Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

About that Clinton-Obama Meeting


Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California hosted Sens. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton at her Spring Valley home last night. (Bloomberg News)

Updated 11:40 a.m.
By Paul Kane
With nothing but a couple glasses of water and two plush chairs to sit in, Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton sat privately for an hour last night in Sen. Dianne Feinstein's living room trying to come to grips with their historic and contentious 17-month battle for the Democratic presidential nomination.

"They just wanted the opportunity to meet together alone. This is a deeply personal time, too. You're sorting out your feelings. Hillary's going to be giving a big speech tomorrow, Barack is trying to put things together for a major presidential campaign. So there are a lot of decompression, nerve-endings, all these things that need to kind of come together, and I think the opportunity to sit down, just the two of them, was positive," Feinstein (D-Calif.), who hosted the meeting at her "Willow Oaks" Spring Valley estate, recounted for reporters in the Capitol this morning. (Click here for audio.)

Sadly, for history's sake, Feinstein did not attend the meeting, nor did staff for either senator, so only Sens. Clinton (N.Y.) and Obama (Ill.) themselves know precisely what was said.

The secretive meeting came about after Feinstein, a Clinton backer, offered Clinton her home earlier this week if she wanted to finally sit down face-to-face with Obama, who had said for several weeks that he would meet Clinton "anytime, anywhere" she chose.

Late yesterday afternoon Clinton, who will formally drop out of the race tomorrow at a rally here in Washington Saturday, decided the time was right.

Obama was holding an evening rally with 10,000 supporters not far away, at the Nissan Pavilion in northern Virginia; Clinton called Feinstein to let her know they would be coming by.

Other than greeting the two opponents, Feinstein said she did nothing for the meeting: "She called yesterday afternoon and said, 'Could we use your house?' And I said, 'Sure.' I received them, put them in the living room in two comfortable chairs facing one another."

Clinton and Obama brought one staffer each, but those two were sent off to Feinstein's study so the candidates could talk among themselves one-on-one.

Feinsten, whose financier husband Richard Blum has amassed a fortune valued at a bare minimum of $50 million, said Clinton and Obama did not ask for anything, so she just gave them glasses of water.

"Just water, no coffee, no, no, no, nothing," she said.

At 9 p.m. Feinstein headed upstairs to do some senatorial work while Clinton and Obama sat talking privately. An hour later, Clinton and Obama called upstairs to let Feinstein know the historic meeting was finished. "I came down and I said, 'Good night everybody, I hope you had a good meeting.' And they were laughing and that was it," Feinstein said.

As reporters got wind of a potential meeting, they circled potential spots throughout the Washington region, including Clinton's home off Embassy Row. As Jeff Zeleny of the New York Times recounted this morning, reporters thought it might be in Feinstein's home, prompting furious searches of property records.

But passersby to the Feinstein-Blum household would have been no wiser of the moment, according to Feinstein, because only a couple of Secret Service agents for each senator were on hand outside while the staffers sat in the study.

So top secret was the meeting that Feinstein's own staff only learned of it from watching the cable networks, which broke the news last night after the meeting was concluded.

While she could not talk about the details of the Obama-Clinton meeting, Feinstein said she has spoken several times to Clinton this week and understands that she wants to secure certain assurances from Obama that the issues and voters she cares about will have their voices heard, first at the convention in Denver and then in his administration should he win in November.

"She wants to do everything she can to bring the party together, she wants to do everything she can to see that the people who voted for her have their voices heard and that that's reflected in (convention) credentials and the platform. She wants to have a working relationship with Senator Obama.... She is, I think, desirous of protecting the issues that she cares about to the extent she can, seeing that the people are represented in this administration and certainly in the convention, and also to help with the ticket. And I know she feels this way, because we've talked about it," Feinstein said.

By Web Politics Editor  |  June 6, 2008; 11:09 AM ET
Categories:  B_Blog , Barack Obama , Hillary Rodham Clinton  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: A Political Star is Born
Next: Do Voters Who Threaten to Actually Bolt?

Comments

The house was wired - I have the transcript! See below!

Obama :

"Hey Hill, you lost, how about admitting it?"

Clinton :

"Barack, I never meant to be the "female" candidate, I tried to distance myself from that label from the start, but my supporters have decided that it is the most important reason to vote for me...that and the fact that I am awake at 3 am waiting for phone calls and have a meager bit more experience than you do. So I had to keep my sinking campaign going for them. I know it was petty, and I know I should have dropped out sooner, but I didn't want to hurt their feelings by doing the right thing. They wanted to hate you, so I let them hate you. And now I've led them to believe John McCain is a better choice than you, so most of them are threatening to vote for him. This election was supposed to be about defeating the Republicans, and I've made a mess of it. I'm sorry."

Posted by: Big Brother | June 9, 2008 11:59 AM | Report abuse

Heather

What you are missing is an understanding of how economies function.

When you don't directly control the price of a commodity, (like oil) then there are two ways to reduce its price:

-Increase Supply.

-Reduce Demand.

Sooo, since we can't directly control the price, nor can we control the supply, we only have one option left.

Controlling our demand.

How do we get consumers to limit the amount of petroleum products they use? Tell them to? HA! I think not.

You have to increase the price.

Consumers demand fewer products at the higher price, so the suppliers reduce the price of the product in an attempt to stimulate demand.

The same scenario holds true for the "gas tax holiday" as proposed by McCain and supported by Clinton. Decreased price = higher demand = market correction by increasing price. Precisely why the "holiday" wasn't going to work.

Higher oil prices generally creates profits America doesn't see. Tax on the product returns to us Americans. We need to focus on alternative energies, and to do that we need money to fund the projects. We are fighting an immensely expensive war, and without another source of revenue we have no money to invest. Taxes are the only way our government can make money to use for such ventures.

We need to move away from our dependence on oil, we need to fund research, we need to curb our usage, and we need to understand that a commodity that is becoming rare rises in value.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 9, 2008 11:21 AM | Report abuse

Published on Monday, May 26, 2008 by Corporate Crime Reporter
Bugliosi Wants Bush Charged with Murder
by Russell Mokhiber
Former California prosecutor Vincent Bugliosi wants President Bush charged with murder.

Bugliosi - who in the early 1970s successfully prosecuted Charles Manson for the murder of Sharon Tate and six others - lays out his case against Bush in The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder (Perseus Books, 2008).

The book will hit book stores tomorrow - Tuesday May 27, 2008.

"My motivation for writing this book is simple - to bring about justice," Bugliosi says in a video posted on the book's web site (prosecutionofbush.com).

"George Bush has gotten away with murder - thousands of murders," Bugliosi says. "And no one is doing anything about it. The American people can't let him do this."

Bugliosi wants one or more of the fifty state attorneys general or one of the nation's hundreds of district attorneys to step up and prosecute Bush for murder.

"I have set forth in my book the jurisdictional basis for the Attorney General in each of the fifty states - plus the hundreds upon hundreds of district attorneys in counties within the states - to prosecute George Bush for the murders of any soldier or soldiers from their state or county who were killed in Iraq fighting George Bush's war," Bugliosi says in the video on his web site.

"I don't think it is too unreasonable to believe that at least one prosecutor out there in America - maybe many more - will be courageous enough to say - this is the United States of America. And in America no one is above the law. George Bush has gotten away with murder. No one is doing anything about it. And maybe this book will change that."

Bugliosi argues that Bush misled the nation into a war that has killed more than 4,000 Americans.

At the center of Bugliosi's indictment of Bush is a October 7, 2002 speech to the nation in which Bush claims that Saddam Hussein was a great danger to this nation either by attacking us with his weapons of mass destruction, or giving these weapons to some terrorist group.

"And he said - the attack could happen on any given day - meaning the threat was imminent," Bugliosi says.

"The only problem for George Bush - and if he were prosecuted, there is no way he could get around this - is that on October 1, 2002, six days earlier, the CIA sent George Bush its 2002 National Intelligence Estimate, a classified top secret report. Page eight clearly and unequivocally says that Saddam Hussein was not an imminent threat to the security of this country. In fact, the report says that Hussein would only use whatever weapons of mass destruction he had against us if he feared that America was about to attack him."

"We know that Bush was telling millions upon millions of unsuspecting Americans exactly the opposite of what his own CIA was telling him," Bugliosi said. "We know that George Bush took this nation to war on a lie. Who is going to pay for all of this? Someone has to pay. And the person who has to pay obviously is directly responsible for all of the death horror and suffering. And that person is George W. Bush."

"The majority of the American people probably are going to find it difficult to accept that the President of the United States, the most powerful man on earth, would engage in conduct that smacks of such great criminality. You just don't expect something like this from an American president. However, I'm very confident that once they read the book, they will be overwhelmed by the evidence against Bush. They will be convinced that he is guilty of murder and should be prosecuted. In the book, I lay out the legal architecture for the case against Bush, all of the evidence of the guilt against Bush and the jurisdiction to prosecute him. I even set forth proposed cross-examination questions of him if he takes the witness stand at trial."

As a state prosecutor in Los Angeles, Bugliosi prosecuted Charles Manson and members of his "family" for the 1969 murders of Sharon Tate and six others.

Bugliosi says he lost only one of the 106 felony cases he tried as a prosecutor. He says he won 21 out of 21 murder cases.

He is the author of Helter Skelter - the best-selling book on the Manson trial.

Get it together PlEASE, Forget the media CIRCUS and the racial jerks. We certainly need you. Unless you are dysfunctional your neighbor Way up North are counting on the people, and may I add the world needs, you the people, and you need us Polar bears, Igloos and all. Come on down to Canada, you are always welcome.

Posted by: justadad55+ | June 9, 2008 11:13 AM | Report abuse

Obama and Clinton are politicians who are on the same political page ending a hard fought campaign against each other. In the end they both know that their differences are small and the things they want for this country are the same. That's why they came together. It's too bad their followers are taking this much more personally than they are. It has been the blogsphere where things have gotten so nasty and personal and less on the campaign trail between the two candidates. It's time to get over it because if Clinton supporters think that John McCain is going to do more for the causes they care about they better take a moment to really think about what a McCain presidency will look like. His Supreme Court appointments especially.

Posted by: rc53 | June 8, 2008 3:28 PM | Report abuse

Isn't it funny how Hillary and her followers were talked down to but now that Obama is the nominee he and his followers want the Hillary supporters to vote for him. That isn't going to happen and just to make sure Obama doesn't win as every vote will count Hillary supporters will vote McCain in November.

Posted by: Kat | June 7, 2008 5:13 PM | Report abuse

I am sorry, but I just do not see the most liberal member of the Senate as being what America needs!

Democrats a week ago brought the oil executives to a hearing and asked them about the cost of gasoline; how it was hurting American families.

This week, these same Democrats were trying to pass a Bill that would add an additional 57 cents to the cost of each gallon of gasoline!

How do you reconcile these two meetings, with the same Democrats in them???? The price of gasoline is to high, lets add 57 cents a gallon to it?

These are the Democrats who tell us the economy is bad, that people are hurting finaically. But this same Global Warming bill would raise the cost of electricity as must as 40%. So, Americans are hurting in their wallets, lets raise the price they pay for electricity!

What am I missing here?

Posted by: Heather | June 7, 2008 3:04 PM | Report abuse

It is 'sleeve' not 'sleave'

Posted by: Anonymous | June 7, 2008 1:43 PM | Report abuse

Dear "Dee, Washington, DC"

It happened several times. Many times in PA - there are several article written about it from first hand accounts. One in particular I remember was at a university there in PA where the student was for Obama, I believe, and they said they were shocked to hear Michelle saying "we need more white people, get me some white people" to stand behind Barack. I don't have the link but you can research yourself if you really want to know the truth. This also happened in IN with Michelle.

I would search for it for you but I do not believe that you are sincere in really wanting to know so I have given enough info to do the research yourself.

Don't you get it? We all love our country. We all would love a Black or a woman in office - we just want them to be respectable and qualified.

Did you see Obama in Chicago today? I was so disgusted with the way he presented himself. I saw it first on t.v. then I asked my husband to take a look to get his opinion about how he thought obama was acting but, no suprise, none of the stations showed any further length of video of him speaking. They just showed him speaking with either no sound or just him speaking a few words not even an entire sentence. He was low. Like the style, not exactly but definately the style - like when he was calling Hillary "Annie Oakley", of his preacher and priest now "ex" friends and advisors.

I, as a Hillary supporter, can admit her faults. I have never met or read anything online from an Obama supporter where the admit he is anything but flawless.

Obama and Michelle are disgusting. I will never vote for them. I will definately become a McCain Democrat.

Obama will be the Democrats GWB, if elected. I will do what I can to make sure that does not happen.

I would rather have an old patriot than another low life cocaine druggie manipulater that is not up to the job.

Posted by: Obama will be the Democrats GWB so I'm McCain Democrat | June 7, 2008 6:01 AM | Report abuse

what a bunch of wack jobs

economic experts and political scientists most of you need an education, you are so caught up in the Osama craze you can not see this guy stands for nothing

Osoma's last speech he promisses for the first time after he is elected to lower the level of the ocean heal the sick and a bunch of other crap he can't deliver

listen to what this guy is saying morons

he portrays his self as moses, he is a tent revival preacher not a savoir

you dummies talk about slavery as if it were yesterday DO ANY OF YOU know what year it is?

Osoma and his wife went to school on america's dime and now they bite the hand that fed them

wake up

Posted by: vkz | June 7, 2008 2:09 AM | Report abuse

Attention Washingtonpost.com: There are Trolls at work here, who are busy spreading fear, uncertainty, and doubt. They are posting the same nasty comments at various locations on your site. Please block them, and delete the offending posts. Here are just two of the users in question: "Dianne," and "Sandy." I suspect that this is one person using multiple usernames.

Posted by: CharacterCounts1 | June 7, 2008 1:14 AM | Report abuse

Most of you are idiots that would build your own guillatine with a goofy smile on your face.

Posted by: John | June 6, 2008 10:14 PM

Try learning how to spell, IDIOT.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 7, 2008 12:36 AM | Report abuse

Most of you are idiots that would build your own guillatine with a goofy smile on your face.

Posted by: John | June 6, 2008 10:14 PM | Report abuse

this is to the lady who starts off by saying she is not a racist because she is married to a black man. That is the most racist, sick and disgusting comment that I have ever heard. Just because you are married to a black man does not exempt you from being a racist it if anything confirms that you are one. Reason being that you are still wreaking of envy and jealously from the many years gone and present where your men have taken advantage of black women, while you just sat there in the next room listening to the black women cry out in pain and disgust but you did nothing to stop your husband and fathers because you wanted the reward of servents, slaves the big house, jewelry and most of all mistress of the plantation,. The only time you were used were to breed.
For pleasure he needed the real thing which was black women who by the way hated his filthy touch unlike you who loves the touch of a black man. Who cares if you don't vote for Obama of course you wouldn't because he represents what you despised. That is a solid good study black family with pride. A beautiful talented well educated black woman with two beautiful black daughters and even more beautiful black women such as Oprah supporting him. who needs you. You are just one of those silly woman who has nothing to do but email your stupidity all day long. I would suggest that you get a life and get over yourself. By the way I am married to awhite man and I am a proud African american and you can beat the honor is all his.

Posted by: detreus | June 6, 2008 10:05 PM | Report abuse

Not a raccist, married to a black man and have two bi-racial children. I WILL NOT VOTE FOR OBAMA UNLES HILLARY CLINTON IS ON THE TICKET!!! Mrs. Clinton has the political hands of experience and he has aaahhhhh... the national media orgasmic over him for personality and charisma. His only hope is to select her as his vice. After all she who won the national popular vote. Until he has proven himself in the line of fire with real critical issues he has no merit or credentials in my eyes. I compare our nations crisis to a credical health matter such as terminal cancer or triple bypass surgery. Don't know about you but I would much rather have a physicians hands of experience working on me than a 2 year intern!! HILLARY AS VICE!! It will balance the democratic ticket out.

Posted by: g mcglone | June 6, 2008 9:32 PM | Report abuse

Not a raccist, married to a black man and have two bi-racial children. I WILL NOT VOTE FOR OBAMA UNLES HILLARY CLINTON IS ON THE TICKET!!! Mrs. Clinton has the political hands of experience and he has aaahhhhh... the national media orgasmic over him for personality and charisma. His only hope is to select her as his vice. After all she who won the national popular vote. Until he has proven himself in the line of fire with real critical issues he has no merit or credentials in my eyes. I compare our nations crisis to a credical health matter such as terminal cancer or triple bypass surgery. Don't know about you but I would much rather have a physicians hands of experience working on me than a 2 year intern!! HILLARY AS VICE!! It will balance the democratic ticket out.

Posted by: g mcglone | June 6, 2008 9:29 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: lynn parker | June 6, 2008 8:11 PM

This Lynn Parker is a deranged lunatic that posts all day every day on the Internet. Get a job or at least and education, you FREAK.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 6, 2008 9:24 PM | Report abuse

Oh! Better than the movies man! Perfect for this era of E-entertainment stalking press ... and a move better than Ben Affleck and Jlo could have pulled off in the day. And I guess this is what they mean by making 'preparations' for a diplomatic sit down meeting. And to see CNN reporting about the clandestine rendevouz is hilarious! : ) After such a long battle and rigorous campaign season these two senators deserved a one on one ... and the way it was staged was sooo remarkably well played to keep all of our attentions. Gasp! What will the hero and heroine do next? A real page turner and apt for this period which can be dry and operational losing the voter's interest ... which can go astray on useless topics. I like how Feinstein played host - that is just too much ... and so amusing. But it is also very strategic to illustrate the work of these women. Feinstein plays host to mending bridges by honoring the privacy of these two powerhouses. And day two has Nancy Pelosi rolling out a simultaneous forwarding of bills by democrats reflective of this years presidential bid. It IS impressive. I wish, also, that we could have forum to recognize the bitter sweet pill we are swallowing at the moment. On the one hand, it is true that amazingly an African American is a serious contender for the presidency ... he is not there just to make a political social point. And on the other hand just as equally a woman held the other space to make that claim. It is then gratifying that it was so close. It says to me - at least - we are having difficulty saying/agreeing which one is more important ... as IF they ever could be! (One more important than the other). Y'know? I have had a luxury of looking and seeing that BOTH are things I have worked for ... and I can relax back and make other kinds of choices, and - at least for me - the PROCESS of how things happen is really important and sometimes more important than the outcome. And if you consider that a playing field had been levelled in these elections (gender and race) ... then what attributes in a candidate begins to play large? And it may not come down to the pant-suit and the polka-dotted ties! (smile). What Obama has presented and conveyed both in his speeches and the way his campaign has been run (I hope the internal dynamics truly reflects so) is that the method is every bit as important as what is to be achieved ... that the end does not always justify the means. This is the whole context that somewhat explains how we got to Iraq ... it is true that the "data" was corrupted - but the environment was as well .. it served the purpose of those who essentially wanted a war. For those of us bringing up children in this time ... it was very trying. It is of great importance to me that the 'leadership' is one that seems to me to care about the psyches of all our children and that we do not create an environment that puts their sense of safety at risk merely to meet a short term gain. And just as equally, I want to have a sense that they are careful about the worlds' children too. No longer can we say 'this is our land, this is your land ... ' and I am sure even Guthrie would appreciate an amendment that says, "This is our world, this is your world." The boundaries are blurring in the era of 'globalization'. In this way, I think this has been one of the more complicated elections that was not entirely straight out political. My sense is that both went through tremendous and profound learning and understanding. I would be very interested to hear Senator Clinton on this when she has had a chance to reflect ... because after a marathon such as this - it DOES take reflection and refocusing.

Posted by: Intrigue indeed! | June 6, 2008 9:22 PM | Report abuse

What is the matter with you dumb people,
you just cant see a black man becoming the president of this usa, HRC is not angel with all of the things she has done. she claim she has so much experience, please name just one thing she has done. I am a 70 year old woman and white at that and i will be voting for Obama!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: m sample | June 6, 2008 8:54 PM | Report abuse

I am certain Hillary wants the best for the Dems., the country and the people.

However,I do not trust Obama and his sweet talk. Hitler promised the world to the German people. Bush lied his way into the White House, and the people fell for his sweet talking demented mind. Now we are faced with another who would sell his soul to the devil to be President.

CHEERS NOW FOR OBAMA ARE TEARS LATER

Posted by: lynn parker | June 6, 2008 8:11 PM | Report abuse

It is okay if Obama's wife uses the term "whitey" but if someone called her a "yard ape" the media would be all over it.

Posted by: Dianne | June 6, 2008 4:22 PM
--------------------------------

Dianne, put up or shut up. Prove that this happen. Stop spreading lies. If you have proof then show it. Or are you so weak and feeble minded that you would just believe a rumor and take it to be truth. Where is your character. It is nauseating to know that there are people out there like you. What is your problem? You definitely have one and it has nothing to do with the presidential campaign.

Posted by: Dee, Washington, DC | June 6, 2008 8:01 PM | Report abuse

"Of all his talk of unity, he is making this very difficult; if he doesn't take her then I don't take him. I'm ready to be a McCain Democrat. I will not stand for the Dems to do this to me one more time and I will not forget it when the General comes. So, to repeat, if he doesn't take her then I don't take him. It is that easy."

I totally agree with this poster!

Posted by: | June 6, 2008 4:46 PM
--------------------------------

I totally DISAGREE with this poster! Come on guys, they are working through it. Step up and work through you own stuff. This makes no sense - - how is he making it hard for her when he followed through on "anytime, any place, I will meet with her. Get rid of that twisted thinking so we can win this thing. Or if you want to vote for McCain, then do so and stop dissing the process. This is life and the real world. Grow up, everything will not be the way you think it should be.

Posted by: Dee, Washington, DC | June 6, 2008 7:57 PM | Report abuse

The world cheers - and a few disgruntled women moan!! Go figure!!!

Posted by: Helen, Michigan | June 6, 2008 7:55 PM | Report abuse

I am certain Hillary wants the best for the Dems., the country and the people.

However,I do not trust Obama and his sweet talk. Hitler promised the world to the German people. Bush lied his way into the White House, and the people fell for his sweet talking demented mind. Now we are faced with another who would sell his soul to the devil to be President.

CHEERS NOW FOR OBAMA ARE TEARS LATER

Posted by: lynn parker | June 6, 2008 7:37 PM | Report abuse

Wow people. Most posting here are racist. White and Black. I have never tried to be mean to someone because of their color, or sex. But, I will judge someone on how they present themselves.

Posted by: lc | June 6, 2008 7:10 PM | Report abuse

I think it's really odd how people want to list Obama's "shady" past and completely forget that Hillary's married to a pretty shady character - and that he certainly has hung with shady characters in his past - and still is, according to news reports. Hillary is not the Virgin Mary here - I am a 60 year old white woman (didn't finish college) so I SHOULD be her base. God knows that I have prayed for the day we could have a female president. Then I saw how she voted for the war and was immediately disgusted. While other American's have children dying in Iraq, have you ever noticed how few of the House's members have adult children over there? It's real easy to vote when YOUR kid isn't in danger. She trusted George Bush, she lied about her "dangerous" trip to Bosnia - she called her opponent every name in the book and basically gave the Republican party all the ammo they needed on someone who had no "shady" past until she created it for him. Michelle Obama has every right to call people whitey - for way to long the "n" word has been flung around by whites. I hope these women vote for McCain - they will lose every wonderful right that my generation fought so hard for women to have. Go ahead, ladies - just hope you or yours never needs an abortion - or needs a very, very Conservative Supreme Court to bring back segregation (although the way most of you sound - that would be welcomed)!

Posted by: Kathy, Virginia | June 6, 2008 6:49 PM | Report abuse

Okay, but what the hell did they talk about? The VP slot? The weather? Lisa on Top Chef?

Until we find out for sure, please allow this imagineered photo-reenactment of stuff we made up to suffice: http://www.236.com/news/2008/06/06/inside_the_secret_meeting_with_1_7004.php

Posted by: eliana | June 6, 2008 6:35 PM | Report abuse

Finally the democrats have annoying supporters chanting the name of a dead candidate so the republicans don't feel so lonely.


Ron Paul / Clinton '08

Posted by: this is ridiculous | June 6, 2008 6:29 PM | Report abuse

The meeting was inevitable. It's just too bad the race became so divisive (even after it ended). And unfortunately, HRC's surrogates did a lot of the dividing and "blaming the victim." Sen. Clinton is a great American, however she and former Pres. Clinton allowed their unbridled hubris to cloud their ability to see that the majority of the people wanted someone new, fresh and authentic.

Misjudgments were evident throughout their campaign and they appeared to use disrespect, hostility, and racial politics as a reason to vote for Hillary. So much so, that the Republicans have started running Hillary sound bites, including her endorsement of John McCain against Sen. Obama. Sad.

The reality is that as a country, we have a distinct choice between two candidates with VERY different policies positions. Obviously if people are so angry with the outcome of the Democratic primaries that they would vote for Sen. McCain, then I say so be it. As sad as a decision like that would be, we live in a country where we each have that right.

Much like the vote FOR the war out fear of being seen as unpatriotic, we each have our own conscience to contend with when we make such decisions and the results are madness and death to our fellow citizens and to others in our names.

I will vote for the candidate that I think will be best in restoring our stature in the world and who will bring home our young men and women in an orderly fashion irrespective age, race, pastor, wife, or religion.

Posted by: eds | June 6, 2008 6:22 PM | Report abuse

No-name:
"Hillary Clinton will appear in a live town hall meeting Sunday on ABC's "This Week with George Stephanopoulos. THAT'S FREE ADVERTISING, DUMBASSES. WITH A FORMER CLINTON STAFFER, NO LESS, THROWING SOFTBALL QUESTIONS AT HER MAJESTY. "

Well... they have to so a little something here and there to appease the white folks..

Posted by: JC Tennessee | June 6, 2008 6:00 PM | Report abuse

For all those women who claim that Obama is a horrible sexist and that they will now vote for McCain....

http://www.votesmart.org/issue_rating_category.php?can_id=55463

http://www.votesmart.org/issue_rating_category.php?can_id=9490

http://www.votesmart.org/issue_rating_category.php?can_id=53270

CLINTON:
2005-2006 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the American Association of University Women 100 percent in 2005-2006.

2005-2006 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the Business and Professional Women USA 83 percent in 2005-2006.

2005-2006 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the Federally Employed Women 90 percent in the 2005-2006.

2005-2006 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the National Organization for Women 96 percent in 2005-2006.

2005 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the American Association of University Women 100 percent in 2005.

2005 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the National Organization for Women 100 percent in 2005.

2003-2004 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the American Association of University Women 100 percent in 2003-2004.

2003-2004 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the Business and Professional Women USA 77 percent in 2003-2004.

2003-2004 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the Federally Employed Women 90 percent in 2003-2004.

OBAMA:
2005-2006 Senator Obama supported the interests of the American Association of University Women 90 percent in 2005-2006.

2005-2006 Senator Obama supported the interests of the Business and Professional Women USA 100 percent in 2005-2006.

2005-2006 Senator Obama supported the interests of the Federally Employed Women 100 percent in the 2005-2006.

2005-2006 Senator Obama supported the interests of the National Organization for Women 91 percent in 2005-2006.

2005 Senator Obama supported the interests of the American Association of University Women 83 percent in 2005.

2005 Senator Obama supported the interests of the National Organization for Women 100 percent in 2005.

MCCAIN:
2005-2006 Senator McCain supported the interests of the American Association of University Women 20 percent in 2005-2006.

2005-2006 Senator McCain supported the interests of the Business and Professional Women USA 33 percent in 2005-2006.

2005-2006 Senator McCain supported the interests of the Federally Employed Women 30 percent in the 2005-2006.

2005-2006 Senator McCain supported the interests of the National Organization for Women 13 percent in 2005-2006.

2005 Senator McCain supported the interests of the American Association of University Women 17 percent in 2005.

2005 Senator McCain supported the interests of the National Organization for Women 0 percent in 2005.

2003-2004 Senator McCain supported the interests of the American Association of University Women 12 percent in 2003-2004.

2003-2004 Senator McCain supported the interests of the Business and Professional Women USA 54 percent in 2003-2004.

2003-2004 Senator McCain supported the interests of the Federally Employed Women 0 percent in 2003-2004.

Posted by: Jeff | June 6, 2008 5:52 PM | Report abuse

i suck myself to sleep

Posted by: jake the long snake | June 6, 2008 5:52 PM | Report abuse

"Of all his talk of unity, he is making this very difficult; if he doesn't take her then I don't take him. I'm ready to be a McCain Democrat. I will not stand for the Dems to do this to me one more time and I will not forget it when the General comes. So, to repeat, if he doesn't take her then I don't take him. It is that easy."

I totally agree with this poster!

Posted by: | June 6, 2008 4:46 PM

GREAT, TWO VOTES FOR MCCAIN. TRY LOOKING AT THE POLLS FOR THE GENERAL AND SEE HOW FUTILE YOUR RETARDED 'MOVEMENT' IS.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 6, 2008 5:20 PM | Report abuse

"Then the media in effect gave Obama millions of dollars worth of free advertising by mostly giving him a free pass."

Hillary Clinton will appear in a live town hall meeting Sunday on ABC's "This Week with George Stephanopoulos.

THAT'S FREE ADVERTISING, DUMBASSES. WITH A FORMER CLINTON STAFFER, NO LESS, THROWING SOFTBALL QUESTIONS AT HER MAJESTY.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 6, 2008 5:18 PM | Report abuse

Its time to bring this to an end and elect the most qualified person (man or Woman or whatever) to the highest office of the land. Then maybe we can begin to recover from the disaster after disaster that we were made to witness over the last eight years.

Long live the United States of America. God Bless the World.

Posted by: omama fan | June 6, 2008 5:08 PM | Report abuse

"Of all his talk of unity, he is making this very difficult; if he doesn't take her then I don't take him. I'm ready to be a McCain Democrat. I will not stand for the Dems to do this to me one more time and I will not forget it when the General comes. So, to repeat, if he doesn't take her then I don't take him. It is that easy."

I totally agree with this poster!

Posted by: Anonymous | June 6, 2008 4:46 PM | Report abuse

America needs to lead the world, the good, the bad, and the ugly into a stable and productive future. We need a young, smart and mentally alert president to restore America's eminence and elevate the rest of the world. Republicans will be relegated to the oblivion this time because the GOP with a core belief in immobility and conservatism resists advancements and change. The Democratic Party will score landslide victories in both houses of Congress.

Posted by: Elizabeth | June 6, 2008 4:34 PM | Report abuse

Dianne- You make me sick. Its rednecks like you who give Utah a bad name.

Posted by: Guest Worker | June 6, 2008 4:26 PM | Report abuse

sunni and shia... i had deleted that... ah wells im off

Posted by: Anonymous | June 6, 2008 4:23 PM | Report abuse

It is okay if Obama's wife uses the term "whitey" but if someone called her a "yard ape" the media would be all over it.

Posted by: Dianne | June 6, 2008 4:22 PM | Report abuse

Sharon:
"The world in which we live....gagged out of fear of aggressive responses. "

And fear of losing the black viewers and ratings on TV. Money. Also Abraham Lincoln said to win votes impress the ignorant.

Posted by: JC Tennessee | June 6, 2008 4:22 PM | Report abuse

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2008/06/mccain_forgets_his_own_votes.html

God McCain is awful. Forgets the difference between shia and shi'ite on five seperate occasions, now this... What will he forget next?

Posted by: Ben in NC | June 6, 2008 4:21 PM | Report abuse

HOW OBAMA "WON"

Even though Obama's past reeks with associating with shady characters, terrorist supporters, and a racist anti-American "Pastor", sexism, race, and the "Wright baggage" not being known during the first 11 primaries overrode Clinton's support of more astute people. Then the media in effect gave Obama millions of dollars worth of free advertising by mostly giving him a free pass. This because they did not want to risk being accused of playing the race card. Also he outspent Clinton 3 to 1 and he still beat her by only 2%. Without the above Clinton would be the nominee today.

That Obama received the above support to achieve the position of democratic candidate for the Presidency does not speak well for the democrats or even for America. Too bad.

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

BRAVO!

Posted by: Sue Y | June 6, 2008 4:21 PM | Report abuse

Have you heard the latest coming "whitey" comments coming out of Michelle Obama's gob? Absolutely shocking!

Posted by: Sandy | June 6, 2008 4:20 PM | Report abuse

HOW OBAMA "WON"

Even though Obama's past reeks with associating with shady characters, terrorist supporters, and a racist anti-American "Pastor", sexism, race, and the "Wright baggage" not being known during the first 11 primaries overrode Clinton's support of more astute people. Then the media in effect gave Obama millions of dollars worth of free advertising by mostly giving him a free pass. This because they did not want to risk being accused of playing the race card. Also he outspent Clinton 3 to 1 and he still beat her by only 2%. Without the above Clinton would be the nominee today.

That Obama received the above support to achieve the position of democratic candidate for the Presidency does not speak well for the democrats or even for America. Too bad.

Posted by: KH | June 6, 2008 4:20 PM | Report abuse

I think Obama should rename the WHite House to "The Black House". LOL! White folks are going to hate it once he gets in.

Posted by: Shawanda | June 6, 2008 4:16 PM

__________________________

Only in your wee little mind.

Posted by: Arthur | June 6, 2008 4:18 PM | Report abuse

RE:
HOW OBAMA "WON"

Even though Obama's past reeks with associating with shady characters, terrorist supporters, and a racist anti-American "Pastor", sexism, race, and the "Wright baggage" not being known during the first 11 primaries overrode Clinton's support of more astute people. Then the media in effect gave Obama millions of dollars worth of free advertising by mostly giving him a free pass. This because they did not want to risk being accused of playing the race card. Also he outspent Clinton 3 to 1 and he still beat her by only 2%. Without the above Clinton would be the nominee today.

That Obama received the above support to achieve the position of democratic candidate for the Presidency does not speak well for the democrats or even for America. Too bad.


Posted by: JC Tennessee | June 6, 2008 4:07 PM

_________________________________

You (above comment) are absolutely correct. If the negatives had come out about Obama sooner, Hillary would be the nominee. Obama doesn't have a chance to win in November, but the DNC could not risk the "racist" label.... that word again. And they were concerned about riots. The world in which we live....gagged out of fear of aggressive responses. And I thought we lived in a free society.

Posted by: Sharon | June 6, 2008 4:17 PM | Report abuse

I think Obama should rename the WHite House to "The Black House". LOL! White folks are going to hate it once he gets in.

Posted by: Shawanda | June 6, 2008 4:16 PM | Report abuse

Obama did not outspend Hillary 3 to 1. He did outspend. The fact that he was able to do so while not accepting PAC or lobbyist money while she was is astounding, and refreshing.

Obama's fundraising advantage only became significant toward the end, when it became clear he was the clear, clear favorite.

Hillary outspent Barack in the beginning, especially in the big states. She just didn't spend well.

Posted by: Ben in NC | June 6, 2008 4:11 PM | Report abuse

Obama or Hillary -- it didn't really matter. The Republicans have been racking up such a noteworthy list of high crimes and misdemeanors for many years now. As long as the next occupant of the White House is NOT a Republican the American people will be happy.

Posted by: Andy | June 6, 2008 4:11 PM | Report abuse

DOWN with Christianity,Muslem,Judism and all these STUPID RELIGIONS that CAUSE STUPID WARS!!! NO RELIGION RULZ

Posted by: Anonymous | June 6, 2008 4:11 PM | Report abuse

How presumptious it is of this person who comments, "Just be intellectually honest and admit the thought of a half Black man running the country turns your stomach and fuels your fear..." to believe that anyone who does not support Obama must be a bigot. That is not different than saying anyone who doesn't support Hillary is a misogynist. Stop putting negative labels on people who simply do not favor your candidate. This racist label for anyone who feels Obama is -- most certainly an inexperienced, no more than a teleprompter orator, who's claim that judgment skills are of great importance even though he has none, considering the poor company he continues to choose for the past couple decades -- has been used so often that it is completely ineffective. Most people do not see his color; they just are intelligent enough and astute enough to understand that this freshman politician is way undermatched for being the President of United States of America. I mean, please.... the ones who are concerned with Obama's being half African American are his supporters like the guy who wrote the above dribble.

Posted by: Mod1 | June 6, 2008 4:05 PM

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

I agree with the above wholeheartedly.


Posted by: AR | June 6, 2008 4:10 PM | Report abuse

GOD I love AMERICA! USA is BACK!!! GO OBAMA and save the world from all these WARS they want to create! AMERICAN'S Thank You, you the people can make a difference.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 6, 2008 4:09 PM | Report abuse

HOW OBAMA "WON"

Even though Obama's past reeks with associating with shady characters, terrorist supporters, and a racist anti-American "Pastor", sexism, race, and the "Wright baggage" not being known during the first 11 primaries overrode Clinton's support of more astute people. Then the media in effect gave Obama millions of dollars worth of free advertising by mostly giving him a free pass. This because they did not want to risk being accused of playing the race card. Also he outspent Clinton 3 to 1 and he still beat her by only 2%. Without the above Clinton would be the nominee today.

That Obama received the above support to achieve the position of democratic candidate for the Presidency does not speak well for the democrats or even for America. Too bad.

Posted by: JC Tennessee | June 6, 2008 4:07 PM | Report abuse

How presumptious it is of this person who comments, "Just be intellectually honest and admit the thought of a half Black man running the country turns your stomach and fuels your fear..." to believe that anyone who does not support Obama must be a bigot. That is not different than saying anyone who doesn't support Hillary is a misogynist. Stop putting negative labels on people who simply do not favor your candidate. This racist label for anyone who feels Obama is -- most certainly an inexperienced, no more than a teleprompter orator, who's claim that judgment skills are of great importance even though he has none, considering the poor company he continues to choose for the past couple decades -- has been used so often that it is completely ineffective. Most people do not see his color; they just are intelligent enough and astute enough to understand that this freshman politician is way undermatched for being the President of United States of America. I mean, please.... the ones who are concerned with Obama's being half African American are his supporters like the guy who wrote the above dribble.

Posted by: Mod1 | June 6, 2008 4:05 PM | Report abuse

Corrected repost

I backed Hillary from the day she started her campaign, but now I will have no problem backing Obama in his run for the presidency. The American people, their children, and indeed all the peoples of this world, can ill afford another four years of any Republican. Anyone who claims to be "a lifelong Democrat," then says they are voting for McCain is either lying, or 26 cards short of a full deck. This race is not, nor has it ever been, about race or gender, it is about the future of our children and their children. It is time to stop the bickering and unite behind the Democratic candidates for the Presidency, the Senate and the House. Let's give our children back their future, Vote for Democrats in November.

Posted by: papasoji | June 6, 2008 4:04 PM | Report abuse

I would love to have Clinton as the VP, if we could be sure that she would publicly back all of Barack's decisions!

Debate, disagreement, and discussion is great, and I would like to have her voice in an Obama administration- but will she keep it private between herself and Barack? You don't question a superior publicly, and I'm not sure she has the self discipline to keep to that!

Posted by: Ben From NC | June 6, 2008 4:03 PM | Report abuse

he offered to steal her work, her supporters, her clout, her dreams and blackmailed her with the "let's keep the family together" crap. I hope she comes out swinging and continues her presidential bid.

http://www.PresidentShe.com

Posted by: ladiesfirst | June 6, 2008 4:02 PM | Report abuse

"To Hillary and any fanatics who follow her and make fake excuses like the man's church or his faith for rationalizing why you are voting for McCain. Just be intellectually honest and admit the thought of a half Black man running the country turns your stomach and fuels your fear of righteous retribution for the sins of your fathers. You people can relax and have no fear, we do not have to get you back, God is on our side."


That's a little racist, don't you think? Someone needs to take a look inside a mirror before attacking others.

Posted by: LP | June 6, 2008 4:00 PM | Report abuse

Well stated Chris...but may I add that I would never trust Feinstein, and it's sort of questionable that she was a Clinton backer, that she would hold a meeting of the two in her home, it all sounds suspect. Let's say she's had recorders around so that Clinton could railroad Obama into saying something negative so that she could use it against him later. She is a cruel and cunning, evil woman. Her actions during this past election has shown that. He would be an absolute fool to take this woman as vice president, an utter fool, and I know that he is a smart enough man not to allow anyone to pursuade him otherwise.

Posted by: Troy | June 6, 2008 3:58 PM | Report abuse

Thanks Omama fan. Here is another one for you: if McCain was elected to the President of Utah, could he have more than one female VPs?

Posted by: Guest Worker | June 6, 2008 3:56 PM | Report abuse

Correction!

*was not directed!

Posted by: Ben from NC | June 6, 2008 3:52 PM | Report abuse

Guest Wroker, You crack me up. Keep it coming, baby.

Posted by: omama fan | June 6, 2008 3:52 PM | Report abuse

Of all his talk of unity, he is making this very difficult; if he doesn't take her then I don't take him. I'm ready to be a McCain Democrat. I will not stand for the Dems to do this to me one more time and I will not forget it when the General comes. So, to repeat, if he doesn't take her then I don't take him. It is that easy.

Posted by: Unity | June 6, 2008 3:52 PM | Report abuse

"People can write and even PROFILE whom they want here. Too many grammar errors are made here to get the KIND of response you gave me and your ODD sense of humor. You also ANGER quickly, too, I see."

Guy- Yours was just funny. I didn't even read your post, just the beginning and end. I MAKE A POINT NOT TO READ STUFF FROM PEOPLE WHO RIGHT IN ALL CAPS. My prove it comment was directed at you. Simmah!

Posted by: Ben From NC | June 6, 2008 3:51 PM | Report abuse

To Hillary and any fanatics who follow her and make fake excuses like the man's church or his faith for rationalizing why you are voting for McCain. Just be intellectually honest and admit the thought of a half Black man running the country turns your stomach and fuels your fear of righteous retribution for the sins of your fathers. You people can relax and have no fear, we do not have to get you back, God is on our side.

Posted by: chris | June 6, 2008 3:50 PM | Report abuse

Obama is twice as smart as HRC and HRC is ten times smarter than McCain who is 10,000 times smarter than Romney. That's why America will vote for the McCain/Romney ticket in November.

Posted by: Guest Worker | June 6, 2008 3:49 PM | Report abuse

It is actually spelled grammar. Its just the way it is.

I'm from a military family. All 6 uncles, several cousins, and both grandfathers either are in or have served in the armed forces. I may yet.

Service demands respect. At the same time, being a soldier/airman/seaman/marine doesn't automatically make you a good person. There are jerks inside and out of the service. Take you, apparently.

I just thought you made funny grammatical error. Because of your reaction, now I question your emotional balance.

Grow up!

Posted by: | June 6, 2008 3:36 PM

I too have relatives from the Military and I too have been decorated and others too. So respect is demanded when one's pants are down? Oh I'm grown, because you caved in to the emotional pitch too easy of grabing at the glory, not the substance. You have yet to CLEARLY address what I wrote, only what you want YOUR audience to believe. Anyone can write anything dude, girl or whatever.

Posted by: Historical too | June 6, 2008 3:49 PM | Report abuse

Krishna,

The whole point here is that we've been 98% sure that Barack would be the candidate for some time now. Also, he is nearly identical to Hillary in his policy positions!

The fact that she dragged out for so long a race where she had only a 2% chance of winning, where her opponent had near identical positions at the cost of the eventual democratic nominee's viability.

A rational person who wanted only to further her political beliefs would have realized her cause would of been better served by backing Barack at that point! Her continued presence actually hurt her political cause, since it decreased the chances of the eventual nominees (whoever that would be) chances of winning.

To some, this makes it look like shes more interested in the personal accomplishment of being President.

And in a primary contest, yes you are supposed "to prostrate" to the winner a little! You're on the same ideological team, after all!

Posted by: Ben in NC | June 6, 2008 3:47 PM | Report abuse

To Hillary and any fanatics who follow her and make fake excuses like the man's church or his faith for rationalizing why you are voting for McCain. Just be intellectually honest and admit the thought of a half Black man running the country turns your stomach and fuels your fear of righteous retribution for the sins of your fathers. You people can relax and have no fear, we do not have to get you back, God is on our side.

Posted by: chris | June 6, 2008 3:46 PM | Report abuse

It is actually spelled grammar. Its just the way it is.

I'm from a military family. All 6 uncles, several cousins, and both grandfathers either are in or have served in the armed forces. I may yet.

Service demands respect. At the same time, being a soldier/airman/seaman/marine doesn't automatically make you a good person. There are jerks inside and out of the service. Take you, apparently.

I just thought you made funny grammatical error. Because of your reaction, now I question your emotional balance.

Grow up!

Posted by: | June 6, 2008 3:36 PM

You questioned me before my remark to you. Remember - PROVE IT!

People can write and even PROFILE whom they want here. Too many grammar errors are made here to get the KIND of response you gave me and your ODD sense of humor. You also ANGER quickly, too, I see.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 6, 2008 3:45 PM | Report abuse

Of all his talk of unity, he is making this very difficult; if he doesn't take her then I don't take him. I'm ready to be a McCain Democrat. I will not stand for the Dems to do this to me one more time and I will not forget it when the General comes. So, to repeat, if he doesn't take her then I don't take him. It is that easy.

Posted by: Unity | June 6, 2008 3:42 PM | Report abuse

It is actually spelled grammar. Its just the way it is.

I'm from a military family. All 6 uncles, several cousins, and both grandfathers either are in or have served in the armed forces. I may yet.

Service demands respect. At the same time, being a soldier/airman/seaman/marine doesn't automatically make you a good person. There are jerks inside and out of the service. Take you, apparently.

I just thought you made funny grammatical error. Because of your reaction, now I question your emotional balance.

Grow up!

Posted by: Anonymous | June 6, 2008 3:36 PM | Report abuse

No, the formatting didn'thold. Please read alternating paragraphs as from atinev, and myself. Thank you.

Some rudimentary formatting capability should be offered by WaPo.

Posted by: Krishna | June 6, 2008 3:35 PM | Report abuse

TO HILLARY SUPPORTERS: - Posted by: atinev

As ONE Hillary supporter, this my response to your points.
(I am trying to indent my response, hope the formatting works)

Wasn't it YOUR candidate who said she was staying in the race because anything can happen, including assassination as happened with Bobby Kennedy in June?

No, she was just referring to the length of the prior campaigns.

Wasn't it YOUR candidate who basically called her democratic competitor "not ready on day 1", while giving props to the republican candidate McCain?

Yes. So what? Does the fact that Obama won the nomination by persuading/pressuring/threatening/black-mailing super delegates
automatically make him "ready on day 1" to be the President
of the 57 or 58 states?

Wasn't it YOUR candidate who repeatedly came up with creative math to say that she should be elected, and in the process was attempting to bend the rules and was misleading the American public?

She can no more bend the rules than I can bend a spoon by staring at it.
She has suggested time and again, unsuccessfully it seems, that the super
delegates ought to look at who is more electable, than who has the higher
raw pledged delegate count.

Wasn't it YOUR candidate who repeatedly said that Obama cannot get elected....implying that voters are too racist and Obama therefore shouldn't be given the chance?

Obama cannot get elected does not automatically equate to voters being
racist. Obama was seen to be aloof, not empathetic to poor white voters,
elderly women; essential voting blocks of a successful democratic campaign.

Wasn't it YOUR candidate who on Tuesday night did not mention ONE WORD about what a historical event it was to have a black man succeed at this level in national politics?

She mentioned the fact many times during the debates. Look at the
transcripts. It was Obama who had to be coaxed to say anything nice
about Hillary Clinton.

Wasn't it YOUR candidate who, while congratulating Obama on a good campaign, did not concede that he had actually won the nomination, and is reportedly waiting until Saturday to do so?

What's this fetish about "conceding"? Does a losing candidate has
to prostrate before the winner? If Clinton never says the word, does
Obama sit waiting for it before he goes forward with the campaign?
Why are Obama people sore, even after they "won"?

Wasn't it YOUR candidate who couldn't wait to put political pressure on Obama and tried to back him into the corner to choose her as VP?

This is a very muddled issue. I for one wouldn't want it offered,
wouldn't want her to accept it. Either way she is in untenable situation.

If you wonder why I'M unhappy with Hillary, that's it in a nutshell.

I have several things I am unhappy about Obama. I will just mention
one thing. If a potential cabinet appointee withholds some incriminating
information, until after the confirmation, he would be forced to resign.
In my view, Obama willfully withheld information as to his association
with Rev Wright, all the while he won his initial victories. By the time
it was revealed, and he started to slip in the polls, and lose primaries,
it was too late, and he coasted to victory on the momentum. All of this is
information that the super delegates, and even his own pledged delegates
ought to consider before choosing a nominee. They seem to not care about
this aspect. They seem to be suffering from a White Guilt Complex, or
terribly scared of opposing a black man and be seen as racists. Many
in the Clinton campaign have been termed racists for far less.
That is it in a nutshell.

BUT make no mistake: if Hillary HAD won the nomination, I am a well-educated 54 year old professional white woman who WOULD have voted for Hillary in the election, because I am a democrat first and foremost, AND because the alternative of voting for McCain is unacceptable!

I am a well-educated 65 year old person from India, and I said several times on other discussions, that I would vote for any democrat over any republican, except in the rarest of the cases. I have nothing but disdain for the tactics of Obama supporters who threatened some Clinton delegates, who happen to be black into switching to Obama. The rationale was that their districts voted for Obama. Then what about Massachusetts? Why should then Kerry and Kennedy support Obama under that rationale?

Oops, I am going far out of the nutshell.

Posted by: Krishna | June 6, 2008 3:33 PM | Report abuse

I backed Hillary from the day she started her campaign, but now I will have no problem backing Obama in his run for the presidency. The American people, their children, and indeed the peoples can ill afford another four years of any Republican. Anyone who claims to be "a lifelong Democrat," then says they are voting for McCain is either lying, or 26 cards short of a full deck. This race is not, nor has it ever been, about race or gender, it is about the future of our children and their children. It is time to stop the bickering and unite behind the Democratic candidates for the Presidency, the Senate and the House. Let's give our children back their future, Vote for Democrats in November.

Posted by: papasoji | June 6, 2008 3:32 PM | Report abuse

I think obama is going to be a great prez.for all you people who think badly of him,STOP!!!!!!being JEALOUS!!!!!!!LOL

Posted by: tee bone | June 6, 2008 3:31 PM | Report abuse

I am a Democrat, but I will not vote for a muslim for president. Are the american people crazy or what? McCain has my vote.

Posted by: Vanessa R. Edmond | June 6, 2008 3:07 PM


UH lets try this. Are you a Christian or Catholic or Jew?

If so, if you state it and say it over a microphone and ONLY worship in those places besides home, etc. What else is he supposed to do to prove it. I take it YOU are religious, because you stated in your sly terms, that he's a muslim. Obama IS A CHRISTIAN, whether he stubbed his toe, cursed, ran a stop sign, sinned or called you name. His judge for now is God, who's yours?

Posted by: Anonymous | June 6, 2008 3:31 PM | Report abuse

Some of the prejudiced remarks on these blog posts are astounding. How can the U.S. be a world leader if Americans are still making claims like "Obama is a Muslim so McCain has my vote." Come on people we live in the 21st century, time to get over these divisions. Race, religion, gender don't matter. It's about choosing the best candidate, period!

Posted by: Rachel | June 6, 2008 3:29 PM | Report abuse


Good riddance Hillary. No matter how the real election in November goes, America owes Senator a big,big, thanks for getting rid of the Clinton fable.

If Obama can win the White House, so be it. He did us all, both parties, a big service.

People don't dislike Hillary because she is female. the despise her because she is an arroganr, shrill harradian with no tolerance for disagreement. She did one brilliant thing in her life...marrying the best ,most clever politician this side of Lucifer. Hillary Rodham would never been elected Senator from New York State,

Posted by: roneida | June 6, 2008 3:27 PM | Report abuse

"suffer the dire consequences of your blood thirsty enemies!"

My grammar teacher is rolling over in her grave somewhere!

More people on here need to try and convince, not declare.

Don't tell me you know whats up- prove it.

Posted by: Ben from NC | June 6, 2008 3:20 PM

HUH?

Common sense my friend divide and conquer win. Yet you chose GRAMMER to lead to disregard of a simple statement that is ALREADY at you. We have been engaged in war for 7 years based on others thinking our LOCAL problems are weaknesses whether that is true or not. They believe it. Have you ever traveled outside of the U. S.? Even when a soldier I was in W. Germany, S. encountering others that thought you weak by freaky notion of skin color. You Grammar or Grammer teacher won't change that.

Stop trying to label a 10 yr Army vet an enemy - blowhard

Posted by: Anonymous | June 6, 2008 3:27 PM | Report abuse

Edwards is more liberal than Obama. Clinton and Obama are near identical, and Edwards is a little to the left of both. Keep in mind 2008 Edwards was much more liberal than 2004 Edwards.

Posted by: Ben From NC | June 6, 2008 3:15 PM

I agree with Ben that Edwards is more liberal than Obama but Clinton is also more liberal than Obama.

Obama's health care plan is more modest and threfore less costly and more conservative than the more radical universal plans proposed by Clinton and Edwards.

Edwards also wants to aggressively take on poverty--a very liberal and extremely expensive proposition.

Just because a candidate's skin color is lighter does not make them more conservative. It just makes them caucasian. Try looking at the policies.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 6, 2008 3:25 PM | Report abuse

"suffer the dire consequences of your blood thirsty enemies!"

My grammar teacher is rolling over in her grave somewhere!

More people on here need to try and convince, not declare.

Don't tell me you know whats up- prove it.

Posted by: Ben from NC | June 6, 2008 3:20 PM | Report abuse

After reading some of these comments I am more convinced than ever that the dumbing down of America by the rich elite repugs has definitely taken its toll. So many stupid people out there! Anybody with any brain cells that work wants change.

Posted by: LNC | June 6, 2008 3:20 PM | Report abuse


If the United States were not held to task to the rule of law there would be no civil rights for minorities or women, the DNC showed strength in face of the mob, for the rule of law must never be enslaved by the emotionalism by a partial disenfranchised electorate who only listens to the beckoning of their own life's struggles being vicariously transferred through a political candidate, lest the safety of the whole be endangered. In a civil court, Hilary did what in essence, is a breach of contract, and with no evidence that they, other party showed clear substantiation which would lead a reasonable person to concluded that she could not complete the terms of agreement, but Hilary still sought to change the terms of the agreement. There is something to said of civility I find it more appealing now in my older years

Posted by: An American | June 6, 2008 3:19 PM | Report abuse

Shag, take heart. These are not liberals. They are racist republicans or just plain racists. Either way, they are irrelevant, and becoming more so every day, hence their freakout.

Posted by: | June 6, 2008 3:01 PM

True and to Shag I also say, if you can't see BOTH sides of a coin, the other side will BLIND side you. Rest assured its a part of all is fair in Love and War. If you put too much time into what peopler really already know to be bogus and a waste of your time, you ALSO become like them. You can't see it, because you wear it on your sleeve. When people of color go overboard BECAUSE of one aspect of something related to color, they miss the prize. Obama didn't miss the prize because he kept opening his mind to the truth about races in the country and that it DID matter. Not because he wanted it to, but America's denial is apparent. Stay the course on the real issues, which Hillary did from time to time and you see where the problem is. Not becauase the voters she got were mostly white or women, but it hit home with them. Hillary didn't grow up in an environment like the Bronx, or SE DC or Baltimore, the South Central part of LA or hustle of Boston. Likewise, Terre Haute, Topeka, Clinton, aren't towns she grew up in either.

Obama wasn't reared there either. Yet those who oppose want you all to stoop to their level of complaceny and address them, every time a racial remark is made. It is NOT how Obama or Clinton got that far. Its how they were portrayed.

When a would be voter opposes Obama, stop whining, whether I am a Dem or not, because the thicker the skin, the stronger the armor! Wait until July, when the ax grinds, the teeth grind, the looks among the common people in the street feel what the politicians don't! the loss of a job due to that hate, the loss of help in the street, like the man in the hit and run, the lack of care tells on us all. God we are so blind!


Portraying free speakers, who aren't racist or even white or black (let the reader understand that there is many of differences reading here - NOT just Black or White or even American), as being racists is a slap in the face. Grow up America, get over your differences or suffer the dire consequences of your blood thirsty enemies!

Posted by: Anonymous | June 6, 2008 3:17 PM | Report abuse

Edwards is more liberal than Obama. Clinton and Obama are near identical, and Edwards is a little to the left of both. Keep in mind 2008 Edwards was much more liberal than 2004 Edwards.

Posted by: Ben From NC | June 6, 2008 3:15 PM | Report abuse

Boggles my mind that people are so poorly educated that they actually believe their tax dollars go to support "lazy people."

Look at the budget. Over half goes to fund the military and wars like Iraq. This money ultimately benefits predominantly rich, white men who are in charge of weapons corporations.

Follow who gets the tax breaks and subsidies. It's the rich people who have the political leverage to push for them. They don't have to offer their employees a living wage, they can ship off our jobs to Mexico or China, they don't have to offer healthcare, and they get billions in subsidies, paid for by OUR tax dollars.

So who is the threat? Single mothers working two minimum wage jobs to support their children? Folks who have been laid-off as a result of bunk trade policies like NAFTA? Folks who have contracted a disease and don't have the insurance to cover it? (Or do, but their insurance won't.)

Or the rich white men living off the pork barrel spending by an out of control tax and spend "CONSERVATIVE" government.

Check this out: http://www.democracynow.org/2008/1/18/free_lunch_how_the_wealthiest_americans

I'm not saying our social welfare systems are perfect or lacking the need for reform, but I'd rather cast a wide net and risk helping a few legitimately lazy people, than risk denying hard-working people in unfortunate circumstances a helping hand.

Because who works harder? Waitresses, janitors, and factory workers or CEOs in their plush leather chairs...

Posted by: Jason Glover | June 6, 2008 3:15 PM | Report abuse

Vanessa is obviously a racist. I wonder if she has swastikas hanging in her room and hates Jews too....maybe she burns crosses for recreation

Posted by: joe | June 6, 2008 3:15 PM | Report abuse

obama/farrakhan 08

Posted by: dlauer | June 6, 2008 3:13 PM | Report abuse

Shag,

Do you think OJ Simpson got away with murders?

Posted by: Anonymous | June 6, 2008 3:11 PM | Report abuse

I am a Democrat, but I will not vote for a muslim for president. Are the american people crazy or what? McCain has my vote.

Posted by: Vanessa R. Edmond | June 6, 2008 3:07 PM

No Vannessa, but you clearly are crazy and a bigot.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 6, 2008 3:09 PM | Report abuse

Name one racist thing Obama has himself ever said or done, ever.

If you're searching, its gonna take a while, theres nothing.

He's anti-white? Folks, his momma was white!

Zeesh!

Posted by: Ben from NC | June 6, 2008 3:07 PM | Report abuse

I am a Democrat, but I will not vote for a muslim for president. Are the american people crazy or what? McCain has my vote.

Posted by: Vanessa R. Edmond | June 6, 2008 3:07 PM | Report abuse

Ben from NC

You think Senator Edwards is more liberal candidate than Senator Obama. You must live in another planet in NC.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 6, 2008 3:06 PM | Report abuse

"That includes Obama in 2008."

It includes Obama IN THE PAST TENSE--ok DUMBASS!

Posted by: Anonymous | June 6, 2008 3:06 PM | Report abuse

Clinton should stay away from the Racist Obama and his dangerous associates. Clinton should turn down any VP offer. Our votes will be accepted not ignored and respected elsewhere.

Posted by: A.M. | June 6, 2008 3:05 PM | Report abuse

More liberal democratic candidates?
Kucinich. Edwards. Gravel.

More liberal nominees?
Every single democratic nominee from before 1992 going back... and I mean way back!

Posted by: Ben from NC | June 6, 2008 3:02 PM | Report abuse

And and far as I can tell, the majority comes from my fellow "liberals."
With people like you all, no wonder this country is so screwed. The Right is damaging enough, without "us" contributing to it.

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

Shag, take heart. These are not liberals. They are racist republicans or just plain racists. Either way, they are irrelevant, and becoming more so every day, hence their freakout.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 6, 2008 3:01 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: | June 6, 2008 2:57 PM

That includes Obama in 2008.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 6, 2008 3:00 PM | Report abuse

Another Ex Democrat-

Wow! Do you get upset everytime a group of people has a racial makeup that isn't exactly representative of the body politik?

You know there are four asian guys on my wing out of 9... Its a conspiracy! That must mean something! The asian population here in NC is only like 5%! I'm burning down the building!

Posted by: Anonymous | June 6, 2008 2:59 PM | Report abuse

how could the economy get worst? you republicans on this post know that another republican administration would devastate this economy. look at gas prices...up 500%, inflation is skyrocketing, we spend 700 billion/year on the military. Wouldn't it be nice to have a president who can get up on the world stage that we could be proud of? Someone who is brilliant and realistic, like Obama, would be such a stark contrast to the idiot (bush) and lucifer (cheney) that are there now.

Posted by: joe | June 6, 2008 2:59 PM | Report abuse

"Obama...will lose even if he wins in November."
Posted by: TomJefferson | June 6, 2008 2:56 PM

I don't think Thomas Jefferson was an idiot, sorry...

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

I am black and when I read some the post on this site, and I am thoroughly disgusted. The prejudice(from whomever), the misogyny, the stupid and bigotry is just disgusting. And and far as I can tell, the majority comes from my fellow "liberals."
With people like you all, no wonder this country is so screwed. The Right is damaging enough, without "us" contributing to it.

Posted by: Shag | June 6, 2008 2:58 PM | Report abuse

"Can you one more liberal Democratic Party candidate than Senator Obama?"

One more WHAT?

"Please remember, they have lost 8 out of last 11 general elections in 40 years."

11 general elections in 40 years when there's an election every four years?

Great verbal and math skills. Bet you really aced the SATs.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 6, 2008 2:57 PM | Report abuse

Obama is a racist. He will lose even if he wins in November. He is the most anti-American candidate in history. I cannot believe that so-called "Americans" are voting for this moron.

Posted by: TomJefferson | June 6, 2008 2:56 PM | Report abuse

Recipe for a Stronger America
A Pinch of Education for our Children
A Dash of Healthcare for those same children
A Cup of of Housing for (did I mention children)
Americans keep you eyes on the prize. It should all be for the generations that are following. If you are responding to this blog you have witnessed the results of bigotry, hate, oppression. Lets try comnpassion, understanding and comittement to abetter society for our children, Lets leave a legacy beginning November 08. Vote the recipe.

Posted by: Lorenzo | June 6, 2008 2:55 PM | Report abuse

Another Ex Democrat,

Whoever watched DNC Rules Committee meeting last week must thinking, is this what they meant by "Big Tent" in the Democratic Party where 80% of members represented by essentially two tribes (Blacks and Jews).

What about us? Latinos, Asians and Middle White Americans - where are their seats at the table? They are also reliable and ever growing democratic voters.

If this means just another racist noise to you and your Obama supporters, let's just turn the table for a moment. New DNC Rules Committee members are now represented by 80% Latinos, 0% Jews and 0% blacks. We will have riots by NAACP in Washington. APAC will have carpet bombing in the news media.


Whoever watched DNC Rules Committee meeting last week must thinking, is this what they meant by "Big Tent" in the Democratic Party where 80% of members represented by essentially two tribes (Blacks and Jews).

What about us? Latinos, Asians and Middle Americans - where are their seats at the table? They are also reliable and ever growing democratic voters.

If this means just another racist noise to you and your Obama supporters, let's just turn the table for a moment. New DNC Rules Committee members are now represented by 80% Latinos, 0% Jews and 0% blacks. We will have riots by NAACP in Washington. APAC will have carpet bombing in the news media.

Whoever watched DNC Rules Committee meeting last week must thinking, is this what they meant by "Big Tent" in the Democratic Party where 80% of members represented by essentially two tribes (Blacks and Jews).

What about us? Latinos, Asians and Middle Americans - where are their seats at the table? They are also reliable and ever growing democratic voters.

If this means just another racist noise to you and your Obama supporters, let's just turn the table for a moment. New DNC Rules Committee members are now represented by 80% Latinos, 0% Jews and 0% blacks. We will have riots by NAACP in Washington. AIPAC will have carpet bombing in the news media.


Posted by: Anonymous | June 6, 2008 2:55 PM | Report abuse

Not matter what criticisms the political pundits level on Hilary Clinton about her loss, and I am a Barack supporter, she and senator Obama comprise two of the most brilliant political minds in modern times and anyone who thinks it was anything but her savvy, toughness, and smarts which not only got her husbanded elected for two terms but also kept him from getting impeached are not facing the facts nor giving Hilary her props. At first I was opposed to her being Vice President, but after careful consideration I have come to the conclusion that nothing would be better for America than an Obama-Clinton ticket. I sincerely hope the angry supporters of Hilary Clinton do not fall prey to John McCain and the Republican's opportunistic efforts to cash in on their angry and in effect make them destroyers the very things they believed in Hilary to achieve.

Curtis

Posted by: Curtis Johnson | June 6, 2008 2:55 PM | Report abuse

"I think you bottom feeders need to check out a U.S. History book sometime and actually read it. Everyone likes to think that the War is the reason why our economy is so bad.....You are a complete tool and you should leave this country. If that was the case then why after every war in 20th century our economy spiked up. Remember WW2 took us out of the Great Depression? If you wanna blame someone for economy being so bad blame the idiots telling you to spend all of your money to "stimulate" the economy. Thats why everyone is forclosing on their homes b/c everyone is in the spend spend spend mindset til their banckrupt. And any ingenius democrat will tell you bankrupcy is great for economy and stimulates it to no end. So keep on spending all your money on worthless stuff you dont need and then in turn blame it on someone else for the unwanted results..... just like a true Dem (they are always the victim and never wrong)"

Are you saying that there isn't a correlation between war and the economy? Indeed, when you read YOUR history, certainly you will learn negative effects of it. Furthermore, are you aware of how fast IN SHORT AMOUNT OF TIME this country went from a SURPLUS (look up the definition of what "SURPLUS" means to understand the emphasis of the cushion this country once had), to being dependent, trillions worth in debt? Hmmm...or are you defending this illegit war for what appears to be your argument that after this war our economy will blossom, considering valuable significant lives are lost in a war that we shouldn't have allowed to prolong, one that we shouldn't have been in the first place? What the heck kind of statement is that?! This is an illegit war, everyone knows it, and you're talking about positive effects on the economy in the aftermath of some wars? Unbelievable. That's the logic and reasoning folks, before the eyes of readers....

On that thought, like I said:
SUPPORTERS FOR THIS COUNTRY, Stand Ready!! WE need to get this country back. We want DIFFERENT results this year, and I believe it is in the form of Democrat this year. I'm sorry, but I truly do NOT buy the argument that Democrats are GENERALLY irresponsible people. I've seen responsible, hardworking Democrats take heat they didn't deserve, and this time we have the Republican administration to blame for it! Indeed. They failed us miserably on a variety of issues. Time for different results!

Posted by: Obama2008 | June 6, 2008 2:54 PM | Report abuse

GoonieGooGoo,

LOL!!! that was hilariaous and made my day. Ah, parodies! (or is that Pear Ro Dees or is that Paradise).

Posted by: naptown#1 | June 6, 2008 2:52 PM | Report abuse

You know what I almost hope Obama gets elected and totally ruins the economy of this country. Maybe that shut those ignorant Dem's up a bit.....nevermind they'd just blame someone else like always

Posted by: | June 6, 2008 2:48 PM

RUIN THE ECONOMY? RIGHT, LIKE AN OVER HALF A TRILLION DOLLAR WAR FOR NOTHING HAS REALLY HELPED OUR ECONOMY.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 6, 2008 2:52 PM | Report abuse

Ben from NC,

Can you one more liberal Democratic Party candidate than Senator Obama?

Please remember, they have lost 8 out of last 11 general elections in 40 years.

Senator Obama may be well ahead of Senator McCain in recent poll of polls but what counts is in November. Many previous candidates were ahead as high as 20 points six months prior to elections but they ended losing in the final votes.

Senator Obama may have big pros but he is laso another Bush Lite for certain percentage of American voters with little foreign policy experience. In fact, they will decide this election if happens to be close election.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 6, 2008 2:51 PM | Report abuse

That ghetto comment was the most ignorant thing I have heard in a while, and based on all these comments alone, that is pretty pathetic.

Posted by: Kristin Castle | June 6, 2008 2:49 PM | Report abuse

You know what I almost hope Obama gets elected and totally ruins the economy of this country. Maybe that shut those ignorant Dem's up a bit.....nevermind they'd just blame someone else like always

Posted by: Anonymous | June 6, 2008 2:48 PM | Report abuse

"The role of a superdelegate is supposed to be that they support the person who they feel will be the best nominee for the party. Anyone who believes that ALL of those superdelegates who were reeled in to carry Obama over the finish line believe that he is the best nominee are wishful thinkers. --- Posted by: M. A. "

Obamaniacs are blissfully unaware of this crucial point.

The nomination is NOT a final prize for delegates amassed. It is a ticket to go and win the presidency. As such it should be bestowed on the person who is most capable of doing it, with all the information now available. Not what was available (or unavailable) three four months ago, which contributed to Obama's early victories.

Posted by: As I Toot Samba | June 6, 2008 2:47 PM | Report abuse

Best two comments all day or best two comments during this whole race:

Would you two groups quit being so nasty to each other - I supported Hillary and I'm proud of it but now I support Barack. Now everybody quit the name calling and play nice.

Posted by: Jack | June 6, 2008 1:17 PM

To JohnAdams1, if you think Obama hates Americans, you, sir, are an idiot. I think it is YOU who has hate in his heart. You hate Obama. And why? What rational reason is there to hate an articulate, compassionate, inspirational young man?

Only one I can think of. Racism.

You, sir, are the kind of racist we do not need here in the United States. I suggest you move to Russia, where hate seems to flower in the government. Or if you can't get a visa, maybe you could move closer to Crawford and worship at the altar of GWBush.

We need to unite not fight!

Think about your children and not ourselves.

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

Lorenzo

"CHANGE CAN BE BAD" It is the right change that counts. Obama's change would only make the economy worse. We are in a typical cycle after 5 fairly strong years of growth.

Obama's far left policies will only make things worse. It would be a perfect storm. A economy moving into recession, he would raise taxes, socialize everything in sight and move forward on plans for 900 billion of foreign aid. He would also over regulate industry and increase protectionism, thereby, driving much more of it offshore.

Don't let this guy confuse you or others. Be very aware of how dangerous his policies will be for this economy. Without a sound economy many other things will not be possible.

Posted by: The RIGHT change is needed | June 6, 2008 2:45 PM | Report abuse

I'm sorry to burst your bubbles but ONE PERSON ISNT GOING TO MAKE THAT MUCH OF A DIFFERENCE EVEN IF THAT PERSON IS THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA!! So if you think Obama is going to be this "lifesaver" you're wrong. Some things will never change....LIKE HUMAN NATURE

Posted by: Anonymous | June 6, 2008 2:45 PM | Report abuse

Obama is far liberal than George McCovern. At least, Senator was McCovern was our war hero. Obama is what?

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

Who is George McCovern DUMBASS?

Posted by: Anonymous | June 6, 2008 2:44 PM | Report abuse

Zzz wrote:
"The sad things is WHERE IS THE OUTRAGE?

America,
Your expectancy is much too low. So are your intelligence. Most of the above comments are bickering between the two camps, while the two "camps" are secretly selling us voters out."

Zzz......you have ad Grammar, punctuation and sentence structure? Who are you to make fun of American Intelligence??

Posted by: GOonieGooGoo | June 6, 2008 2:44 PM | Report abuse

Do we really want Michelle Obama and her little pickininis running wild in the White House? She is rather ghetto and I would hate to see any of those valuable antiques ruined.

Posted by: Sandy | June 6, 2008 2:40 PM

Blah blah blah Reverend Wright Blah Blah Racism Blah Blah
I am a racist with a poor education and even less net worth.
I am thus pretty low on the socio-economic totem pole and easily threatened.
I mean everyone knows African Americans are racist.
That's why we made them slaves. Clearly they started it.
I never took psychology and have no idea what transference is.
I'm just going to lie and say: I'm not a racist, but Obama is and hope it sticks.
Blah blah blah Muslim Blah Blah Blah Hussein Blah Blah Blah

Posted by: Anonymous | June 6, 2008 2:43 PM | Report abuse

I'm a Barack supporter. I like his policies. Therefore I also like Hillary's policies, seeing as they are extremely similar. Their platforms are nearly identical. Differences exist, but they are negligable!

Why did I support Barack over Hillary then? Because of the way he handled himself, and because of the new type of governance he would bring.

I like Barack, his policies seem well thought out, and his words inspire. Politically, he is my friend. Literally, I have never met the man- he is a stranger.

It seems too many Clinton supporters are having a knee jerk and frankly childish reaction to their candidate losing. You do not know her personally, why then are you unwilling to endorse her political near-twin?

I am honestly concerned for those who are truly so personally invested in wanting Clinton as President. Shes not running for your friend. Her triumphs are not yours. If you vote for her, its because you want her to do certain things as President. Well, guess what? Barack is going to do almost exactly what she would of.

Barack is the first Democratic Presidential nominee that was my favorite from the beginning. Howard Dean & Bill Bradley are far more different from John Kerry & Al Gore than Clinton is from Obama. And yet I wholeheartedly supported Mr. Gore and Kerry in the election.

We're Democrats. We are the ones that are supposed to make rational decisions. Its perfectly understandable to be distressed at not winning the nomination after all the work some Clinton supporters put in. But such is the nature of politics, and Hillary not winning does not mean defeat.

Posted by: Ben from NC | June 6, 2008 2:43 PM | Report abuse

"BHO is so far left that he has left America" That is the phrase people can best identify with BHO. I hope people don't consider be "racist" with that statement :>).

Posted by: John | June 6, 2008 2:34 PM

That's why Obama was voted most liberal senator in 2007.

http://nj.nationaljournal.com/voteratings/

Obama is far liberal than George McCovern. At least, Senator was McCovern was our war hero. Obama is what?

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

I think you bottom feeders need to check out a U.S. History book sometime and actually read it. Everyone likes to think that the War is the reason why our economy is so bad.....You are a complete tool and you should leave this country. If that was the case then why after every war in 20th century our economy spiked up. Remember WW2 took us out of the Great Depression? If you wanna blame someone for economy being so bad blame the idiots telling you to spend all of your money to "stimulate" the economy. Thats why everyone is forclosing on their homes b/c everyone is in the spend spend spend mindset til their banckrupt. And any ingenius democrat will tell you bankrupcy is great for economy and stimulates it to no end. So keep on spending all your money on worthless stuff you dont need and then in turn blame it on someone else for the unwanted results..... just like a true Dem (they are always the victim and never wrong)

Posted by: Anonymous | June 6, 2008 2:41 PM | Report abuse

Do we really want Michelle Obama and her little pickininis running wild in the White House? She is rather ghetto and I would hate to see any of those valuable antiques ruined.

Posted by: Sandy | June 6, 2008 2:40 PM | Report abuse

I was unhappy with HRC on Tuesday when she did not concede. Why? Because I want a strong Democratic ticked to replace the disaster that has reigned over this country for the last eight years. Republicans talk about tax and spend Democrats, but we are living through spend and don't tax Republicans, which means we have a deficit that our children will be TAXED to pay off. Deficit spending is a TAX. So, Republicans, look in the mirror and ask why you should send us another crusader claiming to be for small government. When have you ever delivered on THAT promise? When? We all need government that will be responsible, responsive and honest. Barak Obama offers that. He has been forged in a hot furnace over the last 2 years. He has withstood personal attacks on his wife, his church, his father, his mother, his patriotism, his faith, his name (of all things), his race, and he has calmly, carefully addressed and responded to those attacks with dignity and intelligence. I for one, who knew nothing about the man 4 years ago, have been very impressed by the man, by his quality, and by his character as those attributes have been displayed first hand as I have watched him deal with the campaign. So, I was upset with HRC for dragging this out. But, Obama will deal with this issue carefully, respectfully, preserving her dignity as well as his own. It is another challenge. Trust him. He has earned it.

Posted by: Seattle Sam | June 6, 2008 2:38 PM | Report abuse

"BHO is so far left that he has left America" That is the phrase people can best identify with BHO. I hope people don't consider be "racist" with that statement :>).

Posted by: John | June 6, 2008 2:34 PM

Right, that's why his policies line up with Hillary's exactly except for health care where her policy is FURTHER TO THE LEFT.

YOU ARE AN IDIOT!!!

Posted by: Anonymous | June 6, 2008 2:37 PM | Report abuse

WOOOHOOOO COMMON SENSE!!! In a nutshell, why I feel SO Strongly about this election (among other issues as well). What a wonderful Veteran, telling it like it is. I absolutely appreciate it. Thank you for your post.

I'm not only voting for myself, but also for a +1 vote that could possibly help my fellow citizens as well. I will make sure my vote adds weight to the pro-different-results team! I strongly believe it is time.

Posted by: Obama2008 | June 6, 2008 2:37 PM | Report abuse

"CHANGE CAN BE GOOD"
There seem to selective amnesia among some of the comments being made. Ask yourself a few questions and answer them truthfully.
Are you happy with the present state of affairs in America today. Economy is going to hell, Just today unemployment rose to between 5-6 percent. Corruption in our government(federal,state and local)Healthcare is needed by all americans, crime is rising all over the country. We are enduring the final chapter of one of the most incompetent administrations ever in America. Fresh ideas are warranted, If you hear similar lip service from our candidates that seem to be deja vu (heard in last eight years) the chances are the outcome will be the same results. Is that what you want? If so,cast your vote and suffer the consequences

Posted by: Lorenzo Brown | June 6, 2008 2:35 PM | Report abuse

These anonymous blogs and comment sections have become useless except to confrontation junkies and professional partisan agitators. It's free speech and worth every dime; all heat, no light.

Posted by: Ethan Castleton | June 6, 2008 2:35 PM | Report abuse

Voting for a candidate based on their reflection of you is called voter identification, not racism. Try educating yourself.

Try being white and voting for a candidate because he/she is white and see what you are called by the media and others.

On the flip-side, if you are black and vote for a black candidate because he/she is black then as you say it is considered "voter identification" by the media and others.

I think you are the one that needs the education in the real world.

"BHO is so far left that he has left America" That is the phrase people can best identify with BHO. I hope people don't consider be "racist" with that statement :>).

Posted by: John | June 6, 2008 2:34 PM | Report abuse

"Oh all you Po Black folk ... Being black never seemed to hurt Oprah ... ONE OF THE RICHEST WOMEN IN THE WORLD, Or you Massiah Obama ... Stop using racism as an excuse to be an ignorant lazy idiot!

Posted by: Pissed | June 6, 2008 1:53 PM "


yes...we are all Oprah...goodness you're bright!

Posted by: Pissedkiller | June 6, 2008 2:32 PM | Report abuse

Appeal is how both candidates get caught up in losing their principal focus. We know they both don't conscribe directly to other comments personally, but politically and for the media's sake, it gets played out that MUST address the evil speak by others.

Since when did this matter? Did Goldwater admonish Wallace? Did Jesse admonish those with boisterous remarks about whites, when he ran for President. Why in the heck should it matter what Jane said in the lobby of my company, even though we both have the same legal representative. Are we saying that Hagee and Wright have doomed all Christians. I say an emphatic H No! They, like all Christians and people of faith, will get their just rewards with their God's judgement. NOT MSNBC, CCN, CBS, BBC, ABC, FOX or any other government controlled media!

Posted by: naptown#1 | June 6, 2008 2:30 PM | Report abuse

Aren't you suppose to repsect the Commander in Chief? If the answer is yes then all you racist hateful people out there get ready to respect your new commander in Chief. I will be saving these blogs for later so when Obama does win and he does make the USA better for everyone and our children will be able to travel without having to worry about getting kidnapped or held hostage. I would just like for you to apologize to this man when he succeeds and if you think there is not racism in this country you are truly blind. The only reason that a person is racist is because they have weaknesses within their self and they don't know how to fix themselves so attack a person that they don't even know and some how that makes them feel better. You go figure.

Posted by: T in DC | June 6, 2008 2:30 PM | Report abuse

Only a backwards, in-bred, trailer park idiot would even consider not voting for Barack Obama after the past 8 years. It is wonderful that he is willing to talk to our enemies instead of starting wars and increasing debt that our great, great grandchildren will still be paying. Maybe "YOU" super-Rich people can pay for the next war and the rest of us with bills and living expenses can be practical and try to solve things like civilized human beings...by being diplomatic. Not wanting to go to war does not make anyone out to be less patriotic, hell I am a Veteran and have no thirst for it. But if there is one thing I hate is anyone who prefers to put innocent men and women in the line of fire for an unjust war. And we can even take it a step further, it is no secret that once this man is placed in office that we will have more friends than enemies. Some of our "enemies" do not hate the United States but instead the mentality that has prevailed in the country, especially within the Republican party. That insanity that justifies invading a sovereign nation that DID NOT ATTACK us and trying to change it. Is that not what the British tried to impose during the colonial period in the soon to be United States? Interesting.. Why don't we stop thinking like we can do what we want to do. IT'S TIME FOR AMERICANS TO START TAKING CARE OF AMERICA.

Posted by: Common Sense | June 6, 2008 2:29 PM | Report abuse

Good Sense has prevailed with the lady in the PANTSUIT...
Obama...has been lucky not once but because he was playing the truth game...which Americans lack as a society...

Hillary can easily accept 36 million dollars thats 2 dollars per supporter and withdraw..

Posted by: Tony Joe | June 6, 2008 2:29 PM | Report abuse

So I will tell you right now that it will
make absolutely no difference if Sell Out
Hillary Clinton and every Democrat in Office Endorses Barack Hussein Obama or not
that, Barack Hussein Obama will never be
elected President and that no one wants his
hateful,bitter black racist wife Michelle
Obama to become First Lady! NO WAY OBAMA!

Posted by: Ralphinphnx | June 6, 2008 2:00 PM

Blah blah blah Reverend Wright Blah Blah Racism Blah Blah
I am a racist with a poor education and even less net worth.
I am thus pretty low on the socio-economic totem pole and easily threatened.
I mean everyone knows African Americans are racist.
That's why we made them slaves. Clearly they started it.
I never took psychology and have no idea what transference is.
I'm just going to lie and say: I'm not a racist, but Obama is and hope it sticks.
Blah blah blah Muslim Blah Blah Blah Hussein Blah Blah Blah

Posted by: readbtwthelines | June 6, 2008 2:26 PM | Report abuse

Cloak & Dagger stuff. Bottom line, Clinton ran a horrible campaign and is not one to be trusted.

Posted by: Maddogg | June 6, 2008 2:26 PM | Report abuse

Eighteen million of us are hoping against hope that Obama self-implodes or McCain saves us from the Obama's.

gw.

Posted by: Iowatreasures | June 6, 2008 2:11 PM

Once a brain dead zombie, always a brain dean zombie.

You guys are too cheap or just not that committed to Hillary to put your big fat money where your big fat mouthes are for her to run an effective campaign.

Just like Hillary, you are all talk and little action.

Posted by: Kevin Schmidt | June 6, 2008 2:25 PM | Report abuse

Awwwwwww how cute the loser and soon to be loser are setting their differences aside and getting together for the good of the Democratic Party. Awwww they should have a picnic with veggie burgers and trans fat free fries and wash it all down with a tall glass of soy milk. Then maybe they can talk about world peace, a clean enviornment, purple rainbows, universal healthcare, rivers made out of chocolate and a bunch of other crap thats never gonna happen......

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

Like some others here, I also hope that Sen. Obama will adopt Hillary's healthcare plan, even some other of her policies. Hopefully now that they are coming together on things, instead of nit-picking over differences, they will simply adopt whoever's plan is better for the particular issue at hand.

Posted by: Jackie | June 6, 2008 2:25 PM | Report abuse

The comment below me is so irrelevant to this article that I think I need to lay in a cold tub for a while. Or maybe summer weather finally arrived....

Posted by: flabbergasted | June 6, 2008 2:25 PM | Report abuse

I, for one, am glad to see both McCain and Obama at the top of the tickets. Either one will be FAR better than the loser we've had to suffer with the last 8 years. I believe Hillary or any of the other Republicans ('cept maybe Rudy) would have just resulted in more of the same.

Posted by: Mr. Moderate | June 6, 2008 2:24 PM | Report abuse

From the grapevine, it was decided last night that Hillary will be the Secretary of Defense. It was so decided because of her skill at dodging bullets.

Jon Barry

Posted by: Jon Barry | June 6, 2008 2:24 PM | Report abuse

So, the racist card will pertain to anyone who criticizes BHO in anyway. Also, for those who don't vote for BHO they will be considered racist as well. However, in fact many BHO voters only vote for BHO because he is black....go figure.

Posted by: John | June 6, 2008 2:16 PM

And all the women that voted for Hillary are sexist?

Voting for a candidate based on their reflection of you is called voter identification, not racism. Try educating yourself.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 6, 2008 2:24 PM | Report abuse

The only offer Senator Obama should have made to Hillary and Bill was that if he were elected President in Novewmber, she and Bill could count on a presidential pardon if their legal problems don't go away and they are convicted.

Hillary and Bill will then be able to get a divorce and enjoy living on the 109 million dollar property split.

Posted by: On To November | June 6, 2008 2:24 PM | Report abuse

The key for Obama to win in November lies with Sen. Clinton's supporters in the swing states; for Obama, that key is lost for 2008 but it opens the door to 2012 for Sen. Clinton, when she can reform a corrupt Democratic Party.

Posted by: crat3 |

Obama is already leading in the polls in OH and PA. Try another brain dead argument DUMBASS.

And as far as Obama having had the election rigged, you are even more insane than Hillary--something I didn't think possible.

Why don't you go live in the hermetically sealed bunker basement of Baruch College and live out your fantasies. I live several blocks from there, I'll be glad to toss you in.

Posted by: GETHILLARYOUTOFMYSTATE | June 6, 2008 2:21 PM | Report abuse

Democrats unite and bring with us the Republicans and Independents who want a better tomorrow...

Posted by: Andy R | June 6, 2008 2:21 PM | Report abuse

I see the racist card is being played by BHO supporters. This is as expected since many grew up with the race card being played or learned race/class resentment.

So, the racist card will pertain to anyone who criticizes BHO in anyway. Also, for those who don't vote for BHO they will be considered racist as well. However, in fact many BHO voters only vote for BHO because he is black....go figure.

Posted by: John | June 6, 2008 2:16 PM | Report abuse

The notion from Sen. Clinton, that her supporters' voices and votes are the causes that she is championing and the reason for her persistence in this race, is absurd. To purport that her actions are anything other than self-serving and narcissistic at this point would be disingenuous in the extreme. While I do believe that Sen. Clinton was working hard for her supporters whilst she was still a viable candidate, her exit from this primary process and her rhetoric as of late should be cause for concern for every democrat. Everyone knows that ideologically these two candidates do not differ greatly, so why then has Sen. Clinton shopped around this idea that her supporters should be weary of not having their voices heard or their issues addressed by an Obama administration? This does nothing but enflame sentiment and ill-thought visceral reactions, and everything to deepen the already cataclysmic divide this process has wrought in the Democratic party. Now is the time to reassure supporters that their voices and votes will be heard and will be acted upon, no matter who is in the White House. If Sen. Clinton really is aiming at being Sen. Obama's VP, a position in which utmost trust and unparalleled loyalty are the chief prerequisites, she is compiling quite the dichotomous resume.

Posted by: Tayo F. | June 6, 2008 2:15 PM | Report abuse

TO HILLARY SUPPORTERS:

Wasn't it YOUR candidate who said she was staying in the race because anything can happen, including assassination as happened with Bobby Kennedy in June?

Wasn't it YOUR candidate who basically called her democratic competitor "not ready on day 1", while giving props to the republican candidate McCain?

Wasn't it YOUR candidate who repeatedly came up with creative math to say that she should be elected, and in the process was attempting to bend the rules and was misleading the American public?

Wasn't it YOUR candidate who repeatedly said that Obama cannot get elected....implying that voters are too racist and Obama therefore shouldn't be given the chance?

Wasn't it YOUR candidate who on Tuesday night did not mention ONE WORD about what a historical event it was to have a black man succeed at this level in national politics?

Wasn't it YOUR candidate who, while congratulating Obama on a good campaign, did not concede that he had actually won the nomination, and is reportedly waiting until Saturday to do so?

Wasn't it YOUR candidate who couldn't wait to put political pressure on Obama and tried to back him into the corner to choose her as VP?

If you wonder why I'M unhappy with Hillary, that's it in a nutshell.

BUT make no mistake: if Hillary HAD won the nomination, I am a well-educated 54 year old professional white woman who WOULD have voted for Hllary in the election, because I am a democrat first and foremost, AND because the alternative of voting for McCain is unacceptable!


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

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^


Very Well Said!!

Posted by: GandalftheGrey | June 6, 2008 2:15 PM | Report abuse

Jim wrote: I hope btw that Obama adopts Hillarycare, since her plan was strogner than his. I hope she pushes for that and he agrees.
------------------------------------------
That seems to be a point many people miss. At the rate health insurance rates are skyrocketing, I doubt if Obama's $2500 dollar savings for the average family per year pitch will mean much. Right now, for me and my wife we'd be paying almost 20K for health insurance (self employed, both over 60)
Clintron's plan was considered pretty liberal in the 90's, but as more and more people in the middle class are affected, it's become a more centrist cause. All the lost manufacturing jobs used to offer health care benefits; where do these folks go when they have to buy it on their own. How many billions of dollars a week do we send to rebuild Iraq? I bet they don't have this as an issue.

Posted by: royco7 | June 6, 2008 2:13 PM | Report abuse

I am very pleased that the two sat down together in peace, and talked. I am thankful that the press were absent. I don't care about details, only that they talked as mature adults who understand the importance of the bigger picture here. This election isn't about these individuals themselves, but about the plan to take over after these past two consecutive terms, which has called many more to pay attention to politics period! If these times aren't eye-openers, I don't know what is! At the end of the day, noone can change the fact that, bottom line, both candidates are going down in our children's history books. They will be working on the same team, for similar causes, period. It is not the end of the world. I say, we're still in good shape folks. The fight on the issues continues! Good. Any and Every person who will, let us unite into one solid force and take back that White House. This isn't about Hillary's team and Obama's team, when we've been on the same general team period. We have two major teams now. Either you're for the Bush-similar-nonsense that McCain intends to deliver, or you're not. It will be US vs those who found Bush's administration full of pleasure. We must think about what general side we are on. I'll tell you right now, I am TIRED of it. My vote will never have gone to McCain. It's not that I dislike him, I read up on him compared to these two candidates and I honestly intend to stick with my ideals of what needs to happen this time around. WE need to get that White House back. I believe that this time, the passion for this country is in the form of a Democrat this year. So be it.

Generally speaking, ALL SUPPORTERS FOR THIS COUNTRY, Stand Ready!! We are not weak this year. Lets do it. Keep your blinders off, and DON'T let them attempt to distract you away from the issues! There is work needing to be done, and I imagine we'll have less problems doing it with a Democrat in office this time around. Stand Ready!! =) We can celebrate together.

United --> White House '08. We want different results this time around, and we are serious! Enough with the insults. It's time to focus our energy on the bigger picture. We have work to help get accomplished! Stand Ready!

Posted by: Obama2008 | June 6, 2008 2:12 PM | Report abuse

You people who criticize Hillary for not walking away from her last very successful primaries, including a great win in SD just a few minutes before her rally in SD, and immediately fall on her knees in adulation of the great Messiah Obama.

Hillary just came off a 17 month campaign, with eighteen million supporters begging her to stay in the race. Hillary had to absorb all that went on, and let her supporters absorb all that went on. Everything isn't about Obama and his feelings and his rights. Other people have feelings and rights, also.

Eighteen million of us are hoping against hope that Obama self-implodes or McCain saves us from the Obama's.

gw.

Posted by: Iowatreasures | June 6, 2008 2:11 PM | Report abuse

Hey Pissed!!

Looks like you were either born in a trailor park somewhere in the deep south or you are rich and decided since you had money, you needed no formal education whatsoever. You are a right wing wacko and everyone knows it, you idiot!!! Now how does that work Pissed?

Posted by: la82 | June 6, 2008 2:09 PM | Report abuse

Alexander Mac Donald,

I guess that's why Obama lost South Dakota last week. Obama had 100% supports by out of touch washington politicians in South Dakota.

Obama is so far left that he has left America.

Posted by: Another Ex Democrat | June 6, 2008 2:08 PM | Report abuse

Best two comments all day or best two comments during this whole race:

Would you two groups quit being so nasty to each other - I supported Hillary and I'm proud of it but now I support Barack. Now everybody quit the name calling and play nice.

Posted by: Jack | June 6, 2008 1:17 PM

To JohnAdams1, if you think Obama hates Americans, you, sir, are an idiot. I think it is YOU who has hate in his heart. You hate Obama. And why? What rational reason is there to hate an articulate, compassionate, inspirational young man?

Only one I can think of. Racism.

You, sir, are the kind of racist we do not need here in the United States. I suggest you move to Russia, where hate seems to flower in the government. Or if you can't get a visa, maybe you could move closer to Crawford and worship at the altar of GWBush.

We need to unite not fight!

Think about your children and not ourselves.

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

You don't often hear people's full names. I had no idea that Hillary Clinton's middle name was "Diane" until I looked it up on Wikipedia. Quick, do you know John McCain's middle name? It's "Sidney". Also, McCain is a "third" and Barack Obama is a "junior".

I have no problem with people writing full names as long as they do so for all three candidates. To do so for one candidate and not another would be unusual.

Barack Hussein Obama, Jr
Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton
John Sidney McCain III
George Walker Bush
William Jefferson "Bill" Clinton
George Herbert Walker Bush
Ronald Wilson Reagan
James Earl "Jimmy" Carter, Jr.

Posted by: fletc3her | June 6, 2008 2:06 PM | Report abuse

John McCain is the worst kind of politician. This is a veteran who opposes veterans benefits. A man who was tortured, who made it a talking point to end the use of torture by US military and then voted against the torture ban in the US Senate. A man who wrote a bill, gave speeches and held press conferences to the cause of immigration reform, now campaigns against it. A man who this week spoke to AIPAC about the need for America to divest in Iranian companies, however in 2005 he voted against a bill to do just that, a bill sponsored by Barack Obama. Not to mention his own Reform Institute had investments in Iranian companies and who employs lobbyist for the Iranian government. It is so nice how he can speak out for causes and then go back to the senate and vote against them. A man who spoke out against Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy, but now wants to make them permanent. In the last couple of weeks he has spoke out for the need for more environmental responsibility and the need to curb carbon emissions, however when his buddy Joe Lieberman's bill to curb carbon emissions came to the Senate floor for a vote, John McCain was NOT there. He employs lobbyists not only for the Iranian government, but for Burma and numerous African warlords who hold their power by killing, torturing and raping their people by the thousands. This man is not qualified to be president. This man is the worst kind of political scum.

Posted by: 4 Change | June 6, 2008 2:06 PM | Report abuse

TO HILLARY SUPPORTERS:

Wasn't it YOUR candidate who said she was staying in the race because anything can happen, including assassination as happened with Bobby Kennedy in June?

Wasn't it YOUR candidate who basically called her democratic competitor "not ready on day 1", while giving props to the republican candidate McCain?

Wasn't it YOUR candidate who repeatedly came up with creative math to say that she should be elected, and in the process was attempting to bend the rules and was misleading the American public?

Wasn't it YOUR candidate who repeatedly said that Obama cannot get elected....implying that voters are too racist and Obama therefore shouldn't be given the chance?

Wasn't it YOUR candidate who on Tuesday night did not mention ONE WORD about what a historical event it was to have a black man succeed at this level in national politics?

Wasn't it YOUR candidate who, while congratulating Obama on a good campaign, did not concede that he had actually won the nomination, and is reportedly waiting until Saturday to do so?

Wasn't it YOUR candidate who couldn't wait to put political pressure on Obama and tried to back him into the corner to choose her as VP?

If you wonder why I'M unhappy with Hillary, that's it in a nutshell.

BUT make no mistake: if Hillary HAD won the nomination, I am a well-educated 54 year old professional white woman who WOULD have voted for Hllary in the election, because I am a democrat first and foremost, AND because the alternative of voting for McCain is unacceptable!

Posted by: atinev | June 6, 2008 2:05 PM | Report abuse

They are both politicians and they know what they need. He's determined to win the presidency and he knows fully well that he wouldn't be able to do that without her help. After all, 18 millions of votes is hard to be ignored. A joint ticket is THE only way for both to win the White House!

Posted by: Jerry | June 6, 2008 2:05 PM | Report abuse

Why do folks like "Pissed" think that their taxes support lazy bums and fail to see that the current governmental system rewards the rich and powerful elites. Further, the effects of the federal deficit are killing the middle class and government spending can make life better for the masses of Americans who want basic services, protections from rapacious corporate entities, a decent infrastructure and an effective military?

Posted by: luckypaul | June 6, 2008 2:03 PM | Report abuse

This is to end the nonsense that HRC got the popular vote once and for all... Hillary did not win the that vote it would have only been so if certian states that held caucases were excluded!! Do you get what that means? Take a look from real clear politics who keeps tally's..

2008 Democratic Popular Vote



Popular Vote Count

Obama, 17,535,458 Clinton 17,493,836 Difference 41,622 votes in Obama's favor.... Are you okay now, do you get it? it was spin from her and her campaign...

Posted by: la82 | June 6, 2008 2:00 PM | Report abuse

So I will tell you right now that it will
make absolutely no difference if Sell Out
Hillary Clinton and every Democrat in Office Endorses Barack Hussein Obama or not
that, Barack Hussein Obama will never be
elected President and that no one wants his
hateful,bitter black racist wife Michelle
Obama to become First Lady! NO WAY OBAMA!

Posted by: Ralphinphnx | June 6, 2008 2:00 PM | Report abuse

Millions of us wondered and were perplexed about the fact that everyone treated Obama with kid gloves and didn't delve into his negative past. This is a long article, but millions of us want to know why - This is why - in Obama's own words.

(See quotes of Obama within the article.)
-Sunday, June 1, 2008
BARAK OBAMA
June 01, 2008
The Obama Way of Ending Divisiveness
By Jeff Dobbs
When Barack Obama says he wants to end the divisiveness in politics, I believe him. When Obama says he wants to bring about unity, I believe him. When Obama says he wants to work for a new politics free from bitter partisanship, I believe him. When Obama says he wants to have vigorous debate, a robust discussion or a national dialogue to bring this about, I believe him -- to be lying.

Obama's strategy has been to orient the campaign around his greatest strength and advantage -- who could deliver the best speech -- and away from his greatest weakness -- his poor ability to answer questions about how he would deliver on any of its promises.

Obama and his Democratic opponents

Democrats have infamously proclaimed during the Bush administration that dissent is the highest form of patriotism. Yet Obama has continuously sought to stifle any dissent aimed at him by labeling any criticism as a distraction, as divisive or as cynical. Although we are seeing a greater frequency of these claims, and more people are now noticing the breadth of issues with which Obama uses this tactic, stifling dissent was a strategy from the beginning of his campaign.

In his speech to the DNC Winter Meeting in February of last year, Obama laid out some of the ground rules he wanted to impose on the campaign.

Over the next year of a primary and the next two years leading to the election of the next president, the campaigns...(APPLAUSE)... the campaigns shouldn't be about making each other look bad, they should be about figuring out how we can all do some good for this precious country of ours. (APPLAUSE)

That's our mission.

And in this mission, our rivals won't be one another, and I would assert it won't even be the other party. It's going to be cynicism that we're fighting against.


Making Obama look bad is cynical. And cynicism is worse than even Republicans. Anyone criticizing Obama, and thereby engaging in cynicism would be judged as worse than Republicans.

Later in the same speech, Obama expanded the ground rules:

... for every attack ad that questions the character or honesty or patriotism of somebody, there are real patriots fighting and dying in Iraq whose families deserve to know how we plan to bring them home.


Questioning Obama's character or honesty or patriotism is a distraction. Anyone questioning Obama on these grounds would be judged as lacking in their support for the troops.

Obama has not set about setting up these restraints on his opponents simply because he doesn't want to be inconvenienced with such questions and criticisms. Obama clearly understands that his history, his associations, his decisions and actions are such that such questions and criticisms would be devastating to his campaign were they undertaken in earnest and robustly discussed and vigorously debated.

Obama does not want anyone to be able to question his character as it relates to having a 20 plus year relationship with his race-baiting pastor, Reverend Jeremiah Wright. He wants to prevent anyone from questioning his honesty when he repeatedly engages in dishonest double-talk like a dissembling pol as he changes his story about his relationship with indicted friend and political backer Antonin Rezko. Obama knows he must head off any questions of his patriotism because of his long relationship with an America-hating unrepentant domestic terrorist Bill Ayers.

Obama and the media

Obama understands that the primary means of limiting the questions for which he would otherwise be forced to answer is to create a media environment in which those questions are not asked.

Liberals, including the media have repeatedly attacked President Bush for making himself unavailable to the media in press conferences and other Q&A formats. Yet as Howard Kurtz described back in January, the Obama campaign has been "unusually insulated":

One moment of absurdity came Tuesday, when reporters on the press bus were asked to dial into a conference call in which Obama announced a congressman's endorsement -- even though the candidate was nearby and just as easily could have delivered the news in person to the bus captives. Obama answered a few questions, but reporters are generally placed on mute after they speak so there can be no follow-up.


Obama learned the wisdom of this strategy, or rather the folly of its absence, when he made himself available to reporters to answer questions about his relationship with Antonin Rezko, who is currently on trial for corruption. Irritated with the questions and unable to satisfy persistent reporters, Obama cut the news conference short, walking out and proclaiming, "'Guys, I mean come on. I just answered like eight questions." Obama more recently went on a 10 day stretch in which he held no press conferences. Frustrated with the lack of availability, a reporter tried to break Obama's silence by asking a question while he was eating breakfast. Obama again deployed the "chagrin defense", this time somewhat fomously, "Why can't I just eat my waffle?"

The Obama campaign seeks to restrict media access forcing them to react to his speeches and limiting unscripted interaction with the candidate himself. Because when the media reacts to his speeches, as evidenced by his "major speech on race in America" in March, which Obama gave in response to the revelations surrounding Reverend Wright's sermons, the media cheers, and swoons and practically struggles to avoid fainting.

And after Obama's major speech on race in America, the media began putting up the wall that would protect Obama from further questions about Reverend Wright. When Lanny Davis, a Clinton supporter, sought to put Hillary's comment that Wright would not have been her pastor in context, he described several of Wright's comments, at which point he was accused of "spreading the poison". When CNN anchor John Roberts interviewed Obama, he reassured the candidate that the entire network was a "Wright-free zone". Mission accomplished.
-------------------------------------

Posted by: Iowatreasures | June 6, 2008 2:00 PM | Report abuse

theRealCalGal,

So, it is okay to have 100% black members at New DNC Rules Committee with ZERO representations by Latinos and Asians.

I bet you still go to the same church like Obama did for last 20 years.

Posted by: Another Ex Democrat | June 6, 2008 1:59 PM | Report abuse

No wonder there are no pictures of this meeting! According to the Washington Post, the two senators sat in glasses of water!:

"With nothing but a couple glasses of water and two plush chairs to sit in, Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton sat privately ..."

Posted by: Ego Nemo | June 6, 2008 1:59 PM | Report abuse

To Doug:

"Interesting. I wonder why the author of this piece uses "Hillary Rodham Clinton" but not "Barak Hussein Obama?" Just another example of the mainstream media bending over backwards to make Obama as appealing to the masses as possible..."
-------------------------------------

Hey moron,

Rodham is a maiden name and Hussein is a middle name. The media does not say John Sidney McCain III as that is John McCain's full name.

Posted by: Dave | June 6, 2008 1:55 PM | Report abuse

If the Field Poll, a pretty reputable outfit, is even close to correct, Clinton's popularity among California Democrats has declined by about 20% since the California primary. If the primary had been held last week, it would have been a landslide for Obama rather than the quite good win it actually was for Clinton. And if it had been held a month sooner than it was, Clinton would have had a landslide. Why mention it? Because the 18 million votes she received over five or six months does not reflect her current standing with Democratic voters. It now only explains her among delegates, including super delegates. The hard fact for the Clintonians is this: the longer the campaign went on, the more we saw of the two candidates, the weaker her support became. The decline was slow but steady. She did it to herself.

Posted by: Alexander Mac Donald | June 6, 2008 1:54 PM | Report abuse

To Another Ex-Democrat: you asked where were "Middle Americans" seats at the DNC Rules Committee table. Well, I guess you buy the idea that "Middle Americans" are white, huh?

White working class men, eh?

Well if so, you kind of gave up your seat at the table when you deserted the Democratic Party for Reagan and then voted TWICE for the Little Idiot for Preznit. Even AFTER he took us to war on a whim because he wanted to better his Daddy by winning relection and figured the only way to do that was by being a War Preznit.

Also, I just LOVE white men whining about being discriminated against. You run every corporation, most government entities, have the best paying jobs, and have been putting women and people of color "in their place" for centuries. I don't think YOU are being discriminated against, but if you were, you deserved it. Walk a mile in my high heels, man.

Posted by: theRealCalGal | June 6, 2008 1:54 PM | Report abuse

There is no way Obama a LIBERAL black man is going to win. It's just the truth.

Also, he is from Illinois the biggest kickback/graft state in the union.

Young people love him, but they don't vote.

Older people do but they aren't going to relinquish all their feelings & biases.

He won't carry the southern vote.
He won't carry the midwest vote.
He'll carry the liberal states like New York but those will be few and far between.

Get use to hearing - President McCain. He is at least against special interest.

Posted by: Reality Check | June 6, 2008 1:53 PM | Report abuse

Oh all you Po Black folk ... Being black never seemed to hurt Oprah ... ONE OF THE RICHEST WOMEN IN THE WORLD, Or you Massiah Obama ... Stop using racism as an excuse to be an ignorant lazy idiot!

Posted by: Pissed | June 6, 2008 1:53 PM | Report abuse

Hillary did the noble thing in the end game and she should have every right afforded to her, to approach ANY leader in America in confidence. She is also a U. S. Senator for now, until otherwise noted by her, if any change. I thought the McCain ticket looked better however, without Hillary as a VP. Two people in the oval office, with an NSA, HSA also new is a bad concoction, even if you bring the guys and gals home, secure the border and improve the economy. Your adversaries NEVER go away, they just become chameleons. Experience will catch them BEFORE conficts. Confidence in the ticket MUST be secured. Gore as Energy Czar is better than him as a VP candidate for sure, but Hillary's fate should be the VP.

Posted by: naptown#1 | June 6, 2008 1:53 PM | Report abuse

"Sometimes I feel that Republicans are disguising as Hillary supporters threatening to vote for McCain.
I'm a staunch Hillary supporter but I have absolutely NO PROBLEM voting for Obama come November, regardless of whether Hillary is the VP or not."

Posted by: GF | June 6, 2008 1:15 PM

I don't mean to be rude, and in fact I should be very careful because you're one of the "good guys," but... er... duh? Many of us Obama people have been crying foul about this for a while. You know that Rush Limbaugh (a man not very well known for his liberal credentials) explicitly urged Republicans to vote for and support Clinton, and to sow as much "chaos" as possible in the nomination, right?

I mean, you suspect that Republicans might be stirring up controversy? I KNOW they are. Why else would this refuse to die? The positions of the two candidates are ALMOST IDENTICAL. What on earth else could be fueling all of this rage, if it's not for the work of external agitators looking to piss people off?

Let's just assume that in ANY Internet forum (and this is one), there are going to be some "moles" who are trying to keep us at each other's throats.

Mrs. Clinton can defuse this by conceding and coming out enthusiastically and without strings attached, for Obama. That would leave the Republican trolls with no legs to stand on; how can you scream that "your" candidate got short-changed, when she's enthusiastically rooting for the "other guy?" It becomes painfully obvious, in that event, that you're either a troll or a nutter (not talking about you, here, GF, I'm talking about the most rabid of your fellow Hillary supporters).

Likewise, Obama supporters, we have to police our own and remember that clever Republicans (there are a few) are likely ALSO posing as Obama supporters and lobbing insults, trying to keep the fires of animosity alive. So we need to watch what we say, and slap down (fast and hard) "Obama supporters" who are full of vitriol and spite towards the Clinton camp.

Reasonable people can disagree, but the Republican shills amongst us are preventing us from acting reasonably.

Posted by: Tom C | June 6, 2008 1:52 PM | Report abuse

If he puts that evil woman on the ticket he will be soooo sorry! She will insist on being co-president again!

http://fakesteveballmer.blogspot.com

Posted by: steve ballmer | June 6, 2008 1:51 PM | Report abuse

They didn't ask me, but i give my advice anyway. Sen. Sam Nunn is my choice.

As former Chair of the Senate Armed Services Committee, he gives the kind of Foreign Affairs and Security background that's good to have at your disposal.

As a Georgian, he has the Southern, down home, common folk background that appeals to a lot of us. His selection immediately puts Georgia into play, as a Blue state.

Furthermore, his selection will send a "friendly message" to South Carolina, Virginia, and Mississippi, Alabama and maybe even Arkansas.

Then, again, if you want alternatives, that Big-three from Virginia- Gov. Tim Kaine, Sen. Jim Webb and former Governor Mark Warner, looks awfully good..

Posted by: Hank Wilfong | June 6, 2008 1:51 PM | Report abuse

white folks who don't veote for obama are racist. that is okay cause we are taking over in nove. just like the inventer of the peanut said, george washington carver, the black will be free once he gets in the white house.

Posted by: Lakisha | June 6, 2008 1:49 PM | Report abuse

Yes Obama and Clinton do have the same platform .... Tax the "working dog" till he's poor like the lazy bums they plan to support with their tax dollars!

Posted by: Pissed | June 6, 2008 1:48 PM | Report abuse

Interesting. I wonder why the author of this piece uses "Hillary Rodham Clinton" but not "Barak Hussein Obama?" Just another example of the mainstream media bending over backwards to make Obama as appealing to the masses as possible...

Posted by: Doug | June 6, 2008 1:48 PM | Report abuse

The problem I am having is that I detest the Obama supporters who seem to believe that if I don't vote for their empty suit I must be a racist pig. I know, because I have been called that on this and on other sites. I am a Democrat who would vote for Obama in a heartbeat if I believed he had the experience and the wherewithal to keep this country safe better than McCain. I don't think he does! I think he should have stayed in the Senate another four or eight years depending how this election turns out. Perhaps the VP slot would have been good training for the job. As it is, he has two years experience as a Senator. Before that he served in State government and was a community outreach worker. That resume does not qualify a man to be President and therefor my vote will go to McCain. Not for any racist beliefs as some of you accuse me of.

Posted by: Opa2. | June 6, 2008 1:47 PM | Report abuse

How do people always get sucked into a battle between one side an another? I am neither a Jew or black, just a middle aged ex USAF pilot. I don't see anything ominous about a meeting between Hillary and Obama, that's how disagreements get settled. Hillary clearly wants something and Obama needs to decide if he can give it to her. Hillary is an old pro and she didn't invest all this time and money into her campaign to end up with nothing at the end. She has depts to pay, not just money but favors and promises. She has to use whatever power she has (the promise of her voters is the main thing) to pay off her debts and get a little something for herself. She probably wants some appointments for some of her campaign staff, vice presidency or senate majority leader status for herself, and maybe some help paying off her loans.

Why is the meeting secret, so that they can speak freely. I don't think any candidate in history would want to have this meeting televised. Would it be better if Hillary just conceeded and asked for nothing, of course, but she didn' get to where she is today by being easy or gracious,

Posted by: captbilly | June 6, 2008 1:46 PM | Report abuse

.. that if he becomes the prez & she is the vice prez, then she is a single heart beat away from the oval office! A very scary scenario which is possibly on the mind of some, while some others would love to see it happen.

Posted by: concerned... | June 6, 2008 1:46 PM | Report abuse

My understanding is the republicians are already trying to use HRC in their ads agaisnt Obama.... that would be a tough one as a vp to try to say she never said that , huh.... HRC has become the republician month peice to their tv ads, with all her dirty tactics.... Nice Dem she turned out to be...

Posted by: Judith | June 6, 2008 1:45 PM | Report abuse

Now, hang on, folks. Obama supporters, it's just as offensive to assume racism in the minds of people who don't back Obama, as it is to assume sexism in the minds of people who don't back Clinton.

I'm an Obama supporter; I've donated about a thousand dollars so far, and I voted for him in the Washington State nomination. But I didn't vote for him because he's half black, nor did I vote against Clinton because she's a woman. I voted for him because he shows honor and respect and integrity, and because I support his positions.

Just because you vote against a black politician, doesn't make you racist (and the same things goes for a woman and sexism). Have a little more respect for the intellect of MOST voters (I'm not talking about the few who truly are outright racists and sexists, just the majority of us... you know, the sane ones).

Posted by: Tom C | June 6, 2008 1:45 PM | Report abuse

I think Obama makes an excellent black candidate. Afterall, he is clean and articulate.

Posted by: Sandy | June 6, 2008 1:45 PM | Report abuse

Obama is our only hope. We have had all the Republicans we need to last a life time. I used to like the Clintons but little by little their true colors came thru. Hopefully she will not be VP. Obama will be a God send to the whole world.
McCain is a joke and is going to make a fool out of himself.

Posted by: jay wilson | June 6, 2008 1:45 PM | Report abuse

Having a meeting together is a great thing, why would any one be outraged. Should they hold a private conversation in front of cameras? Do we care when McCain and Bush meet? The reason they did it in secret was so that the media couldn't jump all over them in the middle of the night, and you know they would have. Hillary knows Obama is the best chance to have her policies and interests promoted, she knows that McCain is against everything she holds dear, and will support Obama in defeating McCain in the fall. Every Democrat and every American who is tired of the GOP dismantling the middle class and bankrupting our country, should support Obama. Hillary knows it, that's what this meeting was about.

Posted by: MantisMKE | June 6, 2008 1:44 PM | Report abuse

You people are missing a big point here. Obama has said that he would meet with our enemies without preconditions. And here, he has done just that. This is truly the beginning of a new era.

And a question: Is it okay to call Feinstein a "Jew Queen" on this site? Can I then call Obama a Half-Breed Fag (for example)? Hillary, a ball-ballbusting B---? Just asking.

Posted by: Fair Witness | June 6, 2008 1:43 PM | Report abuse

EX DEMOCRAT, you need to check the facts. Obama got more delegates from Texas than Hillary because, as usual, his campaign was more organized.

No matter what YOU would do, each state chooses its delegates as IT wants, and several states choose caucuses rather than primaries. Obama played by the rules and won.

Clinton kept trying to change the rules, by dismissing caucuses as "un-democratic" and by going back on her agreement that Fla and Mich wouldn't count.

Even with all that, it is NOT clear that Clinton was the choice of more voters.

So wake up, and READ the RULES, like Hillary should have.

Finally, I say to you as to others who accuse Obama of being racist, YOU are the racist. YOU are the racist.

TO Wes: Hey, man, when you call it the Democrat Party, you're showing your colors as a Faux News Republican't, and none of us in the DemocratIC Party give a whiff what you think about our nomination process. Go read Scott McClellan's book to see what your party has done to besmirch the Office of the President of the United States.

Finally, to all, I think Hillary would be a great addition to the Obama ticket IF she can prove to him that she would be loyal and an unflagging supporter. Both sides took shots at the other. That's the nature of a campaign. I personally think Hillary's shots were a little more personal. Remember the one about the "sky will open up" mocking his inspirational speeches? Or the time she said he was a Christian "as far as she knew"? Or her husband claiming Obama played the race card? That was rich coming from the campaign that talked about hard-working Americans as white Americans. The only Obama slam that made me wince was when he said she was "attractive enough." So there was some sexism from one side and some racism from the other. We'll get more from the Republican'ts, you can count on that.

I suggest Obama tell her she's the front runner for VP (if she wants it) , but she has to prove herself between now and the convention by getting "her voters" into his column quick.

I do think she could be a good VP, and don't forget that the President controls how much the VP does. The only fixed role the VP has is to break ties in the Senate, fer crissakes. Cheney is powerful because Bush the Lesser allows him to be and wants him to be, cuz the Shrub doesn't really like to work hard, and being President is Hard Work.

Let's see if Clinton can turn into an Obamaniac, and if so, put her on the ticket.

Posted by: theRealCalGal | June 6, 2008 1:43 PM | Report abuse

Hmm..Washington Post reports what Feinstein says, a meeting took place, so secret, no outsider can confirm it took place; but did a meeting really take place at her home? Is it possible that all three were actually at a little meeting in Chantilly, Viriginia?

Posted by: Anonymous | June 6, 2008 1:43 PM | Report abuse

Much ado about nothing. Why shouldn't these two be able to meet privately? The sense of public entitlement to know everything about everyone all the time is unprecedented, absurd and counterproductive.

Simply because news channels need to fill time does not make a private meeting a public affair. We need the best and the brightest to want the responsibility of the office and everything it entails. If it entails public access to every moment, none of the people we want in those offices will be willing to run, and for good reason.

If you are outraged by this meeting, you have too much time on your hands.

Posted by: Really? | June 6, 2008 1:43 PM | Report abuse

If the Dems wanted to win in November they should have nominated their strongest candidate. Instead they swamped to Obama in the most rigged primary election in the History of the US. I will never vote for Obama. This isn't just about Hillary anymore. Obama has neither the judgement, character, nor intregrity to be in the WH. The DNC will reap what they sowed. McCain '08

Posted by: Floridian | June 6, 2008 12:11 PM
----------------
Please explain how the primaries were "rigged" in any way.

Posted by: Steve | June 6, 2008 1:41 PM | Report abuse

Much ado about nothing. Why shouldn't these two be able to meet privately? The sense of public entitlement to know everything about everyone all the time is unprecedented, absurd and counterproductive.

Simply because news channels need to fill time does not make a private meeting a public affair. We need the best and the brightest to want the responsibility of the office and everything it entails. If it entails public access to every moment, none of the people we want in those offices will be willing to run, and for good reason.

If you are outraged by this meeting, you have too much time on your hands.

Posted by: Really? | June 6, 2008 1:40 PM | Report abuse

What about us? Latinos, Asians and Middle Americans - where are their seats at the table? They are also reliable and ever growing democratic voters.

It means you should have overcome your 'scruples' and your own ambitions to come to another man's country and decide the course of that country..and vote for the candidate who would win the nomination. You bet wrong, you lost...Bill Richardson is a Latino, he bet right. My daugher in law is an Indian, She bet right. Join the Obama train, and be happy. If you are out, it is YOUR CHOICE. NO ONE is running you away..OVER TO YOU.

Posted by: Digi | June 6, 2008 1:40 PM | Report abuse

Barak Obama-Zell Miller '08

Posted by: iamasofaking | June 6, 2008 1:38 PM | Report abuse

It doesn't matter what that scorpio trickster does it will always be about Hillary and neediness for attention. She needs counselllllllling, she needs help but she thinks all she needs is attention just like Bill Clinton it doesn't matter what kind of attention just as long as they are getting it. Look what Bill did on Bush's inugaration day look at me look at me and now more of the same. Remember when the world had Lewensky over here and Hilliary over there and the world over there and who was in the middle getting his attention, Bill Clinton. It didn't matter to him what kind of attention he/she gets, they just want attention, any
kind of sick attention is best for their phychi's. It's sick and the two of them need joint counselllllllllling. It's scarey and I'm glad she didn't have an automatic anything with her and I was concerned for Obamas safety. Jealousy is very ugly and can get even uglier and the Clintons are the personification of the spirit of jealousy so they can portray graciousness but it's still a portrayal, put-on situation ethics. BEWARE

Posted by: MissClarity | June 6, 2008 1:38 PM | Report abuse

Slothrop,

Do you need list of names? Thought you are slightly smarter than that.

It also shows you do not give a damn about other groups. You are another "ME" crowd.

Posted by: Another Ex Democrat | June 6, 2008 1:36 PM | Report abuse

Now they had their talk everyone can relax.
Please watch James Manning's broadcast on
the Atlah web site today, click on "Home"
and then "Today's Broadcast" and after the
announcement of his prayer ministry, take the time to listen to the message. It is
worth more than money can buy. He has priceless information and yesterday's message was great as well. This is the
voice that we need to hear, because it will
put things in perspective for everyone, and
the complexion of the political situation
will become focused on reality instead
of a revival of what used to be called
Beatlemania. It's the same old trick that
was used in the 60's that was conceived as
a method of reducing and diminishing the
values and the intelligence of the US
citizens. The truth is a powerful weapon
and it cuts going in a coming out, it will
accomplish that for which it was sent forth. Better to hear the word and act upon it than to be caught napping.

Posted by: Alice Wolf | June 6, 2008 1:35 PM | Report abuse

Senator Clinton won the popular votes IF (only if) caucus states are excluded. This claim goes right up their with her experience claim.

Posted by: A Dem. | June 6, 2008 1:35 PM | Report abuse

I was for Hillary all the way, but I have no problem backing Obama now. I don't think most people can have another four years of any Republican. I am sorry so many good people are running either Hillary or Obama down. We need to unite and not have McCain in the White House.

Posted by: jhill | June 6, 2008 1:35 PM | Report abuse

I don't think Clinton is actually a frontrunner for Veep, nor can I see her camp and his meshing well... listening to an NPR assessment yesterday the field really is wide open, and she wouldn't necessarily add the greatest amount of voters if chosen. I'm impressed that they had this meeting, however, and hope that it means somewhat of a melding of their two policies.

Posted by: Emily N | June 6, 2008 1:35 PM | Report abuse

everyone in this thread is a moron!

Posted by: Anonymous | June 6, 2008 1:33 PM | Report abuse

Is there a max. age limit of 6 in this forum? It's good to be passionate but many comments seem severely immature. Keep bickering and you'll loose one of the most important elections in U.S. history. Go ahead and vent but it will soon be time to move on and move forward.

Posted by: Nigel | June 6, 2008 1:32 PM | Report abuse

Another Ex Democrat wrote:
"Whoever watched DNC Rules Committee meeting last week must thinking, is this what they meant by "Big Tent" in the Democratic Party where 80% of members represented by essentially two tribes (Blacks and Jews)."

Wow - bold assertion (I had no idea you could tell who was Jewish by watching participants in a meeting). When you demonstrate that you know how members are appointed to the DNC rules committee, who appoints them, how they are vetted, and how the committee membership changes over time, I will take you seriously. But since you're just trafficking in surface-level racist smears, I'll just leave you alone.

BTW - it's AIPAC (the I stands for Israel).

Posted by: Slothrop | June 6, 2008 1:32 PM | Report abuse

Secrecy is the beginning of bad governance. To say the least, the secret meeting begs the question - "What does each have to hide?"

The sad things is WHERE IS THE OUTRAGE?

America,
Your expectancy is much too low. So are your intelligence. Most of the above comments are bickering between the two camps, while the two "camps" are secretly selling us voters out.

Why don't you all think about it!

Posted by: Zzz | June 6, 2008 1:27 PM | Report abuse

(a) Committed Dems who happened to prefer Hillary>Clinton>(b) Racist Clinton supporters

I suspect (a) is smaller than (b). That's why HRC is so ddeply in debt; talk is cheap, and much of her support is attributable to anti-Obama sentiment, not pro-CLinton sentiment. Those people are not inclined tocontribute and definitely not now, when she no longer hurts Obama. And that's why the 18 million bit is superfluous; she can't/doesn't bring all 18 million along if she's brought on the ticket.

Ther were over 600 posts to Hillary's supension item on her campaign blog. Three mentioned that they had contributed. Her support, as compared to antipathy against Obama, is not very deep. But you already know that after reading the countless "I'm for Hillary but no way I'lll vote for Oabama" sentiments.

Posted by: gbooksdc | June 6, 2008 1:26 PM | Report abuse

It is truly sad to read all this bad stuff about this wonderful lady , women get no respect today , I am a black male thats ashame of the treatment she got , those white boys in on the cable station faned this hate and you guys are just playing into , what do you really know about Obama
A president should not be based on a popularity contest , I am ashamed to be a democrat I am changing my party , this party has a buch of cowards in it , the guts !!!!!!!!!

Posted by: RSHW | June 6, 2008 1:25 PM | Report abuse

The Jew Queen told Obama and Clinton what they would be doing for Israel in the next 4 years.
And I bet you silly people thought Obama was going to be pro-America rather than pro-Israel. How funny. Don't forget Israel controls the US government. Lock, stock, and barrel.

Posted by: DWayne | June 6, 2008 1:23 PM | Report abuse

It truly troubles me that some Clinton supporters are so anti-Obama that they are now threatening to vote for McCain in the general. It seems to me that the general consensus in the media and everyone else was that, in truth, Clinton's and Obama's platforms were not all that different. If you supported Clinton's POLICIES as opposed to CLINTON THE PERSON, you should have no trouble voting for Obama.

Voting for McCain out of pure spite because you liked Clinton better than Obama is, frankly, childish and asinine.

Posted by: DC Dem | June 6, 2008 1:23 PM | Report abuse

Lighten up everyone! Clearly you don't understand sarcasm, which is "the lowest form of wit" So what crat3 says is simply being sarcastic..don't you get it?

No one in their right mind could believe that Obama worked some kind of guzu and got the super delegates to support him...HOW did he FORCE them to do it? Clearly Hillary stepped on some toes on her way up, and is having to come back down real slow.....


Posted by: Digi | June 6, 2008 1:23 PM | Report abuse

READ WHAT JOHN YOUNG SAID! HE IS ABSOLUTELY RIGHT.

On blogs YOU are NEVER SURE OF THE IDENTITY OF THE POSTER. One can post under any name and pretend to be supporter of anyone.

SO BE AWARE..AND DONT GET SUCKED INTO THIS STUPID BACK AND FORTH - HRC AND OBAMA SUPPORTERS - ARE YOU LISTENING!!!

Posted by: matt | June 6, 2008 1:23 PM | Report abuse

I don't care what you say, Hillary knew Barack was to get home and have a date with his wife and Hillary made it all about her again. She's got to get the knock in her stomach settled and stop gleaning attention for herself. It's over Hillary Who.

Posted by: MissClarity | June 6, 2008 1:22 PM | Report abuse

Slothrop,

Fair enough about your comments.

Whoever watched DNC Rules Committee meeting last week must thinking, is this what they meant by "Big Tent" in the Democratic Party where 80% of members represented by essentially two tribes (Blacks and Jews).

What about us? Latinos, Asians and Middle Americans - where are their seats at the table? They are also reliable and ever growing democratic voters.

If this means just another racist noise to you and your Obama supporters, let's just turn the table for a moment. New DNC Rules Committee members are now represented by 80% Latinos, 0% Jews and 0% blacks. We will have riots by NAACP in Washington. APAC will have carpet bombing in the news media.

Posted by: Another Ex Democrat | June 6, 2008 1:22 PM | Report abuse

Many have held back truly celebrating Senator Obama's ground-breaking primary victory while we wait, bizarrely, for Senator Clinton's permission to do so.

As difficult as these days since Tuesday have been for Senator Clinton's and former President Clinton's supporters, the supporters of Senator Obama feel they have been "allowed" only half a celebration.

Flip the situation. Can it even be imagined that Senator Obama would hold a victory rally in a room cut-off from outside communication on Tuesday night and would hold off endorsing Senator Clinton for 5 days, having his surrogates claim that he needed "time" to process the outcome?

Has this set a precedent that when Senator Obama wins the Presidency in November, Senator McCain will need "time" to process his defeat before he concedes?

The loss of respect and admiration I used to hold for former President Clinton and for Senator Clinton is, for me, the saddest result of their primary race strategy.

Posted by: New England Voter | June 6, 2008 1:22 PM | Report abuse

I have conflicted feelings about this dream ticket. On one hand, I can see the justification, Obama is selected by the insiders since he did not win the popular vote while Clinton is elected by the people's popular vote but is not selected by the insiders. Putting them together may be a quick way to unite the two groups.

On the other hand, Clinton may loose even more by standing in Obama's shadows when she finally gets out of Bill's. Standing outside will also give her an option to run again; worse is that the media and the party will give Obama all the credits if he wins in November, but will blame her if he looses. So, I think that Obama has more to win than Clinton.

Perhaps, Clinton should run as an independent and leaves this party.

Posted by: vote4thebest | June 6, 2008 1:21 PM | Report abuse

HRC will not give up positioning herself for her own best interests, whatever consequence that may result for her party and her country. She and President Clinton always put their own self interest first. The 18 million voters they tout are no more than pawns in their political battles.

Bill Clinton came into his presidency when the Democrats controlled Congress, and left with the Republicans in control.

Some HRC supporters are huffing and puffing about sexism from Obama. The evidence is to the contrary. Yes, sexism is still prevalent in our society and I see it in what my daughter has to go through; but why take it out on Obama who has been nothing but gracious. He let her off the hook for her mean spirited Freudian slips in referring to the RFK assassination, held back when her husband made an unmistakable slight of Obama's racial background. By her open reference to "hard working Americans, white Americans", she gave the cover of legitimacy to people who decided based on race. All deeply offensive utterances!

The Clinton's behavior was far more egregious that any perceived or imagined offense by Obama.

Is this sequence of White House occupants healthy for the country: Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton?

Do the diehard Clinton supporters really prefer a McCain administration who want to appoint more Supreme Court justices that will turn back the clock on Roe vs Wade and genuine equal rights for all?

Posted by: kkwm | June 6, 2008 1:21 PM | Report abuse

Many of the voting groups (Hispanics, Women, White/Blue Collar etc.) have been constituencies Obama has tried to attract, and will support with his policies. It is only because Hillary has painted him as unresponsive to them, that they have come to believe it. If she does the right thing and endorses him unwaveringly, that will not be a problem, because policy-wise they are practically clones of one another. The only discernable difference is in their complexion, campaign style and willingness or lack of same, to pander to single issue people. He consistently hasn't, she consistently has.

Posted by: BennyFactor | June 6, 2008 1:19 PM | Report abuse

The thing supporters of Obama and Clinton need to guard against is being sucked into a destructive "back and forth" that would be fueled by McCain supporters. Such supporters can claim to be Obama or Clinton supporters in these types of forums and try to inflame the passions of each side against the other.

Posted by: John Young | June 6, 2008 1:18 PM | Report abuse

GF:

We understand, but does HRC?

Posted by: matt | June 6, 2008 1:18 PM | Report abuse

Would you two groups quit being so nasty to each other - I supported Hillary and I'm proud of it but now I support Barack. Now everybody quit the name calling and play nice.

Posted by: Jack | June 6, 2008 1:17 PM | Report abuse

To JohnAdams1, if you think Obama hates Americans, you, sir, are an idiot. I think it is YOU who has hate in his heart. You hate Obama. And why? What rational reason is there to hate an articulate, compassionate, inspirational young man?

Only one I can think of. Racism.

You, sir, are the kind of racist we do not need here in the United States. I suggest you move to Russia, where hate seems to flower in the government. Or if you can't get a visa, maybe you could move closer to Crawford and worship at the altar of GWBush.

Posted by: theRealCalGal | June 6, 2008 1:17 PM | Report abuse

"children may not be as concerned about industry going to Kenya(eg) instead of South dakote because he may become a financier and finance industries abroad in the futrue. But a 35 year old single mother of 3 living in South Dakota may be very concerned that the jobs in factories may be going to Kenya. Or she may be concerned about afforable child care. Since no democratic candidate can be all things to all people-the 18,000,000

What a load of drivel! Obama has repeatedly stated that he is against giving tax benefits to companies that OUTSOURCE jobs!

Why are you bringing Kenya into this? Can you name ONE American company that has outsourced work to KENYANS?

Why don't you focus on the Phillipines, China and so on? And dont forget Panama, the West Indies, Mexico and Canada? How dishonest of you to be making reference to Kenya. Is it because Senator Obama's father was Kenyan?

Posted by: Digi | June 6, 2008 1:16 PM | Report abuse

For god's sakes, STOP THIS.
Sometimes I feel that Republicans are disguising as Hillary supporters threatening to vote for McCain.
I'm a staunch Hillary supporter but I have absolutely NO PROBLEM voting for Obama come November, regardless of whether Hillary is the VP or not.
We can't afford 4 more years of GWB policies. Why can't you understand that? WE MUST VOTE DEMOCRAT november. MUST.

Posted by: GF | June 6, 2008 1:15 PM | Report abuse

THere is no way the democratic party reunites so easily after such a bitter contest.

As always has been seen in the past...the democrats are unable to gain focus in a singular way....

Thanks Hillary....your self serving desire and delusions of grandeur have doomed the democrats.

Posted by: GoonieGooGoo | June 6, 2008 1:15 PM | Report abuse

Decompression, my eye! Hillary's trying to cut a self-serving deal for herself. She's probably angling for VP or a seat on the Supreme. She'll settle for a cabinet post. If she doesn't get what she wants, Obama might go the way of Vince Foster and RFK.

Posted by: Mata Hari | June 6, 2008 1:14 PM | Report abuse

Obama supporters dont understand anything. Hillary supporters will die for hillary. Hillary is gods gift for mankind. That black man spoilt everything for us. We were entitled to the presidency!!!! we will get it!!! Any woman who's husband cheats on her and who is great at lying and underhand dealing is most should be the president.
HRC WILL BE OUR PRESIDENT !!!!!!

Posted by: crat3 | June 6, 2008 1:13 PM | Report abuse

__.•-"-•.___
_/) c_c_(\__
(/(_ O _)\)__
_(``)~(´´)_
I like Obama ,he is sexy,and he is very popular in a famous dating site for tall singles and tall admirers,"~~~~~ tallchat com ~~~~~".There are full of super models on that site.

Posted by: Jane | June 6, 2008 1:13 PM | Report abuse


All I have to say to these Clinton and Obama supporters, to stop this bickering and hatred which will create our downfall...I am an Obama supporter. but I deeply admire Hillary for her outstanding effort, she is an EXTRAORDINARY woman...Even if she had won I would definitely vote for her.However, she should be on the ticket with Obama. as "UNITED WE STAND, but DiVIDED WE FALL".

Posted by: rajah kahn | June 6, 2008 1:10 PM | Report abuse

The role of a superdelegate is supposed to be that they support the person who they feel will be the best nominee for the party. Anyone who believes that ALL of those superdelegates who were reeled in to carry Obama over the finish line believe that he is the best nominee are wishful thinkers.

Posted by: M. A. | June 6, 2008 1:10 PM | Report abuse

TO: crat3 | June 6, 2008 12:52 PM

When you done smoking whatever you are, go out and get some fresh air. By your logic, HRC is lower than a coward for accepting the "rigged election". Clearly, if this is the case, she has very low self esteem. If you think you are the only one who knows the "truth about rigged election", then HRC has poor judgement - either case is not good for a president. I am an Obama supporter and think HRC will contribute positively outside the VP spot. Its her lunatic supporters like you who will leave a stain on her legacy in our history. Do her a favor and talk sense. Do yourself a favor and stop inhaling whatever you are smoking.

Posted by: Matt | June 6, 2008 1:08 PM | Report abuse

Crat3 - Please get professional help now before it's too late.

Posted by: Murvin66 | June 6, 2008 1:08 PM | Report abuse

crat3 wrote:
"De facto Obama surrogate House Speaker Nancy Pelosi rigged the nomination for Obama."

Wow! I had no idea Nancy Pelosi had this power? What did she do? Did she go into each state and create arcane caucus rules that only Obama would know about so only he could win? I didn't see any news stories about that - maybe you could point me to them?

Or did she threaten and bully superdelegates to get them to support Obama? I guess that's why Hillary started the primary with well over 100 pledged superdelegates. They must have been shaking in their boots to oppose the all powerful Pelosi!

Clinton won well over 16,000,000 popular votes in contests sanctioned by the DNC. She would have undoubtedly won more if Florida and Michigan counted (note: they didn't, and the people in each of those states were told as much over and over again before they voted). Her campaign was amazing, her supporters genuine democrats, her policies are thoughtful and would be an exponential improvement over the Bush/McCain baloney of the Republicans. But she did not win the primary, for reasons both fair and "unfair." BUT... she did lose, and she knows it, however frustrating that is for her, and she's doing the right thing by trying to bring some unity to the Dems. I wish all of her supporters would do the same.


Posted by: Slothrop | June 6, 2008 1:06 PM | Report abuse

"pushed across the finish line by superdelegates"

The Democratic primary rules were set down in August 2006. Hillary knew what they were. She is all over YouTube saying it would all be over on Super Tuesday, at which point she was presumably ready to push Obama out. The rules only became distasteful to her when she lost by them.

You people really are looking dishonest and she is looking dishonest too.

You don't change the rules after the game has begun. That's called cheatin'. Thank you, Donna Brazile, for stating the obvious in such simple words.

Posted by: Danielle | June 6, 2008 1:04 PM | Report abuse

Obama's supporters are a cult following that's making all kinds of crazed, hostile, senseless, nasty comments. It may be Obama's cult powers that intrigued de facto Obama surrogate House Speaker Nancy Pelosi that caused her to rig the nomination for cult leader Obama.

Posted by: crat3 | June 6, 2008 1:04 PM | Report abuse

I agree with Lucy-- the only thing Clinton supporters wanted that Obama's not offering is a woman president. Is he considering a sex change?

Posted by: Bambi | June 6, 2008 1:02 PM | Report abuse

I too am confused. I thought that on Tuesday night he said that he will not negotiate with that petty dictator!

Posted by: Guest Worker | June 6, 2008 1:02 PM | Report abuse

If any of you were running for office and got millions of votes -- and your opponent was pushed across the finish line by superdelegates -- I'd want to be there to hear you graciously concede.

Posted by: M. A. | June 6, 2008 12:59 PM | Report abuse

For EX DEMOCRAT:

Here's a clue - primary rules are determined by national parties. The rules that determined that Florida and Michigan could not hold their primaries when they did were approved by *gasp* Hillary Clinton's surrogates and supporters at the time! The rules that ultimately allowed the seating of some delegates from those contests were decided *gasp* by a committee! Why? Because the state parties had violated DNC rules - rules that Clinton supporters helped to set up.

The answer that committee came up with is not perfect, but - guess what - there is no perfect way to get delegates from a primary that EVERYONE was told would not count, and which no candidates campaigned in. Is this so hard to understand?

Posted by: Slothrop | June 6, 2008 12:57 PM | Report abuse

Hillary Clinton needs to step back and learn how to show some humility. I hope Barrack Obama knows not to trust her. Just how many people in the Clinton's Administration misteriously came up dead? She has shown exactly who she is a pure racist.

Posted by: A True Democrat Till The End | June 6, 2008 12:56 PM | Report abuse

One way Obama can ease Hillary's troubled mind and her need to have her hand in it, would be to take Chelsea into the campaign. She's young and malleable. Hillary and bill are not. He's going to push the same policy issues as she has and can always consult with her - or appoint her Sect. of Health, once elected.

Posted by: BennyFactor | June 6, 2008 12:56 PM | Report abuse

The comments pertaining to people having sex and Bill's reaction are showing how stupid and unprofessional people can be. Stop wasting our time showing how stupid you are.

Posted by: Wes | June 6, 2008 12:56 PM | Report abuse

Bill Clinton wants to know:

Did Hillary 'have sex with that man'?

Why did they meet in private??..Why not not Bill invited??

would you let your wife meet in secret??

[^_^]

Posted by: West Virginian | June 6, 2008 12:24 PM


Um, I'm pretty certain Bill wasn't worried. Now, if she had met privately with Diane...

Posted by: What? Who? | June 6, 2008 12:55 PM | Report abuse

To the ex-democrat who talks about Hilary having more votes -- please note that this claim is deceiving because when she talks about the popular votes, she is completely ignoring the caucus states, of which there are MANY, and Obama won most of those. Let's not forget those votes.

Posted by: Gah | June 6, 2008 12:55 PM | Report abuse

Looking from the outside in, ie from the UK, I think Obama is one of the most articulate, passionate, and savy politicians the world has seen for a very very long time. In such a crucial time in our world, we need the US to have such a politician, who not only would be able to unite the people of the US, but bring some intellect, judgement, and very sound politics to the world at large. If the US media can capture the very positive reaction to Obama's win in the world diaspora, I think the Republicans would very much take a back seat and let Mr Obama drive the country, and the world forward........

Posted by: Joe Billy Stan | June 6, 2008 12:54 PM | Report abuse

Bill Clinton wants to know:

Did Hillary 'have sex with that man'?

Why did they meet in private??..Why not not Bill invited??

would you let your wife meet in secret??

[^_^]

Posted by: West Virginian | June 6, 2008 12:24 PM


Um, I'm pretty certain Bill wasn't worried. Now, if she had met privately with Diane...

Posted by: What? Who? | June 6, 2008 12:53 PM | Report abuse

It is interesting how certain people selectively pick the standards they use to choose a candidate. Obama did not set the rules on how to get chosen, the Democrat party did. She knew what the rules were. She knew what the rules were in Florida and Michigan. Apparently if one does not like the rules one demands that they be changed. This claiming she won because she got the most votes is the equivalent of saying you won a baseball game because you got more hits than the other team not more runs. Delegates were the standard and therefore defined who won. Let me remind everyone that the popular vote in caucus states was not counted. Figure that in terms of possible popular votes and then recalculate how YOU want to define the winner.

Posted by: Wes | June 6, 2008 12:52 PM | Report abuse

Sen. Clinton should be the Democratic presidential nominee. Obama did not clinch the nomination fair and square. De facto Obama surrogate House Speaker Nancy Pelosi rigged the nomination for Obama.

Sen. Clinton's supporters in the swing states of Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida and Michigan should work for Obama's defeat and vote for McCain. Obama must win atleast three of these states in November. I will volunteer and vote for McCain in a swing state.

Sen. Clinton won the primaries for all four swing states. She was the best qualified and the strongest presidential candidate to win the general election in a landslide victory hands down. This was trumped by Pelosi's rigged nomination for Obama.

The key for Obama to win in November lies with Sen. Clinton's supporters in the swing states; for Obama, that key is lost for 2008 but it opens the door to 2012 for Sen. Clinton.

Posted by: crat3 | June 6, 2008 12:52 PM | Report abuse

To those of you who keep mentioning 18 million:

How many supporters do you think Obama has? Do they matter?

Do you think she would get 18 million votes today?

If she has 18 million supporters, why does she have a $40 million debt? Don't you guys have $2.25 apiece to help her out?

Posted by: zzzzzzzz | June 6, 2008 12:52 PM | Report abuse

Watch her formally get on the agenda at the convention and try to turn the tables on the whole thing.

Be prepared for the worst. We are talking about the (Me)First Lady.

Posted by: DonJulio | June 6, 2008 12:49 PM | Report abuse

Every criticism of Clinton is not automatically due to misogyny. That is ridiculous.

Posted by: Annie | June 6, 2008 12:49 PM | Report abuse

Lucy: Hillary's supporters (as a population of 18,000,000) have been marginalized by the media. A large assortment of democratic voters many hispanic, many women over 40, many blue collar workers, many seniors. Their voices, interests and representation have not beeen voiced by the media and their pundits-largely Obama supporters, who have very different interests. For example, a 20 year old black male college student-who has no debt or children may not be as concerned about industry going to Kenya(eg) instead of South dakote because he may become a financier and finance industries abroad in the futrue. But a 35 year old single mother of 3 living in South Dakota may be very concerned that the jobs in factories may be going to Kenya. Or she may be concerned about afforable child care. Since no democratic candidate can be all things to all people-the 18,000,000 who didn't vote for Obama have everything to be concerned about. Their interests are not recognized. They have been invisible to the media and that is my concern-because those people behind Obama are rich and have their own interests at heart.

Posted by: Colleen | June 6, 2008 12:48 PM | Report abuse

I am completely amazed at the comments made by Obama supporters. Unbelievable venom and so self-righteous. Are they even Democrats?

Posted by: Anonymous | June 6, 2008 12:48 PM | Report abuse

It is strange to have endured Hillary's insults and attacks on Obama, only to have her remaining supporters wonder why his supporters are angry.

It isn't as if she has made things right, so we can forgive and move on.

Posted by: Kelly | June 6, 2008 12:48 PM | Report abuse

Just to cool things down here a little - Clinton's decision to take a few days before she decides to endorse Obama is hardly unprecedented. Kennedy took his delegate fight to the '80 convention, Bill Bradley took months to endorse Gore in 2000. The idea that it is somehow a character flaw that she collects herself for a week and then endorses Obama is hardly a big deal. I have been an Edwards supporter and then a (somewhat reluctant) Obama supporter, but I've got to say that there is a HUGE amount of casual misogyny directed at Clinton. Take a step back and look at yourselves folks. This is a historic and exceptional election. Let's feel good about being Democrats for once!

Posted by: Slothrop | June 6, 2008 12:47 PM | Report abuse

Give hillaery a break...she is one of the only women in country that had the "gut" top run aaginst a man..she knew she would be called every name in the book and she still tried, and almost won. This man is not afraid to admit that she would have been a good president..we do have a bias in this country..its hard to deal with a strong women.
Grow up everyone..there will be a woman president someday and it'll probably be good for the country.

Posted by: Gee | June 6, 2008 12:46 PM | Report abuse

If Obama chooses Hillary as his running mate, his message of change goes out the window.

This nomination process did nothing but underscore the need for change and to get away from people who are an anchor to the past.

Posted by: Jack | June 6, 2008 12:46 PM | Report abuse

Why is everything Hillary does so doggone creepy and suspicious? This smells REALLY funky. And I trust Feinstein about as far as I can throw an Israeli warhead.

Posted by: Dave | June 6, 2008 12:45 PM | Report abuse

It's really revealing of Obama supporters that even in victory they still continue to spew hatred and odious comments towards Hillary.

Wow! If this is what it's like being an Obama supporter, then God help this country! It seems like all this talk by Obama about Hope and Unity and Change is just TALK.

It does not seem to have any effect on his supporters other than to inspire them to HATE and DESPISE anyone who challenges their Messiah.

Posted by: David 2007 | June 6, 2008 12:45 PM | Report abuse

Someone on this blog made a comment about qualifications for the Supreme Court. Excuse me but Clarence Thomas was probably the least qualified nominee in history and who nominated him... GW's father ..

And someone comments about Democrats and qualifications... give us a break

Posted by: Wes | June 6, 2008 12:43 PM | Report abuse

The DEMOCRATS and the Obama supporters and the MEDIA need to accept the FACT that Hillary received more VOTES from voters! Has she been a man, all would be kissing her butt instead of trying to make her leave! SHE HAS MORE VOTES!!!
Obama would have LOST if this had went one month longer! He lost after Texas and Ohio in almost every contest AND in demographics. Wright and his horrible viewpoint that Obama followed for 20 YEARSW is NOT the "American" Presidential material. Obama only pulled this out through Super Delegates that want the first black President an/or are jealous of Hillary Clinton...who was already a guaranteed WIN with the swing states in Novemmber! But NO, the Howard Dean and Pelosi "BOSSES" and the lost their objective media want Obama..even if he is NOT qualified and a racist and ANTI-American! And CANNOT CARRY the necessary states too win!
THIS IS THE BIGGEST FARCE ON DEMOCRATS AND AMERICA! READ HIS BOOKS!! You will NOT vote for him! and his wife is pretty racist, too! NO OBAMA! NO WAY!

Posted by: EX DEMOCRAT | June 6, 2008 12:42 PM | Report abuse

She pretends to support him but is holding onto her supporters and her delegate votes.

It's always all about her.

Posted by: Jones | June 6, 2008 12:42 PM | Report abuse

Obama and Clinton are handling the transition from primary to general election perfectly. They have the press dying to know what Clinton's speech will be like, while Obama in facing Clinton and Lieberman, keeping Dean, but only talking about McCain is making a very smooth pivot to assuming the mantle of party leader.

And the fact is they have real common ground to cut a deal and let Hillary keep involved with her base and her agenda. They both have every reason to want Clinton's voters to feel wanted and listened to. Meanwhile the policy issues Clinton champions don't conflict with Obama's values or campaign.

Maybe all this pessimism about a split in the party is overblown. These seem to be incredibly competent politicians here.

Posted by: Bullsmith | June 6, 2008 12:41 PM | Report abuse

Shortly, Mrs. Clinton will have to face the relity that she was, is, and will always be nothing more than a crooked real estate lawyer.

Posted by: M. Marcotte | June 6, 2008 12:41 PM | Report abuse

She is divisive and destructive and should stay far far away from his campaign.

Look at the damage she did to her own party. I do not think she can repair it.

She could start by apologizing for celestial choirs, lifetime of experience, shame on you Barack Obama, assassination in June, and not as far as I know, but she won't.

Posted by: Emma | June 6, 2008 12:39 PM | Report abuse


The coverage and analysis of this meeting is the height of bad theater. Last time I looked on CSPAN2 the Senate was still in session. I thought both HRC and BHO are senators. So how about meeting at the office and have a talk over lunch. Don't these people go to work anymore.


Posted by: bklyn-ny | June 6, 2008 12:39 PM | Report abuse

She just wants to keep the delegate votes.

She knows President Obama will work hard on exactly the issues her supporters care about.

Enough of this hypocritical double talk.

Her job now is to tell her supporters the truth: that the nomination was not stolen, that no other DNC ruling would have flipped the election to her, and that 18 million is a very complex and creative accounting. They are rabid because she and her surrogates have seeded the media with lies in an effort to wrest this win from her opponent.

Posted by: Eileen | June 6, 2008 12:37 PM | Report abuse

Barack Obama is one of the most intelligant candidates we have had in memory. Surely, he can see through Hillary Clinton and her tactics and hubris. She will hold him hostage with her voters. SHE has rigged the DNP to be split, by gender and by race through her campaigning. Obama has the gift and talent to bring people together by telling the TRUTH and by TRUSTING the people of the USA, not treating them as though they are two year olds. I was nervous that she would offer a deal re: her vice-presidency vis a vis "her voters." After reflection, and seeing what Obama has done since his nomination has been sealed, I have even more faith that he will "do the right thing," and NOT EVEN CONSIDER HER FOR VICE PRESIDENT.
We don't need any more Clintons in the White House, or near it.

Posted by: laurie parsons | June 6, 2008 12:35 PM | Report abuse

To FLORIDIAN

Please explain to me how this election was "rigged".

Specifics, please.

Posted by: judyc | June 6, 2008 12:32 PM | Report abuse

To Floridian,

You sound like a hard-core Republican of the Ann Coulter stripe. It is obvious that you have neither heard Barack Obama nor seen him in action.

Posted by: Earl C | June 6, 2008 12:29 PM | Report abuse

Good . . . let's go forward Democrats, Americans, and true patriots, with the Clintons, Obama, the Kennedys, and millions of others. Americans have been denied entry into the 21st century over the last 8 years by W., Rove, Cheney, et. al.

Posted by: mountainman | June 6, 2008 12:25 PM | Report abuse

No press, no aides, no spin. Get used to it. The Obama administration will be highly organized and effective (just like his campaign). End the Drama, Go Obama!

Posted by: thebob.bob | June 6, 2008 12:24 PM | Report abuse

Bill Clinton wants to know:

Did Hillary 'have sex with that man'?

Why did they meet in private??..Why not not Bill invited??

would you let your wife meet in secret??

[^_^]

Posted by: West Virginian | June 6, 2008 12:24 PM | Report abuse

This loser has nothing to offer anyone, but for some reason, people continue to let her play the game of I, the Queen.

Posted by: llr | June 6, 2008 12:21 PM | Report abuse

I'm surprised no one has mentioned that only 10,000 people attended Sen. Obama's rally yesterday, when the Nissan Pavilion holds 20,000. That means it was half-empty.

Also, why is there no mention at all of where Sen. Clinton will be giving her speech on Saturday, other than "Washington, DC"? Is this to prevent protesters from showing up and embarrassing her?

Posted by: Carl R. | June 6, 2008 12:16 PM | Report abuse

Sorry, Betty Louann, but it seems that Sen. Clinton was the one who wanted Obama to grovel. Otherwise, why not graciously concede rather than go the remainder of the week with Obama being referred to as "presumptive nominee" or "likely nominee". Why wait until days later to "suspend" the campaign. note: still no concession..

Posted by: Anonymous | June 6, 2008 12:15 PM | Report abuse

Hillary for the Supreme Court. Now that's a hoot. She didn't even pass the DC Bar exam. Oh, I forgot, qualifications aren't important to the liberals!

Posted by: Rick | June 6, 2008 12:15 PM | Report abuse

I don't understand what Mrs. Clinton's concern is all about - what do her supporters want that Mr. Obama's supporters view differently. We all want the same thing. Her agenda was in line with his agenda - the differences were minimal. So, how does her fear of her supporters not counting in his administration compute. I am at a loss.

Posted by: Lucy | June 6, 2008 12:12 PM | Report abuse

If the Dems wanted to win in November they should have nominated their strongest candidate. Instead they swamped to Obama in the most rigged primary election in the History of the US. I will never vote for Obama. This isn't just about Hillary anymore. Obama has neither the judgement, character, nor intregrity to be in the WH. The DNC will reap what they sowed. McCain '08

Posted by: Floridian | June 6, 2008 12:11 PM | Report abuse

As long as Obama did NOT eat or drink ANYTHING offered to him!

I don't trust that woman!!

Posted by: KYJurisDoctor | June 6, 2008 12:09 PM | Report abuse

Finally, some cool heads and compromise. I'm glad Obama and Clinton are sorting things out. She'll get her issues promoted -- hopefully health care especially -- and they'll all get unity. I don't think VP is a possibility because it won't strengthen his chances in the general, but I hope Hilalry plays some role in the new administration. Supreme Court? Health care? who knows.

I hope btw that Obama adopts Hillarycare, since her plan was strogner than his. I hope she pushes for that and he agrees.

Posted by: Jim | June 6, 2008 12:08 PM | Report abuse


The country does not need Obama and his hatred of americans. He, his supporters and the press have formed an unholy alliance sgainst democracy and fre elections.

With a democratic super majority in both House and Senate, McCain will do just fine as president.

Obama and his hatred is not acceptable and he will roil this country as he has roiled democrats.

Not reporting this reaction to him does not mean it goes away and everyone is just hunky dorey with him. Not so.

Posted by: JohnAdams1 | June 6, 2008 12:08 PM | Report abuse

What a shame if Obama has Hillary on the ticket I cannot vote for the Clintons they are too self serving and will give him trouble

Posted by: Lucille Graf | June 6, 2008 12:08 PM | Report abuse

She has the whole world in her hands. Well, at least the Democratic Party. There is no doubt that how Hillary decides to proceed will largely determine the outcome of the November election. She can pull the party together and stump for Obama or she can say a lot of polite blarny about unity and stay mostly mute and mild in regard to her supporters who are so very disappointed at her heartbreakingly close primary loss.

If Hillary shows the right stuff, Obama has a chance of winning and depending on how well he does in office she can run again in 4 or 8 years and win. If she politely distances herself, both she, the millions who voted for her, Obama and the Dems will lose, and the big loser will be our nation.

Ultimately, a woman has the power. And that, seems to me, is what Hillary wants.

Posted by: Madeleine | June 6, 2008 12:02 PM | Report abuse

This was the right thing for two mature people to do. I am appalled at the insults still being hurled at Hillary after her gracious meeting with Obama. The public seems to have a need to see her grovel rather than do things in her own time.
I am very proud of Hillary Clinton and Barak Obama and very sorry that the public is still so misogynistic.

Posted by: Betty Louann | June 6, 2008 11:56 AM | Report abuse

A good start to re-unifying the Democratic Party for the most important task of all, the defeat of the John McCain led Republicans in November. Mrs. Clinton garnered more than seventeen million votes in her bid for the nomination and those who voted for her deserve to be represented at the convention and in a, hopefully, subsequent Obama Administration. Mr. Obama must be committed to a whole Democratic constituency, not just a partial one. The Democratic party is a big umbrella and it needs to be fully opened in order to achieve November victory and necessary change for America, beginning in 2009.

Posted by: Harold F. Crockett Jr. | June 6, 2008 11:55 AM | Report abuse

He's far too nice. She's been using every dirty trick in the book on him since January and she doesn't have a leg to stand on now. Her voters will cry, have a cozmo or two and get over it - all but the racists will be voting for Obama in November. He should offer her nothing, not even the fee for the gaming comission which she should put up personally.

Posted by: Peter | June 6, 2008 11:51 AM | Report abuse

Coming from Chicago and New York, they's both knows the score!

"Barry" was "Made".

Only Proper her showing respect!

The Don was getting offended! ;~)

Posted by: RAT-The | June 6, 2008 11:49 AM | Report abuse

How wonderful if these two great minds and superb campaigners can not only bring our democratic party together - but that they will share the ticket and win (what should have been OURS nearly 4 years ago) The White House/Congress back to the party that truly cares.

Posted by: betty Byam-Sher | June 6, 2008 11:48 AM | Report abuse

I don't trust a thing she does.

Wait till the convention...just wait. The Clintonian ethic dictates something is up the sleave.

Posted by: CitizenXX | June 6, 2008 11:46 AM | Report abuse

SAINT RAT:

What do you think that offer was? "You can be part of my team if you keep your husband away from my interns"?

Posted by: Just wondering | June 6, 2008 11:45 AM | Report abuse

It will be interesting to see if she can be trusted to follow though on whatever they agreed on...

Posted by: Ellen | June 6, 2008 11:42 AM | Report abuse

how shady can you be should have thought about this when she was throwing darts at obama but maybe they can come together.

Posted by: nickelberry | June 6, 2008 11:40 AM | Report abuse

It would be tremendous mistake and a real shame if Obama allowed Clinton to join his team. It would destroy everything he fought to achieve and the "change" he claimed to represent. Does anyone with a half a brain think she would do the same thing for him? What a laugh.
And can anyone image having Slick Willie undermining your administration at every turn.

Posted by: Doug7 | June 6, 2008 11:39 AM | Report abuse

Mrs. Clinton's true colors were on display this week when she wouldn't concede even though Obama had cleary won the nomination.

A class act would have immediately conceded and given a healing speech like Al gore did after he got screwed by the Supreme Court.

Posted by: louise | June 6, 2008 11:31 AM | Report abuse

here are the differences on mccain and obama on the economy:

http://thevote.abc13.com/2008/06/polar-opposites.html

Posted by: TOMABRAHAMS | June 6, 2008 11:29 AM | Report abuse

He made her an Offer;

She CAN'T Refuse! ;~)

Posted by: SAINT---The | June 6, 2008 11:15 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company