Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

For Clinton and Supporters, Not Time to Bow Out


Clinton, and her Indiana supporters, see a long road ahead. (AP).

By Perry Bacon Jr.
Mishawaka, Ind. -- Hillary Clinton doesn't sound like a woman who has any intention of leaving the Democratic presidential race.

"There are some people who are saying you know we really ought to end this primary, we just ought to shut it down," she told a crowd of more than 1,000 at a high school in this town outside of South Bend. The audience shouted "no" in response.

"There was a poll the other day that said 22 percent of Democrats wanted me to drop out and 22 percent wanted Senator Obama to drop out and 62 percent said let people vote," she said as the crowd applauded loudly.

She was referring to a survey released earlier this week by Rasmussen Reports. Clinton had a made a similar argument about public opinion on Thursday night in Winston-Salem, N.C. "Some people have been saying let's end these primaries, let's call it quits," Clinton told a large crowd at a rally. "I think a lot of people want their voices heard and their votes counted," she said to loud cheers.

But other recent polling has found Democratic taste for the extended campaign beginning to wane. A Pew Research Center survey released this week found 44 percent of Democratic voters believed the extended campaign fight is a "good thing" for the party, down from 57 percent in late-February. And even the talk about the dangers of divisive primary has moved outside the Beltway.

In an event in Fayetteville, N.C., a man asked Clinton what she would say to Democrats considering voting for McCain, and he noted polling that shows many supporters of either Obama or Clinton are saying they will pick the Arizona senator if their preferred Democrat does not win.

"Please think through this decision. It is not a wise decision," Clinton said to applause. "Every time we have a vigorous contest like we're having this primary election, people get intense. Senator Obama has intense support. I have intense support. And it's exciting because people want to be involved. But, the differences...pale in comparison to the differences between us and Senator McCain."

"I intend to do everything I can to make sure we have a unified Democratic Party" she said. "When this contest is over and we have a nominee, we're going to close ranks....The most important goal for us is to put a Democrat back in the White House."

In terms of contrasting herself with Obama, her approach varies from directly naming him at times to more subtle digs, although she has dialed down her tone from her campaigning in Ohio and Texas, when she scolded Obama with a "shame on you" and unfavorably compared him with McCain.

"When I hear somebody criticize the 1990s, I always stop and think what didn't they like, the peace or the prosperity," Clinton said in Winston-Salem.

Obama constantly talks about "turning the page" from the politics of that era and many of his remarks suggest he considers it a time of division and discord between the White House and congressional Republicans.

Clinton had focused much of her energy in Pennsylvania since her popular-vote wins in Texas and Ohio earlier this month. But she spent Thursday in North Carolina and will make stops the next two days in Indiana and Kentucky. All three states have primaries in May.

In Mishawaka, Clinton supporters who came to the event -- obviously a pro-Clinton crowd -- said they wanted the former first lady to stay in the race, although several noted they would be comfortable voting for Obama if he was the Democratic nominee. They were not surprised that Clinton had made reference to staying in the race in her speech and several said they had heard on television that Clinton was being pressured to drop out.

"I think she should do it all the way," said Tammy Moore, a hairstylist who attended the event here. Asked if the drawn-out primary could hurt the eventual nominee, she said "nobody is hurting anybody" and added she would vote for Obama if he were the Democratic nominee.

Kim Hahn, a university administrator here who also backs Clinton, said "it depends on how ugly it gets," but said the contrasts between Obama and Clinton so far have not been that tough. "Everybody should have the opportunity to vote," she said.

Eric Bascom, a junior at Indiana University's campus in South Bend who not only attended Hillary Clinton's speech but came out to see former president Bill Clinton speak in this area earlier in the week, said "I think she has a chance to win," pointing out that she would gain momentum from winning in Pennsylvania. Bascom, unlike some of the Clinton supporters who were unaware of the daunting math Clinton faces because of Obama's solid lead in delegates, still thought she should keep going. "She should stay in the race until all the delegates are determined," he said.

Polling analyst Jennifer Agiesta contributed to this report.

By Washington Post editors  |  March 28, 2008; 1:54 PM ET
 
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Former Edwards Donors Prefer Obama
Next: McCain Casts Himself as President Americans Are Waiting For

Comments

Hillary can't afford to quit the race. She's loaned her campaign $5 million of Bill's money and he wants it back. Her campaign is almost $15 million in debt and is not paying it's bills. If she's not running, she doesn't have a prayer of getting contributions.

Posted by: forrest | April 3, 2008 2:10 AM | Report abuse

maulsbeve's math is correct.
22% + 22% + 62% = 106%!
MarthaP1's raises a valid point:Even Hillary's camp says they have zero percent chance of catching Obama in the pledged delegate count and only about 10% chance of swaying the super delegates. Is a 10% chance really worth breaking the party over?

$100s of millions are spent by the top contenders for the Democratic nomination.
I can't find a significant difference in their platforms. What is significant is that either candidate will have a unqiue place in history, but which candidate will help the country the most?

Clinton would have to hope for a miracle to win the nomination. Democracy does not require miracles, only an accurate vote count.

Posted by: terabot | March 30, 2008 1:59 PM | Report abuse

I am a monthly contributing democrat. I value experience. This country got into trouble due to lack of experience and sound judgement by the current president. I am for Hillary. If Obama is the nomimee, My family and I will sit out this election.

Posted by: hydre_abdullah | March 30, 2008 10:01 AM | Report abuse

Anti-American Obama and his clique are trying to pull a fast one on the American people again. They are pretending that they are going to the white house, when infact they are in dire trouble and his candidacy is essentially toast. America will not allow an Anti-American with his Wright and Farrakhan brothers into the White House.

Posted by: dsclinton | March 29, 2008 11:32 PM | Report abuse

She never knows when its over someone ought to give that woman a cigar, our troops just stay in Iraq until shes had her full, the longer she makes this election the longer our children dont come home, guess its not chelsea so why would she care.

Posted by: USA2 | March 29, 2008 10:38 PM | Report abuse

gatorsn09...

Your opinions on race are a disgrace for this country. You are obviously a racist bigot. It just goes to prove the double standard, that your rantings will be accommodated as political speech, while Wright's will be dismissed as hate speech.

Posted by: YoutheMan | March 29, 2008 7:40 PM | Report abuse

Guys, guys. Stop bickering and visit the LA Times on line - 'Have your say whether Hillary should exit now'. The provisional result really sums up the mood nationally, despite what Billary lovers here try to claim.

Posted by: thisworld | March 29, 2008 12:16 PM | Report abuse

if she really had america and the democratic party's best interest at heart she would drop out.... but for a clinton to do something that does not benefit them...IMPOSSSIBLE!!!!!!!!

Posted by: melissawoodsnp | March 29, 2008 12:15 PM | Report abuse

My unverifiable impression of the Left Wing Conspiracy as ordered by BillHill is that they/he/she, would far prefer to see John McCain win than Senator Obama because if McCain won, they could cry it was the dirty, nasty, crooked, cruel Republican attack machine that did them in with Bush-Cheney-Rove pulling all the levers and lying about the golden Clintons. If Obama is chosen by the Democratic voters, it would be a rejection of the Clinton Myth by their own kind and a rejection that would be hard to blame on President Bush.

Posted by: jstratt2 | March 29, 2008 10:06 AM | Report abuse

Audmirer, Have you been living in a cave? How can you honestly say Obama won 100% of black votes and that's the only reason he's ahead when Blacks make up less than 15% of the voting population. How do you account for all the big wig Blacks who obviously cling to the Clintons because they owe them big favors?. Secondly, how many black votes did Obama win in Wisconsin, Iowa, Idaho, North Dakota, Minnesota... just to name a few? Way I see it, you guys who are eager to point to black votes seem to forget that the Clintons had for years relied on the Black vote in this country to win their various elections and just because the black vote does not favor a Clinton for once, it has become sour grapes?

And for those who want us to judge HRC by her words, and experience, which version are we to believe, the padded resume, and embellished stories or the real "housewifes of the whitehouse" version? See, I really admire HRC for her real achievements and wish she states just that. For her to see the need to embellish her stories only to look a little better than her opponent who isn't half as experienced is a serious lapse in judgement and flat out stupid. How big will her stories have to get to compete with McCain's experience if she gets the nod as the Dem Nominee? Since when did lying become mispeaking? I guess Bill Clinton also mispoke when he looked us all directly and said " I never had sexual realtions with that woman" The Clintons sure have a gift for "mispeaking"

Posted by: newmayps23 | March 29, 2008 9:53 AM | Report abuse

Choskasoft-

Please don't use the word "fairytale"- according to your campaign- that is a racist word- remember? When Barak needed to save his behind- needed a huge AA turnout in SC- the whole "Clinton as racist" campaign that defied logic and history started with that.

I realize that her chances are slim at this point- but if we allowed all the places to vote she would likely have the lead in the popular vote. If you look only at the primaries, she leads by more than 600,000 votes- it is the caucuses, where turnout is low and very biased toward upper class and college students where he has won lopsided victories that have given him both the lead in the delegates and the popular vote at the moment. I think that the winner of the popular vote, be it him or her, should be the nominnee- and as the Florida senate contingent has said- I would be in favor of abolishing this antiquated system afterwards- does anyone think that Barak wins state 75-25% when everyone votes?

All of our systems, the primaries, and the electoral college do not work well for really allowing popular vote to consistently be the deciding factor. Additionally, if primaries are to be open- if Republicans, Dems and Independents can vote to choose the nominnee of any party- then parties should be abolished within the system. I put my support behind the Democratic party- been a Dem since '84 and worked and gave some money to the party- I have made choices and committed to them. Why should someone who does not make choices in this way, who might be fickle and following trends, or might be ideologically opposed to what the party stands for- have the right to choose the candidate. Parties are ideological institutions- if we want a direct nominating process, we should change to it- but this half and half thing is garbage. As an example, I am an agnostic- I don't commit to any church (another ideologic institution)- would it be ok for me to go into a church and help choose the pastor?
Leon

Posted by: nycLeon | March 29, 2008 9:43 AM | Report abuse

Isn't this the same Hillary who, prior to the start of the campaign, was bragging that it would all be over on supertuesday, and that she would be the winner?? Where was her commitment to making sure that all the voters had their say then? Considering it was her campaign manager and some of her staff that were on the rules committee that stripped Fla. and Mich. of their votes, and her comment at the time was "their votes just won't count", why is she trying to blame Obama for going along with rules her campaign was responsible for establishing? She argued in favor of invading iraq, then voted in favor of the invasion, and now says "if I knew then ....etc." If she had read the intel reports she would have known "then". And what about authorizing force against Iran?? Will she be saying "if I knew then..."?? Then there are the NAFTA lies, the Irish peace lies, the sniper lies, the experience lies, etc. Face it she has her own private little world to live in. At least the others in that world tell her what she wants to hear- friendly voices!!

Posted by: dowdler | March 29, 2008 8:55 AM | Report abuse

You gotta love this country. It's a melting pot. Here I have been entertained from Thailand while I watch my countrymen & women, participate in one of our greatest freedoms (speech). I do have to say that from over here, I have been deeply saddened and embarrassed by the last 8 years of leadership and the apathy of the American People to repair our great nations credibility and reputation which I am forced to defend to countless foreigners that I meet in my work here. I'm not voting for experience this round. I'm voting for change. The biggest change will be thoughtful and idealistic leadership. For both McCain and Hillary the championing of their experience is tied to the last 8 years of American leadership. I'm not going to faint at any Obama rally or tear off a piece of his clothing, but I am impressed with someone who can stir up ideals in people and make Americans feel passionate again. This country of ours was born in passion and idealism. Let's let this process we call democracy take place. Don't be afraid of the good fight. Let Hillary slug it out. Let Obama withstand the heat. In the end, if the Democrats are so fickle in their affiliation and jump to another 4 year extension of the G.W. Bush Era and vote for the only 'maverick" I've ever heard of that has nothing new to say. Jumping to the party that has ruined the value of the dollar, conducted wars based on misinformation, re-instated torture, trampled civil rights, run the economy into recession, disrespected our constitution and the balance of power of the American Government, and trampled the environment because your democratic nominee didn't win is......a bit sad really in your convictions, your mental prowess, and really your patriotism. Whether you want Hillary or Obama, I urge all of you to support the winner of this great and spirited contest. Let it play out, and support the winner of your party's nomination.

Posted by: reid | March 29, 2008 8:22 AM | Report abuse

"McCain Casts Himself as President Americans Are Waiting For"

Must be nice to be able to define oneself as presumed President without concern that anyone is going to challenge that definition.

Posted by: FirstMouse | March 29, 2008 7:53 AM | Report abuse

A while back I noted that "these things will work themselves out" even if Hillary stays in. I still believe that, despite all the postings here. The demands from the frontrunner's supporters that she withdraw is actually quite expected. After all, a withdrawal will save them a lot of hard work and money in the states that have not yet held their primaries. It's pure self interest, but that doesn't make it right. The decision is Hillary Clinton's alone, and I'm sure she still has reasons to believe she can win. As far as sitting out the November election if your candidate isn't the nominee, I suspect most who say that will think twice. They will only have themselves to blame if they don't vote and John McCain becomes president.

Posted by: rmpatera | March 29, 2008 7:47 AM | Report abuse

Obama's supporters want Hilary out? Dud. Hilary supporters want the racist Obama out. Get out Obama and save the party.

Posted by: gracekelly | March 29, 2008 7:24 AM | Report abuse

Democrats sounds un democrat when they ask Hillary to withdraw, if her team was prepared she would have won the caucuses, other then caucuses where he won and Black votes, which won more than 100%, People Who are opposed to Hillary contesting democratically for her nomination are very un-democrats, who wants Power, until know If any one watch closely knows, Obama's supporters and the media manipulating and working hard she will not won Including many Democrats, Obama Wins the nomination with his cunning, manipulation he will ruin America. There are so many Senators who are showing there color's who really they are. All Hillary's voters should Vote to any Worthy independent. Fight to the End Hillary, Vote Hillary. Open your Eyes, Move.org and others, Obama is Opportunist and the people who support wants there Own Way. Count the votes from Florida, MI and other states Hillary is going to Win more votes than Obama, He can be V.P, that is best for him, he will Loose the Elections. Obama Supporters should stop taking trash and look into there Closet, Obama got media, Senators who hate Clintons supporting and the His Own Guys Manuplating media should Focus on the Skeltos of Obama and his Preacher and his Plagiarisum, he will One bad President American Economy will be ruined Just like george Bush. Voting Obama is not much Different than voting for bush Except the War.

Posted by: audmirer | March 29, 2008 6:10 AM | Report abuse

Hillary has every right to stay in the race. period.

Obama is just another stale politician who has been created via blitz and rhetoric to be easily accessible to the mass population. He is MTV, Youtube, the 3-minute sound byte, and everyones best pal all rolled into one...always available to take your donation at barackobama.com.

Just because he wrote two introspective books, found the fast track through a state senate job and then a less than two year Senate job, and he is post-racial or something, he is obviously the "best" choice for president.

Give me a break.

Obama is a creation by a dying breed of democrat elite who wish to invigorate their own legacies by setting up Obama for president . Personally, Obama is probably your average liberal good guy with dreams of unity and peace who saw his chance to do something big. But Obama is also a conscious career politician who took every advantage he could get to climb the political ladder in the least amount of time, which included using his constitutional law degree to weasel his opponents out of past senate competitions. And now, he has done it with FL and MI as well. If you can't win fair and square, make sure there isn't any competition. Gee, I really want someone like that as my president.

If convenience combined with shrewdness and a few good political strategists is all it takes to become president, well, I guess America deserves Obama.

Clinton's long track record of successfully translating vision into action dwarfs Obama's accomplishments. Her present proposals to the future target the right issues with the necessary level of specificity and openness required in these troubled times. Notwithstanding Obama's potential, we can't afford an extensive learning process in the top job today - a learning process that Hillary has already largely completed; where-as, Obama has just begun. Both prose and poetry are needed moving forward and Hillary has both today.


Hillary is simply the best choice for the times we live in.

Posted by: stevill2000 | March 29, 2008 5:41 AM | Report abuse

Sad things that there are still people like those senator from Vermont that would pressures Senator Clinton to drop out of the Democratic Party nomination for President. If Senator Leahy is sold out to the idea of having United States of American to have its first Black President to govern the majority white American so be it, but asking a fellow Senator to drop out the race, it is dictatorial manners. Senator Leahy if you really for demacracy kindly practice fully democratic principles. LET THE NOMINATION RACE TO THE FINISH WITHOUT ASKING SOMEBODY TO DROP OUT.

Posted by: wyap20032003 | March 29, 2008 5:14 AM | Report abuse

I like Obama for President, and I remain proud of Obama's campaign, and I even congratulate Clinton on her public statements.

Now it would be a nice surprise to see the supporters put down the kitchen sink, the race is almost over and it's really just about putting on a good show and performance for the superdelegates now...

Time to stop playing with mud in dirty politics.

Time to say, we'll support whoever is the Democratic nominee (and I admit I expect that the superdelegates will simply rubber stamp the will of the voters).

Posted by: eljefejesus | March 29, 2008 3:49 AM | Report abuse

Since John McCain is our next president, lets all give him our support & point a sleezy finger at the leaders of the Democratic party for throwing their parties chances out the door & doing it with such class .. laffs

Posted by: gatorsn09 | March 29, 2008 3:38 AM | Report abuse

With Obama leading the way, blacks have voiced their hatred for white people. After 50 years of black people living off the white tax payers dollers, with the low income housing, accepting blacks in college over more deserving whites, the same applies to jobs & with whites being called Racists every time black people don't get their own way, i'd say black people have bit the hand that has been feeding them. It's time to go back to the 50s era. You can thank Obama for all of this. You deserve him.

Posted by: gatorsn09 | March 29, 2008 3:33 AM | Report abuse

Let Hillary run just to satisfy her ego. Let her ridicule herself more than she already has. Let her keep on playing dirty politics they will back fire on her at the end. Where are her tax returns is she still whiting them out? Ask her about "The Family" bible studies she belongs to.

Posted by: summerlluvia | March 29, 2008 3:30 AM | Report abuse

Barack Obama for President of the UNITED States of America.

Posted by: PulSamsara | March 29, 2008 3:24 AM | Report abuse

Gee, if journalists had removed their tongues from Obama's ass long enough to do their jobs, than one of them would have snagged a copy of Reverend Wright's sermons before he won 30 state primaries & Caucuses. We'd all be singing a different tune about who should drop out of the delegate race. Truly, Obama has faced just about zero scrutiny from the media while they have done all they can to bury Hillary Clinton. Finally, Obama has some bad press and the his polls dropped quicker than a hot iron pan. Obama has no substance. All he has is a bunch of loud, vicious supporters who are doing everything they can to black mail the Democratic party into making him the nominee. They have threatened to riot in the streets, stay home and not vote, vote for McCain, leave the Democratic party, blah blah blah. Sounds like threats to me. Sounds an awful lot like the politics of fear that Obama has professed to be against. At this point, I'm hoping that Obama wins the nomination so he can get spanked in the general election against McCain. Maybe than Obama's supporters will finally agree that he was a terrible candidate to pit against a national hero with actual credentials. Let's get this election over with, and let Obama face the music in the general election. Hillary can, and will, come back in 2012 and defeat McCain to become the first woman president of the United States.

And by the way, I think it is quite ironic that Obama's supporters turned out to be as nasty and mean-spirited and undemocratic as they accuse the Clintons of being. It will be a pleasure to watch their faces as he is destroyed by MCain.

Posted by: A2MIChub | March 29, 2008 2:18 AM | Report abuse

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 Channel 5, 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 29, 2008 2:07 AM | Report abuse

CLINTON'S "EXPERIENCE" TO LEAD "ON DAY ONE"...

For over 20 years, while she lived in Arkansas, Hillary worked as a corporate lawyer, defending large corporations like Tyson and WalMart against lawsuits.

She also sat on several boards of directors, and got paid well for doing so. One of the boards she sat on was WalMart. And the whole time, she said nothing and did nothing about WalMart's predatory labor practices worldwide.

Then she coasted into the White House on Bill's coatails and became First Lady. In this "post" she excelled in the "position" of Chief Scandel Supression Officer. She worked hard behind the scenes on Whitewater... Filegate... Travelgate... Pardongate... Numerous Bimbo Eruptions from "Trailer Trash"... Accusations of Sexual Assault... Assusations of RAPE... Illegal campaign contributions... Renting out the Lincoln bedroom... Bill's getting DISBARRED in his own state for lying under oath... I M P E A C H M E N T.

And, let's not forget she helped get NAFTA passed, and she FAILED MISERABLY at health care reform (the Hillary-care fiasco).

Posted by: MarthaP1 | March 29, 2008 2:03 AM | Report abuse

nromero --

Barry's proven again and again his judgement is lousy.

The most visible example was choosing Rev. Wright as his "spiritual advisor" and going to his racist church for 20 years.

But it goes all the way back to when Barry was a young man and he decided to try "hard drugs"

That shows a total lack of judgement.

His association with Rezko is another example.

The one that got me posting here is that he let the people who voted him into office in Chicago freeze, and some of them died.

Do your research.

Barry's bad news.

He only cares about himself, power, and money.

He uses people like you and I use kleenex.

Posted by: svreader | March 29, 2008 2:03 AM | Report abuse

CLINTON'S "EXPERIENCE" TO LEAD "ON DAY ONE"...

For over 20 years, while she lived in Arkansas, Hillary worked as a corporate lawyer, defending large corporations like Tyson and WalMart against lawsuits.

She also sat on several boards of directors, and got paid well for doing so. One of the boards she sat on was WalMart. And the whole time, she said nothing and did nothing about WalMart's predatory labor practices worldwide.

Then she coasted into the White House on Bill's coatails and became First Lady. In this "post" she excelled in the "position" of Chief Scandel Supression Officer. She worked hard behind the scenes on Whitewater... Filegate... Travelgate... Pardongate... Numerous Bimbo Eruptions from "Trailer Trash"... Accusations of Sexual Assault... Assusations of RAPE... Illegal campaign contributions... Renting out the Lincoln bedroom... Bill's getting DISBARRED in his own state for lying under oath... I M P E A C H M E N T.

And, let's not forget she helped get NAFTA passed, and she FAILED MISERABLY at health care reform (the Hillary-care fiasco).

Posted by: MarthaP1 | March 29, 2008 2:03 AM | Report abuse

Studies of past presidents show that "experience" means next to nothing when it comes to ruling. Lincoln was sandwiched between the two most experienced presidents of his time. Jefferson was 40, Washington was 44, hell even Bill was younger than Obama when he took office. It's not exerience it's Judgement.

Hillary claims she can lead on day one and she is prepared. She wasn't prepared for this campaign to last past Feb. 5, she didn't financially plan for it, and she certainly didn't prepare to actually have to face an opponent.

During this campaign we have seen judgement at work. Hillary has only gone more negative and gotten more desperate. She gets caught in lies and covers them with more lies. For example: she pledges not to participate in Mich. and then admits to participating, she lies about sniper fire FOUR times and then blames being tired, she tells Texas she won't contest the results and the next day she's contesting the results threatening to disinfranchise a huge voting populace., she half-heartedly denies Obama is a Muslim but doesn't admit that her Iowa chairman was the one who sent the Muslim e-mail out that went viral...etc.etc.etc.

Posted by: nromero | March 29, 2008 1:33 AM | Report abuse

If Obama's guaranteed to lose the national electon, it would be foolish 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.

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

Posted by: svreader | March 29, 2008 1:24 AM | Report abuse

Stat,
Even Hillary's camp says they have zero percent chance of catching Obama in the pledged delegate count and only about 10% chance of swaying the super delegates. Is a 10% chance really worth breaking the party over?

And for you dumba$$ ignorant fools out there talking about Obama being muslim and anti-American you need to realize what racist SOBs you are. So what if he was a freakin' Muslim anyway? There are more than 1 billion Muslims in this world, I hate to break it to you but there are fewer Muslim fundamentalists (as a percentage of their populace) than there are Christian fundamentalists! Stop being such racist bigots and check your facts.

Besides, do any of you uneducated Clintonites (sorry but Obama DOES get more educated followers and maybe that's why you can't see the forest for the trees and are so blindly following Hillary's ego) understand the fact that there is to be NO TEST OF RELIGION for public office?! Why aren't more Democrats and Progressives up in arms that this is even being brought up in our Political discourse?!

One more thing, the whole Rezko thing is a load of crap and there have been over 250 printed articles stating that fact. Hell, even Bill and Hill have their own association with Rezko. If you want to get into unethical dealings that affect constituents why not acknowledge Bills relations with the Middle East and their sudden increase in personal wealth. They left the White House in debt and now Hillary can loan herself $5 Million to campaign? Yeah she sure has been vetted.

Posted by: nromero | March 29, 2008 1:22 AM | Report abuse

Hillary: PLEASE, get a little class for once in your life, and GO AWAY !!! PLEASE.

Posted by: MarthaP1 | March 29, 2008 1:12 AM | Report abuse

Hillary: PLEASE, get a little class for once in your life, and GO AWAY !!! PLEASE.

Posted by: MarthaP1 | March 29, 2008 1:12 AM | Report abuse

Why should Hillary drop out !! It is a contest and the winner should have 2025. Nobody got it yet, it is not a matter of who's in the lead, it is a matter of reaching the finish line which is 2025. Hillary is exerting her effort for this cause and she should be admired not ridiculed. She believes and many of us agree that she is the best candidate. Look, our economy is in a sham and in a case like this we do not want a greenhorn to lead us. We know the Clintons in and out, they're open book but is there any doubt in your mind that they will be loyal to the American flag and for what it stands?. Is there a question of fairness with regards to color of the skin? We have to have someone who is strong enough to fight and continue fighting for a cause and soft enough to love and forgive, for these traits are the way to true reconcilliation, between color of the skin, between parties. Hillary winning is still probable not impossible.

Posted by: statistician | March 29, 2008 1:02 AM | Report abuse

ok sv, truce, it's got a personal dimension for me too. the AEDPA cost my friend his life limiting death penalty appeals to absolute proof of innocence when he could only cast 99% doubt on his guilt. I saw him executed. I have poor health too, MS, because Hillary's health reform actually resulted (though with a lot of help from a republican congress) in turning over the health care industries to the HMOs in the 90s. Health to both of us; maybe we should be voting for Nader.

cfc

Posted by: carlsonchaf | March 29, 2008 12:48 AM | Report abuse

Unless Hillary cheats in some big way, or has Barack Obama bumped off (an idea which I am sure she's considered), her chances of winning the nomination are ZILCH.

Therefore, assuming she does not cheat (a big assumption, I admit) and assuming that Obama is alive and well throughout this process (god willing, let's pray he is), there is absolutely no good reason for her to stay in the race.

All that she is accomplishing by sticking around, is hurting the Democratic Party's chances of winning in November.

Every Democratic superdelegate and "us voters" need to URGE Hillary to get out of the race. We need to get off our butts and vote for Obama, if we live in a primary state, and if we don't, we need to URGE our Democratic representatives to do whatever they can to get Hillary out of the race NOW.

As she becomes more and more desperate, she becomes more and more dirty, and slings more and more mud at Obama. We do not need this !!!

Posted by: MarthaP1 | March 29, 2008 12:43 AM | Report abuse

nbc and new york times beyond reproach? ok, both supported the whole weapons of mass destruction thing and bought everything bush put out through chalabi as truth before the war. they're either gullible or culpable, take your pick. both have denied the existence of gulf war syndrome since 1993 and the times still "doubt" it's real, as they do with lyme disease and chronic disease syndrome, all of which have been clinically proven. William Colby (CIA) once bragged he had the new york and la times in "his pocket>" no, I don't believe they're any more fair and balanced than fox, just more literate. sun times is a good paper generally, but spent more time going after gov ryan on corruption than on the absysmal record of the chicago DA on false convcitons in death penalty cases until a college class project proved 50% false conviction or execution rate. You can't just take the mainstream press for granted. they['re mostly tools.

cfc

Posted by: carlsonchaf | March 29, 2008 12:38 AM | Report abuse

marthadavidson,

You mean Hillary Clinton may actually worship Jesus? Oh my! What will all us Christians who lean Democrat think of that? I'll answer that question. It will be a relief to me, that we may finally have a genuine follower of Jesus in the oval office. We won't need to worry about a pseudo-Christian like Barack, who has admitted that he is not your typical Christian. Basically, Barack picks and chooses what aspects of Christianity suits him. I suspect that he is more of a christian in name only, and that was probably done more for his political aspirations than anything else. We also won't have to worry about racist reverends having access to the White House, nor will we have to worry about the jew baiting, white haters like Louis Farrakhan having any influence on our president's policies. Wow, that is sure going to be some scandal when people find out Hillary belongs to this Christian group. Actually, it may open some eyes on the opposite side of the political spectrum. Their belief that Hillary Clinton was fathered by the Devil will come into question as her religiosity would suggest otherwise. Get real if you think this is on par with Barack Obama's excuses for Reverend Wright's bad behavior.

Posted by: brisbail62 | March 29, 2008 12:38 AM | Report abuse

carlson --

Barry talks a great game but delivers squat.

He's a "supersalesman"

He shouldn't be the boss of anything.

You have to manage guys like that like a hawk or they'll screw up everything.

I've seen more of them over the years than you can count.

They've cost me millions of dollars and most of my health.

Posted by: svreader | March 29, 2008 12:32 AM | Report abuse

carlson,

Take a look at the stuff I posted from NBC news and from the Chicago Sun-Times.

Their credibility is beyond question.

Look at the articles in the NYT and the WP.

Their credibility is pretty good too.


Posted by: svreader | March 29, 2008 12:29 AM | Report abuse

one more thing svreader, JFK did not seemed too disturbed by the margin of victory provided by deceased voters on the cook county rolls that mayor daley delivered to him. That's chicago dude. rezkos on trial. if anything actually provably corrupt comes out on obama, it'll out there. until then, your posts are all from skewed sites and i'll believe the evidence from trial if it holds up there.

cfc

Posted by: carlsonchaf | March 29, 2008 12:25 AM | Report abuse

No matter whom you are for, the people clamoring for Clinton to bow out before the race is even done are despicable. THis is clearly an organized campaign by the Obama people to create a negative buzz that makes it seem like there's something wrong with Clinton's staying in to the finish. Did the Giants quit in the 3d quarter? Give me a break. The race is still very much on. The Obama propaganda to try to get her to leave early--before she wins big in Pennsylvania, NC, Indiana, W. Va, Puerto Rico, etc. --is undemocratic and transparently cynical and false and hypocritical. Let's let all the people vote, count all the votes, and let the superdelegates vote their consciences--just as the rules say. And if dems are about empowerment, let's let the people of MI and FL vote and not punish them for the rash stupidity of those states' parties. Enough with the hillary-hating media and the biased Obama supporters. LET DEMOCRACY WORK!

Posted by: roger321 | March 29, 2008 12:23 AM | Report abuse

carlson --

He had everything to do with them.

What's worse, he screwed the people who gave him his start because he didn't need them anymore.

He's done it his whole career.

Blame Bush for the war, not Hillary.

Do some research.

I did.

The real Barry Obama is a really, really, bad guy.

He's nothing like his carefully crafted image.

Don't fall for it.

You'll be sorry if you do.

Posted by: svreader | March 29, 2008 12:21 AM | Report abuse

Thanks for the note Svreader!
I have been looking for this article for awhile, never was able to find it.
If Obama didn't care of Chicago, what makes people think he will take care of our country.
Why don't we ask Jeremah Wright what advise he gave to Obama about the wellfare of the U.S. and what his true intentions really are.

Posted by: lzavalausa | March 29, 2008 12:19 AM | Report abuse

svreader,

Obama had little to do with fate of those projects, just as few legislators to once something is passed. Clinton evisceratred habaes corpus long before Bush put the finishing touches by signing the antiterrorist and effective death penaly act. He authorized the massive depleted uranium contamination of Kosovo and the former Yugoslavia. He bombed Iraq on the average of every three days during his time of "peace" and oversaw the exodus of american industry through NAFTA in his time of prosperity in which the gap between rich and poor grew at an unprecedented rate. He bombed a civilian pharmaceutical plant that supplied critical drugs to Africa at a reasonable cost in Sudan when he the Monica thing came up. Hillary voted to authorize force AND supported invading Iraq from 2001-2003 in many statements in the senate to support her political career. a million iraqi's are now dead. I don't think Obama even holds a candle to those things, which were done to further political careers. you're not going to convince me on this. Whatever happened in Chicago was just peanuts. People die , and die in large numbers, when the Clintons swing into action. they've been vetted.

unconvinced, cfc

Posted by: carlsonchaf | March 29, 2008 12:17 AM | Report abuse

carlson --

If you want to end the war, vote for Hillary.

A vote for Obama is a vote for McCain.

Obama supporters are in denial.

They just don't "get it"

The fact that Obama allied himself with someone who spouts anti-white, anti-semitic, and anti-American rhetoric is a "deal breaker"

Its the number #1 topic of water cooler conversation around the country.

Most "Typical White People" had no idea that stuff like this has been going on.

People are really, really, angry about it.

Obama's supporters try to spin it into being about a single sermon.

Its not.

Its about a 20 year relationship.

Its about Obama choosing Wright to be his "Spritual Advisor"

It's about Obama's lies.

Its about Obama talking out of"both sides of his mouth.

Obama presented himself as a paragon of virtue and someone on a higher ethical plane than other candidates.

He's repeatedly shown through his actions that he isn't.

He's like a human chameleon.

He turns into a completely different person depending on what group of people he's with.

He's lied to us and fooled us over and over.

America doesn't trust him anymore.

He's toast.

He deserves to be.

Posted by: svreader | March 29, 2008 12:08 AM | Report abuse

Tom Webb.

I respect your decision made on the abortion issue - not much middle ground here and we all have to follow our conscience on that.

On Iraq, I heard the same argument of "lives lost in vain" for five years during Vietnam and we ended up losing 35,000 more to try and make sure the 23,000 lost had not been in vain. There's no point when it's clear that the lives lost to date can be made up for by further loss of life, and this war just looks just as hopeless as Vietnam was. No lost life in a war is either lost in vain as far as the bravery of the soldiers who serve, and none can be redeemed by throwing more at an ill-conceived cause.
All that's ever left is grief, win or lose, when the battle if over. I appreciate your frustration on this, but I know that the wives, children and families of soldiers lost in World War II were not more than superficially consoled by the victory relative to their loss. It's a consolation, but not one equal to the personal loss that's felt.

For our Iraq casualties, it's time to turn our energies to those damaged but still living at home and who will come home and to the families of those lost, and not condemn more to suffer that way.

cfc

Posted by: carlsonchaf | March 29, 2008 12:05 AM | Report abuse

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 Channel 5, 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 29, 2008 12:04 AM | Report abuse

I am sorry, but Malcom X was lied to, tought by the same racist people of Farrakhan. Malcom X was their rising star.
BUT Malcom X saw through them and relized that they were wrong. Malcom X stood up against these racist punks. He said it himself "I was thought to see whites as the Devil" Malcom X learned that they were wrong and that all they were doing was preaching hate.
They got pissed of at Malcom.
Who killed him?
Is it not the same when blacks choose to go against Jeremahs' teachings?
What does Jeremah Wright call blacks that do not follow or fall for his B.S.
"SELL OUTS!"

Posted by: lzavalausa | March 29, 2008 12:00 AM | Report abuse

carlson --

He forced everyone else off the ballot by using legal tricks.

Do some research.

If you can't find it on the web, I'll find it for you and post it.

Posted by: svreader | March 28, 2008 11:59 PM | Report abuse

carlson,

What Barry Obama did in Chicago is 100x worse than anything both Clinton's ever did.

Scroll up, and look at my earlier posts.

If you need me to, I'll repost both a newspaper article and a NBC news report on "Obama's Slums"

Barry Obama is the greatest con man in US political history.

Compared to him, everybody else is a piker.


Posted by: svreader | March 28, 2008 11:56 PM | Report abuse

svreader, nobody's claiming Obama hasn't played politics. You don't get elected without doing that because people like you will never believe someone who is truly different anyway. How the hell, can you even begin to compare what we know of the "vetted" one - HRC, with the relatively minor maneuvers Obama has made. I've read the posts and tbet don't stand up because he did not have the powerbrokers behind hin who could "force" anyone off the ballot in Illinois at the time. This is all a calculated risk, but I know what the Clinton's have done to get elected and itis to pander to any trend that is prevalent in America at the time. They are most responsible for the "to get elected as a democrat, you have to act like a republican" disease that has sickened the denmocratic party for fifteen years. I don't need that kind of democrat.


cfc

Posted by: carlsonchaf | March 28, 2008 11:52 PM | Report abuse

"Every nation has to either be with us, or against us. Those who harbor terrorists, or who finance them, are going to pay a price." Senator Hillary Clinton (Democrat, New York) September 13, 2001

HRC fell right in line with the "tough on terrorism" and regime change talk of GWB between 2001 and 2003 and this is one of the unfortunate sexist burdens we lay on women leaders: that they prove they're as tough as any man, when what we need is they're ability to see through that kind of facile macho. As far as Wright and Osama bin Laden, what have you been taking lzavalausa ? That's like connecting J Edgar Hoover with Malcolm X because he talked to him once.

cfc

Posted by: carlsonchaf | March 28, 2008 11:45 PM | Report abuse

Whenever I hear Obama supporters talk about his "high ethics" I look for a basin to throw up in.

Please. Do some research. Obama won his first race by forcing every other candidate off the ballot.

It only gets worse from there.

Read my posts and the post of other people who have done extensive research into Obama's history.

He's a slick politician, not a savior.

He's not the kind of man you think he is.

His image is just as fake as Bush's was.

Posted by: svreader | March 28, 2008 11:41 PM | Report abuse

Obama is a RACIST!
Get it through your head.
He is a Muslim in denial.
He is a lair.
He is unpatriotic.
He has been trained, just like those 9/11 pilots.
His mentor has been exposed, understand!
Would you trust some one who had twenty years of Osama Bin Ladins' teaching?
Jeremah Wright is no different from Osama Bin Ladin.
Why did he go and meet Kadafi with Farrakhan?
Is Jeremah Wright the corrdinator?
REMEMBER WHAT THEY SAID.
The next time they were going to attack us, they were not going to use planes or weapons. It was going to be from within our system?

Posted by: lzavalausa | March 28, 2008 11:29 PM | Report abuse

pnepomuceno, it isn't at all that people don't see women can be good leaders, but we have seen women, who like men are on both sides of that divide: thatcher, indira ghandi, etc. It's the person's relationship with power that determines the qualities of a leader, not the gender or race. What we who favor Obama see, and granted it's a feeling culled from long observation of politics rather than absolute proof, is that Obama has an ethical quality about him that Hillary has empirically demonstrated she lacks. The Clinton's desire for power and willingness to do whatever it takes to obtain it has been transparent since Bill first pandered to the tough on crime crowd in 1992 by making a special trip to be a witness at an execution of a mentally disabled man in Arkansas. Hillary has stayed with Bill through far too much philandering for it to be explained by a healthy love for the man (once burned, but four or five or six times?). She not only voted for the authorization to go to war in Iraq, she advocated it long before the vote. She engaged intimately in lobbying Congress to get NAFTA passed when she was first lady. Too many liabilities. Just too many.

cfc

Posted by: carlsonchaf | March 28, 2008 11:29 PM | Report abuse

It's a very close race. No one is predicted to have enough pledged delegates to win after the final primary. Clinton has won 3 of her last 4 primaries, and her chances seem great for the next one. Why would she drop out now?

Posted by: llong51 | March 28, 2008 11:11 PM | Report abuse

HILLARY SHOULD STAY IN THE RACE. MILLIONS OF PEOPLE HAVE NOT EXPRESSED THEIR CHOICE AND THEY SHOULD BE HEARD AND COUNTED. I SUPPORT HILLARY BECAUSE I BELIEVE SHE IS A THOUGHTFUL AND INTELLIGENT WOMAN AND WILL DO A BETTER JOB THAN OBAMA. I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT LEAHY SHOULD DICTATE TO THE CANDIDATES. LEAHY DOES NOT SPEAK FOR ME AND I MAKE MY OWN DECISIONS. THE MEDIA HAS BEEN PUSHING OBAMA FROM THE BEGINNING. BUT THE MAN HAS NOT DEMONSTRATED ANY LEADERSHIP QUALITIES.GO HILLARY ! WE ARE BEHIND YOU. fOR THE LIFE OF ME THOSE INTELLIGENT PEOPLE OF THE MEDIA ARE NOT USING THEIR BRAINS. ALL THEY SAY IS HE IS LIKEABLE. THERE ARE LIKEABLE MEN WHO TALK A LOT BUT ARE NOT DOERS. WAKE UP MEN AND WOMEN. USE YOUR BRAINS. I AM AN INTELLIGENT PROFESSIONAL WOMAN AND I AM AMAZED TO SEE THE GREATEST NATION ON THIS PLANET CAN NOT ACCEPT THE FACT THAT WOMEN ARE GOOD LEADERS, CAN BE DECISIVE, AND CAN UNITE THIS NATION. ONLY THE MEDIA CAN PROPAGATE THE NOTION THAT A WOMAN CAN NOT BE COMMANDER IN CHIEF.

Posted by: pnepomuceno | March 28, 2008 11:05 PM | Report abuse

Those who fail to remember history are doomed to repeat it. Does anyone out there get the truth of that?

Hillary and her supporters are saying that this campaign is good for the party and good for the country. But How? First, you can look back at BOTH political parties and every time a primary has been played out like this the party loses the election. You think 50 years of this playing out suddenly doesn't apply to our party this year? Think again! All of us Democrats are at each others throats over our candidate of choice. We are growing to dispise each other the way we dispise right wing nuts. How on Earth is that healthy for us?

Secondly, all of you Clintonites want to take this to the Convention. Somehow you have this notion that a General Election can be won with 2 months of campaigning. This Primary season has gone on for more than a year and a half! John McCain is already running Presidential ads and is a media darling. If you are naive enough to believe that running a Presidential campaign in two months will put a Democrat in office you're delusional.

I will admit I support Obama. I was orginally an Edwards supported and would have voted for Clinton in a heartbeat if she had won the nomination but the tactics she's used the past 2 months have turned my stomach. She's claiming great wins in TX and Ohio and yet we know she only did that with the help of Republicans voting for her in the primary to keep this chaos going. I live in TX and am going to the County Convention tomorrow and trust me, I have had dozens of republicans admit to me why they voted for her.

If the right is so interested in her being the nominee aren't you the slightest bit worried about why? She hasn't been vetted since Bill left office. What about the $10 billion in "donations" to the Presidential Library by the United Arab Emerits? What about the fact that Poppy Bush and Bill are best buddies? How about Hillary's brothers being paid $500,000 to get pardons for people by her husband? This stuff hasn't been brought up but the right will destroy her with it!

Posted by: nromero | March 28, 2008 10:47 PM | Report abuse

hillary is very much like the person who's sustained a fatal injury, but is too much in shock to take it in. she cannot take it in that she's out on her feet. For the good of the country and the party she should pack it in and look the gracious hero if she ever hopes to make another run. If Obama loses, she'd have 2012 sewed up if she did that now. If she doesn't she may take him down too and leave us with a John McCain who is daily appearing to be not the benevolent conservative we feel could live with. Be a hero, Hillary, show the good judgment to know when it's over.

cfc

Posted by: carlsonchaf | March 28, 2008 10:41 PM | Report abuse

Why are the Obamaista so intent on having his rival drop out before the last contests have been held? There is nothing that says that Obama (or Clinton) have to wait before they can begin spending their money on ads that take on the Republicans. Aside from that argument, this is still a very tight contest that can go either way. I think Clinton supporters will support the candidate who wins as long as this contest is allowed to play itself out. Once you pull their player off the field prematurely, you throw away their vote and their support. To keep those, you can't preclude the natural selection and it hurts nobody for this contest to go on.

Posted by: glosski | March 28, 2008 10:29 PM | Report abuse

Choskasoft, I totally agree with your assessment of the race. The voter from Indiana U in article is an example of not understanding the math. This race is over and therefore Hillary IS HURTING the Democratic party. So what is her endgame? I am amazed at her supporters if they think she should stay in the race til the end. Hillary's campaign knows what the deal is with the pledged delegates.

Surely they know with young voters new to party. It would be suicidal for superdelegates to overturn Obama's lead. Especially after Florida in 2000. No one in party wants to hear anything about stealing an election. So what is her intention?

Choskasoft you layed it out.
It makes sense. Hurt Obama so he loses so Hillary can say "I told you so." Also driving his support away which opens up a run for her in 2012. THIS IS NOT FARFETCHED! If this happens it is so transparent that Hillary is in denial if she thinks she would get the support for a run in 2012. Another candidate would attack her over this. Frankly as a Democrat I think it is despicable. As a 2 time voter for Bill Clinton and defender of him during impeachment. I already have lost respect for the Clintons. I now see why others despise them. So please don't anyone reading this tell me Hillary has not hurt the party. She already has!

She even has dragged Chelsa
down. I live in Indiana and that questioner at Butler U (a Clinton supporter) asked a legitimate question about Hillary's credibility over the Monica scandal question. Since she claimed the right wing conspiracy when in fact Bill did cheat. Chelsa acts like "how dare you ask that question." Alert to Chelsa: There is a real world out there other than the kiss a__ world you live in. If you want to campaign for your mom you better accept more than soft ball questions.

Posted by: tjirish34 | March 28, 2008 10:28 PM | Report abuse

ajtiger --

If Obama's guaranteed to lose the national electon, it would be foolish 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.

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

Posted by: svreader | March 28, 2008 10:25 PM | Report abuse

The name of the presidential nomination game is to win with the most delegates. The 2024 magic delegate number to be the nominee is an arbitrary number setup by the Democratic Party. Unless Hillary sweeps at least 7 of the 10 remaining voting contests, she is out and Obama is the nominee.

Posted by: ajtiger92 | March 28, 2008 10:18 PM | Report abuse

I have no problem with Hillary continuing, but she needs to stop with the negative attacks and focus only on the issues. If she can win on the issues alone, then the Democratic party will be fine. If she has to stoop to the kitchen sink strategy, then win or lose for Clinton, the Democrats will be screwed in the general election. The thing is, the only way she is going to beat Obama is through dirty politics -- so basically, there's 2 possibilities if she keeps this stuff up: (a) Clinton wins by bashing Obama, Dems feel spited, McCain wins the general; or (b) Obama wins by bashing Obama and getting her supporters to hate him, then Obama loses to McCain. In other words, it's a lose-lose situation if she stays in and keeps bashing Obama, or if she stays in and tries to win on the issues. Thus, the only solution is for her to step aside for the good of the party rather than for the good of herself. I'm beginning to question whether she simply wants Obama to lose so she can run again in 4 years rather than 8, when she'll be 72 years old.

Posted by: csloan999 | March 28, 2008 10:10 PM | Report abuse

So, Tom Webb...

You're pro-life when it comes to fetuses but not when it comes to soldiers. That makes a hell of a lot of sense.

Posted by: naturesally | March 28, 2008 10:02 PM | Report abuse

It is of my personal opinion that if she really wants to be the President of The United States, then she Hillary Clinton must continue on running and seeking the votes that she needs to WIN. It is not a hopeless case, as her opponents want you to believe. She is the best choice for the Democratic Party to win the election against John McCain. Barack Obama has all the finese and characterics of John F. Kennedy, but the facts remain he is not Kennedy and he will never be able to matchup to his standards. Hillary is the best qualified to run this Government and has all the experience that Barack lacks. Her Husband Bill Clinton being a past President has more experience in running this country then Barack Obama and John McCain together. There is nothing saying that Barack wouldn't give it his best effort, I believe he would. But with the country going through the war in Iraq and with the challenges that are being faced with al-Qaida and the Shiite Militia it is no time to start an OJT (On The Job Training) program. We need someone with the experience to handle every given situation. With Hillary Clinton married to a former president this gives her the best chance of succeeding in the War in Iraq and to get control of the Fianacial Mess we are in owing Trillions of Dollars in debt, and to help improve the economy. We cannot sustain another Republician President. It would be foolish for anyone to think very much will change from the way it is now. Race or Gender has no place in tis race for the whitehouse, we need to pool together and make a stronger Government and the only way that will take place is by unifying all the voters and select the person who will do what is required to be done. Don't make promises to the American People that they know will never be a fact or accomplished. Split Tongue government is is a traversity and should never be used again. There is nothing wrong with being honest and truthful, the American People and Voters deserve no less than that.
To put the war in Iraq in it's proper prosepective is to bring a Victory home, and not to return from that country until we Win the war in Iraq. Additionally it is imperative that we win the War against Terrorist, the the al-Qaida, and the shiite militia. We have been threaten more than once about the killing of ALL Infidels, which is you and me for the most part. The Muslim terrorist and extremist have no value for life, and think nothing of giving up their lives to kill the infidels. Why am I mentioning this? Whoever wins the election and becomes the President of this great country must make sure we do not lose the war in Iraq. We also must win against al-Qaida as well. If we allow our heads remain in the sand, we will have loss something we will never get back. The support of our Allies, respect of being a Nation united against all forms of governments that deny the civil rights of men and women. The terrorist do not care nor do they give a hoot about living or dying. The holy war as they believe will let them be with Allah, and that is their main purpose in life. The elimination of Osama bin Laden should also be on the top of our priority list, cut off the head of the snake and the remaining body tends to wander aimlessly. To allow the al-Qaida and the terrorist continue in their mission without intervention will only allow them to gain strength and continue destroying US property and the taking of American lives unnecessarily. We must stop them so they do not endanger our properites and lives. The president should not quit, and remove our troops until the mission of what we went to Iraq to accomplish has been completed. Leaving the Iraq government in the mess that it is in now will only delay the return of things the way they were for about another decade. We need to leave them with the victory we deserve, and they too will be able to accomplish their dreams and hopefull be safe place for all Iraqis to live in harmony. Hillary Clinton must take into consideration the debt we will pay for leaving Iraq to soon will cost us a lot more than can be seen by the naked eye. We must win in Iraq.

Posted by: rgtgrandpa | March 28, 2008 9:57 PM | Report abuse

It is of my personal opinion that if she really wants to be the President of The United States, then she Hillary Clinton must continue on running and seeking the votes that she needs to WIN. It is not a hopeless case, as her opponents want you to believe. She is the best choice for the Democratic Party to win the election against John McCain. Barack Obama has all the finese and characterics of John F. Kennedy, but the facts remain he is not Kennedy and he will never be able to matchup to his standards. Hillary is the best qualified to run this Government and has all the experience that Barack lacks. Her Husband Bill Clinton being a past President has more experience in running this country then Barack Obama and John McCain together. There is nothing saying that Barack wouldn't give it his best effort, I believe he would. But with the country going through the war in Iraq and with the challenges that are being faced with al-Qaida and the Shiite Militia it is no time to start an OJT (On The Job Training) program. We need someone with the experience to handle every given situation. With Hillary Clinton married to a former president this gives her the best chance of succeeding in the War in Iraq and to get control of the Fianacial Mess we are in owing Trillions of Dollars in debt, and to help improve the economy. We cannot sustain another Republician President. It would be foolish for anyone to think very much will change from the way it is now. Race or Gender has no place in tis race for the whitehouse, we need to pool together and make a stronger Government and the only way that will take place is by unifying all the voters and select the person who will do what is required to be done. Don't make promises to the American People that they know will never be a fact or accomplished. Split Tongue government is is a traversity and should never be used again. There is nothing wrong with being honest and truthful, the American People and Voters deserve no less than that.
To put the war in Iraq in it's proper prosepective is to bring a Victory home, and not to return from that country until we Win the war in Iraq. Additionally it is imperative that we win the War against Terrorist, the the al-Qaida, and the shiite militia. We have been threaten more than once about the killing of ALL Infidels, which is you and me for the most part. The Muslim terrorist and extremist have no value for life, and think nothing of giving up their lives to kill the infidels. Why am I mentioning this? Whoever wins the election and becomes the President of this great country must make sure we do not lose the war in Iraq. We also must win against al-Qaida as well. If we allow our heads remain in the sand, we will have loss something we will never get back. The support of our Allies, respect of being a Nation united against all forms of governments that deny the civil rights of men and women. The terrorist do not care nor do they give a hoot about living or dying. The holy war as they believe will let them be with Allah, and that is their main purpose in life. The elimination of Osama bin Laden should also be on the top of our priority list, cut off the head of the snake and the remaining body tends to wander aimlessly. To allow the al-Qaida and the terrorist continue in their mission without intervention will only allow them to gain strength and continue destroying US property and the taking of American lives unnecessarily. We must stop them so they do not endanger our properites and lives. The president should not quit, and remove our troops until the mission of what we went to Iraq to accomplish has been completed. Leaving the Iraq government in the mess that it is in now will only delay the return of things the way they were for about another decade. We need to leave them with the victory we deserve, and they too will be able to accomplish their dreams and hopefull be safe place for all Iraqis to live in harmony. Hillary Clinton must take into consideration the debt we will pay for leaving Iraq to soon will cost us a lot more than can be seen by the naked eye. We must win in Iraq.

Posted by: rgtgrandpa | March 28, 2008 9:56 PM | Report abuse

bvogtengr, you seem to forget the Clintons records in the White House:

- Most number of convictions and guilty pleas by friends and associates*
- Most number of cabinet officials to come under criminal investigation
- Most number of witnesses to flee country or refuse to testify
- Most number of witnesses to die suddenly
- First first lady to come under criminal investigation
- Largest criminal plea agreement in an illegal campaign contribution case
- First president to establish a legal defense fund.
- First president to be held in contempt of court
- Greatest amount of illegal campaign contributions
- Greatest amount of illegal campaign contributions from abroad
- First president disbarred from the US Supreme Court and a state court

And you seem to forget that before leaving the White House, Preseident Clinton gave favors in exchange of money... For example, shortly after beeing pardonned by President Clinton, fugitive financier Marc Rich had his ex-wife giving $400 000 to the Clintons library foundation: Source:
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,98756,00.html

Since then, the Cintons are in much bigger suspicious money deals ... The Clinton foundation received recently a $31.3 million donation after Bill expressed enthusiastic support for the Kazakh leader's, undercuting both American foreign policy and sharp criticism of Kazakhstan's poor human rights: Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/31/us/politics/31donor.html

bvogtengr, I noticed that those like you who criticized Barack have a tendency to be total amnesics when come time to the Clintons records.

Posted by: Logan6 | March 28, 2008 9:18 PM | Report abuse

Hillary Clinton should bow out and hang her head in shame for she voted for the Iraq War resolution and the Patriot Act.

Posted by: ritchee303 | March 28, 2008 9:14 PM | Report abuse

I believe that many of these comments are dragging on longer than the Primaries themselves so I have come up with one way to at least get to an abbreviation that we can all agree on. Instead of waisting the typing space to spell out both Clinton's first names, i.e. Bill and Hillary can we all agree on a shortened version. I have two nominations: 1) "Billary" or 2) "Hill-Billy". I don't care but I say we pick one and make it stick. Agreed?

Posted by: duane | March 28, 2008 9:02 PM | Report abuse


If it is a problem for the race to continue for so long, then why are there still so many state primaries scheduled this "late?" If the DNC didn't want a situation where a candidate wasn't chosen at this point in time, then they should have forced all the states to hold their primaries by the end of March.

Let voters in all 50 states have the opportunity to weigh in on this extraordinary election. Let Obama and Clinton finish without the media and others clamoring for them to quit.

Posted by: grzz_76 | March 28, 2008 8:53 PM | Report abuse

The contest of Obama and Hilton has in a way giving McCain more time chance to focus on his presidential campaign. Be it that the reality, Hillary Clinton must not bow out of the race. Yes, many have been said for and against Hilton, but considering America as the most powerful country of the old and modern times, I am encouraging Americans to deeply reflect and make a second thought of choosing Barack Obama to seat in the Washington Palace.

Posted by: hex1275 | March 28, 2008 8:52 PM | Report abuse

annierliu..
Bill and Hillary chosen by god?? good lord woman what are you smoking to dream up something like that? what ever it is I want none of it.

Posted by: owaggoner | March 28, 2008 8:35 PM | Report abuse

In response to letter from Howrad Dean:

Dean,

Sorry I cannot support either of the Democratic nominees. Your stand on issues such as Abortion, Immigration and other very important convictions that I have forced myself to come to terms with, forbid me to vote Democrat any longer. The fact that a Senator who claims to be against Abortion is backing Obama who is very much pro-choice is disturbing. I had originally believed that I could be against Abortion except in cases of rape or incest. But someone who supports Abortion told me I couldn't be one and not the other..........I agree. I could not in good conscience vote for anyone who is pro-choice. Although I originally was against the war in Iraq, now that we are there, I cannot for the life of me think that any of the 4,000 soldiers that died in Iraq want their deaths to be in vain. To totally pull out now would make their deaths meaningless.

I won't even start on Immigration.

Respectfully,

Tom Webb

Posted by: tommywebb | March 28, 2008 8:33 PM | Report abuse

In my opinion, Obama does not have the credentials to be President or senator. I find it amazing that people, after seeing his relationships, can possibly vote for him. Every candidate has perception problems but not like his. His double standards, even before the pastor problems, were apparent to me. I think he should be removed from office for not fulfilling his job description as a senator (enforcing Article 14, don't discriminate on basis of color, gender, etc). A person who actively teaches hate will never get my vote. No matter what color or background. We all choose our standards. His are disgusting.

Posted by: rmason1 | March 28, 2008 8:29 PM | Report abuse

In my opinion, Obama does not have the credentials to be President or senator. I find it amazing that people, after seeing his relationships, can possibly vote for him. Every candidate has perception problems but not like his. His double standards, even before the pastor problems, were apparent to me. I think he should be removed from office for not fulfilling his job description as a senator (enforcing Article 14, don't discriminate on basis of color, gender, etc). A person who actively teaches hate will never get my vote. No matter what color or background. We all choose our standards. His are disgusting.

Posted by: rmason1 | March 28, 2008 8:29 PM | Report abuse

Hillary's and Obama's parachutes are hopelessly tangled and they are in a death spiral.

Posted by: hamishdad | March 28, 2008 8:29 PM | Report abuse

Hillary's and Obama's parachutes are hopelessly tangled and they are in a death spiral.

Posted by: hamishdad | March 28, 2008 8:29 PM | Report abuse

In my opinion, Obama does not have the credentials to be President or senator. I find it amazing that people, after seeing his relationships, can possibly vote for him. Every candidate has perception problems but not like his. His double standards, even before the pastor problems, were apparent to me. I think he should be removed from office for not fulfilling his job description as a senator (enforcing Article 14, don't discriminate on basis of color, gender, etc). A person who actively teaches hate will never get my vote. no matter what color or background. We all choose our standards. His are disgusting.

Posted by: rmason1 | March 28, 2008 8:29 PM | Report abuse

Hillary's and Obama's parachutes are hopelessly tangled and they are in a death spiral.

Posted by: hamishdad | March 28, 2008 8:29 PM | Report abuse

I am very disappointed about the leaders of Dem party. Particularly, Howard Dean has no stand and base in his current position. I can not believe that as a party leader, Dean shut the voters in MI and FL. The two so important states in the general election. I also feel disgust about the Voment Senator and other Dem leaders who want Hillary to drop the race. Under such foolish leadership, no wonder Dem party lost the White House race after Bill Clinton. It is Bill's extreme ability to make him in that position for 8 years. Thost eight years are the best time of America in the modern history. After him, no one has the ability to carry on and to win. The good news is that eventually Hillary emerged, and her strength and ability and only she has the guts to win back the White House. But some one in the Dem party asks her to drop. No one can win the election in the Dem party except Bill and Hillary because they are chosen by the God to carry on such heavy duty when America is facing so many tough challenges. Obama can never win the general election. Obama is a person to damage Hillary's chance and to damage Dem party's chance to win back the White House. Think about the facts, no helps from the entire media, no helps from Dem's party, facing a seriers of loss in 11 states, Hillary still is able to draw big victory in OH, TX and RI. Only Hillary can do that. Only Hillary can keep her upbeat spirit to earn that huge victory. You party leaders shut your own people's voices of MI and FL and all the rest of States. Those conducts are evil and already create incredible damages. Howord Dean even warned the two candidates not dividing the party. Let me tell Howard Dean, he already divids the party by shuting the two strates' voices. Some other leaders are doing hte same thing by asking Hillary to drop off and give Obama a gift of the nomination without his efforts and refusing the voices of the rest states. It is not only ourageous but also a crime politically. Dem party has been strengthed by Bill and Hillary. HIllary's continuous efforts can only save the party, the country and win back the White House. Let me tell the Dem party: only Hillary can beat Macain. Obama is too easy for Republic to defeat. Obama is nothing under Republic's attack but HIllary can and is able to stand strongly.

At last, I have to point out the reason that some one in the Dem party does not like Hilary because Hillary is a lady. Those men do not want ot be led by a lady. That is the only reason they are against Hillary and that is the only reason that media is against Hillary. Shame on all you sexists. But truth is truth. Hillary will win nad win to the end!!!

Posted by: annierliu | March 28, 2008 8:21 PM | Report abuse

Only problem is will we have time to pull the losers side over to back the winners side if it goes on too long?

Posted by: owaggoner | March 28, 2008 8:20 PM | Report abuse

What information can we garner from Obama's decision to take that "much needed break" this past Easter week-end? Did this not throw up huge "RED FLAGS" about how Obama handles very difficult situations, decisions, etc? Now we know what Obama may do "next time" he is put to the test. Obama will take a "trip" when he has issues about the economy that are tough. Decisions about the war in Iraq? Decisions about health care? Obama will make a call asking to have Air Force One switch on it's engines...then he'll tell the pilot, take me anywhere, but not back to the White House where important decisions are waiting to be made.

Perhaps instead of answering the phone in the middle of the night, he'll just roll over in bed and ask Michele where she would like to go on their next trip out of the country. Obama should have had the strength to make a decision one way or the other about attending services at Pastor Wrights church. Instead he ran scared.(and to the tropics) I could never trust my country to someone who runs away from problems. Could you?

Posted by: sombrasmmom | March 28, 2008 8:17 PM | Report abuse

I'm a strong Obama supporter, but I believe at this point, it would be the worst thing possible for him if Clinton withdrew from the race. With the race as close as it's been, I think he needs the legitimacy of beating her fair and square on delegates (including the supers). I think her supporters will be more likely to support him in the fall if they feel their candidate got a fair shot, and lost fair and square.

I'm not worried about this hurting Obama or helping McCain. He has to fight until November anyway, so why not fight against Clinton right now? We'll have plenty of time in August, September, October and November for the general election fight.

Posted by: fid4wp | March 28, 2008 8:14 PM | Report abuse

You all know that the super delegates may, if unhappy the way the nominees are splitting the party....choose an alternative candidate?

Posted by: tommywebb | March 28, 2008 8:13 PM | Report abuse

Whatever...

Suddenly, I realize: Mike Huckabee has WAY more class than Hillary Clinton. Though he made a point of fighting till the end, he never made it a fight to the death. He understood what was at stake, or perhaps he just had a better personality. Eitherway, Buddha knows, there were striking contrasts to be drawn between him and McCain. And yet, never an ambiguous statement about the dignity of McCain. How did he do it?

Well, it is refreshing to see the level of radical militantism that until recently lay dormant in the democratic party. Hillary cannot win unless either Obama's political career is destroyed or the democratic party gets damaged beyond repair for at least the next two presidential elections. The Wright controversy is highly unlikely to get worse in substance, although its remaining alive may hurt Obama with a marginal number of people (considering how the public at large has already reacted to the story). And the Rezko controversy is no worse than a number of controversies associated with the Clintons (Hsu, White Water and so many others, whose significance may well be concealed in a number of still unrelesead Clinton papers, a "republican" might say!!!!). So, what kind of HUGE disaster is Hillary now wishing upon Obama? What kind of disgusting disillusionment is she wishing upon these young people and new voters whom HE is clearly responsible for bringing over. Why does she insist on radicalizing her base in the process? Does she realize the kind of cognitive dissonance she is going to create in the minds of her followers when it is time for democrats to unite? No way that those who are still sane could vote for Obama if she keeps on drawing her "contrasts." (Note that these are no longer about policy.)

There is no rationalizing around these questions. There is no "symbolic" expression of remaining voters that would make her a positively "better" candidate. "Being better," in this race, is defined in mathematical terms, Mrs Clinton, not in metaphysical ones that only you can understand. And there is no reasonably foreseeable moral justification for taking away victory from the mathematical winner at this point.

So why are you still fighting so hard, considering the stakes? I can't conceive an ego big enough. (Maureen Dowd had the right word: nihilistic!) So I'm going to start to worry about the kind of urgent investment those big pocket contributors of yours have in your preidency!

Now go ahead... bully your way into disgrace.

Posted by: YoutheMan | March 28, 2008 8:13 PM | Report abuse

What if this campaign goes to the convention floor and neither Clinton or Obama are able to go over the top? What if party poo-bahs decide to draft Al Gore instead? Improbable, for sure, but some media types are talking about it as if he were already running. It could just be the political silly season, but I have a funny feeling about this. What about the "will of the voters" then...any ideas?

Posted by: rmpatera | March 28, 2008 8:05 PM | Report abuse

alas...and for all the foregoing reasons, Senator Obama will be voted the next sitting president of these United States of
America, the greatest country in the world, with the most intelligent people, who are able to overlook recial connotations and vote their heart and conscience for change. Thank God.

Posted by: counseler | March 28, 2008 7:42 PM | Report abuse

If Mich & FL votes were counted, Clinton actually would have the popular vote. It's awful that the outcome of the vote seems to be majorly influenced by the media. Tons of articles writing about how Obama adapted to changes as a child. I don't recall seeing any articles lately about what an independent and strong woman Hillary is since a little girl fighting the "BOY'S CLUB" against all the odds. I can't believe it's the 21st century and us Americans still can't accept a woman as the president!

Posted by: vshiao | March 28, 2008 7:36 PM | Report abuse

Of course, Hillary should not quit. You have to give her credit. She's tough, just what we need in a president. The media fawns over Obama. He is an Oprah production and that is it. Hillary has substance, vision and a plan. And all you 18 year olds, remember that Hillary was prosecuting Watergate offenders. In addition, she was a top attorney making $300,000 a year before Clinton became governor. At the same age, Obama was selling drugs on the streets. Democrat get out of your Obama-induced coma. He will divide this nation and will not win in November.

Posted by: afellow1 | March 28, 2008 7:26 PM | Report abuse

Whoever wins, wins. We will see given the twists and turns BUT...

you don't tell the person who won Ohio, California, New York, New Jersey, Florida, and probably Pennsylvania to drop out. Those states aren't small beans and they matter like crazy in the general election.

Posted by: jack9 | March 28, 2008 7:12 PM | Report abuse

spanky:

I, for one, am begging Hillary to stay in the race for the entertainment value AND to improve John McCain's chances.

Posted by: JakeD | March 28, 2008 7:10 PM | Report abuse

"Bascom, unlike some of the Clinton supporters who were unaware of the daunting math Clinton faces because of Obama's solid lead in delegates, still thought she should keep going. "She should stay in the race until all the delegates are determined," he said. "

>>Obama's solid lead in delegates
There is no solid lead by Senator Obama. The only way this particular form of math works is if you leave out 2 entire states.

The Obama campaign would make you think we only have 48 states.

Michigan and Florida, If you add both of these state back in..guess who has more delegates? Senator Clinton.

Don't believe me, go to www.thegreenpapers.com. There is a grid in the middle of the page with and without sanction counts.

Obama only has a lead if he ignores millions of voters. This is tantamount to voter suppression by the DNC and his campaign if those delegates are not counted.

Posted by: ken_wilsonii | March 28, 2008 7:08 PM | Report abuse

"Bascom, unlike some of the Clinton supporters who were unaware of the daunting math Clinton faces because of Obama's solid lead in delegates, still thought she should keep going. "She should stay in the race until all the delegates are determined," he said. "

>>Obama's solid lead in delegates
There is no solid lead by Senator Obama. The only way this particular form of math works is if you leave out 2 entire states.
The Obama campaign would make you think we only have 48 states.

Michigan and Florida, If you add both of these state back in..guess who has more delegates? Senator Clinton.

Don't believe me, go to www.thegreenpapers.com. There is a grid in the middle of the page with and without sanction counts.

Obama only has a lead if he ignores millions of voters. This is tantamount to voter suppression by the DNC and his campaign if those delegates are not counted.

Posted by: ken_wilsonii | March 28, 2008 7:06 PM | Report abuse

I finally figured out (weeks ago) what the Obama campaign wants. They would like to stop voting (and stop the revoting in Michigan and Florida) and not count the rest of the votes. The court (of Obama supporters and some pundits) would then just hand him the victory. Wait a minute! Didn't Bush already try that in Forida in 2000? I guess the rules of democracy and of the Democratic Party's normal nomination process are a little too scary for them.

Posted by: waldrf | March 28, 2008 7:05 PM | Report abuse

Clinton has won almost all of the democratic states while Obama has won mostly republican states by republicans voting for Obama.

This is election rigging

Current polls show that Hillary wins aginst McCain Obama does not.

Many of Obama current voters have been republicans. will these Republicans vote for Obama in November. I doubt it. Hillary will go all the way

Posted by: healthenergy2000 | March 28, 2008 7:05 PM | Report abuse

Jeff:

You get the nod without bias. Your statement gives me reason to Hope there are more with your sense of logic out there. Absolutely.

Posted by: Obama2008 | March 28, 2008 7:03 PM | Report abuse

Logan6: To your response of the below statement:

"Hillary Clinton needs to begin to prepare her exit from the race... Several sources in her own camp (of course not true was it the media or is it Obama's opinion?) admit that she has virtually no chance of winning the nomination except if she succeeds in finding James Hoffa's body and moving it in Obama's flower garden to put the blame on him."

B. HUSSEIN OBAMA has a lot more than Jimmy Hoffa's body that's buried in his garden (or actually his former "friend (Rezko)" under indictment that gave him a $500K land next door to his house for a meager $90K). B.O. for president elect will never happen since he has too many skeleton's in his closet, some that are already out like his long time friend and Pastor Wright (Jew and White hater or racist - choose one), his lack of experience, his ties to Muslim factions, and his lies & pandering to the American people.

Examples from CNN:

Chicago newspapers published Saturday, the Illinois senator disclosed he had accepted $250,000 in campaign donations from Rezko --about $100,000 more than had previously been disclosed.
But on a conference call with reporters, Clinton senior strategist Mark Penn said the new information pointed to a "troubling pattern" of obfuscation.
"We're finding out on Rezko and others, much of what he said turns out to be just words as we learn more and more information," Penn said.
Obama "has talked about the politics of hope, but he has throughout this campaign launched a series of personal attacks on Senator Clinton, calling her disingenuous," Penn said. "We think now the real question before us is to Senator Obama, is, 'Will you make full disclosure of all this information related to the Rezko matter? Will you ever put to rest all these troubling questions?'"

OBAMA on WIP 610 Phila. Sports radio 3/20/08: (taken from the interview)
"The point I was making was not that my grandmother harbors any racial animosity," he said. "But she is a typical white person".

WOW!!! WHAT IS A TYPICAL WHITE PERSON?!?!?
Rednecks? White collar? Blue Collar? Christian? Atheist? This is troubling...

Obama is half white, although he hides the fact and always is associated with the African American (100% black). One last truth:

Mar 27, 2008 Newsweek
Day after day, in interviews, E-mails, and conference calls with reporters, Clinton aides argue that Obama is undercutting his message of reconciliation and acting hypocritically by attacking his rival in harsh and unfair terms. Clinton spokesman Phil Singer told reporters yesterday that Obama is using a "wholly negative attack strategy" as he criticizes Clinton's candor and ethics. Harold Ickes, a senior Clinton adviser, said Obama pretends to want Florida and Michigan to be represented at the nominating convention but his campaign is "dragging its feet" and won't support a revote of the disputed primaries in those two states. Ickes told reporters on a conference call yesterday that Clinton will do very well in the next round of primaries and the two candidates will be "within a hair of each other" when the final nominating contest is held in Puerto Rico in June. Ickes predicted that no one will have a majority, and it will be up to the superdelegates to choose a nominee. (THAT'S A REALITY)

Clinton/Edwards presidential elect for DNC!!! Only chance for the Democrats to win in November! (I actually want her to win because of Bush prolonging an unwinnable war and keeping the US troops in Iraq >4 years too long).
By the way I'm a Republican in PA.

Democrats: Say NO To Obama! ;/b

Posted by: bvogtengr | March 28, 2008 7:02 PM | Report abuse

For some BIG KAHUNAS from DNC to ignore, to bully, and to disrespect Hillary Rodham Clinton is TOTALLY WRONG. Why not let her finish the dead even contest? Let the close contest finish as expected and MAY THE BEST MAN WIN. Also, IT'S NOT OVER TILL IT'S OVER. Just to remind you the BIG KAHUNAS of DNC that Hillary Rodham Clinton have millions of diehard supporters, hence, if you continue your very inappropriate actions towards her, YOU MIGHT REGRET IT. National election is coming.

Posted by: manuel1547 | March 28, 2008 7:00 PM | Report abuse

Logan6: To your response of the below statement:

"Hillary Clinton needs to begin to prepare her exit from the race... Several sources in her own camp (of course not true was it the media or is it Obama's opinion?) admit that she has virtually no chance of winning the nomination except if she succeeds in finding James Hoffa's body and moving it in Obama's flower garden to put the blame on him."

B. HUSSEIN OBAMA has a lot more than Jimmy Hoffa's body that's buried in his garden (or actually his former "friend (Rezko)" under indictment that gave him a $500K land next door to his house for a meager $90K). B.O. for president elect will never happen since he has too many skeleton's in his closet, some that are already out like his long time friend and Pastor Wright (Jew and White hater or racist - choose one), his lack of experience, his ties to Muslim factions, and his lies & pandering to the American people.

Examples from CNN:

Chicago newspapers published Saturday, the Illinois senator disclosed he had accepted $250,000 in campaign donations from Rezko --about $100,000 more than had previously been disclosed.
But on a conference call with reporters, Clinton senior strategist Mark Penn said the new information pointed to a "troubling pattern" of obfuscation.
"We're finding out on Rezko and others, much of what he said turns out to be just words as we learn more and more information," Penn said.
Obama "has talked about the politics of hope, but he has throughout this campaign launched a series of personal attacks on Senator Clinton, calling her disingenuous," Penn said. "We think now the real question before us is to Senator Obama, is, 'Will you make full disclosure of all this information related to the Rezko matter? Will you ever put to rest all these troubling questions?'"

OBAMA on WIP 610 Phila. Sports radio 3/20/08: (taken from the interview)
"The point I was making was not that my grandmother harbors any racial animosity," he said. "But she is a typical white person".

WOW!!! WHAT IS A TYPICAL WHITE PERSON?!?!?
Rednecks? White collar? Blue Collar? Christian? Atheist? This is troubling...

Obama is half white, although he hides the fact and always is associated with the African American (100% black). One last truth:

Mar 27, 2008 Newsweek
Day after day, in interviews, E-mails, and conference calls with reporters, Clinton aides argue that Obama is undercutting his message of reconciliation and acting hypocritically by attacking his rival in harsh and unfair terms. Clinton spokesman Phil Singer told reporters yesterday that Obama is using a "wholly negative attack strategy" as he criticizes Clinton's candor and ethics. Harold Ickes, a senior Clinton adviser, said Obama pretends to want Florida and Michigan to be represented at the nominating convention but his campaign is "dragging its feet" and won't support a revote of the disputed primaries in those two states. Ickes told reporters on a conference call yesterday that Clinton will do very well in the next round of primaries and the two candidates will be "within a hair of each other" when the final nominating contest is held in Puerto Rico in June. Ickes predicted that no one will have a majority, and it will be up to the superdelegates to choose a nominee. (THAT'S A REALITY)

Clinton/Edwards presidential elect for DNC!!! Only chance for the Democrats to win in November! (I actually want her to win because of Bush prolomging an unwinnable war and keeping the US troops in Iraq)
By the way I'm a Republican in PA.

Posted by: bvogtengr | March 28, 2008 6:59 PM | Report abuse

Should Hillary drop out? No. I am neither a registered Republican nor a registered Democrat. Nor am I a decided supporter of either Hillary or Obama. I have voted in every election since 1972, for some Democrats and for some Republicans. I have regretted some of those votes. I voted for Bill Clinton twice and I voted for McCain in the 2000 primary. I am a resident of Illinois and voted for Barack Obama for the U.S. Senate and in the primary earlier this year. I believe he will be the nominee and, as things stand now, I will probably vote for him again. However, calls for anyone to drop out of this very close race are premature, just as is any discussion of the two candidates ultimately running as a ticket. Let the rest of the primary voters have their say; let the superdelegates decide for themselves; divide the Michigan and Florida votes, because of their rules violations and the candidates previous agreement, equally between the two candidates; and let the convention decide the nominee. Then support the nominee and win the Presidency for the good of us all. Just for clarification-Humphrey's home state was Minnesota, Obama was raised in a Christian home and is a Christian, and, like all of us, he didn't get to pick his middle name.

Posted by: jeffmhayes | March 28, 2008 6:57 PM | Report abuse

Now now Obama AND Hillary supporters:

We all support some similar causes. Well, Hillary and Obama have similar stances. I have seen vicious Hillary supporters, and I have seen just as equal from Obama supporters.

Let the candidates be responsible for the candidates' positive and negative actions. We must, however, remain focused on The Issues. Strength is strength, and we have seen a form of that from both candidates. Let us be without bias (hold on to your favorite indeed but I urge you not to forget The Cause). This is not kindergarten.

I respect McCain as an individual but NOONE can convince me even if Obama SOMEHOW isn't the winner, to vote for that man. What person in his/her right mind supports some of McCain's ideals?? Why??

Is it the right thing to do to support an illegit war for x amount of years, decreasing our defense by thousands of individuals, and aiding further to the loss of crucial family members? Are you people whom threaten to flop the nomination, SERIOUS?!

Anyone remember when McCain spoke to our military overseas and got the groups mixed up, right before the eyes of those serving our country? Can you imagine THEIR thoughts as McCain spoke to them before another senator had to correct him? I can't help but to wonder if they hope We The People generally elect someone else into office whom is on top of what's going on. Bottom line, it's time to change course. That has more weight than any of this nonsense. We need to be united =) We are adults, and it is NOT by design that we can't use our brains and CHOOSE to be part of the general Progressive Team.

Obama or Hillary '08.

Posted by: Obama2008 | March 28, 2008 6:55 PM | Report abuse

The call for Clinton to exit is another example of how hollow the faith, Obama supporters have on their candidate. Why are they so bothered about the democratic party getting fractured and its chance getting screwed up? Isn't Obama a uniter? Or uniter "enough" to consolidate democratic vote block? If he cannot unite democrats, just in case he gets nominations, what the heck uniter he is? Let us see Obama "who can directly talk to a adversaries", has enough strength to run for the nomination, at least.

Why call Hillary to exit, now? Impatience. This is the kind of impatience that had lead us to wars under Bush administration. This is the same impatience got Bush into White House after Florida debacle.

The elections and running the government is not something like video game. It takes strength, perseverance and courage to stand up against the odds. We need a leader who has that quality. We don't want a person who is impatient, talks one way while sending his surrogates to assure that the talk is only for campaign and the reality will be different.

Remember, almost half the people have cast votes for Hillary; they want her to win. A group of active bloggers, some supporters and some media "pundits" want this race be over. This is the same reason the people in Florida and Michigan moved up their primary to have a say. Calling off now, reinforces their reason to move up their primary. You punish them for violating party rules, and also punish others remaining states who did not move up their primaries. What a double standard!

Let us have the whole primary be over and let us have the convention to do its duty. No escape from responsibility. No running away.

Too much money spent? Strike a deal for a limit - if you care. That is remotely possible, as Obama has advantage over it. This is what is sickening in this whole campaign. Anything convenient, take it and call others unfair. That is not the "Change" people starve for. The change we carve for is reduction in health care cost, thus make American workers cost competitive, get back jobs here. There is no short cut. Impatience does not work folks.

Another point: whether the race is over now or not for democratic nomination, issues like Wright's will surface all the time, up to November or even after. No escape, don't be scared!

Posted by: kadavul | March 28, 2008 6:51 PM | Report abuse

to "Thisworld" you are TYPICAL of what's wrong with this election process. YOU get off this blog, rude moron.

Posted by: msophia | March 28, 2008 6:48 PM | Report abuse

To roughly 50% of the Democrats, SHE IS OUR candidate. She IS our remaining voice for the middleclass America & damn you all, WE don't want her to QUIT. Obama didn't get pressured to drop out the Wedsneday after Super Tuesday & he wasn't that winner. Let her be. Stop poisoning this election process for us. No One has the right to TAKE our votes away. I'm getting really angry at this tainted, corrupt process we're being forced to fight thru so we can get to vote for the candidate we chose.
You GO Hillary! We're behind & beside you!

Posted by: msophia | March 28, 2008 6:45 PM | Report abuse

Quoting JakeD: "I am not a Clinton supporter."

Which raises another question (I mean in addition to your, um, assassination fantasies): How many of the people begging Hillary to stay in the race are simply trying to improve John McCain's chances?

Once again, thanks for clarifying your intentions.

Posted by: spanky | March 28, 2008 6:40 PM | Report abuse

Google Peter Paul and read listen to what happened to this Gentleman. than say you still support Senator Clinton. I say anyone but another Clinton in the whitehouse.IMO the republicans should not have winner take all primary's. They should work the same way the democrats do.Having a winner take all negates the votes of those who voted for others.Clintons campaign has been offered a 50/50 split in delagate seating for the deligates in both Fl. and Mi. and she has refused to even consider this. She won barely over 50% so this seems very fair to me and would give both states delagetes a chance to be seated. A revote leaves a lot of people out so is not the fairest way to go about getting the delegates seated.

Posted by: bennie1 | March 28, 2008 6:34 PM | Report abuse

If the BIG KAHUNAS from DNC is afraid the Democratic Party will be DIVIDED as a result of the close contest between Barack Hussein Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton, then so be it.
If the BIG KAHUNAS from DNC is afraid that GOP McCain will win this coming presidential election simply because of the DIVIDED Democratic Party, then so be it.
I strongly believed the in-fighting in the Democratic Party was brought about by the too much excitement of the BIG KAHUNAS from DNC to win the November presidential election. At this early, they are already starting to position themselves to protect their personal interests and hidden agenda.

Posted by: manuel1547 | March 28, 2008 6:34 PM | Report abuse

How is it that Obama supporters can say that Obama has already won? The way I calculate it, neither Obama or Clinton can reach the 2024 number of delegates necessary to win the nomination before the convention (without the superdelegates).

To me that means no one should drop-out. The contest is wide open and they should play it out.

Posted by: rusty1492 | March 28, 2008 6:29 PM | Report abuse

Hillary talks about her 35 years of experience, and by doing so she is open for critizesem for anything that she might have been involved it during that time span. So why is it we are not allowed to bring up Monica and how she handled this situation, this surely was a 3am call in her life. And why can't we talk about her involvement in the White Water incident, or about the woman that went to prison for her and Bill instead of telling the truth. Yes the truth, as in running from sniper fire and ducking for her safety (this is the third she had told that story).

Posted by: usmdillon | March 28, 2008 6:26 PM | Report abuse

I am a Hillary Clinton Supporter.
Hillary is the BEST candidate for November if the Dems are to beat McCain.
Howard Dean & Leahy can't even figure out how to count delegates in the Florida and Michigan primaries which is WHAT they SHOULD be working on, let alone telling candidates to quit. Neither candidate has the required delegates, look at the number those of you who "think" Obama as won. Looks like you're trying to disenfranchise the process--it's called democracy and "people vote"--ALL the people vote. So until that has happened in ALL the primaries and the delegates, superdelegates and convention is held there is no rush to "crown" anyone. We are just getting to know the candidates, especially since the press has overlooked and given a pass at our "naive" underexperienced candidate. He is just getting started at being "vetted." We are finding out some interesting things that he has said that are not factual...
i.e., lies: he speaks fluent Indonesian (wrong), his parents met during Salem (wrong), he barely knows Ayers and Rezko (wrong), he has never heard Rev. Wright say all those anti-American hateful remarks (wrong), he was never in the Trinity church pews when the hateful remarks were made (wrong), he is not a Muslim (?),
he will redo NAFTA with the Canada (wrong, just said for the Ohio debate)--all of these are LIES. Is this a man of character, a person of trust? The candidate to step down has the initials BHO and that's not Hillary Clinton!

Posted by: bibliotheque | March 28, 2008 6:22 PM | Report abuse

To svreader - You obviously haven't checked the latest Gallup poll today which shows that Obama is leading Clinton by 8 points. There, get off the blog and do some more research because we don't deal with yesterday's data.

Posted by: thisworld | March 28, 2008 6:20 PM | Report abuse

I would like to know when Wright acknowledged that he was wrong in his preaches like Obama suggested on The View today since he has been in hiding 'at an undisclosed location'(sound familiar?!)

Posted by: barbara29id | March 28, 2008 6:17 PM | Report abuse

Is it not to be the Democratic Party Nominee he/she should get 2,024 delegates? Also, is it not to-date the contest is almost dead even between Barack Hussein Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton? Then,why some BIG KAHUNAS from DNC is asking for the withdrawal of Hillary Rodham Clinton? Why not let Barack Hussein Obama and HIllary Rodham Clinton finish the contest to the end that following MAY THE BEST MAN WIN.

Posted by: manuel1547 | March 28, 2008 6:14 PM | Report abuse

brisbail62: I will be right there with you--let's start a write-in candidacy for HRC. I would rather "waste" a vote by doing so than voting for a candidate I don't believe in. I don't buy into the win at all cost Obama supporters are trying to push on the country. Obama cannot, and won't win the general elecetion. This country isn't ready for an African-American nor a woman president.

Posted by: slpooler2002 | March 28, 2008 6:14 PM | Report abuse

ywUSA2001 said: "It's too risky to put Obama in White House. He has no experience at all"

Well, ywUSA, that's a bit of an overstatement. AND, experience is only as valuable as what your character permits you to learn from it.

Bush had more "experience" than Obama. But he waged useless war on false pretenses. Etc. Hasn't learned from his experience...

Spitzer had more "experience" than Obama. But he broke laws he enforced against other men. Hasn't learned from his experience...

McCain has more "experience" than Obama. But he still screams obscenities at his fellow Senators. Hasn't learned from his experience...

LBJ had more "experience" than Obama. But he micro-managed Vietnam into a preview of Iraq. Hadn't learned from his experience...

Hastert had more "experience" than Obama. But he failed to out a suspected pedophile from the ranks of Congress. Hadn't learned from his experience...

Clinton's supporters will willingly follow her BACK to positions of power in DC. So they can redeem her.

McCain's supporters will willingly follow him BACK into a war we can now call "V-Islam". So they can refight Vietnam.

Obama's supporters will willingly follow him FORWARD into the future. Because they want to see our nation unified, and stronger in the years ahead.

Which would you prefer to live through NOW? The 90's, the 60's, or the REAL eight years coming up?

We should all prefer the future, of course. And that means Obama, the one with the decent character, intellect, and ability to lead by positive patriotism instead of polarization (Clinton) and fearful anger (McCain).

Posted by: zenagain | March 28, 2008 6:02 PM | Report abuse

Obama proclaims to be a uniter but it is him and his supporters that keep playing that race card. Anyone who really knows the Clintons and their history know they are not racist!

Posted by: barbara29id | March 28, 2008 5:56 PM | Report abuse

Should Sen. Clinton drop out?

http://www.youpolls.com/details.asp?pid=1996

.

Posted by: jeffboste | March 28, 2008 5:55 PM | Report abuse

brutkakfa

Who gave S. Obama the lead in the popular vote and pledged delegates and still going to vote for him along with sending their $25 contributions are patriotic as much as you may think of yourself if not more so. They certainly, know a patriotic American when they see one. They already have .

Being angry to the point of vomiting hateful statements indicates your level of desperation.

Posted by: najmway | March 28, 2008 5:55 PM | Report abuse

Hillary must stay in this race. Obama's credibility is seriously damaged by his association with Rev Wright - McCain has launched his first ad that draws the distinction between his service and sacrifice for America and the values espoused by Rev Wright. I'm probably not alone in thinking that there may be more to come from Fox News et al in respect of this matter - I seriously doubt that that they dumped it all in one go, I bet they saved a juicy morsel for later. The fiasco over Michigan and Florida won't go away - there must be a revote or they will have to seat the delegates as per the existing vote. It is inconceivable that this won't be resolved - does anyone in the DNC remember the election in 2000? Hello? Do you think we have a hope in hell of winning in November without Florida and Michigan? Hillary must keep right on fighting for every vote - the fact is that until the convention, neither she nor Obama will have the magic numbers, but at least she is a credible, vetted nominee with policies that can deliver for America.

Posted by: bessmount | March 28, 2008 5:55 PM | Report abuse

In my humble opinion, if the DNC cannot weather this storm without forcing a candidate out, when the "lead" candidate has not secured the nomination, then it needs to go the way of the Whigs. Bye bye DNC! Your days were numbered anyway!

Posted by: slpooler2002 | March 28, 2008 5:54 PM | Report abuse

I am a strong Obama supporter and I believe that he will be the Democratic nominee and he will win the presidential election. That said, democracy should run its course - to do otherwise is not American. Senator Obama will be a stronger contender in the presidential election if the Democratic primary run its course.

As for the Fl & MI fiasco, blame the legislatures of those states. Senator Obama played by the rules and he is still following the rules of the game.

Posted by: felicitymason | March 28, 2008 5:53 PM | Report abuse

As an Obama supporter, if Hillary wants to remain in the Democratic race then she should but she should be willing to have a positive campaign which is focused on issues and stop her and Bill's praising of John McCain.

If Obama loses Pennslyvania by less than 10pts and then wins North Carolina and Indiana on May 6th. The uncommitted superdelegates need to start endorsing Obama on the order of 15 per week to send the message to Hillary that her campaign is over come June 3rd.

Posted by: ajtiger92 | March 28, 2008 5:53 PM | Report abuse

22% + 22% + 62% = 106%

Posted by: maulsbeve | March 28, 2008 5:51 PM | Report abuse

Gobama!! Obama is the only candidate with the potential to unite this country again. Without that unity, America will only continue to whither. I pray that the Clintons will have the dignity and integrity to back out rather than destroy him.

Obama courageously addresses the racial issues that divide us every day. Meanwhile Hillary stoops to rovian racialist sound byte tactics and exploits the "grievance group" divisions by which liberals screwed themselves all through the 80s and 90s.

Obama courageously addresses the Wall Street culture of Unfettered Greed that has tanked our economy. Meanwhile Hillary takes her biggest donations from hedge funds, and the Clintons provided years of cozy assistance to the financial deregulators whose ideology has resulted in our economic weakness.

I would love to see a woman president in my lifetime, but I sure hope it's not Hillary. Her grandiosity and unscrupulous lust for power have caused her to lose my trust.

Posted by: jdilallo | March 28, 2008 5:51 PM | Report abuse

spanky:

I am not a Clinton supporter.

P.S. for North Carolina / Indiana "Operation Chaos" operatives:

North Carolina's primary is closed to Republicans, but unaffiliated voters, which account for 12% of the Democratic electorate, can cast ballots for either party. The "deadline" to register as unaffiliated for the Democratic primary is April 25, 2008 (although there seems to be a procedure for One-Stop Registration / Absentee Balloting after that as well):

http://www.sboe.state.nc.us/NCSBE/VR/VR%20Forms/form06.pdf

Same with Indiana:

http://www.in.gov/sos/elections/pdfs/50504.pdf

Posted by: JakeD | March 28, 2008 5:50 PM | Report abuse

I hope Hillary stays in the race all the way. Obama is definitely not the best choice to lead our country. His character has been brought out with his spiratual leader that is a hate mongering, God damn America", white Americans hater. The church and like-an-Uncle preacher he has teach his young children. The lies,lies and more lies he keeps telling but the media refuses to talk about. And if you don't think the Republicans will be all over this you are crazy!!!But, if they can find any little thing about Hillary it is all the rage! Everyday I look on the internet there are articles after articles Obama this Obama that, it is ridiculus. If Obama wins this nomination I will vigoruosly campaign for another candidate. not Mcain, we have lost enough in this war.I am so tired of hearing all of Obama's fairy tale speeches...So, please stay in the race Hillary!

Posted by: barbara29id | March 28, 2008 5:49 PM | Report abuse

"Obama promised us hope and unity, and he brought us discord and division. He's just another radical left wing candidate that is going to lose in November. If Obama is the nominee, I will vote for McCain in November."
Posted by: princeps2 | March 28, 2008

The discord and division have come from Hillary and Bill. All Obama has done is to defend himself and to put Hillary on notice that he's not going to be rolled over.

I'm glad Obama has taken this tack. Kerry tried taking the positive, moral high road and got the Swift Boat treatment. He did not defend himself and did not answer allegations made by the press, or his opponents, quickly and directly.

I strongly believe Obama has been more congenial and polite than Clinton. Hillary has changed the tone of this race and Obama has simply matched the tone to send a message that he's not about to be intimidated.

Voters like someone who can defend himself, who shows himself not to be a pushover. That's why Obama is doing far better now than Kerry did in 2004.

Also, your comment about going for McCain tells me everything I need to know about you and other similar Democrats - you're prepared to toss the baby out with the bath water. So if you vote McCain and he wins the general election, get ready for (in no particular order): $4 gasoline, a long occupation in Iraq (at least through the first term and maybe an attack on a second country), more conservatives on the Supreme Court (who have already turned back the clock on social progress and ensured Big Business can never be sued for its incompetence and lack of responsibility) and, most of all, an economy continuing to slide into deeper and deeper recession. If you vote for McCain, you're gonna get all these - and don't blame anyone other than you and your other turncoat supporters.

Posted by: wpreader2007 | March 28, 2008 5:46 PM | Report abuse

Hey Penny, The republcians will throw a roof to Obama in Nov., watch out for all the skeletons in his closet.

Posted by: kcbear881 | March 28, 2008 5:44 PM | Report abuse

Political Earthquake Rocks Washington. Blogmeister Slowedd Announces Obama Can't Win.

WASHINGTON, March 28 (Foxx News)

In a surprise development, famed blogger Slowedd announced today that leading Democratic contender Barack Obama cannot win the general elections in November.

Directing his comments to "all you Obama followers," Slowedd announced that "it is about time that you all wake up and stare reality in the eye." Using impeccable reasoning that stunned his opponents and reduced them to incoherent babbling, the famed blogger wrote: "Because Obama wins a hand full of blue state primaries and again as many blue state caucus[es] . . . in no way means he will be able to deliver the goods in the general election."

The feisty blogger continued: "This notion that all democrates will unite behind one candidate is ludicrous as I would truly hope we can think for ourselfs and I for one can think of no one worse than Obama leading this country."

In Pittsburgh, the Clinton campaign pounced on the news. "Slowedd has the pulse of the nation," proclaimed Clinton spokesman Wolfgang Howard. "Whoever disagrees with Slowedd is an idiot."

Fresh from an invigorating trip to Iraq, presumptive Republican nominee John McCain, 71, echoed Howard's sentiments. "Friends, Slowedd may be slow, but he's been proven right more often than not, and that's good enough for me."

The Obama camp responded by announcing a major policy speech set for next Wednesday, focusing on Slowedd's critique. "Slowedd is a great patriot," announced the Obama camp, "and we take his views very seriously. If Slowedd thinks we can't win, well then we probably can't." Obama volunteer Peter Paul reflected on this latest bombshell. "This really sucks," said Paul. "I mean, I can feel all the hope being sucked right out of me."

The title of Obama's forthcoming speech, "Is Slowedd Right After All?", was reportedly plagiarized from a blog posting by the famed Zuckyman, a report the Obama camp later feebly denied.

Posted by: MikeinMichigan | March 28, 2008 5:42 PM | Report abuse

Don't give up. A revote in MI and FL will be coming. We should have a mass demonstration if ther isn't. Why is Obama camp so scare of a revote. Is this country supposed to be democratic. Next election, maybe another controlled state could make the primary date earlier too, then what?

Posted by: kcbear881 | March 28, 2008 5:41 PM | Report abuse

I'll vote Hillary Clinton she is a fighter
and has courage,not like Obama who has no courage to disown a pastor who is a racist.
Go Hillary,don't quit, america loves the
undergo

Posted by: rverceles | March 28, 2008 5:38 PM | Report abuse

Don't drop out Hillary. I will vote for Mccain if Barack Hussein Obama is the candidate. He hates America and is a Muslim. Farrakhan, Wright, you lie with dogs you get fleas. He would make Malcolm X proud.

Posted by: kevinheavin | March 28, 2008 5:33 PM | Report abuse

Quoteing JakeD: "It looked like Robert FRANCIS Kennedy's nomination was decided too, right before Sihran BISHARA Sihran shot him dead."

Thanks for the insight into your thinking. It provides useful context for your other comments on this and many other blogs.

Of course, this isn't the first such remark we have heard from a Clinton supporter. You clearly have the same penchant for insinuation and veiled threat that has characterized your preferred candidate's campaign. Let's hope that your comment is insinuation and nothing more.

Posted by: spanky | March 28, 2008 5:33 PM | Report abuse

Hillary Clinton is continuing this race for this main reason:

Her supporters - millions of us - absolutely believe in her and do not want her to quit.

There are a lot of us.
We are over HALF of the Democratic Party!!!! We are getting very frustrated hearing that our votes shouldn't count, that our opinions aren't just as important as the opinions of Obama's fans - many of them not even Democrats. We are stung by the accusation that Hillary's dedication to us, is seen as a "scorched earth strategy" and a "blood letting".

She is running for her supporters. For her Party. For this nation. If she quit, she would let all of us down. She will not do that. We need her to continue to work and inspire all of us.

The more Obama, his sup-delegates, and his fans call on Hillary to quit, the more she will resist and fight on harder. That's what we love about her.

Hillary is not going anywhere but to Denver, RIDING ON OUR SHOULDERS.

And after Denver, one of these extraordinary candidates will win the White House. But know this: anything less than a show of respect for our brave candidate and her commitment to running this race to the finish line will divide this Party. Everyone who is a Democrat needs to remember that - if you care about this Party and this nation. Backing us into a corner is not just; it is not responsible. We will have our voices heard.

Posted by: syoung1 | March 28, 2008 5:30 PM | Report abuse

HRC is everything America stands for. She's strong, compassion , wisdom, and a fighter.She keeps fighting because she cares for us.Telling HRC to take a back seat would be like telling the U.S. Military not to defend our country.Give me a break.HRC is our only prayer to beat the republicans.She knows the Whitehouse and has got the know how to stand tall with the republicans, and win.Obama just dont have the qualifications, and know how.The whitehouse dosnt have time to put O.B. on a job training program. It dont have room for a popularity contest.He is just a school boy that needs training. His smooth speeches are not going to bring you changes,or beat the republicans.There is a saying in this country. What you dont know wont hurt you.O.B. lives by that saying.He is a closed book of life. HRC has had her book of life opened for the whole world. She hides nothing.America dosnt even know the first chapter of O.B.'S book of life.This country is naive to elect a canidate they dont even know. Two yrs. ago none of the country voting knew him ,and still dont.I know that HRC is RED, White ,and Blue all the way.I dont want O.B.'S true colors come out after he's elected.I already dont like the way he is conning America.He would make a better preacher.He's had twenty yrs. experience there. Go HRC.

Posted by: gjennings_55 | March 28, 2008 5:29 PM | Report abuse

Clinton and her campaign advisers failed to properly strategize and so she's had to resort to tactic after tactic, everything including the kitchen sink.

There's no rationality, let alone forethought evident in much of Billary's post New Hampshire moves. But she may pull out some trump card late at the eleventh hour, so maybe there's a reason for her to stay in the game.

Posted by: pennycentury | March 28, 2008 5:25 PM | Report abuse

Claudette,

"What is it that is so bad about Obama that people feel so strongly about"?


Answer: Hussein Obama is an actor.

Posted by: liberalredneck | March 28, 2008 5:23 PM | Report abuse

All I have to say to Obama supporters who keep saying Clinton should just drop out is, how are you going to like it when her millions of supporters take their votes with her when she goes? You just might need those votes come November so don't be so smug, unless of course you want the pleasure of saying you supported the Democratic Party Presidential nominee during the '08 election instead of being able to say you supported the President. Besides, the race isn't over yet. Another reason not to be smug---she just might pull it out unless Obama thinks of a way to prevent another several million people from having their votes counted.

Posted by: MDan543527 | March 28, 2008 5:21 PM | Report abuse

svreader: After undergrad and gradschool in politics, and work as a congressional staffer, I'm pretty well versed, thanks.

That and I know how to double-check sources, think for myself, and engage in proper debate without resorting to name calling.

I'm not trying to be overly critical, but when people troll the comments sections, not addressing the article at hand and eating up space with the same cut n' paste job, it's, welll, just a waste of time.

From what I've seen of you, you've got a pretty decent head on your shoulders. Use it.

Posted by: BABucher | March 28, 2008 5:21 PM | Report abuse

I never know before that there is an AFFIRMATIVE PROGRAM for the Democratic nomination.

Posted by: liberalredneck | March 28, 2008 5:18 PM | Report abuse

"if John McCain then wins the election, then it will be better to have a genuine war hero in John McCain, than a half-hearted patriot in Barack Obama"
=======
Judging from their policy platforms, I would have to disagree strenuously.

Posted by: zukermand | March 28, 2008 5:16 PM | Report abuse

Slowedd,

Yeah I bet it's kinda scary, the thought of someone who knows how to spell words like "democrat" and "handful" occupying the White House. Try taking some deep breaths, it might help. You offer some exceptionally solid reasons in support of your view, like . . . like . . . like he can't win. Now that's profound! Thanks so much for sharing your penetrating insights.

Posted by: MikeinMichigan | March 28, 2008 5:15 PM | Report abuse

Claudette,

my question is, for my understanding, why would you vote for McCain, when you know he will continue to do the same for the economy as Bush has done?

What is it that is so bad about Obama that people feel so strongly about.

If you give me a good case, I will consider and even be persuaded to follow.

Posted by: shadeofgood | March 28, 2008 5:14 PM | Report abuse

I am concerned about the left wing supporters of Barack Obama who are starting to call for Hillary to bow out of this nominating process. NO WAY!!! This must be the new strategy for the Obama campaign, and Hillary supporters should not stand for it! I keep reading how the Clintons want and expect a coronation for Hillary. Funny, but when they call for her to drop out, it is they who want to coronate King Obama. If this happens, they will lose the election. Vote no to the left wing progressive philosphy. This election is all about the minority left wing part of the Democratic Party trying to assert control over the party. I registered as a Democrat when I first became eligible to vote back in 1976. I have NEVER voted for a Republican. I don't like the strong arm tactics that the progessives are pushing on the rest of the party. The progressive have the same attitude as President Bush has about people who disagree with them. You are either with me or against me. If the Democratic Party moves much further to the left, then I will leave the party. Progessive left wing Democrats have never won a presidential election, and there is a reason for that. The majority of the American population does not agree with their philosophy. Count me, a moderate Democrat, as one of them. I will hand-write Hillary Clinton's name on my ballot. And if John McCain then wins the election, then it will be better to have a genuine war hero in John McCain, than a half-hearted patriot in Barack Obama, the supreme master of obfuscation and excuses! Good grief, another sure thing for Democrats in jeopardy, but the party will deserve it!

Posted by: brisbail62 | March 28, 2008 5:13 PM | Report abuse

Zukermand, thanks so much! I was confused until you straightened me out! Your contributions here will be remembered for all eternity as an invaluable contribution to the democratic experiment that is this magnificent Republic of ours.

BTW, have you read "Dreams From My Father"? Have you fantasized about having a genuine intellectual in the White House? I have and you know what? It's hot! Hot Zucky Hot! Try it you'll like it!

Posted by: MikeinMichigan | March 28, 2008 5:10 PM | Report abuse

It's inappropriate to ask her to drop out when everyone knows she still have very strong support - and especially since her support is coming from reliable Democratic voters. Forcing her to bow out now is the sort of stuff that makes me furious aboout the party. I, for one, know that I'll vote for McCain if Obama gets nominated. Obama's is even more ambitious, dirty and calculating than what they claim Clinton in.

Posted by: claudette_ocampo | March 28, 2008 5:09 PM | Report abuse

BaButcher --

Instead of ignoring the facts, why not learn them?

Posted by: svreader | March 28, 2008 5:08 PM | Report abuse

svreader: Can you refrain from posting those long pseudo articles in the comments section? It takes me forever to scroll past them.

Simple links are much easier to ignore. Thanks. ;)

As for the article - calls for Clinton to back out ARE premature, but I think if she doesn't win PA by double digits, she's really only screwing over the party and everyone else.

While the delegate math is a losing proposition for her, I, for one, am willing to grant her a small amount of leeway on the momentum argument, even if I don't particularly agree with her.

Posted by: BABucher | March 28, 2008 5:06 PM | Report abuse

To all you Obama followers it is about time that you all wake up and stare reality in the eye. Because Obama wins a hand full of blue state primaries and again as many blue state caucus' where you don't even vote you have a high school popularity contest, in no way means he will be able to deliver the goods in the general election. This notion that all democrates will unite behind one candidate is ludicrous as I would truly hope we can think for ourselfs and I for one can think of no one worse than Obama leading this country.

Posted by: slowedd | March 28, 2008 5:06 PM | Report abuse

Anyone who can't see that Clinton is far and away the best candidate in this election is wearing blinders of some sort. Either they can't see, or don't want to see. It's sad that so much ignorance and misogyny still exist in this great country of ours.

None of the negative comments about Clinton on this blog have any substance.

Judge a person by the content of their character. By their actions. By their words and deeds. Not by the words & deeds of someone else. What's so hard to understand about that?

Read Clinton's books and get back to me.
========

There, I fixed it for you.

Posted by: zukermand | March 28, 2008 5:05 PM | Report abuse

ogesosopo,

The only reason I believe you are saying that is that either you are supporting her out of some Narcistic reasoning or your are doing it because of Hedge Funds, which appears to be Obama's strongest enemies right now.

Posted by: shadeofgood | March 28, 2008 5:04 PM | Report abuse

Anyone who can't see that Obama is far and away the best candidate in this election is wearing blinders of some sort. Either they can't see, or don't want to see. It's sad that so much ignorance and bigotry still exist in this great country of ours.

None of the negative comments about Obama on this blog have any substance. Like the Rev. Wright controversy. Would that all presidential candidates, or presidents, were judged by their pastors. If that were the case, Reagan & Bush I & Bush II all would've been forced to resign for their association with the Rev. Jerry Falwell & the Rev. Pat Robertson & various other nutcase hate-spewing preachers. What a load of horse hockey.

Judge a person by the content of their character. By their actions. By their words and deeds. Not by the words & deeds of someone else. What's so hard to understand about that?

Read Obama's books and get back to me.

Posted by: MikeinMichigan | March 28, 2008 5:02 PM | Report abuse

I fear if Hillary Clinton is not the Democratic candidate, many democrats such as myself will be voting for McCain.
Hillary Clinton has displayed much courage going against all these men, and yet, she is still in the race. Suffice to say, some in her party think she should bow out..........I say to Hillary "stand tall and never give in".
The media does not speak for the people, although they indeed do a very job of influencing the political hype of events! All the surveys and whatnot does not paint the true picture of the people's vote.

Posted by: ogesosopo51 | March 28, 2008 5:00 PM | Report abuse

It dont take a genius to know, the longer that Clinton stay in this race, the stronger McCain gets with the potential of him raising more cash.

If anyone has a real brain, they will tell Clinton to stop. Its the classic divide and conquer technique that is being utilized here.

If Obama was losing, I would hope that he knows better to drop out the race and try to run for V.P. Clinton appears to be too absorbed in self to see this.

Posted by: shadeofgood | March 28, 2008 5:00 PM | Report abuse

It dont take a genius to know, the longer that Clinton stay in this race, the stronger McCain gets with the potential of him raising more cash.

If anyone has a real brain, they will tell Clinton to stop. Its the classic divide and conquer technique that is being utilized here.

If Obama was losing, I would hope that he knows better to drop out the race and try to run for V.P. Clinton appears to be too absorbed in self to see this.

Posted by: shadeofgood | March 28, 2008 5:00 PM | Report abuse

Damn... I was really hoping those obnoxious posters JakeD and zuckermand would fight each other to the death.

Posted by: edwlhall
===========
You realize you are sitting alone typing on a computer, don't you?

Posted by: zukermand | March 28, 2008 4:59 PM | Report abuse

marthadavidson, you appear to read poorly.

Posted by: zukermand | March 28, 2008 4:57 PM | Report abuse

Damn... I was really hoping those obnoxious posters JakeD and zuckermand would fight each other to the death.

Posted by: edwlhall | March 28, 2008 4:56 PM | Report abuse

Gmundenat (colon cleansing), you must have been on cracks just like Hussein Obama. It will either be President Clinton or president McCain. Hussein will be better for the party for Hussein to drop out ASAP. The only things I can see Hussein will do (if a miracle should happen) are expanding food stamps and welfare programs, which will benefit directly to his own people.

Posted by: liberalredneck | March 28, 2008 4:56 PM | Report abuse

Here is something Very interesting! One more reason not to trust Clinton, and one more reason for her to step down. Read on:

There's a reason Hillary Clinton has remained relatively silent during the flap over intemperate remarks by Barack Obama's former pastor, Jeremiah Wright. When it comes to unsavory religious affiliations, she's a lot more vulnerable than Obama.

You can find all about it in a widely under-read article in the September 2007 issue of Mother Jones, in which Kathryn Joyce and Jeff Sharlet reported that "through all of her years in Washington, Clinton has been an active participant in conservative Bible study and prayer circles that are part of a secretive Capitol Hill group known as "The "Fellowship," also known as The Family. But it won't be a secret much longer. Jeff Sharlet's shocking expos The Family: The Secret Fundamentalism at the Heart of American Power will be published in May.

Sean Hannity has called Obama's church a "cult," but that term applies far more aptly to Clinton's "Family," which is organized into "cells" - their term - and operates sex-segregated group homes for young people in northern Virginia. In 2002, Sharlet joined The Family's home for young men, forswearing sex, drugs and alcohol, and participating in endless discussions of Jesus and power. He wasn't undercover; he used his own name and admitted to being a writer. But he wasn't completely out of danger either. When he went outdoors one night to make a cell phone call, he was followed. He still gets calls from Family associates asking him to meet them in diners - alone.

The Family's most visible activity is its blandly innocuous National Prayer Breakfast, held every February in Washington. But almost all its real work goes on behind the scenes - knitting together international networks of right-wing leaders, most of them ostensibly Christian. In the 1940s, The Family reached out to former and not-so-former Nazis, and its fascination with that exemplary leader, Adolf Hitler, has continued, along with ties to a whole bestiary of murderous thugs. As Sharlet reported in Harper's in 2003:


During the 1960s the Family forged relationships between the U.S. government and some of the most anti-Communist (and dictatorial) elements within Africa's postcolonial leadership. The Brazilian dict ator General Costa e Silva, with Family support, was overseeing regular fellowship groups for Latin American leaders, while, in Indonesia, General Suharto (whose tally of several hundred thousand "Communists" killed marks him as one of the century's most murderous dictators) was presiding over a group of fifty Indonesian legislators. During the Reagan Administration the Family helped build friendships between the U.S. government and men such as Salvadoran general Carlos Eugenios Vides Casanova, convicted by a Florida jury of the torture of thousands, and Honduran general Gustavo Alvarez Martinez, himself an evangelical minister, who was linked to both the CIA and death sq uads before his own demise.


At the heart of The Family's American branch is a collection of powerful right-wing politicos, who include, or have included, Sam Brownback, Ed Meese, John Ashcroft, James Inhofe and Rick Santorum. They get to use The Family's spacious estate on the Potomac, The Cedars, which is maintained by young men in Family group homes and where meals are served by The Family's young women's group. And, at The Family's frequent prayer gatherings, they get powerful jolts of spiritual refreshment, tailored to the already powerful.


Clinton fell in with The Family in 1993, w hen she joined a Bible study group composed of wives of conservative leaders like Jack Kemp and James Baker. When she ascended to the Senate, she was promoted to what Sharlet calls the Family's "most elite cell," the weekly Senate Prayer Breakfast, which included, until his downfall, Virginia's notoriously racist Senator George Allen. This has not been a casual connection for Clinton. She has written of Doug Coe, The Family's publicity-averse leader, that he is "a unique presence in Washington: a genuinely loving spiritual mentor and guide to anyone, regardless of party or faith, who wants to deepen his or her relationship with God."


Furthermore, The Family takes credit for some of Clinton's rightward legislative tendencies, including her support for a law guaranteeing "religious freedom" in the workplace, such as for pharmacists who refuse to fill birth control prescriptions and police officers who refuse to guard abortion clinics.


What drew Clinton into the sinister heart of the international right? Maybe it was just a phase in her tormented search for identity, marked by ever-changing hairstyles and names: Hillary Rodham, Mrs. Bill Clinton, Hillary Rodham Clinton and now Hillary Clinton. She reached out to many potential spiritual mentors during her White House days, including New Age guru Marianne Williamson and the liberal rabbi Michael Lern er. But it was the Family association that stuck.


Sharlet generously attributes Clinton's involvement to the under-appreciated depth of her religiosity, but he himself struggles to define The Family's theological underpinnings. The Family avoids the word Christian but worships Jesus, though not the Jesus who promised the earth to the "meek." They believe that, in mass societies, it's only the elites who matter, the political leaders who can build God's "dominion" on earth. Insofar as The Family has a consistent philosophy, it's all about power - cultivating it, building it and networking it together into ever-stronger units, or "cells." "We work with power where we can," Doug Coe has said, and "build new power where we can't."

Obama has given a beautiful speech on race and his affiliation with the Trinity United Church of Christ. Now it's up to Clinton to explain - or, better yet, renounce - her long-standing connection with the fascist-leaning Family.

By Barbara Ehrenreich
Reprinted with permission from The Nation.

Posted by: marthadavidson | March 28, 2008 4:55 PM | Report abuse


Barack Obama should absolutely be held responsible for Rev. Wright's comments. This is not an endorsement from a minister he barely knows.

Those who brush this off are obviously not Jewish and it's ok for Obama to have set there for 20 years and listened to this racist propaganda?

It's not ok.

This shows moral judgment.

Oprah left that church after hearing this garbage and took a high moral road.

Obama was caught in a lie regarding all this.

First, he said he had never heard these sermons, then admitted he had & he sat silent!

He points his finger at Clinton for her war vote, claiming she showed bad judgment. Yet, he continued showing bad judgment for 20 years.

History has taught us you do indeed have to have the courage to stand for what is right.

Recall the saying "When they came to get the Jews I said nothing, when they came to get the Poles. When they came to get the homosexuals, the teachers, the intellectuals, the gypsies, I said nothing.
When they came to get me I realized, I was the only one left.

It took tremendous courage for some in Germany those many years ago. They stood up for what they believed and paid a high price.

Obama, who I used to support, has shown he has caved in to pressure from his own group, even in the face of terrible wrong.

Obama is a moral coward and we are fools if we put him in the White House.

Hillary is our only choice.

Posted by: brutkakfa | March 28, 2008 4:52 PM | Report abuse

ricroe --

Obama's far worse. From DD --

Ok now why don't we take a look at some of the instances where St. Obama's misspoken, eh?


Just Embellished Words: Senator Obama's Record of Exaggerations & Misstatements

Once again, the Obama campaign is getting caught saying one thing while doing another. They are personally attacking Hillary even though Sen. Obama has been found mispeaking and embellishing facts about himself more than ten times in recent months. Senator Obama's campaign is based on words -not a record of deeds - and if those words aren't backed up by facts, there's not much else left.

"Senator Obama has called himself a constitutional professor, claimed credit for passing legislation that never left committee, and apparently inflated his role as a community organizer among other issues. When it comes to his record, just words won't do. Senator Obama will have to use facts as well," Clinton spokesman Phil Singer said.

Sen. Obama consistently and falsely claims that he was a law professor. The Sun-Times reported that, "Several direct-mail pieces issued for Obama's primary [Senate] campaign said he was a law professor at the University of Chicago. He is not. He is a senior lecturer (now on leave) at the school. In academia, there is a vast difference between the two titles. Details matter." In academia, there's a significant difference: professors have tenure while lecturers do not. [Hotline Blog, 4/9/07; Chicago Sun-Times, 8/8/04]

Obama claimed credit for nuclear leak legislation that never passed. "Obama scolded Exelon and federal regulators for inaction and introduced a bill to require all plant owners to notify state and local authorities immediately of even small leaks. He has boasted of it on the campaign trail, telling a crowd in Iowa in December that it was 'the only nuclear legislation that I've passed.' 'I just did that last year,' he said, to murmurs of approval. A close look at the path his legislation took tells a very different story. While he initially fought to advance his bill, even holding up a presidential nomination to try to force a hearing on it, Mr. Obama eventually rewrote it to reflect changes sought by Senate Republicans, Exelon and nuclear regulators. The new bill removed language mandating prompt reporting and simply offered guidance to regulators, whom it charged with addressing the issue of unreported leaks. Those revisions propelled the bill through a crucial committee. But, contrary to Mr. Obama's comments in Iowa, it ultimately died amid parliamentary wrangling in the full Senate." [New York Times, 2/2/08]

Obama misspoke about his being conceived because of Selma. "Mr. Obama relayed a story of how his Kenyan father and his Kansan mother fell in love because of the tumult of Selma, but he was born in 1961, four years before the confrontation at Selma took place. When asked later, Mr. Obama clarified himself, saying: 'I meant the whole civil rights movement.'" [New York Times, 3/5/07]

LA Times: Fellow organizers say Sen. Obama took too much credit for his community organizing efforts. "As the 24-year-old mentor to public housing residents, Obama says he initiated and led efforts that thrust Altgeld's asbestos problem into the headlines, pushing city officials to call hearings and a reluctant housing authority to start a cleanup. But others tell the story much differently. They say Obama did not play the singular role in the asbestos episode that he portrays in the best-selling memoir 'Dreams From My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance.' Credit for pushing officials to deal with the cancer-causing substance, according to interviews and news accounts from that period, also goes to a well-known preexisting group at Altgeld Gardens and to a local newspaper called the Chicago Reporter. Obama does not mention either one in his book." [Los Angeles Times, 2/19/07]

Chicago Tribune: Obama's assertion that nobody had indications Rezko was engaging in wrongdoing 'strains credulity.' "...Obama has been too self-exculpatory. His assertion in network TV interviews last week that nobody had indications Rezko was engaging in wrongdoing strains credulity: Tribune stories linked Rezko to questionable fundraising for Gov. Rod Blagojevich in 2004 -- more than a year before the adjacent home and property purchases by the Obamas and the Rezkos." [Chicago Tribune editorial, 1/27/08]

Obama was forced to revise his assertion that lobbyists 'won't work in my White House.' "White House hopeful Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) was forced to revise a critical stump line of his on Saturday -- a flat declaration that lobbyists 'won't work in my White House' after it turned out his own written plan says they could, with some restrictions... After being challenged on the accuracy of what he has been saying -- in contrast to his written pledge -- at a news conference Saturday in Waterloo, Obama immediately softened what had been his hard line in his next stump speech." [Chicago Sun-Times, 12/16/07]

FactCheck.org: 'Selective, embellished and out-of-context quotes from newspapers pump up Obama's health plan.' "Obama's ad touting his health care plan quotes phrases from newspaper articles and an editorial, but makes them sound more laudatory and authoritative than they actually are. It attributes to The Washington Post a line saying Obama's plan would save families about $2,500. But the Post was citing the estimate of the Obama campaign and didn't analyze the purported savings independently. It claims that "experts" say Obama's plan is "the best." "Experts" turn out to be editorial writers at the Iowa City Press-Citizen - who, for all their talents, aren't actual experts in the field. It quotes yet another newspaper saying Obama's plan "guarantees coverage for all Americans," neglecting to mention that, as the article makes clear, it's only Clinton's and Edwards' plans that would require coverage for everyone, while Obama's would allow individuals to buy in if they wanted to." [FactCheck.org, 1/3/08]

Sen. Obama said 'I passed a law that put Illinois on a path to universal coverage,' but Obama health care legislation merely set up a task force. "As a state senator, I brought Republicans and Democrats together to pass legislation insuring 20,000 more children. And 65,000 more adults received health care...And I passed a law that put Illinois on a path to universal coverage." The State Journal-Register reported in 2004 that "The [Illinois State] Senate squeaked out a controversial bill along party lines Wednesday to create a task force to study health-care reform in Illinois. [...] In its original form, the bill required the state to offer universal health care by 2007. That put a 'cloud' over the legislation, said Sen. Dale Righter, R-Mattoon. Under the latest version, the 29-member task force would hold at least five public hearings next year." [Obama Health Care speech, 5/29/07; State Journal-Register, 5/20/04]

ABC News: 'Obama...seemed to exaggerate the legislative progress he made' on ethics reform. "ABC News' Teddy Davis Reports: During Monday's Democratic presidential debate, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., seemed to exaggerate the legislative progress he has made on disclosure of "bundlers," those individuals who aggregate their influence with the candidate they support by collecting $2,300 checks from a wide network of wealthy friends and associates. When former Alaska Sen. Mike Gravel alleged that Obama had 134 bundlers, Obama responded by telling Gravel that the reason he knows how many bundlers he has raising money for him is "because I helped push through a law this past session to disclose that." Earlier this year, Obama sponsored an amendment [sic] in the Senate requiring lobbyists to disclose the candidates for whom they bundle. Obama's amendment would not, however, require candidates to release the names of their bundlers. What's more, although Obama's amendment was agreed to in the Senate by unanimous consent, the measure never became law as Obama seemed to suggest. Gravel and the rest of the public know how many bundlers Obama has not because of a 'law' that the Illinois Democrat has 'pushed through' but because Obama voluntarily discloses that information." [ABC News, 7/23/07]

Obama drastically overstated Kansas tornado deaths during campaign appearance. "When Sen. Barack Obama exaggerated the death toll of the tornado in Greensburg, Kan, during his visit to Richmond yesterday, The Associated Press headline rapidly evolved from 'Obama visits former Confederate capital for fundraiser' to `Obama rips Bush on Iraq war at Richmond fundraiser' to 'Weary Obama criticizes Bush on Iraq, drastically overstates Kansas tornado death toll' to 'Obama drastically overstates Kansas tornado deaths during campaign appearance.' Drudge made it a banner, ensuring no reporter would miss it." [politico.com, 5/9/07]

Twelve instances... when oh WHEN will they start doling out Pinocchios for these, eh?

Posted by: svreader | March 28, 2008 4:51 PM | Report abuse

I can't believe the insanity between Obama and Clinton people. They have pretty much the same ideas (terrible ideas). And I'm no McCain fan either. Third Party anyone?
www.goodoleboybumperstickers.com

Posted by: Brad8 | March 28, 2008 4:51 PM | Report abuse

All this talks and nuances are meaningless. The bottom line is Obama is unpatriotic and Anti-American. He CANNOT BE PRESIDENT PERIOD.
sO TIME TO SOBER UP AND OBAMA QUIT THE RACE. SAVE THE COUNTRY (OFCOURE WHY WOULD YOU?)

Posted by: dsclinton | March 28, 2008 4:51 PM | Report abuse

In the upcoming Pennsylvania primary, Catholic voters are said to be a key constituency in determining a winner.

Clinton has lied about Sniper-Gate.
Clinton has lied about her role in NAFTA.
Clinton has lied about her support of the war.

Clinton has lied about so many things, will faithful Catholics support a candidate that has been caught in so many lies, deceits and half-truths?

If so, after casting their ballot for Clinton will they leave the voting booth and feel the need to head straight for the confessional booth?

Posted by: ricroe | March 28, 2008 4:49 PM | Report abuse

Hillary and/or the inbred DNC types appearing, just appearing, to take unfairly the nomination away from Obama, will be the end of the Democratic Party and the end of Hillary. She has the right to do anything she wants as long as she has the money to spend, but having the right and being in the right are 2 different things

Posted by: nclwtk | March 28, 2008 4:48 PM | Report abuse

Hillary Clinton is the only candidate with the experience, intellect, and heart to actually bring about the change we need.

Barack Obama is too unknown. We really do not know enough about this man other than the image he has chosen to present. How many relationships in your life have you had where you thought very highly of someone but a couple of years go by and you learn they are nothing like what they seemed. I don't know how someone can vote for someone for our highest office with so little information about them.

Posted by: chersplace | March 28, 2008 4:46 PM | Report abuse

Dear All Hillary Haters,

Your candidate for "change" is running on a shallow campaign slogan. Hope and speeches are not going to save this country. We need someone that has ideas and the courage to execute them. You Obama supporters are going to have a rude awakening when you realize he is not God. He may be a great guy but we need someone like Bill Clinton and who better than the person who is closest to Bill. For some reason, Obama's campaign has persuaded some naive minded people that she part of the status quo. She is actually an advocate against the status quo.
I wonder who the people are that they are sampling in these surveys. Maybe Obama supporters? It should not surprise anyone that obama's surrogates want Clinton to drop out and spare him the embarrassment in Pennsylvania. She still has a very viable chance to win and all of her supporters are behind her all the way.

Posted by: Mani2008 | March 28, 2008 4:46 PM | Report abuse

You're welcome.

Posted by: JakeD | March 28, 2008 4:45 PM | Report abuse

The Obama campaign has been blowing smoke up voters butts ever since he entered the campaign - need I remind people that the democratic party was pretty united before he got in the race and now it is at each others throat - so much for the rhetoric of bringing people together. The push for Hillary to get out by the Obamaites is not about the party or winning in November but about him winning. Using their logic he should have not gotten in the race in the first place and his whole campaign has been nothing but one big attack - cleverly executed - against the HRC. The fact is he lost my vote long ago - and it has nothing to do with race and everything to do with his BS. zb

Posted by: sirblue | March 28, 2008 4:44 PM | Report abuse

Hang on, I didn't know Gore is also running in this election, did you ?

Posted by: thisworld | March 28, 2008 4:44 PM | Report abuse

Thank you

Posted by: zukermand | March 28, 2008 4:42 PM | Report abuse

From Slate --

Join the Club
A new poll shows Obama's unfavorability rating is similar to Hillary Clinton's.
By Mark Blumenthal and Charles Franklin
Updated Friday, March 28, 2008, at 2:59 PM ET
Yesterday we wrote about a new poll (PDF) that suggested Hillary Clinton's unfavorability rating reached a new high of 48 percent, while Barack Obama's rating was significantly lower at 32 percent. Considering Obama's rough press coverage over the past few weeks because of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright's sermons, this was a blow to the conventional wisdom that Obama's candidacy had been harmed by Wright's rhetoric.

However, a new SurveyUSA poll shows the two candidates' unfavorables to be much closer. Obama and Clinton have similar numbers in this poll, with Clinton polling unfavorably among 42 percent of voters. He is viewed unfavorably by 40 percent of the voters. She is viewed favorably by 35 percent of voters, while Obama is viewed favorably by 38 percent of voters

Posted by: svreader | March 28, 2008 4:42 PM | Report abuse

Squintz, I am suggesting the current margin is largely a function of the schedule. Were the primaries in an order more favorable to Sen Clinton, their roles might be reversed.
As to your hypothetical, I would like to think that neither the media nor the democratic leadership would succeed in deciding a contest this evenly matched by means other than the established process.

Posted by: zukermand | March 28, 2008 4:39 PM | Report abuse

If the country hadn't labelled GORE the spoiler and let it play out through the system we may well have avoided the past 8 years. And now they want Hilary and supporters to bow out --- bow out we will not until this is over --- and if doing so, I can assure you Barrack Obama is the great divider, we will be bowing out of voting for him ---- and I've voted Democrat since George McGovern, am liberal, well-educated and wealthy and still cannot support this political Huckster.
Gore-Obama I'd support, Clinton-Obama ---- he not Hilary has been the great polarizer, not the great uniter (ie see playing the race card speech of last week). DFedorchak

Posted by: converses | March 28, 2008 4:39 PM | Report abuse

Hillary Clinton is in a dreamland. Not only that she simply doesn't care for the party. All Hillary and Bill wants is if she can't win then let McCain get into the white house. Hillary is more of a republican than a democrat. So she has no problem seeing McCain in the white house. Until Hillary met Bill, she was a registered republican.

All the Hillary lackeys and the super rich supporters who send a threatening letter to Palosi have a lot to lose if Hillary loses. All of them have favors they expect from the Clintons once they are in office. Maybe they even have people in prison whom they want pardoned. Or they have business interests in countries like Bosnia and Ukraine where Bill can get the deals done with just a phone call.

Whatever the reason, Hillary is forced to contnue on the campaign by her surrogates. When Hillary says let the peoples voices be heard, she is putting her hands to her ears because she has heard what people are saying. If her reasoning has any value, then we would be seeing all the democratic candidates still running.

Initially Hillary wanted the debates to be limited to just the top three candidates and wanted to shut down the campaign of the rest of the candidates.

The Clinton's have become a liability for the party. They did not help Al Gore's campagin. They did not help John Kerry's campaign. They definitely are not going to support Obama's campaign either once he becomes the democratic nominee.

Posted by: JohnMcCormick | March 28, 2008 4:37 PM | Report abuse

She has every right to keep going in this primary as much as I have every right to dislike and oppose her, desperate win at all costs, pitiful tactics.

It's a shame.

Posted by: najmway | March 28, 2008 4:37 PM | Report abuse

Hillary Rodham Clinton's Texas campaign is challenging the seating of delegates from numerous precincts for Saturday's Democratic county conventions, particularly in Barack Obama's strongholds.

State Senate District 23, which includes much of southern Dallas County, was a central target of the Clinton campaign.

Just before Wednesday's deadline to file complaints before the county convention credentials committee, Clinton campaign officials delivered a large packet of challenges.

"There are numerous challenges," said Dallas County District Clerk Gary Fitzsimmons, who is temporary chairman of the District 23 credentials committee. The district went solidly for Mr. Obama in the primary, and there's a question over whether Mrs. Clinton will reach the 15 percent threshold needed to receive delegates.

The committee meets Thursday night to deal with minor challenges. The rest will be handled on Saturday, the day of the county conventions.

On a conference call Wednesday, Clinton campaign officials said they would not try to influence the county conventions with mass challenges before the credentials committee [...]

"Apparently the promise that the Clinton campaign made less than 24 hours ago not to challenge the seating of delegates at Saturday's district conventions was just another made-up story," [Obama spokesperson Josh] Earnest said. "The Clinton campaign's politically-motivated outrage over disenfranchising voters apparently doesn't extend to the 1.1 million Texans who participated in the precinct conventions earlier this month."

Posted by: jkallen001 | March 28, 2008 4:34 PM | Report abuse

It must be this way

Posted by: zukermand | March 28, 2008 4:33 PM | Report abuse

All Hillary wants is to be the nominee. Obviously she cares less whether she can win the election, and even less what happens to the country. Given that, she won't withdraw. The superdelegates will have to throw her out kicking and screaming, over Bill Clinton's dead body. Time for Gore to take over.

GORE/OBAMA in 2008!

Posted by: sooku | March 28, 2008 4:33 PM | Report abuse

zuckermand said:
I wonder, if the PA primary happened to be scheduled in February and IL in April, would Sen
Leahy be calling for Sen Obama to concede?

What does that mean? You seem quite pleased with your deconstruction of everyone else's logic, so please elaborate on your own. PA is not Clinton's home state, so I'm not too clear on your analogy.

Furthermore, I think were the tables turned the Democratic leadership and the media would have forced Obama out long ago. It's foolish to think otherwise. She's being given a lot of leg room that another, less established candidate would not be given.

I have no idea how to bold - and I'll venture a guess that whoever does isn't too interested in telling you.

Posted by: squintz | March 28, 2008 4:32 PM | Report abuse

Obama promised us hope and unity, and he brought us discord and division. He's just another radical left wing candidate that is going to lose in November. If Obama is the nominee, I will vote for McCain in November.

Posted by: princeps2 | March 28, 2008 4:31 PM | Report abuse

>b/b

Posted by: zukermand | March 28, 2008 4:31 PM | Report abuse

HYPOCRISY

Hillary Rodham Clinton's Texas campaign is challenging the seating of delegates from numerous precincts for Saturday's Democratic county conventions, particularly in Barack Obama's strongholds.

State Senate District 23, which includes much of southern Dallas County, was a central target of the Clinton campaign.

Just before Wednesday's deadline to file complaints before the county convention credentials committee, Clinton campaign officials delivered a large packet of challenges.

"There are numerous challenges," said Dallas County District Clerk Gary Fitzsimmons, who is temporary chairman of the District 23 credentials committee. The district went solidly for Mr. Obama in the primary, and there's a question over whether Mrs. Clinton will reach the 15 percent threshold needed to receive delegates.

The committee meets Thursday night to deal with minor challenges. The rest will be handled on Saturday, the day of the county conventions.

On a conference call Wednesday, Clinton campaign officials said they would not try to influence the county conventions with mass challenges before the credentials committee [...]

"Apparently the promise that the Clinton campaign made less than 24 hours ago not to challenge the seating of delegates at Saturday's district conventions was just another made-up story," [Obama spokesperson Josh] Earnest said. "The Clinton campaign's politically-motivated outrage over disenfranchising voters apparently doesn't extend to the 1.1 million Texans who participated in the precinct conventions earlier this month."

Posted by: jkallen001 | March 28, 2008 4:30 PM | Report abuse

I'm dismayed by the length of the primary season just like everybody else. What bothers me more, however, is how quickly some people want to put aside the fundamental values of democracy. As if the debacle of Howard Dean autocratically disenfranchising millions of voters in Florida and Michigan wasn't enough, now many want to stop the game in the middle, and award it to a man who is mere percentage points ahead of his opponent. I cannot see the wisdom in prematurely deciding an election with millions of votes yet to be cast. Haven't we travelled this road before?

Posted by: rmgibsonusa | March 28, 2008 4:30 PM | Report abuse

Hillary is seeking the presidency for the wrong reason and that is her right. The Clinton's should be allowed to continue under certain conditions:
1.) Apologize to the American people that she was a (liar about the sniper fire), and the other "Miss Speak" on: NAFTA, Iraqi War, Providing Child Health Care, Obtaining Peace in Northern Ireland and Florida/Michigan vote validity.
2.) Explain Chelsea's "none of your business" answer to a student.
3.) Explain why Bill should have the right to ever set foot in the White House.

Posted by: dmscontractor | March 28, 2008 4:29 PM | Report abuse

Same thing for italics except use the letter "i".

Posted by: JakeD | March 28, 2008 4:29 PM | Report abuse

It's not over till it's over!

Once the primaries have ended and the super-delegates have cast their votes and the Florida and Michigan voters have been "properly" heard and objectively "represented" can we choose a democratically elected nominee.

Anything less would be a violation of the "trust" with the American People.

Don't Tread On Me!

Posted by: randymk1 | March 28, 2008 4:29 PM | Report abuse

Hillary Clinton needs to begin to prepare her exit from the race... Several sources in her own camp admit that she has virtually no chance of winning the nomination except if she succeeds in finding James Hoffa's body and moving it in Obama's flower garden to put the blame on him.

Since there is little chance for the body to be found, she makes all these negative assertions. The goal seems to be the 2012 election. By putting enough doubts on Obama, Hillary is hoping that he will lose to McCain and that she or Chelsea (who is also an experienced leader after her journey at the White House mansion) will be able to run in 2012. The Clintons might then be able to capitalize again with the rental of the Lincoln Bedroom to big lobbyists.

Whatever happens, since the Judas story with Richardson, we know that Hillary believes in ressurection; she or her husband Bill would be Jesus if I understood correctly the story. So, we can assume that Hillary will not hesitate to play the kamikaze with this election or the next one since she will probably reborn again, as the savior.

Hillary Clinton needs to begin to prepare her exit from the race before she hurts herself or others.

Posted by: Logan6 | March 28, 2008 4:27 PM | Report abuse

Mandelay

The problem is that even if Hillary wins PA and FL and MI delegates are seated, she would STILL have to win all the other states by huge margins - and that won't happen.

I don't see any Mitt Romney fans complaining about not being able to vote for him. That's because he bowed out gracefully....

Posted by: logsol | March 28, 2008 4:26 PM | Report abuse

HILLARY, of course you are entitled to carry on, because as you correctly said it is not over yet technically. Honorable John Edwards also could have said that and carried on regardless because it wasn't really over for him either until everybody voted. But he just had more sense and respect for the party than you do. He did the math and some thinking that led him to believe that his insistence would only serve to empower the Republican party at the expense of the Democratic Party, given his slim chance. You on the other hand, plow on based on that famous 5% chance because you don't simply care about anything else but your own Clinton legacy. History will remember you as a very very silly woman with an ego the size of Mount Everest.

Posted by: thisworld | March 28, 2008 4:26 PM | Report abuse

TEXT = the letter "b" inside lesser than and greater than symbols TEXT and then "/b" inside lesser than and greater than symbols (no quotes).

Posted by: JakeD | March 28, 2008 4:26 PM | Report abuse

Pathetic.

...and so eager to post it you had to hit the button two times?

Posted by: zukermand | March 28, 2008 4:26 PM | Report abuse

crumbrye1 is completely right. It is not in Barack's interest for Hillary to quit. As bad as the media like to make this process out to be it is mild compared to the November election ads. If Barack can not handle this heat he will not win in November. Hillary has made it completely clear she will work to put a Democrat in the White House even if she does not will the nomination. It bothers me that Barack does not seem so committed to the DNC. Stop whining that people are saying negatives about your candidate. They either have a case that they can make a great President or they do not deserve the job. This is not a job for anyone with sensitive feelings.

Posted by: rori_baggins | March 28, 2008 4:25 PM | Report abuse

Go Hillary. Do not leave the race. Save us from the Obami mania.

Leahy, Kennedy, Casey, Richardson, Kerry.... you are betting on the wrong horse. Obama will not win against McCain. That's not a threat, that's a prediction.

Posted by: alee21 | March 28, 2008 4:25 PM | Report abuse

My dear fellow Obama supporters! Have you noticed that Hillary herself has been posting here again and again in support of her own self today under various different usernames ? She sure is desperate !

Posted by: thisworld | March 28, 2008 4:24 PM | Report abuse

Me dear fellow Obama supporters! Have you noticed that Hillary herself has been posting here again and again in support of her own self today under various different usernames ? She sure is desperate!

Posted by: thisworld | March 28, 2008 4:22 PM | Report abuse

The first serious woman candidate for the presidential nomination should not drop out of the race because some old man in Vermont says so. There are big state primaries coming up and Florida and Michigan need to be dealt with in a fair manner out in the open. Patrick Leahy wants Hillary Clinton to drop out of the race so everyone can close ranks and have a coronation? Why? Why does the Democratic Party need to do this? They could have avoided all of this with winner take all primaries... no proportional representation ... no superdelegates .. and no caucus process and run their process as a "you go out to vote, your vote gets counted, whoever gets the most votes wins." The party is trying to avoid looking even worse than it already does. It's not working. The Democratic party is selling Democrats down the river.

Posted by: Mandelay | March 28, 2008 4:21 PM | Report abuse

equityeducational-

Can you show me what states Hillary needs to win and by what margin in oreder to get the nomination? The votes just aren't there.

Posted by: logsol | March 28, 2008 4:18 PM | Report abuse

GIVE 'EM #&%$ HILLARY!!!!

Posted by: Hillary08 | March 28, 2008 4:15 PM | Report abuse

Its really time for Obama to conclude that his acceptance of the vice-presidential slot will best advance his interest and that of the party. Its clear he lacks the draw to secure votes from white-sub- 50- earners in rust belt states, and thus canot win the presidency. Eight years from now will probably be a different story. Framing the question as should Hillary drop out amounts to asking whether dems should hand the Presidency to the Republicans.

Posted by: equityeducational | March 28, 2008 4:14 PM | Report abuse

All great points, crumbrye1. I'm a Registered Pennsylvania voter and I'm looking forward to having my vote matter.

If there's any reason to be tired at all, it's because this campaigning started much too early in the first place.

Enjoy your weekend, fellow citizens.

Posted by: omega_3_6_9 | March 28, 2008 4:12 PM | Report abuse

between a man who says really nice things and a woman who works this hard and doesnt quit in spite of the 'pressures', then i'll pick the woman. but the man can talk anytime, no problem.

Posted by: nonoyd | March 28, 2008 4:11 PM | Report abuse

You're right, I don't really care what you type, either. How do you bold?

Posted by: zukermand | March 28, 2008 4:08 PM | Report abuse

It's very simple math - if you think Hillary can win each of the remaining 10 races with a margin of at least 65%-35% over Obama in each primary, then continue to support her. Otherwise, it's time move on and start focusing on McCain.

Posted by: logsol | March 28, 2008 4:06 PM | Report abuse

Whatever, zuckermand.

Posted by: JakeD | March 28, 2008 4:06 PM | Report abuse

"I thought I stated my point: "Anything can happen" in response, specifically, to the first part of gmundenat's post"
========
That's what I meant about the intent. You used the analogy of an assassination. It doesn't matter why.

Posted by: zukermand | March 28, 2008 4:02 PM | Report abuse

Wow, the biggest problem with this woman is that she cherry-picks everything, including polls, so she and her advisors never get to see the whole picture. It is always this section or that but never the whole picture. Hillay, don't be just latching onto those very few promising signs but also open your tired looking eyes to negative signs which are EVERYWHERE!

Posted by: thisworld | March 28, 2008 4:00 PM | Report abuse

Careful, johninfresno -- the self-appointed WaPo "Appropriateness" Police is on the loose.

Posted by: JakeD
============

You could just man up instead. You sound like one of them.

Posted by: zukermand | March 28, 2008 3:59 PM | Report abuse

I thought I stated my point: "Anything can happen" in response, specifically, to the first part of gmundenat's post: "This nomination was decided a long time ago. Obama has won and will soon be president."

Posted by: JakeD | March 28, 2008 3:59 PM | Report abuse

johninfresno, you sound impressionable.

Posted by: zukermand | March 28, 2008 3:57 PM | Report abuse

"anything can happen"
==========
An asteroid could vaporize the US and render the entire election moot. What's your point? Mine is it is inappropriate to consider the possible near term assassination of candidates in our calculations.

Posted by: zukermand | March 28, 2008 3:55 PM | Report abuse

Careful, johninfresno -- the self-appointed WaPo "Appropriateness" Police is on the loose.

Posted by: JakeD | March 28, 2008 3:51 PM | Report abuse

With all the "accidents" which happened to the friends, supporters, officials, etc... of the Clintons during the 90's, would Obama really risk having Hillary as a vice president?

Posted by: johninfresno | March 28, 2008 3:47 PM | Report abuse

I'm simply stating an historical fact -- after winning California (and Humphrey's home state of South Dakota) that day, it certainly looked like he would be the nominee -- anything can happen. And, regardless of intent, at least I am not calling for a "colon cleansing" of the Democratic Party.

Posted by: JakeD | March 28, 2008 3:45 PM | Report abuse

How do you bold?

Posted by: zukermand | March 28, 2008 3:43 PM | Report abuse

Regardless of intent, JakeD, your comment is inappropriate.

Posted by: zukermand | March 28, 2008 3:42 PM | Report abuse

"If Obama can survive the Clintons..."
===========
I've just never understood this sort of hyperbole. The Clinton campaign's tactics are completely typical, for that matter, so are Obama's. What possible basis could one have for describing the Clintons as any less "survivable" than every other candidate in history, let alone the truly despicable tactics of the modern GOP.

Posted by: zukermand | March 28, 2008 3:39 PM | Report abuse

gmundenat:

It looked like Robert FRANCIS Kennedy's nomination was decided too, right before Sihran BISHARA Sihran shot him dead.

Posted by: JakeD | March 28, 2008 3:37 PM | Report abuse

I'm not sure I totally understand this push to end the campaign early. Where did it even originate? Weeks have passed since the last primary vote. The next primary vote isn't for a few more weeks. She looks primed to win Pennsylvania, why in the world would we just end the whole thing now?

I just feel like Obama and his surrogates are spreading the idea of ending the primary because the longer this goes on, the more unattractive details come out about Obama. Thats kind of what a party primary is for though. Obama, undoubtedly, has his liabilities. Now is the time to air those issues and to allow him to respond to them in the intelligent way only he knows how. Once the general heats up, it will be increasingly difficult to take time to address every scandal that arises.

Plus, there is the issue of Obama failing to seal the deal with Dem voters in these traditional Democratic states. Obviously people are still struggling with the notion that he would be the best candidate. Give him a few more weeks to address these doubts and explain himself to the base before he has to start gaining swing-voter support.

I know its difficult to be patient while such an arduous campaign is unfolding, but this is how we test our candidates' mettle. If Obama can survive the Clintons, he will survive anything. Either send Hillary after McCain, or lets get Obama battle ready.

www.greenpieceblog.com

Posted by: crumbrye1 | March 28, 2008 3:34 PM | Report abuse

A "colon cleansing"? Were you raised by wolves?

Posted by: zukermand | March 28, 2008 3:26 PM | Report abuse

This nomination was decided a long time ago. Obama has won and will soon be president. Hillary and her starry-eyed dreamers are damaging the Democratic Party. This party needs a colon cleansing--New York needs a new senator.

Posted by: gmundenat | March 28, 2008 3:24 PM | Report abuse

It's too risky to put Obama in White House. He has no experience at all, only keep promising to change Washington. I'm not a Clinton or McCain supporter, but I know for sure Obama is NOT a good choice. I wish there is another choice.

Posted by: ywusa2001 | March 28, 2008 3:23 PM | Report abuse

Never mind the link, she says so right here in this blog post. It's like a tic with you people.

Sometimes I read these comments and just marvel at the utter lack of self awareness it must take to type them up.

Posted by: zukermand | March 28, 2008 3:22 PM | Report abuse

HEY! Look!

It's Al Gore!!!!!

Gore!

With Peace Prize! ;-)

Posted by: rat-the | March 28, 2008 3:20 PM | Report abuse

Funny thing about your comment, choskasoft, I knew from the "Sigh." you were a supporter of Sen Obama. I wonder why that is.

Posted by: zukermand | March 28, 2008 3:18 PM | Report abuse

Deal, choskasoft:

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8VC9QC80&show_article=1

"Once one of us has the nomination there will be a great effort to unify the Democratic party and we will do so, because, remember I have a lot of supporters who have voted for me in very large numbers and I would expect them to support Senator Obama if he were the nominee," she said.

Posted by: JakeD | March 28, 2008 3:17 PM | Report abuse

Sigh.

Okay, let's keep voting through the primary season. Everyone should vote. Let's make a deal with Florida and Michigan and seat them.

As an Obama supporter I'm good with all of this because he has already won it. But there are two conditions that I want in order to allow the Clintons to continue the fairy tale that she is going to win.

1) Hillary agrees to endorse Obama after she loses. She can't and won't win because Obama is going to win more than 50% of the remaining delegates (and super delegates) that have yet to be awarded. At the end of this he is going to have a bigger lead then than he does now. Ultimately she needs to agree that when the delegates are counted she will support him.

2) Most importantly, the Clinton campaign has to stop stop endorsing John McCain. If they truly want to see a Democrat in the White House, then they need to start conducting their campaign with that goal in mind. But when Bill Clinton says that John McCain is preferable to Obama, he hurts our chances of turning this country around.

Of course, I don't expect the Clintons or their supporters to agree to any of this.

1) They know they can't win unless they destroy Obama. Also, destroying him has the added benefit of increasing Hillary's chances in 2012 while also driving his supporters out of the Party so that only the Clintons will control it.

2) The Clintons aren't running to improve the Country or advance the Democratic agenda. They've never been good at doing that. They are only running because they want power for themselves.

So, let's keep going. She has some good qualities and I get why people want to vote for her. But the game is already over. Any additional voting is only going to confirm the math.

This sad spectacle has already tarnished Bill and Hillary's reputations. By the end of it I doubt that any Democratic elected politician will want the Clintons anywhere near them. Let's just hope that these next few months don't hand the Presidency to John McCain.

Posted by: choskasoft | March 28, 2008 3:04 PM | Report abuse

I wonder, if the PA primary happened to be scheduled in February and IL in April, would Sen
Leahy be calling for Sen Obama to concede? Let alone the FL and MI issues. It all seems very contrived.

Posted by: zukermand | March 28, 2008 2:36 PM | Report abuse

"Fifty-four percent (54%) of all voters say that Obama is likely to win the nomination. Twenty-four percent (24%) say Clinton is the likely nominee while 22% are not sure. Among Democrats 52% expect Obama to win while 28% say Clinton."

It is looking pretty clear and, of course, throw in the online figures and I am afraid it is time for Clinton to hang up her boots- unless she can win by 20% or more in PA;

Pennsylvania Primary- Hillary vs. Barack:
http://newsusa.myfeedportal.com/viewarticle.php?articleid=57

Posted by: davidmwe | March 28, 2008 2:27 PM | Report abuse

WOO HOO!!!

Posted by: JakeD | March 28, 2008 2:22 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company