Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

DNC Officials Huddle With Clinton, Obama Campaigns

In an attempt to kick start the general election contest before the party has picked its nominee, Democratic National Committee officials have met in recent days with the top campaign brass of Sens. Barack Obama (Ill.) and Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) to brief them on the committee's plans in the coming months.

DNC chief of staff Tom McMahon and political director Dave Boundy met yesterday at Clinton's Ballston headquarters with Guy Cecil, political director for the New York Senator's bid, and Howard Wolfson, one of the campaign's chief strategists, among others. A similar DNC delegation huddled with senior officials from the Obama campaign several weeks ago.

The discussion, according to DNC communications director Karen Finney, centered on the field plan the national party is implementing for the fall campaign, a rough outline of the DNC's strategy in regards Sen. John McCain (Ariz.) -- the committee and the presidential candidates cannot directly coordinate on messaging -- and plans to form joint committees to raise money both for the nominee and the DNC.

As first reported by The Page's Mark Halperin, a deal has been reached between the DNC and the Obama campaign that will allow donors to write a single check to a joint fundraising committee, which will then parcel out the cash between the candidate and the committee. No such deal has yet been reached with the Clinton campaign although conversations are ongoing.

"We are in general election mode at the DNC at this point," said Finney when asked about the meetings with the two campaigns. "We can't wait."

The gatherings are the latest sign of an increased campaign presence by the DNC and its chairman -- former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean.

Earlier this week, Dean announced a new "Neighborhood Volunteer" program in which residents in all 50 states have pledged to speak to their neighbors about the need to elect a Democrat in the fall. Dean said more than 50,000 people have already signed up for the program.

The DNC is also now on television with an ad that seeks to paint McCain as out of step with the average voters when it comes to the economy. Talking Points Memo notes that the DNC is spending $500,000 on the ad campaign, a sizable chunk of the $5.3 million the committee showed on hand at the end of March.

That dearth of cash has led many Democratic strategists to worry that the DNC can't possibly keep up its anti-McCain messaging in ads until a nominee is selected. The hope in many circles is that Progressive Media USA, a liberal independent group, will fill the void as they have begun to do with commercials currently running in Ohio.

Dean, himself, acknowledged earlier this week that the lack of a nominee presents a serious challenge but insisted it in no way impedes the efforts of the DNC to prepare for the fall election.

"If we had a nominee, we'd be able to do more," Dean said. "The fact that we don't have a nominee doesn't cripple us in any way."

By Chris Cillizza  |  April 25, 2008; 2:20 PM ET
Categories:  Eye on 2008  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Friday Line: McCain's Best Strategic Moves
Next: Colbert vs Stewart

Comments

Check out Howard Dean's interview on the Morning Joe yesterday. We need a candidate by June to unite the party otherwise there's going to be major problems for the dems. Here's the interview.

http://campaigncircus.com/video_player.php?v=9302

Posted by: kberly5768 | April 29, 2008 11:59 AM | Report abuse

If Howard Dean thinks he can pressure and whip the Hillary supporters into submission
for the good of the Democratic Party and on the advice of the Donna Brazilles and other black activists on the DNC, he has made a life changing error in the future of the party. Not only will we not be pressured into backing another candidate when Hillary has the popular vote
(and yes I'm including the legitimate count
of Florida )but is showing in poll after poll that she is the one who can beat McCain. The talking experts(not heads
as they seem not to have any) think we will
fall into line like good little soldiers and the DNC can hand the nomination to Saint Obama without any repercussions come
Nov. Wrong. The exodus from the Democratic Party in this election cycle will be something to tell your grandchildren about. When the chips are down the American people have historically let the so called power brokers know just who is in charge of our elections, re: Ohio,Texas, Penn. This is another of those times. I heard one of the experts declare that after we had our little snit we would come running back into the fold and back the Democratic nominee, which of course he suggested strongly would be Obama. Again, wrong. If it isn't Hillary-forget it. I can only speak for myself, but I daresay their are tens of thousands out there who will join me in voting for a Republican. I won't give up my voting right but I sure as heck can and will cross party lines, and Dean can take his party unity and shove it. He is the most ineffectual Chairman the Dems. have ever had, and like in his campaign for President, he will pull defeat from the jaws of victory.
If Obama is the best the Democratic Party has to offer with all his, his pastors, and his wife's baggage, then lord help us all.

Posted by: Kavanaughl | April 29, 2008 1:02 AM | Report abuse

Chris: I'm interested in finding out who Howard Dean will get to push BILLARY Clinton off the political cliff come June 4th!

Posted by: KYJurisDoctor | April 28, 2008 8:27 PM | Report abuse

The rules of this election were set out far in advance and agreed to by all candidates. Obama looked at what it would take to win delegates and ran his campaign and allocated resources for the win that all agreed would be the win. Then HRC didn't win as she expected and now wants to change the rules and the definition of win. If she is so concerned about the voices of the voters in Mich and Fl, why didn't she fight the decision not to count them in the first place! She won in those states because she is better known than Obama after all her years of "experience." But ask why as voters get to know Obama better in state after state they choose Obama over Clinton? Even the results in PA where Obama was 20 percent or more behind Clinton 3 weeks ago suggests that the more they know about Obama the more voters prefer him over Clinton. Obama's negatives result from half truths and out of context statements, often created by Clinton, which change to positive once the full facts are known. If she is more electable she should have won this thing by now. Facts are that once voters learn about Obama they pick him over the known HRC because she is not electable.

As for the posts that caucuses are not "fair", we in Colorado and other caucus states have been choosing primary candidates under this system for a long time in both parties. They are hardly the unfair mess suggested by Clinton, AFTER she lost them. I have no objections to changing to primary elections, IF THOSE ARE THE RULES AT THE START. To change the rules about how to count votes and choose delegates after we are more 3/4 through the primary is so unamerican, that no one with any sense of fairness can seriously defend it. Can you Defender?

Posted by: margie in denver | April 28, 2008 4:19 PM | Report abuse

Idiots are those who blindly follow Obama no matter what to the detriment of the Democratic Party.

The guy not only needs more experience but if one had learned anything during the last 2 months, it's incomprehensible that Senator Obama had gone this far as a Presidential candidate.

It's a flawed candidacy based on rhetorics and speeches and nothing more. Where's the beef? Yes he's winning but most of these votes and delegates that he collected came from RED states that many experts are saying that it will be impossible for him to win in the General Election anyway.

If he is for real, why can't the big battleground states?

After all these controversies emerged some of my friends who have initially voted for him earlier are now planning to vote for McCain if he becomes the nominee. If true that's a big problem.

Obviously Hillary is a much better candidate for the General Election.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/P/PRESIDENTIAL_RACE_AP_POLL?SITE=KMOV&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

Posted by: Sycamore, VA | April 28, 2008 2:56 PM | Report abuse

Indeed, McAuliffe is a hypocrite and was opposed to Howard Dean's 50 state strategy.. Lilly's quote about McAuliffe's talk with Carl Levin should be spread around. He was practically salivating with out of control excitement on CNN as the Pa. numbers were coming in. He looked like a used car salesman.
As for Obama... he really needs to be much more aggressive in dealing with HC... In that last 'debate' he did not have to be the gentleman and get her off the hook about her elitist statement that she could have stayed home and baked cookies. She was twisting the knife at every opportunity and he tried to act the gentleman.. Maybe he doesn't have a survivor's instinct? Between now and May 6 he had better get some.

Posted by: Don | April 28, 2008 2:36 PM | Report abuse

Four years ago I stopped my monthly $35.00 a month support of the DNC because of the way they treated then candidate Dean, I hope I didn't make a mistake. He, Pelosi and Reid should let the process go on. We use to have democratic conventions that meant something. Boy would I like to see that again!

Posted by: Leonard Williams | April 28, 2008 1:55 PM | Report abuse


What I want to know is when is Bill Clinton going to be vetted? If Hillary does not have the management skills and popularity to win the nomination on her own and needs Bill to come to the rescue and attempt to wrest the nomination away from the nominee who has legally and morally won it within the rules of the nomination process, we can only assume Bill will be one half of a joint Presidency, needing to continue to ride to her rescue in the Oval Office. So when is he going to be vetted? An ex-President back in the White House ... are there rules for how that plays out? Who makes the decisions in the Oval Office? What conflict of interest do Bill's business interests present to the Presidency? Why is no one asking these questions let alone answering them?

Posted by: AC | April 28, 2008 1:46 PM | Report abuse

..... I will not give a penny to the DNC until the DNC shows respect for the voters.

Posted by: Mad as Hell | April 28, 2008 11:42 AM

I am 100% in agreement with you.

Posted by: Michele | April 28, 2008 1:12 PM | Report abuse

Just a wee reminder. Something to drink with your lunch.

Unless the problems with voting machines are addressed before this November, it won't matter who the candidate is or how well they've campaigned against McSame.

I think current count has about 40 states scheduled to use machines that are easily made to record anything other than the real vote.

Email your elected officials and party officials and even the local dog-catcher with:

Fix the voting machines NOW...or get another job.

We're running out of time to fix this problem that threatens the very foundations of our Democracy.

Menopausal Mick

Posted by: Mickss | April 28, 2008 1:00 PM | Report abuse

refrain from the trite use of "women and children" as the ap body county, and identity has been confirmed by both the americans, and the iraqis.

Posted by: almanac kid | April 28, 2008 12:25 PM | Report abuse

associated press, april 28

38 islamists killed in sadr city clashes with american and iraqi troops.

any of you liberals want to comment on this?

Posted by: almanac kid | April 28, 2008 12:22 PM | Report abuse

i just read the above post by michael in philly...

i am amazed anyone would think that hillary has a 'better' chance of winning in november. how, without the black vote, without the independent vote, without the young vote, without the crossover vote?

the republicans will be out in droves to wipe her off the planet. it has slowly floated up to the consciousness of many democrats that the republicans were right about the clintons all along.


obama respects republicans and democrats... she respects no one.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 28, 2008 12:06 PM | Report abuse

You people are a bunch of idiots. The goal is to put a Democrat in the White House come November, period. If there is a single ridiculous conspiracy theory that hasn't been postulated in this frightening post, then I'd like to see it. Not.

Posted by: Martin | April 28, 2008 12:00 PM | Report abuse

I don't know what Caroline K. and Ted Kennedy feel about Obama and his pastor now for making fun of John Kennedy's English Grammar.

This guy is something. Obama a politician? What an astonishing revelation...

Add this comments to his God Damn America and the US Gov't distributing Virus... and you'll have a completely flawed candidate in the fall if he gets lucky to win it still.

What about Michelle Obama's and Barack's comments himself? Does anybody see a repetition of a Michael Dukakis scenario here?

GO OBAMA!!!

We've been loyal democrats in the past but can not vote for him if he becomes a nominee.

Posted by: Sycamore, VA | April 28, 2008 12:00 PM | Report abuse

", a deal has been reached between the DNC and the Obama campaign that will allow donors to write a single check to a joint fundraising committee,"

i will not send one thin dime to the dnc until clinton is gone. the thought of my money going to help her in ANY way makes me feel physically ill.

Posted by: marianne | April 28, 2008 11:51 AM | Report abuse

The reason why the DNC is pushing the joint DNC/candidate fundraising scheme is that the DNC has been unsuccessful in getting donations on its own. Concerned democratic voters who received solicitations for contributions from the DNC have stopped any further contributions until the DNC (1)does everything possible to recognize voters in Florida and Michigan; (2) turn off the push Hillary out tactics; (3)stop the bias in favor of Barack Obama; (4)stop the harrassment of Super Delegates to force them to a premature decision; (5)respect the right of every voter to cast their ballot by supporting the states and territories that have yet to have a primary; (6)Model true leadership by immediately correcting unverified information and biased opinions disseminated by elected democratic party officials, including Howard Dean. I will not give a penny to the DNC until the DNC shows respect for the voters.

Posted by: Mad as Hell | April 28, 2008 11:42 AM | Report abuse

dean is a fxxxup.

Posted by: mikel | April 28, 2008 11:23 AM | Report abuse

Micheal in Philadelphia,

Howard Dean nor other wiser Democrats are not urging Hillary Clinton to drop out yet because whatever the long shot of her winning the nomination they realize that she has the best chance of beating John McCain in November.

With Rev. Wright doing his media tour now it is only continuing to hurt Barack Obama. Yelling in a Texas church that Obama will be the first President to have a Black woman sleeping in the White house legally won't do Obama any good. His answer today that even though Obama didn't have him at his public announcement speech
because Obama was their speaking as a politician but he was there with him that day praying with Obama, Michelle and the family before the announcement won't help Obama either.

The Democrats must begin to face reality. Though Obama does have a chance to win in November, and I will support him if he is the candidate, Hillary has the much better chance and as Steny Hoyer recently said to Democrats, "Keep Your Eyes on the Prize" and that prize is taking back the White House in November.

Posted by: peter DC | April 28, 2008 11:13 AM | Report abuse

What is Howard Dean thinking? I just saw a crawl on MSNBC where he says either Clinton or Obama needs to drop out by June 3rd. Well, why would I donate if my candidate was going to be talked into dropping out.

HERE'S SOME NEWS... THE MOVIE THAT THE GOP CITIZENS UNITED MADE FOR HILLARY IS BEING RENTED ON NETFLIX!!! "Hillary - The Movie" is being rented along with "Hillary Uncensored" The media will not cover the issues in the movies but the word is getting out. I guess they are afraid of the Clinton Legal Team.

Posted by: DEmVoterinMichigan | April 28, 2008 11:12 AM | Report abuse

This board has become a useless republican hate machine.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 28, 2008 9:13 AM | Report abuse

Angie, you're truly a moron... great. Bring us another 4 years of republican failure.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 28, 2008 9:12 AM | Report abuse

I WILL NOT VOTE IN NOV. THEY DONT COUNT OUR VOTE IN JAN. I WONT VOTE I FEEL LIKE A ALIEN NOT AN AMERICAN SHAME ON YOU DEAN YOU LET A REPUBLICAN GOV. RUIN OUR CHANCE TO BE COUNTED AND I WILL NOT VOTE FOR A MAN WHO IS GOING TO RUIN OUR COUNTRY EVEN MORE. HILLARY WON OUR VOTES AND YOU REFUSE TO COUNT IT. WELL IF OBAMA IS ON THE DNC. TICKET I WILL FOR THE FIRST TIME VOTE REPUBLICAN. HOWARD DEAN I HATE [[[YOU]]]

Posted by: ANGIE FROM FLORIDA | April 28, 2008 5:27 AM | Report abuse

"Obama has been a major embarrassment to the Democratic Party. At what point does he stop thinking about himself and step down? We cannot possibly win if he becomes the nominee.

I can't wait to find out the next scandal about him."

How about Larry Sinclair?

Posted by: Anonymous | April 27, 2008 10:29 PM | Report abuse

There's only one thing that would make me vote for McCain come November, the absolutely worst and most racist white and America--hating Democratic Party nominee that the D's could possibly run for office, Barack Obama. Nobody, but nobody stays in a congregation, club, church, synagoge, gang, political party, or whatever for over 20 years listening to the Louis Farrakhan white and America--hating clone Jerimiah Wright's hysterical rantings without agreeing with his, and Farrakhans, message. Barack Obama agreed with the message and never made a peep until he needed the white voters support. Only a very stupid white voter could possibly still support someone like that.

Posted by: once a D | April 27, 2008 9:28 PM | Report abuse

The DNC didn't want my vote in the the primary...they sure as hell not getting it in November....I only hope every democrat in Michigan and Florida feels the same.

Posted by: lucygirl1 | April 27, 2008 3:06 PM | Report abuse

SHAME on Hillary Clinton!
Please read this article:

Clinton Dehumanised
By Mehrnaz Shahabi

The shameful exposition by the American presidential hopeful, Hilary Clinton, of her mass genocidal intentions towards Iranians was tragic proof of the dehumanising impact of warmongering on an elite western mind. It is said that humanity is the first casualty of war and this has been starkly clear, not only in the murderous boasting of the presidential candidate's preparedness to "totally obliterate" an entire nation, to prove her appeal as the American president, but worse still, in the meek and acquiescent response or no response at all of the western mainstream journalists, politicians and intelligentsia.

Where are those super champions of human rights and western liberal values who were so 'outraged' by the announcement of Fatwa on Salmon Rushdie? Does that loud and sanguine defense of "freedom of expression" translate into this blood-soaked acquiesce to the liberty of threatening an entire nations to "total obliteration"?

And compare this complacent silence to the flooding of the airwaves and newsrags with propaganda bombardment over the Iranian president's misquoted "wiping Israel off the map" remark, which has gone on incessantly for two and a half years despite frequent attempts at clarification and correction. Such was the "outrage". Of course, many people take their cues on how to respond to the avalanche of complex news, from the mainstream media itself and politicians. So the silence is a cue heavy with meaning and menace.

The Orwellian double talk and double standards are so part of the fabric of every day political culture that they now go down without the need for a pinch of salt and are comfortably digested. However, when the threat of mass genocide, amidst overwhelming silence or inaudible whimpers, is interpreted as a "gaff" (Timothy Garton-Ash, Guardian 24th April), and a rare objection describes it as "probably imprudent" (Lord Malloch-Brown, Guardian 24th April), this is the unmistakable indication of the deadening of sensitivity and tolerance of violence towards nations who are deemed as 'dispensable'; as in Iraq and in Palestine.

This deadening of humanity is the most serious casualty of the immoral invasion of Iraq in the aggressor countries, and if not recovered, there will be dire consequences for the entire world.

The "Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide", of the United Nations, defines Genocide as "any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group". as such: (a) Killing members of the group; (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; ...".

Hilary Clinton is threatening the destruction of a "whole national group" and by her violent threat is causing them "serious mental harm". In her ABC News interview, she has unequivocally threatened that: "I want the Iranians to know that if I'm the president, we will attack Iran". "In the next 10 years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them." This was in reply to the question on how she would respond if Iran attacked Israel by nuclear weapons.

Not only, according to the intensive IAEA inspections, there is no evidence of Iran working towards weaponisation or indeed any rationale for such a threat, but even if, hypothetically, such a threat existed, the threat of "total obliteration" issued to an entire nation remains an insane and criminal intent. This threat of total annihilation which would presumably imply the use of nuclear weapons is directed against a helpless population with catastrophic consequences. Such an attack would not compensate against any unlikely hypothetical attack from Iran, neither would such a threat act as a fearsome deterrent - as it is claimed to be. Just as it is intended to grab the presidency through fear mongering and to feed the monster of America's continuing wars with paranoia, similarly the impact of such fear in Iranians would be the anxiety to defend oneself against a deranged president and a population that goes along with it. According to the UN definition of genocide, Hilary Clinton is threatening mass genocide of an entire nation of 70 million. Is this violent woman fit to hold the presidency of a country with the most powerful war machine in history? Have we become so dehumanised by our incessant killing that we have lost any capacity for outrage?

With over a million Iraqis and thousands of coalition soldiers killed and maimed, the prospect of Hilary Clinton's presidency, who voted in favour of that illegal and immoral war, and has publicly declared her voracious appetite for mass genocide, is a truly terrifying specter.

A lone voice of conscience, in a readers' letter in the Guardian newspaper (24th April) asks: "What would she do if Israel attacked Iran (which is more likely)?". This is the question Clinton should have been asked and the question she should now be asked by the world community. So should statesmen, politicians and journalists internationally be questioned on their views on the US presidential hopeful's mass genocidal intents.

About the author: Mehrnaz Shahabi is an Iranian-British peace activist, translator and independent journalist.

Posted by: Maya | April 27, 2008 1:24 PM | Report abuse

"The nation's top military officer said yesterday that the Pentagon is planning for "potential military courses of action" as one of several options against Iran, criticizing what he called the Tehran government's "increasingly lethal and malign influence" in Iraq."

Well, here we go again. The administration lying us into another war, a war that was planned by neocons years ago. And people will probably be stupid enough to fall for it again.

Posted by: Sam | April 27, 2008 12:59 PM | Report abuse

It is amazing the hypocrisy of the Hillary campaign. Terry McAuliffe, Clinton's mouthpiece was the DNC president back in the 2004 election.

In an interesting example of how the views of many high-profile Clinton supporters have changed regarding the status of rogue primaries, blogger Mark Nickolas has spotted a key passage from Terry McAuliffe's 2007 book.

McAuliffe recounted how he stared down Sen. Carl Levin's (D-MI) attempt to move up the Michigan primary during the 2004 cycle, and held firm on his threat to strip the state of delegates:

"You won't deny us seats at the convention," he said.

"Carl, take it to the bank," I said. "They will not get a credential. The closest they'll get to Boston will be watching it on television. I will not let you break this entire nominating process for one state. The rules are the rules. If you want to call my bluff, Carl, you go ahead and do it."


McAuliffe is currently a vocal advocate for seating Michigan's claimed delegates, and for counting the popular votes for Hillary Clinton in that state's primary, in which Barack Obama had taken his name off the ballot.

http://www.politicalbase.com/profile/Mark%20Nickolas/blog/&blogId=1950

Posted by: Mary | April 27, 2008 12:44 PM | Report abuse

The Nevada Republican State Convention imploded yesterday when a majority of the participants supported Ron Paul over John McCain. Even the Republicans don't want McCain.
http://www.lvrj.com/news/18312799.html

Posted by: Lilly1 | April 27, 2008 10:33 AM | Report abuse

The Nevada Republican State Convention imploded yesterday when a majority of the participants supported Ron Paul over John McCain. Even the Republicans don't want McCain.
http://www.lvrj.com/news/18312799.html

Posted by: Lilly1 | April 27, 2008 10:31 AM | Report abuse

josh- 0 facts to your argument- Obama and HRC have voted the same on all but 6 bills and you will find that on those 6 if he did not abstain- he voted more conservatively than her. Look it up.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 27, 2008 1:34 AM | Report abuse

Frank Palmer,

Twice as many states? So the 9200 people that voted in Wyoming count as one state equal to the 2,200,000 that voted in NY. The number of states is the dumbest argument around for Obama- let's look at the states he actually won -
Alaska, HA, WA, ID, UT, ND, KS, CO, ME, IA, and MN are caucus states where less than 3% of the voting population showed up. Additionally, he stole delegates in TX with a caucus second vote- these are inherently unfair because they favor people who have the means to get to and spend hours at meeting places- generally students and professionals over everyone else- look at the numbers. So there were 11 of the 30 states he won. Among these, Alaska, Idaho, ND, KS, WY are also among the lowest populated states in the country.

Primary states- LA, SC, GA, VA, ALA, MS are all states where only Democratic registered voters can vote (there are few of them in these states) and the overwhelming majority of the Dem voters were African American- where he runs a 92% voting rate. Those are states, except VA possibly where he does not stand a chance of winning the actual electoral votes- that is 6 more of his states (11+6=17).

Illinois is his home state (18)

This leaves the following states: WI (a great win for him); CT (wealthy/educated population), MD (lge AA population with lge. wealthy/educated pop), MO (won by less than 2000 votes)-22; not counting territories and foriegn living Americans

Now look at the primaries: NH, MA, RI, NY, NJ, PA, OH, TN, AK, OK, TX (pop vote), NM(caucus), AZ, NV(caucus)CA and if they counted FL (fair vote) and MI (unfair vote- but all polling indicates she wins this state)- if everything were counted that is 9 of the 10 biggest states including 1-4 in terms of population.

Please drop the "won more states argument" it makes no sense and makes Obama look like he is playing with words/using the system to subvert the will of the people

Leon

Posted by: Anonymous | April 27, 2008 1:32 AM | Report abuse

I've never voted Republican before but I will not vote for Obama. He lied about his Pastor. He brings his children to a church which preaches hate. He affiliates himself with a man who blew up the Pentagon years ago and runs the Weather Underground. His wife won't allow Princeton University to release her thesis on race relations at Princeton, and the excerpts that were releases speak the same words Michelle Obama has spoken of this nation. Obama speaks as if America owes him something because he is black. He needs to get over the fact that he is discriminated against. I experience discrimination every day because I am disabled and because I am gay. I don't go running around saying "I deserve to be xyz because I have experienced discrimination." I will be voting Republican this year. I am Catholic and completing a PhD.

Posted by: Ray, Mountain View, California | April 26, 2008 11:13 PM | Report abuse

White males don't vote for Obama because he is a freak.

Obama got his money from Saddam Husein's oil for food program.

Is there any surprise? No.

Obama got it from Nadhmi Auchi a Iraqi born London based oil dealer. Auchi laundeered Saddam Hussein's oil from the U.N. oil for food program. Auchi gave it to Rezko a Syrian real estate developer.
Auchi gave Rezko $3.1 million dollars for Obama's campaign.

Posted by: Grace | April 26, 2008 10:19 PM | Report abuse

Obama can't win in November because white males will not vote for him. That is why he lost Ohio, Pennsylvania, California, Florida, Michigan, NY,NJ, Mass. and the rest of the electoral college states.

DEMOCRATS LOSE ANOTHER ELECTION IN THE FALL BECAUSE OF REV. WRIGHT, TONY REZKO, NADHMI AUCHI, DICK CHENEY ENERGY BILL AND OBAMA INCOMPETENCE. OBAMA IS A FRAUD.

If the DNC wasn't so stubborn they would count Michigan and Florida. Voters from Michigan and Florida are voting for McCAin now because their votes were ignored.

Posted by: Grace | April 26, 2008 9:44 PM | Report abuse

Bob Johnson supports the Clinton's and he has a banking business with the
Carlyle Group.

Hilary Clinton talks bad about Bushes policy and she support and voted his way 100%.

Bill Clinton has a non profit organization with Bush Sr. that raised 500 million.

Bill Clinton supports Columbia trade, created NAFTA and has made 105 million in the last five years.

The Clinton/Bushes if you include Bush Sr. VP years will have been in office for 24 years.

The two biggest drug port in the US in Texas and Florida. Jebb Bush Governor of Florida, Bush Jr. Texas.

Walmart the world biggest money lauderer is from Arkansas and Bill Clinton the Governor of Arkansas.

Oil $20.00 when Bush took office. Oil closing near $120.00 barrel!

Carlyle Group, the world's second- largest private-equity firm, is poised to buy a stake in the retail portion of 666 Fifth Ave. in New York for $525 million in a transaction that would help the building's owner Jared Kushner repay debt, according to people familiar with the matter.

Posted by: josh | April 26, 2008 7:57 PM | Report abuse

The DNC is DOA. I'm a yellow dog Democrat living in Florida, and I will not vote in November if my primary vote is not counted. The Florida Republican-controlled legislature set the primary date. The Democratic voters are being punished. What's wrong with this picture? I believe that Obama can't win the general without support in Florida, and he isn't going to get it. The Democrats here are furious. How's it working for you now, Howard Dean?


AMEN!!!!!!!! I'm a long time regestered dem. and I will be going door to door in MI for McCain. The DNC don't want to count my vote now, don't count on it in the fall. Polls are already out here, we had a chance for a "do over" and Obama wouldn't o.k. it, so no matter who wins, Obama or Clinton, I will cross party lines and vote for McCain. The polls out here in MI this week show McCain winning both. So here goes 4 more years of Bush. We have sky rocketing inflation, lost over 140,000 jobs, and we will still vote for McCain...how will Howard Dean like that???? MI is a big swing state...this year swinging toward the GOP.

Obama took him name off the ballot after he lost N.H. for a little good news, he did it after Edwards....don't care. We didn't vote to move up our primary...no one asked the voters in MI or FL, so take aways the right to vote to everyone who made the decision to move up the primary, then take away Howard Dean's and everyone who stripped the states of the delegates and super delegates....They are the ones that screwed it up....

As for FL did everyone forget OBAMA RAN ADS ON ALL THE CABLE NEWS NETWORKS THERE...SO TIRED OF HEARING HE DIDN'T CAMPAING THERE...WHAT A CROCK...AND ALSO SICK OF HEARING, NO ONE KNEW HIM, CLINTON ONLY WON BECAUSE OF HER NAME...DOES THE OBAMA CAMP REALLY THINK PEOPLE IN FL CAN'T READ THE PAPER, OR LISTEN TO THE NEWS AND NOT UNDERSTAND IT???? DOES HE THINK THE PEOPLE IN FL ARE STUPID???? HE MUST...

ALSO SICK OF HEARING IF YOU ARE NOT FOR HIM YOU ARE A RACIST...I'M NOT A RACIST....I JUDGE PEOPLE ON THEIR MERIT, NOT THE COLOR OF THEIR SKIN.

I have learned a few things from this race.

1. It's alright to vote for a man just because he is a man.

2. It's alright to vote for an African American man just because he is African American.

3. It's alright to vote for a women just because she is a women.

4. It's alright to NOT VOTE FOR A WOMEN JUST BECAUSE SHE IS A WOMEN...

5. It's NOT ALRIGHT TO VOTE FOR AN AFRICAN AMERICAN JUST BECAUSE HE IS AN AFRICAN AMERICAN...

What does this boil down to??? It is no longer alright to be a racist in American.

IT'S STILL ALRIGHT TO BE SEXIST.

So on the one hand we have came a long way, which I as an American am very proud of, however on the other hand, I can't believe in this age we still have a sexist society.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 26, 2008 6:51 PM | Report abuse

"Has anyone noticed that black leaders and a lot of far-lefty Obamanistas are now whining that any white American voter who DOESN'T support or vote for Barack Obama is a racist."

Nope

Posted by: yup | April 26, 2008 4:44 PM | Report abuse

A thought has occurred to me about what Nikita Khrushchev said so many years ago, about how we [The US] would destroy ourselves from within. This appears to be happening to some extent and as more and more "Communist" leaning News Magazines, TV, Radio, and other Media in general, along with the higher earners and educated [Elites], I think a good argument can be made to support this thought.

Posted by: lylepink | April 26, 2008 2:24 PM | Report abuse

The true racists are the Barack Obama supporters who vote only because he has the same skin color they do. Geraldine Ferraro was correct (and not racist)when she said that the only reason Obama is the Democrats nominee is because of his skin color. There is no way on the planet a white candidate with so little experience; with negatives like his 20 year association with racist white and America-haters like Jerimiah Wright and Louis Farrakhan; his friendship with Weather Underground terrorist and America-hater Bill Ayers, and his dealings with criminal con-artist Tony Rezko could get the Democrats nomination for the highest and most powerful position on earth unless he had the political correct skin color (which whites don't have). Every black Obama supporter is a racist because every one of them can't, or won't, see past Obama's skin color and vote for the best man/woman for the job and for what's good for our country. Every one of them is voting for Obama's skin color and not for who is best qualified and has the most experience. Obama is probably the most un-qualified presidential candidate that has ever run for the US Presidentcy from any party.

Posted by: mojoe | April 26, 2008 12:35 PM | Report abuse

To all those who deride HC for Sen Obama's recent decline in the campaign, I have 3 questions:

1. Did HC Make Sen Obama go to S.F. and make him make make innane comments about rural voters; (did she place a bug in his ear and whisper in his ear this is what you need to tell your megasupporters);

2. Did HC create Rev Wright in a backlot studio and create the Wright videos; last time I checked it was Rev Wright who warned Sen Obama to totally distance himself from Rev Wright and it was Sen Obama who stubbornly said I could no more leave Rev Wright and my church then I could leave my own mother;

3, And does anyone not understand that the 527s had already seen the Wright videos likely months before the Clinton campaign. HC has done the party a favor by staying in the race. Is it not better that we find out about Rev Wright and Sen Obama's S.F sentiments NOW rather than in Nov or do Obama supporters just prefer rerunning of the Dukakas campaign.

Posted by: Leichtman | April 26, 2008 11:37 AM | Report abuse

"Hillary is being watched that's why the apparent donation's not coming in."

Then can you explain the $10 million in less than 48 hours?

GOP: you owe me a response yesterday to your recent calls to end the filibuster and for Up and Down Votes in Congress.

Posted by: Leichtman | April 26, 2008 11:15 AM | Report abuse

Hey Chris....Tell People THE FACTS !!!! The media diagnoses every demo....the old...young...rich....poor...educated....uneducated.... bowlers, gun toters and beer drinkers.....And somehow ALWAYS finds a way to give the advantage to Clinton. But just yesterday, the media finally began to raise the most incredible point in the whole race. HILLARY HAS LOST THE SUPPORT OF AN ENTIRE RACE OF PEOPLE !!!!!!!! Do you know how incredibly sad this fact is ? Hillary Clinton (who's husband was so loved as to have been called The First Black President) has alienated the black people of America to such a degree that there is no way blacks will support her EVER. This has nothing to do with Obama !!!! Keep in mind folks....Hillary started this campaign with 82% of the black support. But as blacks learned more about her (Goldwater Girl....Against Civil Rights Act of '64...etc.) combined with her LBJ statements and Bill's minimizing of Obama (fairy tale...Jesse won S.Carolina too...etc) blacks were shocked...and then incredibly offended by these revelations to a degree that can never be recovered. WE FEEL DECEIVED !!!! We hope that our friends of all races understand how we as blacks feel. This is the main story that needs to get out to the superdelegates. People across America are contacting the DNC 202-863-8000 to let them (and superdelegates) know that Hillary ABSOLUTELY KILLED HER ELECTABILTY. The truth is the truth !

Greg Jones
Blacks4Barack.org
(A Multi-Racial Organization...Dedicated To Truth)

Posted by: Greg Jones | April 26, 2008 11:12 AM | Report abuse

Hmmmmm. Let me see. Howard Dean and the DNC are punishing Michigan and Florida for rushing their primaries, and they CAN'T WAIT to start the general election? This is so disgusting. Their pressure on the super delegates and HRC's campaign to hurry up is entirely unfair and un-American.

Posted by: janhankamer | April 26, 2008 10:48 AM | Report abuse

DECK THE HALLS WITH BOSTON CHARLIE

Posted by: Anonymous | April 26, 2008 8:33 AM | Report abuse

I GO POGO

Posted by: Anonymous | April 26, 2008 8:32 AM | Report abuse

Dave wrote: "1. FOCUS YOUR CAMPAIGN ON BEATING JOHN MCCAIN IN NOVEMBER, IMMEDIATELY IF NOT SOONEST (TO QUOTE WALT KELLY)"

I'm sorry, this is off topic and I'm willing to risk not getting my message posted, but HOORAY! It is a rare treat to find a fellow Pogo/Walt Kelly fan...

It does appear that "we HAVE met the enemy, and he is, in fact US!"
--Walt Kelly, w/emphasis.

POGO FOR PRESIDENT! I'M FOR VICE!
or
JES' FINE, SAYS BUG! Now that is the epitome of a brilliant campaign strategy!

... I could go on and on (but I won't)

Oh, thank you for a moment of joy. I miss my dog-eared tomes of political genius...

Have a wonderful day!

PS: To anyone who is WAY too stressed out because of this election cycle, I recommend picking up a Pogo reprint at a bookstore or online for an immediate, sparkling cure. Or, you will realize even more just how illogical politics really is. Either way, if you love politics, wordplay, mayhem and civic-minded, philosophical swamp animals, you cannot and will not be disappointed. (I'm so glad I know so many of them by heart..).

Posted by: mishte | April 26, 2008 8:20 AM | Report abuse

It's to late....I am proud to announce that I am a Black American who is voting for Obama, but, as of two days ago, changed my party affiliation from Democrat to being an independent voter. What Mr. Clyburn is saying truly reflects the Black community at large. I assure you, he is hearing that we believe the Clinton's are trying to bring Obama down so that he can't win in November. This has been very disturbing to me. We see the anger in the Clintons. She can't win without us. The message the Clinton's should take from this is that I have already made peace with myself by getting out of the party. And in 1012, it's anybody but Hillary! To the democratic party: If you ever wondered if the Clinton's (in general) have been good for your party. the truth is in.

Posted by: gayle in California | April 26, 2008 3:53 AM | Report abuse

Has anyone noticed that black leaders and a lot of far-lefty Obamanistas are now whining that any white American voter who DOESN'T support or vote for Barack Obama is a racist. Just who are the real racists?

Posted by: jerry | April 26, 2008 1:59 AM | Report abuse

The story in today's WAPO about the U.S. gearing up for a war with Iran is a hoax.There are actually two governments in D.C.One of them is controlled by the Mossad and the other is composed of patriotic Americans.The Iran story was put out by the Mossad faction and,of course,carried by this Jewish newspaper.

Posted by: shakey jake | April 26, 2008 12:15 AM | Report abuse

Granholm: Clinton really is popular vote leader
Posted by Peter Luke | mlive.com April 25, 2008 16:01PM
Gov. Jennifer Granholm backed up Hillary Clinton's claim to the national popular vote lead that relies on counting the disputed Michigan presidential primary. The Jan. 15 election produced 328,309 votes for Clinton, but none for Barack Obama, who removed his name from the ballot. Uncommitted received more than 238,000 votes.

Counting those results, and those from that other disputed election in Florida, gives Clinton a popular vote lead of 122,855. Add in unofficial caucus turnouts in Iowa, Nevada, Maine and Washington state where Obama won and the lead shrinks to 12,633, according to Friday's updated tally at the Web site Real Clear Politics. Give Obama Michigan's uncommitted vote and he regains his lead.

Clinton, pretty much unable to surpass Obama in pledged delegates won with nine contests to go, says a popular vote lead following Tuesday's victory in Pennsylvania counts just as much. So does Granholm.

"If you look at the popular vote, that's one aspect that the super delegates can consider in deciding who would be the strongest candidate in the general election," Granholm told reporters.

Granholm was asked why Clinton should receive credit for votes she
didn't campaign for. Adhering to party rules that barred campaigning in rogue states that violated the Democratic National Committee's nominating calendar, Clinton didn't step foot in the state prior to Jan. 15.

"She did come here and ask for votes in that she kept her name on the ballot," Granholm said. "She chose to compete here by at least leaving her name on the ballot and
allowing people the opportunity to choose her. (Obama) chose to take
his name off the ballot."

Clinton moreover, deserves those votes because back in March she
supported a do-over election that was blocked by Obama's allies in the Legislature, Granholm said. That wasn't "fair for the voters of Michigan."

Granholm also doesn't see the nominating fight ending in a nasty battle at the Democratic National Convention in Denver over whether Michigan's disputed delegates are seated. Based on the Jan. 15 results, Clinton picked up at least a net 18 delegates in Michigan.

"In the end, truly I believe our delegates are going to be seated and
we're going to be seated properly before the convention," Granholm said. "Nobody wants
to see a fight on the floor of the convention."

Except, she said, the media. And not Clinton, if it would land her the nomination?

Email Peter Luke: pluke@boothnewspapers.com

Posted by: Oh, No? | April 25, 2008 10:35 PM | Report abuse

Deadender, Your numbers are seriously flawed. Where are you getting this 3 million from NY? From her Senate race?

Check realclearpolitics.com which lists the actual numbers, both with and without FL & MI, as well as with and without caucus calculations. Obama is ahead in the popular vote by about 613.5K after the PA primary.

Posted by: LookinToTheFuture | April 25, 2008 10:30 PM | Report abuse

But it's true:

'I can't wait to find out the next scandal about him. Wait! Could it be that he helped fund Palestinian terrorists? '

see? just like i told ya, they will try to turn obama into a 'terrorist'.. of course. what else have they got but lies?

Posted by: | April 25, 2008 10:03 PM


http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=57231

Posted by: Anonymous | April 25, 2008 10:28 PM | Report abuse

If Obama is as racist, hypocritical and irrational as the posters here, Americans would have an easy choice in November, elect McCain, should Hillary's Florida and Michigan counts be stolen from her.

Posted by: Firefly2 | April 25, 2008 10:27 PM | Report abuse

Susan in Florida===Hey your vote in Florida wouldn't be counted anyway. We're just cutting out the middleman.Besides that, I'm not sure this country is prepared to have a Lesbian president.

Posted by: LetthemdrinkCrownRoyal | April 25, 2008 5:10 PM
__________
I agree but I'm not sure their ready for a crack snorting gay guy either! We'll see. Meanwhile, I've got a lawsuit going on.

Posted by: Larry Sinclair | April 25, 2008 10:25 PM | Report abuse

If commentators, anchors and media in general took a good Look of all the blogs on different site's, overwhelmingly are very angry at the Clintons, media and those who would never say a word before Barack Obama announced he's running, as soon as he got close to winning, hate spewed on all the media sources. Mother Jones website even has the dressmaker's pictured for the KKK's uniforms, and the grand knight's bla bla bla. This symbol is 'fear' to everyone, but especially to a black person. I honestly get angry when I see this stupidity and frankly reminds me of WW11 Nazism, which by the way has never been mentioned about the 'fellowship', 'the family' that the white candidate attends and according to media is an elite member now since becoming a senator. Thier mission..World domination.

Posted by: northcan | April 25, 2008 10:19 PM | Report abuse

I am a white woman and I feel the racism being played loud and clear, by fox, cnn, governor ed randell said before the primary in pa, some white's will not vote for a black man.

at every turn..Obama has diffused subject of raise, but the white media, commentators, radio hound talk about him as a black man, meanwhile Hillary is gliding off into white heaven. all her crimes and bill clinton's are ignored. but for his pastor to be exploited for political gain is outrageous of america.

white america has to solve their own issue's with race because christians should not do this to anyone, let alone a pastor, who went through the horrid experiences america gave him as their warning not to act as an american. throughout the world, america has a 'stain' that has never been attempted to solve.

they say america is the most racist country globally. it's a fear the white population must come to grips with. michelle obama made a comment that she was proud for the first time...'free speech and true feelings' aren't allowed to be said? Why then can Limbaugh, sean hannity and all the other anchors are allowed? this is racism. we all are responsible and we all are equal.

Posted by: northcan | April 25, 2008 10:09 PM | Report abuse


'I can't wait to find out the next scandal about him. Wait! Could it be that he helped fund Palestinian terrorists? '

see? just like i told ya, they will try to turn obama into a 'terrorist'.. of course. what else have they got but lies?

Posted by: Anonymous | April 25, 2008 10:03 PM | Report abuse

In his April 24 Washington Post column, David Broder contrasted Sen. John McCain with Sen. Hillary Clinton and wrote that "[i]n an age of deep cynicism about politicians of both parties, McCain is the rare exception who is not assumed to be willing to sacrifice personal credibility to prevail in any contest." The column marked the second time in one week that a Post columnist has explicitly contrasted McCain's and Clinton's credibility and perceived integrity, while refusing to acknowledge McCain's numerous falsehoods, including distortions and misrepresentations of statements by his opponents, or to consider them as indicative of a willingness to sacrifice principle to win. Similarly, in his April 22 column, Richard Cohen also left out any mention of McCain's numerous falsehoods in asserting that, in contrast with Clinton, McCain could succeed in "the solemn task of the next president to restore ... trust" in the U.S. government.

Posted by: same old, same old | April 25, 2008 10:01 PM | Report abuse

Obama has been a major embarrassment to the Democratic Party. At what point does he stop thinking about himself and step down? We cannot possibly win if he becomes the nominee.

I can't wait to find out the next scandal about him. Wait! Could it be that he helped fund Palestinian terrorists? Yes! It just hasn't been picked up by the MSM yet! Can't wait for more embarassment!

I'd love to have a talk with whoever wanted him to run for president. How many Americans have wasted their money on him? Wait, 1.4 million? Sorry, Guys!

Posted by: Obama Who? | April 25, 2008 9:56 PM | Report abuse

The DNC should be asking who is unelectable if by DNC machinations the election is stolen from the one the people in thirty states chose for our nominee. The democratic party chooses it's nominee based on delegates and each state gets to decide how they will choose their own delegates. We like to call that democracy. We will support the nominee that is chosen according to the rules we all agreed to before this began. Don't count on having enough votes to win the general if anybody tries to steal the nomination by changing the rules mid game.

Posted by: karela | April 25, 2008 9:39 PM | Report abuse

'The AP reports today that as a result of Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki's recent offensive against Iraqi Shi'ite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr's militia, Sadr may "set aside his political ambitions" and restart "a full-scale fight against U.S.-led forces." The violence would likely show "potentially disastrous security implications" across the country.

But Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) is happy with the outcome. In a blogger conference call today, he said the results in Basra and southern Iraq were a "pleasant turn of events" in his view. Sadr, McCain says, is now marginalized. The bloggers reported on McCain's responses:

Hot Air: It's a "pleasant turn of events." We've been pressing Maliki for action, and he persevered through some setbacks to success. Basra now is under Maliki's control, and it has united the central government. Sadr is marginalized. "Overall, I'm rather pleased."

Commentary: He described the outcome as a "pleasant turn of events" and said that Prime Minister Maliki "surprised us all." McCain conceded that there were setbacks at first, but said that with limited American support the Iraqi army has wrested control of Basra from the Sadrites.

Sadr is hardly marginalized; in fact, the opposite is true. As the AP notes, Sadr still commands at least 60,000 fighters -- and he is "emboldened by its strong resistance to an Iraqi-led crackdown."

It's unclear what McCain is "rather pleased" about. Contrary to the "limited" role McCain saw, U.S. soldiers on the ground reported they bore the brunt of the responsibility when assisting Iraqi forces. Some estimates say roughly 400 civilians have been killed, including several Americans soldiers dying in the Green Zone.'

and this.. 'pleases' McCain? Sick, sick, sick. As sick as Bush.

Posted by: McCain wants to bring it on | April 25, 2008 8:55 PM | Report abuse

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The secretary of defense will no longer brief retired military officers-turned-network television analysts, the chief Pentagon spokesman said Friday.

Former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld started the briefings during the buildup to the war in Iraq.

Assistant Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs Robert Hastings said he suspended the program this week amid media scrutiny of the practice.

An article in the Sunday New York Times alleged that the analysts were used to push the Bush administration's messages topics including the war in Iraq and what was going on in the prison camps at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

The report also pointed out that some of the analysts were involved in business contracts with the Pentagon -- information the newspaper said was rarely or never disclosed, even to the networks.

The briefings were started by then-Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld in 2003, during the buildup to the war in Iraq.

Posted by: OOPS-CAUGHT RED-HANDED | April 25, 2008 8:51 PM | Report abuse

Hillary is being watched that's why the apparent donation's not coming in. Any other election foreign companies supplied her with all she needed, she used Bill for kneecapping.

Posted by: northcan | April 25, 2008 8:44 PM | Report abuse

I just have to say how grateful I am to Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats for trying to protect what few Constitutonal rights we have left -- and for trying to block the biggest expanision of Big Government in this country's history and infringement on innocent citizen's rights. For Big Government to pry, spy and paw through our most personal legal, medical and financial data, and our most private phone calls, emails and Google searches, and use it against us any way they please, is an affront to the very ideas that this country was founded on.

These so-called 'small govrnment' republicans that embrace this are not only cowardly bedwetters who don't deserve to live in this great country, but closet fascists who dishonor us all. They are selfish traitors and sellouts to all our ideals.

Posted by: susan | April 25, 2008 8:34 PM | Report abuse

Um... Scrivener et al,

As much as I respect Al Gore, he was never a great campaigner and likely won't be much better after 8 years of rust. Secondly, all those who think Obama is too liberal will have a field day with Gore who has spent the last 8 years on the left. Thirdly, Edwards is not crazy. He knows the probability of winning as a third party candidate is low and any attempt to do so would end any future influence he may ever have in Democratic politics. Finally, if your Edwards-Bloomberg ticket waits until after the major party conventions to announce as you suggest, I am guessing they won't have time to get their names on the ballot in many states.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 25, 2008 8:15 PM | Report abuse

If Senator Clinton manages to steal the nomination via the super delegates we may as well get used to the idea of "President McCain". She cannot win in November. After eight years of one of the worst administrations in American history, getting a Democrat into the White House sould have practically been a sure thing. Instead, the Clintons, with their filthy campaign tactics, seem to make the American people forget the horrors inflicted on us by the Bush administration. People are distracted by the campaign and are becoming more disgusted with the candidates destroying each other than they are of George Bush. Senator Obama began his campaign with hope and inspiration. In her desperation to win at all cost, Senator Clinton's campaign became ugly, negative and dirty. If Senator Obama does not react he is seen as weak. If he defends himself or fights back he is then seen as just another politician.

I look more like Senator Clinton then like Senator Obama. I am a white middle aged woman from New York and I would never vote for Hillary Clinton. I know many people like myself who feel the same way. I see Senator Clinton as a self promoting politician who changes her view depending on her audience. She has told blatant lies time and time again. Many people do not trust her and even despise her. We know her! She has little or no chance to win against McCain. Just as people do not want yet another Bush in the White House, we do not want four more years of the Clintons either. I appeal to the super delegates to put an end to the Clinton toxicity. She will not stop until she ruins the chances for a Democrat to win in November.

Posted by: American Woman | April 25, 2008 8:02 PM | Report abuse

Oh come on,that village idiot Howard Dean
and Nutcase Nancy Pelosi and all the other
out of touch with reality Extremist Lefty
Liberal Loser Democrats and as they are now
called Kool Aid Drunk Obamabots having been
openly trying to steal the 2008 Democratic
Presidential Nomination for that empty suit
phony lying Chicago thug Barack Obama since
day one. Just Vote NO Barack Obama in 2008!

Posted by: Ralphinphnx | April 25, 2008 7:59 PM | Report abuse

OBAMA IS OUR SAVIOR.

BARAK AND REVEREND WRIGHT ARE RIGHT, GOD D*** AMERICA FOR SLAVERY AND JIM CROW.

NOW IS THE TIME TO RALLY AROUND BARAK AND MICHELLE AND MAKE THEM PROUD!

HE WILL UNITE THE PEOPLE OF COLOR AROUND THE WORLD TO FIGHT THE WHITE OPPRESSOR. THE WHITE MAN HAS HAD HIS DAY. BLACK PEOPLE HAVE BEEN HELD DOWN TO LONG.

NO MORE SO CALLED ELECTIONS WHERE TYPICAL WHITE PEOPLE VOTE IN RACIST PEOPLE WHO DONT WORK FOR US.

AND NEWS FLASH MERICAN, BARAK IS RIGHT, YOUR TYPICAL WHITE PERSON IS A RACIST.

BARAK WILL APOLOGIZE TO OUR MUSLIM BROTHERS FOR ARRAGANT AMERICAN POLICIES OF HATE AND SLAVERY.

NO MATTER WHAT YOU SAY REV. WRIGHT IS RIGHT, ONLY BARAK CAN FORGIVE AN EVIL NATION FOUNDED ON SLAVERY.

REPARATIONS NOW!

Posted by: Obamamama | April 25, 2008 7:51 PM | Report abuse

Chris

Did you see the report in Politico today about the filings with the DNC Rules Committee asking for Michigan and Florida to be assessed a different penalty: seat all the superdelegates and half the pledge delegates?


My question to you is what would be the delegate split if that did happen?

Posted by: Words of Wisdom | April 25, 2008 7:38 PM | Report abuse

Obamamama, please stop shouting. I'm a white man who voted for Obama and would do so again. By assuming that I'm a racist, or that anyone else is a racist, based on the color of our skin, you're just lowering yourself to the level of those you claim to be better than. I can't believe our candidate would want this.
That said, why isn't Dean working to wrap this up now - by persuading Hillary to drop out for the good of the party and the country (or if necessary pulling the rug out from under her) instead of fooling around with developing a core of non-Obama/non-Clinton volunteers to try to sell to the public a party that's shooting itself in the foot right now and pushing for resolution in June, for crying out loud??

Posted by: Michael in Philadelphia | April 25, 2008 7:04 PM | Report abuse

If Obama were actually listening, or reading this, I would say:

Obama - stop with the kid gloves - you are actually giving too much credibility to your challengers each and every time you state that they are capable, good people, etc. The people of America want someone that will fight for them and champion their causes (Hillary feigns this well). Being nice doesn't communicate that you are the one who will get it done. Substance and style can triumph - but nice guys really do finish last. You don't have to swim in the mud with your adversaries to fight and be a champion.

I don't even believe that Hillary is good - you're implication that she is doesn't paint you as the stronger person, and that makes me think you might be condescending. If you really think the opponents are good - why are you relevant in the equation? If she was coming at me all the time I would be mad as hell.

It's your spot to lose, but if you are forceful, direct, passionate - and relevant all at the same time you will bring something to the people that neither candidate has.

Fight the good fight - but FIGHT. You've already made history, but if you really want to drive change (and that will take all of us working together), then take a stand and tell us average joes (and janes) why you are the better choice. And then tell us 50 more times, because as a whole we seem to be slow learners.

When Hillary FINALLY has to relinquish her mad pursuit at some point in the near future, what remorse do you think she will demonstrate?

She is a determined as G.W. Bush was to steal the election from Al Gore, party lines be damned. She picks at your style and demeanor like a vulture, exploiting goodness and consideration as a weakness. She is a veteran vulture at that and knows how to feed on her prey - even bringing in the whole family to dine.

I want to vote for you in November, but it's time for you to pluck some feathers.

Posted by: DonJulio | April 25, 2008 6:59 PM | Report abuse

Odd that the Clinton supporters and Republicans posting on this board are finding common ground. I wonder if Bush senior and Bill will kick back with a cigar and cognac after all this is finished and share fond memories of the past twenty years. I also wonder if we are headed for the same log-jam in Washington that we've seen over the past four years, the same division through distraction.

I'm sure I'm just overly "naive," "racist," "Muslim" or a just a stupid "liberal." Amazing that both leading candidates want to clean this race up and yet two elements want to bring it back to gutter-trash. Once again, America loses out because of the culture of sleeze.

Posted by: Jeremy | April 25, 2008 6:48 PM | Report abuse

OBAMA IS OUR SAVIOR.

BARAK AND REVEREND WRIGHT ARE RIGHT, GOD D*** AMERICA FOR SLAVERY AND JIM CROW.

NOW IS THE TIME TO RALLY AROUND BARAK AND MICHELLE AND MAKE THEM PROUD!

HE WILL UNITE THE PEOPLE OF COLOR AROUND THE WORLD TO FIGHT THE WHITE OPPRESSOR. THE WHITE MAN HAS HAD HIS DAY. BLACK PEOPLE HAVE BEEN HELD DOWN TO LONG.

NO MORE SO CALLED ELECTIONS WHERE TYPICAL WHITE PEOPLE VOTE IN RACIST PEOPLE WHO DONT WORK FOR US.

AND NEWS FLASH MERICAN, BARAK IS RIGHT, YOUR TYPICAL WHITE PERSON IS A RACIST.

BARAK WILL APOLOGIZE TO OUR MUSLIM BROTHERS FOR ARRAGANT AMERICAN POLICIES OF HATE AND SLAVERY.

NO MATTER WHAT YOU SAY REV. WRIGHT IS RIGHT, ONLY BARAK CAN FORGIVE AN EVIL NATION FOUNDED ON SLAVERY.

REPARATIONS NOW!

Posted by: Obamamama | April 25, 2008 6:46 PM | Report abuse

Obama has been endorsed by the Hunters and Shooters Club, the second largest gun rights org in the country.

McCain is a big supporter of immigrant labor. He will also deepen our financial woes by even bigger tax cuts for the very wealthy, at the expense of the rest of the us.

Posted by: Cal | April 25, 2008 6:42 PM | Report abuse

Oh, and Deadender and Manfred, I am not an Obama supporter. To be sure, I can't stand Clinton and the empty headed twits she attracts, she/they are wrong on virtually every issue and I don't trust her at all. But Obama is wayyyyy too slick for me; I disagree him on the Second Amendment, on granting illegals amnesty (and the ensuing damage to our own workers... and the revolt anything like amnesty will spark). I think he is a free trader and blind globalization nutcase and believe he will simply break the hearts of those who think otherwise. And, I think he is completely clueless about how to deal with the looming Depression. Maybe I will change my mind by the time the election, maybe not. (I think of John McCain as similar to Obama, by the way, with all of the same faults and strengths.)

Posted by: mibrooks27 | April 25, 2008 6:30 PM | Report abuse

I Agree with milbrooks27. Clinton can count the African American vote out. Heck, the fact is, this isn't about Hillary getting the noimnation. This is about destroying Obama. Now if only the Clintonites had clearer heads.

Look, Obama is going to lead in pledged delegates at the end of this process. I won't even worry about the popular vote. Does anyone seriously think he is not going to get the nomination? No, he will get the nomination. Hillary's aim is to make him lose to McCain.

Read my earlier post on why Obama actually won PA. Any real Democrat should help fight the Limbaugh-Clinton-FOX axis of evil.

Posted by: Manfred | April 25, 2008 6:20 PM | Report abuse

Deadender - Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannidy, Michael Savage, and Anne Coulter and the RNC would like to extend their thanks to you and Hillary for your hard work.

In the end, you need to understand, not even 1/4 of current Obama supporters will vote for Hillary. Oh, I know, the polls say that about 1/4 wont, but I am switching it becasue what Clinton partisans are up to is so outrageous, so undemocratic, so unbelieveable, that it will be an affront to anyone with a brain. Count on loosing the black vote, the male vote (oh, you'll get the usual collection of beta males, the self hating bed wetters, that associate with radical feminists and the Brady crowd), and will likely spark a backlash that will cost you silly empty headed feminists every gain women have made in half a century. There are men, normally Democratic male voters, all over the country that have stated that they will never support a women's issue again. Likewise, there are black and other minority voters (I'm Native American and DO have a good feeling for that community, mostly fanatical Obama supporters) who will *desert* Democrats across the board if Obama is not the nominee. Virtually all of your support is from spoiled white middle class women, the so called "feminists", and that and numbskulls who think they are harmless is at most 1/4 of the voting public. It is enough, coupled with Rush Limbaugh's dirty tricksters and the few beta males you have, to narrowly win a few primaries, but that's about it. In the general eolection, you will simply be run over. Virtually every Obama supporter thinks the Cltinons and you partisan's are out to steal the election, believe that Obama has already won. This includes the media pundits (listen to Obermann or anything on Air America) and, if somehow you and the Cltinon's walk off with the nomination, all of them are going to pretty much assume you STOLE IT and talk about it day in and out until and after the election. Now, just assume that the DNC go's along with that. I can guarrantee you a defection from Democratic candidates that you cannot imagine. If they don't go along with it, you are basically outlaws and cannot count on any support. The, look at Democratic candidates across the country. They will campaign against the Clinton theft (hey, self survival) or completely ignore her...and you and your issues. If they stick with her, if they are even seen associating with her or anyone dumb enough to support her, they will be about as popular with black voters as David Duke and with actual males as, well, Hillary Clinton and her feminist mob. Hillary Cltinon has flat out no chance in 2008.

No, what Hillary is positioning herself for is the 2012 run. She is purposefully wrecking Obama's chances so she wont have to contend with him. The problem is, this campaign has become so poisonous that any future camaign looks to be very much in doubt because the Democratic establishment is distancing itself from the Clinton's. So, she is boxed in, and literally fighting for her political survival, even as a U.S. Senator. And you, silly fool that you are, are merely cannon fodder.

Posted by: mibrooks27 | April 25, 2008 6:09 PM | Report abuse

With the demographics in play for the NC primary, and the incendiary remarks of James Clyburn of SC, we have the makings of a political race war.

It looked for awhile that Obama was on a rocket ship and couldn't be stopped. His African-American and college base thought they had it in the bag. After PA they are worried to death Obama is going to lose.

They have lost the faith of the non-black electorate that is 44 or older. With these demographics their goose is cooked, if the Clinton campaign goes door to door in NC, Indiana and Oregon and tells them of how dangerous Obama really is. Don't vote for the Obama cult that is trying to take the party to the ultra-left fringes.

Obama will lose
if not in Denver
in November...

Posted by: alance | April 25, 2008 6:05 PM | Report abuse

Some other observations to back up my previous claim:

(1) As per exit polls, 6 percent of PA Dem primary voters confessed that they had no intention to vote for Clinton in the general.

(2) This is probably on the low end, since most people don't confess to such duplicity. Further evidence that this is on the low end can be derived from the fact that the exist polls oversampled Obama voters. Thus the Limbaugh vote is at very least 6%.

(3) Rush Limbuagh himself claims the number is at least 10% based on his sources and calculations.

(4) There is a big difference between Independent or Republican voters for Obama, who will be voting for Obama in the general vs. Limbaugh-Clinton voters who are doing this purely for the purposes of destroying the Democrats.

I think we should go back to when Limbaugh began his Operation Chaos and recompute the Obama vs. Clinton numbers. Limbaugh-Clinton voters are skewing the results significantly, since as I have shown, Obama likely would have won PA.

Posted by: Manfred | April 25, 2008 6:00 PM | Report abuse

Get real folks. While Hillary might win a few states in the general election come November, Barack Hussain Mohammad Obama will get blown out of the water in a rout a la Mondale and Mc Govern. The only votes he'll get is from the far-left la-la-land liberals in Academia, blacks who always vote skin-color and who are practically all Democrats anyway, Americas liberal white voters who have a guilt-trip complex for something their great, great, great grandfathers might have done re. slavery, and the Democratic Party--controlled MSM who are now nothing more than the Democratic Party's propaganda arm who are all shilling for Obama.

Posted by: madhatter | April 25, 2008 5:55 PM | Report abuse

Well, the DNC should clearly understand that the nominee is Obama. Clinton's 9.2% margin of victory in PA is invalid. Here's why. 10% of the voters for Clinton are Limbaugh Operation Chaos voters, a number backed by the exit polls. Remove this 10% from the aggregate votes case in PA. This gives 45.4% to Obama vs. 44.6% to Clinton and 10% to Limbaugh. This is an effective 0.8% (actually slightly higher when scaled) victory to Obama.

So, not only did Hillary Clinton not make the 10 point target she needed to make, since even with the Limbaugh voters her margin of victory was 9.2%, when properly adjusted for these votes, she loses! That in a state she was expected to carry easily.

What idiocy on the part of the DNC. There is no need to talk to the Clinton campaign. All the Clintonites want to do right now is work for John McCain, FOX news and Rush Limbaugh. The Deocratic Party is the least of their concerns.

Posted by: Manfred | April 25, 2008 5:44 PM | Report abuse

Sherry Kay - Hell yeah! Please join us in "Operation: Recount." Just send a number between 1 and a million to the Clinton website. They will add up all the numbers and present this sum to the superdelegates.

We will not have this election stolen from us!

Posted by: Deadender | April 25, 2008 5:39 PM | Report abuse

So, once again the WAPO Official OBAMA Spinmaster Chris C is out to twist it all
Barack Hussein Obama way. So here is a more
accurate translation,as it seems DNC Chair
and Number Number Two Barack Hussein Obama
Backer Howard Screamer Dean and Number One
Obama Backer and Surrogate Mommy Madame
Nutty Nancy Pelosi and their Obama Youth
Stormtroopers and Toxic Kool Aid Drinker
Obamabots and Hillarhy Clinton Haters have
now joined forces in another even more
desperate last ditch attempt to drive Sen.
Hillary Clinton out of the 2008 Democratic
Party Presidential Campaign and are acting
liked a bunch of Nazi Thugs in the process.
Face it Pelosi,Dean,Reid,Kennedy,Kerry.
Casey and Judas Richardson must be thrown
out of power or the Democratic Party's Own
Implosion and Destruction will be complete
if Leftist Elistist Arrogant Egomanic liar
cocaine addict,Chicago Political Thug gets
the nomination and Amnesty John McCain is
the next President of the United States.

Posted by: Sherry Kay | April 25, 2008 5:32 PM | Report abuse

I have been very excited that Obama just announced a coordinated 50-state Vote for Change voter registration drive, but disappointed only the Chicago Tribune has covered it so far, via a mention in yesterday's speech. Would love to see something on this on Wapo.

All of us Obama volunteers have been reduced to giving money, phonebanking, road trips, and reading blogs after our local primaries occurred. Now we have something new to keep us busy this summer!

The video about it also describes Obama's success with the much more local Project Vote in Chicago long ago and gives us a glimpse of his co-workers of that time. One of them (this tickles me) points out that those new registered voters helped win Illinois for Bill Clinton.

This is not just a press release thrown together, it's obviously an ambitious project long in the making. And it builds on the voter registration for the primaries to date, which it says "just scratched the surface." If so, wow.

I hope this gets a smidge of coverage somewhere.

Posted by: Vote for Change drive | April 25, 2008 5:13 PM | Report abuse

Susan in Florida===Hey your vote in Florida wouldn't be counted anyway. We're just cutting out the middleman.Besides that, I'm not sure this country is prepared to have a Lesbian president.

Posted by: LetthemdrinkCrownRoyal | April 25, 2008 5:10 PM | Report abuse

mibrroks27 - Whether you like it or not, that is politics and that is how the system works. Obama should have left his name on the ballots or campaigned in those states. Hillary herself is using those numbers - in a primary they do not need be certified.

Nest week "Operation:Recount" will begin in Illinois, Missouri, Texas, Nevada, Washington and the other 20+ states that Obama "won." We will ask people who they want to win, and we will deliver those numbers to the convention. It will be concrete evidence that Hillary should win the nomination.

Posted by: Deadender | April 25, 2008 5:08 PM | Report abuse

Scrivener.
Personally, I feel your now moving in the right direction. Seeing that the DNC has too many headless chiefs and not enough gumption to do anything. It could be possible.

Posted by: notconvinced | April 25, 2008 5:04 PM | Report abuse

"I had heard that they were like a straw poll held in a room but had no idea that there were so many restrictions, and that people were not only locked out, but could be intimidated by others."

The only source for that nonsense is Leichtman, who has said that in Texas Clinton supporters were telephoned by Obama machines and told that the caucuses were cancelled, and those who did attend were spit on and beaten up. Never mind that this is the most ridiculous fairy tale of this primary season (as if the Clintons were competent enough to come up with a list of likely attendees).

Posted by: bondjedi | April 25, 2008 5:03 PM | Report abuse

scrivener - A GREAT idea. Where is Edwards? I am sick of the gigantic Ponzi Scheme the botton feeders from both party's have been playing on us and am ready for a third party.

Posted by: mibrooks27 | April 25, 2008 4:59 PM | Report abuse

so...only now are they meeting with clinton's guys?...makes me wonder if they think she has a snowball's chance in hell of carrying the nomination...why else would they include her in the loop at this point? or, could their motivation be that "you have to pay to play"?

Posted by: jazzgrrrl25 | April 25, 2008 4:56 PM | Report abuse

Patrick writes "This process is a mess."

That's for sure. It's almost like the party muckety-mucks all sat down and picked the stupidest plan ever devised by man to nominate a candidate.

Many have been stunned to learn that there are two kinds of delegates at Dem Convention: real delegates (duly elected from the states) and fake delegates, delegates artificially created by the DNC. Not to mention the archane use of proportional allotment of delegates.

Of course it gives me untold joy to know that Katrina vanden Heuvel is, no doubt, gnashing her teeth at this moment and has labeled the entire institution "tyrannical".

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | April 25, 2008 4:56 PM | Report abuse

2008: THE YEAR THAT A THIRD PARTY
COULD CAPTURE THE WHITE HOUSE

EDWARDS-BLOOMBERG THE REAL DREAM TICKET?


The choice between Hillary and Obama boils down to this:

A duplicitous dirty fighter who MIGHT be able to overcome the GOP attack machine and win the general, versus an effete intellectual who looks like he can't attract enough lunch-bucket Dems to win.

These are not good options. Even a Hillary-Obama ticket (as I said yesterday, what looks to be the only way out of the current debacle) carries with it the substantial baggage of both flawed candidates.

The Dem leadership lacks the guts and the vision to do anything about this, not at this late date. Al Gore could have been the solution, but chose not to fight again.

Obama may yet read the writing on the wall and throw his delegates to Gore, who would then name Obama his choice for VP. But Obama's audacity of hope ideology would seem to auger against a toss to Gore (unless, of course, party leaders applied the pressure, which they seem incapable of doing).

That leaves progressives in the party with three choices:


1. Force Hillary and Obama to come together as a ticket (most likely scenario, with Hillary having the best chance to top the ticket.

2. Force Obama to suspend his campaign, pledge his delegates to Gore and continue to campaign with Gore over the summer as his VP pick.

3. Abandon the Dems entirely and support a third party ticket, which could earn a ticket to the White House with only a plurality of the electoral vote.


Don't discount so fast the possibility of Option #3. The Dem leadership has shown itself to be incapable of shaping the battlefield. For all the talk about using their influence to assert pressure (by way of a letter-writing campaign?), in the end look for the party pooh-bahs to stand back and accept whatever shakes out.

So who could step up to mount an effective third-party candicacy? Immediately a unity ticket that includes billionaire Michael Bloomberg comes to mind. As a one-time, sometime Democrat and a social progressive, the New York city mayor could attract substantial support among disillusioned Dems and disheartened Republicans alike. Did I mention that he has the money to self-finance a campaign?

While his financial prowess is obvious, his electability is not. For one thing, he's a Jew, and it could be argued that the electorate still is incapable of accepting a person of Jewish ancestry as their president (while the subject didn't get much attention from the MSM, it's probable that Joe Lieberman's bloodlines helped drag down the Dems in 2000).

But Bloomberg probably could emerge victorious as VP on a unity ticket led by, say, John Edwards, whose political stock rose upon his withdrawal from the race.

An Edwards-Bloomberg ticket could prove to be an elixir for disaffected voters on both sides of the political fence. Think about it and tell me I'm crazy. I don't think so.

But Edwards is a member of the Dem leadership board, you say. Well, he couldn't challenge Obama or Hillary without alienating their respective constituencies.

But as a third-party progressive who would announce his third-party bid AFTER the Dem convention, it just might be possible.

And what better running-mate than a moneybag like Bloomberg? You say Bloomberg wouldn't accept Number Two. I say that he knows, as a Jewish-American, that he'd never stand a chance at the top job and he'd be quite content to accept a role as an activist VP.

Okay; maybe Edwards-Bloomberg is a real reach. But this could be shaping up as the year that makes history -- not as the year the nation elects a black president or a woman president, but as the year that a third party insurgency captures the White House.


Posted by: scrivener | April 25, 2008 4:49 PM | Report abuse

In short, tell them to start remembering they are both democrats.

Not that either would listen. I'm just sayin'.

Posted by: CDC | April 25, 2008 4:39 PM
--------------------------
Great point. Even Jon Stewart, who makes a living off this crap, is sick of it. I do not believe having the race run it's course is unhealthy, it is the infighting, especially among both of there supporters.

Posted by: Patrick NYC | April 25, 2008 4:43 PM | Report abuse

More evidence that FL will be in the R column in November!.........

"The DNC is DOA. I'm a yellow dog Democrat living in Florida, and I will not vote in November if my primary vote is not counted. The Florida Republican-controlled legislature set the primary date. The Democratic voters are being punished. What's wrong with this picture? I believe that Obama can't win the general without support in Florida, and he isn't going to get it. The Democrats here are furious. How's it working for you now, Howard Dean?"

Posted by: Susan | April 25, 2008 2:53 PM

I just gotta say, I love the yellow dog Dems.


Howard says "that doesn't cripple us in any way".

I'm with RAT, LMFAO!!!!

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | April 25, 2008 4:42 PM | Report abuse

Why don't they also tell both campaigns to refrain 100% from negative campaigning from here on out. In other words, from here on out neither Obama nor Clinton will speak the other's name or even refer to each other as opponents. All campaigning will be based on describing their own beliefs and policies. I'm tired of this, and I think we're right at the point where irreparable damage will start to accumulate.

In short, tell them to start remembering they are both democrats.

Not that either would listen. I'm just sayin'.

Posted by: CDC | April 25, 2008 4:39 PM | Report abuse

Further to my The Divine Right of Klintons quote-

Bill tells me that if you do not listen and change Amendment 22, Hillary will bring in a 28th Amendment,[ bought for with the help of influential friends], when she finally gets by the "left hander" and the " old guy", both running at the moment. And then your for it!
Bill envisages something like :- Amendment XXVIII :- The Rights of family and friends of the Klintons shall supercede any.......

Posted by: presidentelectalmost | April 25, 2008 4:36 PM | Report abuse

After reading many of these posts, it is clear that many, like myself, were not aware how many states had a caucus rather than a primary.

We have primaries in NY and I thought only a few had a caucus. I had heard that they were like a straw poll held in a room but had no idea that there were so many restrictions, and that people were not only locked out, but could be intimidated by others.

One thing is clear about this election. Rules need to be changed and set so all can vote, one person, one vote. The fact that people in TX could vote in both a caucus and a primary says it right there. This process is a mess.

Posted by: Patrick NYC | April 25, 2008 4:36 PM | Report abuse

Deadender - Your math and figures are so full of cr*p you ought to go out and start a worm farm. And, if you are sucessful, I can't wait to see the televised pictures of more than a thousand Obama delegates walking out of the convention. Oh, and I'm going to REALLY enjoy millions of black voters who will understand that the Democratic Party has turned it's back on them and vote Republican or just stay home. I'm sure the Democratic candidates, from local dog catcher to U.S. congressmen, who loose their jobs becasue of your madness, will really appreciate Hillary's primary "victory".

Posted by: mibrooks27 | April 25, 2008 4:23 PM | Report abuse

The lack of a decision "doesn't cripple us in any way." Oh yeah? But at least we are not bitter.

Posted by: bodo | April 25, 2008 4:18 PM | Report abuse

"If we had a nominee, we'd be able to do more," Dean said. "The fact that we don't have a nominee doesn't cripple us in any way."
------------------------
No Howie it just ties Pelosi's b@ll$ in a knot, since you and Reid obviously don't have any.

Anyone who thinks this is over is as clueless as they are. This will not end until the votes end in June, they figure out what to do with all the suits that come if they don't count FL & MI, and we all know how well the courts handled things in 2000.

God Damn US indeed.

Posted by: Patrick NYC | April 25, 2008 4:16 PM | Report abuse

I like this: Obama is sharing his money with the DNC which, if Clinton manages to steal the nomination, will share it with *her*.

Posted by: egc52556 | April 25, 2008 4:12 PM | Report abuse

When you add in the 3 million plus votes that Clinton got in New York to this year's race, that erases Obama's popular vote lead, and gives HC a lead of more than 2.5 million.

With just 10 contests to go, it will be practically impossible for Obama to make up the difference. Why doesn't he just quit now?

And I know the ding-dongs in the Obama camp will say that's bogus, because he didn't even compete against her. Well, we are counting Florida and Michigan, and he didn't compete there. Heck, he and the rest of the candidates took themselves off the ballot in Michigan, and only state law kept them from doing the same in Florida. What's your beef?

We are presenting these arguments right now to superdelegates, and are unphased that Obama keeps getting more than she in recent weeks. We are confident that our arguments will get us the 75%+ of the remaining supers we need.

Posted by: Deadender | April 25, 2008 4:11 PM | Report abuse

Dear Chris,
I thought you might enjoy this, so hold the presses, and stow away the Kool Aid and the Starbucks. This statement could have been released today ending America's fun and games that you have all been enjoying since 1787.

I quote :-
A Clinton derives his or her right to rule from the will of God, and not from any temporal authority, including the will of the people, congress, or any state of the nation. Chosen by God , a Clinton is only accountable to Him, and need only to answer to God for his actions. The deposition of a Clinton, or the restriction of the perogative power of the family , runs contrary to the will of God. The ********* is our political and religious doctrine of choice........W.J.C

Do you recognise this quotation? {Maybe not because I have changed about 5 words!!!!]
But do you think or feel that there is a similarity with the state of affairs in the Democrat party / America today????

The quotation is "The Divine Right of Kings" 1597-1598, written at the time of James 1 of England.

Welcome back to the old world that you left behind.! Break out the cups of tea so we can drink a toast to the monarchy!

Posted by: presidentelectalmost | April 25, 2008 3:58 PM | Report abuse

Germany, alone, deported more than 50,000 illegals last year. When arrested, another 20,000 took advantage of the seven day "grace" period and left voluntarily. Malta and Spain deported similar numbers, with even smaller citizen populations, but let's just consider Germany. Extrapolate Germanies population to the U.S.'s would basically mean our deporting about 300,000 illegals annually while locking down the border. If we extend this sampling, however, to the whole of Europe, we would be deporting over one million illegals annually. Since it is acknowledged by everyone and anyone with a brain, that illegals take jobs from our citizens, have driven down wages and benefits, cost hundrds of billions of dollars in benefits (some estimates as high as 2 trillion dollars annually), don't you think it's time we simply got on with the task of getting rid of them. Illegals are only part of the globalization Ponzi Scheme being played on us by corporations and Wall Street. I have never understood where Democrats were such morons that they fail to understand the outrage of people who have lost their jobs becasue some Mexican illegal was as willing to sell themself into indentured servatude as some "guest worker" from China or India. Oh well, there are plenty of actual working men and women, citizens, who will make that point crystal clear at the ballot box.

http://www.dw3d.de/dw/article/0,2144,2974037,00.html


http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,2144,1987607,00.html#

Posted by: mibrooks27 | April 25, 2008 3:57 PM | Report abuse

mibrooks27-For REAL! Your parents, and their Parents were BORN HERE! So were YOU!

Wow! What a Coincidence! ;~)

Mitt Romney, who HOPEFULLY will be McCain's VP, summed it up PERFECTLY;

Enforce our existing Laws!

Employers are REQUIRED to file W-4's that record VERIFICATION of Eligibility to Work!

The Law is there, but needs to be checked by FEDERAL Approved or Commissioned Authorities!

Just DO IT! It is NOT the Illegal Immigrants who should be blamed for Criminal Employment Practices that Total in the Ten Million Strong Category! :-(

No Job, No way to survive other than Crime, which will not last! Hasta la Vista, Invasora! :-)

Posted by: RAT-The | April 25, 2008 3:50 PM | Report abuse

RAT-The - Oh, how about I restate it, then. Let's handle illegals the way they do in Europe? The rest of the world?

http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/0,1518,549673,00.html


At least everyone else understands that hords of illegals are something they cannot afford. In Europe, in the EU, the **uniform policy** is that the children of illegal are denied education, they cannot enroll in schools, they are denied even basic medical care, there is no such thing as "atuomatic ciyizenship", if they do work and are caught, everything they make is confiscated, the employer, even if it is a home owner using them for day labor, is heavily fined, and the illegals are locked up in guarded camps for up to 6 months until a boatload or planeload if assembled and mass deported). So, by all means, let's emulate Europe! If you want illegals, I suggest YOU PAY FOR THEM. Not me, I want them gone. I have a better use for the jobs and social services they devour. Oh, and by the way, I'm Native American, Blackfoot on my mothers side and Shoshone on my fathers side, and would glady revoke your "visitors" permit. Don't let the door hit you on the way out....

Posted by: mibrooks27 | April 25, 2008 3:34 PM | Report abuse

Hillary can't commit money to the Party, she can barely keep her own camp on life support.

Posted by: Terry | April 25, 2008 3:30 PM | Report abuse

Susan:

I would highly recommend that you read this story about how your Governor and Legislature perpetuated the Jeb Bush/Katherine Harris corrupt politics. Seems like Fla and the dnc learned absolutely nothing from 2000.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/wayne-barrett/could-the-republicans-cou_b_94158.html

Posted by: Leichtman | April 25, 2008 3:29 PM | Report abuse

mibrooks27 Now-Now, don't be proving Barry right about you becoming a xenophobe!

After all, Barack Hussein's Daddy was one of those immigrants your Trash-Talking! :-(

And HE's on THEIR Side! ;~)

Posted by: RAT-The | April 25, 2008 3:19 PM | Report abuse

Let's see - consumer confidence is at a 26 year low, has fallen by more than 40% (!!!) in just 6 months, the dollar is at a record low, food prices are set to DOUBLE this year, inflation for everything else can be expected to increase by as much as 30%. Illegals take millions of jobs from American's and bid down wages and benefits. Are you still going to grant them blanket amnesty? We are shedding jobs at a rate not seen since the "Carter" recession. Oh, close to 50% of our engineers and computer programmers are still out of work, outsourcing of jobs is excellerating, and employers are using outsourcing as a bargaining chip to further reduce wages and benefits. At the same time, most employers are becoming "self insured", which proviudes them access to the medical records for their employees and their dependents. Employers use that information, correlating it, to determine layoff lists!
So, DNC, candidates, will you make a pledge to completely do away with the H1-B and L-1 visas, ship home any guest worker that is being used to diwsplace an Amercian worker? Will you bring back tariff's, enact taxes and duties on goods and services that result from outsourcing? Will you actually punish corporate misdeeds? (You can begin by prssuring various state AG's to bring first degree murder charges against corporate CEO's, officers, and board members of those companies that withheld internal reports that drugs they hawked would KILL people, but they withheld those reports so as to keep their stock option values up. How about trying and convicting a few of these swine, and provide us all a ringside seat when they are strapped down on a table, get a needle inseryted in their arm, and get a tax payer provided ride straight to h*ll!). We all still remember that Ted Kennedy and Senator Cltinon introduced legislation last year to INCREASE the number of H1-B visas. Just tell us, DNC, candidates, are you with us or are you still with the corporate and Wall Street swindlers and con artists?

Posted by: mibrooks27 | April 25, 2008 3:00 PM | Report abuse


The DNC is DOA. I'm a yellow dog Democrat living in Florida, and I will not vote in November if my primary vote is not counted. The Florida Republican-controlled legislature set the primary date. The Democratic voters are being punished. What's wrong with this picture? I believe that Obama can't win the general without support in Florida, and he isn't going to get it. The Democrats here are furious. How's it working for you now, Howard Dean?

Posted by: Susan | April 25, 2008 2:53 PM | Report abuse

I agree with Dave. I appreciate Obama's graciousness, but he should stop reminding us about McCain's war service. After all, he was a POW in the late '60s, a time Obama's younger voters only know through history books.

As for the DNC, it's about time Dean showed some leadership rather than leaving Obama out there to fight McCain on his own. Unfortunately, Hillary's rule or ruin strategy is in danger of jeopardizing the Democrats' chances of winning the White House in the fall. Obama will need Democratic leaders' support in rebuilding the party and its message. The DNC's ads are a good first step, along with Dean's insistence that the superdelegates make their endorsements known by July.

One of the lessons emerging from this is that the DNC needs to have rules about how candidates can and cannot attack each other during the nomination process. Hillary has done a great disservice to the Democrats. Let's hope there's time to repair the damage before the general election.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 25, 2008 2:52 PM | Report abuse

"If we had a nominee, we'd be able to do more," Dean said. "The fact that we don't have a nominee doesn't cripple us in any way."

No wonder the entire nominating process has been a sham. Dean is Dr. of what? Certainly not logic.

Posted by: VAMMAP | April 25, 2008 2:50 PM | Report abuse

"I wonder how Barack Halfbrain Obama will win.
THere are no caucus's in a general election.
You don't get to vote twice (texas) in a general election
You don't get extra electorial votes for winning Urban areas.

It's going to make it very very hard on him.
He'd actually have to win the state."

If the poster hasn't noticed, Obama won twice as many states as Hillary did. But keep your hopes up. If an asteroid strikes Obama's camapign plane, Clitont will be the nominee.

Posted by: Frank Palmer | April 25, 2008 2:44 PM | Report abuse

I wonder how Barack Halfbrain Obama will win.
THere are no caucus's in a general election.
You don't get to vote twice (texas) in a general election
You don't get extra electorial votes for winning Urban areas.

It's going to make it very very hard on him.
He'd actually have to win the state.

Posted by: trettin | April 25, 2008 2:37 PM | Report abuse

This can't come a minute too soon. Like many other Obama supporters (and contributors), I find myself increasingly discouraged by the tone of his campaign and the prospects for his success. I offer him the following suggestions in the hope that they will be read and considered by someone responsible for the operation of his campaign:

1. FOCUS YOUR CAMPAIGN ON BEATING JOHN MCCAIN IN NOVEMBER, IMMEDIATELY IF NOT SOONEST (TO QUOTE WALT KELLY)

The major concern of an increasing number of Americans, including those of us already in the tank for you, is whether you are tough enough to stand up to the Republicans in the election campaign and to govern America. You need to start showing that you are going to be a formidable challenger, not the latest reincarnation of Michael Dukakis or John Kerry. Nothing could demonstrate that more than to come out swinging NOW against McCain. Continuing the harping with Hillary will only do more damage to you and the party, while continuing to give McCain a free ride. What's wrong with your battle with Hillary is just what's wrong with the Iraq war: you're fighting the wrong enemy while the real enemy is gathering strength in safety, and you're doing more damage to yourself than anyone else.

Although some might say it's arrogant or presumptuous for you to look past her to focus on him, the answer is that you're showing why you are the best candidate to win in November. By going on the attack against McCain, you can show your willingness to mix it up against the real enemy, draw the distinctions that she can't on the war and lobbyists in particular, and, probably most importantly, start showing the country that McCain is not this smiling, avuncular, moderate he's being allowed to pretend he is.

2. STRESS THE ISSUES THAT HELP YOU AND HURT HIM

I know you know all the policy differences between you and McCain, but I suggest stressing four issues over and over, front and center:

1. The war in Iraq, obviously
2. The economy, hammering his craven flipflopping and indifference to working Americans in particular
3. The Keating Five scandal, ad nauseum, pointing out that he was censured by the Senate, ad nauseum
4. His temper, by provoking him at every opportunity to display it.

3. STOP REMINDING EVERYONE HE'S AN EX-POW

Finally, I would stop reminding everyone that he's an American hero and you revere his service every time you talk about him. Let his campaign paint that picture of him. You don't need to give your audience that warm and fuzzy feeling about him, especially if you're going to follow up by beating him mercilessly over the head with all of his shortcomings. Let him be the hypocrite, not you.

Now go get him!

Posted by: Dave | April 25, 2008 2:30 PM | Report abuse

LOL!

God Blessed the GOP, with the appointment to the DNC of Howling Dean!

First, Florida and Michigan get alienated for trying to make their Primaries more significant, THEN;

Howling, San Fran Nan, and Hair-brain Reid decide to usurp Indiana and many other States ability to be Significant, all because they were STUPID enough to WAIT!

Pardon me while I LMFAO! :-D

Posted by: RAT-The | April 25, 2008 2:29 PM | Report abuse

And Reid, Pelosi and Dean will pressure the super's starting next month. Yep; it's all winding down. Looks as if Hillary's "big win" in PA was for naught. Unless she can get the MI vote accepted. Then all hell breaks loose.

http://www.political-buzz.com/

Posted by: matt | April 25, 2008 2:23 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company