Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

She's Back!

UPDATE 8:40 p.m. ET: A "joint statement" from the Clinton and Obama press shops says: "We are working together to make sure the fall campaign and the convention are a success. At the Democratic Convention, we will ensure that the voices of everyone who participated in this historic process are respected and our party will be fully unified heading into the November election."

ORIGINAL POST:

By Ed O'Keefe

A Hillary Rodham Clinton supporter who was with her at a California fundraising event last week has posted video of a Q&A session the senator conducted with those in attendance. Clinton answers questions about the likelihood of having her name placed into nomination at this month's Democratic Convention. (ABC News was among the first to report this story.)

"I'm asked this question every day. It is a question that is a very obvious one to ask, I mean, what will happen at the convention in respect to you know, my putting my name in nomination, a roll call vote, and the usual kind of process that happens at conventions," Clinton says. "We're trying to work that out with the Obama campaign and the DNC."

"I happen to believe that we will come out stronger if people feel that their voices were heard and their views were respected," she adds to a round of applause. "I know from just what I'm hearing that there's incredible pent up desire, and I think that people want to feel that OK, it's a catharsis, we're here, we did it, and then everybody get behind Senator Obama."

She later adds: "Delegates can decide to do this on their own, they don't need permission, they can decide under the rules of the DNC. I think it would be better if we had a plan that we actually put in place."

This development comes as Clinton is scheduled to campaign for Barack Obama in the coming weeks, and the day before she holds an online chat with supporters at her still-fully-functional campaign Web site. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid are also set to host a debt-relief fundraiser for the New York senator in mid-September.

So what's up here? Should Clinton delegates get the chance to place her name into nomination? Is this a play for a spot on the ticket? We'll be observing Clinton's online chat tomorrow and will update this post as more information becomes available.

By Ed O'Keefe  |  August 6, 2008; 7:59 PM ET
Categories:  Democratic Party  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Ad Wars: Is 'Celebrity' The New 'Flip-Flop'?
Next: Michelle Obama, Covergirl

Comments

Zyrtec 5 or 10 mg. Rapidity and discreet delivery on Next Day (FedEx Overnight). The low price and free medical consultation.

Posted by: buyzyrtec | August 20, 2008 5:01 PM | Report abuse

You are allowed to vote for whomever you'd like, Justin. But when the country continues to go to hell in the Clinton handbasket, you need only go as far as your mirror to see why.

Clinton lost. She can parse her loss everyway to hell but the essential fact remains: she lost the primary.

Yes, yes, I know. She's still capable of putting her name up for nomination at the convention but if she has one grain of integrity, she will not allow it. If she has one grain of integrity.

You Clinton supporters really need to move on. Your methods during this post-primary season show clearly why her candidacy died. But I'm sure John McCain thanks ya'alls for your hard work. Kept him from getting his hands dirty.

Posted by: sauerkraut | August 20, 2008 3:53 PM | Report abuse

Best Low Prices on brand zyrtec next day delivery. Great prices with secure ordering for FDA Approved Medications Overnight and COD shipping options available.

Posted by: buyzyrtec | August 20, 2008 1:50 AM | Report abuse

The nerve of you people. Why in the hell should myself or any other Clinton supporter or Clinton herself for that matter support Obama. One should vote for the candidate they feel will make the best president. If that person is not Obama then we should be allowed to cast our vote for who we choose. My grand parents did not get beat, maimed and attacked so that I would forced into voting for someone I do not think can lead this country. I intend to vote even in november for the perosn I feel will make the best President even if that means I have to write HER name in. Obama has proven that he does not have the back bone to stand up our civil liberites (check his new record in FISA). Furthermore as a black man I expect much more concern for the constituency that propelled him to the front of the nomination. Make no mistakes it was winning the black vote by 90% in some states that provide him the the proportionally allocated number of delegates to clinch the presumed nomination. That having been said I notice Obama meet with head of the jewish population on many occassions and somehow he managed to prance around Europe yet was glaringly absent from the black state of the union address to which he was invited to be the keynote speak. For someone running as MLK jr's dream come true I find it interesting that he missed the 40th anniversary celebration for King in Memphis this year. Even John Mccain managed to attend. Obama should consider himself a disgrace to the black community and the legacy of MY ancestors not his(they were back in Kenya or perhaps the other half was busy exploiting my people). I am not fooled by this man, I am not interested in the first Black president reaching that office by putting his race on the back burner. I am not interested in Jim Crowing my way into the white house. I could go on with a list of reason why I will not vote for him, none of which have anything to do with Hillary Clinton. Stop assuming that all of her supporters are delusional and bitter. Some of us know how to make an informed and impartial decision using our own brains. I do not need Obama or the DNC to think for me. Quite frankly Obama will not be a better candidate that Mccain as far as Im concerned, he does nothing but pander to whomever yells at him the loudest.

Hillary deserves the right to have her name placed in nomination just like Howard Dean, Jesse Jackson and Shirley Chilsom none of who had close to enough delegates to clinch the nomination. Speak the truth people the DNC doesnt want her name in rotation because she acquire nearly as many delegates and nearly a million more votes than Barry Obama. Get over that fact!

Either way it doesn't matter because men are men and they all operate the same way. Good luck for the next four years. For those of you weary of a Mccain presidency it doesnt even matter because the best chance you had to getting this country back on track you forced out the way.

Posted by: justin | August 14, 2008 2:35 PM | Report abuse

elzelchitro

Posted by: rorolet | August 12, 2008 1:25 PM | Report abuse

I got news for you kamikaze PUMAS who are planning to hijack the convention. If the Democratic party buckles under and throws Obama over because morons like you are threatening to destroy the Democratic party otherwise, I would rather eat glass than vote for anyone you would be for. Hillary will never win without us in November and when she and you all do what you really want: cause so much trouble to destroy Obama so McCain wins and so HRC can run in 2012, good frigging luck. She won't win. They'll kick her out of the Democratic party and you all can be Republicans, just like you really are. Maybe if you're real good you can have a dream date with your buddy Rush Limbaugh. And if you behave, maybe, just maybe, you can have his love chilld.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 9, 2008 11:04 PM | Report abuse

I agree with Dwayne T. and Ben:

Obama will be nominated. It is what it is.

So, boys and girls, the question then becomes: shall we lose sight of the big picture, namely, defeating McCain??? I surely hope not. If you care about the COUNTRY more than your bruised feelings or offended sensibilities, you'll help us make sure that McCain and the Republicans are defeated in November. It's a BIGGER DEAL to get this right than it is to complain, however real the justification (like you, I despise misogyny), about the nomination process.

For the record, I would have been just as pleased to "make history" with the first woman president as with the first person-of-color president. Actually, I don't give a silk sack of meadow muffins about either "making history" story . . . What I care about is getting the country back on the right course. That will not happen with McCain.

Time to get it right, folks.

Posted by: old white male democrat in WV | August 9, 2008 9:07 PM | Report abuse

THE DLC

THE CLINTON ->LIEBERMAN-> MCCAIN/ BUSH CONNECTION.

POWER .NOT. THE PEOPLE

Posted by: DC MATTHEWS | August 9, 2008 12:35 PM | Report abuse

THE DLC.

clinton -> leiberman ->mccain bush connection.

IT'S ALL ABOUT THE POWER.

Posted by: DC MATTHEWS | August 9, 2008 12:32 PM | Report abuse

Operation Chaos needs to die. I'm sure that Rush and his Dido-head followers are delighted to see the fanaticism of HRC and her supporters, but unless they want four more years of Bush, under John W McCain, they need to get behind Obama before the convention.
Ask yourself, "Who would better stand for my values, Obama or McCain". before continuing act the way right-wingers want you to.

Posted by: DwayneU | August 9, 2008 7:46 AM | Report abuse

Obama supporters are very low and unlogical, they proved their qualification through comments. I disappointed them and Obama everyday. I don't understand why Obama supporters said Primary election was fair. It wasn't fair and square at all, why they want to bury Hillary? Why, Why they don't want give the chance to competite fairly and openly? What do they worry about? if election was fair. I would like to ask Obama supporters watch their language about Hillary Clinton, you don't respect Hillary, Obama will never be respected by American voters, REMEMBER IT.
I was a lifelong Democrats, I changed to Independence, because I am sick and tired with vulgar Obama supporters and stupid DNC. Republican party handled Primary election very well, Dean, Pelosi, Kennedy, Kerry DNC staffs made a huge mistake.

Posted by: Kyu Reisch, Radcliff, Kentucky | August 9, 2008 6:01 AM | Report abuse

Ugh to "Shes Back" :(

Posted by: Barrack_007 | August 8, 2008 8:50 PM | Report abuse

In the word of Remember the Titans "They will know that we were here!"

When it is all said and done, you will all know that Hillary and her 18 million were here.

And, it will be recorded in history for all.

They played the games to block her from the field, but she found another way on the playing field. 18 million ways! Never count us out!

Posted by: MadisonM | August 8, 2008 8:41 PM | Report abuse

bewildered, I'm with you.
The media is trying to create false drama by raising the possibility of HRC as BO's veep -- Just as they kept falsely reporting that the BO/HRC race was neck-and-neck long after she had no mathematical chance of winning. This veep business is the same bogus media game: my BO veeplong list has her below Kwame Kilpatrick and Al Cowlings.
How can you pick someone as veep who went millions of dollars into debt to continue an already-lost campaign for the sole purpose of damaging you in the general election, whose campaign message was you can't win because you're black, who openly wished for something bad to happen to you (we won't say what), and whose husband, to date, has refused to admit you are qualified? What crazed narcissism is that by the Hillarians and Harpies? When does this childish, bigoted, self-absorbed junk end? If you lose, you shake hands with the winner and support him, or you slither into the night. You don't hold grudges, encourage mentals to act irrationally (or criminally), or try to "enshrine the whine" at the convention.
bwild, I stopped watching the blowhard political shows; I got the sports package and now I can see the Tennis Channel, the NFL Channel, the NBA Channel, and ESPN Classic. Word of advice: Fork over about 10 dollars more to the cable folks and do the same. This HRC performance art is too much.
__________

Posted by: bewildered | August 7, 2008 10:59 AM

THE CAMPAIGN THAT WOULD NOT DIE

Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!

I turned on the TV, CSPAN, and there are repeated calls for Hillary for VP.

I turned to Fox news, Hillary for VP.

I am afraid to go to CNN, Clinton News Network, for fear of what I might find.

It is amazing to me how a few disgruntled people, with the help of the networks and cable companies, can keep a campaign alive.

To prove that I can lie with the best of them:

I was a Republican who switched to Democrat to support Hillary Clinton, (in the primaries) and if she does not get the nomination, I will go back to the Republican Party and vote for McCain.

So there!!!!!!!!

Did anybody ever count how many Hillary primary votes were actually cast by Republicans? Are the not counted in her totals. Should they be?


Posted by: Broadway Joe | August 8, 2008 8:22 PM | Report abuse

BB: I am not a great typist and I do move to fast. Lastly, I never proof read anything because I have staff for that.

Nonetheless, void my spelling or incorrect word use, my points raised are valid.

That is why you took a moment to respond to me personally---RIGHT?

Posted by: MadisonM | August 8, 2008 5:00 PM | Report abuse

You folks frighten me. Obama owes Hillary nothing. Hillary owes Obama nothing. But the truth is, they both need each other. They aren't the problem, they understand this. The problem is their supporters who have their hurt feelings and pride where their brains should be. You sound like rabid fans before the Super Bowl. Without Obama,those millions of cracks in Hillary's glass ceiling will splinter and come crashing down on Roe v. Wade. Without Hillary, Obama will be another step in the civil rights struggle that didn't go anywhere but the history books. If you don't plan to put your differences aside, you'd better start practicing your "it's their fault" speeches for when McCain gets in office.

Posted by: Dwane T. | August 8, 2008 12:01 PM | Report abuse

"IT IS A NO BRAINER HILLARY WAS THE ONLY ONE WHO CAN TALK FROM HER BRAIN AND KNOWS THE FACTS THAT DOESN"T NEED TO READ VERBATUM off the teleprompter...WHAT DOES THAT TELL YOU...COME ON AMERICA WE CAN"T NOT AFFORD TO WASTE ANOTHER 4 more years like the last 8 LETS PUSH FOR HILLARY TO GO TO THE CONVENTION AND AT LEAST HONOR THE l8 million who voted for her!!"
thanks

Posted by: nancy sabet | August 8, 2008 8:58 AM | Report abuse

The article pasted from IBD is at least a true Republican statement i.e.'give me all I can get and let the devil take the hindmost, and quite a few rows beyond.' There is a certain honesty in the blatant disregard for human needs that Republicans profess.
I do question that Reagan improved the living standards for very many ordinary folk. I didn't see the 'trickle down' trickling very far down.
Without question It is fascinating, and very much a "hello, Ronnie" to see all this old Commie-stuff brought out of the closet and dusted off to use against Barack. Seems like old times.
IBD might want to question whether it wants to give kindness and caring about 'the least of these' over to the Communists, Marxists and Socialists.
The last time I looked, it was someone the Republicans claim to revere above all, that suggested we care for those less fortunate.
Oops, now I had to go and bring that up. Here I go again. Shame on me.

Posted by: Barbara A. Dahms | August 8, 2008 1:04 AM | Report abuse

"the most exciting primaries in the history of the USA stopped DEAD when Hillary was forced out by the media and her own ignorant party!"

Also, we ran out of states. Someone needs to get on adding some more.

Posted by: DDAWD | August 7, 2008 11:33 PM | Report abuse


Fortunately Madame and Chairman Clinton only continue to cast a spell upon a few million hard core followers. The vast majority of those who voted for Hillary support Barack.

Some who voted for Clinton did so because they will not vote for an African-American for president. They voted for her more as an anti-Obama vote than as being pro-Clinton. This represents probably about 15% of those who voted for her. Some of these were independents and Republicans able to vote in the Democratic primaries. There is nothing Barack can do to win these votes.

Of the remaining persons, there are likely a couple million women who voted for Clinton primarily because she was a viable female candidate and are bitter she lost. Some of these will probably not vote for Barack. However, those who are hesitant to vote for him and supported her positions on most issues would not seem to want a virtual third Bush term with ith the needy neglected, millions of Americans losing health care, the occupation of Iraq going on, the rich retaining their tax cuts, conservative Supreme Court justices in the majority, likely more wars, belligerent foreign policies, etc.

The Clinton campaign debt is a phony issue. Why don't four million of her strongest supporters give $4 each, the cost to buy a gallon of gas to help pay off her debt. Is this too much of a financial sacrifice for them, especially given their supposed faith in her? Bill could give several speeches, talking about his favorite subject, to pay off the balance.

Posted by: Independent | August 7, 2008 10:52 PM | Report abuse

Are people ever going to come out and start pushing for a real candidate to be in this race...Obama has NO experience..that means he has NO good judement in fixing the mess this country is in because of the last PRESIDENT WITH NO experience!! Now the choice is old goat McCain with no financial experience..by his own admission..and more of the same 400 million a day on a war depleting our country of innocent soldiers and our economy!! IT IS A NO BRAINER HILLARY WAS THE ONLY ONE WHO CAN TALK FROM HER BRAIN AND KNOWS THE FACTS THAT DOESN"T NEED TO READ VERBATUM off the teleprompter...WHAT DOES THAT TELL YOU...COME ON AMERICA WE CAN"T NOT AFFORD TO WASTE ANOTHER 4 more years like the last 8 LETS PUSH FOR HILLARY TO GO TO THE CONVENTION AND AT LEAST HONOR THE l8 million who voted for her!! No one even cares about these other two clowns..the most exciting primaries in the history of the USA stopped DEAD when Hillary was forced out by the media and her own ignorant party!No one even watches the news anymore ..and they use to around the clock! Democrates only shot in hell is for Hillary to get back in the race ..because if we let in this old gesure who knows nothing of the economy and wants more war..there isn't going to be much of a country in 4 years >WAKE UP AMERICA!!!! THERE IS ONLY ONE CANDIDATE THAT CAN HELP AMERICA IF YOU ARE LISTENING TO THE FACTS YOU KNOW IT IS HILLARY CLINTON AND NO her supporters are not going to rally around an illassoiciated unexperienced muslim..not happening..Democratic Party heads are sooooooooooo ingnorant!HILLARY 2008 not 2012!

Posted by: ByeObama | August 7, 2008 10:15 PM | Report abuse

People, get over it, the primaries are over. Obama won. Now, we can elect Obama, with his presumptuousness, aloof style and impressive oratorical skills who offers some real hope of taking the country out of the mess we are in, or, we can elect McCain and watch our financial system melt down, our image in the world unchanged, and the oil prices shoot through the roof the moment he bombs Iran. You do as you wish, I am casting my vote for Obama, with all his flaws and imperfections, he is still the better choice.

Posted by: Ben | August 7, 2008 9:27 PM | Report abuse

"If Obama wants unity, then why isn't he working harder to pay off Hillary's debt. They made an agreement and she has come through to raise hundreds and hundreds of thousands of dollars for him, and she handed over many of her endorsed unions and donors. Hillary speaks on his behalf and is constantly working to unify the party."

Yeah, its a hell of a lot easier to get donations for a guy to be elected president than it is to settle someone's personal debt.

Posted by: DDAWD | August 7, 2008 9:09 PM | Report abuse

Madison - yu ar naught a Hillary supporter. Or a good speler.

BB

Posted by: Fairlington Blade | August 7, 2008 9:02 PM | Report abuse

"The goal is to retire her debt."

Um, no. The goal is to get a Democrat elected president. The second goal is to get a filibuster proof majority in the Senate.

Clinton's personal finances are WAAAAY down the list.

Posted by: DDAWD | August 7, 2008 8:53 PM | Report abuse

It is not up to the Clinton's to unify the party. Donna Brazile said that she didn't need us, didn't need the "old party" because they had a new party. Meanwhile, Obama has claimed that he is a uniter. It is the burden of Obama and crew (that includes the DNC) to unite the party.

If Obama wanted to have our votes he shouldn't have allowed the misogyny and the racist accusations to fly at Hillary, Bill, and their supporters.

If Obama wants unity, then why isn't he working harder to pay off Hillary's debt. They made an agreement and she has come through to raise hundreds and hundreds of thousands of dollars for him, and she handed over many of her endorsed unions and donors. Hillary speaks on his behalf and is constantly working to unify the party.

Obama hasn't done SQUAT. And it's HIS responsibility. He doesn't even connect with Hillary voters on any level.

O followers are simply clueless when it comes to how people feel about O. We are sick of him, and his bizarre football stadium plans are beyond tacky and presumptuous. We are sick of Obama, and we are now desensitized to him--it's been Obama overload, and he is non-stop in the media and all in our face and shoved down our throats and we are no longer interested in him, nor do we like what we see. I see a man with very little experience who has accomplished very little for democrats and Americans as a whole, and I believe him to be a megalomaniac who lacks integrity. I will never dare vote for him. He's all glory, no guts. No Deal.

Just Say No Deal
Puma Pac
The Denver Group
Real Democrats

P.U.M.A.

Posted by: kat in your hat | August 7, 2008 8:50 PM | Report abuse

Marrietta: You are tratorious and a band wagonner. You jumped ship before the process was over. Plan and simple. If you were a true Hillary supporter then you would have supported her and denounced the treatement she received from the Obama camp and the media. You act as though Hillary was just pouncing all over Obama for the heck of it. Think about it, tell me when she threw the first blow in there fights. NEVER! She was always responsive.

Also, I am so sick of you and people like you trying to hold her accountable for competing to become the nominee. Did Obama not sign up to run. Did that mean that he was to be treat like a darling by everyone along with the media? You are all stupid. A race is a race is a race.

Also did you cry out when he Litdropped on her in Ohio. You know the one where she said " SHAME ON YOU BARACK OBAMA-DEMOCRATS DO NOT DO THIS TO DEMOCRATS." Were your 59 year old hands bloggind then. Probably not--you were just giving OBAMA the pass.

Let's see when is Obama going to be held accountable for his own racist actions like Rev. Wright!

Get over yourself and stop lying about being a Clinton supporter. Traitor.

Posted by: MadisonM | August 7, 2008 8:38 PM | Report abuse

Marrietta: You are tratorious and a band wagonner. You jumped ship before the process was over. Plan and simple. If you were a true Hillary supporter then you would have supported her and denounced the treatement she received from the Obama camp and the media. You act as though Hillary was just pouncing all over Obama for the heck of it. Think about it, tell me when she threw the first blow in there fights. NEVER! She was always responsive.

Also, I am so sick of you and people like you trying to hold her accountable for competing to become the nominee. Did Obama not sign up to run. Did that mean that he was to be treat like a darling by everyone along with the media? You are all stupid. A race is a race is a race.

Also did you cry out when he Litdropped on her in Ohio. You know the one where she said " SHAME ON YOU BARACK OBAMA-DEMOCRATS DO NOT DO THIS TO DEMOCRATS." Were your 59 year old hands bloggind then. Probably not--you were just giving OBAMA the pass.

Let's see when is Obama going to be held accountable for his own racist actions like Rev. Wright!

Get over yourself and stop lying about being a Clinton supporter. Traitor.

Posted by: MadisonM | August 7, 2008 8:36 PM | Report abuse

Oboe: Since you want to acknowledge Hillary changing when it suits her then explain to me why:
1. Obama wants to count MI and FL now
2. Why he changed his position on Campaign Financing, Drilling, FISA, Iraq, etc...

Which of the two can be most accused of changing to suit themselves:
1. Clinton who is a politician and has never denied it or Obama who did and said anything to get the nomination and is now pissing on the very people who beleived him with his position changes.

Oh! I get it now he has to appeal to a much broader audience so he will now do and say what it takes for to win in November.

We get it! You Obamadots are pure hypocrits.

Posted by: MadisonM | August 7, 2008 8:25 PM | Report abuse

AJMESA: Old News! Let's talk about Obama's money taken and land deal with the indicted slum lord and how they kept from hauling Obama into court for his quote "Bonehead" decisions.

Posted by: MadisonM | August 7, 2008 8:19 PM | Report abuse

A new case is opening with Hillary being a defendant along with Bill. This new case is opening up because of new CONVINCING evidence.
The Power of the pardon is needed here and may be why the Clintons still seek the Nomination of at least the VP slot at the Democratic Convention ..........

Go to this website

Los Angeles Superior Court - Civil Case Summary

and type in this CASE NUMBER at the bottom of the page : BC304174

The case is called PETER F PAUL VS WILLIAM JEFFERSON CLINTON but HILLARY is included as an equal defendant.

http://www.lasuperiorcourt.org/civilCaseSummary/index.asp?CaseType=Civil

Posted by: AJ Mesa , AZ | August 7, 2008 8:10 PM | Report abuse

When Obama and Clinton supporters are beating each other up on the WP, NYT or any other blog, I see the GOP and Senator McCain thinking that they can win the White House in 2008. The Democratic Party will find a way to screw this election up so that the disgruntled will vote GOP. Senator Kerry allowed himself to be labeled by the GOP in 2004 and he was "swiftboated" so that he never leveled the playing field with Mr. Bush. I saw the Lewis Black special where he asked the Democrats how they lost the election to W in 2004. Now, I wonder if the Democratis will self-destruct with the nit-picking and fighting between HRC and Obama supporters. I am already disgusted with Congress, the White House and the Judiciary. I am disillusioned by the party that my family has been supoprted and voted for 60 years. We deserved the goverment, we the people, elected and in doing so, we screwed ourselves in 2004. Are the American voters going to do it again? If so, I am going independent because neither party will represent the middle class our interests.

Posted by: Frankel | August 7, 2008 8:02 PM | Report abuse

MadisonM wrote: Did you pull up the 01/25/08 article where she said that the votes should count because the Democratic Party would suffer in November. Go ahead and look that one up.

The point is that she was still the only one with enough forsight to know that in the end those states needed to be counted.
_______
The Michigan primary was on January 15, so if Hillary said the votes should count on January 25, that was after the fact. That's not foresight, it's hindsight. Yes, I know the Florida primary was the 29th, but the fact remains that Hillary changes her story when it suits her. When she thought the nomination was in the bag, she didn't care about Michigan and Florida primaries.

Posted by: Oboe | August 7, 2008 7:22 PM | Report abuse

I am a 59 yr. oldsingle, working, democrat, activist, feminist, grandmother and since Super Tuesday an Obama supporter and volunteer. There wwere a number of reasons for NOT supporting Hillary. But her negative, damaging campaign style to another candidate of HER PARTY, was my biggest turn off. This is the most important election of our lifetime and it is paramount that We The Democrats win! When I hear Hillary and her supporters making negative commments about Obama, WHO WON---ACCEPT IT--DON"T DESTROY OUR CHANCE OF WINNING IN NOVEMWBER!!!! If Hillary supporters are still in an illusional state,in denial of her LOSS, why are they not getting her ouit of debt!!! If every one of you complaining that she is not in the race and are still saying you will write her in, or not vote or vote for another, PUT YOUR MONEY WHERE YOUR MOUTH IS!!!! SHUT UP, STOP WHINING, SEND HER SOME MONEY TO GET HER OUT OF DEBT, AND STOP THIS FOOLISH BEGGING OBAMA SUPPORTERS! iF THERE ARE SOO MANY OF YOU AND YOU LOVE HER SOO MUCH----SEND HER MONEY---IT'S THE ONLY REASON SHE STILL HAS A CAMPAIGN OFFOCE=----SHE CAN'T AFFORD FOR THE MONEY TO STOP- COMING IN!!! I send money monthly to keep my candidate going-- where were you all when she needed you????

Posted by: Marietta Thompson | August 7, 2008 7:13 PM | Report abuse

DDAWG: So Hillary's Website is asking for "OBAMA" donors to give her money?

Well, here is the site: http://www.hillaryclinton.com/.

Can tell me where to find a statement asking Obama donors for money?

Oh okay, that's you impression. Right! That's what I thought.

Once again you are blaming her for something that is not true. So characteristic of you Obamadots.

The goal is to retire her debt. I think the fundraisers that she is holding for Obama are good enough and so should you.

Albeit, he has to run back on stage to ask his donors to give to her.

Get over it! And stop blaming Hillary for everything.

Posted by: MadisonM | August 7, 2008 6:44 PM | Report abuse

Harol Hoffman: You are not woman! You are a poser! So I guess you are okay with Obama's ties to slum lords and american terriosts. Yes, those are much better ties to have than corporate ones.

Stop posing as a Hillary supporter!

You are either an Obamadot or a Republican.

Posted by: MadisonM | August 7, 2008 6:33 PM | Report abuse

"DDAWG: Let me get this right! Hillary Clinton actually asked Obama's small donors to donate to help pay down her campaign debt?"

Well, not Obama's small donors. Just small donors in general.

At least that's the impression I got from the giant banner on her website asking for contributions.

She should be asking them to contribute to Obama.

Posted by: DDAWD | August 7, 2008 6:31 PM | Report abuse

DDAWG: Let me get this right! Hillary Clinton actually asked Obama's small donors to donate to help pay down her campaign debt?

Like I said you Obama folk are need to get off him and come up for air.

Because he is not asking her bitter, low-class, uneducated, poor donors to not donate this his war chest.

Stupid position you took.

Posted by: MadisonM | August 7, 2008 6:25 PM | Report abuse

I am a woman who was a Hillary supporter initially, but I dislike her corporate ties and what pushed me over the edge to Obama (after hearing him speak), was Hillary's equating herself with John McCain as the only qualified Commanders in Chief. In my view the Clintons are giving themselves an historical black eye by refusing to get offstage and failing to consider what is best for the country and best for the party instead of what is best for them.

Posted by: Harol Hoffman | August 7, 2008 6:13 PM | Report abuse

I am a woman who was a Hillary supporter initially, but I dislike her corporate ties and what pushed me over the edge to Obama (after hearing him speak), was Hillary's equating herself with John McCain as the only qualified Commanders in Chief. In my view the Clintons are giving themselves an historical black eye by refusing to get offstage and failing to consider what is best for the country and best for the party instead of what is best for them.

Posted by: Harol Hoffman | August 7, 2008 6:10 PM | Report abuse

"8. Regarding her debt: Don't leave out that she gave him 2300 also and he wants her donors to give to him. So, why should her donors give to him if his donors do not want to give to her? You guys really do not believe in reciprocity do you."

She can ask his millionaire, maxed out donors. That's fine. I just don't like her asking small time donors to make a choice between helping her or helping the country.

Posted by: DDAWD | August 7, 2008 5:33 PM | Report abuse

OBOE: Yes, it should have been their instead of there. Thanks for the English lesson.

Did you pull up the 01/25/08 article where she said that the votes should count because the Democratic Party would suffer in November. Go ahead and look that one up.

The point is that she was still the only one with enough forsight to know that in the end those states needed to be counted.

So get over the rules issue. If the party disagreed then they would not have broken "their" rules, but they did. And, now Obama wants them to disregard their latest resolution by restoring those two states fully not 1/2.

Go figure. He will do and say anything to win!

Posted by: MadisonM | August 7, 2008 5:29 PM | Report abuse

Anonymous writes:
Also, you can bet that if the situations were reversed, the Clintons would not be treating Senator Obama with the same deference they are demanding -- even if the margins were similar!

____________
Yes, but the Clintons are victims. Everyone is after them! It isn't fair!
All I can say is give her the dang roll call. It won't change that Obama is the nominee. We all can thank our lucky stars the Clintons won't be in the Whitehouse in the near future.

Posted by: Willworkforfood | August 7, 2008 5:22 PM | Report abuse

DDAWG": I am glad that you have some Clinton supporters as friends also. Maybe they can help you get off OBAMA and really see the light.

1. Yes, she lost white and traditionally red states. Go figure, but we were talking about race as it relates to Blacks! Can you address why before every election where BLACKS were expected to vote in record numbers, the issue of race came up especially in SC and NC? Can you address why Blacks vote 90+% for OBAMA. And yes the memo talked about Bill Clinton who grew up more BLack than Obama playing the race game, but Obama denied that his camp were the ones to do this and stir up the race bating pot until the memo actually surfaced. So they not the Hillary Clinton injected race into the campaign. I bet you were one of the ones who blamed her for reverend Wright also. Hymm, there goes the issue of Obama and race again.

2. You should go back and watch the Philly debate; it was the moderator who asked the question about Louis Farrakhan not Senator Clinton. Again, you want her to be blamed her for everything.

3. College degrees: you did not answer the question. I guess because you do not have an answer.

4. Still refusing to address what I said. The bottom line is that she was the only forward thinking person who knew that the Dems would have hell to pay in November. Now they have proven her right. Deal with it!

5. Pay attention to your statements. Didn't you say general racial divisiveness? So, if Blacks voted for the African/White Boy then why could Whites not vote for the White lady? How is this once again her fault? I mean didn't he make the bitterness statement? So, is class divisiveness something for you to not like Obama about?

6. Not once did Clinton mention sexism as it related to caucuses or the rules committee. You are a liar and get your facts right! Regarding causes: most people can not vote in them because they do not work with most schedules. Regarding rules committee: again she never said they were sexists against her.

7. You forgot the VEEP statement, but let me reiterate: The party gave him the presidency so he should give her the vice presidency. Since the election was decided by the Super delegates and not the people--again he needs to give it her.

8. Regarding her debt: Don't leave out that she gave him 2300 also and he wants her donors to give to him. So, why should her donors give to him if his donors do not want to give to her? You guys really do not believe in reciprocity do you.

As for your Clinton friends, One would hope that their light shines brighter than your flicker. You seem to be really slow. Did I tell you that you need to get off Obama?

Posted by: MadisonM | August 7, 2008 5:21 PM | Report abuse

This "Hillary supporter" isn't staying home. She's voting for John McCain,...... Does the term "cutting off your nose to spite your face" mean anything to you? The issues matter more than your support for Hillary. It's your right to vote for McCain, but, it would be a worthless, unworthy vote for a man who is too old, too shrill, and too unaware to lead a horse to water, much less the USA. I don't know what your underlying reason is, but, it's not good enough.

Posted by: denise | August 7, 2008 5:20 PM | Report abuse

MadisonM wrote:
Oboe: The DNC did not follow the rules. After all when they realized how stupid they were and that they needed MI and FL to win then they went against there own rules.
_______
By the way, it would be "against their own rules"

You must have missed this. Everyone knew the rules in advance, including Clinton. After the fact she complains. Not before. Here's a quote from NPR:

"In an interview on New Hampshire Public Radio last fall, Clinton explained why she was the only candidate who did not agree to New Hampshire's request that she take her name off the ballot in Michigan.

"It's clear: This election they're having is not going to count for anything. I personally did not think it made any difference whether or not my name was on the ballot," she said."

Posted by: Oboe | August 7, 2008 5:13 PM | Report abuse

Hillary on the gas tax

“I’m not going to put in my lot with economists. Elite opinion is always on the side of doing things that really disadvantages the vast majority of Americans.”

I wonder if her clients ever put in their lot with elite lawyers.

Posted by: DDAWD | August 7, 2008 4:41 PM | Report abuse

"Race card: Race was always an issue right before an election in a state that had a good percentages of BLACK voter."

She lost plenty of predominantly white states as well.

"Interesting. Less we not forget that it came out that OBAMA's camp released a memo to the press about race before it even became an issue in the election, which OBAMA acknowledged and apologized for."

It was a memo on Clinton's use of race in the campaign.

"2. Like most powerful women, she gets blamed for everything. When did she tie him to Louis Farrakan? It think it was Louis Farrakan's endorsement that tied OBAMA to him."

Philly debate.

"3. Again, when did she denigrate people who have college degrees? Again it was the media, OBAMA campaign targeting, and the polls that targeted those of us who are college educated. As a matter of fact, I am going to count that as a stupid statement from you because she has several degrees, which would make it foolish to scorn other who have degrees."

I agree that it was really stupid on her part to denigrate something she herself has done. But hey, just because you choose to remain ignorant doesn't mean it never happened.

"4. For the last time, the DNC made them sign a pledge stating that they would not CAMPAIGN in either of those states. Where in the statement did it say that they should not count and apparently the DNC and now OBAMA agress that the should be seated 100% not 1/2. So, give her credit for being the great forward thinking leader that she is by realizing that the DUMB DEMS would need these states in November."

Well, obviously there is nothing in the pledge on how the delegates should be counted since THE CANDIDATES DON'T CONTROL HOW THE DELEGATES ARE COUNTED. It was in written up by the rules committee.

"5. Okay so we are back on racial divisiveness. Well if Black can be racist then so can Whites. So, if Blacks voted 90+% for OBAMA then Whites can do the same. As a Black person, I wish that more Whites had voted along racial lines."

If I had a problem with whites or blacks voting on racial lines, then that wouldn't be a complaint against Hillary, would it?

"6. Regarding he being FEMALE, you must be in the twilight zone to not see the level of Mysogyny against her. Even the chosen one, OBAMA spoke out against it after the election and so did Dean. [Hymmm, wonder why it took them so long to speak out against it. Now that Michelle is under attack by the media, I guess he can see how it must have felt for Hillary to be attacked.]"

Of course there was misogyny, but Clinton wasn't talking about Chris Matthews or Tucker Carlson. She was talking about the rules committee and caucus voting as examples of misogyny.

"8. Settling the debt: Why should she not ask for OBAMA to settle her debt since he is asking her donors to increase his coffers"

I don't have a problem with her asking OBAMA for a donation. He gave her $2300. That's fine. That doesn't take away money from the campaign. What I do have a problem with is her taking money from people who can't afford to pay the maximum. If I have $100 to donate and I give it to Clinton, that's $100 that isn't helping to get a Democratic president or a Democratic senator elected.

Man, I'm glad I have some very smart Clinton supporting friends. I hate to think of what you're doing to your reputation among people who don't.

Posted by: DDAWD | August 7, 2008 4:39 PM | Report abuse

SINCE HILLARY HAVE 18 MILLION SUPPORTS
THEN WHY DON'T THEY EACH DONATE 5.00 BUCKS
TO RETIRE HER DEBTS,AND THEN SHE CAN PAY OFF HERE DEBTOR AND HERSELF, AND JUST GET LOST SOMEWHERE, SHE WAS FOR MCSHAME ANYWAY
IF SHE COULD BOGART IN HERE WHAT TO THE NOMINATION,THAT OTHER BLOGGER WAS CORRECT,MICHELE GIVE HILLARY A JOB AS THE WHITE HOUSE INTERIOR DECORATOR.AND LET BILLY BOB MOW THE LAWN,(LAWNJOCKEY.

Posted by: SOUR GRAPES | August 7, 2008 4:38 PM | Report abuse

DDAWG: Let's address why you do not like Seantor Clinton:

1. Race card: Race was always an issue right before an election in a state that had a good percentages of BLACK voter. Interesting. Less we not forget that it came out that OBAMA's camp released a memo to the press about race before it even became an issue in the election, which OBAMA acknowledged and apologized for.
Most importantly getting the Black folk upset and angry enough to vote against someone who had a record of helping them Globally was a mission accomplished by OBAMA.

2. Like most powerful women, she gets blamed for everything. When did she tie him to Louis Farrakan? It think it was Louis Farrakan's endorsement that tied OBAMA to him.

3. Again, when did she denigrate people who have college degrees? Again it was the media, OBAMA campaign targeting, and the polls that targeted those of us who are college educated. As a matter of fact, I am going to count that as a stupid statement from you because she has several degrees, which would make it foolish to scorn other who have degrees. [Try Again, you can't blame her for this one either.]

4. For the last time, the DNC made them sign a pledge stating that they would not CAMPAIGN in either of those states. Where in the statement did it say that they should not count and apparently the DNC and now OBAMA agress that the should be seated 100% not 1/2. So, give her credit for being the great forward thinking leader that she is by realizing that the DUMB DEMS would need these states in November. [DUH].

5. Okay so we are back on racial divisiveness. Well if Black can be racist then so can Whites. So, if Blacks voted 90+% for OBAMA then Whites can do the same. As a Black person, I wish that more Whites had voted along racial lines.

6. Regarding he being FEMALE, you must be in the twilight zone to not see the level of Mysogyny against her. Even the chosen one, OBAMA spoke out against it after the election and so did Dean. [Hymmm, wonder why it took them so long to speak out against it. Now that Michelle is under attack by the media, I guess he can see how it must have felt for Hillary to be attacked.]

7. Regarding VEEP, He was handed the Presidency, the least he could do is hand her the Vice Presidency. I think it's a fair deal and many in the DNC agree because they just want to win in November.

8. Settling the debt: Why should she not ask for OBAMA to settle her debt since he is asking her donors to increase his coffers as he back track against his original position on Campaign Financing. Let's not forget that the Clintons are millionaires, but let Obama and his crew pay for it--they owe her.

So, now that the realistic truth has been given----What are your crediable not made up reasons for disliking Hillary. Can't think of any can you.

Get over yourself and stop riding Obama.

Posted by: MadisonM | August 7, 2008 3:58 PM | Report abuse

You poor slyillary followers,the press,clinton,the polls,are just trying to keep this race interesting,Sen.Obama,
is going to SLAM DUNK THIS ELECTION IN NOVEMBER,HE IS GOING TO PEAK AT THE FINISH LINE.and if Hillary try to steal this election from Obama, who's going to vote for her besides the ladies from the lonely
hearts club,If I were her I will be trying
to hold my Senate seat, because Harlem,Queens,The Bronze,will contest you
the next election for making a Darn fool of yourself and New York,OBama run will
survive easily until Nov. and maybe we could give her a Job as michelle interior
decorator.

Posted by: Trailer Trash | August 7, 2008 3:25 PM | Report abuse

Blarg...

It's a party that has always supported and lifted up the disenfranchised, the poor, the disabled, the hungry. They fought for the common man/woman. And now ... despite what you say about the Dems policies being the same as last year ... I'm not talking about "last year". The democratic party has been dying a slow death over the last several decades ... since the Kennedy-Johnson era. The party no longer TRULY cares about the disenfranchised - all it cares about is getting elected and staying in office. How old are you Blarg? Old enough to remember the Democratic party of old? I doubt it.

Posted by: Tamara | August 7, 2008 3:22 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: scrivener | August 7, 2008 3:11 PM | Report abuse

What has the Democratic Party turned into? A party that sets out rules for the nomination process, and follows those rules? A party that won't give in when one candidate whines that the rules should be changed for her? A party that still supports the same policies it did a year ago (not that you care about issues)?

Posted by: Blarg | August 7, 2008 3:09 PM | Report abuse

Blarg writes:

"And if you were the loyal Democrat you claim to be, you'd support him."

Well, there you go ... I'm NOT a loyal democrat ... anymore. It used to be my party, my mother and father's party, my grandfolks party ... but now, I don't want any part of what the Democratic Party has turned into. I'm now a registered Independent.

Posted by: Tamara | August 7, 2008 3:04 PM | Report abuse

"I don't know what the problem is with the Obama camp (They are negotiating her role). Kennedy, Kerry, and even Howard Dean had there names placed in nomination."

Senator Clinton is looking to have a roll call vote with her delegates voting for her during the roll call. I don't know about Kennedy, but Kerry was the nominee, but at the 2004 convention, Howard Dean did NOT get that.

Also, you can bet that if the situations were reversed, the Clintons would not be treating Senator Obama with the same deference they are demanding -- even if the margins were similar!

Posted by: Anonymous | August 7, 2008 2:48 PM | Report abuse

Hillary and her supporters don't listen too well. She was rejected in the primaries because she has nothing new to offer. All she has is old time politics and fear mongering. She is a perfect match for McCain. Hillary can't accept that she lost her one and only chance to go to the whitehouse. She will be to old and have even more baggage after Obama's two terms are over in 2016.
Obama needs to heed these words about Hillary:
"She’s just a devil woman
With evil on her mind
Beware the devil woman
She’s gonna get you
She’s just a devil woman
With evil on her mind
Beware the devil woman
She’s gonna get you from behind"
credit - Cliff Richards: "Devil Woman"

Posted by: Jimbo | August 7, 2008 2:47 PM | Report abuse

Incoming, B.O.! You let her FL & MI fifth columns come in and now you're seeing her gratitude! Forgive me for thinking George Soros must have loaded up the yacht and sailed for Monaco. Another Post article referred to this obscene cession of decision-making to the Tear Bag's & B.O.'s desire for a "suitable solution;" wanna bet that'll be a PANTSUITABLE solution?

!Tapate, Memin Pinguin! Here come Huma's Jeddah jihadis, Sarajevo Sally's Snit Brigade, the husband's hangers-on (Skullface*, Mr. Potatohead, McFixer, the Ickster et al.) & hillbilly hitpersons ("Us'n don't nivver miss!") and $23 million in IOU's stuffed in Broadbase Betty's humongous pantsuit hindquarters ... growing faster than the National Debt! (Now the Snit Brigade's on the wire going hissy-poo about B.O. not liquidating it! How about the husband's missiles that totaled that Khartoum dry-cleaner and "just missed" Osama in Great Wazzooistan? That's a swift kick for you!)

*"The Man Who Married Matalin"

Posted by: vince foster | August 7, 2008 2:25 PM | Report abuse

Ed O'Keefe is a little slow on the uptake today, with this thread from last night easily still outdoing the one he started this morning.

Today's Post has an article which should raise eyebrows of all the regular posters to The Fix, with the exception of the paid trolls.

It's about Blogging for Prizes for McCain:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/06/AR2008080603589.html

Just take canned talking points and cut-and-paste them into blog threads. No thinking necessary.

Interestingly it notes that "...Michael Cornfield, an adjunct professor at George Washington University and...an executive with a company that markets political-organizing software says McCain's program has a couple of bugs.

"The first, he says, is the lack of disclosure instructions to participants. To rise above AstroTurf -- a practice considered ethically dubious by many political operatives -- Cornfield says participants should use their real names and identify themselves as part of a campaign participation program (as in, 'I'm Mike Cornfield, and I'm part of the McCain Action Team').

"He also says 'germaneness' is an issue: "Talking points are fine, but a comment should refer specifically to something that was said or written previously in the thread where it is intended to appear."

Yeah, right!

Posted by: Nor'Easter | August 7, 2008 2:14 PM | Report abuse

Tamara, you're right. I don't get it. I don't get how the DNC "hijacked democracy" by following their own rules which were in place long before the primaries started. Rules which, in many cases, were devised by Hillary's campaign staff.

The delegate breakdown had been decided in advance. Nobody protested caucuses, or superdelegates, or proportional allocation of delegates. Nobody on the Clinton team protested the punishment of Michigan and Florida when it happened. (Punishment based on those states breaking DNC rules.) Everyone agreed with all of these rules in advance. But when she started losing, Hillary and her supporters decided to complain about the rules. "Caucuses are unfair! Small states have too much power! Let's change everything retroactively to make Hillary win!"

So what did the DNC do wrong? How did they hijack their own nomination process? If you want to blame anyone, blame Hillary for running a bad campaign that ignored the realities of the nomination process. Obama understood the process, and he won. He is the Democratic nominee. And if you were the loyal Democrat you claim to be, you'd support him.

Posted by: Blarg | August 7, 2008 1:52 PM | Report abuse

"There's a no chance Obama will agree to share the stage with the woman who dared challenge his Audacity. "

Actually, it was he who challenged her Entitlement. Remember, she was the Front Runner nobody dared to challenge, because everybody felt that the Clintons had the Democrat's Deck stacked so much in favor of her.

Sen. Obama's Convention problem is that Sen. Clinton created a Bride of Frankenstein which she can't control. The Hell Hath No Fury Brigade are loose cannons.

If her name was put into nomination without any formal arrangement from her, the PUMAs (with Harold Ickes pulling the strings) just might try to stage a coup.

It looks pretty obvious from the posts of Tamara and Asperperson and others, that they have no clue about the Primary process and how the DNC acted within the Democratic Party Rules.

Clinton accepted the results, but they can't. That's why Obama has to have some agreement in place with Clinton, which gets strongly conveyed to the Hillaryaholics by her. Otherwise the PUMAs could do more damage to Obama's campaign than the 2008 Swiftboaters ever could.

Posted by: Nor'Easter | August 7, 2008 1:49 PM | Report abuse

This "Hillary supporter" isn't staying home. She's voting for John McCain, a true patriot and leader. Barack Obama symbolizes change in the same way that Hurricane Katrina changed the lay of the land in New Orleans and Adolf Hitler changed the face of history in World War II. Not all change is good change. Pay attention to those who are tried and true - pay attention to consistent change. Pay attention to John McCain.

Posted by: realist1953 | August 7, 2008 1:34 PM | Report abuse

"DDAWG: You still do not want to acknowledge that MI delegates were taken from her. I understand, you just can not mumble the words even."

I honestly don't understand this line of reasoning. Maybe I'm just not as privy to the rules. But like taken from her? It's not like she owns them. Taken from where? I'm not being snarky. I'm genuinely confused.

And of course people care about the numerical outcome. If Clinton had won the primaries, her supporters wouldn't care about the Michigan voters. If she didn't win, people wouldn't care if every Michigan delegate for triple voting power.

Posted by: DDAWD | August 7, 2008 1:33 PM | Report abuse

"You know it is unfathomiable to me that Hillary is so villified by so many who can not honestly say why they sincerly do not like her."

Speaking for myself...

1) The numerous implications by her campaign that the only reason Obama is winning is because he is black. (Bill in SC, her in Louisiana, Ferraro in general)

2) Trying to tie him with Louis Farrakhan. That was just a despicable, racially motivated scare tactic based on just the most spurious connections and playing to some of the most divisive stereotypes about the Islam religion.

3) Her denigration of people with college degrees. I've got one myself and am working on some other ones. I grew up poor and am still poor. As someone who has tried to improve his lot through education, this was personally offensive to me. It was this line of attack that made me consider whether I would vote for her if she got nominated.

4) Trying to get the outcomes of Florida and Michigan changed. These were rules that she personally agreed to. Before she started losing, she did not have a second thought about these people. Then all of a sudden, these guys all became Ugandi citizens under Mugabi. It was just sickingly dishonest the way she tried to use these people one way and then the other.

5) General racial divisiveness. White Americans? Real Americans? These people wouldn't vote for Obama?

6) Playing on the feminist hopes of the populace. She attempted to make it seem any defeat would be because of gender alone. She cynically used people who wanted to see a woman advance to achieve her own political ends. This still is having ramifications. She made it so that it was a rebuke to her whole gender. That's not the case. This was a rebuke to her, not her gender.

7) Attempting to force her way into the vice presidency. This puts Obama in a tough position. If he takes her, he looks weak. If he doesn't she tries to stoke her supporters from voting for him. If she cared about the people she says she cares about, she wouldn't be pulling this nonsense. Some humility would be nice.

8) Attempting to funnel donations her way. Again, she should be helping Obama. Telling cash strapped donors to settle her personal debt does not help anyone but herself. It makes sense for wealthy donors who have maxed out to Obama and the DNC, but not for anyone else.

This is just speaking for myself, but I'm sure plenty of people who dislike Hillary can draw at least one or two items from the list.

The thing is that none of this stuff really started coming up until later in the primary schedule. I really liked her at the outset of the voting. Yeah, the Bill Clinton comment in SC was bad, but I took it as an isolated incident.

And the 3 AM ad didn't bother me. It was a scare tactic, but it was also a legitimate issue. You've got to be dramatic to get your point across.

Posted by: DDAWD | August 7, 2008 1:28 PM | Report abuse

DDAWG: You still do not want to acknowledge that MI delegates were taken from her. I understand, you just can not mumble the words even.

At the end of the day we all know what happend and the DNC and Obamaaddicts need to stop trying to sell the Clinton supporters. We get everthing that happened and when you can muster up the knowledge to acknowledge then you will be blogging "SORRY" to all of us.

No one cares about the numeric outcome of the votes, just that he was given votes that were not his from some of hers being taken, the 40% who votd uncommited, and the paper ones that were still sealed and mailed in.

Get over it and realize that he is a propelled candidate not one who got their on his own accord.

Posted by: MadisonM | August 7, 2008 1:26 PM | Report abuse

Blarg writes:

"Tamara, you should vote for Obama because he will do the same things as president that Hillary Clinton would have. They both want to get out of Iraq, and protect the middle class, and reform our healthcare system, and fix the problems caused by 8 years of the Bush administration. (McCain, on the other hand, wants to continue the Bush policies.)

But obviously you don't care about any of that. You don't care about this country; you just want to hold a pointless grudge and elect President McCain out of spite. Shame on you."

Blarg -

You just don't get it. You forget that I'm one of those Clinton supporters that believes the DNC "hijacked" Democracy during the Primary. And if Clinton had been given "the nod" over Obama and the DNC showed underhand preference to Clinton the way they did Obama ... I'd be saying I'll NEVER vote for Clinton! I'm most of all saddened that MY party - no longer stands for what it used to - back in the "olden days" --- that would be something called DEMOCRACY.

Posted by: Tamara | August 7, 2008 1:18 PM | Report abuse

blarg write:

"Tamara, you should vote for Obama because he will do the same things as president that Hillary Clinton would have. They both want to get out of Iraq, and protect the middle class, and reform our healthcare system, and fix the problems caused by 8 years of the Bush administration. (McCain, on the other hand, wants to continue the Bush policies.)

But obviously you don't care about any of that. You don't care about this country; you just want to hold a pointless grudge and elect President McCain out of spite. Shame on you."

Blarg -

You just don't get it. You forget that I'm one of those Clinton supporters that believes the DNC "hijacked" Democracy during the Primary. And if Clinton had been given "the nod" over Obama and the DNC showed underhand preference to Clinton the way they did Obama ... I'd be saying I'll NEVER vote for Clinton! I'm most of all saddened that MY party - no longer stands for what it used to - back in the "olden days" --- that would be something called DEMOCRACY.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 7, 2008 1:17 PM | Report abuse

Why does everyone want to say to Senator Clinton supporters that voting for McCain is a continuation of George Bush when McCain's own party disagree with the fact that he is a Maverick and does not toe the party line.

Why isn't anyone telling the DNC that they wasted out time with all of the shenanigans since they already had their party pick. Who are they to tell me screw you because you have to vote DEM because if you do not then you know what the alternative is.

The DNC and OBAMA are not better than Bush who played on America fear after 911 as they are playin on America's pain with HOPE!

They did not beleive party unity just party selection so they and OBAMA can kiss off. I'll Independently give my vote to the candidate of my choice. I may let my fish decide since animals are quasi humans now.

Posted by: MadisonM | August 7, 2008 1:16 PM | Report abuse

"DDAWG: If you are a true Democrat then you would be aware that when it was decided to count Michigan then some of the delegates that belonged to Hillary based upon the percentages were taken away and given to Obama."

Jesus, do you people not realize that the Michigan ballot DIDN'T COUNT?? It just didn't. It was spring training. It was an exhibition game. Nothing was given or taken away from anyone. This whole thing was stupid political theater. Yeah, both of them got some delegates, but the hard, unwritten rule of the R+B meeting was that the outcome would not be changed.

This is not difficult, people. Clinton wanted a rule change and an outcome change. She got the rule change, but no way the outcome would be changed. That would be patently unfair to Obama.

There are a few Clinton people who think the Democrats "took" the nomination from her. The vast majority of people understand its just how the process played out. If the R+B committee changed the outcome of the race, you'd see a far more angry Obama supporters with a legitimate gripe about having the race stolen.

Big difference here. Any idiot can see this.

Posted by: DDAWD | August 7, 2008 1:07 PM | Report abuse

blarg: You need to get that the election process is about the Country before the party. Why don't we just become a one party system of Independents. That way we can truly pick cnadidates based on the issues instead of the party. If we were like this then Hillary would have one hands down as all polls indicated that she would be the better leader but he was liked more.

Dumb Democrats.

Posted by: MadisonM | August 7, 2008 1:06 PM | Report abuse

I am hopeful that, in the end, Senator Clinton's supporters will realize that a vote for John McCain is just a wish for 4 more years of George Bush. When it comes right down to it, that's the bottom line. We cannot afford more polarization in this country, just like we cannot continue to be looked upon in disdain by our European allies. Having John McCain as President is a thought too painful to consider. If Senator Clinton's supporters would remove emotion from their decision, the choice is a distinct one. Barack Obama is the only sane choice.

Posted by: denise | August 7, 2008 1:03 PM | Report abuse

Tamara, you should vote for Obama because he will do the same things as president that Hillary Clinton would have. They both want to get out of Iraq, and protect the middle class, and reform our healthcare system, and fix the problems caused by 8 years of the Bush administration. (McCain, on the other hand, wants to continue the Bush policies.)

But obviously you don't care about any of that. You don't care about this country; you just want to hold a pointless grudge and elect President McCain out of spite. Shame on you.

Posted by: Blarg | August 7, 2008 12:58 PM | Report abuse

You know it is unfathomiable to me that Hillary is so villified by so many who can not honestly say why they sincerly do not like her.

You hear that she is divisive and care about herself. Well I say that she is the best and strongest example that we have of a Democrat.

Against all odds, she finished the race. She did not quit. And, she did not give up on her 18 million.

As a matter of fact, you do not hear her telling Obama's 17 [not 18] million to get over the fact that he must contend with her. She is not saying that you will put my name on the ballot or else I am going to turn the party up side down.

No, she came out in a historic four days after the last primary and emphatically endorsed Obama and begained to unify to party by asking her supporters to jump on board.

Yet, she is still be villified and attacked by the ignorant and cult from Obama's camp.

She is the one who was not treated fairly by the media while Obama got a pass most of the time except for the Rev. Wright and the bitter people media blitz.

You people are a joke and Hillary is the real thing.

So you GET THIS: Hillary Clinton and her supportes will be formaly acknowledged, respected, restored, and dealt with with honor or Dems will have hell to pay.

If Barack is who the party wants then fine, but no more will we accept the Hillary bashing as a means for him to get to the oval office.

Again, they just need to do what is right and let the party move forward.
End of story.

Posted by: MadisonM | August 7, 2008 12:55 PM | Report abuse

nclwtk - Don't paint all Clinton supporters with the same brush that *Girl deserves. The bulk of us understand it was a good fight, she lost, and is supporting Obama strongly.

It's kinda weird. It's like the captain of the football team broke up with the head cheerleader. They worked it out just fine, but friends of him/her are the bitter ones.

BB

Posted by: Fairlington Blade | August 7, 2008 12:50 PM | Report abuse

nclwtk writes:

"Hillary's deranged supporters (We want our way or we'll ruin you cause we dont care if we ruin ourselves doing so) reflect the narcissism that is cancerous in our society."

No, the narcissism is running high on your end. The fact that you can't see that for most Clinton supporters and their choice to not support Obama - it's a choice of Country before Party. And it's the narcissism of the Obama supporters that keeps them from seeing this. This is a country that was supposedly founded on the idea of Democracy - it's not ALL about just electing Obama.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 7, 2008 12:49 PM | Report abuse

Oboe: The DNC did not follow the rules. After all when they realized how stupid they were and that they needed MI and FL to win then they went against there own rules.

How do you tell Deomocrats that there votes do not count in the primaries but give them to us in the general.

Dumb DNC's failure to fix this problem initially only benefited Obama in the end.

And the party is still suffering because of the ignorant Howard Dean and Nancy Pelosi.

Posted by: MadisonM | August 7, 2008 12:40 PM | Report abuse

The only folks wronged in this case are the people who consider themselves Democrat. Hillary (Its all about me) Bill (It has to be about me or I will pout) and Hillary's deranged supporters (We want our way or we'll ruin you cause we dont care if we ruin ourselves doing so) reflect the narcissism that is cancerous in our society. No wonder Obama preaches change, what he sees is the Clinton's pulling down the country to suit thier own inflated egos. They are like a multi head hydra, with a slithery long evil tongue, contaminating everything they touch

Posted by: nclwtk | August 7, 2008 12:39 PM | Report abuse

Jimbo: If the Clinton supporters stay home then what will Obama and the DEmocratic party who are lining up and kissing her rear end going to do less 18 million.

Ger over it and know that just like OBAMA has stated, he need Hillary and Bill Clinton.

Don't ever forget that!

Posted by: MadisonM | August 7, 2008 12:35 PM | Report abuse

DDAWG: If you are a true Democrat then you would be aware that when it was decided to count Michigan then some of the delegates that belonged to Hillary based upon the percentages were taken away and given to Obama.

Additionally, he made a calculated choice to take his name off the ballot and was given delegates votes that very well could have belonged to Edwards or Richardson. We will never know.

And finally he was given the votes of the sealed mail in ballots because they assume those people would have voted for him.

You OBAMA supoorted are pure idiots.

Posted by: MadisonM | August 7, 2008 12:31 PM | Report abuse

Hopefully the clinton lovers will just stay home in Nov. we don't need them. Hillary lost the nomination and is unsuitable for VP or any other executive office. This is the clinton's "surge" to try and usurp the process and steal the nomination for hillary. She knows this year is her one and only chance to get into the whitehouse and she will do anything to get there.

Posted by: Jimbo | August 7, 2008 12:27 PM | Report abuse

MadisonM wrote:At the end of the day, people will not acknowledge that Hillary Clinton was wronged by the Democratic Party..
_____
You mean 'cause the DNC followed the rules? She wasn't entitled. We have what's called a democracy. Obama got more votes. He won. She knew the rules, and ran a bad campaign. She lost.

If you still care about the issues that made you admire Clinton, then you will vote Obama. If you care about spite, then you vote McCain. Unless you already were a republican.

Posted by: Oboe | August 7, 2008 12:25 PM | Report abuse

DDAWD writes:

"...I just wish she would do more to try and defuse the whole thing. Her behavior is probably just hurting the people she is professing to want to help. I think the party was starting to come together..."

Do more? Are you kidding me? If I was Hillary I'd have left the democratic party months ago. I think she's a saint for having sucked up a "fixed" primary and doing as much as she has to be a "good democrat".

Obama followers ... there are 3 more months until the election ... and it's only going to get worse for Obama. Obama will continue to make mistakes and go back on his word. And I'm still waiting for him to tell my, a Clinton supporter, WHY I should "follow" him. He hasn't reached out to the everyman/woman Clinton supporters - only the high end Clinton supporters who have money to give him.

He's nothing "new" ... he's not promoting "change" (FISA, off-shore drilling, guns, abortion and all the rest). IMO he's a liar and will change his stance on an issue at the drop of a hat just to get elected. He has NO backbone.

Dissent among Clinton supporters will only grow after the convention in Denver. The DNC and the media want everyone to think there is party unity - but it will NOT happen. I've voted Dem for the last 38 years and I will NEVER vote for Obama. First, he's not qualified and second ... I will NOT be told I have no where else to go by the DNC. And, I will not support the DNC's treatment of Hillary Clinton during the primary ... nor their desired to "hijack" democracy during the primary.

Posted by: Tamara | August 7, 2008 12:24 PM | Report abuse

"At the end of the day, people will not acknowledge that Hillary Clinton was wronged by the Democratic Party"

That's because it isn't true.

Listen, you half-wits can keep replaying the primary process that Hillary lost because she doesn't know how to run a campaign, and the rest of the adults in the Democratic party will work on getting Barack Obama elected. If you want to get in the way, fine, but you'll be handled like any right-wing attack dog will be handled.

Shut up and get on board.

Posted by: bondjedi | August 7, 2008 12:23 PM | Report abuse

Wow, people weren't kidding when they said Hillary is a divisive figure, were they? I just wish she would do more to try and defuse the whole thing. Her behavior is probably just hurting the people she is professing to want to help. I think the party was starting to come together. The vast majority of Clinton supporters became Obama supporters. Not surprising. Obama supporters would have done the same.

But she is what she is and its just something the country will have to work around. I think we're up to the task.


But can someone explain to me how Clinton got delegates taken away from her in Michigan? She started with zero. Is there some weird rule where you can get negative delegates?

Posted by: DDAWD | August 7, 2008 11:55 AM | Report abuse

The Obama camp is angry about letting Clinton have access to the normal and classical process of placing her name in nomination, like male candidates of her calibre have always been able to do, because their candidate is so weak and so is his support.

Obama has hit a wall and can't break free from McCain's close numbers. Meanwhile, the press is writing column after column wondering why the electorate isn't more enthusiastic about Obama and the Obama camp is going to try to break with tradition and keep Clinton's name out of nomination and deny her roll call.

Why? Because Obama's a weak and uncredible candidate for President and always has been.

The Democrats would win many more elections if the media were forced to be muzzled during election years, only allowed to report on facts, not their opinions. The liberal media dominates the Democratic party's nomination every election year, as they comprise the most vocal, visible and omnipresent demographic of the Democratic party electorate. Every election year they push some shallow, affected, deeply flawed elitist on the Democrats and then wonder why the rest of the Democratic electorate: blue collar, moms, seniors, etc. turn out give significant vote blocks to the less affected candidates that the Republicans nominate.

The Democratic party would be much more successful if the shallow, ADD and phony liberal media types didn't dominate their nomination contest every election year, because they pick out and push the most shallow, affected phonies on the rest of the Democrats as our nominee.

Posted by: AsperGirl | August 7, 2008 11:48 AM | Report abuse

Based on the comments of Obama supporters they seem to want Obama to follow the Africa tradition that you become president for life. And if you're not for us, we'll get you.

I do not trust, snake oil selling medicine show con man OBama. I do not trust him in his cult building as is so often obvious from the whines of his supporters.

Members of his cult maybe convinced Obama is the second coming, but I am not naive enough or stupid enough to believe his con man line.

With Hillary out, the best choice for voters is to elect veto proof Democratic majorities to Congress and McCain president. That way we'll have true checks and balances.

It is too risky for the country to elect a Democratic Congress AND OBama president.

Posted by: William | August 7, 2008 11:30 AM | Report abuse

The cult of personality surrounding the Clintons is amazing. People who claim to be Democrats are rejecting the Democratic Party because the Clintons weren't sufficiently respected during the campaign. Naturally, the main sign of "disrespect" is that someone dared to stand in the way of Hillary's coronation as president. How dare Obama run against Queen Hillary! Such arrogance! Didn't he know that it's her turn to be president?

The Clintons are members of the Democratic Party. As such, they're doing exactly what all good Democrats should, by supporting the Democratic nominee. See, there are these things called "issues". Things like the war in Iraq, the potential war in Iran, global warming, the energy crisis, universal healthcare, etc. Some experts consider these "issues" to be even more important than Bill and Hillary Clinton's personal feelings. But not for the Clinton Cult! To honor the holy Clintons, they're going to vote for the Republican candidate, who disagrees with the Clintons on EVERY SINGLE ISSUE! That'll show Obama!

Posted by: Blarg | August 7, 2008 11:29 AM | Report abuse

Why is Team Obama and the DNC sweatin' it?

Q. Why not let Clinton's delegates vote for Clinton if Obama has more?

A. Delegates are not happy.

DNC, not the people, select a losing Presidential candidate every time.

I've had enough!

The DNC and Team Obama, FISA lovin',
faith-based, death penalty expanding,
off-shore drillin',
campaign finance reform avoidin'
are crooks and no Democrats
as far as I'm concerned.

McCain looks pretty good.
At least I know and can trust him.

Dare I say, he has a resume and experience?

Posted by: my opinion | August 7, 2008 11:29 AM | Report abuse

It's sad that we cut off our nose of to spit our face everytime. At the end of the day, people will not acknowledge that Hillary Clinton was wronged by the Democratic Party and Barack has ridden the wave. Like Liberman they chose Obama. Yet unlike Liberman, Hillary remained loyal to the party. She could have turned her back on the party like Liberman and ran as an Independent, which would have effectively split the party in half. She is the best Democrat alive!

At the end of the day, there is no other white man or white woman who could've beat Hillary so the party went with race and a man who is African and White being paraded around as a Black man.

Now he wants to count all of the Florida and Michigan votes. If Obama is feeling that generous and want to right some of the wrongs then he needs to give back the Michigan delegates taken from her and the ones that he did not earn.

No other 2nd runner up has been asked to concede the day of the last primaries or not have their name on the ballot at the convention.

This is unreal and they wonder why you have groups like the PUMA's or Democrats for McCain.

The Dems are stupid and McCain will be the President because we can not do the right thing as a party and just be fair in order to be unified. A good number of Hillary supporters have already gotten behind OBAMA. Why continue to poor salt in the wound? Why are they acting desperate and scarred?

The question is not what Hillary wants, it's what more does the party and Obama want from Hillary and her supporters.

Put her on the ballot as she has earned it.

Posted by: MadisonM | August 7, 2008 11:28 AM | Report abuse

Diane72,
You're about one stupid, slimy racist skank. All you do is try to trash Michelle Obama. She has more class and intelligence than you will come in contact with you whole entire life. You're not convincing anyone to change their vote. You're just reminding people why sometimes abortion is a good idea and why some animals eat their young.

Posted by: TJ IN LA | August 7, 2008 11:28 AM | Report abuse

It's sad that we cut off our nose of to spit our face everytime. At the end of the day, people will not acknowledge that Hillary Clinton was wronged by the Democratic Party and Barack has ridden the wave. Like Liberman they chose Obama. Yet unlike Liberman, Hillary remained loyal to the party. She could have turned her back on the party like Liberman and ran as an Independent, which would have effectively split the party in half. She is the best Democrat alive!

At the end of the day, there is no other white man or white woman who could've beat Hillary so the party went with race and a man who is African and White being paraded around as a Black man.

Now he wants to count all of the Florida and Michigan votes. If Obama is feeling that generous and want to right some of the wrongs then he needs to give back the Michigan delegates taken from her and the ones that he did not earn.

No other 2nd runner up has been asked to concede the day of the last primaries or not have their name on the ballot at the convention.

This is unreal and they wonder why you have groups like the PUMA's or Democrats for McCain.

The Dems are stupid and McCain will be the President because we can not do the right thing as a party and just be fair in order to be unified. A good number of Hillary supporters have already gotten behind OBAMA. Why continue to poor salt in the wound? Why are they acting desperate and scarred?

The question is not what Hillary wants, it what more does the party and Obama want from Hillary and her supporters.

Put her on the ballot as she has earned it.

Posted by: MadisonM | August 7, 2008 11:27 AM | Report abuse

I wish that the Clintons would show a little class for a change. Their behavior is juvenile, at best. Obama is the candidate and will hopefully win in November. The only thing that the Clintons should be doing is giving their whole-hearted support to Barack Obama. Let's unite the Democratic party instead of tearing it apart. Apparently, self trumps country in the Clintons' world. How truly sad.

Btw, I have a nice Hillary nutcracker if anyone is interested.

Posted by: denise | August 7, 2008 11:21 AM | Report abuse

Do we want people like this, no doubt a friend of Michelle Shaniqua Obama, in the White House?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bFunr5TAlMA

Posted by: Dianne72 | August 7, 2008 11:21 AM | Report abuse

HILLARY LOST...PURE AND SIMPLE!
If she has ANY hopes of a political future she'll accept that fact.
SHE HAS NO WAY TO THE WHITEHOUSE...PERIOD!
Even if she manages to thwart Senator Obama's official nomination...then what???? Trust & believe...NO OBAMA SUPPORTERS WOULD EVER VOTE FOR HER UNDER SUCH DUBIOUS CIRCUMSTANCES. So we'd end up with John McCain. On top of that I personally would spend the rest of my life soliciting every African-American I know to vote for the Green Party and NEVER vote Democratic again. The Democrat Party better really think this thing thru. CAN THEY AFFORD TO ALIENATE AN ENTIRE GROUP FOR GENERATIONS TO COME BECAUSE OF 18 MILLION SORE LOSERS??????

Posted by: TJ IN LA | August 7, 2008 11:20 AM | Report abuse

I wish that the Clintons would show a little class for a change. Their behavior is juvenile, at best. Obama is the candidate and will hopefully win in November. The only thing that the Clintons should be doing is giving their whole-hearted support to Barack Obama. Let's unite the Democratic party instead of tearing it apart. Apparently, self trumps country in the Clintons' world. How truly sad.

Btw, I have a nice Hillary nutcracker if anyone is interested.

Posted by: day678 | August 7, 2008 11:19 AM | Report abuse

I would sooner shave my legs than vote for Obama!

Posted by: PUMA | August 7, 2008 11:16 AM | Report abuse

Clinton losers: You backed the wrong horse - get over it. Your candidate ran a crappy campaign, she couldn't handle a campaign staff, she squandered tens of millions of dollars, and her husband (the most interesting thing about her, admit it) couldn't keep his mouth shut.

To the twit who compared Obama's defeat of Hillary to Dewey/Truman - Obama received more votes than Clinton, whereas Dewey didn't outpoll Truman. You are stupid. Stupid, stupid, stupid. Of course, like the Clintons, you blame the media rather than cop to your own stupidity.

Now shut up and get on board.

Posted by: bondjedi | August 7, 2008 11:13 AM | Report abuse

AsperGirl said "If Obama doesn't like the classic and established nomination processes of the Democratic Party..."

When did Obama say this. He played by the rules and won, don't try to make things up.

Victor Flores, no one in Obama's campaign ever called Bill Clinton a racist. Some people who support Obama might have, but he isn't responsible for everything said by people who support him any more than Shillary is responsible for everything said by her supporters of Obama.

Posted by: RealChoices | August 7, 2008 11:12 AM | Report abuse

AsperGirl:

Please check your history books. Hilary Clinton was not the first credible woman presidential candidate.

"In 1872, Douglass became the first African American nominated for Vice President of the United States, as Victoria Woodhull's running mate on the Equal Rights Party ticket." wikipedia

So please don't take away from the achievements of Victoria Woodhull, or other great women, in advancing women's rights in America while you jump on the Hillary Clinton bandwagon.

Posted by: GC4Life | August 7, 2008 11:08 AM | Report abuse

For those of you who keep saying that Senator Clinton "lost" and Obama "won" please turn of your cable news and read a history book.

That's NOT how it works, folks. If you're feeling frustrated, blame MSNBC for erroneously calling the race too soon. They learned nothing from DEWEY DEFEATS TRUMAN. Neither candidate had the amount of delegates needed to win and the Supers can change their mind at any time until they actually cast their vote.

As far as throwing democracy out the window for the sake of "party unity" - well that was a bad idea from the start and has already resulted in a splintered party that will cost the Democrats this election if Clinton is not the nominee.

Because much of Clinton's base are moderates and working class, they are OKAY with voting for a moderate Republican. Unlike the progressives who will NEVER vote Republican. Which part of the base is more likely to change the election? The moderates! It's not rocket science.

Should she get the nomination, Clinton actually is quite progressive - more so than Obama in many areas, which the progressives would have known had they done any research instead of buying into ridiculous race cards and gaffes.

Posted by: Ignorance Isn't Bliss For Everyone | August 7, 2008 11:06 AM | Report abuse

The one smart move Obama has made, and it is the only one, is not asking Hillary to be his vice president. Hillary I plead with you, if you are asked, do not take it. Obama is a loser, and he will lose in November. Please remember how they disrespected President Bill Clinton, accusing him of being a racist, remember how the media especially MSNBC along with the Obama campaign treated you with disrespect, remember how the Democratic leaders stole this nomination from you and pressured the superdelegates to go Obama's way. Hillary, I and your diehard supportors will never forget, and it will start at the convention and will end on November 4, when we do not cast a vote for Obama. Democrats like Gov. Richardson,Senators John Kerry, Clarie McCaskill, Ted Kennedy, Speaker Pelosi, Howard Dean, and pundits like Donna Brazille, MSNBC, we have more power it is called a vote, I will never vote for those back stabbing Democrats ever again. Senator Clinton please sit this one out, America and some Obama supportors are realizing that Obama is not the "one". You were right all along, he is not ready to lead. I love you Senator Clinton and President Bill Clinton, best revenge is just letting your enemies fall apart, and that is what is happening to Obama right now. "HILLARY FOR PRESIDENT in 2012" BLUE VOTER, VOTING RED.

Posted by: Victor Flores | August 7, 2008 10:59 AM | Report abuse

THE CAMPAIGN THAT WOULD NOT DIE

Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!

I turned on the TV, CSPAN, and there are repeated calls for Hillary for VP.

I turned to Fox news, Hillary for VP.

I am afraid to go to CNN, Clinton News Network, for fear of what I might find.

It is amazing to me how a few disgruntled people, with the help of the networks and cable companies, can keep a campaign alive.

To prove that I can lie with the best of them:

I was a Republican who switched to Democrat to support Hillary Clinton, (in the primaries) and if she does not get the nomination, I will go back to the Republican Party and vote for McCain.

So there!!!!!!!!

Did anybody ever count how many Hillary primary votes were actually cast by Republicans? Are the not counted in her totals. Should they be?

Posted by: bewildered | August 7, 2008 10:59 AM | Report abuse

icgirl wrote: "barack is as american as apple pie - raised in the heartland - but he also has the experience most people face today: raised by several family members, strong single mom, has international heritage too"

I beg to differ on your rosy, all-American description of Obama's family history.

Obama's mother was a "second wife" to Obama's Muslim African Arab father, who had a "first wife" at home and to whom he returned after abandoning Obama's mother and his son. In his father's Kenyan culture, it's okay for a Muslim to take multiple wives, and "temporary wives" like he did Obama's mother, but it's NOT legal in the U.S. Barack Obama's father's marriage to his mother was illegal and he is the illegitimate son of a Third World Arab Muslim polygamist.

Furthermore, Obama's mother doesn't strike me as a "strong" woman. She was picked up and dumped by two separate Third World Muslim men, neither of whom were inclined to be a real father to her son. She even sent her son home while she stayed in Indonesia to be with the second man.

Does Obama's bizarre and unhealthy background imply that he'd be a bad president? No. What does is the way he fictionalizes his family and his father in his factually fudging autobiographies and pretends that they were other than what they were.

Posted by: AsperGirl | August 7, 2008 10:55 AM | Report abuse

icgirl: Impressive posts! Got to give props when they are due!

BTW got to remember many of the clinton supporters were never committed to the Democratic party. Many are Republican crossovers that just wanted to see a woman elected president. Even if that woman was their previously dispised "Hilary Clinton."

Posted by: GC4Life | August 7, 2008 10:54 AM | Report abuse

This is why Hillary won't give up on the bid for VP , this case is still pending , and as long as she has a bid for the VP slot she has a way out of this mess , both her and Bill can pull a Pardon out of this if they can get the VP Nomination .... .......Los Angeles Judge Saves Hillary's Presidential Bid

April 25, 2008 -- In the landmark civil fraud case against Bill Clinton in Los Angeles, where the former President is charged with defrauding a Hollywood dot com millionaire to help Hillary Clinton obtain more than $1.2 million from him for her 2000 Senate campaign, Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Aurelio Munoz ruled on Friday, April 25 that Hillary Clinton would not be required to testify in a sworn deposition as a material witness in the case until AFTER the November election!

...read more.

http://www.paulvclinton.com/FEC_complaint_123107.pdf

Subject: Thankfully, the AntiSLAPP motion Bill Clinton filed on June 2, 2008 - which instituted a new freeze on all discovery in this case - was rejected by Judge Muñoz as untimely at the hearing on July 1.

http://www.paulvclinton.com/
July 1 Victory

http://www.paulvclinton.com/FEC_complaint_123107.pdf

Thankfully, the AntiSLAPP motion Bill Clinton filed on June 2, 2008 – which instituted a new freeze on all discovery in this case – was rejected by Judge Muñoz as untimely at the hearing on July 1. Jointly with his AntiSLAPP motion, Clinton had also filed a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. In it, he was asking the court to throw the entire case out, based on Hillary’s prior success in getting dismissed from the case. Judge Muñoz rejected that request as well. Instead, the judge gave Peter Paul permission to file an amended complaint.

In response to this ruling, defendant James Levin withdrew his AntiSLAPP motion, taking it off calendar. So the freeze on discovery is gone, and we are free once again to take depositions, serve interrogatories, and subpoena documents.

Peter Paul’s amended complaint will be filed on 08/08/08 and will be posted here.

Posted by: AJ Mesa , AZ | August 7, 2008 10:50 AM | Report abuse

AND IT MESSED OF YOUR MIND' THAT HILLARY, IS A VERY POPULAR' WOMEN IF
YOU COULD GET ELECTED TO ANY THING, THEN MAY-BE YOU COULD TALK, AND KNOW WHAT
YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT; THE WASHINGTON-POST
AND CNN,WITH WOLF' AND BIG MOUTH JACK' HAVE
JUST ABOUT TALK= OBAMA'HUSSEIN'IN TO THE
DIRTY-HOUSE''

Posted by: RUGMAN | August 7, 2008 10:45 AM | Report abuse

I hope that Barack Obama does not offer Hillary Clinton the vice-presidency. In the unlikely event that he does, I hope that she refuses.
I'm interested in seeing whether he can deliver on all of the promises he's made on his own merits. Let him go ahead without a ready-made scapegoat for any failures.

Posted by: Linda Leigh | August 7, 2008 10:45 AM | Report abuse

RealChoices wrote: "if you don't like caucuses, then move to abolish them BEFORE the election is held."

If Obama doesn't like the classic and established nomination processes of the Democratic Party, that male candidates have engaged in for decades, then he should get out of the Democratic Party instead of denying it to the first credible female presidential candidate.

Posted by: AsperGirl | August 7, 2008 10:44 AM | Report abuse

Everyone,

Do you realize that some folks that are Clinton supporters are actually Republicans that hate McCain and jumped onboard the Clinton bandwagon to push to get the first woman elected president. They never had any commitment to Democrats or their policies. Sowing the seeds of discord in the Democratic party to either get Clinton back on the ticket as the presidential nominee, Veep, or McCain elected would be considered a win in their book.

They totally disregard that Clinton ran a horrible campaign that spent more money that Obama raised (Obama made records with his fundraising). She was the front runner and her campaign lacked the strategic vision that this might be a long campaign and she would need to attract a wide variety of voters. Ironically McCain did the same thing in 2000. He squandered a leed and GWB got nominated.

I also like how people keep think Obama supporters speak for Obama or assume what Obama likes, dislikes, or is affraid of. When Reid, Pelosi, and many others wanted Clinton out of the race when it was mathematically improbable for her to win the majority of the pledged deligates, Obama said that Clinton has a right to keep running her campaign. Also Obama has asked doners to help pay for the Clinton campaign debt. Which has caught him some flack from his supporters because it is percieved that Clinton could have bowed out sooner and minimized her debt.

If Clinton is a committed Democrat she will not try to support her ego. If others' names in the past were on the ballots in the convention so should hers, however there should not be a push to undo what has been done. Also, women should be happy that support Clinton's policies, because Obama and Clinton policy-wise are pretty much the same, and much closer aligned than Clinton and McCain.

One thing that one of the posters claiming to be AsperGirl pointed out was how racist the woman's movement has been and can be. Why should it matter that it's a white woman? Shouldn't Asian, Hispanic, Arab, and black women's voices be listened to? A lot of times the feminist movement focuses on just white women not all women. Back in the early 1900's black women were told to stand in the back of the marching parade so that sufferageists could attract support of segregationists to push through women's sufferage legislation. Anyway, it's is all very interesting. PUMAS should let go, but it is fully their right not to. Clinton, though, is an idiot if she doesn't let go.

Posted by: GC4Life | August 7, 2008 10:39 AM | Report abuse

All these Hillary Clinton supporters are delusional. Obama is the nominee of the Democratic Party and has been so for two months.

The Republicans are hoping for a Roll Call at the Democratic Convention. This would greatly aid them in there anti-Obama speak.

Unfortunately, the organizers of PUMA and 18 Million Voices are Hillary extremists who have maxed out there $2300 per person campaign contribution early on in the primaries. These rich folks want to stir up contention in the Democratic Party because they know that they won't have the next president's ear if it is not Hillary.

If the members of PUMA and 18 Million Voices really want to help Hillary, they should be contributing up to the max, $2300 per person, to pay off Hillary's campaign debts and personal loans! This is what Hillary really wants at this stage, but for her to bluntly say it would diminish her in the eyes of so many voters who saw Hillary as 'one of us'.

Posted by: Obama-Junkie | August 7, 2008 10:34 AM | Report abuse

mpwynn@spro.net, if you don't like caucuses, then move to abolish them BEFORE the election is held. You don't change the rules after the fact because your candidate lost.

Posted by: RealChoices | August 7, 2008 10:26 AM | Report abuse

Senator Obama used his Chicago strong-armed political strategy to seize the outcomes of Democratic caucuses across this country in order to defeat Senator Clinton.

Here's what one senior citizen wrote in the state's leading newspaper about the caucus system in Idaho: 'As a senior citizen I am concerned about the political process that is taking place. An elite few are selecting our presidential candidates. Caucuses are not practical for the elderly. Many of us don't like to drive after dark or can't walk a long distance on icy sidewalks. Then we are locked into a room for hours while others convince us to vote for the person of their choice. The whole process doesn't sound very democratic. I feel cheated that I have not had a voice in this election. We seniors have to fight to maintain our independence and dignity, but you won't find anyone more patriotic. I flew my flag before 9/11 and am still flying it."

It's voters like this Idahoan, all across this country, who continue to have doubts about the Democratic Party, the Primary process, and Obama, and will continue to do so right up to election day on November 4. Unless Senator Clinton is his choice for Vice President, he will lose his bid for the Presidency and rightfully so.

There are millions of Clinton supporters in this country who are both appalled and outraged at how Hillary and President Bill Clinton's legacy and contributions to this nation were demeaned and used against both of them by the Obama campaign. Obama's loyalty is only to himself. That's why you won't see President Clinton go anywhere near Denver in late August. Behind the scenes, Obama and the DNC leaders have made it quite clear he is not welcome and that they want to downplay as much as possible Hillary's role at the Convention.

We will not forget in November.

Posted by: mpwynn@spro.net | August 7, 2008 10:21 AM | Report abuse

Given the state of things in the race right now that shows Mr. Obama being unable to shake Mr. McCain, despite the horrible ratings for the President and the mood for change in the country, perhaps the democratic Party should take pause and consider if sending forth Mr. Obama is, or is not really a "roll of the dice".

Now that he has exposed himself to be no different than any other politician when it comes to changing his mind (even though he calls his actions by a different name--"redefinition", and he has taken to calling people of the other party "ignorant"; and given the slew of books coming out about him with information that so far is not being challenged, it could be that many super delegates and pledged delegates are considering what would be in the best interests of the party and the country.

It is true that Mr. Obama suggested he would give the delegates of Michigan and Florida full voting rights at the convention, just as Senator Clinton wanted when it mattered; however, to do it now comes off as being disingenuous. If the move had been approved by the Rules Committee of the DNC, then Mr. Obama, most likely, would not have had enough delegates to be declared the "presumptive" nominee at the end of the primaries and caucusses. Also, since the Rules Committee stated that they would not make a decision that would put one or the other of the candidates over the top, the fact that without the 59 delegates (four of which were taken away from Senator Clinton), Mr. Obama would not have had the required number of delegates to claim victory, either with the halfvotes for Michigan and Florida, and certainly not with full votes for those states' delegates.

The democrats must now decide whether Mr. Obama is, or is not a greater risk than Senator Clinton for permitting the democrats to win the next election that is theirs to lose. Perhaps a roll call at the Convention might be the only way left, now, to unite the Party to ensure the victory in November 2009.

Posted by: CalP | August 7, 2008 10:19 AM | Report abuse

Keith 1:37am
You got one thing wrong. Surely you meant to say "annoint' and not "appoint."

Posted by: Linda Leigh | August 7, 2008 10:18 AM | Report abuse

wow. the anonymous posters are covering themselves in glory today, aren't they?

barack is as american as apple pie - raised in the heartland - but he also has the experience most people face today: raised by several family members, strong single mom, has international heritage too. there's nothing inherently anti-american about that. if obama wanted to spend his money wisely, he'd pick a night and pay to re-play his entire speech at the last Democratic National Convention. it made everyone who heard it want him to become our president. bar none.

obama helped elect governors, senators, and congresspeople across America last year. everyone wanted him campaigning for them. it was simply phenomenal. that's hard political coin, not ephemeral rhetoric. in fact, getting people into office by appearing alongside them, and raising money for them, is the hardest coin in the realm of politics. and obama has that coin in profusion, and he readily has shared it with aspiring Dems across this country. no one can take that away from him.

his very American life terrifies Republicans to death - why on earth else would they ever hold their noses and tolerate John McCain as their standard-bearer? if they hadn't, Obama would have truly strolled into the White House. the only way they can win is to run the most vicious, anti-American, anti-decency, anti-strength campaign they can muster - and that is exactly the campaign they are waging against Obama. that the Clintons would, by accident or design, help them in this cause is nothing short of abominable.

i think Obama will win this. he's the most genuinely nice politician, with a simply lovely family, that we've seen in ages. i think America wants a loving, truly married, couple back in the People's House, i think we want someone who just rolls up his sleeves and works hard every single day, and i think we want someone who has the vigor and thoughtfulness to regenerate our own national spirit of innovation and committment to excellence. after 8 years of lying, subterfuge, war-mongering, and funnelling enormous contracts to unscrupulous friends, we don't want more of it with McCain.

Posted by: icgirl | August 7, 2008 10:18 AM | Report abuse

A really good article by Victor Davis Hanson on realclearpolitics.com helps sum up the feelings of a Clinton supporter as we approach the convention. For those who feel oversaturated with the fatuous, disingenuous, one-sided, pro-Obama propaganda dished by mainstream media day in and day out, this is a refreshing read:

Hillary's Growing Shadow
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/08/hillarys_growing_shadow.html

Extract:

"If the polls are right, a public tired of Republicans is beginning to think an increasingly bothersome Obama would be no better -- and maybe a lot worse. It is one thing to suggest to voters that they should shed their prejudices, eat less and be more cosmopolitan. But it is quite another when the sermonizer himself too easily evokes race, weekly changes his mind and often sounds like he doesn't have a clue what he's talking about.

"In a tough year like this, Democrats could probably have defeated Republican John McCain with a flawed, but seasoned candidate like Hillary Clinton. But long-suffering liberals convinced their party to go with a messiah rather than a dependable nominee -- and thereby they probably will get neither."

Posted by: AsperGirl | August 7, 2008 10:08 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: scrivener | August 7, 2008 10:08 AM | Report abuse

With all due respect to Senator Clinton's many supporters, the most unifying role she can play at the convention is to place Senator Obama's name in nomination and to ask for acclamation.

Posted by: Tomas | August 7, 2008 10:07 AM | Report abuse

The Clinton campaign's inability to win the nomination has been cast as a blow to women's rights and to equality, instead of as what it is: the loss of the nomination to a rival.

Folks, this is politics--hell, this is life. Senator Obama won the nomination fair and square, and it's our duty as citizens of this democracy to respect the process and the decision it yields.

Posted by: Emlyn | August 7, 2008 8:47 AM
-----------
Obama has won no nomination as of this time, the nomination isn't complete until the convention. Neither Hillary nor Obama received the required number of pledged delegates. Super delegates do not even vote until the convention.

I guess since you say you respect the process then you have no problem with a floor vote at the convention since at this point we have no nominee, just a presumtive nominee. The process has always included a floor vote at the convention to chose the nominee.

I would assume that you would also at this time be pushing the Obama team to stop trying to prohibit Hillary's delegates from attending the convention. You kow, out of respect of the process and the decision it will ultimately yield and all.

Have a nice day now.

Posted by: Danielle | August 7, 2008 10:06 AM | Report abuse

Reading all these posts worries me tremendously. So many people have their heads in the sand.
Don't they realize that Hitler was Germany's "Man of Change"?
He ran on the same platform .... he was going to bring about great changes to benefit everyone. Well, he certainly did! The citizens rallied to support him - cheered him on as they watched in idolization. Sounding familiar? And after all the "changes", we know what happened next.
With Barack we will be asking for bigger government, bigger taxes to support all the "giveaway" programs he is proposing, less money in everyone's pockets, and the loss of even more small businesses. You think big business runs everything now? Just wait!
The government already wants to tell us what light bulbs to buy, how our food should be grown (and who can grow it), what we can and can't wear, what can legally be put into our childrens' vaccinations, etc. Pretty soon we'll be told we can only have so many children (like China already does). Where does it all end?
I have thought and have seen the paralleism between the Hitler campaign and the Obama campaign. It's scary but true.
The people of Germany idolized Hitler and fell at his feet, much like Americans are doing to Obama. Hitler had a hidden agenda as I believe Obama has as well.
There are way to many "unknowns" about Obama. I don't think America really likes this guy that much, they just want change and since McCain is a republican, America automatically tunes him out because of Bush.
McCain is very different from Bush and will be the best candidate to lead America. I pray America will come to her senses and vote Obama out.....if not, America will enter very dark days as did Germany under Hitler.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 7, 2008 9:59 AM | Report abuse

Let's have a little perspective, people.

Hillary Clinton will not be the Democratic nominee. The nominee has already been decided. Several people are hoping that she will somehow get the nomination at the convention. That will not happen. If it were to happen, it would be a disaster for the Democratic Party.

It's not that she's a bad candidate. If she had won the nomination months ago, I'm sure she'd do fine against McCain. But she lost. So if by some horrible miracle she became the nominee, she'd be the weakest nominee in history. The attack ads write themselves: "Even her own party didn't support Hillary Clinton. So why should you?" She'd be a joke. Add in the millions of Democrats who would be disgusted by her perversion of the primary process, and you'd have a total electoral disaster. It might destroy the Democratic Party altogether.

So if you're actually a Democrat, if you actually care about any of the issues Democrats hold dear, stop pushing for Hillary as nominee. That ship has sailed. Barack Obama has basically the same policy positions as Hillary; John McCain has the opposite positions on almost every issue. If you want a Democrat in the White House, support Obama. If you want Republican domination for a generation, keep pushing for Hillary.

Posted by: Blarg | August 7, 2008 9:58 AM | Report abuse

The reason many Clinton supporters will not vote for Obama is because they are embarrassed of him, his life, his unfair tactics and his beliefs. And they still don't know all about him.

1. They don't want a candidate that has been in a twenty year relationship with Reverend Wright and the Trinity United Church of Christ.

2. They don’t’ want a candidate that has a twenty year relationship with Father Pflaeger as his compass in life

3. They don’t want a candidate that went to a church that supports Louis Farrakhan, an anti Semitic racist.

4. They don't want to defend Black Liberation theology.

5. They don’t want a candidate that lies about his relationship with Tony Rezko, the Syrian Criminal that sold his property to Obama and supported his campaign.

6. They don't want a candidate that could work with a domestic terrorist, William Ayers.

7. They don’t want a candidate that Hamas supports.

8. They don’t want a candidate that Farrakhan and the Nation of Islam support

9. They don’t want a candidate that has a wife that has just now realized she was proud of our country.

10. They don’t want a candidate that denies Florida and Michigan their voices

11. They don’t want a candidate that mentions 57 states in his speeches. 50 states in the USA and 57 states in the Nation of Islam (IOC website)

12. They don’t want a candidate that fights unfair and steals Michigan delegate votes from his opponent.

13. They don't want a candidate that is inexperienced, especially dealing with military issues.

14. They don’t want a candidate that considers it a loss to not to be able to attend his anti American, racist Church.

15. They don’t want a candidate that has a “non practicing” Muslim father, but avoids the entire discussion of his father.

16. They don’t’ want a candidate that won’t debate

17. They don’t’ want a candidate that misleads the youth with an ‘Obama girl and her behind in their face”

18. They don’t want a candidate that says he’s an African American and missed the MLK Remembrance Day and the Louisiana Black Caucus meeting

19. They don’t want a candidate that enjoys laughing at sexism

20. They don't want a candidate that switches his position on gun control, FISA, the war in Iraq, religion and government....

21. They don't want a candidate that showcases his daughters on TV shows.

22. They don’t’ want a candidate that has poor judgment.

23. They don’t' want a candidate named; Barack Hussein Obama

24. He is embarrassing.

25. He scares them to death.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 7, 2008 9:56 AM | Report abuse

it will probably happen (her name in nomination) - it will probably start just as the last of the day's soaps are ending, and finish before 7:00 p.m. there's nothing wrong with it, but the clintons are showing great weakness, not strength, in demanding things (esp. as bill witholds a simple affirmation of obama's readiness to lead in an ABC interview in Africa - a petty move that leaves him on the ash-heap, in my view).

in all honesty, i'm simply floored by the hillary supporters' attitudes towards obama. i supported hillary, but now i can't do enough to help obama - he's a great candidate, he's my candidate, and hillary lost, fair and square. in fact, she ticked me off by a) mismanaging the campaign fiscally to an embarrassing degree, b) tolerating way too much surrogate misbehavior which bordered, yes, on racist, and c) not knowing how to gracefully exit the stage. in addition, she is too busy trying to channel the anger of her supporters to properly tamp it down. it's all politically unforgiveable, and as a white woman i will say this - if obama was a white male Dem, she would not have been allowed by the powers-that-be to pull these juvenile stunts. i'm ashamed. and getting furious. i think many D's are. many centrist D's who care about this country and see an obama administration as a great road to the future. her roll call will not be as she imagined, should she actually get one.

Posted by: icgirl | August 7, 2008 9:47 AM | Report abuse

I think the superdelegates( and all those party leaders who easily dissed Hillary) are feeling a little bit red-in-the-face. Oh, they had a real winner on their hands! Oh, thank God they got Hillary off our hands!
Well, guess what you chumps! You should have known that the real fighter was in your sights all the time. You should never disrespect a Clinton.
If, out of some wild script of a movie, Hillary were to get the nomination, it would be the best thing that happened to this party. And, wow, would McCain be scared! Think of all those dollars he'd spent on Obama bassing ads!
I said it before the primaries were over, and I will say it again, Obama will lose if we nominate him.
If we have a chance to change our minds, let's do it now.

Posted by: Samuel | August 7, 2008 9:42 AM | Report abuse

She's playing her political cards the best she can- and that is fine.

Please don't let me hear from Obamites that playing politics is wrong- his whole campaign was playing politics- concentrating on the students and wealthy professionals in caucus states where few people vote and a small number could totally dominate, surpressing even small showings by the Clintons in states where the Dems are dominatantly African American by having advocates throw out the race card and disallowing revotes in the Michigan and Florida primaries is politics. The whole thing was politics. Her final cards before he is nominated is talking about making the convention unpleasant, which she won't do (unlike Saint Edward Kennedy)- she has class and showed it in June. She is trying to secure positioning for her ideas in the platform or for herself to be in the administration somewhere (supreme court?)- which is fine considering she had 18 million votes that she is representing.

But keep hating Obamites- it does the party so well to pick on the woman.

Leon

Posted by: Anonymous | August 7, 2008 9:34 AM | Report abuse

"Real Choices" I wondered the same about that post! Who is really controlling this site? Oh and by the way .......... Hillary LOST! Get over it, we do not need her and the majority of voters said they DO NOT want her as the Democratic nominee. End of story, move on.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 7, 2008 9:33 AM | Report abuse

Sen. Clinton is mistaken when she says that delegates can do this without permission. In fact, the Convention call states that "Requests to nominate a presidential candidate shall be in writing and shall have
affixed thereto the written approval of the proposed nominee" (art. VIII c. 6. a.) She obviously holds leverage and she represents a lot of people and we are a family that must be united, but there will be a limit to her ability to claim that "the people" want this. If she goes along, it will mean she wants to get along. The question is, to what? I know she does not actually intend to go for the nomination. I guess she had it right when she said people are asking the question "What does Hillary want?"

Posted by: FranckJ | August 7, 2008 9:32 AM | Report abuse

She's back? Hah. She was never gone. This election is further proof that the best and brightest rarely achieve the presidency.

Posted by: student41 | August 7, 2008 9:32 AM | Report abuse

THE TRUE MEANING OF A 'JOINT STATEMENT'(?!)

A joint statement! C'mon, Barack, the folks back on the South Side are laughing. Didn't they teach you how to fight? You're the presumptive winner, aren't you? What happened to your "audacity"? Did you happen upon some Barackian Obama-nite and go totally limp?

So Hillary -- You go, girl! Obama is showing himself to be incapable of capturing the presidency, even forgetting for a moment that he lacks the experience to win over the broad electorate. By abandoning his core positions and his claim on the "change" brand, he has revealed himself. The rhetoric, the good looks and the cult-like appeal alone just can't seal this deal.

This "joint statement" fiasco simply confirms to the supers what they already know: if they stick with Barack, they've got an albatross around their necks that will lead the Dems to another defeat -- and won't help down-ticket, either.

Hillary, don't accept the vice presidency, even if Obama offers it. The majority of this party is disillusioned with Obama and sees you as the only salvation. (Of course, Al Gore could have filled the role, but he turned out to be even less of a fighter than Barack.)

Jesse Jackson isn't the only black leader who's no longer down with Barack. With his vacillations, his embrace of widening application of the death penalty when young black men are disproportionately found to be wrongfully convicted, his FISA flip-flop, the gun control one-eighty, and now, an opening for offshore drilling, this guy can't even hold onto his base. How in the world is he going to deliver the White House?

Maybe when Bill Clinton first uttered the words, it wasn't true; but it is true now: "This whole thing is a fairy tale!"


BUT WATCH OUT. BARACK STILL HAS ONE UP HIS SLEEVE: THE "AL" CARD.


Now Hillary won't like me saying this; but if Obama is smart, he'll do a backroom deal with AL GORE, not Hillary. If it looks like Barack is going to be embarrassed by a no-win on the first ballot, he could agree to toss his delegates to Gore in exchange for the vice presidential slot. That's as far into the White House as he's likely to get, given his lack of spine and a once-golden political gut that has mutated into a tin ear.

That would put Hillary away once and for all. He could even leak word of the "deal" with Gore as a pre-emptive strike -- you know, what he wants to do to Pakistan.

But for now, Hillary, not Barack, seems to have the hot hand. Play it out, Hill, don't fold now -- not when the guy across the table already has blinked!

Joint statement! Who is advising Obama on this -- Patty Solis-Doyle? Did she turn out to be a mole? If so, "Well played, indeed!"


WILL THE ELECTION EVEN MATTER? NOT WHEN
GOVT.-SUPPORTED 'VIGILANTE INJUSTICE' SQUADS SUBVERT THE RULE OF LAW

http://www.nowpublic.com/world/get-political-vic-livingston-opinion-expose-state-supported-vigilante-squads-doing-domestic-terrorism

Posted by: scrivener | August 7, 2008 9:29 AM | Report abuse

>> Emlyn wrote: "AsperGirl: Where on earth did you get the idea that I was a supporter of Senator Obama'?"

Below you said:

"So if your political appetite would so easily permit you to willingly and knowingly cast a vote for a culturally stunted, septuagenarian military monomaniac like McCain, then that vote would indeed reflect the total absence of any moral compass."

In the above sentence, you're using all of the dehumanizing, prejudiced arguments against McCain (culture prejudice, age prejudice and anti-military prejudice). You invoke the tribal, dehumanizing, prejudiced memes that are signature of the tribal chatter that goes on among Obama supporters, laughing at McCain because of who he is and not making reference to his qualifications or issues when telling someone else why it's not "moral" to vote for him.

Your reflexively tribal, prejudiced ideas more or less put you in the Obama camp. That's how they talk among themselves. Go look at Dailykos.

Posted by: AsperGirl | August 7, 2008 9:27 AM | Report abuse

She's back? HAH. She was never gone. This election is further proof that the best, brightest, and most effective politicians are rarely elected to the presidency. We need them elsewhere, I think, to perform checks and balances and to make important policies and actions occur.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 7, 2008 9:27 AM | Report abuse

No one won the primary, it was a close delegate race and Hillary won the close popular vote. Obama bought the super-delegates...how anyone can call that fair is beyond me! Why not have a role call of delegates at the convention, since when do they not???? What other convention in our history tried to do it the sleezy way Obama is? Is he afraid of a vote? Maybe he should deal out more money to ensure he still has their votes!Obama is a radical racist without an ounce of experience, I will not vote for such a man!

Posted by: Sherri | August 7, 2008 9:17 AM | Report abuse

AsperGirl: "Your reflexively tribal, prejudiced ideas more or less put you in the Obama camp. That's how they talk among themselves. Go look at Dailykos."

And your reflexively reactionary--and accusatory--tone evidently puts you squarely in the Clinton camp.

There is nothing dehumanizing or prejudicial about defining a candidate for public office by both the products of their actions and the actualities of their selves.

- McCain IS in his seventies and his decision-making will, as such, be informed by a morality learned in the mid-20th century and the conventions of habit.

- McCain IS a white male who, until only very recently, voted against a state holiday commemorating Martin Luther King Jr. (I would know; I used to live in AZ)

- McCain IS a military man who has signaled his intent on maintaining President Bush's policies and waging war with Iran.

These characteristics will have real, determinative effects on his decisions as commander-in-chief and will serve to inform both his methods as a leader and those who he chooses to appoint to high offices.

Consequently, yes, it's my belief that, given the course this country has taken in the last eight years, casting a vote for this individual is absurd and wrong.

It's indeed ironic that you'd employ such a transparently holier-than-thou (one might even suggest, elitist) position in attempting to single out those here who might suggest that they don't approve of Senator Clinton's strategies, methods and ambitions or, for that matter, of those who support her.

The consistent theme in these exchanges is an overarching one of "sour grapes", pure and simple.

Likely unelectable in this climate, but no less deserving of our serious consideration:
http://www.votenader.org/

Posted by: Emlyn | August 7, 2008 9:17 AM | Report abuse

You Hillary supporters are frightening in narrow selfish vision! The woman lost she should be gracious and let the winner BARACK OBAMA have his moment at HIS convention! And she wants him to help her with her campaign debt?!

Posted by: Anonymous | August 7, 2008 9:15 AM | Report abuse

AsperGirl - quit whining about everyone being a racist or an Obama bot. As long as you're going to recommend reading for others, I suggest that you look online. Clinton voters (Hillary's) are just as likely to support him as the winner in previous contests.

Assuming your comeback is that I'm an Obama shill, I voted for the lady. She is. You aren't.

BB

Posted by: Fairlington Blade | August 7, 2008 9:15 AM | Report abuse

Go Hillary! I am counting on a floor riot to upend the cheated-on "deal" and put her rightfully in place. We already had one president slide into place unlawfully. Did not work out so well. My Florida vote didn't count - it will now.
Pumas rock. NoBama! Hillary for President.

Posted by: OrlandoNan | August 7, 2008 9:14 AM | Report abuse

Obama needs Hillary. AMERICA needs Hillary.

As for the title of this article, "She's Back". Thats offensive. I"M offended! Did it occur to you that we miss her and we're glad she's back. Your title has a negative connotation to it.

Posted by: Amber | August 7, 2008 9:13 AM | Report abuse

Go Hillary! If the DNC misses the chance to nominate her this year and actually win this thing, that's on them. We can wait until 2012 if need be.

Obama is looking more and more like the proverbial chicken with it's head cut off -- running around clucking, too stupid to even know that he's dead.

Posted by: Lynn | August 7, 2008 9:12 AM | Report abuse

AsperGirl: Where on earth did you get the idea that I was a supporter of Senator Obama'?

Posted by: Emlyn | August 7, 2008 9:12 AM | Report abuse

How come Scrivener's idiot post remains on top with a time that hasn't occurred yet? Is this blog being run by Shillaryites?

Posted by: RealChoices | August 7, 2008 9:10 AM | Report abuse

Scrivener, go back and crawl under the rock you came out from. Hillary isn't going to get nominated. You are just another bitter dead-ender who'd rather see a Republican win in November if "Saint Hillary" can't have the nomination.

Posted by: RealChoices | August 7, 2008 9:09 AM | Report abuse

Emlyn wrote: "So if your political appetite would so easily permit you to willingly and knowingly cast a vote for a culturally stunted, septuagenarian military monomaniac like McCain, then that vote would indeed reflect the total absence of any moral compass."

Wow, you managed to get cultural and age and professional prejudice all in the same sentence. Obama supporters are the most tribal, discriminatory, non-issue-focused political group ever. I'm surprised you haven't used all the signature inflammatory, dehumanizing labels the Obama camp uses to incite prejudice and class-based contempt against the McCain campaign. Oh, you forgot to point out that McCain is partially lame, from his old POW injuries, too ("McLame"). You can base your political choices on that, too.

Posted by: AsperGirl | August 7, 2008 9:07 AM | Report abuse

What was so "compelling" about Hillary's campaign, and you notice I said Was not is?! It's not like she came out of nowhere and did it all for herself, she rode in on the coat tails of her husband. I am a 48 year old white woman who is sick of listening to this nonsense! Never forget her Serbia lie, it was very insightful in showing her true character.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 7, 2008 9:06 AM | Report abuse

The bitterness of Hillary supporters as expressed by some here would be understandable if Obama had won by cheating. But he played by the rules. So disappointment is understandable but bitterness isn't.

All the bitter talk about going over to the Republican side: is that supposed to teach the democrats a lesson? If so, what lesson? Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned? (Even though she wasn't scorned- she just lost.)

Finally, how can all you Hillary supporters now threatening to vote for McCain reconcile the substantive differences between the two very different set of core beliefs? Did you not notice that Hilary and Barack were on virtually the same side of every debate? Does Hilary's endorsement of Barack mean nothing to you? Why did you believe in her then, but you don't believe her now? Or, at the end of the day, is gender the only issue you really care about?

Posted by: Veritable Quandry | August 7, 2008 9:05 AM | Report abuse

Here we go. The slimeball Clintons are coming out from under their rocks to stir up trouble just before the convention. Obama needs to keep as much distance from Hillary as possible. She is poison. It appears obvious now that she intends to stage a coup to try and take the nomination from Obama. The Clintons are both dangerous and sad people. Obama needs to keep moving forward and he doesn't the clintons or the supporters who can't accept he is the nominee.

Posted by: Jimbo | August 7, 2008 9:04 AM | Report abuse

sorry my last post should have said "present it"

Posted by: Philip Meyer | August 7, 2008 9:03 AM | Report abuse

Anonymous: I take it you're hung up on the Florida and Michigan votes?

I take it that your intent is to blame the Obama campaign for that aberration? Look no further than those states' DNCs; they didn't respect the process (or the voters, for that matter) and it's patently unfair to lay that blame at the feet of the "other" candidate.

Or is there some other Machiavellian political maneuvering that you'd prefer to pin on Senator Clinton's rival? Lay blame anywhere, huh?

Posted by: Emlyn | August 7, 2008 9:03 AM | Report abuse

The people claiming Obama's plan to raise taxes on the wealthy will cause a recession don't want the rest of us to remember that the same claims were made about Clinton's raising taxes on the wealthy, and turned out to be spectacularly wrong. But some of their concern has nothing at all to do with the economy and only has to do with selfish greed, often from people who were born on third base or second base.

Posted by: newageblues | August 7, 2008 9:02 AM | Report abuse

Anonymous, Obama did win the nomination fair and square. If you have evidence to the contrary present, don't just launch lame assertions.

Posted by: Philip Meyer | August 7, 2008 8:58 AM | Report abuse

AsperGirl wrote: "...remember that it's not so hard to switch from a centrist Clinton to a centrist McCain. Why would you assume we'd vote Democratic ticket reflexively?"

Yes, precisely. So if your political appetite would so easily permit you to willingly and knowingly cast a vote for a culturally stunted, septuagenarian military monomaniac like McCain, then that vote would indeed reflect the total absence of any moral compass.

Posted by: Emlyn | August 7, 2008 8:57 AM | Report abuse

from http://nohillaryvp.blogspot.com/

Hillary is still applying pressure to Barack

Although some have concluded Hillary is out of the running as Vice-President her actions seem to be saying otherwise. It has been reported that she will speak the second night of the convention, which is usually done by someone other than the person selected for Vice-President. It has also been reported that she will not ask to have her named entered in for the nomination. However, in a recent public appearance she appears very open to having her name placed in nomination, ostensibly as a sign of “respect” for her supporters.

Although it is her supporters who are saying her name should be placed in nomination, she is doing nothing to dissuade them and then lamely claims “I don’t have total control over this process.” That may be true, but she would seem sincere if she actively discouraged her supporters from placing her name in nomination because of the obvious divisiveness it would cause.

She is also cagey on the Vice-Presidential nomination, claiming she isn’t seeking it but giving reasons why Obama should select someone who, not surprisingly, has what her suppoerters perceive to be her characteristics. Left unsaid is the fact that having the threat of her name being placed in nomination for President, she retains leverage to push for a co-Presidency via the Vice-Presidency.

Posted by: Philip Meyer | August 7, 2008 8:57 AM | Report abuse

Emlyn: Obama won the primaries fair and square?

What rock have you been hiding under?

Posted by: Anonymous | August 7, 2008 8:56 AM | Report abuse

Sounds like more Clinton prevaricating games. It's what they thrive upon and gives them their purpose for living. They need to be careful of what they are doing and saying. As much as the Clintons think they know how to work the system, their extreme belief in their superiority over the laws of God, nature and man prevent them from keeping their pettiness and grudges to themselves. All of their dirt will be on display for centuries to come. The Clinton crowd can't keep even the most innocuous secrets from surfacing.

Posted by: TJK | August 7, 2008 8:54 AM | Report abuse

ASPERGIRL and your ilk:

Your petulant whining may likely give us 4-8 more years of the republicans. You are willing to put this nation in further peril, supporting the haves at the expense of the have nots, because you're in a childish, selfish snit.
My guess is that you are a 40 to 50 year old middle class woman, used to having everything you want and throwing a tantrum when you don't get it.
I'm a 66 year old working professional woman who lived through the struggles the results of which you take advantage of but now want to throw away, to concede to the conservatives.

GROW UP, WORK FOR OUR NATION NOT YOU WHINING SELF AND DON"T YOU DARE TO UNDO ALL MY YEARS OF WORK TO GET WOMEN WHERE WE ARE!

Posted by: Anonymous | August 7, 2008 8:53 AM | Report abuse

Nora L in CA wrote: "Just as FDR, Ted Kennedy, and all her male counterparts have done for hundreds of years, YES, Hillary's name should be put into nomination. What's the harm?"

She's a white woman. Mr. Change and Hope has never spoken to that demographic. In the culture of black liberation theology pushers like Trinity Church, white women live in a world of unearned privilege, entitlement-minded and undeserved respect. The white woman is a symbol of useless, attractive luxury. We all sit on pillows, eat bon bons all day, don't have to work and get acceptance and admiration from society just for being decorative.

The notion that white women have any economic problems, suffer from inequality, suffer from discriminatory abuse or work harder than men to get half the recognition, doesn't penetrate the militant grievance mentality like that of Trinity Church.

Barack Obama, and his supporters, have no idea what point there is to Hillary Clinton's campaign, they think it's only technically "historic" and not compellingly so, they think the aspirations of her supporters and the women's dreams are affectations of bored white women and they are willing to give Hillary Clinton's campaign grudging accommodations that regular men in her position would get only if there is no possibility she and her women supporters could encroach at all on what they see as the public awareness of the only historic campaign this election year: the campaign of the black man.

Posted by: AsperGirl | August 7, 2008 8:52 AM | Report abuse

I don't see a single, solitary man in this video. Is Senator Clinton really a candidate, or merely an icon for the women's movement?

The Clinton campaign's inability to win the nomination has been cast as a blow to women's rights and to equality, instead of as what it is: the loss of the nomination to a rival.

Folks, this is politics--hell, this is life. Senator Obama won the nomination fair and square, and it's our duty as citizens of this democracy to respect the process and the decision it yields.

Show us that you can be mature and responsible voters and that you are capable of putting the interests of the nation ahead of your own. (And insisting that this last-minute political grandstanding--to install Senator Clinton as President--is for the good of the nation is not an answer, nor is it a solution; it merely entrenches us.)

Get over it, move on, come together. There is a far greater task at hand.

Posted by: Emlyn | August 7, 2008 8:47 AM | Report abuse

I thought they had her in a rocking chair wrapped in plastic in some creepy town.

.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 7, 2008 8:35 AM | Report abuse

Clinton supporters should not forget that if they withhold their support from Barack Obama, she will get elected president in 2012.

Posted by: AsperGirl | August 7, 2008 7:48 AM

Hillary Clinton will NEVER be elected President. Those who believe otherwise are deceiving themselves.

Posted by: flarrfan | August 7, 2008 8:31 AM | Report abuse

Right on Aspergirl!!! If we don't fall in line with the messiah, suddenly we shouldn't even be allowed to vote. Huh? Let's just do away with political parties and elections and just annoint him king of kings. Gee, it'll be just like the old Soviet Union where only one name is on the ballot and we can all pretend to vote and they the great messiah can pretend to give a damn about us.

Get real Obamabots. You should have supported Hillary. Dukakis was up by 17 at the beginning of August and Kerry was up by 8. We are going down the tubes because you believed moveon.org Now your chickens are coming home.....to roost!

Posted by: Hillary4me | August 7, 2008 8:21 AM | Report abuse

AsperGirl: You Rock!!! Great Post!!!

Posted by: Anonymous | August 7, 2008 8:16 AM | Report abuse

The first to report this was JustSayNoDeal last week. This has been all over the web for a week and the MSM are now reporting it? I love the way the MSM are on top of things.

This IS big news. And the MSM waits a week to report it. Makes you wonder.

If Obama keeps slipping in the polls and McCain starts passing him, who knows? The DNC Convention may be very interesting.

Afterall, the Superdelegates officially cast their votes at the Convention. The fact that they endorsed Obama during the Primaries is unprecedented. That's because the DNC railroaded the primaries and threw Hillary under the bus.

Don't forget Hillary had more popular votes than Obama and those l8 million cracks in that ceiling are going to come crashing down during the DNC Convention.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 7, 2008 8:12 AM | Report abuse

"Oh, and if lunatic Hillary supporters actually carry through with your threats and vote for McCain, then you idiots do not desrve the right to vote!"

We do have a right to vote, and fortunately, you have only one vote to get your frenetic messiah elected, just like the rest of us.

For Obama supporters who say "Shut up and get on board", remember that it's not so hard to switch from a centrist Clinton to a centrist McCain. Why would you assume we'd vote Democratic ticket reflexively?

McCain's energy policy is frankly much better than Obama's, which is an incoherent jumble of the most gimmicky crap that is worse than doing nothing, like using the SPR and corn ethanol biofuels. Obama's plan to stiffly ramp up taxation is just disastrous during recession/depression conditions and his redistribution of wealth ideas will get nowhere, IMO, because increasing welfare for a poverty class that will not take advantage of what free education opportunities they have cannot benefit from transferred wealth in any lasting way. Obama has slithered all over the political spectrum since Clinton conceded the nomination, and has failed to impress.

We are not your friends anymore. We are not your friends. The fact that "shut up and get on board" is even in your lexicon shows how little recognition you have that we are not on your side anymore.

Posted by: AsperGirl | August 7, 2008 8:10 AM | Report abuse

Aspergirl you are an idiot!

Posted by: l13pa | August 7, 2008 8:04 AM | Report abuse

>>Send Hillary Home: "No AsperGirl, we're sick of posters like you who spout drivel and have no back up. Show is the link to your sources."

Firstly, I'm not interested in carrying on blog conversations with Obama blogging shills. You bots are paid to sit on forums and post pro-Obama material as if they were your own original thought, to make him appear more popular and inspiring than he is, and you're also paid to attack those of the public who post support or opinions your candidate doesn't want up.

Secondly, you have a computer. Do your own reading and research. I'm not interested in getting into discussions with lazy, racist bots who vent such irrational, hateful feelings toward Obama's white opponents.

Thirdly, most of you support Obama because he's black and without regard for his stands and his lack of qualifications. I've tried discussing with Obama blogging shills before, and you don't really care what facts or ideas are, but invitations to discuss with you just lead to getting bashed with verbal abuse.

Posted by: AsperGirl | August 7, 2008 8:02 AM | Report abuse

Oh, and if lunatic Hillary supporters actually carry through with your threats and vote for McCain, then you idiots do not desrve the right to vote! The right to vote is not a tool of vengence, it is about what is best for the country as a whole!

Posted by: l13pa | August 7, 2008 8:00 AM | Report abuse

Of all the responses I've seen to this so far, the following (from HuffPo) seemed most apt:

"Freesia2

Registered Independent here. And I'm hoping that somewhere here can give me information.

Are you the Democratic Party? Or the Clinton Party?

It would help if that were made clear. It's getting a little confusing. I can't tell if the party belongs to a large group, or to Bill and Hillary Clinton exclusively. In which case it would something of the Monarchy party. And I'm not interested in voting for it.

Thanks in advance for the information.

Posted 07:11 PM on 08/06/2008"


I thought running until the end of the primaries was supposed to be the measure of respect Senator Clinton's supporters deserved. Now it's something else?

There are about 9 weeks between the Democratic Convention and the General Election. Isn't it a little risky to be picking this scab so close to the final contest?

I have supported the Clintons in the past, but my priority is for a Democratic President. There is too much at stake for all Americans, Clinton supporters or otherwise.

This gameplay is destructive. And exhausting. I want no part.

Posted by: a | August 7, 2008 7:59 AM | Report abuse

Hillary lost! Get over it! She deserves nothing! Obama won, it is his convention and he is free to choose anyone he wants as his VP! End of story. If the Clinton's ruin 2008 for Obama, Shrillary can forget about 2012!
PS - Bill needs to chill out and GET OVER IT!

Posted by: l13pa | August 7, 2008 7:53 AM | Report abuse

No AsperGirl, we're sick of posters like you who spout drivel and have no back up. Show is the link to your sources. No Clinton, no way.

Posted by: Send Hillary Home | August 7, 2008 7:53 AM | Report abuse

Clinton supporters should not forget that if they withhold their support from Barack Obama, she will get elected president in 2012.

The way Obama's been sliding in the polls, she might be able to get the nomination next month if he drops enough.

Latest news: polls show the public is getting sick of hearing about Obama all the time. That means his popularity is maxed out, since continued exposure doesn't increase the public affection for him. He can only really go down from here. The question is, will he drop fast enough for Clinton to take the nomination away from the egocentric freshman senator?

Posted by: AsperGirl | August 7, 2008 7:48 AM | Report abuse

Obama will do anything to keep the woman who won more votes than he did from being treated the way any men in her position would be treated.

His supporters and camp relentlessly pounded Clinton with hateful, negative politics for just wanting to finish her historic candidacy for the nomination: they felt she shouldn't finish the primary season despite the fact that it was probably the closest primary in history and no man would have dropped at that point.

Now they will explode in anger at her, unloading criticism and verbal abuse -- and probably more sexist bashing -- for wanting to have her name put in nomination and have a roll call. Clinton is only asking for that which every man gets.

Obama is really the most egomanical, chauvinistic candidate possible. His fear of having a woman beat him is written all over the ugliness and bile and divisions his supporters created during the primary season against the Clintons.

Fortunately, it's not just the Clinton supporters who see this side of him now. Others are now starting to see, too, what a personality cult the Obama campaign is and what a shallow, stupid egomaniac the candidate is. By election day, a lot of people in the general electorate will share the opinions of the Clinton supporters of how unsuitable this particular candidate is for the presidency and how unacceptable his supporters are.

Posted by: AsperGirl | August 7, 2008 7:44 AM | Report abuse

I may be a Hillary supporter, but that does not translate into a vote for Obama. If I thought he was the best candidate for the job, I would have voted for him in the primaries.
I don't like either Obama or McCain, therefore I will either vote third party or write in.

Posted by: CR | August 7, 2008 7:12 AM | Report abuse

I think Hillary still has a better chance against McCain than Obama and she is not even running anymore.

Posted by: Moniker | August 7, 2008 6:21 AM | Report abuse

This is the media's dream -- a convention fight. Hillary seems to be doing her best to make it happen. Her delusional die hard PUMA supporters were slowly dying off but now they are all fired up again. I was ready to kiss and makeup with the Clintons but now... it's disgusting.

Posted by: HonestAbe | August 7, 2008 5:20 AM | Report abuse

AsperGirl wouldn't know a real political fact if it smacked her on her head (if she even has a brain). She demands a candidate pay for debt that a reckless and failed candidate (Clinton) brought upon herself, and in her obsessive and stalker-like trance, says that Obama supporters are "hateful". This tool has said nothing but Clinton and RNC talking points, conjuring up polls and numbers that aren't even accurate. This is the mindset of the typical PUMA/fringe/lunatic Clintonite, but AsperGirl takes the cake for her complete failure to grasp the real issues of this race. A hateful and spineless talking point shill like this fool is never going to make any sense.

Posted by: Jon | August 7, 2008 5:02 AM | Report abuse

Hillary is a tool in the hands of NEOCONS, not a Democrat. They are still using her with the promise of paying off her debts if she works to have McCain elected.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 7, 2008 3:42 AM | Report abuse

Once a slime, always a slime.

Clintons gave us Media Consolidation in the hands of 5 major corporations that engage in propaganda for neocons. Blame this for the War in Iraq.

Clintons gave us the Deregulation of The Financial industry/banks (the undoing of Glass Steagall) which caused today's financial collapse and will cost taxpayers over 1T.

The Economic boom of the late 90s had nothing to do with anything Bill did. The internet commercialization would've happened if a monkey was president. I'll give him credit for not doing anything to screw it up, that's it.

and of course, they gave us plenty of SCANDALS.

Keep them away from Obama.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 7, 2008 3:33 AM | Report abuse

whatever.

hillary is adequately pragmatic and diplomatic throughout the entire youtube clip.

she's not going to say, "ladies get a grip. there is no such thing as unicorns and when you wake up tomorrow, unicorns will remain mythical.".

i can't believe i commented on this piece, but Oh Well.

Posted by: egalitaire | August 7, 2008 3:02 AM | Report abuse

Just as FDR, Ted Kennedy, and all her male counterparts have done for hundreds of years, YES, Hillary's name should be put into nomination.

What's the harm?

Chances are the majority of delegates will stick with Obama and everything will look fair and square, so why not do it? It gives voice to the other half of the party.

Should Hillary be VP. You betcha - she EARNED this at the very least.

If she is not VP, then I will not support Obama in Nov.

It will feel as if Obama stole the election and treated hillary and her supporters with total disrespect.

If the situation were reversed, Hillary would offer Obama the VP spot.

Posted by: Nora L in CA | August 7, 2008 2:17 AM | Report abuse

Maybe if Bambi would jus put on that blue dress, all will be well...

Posted by: Freddy | August 7, 2008 2:03 AM | Report abuse

could you imagine Obama pulling this crap... she's have him commit suicide.

Posted by: angriestdogintheworld | August 7, 2008 1:52 AM | Report abuse

I was hoping against hope that, unlike Bill, she would eventually figure out when to get off the stage. Obviously, she won't.

Posted by: Aleks | August 6, 2008 9:07 PM

===================================

best post so far...

Posted by: angriestdogintheworld | August 7, 2008 1:50 AM | Report abuse

It seems Hillary Soprano is getting ready in the pull pen, just in case she is need by Denver. Obama is "BACK IN THE LEAD", but as i have said before McCain will be ahead by Denver, and the Democ"rats" we be in chaos. Bill is doing his thing and having a blast.

VJ Machiavelli
http://www.vjmachiavelli.blogspot.com

Posted by: VJ Machiavelli | August 7, 2008 1:49 AM | Report abuse

This is interesting. I'll definitely be tuned in. As long as McCain doesn't get in next. It is good to see Hillary, when things have sort of calmed down a bit, with much less Tension.

I can understand the disappointment of some of her supporters. If the tables were turned, I'm sure it would be a similar situation for Obama's. I suppose that is a normal reaction.

We must remain with the issues, those who dare.

Posted by: Obama2008 | August 7, 2008 1:48 AM | Report abuse

I have to wonder why since this election ,ALL the rules of the Democratic party have to be changed to accomidate OBAMA??
as stated above it is the policy for the losing campaign gets put in nomination..........And you OB supporters He is only the presumtive nominee!!

Posted by: apachegrl | August 7, 2008 1:44 AM | Report abuse

Yes, of course she and any other candidate who got delegates should be on the ballot. Otherwise, why have elections at all? I can't believe this is even a question. Why is the Messiah afraid of a vote? Or are we supposed to recognize the Greatness of the One and appoint him president for life?

Posted by: Keith | August 7, 2008 1:37 AM | Report abuse

THE TRUE MEANING OF A 'JOINT STATEMENT' II

What if Hillary ISN'T playing for VP OR POTUS?

What if she truly is trying to save the party from what's looking like another defeat?

What if she'd gladly take a SCOTUS seat under a Presidenet GORE?

Barack, do the Gore deal and spare yourself the embarrassment of being the political eunuch who couldn't win on the first ballot and then was defeated by his chief rival on the second.

You're in the White House as veep... you get a slot at the top job in '16... and Hillary gets to chart the nation's legal course as a Supreme.

Everybody wins, especially We, the People. Nobody loses. Except McCain and the GOP.

Do the deal, Barack. It's the only way you're going to see the inside of the White House without taking the tour.

And Hillary, again: do NOT settle for VP. You won't get the office because even if you are on the ticket as No. 2, it may not be enough to prevent another Dem debacle. And if Barack loses with you on the ticket, you're done, too (maybe).

Now if the roles were reversed, the Dems WOULD win. But the only way that would happen is for Barack to surrender after an indeterminate first ballot.

And he might do just that, if he's not smart enough to toss to Gore.

Either way, you're a loser if you accept No. 2 under Barack Obama. Hold out; Barack's a smart guy and he won't let himself go down as the political eunuch of this cycle.

Everyone can come out smelling good here -- if you're willing to fight to the finish!

Posted by: scrivener | August 7, 2008 1:29 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: Anonymous | August 7, 2008 1:12 AM | Report abuse

I hope Hillary is not the VP. She's too good for that spineless empty suit. So far he has not demonstrated that he will stand up and fight for anything important. Campaign finance, FISA, offshore drilling! What a wimp.

We need Hillary.

PUMA!!
TheDenverGroup

Posted by: Carol in Atl | August 7, 2008 1:10 AM | Report abuse

As I remember many other conventions, the losing campaigns generally had the right to put their nominees into the first ballot - somehow, I still have this vivid picture of Margaret Chase Smith having her own little demonstration at the Cow Palace in 1964 while Goldwater was nominated and famously delivered his "extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice" battle cry.

So if the Republicans of our near past can give Margaret her day in the sun, why not give Hilary her moment in the limelight? Structurally, it shouldn't be difficult. Hilary's name is placed in nomination. The convention conducts a roll-call vote. Obama wins, and then Hilary, in a rousing speech for unity, proposes that the entire convention nominate Barack in acclimation.

Everybody gets their voice. Hilary shows real class. The Democrats emerge from the convention with a Kumbaya show of unity.

Posted by: fredlevy | August 7, 2008 1:07 AM | Report abuse

Stevens was indicted for taking in kind kickbacks.
Clinton voted for the Iraq War, and campaigned to extend the US security umbrella to the UAE while she & her husband received millions from a partnership (Yucaipa) with the Emir of Dubai and reported this as ">$1,000" on her disclosure forms.
Why is no one acting on this?

Posted by: Martha | August 7, 2008 1:04 AM | Report abuse

First, Hillary is not the Democrat most qualified to be president or vice-president. Looking at national experience as the sole criteria, as her hard core supporters seem to, Al Gore, Joe Biden, Chris Dodd and John Kerry, among others, are clearly more qualified.

Second, the Clintons need to be at least reasonably good at acting to maintain the semblance of supporting Barack, while hoping he will lose, if those who believe they truly do not want him to win are correct in their assessment. They need to convince a majority of Democrats they tried to help Barack win, as well as hope most Democrats suffer amnesia about this year's campaign and their arguable role in helping McCain win, to dupe enough Democrats to win the nomination in four years. This Machiavellian strategy could prevail.

Third, the Clintons are rich enough to wait four years, not minding a McCain presidency, if this gives them a viable opportunity to win back the White House, Bill Richardson and others have declared they seem to think they are entitled to. However, the rest of the country, at least progressives and moderates will have to endure a virtual third Bush term, with an increase in those without health care, disastrous foreign policies, military interventions, human rights abuses, conservative majority on the Supreme Court, etc.

Posted by: Independent | August 7, 2008 12:41 AM | Report abuse

I have watched as Hillary has whined, complained, manipulated, and lashed-out at everyone throughout her campaign. I am a woman and I am constantly amazed by her lack of graciousness. I know it would have been uncomfortable for her (since she was "owed" the nomination), but she should have accepted by now that IT IS OVER! Sending out signals to her devotees that she isn't opposed to them acting irresponsibly and for her self-aggrandizement is just further confirmation that she is unfit to be President. Unfortunately, I have to admit that the Republicans had her correctly pegged all these years.

Posted by: smarti1 | August 7, 2008 12:22 AM | Report abuse

How is she the most qualified ? The Senate years count, but the White House years are only osmosis (Laura Bush is qualified by that standard). She didn't even read the NIE before the Iraq vote. She read the polls (like almost all of her Demo colleagues) and succumbed to the pressure. I'll agree that she's tough, but if she is the VP nominee, watch the evangelicals rise up and swat us down just to spite the Clintons.

Posted by: MoveOn | August 7, 2008 12:20 AM | Report abuse

Sen. Obama is nothing but a big "empty" and “meaningless” media production. Take his trip abroad for example. What he was doing was “pretending” like a head of state that he’s not. This sort of thing suits Barack Obama very well. This is what Barack Obama is all about; pretending and pretending who he’s not. I try to listen to him seriously. But to me he sounds hollow and empty. I don’t think he has new ideas or plans. The best he could do if he becomes the president try to reinstate Clinton Administration. That’s the best suggestion he had come up so far. Sen. Hillary Clinton would have done a much better job of that. But Sen. Obama has lot of people cheering for him in the media. That because this sort of “pretending” is what the media is all about. The "image" is everything for the TV and movie people. People in the media don’t care for "truth" or "substance." They have no use for that. That's why we have so many crisis plaguing our country; I don’t think the big media is interested in what’s happening to us. I think the media is also exploiting Sen. Obama. In media terms "image" of younger black man is very desirable and marketable. He's the kind of man who's the "flavor of the season" for the American media people. But to me this sort of blind media adoration is very scary. For a moment take away the stylish TV images of Sen. Obama. You will instantly realize that Sen. Obama's ideas for our country is nothing out of the ordinary. He's certainly not a great political figure like MLK or JFK. But he borrow their words, actions, even try to mimic events that were part of. His claims greatness is all on TV; without the hard work! But TV people don’t mind. In fact they love it. Sen. Obama doesn't say anything, new, useful or substantial. He says the most inane and obvious things! For the most part Sen. Obama is just a very ordinary "copy-cat" politician. He claims to be MLK and JFK. But in reality he's almost nothing. Did he say anything "new" in Berlin? He said that “All walls should come down!” That was said by Kennedy and Reagan before. And many others said such things before them. Did he have any useful ideas for Israelis or the Palestinians? At 10, Downing St, he talked about gas prices and mortgage crisis in America? How absurd? He went abroad to “act” like our president. This is like “pulling wool over your eyes.” That’s what Fredrick Nietzsche called this sort of fraudulent play acting. But isn’t he the one who want to “change” this kind of political fraud? He was acting like a former president. But he's only a candidate; It's not ok to act like a "head of state" when you're not. That's obviously fraudulent. Obama is a mimic man. It would be helpful to understand a politician like Barack Obama if you read V.S. Naipaul's novel "Mimic Men." It's a story of political imitator; a tragic story of an ordinary politician's accidental rise to power in a time of crisis. Overwhelmed by media images we are ignoring reality; I feel with Sen. Obama we have another crisis or tragedy in the making. There are so many red flags, but in the midst of this swoon created by the media images of Barack Obama, we are missing the critical points! The obvious fact that nobody points out is that Barack Obama was best helped by George Bush. As far as I am concerned Barack Obama could be the worst thing that can happen to our country in long time. I feel our media people are ignoring “truth” and “reality” and as usual leading America over the cliff. Remember Albert Camus said ‘No choice is also a choice!’ That’s what I think of McCain and Obama. Once again, our broker primary system has delivered two lousy, floundering candidates for president…

Posted by: elytis | August 7, 2008 12:17 AM | Report abuse

What is everyone so afraid of? Why is this election being regarded differently from all those of the past? Everyone has an opinion - and that's to the good.

If Hillary's supporters want to put her name up at the convention, let them. According to the rules, they are entitled. They need no permission from anyone, including the DNC and other people like bloggers, MSM, biased media, and commenters on blogs like this one.

And if her supporters can pull it off, that means the convention delegates agree, and she's on center stage again. Maybe her prescence will bring some life back to the process. These two presumptive candidates have no fire and no good ideas. The back and forth is wearying.

Of course, Barack can stop this in its tracks if he has the gumption to choose Hillary as VP - worry about Bill later. As POTUS, he shouldn't have to worry about Bill with her in the VP slot - he'll have won the prize and he and his campaign will be energized with her on board. Think about it - she's really the most qualified and the best choice.

Posted by: jblee | August 7, 2008 12:02 AM | Report abuse

This election should be about the past versus the future. Reaching back to the 90s to grab a Clinton for VP defeats the most powerful message that Barack can offer. The Clintons need to accept their role as the foundation for Barack to build on, but not weigh him down with the Clinton baggage. Tim Kaine is the guy.

Posted by: DemoDevil | August 6, 2008 11:57 PM | Report abuse

Hillary was always going to get the #2 slot. Their closed door meeting in June wasn't just for theatrics. He offered her VP, and she's taking it.

The rest of the vetting process has been the real theater here. Think about it. She dropped off the map as a VP candidate. She's barely campaigned at all for him in favor of retiring her campaign debt. She's just now beginning to appear on the scene again, with the convention looming.

The PUMA crazies are probably soiling themselves with excitement, thinking that she's going to stage a coup in Denver and seize the nomination. But she's smarter than that. If she pulled it off, she's got a lot to lose.

If she won in November (an unlikely scenario, because the divide amongst Dems would be solidified), she'd be ok. However, if she lost, she'd be a pariah. It would end her political career, and her next four years in the Senate would be her last.

I suspect that this is an Obama/Clinton set piece.

Posted by: JamesCH | August 6, 2008 11:54 PM | Report abuse

THE TRUE MEANING OF A 'JOINT STATEMENT'(?!)

A joint statement! C'mon, Barack, the folks back on the South Side are laughing. Didn't they teach you how to fight? You're the presumptive winner, aren't you? What happened to your "audacity"? Did you happen upon some Barackian Obama-nite and go totally limp?

So Hillary -- You go, girl! Obama is showing himself to be incapable of capturing the presidency, even forgetting for a moment that he lacks the experience to win over the broad electorate. By abandoning his core positions and his claim on the "change" brand, he has revealed himself. The rhetoric, the good looks and the cult-like appeal alone just can't seal this deal.

This "joint statement" fiasco simply confirms to the supers what they already know: if they stick with Barack, they've got an albatross around their necks that will lead the Dems to another defeat -- and won't help down-ticket, either.

Hillary, don't accept the vice presidency, even if Obama offers it. The majority of this party is disillusioned with Obama and sees you as the only salvation. (Of course, Al Gore could have filled the role, but he turned out to be even less of a fighter than Barack.)

Jesse Jackson isn't the only black leader who's no longer down with Barack. With his vacillations, his embrace of widening application of the death penalty when young black men are disproportionately found to be worngfully convicted, his FISA flip-flop, the gun control one-eighty, and now, an opening for offshore drilling, this guy can't even hold onto his base. How in the world is he going to deliver the White House?

Maybe when Bill Clinton first said uttered the words, it wasn't true; but it is true now: "This whole thing is a fairy tale!"


BUT WATCH OUT. BARACK STILL HAS ONE UP HIS SLEEVE: THE "AL" CARD.


Now Hillary won't like me saying this; but if Obama is smart, he'll do a backroom deal with AL GORE, not Hillary. If it looks like Barack is going to be embarrassed by a no-win on the first ballot, he could agree to toss his delegates to Gore in exchange for the vice presidential slot. That's as far into the White House as he's likely to get, given his lack of spine and a once-golden political gut that has mutated into a tin ear.

That would put Hillary away once and for all. He could even leak word of the "deal" with Gore as a pre-emptive strike -- you know, what he wants to do to Pakistan.

But for now, Hillary, not Barack, seems to have the hot hand. Play it out, Hill, don't fold now -- not when the guy across the table already has blinked!

Joint statement! Who is advising Obama on this -- Patty Solis-Doyle? Did she turn out to be a mole? If so, "Well played, indeed!"


WILL THE ELECTION EVEN MATTER? NOT WHEN
GOVT.-SUPPORTED 'VIGILANTE INJUSTICE' SQUADS SUBVERT THE RULE OF LAW

http://www.nowpublic.com/world/get-political-vic-livingston-opinion-expose-state-supported-vigilante-squads-doing-domestic-terrorism

Posted by: scrivener | August 6, 2008 11:53 PM | Report abuse

Let us not forget that Shrillary and her overbearing, incompetent advisors continued to fight in the primary, when their chance of winning was zero; but, during this futile period she continued to run up her campaign debt because she refused to accept reality. Why in the h___ should she now expect Obama to help pay off this foolishly incurred debt???????????

Moreover, she and her husband, Slick Willy, need to get over the cold fact that they no longer control our Demo party. A new sheriff is in town, and his name is Barack Obama. Their present behavior gives credence to the the race for Prez was never about the people and our Demo party it was all about this selfish, divisive couple. Please go away.

Posted by: Forrest Gerard | August 6, 2008 11:49 PM | Report abuse

Is there something about the Gallup and Rasmussen polls? Every other poll has Obama winning by at least five percent. Those two polls always have Obama with a 1 or 2% lead and even the infamous 4% McCain lead.

Posted by: DDAWD | August 6, 2008 11:48 PM | Report abuse

Vwcat - I'm curious. Exactly why does the media want HRC as the veep pick? Absent a rather entertaining Tom Toles cartoon awhile ago, I haven't seen much cheerleading for that outcome. Heck, she even dropped off the Top 5 in the Post's Veepstakes.

Bill has grumbled a bit (can noone shut him up?), but Hillary has been a model citizen. Being a recalcitrant defeated opponent didn't hurt Reagan or Teddy Kennedy in the long run. If she's such a calculating shrew, it seems staging a nasty floor fight to cripple Obama in hopes of picking up the pieces 4 years later would be her strategy. It worked for Reagan in '76.

So, all the bitter enders and gloating Republicans will just have to endure a convention of smiles. So sorry to disappoint you.

BB

Posted by: Fairlington Blade | August 6, 2008 11:44 PM | Report abuse

The healing needs to happen now for the good of the country. We need a unified party to win. I couldn't care less at this point about the delicate egos of Hillary, Bill, or Barack. Suck it up, make a plan, and DO NOT waste my campaign donations on an embarrassing foodfight in Denver.

The candidates are NOT who this is about. The American public is. Let's just do a good convention, stop massaging the huge egos, and get out of the starting gate with maximum power as we head down the racetrack this fall.

John Kerry has been a model in his campaigning for Obama. Any Democratic leader by this point should be doing the same. To see all this ugliness re-emerge among the Democrats after a month and a half of relative civility makes me physically ill. Let's care about the country for a change, shall we?

Posted by: Fed Up | August 6, 2008 11:43 PM | Report abuse

"call 312 819 2008 ( obama headquaters ) & tell him hillary is the only logicla choice.. even pat buchanan and david gergen say clinton can seal the deal for obama"

EVEN PAT BUCHANNAN???

Well, golly, I'm right on it. If Patty-B says so, it must be true.

Posted by: DDAWD | August 6, 2008 11:35 PM | Report abuse

Chris, I know the media, like the right, wants Obama to pick Hillary for vp.
It is not going to happen and no matter how hard to try to push it, it's over.
Obama is probably going to decide, if he has not already, on vacation next week and Hillary is not on that list.
Besides, with the seriously damaged way a few of her supporters have behaved, no on in their right mind would pick Hillary and have to deal endlessly with that.
No candidate or president should have to deal with Bill. His dubious business dealings alone is embarrassing. But,his out of control behavior is also a nightmare.
And then the few hard core supporters of Hillary's are just too psychotic to even have to worry about dealing with them.

Posted by: vwcat | August 6, 2008 11:32 PM | Report abuse

Hillary speaking to a backyard full of bitter haters. Whoopee. Next, she'll be opening for Spinal Tap.

Shut up and get on board.

Posted by: bondjedi | August 6, 2008 11:28 PM | Report abuse

Have you ever seen the Renoir, Idiot Typing at a Computer? Sounds real familiar.

BB

Posted by: Fairlington Blade | August 6, 2008 11:23 PM | Report abuse

It's so obvious that a certain someone has a crush on Michelle Obama...

Posted by: Anonymous | August 6, 2008 11:18 PM | Report abuse

Has anyone seen the painting entitled "Negress lying down" by Rembrandt. It reminds me of a particular someone...

Posted by: Dianne72 | August 6, 2008 11:15 PM | Report abuse

Starry, I think Obama already knows. He sent a letter to the DNC on August 3 requesting that the delegations be seated in full.

I recognize it's a moot point as the crucial vote took place this spring. However, Clinton already knew that even if she won that fight (she wouldn't have), she still wouldn't catch Obama for delegates. Hence, the concession in DC.

Now, if someone would just shut Dianne up. I'm afraid she'll slip into honky speech any moment now. Whoops! Too late. Oh well. Every bridge has to have a few trolls under it.

BB

Posted by: Fairlington Blade | August 6, 2008 11:07 PM | Report abuse

Take a good hard look at the polls .. obama is floundering in all the major battleground states.... he is NOW dropping in the national polls ... mccain is a tough candidate and obama needs to come out swinging ... he needs clinton as VP to energize that 18 million + base and win those battlegrounds.. romney will be the vp for mccain and can deliver michigan which is a must win for the dems... call 312 819 2008 ( obama headquaters ) & tell him hillary is the only logicla choice.. even pat buchanan and david gergen say clinton can seal the deal for obama .. get close a third time is not what barack wants .. clinton gets him across the finish line....

Posted by: susan | August 6, 2008 11:03 PM | Report abuse

She has to negotiate to have her name put into nomination, which has been standard procedure in the past? Oh, that's right, she's a woman and therefore not afforded the same rights as men. Just like she was constantly pressured to quit, had to endorse Obama immediately, when in the past it has been months before the opponent endorsed, if at all, some of her votes were given to Obama by the DNC, and now is not given the respect due of a real roll call which has always been done in the past. The sexism in this election has been unbelievable, and the fact that people don't speak out about it even more so. No supporters of a male candidates ever had to start an organization such as The Denver Group. Puma

Posted by: rrowing | August 6, 2008 11:02 PM | Report abuse

If Hillary sinks Obama in 2008, she is finished in 2012. Selfish acts are not rewarded, and losers don't get to run twice. Obama won this nomination under the rules, and the Clintons lost. They executed poorly, shocking given their so-called experience in the process (having won in the same system twice). It's time to take the loss and move on. If you like Democratic ideas, vote for Obama. If you don't then sit out and let McCain take our country into an even deeper hole.

Posted by: DemoDevil | August 6, 2008 11:02 PM | Report abuse

Have you ever noticed how it pains Michelle Shaniqua Obama to sound articulate when she speaks? It's almost as if at any moment she will slip back into ghetto-speak and start ranting about "whitey". This is probably what we will see when they release the "whitey" tape in October.

Posted by: Dianne72 | August 6, 2008 10:54 PM | Report abuse

Given the two resumes, Obama's lack of experience, rather blank resume and dubious connections, Hillary needs to do what ever must be done to insure he is not nominated.
Just can't see why WJC would want to to run again, but he does know what it takes and the type of character needed. I suspect he must be frightened at the prospect of an Obama presidency.

Posted by: starryperdun | August 6, 2008 10:44 PM | Report abuse

Many people have believed for several months with the subject openly discussed on MSNBC and CNN, the Clintons, especially the former president, do not want Barack to win, so they can try again for the White House in four years. With Senator Clinton continuing to try to focus attention upon herself and Bill Clinton's obvious resentment at Barack winning the nomination, this seems very plausible.

Posted by: Independent | August 6, 2008 10:33 PM | Report abuse

"But the problem is, unless the Democratic convention does the unbelievable and rejects Obama and nominates Hillary (who was beyond a doubt the best candidate in the race), we've got two very poor choices."

It's only possible if his numbers crash really badly over the next few weeks.

Posted by: AsperGirl | August 6, 2008 10:26 PM | Report abuse

First she'll want her name placed in nomination, then she'll want to be VP, and if they win, she'll probably want to give the inaugural address and sit in the Oval Office. Give her an inch, she'll take a mile. The last thing the Dems need is a night of "catharsis" that would likely include unfair shots at our nominee that will be used in McCain's commercials. As for the campaign debt, it was her choice to overspend her campaign budget from day one, and to continue the campaign after she was mathematically eliminated. If her 18 million supporters each send her $1.50, her debt will be retired. Have you sent your share yet?

Posted by: DemoDevil | August 6, 2008 10:24 PM | Report abuse

"Clinton: "Delegates can decide to do this on their own, they don't need permission, they can decide under the rules of the DNC. I think it would be better if we had a plan that we actually put in place."

I think that would be appropriate. There's a no chance Obama will agree to share the stage with the woman who dared challenge his Audacity. It might impinge on His Glory to remind people that she got more votes than he did, too.

I'd say there's zero chance she will get anything but pro formal lip service from Obama and her delegates should just do what they want and are entitled to do.

Posted by: AsperGirl | August 6, 2008 10:22 PM | Report abuse

Thanks BB, Obama and I must be the last to know, just this week he stated that he thought Michigan and Florida votes should be counted at the convention... I'll have to let him know....

Posted by: starryperdun | August 6, 2008 10:19 PM | Report abuse

But the problem is, unless the Democratic convention does the unbelievable and rejects Obama and nominates Hillary (who was beyond a doubt the best candidate in the race), we've got two very poor choices.

Posted by: Coldcomfort | August 6, 2008 10:17 PM | Report abuse

Geez, starry, keep up with the news before you post. The FL and MI delegations are getting a full vote. Pay attention!

BB

Posted by: Fairlington Blade | August 6, 2008 10:12 PM | Report abuse

aspergirl....are you old enough to vote? your comments are so juvenile.

Posted by: easyenough | August 6, 2008 10:10 PM | Report abuse

"what is obama afraid of?"

A woman beating him.

Posted by: AsperGirl | August 6, 2008 10:09 PM | Report abuse

If she wants to respect her supporters, she should fight Obama's nomination. Obama has come to bury civil rights.

Posted by: Andrew Austin | August 6, 2008 10:08 PM | Report abuse

"Kennedy, Kerry, and even Howard Dean had there names placed in nomination."

Yeah, but they aren't bitc***. Hillary Clinton's a woman not a man. Didn't the Obama campaign make that clear? They were outraged she decided to finish the primary season. There is zero oxygen, recognition or acknowledgement of her existence that they want to give her. Now Bill Clinton, the man, is another story. They really really want his words of approval for Obama's qualifications.

Posted by: AsperGirl | August 6, 2008 10:07 PM | Report abuse

Personally the United States of America has no right to hurt hard working Iraqis or people of the world. The USA has to remove itself from the Arabian world now and stop supplying McDonald eating Jews with weapons, they should build their own. I have not authorized any American weapons to be used by Jews to attack Egypt. As far as I know it was a Spanish president that freed the black slaves of the USA, that white American women are ignorant and like black whatevers behind the backs of their white husbands... that must be true. The whole world must be playing along. HAHAHAHAH

Posted by: Amado Castaneda | August 6, 2008 10:05 PM | Report abuse

It's really unreasonable for Obama to expect her to campaign with him when she has to work to retire her campaign debt. He hasn't really helped and so she needs to put her own time to her own fundraising.

And the last thing she needs right now is to own his down-spiral. She should stay as far away from the sinking ship as possible. If she's anywhere in stone's throw as he slides in the polls, his craze, hateful supporters will blame her somehow.

Posted by: AsperGirl | August 6, 2008 10:04 PM | Report abuse

This is nuts. She should be soliciting donations for Obama, not herself.

Posted by: DDAWD | August 6, 2008 9:56 PM | Report abuse

put her name in nomination.
what is obama afraid of?

Posted by: bz | August 6, 2008 9:56 PM | Report abuse

Whether she does or she doesn't request that her name be placed for nomination the outcome will not change. Obama is the Democratic nominee. She does risk permanently losing the support of the other 18 million voters who did not choose her this time, by keeping the focus on herself (remember the South Dakota primary night) and her voters. She would do the party a great service to keep the message that she had in her official concession speech. She must put the party's needs first and her own second.

I am interested in recognizing her historic run in terms of women's suffrage accomplishments. But our efforts have to be to do everything possible to move quickly from the past (Clinton) to the future of the party-Barack Obama and to get him elected.

Posted by: SRB | August 6, 2008 9:53 PM | Report abuse

I don't know what the problem is with the Obama camp (They are negotiating her role). Kennedy, Kerry, and even Howard Dean had there names placed in nomination. Many of her supporters and super delegates feel her name should be placed in nomination. If he really wants the party unified he will let her name be in nomination.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KjmYd8snPfQ

Posted by: tlatexaspuma | August 6, 2008 9:51 PM | Report abuse

GO Hillary, each vote should count, including Florida and Michigan...not a half vote.... B H O is scary.
Barack Obama's Stealth Socialism
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Monday, July 28, 2008 4:20 PM PT
Election '08: Before friendly audiences, Barack Obama speaks passionately about something called "economic justice." He uses the term obliquely, though, speaking in code — socialist code.


IBD Series: The Audacity Of Socialism


During his NAACP speech earlier this month, Sen. Obama repeated the term at least four times. "I've been working my entire adult life to help build an America where economic justice is being served," he said at the group's 99th annual convention in Cincinnati.

Democrat Barack Obama arrives in Washington on Monday. On the campaign trail, Obama has styled himself a centrist. But a look at those who've served as his advisers and mentors over the years shows a far more left-leaning tilt to his background — and to his politics.
And as president, "we'll ensure that economic justice is served," he asserted. "That's what this election is about." Obama never spelled out the meaning of the term, but he didn't have to. His audience knew what he meant, judging from its thumping approval.
It's the rest of the public that remains in the dark, which is why we're launching this special educational series.
"Economic justice" simply means punishing the successful and redistributing their wealth by government fiat. It's a euphemism for socialism.
In the past, such rhetoric was just that — rhetoric. But Obama's positioning himself with alarming stealth to put that rhetoric into action on a scale not seen since the birth of the welfare state.
In his latest memoir he shares that he'd like to "recast" the welfare net that FDR and LBJ cast while rolling back what he derisively calls the "winner-take-all" market economy that Ronald Reagan reignited (with record gains in living standards for all).
Obama also talks about "restoring fairness to the economy," code for soaking the "rich" — a segment of society he fails to understand that includes mom-and-pop businesses filing individual tax returns.
It's clear from a close reading of his two books that he's a firm believer in class envy. He assumes the economy is a fixed pie, whereby the successful only get rich at the expense of the poor.
Following this discredited Marxist model, he believes government must step in and redistribute pieces of the pie. That requires massive transfers of wealth through government taxing and spending, a return to the entitlement days of old.
Of course, Obama is too smart to try to smuggle such hoary collectivist garbage through the front door. He's disguising the wealth transfers as "investments" — "to make America more competitive," he says, or "that give us a fighting chance," whatever that means.
Among his proposed "investments":
• "Universal," "guaranteed" health care.
• "Free" college tuition.
• "Universal national service" (a la Havana).
• "Universal 401(k)s" (in which the government would match contributions made by "low- and moderate-income families").
• "Free" job training (even for criminals).
• "Wage insurance" (to supplement dislocated union workers' old income levels).
• "Free" child care and "universal" preschool.
• More subsidized public housing.
• A fatter earned income tax credit for "working poor."
• And even a Global Poverty Act that amounts to a Marshall Plan for the Third World, first and foremost Africa.
His new New Deal also guarantees a "living wage," with a $10 minimum wage indexed to inflation; and "fair trade" and "fair labor practices," with breaks for "patriot employers" who cow-tow to unions, and sticks for "nonpatriot" companies that don't.
That's just for starters — first-term stuff.
Obama doesn't stop with socialized health care. He wants to socialize your entire human resources department — from payrolls to pensions. His social-microengineering even extends to mandating all employers provide seven paid sick days per year to salary and hourly workers alike.
You can see why Obama was ranked, hands-down, the most liberal member of the Senate by the National Journal. Some, including colleague and presidential challenger John McCain, think he's the most liberal member in Congress.
But could he really be "more left," as McCain recently remarked, than self-described socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders (for whom Obama has openly campaigned, even making a special trip to Vermont to rally voters)?
Obama's voting record, going back to his days in the Illinois statehouse, says yes. His career path — and those who guided it — leads to the same unsettling conclusion.
The seeds of his far-left ideology were planted in his formative years as a teenager in Hawaii — and they were far more radical than any biography or profile in the media has portrayed.
A careful reading of Obama's first memoir, "Dreams From My Father," reveals that his childhood mentor up to age 18 — a man he cryptically refers to as "Frank" — was none other than the late communist Frank Marshall Davis, who fled Chicago after the FBI and Congress opened investigations into his "subversive," "un-American activities."
As Obama was preparing to head off to college, he sat at Davis' feet in his Waikiki bungalow for nightly bull sessions. Davis plied his impressionable guest with liberal doses of whiskey and advice, including: Never trust the white establishment.
"They'll train you so good," he said, "you'll start believing what they tell you about equal opportunity and the American way and all that sh**."
After college, where he palled around with Marxist professors and took in socialist conferences "for inspiration," Obama followed in Davis' footsteps, becoming a "community organizer" in Chicago.
His boss there was Gerald Kellman, whose identity Obama also tries to hide in his book. Turns out Kellman's a disciple of the late Saul "The Red" Alinsky, a hard-boiled Chicago socialist who wrote the "Rules for Radicals" and agitated for social revolution in America.
The Chicago-based Woods Fund provided Kellman with his original $25,000 to hire Obama. In turn, Obama would later serve on the Woods board with terrorist Bill Ayers of the Weather Underground. Ayers was one of Obama's early political supporters.
After three years agitating with marginal success for more welfare programs in South Side Chicago, Obama decided he would need to study law to "bring about real change" — on a large scale.
While at Harvard Law School, he still found time to hone his organizing skills. For example, he spent eight days in Los Angeles taking a national training course taught by Alinsky's Industrial Areas Foundation. With his newly minted law degree, he returned to Chicago to reapply — as well as teach — Alinsky's "agitation" tactics.
(A video-streamed bio on Obama's Web site includes a photo of him teaching in a University of Chicago classroom. If you freeze the frame and look closely at the blackboard Obama is writing on, you can make out the words "Power Analysis" and "Relationships Built on Self Interest" — terms right out of Alinsky's rule book.)
Amid all this, Obama reunited with his late father's communist tribe in Kenya, the Luo, during trips to Africa.
As a Nairobi bureaucrat, Barack Hussein Obama Sr., a Harvard-educated economist, grew to challenge the ruling pro-Western government for not being socialist enough. In an eight-page scholarly paper published in 1965, he argued for eliminating private farming and nationalizing businesses "owned by Asians and Europeans."
His ideas for communist-style expropriation didn't stop there. He also proposed massive taxes on the rich to "redistribute our economic gains to the benefit of all."
"Theoretically, there is nothing that can stop the government from taxing 100% of income so long as the people get benefits from the government commensurate with their income which is taxed," Obama Sr. wrote. "I do not see why the government cannot tax those who have more and syphon some of these revenues into savings which can be utilized in investment for future development."
Taxes and "investment" . . . the fruit truly does not fall far from the vine.
(Voters might also be interested to know that Obama, the supposed straight shooter, does not once mention his father's communist leanings in an entire book dedicated to his memory.)
In Kenya's recent civil unrest, Obama privately phoned the leader of the opposition Luo tribe, Raila Odinga, to voice his support. Odinga is so committed to communism he named his oldest son after Fidel Castro.
With his African identity sewn up, Obama returned to Chicago and fell under the spell of an Afrocentric pastor. It was a natural attraction. The Rev. Jeremiah Wright preaches a Marxist version of Christianity called "black liberation theology" and has supported the communists in Cuba, Nicaragua and elsewhere.
Obama joined Wright's militant church, pledging allegiance to a system of "black values" that demonizes white "middle classness" and other mainstream pursuits.
(Obama in his first book, published in 1995, calls such values "sensible." There's no mention of them in his new book.)
With the large church behind him, Obama decided to run for political office, where he could organize for "change" more effectively. "As an elected official," he said, "I could bring church and community leaders together easier than I could as a community organizer or lawyer."
He could also exercise real, top-down power, the kind that grass-roots activists lack. Alinsky would be proud.
Throughout his career, Obama has worked closely with a network of stone-cold socialists and full-blown communists striving for "economic justice."
He's been traveling in an orbit of collectivism that runs from Nairobi to Honolulu, and on through Chicago to Washington.
Yet a recent AP poll found that only 6% of Americans would describe Obama as "liberal," let alone socialist.
Public opinion polls usually reflect media opinion, and the media by and large have portrayed Obama as a moderate "outsider" (the No. 1 term survey respondents associate him with) who will bring a "breath of fresh air" to Washington.
The few who have drilled down on his radical roots have tended to downplay or pooh-pooh them. Even skeptics have failed to connect the dots for fear of being called the dreaded "r" word.
But too much is at stake in this election to continue mincing words.
Both a historic banking crisis and 1970s-style stagflation loom over the economy. Democrats, who already control Congress, now threaten to filibuster-proof the Senate in what could be a watershed election for them — at both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue.
A perfect storm of statism is forming, and our economic freedoms are at serious risk.
Those who care less about looking politically correct than preserving the free-market individualism that's made this country great have to start calling things by their proper name to avert long-term disaster.

Pasted from

Posted by: starryperdun | August 6, 2008 9:50 PM | Report abuse

Clinton's request is unrealistic. Obama is not a sharing kind of guy, and he has nothing to give her, no help retiring her campaign debt, nothing. And he's far to egocentric and stage-hogging to consider allowing her name to be placed in nomination and have a roll call. That would involve admitting that he didn't blow out the nomination process and sharing the national stage. He can't have any other presence in the backdrop of his historic nomination event, not even that of the one who got more votes than him.

Posted by: AsperGirl | August 6, 2008 9:48 PM | Report abuse

What stage are you talking about? This is a video from a fundraiser. She was asked a question and she answered it.

Relax.

Posted by: ajain | August 6, 2008 9:37 PM | Report abuse

Otherwise, we will be dealing with resentment all the way up to the November election.

Posted by: Christina | August 6, 2008 9:21 PM

That ship has sailed.

Posted by: Fishdeath | August 6, 2008 9:24 PM | Report abuse

Personally, I don't see what the problem is - with having her name put in nomination. She won't have enough delegate votes to get the nomination, so the Obama folks can cool their jets on that scenario.

This is clearly an opportunity for her and her supporters to be heard, to have their votes recording in history - and then we all move on.

What's wrong with this?

Hillary Clinton worked very hard in the primaries and deserves this.

The Obama folks need to just let this happen. Otherwise, we will be dealing with resentment all the way up to the November election.

Posted by: Christina | August 6, 2008 9:21 PM | Report abuse

Funny, that was my reaction on seeing that *perGirl was posting again. Perhaps you can meet up at 37th & O with Zouk and share a few Iowa treasures. Then, of course, go golfing with JakeD.

Up the Blades!

Posted by: Fairlington Blade | August 6, 2008 9:17 PM | Report abuse

How dare you show a blonde white woman juxtaposed with a mention of Barack Obama in the same piece. And what is that black tubular thing in her hand supposed to mean?

You are a racist subliminally coding up fears of Obama doing bad things to Hillary Clinton.

Posted by: AsperGirl | August 6, 2008 9:13 PM | Report abuse

Lol

Posted by: JakeD | August 6, 2008 9:12 PM | Report abuse

I was hoping against hope that, unlike Bill, she would eventually figure out when to get off the stage. Obviously, she won't.

Posted by: Aleks | August 6, 2008 9:07 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company