The Trail: A Daily Diary of Campaign 2008



About Those Clinton Primary Voters

Sen. Hillary Clinton campaigns for Sen. Barack Obama at Florida Atlantic University August 21, 2008 in Boca Raton, Fla. (Marc Serota/Getty Images)

By Alec MacGillis
Democrats have been wringing their hands since yesterday about one seemingly daunting figure in new polls showing a tightening of the presidential race.

Obama, according to the polls, is still having trouble locking down the votes of Hillary Clinton's primary-season supporters. An NBC/Wall Street Journal poll found that only about half of self-identifying Clinton supporters backed Obama, while a fifth are backing John McCain and fully a quarter remain undecided.

Some are interpreting this as evidence that Obama has a lingering problem with the Democratic base, and even speculating that he consequently might shock the world and pick Clinton as his running mate.

Lost in this analysis, though, is a crucial fact: many of Clinton's primary-season supporters are not necessarily loyal Democratic presidential election voters.

Indeed, many of the states and counties where Clinton racked up her biggest numbers in the primaries are places where voters remain Democrats in name only (think Kentucky). Such voters may have turned out to participate in an exciting 2008 Democratic primary, but they have not voted for Democrats in recent presidential elections, and can hardly be considered part of the Democratic base.

Take Beaver County in western Pennsylvania, where the New York Times today found strong resistance to Obama among Clinton supporters and Obama lost to Clinton by a whopping 40 percentage points during the primary. If Obama does not win all those voters back, he will hardly be the first: Democrats outnumber Republicans in the county 68,000 to 35,000, yet Kerry won the county by only 2.7 percentage points. And despite losing so many of the county's Democrats to George W. Bush, Kerry nonetheless carried Pennsylvania.

To be sure, Clinton would have done better with Democrats in places like Beaver County than Obama will, and Obama needs to run as close to even in such locales as he can. But they were never going to be his path to victory in the Keystone State, where he is instead counting on Philadelphia and its suburbs -- a region that has been growing while western Pennsylvania shrinks -- and big margins among African Americans, younger voters and independents.

As well, Obama is not even competing in the general election in some of the states where Clinton won big totals against Obama in the primaries. Clinton beat Obama by 250,000 votes in Kentucky, and by 150,000 votes in West Virginia. Both are states where Democrats still outnumber Republicans by huge margins -- and yet Bush both won handily in 2004.

Posted at 3:56 PM ET on Aug 21, 2008  | Category:  analysis
Share This: Technorati talk bubble Technorati | Tag in | Digg This
Previous: Club for Growth Displeased by GOP Convention Lineup | Next: Obama Has Made His VP Decision

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


Please email us to report offensive comments.

Hillary did not want the VP slot. She and Obama worked things out months ago at Feinstein's house. She has said herself that she would choose Biden. And with the high profile both she and Bill have at the convention, it is clear she is going to have a choice spot in an Obama-Biden Administration. Secretary of State, perhaps? I think she will get anything she wants. A vote for Obama-Biden is a vote for Hillary, and I for one intend to continue to support her by voting Democrat.

Posted by: katharine | August 24, 2008 11:09 AM

Now that Obama has chosen Biden...
Okay great, Obama. You just lost the ticket. All McCain has to do to win the ticket now is have Rice as VP. She is black, a woman, and as a Democrat, this is all it would take for me to move to other party. When both parties have bi-racial, both male\female on the pres/vp ticket, then I will feel it's time to look at the issues. Otherwise, the majority of Americans will not be represented. Yes, women and other minorities will be the majority soon. Of course if I was a black man, I might vote Obama, unless I had some party reasons to vote the Republican side. Now, if McCain chooses another white man, easy vote - Obama.

Posted by: bebesvin | August 23, 2008 1:32 PM

obama did not beat clinton......the dnc stupid monkey

Posted by: jh | August 23, 2008 7:28 AM

Excuse me, but Kentucky was a Blue state before Reagan and it turned Blue for Bill Clinton twice... We are Democrats in KY, just moderate Democrats. The DNC has made the mistake of not counting on KY the last 2 elections and they have lost! We have been considered the "redneck" vote by CNN this year for voting for the moderate Democrat, Hillary Clinton. Just because we have BRAINS here in KY and don't blindly follow our party, doesn't mean we aren't the base of the Democratic Party. We are white, middle class to poor, working class.. is that not the BASE of the Democratic party? BTW, The Civil War was fought right here in KY, our citizens died for the freedom from slavery in this country, we as Democrats have supported civil rights of all... or we would have switched long ago... we are not racist and we are not Democrats in "name only". We are not the crazy Daily Kos crowd either... Obama has lost KYs vote by counting us out(with the help of the media) and Dems don't win without their base!

Posted by: MorganJane | August 22, 2008 2:38 PM

Clinton is more than a woman, she is a competent democratic hopeful for veep. Kennedy isn't as accomplished, and god forbid, if Rice became veep for McCain, then that would be nice in general, but I wouldn't vote Republican just to spite Obama. Women will defend their rights, will vote for Obama, but other aspects may change - older women may not donate to the campain as they did before or had intended. Younger women, I am not sure why they don't understant the importance of having Clinton as pres, then on the veep ticket... it baffles me. Perhaps they haven't seen in real life your collegues pass the grade, even though you scored equally, so to speak. Younger women may move up more quickly this day in age, who knows. But that was something promised to us by our mothers who fought for the rights, but it's a pretty slow movement. Clinton is my only hope at this time. Another person, would shame millions of voters who had voted for her candidacy for president - a full 49% or so of the dem primary voters, 50%+ if you count the other two states. Obama has shamed women enough by waiting so long.. it's like a black man not knowing what it feels like to be prejudice. What the heck is going on in politics these days? It has to be about protecting her.. maybe from neg ads from the Republicans.. If she is not veep on Saturday.. my campaign dollars are staying in my pocket, but I will vote for Obama. I'm not a complete idiot.

Posted by: bebesvin | August 22, 2008 1:48 PM

It is a long day already. Friday, the weekend is here. Well there seems to be a lot of web surfers out their hitting the real-time, open poll at I am still wondering who Hillay's supporters are punching. Could part of the reason Obama has broken 430,000 so quickly be because of the "Hillary Effect?"

Posted by: acarponzo | August 22, 2008 7:24 AM

This article is a laugh.

First, they say that no way will women and Clinton supporters do anything but support a Democratic candidate. Then, they said a whole series of things implying that Clinton supporters would "shut up and get on board".

Now, the above article proposes that the Clinton supporters were never really going to vote Democratic this fall.


Posted by: AsperGirl | August 22, 2008 5:54 AM

I'm a Republican who did not vote for President Bush in 2000 nor 2004, but I'm so grateful to him that after 9/11 we have not been attacked. I have felt very safe when travelling to Europe and Middle East with him as president.

Anyone still supporting Barack Obama after his mediocre performance at the Saddleback Forum last Saturday, and his poor performances in previous debates during the primaries is blind and deaf. Senator J. McCain may not be the perfect candidate, but he is not as flawed, incompetent, corrupted politician that Barack Obama is, and does not associate with racists, radicals, terrorists, and does not stutter when answering questions. A true Christian does not support abortion, same sex marriage and does not attend a racist church for twenty years. Stop drinking the kool-aid.

Posted by: Diana | August 22, 2008 2:57 AM

Posted by: rtfanning | August 22, 2008 2:27 AM

If Obama has the brains CNN says he has, then he must have picked Hillary for his Vice President months ago. I'd hate to think Obama is as dumb as a box of rocks.

Posted by: SadAmerican | August 22, 2008 1:24 AM

Corruption Annon
I did my homework. Try doing yours.

It's not my fault the DNC didn't vet this Communist.
85,000 gave their lives during my lifetime fighting Communists , so I'll do anything I can to repay their sacrifice by fighting to stop what I find to be the most repulsive freak to have ever run for the Presidency.
He's engineered a slush fund for himself with the $845 billion Global Poverty Act, called for a Civilian Security Force "the size of the U.S. military" and prepared himself for the job by being indoctrinated by the CPUSA for 4 years and then kept up his adult continuing hate education by swearing an oath to Black Liberation Theology and attending Wrights hate America church . His only job, ACORN has been charged for vote fraud in 15 states.

What does the Obama campaign not want us to know about their Messiah?

1. News results for william ayers obama foundation

Barack Obama records sealed at Illinois - Aug 20, 2008

Barack Obama's service for a nonprofit educational project that put him in contact with activist William Ayers, a 1960s-era radical and now education ...

The Swamp - Tribune's Washington Bureau - 152 related articles »

When Daley says shhh, library is quiet on Obama - Chicago Tribune - 115 related articles »

BARACK OBAMA The Endless Secrecy Around Barack Obama - National Review Online - 6 related articles »

Posted by: rtfanning | August 22, 2008 12:51 AM

cindy - san francisco,

Are you mad, the Dems will be crushed if Hillary becomes the potential VP. I will register my mentally handicaped, inbread brother to vote to keep that person out of the next administration. Obama will have no chance. My Repubs will come out in droves to provent that from happening. We hate her and we really don't like you Clintonians. And don't vote for McCain to get back at Obama for spanking your little Hillary. But I can't blame him she does have a Fat Butt, ripe for spankings.

GO McCain!!! (without the help of the Clintonians)

Posted by: Capitan America | August 22, 2008 12:44 AM

Having read this in another piece: "Jennifer Boxen, 35, a librarian at Florida Atlantic, applauded vigorously when Mrs. Clinton said she and Mr. Obama had been “on two paths” but were now on “one journey.” But she said she was still not sure whom she would vote for." I can only throw up my hands at the utter stupidity of much of the electorate.

How does someone who ever read a book, no less makes a career out of them, can see a tossup between an anti women's rights, addled, geography ad politically challenged 71 year old man who was fourth to last in his class in a military academy, who admits to ignorance about economics, and abandoned his wife for a Barbie doll, even get out of bed in the morning without rereading the instructions???

Posted by: Richard McDonough | August 21, 2008 11:45 PM

It is NOT Hillary Clinton's responsibility to convert these voters to Obama! It is Obama's OWN responsibility and he is NOT doing a very good job. He has NO experience but just assumes that is just fine for President and Americans will just vote for him! Think Again!
And additionally, Obama blames Hillary instead of taking responsibility for his OWN shortcomings as well as the choices HE made for 20 YEARS that are now haunting him! But he wants to be President? "Dream on"

NO Obama.
And NO Rezko and NO Ayers and NO Farrakhan and NO Flaggler! and NO Racist 20 YEAR Wright!

Posted by: DEM now IND | August 21, 2008 11:13 PM


RCP shows the last 6 polls going in Obama's favor. And the regular disclaimers re: turnout models apply- none of the polls are breaking down the percentages for young or black voters.

Posted by: Corruption Anon | August 21, 2008 9:02 PM

cindy - san francisco:

"They" being the GOP will most definitely come out and vote for MCCAIN, even if they weren't going to up until now. I highly doubt that Obama picked Hillary.

Posted by: JakeD | August 21, 2008 7:58 PM

Corruption Anon:

Nonetheless, YOU claimed (incorrectly) "The last 6 polls have Obama leading ..."

Posted by: JakeD | August 21, 2008 7:55 PM


Posted by: cindy - san francisco | August 21, 2008 7:54 PM


I think Obama sees the big picture much better than Hillary and I think he'll do a better job of organizing, building and sustaining a democratic majority throughout the US. I could be wrong, but the org he's built (so far) is pretty impressive. The Clintons seemed to get lost in the moment, drama, fighting battles, etc. I like Obama better. He can win cleaner, govern better, and usher in an era of democratic leadership that can last 25 years. If Bill had kept it together, it could have been Clinton-Gore-Clinton, just like Jefferson-Madison-Monroe, back in the day. But he didn't. Obama is good.

Posted by: Corruption Anon | August 21, 2008 7:31 PM

Corruption Anon, I'll leave you with these final thoughts.
Enthusiasm and wishful thinking is wonderful.
AfAms make up at best, 15% of the population, turnout usually at 30%, "de yutes" make a lot of noise but their turnout is about 15%.
Women make up about 52% of the population and they do turn out in droves...HRC can win, Obama more iffy. Why not take the sure bet....????

Posted by: starryperdun | August 21, 2008 7:24 PM


There are a lot of democrats who like strong women. Obama's wife graduated from Harvard Law and is an executive. Kaine's wife graduated from Harvard Law.

It tends to be the Republican party that wants women to stay at home and bake cookies. And it is the Republican party that took equal rights for women out of their platform, for no good reason, in 1980.

Finally, the Republicans smeared the Clintons as much as they could in the early 90s. Just like they are smearing Michelle Obama now. Where is the women's movement when Fox News is calling Michelle "Barack's Babies Momma"?

If the women's movement is to have power, it should find a moral center. And then it should recruit its Southern Sisters, who regularly vote against women's issues.

Posted by: Corruption Anon | August 21, 2008 7:21 PM

I forgot to print my last name in my last posting. Helen @

Posted by: Helen Larsen | August 21, 2008 7:19 PM

I am so sick of men who resent and actually "hate" Hillary because she is an intelligent and competent woman and they all are jealous and want to keep women subservient forever. I am afraid, all you Hillary haters, strong women will be around to compete with you forever so "lump it"! I hope she gets asked to be vice president and all her supporters come out in droves to support this incredible woman. God bless her and God bless America.

Posted by: Helen | August 21, 2008 7:15 PM


Obama beat Clinton. Taking down McCain won't be as difficult. People want a change.

Posted by: Corruption Anon | August 21, 2008 7:15 PM

One other point. Those polls are based on small samples and traditional turnout models. The Obama campaign probably has much better data- they make tens of thousands of calls and voter interactions every day. I'm guessing that the black vote (I don't believe polls with less than 13% national turnout at 95%) will give him 3pts and that young ppl give him 2pts, and that there's a misc 1pt.
Think about it: you have this HUGE organization in every major city. Of course you're gonna flood the streets and register every young and black voter. He's got a good strategy. I think it'll work. He'll get Kerry's 252 EVs, Iowa, New Mexico and st least the very very least one of Colorado and Virginia. That recent Va poll was ridiculous. And having the DNC in Colo is huge.

Posted by: Corruption Anon | August 21, 2008 7:10 PM

Corruption Anon, you have my sympathy, but avoiding polls from Pew, CBS, NBC and WSJ as well as Gallop may make you feel good and reality does suck sometimes. You have your objective to elect Obama, mine is to beat McInsane....Obama can't do it this election cycle. Let him run a state like Illinois for one term and he's a winner the next time he runs for prez.

Posted by: starrtperdun | August 21, 2008 7:06 PM

Hey Jake,

And it is August, and Obama was on vacation for a week. The polls will be more meaningful in a month or so. But the fact that Obama out raised McCain $51m to 27m last month, has three times as many donors, a much bigger grassroots network, more enthusiastic supporters, etc. etc etc. I'm not too worried about it. Charlie Cook had a good article earlier in the year comparing this election to 1980 where people wanted change but were concerned about the experience thing and waited 'til the debates to see if the new person could hold his own. I think Obama will do fine in the debates. He may not beat McCain, but he doesn't have to. He can play to not lose, just like he did against Clinton at the end.

Posted by: Corruption Anon | August 21, 2008 7:04 PM

Corruption Anon:

The Zogby poll has McCain in the lead but withing the margain of error. Statistically, whichever polls you are using right now, they are tied.

Posted by: JakeD | August 21, 2008 6:57 PM


Thou shalt not lie.

The last 6 polls have Obama leading, and they don't reflect anticipated record turnouy among young and black voters.

Are the McCain people putting you to this? If so, they should be ashamed of themselves for asking people to sin.

Posted by: Corruption Anon | August 21, 2008 6:54 PM

There is rumor circulating around the internet that they have exhumed Ronald Reagan's body and have removed his brain with new secret nano-laser technology and reconstructed his brain and put it into he body of comedian Gary Shandling. Gary will rise to prominence in Republican politcal circles in the days leading up to the election and in a series of amazing appearences in Scraton, Pennsylvania and Newark, New Jersey will win the election to be the next President of the United States.

Shandling '08

Posted by: Paul | August 21, 2008 6:50 PM


'we'? do go all schizo on me now.

btw, the 6:44 post wasn't from me...

anyhow, so typical of republicans to come to an idea fight with a personal attack.

Posted by: Corruption Anon | August 21, 2008 6:48 PM

At this point in the last campaign, John Kerry was 21 points ahead of Bush.
The latest polls have Obama loosing margin or tied with Mcinsane. That is with the backdrop of an Obama positive message from both print and electronic media. NBC, CBS and ABC are falling over each other with Obama face time. NYT, CHiTimes, LATimes, BosGlobe et all have the election over, Obama, the winner.
I hope HRC and Dems realize that unless HRC is nominated or on the ticket, we will have Obama playing the clone of McGovern.

Posted by: starryperdun | August 21, 2008 6:48 PM


i'll bite what is it about McCain's foreign policy that you like? the fact that he's tough on russia, in a time when we need their help on islamic extremism and nuclear proliferation?

or do you like having our foreign policy in cuba continue to be subservient to, among other deeper, darker things, the american politics of winning in florida in november.

Posted by: Corruption Anon | August 21, 2008 6:46 PM

Remember people, we have C.A. on ignore

Posted by: Nate, Colorado | August 21, 2008 6:45 PM

stop dissin' me nate, I've had about enough of you. If you keep it up I am going to send my dad over to straighten your Republican a$$ out!

Posted by: Corruption Anon | August 21, 2008 6:44 PM

Aw, Nate,

Just 'cause you can't handle the truth don't act like a wussy and curl up in a ball.

"Tell him to go away. His ideas hurt me... That corruption anon is a bad guy..."

Posted by: Corruption Anon | August 21, 2008 6:42 PM


And what did W. do that commended him for the WH? And what has McCain done for the past 30 years - other than pass legislation, like campaign finance reform, that whitewashes his past political sins?


W did nothing. Which is a big reason why I voted against him twice and worked on the Gore and Kerry campaigns. I'm no fan of McCain either, but I feel I can trust him on the environment, foreign policy and many other issues. There will be a Democratic Congress. McCain's likely appointments to the Supreme Court trouble me. But you can't get everything you want. An Obama-Reid-Pelosi controlled government actually scares me more.

Posted by: JSnapper | August 21, 2008 6:42 PM

Capt America,

You don't have to worry about me. I do more than ok.

And as for this election, well, elections are always fun and they always bring out the best and the worst in America. They aren't as bitter as they were, believe it or now, when Burr and Adams and Jefferson and Jackson and those guys were throwing down.

But read this article carefully.
"“McCain’s personal fortune traces back to organized crime in Arizona.”

In it, the NYT basically says that when the truth comes out about McCain, he's done. And that they are the WaPo are vetting him and are going to bring him down.

This is going to be fun! Hope you are enjoying it!

Posted by: Corruption Anon | August 21, 2008 6:40 PM

Let's all do our best to ignore corruption anon.

This is my neighbor's kid. He's 17 years old and cannot even vote. He likes to come on and stir things up while he's out of school. After Labor Day he will vanish.

Posted by: Nate, Colorado | August 21, 2008 6:38 PM


And what did W. do that commended him for the WH? And what has McCain done for the past 30 years - other than pass legislation, like campaign finance reform, that whitewashes his past political sins?

McCain wants to continue Bush's economic policies and double down on the foreign policies. We can't afford that. Russia is shrinking, it has horrible infrastructure, it's people are incredibly disillusioned (and often very alcoholic and in poor health). We don't need to fight them. Our foreign policies are just making them stronger by inflaming tensions in the gulf and keeping oil prices high. McCain just doesn't get it.

We cannot afford 4 more years of those failed policies. We cannot.

Posted by: Corruption Anon | August 21, 2008 6:35 PM

Corruption Anon:

How many McCain voters do you think are going to read that wiki page? Do you think they will change there vote as a reult of reading it? Do you think reality matters here? Noooo, this is America jack. He is running under the pretence of Pro Life so wether he really is pro life or not, if he wins that's a wins for us, the Pro Lifers. And if he gets in office and abortion laws don't change in our favor....oh well, you are in the same place you were 4 years ago, but for certain you are no worse off.

Look bro, you just choose a team here and vote for it. The details don't matter bro. And if your side looses it's not the end of the world, because you still have the same problems as you did yesturday, and the only one that can help you is you!

Go McCain!(without the help of Clintonians)

Posted by: Captain America | August 21, 2008 6:32 PM

Obama didn't put the fact that he's black on his Harvard Law application. And being black didn't make him Law Review President there.

The guys is very smart, very ambitious, and he's an excellent politician.

If he were white, he'd be even more popular.

I agree he's smart. That seems to be the extent of Obama's record. He has no history of doing any of the things he now finds so important, no history of passing important legislation, no impressive record of scholarship, so all we have is his word. Yet he has now gone back on his word on important topics such as FISA. So just what are we left with? Anything? I'm supposed to trust this man with the Presidency at this crucial time because he is smart and speaks well? If he were white, most African-Americans would have voted for Clinton and she would be the nominee.

Posted by: JSnapper | August 21, 2008 6:30 PM

Yeah, that Clarence Thomas thing was the height of hypocrisy. Republicans railed against affirmative action in their attack ads in places like NC, but then they went and put an obscure, mediocre black lawyer on the supreme court. Why? So that the token black on the SC would be conservative. Insidious.

Kind of like telling Saddam they don't care if he invades Kuwait (via Glaspie) and then pummeling him for it.

Or telling people that the War in Iraq was the War on Terror, when in fact it leeched resources (special forces, linguists people, money, attention, etc) from it.

Posted by: Corruption Anon | August 21, 2008 6:29 PM

"Did you know that Abraham Lincoln had almost the exact amount of experience that Obama has when he became President?"

Lincoln got a sweet-heart real estate deal from an indicted criminal? I didn't know that!

Obama enlisted when war broke out and served as a captain? I didn't know that!

Lincoln attended a church where the pastor damned the United States? I didn't know that!

Obama grew up in a log cabin and attended a one-room school? I didn't know that!

Lincoln was raised for several years by a bank vice president? I didn't know that!

Obama started a law practice? For 20 years he was an active trial lawyer who argued civil and criminal cases, including capital cases? He argued before the state supreme court? I didn't know that!

Obama taught himself law? I didn't know that!

Lincoln's father studied at Harvard for his PhD? I didn't know that!

You are ridiculous.

Posted by: WylieD | August 21, 2008 6:29 PM

I think most people who don't like Clinton, don't like her for who she is, and not for what her gender is; it's lame to suggest that people who are against her are sexist. They just DON'T LIKE HER and/or HER HUSBAND.

I don't like Clarence Thomas, does that make me racist? OOPS! I like Obama, and HE doesn't like Thomas either! I guess we're both racists! But wait, isn't Obama black? Damn, now I'm confused ;-)

Posted by: Franglais | August 21, 2008 6:24 PM


Obama didn't put the fact that he's black on his Harvard Law application. And being black didn't make him Law Review President there.

The guys is very smart, very ambitious, and he's an excellent politician.

If he were white, he'd be even more popular. That's what I believe. Believe what you want, it is a free country, and good people can disagree about these things. Good evening,

Posted by: Corruption Anon | August 21, 2008 6:24 PM

Although Hillary might have won California, Massachusetts, and other so-called "liberal" states, race is still an issue in places other than the deep south. Many people may have sincerely liked Hillary, but we'll never really know how many voters just flat out refused to vote for Obama based on his race.

This is new terrain here. Remember that Obama is the ONLY black senator out of 100.

Posted by: Jesse | August 21, 2008 6:23 PM


You are selectively quoting him out of context to the entire discussion about Russia invading Georgia without justification (I mean, come on, even Obama admitted it was "without justification).


George Patton wanted to "invade" Russia too -- did you know that -- was he "naive?

Posted by: JakeD | August 21, 2008 6:22 PM

"And if Obama were the same guy but looked like Edwards, he'd be ahead in the polls by 15 points."

Posted by: Corruption Anon | August 21, 2008 6:14 PM

Well, if you say it, it must be true. After all, no one could possibly question Obama's foreign policy experience, executive and legislative experience, record of passing important legislation, tomes of scholarship, candor, affiliations, etc. [extreme sarcasm]

Posted by: JSnapper | August 21, 2008 6:19 PM

I hear a lot of ranting and raving...I have not met anyone yet who likes either candidate
and most people I talk to aren't voting. I personally feel the same, both candidates suck. But I would have voted for Hillary, only because she is a woman. Men have totally screwed up this country for long enough. And I have been a Republican for 40 years. I think I will send some money to Bob Barr, the libertarian candidate. He seems to be a good choice about now.

Posted by: AC | August 21, 2008 6:19 PM

The Repubs have had at least two long stretches where they could have made a very serious go at overturning Roe vs. Wade. They've not even attempted it while controlling three branches of government, in fact it only seems to get mentioned during election years, you know why?

They won't even try to overturn Roe vs Wade because then they lose their "Issue" to campaign on.

I've known rebubs who claim to be pro-life, the same ones that are grandstanding for war and more (like JakeD) But when it comes down to their young daughter getting pregnant they turn to their doctors to "do something", all of a sudden abortion is OK in their eyes.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 21, 2008 6:19 PM

Capt America,

McCain may be politically pro life, but his business network in Arizona is the exact opposite. Hensley and Marley and Lansky weren't exactly what anyone would call pro life. And they are not Patriots. You've been hoodwinked.

Posted by: Corruption Anon | August 21, 2008 6:17 PM

About This Article

This piece is nothing more than unsupported self-serving supposition. On what, pray tell, does Mr. MacGillis base his "crucial fact" that "many of Clinton's primary-season supporters are not necessarily loyal Democratic presidential election voters." On interviews with a a few selected people in rural areas? On the fact that Kentucky and W. Virginia went to Bush the last two elections? Why ignore the fact that these same two states went to Bill Clinton the two elections prior? Is it even possible to Mr. MacGillis that a more centrist Democrat like Bill Clinton (or his wife) appeal more to these DEMOCRATS than more liberal candidates such as Gore, Kerry and Obama? How about all the Democrats who voted for Hillary Clinton in California, New York, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Florida, Michigan, the rest of Pennsylvania and Ohio? Were they all really Republicans too? What rubbish.

Posted by: JSnapper | August 21, 2008 6:15 PM

That's bs. Edwards ran for President in his first term as a senator. You show me a Senator and I'll show you someone with Presidential ambitions. Same with a House Rep. Same with a Governor.

And if Obama were the same guy but looked like Edwards, he'd be ahead in the polls by 15 points.

The notion that being black in America is helpful, to Obama or anyone else, is absurd. Would you want to be black? Why do you think very light skinned people often 'pass' as white?

Posted by: Corruption Anon | August 21, 2008 6:14 PM

Are you serious? Are you 12?

Posted by: JakeD | August 21, 2008 6:13 PM

You people are so silly. The entire democratic voting process is a facade. The powers that be have you eating out of the palm of there hands, as if any of this matters.

McCain people: vote for McCain stop making up reasons why Obama is a risk. As if the office required any experience in the first place. This country needs a change of pace. It will be intresting what happens if he wins. Will the country CHANGE??? I doubt it but let's see...

Obama people: vote for Obama and stop making up reasons why McCain is a risk. Who cares if he gets mad and wants to push a button. He has advisors to help him curb bad descions just like Obama. He has been in this game for a long time, he is the more knowlegable of the two candidates and he is PRO LIFE and a Veteran like myself and unlike Obama.

Clinton people: what can I not only lie to others but also to yourselves. I just don't know what to say, you are pretty pathetic. As a McCain supporter I don't even want your votes counted for McCain in November. You really have no right to be included in the voting process. You actually wanted the Super Delegates to ignore the votes of the people and vote for Clinton in spite of the primary and caucus results. LOL yeah you guys are pethetic don't tarnish my candidate with your votes. The Repubs don't want them.

Go McCain!(without the help of Clintonians)

Posted by: Captain America | August 21, 2008 6:12 PM

Merely quoting him Jake, your the one adding words to his statements.

And you are among a very small minority who thinks the Iraq war was justified.

Posted by: JR | August 21, 2008 6:12 PM

So, you want to INVADE Russia, and I thought you were just naive.

Posted by: Jake | August 21, 2008 6:12 PM

Anonymous at 6:04 PM:

You will have to clarify WHAT was a long time ago, as well as WHAT you are talking about then. Also, please ASK an actual question if you want an answer.

Posted by: JakeD | August 21, 2008 6:11 PM

"I think Obama's ego completely overshadows his actual accomplishments. I find him belittling, arrogant, untrustworthy"

Do you have any idea what kind of ego it takes for any one person out of 300 million to think he or she can be president? You think Hillary doesn't have an ego? Her sniper fire lie makes her untrustworthy and as for belittling and arrogant...just remember the way she dismissed the caucus states, you know...those little unimportant states that she lost. And don't forget this nugget that got very little attention at the time after the West Virginia primary:

SHEPHERDSTOWN, WV - The Hillary Clinton campaign is apologizing to a Shepherdstown woman after a campaign volunteer was captured on tape saying "West Virginians are poor."

Julie Corvo says the volunteer accidentally left the message on her answering machine after playing a taped message from Sen. Clinton.

"Hi. Hello? This is crazy," the volunteer said. "This person hung up. Maybe they think it's a bill collector. I bet it is. West Virginians are poor."

Posted by: Dan | August 21, 2008 6:10 PM

I guess it depends on which country invaded first.

Posted by: JakeD | August 21, 2008 6:09 PM

"I find him belittling, arrogant, untrustworthy (FISA anyone?; Iraq anyone?)"


Belittling, Arrogant?, can you show me examples?

On FISA: Can you imagine the headlines if he'd voted against it? "Obama votes against protecting America"

Iraq: Maliki, Bush AND McCain have ALL adopted Obama's withdrawal plan, this war is ending and it is because of Obama and he isn't even in office.

Posted by: JR | August 21, 2008 6:09 PM

Just answer the question Jake, not the name.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 21, 2008 6:09 PM

The Russians are just like us and we would use our weapons if we were threatened with ground attack.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 21, 2008 6:08 PM

Anonymous at 6:04 PM:

Could you at least pick a pseudonym, as I have no idea which post you (vs. the other anonymous posters) are referring to?


That's clearly understood in the context of his remarks. Stop trying to distort what McCain says.

Posted by: JakeD | August 21, 2008 6:08 PM

And why on earth Jake, if threatened with invasion, would Russia NOT use their weapons?

Basically, I think your deluded.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 21, 2008 6:07 PM

Clinton is the clear choice for victory. If you are experiencing an emotional reactions to this statement, think about how getting 40, then 50 then, 60 cents to the dollar might feel like? Maybe when I'm 100 I'll earn as much as a man for the same professional work. Maybe then too I can say I have voted for a woman in my lifetime... I wonder if a man could possibly even conceive of what it would feel like if only women had been president in the history of American time? Abbella Lincoln, Georgiana Washington, Billiana Clinton, Dubyanka the dork. Well, it's not about hate, or anger, women just want equal time on the court.. that's all. :) No need to call us "fanatics"..

ps. I think I would support the war, in Darfur, to save the women from being raped, then displaced children from dying of hunger. I would join the military for that. But to go to war for oil, to save the nation from finally buying electrical cars, and finally starting to use solar and hydro power - it's almost a blessing to have the chance to see this innovation in my lifetime.

pss. dear "bob" - grammar & punctuation these days are changin.. welcome to the world of sms.. tis all abut conservin wrds man.. nothing personal. It's cheaper.. :)

Posted by: bebesvin | August 21, 2008 6:05 PM


On a massive war-footing, even without nukes, the U.S. could take Russia, ending in Moscow (hopefully via the Kamchatka Peninsula NOT during winter ; )

Posted by: JakeD | August 21, 2008 6:05 PM

That was a long time ago Jake and under different circumstances. I'm talking about NOW, with him as the democratic nominee.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 21, 2008 6:04 PM

Oh please...this is just another rant from an elitest colunmist who now looks ignorant by pushing the one democrat that might lose in the general election in an atmosphere so favorable to any democrat. Thanks for delivering a candidate with a thin resume and no experience in a time of domestic and international turmoil...

Good move...

Posted by: DRII | August 21, 2008 6:04 PM

JakeD: His quote was "In the 21st Century Nations don't invade other nations" It was not followed by "without justification."

Posted by: JR | August 21, 2008 6:03 PM

"To all you "Clinton" supporters threatening to go with McCain. GO, GO and don't come back. In the unlikely event that Obama loses in November there are 18 million of us who will never forget and 2 million of us that will be quite happy to continue funding a democratic challenger in NY."


I don't think anyone's threatening anything. I think people are just saying what they will likely do. I was/am a Clinton supporter. I think Obama's ego completely overshadows his actual accomplishments. I find him belittling, arrogant, untrustworthy (FISA anyone?; Iraq anyone?) and unqualified vis-a-vis foreign policy. Let's not forget that there will be a Democratic Congress. A McCain presidency with a Democratic Congress is more appealing to me right now than an Obama-Reid-Pelosi government. My mind is not made up (and I am not threatening anything), but that is where I am. (BTW, I have never voted for a GOP candidate for President and worked on both the Gore and Kerry campaigns).

Posted by: JSnapper | August 21, 2008 6:03 PM


He has even admitted, if he were a white man, he would simply be one of several freshmen Senators who didn't even run for President.

Posted by: JakeD | August 21, 2008 6:02 PM

OK Jake, how on earth would we win a war with Russia without nukes involved?

Posted by: Anonymous | August 21, 2008 6:02 PM

Look people: we can be friends with Russia and contain Islamic Extremism and Nuclear Proliferation OR we can be enemies with Russia and have to fight three HUGE problems.

It is not a difficult choice- unless your friends are arms dealing weasels.

Posted by: Corruption Anon | August 21, 2008 6:01 PM


Hindsight is always 20/20. Who knows, maybe if she had moved back to Chicago, then Rudy would have run for President as the Jr. Senator from New York ...


Thankfully, you are wrong (for instance, we are simply arguing in this thread whether FDR or Truman "won" WWII ; )

Posted by: JakeD | August 21, 2008 6:01 PM

Personally, I don't think America is ready for a black president and I'm not sure a woman either. After the last 8 years, Obama should be running away with this election and if he were a white man, he would be.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 21, 2008 6:00 PM

Sorry FWF but th LAST time she tried to pass a health care bill it DIED before it even REACHED the floor and it was a DEM Majority.

I have ZERO confidence in her ability to get something done. I imagine her fighting to failure.

The only cabinet in her future is a kitchen cabinet or TV cabinet.

Posted by: Avant Strangel | August 21, 2008 5:59 PM

Here's how it goes:

I'm voting democrat. I don't freaking care who it is anymore, as long as it's not a republican. I would PREFER Obama, but really, I'm voting Dem no matter what. I'd recommend the same for all those who PREFER Clinton. No matter who our candidate is, we have a responsibility to our nation to get republicans out of power before they can do any more damage. That's it, folks. Don't be the one that screws it up.

Posted by: James | August 21, 2008 5:58 PM


We could win a war with Russia without nuking them. I am not "nuts" I agree with McCain's statement: "In the 21st Century countries don't invade other countries" without justification. I do not believe McCain is an "idiot" for saying that in the face of our two ongoing (and justified) wars. Any more questions?


I don't "hate" anyone.

Posted by: JakeD | August 21, 2008 5:58 PM

I with you Patriot , except on the "I used to be republican" part. I was never and will never be a "republican", the mere thought gags me.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 21, 2008 5:56 PM

The biggest mistake Hillary made was moving to New York. With an eye on the White House and with NY being the biggest media market in the country, she was encouraged to do move there to fill the void left by Daniel Patrick Moynihan. If she had gone back to Chicago, WHERE SHE'S ACTUALLY FROM, she would have prevented Obama from running and she would have been in the Senate representing Illinois and on her way to accepting the nomination. But no, the greedy Clintons wanted to live in a place where they would always be in the limelight and which is second only to California in terms of celebrity worship.

Posted by: Jason | August 21, 2008 5:56 PM


NOBODY wins in war. Period.

Posted by: Nick, Chicago | August 21, 2008 5:55 PM

To all you "Clinton" supporters threatening to go with McCain. GO, GO and don't come back. In the unlikely event that Obama loses in November there are 18 million of us who will never forget and 2 million of us that will be quite happy to continue funding a democratic challenger in NY.

If it is your feminism that has closed your eyes to how much damage a McCain presidency would do, you deserve what you will get - 50 years of a one sided Supreme Court and 4-8 years of continued woman bashing from a man whose record on these matters is shameful.

For the remainder, you are Repuglican schills continuing to work the Limboff chaos agenda. You wind the flag around yourselves and pretend to be patriots by flaming and threatening everyone that disagrees with you. The fearmongering and tax dogma pushed by the Republicans is not in your self interest (unless you are part of the lucky top 1%). Your vote for McCain means you will see (as now) nothing but an increasing deficit, decreased social services, and if you still have a job after it has been exported - along with your cash - to China, an income frozen at 2000 levels. Oh, and your sons and daughters will still be fighting an unjustified war with a GI bill emasculated to the point where it is not worth quitting the military to get a higher education.

If you cannot see after the last eight years that the Republican agenda only really works for the richest section of our population and that your chances of joining that elite are about the same as winning the lottery, you deserve what you vote for.

Posted by: nigeldavey | August 21, 2008 5:54 PM

Jake, your like Bush saying the "surge" has worked. The surge wouldn't have been NEEDED if he hadn't invaded in the first place or if he had listened to ANY of the generals that were fighting HIS war.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 21, 2008 5:54 PM

So, JakeD, by your logic we should win a war with Russia by nuking them?, are you nuts? We've had enough of war and have no moral high-ground to be telling other countries that "In the 21st Century countries don't invade other countries" what kind of idiot would say something like that in the face of our two ongoing wars?, oh yeah, John McCain said that.

Do you agree with his statement?

Answer the question directly.

Posted by: JR | August 21, 2008 5:53 PM

Can't argue with the corruption on both sides. Real change will only come when "We the people" decide that we've been complacent long enough and begin to get involved at a more granular level.

However, there is much data available that demonstrates that during Republican administrations, most notably during the Regan/Bush 12 year run, that spending went through the roof while revenues decreased. Bill Clinton stopped the bleeding but little Bush took over where his father left off. Search on spending or debt per president for the graphs.

This is why I can't begin to imagine a Clinton supporter voting for any Republican. Unless they are simply an emotional voter.

It's hard to right a ship in the middle of a storm. Dems currently have a 1 vote majority which prohibits any change at all. I'm not blaming one party vs. the other, only noting the data shows that spending trends show Rep presidents have incurred the greatest debts in history.

Bottom line is if you make 2000 a month and are spending 3000 a month, you are going to have problems. This seems to be the Republican model as of recent history. I used to be a Republican, but they have betrayed basic fiscal responsibilities that you and I have to live by. I say good riddance to that model.

Posted by: Patriot 9899987 | August 21, 2008 5:52 PM

As loathsome as I often find WaPo to be, I never expected a certain Mr. MacGillis would use 100% of his brain power to discount the importance of the Hillary voters. As has been all but analysed to death by veteran pollsters and analysts, the Dems primary results in Ohio, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Kentucky and Missouri SHOW Hillary voters are the SWING voters that HAVE been deciding elections since 1980. There exists a tremendous overlap between Reagan Democrats and Hillary Democrats. Obama has been trying to lure these voters as soon as Hillary suspended her campaign. Haven't you noticed? While in Illinois, he said the Second Amendment gives NO right for any INDIVIDUAL to bear arms (only national guards are allowed). While in Illnois, he said doctors cannot try to save an aborted-but-born-alive babies. The very fact that McCain is so strong in so many swing states testifies to the failure of Obama to attract Hillary voters.

"Lost in this analysis, though, is a crucial fact: many of Clinton's primary-season supporters are not necessarily loyal Democratic presidential election voters."

Blacks have been supporting any and all Democrats by 90-10 margin. By the author's tortured logic, Obama only needs to increase voter turnout among loyal (registered and always voting Democrat). It is simply flabbergasting.

Posted by: Brent | August 21, 2008 5:52 PM

C,mom Jeff, get real. No exit poll in KY indicated that people were voting for Hillary, just to vote against Obama. The polling indicated that if the Dem candidate were not Clinton, then they would vote for McCain.

The problem for Obama is simple. His true "colors" (not the race type) were exposed after he had won the most of his primaries and caucuses. After his relationship with Rev. Wright was exposed, his wins were few and far between. The fact is Obama would have been gone before the Iowa if people had only known about who he followed and to what extent.

By the way, Bill Clinton carried KY by large margins. One Republican governor in the past 40 yrs., who only won because he followed a corrupt Dem, but only to be even more corrupt than the Dem the followed, and to be beaten by another Dem last fall. Hardly being registered Dem, but only voting Republican. Please do not fall into the trap of looking only at numbers that benefit a certain "point of the moment".

Posted by: tonyt | August 21, 2008 5:52 PM

Roosevelt won WW II dumbskull, the credit goes to the guy that was there at the start and during the long haul, not the one that jumps in by accident at the end.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 21, 2008 5:52 PM

This just in, Bushlover JakeD hates Obama.

Thanks for letting us know, over and over and over.......

Posted by: Michael | August 21, 2008 5:51 PM

Hillary is done. Her negatives were 50% before the primaries in which she successfully pissed off the blacks forever. So her negatives are 60% and she cannot win a democratic primary EVER without blacks and the moral progressives.

There's a database of all the false attacks Clinton made on Obama. She played herself out of the game.

Republicans hate her, Independent don't really like her- especially the ones who previously were Rs. And now a big chunk of her own party doesn't like her.

There was some research done in Iowa that showed people there thought she was experienced and talented, but they just didn't like her. And that was before the primaries.

She undercut Gore in 2000 and Kerry in 2004. That's why they didn't endorse her. She'll try again this year, but her act is getting very old.

Posted by: Corruption Anon | August 21, 2008 5:51 PM

Yeah, a vote for McCain is a vote for Bush. You must be sad that the idiot can't run again, but then McCain is as close as you can get to the real thing,.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 21, 2008 5:49 PM


I specifically said "win" the war -- Truman most assuredly WON World War II -- are you even a U.S. citizen? What planet do you live on? Russia is no longer any match, militarily, to the United States.

Posted by: JakeD | August 21, 2008 5:49 PM

"Race Tightening"?

Are the American people really this stupid?

Do we live in The United States of Amnesia?

Who has brought us The Iraq War, ruined the economy, shredded the bill of rights, had it's members, time and time again, indicted for everything from pillage, theft, and larceny to pederasty, offshored our jobs, etc etc etc....THEY'RE CALLED REPUBLICANS, _AND THIS IS WHAT THEY DO_!


Dear _God_! Franklin was right: "The People get the kind of Government they deserve." Pull they iPhones out of your heads, turn off the TV, and remember how to READ and THINK again!

Posted by: Monk | August 21, 2008 5:48 PM

too funny:

Voting FOR McCain would be much more effective than a wasted write-in vote at making sure Obama is not elected ; )

Posted by: JakeD | August 21, 2008 5:46 PM

This former Dem will not vote for Obama under any circumstances. The man is a poseur who happens to make a good speech. His track record is flat. The only thing he's accomplished in his life is campaigning. That's nothing, it's candidate propelling himslef forward on what is at best vaporware and at worst a pack of lies. He's already tacked to the right so far he's nearly indistinguishable from McCain. He says whatever is convenient, there is no sense that he believes anything that comes out of his own mouth. I'd like a candidate who's campaign slogan is actionable, not a democratic version of GWB -- no experience, just the guy you think would be nice to have a drink with. He's full of baloney.

Posted by: Maggie-- proud mama to a black child | August 21, 2008 5:46 PM

The only war Truman fought was Korea, I didn't know we won that one?

Don't count WW II, he got in to late, and just dropped the bomb, like McCain in that, come to think.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 21, 2008 5:46 PM

JakeD: At this time it would not matter who went up against Russia, all of us, the world would lose.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 21, 2008 5:45 PM

Obama is smart enough to offer Hillary any position in his cabinet which she would choose; one hopes it would have to do w/natnl health ins. He is also samrt enough to use Bill Clinton as Special Envoy, with the President's ear, to the Middle East. He has tremendous resources to call on within the Democratic Party, and he has shown the intelligence to use them. Finally, he is a conciliator; we either get together next presidential term, or we lose it all. Ego, hurt pride, and sullenness are the last things we need. Please fellow voters think before you whine and pout.

Posted by: fwf | August 21, 2008 5:44 PM

Sorry Patriot, I meant this for ed,

NO, I don't realize that. They have had a one vote majority in the Senate, that doesn't control anything. Look how easy it's been for the republicans to stop anything they don't want. Noone controls the congress without 2/3's , veto proof, majority. The repub had control for 12 years, you want to blame, blame them.

Posted by: JR | August 21, 2008 5:43 PM

Fine, Anonymous, if you seriously cannot admit that McCain would be better as our President in an actual open, shooting war with Russia, then I'll maintain that Obama's lack of experience will more likely prompt Russia to provoke exactly such a war. I was going to say McCain with his "hot temper" but not if you aren't going to be reasonable.

P.S. there used to be a time when "shoot first and damn the consequences" Democrats (Harry "Give 'Em Hell" Truman) knew what it took to win wars ...

Posted by: JakeD | August 21, 2008 5:42 PM

What exactly is the disrespect shown towards Clinton anyway? The mere fact that Obama got in the race, challenged her and had the nerve to actually win? Who was it that said she was going to throw the kitchen sink at Obama in a desperate bid to win the nomination??

Posted by: Jason | August 21, 2008 5:42 PM

To all those PUMAS out there, remember, payback will still be a b!tch in 2012.

Posted by: JR | August 21, 2008 5:41 PM

@ "True Dem"

This line is classic:

"We are Dem.s, we are educated - and we are not voting Obama. We are writing in Clinton."

Obviously not educated enough to understand that that's as effective as voting for McCain.

Posted by: too funny | August 21, 2008 5:41 PM

NO Patriot, I don't realize that. They have had a one vote majority in the Senate, that doesn't control anything. Look how easy it's been for the republicans to stop anything they don't want. Noone controls the congress without 2/3's , veto proof, majority.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 21, 2008 5:40 PM

Avant Strangel,I know you love Hillary.

Posted by: weezer | August 21, 2008 5:38 PM

A. McGinnis:

You are dead wrong. Most of those Clinton supporters are Democrats who have voted Democratically all their lives.

I know a lot of them in my county. Some went to the Election Commission office in person and changed their affiliation to Independent.

I am talking about life-long Democrats. One a college professor, after changing to Independent, said he felt relief. Because, this wasn't the same Democratic party that he knew and loved. This was a DNC that railroaded Clinton and jumped on Obama's bandwagon because Obama greased the palms of Superdelegates along with Pelosi.

I just heard on TV that Obama got Caroline Kennedy on board because he promised her an Ambassedorship in England.

They took delegates away from Hillary and now Obama says Michigan and Florida should be fully seated. Big deal.

I'll bet most of those disaffected Hillary supporters voted for Democrats all their lives, just like the ones I know.

Obama and the MSM can concoct any spin they want, but we'll see in November.

Posted by: j | August 21, 2008 5:38 PM

As for war, or foreign policy, consider that by constantly inflaming tensions in the Persian Gulf, the Republicans have succeeded in increasing the price of oil and increasing arms sales, thereby making Russia's KGB Inc. stronger, our oil and military industrial complex stronger, but the American middle class weaker.

Islamic extremism and nuclear non-proliferation are the two biggest threats to Western Civilization. And Russia has good intel there. We need to partner with them, not artificially extend the cold war. Build that darn missile system in Poland with the Ruskies.

Bush and Putin are both dodgy arms dealing oil men. And Puting is playing Bush. And McCain is Bush on steroid. Let the Harvard kid play chess with Putin. 30 years from now Russia will only have 100m people, and they'll be a real democracy. We don't need to go to war with them. McCain is nuts. And he's dumb.

Posted by: Corruption Anon | August 21, 2008 5:38 PM

well DUH. of course she would do better against mccain, that's why they put the superdelegate system together in the first place. Obama is a one trick pony, always was. If he had any brains or any judgment he would have told his minions to treat her and her supporteres with with respect, then he'd probably have a lot more Hillary supporters. But he couldn't even figure THAT out. No way I vote for this guy, he can't even figure out what is right in his face.

Posted by: Anne | August 21, 2008 5:38 PM

Avant Strangel,I know you love Hillary.

Posted by: weezer | August 21, 2008 5:38 PM

Where are "Those Clinton Supporters"? the last time I checked she still had her debt to pay, why cant they pay the debt if they are strong and want her to be president or vice president and all that they want her to be?...those who like Obama are still making decent contributions....I think they only exist in their dreams.....they are not any serious....Mark Penn for one should show support and just forgive her of all the monies her campaign owes him, the last time I checked her campaign owed him more than anybody else....Having 18 million strong supporters and still having problem paying your debts really troubles me and makes me think these kind of supporters are worthless to say the least....I guess we should write them off and continue to hammer the old pal who seems to be confused about everything from the economy, social security, sunis and shiites, chekoslovakia, troup levels in Iraq,the middle class, and woefully the number of his own homes, this sounds pretty awful he does not even know how to open an email...Mcain's Era is long gone and should just retire to one of his many Mansions and leave us alone!

Posted by: Freddie | August 21, 2008 5:37 PM

OK Jake, I'll bite, Obama, McCain is trigger happy and ill-tempered. His idea of anything is, "shoot first and damn the consequences", that isn't a GOOD leader at any time, especially wartime.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 21, 2008 5:37 PM

Patriot 9899987;
You do realize that Democrats have controlled both houses of Congress for better than two years now, don't you?

Looking at the whole "going broke" in a simplistics fashion, one could attribute the demarc for "everything going to hell in a hand basket" to approximately the time that the balance of power changed in Congress. Both parties are corrupt, its only the the self interests of the party out of power that allows our government to function at all!

Posted by: edweirdness | August 21, 2008 5:37 PM

True Dems and LeeND:

At least here in California, write-in votes are INVALID unless the candidate files appropriate paperwork -- that's not likely to happen -- may I suggest Ralph Nader, or even John McCain, instead?

Posted by: JakeD | August 21, 2008 5:36 PM

You can't re-write history by using Howard Wolfson's discredited analysis regarding Iowa. Polling at the time suggested that more of Edwards' supporters would have gone to Obama. Give it up already!

Posted by: Jesse | August 21, 2008 5:35 PM

Lee, I would remind you that T. Boone Pickens bankrolled the "Swiftboaters".

Posted by: Anonymous | August 21, 2008 5:34 PM

The exit polls in Kentucky, West Virginia, and Indiana all showed that between 10% and 30% of the people who voted for Hillary in the primaries intended to vote for McCain in November. The exist polls asked directly who they intended to vote for in November and Hillary voters by large margins said that they absolutely would NOT VOTE FOR HILLARY FOR PRESIDENT. They were showing up ONLY to vote AGAINST Obama in the primary, with no intention of over voting for Hillary in reality. IN Fact, those pro-McCain Hillary voters in Indian swung the primary in that state to Obama. If you take out the people who voted for Hillary in the primary while intending to vote for McCain in November Obama actually won Indiana.

Posted by: Jeff | August 21, 2008 5:34 PM

Oh and another thing... here is why Clinton CAN'T BE V.P.
1.) She DOESN'T bring a state.
2.) Despite LIVING with a President she has NO FOREIGN POLICY experience (unless you count sniper-gate)
3.) She's a pathological LIAR (see #2)
4.) She would fail the vetting process as she has a trial for CAMPAIGN FRAUD starting in late October JUST BEFORE people goto vote. PLUS Bill's foreign investments and investors would come up.
5.) If Hillary is on the Ticket it invalidates Obama's message of change and I for one WON'T vote for that (plus I refuse to reward Sen. Hillary Clinton's bad behavior)
6.) Bill and Hillary have more then enough dirt and scandal on them that I don't want them anywhere NEAR the Whitehouse.

How is ANY of that helpful to getting Obama elected?

Having her on the ticket is a sure-fire way of NOT getting Obama elected.

That clear enough for you?

Btw if Obama wanted to double-down I'd love it if he picked Serberlius.

Posted by: avantstrangel | August 21, 2008 5:34 PM


You answer my question, and I will gladly answer your ("better") question.

Posted by: JakeD | August 21, 2008 5:33 PM

For all you wishful thinkers, Clinton supporters are not secretly Rove operatives or Repub.s

We are Dem.s, we are educated - and we are not voting Obama. We are writing in Clinton.

Posted by: True Dems not voting Obama | August 21, 2008 5:33 PM

Obama can’t win with out Hillary or McCain passing away. If she’s not his VP then write Her name on your ballot with T. Boon Pickens as her VP, if you can’t stand to vote for McCain, those are the three options.

Hillary/ T. Boon = Healthcare reform, Energy reform in less than four years, Sweet.

Your Vote Counts no matter who you vote for, it’s not just a right it’s a duty of Citizenship. Don’t vote, then “Shut up, Stop Whining & Get a Life”.

Posted by: LeeND | August 21, 2008 5:32 PM

Corruption Anon:
If its true what makes you think its only limited to candidates of one party, and not the other?

Posted by: edweirdness | August 21, 2008 5:32 PM


I find that hard to believe.

Posted by: JakeD | August 21, 2008 5:32 PM

"Who do YOU think would win such a war, McCain or Obama?"

The better question is Jake, "who do you think will START such a war?"

Posted by: Anonymous | August 21, 2008 5:31 PM

Hillary should have won the crucial Iowa primary and should have gone on winning the nomination if not for the wife cheating Edwards standing in the way...
I know, I know, democratic men are pigs. But please don't hurl them down the stairs... Why? Because it is wrong.
Vote McCain.

Posted by: pete | August 21, 2008 5:30 PM

Hillary lost my support when she turned to the dark side and started using Rove's playbook.

And PUMAs still suck. Period.

Posted by: PUMAs suck.... | August 21, 2008 5:30 PM

PUMA's are definitely vocal and I suspect definitely republican. They sound like a Rovian ploy to me.

Posted by: JR | August 21, 2008 5:29 PM

"Clinton should be the choice for Veep. That is the only path to Obama's victory. Then he will win the older women, blue collar workers and the seniors"

Oh really? But would he win the "hard-working white American" racists who would never vote for a black person if their life depended on it?

Posted by: Jesse | August 21, 2008 5:29 PM

Yes, GHM, we heard you the first time. If we have to go to war with Russia, we'll definitely need the draft. Who do YOU think would win such a war, McCain or Obama?!

Posted by: JakeD | August 21, 2008 5:28 PM

The President cannot reinstate the draft without an act of Congress. Charles Rangel (D) has tried and failed several times to introduce legislation reinstating the draft. It;s the D's who are far more likely to reinstate the draft. If thats truly a concern of yours, then I would suggest that you consider not voting the straight Democratic Ticket.

Posted by: edweirdness | August 21, 2008 5:28 PM

Al Gore will be the one with his hand on the King James Bible come January next year. Not Obama and not McCain.

Posted by: Paul | August 21, 2008 5:28 PM

it must just suck for you morons to be so bereft of any sort of spiritual centerdness that you think the gov't is the source of power and control. only imbeciles would think that controlling their lives via the gov't is a good idea.

Obama is a gimmick. McCain is embarrassing, but he will still win. No majority if going to vote for some joker with 164 days in congress and shady Chicago past to lead the country dead strait into socialism so we can all pay 45% taxes and we're no better off than a 3rd world country

admittedly, there is segment of the population who would love this. Don't join them

Posted by: laughing at the dems | August 21, 2008 5:28 PM

Pastor Obama for President

Posted by: Genny | August 21, 2008 5:27 PM

Come on, the Clintons are slimier than John Edwards.

Karl Rove would eat her for breakfast.

If she was elected VP, she would have Barack killed.


Posted by: Bud | August 21, 2008 5:27 PM

Did you hear what I said

McCain said he wants to reinstate the draft --

Posted by: GHM | August 21, 2008 5:26 PM

Clinton should be the choice for Veep. That is the only path to Obama's victory. Then he will win the older women, blue collar workers and the seniors ; these are the loyal democratic followers of Clinton. In addition, some republicans who are on the side line will also vote for Obama-Clinton ticket. If Clinton is not on the ticket, Obama is lucky if he gets 50% of these voters; and that is not a winning formula.

Posted by: mylar | August 21, 2008 5:25 PM

Did you hear what I said

McCain said he wants to reinstate the draft --

Posted by: GHM | August 21, 2008 5:25 PM

You say that we're ignoring the fact that youth voters don't have landlines, and so are not polled. However, statistically we are the lowest turn out voter class despite being among the most vocal. I wouldn't count on the youth. If Clinton isn't experienced enough because of her terms in the Senate and being a first lady then how on earth can you say Obama is experienced enough? I may not agree with all of McCain's policies but I'll vote for him to keep a novice out of office and to get someone who has real foreign experience. Additionally, who can actually tell me what "change" i'm supposed to believe in without using the war, economy, and Bush as prime examples....I don't have an issue with the democratic party or their platform. I have an issue with the loads of uninformed democrats who are voting based on race, party loyalty, a catchy slogan, and celebrity.

Posted by: A Youth Voter | August 21, 2008 5:25 PM

Larry, great paranoia there. If that were the case, then Democrats would have voted for Ron Paul in droves thereby swinging the selectiion of their preferred candidate to oppose. Rush made these comments to elicit the paranoia that has been exemplified in numerous comments today. Republicans with few exceptions probably aren't any more obsessed or crazy than are Democrats. It simply wasn't worth the aggravation and effort (wasting gas, registering in a different party, standing in line at a polling place to vote for someone you hate is really a stretch) for either party to conspire to pick the candidates they wanted to oppose. Certainly not to the extent that Hilary could have amassed 18 million supporters.

Posted by: edweirdness | August 21, 2008 5:24 PM

McCain said he wants to reinstate the draft --

Posted by: GHM1 | August 21, 2008 5:22 PM

Hillary supporters, what exactly is Obama's big offense? That he had the nerve to run against her? Was there some memo giving HRC the nomination that I didn't get? Sha ran. She lost. Get over it.

Posted by: MJC | August 21, 2008 5:22 PM

"At least 20% of her votes came from racists who will not vote for Obama"

Right on, Joan. I wish more people would speak the truth like that. The fact that we even have to ask "is America ready for a black president" says it all.

Posted by: Dan | August 21, 2008 5:21 PM

I've always been a democrat and voted for hillary. But this year, I'm voting for McCain.

I'm sorry, but I just do not trust this inexperienced elitist to be Commander In Chief during time of war.I believe Hillary is a patriot.And I know John McCain is.

Posted by: steve007 | August 21, 2008 5:21 PM


I knew Abe Lincoln, I served with Abe Lincoln. Obama is NOT Lincoln.

Posted by: JakeD | August 21, 2008 5:21 PM

What about those Hillary voters. They, like everyone else whose candidate lost in the primary, have to decide who to vote for in the general election. Change or more of the same? Bush's vaunted Cabinet with all those years of evil machination) experience has left America gasping on the ground, bankrupt and weak. McCain will take the expanded powers of the Presidency and crash land America into polarized society. Go ahead. Make your choice. There are millions who regret their choices of the past 8 years.
Bush/Cheney/McCain!! No More Years!!

Posted by: thebob.bob | August 21, 2008 5:21 PM

McCain said he wants to reinstate the draft --

that will make determine the Clilton's voter to go with Obama!

Posted by: GHM | August 21, 2008 5:21 PM


If you had told me, as a boy, that my President had circumvented congress to send weapons to a theocracy that had sworn to kill us so that they could send that money to people in latin america who were then taking that money, making crack cocaine and flooding the streets of America with it I would have said that you were paranoid.

But that happened. And something tells me that the Phoenix/Vegas/LA network was involved in the trafficking of those drugs. After all, Bonanno was in Arizona.

Google: Hensley Marley Lansky

It ain't paranoia if it's true that corruption in this country has long been out of control. And that politicians have been complicit.

Look at America's foreign policy towards Cuba. Watch the Godfather. Bonanno is Corleone. Hyman Roth is Meyer Lansky.

Those people in Arizona are crooked.

Posted by: Corruption Anon | August 21, 2008 5:20 PM

How pathetic that these so called Clinton supports could even "think" about supporting another Republican regime. It stinks of "I'm taking my ball and going home" childishness. Grow up!

We simply cannot afford it. We are going bankrupt under Republican rule. We have to start paying our bills and getting out of debt, now 9 "Trillion" dollars. I could write volumes on why this is our most important issue. It affects everything.

Now I personally like John McCain but he is an instrument of the Republican "grease your buddy's palm" machine.

So cut the crap and get on board for some change in management.

Posted by: Patriot 9899987 | August 21, 2008 5:19 PM

bebesvin, try learning how to write coherently, what do you say? Also, learn how to use proper spelling and punctuation, not to mention capitalization. Nobody will read your comment if you write like a half-literate person. Then again, that's probably a blessing.

Posted by: Bob | August 21, 2008 5:16 PM

Did you know that Abraham Lincoln had almost the exact amount of experience that Obama has when he became President? About six years of combined political experience... and look how bad President Lincoln was. Stop being dorks, if you liked Clinton for her policies then Obama is your guy. If you liked Clinton for her personality then go watch some old you-tube videos of her. But for God's sake don't vote for McCain. Not just because of the Supreme Court, not just because of foreign policy, but if you have children or family that is of draft age, then realize that if a President McCain is in power and goes to fight Russia, while adding troops to Afghanistan and Iraq and gets in a mix-up with Iran (All within the realm of possibility) then he is open to drafting people into the military. I for one will not let my children be taken by some idiot who can't try to talk things out. He'd rather sing Bomb Bomb Bomb Bomb Bomb Iran and send them off to their deaths.

Posted by: OMR | August 21, 2008 5:16 PM

I maxed out on contributions to Obama for the primary. I have not contributed to the election. If Obama names Mrs. Clinton as his running mate I will not contribute one more penny and I will not vote for the ticket. I am distressed that Obama has handed over the convention to the Clintons. His naming her as VP would be the last straw. I don't see any benefit to it. At least 20% of her votes came from racists who will not vote for Obama, and a significant percentage of her early votes came from supporters of a third term for Bill Clinton.

Posted by: Joan Berkowitz | August 21, 2008 5:16 PM

Clinton MIGHT have won PA but she would have lost the other 49.

Can we be adults here. I find it extremely immature that Clinton supporters want to blame everyone but CLINTON for her failure. And as a Democrat I'm extremely pissed off she went so toxic that she AND Bill squandered any sentiment I had left for them. I'm angry that Hillary gave the Republicans the playbook to help lay out their strategy, and I'm mad as hell for her enabling these supporters more floor time then they deserve in an attempt to dull Obama's shine.

She had money, connections and was the old school and still lost. She mismanaged her campaign and went bankrupt despite almost quarter of a billion to play with. And she continues to try and handicap Obama by dragging this catharsis out. Look, when someone comes in 2nd place there is no process to protest because the loser isn't happy with the results. She was admired for hanging in their and squandered that will this pathetic display of self serving ego grandstanding.

If she wanted to help Obama she would have sqaushed this protesting on her behalf. And if she can't control her supporters then they aren't really hers they are dittoheads. And if her antics deny such a well nuanced Democrat from what should be an easy win based on the Reps screwing everyone for the last 8 years I PROMISE you there will be many who will remember and make sure she isn't nominated the NEXT time.

Btw, Hillary doesn't have more experience than Obama. Being married to a scandal laden president doesn't count as "experience." It's time to stop crying to excuse Hillary's shortcomings. Recognize the reality of the situation instead of pouting like children and move on.

Demorcrats + Independents + Republicans not feeling McCain will more then make up the deficiency of whining Hillary supporters biting their nose to spite their face.

Posted by: Avant Strangel | August 21, 2008 5:15 PM

If you want a good story about Obama picking Hillary as his running person; read this:

Posted by: Anonymous | August 21, 2008 5:15 PM

I've always voted for the Democratic party candidate but I can't vote for a candidate who wants to expand the Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives (as Obama has said he will do.) It really is a deal-breaking issue for me since the Democratic party has previously represented the ideals of the separation of church and state.

Unless his views change by November, the chances are that for the first time in many election cycles, I will not vote for a presidential candidate.

Posted by: Democrat, I thought. | August 21, 2008 5:14 PM

Corruption Anon:
It's just as likely though that the 20-60 split you suggested is in fact the result of a schism in the democratic party. Certainly its equally conceivable, and far more likely that "Hilary supporters" are in here thinking that by bearing false witness to their actual voting history and intentions they are going to somehow create a groundswell among the what, maybe a hundred people who read this blog's comments? If I had my guess, the latter seems the most likely scenario. It is however; refreshing to see paranoia like this.

Posted by: edweirdness | August 21, 2008 5:14 PM

Great point, JJ.

And what does it say that Sen. McCain is asking his supporters to cut and paste lies across the internet.

McCain has no character. If he had character, he would not have, as a 40 yr old man, married into an organized crime family and then tried to run for President.

McCain has a long history of lying, cheating and stealing. It is no wonder that he's the Republican running for President this year.
"“McCain’s personal fortune traces back to organized crime in Arizona.”

Posted by: Corruption Anon | August 21, 2008 5:14 PM

Ya know Clinton actually LOST my support in the primaries after she went so negative in North Carolina. I went from contributing to her campaign to supporting and ultimately voting for Obama. So all this "anointed by the DNC" stuff is a bunch of hot air. It was a fair fight and Hillary lost. Get over it.

Posted by: marc | August 21, 2008 5:14 PM

Many of these so-called Democrats were actually Republicans who registered to vote for Clinton because the Republicans wanted Hillary to be their opposition. Remember Rush Limbaugh encouraging Republicans to vote for her in the primaries so they could get the candidate they wanted? They had already spent millions of dollars preparing the slime machine for Hillary and Bill and didn't want all that money to go to waste. They had been preparing for Clinton for the past 4 years and if Hillary had been the nominee we'd all be listening to thousands of ads about Monica and last minute pardons of Clinton cronies and panicking because Clinton was so low in the polls.

Posted by: Larry | August 21, 2008 5:13 PM

Lost in those statistics as well is the fact that an unmeasurable number of Hillary voters were in fact Republicans who crossed over to try to tee her up for McCain, theory being that she would be easier to beat.

These polls may seem tight but they don't take into account a large number of young voters who don't have land lines.

Posted by: Vaughn | August 21, 2008 5:12 PM

dear corruption anon: fox news as well as msnbc, is generally biases against women, tend to be more republican, and therefore they would seem the likely news agency to publish super non-interesting articles like Michelle "Obama's baby mama". I am a woman and I don't like the term. There, that puts your fears at ease about women not being up in arms about that statement. But the real point is - the real reason women don't fret about derogatory states is that they have bigger fish to fry. Is is people like you who get distracted by this small stuff. Your alluding to this is infantile. Let me help you visualize to explain better: it's like the Brittany Spears VMA ad with the elephant (a metephorical reference to her "other" problems that also go ignored as she pretends to be an artist)- they did not notice the elephant, just like who gives a ff about that article, when the real news is - why isn't it all over the news that Clinton is the MOST clear choice for Veep? Why is there speculation of another VP if not to advertise the resumes of other professionals who might help the dem's in the near future.. I am hoping that is the case..

Posted by: bebesvin | August 21, 2008 5:12 PM

Are any of the so-called Clinton supporters who intend to vote for McCain or to stay home considering that the next President will, in all likelihood, appoint several U.S. Supreme Court justices?

The current Court is tipping dangerously to the right on a large number of issues affecting individuals and corporations Is no one concerned?

Posted by: Ohio voter | August 21, 2008 5:11 PM

Do you love war and debt? Do you want abortion to be prohibited by law? Are you willing to pour dollars into the oil industry until the last drop is gone and we still don't have another source of power for transportation?

Vote for McSame and get on anti-depressants.

Posted by: Bud | August 21, 2008 5:10 PM

I just don't understand how anyone thinks hillary is experienced because she was first lady... It's a ceremonial position that just comes with the territory of being president. Does anyone want to vote for the Clinton's stupid whitehouse dog?

Posted by: Mike | August 21, 2008 5:10 PM

Corruption Anon:

PUMA's are definitely vocal, but who knows how many votes that actually means -- I do know that more than a hundred people read this blog's comments -- there are over 700 comments on this one thread alone.

Posted by: JakeD | August 21, 2008 5:10 PM

Corruption Anon-- you are absolutely right.

Any republican jackass can get on here and try to earn his McCain points by saying "i am a socialist liberal but i hate obama and i'm voting for bob barr".

bunch of pathetic desperate liars.

Posted by: jj | August 21, 2008 5:10 PM

If Hilary supporters truly believe that she is the best candidate, and that she would make the best President, I fail to see how they can abbrogate these interests and support Barack Obama.

Perhaps its time. ladies, that you all calmed down and accepted that which was "foretold by DNC Leaders".

Certainly if Hilary is sprinting to jump on the Obama bandwagon for what meager crusts he's offering, the rest of you can manage to suck it up, and accept the most humiliating defeat ever!

Posted by: edweirdness | August 21, 2008 5:06 PM

"Lost in this analysis, though, is a crucial fact: many of Clinton's primary-season supporters are not necessarily loyal Democratic presidential election voters."
A "crucial fact" is "not necessarily loyal"?
Does the author understand English grammar. Guess not.

That sentence is gramatically correct. Try reading it again.
ps. Complaining about grammar is not going to make Obama lose.

Posted by: jj | August 21, 2008 5:06 PM

Funny thing is that while all of the polls show Obama winning the Clinton voters 60-20, the feedback from people in these forums would suggest it's 20-60.

I'm guessing that there are Republicans in here thinking that by bearing false witness to their actual voting history and intentions they are going to somehow create a groundswell among the what, maybe a hundred people who read this blog's comments?

I can understand the motivation for the Republicans who lie to steal from the government and taxpayers, and I can understand the Republicans who cheat on their wives. But what is in it for you people?

Posted by: Corruption Anon | August 21, 2008 5:06 PM

This is all just sour grapes from the Hillary folks. Her negatives nationally are STILL higher than Obama's and if she were the nominee then the McCain attack machine would be gunning for her just as hard. If these voters are turning on the Democrats now then what makes you can be sure they would have turned on them if Hillary were the nominee. If they can switch to McCain so easily then clearly they prefer Republicans in the first place!

Posted by: Cal | August 21, 2008 5:05 PM


GWB had EXECUTIVE experience. McCain has more LEGISLATIVE experience than Gore and Kerry had combined. Let me guess, though, you voted for Gore and Kerry?

Posted by: JakeD | August 21, 2008 5:04 PM

What has not been factored in here is Rush Limbaugh's bs. Yea, a lot of the people that voted for Hillary in the primaries are not loyal democrats. A lot of the people that voted for her did so because they wanted articles like this to be made.

Posted by: Andrew | August 21, 2008 5:03 PM

the democrats are again going to "tube it" they have their artsy cuddly candidate they will ride to defeat in Nov I am pleased thy would rather be "right than president" remember that when McCain appoints the next supreme court justices !!

Posted by: Anonymous | August 21, 2008 5:03 PM

Amazing. I really wonder what planet some of you live on. The reason Hillary does well in polling now is that she is no longer running. Anyone who isn't in the race and subject to negative ads would do well in the polls. If Hillary were the candidate (and thank goodness she's not) - you'd hear about these things from Republicans: Whitewater, Travelgate, Monica, pardons, Bosnia sniper fire, shady donors to the Clinton Library, etc., etc. And then, do you REALLY think she'd be ahead of McCain by 7 points?

Posted by: Dan | August 21, 2008 5:03 PM

Here's the thing: While the Supreme Court makeup is certainly on my mind, I also believe that with a solid Democratic majority in both houses, McCain can't ram through his preferred court picks. He will have to choose candidates that are palatable to Congress. So if the court is the only reason I should vote for Obama, it's not a great reason.

Posted by: HRC Supporter in Missouri | August 21, 2008 5:03 PM

To Alex H: glad you're getting even. And we will get even with the Clintons. Drive Bill out of Harlem and Hillary out of the Senate. And wait for McCain to appoint a few judges to throw Roe on the scrapheap. You remind me of those sactimonious Gene McCarthy supporters who dumped Humphrey and helped elect Nixon. Enjoy your country.

Posted by: MaxH | August 21, 2008 5:02 PM

I am a loyal democrat who does not know any details about the convention, except what has been on the first page of the major newspapers. And I know I am not alone. Oh, I didn't participate in the primaries. So you can't call me a Clinton supporter (although you should).

The DNC (I would blame all the leaders who say they are in touch with the common man) has ruined the process by showing partiality and a lot of discomfort toward some of the candidates.

So let's not just count the number of new registered voters - let's also count those of us who have checked out.

Do I want a McCain presidency? No, but I really don't care - neither candidate is suitable - one for ideological reasons and the other for misrepresenting himself. For another 4 years at least I will continue to say, as I have in the past 8 years - your President, not mine!!

Posted by: IllinoisMom | August 21, 2008 5:01 PM

Hillary is so hated she couldn't win her own primary - How do the think the response would go if she were the nominee? About as well as you can expect considering she is the 2nd most hated person in American politics behind her husband. She is damaged goods and after Nov you can add NOscama to that list.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 21, 2008 5:01 PM

Here's a crucial fact for ya. If Obama chooses Hillary as his running mate, I will vote Dem. If he doesn't, I will vote for McCain. Obama does not have the experience to run this country, without a strong, experienced V.P. P.S. Sequoia, I'm a guy, not a, "twatz". Not all Hillary supporters a female. P.S. to the P.S. Surprised that term got past the censors. It's quite demeaning and rude.

Posted by: m.bolt | August 21, 2008 5:00 PM

Anyone who refuses to vote is a fool. A pathetic fool that should rightly feel guilty any time they open their foolish mouth tho complain about the current politics.

If you don't vote, you have no right to complain.

Posted by: Donny | August 21, 2008 5:00 PM

go go

Posted by: yeah | August 21, 2008 5:00 PM

I am a moderate Democrat who voted for Hillary Clinton.
Obama disrespect for Hillary Clinton and his flip flopping ensure that I will be voting for John McCain.
I simply don't trust Barack Obama on any subject.

Posted by: Fred C. Dobbs | August 21, 2008 4:59 PM

As for the Penn primary, Clinton had the backing of the machine there, which is led by Rendell. Just like she was backed by the machine in Boston (Menino), NY (where there are districts where Obama mysteriosuly rec'd NO votes), NH, NJ, Ohio, Cali, etc.

As for Clinton somehow representing women and being a feminist, puhleeeeze. She was central to Bill's defense committee that silenced all of the women's voices from the various bimbo eruptions back in '92. She doesn't care about women, or anything, or anyone- she cares about money and power.

Finally, the Republican lies will catch up with them. The latest Virginia poll showed a tie, but was based on a 19% black electorate and Obama getting ***57%*** percent of the black vote. With a 24% turnout for blacks at 95% you're looking at a 10 point lead in Virginia. Don't believe the Republican pollsters. They are putting out dodgy data to give their candidate an appearance of having a chance.

The Obama campaign makes tens of thousands of calls every day. They have the best stats. They know where the race really is. And Obama is just back from vacation.

Get ready for for the beatdown!

Posted by: Corruption Anon | August 21, 2008 4:58 PM

The experience thing with Obama amazes me. Did GW Bush have experience? People picked him for the same reasons they will pick McCain and get the same results. If you are open to fear, but not open minded, you/we get what we deserve. There is more at stake than just "terror." How about our jobs, environment, technology, enconomy, and reputation? Today, I just need food on my table, a job to buy it, and solutions for everyday problems, not the once in a lifetime clamity that is "out there" waiting for me! What does McCain really have as experience? Torture and a long history in government which is not looking great? really? He hasn't even voted on Iraq recently-sidestepping pitfalls I suppose.....

Posted by: Shannon | August 21, 2008 4:57 PM

Sequoia, you are either a fool or a paid blogger. If she's so hated, how is Clinton beating McCain by a 7 point spread 49% to 42% (much higher than Obama who's tied) after she suspended her campaign two months ago?! Obama has spent a hundred million dollars and he's down in every swing state, down in the national. Clinton's favorables are as high as Obama's if not higher. Wake up, your opinion does not reflect the majority.

If the Dems don't make her the nominee, say hello to President McCain.

Posted by: NY Dem | August 21, 2008 4:56 PM

Good article. I am so TIRED of hearing about Hillary's 18 million "disaffected" and/or "angry" voters. You can bet that if Obama loses, his 18 million PLUS voters will not forgive and forget - and there will be hell to pay. Hillary would be lucky if she wins re-election to my state of NY in 2012, never mind the Democratic nomination that year.

I just read that Denver has had trouble coming up the 40 million they promised for the convention, in large part because of Hillary's stupidly protracted campaign that she had no chance of winning. I hope Obama is elected so that she can take her sore loser butt back to Arkansas...or Chicago...or Scranton...or wherever the heck she's from.

Posted by: Dan | August 21, 2008 4:55 PM

Hillary supporters will certainly get behind the hussein campaign --- to push it off a cliff!

We Hillary supporters will do everything possible to ensure defeat for that Kerry-like shallow, arrogant, platitude-spouting, elitist, inexperienced, narcissistic, flip-flopping gas-bag - who is so mentally deficient from extensive drug use he even has to plagiarize his hollow platitudes, and who hijacked the nomination with fewer votes than Hillary received.

Hillary supporters won't get mad; we will get even.

Best of luck, "sweetie".


Posted by: ALEX H. | August 21, 2008 4:54 PM

I say we cancel the election and appoint Obama President for Life. That way all the worshipers won't have to go and do that pesky voting thing...

Posted by: Ramrod The Republican | August 21, 2008 4:53 PM

I have to wonder if those Clinton supporters are, (1) Republicans in Democrat clothing, or (2) racism is behind there action. I cannot understand how any of these supposed female Clinton supporters are not considering at least 3 potential Supreme Court Justice appointments. Those appointments, if made by McCain will swing the Court to the far right for the next 50 years; Obama would ensure a more moderate Court.

Posted by: Lou R | August 21, 2008 4:52 PM

What a bunch of nuts! If Hillary could break through to those crazies, I would respect her much more and *maybe* support her for VP. But so far, she has failed. Probably because she's only half trying.

Hopefully she will really dazzle at the convention and break it down to her goofball fanatic supporters how flipping moronic it is to vote for any Democrat to vote for McBush. I mean, HELLO!

Luckily, they are countered by Obomaicans like several people in my family who voted for Bush and now support Obama.

Posted by: zzz1204 | August 21, 2008 4:52 PM

Corruption: "After the convention, Obama is likely going to have a 3-1 financial advantage."

What's that based on? The DNC has 7 million in the bank, and Obama's spending more money than he brings in. Best estimates I've seen say he'll raise about $50m/month. I know he'd said he thought he would raise 250-350 million, but that was months ago - that's not happening. He has about $70 million of his own banked right now. 70 + 7 + 50 + 50 = 177.

McCain has $85 million coming in from our tax dollars, plus an estimate of about $50m/month donated to the RNC that will benefit him. He also has money from his primary campaign that he can spend over the next two weeks, about $27 million. 27 + 85 + 100 = 212.

If you've got something to back up a 3:1 number, I'd like to see it. Unless you're counting the 527s that Soros is donating to.

Posted by: gawaine | August 21, 2008 4:52 PM

Might pick Hillary as his running mate?

In your dreams. She told Soetoro-Obama exactly where he could go a very long time ago. She would never agree to be his vice president, she knew from day one he never had a chance of winning.

Posted by: xbjllb | August 21, 2008 4:51 PM

Listen to MacGillis people. There's no story here, move along. It's safe to ignore all these Democrats, after all, they arenr'T reAL. tHE Messiah will conquer all. He is chosen to lead Hillary, and all of you. Hillary had her chance. Today, she follows the Messiah into trhe promised land.
Too bad he won't win.

Posted by: Larry | August 21, 2008 4:49 PM

President and Senator Clinton will be avenged in November when Howard Dean,Nancy Pelosi,Harry Ried,Ted Kennedy's chosen puppet loses the election.The last laugh will be on them and Egobama and his big ugly wife.

Posted by: Nannie Turner | August 21, 2008 4:47 PM

Hey writer, he's not going to shock the world, because women make up half of the world population. He might shock half of the world - the men. Your begging the question, that everyone hates Clinton, is common among those that hold power in the media.. namely there seems to be more men that do... but just as I go to work and file my taxes like many other men and women in this world, I also think women ought to be represented by a *competant* and influential woman such as Clinton, not some lesser known non-almost candidate for the presidency.. like Kennedy. Hillary Clinton is NY senator. I repeat Clinton is senator of NY.. Again writing another article about how "shocking" and out of whack it would be to have Clinton as veep is like saying how bizar and unheard of it would be to have a biracial pres.. okay??? Can't male writers ever get this point? Let's not make Clinton the female equivalent of Ralph Ellison's Invisible Man..

Posted by: bebesvin | August 21, 2008 4:47 PM


Why not Ralph Nader?

Posted by: JakeD | August 21, 2008 4:44 PM

I'm a liberal but I don't feel comfortable with Obama and would have a hard time voting for him.

Can't stand McCain either so I'll sit this one out like I did the last one.

Posted by: frank | August 21, 2008 4:43 PM

I have voted Democrat in every presidential election since I was 18. But I will be voting for John McCain this November. I don't want some new comer with 6 years of experience trying to play president. Personnally I like Obama he speaks beautifully and has become some what of a rock star. But I prefer to have someone that can make the difficult decision.

Posted by: Storm | August 21, 2008 4:39 PM

Corruption Anon:

Don't forget Operation Chaos ; )

Posted by: JakeD | August 21, 2008 4:34 PM

BO got his clock cleaned in Penn in the primary - what does that say about his ground game?

Posted by: tony | August 21, 2008 4:30 PM

I am so tired of hearing about these bitter, pathetic Hillary twatz.

She would do nothing for the ticket. Sure, she would probably help in some places and hurt in others. Overall, she would damage Obama's chances since 60% of America hates her.

Posted by: sequoia | August 21, 2008 4:26 PM


Penn is a state of 8m voters and now dems have a 1m voter reg advantage.

Obama has built an incredible ground game and the polls have traditional turnout models don't reflect historical young and black voter turnout, which was evidenced in the primaries.

After the convention, Obama is likely going to have a 3-1 financial advantage. He was down 20pts to Clinton on Jan1 then turned it on. We are two and a half months from the Nov4, this race has yet to begin.

And when it does, next week, Obama is going to kick McCain's butt.

Anyhow, when he has a 6 point lead, which will be soon again, and people are wondering why it isn't 10, that'll be because the models show turnout for black voters at 11%, not the 13%, and because the 18-29 vote will be understated by 30%+.

We're winning this thing.

The Clinton's had baggage- all of the scandals, sniper fire, etc. Bill probably couldn't be vetted, with his library donations. We dodged a bullet there.

Posted by: Corruption Anon | August 21, 2008 4:24 PM

Hillary would have only won Pennsylvania and Puerto Rico...Pass the rum, please.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 21, 2008 4:23 PM

"Lost in this analysis, though, is a crucial fact: many of Clinton's primary-season supporters are not necessarily loyal Democratic presidential election voters."f

A "crucial fact" is "not necessarily loyal"?

Does the author understand English grammar. Guess not.

This is not "analysis", it is another example of bias, pro Obama. It is also a sign of how desperate he is.

Posted by: skinsfanmoyo | August 21, 2008 4:21 PM


The GOP would have been much more united against Hillary had she been nominated.

Posted by: JakeD | August 21, 2008 4:20 PM

Interesting column. It proves Clinton's point all along that she would have had an easier time winning PA - would keep all the other blue states even if by less margins than previously- and would have added Ohio, WV, KY and Arkansas and maybe even Florida. Hence right now with Clinton we would see a clear route to the Presidency with over 270 electoral votes. Obama has yet to find that clear route and if you look at the website which once not so long ago had Obama at 310 electoral votes he is now down to being even with McCain.

I think Obama will win and I will work for his victory, but these polls show again why he is the weaker candidate than Clinton would have been.

Posted by: peterdc | August 21, 2008 4:18 PM

If Hillary's so called 18 million supporters sent her a buck each she'd go away.

And the fact that women are complaining about the supposed sexism against Hillary in the press - but aren't up in arms about Fox News calling Michelle "Obama's baby mama" - suggests that the women's movement in America is as morally bankrupt as the Clinton campaign is financially.

Posted by: Corruption Anon | August 21, 2008 4:16 PM

We should know tomorrow if The One will "shock the world" ; )

Posted by: JakeD | August 21, 2008 4:05 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.


© 2009 The Washington Post Company