Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Beyond Pa., a Weakened Clinton


Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) greets people after a rally at Scranton Cultural Center April 21, 2008 in Scranton, Pa. (Getty Images)

By Dan Balz
The polls suggest that Hillary Clinton is headed for victory in Pennsylvania on Tuesday. If that happens, it will add to the string of big states where she has defeated Barack Obama. Depending on the margin, a Clinton victory will raise fresh questions about the Illinois senator's general election prospects.

But Pennsylvania is not Ohio, and the Clinton who is making her final push in the Keystone State is not the candidate who barnstormed through Ohio early last month. No less determined, she is nonetheless a more weakened candidate than she was on the eve of the Ohio and Texas primaries.

This is evident at many levels, from the atmosphere around her traveling entourage, to the financial disadvantage she faces, to the fact that her victory could be discounted unless the margin is even bigger than it was in Ohio.

Arguably, the past seven weeks have been far rougher for Obama than for Clinton. He lost Ohio, and he lost the popular vote in Texas (but did recoup by winning more delegates because of the caucuses there). Then came the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, the uproar over his comments about the bitterness of small-town voters and the interrogation in last week's ABC News debate.

Yet Clinton appears to have been weakened more by the long interregnum between primaries. Her most significant missteps came over her repeated mischaracterizations of her trip to Bosnia in 1996. Those, along with additional turmoil in her campaign, and occasional mistakes by her husband, have left her with an image problem of significant proportions.

Her campaign has the aura of a march toward inevitable disappointment. Obama's campaign has been skillful in keeping the focus on his nearly insurmountable lead in pledged delegates -- and the math has helped them with that argument. Obama also has continued to narrow Clinton's once-hefty lead among superdelegates. Exhaustion with the race among Democrats on both sides of the nomination battle adds to her obstacles.

Clinton's lifeline to the superdelegates remains the popular vote, the one remaining marker where her advisers believe she might be able to overtake Obama. If she did that, she would have one last argument to put before the superdelegates that she is the stronger candidate for the fall election.

The Web site Real Clear Politics charts the popular vote in multiple ways: total votes; total votes with estimates from some caucus states that do not actually report the popular vote; total votes with Florida's unsanctioned primary results; total votes with both Florida's and Michigan's primaries.

Obama leads in every one of them at this point, but depending on the calculation, his margin is as high as 827,000 (without Florida and Michigan but with a number of the caucus states) and as low as 94,000 (with Florida and Michigan but without those caucus states).

Obama owes much in these calculations to his home state of Illinois. There, on Feb. 5, he rolled up a victory margin of 650,000 votes over Clinton. She, in contrast, won her adopted home state of New York by 317,500 votes. Without the two home states, Obama would still lead in the popular vote, but the margin would look less insurmountable for Clinton in the coming contests.

Obama's recent problems have caused some Democrats to worry about his chances of winning the general election. His performance in Ohio, they argue, where he won only a handful of counties and lost some by huge margins, will make his prospects there difficult, they say. Michigan, too, could be formidable for him, and depending on the outcome Tuesday, so could Pennsylvania.

All of that should have played to Clinton's advantage in this time between Ohio and Pennsylvania. Instead, her rising negatives among Republicans and especially among independents have made it all the more difficult to argue that she is stronger for November.

The most recent Washington Post-ABC News poll charts Clinton's decline from a high point just after her victory in New Hampshire to a new low point this spring. In that time, her favorable rating underwent a 40-point swing among independents. In mid-January, 59 percent of independents said they had a favorable impression of her, compared to 39 percent unfavorable. Last week, it was the reverse: 39 percent favorable and 58 percent unfavorable.

Her decline among Republicans was minimal, although she started at a very low point. Jennifer Agiesta, The Post's polling analyst, said the drop among Republicans is attributable almost entirely to declining ratings from women.

Clinton may have been artificially high in her public image after her New Hampshire comeback, and so the comparison between then and now may overstate the trouble she has encountered. But there is no question that the victory in Ohio and the popular vote victory in Texas, two events that reinvigorated her candidacy and extended the Democratic race, had little lasting impact on how voters -- especially independents who are crucial to Democratic hopes of winning in November -- see her.

All that colors her campaign on the eve of Tuesday's vote. To her credit, Clinton soldiers on, but with new limitations because of the damage to her public image. Fairly or unfairly, the bar for her now is higher than ever.

By Web Politics Editor  |  April 21, 2008; 12:40 PM ET
Categories:  B_Blog , Barack Obama , Dan Balz's Take , Hillary Rodham Clinton  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Obama Comments an Issue in Pa. House Race
Next: Clinton Team Exudes Confidence About Pa. Outcome

Comments

yes, Americans don't like whiners, and like cry babies even less.(Guess who cries for votes?)

What is wrong with a candidate who has the party insiders,, the name ,the money, the big lead,the smooth campaign, the 8 years in the white house, and she cannot put it away against an unknown junior senator?

That smacks of unelectability to me !!

All the botox, all the cheek implants, all the colored contact lenses, all the jewelery, the queenly outfits, can not help this woman.

She came out of the gate spending other peoples donations like the rich b.... she is,staying in luxury hotels, then one day it all came crashing down when the 'uppity' Senator from Illinois revealed that she is a hollow shell,no substance at all,all appearance.

Posted by: thopaine | April 22, 2008 6:49 PM | Report abuse

Is Dan Balz on the Obama payroll? I thought he might be reading this article.

I'm reading many other blogs with many other stories about Hillary in PA and I can assure you that she's energized, her supporters are energized. When Hillary wins by 12+, then I guess we will finally realize that Obama may not be "the one".

Perhaps, the hype around Obama will finally come to an end.

Posted by: stefanie | April 22, 2008 5:13 PM | Report abuse

Hillary is weakened b/c she has lost credibility. Her multiple fabrications on sniper fire in Bosnia show a fatal character flaw that voters are very sensitive to b/c of Bush's lies and spin: most voters can trust her to tell the truth.

Stick a fork in Hillary-she's done .

Posted by: Franklin | April 22, 2008 2:47 PM | Report abuse

The entitlement feeling by the Obama campaign and supporters is so sad. Why do they feel entitled to the nomination when Obama cannot win enough delegates to get the nomination.
If Obama is so incredibly good and Hillary so bad, why do they not just beat her and finish the contest?
They could not in Ohio.
They could not in Texas.
And they will not in Penn.
Please quit whining and start performing or simply shut up. Americans do not like whiners

Posted by: Whiners please go home! | April 22, 2008 10:11 AM | Report abuse

Hillary is not weakened; she is finished. Remember, it is all about the delegates. She simply cannot/will not get the delegates. Democracy at work.

Posted by: Ella | April 22, 2008 9:15 AM | Report abuse

The problem for Hillary is that she can't win without overturning the popular vote. That's not going to fly with most Democrats. I don't think she should drop out or anything..maybe Obama will make a mistake but if not, and Superdelegates overturn the popular vote from a black person to give it to a white person, the Dems would lose the African American vote for generations. He would have to have a Dead Zone moment for people to accept that. It's just the political reality and it's not going to happen.

What gets me is the irrational loathing of people. They both are pretty close to on the issues and you'd be an idiot to not vote for whoever wins and let McSame take the White House.

Supreme Court Justices are holding on by their fingernails til a Dem gets in. If any of the liberals on the Court drop out with McCain as President, we'll see a far right court for another 40 years.

So enough already with the irrational loathing. Most of us have admired Hillary for years. I don't particularly like the tone of her campaign but I will still admire her for years. And if this were 2004, I'd have welcomed her bareknuckles no hold back campaign. By the same token, Obama is a good guy. He's not the devil for beating Hillary nor is he some dishonest monster.

We'd be blessed to have either candidate as our President. Remember what you guys really believe in and who the real adversary is. Enough.

Posted by: Dandaman | April 22, 2008 9:11 AM | Report abuse

This is just one guy's "take"--not news.

Hillary '08

Posted by: Anonymous | April 22, 2008 9:04 AM | Report abuse

WOW!

Obama supporters ARE like cultists following some new age Messiah. Even when his core belifs and tenets are exposed from behind the curtain of canned sermons espousing "yes we can".
.....I guess there are none so blind as those who will not see.

To bad their Deity, has proved to be a false prophit. I just hope that they don't drink their bitter kool-ade and follow their Obamacomet into the void.

Posted by: tagurit | April 22, 2008 5:27 AM | Report abuse

I agree, the author of this report very clearly was using reading glasses manufactured by "Obama Optics" to read (and interpret) the various polls cited. I can get more objective information reading the label on a can of dog food.

This wasn't a news report. It was a lengthy and bald-faced Obama plug, pure and simple.

Posted by: Daniel | April 22, 2008 4:27 AM | Report abuse

You Hillary people amaze me...I dont care what she did while first lady..and if you look at her record in the senate she got nothing pivotal passed...just stupid trivial stuff. More important the Paul vs Clinton fraud suit..which looks bad for the Clintons. They have proof she knew about the money since they have her on tape. You people have no clue how dangerous these Clintons really are. Now tell me..if your great candidate were to win...and she is convicted of numerous felonies of campaign fraud...now wouldnt that be just terrific. Wake up peole..go and find out about the Paul vs Clinton suit. You would never want either of the Clintons anywhere near the White House. And shame on you Washington Post for not bringing this to Americas attention better. Oh and I loved the pic of her and Bill with Tony Rezcko. What a joke these people are.

Posted by: Linda | April 22, 2008 3:08 AM | Report abuse

Obama snores and farts? OK, that does it.

Posted by: Billw | April 22, 2008 12:25 AM | Report abuse

Listen I respect you Clinton people's perserverence but you have to come to grips with the reality she is most likely going to lose the nomination whether she wins Pennslyvania or not. Your last shot in my opinion is to win North Carolina which your own campaign has said is impossible.

Posted by: Sean | April 22, 2008 12:01 AM | Report abuse

You Might Be Genius:
if you voted for Obama as the strongest candidate who could run a good campaign and withstand attacks.

Okay, well maybe it doesn't take a genius, it's pretty obvious that if Obama's supporters go out and vote with all the excitement that's been generated, then they can get close enough to Clinton to keep her from catching up as much as she desperately needs to. If Hillary wins by 10 points only, she's gonna have to consider if her money will hold up to even participate in the rest of the contest...

Her campaign sure could use some more help from her deep pockets...

It's been a good primary for Democrats with all the newly registered Democratic voters. Pennsylvania as one more state for the Democrats? Is that why Obama is using resources to register the youth instead of winning over the more likely, older voters?

Posted by: eljefejesus | April 21, 2008 11:59 PM | Report abuse

Here's an "elitist" comment, and God bless the best--the low level of proficiency in the English language, the constant hostile name-calling, and the inept reasoning displayed by the general run of Hillary supporters in blogs like this (to the extent it's not just one fellow--hello, SVReader!--using a lot of different screen-names) makes one wonder why anyone would take crucial political advice from people who clearly aren't even well qualified to help a middle-schooler to do homework.

Posted by: Anthony | April 21, 2008 11:53 PM | Report abuse

Man there are some bitter Hillary supporters out there. Maybe Barack meant you. What a joke all of your passion for someone who once again will lie to you and lead you into more wars. She's a warmonger --saying anything to get elected. This is the United States of America - not the United States of Israel.

Yes Israel is a good partner but to go as far to say that America would nuke another country shows how unstable Clinton is and demonstrates her lack of sophistication. Most people understand that Israel has bought America and we are their lap dog without Hillary having to threaten another nation with annihilation.

America needs to be an honest broker of peace everywhere if we plan to be a part of peace anywhere. Until we learn our lessons we are destined to repeat them over and over again. This is why Clinton '08 is the same as Bush 2004. Warmongering, liar, hater of the truth.

Come on PA step into the light, don't be afraid. What would Jesus do? I guarantee it would not be to threaten nuclear annihilation.

Go Obama, Go McCain -- anyone but another proven warmonger that needs to prove she's man enough for the job. Come on can we just call her Bill and be done with it.


Posted by: james - Los Angeles | April 21, 2008 11:44 PM | Report abuse


Hillary Clinton can get the economy back on track. She can bring the troops home safely. She can get our bankrupting health care system right -she has more experience and knowledge of this than anyone out there. She can get and has our national character right. She can get our national values right - black, yellow, white, red or all of the above.

Hillary Clinton cares about EVERYONE!! In the United States and on this Planet. She is a WOMAN. She is a BRILLIANT woman.

Barack Obama is a freshman senator from Ilinois who seems to have many friends in Washington DC though he says he does not.

He doesn't seem honest about that and many other things.

I'm voting for Hillary Clinton. A known entity. Someone who has CARED for a long, long time about all Americans.

thx.


Posted by: isadore | April 21, 2008 11:29 PM | Report abuse


Most American's with a brain would Nuke Iran if Iran Nuked Israel.

You are a NUT Nolan Nobody.

Well - you're an Obamabot - so we our expectations are low for you.

Time for an old guy like to you get some sleep?

GBA !!!

HRC !!!

Posted by: oliver | April 21, 2008 11:20 PM | Report abuse

Obama appeals to the inner lemming in every Democrat.

He's the pied piper of putz.

Don't fall for his BS.

The first step off the cliff is a doozy.

Say not to losing.

Say no to snow-bama.

Say yes to Hillary Clinton.

The real change we need is to win the Presidency in November, and we do that by nominating a centrist like Hillary Clinton rather than a far-left loser like Barry Obama.

Posted by: Don't feed the lemmings | April 21, 2008 11:17 PM | Report abuse


GOD BLESS AMERICA

LAND THAT I LVOE

STAND BESIDE HER

AND GUIDE HER

THROUGH THE KOOL AID

THE HYPE

AND THE LYING WILD OBAMA MACHINE

THE MAN IS NO ONE

FROM KNOW WHERE

DONE NOTHING

IN HIS WHOLE "EQUAL OPPORTUNITY LIFE"

HELLO?

HE'S NEVER DONE NOTHING WITH ALL HIS OPPORUNITY

HE'S BEEN LOVING THE FREE REZKO RIDE

HE'S BEEN LOVING THE FREE MEDIA RIDE

HE'S BEEN LOVING THE FREE BLACK LIKE ME RIDE

HE'S BEEN LOVING THE WHITE GUILT RIDE

HE'S BEEN LOVING THE "NO QUESTIONS ASKED RIDE"

MR. OBAMA

IS NO ONE, FROM NO WHERE, DONE NOTHING

WITH ALL HIS TWENTY YEARS OF "OPPORTUNITY"

HE HASN'T CREATED "CHANGE"ANYWHERE, FOR ANYONE SOCIALLY OR POLITICALLY

MR. OBAMA USES PEOPLE.

BLACK PEOPLE, WHITE PEOPLE, DC PEOPLE, LOBBYISTS, RACISTS, CHRISTIANS, KANSANS, ANYONE

MR. OBAMA IS A MEDIA EVENT

NOTHING MORE

Posted by: Anonymous | April 21, 2008 11:14 PM | Report abuse

Michael Moore also endorsed the another elitist, John Kerry in 04.

Barack Hussein Obama is not qualified to be President, maybe block captain for his Chicago neighborhood.

Posted by: Fishers, IN | April 21, 2008 11:09 PM | Report abuse

MY FELLOW "BITTER", STUPID, WORKING CLASS PEOPLE :-)

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 21, 2008 11:04 PM | Report abuse

Those who are confused and question the hypothesis of this article - - Hillary is weakened - - read it again,and again if you don't get it. Dan has done a superb job of laying it out. The comments by those that are confused confirms one of the demographics of Hillary's voting bloc - - the less educated who suffer from an obvious inability to exercise reasoning. The man laid out number after number along with narrative to explain it and you still do not get it, now what confuses me is that you cannot understand his point. So let me explain - - Senator Clinton is in a weaken position because statistically proven, people have changed their view of her, they have changed their view to the down side and not the up side, they think less of her than they did before it was determined that she lied about her trip to Bosnia. And that is about as simple as anyone can break it down, it really is not rocket science.

Posted by: Dee, Washington, DC | April 21, 2008 11:04 PM | Report abuse

Hillary is Carl Rove's dream come true. She was a bad candidate by herself. With Obama, she has become a bizzaro version of Bush doing republican heavy lifting for McCain. Republicans have been trying to get black people to split with the party for years, and now they may succeed thanks to Hillary. If so, the Democratic congress will come crashing down in the next election. Just like Clinton 1 we will have a powerless President who can do nothing except fight off scandal.

Posted by: Paul Nolan | April 21, 2008 11:03 PM | Report abuse

Mr. OBAMA is a clear example of how far someone will go to be elected.

Kiss arse in Chicago - Mr. Rezko to the tune of a quarter million

Kiss arese in DC to Deshle, Kerry,Kennedy, Dodd, Bradley, Leahy, Rockafeller, Richardson -- helloo? Obama will kiss ANYONE'S butt to get where he might go.

AND HE'S A FREAKING NO BODY!!!! FRESHMAN THREE YEAR SENATOR !!!

With a crazy arse MARKETING TEAM.

NO COMPETENCE. JUST MARKETING.

SUCH A SAD STATEMENT OF AMERICA

AFFIRMATIVE ACTION AT IT'S CRAZY WORST.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 21, 2008 11:03 PM | Report abuse

Its not an idle threat that a large constituency of the Democratic party will not vote for Hillary under any circumstance. Life long Democrats will not vote for someone who campaigned as the David Duke of the Democratic party arguing that basically she is superior because she is a tough white person who likes guns and old time religion. The rubicon will the Clintons was passed long ago in this campaign in South Carolina. The nomination will be worth less to Hillary than it was to Jimmy Carter as a sitting president who beat Kennedy and lost to Reagan. At least McCain has the sense to woo black voters with a more authentic pitch than Hillary.

Posted by: Paul Nolan | April 21, 2008 10:58 PM | Report abuse


Obama never denounces ANYTHING. not his pastor, not Farrakhan, not his FLAG hate. He is very careful to never say much of anything. Can't his so called super educated blind "followers' GET IT? This man is a total fake. And you have swallowed the kool aid. You don't even listen carefully to waht he does and DOESN'T say. He's very very very very careful. And you can NEVER trust anyone who does that.

Period.

Listen up. Listen closely. To what you DO NOT HEAR.

That's Obama. He is a master at CAREFUL.

Sick and scary.

Don't look now. You been hoodwinked!!

too late!!!

President McCain.

The Republican's have got THE GOODS ON OBAMA IF YOU DON'T.

Cause, guess what? THEY HAVE THE PATRIOT ACT. THEY HAVE "INTELLIGENCE"

Obama is toast.

Hillary is STRONG !

Posted by: truffles | April 21, 2008 10:58 PM | Report abuse

The Obama spin doctors are so sad. And so is the media the way they have covered this presidential campaign. They have all but run Obama's campaign. The media has not diversified its own workforce, that why it fawns over Obama. Those are not my words but the words of journalists covering this race. Oh, by the way, those covering the race tell me Obama is an empty suit and that Hillary is the smartest of all three. I have come to the conclusion that Obama will self-destruct eventually. He will not win a general election.

Posted by: Political Watchdog | April 21, 2008 10:55 PM | Report abuse

One can only pray that the voters in Pennsylvania will rid the Clinton "stain" from the political landscape. These despicable, power lusting, pathological lying frauds have inflicted enormous damage to the Democratic Party. Our nation has suffered for twenty years under the Bush/Clinton regimes of scorched earth, polarizing political warfare. It is time to put Bush & the Clintons in the dust bin of history. Good riddance.

Posted by: Shiva8 | April 21, 2008 10:53 PM | Report abuse

If Obama's the nominee, even California will vote for McCain.

If people think Obama looks like an idiot now, wait until the Republicans get through with him.

Hopefully someone will convince Axelrod to convince Obama to drop out before he makes any more of a fool of himself.

He's a joke.

Obama's afraid of Hillary Clinton, Debates, Democracy, being without his teleprompter, and the dark.

He's a hand puppet for David Axelrod, that's all.


Posted by: If Obama's the nominee, even California will vote for McCain | April 21, 2008 10:11 PM

___________________________

The SVreader broken record continues, under yet another assumed "name."

Posted by: Vincent | April 21, 2008 10:53 PM | Report abuse

Clinton said she would nuke Iran if it nuked Israel. This is crazy. She is nuts.

Posted by: Paul Nolan | April 21, 2008 10:52 PM | Report abuse

Hey, see the film clip of Hillary wingman Ed Rendell singing Louis Farrakhan's praises to high heaven?

When will Hillary dissociate herself from Rendell, given that she has made association with Farrakhan such a big issue?

Clintonites ... oh, what a tangled web you weave, when you practice to deceive.

Posted by: martin edwin andersen | April 21, 2008 10:51 PM | Report abuse

Early in life Barrack Hussien Obama attended a Madressa where they teach that it's good to k*ll infidels (non-muslims and jews) and correct to opress women. Later Rev Wright became a big influence in his life. Rev Wright has been tied to L. Farakan - whom is by all measures is a racist and a bigot. Obamas wife recently said that she is proud of America for the first time. What does this say about the character of the person we are thinking about electing Pres?

Middle American Dems do not want a liberal elitist that has belittled them for Pres. Vote for Billary and we might have a chance to win the Whitehouse.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 21, 2008 10:48 PM | Report abuse


What is this total and wild bologna? Or, more accurately BO-lonie?

Why is the media in America so obsessed with determining the outcome of a Democracy? They show no respect for the process! They think this is some sci fi world where the media RULES.

Hillary isn't weak today - she is wildly strong.

So, we can only deduce that the media is, then, deducing it's capacity to manipulate.

I guess, on this small blue planet in the vast and unimaginable space called the Universe, the media doesn't really matter. What does - are the souls that populate it. And those are the souls who will vote tomorrow. They will determine the next - fortunately for the wisdom of the found souls - ONLY four years of our collective future.

God Bless America. More of this phony Obama is known today than was four weeks ago. By no virtue of this spoon fed, arm chair press - if we can call it that.

Anyhooo !

Go Hillary Clinton. GO 50%++++ OF DEMOCRATS WHO SAW OBAMA FOR WHO HIS IS MONTH, MONTHS AND MONTHS AGO.. BEFORE THE PRESS WERE INSULTED BY HIM. HE CHUCKLES LOUDLY IN HIS KEEP - AND IN THE PALM OF HIS HAND YOU FOOLS DO SLEEP.

God Bless America Indeed.

He do.

Posted by: Todd | April 21, 2008 10:48 PM | Report abuse

Clinton has offended many life long democrats as she campaigns on the theme that Obama a black cannot win, cannot handle a crisis and is an elitist. I cant think of a more self-destructive campaign for the Democratic party. Meanwhile McCain is in Alabama wooing black votes. Someone in the DNC should grab Hillary by the collar and box her ears for damaging the party. They need to get the hook for Hillary whose campaign adds are like GOP farts.

Posted by: Paul Nolan | April 21, 2008 10:30 PM
-----------------------
If you truly think that Obama has not done the same then you are not facing the reality that he otherwise would have the 2025 delegates he needs by now.

Posted by: Danielle | April 21, 2008 10:47 PM | Report abuse

Hillary is not going to win the nomination. Her campaign has degenerated into old-time politics and it is ugly. She has been playing to the lowest common denominator of human nature: racism, fear of Muslims, fear, fear, fear.
This is not endearing. We don't need to know that she is willing, and able, to do anything under the sun. It destroys trust.
But, but, but, if the improbable actually happens and she wins the nomination, she will be elected because the nation is entirely ready for a change from the Republicans. McCain is a weak candidate because he has so very many personal and political weaknesses.
--------------------
You are silly and have not been facing the reality of what Obama's campaign has been doing for months on end while he has had all the media support.

Posted by: Danielle | April 21, 2008 10:45 PM | Report abuse

We Hillary supporters have been going on what, 3 months? That our candidate is no good.

The barrage of negative slander telling us to give up never stops.

But we have hope.

We march on.

Go Hillary.

Posted by: Comment | April 21, 2008 10:44 PM | Report abuse

Paul,

You're right. Obama's supporters are immature cowards too.

Posted by: You're right, his supporters are immature cowards too | April 21, 2008 10:43 PM | Report abuse

The dishonest, immature cowards are not Obama but the people who keep thinking that somehow by posting wacked out slams on the Post they actually are changing any minds. These posts are like Jim Jones coolaid for the mindless.

Posted by: Paul Nolan | April 21, 2008 10:36 PM | Report abuse

The kind of bald-faced bias that this article and many others like it display is simply ridiculous. It completely ignores the level of success that Clinton has maintained throughout this long process, and tries to make it seem like any gaff she has made is five times worse than similar gaffs by Obama. There are so many blemishes in Obama's past that are going to come spewing out as soon as (or rather, if) he becomes the candidate, that his supporters will wonder how they were so foolish to be so thoroughly duped by the media.

At the end of the day, Hillary Clinton is the only candidate who can stand behind her promises to change things for the better in this country. People have been rummaging through her baggage for sixteen years now without ever coming up with anything convincingly problematic, so I think it's high time the Hillary haters simmer down.

An Obama presidency will undoubtedly be full of a whole lotta nothing. Not only is he the spring chicken of all spring chickens, he hasn't made one single legislative accomplishment that he can legitimately claim credit for. Even his political backers know this.

Posted by: Matvyei | April 21, 2008 10:35 PM | Report abuse

I dont care what religion Obama is, whether he wears a flag pin, whether he did drugs when he was younger, whether he knows a real estate magnate in Chicago. I really don't care. I do care that Hillary is tearing up the heart of the Democratic party with an over aggressive destructive campaign that even McCain is capitalizing on. That just doesnt make any sense. The party cannot allow her to get the nomination because no one will be there in November. She is the most dissapointing of modern democrats with so much promise and no common sense. Next she will be appearing with David Duke to win white male votes.

Posted by: Paul Nolan | April 21, 2008 10:34 PM | Report abuse

The only things wrong with Obama are that he's dishonest, a fraud, totally incompetent, speechless without his teleprompter, extremely immature, and a complete coward.

Besides that, he's a heck of a guy.

Posted by: Besides that, he's a heck of a guy | April 21, 2008 10:33 PM | Report abuse

Hillary started out with bad favorability numbers and her slimy campaigning slid them further.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 21, 2008 10:32 PM | Report abuse

Geibenlii2:

Obama's name was indeed taken off the Michigan ballot. His name was ON the Florida ballot, and some of his campaign ads ran in Florida too.

Posted by: | April 21, 2008 7:25 PM
----------------------
He choose to take his name off the Michigan ballot in a move to win Iowa because they felt Michigan had pre-empted them to be one of the firsts in the balloting.

Posted by: Danielle | April 21, 2008 10:31 PM | Report abuse


"Mischaracterizations"? Why is it so difficult to just call a "lie" a "lie" ?
My grandmother never washed out my mouth with soap for mischaracterizations.

Posted by: jes_fine | April 21, 2008 10:30 PM | Report abuse

We need a demacrat in our white house so i will vote for whichever one wins the nomination.Its our best chance to help our economy and get healthcare thats afordable and maybe our only chance to end the ilegal war in Iraq.Thats more important than which one wins.

Posted by: sharon | April 21, 2008 10:30 PM | Report abuse

Clinton has offended many life long democrats as she campaigns on the theme that Obama a black cannot win, cannot handle a crisis and is an elitist. I cant think of a more self-destructive campaign for the Democratic party. Meanwhile McCain is in Alabama wooing black votes. Someone in the DNC should grab Hillary by the collar and box her ears for damaging the party. They need to get the hook for Hillary whose campaign adds are like GOP farts.

Posted by: Paul Nolan | April 21, 2008 10:30 PM | Report abuse

Trouble for Clinton is her Bushlike missteps seem like Republican sins, whereas Obama's missteps are the "sins" of Democrats.

Posted by: jhbyer | April 21, 2008 10:30 PM | Report abuse

"I know so many democrats that will not vote for Obama"

We have a long way to go before we defeat Racism in America. How backward we are with all these bitter people!!!

Posted by: Bruno | April 21, 2008 7:22 PM
------------------
Aer you saying if you don't vote for Obama you are a racist? Does that come into play even if think he is not the best candidate based on his credentials?

Posted by: Danielle | April 21, 2008 10:29 PM | Report abuse

If Hillary Clinton is so popular, why are there so many cars using bumper stickers like these?


Hil No! 2008

Stop the Clintons

Hillary Can't Trust This Bumper Sticker

Anybody but Hillary '08

Honk if Hillary Scares You

No-Billary

"Sure I'd love to see a woman President, just NOT HILLARY"

Got lies? (with Hillary's picture)

Posted by: Martin Edwin Andersen | April 21, 2008 10:29 PM | Report abuse

Obama said all three candidates are better than George Bush. Hillary accuses him of praising McCain. She's really fishing for straws. If it was praise, it was faint at best. Was he damning McCain with faint praise?

Posted by: msmart2 | April 21, 2008 6:26 PM
----------------------
Get your story straight, he said that, then he said the bar was very low. So what he
did is belittle Hillary.

Posted by: Danielle | April 21, 2008 10:24 PM | Report abuse

Don't tell me, ya'll have math anxiety?

If you can't stand the math, don't run the numbers.

Posted by: | April 21, 2008 8:01 PM
----------------------
Like it or not, the Super Delegaters are not about math, but who is most electable.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 21, 2008 10:22 PM | Report abuse

Geibenlii2:

Obama's name was indeed taken off the Michigan ballot. His name was ON the Florida ballot, and some of his campaign ads ran in Florida too.

Posted by: | April 21, 2008 7:25 PM
--------------------
Let's add tha tObama choose to remove his name from the Michigan ballot ot help his chances in Iowa. Hillar yposke out from it from the beginning.

http://www.nhpr.org/node/13858

This is an interview Hillary gave on October 11, 2007 - I didn't listen to all of it, but go to 22.20 timewise if you listen to it on Windows Media and hear her talk about why she left her name on the Michigan Ballot - she didn't want to leave those people out


Clinton: I signed the DNC pledge not to campaign, not to spend money in any of the states that were not in compliance with the rules established by the DNC that certainly strongly maintains New Hampshire's status. I personally did not think it made any difference whether or not my name was on the ballot, and I also thought that people in NH and in Iowa have a great understanding of the problems we are going to face as Democrats to win in November 2008. I am going to win the nomination and then I am going to win in November 2008 because we are going to bring more people to vote for us and we are not only going to maintain our advantage in states that have voted Democratic before, but if you look at some of the states we have to win the margins have been narrow. It wasn't in my view meaningful, but I am not going to say there is absolutely a total ignoring of the people in all these other states that won't come back to haunt us if we are not careful about it.

Interviewer: If you value the DNC calendar then why not just pull out of Michigan. Why not just say "Hey, Michigan, I am off the ballot."

Clinton: Well, you know people in Michigan are flat on their backs, they have the highest unemployment rate in America. They are now grappling finally with what they are going to do with the auto industry. 1 in 10 jobs in America is tied with the auto industry, the American auto industry, which we know is centered in Michigan. It is clear this election they are having is not going to count for anything. But, I just personally didn't want to set up a situation where the Republicans are going to be campaigning between now and whenever and then after the nomination we had to go in and repair the damage to be ready to win Michigan in November 2008.

I am not going to campaign there before the deadline of the February 5th window, I am not going to spend any money there, but I did not think it was fair to just say good bye Michigan and not take into account the fact that we're going to have to win Michigan if we are going to be in the WH in January 2009.

Interviewer: Do you think it was a tactical mistakes for Misters Obama and Edwards to take their names off the ballot.

Clinton: Well, they are going to have to speak for themselves.

Posted by: Danielle | April 21, 2008 10:20 PM | Report abuse

All of you Hillary bloggers!
Have you contributed money to her campaign?
If there was trully a Hillary movement she would not be in dept. The figures speak for themselves and all you angry people that are barking online, I dare you to back up your words with a contribution.
......ha I didn't think so.

Posted by: tiniakos | April 21, 2008 8:53 PM
------------------
I have contributed money to her, but his supporters, in a majority, are supported by their parents. How are they going to fund the DNC which cannot even afford the Convention at this point?

Posted by: Anonymous | April 21, 2008 10:18 PM | Report abuse

McCain is in Alabama wooing black voters and Hillary is in Pennsyvania kissing the but of white males. Go figure. She's invoking Osama Bin Laden like Bush. She couldnt get health care passed, why would anyone turn to her in a crisis.

Posted by: Paul Nolan | April 21, 2008 10:18 PM | Report abuse

Go check out any of the polling organizations, like Gallup, and you will see Hillary has by far the highest unfavorablilty rating, at around 57%.


Posted by: goya | April 21, 2008 10:07 PM
--------------------
I don't have to like the person, or want to have a beer with the person that is protecting my civil rights and my financial interests. That is not what this is about. Maybe you shold talk to the Obama campiagn about all his lies about Hillary if her favorability has gone down, I think it is because of his lies about her.

I am voting for the person that can do the job for Americans, who has our best interests and I think that is Hillary Clinton.

Posted by: Danielle | April 21, 2008 10:16 PM | Report abuse

To all those Obama supporters who say that the superdelegates should not overturn the will of the people, then why to they exist? Why did they set up a system by the end of which no clear winner could emerge? Well the truth is that they set up the superdelegates to be a saftey vlave agaist the radical left who control the grass roots in the Democratic party! This was the same thing the founding fathers did when they established the congress,the house was to be the peoples party and the senate was to represent the elite and infulential, and well educated. The house would be popularly elected and the Senate would be electe by the state legislatures which were controlled by the elite! They gave the Senate power to comfrim treaties and presidential appointments! It was not until 1913 that the Senate was elected by the people! This was done to be a check on the passions of the masses and make sure they maintained real control! So the Democrats in an effort to ensure there would be no more McGovern's or Mondale's set up the superdelegates to put a check on the liberal left wing of the party through the use of superdelegates in order to insure that they would not select a nominee that was seen as not being able to win! It had nothing to do with who had the most delegates, if that were the case then they could have made a simple rule change and said that what ever canidate had a plurality of the delegates was the winner! The problem is that they never thought they would have to acutally pick a winner and now they do so I say that Hillary sould stay all the way through the convention and make those old codgers vote and take the responsibility if we lose!

************************

Obama facts. A man not to be trusted.

1. He is an admitted drug user. no doubt here his own words. Source "His book".

2. He has been accused by the Clinton campaign for possibly selling drugs. the republicans didn't accuse him the Dems did. why? Because they know the republicans will use it during the election. Source "Clinton Campaign"

3. He was raised Muslim in a school in Indonesia known to support terrorism. this is a fact. he claims to be Christian now. But where are his loyalties. Source "His book".

4. he has no experience. that is a fact. Less than 2 years in Senate and most of that has been Campaigning.

5. his voting record is questionable. Source "smartvote.com"
Examples:
1. Obama states he would get the troops out of Iraq, yet
on the IRAQ WITHDRAWAL AMMENDMENT he did not vote.
2. Obama claims to be concerned about Children's healthcare, yet
on the 2007 Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2007 (CHIP) he did not vote.
3. Obama claims to be for the environment, yet
on the Farm, Nutrition, and Bioenergy Act of 2007 (Farm Bill) and Energy Act of 2007
and Government Sponsored Farm Insurance Policies Amendment and the Water Resources
Development Act of 2007 he did not vote on any of these bills.
4. he did vote for the congressional raise though.

6. Obama is a smoker, fine example for our nation's children. Source "his words in an interview with Oprah" he has been trying to quite, unsuccessfully.

7. . 2007-01-30 ? [WDC News Post] ? WASH?Jan 25?DJNS?Associated Press has revealed that Senator Barack Hussein Obama, Democratic candidate for President of the United States, attend a Catholic school in Indonesia registered as a Muslim, further clouding the issue of where Obama was schooled in Indonesia and when. Obama, by his own admission in books that he has written, has said that he attended a Catholic school and a Muslim school while living in Indonesia with his atheist mother and Muslim stepfather. But now that Fox News reported that Obama may have been indoctrinated in Islamic teachings while attending the Muslim school in Indonesia, he and his handlers have gone spinning the story to the news media, and their stories do not match up.
Source "WDC News"

8. In August, 2006 US Senator Barack Obama [D-IL] made a special trip to visit a special man in Kenya. The man's name was [is] Raila Amolo Odinga. He is the head of the National Muslim Leaders Forum [NAMLEF] in Kenya. The political party he heads is called the Orange Democratic Movement [ODM] ? although there is definitely nothing democratic about his political party ? The ODM is dedicated to overthrowing the legitimate democratic government of Kenya. ? If he succeeds, he will be president for life and Kenya will become another Afghanistan. When the US Senator visited Kenya to meet with Odinga in Nairobi, the Kenyan government officially denounced the visit. And, most specifically, they denounced Obama. Source "CBS, FOX, ABC news"

9. fact more than once Obama has failed to render honors to the Flag. small thing you say, maybe, but not to me. Sources "internet and Clinton campaign"

10. Obama has NOI members on his staff. He has been endorsed by Louis Farrakhan.
Source "Debbie Schlussel independent reporter"

11. the NAFTA screw up, the man has no clue.
Source " everywhere"

12. rev wright . Obama had described Wright as his spiritual mentor. He was married in the church, and Wright was a member of Obama's African American Religious Leadership Committee. Source "everywhere"

13. Barack Obama has been running his campaign in the style of a revolutionary. Just how radical and liberal Obama is has been well hidden by the campaign. If you haven't heard about his friendship with the leaders of the radical group, the Weather Underground, you can thank the media. Just how radically left this man is can be seen in what company he keeps. Obama is friends with William Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn, the Weather Underground terrorists of the 1960's. source "all over the internet, NBC, ABC and FOX"
14 . Lastly he is a Lawyer. that, according to the 2002 Harris poll is one of the most untrusted professions. yet we continue to elect lawyers to office
================================================ ===================
He also snores and farts.................................boy we can't have him as president.
________________________
that is a well thought out response, if this is the mentality of Obama's supporters then he'll never get elected. his supporters won't be smart enough to find name on the ticket.

Posted by: Chipper | April 21, 2008 10:15 PM | Report abuse

Go check out any of the polling organizations, like Gallup, and you will see Hillary has by far the highest unfavorablilty rating, at around 57%.


Posted by: goya | April 21, 2008 10:07 PM
--------------------
I don't have to like the person, or want to have a beer with the person that is protecting my civil rights and my financial interests. That is not what this is about. Maybe you shold talk to the Obama campiagn about all his lies about Hillary if her favorability has gone down, I think it is because of his lies about her.

Posted by: Danielle | April 21, 2008 10:14 PM | Report abuse

U Americans need a charistic leader,bringing back respections u lost a decade ago since the Monika Lewinsky affairs from the world .
Barack Obama is such a leader emerging,young,energic,good at making speeches and having a vision on the America and the world .
Clinton only plays those old style politics,she is old style politician.
Go ,Obama

Posted by: jeff | April 21, 2008 10:14 PM | Report abuse

Even I will vote for McCain since I come from a small-town PA!

http://www.obamaunveiled.com

Posted by: Putz | April 21, 2008 10:14 PM | Report abuse

It won't matter who I vote for if Obama gets the nomination.

He'll lose by a landslide.

I will vote for every Democrat I can, but if Obama's the candidate, I'll vote for McCain, just like many other Clinton supporters will.

I have many reasons.

Here are just a few.


1. I believe that Obama is incompetent and not qualified to be President.

2. In protest to the tactics of Obama supporters viciously attacking anyone who posts anything that causes Obama's divinity into question.

3. In honor of the people who suffered and died in "Obama's Slums"

There are many more reasons.

Those are just the first few that come to mind.

Posted by: Fukeman | April 21, 2008 10:12 PM | Report abuse

If Obama's the nominee, even California will vote for McCain.

If people think Obama looks like an idiot now, wait until the Republicans get through with him.

Hopefully someone will convince Axelrod to convince Obama to drop out before he makes any more of a fool of himself.

He's a joke.

Obama's afraid of Hillary Clinton, Debates, Democracy, being without his teleprompter, and the dark.

He's a hand puppet for David Axelrod, that's all.

Posted by: If Obama's the nominee, even California will vote for McCain | April 21, 2008 10:11 PM | Report abuse

Everybody missteps, but if the media has been hownding you for the last six months, every bit becomes added weight.

Let Geraldine, or Bill, or anyone else mention that Obama's lead maybe attributed to 90% of the black vote going to him, despite the fact that Hillary is more qualified and the media goes crazy -- "Race card! prejudice!"

But if the situation was reversed, and 80% of the white vote went to an under-qualified white candidate, the media would be screaming about the prejudice in the white vote. . . . . . . And remember how the media in the debates would ask the majority of the questions to Hillary first?

THIS ELECTION HAS BEEN FIXED AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE BY THE MEDIA.

It is amazing to me the people still think an obscure speech is the same as a Senate vote -- it's just amazing.

Posted by: Coldcomfort | April 21, 2008 10:11 PM | Report abuse

Here you go again ... Hillary bashing!

You fools. What kind of Obama Cool-Aid are you drinking now?

http://www.obamaunveiled.com

Posted by: Pusser | April 21, 2008 10:10 PM | Report abuse

there are some stupid obama people posting here. All the more reason he should not win the nomination. My advice to the Obama supports, stop posting stupid crap and start learning!

Posted by: stupidobamapeople | April 21, 2008 10:09 PM | Report abuse

Money is not enough to win elections. McMean showed that against Romney. Romney out spent him 10 to 1 and lost. You Obamaheads need to get real and think about the future of this country. Obama is not qualified to be Pres.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 21, 2008 10:07 PM | Report abuse

Like many out there, I was once a Hillary supporter. During the past four months, she has done ugly and the ugly has turned me cold against her. It's too bad because I know she has done great things. I know that she is a great lady when things are going her way, but when they are not, she stoops as low as the republican's do to "win"

It the phone rings at 3:00 AM who do you want to answer the phone. These are the things that George Bush and his gang of awful people do. They pray on the fears of people. The lack character and character matters. No to Hillary. Hell no!

Posted by: Janice Fata | April 21, 2008 8:46 PM
------------------------
If you have left Hillary because of her telling the truth while not wathcing what Obama's campiang has been doing behind the scenes to throw mud,, buy the people he pays to represent him, then you were never really behind Hillary. Go for the rock star and know that you will have to live with your poor decision both figureactively and monetarily as he knows knows nothing aobut the Federal Government and the way it works. If you really think he is is going change how the Federal gov't has run for 200 years then you are living in a dream. Even Thomas Jefferson ran lies about John Adams.

Posted by: Danielle | April 21, 2008 10:07 PM | Report abuse

Hillary is like an unprincipled guest who comes to your house and way over stays her welcome. What is it going to take for her to catch on that most of the nation does not want her around, and over half the nation absolutely hate her.

Posted by: goya | April 21, 2008 9:51 PM
---------------------
If what you are saying was true then Obama would have 2025 delegates and would have won the nomnation, but he hasn't.


Posted by: Danielle | April 21, 2008 9:55 PM


Go check out any of the polling organizations, like Gallup, and you will see Hillary has by far the highest unfavorablilty rating, at around 57%.

Posted by: goya | April 21, 2008 10:07 PM | Report abuse

Dan, thanks.

Yes, heads-in-the-sand Clintonistas out there, "weakened". Need it spelled out?

Ohio and Texas were to be her first 'firewall', where she would make up ground after Obama's string of victories in February. However after those two states, and Mississippi, and futher announcements by super delegates, she is still 142 delegates behind Obama, according to Real Clear Politics' latest count, more than before Ohio.

Pennsylvania is the biggest state left and has much better demographics for her than the second biggest (North Carolina, where polls all show Obama up by 10+%). This was to be her next 'firewall'. If she doesn't pick up a lot of net delegates here then she has lost by far her best chance to do so, and in two weeks a close Indiana and Obama win in NC will mean that she has gained no ground at all. With no big states left she will be much, much farther behind than she can possibly make up.

Weakened, indeed. And, as Dan mentions, also weakened financially -- in debt, in fact, while Obama's strong base continues to keep his campaign flush with cash.

This is reality, folks. You still harbor the dream that the super delegates will come in on her side and override Obama's lead? Is there any evidence whatsoever to suggest that this will happen? Why are the supers breaking 4:1 for Obama in the meantime?

Time to prepare for the moment when Hillary ends her campaign and strongly endorses Obama. That day is not far away.

Posted by: lostintranslation | April 21, 2008 10:03 PM | Report abuse

Showing Osama bin Laden in her ad reminds people that Hillary helped Bush take our attention off the real enemy and divert our resources to the Iraq invasion and botched war/occupation.

Posted by: Joseph | April 21, 2008 9:08 PM
-----------------------
Not at all. She showed many issues a President will have to deal with, it didn't highlight Osama or fear, just issues that confront a President. She then asked who could deal with it best. That was not about fear, it was about reality.

Posted by: Danielle | April 21, 2008 10:03 PM | Report abuse

I wish the media and the superdelegates would keep in mind that Hillary's "big state" wins were partly due to:
(a) Republicans voting for her (but won't in November)
(b) Obama's lack of campaigning (in Michigan and Florida)
---------------------
I heard Republicans were voting for Obama, and Obama did campaing in Florida and removed his own name on the Michigan ballot in his effot to win Iowa.

Posted by: Danielle | April 21, 2008 10:00 PM | Report abuse

I'm starting to think that there ARE no good photos of Clinton.

Posted by: ep thorn | April 21, 2008 9:59 PM | Report abuse

Though the process to the nomination is crucial,and i also think as a woman it should get more respects, i still support obama, you know, his childhood was more uneasy than many children, and he is younger and energetic. why don't we choose such an uprising star?

Posted by: michael | April 21, 2008 9:57 PM | Report abuse

Primary elections with two Democrats running against each other in any given state, large or small, is a completely, totally different thing than a Democrat versus a Republican in a general election. To say that Hillary winning by a narrow margin in some of the bigger states in a primary means that she could win in those states against a Republican in the general election is ludicrous, even stupid. What is wrong with you people? You are delusional, grasping at any illogical straw that you can find to try to keep her in the race, meanwhile so blinded that you don't really get how much damage she is doing to our chances in November. Enough already!

The 1.5 million contributors to his campaign, the thousands of new, excited and inspired voters, the millions he has raised without PAC or lobbyist money, the passion that he inspires in people. Don't you get how that happened? It is because people look beyond the old, worn out hype and the fake issues and sense that a real, genuine leader has finally showed up to rally this country. Millions of us have finally had it with the old school DC politics of the Clintons and McCains. We won't get fooled again.

The old way has not worked, it just keeps getting worse. It is time to turn the page and start fresh. It is time to stop fighting and start taking care of each other. Come on people, we have a lot of work to do.

Posted by: r2d2 | April 21, 2008 9:56 PM | Report abuse

Hillary is like an unprincipled guest who comes to your house and way over stays her welcome. What is it going to take for her to catch on that most of the nation does not want her around, and over half the nation absolutely hate her.

Posted by: goya | April 21, 2008 9:51 PM
---------------------
If what you are saying was true then Obama would have 2025 delegates and would have won the nomnation, but he hasn't.

Posted by: Danielle | April 21, 2008 9:55 PM | Report abuse

What Republican support are you talking about. If your referring to talk radio and Fox. They don't speak for the Republican party. They are on their own. Not all Republicans and Conservatives share in the same opinion and support talk radio and Fox have for Hillary. Nor do all Republicans and Conservatives share in the attacks Obama's been getting as a result of the Reverend Wrights tapes. Since when do we hold someone responsible for all the evil things people say and the evil things people do. No one holds Hillary responsible for anything other then the sniper tape lie and it's just the opposite with Obama. Obama is held responsible for everyone who has crossed his path in life. Hillary was weakened long before she got to Pennsylvania. It wasn't only the sniper tape lie. It was lies upon lies upon lies, imagination, upon imagination, upon imagination that weakened Hillary. Hillary has a bigger problem then just being a lousy manager who can't even run a campaign. I guess her vast experiences don't include knowing how to handle finances, or paying bills. If Hillary was any of the things she says she is, it would show in the pocket book. Hillary's donations are shrinking so fast, she ought to ask Obama for a loan. If your coming across as Presidential, people donate. If you show you can manage a campaign and it's finances, you get donations. If you make people feel comfortable, you get donations. If your message is coming across to the people, you get donations. The buck stops with Hillary. If Hillary can't survive in Pennsylvania and move on, there's no one to blame but Hillary.

Posted by: houstonian | April 21, 2008 9:54 PM | Report abuse

I would like to inject a sense of realism into a passionate and often ugly debate that rages here on Wapo blog boards on a daily basis. Truth is truth, and math does not lie.
Posted by: feastorafamine | April 21, 2008 9:20 PM
-----------------------------
Maybe you don't understand the objective of the SuperDelegates, they are not in place to vote in alignment with the majority vote, but to vote for the most electable candidate.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 21, 2008 9:53 PM | Report abuse

Hillary is like an unprincipled guest who comes to your house and way over stays her welcome. What is it going to take for her to catch on that most of the nation does not want her around, and over half the nation absolutely hate her.

Posted by: goya | April 21, 2008 9:51 PM | Report abuse

Here is the difference between Hillary and Obama. Tonight Hillary was on Keith Olbermann's show. Keith who has lambasted Hillary and put her on every pillory. No matter what he asked, she answered without hesitation and with a succint answer. She did not back down, no matter how hard the question was. Hillary is ready for the Presidency, Barack is not.

Posted by: Danielle | April 21, 2008 9:50 PM | Report abuse

Obama is actually two people; one is the politician that tells the voers what they want to hear, and the other is the one that reveals his true feelings at places like a private fundraiser for well heeled donators in liberal San Francisco. It is clear, if he ever wins, he will never deliver on his false promises.

Posted by: Anjali | April 21, 2008 9:48 PM | Report abuse

Everybody missteps, but if the media has been hownding you for the last six months, every bit becomes added weight.

Let Geraldine, or Bill, or anyone else mention that Obama's lead maybe attributed to 90% of the black vote going to him, despite the fact that Hillary is more qualified and the media goes crazy -- "Race card! prejudice!"

But if the situation was reversed, and 80% of the white vote went to an under-qualified white candidate, the media about the prejudice in the white vote. . . . . . . And remember how the media in the debates would ask the majority of the questions to Hillary first?

THIS ELECTION HAS BEEN FIXED AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE BY THE MEDIA.

Posted by: Coldcomfort | April 21, 2008 9:44 PM | Report abuse

Obama is afraid of Hillary Clinton, debates, Democracy, being without his teleprompter, and the dark.

He's such a cowardly loser its simply amazing anyone would have every thought of voting for him.

Maybe he just needs more coke.

Too bad they couldn't have just been honest and run David Axelrod directly.

He's evil, but he's nobody's fool.


Posted by: Obama is a wuss | April 21, 2008 9:44 PM | Report abuse

Just more pro-barack propaganda from the scum bag editors of the washington post. obama won't win pennsylvania and will go to the convemtion unable to win a major state that doens't allow his kool aid drinking followers to overrun a caucus. if it weren't for the 9-1 black vote bailing him out obama would be out of the race....

Posted by: Anonymous | April 21, 2008 9:32 PM | Report abuse

Obama beats her...she knows it's coming in another month.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 21, 2008 9:30 PM | Report abuse

As a Billary supporter I will not support Obama as the nomination. I will switch and vote for MeanMcain. Obama is not qualified to be Pres. He is hardly qualified to be a senator. We cannot in these trying times elect a inexperienced neophyte as the leader of our country.

A vote for Hillary is a vote for Bill. We want Bill back in the whitehouse.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 21, 2008 9:27 PM | Report abuse

I wish the media and the superdelegates would keep in mind that Hillary's "big state" wins were partly due to:
(a) Republicans voting for her (but won't in November)
(b) Obama's lack of campaigning (in Michigan and Florida)

Obama has put traditionally-Republican states into play; has been the incentive for massive new voter registrations; has motivated young Americans.

If campaign management were the only indicator of his ability to run the country, he would have clinched the nomination long ago.

Posted by: Barbara Campbell | April 21, 2008 9:26 PM | Report abuse

I would like to inject a sense of realism into a passionate and often ugly debate that rages here on Wapo blog boards on a daily basis. Truth is truth, and math does not lie. In order for Hillary to win the nomination she MUST win ALL the remaining 10 states by a margin of at least 12-14 percentage points (62-64%) and then she must win 64% of the superdelegates. All this talk back and forth cannot change the math. Hillary's efforts to get the nomination will be an exhaustive uphill battle. Before all you Hillary folks start to jump down my throat you should know I LOVE Hillary. I am constantly pleading for unity within the Dem party. I do not have a bias. What I have is a calculator, and a willingness to add things up the way they are, not the way I want them to be. Use this delegate calculator below and do the math yourself. Adjust the slider to 62-64% wins from here on out and see what you get. The delegate count used is the same as MSNBC and CNN
http://www.slate.com//id/2185278/

Posted by: feastorafamine | April 21, 2008 9:20 PM | Report abuse

All the Clinton campaign hype about Obama not being able to win big states is a canard that assumes that an Obama vs. Clinton match-up is the equivalent of an Obama vs. McCain one.

I think the vast majority of voters that voted for a Democrat (not counting the small number of Republicans that switched over for the sole purpose of throwing a wrench into the works, as suggested over and over by Limbaugh and other slimeballs of his ilk) will vote for the Democratic candidate in the General Election.

If I am wrong, and there are enough voters willing to cut off their nose to spite their face, then John "BushCo 2.0" McCain will be the President and the famous words of Disraeli will be proven true again:

"every country gets the government it deserves."

Posted by: Pagun | April 21, 2008 9:16 PM | Report abuse

Please look up the definition of "interregnum" before using it again.

Posted by: Quita | April 21, 2008 9:15 PM | Report abuse

Dan Baltz has consistently shown his lack of objectivity in his reporting by his clear bias in favor of Obama.

Posted by: SGW | April 21, 2008 9:13 PM | Report abuse

Hillary is not going to win the nomination. Her campaign has degenerated into old-time politics and it is ugly. She has been playing to the lowest common denominator of human nature: racism, fear of Muslims, fear, fear, fear.
This is not endearing. We don't need to know that she is willing, and able, to do anything under the sun. It destroys trust.
But, but, but, if the improbable actually happens and she wins the nomination, she will be elected because the nation is entirely ready for a change from the Republicans. McCain is a weak candidate because he has so very many personal and political weaknesses.
Those who are threatening to vote for him instead of Obama or Clinton are practicing the personal politics of extortion and frustration.
Hillary has been right, to a certain extent, to mine the field of those who practice these politics. But, she has had to resort to these unappealing attacks because she has no charisma. She cannot beat Obama straight up because she has no charisma.
Unfortunately, for her, the nation now needs someone with charisma. Obama will win the nomination and he will win the Presidency with a huge landslide giving Democrats the House and the Senate.
And, this country will begin a long, long, long road back to ourselves.

Posted by: cms1 | April 21, 2008 9:12 PM | Report abuse

The truth of the matter is that with eight years of outrageous lies from the current administration, which have contributed to, among other things, the horrible financial situation that we are living at this time, any person with an ounce of intelligence would help block the chances of putting another liar, like this woman, in 1600 Penn.

Posted by: FRANK RIVAS | April 21, 2008 9:10 PM | Report abuse

The great sport is to call someone you do not like a liar! In fact it is so great, that one hardly waits for a lie. Any mistake or misstatement or just something one might not agree with is "a lie."

Who cares if the fact checkes do not agree. That is tomorow. Today - they lie!!

Posted by: Gary E. Masters | April 21, 2008 9:10 PM | Report abuse

The great sport is to call someone you do not like a liar! In fact it is so great, that one hardly waits for a lie. Any mistake or misstatement or just something one might not agree with is "a lie."

Who cares if the fact checkes do not agree. That is tomorow. Today - they lie!!

Posted by: Gary E. Masters | April 21, 2008 9:10 PM | Report abuse

peterDC wrote - "...he has won a string of victories in states that neither he nor Hillary will win in November like Utah, Wyoming, South Dakota etc."

Are you saying that because of the enormous Republican turnout *cough! cough!* in those states' primaries?

Posted by: treetopflyer | April 21, 2008 9:09 PM | Report abuse

Please look up the definition of the word interregnum next time you use it.

Posted by: Quita | April 21, 2008 9:09 PM | Report abuse

Yeah Obama, just throw the rural hard working folks across the country under the bus. "bitter and clinging to their guns and religion"

Just don't ask for their vote after you insult the folks that make up the backbone of what built our great country.

Billary can win the big states!

btw: seems they're clinging to thier guns on the southside of Chicago too - 32 shot over the weekend?? Is that the way you run things in Illinois BHO??

Posted by: Anonymous | April 21, 2008 9:09 PM | Report abuse

All the Clinton campaign hype about Obama not being able to win big states is a canard that assumes that an Obama vs. Clinton match-up is the equivalent of an Obama vs. McCain one.

I think the vast majority of voters that voted for a Democrat (not counting the small number of Republicans that switched over for the sole purpose of throwing a wrench into the works, as suggested over and over by Limbaugh and other slimeballs of his ilk) will vote for the Democratic candidate in the General Election.

If I am wrong, and there are enough voters willing to cut off their nose to spite their face, then John "BushCo 2.0" McCain will be the President and the famous words of Disraeli will be proven true again:

"every country gets the government it deserves."

Posted by: Pagun | April 21, 2008 9:09 PM | Report abuse

Yeah Obama, just throw the rural hard working folks across the country under the bus. "clinging to their guns and religion"

Just don't ask for their vote after you insult the folks that make up the backbone of what built our great country.

Billary can win the big states!

btw: seems they're clinging to thier guns on the southside of Chicago too - 32 shot over the weekend?? Is that the way you run things in Illinois??

Posted by: Anonymous | April 21, 2008 9:09 PM | Report abuse

Showing Osama bin Laden in her ad reminds people that Hillary helped Bush take our attention off the real enemy and divert our resources to the Iraq invasion and botched war/occupation.

Posted by: Joseph | April 21, 2008 9:08 PM | Report abuse

The truth-about the Iraq civil war-a must read LMM

Pentagon institute calls Iraq war 'a major debacle' with outcome 'in
doubt'

http://news.yahoo.com/s/mcclatchy/20080418/wl_mcclatchy/2913186_1

Posted by: lwhite3 | April 21, 2008 8:53 PM | Report abuse

All of you Hillary bloggers!
Have you contributed money to her campaign?
If there was trully a Hillary movement she would not be in dept. The figures speak for themselves and all you angry people that are barking online, I dare you to back up your words with a contribution.
......ha I didn't think so.

Posted by: tiniakos | April 21, 2008 8:53 PM | Report abuse

Like many out there, I was once a Hillary supporter. During the past four months, she has done ugly and the ugly has turned me cold against her. It's too bad because I know she has done great things. I know that she is a great lady when things are going her way, but when they are not, she stoops as low as the republican's do to "win"

It the phone rings at 3:00 AM who do you want to answer the phone. These are the things that George Bush and his gang of awful people do. They pray on the fears of people. The lack character and character matters. No to Hillary. Hell no!

Posted by: Janice Fata | April 21, 2008 8:46 PM | Report abuse

Hillary throws her mother under the bus in an attempt to win Pennsylvania.

Posted by: Bruno.

LOL!!!!!!!!

Posted by: tydicea | April 21, 2008 8:45 PM | Report abuse

Thanks be to God that this online "news" is free, because no way in hell I'd pay for this lame excuse for journalism.

Hillary was not weakened by her wins in Ohio, Texas and Rhodes Island any more than she will be weakened by a win in Pennsylvania and possibly Indiana, West Virginia and Kentucky.

If we could eradicate the Mainstream Media, we would. Keep it up and we will.

Posted by: Mondegreenie | April 21, 2008 8:44 PM | Report abuse

"THE TRAIL | Mischaracterizations of trip to Bosnia, turmoil in campaign and husband's mistakes have left Clinton with a significant image problem."
___

Whitewater. The billing fraud case against the Rose law firm. Vince Foster's suicide. Webster Hubble's indictment. Jennifer Flowers. Cattle futures contracts. Monica Lewinsky. Renting the Lincoln Bedroom. Monica's blue dress. Bill Clinton's impeachment. The sale of presidential pardons. Walter Mondale's daughter. Bill Clinton's disbarment for obstruction of justice.

And padding her resume on Bosnia, her husband's race-baiting in South Carolina, and campaign in-fighting left her with an IMAGE problem? Are you people daft?

The Clintons are poison. They corrupt everything they touch. Now, Democrats believe it, too.


Posted by: Darden Cavalcade | April 21, 2008 8:43 PM | Report abuse

I'd rather put my faith in Obama's enthusiastic but unproven first time voters than in Hillary's Reagan Democrats, with their proven track record of abandoning the Democrats and fleeing to the GOP in every election year.

These Blue Dogs ALWAYS find an excuse to defect to the GOP. If it's not Obama, it's gay marriage or Kerry's windsurfing.

They're Republicans, really. **** 'em.

Posted by: Bourassa | April 21, 2008 8:37 PM | Report abuse

The Washington Post has sunk awfully low this time--Hillary bashing the day before the Pennsylvania primary. Would it not be just as accurate or even more accurate to say that Obama has been weakened? Indeed, it would be. Does the Washington Post care about accuracy and unbiased reporting? Apparently not.

Posted by: Wilson | April 21, 2008 8:35 PM | Report abuse

Hillary Clinton,
Is the purest example we have of exactly how far some people will go to get elected. So many of us would have once considered voting for her but over the last four months she has confirmed that she is an egocentric liar.

I am proud to be a democrat but there is no way I will vote for her any longer, for anything. First she an Bill turned all of the African American voters against them, now they've demonized Moveon.org followers. I just wonder will there be any party left after she is done cleansing and dismantling it.

Simply, she is a monster. If only those poor voters that are still supporting her would realize this the party could be united. If someone would lie about something as small as the Bosnian episode -- just what else will she lie about?

We've spent the last 16 years with leaders lying to us and innocent people have been hurt and killed as a result. First Bill Clinton couldn't not keep his zipper up then he was left impotent to pursue Bin Laden. And the last 8 years we've had a full administration of liars lead us into a global disaster.

When does it end? When will we be able to trust another American president?

Go away Hillary. Go away Bill. Go lie to yourselves.

Posted by: james - Los Angeles | April 21, 2008 8:35 PM | Report abuse

Monday, April 21st, 2008
My Vote's for Obama (if I could vote) ...by Michael Moore


Friends,

I don't get to vote for President this primary season. I live in Michigan. The party leaders (both here and in D.C.) couldn't get their act together, and thus our votes will not be counted.

So, if you live in Pennsylvania, can you do me a favor? Will you please cast my vote -- and yours -- on Tuesday for Senator Barack Obama?

I haven't spoken publicly 'til now as to who I would vote for, primarily for two reasons: 1) Who cares?; and 2) I (and most people I know) don't give a rat's ass whose name is on the ballot in November, as long as there's a picture of JFK and FDR riding a donkey at the top of the ballot, and the word "Democratic" next to the candidate's name.

Seriously, I know so many people who don't care if the name under the Big "D" is Dancer, Prancer, Clinton or Blitzen. It can be Mickey Mouse, Donald Duck, Barry Obama or the Dalai Lama.

Well, that sounded good last year, but over the past two months, the actions and words of Hillary Clinton have gone from being merely disappointing to downright disgusting. I guess the debate last week was the final straw. I've watched Senator Clinton and her husband play this game of appealing to the worst side of white people, but last Wednesday, when she hurled the name "Farrakhan" out of nowhere, well that's when the silly season came to an early end for me. She said the "F" word to scare white people, pure and simple. Of course, Obama has no connection to Farrakhan. But, according to Senator Clinton, Obama's pastor does -- AND the "church bulletin" once included a Los Angeles Times op-ed from some guy with Hamas! No, not the church bulletin!

This sleazy attempt to smear Obama was brilliantly explained the following night by Stephen Colbert. He pointed out that if Obama is supported by Ted Kennedy, who is Catholic, and the Catholic Church is led by a Pope who was in the Hitler Youth, that can mean only one thing: OBAMA LOVES HITLER!

Yes, Senator Clinton, that's how you sounded. Like you were nuts. Like you were a bigot stoking the fires of stupidity. How sad that I would ever have to write those words about you. You have devoted your life to good causes and good deeds. And now to throw it all away for an office you can't win unless you smear the black man so much that the superdelegates cry "Uncle (Tom)" and give it all to you.

But that can't happen. You cast your die when you voted to start this bloody war. When you did that you were like Moses who lost it for a moment and, because of that, was prohibited from entering the Promised Land.

How sad for a country that wanted to see the first woman elected to the White House. That day will come -- but it won't be you. We'll have to wait for the current Democratic governor of Kansas to run in 2016 (you read it here first!).

There are those who say Obama isn't ready, or he's voted wrong on this or that. But that's looking at the trees and not the forest. What we are witnessing is not just a candidate but a profound, massive public movement for change. My endorsement is more for Obama The Movement than it is for Obama the candidate.

That is not to take anything away from this exceptional man. But what's going on is bigger than him at this point, and that's a good thing for the country. Because, when he wins in November, that Obama Movement is going to have to stay alert and active. Corporate America is not going to give up their hold on our government just because we say so. President Obama is going to need a nation of millions to stand behind him.

I know some of you will say, 'Mike, what have the Democrats done to deserve our vote?' That's a damn good question. In November of '06, the country loudly sent a message that we wanted the war to end. Yet the Democrats have done nothing. So why should we be so eager to line up happily behind them?

I'll tell you why. Because I can't stand one more friggin' minute of this administration and the permanent, irreversible damage it has done to our people and to this world. I'm almost at the point where I don't care if the Democrats don't have a backbone or a kneebone or a thought in their dizzy little heads. Just as long as their name ain't "Bush" and the word "Republican" is not beside theirs on the ballot, then that's good enough for me.

I, like the majority of Americans, have been pummeled senseless for 8 long years. That's why I will join millions of citizens and stagger into the voting booth come November, like a boxer in the 12th round, all bloodied and bruised with one eye swollen shut, looking for the only thing that matters -- that big "D" on the ballot.

Don't get me wrong. I lost my rose-colored glasses a long time ago.

It's foolish to see the Democrats as anything but a nicer version of a party that exists to do the bidding of the corporate elite in this country. Any endorsement of a Democrat must be done with this acknowledgement and a hope that one day we will have a party that'll represent the people first, and laws that allow that party an equal voice.

Finally, I want to say a word about the basic decency I have seen in Mr. Obama. Mrs. Clinton continues to throw the Rev. Wright up in his face as part of her mission to keep stoking the fears of White America. Every time she does this I shout at the TV, "Say it, Obama! Say that when she and her husband were having marital difficulties regarding Monica Lewinsky, who did she and Bill bring to the White House for 'spiritual counseling?' THE REVEREND JEREMIAH WRIGHT!"

But no, Obama won't throw that at her. It wouldn't be right. It wouldn't be decent. She's been through enough hurt. And so he remains silent and takes the mud she throws in his face.

That's why the crowds who come to see him are so large. That's why he'll take us down a more decent path. That's why I would vote for him if Michigan were allowed to have an election.

But the question I keep hearing is... 'can he win? Can he win in November?' In the distance we hear the siren of the death train called the Straight Talk Express. We know it's possible to hear the words "President McCain" on January 20th. We know there are still many Americans who will never vote for a black man. Hillary knows it, too. She's counting on it.

Pennsylvania, the state that gave birth to this great country, has a chance to set things right. It has not had a moment to shine like this since 1787 when our Constitution was written there. In that Constitution, they wrote that a black man or woman was only "three fifths" human. On Tuesday, the good people of Pennsylvania have a chance for redemption.

Yours,
Michael Moore
MichaelMoore.com
MMFlint@aol.com

Posted by: Anonymous | April 21, 2008 8:33 PM | Report abuse

Obama is our Savior. After watching "typical white people" grill Obama during the debate, I realized that Obama, Ayers, and Reverend Wright are Right, God D*** america. Now is the time to rally around Barak and Michelle and make them proud! These poor bitter rural white folk with their guns and phony religion who are afraid of people not like themsleves should not be allowed to vote. Yes, no more so called elections where typical white people vote! And news flash america, Barak is right, your typical white american is a racist! Obama will apologize to our Muslim brothers for arrogant american policies of hate and slavery. Only Obama can forgive an evil nation founded on slavery. White people, no more gun purchases, save your money cause reparations are comin! Obama 08!!!

Posted by: Obamamania | April 21, 2008 8:33 PM | Report abuse

Monday, April 21st, 2008
My Vote's for Obama (if I could vote) ...by Michael Moore


Friends,

I don't get to vote for President this primary season. I live in Michigan. The party leaders (both here and in D.C.) couldn't get their act together, and thus our votes will not be counted.

So, if you live in Pennsylvania, can you do me a favor? Will you please cast my vote -- and yours -- on Tuesday for Senator Barack Obama?

I haven't spoken publicly 'til now as to who I would vote for, primarily for two reasons: 1) Who cares?; and 2) I (and most people I know) don't give a rat's ass whose name is on the ballot in November, as long as there's a picture of JFK and FDR riding a donkey at the top of the ballot, and the word "Democratic" next to the candidate's name.

Seriously, I know so many people who don't care if the name under the Big "D" is Dancer, Prancer, Clinton or Blitzen. It can be Mickey Mouse, Donald Duck, Barry Obama or the Dalai Lama.

Well, that sounded good last year, but over the past two months, the actions and words of Hillary Clinton have gone from being merely disappointing to downright disgusting. I guess the debate last week was the final straw. I've watched Senator Clinton and her husband play this game of appealing to the worst side of white people, but last Wednesday, when she hurled the name "Farrakhan" out of nowhere, well that's when the silly season came to an early end for me. She said the "F" word to scare white people, pure and simple. Of course, Obama has no connection to Farrakhan. But, according to Senator Clinton, Obama's pastor does -- AND the "church bulletin" once included a Los Angeles Times op-ed from some guy with Hamas! No, not the church bulletin!

This sleazy attempt to smear Obama was brilliantly explained the following night by Stephen Colbert. He pointed out that if Obama is supported by Ted Kennedy, who is Catholic, and the Catholic Church is led by a Pope who was in the Hitler Youth, that can mean only one thing: OBAMA LOVES HITLER!

Yes, Senator Clinton, that's how you sounded. Like you were nuts. Like you were a bigot stoking the fires of stupidity. How sad that I would ever have to write those words about you. You have devoted your life to good causes and good deeds. And now to throw it all away for an office you can't win unless you smear the black man so much that the superdelegates cry "Uncle (Tom)" and give it all to you.

But that can't happen. You cast your die when you voted to start this bloody war. When you did that you were like Moses who lost it for a moment and, because of that, was prohibited from entering the Promised Land.

How sad for a country that wanted to see the first woman elected to the White House. That day will come -- but it won't be you. We'll have to wait for the current Democratic governor of Kansas to run in 2016 (you read it here first!).

There are those who say Obama isn't ready, or he's voted wrong on this or that. But that's looking at the trees and not the forest. What we are witnessing is not just a candidate but a profound, massive public movement for change. My endorsement is more for Obama The Movement than it is for Obama the candidate.

That is not to take anything away from this exceptional man. But what's going on is bigger than him at this point, and that's a good thing for the country. Because, when he wins in November, that Obama Movement is going to have to stay alert and active. Corporate America is not going to give up their hold on our government just because we say so. President Obama is going to need a nation of millions to stand behind him.

I know some of you will say, 'Mike, what have the Democrats done to deserve our vote?' That's a damn good question. In November of '06, the country loudly sent a message that we wanted the war to end. Yet the Democrats have done nothing. So why should we be so eager to line up happily behind them?

I'll tell you why. Because I can't stand one more friggin' minute of this administration and the permanent, irreversible damage it has done to our people and to this world. I'm almost at the point where I don't care if the Democrats don't have a backbone or a kneebone or a thought in their dizzy little heads. Just as long as their name ain't "Bush" and the word "Republican" is not beside theirs on the ballot, then that's good enough for me.

I, like the majority of Americans, have been pummeled senseless for 8 long years. That's why I will join millions of citizens and stagger into the voting booth come November, like a boxer in the 12th round, all bloodied and bruised with one eye swollen shut, looking for the only thing that matters -- that big "D" on the ballot.

Don't get me wrong. I lost my rose-colored glasses a long time ago.

It's foolish to see the Democrats as anything but a nicer version of a party that exists to do the bidding of the corporate elite in this country. Any endorsement of a Democrat must be done with this acknowledgement and a hope that one day we will have a party that'll represent the people first, and laws that allow that party an equal voice.

Finally, I want to say a word about the basic decency I have seen in Mr. Obama. Mrs. Clinton continues to throw the Rev. Wright up in his face as part of her mission to keep stoking the fears of White America. Every time she does this I shout at the TV, "Say it, Obama! Say that when she and her husband were having marital difficulties regarding Monica Lewinsky, who did she and Bill bring to the White House for 'spiritual counseling?' THE REVEREND JEREMIAH WRIGHT!"

But no, Obama won't throw that at her. It wouldn't be right. It wouldn't be decent. She's been through enough hurt. And so he remains silent and takes the mud she throws in his face.

That's why the crowds who come to see him are so large. That's why he'll take us down a more decent path. That's why I would vote for him if Michigan were allowed to have an election.

But the question I keep hearing is... 'can he win? Can he win in November?' In the distance we hear the siren of the death train called the Straight Talk Express. We know it's possible to hear the words "President McCain" on January 20th. We know there are still many Americans who will never vote for a black man. Hillary knows it, too. She's counting on it.

Pennsylvania, the state that gave birth to this great country, has a chance to set things right. It has not had a moment to shine like this since 1787 when our Constitution was written there. In that Constitution, they wrote that a black man or woman was only "three fifths" human. On Tuesday, the good people of Pennsylvania have a chance for redemption.

Yours,
Michael Moore
MichaelMoore.com
MMFlint@aol.com

Posted by: Anonymous | April 21, 2008 8:32 PM | Report abuse

So crude oil is $117 per barrel and the cheapest gasoline in at a national average of $3.50 per gallon...

And you media idiots are focusing on stupid quips and gripes the candidates are engaged in? The only thing these news websites are any good for is for people to post the real news from other sources in place of stupid stories like this one.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The Saudis, Iranians, Venezuelans, and all the other OPEC nations are laughing at America under George Bush.

Even the Canadians, the largest oil importer to the US, are laughing.

I think I'll load up a bunch of rocks and go on a cross-country drive for e the next few weeks in my V8 engine truck.

And I'll charge it all to my Bank of America or Citibank or Washington Mutual credit card. Then I'll tell them to take a hike when the bill comes. There''ll be nothing to foreclose on, just gasoline fumes.

Never though I'd see it, but the days of taking a simple road trip to see the country are LONG GONE. I'm glad I did so with my grandparents in the 1960's when I was a kid, because our kids will never see it again.

THANK YOU BUSH/CHENEY FOR KILLING THE DREAM.

Posted by: Chris | April 21, 2008 8:31 PM | Report abuse

Monday, April 21st, 2008
My Vote's for Obama (if I could vote) ...by Michael Moore


Friends,

I don't get to vote for President this primary season. I live in Michigan. The party leaders (both here and in D.C.) couldn't get their act together, and thus our votes will not be counted.

So, if you live in Pennsylvania, can you do me a favor? Will you please cast my vote -- and yours -- on Tuesday for Senator Barack Obama?

I haven't spoken publicly 'til now as to who I would vote for, primarily for two reasons: 1) Who cares?; and 2) I (and most people I know) don't give a rat's ass whose name is on the ballot in November, as long as there's a picture of JFK and FDR riding a donkey at the top of the ballot, and the word "Democratic" next to the candidate's name.

Seriously, I know so many people who don't care if the name under the Big "D" is Dancer, Prancer, Clinton or Blitzen. It can be Mickey Mouse, Donald Duck, Barry Obama or the Dalai Lama.

Well, that sounded good last year, but over the past two months, the actions and words of Hillary Clinton have gone from being merely disappointing to downright disgusting. I guess the debate last week was the final straw. I've watched Senator Clinton and her husband play this game of appealing to the worst side of white people, but last Wednesday, when she hurled the name "Farrakhan" out of nowhere, well that's when the silly season came to an early end for me. She said the "F" word to scare white people, pure and simple. Of course, Obama has no connection to Farrakhan. But, according to Senator Clinton, Obama's pastor does -- AND the "church bulletin" once included a Los Angeles Times op-ed from some guy with Hamas! No, not the church bulletin!

This sleazy attempt to smear Obama was brilliantly explained the following night by Stephen Colbert. He pointed out that if Obama is supported by Ted Kennedy, who is Catholic, and the Catholic Church is led by a Pope who was in the Hitler Youth, that can mean only one thing: OBAMA LOVES HITLER!

Yes, Senator Clinton, that's how you sounded. Like you were nuts. Like you were a bigot stoking the fires of stupidity. How sad that I would ever have to write those words about you. You have devoted your life to good causes and good deeds. And now to throw it all away for an office you can't win unless you smear the black man so much that the superdelegates cry "Uncle (Tom)" and give it all to you.

But that can't happen. You cast your die when you voted to start this bloody war. When you did that you were like Moses who lost it for a moment and, because of that, was prohibited from entering the Promised Land.

How sad for a country that wanted to see the first woman elected to the White House. That day will come -- but it won't be you. We'll have to wait for the current Democratic governor of Kansas to run in 2016 (you read it here first!).

There are those who say Obama isn't ready, or he's voted wrong on this or that. But that's looking at the trees and not the forest. What we are witnessing is not just a candidate but a profound, massive public movement for change. My endorsement is more for Obama The Movement than it is for Obama the candidate.

That is not to take anything away from this exceptional man. But what's going on is bigger than him at this point, and that's a good thing for the country. Because, when he wins in November, that Obama Movement is going to have to stay alert and active. Corporate America is not going to give up their hold on our government just because we say so. President Obama is going to need a nation of millions to stand behind him.

I know some of you will say, 'Mike, what have the Democrats done to deserve our vote?' That's a damn good question. In November of '06, the country loudly sent a message that we wanted the war to end. Yet the Democrats have done nothing. So why should we be so eager to line up happily behind them?

I'll tell you why. Because I can't stand one more friggin' minute of this administration and the permanent, irreversible damage it has done to our people and to this world. I'm almost at the point where I don't care if the Democrats don't have a backbone or a kneebone or a thought in their dizzy little heads. Just as long as their name ain't "Bush" and the word "Republican" is not beside theirs on the ballot, then that's good enough for me.

I, like the majority of Americans, have been pummeled senseless for 8 long years. That's why I will join millions of citizens and stagger into the voting booth come November, like a boxer in the 12th round, all bloodied and bruised with one eye swollen shut, looking for the only thing that matters -- that big "D" on the ballot.

Don't get me wrong. I lost my rose-colored glasses a long time ago.

It's foolish to see the Democrats as anything but a nicer version of a party that exists to do the bidding of the corporate elite in this country. Any endorsement of a Democrat must be done with this acknowledgement and a hope that one day we will have a party that'll represent the people first, and laws that allow that party an equal voice.

Finally, I want to say a word about the basic decency I have seen in Mr. Obama. Mrs. Clinton continues to throw the Rev. Wright up in his face as part of her mission to keep stoking the fears of White America. Every time she does this I shout at the TV, "Say it, Obama! Say that when she and her husband were having marital difficulties regarding Monica Lewinsky, who did she and Bill bring to the White House for 'spiritual counseling?' THE REVEREND JEREMIAH WRIGHT!"

But no, Obama won't throw that at her. It wouldn't be right. It wouldn't be decent. She's been through enough hurt. And so he remains silent and takes the mud she throws in his face.

That's why the crowds who come to see him are so large. That's why he'll take us down a more decent path. That's why I would vote for him if Michigan were allowed to have an election.

But the question I keep hearing is... 'can he win? Can he win in November?' In the distance we hear the siren of the death train called the Straight Talk Express. We know it's possible to hear the words "President McCain" on January 20th. We know there are still many Americans who will never vote for a black man. Hillary knows it, too. She's counting on it.

Pennsylvania, the state that gave birth to this great country, has a chance to set things right. It has not had a moment to shine like this since 1787 when our Constitution was written there. In that Constitution, they wrote that a black man or woman was only "three fifths" human. On Tuesday, the good people of Pennsylvania have a chance for redemption.

Yours,
Michael Moore
MichaelMoore.com
MMFlint@aol.com

Posted by: Anonymous | April 21, 2008 8:31 PM | Report abuse

Let's talk some more truth.
Do you think that HRC has ever been called the N-word? "No"
Is it sooo unlikely - although I'm not saying that I know the answer to this - that the government infected African Americans with AIDS? "No - have any of you ever heard of the Tuskegee Experiment where the government infected black people with syphilis?"
Aren't there a LOT of people who believe that USA policy has been unfair to many nations and people in the world and that one day the United States might have to "pay the piper"? Yes. I'm not saying that 9-11 was justified - only that Jeremiah Wright's views aren't/weren't only shared by him.
The majority of folks in this country are offended because they want to so desperately forget the HISTORY of this country.
Jeremiah Wright isn't rascist, he is just speaking the truth that the "majority" doesn't want to acknowledge or hear.

Posted by: Kasmel | April 21, 2008 8:31 PM | Report abuse

Let's talk some more truth.
Do you think that HRC has ever been called the N-word? "No"
Is it sooo unlikely - although I'm not saying that I know the answer to this - that the government infected African Americans with AIDS? "No - have any of you ever heard of the Tuskegee Experiment where the government infected black people with syphilis?"
Aren't there a LOT of people who believe that USA policy has been unfair to many nations and people in the world and that one day the United States might have to "pay the piper"? Yes. I'm not saying that 9-11 was justified - only that Jeremiah Wright's views aren't/weren't only shared by him.
The majority of folks in this country are offended because they want to so desperately forget the HISTORY of this country.
Jeremiah Wright isn't rascist, he is just speaking the truth that the "majority" doesn't want to acknowledge or hear.

Posted by: Kasmel | April 21, 2008 8:31 PM | Report abuse

Her image is her own semblable ... know what I'm sayin, Holmes?


Posted by: pressF1 | April 21, 2008 8:31 PM | Report abuse

Let's talk some more truth.
Do you think that HRC has ever been called the N-word? "No"
Is it sooo unlikely - although I'm not saying that I know the answer to this - that the government infected African Americans with AIDS? "No - have any of you ever heard of the Tuskegee Experiment where the government infected black people with syphilis?"
Aren't there a LOT of people who believe that USA policy has been unfair to many nations and people in the world and that one day the United States might have to "pay the piper"? Yes. I'm not saying that 9-11 was justified - only that Jeremiah Wright's views aren't/weren't only shared by him.
The majority of folks in this country are offended because they want to so desperately forget the HISTORY of this country.
Jeremiah Wright isn't rascist, he is just speaking the truth that the "majority" doesn't want to acknowledge or hear.

Posted by: Kasmel | April 21, 2008 8:31 PM | Report abuse

The wacky preacher, the bitter wife who thinks she is Jackie Kennedy, Not saluting the flag, Never wearing an Amrican flag lapel, The bomb throwing buddy from the 60's, The slumlord pal now on trial, The drug dealing years in Chicago, The bumbling fool at the last debate...it goes on. The man is a mess. He could of waited four years but beleived his own hype. Now he is the joke of the nation. I would never vote for him and put this great country in this nitwits hands.

Posted by: garlicnose | April 21, 2008 8:31 PM | Report abuse

OK I just posted a note on being all nice to each other, and then I see Mrs. Clinton's election-eve ad highlighting clips of Pearl Harbor, the depression and Osama freakin' bin Laden. This is despicable. And shoddy. And inappropriate. For one Democrat to be using against another Democrat ... amazing.

Posted by: omyobama | April 21, 2008 8:17 PM | Report abuse

Obama is our Savior. After watching "typical white people" grill Obama during the debate, I realized that Obama, Ayers, and Reverend Wright are Right, God D*** america. Now is the time to rally around Barak and Michelle and make them proud! These poor bitter rural white folk with their guns and phony religion who are afraid of people not like themsleves should not be allowed to vote. Yes, no more so called elections where typical white people vote! And news flash america, Barak is right, your typical white american is a racist! Obama will apologize to our Muslim brothers for arrogant american policies of hate and slavery. Only Obama can forgive an evil nation founded on slavery. White people, no more gun purchases, save your money cause reparations are comin! Obama 08!!!

Posted by: Obamamania | April 21, 2008 8:16 PM | Report abuse

If she is nominated, she will be crushed by McCain in November.

Posted by: silverspring | April 21, 2008 8:16 PM | Report abuse

Dan,
Great summary of the situation. You're always a pleasure to read.

Posted by: Kire | April 21, 2008 8:15 PM | Report abuse

Hey Joyce: Great job on the clinton poem. You have a lot of talent

Posted by: svbreeder | April 21, 2008 8:15 PM | Report abuse

Hey Joyce: I liked your Clinton poem. You got a lot of talent.

Posted by: svbreeder | April 21, 2008 8:13 PM | Report abuse

Go Hillary! You can take PA!! Prove all the pundits and BHO followers wrong. We need your kind of leadership because you understand how to make the system work for us. Thanks for all you've done for the many children and women of the world who don't even have a clue about what you've done to improve their lives! GO HILLARY!!!

Posted by: bjbprice | April 21, 2008 8:13 PM | Report abuse

There is no doubt that Hillary Clinton played an important domestic policy role when she was First Lady. It is well known, for example, that she led the failed effort to pass universal health insurance. There is no reason to believe, however, that she was a key player in foreign policy at any time during the Clinton Administration. She did not sit in on National Security Council meetings. She did not have a security clearance. She did not attend meetings in the Situation Room. She did not manage any part of the national security bureaucracy, nor did she have her own national security staff. She did not do any heavy-lifting with foreign governments, whether they were friendly or not. She never managed a foreign policy crisis, and there is no evidence to suggest that she participated in the decision-making that occurred in connection with any such crisis. (from Huffington post -Thx to Pearlriver)

Posted by: GandalftheGrey | April 21, 2008 8:13 PM | Report abuse

Go Hillary! You can take PA!! Prove all the pundits and BHO followers wrong. We need your kind of leadership because you understand how to make the system work for us. Thanks for all you've done for the many children and women of the world who don't even have a clue about what you've done to improve their lives! GO HILLARY!!!

Posted by: bjbprice | April 21, 2008 8:13 PM | Report abuse

Go Hillary! You can take PA!! Prove all the pundits and BHO followers wrong. We need your kind of leadership because you understand how to make the system work for us. Thanks for all you've done for the many children and women of the world who don't even have a clue about what you've done to improve their lives! GO HILLARY!!!

Posted by: bjbprice | April 21, 2008 8:13 PM | Report abuse

Go Hillary! You can take PA!! Prove all the pundits and BHO followers wrong. We need your kind of leadership because you understand how to make the system work for us. Thanks for all you've done for the many children and women of the world who don't even have a clue about what you've done to improve their lives! GO HILLARY!!!

Posted by: bjbprice | April 21, 2008 8:13 PM | Report abuse

By the way, anybody who applauds a Democratic candidate running, in a PRIMARY, an election-eve ad containing the Depression, Pearl Harbor and Osama bin Laden should have their head examined. Fear over hope any day? Thanks ... but no thanks.

Posted by: omg | April 21, 2008 8:11 PM | Report abuse

By the way, anybody who applauds a Democratic candidate running, in a PRIMARY, an election-eve ad containing the Depression, Pearl Harbor and Osama bin Laden should have their head examined. Fear over hope any day? Thanks ... but no thanks.

Posted by: omg | April 21, 2008 8:11 PM | Report abuse

By the way, anybody who applauds a Democratic candidate running, in a PRIMARY, an election-eve ad containing the Depression, Pearl Harbor and Osama bin Laden should have their head examined. Fear over hope any day? Thanks ... but no thanks.

Posted by: omg | April 21, 2008 8:11 PM | Report abuse

By the way, anybody who applauds a Democratic candidate running, in a PRIMARY, an election-eve ad containing the Depression, Pearl Harbor and Osama bin Laden should have their head examined. Fear over hope any day? Thanks ... but no thanks.

Posted by: omg | April 21, 2008 8:11 PM | Report abuse

Why did everybody stopped talking about Florida? If the Florida votes won't count in the primaries it will go Republican and McCain wins.

Posted by: angela | April 21, 2008 8:05 PM | Report abuse

Answers:

1) Are you the same person..? No

2) When did Hillary Clinton throw her mother under a bus? It is a metaphor, do you follow me?(if not, go back to school)

3) Was it anything like when Obama threw his grandmother under the bus by claiming she was scared of black people like any other "typical white person"? Obama wanted to hightlight how racist a "white" person can be, even her mother. I give him the point.

4) I didn't see any "invitation" [her "Kitchen" ad] to participate in our election. What ad are you referring to? Having B.Laden in an ad on the TV on our living-room and kitchen, is it not an invitation?(I vomited my dinner)


5) Are you a U.S. citizen? Whatever...

Posted by: Bruno | April 21, 2008 8:01 PM | Report abuse

Political Watchdog,zaney8, twin_peaks_nikki, vtr08, Billw

Don't tell me, ya'll have math anxiety?

If you can't stand the math, don't run the numbers.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 21, 2008 8:01 PM | Report abuse

In other news, former White House Press Secretary Tony Snow will be joining CNN as a commentator on Monday: http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/04/21/former-white-house-press-secretary-tony-snow-joins-cnn/

Posted by: Anonymous | April 21, 2008 7:58 PM | Report abuse

OMG this is such a depressing string -- people frothing at the mouth on both sides. I'm a big Obama supporter but a pox on all of ya'll. Stop hating, start realizing Operation Chaos is alive and thriving not just at the ballot boxes but also on these sites. People, don't blame the candidates for their purported supporters on here. I hate that they're both negative in PA; I hate that John McCain is getting a free ride and Democrats are actually boasting that he'll be their choice in Nov. (folks, did you read the Sunday front page article on his anger management problems? his plan to create a neo-con coalition of the democracies; his economic and Iraq playbooks straight from the Bush orthodoxy?) A vote for McCain is a vote for Bush lite; if you really are a fervent supporter of your Democratic candidate, do me a favor. Get off the blogs, go volunteer at a phone bank, do something but stop poisoning the Democratic party through these vitriolic attacks on each other. Let's stop eating our young, lol.

Posted by: omyobama | April 21, 2008 7:57 PM | Report abuse

Monica Lewinsky would be delighted to work for the Sexology Department with special ties with the Vatican, Amen!!!

Posted by: Vatican | April 21, 2008 7:52 PM | Report abuse

The truth: Mr Obama is the Democratic nominee and Hillary Clinton with her lying self needs to sit her oversized head and tired butt down somewhere!

Posted by: calvinator7 | April 21, 2008 7:51 PM | Report abuse

Bruno (pending questions):

1) Are you the same person who posted at 7:06 PM?

2) When did Hillary Clinton throw her mother under a bus?

3) Was it anything like when Obama threw his grandmother under the bus by claiming she was scared of black people like any other "typical white person"?

4) I didn't see any "invitation" [her "Kitchen" ad] to participate in our election. What ad are you referring to?

5) Are you a U.S. citizen?

Posted by: Anonymous | April 21, 2008 7:51 PM | Report abuse

Clinton now announces she would "obliterate" Iran. Tough talk. Wow, alongside McCain "bomb-bomb-bombing" Iran, and Clinton obliterating it, I prefer Obama talking to its leaders. Maybe fight later, if absolutely necessary, but talking first can't hurt. International realtions are a lot like interpersonal ones -- talk is the best way to bring people and nations, if not together, at least into a state of peaceful if somewhat inimical coexistence. Give me a break. I mean, suppose there is someone on my street I don't particularly like, and then I start swaggering and saying I am going to kill or "obliterate" him in this or that hypothetical situation. Just asking for trouble. She hopes it plays to the right of center, but really all sane people have to hope that neither she or McCain get anywhere near the White House.

Posted by: frank burns | April 21, 2008 7:47 PM | Report abuse

Frank Burns

Not much else to do in this BITTER small town.

Posted by: Bruno | April 21, 2008 7:47 PM | Report abuse

If working together with the President qualifies someone to do a good job, then Monica Lewinsky should be the right person for the BLOW JOB DEPARTMENT at the White House, of course.

Posted by: Bruno | April 21, 2008 7:44 PM | Report abuse

Hopefully, Andy.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 21, 2008 7:44 PM | Report abuse

If Hillary is unable to surpass Obama in pledge delegates and the popular vote and she clinches the nomination with the help of the Super delegates, it will be a sure way for the Democratic Party to lose the November election as Blacks will see the Party establishment as stopping a Black man that has a good shot at making the Presidency to have been cheated out and the Blacks will not vote in November.

Posted by: Andy | April 21, 2008 7:43 PM | Report abuse

Loser wins - no worry !

Posted by: ratl | April 21, 2008 7:42 PM | Report abuse

Look, I am really bitter about that thing Obama said. In fact, I have been bitter about American politics in general for some time now. The only thing that consoles me somewhat is my religious beliefs, and the fun I get out of hunting. Not much else to do in this small town.

Posted by: frank burns | April 21, 2008 7:40 PM | Report abuse

Obama: "We are one people. All of us pledging allegiance to the stars and stripes. All of us defending the United States of America." TRUTH " Last I RECALL & SEEN WITH my OWN EYES view it with YOURS " HE WOULD NOT EVEN RASIE HIS HANDS TO THE >>>> Stars and Stripes
http://www.dontvoteobama.net/?gclid=CJqZm5il6pICFQWiggodNm8n4g

AMERICA PLEASE DON'T FALL FOR NO MORE OF HIS LIES.

Posted by: VotersIssues | April 21, 2008 7:36 PM | Report abuse

Sad to see how special interest have taken over the American democracy! There is no different for those forces if a Clinton or a McCain wins this contest. Do you really think they pay $500 million for a presidential library for nothing? A new Clinton admin. will pay it back 10 times. McCain is a new Bush. He will
get a lot of support from them and will pay back from day one of his admin. The strange part is that the states like Pa. with the big middle class (or what is left of them) is supporting people like Clinton and McCain. They are the once that have payed and going to pay for another feast for the royalties like Clintons and Bushes (and Bush like McCain). After another 8 year of Clinton or McCain admin. there will probably be no middle cals in the US. There will be a few very rich people and millions of poor people. (even poorer in Pa.)
I am afraid Mr. Obama don't have a real chance to beat the special interests. Just see what these forces do for more money/power: they start wars, bomb entire countries and sell their weapon and shares. Then they call it SPREADING THE DEMOCRACY. Sadly enough the American democracy is their first victim. I think US had her chance in Mr Obama and I think she already lost that chance. That's very sad.

Posted by: Oslo | April 21, 2008 7:35 PM | Report abuse

We are all these bitter and poor and miserable people like you, Ghost!!!

Posted by: Bruno | April 21, 2008 7:34 PM | Report abuse

Hillary Clinton is "working" for John McCain? Do you also believe that Elvis Presley is alive?

Posted by: Anonymous | April 21, 2008 7:34 PM | Report abuse

It's amazing that the same people who want to say that Barack has gone negative are the same people who'll say that he's weak if he doesn't respond to her attacks. Ever since her "Shame on you, Barack Obama" tirade, she's gone beyond the pale and really tried to destroy him. The Republicans don't have to do anything but replay her words. Just because Barack is pointing out the truths - the fact that she never SPOKE OUT against NAFTA, for example - doesn't mean that he's gone negative. I wish that people would wake up!!

Posted by: Kasmel | April 21, 2008 7:34 PM | Report abuse

Nomination were over Feb5th: OBAMA one
Hillary is just working for McCain. In case she is not the nominee she want to be sure McCain won.
CORRUPT CLINTONS.


DUMP CLINTON.

Posted by: Tucred | April 21, 2008 7:31 PM | Report abuse

Bruno:

Are you a U.S. citizen?

Posted by: Anonymous | April 21, 2008 7:29 PM | Report abuse

" I know thousands of American who will not vote for a Clinton".

MONICA LEWINSKY is coming near you shortly.

Posted by: HILLCO | April 21, 2008 7:27 PM | Report abuse

You see, so many people with the same view.

"democatrique"= democratic

Posted by: Bruno | April 21, 2008 7:27 PM | Report abuse

CHASKA:

Are you a U.S. citizen?

Posted by: Anonymous | April 21, 2008 7:26 PM | Report abuse

Geibenlii2:

Obama's name was indeed taken off the Michigan ballot. His name was ON the Florida ballot, and some of his campaign ads ran in Florida too.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 21, 2008 7:25 PM | Report abuse

Clinton does not qualify for US President as she is NOT the best woman . She was caught LIE of BOSNIA SNIPER. Got published in her Autobiography.DUMP the bad one.

OBAMA08.

Posted by: CHASKA | April 21, 2008 7:24 PM | Report abuse

I would like to inject a sense of realism into a passionate and often ugly debate that rages here on Wapo blog boards on a daily basis. Truth is truth, and math does not lie. In order for Hillary to win the nomination she MUST win ALL the remaining 10 states by a margin of at least 12-14 percentage points (62-64%) and then she must win 64% of the superdelegates. All this talk back and forth cannot change the math. Hillary's efforts to get the nomination will be an exhaustive uphill battle. With every VICTORY she may enjoy, like the inevitable PA victory she will actually LOSE ground if she fails to win by a margin of less than 64%. Even a robust win of 10% will not be enough. Before all you Hillary folks start to jump down my throat you should know I LOVE Hillary. I am constantly pleading for unity within the Dem party. I do not have a bias. What I have is a calculator, and a willingness to add things up the way they are, not the way I want them to be. Use this delegate calculator below and do the math yourself. Adjust the slider to 62-64% in the win column from here on out and see what you get. The delegate count used is the same as MSNBC and CNN
http://www.slate.com//id/2185278/

Posted by: feastorafamine | April 21, 2008 7:23 PM | Report abuse

"I know so many democrats that will not vote for Obama"

We have a long way to go before we defeat Racism in America. How backward we are with all these bitter people!!!

Posted by: Bruno | April 21, 2008 7:22 PM | Report abuse

Bruno:

Are you the same person who posted at 7:06 PM? If so, when did Hillary Clinton throw her mother under a bus? Was it anything like when Obama threw his grandmother under the bus by claiming she was scared of black people like any other "typical white person"?

Posted by: Anonymous | April 21, 2008 7:22 PM | Report abuse

Hillary is a spy.

Posted by: BONO | April 21, 2008 7:21 PM | Report abuse

Florida & Michigan are FORECLOSED.
Obama was not in the poll-so how only HillBill gets those state. They shot themselves out of 08 Elaction by changing dates.
Hillary CANNOT get illegal votes of FL & MI.

Posted by: Geibenlii2 | April 21, 2008 7:20 PM | Report abuse

Bruno:

I saw her "Kitchen" ad which, rightly, points out the dangers our next President faces, including Obama bin Laden, but I didn't see any "invitation" to participate in our election. What ad are you referring to? BTW: what is "democatrique"?

Posted by: Anonymous | April 21, 2008 7:19 PM | Report abuse

another biased piece of reporting. I do think the press will get their candidate, but unfortunately for them, don't think they will get their president.

I know so many democrats that will not vote for Obama. When the choice is a war hero and a guy who's minister preaches "god damn america" there is no choice.

Although you got to admit that it would be very entertaining. What cabinet position do you think Wright will get? Secretary of State? Homeland Security? Now there is a comforting thought!

Posted by: Kathy | April 21, 2008 7:17 PM | Report abuse

Didi:

Setting aside the Rovian slurs, for the moment, you are claiming that Hillary (and BILL -- the first African-American President) Clinton is "racist"? It can't simply be based on her opinion that she would be a better President, right? In fact, anyone who doesn't vote for Obama is a "racist"?

Posted by: Anonymous | April 21, 2008 7:17 PM | Report abuse

She is wasting time.
Math is agaist her.
Obama has this in his pocket-it is upto GovDean to shut it up.

Barak Obama v McCain.

Posted by: CHASKA | April 21, 2008 7:16 PM | Report abuse

Sorry but Hillary has no limits. She would sell her mother, father, Clinton and Chelsea in order to win Pennsylvania. Can you see how low she came tonight with ad where she invites Bin Laden to participate in our democatrique election. Is it possible? Is it possible for a rational person to imagine that? How can we vote for her? Never, never, never.

Posted by: Bruno | April 21, 2008 7:15 PM | Report abuse

If Clinton has missteps, Obama has monumental boboos. I don't know why most of the voting Americans can't see how weak Obama is. He is a greenhorn trying to lead the most powerful nation in the world. Well, its your country, but Europe and Asia will be better off without Obama.

Posted by: bob | April 21, 2008 7:13 PM | Report abuse

Lee GIABENELLI:

If you toss in Florida and Michigan, then she only needs to beat him by 94,000 votes tomorrow in order to claim the total POPULAR vote. Listen to HuckFinn: Obama is not a strong candidate in the Electoral College.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 21, 2008 7:13 PM | Report abuse

OBAMA 08.

Posted by: TA | April 21, 2008 7:13 PM | Report abuse


Hi there
I am from Switzerland... although I am not American hater; but after 2003; after the start of the Irak war decided not to visit USA... or not to buy any US products...
This is not the mind set of one person; try to talk to people out side US ...

America is a great country, the land of opportunity; and the land which has the potential to bring the whole world together as a single democratic nation ...
Since couple of decades you have presidents who lie for their cause... who were/are selfish... real politicians than humans...

See how bad the US economy is, see how the people are suffering in the war zones, see how other people from other nations think about America...
Its really sad; how a nation could fall this much down; because of the politicians and their selfish policies ....

What makes a good president?? Did you ever had a second thought???
- is your new presindent young and energetic to bring the whole world together..
- is your new presindent can think logically and judge the things in the right way and time
- is your new presindent is wise enough to create a dream team around with best people for their job
- is your new presindent is a human than politician

Actually you people need a change!

Posted by: Anonymous | April 21, 2008 7:13 PM | Report abuse

At some point, those who do not repudiate her racist McCarthyism and dishonest divisive campaign will be exposed under the bright cleansing light of day.

Clintons and Rove do not have a monopoly on retribution. Obama would not think in terms of retribution. But many of his supporters are keeping score and will exact retribution to show that the Clinton McCarthyism, Racism and Rovian tactics will not go unnoticed or unpunished.

Those who do not repudiate her campaign will find that they have limited political careers and will be on the outside looking in, wishing they had done the right thing.

Posted by: Didi | April 21, 2008 7:12 PM | Report abuse

Warren S wrote, "It's the Reagan Democrats versus the Obama Republicans.
Last I heard, Reagan isn't running .."

so, you are one of those neocon repukeakins playing in a Democratic primary.

Posted by: skinsfan1978 | April 21, 2008 7:11 PM | Report abuse

Hillary CANNOT win even if you toss in Florida and/or Michigan. She needs a 28% percent victory in Pennslyviania to even dream about it... Read the article:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/m.s.-bellows/no-more-spin-clinton-penn_b_97701.html

Posted by: Lee GIABENELLI | April 21, 2008 7:10 PM | Report abuse

**(I don't consider TX because as far as I'm concerned Billary lost Texas and lost
** in the delegate count in TX).
** Posted by: Reggie

TX exposed the hollowness of Obama's trove of caucus delegates. Here we have a large state with both a caucus and primary, a perfect test laboratory. Clinton scores a decisive edge in popular votes, yet Obama gets large edge in caucus delegates.

CAUCUSES ARE UNDEMOCRATIC AND POOR PREDICTORS OF GENERAL ELECTION PERFORMANCE!

There won't be caucuses in the fall. Obama is not a strong candidate in the electoral college.

Posted by: HuckFinn | April 21, 2008 7:10 PM | Report abuse

Oh, come on, EGGhead, stop whining. The Post has been fawned over Hillary on frequent occasions. Sometimes it has fawned over Obama. Gimme a break. They both are going down in flames and McCain will be elected -- thanks, Hillary!

Posted by: ExAUSA | April 21, 2008 7:09 PM | Report abuse

HILLARY'S LAMENT

I rant, I rave
I shed some tears.
Can't they count
my 35 years?

It's my turn now,
don't they know?
I wasn't supposed
to have a foe.

Don't they know
it's me, me, me?
I smell a male
conspiracy!

I'll show those guys
I'm done with tears.
Pour the whiskey.
Pass the beers.

I'm old enough
to be his Mama.
How dare they
vote for that Obama.

I got him good,
tag - you're elite.
But it blew back
- now I'M EFFETE!

HOPE and CHANGE
I guess we'll see,
if folks want that
or more Bill & me.

Uh-oh, now here
comes another loss.
Barack just got
thumbs up from THE BOSS.

Another debate,
a tag team we forged.
I really kicked butt
with Charlie and George.

We slammed, we slimed,
We gave it our all
We roasted and grilled him
Yet Obama stood tall.

I thought I'd get kudos
for my clever attack.
But today all I hear is
Let's back Barack!

They're cheering him now
those voters in Raliegh
He just brushed the dirt off
And everyone's jolly!

This week I thought surely
more backers I'd won.
But, darned if he didn't
win Boren and Nunn!

54 percent
to my 35
He's got the big mo
While I took a dive.

The conspiracy against me
In my mind, it's proven.
The right, now the left wing
I'll blame it on Move-On.

Barack keeps on chuggin'
He's still doing good.
Riding the rails like
The Engine That Could.

My lead has diminished
I'm feeling so blue.
They love him in P.A.
Whoop-de-darn-doo!

My head is splitting.
My throat is sore.
In one more day
we'll know the score.

Obama looks fresh
and full of vim.
Maybe his HOPE
is sustaining him.

JEC

Posted by: Joyce | April 21, 2008 7:08 PM | Report abuse

Bruno:

When did that happen? Was it anything like when Obama threw his grandmother under the bus by claiming she was scared of black people like any other "typical white person"?

Posted by: Anonymous | April 21, 2008 7:07 PM | Report abuse

It's wrong to be a Woman

Posted by: Bruno | April 21, 2008 7:06 PM | Report abuse

d stone wrote, "Rubbish, You write like a dilettante, a political JJC, and Obama is not weakened by the "bitter comments", wright etc."

Your anger and the fact that you pretend to have knowledge of Obama's problems with the Wright and bittergate story astonish me. Obama has been outspending Hillary $4 and $5 to every dollar Hillary spends and he still cannot change the minds of Democratic voters. If Obama wins the primary it will be due to independents and republicans wanting Hillary to lose. A majority of Democrats support Hillary.

Posted by: skinsfan1978 | April 21, 2008 7:06 PM | Report abuse

Hillary throws her monther under the bus in an atempt to win Pennsylvania.

Posted by: Bruno | April 21, 2008 7:03 PM | Report abuse

It's the Reagan Democrats versus the Obama Republicans.
Last I heard, Reagan isn't running ...

Given the Economy, Environment, and War on two fronts, do any of us really think that personality trumps real policy issues?

Posted by: Warren S. | April 21, 2008 7:02 PM | Report abuse

The Oracle...

Monica Lewinsky occupied a position on the president's staff, note.

Posted by: Billw | April 21, 2008 7:02 PM | Report abuse


Her image problem comes from the distant past, not from the present campaign. Just a fact of life.

She is decidedly NOT the new broom America needs to sweep out at least some of the vermin and termites from its poor abused White House.

Posted by: wardropper | April 21, 2008 7:01 PM | Report abuse

Here's another Clinton misstep: Hillary tartly demands that Barack Obama not only "denounce" but "denounce and reject" Louis Farrakhan, with whom Obama has no relationship and whose anti-Semitism Obama has long, loudly, and publicly abhorred. Later she lashes out at Obama's former pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, not only for some incendiary remarks in two sermons (which Obama apparently did not hear), but for Rev. Wright's past praise of Farrakhan. "It is clear that, as leaders, we have a choice as to who we associate with and who we apparently give some kind of seal of approval to," Clinton said, chiding Obama.

Well it turns out that Hillary's chief chosen "associate" in Pennsylvania, Gov. Ed Mendell who is not only her principal surrogate but by some accounts virtually her campaign manager in Pennsylvania, made a speech in 1997 praising Farrakhan's Nation of Islam to the high heavens "for what you stand for . . . and for all the good it does to so many people in Phildelphia."

"This is a faith that doesn't just talk about family values, it lives family values," Rendell continued, as Farrakhan sat next to him nodding approvingly.

See video:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/21/ed-rendell-clinton-surrog_n_97784.html

How do you spell "hypocrisy"? H-I-L-L-A-R-Y

Posted by: Brad K | April 21, 2008 6:57 PM | Report abuse

Dan,

Your analysis that she is weakened makes no sense. Obama is a great speaker but conceding PA today may suppress turnout for him tomorrow. This is another example of his weakness as a candidate this year. One day, with experience Obama could make a great President, just not this year. He and his supporters feel entitled to win while I feel he needs to earn my respect and vote.

Posted by: skinsfan1978 | April 21, 2008 6:56 PM | Report abuse

Wash Post has no shame. She will win big tomorrow in Pennsylvania. After tomorrow she will have carried every major blue states and swing states. Obama can't close the deal with his money and party boss support.

Florida and Michigan must count to give legitimacy to the nominee. And Hillary will take the lead tomorrow counting Florida and Michigan.

Go Hillary!

Posted by: Jamal | April 21, 2008 6:55 PM | Report abuse

Rubbish, You write like a dilettante, a political JJC, and Obama is not weakened by the "bitter comments", wright etc. I wonder who pays people like you to write nonsense on national headlines on the eve of important elections.

Posted by: d stone | April 21, 2008 6:55 PM | Report abuse

The WPost together with Dan Balz- together against Clinton. Give me a break- is the WPost unable to use objective reporters?

Posted by: EGGArgost | April 21, 2008 6:54 PM | Report abuse

As an observer from across the pond I am simply gob smacked at the brazen misogyny Hillary Clinton is having to endure. It's pretty shocking that in the 21st century the only way people see fit to fight a woman is to cast her in the role of a scheming, conniving witch and set about a (media) witch hunt. It is very sad indeed. Us will be shooting itself in the foot if they don't pick this lady to lead the free world. The world has had to endure an inexperienced president for 7 years, please America don't inflict another one on us, no matter how nice, easy on the eye and pleasant to the ear he may be!

Posted by: Ad | April 21, 2008 6:54 PM | Report abuse

Liberal mags and writers are yearning for Obama in a way that seems entirely racist to me, "It is time for Black." You may was well bring up the idea that he was born in chains, so now it is his time. Like Clinton and Bush, people we didn't know who had provided no real inspiration or service to this country. We could all do a better job than Bush, but why set the bar that low?

I want to see Obama and Clinton fight it out until one of those retards is forced to adopt a Democratic platform, like Edwards had and Nader has. http://www.votenader.org/issues/
http://www.votenader.org/blog/2008/04/16/east-coast-corporate-liberal/

If all they can prove that each is uglier than the other, maybe this is not the year to elect a black who has done nothing so far, and needs to be president to get anything done at all. It is a good thing that Martin Luther King did not think that, nor did A. Phillip Randolph, Lyndon Johnson, Jack Kennedy, Harry S. Truman, Dwight Eisenhower, Hubert Humphrey, Sam Rayburn, Al Gore, and RALPH NADER, who all got a lot done without or before being president and/or honorably served this nation in the military or congress. What happened to service before reward? A. Phillip Randolph did not say, "Make me president and I will lead a 'March on Washington for Jobs'". He just did it. Martin Luther King did not ask anyone to stand aside so he could lead, he said, "Follow me." If we are going to honor Dr. Kng, let's do it by service, not demanding a reward based on the color of our skin. Dr, King never asked for color based rewards, he was against them.

Personally, I like to see midgets fighting and if they don't add up to one good candidate, more biting and scratching is not all that bad. Someone may learn a lesson. Maybe mud wrestling will wipe off some of the fake sheen.

Hillbama are a black eye to the party, and if they get real ones, so much the better.

I am voting, Edwards/Nader/Paul/ or McCain, on the assumption that he can not be as wrong as he claims today, his history is better than Hillbama's. If he moves the left an inch, he will be past Clinton.

Elections should be like hiring help, the ones that say they are not so ugly as the other don't get hired either.

Posted by: Harrison Picot | April 21, 2008 6:53 PM | Report abuse

PA Gov. Ed Rendell Hillary Clinton's Aide Endorses Farrakhan

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yCKTnJjiE5U

Posted by: Bill | April 21, 2008 6:52 PM | Report abuse

Truth Seeker said:
"Your post is very nicely written but please check your facts. Best CJ"

Thanks, but what facts do you refer to, please?

Posted by: Billw | April 21, 2008 6:51 PM | Report abuse

Look, I hope she wins in Penn State, cause I like watching her squirm. She will never get out, EVER!

Posted by: latinovoter1 | April 21, 2008 6:50 PM | Report abuse

PERFECT timing, WaPo.

Pre-election day negative piece on Hillary.

The shamelessness continues.

http://jammerbirdi.wordpress.com/

Posted by: jammerbirdi | April 21, 2008 6:49 PM | Report abuse

I was born and mostly raised in the south and reside there now. I'm the first in my family to complete the 10th grade. My dad doesn't even have a GED. I was enlisted in the Army from the age of 17 to 21. I was also a community organizer for VISTA. Then I went to Yale Law. I would swallow arsenic before voting for Hillary Clinton. She's a politician in the worst sense of the word. Even if she wasn't, I'm opposed to having an oligarchic presidency. If she is nominated, I will write in none of the above.

Posted by: YLS Redneck Woman | April 21, 2008 6:48 PM | Report abuse


Hi there
I am from Switzerland... although I am not American hater; but after 2003; after the start of the Irak war decided not to visit USA... or not to buy any US products...
This is not the mind set of one person; try to talk to people out side US ...

America is a great country, the land of opportunity; and the land which has the potential to bring the whole world together as a single democratic nation ...
Since couple of decades you have presidents who lie for their cause... who were/are selfish... real politicians than humans...

See how bad the US economy is, see how the people are suffering in the war zones, see how other people from other nations think about America...
Its really sad; how a nation could fall this much down; because of the politicians and their selfish policies ....

What makes a good president?? Did you ever had a second thought???
- is your new presindent young and energetic to bring the whole world together..
- is your new presindent can think logically and judge the things in the right way and time
- is your new presindent is wise enough to create a dream team around with best people for their job
- is your new presindent is a human than politician

Actually you people need a change!

PA vote smart you can change the world!!

Posted by: swissfish | April 21, 2008 6:44 PM | Report abuse

"Clinton Will Win Pennsylvania" / DemocraticSPACE / Apr 21, 2008

"There's little doubt that Hillary Clinton will win Pennsylvania. The question is by how much? Cutting right to the chase, I think Pennsylvania is going to look a lot like Ohio. Factoring in the polling margin of error, Clinton could win by anywhere from 7 to 12 points, but a margin of victory of roughly 9-10 points is the most probable outcome (our projections give Clinton 54.0% and Obama 44.3%). This suggests that Clinton will win 85-88 delegates and Obama will win 70-73 delegates (thus Clinton could gain 12-18 delegates on Obama -- making only a small dent in Obama's current 140-delegate lead)"

See full article at:
http://democraticSPACE.com/blog/2008/04/clinton-will-win-pennsylvania/

Posted by: DemocraticSPACE | April 21, 2008 6:44 PM | Report abuse

What empty threats from the Reagan Republicans, to run off and vote for McCain if Obama is nominated.

Listen, blowhards, the national matchup polls all PROVE that Obama is more electable against McCain than Clinton. In fact the latest one shows Obama winning but Hillary losing. Everybody knows this. So your threats mean nothing. Even if you do bugger off and vote Republican over Obama, the numbers prove that two others will take your place.

Secondly, and crucially, you Reagan Democrats ALWAYS find some last-minute excuse to run off and vote Republican. If it's not Obama, it's Kerry, if it's not Kerry, it's Gore. You always betray the Democratic party come election time anyway.

Just bugger off and vote GOP like you always do.

Posted by: Empty threats | April 21, 2008 6:41 PM | Report abuse

It's sickening that so many have been duped by Hillary into demonizing Obama. I'll say this much if sleeping with the President qualifies someone to be a President, then Monica Lewinsky shud be Sec of the Interior or something.

Posted by: The Oracle | April 21, 2008 6:39 PM | Report abuse

"Clinton won NY and California- does anyone think that either of those states figure as likely to vote Republican in the fall?"

If McCain selects Bloomberg as his running mate, they will beat Obama in NY at least.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 21, 2008 6:39 PM | Report abuse

AP is saying she's trying to sell herself as tough before the PA vote.

Tough as in someone who fabricated a story about running from sniper fire?

Or tough like a former Vietnamese POW?

Or tough like like the strong, courageous feminist she is, who divorced her philandering husband and struck out in politics on her own?

Posted by: Angry Liberaltarian | April 21, 2008 6:37 PM | Report abuse

Last time I checked, it appeared neither candidate was going to have enough of the electorate to synch the nomination. It appears we have TWO strong, supported, and backed candidates. It amazes me that people can continue to deny the strength of either Democratic hopeful.

Posted by: Number Check | April 21, 2008 6:37 PM | Report abuse

Clinton doesn't have an image problem, she has a reality problem.

Now, let me comment on the Texas vote since I'm a Texan. The primary vote was to some extent influenced by vote "fraud," especially in areas where the boss system is alive and well. By "fraud" I mean using absentee ballots sent to dependent (very old people, people who cannot read English) people who are "helped" with their vote. The primary vote was also influenced by the "Rush vote," right-wing spoilers. Absent those two factors the primary vote was probably (who knows?) very close. The caucus system rewarded the real active Democrats who are essential to the well-being of the Party. I think it is a good system. If you want the Party to allow its nominee to be determined by the Rush vote, the corrupt vote and the sorts of people who prefer drinking to going to a caucus, perhaps you prefer a primary state. In Texas if you have a winner-take-all primary, there will be areas of the state where there will be more votes cast than there are voters.

Posted by: rusty 3 | April 21, 2008 6:35 PM | Report abuse

I simply don't get the logic which says that because candidate A won a state in a primary, it is proof that opponent candidate B cannot win it in the general election. Yes, Clinton won NY and California- does anyone think that either of those states figure as likely to vote Republican in the fall? There are obviously equivalent examples of states Obama won, but which are likely to go Republican in thefall. For that matter, I bet McCain wins some states in the fall which he lost in the primary. So what?

Can we get past the repetition of at least the transparent spin, from all sides? Idiotic spin such as this should be exposed in news articles, not simply parroted as one point of view.

Posted by: whatamImissing? | April 21, 2008 6:34 PM | Report abuse

Lol. It seems like a couple of Hill posters on here are in a tiff. Must smell defeat on the horizon......

Posted by: The Oracle | April 21, 2008 6:33 PM | Report abuse

alance:

I've heard that Karl Rove has a machine that can cause hurricanes ; )

Posted by: Anonymous | April 21, 2008 6:31 PM | Report abuse

What I simply cannot stomach is the greed and arrogance of this woman - she is so convinced that she has an absolute right to be in the White House that she will do anything to get there. Obama offers a total change to the Washington scene - a fresh face with new ideas and no dirty laundry. Clinton just offers more of the same plus Slick Willy back in control. Meanwhile McCain is looking better and better. At this rate Clinton will ensure he gets elected.

Posted by: yelnat snaves | April 21, 2008 6:30 PM | Report abuse

This article is both brilliant and prescient.

Prof. Balz wins then analysis award today.

Posted by: JaxMax | April 21, 2008 6:29 PM | Report abuse

The economy runs in cycles, just like the weather, and there is not a great deal any president can do about it, just like there is not much we can do about the weather.

A president can try to establish priorities, but he still needs congressional approval.

What a president can do is to make the public feel better about themselves. Carter is a perfect example of how a president can screw up and make Americans feel guilty and not proud to be Americans. He is still at it, meeting with our enemies and telling them how bad we are. BTW, Obama won the endorsement of Hamas, today. Thank you, President Carter. Good job! There is no fool like an old fool, and Carter is a perfect example. Of course, he has had dementia for over 40 years.

Posted by: alance | April 21, 2008 6:28 PM | Report abuse

Hillary is gonna lose, and in all honesty I don't think BO will win Penn. But I think he will surprise most. But, I just hope we all remember whats at stake and vote Dem in '08.

Posted by: The Oracle | April 21, 2008 6:26 PM | Report abuse

Obama said all three candidates are better than George Bush. Hillary accuses him of praising McCain. She's really fishing for straws. If it was praise, it was faint at best. Was he damning McCain with faint praise?

Posted by: msmart2 | April 21, 2008 6:26 PM | Report abuse

Hillary's Bumper Car Campaign

Hillary's campaign is like the bumper cars at the fair. When someone runs into someone else the cars keep ramming over and over.

When Hillary screws up, the bumper car mentality takes over, and she makes the same mistakes repeatedly. She does NOT learn from her character defects. At least Bubba knew not to lie about anything on video.

Here is the bumper car response:

1. First, I can not tell a lie.

If I said it, it is not only true, but brilliant.

This lasts until video is found proving she lied.

2. Then, I made a mistake,(not a sin) I mispoke, I mean everyone sometimes gets confused about whether they had to dodge snipers.

Try to find a way to blame the staff if possible.(I was overbooked by staff)

Heres where Bubba eats Shrillary's lunch, he bites his lip, says "I should have never raised your taxes, or I never had sex with that woman...etc" Hillary is genetically incapable of admitting any error at any time over anything.

3. My enemies are just out to get me.

4. Everyone lies, why pick on me you sexist pigs?

5. Its old news, shut up already. Move on.

Posted by: JaxMax | April 21, 2008 6:24 PM | Report abuse

P.S. did I miss Obama's announcement as to his VP and Secretary of State?

Posted by: Anonymous | April 21, 2008 6:24 PM | Report abuse

Truth Seeker:

I was banned at TPM as well ...

Posted by: Anonymous | April 21, 2008 6:23 PM | Report abuse

Hillary is a tough nosed fighter.

Hillary was supposed to be sent packing in early March.

But despite the conventional wisdom, here she is, 6 weeks later, taking it to the opposition.

In these tough times, we need a strong politician who can take hits, face what the nation called certain defeat (as shown in March), win and march on.

Someone who can continue to fight through remaining contests although she is outspent by millions by her opponent.

Hillary will fight, and never quit, to bring the necessary results needed in Washington.

Posted by: Comment | April 21, 2008 6:21 PM | Report abuse

Here is the link:


http://www.slate.com/id/2189485

Kudos to John Dickerson!!!

Posted by: Truth Seeker | April 21, 2008 6:08 PM
-------------------------------
Excellent, this is what the media has been ignoring about Obama the whole campaign. Thanks for sharing this.

Posted by: Danielle | April 21, 2008 6:19 PM | Report abuse

Sorry Dan...you didn't remove my Macaca post.

My bad. I am getting paranoid. As I am no longer allowed to post on TPM and Huffington Post. Sorry.

Posted by: Truth Seeker | April 21, 2008 6:18 PM | Report abuse

If Obama wins Rev Wright will be his VP choice and Minister Farakan his secretary of state. Is that what you Obama supporters want?

Posted by: Anonymous | April 21, 2008 6:16 PM | Report abuse

The Tuzla fabrication, coming as it did right on the heels of the first rough patch for Obama, is what sunk the Clinton campaign. It took doubts about Obama and replaced them with absolute knowledge of Hillary's tenuous contact with the truth.

Posted by: Ed | April 21, 2008 6:15 PM | Report abuse

Dan,

Did you remove my post about Senator Obama's MACACA momemts?

SHAME ON YOU.

http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news/politics/blog/2008/04/obama_fingers_a_gotcha_debate.html
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/04/obamaflipsoffcl.html
Everyone...read this quick.

Posted by: Truth Seeker | April 21, 2008 6:14 PM | Report abuse

Good point, Danielle. The general election will be ALL secret ballot.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 21, 2008 6:12 PM | Report abuse

Obama doesnt even represent the common American black male. He's an elitist educated in a prestigious school earning a huge amount of money.

Posted by: LES | April 21, 2008 6:11 PM | Report abuse

In the past few weeks I've asked hundreds of friends and neighbors to tell me the actual details of what Obama's ideas about change are - and not a single one could. He talks in so many glowing terms, but it's all empty, "speechy" rhetoric; he won't take questions at his rallies, he lied about his comments regarding wearing the American flag pin and other things; and he is in too big a hurry to be President. Hillary Clinton is a worthy individual who has been constantly maligned by the media (who are running this election for their own benefit); blogs and sites such as this; and the press. She deserves to be President; she's the strongest, smartest and most qualified candidate and I don't blame her one bit for holding out until the convention. In all my life I never heard so much attention placed on the primaries. I remember several times not knowing who the candidate was until the convention, so everybody needs to just get over it. She is a winner all around.

Posted by: Russ Bralley | April 21, 2008 6:09 PM | Report abuse

Because Mirth, at 5:55 PM tried to completely discount the electibility argument: "PLEASE no more of this 'Obama can't win the big states' nonsense. Compare the total delegates won in Texas; Obama has more. More delegates means OBAMA WON TEXAS. I've heard that's a big state. Obama won it. Beware of distractions and spin."
----------------------

There will be no caucuses in the General Election. Hillary won Texas when it was the primary part where people went in and voted behind the curtain, caucues allow people to be ullied to pick a certain candidate with intimadation and also cut out a lot of people who have families or work and can't stay at them for extended periods of time.

Posted by: Danielle | April 21, 2008 6:08 PM | Report abuse

By the way Dan,

You might want to follow John Dickerson's example. He is a sometime pundit on the McLaughlin Group and is a columnist for Slate.

In the past, John has been very complimentary of Senator Obama. But, nevertheless, he has given a very honest picture of Senator Obama and the disconnect between his public pronouncements and his private actions. Read the middle part of John's "traveling the rails" column about what Senator Obama said in his speeches on the train and what he was pushing to the super delegates in his conference.

Here is the link:

http://www.slate.com/id/2189485

Kudos to John Dickerson!!!

Posted by: Truth Seeker | April 21, 2008 6:08 PM | Report abuse

Clinton has reverse charisma, charisma turned inward . She's her own motive for running. This lady wants to win so badly she's willing to act Republican and to put her party at risk. I hope Chelsea has no interest in a political career, for her parents sold the political farm to feed their narcissism.

Posted by: Philly | April 21, 2008 6:08 PM | Report abuse

It was a simple question, which Mirth has so far declined to answer. It also dovetails with Bill Clinton's argument: "If we were under the Republican system -- which is more like the Electoral College --she'd have a 300-delegate lead. McCain is already the nominee because they chose a system to produce that result, and we don't have a nominee here, because the Democrats chose a system that prevents that result."

Posted by: Anonymous | April 21, 2008 6:07 PM | Report abuse

Has little experience. Who is he, really?
Refuses to fully answer hard questions.
Questionable associations. Campaigns with slogans, but no substance. Top backers tell insiders not to be concerned about his campaign promises. It's just political talk. Looks down on working class.
Whimp in debates. Won't look Clinton in the eye, then
attacks with TV commercials.
Can't win big states in head-to-head campaigns.
Appears programed. Scripted. Barrows soaring words without attribution.
Backed by establishment hacks and bitter political losers.

Posted by: Bill | April 21, 2008 6:05 PM | Report abuse

Because Mirth, at 5:55 PM tried to completely discount the electibility argument: "PLEASE no more of this 'Obama can't win the big states' nonsense. Compare the total delegates won in Texas; Obama has more. More delegates means OBAMA WON TEXAS. I've heard that's a big state. Obama won it. Beware of distractions and spin."

Posted by: Anonymous | April 21, 2008 6:05 PM | Report abuse

For the Obama supporters: Why did Rush Limbaugh and other right wings talking heads "ordered" their listeners to vote for Obama.
Don't you think this is one the talking points that Karl Rove has been working behind the scene since going underground? Haven't you heard stories of right wing nuts in Texas saying that McCain was in the bag as the nominee, that they voted for Obama just to keep Hillary at bay because they are scared that they will make Bush and Co. pay for their actions and crimes? To think that these right wing nuts will vote for Obama in the general election is idiotic and self destructive. If you take all those bait and switch Republican pseudo-turned Democrats out of the equation, I don't think Obama would have the majority of the popular vote. This was all staged by Karl Rove. Wake up people, before it's too late. Vote for Hillary and she will bring those neo-cons to justice.

Posted by: Paul from Mercer Island | April 21, 2008 6:05 PM | Report abuse

"You do know that Texas is a winner-take-all State in the Electoral College, right?"

What does this fact have to do with counting delegates for a party convention?

Posted by: Anonymous | April 21, 2008 6:03 PM | Report abuse

When Hillary gets to the whitehouse Bill will be the shadow president and things will be back to the good old days when Bill was the man.

Vote Billary or don't vote at all!

Posted by: Anonymous | April 21, 2008 6:02 PM | Report abuse

Oh, O.K., LES -- what happened to her HUGE financial disadvantage -- now it's just a $45 million advantage to him?

Posted by: Anonymous | April 21, 2008 6:01 PM | Report abuse

"Face it Obama has had too easy of a ride and yet with all his advantages this elitist still cant win a big state even with a $45 million financial advantage."
Yup, 'cos there are lots of racists out there who invoke his middle name Hussein to stoke fear and loathing among the similarly ignorant and xenophobic. Sad to think that some of these people are supposed Democrats. Even sadder to think that Hillary is stoking the same fears of ignorance, divisiveness and blind hatred.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 21, 2008 6:00 PM | Report abuse

Dan,

You are obviously in the tank for Senator Obama aka Senator Finger.

Unless you have been out of the world, you must know about Senator Finger's Macaca moments in two speeches given at two separate venues. Just in case, I have included the links for your education.

http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news/politics/blog/2008/04/obama_fingers_a_gotcha_debate.html
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/04/obamaflipsoffcl.html

That disgusting behavior alone has cost him the election if not the nomination.


In additon to the famous 45 minutes of tough personal questions directed at Senator Obama, he bombed in the second half as well. His answers were very amateurish and have been widely criticized in the press. As in all the other debates, Senator Clinton handled the tough personal questions well and excelled in the policy questions.

Comeon Dan! Get real.

Posted by: Truth Seeker | April 21, 2008 6:00 PM | Report abuse

Mirth:

You do know that Texas is a winner-take-all State in the Electoral College, right?

Posted by: Anonymous | April 21, 2008 5:59 PM | Report abuse

"Especially don't forget that all bets are off at the convention after the first ballot."

Absolutely correct. But we are still talking about first ballot. If there is a second, I doubt either of these two will be the nominee.

Posted by: Mirth | April 21, 2008 5:59 PM | Report abuse

run a google search under "Hillary Clinton, uncensored"...or youtube.com w/ the same search criteria...check out the video that details her involvement w/ campaign financier, Peter Paul...pretty shocking stuff...this woman has more bones in her closet than a cemetary...if she wins it will be through deceit, lying and corruption...I pray that doesn't happen!

Posted by: egw | April 21, 2008 5:57 PM | Report abuse

Whomever wins, the repubs need to get an independent involved to split the vote and ensure bushie V3.0

Posted by: theantibush | April 21, 2008 5:56 PM | Report abuse

Here's an interesting article about why Black America needs Tavis Smiley more than Barack Obama right now.

http://sethandray.wordpress.com/

Posted by: Ray | April 21, 2008 5:56 PM | Report abuse

Interesting that im being called a racist troll...Face it Obama has had too easy of a ride and yet with all his advantages this elitist still cant win a big state even with a $45 million financial advantage.

Posted by: LES | April 21, 2008 5:56 PM | Report abuse

C:

Did you see Edwards on "The Colbert Report" last week?

Posted by: Anonymous | April 21, 2008 5:55 PM | Report abuse

PLEASE no more of this "Obama can't win the big states" nonsense. Compare the total delegates won in Texas; Obama has more. More delegates means OBAMA WON TEXAS. I've heard that's a big state. Obama won it. Beware of distractions and spin.

Posted by: Mirth | April 21, 2008 5:55 PM | Report abuse

Mirth:

Especially don't forget that all bets are off at the convention after the first ballot.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 21, 2008 5:54 PM | Report abuse

You guys do not give this woman credit for anything. Whether she wins or loses, she can't win.

Posted by: sheralyn
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

He can't either. The super delegates could boycott and then the convention could pick some one else who could really get elected.

I'm for that. At this point I don't think either can beat McCain. I know from my standpoint I could never vote for Obama. I could vote for Al Gore.

I could never vote for someone who put himself above the fray and then helped start the negativity in the campaign. Up until the MSNBC debate there was no negative campaigning. I was an Edwards up until then. I left him because he helped start the negativity.

Posted by: C | April 21, 2008 5:53 PM | Report abuse

We already have one say anything, do anything liar in the White House. I don't think we need another.

Posted by: x32792 | April 21, 2008 5:53 PM | Report abuse

Furthermore, "winning" the popular vote matters for perception, of course, but keep your eye on the DELEGATES. Whatever percentage either candidate wins or loses by in the overall popular vote does NOT alter the delegate counts. Enjoy the game, but don't forget the score.

Posted by: Mirth | April 21, 2008 5:51 PM | Report abuse

Dear For Chief and BillW:

Michelle Obama was also on the Walmart Board and has quit because of their union stance.

Senator Clinton also WAS on the Walmart Board.

Your post is very nicely written but please check your facts. Best CJ

Posted by: Truth Seeker | April 21, 2008 5:51 PM | Report abuse

New poll favors Clinton

A Quinnipiac University poll taken before tomorrow's primary in Pennsylvania shows Hillary Clinton with a 7-point lead over Barack Obama in the state, nearly identical to her margin in the previous two polls the school has conducted.

Obama: 'Why can't I just eat my waffle?'

Posted by: robin | April 21, 2008 5:51 PM | Report abuse

Mev:

Have you heard about Operation CHAOS?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rush_Limbaugh#Operation_Chaos

Posted by: Anonymous | April 21, 2008 5:50 PM | Report abuse

Hillary says and does whatever is politically expediant at th emoment.

She supported the war on Iraq and then distanced herself.

She supported her husbands NAFTA and then distanced herself.

She is known as a Punjabi Senator because of the number of H1Bs she gave away to India.

She does whatever Israel first group wants her to do, voting to outlaw Irans revolutionary guards.

This woman is a liar and would have really loved to tell us tall tales if the Bosnia visit had even been even closer to what really happened.

This woman pardoned her husband for his infidelity bvecause she always had an eye on a whitehouse run.

Hillary is a professional politician who will say or do anything to get elected. She will do nothing to change anything.

She wont even get elected, Democrats like me wont vote her in as I truly believe she is dangerous to this nations best interests, and would ratehr have a one term McCain when Obama can try again.

Posted by: mildbrew | April 21, 2008 5:50 PM | Report abuse

"I would rather have someone stupid, than a devious, sneaky intellectual."
And what has Hillary done to make you think she's a straight shooter? She can run rings around Obama when it comes to devious and sneaky!
And if you'd rather have stupidity, you must have been in seventh heaven the past 8 years with GWB in the White House!

Posted by: Anonymous | April 21, 2008 5:50 PM | Report abuse

For Chief and BillW:

For me, if Clinton steals the nomination, my vote goes from her to McCain. So threats to vote for McCain in spite can work both ways.

Obama or McCain 2008

Posted by: Anonymous | April 21, 2008 5:48 PM | Report abuse

Let's see, A Barry Goldwater Republican running a campaign like a Republican, Proporting that a Republican is more ready than another Democratic candidate on day one. Endorsed by Richard Mellonscape the founder of the vast Right Wing conspiracy. Remember the Walmart problems? Hillary Clinton was on the board. Yeah she ready on day one to stick it to us!

Posted by: Martin | April 21, 2008 5:47 PM | Report abuse

Obama will when all the states he needs in the general election. Registered democrats drastically outnumber Republicans in most states, sometimes 3 to 1.

Posted by: Mev | April 21, 2008 5:46 PM | Report abuse

Wow, reading the racist diatribes from supposed Hillary supporters like LES and ruleitang just is profoundly depressing. I'm hoping these are just trolls stirring up trouble. If these truly are fellow Democrats who are spewing all this hatred and venom, we are all in a heap of trouble.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 21, 2008 5:46 PM | Report abuse

I just don't understand how can people still support a hypocrite like Clinton who is willing to do anything to get the nomination. She lied multiple times, she has flip flopped on issues, has a murky past and shady relationships and completely dishonest. How can you trust anything that she says? Obama at least gets the benefit of doubt.

Posted by: VC, MD | April 21, 2008 5:46 PM | Report abuse

LES:

What "huge money disadvantage"? Including March '08, she raised almost $190 million compared to just under $235 million for Obama. Are you saying $190 million is not enough money?

Posted by: Anonymous | April 21, 2008 5:45 PM | Report abuse

20 Jan 09
The Capital steps
President OBama's Inauguration
The Rev. Wright finishes his invocation and sits down next to his "Man of the Year" Rev. Farrakhan

Posted by: Just say NO | April 21, 2008 5:42 PM | Report abuse

Bosnia was stupid , stupid, any way you look at it. I have no idea why she said it. Same way with Obama and his pastor, stupid, stupid, to keep him around. Why do candidate do these stupid things. They always have. Just like Obama giving Hillary the finger. Stupid, stupid, John M

I still can't vote for Obama under any circumstances. He and Edwards got this negative campaigning going in the MSNBC debate. Edwards got his just dues. Obama is still owed his.

When you promise to be above the fray and then start the negative campaigning you word is useless.

Folks this is a lot worse than lying about Bosnia. Lying about Bosnia is stupid Breaking your word and still saying you are above the fray is devious and sneaky. I would rather have someone stupid, than a devious, sneaky intellectual.

Posted by: Chief | April 21, 2008 5:41 PM | Report abuse

Please do not forget wrote:
"Hillary has Bill to fall back on. What does Obama have, Michelle? "

Arghh.. Birds of a feather sleep together.

Clinton or McCain 2008

Posted by: Billw | April 21, 2008 5:40 PM | Report abuse

Obama will when all the states he needs in the general election. Registered democrats drastically outnumber Republicans in most states, sometimes 3 to 1.

Posted by: Mev | April 21, 2008 5:40 PM | Report abuse

Michigan and Florida must be heard. That will put Hillary over the top! Yes hurraaaayyy!!!

Posted by: Anonymous | April 21, 2008 5:40 PM | Report abuse

Bush rap*d McCain because of his adopted daughter from Bangladesh.
HRC does similar things to Obama.

I do not see much difference. Are we still democrats??

Posted by: Concerned Democrat | April 21, 2008 5:39 PM | Report abuse

Democratic are usually not very smart

the primary format is not quite understandable, the loud blacks usually get their wish, this is very evident in the Texas primary and so called caucus???

why not adopt the general election format,

this is very sad story, if Obama failed the general election.

all those loud so called activists is just overload their wishes to other people

Posted by: ruleitang | April 21, 2008 5:36 PM | Report abuse

It's funny how the media paints this doom and gloom picture for Hussein Obama and yet Hillary still leads in PA and possibly Indiana. So, the important thing is votes. She has made some bad campaign missteps and yet despite the huge money disadvantage she's still close, which goes to show that Obama is NOT the formidable candidate the media makes him to be.

Posted by: LES | April 21, 2008 5:36 PM | Report abuse

Democrats,

Please do not forget.
We will not vote for Obama if he's the nominee.

We're not going to trust someone as green as him with the Presidency.

Hillary has Bill to fall back on.

What does Obama have, Michelle?

Sorry, that doesn't cut it.

If Obama's the nominee, McCain's the President, and it's the Democratic Party's own fault!!!

Posted by: Please do not forget | April 21, 2008 5:35 PM | Report abuse

So if Hillary managed to cheat and steal the nomination from Obama you figure that African American would vote for her in the 90th percentile? So if Hillary successfully cheats the dems hand the Presidency to McCain.

Posted by: carl | April 21, 2008 5:34 PM | Report abuse

Obama and Hillary voted the same on almost every issue, they are both Democrats. Obama has never done anything radical while he has been in the Senate for 3 years. He voted to keep funding the war along with all the other Democrats. He isn't going to change politics, the last time I looked any bill still has to get passed by a majority vote. Obama isn't new to politics or Washington. Look at what he has done for IL, see anything outstanding about the state?? They still have every problem the rest of the country does. I think Obama will need every vote he can get come November and that probably includes Hillary Clintons and all her supporters. Obama supporters need to stop hating other Democrats and focus on whats really important.

Posted by: Jann | April 21, 2008 5:32 PM | Report abuse

Hey JackSmith:
Your claim that Bill Clinton went to war and didn't lose a life is totally ridiculous. Go look up major events from 1993.

And to give credit to Clinton for the growth of the Internet economy should also require that you give him credit for the market "correction" that followed. Oh and you are probably one that loved the term .. the "greed of the 80s". That decade has nothing on the greed of the 90s.

You have exposed yourself as a dope -- oh and you might -- err scratch that -- you are an idiot.

Posted by: Postsux239 | April 21, 2008 5:32 PM | Report abuse

Liked by patriots on both sides
Hard working
Ignites interest in politics
Brings in new voters
Risen from difficult background
Strong faith
Listens
Answers honestly
Independent of DC influences
Does not feel entitled
Campaigns in all states
Congratulates opponent when he loses
Does not dump people to look clean

Just a few....

Posted by: Obama is just superior | April 21, 2008 5:31 PM | Report abuse

You're welcome (math does, and will, matter ; )

Posted by: Anonymous | April 21, 2008 5:30 PM | Report abuse

No, feastorafamine, we don't agree that President Bush is "undeniably a moron and a failre [sic]". Count me among the 20% of people out there, I guess. That being said, all bets are off at a brokered convention. If this nomination gets to a third ballot, you'd better believe that delegates are going to be looking at anything and everything, including who won the total POPULAR vote.

Posted by: | April 21, 2008 5:17 PM

----------------------
OHHHH i see now. It all makes sense. You are part of the 20% that still supports Bush/ Enuff said. Math doesnt matter in that case. Thanks for clarifying, oh and for corecting the typo.

Posted by: feastorafamine | April 21, 2008 5:26 PM | Report abuse

Concerned Democrat:

Did you mean to post that over here instead?

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/04/21/clinton_challenges_obamas_read.html#comments

Posted by: Anonymous | April 21, 2008 5:25 PM | Report abuse

ALL CANDIDATES signed the Florida/Michigan issue. Why did Hillary SIGN????
_______________________________________
We'll just have the rich and well-educated elites coronate our king.

Posted by: Sean | April 21, 2008 5:20 PM

Posted by: Independent | April 21, 2008 5:25 PM | Report abuse

are trying to sell you ba ba black sheep


get a clue...


they can lead this one to slaughter...

he's already signed on...

he's using their spin as his own...

dishonesty ????


let's ask Michele in about 2 and a half minutes...


.

Posted by: the republicans | April 21, 2008 5:23 PM | Report abuse

Bill,


It would be nuts to nominate him.

His only qualifications are that he's Black, young, tall, and can read a teleprompter.

He's qualified to be in a day-time soap opera, that's all.

The only reasons to nominate him are sexism, racisim, and ageism.

Not one of them is a valid reason to nominate anyone over other people that are far more qualified.


Posted by: Obama's qualifications | April 21, 2008 5:22 PM | Report abuse

A guy at NY Times
It is astonishing that any Democrat, even a Hillary supporter, would not be repulsed by a commercial that uses images of Osama bin Laden, Castro, and Pearl Harbor to incite fear in voters.

Hillary's ad is as guilty of right wing fear-mongering as any Republican ad that I have ever seen. She seems to have completely forgotten which side she is supposed to be on.

Posted by: Concerned Democrat | April 21, 2008 5:22 PM | Report abuse

Once before, I pointed out that the headline writer of the WP must be a comedian. Today, missteps weakend Clinton. How long is the Media going to milk the Bosnia story? Strangely enough, Obama's mispoken words, are completely ignored by the media and when two brave and decent journalists, Gibson and Stephanopoulos dared to ask some explanations about Obama's so called mispoken words, the entire media turned against their own. It is pathetic that these people call themselves journalists. You want to hear a journalist, talk to Bill Moyers, Leila Fadel, Bagdad Beuareu chief, Amampour, Rose,Dowd, to mention a few. These are the true journalists not the present clowns like Brooks, Kristol, Beinhart, Krauthheimer, Ignatius, Marcus etc.

Posted by: Stelios | April 21, 2008 5:21 PM | Report abuse

the Washington Post is home of cowardice...


the place where bullies come to be heard...

BJ's at the whitehouse on our tax dollar

and this crap about O ba ba man and Kosovo ???

yeah


Dan, you are a coward....

what's with that?

afraid of losing your job if people find out


you don't have any????

you certainly are a sensitive person for a liar...

what's with that ????


no balz????


yeah.


you are a whiner and a sellout


.

Posted by: let's be honest here... | April 21, 2008 5:20 PM | Report abuse

Only the media can find a way in which a candidate can win repeatedly in big states at a huge disadvantage cash-wise and against a media onslaught and call it losing. Clinton actually wins elections and insists on holding elections, even if it its expensive and messy. Every actual vote should count. Instead Obama is very comfortable with his "big" wins in caucuses that overwhelmingly disenfranchise the working class and poor and favor the elite. Caucuses, which I may add, have a fraction...fraction of the turnout of actual elections. Further, he thinks it's too difficult to actually hold elections in in two states that make up nearly 10% of the total US population. Only the media could come to conclusions that despite being more well-financed than any candidate in history, Obama has won fewer states than any Democrat in modern history. If he "wins" the nomination he will have done so with the least support of any candidate since 68, if not worse. Granted, the same would be true for Clinton, but why is this issue reported as if its only a problem for her? Does Obama not really need to win elections to be a "winner?" If so then why the heck should we call this a democracy? We'll just have the rich and well-educated elites coronate our king.

Posted by: Sean | April 21, 2008 5:20 PM | Report abuse

SD voted for Hillary before elections!!!
Who exactly is destroying the party.


________________________________________
Posted by: Obama supporters are destroying the Democratic Party | April 21, 2008 5:12 PM

Posted by: Independent | April 21, 2008 5:19 PM | Report abuse

Oh, yes...he also doesn't say Caleefornea.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 21, 2008 5:19 PM | Report abuse

I've grown weary of ignorant and scary whites constantly bringing the "evil" Rev. Wright. If you listen to the entire sermon everyone keeps talking about, which I have, you'll find out that his theme was "Governments do change". He was actually talking about how governments over history (including the US) have changed and the progress people have made. The comments that appear to have every white person in America terrified was in reference to the basic but powerful inequities that have plagued this country from the beginning. He was "damning" the intransigence in this country's character over things like how poverty can still be rampant in this country and how we can be complict in the deaths of thousands of people (at home and abroad, yesterday and today). People need to see farther than the tips of their noses to understand what's really going on around them. Wright was pumped up for shock value and ratings. The same way the collapse of the World Trade Center was replayed hundreds of times over the following week until someone said enough and the footage loop of "Shock and Awe" in Iraq to bolster Bush's rationale for the war. Get a grip and don't be so weak minded.

Posted by: pqwot | April 21, 2008 5:19 PM | Report abuse

He's 35 and wasn't born in Austria.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 21, 2008 5:18 PM | Report abuse

No, feastorafamine, we don't agree that President Bush is "undeniably a moron and a failre [sic]". Count me among the 20% of people out there, I guess. That being said, all bets are off at a brokered convention. If this nomination gets to a third ballot, you'd better believe that delegates are going to be looking at anything and everything, including who won the total POPULAR vote.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 21, 2008 5:17 PM | Report abuse

Can anybody tell me what exactly qualifies Obama to be president of the United States?

Posted by: Bill | April 21, 2008 5:15 PM | Report abuse

Hillary is a liar!!!!!! Why are'nt more people paying attention? In order to make herself seem more qualified and more experienced she completely made up the Bonia story. The same story that she kept repeating until the video surfaced. I personaly don't want another President that I don't trust. I've already had that for the last eight years. I have a problem with someone that lies to my face and then says " you can trust me". Well I don't trust her and so she can't have my vote.

Posted by: LaMar from Virginia | April 21, 2008 5:15 PM | Report abuse

And, no one needs an "Independent" telling people to stop posting their opinions here either.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 21, 2008 5:14 PM | Report abuse

feastorafamine:

If she gets to Denver with the lead in total popular vote, she will get 2,024 delegates by the third ballot.

-----------------------------------
Third Ballot? Please I am BEGGING you. I LOVE Hillary. You are simply just choosing to ignore reality. FIRST the popular vote decides nothing. (There is no garrauntee Hillary will catch Obama in this regard anyhow) IF HIllary won all remaining contests by very large margins she would still need over 64% of the superdelegates. Not a third, a fifth, or a tenth ballot will award a nomination to the candidate WHO DOES NOT HAVE THE MOST delegates. It is possible that by the convention that Hillary would need a staggering 80% of all superdelegates to win. Now we both agree that president BUsh is undeniably a moron and a failre right? 20% of people out there are dellusional enough to think the opposite. ( He polls at nearly 80% unfavorable) Meaning? That no matter how strong a consensus there will still be a portion who cannot be swayed. Meaning? If Hillary needs 80% i doubt she would come close to getting it by default.

Posted by: feastorafamine | April 21, 2008 5:14 PM | Report abuse

Obama supporters are destroying the Democratic Party.

The superdelegates have to decide if they're willing to destroy their party just to satisfy a bunch of cult followers.

Mainstream Democrats will not vote for Obama.

We will not "close ranks to support our party"

The Obama nuts didn't support us, why should we support them?

If the Obama nuts take it over, its not our party anymore, anyway.

Posted by: Obama supporters are destroying the Democratic Party | April 21, 2008 5:12 PM | Report abuse

Ok, let see if I can get this right...I'm so undecided!

Pluses for Obama:

Smooth talker
Good fundraiser
Is tall
No experience
First name is not Saddam (sorry had to throw that in)
Is not white enough
Is not black enough
Doesn't seem to know Jesse Jackson
Doesn't seem to know Al Sharpton
Is Christian
Is going Green
Is friends with Oprah
Is not married to Bill Clinton
Has support of Bill Richardson

Minuses for Obama:

Will raise taxes
No experience
Doesn't understand economics
He smokes
Affiliation with radical religious leaders
Will not stand up to America's enemies
Has never had a real job
Middle name is Hussein (sorry had to throw that in)
Is not white enough
Is not black enough
Doesn't seem to know Jesse Jackson
Deesn't seem to know Al Sharpton
Would have to take the commander and chief job along with the Presidency
Is a liberal elitist
Is Muslim
Is friend of Dick Durbin
Looks silly in a baseball cap
Doesn't seem to know Al Gore
Wife only recently became proud to be an American
Name for his book came from Rev Wright
Cannot find Pakistan on a map

Posted by: Jaymand | April 21, 2008 5:12 PM | Report abuse

Gary:

Is it hard to imagine Obama losing NY to a McCain-Bloomberg ticket?

Posted by: Anonymous | April 21, 2008 5:12 PM | Report abuse

No one needs "Republicans" masquerading as dems. Get LOST and don't post here.

____________________________________

Posted by: Obama supporters are high if they think we're bluffing about voting for McCain | April 21, 2008 5:08 PM

Posted by: Independent | April 21, 2008 5:11 PM | Report abuse

"Obama supporters are high if they think we're bluffing about voting for McCain.

We're not bluffing.

Nominate Obama, and McCain's next president.

Our first loyalty is to our country, not our party.

If you lose us now, we may never come back."

Sure, because selling out to corporate interests (drug companies will make major moolah off the Clinton Universal Health Care Plan), or pandering to fringe groups (Christian Conservatives as McCain has done) is SO American. What was I thinking when I thought Obama cared?

Posted by: NCVoter | April 21, 2008 5:11 PM | Report abuse

Here is even more math:

If we were under the Republican system -- which is more like the Electoral College --she'd have a 300-delegate lead. McCain is already the nominee because they chose a system to produce that result, and we don't have a nominee here, because the Democrats chose a system that prevents that result.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 21, 2008 5:11 PM | Report abuse

What a silly, superficial report.

I quote the obvious from the first person who commented on this article:
"She wins in Ohio, and hopefully Pennsylvania, and SHE is "weakened"?!"
Posted by: Paul Jepsen | April 21, 2008 1:33 PM

************************

Perhap you are not following the national projections or the rapid decline nationally of the perceived trustworthiness of Mrs. Clinton. Hillary has exposed to the American public, something the Republicans have know for a decade or more -- she is a untrustworthy person who can neither admit a mistake or take ownership for her mistakes.

To Wit:

We've all heard about the "Vast Right-wing Conspiacy" -- but now it turns out that Hillary has identified a "Vast Left-wing Conspiracy" embodied by the move-on.org supporters who have invaded the caucus states and have bullied and intiminated Hillary supporters into not caucusing for her.

So, I guess the question is "Who is Left? --Right?

Hillary will have to get some polling data before she can respond to that question -- but I think that the answer is fewer supporters, fewer donors and fewer folks who will vote for someone who CAN NOT WIN the Democratic nomination.

A vote for Hillary is a vote down the rat hole. She is vitually eliminated by simple mathematics.


Posted by: Screw the Flag Pins | April 21, 2008 5:10 PM | Report abuse

Neither "Media" nor "GOP" wants Hillary to lose.

It's up to Dems.

Posted by: Independent | April 21, 2008 5:09 PM | Report abuse

Obama supporters are high if they think we're bluffing about voting for McCain.

We're not bluffing.

Nominate Obama, and McCain's next president.

Our first loyalty is to our country, not our party.

If you lose us now, we may never come back.

Posted by: Obama supporters are high if they think we're bluffing about voting for McCain | April 21, 2008 5:08 PM | Report abuse

Regardless of whether Pennsylvania "proves" that Obama "can't win big states", the question should be, "against whom?"

It's hard to imagine a Democrat losing NY, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Illinois (especially Obama!), or California. Ohio, Florida, and Texas have always been GOP-leaning.

Posted by: Gary | April 21, 2008 5:07 PM | Report abuse

let the bosnia-Sniper's finger on the nulcear trigger ? I don't think so !

Posted by: geerees | April 21, 2008 5:07 PM | Report abuse

...she's BROKE. She paid big bucks to Penn's firm for his mismanagement and is in the red. She is over a mil in the hole and she still probably has to pay her private loan back to herself.

Not good people. She has shown that she can't be trusted with money, in any form.

Posted by: yes, she's hurt | April 21, 2008 5:07 PM | Report abuse

"Thanks, lwhite3, but I'm still voting for McCain if Obama wins the nomination."

That is not surprising, as they have similar feelings on Iran and protecting Israel. Good for you, you belong with the NeoCons/Lieberman's of the world.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 21, 2008 5:06 PM | Report abuse

I am a Republican leaning independent- My choice will be Obama or McCain. Those that are borderline like me will not vote for Clinton in the general election.

Posted by: LMM | April 21, 2008 5:06 PM | Report abuse

feastorafamine:

If she gets to Denver with the lead in total popular vote, she will get 2,024 delegates by the third ballot.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 21, 2008 5:06 PM | Report abuse

1000 MORE NEEDED

the END ONE PERSON 2/3 VOTE

as it was stupidly
created

Posted by: supersized the SUPER DELEGATES | April 21, 2008 5:05 PM | Report abuse

Hey Independent,

You know what the change is. Senator Obama has "eloquently" spoke about it. You just refuse to believe. You are like the old lady (no offense), mature lady (how is that) interviewed in Pennslyvania. She said, "I just don't think he can make all the changes that he talks about." I paraphrase that but you get the jist. People don't EVEN WANT TO TRY and change the body politic of this country. Then they complain about lost wages, the cost of living (food, gas, and other necessities) and keep voting in the "experienced", known candidates that DO NOTHING for them. Come on America, when are you going to get it right? When? No, I am not naive that one man is the answer to all the ills of a nation. But, one man can be a catalyst to improving, correcting those ills. That is what I and many others believe.

Posted by: Citizen AJ | April 21, 2008 5:04 PM | Report abuse

Washington Post has this wishful thinking that Clinton will roll over and give up. The Post now post this article to help its cause.

But the Post will eat its words after tomorrow.

What Post doesn't understand is that Democrats finally come to realize that Obama can not win in November. Who want to nominate somebody who can not win?

Post has a very weak knee because they supported Bush's invation of Iraq. They think if they support Obama, they will wipe clean their guilt.

Come on, grow up.

Posted by: Gy | April 21, 2008 5:03 PM | Report abuse

Thanks, lwhite3, but I'm still voting for McCain if Obama wins the nomination.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 21, 2008 5:03 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: | April 21, 2008 4:54 PM

feastorafamine, you can ignore the comment about 94,001. The total is closer to 800,000.

------------------------------
Great Math but alas NOT the math that assures a nomination. DELEGATES are what decides. Becides AGAIN your math is fuzzy. I SOURCE things...
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/front/la-na-pennsylvania21apr21,1,843172.story

13.4 million to 12.7 million
700,000 votes difference.
See MATH/ I dont argue with the numbers. The fact is however that Hillary will not win the nomination by the popluar vote, even if she manages to catch Obama in that regard. Delegates are what gets a candidate the nomination. 2,024 to be exact.

Posted by: feastorafamine | April 21, 2008 5:03 PM | Report abuse

When Hillary signed (in INK) the FL/MI deal. She just presumed she is the next president.

Nope, she is not elitist not arrogant. Gimme a break.

Posted by: Independent | April 21, 2008 5:02 PM | Report abuse

200 MORE SUPERDELEGES
END THE
ONE PERSON
2/3 REPRESENTATION
it unamerican

Posted by: NEOCRAT NATION | April 21, 2008 5:01 PM | Report abuse

If a law was broken, unfortunately, the votes would be ignored. Again, if you are bitter about not including these numbers, be bitter at the democratic party officials who switched the dates. And be aware of someone like Clinton who decides to change the rules for her liking (and don't think that if the shoe was on the other foot that she would be screaming for a revote!!).

Posted by: Anonymous | April 21, 2008 5:01 PM | Report abuse

For those who threaten to vote Republican if their candidate didn't win the Democratic nominee: Listen, we can not afford another like the Bush administration. What a legacy to leave our children?

It's time for change from business as usual in Washington of the past 7 years. We are in the worst state of world leadership in history. The excuse of controlling government spending "Big Government" by the Republicans has made our government inept-not just smaller. The funds needed to adequately finance our government have been diverted to finance the civil war in Iraq. The welfare of America is circling the drain.
• trillion $ war cost of an invasion resulting in a civilian "illegal" war, no WMD.
• declining infrastructure: FDA, FAA, FEMA, Bridges/levees
• violation of the constitution - UN treaty violation, US privacy rights, prison abuses, etc.
• security & technology deficiencies; military drain & 911 readiness inadequate
• educational system, lacking professional US made labor force - doctors, nurses, teachers, computer technicians
• loss of US creditability & strong allies
• the ripple effect of increased "Corporate Greed" (Enron-Mortgage Crisis) in the US has caused our economy grave depression and have negatively effected other countries
• the weak U.S. dollar has caused increase food cost (inflation) around the world.

Time-out for fighting within, SAVE AMERICA IF NOT FOR YOURSELVES- THEN FOR OUR CHILDREN!

Posted by: lwhite3 | April 21, 2008 5:00 PM | Report abuse

Hillary's eye shining with a little wet, her body trembling, her mouth moving fast, she was recalling a horror event in that her only child was with her - the Bosnia Sniper. Oh, how we americans can even think we can let such a disgrace lier to be our president ? And worse then that, if you give her a benifit of doubt, she thought she was telling the truth, how can we affort to let such a psycho near the nuclear trigger ? We have Obama or Mccain and both of them at least have solid mind ! Oh, mighty God, I know I shouldn't hate but ..... Sigh .... Just tell her to go home and leave us alone, please.

Posted by: tino | April 21, 2008 5:00 PM | Report abuse

Citizen AJ:

This web site lists every head-to-head, by State:

http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Obama/Maps/Apr21.html

Posted by: Anonymous | April 21, 2008 5:00 PM | Report abuse

PETER PAUL case will put my family and friends in court. If I am the president, I should be OK. PLEASE vote for me.

Posted by: Hillary | April 21, 2008 4:59 PM | Report abuse

In states like NC (where I live) and MD (where I'm from) I have always been under the impression you could only vote in your registered party's elections. This is still true, right? Is this the case for other states? So in those races where the Republican nomination was still somewhat uncertain, you had Republicans voting for Republicans. And if I recall the timeline correctly, it was pretty well decided that McCain was the nominee for the R's maybe a month before OH and TX. Suppose now that Republicans in the remaining primaries switch affiliations to vote how they would want the election stacked up with knowledge or at least thought of who is the more polarizing political figure. Could that explain the upsurge in votes for Hillary? Just a thought.

Posted by: NCVoter | April 21, 2008 4:58 PM | Report abuse

You can "ignore" counting Florida and Michigan in November, too, but that's not such a great idea either ...

Posted by: Anonymous | April 21, 2008 4:58 PM | Report abuse

HILLARY is the Democratic Party's problem!
If this type of behavior flies in the face of the Democratic Party, the entire Party has a problem!

Hillary is not a decent honest woman!
I am all for women but women should want Hillary Clinton to represent them.
Thats bad publicity!

I am not voting for Barack Omama because he is BLACK, or a MAN. I am voting for Barack because I am intelligent enough to have my eyes open without the blinders on.

Hillary Clinton is talking about her trip to Bosnia when her husband was president. Barack just came from 4 African nations, being basically given the respect from all the PEOPLE as well as LEADERS. Even the leaders on opposing sides.

You have to have your eyes closed if you can't see who the real leader is.

Barack is the Real Leader by far!

Posted by: Vicbennettnet | April 21, 2008 4:58 PM | Report abuse

She can't manage her campaign, but we're supposed to trust her with the economy? She voted for the war but now she's opposed to it? She campaigned for NAFTA, but now she's always been against it? Hillary Clinton is not just weaker, she is not competent to be a world leader. It's time she stopped the racist attacks on Obama and accepted reality. The voters can see through her lies.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 21, 2008 4:58 PM | Report abuse

Let's be honest, Mr. Balz. Obama is where he is today because the media has given him a pass in the vetting process and are completely enamored with him! With the help of far left donors, such as Moveon, and the many commentators who have experienced tingles up their legs or arms when they hear his speeches. Now the Party is terrified not to nominate him for the reprecussions that will follow denying the first African-American (albiet his mother was white) the prize.

Posted by: Linda | April 21, 2008 4:58 PM | Report abuse

GO CHAOS
JOIN THE NEOCON NEOCRAT NATION
BOMB BOMB BOMB IRAN
DUMP DUMP DUMP U.N.
BOMB BOMB BOMB IRAN

Posted by: NEOCRAT NATION | April 21, 2008 4:57 PM | Report abuse

Obama can't win because he's black, so all of this banter is completely irrelevant. Oh did I mention that he's a Muslim? They bombed us.

If this gets through the Post's censors like the above racist comments, the newspaper should be ashamed of itself.

Posted by: Racist Joe | April 21, 2008 4:57 PM | Report abuse

Steve posts:
"Where is the news showing Hillary leading in the Gallop National Tracking Poll."

I don't know, Steve; the latest Gallup poll has Obama ahead by 7 points - http://www.gallup.com/poll/106678/Gallup-Daily-Obama-Regains-Lead-Over-Clinton-49-42.aspx.

Posted by: jk5432 | April 21, 2008 4:55 PM | Report abuse

feastorafamine, you can ignore the comment about 94,001. The total is closer to 800,000.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 21, 2008 4:54 PM | Report abuse

GO OPERATION CHAOS!!!

Posted by: Anonymous | April 21, 2008 4:54 PM | Report abuse

THANK YOU
and please send $$ more I still owe
Mark Penn or he will make sign the comlumbian trade bill if I don't pay him.
THANK YOU$$

Posted by: Hi$$ary Clinton | April 21, 2008 4:54 PM | Report abuse

Yeah, there are plenty of polls "out there" showing McCain beating Obama. I am talking about averaging 7 polls and Obama beats McCain. Go to Real Clear politics website, not just the poll that favors your candidate.

By-the-way, I don't think Senator Clinton is a bad person. I think she will make a better President, hands down than McCain. He is clueless to domestic issues. I just think Senator Obama is a better, fresher, untied to big interest choice! One thing we will get with Senator Clinton is universal health care, rather we like it or not!

Posted by: Citizen AJ | April 21, 2008 4:54 PM | Report abuse

feastorafamine:

Here's some math 94,001 > 94,000.

Once she can re-gain the total popular vote, Hillary Clinton will hang on all the way to Denver.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 21, 2008 4:53 PM | Report abuse

Is this a joke??? Come to Texas you can find > 100,000 Limbaugh-folks who voted for Hillary. They are doing the same in PA small towns..

______________________________________
I work with three people who are anti Hillary. These people voted for Obama in the Primiary simply because they do no like her. However, they are republicans who have no intention of voting for Obama in November, they just did not want her to win. Period. How many more of these people are out there giving Obama an inflated margin over Hillary? I, for one, cannot vote for "change" if I do not know what the "change" is. If she does not get the nomination, it will be the first time I vote Republican.
Posted by: Clinton Supporter | April 21, 2008 4:50 PM
__________________________________________

Posted by: Independent | April 21, 2008 4:52 PM | Report abuse

Technical glitch. Here's the finish:

Oh, right, I forgot. "She's won the big states." Well guess what? Under our constitution, ALL states count, not just the big states. Many of the big states---California, New York, Illinois, Massachusetts---will vote Democratic whoever is the nominee. A few--Florida, Ohio, Michigan, maybe Pennsylvania and New Jersey---are true battlegrounds. Current polls show Hillary doing only slightly better than Obama against McCain in Ohio, and significantly better in Florida. But Obama is actually doing better than Clinton against McCain in Michigan, and the two fare equally well in both Pennsylvania and New Jersey. But you need to look beyond the "big states." Democrats also need to win the Pacific Northwest, but Hillary is running dead even with McCain in both Washington and Oregon (total 18 electoral votes, almost equal to Ohio), while Barack has solid leads in both states. Similarly in the Upper Midwest: Barack holds comfortable leads in Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Iowa (total 27 electoral votes, same as Florida), while Hillary is barely even with McCain in Minnesota and Wisconsin and trailing badly in Iowa. Barack is much stronger than Hillary in the Mountain West, including Colorado, Nevada, and New Mexico (total 19 electoral votes, almost the same as Ohio); in fact, Hillary isn't even close to being competitive in Colorado, where Barack leads McCain. Throw in Texas (34), North Carolina (15), South Carolina (8), Virginia (13), Nebraska (5) and North Dakota (3)--all states where Obama is currently competitive and Clinton is not, most of them (apart from Texas where she was helped by a big push from Limbaugh Republicans) states where Clinton showed extreme weakeness in primaries and caucuses---and it's clear the "electability" argument actually cuts strongly in Obama's favor.

Posted by: Brad K | April 21, 2008 4:52 PM | Report abuse

Clinton Support, while I want to agree with you, I would point out that there are a number of people (take Texas) who are rep who vote for Clinton because they think (and I agree with them) that McCain will have an easier time beating Clinton than Obama. So they want Clinton to win the nomination.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 21, 2008 4:51 PM | Report abuse

FIRE ....FIRE
ON THE CLOSED FACTORY ROOF

NAFTA 94 CLINTON $$

Posted by: NEOCRAT NATION | April 21, 2008 4:50 PM | Report abuse

I work with three people who are anti Hillary. These people voted for Obama in the Primiary simply because they do no like her. However, they are republicans who have no intention of voting for Obama in November, they just did not want her to win. Period. How many more of these people are out there giving Obama an inflated margin over Hillary? I, for one, cannot vote for "change" if I do not know what the "change" is. If she does not get the nomination, it will be the first time I vote Republican.

Posted by: Clinton Supporter | April 21, 2008 4:50 PM | Report abuse

Arggh! Cut off in mid-sendtence. To continue:

Oh, right, I forgot. "She's won the big states." Well guess what? Under our constitution, ALL states count, not just the big states. Many of the big states---California, New York, Illinois, M

Posted by: Brad K | April 21, 2008 4:50 PM | Report abuse

Stuart:

There are plenty of polls out there showing McCain beating Obama head-to-head.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 21, 2008 4:49 PM | Report abuse

I am using MATH, too, feastorafamine.

Posted by: | April 21, 2008 4:45 PM

------------------------------
Really? Gimme some math. Sock it to me. I know i provided mine. And without any bias in terms of who i want to win. Are you now saying you have a better idea of the difficulty Hillary has in winning the Nomination? Are you saying you have done the math and know the difficulty involved? Or have you done the math and came up with something different than i have? If so i would LOVE to hear about it.

Posted by: feastorafamine | April 21, 2008 4:49 PM | Report abuse

"I will not vote Democratic if Senator Obama is the nominee. I cannot stomach the Wright, 9/11 comments. I assure you if that had been preached in my church and I was not there I sure would have heard about it!!!! Too many convenient stories by Senator Obama. He is a ticking time bomb and we can say hello to President McCain if Senator Obama is the nominee. Remember, all of the questionable issues came up after most to the caucus' and primaries"

OMG, you cannot talk about 9/11 that way at all. Get real, what Rev. Wright said, though over the top, is somewhat true. We are reaping our foreign policy mistakes that we've sown. Does that mean that ~3,000 US Citizens DESERVED to die? No. But, if we cannot have INTELLECTUAL conversations (i.e. more than one-sided) about 9/11 and it's causes, we are doomed to see yet another attack. It's kind of like the Hydra, you can keep cutting off as many heads as you like to have two grow back but if you don't address how they grow back, they will continue to do so in greater mass.

Posted by: NCVoter | April 21, 2008 4:49 PM | Report abuse

I was neutral on HRC at the beginning of this campaign. Since then, I have had the privilege of seeing her true colors, and they are not pretty. A mis-managed campaign, outright lies (the Bosnia story for one), arrogance (i.e., her grudgingly given explanation about the Bosnia lie, "So I made a mistake"), accusing Obama of running negative ads when she unrelentingly took the lead in this tactic. Spin spin spin.
I don't need any more politicians of her ilk.

By the way, where is the media coverage of her and her husband's upcoming subpoened testimony in the Paul v. Clinton Campaign Fraud case?

Posted by: Janet | April 21, 2008 4:49 PM | Report abuse

Hillary Clinton has had a long, depressing fall from where she was one year ago. Then, she had the money, the nepotistic connections, and the backing of the Democratic Party elite. But she has run her campaign with ineptly, and with spectacular bursts of incompetence, and that is why she is where she is now: losing to a former unknown rookie Senator from Illinois, and going broke too. She has proven to me that she is simply too incompetent to be entrusted with the Presidency. I just can't take her anymore. If she can't run her campaign well, I cannot have confidence that she will run the federal government competently either.

Posted by: FilmMD | April 21, 2008 4:48 PM | Report abuse

Minor mix-up used to MISLEAD average working class white folks

".............they "VOTE FOR" guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."

Posted by: Independent | April 21, 2008 4:48 PM | Report abuse

I have been knocking on doors for Obama in PA for the last three weeks and indeed it is striking to see the socio-economic divisions between supporters of each camps.

I can safely say that if you live in PA and are missing a lot of teeth, then chances are you're a Clinton supporter.

All of the college educated voters I spoke with were going for Obama.

I encountered many lots of hostility and many racists. One voter told us to our faces that he was a racist and wouldn't be voting for Obama.

Posted by: vbalfour | April 21, 2008 4:48 PM | Report abuse

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DXum_-8I1TA

Pennsylvania Governor Rendell Praises Farrakhan and NOI
This is the transcript of former Mayor, Ed Rendell, who is Governor of Pennsylvania and the states most influential supporter of Presidential hopeful, Hillary Rodham Clinton, This is the transcript of former Mayor, Ed Rendell, who is Governor of Pennsylvania and the states most influential supporter of Presidential hopeful, Hillary Rodham Clinton, speaking to a packed audience at Tindley Temple United Methodist Church on April 14, 1997 at rally: "A Solution Too Heal The Racial Divide." The then mayor was the principal organizer of the rally that brought together diverse religious, political, and civic Philadelphia leaders, with Nation of Islam leader, the Honorable Minister Louis Farrakhan as the keynote speaker. (more)

Posted by: moteague | April 21, 2008 4:47 PM | Report abuse

On October 2, 2002, Barack Obama's judgment told him that starting a war in Iraq would be a big mistake and he forcefully said so. Much to the contrary later that same month both Senators Hillary Clinton and John McCain voted for funds authorizing President Bush to begin the Iraq war.
When Barack Obama decided to run for president, unlike Hillary Clinton and John McCain, he made the significant decision that he would not accept campaign contributions from lobbyists, special interests, and political action committees. It was Barack Obama's judgment that it would be very much preferable for the next President of the United States to be elected by the American people without the distorting influence of the money peddlers in Washington.
Suppose the 44th President of the United States is someone who, among many other things, has refused to accept campaign contributions from special interests, political action committees, and lobbyists, but has financed his campaign solely from the contributions of people to whom he is accountable.
Furthermore, suppose this idea of raising money for political campaigns solely from the voters to whom the candidate is accountable sits so well with the American people that they come to expect that future presidential candidates as well as candidates for other offices such for the US Senate and House of Representatives will do as Barack Obama has done. What if candidates who continue to accept campaign contributions from special interests, political action committees, and lobbyists find it increasingly difficult to get elected?
That's the kind of change that Barack Obama represents which concerns so many in Washington who don't seem eager for the American people to reclaim their democracy from the influence of special interests, political action committees, and lobbyists, the Washington money peddlers who currently arrange to provide huge amounts of financial support to political candidates whom they believe have a good chance of winning, and whom they can then "work with" later on.
This election is not about whether you happen to be a woman or a man, or whether your father was a black man or a white man, an Asian or a Hispanic. This election is about the future of our country.
We are at a historic moment in America. Barack Obama is a very special candidate for president who can bring about significant changes in Washington and help ordinary Americans begin reclaiming their democracy.
Both the Governor of New Mexico, Bill Richardson, and Pennsylvania Senator Bob Casey Jr. know this and have recently endorsed Senator Barack Obama, recognizing Obama's integrity, intelligence, and the strong leadership he can provide as president.
It is time for voters in Pennsylvania and in all of the other states soon to vote in presidential primary elections to stand up and be counted. It's time for ordinary Americans to begin the process of reclaiming American democracy by voting for Barack Obama.


Posted by: William | April 21, 2008 4:47 PM | Report abuse

Brian:

Do you think that Hillary beating Obama by 717,086 votes tomorrow would be "a hollow victory" in Pennsylvania?

Posted by: Anonymous | April 21, 2008 4:47 PM | Report abuse

What would be really nice is if people would stop using the "Hillary wins the big states" argument. For the record, I support Obama.

To make the connection between two Democrats (Clinton vs. Obama) fighting for their party's nomination in any state, let alone "big battle states" as a lead in to how either candidate will fare against an opponent from the other party (i.e. McCain), is very reckless.

One would have to make outrageous assumptions about how either would actually fair versus an opponent from the other party. You just cant make the connection; different voters, different dynamic (i.e. only one gets the nomination), and a different time.

One can argue for a candidate who has more delegates and more of the popular vote.

Posted by: Stuart | April 21, 2008 4:47 PM | Report abuse

MORE FIREFIGHTING JOBS PROMISED

to help with

YOUR BURNING CLOSED FACTORIES

Clinton 08 NAFTA 94

Posted by: NEOCRAT NATION | April 21, 2008 4:47 PM | Report abuse

Anyone from staid Ohio on the line??? Someone has called you boring!!!

Posted by: Anonymous | April 21, 2008 4:46 PM | Report abuse

The Clinton campaign's argument that Obama is "unelectable" is risible. Since when does the candidate who is LOSING--as measured by popular vote, number of contests won, elected delegates, total delegates, total campaign contributions, number of contributors, any measure you choose---gets to say that the candidate who's WINNING is "unelectable"?

Granted, the Democratic Party is currently divided and each candidate has well defined strengths: young voters, African-Americans, upscale college-educated voters, independents and moderate Republicans for Barack, and older white women, working class whites, and Hispanics for Hillary. Neither represents a majority coalition. But if by that token Barack is "unelectable," then so is Hillary. Either candidate will need to heal the wounds and reassemble the Democratic coalition to win in November, but there's no reason on God's green earth to think Hillary would be in better shape than Barack to do that, especially if she wins by persuading superdelegates to overrule the expressed will of the voters---her only plausible path to the nomination.

So far it's Barack who has run the smarter, more efficient, nimbler, and more effective campaign, coming from nowhere as the longshot insurgent to overtake a lumbering Clinton campaign that started with every advantage. If one of these candidates looks "unelectable" it's Hillary Clinton who began as the preemptive favorite and is now locked in a close, must-win, do-or-die battle in Pennsylvania, just to keep her Titanic of a campaign afloat. It's hard to see how any superdelegate in their right mind could take her "electability" argument seriously when Hillary's campaign has been defined by one long series of strategic and tactical blunders, missteps, and squandered opportunities. And if this is how she runs her own campaign, I shudder to think how she'd run the country.

Oh, right, I forgot. "She's won the big states." Well guess what? Under our constitution, ALL states count, not just the big states. Many of the big states---California, New York, Illinois, M

Posted by: Brad K | April 21, 2008 4:45 PM | Report abuse

I am using MATH, too, feastorafamine.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 21, 2008 4:45 PM | Report abuse

Hillary is not an awful person. She is a skilled politician still playing the obsolete politics of the 20th Century despite the times having marched on. More and more of us are slowly awakening from the slumbering spell of the politics of fear and division. In the years since the last Clinton administration we have experienced at closer and closer levels the sufferings of our planet and our neighbors around the world. This has begun to change our experience of ourselves as individuals, as a nation and as citizens of the planet. More and more we become aware that what is happening in the world is not the fault of the Bush administration but rather the product of the 20th Century mindset.

So what would have been a tactically brilliant campaign 8 years ago now seems strangely out of step with the times. This more than any personality attribute Hillary possesses is what lies behind her dramatic free-fall, in which she only temporarily slowed the plummet by getting a favorable result in relatively staid Ohio and may slow it yet again tomorrow with a hollow victory in Pennsylvania. But it won't be enough to turn back the clock or turn out a win in the hearts and minds of the still-silent Superdelegates.

Posted by: Brian | April 21, 2008 4:45 PM | Report abuse

Fine, if you don't want to count the votes in Florida and Michigan -- just don't tell Al Gore -- she needs to beat him by 717,086 votes tomorrow to claim the lead in total POPULAR vote.

GO OPERATION CHAOS!!!

Posted by: Anonymous | April 21, 2008 4:44 PM | Report abuse

feastorafamine:

Why only 14%? Why not move the goal posts all the way to 114%?

Posted by: | April 21, 2008 4:38 PM

---------------------------
Why only 14%??? UMMMMMMM can u say again MATH? Its called MATH. See numbers are taken, added together, subtracted and you get answers, results. I have no interest in moving ANY goalpost. The goalposts are clear. 2,024 delegates needed to win the NOM. 10 states remaining, and a proportion needed by each candidate to win. THOSE are goalposts. You may not like the goalposts but they are what they are. Again Hillary would make a fine president. I have NO bias. I have math. I add and in doing so i get a better picture of the REALITY.

Posted by: feastorafamine | April 21, 2008 4:43 PM | Report abuse

PA small town "Republicans" are registering as dems and will be voting for Hillary. This will be another Texas. Limbaugh wins dems. lose.

Posted by: Independent | April 21, 2008 4:43 PM | Report abuse

Hillary Clinton is a PROVEN liar. Her Bosnia lie is but one example. She says she opposed NAFTA, but campaigned for its passage for her husband. She says she hunted as a youth only to gain favor with sportsmen. Anyone who supports Clinton has little care for the truth.

Posted by: joseph | April 21, 2008 4:43 PM | Report abuse

McCain Kennedy
cheap labor
NEOCON NEOCRAT WARS

Posted by: NEOCRAT NATION | April 21, 2008 4:42 PM | Report abuse

Hilarity Clinton was promising the Indian government increased outsourcing of jobs to India. How does that square with her telling people in Ohio and Pennsylvania that she wants to bring jobs back.
http://www.indianembassy.org/India_Review/2005/April2005.pdf
There's even a nice photo.
Perhaps her reassurances to India match her failed promises in New York.
Remember, she promised New York voters to bring back 200000.00 jobs. And she netted a LOSS of 30000.

Posted by: Phil Douglas | April 21, 2008 4:42 PM | Report abuse

Do we need mother Pinocchio in Washington?
Enjoy the show...

Posted by: SomeName | April 21, 2008 4:42 PM | Report abuse

Catherine Houston TX on April 21, 2008 at 4:17 PM: "Clinton's worst misstep was her elitist attitude toward us average folks."

FYI:

"You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."

Posted by: Anonymous | April 21, 2008 4:41 PM | Report abuse

So, Hillary's lies have come back to haunt her, have they? Mrs lie and distort to get elected may find that her hypocritical attacks on Obama are less effective than she needs them to be, and her campaign mismanagement is a good indicator of how she'll run the country if elected. It is so obvious that Obama is the better candidate. Ignore the racist screaming about electability; people are smart enough to know that they'd rather have an inexperienced Obama than a pathological liar and demogogue in Hillary Clinton. If the Party elite hadn't been trying to shove her down the throats of the voters, we might have been rid of her long ago. Time to get together behind the better candidate - Obama!

Posted by: About Time | April 21, 2008 4:41 PM | Report abuse

"Obama saw our potential and reached out to us."

He didn't have far to reach.

Clinton or McCain 2008

Posted by: Billw | April 21, 2008 4:41 PM | Report abuse

.


Vote McClinton !

Neocons for Hillary

.

Posted by: NEOCONS | April 21, 2008 4:41 PM | Report abuse

Sorry, but due to the stupidity of the democratic leaders in Mich and Fl, counting those numbers is flawed. Had they not moved their dates, all the candidates running would have campaigned in FL and Mich and I am positive Obama would have run very close to Clinton, if not out right have beaten her in one or the other.
You cannot change the rules after the fact. All candidates agreed to them and Clinton is trying to change them after the fact. Get angry at the party leaders.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 21, 2008 4:40 PM | Report abuse

IF NOT HILLARY
McCain

BOMB BOMB BOMB IRAN

NEOCON NEOCRATS UNITED against THEM

Posted by: NEOCRAT NATION | April 21, 2008 4:38 PM | Report abuse

Obama WINS and we all win.
The America that has lost it's way and standing in the world will RISE UP again.
(a win for Clinton will be the same old ... including the lying and scandals.


Obama is the future.

Posted by: Dan | April 21, 2008 4:38 PM | Report abuse

feastorafamine:

Why only 14%? Why not move the goal posts all the way to 114%?

Posted by: Anonymous | April 21, 2008 4:38 PM | Report abuse

_____________________________________
\____________________________________/
...........................................................................
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
We all need to FLOOD the internet with
details of the ((Balanced Budget Act 1997))
as to how inhumane it has been
to the suffering poor of this Nation!
...........................................................................
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
.___________________________________
/____________________________________\

Posted by: Anonymous | April 21, 2008 4:37 PM | Report abuse

Definition of weakened is that you are not as strong now as at some point in the past. Since Ohio
Double digit lead in PA, gone
Positives down to 39%
Trailing Obama and McCain in most national polls.
That would fit the definition of weakened, regardless of whether she does win in PA or not.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 21, 2008 4:37 PM | Report abuse

I can hear it now, it was because Obama spent more money, it was the manager's fault, it was the media, it was the Blacks, it was the strategist, maybe it was even Bill's fault -- but nevernevernever Hillary's.

Posted by: Bodo | April 21, 2008 4:36 PM | Report abuse

Noise, more noise!

The only numbers that matter are the Electoral College numbers. Just ask Al Gore.

The Republicants NEVER take their eyes off it. The Democrats ALWAYS let superfluous arguments and numbers distract them. I swear the have political ADHD.

Obama has not, and most likely will not, win enough states to become president, and his latest mangled words about rural Americans and his long friendships with people who appear to be America-Haters will do nothing to help.

Posted by: jmcauli1 | April 21, 2008 4:36 PM | Report abuse

P.S. yes, I am counting the voters in Florida (and Michigan) just like Al Gore did in 2000.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 21, 2008 4:36 PM | Report abuse

Bosnia,Leadership Failure 101

Posted by: rentamob | April 21, 2008 4:36 PM | Report abuse

I will not vote Democratic if Senator Obama is the nominee. I cannot stomach the Wright, 9/11 comments. I assure you if that had been preached in my church and I was not there I sure would have heard about it!!!! Too many convenient stories by Senator Obama. He is a ticking time bomb and we can say hello to President McCain if Senator Obama is the nominee. Remember, all of the questionable issues came up after most to the caucus' and primaries.

Posted by: kt | April 21, 2008 4:35 PM | Report abuse

My defintion of "most" (Superdelegates) is the tide of superdelegates endorsing one candidate or the other in the last few months. Hillarys lead in superdlegates HAS grown smaller. MOST of the superdelegates pledged over the last several months have gone to Obama. I will most certainly get back to you tommorow after Hillary wins PA by leass than 14%. Anything less then her devide grows larger. I know you dont want to hear this but short of that wide a vctory she loses ground. With each contest left she would need even larger wins by percentage. Its called math. Not my endoresemnt for Obama.
And thank you Emily for merely doing the math without judgement, in this election cycle of hatred, innuendo and anger i appreciate a level head.

Posted by: feastorafamine | April 21, 2008 4:35 PM | Report abuse

SHE IS NOT WEAK GIVE HER THE AIRFORCE
and
BOMB BOMB BOMB IRAN


NEOCRATS NEOCONS UNITED against them

Posted by: NEOCRAT NATION | April 21, 2008 4:35 PM | Report abuse

Are you telling me obama will loose California and New york to the republicans ? Ha !
And Hillary would have more chance to win the red states from republics then Obama ? Ha ! Ha ! Get real !

Posted by: lanlan | April 21, 2008 4:34 PM | Report abuse

Please monitor Bill Clinton roaming around college campuses. He is a dirty old man. Hillary is the past. The Democrats will move on with Obama.

Posted by: moteague | April 21, 2008 4:34 PM | Report abuse

Catherine Houston TX:

Perhaps you need to (re)read the article, which claimed that she's been weakened SINCE Ohio (and, therefore, SINCE all of those other States you just cut and paste): i.e. "more weakened candidate than she was on the eve of the Ohio and Texas primaries."

Posted by: Anonymous | April 21, 2008 4:33 PM | Report abuse

"If by some hook or crook way, Hillary Clinton gets the nomination, she will not be elected President."

You sound stupid. Does John "Bush Clone" McCain have some hidden, about to be released skill set we're all unaware of? If not, this liar and political coward will be mincemeat no matter WHO wins the nomination.

Why not go join the GOP with such spineless assertions? I'll vote whoever wins the Democratic nomination. So will the rest of the country.

We're sick of anti-Constitution far-right nutcases, and boy, does Temper Boy McCain fit *that* bill.

Posted by: SteveCO | April 21, 2008 4:33 PM | Report abuse

94,000 votes? You are including FL and Mich, which the rest of society does not include. If you include all the votes that count, then he is ahead by 800,000 votes. Yes, that does also include the caucasus.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 21, 2008 4:32 PM | Report abuse

HILLARY IS THE ONLY ONE THAT PROMISED
TO BOMB BOMB BOMB IRAN
IN THE DEBATE

NEOCRATS NEOCANS UNITED

Posted by: NEOCRAT NATION | April 21, 2008 4:30 PM | Report abuse

an anonymous poster wrote: "She wins in Ohio, and hopefully Pennsylvania, and SHE is "weakened"?!"

Clinton is weaken becasue she lost in the popular vote and/or delegate count in:
Iowa
Nevada
South Caroline
Alabama
Alaska
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Kansas
Minnesota
North Dakota
Utah
Louisiana
Nebraska
Washington
Virgin Islands
District of Columbia
Maine
Virgina
Wisconsin
Maryland
Texas
Vermont
Mississippi
Wyoming
and the Democrats Abroad

Posted by: Catherine Houston TX | April 21, 2008 4:30 PM | Report abuse

Politico is running with this. Hopefully, it will hit the major news.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0408/Rendell_and_Farrakhan.html#comments

Posted by: moteague | April 21, 2008 4:30 PM | Report abuse

If by some hook or crook way, Hillary Clinton gets the nomination, she will not be elected President. The young who are backing Obama will not vote. The blacks will also be disappointed and will not vote. Me being a white male, retired, and 65 yrs. old, will not vote for Clinton. I believe the American citizens have had enough of the Clinton's rhetoric and bullsh*t... I voted for Obama in the Ohio Primary and plan on voting for him in November!!! Wake up America. It's time for a change in Washington!!!

Posted by: satchnthesaint@verizon.net | April 21, 2008 4:29 PM | Report abuse

The Washington Post is losing it.

The one person who has weakened his campaign is John "I Kiss Religious Extremist Butt" McCain.

It's time the crappy media in this country begin to focus on the Bush clone trying to pretend he's a real candidate at 72 years old, someone who voted against children's health care, for every stupid aspect of the Iraqi war, and for every unConstitutional action proposed or simply taken by the criminal Bush administration.

Focus on the garbage running for president - the Republicans best shot is THIS loser? - and leave real candidates like Hillary and Barack the f--- alone.

Morons. How much is the GOP paying the Post for this slanted junk news? If McCain can't be beaten even by Howdy Doody, then elections in this country are a farce and the country an irretrievable fascist state.

Posted by: SteveCO | April 21, 2008 4:29 PM | Report abuse

Guys you have to see this.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DXum_-8I1TA

Posted by: moteague | April 21, 2008 4:28 PM | Report abuse

The AP (and, therefore, PBS) count has always been off a bit. As I said, above, as long as she beats him by at least 94,000 votes tomorrow, she will re-claim the lead in total POPULAR vote as well.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 21, 2008 4:28 PM | Report abuse

You guys do not give this woman credit for anything. Whether she wins or loses, she can't win.

Posted by: sheralyn | April 21, 2008 4:28 PM | Report abuse

If Obama drives a car off a cliff and dies, then yes, after tomorrows PA vote, Hillary will have more populate votes than Obama, unless you are including Mich and Fl, which as we all know, Hillary has tried to change the rules on after the vote.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 21, 2008 4:26 PM | Report abuse

I cannot believe that 35% of the US population is going to forgive Obama. He's winning the battle, but may lose the war. Stupid.

I don't think Hillary deserves the Presidency because of her gender, but shoving her out of the line is no way to claim your birthright.

If Mama ain't happy, nobody's happy.

Posted by: Obama Mama | April 21, 2008 4:26 PM | Report abuse

an anonymous poster wrote: "She wins in Ohio, and hopefully Pennsylvania, and SHE is "weakened"?!"

No, Clinton is not weaken becasue she won in Ohio. Clinton is weaken becasue she lost in the popular vote and/or delegate count in Iowa, Nevada, South Caroline, Alabama, Alaska, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Hawaii,Idaho, Illinois, Kansas, Minnesota, North Dakota, Utah, Louisiana, Nebraska, Washington, Virgin Islands, District of Columbia, Maine, Virgina,

Posted by: Catherine Houston TX | April 21, 2008 4:26 PM | Report abuse

Clinton uses Pearl Harbor, bin Laden images in new ad

Posted: 02:30 PM ET

Clinton is launching a new ad that includes images of Osama bin Laden

(CNN) -- With only one day left until voters in Pennsylvania head to the polls, Hillary Clinton launched a television ad there that includes images from the attacks on Pearl Harbor, the Cuban Missile Crisis, and Osama Bin Laden.

"It's the toughest job in the world," a narrator states in the 30-second spot. "You need to be ready for anything - especially now, with two wars, oil prices skyrocketing, and an economy in crisis.

"Harry Truman said it best - if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. Who do you think has what it takes?"

That comment appears to echo Clinton's recent criticisms of Obama for expressing disapproval of the ABC News debate last week during which the Illinois senator was asked several pointed questions.

"Being asked tough questions in a debate is nothing like the pressures you face inside the White House," Clinton said Friday. "In fact, when the going gets tough, you just can't walk away because we're going to have some very tough decisions that we have to make. I think we need a president who can take whatever comes your way."

Obama-loons, If I didn't know better, I'd say Hillary's calling Obama a PU$$Y..

Posted by: Anonymous | April 21, 2008 4:25 PM | Report abuse

"Yes, Senator Clinton has had missteps".
Why don't we just call a lie, a lie? Unless, of course, we are inclined to parse what the definition of is, is ;-) In which case, of course, we'll be inclined to rationalize how sleep deprivation can cause delusions...

Posted by: Anonymous | April 21, 2008 4:25 PM | Report abuse

Obama has been weakened more, in my opinion. Consider the following, much of which has recently come to light:
Obama said small town people are clinging to antipathy to people who aren't like them. You don't get to the White House by painting small town people as bigots. He won't disown his hate-filled racist pastor Wright (who married him and baptized his children, and who he says is like an uncle to him). Obamas association with shady characters like Ayers, Auchi and Rezko disqualifies him for President both judgment and character-wise. People are known by the company they keep. Wearing a flag pin during the last debate would have shown where he is coming from and put him ahead in the polls next Tuesday. Oversight? I doubt it, and so do the majority of Americans. His behavior in the last debate shows he don't want to discuss the above things. That's because past behavior is the best indicator of future behavior, and he understands that people know this. In Obama's book, Dreams of my father, Obama says: "The person who made me the proudest of all though, was Roy (his half-brother). He converted to Islam." In his book, Audacity of Hope, he says he "looked to Lolo (his stepfather) for guidance", and that Lolo followed a brand of Islam. In Dreams of my Father Obama said "In Indonesia, I had spent two years at a Muslim school" "I studied the Koran." Clearly Obama's past concerning both his judgment of associates and opinion of Muslim beliefs is unacceptable for a senator, let alone the Presidency. But he does get some support. I guess that's because the more flawed the candidate, the more their equally flawed supporters identify with them. In other words, those who support Obama are of his own ilk. Birds of a feather flock together, you know.

Clinton or McCain 2008

Posted by: Billw | April 21, 2008 4:24 PM | Report abuse

After tomorrow's vote in PA, she will also gain the lead in the total POPULAR vote too.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 21, 2008 4:24 PM | Report abuse

From above: "I would hate to have McCain spend money on the Iraq war, but I would rather have that than Obama."

And there it is America; the NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard) effect. So instead, I ask, how should we take care of the mounting debt outsourced to other countries (mind you China, of all places) to pay for our war? By all rights, as a complacent electorate accompanied by complacent politicians, we deserve the economic situation we are in. We are fine to go out and consume, consume, consume mounting both individual and governmental debt and then we just push it off on the next generation... someone is going to have to take care of it. Taxes suck, I agree, but I'd really like to know how else we are going to pay our debts off as well as still be able to provide for our citizens. We sit and help rebuild the infrastructure of Iraq while our infrastructure crumbles. I think that Bush and Cheney should HAVE to move to Iraq until everything is cleaned up; Obama or Clinton fan, I think we can ALL agree with that.

Posted by: NCVoter | April 21, 2008 4:23 PM | Report abuse

Here is the web site with the super delegates tracked. Yup, Hillary still has more, but the comments that Obama has picked up more than Hillary lately are right on.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/vote2008/primaries/superdelegates/search.php

Posted by: Anonymous | April 21, 2008 4:23 PM | Report abuse

Ha!

Obama is a worried man, he just pulled out of the scheduled debate in NC with Hillary. She beat him in Philadelphia and he's too chicken to risk getting beat again.

I mean it has been a great day for the great one. He just picked up an endorsement from Hamas.

At last, Obama's mentors are coming home to roost.

Posted by: alance | April 21, 2008 4:23 PM | Report abuse

According to NBC's count of super delegates: Obama has 236; Clinton has 262 -- a lead of 26 super delegates for Hillary Clinton.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24226233/

Posted by: Anonymous | April 21, 2008 4:23 PM | Report abuse

It's about delegates. She has no chance. Zero. She is not going to be the nominee. So the sooner her campaign folds the better.

And considering she is going more into debt every day and is incapable of raising money, it is just a matter of time.

Posted by: Brendan | April 21, 2008 4:23 PM | Report abuse

We Americans are the riches and stupidest people on earth. We are so controlled by the media and spin to the point most of you believed G Dub and the boys were not lying. The ABC debate was about the only honest assessment the media has given itself. Jerimiah Wright? How many of you would leave your soroity, gym, pokere club, job, family function, friend (get the picture?)because you may not agree with ones racial views? I know many mixed marriges where it is accepted on the outside, but inside BOTH families they bare still CRACKERS and SPADES. Get real and grow up America! Do you not think that the Clinton baggage will not come up? Does Obama have any? Probobly not as much. I hope he gets elected just to spite our stupidity (I'm a vet)and collective ignorance as a nation. WE are responsible for the last eight years. I will laugh all the way to the bank (inflation and all) when he is elected....

Posted by: walterrock | April 21, 2008 4:22 PM | Report abuse

Obama is God's bless to us. Go Home Hillary. To write a vivid fiction book about Bosnia sniper.

Posted by: geerees | April 21, 2008 4:22 PM | Report abuse

Like everyone following the primary, I am getting tired of the sniping, negativity, arguments about electability, etc.

I prefer Obama and will be voting for him in the South Dakota primary BUT I will vote for whichever is the nominee. Either would be heads and shoulders better than McCain and endless war, endless tax cuts and deficit spending, far right supreme court justices and whatever other issue is important to you.

Both Obama and Clinton will be unelectable in the Fall if we don't come together. I assume we will.

Posted by: birdman | April 21, 2008 4:22 PM | Report abuse

Yes, Senator Clinton has had missteps, which have been magnified by pro-Obama so called journalists like Balz. But she is resilient and has recovered after each one, which is a of course story never reported by the likes of WAPO pro-Obama staff. This is just more of the same stuff. Spare us. PA voters please put these chattering pro-Obama so called jouralists out of their misery.

Posted by: John | April 21, 2008 4:21 PM | Report abuse

Nancy:

Similarly, just because Obama has won some [smaller] states instead of Clinton doesn't mean he will win those over McCain.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 21, 2008 4:20 PM | Report abuse

This article is an obvious attempt to remind PA voters that Clinton is not perfect. It's a shame how the media uses its influence to affect the democratic process when what it really should be doing is reporting on it.

Posted by: someguy | April 21, 2008 4:19 PM | Report abuse

See dee for comments on Most superdelegates have recently come out for Obama.
I know there is a web site that tracks who the super delegates are and who they voted for. I guess Hillary had a decent week, however if all she does is just break even with Obama the rest of the way, well, you do the math.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 21, 2008 4:19 PM | Report abuse

What people seem to be forgetting: Obama is running against Clinton in the primaries. The argument that Obama can't win the big states is false. He has lost to Clinton -- not McCain. Some of the primaries have been skewed because Republicans have been voting in the Democratic primaries in some states and not others. Just because Obama has lost some states to Clinton doesn't mean he will lose to McCain.

Posted by: Nancy | April 21, 2008 4:18 PM | Report abuse

Catherine Houston TX:

Parhaps you missed his "elitist" comments?

Posted by: Anonymous | April 21, 2008 4:18 PM | Report abuse

You will do everything you can to destroy her. You will someday be sorry for your dishonesty Shame

Posted by: Fordson61 | April 21, 2008 4:18 PM | Report abuse

Clinton's campaign was in trouble long before the hiatus between the Texas and Pennsylvania primaries.

Clinton's worst misstep was her elitist attitude toward us average folks. As an elitist, Clinton failed to see the incredible value millions of average Americans bring to a campaign.

When the campaign season began, Clinton was the "presumptive nominee" for the democrat party. The vast majority of Americans had never even heard of Obama. But, through the sheer power of average people, Obama catapulted ahead of Clinton.

Obama saw our potential and reached out to us. In return, he received--and continues to receive--millions of dollars in campaign contributions; thousands of volunteers to canvass and campaign on his behalf, and register new voters (tens of thousands will participate in the political process for the first time because of Obama).

Finally, Obama garnered the unwavering support of millions. The controversies surrounding Obama would destroyed any other candidate long ago. Steadied by the steadfast support of millions of voters Obama's campaign continues to thrive and move ever closer to the White House.

Posted by: Catherine Houston TX | April 21, 2008 4:17 PM | Report abuse

a good example of a republick conner is


about 3 posts back from this one


he calls himself just mark


he hopes


you are "just a mark,"


look up "appeal to emotion,"

that's what the schiesssucker is trying to sell you

lies as emotion

learn


.

Posted by: simplethings made visible | April 21, 2008 4:14 PM | Report abuse

Obama has yet to convince me on one thing. How will he be different from the other politicians in DC? The latest debate between him and Clinton was a let down. His policies do not sound any different then the next politician over.

Ever since the primaries in Ohio and Texas could not deliver the coup de grace to Clinton. This alone says alot. What also worries me quite a bit is Obama draws his support form quite a few young voters. Yet the irony is this is the gruop of voters who vote the less.

What this country needs is a mother figure to hold the country together during these hard times.

Posted by: K2 | April 21, 2008 4:14 PM | Report abuse

GO HILLARY!:

GO OPERATION CHAOS!!!

Posted by: Anonymous | April 21, 2008 4:12 PM | Report abuse

>



Interesting...... jhm



LET ME SEE IF I HAVE THIS STRAIGHT:


HIS FATHER WAS A KENYAN, MOSLEM, BLACK- WE HAVE SEEN PICTURES OF HIS

AFRICAN 'FAMILY


HIS MOTHER IS A KANSAN, ATHIEST, WHITE - WHERE ARE THE PICTURES OF HIS

KANSAN, WHITE MOTHER AND HIS WHITE


GRANDPARENTS WHO RAISED HIM?


HIS FATHER DESERTED HIS MOTHER AND HIM WHEN HE WAS VERY YOUNG AND WENT

BACK TO HIS FAMILY IN KENYA.


HIS MOTHER MARRIED AN INDONESIAN MOSLEM AND TOOK HIM TO JAKARTA WHERE HE

WAS SCHOOLED IN A MOSLEM SCHOOL


HIS MOTHER RETURNED TO HAWAII AND HE WAS RAISED BY HIS WHITE KANSAN

GRANDPARENTS.


HE LATER WENT TO THE BEST HIGH DOLLAR SCHOOLS, HOW?


HE LIVES IN A $1.4 MILLION DOLLAR HOUSE THAT HE ACQUIRED THROUGH A DEAL

WITH A WEALTHY FUND RAISER. HOW?


HE 'WORKED' AS A CIVIL RIGHTS ACTIVIST IN CHICAGO- HAS NEVER HELD A

PRODUCTIVE JOB. THE PRESIDENCY IS NOT A CIVIL RIGHTS POST


NOR IS IT SUBJECT TO AFFIRMATIVE ACTION SET ASIDES


HE ENTERED POLITICS AT THE STATE LEVEL AND THEN THE NATIONAL LEVEL WHERE

HE HAS MINIMAL EXPERIENCE


HE IS PROUD OF HIS 'AFRICAN HERITAGE' BUT IT SEEMS THAT HIS ONLY AFRICAN

CONNECTION WAS THAT HIS AFRICAN FATHER GOT A WHITE GIRL PREGNANT AND

DESERTED HER. I DIDN'T KNOW THAT SPERM CARRIED A 'CULTURAL' GENE. WHERE IS

THE PRIDE IN HIS WHITE CULTURE?


HE GOES TO A 'AFROCENTRIC' CHURCH THAT HATES WHITES, HATES JEWS, AND

BLAMES AMERICA FOR ALL THE WORLDS PERCEIVED FAULTS


AND THEN REPEATEDLY COVERS UP FOR THE PASTOR AND THE CHURCH


HE CLAIMS THAT HE COULD NOT CONFRONT HIS PASTOR BUT HE WANTS US TO

BELIEVE THAT HE CAN CONFRONT NORTH KOREA AND IRAN, RIGHT!!!


NO, I DO NOT SEE HOW HE COULD BE A UNITER AND BRING US TOGETHER,


I THINK THE HOPE IS THAT HE HOPES NO ONE WILL PUT THE PIECES TOGETHER.


Pass this around, somebody ought to wake up and see the DISASTER that

appears just over the Horizon !!!!





Posted by: JERRY WAYNE WILSON | April 21, 2008 4:11 PM | Report abuse

"Most of the super delegates who have come out recently have gone with Obama."

According to Russert on "Meet the Press" 4 super delegates announced for Clinton last week, and 4 anounced for Obama -- she still has more super delegates than he does -- so what's your defintition of "most"?

Posted by: Anonymous | April 21, 2008 4:10 PM | Report abuse

typically

resort to one form of poisoning....

trying to establish

"a feeling," as a truth


by repeating it.

that and linking someone else's truth to someone


else.

the bush lite thing.


the reality is the


republick conning party is trying to


disinform the United States Citizen in order to mislead them...


the crackers lost their way with the

homophobia based "gay marriage thing,"


and the papers outed them for it, right...


nope. they just sat by and watched a hate crime go down...


as they ate their salads at Dean and Delucas' or Paolo's and talked about the "crazie ness of Washington D.C."

they really should have been talking about the cowardice of a group of newpaper people

that sit around getting BJ's from the whitehouse in the form of payola,


and "special treatment,"

3rD world conditions?

they are here and well when the Washington Post bends over


"as a favor,"

to the corportocracy instead of protecting


democracy....

hypocrisy reigns and the Washington Post gives it a seat


in the headlines....

FOAD


dan, you got none

.

Posted by: republick conners | April 21, 2008 4:10 PM | Report abuse

Here is Clinton's Penn. Campaign head Gov. Ed Rendell praising endlessly Farrakhan. He goes on and on about Farrakhan. So Clinton should dump him I guess, according to her standards.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/21/ed-rendell-clinton-surrog_n_97784.html

Posted by: Goldie2 | April 21, 2008 4:10 PM | Report abuse

in alexandria hillarys ground game has been lacking and dispirited. Its a shame. I really like the lady. But the truth is that hillary needs a hail mary, and Obama can play Hold the ball.


Meanwhile the republicans have
"the indochinese candidate"

Posted by: pvogel88 | April 21, 2008 4:10 PM | Report abuse

Hillary Clinton will win in Pennslyvania. Hillary Clinton will win the democratic nomination. Hillary Clinton will be the next President of the United States.

Posted by: GO HILLARY! | April 21, 2008 4:09 PM | Report abuse

Slate's delegate calculator is the single most important tool in analyzing the future of the two candidates. As feastorfamine correctly pointed out, it is only possible for Sen. Clinton to win the nomination if she prevails in the upcoming primaries by margins higher than 12-15 percent in each one.

A glance at the record shows that she has not ever done this in the current primary race, not even in her home state of New York. There is no reason to believe that Sen. Clinton will gain in favorability over the next few weeks. So there is no reason to believe that she will win in PA, or NC or Indiana, or Oregon, or Puerto Rico by 12 percent or more.

The super delegates know how to do this calculation as well as the rest of us, which is why they have been endorsing Sen. Obama at the rate of one per day for the past two months. During this same period, Sen. Clinton has picked up five super delegates to Obama's 60.

Not all the partisan insults in the world will change the math on this.

If Obama wins the nomination, I am voting for Obama in November. Eight years of GOP misrule is enough.

Posted by: dee | April 21, 2008 4:08 PM | Report abuse

I'm a Democrat with an Independent streak. I can't stand either Hillary or Bill Clinton, and now I even can't stand Chelsea! Please God, smite these people's campaign!

Posted by: Just Mark | April 21, 2008 4:08 PM | Report abuse

My thoughts on political watchdog are that he is a Clinton voter and not a happy camper right now. The truth is that Obama will win these states even though he did not win them in the primary (Calif vote for McCain?? Get real).
I would love to hear who those close to the process is that say it is Hillary. Most of the super delegates who have come out recently have gone with Obama.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 21, 2008 4:06 PM | Report abuse

feastorafamine:

Re: "meltdown" see me after the primary results tomorrow ; )

Posted by: Anonymous | April 21, 2008 4:06 PM | Report abuse

Am I the only one can see the truth ?
Hillary is not running for 2008 buy 2012 ! Stupid ! The Clintons are not as blind as we think they are ! They know they blow it this time and determind to do anything they can to make sure Obama loose to Mccain and then when 2012 comes, they can say " I told you so, this time choose me !" But here I have a news for Hillary: Obama will win and by the time you have a chance again will be the years of 2024 (2009-2017 and Obama's vp from 2017-2024) ! Go home now and don't be afraid, sweet heart, there aren't any Bosnia snipers out there.

Posted by: michelle | April 21, 2008 4:06 PM | Report abuse

Once out of the primary situation Obama will have no chance in the general election but the point is moot. After his debacle in the last debate it is extremely clear that he is unqualified to be president. The super delegates will add that to the fact that Clinton has won all the important states and the nomination will be hers. Vote smart, vote Clinton.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 21, 2008 4:06 PM | Report abuse

>>She claimed there was a THREAT of sniper fire.
Yes, that makes me feel SO much better about her veracity. She also made the ludicrous claim that it was too dangerous for Bill to go, so he sent her. (Neglecting to mention that he also sent his beloved only daughter too.) She dissed anyone (e.g., Sinbad) who dared come forward with a different view of events, until the damning video showed up, showing the little children reciting poetry and presenting bouquets.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 21, 2008 4:04 PM | Report abuse

Truth time
If you think the article was stupid, you are probably for Clinton.
If you thought the article was great, you are probably for Obama.
Clinton will win PA about 53 - 47 percent. She is weakened because her negative numbers as a whole are down to about 39%. She is weakened because she will not win the big victory she needs to really get back in the hunt. Looking at the rest of the primaries, Clinton and Obama will still be about as far apart after all the primaries, as they are now, which is about 130 to 150, with Obama in front. That means, Clinton must get about 75% of the undecided super delegates (and what makes them so super anyway). So, unless the bus falls off the cliff, Obama will win the nomination.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 21, 2008 4:04 PM | Report abuse

Hillary has won every big state and will win Pennsylvania. Obama has won caucuses. Get real. Who is the winner? It is Hillary or the highway for Democrats in November. She also will get the lion's share of superdelegates. Those close to the process say it is Hillary.

Posted by: Political Watchdog | April 21, 2008 4:04 PM | Report abuse

"THE ATTACKING POSTERS," aka democrat posers

are most likely repulsive scammers....


everyone knows that George W. Bush is apt to drop down to his knees and give his friends BJ's as a reward....

doubt me? ? coo.....ewl


SEARCH on LIPS George Bush Victor Ashe, Karl Rove, Guckert, Gannon, Lott, All Gay

and the people at the Washington Post know it too...


why aren't they taking down the people that brought you homophobia on a silver platter while Karl Rove was dancing sans pants in Hotel Lounges in Washington D.C. ??? because they want to give everyone the


"benefit of a doubt?"


right.....we see that in the title of this article don't we? the little shunts and schiess suckers have to go back 16 years to find an error of memory and hammer on it for 2 months....'cause they selling you Hillary and Bill

don't tell the truth....however,


this paper does't have the balls to print the truth...

do you?

heck George W's father George H.W. was having children brought into a whitehouse as party favors, holding FESTIVE parties for those that did favors for the bush families, and George H.W. was returning the favor using children...as rewards...

so there's a double standard here....

repulsive scammers, aka trash walking and talking...

habitually lie, misconstrue and disinform as a party tactic...

they will join, suborn, subvert, subjugate and dismantle the truth and re erect

"what they are trying to sell," as the truth


in it's place...


the republick CONNERs have infiltrated the election...

and _they_ are pretending to be democrats

witness the tacky ticks

.I may be nasty


but you can verify every thing I have posted for yourselves


in multiple sites...


do that.


the thing about children being brought in to service the whitehouse


is a Washington Times story I believe in 1989


.you all heard about it dincha?


.

Posted by: let's be honest here.... | April 21, 2008 4:03 PM | Report abuse

Bill in Georgia:

But, pigs don't have wings and all the states don't have primaries. The fact remains that she just needs to beat him tomorrow by more than 94,000 votes in order to claim the lead in actual POPULAR vote.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 21, 2008 4:03 PM | Report abuse

Hispana, admit it, you're really Howard Wolfson in drag, right? Your very creative (i.e., contorted) reasoning is straight out of the Queen of Mean's camp.

Posted by: | April 21, 2008 3:48 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Methinks that someone is getting upset with my comments. No, I am just a Hispanic that sees through all the bamboozling being done here and would speak the truth.

Yes, I would vote for Hillary anytime instead of this manufactured candidate that comes to us with only empty promises and a great majority of you fail to see what is undeneath.

Posted by: Hispana | April 21, 2008 4:03 PM | Report abuse

As an independent, I am NEVER going to vote for the LIAR named "hillary".

I am NEVER going to support a DINASAUR POLITICAL CLASS

I am NEVER going to accept lobbiests, or a lobbiest-funded candidate like clinton.

VOTE OBAMA FOR PRESIDENT!

Posted by: JBE | April 21, 2008 4:03 PM | Report abuse

feastorafamine:
Posted by: | April 21, 2008 3:56 PM

That 64% is based on "uncommitted" super delegates -- Obama will continue to meltdown and super delegates are going to have to ask themselves why he can't win ANY big State -- my point was that 100% of ALL super delegates that switch their vote at any time right up to the convention.

-------------------------------
AGAIN what part of the MATH do you not get? Every contest that Hillary gets less than 64% of the pledged delegates will require even higher numbers in superdelegates in the end. The math shows she needs a collasal number of the superdelegates even AFTER she won ALL, i said ALL the remaining contests by wide margins. Do you realize its possible for Hillary to need nearly 80% of all the superdelegates to win come time for the convention? The premise you put forth of an Obama meltdown is exactly what Hillary would need. So far i have yet to see that meltdown in any poll. Again i have no bias, i think Hillary would make an excellent president. I am simply willing to look realistically at the math.

Posted by: feastorafamine | April 21, 2008 4:02 PM | Report abuse

Senator Clinton can not and will not win the general election against McCain. The Super Delegates have allowed the Clinton Drama to continue much too long in my opinion but it has given the Clinton camp every opportunity to come to terms with reality......... The Republicans would prefer to have Hillary as the nominee because McCain and Rove will crush Hillary. The Super Delegates know Hillary is cetainly the weakest link with the most baggage against McCain.

Posted by: VR, NC | April 21, 2008 4:01 PM | Report abuse

gary:

She never said there were actual shots fired. She claimed there was a THREAT of sniper fire.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 21, 2008 4:00 PM | Report abuse

Can someone at the Post do a little math re the popular vote?

It's a very simple issue that NEVER gets raised: if all the states had primaries, Obama would be much, much farther ahead in the popular vote, but he would not be as far ahead in the delegate count. He won by huge margins in some caucuses, but that was among a limited number of voters. He would still have won those same states in a primary -- the % would have been less than the caucus, but the total # of votes would have been much higher.

Posted by: Bill in Georgia | April 21, 2008 4:00 PM | Report abuse

Hillary Clinton's Bosnia debacle was the absolute last straw for me.
I once supported her, but her complete fabrications exasperated me beyond endurance. She either believed people would not check her story, or somehow could not. Her deception, combined with arrogance, caused me to abandon her. I simply couldn't take it anymore.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 21, 2008 4:00 PM | Report abuse

Hillary's history of lies and unethical behavior goes back farther, and goes much deeper than anyone realizes. Particularly telling, is the fact that Leon Panetta was present during Hillary's "write them off: screw them" remark. While Hillary sees herself as the "champion of the oppressed," there's always a kind of "good guy versus bad guy mentality." But Hillary has treated and continues to treat all working class Americans as a species apart, and screw them she did: http://theseedsof9-11.com

Ps. Say goodbye to the small blond man with breasts, boys.

Posted by: Peggy McGilligan | April 21, 2008 4:00 PM | Report abuse

"In that time, her favorable rating underwent a 40-point swing among independents. In mid-January, 59 percent of independents said they had a favorable impression of her, compared to 39 percent unfavorable. Last week, it was the reverse: 39 percent favorable and 58 percent unfavorable."

I think that is a 19 or 20 point change, not 40.

Posted by: Bill | April 21, 2008 3:59 PM | Report abuse

I see you have bought into the only certain states matter. Current polling has her loosing places like Washington and Oregon, so i don't see hot winning a Penn. primary changes that. Ohh and i love how we talk about the past contest, you know she lost two in between March 4th and Penn. Media in the tank for Victim Hillary, refuses to acknowledge those states, especially Mississippi.

Posted by: Julian | April 21, 2008 3:59 PM | Report abuse

Both Obama and Clinton are wasting precious energy. John McCain wins in November. The Democrats have spilled too much blood to recover from this. This is just entertainment at this point (and how entertaining it is).

Posted by: dcp | April 21, 2008 3:59 PM | Report abuse

Let me drop some more science on you. For those who think John McCain will easily defeat Senator Obama in the Fall, if the polls have some truth in them (I don't give a lot of credit to polls either, especially months in advance), then you are sorely wrong. I just came from the Gallup Poll and Senator Obama has a 49% to 42% advantage over Senator Clinton. Also, Gallup polling from April 17th indicates that both democratic candidates, but especially Senator Obama, are leading McCain in the "purple" states, you know those competitive states. Senator Obama has a 4 point lead on McCain. Real Clear politics with takes an average of several polls has Senator Obama leading McCain in a head-to-head vote also. So, again, polls mean nothing but it also means your words on here mean nothing too. Peace out! Lets see what tomorrow night brings.

Posted by: Citizen AJ | April 21, 2008 3:59 PM | Report abuse

This is a reminder to those democrats and independants who warn that they will vote for McCain if Clinton loses the nomination:
McCain is a prisoner of lobbyists.
McCain will keep the soldiers in Iraq
He does not care about the economy and has no real plan to help those in trouble. He supported Bush's economic, diplomatic and military decisions and he will perpetuate them. His past is checkered with the savings and loan scandal where he was one of the 5 senators who were disciplined for improper behavior. He has a hsitory of writing letters on behalf of his friends with the aim of corrupting/influencing/bullying. He has been in washington so long that he's part of all that's wrong there.
So before you execute your threat to vote republican next november, think about the above and ask yourself if that's what you are looking for in a president.

Posted by: JOHN OF CHICAGO | April 21, 2008 3:58 PM | Report abuse

whats worse,taking your kids to listen to a racist evry sunday or lying about getting shot at?

Posted by: gary | April 21, 2008 3:58 PM | Report abuse

feastorafamine:

That 64% is based on "uncommitted" super delegates -- Obama will continue to meltdown and super delegates are going to have to ask themselves why he can't win ANY big State -- my point was that 100% of ALL super delegates that switch their vote at any time right up to the convention.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 21, 2008 3:56 PM | Report abuse

Obama will be stopped, either now or in November, and it has nothing to do with being Black.

It has to do with him and his supporters sticking a shiv in the back of Bill Clinton.

We will never forgive you for that.

You're stoned on drugs if you think that we ever will.


Posted by: Obama will be stopped, either now or in November, and it has nothing to do with being Black | April 21, 2008 2:48 PM
------------------------------
svreader,

Your nonsense is getting very old. Obama will become the next president.

Posted by: Sandy | April 21, 2008 3:56 PM | Report abuse

As an independent, I would prefer Hillary over Obama any day. I am horrified at Obama's tax increase plans for increasing the payroll tax and the maximum salary for SS tax. If Obama does win, I will definitely vote McCain. I know for a fact he will not increase taxes, where as Obama is all set to increase taxes including the capital gains tax. I would hate to have McCain spend money on the Iraq war, but I would rather have that than Obama. BTW, I am neither white nor black, and could not care less if Obama was blue or green. The liberal media by pushing Obama (particularly CNN) has put me completely off him. I have not contributed to any one's campaign, but if Obama wins the democratic nomination, the McCain will get a good contribution from me. If Hillary wins, it will be hard to decide for me between her and McCain.

Posted by: upnorth | April 21, 2008 3:55 PM | Report abuse

To Jodi:

1) Obama is a racist? Really? Explain to me how he's a racist when his mother and grandparents who raised him are white? How is he a racist when his stepfather was Indonesian, AND Obama lived there during his pre-teen years?

2) You believe that he is only in favor ofAfrican Americans? Okay, so let's flip it...do you really believe that Hillary wakes up every day and says, "Hmmm, what can I do to help Latinos and African Americans today? I think not. Be real. Everybody will be sensitive to their own race. It's human nature. Tell me who in the White House has given a crap about inner city schools and REALLY working to end crime? It would be nice to actually have someone who is somewhat sensitive to those issues. Part of the demise (notice I said PART) of the black inner city community was caused by the influx of crack cocaine which was fueled by the Iran-Contra debacle of the '80's. Which, by the way, was NOT orchestrated by AA's.

Vote for whoever you want. That is your choice. But please, don't spread lies or form uneducated opinions. Get a clue!!

Posted by: Irritated on Capitol Hill | April 21, 2008 3:55 PM | Report abuse

I'd like to echo the sentiments of the handful of sane people who commented above me, that anyone who plans to vote McCain in the fall because they didn't get their first choice candidate, needs to take a good long look at the implications of such a choice:

McCain's only strength is his military experience, so what do you think his focus is going to be if he gets in. If you care about the economy, healthcare, education, science funding, or anything of actual use to our country be prepared to be disappointed. Hillary and Obama are both head and shoulders above this guy when it comes to having the will and the plan to fix our country, and I would vote for either in a heartbeat

Posted by: L.P. | April 21, 2008 3:55 PM | Report abuse

Hang in there, Hillaristas...she is shoring up her weaknesses. Peter Paul has agreed to be her running mate.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 21, 2008 3:54 PM | Report abuse

What about Obama's "slips". He has brushed off accounts of his questionable "associations", racist comments, insensitive comments and arrogant, condenscending manner. I think that the American public is finally getting a look at this guy and will ultimately both reject him and wish they didn't vote for him.

Posted by: LAMM01 | April 21, 2008 3:54 PM | Report abuse

The main reason for the money amassed by Obama is due to George Zoros and MOVE.ORG croonies who have play acted many donations for him and WE SEE IT!!!!

OBAMA WOULD NOT BUY THIS CAMPAIGN because the american people are seeing through this dirty tactics!!!

Posted by: Hispana | April 21, 2008 3:53 PM | Report abuse

Hillary can win the votes of the people in the political center, the majority of Americans.

Obama can't.

Posted by: Hillary can win the votes of the center | April 21, 2008 3:52 PM | Report abuse

Can my calculator subtract superdelegates from Obama? No. It doesnt factor in the superdelegates. However Obama has netted more superdelegates in the recent months and the fact still remains she would need nearly 64% of the superdelegates to win. I am not sure even Obama could net a percentage that high. It matters none anyhow. As i said, play with the calculator and you will see the difficulty facing Hillary to win the nomination. The calculator notes the number of superdelegates needed to secure the nomination. As it stands now Hillary would need nearly 60% of those in combonation with landslide victories in all remaining primaries. Obama would need roughly 40% of the superdelegates to shore up the nom. Again the math is unkind to Hillary. That isnt my assessment, its merely math.
http://www.slate.com//id/2185278/

Posted by: feastorafamine | April 21, 2008 3:52 PM | Report abuse

This article surprises no one, any objective person knows Washinton Post is in the tank for Obama. Has anyone read Newsweek lately? Also, all of the pundits affiliated with the Post family appearing on MSNBC reenforces this, Fineman and Robinson. This is not an objective newspaper.

Posted by: John | April 21, 2008 3:52 PM | Report abuse

It seems to me that neither Clinton nor Obama have a fair chance in a match up with McCain. Prejudice is going to play a big role here in the defeat of Obama and Clinton at the hands of McCain in the general election.

Posted by: analyst | April 21, 2008 3:52 PM | Report abuse

It is also important to remember that in the general election, Republicans who support the democratic candidates will also vote. Obama can still pull out the big states by those of us who have consistantly voted republican in the past and have had enough already. Go Obama 2008!

Posted by: expatwendy | April 21, 2008 3:51 PM | Report abuse

Her most significant missteps came over her repeated mischaracterizations of her trip to Bosnia in 1996.

Also known as lies!

Posted by: Scott | April 21, 2008 3:50 PM | Report abuse

Hillary Clinton is the hands on best person for being PRESIDENT IN the ELECTION OF '08


she knows what she faces, she's faced it before...


the polls and poll takers or should I say


propagandists


want to place her at their mercies,


big business is trying to get on board all three camps.


the CIA both present and former are all up the backside of the

ELECTION PROCESS,

it might as well be the USSR during the cold war...


the party, das republick CONNERS are attempting to snatch back power from the people who are heading for regaining power

by electing someone, Hillary Clinton, that understands what it takes to defeat

das machine.


Oba ba man, he be talking the same scheiss that the


party selling him, he strong wit dat...

he know dah troot boyah...

right, and my name is rumpled foreskeing


.he duh dummest dummie in dis election for true


bro.

he dah what man's boy.

disguised as the negro playah...he duh playuh


and he playin for he self


for true.


.

Posted by: let's be honest here... | April 21, 2008 3:50 PM | Report abuse

Obama and his supporters underestimate McCain.

Hillary Doesn't.

She can stand up the Republican attack machine.

Obama can't

She can think on her feet.

Obama can't.

She can hire David Axelrod after Obama drops out.

She can hire Obama's Speechwriters.

Obama can't grow a new brain.

Hillary can beat McCain.

Obama can't.

She can win the votes of

Posted by: Obama and his supporters underestimate McCain. Hillary Doesn't | April 21, 2008 3:50 PM | Report abuse

People are so worn down from the Bush regime (regency?) that the Dems could elect a paper bag to the presidency this year.

So RELAX people!

Posted by: vtr08 | April 21, 2008 3:49 PM | Report abuse

Hispana, admit it, you're really Howard Wolfson in drag, right? Your very creative (i.e., contorted) reasoning is straight out of the Queen of Mean's camp.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 21, 2008 3:48 PM | Report abuse

You all are all crazy! I could not read all the attack post. Whew. I guess this is good for America's political process because in the past, well at least before the previous two Presidential nominaitons, America just lined up and handed the Presidency to candidates. G.W. Bush stole his first term with help from brother Jeb, same two who destroyed the Savings and Loans and he and DICK Cheney scared people into voting for him in 2004. John McCain and his swiftboat buddies will try and do the same thing. I really hope America proves to be more intelligent than that, this time! It does not seem that way. I believe Senator Obama dropped int he Gallup-poll, the only poll he seemed to have dropped in over the weekend because the people questioned on the gallup-poll fell pray to the media and Senator Clinton trying to paint him negative. Like I tell my foreign national wife, Americans can be easily swayed and easily influenced. That is why nutty ideas can make you money in this economy. You have access to 300 million suckers. Hey, I was not the first to say it, P.T. Barnum said it a long time ago. "A sucker is born every minute." Will America be suckered again by the status quo? Seems that way by some of these post.

Posted by: Citizen AJ | April 21, 2008 3:48 PM | Report abuse

Chicago1 wrote:

Remember Ronald Reagan used to called the Teflon Man? Same with Obama. He lies and dissembles regularly but nothing sticks to him. Until the general election, that is, when he takes us all down in flames with him.
--------------------------------
Why is the Teflon Man now, but won't be in the general election? This doesn't make sense.

Posted by: Steve | April 21, 2008 3:48 PM | Report abuse

To all of you Obama supporters who defended Bill Clinton during his impeachment:

Second thoughts?

Posted by: Anonymous | April 21, 2008 3:48 PM | Report abuse

She's a MONSTER and her whole family has become a NATIONAL DISGRACE.
HILARY CLINTON...LIAR, SLEEZE,
BILL CLINTON...LIAR, SKIRT-CHASER
CHELSEA CLINTON...CAN'T STAND THE HEAT, WON'T ANSWER QUESTIONS OR GET OUT OF THE KITCHEN.

AMERICA LET'S TAKE OUR COUNTRY BACK FROM THESE PEOPLE.

BARACK OBAMA 2008
BECAUSE HONESTY MATTERS!
BECAUSE INTELLIGENCE MATTERS!
BECAUSE INTEGRITY MATTERS!

Posted by: tIRED OF THE HILLABEAST | April 21, 2008 3:46 PM | Report abuse

Hispana, without mentioning Rezko or Rev. Wright (I know your M.O.), why won't people vote for Obama? Please, 1) Tell me why this man is so unelectable and 2) Tell me that you truly believe there is a substantial enough "conspiracy" of Republicans to get Obama elected. Last I recall, I've seen numbers where a greater portion of independents distrust Clinton over Obama, not to mention the wet-dream all Republicans must be having at the possibility of running against Hillary Clinton. So the question comes back around to you... do you have so little faith in the American public to elect a black man or is it that you, yourself, could not vote for a black man. Let's be honest, on most of the issues, Obama is more pro-worker (not supporting NAFTA, for instance) than Hillary. The only thing that has changed is the image, that has partially been created by the media and the Hillary campaign, that he is a foaming-at-the-mouth racist. So, other than on the issues of race, where does Obama stand to lose? A couple of months back it was experience, but that didn't really resonate with anyone; after all Obama (between his years in state and then federal legislature) technically has more in-job experience. Sure, my dentist's spouse may have sat in on many of his/her procedures, but that does not mean the spouse performing a root canal on me.

Posted by: SteadyState | April 21, 2008 3:39 PM
--------------------------------------
The simple answer is that Obama DOES NOT have the necessary qualifications to lead this country in such crucial times. I would not risk my vote for someone who only preaches a good story but cannot back it up with a RECORD!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: Hispana | April 21, 2008 3:46 PM | Report abuse

>>This has backfired because he has majorly lowered himself to be the candidate of a specific group.
Uh, like well-educated Democrats who don't buy into HRC's reborn working-class Annie Oakley gun-totin' act? I am proud to be part of a specific group of thinking people who "majorly" reject the meanness, viciousness, and super-cynicism of HRC. Ducking all illusory sniper fire that comes my way from the HRC Kool-Aid drinkers!

Posted by: Anonymous | April 21, 2008 3:46 PM | Report abuse

For all you that buy into the Obama can't win the big swing states. Remember, he redefines the map. All those big swing states were needed because you could not get the "middle of country." Second point, Obama does well with independents and Republicans. Most of those big state primary were Domocrat-only. Obama has the better chance of winning because he can bring in the other factions.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 21, 2008 3:46 PM | Report abuse

alterego1:

You didn't mind seeing Monica go down like that.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 21, 2008 3:46 PM | Report abuse

OBAMA WILL QUIT THE RACE!!!


Just wait and watch....I am not kidding! I am 100% sure Obama is going to quit the race Ross Perrot style very soon! Obama is under tremendous stress and currently is on Prozac.

Many do not know much about Obama's past but the US intelligence agencies know everything about him, his foreign connections, his handlers and her mother's role in Indonesia. His passport news was leaked deliberately so he may quit the race quietly. Obama's political life has been influenced and revolved aroung the left wing Afro Organizations, which were financed and supported by Islamic interests. These Islamic Arab interests were the fronts of Soviet intelligence agencies active in the Middle East and East Asia.

Ask Obama does he know any Ostanosov? Then look at his face getting red and sweat dripping!! The winner in this game is President Putin who may influence the US Presidential election.

Posted by: odinga | April 21, 2008 3:45 PM | Report abuse

By the time they get to the convention Barack will have probably already been handed his subpeonas for the Rezko trial, but maybe he'll have supporters among the jurors

Posted by: bruce | April 21, 2008 3:45 PM | Report abuse

It is amazing to me how no one has spoken out about the fact that the Clinton Camp continues to speak as though the smaller states as not relevant in this election. Even if Senator Clinton has won in the larger states, once Senator Obama wins the nomination and she keeps her word and works to make sure that we have a Democrat in the Whitehouse, she should bring all of her supporters over to the Obama camp.

Posted by: JG | April 21, 2008 3:45 PM | Report abuse

Also, just one more thing, taking a moment in a democratic primary where a bunch of dudes shout down a woman, and running it as your campaign ad isn't just stupid its also classless, but thats your guy Obama. Damn, maybe I will have to vote Republican for the first time in my life. :(

Posted by: DCDave | April 21, 2008 3:45 PM | Report abuse

I wish this entire debacle was over. I had hoped that this election year would be different then the last two but I see it was all wishful thinking.

I'm sick of the mud-slinging, the pandering to the fears of voters, the name-calling, the "gotcha" politics. And I am thoroughly sick of the mainstream media and their agents of BS who take an issue and beat it till it's dead then beat it some more.

I'm sick of hearing about sniper fire, lapel pins, Rev. Wright, sixties left-wing terrorists, Cindy McCain's recipes, bad bowlers, bitter-gate, and all the other IRRELEVANT non-issues that fill the airwaves and the newspaper pages.

I'm sick of so-called "journalists" who haven't a clue about what matters to Americans and who perpetuate the "gotcha" politics to improve their ratings or readership. These "journalists" include (but are not limited to) Charles and George (the Idiot Brothers), Chris Matthews, Bill O'Reilly, Hannity and Combs, Chris Wallace, Tim Russert, Joe Scarborough, David Gregory (what happened to you, David? I used to think you were fair and unbiased?), Anderson Cooper, Lou Dobbs (who seems to suffering from some sort of mental problem), David Brody, George Will, Michelle Malkin, the Washington Post, The NY Times, the Washington Times and any and all media who have subjected us to trivial nonsense during this election cycle.

Henceforth, I will get my news from Jon Stewart who is an "equal opportunity" basher. At least with Stewart you get a laugh.

Posted by: Gwen | April 21, 2008 3:44 PM | Report abuse

I am a true Democrat. The Republicans will win the Presidential Race because all the big money people have so much invested in the republican party now they ain't gonna let anyone take this country away from them. The Rich own us, they will crook the little boy Democrats out one way or the other. The republicans will put all their bets on their boy. They have to.
You will see the dirtiest campaign ever.

Posted by: Westexacan | April 21, 2008 3:43 PM | Report abuse

Why not let the voters decide instead of trying to effect the outcome? If you were as harsh on Obama as you have been on Hillary, the common voter would be thinking much differently. A person can think only with the information he or she has and the information you present has a definite agenda that has nothing to do with journalism.

Posted by: joeparadis | April 21, 2008 3:42 PM | Report abuse

Regardless of the outcome of Pennsylvania, the likelihood that Clinton will get the nod as the Democratic Party candidate for president is extremely low. What she needs to be wary of is holding out so long that she destroys Obama's chances of winning. I suspect that if that were to happen, aside from her really strong supporters (like svreader, the loon), she and Bill will become the new Naders of the Democratic Party. That would be sad to me, but I can see it happening. I hate seeing a great familiy go down like that.

Posted by: alterego1 | April 21, 2008 3:42 PM | Report abuse

Considering that all of Clinton's wounds were self-inflicted, it's a miracle she's gone as far as she has.

Posted by: HaydenJ | April 21, 2008 3:42 PM | Report abuse

It seems to me, looking at this from a distance, that if it weren't for her dogged determination not to quit, that Hillary would have been written off long ago. It would take a near impossible set of results in the remaining primaries for her to actually win the nomination. Instead of significantly imroving, her situation has been getting worse. Most analysts expected her to win Penn by double digits, now they are wondering if she will win by single digits. Each passing primary and new set of endorsements makes the math of winning enough delegates less and less likely.

I've got nothing against Hillary (OK she is a bit cold, but I think her politics are fine) but I don't think her priorities in this election are sound. If she somehow gets the nomination but loses the election, then whats happens to this country. Obama has an almost insurmountable lead (most say it is statistically unbeatable), we would be much better served by her supporting the guy who is almost certainly going to win the nomination, rather than daily watching the two of them tear each other down.

Posted by: captbilly | April 21, 2008 3:42 PM | Report abuse

There are few MSM-types who consistently write about how large Hillary's margin of victory must be in all of the next six contests for her to win the nomination. Merely winning Pennsylvania is NOT enough; she's got to win it by 20-25 percent, according to some estimates. No poll has shown her potential victory to be that large.

Obama is like water being poured on a rock; it takes a while, but eventually the water wears the rock away. Obama's ability to hang in there and amass votes, states, delegates and DOLLARS is slowly taking out the Clinton campaign.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 21, 2008 3:41 PM | Report abuse

"to her credit Clinton soldiers on"?

To deny reality to the detriment of the democratic party and the country as a whole is not to her credit. It is a sign that she is incredibly self-centered and egotistical.

Posted by: Sueb2 | April 21, 2008 3:40 PM | Report abuse

Hispana, it's not the "race card" if your candidate ACTUALLY subversively attacks Obama's electability based on his race. It's been a subtle campaign from the beginning to break him down that way. The way that the Clinton Campaign has subtley driven a wedge between white and black America has worsened an already bleak set of race relations.

Posted by: NCVoter | April 21, 2008 3:18 PM
-------------------------------------------
So, you entirely missed my point because Obama and his camp are the ones who have played the RACE CARD magnificently from the very beginning throwing complaints to draw the black population to vote mostly for him. So, tell me that this has not been the case. Think about New Hampshire, South Carolina, Geraldine Ferraro, and many other examples. This has backfired because he has majorly lowered himself to be the candidate of a specific group. This, compounded with his leftist and racial connections is coming before the eyes of the public!!!

Posted by: Hispana | April 21, 2008 3:40 PM | Report abuse

I'm not a fan of HC but OB has gotten a free pass from most of the media. The media picked him for his lean good lucks and booming voice. Tom Shales, Hertzberg of The New Yorker, etc., etc., etc. even torn into their own, Geo. Stephanopoulos & Charlie Gibson, because they finally, amongst all the brethren, asked repeated tough questions of the anointed one. Who do they think they are? Independent thinking, not cowed by PC or their sneering colleagues? What next, could we actually have a discussion about why BO has the MOST liberal voting record in the US Senate. Sure, he's gonna beat McCain ....

Posted by: lovinliberty | April 21, 2008 3:40 PM | Report abuse

Hispana, without mentioning Rezko or Rev. Wright (I know your M.O.), why won't people vote for Obama? Please, 1) Tell me why this man is so unelectable and 2) Tell me that you truly believe there is a substantial enough "conspiracy" of Republicans to get Obama elected. Last I recall, I've seen numbers where a greater portion of independents distrust Clinton over Obama, not to mention the wet-dream all Republicans must be having at the possibility of running against Hillary Clinton. So the question comes back around to you... do you have so little faith in the American public to elect a black man or is it that you, yourself, could not vote for a black man. Let's be honest, on most of the issues, Obama is more pro-worker (not supporting NAFTA, for instance) than Hillary. The only thing that has changed is the image, that has partially been created by the media and the Hillary campaign, that he is a foaming-at-the-mouth racist. So, other than on the issues of race, where does Obama stand to lose? A couple of months back it was experience, but that didn't really resonate with anyone; after all Obama (between his years in state and then federal legislature) technically has more in-job experience. Sure, my dentist's spouse may have sat in on many of his/her procedures, but that does not mean the spouse performing a root canal on me.

Posted by: SteadyState | April 21, 2008 3:39 PM | Report abuse

Too bad Edwards was not supported... he'd be a better candidate against McBush.

Posted by: Tommy | April 21, 2008 3:39 PM | Report abuse

"Less times than Sen. McCain committed adultery and hired prostitutes."

Are you sure about that (also, he "dated" a stripper once, but I'm not so sure it documented that he ever paid for sex)?

Posted by: Anonymous | April 21, 2008 3:38 PM | Report abuse

Clintonites, if you haven't already maxed out, give your $$ to Hillary's bankrupt campaign so she and Bill won't have to spend their millions to pay her bills.

Posted by: FirstMouse | April 21, 2008 3:38 PM | Report abuse

I actually think Obama missed his big chance to win the nomination outright, by losing Ohio and Texas. He was on an 11 state win streak.

Hillary has to win Pennsylvania by double digits to stay in the race, but the fact that Obama hasn't done much with his huge money lead says alot about how weak a candidate he is in key democratic states like Pennsylvania.

Posted by: DCDave | April 21, 2008 3:38 PM | Report abuse

Once Hillary is out of the way and Obama can campaign for the general election, he is going to crush Mccain. No one wants an old senile man who has to use a teleprompt to be president. He and the pope look familiar. Barely can move, barely can hear what he's saying, and the repubs have not rallied around him. There are still many repubs very stand offish. Hillary can not pull this country together. I, as a woman, am embarrased by her telling people Chelsea was jogging around the towers when they were hit. That girl was in her dorm watching it on TV like the rest of us. If she wins, the repubs have an arsenal attact ready.... here's just a tenth of it: HILLARY CLINTON On SOUTHERN WORKING CLASS WHITES in 1995: "SCREW EM" -Of all the Hillary Clinton scandals and cover-ups, none is more significant than her attempt to whitewash her own personal transformation from Goldwater girl to Marxist. No mainstream media organization has examined how she is determined in her new book to keep people in the dark about what Hillary biographer, the late Barbara Olson, described as her "roots in Marxism." "In her formative years," explained Olson, "Marxism was a very important part of her ideology..."
Olson's important 1999 book, Hell to Pay: The Unfolding Story of Hillary Rodham Clinton (Regnery Publishing, Inc., 1999), remains the best account of Hillary's communist connections and emergence as a "budding Leninist" who "understood the Leninist concept of acquiring, accumulating and maintaining political power at any cost."
As an example, Hillary's book gripes that the end to her illegal closed-door health-care task-force meetings, where a socialized medicine scheme was hatched, was the result of her opponents citing an "obscure federal law" in court. Hillary, a lawyer, never wanted the law to get in her way. 3) Mrs. Clinton's involvement with Treuhaft is no secret, although Hillary clearly doesn't want to talk about it. A New York Times obituary of Treuhaft, who died in 2001, said that he had "accepted a young Yale lawyer named Hillary Rodham (now Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton) as an intern." A British newspaper, the London Times, said that "generations of liberal lawyers were groomed under his [Treuhaft's] tutelage, including a young Yale law student named Hillary Rodham. 4)These two obituaries are posted at a website in honor of Treuhaft's famous wife, British author Jessica Mitford, herself a member of the CPUSA whose lobbying of Bill Clinton on the death penalty issue was reportedly facilitated by Hillary. 5)Peter Flaherty writes, "Hillary's official biography prepared by the '92 Clinton campaign makes no mention of her stint as NWF chairman, despite the fact that she oversaw some $23 million in foundation assets. A few journalists, like Dan Wattenberg of The American Spectator, did report on the NWF grants during the summer of 1992, but the major media paid almost no attention. There was no need for Hillary to defend herself."
Hillary also took advantage of Bill Clinton's radical connections, many developed in his trips abroad. Strobe Talbott and Bill Clinton had been Rhodes Scholars in England together, for example, and Talbott and his wife, Brooke Shearer, "became friends of mine," she writes. Brooke's brother, Derek Shearer, another Yale graduate, became a friend of Bill and pro-Marxist economic adviser to Clinton

Posted by: TaaTaa | April 21, 2008 3:38 PM | Report abuse

"Her most significant missteps came over her repeated mischaracterizations of her trip to Bosnia in 1996."

What this means in plain english, the kind that explains why I now hate Hillary, is: She got caught lying over and over about a bogus sniper attack in bosnia."

Simple english please wapo. We deserve it, and so do you.

Posted by: jeffp | April 21, 2008 3:38 PM | Report abuse

It's 3am in the morning, and there is a
telephone rigning in WAPO's Gurlyman Loser
Fearful Freddie Office,and who picks it up
and hears,"Chief we have the every paper
Smear Hillary Clinton and Praise The New
Messiah Barack Hussein Obama Edition Ready
To Print okay?" And Fearless Freddie ssys
"Bring It On! Burn Baby Burn!" And that is
how WAPO likes to cover Hillary Clinton's
Presidential Campaign. Whatever happened to
a fair and balanced press anyhow? Go Hillary! President Clinton in 2008!

Posted by: Sherry Kay | April 21, 2008 3:37 PM | Report abuse

John Abrams:

If McCain runs against Obama, and selects someone like Bloomberg as his running mate, you don't think that puts NY in play?

Posted by: Anonymous | April 21, 2008 3:36 PM | Report abuse

Obama can't win the national election.
What will he say when asked in a debate with McCain -

"Mr Obama, how many times did you purchase or use 'hard drugs' like Cocaine?"

-----------------------------------------

Less times than Sen. McCain committed adultery and hired prostitutes.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 21, 2008 3:36 PM | Report abuse

______________________________________
_____________________________________/
We all need to FLOOD the internet with
details of the ((Balanced Budget Act 1997))
as to how inhumane much it has been
to the suffering poor of this Nation!
______________________________________\
_______________________________________

Posted by: Anonymous | April 21, 2008 3:36 PM | Report abuse


Say no to Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton presidential dynasties. Sen. Clinton is the past and is getting a free ride based on her husband's accomplishments, just like George W. Bush gained the US presidency as the spoiled son of a rich and politically powerful father. Sen. Clinton is a closet Republican, voted for the war, believes strongly in doing the bidding of her large corporate donors and if she becomes president will spend it redoing Bill Clinton's presidency, the same way George W. Bush upstaged his father, e.g., by deposing Saddam Hussein in the invasion of Iraq under false pretenses. Sen. Obama is the future and will beat Sen. McCain in November, vote for Barack Obama now.

Posted by: Eric L. Prentis | April 21, 2008 3:35 PM | Report abuse

yellowdog, THANK YOU very much. This entire campaign has been "controlled" and manipulted by the media since the start. In addition to what you indicated, try to find Michelle's thesis, according to the school it has been removed until Nov 5, for reasons as the school states "doesn't what to be overlaoded for the students and alumni" boy isn't that convenient, and lets not forget Wrights sermon on how the US invented and infected everyone with it,(again, as you indicated, it's hard to find, but then the major media won't touch it), the AID's virus. Had this been Clinton or her associates, she would have been gone. I also agree the poster that indicates this has been set up from the start, Bill Clinton was trashed because he lied about oral sex in the White House and it has carried over to Hillary, but yet these same people have heard the the Presidential candidate acknowledge that he used cocain and illegal drugs, was associated with a terroist group and can't remember who he has associated with since becoming a Senator, yet according to them, "it's ok". I think he and his "cult followers" have watched the movie "Man of the Year" too many times and think it's real.

Posted by: Frankie58 | April 21, 2008 3:35 PM | Report abuse

If Obama wins the nomination, I will vote for Nader too.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 21, 2008 3:34 PM | Report abuse

If you are one who thinks that states like NY (where for some reason Obama seems to not have received any votes in over 80 voting districts--you be the judge of that one), NJ, PA, MI, and CA (Obama is now polling better than Clinton in CA)will suddenly crossover and go "red" just because Obama didn't win them in a contest between "democrats", then you are seriously delusional in your comprehension and grasp on reality(even Brit Hume will admit this).

The only 2 states that are really in play are OH and FL. And we all know that some stubborn, and bigoted voters in those two states will not vote their economic interests or ever vote for a black candidate, but would rather vote for the party who tricks them into thinking that they share their values on social issues. Also, posting sound bites from any one candidate's surrogate does nothing in the way of making the slightest of points.

Posted by: John Abrams | April 21, 2008 3:33 PM | Report abuse

This is news to me. Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton used spiritual counseling from Rev. Jeremiah Wright during the Lewinsky scandal!!!
I cannot fathom the resilience of Sen. Obama; to have been taking this crap from Hillary and not throwing the mud back. Hillary needs to learn a few lessons about being tough - at times "being tough" means "being decent".

Posted by: Aray | April 21, 2008 3:32 PM | Report abuse


Let me get this straight, Dan Ballz..

Hilliary wins Pennsylvania by 10 or more points after Obama outspends her there by a ratio of 3-to-1..

And SHE'S in trouble??

Posted by: Anonymous | April 21, 2008 3:32 PM | Report abuse

Your report stated: "Her most significant missteps came over her repeated mis-characterizations of her trip to Bosnia in 1996". This is basically the media's repeated maneuver to downgrade sen. Clinton on her minor bragging of the Bosnia trip, while disregarding Obama's distortion of history on JFK's assistance in getting his late father Obama,Sr. to US from Kenya in 1959, which was only reported by the Fact checking in WP. The fact is Obama, Jr is a habitual bragger, like his late father in Kenya, who was a habitual drinker, bragger and abandoner (of women and children).

Posted by: austin c | April 21, 2008 3:32 PM | Report abuse

Thanks Dan for the good analysis of Senator Clinton's problem. You forgot to add that she is engaging non-stop in character assasination and guilt by association attacks forcing Senator Obama to respond in kind.

The large un-decided response in the PA polling suggests one of the following results:

1. It largely represents anti-black voters who will turn out for Clinton.
2. It largely represents anti-female voters who will stay home.
3. It largely represents both of these types of voters all of whom will stay home.

Whatever the result, its a disgrace that so many PA voters can't free themselves from their biases and prejudices.


Posted by: Peter | April 21, 2008 3:32 PM | Report abuse

feastorafamine:

Can your calculator SUBTRACT super delegates already announced for Obama?

Posted by: Anonymous | April 21, 2008 3:31 PM | Report abuse

Dan, when are you going to get over the unfavorability ratings of the candidates. Whether someone likes Hillary Clinton's personality is not paramount in this campaign. They liked George Bush and if he hadn't stolen Florida, Al Gore (the unlikable thanks to the press) would have won and did win the popular vote.

You are obviously dwelling on something negative that you think you can use to influence our vote against Senator Clinton. Well, Dan Honey, it's not going to work...we're not THAT stupid.

Posted by: hazwalnut | April 21, 2008 3:30 PM | Report abuse

Obama is nothing but a FAKE, DECEPTIVE AND CALCULATING RACE MONGERING Candidate. He has no JUDGEMENT, CHARACTER OR HONESTY. He wants to CHANGE Washingto but coddles CORRUPTIION in Illinois, particularly, the corrupt, indicted slumlord, Rezko. He surrounds himself with American flags but do not RESPECT them. He does not put his hand to his HEART. He has hoodwinked youths and liberal media by his SCRIPTED and BORROWED SPEECHES. He lacks JUDGEMENT when he subjects his children to hear the RACISTS AND divisive sermons of his pastor Wright. His church is no different than the Madrassas in Fundamentalists countries that preach hatred and destruction of America. Obama and his wife are influenced by wright, this is evident from their words and actions. Michelle tells us that she was not proud of America until her adult life and that America is MEAN. He belittles small town people. Women, Hispanics, Latinos and Asians will never vote for him if he is the Democratic nominee.

Posted by: UTWO | April 21, 2008 3:29 PM | Report abuse

I also think that a LOT of people, including southerners and conservatives will vote for Obama simply to assuage their guilt over being closet or out and out racists over the years. A vote for O will help allow them to fell better about themselves.
----------------------------------------
This has most likely evaporated once it has been found out that Obama IS NOT the package that he has tried to sell to us: He is nothing more than a CHARLATAN trying to paint himself as the redeemer to save this nation. He has been CAUGHT IN THE ACT!!!!!!

Posted by: Anonymous | April 21, 2008 3:29 PM | Report abuse

If Obama gets the nomination I will vote for Obama.

Posted by: vtr08 | April 21, 2008 3:29 PM | Report abuse

Obama can't win the national election.
What will he say when asked in a debate with McCain -

"Mr Obama, how many times did you purchase or use 'hard drugs' like Cocaine?"

Most Americans put cocaine in the same category as crack and heroin, they are "hard drugs"

Unless all Democrats care about is "making a statement", electabiliy is what matters in the end.

I'm one of millions of Democrats that will vote for McCain, and will strongly consider leaving the Democratic Party completely, if Obama is the candidate.

He does not represent "hope" to me, he represents shame.

I'm disgusted that the press treats him like a saint and a savior when his record both in Chicago and the Senate is based on taking credit for bills he never worked on, as documented by articles in the WP and the NYT.

I'm disgusted by the behavior of the members of the far-left cult of Obama joining with the members of the far-right to destroy the center by lumping Bill Clinton's administration with George Bush's.

I'm disgusted by Obama's below-the-belt attacks on Senator Clinton and by Obama's supporters relentless attacks on individual Clinton supporters.

I'm disguested by the Obama campaign's attacks on ABC for the "crime" of asking tough questions.

Obama is an arrogant incompetent.

He didn't do his job in Chicago and didn't do his job in the senate.

I don't trust him to have his finger on the button and neither do millions of other Americans.

I trust Hillary. I trust John McCain.

My loyalty is to America, not to any one political party.

If Democrats nominate Obama, they'll telling everyone like me who is in the center and believes that Bill Clinton did a great job for America that they don't care about us or our votes, just like they don't care about the people of Florida and Michigan.

I'm angry and bitter, but not because of anything Bill or Hillary Clinton did.

I'm angry and bitter that my party, the Democratic Party, has stabbed Bill and Hillary Clinton in the back and thrown them under the bus.

I'm angry and bitter that my party, the Democratic Party is so in love with he youth vote that they've lost all perspective and that they don't care about experience and competence.

I'm angry and bitter that the Democratic Party has been taken over by "moonies" and forgotten about the middle class and what we want.

I'm angry and bitter that David Axelrod has played the press like a cheap violin.

Did anyone else notice that the headlines about the race are identical in both the NYT and WP -

"Obama sharpens is tone"

Yeah, right.

If Obama's the nominee, McCain's the next President.

Posted by: Nominating Obama is political suicide for Democrats | April 21, 2008 3:27 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: jonathanR | April 21, 2008 2:07 PM ... the reason Hillary "loses" by winning is because she had a 20 point lead in PA just a few weeks ago, and if she wins PA now, it will be by no more than a just few points now. Such is the story of the 2008 campaign...Hillary started way way up, and slowly, slowly she has come down.

The more people have time to think, the more they lean towards Obama, it just takes longer to convince the more people there happens to be in the big states (look at other "big states" where she similarly began with large doule digit leads and won by much less).

Lets go to Denver if you want Hillary, because by then you will be the one 20 points down!!!!


----------------------------
You can give credit to the media and credit to David Axelrod, Obama's chief strategist, if Hillary's point spread is lower. The media has handled Obama with kid gloves that prevented voters from finding out anything about him except that he is a great motivational speaker. Also, David Axelrod targeted college students as an untapped group of voters just as the Republicans targeted the conservative base to get George W. Bush elected. He knew that these first-time voters paid little attention, if any, to elections, let alone a presidential election. He also knew that Obama could storm their campuses with his motivational speeches and his motivational words of HOPE and CHANGE and get their votes. These students are busy with their studies and don't have a lot of time to do any research on Obama and many of them just believe everything he says and are excited about being first-time voters.

On the flip side of your comment, the more people who have time to think after the media finally began to let us know more about Obama may be the reason that Obama wasn't able to storm Ohio and now Pennsylvania. He has outspent her at least 2 to 1 and should have had the nomination by now. Could it be that people have been given more time to think?

Hillary will win by winning, not lose by winning as you suggest.

Posted by: Ralph | April 21, 2008 3:27 PM | Report abuse

If Obama gets the nomination, I'll vote for Nader.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 21, 2008 3:26 PM | Report abuse

GO OPERATION CHAOS!!!

Posted by: Anonymous | April 21, 2008 3:26 PM | Report abuse

The Clinton's thought that they had the election "in the bag" ... they cultivated relationships over the last 10 years and believed that by giving they should receive... they failed to take in to account that every one that they gave to did not have enough clout to control the voting decisions of their constituents and so therefore the bewilderment set in and then the mistakes and misrepresentations of her positions on major issues and trips.i.e., Bosnia... resulted in people taking a closer look at her and realizing that she would do and say anything to get elected because she could no longer count on her "friends" to make it happen for her. Now she and Bill have alienated fellow Democrats and every one is just ready for her to get out of the race.. She implys that Obama can't win because of certain issues but these are issues that have nothing to do with anything... Obama is being attacked over the actions of others...politics is ugly and Hillary has proven that she is willing to compromise her dignity and drink with the boys..and tell tall tails about her father letting her handle guns when she was a child just to garner votes... she frightens me and I would rather have a man of principle in the whitehouse than a woman who would say and do anything just to get elected.

Posted by: Sabrina | April 21, 2008 3:26 PM | Report abuse

The Media support for Obama is controlled by Repubs, that is a FACT. Now it would seem logical they would try and get the weakest Dem to run against McCain. I cannot see how Obama can win in Nov., but Hillary, by my count has 309 Electoral Votes and I find it hard to even get 200 for Obama.

Posted by: lylepink | April 21, 2008 3:24 PM | Report abuse

I would like to inject a sense of realism into a passionate and often ugly debate that rages here on Wapo blog boards on a daily basis. Truth is truth, and math does not lie. In order for Hillary to win the nomination she MUST win ALL the remaining 10 states by a margin of at least 12-14 percentage points (62-64%) and then she must win 64% of the superdelegates. All this talk back and forth cannot change the math. Hillary's efforts to get the nomination will be an exhaustive uphill battle. With every VICTORY she may enjoy, like the inevitable PA victory she will actually LOSE ground if she fails to win by a margin of less than 64%. Even a robust win of 10% will not be enough. Before all you Hillary folks start to jump down my throat you should know I LOVE Hillary. I am constantly pleading for unity within the Dem party. I do not have a bias. What I have is a calculator, and a willingness to add things up the way they are, not the way I want them to be. Use this delegate calculator below and do the math yourself. Adjust the slider to 62-64% in the win column from here on out and see what you get. The delegate count used is the same as MSNBC and CNN
http://www.slate.com//id/2185278/

Posted by: feastorafamine | April 21, 2008 3:24 PM | Report abuse

The Republicans are playing a great strategy in making the people believe that Obama is the strongest candidate. The reality is the opposite and Obama will quickly deflate once they bite through his thin skin. This is the problem that the Democrats have when they let the extreme left liberal minds exercise any control. Their intelligence is always full of dreams and air.

So, it is up to the rest of us to impart some common sense in this election while there is a chance!!!

A vote for Hillary would be the only common sense solution!!!

Posted by: Hispana | April 21, 2008 3:23 PM | Report abuse

And... if she wins Pennsylvania by double digits.
What then?
The media is flustered once again because voters (in this case PA Democrats) are not following the story line. Dammn it!
Obama should have wrapped this up after his 11 mid-sized states in a row. But he couldn't. He can't finish her off. His senior people know this, that's why they will once again ask her to step down, even after she wins by double digits. ( Tuesday's Prediction: Clinton 56%, Obama 44%)
The superdelegates are taking notes.

Posted by: mediahack | April 21, 2008 3:23 PM | Report abuse

If Clinton 1. wins in PA by double-digits or 2. wins PA by a slim margin or 3. loses PA the SUPERDELEGATES will still be the deciding factor. After reading the venom each candidate's supporters are thowing at each other in posts, the SUPERS need to show their party some leadership and start endorsing their candidate of choice. Because, while the dems are going at each other and vowing to vote "McCain" if their candidate isn't nominated, the repubs and media are watching with utter glee from the sidelines. Reaffirms why I'm a registered Independent.

Posted by: VAreader | April 21, 2008 3:23 PM | Report abuse

Hillary has never been well-liked by any faction of the population, not since early in her husband's presidency. Her negatives have always been high. Fair or not, its a fact. I do not believe Hillary could win against McCain in a genral election, bec. of those negatives.

Obama is another story. He has low negatives, high positives across the board, EXCEPT with a large segment of white, less affluent, less educated voters, esp. in the South and Midwest.

So the Democratic Party super delegates get to decide between supporting a white woman who is not widely liked or respected, and a black man who must run against a lot of inherent racism.

Off hand, I'd say that the white voters who won't vote for a black man, are not gonna vote for a white woman named Hillary either. Those votes are all going to McCain. Leaving out those "Reagan Democrats", between Hillary and Obama, who can win the most states?

Posted by: Anonymous | April 21, 2008 3:23 PM | Report abuse

I also think that a LOT of people, including southerners and conservatives will vote for Obama simply to assuage their guilt over being closet or out and out racists over the years. A vote for O will help allow them to fell better about themselves.

Posted by: vtr08 | April 21, 2008 3:22 PM | Report abuse

OPERATION CHAOS IS WORKING!!!

Posted by: Joe. G. | April 21, 2008 3:22 PM | Report abuse

Nisha, here is his blueprint for change... http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/ObamaBlueprintForChange.pdf ; Read it if you'd like. Perhaps I just bunked your message. Maybe there are some people out there that react to the word change, but Obama has captured a great deal of the "educated" electorate the actively seeks out knowledge rather than letting the TV tell them what to think.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 21, 2008 3:21 PM | Report abuse

I get so angry and bitter when I hear those who know nothing about Hillary trying to define her. Hillary is aware that the far left members of the Democratic Party -- people who read firedoglake and are secure in their gender identity -- are the ones who will have a final say on who gets the nomination. You go, girl!

Posted by: twin_peaks_nikki | April 21, 2008 3:21 PM | Report abuse

egc52556:

Perhaps you have missed all the DEMOCRATS who have stated they will not, under any circumstances, vote for the other guy (or gal)?

Posted by: Anonymous | April 21, 2008 3:19 PM | Report abuse

Talk about shooting the messenger.

The article is dead on. Hillary's skyrocketing negatives are the predictable consequence of going negative (and reinforcing, with the Bosnia lies, the perception that she will say or do anything to win). You cannot win a general election if you are not credible, and polls show, generally, she is not credible.

Here's the elephant in the room: people do not like Hillary. Dismiss it as misogyny if you want (though most people don't even think of HRC as a woman) but it is true. And THAT is why she won't make up her deficit with superdelegates: they are people, and they don't like her either. Despite all the cr@p that has been flung Obama's way, the steady parade of supers and high-profile endorsements continues unabated. It is as if people are saying, "enough is enough". It also is not lost on people that Hillary is now appealing to rednecks whose loyalty to the party is the weakest among any identifiable demographic.

Posted by: gbooksdc | April 21, 2008 3:19 PM | Report abuse

HRC has always had a significant "like-ability" problem. Since January this problem has gone from bad to worse. But more than that: she has infected Obama with it. He used to be Mr. Hope and fresh air. HRC has tarnished him to the point that he probably can't ever recover -- and he's the stronger candidate! Wonder who will step in to save the Dems?

Posted by: Anonymous | April 21, 2008 3:19 PM | Report abuse

I was a fence-sitter for a while but have come out solidly or Obama. The HillBilly's went way over the line on several ocasions and it just seems they are rnning out of spite now.

Posted by: vtr08 | April 21, 2008 3:19 PM | Report abuse

Hispana, it's not the "race card" if your candidate ACTUALLY subversively attacks Obama's electability based on his race. It's been a subtle campaign from the beginning to break him down that way. The way that the Clinton Campaign has subtley driven a wedge between white and black America has worsened an already bleak set of race relations.

Posted by: NCVoter | April 21, 2008 3:18 PM | Report abuse

All you intelligent Obama supporters voting for 'CHANGE' do you have a list specific changes he is proposing to you. If you have a list can you please publish it for me or is it just the word 'CHANGE' that impresses you. You all know that change can be good change and also can be bad change.
So here is what I think: as President he probably will spread the same teachings that he received from his Pastor. His Pastor was his mentor and advisor for 20 long years and you can not erase your mentor and advisors's teachings which are instilled in you for 20 years although controversial in just few months, they will stay with you forever. Obama has proved that again and again by not denouncing his Pastor and also supporting the church by donating money and his time.
Next, he will appoint people with qualities like Rezko, Ayers and Wright in his cabinet. Because with his associations you can tell what traits in a person attract him.
And next, his arrogant personality will persuade him to make speeches where he will make remarks like 'bitter Americans' or like his wife's remarks 'proud of America now' and demean people.
And lastly, spending money donated by people like water on primary elections. He is actually buying people's votes. If he is that good then why is wasting money and buying voters? He should win the primaries without spending any money.

Posted by: nisha | April 21, 2008 3:18 PM | Report abuse

I just do not understand what these die hard HRC supporters see in her lies and deciept and cheating and illegal stuff? As I said so many times before and continue (because nobody ever came up with anything) just tell me ONE thing positive she has accomplished! She is a loser!

Posted by: quinka | April 21, 2008 3:16 PM | Report abuse

Let me get this right - Some of you think Obama is going to win? Funny!! He is winning small, rural states that Republicans have ALWAYS won! He just managed the faux pas of offending those states. He has yet to win a large state that the Dems always win - so this is going to be the nominee? Someone tell me how all this jibes with a Democratic victory in November. You stupid stupid STUPID IDIOTS!!!!!!!!! I'm in a party of INCOMPETENTS!!!!!! Stupid Fools!!

Posted by: ObamaGlassJaw | April 21, 2008 3:16 PM | Report abuse

I want to know why pundits think that if one Democrat beats another in the primary, that means the loser can't beat the Republicans in November.

Hillary may beat Barack, but the tarnish is going to come off Saint John's halo way before November.

Posted by: RealCalGal | April 21, 2008 3:15 PM | Report abuse

Why does Balz refer to Clinton's "mischaracterization" of trip to Bosnia rather than her "lie" about it?

Posted by: David | April 21, 2008 3:15 PM | Report abuse


It is pleasing, somehow, to find above that...the Hillary supporters are mostly (that's mostly, not all)

... very angry, mad as hel, more ranting than articulate, and blame everyone else. They sound like losers.

Independents don't trust Hillary by
59 per cent, incidentally. And republican women like her less than before...
Speakin of 'can't win'!

Posted by: helene | April 21, 2008 3:14 PM | Report abuse

The Obama camp and David Axelrod have ran a subvertive campaign using the RACE CARD from the very beginning against Hillary and anyone not understanding this is too naive or ignorant!!!

Posted by: Hispana | April 21, 2008 3:13 PM | Report abuse

You can't have it both ways... one day she's so "establishment" that it's "her turn", and the next day she has no experience to run on. Which is it? Seems inconsistent to me.

Posted by: JFlorida | April 21, 2008 3:12 PM | Report abuse

[QUOTE]
Obama's recent problems have caused some Democrats to worry about his chances of winning the general election. His performance in Ohio, they argue, where he won only a handful of counties and lost some by huge margins, will make his prospects there difficult, they say. Michigan, too, could be formidable for him, and depending on the outcome Tuesday, so could Pennsylvania.
[/QUOTE]

I don't see how we can compare Clinton or Obama's performance among Democrats with how either would fare between Democrats and Republicans. I understand the "white male" influence, but will the "white males" who voted Democratic in the Primary really abandon the party if the candidate they voted for doesn't win the nomination? Is their support that weak?

Which leads me to another point that I believe hasn't been discussed: Is Clinton/Obama so undedicated to the party that they won't do all they can to bring their base voters to support whoever wins the nomination?

Consider Obama if he loses, "I know you're disappointed. I know I am. But as we always have throughout our history we must lift ourselves above that disappointment and look forward. Do we really want to continue the destructive legacy of George Bush? Come with me and work to put a Democrat in the White House. Yes we can."

Consider Clinton if she loses, "I know you're disappointed. I know I am. But I'll be damned if I'm not going to fight to my last breath to save our country from another 8 years of George Bush's destructive legacy. Come with me and work to put a Democrat in the White House. Yes we can."

Our what-if calculus must include the assumption that most of Clinton/Obama supporters will support the Democrat in the general.

Posted by: egc52556 | April 21, 2008 3:12 PM | Report abuse

As a write-in candidate, Obama would not get any more votes than Ross Perot did -- 20 million in 1992 IIRC -- how ironic it would be for Hillary to LOSE to McCain because of something like that.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 21, 2008 3:11 PM | Report abuse

She is weakened you guys because she doesn't have any money. She started the month in the Red and if it weren't for the Media, people in Indiana would never see her. She can't afford to pay for Ads, so she will hope she can come out with provocative ones the media will play. I have noticed a decided advantage for her in the 'Ads' the media play, one might assume they are trying to keep her in the race; too bad they didn't do the same for Huckabee.

Posted by: Trey | April 21, 2008 3:11 PM | Report abuse

Hey there PA, state where I was bred and born.

Are you straight-thinking, tough people actually falling for Hillary's "daughter of PA, just-plain-folks" routine? I can't believe it - you're all better than that.

Remember the "Memories of Pinochle at the Summer House" commercial? How many of us can say we've EVER had a summer house, indoor plumbing or not, either in our lives or those of our grandparents?

Who's the "elite" person here, again?

If you think Hillary's the better candidate on the issues, you rock on with that in the voting booth. But don't vote on image alone - Hillary's wearing a mask.


Posted by: Daughter of Wexford | April 21, 2008 3:11 PM | Report abuse

I thought Tom Shales was in charge of the cheap-@ss hit pieces on Hillary.


Posted by: Anonymous | April 21, 2008 3:10 PM | Report abuse

Exactly... SHE is weakened? Huh? Can you say "media bias"?

Posted by: Jessy Hamilton | April 21, 2008 3:10 PM | Report abuse

Hillary is this elections Bob Dole. Somebody with a lot of clout in the party who is running because it's her turn. Ugh,

Posted by: cambel | April 21, 2008 3:09 PM | Report abuse

Thanks for letting us here in Illinois know that our votes for Obama back on Super Tuesday do matter. We keep hearing that Hillary's won all the "big" states--CA, NY, OH, TX. When someone mentions Illinois, we hear "oh, that's his home state." Apparently, NY is only Hillary's home state when it's convenient. I'm waiting for her to say that she lost her virginity in Indiana, making it yet another one of her "homes"....

Posted by: Lucky Lakeshore | April 21, 2008 3:09 PM | Report abuse

Dan, I guess you join the rest of media pundits to desperately and at any cost construe articles that are 100% full of bias. You can certainly do me a favor and do one on Obama showing all of his flaws.

The point is that a great majority of you threw yourselves into electing a candidate such as Obama and in your zest to get him elected, you are failing to see that he would not be able to withstand the scrutiny of the Republican machinery in November.

The math of his electability is done all wrong. It is obvious that his wins are in states that would not vote democratic or where votes would be insignificant. If he is the candidate the popular vote would be an issue. Has anyone also thought about the fact that in the states that already voted, there are many voters who would not vote for him this November after finding out about his true character and connections?

With the various wrong decisions on Florida and Michigan the party is headed for major disaster. And it seems that a great majority of people are failing to think this through.

It is important that all Primaries are completed and Florida and Michigan vote. Without this, the chances of Obama's candidacy would permeate to be a highly questionable candidacy. Let's face the fact that with all the money he has invested, and despite the sponsoring and easy ride he has received, he has not being able to surmount many obstacles. This would dramatically increase when he faces the Republican machinery. He does not have the toughness required and the supporters would not be able to carry him as it has happened so far. The FABRICATION of this candidate would hit a brick wall finally!!!

So, WAKE UP and think about Hillary being the candidate that can help us win this election.

Failure to do so will result in another lost election!!! Mark my words!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: Hispana | April 21, 2008 3:08 PM | Report abuse

"Are you calling every Pennsylvania voter who votes for Clinton a "racist"?"

I would never claim that every single person that votes for Hillary, but given the tactics employed by the Clinton campaign to divide and conquer on the basis of race, I would say that there is a large portion of the rural electorate that is uncomfortable with a black President. I would even go so far as to say that that does not essentially make them racist either, but perhaps would require questioning of what makes them feel uncomfortable about the man.

Posted by: NCVoter | April 21, 2008 3:08 PM | Report abuse


Pardon me if I'm wrong, but I was positive the Washington Post already had turned over it's Presidential election analysis to that hateful, b!tchy little columnist in the Style section..

Posted by: Anonymous | April 21, 2008 3:08 PM | Report abuse

Let's just say right now what we will al be saying tomorrow.

Hillary, congratulations, you showed that Democrats are still divided by race and class. Now GET OUT. You are destroying the party and even if you steal the nomination, we're writing in Obama in November.

Posted by: Angry Liberaltarian | April 21, 2008 3:05 PM | Report abuse

People remember that Bill Clinton brought them peace and prosperity.
If Hillary's the candidate, the election becomes a referendum between the Bush and Clinton years and Hillary wins.
Posted by: Hillary can win nationally

You're right about that, it will be a referendum of 8 yrs of Lies and Scandal(Clinton) vs 7+ years of Lies and Deception(Bush).

Posted by: tydicea | April 21, 2008 3:04 PM | Report abuse

Can't Be Stopped:

Are you calling every Pennsylvania voter who votes for Clinton a "racist"?

Posted by: Anonymous | April 21, 2008 3:03 PM | Report abuse


If Hillary doesn't get the nomination, I will vote for McCain, too.

And then I'll never forgive Howard Dean for losing this election.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 21, 2008 3:02 PM | Report abuse


Hillary has just about burned down the house and ripped the scab off of every Democrat who supports Barack Obama.

Hillary has told her supporters to vote for John McCain, instead of Barack Obama, if Hillary doesn't get the nomination.
With a lack of support for her party like that, Hillary ought to just go ahead and join the Republican Party, although they probably don't want Hillary either.


NOW, MORE THAN EVER, BARACK OBAMA!

Posted by: Linda Love Jones | April 21, 2008 3:01 PM | Report abuse

By the way, what happened to the Democrats when they claim black = unelectable?! I see it all over the board here (rarely specifically stated, but certainly implied). It is true what people say: there is very little difference between the Reps and Dems.

Posted by: NCVoter | April 21, 2008 3:00 PM | Report abuse

I'm not a mean person.

But so help me god, just saw Hillary in person. AND SHE LOOKS like just exactly what she is. Nature has caught up with her. It is justice, and is not pretty.

Also saw Billy speak in a small, western PA town on Friday. Never heard so many lies-per-syllable . HRC on guns, on war votes, on NAFTA. It was just funny.

Those two are horrid. May they fail and disappear.


(after having heard Billy make a speech in a small town nearby...with the most lies per syllable,

Posted by: observer | April 21, 2008 3:00 PM | Report abuse

Only WaPo would do this!

Posted by: Harried | April 21, 2008 2:59 PM | Report abuse

This article is a little out of date and does not reflect the jump for Hillery in National Polls the last few days since the debate.

Posted by: donbl

The only jump Hiliary got in the post debate polls are higher negatives than she already had.

Posted by: tydicea | April 21, 2008 2:58 PM | Report abuse

Dan Balz's Take's blog twists the truth and is quite self-serving for an Obama supporter. The Rev. Wright story, The "Bitter-gate" and debate fiasco have damaged Obama more than any one is willing to accept. Obama campaign has outspent 3:1 in TV and radio ads, but still accepts a loss as a win. And yet Hillary is the one weakened as per this blog. Obama is no longer the star that he once was, and he may still win nomination because of his previous GOP support. That support is fast vanishing, and he is now the darling of only the extreme left. John McCain can't believe his luck. With Obama as the nominee, McCain can unleash his attacks on Obama through surrogates. God help the democratic party in November.

Posted by: Narthan | April 21, 2008 2:57 PM | Report abuse


Re: "She wins in Ohio, and hopefully Pennsylvania, and SHE is "weakened"?!"

Winning in Ohio doesn't get you the nomination, nor does winning in PA.
Quite frankly, Hillary has been so poisonous to the Democrat Party, I can't wait for her to leave and go back to New York.

Hillary has just about burned down and house and ripped the scabs off of every democrat who supports Barack Obama.
Hillary is going out kicking and screaming, and I can hardly wait until she's officially defeated.


NOW, MORE THAN EVER, BARACK OBAMA!


Posted by: Linda Love Jones | April 21, 2008 2:57 PM | Report abuse

I know a lot more Independent voters here in NC (Raleigh/Durham area) that are registered as Democrats who want nothing to do with Clinton and see a refreshing future with Obama. Personally, I am sick of all this course-correcting made by the Clinton campaign that truly does reek of the "kitchen-sink" approach. Hillary does exactly what the Republicans do, makes empty, unverifiable statements that appeal to the masses, essentially relying on their general disinterest or ignorance. Then when those masses are "attacked" in the fashion in which they claim Obama did, they again USE this portion of the electorate (fully knowing their ignorance) by saying they were attacked. If you study the context of Obama's statement about clinging to guns and religion, it's spot-on... he's not say they go to them because of their bitterness but that they cling to what they know and what comforts them; how is that attacking them?

Posted by: NCVoter | April 21, 2008 2:56 PM | Report abuse

I got to give a big shout out to BOB JOHNSON of BET. I think that he is notably the biggest OREO COOKIE in the world. It's amazing what a Billion dollars can do. He is much darker than OBAMA and totaly discredits this man. Mr. JOHNSON you are a decendant from SLAVES my friend. DO NOT LET THE MONEY GET TO YOUR HEAD. YOU ARE A BLACK N....R!! DON't FORGET THAT. YOU ARE A REPUBLICAN iN DISGUISE. YOU ARE BENEATH CONTEMPT BY USING YOUR POWER BASE TO CUT AWAY AT OBAMA. IT IS GOOD TO SEE THAT YOU ARE A MERCENARY (SLAVE BOY) FOR BILL CLINTON. THINK FOR ONE MINUTE BOB. DO YOU THINK THAT IF YOU HAD LESS THAN 500k in your bank account that they would still hang out with you? YOU ARE SUCH A SUCKER.

Posted by: tjoey | April 21, 2008 2:56 PM | Report abuse

I respectfully believe that these ups and downs are nothing major for Clinton.
Indeed gallop poll put her again for democratic votes above Obama.

We should be careful to think about likeability or negative effects. They do not translate to votes - one way or another. Look into France, Italy, Germany, Canada, and many times in the US. They do not mean a thing 7 months prior to an election. Please do not try to dig into it too much - as it is not scienitifically relevant.

In addition, if she wins the % votes, (97,000 with FL, MI), it would be hard to argue that the votes of FL and MI (particulalry FLORIDIA when an unprecedent number of people votes and all candidates were on the ballot) will be counted. It would be a disgrace for DNC to not to do it for two major swing states in both of which Hillary either leads or is even with McCain within statiscal error, whereas Obama trails.

Hillary 08!

Posted by: Meg | April 21, 2008 2:56 PM | Report abuse

The way that the word image is being used here, is to describe how career politicians sell themselves... a deliberately constructed and controlled illusion created by professional handlers. A masquerade on a grand scale to make the product, the politician, more palatable or saleable to the public. I would rather know the truth about the candidates, where they stand, their history including resume' and who are their largest supporters among other important things. What I am seeing and hearing in the media is trivial nonsense, a well orchestrated and paid for dog and pony show....anyone know of a news source that presents real unbiased information that is useful in our world where propaganda and fantasy is about to become associated with fraud, wasting of time and foolishness.

Posted by: Image Problem? | April 21, 2008 2:55 PM | Report abuse

I'm an independent. Looking inward, its strange how I find myself supporting the democrats and not giving McCain much of a chance. I just hate what George Bush and Karl Rove have done to our country so much, infusing partisan politics, nepotism and manipulation of power and privelege at every turn, that I find it difficult to give another Republican a chance.

Posted by: Howard Roark | April 21, 2008 2:55 PM | Report abuse

Hillary can win nationally, Obama can't.

The American want to elect a candidate that's in the center.

That narrows it down to McCain and Hillary.

People remember that Bill Clinton brought them peace and prosperity.

If Hillary's the candidate, the election becomes a referendum between the Bush and Clinton years and Hillary wins.

Posted by: Hillary can win nationally, Obama can't | April 21, 2008 2:54 PM | Report abuse

the media is just like a prostitute,they tell you what you want to hear, one day and the next day is totally different.today it's hillary being weakened,wednesday it will be a positive spin if hillary etches out a victory.over a month ago it was said she needs to win a plurality by a wide margin.now the clinton campaign is saying in lieu of senator obama's spending so much money on advertising, a win by 5% is a significant victory. the media will put a spin on defeat as well as victory.

Posted by: ron | April 21, 2008 2:53 PM | Report abuse

President Obama is inevitable. No matter what is said, who tries to sabotage the People's Movement, no matter what racial profiling or stereotyping is done, this good man will prevail.

Isaiah 54:17 -

New American Standard Bible (©1995)
"No weapon that is formed against you will prosper; And every tongue that accuses you in judgment you will condemn. This is the heritage of the servants of the LORD, And their vindication is from Me," declares the LORD.

King James Bible
No weapon that is formed against thee shall prosper; and every tongue that shall rise against thee in judgment thou shalt condemn. This is the heritage of the servants of the LORD, and their righteousness is of me, saith the LORD.

American King James Version
No weapon that is formed against you shall prosper; and every tongue that shall rise against you in judgment you shall condemn. This is the heritage of the servants of the LORD, and their righteousness is of me, said the LORD.

American Standard Version
No weapon that is formed against thee shall prosper; and every tongue that shall rise against thee in judgment thou shalt condemn. This is the heritage of the servants of Jehovah, and their righteousness which is of me, saith Jehovah.

Bible in Basic English
No instrument of war which is formed against you will be of any use; and every tongue which says evil against you will be judged false. This is the heritage of the servants of the Lord, and their righteousness comes from me, says the Lord.

Douay-Rheims Bible
No weapon that is formed against thee shall prosper: and every tongue that resisteth thee in judgment, thou shalt condemn. This is the inheritance of the servants of the Lord, and their justice with me, saith the Lord.

Darby Bible Translation
No weapon that is prepared against thee shall prosper; and every tongue that riseth against thee in judgment, thou shalt condemn. This is the inheritance of the servants of Jehovah; and their righteousness is of me, saith Jehovah.

English Revised Version
No weapon that is formed against thee shall prosper; and every tongue that shall rise against thee in judgment thou shalt condemn. This is the heritage of the servants of the LORD, and their righteousness which is of me, saith the LORD.

GOD'S WORD® Translation (©1995)
No weapon that has been made to be used against you will succeed. You will have an answer for anyone who accuses you. This is the inheritance of the LORD's servants. Their victory comes from me," declares the LORD.

Jewish Publication Society Tanakh
No weapon that is formed against thee shall prosper; and every tongue that shall rise against thee in judgment thou shalt condemn. This is the heritage of the servants of the LORD, and their due reward from Me, saith the LORD.

Webster's Bible Translation
No weapon that is formed against thee shall prosper; and every tongue that shall rise against thee in judgment thou shalt condemn. This is the heritage of the servants of the LORD, and their righteousness is from me, saith the LORD.

World English Bible
No weapon that is formed against you will prevail; and you will condemn every tongue that rises against you in judgment. This is the heritage of the servants of Yahweh, and their righteousness which is of me," says Yahweh.

Young's Literal Translation
No weapon formed against thee prospereth, And every tongue rising against thee, In judgment thou condemnest. This is the inheritance of the servants of Jehovah, And their righteousness from me, an affirmation of Jehovah!

Posted by: Can't Be Stopped | April 21, 2008 2:53 PM | Report abuse

I don't think that people here are grasping the situation: Even if Hillary wins PA, she won't win ID and she won't win NC. She's already in debt and she had to actually spend some money in PA.

So here's the prediction: Clinton wins by 5-7 pecentage points then she gets trounced in ID and NC in two weeks. Game Over.

Posted by: Gerald Shields | April 21, 2008 2:52 PM | Report abuse

I give her credit after the Bosnia snafu. If OBAMA had done that she would of been all over him. I think he was so gracious in not running commercials on that instance. Hil hung herself with that credible mistake. She apologized to all of us but we got to wonder how many more misspokes are out there. Her credibility is totally damaged. She can't win!!! The American people will vote for McCain before they vote for someone with credibility issues. She is done after Pennsylvania. Ohio and Pennsylvania are pretty much blue collar. They really don't like people of color too well. After Pennsylvania she is toast. This is her last chance.

Posted by: tjoey | April 21, 2008 2:50 PM | Report abuse

Unless there's a lot of time to reformulate either candidate's image, I don't think either one is going to win the general election. Hillary is Hillary, and as the article stated (based on polling numbers)-- she's not a particularly popular figure and not seen as very trustworthy.
Obama has been too bloodied, especially with the stupid Weatherman thing (nice job, ABC). McCain picked up that baton on Sunday, telling ABC that Obama consorts with unrepentant terrorists. Ugh. Way to go Dems. Personal ambition and myopia puts another Republican administration in office.

Posted by: Mowry | April 21, 2008 2:50 PM | Report abuse

If Obama wins, Democrats lose.

Posted by: If Obama wins, Democrats lose | April 21, 2008 2:50 PM | Report abuse

DAN BALZ, YOU HAVE AN AGENDA????? Let's guess. Well, OBAMA and Soros can't buy my vote!!!! And, if Hillary were a guy, you would be falling all over him.

Posted by: MAX | April 21, 2008 2:50 PM | Report abuse

I support Obama but that post that implies that Pennsylvanians who vote for Hillary are doing so out of racism is really off the mark. There are a plethora of reasons to vote against Hillary that have nothing to do with race.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 21, 2008 2:49 PM | Report abuse

C'mon PENNSYLVANIA!!! Give us a GREAT MARGIN!!!!

YES YOU CAN!!!

Posted by: Obama2008 | April 21, 2008 2:48 PM | Report abuse

This writer, like the rest of the Media, can tell us all about Clinton's missteps, but totally ignores Obama's deceit about his relationship with his minister and Rezko. It is soooooooooooooooooo hard for the "Liberal" Media to give Clinton credit for anything. And so what if Obama raised $$$ ... if $$$ made it happen, Romney would be the GOP candidate!!

Posted by: Jesus Francisco Cardenas | April 21, 2008 2:48 PM | Report abuse

Obama will be stopped, either now or in November, and it has nothing to do with being Black.

It has to do with him and his supporters sticking a shiv in the back of Bill Clinton.

We will never forgive you for that.

You're stoned on drugs if you think that we ever will.

Posted by: Obama will be stopped, either now or in November, and it has nothing to do with being Black | April 21, 2008 2:48 PM | Report abuse

What a lousy spin for Obama, who is facing, once again, humiliating defeat in Pennsylvania following Ohio and Texas...

Posted by: ysyoo | April 21, 2008 2:47 PM | Report abuse

Ladies and gentleman, the Democratic Party!

Posted by: Anonymous | April 21, 2008 2:47 PM | Report abuse


Hillary's had all the advantages. Unfortunately, her true colors have come blazing through and we can no longer tell the difference between her and the Republicans. As for negativity, Obama's finally pushing back----on the ISSUES. He has no need for the Rove style politicking that Hlllary's so fully embraced. She'll win PA all right---maybe even by a large margin. And we'll be stuck dealing with her and her damaging ways---perhaps unto heralding a McCain presidency. She's a selfish woman, that one.

Posted by: Robin | April 21, 2008 2:47 PM | Report abuse

This just in, Rendall endorses and embraces Louis Farrakhan and his Nation of Islam. (Huff Post/YouTube.)

Posted by: Larry | April 21, 2008 2:46 PM | Report abuse

President Obama will run the presidency just as well as he runs his grassroots campaign. That speaks volumes.

I'm hoping the people of Pennsylvania will wake up to an opportunity to do what is right and honorable.

As Michael Moore, indicated, in 1987, the constitution written in Pennsyvania, at which it hailed "a black man or woman was only 'three fifths' human." Michael said that on Tuesday, the good people of Pennsylvania have a chance to make things right.

Now, not because this man running for President just happens to be black, but because this man running for president happens to be well qualified as any other person, regardless of race. Pennsylvania,, 85% white population can set the pace for the whole world to see just how progressive and forward thinking our country has become; that we are not the pretentious, hypocritical country that fault other nations for treating their people inhumanely or unfairly, but will deny and maliciously destroy anyone who does not fit the ill perceived "all American" trait.

Or, Pennsylvania, can send a message to the world that America is a regressive nation that judges a person based on the color of their skin, rather than the content of his character.

What will it be PA?

Posted by: Can't Be Stopped | April 21, 2008 2:45 PM | Report abuse

As a Democrat, I'm probably an anomaly in that I like both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton for their virtues and despite their faults. I also admire John McCain as an individual, although I disagree with his political positions. What I dislike is the level of acrimony and name-calling into which this election campaign has descended.

In particular, I find continued sniping between Clinton and Obama supporters disheartening. I favor Obama as someone with a potential for greatness that comes once in a generation, but if Clinton were nominated, I would support her enthusiastically. Both are imperfect human beings, as we all are, but both would be excellent presidents in my view. Given the fact that Senator McCain, although not yet subject to any serious criticism, can do no better than match either one in the polls, a Democratic victory in the 2008 election is reasonably likely if the party is not further weakened.

It seems to me that many of us who have been caught up in the conflict have lost our focus. It's important to remember that our allegiance cannot be to any individual candidate, but to the 300 million Americans whose future rides on the outcome of an election that will decide between a McCain view of health care, war and peace, social justice, and the environment, and a shared Obama/Clinton perspective that understands far better what it means to struggle with the problems of ordinary people. We would err if we forget that when we vote, we are really voting for a constituency of millions rather than attempting to confer a personal reward on any one individual.

Because of the likely damage from a continuing exchange of accusations, I would be dishonest if I did not state that I hope Hillary Clinton will soon withdraw. That is not because she is unqualified. Rather, given the arithmetic of the nomination battle, she no longer has any realistic chance to become president, but she can still ruin Obama's chances. It is not a matter of philosophy or fairness but simple realism to recognize that the superdelegates will not deprive the first serious African American candidate of the nomination after he was won in the primaries. I expect that many superdelegates who are not yet publicly committed will urge Senator Clinton not to play the role of spoiler, and I also expect that despite her disappointment, she will eventually agree.

Posted by: Fred Moolten | April 21, 2008 2:45 PM | Report abuse

Politically, Hillary supporters should be saying that they would vote for McCain over Obama given that this is the crux of her rather inane argument for superdelegates. Obama supporters on the other hand have the luxury of being magnaminous toward Hillary given that Obama has already sewn up the nomination.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 21, 2008 2:44 PM | Report abuse

Obama supporters have burned their bridges with the rest of the Democratic Party.

We'd rather lose this election than have you guys in charge of our party.

We can wait.

You can't.

Posted by: Obama supporters have burned their bridges | April 21, 2008 2:44 PM | Report abuse

quote:"You Hillary defenders are losing it. Barack is the best thing we've had going for us since JFK. I don't believe for a minute all you people claiming to be pro-Hillary but will vote for McKeating if she doesn't get the nomination. Obama is the future.....embrace it!"

Obama is the future of the US. Hillary is more white middle class bla...She voted for the friggin' war! HELLO?

What a bitter driven little girl she is must be apparent by now. Obama will take the USA to the next step, a multiracial society, living the example of what the world future will be. Wether we like it or not, Obama is the man!
YES WE CAN!

Posted by: Daniel | April 21, 2008 2:43 PM | Report abuse

I swore my God if Hillary win
I will not vote for her no way she is laired

Posted by: james Pa | April 21, 2008 2:43 PM | Report abuse

This article is a little out of date and does not reflect the jump for Hillery in National Polls the last few days since the debate.

Posted by: donbl | April 21, 2008 2:42 PM | Report abuse

If you spend 10 million dollars and STILL CANNOT WIN the state -- or Michigan, Florida, Ohio, New York, California, New Jersey, etc etc -- how are you going to win the general? The idea that people in one party will just instantly migrate to the other candidate is old. This is the change Barack wanted. He will get it. People will not automatically vote for him because he's also a Democrat. People have to feel like their views match up with his. He is further to the left than Kerry was, and America said NO. This is still a center or center right country.

Posted by: LonghornMama | April 21, 2008 2:41 PM | Report abuse

If Hillary gets the nomination, I will write in Obama, which is what all Obama supporters should do.

Posted by: Whoop-de-do | April 21, 2008 2:41 PM | Report abuse

I so hope you are right. I so hope that she hasn't intimidated and manipulated small town America and or white woman America. As I am both or all of those plus elder America as well, I see that I cannot be intimidated or manipulated into a voting choice anymore than I can be intimated or manipulated into heaven by dogma or doctrine.

Something sacred happens inside where people make their own choices. Campaign hysteria is troubling and probably should be even more so that it appears to be.

Substance and vision need to be the distillates here. Whatever that turns out to mean.

Posted by: Gaias Child | April 21, 2008 2:41 PM | Report abuse

Interesting question - Can you say that the Pacific Ocean is a desert? Hmmm, well that all depends on what your definition of is is...

Posted by: Bill Clinton | April 21, 2008 2:39 PM | Report abuse

We have to put these primary "victories" in perspective. Nobaody has shown what states they can win in November. The Democrats are running against themselve right now, not against John McCain. Obama may not have won California or New York in the Primary for example, but is there really much question as to whether a democrat (whether Obama or Hillary) will win those states? Conversly, there are states that either Hillary or Obama have won in the primary that neither can realistically expect to win in November.

Finally, with all the garbage going back and forth between Obama and CLinton, and virtually nothing being thrown at McCain, it is not surprising that his polling numbers are going up. I think that either Hillary or Obama can likely win the general election, if this primary fighting ends very soon. If Hillary and Obama are forced to fight through the summer then the Democrats may have found a way to lose an election that most people would have originally believed to be in the bag.

I am not sure what Hillary is hoping for, perhaps that some bit of dirt (probably slung by her) will stick to Obama and we will se a complete turnaround in the rest of the primaries. Other than some sort of miracle (much better than the bitter comment or Rev Wright), I can't actually see how this ends in a victory of Clinton. Even if she found a way to convince enough superdelegates (or regular delegates)to vote for her, and so over ride the primary process, it would so divide the Democratic party that I truely believe McCain would win.

Posted by: captbilly | April 21, 2008 2:38 PM | Report abuse

The fact that Obama overtook the Clintons (and let's remember that it is Bill people are voting for, not Hillary) speaks convincingly to 1) the appeal of his message, and 2) the brilliance of his campaign. She is OLD school politics, which is why we are sick of her. It was her election to lose--she was handed it by the press and a husband who felt sorry for her many public humiliations. She has lost it, and thus, there it is. Now, she should be gracious and say goodbye.

Posted by: Kam | April 21, 2008 2:38 PM | Report abuse

Remember Ronald Reagan used to called the Teflon Man? Same with Obama. He lies and dissembles regularly but nothing sticks to him. Until the general election, that is, when he takes us all down in flames with him.

Yes, I'm sure it's very tiring for Hillary not to just come right out and tell the flake-left wing of the party that they are making the same stupid mistake they made in 1956, 1968, 1972, 1980, 1984, 1988, 2000 and 2004. Over 40 years now and the party regulars still don't realize that if they like someone, it's the kiss of death.

Posted by: Chicago1 | April 21, 2008 2:37 PM | Report abuse

uneducated--check
bitter--check
racist--check
will be voting for McCain--check
likes the status quo--check
likes liars--check
likes victims--check
thinks that being a wife prepares you for the White House--check

thinks that the inability to run a campaign makes one ready for the White House--check

did I say uneducated-check

McCain for President!!!!

Posted by: Clinton supporters are bitter | April 21, 2008 2:37 PM | Report abuse

This article is stupid.

Posted by: Fishers Indiana | April 21, 2008 2:37 PM | Report abuse

Successful Pols still support the flailing Clinton campaign because they owe the Clintons and they are loyal to them. After she loses, Bill and Hillary will remain a powerful and wealthy political force and over the years they have proven to be loyal to their friends. Obama on the other hand will reach out graciously to the other side after his victory so it makes sense for many politicians to show support for the losing Clinton campaign.

Posted by: Ralph Nadir | April 21, 2008 2:36 PM | Report abuse

Time to face the fact, American:

http://www.truthforusa.com

Posted by: truthforusa | April 21, 2008 2:36 PM | Report abuse

It takes no special talent to win the big Democratic states that always vote Democratic anyway. Hillary's problem is that she can ONLY win the big easy states, and nothing else. The big Democratic states would for Obama too in November, or for any other Democrat.

Posted by: bodo | April 21, 2008 2:35 PM | Report abuse

No amount of money can get Obama elected in a national election.

All Obama can do is cause Democrats to lose yet again.

We trust Clinton and we trust McCain.

We don't trust Obama as far as we could throw a steam-ship.

Posted by: No amount of money can get Obama elected | April 21, 2008 2:34 PM | Report abuse

"She wins in Ohio, and hopefully Pennsylvania, and SHE is "weakened"?!"

Very much so, because going into Ohio, the delegate math required a 20 ++ point blowout in every other state for Hillary to pull even in the delegate count. She didn't get that, and instead roughly split Ohio and Texas with Obama. Now she would need a thirty plus point bounce in remaining states, many of which are significantly pro-Obama in their tilt.

Posted by: James | April 21, 2008 2:34 PM | Report abuse

How can anyone question whether Hillary is weak?

After looking like a slam-dunk for the nomination at one point, she now faces a nearly impossible quest to snatch it away from a guy who basically wasn't even a household name 12 months ago!

That's not just WEAKNESS, but a complete and unmistakable FAILURE.

And then she claims that OBAMA is unelectable? That's an even bigger lie than her GI Jane sniper tour through Bosnia!

To lose despite such a massive pre-existing advantage... it just makes you shake your head. But I guess that's what you get when you try to borrow campaign tactics from Karl Rove.

Unless she wins PA by 20+ points - and even if she DOES win PA by 20+ points - the lady who planned to coast through the primaries in a pantsuit and a tiara is essentially cooked.

And Hillary supporters are claiming she isn't weak? She can't even manage to stay out of her own way!

By the way, when is Hillary going to comment on the marital counseling she and Bill got from Reverend Wright during Monica-gate? There are literally hundreds of thousands of spiritual advisors in the USA whom they COULD HAVE invited to the White House, and yet they invited Jeremiah Wright.

She would never be a member of his church - yet she and Bill trusted his spiritual guidance at the darkest point of their marriage and political career. I wonder if Hillary would like to publicly comment on that decision.

Posted by: Argo | April 21, 2008 2:33 PM | Report abuse

Oh yeah,

Hillary is a feminist because it always the woman's fault when Bill has a "dalliance" Go figure...

Posted by: Clinton supporters are anti-feminists | April 21, 2008 2:33 PM | Report abuse

It isn't an image problem.

THE WORLD NOW SEES CLINTON AS SHE HAS TRULY BEEN ALL ALONG!

.............LIAR!

A DC insider, old-boy style politician, with dinasaur political instincts of DO OR SAY ANYTHING - including massive lies - to win.

"bullets over bosnia"

Posted by: JBE | April 21, 2008 2:33 PM | Report abuse

It doesn't matter who you want to win!! The Democratic Party is in the process of self-destruction!

Senator John McCain, who was not very popular a few months ago, is gaining the respect of people who are exhausted by the self-mutilation that's occurring within the Party! Independents, Republicans and Democrats are beginning to indicate their frustration with Senator Clinton and Senator Obama. This frustration also includes the superdelegates that can't seem to make up their minds due to their own fear of how their decision will have an effect on their chances of winning the votes of their states.

If Senator McCain has any awareness of what is happening, he should continue to focus of issues, and allow all the room in the world for the continued voter distrust for Senator Clinton or Senator Obama. To win votes from devoted supporters of either, he will need to remind neutral on negative comments by the candidates and focus on winning the respect of people based on real issues influencing this country.

The only way Senator Clinton or Senator Obama could unite the party after all the words are slung, and all the promises are made, is to unite together against the Republican Party. That's not likely to happen now due to events during the primary season. Bill Clinton certainly has not helped!

The Democratic Party can be compared to a train running down the track without anyone at the control panel!

Posted by: timeforchangeinamerica | April 21, 2008 2:32 PM | Report abuse

Not mentioned in this article is the additional fact that the Clinton campaign is deeply in debt, while the Obama campaign has something like $40 million and is still raising money. This is a statement of relative grassroots support. It goes to electability.

Posted by: Chouteau | April 21, 2008 2:32 PM | Report abuse

Calling Obama a man of integrity is like calling the Pacific Ocean a desert

Posted by: Obama's got no integrity at all | April 21, 2008 2:32 PM | Report abuse

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i9K0rjUvqfU

God Bless the USA.

Hillaryspeaksforme.com

Posted by: max | April 21, 2008 2:31 PM | Report abuse

Hey Jonny

Headline No. 4

Hillary lies. People catch on. Hillary lies again on the same topic. Youtube video proves Hillary lies. Poll Numbers drop AGAIN.

Headline No 5

Hillary says McCain will make a better commander in chief than Obama. Hillary complains that Obama says that McCain will be a better President than Bush. Hillary insults our intelligence AGAIN.

Posted by: Ben | April 21, 2008 2:30 PM | Report abuse

Hillary Clinton is at best a 10-1 shot to get the nomination. And no better than even money to win the general. So my question is this - Why would successful political pols like Nutter and Rendell stake thier reps on a 20-1 shot? I can't figure it out.

Posted by: David Young | April 21, 2008 2:29 PM | Report abuse

Don't forget the failed attempt at pretense in the misuse of the word "interregnum"

Posted by: Hill | April 21, 2008 2:29 PM | Report abuse

Hillary supporters who say they will vote for McCain if Obama wins and Obama supporters who say the same thing are doing so simply out of spite. McCain is closer to a third term of Bush than he is to meaningful change.

Why would you do that unless its out of spite?

Posted by: Gary | April 21, 2008 2:28 PM | Report abuse

Astonishing bias exhibited by this lame article. Obama took a huge dive in the Gallup poll over the weekend, but I guess that's because Clinton is weakening. Great thinking at work here. Keep propping him up. Obama may end up being the candidate - it's hard to see how all the forces aligning behind him will allow anything else to happen. But he's clearly not the best candidate by the only measure that will matter - the ability to win in the states with the necessary electoral votes to win the national election. Thanks for nothing in the way of thoughtful critical analysis of what it will take to actually win in November.

Posted by: LK2008 | April 21, 2008 2:27 PM | Report abuse

Obama supporters are hypocrites that will say or do anything to win.

They gleefully threw the entire Clinton family under the bus.

They've trashed Bill Clinton's legacy more than any Republican ever has.

They aren't Democrats, they're Obama-nuts.

Obama and his supporters are the most vile hypocrites we've ever seen.

They "hook up" at the drop of a hat, but attack Bill Clinton about a harmless BJ.

COCAINE KILLS, KIDS.

Unless one of the people has a disease, its hard to die from a BJ.

Karma's very powerful.

I hope every married Obama supporter that gets a BJ outside their marriage winds up with their wife divorcing them and taking everything they have.

Obama supporters are total hypocrites.

If Obama gets the nomination, McCain's the next President.

Lets hope he brings back the draft and sends them right to the front lines in Iraq.

It would do them a world of good.

Obama's unelectable, and his supporters have destroyed the Democratic Party's most valuable assets.

Posted by: Obama supporters are hypocrites that will say or do anything to win | April 21, 2008 2:25 PM | Report abuse

Hillary has made several arguments for why she should be the nominee depending on the audience and these are:
1. I am female
2. I am white
3. I have experience (ie I was married to a president)
4. Obama is unelectable (ie He is black)
5. Obama gives empty speeches (ie He is eloquent)

Her most inane arguments are:

Obama isn't tough enough - ie He's not nearly as dirty a campaigner as she is.

She wins big states - it is illogical to argue that beating an alternate democrat in a primary corresponds to beating a republican in an election - Obama has consistently won independents and while some Republicans have supported both Dems during the primary, Hillary's support has been mostly cynical votes cast to keep her in a divisive race.

Health Care Expertise - Has anyone ever failed more miserably in an attempt to bring about political change than Hillary's first attempt at Health Care?

From Bosnia to the threatening of super-delegates, from crocodile tears to 3AM fears; Hillary Clinton has shown the country that she is not a person of integrity and she needs to go away.

Posted by: Howard Roark | April 21, 2008 2:25 PM | Report abuse

If Hillary gets the nomination, I will vote for Nader.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 21, 2008 2:21 PM | Report abuse

It looks both McCain and Clinton will have to take public fund after primary. Only Obama gets richer. Hope everyone takes turn to make change. Really not bad. LOL

Posted by: jy2008 | April 21, 2008 2:21 PM | Report abuse

Mr. Galt,
Headline 3:

Another Obama scandel/anti-American rant/Michele escapes the basement and opens her mouth/etc and Hillary becomes the only viable Democratic candidate as Obame moves from 90% unelectable to 100% unelectable.

Posted by: Hey Johnny | April 21, 2008 2:15 PM | Report abuse

If Obama gets the nomination, I will vote for McCain.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 21, 2008 2:15 PM | Report abuse

You Hillary defenders are losing it. Barack is the best thing we've had going for us since JFK. I don't believe for a minute all you people claiming to be pro-Hillary but will vote for McKeating if she doesn't get the nomination. Obama is the future.....embrace it!

Posted by: Geeze People | April 21, 2008 2:11 PM | Report abuse

Headline 1:

Hillary wins Pennsylvania Democratic Primary

Headline 2:
Obama goes on as Democratic Nominee for President

Its not rocket science. Its not even middle school math.

Posted by: John Galt | April 21, 2008 2:07 PM | Report abuse

the reason Hillary "loses" by winning is because she had a 20 point lead in PA just a few weeks ago, and if she wins PA now, it will be by no more than a just few points now. Such is the story of the 2008 campaign...Hillary started way way up, and slowly, slowly she has come down.

The more people have time to think, the more they lean towards Obama, it just takes longer to convince the more people there happens to be in the big states (look at other "big states" where she similarly began with large doule digit leads and won by much less).

Lets go to Denver if you want Hillary, because by then you will be the one 20 points down!!!!

Posted by: jonathanR | April 21, 2008 2:07 PM | Report abuse

Are we trying to prepare the terrain for Obama's big loss in PA, aren't we? It is very interesting your choice of words for this article. A Weakened? Let's see, after an insurmountable amount of money spent in propaganda for over 6 weeks to the tune of millions per day, a media and purported professional journalists biased in favor of Obama, after Obama paying thousands of people to innundate the blogs, the polls and the public opionion, Obama is still behind and will be declared the LOSER in PA. So, who is weakened one? You might need to check a dictionary since your biased is making you forget the meaning of basic words in the English language.

Posted by: Definitely Common Sense | April 21, 2008 2:07 PM | Report abuse

Dan, I just wanted to say thanks for keeping Operation Chaos alive. Your backfiring anti-Hillary tirades just keeps this mess going and lets a no-win loser like McCain shore up his base, raise money without having to spend any, and pave another 8 years of Republicans leading this country.

Posted by: Rush Limbaugh | April 21, 2008 2:07 PM | Report abuse

Votes and not money wins!! Vote Hillary unless you prefer McCain. Obama is a racist and has no accomplishments to speak of. I will vote Hillary if she is nominated or if she runs as independent which I do not think she will. If Obama is nominated then I will go to the polls and vote McCain and I will pick up my elderly neighbors to vote NObama too.

I certainly do not want a President that would sit in Rev. Wrights white hate sermons and I do not want a President that will as he did last week give the middle finger gesture to Hillary supporters....and he did that.

Michelle Obama and Barack Obama have plans for this country but have not shared those plans with us because they are plans to benifit the Obama's and African Americans.. WAKE UP Vote Hillary

Posted by: jodi | April 21, 2008 2:07 PM | Report abuse


Hillary has been done in by her mismanagement of her campaign (strategically and financially). Voters and superdelegates are fair to ask: if she can't manage a campaign, how can she manage a country?

Her tactics (and those of her surrogates) have been a litany of Rove-like smears. Her temperament has been erratic, her memory of facts has been selective.

She reeks of old politics and a sense of entitlement.

I'm afraid Hillary and her cronies have an actual strategy to hurt Obama's chances in November, setting Hillary up for another run when she's 64 in 2012.

Posted by: John Jefferson | April 21, 2008 2:04 PM | Report abuse

Well from the additional news reports Obama's campaign is flush with cash and Clinton is in debt.

Need further proof that Hillary is still a republican at heart?

Posted by: Sparky | April 21, 2008 2:03 PM | Report abuse

When is the media and its reporters, such as yourself, going to learn that your negative media bashing of Hillary isn't working, isn't going to work and is creating a voter backlash against Obama. The news couldn't be better for Clinton who is now poised for a big win in Pa. Where is the news that is showing Hillary picking up 4 new superdelegates since last Friday. Where is the news showing Hillary leading in the Gallop National Tracking Poll. Where is the news showing Hillary picking up the undecided voters in this race. Don't you get it? Going negative on Hillary is old news! Get over it and lets report the "real "news for a change.

Posted by: Steve | April 21, 2008 2:01 PM | Report abuse

Blake, you are living in a dream world. Obama carries the MoveOn far left that votes in primaries. He loses the independent middle and the Reagan Democrats. He loses the over-60 vote and woman over 40. If he is our nominee, we lose in November and McBush waltzes into the white house.

Posted by: Anti-blake | April 21, 2008 2:00 PM | Report abuse

In 1972, I wore a McGovern button proudly every day to my high school as a junior. In 1976, I canvassed for Udall in the primary. In 1980, I supported Ted Kennedy. In 1984, I supported Mondale. I still have my T-shirt from the Dukakis campaign. Finally, in 1992, I supported and voted for someone who won, as he did again in 1996. I want a Democrat in office more than anything, and the majority of voters in the nation's biggest states with electoral votes will support Hillary, not Obama. Look at the demographics of Florida, New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Texas and California.

Posted by: gainron | April 21, 2008 2:00 PM | Report abuse

Sen. Clinton is weakened because she has been forced to do the press's job. The press has drawn a rose-colored curtain around the Obama campaign. Now her campaign is damaged by the need to perform this untenable role. A perfect example is that the Post and other major newspapers posted all 11,000 pages of Sen Clinton's White House schedules, but you can't find anywhere on the web the complete sermons of Rev Wright from which the controversial quotes were taken. That enables apologists to claim that the comments were taken out of context. After searching for hours, I managed to find just one of these sermons (9/16/01). It was carefully hidden and no search engine turned it up. I assure you the controversial quotes from this sermon were NOT taken out of context. There is a long list of Obama stories that have been briefly reported by the press (Exelon, Maytag, Chicago schools controversy, Wright, Ayers, Rezko, etc) that just sank like stones while the press hammered every Clinton fumble to death. All these stories will come out in flames during the general campaign. The press has a lot to answer for in this nomination race. I haven't been so angry at the press since they facilitated the war in Iraq by accepting the bogus premise of WMDs.

Posted by: Yellow Dog | April 21, 2008 2:00 PM | Report abuse

Unless she wins by a LARGE LARGE (20%+) margin, she should drop out of the race (or at least buy a working calculator!).

Posted by: DoTheMath | April 21, 2008 1:59 PM | Report abuse

Barack Obama for President of the UNITED States of America.

Posted by: PulSamsara | April 21, 2008 1:57 PM | Report abuse

If my ass ever managed to write an opinion column, it would probably read a lot like Mr Balz's effort above.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 21, 2008 1:57 PM | Report abuse

Obama has been THE PRIMARY CANDIDATE in getting Dems registered and having those Dem voter numbers increase significantly. If it were not for him and his smart management style and staff, his volunteers would not have registered millions of Dems. You cannot say the same thing for HRCs campaign and therefore, the majority of newly registered Dem voters will vote Obama in this primary as well as the GE. Obama has proven to be the very best "organizer" using the net for funding his campaign and "we the people" to help him in his grassroots effort to become our POTUS. He has done more for the people of this nation already than anyone in history because he has been inclusive of "we the people" rather than like HRC with her "I, I, I, I, I" speeches. When our forefathers thought of uniting these states into one nation, they too looked at "we the people" and were certainly NOT thinking of people like Bushco and the Clintons who have done nothing but take advantage of 'we the people' and financially enriched themselves vastly at our expense during all the propoganda and lies told to get 'votes' for election (thank God, I never voted for either). This government should be run ONLY by leaders who are 'listening' to "we the people" so that they can actually work for us - we are the ones who "hire" them to lead us in the right directions; not the other way around. Bushco have robbed us of our freedoms, preemptively started a war which we cannot win and cannot pay for (either in treasure or lives lost); our forefathers would be horrified at these disgraces! The Clintons would also lead us to more destruction; please pay close attention to HRCs use of "nuclear umbrella" and the war with Iran she wants to put us in, the deceit she has perpetrated about Bosnia, NAFTA, Northern Irelandnegotiations, SCHIP among other issues, and our country would no longer be viable if left to her and Bill to destroy.

Posted by: ObamasLady | April 21, 2008 1:56 PM | Report abuse

It's funny to read comments from Hillary supporters like Eek pleg meesta and Max. They sound just like the Hillary camp pundits.

Obama does not have the multi-multi millionaire status that Hillary has. Much of the funds that Obama's campaign enjoys comes from ordinary Americans (like myself), doing extra-ordinary things.

Think about it! You had the most recent popular ex-Democratic President slamming Obama, the Democratic front-runner, while the former first lady, Hillary, throwing everything including the "kitchen sink" at him.

Of course there is a share of the Democratic electorate that is confused and skeptical. Hope trumps fear any day!

Obama in 08!

Posted by: AJ, IL | April 21, 2008 1:55 PM | Report abuse

Thanks for another puff piece Dan. I really appreciate how you take Hillary's strengths and try and turn them into weakness with mumbo jumbo nothingness and hair brained opinion. We both know that I have to drive a stake in her now, before this thing gets out of hand and even the WaPo and the rest of the media that is in the tank for me can't keep me afloat. Thanks again, XXOO

B. H. O.

Posted by: Barack O. | April 21, 2008 1:55 PM | Report abuse

The problem with the popular vote argument is that it discounts all caucus-only states. My state, Colorado, will swing blue for sure if Obama is the nominee and maybe even for Clinton... so why do we not matter?

You forget that Obama will turn many red states blue and he will not lose any blue states.

Posted by: Blake | April 21, 2008 1:53 PM | Report abuse

This is so bias.
go hillary!!

Posted by: tony | April 21, 2008 1:52 PM | Report abuse

Yes, she'll be weakened, Howard Wolfson, Hillary's communications chief said they have $9 million dollars in the bank and their campaign has $10 million of debt, Obama raised $41 million in the last month and has millions in the bank, even as he outspends her 2 or 3 to 1. Can the Hillary campaign make it to the last primary June 3rd, much less all the way to the convention?

Posted by: RCD | April 21, 2008 1:51 PM | Report abuse

For more insightful history on the Clinton chaos read:

http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=54d3af5a-abde-4874-9d98-2bc4b8e23185

Posted by: No to Dynasties | April 21, 2008 1:49 PM | Report abuse

Since when do Pennsylvania and Ohio get to decide for the rest of us?

She's won some states, but Obama has won more. And his victories have been by bigger margins.

In Washington State he won EVERY county. Yet, somehow, people like Dan Balz have decided that Ohio counts and Washington State doesn't.

And how about Wisconsin, Virginia, South Carolina, and Kansas where he had huge wins.

The Clinton people have done a great job of convincing soft-headed "journalists" like Balz and Chris Matthews that only the states that Clinton won should count. But that just ain't true.

Obama is winning because more people have voted for him. It's called democracy.

Posted by: Choska | April 21, 2008 1:49 PM | Report abuse

Hmm, not seeing the weakness.

No Fl+ no MI+ huge corporate bundling machine = win for Obama in primary = loss for democrats in general election.

This independent will be writing in Hillary Clinton in November.

Posted by: rehab-ing from Obama | April 21, 2008 1:47 PM | Report abuse

I,also, question the thesis statement of this article. She is "weakened"? While ahead in Pa.? Is this p.r. for Obama?
Another point: Obama is no underdog. He was sent to a plush Prep school in Hawaii then to Harvard, given all sorts of help to win in Illinois, lives in a million dollar mansion and IRS says his 2008 personal income was over $4 million. You pundits have a right to your opinion, but not to make up facts. He's a limosine liberal with an elitist attitude and a wife who makes Ann Coulter blush.

Posted by: zaney8 | April 21, 2008 1:47 PM | Report abuse

She would be weakened since she was ahead by 20, just like Ohio, the weak comment only refers to the daunted task of MAINTAINING these big leads in all these states. At least that is how I read it, she is doing well, but the point again, was at the start of most every state race she was ahead in the polls by very large percentages - she ultimately won the states she was expected to win, but by small margins - none more than 10 points. Meanwhile, Obama has won the states he was expected to win by 10-20 points. Just a fact back-up for the writer of this article. She needs huge wins IN ALL remaining contests to secure the nod is all I think the writer is stating.

Posted by: Huh | April 21, 2008 1:46 PM | Report abuse

"Fairly or unfairly," Dan Balz is in the tank for Obama. All she needs to do tomorrow is beat him by more than 94,000 votes to claim the POPULAR vote count!

Posted by: Anonymous | April 21, 2008 1:45 PM | Report abuse

"To her credit, Clinton soldiers on..."

SAY WHAT?!?!

Hillary is not a soldier. Hillary at this point is willing to say or do anything to win the nominaton, because she knows that this is probably her last chance to become President. If Obama defeats McCain in the general election, Obama has the likablity factor (and depending on the results of his first term) to be re-elected again in 2012. Hillary knows she will be seen as too old at 68 yrs of age to run again in 2016. But Hillary also suspects that if Obama is damaged enough in the primary, he could lose the general election and allow her to run again in 2012.

Posted by: AJ, IL | April 21, 2008 1:45 PM | Report abuse

Hey Dan, all of Obama's money isn't going to buy him this nomination. At long last the rank-and-file democrats are beginning to see that he is UNELECTABLE. They just can't embrace him. It's more like a one-night-stand. We've had our way with him and now it's time to go back to our spouses and be grown ups. MoveOn isn't going to win this for him anymore than they won it for Howie last time. Keep it up Hillary - Reality is sinking in.

Posted by: Eek pleg meesta | April 21, 2008 1:45 PM | Report abuse

Hillary mismanaged a campign from a 30 point lead to certain defeat. She's squandered a huge superdelegate lead and squandered millions of dollars. She's turned the Democratic Party into a hornet's nest of discontent and bickering over immaterial issues.

Pennsylvania can spare us any more of this bug smushed on our windshield. Hit the wipers once and let us focus on how much better off we'll be with Obama than with McCain. That's what matters. Hillary had her chance and she blew it big time.

Posted by: Ready on day never | April 21, 2008 1:42 PM | Report abuse

The site once said that PA was Ohio in steroids for Clinton, but now it says that PA is not OH, insinuating that it is no longer advantaged Clinton. Which one is it?

Posted by: Tesosi | April 21, 2008 1:40 PM | Report abuse

People need to look at the demographic of these states like Ohio, Michigan, and PA (I don't consider TX because as far as I'm concerned Billary lost Texas and lost in the delegate count in TX). These are areas hit hard by the loss of manufacturing industries, having their jobs outsourced and not being able to recover ecomonically from this like the rest of the urban parts of their particular region. These are old school, blue collar, majority white voters who think old school, live old school and vote old school and where race is still an issue to most of them. Change is not a thing that invigorates these kind of voters even if the change is benefical to them. No matter how bad the economy has become and will continue to become, how bad job prospects and wages become, how bleak things get, they've already admitted publicly most of them, they would find it hard to vote for Obama based on the color of his skin and during these past six weeks of look at interviews with people of Scranton, Allentown, rural Pittsburgh and towns like them, they have all been consistent in their thinking. Doesn't mean Barack can't win big states as FL & MI don't even count as he didn't campaign or put his name on the ballot as was supposed to be agreed by all candidates initially, it just means there is still a demographic that he has to work on to convince to put race aside and try and take the first step forward outside of what you are used to, what you are comfortable with, to try an fix this mess George Bush put us in. We all have to make changes to make this work. That demographic just needs to be convinced more and reassured more, especially the eldery in that demographic because drastic change for them is scary and unknown.

Posted by: Reggie | April 21, 2008 1:40 PM | Report abuse

What a silly, superficial report.

I quote the obvious from the first person who commented on this article:

"She wins in Ohio, and hopefully Pennsylvania, and SHE is "weakened"?!"

Posted by: Paul Jepsen | April 21, 2008 1:33 PM | Report abuse

God bless the USA!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i9K0rjUvqfU

Pittsburgh for HILLARY

Posted by: max | April 21, 2008 1:33 PM | Report abuse

Michael Moore endorses Obama.

http://www.michaelmoore.com/


Posted by: Matt | April 21, 2008 1:32 PM | Report abuse

What Democrats NEED to know is,if the Super delegates choose Sen. Clinton will Sen. Obama run as an Independent and,if not,will Clinton? If either one runs Independent the undeniable result is victory for McCain, Karl Rove style by splitting the Democratic Party. Will someone in a position to do it (Media,Campaigners,etc..) PLEASE ask Clinton and Obama to pledge,for the good of our nation, that the loser will NOT run Independent..... WE NEED TO find out NOW!

Posted by: me | April 21, 2008 1:31 PM | Report abuse

What Democrats NEED to know is,if the Super delegates choose Sen. Clinton will Sen. Obama run as an Independent and,if not,will Clinton? If either one does, the undeniable result is the Republicans will Karl Rove style by splitting the Democratic Party. Will someone in a position to do it (Media,Campaigners,etc..) PLEASE ask Clinton and Obama to pledge,for the good of our nation, that the loser will NOT run Independent..... WE NEED TO find out NOW!

Posted by: Forga | April 21, 2008 1:26 PM | Report abuse

PA is a meaningless primary. Does not matter if Hillary or Barack got 99% of the votes. As McCain is already demonstrating, the winner in Nov. is the candidate with 50% of the Independent Votes. McCains strategy is to campaign for that vote, even at the loss of some "conservative" votes. By the time Hillary and Obama finish smearing each other, neither will be able to get 25% of the Independent Vote....which guarantees only 1 thing.....2nd place in the Fall. Same lesson taught (but obviously not learned) by the Republicans to the Democrats in 2000 and 2004.

Posted by: Will | April 21, 2008 1:26 PM | Report abuse

peter DC:

On the flip side, can she win in November if every African-American refuses to vote for her (or, worse yet, vote for McCain)?

Posted by: Anonymous | April 21, 2008 1:26 PM | Report abuse

The reality here is a funny thing- and so is perception of reality.

I am only hoping that the Democratic Party will look at the reality not the perception of it.

If Hillary Clinton wins PA with somewhere near 10% as she did in Ohio, I think Democrats should be very wary of nominating Barack Obama. Hillary will then have won nearly every major state the Democrats need to win in November with big margins. She will also have shown that she has a real chance to win both Ohio and Florida and we can assume by her win and by polling that she will win Arkansas.

Barack Obama will have proved that he can't get the basic Democratic vote against Hillary and that he has won a string of victories in states that neither he nor Hillary will win in November like Utah, Wyoming, South Dakota etc.

Will Obama still get the Democratic nomination, he may but then we will put ourselves in peril.

This election will most likely be won or lost with the Reagan Democrats. Can Obama or Clinton get them back? Clinton is proving she can and Obama has yet to do that. If he comes close in PA that reality may change but so far in the big states those voters have closed for Clinton. The polls showed Obama with a chance to overtake her in Ohio and she won by 10%. The same happened in NJ and in CA. In MA she won by 10% even with Kennedy and Kerry against her. If she wins PA by 10% she will take WV and KY by larger margins. Obama will take NC which Dems can't win anyway in November. IN may be close.

I hope again that the Democratic party look closely at who is voting for Obama and who is voting for Clinton and what states they are in. The national polls mean as little now as they did last year. This election will be won or lost in a few states and by a few voters. Winning NY or IL by huge margins means nothing as the electoral votes from that state are the same either way as we found out in 2000 in Florida and in 2004 in Ohio.

Lets wait till Tuesday night and then take a real look at this and make the best choice not for Clinton or Obama but for the Democratic party winning in November.

Posted by: peter DC | April 21, 2008 1:19 PM | Report abuse

GO OPERATION CHAOS!!!

Posted by: Anonymous | April 21, 2008 1:12 PM | Report abuse

Missteps? You mean lies, don't you? Despite what the polls say, I hope the people of PA don't fall for this transparent fraud and end her farce of a campaign. Vote smart, PA!

Posted by: tydicea | April 21, 2008 1:09 PM | Report abuse

"Sen. Obama in the past had serious problems winning states that Democrats need to win in order to win in November," Howard Wolfson, a senior Clinton aide, said, adding that it was states "like Florida, like Michigan, like Ohio and now in Pennsylvania."

"He is doing everything that he can to win -- not to finish closely, not to do well -- to win," Wolfson said. "He is trying to knock Sen. Clinton out of this race. He has outspent us three to one.... He has gone sharply negative. There are so many negative ads he has up that I can't even keep track of them.... If he does not win after having outspent us so dramatically," Wolfson said, it would raise "very serious questions ... about whether Sen. Obama can win the big swing states that any Democrat would have to win in November."

Posted by: Anonymous | April 21, 2008 1:09 PM | Report abuse

PA democrats should put Hillary out of her misery, and our party too.

She had every advantage entering this nominating contest and has fallen behind due to an inept and inefficient campaign, as well as a superb campaign by Obama.

Obama is the underdog who came from behind and deserves to win.

Hillary is NOT a scrappy underdog. She is the latest in a long line of overdog-losers, who took victory for granted, in the history of Presidential politics.

Enough already.

Posted by: mnjam | April 21, 2008 1:04 PM | Report abuse

I am not even too sure she we will even win it. Just look at these Internet figures;


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

Posted by: Dave | April 21, 2008 1:01 PM | Report abuse

She wins in Ohio, and hopefully Pennsylvania, and SHE is "weakened"?!

Posted by: Anonymous | April 21, 2008 12:47 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company