The Trail: A Daily Diary of Campaign 2008


The Green Zone

A Hillary Fundraiser Jumps Ship

By Matthew Mosk
Gabriel Guerra-Mondragon served as an ambassador to Chile during Bill Clinton's presidency, considered himself a close friend of Sen. Hillary Clinton and became a "HillRaiser" by raising six-figure sums for her presidential bid.

But Guerra-Mondragon has had a fitful time of it in recent weeks as Clinton battled Sen. Barack Obama for the Democratic nomination. Last week, he decided he had seen enough and joined Obama's finance committee.

"We're just bleeding each other out," Guerra-Mondragon said, when asked about the switch. "Looking at it as coldly as I can, I just don't see how Senator Clinton can overcome Senator Obama with delegates and popular votes. I want this fight to be over, the quicker the better."

The former Clintonite said the decision to jump ship to join Obama's team "was a very, very difficult decision for me to make. I am an old and longtime friend of Senator Clinton. And I continue to think she is a fantastic and formidable person. But I am first of all a Democrat."

Here's how he explained his decision: "I have found myself in a very difficult situation where you have two very good candidates, but one is ahead. That is Senator Obama. If I look at the remaining contests, beginning with North Carolina and Indiana, I just don't see how Senator Clinton can overcome Senator Obama with delegates and popular votes. I believe the superdelegates, it is going to be very difficult for the superdelegates not to give their vote to the one that has that lead."

Whether other HillRaisers will follow is unclear.

Clinton aides said they don't see Guerra-Mondragon's decision as foreshadowing any sort of mass migration.

"Pennsylvania did the job of calming any nerves that existed," said Jay Carson, a campaign spokesman. "It showed an intensity and a fight which our donors both large and small really value about her and her candidacy."

Carson added: "This idea that an extended primary is bad for the party is an utter and complete myth. You need only look at the record voter turnout in every single contest including Texas and Ohio, and record registration in those states and others which will give Democrats a great advantage."

Posted at 2:28 PM ET on Apr 25, 2008  | Category:  The Green Zone
Share This: Technorati talk bubble Technorati | Tag in | Digg This
Previous: Fiscal Discipline Not on Agenda for Democrats | Next: Obama Takes Questions on Sean Bell, Clyburn and Wright

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


Please email us to report offensive comments.

ObamasLady, Carl, and everyone else upset with my hypothetical question:

There is no doubt, if it gets that far, that the DNC Credentials Committee will decide the issue of Florida and Michigan once and for all ; )

Posted by: JakeD | April 28, 2008 2:48 PM

Only one on self destruct are their elite white Super Delegates.. You are a bad history, I feel so sorry for you.

Posted by: justadad55 | April 28, 2008 2:22 PM

Whether you think that Governor Bill Richardson betrayed the Clintons or not, one thing is surely true, Ambassador Guerra Mondragon did that for certain and in a despicable manner. In a short conversation with the Guerra Mondragon I noticed a lack of enthusiasm and commitment; and I told some other campaign staff and political folks about it that dismissed my comments as reading too much into it.

The difference between Richardson and Guerra Mondragon is vast. Richardson was not disloyal to the Clintons. Truthfully, he owed no loyalty to President Clinton, let alone Senator Clinton. The problem with Gov. Richardson stems from his delay in providing an endorsement; something John Edwards is doing as well. It isn't hard to figure out that these politicians are being, well, politicians... duh! Richardson and Edwards want a vice-president slot, that's for certain. Edwards is being smarter, waiting to make sure the tide does not turn against his favor. Richardson couldn't wait any longer, and burst, literally. In his explanation he said how hard of a decision it was, but he also felt the need to mention that his conversation with Senator Clinton was a heated one (though he wouldn't divulge the conversation itself, as if the comment hadn't been enough to create judgment). So Richardson's decision can be summoned up like this: He moved in the direction the wind blew, but forgot that the wind changes directions when least expected). Now he must stick to Obama, and will have to take the consequences of his flawed decision.

Now, back to Ambassador Guerra Mondragon. He claims to have been disillusioned with the campaign since the South Carolina primary; yet he continued to work in the campaign at the highest echelons and fundraising for the campaign. A decision to defect a campaign is worked over time and not something that happens overnight. Guerra Mondragon continued to feign loyalty when in truth he was undermining the Clinton campaign and infecting other people with his own "disillusionment". That attitude is reflected in Puerto Rico; people here feel that the Clinton campaign has no interest in Puerto Rico, aside from votes, and that no action is being taken. The truth is that the campaign has great support in Puerto Rico, but people like Guerra Mondragon have squashed the efforts to make that support more visible.

He stated that he will try to convince people that he managed to get to donate to the Clinton campaign to now do the same for Senator Obama. I hope that when he reaches these contributors he realizes that he has made a mistake for which he will be held accountable.

If the Obama campaign continues to surround itself with the likes of Richardson and Guerra Mondragon, soon it will be a group of backstabbing politicians that will do anything to reach their goals- even to the point of knocking down those that have given them support.

Posted by: EGGArgost | April 28, 2008 11:14 AM

Why is Hussein Obama self-destructing now? Why did he make the bigoted remark against small towns and the good hard working people who live there? He really does appear to have learned a lot from that racist preach Jeremiah Mugabe Wright.

Posted by: Discusted WIth the Process | April 26, 2008 11:51 PM

It is a national discrace that Obama was never vetted properly. If the bolshevik and marxist media had vetted Obama the masses of Americans would have known a year ago what they are discovering everyday now - Obama is an obamanation. He has ties to black racists, Farakkhan, Liberation Theology, US terrorists. He could not heal a scratch. Electing him would be like electing the Devil Himself.

Posted by: American Joe | April 26, 2008 11:47 PM

A business warning I learned long ago has always held true. When the financial people start leaving a company, the writing really is on the wall.

Why? They know the inside information, first hand. You can argue that the rats always leave a sinking ship - but that speaks to the wisdom of the rat, not the idea of desertion.

And so it begins...

Posted by: DonJulio | April 26, 2008 10:04 PM

Carl Wrote:

I don't want a Democratic nominee that wins by cheating and lying. HILLARY AND YOU NUT JOBS NEED TO STOP COUNTING MICHIGAN, IT MAKES OUR WHOLE PARTY LOOK LIKE MORONS.

You Noticed that too Huh? ;~)

Posted by: RAT-The | April 26, 2008 8:38 PM

This has been order to go to hearing in Novemeber 2008 since Hillary was running for President she has been remove from this case by a California Judge.


Bill and Hillary To Face Fraud Trial
February 20, 2008
While Hillary Clinton battles Barack Obama on the campaign trail, a judge in Los Angeles is quietly preparing to set a trial date in a $17 million fraud suit that aims to expose an alleged culture of widespread corruption by the Clintons and the Democratic Party.

At the conclusion of a hearing Thursday morning before California Superior Court Judge Aurelio N. Munoz, lawyers for Hollywood mogul Peter F. Paul will begin seeking sworn testimony from all three Clintons - Bill, Hillary and Chelsea - along with top Democratic Party leaders and A-list celebrities, including Barbra Streisand, John Travolta, Brad Pitt and Cher.

Paul's team hopes for a trial in October. The Clinton's longtime lawyer David Kendall, who will attend the hearing, has declined comment on the suit.

The Clintons have tried to dismiss the case, but the California Supreme Court, in 2004, upheld a lower-court decision to deny the motion.

Bill Clinton, according to the complaint, promised to promote Paul's Internet entertainment company, Stan Lee Media, in exchange for stock, cash options and massive contributions to his wife's 2000 Senate campaign. Paul contends he was directed by the Clintons and Democratic Party leaders to produce, pay for and then join them in lying about footing the bill for a Hollywood gala and fundraiser.

The Clintons' legal counsel has denied the former president made any deal with Paul. But Paul attorney Colette Wilson told WND there are witnesses who say it was common knowledge at Stan Lee Media that Bill Clinton was preparing to be a rainmaker for the company after he left office.

Paul claims former Vice President Al Gore, former Democratic Party chairman Ed Rendell and Clinton presidential campaign chairman Terry McAuliffe also are among the people who can confirm Paul engaged in the deal.

Paul claims Rendell directed various illegal contributions to the DNC and Hillary Clinton's campaign and failed to report to the Federal Election Commission more than $100,000 given for a Hollywood event for Gore's campaign and the Democratic National Committee in 2000. McAuliffe, Paul says, counseled him in two separate meetings to become a major donor to Hillary Clinton to pave the way to hire her husband. Paul asserts top Clinton adviser Harold Ickes also directed him to give money to the Senate campaign but hid that fact in "perjured testimony" during the trial of campaign finance director David Rosen.

Rosen was acquitted in 2005 for filing false campaign reports that later were charged by the FEC to treasurer Andrew Grossman, who accepted responsibility in a conciliation agreement that fined the campaign 35,000. Paul points out the Rosen trial established his contention that he personally gave more than $1.2 million to Clinton's campaign and that his contributions intentionally were hidden from the public and the Federal Election Commission.

Rosen, accused of concealing Paul's in-kind contribution of more than $1 million, was acquitted, but Paul contends the Clinton staffer was a scapegoat. Paul points out chief Clinton spokesman Howard Wolfson told the Washington Post he was aware of the donation, yet he never was called as a witness in the Rosen trial.

Paul contends his case will expose "the institutional culture of corruption embraced by the Clinton leadership of the Democratic Party," which seeks to attain "unaccountable power for the Clintons at the expense of the rule of law and respect for the constitutional processes of government."

The complaint asserts Clinton has filed four false reports to the FEC of Paul's donations in an attempt to distance herself from him after a Washington Post story days after the August 2000 fundraiser reported his past felony convictions. Clinton then returned a check for $2,000, insisting it was the only money she had taken from Paul. But one month later, she demanded another $100,000, to be hidden in a state committee using untraceable securities.

"Why wouldn't that cause someone to inquire?" Paul asked. "Especially since it was days after she said she wouldn't take any more money from me."

Paul has the support of a new grass-roots political action group that is helping garner the assistance of one of the nation's top lawyers

Republican activist Rod Martin says his group plans to highlight Paul's case as it launches an organization based on the business model of the left-wing but rooted in the principles and political philosophy of former President Reagan.

Martin's group also is assisting in Paul's complaint to the FEC asserting that unless the agency sets aside the conciliation agreement and rescinds immunity granted the senator, it will "have aided and abetted in the commission" of a felony.

Paul's case is the subject of a video documentary largely comprised of intimate "home movies" of Hillary Clinton and her Hollywood supporters captured by Paul during

Posted by: MsRita | April 26, 2008 8:17 PM

BMR-Pittsburg-Day Late, but better than Obama!

The Bona Fide Exec. I was referring to, was NONE other than Senator John McCain.

Albeit, St. Mitt Romney, the Patron Saint of Distressed Business Owners, is ALSO an Executive of Impressive Stature! :-)

See, the Executive Branch was labeled that for General George Washington.

AS, a COMMISSIONED Officer, with the Additional Commission of Commander in Chief, the Commissioning Delegates "Executive" Rank! ;~)

Ever consider the Logistics involved in Military Exercises? :-)

Posted by: RAT-The | April 26, 2008 7:59 PM

JakeD wrote
"I agree with Carson -- Gabriel Guerra-Mondragon sounds like a whiny Loserman to me -- besides, what's wrong with the Democrats "just bleeding each other out"?

P.S. Hillary DIANE Clinton has already passed Barack HUSSEIN Obama in total popular votes (if you count Florida and Michigan ; )"

Yes we have heard that if you count Florida and Michigan Hillary has more votes, but you can't count these states because that would be cheating and Hillary would be breaking an agreement she signed to remove her name from the ballot in Michigan. I have had enough lying and cheating from g bush. I don't want a Democratic nominee that wins by cheating and lying. HILLARY AND YOU NUT JOBS NEED TO STOP COUNTING MICHIGAN, IT MAKES OUR WHOLE PARTY LOOK LIKE MORONS.

Posted by: Carl | April 26, 2008 6:09 PM

Why are people so bitter toward each other? are we all Americans and care about the elections process and this country?

Posted by: voter | April 26, 2008 5:58 PM

JD is a Republican , facts and truths and reality do not matter , they make up their own . Proof a person can be college educated ( he claims ) but still be a nonsensical lunatic like our college educated fearless leader Bush who never even mastered basic English.

Posted by: JK in Seattle | April 26, 2008 4:40 PM

Maggie, I don't know where you get your information regarding Barack and the delegate situation but he wants the Florida delegates to be seated in a fair way. You should be complaining to the DNC not to Barack. That's simple stupidity to complain to Barack. He's not in charge of the Democratic rules. Hillary agreed to the same rules. She said so and you can find her words on several YouTube videos that show her point blank saying that she supported the rules. We don't need a Clinton dynasty in the White House. Hillary has a terrible track record when it comes to her integrity. That's a HUGE issue with American voters as the national polls show most cannot trust her. It's pretty insane to think that people would trust a person who uses lies and half-truths in order to get elected. That is powerful evidence as to her hunger for power and her blind ambition.

Posted by: WYOCowboy | April 26, 2008 4:04 PM

Giving money to Clinton now does absolutely nothing but allow her campaign to "repay" her "loan."

I guess as PT Barnum famously opined, there are suckers born every minute.


Posted by: jeffp | April 26, 2008 2:48 PM

Choice is what makes mankind social animals, and Guerra-Mondragon has made his choice above all odds. Please don't kill him because of his humble choice!

Posted by: Ras | April 26, 2008 2:34 PM

Guerra-Mondragon was smart to jump ship to Obama. Not only because of the delegate math but because Hillary Clinton is a liar and she also cheats. She agreed to the rules of the DNC but when things started going away from her inevitable lead she cried foul and had a fit. She's a spoiled brat who is the real elitist. I can't vote for a liar and someone who will do virtually anything to be elected including dividing the African Americans, most of whom will never carry her if she is the nominee after she and Bill's track record over the past several weeks. She ultimately cares only about one person and that's Hillary.

Posted by: WYOCowboy | April 26, 2008 12:43 PM

JakeD - DREAM ON IN YOUR CAVE! There is NO COUNTING FL AND MI! It ain't gonna happen! Get it? They disqualified themselves! Bush got Jeb to STEAL the votes for him in FL 2004, but that is NOT happening this year since Jeb is no longer in charge and BUSHCO is a LAME DUCK or should I say a LAME F**K? So JakeD, get a wake up from your cave dreams!

Posted by: ObamasLady | April 26, 2008 11:39 AM

JakeD. Obama was on the tampa tv before the primaries .saying he would find a way to seat the delegates .But seeing he did not win like every thing else he has said that comes back to haunt him he backtracks as for the delagates not being counted in Fla,that is the rule that dnc made ,Whohas the right to take the voters rights away no one every American has the right to vote

Posted by: maggie | April 26, 2008 11:14 AM

If Hillary agreed to the terms from the beginning, why does she want to go back on her word now?

Posted by: Carlos Wallace | April 26, 2008 10:53 AM

I see that JakeD has found a new family to annoy...

He was a regular idiot over at Think Progress until they finally banned him.

He just says random stuff in order to get attention, and ruin the threads. Most of his TP posts were abusive of Democrats and liberals in general, and very supportive of Bush.

Good luck posters. He's rabid.

Posted by: unbelievable | April 26, 2008 10:23 AM

Michigan and Florida never mattered in the past democratic primaries. Their voices were never used to decide the outcome of who gets selected as the democratic candidate in the past. Therefore for Hillary to create this big fiasco now about getting those votes counted is absurd. This is after the two states broke the rule. Michigan, Florida, Pennsylvania, Indiana, North Carolina and a whole bunch of other states didn't get to decide on the republican candidate either since McCain has already cinched the nomination. So why should anybody worry about it right now. Just follow the game rules as set for this election primaries by the DNC. That is the only sane way to do it. Hillary and her camp want to disenfranchise the party and give all boost to mcCain, since she is a sore loser.

Posted by: Kirk Malone | April 26, 2008 10:10 AM

Middle Names and 'Elitist' rap

jake D (besides being an in idiot) is going bck to the well on the middle name row. tellingly, he leaves out gramps McSame:

John Sidney McCain III

No wonder he was enscounced in an exclusive, expensive, NoVA, segregated, all-male (move over Larry Craig), private boarding school for his middle an dHS years! If he had gone to a public school in the 50's with an elitist name like that he would have gotten his ass kicked, BIG time.

just so ya 'know'

P.S. Hillary DIANE Clinton has already passed Barack HUSSEIN Obama in total popular votes (if you count Florida and Michigan ; )

Posted by: JakeD


Posted by: Kenneth E. Tucker | April 26, 2008 10:06 AM

It is because of people like Guerra-Mondragon who have no loyalty and are only trying to stick to a party mentality that this country is so screwed up!
I could never abandon someone I believed in no matter what I felt he or she was doing to the "party". What's more important here, getting the right candidate or trying to hedge your bets and be on the "winning" side? To also announce this so soon after Clinton's big PA win, makes even less sense! Guerra-Mondragon belongs in the Obama camp. His ethics coincide more with Obama's than Clinton's.

Posted by: L | April 26, 2008 8:00 AM

We really need re-votes in Florida and Michigan. It's the only fair way to decide this. They are two very important states and unless they are structured to count, Dems are going to continue to be divided.

If Obama wins them, he is the nominee. If Hillary wins them, she is likely the nominee.

Most likely, they would pave the way for a Clinton-Obama ticket and Democratic unity.

Posted by: Greg | April 26, 2008 7:08 AM

Any person with a brain could not count the popular vote of at least Michigan since Obama wasn't even on the ballot. Hillary supports are really grasping at straws now.

Posted by: Wow | April 26, 2008 6:48 AM


Posted by: Anonymous | April 26, 2008 6:00 AM

hilary is one of the biggest liars in this country.... just ask new york voters.
she told them she would create jobs jobs jobs and more jobs-- new york has the highest unemployment in the country.. hows that for lying hilary.
also remember hilarys trial is coming up soon/
the paul vs hilary trial-- she could be charged for perjury and fraud... just one example of the many disasters she would bring to the white house.
same ole same ole
you know bill clinton was impeached, and discarred and still would not leave the white house. and remember hilary stole over 190 million dollars worth of art paintings and furniture from the white house when she left in the 90.s.
washington had to sue her to get some of it back...........

Posted by: indiana voter | April 26, 2008 5:35 AM

How can people STAND themselves after betraying a friendship and a trust? It's not just about elections in this life...

It IS about building ties and friendships and being the best we can be.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 26, 2008 4:33 AM

Great friends politicians make. Misogyny. Plain and simple.

Posted by: jonathan | April 26, 2008 3:58 AM

Paul V Clinton

Hillary unveiled for all to see...

Posted by: Bob Buck | April 26, 2008 2:55 AM

from Bay Buchanan's book, Extreme Makeover, pg. 32,

The Personality

"Jean Houston became a close advisor of Hillary's, and on numerous occasions she stayed at the Whine House for days at a time. She worked with Hillary through therapy sessions designed to help the First Lady reach her full human potential. Part of the therapy, often called "channeling," included guiding Hillary in conversations with the dead--Eleanor Roosevelt and Mahatma Gandhi to be precise.

Houston understood firsthand the value of this exercise. In a 1989 conference she told a crowd of 6,000 she had contacted the Hindu goddess Sarasvati while meditating on the Ganges River in India.

In his book The Choice, Bob Woodward writes that one day, after finishing up a discussion with Eleanor, "Houston asked Hillary to carry on a conversation with Mahatma Gandhi, the Hindu leader, a powerful symbol of stoic denial. Talk to him, Houston said. What would you say and what would you ask?" And Hillary did. "It was a strong personal outpouring," Woodward reported. Gandhi's response went unreported.

While Woodward refers to Houston as Hillary's "spiritual advisor," the First Lady refutes it in her book, instead calling Houston a dynamic, witty, and knowledgeable woman who was great medicine for "anyone in need of a good laugh." Hillary has a point here. Tell me to talk to the dead and I'd fall over laughing."

Yes, we all like a good laugh.

But maybe not for President.

Posted by: Fred | April 26, 2008 1:42 AM

Now we have Nuclear Hillary.

This is considerably more serious than " I shot a banded duck once when I was first lady in Arkansas." This is dangerous and frightening to say the least. That 3 AM phone call is looking more and more ominous.

Iran: Clinton says U.S. would "obliterate" them

Not a gaffe, per se, but certainly a comment that pricked the ears of the foreign policy community. Clinton warns Iran before the Pennsylvania primary:

Clinton further displayed tough talk in an interview airing on "Good Morning America" Tuesday. ABC News' Chris Cuomo asked Clinton what she would do if Iran attacked Israel with nuclear weapons.

"I want the Iranians to know that if I'm the president, we will attack Iran," Clinton said. "In the next 10 years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them."

ABC also points out that the rhetoric contradicts earlier statements by Clinton not to engage in hypothetical speculation.

My question is: What if her intelligence is as faulty as Dick Cheney and George Bush's was?

"Oops: I just "obliterated" 71,000,000 men, women, and children by mistake." "Guess I better get out of the kitchen. It's getting pretty hot in here."

Please, ladies and gentlemen. No more Clinton drama in the White House. Our country and the rest of the world will be a better place with them back in their estate in Chappaqua, New York. Bill can even get a maid to do the housework for him.

Posted by: JakeD Jr. | April 26, 2008 1:23 AM

From Australia live

New Zealand becomes a gaffe-magnet to Hillary Clinton

More gaffes from US presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton.

In an interview with Newsweek, she describes Helen Clark as a former prime minister of New Zealand.

The comment came after Mrs Clinton was asked to tell a joke.

"Here's a good one," she said.

"Helen Clark, former prime minister of New Zealand: her opponents have observed that in the event of a nuclear war, the two things that will emerge from the rubble are the cockroaches and Helen Clark."

In the same interview she claimed her parents named her after Sir Edmund Hillary.

In fact, she was born more than five years before the mountaineer climbed Mount Everest.

Commentators in the US have noticed Clinton has a phrase for her gaffes: she says she "misspoke".

That was the case after she said she had flown into Bosnia in 1996 under sniper fire.

Posted by: Monica | April 26, 2008 1:10 AM

Gennifer, is that really you? See you in the White House....

Posted by: Billy C. | April 26, 2008 1:05 AM

Here is Hillary trying to impress a journalist with her insider knowledge of current events. It turned out to be a major gaffe but was not reported by the so called " liberal press."


"Here's a good one," she said. "Helen Clark, former prime minister of New Zealand: her opponents have observed that in the event of a nuclear war, the two things that will emerge from the rubble are the cockroaches and Helen Clark."

While only barely qualifying as a joke--usually these are funny--Clinton's quip did pass muster as something slightly less mirthful: a diplomatic gaffe. It wasn't so much comparing a former prime minister to an indestructible arthropod that sent the New Zealand press into a tizzy after Karen's interview appeared in this week's mag. It was the fact that Helen Clark is still, you see, the prime minister of New Zealand. LOL.

Needless to say, the citizens in New Zealand are not too amused at Queen Hillary's attempt at humor.

Posted by: Gennifer Flowers | April 26, 2008 1:01 AM

Republican Man: You are right, but go back to the GOP blogs...Obama is going to rule your party.....

Posted by: Wayward | April 26, 2008 1:01 AM

On average, each delegate selected in caucus states represents less than 2000 actual voters, whereas in primary states the ratio is more like 10,000 voters per delegate. So to anyone complaining about it being "undemocratic" to let super delegates override "the will of the people", that is nothing but hogwash. One delegate from a caucus state has as much clout at the convention as one delegate from a primary state in spite of the fact that he or she got to the convention with far less voter support. Now I would say those are the real super delegates. Obama won all but one of the caucus states and he won them with a great deal of help from activist caucus goers using some pretty strongarm tatics. I have read more than one account of Clinton supporters coming away from the caucuses with tears in their eyes after being manhandle by these rogues. So let's not kid ourselves, this is not a "democratic" primary process. If it was, then the millions of voters in Michigan and Florida that the Obama-ites are quite happy to ignore would have their voices counted. Furthermore, early on, when more super delegates were supporting Clinton, Obama's "machine" ( a play on Big Eddie's fondness for using this derogatory term when mentioning the Clinton campaign team on his national talk radio show) insisted that these super delegates follow the will of the people in their states, i.e., come out for Obama. Well low and behold, if anyone checked recently, there are more super delegates in the states that Clinton won than Obama won, so I guess the Obama "machine" is right, those super delegates should be forced to vote for the candidate that the voters of their states went for.

Posted by: breakerboy | April 26, 2008 12:53 AM

Republican Man: You make too much sense; however, any Demo can beat your man.....

Posted by: Truth | April 26, 2008 12:47 AM

"You see, back in 1993 Hillary Clinton had the audacity, and nerve to try and get quality, affordable universal health care for everyone to prevent the suffering and needless deaths of hundreds of thousands of you each year. :-)" - jacksmith

Did she? When did a failure become an achievement worthy as a credential for a presidential candidate?

I pity you, jacksmith.

Posted by: RFBorjal | April 26, 2008 12:46 AM

Thanks for the misspelled words?
Why can't we just say the N word. No would wants that shown around the world, Gods forbid. We are all a bunch of Asses. You hug Black children, but I find it false and Phony. Jump while you can Senator Clinton, and let the world move on and show what the American simple folk can do.

Posted by: justada55 | April 26, 2008 12:44 AM

Who would win the nominee? you gays.

Posted by: AntiPelosi | April 26, 2008 12:43 AM

Wow, as a McCain supporter, we do not want Obama to run against us and we can beat Hillary easily. Goodness, though, Clinton supporters, your logic is nuts.

I feel sorry for these Clinton supporters, as much as we want to run against her, these claims are pathetic ("We are ahead in the popular vote"; "Just seat the Florida and Michigan delegates"). Florida and Michigan do not count, period. She is behind in Presidential Polls and behind Obama in the delegates (and cannot catch up). I hate this reality, but Jesus, wake up people. As someone who scopes Demo. blogs, I must admit as a McCain person that the logic of these Clinton supporters is blind (throw some water on your face of something). We want to run against her, but, the handwriting is on the wall.......Please support the GOP

Posted by: Republican Man | April 26, 2008 12:37 AM

"That is the problem, it's not about loyalty to a candidate, it's about loyalty to the people." - Anonymous April 25, 2008 10:45 PM

Well said by a real patriot.

Posted by: RFBorjal | April 26, 2008 12:36 AM

Why can't we just say the N word. And no would want one, Gods forbid. We are all a bunch of Asses. Jump while you can Senator Clinton, and let the word rejuvenate.

Posted by: Justadad55 | April 26, 2008 12:32 AM

To: jennifer potenciano | April 26, 2008 12:14 AM

Dream on!!

Posted by: RFBorjal | April 26, 2008 12:28 AM

JakeD, when Eric said "1 person election", he was referring to the Michigan primary where Hillary was the only candidate on the ballot.

Your calculations include assumptions - "Assuming Hillary can win the DNC Credentials Committee vote to seat those delegates".

With your assumption, your final figures cease to be factual.

Elections are not won witgh assumptions.

Posted by: RFBorjal | April 26, 2008 12:24 AM

mr. guera-mondragon, just wait till i demolish your argument that you jumped (clinton's) ship because you say obama is leading the democrats' nominating race.

just wait, & then you'll declare war against yourself for your not-so-prescient, non-analytic, myopic sizing up of hillary's historic campaign for the u.s. presidency.

then you can weep for your irrational decision.

watch for it--soon.

Posted by: jennifer potenciano | April 26, 2008 12:14 AM

Do you mean the same Michigan and Florida that Hillary Clinton clearly stated "counted for nothing"?...Oh, no, wait that was back in January, when she was ahead.

How many times does this CHILD need the rules changed? She's like a 5 year old playing her first game of checkers.

Actually, given the way she's mangled her own campaign, comparing her would be an insult to 5 year olds everywhere. Sorry Kids.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 26, 2008 12:07 AM

I agree with the folks that point out that this is about the American people and NOT Hillary Clinton. Time for her to put aside her campaign and show her ability to pull the American people together behind the Democratic candidate; Obama.

Folks pledging not to vote for Obama are just hurting themselves ultimately because what it will mean is that we'll have more wars, more deaths, more jobs lost, and a supreme court that is entirely out of touch with the American people.

Posted by: Alex | April 26, 2008 12:06 AM

To the person, just golfing. Get your rear out there on the front line and Die. Leave your money for your children or grandchildren and a decent less stressful life style. I'm retired. We have lived my friend. Let our kids live to golf. Get your back end out and fight for your kids, although, probably don't have any.

Posted by: justadad55 | April 26, 2008 12:01 AM

Pls don"t let anybody to watch your on own house
specially your vesitor
love your mom

Posted by: ALISH | April 25, 2008 11:53 PM

Pls don"t let anybody to watch your on own house
specially your vesitor

Posted by: ALISH | April 25, 2008 11:52 PM

JakeD, with his usual tripe: "(if you count Florida and Michigan ; )"

Hah-hah. Wait a minute, isn't the reason they don't count in this election because Hillary, the presumed candidate at the time the decision was made, agreed that they shouldn't count?

But then she unexpectedly needed them, and she changed her mind. After everyone except her had withdrawn their names. Based on principle, I hear. She wasn't wrong to start with, she was always right, it's just that the truth suddenly changed around her, I guess.

That's so cute. That's so rich. Sigh . . . You have no self-respect or integrity at all, do you? Just a lot of spare time at the keyboard, and a monkey on your back, I guess.

Posted by: drossless | April 25, 2008 11:48 PM

Will the Clinton's please get out of race...both of them. We are doomed in our party if this does not end. Obama will win for our party and win in november.

Posted by: Rhonda Davis | April 25, 2008 11:24 PM

Now that Bill and Hillary Clinton THINK they don't need African Americans to win the nomination or the White House, they have thrown them under the bus.

If you're not African American, don't think for one second that when they THINK they don't need you anymore that you won't be under the bus too.

Posted by: WatchOutForTheBillaryBus | April 25, 2008 11:07 PM

Who needs a rat the jump ship the moment he thinks it's sinking. There are many disloyal people out there who once were helped by Clinton and then jumped ship the moment things get tough. He should be over there along with other ship jumpers. They deserve each other. For better or for worse, I am 100% with Clinton. The Clintons have done much good for the people, I am staying true with her - win or not. I hope she wins though.. Times like this is when she can find out who her real friends are. Bill Clinton sees his friends turn on him so quickly - he know get to see who is real friends are. LOYALTY LOYALTY LOYALTY....

Posted by: D.D. | April 25, 2008 9:01 PM


Will you join with me in pledging to NOT for vote Obama if he wins the Democratic nomination?

Posted by: JakeD
That is the problem, it's not about loyalty to a candidate, it's about loyalty to the people.

What kind of person despises a politician when he acts on his conscience for his country's good instead of the good of his friend?

Vote for McCain or stay home. One will do more harm the other will not. It's your choice.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 25, 2008 10:45 PM

Unfortunately Hillary is bleeding more than support. She is bleeding Obama and the dems so that McCain will win and she will come back in 2012. The only problem with that plan is that country and party come last. But that never seems to trouble her. PATHETIC.

Posted by: Don in VA | April 25, 2008 10:35 PM

The larger issue is that the Clintons continue to bleed supporters as their campaign goes on, whether in waning poll numbers in every state, or former fundraisers and even cabinet members endorsing Senator Obama.

Senator Clinton's newest trick is to paint Obama as John Kerry, but John Kerry lost because people believed he was flip-flopping. Senator Clinton's stances on Iraq, Iran, NAFTA, bankruptcy and her husband and pollster's support of CAFTA will not inspire confidence.

She can be a great standard-bearer in the Senate, but only if she can begin to put the nation first, the party second, and herself third.

Posted by: drew | April 25, 2008 10:29 PM

Jacksmith if you take out all that you credit her husband for, Hillary looks pretty thin on "experience."

Example: "If you think that Obama with little or no education experience is better than Hillary Clinton. Whose ;-) husband (Bill Clinton) made higher education affordable..."


Posted by: Don in VA | April 25, 2008 10:19 PM

Anyone who saw Rev. Wright with Bill Moyer on PBS should have a different view of his "comments" than those offered by Faux News, et al.

Posted by: Southern Old White Boy Against the Shrew | April 25, 2008 10:11 PM

Rodham has been eliminated, and not many care, other than her creditors.

Prediction: by April 1st 2009, she will have filed for divorce.

Posted by: Sothern Old White Boy Against the Shrew | April 25, 2008 10:09 PM

Effete Ivy-League Educated, Hopelessly Out of Touch Snob,

Elitist San Franciscan Latte Liberal...

You guys get my vote for best names!!! Good Job!!

Posted by: michael4 | April 25, 2008 10:04 PM


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


LOL, ROFL, LMAO---> 35 years doing what, tea parties and crumpettes? Dodging sniper fire? Lying to our face? YOU might be an idiot. Too funny. Go McCain.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 25, 2008 9:59 PM

Well said, Elitist San Franciscan Latte Liberal. If HRC is the nomineee, I will hold my nose and vote for her too. The words "President McCain" make me ill.

Posted by: Effete Ivy-League Educated, Hopelessly Out of Touch Snob | April 25, 2008 9:44 PM

jacksmith: Hillary gets boatloads of money from lobbyists, more than even Fossil McCain. Lobbyists that represent disgusting clients like Monsanto.

Back in 1993 Hillary failed miserably to get healthcare reform enacted because as usual she managed to alienate even members of her own party! Guess who benefited from her craptastic efforts? The Health Insurance Industry and HMO"s.

You are deluding yourself if you think a divider like Clinton is going to get anything done when she is elected. She can't even run a campaign without resorting to the most transparently twisted rationale for why she should even still be in this race. It's always "all abut her" and not about what is good for the Party.

She sucks. The only reason I would ever still vote for her in the general is the Supreme Court and the fact that McCain sucks even more.

Posted by: Elitist San Franciscan Latte Liberal | April 25, 2008 9:29 PM

The Clinton campaign is imploding. This is just the beginning. Reports out there that more like this are on the way. The end is near. Thank God!

Posted by: Bob, DC | April 25, 2008 9:23 PM



If you think like Barack Obama, that WORKING CLASS PEOPLE are just a bunch of "BITTER"!, STUPID, PEASANTS, Cash COWS!, and CANNON FODDER. :-(

You Might Be An Idiot! :-)

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

You Might Be An Idiot! :-)

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

You Might Be An Idiot! :-)

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

You Might Be An Idiot! :-)

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

You Might Be An Idiot! :-)

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

You Might Be An Idiot! :-)

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

You Might Be An Idiot! :-)

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

You Might Be An Idiot! :-)

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

You Might Be An Idiot! :-)

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

Best regards

jacksmith... Working Class :-)

p.s. You Might Be An Idiot! :-)

If you don't know that the huge amounts of money funding the Obama campaign to try and defeat Hillary Clinton is coming in from the insurance, and medical industry, that has been ripping you off, and killing you and your children. And denying you, and your loved ones the life saving medical care you needed. All just so they can make more huge immoral profits for them-selves off of your suffering...

You see, back in 1993 Hillary Clinton had the audacity, and nerve to try and get quality, affordable universal health care for everyone to prevent the suffering and needless deaths of hundreds of thousands of you each year. :-)

Approx. 100,000 of you die each year from medical accidents from a rush to profit by the insurance, and medical industry. Another 120,000 of you die each year from treatable illness that people in other developed countries don't die from. And I could go on, and on...

Posted by: jacksmith | April 25, 2008 9:13 PM


Will you join with me in pledging to NOT for vote Obama if he wins the Democratic nomination?

Posted by: JakeD | April 25, 2008 9:03 PM

Who needs a rat the jump ship the moment he thinks it's sinking. There are many disloyal people out there who once were helped by Clinton and then jumped ship the moment things get tough. He should be over there along with other ship jumpers. They deserve each other. For better or for worse, I am 100% with Clinton. The Clintons have done much good for the people, I am staying true with her - win or not. I hope she wins though.. Times like this is when she can find out who her real friends are. Bill Clinton sees his friends turn on him so quickly - he know get to see who is real friends are. LOYALTY LOYALTY LOYALTY....

Posted by: D.D. | April 25, 2008 9:01 PM

Hey Fred

Mucho pura mierda

Posted by: aBigSAM | April 25, 2008 8:53 PM

Dear lorene1:

Your candidate HERSELF said in January AND February on NUMEROUS occasions that Florida and Michigan DO NOT COUNT. Just because integrity is meaningless to HER does not mean you have to follow suit.

She lost when she lost the trust of the majority of Democrats and is only hanging in there to destroy Obama's chances.

Get over it.

Posted by: aBigSAM | April 25, 2008 8:51 PM

As we say in Latin America:

El beso de Judas!

Us, working class Latinos will never forsake the Clintons. They were good to us in the 90s and we remember!

Posted by: Fred | April 25, 2008 8:51 PM


If Florida and Michigan gets their delegates seated, guess what?


Posted by: JakeD | April 25, 2008 8:50 PM


1. Don't post your boring book.

2. Are you as paranoid as you seem?

3. Take your meds.

Posted by: mikey1 | April 25, 2008 8:48 PM

It would have been nice if this news broke before Geoff Garin posted his nonsense about "unfair" standards0 this morning.

I hate to gloat, but the Hillarites deserve it!

Posted by: aBigSAM | April 25, 2008 8:46 PM

How can a person be 'pro-life' and 'pro-war' at the same time?

Posted by: JustWondering | April 25, 2008 8:45 PM


Newsflash: Popular vote doesn't matter. The delegates vote and its their votes that matter. Idiot.

Posted by: mikey1 | April 25, 2008 8:43 PM

To the people who keep insisting Obama didn't campaign in Fl. Yeah, he did - for 11 days. He said it was an accident that his national campaign ad ran there. His people also told voters in Michigan to vote "undecided" if they were for him. He got 45%, I think.

Clinton never campaigned in Florida and at least had the class to fly there and thank the people who did vote for her. There was nothing in the rules about having your name on the ballot. It was Obama's decision not to have his name there but Clinton and 4 other Dems decided they would. So what? Big damn deal.

Obama slams Clinton for taking money from energy companies but there was an article - buried in the back pages - in the San Francisco Chronicle (they back Obama) on 4/24/08 that read in part: "Sen. Barack Obama contionued accepting donations from oil company executives and employees in March even as he aired in which he stated to took no oil company money, campaign finance records show."

John Sirota (he backs Obama) said in the SF Chron 2/8/08, that Barack Obama was the "largest recipient of Wall Street and corporate donations of all the candidates".

In The Hill, a DC insider paper, - I don't have the date - it was reported that Barack Obama's campaign people were phoning lobbyists that had donated to the Clinton campaign and said that while they couldn't accept lobbyist money, they could accept money from lobbyist's wives.

Google Obama's years as a State Senator in Illinois. You'll find that he took plenty of lobbyist's money, including insurance co. money while the State was trying to pass a health care bill. He stated that he had "substantially changed the Bill that the House had passed because of legitimate concerns by Republicans and insurers that it might lead to a single payer health plan".

You'll also find that Obama has a kingmaker/Godfather by the name of Emil Jones, Jr., an extremely powerful (and under almost continuous investigation for corruption) black politician who put Obama's name on approx. 26 Bills so he would receive credit for them even though he never wrote them or did a minute's worth of work on them. That story is in several Chicago newspapers.

Obama said he was "never in the pew" when Rev. Wright made his outrageous comments, then said he was and did hear some of what he said but refuses to say exactly what. He also claims that Wright was taken out of context. Just exactly what context does "the US Govt invented the AIDs virus to commit genocide against African Americans" fit into?

After giving various and sundry answers as to why he stayed in the church for 20 years, during the debate, Obama once again professed ignorance of what his minister had said and replied that he'd "have left the Church if he'd known".

He said he barely knew Tony Rezko and had received only 45,000 - 60,000 then it turned out he lunched frequently, etc. with Rezko, their wives went out a lot together to fashion shows, etc. and that Rezko had actually given in excess of 1/4 million dollars to his campaign.

Obama has had this entire election handed to him on a silver platter starting with Emil Jones, Jr. and continuing on with MSNBC and CNN and the huge donations he's received from Wall Street, big corporations and the the energy companies. I've never seen a media gang-bang the likes of which Clinton is undergoing.

I was a John Edwards supporter and I wish there was some way he could have stayed in the race. The same thing happened to him as to Clinton. First he was totally ignored by the media then criticized for not dropping out when his wife's health took a turn for the worse.

Obama scares me to death. The thought of this spoiled, whiny and inexperienced man leading this Country is terrifying, particularly given the shape Bush is leaving us in. It's great that Obama can give a terrific speech, but as far as "change" goes, it's what every politician runs on. Most of them have other reasons, but so far I haven't heard from Obama what his are. Judging by his record in Illinois his way of dealing with Republicans is to "go along to get along".

As far as "the old Washington goes", they'll still be there - the same nasty, no hold barred Republicans that have been there since Clinton had to fight them. They're going to hit Obama like a ton of bricks and him complaining about "negativity" isn't going to cut it. I shudder to think of what will come out of Michelle Obama's mouth next. As for me, I'm going with Clinton. She's tough, she's been put through hell by the Republicans and came out stronger than ever. I'd much rather deal with the devil I know than the devil I don't and that would be Obama.

When he says "we're" going to change things, exactly what do you think he means? Think about it. There's no "we" about it. It's him and Michelle - period.

I read somewhere that MSNBC and NBC are owned either wholly or in a majority by some energy company that wants to build 26 nuclear power plants. Obama tried to pass a Bill that would allow building them but the Bill went nowhere because there were hardly any regulations put in place, including where they would dispose of spent nuclear rods. You know, the ones that stay dangerous for 1,000 years or more. Hopefully, someone will look this up and let us know what energy company this is and how much truth there was to the article I read a couple of weeks ago. I could kick myself for not saving it but there was so much stuff I was working on I never gave it a thought, expecting to see something in the news about it.

Posted by: lorene1 | April 25, 2008 8:31 PM

Clinton has made another Bosnia-size whopper about the Weathermen Pardons that is not being aggressively checked by the media. She says she knew nothing about the pardons her husband gave those people, despite the fact that the issue directly pitted the administration against a state in which she was campaigning to become Senator.

It's hard for any intelligent person to believe that Charles Schumer never once raised the issue with her, despite the fact that he fought so hard to stop the pardons AND despite the fact that subsequent politically questionable (hint: help Clinton win the Puerto Rican vote in New York) FALN pardons were so controversial that Congress effectively censured the President by votes of 311 and 95 in the House and Senate. She herself used the words, "freedom fighters" to describe people who had blown up NYPD officers with bombs in the 1980s as her husband was pardoning them yet she has the gall to go after Obama for Ayers.

The media has a double-standard and a vested interest in keeping this race going. Clinton has carried on being dishonest about very serious issues even after being caught out on Bosnia.

Posted by: Yo | April 25, 2008 8:30 PM

Yes, Seth Y, you keep telling yourself that (regardless of the fact that North Carolina has not voted for a Democratic President since LBJ!!!).

Posted by: JakeD | April 25, 2008 8:05 PM

Hillary must prove that she can win over upscale whites, blacks, and young voters. That is why North Carolina will be a challenge for the senator. She must prove that she can extend her base beyond women, hispanics, and working class whites who are somewhat stigmatized by race. She must win North Carolina or she's out the race, period. No more gaming and moving the goal post.

Posted by: Seth Y | April 25, 2008 8:01 PM

LW and lorene1:

We'll see soon enough ; )

Posted by: JakeD | April 25, 2008 7:55 PM

Not gonna waste your time, Nuffsaid (from YOUR post, above, at 6:16 PM):

"To all the people replying to JakeD -- don't waste your time. He is a Republican and has been trolling the WaPo comments section for a while now reminding all of us of Obama's middle name. If we ignore him, maybe he'll crawl back to the hole from whence he came."

Posted by: JakeD | April 25, 2008 7:54 PM

Obama is going to have a tough time winning this election.

I'm ashamed to admit I didn't really know how caucuses worked until this election. It's just nuts. People who have to work, can't get a babysitter, are in the hospital, on vacation, disabled, etc. can't voice their opinions or register their votes in a caucus. Caucuses have left out over 4 million voters.

What sense does it make to brag about winning more delegates when a lot of those wins were in "red" states that will never go Democrat. People in Texas, interviewed on tv, said they were voting for Clinton or Obama in the primary but would vote Republican in the General Election.

If Obama had won in a "red" state against a Republican then I'd say he has a pretty good chance of winning but when you have just 2 Dems running against each other, if only 3 people vote, one of them has to win. So we're going to elect someone based on delegate counts when they won't they won't transfer into electoral votes.

The sole and only purpose of the Super Delegates is to vote for the person they feel has the best chance of winning the presidency. That's it! They are considered the "experts" and that's why they were created in the 1970's. Read up on them. It truly doesn't matter who has the most delegates or popular vote as far as they are concerned. Remember George McGovern and Richard Nixon? George was a nice guy and Nixon put the dirt in dirty but guess who won the Presidency? That's when the Super Delegates were formed - because of that very race.

Posted by: lorene1 | April 25, 2008 7:51 PM

Well, William, I think the reason Rush Limbaugh is promoting her is because he thinks he can make more money with another Clinton in the White House -- all your other questions are good, but basically irrelevant because she got more votes, regardless of voter intent -- I hope Operation CHAOS continues. Brokered Conventiion, here we come!!!

Posted by: JakeD | April 25, 2008 7:51 PM


Haha, I see you saying "GO HILLARY!!!" in another WaPo article:

So seriously, who are you for? Do you just like to be a devil's advocate? Are you just a joke? Do you have integrity? What's your deal?

Posted by: Nuffsaid | April 25, 2008 7:49 PM

JakeD...You could be right but the REAL math doesn't support it. Strange things happens with the Democratic Party though. You're right about 1968...was my first election...and if this does go to a brokered convention, 1968 will have been a tea party.

Posted by: LW | April 25, 2008 7:47 PM

With 99.51% of the vote counted in Pennsylvania Hillary Clinton received 1,238,232 (54.6%) votes and Barack Obama received 1,030,703 (45.4%), a "winning margin" for Clinton of 207,529 (9.2%) votes. But how many of Clinton's votes were actually phantom votes cast by John McCain supporters who will vote for McCain in November? How many McCain supporters decided to newly register as Democrats in Pennsylvania or purposely changed their existing Republican registration to Democrat specifically to vote for Clinton in the Democratic presidential primary and artificially boost her standing in hopes of causing trouble for the Democrats in accordance with Republican talk show host Rush Limbaugh's strategy of falsely promoting Hillary Clinton which he calls "Operation Chaos"?
This Republican strategy of trying to make Hillary Clinton's vote totals appear significantly larger than they really are and to possibly deny or at least delay the nomination of Barack Obama was operative previously in Texas, Ohio, and Mississippi, with one estimate of 40,000 phantom votes having been cast for Clinton in Mississippi by McCain supporters.
How many phantom votes were cast by McCain supporters in Pennsylvania?
According to the Philadelphia Enquirer, Pennsylvania Democrats have gained 326,756 voters since a year ago, and Pennsylvania Republicans have lost 73,009. A total of 3,060,835 million votes were cast in the Pennsylvania presidential primary April 22, 2008. If 100,000 of Clinton's votes were actually phantom votes cast by McCain supporters her purported winning margin of 9.2% would be nearly cut in half. If the number of phantom votes for Clinton turned out to be 207,529, the democratic primary election in Pennsylvania between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton would have actually been a tie.
Minus the phantom votes from McCain supporters, how many real votes did Hillary Clinton actually receive in Texas, Ohio, and Pennsylvania?
Conservative Republicans must be significantly concerned about the likely outcome of a November election between the two "nice guys", Senator John McCain who will then be 72 years old and Senator Barack Obama who will be age 47. Why else would they be seeking to promote their arch enemy Hillary Clinton by casting phantom votes for her?

Posted by: William | April 25, 2008 7:46 PM


So what happened since Stanford old bean? Car accident?
Actually, skip it.

Talking to you reminds me of the movie Deliverance.

And if your from Stanford Law, then I'm Sigmund Freud. And my analysis is that you are approximately 13 years old (mentally), have never been with a woman, and are a meth addict. Bitter? Oh yeah. Rage, in a cage, of mediocrity.

The age might be off,

Posted by: Rob L. | April 25, 2008 7:45 PM


There's still a chance the Democrats give us a brokered convention -- you thought 1968 was a riot -- I grew up in a rural California hillbilly town, if that helps ; )

Posted by: JakeD | April 25, 2008 7:42 PM

JakeD...LMAO..knew you had it in the way, I am a rural California hillbilly from town of way less than 5000.

For rest of you with head still in sand...JakeD is right...IF it goes to convention, the Credentials Committee decides. But, I think it also has to have both candidates blessing. Really doesn't matter...will be over long before that. (sigh) too bad, would really have liked to see that ruckus.

Posted by: LW | April 25, 2008 7:38 PM

Awesome: Obama launches a general election strategy.

Buh-bye Clinton.

Posted by: Nuffsaid | April 25, 2008 7:38 PM

Rob L.:

I graduated at the top of my class from Stanford Law School -- so, it seems you've got a strange way of selecting political candidates -- where did you get YOUR smarts? As I've posted several times (3:20 PM and 6:49 PM) I wouldn't vote for her in a million years. So, who exactly is the "stooge" again?

Posted by: JakeD | April 25, 2008 7:34 PM

Emmanuel Winner:

How about we just agree that he has a 99% chance of winning the nomination and call it a day?

Posted by: JakeD | April 25, 2008 7:30 PM

Morons like Jake D are why I'm a Obama supporter. I like smart.

He who supports the candidate with a 55% negative rating, and a 39% trustworthy rating, is a stooge.

Posted by: Rob L. | April 25, 2008 7:29 PM


I wasn't aware that San Diego, CA is a rural town of less than 5000 people (oh, that's right, it isn't). Careful, though, who you call out because Obama Mama on another thread is actually REALLY PROUD of her candidate's middle name ; )

Posted by: JakeD | April 25, 2008 7:28 PM

WILL YOU CLINTONISTAS WAKE UP?! This is not about HER! It's about the United States and repairing the damage Bush has done to it! If you want more damage, go ahead and vote McCain, the Democratic Party has no use for you. But if you want change, begin with recognizing the Democratic Party is the only option you have. And yes, I'm sorry, but the Democratic nominee for president will be Barack Obama.

Posted by: Emmanuel Winner | April 25, 2008 7:28 PM

Fun facts:

Obama has a 9 point lead on Hillary in the RCP poll of polls. 49.9-40.9: It's over!
Obama is leading the NC polls by 15.5%. It's over!
Obama has 1726 delegates to Hillary's 1592- an insurmountable lead. It's over!
Hillary needs 80.2% of the remaining superdelegates to win. It's over!
Obama needs 26.7% of the remaining superdelegates to win. It's over!
Obama is only behind by 22 supers. Down from a hundred not too long back...
If Obama gets 59 more supers, Hillary is locked out.
If Obama gets 80 more Supers, he wins the nomination. Look for a big bloc to come out accordingly.

McCain does not stand a chance against Obama in November.

This Rezko, Ayres, and Wright thing is nothing, a pimple on an elephants ass, one that appeals only to the scared and ignorant, who tend to vote Republican anyway.

Obama 54%
McCain 44%

Write it down, enjoy the show.

Posted by: Rob L. | April 25, 2008 7:26 PM

Why are Hillary supporters so willing to change the rules mid-way. If the rules had been, winner takes all, then the candidates might have run VERY different campaigns. But they ran the campaigns they did on the basis of the rules they were given at the beginning. Do you people not realize what a lack of integrity that shows on your part? What if we played football games on that basis (we start off with one set of rules but change them so the losing team has a chance to win)? Would you honestly let that happen? If not, why would you even contemplate it in an election this important?

Posted by: Nuffsaid | April 25, 2008 7:24 PM

No, thanks, David474IU.

Posted by: JakeD | April 25, 2008 7:23 PM

JakeD...let me're a hillbilly from a rural town of less than 5000 people. Calling out HUSSEIN as the middle name like that pegs you as a complete hillbilly trying to paint Obama as a Muslim. A.) Being called Muslin is not an insult, B.) its a pathetic tactic that no matter what won't allow DIANE to secure the nomination. I'm so glad you have to deal with that ya hillbilly.

Posted by: goober | April 25, 2008 7:23 PM

JakeD has been posting here all afternoon. Jake...sorry gotta get a life.

May I respectfully suggest that you start reading the classics rather than the comic books. I can think of a Robert Penn Warren book that might be a good start.

Posted by: David474IU | April 25, 2008 7:22 PM

Don't worry about it, danglingwrangler, like I said -- how can you tell, really, when it comes to most Democrats -- especially here in California?

Posted by: JakeD | April 25, 2008 7:19 PM


Before you criticize an ambassador to the United States of America, you might want to figure the person's gender.

That aside, I think we've seen what loyalty to friends has done to the governance of this country in the past 7.5 years (Remember Bush's friend you're-doing-a-heck-of-a-job Brownie?). Enough with cronyism in our government.

You make clear what politics Hillary supporters encourage. No thanks.

Posted by: Nuffsaid | April 25, 2008 7:19 PM

Because those largest States like New York, California, and Pennsylvania account for most of the alloted super delegates. Next question?

Posted by: JakeD | April 25, 2008 7:18 PM


Before you criticize an ambassador to the United States of America, you might want to figure the person's gender.

That aside, I think we've seen what loyalty to friends has done to the governance of this country in the past 7.5 y

Posted by: Nuffsaid | April 25, 2008 7:17 PM

I can suggest a way to end the Dem. primary by June. Each candidate gets all the super delegates in the state they have won. I'm a Clinton supporter, but I would support it. Surely Obama would approve. He has won 30 states and Hillary 15. Why not.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 25, 2008 7:15 PM

Did you hear the one about Chelsea Clinton's father?

Posted by: JakeD | April 25, 2008 7:14 PM

Posted by: JakeD | April 25, 2008 7:13 PM


Think of it this way -- since it takes the current partisan heat off the question -- if MITT Romney had refused to concede the race to McCain, what would have prevented him from showing up at the GOP convention with his couple hundred delegates and praying for a miracle on that first ballot?


I believe "she" is a "he" (but how can you tell, really, when it comes to most Democrats?).

Posted by: JakeD | April 25, 2008 7:11 PM

Hillary talks about disenfranchisement of Michigan and Florida voters if those delegates are not seated. But when she lost Iowa, she said Iowa is not representative of a typical American state. She was not worried about disenfranchisement of Iowans by that comment. She figured if the Iowans don't come to sit at the convention because of her comments so be it since they chose Obama over Hillary.

Posted by: John McClintock | April 25, 2008 7:09 PM

Gabriel Guerra-Mondragon is a sorry example of the human race. We sure can do without the likes of another lame individual. She needs psychological counseling to get her personality disorder straightened out - your friends come before a silly political party. Everyone knows that whose head is screwed on tight.

Maybe Gabriel is just a big fat liar and not simply deranged. She sure sounds like politics has consumed her and taken over her personality.

Posted by: danglingwrangler | April 25, 2008 7:08 PM

The utter and complete myth exists only in Hillary's power addled mind.

Posted by: Rob L. | April 25, 2008 7:07 PM

Sorry, BMR, but since it is illegal, I certainly wouldn't wager over the Internets ; )

I will be sure to check back here on June 4th, just to see how things are going ...

Posted by: JakeD | April 25, 2008 7:05 PM

Hillary Clinton has ties to an Iranian muslim by the name of Hassan Nemazee. Nemazee has raised a lot of money most probably from muslim aliens for the Hillary campaign. Now Hillary tries to paint a picture of Obama as tied to muslims. But in essence Hillary has benefitted more from an Iranian muslim. Further investigation will probably reveal more about the involvement of Iran in Hillary's campaign.

Posted by: Stan Pkofsky | April 25, 2008 6:59 PM

JakeD: Tell you what. I'll make a gentleman's wager with you, right now.

I say the Credentials Committee will not have a say in the final outcome of the Democratic primary (because either someone will drop out, or the lead with SD endorsements will be so big that it won't matter).

If you're willing to argue that Clinton *will* go to the convention, e-mail me:

This wouldn't be for big stakes. I'll put up a six-pack of Yuengling (favorite export from PA). I hope you're from Michigan - I'd love some barbecue. :-)

Posted by: BMR, Pittsburgh PA | April 25, 2008 6:59 PM

She and Bill have (at the very least) $109 million, right?

Posted by: JakeD | April 25, 2008 6:59 PM

Avant Strangel:

What do you think prevents Hillary from taking the Florida / Michigan issue all the way to the Credentials Committee?

Posted by: JakeD | April 25, 2008 6:58 PM

Hopefully, John Edwards and his 18 pledged delegates get to make the final decision on the convention floor!!!

P.S. did anyone see Edwards on the Colbert Report last week? He was HIL-arious ; )

Posted by: JakeD | April 25, 2008 6:56 PM

Reality check. For those Clinton supporters TRYING to count Michigan and Florida just STOP. Cuz it's NOT HAPPENING and if they DO get seated they will be divided EQUALLY amongst the two as they weren't supposed to COUNT AT ALL. As those states where sanctioned and this was agreed upon by the reps of those states, the DNC, CLINTON and Obama.

So Clinton dreamers STOP COUNTING NUMBERS YOU DON'T HAVE. Because if the are counted it won't change the landscape.

Hillary is behind and BROKE!

Posted by: Avant Strangel | April 25, 2008 6:56 PM


Damn, hate it when I come in so late. I guess it doesn't hurt stressing and reminding Hillary supporters of the irony and hypocrisy of her candidacy.

Posted by: Nuffsaid | April 25, 2008 6:56 PM

Add the names of super delegates, Howard Dean and Nancy Pelosi, to those who will remain UNCOMMITTED after June 4th.

Posted by: JakeD | April 25, 2008 6:55 PM

Nuffsaid: Check out my post at 6:18 p.m. I made the same points you did. So, we see it the same way.

'nuff said, indeed. :-)

Posted by: BMR, Pittsburgh PA | April 25, 2008 6:53 PM


Unless she drops out of the race, the following people will make the final ruling as to Florida / Michigan:

Alexis Herman
James Roosevelt, Jr.
Eliseo Roques-Arroyo

Dean Aguillen
Don Beyer
Allyn Brooks-LaSure
Jose Ceballos
Ralph Dawson
Sheila Dixon, Mayor
Christopher Edley, Jr.
Hartina Flournoy
Maryscott "Scotty" Greenwood
Janice Griffin
Adelita Grijalva
Laura Harris
Kathy Hoyt
Carol Juneau
Scott Maddox
Iman Malik Mujahid
Maria Neira
Kate O'Connor
Carol Pensky
Bob Rogan
Leila Sahar
Marc Stanley
Michael Steed
Jane Stetson
William Straus

Posted by: JakeD | April 25, 2008 6:52 PM

Calvin: That was a separate letter. 20 wealthy Clinton backers signed that one. Their case in the letter included a thinly veiled threat that they would stop donating to the DCCC.

Obviously, someone forgot to tell Susie Tompkins Buell and her ilk that Nancy Pelosi has cojones about as big as Hillary Clinton's. Can't be Speaker without 'em. :-)

Posted by: BMR, Pittsburgh PA | April 25, 2008 6:51 PM


There are two reasons why there was no MI re-vote:
1. There's something onerous about an election that is funded by private money. At the very least, there is an implicit conflict of interest.
2. The rules dictated that ONLY democrates that were registered as such in the primary would get a re-vote. Since many democrats knew their votes would not count during the primary, they switched to Republican so they could vote in that race. Those people would have been disenfranchised. THAT is what the Obama people opposed.

The irony is that Hillary cries about the disenfranchisement of the people of MI, but she was more than willing to do the same to those that wanted a say in the re-vote but would have been left out (since opening the election to everyone would include independents and republicans that go to Obama). Can we say hypocrisy?

Posted by: Nuffsaid | April 25, 2008 6:51 PM

JakeD: I forgot to make the final point in my last post...

With Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and Howard Dean getting ready to organize their efforts, and John Edwards, Al Gore and Jimmy Carter standing by as well, don't be surprised if all but a handful of uncommitteds have declared before or by June 4. Whoever gets the lion's share there will win the nomination.

Without the superdelegates, Clinton could probably be given MI as voted, and still not close the gap. At that point, even a talented second-grader could do the arithmetic.

Posted by: BMR, Pittsburgh PA | April 25, 2008 6:49 PM


You can check whether your are on the Credentials Committee or not, here:


No thanks (I guess) but I couldn't vote for Hillary DIANE Clinton in a million years -- I am pro-life.

Posted by: JakeD | April 25, 2008 6:49 PM

I thought the letter the 12 wealthy dudes signed was to ask Nancy Pelosi to stop telling the superdelegates to follow the will of the people. It did not mention about Michigan.

Posted by: Calvin | April 25, 2008 6:47 PM


Nothing in the DNC rules prevents the Credentials Committee from seating all 157 Michigan delegates for Hillary -- I mean, they could vote to flip a coin if they wanted to -- stranger things have happened at conventions ; )


Are you on the DNC Credentials Committee?

Posted by: JakeD | April 25, 2008 6:47 PM

JakeD...your comments made sense (for a fraction of a sec) and then you used the Hussein tag to keep us all on the path of knowing you are complete idiot. Please vote for Hillary!!!

Posted by: Pete | April 25, 2008 6:47 PM

I am from Michigan, and I voted in my state's primary. Barack Obama's name was not on the ballot. I would have voted for him had it been. So anyone who wishes to cite Hillary's total vote count and tacitly claim that she is winning the popular vote and is therefore the legitimate choice of Democrats is blatantly attempting to mislead all of us.

Posted by: McDyess | April 25, 2008 6:43 PM

The Hillary campaign ran out of steam for a couple of reasons. One they concentrated on taking Obama down more than concentrating on their own message. The second, is lack of money. One fugitive HillRaiser Norman Hsu went to jail. The rest of the fugitive HillRaisers left the country. The Hillary campaign was flying high by renting special planes called HillPlanes and also some helicopters and called them HillCopters. All the money raised from Chinese restaurants from the hard earned money of dishwashers was not enough for this lavish lifestyle. The campaign owes so much money to small businesses wherever they campaigned since they have come to take it for granted that the Clintons can walk over them without paying for the services recieved from the merchants. Well there you have it in a nutshell the operation of the well boiled HillNut.

Posted by: Markus | April 25, 2008 6:41 PM

JakeD: You're not getting it. It's a simple matter of counting. Money isn't the issue with getting to Denver.

Michigan's primary was illegal. Not by DNC rules, but by Michigan state law. There's not one chance in hell that it will ever be counted as voted (with NO votes for Obama, who actually honored the pledge not to campaign or participate in Michigan).

You'd do better to make that argument with Florida, where at least all the candidates appeared on the ballot. Of course, they had to, or they couldn't be on the general-election ballot (state law). So, that's not exactly a major talking point in their favor.

Posted by: BMR, Pittsburgh PA | April 25, 2008 6:39 PM

Nope, that was written by TOM Wolfe ...

Posted by: JakeD | April 25, 2008 6:37 PM

Also, a roundtable discussion with David Broder (my favorite MTP journalist), John Dickerson, Gwen Ifill, Andrea Mitchell (GO GREENSPAN!!!) and Richard Wolfe (the guy who wrote "Bonfire of the Vanities"?).

Posted by: JakeD | April 25, 2008 6:34 PM

Calvin: You are uninformed. That was no joke.

Governor Ed Rendell (D-PA) and Governor Jon Corzine (D-NJ), both Clinton superdelegates, presented a letter to the Michigan Democratic Party. The letter was signed by 12 wealthy Clinton supporters, who were willing to front the entire cost of a re-vote in Michigan.

Posted by: BMR, Pittsburgh PA | April 25, 2008 6:32 PM


I hear that Howard Dean will be on "Meet the Press" Sunday. Maybe Tim will ask him if he can prevent Hillary Clinton from taking the Florida / Michigan issue to the Credentials Committee ; )

Posted by: JakeD | April 25, 2008 6:32 PM

Tony: I do actually think that McCain, for a politician, is a straight shooter. I think Obama is too.

Don't get me wrong. They both play politics, and they both have personal and political skeletons. But no one who doesn't play politics well can ever get to the Senate, much less the White House. And, for whatever flaws they have, they both genuinely want to do good work, I think.

If they do face off in the general election, and resist the calls from their advisers to start kneecapping one another, this could be the first Presidential election in my lifetime that focuses largely on substantial issues of national policy. I, for one, would love to see it.

Posted by: BMR, Pittsburgh PA | April 25, 2008 6:30 PM


I thought that Barack HUSSEIN Obama wasn't Muslim?! How could anyone be fueling anti-Muslim sentiments against someone who is not Muslim?

Posted by: JakeD | April 25, 2008 6:30 PM

She and Bill have $109 million dollars, at least, to keep fighting all the way to Denver.

Posted by: JakeD | April 25, 2008 6:29 PM

"We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men [and women] are created equal." Some of the commentators on this list say, "YES, BUT"... not if you are African American, not if you are Muslim, not if your name is different. The level of vitriol and intolerance toward Senator Barack Obama is frightening. I agree with the commentaries on The (there is nothing "wrong" with being Muslim).

Both Senator John McCain and Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton are fuelling anti-Muslim sentiments and the hysteria it is creating parallels that of the Inquisition.

I am morally and politically appalled.

Posted by: Mel | April 25, 2008 6:28 PM

It is a joke that Hillary was willing to pay for a Michigan revote. Her campaign is under so much debt, they even walk out of restaurants without paying a tip. How were her supporters going to pay for a reelection in Michigan. Those dumbwits don't even know how to manage the money for the primaries. How do you expect them to run a country?

Posted by: Calvin | April 25, 2008 6:27 PM

Neither the Florida nor Michigan primary results can be used for any purpose whatever because they do not represent the views of the Democrats in those states.

How many thousands of voters did the reasonable thing and didn't vote in a primary that was known to be invalid on the day of the primary? The answer to that question is: "We don't know." And because we don't know that we don't know what the will of the voters in either of those states really is.

To now say that the votes of people who participated in a state's invalid primary also represent the views of those who didn't participate in it is to do an injustice to those who played by the agreed-to rules.

Posted by: FrankO | April 25, 2008 6:27 PM

Even following such a scenario after June 3rd, what do you think prevents Hillary from taking the Florida / Michigan issue to the Credentials Committee?

Posted by: JakeD | April 25, 2008 6:26 PM

JakeD: No, I don't have to ignore you. I'm not part of the DNC. :-)

Look, I think Florida and Michigan voters should be furious. But if they want to know who screwed them, it's not the campaigns, and it's not the DNC.

It's their state leadership - who greedily tried to increase their states' influence in the nominating process. And the irony of it is that, if Florida and Michigan hadn't moved, they'd probably be the deciders now (especially Florida, now that it's like 3rd or 4th in population).

Florida and Michigan never thought it would really come to a credentials fight. They were sure Dean would buckle. So far, they appear to be wrong. When you play chicken with trucks, don't cry if you get hit.

Posted by: BMR, Pittsburgh PA | April 25, 2008 6:26 PM

HillDozer summed it all up pretty well.

Politics is nasty ... and the Clintons are in their element - They love this stuff - Bill loves other things.

That is why I conclude that McCain will win despite being a Republican.

He really is straight shooter - a rarity in Republican circles.

I really do believe that O'Bama will represent the dramatic change needed - it will be a confusing time to begin with ... but better in the long run.

If Mccain wins - that leaves the Democrats out of the White House for at least another 8 to 12 years - and the Clinton legacy - gone forever unless they start gearing up for Chelsea right after the 08 elections.

Bill did not help Kerry/Edwards and her certainly did not help Al Gore

Posted by: Tony | April 25, 2008 6:24 PM

JakeD: Hillary Clinton's "most recent" word (which is deliciously ironic phrasing, given the subject) doesn't mean anything. Literally.

After June 3, superdelegates are going to evaluate the statistics, and move generally toward one candidate. They have indicated - almost universally - that the pledged delegate count and the popular vote (WITHOUT FL/MI) will be their primary indicator.

Superdelegates are largely politicians themselves. They don't want to make a decision if they don't have to. So, the undecideds (including a lot of freshmen who might be vulnerable) wait to see if one candidate slips horribly or wins in a place that's even or disadvantageous to them.

Posted by: BMR, Pittsburgh PA | April 25, 2008 6:22 PM

Sorry, BMR, Pittsburgh PA, but I guess you have to "ignore" me now ; )

Posted by: JakeD | April 25, 2008 6:18 PM

piktor: Your "facts" are wrong.

The Florida Democratic Party decided not to hold a re-vote. They (not the Obama campaign OR the Clinton campaign) said there was no money or time to get a second primary put together.

The Michigan primary got blown up by the Michigan Supreme Court. The January primary was ruled unconstitutional, so it's out. Michigan state law says that you can't vote twice in a primary season. The state Supreme Court refused to provide a copy of the Republican voter registrations to the Michigan Democratic Party - which means the state can't hold another primary, because they'd have no way to confirm that those who voted in the Republican primary didn't vote again.

And yes, Clinton backers did offer to pay for a re-vote. However, there are obvious problems with private money funding a public election. That just doesn't work. Michigan didn't want to pay for another primary, just like Florida didn't.

Republicans control pretty much all the state levers in Florida, so they might get some sympathy. But Michigan? ESPECIALLY with a Democrat governor - and Clinton backer - who signed off on the primary move? As Willy Wonka might say, "You get NOTHING! You LOSE! Good DAY, sir!"

Posted by: BMR, Pittsburgh PA | April 25, 2008 6:18 PM

To all the people replying to JakeD -- don't waste your time. He is a Republican and has been trolling the WaPo comments section for a while now reminding all of us of Obama's middle name. If we ignore him, maybe he'll crawl back to the hole from whence he came.

To Gabriel Guerra-Mondragon: w00t

Posted by: Nuffsaid | April 25, 2008 6:16 PM

P.S. RAT-The can answer, obviously, but I've seen his / her post several times in support of a McCain-Romney ticket.

Posted by: JakeD | April 25, 2008 6:16 PM

BMR, Pittsburgh PA:

If Hillary Clinton sticks by her (most recent) word to seat the delegates from Florida and Michigan, I fail to see what any "party leadership" can do to prevent that questions from being resolved in Denver; therefore, to answer your question, yes.

Posted by: JakeD | April 25, 2008 6:14 PM

I have watched the different tactitcs played by the HillCamp over the course of the campaign. It has been all over the map. She was first potrayed as inevitable. Then she was portrayed as sensitive. Then she went through an image makeover. Then Hillary finally found her voice. She initially claimed 16 years of experience. Then after she lost a few contests hyped her resume to boast over 35 years experience. Then she portrayed herself as a hero by dodging sniper fire in Bosnia. The gender card, the race card and every card imaginable was played by her and her skirt chasing husband. When nothing worked they wanted to change the rules of the primaries that was put in place for Michigan and Florida. Bill even wants the democratic party to throw away the rules under which it awards delegates and follow the rules adopted by the republicans. Bill even claimed that Obama was the one who played the race card on Bill. Come to think of it Bill is not even on the ballot. Typically it is the minorities who complain about racial discrimination. But now Bill Clinton whose pasty white thighs are the whitest as it comes (Monica can vouch for that) is whining about race relations. He is blaming a black candidate who has avoided every opportunity to talk about his disadvantage as a black American for playing the race card. Bill did it just a day or so before people in Pennsylvania stepped into the polling booth. It was not done to get black votes, but to paint a picture to the white community that whites should stick to the white candidate. Bill is the biggest racist I have ever come across in my life. Other racists say it more openly their feelings about blacks. Bill takes it one step further to create the fear in white americans not to vote for Obama. The Clinton dynasty at the end of the primaries will crawl back into hole where they came from, taking the loud mouth Carville along with them. Just two more months to bear guys.

Posted by: HillDozer | April 25, 2008 6:13 PM

JakeD: Since you chose to jump in on the "executive" question, here's the quote from the post in question.

"Add to that Joy for RAT, the alienation of Floridian and Michigan Voters, and you have a Ham-Strung, Exposed Racist, Elitist, Congressional Lawyer Clown up against a Bona-Fide Executive."

Obama's running against Romney? Thought he dropped out. I'm pretty sure the reference is to McCain.

McCain is a bona-fide POW, and his military service was excellent. No one doubts this. However, being a POW does NOT automatically give leadership bona fides - especially for the presidency.

However, don't take my word for it. Here's "Why I Will Not Vote For John McCain", a good piece by a two-time Purple Heart winner who was a guest of the Hanoi Hilton for eight years. He says it best.,15202,164859_1,00.html

Posted by: BMR, Pittsburgh PA | April 25, 2008 6:12 PM

I wonder if 12% John Edwards will be of any help to O'Bama in North Carolina?

We need to hear from Al Gore quickly and not Jimmy Carter!!

Posted by: Tony | April 25, 2008 6:11 PM

Gabriel Guerra-Mondragon sounds like he's been very honest and open in his decision-making. He's entitled to throw behind a candidate who he thinks will win the nomination.

It's not like Bill Richardson, who was more or less made by the Clintons and has been insulting them, saying negative things and trying to humiliate them. If the Clintons are such bad people as he thinks they are, why did he hang around them for so many years when they were mentoring and promoting his advancement?

Gabriel Guerra-Mondragon isn't acting like Richardson, leaving the Clinton's side with a stream of sly insults. His decision should be respected as he's left civilly and is entitled to leave.

Posted by: Annette Keller | April 25, 2008 6:09 PM

Comments here seem to say that only Sen. Clinton has a way of lawyering the nomination to her advantage.

The Obama team of lawyers left their mark already concerning Florida and Michigan: both state's motions for a revote were defeated soundly.

Will the Obama team of lawyers, having scored two homeruns suddenly lose the momentum gained with those huge wins and be steamrolled by the Mean Billary Machine?

I don't think so!

Posted by: piktor | April 25, 2008 6:08 PM

JakeD: Yes, I do dispute your vote count.

I dispute it because the DNC disputes it.

The DNC says that Florida and Michigan don't count. Ergo, they don't. Because the DNC has sole authority over the primary. That's really the end of the story.

Now, a question for you. Do you really think the party leadership will ever let this get to the convention? This is a subjective question, obviously, but I think you can see the comments from party leaders are almost unanimous that the answer is "no". Even Clinton-backing superdelegates don't want a floor fight. So, your scenario is moot, I believe.

Posted by: BMR, Pittsburgh PA | April 25, 2008 6:07 PM

Thanks, Tony. How about these questions:

1) Were there supposed to more words typed after "Too much attention for Jake"?

2) What does "ared to answer" mean?

P.S. to BMR: I'll defer to Rat-THE, but I suspect the "executive" he / she is referring to is none other than MITT Romney -- at the very least, McCain was a "bona fide" POW, right?

Posted by: JakeD | April 25, 2008 6:07 PM

Okay. So you count all the votes Clinton snd Obama picked up in the unauthorized Michigan primary and she is winning. Oh, you say Obama received zero votes in Michigan because he wasn't on the ballot? My, that certainly is spotting her a few votes, isn't it? Don't worry. After North Carolina and the rest of the primaries are done, Obama will even be leading Hillary in this fictitious stacked-deck category.

It is to laugh, my friends.

Posted by: Chuck | April 25, 2008 6:04 PM

Gabriel, there's plenty of room for you on the team. I haven't read any posts, but many will be upset I'm sure. (I hope we people are steadily reminded that we're voting for similar causes on the issues) We are glad to have you. Don't feel like a "traitor." You've done no harm and guess what? You can STILL support Hillary, absolutely. By all means please do keep your faith. Remain a close friend to Hillary even. Thank you for joining the team, we're pleased to have you.

To Progress '08 Cheers!!

Posted by: Obama2008 | April 25, 2008 6:03 PM

Do you dispute 15 million voters cast their votes for Hilliary Clinton?

That was the question I answered with my "donkey" analogy

And to all others I NEVER POSTED ANYTHING on websites on JakeD - Keep it civil - I don't know this person Jake and I am not the Tony referenced

Posted by: Tony | April 25, 2008 6:03 PM

RAT-the: By "bona fide executive", I assume you're referring, implausibly, to John McCain.

I'd love to hear about his executive experience (or, for that matter, his "bona fides" on any major topic, including national security). He's already demonstrated a failing grasp of the geography and the various religious divides in the Middle East.

Of course, since the economy is Issue #1, tell us about McCain's four different responses to the subprime crisis, or him being for...then against....then cuts.

Any comments on a McCain energy plan? How about the education system? Predatory lending? WMD reduction? (Let me save you some time - these plans are non-existent.)

When John "Sunni? Oh, Shiite!" McCain gets that 3am call, will Joe Lieberman be sleeping on the floor next to him to answer?

Posted by: BMR, Pittsburgh PA | April 25, 2008 6:02 PM

P.S. to Tony:

Could you please clarify which question(s) of mine you were answering at 5:55 PM?

Posted by: JakeD | April 25, 2008 5:58 PM

BMR, Pittsburgh PA:

Those "rules" also provide for the Credentials Committee to have the final say on Florida and/or Michigan. Do you dispute that 15,116,688 voters cast ballots for Hillary Clinton?

Posted by: JakeD | April 25, 2008 5:56 PM

Clinton supporters really enjoy bashing Obama. How can you make comments against someone who brings hope and inspiration. Bill and Hillary intend to win at all costs, even their own credibility. The majority of Democrats are appalled by her behavior. Obama was not on the ballot for Michigan, so counting that State is ridiculous and will result in a more obscene result that our recent elections that voted in the village idot from Texas.

Posted by: Hall | April 25, 2008 5:55 PM

Hope I have a better time at typing ... but to answer JakeD's question ... In the early stage of the primary campaign - it was: ANYONE BUT A REPUBLICAN ... so if I placed a donkey on the ballot and said it was a Democrat - it would have received 15 million votes to show that 81% of American think the country is on the wrong track. So if the Florida/Michigan voters voted for an donkey - they deserve a donkey -but I am pretty certain that in Florida in the general election - they will vote for an elephant or the old guy

Posted by: Tony | April 25, 2008 5:55 PM


Yes, Jake is a right-leaning Independent (although he rarely talks about himself in the tird person). Now, a few questions for you:

1) Were there supposed to more words typed after "Too much attention for Jake"?

2) What does "ared to answer" mean?

3) Are you the same Tony who posted the following post about Jake:

"America's biggest bigoted racist. This guy is always waiting around for any positive Obama news so that he can pour water on it. Jacka$$. Obama will sail through regardless of what you say. I will tell you frankly that no democrat is going to vote for John McCain simply because they are upset that Hillary did not win. That will not be a democrat in the first place so shut your pie hole."?

Posted by: Tony | April 25, 2008 5:20 PM

Posted by: Anonymous | April 25, 2008 5:54 PM

OD-LOL! Not me.

I have to agree with Rick Morris after his explanation. Hillary is History.

To take away the Dimocrat Nod to the Race Card Playing Barry, would cause much worse damage than could be absorbed.

But, to my utter AMUSEMENT, Barry would NEVER have the lead he does now, if the events of the past 6 Weeks had occurred sooner.

Add to that Joy for RAT, the alienation of Floridian and Michigan Voters, and you have a Ham-Strung, Exposed Racist, Elitist, Congressional Lawyer Clown up against a Bona-Fide Executive.

Even with Richardson hooking up with Barack Hussein, the World Labor Party Greens are simply going to lose too many Old School Democrats to the very JFK'ish McCain.

Now, with Fiscal Conservative, Economics Smart, Mitt Romney on Board-well;

what can I say?

You'll still have Barry and Hillary in the Senate! ;~)

Posted by: RAT-The | April 25, 2008 5:54 PM

JakeD: I have a hard time believing that you're peddling the Clinton "new math" for the popular vote count. I've spoken with you before, and you seem more reasonable than that.

But, just in case you're serious, and not just trying to get a rise out of people, here's why this won't work.

(1) Clinton's methodology requires the following: use the votes from FL/MI, use NO estimate of the 4 caucus states that didn't report vote totals, and assume that Obama gets NO votes from Michigan.

(2) The Michigan primary was deemed unconstitutional by the Michigan Supreme Court. I'll be happy to wager whatever amount you like that January's vote totals will never (as in never, never ever) be used by the DNC to determine delegate allocation for that state.

(3) The DNC has more to think about than just this election. The whole point of stripping the states' delegations (which, curiously enough, was strongly supported by Clinton adviser Harold Ickes last year) is to emphasize the DNC's control over the primary process.

There's no "law" that prohibits any state from moving its primary date, as I'm sure you know. However, courts have consistently upheld a party's right to name its nominee in whatever fashion it chooses, so the DNC's rules are the "law" in this case.

Posted by: BMR, Pittsburgh PA | April 25, 2008 5:52 PM

P.S. to anyone (other than Brendan or Eric):

Do you dispute that 15,116,688 voters cast ballots for Hillary Clinton?

Posted by: JakeD | April 25, 2008 5:49 PM

Yes jake if you ared to answer

Posted by: Tony | April 25, 2008 5:49 PM


Is that question directed to me?

Posted by: JakeD | April 25, 2008 5:43 PM


Just trying to be "hip" with the young Internets crowd ; )

Posted by: JakeD | April 25, 2008 5:41 PM

Is Jake a right leaning independent?

Too much attention for Jake

Posted by: Tony | April 25, 2008 5:40 PM


It doesn't matter what you are registered as. You are a right-wing hack.

Posted by: Brendan | April 25, 2008 5:35 PM

Jake D,
All politics aside, what type of man in his late forties peppers his posts with smiley faces constructed from punctuation marks? It's about as lame as your arguments.


Posted by: Maxwell J Flanigan | April 25, 2008 5:35 PM


I am, actually, registered Independent.

Posted by: JakeD | April 25, 2008 5:33 PM


Which "law" (i.e. statute or case cite please) stated that Florida and Michigan could not move up their primary date? Are you aware that the DNC "rules" provide the Credentials Committee with the final say on whether to seat any delegates from Florida and/or Michigan? Please, by all means, write off both States to the GOP candidate.

Posted by: JakeD | April 25, 2008 5:32 PM

Hitlery Rottenham Clinton and her nest of invidious Straussian Zionist lizards have no place in American political life...they should all be rooted out.
Suck on that....

Posted by: Shootingsparks | April 25, 2008 5:32 PM

I see JakeD and RAT-the are working their hard little hearts out to keep Hillary's campaign afloat.

But hang on a mo... both JakeD and RAT-the are REPUBLICANS.

'What's wrong with the Democrats "just bleeding each other out?"'

Spoken like a true Hillary supporter, JakeD.

You guys are the perfect Obama advertisement.

Posted by: OD | April 25, 2008 5:31 PM


A question mark does not make a question. You actually need an auxiliary verb.


Why dont you answer that. Maybe you should spend some of your retirement time getting an education.

Posted by: Brendan | April 25, 2008 5:29 PM

Whoever thinks and wants FL and MI votes to be counted should wake up and realise that the world has changed.How can you turn illegality to legality just to suit someone that is losing and thinks the country or say Democrats owe her the nomination.
If Hillary is a true democrat and a believer of justice,then she should openly denounce her calls for FL and MI votes.They(FL and MI) broke the law and rules of DNC,so they should bear the consequences of their actions.And if they vote against the Democratic party in the general election because their votes were not counted,then convicts should be allowed to vote too.

Posted by: Bob | April 25, 2008 5:27 PM


You bore me.

Posted by: Brendan | April 25, 2008 5:26 PM


I'm retired, with plenty of spare time to tweak noses here (when I'm not out golfing). What's your excuse?

Posted by: JakeD | April 25, 2008 5:26 PM

Not to say the SS Dimo is Going DOwn, but the crew is sounding a lot my Golf balls near a Water trap;

"I can't SWIM!!!!" ;~)

As far as JakeMOORED's Age, review his knowledge of HISTORY!

He is No Child! ;~)

Posted by: RAT-The | April 25, 2008 5:22 PM

For the last time, you are under no obligation to answer my simple and honest questions. It's all up to you.

Posted by: JakeD | April 25, 2008 5:20 PM

"P.S. to Anonymous (still calling ME the "idiot"): I wouldn't vote for EITHER Democrat in a million years -- I am pro-life."
Posted by: JakeD

So why don't you get one?

Posted by: edwcorey | April 25, 2008 5:19 PM


You are a Rush Libaugh clone.

If you don't actually know how to ask a question (yeah dude you need an auxiliary verb) it is not my problem.

Posted by: Brendan | April 25, 2008 5:15 PM


Like with Brendan, I would be happy to answer all of your questions, just as soon as you answer my pending question to you.

Posted by: JakeD | April 25, 2008 5:15 PM


Plus the scandal of news reporter PLANTS by the PENTAGON prior to the Iraq war some 75 of them in various New Organizations to talk up the war and to keep from telling the people the truth. read or see it on PBS

Posted by: Change Subject | April 25, 2008 5:13 PM

JakeD, when you eliminated the other two sets of numbers that show the Democrats trouncing the Republicans you only embarrassed yourself.

When you go on and assert that after the Bush Debacle, Americans actually "want" 8 more years of a Republican in the White House, you prove yourself to be truly blinded by your ideology.

What part of "81% of the country believes we are seriously off on the WRONG track" don't you understand?

Posted by: Maria | April 25, 2008 5:12 PM


Perhaps you missed the symbol "?" universally known as a "question mark" -- as I told Eric, you are not obligated to answer my questions by any means -- but those were, indeed, questions.

Posted by: JakeD | April 25, 2008 5:10 PM


Don't worry about scott032 ; )

Posted by: JakeD | April 25, 2008 5:08 PM


You are a complete buffoon. Those were not questions. Mine was a clear question. Yes, you do like Rush and are doing an "operation chaos" but it seems that you are simply too ashamed to admit it. Obviously you have very low moral standards. Quit posing.

Posted by: Brendan | April 25, 2008 5:07 PM

Give me a Bill
Give me a Hill
Leave the Republicans with the Congress
With McCain or Clinton - lets play 4 more years of partisan politics.

While the Democrats fight McCain goes overseas and stands with all the new world leaders England/France/Germany and looks presidential.

Or as Rummy will say NEW EUROPE

Posted by: Tony | April 25, 2008 5:07 PM


McCain will beat either candidate if he convince most of the other's supporters to vote for him instead ; )

Posted by: JakeD | April 25, 2008 5:06 PM


You've clearly missed my point. Subtlety and the ability to argue with civility are the hallmarks of good persuation. If JakeD were a learned man of 71 (or thereabouts) his points would be stated more eloquently. I'm sorry, but his style suggests someone in their early to mid 20's, not a more experienced writer.

Posted by: scott032 | April 25, 2008 5:06 PM

Chapeau to the person who commented on Lincoln leadership against his opponent with vast experience in 1840. It is leadership vs management (stupid !) let's revisit the Clinton's era in the white house, the phone rang at 3 am on April 7 1994 and the US ambassador to Rwanda tells President clinton that the streets in the capital of the tiny central african nation is littered with about 20,000 bodies, what was the answer ? no one knows may be it was, keep counting if the toll reaches 100,000 then we will characterize it as a Genocide ...3 months later 800,000 Madelein Allbright, Ambassador Wilson, Canadian general Dallaire, Koffi Anan, who is ready to answer that 3 am phone call ?

Posted by: who am I | April 25, 2008 5:05 PM

Does Hillary Clinton really believe she can overtake Barack Obama among elected delegates? No way. The math is dead against her and she's a realist. Even after Pennsylvania, Obama still leads by more than 140 in elected delegates. They'll likely break even in Indiana and he'll win North Carolina where one third of the vote is African-American. After that? If she wins Kentucky, West Virginia, and Puerto Rico by 15 points and they break about even in Guam, North Dakota, Montana, and Oregon, she'll still trail him by at least 130 votes among elected delegates.,2933,352651,00.html

Posted by: Brendan | April 25, 2008 5:04 PM

scott032...a more masterful style? Subtlety obviously escapes you. JakeD is just giving you all a gentle encouragement to "Get Your Heads Out Of The Sand"

Posted by: LW | April 25, 2008 5:01 PM


Because I didn't think it was necessary to completely embarass in front of everyone by posting ALL the numbers (as you noted, $65,003,440 + $39,333,169 respectively) to prove your initial claim ("It seems that no one wants to give [the Republican Party] any cash") was factually inaccurate. Also, I can say that it's unlikely the Democrats will gain a "Veto-proof Majority". Can you say "8 more years of Republican(s) in the White House"??


I'd be happy to answer that question, just as soon as you answer the questions already pending to you:

1) "Clearly"?

2) Just because I pointed out that Maria's statement "It seems that no one wants to give [the Republican Party] any cash" was factually inaccurate?

3) Only Rush Limbaugh listeners can use Google now?

Posted by: JakeD | April 25, 2008 5:01 PM


So you are saying Rush is a child pornographer?

Well, I don't like him or child pornographers or people who come and try to infiltrate a Democtratic election so that their own right-wing candidate can stand a better chance.

Personally I consider it unethical behaviour.

Posted by: Brendan | April 25, 2008 5:00 PM

The GOP is now running anti-Obama (amounting to pro-Hillary) ads. What more to they have to do to prove they'd rather face Hillary than Obama?

Posted by: gbooksdc | April 25, 2008 4:58 PM

And, Hillary raised just about enough money Tuesday to cover her outstanding Mark Penn invoices. He really did such a fantastic job for her- he deserves EVERY penny!

She might be able to keep the Collections Agents at bay for another week or so......

Posted by: Maria | April 25, 2008 4:58 PM



Do you like Rush?

Posted by: Brendan | April 25, 2008 4:57 PM

If all of you could spend as much time thinking of ways to unite the Democratic party, and less time insulting each other maybe we could put a Democrat in the White House for the next 100 years.

Sorry about that Jake De "pendejo"

Posted by: robert | April 25, 2008 4:57 PM

Let's see, if JakeD graduated Stanford law in 1961, that would likely make him at least (24+47=71), 71. A 71-year old attorney would likely be able to muster a more masterful writing style. The point being, JakeD is here to trash Obama, just as he's been doing for several weeks now. He obviously needs to be given the Police Squad treatment at this point:

"Nothing to see here."

Posted by: scott032 | April 25, 2008 4:56 PM


You don't deny liking child pornographers either.

Posted by: JakeD | April 25, 2008 4:54 PM

More than a chance Brendan ... she is a political tiger ... this is no cat fight - barack will lose more than his eyes before it is over.

Posted by: Tony | April 25, 2008 4:54 PM

Dear Jake, you managed to leave out the rest of those pesky fundraising numbers! I wonder why?

House Party Committees:

Democratic Congressional Campaign Cmte:$87,803,497
National Republican Congressional Cmte: $65,003,440

Senate Party Committees:

Democratic Senatorial Campaign Cmte: $72,360,858
National Republican Senatorial Cmte: $39,333,169

Can you say "Veto-proof Majority"??

Posted by: Maria | April 25, 2008 4:53 PM

So another major contributor and long-time supporter left Hillary's fast sinking ship. Well, at least she is not bitter.

Posted by: bodo | April 25, 2008 4:52 PM

Sorry for any confusion, but that 4:50 PM post was directed to Maria.

P.S. to Brendan: you never asked me if I liked Rush.

Posted by: JakeD | April 25, 2008 4:52 PM


Clinton is still in debt. No gravy. No white house. It is incredible that you think she actually has a chance.

Posted by: Brendan | April 25, 2008 4:52 PM

To quote Bill when asked "why he did it ...?"

"Because I could." And he did - ask Monica

Posted by: Tony | April 25, 2008 4:51 PM

Which is why Barack HUSSEIN Obama is going back on his pledge about public financing, right? Luckily, for Hillary DIANE Clinton, she broke his 24-hour fundraising record right after Pennsylvania too.

Posted by: JakeD | April 25, 2008 4:50 PM


Well, you don't deny liking Rush :)

Posted by: Brendan | April 25, 2008 4:49 PM

One candidate and her husband think they "own" the Democratic Party. They are arrogant, they are intellectually dishonest, they are entitled, they are elitists, and hate that word "no." They like to hit below the belt. They are Republicans. The other candidate is self-made, uses "we" instead of "I and me," has a sense of humor about himself, is willing to talk to all people and believes in "law and order" for all. He is one of us and plays by the rules. He is a Democrat. Hey, check it out in November.

Posted by: royals1 | April 25, 2008 4:49 PM

Yes Jake, and Obama can raise more money in a month than McCain has all year.


Posted by: Maria | April 25, 2008 4:47 PM

Hilliary is still raking in the dough ... so who care who jumps ship ... she loaned her own campaign - she recopued that after PA - now the rest in gravy until she and Bill enters the White House. Sounds like double dipping to me ... and all of her supporters including me - like it.

For the Bush Administration it was all about OIL and money - and they did well. Bill can now suspend his speaking tours and look forward to adding another $20 mil to the coffers.

Remember women got the right to vote first - so it is just fitting they get the right to be president first also. Go Hilliary!!

Posted by: Tony | April 25, 2008 4:46 PM


"Clearly"? Just because I pointed out that Maria's statement "It seems that no one wants to give [the Republican Party] any cash" was factually inaccurate? Only Rush Limbaugh listeners can use Google now?

Posted by: JakeD | April 25, 2008 4:45 PM

WandreyCer: You must not feed the Concern Trolls. JakeD will not vote for ANY Democratic candidate because his main issue is obsessing about what goes on in the Uteri of America.

He might identify himself as an Independent, but that would really be a "Paternalistic Cruster Independent Who Votes Republican".

Posted by: Maria | April 25, 2008 4:43 PM

JakeD is clearly one of Rush's "operation chaos" people.

Folks, it is time to rally around Obama. We are being infiltated by Rush's clones.

Posted by: Brendan | April 25, 2008 4:41 PM

P.S. to Maria:

Democratic National Cmte $72,828,785

Republican National Cmte $123,452,533

Posted by: JakeD | April 25, 2008 4:41 PM


I wasn't the one who posted "She can't win" which was certainly not in jest. Sooner or later, we all shuffle off this mortal coil of ours ...

Posted by: JakeD | April 25, 2008 4:39 PM

Who needs Gabriel-we don't have time for pansies.

Posted by: greenfun | April 25, 2008 4:39 PM

Keep on praying JakeD. It's not going to happen. She might be the best hope for you Republicans so I understand your deluded attempts to keep her candidacy alive but it just isn't going to happen.

That said, she would beat McCain in the general anyway.

Maybe you should just abandon this blog and start sending some cash to the Republican Party. It seems that no one wants to give them any cash- why could that be?

Posted by: Maria | April 25, 2008 4:37 PM

Thank you, Leichtman. I posted the Kucinich, Dodd, and Gravel vote totals, above, as well.

Posted by: JakeD | April 25, 2008 4:37 PM

JakeD...RFK Scenario? That's not funny, even in jest. :~{

Posted by: LW | April 25, 2008 4:36 PM

P.S. in addition to HUSSEIN being the third most common name in the world, it means "handsome" in Arabic -- you will note that I do not label you an "ignorant bigot" for using the name -- why are you ashamed of his middle name?

Posted by: JakeD | April 25, 2008 4:35 PM

To stated:

that in Michigan "Clinton was the only name on the ballot"

False: Kucinich, Dodd and Gravel's names were all on the Michigan ballot.

Senator Obama thought that removing his name would curry favor with Iowa voters now wants to benefit from that decision that others did not choose to do.

Posted by: Leichtman | April 25, 2008 4:33 PM


Of course I am NOT paying for the revote -- I'm registered Independent -- and, there's no way to "count" uncommited votes. Just like you couldn't "count" votes of those Florida Jews who mistakenly voted for Buchanan because of the butterfly ballot.

Posted by: JakeD | April 25, 2008 4:32 PM

JakeD - nice ignorant bigotry you have going there, a great sell for your candidate and the perfect picture of the sort of people who support her.

As far as the vote in MI - the legislature of that state, not Obama, not Dean, the people of Michigan - voted to NOT have a revote. Se habla english? What part of THE LEGISLATURE VOTED NO do you not get? Is Diane addling your brain again?

Polls show that 300,000 in MI people voted for uncommited and exit polls show that 85% of those were for Obama - people voted specificaly to show their support for him. So, in this sudden interest to count every vote, we obviously need to count those too - right?

You're paying for the revote, right?

These are not open issues - they are closed and a problem for no one but the arrogant Senators who forced this on their constituents and Hillary kool aiding dead enders.

You may want to leave your bigotry out of your next post, you only register more voters for Obama that way. Hussein is the third most common name in the world - perhaps you'd better catch up to the modern era here in the US - overt bigotry makes you look stupid and ignorant. Perhaps bitter would be the perfect word. No wonder you support Hillary, these are her peeps. Way to go! So inspiring!

Posted by: WandreyCer | April 25, 2008 4:29 PM

The Republican record for the last eight years:

Preemptive war with lies as justification.
Over 4000 American soldiers dead for nothing.
Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis dead for nothing.
Tens of thousands of American soldiers wounded for nothing.
The failure to capture the perpetrator(s) of 9/11.
Illegal wiretaps on American citizens.
The torture of prisoners, in direct violation of the Geneva accords.
The best of economic times turned into a recession.

Any Democrat who votes Republican after all that, is a traitor to this country.

Posted by: Arjuna9 | April 25, 2008 4:28 PM


Sure she can win -- for instance, if she gets 2,025 delegates on the first, second, or even third ballot in Denver -- there's always the RFK Scenario, too.

Posted by: JakeD | April 25, 2008 4:28 PM

She can't win, it's over.

Any "unhappy" Clinton Democrat that would vote for McCain over Obama in November only needs to hear two words: Supreme Court.

Posted by: Maria | April 25, 2008 4:26 PM

P.S. to LW:

Funny ; )

Posted by: JakeD | April 25, 2008 4:23 PM

Obama +5 points in Indiana. Hoosiers will help put an end to this silly game.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 25, 2008 4:22 PM

J Radway:

The "Game is OVER!!" because someone named Gabriel Guerra-Mondragon -- even I had never heard of him (her?) before -- jumped ship? Why wasn't it over, then, when Gov. Bill Richardson did the same thing?


Since I am pro-life, I hope that's exactly what happens.

Posted by: JakeD | April 25, 2008 4:22 PM

HillarySpider: "So he left...big deal. I already sucked all of the juice out of him. Bill, go find me another fly."

Posted by: LW | April 25, 2008 4:21 PM

First the trickle, then the flood. I'm not seeing a flood of super delegates moving to Clinton after her "big" win of ten pledged delegates. Why? Because it doesn't change anything. What is it about reality that's so hard for politicians to grasp? Another way Hillary is acting more like a Republican everyday.

Posted by: thebob.bob | April 25, 2008 4:21 PM


The problem with seating FL and not MI is that you then have a whole bunch of MI voters who are doubly angry at the Democratic party, first for not being seated, and then for FL being seated in spite of breaking the rules in the exact same way. Does the Democratic Party or the eventual nominee really want to alienate an entire state?

For that matter, two states? If neither FL nor MI is seated, then McCain has a good chance and winning both in November, and especially of winning FL, which could be death for the Democratic candidate.

Dean is hoping desperately that the nomination will be wrapped up by June in a way that FL and MI will be rendered irrelevant. There will be no need to fight about those delegates because the nominee will already be chosen without those two states, and then Democrats can welcome FL and MI to Denver without problems.

Dean will begin to strong-arm superdelegates as soon as the voting is done in June if doing so is necessary. The nightmare, of course, is that the gap remains close enough that FL and MI could make the difference, and then it will be a knock-down, drag-out fight right onto the convention floor. Prepare the Denver riot police.

Posted by: blert | April 25, 2008 4:20 PM

"legally binding" ?

Nice try, pathetic argument.

Please post any reason that anyone here should find your "support" for HRC to be at all credible. You have stated that you are not voting for ANY Democratic candidate because of your heartfelt concern for The Embryos.

If your primary pleasure in life is trying to irritate Democratic voters by haunting these forums then that makes you a small, sad little man.

Posted by: legacy admission: Confirmed! | April 25, 2008 4:19 PM

Captains Billary!

The SS Dimo is raking the shoals! We're being Scuttled!

"Well, just stay the course"!

Sorry Captains, ABANDON SHIP!!!! :-o

Pirates to Port! Passengers to Starboard!

Let these fool Captains go down with this ship!

Savvy?! ;~)

Posted by: RAT-The | April 25, 2008 4:18 PM

Yes, that's what I read and hear on the news. Good Democrats aren't they! My way or the highway! The way it looks now there will be another Republican in the White House next year.....

Posted by: Robert | April 25, 2008 4:17 PM

WOW! - This is HUGE - Game is OVER!!

Posted by: J Radway | April 25, 2008 4:17 PM


The flip side of that argument, of course, is than many Clinton supporters WILL vote for McCain if she doesn't get the nomination ...

Posted by: JakeD | April 25, 2008 4:14 PM

Senator Obama will definitely lose Florida, if he is the nominee. We are sick of having politicians block our votes. I received phone calls from Obama staff before the election; he did campaign in the state via the phone. Sen Obama is known as a Do-Nothing Senator; can anyone name anything he has done for our country? (Besides bringing "people together"). Sad that I have to vote for a Republican this fall.

Posted by: Rick | April 25, 2008 4:13 PM

I don't know which candidate is really stronger, but I know that unless Clinton has a 100% clean win there will large defections. If there is even the appearance of political BS (like arbitrarily seating the MI/FL delegates) then thousands of black votes will be lost. They probably won't vote for McCain, but if significant numbers don't bother to vote at all then Clinton will most likely lose.

Posted by: Robert | April 25, 2008 4:11 PM


You are definitely under no obligation to answer my simple, honest questions (or, as jk5432 calls them: "trolling"). Have a good weekend too.

Posted by: JakeD | April 25, 2008 4:10 PM

JakeD Posts:
"I don't have a bridge, but (for the last time) I'm content to wait for a final ruling on Florida and Michigan from the Credentials Committee in Denver : )"

I figured, seeing as we all are aware of your trolling propensity (for those of you who haven't figured it out yet, his reason for posting Obama's middle name - in caps so you can't help but see how clever he is - is to get angry responses; stop responding and maybe he'll stop doing it; or not), plus the fact that you hadn't been seen in these blogs for awhile, meant that your bridge must have been closed for repairs. ;-)

And, to respond to your statement, if you're willing to wait, why did you state, multiple times, that your numbers meant Clinton was actually ahead in the popular vote? Just another troll in the dark???

Posted by: jk5432 | April 25, 2008 4:08 PM

Hillary Clinton is no longer running for president (at least not now, maybe four years from now). She is only doing damage control. She needs to leave the nomination struggle looking as good as she can, for her future political opportunities, and she needs to quit at a time when she is flush financially, not behind.
She doesn't really care that she is blowing through millions of dollars of other people's money for a campaign that has she has already lost. The only things important to her is that she looks like a "fighter", and whether she has to pay the campaign debts with her own money.

Posted by: Arjuna9 | April 25, 2008 4:06 PM

FUZZY MATH, FUZZY MATH, FUZZY MATH, FUZZY MATH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: Anonymous | April 25, 2008 4:05 PM

JakeD - Too much good news happening for Obama to read about to waste my time reading your old posts, like the major fundraiser jumping ship today for Obama.

I will just stick with the HUSSEIN insult and will point out your future smears.

Enjoy the weekend..

Posted by: Eric | April 25, 2008 4:05 PM

must have been a legacy admission:

If you believe that Hillary's pledge re: Florida and/or Michigan was legally binding, by all means, please post your case cites.

Posted by: JakeD | April 25, 2008 4:04 PM

Hillary is using FUZZY math!!! on her count. Just as GWB used in his debate with Al Gore.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 25, 2008 4:04 PM

"What do I care why Clinton signed off on the rules"

Of course it doesn't matter to you. Don't let the facts get in the way of your fake argument. I hope the die-hard Hillary supporters here see what kind of bottom-feeders are attracted to the idea of her nomination.

Posted by: must have been a legacy admission | April 25, 2008 4:01 PM

Hillary seems to have a rather prodigiously sized posterior.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 25, 2008 4:00 PM

Thank you, Robert Hewson : )

Posted by: JakeD | April 25, 2008 4:00 PM

From "Head of State"

"Friday, April 25, 2008
Clinton, Obama and Negative Campaigning

Just as there is a "Fog of War", the "Fog of Campaigning" can also breed short (and at times false) memories.

Geoff Garin claims that there has been "one campaign...that has been mean-spirited" and "unfair" and that it is "not ours".

Garin, who seems to be a genuine and decent professional who has been dropped to the helm of a listing ship, attempts to right it not by changing the direction of the boat, but by trying to reverse reality.

Let's take a look:

Clinton at the Jefferson-Jackson Day Speech:

"I'm not interested in attacking my opponents, I'm interested in attacking the problems of America. And I believe we should be turning up the heat on the Republicans -- they deserve all the heat we can give them."

November, 2007:

New York Times: "Hillary Rodham Clinton's presidential campaign, which is now attacking Senator Barack Obama on a daily basis." [New York Times, 11/30/07] NBC's First Read:

MSNBC: "Another day, another Clinton campaign knock on Obama." [First Read, 11/29/07]

December 2007 (leading to the January 6 Iowa primary, including the notorious use of an essay that he wrote in Kindergarten):

Chicago Tribune: "This Clinton Attack On Obama Could Boomerang." "The Clinton people are citing a kindergarten essay by Obama as evidence against him in a presidential campaign. Good thing he was born before widespread pre-natal ultrasounds. Who knows how they might've used that against him? Clinton's people have thrown similar jabs before at Obama but it hasn't fazed him. So their seems to be a little more fury behind the punches as now that Obama's may have taken the lead in Iowa according to the Des Moines Register's most recent poll." [Chicago Tribune, The Swamp, 12/3/07]

Washington Post: "Losing Ground In Iowa, Clinton Assails Obama." "With a new poll showing her losing ground in the Iowa caucus race, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) mounted a new, more aggressive attack against Sen. Barack Obama." [Washington Post, 12/3/07]
New York Daily News: "Hillary Clinton Attack On Barack Obama Comes After She Loses Iowa Lead." "Hours after a new poll showed her falling behind for the first time in Iowa, Hillary Clinton launched a blistering personal broadside on rival Barack Obama." [New York Daily News, 12/3/07]

New York Times: "An Attack, From the Candidate's Mouth" [New York Times, 12/2/07]

New York Times: "Battered by Poll, Clinton Hits Back" [New York Times, 12/2/07]
Clinton Release: "In kindergarten, Senator Obama wrote an essay titled 'I Want to Become President. 'Iis Darmawan, 63, Senator Obama's kindergarten teacher, remembers him as an exceptionally tall and curly haired child who quickly picked up the local language and had sharp math skills. He wrote an essay titled, 'I Want To Become President,' the teacher said." [AP, 1/25/07]

And what did the voters think?

Which Candidate is the most negative?
Hillary Clinton 21%
John Edwards 9%
Dennis Kucinich 9%
Barack Obama 8%
Joe Biden 3%
Mike Gravel 3%
Christopher Dodd 3%
Bill Richardson 3%
None/Not sure 43%

Source: The Iowa Poll
[Des Moines Register, 12/2/07]

What about after Iowa? She surely must have changed her tactics then...

After Iowa Loss, Clinton Ramps Up Attacks:
January 06, 2008

AP: "Hillary Clinton Comes Out Swinging, Politeness Lost Along With Iowa Caucuses" [AP, 1/6/08]

Los Angeles Times: "Clinton lets arrows fly at Obama"..."Staggered by her third-place finish in the Iowa caucuses, the New York senator was the aggressor throughout a 90-minute session" [LA Times, 1/6/08]

Washington Post: "Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton tried repeatedly to knock Sen. Barack Obama off his footing during a high-stakes debate here on Saturday night" [Washington Post, 1/6/08]

AP: "Clinton criticizes Obama in NH mailer" [AP, 1/5/08]

Newsday: "Clinton sharpens attack on Obama" [Newsday, 1/5/08]

Reuters: "Obama under attack ahead of New Hampshire debates" [Reuters, 1/5/08]

Newsday: "After weeks of playing nice in Iowa, the Clinton camp sharpened their elbows when the campaign went wheels-down in New Hampshire, readying TV ads targeting Obama that were expected to focus on health care and his legislative record." [Newsday, 1/4/08]

Washington Post: But she and her aides also signaled their intention to now ratchet up the race, aggressively countering Obama in the five days ahead. She is also now planning to draw even sharper distinctions between herself and Obama on the question of change, after watching voters who wanted a new direction select her main rival for the nomination on Thursday night. [Washington Post, 1/4/08]

Well...that must have been just a momentary reaction to January's surprising defeat. She surely didn't continue that strategy...

The State: "Clinton camp hits Obama -- Attacks 'painful' for black voters. Many in state offended by criticism of Obama, remarks about King" [1/12/08]

New York Times: "Clinton's Campaign Sees Value In Keeping Former President In Attack Mode" [1/25/08]

Greenville News: Ex-Democratic Official Criticizes Clintons' Attacks On Obama [1/23/08]

CNN: "Clinton Sharpens Attacks On Obama" [CNN, 2/14/08]

Concord Monitor: "Clinton Attack Still Riles Some" [2/4/08]

Guardian Unlimited: "Clinton Goes On Attack As Obama Closes Gap" [2/3/08]

First Read: "Clinton Justifies War Vote, Hits Obama" [1/13/08]

Politico: "Hillary Clinton attacks Barack Obama" [1/13/08]

Perhaps it became more substantive and dignified in February:

Feb 25, 2008

2008 Presidential Election

Clinton Circulates Pic of Obama in Somali Garb: Report
For some, Barack Obama's "Hussein" middle name has been something worth picking on. For others, it has been pushing the unsubstantiated rumor (debunked by Snopes) that Obama is or was a "radical Muslim." But this - this is truly low. ..Clinton campaign manager Maggie Williams said, "If Barack Obama's campaign wants to suggest that a photo of him wearing traditional Somali clothing is divisive, they should be ashamed."


The Politico, Ben Smith, March 2:

"A weird moment of TV, partially captured in the clip above. Clinton denies she thinks Obama's a Muslim, but her denial seems something other than ironclad, and the interviewer goes back at her on the question...

"You said you'd take Senator Obama at his word that he's not...a Muslim. You don't believe that he's...," Kroft said.

"No. No, there is nothing to base that on. As far as I know," she said."


MSNBC: April 14: Clinton Attacks Obama On Air

Sun-Sentinal: April 22: Clinton attacks, Obama hopes

And what of recent words of Mr. Garin himself?

From the April 20 Meet the Press:

MR. AXELROD: ...Did you not put a negative ad on this weekend in Philadelphia? The--100 percent negative ad attacking Senator Obama?

MR. GARIN: No. I don't believe we did.

MR. AXELROD: Yeah, you did. Go back and check with your people, and it was, it's an ad on lobbying, and it's circulating...

MR. GARIN: It's not. It, it ends up, I believe, with...

MR. AXELROD: No, no, it's 100 percent negative ad, Geoff. Go back and ask your people. I understand you're new in the campaign, and I love you, man, you're a good friend of mine. I know you to be a good, positive person.

MR. GARIN: Right.

MR. AXELROD: But I think that there's some vestiges of the old regime still in place.

MR. GARIN: Well, look, when, when, when...
(Garin never answers this question--Axelrod later in broadcast: "The--well, first of all, that's what's in your negative ad that you didn't know about in Philadelphia.")

Note: This of course leaves self-inflicted attacks (i.e. sniper fire) aside. Incidentally, while I have known people to err when they are tired (for example to say "sniker" instead of "sniper"), I have never seen anyone invent and repeat an entire episode that did not occur as a result of exhaustion--although, of course, this commonly does occur when people are completely asleep.

Hendrik Hertzberg, in this weeks "Campaign Trail" (New Yorker) has noted the tragic and inevitable game here, whereby Obama, who has tried to run a different type of campaign--explicitly principled and positive--has been drawn into defense by the incessant attack. This attempt to now flip and revise history in this very fundamental manner is something that we have seen in our recent Presidential past--and is something that should give us pause.

Head of State:

Posted by: Robert Hewson | April 25, 2008 3:58 PM

Do we really want Bill back in the White house chasing interns? Hillary can't control the horny old bastard.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 25, 2008 3:58 PM


Very funny (not).


You back yet from searching (in vain) for even one Barack HUSSEIN Obama "smear" of mine?

FYI -- the definition of "smear": A false vilifying or slanderous remark.

[Middle English smeren, to anoint, from Old English smerian.]

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2006 by Houghton Mifflin Company

Posted by: JakeD | April 25, 2008 3:56 PM

HRC's campaign has come up with so many different ways to count "votes," it's only a matter of time before they go all "Constitution" on us and propose to count African Americans as only 60% of a person.

Her campaign distributes votes as fairly as a three-year-old distributes cookies.

Posted by: i'm here because of ashley | April 25, 2008 3:55 PM

Please folks, let's be civil. Calling JakeD an idiot is insulting and demeaning - to idiots.

Posted by: Jackson1 | April 25, 2008 3:55 PM

Hillary and Bill have an odd marriage arrangement that bothers me. She seems to have made several moral compromises staying with Bill over the years to advance her career ambitions. I just don't trust her at all. We're all voting on character so this is definitely an issue.

Posted by: Don't trust her at all | April 25, 2008 3:54 PM

JakeD what does the D stand for DUMMIE!!!
The committee does not want a race war on thier hands it would be the worst thing thay could do to this country you and the Rat must be brothers.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 25, 2008 3:52 PM

Yes Jake, The Fossil McCain might win the Calcified Cruster GOP vote but that is a fast-shrinking portion of the electorate. The man is but a shell of the "independent, maverick" he was when he got screwed by Bush in 2000. You might be feeling optimistic in light of the ongoing battle between Obama and Clinton and your valiant efforts to stir the sh*t here may give you some fleeting moments of glee but I'll tell you that this country is in no mood to elect another corrupt Republican, no way, no how.

If the Democrats nominated a potted plant, it would win.

Posted by: Maria | April 25, 2008 3:52 PM

P Diddy:

Truman had to drop TWO nukes to win that war ; )

Posted by: JakeD | April 25, 2008 3:49 PM

As I said, the rules say she could TRY to seat FL and MI delegates through the Credentials Committee, but doing so is a "nuclear" move. She will alienate millions of Obama voters. Independents, African Americans, and first-time voters without whom she cannot build a sufficient coalition to beat McCain. Most people will not be able to comprehend the political machinations involved in her winning the nomination in that manner.

It would be a colossally stupid and politically tone-deaf move.

Posted by: P Diddy | April 25, 2008 3:47 PM

You Hillary fanatics kill me. Your contortionist techniques for skewing the math is amazing. Obama didn't campaign in Florida and every state he campaigned in he cut Hillary's early lead and or beat her. He wasn't even on the ballot in Michigan so he got 0 votes but you overlook that little fact.

Why are so many people that worked for or with the Clintons and so many that campaigned with them endorsing Obama? Is it because you know them better than they do?

Posted by: Anonymous | April 25, 2008 3:46 PM

P.S. to Eric: if there are no smears" why did you post at 3:32 PM "Nice to know you motivation in smearing Obama" in YOUR effort to "smear" me as a Republican?

Posted by: JakeD | April 25, 2008 3:45 PM


I would vote for a pro-life Democrat. I also wasn't going to vote for pro-choice Rudy Guilliani (sp?).


I don't have a bridge, but (for the last time) I'm content to wait for a final ruling on Florida and Michigan from the Credentials Committee in Denver : )

Posted by: JakeD | April 25, 2008 3:43 PM

JakeD.. Your capitalization of HUSSEIN has an obvious connotation.. that Obama is less than American. Besides that, there are no smears in this thread. Let me jump to another thread and copy and paste.

Posted by: Eric | April 25, 2008 3:41 PM

What do I care why Clinton signed off on the rules (in addition, those same "rules" state that the final decision will be made by the Credentials Committee ; )

Posted by: JakeD | April 25, 2008 3:40 PM

JakeD Troll posts:
"P.P.S. if anyone (brave enough to post with a name) disputes that 15,116,688 REAL votes were cast for Hillary Clinton, please let me know."

Finally got your bridge repairs completed, hunh, Jake? Bottom line is who cares how many votes she has? The determining point is delegates as everyone knows. The popular voting numbers are, have been and will be a red herring thrown out (thrown up?) by the Clinton team to try and make a case where there isn't any that she might possibly be better liked, therefore, must be the choice. This, of course, ignores the rules that she and her cohorts not only helped develop prior to the primary season, but were completely in favor of until she started losing by them.

It's always humorous when folks try to add in the invalid votes of Florida and Michigan while pompously dismissing the equally unverifiable differentiation of popular votes for causcus states because one is "real" while the other is "imaginary." They're both imaginary; neither count; neither affect the current reality that Clinton is behind by some 500,000 votes in total for those contests where the votes were tallied according to the rules, a value which most likely will grow after the NC/Indiana primaries.

But we all know rules only matter when people like Jake want (need?) them to.

Posted by: jk5432 | April 25, 2008 3:40 PM

JakeD - Stanford Sucks

Posted by: JakeD is Rush's back door man | April 25, 2008 3:40 PM

JakeD, my fellow independant... What is the point of being independant in our two party system if you vow to never vote Democrat?

Posted by: Eric | April 25, 2008 3:39 PM

JakeD Wassup?:

We'll see in Denver ...


Please cite to one "smear" I have made about Barack HUSSEIN Obama (unlike people calling the GOP candidate "McBush")?

Posted by: JakeD | April 25, 2008 3:38 PM

JakeD, since you are here to parrot the Big Lie theory that Clinton seems to have adopted in her efforts to salvage her trainwreck of a campaign why don't you explain to all of us why Clinton signed off on the rules that the DNC established for Florida and Michigan and why she stated herself that those primaries "would not matter"?

As much as you try to twist the facts here, she is on the record on this. Your argument is totally ridiculous.

Posted by: Elitist Yuppie is San Francisco | April 25, 2008 3:38 PM

haha... JakeD you have not a leg to stand on and your "arguments" are getting weaker by the second. perhaps your feeble mind cannot keep up? :-(

credentials committee = owned by Dean who, although not publicly, supports Obama.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 25, 2008 3:35 PM

P Diddy:

Thank you (but don't forget about Operation CHAOS ; )


I'm actually registered Independent (BTW: there are pro-life DEMOCRATS too -- they are called Catholics ; )

Posted by: JakeD | April 25, 2008 3:35 PM

JakeD --- Stanford rocks.

But you still have to be concerned about Michigan votes, right? No Obama name on the damn ballot. Hillary can win fairly. She doesn't need to high-jack tainted Michigan votes.

Posted by: JakeD Wassup? | April 25, 2008 3:34 PM

JakeD - I saw the RCP average go from 2.2% lead for Clinton yesterday to a 3.0% lead for Obama today.

Posted by: Eric | April 25, 2008 3:34 PM

christian and NoBillary1:

(Again) tell that to the Credentials Committee in Denver.


I actually think McCain can beat BOTH candidates.

Posted by: JakeD | April 25, 2008 3:33 PM

Eric-Believe me, I'd NEVER Jump Port-Side! :-(

THAT, is where the Bilge dumps, and is infested with all the Bottom-feeders and Sharks!

Savvy? ;~)

Posted by: RAT-The | April 25, 2008 3:32 PM

You can bet if Hillary is given the nonomation by the super's votes you will see a race riot like the 60's. Also Bill's Brotho'r card and Hood pass was just susspended. Thay will never get another black vote. And no one can win the white house without the black vote.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 25, 2008 3:32 PM

JakeD - Thanks for outting yourself as a republican. It is now apparent to us all that you only argue for Clinton because she will be the easier opponent for your candidate in November. Nice to know you motivation in smearing Obama.

Posted by: Eric | April 25, 2008 3:32 PM


You may have grown old, but you have not grown up.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 25, 2008 3:32 PM

Gabby, Bill Richardson - turn-coats, traitors; seduced by the dark side of the force for political favor. Now, aren't those the virtues you want to pass along to your kids - when the going gets tough, switch sides...

Posted by: Anonymous | April 25, 2008 3:31 PM

Hillary should continue until the end. The race is close enough and she has demonstrated as strong support as Obama. Both campaigns have significant weaknesses (Obama can't close with blue collar voters, Clinton has alienated the youth and African American vote). But in the end, either candidate will get a tremendous amount of support and win the General.

Moreover, the uncommitted superdelegates should absolutely sit on the sideline until early June. It makes no sense for them to play a role until then UNLESS the superdelegate in question is from a state or territory yet to vote, in which case co-campaigning is a requirement.

While it's fully within the rules, a Credentials Committee vote to seat Florida and Michigan and thusly award the delegate count to Clinton will not be understood by the vast majority of voters. They will see it as political shenanigans, and it will be simple to paint Clinton as nothing more than an overly ambitious, self-absorbed candidate. I think that's a very dangerous path to walk for the Clinton campaign.

Finally, with voter turnout and Democratic registration at the levels they are, it will be an uphill climb for McCain. If Clinton can stay classy and Obama can avoid shooting himself in the foot, this horse race will go down to the wire with Obama inching out a victory by the nose.

A fascinating, and historic, election, to be sure...

Posted by: P Diddy | April 25, 2008 3:31 PM

The Dude:

Tell that to the Credentials Committee in Denver.


Did you see the poll released today that Indiana (which Obama had been leading) is statistically tied now?

Posted by: JakeD | April 25, 2008 3:31 PM

JakeD who will "never" vote for a Democrat is here to express his brilliant take on the Democratic Primary.

Being a crazed right-winger, he will try to make the impossible, irrational case for Hillary because she is the candidate that he thinks Cruster McCain can beat.

Yes JakeD, we are all REALLY going to take you seriously.

Posted by: Maria | April 25, 2008 3:30 PM


Hillary Clinton is unelectable. The Republican attack machine will convince Americans that Hillary's middle name is Bosnia. You have a fighter pilot and a prisoner of war up against someone who bravely dodged thrown flowers on a tarmac. Her lie was absolute and the evidence against her is absolutely incontrovertible. So stick that in your pipe and smoke it.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 25, 2008 3:30 PM

This is MSNBC'S analysis of the POPULAR VOTE numbers...

Without MI/FL:
Obama: 14,447,566
Clinton: 13,965,192

With FL, but NOT MI:
Obama: 15,016,607
Clinton: 14,822,400

With MI/FL, including "uncommitted" for Obama:
Obama: 15,254,369
Clinton: 15,150,551

With MI/FL, giving Obama 0 in MI and Clinton 328,000-plus (the only metric which gives her a lead):
Clinton: 15,150,551

Posted by: NoBillary1 | April 25, 2008 3:30 PM

uhhh... I WILL (idiot)

14,417,619 49.2% (Barack) 13,917,393 47.5% (Hillary)

those are the REAL VOTES since, as well all know except for you, MI & FL do not count. pretty simple concept really.

or i could give you Florida for the heck of it (no MI since he wasn't on the ballot)

14,993,833 48.3% (Barack) 14,788,379 47.6% (Hillary)

still...she loses. now please abort youself.

Posted by: christian | April 25, 2008 3:30 PM


I'm much older than 8 -- I graduated from Stanford Law School in 1961 -- how about you?

Integrity is important:

There were FOUR names on the ballot in Michigan (as well as "Uncommitted" if you were stil confused).

Posted by: JakeD | April 25, 2008 3:29 PM

BZ: Please give evidence of this "implosion" because I am not seeing it. The only movement in the polls is in Obama's direction. The only implosion is happening in your mind.

Posted by: Eric | April 25, 2008 3:29 PM

Jake D,

You can't simply count Michigan, giving Clinton all of her votes and Obama none, when he took his name off the ballot simply in compliance with the rules. But Clinton is ahead only if you give her the benefit of the uncontested Michigan vote.

What a crock!

Posted by: The Dude | April 25, 2008 3:28 PM

P.P.S. if anyone (brave enough to post with a name) disputes that 15,116,688 REAL votes were cast for Hillary Clinton, please let me know.

Posted by: JakeD | April 25, 2008 3:25 PM

It should concern all democrats that Obama's name was not on the Michigan ballet nor did he run because of DNC rules and Hillary is claiming these votes.

One candidate ballots are a Russian tradition.

The streets of Denver will burn if Hillary back doors this thing. If so, she will lose in November as she is completely unelectable for many reasons, integrity problems being only one.

Posted by: Integrity is important | April 25, 2008 3:24 PM

While you all fight over delegate count - Obama is imploding with Rev. Wright , Bitter-gate, and his inability to connect to middle class voters.
Watch PBS tonight. Rev. Wright interview he just digs the hole deeper for Obama.
The super-delegates will not give it to him, and that's the ONLY way he wins.
He is unelectable. Period.

Posted by: BZ | April 25, 2008 3:24 PM

and that's supposed to make you less of an idiot? no.. to the contrary. you are even more of an idiot. who cares that you are pro-life? you are a man and you have no say in the matter anyway (not that you will ever get to have sex with a girl or guy, whichever is your preference). my only regret is that your mom clearly wasn't pro-choice and you are the end result of that travesty :-(

Posted by: Anonymous | April 25, 2008 3:22 PM


This Barack HUSSEIN Obama thing is just not working. What are you, 8 years old or something?

Posted by: FilmMD | April 25, 2008 3:22 PM

good riddance. The Clintons have very good to some of the worst people walking.

In a way if she gets rid of her false friends we may find the true candidate.

Posted by: JohnAdams1 | April 25, 2008 3:22 PM

What will likely happen is that MI won't count (even the most ardent HRC supporters have to admit that it's hard to press your case considering Obama wasn't even on the ticket in MI) and FL will count (both were on the ticket) - Obama will still be ahead, albeit by a smaller margin.

Posted by: Keith | April 25, 2008 3:22 PM


(Again) I am not a Clinton supporter, but the Credentials Committee will make the final ruling on Michigan and/or Florida.

Posted by: JakeD | April 25, 2008 3:21 PM

I wonder if Hilary's wake up call had anything to do with her fundraiser jumping ship.

Hillary's Wake up Call

Duck Chelsea!
Don't worry about your attire
What is it Mama?
Child we are in Bosnia
We are under sniper fire
Wake up Mama!
Its 3AM
You're having a nightmare
I went to bed with something burning on my mind
Oh! Obama!
How can I win this election?
Father gives me an ear
Child that was a good dream
Not a nightmare
I'm using it to motivate my election team
Let American's know
I'm ready to answer that Presidential call at3AM

By Allen Gauntlett

Posted by: Allen Gauntlett | April 25, 2008 3:21 PM

Most excellent and reasoned choice. This smart man puts the Democratic party first whereas Clinton has chosen to put her sense of entitlement and ego there instead.
She will not be our party's nomination and needs to find her way back to the Senate if they will still have her.

Posted by: cary | April 25, 2008 3:20 PM

haha.. looks like poor Jake lost his little popular vote argument and has no other recourse but to re-paste his prior INACCURATE vote total :-)

pooooooooor loser

Posted by: Anonymous | April 25, 2008 3:20 PM

P.S. to Anonymous (still calling ME the "idiot"): I wouldn't vote for EITHER Democrat in a million years -- I am pro-life.

Posted by: JakeD | April 25, 2008 3:20 PM

I want to make sure all Clinton support know you cannot count Michigan and Florida. Obama wasn't even on the ballot in Michigan. Think about this if Hillary didn't campaign in one state do you think she would have a chance to win. Clinton supporters want to count something that wasn't suppose to count. That like run a practice race and counting the score to your permenant running record. Lets get pass this and talk about the states that count. Why do Clinton supports change the rules with her each time? The rules are the rules now lets move forward

Posted by: Shelly | April 25, 2008 3:19 PM


I certainly HOPE there are multiple lawsuits.


Do you have a cite or link for that court ruling?


See link provided for "estimate" used by Real Clear Politics.

JakeD's shadow:

If you are sitting right here, how is it you don't know about "RSS Feed"?

Posted by: JakeD | April 25, 2008 3:18 PM

Popular Vote (w/FL & MI)** Obama 14,993,833 and Clinton 15,116,688 (Clinton +122,855)

Estimate w/IA, NV, ME, WA* Obama 15,327,917 and Clinton 15,340,550 (Clinton +12,633)

Assuming Hillary can win the DNC Credentials Committee vote to seat those delegates, she will be the nominee.

Posted by: JakeD | April 25, 2008 3:16 PM

I'm JakeD's shadow, and I sit behind him watching him in front of the computer as he waits for each new posting on the WaPo and trys very hard to be the very FIRST blog entry. You see Jake has no l life; his sole purpose is to blog useless information and hate. As JakeD's shadow, i see a dim-witted, sad, pathetic person as well.

Posted by: JakeD's shadow | April 25, 2008 3:15 PM

JakeD, where in the world did you get caucus numbers for Nevada? Those numbers have never been released.

Posted by: Lilly1 | April 25, 2008 3:14 PM

The problem with "counting" the Michigan Democratic primary vote, apart from the fact that Clinton was the only name on the ballot [and said it didn't matter, because the primary didn't count] is that the election has been declared unconstitutional by Federal Court. So long as that ruling stands, I don't see how the Democrats can even consider counting it.

Posted by: tom | April 25, 2008 3:14 PM

Jon Stewart captures the idiocy of the Clinton campaign quite well using her own words in "Turning of the Time"

Go to youtube and check it out.

Meanwhile explain how my vote for a delegate that has pledged to Obama is considered by Clinton to be irrelevant. Explain that part of the democratic process to me.

As a lawyer, I don't see how the DNC can seat any delegates in Fl or MI without inviting lawsuits from numerous sources (including myself) considering that all the campaigns agreed that those delegates would not be seated. This election may be stolen based on states where the candidates agreed not to campaign, but there will be a fight over it.

Posted by: Ben | April 25, 2008 3:12 PM

you mean the same Credentials Committee that Howard Dean has under his thumb? Yeah, I'm not too worried about that. bottomline there is a valid reason to not let their popular votes count and it is the simple fact that some state of caucuses and their is no way YOU or HILLARY can get around that. I'm content to let you wait until Denver to have your dream of a Hillary dictatorship be crushed.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 25, 2008 3:12 PM

JakeD, the credentials committee will meet at the end of June, after Obama has been given the nomination. FL and MI will be seated, Obama will be the nominee.

So we will just agree to wait and see. Good luck!

Posted by: Eric | April 25, 2008 3:12 PM

The fact is that after the primaries Obama will only need about 25% of remaining supers to get the nod. Hillary will need 75%. The uphill climb for Sen Clinton is impossible considering the margin she would need, the fact that she is far behind in pledged delegates, the risk of alienating black and a generation of fired up voters, and her own unelectability (37% approval, 53% disapproval, 39% trustworthy, ect.)

Posted by: Eric | April 25, 2008 3:10 PM


Don't tell that to "Dennis Kucinich" (21,708 REAL votes), "Christopher Dodd" (3,853 REAL votes) or "Mike Gravel" (2,363 REAL votes).


I'm content to wait for a final ruling on Florida and Michigan from the Credentials Committee in Denver : )

Posted by: JakeD | April 25, 2008 3:08 PM

"As with all statistical analysis, all of our calculations come with a certain degree of imprecision. However, our goal is more modest than to forecast the exact results of hypothetical primaries. Rather, we wish to make three broad points. First, because voter turnout is lower in caucuses, the popular vote dramatically devalues the popular will of citizens of caucus states. Second, the size of the devaluation is large, given that about one-third of states have used caucuses and caucus turnout is only one-fifth of primary turnout. Finally, both the actual caucus results and the results of our hypothetical primaries suggest that were every state to have held primaries, Obama would have a larger lead in the current tally of the popular vote."

bottom line = PLEDGED DELEGATES not popular vote, so quit spreading your bullsh*t

Posted by: Anonymous | April 25, 2008 3:07 PM

it is disenfranchisement EITHER WAY, so IDIOT is an aptly used term because you obviously cannot understand this pretty basic concept.

MI & FL votes are just as "imaginary" in that they DO NOT COUNT

Posted by: Anonymous | April 25, 2008 3:02 PM

Anonymous (again, calling ME an "idiot"):

I will also stick with 15,116,688 REAL voters, rather than 600,000 IMAGINARY ones.

Posted by: JakeD | April 25, 2008 3:00 PM

No JakeD, you can try to spread misinformation, but anyone who is paying attention realizes that Hillary was the only person on the michigan ballot.

Posted by: Eric | April 25, 2008 3:00 PM

...that was as of the beginning of April, btw.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 25, 2008 2:58 PM

If no campaign was held in Penn, Clinton would have won by 25%, not 9%. Obama always closes the gap on Clinton.

Florida cannot be counted as the results do not represent a campaign, but instead voters votbeing drawn to the polls by local issues, and voting in the primary because they were already there.

Good thing superdelegates are elected officials that have stood for election previously, and they especially realize how invalid MI and FL are. Sorry JakeD and RAT-the... You will be out of a troll job very shortly and Obama doesn't want your kind

Posted by: Eric | April 25, 2008 2:58 PM


Obama / Clinton = 1 person?

I will stick with my "fuzzy" math, thank you very much.

Posted by: JakeD | April 25, 2008 2:58 PM

JakeD should move to Caracas or Moscow, you would just love the "elections" there, since you seem to so happily accept the soviet model of 1 person elections. Not to mention Sen Clinton's whole campaign disavowed the primary beforehand and publically stated the results would not count. Of course, thats when she expected to be coronated.

Posted by: Eric | April 25, 2008 2:55 PM

Anonymous (calling ME an "idiot"):

Are you saying that 15,116,688 voters did NOT cast ballots for Hillary? The numbers are pretty straight-forward -- Obama is only in the lead right now because Florida and Michigan are not included -- yet.

Posted by: JakeD | April 25, 2008 2:46 PM

LOL, a Chilean Leftist jumps Port-Side straight into Barack's Dinghy before it also veers to Port!

Just remember to Yield to the Starboard! ;~)

Posted by: RAT-The | April 25, 2008 2:45 PM

Popular Vote (w/FL & MI)** Obama 14,993,833 and Clinton 15,116,688 (Clinton +122,855)

Estimate w/IA, NV, ME, WA* Obama 15,327,917 and Clinton 15,340,550 (Clinton +12,633)

Assuming Hillary can win the DNC Credentials Committee vote to seat those delegates, she will be the nominee.

Posted by: JakeD | April 25, 2008 2:44 PM

no she hasn't you idiot. are you forgetting the caucuses? each delegate represents numerous actual voters.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 25, 2008 2:44 PM

I agree with Carson -- Gabriel Guerra-Mondragon sounds like a whiny Loserman to me -- besides, what's wrong with the Democrats "just bleeding each other out"?

P.S. Hillary DIANE Clinton has already passed Barack HUSSEIN Obama in total popular votes (if you count Florida and Michigan ; )

Posted by: JakeD | April 25, 2008 2:36 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.


© 2009 The Washington Post Company