Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

McEntee Doubts Obama


Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) holds up a pair of boxing gloves given to her by Gerald McEntee (R), AFSCME International President, October 31, 2007 in Washington, DC. Clinton accepted an endorsement fro president from AFSCME during the event. (Getty Images)

By Dan Balz
At a time when many Democrats are anxious for the party to come together, Gerald McEntee, president of the American Federation of State County and Municipal Employees, is continuing to raise doubts about Barack Obama.

In a telephone interview Wednesday afternoon, McEntee said there is no question in his mind that over the past few months, Clinton has been the superior candidate and that Obama's losses in Pennsylvania, Ohio, West Virginia and Kentucky could haunt the party in November.

"Are we going to pick a candidate that will literally walk almost lame into the Democratic National Convention?" he asked.

McEntee said Republican John McCain will be a formidable opponent, one who is "distancing himself from [President] Bush every day" and whose status as a war hero and patriot will make him attractive to many of the voters Democrats need to win in November.

Obama, on the other hand, cannot seem to get over his problem with working-class voters. "I think he has a problem with the blue-collar worker and relating to that worker."

He went on to say that Obama appears to have significant problems in the heart of Reagan Democrat country and that many of the states where Obama has done well in the primaries will be solidly red in November.

"We're not going to carry Utah," he said. "We're not going to carry Idaho. We're not going to carry Wyoming. We're not going to carry Kansas. We're not going to carry those states that Barack carried."

McEntee said that Obama can win if he becomes the nominee, but not without changes to his campaign and strong support from Clinton. He also said his union would work energetically for Obama. But he left the impression that his doubts remain serious.

By Web Politics Editor  |  May 21, 2008; 6:11 PM ET
 
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: All the Way to the Convention?
Next: A Retreat, Not an Interview

Comments

Knowledge 101: Where there is strong, efficient leadership/management the need for unions diminishes or disappears! Let's face it, in the majority of cases, when unions come into being it is because of poor management practices relative to the way workers are treated or not treated; e.g., poor working condtions. So I guess the union is afraid that if Obama becomes President he is likely to do too good-a-job leading the country.

Posted by: Beenthere | May 23, 2008 4:09 PM | Report abuse

I fear most of you are not paying attention or really listening. Obamas message has stayed the same from dayone! His voice always sounds the same no phony accent for different areas . Hillary change her tone every where she goes, she wants to cahnge the rules, to suit herself. Lastly how any thinking person can vote republican after the past seven years, boggles the mind. Obama is not weak! Hillary started out heavily favored and she lost it all,

Posted by: Isabelle Kelly | May 22, 2008 10:33 PM | Report abuse

obama will sell this country to the terrorist thus ending the role of america as a world power.or rather begins the new era of america becoming a persecuting power in favor of those who hate this blessed land.

GOD SAVE AMERICA...!!!!!!!

Posted by: allan baldemor | May 22, 2008 7:45 PM | Report abuse

Please folks, don't hate.
Clinton is not going to be the nominee. Obama will be the nominee. McCain might not make it out of the Republican convention. He might just take ill and withdraw.
After this election there will no longer be a two-party system running the country.
You all can thank Senator Obama for that. We will all have a voice.
I know that is scary for some, but it is what this country is all about.
Malcohm M Smith

Posted by: Malcohm M. Smith | May 22, 2008 7:22 PM | Report abuse

HOPE-fully, Ron M.

Posted by: JakeD | May 22, 2008 5:58 PM | Report abuse

I am beginning to suspect that people who had a stranglehold on Democratic politics are willing to see Obama lose in order to keep control. I think that this may be a self fulfilling prophesy.

Posted by: Ron M | May 22, 2008 5:30 PM | Report abuse

I thought I seen everything. Hilary needs a little r&r at St. Elizabeth's. She looks like a lunatic.

Posted by: str8talk | May 22, 2008 5:05 PM | Report abuse

All this talk about electability is exhausting. If Clinton were so electable, why did she not wrap up the nomination by February or March? She is the one candidate that came into the primaries with "35 years experience", the best political machine, superstar, ex-president husband and worldwide name recognition! The biggest unasked question of this primay season should be: Why hasn't Sen. Clinton be able to close the deal??????

Posted by: Sheri | May 22, 2008 4:51 PM | Report abuse

Obama's Troubling Instincts
By KARL ROVE
May 22, 2008
Barack Obama is ambling rather than sprinting across the primary-season finish line. It's not just his failure to connect with blue-collar Democrats. He has added to his problems with ill-informed replies on critical foreign policy questions.

On Sunday at a stop in Oregon, Sen. Obama was dismissive of the threats posed by Iran, North Korea, Venezuela, Cuba and Syria. That's the same Iran whose Quds Force is arming and training insurgents and illegal militias in Iraq to kill American soldiers; that is supporting Hezbollah and Hamas in violent attacks on Lebanon and Israel; and that is racing to develop a nuclear weapon while threatening the "annihilation" of Israel.

By Monday in Montana, Mr. Obama recognized his error. He abruptly changed course, admitting that Iran represents a threat to the region and U.S. interests.

Voters need to ask if Sunday's comments, not Monday's correction, aren't the best evidence of his true thinking.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 22, 2008 4:35 PM | Report abuse

If Obama is nominated, I don't see Hillary supporting him at all. In fact, because she has a dream of being President, I see her doing all she can do do get him defeated. 2012 will be her last realistic chance at achieving her lifelong goal of being President. If she's not nominated this year, she needs a Republican in office this term to stand a chance in 2012.

Posted by: SteveSki | May 22, 2008 4:34 PM | Report abuse

It is a shame that Hiliary Clinton took the black vote for granted. She thought it was hers for the asking.The power of underestimating a people is her lesson to learn. Amrerica what is wrong with you? Some the people are still mislead but not all off us are. When will we try and live together in peace? Mrs Clinton the black vote counts as well as or more than the blue collar white vote. Please give me a break as your husband like to say.

Posted by: | May 22, 2008 8:02 AM


maybe not all of us...but you sure are mislead.....take a look at this below


Misleading the Public?
Exclusive: Obama, Rev. Wright and Louis Farrakhan appear together on cover of 2006 Trinity United magazine

Posted by: | May 22, 2008 8:09 AM

Posted by: Anonymous | May 22, 2008 4:07 PM | Report abuse

OBAMA CAN'T WIN IN NOVEMBER PEOPLE WAKE UP DEMOCRATS WAKE UP!!!

CONCERNED DEMOCRAT

Posted by: Concerned Democrat | May 22, 2008 3:19 PM | Report abuse

lol I laugh when I see these obama supporters post....lol i laugh some more when the washington Post say us Hillary supporters have no education..

Get a life McEntee - you are a lier just lie Hillary.

Posted by: ob08 | May 22, 2008 12:41 PM

Posted by: Anonymous | May 22, 2008 2:15 PM | Report abuse

The problem with this campaign season isn't at all that Hillary isn't capable of winning. It is that Obama and his followers "The Media, Republican party Switching Clinton Haters and the far left Dems." Are glossing over who he is. I personally would like to hear more answers to the questions from Obama. We all know he will have to answer the questions in November. Were will Obama be then when he can't explain to the dems. Why he didn't get elected when McCain tears him apart. There is lopsided media coverage and everyone knows this. The way the media has written off Hillary since Ohio is amazing to me. They still can't admit she is a viable Candidate. What is it with the notion that it is either you are for Obama or you are an uneducated, poor, working class, racist bigot, oh! Don't forget over 50 female.
Where is the vision of hope in that? He is campaigning on change and yet we see the same old republican tactics out of him. I am fed up with his handling of the democratic process. He is ready to claim victory how arrogant of him. Remember there are less than 500,000 votes difference between the two without Fl and MI and the number is steadily closing. Yes even Obama in public wants their votes counted. So you can all say that it isn't fair for Hillary to demand to have all votes counted and be seated at the convention but you can't deny the facts and the fact is Obama has said he wanted FL and MI to be seated. It is the size of contribution to the convention that is being argued. He is a smart man he wants to look like he is in support of having the two states counted because to not have them counted would be disastrous for his campaign in beating McCain. I feel the Votes should be counted as they stand and the states that moved their primary dates should have their delegate counts reduced as a punishment. It is only one person's fault that Obama didn't want to be on the ballot in MI. Just like it is his fault he hasn't given much attention to the states he know he wasn't going to win in OH,WV and KY. So looking back at the way he is campaigning it is clear he would have avoided MI anyway. "It is a Clinton Strong Hold".

Posted by: garyt1708 | May 22, 2008 12:56 PM | Report abuse

Get a life McEntee - you are a lier just lie Hillary.

Posted by: ob08 | May 22, 2008 12:41 PM | Report abuse

When someone tells the truth, Obambi Twinkies calls them a Clown.

Kool-Aid drinking twinkies, Obambi is behind in all the states mentioned or just even with McCain.

Obambi's electoral college votes isn't looking good and by the time November gets here he will look like McGovern. It is sad, Democrats came up with the Super delegate ides after McGovern and now they are using it to nominate a McGovern Clone in Obambi.


Posted by: independent | May 22, 2008 12:26 PM | Report abuse

How I long for the day when all this BS is over with and Hillary accepts her defeat--then I will long for the day when Obama loses just so I can say, "I told ya so,"
http://www.thidaexpress.com

Posted by: Ida | May 22, 2008 12:05 PM | Report abuse

AFSCME members should bounce this clown McEntee. If he can't support our nominee then he should at least shut his damned mouth. What an idiot. Congratulations, McEntee - keep it up and your self-fulfilling prophecies will help give us four more years of Republican destruction.

Posted by: Chuck | May 22, 2008 11:59 AM | Report abuse

OBAMA is NOT electable....so glad to see a Union that is exercising discernment!

Obama, from day one, has been campaigning to the upper echelon of the party for endorsements, and the Superdelegate votes....the rest is working up the American Idol crowd to make it appear he is just the cat's meow.

Truth is, the man is SO poorly prepared to resume the highest office in this land....he thinks we have 57 States??? He and his supporters talk about the 'hicks' of West Va and KY???? Shame on this empty suit.

AFSCME rightly knows Clinton has been on top of her game since day 1; also, from day 1 Obama has been playing "follow the leader' Clinton....he mimicks every move she makes.

Problem is, he can't quite pull off Hillary's genuine comfort with American citizens regardless of class, age, ethnicity, etc. She is very genuine! We know she will stand behind us in what she plans to accomplish.

In the meantime, Obama the chameleon will attempt to sell himself...wear the flag one day with vets, praise Floridians all the while he has been fighting behind the scenes to prohibit their votes? Next he'll be running to Jewish Temple and Catholic Church, then hang out with a few Cubans in Miami.

What Obama does NOT KNOW, because he does NOT KNOW AMERICANS, is that we ARE AMERICANS and WE ARE NOT STUPID...YOU OBAMA ARE A PHONEY AND ARE NOT ELECTABLE!!!

Either HILLARY or John Mc Cain.....those are our choices!

Posted by: steve | May 22, 2008 11:55 AM | Report abuse

Excuse me, Malcohm M. Smith.
"Will whites vote for him(Obama)? Yes"?
Sure! 9% of blacks will vote for McCain too!

Posted by: mario | May 22, 2008 11:46 AM | Report abuse

Can Senator Obama win? Yes.
Will he be the candidate? Yes
Will whites vote for him? Yes
They already have. Last time I checked whites voted for him in all the big NASCAR states with hard working white people. That is unless you consider those white people in Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana not to be hard-working whites.
Senator Clinton will not be the nominee no matter how many times she moves the goal post.
She has run a very bad campaign. Period. She was the front-runner. She has the Clinton brand. All others were also-rans when this thing began. She blew it. And not she is saddened by the sexism. As I recall, when Senator was taking head from Rev Wright controversy it was Hillary Clinton who said if you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen. And now she is equating Fl and MI with slavery.
While I admire her ability to attempt to change party rules that she agreed to in the beginning only to want to get rid of those rules when she is behind. I don't admire a person who cannot accept defeat with dignity.
One more thought. What we are witnessing is a real changing of the game. After this election we will no longer be a nation of two major parties. This is the splinter effect. It will happen on both sides of the isle. Republican in large numbers don't like their nominee and will splinter as well.
And in the words of Chris Rock "Nobody ever heard of a super delegate" until a black man leads in the nomination for president of a party. Amazing.
And JAKEd. You are a very funny person.

Posted by: Malcohm M. Smith | May 22, 2008 11:28 AM | Report abuse

Perhaps the Clinton supporters can read an Electoral College map?

http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Obama/Maps/May22.html

Posted by: JakeD | May 22, 2008 11:11 AM | Report abuse

I am amazed that Clinton supporters can honestly say they want eight more years of Clintons in the White House! Bill will be lurking about; pouting if he doesn't get a large role, and "who knows" what else he'll be doing there. In this historic choice (white WOMAN former First Lady chock full of entitlement) versus the first black man ever to (hopefully) achieve the presidency, how can people possibly pick ENTITLEMENT? Assuming this primary will one day be over, how can this suffering country then go on to choose an irrascible old man, tied to Bush's egregious failures, over a brilliant man who gives us hope? Obama is almost like FDR in this regard. After eight horrible years of Republican failure, give me a break.

Posted by: Astonishing | May 22, 2008 11:01 AM | Report abuse

*OBAMA AGREES W/FERRARO*.... Geraldine Ferraro said that Barack Obama has benefited in the Democratic presidential race because he is black. *OBAMA ACKNOWLEDGES, with no small irony, that he benefits from his race."If he were white, he once bluntly noted, he would simply be one of nine freshmen senators", almost certainly without a multimillion-dollar book deal and a shred of celebrity. Or would he have been elected at all?............. (paragraph29)

Posted by: edr | May 22, 2008 10:52 AM | Report abuse

Only "idiot" liberals believe in an Obama victory in November. Read the map folks.
It is all about the map and Senator Clinton is the only candidate that carries the necessary states, on the map.
If we Democrats want to lose again, let's just stay to the FAR left with Obama. We surely can do it. History proves that fact.

Posted by: Larry W. Hale | May 22, 2008 10:51 AM | Report abuse

The media is part of the problem. Why does the white media continue to say that Obama has a problem with "white, working class" people but has neglected to point out that Clinton has a larger problem with "black, working class" people?

Why do you think that is? Blacks WERE voting for Hillary in the beginning. They dropped her like a scalding hot racist. Clinton lost what she automatically had, and she hasn't even lifted a finger to do anything about it. Oh yeah, she pandered on the anniversary of Martin Luther King. But where was she on the celebration of his birthday? Who in the hell celebrates a person's death and not their birth? Her and McCain showed up to pander to blacks on the anniversary of the single most influential black person in this nation's history's ... death. How white of them!

Hillary is out of touch with African Americans - the Democratic Party's MOST LOYAL VOTING BLOCK. Now figure why do you think that the media has missed pointing out this important fact? Do working blacks not matter in this race? How is Hillary allowed to just breeze on through this election without acknowledging blacks? There's a whole army of African American WORKING CLASS WOMEN who do NOT support Hillary Clinton. Why do you think that is? These women are OFFENDED by her behavior and do NOT agree that Hillary speaks for them. She doesn't know them. She knows Maggie, but she is an elitist, just like Hillary, so even she can't help Hillary with her own sista's! Why? Why Hillary? Why can't you connect with African American WORKING CLASS ... HARD WORKING BLACK WOMEN?

---

here! here! This is the real story!!! There would be a MASS EXODUS of blacks from the Dems if the Dem Party managed to do the impossible & take away the nomination from the candidate who won the most delegates and is not $20 million in debt!! A mass exodus!!!

Posted by: Anonymous | May 22, 2008 10:48 AM | Report abuse

Most Democrats know that both Obama and Clinton are better than John W. McCain. They'll vote Democratic in November.

Posted by: FC | May 22, 2008 10:45 AM | Report abuse

I agree wholeheartedly with the sentiments expressed. Obama is a weak candidate, however it's too late for the DNC and the mainstream media to get away from him.... Hillary is the far superior candidate as she has shown that she is a fighter and capable of reaching a broadbase constituency... For those of us who fear an Obama candidacy, I like others are just waiting for the dump truck to fully unload....

Posted by: LAMM01 | May 22, 2008 10:24 AM | Report abuse


This election is about who's electable. Consider who has the strongest chances of winning in the general election. Is it Barack Obama who has racked up primary victories in Republican strongholds like Wyoming, Idaho, and Oklahoma, or is it Hillary Clinton who has carried the key swing states of Florida, Michigan, Indiana, Ohio, West Virginia, Pennsylvania and New Jersey? Who can move the Democratic agenda forward? Is it Barack Obama and his blank canvas, compromise and vote "present" strategy or is it Hilary Clinton who does not take no for an answer? Going into the general election, who might have skeletons in the closet yet to emerge? Is it Barack Obama with the US Attorney who is actively investigating Obama associates Tony Rezko and Nadhmi Auchi? Or is it Hilary Clinton who has learned to live and thrive with critics unsuccessfully scrutinizing her for decades. The track record of Democrats who win Iowa and loose New Hampshire is abysmal--i.e. McGovern, Mondale, Dukakis and Dean. Iowa has an uncanny ability to pick losers who drag the rest of the party down with them. Bill Clinton lost Iowa but went on to win New Hampshire and led our country to 8 years of peace and prosperity. So, the question is who is electable. Not who can rack up votes in Republican strongholds.

Posted by: wcowan | May 22, 2008 10:08 AM | Report abuse

I have been surprised by liberal Democrats that suddenly want to follow the rules. When did you folks turn conservative. Do you forget FL 2000 when Gore had the popular vote and would have won if ALL the votes had been counted. Were you as willing to accept the rules of that Supreme Court ruling as many of you want to accept the DNC's rule of disenfranchising voters in FL & MI. If so, you are the biggest hypocrites within the party and shame on you. The same nasty names you called republicans, you now call fellow Democrats. You have opened the eyes of Hillary, Bill, and traditional Democrats, to the viciousness the media and liberal's will do to get what they want. Your refusal to allow other Democrats (FL & MI) to have their votes count shows your prejudices and contempt for a fair process. Whatever happened to ONE PERSON ONE VOTE!!

Posted by: tdl62 | May 22, 2008 9:54 AM | Report abuse

Mr Balz's effort to convince us there are still people who support Sen Clinton is unconvincing at best. If they really exist, why are they never mentioned here on this website?

Posted by: Anonymous | May 22, 2008 9:46 AM | Report abuse

Every Clinton appearance I see on TV ends with my surprise she was able to maintain her human form so convincingly.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 22, 2008 9:43 AM | Report abuse

All opposition to Sen Obama is obviously based on misinformation and unreasoned hatred.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 22, 2008 9:42 AM | Report abuse

While Mr McEntee may not personally be a racist, he is obviously just the latest Clintonite to blow the dog whistle to remind all of the racists out there that Obama is indeed black and should not be voted for.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 22, 2008 9:40 AM | Report abuse

A vote for Obama by the DEMS is a vote for John McCain in Nov. Wake up and smell the coffee and give FL and MI their delegates and Hillary the nomination. Or four more years.

Posted by: janmarie | May 22, 2008 9:38 AM | Report abuse

"[McEntee] went on to say that Obama appears to have significant problems in the heart of Reagan Democrat country and that many of the states where Obama has done well in the primaries will be solidly red in November."

McEntee can say whatever he wants, but it's ironic that the things Obama espouses--like attacking al Quaida in Pakistan on actionable evidence--were ridiculed, but shown to be correct and effective when implemented. He wants to talk to unfriendly countries, which Bush attacked in a speech before the Knesset as "appeasement"--and less than a week later Israel sits down with Syria. The attacks on Obama in these comments are based on lies, innuendoes, leaps of imagination and pure malice. The New York Times, which endorsed Clinton at the beginning, has recoiled from her despicable campaigning. No one wants to admit to being a racist, because being one is not virtuous. But those who are, try to turn it around and use it against Obama. It's called "projection"--attributing one's own unacceptable or unwanted thoughts or/and emotions to others. A lot of that going around.

Posted by: edwcorey | May 22, 2008 9:27 AM | Report abuse

I totally agree with President McIntee. Hillary has won the big states we have to win in order to win the white house. She has more experience and is a much better candidate. She will bring the party together. Obama will divide the party, he hasn't won a state we need win in the fall and he lacks the necessary experience needed to be president. Obama has never managed a county, city, state or business. We have a president who lacked experience and look what kind of a mess we are in, do we really think Obama is up to the task? I don't think so.

If we don't count the delegations from Florida and Michigan and seat them at the convention we will loose both states in the fall. As we well know we have to win Florida and Michigan to win the White House. Hillary won both primaries, these votes should stand as it, esp. Florida. Both candidates were on the ballot and Hillary clearly won in Florida. Count those votes, seat those delegates. Obama was not on the ballot in Michgian but only because HE removed his name from the ballot, should Hillary or the voters be penalized because of his actions? NO, count those votes, seat those delegates. We can win in the fall if we have Hillary as the nominee for president. She will have big coat tails and will carry many into the house and senate. If Obama is the nominee many mainstream Democrats will either vote for McCain or will not vote at all. Some will not vote in the presidential election but will vote in other races. This would clearly be a huge mistake. It isn't because mainstream Democrats are racists its because they don't feel comfortable about Obama's religion, his associations and his wife's attitude. He has not connected with working men and women, the middle class or what some have termed the Regan Democrats.

Posted by: Diana | May 22, 2008 9:20 AM | Report abuse

This guy is a political machine hack -- the nation's top local government hack -- and he is merely spouting the talking points of the Dem machine candidate, Hillary Clinton, in order to influence the rules committee and any wavering super delegates.

If the purely self-interested Sen. Clinton goes into this rules committee and steals the nomination from Sen. Obama at this late date, the party will alienate African Americans across the country, not just in the fall, but permanently, and will turn off its next generation of young people, permanently. Of course, Sen. Clinton doesn't care, she just wants to win at any cost. That is why she is willing to rewrite the rules now, even though her people wrote them in the first place. She did not care one whit about Fla and Mich votes when she thought she could win the race without them. Now, suddenly, she cares. Please. Sen. Clinton and Bill have played the race card and the gender card and now they are plotting to take this away by changing the rules. It is pretty sickening to watch. But it will not work. Obama will win, and in the process of losing ugly, Clinton will take the mask off herself and her husband, leaving a legacy of political greed and skulduggery.

Posted by: chouteau | May 22, 2008 9:16 AM | Report abuse

Do any of the people posting about Obama's resounding wins of white working class people understand the difference between a caucus and a primary?

One last note: many give reasons why they won't vote for Clinton, but anyone who may have real reasons for not voting for Obama (empty suit, no substance, no experience) , that is brushed aside as it has to be the RACE issue that really stops one from casting their vote for him. Call a person a racist because their views don't dove tail with yours; wow-there's REAL change for you!

Posted by: LJS | May 22, 2008 9:06 AM | Report abuse

For God's sake we vote to elect the President of United States of American not for a specific political party (Dem. or Rep.)

Posted by: Nga | May 22, 2008 9:04 AM | Report abuse

"Obama lost the working class vote in Oregon, as he has in almost every single state."

No, he didn't.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 22, 2008 9:00 AM | Report abuse

It's not about race, it's about his Marxist Communism. Why is this not discussed by mainstream media? Has anyone read his books?

Posted by: Lisa | May 22, 2008 8:49 AM | Report abuse

Obama lost the working class vote in Oregon, as he has in almost every single state.

Hello President McCain!

oh, well, a dem. congress and senate with a republican president should be fine, IF the democrats can find their balls (no chance of obama doing that)

Posted by: Anonymous | May 22, 2008 8:44 AM | Report abuse

ELEM-
look up Peter Paul v. Clinton

This is just one of the reasons why Hillary isn't a stronger candidate because the Republicans would rip her apart!
It would be like a goody bag!
That's the only reason why they are being nice to her, and not mentioning her.
Bill on Rush Limbaugh, Richard Melon-Scaif endorsing Hillary, repeated apperances on Fox News...
it's not rocket science. They have a history of coruption.
Have you seen "Hillary"- the movie???

Posted by: LeAnn | May 22, 2008 8:43 AM | Report abuse


Misleading the Public?
Exclusive: Obama, Rev. Wright and Louis Farrakhan appear together on cover of 2006 Trinity United magazine

Posted by: Anonymous | May 22, 2008 8:09 AM | Report abuse

It is a shame that Hiliary Clinton took the black vote for granted. She thought it was hers for the asking.The power of underestimating a people is her lesson to learn. Amrerica what is wrong with you? Some the people are still mislead but not all off us are. When will we try and live together in peace? Mrs Clinton the black vote counts as well as or more than the blue collar white vote. Please give me a break as your husband like to say.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 22, 2008 8:02 AM | Report abuse

Obama handily swept the white working class vote in Oregon, as he has in many states that he's won in the west and midwest, and even some east coast and southern states. He'll do it again in Montana and South Dakota. His problem isn't white working class, it's Appalachia.

Finding a populist good 'ol boy running mate like a John Edwards or a Jim Webb would go a long way towards solving that problem.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 22, 2008 7:43 AM | Report abuse

"Hillary is out of touch with African Americans"

You are full of it. Black voters are voting for Obama because he is black. Ask them. That is all you have to do. Most of them are not ashamed to say that if a black candidate is close, they will vote for him. I think the whole SC thing was just a convenient out for black voters that was fueled by the media. The comments by Bill Clinton were not bad, that is why you don't see them played in a loop over and over again. Obama using Malcolm X speech in SC and Mississippi was the real racist moment of the campaign. "Hoodwinked", "Bamboozled", shame ...

Posted by: Anonymous | May 22, 2008 7:08 AM | Report abuse

Mcentee speaks the truth. I am getting more convinced to be a McCAIN DEMOCRAT. Watch when Massachusetts votes for McCain. Some us feel Kennedy is being punished for his behaviour. Now come time to defeat Kerry

Posted by: vs | May 22, 2008 5:42 AM | Report abuse

Hasn't anyone noticed that the black vote has solidified around Sen. Obama since Bill Clinton and Geraldine Ferraro so shamefully brought the question of race into play? If the Democratic party wants victory in November, how would that be accomplished without the black vote? It seems to me the real challenge for Obama is courting a traditionally conservative Hispanic community. If Sen. H. Clinton splits the party at the convention, she risks alienating the party she represents.

Posted by: Ned Wreck | May 22, 2008 5:37 AM | Report abuse

The media is part of the problem. Why does the white media continue to say that Obama has a problem with "white, working class" people but has neglected to point out that Clinton has a larger problem with "black, working class" people?

Why do you think that is? Blacks WERE voting for Hillary in the beginning. They dropped her like a scalding hot racist. Clinton lost what she automatically had, and she hasn't even lifted a finger to do anything about it. Oh yeah, she pandered on the anniversary of Martin Luther King. But where was she on the celebration of his birthday? Who in the hell celebrates a person's death and not their birth? Her and McCain showed up to pander to blacks on the anniversary of the single most influential black person in this nation's history's ... death. How white of them!

Hillary is out of touch with African Americans - the Democratic Party's MOST LOYAL VOTING BLOCK. Now figure why do you think that the media has missed pointing out this important fact? Do working blacks not matter in this race? How is Hillary allowed to just breeze on through this election without acknowledging blacks? There's a whole army of African American WORKING CLASS WOMEN who do NOT support Hillary Clinton. Why do you think that is? These women are OFFENDED by her behavior and do NOT agree that Hillary speaks for them. She doesn't know them. She knows Maggie, but she is an elitist, just like Hillary, so even she can't help Hillary with her own sista's! Why? Why Hillary? Why can't you connect with African American WORKING CLASS ... HARD WORKING BLACK WOMEN?

Posted by: Democrats No Matter What!! | May 22, 2008 5:31 AM | Report abuse

Senator Jim Webb has done an excellent job of explaining why voters in the "Clinton-belt" voted, and traditionally vote the way they do. IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH OBAMA AND IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH RACISM (as I wanted to think).

The people, (on avg. 30% of them) who voted for Clinton in the above mentioned states WILL vote Republican in November you can go to the stats and see for yourself. This is what they have always done. Clinton is aware of this trend but she is trying to disquise it as a dislike for Obama.

...and the lies just keep coming. As God is my witness, I am totally done with the Clintons.

Posted by: Reggie Boykins | May 22, 2008 5:22 AM | Report abuse

For all of those ignorant posters who want to keep repeating the lies that Obama has a "white, working class" problem, consider who actually voted for him and kicked off his race, and has continued to vote for him across the country. Who? "WHITE, WORKING CLASS" voters. I live 3 miles from the Iowa boundary line and it is WHITE no matter which direction you look in. The African-American population in this area is 17% and less than 6% hispanic, so how did Obama beat Clinton out here? How did he beat her in Oregon? And why the hell isn't she putting Obama away by now, especially considering that SHE is the brand name (Clinton) and he was an unknown Senator from Illinois. And why can't she count? Why can't she follow the damn rules? Why are you allowing her to lie to you and then you go off and repeat her lies? Why have "her" rules changed with every state? "I've got the most delegates.", until Obama passed her. "I've won more states.", until Obama wiped the floor with her on Super Tuesday. "I have the most superdelegates.", until they left her like a plague. Now, the ONLY chance she has is for the Democratic Party to suddenly GIVE her the nomination and ignore the person who actually won with the most states won, the most votes, the most elected delegates, the most superdelegates, and most importantly, the only candidate left standing who has not broken the rules. Now why would they take this EARNED nomination from the first African American candidate for President who actually won in every single category? Makes no sense to me, so y'all keep on listening to the Republican trolls online posting stupid stuff to keep us all divided so that old war-monger/Bush-Lite can get in the White House. You think times are bad now. That fool wants to invade Iran. For what? Because Iran hates Israel. Y'all keep on being fools and see where that ignorance gets you. We've had enough of Bush. McCain is 5 times worse!!!

Posted by: All American---> | May 22, 2008 5:19 AM | Report abuse

..."My message to Clinton supporters who are still threatening to vote McCain
Here's a horrible, cruel joke about the Clintons...."

My respone to you is: Go look up the video where Obama flips Clinton off. (YES he did do that). Play it a few times. Notice that he breaks out into the grins & smirks BEFORE and AFTER he flips her off.

You see him glancing at his notes ... sees the flip-off coming up in the SCRIPT ... breaks out into smirks ... goes on speaking ... glances at notes again .... smirks in ---more anticipation --- of the upcoming flip-off.

IF YOU don't want McCain to be President, then, DO everything you can to get Clinton nominated. Cheney, GE, Westinghouse, The REPUBLICANS are running OBAMA as "our" "Democrat" candidate .... because the Bush admin/FBI has been investigating Obama & his friends Rezko, Auichi, Alsammarae for about 3 years now & they have enough REAL dirt on him to sink him ... right after he gets the nomination.

Don't believe it? Go do some homework. Lookup: Cheney Energy bill. Rezko, Alsammarae, Auichi.

WHY did Obama VOTE FOR the Cheney Energy Bill? How come NONE of the MEDIA have asked him that question?

WHY did NONE of the TV media report last week's SENSATIONAL Newspaper coverage of the Rezko Trial:

Two witnesses testified that Rezko told them the prosecutor (Patrick Fitzgerald) was going to be fired to stop the criminal prosecution of Rezko.

Ask yourself this question: WHY would the Bush/Cheney Coalition Provisional Authority APPOINT Rezko's friend Alsammarae to be Minister of Electricity in Iraq? See if you can find the information that Rezko ... allegedly ... helped his friend Alsamarae LOOT the Iraqi Electricity Grid, & they were both planning to build a power plant in Iraq.
Alsammare was convicted by a court (under its current govt.) of LOOTING the Iraqi Electricity Grid.

FIND OUT What the Cheney Energy Bill MEANS for building new nuclear power plants in the U.S. FIND OUT WHY no new nukes were built here for 30 years.

IF McCain or Obama is elected President ... the nuke industry is just waiting in the wings to roll out 29 OBSOLETE 70-year Old technology that is far dirtier than you are aware of ---- INSTEAD of INVESTING in the NEW CLEAN GREEN RENEWABLE DECENTRALIZED ENERGY/Economy We NEED.

GE & Westinghouse are the nuke power plant builders. THEY OWN NBC, MSNBC, & CBS: THE Reason for their blatant Pro-Obama PROPAGANDA. Clinton Voted AGAINST the Cheney Energy Bill: THE Reason for their Anti-Clinton SLAM & SMEAR.

i.e. McCain/Obama ... doesn't matter WHICH ONE --- they are BOTH OWNED by; SELLOUTS to--the SAME Large Corporations.

In a 'race" McCain vs. Obama ... NO POINT wasting my time "Voting" in a NO REAL CHOICE "race".

Do yourself a favor: Go Sign that Nominate Hillary Petition & email all your friends the LINK & ask them to do the same ... and ... pass the LINK & the WORD to everyone on thier email list ... & so on & on ...

Posted by: elme | May 22, 2008 3:21 AM | Report abuse

..."My message to Clinton supporters who are still threatening to vote McCain
Here's a horrible, cruel joke about the Clintons...."

My respone to you is: Go look up the video where Obama flips Clinton off. (YES he did do that). Play it a few times. Notice that he breaks out into the grins & smirks BEFORE and AFTER he flips her off.

You see him glancing at his notes ... sees the flip-off coming up in the SCRIPT ... breaks out into smirks ... goes on speaking ... glances at notes again .... smirks in ---more anticipation --- of the upcoming flip-off.

IF YOU don't want McCain to be President, then, DO everything you can to get Clinton nominated. Cheney, GE, Westinghouse, The REPUBLICANS are running OBAMA as "our" "Democrat" candidate .... because the Bush admin/FBI has been investigating Obama & his friends Rezko, Auichi, Alsammarae for about 3 years now & they have enough REAL dirt on him to sink him ... right after he gets the nomination.

Don't believe it? Go do some homework. Lookup: Cheney Energy bill. Rezko, Alsammarae, Auichi.

WHY did Obama VOTE FOR the Cheney Energy Bill? How come NONE of the MEDIA have asked him that question?

WHY did NONE of the TV media report last week's SENSATIONAL Newspaper coverage of the Rezko Trial:

Two witnesses testified that Rezko told them the prosecutor (Patrick Fitzgerald) was going to be fired to stop the criminal prosecution of Rezko.

Ask yourself this question: WHY would the Bush/Cheney Coalition Provisional Authority APPOINT Rezko's friend Alsammarae to be Minister of Electricity in Iraq? See if you can find the information that Rezko ... allegedly ... helped his friend Alsamarae LOOT the Iraqi Electricity Grid, & they were both planning to build a power plant in Iraq.
Alsammare was convicted by a court (under its current govt.) of LOOTING the Iraqi Electricity Grid.

FIND OUT What the Cheney Energy Bill MEANS for building new nuclear power plants in the U.S. FIND OUT WHY no new nukes were built here for 30 years.

IF McCain or Obama is elected President ... the nuke industry is just waiting in the wings to roll out 29 OBSOLETE 70-year Old technology that is far dirtier than you are aware of ---- INSTEAD of INVESTING in the NEW CLEAN GREEN RENEWABLE DECENTRALIZED ENERGY/Economy We NEED.

GE & Westinghouse are the nuke power plant builders. THEY OWN NBC, MSNBC, & CBS: THE Reason for their blatant Pro-Obama PROPAGANDA. Clinton Voted AGAINST the Cheney Energy Bill: THE Reason for their Anti-Clinton SLAM & SMEAR.

i.e. McCain/Obama ... doesn't matter WHICH ONE --- they are BOTH OWNED by; SELLOUTS to--the SAME Large Corporations.

In a 'race" McCain vs. Obama ... NO POINT wasting my time "Voting" in a NO REAL CHOICE "race".

Do yourself a favor: Go Sign that Nominate Hillary Petition & email all your friends the LINK & ask them to do the same ... and ... pass the LINK & the WORD to everyone on thier email list ... & so on & on ...

Posted by: elme | May 22, 2008 3:21 AM | Report abuse

..."My message to Clinton supporters who are still threatening to vote McCain
Here's a horrible, cruel joke about the Clintons...."

My respone to you is: Go look up the video where Obama flips Clinton off. (YES he did do that). Play it a few times. Notice that he breaks out into the grins & smirks BEFORE and AFTER he flips her off.

You see him glancing at his notes ... sees the flip-off coming up in the SCRIPT ... breaks out into smirks ... goes on speaking ... glances at notes again .... smirks in ---more anticipation --- of the upcoming flip-off.

IF YOU don't want McCain to be President, then, DO everything you can to get Clinton nominated. Cheney, GE, Westinghouse, The REPUBLICANS are running OBAMA as "our" "Democrat" candidate .... because the Bush admin/FBI has been investigating Obama & his friends Rezko, Auichi, Alsammarae for about 3 years now & they have enough REAL dirt on him to sink him ... right after he gets the nomination.

Don't believe it? Go do some homework. Lookup: Cheney Energy bill. Rezko, Alsammarae, Auichi.

WHY did Obama VOTE FOR the Cheney Energy Bill? How come NONE of the MEDIA have asked him that question?

WHY did NONE of the TV media report last week's SENSATIONAL Newspaper coverage of the Rezko Trial:

Two witnesses testified that Rezko told them the prosecutor (Patrick Fitzgerald) was going to be fired to stop the criminal prosecution of Rezko.

Ask yourself this question: WHY would the Bush/Cheney Coalition Provisional Authority APPOINT Rezko's friend Alsammarae to be Minister of Electricity in Iraq? See if you can find the information that Rezko ... allegedly ... helped his friend Alsamarae LOOT the Iraqi Electricity Grid, & they were both planning to build a power plant in Iraq.
Alsammare was convicted by a court (under its current govt.) of LOOTING the Iraqi Electricity Grid.

FIND OUT What the Cheney Energy Bill MEANS for building new nuclear power plants in the U.S. FIND OUT WHY no new nukes were built here for 30 years.

IF McCain or Obama is elected President ... the nuke industry is just waiting in the wings to roll out 29 OBSOLETE 70-year Old technology that is far dirtier than you are aware of ---- INSTEAD of INVESTING in the NEW CLEAN GREEN RENEWABLE DECENTRALIZED ENERGY/Economy We NEED.

GE & Westinghouse are the nuke power plant builders. THEY OWN NBC, MSNBC, & CBS: THE Reason for their blatant Pro-Obama PROPAGANDA. Clinton Voted AGAINST the Cheney Energy Bill: THE Reason for their Anti-Clinton SLAM & SMEAR.

i.e. McCain/Obama ... doesn't matter WHICH ONE --- they are BOTH OWNED by; SELLOUTS to--the SAME Large Corporations.

In a 'race" McCain vs. Obama ... NO POINT wasting my time "Voting" in a NO REAL CHOICE "race".

Do yourself a favor: Go Sign that Nominate Hillary Petition & email all your friends the LINK & ask them to do the same ... and ... pass the LINK & the WORD to everyone on thier email list ... & so on & on ...

Posted by: elme | May 22, 2008 3:11 AM | Report abuse

...."Both Obama and Clinton poll the same with low income white voters against McCain in West Virgina, Kentucy"

Uh huh, yeah, & as most of us know the POLLS have been all over the place ... a real good indication that POLLS are bought & paid for to say ... whatever you want them to say.

Since we have EXIT Polls & REALITY (the VOTES) to go by ... we don't need the Polls. Those EXIT Polls & the VOTES/Reality show that bama has a problem ... a lot of work to do ... as all the TV news talking heads say.

Obama has ... a lot of work to do - just to be a VIABLE candidate. Clinton doesn't.

With 2 to 5 Times LESS MONEY than Obama; WITH ALL the TV MEDIA pumping out Pro-Obama/ Anti-Clinton PROPAGANDA all day every day; WITH LESS than 1% difference in their delegate totals - proving beyond any question that Clinton is BY FAR the Strongest candidate.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 22, 2008 2:45 AM | Report abuse

Convention floor....Denver..the number..2,210..Florida & Michigan...you're invited...all Dems...be there !!

Posted by: Anonymous | May 22, 2008 1:32 AM | Report abuse

Both Obama and Clinton poll the same with low income white voters against McCain in West Virgina, Kentucy, and these other rural states in a general election. The percentage they are polling is the same as Kerry and Gore did in 2000 and 2004. Hillary and some pundits prefer to create problems where no problems exists.

For Cliton supportes who say they will vote for McCain in November consider this:
I copied this from another person, but it's worth posting again and again.
My message to Clinton supporters who are still threatening to vote McCain
Here's a horrible, cruel joke about the Clintons:
"Why is Chelsea Clinton so ugly? Because Hillary is her mother and Janet Reno is her father."
Now, who said that? A mean Obama supporter? No, it was John McCain who told that "joke", at a GOP fundraising dinner in June 1998.
Point that out to frustrated Hillary supporters who think Obama or his followers have been mean to the Clintons.

McCain is a guy who calls his wife a "c**t" and "trollop" in front of reporters.
A guy with a long track record of vindictively pursuing junior people - especially women - who get in his way, even if they were just secretaries following their bosses' orders.

Do you want John McCain to pick three or more Supreme Court Justices? Vote for McCain will set women rights back two generations.

Vote for our future. Vote for Obama!

Posted by: Anonymous | May 22, 2008 12:15 AM | Report abuse

What's this in the Huffington Post aobut Clinton supporer wants to buy superdelegates?

Sounds like a case of ... fighting fire with fire ... to me --- since Obama's very own PAC has been making "campaign contributions" to Senators & Representatives/SUPERDELEGATES --- starting BEFORE he started running for President.

Posted by: elme | May 21, 2008 11:58 PM | Report abuse

So .... "Obama has a lot of work to do" the pundits all agree. Clinton doesn't. She did her homework. Obama skipped it.

He's got ... a lot of work to do ... but all the MEDIA Talking heads STILL insist he should be the nominee. WHY? Are they being paid to get McCain elected?

It's not reverse racism for 90% of black people to vote for Obama? But it IS racism for white people to vote for the white candidate?

Obama & the Rev. Wright created the white backlash ... with THEIR OWN (reverse) anti-whitey racism. Too late to blame it on anyone but themselves.

Obama played "the race card" to win the South Carolina primary. IF he had not done so he would have lost & this race would have been over a long time ago.

Posted by: elme | May 21, 2008 11:55 PM | Report abuse

SUPERDELEGATES NEED TO DECIDE NOW WHAT CANDIDATE THEY WILL SUPPORT. DO YOUR JOBS!!!!
WHAT'S THIS IN THE HUFFINGTON POST ABOUT A CLINTON SUPPORTER OFFERING TO BUY SUPERDELEGATES?????
FOR A MILLION DOLLAR BRIBE. SOUNDS LIKE CLINTONS AT WORK. OH YEAH THIS IS THE REGULAR OLD CLINTON GAL AT WORK. WHO IS WATCHING THIS ??? I HAVE NOT HEARD ANY NEWS MEDIA TALKING ABOUT THIS!!!

Posted by: linda | May 21, 2008 11:47 PM | Report abuse

Obama's weakness


From Taylor Marsh:

West Virginia. Candidate Obama phoned it in with cash, but the voters didn't care.

Kentucky. Lots of money, but not the heart to walk in and talk to voters, because he's already been crowned. Never mind that his math is enough to give any Democrat wanting to win in November indigestion.

Consider these findings from the exit polling:

* Among Kentucky voters living in rural areas or small cities -- nearly six in 10 voters -- Clinton took 75 percent to 19 percent.

* Among non-college educated whites in Kentucky (66 percent of the electorate), Clinton won by 44 points -- 69 percent to 25 percent.

* Among whites with a family income less than $50,000, Clinton received 75 percent of the vote while Obama took just 22 percent.

The thing is that when you don't respect people enough to walk in to where they live, talk to them about their troubles and assure them you get it, they won't give you their vote. It's not a black - white thing, it's a ego thing; as in you think you're too good for them. People can sense political arrogance a mile away and Obama's got it in abundance. That's why if he thinks he's going to get beat he doesn't even bother.

This isn't about race. It's about ego. Obama's, that is.

Florida.

Michigan.

Barack Obama refused revotes in both states because he couldn't win them, while knowing it would put Hillary ahead. It's assured that he can't win Florida in November. Nobody has been fooled.

Ohio, Pennsylvania said no to Barack Obama too. He didn't talk their language.

Are we really going to nominate a candidate who is weaker in the very states we need to win in November? It's up to the SuperDs, who just popped another pill.

Posted by: jaylo | May 21, 2008 11:26 PM | Report abuse

To all TRUE Democrats who feel that Hillary Clinton is the most qualified and visionary candidate for our country.
.....With a Clinton nomination seeming as questionable as an Obama victory this fall, what's a Democrat to do?..........
WriteHillaryIn.com is a website created by and for Americans who do not want to be forced to choose between Barack Obama and John McCain in a general election
...........and let the DNC know of your intentions of *Writing Hillary In* and exactly how you feel about them stealing the nomination from Sen.Clinton in their rush to *make history*

Posted by: laura | May 21, 2008 11:03 PM | Report abuse

"My friends, I will have an energy policy that we will be talking about which will eliminate our dependence on oil from the Middle East that will that will then prevent us that will prevent us from having ever to send our young men and women into conflict again in the Middle East." Verbatim quote, John McCain, Denver, May 2, 2008.

The above quote is one good reason why John McCain takes the position he does about holding talks with foreign leaders, (friend or) foe. Try translating this quote into any language you like. Bush has the same speech problem, but worse. Bush makes up his own words.
The problem with McCain's approach is that his rationale is not born out in the historical record. Politics has become the science of historical revisionism. It takes historical scholars to keep it all straight. The reason that people like McCain and Bush can get away with many of their absurd historical references is that most people do not want to be bothered with the correct information.
Bush was talking today about tortured political prisoners in Cuba and other injustices as reasons why he maintains the Cuba policy he has as he also attempts to force change by allowing cell phones to be sent to Cuba. He forgets that there have been prisoners, many political, in the prison at Guantanamo with no hope of release. Reports of torture of these U.S.A. detained prisoners have been recently validated by FBI files. Bush continually lashes out at the faults of others while he has been instrumental in doing the same things. Yet, Bush still enjoys a 30 percent approval rating.
Obama has what it takes to debate McCain.

Posted by: Obama has what it takes | May 21, 2008 10:44 PM | Report abuse


This election is not about race, it's about who's electable. Consider who has the strongest chances of winning in the general election. Is it Barack Obama who has racked up primary victories in Republicans strongholds like Wyoming, Idaho, and Oklahoma, or is it Hillary Clinton who has carried the key swing states of Florida, Michigan, Indiana, Ohio, West Virginia, Pennsylvania and New Jersey? Who can move the Democratic agenda forward? Is it Barack Obama and his blank canvas, compromise and vote "present" strategy or is it Hilary Clinton who does not take no for an answer? Going into the general election, who might have skeletons in the closet yet to emerge? Is it Barack Obama with the US Attorney who is actively investigating Obama associates Tony Rezko and Nadhmi Auchi? Or is it Hilary Clinton who has learned to live and thrive with critics unsuccessfully scrutinizing her for decades. The track record of Democrats who win Iowa and loose New Hampshire is abysmal--i.e. McGovern, Mondale, Dukakis and Dean. Iowa has an uncanny ability to pick losers who drag the rest of the party down with them. Bill Clinton lost Iowa but went on to win New Hampshire and led our country to 8 years of peace and prosperity. So, the question is who is electable. Not who can rack up votes in Republican strongholds.

Posted by: wcowan | May 21, 2008 9:54 PM | Report abuse

She learned political triangulation from the Master ; )

Posted by: JakeD | May 21, 2008 9:11 PM | Report abuse

Clinton is exploiting the issue, and then crying sexism as well. She is a master at playing both ends against the middle.

The circulation of statements about not quitting and the idea of her being the more worthy candidate is another Clinton shell game to try and draw out Obama supporters. Since there is no chance for her, short of an Obama implosion in the next few weeks, the Clintonites are using every tactic possible to incite and divide (in the most polite manner possible).

If she was more electable, Hillary would have more delegates already. End of story.

The Billary strategy is that if you don't like the ending, you've got nothing to lose by trying to rewrite it. The problem is that we - the people - are the ultimate losers.

If the dynamic duo (Biff, Pow, Wham!) really cared about the party, the people and the country, they would put the needs of the many ahead of the needs of the few (themselves).

Just say no to Clinton politics as usual.

Let's turn the page for once an for all.

Posted by: DonJulio | May 21, 2008 9:00 PM | Report abuse

AJ:

I'm not intentionally forgetting that part -- I'm just hoping for a repeat performance -- although it's quite a stretch to say that even Teddy could have beat Ronald Reagan that year.

Posted by: JakeD | May 21, 2008 9:00 PM | Report abuse

AWHHH! JakeD...you are intentionally forgetting the most important thing when Ted Kennedy took the fight to the Conventional floor and he was 800 delegates behind Carter...that CARTER LOST THE GENERAL ELECTION!

Posted by: AJ | May 21, 2008 8:55 PM | Report abuse

Giovanni:

She is not seeking to change the rules, but rather one specific and preliminary "ruling" that took away 100% of the delegates when the RULES provide for a 50% penalty. If she objects to the May 31st decision by the Rules Committee, she is entitled to appeal the decision to the Credentials Committee. If she wants to take the fight all the way to the Convention floor, she can do that too. All of that is "following the rules" already in place.

Ted Kennedy took the fight to the Conventional floor and he was 800 delegates behind Carter. That didn't "ruin" the Democratic Party, did it?

Posted by: JakeD | May 21, 2008 8:42 PM | Report abuse

Wait a minute. Now there is a vast, LEFT wing conspiracy, too?

Funny, I am decidedly in the middle, and I prefer Obama.

Clinton to me is neither left, right or middle. She is the true politician, who changes with the tide. I really have no idea what type of President she would be. A hawk, like she was when the GOP ran Congress? A liberal, like she was when Bill was first elected? A populist, like she is now that she needed the bubba vote?

Posted by: steve boyington | May 21, 2008 8:37 PM | Report abuse

As always, the Democratic Party's primary process is too heavily influenced by its extreme Left wing. Accordingly, their primaries produce candidates of the far Left who are unelectable in the general election. It is astonishing to see the party making this same mistake yet again. Of course McEntee is entirely correct, as any objective observer has known for months. However, the party's likely response will be to shoot the messenger.

Posted by: Bubba Nelson | May 21, 2008 8:34 PM | Report abuse

Bravo...the mudsling continues!

Clinton clones continue to cloud Party's confidence.

From Bill to Chelsea to Geraldine to Gerald McEntrite...the Clinton Kamp keeps Party off balance.

Fight fear and anger.

Champion Hope and Dreams. Live Free!

Posted by: Ricky Galileo | May 21, 2008 8:10 PM | Report abuse

Maybe all of McEntee's members should have been kicking in some money so his "superior " candidate wouldn't be over $31 million in debt while Obama still has $37 million to the good. Who's gonna pay for the caviar when Clinton is the nominee. Surely not Obama people,

Posted by: majorteddy | May 21, 2008 8:06 PM | Report abuse

Why Sen. Clinton sends me emails daily asking to donate money to her campaign, while she is loaning to her campaign?
Am I allowed to loan her money as well? Do I get interests?

Posted by: Gio | May 21, 2008 7:51 PM | Report abuse

I can't believe it! An article that finally points out how unelectable Obama has become. Is this really the WP???

Posted by: thinkwithyourbrain | May 21, 2008 7:48 PM | Report abuse

About the issue of Florida and Michigan early primaries

•Rules are rules and must be respected
•You cannot break a rule and then negotiate the consequences
•People should be reinforced to believe in the democratic process.
•People should understand that not having complied with the rules inevitably the election cannot be considered valid.
•People should feel a superior authority with consistent principles and a clear ethic
•No candidate of the primaries election should be perceived as winner or loser as a result of this decision. Florida's and Michigan's issue should be kept clearly separated from the present candidates.

Following some options:
•Since it appears so important for Florida and Michigan to anticipate their elections, it can be decided that in 2012 Florida and Michigan will vote first.
•It may be decided that in 2012 the number of delegates assigned by Florida and Michigan will be doubled (adding the number of delegates of this year to the count of 2012's delegates), or raised by a certain factor (for instance 150%)
•The DNC could decide to address some money (ideally 50% of the money necessary to organize a new election) to the campaign in Florida and Michigan, opening new offices and financing a better communication among the party and the people of Florida and Michigan.
•Delegates will be seated at the convention but their vote will count as uncommitted. They will have anyway right to speak and they are expected to have coordination responsibilities for the democratic presidential campaign in the two States.

•Alternatively re-vote should be conducted in Florida and Michigan. One week should be allowed for the two candidates to campaign. I suggest that to have the right to vote $2 should be paid by the primaries voters. This money will go to the Democratic Party for the presidential campaign. This way the chaos we observed this year, with the suspect of many Repubblicans voting in the Democratic primaries could be avoided. This solution has been adopted in other countries (like Italy) as well, and worked well.

In my opinion, the decision of not considering Florida's and Michigan's elections as valid cannot be revisited. Nevertheless the Democratic voters in the two states should be praised, they are a richness of democracy and we value them. No candidate should be perceived as winner or loser of the process. This decision is about democracy, rules and the credibility of the Democratic Party, not about Sen. Obama or Sen. Clinton.

Posted by: Giovanni | May 21, 2008 7:48 PM | Report abuse

Learn the rules people the winner have to be voted in on the convention floor, until that happen there is no winner.That's why they are calling Mccain the presumtive nominee.

Posted by: Larry | May 21, 2008 7:45 PM | Report abuse

Gerald McEntee is a jack-bite.

Since when do West Virginia and Kentucky constitute the base of the Democratic Party?

Someone should show McEntee a map of the last two elections, and even in 92.

Obama is leading in Penn in a match up between himself and McCain.

As far as limping to the convention, Obama is now up 55 to 40 in the daily gallup poll of Democratic voters. He's surpassed Clinton in superdelegates. So where exactly is her momentum?

As far as white, working class, first of all the white working class haven't voted democratic since they went to Reagan in the 80s. And if Obama has a vulnerability it is only with that group. Clinton's vulnerabilities are with every group under age 50. And do we want to destroy the future of the party so we can get white working class voters who would vote for McCain over Clinton regardless?

To all those Clinton supporters who are upset about Mi and Fla. Even if you count those states, Clinton is still behind in delegates. And if you give Obama the undecided delegates from Mi since his name wasn't on the ballot he's ahead in popular vote.

So stop going nuts about Fla and Mi. It doesn't matter. It's over. She lost. It's been over since Feb.

As for the worried Obama supporter who wants to flood the DNC with calls and emails. Look at the flow of superdelegates since Obama lost Penn. Clinton would have to win about 80 percent of the remaining supers to pass Obama. It ain't gonna happen.

Posted by: edzo2 | May 21, 2008 7:44 PM | Report abuse

To all TRUE Democratic Supporters and OBAMA supporters....go to the website of the DNC and let them know exactly how you feel about them stealing the nomination away from Mr. Obama. You can communicate directly to them. Mr. Obama has played by the rules and to steal the nomination from him just to crown the Clintons is an act of cowardness and weakness of our Party. I urge all Obama supporters to go to this website. They will actually respond to you. The website is http://www.democrats.org/page/s/contactissues. See you guys at the Convention in August. Democrat for Life!

My email is listed below: Keep up the good fight Obama Supporters...we'll all get through this...just keep your eyes on the prize...Luv Ya!

All of my family members and myself have been lifelong democrats and we have always committed ourselves to the needs and successes of the Democratic Party. We supported President Bill Clinton during his impeachment days and have always stuck with the Democratic party through the good times and the bad times. We have several generations of Democrats in our family and have NEVER crossed the party lines. As an African American female, I am totally appalled and hurt with the trickery and abuse that the "Democratic Powerhouses - The Clintons" are doing and continue to do to Mr. Barak Obama. Mr. Obama has played by the party rules, he sought out to win the most pledged delegates because he knew that was the rule of the DNC in order to win the nomination. The Clintons have under-estimated Mr. Obama's brillance, determination, and dedication to the DNC Party and now have posiitoned themselves in a a way to overthrow the will of the People and the Party while the leaders in the DNC stand idly by and watch. I will agree that Mr. Obama have withstood the harsh rhetoric and character assasination brought on by the Clintons, their surrogates, and supporters but this have probably made Mr. Obama a stronger candidate. However, it is now time to cut the cord on all of this nonsense, sit the Clintons down, and let them know in no uncertain terms that Mr. Obama has played by the DNC rules and have obtained the majority of the pledge delegates and it's now time to win back the White House. The more the leaders of the DNC stand idley by because they are afraid to go against the Clinton Machine is a sign of cowardness and weakness..and I certainly hope that is not the type of party that my family and I have supported though many years. I hope that you do not allow Hillary and her campaign to continue to divide the party and use the rhetoric against the party just to clench the nomination. I, as a Democrat hope that you don't take the nomination from Mr. Obama just to appease the Clintons. I would expect that Florida and Michigan who didn't play by the rules be punished as the DNC pledgd to do at the onset of the primary race. If you have to seat them, then I would hope that you do what the Republicans did and take 50% of the delegates away and do not seat either state as they voted. I have Democratic family members in both Michiganand Florida that followed the rules and did not vote because they felt that their vote would not count. Therefore you would be disenfranchizing all of those voters in Florida and Michigan that followed the rules, stayed home and didn't vote because they thought that their votes won't count. To try and appease the Clintons with a back room deal would be of great disservice to the democratic voters who trusted your system and supports Mr. Obama. I look forward to your response and an answer of how the DNC plans to move forward with the nomination of Mr. Barak Obama. Thank you very much for allowing me to voice my concerns.

Posted by: Democrat for Life! | May 21, 2008 7:25 PM | Report abuse

These so-called "hard-working white voters" are a mix of the old George Wallace constituency, which freaks at the idea of an African American in the White House, and Republicans crossing over to vote in Demo primaries in hopes the GOP won't have to face Obama in the general election. Bill Clinton won the presidency in 1992, but he didn't carry the white male vote. Nor did he carry it in '96. In fact,the majority of white males haven't voted Democratic since 1964 and I doubt they'll vote Democratic this time either no matter who the party nominates.
Sterling Greenwood
Aspen Free Press

Posted by: Sterling Greenwood | May 21, 2008 7:18 PM | Report abuse

Weak is an understatement, he is a sacrificial lamb.


++++++++++++
This is all moot. McCain is such a weak candidate, all this banter is laughable.

McCain will be trounced in the general.
PERIOD

Posted by: Vance McDaniel | May 21, 2008 7:03 PM

Posted by: Anonymous | May 21, 2008 7:08 PM | Report abuse

This is all moot. McCain is such a weak candidate, all this banter is laughable.

McCain will be trounced in the general.
PERIOD

Posted by: Vance McDaniel | May 21, 2008 7:03 PM | Report abuse

A courageous guy willing to speak the truth.

CNN was running possible purple state conversion scenarios last night. I thought that Sen. Clinton's odds of converting key swing states that went Bush in 2004 were much, much better than Sen. Obama's. She only has to keep all the Kerry states which looks doable and get either Florida or Ohio which also looks doable. Sen. Obama, on the other hand, doesn't stand a chance in either Ohio or Florida and would have to convert several swing states to win.

Posted by: Donna1000 | May 21, 2008 6:58 PM | Report abuse

Funny, McEntee, says lack of labor support in states like Pa and WV give him doubts about Obama, the same day one of the largest union in those states, United Mine Workers announce support for Obama. I guess the UMW isn't as concerned about blue-collar workers being able to support Obama.

Posted by: dcwsano | May 21, 2008 6:39 PM | Report abuse

regarding Obama and blue-collar workers, Clinton surely had name recognition, and perhaps familiarity with some southern communities, since her husband was the former governor of Arkansas.

Because Obama has come from Hawaii and Illinois, his name recognition is unknown to many blue-collar workers.

However, I am sure with some effort and his many supporters the name recognition of Obama can be improved.

Some of this criticism is now an echo from the nearly collapsed campaign of Hillary. If we can assume that she will graciously stop campaigning (at some near date), and she will actively support Obama, her blue-collar appeal could help Obama in the general election.

Tradtionally, blue-collar workers have supported Democratic candidates because organized labor unions have aligned with Democratic values (worker rights). Of course, white-collar workers (managers and other professionals) have aligned with Republican values (free market advocates).

Historically, voters go for "big ideas" not personalities as you suggest. There are plenty of "big ideas" on the national agenda: economy, health care, public education, immigration, foreign policy, human rights, etc.

So it is hard to imagine that the personality of Obama (or even Clinton) vs. McCain would be an issue to consider when voting for president. I think the "big ideas" of a change election will prevail.

Posted by: richard | May 21, 2008 6:32 PM | Report abuse

Losing a state primary to another democrat does not mean losing in the general election. Outside the hard-core anti-Obamaites, in the end most Hillary supporters will vote Obama in November. Check out the most recent polls in Pa. It has Obama up on McCain in the general election even befor Hillary drops out and supports Obama.

Posted by: dcwsano | May 21, 2008 6:31 PM | Report abuse

This argument is absurd on its face. While some of the states won by Obama in the primaries will go to the GOP, the same is true for Clinton. Clinton would not carry New Hampshire, Nevada, Oklahoma, Texas, etc.

According to the current state-by-state polls, either candidate can beat McCain; their electoral maps differ a little. Clinton's map hangs heavily on the traditional Democratic route to the WH, while Obama's includes some Western states, while dropping a couple of marginally Democratic states, such as FL.

Posted by: vmi98mom | May 21, 2008 6:29 PM | Report abuse

hillary all the way to denver, the supreme court, whatever it takes to show that moron dean, that he can't f*** with america

Posted by: josh | May 21, 2008 6:27 PM | Report abuse

Not a racist, but certainly a Hill Shill.

Posted by: DC | May 21, 2008 6:26 PM | Report abuse

Someone shut McEntee up, please!!! Call his a "racist" or something like that ...

Posted by: JakeD | May 21, 2008 6:21 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company