64 | March 31, 2008 5:09 PM

Jacksmith1,


You fail to remember:

1992 The Clintons lie their way into the White House on the platform of Universal Healthcare.

Did we get a healthcare program started.

NO, they lied.

FOOL ME ONCE...

1996 The Clintons lie their way up to the White House for a 2nd term on the platform of Universal Healthcare.

FOOL ME TWICE...


They are trying it again.

Posted by: theman_in_black | March 31, 2008 5:07 PM

infuse and JackSmith1:

I thought that large numbers of Republicans are voting for Hillary DIANE Clinton (see my "Operation Chaos UPDATE" post above)?

Posted by: JakeD | March 31, 2008 5:06 PM

Hmmmm!!! I am just wondering... What if Obama wins PA?

Posted by: tintin08 | March 31, 2008 5:06 PM

nickyle - Hillary's Bosnia tale of grim survival is indeed giving people an up-close-and-personal view of her. Maybe that's why Gallup's daily tracking poll has Barack Obama up by 8 percentage points among Democrats and "leaning" Democrats.

Posted by: infuse | March 31, 2008 5:05 PM

Barak Obama began to win the hearts and minds of most Americans when the Hillary campaign and the mainstream media began to drum the racist beat.

We live in different times and the racist jabs had an opposite desired effect on the voters. People that didn't plan of voting came out in defense of equal rights for a man that appeared to be an upstanding person no matter what was said about the people around him.

Obama stands in a unique position fo integrity.

Posted by: theman_in_black | March 31, 2008 5:03 PM

DON'T BE DUPED !!!

Large numbers of Republicans have been voting for Barack Obama in the DEMOCRATIC primaries, and caucuses from early on. Because they feel he would be a weaker opponent against John McCain. And because they feel that a Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama ticket would be unbeatable. And also because with a Clinton and Obama ticket you are almost 100% certain to get quality, affordable universal health care very soon.

But first, all of you have to make certain that Hillary Clinton takes the democratic nomination and then the Whitehouse. NOW! is the time. THIS! is the moment you have all been working, and waiting for. You can do this America. "Carpe diem" (harvest the day).

I think Hillary Clinton see's a beautiful world of plenty for all. She is a woman, and a mother. And it's time America. Do this for your-selves, and your children's future. You will have to work together on this and be aggressive, relentless, and creative. Americans face an even worse catastrophe ahead than the one you are living through now.

You see, the medical and insurance industry mostly support the republicans with the money they ripped off from you. And they don't want you to have quality, affordable universal health care. They want to be able to continue to rip you off, and kill you and your children by continuing to deny you life saving medical care that you have already paid for. So they can continue to make more immoral profits for them-selves.

Hillary Clinton has actually won by much larger margins than the vote totals showed. And lost by much smaller vote margins than the vote totals showed. Her delegate count is actually much higher than it shows. And higher than Obama's. She also leads in the electoral college numbers that you must win to become President in the November national election. HILLARY CLINTON IS ALREADY THE TRUE DEMOCRATIC NOMINEE!

As much as 30% of Obama's primary, and caucus votes are Republicans trying to choose the weakest democratic candidate for McCain to run against. These Republicans have been gaming the caucuses where it is easier to vote cheat. This is why Obama has not been able to win the BIG! states primaries. Even with Republican vote cheating help.

Hillary Clinton has been out manned, out gunned, and out spent 2 and 3 to 1. Yet Obama has only been able to manage a very tenuous, and questionable tie with Hillary Clinton.

If Obama is the democratic nominee for the national election in November he will be slaughtered. Because the Republican vote cheating help will suddenly evaporate. All of this vote fraud and republican manipulation has made Obama falsely look like a much stronger candidate than he really is. YOUNG PEOPLE. DON'T BE DUPED! Think about it. You have the most to lose.

The democratic party needs to fix this outrage. I suggest a Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama ticket. Everyone needs to throw all your support to Hillary Clinton NOW! So you can end this outrage against YOU the voter, and against democracy.

I think Barack Obama has a once in a life time chance to make the ultimate historic gesture for unity, and change in America by accepting Hillary Clinton's offer as running mate. Such an act now would for ever seal Barack Obama's place at the top of the list of Americas all time great leaders, and unifiers for all of history.

The democratic party, and the super-delegates have a decision to make. Are the democrats, and the democratic party going to choose the DEMOCRATIC party nominee to fight for the American people. Or are the republicans going to choose the DEMOCRATIC party nominee through vote fraud, and gaming the DEMOCRATIC party primaries, and caucuses.

Fortunately the Clinton's have been able to hold on against this fraudulent outrage with those repeated dramatic comebacks of Hillary Clinton's. Only the Clinton's are that resourceful, and strong. Hillary Clinton is your NOMINEE. They are the best I have ever seen.

"This is not a game" (Hillary Clinton)

Sincerely

jacksmith...

Posted by: JackSmith1 | March 31, 2008 5:01 PM

There was a statement (not rumor) BEFORE the Ohio and Texas primaries that 50 superdelegates were ready to endorse Obama and this would happen after those primaries.... Probably was not based in fact but a ruse to affect the voting (and I suspect the same about the rumored North Carolina delegation endorsement) .... So if not a lie then where are those 50 superdelegates? I only see a small dribble.

Obama did horribly in Ohio... and this idea that the difference in Pennsylvania will that voters have more time to get to know him and thus change their minds is wishful thinking.

Actually it is Hillary that people like better after getting to know her and not Obama. .. Obama is missing authenticity when it comes to his attempt to speak the language of the "blue collar" demographics (and bowling poorly while wearing a tie is a good illustration). His language is way too nuanced and generalized, especially in contrast to Hillary. Obama talks the way the academic privileged understand and not to those who are less educated. I have an idea that Obama might even think that those with less education are also of less intelligence... something about how he walks and talks like he is above all.

Posted by: nickyle | March 31, 2008 4:57 PM

I think the financial problem may be another turning point...

"Hillary Clinton's campaign has made little secret that it has been routinely outspent by rival Barack Obama in the extended race for the Democratic presidential nomination and has been forced to curtail checks for some of its vendors and staff.

But stiffing your high school alma mater?

That's apparently the case, according to federal campaign disclosure reports that show that among more than $8.7 million listed as debts, the Clinton campaign owed $3,161 to Maine South High School in Park Ridge for renting the school for an event, as well as for catering.

Clinton, then Hillary Rodham, was a 1965 Maine South graduate."
http://weblogs.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/blog/2008/03/clinton_owes_her_own_high_scho.html

Posted by: IndependenceEveWonderlandBallroom | March 31, 2008 4:56 PM

Jake D,

Your wife says I taste just like falafel.

Alu Akbar baby!

Love HUSSEIN

Posted by: larsenist | March 31, 2008 4:53 PM

Jake, I realize your heart is set on seeing 2004's election map repeat itself. But it's time to move on. Those maps don't mean much at all for this general election. Doun't count on all those Republicans to get off their duffs to vote for McSame.

After the primaries are done, and Barack Obama runs head up with McSame, then we'll take note of events. Until then, it's all media hype and speculation...much like their portrayal of Hillary's chance to win the nomination.

But if you want a preview of what's likely to happen in the general election, examine the turnout of voters so far. Democrats are energized. Republicans are not. The vote totals for Democrats dwarf the vote totals for Republicans by more than two to one.

Posted by: infuse | March 31, 2008 4:53 PM

Why would you even suggest Gore has a chance of becoming the nominee? It's totally improbable. McCain is going to win any way

Posted by: tspna | March 31, 2008 4:53 PM

YOU MIGHT BE AN IDIOT:-)

If you think Barack Obama with little or no experience would be better than Hillary Clinton with 35 years experience.

You Might Be An Idiot!

If you think that Obama with no experience can fix an economy on the verge of collapse better than Hillary Clinton. Whose ;-) husband (Bill Clinton) led the greatest economic expansion, and prosperity in American history.

You Might Be An Idiot!

If you think that Obama with no experience fighting for universal health care can get it for you better than Hillary Clinton. Who anticipated this current health care crisis back in 1993, and fought a pitched battle against overwhelming odds to get universal health care for all the American people.

You Might Be An Idiot!

If you think that Obama with no experience can manage, and get us out of two wars better than Hillary Clinton. Whose ;-) husband (Bill Clinton) went to war only when he was convinced that he absolutely had to. Then completed the mission in record time against a nuclear power. AND DID NOT LOSE THE LIFE OF A SINGLE AMERICAN SOLDIER. NOT ONE!

You Might Be An Idiot!

If you think that Obama with no experience saving the environment is better than Hillary Clinton. Whose ;-) husband (Bill Clinton) left office with the greatest amount of environmental cleanup, and protections in American history.

You Might Be An Idiot!

If you think that Obama with little or no education experience is better than Hillary Clinton. Whose ;-) husband (Bill Clinton) made higher education affordable for every American. And created higher job demand and starting salary's than they had ever been before or since.

You Might Be An Idiot!

If you think that Obama with no experience will be better than Hillary Clinton who spent 8 years at the right hand of President Bill Clinton. Who is already on record as one of the greatest Presidents in American history.

You Might Be An Idiot!

If you think that you can change the way Washington works with pretty speeches from Obama, rather than with the experience, and political expertise of two master politicians ON YOUR SIDE like Hillary and Bill Clinton..

You Might Be An Idiot!

If you think all those Republicans voting for Obama in the Democratic primaries, and caucuses are doing so because they think he is a stronger Democratic candidate than Hillary Clinton. :-)

Best regards

jacksmith...

Caucuses are undemocratic and BOGUS! And Texas proves it.

Posted by: JackSmith1 | March 31, 2008 4:48 PM

I hope and pray the press starts doing their job and digs into Obama's history of talking big and delivering nothing before its too late.

Otherwise, Democrats will lose this electon by a landslide.

The truth will come out before November, no matter what.

The press created this mess in the first place by acting as cheerleaders for him, rather than being hard-nosed skeptics, which is what America needs them to be.

Its a shame that most of the important info about Obama shows up on message boards in links that are posted by readers rather than the front page.

I feel like I'm watching a replay of the 2000 election all over again.

If the press had done their job and found out who the real Bush was, Bush would never have gotten past the early primaries.

The same thing should have happened to Obama.

His public image isn't anything like the man himself.

Just like it was with Bush.


Posted by: svreader | March 31, 2008 4:47 PM

McCain is too old, forgets where he is, and drools.
Enough said.

Posted by: bobnsri | March 31, 2008 4:45 PM

I know svrepeater is going to go ballastic when he/she reads this. After all, it is the ONLY issue he/she cares about. Hillary leaves her own campaign staff out in the cold. The HEALTH INSURANCE premiums for her campaign staff lapsed! And if she would leave her own staff out in the cold, imagine what she will do to people she doesn't even know!

READ THIS:
Among the debts reported this month by Hillary Rodham Clinton's struggling presidential campaign, the $292,000 in unpaid health insurance premiums for her campaign staff stands out.

the unpaid bills to Aetna were at least two months old, according to FEC filings.

They show the campaign ended last year owing Aetna more than $213,000 for "employee benefits."

During the first two months of the year, the campaign did not pay down any of that debt. In fact, it accrued another $16,000 in unpaid bills last month, and it finished the month owing Aetna $229,000.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0308/9274.html

Posted by: infuse | March 31, 2008 4:41 PM

I agree with you svreader. they attack not only Hillary but her suppporters. Inclusive, I don't think so. They don't attack race, but certainly sexual orientation. That's why I won't vote for him.

Posted by: kcbear881 | March 31, 2008 4:40 PM

Anyone actually interested in how the Electoral College is lining up so far:

McCain (324) vs. Obama (205)

http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Obama/Maps/Mar31.html

McCain (278) vs. Clinton (229)

http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Clinton/Maps/Mar31.html

Posted by: JakeD | March 31, 2008 4:37 PM

I hope all of you know that while Obama might be able to buy the nomination, he has irrevocably lost Florida by opposing our elected delegates and stating he'd meet with Raul Castro. That fool will have to run ALL of the remaining large states to win in November, a prospect that seems unlikely. Another interesting question - when searching for truth, its best to follow the money - From where is Obama getting the $$ - he is collecting Republican- sized amounts for a nomination, and it cannot possibly be all coming from Black americans. I'll bet the RNC has a hand in funneling $$ to him, and the November election will be a big wakeup!

From Miami, FL

Posted by: Starman535 | March 31, 2008 4:37 PM

svreader-
I am a Clinton supporter who often disagrees with the intensity of some of your posts- in this case- however,I entirely understand where you are coming from- the "Obamopath" mentality scares me- the rabidness, ridiculous hating ones, not all Obama supporters- and I am not very much older than most of them (36)- I think that a lot of it has to do with experience as well- and not the candidate's experience. Wisdom comes with experience- and I think that many of those who have led a privilidged (sic) life without a great deal of experience in life want Barak because of what they percieve he represents rather than what he will actually do or who he actually is.

Posted by: nycLeon | March 31, 2008 4:37 PM

It's a Republican conspiracy. The Republican have TEFLONED Obama until he gets the nomination. Then watchout!!!

Posted by: kcbear881 | March 31, 2008 4:34 PM

Young people have lots of energy but aren't known to be very deep thinkers.

They are easily influenced and tend to gravitate to whatever is "hip" or "cool" regardless of whether its a good idea or not.

Its crazy for us to let them be the ones who decide who our leaders will be.

We should encourage them to get involved in politics, but we should also encourage them to do their research and find out who the candidate they are supporting really is.

More often than not, young people are used by bad leaders because they are idealistic but do not have the experience to doubt and double check things that are too good to be true.

I haven't been young for a long time, but the years I had have taught me some important lessons, especially where politicians are concerned.

From the Hitler-youth to Mao's Red Guards, more often than not, it is the young who have caused the most damage by falling in love with a leader without bothering to find out what kind of person that leader really is.

Obama's not in that category, but many of the young people who support him are so vicious that they would have fit right in with those earlier groups.

There are many good reasons to vote against Obama.

The way his supporters act towards people who disagree with them is the icing on the cake.

Posted by: svreader | March 31, 2008 4:29 PM

Clinton's case for staying in the contest until the end is simply that a large number of delegates are coming to the convention to vote for her. Democratic leaders should relax and concentrate on finding a solution to the Michigan and Florida problem. If Obama is a clear winner prior to the convention, there is no need to waste energy and create animosity by denying Hillary Clinton's supporters some space at the convention to complete her campaign and unify the party around Obama. If Obama is not the clear winner, the only way to resolve the election is by counting the votes at the convention. In any case, all those who are anxious to push Hillary Clinton out are just creating turmoil and contributing to party disunity.

Posted by: dnjake | March 31, 2008 4:28 PM

Once there are no more popular votes to be counted, any remaining superdelegates will be under intense pressure to move to one side. Some may still balk, however, and remain neutral, and especially if the race comes down to a few dozen delegates (which would require some big wins on Clinton's part over the next couple months), the fight will continue to the convention no matter what any superdelegates say by July 1.

The problems with Dean's July 1 deadline are that a) superdelegates don't have to follow it if they don't want to, and b) they can still switch their votes any time up until the real vote on the convention floor. If Clinton thinks she might just be able to pry away the handful of votes that she needs through last-minute appeals or by promising the right people favors or whatever, she will carry on the fight.

Of course, all of this is contingent on Clinton winning Pennsylvania by a landslide (more than 10 points would be nice), winning the other states that she is expected to win, and then winning strongly in Indiana and maybe also picking up North Carolina. If she can't manage these wins, the delegate margin will be so wide that Clinton could never pry away that many superdelegates to change their minds.

What Clinton really needs is a massive scandal to beset Obama, something to tip the remaining states in Clinton's favor and that will rally superdelegates away from Obama and to her. Rezko hasn't gained traction, and Wright has largely subsided thanks to Clinton's own blunderings on Bosnia, so I'm expecting the Clinton machine to start churning out something new in, oh, about two weeks, giving the scandal just enough time to circulate before the Pennsylvania vote.

Posted by: blert | March 31, 2008 4:27 PM

Despite the support of Maya angeloua -- whom I admire and enjoy reading -- Hillary is a major embarrassment. She lies blatantly about almost everything. Yet women admire her. I just don't get it.

SHAME ON YOU HILLARY CLINTON for lying so deeply and so often.

Posted by: queenskid | March 31, 2008 4:27 PM

Dan Balz is right these are the crucial dates now. As I understand it the party elders are on their way to resolve the thing after the last primary at the latest, which would be beginning of July. I've heard, too that all North Carolinian super delegates plan to endorse Obama befor the primary, but that may be just one of the many rumours. The fact is, numbers are not really looking encouraging for any of both if she/he is the nominee, see numbers from The Economist crunched here:

http://tpzoo.wordpress.com/2008/03/29/go-on-digging/

The sooner this gets resolved the nominee, and I expect it to be Senator Obama, will be able to start campaigning against the real opponent here. John McCain whose blunders go almost unnoticed right now.

Posted by: old_europe | March 31, 2008 4:26 PM

There is no way Obama can win a national election.

His supporters are trying to shut down the primary process because they know that his whole campaign depends on keeping the truth about him from the public.

Obama's supporters are in love with a fantasy, and the national press has failed to do its job to present those facts to the American public.

If they wait too long, they will be handing McCain the keys to the whitehouse by doing so.

When it comes to Obama, the press's "don't ask, don't tell" policy concerning his poor record of performance does nobody any good.

Posted by: svreader | March 31, 2008 4:24 PM

JellyBean,

How clever- when is 4th grade graduation?

Leon

Posted by: nycLeon | March 31, 2008 4:24 PM

Omyobama:

Barack HUSSEIN Obama will not be sworn in on January 20, 2009.

Posted by: JakeD | March 31, 2008 4:23 PM

To thecrisis- Southern style secession? Because we won't vote for your preferred candidate? I think the cult is firmly on the other foot. I would have voted for Biden, Clinton, Edwards, gore-lots of other Democratic nominees. Obama is however unfit and won't get the vote of many Clinton supporters. The reason they are suppporting her in the first place is because they are sane- which rules out their voting for Obama.

Posted by: dyinglikeflies | March 31, 2008 4:21 PM

Rise Hillary Rise,
Like the steam of the cold winter morning in the outhouse.

Posted by: jellybean1 | March 31, 2008 4:20 PM

Jose,
The number to win currently represents one more than 1/2 the delegate vote of all the states and territories and superdelegates except those of Florida and Michigan.

The new criteria would be this total plus 1/2 the total delegates of Florida and Michigan plus one.

Leon

Posted by: nycLeon | March 31, 2008 4:19 PM

rat = idiot.

All of these hilarious calls for Gore to run for president are seriously...well hilarious. We want the guy who lost in 2000 to bring the party together? If Hillary's cult would stop with the Southern-style secession from the Democratic Party, unity would not be a problem. But I have a feeling even if Gore were to run for the ticket, which will never happen in your wildest dreams, Hillary's supporters still wouldn't abandon her. They have already gone off the deep end and are in no place to come back from the dead. Write them off as casualties of war and lets elect Obama with the original bipartisan coalition that has supported him from the beginning.

Posted by: thecrisis | March 31, 2008 4:15 PM

Well, Hillary has the poets on her side, or at least the dependably sentimental Maya Angelou. You call it dust, I call it mud, but it takes more than a clutter of cliches to make someone President.

No, wait a minute, I was forgetting about our current lame limerick of a first executive.

Posted by: irishjazz | March 31, 2008 4:15 PM

Maybe I'm missing something but . . . I believe that the magic 2024 delegates needed to reach a majority includes the number of delegates allocated to both Michigan and Florida. If these delegates, by DNC party rules are not to be seated and counted at the convention, then why are they still included in the number of delegates needed to reach a majority? Remove them from the magic 2024 number. This should allow one of the candidates to actually achieve a majority number of delegates needed for the nomination.

Posted by: josakeif | March 31, 2008 4:15 PM

Oh, Jake and rat and all you Republicans trolling for mayhem ... how sad you'll be as Sen. Obama is sworn in next January. And stop encouraging voter fraud -- or don't you think Mrs. Clinton can win based on "real" votes of support? Let the race proceed, let her supporters be heard, but stop trying to put your right-wing thumbs on the scale. Any Democrat, true Democrat, should stop rising to the bait of insulting each others' candidates as it simply falls into the claws of Rush Limbaugh and his antideluvian supporters like the gang on this blog-- let's keep our powder dry for the general election, lol. Stay strong -- stay civil -- stay Democratic.

Posted by: Omyobama | March 31, 2008 4:14 PM

A mathematical possibility?

Rick Sloan, Communications Director for the International Machinists and
Aerospace Workers Union, today emailed this scenario to the media:

1247 Delegates: Hold on to the 1247 pledged delegates HRC has amassed since
January 3rd

1497: Maintain the support of the 250 super delegates who have endorsed her
candidacy already

1648: Add 151 pledged delegates to her total with ten point wins in
Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Kentucky and Puerto Rico

1860: Add another 122 pledged delegates by winning or placing a close second in
Guam, Indiana, North Carolina, Oregon, Montana and South Dakota

2046: Seat the Florida and Michigan delegations adding 186 pledged delegates to
her total

2095: By seating the Florida and Michigan delegations, she gains 49 uncommitted
delegates or super delegates

2215: Secure the votes of 120 of the 330 remaining super delegates to surpass
the 2208 delegates to be nominated

-- Rick Sloan, International Machinists and Aerospace Workers Union [Note: If
Florida and Michigan delegates are counted -- as Sloan does in the above
scenario -- the winning number grows to 2,208]

I say we are going to WIN!

If you do not believe me, take a good look at what the Obama people are trying to block from public view:

http://www.obamaunveiled.com

Posted by: nnia | March 31, 2008 4:14 PM

JacksonLanders:

Did you see Rick Sloan's math?

Posted by: JakeD | March 31, 2008 4:13 PM

Democrats NEED Clinton to stay in the race. OBAMA IS UNELECTABLE IN GENERAL ELECTION. Obamas campaign pastor is not going away anytime soon Rev Wright says you don't have to wait for the afterlife for the mansion on the hilltop, hes right! to shut him up Trinity United Church of Christ is building Rev. Wright a $1 mil house on a lot that was purchased for $345,000. According to his federal income tax return Obama gave the Trinity United church $22,500 in contributions. CBS Chicago has strangely not released video they have of Obama at Trinity United Church of Christ Service with Pastor Wright. According to a Chicago Tribune article, at the Service Obama spoke to the cheering congregation and the choir sang, "Hallelujah Barack". After the service Wright and Obama sat together, laughing , talking and signing books. if ANY other candidate had this controversy swirling the footage would have found it's way to the national and cable news networks by now! Obama who marched with Farrakhan"Obama AND OPRAHS Pastor Slurs Italians in Latest Magazine (CNSNews.com) Wright continues his Obama supported attacks on non-blacks now slurring Italians in issue of Trumpet Newsmag. Wright states, Jesus enemies had their opinion, Italians looked down their garlic noses at the Galileans, and Jesus death on a cross was a public lynching Italian style! This government runs everything from the White House to the schoolhouse, from the Capitol to the KKKlan of white supremacy who is clearly in charge. Every issue published Wright's rant against white people in which he covers a world that is controlled by white supremacy, a country that's on its way to hell in a hand basket because of lying politicians, in a culture that still thinks 'white is right! He said young African-American Christians are more concerned about 'bling bling' than about freeing their minds and still Obama says I could no more disown him than I could disown the black community. Trumpet Newsmagazine started 80s, Wright is CEO and Wright's daughter, Jeri Wright, is the publisher. Requests for comments Obama camp of course not answered. Trumpet Nov/Dec edition, featured Louis Farrakhan, recipient of the Lifetime Achievement "Dr. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. Trumpeter" award. Farrakhan has called Judaism a "gutter religion" and said Jews are "bloodsuckers. Many of the biased cable news pundits try to make viewers believe Obama's speech limited damage of Wright controversy, but the general election will show voters strongly disagree, especially non-black voters. Obama refuses to explain to the public why he would have someone as such a close spiritual advisor and mentor and why he would expose two young daughters to such hatefulness against fellow Americans. The problem Wright's comments are not theological views, but political statements. This is a serious issue for Obama in general election. As with each new utterance on the topic of Reverend Wright, Barack Obama confirms his own moral obliviousness and he seems to have disdain for those who are troubled by his own unwillingness to break with Wright, even worse Obama still insists Wright is a brilliant man, So brilliant, apparently, that he has uncovered the plot by white America to kill African Americans, so insightful to perceive the 9/11 attacks caused by American terrorism and his discerning observation Israel is a "dirty" word, and still in Obama's eyes, Wright is brilliant. This, we are told by biased cable news pundits like CNN Obamaphiles, is not supposed to affect voters' view of Obama's judgment. Perhaps voters are embarrassed to tell pollsters they are privately offended. General election Republicans as well as independents and democrats are irked by this moral obtuseness even though media like CNN or Hardball cover it up with bogus Clinton attacks.

Posted by: rozz62 | March 31, 2008 4:12 PM

dyinglikeflies:

I believe he wants his supporters to stop talking about it -- as you pointed out, the backlash was getting to large -- he definitely wants her to drop out though ; )

Posted by: JakeD | March 31, 2008 4:11 PM

This column is a joke. I understand that it's in Dan's best interest as a reporter to act like there is a horse race going on. But this is utter drivel.

Dan, you say that Obama 'cannot afford a loss in PA like Ohio.' Um, why? If he loses PA by a 10 point margin, he's still well ahead of Clinton in both delegates and popular vote. He could lose both PA and Indiana by 10 or 15 points each and it STILL wouldn't matter.

Do the math. The math is all that matters now, short of a major scandal involving something on the order of the mummified body of a homeless drifter found in a crate in Obama's basement.

No matter what, unless Obama loses every single vote between now and the convention with Clinton taking 65% in each one, he still walks into the convention way ahead.

The way that you, the media, spin a given set of primary results is now irrelevant. It meant quite a lot early on when there were scads of states outstanding and anything could happen. But not anymore. The vast majority of the states have already voted. The only way that Barack Obama is not the nominee is if he's caught with the proverbial live boy or dead girl.

It's as if one team just won the first 4 games of the World Series and a sportscaster is breathlessly talking about how much is hanging on game 5. Who cares? The series is over. Ain't enough games left for the other team to win.

Your bit about Al Gore at the end is the icing of BS on the cake. Talking about him hoping to be the nominee. Give us a break. Now you're just literally making things up out of thin air. It is an embarrassment to the Washington Post.



Posted by: JacksonLanders | March 31, 2008 4:10 PM

A mathematical possibility?

Rick Sloan, Communications Director for the International Machinists and
Aerospace Workers Union, today emailed this scenario to the media:

1247 Delegates: Hold on to the 1247 pledged delegates HRC has amassed since
January 3rd

1497: Maintain the support of the 250 super delegates who have endorsed her
candidacy already

1648: Add 151 pledged delegates to her total with ten point wins in
Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Kentucky and Puerto Rico

1860: Add another 122 pledged delegates by winning or placing a close second in
Guam, Indiana, North Carolina, Oregon, Montana and South Dakota

2046: Seat the Florida and Michigan delegations adding 186 pledged delegates to
her total

2095: By seating the Florida and Michigan delegations, she gains 49 uncommitted
delegates or super delegates

2215: Secure the votes of 120 of the 330 remaining super delegates to surpass
the 2208 delegates to be nominated

-- Rick Sloan, International Machinists and Aerospace Workers Union [Note: If
Florida and Michigan delegates are counted -- as Sloan does in the above
scenario -- the winning number grows to 2,208]

I say we are going to WIN!

If you do not believe me, take a good look at what the Obama people are trying to block from public view:

http://www.obamaunveiled.com

Posted by: nnia | March 31, 2008 4:08 PM

JakeD- And you believe him? He said that because it wasn't working and it making him look like he was having a tantrum trying to force this to be over. He was, as the expression goes, "giving away ice in the winter".

Posted by: dyinglikeflies | March 31, 2008 4:08 PM

Denver?

Try turning North on 25, West on 76, and East on 70.

BTW, all go through Denver, so reverse directions if you are NOT heading Towards the Middle of the Country!

For you Dimocrats-that means if you are on I-25 and in Northern Colorado going North-TURN AROUND!

You are missing the Boat! ;~)

Posted by: rat-the | March 31, 2008 4:05 PM

Celebrating Women: A Note from Dr. Maya Angelou

You may write me down in history
With your bitter, twisted lies,
You may trod me in the very dirt
But still, like dust, I'll rise.

This is not the first time you have seen Hillary Clinton seemingly at her wits end, but she has always risen, always risen, much to the dismay of her adversaries and the delight of her friends.

Hillary Clinton will not give up on you and all she asks of you is that you do not give up on her.

There is a world of difference between being a woman and being an old female. If you're born a girl, grow up, and live long enough, you can become an old female.

But, to become a woman is a serious matter. A woman takes responsibility for the time she takes up and the space she occupies.

Hillary Clinton is a woman. She has been there and done that and has still risen. She is in this race for the long haul. She intends to make a difference in our country.

She is the prayer of every woman and man who long for fair play, healthy families, good schools, and a balanced economy.

She declares she wants to see more smiles in the families, more courtesies between men and women, more honesty in the marketplace. Hillary Clinton intends to help our country to what it can become.

She means to rise.

She means to help our country rise. Don't give up on her, ever.

In fact, if you help her to rise, you will rise with her and help her make this country a wonderful, wonderful place where every man and every woman can live freely without sanctimonious piety, without crippling fear.

Rise Hillary.

Rise.


Posted by: nnia | March 31, 2008 4:05 PM

dyinglikeflies:

Perhaps you missed Sen. Obama taking his supporters to task for all this talk about Sen. Clinton should drop out?

Posted by: JakeD | March 31, 2008 4:05 PM

NMModerate1:

Exactly ; )

Posted by: JakeD | March 31, 2008 4:03 PM

I have commented heretofore regarding the inspired "Catholic Catechism" of motivation of feelings of extreme maudlin and einfuhlung in Senators Casey's endorsement of senator Obama; that is not his to give away, in that he demonstrates no ownership of the American female struggle for freedom for female body independence ! Is Hillary required to abandon her historic female rights presidential campaign to assuage the feelings of a few?

Moreover, senator Kerry's insulting audacity that his advice to Hillary to withdraw is viewed by Hillary supporters as emanating from a miserably failed presidential candidate and is is a bit presumptuous on his part that smacks of perpetuating a male patriarchy American political hegemony that demonstrates typical male puissant aggression!
There is a world of difference in the political philosophies of extreme liberal Kennedy American democrats and moderate Clinton democrats!

There has always been a rivalry hidden and submerged beneath the public Senate surface! The Kennedyites are the neophilllia self appointed American aristocrats who unquestioningly are latté drinking self proclaimed superior Homo sapiens! These folks exemplify superior education and opportunity offered them since birth and after experiencing the opportunity of being born on third base, politically scamper home occasionally upon our American political stage!Bur invariably inveigle and wheedle a way to arrange an array of econumums to be bestowed upon their egos of greatness!
While the Clintonites are boring American proletariats of typically hard working Americans that mind their own business pay their bills and utilize their natural tribal abilities in choosing a political candidate with the exercise of natural ratiocinations![that is who is the most experienced and qualified? They decide which candidates are disadvantaged by and through the actions of the American press and its corporate controllers!

The last advice needed by democrats this year is strategy and advice from candidates that have failed; including but not limited too Joe Lieberman who is pursuing the folly that American declare war upon Iran in order to preserve and protect Israel! Old Joe better decide if he is an American or a citizen of Israel?

In addition Hillary supporters now fully and completely comprehend the reason that Dick Chaney flipped the "bird" at pat Lahey on the floor of the Senate!"He is an intrusive bumptious bastard" says Dick! Hillary surrogates offer a rejoinder with the added feature "insensitive also"! "He has done nothing or offered anything sensible since he has been here"! He could be replaced by a Republican without political cost to the party!
senescent narcissistic male senators such as Lahey are horribly insensitive an dismissive of female political rights and endeavor to substitute their own personal dreams of ultimate body freedom for females with their own oneiric dream of a black president! [and the doors of heaven will open with choirs of angels singing and all will be right with the world and we will live happyly ever after! but most importantly the Kennedyites will be forgiven]
The antiquated senescent Chris Dodd of Connecticut is nothing and offers nothing to the neophilia America of the 21st century! [hey Obama surrogates I thought change was your byword-Chris is embarrassingly passage?]
Moreover states containing white majorities have a right to chose their candidate and are entitled to as much courtesy and consideration from the American Press as those states containing black majorities with the same kind of news coverage! This is about to occur and the Obama supporters are afraid of the results! Hillary will be the democratic party nominee not because of american racial prejudice but rather because she is more qualified and experienced and will make a better President! The audacity of these white males is insufferable!

Hillary and her surrogates should sacrifice their goal of electing a female Homo sapiens to the American presidency because of an overwhelming feeling of guilt being experienced by leading male catholic politicians-who deny the existence of a hegemony of a dominating male political zeitgeist that has existed since the Mayflower!

LETS SEE HOW THE REMAINDER OF AMERICANS FEEL! PENNSYLVANIA, INDIANA,OREGON, WEST VIRGINA, NORTH CAROLINA PUERTO RICA ! then WE WILL KNOW!

Posted by: hlmencken | March 31, 2008 4:02 PM

I'm glad to see Obama returning to the retail politicking that served him so well in Iowa. He makes one hell of a stump speech, but he's even more effective one-on-one. He's showing the kind of grit we need, and is hitting the issues hard, particularly with his recent speeches on the mortgage crisis, the economy and foreign policy.

Hillary isn't the only fighter in the ring.

Posted by: rippermccord | March 31, 2008 4:01 PM

ChrisDC:

I assume you saw this Rove article -- what's wrong with the old, play-by-the-rules approach of letting the Convention decide -- Hillary DIANE Clinton has plenty of opportunites left to secure the nomination:

http://www.newsweek.com/id/129586

Posted by: JakeD | March 31, 2008 4:01 PM

The only way a Gore/Obama tickeet wold fly is if Gore committed to only serving one term. I would think that would be good for Gore - so 4 years from now he can continue with his Global warming crusade; and it might appease Obama supporters that their man would only have to wait four more years for the presidency. I am really doubtfule that this would work. The problem with the dems is that half of their elecorate will feel cheated if Clinton or Obama wins. If they turn to Gore, 100% of the dem eloctorate will feel cheated.

Posted by: NMModerate1 | March 31, 2008 4:00 PM

OK, instead of arguing let's keep it simple-
If Clinton wins Pa. by less than 10% she should drop out;
If Clinton wins Pa. by more than 10%, it goes to 5/6, the next primary date. If the candidates split those states, it goes to the end. If either wins both, the other should drop.
If it goes to the convention because they split Ind. and NC, and nobody went over the top on pledged delegates, the superdelegates should still NOT be bullied by Howard Dean. There would be no fair direction to bully them into. Let the delegates vote at the convention. If they deadlock, I wouldn't mind Gore coming in at all. At least he won the Presidential election once.

Posted by: dyinglikeflies | March 31, 2008 4:00 PM

I continue to be surprised by media coverage suggesting that Hillary can pull this out without destroying the party. The state-by-state counting is over. Barring a sea change in support, Hillary cannot win without the superdelegates upending the popular vote. The only path to victory she has left is how to make that outcome appear legitimate. After 8 years of grumbling that Bush "stole" the election from Gore when he lost the popular vote, any scenario where Clinton wins will instantly invite well-founded accusations of political hypocrisy and do long-term damage to the party's credibility.

Posted by: ewm26 | March 31, 2008 3:58 PM


Gore doesn't need Obama to win. And he would never run as VP to this do nothing.

What a total riot. Obama is no one from nowhere. You people have "bought" this David Axelrod product hook, line and sinker. They are laughing all way to the back of the plane.

Obamabot Dummiecrats.

Posted by: Thinker | March 31, 2008 3:58 PM

Davestickler,

I respectfully disagree with you about the expectations. The Obama campaign has suavely manipulated the media, mostly throuh advocates allowing Barak to look "above the fray". For example- there is often a discussion that Barak has won twice as many states- which is nice, except that the populations of 10 of those states (Alaska, Idaho, Wyoming, Nebraska, North Dakota, Utah, Kansas, MaineDelaware, and Alabama) when totalled are still smaller than New Yorks population. Addtionally the first 8 of those along with Iowa, Minnesota, Colorado and Washington are caucuses, where only a small amount of people vote and these disproportionately represent the professional/educated class due to the pragmatic difficulties of spending the time, money and effort to vote in this manner. Michigan and Florida are represented to the media as states that are paying for breaking the rules rather than the people/voters of two swing states with large constituencies being disaffected by political choices of their leaders. The frequent efforts to get her to drop out due to mathematical unlikeliness of her surpassing Obama has been used to knock her off message by his advocates, as were earlier charges of racism by the likes of Donna Brasille (when he needed to win SC by a big margin).

I think you would are in the minority of opinion in thinking that she has dominated any type of public relations in this campaign. The Obama campaign is brilliant politically, playing on her weaknesses by promoting the idea of an emotional lady McBethian figure who whines when things don't go her way (also may be viewed as sexist by many) while somehow allowing him to come across as non political when he started running for president almost immediately after leaving the state senate.

I am not trying to insult him here- so please keep the arguments to politics and policy- they both have a lot of real positives.

Leon

Posted by: nycLeon | March 31, 2008 3:58 PM

Rise Hillary, and pay your bills.
Rise Hillary, and account for the health care your campaign staffers are working without.
Rise Hillary, and ...
Oh foot. Enough of poetics This isn't a domestic dispute, or the Color Purple (a wonderful book). This is an election. Let her run. Let her decide when to quit the trail. Money (or lack thereof) and voters have a pretty good means of sorting out these issues.

Posted by: Meepo | March 31, 2008 3:58 PM

And, in other news to report today, the Earth is round and the sky is blue.

Posted by: azimmerm | March 31, 2008 3:57 PM

Obama needs to be a VP, he'd be slaughtered by McCain for being green, his racial hatred, his lack of patriotism, his
cult like personality

Posted by: newagent99 | March 31, 2008 3:57 PM

julesmillogo:

"Operation Chaos" UPDATE -- North Carolina's primary is closed to Republicans, but unaffiliated voters, which currently account for 12% of the Democratic electorate in the State, can cast ballots for either party. And, the "deadline" to register as unaffiliated for the Democratic primary is not until April 25, 2008 (there even seems to be a procedure for One-Stop Registration / Absentee Balloting after that as well -- Republicans and Independents can always switch back the day after they vote -- plenty of room for mischief):

http://www.sboe.state.nc.us/NCSBE/VR/VR%20Forms/form06.pdf

Here's a link for Indiana as well:

http://www.in.gov/sos/elections/pdfs/50504.pdf

Posted by: JakeD | March 31, 2008 3:57 PM

Way too optimistic a view here. Clinton is dead serious when she says that she's in it through Denver. A Gore-like figure to broker something is needed by July.

http://www.political-buzz.com/

Posted by: parkerfl | March 31, 2008 3:57 PM

Another way of saying all this is that Hillary has to win everything through May 6 by huge margins, or that's it. And even if she pulled off that feat (improbable), the margins in 3 of her 4 victories may not change the delegate count much, so we'd be right back where we started.

To make her case, she'd have to have a run of delegate accumulation like Obama had in February. That's not possible. So, why would a little May momentum (Clinton) trump a huge February momentum (Obama)? It doesn't/wouldn't.

So, in the end, the DNC will come up with a novel, innovative approach:

Let's give the nomination to the person with the most delegates.

i.e., Obama.

Wow. Rocket science.

Posted by: ChrisDC | March 31, 2008 3:56 PM

Look, the future holds no turning points for either candidate. Those turning points were back in NH and that was very favorable to Obama. The great comeback for Clinton in NH is a myth, she should have won decisively as she did in AR. Pfui! Clinton has way too many negatives. And, if she pulls it out by sleight of hand, she will never win in November. Clinton has an upper limit on how much she can win by, Obama has shown he does not.

Posted by: MikeQ2 | March 31, 2008 3:55 PM


What a riot. Dodd is on talking about Paulson and the economy.

The "Obama Boys" all think THEY are running for President. Mr. Obama is their Viraga.

I feel like I'm watching Tom Delay / Tom Daschle. Snow White Obama and the Seven White Haired Trolls. All excited. Jumping up and down. Leahy, Kerry, Dodd, Kennedy. Talking out of the other side of Obama's mouth for him.

It's looking rather incestuous.

Obama is related to BUSH, CHENEY, KERRY, REV. WRIGHT

I CAN SEE THE RESEMBLANCE.

Posted by: Thinker | March 31, 2008 3:55 PM

P.S. to Dan (or his editor):

¶ 2 "change" = "chance"

¶ 17 "is doing is" = "is doing his"

Posted by: JakeD | March 31, 2008 3:51 PM

Dan Balz wrote:

July 1 is Democratic National Committee chairman Howard Dean's deadline for superdelegates to get off the fence and declare whether they will vote for Clinton or Obama.
-------------------------------------------
Well, that isn't what the rules committee said in August 06 and August 07. The superdelegates could make up there mind, even change their mind at the Convention in Denver.

Howard Dean can't change the rules now, according to himself, and Donna Brazile.

The rules are the rules, Howard Dean, and you are making everyone else abide by the rules, so you have to, also. There will be a Democratic Convention where the delegates and super delegates will determine who our nominee is, whether you like it or not. THE RULES ARE THE RULES. GW.

Posted by: Iowatreasures | March 31, 2008 3:50 PM

Gore-Obama would guarantee a landslide Democratic win in November, I'm sure. A ticket with two pols who were right (then and now) about the folly of Iraq would be powerful.

Posted by: wallygva | March 31, 2008 3:50 PM

Interesting article. A victory for Clinton in Pensylvannia does not mean anything-(If Kenya was a state and Obama was competing there, nobody would expect him to lose the contest). May 6 is the real date because NC and Indiana are more neutral ground.

Posted by: julesmillogo | March 31, 2008 3:50 PM

I definitely want to see Al Gore become a possible nominee prior to July 1st!!!

Posted by: JakeD | March 31, 2008 3:48 PM

Gore/ Webb?

Clinton/Gore?

Obasama/Gore?

Gore/ Nobel?

Nobel/ Nader?

Awww Shoot!

McRomney! ;~)

Posted by: rat-the | March 31, 2008 3:48 PM

"You may write me down in history
With your bitter, twisted lies,
You may trod me in the very dirt
But still, like dust, I'll rise.

This is not the first time you have seen Hillary Clinton seemingly at her wits end, but she has always risen, always risen, much to the dismay of her adversaries and the delight of her friends.

Hillary Clinton will not give up on you and all she asks of you is that you do not give up on her.

There is a world of difference between being a woman and being an old female. If you're born a girl, grow up, and live long enough, you can become an old female. But, to become a woman is a serious matter. A woman takes responsibility for the time she takes up and the space she occupies.

Hillary Clinton is a woman. She has been there and done that and has still risen. She is in this race for the long haul. She intends to make a difference in our country.

She is the prayer of every woman and man who long for fair play, healthy families, good schools, and a balanced economy.

She declares she wants to see more smiles in the families, more courtesies between men and women, more honesty in the marketplace. Hillary Clinton intends to help our country to what it can become.

She means to rise.

She means to help our country rise. Don't give up on her, ever.

In fact, if you help her to rise, you will rise with her and help her make this country a wonderful, wonderful place where every man and every woman can live freely without sanctimonious piety, without crippling fear.

Rise Hillary.

Rise. "
Maya Angelou

Posted by: mjno | March 31, 2008 3:46 PM

His campaign has generally let Clinton's camp dictate the expectations game, leading to the notion that Hillary pulled a last-second upset in Nevada when polls had consistently shown her leading, and leading to the narrative out of Texas and Ohio that Hillary was back in the race when, in fact, she may not have won any more delegates that day than he did. It'll be interesting to see how whether his campaign decides they want to pursue this vigorously, or if it's an idea they'll talk about but not use.

Posted by: davestickler | March 31, 2008 3:13 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 

© 2009 The Washington Post Company