Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Touting Clinton's Electability, Using Every Available Source

Hillary Clinton
Democratic presidential hopeful New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton addresses her election night celebration at the Marriott Hotel in Louisville on May 20, 2008. (AFP/Getty Images)

By Perry Bacon Jr.
LOUISVILLE -- As she continues to press on, Hillary Clinton's campaign is less about health care, experience or solutions than a factor no one would have guessed at the beginning: electability.

"We have to select a nominee who is best positioned to win in November," she told her supporters here after scoring an overwhelming win in the Bluegrass State.

Emphasizing the importance of a Democrat winning the White House, she said, "That's why I"m still running, and that's why you're still voting."

Both former president Bill Clinton and his wife now spend much of their stump speeches delivering complicated electoral math lessons on how Hillary Clinton will be a better general election candidate than Obama, citing her appeal in Michigan, Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania, based on primary results in those states.

In a speech in Kentucky on Monday, Clinton even cited an estimate by Karl Rove's consulting firm that suggested she would be the favorite in more states than Obama in a general election.

"In every single election map I have seen, she is beating Senator McCain handily and she is the only Democrat who is doing that," the ex-president said in Lexington on Monday.

The argument, while reflecting a campaign where a group of Democratic Party officials will cast the final votes, show how far this race has come. Clinton entered the race as the candidate most popular among Democrats but with party activists worried she could not win enough swing voters to win a general election.

The former president's arugment is also based on a host of assumptions that do not appear to be convincing to superdelegates, who are moving toward Obama in droves.

By Web Politics Editor  |  May 20, 2008; 9:09 PM ET
 
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Obama Raises $31 Million in April, Clinton Reports $22 Million
Next: Hillary Clinton Addresses Her Supporters

Comments

Anointing a woman based upon her relationship with a popular former President does NOTHING for gender equality. It simply reinforces negative stereotypes about feminism. Hillary Clinton should NOT have been placed on this mantle and the supporters who put her their have only themselves to blame for this outcome.

I elected Hillary Clinton to her senate seat. After her 2002 vote - and her cynical negative campaign this year - I will never support her again and will actively work against her selfish ego driven political aspirations - as long as she chooses to attempt this ruse.

Clinton's supporters should do some very serious self examination.

This has become an absolute disgrace.

Posted by: PulSamsara | May 25, 2008 9:16 AM | Report abuse

As Long as Hillary hangs in there She has a shot at being the next President.
No one can take Her name off the ballot but Her No One BY HER. Hillery gos as far as hillary wants to go. nothing can stop Her not the democrats or republicans.
ITs Hillary running againest the guys all the way to November.
The Party screwed it self when thy screwed The Clinton's. and now the Clinton's mite have to screw the party!
If thats what it takes to stop the Republicans so be it.
She will take it all the way to to the Convention floor and than to November, to the national election if need be, Never count a Clinton out.

Technically There's still a way for Hillary to win the National Election
and to be come the next President.
She can and will do it without the Democratic nomination.

1, She must refuse to be a drop out be for Novembers Election,

2, She must take Her case for the people to the Democratic National Convention and all the way to the floor.

3 ,and if Obama has not stumbled Yet again, She must declare Her Independence from the Democratic Party the party that gave it to Obama a long time ago!

4, She must Leave Her name on the ballot's by refusing to drop out and just place INDP Next to he name!

5 , She need to just wate and Both Obama and McCain will take care of each other.

(IF HILLARY WILL JUST GIVE US FIVE)
Hillary will walk away from a three man race with Over 36% and a victory!
With three people in the race two men will destroy each other, and She only needs to edge them out with 33.4 % She can and will win the National election.
PS should we ever count a Clinton out?
Never ever Never count a Clinton out, thy always come back stronger don't ask me why that just all ways all ways do.
Anthony
Tampa, Fl


Posted by: Anthony | May 22, 2008 4:52 PM | Report abuse

I have a lot of red flags about Obama and his slick political spin. I believe he knew long ago and even shares the racist, anti-American views of that of his personal adviser, spiritual advisor, political advisor and now former pastor for nearly 25 years. The Reverend Wright who bestowed upon Louis Farakan a lifetime achievement award who himself thinks Hitler was one of the greatest men to walk the earth. Louis Farrakan and Obama were jointly on the cover of the Trinity Church's own publication, yet Obama (the typical XXXXX politician that he is) plays dumb and that he had no idea about the lifetime achievement award or that his pastor had in fact been "controversial"; a position he clung to until his so called "cherry-picking spinning out of context" was exposed in front of all to see. If Obama is in fact the nominee, I wish only for the GOP to go after he and his wife, the lovely Michelle, with no bars held so they can do the job that the liberal media would not do, lest they be labeled racists like the rest of the voters who have chosen not to support Obama for his untrustworthiness, inexperience, poor judgement, radical alligences, and questionable character and patriotism.

Posted by: NoObama | May 22, 2008 12:59 AM | Report abuse

"We believe Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina play a unique and special role in the nominating process," said Patti Solis Doyle, campaign manager for Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y.
"And we believe the DNC's rules and its calendar provide the necessary structure to respect and honor that role."
The decision to deny new primary dates would directly affect Michigan and other states, like Florida and Wyoming's Republican caucuses, who have made moves to leapfrog their primaries.
Democratic presidential candidates Clinton, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill.; Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn.; Sen. Joe Biden, D-Del.; New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson and John Edwards have all signed pledges to ignore states who move up their primaries, specifically Michigan and Florida.

Posted by: Our Only Hope | May 21, 2008 11:53 PM | Report abuse

Sen. Obama NEVER dealt drugs. Using lies to prove your point only shows that you don't have any basis for your accusations. You are pitiful.

The most important issue in this election is not even being discussed: rewarding the poor judgment of John McCain and Hillary Clinton.
The U.S. is in total denial of what these two did by voting to invade Iraq. They are going all over the country touting their vast experience and readiness to lead. Where is the evidence? When it came to the most important decision they ever made in the public arena, they came up short.
They voted to attack another country without provocation. The experts on the ground were pushed aside to make way for the invasion. Both McCain and Clinton, supposedly experienced, didn't even bother to read the intelligence estimates on Iraq. How callous can one be with the lives of the sons and daughters of others?
Those who flew the planes into our buildings were neither from nor trained in Iraq. The base of Bin Laden and Taliban was, and still is, in Afghanistan. Bush used Iraq to distract us from his failure to find Bin Laden. McCain and Clinton voted for this blockbuster blunder. Millions of deaths and casualties have followed, a trillion dollar nightmare, sending the economy teetering on bankruptcy.
I believe that they feel exempt from the rules. It's reprehensible that they feel qualified to run for the Presidency.
That they can do this, says something unflattering about their characters, doesn't it? Also, what message does it send to our youth and the world that we even tolerate them being in the race?

Posted by: Our Only Hope | May 21, 2008 11:06 PM | Report abuse

What kind of a message are we sending to our Children when we allow a known ( by his own words ) Drug User and dealer, not have to be accountable to his past criminal actitives. I guess its OK to do Drugs and if Obama can become President and does NOT have to answer to anyone than why should our kids not feel that anything goes and then when they clean up they can apply to any Police Dept or the FBI. Should their Drug use come up then they should threaten to sue. If you can allow Obama to become President than anyone should be allowed to apply for any position and No one should look into their background.. TOO bad in the real world NOT only do Employers look into our morals and criminal past for the rest of us even our Credit History is fair game..
SO start challanging any Employer who does NOT like what they found out about you.. WE WILL CALL IT THE OBAMA FACTOR, where NO one is allowed to ask any questions of you or ever discuss anything about you.
Someone needs to inform Obama in this country we still have freedom of speech and we will talk about his middle name, his Dad, MOM and the witch of a wife of his Michelle, and he is NOT going to do a darn thing about it.. All of a Sudden he things he is a thug and will give someone a beaten if we tell him we do NOT like his commie wife.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 21, 2008 10:37 PM | Report abuse

Of all the people, carl rove? and you listen to that guy? you think he would give you, as a democrat, a sane advise?

Your arguments are valid but, just like in sports, when you see the numbers don't add up in your favor .... step aside.

As of now, with what you're doing, you don't look good. It doesn't look good.

Posted by: mer | May 21, 2008 10:14 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: priscilla | May 21, 2008 10:07 PM | 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 21, 2008 10:06 PM | Report abuse

Clinton's electability logic is faulty.

She has been the beneficiary of the right's attacks on Obama, the presumptive nominee. If she were the presumptive nominee, the right would be far more sinister in its assessment of her. Her likeability ratings, as low as they are, would plummet further.

Furthermore, Obama's results in WV and KY are troubling - yes - but should not be considered without considering that Obama hardly campaigned in the states. He has switched to general election mode, as he should. Hillary's hitting 3-pointers... after the buzzer has gone off.

Finally, blue-collar working class voters were not the swing voters who put Democrats over the top in 2006. The swing voters came from growing suburbs where Obama has done best. The Democratic party should continue to court this growing voter bloc... for the benefit of this election and the party's future.

-D in Cincinnati

Posted by: Anonymous | May 21, 2008 10:01 PM | Report abuse

They WILL seat the delegates from FL & MI...probably at half of votes...with 'uncommitted' votes given to Obama in Mich, because he wasn't on the ballot (this option favors Clinton HEAVILY). Which makes the magic # 2131 delegates.
As of today the count is:
----Current Count---FL---MI---Supers---Total --Votes needed to win
Obama-1680---41---28-----308-----2057--- 74
Clinton-1518---52---36-----280-----1886--- 245

This is a BEST case scenario for Sen. Clinton....and yet, Sen. Obama is still in the lead by 171 votes.
There are only 4 primaries & 138 pledged delegates left in the nomination process.
TAKE NOTE: 114 of the undeclared super delegates are in states that Obama won & only 85 are from states that Hillary won.
Obama will be our nominee.
Seriously, Obama winning the nomination is the ONLY way the Dems will win in the general election. Hillary has a VERY strong Dem base...but the swing votes WON'T vote for her. Obama will get the majority of Dems, the Independents & the crossover republicans. And don't forget the millions of new voters Obama's campaign helped register...the Dem party is bigger and broader than ever. It's a no-brainer on the national scale

Posted by: Our Only Hope | May 21, 2008 9:57 PM | Report abuse

He who has the most delegates wins.

You change the process next time if you cry"it's not fair", or switch teams since you are not loyal to anyone but yourself.

If you can't stand the rules - get out of the kitchen.

Posted by: Math Wizard | May 21, 2008 9:47 PM | Report abuse

Senator Clinton is, and always will be, a SURVIVOR, You just cant put a CLINTON down that easy, Even you should know that Barack; so Lay off Hillary, and Stop acting like, Your wife.

Senator Obama is forgetting this race isn't over. Hold that Maybelline Colored Compact tight; you just might need it yourself to hide the running mascara come November.

In the mean time Simma-down simma-down Big-shot and PaH-leezZZ Shut-up, you didn't receive an Oscar yet "It isn't over till the fat-lady sings," nobody's heard that Opera yet. At this point in the 2008 Election "ANYTHING," is possible; so loosen your belt it seems a bit tight lately and your not in the "Black House yet, nor is Aunt Jamima cooking' up any waffles for you this morning.

Don't count all your eggs in one basket this soon; The ELECTION is just getting started; you might just find yourself, warring Senator Clintons worn down campaign heels near the end, young man!

Posted by: pineapple | May 21, 2008 9:43 PM | Report abuse

Cantabrigian:

I assume you are one of the female zealots who are blaming Hillary's loss on everyone but her. Yes, the media has treated all of the candidates poorly, I agree, but pinning your woes on Obama and voting for McCain does not seem like a very good alternative for women.

McCain will certainly move to limit or eliminate reproductive rights. McCain will continue sending troops off to death or disability. McCain will support policies that enable huge corporations to keep earning big, while families suffer.

All of these policies range from dangerous to life-threatening for the women of America.

You want to punish the sexists by voting in protest. Normally I would agree, but there is too much on the line to go down that road this time.

Posted by: Not A Lemming | May 21, 2008 9:34 PM | Report abuse

Anyone who claims to be a Dem & votes for McCain just because they are sulky about who won the nomination...is turning their back on their country.

McCain is 4 more years of a Rep driving our country down into an endless depression, staggering debt & putting us on a diplomatic island from the rest of the world.
In short...it's a suicidal tendency. I have tried to keep faith that Hillary actually wants what is best for this country...and that is why she is fighting so hard, because she believes she is the best choice. I can respect that. But anyone who professes to be a Hillary supporter & backs McCain, rather than Obama is a traitors to entire middle-class in this country.

Hillary & Obama are on the same page for 95% of their policy positions. McCain is on the exact OPPOSITE end of the spectrum in his policy positions.

Yeah...if you liked the last 7 years...vote for McCain (and if you are middle-class, I hope you enjoy being pushed into poverty).

Posted by: Anonymous | May 21, 2008 9:25 PM | Report abuse

Paperclip: Larry Sinclair is a man with a brain tumor, who lives in an apartment complex for people with disabilities. He took a polygraph test to defend his assertions, which he failed. He has had problems with the law for fraud charges.

Poor guy has a lot of problems, and I think someone put him up to this for money. It's sad, really.

You should do some research before you casually throw accusations around. You will look much smarter.

Posted by: Research First | May 21, 2008 9:16 PM | Report abuse

Juan Williams, a political analyst with NPR and Fox News, has a clear message for the DNC and the Super Delegates which appeared in the New York Daily News:

"It is not inconsistent, unfair or unsavory to point out, at the same time that Obama has been growing weaker over the months in his ability to win all but black voters. Nor am I necessarily suggesting that white voters are drifting from him because of his race - as opposed to judgments about the content of his character or candidacy. This is about facing facts. And history will reflect poorly on Democrats if they believe it is virtuous to ignore race in the name of nominating the first black candidate for the White House - even if it means giving the Republicans a better chance to once again walk away with the big prize of the presidency."

It is far more likely that Hillary's supporters will cast their votes for McCain, based upon his patriotism and character. Women will not support deception, and crookedness. . . we have seen years of this country being run by men and the result is not all that good.

Posted by: Cantabrigian | May 21, 2008 9:16 PM | Report abuse

It is an absolute disgrace how the media has treated Senator Hillary Clinton in this Democratic primary.

NBC has lost all objectivity and joined the Obama camp as early as February with calls for Senator Clinton to withdraw from the race.

Eleanor Clift is totally dazzled with Obama, to the point of arguing on his behalf and being silly and ridiculous in her columns.

In Novemeber, the women of America should simply say to hell with the media push and the deception of Obama and refuse to march to the empty music and bow to the Empire with no clothes.

The DNC will be SHOCKED - come November IF Obama wins the Democratic nomination, but McCain wins the President's office. It wouldn't be because of hanging shads or a Supreme Court ruling, but because supporters of Senator Hillary Clinton will never cast a ballot for Obama!

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

I will be the first to say the nominating process needs to be changed, but that is an issue for a future election, not this one. The rules were set and agreed upon before the contest began. No one can change the rules for 2008 now. Not even the Clintons.

I am sickened completely by this 'sexist' tactic most recently employed. Has anyone visited the site Hillary1000? Supporters of this movement will surely vote for McCain over Obama and are protesting everything from MSNBC to Visa. They will never vote for Obama because the media and the DNC are sexist. GIVE ME A BREAK.

Hillary and her never-ending quest for power created this type of garbage and will hurt the Democrats in the fall. Her casual self-centered 'sexist' remarks are just the latest in a long string of "poor me" attempts, and for what? It's disgusting.

Posted by: Susan | May 21, 2008 9:06 PM | Report abuse

The FACT is...if Hillary had run her campaign correctly, she MIGHT be ahead. Instead she chose to believe EVERYONE would vote for her 'Name Brand'.
Obama ran a SMART campaign & it drew MILLIONS of new voters into the Democratic party.
Between two such candidates (Hillary =almost incumbent and Obama = man of the people) it doesn't surprise me that it is a close race.
But once the general election race starts...the Dems will all get behind the nominee. If they don't, then the entire middle-class will slide completely into poverty. Gas prices will soar & with it food prices. Then people will have to choose between walking to work or stealing food to feed their families.
Hard times ahead regardless of who is President, but with a Dem there is at least a possibility that it will get better. With McCain, it is guaranteed to get worse.

Posted by: Our Only Hope | May 21, 2008 9:05 PM | Report abuse

Obama supporters should really look up who larry sinclair is before they bring up slick william. What slimy name should we pick for Obama and his gay lover? And then of coarse since it was Barack Obama who had the affair, then Obama supporters can turn on Michelle Obama and start calling her names and make gender biased jokes about her also.

Posted by: 1paperclip | May 21, 2008 9:00 PM | Report abuse

Poor little Shrillary and her egomaniac husband, Slick Williem, cannot stand the thought of Demo voters, expressing their will, under DNC ground rules, favoring Obama in the primary. Therefore, they come up with new ground rules every other day; the reality is that the number of delegates won by the candidates determines the winner!

Sorry Clintons, but THE MATH IS THE MATH.


Posted by: Forrest Gerard | May 21, 2008 8:44 PM

You are right. Clinton only has half of the Democrates. OOPs. I guess that means Obama only has half also. The Republican party is looking better and better everyday. Once Clinton supporters all throw their support to the Republicans then the Democratic party can be be made up of all the racists, bigots and the gender bias jerks in America. Obama's type of change is increasingly simmular to Hitlers. I am starting to think that everyone who is able must fight with all their being to make sure this nightmare is not elected. Do women obama supporters listen to what is being said?? They are talking and making jokes about you too. How long before they turn on you like they have on women Clinton supporters. I thought the Democratic party stood for something better than that.

Posted by: 1paperclip | May 21, 2008 8:55 PM | Report abuse

Dennis Miller is the Karl Rove of Democrates.

Posted by: 1paperclip | May 21, 2008 8:44 PM | Report abuse

Now the have Dennis Miller on making gender biased jokes. I have lost all respect for this guy. I couldn't even listen to it. Unbelievable. The guy was a total jerk.

Posted by: 1paperclip | May 21, 2008 8:44 PM | Report abuse

Poor little Shrillary and her egomaniac husband, Slick Williem, cannot stand the thought of Demo voters, expressing their will, under DNC ground rules, favoring Obama in the primary. Therefore, they come up with new ground rules every other day; the reality is that the number of delegates won by the candidates determines the winner!

Sorry Clintons, but THE MATH IS THE MATH.


Posted by: Forrest Gerard | May 21, 2008 8:44 PM | Report abuse

I was just watching O'Reilly and the guest who was supporting Obama had the balls to say that the reason people support either Clinton or Obama had everything to do with race. I am outraged. Once again, Obama higherups implying that the reason that people support Clinton is because they are racist! Are they totally out of their minds. They don't even know Clinton supporters well enough to make a generalization like that. The last contest in Oregon and Kentucky showed that only a very small percentage said that race was a factor. Obama supporters are determined that they are going to split the party with all the racist accusations. Look at the blogs. The only ones making racist comments are Obama supporters themselves. I am trying very hard not to blow my cool and find some reason I should vote for Obama and it is getting more difficult each and every time those idiot liberal Obama advisors or supporters open their mouths. We are going to get creamed in the GE.

Posted by: 1paperclip | May 21, 2008 8:41 PM | Report abuse

You can steal only when somebody owns something. Obama is not the nominee so Clinton can't steal the nomination.
How were Obama's incessant TV ads in Florida playing by the rules? He was the only one running ads.

Posted by: Anette | May 21, 2008 8:08 PM | Report abuse

Any Democrat who stoops so low as to call upon a Karl Rove analysis in support of why that Democrat should win the nomination should automatically be dismissed as a member in good standing in the Democratic Party.

Until Senator Clinton acknowledges that she initially signed and pledged in agreement not to count Florida and Michigan if they move their election date up and then in turn admits that she does so now only as a last resort to claiming a lost nomination, she should have no more claim to any higher degree credibility than Karl Rove does among democrats which is none at all.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 21, 2008 8:07 PM | Report abuse

Sen. Obama stands for the things I stand for. He comes from where I come from. And he understands that standing your ground is important...but so is listening to other people's viewpoints. He is strong...but admits he is not infallible.

Hillary is dedicated...but no more so than the other two. I like her stance on the issues, she is tenacious & a fighter...but she believes that she is always right. Every time she apologizes for something...I just don't believe her because she believes she is always right - always. She is too uncompromising and seems to have no ability to see the viewpoint of others.

John McCain on the other hand...has a strong appeal as an honest politician BUT his actions & his words are getting farther apart. He has used his position through the years, even as recently as 2 years ago to 'help out' his friends a little too much not to mention his recent personal attacks on Sen Obama (after promising not to run a slime campaign)...and his policy stances are completely contrary to any thinking U.S. Citizen and even WORSE...he has repeatedly shown his ignorance in matters of the economy.

The economy (& the way the cost of this ill-advised Iraq War is impacting it) is my MAIN consideration in this race...with honesty & the ability to work 'for the people' as an immediate next-highest priority.

The choice is clear - Barack Obama

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

hey steve she isn't aggressive? of course she isn't she just lies constantly than tries to spin it, she blames her bad campaign on Obama and the media, she blames her losses on sexism even though 21% of voters in KY said race played a factor and they believed that Obama believes what Rev Wright says, when she loses one way in the math now she goes after Fl and MI even though last year she said she knew they wouldn't be counted, Obama might HM and AH during his speech because he is careful and diligent when he speaks unlike a robot speech like HRC gives. She is a divisive person just like Bill was and her entitlement attitude towards this nomination is what got her in trouble with this race. She didn't give Obama the credit he deserves and dismissed him early on that she got caught with her pants down and now she will do anything, say anything and hurt anyone that gets in her way of her White House. Forget women's rights for abortion turn those women against Obama, vote for McCain and watch Roe vs Wade get tossed out along with abortion rights all in the name of Hillary Clinton. As long as you stand up for her kind of tactics you will get what you deserve another 4 years of Bush. Be happy Steve...............

Posted by: karen | May 21, 2008 7:33 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 7:31 PM | Report abuse

I keep giving Hillary credit where credit is do. However, she is starting to push my buttons.

Grrrrrrrrr!

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

This gambit by Clinton is simply an attempt to steal the nomination. It's obviously not going to work, because Democratic superdelegates don't want to commit suicide. But this episode is very revealing about Clinton's character. I try not to make moralistic characterological judgments about politicians, because all politicians compromise their ideals in the pursuit of power. There are no angels in this business. Clinton's gambit, however, truly is breathtaking.

If she's consciously lying, it's a shockingly cynical move. I don't think she's lying. I think she's so convinced of her own morality and historical importance that she can whip herself into a moralistic fervor to support nearly any position that might benefit her, however crass and sleazy. It's not just that she's convinced herself it's okay to try to steal the nomination, she has also appropriated the most sacred legacies of liberalism for her effort to do so. She is proving herself temperamentally unfit for the presidency.

--Jonathan Chait

Posted by: Chiat | May 21, 2008 7:06 PM | Report abuse

Rules are rules are rules.

Change 'em next time - before you agree to run. Or run under another party, but no one has switched the process since it began.

I'm appalled. It is time to turn the page on the loophole lawyers.

If she continues this madness, she'll push away her own supporters all by herself.

I think she's leaving claw marks as she's being dragged off the stage. Time to let go.

Sad. Very sad.

Posted by: DonJulio | May 21, 2008 7:06 PM | Report abuse

Why do you think the only reason not to vote for Obama is racism? Do you really think that 42% of Oregon is racist?
People are entitled to their opinion without being afraid to be called racist by the Obama people, or unpatriotic in 2004 by the Bush people.
You are using Bush's tactics in the name of "change".
It is supposed to be a Democratic party, not a dictatorship though some of you obviously would prefer the later.

Posted by: Anette | May 21, 2008 7:05 PM | Report abuse

Democratic Party is going to be destroyed not by Hillary but by the hand so called super delegate of democratic party. Dear Super delegate go get some more sleep. Don't wolk up yet. Democratic party is not burn down yet.

Posted by: Dhaka | May 21, 2008 6:48 PM | Report abuse

Just one more voice to call Major BS on the Clinton's dishonest and deceptive effort to frame the seating of the Florida and Michigan delegates as a Nobel Civil Rights issue.

SNL had it dead on.

Why is Hillary staying in the race?

1. She exploited racism and now has a hard core support from white racists.

2. She has No Ethical Standards.

3. She is a bitter, sore loser.

And note to feminists. Her screed of losing because of sexism is so outrageous that she will stir up a backlash and resentment that will impede support for legitimate civil rights issues such as reproductive rights and sexual preference.

Their selfishness seems to have no limits. They w3ould indeed sacrifice and destroy Obama if the they could get away with it, but they will be stopped by those who realize the stakes are to great--- and far from worth the risk and cost of a Bush third term and the complete theocratic takeover of the Judiciary and Supreme Court.

And second note to the Ferraro/Feminism=Racism crowd' glass ceiling blab bla.--tow words--Nancy Pelosi. Unlike Ferraro, the racist drunk, and Hillary, dishonest sleaze owing her position to a sleazy rapist, women abusing who she enable, Nancy has intellect, character and leadership.

Posted by: Dana | May 21, 2008 6:45 PM | Report abuse

Debra:

Oh, please, is that the best you can do? I had hoped for better.

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

It is not the number of states in the primary that count, it is the states the Democrats can win in the general election, specially the swing states. California and Oregon and the solid democratic states are going to be democratic anyway.
The point is not if Hillary is shrill or not or who why you can't stand her, but that she is more likely to deliver the swing states.
The "rules " didn't came from God directly they came from a very shortsighted DNC.

Posted by: RJB | May 21, 2008 6:28 PM | Report abuse

Discussing the issues is one thing, but arguing and insulting each other has killed our chances in November. The fact is, too many Obama supporters bashed the Clintons and vice versa. Now we truly have a party divided and will lose in November...that much is clear right now. I'm now convinced neither one has a chance and we will be at the mercy of the GOP for another 4 years...at least!!! I can hear McCain laughing at us right now and that's a shame, since it looked like this one was a can't miss victory for us early this year.

Posted by: JB | May 21, 2008 6:03 PM | Report abuse

While Obama is more electable in an American Idol contest, Hillary is more electable in America. She won the battleground states of OH, PA, FL, MI, IN. She won the swing states KY and WV. She's winning the rural, blue-collar and religious votes that propelled Bush to victory twice. She's won over 300 electoral votes compared to Obama's 217. Since the beginning of March, she's won more primaries and votes. Obama's lead is due entirely to his early momentum BEFORE the Wright controversy. Exit polls now indicate that Wright matters. The GOP will amplify this in the general election. Obama has no plan on how to win in November. He punted West Virginia and Kentucky, and claims he doesn't need rural, blue-collar and religious voters, and isn't worried at all that half to two-thirds of Democrats won't vote for him in the general. It's making the GOP giddy.

Posted by: howdy999 | May 21, 2008 6:01 PM | Report abuse

Marie,
And who is Larry Sinclair?

Posted by: Debra | May 21, 2008 5:57 PM | Report abuse

The absolute disrespect of Clinton in the media and Obama camp is so demoralizing to many of us Americans!!!!

It is SEXISM and misogony, and it is shameful.

Ok, here is a basic to all women-haters......

Hillary is NOT at all playing the male competetive game in an AGGRESSIVE manner...leave that to the bullies, ever so subtle at times, in the Obama camp!

Hillary IS showing, over and over, that she is an ASSERTIVE candidate....and there is one he*l of a difference between assertion and aggression!!! Men see only aggression and competition. Pea brains!

She states her positions clearly, and talks WITHOUT ANY UMs and AHs..like Obama. She is on top of her candidacy, while Obama stumbles, stutters through his lies!

Posted by: steve | May 21, 2008 5:32 PM | Report abuse

Ummmm... wow... How can someone who is LOSING make a case for electability? If Hillary can't even win her OWN party's nomination, how in the hell does she expect to win the White House? I guess we should all just disregard the RULES (that she AGREED to play by, coincindentally), and give her the nomination just because she says she can win it all. Based on her track record, this is just patently untrue. Unbelievable!

Posted by: Sherri | May 21, 2008 5:24 PM | Report abuse

To Marie,
ooohhhhh, should i cower at your self-imposed grand poobah status of laying down new rules about what commenters can and cannot say. Wow, Obie is really starting to rub on you.

Though you're still in denial about Obama and how he detests wearing "that flagpin" as he calls it with such disdain, the soon to be exploited reality is that Obamie also does not want to salute our flag. Check out the YouTube videos if you have the backbone (don't want your little dream here). Don't act like a fool that this guy and his ungrateful wife weren't sitting innocently in church for nearly 25 years hearing the preaching of a racist, anti-American spewing hatred. Birds of a feather flock together. We'll see what the GOP has to share with voters soon enough that I hope further expose this typical politician (btw, i won't resort to Obama's racial language of typical white or black politician here). Lastly, Marie, don't think you can lay down ground rules for others to follow. Go jump in the lake idiot.

Posted by: NoObama | May 21, 2008 5:10 PM | Report abuse

For all of you thinking about voting for John McCain, think about this: (I saw this in another comment section)


Why aren't you pro-McCain-ers joining up?

The military NEEDS YOU if they are going to sustain their current numbers in Iraq! They are having major problems! Record suicide rates combined with declining enlistment.

Don't worry...you probably qualify! They don't care if you never graduated from H.S....no GED required!
If you have a couple felons...no problem...you can STILL sign up!
Getting on in years?...they will take you up to age 43 now.
But even if you don't all rush to enlist...don't worry! You will get your chance. If McSame gets voted in ...the draft will soon follow. After all...we can't start a war in Iran without more troops............

Posted by: No WAY! | May 21, 2008 4:28 PM | Report abuse

Yes it has been a sad presidential primary season for the Clintons! We saw Bill Clinton race-baitng and lying on the campaign trail as well as calling in to the Rush Limbaugh show.

We saw Hillary go through a range of emotions on the campaign trail from tearing up in New Hampshire, to angry and shouting "Shame On You!", crying sexism , to race-baiting as well as appearing on Bill O'Reilly and quoting Karl Rove favorably.

Posted by: AJ | May 21, 2008 4:28 PM | Report abuse

Nobama:

First: anyone engaged in a debate must necessarily lose points when s/he must descend to name calling.

Second: what is the basis for your allegations of racism and Anti-Americanism? I want facts. Not merely speculation, not guilt by association, not discomfort with Sen. Obama's middle name, not discomfort with the fact that Sen. Obama's father was a muslim.

Third: If you prefer to vote for John McCain, please do so. But you would be better off defending that vote, providing clear, cogent reasons why his governing philosophy comports with yours rather than engaging in name calling. It's a more difficult task to provide a basis for why your are for someone than to provide an argument for being against someone. Simply lazy.

Posted by: Marie | May 21, 2008 4:19 PM | Report abuse

Ha! I'm stupid... The point still stands. If you're going to make fun of an entire group of people don't horribly misspell a word.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 21, 2008 4:19 PM | Report abuse

Umm, no, actually it's "ridiculous".

Posted by: Anonymous | May 21, 2008 4:07 PM | Report abuse

Even if Hilary is on the ticket w/Obami, I'm not voting for the closet racist, anti-American which I'm sure the GOP will have no qualms about exposing in the general election. Our country doesn't need somebody who is highly untrustworthy as to where his loyalties lie.

Posted by: Nobama | May 21, 2008 4:05 PM | Report abuse

And yes, Clinton spend 36 million on the re-election-- her opponent spent 5. I think the next highest for senate races that year was Santorum at 24. She spent more than twice any other democrat in the '06 race though.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 21, 2008 4:03 PM | Report abuse

Though to Debora I will say this: if you are going to essentially call a large group of people stupid--"I don't even have to critisize the Obama freeks. What they say is so far to the left of center that they make themselves look rediculos all by themselves."-- proper spelling is a must. It's rediculous.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 21, 2008 3:57 PM | Report abuse

Sorry, Thats to Marie below there. I looked at the wrong name.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 21, 2008 3:51 PM | Report abuse

And that last comment you made Debra, "If your real issue is that you wanted the candidate to be a woman this time, fine. Say that.", I think is certainly true of many people I have seen posting here.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 21, 2008 3:47 PM | Report abuse

Didn't Hillary spend millions on her re election campaign even though she ran unopposed ?

Posted by: AZZGod | May 21, 2008 3:27 PM | Report abuse

Debra:

I don't get it: you claim that Sen. Obama is a racist, a bigot, and suffers from gender bias. And yet, you seem to indicate that you are willing to vote for him PROVIDED that Sen. Clinton is on the ballot. How does that work? Does Sen. Clinton's presence on the ballot suddenly ameliorate any perceived issues you have with Sen. Obama? If you seriously believe that Sen. Obama suffers from that litany of defects, you should be insisting not only that you will not vote for Sen. Obama but also that Sen. Clinton should not agree to be his VP.

If your real issue is that you wanted the candidate to be a woman this time, fine. Say that.


Posted by: Marie | May 21, 2008 3:21 PM | Report abuse

The thing I fear about the dream ticket is that Clinton might blow the election with her mouth, heck, she's already blown one.

It does say something about the character of the Hillary supporters who won't vote for Obama if he's the nominee, it says they are more in love with the "idea" of Hillary rather than her beliefs and ideals and everything she has worked for, really, she and Obama are not that far apart and she has already won great influence in our government for the next four years.

If her supporters don't vote Obama if he's the nominee then it's like the old saying: "Cutting off one's nose to spite your face"

Posted by: jr | May 21, 2008 2:56 PM | Report abuse

It shouldn't be tough for Obama to win over Clinton supporters.

If Clinton supporters hate him so much that they'd vote for McCain for a third George Bush term, then they are poor poor Democrats. They'd be part or the problem with the country, and not part of the solution.

So when Clinton tells you to vote Democratic this fall no matter what, do what she says!

Posted by: Ryan | May 21, 2008 2:54 PM | Report abuse

Debra,
OK, now you're making sense.

Posted by: jr | May 21, 2008 2:51 PM | Report abuse

Don't get me wrong. I am sure that Obama will win the nomination. I just wish I was so sure that he would win the election against McCain. With the divisions in the Democratic party right now it will be just a pipe dream. Obama better deal with the issues Clinton supporters have against him or we will go into the election only half strength. Clinton supporters really love Clinton. It may be tough for Obama to win them over. Especially if they perceive that the race was fixed or unfair. It is going to be vital that obama choose his VP very carefully. I am pretty sure that most Clinton supporters are going to have a hard time accepting almost anyone but Clinton. Better as VP than not at all. I see the biggest problem as being the Obama supporters accepting Clinton as VP- I think they will stubornly reject the idea. That will be just another nail in the coffin for Obama.

Posted by: Debra | May 21, 2008 2:49 PM | Report abuse

Debra
What Clinton did was appease the Republicans, not just discuss politics. She pandered to them, reversed her earlier positions about them, even once said that McCain would be a better candidate when he clearly has adopted conservative (not Democratic) values and went as far as to call FOX news "fair and balanced".

That is pandering and appeasing for political gain. What Obama wants to do is open dialogue because the very survival of millions of people on this earth depend upon it, not to play political games.

Posted by: jr | May 21, 2008 2:48 PM | Report abuse

If it bothers you that Clinton is not afraid to discuss politics with Republicans then it must really bother you that Obama wants to discuss politics with terrorists. Now you are making me laugh.

Posted by: Debra | May 21, 2008 2:40 PM | Report abuse

Clinton says she want the voters to be heard but it's the super delegates that would have to decide it for her. Two more weeks, Obama will still have more delegates, more states, more money, better organization, more newly minted Democrats and the super delegates will join his campaign. Then she'll move the goalposts again, argue about what the meaning of win is and insist on taking it to the convention for a floor fight. She may never be forgiven.

Posted by: thebob.bob | May 21, 2008 2:36 PM | Report abuse

I can only surmise that "electability" is the new code word for appealing to those with the absolutely basest instincts among us.

Posted by: Carmen Cameron | May 21, 2008 2:33 PM | Report abuse

"Better get off the pain pills sweetie. I don't take meds or use drugs like our friend Obama. You might want to put in a few eye drops to clear up your vision. It seems to be crippling your judgment."

How about this Debra, try not spewing uniformed comments and you won't get reactions like mine.

ALL the candidates have suspect people in their backgrounds, some more than others, in fact I'll bet you've (as I) have come across a few yourself in your lifetime. Politics is a rough game with some rough individuals. But for the most part I'd trust Obama over Clinton or McCain any day.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 21, 2008 2:33 PM | Report abuse

"what is the change that Obama promises.."
Denise
I guess you haven't been listening for the past 17 months.

Ok, let's start with campaign finance reform, Obama hasn't even been nominated and he already has solved this issue by accepting small donations from everyday people he proved that a candidate can be viable and break fundraising records (and most likely win the nomination) by NOT taking money from lobbyists and special interest groups. How many senators, congressmen and the like, and how many millions of taxpayer $$ and years did it take to basically get nowhere with this issue? and he solved it, a rookie solved it by using FAIRNESS (a government by the people for the people) and SOUND REASONING.

This is the kind of change you can believe in.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 21, 2008 2:25 PM | Report abuse

Wow Debra you really are an angry and sadly misinformed person. Your meds are in a little clear cup by the kitchen counter, I'll get you some water and you just take them and lie down for awhile, OK sweetie?

Posted by: jr | May 21, 2008 2:06 PM

------------------------------
Better get off the pain pills sweetie. I don't take meds or use drugs like our friend Obama. You might want to put in a few eye drops to clear up your vision. It seems to be crippling your judgment.

Posted by: Debra | May 21, 2008 2:24 PM | Report abuse

Debra,

You appear to be going out of your way to find things to be offended about. And that's fine; you are welcome to your opinions. But there's one thing that you said that is worth rebutting..."What about all the scum he associated with. People don't hang with scum like that unless they are one of them." Senator Clinton is accepting endorsements of Karl Rove. Bill Clinton went on Rush Limbaugh's show. Hillary said that Fox News is fair and balanced. I'm fine with Obama and his relationship with his former pastor....as a liberal voter, I'm more offended by Hillary's moonlighting with the political movers and shakers from the other side of the aisle. And as a liberal voter, that should bug you too.

Posted by: Ryan | May 21, 2008 2:23 PM | Report abuse

I don't even have to critisize the Obama freeks. What they say is so far to the left of center that they make themselves look rediculos all by themselves.

Posted by: Debra | May 21, 2008 2:17 PM | Report abuse

" who can't connect with blue collar workers because he's never really worked a day in his life.."

Tell me then which of the three candidates gave up large sums of money upon graduating from college to work re-training displaced steelworkers in Pittsburg to help them find new jobs for a below-poverty wage?

Tell me what has John McCain or Hillary done for the blue collar workers on the level of personal sacrifice? They both come from privileged families so get your facts straight you ignoramus.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 21, 2008 2:16 PM | Report abuse

Wow Debra you really are an angry and sadly misinformed person. Your meds are in a little clear cup by the kitchen counter, I'll get you some water and you just take them and lie down for awhile, OK sweetie?

Posted by: jr | May 21, 2008 2:06 PM | Report abuse

It is very simple:
Mr Obama has

*The largest amount of pledged delegates
*The majority of the pledged delegates
*The largest amount of superdelegates
*The largest amount of won States
*The larges amount of Caucuses won
*The largest amount of pupular vote
*The largest amount of $$$ available

Mr. Clinton and Mrs. Clinton are not showing leadership and tenacity, just stupid selfcentered attitude that it is not beneficial

* To themselves
* To the Democratic Party
* To the Country
* To the world

Mr. and Mrs. Clinton, we are desperatly trying to remember you with respect and affection, but both of you are making it very difficult.

It would be sad to read in the press that both of you have become the Juan Domingo and Evita Peron of North America

Posted by: PCM01 | May 21, 2008 2:04 PM | Report abuse

I just want to know what Obama meant when he said typical white women. Is that something like typical white man. typical black man or typical mexican? Given the context of his speech it sounded more like typical racist to me. That generalization along with his slip of the tongue, sweetie, makes him unelectable. Calling clinton and her supporters gender biased names and making fun of her pantsuits when most women do wear pantsuits is a big problem if we are to seriously consider someone for president. Gender bias is just another form of racism. And this isn't the only problem Obama would have to overcome. What about all the scum he associated with. People don't hang with scum like that unless they are one of them. Obama freeks think that all Clinton supporter are racist, dumb and old. They are denigrating anyone based on supposition. These war monger Obama supporters are supposed to come together eventually with the very people they wish to dismiss. Clinton supporters will never show respect for Obama supporters until Obama supporters show respect for them. Clinton supporters are not so full of themselves that they think they are better than everyone else like the Obama supporters do. If the two sides of the democrates don't get together soon, neither one will win the election. Obama has enough issues to overcome without the bias his supporters show. I believe that there is only a small # of people who have a problem with Obama being black and the last election showed that. That is not the problem. The problem is that many percieve him as a racist, bigot and having gender bias. Call us all racists if you want but it doesn't change the real reason we don't like him.

Posted by: Debra | May 21, 2008 2:02 PM | Report abuse

Just two words.... Go Hillary""""""""""

Posted by: LAMM01 | May 21, 2008 1:43 PM | Report abuse

ever notice the feminine looking men that always seem to be in Hillary's crowds?

I mean - real sissies. But, not flamming gay. That type of guy who hasn't really come to terms with his gayness.

The type of guy who always acts like a guy, but then every once in awhile does something totally gay and doesn't seem to notice it themselves.

I guess they're mommas boys. Is there a demographic for that?

Posted by: Anonymous | May 21, 2008 1:29 PM | Report abuse

The Clinton's live in a bizzaro world made up of media spin, Karl Rove math, and obscure polls. Heck, Bill Clinton didn't even pass gas when he was in the White House without checking out how it would poll first.

How unfair that the other candidates choose not to take up residence in 'Clinton World.' If they had, when the polls showed Hillary ahead in every state by 20+ margins and the media crowned her as 'inevitable' back in 2007, the other candidates would have dropped out. Then, she alone, could have carried on campaigning for the job she is entitled to. None of this silly 'democratic voting' or 'voice of the people' nonsence would have been necessary.

Reality is so unfair!

Posted by: IndieinVa | May 21, 2008 1:19 PM | Report abuse

oh now sequoia why are you trying to cool the Clintonista's KY high by stating dry old FACTS...such a spoil-sport. Hillarybots don't want to know about math, or metrics...they want someone to "switch on the colored lights."

Support Unreality...Vote Hillary!

Posted by: Hold_That_Tiger | May 21, 2008 1:18 PM | Report abuse

You know any so called Dem who says they will not vote for Obama but instead will vote for McSame has provem to me that they are the ignorant uneducated that polls say they are. So typical of the stupid who calls themselves Democrats to vote Republican. What it also shows they they are either sexist because they didn't get a woman Pres (goes both ways) or they are a racist because they don't want a black Pres. I wonder what these people will do if Clinton is on the ticket with Obama? They might get so confused and lost they won't know what to do....oh wait they will vote for McDementia. 1+1=3 lol

Posted by: Tired of the sick | May 21, 2008 1:03 PM | Report abuse

How can anyone who has lost their party's primary with less delegates, less votes, and less states won seriously argue that they are more electable?

She must think the Superdelegates are as savvy as the voters of WV and KY.

This woman is a joke.

Posted by: MiddleoftheRoad | May 21, 2008 12:56 PM | Report abuse


John Jay wrote:

"The Obama cult is not living in reality."
______________________

LOL! Ladies and Gentlemen, I present to you the lunatic delusions of the Hillary fanatic:

Re: the Obama Cult

Nationally, Clinton leads the over 65 crowd and hillbillies.

Nationally, Obama leads Hillary by double-digits (and growing) and among:

MEN

WOMEN

BLACK

WHITE

HISPANIC

COLLEGE DEGREE

NO COLLEGE DEGREE

YOUTH / NEW VOTERS

INDEPENDENTS

PROGRESSIVES

EAST, WEST, MIDWEST

THE MAJORITY OF AMERICAN VOTERS AND THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY OFFICIALS.

Some cult, huh!

Obama is 600,000 ahead in the popular vote, won twice as many states (and a more diverse group of states), is running much stronger nationally against McCain and of course over 60% of America hates Hillary Clinton's guts.

Hillary fanatics have COMPLETELY lost it. The "Obama cult" thing coming from delusional Hillary psychos is the funniest and most ironic thing I have EVER read. Ever.

How has the insult-the-voters strategy worked out, exactly?

Oh, yeah. She LOST. Just like she would against McCain. But in Hillaryland, LOSING is a sign of being the STRONGER candidate against McCain!

Drink your Kool-Aid, losers.


Posted by: sequoia | May 21, 2008 12:55 PM | Report abuse


*yawn*

Electabilty:

Nationally, Clinton leads the over 65 crowd and hillbillies.

Nationally, Obama leads Hillary by double-digits and among:

MEN

WOMEN

BLACK

WHITE

HISPANIC

COLLEGE DEGREE

NO COLLEGE DEGREE

YOUTH / NEW VOTERS

INDEPENDENTS

PROGRESSIVES

EAST, WEST, MIDWEST

Obama is 600,000 ahead in the popular vote, won twice as many states (and a more diverse group of states), is running much stronger nationally against McCain and of course 60% of America hates Hillary Clinton's guts.

Hillary fanatics are retarded.

Posted by: sequoia | May 21, 2008 12:49 PM | Report abuse

gmundenat:

Since NEITHER candidate will get 2,026 (or 2,210 if Florida and Michigan are counted) in total delegates, it's not over unless Hillary concedes.

Posted by: JakeD | May 21, 2008 12:49 PM | Report abuse

As Rahm Emanuel recently observed in DailyKos, the manner in which losers lose determines whether winners win in November. History shows us clearly that the R's chances of winning increase with each passing day Hillary fails to do the right thing. She cannot win. What a narcissist.

Posted by: gmundenat | May 21, 2008 12:30 PM | Report abuse

Just like Senator Clinton to change the rules she ratified. Count all the votes now, cause missy is losing. Just wait, rules will change plenty if she is elected.

Posted by: justadad%%+ | May 21, 2008 11:13 AM | Report abuse

Hillary DIANE Clinton won Kentucky by 249,224 votes. That means she retains the lead in TOTAL POPULAR VOTES. If Florida and Michigan are counted, she has a lead of 181,523 actual votes cast and certified. Even if you make an educated "estimate" the 4 caucus States w/o certified totals (IA, NV, ME, WA), she still has a lead of 71,301.

In addition, all the Electoral College polling shows her beating McCain while McCain beats Obama head-to-head:

http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Clinton/Maps/May21.html

So why, exactly, should she get out before the Convention floor vote?

Posted by: JakeD | May 21, 2008 10:53 AM | Report abuse

Com'on guyz!!! if u ain't gonna spel yur wurdz rite, how can "wee the peeple" respekt ur pointz of veu. It jus luks like ur part ov the problem. Edukashun winz. Eggnorance luzes. Speshully in polytiks.

Posted by: Redneck Rick | May 21, 2008 1:40 AM | Report abuse

May your God Bess you John. From a Canadian, Dam, the world is watching. I copied your forum and hope you don't mind, or take it off. This a true American. I am hoping your SUPERS will end this . You do need us and we need you. Lets have a fresh start. How about it America. Please, but do not think for one instant we need you as the last resort of word chaos.
We will always be one so yes I am happy with this forum.
I live in America, I am 50 years old and a veteran, and no matter how we look at the problem, the answer does not change. I live in a racist, bigoted and ignorant country. The worst part is that this is a land of cowards that prefer it that way. Few people in America can look someone in the eye and say: "you are different from me and I fear you, my fear will not let me give you a fair chance."
What experience does Sen. Clinton or Sen. McCain have that Sen. Obama does not? Knowledge of how to spin the truth? Knowing when to have plausable deniability? Selective memory of the facts that make up your own life?
Pres. Bush had eight years (20 if you count the years in his fathers shadow) to show what you need for the job of President is a reality check, and the good common sense to use it sometimes. Honesty would be a good trait too, but too much to hope for.
Unfortunately what the majority of americans will settle for is white male. We need to get past that before this countru can make any true progress. It's dark so please excuse my spelling errors.

Posted by: justada55+ | May 21, 2008 1:40 AM | Report abuse

May your God Bess you John. From a Canadian, Dam, the world is watching. I copied your forum and hope you don't mind, or take it off.
We will always be one so yes I am happy with this forum.
I live in America, I am 50 years old and a veteran, and no matter how we look at the problem, the answer does not change. I live in a racist, bigoted and ignorant country. The worst part is that this is a land of cowards that prefer it that way. Few people in America can look someone in the eye and say: "you are different from me and I fear you, my fear will not let me give you a fair chance."
What experience does Sen. Clinton or Sen. McCain have that Sen. Obama does not? Knowledge of how to spin the truth? Knowing when to have plausable deniability? Selective memory of the facts that make up your own life?
Pres. Bush had eight years (20 if you count the years in his fathers shadow) to show what you need for the job of President is a reality check, and the good common sense to use it sometimes. Honesty would be a good trait too, but too much to hope for.
Unfortunately what the majority of americans will settle for is white male. We need to get past that before this countru can make any true progress

Posted by: justada55+ | May 21, 2008 1:31 AM | Report abuse

She's like a terrier that just won't let go....it's understandable but at what point do you acknowledge you put up a great fight, came real close, but didn't cut the cake. At some point this lady has GOT TO ADMIT IT. Maybe she's waiting to make sure every last sliver of hope is gone before she'll admit it. Some people call that tenacious and a plus. Other's call it stingy, stubborn and yes indeed, I'm with that group. By continuing on, she's dragging up the divisions...I think her own ego is involved and she's well, she's got a big one.

Posted by: Clinton - Annoying and must get out. | May 21, 2008 1:26 AM | Report abuse

ur more racist than i am sexist....... no your more sexist......no you are.........no you are! america shut the hell up and get my nephew the fk outta iraq please

Posted by: gameh0g | May 21, 2008 12:15 AM | Report abuse

ok so the black candidate and his black supporters are the real true racists now after all these years huh? wow

Posted by: gameh0g | May 21, 2008 12:10 AM | Report abuse

The truth is that Obama cares more for other countries than for the US. With his illogical proposals trying to get the most ignorant voters, by raising capital taxes 28% and bringing the trops on the first six months. He won't be able to beat McCain. I rater vote for a Republican that for Obama.

Posted by: Rakel | May 20, 2008 11:37 PM | Report abuse

The Democratic Party is really in a mess. The people of Florida and Michigan can't have a say in the nomination; the Party does not trust the voters so they have delegates, superdelegates, etc. Is this democracy at its best?????? Sounds to me like Russian or Iran politics. The Democratic Party has really screwed up this year. They had it in the bag, but McCain will take it. Obama is just too scary, not because he's black, because he is not a trustworthy man.

Posted by: Clyde Nugget | May 20, 2008 11:35 PM | Report abuse

Let's all get ready for the change
that Obama will bring. It will be
a change from Bush to McCain
when the church-going blue
collar voters go for McCain.
Now don't worry McCain won't
be bad as the weak-willed idiot
Bush who was easy to push
around. McCain won't let the
right-wing ideologues roll over
him. That's the ray of hope.
It won't be as bad as you
think except for the Supreme
Court that will go to the extreme
right and our civil liberties will
be eroded for a generation.

Posted by: Jake | May 20, 2008 11:29 PM | Report abuse

Abm Habib writes: I always hear that Obama is not electable (because he is black. *WINK*).
_____________________________

That's funny, I always hear that Obama is unelectable because he's an inexperienced, racist, sexist blowhard promoter of Socialist/Marxist/Communist policies who can't connect with blue collar workers because he's never really worked a day in his life and is the only presidential candidate endorsed by the terrorist group Hamas.

Posted by: GM | May 20, 2008 11:01 PM | Report abuse

As of 05/20/2008....
Obama vs McCain.... 46 - 45 McCain will WIN
Hillary vs McCain.. 48 - 44 Hillary will WIN...

You decided who you want your next president.....

FYI.

1972 Democratic Primary popular vote
Hubert Humphrey 4,121,372 (25.77%)
George McGovern 4,053,451 (25.34%)
Henry M. Jackson 505,198 (3.16%)

1972 Democratic National Convention
Delegate Vote for Presidential Nomination
George McGovern 1,865
Henry M. Jackson 525
Hubert Humphrey 67

So it seems not always popular vote will get nominee.

1972 General Election
Richard Nixon (R) 520 electoral vote
George McGovern (D) 17 electoral vote

AND THATS THE BOTTOMLINE!

Posted by: Mr De < | May 20, 2008 10:58 PM | Report abuse

Patria Amor writes: Sen. Clinton is entitled to her own delusions and illusions. But she is the loser. That's plain and simple enough to understand.
___________________________

If it's okay for Obama to throw away "trash" states like WV and KY, then it's certainly okay for Hillary to point out that the states she's won carry far more electoral votes than the states won by Obama, many of which historically vote "Red" anyway.

It's the Obamanuts who are delusional losers, since his nomination (by superdelegates and not actual voters) will inevitably lead to a loss in the general election in November.

Posted by: GM | May 20, 2008 10:53 PM | Report abuse

I guess that Hillary thinks that since it is called "the WHITE House" that she is therefore entitled to it....
when all else has failed (sniper fire, IRA peacemaker, real issues, etc.), she now has chosen this basis as her principal qualification to win despite rules (what rules!!!???)

Posted by: delta7777 | May 20, 2008 10:53 PM | Report abuse

The Obama campaign can claim all the milestones they want, when it comes down to it, you need 2,025 and neither candidate has it. The bottom line is the race isnt over, and we have five more states whom want their voices heard. So shut up and listen!

Posted by: Lisa | May 20, 2008 10:49 PM | Report abuse

I always hear that Obama is not electable (because he is black. *WINK*). Well if that is the case, we will lose. If people like to vote against their interest, let it be. It is time to stand up for your principle, not for shallow racism. If Obama loses, he loses. But he is the nominee. Clintons needs to fade away.

Posted by: Abm Habib | May 20, 2008 10:48 PM | Report abuse

I always hear that Obama is not electable (because he is black. *WINK*). Well if that is the case, we will lose. If people like to vote against their interest, let it be. It is time to stand up for your principle, not for shallow racism. If Obama loses, he loses. But he is the nominee. Clintons needs to fade away.

Posted by: Abm Habib | May 20, 2008 10:48 PM | Report abuse

Sen. Clinton is entitled to her own delusions and illusions. But she is the loser. That's plain and simple enough to understand.

Posted by: Patria Amor | May 20, 2008 10:46 PM | Report abuse

What is this country coming to? The media had Obammmma nominated and elected before people even had their votes in writing!!! Money, and dirty money at that!! I think our Hilary should go independant and run that way.

I am so worrie about the farms and OBmans statement that he would raise capital gains taxes to 28% the first year. There go all of the family farms and there is no way you can pay the taxes when you inharet one!! Then there are our boys, husbands, ants and uncles serving over seas!! Have you had a love one there? You get him in and he won't take care of them!! I have one there now and two in and out!! May God be with our service men and women. I have been a long time Demo but I can tell you that I will vote Rep if he is it.

Posted by: amymom | May 20, 2008 10:45 PM | Report abuse

didjabringyabeeralong wrote:

It's all over really, we're just watching the dying embers

______________________________

I'm not surprised that the Obama campaign has adopted the philosophy of Vladimir Lenin: "A lie told often enough becomes truth."

Denise asks, "What is exactly the "change" that Obama promises?"

The promised (but not publically unspecified) change is the adoption of the Socialist/Marxist/Communist policies, failed and ultimately rejected throughout the world but embraced by Obama's grandparents, parents, friends and mentors.

Posted by: GM | May 20, 2008 10:44 PM | Report abuse

She never went negative. She went honest, and the whiny Obama camp can't take it.

Did I hear right, Honest. My goodness, some ones been hitting the Jack D.

Posted by: justadad55+ | May 20, 2008 10:40 PM | Report abuse

Let's be practical. What is exactly the "change" that Obama promises ?

Posted by: Denise | May 20, 2008 10:30 PM | Report abuse

It's all over really, we're just watching the dying embers

Posted by: didjabringyabeeralong | May 20, 2008 10:27 PM | Report abuse

I hope the Dems choice if Obama is their candidate comes back to haunt them. This swing voter would rather have George W. in office than Obama. I'd rather have peace knowing our next president is indeed loyal to our country and places its interest first and foremost--especially over Africa. Further, I don't trust Obama with his questionable associations to racists, anti-Americans, domestic terrorist and radical muslims. I think he is also a secret Muslim sympathezier. McCain has my vote if this Reverend Wright protege wins the Dem nomination.

Posted by: NoObama | May 20, 2008 10:22 PM | Report abuse

Hold_That_Tiger wrote:

When you can site a State where nearly a quarter of the voters, 2 in 10 sited Race as an important factor to them, as they did in KY (and of those who said that Race was important, 80+ percent voted for Clinton); if you can site me similar statistics in any other primary where gender so obviously had an influence in the voting, then I will concede that sexism played an equal role in this race.
_____________________________

I totally agree! Blacks voting in nearly every state 92% across the board for Obama is HUGELY racist and far, far worse then the sexist remarks of Obama, Chris Matthews, etc.

(And that's without even considering Obama's minister calling Italians "garlic noses" and Jews "blue-eyed devils" or the video allegedly held by the GOP in which Michelle Obama is railing at "whitey" or calling for more white people to stand behind her on the podium.)

Racism is HUGE in the Obama camp!

Posted by: GM | May 20, 2008 10:20 PM | Report abuse

Hold_That_Tiger wrote:
When you can site a State where nearly a quarter of the voters, 2 in 10 sited Race as an important factor to them, as they did in KY (and of those who said that Race was important, 80+ percent voted for Clinton); if you can site me similar statistics in any other primary where gender so obviously had an influence in the voting, then I will concede that sexism played an equal role in this race.
_____________________________

I totally agree! Blacks voting in nearly every state 92% across the board for Obama is HUGELY racist!

(And that's without even considering Obama's minister calling Italians "garlic noses" and Jews "blue-eyed devils" or the video allegedly held by the GOP in which Michelle Obama is railing at "whitey.")

Racism is HUGE in the Obama camp!

Posted by: Anonymous | May 20, 2008 10:18 PM | Report abuse

On Sunday, Obama gave a speech and proclaimed that Iran is not a serious threat to the U.S.!

Uh, we're liberal Dem.s and even we can see Obama is a danger to this country, is out of his league, and doesn't know his head from his toe.

Clearly someone behind the scenes educated Obama because 2 days later Obama was again speechifying and stated, "Iran is a grave threat."

It's all on tape, folks, so save your dithering and verbal tapdancing.

Posted by: global policy | May 20, 2008 10:15 PM | Report abuse

Hillary supporters have a big problem.
They think if you are against Hillary, then you must be one of the Obama supporters.
How can anybody have such tunnel vision?
That is exactly what Hillary stands for.
"If you are not with me, you are against me."

Posted by: Anonymous | May 20, 2008 10:14 PM | Report abuse

Really, before the primary voting began Hillary led the democratic field with 60% of likely voters! The inevitable nominee's performace hasn't lived up to that rosy prediction. Touting her electability in November is extremely probabmatic, epecially concidering the source.

Posted by: ohio-independent | May 20, 2008 10:14 PM | Report abuse

"Every time Obama loses it's because of racism.

But sexism doesn't exist and has played no role in this primary?"
=============
When you can site a State where nearly a quarter of the voters, 2 in 10 sited Race as an important factor to them, as they did in KY (and of those who said that Race was important, 80+ percent voted for Clinton); if you can site me similar statistics in any other primary where gender so obviously had an influence in the voting, then I will concede that sexism played an equal role in this race.

Posted by: Hold_That_Tiger | May 20, 2008 10:12 PM | Report abuse

Its always a double standard with the Obama camp, Obamas Yes We Can Change speech emphasized the voice of millions, as known as votes and your stance against counting Florida's and Michigan's vote will also be your downfall.

Eric WV

Posted by: Veterans for Clinton | May 20, 2008 10:11 PM | Report abuse

It is fascinating how threatened the Obama followers are by Clinton. Reading the comments, it fits a pathological profile.

You know your candidate is inadequate, but you can't deal with having a woman in the White House.

Deal with it. She's trouncing him even while he's the purported nominee!

Bottom line: he's this far ahead because the media went easy on him for so long. By the time the truth about Obama began coming out (with more to come), he had too much momentum.

If Clinton is this far ahead with the beating for two she has taken, imagine where she'd be if the contest had been equitable from the start.

She is phenomenal and the only present answer to this country's problems.

Obama is a moot point. He will never win a general election.

Posted by: Professor Poli Sci | May 20, 2008 10:11 PM | Report abuse

Thanks to internet and you contributors!
In 2012, Hillary will lose some loyal senior supporters, while the young new voters will have access to most things online. Many will remember what the Clintons have done and said in this election. It would be wiser for Hillary to fight to keep her NY senate seat than doing this all over again in 2012. The reason why she fights so hard is to keep Obama out of the White House so it's easier for her to return to her house - the White House.

That's why we should have a constitutional amendment to limit presidential terms to only two terms to the person and his or her immediate family members.

No more Clinton or Bush!
Hillary will stall the spread of American and world democracy.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 20, 2008 10:09 PM | Report abuse

She has made too many enemies and she continues to make enemies with her shrill, divisive, confrontational style. Voters are fed up with it. It's been twenty years with a Bush or Clinton in the White House and the resulting gridlock in government. Time to kick both of these families to the curb for good.

Posted by: Steven | May 20, 2008 10:05 PM | Report abuse

So, let's get this straight.

Every time Obama loses it's because of racism.

But sexism doesn't exist and has played no role in this primary?

LOL. You Obama people are mental cases and we don't want loonies running the White House.

Vote McCain if Clinton doesn't get the nomination. The Obama cult is not living in reality.

Posted by: John Jay | May 20, 2008 10:03 PM | Report abuse

Whatever the Clintons say doesn't matter. The rules are the rules. They are not the royalties they think they are. It's beyond time for them to get out.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 20, 2008 10:01 PM | Report abuse

Hillary really has no class. She is clinging onto two states W.Va and Ky which are the most racial states in this country, and is touting her electability there. Obama has won the most states. The number of states he won is twice as many as Hillary has won. If the election is all about swing states, she still may not win them, since McCain is white and he is against gun control. The only reason Hillary is winning W.Va and Ky by a wide margin is that Obama did not concentrate on those states for the primary. If Obama had spend more time there, Hillary's lead won't be that much. Hillary can make all the noise she wants. But at the end, Obama will be the nominee. Hillary does not care whether the democrats are disenfranchised since she gets to run again in 4 years if McCain wins the white house.

Posted by: Kirk Donely | May 20, 2008 9:58 PM | Report abuse

Hillary will have no trouble against Mccain but Obama will and if he doesn't win well I guess they can always blame Hillary.

Posted by: mimi362 | May 20, 2008 9:55 PM | Report abuse

Polls show Obama beating McCain in the following states:
California, Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, New Jersey, and Massachusetts.
Obama is also leading McCain in Michigan.

Bill Clinton won 7 states that he did not win in the primary because many of these states are Democratic states.

Posted by: Debbie | May 20, 2008 9:54 PM | Report abuse

She never went negative. She went honest, and the whiny Obama camp can't take it.

Quoting an AP article on demographics is not going negative and is not racist. Any time Obama doesn't get his way, he whines racism.

When the situation was reversed and Obama rambled about Clinton not getting the black vote no one said THAT was racist.

Obama has now been trounced in back to back elections. And he's supposed to be the alleged nominee (per the media whom last time we checked shouldn't be deciding Presidents and shoving candidates down the electorate's collective throat.)

Obama's a joke. This guy has been propped up by the media and liberal extremists from the get-go. He's not for real and his inadequacies are exposed every time things get real. That's why he dies at debates - he can only perform in massive crowds where he fancies himself a rock star or a Savior.

Posted by: Bruce | May 20, 2008 9:52 PM | Report abuse

Why is Hillary and her supporters trying so hard to change the rules after the game is played? They both knew the rules coming in: Michigan and Florida don't count and the delegate math of 2025. Now we're hearing everything including the absurd (deceptive claims of leading in popular vote) to why Hillary should be the nominee. This is getting ridiculous!

Posted by: Jose Sanchez | May 20, 2008 9:49 PM | Report abuse

can't go anywhere but down the tubes as she went negative.

Posted by: pubichaironmycokecan | May 20, 2008 9:41 PM | Report abuse

Sad to watch and the world knew it was possible. No Black man for your United States of America. What you people will get and deserve is Margaret Thatcher the second, with much more fight and lust for immediate action for war. Nothing has changed. Prep your kids for 100 years of war. The word now rests hopes on the Super Delegates. They should choose now. To Bad our family, But you have nothing to loose. You are broke, physically and mentally. You will learn what the word Elite means if Senator Hillary wins.
Im sure Senator Clinton has the young boy who donated his games for her cause on the draft card. Beware, the rules and promises she made will be forgotten by her as soon as victory is in sight. Rome is falling, Fast. Dam and you all had a chance for real change. White against Black. Be proud

Posted by: justadad55+ | May 20, 2008 9:40 PM | Report abuse

The Hillary campaign pushed me over the edge with their almost-latest tactic: she lost because the media is unfair to women, Hillary most particularly. Any self-serving excuse will do, right?

Now it's 'electibility", which is based on a map designed by Carl Rove.

She is making a mockery of real issues to suit herself and her own interests. What ever happened to integrity?

Posted by: Susan | May 20, 2008 9:24 PM | Report abuse

Actually she is right, the Dems are stuck on stupid rules and power plays instead of figuring out the general election math.
It is not that complicated. Winner takes all and the swing states are more important as the solid democratic states. Whoever can deliver the swing states is going to win. It seems that would be Hillary, but we can go the other way and hope..Hope is good..

Posted by: RJB | May 20, 2008 9:21 PM | Report abuse

"Droves" as in a "handful" (at best) each day? Hillary DIANE Clinton picked up a Super Delegate today; is that a "drove" too?

Posted by: JakeD | May 20, 2008 9:09 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company