The Trail: A Daily Diary of Campaign 2008

Archives

Dan Balz's Take

Clinton's Endgame


Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton listens to a question from a reporter on her campaign plane after her primary day celebration in San Juan, Puerto Rico June 1, 2008. (Associated Press)

By Dan Balz
The suspense went out of the Democratic race weeks ago. The drama continues, thanks mostly to Hillary Clinton. By sometime this week, the Democratic nomination race is expected to come to an end. Barack Obama will claim the 2,118 delegates needed to secure the nomination and Clinton -- well, that is the question?

She has vowed to stay in the race until someone reaches the magic number. Obama hopes that will come soon after Tuesday's primaries and the question then will be whether Clinton is forced out by a chorus of Democrats or leaves the race on her own terms.

Whenever she seems on the verge of resigning herself to the inevitable, she then suddenly turns defiant -- or at least determined to make her case one more time to the superdelegates in whose hands the nomination remains.

The machinery of the Democratic Party has now coalesced around Obama, a dramatic role reversal over the past 17 months. Clinton began as the establishment candidate and is now on the outside looking in. Obama began as the outsider, the insurgent, and is now the toast of the establishment.

If any further evidence of this shift were needed, it came Saturday. Obama saw his nomination hastened by a behind-closed-doors deal of the Democratic National Committee's Rules and Bylaws Committee that settled disputes over Michigan and Florida in a way that did nothing to derail Obama's route to victory.

The most important outcome of Saturday's Rules and Bylaws Committee meeting was to render Michigan's primary illegitimate, a huge blow to Clinton's popular vote strategy.

The allocation of delegates agreed upon by the committee bore no resemblance to the popular vote in the state.

Sen. Carl Levin, in an exchange with Clinton senior adviser Harold Ickes, debunked the idea of trying to use the results of the primary to determine how the delegates would be apportioned. "You're calling for a fair reflection of a flawed primary," Levin said.

Without Michigan's votes, Clinton's argument of winning the popular vote beings to crumble. The Real Clear Politics calculations of the popular vote give Obama the lead under all scenarios, except the inclusion of Michigan. The latest figures show Obama leading by 24,524 votes. That includes both Puerto Rico and, now, Florida, whose primary results were blessed by the Rules and Bylaws Committee on Saturday in the compromise that seated that state's delegation.

Obama approaches his historic victory coasting but hardly in a dominant position. Since Ohio and Texas, he and she have split 10 contests. She won three of those -- Puerto Rico, Kentucky and West Virginia -- by more than 35 points each. Since Ohio and Texas, she has won about 30 more pledged delegates than Obama.

Obama's delegate advantage has grown because he has won more superdelegates over this period, though they have come in trickle, not a flood. How quickly he accumulates more superdelegates over the next days will determine how quickly he reaches the magic 2,118 and presumably how quickly she decides to end her candidacy.

He is certainly a weaker candidate than he was three months ago, thanks to the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr., his infamous "bitter" comments and losses in Pennsylvania, West Virginia and Kentucky that raised questions about his ability to attract working class votes.

But is she the stronger candidate for the general election, as she has argued in this closing stretch of the nominating battle? By her measuring sticks, she makes a powerful case, outlined in a mailing to superdelegates last week.

Her argument is based on both the primaries and current general election polls. She claims to have won the states that count most in a general election, states like Ohio and Pennsylvania (no Democrat in the modern era has lost both primaries and gone on to win the nomination).

She cites none other than Karl Rove to argue that she would begin a general election campaign against John McCain with a stronger electoral vote base than would Obama. Obama's campaign counters with claims that he has strength in swing states -- Virginia, Colorado, Iowa, Wisconsin -- where she does not. But are wavering superdelegates listening to these arguments?

What Clinton's argument about being the stronger general election candidate ignores is what her nomination would do to the Democratic Party. A Clinton nomination at this point would tear the party apart. The anger that was expressed at Saturday's DNC rules committee meeting by supporters of Clinton would be dwarfed by the backlash against her from Obamaland if, somehow, he were not the nominee.

That is the choice ahead for Clinton over the next days. Whenever it comes to Hillary and Bill Clinton there is always some unpredictability. But her friends are confident she eventually will yield to the numbers and, as she has pledged, wholeheartedly get behind the nominee of the party and work for a Democratic victory in November. The party hierarchy that once was controlled by the Clintons hopes that will come soon.

Posted at 12:40 PM ET on Jun 2, 2008  | Category:  Dan Balz's Take
Share This: Technorati talk bubble Technorati | Tag in Del.icio.us | Digg This
Previous: McCain Calls Iran 'Foremost' Middle East Enemy | Next: Bill Clinton Fires Back at Vanity Fair Probe


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


Comments

Please email us to report offensive comments.



Sometimes reading these blogs make me feel as if I am wasting my time. Most of these entries are of an angry nature and it is like watching elementary students in a playground slinging mud at each other. What I would like to see from my fellow Americans are well thought out arguments for why you would like to see a certain person in office, or why you think someone would not be a good choice. I would like to see people communicating with each other on an educated level and respecting that this country is made up of many different people who hold many different views and opinions. That is what makes this country great. What makes me ashamed is that instead of hearing these different viewpoints all I hear is hatred and name-calling. Here we are in a country which allows us to vote and speak our opinion let us use this right which has been fought for and died for in a way that gives respect for the freedom that it is. So without further preaching I will give this my best shot.
I am a democrat, I have personal reasons for this, which I will not go into, but I will not be voting for McCain in the fall no matter what. That being said, he is better then Bush...anyone is better then Bush. I feel this way because in comparison McCain speaks well, has a long track record of getting things done, cares about the environment a little bit more, and has worked with democrats to come to common solutions.
So now we get to meat of the problem, Clinton or Obama. For a long time I did not know who to side with. I felt that they were both incredibly strong candidates and I was excited for the Democratic party that we had such amazing choices to choose from. I went to my local caucus hoping to be persuaded to vote for a side. I went in with an open mind. While Obama had overwhelming majority at my local caucus with young and vibrant supporters I was looking for real concrete arguments for why I should vote one way or the other and the only argument they had was that he was going to bring change, and that he was such an amazing person. Clinton supporters at first were similar in their arguments, but then they got down to business and actually gave me what I wanted to hear. What she would do in office and why I should vote for her. Needless to say I voted for Clinton at the caucus, based upon what Obama and Clinton followers had to say. However, I was disappointed that there was not more easily accessed information available for me to listen to, and I was sorry that I had to base my decision at the time on strangers. Going into it I thought that more people would be undecided like me and that the process was to help bring about educated decisions, but I was wrong, almost everyone had already made a decision based on what seemed like personality and flare.
What really riles me up and gets my blood boiling is when Democrats go at Clinton or Obama with pitchforks and fire, spewing reasons to hate one or the other. Hello! We are on the same side. Ultimately there viewpoints are very similar and I think that they both have the strength and courage to make amazing things happen once they have made it into office. I don't regret voting for Clinton, I feel that her skeletons are revealed, that she has the experience, she has shown that she can make it though anything and that she will fight for what needs to be done. She is a strong woman, which does not mean that she is a femNazi. It is like whenever there is a woman who shows strength in this world she is batted down and told she is a femNazi just for doing what men do all the time, that drives me nuts. I have read much of what people have wrote in this blog and many times people have repeatedly asked for..."What has Hillary Actually Done?" Well, here it is folks...
- When she was first lady she through her energy into the Clinton health care plan. This was a comprehensive proposal that would require employers to provide health coverage to their employees through individual health maintenance organizations.
- Along with Senators Ted Kennedy and Orrin Hatch, she was a force behind passage of the State Children's Health Insurance Program in 1997. This was a federal effort that provided state support for children whose parents were unable to provide them with health coverage, and conducted outreach efforts on behalf of enrolling children in the program once it became law. She has continued this work as a senator from New York.
- As a senator from New York she forged alliances with religiously inclined senators by becoming a regular participant in the Senate Prayer Breakfast, led by Douglas Coe of The Fellowship...which is important as we all know you got to have strong relationship with people in order to get things done, even those with different opinions to yours. I'm not saying she is not religious, but I'm sure there were many Republicans there.
- Clinton has served on five Senate committees: Committee on Budget (2001-2002), Committee on Armed Services (since 2003)(first New Yorker ever), Committee on Environment and Public Works (since 2001), Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (since 2001) and Special Committee on Aging. She is also a Commissioner of the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe (since 2001).
- Following the September 11, 2001 attacks, Clinton sought to obtain funding for the recovery efforts in New York City and security improvements in her state. Working with New York's senior senator, Charles Schumer, she was instrumental in quickly securing $21 billion in funding for the World Trade Center site's redevelopment.
- She also took a leading role in investigating the health issues faced by 9/11 first responders.
- While she first supported the war in Afghanistan and Iraq along with the great majority of senators in order to protect us from terrorism (something I personally disagreed with at the time), she did vote for the Byrd Amendment to the Resolution, which would have limited the Congressional authorization to stay in Iraq to one year increments. She has since been a critic of this war.
- She also visited troops in Iraq and Afghanistan in order to find out what issues are important to them. As a response to this she passed legislation to track the health status of our troops so that conditions like Gulf War Syndrome would no longer be misdiagnosed. She is also an original sponsor of legislation that expanded health benefits to members of the National Guard and Reserves.
- Senator Clinton voted against President Bush's two major tax cut packages, the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 and the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003.
- Clinton voted against both the 2005 confirmation of John G. Roberts as Chief Justice of the United States and the 2006 confirmation of Samuel Alito to the United States Supreme Court.
- In July 2004 and June 2006, Clinton voted against the Federal Marriage Amendment that sought to prohibit same-sex marriage.
- Looking to establish a "progressive infrastructure" to rival that of American conservatism, Clinton played a formative role in conversations that led to the 2003 founding of former Clinton administration chief of staff John Podesta's Center for American Progress; shared aides with Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, founded in 2003; advised and nurtured the Clintons' former antagonist David Brock's Media Matters for America, created in 2004; and following the 2004 Senate elections, successfully pushed new Democratic Senate leader Harry Reid to create a Senate war room to handle daily political messaging.
- In her second term of office she opposed the Iraq War troop surge of 2007 and supported a February 2007 non-binding Senate resolution against it. In March 2007 she voted in favor of a war spending bill that required President Bush to begin withdrawing troops from Iraq within a certain deadline.
- Clinton cast a number of votes in support of the Secure Borders, Economic Opportunity and Immigration Reform Act of 2007. The bill was portrayed as a compromise between legalization of illegal immigrants and increased border enforcement.
Ok, so hopefully that answers some of your questions about what Hillary has done in office. While some may argue that she has not accomplished things that are concrete, she has defiantly not sat around doing nothing. She has been fighting the good fight, and that takes time in politics. I think she has done pretty well. No one can say the woman can't fight!
Then of course there is the argument that she will work well with Republicans, and win many of on-the-post voters and have a chance in the national election. While this argument is arguable, just look at this blog as an example. There is not one that says I will vote McCain over Hillary, but many saying they will vote McCain over Obama (Unfortunately). While I hope this will not happen, it is something we should prepare for.
With that, let us not forget the good senator from Illinois, Barack Obama. What has he done while in office? Good question, let's line him up and compare.
- Obama voted in favor of the Energy Policy Act of 2005.
- Obama took an active role in the Senate's drive for improved border security and immigration reform. In 2005, he cosponsored the "Secure America and Orderly Immigration Act." He later added three amendments to the "Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act."
- Partnering with Republican Senators Richard Lugar of Indiana and then Tom Coburn of Oklahoma, Obama successfully introduced two initiatives. One to expand a cooperative that calls to secure and dismantle weapons of mass destruction in order to include shoulder-fired missiles and anti-personnel mines. The other to requires the full disclosure of all entities or organizations receiving federal funds beginning in fiscal year 2007 on a website maintained by the Office of Management and Budget.
- Obama sponsored legislation requiring a local nuclear plant to notify state and local authorities of radioactive leaks.
- in December 2006, President Bush signed into law the "Democratic Republic of the Congo Relief, Security, and Democracy Promotion Act," marking the first federal legislation to be enacted with Obama as its primary sponsor.
- Obama worked with Democrat Russ Feingold of Wisconsin to eliminate gifts of travel on corporate jets by lobbyists to members of Congress and require disclosure of bundled campaign contributions under the "Honest Leadership and Open Government Act."
- Obama also introduced the "Iraq War De-Escalation Act of 2007," a bill to cap troop levels in Iraq, begin phased redeployment, and remove all combat brigades from Iraq before April 2008.
- Obama sponsored a Senate amendment to the State Children's Health Insurance Program providing one year of job protection for family members caring for soldiers with combat-related injuries.
- Obama held assignments on the Senate Committees for Foreign Relations, Environment and Public Works and Veterans' Affairs through December 2006. He is also on the committee for Health, Education, Labor and Pensions and Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. He also became Chairman of the Senate's subcommittee on European Affairs.

The man can seriously get stuff done...see why I had such a hard time making my decision!!

(while I put down acts and laws that both senators have backed, many of them did not actually come to fruition, but it is important to know what they are fighting for.)

With that, I must end this argument saying, yes, every candidate has skeletons in there closet, and while we should take those into account, we should not let them blind us to what these great senators have actually done with their lives and what they intend to do when they become president. Before you are so quick to judge, look at your own life, I'm sure you're no angel, and if you are, you won't judge too harshly, because angels don't...do they...they leave that to someone else. If you are a democrat, consider yourself lucky that you have two wonderful candidates that will do amazing things in office if their resumes are anything to go by. Get behind whom ever wins and Vote Democrat in November. For now use this opportunity to do what you think is right and enjoy that privilege. Just think...either candidate will be a first of their kind...how awesome is that!

Posted by: Nicky | June 3, 2008 5:02 PM

I simply can not understand how it is possible to have been $20 Million in debt and still fly around in jet planes, have limousines and buses, stay in fancy hotels, make telephone calls, buy advertising and continue the campaign until you go $10 Million more into debt? And how do you keep spending after that? Can someone explain that to me? Is Hillary printing her own money already?

Posted by: Fred | June 3, 2008 3:03 PM

Enclosed is a copy of an email that I received. I can't vouch for the authenticity of this information, but if true, it would be very upsetting to think that Michelle Obama would be the First Lady of this country.

In her senior thesis at Princeton, Michele Obama, the wife of Barack Obama stated that America was a nation founded on "crime and hatred". Moreover, she stated that whites in America were "ineradicably racist". The 1985 thesis, titled "Princeton-Educated Blacks and the Black Community" was written under her maiden name, Michelle LaVaughn Robinson.
Michelle Obama stated in her thesis that to "Whites at Princeton , it often seems as if, to them, she will always be Black first..." However, it was reported by a fellow black classmate, "If those "Whites at Princeton " really saw Michelle as one who always would "be Black first," it seems that she gave them that impression".
Most alarming is Michele Obama's use of the terms "separationist" and "integrationist" when describing the views of black people.
Mrs. Obama clearly identifies herself with a "separationist" view of race.
"By actually working with the Black lower class or within their communities as a result of their ideologies, a separationist may better understand the desperation of their situation and feel more hopeless about a resolution as opposed to an integrationist who is ignorant to their plight."
Obama writes that the path she chose by attending Princeton would likely lead to her "further integration and/or assimilation into a white cultural and social structure that will only allow me to remain on the periphery of society; never becoming a full participant."
Michele Obama clearly has a chip on her shoulder.
Not only does she see separate black and white societies in America , but she elevates black over white in her world.
Here is another passage that is uncomfortable and ominous in meaning:
"There was no doubt in my mind that as a member of the black community, I am obligated to this community and will utilize all of my present and future resources to benefit the black community first and foremost. "
What is Michelle Obama planning to do with her future resources if she's first lady that will elevate black over white in America ?
The following passage appears to be a call to arms for affirmative action policies that could be the hallmark of an Obama administration.
"Predominately white universities like Princeton are socially and academically designed to cater to the needs of the white students comprising the bulk of their enrollments."
The conclusion of her thesis is alarming.
Michelle Obama's poll of black alumni concludes that other black students at Princeton do not share her obsession with blackness. But rather than celebrate, she is horrified that black alumni identify with our common American culture more than they value the color of their skin. "I hoped that these findings would help me conclude that despite the high degree of identification with whites as a result of the educational and occupational path that black Princeton alumni follow, the alumni would still maintain a certain level of identification with the black community. However, these findings do not support this possibility."
Is it no wonder that most black alumni ignored her racist questionnaire? Only 89 students responded out of 400 who were asked for input.
Michelle Obama does not look into a crowd of Obama supporters and see Americans. She sees black people and white people eternally conflicted with one another.

The thesis provides a trove of Mrs. Obama's thoughts and world view seen through a race-based prism.
This is a very divisive view for a potential first lady that would do untold damage to race relations in this country in a Barack Obama administration.
Michelle Obama's intellectually refined racism should give all Americans pause for deep concern.

Now maybe she's changed, but she sure sounds like someone with an axe to grind with America . Will the press let Michelle get a free pass over her obviously racist comment about American whites? I am sure that it will. But it shouldn't.
FYI:
I am definitely sick of the main stream media (MSM) feeding us all this crap about Obama being an agent of change.
Has anyone stopped to think what kind of change; really?
PS: We paid for her scholarship.

Posted by: M. Miller | June 3, 2008 1:46 PM

How in the world can the DNC expect that Hillary supporters will vote for Obama? They have bent the rules for Obama. It is clear that a person that removes their name from the ballot should not receive a delegate. Then people are 1/2 a vote, geeze. How easily they forgot about what happened in 2000.

I hope Hillary takes this right to Denver. I say the heck with the DNC. The democrats are no better than the repulicans. At least, McCain fought for his country. Obama just sits in a church that teaches hate. I will not give Obama a free pass. I will never ever vote for Obama. I sure will vote against him.

Posted by: qster | June 3, 2008 10:15 AM

"Still waiting"

For Hillary-heads to explain the sniper fire whopper.

Or for Hillary-heads to explain away Hillary's assassination squad that slimed Elizabeth Ward Gracen, Sally Perdue, Gennifer Flowers, Paula Jones, Kathleen Willey, Monica Lewinsky, and Juanita Broaddrick - any woman who DARED to expose BubbaZipper's sexual predations.

The Clintons are felons. Thank gawd the country is spared another Billary infestation of the White House.

Posted by: Chuckamok | June 3, 2008 12:41 AM

Still waiting for ANY VERIFIABLE LEGISLATIVE ACHIEVEMENT FOR SENATOR HILLARY CLINTON

ANYONE? ANYONE?

HOW DO YOU SUPPORT AND TOUT SOMEONE'S EXPERIENCE WITHOUT ONE SINGLE VERIFIABLE LEGISLATIVE ACHIEVEMENT?

CRITICAL THINKING SKILLS, MUCH?

Posted by: Anonymous | June 2, 2008 10:03 PM

Hillary has, what, 20-30 years in politics? She has staying power and I give her that. But for christ sakes, she been trying to pass this Universal Healthcare (her baby) for 14 years, maybe longer. But that's that. Her and her husband are power hungry. And they will and have said anything to maintain power. Why for all sake are the working class so behind her and not Obama. His whole upbringing relates to the working class. Not to mention his years as a street level organizer particularly for the disenfranchised, poverished, and working class. I don't care how low or high you are on the economic scale. We all have some controversy in our closets. You have your rascist pastors; you have your pedophile priests; and you have your pimp pastors, etc.. What politician in Washington that matters hasn't attended a congregation whose pastor or priest hasn't any hidden agenda's that are appalling. Obama is the right candidate for President because he is genuine, smart; has enough experience and is fresh in Washington. And the old politics has to come to an end. Whether you like it or not the world is flat and smaller due to technology and the world opinion and view of our political system and country does matter. McCain as President would be a dramatic setback. War with Iran would be imminent. The economy would be further devastated. The pressures that are put on Bush Dubya would kill McCain. VOTE OBAMA!!!

Posted by: Money Grip | June 2, 2008 9:36 PM

You are giving Clinton way too much credit saying she has been 'trying to pass universal health care'for years. I'm a New Yorker and she has just been taking up space in the Senate for 8 years. She had a perfect position to pass legislation. If she didn't even attempt it, why would anyone be foolish enough to believe it is something she really wants/is fighting for?

The President can't wave a magic wand and pass universal health care. It has to pass through Congress. WHY HAS HILLARY DONE NOTHING ON THIS FRONT FOR EIGHT YEARS!

WHY DOES SHE CLAIM SENATOR KENNEDY'S HEALTH CARE LAW AS HER OWN?

Posted by: Anonymous | June 2, 2008 9:58 PM

"We can let the DNC know that we're tired of their ridiculous rules that can't nominate a winning candidate."

Posted by: Lynn | June 2, 2008 9:18 PM

ROTFLMAO!!!!

THE WINNING CANDIDATE IS THE NOMINEE:
BARACK OBAMA

WHAT A NUTZO!!

Posted by: | June 2, 2008 9:47 PM

And I thought Hillary was exaggerating when she called her supporters idiots! Go figure. This is the ONE thing Senator Clinton speaks the truth about!

Posted by: ITHOUGHTHILLARYEXAGGERATED | June 2, 2008 9:53 PM

"We can let the DNC know that we're tired of their ridiculous rules that can't nominate a winning candidate."

Posted by: Lynn | June 2, 2008 9:18 PM

ROTFLMAO!!!!

THE WINNING CANDIDATE IS THE NOMINEE:
BARACK OBAMA

WHAT A NUTZO!!

Posted by: Anonymous | June 2, 2008 9:47 PM

"We can let the DNC know that we're tired of their ridiculous rules that can't nominate a winning candidate."

Posted by: Lynn | June 2, 2008 9:18 PM

ROTFLMAO!!!!

THE WINNING CANDIDATE IS THE NOMINEE:
BARACK OBAMA

WHAT A NUTZO!!

Posted by: Anonymous | June 2, 2008 9:46 PM


"We can let the DNC know that we're tired of their ridiculous rules that can't nominate a winning candidate."

Posted by: Lynn | June 2, 2008 9:18 PM

ROTFLMAO!!!!

THE WINNING CANDIDATE IS THE NOMINEE:
BARACK OBAMA

WHAT A NUTZO!!

Posted by: | June 2, 2008 9:26 PM

Earth to FREAKTARD, the winning candidate will be the nominee: OBAMA

Posted by: CLANG | June 2, 2008 9:30 PM

Since is the intellectual level of Clinton supporters, I guess it's pretty clear why she lost.

Posted by: ROTFLMAOTOO | June 2, 2008 9:36 PM

Sorry, I was laughing so hard I created a typo. Meant to say:

Since this is the intellectual level of Clinton supporters, I guess it's pretty clear why she lost.

Posted by: ROTFLMAOTOO | June 2, 2008 9:41 PM

If the very first argrument on this blog was true, then you could say the very same thing for Primary votes in washington that did not count. disinfranchise voters in the state of washington has been upset for sometime now because the votes casted for Hillary Clinton did not count. The caucauses were a joke to say the least, From my district alone, only 12 people showed up and 10 of them were voting for Barrack Obama. I talked to tons of people that casted mail in votes for Hillary that could not show up for caucauses for one reason or the other. I know for a fact that if you were a mail carrier that did not have that day off, you just didn't get to vote at all. My point is i don't think the votes should count out of caucaus events. It should remain the confused pledge delegate count that it is. Enough of this oneside election syestem for me. I will venture other avenues for my future party affilliation.

Posted by: David | June 2, 2008 9:39 PM

Hillary has, what, 20-30 years in politics? She has staying power and I give her that. But for christ sakes, she been trying to pass this Universal Healthcare (her baby) for 14 years, maybe longer. But that's that. Her and her husband are power hungry. And they will and have said anything to maintain power. Why for all sake are the working class so behind her and not Obama. His whole upbringing relates to the working class. Not to mention his years as a street level organizer particularly for the disenfranchised, poverished, and working class. I don't care how low or high you are on the economic scale. We all have some controversy in our closets. You have your rascist pastors; you have your pedophile priests; and you have your pimp pastors, etc.. What politician in Washington that matters hasn't attended a congregation whose pastor or priest hasn't any hidden agenda's that are appalling. Obama is the right candidate for President because he is genuine, smart; has enough experience and is fresh in Washington. And the old politics has to come to an end. Whether you like it or not the world is flat and smaller due to technology and the world opinion and view of our political system and country does matter. McCain as President would be a dramatic setback. War with Iran would be imminent. The economy would be further devastated. The pressures that are put on Bush Dubya would kill McCain. VOTE OBAMA!!!

Posted by: Money Grip | June 2, 2008 9:36 PM

"We can let the DNC know that we're tired of their ridiculous rules that can't nominate a winning candidate."

Posted by: Lynn | June 2, 2008 9:18 PM

ROTFLMAO!!!!

THE WINNING CANDIDATE IS THE NOMINEE:
BARACK OBAMA

WHAT A NUTZO!!

Posted by: | June 2, 2008 9:26 PM

Earth to FREAKTARD, the winning candidate will be the nominee: OBAMA

Posted by: CLANG | June 2, 2008 9:30 PM

Since is the intellectual level of Clinton supporters, I guess it's pretty clear why she lost.

Posted by: ROTFLMAOTOO | June 2, 2008 9:36 PM

DON'T BE DUPED AGAIN AMERICA !!!

IT'S ABOUT ELECTABILITY !!!

Large numbers of BUSH_McCain Republicans have been voting for Barack Obama in the DEMOCRATIC primaries, and caucuses from early on with the backing and help of the medical and insurance industry. Under the direction of the George Bush, and Karl Rove vote fraud, and vote manipulation machine. Because they feel Barack Obama would be a weaker opponent against John McCain. And they want to stop Hillary Clinton from fixing the HUGE! American, and Global mess they have created. shocking!!! isn't it. Just gotta love those good old draft dodging, silver spoon Texas boys. Not! :-(

You see, the medical and insurance industry mostly support the republicans with the money they ripped off from you. And they don't want you to have quality, affordable universal health care. They want to be able to continue to rip you off, and kill you and your children by continuing to deny you life saving medical care that you have already paid for. So they can continue to make more immoral profits for them-selves off of you, and your children's suffering.

With Hillary Clinton you are almost 100% certain to get quality affordable universal health care for everyone very soon. And you are also certain to see major improvements in the economy for everyone.

The American people face even worse catastrophes ahead than the ones you are living through now. It will take all of the skills, and experience of Hillary Clinton to pull the American people out of this mess we are in. Fortunately fixing up, and cleaning up others incompetence, immoral degeneracy, and mess is what the Clinton's do very well.

Hillary Clinton has actually won by much larger margins than the vote totals showed. And lost by much smaller vote margins than the vote totals showed. Her delegate count is actually much higher than it shows. And higher than Obama's. She also leads in the electoral college numbers that you must win to become President in the November national election. HILLARY CLINTON IS ALREADY THE TRUE DEMOCRATIC NOMINEE!

Just look at Oregon for example. Obama won Oregon by about 70,000 votes. But approximately 79,000 Bush republicans switched party's back in January to vote for Obama in the democratic primary. They are not going to vote for, or support any Democrat in November. Are you DEMOCRATS going to put up with that. Are you that stupid, and weak. The Bush republicans think you are that stupid, and weak.

As much as 30% of Obama's primary, and caucus votes are Republicans trying to choose the weakest democratic candidate for McCain to run against. These Republicans have been gaming the caucuses, and open primaries where it is easier to vote cheat. This is why Obama has not been able to win the BIG! states primaries. Even with Republican vote cheating help. Except North Carolina where 35% of the population is African American, and approximately 90% of them block voted for him. African Americans are only approximately 17% of the general population.

Hillary Clinton has been OUT MANNED! and OUT SPENT! 4 and 5 to 1. Yet Obama has only been able to manage a very tenuous, and questionable tie with Hillary Clinton. This is even more phenomenal when you consider she has been also fighting against the George Bush, Karl Rove vote fraud machine in the DEMOCRATIC primaries, and caucuses. Hillary Clinton is STUNNING!.

If Obama is the democratic nominee for the national election in November he will be slaughtered. That is crystal clear now. Because all of the Republican vote cheating help will suddenly evaporate. And the demographics, and experience are completely against him. All of this vote fraud and Bush republican manipulation has made Obama falsely look like a much stronger candidate than he really is.

You will have another McGovern catastrophe where George McGovern lost 49 of 50 states. And was the reason the super-delegates were created to keep that from happening again. Don't let that happen to the party and America again super-delegates. You have the power to prevent it. The only important question now is who can best win in November. And the answer is HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON. That fact is also now crystal clear.

And YOUNG PEOPLE. DON'T BE DUPED! Think about it. You have the most to lose. As do African Americans. Support Hillary Clinton. She will do her best for all of you. And she will know how to best get it done on day one.

The democratic party needs to fix this outrage. Everyone needs to throw all your support to Hillary Clinton NOW! So you can end this outrage against YOU the voter, and against democracy.

The democratic party, and the super-delegates have a decision to make. Are the democrats, and the democratic party going to choose the DEMOCRATIC party nominee to fight for the American people. Or are the republicans going to choose the DEMOCRATIC party nominee through vote fraud, and gaming the DEMOCRATIC party primaries, and caucuses.

Fortunately the Clinton's have been able to hold on against this fraudulent outrage with those repeated dramatic, and heroic comebacks of Hillary Clinton's. Only the Clinton's are that resourceful, and strong. Hillary Clinton is your NOMINEE. They are the best I have ever seen. Probably the best there has ever been. :-)

"This is not a game" (Hillary Clinton)

Sincerely

jacksmith... Working Class :-)

p.s. Cynthia Ruccia - I'm with ya baby. All the way. "Clinton Supporters Count Too."

Posted by: jacksmith | June 2, 2008 9:35 PM

Let's make some predictions:

June: A few days after Montana and South Dakota, Obama receives enough endorsements. Hillary Clinton acknowledges defeat, then takes a summer vacation.

July: Obama picks Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius as his running mate. McCain picks Florida Governor Charlie Christ.

August: Incidents at the Democratic Convention as Michigan and Florida protest their 1/2 vote.

September: Obama withdraws from the race as more details are revealed about his links to Wright, Pfleger, Rezko, Farrakhan, and others.

October: McCain dies of old age.

November: Republicans win in landslide.

Posted by: berrymonster | June 2, 2008 9:35 PM

Still waiting for ANY VERIFIABLE LEGISLATIVE ACHIEVEMENT FOR SENATOR HILLARY CLINTON

ANYONE? ANYONE?

HOW DO YOU SUPPORT AND TOUT SOMEONE'S EXPERIENCE WITHOUT ONE SINGLE VERIFIABLE LEGISLATIVE ACHIEVEMENT?

CRITICAL THINKING SKILLS, MUCH?

Posted by: Anonymous | June 2, 2008 9:33 PM

We can let the DNC know that we're tired of their ridiculous rules that can't nominate a winning candidate.

Posted by: Lynn | June 2, 2008 9:18 PM

ROTFLMAO!!!!

THE WINNING CANDIDATE IS THE NOMINEE:
BARACK OBAMA

WHAT A NUTZO!!

Posted by: | June 2, 2008 9:26 PM

Earth to FREAKTARD, the winning candidate will be the nominee: OBAMA

Posted by: CLANG | June 2, 2008 9:30 PM

We can let the DNC know that we're tired of their ridiculous rules that can't nominate a winning candidate.

Posted by: Lynn | June 2, 2008 9:18 PM

ROTFLMAO!!!!

THE WINNING CANDIDATE IS THE NOMINEE:
BARACK OBAMA

WHAT A NUTZO!!

Posted by: Anonymous | June 2, 2008 9:26 PM

Senator Clinton,

I understand that you have a strong feeling that you are the candidate best suited to lead the US for the next 4/8 years. I also understand your desire to ensure that every vote is counted. There are a few things I do not understand.

If every vote should count, why are you saying you lead in the popular vote? This discounts states that use the caucus format to set delegate apportion, which could lead to voter disenfranchisement in those states. It also includes 2 states that you yourself claimed should be punished for moving up their primaries..

If all votes are equal, why do you claim that some states are more important than others? Again, this lends itself towards voter disenfranchisement. Why should my home state of Washington be less important than Iowa?

Frankly, I'm quite unhappy with the fact that you've equated the struggle for suffrage waged by women and African Americans over the last century. In aligning your change in position with a struggle for basic American rights, you demean what those rights stand for, and those that struggled to achieve those rights.

Please, Senator Clinton.. Please do not continue to make this misleading and erroneous argument that your lead in the popular vote, that your victories in specific states, that your need for the delegates of Florida and Michigan.. Please don't let these arguments drag down the nation. You knew the rules at the beginning, please don't let desperation and fear of losing derail what this country needs right now - a united voice.

I'm sorry, Senator Clinton, but you are not going to get the nomination. Your continued fight shows that you are not one to back down. It shows tenacity, it shows strength in the face of nearly insurmountable odds. It shows that the end of your political career may be drawing near.

Yes, people have come to you and asked you to remain in the race. I would like to see you continue until the primaries are completed, and every vote is cast. Once the votes are counted as per the rules of the election season and the party, we need you to abide by those results.

If you cannot lose with grace and respect for the rules laid out by your party of choice, you will show the side of politics, and the side of yourself, that truly has been your undoing. Placing self over service is a quality that you share with the current administration, and it's one that needs to be removed from politics and politicians.

Your impending loss and the handling of that loss is exactly WHY you are going to lose. Sadly, the Clinton name has become synonymous with divisiveness and anger. Your ability, and the ability of your husband, to foster anger in so many of those that call themselves Republicans is amazing. Granted, I believe that much of it is unfair criticism, but the lack of fairness doesn't eliminate its existence. I know a lot of people that reply to criticisms of the current administration with "But Clinton..." Yes, unfair.. but it is there.

Senator Clinton, when you lose - and you will lose - please do so with the class and dignity befitting one of the truly pioneering civil servants of your generation.

Thanks.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 2, 2008 9:24 PM

It's up to you, to decide, Democrats.

Posted by: Lynn | June 2, 2008 9:18 PM

DELUSIONAL ONE, DEMOCRATS HAVE DECIDED

BARACK OBAMA IS THE NOMINEE

Posted by: Anonymous | June 2, 2008 9:22 PM

sorry folks we will not vote for OBAMA come november, out first choice is HILLARY,she is best fit for the job for this country and the world.

Posted by: allan beltran | June 2, 2008 9:22 PM

It's up to you, to decide, Democrats.

Posted by: Lynn | June 2, 2008 9:18 PM

DELUSIONAL ONE, DEMOCRATS HAVE DECIDED

BARACK OBAMA IS THE NOMINEE

Posted by: Anonymous | June 2, 2008 9:20 PM

If Obama is so weak, why is he winning?

If Clinton is so much better a leader, how did her organization get so out organized by the opposition?

Posted by: Anonymous | June 2, 2008 9:19 PM

The consolation prize to Obama being made the nominee is that we Democrats have the most power to stop him from becoming the president.

We can let the DNC know that we're tired of their ridiculous rules that can't nominate a winning candidate.

We can let them know that we disapprove of their tacit acceptance of sexism, misogyny and racism.

We can do this simply by changing our voter registration and also by not voting for Obama. There are plenty of other candidates to vote for in November apart from McCain.

If your state's rules allow it, and most of them do, write Hillary Clinton's name in.

Or, sit back, do nothing, vote a straight Democratic ticket by reflex and agree with your party that you don't matter.

It's up to you, to decide, Democrats.

Posted by: Lynn | June 2, 2008 9:18 PM

Replying to the question why Clinton supporters would not back Obama over McCain-
I will not vote for Obama, ever. As far as I am concerned, Hillary was the best candidate. McCain is the second best candidate. I do not trust Obama. I don't know what he stands for because I don't believe anything he says. I think he is insincerity itself and has been packaged and advertised into a big name brand, but I actually think he is the emperor with no clothes (or worse, a serious wolf in sheep's clothing). He co-opted Hillary's policies; he doesn't have his own. Further, he is either frighteningly naive or seriously dishonest. I don't think he can deliver half what he promises. I don't know whether he even intends to deliver any of it. I think he is a total fake, a superficial candidate who employs the word notion ad nauseum to try to sound "folksy" and that he has been sold to the American public like a new brand of peanut butter. He may be a talented speaker if you like that overly dramatic, redundant, exhortational style, but he isn't a legitimate candidate. He has shown his stripes by his associations, and his opportunistic severing of ties to people like Rev. Wright even though he clearly had no issues with him until he became a political liability. He calls women "sweetie". His wife comes across as a rabblerousing racist. He used the issue of his stance against the wear to pillory Hillary, but if you really think about the way that transpired, he is the questionable one. She voted in favor based on false intelligence that was distributed by the White House. She and everyone else was essentially tricked. He on the otehr hand, had no reason to believe the intelligence was faulty so must have believed it true. And if he believed it true and opposed the war, then he is a scary person who should not be president of the United States, becasue if it HAD been true, then it would have made sense. I think he ascended to his current position by playing on race to advance himself and intimidate his opponents, that he profited because many people don't like the Clintons. Absent either of those ingredients, I don't think he'd be off first base.
At least I believe I trust McCain, even though I don't agree with his policies. I would take a Republican I trust over a Democrat I don't trust. It's that simple.

Posted by: lhen1 | June 2, 2008 9:17 PM

Are you suggesting that only republicans can really vet Obama? Why hasn't Hillary? Are you suggesting she's gone easy on him? Why? Doesn't she really want the nomination?

Second, the idea that the Clinton Foundation should abandon Africa because she doesn't get the nomination is one of the most childish, vindictive suggestions I've ever heard. Right up there with, "I'm voting McCain" or "I'm leaving the country!"
Why not just stick out your tongue, say "I'm taking my ball and going home!" and leave it at that.

Posted by: Real Vetting? | June 2, 2008 9:13 PM

Hey!! mellowyellow. thats why we have secret ballots in this country. Maybe your family is smarter than you and don't really want an extension of Bush/Cheney in Washington. You will never know how they voted once they get behind that screen. Be a Bush lover and vote McCain and while you'r at it why don't you hit yourself in the head with a hammer just to see how that feels.

Posted by: Bill in Mich | June 2, 2008 9:12 PM

So, it's not just women supporters of Hillary's who won't vote for Obama in the general election, it's their whole dang family ain't gonna vote for someone who hasn't paid his dues. Charlatan.

Posted by: Go Clinton | June 2, 2008 9:04 PM

I'd love to hear what Hillary Clinton has done for America.

Any SINGLE legislative achievement of Hillary Clinton ANYONE?

One single legislative achievement of the EXPERIENCED Hillary Clinton?

Or are you just ZOMBIES?

Posted by: Anonymous | June 2, 2008 9:12 PM

Dear Lynn,

I don't understand you. Conspiring to destroy a Democratic candidate because you are disappointed is beneath you. It is Bushian.

Conspiring to contribute to 8 more years of a destructive force in the White House because you didn't get your way is worse than acting like a two year old. It is Rovian.

Contributing to the fallacy that Obama can't win because you don't want him to and nothing will change your mind is Hitlerian.

Please, come to your senses before you, personally, commit your soul to hell for all time. See a psychiatrist. Confess your sins to your priest. Heal yourself.

I will be praying for you,

Signed, a middle aged, white female Democratic voter.

Posted by: I don't understand you | June 2, 2008 9:11 PM

Hey!! mellowyellow. thats why we have secret ballots in this country. Maybe your family is smarter than you and don't really want an extension of Bush/Cheney in Washington. You will never know how they voted once they get behind that screen. Be a Bush lover and vote McCain and while you'r at it why don't you hit yourself in the head with a hammer just to see how that feels.

Posted by: Bill in Mich | June 2, 2008 9:10 PM

People of any observance here and in other forums can see the world only in binary fashion. Either 100% Obama, 0% Clinton and vice versa. It is really tiresome to read people who see the world in such a stereotypical fashion; I was hoping that would be over after Bush's 8 years, and that nuance would once again be a hallmark of American politics. These forums, for the most part, suggest otherwise. Many Obama supporters have the most cynical views of Clinton, and many Clinton supporters seem to buy Icke's view that a coup was perpetrated on Saturday when Obama received Michigan votes. Am I the only one who thought it was a tough decision to make in the first place given the initial banning of delegates? Tough decisions usually call for balanced outcomes, and Clinton certainly got some delegate mileage out of Saturday's decision, even if it was not game changing. That doesn't mean that the party is corrupt through and through (certainly not in Obama's direction). Just because a contest has necessarily one outcome shouldn't mean we can see the world only in one color.

Posted by: Aksel | June 2, 2008 9:09 PM

IF YOU TAKE HILLARY CLINTON AT HER WORD, YOU WILL BE MISLED INTO BELIEVING SHE 'CREATED' A HEALTH CARE LAW SHE HAD NO ROLE IN.

HER EVERYDAY ADS AND STUMP SPEECHES CITE TED KENNEDY'S LAW AS HER OWN. THIS IS BECAUSES SHE HAS NO ACCOMPLISHMENTS OF HER OWN.

Clinton role in health program disputed

Hillary Clinton, who has frequently described herself on the campaign trail as playing a pivotal role in forging a children's health insurance plan, had little to do with crafting the landmark legislation or ushering it through Congress, according to several lawmakers, staffers, and healthcare advocates involved in the issue.

In campaign speeches, Clinton describes the State Children's Health Insurance Program, or SCHIP, as an initiative "I helped to start." Addressing Iowa voters in November, Clinton said, "in 1997, I joined forces with members of Congress and we passed the State Children's Health Insurance Program." Clinton regularly cites the number of children in each state who are covered by the program, and mothers of sick children have appeared at Clinton campaign rallies to thank her.

But the Clinton White House, while supportive of the idea of expanding children's health, fought the first SCHIP effort, spearheaded by Senators Edward M. Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts, and Orrin G. Hatch, Republican of Utah, because of fears that it would derail a bigger budget bill. And several current and former lawmakers and staff said Hillary Clinton had no role in helping to write the congressional legislation, which grew out of a similar program approved in Massachusetts in 1996.

"The White House wasn't for it. We really roughed them up" in trying to get it approved over the Clinton administration's objections, Hatch said in an interview. "She may have done some advocacy [privately] over at the White House, but I'm not aware of it."

"I do like her," Hatch said of Hillary Clinton. "We all care about children. But does she deserve credit for SCHIP? No - Teddy does, but she doesn't."

Posted by: Anonymous | June 2, 2008 9:08 PM

Hey!! mellowyellow. thats why we have secret ballots in this country. Maybe your family is smarter than you and don't really want an extension of Bush/Cheney in Washington. You will never know how they voted once they get behind that screen. Be a Bush lover and vote McCain and while you'r at it why don't you hit yourself in the head with a hammer just to see how that feels.

Posted by: Bill in Mich | June 2, 2008 9:08 PM

TIME FOR YOUR MEDS, LYNN

TIME FOR YOUR MEDS, LYNN

TIME FOR YOUR MEDS, LYNN

TIME FOR YOUR MEDS, LYNN

TIME FOR YOUR MEDS, LYNN

TIME FOR YOUR MEDS, LYNN

TIME FOR YOUR MEDS, LYNN

TIME FOR YOUR MEDS, LYNN

TIME FOR YOUR MEDS, LYNN

TIME FOR YOUR MEDS, LYNN

TIME FOR YOUR MEDS, LYNN

TIME FOR YOUR MEDS, LYNN

TIME FOR YOUR MEDS, LYNN

TIME FOR YOUR MEDS, LYNN

TIME FOR YOUR MEDS, LYNN

TIME FOR YOUR MEDS, LYNN

TIME FOR YOUR MEDS, LYNN

Posted by: Anonymous | June 2, 2008 9:06 PM


It is time for a great big REALITY CHECK for Obama.

He's got some INSTANT KARMA

HALF VOTES FOR MICHIGAN AND FLORIDA

HE AND HIS DC PUPPETEERS HIJACKED THEIR VOICES


OBAMA WANNABE HAS EXACTLY THE SAME AS HILLARY


HALF


ALL HIS SUPER DELEGATES AND ALL HIS DC BOYS CLUB WHITE TROLL FRIENDS WILL NOT BE ABLE TO HIJACK NOVEMBER


THAT IS REALITY

HE HAS HALF

WHICH IS NOWHERE NEAR 100% OF DEMOCRATS BEHIND HIM


HE CAN FORGET IT


HE'S STOLEN VOICES, VOTES AND CAME TO DIVIDE AND CONQUER


HE'S A TOTAL POLITICIAN TOTALLY CONNECTED AND A FRESHMAN DONE NOTHING WHO NEEDS THE BOYS CLUB


OBAMA IS THEIR YES MAN PUPPET

HE HAS NO CHOICE

BECAUSE HE HAS NO CLUE AND NO ACCOMPLISHMENTS


HILLARY CLINTON

OR

JOHN McCAIN


THE CHOICE IS SIMPLE

SO IS THE MATH

Posted by: Nam | June 2, 2008 9:05 PM

McCain could hold a ten cent light bulb to Obama's intellect.

One only has to watch the YouTube A$$ whoopin Ron Paul delivered to McStupid when challenged on the economy. This man is dumber than the present one...and THAT'S a Stretch!

Oh...I can NOT wait till the debates.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 2, 2008 9:05 PM

Hillary supporters have husbands, sons and daughters of voting age. As mothers and wives, we have great influence on our family members. Because it goes like this: If Mama ain't happy, then ain't no one happy.

So, it's not just women supporters of Hillary's who won't vote for Obama in the general election, it's their whole dang family ain't gonna vote for someone who hasn't paid his dues. Charlatan.

Posted by: Go Clinton | June 2, 2008 9:04 PM

The more who make the change if/as soon as Obama is the official nominee, the louder that message will be.

Join us. Be heard.

Posted by: Lynn | June 2, 2008 8:59 PM

LYNN'S HUGE MOVEMENT OBVIOUSLY HASN'T TOUCHED BASE WITH BILL CLINTON

"This may be the last day I'm ever involved in a campaign of this kind," Bill Clinton said.

TIME FOR YOUR MEDS, LYNN

Posted by: Anonymous | June 2, 2008 9:04 PM

Someone with no name said:
THE LOSER IS THE LOSER--BY DEFINITION

THE LOSER IS NOT STRONGER--BY DEFINITION
---------------------------------------------------

You might want to mention that to Gore and to Kerry. But better yet, save it to console Obama with in November when he loses by a landslide.

Posted by: Lynn | June 2, 2008 9:03 PM

HILLARY'S EXPERIENCE--REALLY

I'd love to hear some concrete examples of what she has done for the American people.

BECAUSE Hillary is NOT more experienced. Not in terms of having made a difference in the lives of Americans and not in terms of ELECTIVE EXPERIENCE. Older. YES. More experienced. NO.

OBAMA HAS MORE ELECTIVE EXPERIENCE.

Just because some of that is at the State level, does not make it irrelevant.

And if you are talking about the US Senate, I haven't seen anyone point to a single true accomplishment of Senator Hillary Clinton's. Obama meanwhile has passed bills to collect loose nukes, help veterans and affect campaign finance reform.

Not to mention the fact that SHE VOTED FOR AND SUPPORTED THE WAR until public opinion polls turned and she changed her mind. WHAT A COINCIDENCE. WHAT A LEADER. NOT!!!!

Posted by: Anonymous | June 2, 2008 9:01 PM

can't agree more that this guy is unaccomplished con. If people had realized early enough that he is a con artist before Ohio and Texas, Clinton would have won. Vote for McCain!

Posted by: Nam | June 2, 2008 9:01 PM

This argument that nominating Clinton would tear the party asunder is incredibly short-sighted.

Nominating Obama will do the same.

I'll be changing my 30 years long party affiliation the minute Obama is declared the nominee. I know many, many others who intend the same as one way of sending a message to the DNC. The more who make the change if/as soon as Obama is the official nominee, the louder that message will be.

Join us. Be heard.

Posted by: Lynn | June 2, 2008 8:59 PM

For ALL those people (esp. CLOSET KKK lovers in Appalachia) who are spewing the "Black America is racist" for voting for someone whom they feel (along with QUITE a few White Americans) represent a better future than the person who will say anything (including pandering to RACISTS) for a vote...

Ask yourself, what was America voting for when there was, nor has ever been a President of color?

Most Black Americans didn't give a hoot about Obama, and was solidly behind Clinton...UNTIL, she showed the world her true self.

Pigs love slop, I suggest Hillery stay with the "Hard working Americans, the White Nazi Americans" she loves so much...for the minute.

She, and her ilk are as sickening as that ego-maniacal racist Wright, infact, he would be perfect for Hillery's VP...in Naziland.

Posted by: Birdsof a feather | June 2, 2008 8:59 PM

Senator Hillary Clinton keep moving forward all the way to the convention. Senator Clinton is the strongest candidate against McCain. No Obama. Superdelegates wake up! It is not too late. Vote smart. Vote for victory in November.

Posted by: mmarii | June 2, 2008 8:58 PM

The DNC should NOMINATE Clinton because she is the best candidate to beat McCain.

Many of Clinton's supporters don't believe that Obama is qualified or ready. They won't vote for him. And yes, many of us believe that Obama's self-aggrandizement of his "superior" character is as empty as his suit.

It is BECAUSE we won't vote for him that he can't win in November. And we won't vote for him because we don't think he can do the job. Do you get it now?

Posted by: Lynn | June 2, 2008 8:53 PM

OK LYNN, TIME FOR YOUR MEDS
SERIOUS DELUSIONS OF GRANDEUR, MUCH?

THE LOSER IS THE LOSER--BY DEFINITION

THE LOSER IS NOT STRONGER--BY DEFINITION

Posted by: Anonymous | June 2, 2008 8:58 PM

False hope. Empty promises. That's what it is about. McCain will kick his butt to save America!

Posted by: Nam | June 2, 2008 8:57 PM

To: My family has two votes: We're 6 in my household, of voting age. Add that to your brood!

Posted by: Christopher A. Edwards, Esq. | June 2, 2008 8:55 PM

Ditto: About the below, I donated $50 to Clinton yesterday, which I do every time she asks (she asked for a donation in her Puerto Rico victory speech yesterday). Even if she doesn't go on to get the nomination, she needs help to retire her campaign debt.

If she doesn't go on to get the nomination, Clinton would still need our help to retire that debt to go on to continue her career as one of the most talented, knowledgeable and widely-supported female leaders of our generation.


http://www.hillaryclinton.com/contribute/5AXC

Posted by: Christopher A. Edwards, Esq. | June 2, 2008 8:50 PM

RIGHT ALL OF YOU HILLARY FANATICS!
PUT YOUR MONEY WHERE YOUR MOUTH IS!!

Posted by: Anonymous | June 2, 2008 8:53 PM

Idontgetit said:

I do not understand the logic of the Sen. Clinton supporters: If the logic is to vote for Sen. Clinton because she is the best candidate to defeat Sen. McCain in November, I understand this. It makes perfect sense because contained in this strategy is the goal of defeating Sen. McCain. However, how can the same supporters then turn around and say that if Sen. Obama is the Democratic Party nominee, they will vote for Sen. McCain instead. This is truly confounding. The premise of voting for Sen. Clinton is her putative advantage in defeating Sen. McCain. What is the possible reason they would have for voting for against Sen. Obama? Certainly not the "content of his character."
-------------------------------------------------------

The DNC should NOMINATE Clinton because she is the best candidate to beat McCain. That's the argument.

Many of Clinton's supporters don't believe that Obama is qualified or ready. They won't vote for him. And yes, many of us believe that Obama's self-aggrandizement of his "superior" character is as empty as his suit.

It is BECAUSE we won't vote for him that he can't win in November. And we won't vote for him because we don't think he can do the job. Do you get it now?

Posted by: Lynn | June 2, 2008 8:53 PM

Ditto: About the below, I donated $50 to Clinton yesterday, which I do every time she asks (she asked for a donation in her Puerto Rico victory speech yesterday). Even if she doesn't go on to get the nomination, she needs help to retire her campaign debt.

If she doesn't go on to get the nomination, Clinton would still need our help to retire that debt to go on to continue her career as one of the most talented, knowledgeable and widely-supported female leaders of our generation.


http://www.hillaryclinton.com/contribute/5AXC

Posted by: Christopher A. Edwards, Esq. | June 2, 2008 8:50 PM

IF YOU TAKE HILLARY CLINTON AT HER WORD, YOU WILL BE MISLED INTO BELIEVING SHE 'CREATED' A HEALTH CARE LAW SHE HAD NO ROLE IN.

HER EVERYDAY ADS AND STUMP SPEECHES CITE TED KENNEDY'S LAW AS HER OWN. THIS IS BECAUSES SHE HAS NO ACCOMPLISHMENTS OF HER OWN.

Clinton role in health program disputed

Hillary Clinton, who has frequently described herself on the campaign trail as playing a pivotal role in forging a children's health insurance plan, had little to do with crafting the landmark legislation or ushering it through Congress, according to several lawmakers, staffers, and healthcare advocates involved in the issue.

In campaign speeches, Clinton describes the State Children's Health Insurance Program, or SCHIP, as an initiative "I helped to start." Addressing Iowa voters in November, Clinton said, "in 1997, I joined forces with members of Congress and we passed the State Children's Health Insurance Program." Clinton regularly cites the number of children in each state who are covered by the program, and mothers of sick children have appeared at Clinton campaign rallies to thank her.

But the Clinton White House, while supportive of the idea of expanding children's health, fought the first SCHIP effort, spearheaded by Senators Edward M. Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts, and Orrin G. Hatch, Republican of Utah, because of fears that it would derail a bigger budget bill. And several current and former lawmakers and staff said Hillary Clinton had no role in helping to write the congressional legislation, which grew out of a similar program approved in Massachusetts in 1996.

"The White House wasn't for it. We really roughed them up" in trying to get it approved over the Clinton administration's objections, Hatch said in an interview. "She may have done some advocacy [privately] over at the White House, but I'm not aware of it."

"I do like her," Hatch said of Hillary Clinton. "We all care about children. But does she deserve credit for SCHIP? No - Teddy does, but she doesn't."

Posted by: Anonymous | June 2, 2008 8:48 PM

Hillary supporters have husbands, sons and daughters of voting age. As mothers and wives, we have great influence on our family members. Because it goes like this: If Mama ain't happy, then ain't no one happy.

So, it's not just women supporters of Hillary's who won't vote for Obama in the general election, it's their whole dang family ain't gonna vote for someone who hasn't paid his dues. Charlatan.

Posted by: mellowyellow | June 2, 2008 8:41 PM
-----------------------------------------
My family has two votes for Hillary or McCain (holding our noses) in VA. There is no way we will vote for Obama.

Posted by: My family has two votes | June 2, 2008 8:47 PM

As an X Clinton fan...one who worshiped their "freshness" and sincerity, I have seen the light.

I CRINGE at the sight of her name, to HEAR the Clinton triggers REVULSION on par with George Wallace!

All I can say is, THANK GOD we found out what she (and the real Bill) is really like BEFORE they sleazed their way back into controlling this country. We have had enough of the sewer from the last 8 years of stinch.

Posted by: California | June 2, 2008 8:45 PM

If you put all the Hillary supporter bloggers in one auditorium it would not equal Barack Obama's lowest turnout at one of his campaign stops.

Not to mention the fact that your supporters also show their commitment by donating to keep your campaign moving forward. Hillary ran out of donor support a LONG time ago.

DOA. CALL IT.

Posted by: | June 2, 2008 8:34 PM

I CALL IT. BILL CLINTON HAS CALLED IT, TOO.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 2, 2008 8:45 PM

HILLARY'S EXPERIENCE--REALLY

I'd love to hear some concrete examples of what she has done for the American people.

BECAUSE Hillary is NOT more experienced. Not in terms of having made a difference in the lives of Americans and not in terms of ELECTIVE EXPERIENCE. Older. YES. More experienced. NO.

OBAMA HAS MORE ELECTIVE EXPERIENCE.

Just because some of that is at the State level, does not make it irrelevant.

And if you are talking about the US Senate, I haven't seen anyone point to a single true accomplishment of Senator Hillary Clinton's. Obama meanwhile has passed bills to collect loose nukes, help veterans and affect campaign finance reform.

Not to mention the fact that SHE VOTED FOR AND SUPPORTED THE WAR until public opinion polls turned and she changed her mind. WHAT A COINCIDENCE. WHAT A LEADER. NOT!!!!

Posted by: Anonymous | June 2, 2008 8:43 PM

Without any experience, without any records of service, Obama get the votes because people believe in what he says instead of evaluating what he can actually do. Don't give the power to a person who just likes the power. Give the power to the person who spends their whole life leading and serving. Voting for Obama is like giving the nuclear ball to a child.

Posted by: Nam | June 2, 2008 8:42 PM

Hillary supporters have husbands, sons and daughters of voting age. As mothers and wives, we have great influence on our family members. Because it goes like this: If Mama ain't happy, then ain't no one happy.

So, it's not just women supporters of Hillary's who won't vote for Obama in the general election, it's their whole dang family ain't gonna vote for someone who hasn't paid his dues. Charlatan.

Posted by: mellowyellow | June 2, 2008 8:41 PM

DOA. CALL IT.--> YEP, JUST LOOK AT THE POPULAR VOTES AND THROW OUT THE RED STATES THAT BO CAN'T WIN! HE WON'T CARRY THE SWING STATES EITHER. GUILT BY ASSOCIATION WILL DO HIM IN! THE COMPANY HE KEPT IN CHICAGO FOR 20 YEARS! GREAT POLITICIAN!
CHICAGO DIRTY DEALING. FOLLOW THE $.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 2, 2008 8:40 PM

If you put all the Hillary supporter bloggers in one auditorium it would not equal Barack Obama's lowest turnout at one of his campaign stops.

Not to mention the fact that your supporters also show their commitment by donating to keep your campaign moving forward. Hillary ran out of donor support a LONG time ago.

DOA. CALL IT.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 2, 2008 8:34 PM

I do not understand the logic of the Sen. Clinton supporters: If the logic is to vote for Sen. Clinton because she is the best candidate to defeat Sen. McCain in November, I understand this. It makes perfect sense because contained in this strategy is the goal of defeating Sen. McCain. However, how can the same supporters then turn around and say that if Sen. Obama is the Democratic Party nominee, they will vote for Sen. McCain instead. This is truly confounding. The premise of voting for Sen. Clinton is her putative advantage in defeating Sen. McCain. What is the possible reason they would have for voting for against Sen. Obama? Certainly not the "content of his character."

Posted by: I don't get it? | June 2, 2008 8:33 PM

I think that as soon as Obama hits the number of delegates required for the nomination that HRC will drop out. She ran a solid campaign, in a country that probably isn't ready for a female president yet. No shame in that.

In terms of Obama, he is going to have to tell the far left of the democratic party to take a back seat, and keep their mouths shut, while he runs to the middle. Can they do it? Judging from his supporters here, it is highly unlikely.

Posted by: DCDave | June 2, 2008 8:33 PM

If Obama is so weak, why is he winning?
If Clinton is so much better a leader, how did her organization get so out organized by the opposition?

Posted by: | June 2, 2008 6:42 PM

Posted by: Anonymous | June 2, 2008 8:27 PM

Re: "UPDATE" OK, it's childish BS to you! So, be it. I accept you're the final word on BS. Meanwhile, I'm a dyed in the wool Democrat, Vietnam veteran and I'm entitled to my fancy free childish BS thoughts. BTW, we're still not voting for your savior! He also won't win and maybe HRC will be back in '12. Michele said, we only have this one chance to be finally proud. My 10 months in the VA recovering from wounds and a lifetime of pain, doesn't allow me to exercise my God given constitutional right. Gotcha!

Posted by: Sean | June 2, 2008 8:26 PM

"UPDATE: Obamanuts, your continued bashing of HRC by you and BHO and his Church, will finally take it's toll.

Posted by: Sean | June 2, 2008 8:10 PM"

What childish bs. He has been exceptionally gracious to her over the last several weeks even as she drags on her pointless and destructive campaign. Axe-grinders such as yourself are doing no good.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 2, 2008 8:18 PM

Clinton role in health program disputed
Hillary Clinton, who has frequently described herself on the campaign trail as playing a pivotal role in forging a children's health insurance plan, had little to do with crafting the landmark legislation or ushering it through Congress, according to several lawmakers, staffers, and healthcare advocates involved in the issue.
In campaign speeches, Clinton describes the State Children's Health Insurance Program, or SCHIP, as an initiative "I helped to start." Addressing Iowa voters in November, Clinton said, "in 1997, I joined forces with members of Congress and we passed the State Children's Health Insurance Program." Clinton regularly cites the number of children in each state who are covered by the program, and mothers of sick children have appeared at Clinton campaign rallies to thank her.
But the Clinton White House, while supportive of the idea of expanding children's health, fought the first SCHIP effort, spearheaded by Senators Edward M. Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts, and Orrin G. Hatch, Republican of Utah, because of fears that it would derail a bigger budget bill. And several current and former lawmakers and staff said Hillary Clinton had no role in helping to write the congressional legislation, which grew out of a similar program approved in Massachusetts in 1996.
"The White House wasn't for it. We really roughed them up" in trying to get it approved over the Clinton administration's objections, Hatch said in an interview. "She may have done some advocacy [privately] over at the White House, but I'm not aware of it."
"I do like her," Hatch said of Hillary Clinton. "We all care about children. But does she deserve credit for SCHIP? No - Teddy does, but she doesn't."

Posted by: Anonymous | June 2, 2008 8:18 PM

Not that this is of great importance, but in the Clinton zeal to "count every vote" I wonder why she (or members of the media) don't include nonbinding primaries held in Idaho, Nebraska and Washington state.

Each of the three states held caucuses. Each of these three states also have had nonbinding primaries. The total votes in the nonbinding primaries for Idaho, Nebraska and Washington state were 424,375 votes for Obama and 375,487 votes for Clinton.

In the spirit of "counting every vote" as advocated by Clinton, the nonbinding primary vote totals from Idaho, Nebraska and Washington state should be included along with the caucus vote totals for each state.

I am sure Clinton would not want to ignore the wishes of 800,000 primary voters.

Posted by: New Era | June 2, 2008 8:16 PM

UPDATE: Obamanuts, your continued bashing of HRC by you and BHO and his Church, will finally take it's toll. I'm also leaving out, all the newly found young voters and minority voters that historically never matter on election day. I'm happy to see an end to this ridiculous primary, and the rallying of the new Manchurian candidate. I could care less whether he was a Muslim before he was Baptized at 25, or whether he's 1/2 White or 1/2 Black. I do know quite a bit how he got into politics and the dirty and seedy Chicago tricks he used to become the Democratic candidate, to win his first seat in the Illinois State Senate. Do your own research on how he got all of his Democratic candidates disqualified, including the beloved incumbent State Senator Alice Palmer. Who I might add, ended up supporting HRC but wouldn't sling mud back at Obama for his dirty politics. Obama did apologize, but blamed his overzealous staffers. He also used the same technics to win his next Senate seat, to which being well organized in Chicago thru misfits like Rev. Wright and Tony Resko will serve as great fodder for the 527's to Swiftboat him. All of you did a disservice to the Clinton's, going as far as calling them racists. So, you're figuring I'm one too. So be it, nothing could be further from the truth. After 40 years of not missing an election, including in '68 on leave from Vietnam, I will sit out this election. I'm not a bitter White voter clinging to my guns and my religion either. I'm just struggling to exist, and wanting a voice in gov't. I haven't had one in a long time, and Obama doesn't speak for me in many important areas. BTW, neither does McCain!

Posted by: Sean | June 2, 2008 8:10 PM

It is time to realize that racism is rampant in America. The tables have turned and the real racists are the black minoritiy that play the race card and play it well. Its been said numerous times during the Democratic primary however it bears repeating. If Obama were white he would be an obscure novice politican that no one would even consider for the highest office in the land. He would have been laughed down by his own party.

As a black candidate he has become a heroic figure, an icon with stature simply because he is black. He may or may not win in November but his ticket to getting this far is his race. Ferraro was scolded for telling it like it is. For the good of the country, hopefully his candidacy will turn out to be a Mcgovern/Mondale moment

Posted by: ziggy 1 | June 2, 2008 8:05 PM

The problem is that substantial numbers of Americans want Hillary to stay in this race as long as she possibly can.

We don't want to be faced with the evil of 4 more years of the Republicans and we sure don't want the incompetency and racism of 4 years of Obama.

If she leaves this race, the Democratic party will be faced with a major bleed of voters changing their registration in protest. Slice it any way you want to, taken one-by-one, the majority of Democrats don't want the untried, unknown, untrustworthy Obama as their candidate.

His candidacy will be the biggest failure the Democrats have ever produced.

Posted by: Lynn | June 2, 2008 8:04 PM

If Hillary is Barack's running mate, I won't be voting. A long time ago I vowed I would never vote for "that woman" and that won't change.

Posted by: Buzzm1 | June 2, 2008 7:54 PM

So the guys in the smoked filled room have given the person who got less votes the nomination. This is a real first, an affirmative action presidential nominee.

Posted by: Geraldine | June 2, 2008 7:53 PM

Did you see Hussain's statement today about Bush's economic policies?

"As had McCain, Obama acknowledged that "in fairness, some of these challenges are the product of larger forces beyond the control of government."

He wants to be "fair" to the Caesar. It was not Bush's "fault".

And when a guy asked him "When are we going to see the gas prices go down?" he said ""We are not going to be able to lower gas prices immediately,". "He said he recognized this caused problems in the short term when "just getting to work is hard these days."

And that was it. No answer, no solution, no possible ideas on how to tackle the problem.

Pure hot air.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 2, 2008 7:53 PM

Asper Girl,
You really write very good posts and they are well thought out. I'm amazed at the reaction your posts have from the young Obama crowd. Seems that you are now the object of hate just as Hillary has become for them. You must be seen as keeping them from their rightful place next to the CHANGE candidate and the US President as they see it. How dare you even try to burst the bubble of their love?

Posted by: Lynn E | June 2, 2008 7:53 PM

The road to the Presidency seems awfully bumpy this year.

Does anyone think that if Barack was white, things would be different.

Or, perish the thought, is it just Hillary??

Posted by: Buzzm1 | June 2, 2008 7:50 PM

Actually AsperGirl, I don't think you characterize the African American Community correctly. Why do you think when the question is asked as to whether Obama supporters would support Hillary in the fall that the answer is actually mostly YES. Because many African Americans still like Hillary Clinton and would support her. They just prefer Obama as did many whites. So even though we didn't care for some of the things that were said by Hillary supporters during the campaign we are willing to forgive and support. Why oh why (with even less negative comments from the Obama supporters) -not withstanding that idiot Fledger, can't you Hillary supporters do the same.

Posted by: Dee | June 2, 2008 7:45 PM

Would the women of America please wake up and see that Hillary Clinton is NOT the right woman to be the POTUS. These declarations of sexism are mute when millions of women support Obama. Not all women support Hillary, by a long shot. It would be more becoming to stop the crying and whining and bow out with dignity and show some self-dignity for the future young women to admire

Posted by: Anne | June 2, 2008 7:40 PM

Hillary should run as an Independent, and ask Al Gore to run with her.
Posted by: CALIFORNIAMARTY SAYS | June 2, 2008 7:36 PM

I work with Al Gore on environmental issues and can assure you that this is NOT an option.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 2, 2008 7:39 PM

I ignored your attempt to have me discuss with you your "vetting" of Clinton's healthcare policies and positions because (1) you don't have the same definition of the word "vetting" as I do, and (2) you are incoherent.

Posted by: AsperGirl | June 2, 2008 6:43 PM

There is nothing incoherent about THE FACTS

Clinton role in health program disputed

Hillary Clinton, who has frequently described herself on the campaign trail as playing a pivotal role in forging a children's health insurance plan, had little to do with crafting the landmark legislation or ushering it through Congress, according to several lawmakers, staffers, and healthcare advocates involved in the issue.

In campaign speeches, Clinton describes the State Children's Health Insurance Program, or SCHIP, as an initiative "I helped to start." Addressing Iowa voters in November, Clinton said, "in 1997, I joined forces with members of Congress and we passed the State Children's Health Insurance Program." Clinton regularly cites the number of children in each state who are covered by the program, and mothers of sick children have appeared at Clinton campaign rallies to thank her.

But the Clinton White House, while supportive of the idea of expanding children's health, fought the first SCHIP effort, spearheaded by Senators Edward M. Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts, and Orrin G. Hatch, Republican of Utah, because of fears that it would derail a bigger budget bill. And several current and former lawmakers and staff said Hillary Clinton had no role in helping to write the congressional legislation, which grew out of a similar program approved in Massachusetts in 1996.

"The White House wasn't for it. We really roughed them up" in trying to get it approved over the Clinton administration's objections, Hatch said in an interview. "She may have done some advocacy [privately] over at the White House, but I'm not aware of it."

"I do like her," Hatch said of Hillary Clinton. "We all care about children. But does she deserve credit for SCHIP? No - Teddy does, but she doesn't."

Posted by: Anonymous | June 2, 2008 7:36 PM

Hillary should run as an Independent, and ask Al Gore to run with her. She could also sit this one out and support John McCain as being the safer choice for the nation in view of Obama's associations with terrorists, America, Israel and Jew haters and baters and slum-lord on trial for felony fixers and others with close ties to Arafat and the PLO when they were in full bloom as terrorist monsters.

Hillary has been vetted. She is known as less than candid but she and Bill together could keep the country safer than the stealth rookie, unaccomplished, con man Obama.

Posted by: CALIFORNIAMARTY SAYS | June 2, 2008 7:36 PM

"Clinton would still need our help to retire that debt to go on to continue her career as one of the most talented, knowledgeable and widely-supported female leaders of our generation."

This is just pathetic.

Clinton can retire her own debt out of her $100+ million--or will the foreign leaders that paid Bill for White House influence want the money back now.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 2, 2008 7:30 PM

The "unity candidate had to use race-baiting to divide the party to win the nomination.
And now Obama and Obamedia's spin is that it's dependent on Hillary to unite the party.
ROFL

Comparing this primary to previous Repub and Dem primaries is nonsensical.
During THIS primary, Obama called Democrats "racists" for not supporting him - and then bashed Hillary for citing exit polling data indicating the "white working class" wasn't voting for him.
Gee - I wonder why they weren't voting for him.

This is not about Obama and Hillary - but about Obama emulating Wright and Phleger by demonstrating disdain for Whites.

This type of character assassination of party voters has not been present in previous primaries.

This Dem family will not vote for a race-baiter!

Obama/Wright08

Posted by: zazzle | June 2, 2008 7:30 PM

Clinton role in health program disputed

Hillary Clinton, who has frequently described herself on the campaign trail as playing a pivotal role in forging a children's health insurance plan, had little to do with crafting the landmark legislation or ushering it through Congress, according to several lawmakers, staffers, and healthcare advocates involved in the issue.

In campaign speeches, Clinton describes the State Children's Health Insurance Program, or SCHIP, as an initiative "I helped to start." Addressing Iowa voters in November, Clinton said, "in 1997, I joined forces with members of Congress and we passed the State Children's Health Insurance Program." Clinton regularly cites the number of children in each state who are covered by the program, and mothers of sick children have appeared at Clinton campaign rallies to thank her.

But the Clinton White House, while supportive of the idea of expanding children's health, fought the first SCHIP effort, spearheaded by Senators Edward M. Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts, and Orrin G. Hatch, Republican of Utah, because of fears that it would derail a bigger budget bill. And several current and former lawmakers and staff said Hillary Clinton had no role in helping to write the congressional legislation, which grew out of a similar program approved in Massachusetts in 1996.

"The White House wasn't for it. We really roughed them up" in trying to get it approved over the Clinton administration's objections, Hatch said in an interview. "She may have done some advocacy [privately] over at the White House, but I'm not aware of it."

"I do like her," Hatch said of Hillary Clinton. "We all care about children. But does she deserve credit for SCHIP? No - Teddy does, but she doesn't."

Posted by: Anonymous | June 2, 2008 7:27 PM

About the below, I donated $50 to Clinton yesterday, which I do every time she asks (she asked for a donation in her Puerto Rico victory speech yesterday). Even if she doesn't go on to get the nomination, she needs help to retire her campaign debt.

If she doesn't go on to get the nomination, Clinton would still need our help to retire that debt to go on to continue her career as one of the most talented, knowledgeable and widely-supported female leaders of our generation.

If you want to donate using my fundraising link, you can discover my true identity (I assume):

http://www.hillaryclinton.com/contribute/5AXC

******

Truth Seeker wrote:

So I contribute again to Hillary.

Send an email to your friends and
family asking them to support our campaign by making a contribution
at http://www.hillaryclinton.com/joinme

If you have any questions about your contribution please contact us at
http://www.hillaryclinton.com/help/contact/

Posted by: AsperGirl | June 2, 2008 7:18 PM

2010 is right around the corner. It's not a thread. It is called accountability.

Posted by: GY | June 2, 2008 7:10 PM

IS IT NOT A THREAD OR IS THAT MAYBE A THREAT? YOU'RE SUCH A DUMBASS RETARD IN YOUR RAVINGS I CAN'T TELL.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 2, 2008 7:16 PM

The end game can only play out in Denver.

If we are convinced that Obama can not win in November, it's our responsibility to do everything we can to make sure he is not the Democratic nominee. Remember, those self-appointed "opinion makers" are no leaders. Remember the day when they flocked to W. Bush in 2000? Now, none of them would admit that they "crowned" the worst president in the history of this country.

If the "superdelegates" insist on nominating Obama and see the "Obama disaster" play out in November, let them register their votes on paper. After November, those superdelegates will be responsible for instigating the "Obama disaster."

2010 is right around the corner. It's not a thread. It is called accountability.

Posted by: GY | June 2, 2008 7:10 PM

You mention Clinton's popular vote strategy. You could call it a strategy if you want, but you could also call it a farce.

Posted by: steve clark | June 2, 2008 7:08 PM


SUPER DELEGATES ENDORSE

THEY DO NOT "COMMIT"

THEY CAN "CHANGE" THEIR VOTES AT ANY TIME


AND THEY WILL


Posted by: Anonymous | June 2, 2008 7:05 PM

Someone here is a total two year old.

Wow.

Probably an Obama supporter. Now he's campaigning in day cares?


Posted by: Anonymous | June 2, 2008 7:00 PM


It is time for a great big REALITY CHECK for Obama.

He's got some INSTANT KARMA

HALF VOTES FOR MICHIGAN AND FLORIDA

HE AND HIS DC PUPPETEERS HIJACKED THEIR VOICES


OBAMA WANNABE HAS EXACTLY THE SAME AS HILLARY


HALF


ALL HIS SUPER DELEGATES AND ALL HIS DC BOYS CLUB WHITE TROLL FRIENDS WILL NOT BE ABLE TO HIJACK NOVEMBER


THAT IS REALITY

HE HAS HALF

WHICH IS NOWHERE NEAR 100% OF DEMOCRATS BEHIND HIM


HE CAN FORGET IT


HE'S STOLEN VOICES, VOTES AND CAME TO DIVIDE AND CONQUER


HE'S A TOTAL POLITICIAN TOTALLY CONNECTED AND A FRESHMAN DONE NOTHING WHO NEEDS THE BOYS CLUB


OBAMA IS THEIR YES MAN PUPPET

HE HAS NO CHOICE

BECAUSE HE HAS NO CLUE AND NO ACCOMPLISHMENTS


HILLARY CLINTON

OR

JOHN McCAIN


THE CHOICE IS SIMPLE

SO IS THE MATH

Posted by: Anonymous | June 2, 2008 6:58 PM


.
Not since Scalia strong-armed his weakling colleagues on the Bush Court to appoint W president has there been a more egregious repudiation of democracy than the hijacking of the Dem nomination by the "God D@#! America" crowd. Just as Gore won the 2000 election with a majority of votes, Hillary has won the 2008 primaries with a solid majority of votes. But both are denied their just and due victory by the slimiest of tactics.

To provide those Dems with an IQ greater than their shoe size a choice in November, HILLARY MUST RUN AS AN INDEPENDENT!

The "Democratic" Party, RIP.

/

Posted by: ALEX H | June 2, 2008 6:56 PM

Obama used Kidz by targeting universities in caucus and red states with high number of delegates.
Kidz are easy.

Posted by: Tom | June 2, 2008 6:55 PM

On one hand Rev. Wright HATES AMERICA - but in the other hand he took $15M in federal grants for Trinity.

Did you know your taxes were funding programs for a race-baiting hatemongering church??

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/06/02/obamas-ex-church-has-won-15m-in-federal-grant-money/

Obama/Wright08

Posted by: zazzle | June 2, 2008 6:54 PM

All of the "rah, rah, rah" is fine (although when Obama supporters do it you are less than kind). You still have not answered some fundamental questions...

If Clinton is so superior why, with all the advantages she had, is she losing?

Posted by: Anonymous | June 2, 2008 6:47 PM

So I contribute again to Hillary.

Send an email to your friends and
family asking them to support our campaign by making a contribution
at http://www.hillaryclinton.com/joinme

If you have any questions about your contribution please contact us at
http://www.hillaryclinton.com/help/contact/

=============================================================
YOUR CONTRIBUTION RECEIPT:

DATE: June 2, 2008 6:38 PM EDT
NAME: Celeste
Pinole, CA 94564
AMOUNT: $10.00

Comeon!!! Let's get behind Hillary. She is still fighting and so should we.

Posted by: Truth Seeker | June 2, 2008 6:44 PM

"AsperGirl = IDIOT TROLL"

I ignored your attempt to have me discuss with you your "vetting" of Clinton's healthcare policies and positions because (1) you don't have the same definition of the word "vetting" as I do, and (2) you are incoherent.

Posted by: AsperGirl | June 2, 2008 6:43 PM

AsperGirl = IDIOT TROLL

AsperGirl = IDIOT TROLL

AsperGirl = IDIOT TROLL

AsperGirl = IDIOT TROLL

AsperGirl = IDIOT TROLL

AsperGirl = IDIOT TROLL

AsperGirl = IDIOT TROLL

AsperGirl = IDIOT TROLL

AsperGirl = IDIOT TROLL

AsperGirl = IDIOT TROLL

AsperGirl = IDIOT TROLL

AsperGirl = IDIOT TROLL

AsperGirl = IDIOT TROLL

AsperGirl = IDIOT TROLL

AsperGirl = IDIOT TROLL

AsperGirl = IDIOT TROLL

Posted by: Anonymous | June 2, 2008 6:42 PM

What no one has been able to answer about Hillary Clinton being "the stronger" and "the better" candidate is:

If Obama is so weak, why is he winning?
If Clinton is so much better a leader, how did her organization get so out organized by the opposition?

Posted by: Anonymous | June 2, 2008 6:42 PM

One thing that is due for an "endgame": the Clinton Foundation's devotion to black health and welfare causes. It's been funding AIDS medicine and health care, the reconstruction of parts of New Orleans and other black-focused, urgent causes.

One thing that is glaringly obvious from the Vanity Fair article, which devoted only one paragraph in a litany of poorly-referenced sexual and personal rehashed Republican smears against Bill Clinton, to his good works.

Quite frankly, there appears to be actual hatred to accompany the contempt for the Clintons in the black community. There certainly is a growing appearance of refusing to even recognize the existence or work of the Clinton Foundation.

International and social-and-personal health and welfare organizations have been retooling and reorganizing and reformulating their missions and approaches in the past couple of years given the enormous shifts in the emerging and frontier economies of the world. The countries that we formerly thought of as being deserving of international support now have sovereign wealth funds and public works projects that outstrip our own. The second-best performing stock market in the world in the first quarter of this year was on the African continent.

There are critical things happening in the Western Hemisphere. Africa & the Middle East, India, Russia all have enormous mineral and oil wealth and will dominate the commodities markets of the coming decade. With China and Canada, among other countries, investing so much into Africa, their investment for resource development dwarfs what impact charitable foundations formerly had.

The Clinton Foundation should reorient its mission and service to the Hispanic peoples and Latin cultures closer to home.

It's appropriate, timely and it sure seems to me to be desired on the part of black communities of the U.S. that the Clinton Foundation revisits and broadens its limited and narrow ethnic focus. They should realize that this is a new millenium and their narrow Afrocentric focus is no longer on the most needful populations. They should get out of Africa and go into Latin America.

Posted by: AsperGirl | June 2, 2008 6:41 PM

Like AL Gore I have fallen out of love with politics. If the Clinton's are as bad as the Obamas and supporters say.
Then Why are all of former Clinton
advisers on Obamas team????

And if it's not all about his Obama race, then why do obama supports keep saying "the world is watching what we do"

Why if it's not about Obamas race, then why do Obama supporters say "Just think what kind of a message it will Send to the world if we elect Obama"!

Why if you say "We want change" then why are all the same old people from Clinton Presidency, advising Obama? No change will be if all the old Clinton puppet masters will be running the show again!

What a load of BS this election has been about.
Foreign polices advisor from President Bill Clinton are advising Obama! No Change!

I have learned that this election was a crock!
That the Republicans party and the Democratic party are evil!!!

I am horrified by both party's. The equal evil acts of having no problem with stilling votes!

Mind blowing disillusionment!

This is the down fall of this country !

Posted by: Anonymous | June 2, 2008 6:39 PM

always get stuck on that period of 10 years in the middle where she was fighting to keep Wal*Mart union-free and minimum wage. Why the hell are Wal*Mart employees 60% of Hillary's base? Still waiting for those benefits?

Posted by: Kevin | June 2, 2008 6:26 PM

Actually it's between 15-20 years during which Hillary was a corporate lawyer AND FOUGHT FOR CORPORATE INTERESTS OVER INDIVIDUAL AMERICANS--many of which she served on the Board at Wal-Mart, never raising a finger to help workers there who could have really used a champion. THANKS HIL, WOMAN OF THE PEOPLE
NOT!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: Anonymous | June 2, 2008 6:32 PM

AsperGirl = IDIOT TROLL

AsperGirl = IDIOT TROLL

AsperGirl = IDIOT TROLL

AsperGirl = IDIOT TROLL

AsperGirl = IDIOT TROLL

AsperGirl = IDIOT TROLL

AsperGirl = IDIOT TROLL

AsperGirl = IDIOT TROLL

AsperGirl = IDIOT TROLL

AsperGirl = IDIOT TROLL

AsperGirl = IDIOT TROLL

AsperGirl = IDIOT TROLL

AsperGirl = IDIOT TROLL

AsperGirl = IDIOT TROLL

AsperGirl = IDIOT TROLL

AsperGirl = IDIOT TROLL

Posted by: Anonymous | June 2, 2008 6:29 PM

Erin: "Hillary has spent the past 35 years committing herself to Universal Healthcare"

I always get stuck on that period of 10 years in the middle where she was fighting to keep Wal*Mart union-free and minimum wage. Why the hell are Wal*Mart employees 60% of Hillary's base? Still waiting for those benefits?

Posted by: Kevin | June 2, 2008 6:26 PM

erin and others-

Almost every Democratic candidate and a lot of senators have been trying for years to get universal health care. It's silly to claim that Obama 'poached' the idea. Kennedy did too, from Humphrey, I think.

Posted by: letsbepeaceful | June 2, 2008 6:15 PM

The point is not about 'poaching' the idea. The point is about who has delivered when it comes to getting health care legislation passed for the American people.

Hillary CLAIMS to have gotten million of children health care and PEOPLE FOOLISH ENOUGH TO TAKE HER AT HER WORD ARE MISLED.
This is the law she CLAIMS to have CREATED--IN TELEVISION ADS AND IN STUMP SPEECHES. In fact, she did nothing of the sort.

Clinton role in health program disputed

Hillary Clinton, who has frequently described herself on the campaign trail as playing a pivotal role in forging a children's health insurance plan, had little to do with crafting the landmark legislation or ushering it through Congress, according to several lawmakers, staffers, and healthcare advocates involved in the issue.
In campaign speeches, Clinton describes the State Children's Health Insurance Program, or SCHIP, as an initiative "I helped to start." Addressing Iowa voters in November, Clinton said, "in 1997, I joined forces with members of Congress and we passed the State Children's Health Insurance Program." Clinton regularly cites the number of children in each state who are covered by the program, and mothers of sick children have appeared at Clinton campaign rallies to thank her.
But the Clinton White House, while supportive of the idea of expanding children's health, fought the first SCHIP effort, spearheaded by Senators Edward M. Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts, and Orrin G. Hatch, Republican of Utah, because of fears that it would derail a bigger budget bill. And several current and former lawmakers and staff said Hillary Clinton had no role in helping to write the congressional legislation, which grew out of a similar program approved in Massachusetts in 1996.
"The White House wasn't for it. We really roughed them up" in trying to get it approved over the Clinton administration's objections, Hatch said in an interview. "She may have done some advocacy [privately] over at the White House, but I'm not aware of it."
"I do like her," Hatch said of Hillary Clinton. "We all care about children. But does she deserve credit for SCHIP? No - Teddy does, but she doesn't."

Posted by: Anonymous | June 2, 2008 6:25 PM

"aspergirl - please don't post the same thing over and over again - you posted this exact comment yesterday or the day before. Your facts are correct but your logic is flawed."

There's no logic in my numbers. The numbers be the numbers. The charts I charted are not a function of logic unless I state a proof that includes argumentation. Since the facts of the shrinking margins of Obama's wins and the growing margins of Clinton's wins are self-evident, the only problem that you could have with my statement is that Obama's been losing popularity steadily since February 12 -- before Rev. Wright. To prove to you that I'm right, I'd have to plot that for you, which I can't do here, so I think that you can make the charts for yourself instead of trying to claim that my "logic" is flawed.

I can tell you exactly when Obama's popularity started to fade. It was about the same time the Hollywood writer's strike ended and the little-kids voters had something more interesting to do with their valuable free time again. And the trend just accelerated after the SNL writers aired their script mocking the media for the ludicrous infatuated behavior that it indulged in through late February.

There was a window of time in which a whole fiction and glamour and pop-idol phenom unfolded about Obama and the press was out of control in its fatuous idolatry day after day. Since the hollywood writer's strike ended, in one way or another, Obama's been becoming less of a manufactured icon and more and more of a person. The faux iconic image of him has been draining away ever since as the real Obama emerges in big ways (Rev. Wright, Trinity Church, "bitter voters") and small (can't stop smoking & clutches his Nicorette like an addict, doesn't win any debates, sucks at bowling, has nothing really new to say to flesh out the intoxicating rhetoric, not as brilliant as he first appeared and on and on...).

The public was fed a conflated, hyperbolic media production of a pop-idol, rock-star politician-as-phenom in January and February. Now he's just an underqualified black man who can't quit smoking, hangs out with racists and has a condescending, snarky wife.

Posted by: AsperGirl | June 2, 2008 6:22 PM

Huckabee didn't have more voters cast ballots for him than any other primary candidate in history.

Posted by: AsperGirl | June 2, 2008 6:10 PM

AND NEITHER HAS HILLARY, DUMBASS

STILL WAITING FOR YOUR 'VETTING' ON HILLARY'S HEALTH CARE LIES

Posted by: Anonymous | June 2, 2008 6:17 PM

Hillary, you are making me do terrible things. My boss was going to fire me for campaigning for you using these blogs. I had to hit him over the head very hard so he would not get up, and I had to blame it on someone else. Don't make me continue! This is bad! Wait, new boss coming, gotta go. Oh help me make it stop.

Posted by: Milton Waddams | June 2, 2008 6:15 PM

erin and others-

Almost every Democratic candidate and a lot of senators have been trying for years to get universal health care. It's silly to claim that Obama 'poached' the idea. Kennedy did too, from Humphrey, I think.

Posted by: letsbepeaceful | June 2, 2008 6:15 PM

"Here's the deal: Hillary has spent the past 35 years committing herself to Universal Healthcare"

REALLY. IF SHE'S DONE SO MUCH, WHY DOES SHE LIE AND CLAIM SEN. KENNEDY'S HEALTH CARE LAW FOR CHILDREN AS SOMETHING 'SHE CREATED' WHEN SHE PLAYED NO ROLE IN IT WHATSOEVER-- IN FACT THE CLINTON WHITE HOUSE TRIED TO BLOCK IT.


Clinton role in health program disputed

Hillary Clinton, who has frequently described herself on the campaign trail as playing a pivotal role in forging a children's health insurance plan, had little to do with crafting the landmark legislation or ushering it through Congress, according to several lawmakers, staffers, and healthcare advocates involved in the issue.
In campaign speeches, Clinton describes the State Children's Health Insurance Program, or SCHIP, as an initiative "I helped to start." Addressing Iowa voters in November, Clinton said, "in 1997, I joined forces with members of Congress and we passed the State Children's Health Insurance Program." Clinton regularly cites the number of children in each state who are covered by the program, and mothers of sick children have appeared at Clinton campaign rallies to thank her.
But the Clinton White House, while supportive of the idea of expanding children's health, fought the first SCHIP effort, spearheaded by Senators Edward M. Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts, and Orrin G. Hatch, Republican of Utah, because of fears that it would derail a bigger budget bill. And several current and former lawmakers and staff said Hillary Clinton had no role in helping to write the congressional legislation, which grew out of a similar program approved in Massachusetts in 1996.
"The White House wasn't for it. We really roughed them up" in trying to get it approved over the Clinton administration's objections, Hatch said in an interview. "She may have done some advocacy [privately] over at the White House, but I'm not aware of it."
"I do like her," Hatch said of Hillary Clinton. "We all care about children. But does she deserve credit for SCHIP? No - Teddy does, but she doesn't."


YOU REALLY HAVE TO BE AN IDIOT TO BUY INTO HILLARY'S LIES.

I'D LOVE FOR ONE PERSON TO POINT TO ONE SPECIFIC AND VERIFIABLE THING THIS SELFISH WOMAN HAS EVER DONE FOR ANYONE OTHER THAN HERSELF.

SHE CALLS HER SUPPORTERS DUMB AND SHE'S NOT KIDDING!

Posted by: Anonymous | June 2, 2008 6:14 PM

"As I have been posting for a while now, all Clinton has to do is suspend her campaign."
Posted by: AsperGirl
--Right. This is what Huckabee did. It's done a great deal for his candidacy, hasn't it? It will do about the same for Clinton.

****
Huckabee didn't have more voters cast ballots for him than any other primary candidate in history.

Posted by: AsperGirl | June 2, 2008 6:10 PM

Here's the deal: Hillary has spent the past 35 years committing herself to Universal Healthcare, among other policies, only to have a man in a crisp white shirt come along, pirate her ideas and pawn them off as his own - then get the bid. I wasn't a feminist before, but I sure as hell am now. Had Hillary been treated respectfully by this country, and more importantly the media, for her dedication in public service, I may feel differently. Unfortunately, that is not the case.

Posted by: Erin | June 2, 2008 1:58 PM

*****

I agree. Also, I don't think that assumptions that Democrats are really feminist-friendly are necessarily well-grounded anymore.

I seriously question whether the Democratic Party is a great place for women anymore. My old assumptions about its priorities are clearly no longer really valid.

Nancy Pelosi has been embracing and welcoming anti-reproductive rights candidates for Democratic seats, under the female leadership in Congress there has been no mention or progress toward an equal rights amendment, there has been little to no mention of any female priorities and frankly the Republicans seem more receptive and respectful to female executives in business and politics.

With the advent and popularity of the Internet, access to abortions doesn't seem that difficult anymore. Anyone with a few hundred dollars and an Internet connection can find a way to get an abortion if necessary, and the Democrats haven't seemed to be very effective or creative in helping poor women overcoming the barriers of information and resources to access them. The main obstacles to reproductive freedom mainly seem to be financial and logistical now, but the Democrats were only focused on black letter law fights and they're compromising on anti-abortion lawmakers, too, now.

I just don't see the Democratic Party as a woman's issue party anymore. Especially since the Republican men tend to be so much more respectful and treat their women with more class and decency than the behavior that has been leveled at Clinton.

I've noticed that Anne Coulter is a more coherent, intelligent and clear, and she seems to have more cajones than the wimpy, self-satisfied, arrogant pencilneck-geek males who keep trying to tell me what is is going to be the future of the Democratic Party. They can have the Democratic Party. The future of the party is apparently dominated by old white male pundits like Chris Matthews who get man-crushes on black speakers and drags the party into the personality cult over the body of the more qualified senior senator in the contest. That's really intelligent and rational. Anne Coulter makes a lot more sense than that.

Posted by: AsperGirl | June 2, 2008 6:08 PM

aspergirl - please don't post the same thing over and over again - you posted this exact comment yesterday or the day before. Your facts are correct but your logic is flawed.

Clinton is a good candidate. But she promised to follow the rules in MI and FLA. She didn't, regardless of what she signed. And she's been divisive and a bit sly with some of her comments.

Posted by: letsbepeaceful | June 2, 2008 6:08 PM

"As I have been posting for a while now, all Clinton has to do is suspend her campaign."
Posted by: AsperGirl

Right. This is what Huckabee did. It's done a great deal for his candidacy, hasn't it? It will do about the same for Clinton.

And since you're so into VETTING candidates, VET THIS:

Clinton role in health program disputed

Hillary Clinton, who has frequently described herself on the campaign trail as playing a pivotal role in forging a children's health insurance plan, had little to do with crafting the landmark legislation or ushering it through Congress, according to several lawmakers, staffers, and healthcare advocates involved in the issue.

In campaign speeches, Clinton describes the State Children's Health Insurance Program, or SCHIP, as an initiative "I helped to start." Addressing Iowa voters in November, Clinton said, "in 1997, I joined forces with members of Congress and we passed the State Children's Health Insurance Program." Clinton regularly cites the number of children in each state who are covered by the program, and mothers of sick children have appeared at Clinton campaign rallies to thank her.

But the Clinton White House, while supportive of the idea of expanding children's health, fought the first SCHIP effort, spearheaded by Senators Edward M. Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts, and Orrin G. Hatch, Republican of Utah, because of fears that it would derail a bigger budget bill. And several current and former lawmakers and staff said Hillary Clinton had no role in helping to write the congressional legislation, which grew out of a similar program approved in Massachusetts in 1996.

"The White House wasn't for it. We really roughed them up" in trying to get it approved over the Clinton administration's objections, Hatch said in an interview. "She may have done some advocacy [privately] over at the White House, but I'm not aware of it."

"I do like her," Hatch said of Hillary Clinton. "We all care about children. But does she deserve credit for SCHIP? No - Teddy does, but she doesn't."

Posted by: Anonymous | June 2, 2008 6:07 PM

Phuk her

Posted by: Anonymous | June 2, 2008 6:06 PM

Hillary's pathological lies have no place in government. She should return the $109,000,000 South American cartel favor money and disappear with her dysfunctional family Billy and Monica. Hillary and Billy (HillBilly) be gone and never disgrace the White House again. Carpet bagging in New York the Wall Street super-capitalisic sellout state maybe where you belong. Though you may prefer the company of fellow Hillbillies and pig farmers in West Virginia and Kectucky.

Posted by: IBMWorst | June 2, 2008 6:05 PM

elmerg, at least you are honest, sort of. But please consider Mr. Obama. Look at it this way, he's half white.

Posted by: Chief Two Dogs | June 2, 2008 6:03 PM

I am a Republican pretending to be a Clinton supporter who would gladly vote for McCain rather than see the "black guy" win.

Posted by: elmerg | June 2, 2008 6:01 PM

Obama, do not pay her campaign debts. She deliberately accrued these huge debts. It is her fault and she should pay with her own money. I will give you money, but not if you turn it over to that woman.

Posted by: Jack Benny | June 2, 2008 5:58 PM

While we are all busy posting our grand tomes, AP is reporting in the NY Post that Obama and Clinton have been discussing a meeting of the two at her convenience.

The topic of discussion ranges from debt retirement, to help for Clinton's African American supporters who may face a back lash from their constituents for having supported her as well as an endorsement.

Posted by: svbreeder | June 2, 2008 5:58 PM

I can not understand how Hillary is NOT going to be the nominee when
the electoral map shows she would soundly defeat McCain
see electoral-vote.com

Posted by: LES | June 2, 2008 5:47 PM

BECAUSE THIS IS BASED ON POLLS FIVE MONTHS OUT FROM THE ELECTION

POLLS FIVE MONTHS AGO--right before Iowa-- SAID HILLARY CLINTON WOULD WIN THE DEMOCRATIC NOMINATION BY A LANDSLIDE.

That shows how accurate polls five months out are.

If anything, the verifiable trend with Hillary Clinton and polls is that--over the long-term--she loses a great deal of her initial theoretical support.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 2, 2008 5:57 PM

Like AL Gore I have fallen out of love with politics. If the Clinton's are as bad as the Obamas and supporters say.
Then Why are all of former Clinton
advisers on Obamas team????

And if it's not all about his Obama race, then why do obama supports keep saying "the world is watching what we do"

Why if it's not about Obamas race, then why do Obama supporters say "Just think what kind of a message it will Send to the world if we elect Obama"!

Why if you say "We want change" then why are all the same old people from Clinton Presidency, advising Obama? No change will be if all the old Clinton puppet masters will be running the show again!

What a load of BS this election has been about.
Foreign polices advisor from President Bill Clinton are advising Obama! No Change!

I have learned that this election was a crock!
That the Republicans party and the Democratic party are evil!!!

I am horrified by both party's. The equal evil acts of having no problem with stilling votes!

Mind blowing disillusionment!

This is the down fall of this country !

Posted by: Anonymous | June 2, 2008 5:55 PM

TROY, Mich. -- Barack Obama says he has asked Democratic presidential rival Hillary Rodham Clinton for a meeting on her terms "when the dust settles" from their race. "The sooner we can bring the party together the better, so we can focus on John McCain and taking back the White House," he told reporters.

++++++++++++++++
yeah, right.

She should let him go alone. In that way he can't blame her for being in the ticket.

Although he will blame her for his lose for her not being in the ticket.

Hillary will be the Yoko Ono of this elections.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 2, 2008 5:49 PM

I can not understand how Hillary is NOT going to be the nominee when
the electoral map shows she would soundly defeat McCain
see electoral-vote.com

Posted by: LES | June 2, 2008 5:47 PM

Thank you John.

http://www.politicalcortex.com/story/2008/6/2/14830/78812

Posted by: John

Great post and great art
+++++++++++++++

how come i get nothing?

Posted by: Anonymous | June 2, 2008 5:45 PM

Here's the deal: Hillary has spent the past 35 years committing herself to Universal Healthcare, among other policies, only to have a man in a crisp white shirt come along, pirate her ideas and pawn them off as his own - then get the bid. I wasn't a feminist before, but I sure as hell am now. Had Hillary been treated respectfully by this country, and more importantly the media, for her dedication in public service, I may feel differently. Unfortunately, that is not the case.

Posted by: Erin | June 2, 2008 1:58 PM
_____________________________

Hate to tell you, but Universal Health Care as a Dem issue goes back to Lyndon Johnson and Hubert Humphrey. And every Dem supported UHC this campaign. What, because Hillary is associated with the issue, they should oppose it?

UHC is not why Obama is going to win. Antipathy towards the Clintons, their desire to govern from the Democratic right contrary to the wishes of the rank and file, and an incredible mismanagement of every advantage they had coming into the primaries that generally finds hubris at the core, is why.

PS In researching this, I went to the wikipedia page for Hubert Humphrey. Does this blast from the past sound familiar? "... Humphrey did win some primaries, including those in Ohio, Indiana and Pennsylvania, but was defeated by Senator McGovern in several others, including the crucial California primary. Humphrey also was out-organized by McGovern in caucus states and was trailing in delegates at the 1972 Democratic National Convention in Miami Beach, Florida. His hopes rested on challenges to the credentials of some of the McGovern delegates. For example, the Humphrey forces argued that the winner-take-all rule for the California primary violated procedural reforms intended to produce a better reflection of the popular vote, the reason that the Illinois delegation was bounced. The effort failed, as several votes on delegate credentials went McGovern's way, guaranteeing his victory." The more things change ...

Posted by: gbooksdc | June 2, 2008 5:45 PM

There is not necessarily an endgame.

As I have been posting for a while now, all Clinton has to do is suspend her campaign and throw her support behind other Democrats during the Summer. She can campaign with Obama, down-ticket Democrats and help raise money to retire her campaign debt and add to the party coffers.

During the Summer, if Obama's numbers continue to collapse, and if there's a continued drip of unvetted-Obama negatives, Clinton can help support and defend him from the Republicans. Having her around to distract and counterattack them would help Obama because he's kind of a clueless idiot who has let the press do his fighting and talking for him, which may not work against conservatives.

If, as Obama has Republican fire trained on him and as he finally faces some real vetting, his numbers collapse and he becomes unviable as a candidate by the time the convention comes around, Clinton can be the default go-to-candidate. All she would need is enough super-delegates to add to her own pledged delegates won.

Because Obama's an unvetted, weak candidate with falling popularity and continued unvetted problems dripping out, this gives the Democrats a backup candidate.

If Clinton doesn't suspend and "drops out", then the Democrats could pick anyone without regard for her base and support. This way she keeps her claim viable.

Posted by: AsperGirl | June 2, 2008 5:43 PM

Hey AsperGirl, your numbers don't matter. The team that scores more points in the second half doesn't win the basketball game; it's the team that scored more for the whole game.

Spin all you want: Obama wins the nomination.

Posted by: Laughing at Billarites | June 2, 2008 5:39 PM

Thank you John.

http://www.politicalcortex.com/story/2008/6/2/14830/78812

Posted by: John

Great post and great article!!!

Exactly right and my mood to the core. Although, I will be supporting Democratic Candidates for the House and Senate in the fall.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 2, 2008 5:38 PM

If She is convinced She is the best among Candidates BHO and MC for our Country , she should run as an Independent and move the Country to the Center.

Posted by: Zien106 | June 2, 2008 5:29 PM

+++++++++++++++

I hope she does.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 2, 2008 5:37 PM

Michigan illegitimate?

Well the Dems won't need my vote then.

I'll give it to Nader.

Posted by: Comment | June 2, 2008 5:36 PM

If Obama is the nominee he will NEED Hillary's support, so don't get her mad. LOL

Posted by: genie | June 2, 2008 1:44 PM
____________________________________________

I have yet to read a single post from a Clinton supporter saying they'll support Obama if Hillary loses and she back him. Not one. But I've read countless ones that say they'll vote for McCain, or they will write in Hillary. Either way, Hillary's desires for Obama seem to have little influence on her "followers".

Posted by: gbooksdc | June 2, 2008 5:36 PM

I will not support Obama in the fall.

Sorry but he is just NOT QUALIFIED.

Lipstick on a pig still leaves you with a pig.

As for Hillary, as with every other phrase in her life, she will be fine.

Her interest is in government policy and bettering the lives of Americans and by extension the world.

She will be fine whatever happens.

Posted by: Truth Teller | June 2, 2008 5:32 PM

"He is certainly a weaker candidate than he was three months ago, thanks to the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr., his infamous "bitter" comments and losses in Pennsylvania, West Virginia and Kentucky that raised questions about his ability to attract working class votes. But is she the stronger candidate for the general election, as she has argued in this closing stretch of the nominating battle? By her measuring sticks, she makes a powerful case, outlined in a mailing to superdelegates last week."

This is an easy question to answer. If you don't believe the number of his wins going down, and the number of Clinton wins going up, look at the MARGINS.

I made a plot of the progression of primary vote results that shows, as a function of date, the percent margins by which Clinton and Obama either won or lost his or her share of the vote.

It shows that Obama peaked on Feb. 12, and since that time, the margins by which he has been winning has been on a steady downtrend (which means that the margins by which Clinton has been losing have been shrinking). Meanwhile, the margins by which Clinton has been winning has been on an uptrend (which means that the margins by which Obama has been losing have been growing, too).

What this means is that where Obama has been winning, he's been winning by less and where Clinton has been losing, she's been losing by less. And where Clinton has been winning, she's been winning by more, and where Obama's been losing, he's been losing by more.

Not only has been Obama been losing more states and winning only in the minority of states dominated by his narrow base, as time goes on the margins of his wins are shrinking while Clintons analogous margins are growing.

This has been a steady trend SINCE FEB 12. There aren't just transformations indicating shifts nailed to specific events. What the charts show is that he's becoming unpopular as a steady function of something not particularly event-driven.

Posted by: AsperGirl | June 2, 2008 5:32 PM

Should read "He is certainly a weaker candidate than he was three months ago, thanks to the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr., his infamous "bitter" comments and losses in Pennsylvania, West Virginia and Kentucky that raised questions about his ability to attract working class _white_ votes."

Let's call a spade a spade, Dan. And BTW, there is little indication that Obama has problems getting working class white male votes outside of Appalachia.

And referring to Obama's supporters -- the majority of the party, BTW -- as "Obamaland" is both trite and patronizing in the extreme. As for the black vote, you cannot ride it to victory in election after election, both national and local, and then try to marginalize it when it suits you. Hillary has achieved what no Republican in fifty years has been able to do -- force black Dems to look at the candidate and not simply the party. Candidates in the future can choose between blacks and the whites that hate them, but they can't get both.

Posted by: gbooksdc | June 2, 2008 5:32 PM

This Democratic primary process has been the perfect storm of a lame media collusion with out of touch, somewhat elitist voters who have literally pushed an idealist candidate upon the less than idyllic electorate. Unfortunately, true momentum isn't measured by stadium crowd attendance and surely not by such a divided group of voters.
http://www.politicalcortex.com/story/2008/6/2/14830/78812

Posted by: John | June 2, 2008 5:31 PM

No way HRC would be the Nominee of the Democratic Party.
The Chairman and Elderly Leaders of the Democratic Party chose BHO by the beginning of the Primary Season since they want to forward their Liberal Agenda.
If She is convinced She is the best among Candidates BHO and MC for our Country , she should run as an Independent and move the Country to the Center.

Posted by: Zien106 | June 2, 2008 5:29 PM

"What Clinton's argument about being the stronger general election candidate ignores is what her nomination would do to the Democratic Party. A Clinton nomination at this point would tear the party apart. The anger that was expressed at Saturday's DNC rules committee meeting by supporters of Clinton would be dwarfed by the backlash against her from Obamaland if, somehow, he were not the nominee."

++++++++++++++++
So,in face of the truth we are supposed to be intimidated by violence.

What kind of 'dwarfing' "backlash" are we talking about here?

Is that the reason we should vote for Husssain? Otherwise he and his goons will come after us?

That kind of not-so-veiled threats from the radical left is what have kept them being the losers they have always being. That's why America don't trust them nor want them.

But they will never learn their lesson.

God Save America from Hussain and his goons.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 2, 2008 5:22 PM

The DNC asked for unity, and honest politics. They did, by allowing Obama to run it. How do I know this, because a couple of ladies said Obama wishes this..Obama has asked for that..Strange how a man who took his name off of the ballot ends up with 4 of Hillary's delegates. Now They have called this woman everything in the book. They will expect her to help win the nomination in November by campaigning for Obama because he can't carry it by himself and they already know this...What is in it for her. Not a darn thing..I and many of my friends will not be voting this November for either party. I am not going to be blamed for what happens to our country because they voted for someone inexperienced, or another Bush. This woman Hillary Clinton only wanted what is best for our country no matter what you call her..or what you think. One thing did matter and that is getting our country back on track....You Obama people can't see that the cards are stacked already against Obama because of his past...CNN was asked last week not to come out with a report about Obama...He asked them himself not to report it...They said this on CNN..He said it was old news...smiling...this was when he was running for State Senator for
ILL...The Republicans will slam him up against the barn door and he will wonder what happened to him before he gets out of the barn....Hillary, she will probably campaign for him...But no one
will get my vote...Am I bitter..NO...am I mad because a Black man has won..NO..I am black..It is because he does not have the experience to run this country and has to many ties to the Chicago Politics....I have read many things on here today...
and you must remember this, Politics is dirty..nothing any dirtier....Mshill

Posted by: mshill | June 2, 2008 5:19 PM

Obama and MSNBC are the best.

Posted by: BLUTO | June 2, 2008 5:17 PM

Hillary seems to be deep in denial at the moment. After she finally comes back to reality she will have to decide what to do next. The post of VP is probably not in the cards because she carries Bill in her baggage. A ménage à trois with the two Clintons would be suicidal for Obama.

Posted by: Bodo | June 2, 2008 5:13 PM

Aussie 2020....I have come to the conclusion that either you have absolutely NO brains, a bitter old woman, or can't put down the crack pipe! ROTFLMAO!!

Posted by: Huh? | June 2, 2008 5:07 PM

Hillary ent to all this trouble for what? I want her to fight in the convention for what she believes in.

Posted by: Lizard2 | June 2, 2008 5:04 PM

Hillary ent to all this trouble for what? I want her to fight in the convention for what she believes in.

Posted by: Lizard2 | June 2, 2008 5:04 PM

Democrats should read prior to nominating a candidate as inexperienced and unprepared as Barack. It lends much credence to Hillary's argument that she should be the party nominee.

Posted by: bjbprice | June 2, 2008 4:35 PM

OK, so let's elect a FIRST LADY instead.
IS LAURA BUSH FREE? HOW ABOUT NANCY REAGAN?

BECAUSE Hillary is NOT more experienced. Not in terms of having made a difference in the lives of Americans and not in terms of ELECTIVE EXPERIENCE. Older. YES. More experienced. NO.

OBAMA HAS MORE ELECTIVE EXPERIENCE.

Just because some of that is at the State level, does not make it irrelevant.

And if you are talking about the US Senate, I haven't seen anyone point to a single true accomplishment of Senator Hillary Clinton's. Obama meanwhile has passed bills to collect loose nukes, help veterans and affect campaign finance reform.

Not to mention the fact that SHE VOTED FOR AND SUPPORTED THE WAR until public opinion polls turned and she changed her mind. WHAT A COINCIDENCE. WHAT A LEADER. NOT!!!!

Posted by: | June 2, 2008 4:46 PM

I agree. If faux experience counts as actual experience, I'd rather vote for Laura Bush or Nancy Reagan. At least they don't claim credit for laws and policies that they had absolutely NO ROLE in.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 2, 2008 5:02 PM

aussie 2020-

I'm from Jackson, Michigan. It's not the Jackson STATE prison - it's the Michigan State Prison. As much as our fine city would like its own statehood, I don't foresee it happening in the near future. LOL

Posted by: iris jones | June 2, 2008 4:54 PM

aussie 2020 THIS IS A TROLL. IGNORE THE TROLL. DON'T FEED THE TROLL. YOU'LL JUST GET THE EXACT SAME SPAM POST POSTED OVER AGAIN. AND OVER, AND OVER AND OVER....

Posted by: Anonymous | June 2, 2008 4:59 PM

aussie 2020-

I'm from Jackson, Michigan. It's not the Jackson STATE prison - it's the Michigan State Prison. As much as our fine city would like its own statehood, I don't foresee it happening in the near future. LOL

Posted by: iris jones | June 2, 2008 4:54 PM

Democrats should read prior to nominating a candidate as inexperienced and unprepared as Barack. It lends much credence to Hillary's argument that she should be the party nominee.

Posted by: bjbprice | June 2, 2008 4:35 PM

OK, so let's elect a FIRST LADY instead.
IS LAURA BUSH FREE? HOW ABOUT NANCY REAGAN?

BECAUSE Hillary is NOT more experienced. Not in terms of having made a difference in the lives of Americans and not in terms of ELECTIVE EXPERIENCE. Older. YES. More experienced. NO.

OBAMA HAS MORE ELECTIVE EXPERIENCE.

Just because some of that is at the State level, does not make it irrelevant.

And if you are talking about the US Senate, I haven't seen anyone point to a single true accomplishment of Senator Hillary Clinton's. Obama meanwhile has passed bills to collect loose nukes, help veterans and affect campaign finance reform.

Not to mention the fact that SHE VOTED FOR AND SUPPORTED THE WAR until public opinion polls turned and she changed her mind. WHAT A COINCIDENCE. WHAT A LEADER. NOT!!!!

Posted by: Anonymous | June 2, 2008 4:46 PM

If Obama pays off her campaign debt or selects hillary for VP, I will vote for Mcain. Period.I hope everyone will also. She is a disgrace.

Posted by: kazabud | June 2, 2008 4:40 PM


Posted by: abqcleve | June 2, 2008 4:12 PM

I am a die hard Clintonista who recognized writing on the wall .....
That said, I want to add that since this campaign began I have left the democratic party and stopped watching MSNBC and will never watch MSNBC again nor will I every buy a product from their advertisers.....

I had been a faithful democrat voting faithfylly for 40 years and will one more time vote against the other party (the only time I really voted for my party and not against someone was "Bill Clinton" and I was not dissappointed).


Congratulations to Obama supporters.

Now, he better win.

Posted by: lucci8
----
Thank you for your support. I hope he wins too
...please don't leave the party though. It was a wonderful primary season and an amazing number of voters expressed their wishes. It split half and half for two candidates who both have imperfections and
strengths! Think about it-WOW! Let's beat the republicans, get out of Iraq, work on health care, energy, and the economy. Perhaps Clinton would head Health and Human Services - it would be a really good fit for her.

all the best

Posted by: letsbepeaceful | June 2, 2008 4:40 PM

Aussie 2020 said:
Most of Hillary Supporters are American first and Democrat second. They will, and should choose the best qualified candidate, independent of political party
___________________________________________
So you are going to vote for someone that has the OPPOSITE stance on most of HRC's poliicies? Why is that voting for the good of America?
Experience is nothing because the Prseident GUIDES policies. He cannot and do this alone which is why he/she has a cabinet and CONGRESS. So, you really think McSame is good for America. Think again when you are pumping $4 a gallon gas in your car this week. Vote for McCain and it will be $6 a gallon.

Posted by: phorse | June 2, 2008 4:39 PM

"Funny, all I see from Obama supporters is hate speech against Hillary. They see side with Obama out of hatred for Clinton.Interesting way to make a choice...:"

Actually, I pegged Obama as the next President when I saw him on Meet the Press the day after he won his Senate seat. I had no problem with Clinton until the last few months...now I think she is one of the worse sub-humans to ever crawl out of that sewer we call Washington.

So keep up the stereotyping, buddy. Reality is calling...it wants you to come back.

Posted by: nic | June 2, 2008 4:39 PM

And I have to post this again, b/c everyone should be aware that when Clinton claims to have given health care to millions of children it is actually Ted Kennedy's law that she had no role in whatsoever. She's made commercials about how she 'created' this program and they are utter and total LIES.

As a New Yorker, I'd love to see her actually MAKE A DIFFERENCE for American citizens, but I haven't seen that. Sorry.
-------------------------------------------
Clinton role in health program disputed

Hillary Clinton, who has frequently described herself on the campaign trail as playing a pivotal role in forging a children's health insurance plan, had little to do with crafting the landmark legislation or ushering it through Congress, according to several lawmakers, staffers, and healthcare advocates involved in the issue.

In campaign speeches, Clinton describes the State Children's Health Insurance Program, or SCHIP, as an initiative "I helped to start." Addressing Iowa voters in November, Clinton said, "in 1997, I joined forces with members of Congress and we passed the State Children's Health Insurance Program." Clinton regularly cites the number of children in each state who are covered by the program, and mothers of sick children have appeared at Clinton campaign rallies to thank her.

But the Clinton White House, while supportive of the idea of expanding children's health, fought the first SCHIP effort, spearheaded by Senators Edward M. Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts, and Orrin G. Hatch, Republican of Utah, because of fears that it would derail a bigger budget bill. And several current and former lawmakers and staff said Hillary Clinton had no role in helping to write the congressional legislation, which grew out of a similar program approved in Massachusetts in 1996.

"The White House wasn't for it. We really roughed them up" in trying to get it approved over the Clinton administration's objections, Hatch said in an interview. "She may have done some advocacy [privately] over at the White House, but I'm not aware of it."

"I do like her," Hatch said of Hillary Clinton. "We all care about children. But does she deserve credit for SCHIP? No - Teddy does, but she doesn't."

Posted by: Anonymous | June 2, 2008 4:35 PM

Here's an article done by a third party that all superdelegates (and Democrats) should read prior to nominating a candidate as inexperienced and unprepared as Barack: http://www.talkleft.com/story/2008/5/27/92144/7994
It lends much credence to Hillary's argument that she should be the party nominee.

Posted by: bjbprice | June 2, 2008 4:35 PM

"downside of this is that it probably fractures the democratic vote and mccain wins, although i just have a hard time believing that mccain wins in any scenario."

Wow...finally someone more delusional than Hillary herself. Do you think a single Obama supporter (who are the majority of voting democrats) would vote for Hillary in that scenario? To the rational 80% of our party, Clinton (and her cult) have revealed themselves to be horrendous human beings over the last few months.

Posted by: nic | June 2, 2008 4:33 PM

I've been reading these comments on Obama v. Clinton for months now and have come to the conclusion that we as a Democratic party are not the cohesive thing that I had thought and hoped. The Obama Clinton back and forth has been worse than the Republican Democratic back and forth.

If Democracts had gone after Bush, like we have gone after each other, the country would be a better place. The passion and anger is incredible. I don't hear either side talk about the actual issues.

I'm saddened by the whole affair. Originally I was an Edwards guy, then after that was undecided for a long time, then went over to Obama. Now I feel like supporting Obama, by definition, makes me a bad person, unamerican, tool of the liberal press. Amazing. If I had ended up supporting Clinton, I would have been racist etc.

Its all quite sad

Posted by: Intrepid | June 2, 2008 4:31 PM

The Obamacrats just keep on going with low kicks at Clinton and calling her backers everything under the sun. But when the mighty Obama gets the nod, their going to say "oh we didn't mean it, it was just the primary, come on join us". And then stand there looking awfully silly when it doesn't happen.

Posted by: ZarDotZ | June 2, 2008 4:30 PM

This IS the dealbreaker with Sen. Clinton. I just posted about Ted Kennedy's 35 years of genuine experience fighting for rights for Americans--every day, every week, week in and week out for the 35 years he has served in the Senate.

Hillary's 35 years of 'experience' actually includes, however, over 15 years as a CORPORATE LAWYER where she served on the board of Wal-Mart which is famously equatable with unfair treatment of workers.

Eight years of being first lady is also-- while an interesting experience--not relevant or--in any way equatable--with executive experience.

I am a woman who sees people just as people--not through gender glasses. And I am ticked that Senator Clinton has been allowed to get away with claiming 35 years of public service experience when Senator Kennedy has actually served the public for 35 years.

Sen. Kennedy's staff recently came up with 50 pages of single spaced HIGHLIGHTS of his legislative accomplishments.

In Senator Clinton's 35 years of 'experience' can anyone cite one single concrete, legislative thing she has done? That has made a CONCRETE difference in the lives of Americans. Because I can't. And I won't lie to cover someone just because she also happens to be female.

-------------------------------------------

I correct MYSELF. Senator Kennedy has served in the Senate for 45+ years. Hope his surgery goes well.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 2, 2008 4:30 PM

It is possible that Hillary has her own numbers and they say she wins. Perhaps the super delegates are lined up for her. Who knows what deals they cut. But that is very possible and would explain her actions perfectly. It would also explain the urgency of the Obama camp to get her out. They can not afford a real vote, is what their actions shout.

Posted by: Gary E. Masters | June 2, 2008 4:14 PM

Whether it's because of chauvinism or Reaganism (as in the "Reagan Doctrine"), Obama clearly has been pulling his punches against Clinton. She's given him every opportunity to slam her and he declines every time. Against McCain, however, Obama has shown a very encouraging tendency to jump on everything that guy says. We haven't had a Democrat like that in ages and I for one am really looking forward to it. Clinton, please ride off into the sunset so we can all see the real Obama, the Obama who can flatten the neo-cons and their nonsense.

Posted by: abqcleve | June 2, 2008 4:12 PM

I am a die hard Clintonista who recognized writing on the wall when I see it and am very happy for all the people who voted for Obama. It is nice to win.

That said, I want to add that since this campaign began I have left the democratic party and stopped watching MSNBC and will never watch MSNBC again nor will I every buy a product from their advertisers.

I have learned alot about "news" reporting and how much of it is now corporate and how it cannot be trusted.

I had been a faithful democrat voting faithfylly for 40 years and will one more time vote against the other party (the only time I really voted for my party and not against someone was "Bill Clinton" and I was not dissappointed).


Congratulations to Obama supporters.

Now, he better win.

Posted by: lucci8 | June 2, 2008 4:12 PM

We have to change the way things are done in Washington. This includes but not limited to having tax policy that stimulates the economy not the wealth of the top one per cent. Our policy should be health care available to those who want it and penalties to those who use it without paying. Tough talk but listening to our enemies. Fighting wars that are in the national interest and not in the national pride. Whenever possible, make laws that are bipartisan even if you could ram it through without Republicans. Lobbyist must be forbidden from write legislation and the Democrats should review major bills that were written in the past by lobbyists to look for modification. The Justice Department should be concerned with justice and the FDA with health and safety. Pleasing the politicians and the pharmaceutical industry should be secondary concerns.

It is time for government to do its job, not the job of the big contributors. No ideology, just good ideas.

Posted by: Gator-ron | June 2, 2008 4:12 PM

Jaye:

You're not a Democrat if you spitefully vote for four more years of Geoge Bush's reckless policies in Irag and Afghanistan, the economy, and civil liberties. You'll only be a person who was fooled into voting for a Bush 3rd term, not a person voting "for the good of this country".

Posted by: brad | June 2, 2008 4:00 PM

I am a Democrat who will cross-over to vote for McCain for the good of this country.

Posted by: Jaye | June 2, 2008 3:53 PM
=======================================

For the good of this country? Someone who espouses the same failed policies of the supreme failure Bush Administration? You are the worst type of hypocrit. You are voting out of emotion only...you are most likely part of the reason why this country had to endure eight years of a moron because people voted based on emotion (Gay Marriage, Abortion) instead of their economics. You are no hero sir.

Posted by: David Van Hausen | June 2, 2008 3:59 PM

I am a Democrat who will cross-over to vote for McCain for the good of this country.

Posted by: Jaye | June 2, 2008 3:53 PM

Democratic party bosses

bosses?
ROTFLMAO!!!

Posted by: Anonymous | June 2, 2008 3:51 PM

This election will not decided November 4th. It was decided when John Edwards withdrew from campaigning. At that moment, I an African American knew that the Republican nominee would win the White House. I say this for one reason: Hillary and Barack would NEVER be elected in this country in 2008. There was not a presumptive Republican nominee when the field narrowed to Clinton & Obama; there was in my view the clarity that gut and instinct provides that the eventual GOP nominee will be sworn into office in 2009.

I voted for Obama (and I've never voted for a Democrat for any statewide or federal office since I was able to vote in 1988). I really don't have any animosity towards Sen Obama but even if I had, it would pale in comparison to what myself and soooo many Americans have towards Sen. Clinton.

Both are un-electable. I tell my friends, family, co-workers and anyone else who will listen to disregard every poll that says the D's have this huge advantage (and they do).

Without being able to define it or name it, this country is not ready for a President Obama (I'd be willing to go along for that) and unwilling to put another President Clinton back in the oval office.

Posted by: JerseyWiz3 | June 2, 2008 3:50 PM

Aussie2020, You said
"They will, and should choose the best qualified candidate, independent of political party."

This is the dumbest comment I have ever read. Go crawl in a hole and stay there, I personally think you should just write in Hillarys name.

Posted by: Chris | June 2, 2008 3:46 PM

Aussie2020,

I am with you 100%. We are American first and partisan second. After seeing what the Democratic party bosses did on Saturday, robbing votes and substituting their judgment for the people's choice, I have no doubt the party has left many of us.

Posted by: jsindc | June 2, 2008 3:46 PM

To all of you engaging in the game of the Seven Degrees of Barack Obama-

Yada, yada, Obama bad friends, yada yada. Obama, Bill Ayers, yada yada, Rev. Wright, yada yada, Rezko yada, yada., Rev. Pfegler, boo, yada,yada

You want innuendo? A little guilt by association? How about this?

On August 11, 1999, Clinton commuted the sentences of 16 members of FALN, a violent Puerto Rican nationalist group that set off 120 bombs in the United States mostly in New York City and Chicago. I barely missed being killed in the 1975 Christmas Eve bombing at LaGuardia Airport, too bad a friend of mine didn't. This one is pegged to FALN.. Hillary just won Puerto Rico. Dumb connection? Yes, of course.

Oooh, and speaking of being connected to criminals, how about Mark Rich and his pardon? Or Linda Sue Evans and Susan Rosenberg, Weather Underground members? Or Almon Braswell, gave $200K to Hillary's brother, then got pardoned by Bill. Lots more. Hmmmmm. Got the point? Hillary has plenty of baggage too. All you do is change the subject..

Watch out fellow Dems, the swiftboats are coming, the swiftboats are coming!

Posted by: Neo1153 | June 2, 2008 3:45 PM

I was Hillary supporter before she started acting like a crazy cat lady...Hope the rest of you see the light and support Obama. McCain disgusts me as he should alot of other people afer his speech to AIPAC.

Posted by: Ryan | June 2, 2008 3:45 PM

Posted by: Aussie2020 | June 2, 2008 3:35 PM

This is an idiot troll who keeps spamming the same post over and over.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 2, 2008 3:40 PM

Other than becoming President, what exactly is Hillary's cause?

Posted by: Dan | June 2, 2008 3:38 PM

For all those supposed unbiased democrats and Obama worshippers. Most of Hillary Supporters are American first and Democrat second. They will, and should choose the best qualified candidate, independent of political party. That is the reason they will vote overwhelming for McCain. He served his country in Vietnam. He is a highly decorated War Veteran who has served his country during war time. Who in his right mind would and could say that Obama is more qualifed to lead America at this time over McCain. Certainly now Hillary or any Democrat who had a heart, soul and brain. Only Obama worshipper think so. And they will be very surprised when Obama loses big time to an American War Hero, McCain. It has ONLY to do with Qualifications to Lead, to be Commander in Chief of our Military during the War on Terror. The End Game for Iraq. McCain experienced the End Game in Vietnam. If McCain is not qualified to determine the best strategy on how to transfer power to and train the Iraqi military and police, then noone in the USA is. So for those Obama worshipper, dream on. You are trashing not only the Democratic party, but you are trashing the USA with your rhetoric and by even thinking that Obama is more qualified to be the Commmander in Chief of the USA Military than McCain, a highly decorated Vietnam Veteran.

McCain has my vote. A party which gives delegates to a candidate who voluntarily took his name off the ballot and then colluded with John Edwards, Howard Dean and Carl Leven to STEAL the votes and delegates which were cast and allocated for Hillary is not a candidate and party I can vote for!! No way Obama, Howard Dean, John Edwards, Carl Levin, DNC Insiders and Super Delegates. And if Hillary supports Obama's nomination it will be the biggest mistake in her life, and the end of her political career, along with Obama, Howard Dean, John Edwards and Carl Levin. They signed the end of their political careers by their miscarriage of democracy by allocating Obama the delegates HE DID NOT EARN in Michigan. They have made a mockery of the Voters in Michigan. The have made not only Michigan, but the USA, the laughing stock of every Democracy in the World. To allocate delegates to a candidate who took his name off the ballot, along with John Edwards, and to take away delegates which Hillary won though the voters of Michigan is a CRIME against all democracies in the WORLD. Only in the USA would they get away with such a crime against Democracy and the voters.
Hillary Stay the course and fight for the voters and citizens in Michigan. You have millions of Americans, Dane, Finns, Swedes, Germans, Australians, Kiwis, Brits, French, Japanese, ... who all support you as the legitimate Candidate for the USA President. Obama is guilty of robbery, voter fraud, collusion and raketeering, along with Carl Levin, John Edwards and John Edwards.

Posted by: Aussie2020 | June 2, 2008 3:35 PM

Thank you Slider for saying what many people feel. Listening to Hillary and her supporters you would think the only working class people live around Appalachia, are uneducated and white. Apparently Sen. Obama won all his victories from elites living off trust funds or unemployed people if you listen to them. What the media needs to call her on is that she won the support of people who are anti any Black candidate, and rather than claiming that as a badge of honor she should renounce her support among racists who don't so much like her but hate him. the fact that she baited that racism when I don't believe she is racist speaks volumes about her integrity.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 2, 2008 3:35 PM

"If Obama cared about America he would accept that Hillary has beat him in the popular vote and has a much better chance at beating McCain."

A much better chance based on what--polls?

Polls five months ago--right before Iowa-- said Hillary Clinton would win the Democratic Nomination in a landslide. That shows how accurate polls five months out are.

If anything, the verifiable trend with Hillary Clinton and polls is that--over the long-term--she loses a great deal of initial theoretical (in terms of the poll) support.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 2, 2008 3:34 PM


Senator Clinton's endgame is the endgame. Obama will lose a general election to McCain. Even I wouldn't vote for him. No Republican is going to. The guarantors of that outcome, above all others, have been Obama's supporters themselves. The majority will not let the inmates run the asylum, delude yourselves as you will.

Posted by: Chicago1 | June 2, 2008 3:32 PM

what a bunch of nasty so called Democrats...Not one of you really understand your party. Grow up!!!!!!!

Posted by: jane | June 2, 2008 3:30 PM

Hillary will not concede. She also will not accept (and should not be offered) the VP slot. This is her ONE shot at the whitehouse. She may actually run as an Independent if necessary. Her actions make this very clear. It is all her. I hope she has burned many bridges during this failed attempt to take the throne and it costs her the NY Senate seat. the best outcome of this mess would be the destruction of Hillary's political career. She did it to herself.

Posted by: Jimbo | June 2, 2008 3:27 PM

She comes back in 3 years and is made a Supreme Court Justice.

Posted by: Roofelstoon
*************************

She would make a great Supreme court justice

Posted by: Anonymous | June 2, 2008 3:27 PM

aussie2020....check your facts mate. The Clintons belong in jail. You must be drunk to not accept that the Clintons have been involved in more questionable activity than any other President in history.

The first First Lady ever to testify in front of a Grand Jury. She's my hero.

Posted by: twotraps | June 2, 2008 3:25 PM

Aussie2020 - I'm confused. Exactly what part of the penal code should one be charged for Crimes Against Democracy. And just to take the foolish suggestion a bit further, you suggest putting all superdelegates in prison. That, of course, includes both Bill AND Hillary Clinton.

BB

Posted by: Fairlington Blade | June 2, 2008 3:25 PM

Hillary says she's suspending her campaign, but begins to make-nice with Obama.

At the convention, she gives a good speech saying that the Clintons will campaign HARD for the ticket.

Obama makes her the Ambassador to the Court of St James (getting her [and more importantly Bill] out of the country).

She comes back in 3 years and is made a Supreme Court Justice.

Posted by: Roofelstoon | June 2, 2008 3:15 PM

another end game option for Clinton: run as an independent, with a very strong VP candidate. this would test the hypothesis of her appeal in the general vs obama and mccain. downside of this is that it probably fractures the democratic vote and mccain wins, although i just have a hard time believing that mccain wins in any scenario.

if you shut off the noise from the media and extreme positions on all sides, what you really have with the dem primary race right now is an extremely close race. yes, obama is ahead in delegates and popular votes, but the margin is incredibly slim. some would have you believe that he is running away with the nomination, when is simply is not. clinton has a similar level of support as obama, but the obama camp did a much better job of understanding and leveraging the primary and caucus system to their advantage.

clinton vs obama vs mccain would be the only clean way of determining who should be president.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 2, 2008 3:14 PM

Maybe, BUT She is the one who got tortured and kicked around when she was first lady for fighting for this cause. WAY before there was a Senator Obama. Don't disregard this fact. She was the first First Lady in a long time (since Eleanor Roosevelt) who tried to do SOMETHING for the country.
Posted by: genie

Geinie, I don't disregard this fact but the truth is her health care attempt was botched so badly because she refused to work with even Senate DEMOCRATS in a collaborative fashion.

Obviously there was a great deal of support for health care issues in Congress in the '90s as that is when Ted Kennedy passed a number of his health care laws.

But when she took health care on, she conducted everything in secrecy and worked very poorly with others. As a woman who considers herself a feminist, I understand that you want to support a female candidate. But you are not looking carefully and objectively at the facts and the very negative character traits this person has clearly shown, woman or not.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 2, 2008 3:14 PM

If Obama had any brains and cared about America he would accept that Hillary has beat him in the popular vote and has a much better chance at beating McCain. If the DNC Insiders and Super Delegates choose Obama over Hillary and then lose (which they will with a very high probability), then Obama, John Edwards, Carl Levin, Howard Dean, and All DNC Insiders and Super Delegates who chose Obama over the more qualified and more experienced Hillary R. Clinton should all offer their Letters of Resignation, and step down.

They should put their money and political careers on the line. If they are unwilling to do so, then they will expose themselves to be what a lot of the People in the World see them to be, a bunch of opportunists who are grabbing for as much money and power as they can get. Do we really want such people in Washington, Springfield, ...? I for one think not. If you agree, then VOTE THEM all out of office in November.

We really need to Purge the Democratic party of the DNC Insiders, Howard Dean, Carl Levin, John Edwards, Obama and the Super Delegates. They ALL MUST Go, for the good of the USA and Democracy in the USA.

To award delegates to Obama in Michigan when he and John Edward both took their names off the ballot is collusion, fraud and raketeering by the two of them, with DNC Insiders Carl Levin and Howard Dean. It was all planned from the start.

The FBI should arrest Howard Dean, Carl Levin, John Edwards and Obama. They are guilty of Crimes against Democracy. Jackson State Prison is where the 4 criminals belong. Make them testify at a special session of Congress. Their dirty behind closed door deals is appalling. To award any delegates from Michigan to Obama is absurd and criminal.
Arrest the Criminal when he is now in Michigan, along with Carl Levin, John Edwards and Howard Dean. If they have not colluded in their actions, then noone has. Bring charges against him now that he has finally stepped foot in Michigan. He took his name off the ballot, refused to campaign and then colluded with Carl Levin and Howard Dean to get delegates from Michigan, even delegates who represented voters who voted for Hillary. If this is not a Crime, what is. They all belong in Jackson State Prison, not in Springfield or Washington. Jackson State Prison is where they belong. If you agree, then call your congressmen and congresswomen and tell them to call a special session of Congress before it is too late. We do not want any felons in Lansing, Springfield and Washington. So like the Insider trading by Martha Stewart, and drug use by Marion Jones, ... collusion to steal the delegates from Hillary is a felony and should be prosecuted. They, Obama, John Edwards, Howard Dean and Carl Levin all need to be indicted, then given a fair trial in FEDERAL Court. If found guilty of felonies, they should lose their current political positions and even their right to vote, as has been the case in Florida. These are the changes that the AMERICAN PEOPLE want. A purge of the corrupt DNC Insiders from the Democratic Party.

Posted by: Aussie2020 | June 2, 2008 3:14 PM

I find it amusing how many commenters in this thread feel it necessary to preface or qualify their remarks with "I am a man" or "I am a woman."

Has identity politics become so entrenched that we can no longer speak without first defining our gender, and for that matter also race, socioeconomic level, religion, and any number of other cultural markers? Why do these even matter? Is it a fear that by not identifying ourselves in such a manner, we somehow lose authenticity or credibility, or that we automatically become politically incorrect if our categorization matches a certain way with what we say?

The effect of this campaign is seriously startling for me, and I'm disturbed at the trend that a man somehow becomes more credible in what he says about Obama because he happens to support Clinton, or that a woman becomes more credible in her assessments of Clinton because she is an Obama supporter, or that a man is less credible in commenting on Clinton because he supports Obama, or that a woman is less credible speaking about Obama because she supports Clinton, or that a woman is somehow more credible simply because she supports Clinton, or that a black person is more or less credible because he or she supports Obama or Clinton.

The situation is as if any semblance of discussion and argument over issues has been suspended, and everything now relies on the authenticity of the person speaking, and that authenticity relies on some shifting, amorphous rubric of identity politics.

Can we just go back to having discussions in which the value of what a person says is measured in the substance of the arguments themselves?

Posted by: blert | June 2, 2008 3:13 PM

You comment about Barack being a weaker candidate than he was three months ago. This is arguably true and if so, thanks largely to the Clinton camp. As many people have openly speculated, they seem to be trying to undermine Barack, so she can be a candidate for president in four years.

Barack still has a very good chance of winning, partly because of his message of unity and the economy. However, he will make a big mistake if he chooses Hillary as his vice-presidential nominee. Barack, Hillary and Bill would then vie to be most powerful, among virtual co-presidents. Sounds like ancient Roman days.

Posted by: Independent | June 2, 2008 3:12 PM

Fellow Obamanots relax the stake will be driven through her candidacy by June 3rd and that is a solid four days before David Plouffe predicted when I met with him at an event in Miami two months ago. It is painful to watch this b.s. happen around us.

Stay focused on the big prize and get ready to rumble with John Mc War and his hit men. They will be coming at us with all sorts of other lies to make us fear Barack Obama being our President.

You know what to expect:
Barack is too young
Barack is a Muslim
Barack will surrender to terrorists
We wont be safe America
Life begins at inception
We know the economy better than Barack
he will talk to bad guys

Blah Blah Blah. they will put up as many boogeymen as Hillary put up lies.

Barack Obama scares the hell out of the status quo because it is their power that will be usurped and ours as the people will be restored. Thank god he has assembled he best political campaign team in the history of our country. Plouffe, Axelrod and the 1.7 million of us out there pounding the pavement and making the calls for change are unstoppable. Rest you won the first battle against the biggest name in politics and we will need the energy between now and November.

God Bless you and God bless the United States of America the only country where all this could happen. We are truly the people we have been waiting for.

Posted by: RAUL PEDRAZA | June 2, 2008 3:06 PM

I agree that all the Obama supporters should tone down their rhetoric -- it's what Obama is asking of us after all, right? A new way of conducting politics, whether from the podium or the anonymous post on WaPo. But please see that while Obama asks us to be better, Senator Clinton is promoting hyperbolic outrage. While Obama compliments her tenacity, she finds reasons to complain about the rules they both agreed to.

We show our true character in defeat, when things are going poorly. I think we are seeing all the reasons Senator Clinton was unappealing to so many voters. I do predict we will have a female president within the next ten years; the right woman just has to run.

Posted by: minor thread | June 2, 2008 2:59 PM

I weep for my fellow citizens. God bless them. I'm in this a great deal for you, moreso than myself.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080602/ap_on_go_pr_wh/medal_of_honor

I believe this segment of our citizens needs to come Home.

Congrats to Hillary. Go Obama!!
Dems White House '08 ; We have work to do.

Posted by: Obama2008 | June 2, 2008 2:59 PM

Clinton took the nuclear option ALREADY.

Didn't you hear Clinton's solicitor Harold Ickes say they were going to fight the DNC's desicion to stick with their previous decision that Ickes himself approved of?

Exactly.

Clinton is the worst kind of pandering, hypocritical, want-their-cake-and-eat-it-too lobbiest tied politician.

She's running her dying campaign on bigoted hate at this point.

Posted by: JBE | June 2, 2008 2:58 PM

sorry, we have a lot of short memories here.


FALN pardons? People died, people were bombed...they were pardoned. Strange, lots of hispanic support emerged. I guess Hillary is a champion of that community too.

She took money in two schemes with each of her brothers to arrange, or facilitate pardons for convicted people. I mean, she was offered a 'success fee' if it worked out. This is a woman that is not bothered by the law, by media scrutiny or abusing her position. That was years ago.

Last weekend, she showed her superiority by trying to get rule change this late in the game. Is it me....or is there a little insanity in demanding all the votes counted in a flawed election? My favorite part was her lawyer saying the agreement all the candidates signed said nothing specifically about removing names from the ballot...so Hillary did nothing wrong by keeping her name there....she just happened to get a lot of votes and of course no one else should get them. Priceless.

The Clintons shamed the Presidency with lies and scandal and don't deserve another shot. They continue to mock the nation by trampling the DNC and entire campaign process in their attempted manipulation. Enough.

Why can't we move on from the Clintons....

I can't wait 'till she's out of the race and must testify in the Clinton v. Paul civil trial for campaign fraud during her senatorial run! Maybe the sexist, bias, unfair and generally women-hating media will finally report that the Clintons are back in court baby!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: twotraps | June 2, 2008 2:57 PM

Try learning something about politics instead of writing ludicrous posts. If Ted is so big on health care why did he not pass anything about it in 46 years in the Senate? I won't hold my breath as you wouldn't know a fact if it bit you in the face. I love that Obamabots have as many original thought as Barry. It is you pitiful pathetic Obamafools who are deluded by drinking too much Kool-Aid."
Posted by: Jack Straw | June 2, 2008 2:35 PM

Family Leave (1990) Kennedy and Sen. Christopher Dodd, D-Conn., authored the Family and Medical Leave Act requiring businesses to provide unpaid leave for family emergencies or after the birth of infants. It was signed by President Clinton in 1993.

Health care (1996) Kennedy joined with Sen. Nancy Kassebaum, R-Kansas, in 1996 to pass the Kennedy-Kassebaum Act, which allowed employees to keep health insurance after leaving their job and prohibited health insurance companies from refusing to renew coverage on the basis of pre-existing medical conditions.

SOME OF TED KENNEDY'S LEGISLATIVE ACCOMPLISHMENTS

1. Chief sponsor of the Voting Rights Act.
2. Kennedy-Kassabaum, which allows all Americans to possess health insurance portability.
3. State Children's Health Insurance Program
4. Family and Medical Leave Act.
5. Direct Lending Program (federal student loans)
6. Chief Sponsor of the Civil Rights Act of 1991
7. ADA (Kennedy introduced this legislation)
8. 1982 Voting Rights Act Amendments (Chief Sponsor)
9. Sponsor of Meals on Wheels
10. Title IX

Clinton role in health program disputed

Hillary Clinton, who has frequently described herself on the campaign trail as playing a pivotal role in forging a children's health insurance plan, had little to do with crafting the landmark legislation or ushering it through Congress, according to several lawmakers, staffers, and healthcare advocates involved in the issue.

In campaign speeches, Clinton describes the State Children's Health Insurance Program, or SCHIP, as an initiative "I helped to start." Addressing Iowa voters in November, Clinton said, "in 1997, I joined forces with members of Congress and we passed the State Children's Health Insurance Program." Clinton regularly cites the number of children in each state who are covered by the program, and mothers of sick children have appeared at Clinton campaign rallies to thank her.

But the Clinton White House, while supportive of the idea of expanding children's health, fought the first SCHIP effort, spearheaded by Senators Edward M. Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts, and Orrin G. Hatch, Republican of Utah, because of fears that it would derail a bigger budget bill. And several current and former lawmakers and staff said Hillary Clinton had no role in helping to write the congressional legislation, which grew out of a similar program approved in Massachusetts in 1996.

"The White House wasn't for it. We really roughed them up" in trying to get it approved over the Clinton administration's objections, Hatch said in an interview. "She may have done some advocacy [privately] over at the White House, but I'm not aware of it."

"I do like her," Hatch said of Hillary Clinton. "We all care about children. But does she deserve credit for SCHIP? No - Teddy does, but she doesn't."
-------------------------------------------
WELL, JACK STRAW--LOOKS LIKE YOU DON'T HAVE A FACT IN YOUR HEAD, NOW DOESN'T IT!!! WHY DON'T YOU TRY LEARNING SOMETHING.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 2, 2008 2:52 PM

What seems to be lost in all the fuss is that the only people who have so far voted (or "caucused") are in many cases registered Democrats. So the voices of many independent voters, as well as registered Republicans, have yet to be heard. In that view - which is what is needed to win in November - Obama is by far a less polarizing character and more likely to lead the Democrats to the White House.

As a side note, since the Republicans have been hoping that Clinton would be nominated as she comes with more baggage than Obama (who only has a carry-on) and would be easier to define and beat, I have a suspicion that the Rove memo was a bit of disinformation. A "plant" if you will, designed like Brer Rabbit and the Briar Patch. It seems just like the sort of thing Rove would do.

Posted by: Randy | June 2, 2008 2:48 PM

Hillary Clinton, who has frequently described herself on the campaign trail as playing a pivotal role in forging a children's health insurance plan, had little to do with crafting the landmark legislation or ushering it through Congress, according to several lawmakers, staffers, and healthcare advocates involved in the issue.

In campaign speeches, Clinton describes the State Children's Health Insurance Program, or SCHIP, as an initiative "I helped to start." Addressing Iowa voters in November, Clinton said, "in 1997, I joined forces with members of Congress and we passed the State Children's Health Insurance Program." Clinton regularly cites the number of children in each state who are covered by the program, and mothers of sick children have appeared at Clinton campaign rallies to thank her.

But the Clinton White House, while supportive of the idea of expanding children's health, fought the first SCHIP effort, spearheaded by Senators Edward M. Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts, and Orrin G. Hatch, Republican of Utah, because of fears that it would derail a bigger budget bill. And several current and former lawmakers and staff said Hillary Clinton had no role in helping to write the congressional legislation, which grew out of a similar program approved in Massachusetts in 1996.

"The White House wasn't for it. We really roughed them up" in trying to get it approved over the Clinton administration's objections, Hatch said in an interview. "She may have done some advocacy [privately] over at the White House, but I'm not aware of it."

"I do like her," Hatch said of Hillary Clinton. "We all care about children. But does she deserve credit for SCHIP? No - Teddy does, but she doesn't."

Posted by: Anonymous | June 2, 2008 2:47 PM

Posted by: Jack Straw | June 2, 2008 2:35 PM
JACK STRAW WHY DON'T YOU LEARN SOMETHING ABOUT POLITICS OR THE COUNTRY YOU LIVE IN?

SOME OF TED KENNEDY'S LEGISLATIVE ACCOMPLISHMENTS

1. Chief sponsor of the Voting Rights Act.
2. Kennedy-Kassabaum, which allows all Americans to possess health insurance portability.
3. State Children's Health Insurance Program
4. Family and Medical Leave Act.
5. Direct Lending Program (federal student loans)
6. Chief Sponsor of the Civil Rights Act of 1991
7. ADA (Kennedy introduced this legislation)
8. 1982 Voting Rights Act Amendments (Chief Sponsor)
9. Sponsor of Meals on Wheels
10. Title IX

State Children's Health Insurance Program. That's it

Posted by: Anonymous | June 2, 2008 2:45 PM

HRC: Use your power for good, not evil!! Do the right thing and give a heartfelt concession speech tomorrow night. Stop making the argument that you have won the popular vote UNLESS you count the votes in all of the states!! If EVERY VOTE truly counts, then you will not cherry pick states that bolster your argument. COUNT THE VOTES IN ALL OF THE STATES!!

Posted by: SuperWoman | June 2, 2008 2:44 PM

Beyond her endgame, an option that might befit and appeal is Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS). In this role Hillary could take on the challenge of health care reform. She already has an excellent draft plan and she certainly has pertinent (if painful) background experience, evidently with lessons learned and not merely lessons taught.

Quite possibly Sen. Clinton would welcome a second chance. I suspect she could attain the affirmation of President Obama and believe she would be apt to enjoy the collaboration of John Edwards within the new administration.

The party that succeeds in establishing a working universal health care system will be recognized with gratitude and support for generations to come. The names of those who create this system will live on honorably forever in our history.

Posted by: FirstMouse | June 2, 2008 2:43 PM

Family Leave (1990) Kennedy and Sen. Christopher Dodd, D-Conn., authored the Family and Medical Leave Act requiring businesses to provide unpaid leave for family emergencies or after the birth of infants. It was signed by President Clinton in 1993.

Health care (1996) Kennedy joined with Sen. Nancy Kassebaum, R-Kansas, in 1996 to pass the Kennedy-Kassebaum Act, which allowed employees to keep health insurance after leaving their job and prohibited health insurance companies from refusing to renew coverage on the basis of pre-existing medical conditions.

This leaves out the health care bill he passed for coverage for children.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 2, 2008 2:41 PM

Those poll numbers are BS Dan

Posted by: Ed | June 2, 2008 2:38 PM

No hard feelings. Like is short. I like Hillary but expect the nominee will be Obama and I will support him 100%. I'm a true Democrat.

Posted by: genie | June 2, 2008 2:38 PM

The main problem I have with Hillary is her insincerity. It seems,to me, that she can't speak a sentence without telling a lie.

Posted by: Ed | June 2, 2008 2:24 PM

This IS the dealbreaker with Sen. Clinton. I just posted about Ted Kennedy's 35 years of genuine experience fighting for rights for Americans--every day, every week, week in and week out for the 35 years he has served in the Senate.

Hillary's 35 years of 'experience' actually includes, however, over 15 years as a CORPORATE LAWYER where she served on the board of Wal-Mart which is famously equatable with unfair treatment of workers.

Eight years of being first lady is also-- while an interesting experience--not relevant or--in any way equatable--with executive experience.

I am a woman who sees people just as people--not through gender glasses. And I am ticked that Senator Clinton has been allowed to get away with claiming 35 years of public service experience when Senator Kennedy has actually served the public for 35 years.

Sen. Kennedy's staff recently came up with 50 pages of single spaced HIGHLIGHTS of his legislative accomplishments.

In Senator Clinton's 35 years of 'experience' can anyone cite one single concrete, legislative thing she has done? That has made a CONCRETE difference in the lives of Americans. Because I can't. And I won't lie to cover someone just because she also happens to be female.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 2, 2008 2:38 PM

A very surprising poll has Clinton leading by 30% in South Dakota and barely trailing in Montana. Shouldn't be enough to change the race, but note how few upsets there have been this year. Link: http://www.campaigndiaries.com/2008/06/end-game-primary-season-ends-tomorrow.html

Posted by: Dan | June 2, 2008 2:35 PM

Actually the most constant and consistent proponent of affordable/universal health care in this country is Senator Edward Kennedy--who last time I checked--was not FEMALE.

In fact, while Hillary has done next to nothing to secure healthcare for ANY SINGLE AMERICAN, the bill she contstantly CLAIMS credit for w/ regard to coverage for children, is TED KENNEDY'S BILL! She actually mustered up the common decency to acknowledge this in her first public speech after Sen. Kennedy's health diagosis.

So, in fact, what you accuse Obama of: "pirate(ing) her ideas and pawn(ing) them off as his own" in fact this is exactly what Clinton has done to Ted Kennedy--if that's the kind of game you're interested in playing.

Next time, try learning something about politics instead of drinking the Hillary 'kool aid' as you so readily admit.

Posted by: | June 2, 2008 2:21 PM

__________________________________________________________________________________________

Everyone knows that Barry doesn't have an original thought in his head. Try learning something about politics instead of writing ludicrous posts. If Ted is so big on health care why did he not pass anything about it in 46 years in the Senate? So in your pitiful post are you trying to say Clinton stole the idea from Ted and Barry stole the idea from Clinton. At least you admit that Barry's stole the plan. I suppose you don't have any facts to back up your juvenile post. If you do get back to me. I won't hold my breath as you wouldn't know a fact if it bit you in the face. I love that Obamabots have as many original thought as Barry. It is you pitiful pathetic Obamafools who are deluded by drinking too much Kool-Aid.

Posted by: Jack Straw | June 2, 2008 2:35 PM


what i find amusing, is why would ANYONE want to have a president such as hillary, who tries to change the rules of this contest in a different manner EVERY SINGLE DAY to achieve her narcissistic, selfish goals?!?!?

i think it has been SHAMEFUL watching these clintons conducting themselves like SPOILED CHILDREN, DEMANDING they are "OWED THIS RIGHT" to win the nomination.

totally lacking class.

tsk tsk tsk

Posted by: BOB | June 2, 2008 2:29 PM

Maybe, BUT She is the one who got tortured and kicked around when she was first lady for fighting for this cause. WAY before there was a Senator Obama. Don't disregard this fact. She was the first First Lady in a long time (since Eleanor Roosevelt) who tried to do SOMETHING for the country.


Actually the most constant and consistent proponent of affordable/universal health care in this country is Senator Edward Kennedy--who last time I checked--was not FEMALE.

In fact, while Hillary has done next to nothing to secure healthcare for ANY SINGLE AMERICAN, the bill she contstantly CLAIMS credit for w/ regard to coverage for children, is TED KENNEDY'S BILL! She actually mustered up the common decency to acknowledge this in her first public speech after Sen. Kennedy's health diagosis.

So, in fact, what you accuse Obama of: "pirate(ing) her ideas and pawn(ing) them off as his own" in fact this is exactly what Clinton has done to Ted Kennedy--if that's the kind of game you're interested in playing.

Posted by: genie | June 2, 2008 2:27 PM

OK Genie, No hard feelings, just giving you guys the business. The main problem I have with Hillary is her insincerity. It seems,to me, that she can't speak a sentence without telling a lie.

Posted by: Ed | June 2, 2008 2:24 PM

Obama has enjoined an upset, but Dewey-Truman still trumps it. If Obama had been able to pull off the one two punch of IA-NH, then he would have reigned supreme.

Posted by: Peter Zenger | June 2, 2008 2:23 PM

Hillary has spent the past 35 years committing herself to Universal Healthcare, among other policies, only to have a man in a crisp white shirt come along, pirate her ideas and pawn them off as his own

Posted by: Erin | June 2, 2008 1:58 PM

Actually the most constant and consistent proponent of affordable/universal health care in this country is Senator Edward Kennedy--who last time I checked--was not FEMALE.

In fact, while Hillary has done next to nothing to secure healthcare for ANY SINGLE AMERICAN, the bill she contstantly CLAIMS credit for w/ regard to coverage for children, is TED KENNEDY'S BILL! She actually mustered up the common decency to acknowledge this in her first public speech after Sen. Kennedy's health diagosis.

So, in fact, what you accuse Obama of: "pirate(ing) her ideas and pawn(ing) them off as his own" in fact this is exactly what Clinton has done to Ted Kennedy--if that's the kind of game you're interested in playing.

Next time, try learning something about politics instead of drinking the Hillary 'kool aid' as you so readily admit.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 2, 2008 2:21 PM

Ed: This is a Presidential campaign, not the DATING GAME. LOL.

Posted by: genie | June 2, 2008 2:16 PM

I agree 1000% but it seems that on this forum Obama supporters are very hateful and resentful that Hillary is fighting the fight to the end. But I agree that it goes both ways. I respect Obama even though I prefer Hillary. I hope anyone calling themselves Democrats behave the same.

You cannot condemn one side with out condemning the other, that would be hypocritical, since both sides have acted atrociously and immaturely.


Posted by: genie | June 2, 2008 2:15 PM

As an independent observer with no connection to any of the candidates, I am struck by the animosity coming from Clinton's supporters toward Obama and his supporters. Some of them (as one of the posts above indicates) even plan to support McCain if Obama wins. Now that makes a lot of sense. Because your candidate didn't get the nomination, you will vote for someone who stands on the opposite side from all the positions of your favorite candidate, and who even went along with one of his supporters when they referred to Sen. Clinton as a b**ch. Who's the sexist here? I have heard nothing even approaching sexism from Sen. Obama. So if you are a Clinton supporter who is planning on supporting McCain instead of Obama you might want to look in the mirror and ask if you are not being influenced by your own racial bias.

The fact is, from the beginning the nomination was Hillary's to lose, but she and/or her campaign team got overconfident and allowed a long-shot candidate to out-organize her and pull off the upset. You could compare it to the Patriots losing to the Dolphins. They may be upset after the game saying they were the more "qualified" better team, but they only have themselves to blame because they underestimated their opponent and allowed an inferior team to beat them. Should the NFL take the victory away from the Dolphins because the Patriots are a better team?

Sen. Clinton may claim to be more qualified, and she may be right, but losing the nomination is her own fault. She came into the primaries with name recognition, money, and lots of support from super delegates even before the first vote was cast. Sen. Obama had none of those advantages. Hillary made the critical mistake of underestimating her opponent. She only has herself to blame. So if you're going to be angry, be mad at her and/or her campaign team and not the underdog who worked hard and pulled off the upset.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 2, 2008 2:13 PM

Wasn't that obvious genie, If you like men so much why don't you support one?

Posted by: Ed | June 2, 2008 2:12 PM

OOPS... Sorry Kali... I meant to say ED!!! LOL.

Posted by: genie | June 2, 2008 2:12 PM

"Of the people that voted, she has the popular vote. Why would you count it any other way?"

1) Because the Democratic primaries are not designed to count the popular vote and there is no reasonable way to extrapolate a fair vote count from them. To try getting a valid vote count out of the primaries is like using a fork to eat soup.

2) Because the assertion that she has won the popular vote is based on an extremely dubious methodology: discount all caucus states; assign all votes in Michigan to Hillary and none to Obama; etc. This is laughable to anyone but a die-hard Clinton supporter.

Posted by: drossless | June 2, 2008 2:11 PM

As an Obama supporter, I am disappointed at how many of his supporters have acted. It doesn't help his cause at all.

That being said, Genie, I'm just as disappointed in the actions of Clinton's supporters as well.

You cannot condemn one side with out condemning the other, that would be hypocritical, since both sides have acted atrociously and immaturely.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 2, 2008 2:10 PM

The Washington Post points out that in the hubbub of the McClellan book, another scathing memoir has come out exposing the truth behind Iraq.

Getting lost in the media furor over McClellan's memoir is the new autobiography of retired Lt. Gen. Ricardo S. Sanchez, the onetime commander of U.S. troops in Iraq, who is scathing in his assessment that the Bush administration "led America into a strategic blunder of historic proportions."

Among the anecdotes in "Wiser in Battle: A Soldier's Story" is an arresting portrait of Bush after four contractors were killed in Fallujah in 2004, triggering a fierce U.S. response that was reportedly egged on by the president.
During a videoconference with his national security team and generals, Sanchez writes, Bush launched into what he described as a "confused" pep talk:
"Kick ass!" he quotes the president as saying. "If somebody tries to stop the march to democracy, we will seek them out and kill them! We must be tougher than hell! This Vietnam stuff, this is not even close. It is a mind-set. We can't send that message. It's an excuse to prepare us for withdrawal."

"There is a series of moments and this is one of them. Our will is being tested, but we are resolute. We have a better way. Stay strong! Stay the course! Kill them! Be confident! Prevail! We are going to wipe them out! We are not blinking!"

A White House spokesman had no comment.

Posted by: SMS | June 2, 2008 2:10 PM

Kali: genie has a message for you:

Sorry, I'm gay but if you're interested I could find a nice lesbian for you.

Posted by: genie | June 2, 2008 2:09 PM

Sorry, I'm gay but if you're interested I could find a nice lesbian for you.

Posted by: genie | June 2, 2008 2:05 PM

The TRUE Hillary (at AGE 7)

Scene 1: Hillary is happily playing the Candyland board game with her friends.

Scene 2: When Hillary realizes she's losing the game, she has a tantrum, and starts complaining about the unfair rules listed on the Milton-Bradley box.

Scene 3: With her friend just a few steps away from a Candyland victory, Hillary angrily announces that the rules MUST be changed, and that her friend is cheating.

Scene 4: When the other kids don't agree with the 11th-hour rules change demand, Hillary loses... fair and square.

Scene 5: For the remainder of summer vacation, Hillary bounces around the neighborhood, with nose in air, telling everyone that SHE was the REAL winner.

Scene 6: 50+ years later... Hillary is STILL whining, crying, changing the rules, and offering delusion interpretations of reality...

...but in the end, STILL lost at Candyland...

Posted by: diane | June 2, 2008 2:04 PM

Genie, Kali has a message for you. Pro Hillary party at her house, you bring the strap-ons.

Posted by: Ed | June 2, 2008 2:04 PM

Thank you Erin! I am a man and I wholeheartedly agree. Obama should be ashamed of the manner in which his supporters are behaving.

Posted by: genie | June 2, 2008 2:03 PM

There is no vote count with caucuses -- AND no way to measure the vote.

"excluding caucuses to claim Hillary leads the popular vote"

Posted by: genie | June 2, 2008 1:58 PM

I have always voted straight ticket democrat. However, in this case, I refuse to vote for Obama or support the DNC. I am sickened by the DNC's special treatment of Obama and their deafening silence when it comes to the overt sexism against Hillary. It is appalling and shameful. Yes, I am one of those "angry white women" who "drank the kool-aid" and who will support no other Democratic candidate other than Hillary. Here's the deal: Hillary has spent the past 35 years committing herself to Universal Healthcare, among other policies, only to have a man in a crisp white shirt come along, pirate her ideas and pawn them off as his own - then get the bid. I wasn't a feminist before, but I sure as hell am now. Had Hillary been treated respectfully by this country, and more importantly the media, for her dedication in public service, I may feel differently. Unfortunately, that is not the case.

Posted by: Erin | June 2, 2008 1:58 PM

It is amazing to see how uninformed the public truly is. Barack is bi-racial. His mother, whom he loved dearly, is white. His grandparents, who raised him, are white. He was raised in Hawaii and Indonesia. He couldn't have come from a more diverse background. (What about Hillary.) His pastor made offensive comments, not him. Not everyone agrees with everything their pastor or chuch says or does. That is like saying all Catholics are child molesters, since several of the priests have been accused of this crime. It is totally bizarre. Hillary Clinton made the comment that blue collar whites will leave the democratic party but blacks will not. This comment in itself is racist. In case anyone forgot, many religious blacks broke with the democrats in the last election. Yes, they supported Bush. Yes, this is a reason John Kerry lost the election. The popular vote argument is a joke. There is no way Michigan should be included. Without Michigan, she is behind by all accounts. If she becomes the nominee, there will be a repeat of the 2004 election. Clinton's staying in the race is simply dividing the Democratic Party.

Posted by: foxxymese | June 2, 2008 1:56 PM

This argument that she has one the majority of popular vote among the people who have voted is completely flawed. It is only true if you count the votes in Michigan, but ONLY count the people who voted for her and disenfranchised the people who didn't. Hillary's idea is that all votes should count, but only if they were for her.

Posted by: dv | June 2, 2008 1:56 PM

>Since Obama wasn't in the Michigan race why
>is he entitled to the delegates given to him
> and Hillary not entitled to say she won?

That's called a compromise...you might want to look into them. Also note that Clinton was given more delegates from that compromise, even though we'll never know what the real vote would have looked like because the contest was unfair and inherently stacked in her favor.

She won the compromise. It was a fair solution to a nasty problem.

Posted by: rvl | June 2, 2008 1:55 PM

Not only a race in which she was the only runner but took place outside of the rules. Those delegates are not only invalidated because she was the only runner but because they broke the rules, which, in most contests/games, is considered cheating.

Posted by: un1t3d w3 stand | June 2, 2008 1:55 PM

Decomocratic party should unite.

Dear Hillary, you know the race is about winning delegates. You and campaign told this last year. Be graceful after June 3rd and quit the race by uniting the party.

Remember, its not about you, its about the party.

Posted by: indpndnt | June 2, 2008 1:55 PM

Clinton, Ickes, and even a poster on this blog are demonstrating some flaws that seem to be endemic within the party: cherry-picking stats to drive a false point (e.g. excluding caucuses to claim Hillary leads the popular vote), attributing failure to a vast conspiracy (this time, it's the media, rather than the Repubs), and misrepresenting strengths and weaknesses (OK, Repubs do that too).

Maybe another 11-page superdelegate memo would clear that right up

Posted by: Independentcrat | June 2, 2008 1:54 PM

Are you talking about Obama? Because if that is true, then he should give back the delegates he got for Michigan. Get it?

Lets change the Rules again...
If that does not work - just change them again... "Do as I say and not as I do"
Hmmm Rules are only for the common folk!

Posted by: genie | June 2, 2008 1:54 PM

Sen. Clinton will be the next President of the United States.

Posted by: crat3 | June 2, 2008 1:04 PM

crat3, TIME FOR YOUR MEDS!!!

Posted by: Anonymous | June 2, 2008 1:53 PM

Hillary's prolonged and hopeless campaign has been useful in one respect. It has revealed just how selfish and self-centered a person she is. All politicians are egotistical, of course, but Hillary clearly carries her egoism to unprecedented heights rarely seen in public life in America. The American people have had the opportunity to learn a very valuable lesson about how unfit Hillary is to hold high office.

Posted by: David S. Robins | June 2, 2008 1:52 PM

Lets change the Rules again...
If that does not work - just change them again... "Do as I say and not as I do"
Hmmm Rules are only for the common folk!

Posted by: Zippo | June 2, 2008 1:52 PM

Are you a pastor at Obama's church?


Kali, why don't you just go finger yourself while staring at your Hillary poster. Hah Hah Ha!

Posted by: genie | June 2, 2008 1:50 PM

Since Obama wasn't in the Michigan race why is he entitled to the delegates given to him and Hillary not entitled to say she won?

Clinton's claim that she won Michigan is equivalent to a claim that she won an Olympic medal at a race in which she was the only runner.

Posted by: genie | June 2, 2008 1:49 PM

Kali, why don't you just go finger yourself while staring at your Hillary poster. Hah Hah Ha!

Posted by: Ed | June 2, 2008 1:49 PM

Of the people that voted, she has the popular vote. Why would you count it any other way?

Posted by: Wayne | June 2, 2008 1:32 PM

Because Caucus states are not counted in this total (in addition to the joke of MI BEING COUNTED). You can't count popular vote without considering the numerous caucus states most of which Obama won (even IF you include the joke of MI).

Posted by: Anonymous | June 2, 2008 1:49 PM

"What Clinton's argument about being the stronger general election candidate ignores is what her nomination would do to the Democratic Party."

I could not possibly agree more.

Posted by: James | June 2, 2008 1:49 PM

"she makes a powerful case"

Only to individuals who are some combination of uninformed, illogical, and morally bankrupt. Hopefully this description applies to only a few of the fence-dwelling superdelegates (my what fine examples of leadership they have shown).

Please stop using expressions such as "ahead in the popular vote" unless the uncounted votes from caucus states are mentioned in the same or an adjacent sentence. Omission of critical information such as this is equal in intellectual dishonesty to fabrication of facts. Lies of commission and lies of omission

Posted by: Phil | June 2, 2008 1:47 PM

Hillary started with the greatest advantages, but she just mismanaged her campaign and made some tactical blunders. Obama had a better strategy, raised more money and kept above fray whenever he could.

But what people seem to have forgotten here is that they're both excellent candidates. They are by far the best final candidates for the Democratic nomination in recent history. I think we should be looking at this in as positive a light as possible, rather than tearing each other apart.

The Democratic candidates got more people out to vote, raised more money and got the nation truly involved in the primary process in a way that we haven't seen in the past.

I would have supported Clinton. I will support Obama, and hope that he puts her to good use in his national campaign and in his cabinet.

What bothers me the most are Clinton supporters who say that they will vote for McCain. Really? To do so is to snub everything that Hillary Clinton believes in and has worked for in her political and personal life. To suddenly switch sides for McCain is the worst possible way to show support for her. She and Obama have extremely similar platforms, their stance on the issues are generally in parallel. They both want health care for everyone and they are now both firmly against the war and getting out of Iraq.

By the way, I'm from Florida and my extended family is from Michigan. We are all perfectly fine with the results from Saturday. We're just glad its settled and ready to move on.


Posted by: Anna | June 2, 2008 1:47 PM

If Obama is the nominee he will NEED Hillary's support, so don't get her mad. LOL

Posted by: genie | June 2, 2008 1:44 PM

A contest with one person isn't a contest. Clinton's claim that she won Michigan is equivalent to a claim that she won an Olympic medal at a race in which she was the only runner.

It's nonsense to claim to win an unfair contest that is stacked in your favor. A third grader knows better.

Posted by: rvl | June 2, 2008 1:43 PM

Randolf wrote: "I know I am just 1 voter, but since the Democratic party only accepts half my vote, I am giving it to the Republicans. I know they will count it as 1 whole vote."

Think again - the RNC stripped half the delegates as well for moving the primary too early.

Posted by: corbetto | June 2, 2008 1:43 PM

3 thoughts

1. Hillary's true self has been exposed by this process. Scary. Why would we ever want to trust a person who whines and cries every time things don't go her way to the White House? If the phone rings at 3:00 a.m., I sure as hell don't want a person with a "let's change the rules so I can win" attitude answering the phone!

2. Sen. Levin's quote was classic, timely, and apropos. Hillary's delusional tactics and dreamlike popular vote representation are just that... a lame attempt to concoct a "fair reflection of a flawed primary".

3. As for SOME (not all) of Hillary's supporters... Well... What can I say... Delusional on the numbers, hypersensitive on the "unfair" accusations, and absurdly "sour grapes" when threatening to vote for McCain out of spite. People with childish stubbornness who vote out of spite instead of out of ideals and positions belong in a middle school class president election...NOT in a fight for the White House... [sigh] Grow up!

Posted by: michele | June 2, 2008 1:43 PM

There is nothing more pathetic than to see a sinking ship going down while the captain is oblivious to the water around her ankles.
Clinton's ability to stick her head in the sand has been equaled only by Mr. Bush, ostrich extraordinaire.

Posted by: Dave | June 2, 2008 1:42 PM

To begin with, everyone knows Hillary will NOT be the nominee. But... if she were... you'd have far fewer Democratic voters come out due to disgust and frustration with the process (some might even go for McCain just for spite). You'd also steel the resolve of Republicans, who hate Hillary. Obama's message even resonates with Republicans, who are tired of business and usual and special interest agenda controlling policy.

Posted by: Bob | June 2, 2008 1:42 PM

crat3, crat3, crat3...Please wake up. You are having a dream. Obama will be the nominee of the Democratic Party.

Hillary and her surrogates all have interesting arguments as to why she should be the Democratic nominee. Unfortunately, the arguments are half-truths or lies.

I know this has been an exciting and long Democratic campaign season and the average American can only recall political events from only one week ago. But let's do a short recap:

* Hillary Clinton begin her presidential campaign season with one of the most famous last names and legacies of the Democratic Party in the last 35 years. Hillary led in every poll from the time she announced she was running for president (in Feb. 2007?) up until December 2007. Hillary had access to one of the most powerful political machines and the most powerful fundraising machines in 35 years. Hillary had the early support of most of the Democratic establishment from Governors and Senators to labor unions and news media outlets.

Now that Democratic nominating contests are coming to an end in one day all Hillary surrogates only want to focus on months of March, April, and May. Obama went from virtually unknown presidential candidate to overtake Hillary Clinton. This in itself shows the strength of Obama's candidacy!

Posted by: Obama-Junkie | June 2, 2008 1:42 PM


I'm for Hillary and I believe Obama has a lot of class but his supporters are talking TRASH. I'm sure he's really proud of you.

Posted by: genie | June 2, 2008 1:42 PM


I'm for Hillary and I believe Obama has a lot of class but his supporters are talking TRASH. I'm sure he's really proud of you.

Posted by: genie | June 2, 2008 1:42 PM

Crat3, What's that stuff you've been smokin? Must be pretty good cause you're livin in dreamland.

Posted by: Ed | June 2, 2008 1:41 PM

This campaign should be a lesson to everyone........ You have to work (all the angles) to win! If you take your opponent for granted you can lose! Never judge a Barrack, er, I mean book by its cover!

Posted by: GunnyJ | June 2, 2008 1:40 PM

If Hillary is going to recoup her loans to her Campaign, she better ramp-up her ads for contributions! Perhaps this is her only motive for lingering?

Cough up Hillary supporters; line her silk pants-suit pockets with your hard-earned cash!

Hillary, the Queen of Spin and a Legend in Her Own Mind!

http://klintons.com

Posted by: Bob | June 2, 2008 1:38 PM

1."If Hills cannot successfully run her marriage and her election budget I don't trust her to run the country. "
2."Ding dong, the wicked witch is dead!"
3."What a spiteful, acidic woman"
DISPLAYS OF THE IGNORANCE AGAINST Clinton.
Full of irrational hatred. Num 1, blames Clinton for her husbands affair and omits the fact that the Clinton years were best economically the US has ever seen.
#2- just plain sexist
#3- hate speech with no substance
IF THIS IS ALL OBAMA SUPPORTERS HAVE, then I shudder to think what they are going to get with THEIR candidate! GOOD LUCK...YOU REAP WHAT YOU SOW!!!!

Posted by: kali | June 2, 2008 1:38 PM

I know I am just 1 voter, but since the Democratic party only accepts half my vote, I am giving it to the Republicans. I know they will count it as 1 whole vote.

Posted by: Randolf | June 2, 2008 1:38 PM

Men don't like to be ruled by Women - period.

Shame on you America. India, Pakistan and and even Bangladesh can do better...

Wake up one fine morning to see Obama and Ahmadinajad take a stroll on the white house lawn while Israel gets bombed.

Please...

Stupid Americans!

Posted by: Chris Desouza | June 2, 2008 1:38 PM

Even Obama says Hillary is a great candidate! You people who trash another Democrat should go to the Republican side where you're needed.

Posted by: genie | June 2, 2008 1:36 PM

To all the feminists out there who are threatening to vote for McCain now that Clinton is basically out of the race. Go ahead, vote for McCain and see how far your agendas will be promoted under him. McCain has done zilch for women's causes. You will be whining to Reid and Pelosi to help you out, even though you have slandered them too.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 2, 2008 1:35 PM

"losses in Pennsylvania, West Virginia and Kentucky that raised questions about his ability to attract working class votes."

What does this mean? Have questions been raised about his ability to attract black working class votes? Or are you implying, as Clinton does, that black people don't work? He can attract lazy class votes, but not working class votes? Why are you so racist?

Posted by: Slider | June 2, 2008 1:34 PM

It will be interesting to see how Hillary's campaign ends, and if Obama gives her an assit with her $30 million dollar debt. Suppose the debt issue is not settled or partially settled, will the media follow up to see if all the vendors that provided $10 million in services to Clinton are paid? If not, so much for the little people Clinton says she bleeds for.

Jeff in Orlando

Posted by: Jeff in Orlando | June 2, 2008 1:34 PM

Senator Clinton,

I understand that you have a strong feeling that you are the candidate best suited to lead the US for the next 4/8 years. I also understand your desire to ensure that every vote is counted. There are a few things I do not understand.

If every vote should count, why are you saying you lead in the popular vote? This discounts states that use the caucus format to set delegate apportion, which could lead to voter disenfranchisement in those states. It also includes 2 states that you yourself claimed should be punished for moving up their primaries..

If all votes are equal, why do you claim that some states are more important than others? Again, this lends itself towards voter disenfranchisement. Why should my home state of Washington be less important than Iowa?

Frankly, I'm quite unhappy with the fact that you've equated the struggle for suffrage waged by women and African Americans over the last century. In aligning your change in position with a struggle for basic American rights, you demean what those rights stand for, and those that struggled to achieve those rights.

Please, Senator Clinton.. Please do not continue to make this misleading and erroneous argument that your lead in the popular vote, that your victories in specific states, that your need for the delegates of Florida and Michigan.. Please don't let these arguments drag down the nation. You knew the rules at the beginning, please don't let desperation and fear of losing derail what this country needs right now - a united voice.

I'm sorry, Senator Clinton, but you are not going to get the nomination. Your continued fight shows that you are not one to back down. It shows tenacity, it shows strength in the face of nearly insurmountable odds. It shows that the end of your political career may be drawing near.

Yes, people have come to you and asked you to remain in the race. I would like to see you continue until the primaries are completed, and every vote is cast. Once the votes are counted as per the rules of the election season and the party, we need you to abide by those results.

If you cannot lose with grace and respect for the rules laid out by your party of choice, you will show the side of politics, and the side of yourself, that truly has been your undoing. Placing self over service is a quality that you share with the current administration, and it's one that needs to be removed from politics and politicians.

Your impending loss and the handling of that loss is exactly WHY you are going to lose. Sadly, the Clinton name has become synonymous with divisiveness and anger. Your ability, and the ability of your husband, to foster anger in so many of those that call themselves Republicans is amazing. Granted, I believe that much of it is unfair criticism, but the lack of fairness doesn't eliminate its existence. I know a lot of people that reply to criticisms of the current administration with "But Clinton..." Yes, unfair.. but it is there.

Senator Clinton, when you lose - and you will lose - please do so with the class and dignity befitting one of the truly pioneering civil servants of your generation.

Thanks.

Posted by: Dick | June 2, 2008 1:34 PM

Funny, all I see from Obama supporters is hate speech against Hillary. They see side with Obama out of hatred for Clinton.Interesting way to make a choice...

Posted by: dave | June 2, 2008 1:33 PM

THE AUDACITY OF HATE:

If Hills cannot successfully run her marriage and her election budget I don't trust her to run the country. As a matter of fact I just don't plain trust her or her cheatin' spouse. She is the one who has shown her true colors with her racism and her sense of entitlement. I would not vote for her to be dog catcher let alone president. No THANKS to another Clinton White House.

Posted by: genie | June 2, 2008 1:33 PM

Ding dong, the wicked witch is dead!

Posted by: Ed | June 2, 2008 1:32 PM

Crat3 - Clinton has no appeal outside her core supporters. Independents would roll to McCain, and she would lose the general election.

Thank God we'll never know for sure.

Posted by: Chaz | June 2, 2008 1:32 PM

If Hills cannot successfully run her marriage and her election budget I don't trust her to run the country. As a matter of fact I just don't plain trust her or her cheatin' spouse. She is the one who has shown her true colors with her racism and her sense of entitlement. I would not vote for her to be dog catcher let alone president. No THANKS to another Clinton White House.

Posted by: slvrrfox8 | June 2, 2008 1:32 PM

It's time for Hilary to stop the nonsensical spin, exaggerations and threats. She's playing with an outdated rulebook that was co-written by Karl Rove. It's over, Obama will be the next President of the United States....deal with it!

Posted by: thebob.bob | June 2, 2008 1:32 PM

Of the people that voted, she has the popular vote. Why would you count it any other way?

Posted by: Wayne | June 2, 2008 1:32 PM

"The drama continues, thanks mostly to Hillary Clinton."
REALITY CHECK... The drama continues because Obama is NOT THE CLEAR FAVORITE the media makes him out to be.
How about a little truth, fairness and objectivity.

Posted by: sean | June 2, 2008 1:30 PM

Hate vs hope. What a spiteful, acidic woman.

Who is the hateful one here? Obama supporters should follow his example and not be hypocrites.

Posted by: genie | June 2, 2008 1:29 PM

It is the end for Hillary's campaign. The signs and omens are there:

1) Terry McAuliffe on today MSNBC's The Morning Joe, holding a bottle of rum and sounding a little crazy.

2) Hillary's campaign announcing that her June 3rd "victory" speech will be held in New York city.

3) The Clinton campaign finance department is reportedly asking all staffers to have their receipts in by the end of the week.

4) Advance staffers in the Clinton campaign (used in Kentucky, West Virgina, and Puerto Rico) are being let go.

5) Hillary ardent supporters like Gov. Rendell and former Gov. Vislack are publicly admitting that Hillary can't win the nomination.

6) Hillary's only claim about leading in the popular votes is being exposed as untrue by political pundits as her campaign ending days approach.

Posted by: AJ | June 2, 2008 1:28 PM

Your remarks fall on deaf ears...he is the Democratic choice this year, get over yourself and do what's right to heal this great country!

Posted by: To Crat3 | June 2, 2008 1:28 PM

U.S. presidency is no job for an unqualified shyster as Obama with his racist and sexist baggage. Recently, he has gotten the unprincipled endorsements of superdelegates who lacked integrity and repudiated their true function, making the purpose of the superdelegates completely meaningless. The superdelegates endorsing Obama are backing a losing horse incapable of winning the general election. If the superdelegates give Obama the nomination, I cannot wait to begin working for his defeat and vote for McCain in a swing state.

The pro-Obama biased media have interfered in, undermined, and subverted the Democratic presidential nominating process. The pro-Obama biased,sexist media continue to sabotage Sen. Clinton's campaign with impunity. The pro-Obama biased media are out of control. This media tyranny is our democracy's worse enemy.

Superdelegates are mandated to select the best qualified and strongest candidate to win the general election without regard to any "delegate math." Sen. Clinton is winning the popular vote and she is the best qualified and the strongest candidate to defeat McCain and win the general election in a landslide victory. The facts of her winning strengths were stated to the superdelegates in an eleven-page letter from Sen. Clinton. Obama had no similar letter to the superdelegates because he lacked winning strengths; Obama's only "strength" is a bandwagon linked to rhetoric that will end up in a train wreck for the Democratic Party.

After the primaries end on Tuesday, uncommitted superdelegates with independent judgment, reflecting wisdom, integrity, and courage, have the responsibility to overwhelmingly endorse Sen. Clinton for the nomination, making her the Democratic presidential nominee. Sen. Clinton will defeat McCain, and she will win the general election in a landslide victory hands down. Sen. Clinton will be the next President of the United States.

Posted by: crat3 | June 2, 2008 1:04 PM

"The anger that was expressed at Saturday's DNC rules committee meeting by supporters of Clinton would be dwarfed by the backlash against her from Obamaland if, somehow, he were not the nominee."
============
Why does Dan Balz think Obama supporters are less mature and less reasonable than Clinton supporters?

Posted by: Anonymous | June 2, 2008 1:00 PM

Hate vs hope. What a spiteful, acidic woman.

Posted by: Zac | June 2, 2008 12:53 PM

Karl Rove admires Clinton's sleezy tactics, and hopes to learn from her for use in the general election.

Posted by: Franky | June 2, 2008 12:44 PM

Yahtzee!

Posted by: Anonymous | June 2, 2008 12:42 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 

© 2009 The Washington Post Company