Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Hillary Clinton and the 'Told You So' Calculation

Facing almost impossible odds in her quest to become the Democratic nominee for president, Hillary Rodham Clinton has started to cast the presidential race as a historical anomaly in which she is being badly mistreated.

In doing so, Clinton and her husband seem to be laying the groundwork -- whether unconsciously or consciously -- to go back to Democratic voters if Barack Obama comes up short in November with a very concise message: "Told you so."

To be sure, the Clintons are FAR too savvy to use that exact language, but the sentiment, nonetheless, is accurately summed up in those three words.

Need evidence? Look no further than comments made by former president Bill Clinton during a campaign stop over the weekend in South Dakota.

"She is winning the general election today and [Obama] is not, according to all the evidence," the former president said, according to CNN. "And I have never seen anything like it. I have never seen a candidate treated so disrespectfully just for running."

Clinton herself sounded a similar message during her now-famous interview with the Sioux Falls Argus Leader editorial board on Friday, in which she registered amazement that she was coming under such pressure to leave the race before the primaries end next week.

"I find it curious because it is unprecedented in history," Clinton said. "I don't understand it and between my opponent and his camp and some in the media, there has been this urgency to end this and you know historically that makes no sense, so I find it a bit of a mystery." (Clinton made that remark right before she brought up Robert F. Kennedy's 1968 assassination.)

The Clintons' message is that Democrats are ignoring all past precedent in choosing their nominee in this race, and that alleged break with history has serious implications in the fall general election.

As we have noted in this space before, Clinton's general election argument has some real merit. Current polling in Florida, Pennsylvania and Ohio shows Clinton running better than Obama against John McCain in hypothetical general election matchups. Couple that trio of states with surveys that show Obama and McCain knotted in a tie in Michigan and there is reason for some level of concern within the Democratic ranks. Win none of those four states and it's hard to see how Obama becomes president this November.

(Obama, of course, argues -- and polling bears out -- that he is the stronger candidate in states like Colorado, New Mexico and Iowa -- all three of which President George W. Bush won in 2004. Even if he wins those three states, however, it would only equal the number of electoral votes -- 21 -- gained by winning Ohio.)

The Clintons -- ever the consummate pols -- know that the likelihood of convincing the vast majority of remaining superdelegates to side with her over Obama -- who leads in pledged delegates, popular vote (excluding Florida and Michigan) and total contests won -- is slim.

But one of the hallmarks of the Clinton brand is the ability to live to fight another day. That means, within the context of this campaign, it's necessary to make the strongest case possible about why Senator Clinton would be the strongest candidate between now and the end of the primaries on June 3. Then, in all likelihood, Clinton bows out of the race and spends the next five months working as hard as possible for Obama.

The Fix chatted with a number of unaligned Democratic strategists about this theory and, to a person, they agreed that Clinton's best course once she decides to end her bid is to become Obama's top advocate.

"I think that when Obama is the nominee you will see Clinton campaign vigorously for him because she needs the 'healing' coefficient with Democratic insiders who view her as hurting the party more than she needs the 'I told you so' coefficient," said Democratic pollster John Anzalone. "She is already viewed as a bad sport on the playing field, and she has lost supporters and insiders because of it. She needs to repair that and she can do that by being a big booster in the fall."

Clinton need only look as far as the last presidential election for guidance. After losing a bitter battle for the Republican nomination in 2000, McCain became an ardent Bush surrogate during the 2004 campaign -- rehabbing his image among party insiders in expectation of a return run in 2008.

Lo and behold, when he ran for the nomination this cycle, McCain was viewed as a far more acceptable choice for establishment types who eight years before would never have chosen him. It helped McCain's case that even many ardent Bush backers in 2000 were afflicted with a bit of buyer's remorse eight years later when they were faced with McCain again.

History is not as kind to Democratic retreads, but the truth of the matter is that Clinton's best hope to be president depends on three factors:

In the short term, she must continue to make the case that not only would she be the stronger candidate against McCain but that in not picking her Democrats are going against historical patterns.

In the middle term, she must transform herself into a fervent Obama advocate -- leaving no question that she wants to see the Illinois senator elected president. As Matt Bennett, a former Clinton administration official, put it: "If she reveals that she's rooting against the Democrats in any way in the general, she would become a pariah."

Finally, in the long term, Clinton needs to hope that if Obama is defeated (and we have ABSOLUTELY no evidence to believe she would like to see that scenario come to pass), the after-action report within the party jibes with the argument she is making in the final days of the primary: That Democrats rushed to judgment by picking the fresh face rather than the reliable warrior, and that the big, Rust Belt states were always the crucial battleground in the race versus McCain.

The window appears to be closed on Clinton in the race for the 2008 nomination. But that doesn't mean that the final weeks of her bid are without purpose as it relates to her future political plans. Keep a close watch on what she and her husband say between now and when she leaves the contest -- likely early next month. It could be a telling sign of what she has planned for her own future.

By Chris Cillizza  |  May 28, 2008; 5:00 AM ET
Categories:  Eye on 2008  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Obama Heads To Michigan Next Week
Next: Clinton: The Difference Between Could and Will

Comments

check out www.larouchepac.com under breaking news section for the May 30 at 4:11pm, "How Soros Financed Obama's Campaign"Obama's campaign is a SHAM and he is a phoney!!! Because there are reports now coming out that both the DNC and Obama's campaign has been bankrolled by billionaire George Soro and his inner circle of millionaires since 2004 for his Senatorial campaign, 2006 to map out his presidential campaign strategy and 2007 when he announced his candidancy. Oh and let's not forget billionaire Oprah Winfrey's contributions... Apparently the exact number of super delegates Obama' needed to 'cinched' the presumptive nominee status Tuesday was specifically bought by George Soros' billions that afternoon and evening.Knowing more reports are coming out, can't help but think this is why both the DNC and Obama decides yesterday to stop accepting special interests contributions? He is a SHAM and a PHONEY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: Anonymous | June 6, 2008 11:50 AM | Report abuse

check out www.larouchepac.com under breaking news section for the May 30 at 4:11pm, "How Soros Financed Obama's Campaign"Obama's campaign is a SHAM and he is a phoney!!! Because there are reports now coming out that both the DNC and Obama's campaign has been bankrolled by billionaire George Soro and his inner circle of millionaires since 2004 for his Senatorial campaign, 2006 to map out his presidential campaign strategy and 2007 when he announced his candidancy. Oh and let's not forget billionaire Oprah Winfrey's contributions... Apparently the exact number of super delegates Obama' needed to 'cinched' the presumptive nominee status Tuesday was specifically bought by George Soros' billions that afternoon and evening.Knowing more reports are coming out, can't help but think this is why both the DNC and Obama decides yesterday to stop accepting special interests contributions? He is a SHAM and a PHONEY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: Anonymous | June 6, 2008 11:39 AM | Report abuse

How come no one is asking this question to Mr. McCain, if his Experience and longevity in the Senate is to be considered a quality which will help America to move to the right direction and elects him as the president, then why are we are in this predicament? Aren't his party and their philosophy put us in this awful situation? Why do we have to believe him now after all this years of Public servant and the voice of all American people wasn't he suppose to make the difference, what has he done?

Or is he saying this to be elected and then go back to the same old Washington politics.

Posted by: John | June 5, 2008 10:57 AM | Report abuse

How come no one is asking this question to Mr. McCain, if his Experience and longevity at the Senate is to be considered a quality which will help America to move to the right direction then why we are in this predicament isn't his party and their philosophy put us in this awful situation. Why do we have to believe him now after all this time he has served as a Public servant and the voice of all American people why did we not see any progress what so ever? And infact we regressed as a Nation.

Posted by: Omar | June 5, 2008 10:32 AM | Report abuse

1. Obama's fundraising pal, Tony Rezko is found guilty for corruption charges, mainstream media reports....

2. Carolina Kennedy on Obama's VP search team may coincidentally appear to pick billionaire NYC Mayor Bloomberg because she works for him and this would follow the Anglo-Dutch oligarghy's agenda to install corporate fascism in the U.S. with the supportive of like-minded U.S. politicians and wealthy business people. Corporate fascism is the privatization of the U.S. government and the people's sovereignty is destroyed. Corporations and wealthy people will run the country.

3. McCain has challenged Obama to 12 town hall style debates WITHOUT teleprompters, LOLOL.... Guess everyone knows his secret, the inability of speaking publicly without teleprompters, LOLOL......

Posted by: Anonymous | June 5, 2008 8:24 AM | Report abuse

1. Obama's fundraising pal, Tony Rezko is found guilty for corruption charges, mainstream media reports....

2. Carolina Kennedy on Obama's VP search team may coincidentally appear to pick billionaire NYC Mayor Bloomberg because she works for him and this would follow the Anglo-Dutch oligarghy's agenda to install corporate fascism in the U.S. with the supportive of like-minded U.S. politicians and wealthy business people. Corporate fascism is the privatization of the U.S. government and the people's sovereignty is destroyed. Corporations and wealthy people will run the country.

3. McCain has challenged Obama to 12 town hall style debates WITHOUT teleprompters, LOLOL.... Guess everyone knows his secret, the inability of speaking publicly without teleprompters, LOLOL......

Posted by: Anonymous | June 5, 2008 8:20 AM | Report abuse

LaRouche Denounces British Imperial Drive to Control U.S. Presidential Elections
Increase Decrease

June 3, 2008 (LPAC)--Lyndon LaRouche today denounced growing evidence that there is a British imperial drive to control the U.S. electoral process, particularly the U.S. Presidential elections.

``The evidence, as presented to me, is compelling. Foreign interests, specifically the British imperial interests, are playing a treacherous hand, attempting to shape the outcome of this most crucial Presidential election in the postwar period.''

Indicative of this effort, LaRouche elaborated, are the actions of George Soros, a product of the Anglo-Dutch offshore financial system, created in the wake of the destruction of Franklin Roosevelt's Bretton Woods financial system, to control the Democratic Party, through the spreading of massive amounts of cash, to contaminate the delegate selection process, and otherwise steer the Democratic Party into a self-destructive corner. ``Just look at Soros front groups, like MoveOn and his Democracy Alliance,'' LaRouche further explained. ``I am receiving reports that enormous amounts of money--the ill-gotten gains of Soros' career in offshore speculation and currency manipulation--are going into the pockets of some leading Democrats, in an effort to shut down the still-ongoing campaign for the Democratic Presidential nomination. The parallels to the 1932 Democratic convention, when the British-aligned J.P. Morgan interests literally attempted to buy control of the Democratic National Committee, to block the nomination of Franklin Roosevelt, are precise. Soros' Howard `Scream' Dean is the latter day John J. Raskob, the Morgan/DuPont retainer, who was installed as Democratic chairman to destroy FDR.

``I have warned,'' LaRouche continued, ``that the British are committed to eliminating Hillary Clinton from the Democratic Presidential nomination. They have no intention of allowing Barack Obama to actually win the Presidency. If Hillary Clinton were to be eliminated, the British would proceed, post-haste, to destroy Barack Obama, under a mountain of scandal, or by other means. Right now, the British imperial faction is profoundly upset at where things stand, because on this final day of the Democratic primary vote in South Dakota and Montana, there is no clear Democratic Presidential nominee--and that was not supposed to have happened. I have warned, repeatedly, about this British interference in the internal political affairs of the United States, a country that still retains a semblance of national sovereignty.

``We are,'' LaRouche concluded, ``already in the midst of the worst financial and monetary collapse in modern history, a collapse brought on by the British destruction of the Bretton Woods system, and the takeover of the U.S. Dollar by an Anglo-Dutch financial oligarchy, based in London and in offshore financial centers, like George Soros' Dutch Antilles and the Cayman Islands. We must return to the American System policies that were last fully implemented by President Franklin Roosevelt. The stakes have never been greater than they are in this Presidential election, and I call on all patriotic Americans to join in defeating this latest British imperial treason.''

Posted by: Anonymous | June 3, 2008 10:15 AM | Report abuse

Moveon.org, Built on Soros Money, Campaigns for Pelosi Against Clinton
Increase Decrease

June 1, 2008 (LPAC)--The Web-based organization moveon.org is running a pressure campaign against "millionaire donors" who support Hillary Clinton. The initiative is the more shameless in that it was notoriously one particular billionaire who pumped up moveon: George Soros.

The current moveon pitch is as follows:

"Stand up for Democracy in the Democratic Party.

"A group of millionaire Democratic donors are threatening to stop supporting Democrats in Congress because Nancy Pelosi said that the people, not the superdelegates, should decide the Presidential nomination.

"They're Clinton supporters and they're trying to use their high-roller status to strong arm the Democratic leaders.

"So let's tell Nancy Pelosi that if she keeps standing up for regular Americans, thousands of us will have her back.

"A compiled petition with your individual comment will be presented to Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Democratic leadership.

"Full petition text:

"The Democratic nomination should be decided by the voters--not by superdelegates or party high-rollers. We've given money--and time--to progressive candidates and causes, and we'll support Speaker Pelosi and others who stand up for Democracy in the Democratic Party."

Embarrassingly, since Hillary Clinton has been moving ahead of Barack Obama in popular votes in the primaries, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has reversed herself and said only delegates, and not popular vote totals, are significant.

George Soros is acknowledged as the leading contributor to moveon.org. The group was formed in 1998, but Soros' big public arrangement with them was five years later.

In 2003, George Soros met with Moveon.org founder Wesley Blade at Soros's New York home, and arranged that Soros and his associates would lavishly fund Moveon. In the next few months, George Soros contributed $2.5 million, his son Jonathan Soros contributed $101,000, and these contributions came from the arrangement: Peter B. Lewis, $2.5 million; $971,000 from Peter Bing; and $100,000 from Lewis Cullman.

Thus the total put together by Soros in this one deal in 2003-2004 was just short of $6.2 million - one of the all-time largest "soft-money" packages ever. In 2004, just after this arrangement was made, George Soros began his personal sponsorship of Barack Obama's political career.

Posted by: Hillary 08 | June 3, 2008 7:55 AM | Report abuse

Reality Check to Chris, the DNC and the MSM - Hillary Clinton has been badly treated...she doesn't have to make the case - the biased media did it for her...contrary to the media's indoctrination...the public isn't as stupid as they think...even the hicks from the hills...we can see fairness and we can see bias...and we can see a media that is in the tank for one candidate...

trust me...it will be the democratic base that will be saying "We Told You So" when the democratic party goes over the cliff once again...it will be the democratic base that is becoming independents, will be staying home or those that became McCain democrats...the DNC and Obama camp think they can charm the Clinton wing of the party or scare the little women with Roe Vs Wade...guess what, this is not 1973...we have come a long way and if it means walking away from a party that does not even honor the votes then bye, bye...

We told you so...you would not listen...

Posted by: S | May 29, 2008 11:54 PM | Report abuse

So the Clinton's are dividing the party and thus making it harder for Obama to win, so that they can come back and say I told you so?

Posted by: A.D | May 29, 2008 10:14 PM | Report abuse

I AM RETARID FROM THE US ARMY I LOST ALOT OF FRIENDS WHO ARE HEIOS TO ME BECAUSE THEY GAVE THERE LIFE FOR OUR COUNTRY.....OBAMAS WIFE SAID THIS IS THE FIRST IN HER ADULT LIFE SHE IS PROUD TO BE A AMERICAN WHY DID SHE STAY IN THE USA ???I DONOT KNOW WHO I WILL VOTE FOR BUT YOU CAN BE SURE IT WILL NOT BE OBAMA...I KNOW A LOT OF WAR VET. THAT FEAL THE SAME WAY BUT THAT IS WHAT McCAIN IS COUNTING ON RIGHT OBAMAS WIFE IS A B***

Posted by: R.L. | May 29, 2008 7:06 PM | Report abuse

The problem is that the Dem's have no winner takes all approach on the states. If that was the case Hillary would have buttoned this one up a long time ago. She still feels she won on Super Tuesday and now she is the "President in Exile".

Michigan and Florida would have more power now if they moved their elections to June.

Once again - Florida is a joke. When will they get it?

Now there's Bill - He just wants his free jet back. He should just keep his mouth shut because he is ruining her chances. We don't need Two President's in Charge.

No experience = Lose in November
Obama will not win.

I thought Hillary had too much baggage. Obama would be charged thousands of dollars by the Airlines for all that excess baggage he carries with him. To bad the so called News Media is carrying water for him - he would have been out of this race in Iowa. He has just started to be vetted.

A little late for the real contenders.

Posted by: John K. | May 29, 2008 6:17 PM | Report abuse

Interesting that when reading many of the Hillary supporters and their unhappiness with the Democratic Party and Obama, they claim that they generally and Hillary specifically have been "disenfranchised" and "hosed", among other critiques. I have yet to see one credible instance.

I supported Edwards, he lost so now I support the next best candidate. And so it goes until a Democrat is elected president.

What I look forward to seeing what all of these "hosed" Hillary supporters have to say when Hillary is out everyday on the campaign trail advocating for... Obama.

Posted by: The Great Oz | May 29, 2008 6:16 PM | Report abuse

Found this on another blog and there are a great many women who are feeling disinfranchised by the coronation of Obama... I highly concur with her:

"Women have been messed over for many years by the Democrat Party and it appears that millions of "US" will be returning the favor, should this primary season continue on its current path. Hillary Clinton is clearly the best choice to be our party's nominee for President. As a life-long Democrat, age 55, I think the way my party has hosed Hillary and their most loyal and largest voting block; women intolerable. I am confident the Democrat Party will pay a severe price for this blatant assault on women in November. Cry all you want about this being "sour grapes" but little good will result from your on-going efforts to rally Hillary's staunch supporters around your chosen candidate instead of the people's choice. Now, the Democrat Party leaders want women to get their pre- selected from the start, elite, wimp, Barack Obama elected in November. It will be cold day in hell before I comply and I also hope Hillary walks away from this Party. Most of the women, and many men as well, with whom I have contact are finished with the Democrat Party, now and forever. Also, many of "US" are starting a grassroots movement to insure these kind of sorry tactics employed by my now soon to be former party, never happen again. This clear favoring of Obama, making him the nominee because the party doesn't want a woman, especially a Clinton woman, is more that I can tolerate. Of all the gall, the Democrat Party now expects "US" girls, including Hillary, to turn over our undying support to Obama. Sorry guys, this is not going to happen. Obama has no shot of winning in November without Hillary's help and all of us, her supporters. Not on your life or in your wildest dreams is this going to happen."

Posted by: BMW | May 29, 2008 6:01 PM | Report abuse

Talking points....

*Over the last three months, Hillary has won more contests, more votes and more earned delegates than Sen. Obama. More Americans have voted for her than any other candidate. In fact, more people have voted for Hillary than any other primary candidate in history - some 17 million people.
*We expect to maintain our lead in the popular vote after winning Kentucky Tuesday - a state that President Clinton carried in 1992 and 1996.
*And despite what the Obama campaign may say, declaring Mission Accomplished does not make it so. This race is very close, and there are enough delegates remaining to deliver the nomination to either candidate.
*We are making the case to superdelegates that they have a responsibility to nominate the candidate who is best positioned to win in November and best prepared to serve as President of the United States.
* Hillary has won the key swing states of MI, FL, OH, PA and WV and runs ahead of Sen. Obama when matched up against Sen. McCain nationally and in battleground contests.
*She is clearly the most electable candidate: She has won 16 of the 20 Republican-leaning House districts won by freshmen Democrats in 2006. And in a survey of rural districts in more than a dozen swing states, she runs far ahead of Sen. Obama against Sen. McCain in head-to-head matchups.
* America is fighting two wars abroad and facing a recession at home - Democrats need a nominee who is ready to address those challenges on day one.
* Hillary has made a commitment to the people of every state to give them a say in the Democratic process. And she is committed to ensuring that the delegations from Florida and Michigan are fully seated at our convention.
* The American people have not quit on her and she will not quit on them.

Posted by: BMW | May 29, 2008 5:59 PM | Report abuse

So much talk about Clintonites would not vote Obama come November, fine! keep your votes, hence your votes couldn't help elect Hillary as the nominee how much more Obama in the falls.

Posted by: Fifa | May 29, 2008 4:05 PM | Report abuse

No wonder this country is in such bad shape. Look at some of these posts. The blog is becoming a dumping ground for "I'm right, you're wrong" comments. If some of you would back off and take a look at what's really going on around you, you might learn something. There's a lot more going on than what appears on the surface. Try looking beyond the media hype sometime.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 29, 2008 3:29 PM | Report abuse

To DSR:
Do you have any idea how many white women already support Obama? There are millions of us. I guess you don't get out much, if you don't know any of us. But just in my own family, we range in age from 21 to 82.

Posted by: ally | May 29, 2008 3:27 PM | Report abuse

The electoral argument has "real merit?" Please. You embarrass yourself.

Posted by: ally | May 29, 2008 3:25 PM | Report abuse

I guess, TIML, if "you're" (not your) not smart enough to know basic English, "you're" the bone-smokin' stupid one. P.S. I cast my first vote in 1978 and have NEVER voted for a Democrat. (Never will, either.)

Posted by: rich | May 29, 2008 2:16 PM | Report abuse

"Maybe we should split the country by common sense and IQ scores."

If the exit polls are any indication, Obama would win this election in a landslide. Both against Hillary and McCain.

Isn't that the argument Clinton is making? Only the smart people are going for Obama. The regular folk like her.

Posted by: DDAWD | May 29, 2008 1:20 PM | Report abuse

Sen.Hillary Clinton is the STRONGEST candidate to win the Presidency. Party leaders and Superdelegates need to endorse her or the Republicans will win once again.
The Repubs. and Dems are responsible for the Fla & MI mess. Counting 50% is unacceptable.

Preying in on naive college students is pathetic. Lots of Black people are RACISTS. They hate whites. Obama is looking for Black Power in this county. He is not a President for All. Beware of the Preachers: Obama and in particular Rev. Wright and his followers.

Posted by: John | May 29, 2008 12:21 PM | Report abuse

What effect should "campaigning" in Michigan-VOTE NON COMMITTED- have on the delegate/voter count? What "penalty" should the "accidental" Obama campaign ad have on the Florida delegate/voter count?

Posted by: Monica | May 29, 2008 12:10 PM | Report abuse

Cillizza contiues to unimpress...so much for the WaPo's high standards.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 29, 2008 11:38 AM | Report abuse

god - who are the freaks like Rich who come up with this insane stuff?

i guess if youre dumb enough to be suckered in by team obama , i guess your dumb enough for anything.

stupid down to the bone...

Posted by: TIML | May 29, 2008 11:22 AM | Report abuse

To Alex and anyone else who thinks that the Clintons give a rat's a$$ about you - think again. She's an actress at best. She runs alongside Schumer in NY and takes credit wherever she can, even and especially if she's done nothing for it. She's unaccountable and has a very spotty memory. She cried to get votes, as pathetic and childish as it was. Her experience? What exactly has she done? She's a US senator from a state that she "lives" in only because it suited her needs to be a US Senator. She loves NY so much that she lives in one of the wealthiest towns, too. Right - she really "gets" the middle class. It's all an act to get what she wants. It's why she stayed with a cheating, lying husband. It's why she went after a senate seat in a state she never lived in, and it's why she will do anything, say anything to sabotage the Democratic Party's bid for the White House. She has her eyes on the prize 4 years from now since all logic dictates that this election is not for her.

I'm a working mother, have a college degree, live in a suburb, and am of Western Europe heritage. Parts of my 'profile' should lump me into her support base yet I cannot, with a clear conscience, trust her as far as I could throw her. Ever since Bill was elected President, she has done little to convince me that she ISN'T a clueless know it all, elitist and shameless conniver.

Posted by: AE | May 29, 2008 11:20 AM | Report abuse

To: NotAlex

Interesting, very analytical. You care to try and qualify your statement?

Name calling comes very easily. Try and at least back up your statement.

If I were to delve that low, I might assume you're one of the brilliant people that voted for Bush twice... lol

Posted by: Alex | May 29, 2008 10:42 AM | Report abuse

i could give a crap if hillary is 2% better in the polls vs McCain in late May. picking the nom isnt just about polling, its about picking someone that'll actually do anything.

and i dont think Hillary will do a thing. I think she just wants to sit on the throne and cackle.

Posted by: Goon | May 29, 2008 10:40 AM | Report abuse

Wow...that "Alex" guy who posted below is a true nutjob. What a moron.

Posted by: NotAlex | May 29, 2008 9:43 AM | Report abuse

Oh please give it a rest Clinton supporters. No one has hurt Hillary more than herself. Nobody in the party has treated her badly, and she has done nothing but embarrassed herself by the constant stupid comments she makes every week. It's an absolute disgrace anyone with half a brain would even vote for this lady after half the things she has said, and ran her campaign.

I would vote for Obama and I want him to win but I would be just as happy to make sure she's not there and Obama lose because she's a disgrace to the United State of America. There's not a snowballs chance in you know what that I would EVER vote for this lady. Before you guys write another stupid piece like this actually talk about where things ACTUALLY stand right now. Hillary has NO shot to win this nomination, and put the blame where it truly belongs, on Hillary Clinton.

Posted by: Michael | May 29, 2008 9:39 AM | Report abuse

Looking forward to the fat housewife smackdown on Saturday in NYC. C'mon Hillary supporters...we've got the fire hoses and eggs ready for you!!

Posted by: Joe | May 29, 2008 9:38 AM | Report abuse

The Democratic party - especially the party elders - HATE the Clintons. They always have. Evidence the primary battle of '92 and the things that were said of 'ole Bill then. Reigle, Biden, Levin, etc. can't stand Bill and hate his husband, Hillary, even more. When she lost in Iowa, the chance was finally there to ditch Bill and Hill. The only Clinton backers now are those who they "own." I really wanted to see Bill go apoplectic when Gore sided with Obama, but I think big Al was keeping his options open for a convention-snatching nomination for himself. He doesn't have to decide publically at all anymore. (Too bad.) I realize that in politics a person has to be unscrupulous, but the Clintons are downright Machiavellian liars, who only care about their legacy. 'Ole Bill went to the polls every time he wanted to say something, just to be sure he'd get it right for the media-induced-ignorant masses' tastes. Funny how Bill hasn't got his husband to do the same things. Could it be that their "machine" has abandoned them? I said this eight years ago - the Democrats will not let Hillary run. And also this - Two years from now, Hill will be divorced from "fat-butt" and will cross the aisle to the republicans - where she belongs. Maybe then, she'll join the republican ticket in 2012 as V.P. What fun U.S. politics are right now. Two-hundred years from now, the history books will devote entire chapters to the first two decades of the 21st century. I can't wait.

Posted by: rich | May 29, 2008 9:37 AM | Report abuse

Experience does not mean good judgment. Clinton voted to send 4100 Americans to their death in Iraq without reading the intelligence report on Iraq. Clinton voted to send hundreds of thousands in Iraq to their death without having anyone on her staff with security clearance high enough to read the report for her. Clinton voted to spend trillions on an unnecessary and unwise war without spending ANY effort to understand the consequences of her vote. Voting to go to war in self-imposed ignorance should be an act of treason.

Posted by: think | May 29, 2008 9:35 AM | Report abuse

Some of these remarks sounds like they are being written by a child. If so and so don't win - I will vote republican. Are you voting for the sake of the country or just like the Clintons - for selfish reasons. It don't matter how you vote - You will have 4 years of either one or the other. All of this bickering back and forth - is very sad.

I'm ashamed of our Country.

Posted by: dturner | May 29, 2008 9:33 AM | Report abuse

If they say told you so, a large percentage of Democrats will come back with 'you CAUSED this'.

Posted by: Jack H, | May 29, 2008 9:31 AM | Report abuse

if america confesses to true democracy and a democratic process then why hate a guy (Obama) who has gone through the rigorous of the electoral process and seems a likely winner? for the clintons they didn't see this coming...they banked on big states and ignored the small state...this is a new world order where micro (small) stuff has the last laugh.

Posted by: JT | May 29, 2008 9:28 AM | Report abuse

DSR,

Please do not lump all white women in with you. I'm one, and would not vote for Hillary under any circumstances. She is a divisive, deceitful racist who is an embarrassment to her gender.

I don't believe, however, that she is looking to run in 2012. What is she going to do, dance back into Iowa and other caucus states after talking about how unimportant they are this time around?

Posted by: Kat | May 29, 2008 9:26 AM | Report abuse

Hillary, Clinton and Her Husband remind me of a Mussolini quote; either you are with me or against me no other choice in between. They do not care about America, all they care is how to control this country power after all corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely, their attitude has become, we want WIN no matter what, we will do anything to get what we want. Is like a child who wants some candy and when the parents say no, the child will throw a fit. This kind of obsession is dangerous the least.
I will get what I want no matter what is what history tell us to be aware, Prince Machiavelli, definition was by all means reach your goal no matter what! scary proposition.

Posted by: John | May 29, 2008 9:14 AM | Report abuse

Hillary will not help Obama in the fall. She may give him a token endorsement but she'll do exactly what she did in 2004 to John Kerry: She'll stay quiet. She didn't help Kerry because she didn't want to be faced with him winning and, thus, running for re-election in 2008. The same will happen this time around. She is already planning her 2012 run with the "told you so" argument in this article and, again, in 2012 she doesn't want a fellow Democrat running for re-election. Clinton Inc. cares about nothing but its legacy and will stop at nothing to achieve its manifest destiny of both Hillary and Bill serving as President. Obama is a fundamentally flawed candidate (Wright, Ayers, "guns and religion", etc.) but he's done a service by knocking Hillary out of the race (this time).

PS - Here's a shout out to "Alex" and his belief that only people who think as he does should be allowed to vote. Very sophomoric to say the least - there's Post Election Stress Disorder counselors out there for people like you.

Posted by: James | May 29, 2008 9:03 AM | Report abuse

Did anybody notice? There are only about 200 undecided superdelegates left, but Hillary still needs another 300 delegates to win. Even if all remaining superdelegates would vote for her, it wouldn't help her any more. So screech your heart out outside the Rules Committee meeting -- it's over!

Posted by: Bodo | May 29, 2008 8:52 AM | Report abuse

I liked Clintons even with all the scandals. I would have voted for them any time and did in senate races. Contributed too. But this primary has soured me. She is willing to sacrifice the interest of party and nation ( supreme courts etc) for her gain. All her tactics of belittling fellow democrat by comparing with Mccain is last straw. She has shown to be racist too. Win at any cost dimnishes her.

I may still vote for her if she is candidate but without any happiness or enthusiasm except to make sure Supreme Court is not ruined for next 30 years.

Posted by: Kumar | May 29, 2008 8:51 AM | Report abuse

I CTFU at those who said Hillary is being mistreated. IT'S NO ONE'S FAULT BUT HER OWN. She and Slick Willy pranced around like the Presidency was an entitlement that no one but her deserved. She thought that after Super Tuesday this thing was a wrap, and instead she got caught with her pants down. And because she feels she has an elitist entitlement to the office she will burn the whole house down if she doesn't get the key. I am amazed at how many people say that Obama is so inexperienced and unworthy, and that he has robbed Hillary of the nomination. Well if he is so inexperienced how the hell was he able to beat out a woman that so proudly touts her 35 years of political experience? Those who scream they will go republiKKKan and vote for McCain would have never voted for him in the first place because all they see if the color of the man's skin, and his middle name. YOU BUTT MONKEY'S FORGET THE MAN'S MOTHER IS WHITE!!!!!(Shes got Jungle Fever she's in love). So vote for McCain and get 4 more years of Bush policies, but rest assured Hillary WON'T GET THE NOMINATION IN 2012 because she will NEVER GET THE BLACK VOTE AGAIN. And there aren't enough uneducated "HILBILLARIES" up thurr in dem hills to vote for her. She is political toast...(PUT A QUARTER IN HER AZZ BECAUSE SHE PLAYED HERSELF)....

Posted by: blinded by the light | May 29, 2008 8:47 AM | Report abuse

It is strange but true that Hillary Clinton is trying to do everything to win the nomination, even if it is disadvantageous to her party and even when it is contrary to earlier agreement reached by herself. I am not American, but I can see the fact that she is too selfish.She has inspired changing rules mid game. I also find it possible that, her husband is on a mission of remotely ruling again. This is the motive behind, of which many have not recognized. He is the biggest pusher behind doors.

Posted by: Ferdi | May 29, 2008 8:45 AM | Report abuse

I don't have anything to do with your country because I don't live there, yet there's only one thing I want to say to the American people especially those supporting Clintons: Aren't you tired of the Clintons dominating the American politics ever since?! I watch your "Election 2008" closely and I am proud to support BARACK OBAMA though I can't vote for him. I wish i can though!

Posted by: Lady02 | May 29, 2008 8:00 AM | Report abuse

I would vote for Independent Hillary in a heartbeat.

It's actually sad that there are millions of people that would vote for her just because she is a woman... Obama simply because he is black... or McCain simply because he is a republican...

The truth of the matter is the only person that should win the vote is the most apparently qualified and promising candidate.

That being said, we should probably have more choices than say.... 2 or 3...

Things being what they are... we can't afford to experiment with newbies... The business of America is failing, in case no one noticed... I predicted this back when I was trying to explain to people why voting for Bush would be a terrible mistake... Of course this fell on dumb, deaf ears.. Well.. you people reap what you sow... You wanted him so badly, don't sit there and whine about it now, or your gas prices, etc.
Somewhere between the people that always vote republican and democrat, there are large numbers of uneducated people that are now endorsing a totally inexperienced "likable" black guy to office. Well, if he gets it, when he stumbles, because he has no experience and has to rely on his advisers and others with their own agendas, I don't want to hear you people whining about it later.
Read my lips, he has NO resume in comparison to either of the other two. We are in a dangerous time where the country is going down the tubes, and instead of choosing between the only two people with a real resume, if you choose him because he is black, he has a nice smile, or some other nonsense, you are no different than those that voted for an unqualified Bush. Mr. War president.
Now we have Mr. sit down with the enemies president. You people are so clueless you actually deserve to go down the tubes, the problem is you always bring the rest of us down with you. Maybe we should split the country by common sense and IQ scores.
I will repeat. I support Hillary because out of the 2 qualified candidates, everything points to her possessing the right skills and best interest of the people in mind.

Anyone voting for Hillary simply because she is a woman is an idiot, as is anyone voting Obama because he is black.

This is really no big deal in most pars of the world, people. Other countries have women and blacks for presidents. It's really not a big, huge deal. The U.S., land of the free and all, is just sadly slow with these things.

What do all those blacks I hear on the train saying "When he is president.." When he is president... what? The man has nothing in common with the brothas, no matter what finger motions on his shoulder he makes. What do black people think is going to happen? Their incomes will shoot up an extra 20K? You think that when we DON'T have universal healthcare, being black with a "black" president, will pay for the bills? Do NOT whine about this later...

(I am a "minority" myself, by the way)

The problem with Democracies is this: There are at any given moment, more uneducated people than educated, intelligent people (I dont just mean school, for all you college students), and so they are prone to self destruction.

This is why we don't just run on a popular vote, and have dumb party systems, imagine running the country on an open popular vote, the really qualified person would never get it, just the most popular one. It's comparable to how the geeky quiet guy that is trying to cure a disease makes only so much money and someone whacking a baseball with a stick makes millions.
If it werent for the fact I'm in the boat too, I'd be happy to see Obama win so we can watch him accomplish absolutely nothing.

We got change, change millions believed in.

P.S. You people that voted for Bush twice, shouldn't even get to vote at all... You've done enough damage to the country, don't you think?

P.P.S. Obama - If you really love this country and its people, I think YOU should drop out. Spend some time, build up that resume, do the country some good, and come back and earn it later. Sniping the presidency now, when the country is going down the tubes, won't do us, or ultimately, yourself any good... You'll go out like Bush, with lots of promises and little to show for them.

Good night, and Good Luck

Posted by: Alex | May 29, 2008 7:56 AM | Report abuse

I see why now they call this the fix. Your piece is nothing more than mindless and un-evidenced conjecture of a very bad kind indeed. I never figured 'journalists' to be so unabashedly conspiracy theorists. What exactly is the point of this article ... that anything Clinton says has some predetermined meaning for the press? Yeesh. Go back to traffic reporting or something more reality based.

Posted by: no wonder | May 29, 2008 7:31 AM | Report abuse

After the Kennedy coments by Clinton I did some research and this is what I found out: She is capable of doing what she implied, that woman is racist otherwise she should have bowed out:

This is what happens when you have dirt on the Clintons :
1 - James McDougal - Clinton's convicted Whitewater partner died of an apparent heart attack,
while in solitary confinement. He was a key witness in Ken Starr's investigation.
2 - Mary Mahoney - A former White House intern was murdered July 1997 at a Starbucks Coffee
Shop in Georgetown. The murder happened just after she was to go public with her story of sexual
harassment in the White House.
3 - Vince Foster - Former white House councilor, and colleague of Hillary Clinton at Little Rock's
Rose Law firm. Died of a gunshot wound to the head, ruled a suicide.
4 - Ron Brown - Secretary of Commerce and former DNC Chairman. Reported to have died by impact
in a plane crash. A pathologist close to the investigation reported that there was a hole in the top of
Brown's skull resembling a gunshot wound. At the time of his death Brown was being investigated,
and spoke publicly of his willingness to cut a deal with prosecutors.
5 - C. Victor Raiser II and Montgomery Raiser, Major players in the Clinton fund raising organization
died in a private plane crash in July 1992.
6 - Paul Tulley - Democratic National Committee Political Director found dead in a hotel room in
Little Rock, September 1992... Described by Clinton as a "Dear friend and trusted advisor."
7- Ed Willey - Clinton fund raiser, found dead November 1993 deep in the woods in VA of a gunshot
wound to the head. Ruled a suicide. Ed Willey died on the same day his wife Kathleen Willey claimed
Bill Clinton groped her in the oval office in the White House. Ed Willey was involved in several
Clinton fund raising events.
8 - Jerry Parks - Head of Clinton's gubernatorial security team in Little Rock. Gunned down in his
car at a deserted intersection outside Little Rock. Park's son said his father was building a dossier on
Clinton. He allegedly threatened to reveal this information. After he died the files were mysteriously
removed from his house.
9 - James Bunch - Died from a gunshot suicide. It was reported that he had a "Black Book" of people
which contained names of influential people who visited prostitutes in Texas and Arkansas.
10 - James Wilson - Was found dead in May 1993 from an apparent hanging suicide. He was reported
to have ties to Whitewater.
11- Kathy Ferguson, ex-wife of Arkansas Trooper Danny Ferguson, was found dead in May 1994, in
her living room with a gunshot to her head. It was ruled a suicide even though there were several
packed suitcases, as if she were going somewhere. Danny Ferguson was a co-defendant along with
Bill Clinton in the Paula Jones lawsuit. Kathy Ferguson was a possible corroborating witness for Paula
Jones.
12 - Bill Shelton - Arkansas State Trooper and fiancee of Kathy Ferguson. Critical of the suicide ruling
of his fiancee, he was found dead in June, 1994 of a gunshot wound also ruled a suicide at the grave
site of his fiancee.
13 - Gandy Baugh - Attorney for Clinton's friend Dan Lassater, died by jumping out a window of a
tall building January, 1994. His client was a convicted drug distributor.
14 - Florence Martin - Accountant & sub-contractor for the CIA, was related to the Barry Seal Mena
Airport drug smuggling case. He died of three gunshot wounds.
15 - Suzanne Coleman - Reportedly had an affair with Clinton when he was Arkansas Attorney
General. Died of a gunshot wound to the back of the head, ruled a suicide. Was pregnant at the time
of her death.
16 - Paula Grober - Clinton's speech interpreter for the deaf from 1978 until her death December 9,
1992. She died in a one car accident.
17 - Danny Casolaro - Investigative reporter. Investigating Mena Airport and Arkansas Development
Finance Authority. He slit his wrists, apparently, in the middle of his investigation.
18 - Paul Wilcher - Attorney investigating corruption at Mena Airport with Casolaro and the 1980 "
October Surprise" was found dead on a toilet June 22, 1993 in his Washington DC apartment. Had
delivered a report to Janet Reno three weeks before his death
19 - Jon Parnell Walker - Whitewater investigator for Resolution Trust Corp. Jumped to his death
from his Arlington, Virginia apartment balcony August15, 1993. He was investigating the Morgan
Guarantee scandal.
20 - Barbara Wise - Commerce Department staffer. Worked closely with Ron Brown and John Huang.
Cause of death unknown. Died November 29, 1996. Her bruised, nude body was found locked in her
office at the Department of Commerce.
21- Charles Meissner - Assistant Secretary of Commerce who gave John Huang special security
clearance, died shortly thereafter in a small plane crash.
22 - Dr. Stanley Heard - Chairman of the National Chiropractic Health Care Advisory Committee,
died with his attorney Steve Dickson in a small plane crash. Dr. Heard, in addition to serving on
Clinton's advisory council personally treated Clinton's mother, stepfather and brother.
23 - Barry Seal - Drug running pilot out of Mena, Arkansas, death was no accident.
24 - Johnny Lawhorn Jr. - Mechanic, found a check made out to Bill Clinton in the trunk of a car left
at his repair shop. He was found dead after his car had hit a utility pole.
25 - Stanley Huggins - Investigated Madison Guarantee. His death was a purported suicide and his
report was never released.
26- Hershell Friday - Attorney and Clinton fund raiser died March 1, 1994 when his plane exploded.
27 - Kevin Ives and Don Henry - Known as "The boys on the track" case. Reports say the boys may
have stumbled upon the Mena Arkansas airport drug operation. A controversial case, the initial report
of death said, due to falling asleep on railroad tracks. Later reports claim the two boys had been slain
before being placed on the tracks. Many linked to the case died before their testimony could come

before a Grand Jury.
THE FOLLOWING PERSONS HAD INFORMATION ON THE IVES/HENRY CASE:
28 - Keith Coney - Died when his motorcycle slammed into the back of a truck, July 1988.
29 - Keith McMaskle - Died stabbed 113 times, Nov, 1988
30 - Gregory Collins - Died from a gunshot wound January 1989.
31 - Jeff Rhodes - He was shot, mutilated and found burned in a trash dump in April 1989.
33 - James Milan - Found decapitated. However, the Coroner ruled his death was due to "natural
causes."
34 - Jordan Kettleson - Was found shot to death in the front seat of his pickup truck in June 1990.
35 - Richard Winters - A suspect in the Ives / Henry deaths. He was killed in a set-up robbery July 1989.
THE FOLLOWING CLINTON BODYGUARDS ARE DEAD: 36 - Major William S. Barkley Jr. 37
- Captain Scott J. Reynolds 38 - Sgt. Brian Hanley 39 - Sgt. Tim Sabel 40 - Major General William
Robertson 41 - Col. William Densberger 42 - Col. Robert Kelly 43 - Spec. Gary Rhodes 44 - Steve
Willis 45 - Robert Williams 46 - Conway LeBleu 47 - Todd McKeehan
Quite an impressive list! Pass this on. Let the public become aware of what happens to anyone who
might damage the Clinton machine


Posted by: Concerned John | May 29, 2008 1:25 AM

Posted by: John | May 29, 2008 7:21 AM | Report abuse

No hold, is a really angry american. How you let anger build up that much to strongly hate Mr. Obama is amazing to me. Truth be told, Mr. Obama has been nothing but kind to the Clintons. The gentleman has been the underdog. The fact that the underdog has beaten the Clintons, the Clintons!?!, make think about November

Posted by: Good Democrat | May 29, 2008 7:04 AM | Report abuse

Being unfairly treated by the media isn't what killed Hillary's chances. She and her husband did it all by themselves. It's been her(and his) own words and deeds that have doomed her. First, there's the fake crying and the "I found my voice"(in an obviously phony voice). Then the "iron my shirt" fiasco. Then Bill's fairy tale comment. Then there's the phony story about how she landed in Bosnia under sniper fire, her flippant dismissal of the incident(she didn't misspeak or make a mistake--she outright lied about it), and Bill's lies about how she only said it once(it was at least three times, if not more). Now, they're trying to change the rules in midgame by doing everything they can to get the Florida and Michigan delegates fully seated, even though she was fine with them not being counted before(and even signed something stating so). And that's by no means a complete list. There's no way I could ever trust her with my country now, and don't see how anyone else could either.

Posted by: Dij | May 29, 2008 6:50 AM | Report abuse

The only way to truly honor Michigan's vote is to look at exit polls, because Obama did the right thing and removed his name from the ballot.

Exit polls show that if Obama had been on the ticket, Clinton would have received about 271,000 votes, and Obama 206,000 votes. Put these into the vote totals, and Obama still leads the popular vote.

By ignoring these figures, Clinton is becoming numbingly akin to George Bush in her stance of boldly stating what she wants people to think repeatedly, loudly, and without any wavering, so that her preferred positions can be echoed round the media, and have a chance of becoming acceptable premises.

Even more akin to George Bush, and I've only come to this view in the past 2 days, is the fact that Clinton's statements only make sense when you figure in complicated strategic calculations or hidden agendas, such as are laid out in the above post. Otherwise you have to think she's deluded.

As we see from McClellan's new book, the answer in George Bush's case is that he was deluded. Maybe this is the answer for Hilary Clinton as well. Maybe we should call it as it looks.

Posted by: elp | May 29, 2008 6:50 AM | Report abuse

i will both not vote obama hussien, and will also switch paries should hillary not win.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 29, 2008 6:50 AM | Report abuse

Oh please...this piece should have never been written. It's based on a false premise and the logic is flawed.

The Bush-McCain primary (and McCain's response thereafter) cannot in any way be compared to the Obama-Clinton primary!

It was the Bush campaign and his supporters who ran the scorched earth/kitchen sink campaign that year - NOT the McCain campaign. So when McCain, who was on the RECEIVING end of "the kitchen sink" reached out to the Bush administration, he clearly was operating from the moral high ground - showing he was the better man. McCain had no image to repair.

This year, it's the Clinton campaign that ran the scorched earth/kitchen sink strategy. No matter what she does to support Obama, she will NOT be operating from the moral high ground - because HER task (unlike McCain's) is to REDEEM her image, if that is even possible.

Cilizza, you blew this one!

Posted by: DeeDee | May 29, 2008 6:46 AM | Report abuse

We have seen a lot of desperate Democratic leaders suddenly scrambling to "unify" with Clinton's supporters, now that they realize that their snow job of an election has caused turmoil and will lead to an Obama boycott in November.

The classic response to our anger says that we need to relax, take a deep breath, not let emotions cloud judgment, and to think about Roe, your uterus, Third World uteruses, Iraq, thousands of dying soldiers, the economy, Bush III, and many other desperate pro-Obama/Democrat talking points designed to crush the boycott and instill fear.

Well, here's a strong response. First of all, I do not need to clear my head and take a deep breath. I did not start voting yesterday, unlike many of Obama's supporters. Instead, I am a lifetime Democrat, and I have been voting for Democrats locally, state-wide, and nationally since 1978.

I am very experienced having my candidate lose, but then moving on to support the party ticket. I get the idea of party unity, so stop treating me like I'm an idiot.

Second, my vote in November goes beyond the liberal "issues" you describe: it protests liberal hypocrisy. The party espouses equality rhetoric but has been completely dishonest and contradictory during this election.

The party has bashed poor white people and people whose last names are Clinton. The party has ignored Latino voters because recognizing them challenges the "only racists vote for Clinton script."

The party has invented claims of racial injustice to demonize the Clintons, when it's clear the black people are the racist. The party has ridiculed "uneducated" voters, even though Democrats supposedly represent disadvantaged people. (Where do I fit in)?

Male party members and liberal media have constantly called for Clinton to drop out -- starting after Iowa -- in order to place an aura of doubt around her campaign. The party has ignored voters in Florida and Michigan in order to legitimize Howard Dean's bad judgment.

The party has completely ignored or even denied the sexist treatment of Clinton, while responding with absolute venom to any real or imagined "racism" directed towards Obama. The party has allowed Obama to wear multiple racial hats -- the nonracial black man, the just black enough to be an historic black president, and the black racial victim -- to secure votes.

If Clinton deviates even slightly from a prior script, she is portrayed as a horrible witch who would do "anything to get elected." I refuse to join this madness.

When Obama won Michigan he referred to Clinton's win as winning a "Beauty Contest", In April, Obama pranced around and described Clinton as "Annie Oakley" gunning her way through Pennsylvania for votes.

But when he came out looking like Steve Urkel bowling and drinking Yuengling for votes in the same state, the media and party ate it up -- another "precious" Obama moment. Recently, CNN.COM posted footage of some mesmerized journalist covering Obama's jeans. Why should I have to endorse this mayhem?

Third, I am unmoved by the progressive issues that the pro-Obama side uses to scare us into voting for him.
But you got to love "the horror":

If you vote for McCain or don't vote for Obama, the Supreme Court will overrule Roe, thousands of men and women will die in Iraq, poor people will remain poor, the environment will decline, we will not achieve peace on earth and domestic tranquility, and you will deprive "our children" from having a "great country." I feel a tear coming! I don't buy it.

These are just Karl Rovian "red alerts."
Obama is not entitled to our votes. He did not earn my loyalty.

Whatever loyalty the party had from me prior to this election has been destroyed.

Earlier on when we wanted to discuss progressive issues, the Obama camp and the media silenced our efforts and instead focused on the big rock star pep rallies, Obamania, Camelot, weeping college students, and a host of other unimportant concerns.

People could not tell us specifically why they supported him, but they knew that he was the best and that he would bring "change." They told us that we and Clinton were cold and unhopeful and that emotions and inspiration were more important.

Clinton was a mere "policy wonk," while Obama made people "feel good again." Well, enjoy your Hallmark moments and stop being two-faced.

Suddenly, you want to talk about the issues because it benefits Obama.

Earth to my fellow Democrats:
Obama's snow job does not dictate the way I vote.

Very troubling is our Democratic leaders went right along with the Obamania. Disregarding a very strong, competent, qualified WOMAN, with 35 years of political experience, that has a proven record of changes she has made, for a MAN with little to no experience that has a background that includes a very radical left agenda, and had a former Terrorist conduct a fundraiser for him.

As a woman, I find this completely insulting and a disgrace to the Democratic Party.

I am still focused on issues, but topics beyond their "red scare" alerts are important to me as well. My vote responds to a party of hypocrites who dismiss loyal Democrats, bash and disregard older folks and women, and manipulate race - while calling it "progressive."
My protest is about not wanting to be a part of a vote that legitimizes sexism. I do not wish to condone the younger Democrats' misunderstanding of the Republican witch hunts that hurt all Democrats in the past -- what they call "Clinton scandals," when every honest person recalls them as Ken Starr scandals! Where was the "education" on this issue by party veterans?

The DNC rushes to bash McCain for his 100 years comment, which reputable entities like Factcheck.org say was not even true, but Clinton is misrepresented abundantly and all we get is silence. Party leadership and the media sharply denounce anything that could negatively impact Obama.

They describe legitimate and fair criticism of him as racist, mean-spirited, evil, or "Clinton politics."
Clearly the party leadership has determined that anytime he looks weak, the "boys" will endorse him or call for Clinton to leave because she is "hurting the party" and "kneecapping" the "first viable black presidential candidate" - as if Clinton alone should bear responsibility for remedying the country's history of racism which has kept people of color out of high office.

Well, party leadership and media, you made these rules; suffer the consequences. To paraphrase Obama, don't tell me my disgust with your behavior doesn't matter. Don't tell me sexism doesn't matter. Don't tell me liberal hypocrisy doesn't matter. Don't tell me fake racial politics doesn't matter. Don't tell me I must vote for Obama in order to be a "real" Democrat.

If being a real Democrat means disregarding and bashing women, the poor, and the elderly, manipulating race, ignoring Latinos, and stifling dissent, then I respectfully resign my membership!

Achieving justice requires sacrifice, brutal honesty, and passionate commitment. I will not "endorse anything to get a Democrat elected," and neither should you.

HILLARY or McCAIN NEVER NEVER HUSSEIN!

Posted by: no hold | May 29, 2008 6:30 AM | Report abuse

I'm amazed at what's being said about Hillary. Not the negative ones, but the positive ones. Though I was troubled by some of the things they did, my impression of the Clintons was still positive overall.

That has completely changed during this primary season. Starting with her "I found my voice" comment and the "iron my shirt" incident, both so obviously fake, my opinion of them has gone downhill in a hurry. The impression I get from both her and her husband is one of deceit, phoniness, vindictiveness, and a willingness to do anything to win, no matter how unethical or what the consequences may be. I certainly wouldn't want anyone like that in my personal life, and don't want them running my government either.

I have my doubts about Obama also. He gives a great speech and says all the right things. Whether that will translate into being a great leader for this country has yet to be determined. I'd much rather give him a chance and find out how well he can do than see Hillary, whom I already can't tolerate, get elected.

Posted by: Steve | May 29, 2008 6:22 AM | Report abuse

The media is not fair to Hilary, no mistake about it. That's why I stop reading the Time magazine one of them, and also I go to Yahoo which has fair reporting than CNN and MSNBC. The Daily
Review issued many gaffes made by Obama, yet none of these was ever mentioned at CNN news or MSNBC. The media who's portraying Obama as a good candidate for President of the US will not persuade me to vote for him. I don't trust your reporting anymore. I am changing my party affiliation if Obama wins the Democratic nomination.

Posted by: zentner | May 29, 2008 6:05 AM | Report abuse

No matter what happens, Clinton will win. She is the best canditate.

Posted by: zania | May 29, 2008 5:53 AM | Report abuse

Clinton has now taken Kentucky ... Nevertheless, Montana, South Dakota and Puerto Rico are still to come.

The Democratic race for nomination is still very much alive and most likely to be decided by superdelegates If you haven't done so yet, please write a message to each of your state's superdelegates at http://www.lobbydelegates.com

If you're tired of waiting around for those super delegates to make a decision already, go to LobbyDelegates.com and push them to support either Clinton or Obama

Posted by: Jack08democracy | May 29, 2008 5:11 AM | Report abuse

Hey Clintonistas! Did you here how Clinton got her Michigan and Florida wotes? These states decided to move primaries for earlier time. Democratic commity panish them and strip off their delegates,ALL democratic candidates including Clinton agreed that this is against the party rules and condemned this practice. All of them removed their names from the ballotts in this states. All of them but Clinton!
She changed her mind! This is excellent example of this family - their minds are very flexible. They have no strong convictions - political or otherwise. Do you want this strong feature in your future president, a person whose word is nothing? watch out - she will damp you too.

Posted by: arch-enemy | May 29, 2008 5:05 AM | Report abuse

I know that Clinton will be out there boosting Obama and trying to get her voters to vote for him. She has to, to keep her bonafides with the party, and if the exit polls on election day show that her voters gave him the edge in the swing states, she will retain a great deal of her influence within the party.

I think she has to be a big supporter of his agenda in his first year, especially the issues she cares about.

But I think Obama will falter once he gets in office. He is too green and doesn't know Washington and he is arrogant enough to think that doesn't matter. And once he loses his surefootedness, the media will turn on him like sharks. Nothing gets them going like blood in the water.

If his first year is full of blunders and failure then he will lose a lot of his mojo because there is not enough history of him taking care of other pols to make them stay with him. Plus I get this feeling there has been a lot of strongarming and intimidation from his campaign to the party elites and those who experienced them will do their paybacks once he is no longer seen as the "Phenomenon".

Then Clinton has a chance to redefine her brand in the party, perhaps begin to champion the issues Obama has dropped or mishandled.

Of course that presupposes that she has the talent and surehandedness to execute her moves masterfully, qualities she has unfortunately not shown much in this primary season.

Posted by: spoot | May 29, 2008 4:30 AM | Report abuse

"I do not want Clinton 4 years from now after 4 years of McCain. I want Clinton for President NOW!"

NOW! NOW! NOW! ME! ME! ME! WAAAAAAAAAAH!

Posted by: DDAWD | May 29, 2008 4:27 AM | Report abuse

I am a firm believer in a balance of power when it comes to government. The Country is never well represented when one party or the other has a President, Senate and Congress all sharing the same party. That's a powerful love fest, and a dangerous environment where extremist policies are more likely to succeed. Keep that in mind no matter which party you tilt towards supporting.
My strategy is to vote for a Republican President when the Democrats have the power in Senate and Congress, and vice versa. This year I will be voting for McCain. Not my first choice, but he is the Republican Candidate.
I will say this about McCain. At least he HAS a track record of crossing party lines to work WITH the Democrats. Much to the horror of the Republicans. That speaks volumes about his character, more than you can say about Hilary or Obama.
What HAVE they done actually? Anybody out there really know?


Posted by: cak | May 29, 2008 4:21 AM | Report abuse

I will dump the Democratic Party if they screw Clinton over by forcing her out. I do not want Clinton 4 years from now after 4 years of McCain. I want Clinton for President NOW!
Yes Clinton should run as independent just as Joe Lieberman did to win. I will vote for Clinton as President and no one else.
I hope Bill and Hillary are talking this over. After the way the DNC treated Hillary, they should turn their back on their corruption and inadequacy, run as an Independent and kick those Democratic scum to the curb. This terrible treatment of Clinton has backfired just like a shot of bad karma, the media and the DNC will find out that the people have spoken and the people choose Clinton. Obama is a sinking ship and boy I can't wait to see that ship sink after the crap he's pulled.

I hope Obama and minions are listening, your candidate will lose because your candidate did not win the nomination, it was stolen. Clinton should NOT under any circumstances support Obama. First, it wouldn't change any one's mind about why they do not want him to be President. Secondly, Hillary would win if she runs as a rival Independent.

Why does she need to deal with Democrats at all? Joe Lieberman didn't it. Hillary should dump the Party just as many voters have already done after seeing such terrible treatment of such a force of good in this country. A third Party created? Good.

Oh and get this. Clinton did not cause an division in the Party by finishing the race. To say such a thing is LUDICRUS! Obama and his disgusting racist campaign, and the media attacks on Clinton are why Obama is so hated by so many Democrats. This is a recipe of their own making. So I'm hoping for the fissure to break wide open and Clinton to win as an Independent. Then all of these whiners about 'party unity' can go take a hike.

Posted by: Sal | May 29, 2008 4:07 AM | Report abuse

Come on, the only reason Billary is fighting for Mich and Florida's votes is because she is losing. The DNC, Clinton, and Obama agreed to punish those states for violating the DNC rules, Obama's name wasn't even on the ballots, If Billary was winning, this wouldn't be an issue!!!!! The power hungry, Clintonite just can't accept losing. Enough Clinton's, no more!!!!!

Posted by: Kencox22 | May 29, 2008 4:00 AM | Report abuse

Really Chris Cilliza is one of the very few commentators worth reading with respect to American domestic politics. The sign of a good political journalist is not being able to guess which candidate he would vote for. My guess is that he would support a democrat (c.f. ability to carefully assess each political moment, not just to jump to a cheap headline!). Anyway, keep it up. Hopefully Hillary is smart enough to look to the future come early June. She needs to do exactly what Chris suggests.

Perhaps if she doesn't then my assessment of how wonderful I think she is was wrong.

Posted by: adamjacobbryant | May 29, 2008 3:56 AM | Report abuse

Wake up, Clinton True Believers; uncommitted Superdelegates are hanging back only to "show respect" for the futile effort of Hillary Clinton. As soon as the final primaries are over next week, the rush to Obama will begin.

Posted by: van Tilman | May 29, 2008 3:51 AM | Report abuse

This thread is absolutely wonderful!! Liberals, Socialists, Blacks, Feminists, Wackos and other left wingers gnashing at each others throats. Chaos reigns within the Democrats

Posted by: Paul F., Texas | May 29, 2008 3:46 AM | Report abuse

Being an Obama supporter, I am happy he will be the next Democratic nominee. That being said, if Clinton did get the nomination, I would vote for her in a heartbeat over McCain, and I completely fail to see why large portions of Clinton's supporters wouldn't. I seriously feel like I'm taking crazy pills or something...

Posted by: Dan | May 29, 2008 3:45 AM | Report abuse

Obama will NOT win in Nov. This country is not ready to elect a black pres. This may not set with an individual(s), but that is the truth. Cut out the fantasy and look at the overall fact. We will most likely have another Repub. pres (oh no), but Obama will not be back in 2012 or later. Stick a fork in that turkey because it's done in 08

Posted by: nebcaptain | May 29, 2008 3:44 AM | Report abuse

This is curious. Obviously each candidate has extremely loyal supporters. Both candidates are very close on the major issues like the war, the economy and healthcare. So, one of the candidates will be the nominee and one will not. Very simple. Let's say it will be Obama, just like the math says. Now why won't a Hillary supporter vote for Obama who is essentially carrying the same platform? If they vote McCain, do they believe in the republican platform? Will Obama be so bad that they would give up their beliefs and values? Do they want a continuing war? Do they support a failed economic policy that is tied to the war? Do they like it when America's image and standing in the world has deteriorated? Of course some will say yes but I'd guess the majority will say no. They will also say no when you examine McCain's blatant flip flops that will tell you that he has no real convictions. Its just politics.

Posted by: MVC | May 29, 2008 3:29 AM | Report abuse

I am ashamed of many comments posted on this blog. One person cannot hold the the whole nation to ransom over her presidential ambitions.I clinton claims to be more electable, she should have shown it by winning the Democratic primaries.She did not.All she wants to make sure is that Obama does not win the general election.Else why is she referring to race? (white)uneducated and blue collar jobbers? Is she a socialist?
Even the gambler knows the rules;for he saith,
You've gat to know when to hold 'em
Know when to fold 'em.
Know when to walk away,
know when to run..........

Posted by: Pat | May 29, 2008 3:22 AM | Report abuse

I am ashamed of many comments posted on this blog. One person cannot hold the the whole nation to ransom over her presidential ambitions.I clinton claims to be more electable, she should have shown it by winning the Democratic primaries.She did not.All she wants to make sure is that Obama does not win the general election.Else why is she referring to race? (white)uneducated and blue collar jobbers? Is she a socialist?
Even the gambler knows the rules;for he saith,
You've gat to know when to hold 'em
Know when to fold 'em.
Know when to walk away,
know when tor run..........

Posted by: Pat | May 29, 2008 3:20 AM | Report abuse

Clinton lost the nomination, so she could not possibly be "screwed out of it."

This story is a crack-up. If Obama loses, in what is so obviously a year for Democrats, Clinton will take the blame for it, after her comments like she and McCain are fit to be Commander-In-Chief, but Obama wasn't, or that she can win - basically saying that she doesn't think Obama can. She will become a political pariah to the Party if everything she has done to try and split the Party and divide Democrats ends up in the Democrat candidate not winning the general election. No one in the Party leadership will be interested in any "I told you so" comments...it'll be more like the Party telling her "It was your fault." Her political career will be over.

Posted by: betsyz | May 29, 2008 3:13 AM | Report abuse

I confess I'm bewildered by the number of women who are voting for Clinton simply because she's a woman and for no other reason. She has an unbelievable sense of entitlement which her supporters accept without question. Why? Why exactly is she entitled to country-wide acceptance as THE Democratic candidate? What exactly is so extraordinary in her CV that, after more questionable gaffes concerning truthfulness and integrity that I can count, those who question her abilty for the job are fanged as followers of the anti-Christ? I believe a lot of people who are not going to vote for her would love to see a woman President, but not this woman. The turn-off is not what sex she is, simply what she is.

Posted by: Sasha | May 29, 2008 3:08 AM | Report abuse

How is Hillary being "screwed out of the nomination"? She's still lagging far behind, even if Florida and Michigan are included. I'm all for a fair fight, but they shouldn't change the rules midstream just to make it look better for her. THAT, would be cheating someone out of the nomination.

Posted by: mjtimber | May 29, 2008 3:07 AM | Report abuse

Clinton lost the nomination, so she could not possibly be "screwed out of it."

This story is a crack-up. If Obama loses, in what is so obviously a year for Democrats, Clinton will take the blame for it, after her comments like she and McCain are fit to be Commander-In-Chief, but Obama wasn't, or that she can win - basically saying that she doesn't think Obama can. She will become a political pariah to the Party if everything she has done to try and split the Party and divide Democrats ends up in the Democrat candidate not winning the general election. No one in the Party leadership will be interested in any "I told you so" comments...it'll be more like the Party telling her "It was your fault." Her political career will be over.

Posted by: betsyz | May 29, 2008 3:05 AM | Report abuse

Clinton lost the nomination, so she could not possibly be "screwed out of it."

This story is a crack-up. If Obama loses, in what is so obviously a year for Democrats, Clinton will take the blame for it, after her comments like she and McCain are fit to be Commander-In-Chief, but Obama wasn't, or that she can win - basically saying that she doesn't think Obama can. She will become a political pariah to the Party if everything she has done to try and split the Party and divide Democrats ends up in the Democrat candidate not winning the general election. No one in the Party leadership will be interested in any "I told you so" comments...it'll be more like the Party telling her "It was your fault." Her political career will be over.

Posted by: betsyz | May 29, 2008 3:01 AM | Report abuse

I'm tired of everybody picking on Clinton, if the democratic party tries to screw her out of this nomination, than I would advise her to run in the National Election...as an Independent Candidate...stranger things have happened...like a presidential nominee named Obama....lol
That's RIIGHHHTTT....If Hillary ran as an "Independent" Candidate in the fall...gee, I wonder who she would pull votes from? "Obama-quin" or McCain? Who's side would she be tugging votes away from...Obama's done...You guys should do yourselves a favor and get the false messiah there to move aside and let Clinton take what's rightfully hers...the Democratic Nomination...

Posted by: Hillary, 2009!!! | May 29, 2008 2:39 AM | Report abuse

"Concerned John | May 29, 2008 1:25 AM"

So?

1 - Stu Sutcliffe, band member, died of "brain hemorrhage" before the Beatles hit the big time.
2 - Pete Best, original Beatles' drummer replaced by Ringo. Didn't die, but became a nobody.
3 - Brian Epstein, Manager, committed "suicide".
4 - Mal Evans, Road Manager, shot to death by police
5 - Paul Is Dead conspiracy, was supposed to have died in 1968, replaced by imposter
6 - John Lennon, killed in NYC by crazed gunman
7 - Maureen Starkey, former wife of Ringo Star, dies of "cancer"
8 - Rob Orbison, Traveling Wilbury, performed with George & Ringo, dies of "heart attack"
9 - Linda McCartney, wife of Paul, died of "cancer"
10 - George Harrison, dies of "cancer"
11 - Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, Beatles' transcendentalist dies of "old age"

Coincidence? I think not. Must have been the Clintons as well.

And what about Elvis?!

Posted by: EsmeraldaB | May 29, 2008 2:37 AM | Report abuse

I laugh every time that I read "Nobody trusts Hillary."

Nobody? Has she not won the popular vote, which SHOULD include Michigan and Florida (not -- I repeat NOT the voters' faults) by over 100,000? Did I miss something here?

Obama will not win against McCain. When (not 'if' -- WHEN) this happens in November, you may humble yourselves quietly.

If by some miracle he DOES pull it off? I will apologize until my tongue falls out.

He's not going to win.
It's not going to happen.

Hillary WOULD win, if the DNC would only do the right thing.

Posted by: J. S. Lord | May 29, 2008 2:36 AM | Report abuse

Look, when Bill Clinton was president, i think we can all agree that we had a good country, economy, budget etc. Now back then, ALOT of people said hillary was really running the country and making the calls. So, if we had a great time then, and Hillary was really calling the shots, then WHY is she not the nominee already? Stop voting for a race and vote for an actual CANIDATE!!!!!

Posted by: Michael | May 29, 2008 2:16 AM | Report abuse

Did some body used the word appeaser. President? I don't trust any one who signed a document without reading it. Did some one used the word treaty. I only hope that our nice President would not have to sign any treaty. We would want to know one year later a treaty show up saying Hawaii was given to china, and was signed by our nice President. Before we think about what he can't do, let us think about what we can do. Mrs. President please read before you sign any document. PERIOD. You could have solved MI. FL last year if you had only read before sign. Don't feel too bad facts are facts.

By Patoir..CA

Posted by: Anonymous | May 29, 2008 2:07 AM | Report abuse

hello
new congrulations all the best.

Posted by: hamza | May 29, 2008 1:57 AM | Report abuse

Hillary can campaign as long as she wants to, the delegates
doesn't matter to the people,
our votes are what counts.
Stupid people made up the delegate game,we sure didn't.
And we do not want a corrupt
muslim for president, who is getting funding from syria, and has been involved with Rezko ( foreigner ) from syria
and has been on trial in chicago on 24 counts of fraud and corruption.
He helped Obama get his home in chicago and has donated huge amounts to his campaign, and has helped in other corrupt ways when Obama was senator in illinois.
Obama is a muslim and muslims
never change their beliefs.

Posted by: Vee White | May 29, 2008 1:50 AM | Report abuse

Hillary needs to tell the Democratic party to shove it and run as an independent. She deserves better than the way many in the party have treated her. That way Obama can have the liberals and the black vote and Hillary can represent the rest of America that noone seems to care about!

Posted by: David | May 29, 2008 1:37 AM | Report abuse

Not a soul in this whole long trail of comments has said the obvious--if we want to win in November we should just get together. I would prefer Clinton as the nominee, but it looks like Obama has it, so let him chose Clinton as Veep. Then we can all pull together for what should be a huge victory.

Posted by: jward | May 29, 2008 1:35 AM | Report abuse

Winning at any cost is the motto of Clintons. They would rather Obama lose in 2008 so that they can run again in 2012. They know McBush is at best one termer.
For Clintons rules are not important, for example Florida and Michigan votes should be counted for them, even though they broke the rules. Leaders like Clintons and Bush give bad name to USA, bacause they believe in winning at any cost.

Posted by: Clintons = Winning at any cost | May 29, 2008 1:34 AM | Report abuse

Don't expect this "hard working" black voter to vote for HRC. I'll vote green for Mckinney. You should beware that she is an african-american strong woman candidate.

Posted by: Shaun-Kar | May 29, 2008 1:34 AM | Report abuse

Strangely enough, the same demographic (blue collar and uneducated) who put Pres. Bush in power for 8 years are the same backing up Sen. Hillary Clinton!!!
I don't need to be a rocket scientist to see the link here!!!

ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!!! LET'S HAVE SOME EDUCATED PEOPLE RUN THE WHITEHOUSE AT LEAST IN THIS CRITICAL TIME FOR THE US!!! ENOUGH NONSENSE PEOPLE!!!

Posted by: Anonymous | May 29, 2008 1:29 AM | Report abuse

This is what happens when you have dirt on the Clintons :
1 - James McDougal - Clinton's convicted Whitewater partner died of an apparent heart attack,
while in solitary confinement. He was a key witness in Ken Starr's investigation.
2 - Mary Mahoney - A former White House intern was murdered July 1997 at a Starbucks Coffee
Shop in Georgetown. The murder happened just after she was to go public with her story of sexual
harassment in the White House.
3 - Vince Foster - Former white House councilor, and colleague of Hillary Clinton at Little Rock's
Rose Law firm. Died of a gunshot wound to the head, ruled a suicide.
4 - Ron Brown - Secretary of Commerce and former DNC Chairman. Reported to have died by impact
in a plane crash. A pathologist close to the investigation reported that there was a hole in the top of
Brown's skull resembling a gunshot wound. At the time of his death Brown was being investigated,
and spoke publicly of his willingness to cut a deal with prosecutors.
5 - C. Victor Raiser II and Montgomery Raiser, Major players in the Clinton fund raising organization
died in a private plane crash in July 1992.
6 - Paul Tulley - Democratic National Committee Political Director found dead in a hotel room in
Little Rock, September 1992... Described by Clinton as a "Dear friend and trusted advisor."
7- Ed Willey - Clinton fund raiser, found dead November 1993 deep in the woods in VA of a gunshot
wound to the head. Ruled a suicide. Ed Willey died on the same day his wife Kathleen Willey claimed
Bill Clinton groped her in the oval office in the White House. Ed Willey was involved in several
Clinton fund raising events.
8 - Jerry Parks - Head of Clinton's gubernatorial security team in Little Rock. Gunned down in his
car at a deserted intersection outside Little Rock. Park's son said his father was building a dossier on
Clinton. He allegedly threatened to reveal this information. After he died the files were mysteriously
removed from his house.
9 - James Bunch - Died from a gunshot suicide. It was reported that he had a "Black Book" of people
which contained names of influential people who visited prostitutes in Texas and Arkansas.
10 - James Wilson - Was found dead in May 1993 from an apparent hanging suicide. He was reported
to have ties to Whitewater.
11- Kathy Ferguson, ex-wife of Arkansas Trooper Danny Ferguson, was found dead in May 1994, in
her living room with a gunshot to her head. It was ruled a suicide even though there were several
packed suitcases, as if she were going somewhere. Danny Ferguson was a co-defendant along with
Bill Clinton in the Paula Jones lawsuit. Kathy Ferguson was a possible corroborating witness for Paula
Jones.
12 - Bill Shelton - Arkansas State Trooper and fiancee of Kathy Ferguson. Critical of the suicide ruling
of his fiancee, he was found dead in June, 1994 of a gunshot wound also ruled a suicide at the grave
site of his fiancee.
13 - Gandy Baugh - Attorney for Clinton's friend Dan Lassater, died by jumping out a window of a
tall building January, 1994. His client was a convicted drug distributor.
14 - Florence Martin - Accountant & sub-contractor for the CIA, was related to the Barry Seal Mena
Airport drug smuggling case. He died of three gunshot wounds.
15 - Suzanne Coleman - Reportedly had an affair with Clinton when he was Arkansas Attorney
General. Died of a gunshot wound to the back of the head, ruled a suicide. Was pregnant at the time
of her death.
16 - Paula Grober - Clinton's speech interpreter for the deaf from 1978 until her death December 9,
1992. She died in a one car accident.
17 - Danny Casolaro - Investigative reporter. Investigating Mena Airport and Arkansas Development
Finance Authority. He slit his wrists, apparently, in the middle of his investigation.
18 - Paul Wilcher - Attorney investigating corruption at Mena Airport with Casolaro and the 1980 "
October Surprise" was found dead on a toilet June 22, 1993 in his Washington DC apartment. Had
delivered a report to Janet Reno three weeks before his death
19 - Jon Parnell Walker - Whitewater investigator for Resolution Trust Corp. Jumped to his death
from his Arlington, Virginia apartment balcony August15, 1993. He was investigating the Morgan
Guarantee scandal.
20 - Barbara Wise - Commerce Department staffer. Worked closely with Ron Brown and John Huang.
Cause of death unknown. Died November 29, 1996. Her bruised, nude body was found locked in her
office at the Department of Commerce.
21- Charles Meissner - Assistant Secretary of Commerce who gave John Huang special security
clearance, died shortly thereafter in a small plane crash.
22 - Dr. Stanley Heard - Chairman of the National Chiropractic Health Care Advisory Committee,
died with his attorney Steve Dickson in a small plane crash. Dr. Heard, in addition to serving on
Clinton's advisory council personally treated Clinton's mother, stepfather and brother.
23 - Barry Seal - Drug running pilot out of Mena, Arkansas, death was no accident.
24 - Johnny Lawhorn Jr. - Mechanic, found a check made out to Bill Clinton in the trunk of a car left
at his repair shop. He was found dead after his car had hit a utility pole.
25 - Stanley Huggins - Investigated Madison Guarantee. His death was a purported suicide and his
report was never released.
26- Hershell Friday - Attorney and Clinton fund raiser died March 1, 1994 when his plane exploded.
27 - Kevin Ives and Don Henry - Known as "The boys on the track" case. Reports say the boys may
have stumbled upon the Mena Arkansas airport drug operation. A controversial case, the initial report
of death said, due to falling asleep on railroad tracks. Later reports claim the two boys had been slain
before being placed on the tracks. Many linked to the case died before their testimony could come

before a Grand Jury.
THE FOLLOWING PERSONS HAD INFORMATION ON THE IVES/HENRY CASE:
28 - Keith Coney - Died when his motorcycle slammed into the back of a truck, July 1988.
29 - Keith McMaskle - Died stabbed 113 times, Nov, 1988
30 - Gregory Collins - Died from a gunshot wound January 1989.
31 - Jeff Rhodes - He was shot, mutilated and found burned in a trash dump in April 1989.
33 - James Milan - Found decapitated. However, the Coroner ruled his death was due to "natural
causes."
34 - Jordan Kettleson - Was found shot to death in the front seat of his pickup truck in June 1990.
35 - Richard Winters - A suspect in the Ives / Henry deaths. He was killed in a set-up robbery July 1989.
THE FOLLOWING CLINTON BODYGUARDS ARE DEAD: 36 - Major William S. Barkley Jr. 37
- Captain Scott J. Reynolds 38 - Sgt. Brian Hanley 39 - Sgt. Tim Sabel 40 - Major General William
Robertson 41 - Col. William Densberger 42 - Col. Robert Kelly 43 - Spec. Gary Rhodes 44 - Steve
Willis 45 - Robert Williams 46 - Conway LeBleu 47 - Todd McKeehan
Quite an impressive list! Pass this on. Let the public become aware of what happens to anyone who
might damage the Clinton machine

Posted by: Concerned John | May 29, 2008 1:25 AM | Report abuse

Senator Clinton owes Obama nothing. He has messed up his chances of becoming President all by himself. He is unelectable. She is one of the best candidates we've ever had, but the media and the DNC have worked against her from the beginning.

I am angered by the actions of the DNC and it's lack of leadership. If their lunacy brings us an Obama nomination, Senator Clinton should quietly go back to her job as Senator and continue her superior work and NOT ENDORSE OBAMA. He does not deserve the Presidency, nor is he ready for it. How can they possibly discredit her so bad during the campaign, and then expect her to help. The gall. The utter, vicious, gall.

Obama and the DNC got themselves into this mess of what USED to be called the Democratic Party, they can get themselves out. We will remember how his campaign was run, and we will vote accordingly. It won't be for Obama.

Posted by: EsmeraldaB | May 29, 2008 1:18 AM | Report abuse

Senator Obama who while mentioning Senator Clinton during an April speech gave a sly finger flip and laughed with his audience over this signage is not someone I care to see nominated for or elected to office. Someone so immature is the opposite of what this country needs in the next President -- been there, done that.

Posted by: Mary R. | May 29, 2008 1:15 AM | Report abuse

Maggie,

I got a newsflash for you:

Every President in the history of the USA has masturbated somewhere in the WH! With maybe the exception of TrickyDick-less Nixon.

You are one sick puppy! Your DNA is a direct line from the sexually uptight, Puritans who were thrown out of Europe because of their religious fanaticism.

There's nothing deviant about self-gratification. It's a private act and frankly how would you know anything about Bill's private moments and where he practised them?

Oh and another newsflash: if you have kids they're masturbating too. In their rooms, with the doors closed, when they're in the house alone and maybe your own kitchen or bathroom sink. Your neighbors are doing it too. And guess what? It's none of your business! That it's on your mind, speaks volumes about where your head is really at.

Each and every day of this Primary Season has explained to me why I could never or want to be an Obama supporter. You people are on the other side of wierd. You are political schizophrenics with multiple personality disorders. I've watched you guys for months with the same fascination I had watching Sally Field in "Sybil."

But I'm tired of you people now. I'm ready for the whole lot of you to be locked in a closet and given enemas.

Ewwwwww!!!!!!!

Posted by: mimi | May 29, 2008 1:14 AM | Report abuse

Senator Obama, who while talking about Senator Clinton in April gave a sly finger flip and laughed with his audience over this signage, is not a person I look forward to seeing nominated for or elected to any office.

Posted by: consider | May 29, 2008 1:12 AM | Report abuse

The media fawned Obama into the nomination. But beware empty suits installed by MSM cheerleaders. The coronation of W didn't turn out so well.

Posted by: Martin | May 29, 2008 12:54 AM | Report abuse

Who would have thought Obama would be where he is a few months ago. So with 4 months to go watch this space. Alot could happen in the swing states. Clinton entered a contest and lost and she should accwept that fact and help Obama win in November

Posted by: John Nzogbia | May 29, 2008 12:44 AM | Report abuse

I am a service member and I have been to Iraq on numerious occasion. I will not vote for john Mccain. John Mccain does not support the interest of service members. He knows nothing about the economy. I respect him for his service to our country,but that does not make him qualify to be president. A mccain presidency would be a third Bush term, his policy mirrors bush poliicy. sorry

Posted by: john paul | May 29, 2008 12:43 AM | Report abuse

The Clinton's are not the only people who think that he can not win. Name me ANY state that Kerry lost and that Obama will carry. Ohio? Not likely. Republicans took it the last two elections and probably will again. Same with Florida. On the other hand I can name at least four states he may lose. Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin and Minnesota. There are others according to recent polls but that's enough. He has no margin for error and if he loses even one of them, it's over. The Democrats should have nominated someone safe like Joe Biden. They would have waltzed into the White House. Now I doubt if either of those two can win.

Posted by: Opa2 | May 29, 2008 12:39 AM | Report abuse

Well, Obama might not be able to win the general (although I think he will destroy McCain) but he he has already won the primary's so stop whining Clintonians and acknowledge your defeat!

Posted by: name | May 29, 2008 12:32 AM | Report abuse

The Clinton's are not the only people who feel that Obama can not win. A lot of us ordinary people feel the same way. Name me ANY state that Kerry lost that Obama surely will win. Ohio? Maybe but not likely. Republicans have won it in the last two elections and they know every trick in the book to keep it that way. Florida? Same argument as Ohio. New Mexico? Probably too small to make a difference and also problematic. On the other hand let's look at Democratic states in play: How about Pennsylvania, Michigan, Minnesota, Wisconsin just to name the top four. Surely he will lose one or two of them and he does not have any margins to make it up. This guy can't win. I do not know if Clinton can but Obama is toast, probably by mid October the writing will be on the wall. Than you can really blame the Clinton's as undoubtedly some will for some reason or another but facts are facts. The Democrats should have nominated someone safe, like Joe Biden for example. They would have waltzed into the White House. No, they had to go with the two people with the most baggage and now they will lose.

Posted by: Opa2 | May 29, 2008 12:27 AM | Report abuse

I was a strong supporter of John Edwards before he dropped out and decided to support Obama afterwords. The main reason I have for supporting Obama is the main reason I supported Edwards. Neither of them have ever taken money from special interest groups. I am tired of Washington being controlled by big business and would like to see a candidate in office that doesn't take money from these corporate blood suckers.
With that said, if Hillary somehow magically became the nominee in November I would vote for her in a heartbeat over John McCain. I still can't understand why a Hillary supporter wouldn't vote for Obama over John McCain. It just doesn't make sense.

Posted by: Lewis Antony | May 29, 2008 12:25 AM | Report abuse

The Clintons remind me of the football team that tells everyone who will listen that it should be crowned Super Bowl champion, except for the fact that it hasn't won enough to qualify for the playoffs.

It's your own fault you didn't win it on the field - stop whining about the refs.

Posted by: jaypem | May 29, 2008 12:25 AM | Report abuse

Have you Obamamania fever ruined your brains?

The wrong reason to vote for this guy, He wants to sit and talk to Iran, Why so they can be friends with us for a couple of days then bomb Israel and say it was okay with Obama. Two sit down with Cuba why so we can all smoke cigars and watch them play baseball and get juiced up like Cansceco, I would not vote for Obama if he wins, alot of my neighbor hood feels the same way. I liked Edwards and Clinton but when Novemeber comes around I might learn Independent.

Posted by: JJ Dupree | May 29, 2008 12:10 AM | Report abuse

Dear "Aloanstar"... yes, sorry to say, Bill Clinton IS a sex deviant. He has had a trail of sexual conquests longer than you can ever imagine, streching back for years and years.... hundreds and hundreds of women, of all ages, colors and backgrounds.

And he constantly masterbated into sinks in the White House (I know it's disgusting to menion this, but it's true). And he is accused of sexual predation, assault, rape, using Arkansas guard to pimp for him, and a whole host of other disgusting acts... all connected with his GROSS sexual addictions.

And it's well known that he and Hillary do not have a normal marriage. They have a political partnership, and they each do their own thing sexually.

And, finally, to be frank here, rumors have floated for years now about Hillary's lesbianism. I truly believe that's why she has tolerated Bill's gross sexual behavior all these years.

Posted by: Maggie | May 29, 2008 12:09 AM | Report abuse

Hillary is unelectable because most of the country doesn't like her and Nobody trusts her. Karl Rove and Rush Limbaugh are trying to help her with maps and rouge voters to drag this out long enough to cripple Democrats. Hillary Is George Wallace.

Posted by: Martin | May 29, 2008 12:05 AM | Report abuse

Thank you Maggie it couldn't of been said any better. With that I can call it a night.

Posted by: Chris | May 29, 2008 12:05 AM | Report abuse

Thank you Maggie it couldn't of been said any better. With that I can call it a night.

Posted by: Chris | May 29, 2008 12:05 AM | Report abuse

If Hillary's "I told you so" scenario comes true, it will be largely because of the hatchet job she has done on the nominee of her own party. When 2007 started, I expected to support Sen. Clinton for the Presidency. Now, I could NEVER support her .... and her husband.... for ANY office. They have worn out their welcome, their credibility, their....anything.... with me. Let them go home... to New York.... or Arkansas.... or Chicago.... or Pennsylvania, or wherever the hell she claims she is from this week and stay there!!!!!

Posted by: BryanPooch | May 29, 2008 12:05 AM | Report abuse

Why are you Clintonites still insisting that Hillary "won" florida and michigan. You can't win an unfair and invalid election !!

If an election only has one person on the ballot (Michigan) that IS NOT A FAIR ELECTION. That is the kind of elections third world countries have !!

THOUSANDS of voters did not go to the polls in Florida and Michigan because they were told their primaries were NOT VALID. Does that constitute a "fair election" ??

Voters in Michigan and Florida never got a chance to know Barack Obama, who was WAY LESS KNOWN at the time of the bogus primaries in these states than Hillary was, and yet he never campaigned in these states because HE HONORED HIS PLEDGE not to count these primaries. Does this constitute a "fair election" ???

Hillary supporters: GROW UP and learn to play by the rules. Realize that your precious candidate, Ms. Rodham-Clinton, has GONE BACK ON HER PLEDGE to not count these primaries. And now the ONLY REASON she wants to count them is to gain more votes, to STEAL MORE VOTES to gain on Barack Obama's huge lead.

And, as usual she is LYING about the whole thing. She doesn't care if someone is "disenfranchized" or not. She only cares about winning, and about power.

She and Bill are behaving DISGUSTINGLY about this whole thing, and they are threatening the solvency of the Democratic Party in the upcoming election.

The sooner they both disappear from politics altogether, the better for all of us.

Now ask me how I really feel... !!! Believe it or not, this post is a muted version of my feelings about this whole thing. I am incapable of finding the words to describe the level of my true disgust with the Clintons.

Posted by: Maggie | May 29, 2008 12:00 AM | Report abuse

Hillary is like the Lakers in the 4th Quarter, when your down you might not be out, do dribble,shoot pass and play good defence. Go HC and Lakers 2008 Champions

Posted by: Jesse James | May 28, 2008 11:59 PM | Report abuse

This is for Sonya if you don't listen to the media why are you on this web ?

Posted by: cgd | May 28, 2008 11:58 PM | Report abuse

Obama is the most Hated Candidate by most Muslims throughout the World.
He gave up Islam and chose Christianity.
He could set the trend for a lot of freedom loving people to follow his way of religious choice over religion by compulsion.
And that alone makes Obama worthy enough to take on the Muslim World.
The greatest threat the world is facing now was started by a bunch of Jihadists hiding in the caves of Afghanistan ,what started in 2001 is still continuing in terms of Economic destruction the whole US of A is facing currently and looks more than likely to continue through to the next decade.
The Country needs a new direction.
Hillary and McCain belong in the Jurassic Park.

Posted by: IM | May 28, 2008 11:57 PM | Report abuse

I am a Hillary Supporter....
I am NOT ignorant
I am not stupid
I am not mean spirited
I am not rude
I am not voting for McCain

I am a woman with children that I would like to see make it through college and have an opportunity at a decent job upon graduation.

I don't care about yesterday
I don't listen to the media
I DO care about the future
Everyones future... including YOURS!

I pray that we get the RIGHT leader in office. I don't need to insult anyone or berate the candates for that.

YES, wake up, but PLEASE grow up first.

Posted by: Sonya | May 28, 2008 11:54 PM | Report abuse

"Her husband is a known sex deviant." ???? Just because Bill cheated on Hillary does not make him a "deviant". What is so deviant about it?? I think the polls are in and more than half of married men cheat on their wives. It might not be right or morally ethic in some circles, but it seem to be pretty normal. I also don't know why it keeps getting brought up against Hillary. She didn't cheat, she didn't ask him to cheat...she certainly didn't enjoy the attention it brought her family. I liked Hillary before and I love and respect her even more as this race goes on. His is strong, smart and very deserving of representing this country as POTUS. Some people forget about the 17,000,000 votes cast in support of her. Those voters are the ones she stays in this race for...I am one!!

Posted by: Aloanstar | May 28, 2008 11:52 PM | Report abuse

I am a 60-year old white woman, and I am embarrassed by the way Hillary has operated during this nominating process.

She does NOT represent me, and I believe she has actually set the cause of "feminism" back at least 1-2 decades.

It would be great to have a woman president, all things being equal. I would love to see a bright, ethical, decisive, principled, visionary woman take the helm in this country.

Unfortunately, Hillary is not principled, nor decisive, nor visionary. She is absolutely not the right woman for the job.

Barack Obama actually represents feminist values WAY MORE than Hillary does. He is inclusionary in his thinking, rather than devisive and polarizing. He has great managerial skills and is decisive. He sticks with his principles and takes the long view of things.

And, last but not least, I truly believe Barack Obama has exhibited sound judgement on international matters, and that he will be a GREAT representative of this country to the world, and a great peace-maker. No way would I have the same confidence in Hillary.

Posted by: leslie | May 28, 2008 11:51 PM | Report abuse

I love reading these comments. It seems very few actully consider reality. Whether some like it or not, Florida and Michigan will actually vote in the General Election. Hiding behind rules, or he took his name off ballot, has no impact on the truth. Clinton beat Obama by double digits in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida and Michigan, whether or not you want to recognize the facts. These are the big battleground states. If Obama loses 3 out of 4 he likley loses the election. Why is it so many foregt we (unfortunately) have an Electoral College system. The winner of this vote, not the popular vote, wins the election. Has everyone already fogotten Al Gore in 2000? Probable rule of thumb: win the big battleground states - win the election; lose the big battleground states - lose the election. Not complicated.

Posted by: Steve | May 28, 2008 11:47 PM | Report abuse

Have you Clinton fans listen to yourself. You a disgrace to the democratic party and as so blinded by creed you can't see the cart in front of the horse. How can you forget the wrong the Clintons have done over the years. If nothing else the disrespect they should our country from behavior in the White House. I'm beginning to think the people who are writing these emails for her are the same ones that trashed our White House on their way out. Be careful there is a list of all the people who have been involved with them dying a questionable death don't turn your back on them.Than to make the comment about anything could still happen like what happened to Robert Kennedy.About a month ago they made a reference to a plane could crash tomorrow referring to the election. If she is in the number 1 or 2 spot I will vote for McCain. I totally support Obama but want him to live and with her in the #2 spot I would be afraid for his safety.

Posted by: Chris D | May 28, 2008 11:42 PM | Report abuse

I pity American for dishonoring those who want to run their country with all sorts of insults and then stick to flag pins as Patriotic.
Disagree with them.Thats normal but when you leave the subject in question and you attack the person.Its real stupidity.I have taken three hours to read all the comments here.I really could not immaging who Americans are.
Only some few reason and try to convey some intelligent message.
let me not waste more time here.
God Bless America.
God Bless Obama 2008
God Bless Chelsea 2024

Posted by: Southern Cameroons | May 28, 2008 11:41 PM | Report abuse

MSG to Hillary:

The Democratic party is really screwing you over with this Obama bs...

I would start encouraging all your supporters right now that if you lose this nomination, we should all vote for the only other experienced candidate... McCain. I know I will and I know many who feel this way.

Hell, for the treatment you're getting, I would do it out of spite. Obama and his "I will be president" childhood fantasy(what the hell kind of normal child makes an obsession of this??) are going to wreck this country for 4 more years. It's a friggin nightmare.

Posted by: Alex | May 28, 2008 11:40 PM | Report abuse

CORRECTION TO ARTICLE: Clinton is NOT leading Obama in the popular vote count, EVEN IF Michigan and Florida are counted.

Clinton has been behind Obama in the popular vote ever since Obama won Iowa. She has NEVER lead Obama in the popular vote, and does not currently lead Obama in the popular vote.

REPEAT: any talk of Clinton "leading" in the popular vote... or that Clinton "could be" leading in the popular vote... or that Clinton leads if you count Michigan and Florida... if FALSE INFORMATION spread by the Clinton campaign.

These are the FACTS. I REPEAT: Clinton has never lead in the popular vote during the entire nominating process. PERIOD.

Posted by: leslie | May 28, 2008 11:39 PM | Report abuse

I am probably the world's No.1 believer that Hillary Rodham Clinton is going to be the next President of the United States of America.
Look, the lady has class. Shes charming and always looking refreshed rally after rally. The never giving up person she is. A live wire with a determination like no person I have ever known running for president. Despite all the negative statements and the news reports against her, she plods on. Like the fighter she is. Thats the kind of persident America needs. Never relenting to pressure, with a clear head on her shoulders.
America, this is our chance to put things right. Do the right thing. Lets get Hillary to the White House.
I would like to shake the hand of this great lady someday soon.

Posted by: Richard Nair | May 28, 2008 11:35 PM | Report abuse

Count All the Votes Honestly, Fairly and Completely as wholes not halves. No Justice No Unity. Walk Walk Walk

Posted by: American 1ST | May 28, 2008 11:35 PM | Report abuse

The clintons were in office when the internet took off.. they had NOTHING TO DO WITH THE ECONOMY TAKING OFF.

The truth of the matter is.. Billy boy didn't go after Bin Laden after our USS Cole warship was attacked.. so we had 9-11.

Our dollar is falling to pieces because of Bill's idiotic trade agreements with CHINA and NAFTA and he also helped persuade the Japanese to build vehicles here and they built them in non union areas to drive down americans' wages.. which they have done extremely well. We are ading debt at the rate of a TRILLION dollars a year and BILL CLINTON had a LOT to do with it.. the trade with China is in deficit to the tune of hundreds of buillions of dollars a year. Japan ships millioons of cars and trucks here and we sell them a few thousand TOTAL... this is royally screwed up folks. japan inspects any cars going there. while they get free access to or market. China won' let our cmpanies sell vehicles there at all unless they are built in their country.. why are we letting these countries steal from us.. our jobs and our money?!?!?!?!?

WTG Clintons.. you wrecked this country and now you want 4 more years to do what? Steal more stuff out of the White house.. oh yeah.. they stole stuff from the white house when they left.

Bill was impeached by the congress for telling lies under oath. His wife has been caught red handed fibbing about her experience. Her husband is a known sex deviant. Gee, all the people who care about the moral fabric of this country can't wait to vote for another sleazey Clinton...


Posted by: wake up | May 28, 2008 11:32 PM | Report abuse

What is the talk of riots if all the votes are counted? Are you crazy or are they? COUNT ALL THE VOTES. Its a very simple thing to do. No justice No unity. If they don't count every vote I urge a walkout of the convention by HRC delegates. No Justice No Unity! Walkout!

Posted by: American 1ST | May 28, 2008 11:31 PM | Report abuse

Go Hillary - fight all the way!

Posted by: Brendy | May 28, 2008 11:28 PM | Report abuse

Wow, Pat learn to spell. Ladies, those of you who are hysterical Hill supporters, take a breath. You are giving women a bad name. I guess it's true. Hillary does have the uneducated vote!

Posted by: Tommyboy | May 28, 2008 11:28 PM | Report abuse

AJ....

Wow, are you a mind reader? How do you what the Clintons are thinking?

I am thinking MR. Clinton did a hell of alot for the economy in this ungrateful country. As a matter of fact I think his term(s) in office left this country in a better place than it has been in the past
24 years! Who was he thinking about then?

Posted by: Anonymous | May 28, 2008 11:24 PM | Report abuse

If Hillary would win a nomination won fair and square by Obama, I fully expect rioting and burning of cities by black people and .. I wouldn't blame them. The ONLY card Clinton has to play is the race card.. "he can't win because America isn't ready for a black president".

Well.. if you have to pay for your own primary campaign because no one likes you.. and you lost a campaign you were heavily favored to win because of INCOMPETENCE.. AND you get caught telling blatant lies about being under fire.. AND ... you already tried passing health care and FAILED... Go away Hillary, you are a loser. you had your time playing president under your cheating impeached husband

Hillary hasn't been mistrated.. she deserves everything we can throw at her because she is a poor sport, arrogant beyond belief and a LIAR.

The media should treat her far worse than they have for acting like something is owed to her when she has clearly LOST

Posted by: Reality dealer | May 28, 2008 11:23 PM | Report abuse

Any self-proclaimed Democrat who says they'll vote for their candidate or McCain is not a Democrat or is so emotionally involved in this that they're willing to cut off their nose to spite their face.

Come on people, look at the issues. Do you really think McCain is the lesser of the evils?

This Obama supporter is quite happy to vote for HRC if she's the nominee. I'd just be happier if it were Obama. But I'm not about to help this party snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

Posted by: TrueDem | May 28, 2008 11:22 PM | Report abuse

I'm a loyal Democrat, but if Obama gets the nomination, I won't vote at all. I just do not think Obama is capable to handle as big a job as the president of this country at this time. He needs more experience than just two years in the Senate. Besides, he is young, he can always wait 4 or 8 more years to try again. If he gets elected, which I doubt he can beat McCann, the country will have "change" all right, but change for the worst. Hillary may not be perfect,(nobody is) but I believe she has this country in her heart and mind, and will work her heart out to do a good job. I believe she, not Obama, can beat McCann. Like her husband, Bill, who was not perfect and made mistakes in the White House, but he was a good president. Those were the best years I can remember when he was the leader of the country. I wonder if many people who dislike the Clintons still remember the good times then.

Posted by: Cheng | May 28, 2008 11:22 PM | Report abuse

No Justice No Unity. Count Every Vote!

Posted by: American 1ST | May 28, 2008 11:16 PM | Report abuse

all blacks and decent hispanics..., listen up. vote maccain if clinton steal this nom. she cannot with without you.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 28, 2008 11:05 PM | Report abuse

It is absolutely amazing that some of the comments posted are evil and cheap shots against both candidates. One thing that the Clinton Camp must realize is that they both agreed to the rules of not counting Michigan and Forida. They cannot change the rules in the middle of the game beause they don't like the outcome. One thing is for sure, if the reverse was true; one can surely bet that the Clinton Crowd would not be willing to compromise. Also, why didn't the Clinton Crowd complain when the rules at first? That's because they assume that they would win and Obama was not taken seriously. Whether or not Obama wins the nomination and is the candidate; Democrats will need to do some soul searching. I honestly believe that some White Americans are simply racist; whether they say so (as some have) or in the closet (as some are) cannot bring themselves to vote for a Black Man; Period!These voters would rather suffer another 4 to years than really move forward for a New America. How Sad All Of you Are; including Trace; the educated African American from Chicago.

Posted by: Joknows | May 28, 2008 11:04 PM | Report abuse

Bill & Hillary Clinton think about nothing but themselves. It's very obviously that this is for the 3rd term of Bill Clinton. Wake up American. We'll elect lady President, but the first one is not Hillary.
Ted Kennedy has done the right thing for America by support Obama.

Posted by: AJ | May 28, 2008 11:02 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: EmmanuelWinner May 28, 2008 9:53 PM: Petty, egotistical, vindictive, she intends to lose this election for the Democratic Party. We won't get the landslide we should have gotten, but we will get Obama in the White House. We do not need Clinton or her supporters anymore, they are mere historical footnote. Too bad, she could have been a great politician.
----

You'll get a landslide alright but for a Democratic Congress. In a year that should have been a cinch for just about any Democrat, you have snatched defeat from the jaws of victory by nominating someone so far left. McCain can't win without major help and Obama is just about the only one you could have nominated that will lose. That heady mix of platitudes flambe and BS au gratin served up by Obama may suit the eggheads but the ordinary folks are gagging on it.

Posted by: Cincinnati Rick | May 28, 2008 11:00 PM | Report abuse

I'm not criticizing Senator Clinton, so don't start jumping on me. I disagree with Mr. Clinton's statement "I have never seen a candidate treated so disrespectfully just for running." Ralf Nader has been treated disrespectfully since his campaign in 2000. As a side note, I'm glad Clinton is still running. I'm also glad that Ron Paul is still running and that Nader, Barr, and others are running. It seems to me that when there are more people running we get to hear and discuss more ideas. This is one of the signs of a healthy democracy.

Posted by: nac2m | May 28, 2008 10:55 PM | Report abuse

I am an independent, I jhave votedfor repubs in the last several elections because of the dull dems. Clinton would be another DULL dim .. a poor quality person with extreme arrogance.

I will vote for Obama and even donate to him. That is how you win.. with independs and cash. Hillary has to pay for her own primary for god' sake.. SHE is the joke. No one likes her whether she wins a few states in the rust beltor not. Those are only democrats... independs won't vote for her.. in fact most can't stand her .. she is one nasty b****

Posted by: Jeff | May 28, 2008 10:54 PM | Report abuse

NOW IT'S HILLARY'S TURN TO PLAY HER DELEGATE CARDS
IN A COUP TO TAKE DOWN OBAMA

... A Gore/Powell Ticket for the Dems in '08?


All the negative talk from Hillary and Bill Clinton against the Obama candidacy in the face of their own demise could add up to this:

The Uber-Democrat power couple is considering throwing its support, and Hillary's delegates, to an alternative candidate who stands a better chance of winning the general election than Obama.

They know there's no chance in the hell that Hillary has created for the party that the leadership and core constituencies will back a Hillary candidacy. So, just perhaps, they're about to stage their own delegate power play in a bold move to checkmate Obama.

Here's the evidence for a Hillary-led delegate coup against Obama:

1) The Clinton's talking points. They know the party and the supers have had enough of the divisive Hillary candidacy, but they believe they've got the facts on their side -- that Obama can't win the general due to his inexperience, his naivete, and his dismissive attitude in the late-season primaries toward rural and suburban white voters, whom he cavalierly wrote off in the states where Hillary triumphed.

2) Superdelegate hesitancy to embrace Obama. Where's the "flood" of supers racing toward the Obama camp? It's still a mere trickle. The supers don't like the idea of nominating a likely loser any more than do the Clintons, or the lunch-bucket Dems who lodged their protest votes against Obama by supporting Hillary.

3) Al Gore's refusal to endorse Obama. This is key. Edwards, ever the opportunist, actually believed Obama could win the nomination and, presumably, the general, so he cast his political fate with the Obama campaign. That could prove to be a costly error. Had he hung back, as Gore has done, he could have been a successor to Obama if and when the supers reject his candidacy. Given the Clinton's enmity towards Gore (and vice versa, for sure), Edwards would have been far more palatable to Billary than Gore.

But Gore is last man standing; and Hill and Bill would much prefer that Gore get the nomination than Obama, whom they see as a rookie usurper.

Remember all my talk a few weeks back about a third way candidacy, with Obama taking the lead at unifying the party by tossing his delegates to Gore? Well, it appears that Obama believes his own press to the point of self-delusion. As a result, he could be the one to go down hard, even harder than Hillary, who would go back to the Senate as the party unifier and savior of the Dems' general election hopes.

It's Hillary's final solution -- the chance to pull a major power play, back a compromise candidate, unite the party and better prepare the party for victory in the fall. No other third way candidate has the gravitas and the star power to pull off a late-season nomination coup. Only Gore could do it.

And by his refusal to endorse Obama, Gore is sending a powerful message to the superdelegates: You can't go with Obama and still expect to win, and I can save the party and redeem my rightful role as the party standard-bearer with your pledge of support.

For this to happen, powerful Obama backers like Kennedy, Kerry and Dodd have to be convinced that Obama can't win in a matchup against McCain. The polls are showing that he can't. The supers are sitting on their hands, waiting for a sign from Al Gore.

In a very few weeks time, as the Obama candidacy slips further into the realm of the improbable (to use Obama's own word), Gore will give that sign. He may have to make Colin Powell his running mate to prevent all hell from breaking loose among fervid Obama supporters -- and Gore just might do just that, winning back blacks who might otherwise sit out the election, and forging a unity ticket that will appeal to Republican moderates.

Posted by: scrivener | May 28, 2008 10:50 PM | Report abuse

There is no way I will vote for Obama. He will not carry FL, OH, PA. He will get swept in most southern states. He loses CO and NM even though he thinks he will win there.

Obama may lose MI and don't be suprised if he loses NJ and maybe NY. Hillary has problems but Obama is a joke. The newsmedia has been for Barry and against Hillary.

Posted by: Mary | May 28, 2008 10:40 PM | Report abuse

I am a woman and I will vote for Obama. If Hillary weasels the nomination away with bending the rules, bullying and general scheming, as she has always done, I will vote for McCain.
She will NEVER have my support.
I regret voting for Bill twice - he obviously had no respect for anyone's vote.

Posted by: soma | May 28, 2008 10:39 PM | Report abuse

Any "conservative" that would vote for Obama should have there head examined.... he is the anti-thesis of limited gov't

You country club republicans and you're "compassionate conservatism" have run your course in our party. Go vote for the socialist, we don't need you bible banging bafoons anymore, we'll take the working class dems.

Posted by: Flip Romney | May 28, 2008 10:35 PM | Report abuse

Hillary has a plan from day 1, and she tells us what she plans to do> I like that in a Person, Fantastic if our President has those qualitys. Neither of the other 2 losers have, or can even speak of.

Stand up for whats right, voice your opinion, and above all treat all people fairly.

YEAH........MRS. PRESIDENT....

Posted by: Sherran | May 28, 2008 10:32 PM | Report abuse

And there were the scandals, His and Hers.
They are known, in brief, as: Monica Lewinsky, Paula Jones, Gennifer Flowers, Whitewater, the White House travel office firings, White House coffees and Lincoln bedroom stays for donors, FBI background files on Republicans, missing documents and the presidential pardon of a fugitive friend.
The episodes involving women were his. Most of the others were theirs or hers. Also look up Peter Paul and see why maybe the Clintons need to win this.Also lookmup Pellicano and read the web links about his clients you will see the Clinton name there and what they paid him to do.After reading this how could any wpman vote for her!!!!!Take into account also that the Clinton Campaign apparently offered a super a million or so to change their vote.

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

'winning the general election'? What on earth does that mean? Is that based on polls? Like the polls that told us for a long time that Hillary would win the primary?

Posted by: Karen | May 28, 2008 10:25 PM | Report abuse

The Clintons will, of course, campaign for Obama this fall. If their plans include a subtle payback for another November loss, I suspect they'll be very disappointed. What if Obama wins? Also, the nastiness of this campaign (by supporters on both sides) will leave a lot of bitterness. It won't be forgotten in 2012, or even 2016. Maybe Hillary Clinton stays in the running because she realizes that this year may be her only chance.

Posted by: rmpatera | May 28, 2008 10:18 PM | Report abuse

Did Hillary Clinton tell Obama to announce his state senate campaign from William Ayers house?
Did Hillary Clinton tell Barak Obama to stay in the church with the flaky reverend for 20 years?
Did Hillary Clinton tell Barak Obama to vote present 130 time in the state senate?
Did Hillary Clinton tell Barak Obama to say that Israel was an open wound that infects US foreign policy?
Did Hillary Clinton tell Barak Obama should meet with presidents of rogue nations without pre-conditions?
Did Hillary Clinton tell Barak Obama there are really 57 states?
Did Hillary Clinton tell Barak Obama that people in Pa are racists?
Did Hillary Clinton tell Barack Obama that everyone that votes for her is a racists?
Did Hillary Clinton tell Barak Obama to make the now famous "boneheaded" deals with Tony Rezko when his poor and elderly constituents froze in the winter?

Barak Obama cannot win the general election because of Barak Obama. I don't think Hillary Clinton has the power of a god to make the general electorate vote for an unqualified and ill-prepared candidate.

I also do not understand why the DNC sticks to a losing proposition based on a losing strategy of delegate allocation not based in any reality for a general election.

I also find it inconceivable that the SD's cannot abandon this upcoming fiasco and back Senator Clinton if she sufficiently wins the popular vote. I am also dismayed that at no time has anyone considered or pressured Barak Obama to campaign heavily for Hillary Clinton. At no time has anyone called of Mr. Uniter and Mr. Healer to unite and heal the party. Why is that? It is up to Hillary Clinton to unite and heal the party? What a bunch of losers.

Posted by: Linda C. | May 28, 2008 10:15 PM | Report abuse

How can anyone support that rare mix of arrogance and ignorance and his UGLY wife Obama? Puleeze that dumbass doesn't even know what he doesn't know.

Posted by: Yomamabamy | May 28, 2008 10:13 PM | Report abuse

Barbara Burns,

"If Obama wins the nomination ... I will NOT vote for a man who has no experience with the things our country is desperately needing changed and has no real clue how to actually get Congress to work with him."

Yes!!! You made the case for Obama even though you thought you were making it for Clinton. What the country desparately needs is GOOD JUDGMENT. That is exactly what Obama gave us when he opposed the worst foreign policy blunder in the history of the U.S.

- 4000+ American lives wasted!

- A Trillion dollars wasted by the time it is finished!

- The country we are supposedly trying to help, Iraq, has had its revenue double due to the increase in the price of oil (while we pay for reconstructing their country)!


You said "I remember how Vietnam dragged on forever being a war we could not win and the emotional damage it did to our soldiers ... and how badly the returning soldiers were treated by the US governement and the US people ... and are still treated today."

Yes!!! That is exactly what McSame-McCain will do and what Obama will put an end to.

So, even though you thought you were making a case against Obama, you have actually explained exactly why we should vote for him. Add to that, the fact that he is only one who hasn't been in Washington, D.C. long enough to be corrupted by lobbysts and special interest groups. He is exactly who we need!

Brilliant!!!

Posted by: Henry B | May 28, 2008 10:13 PM | Report abuse

Hillary cares more about winning then doing what is right, and that is why she is unfit to be president. Her ego gets in the way of her judgment.

Obama stood up against the war when it was political suicide to do so. His judgment outweighs his ego, and that is why he would make the better president.

McCain is in the pocket of all the same special interest groups Bush is, that is why he has had 5 aids who worked for disgusting lobbying groups resign already, and its only May.

Obama is the clearly best candidate...ask anyone who is paying attention.

Posted by: Bob | May 28, 2008 10:13 PM | Report abuse

Barbara Burns,

"If Obama wins the nomination ... I will NOT vote for a man who has no experience with the things our country is desperately needing changed and has no real clue how to actually get Congress to work with him."

Yes!!! You made the case for Obama even though you thought you were making it for Clinton. What the country desparately needs is GOOD JUDGMENT. That is exactly what Obama gave us when he opposed the worst foreign policy blunder in the history of the U.S.

- 4000+ American lives wasted!

- A Trillion dollars wasted by the time it is finished!

- The country we are supposedly trying to help, Iraq, has had its revenue double due to the increase in the price of oil (while we pay for reconstructing their country)!


You said "I remember how Vietnam dragged on forever being a war we could not win and the emotional damage it did to our soldiers ... and how badly the returning soldiers were treated by the US governement and the US people ... and are still treated today."

Yes!!! That is exactly what McSame-McCain will do and what Obama will put an end to.

So, even though you thought you were making a case against Obama, you have actually explained exactly why we should vote for him. Add to that, the fact that he is only one who hasn't been in Washington, D.C. long enough to be corrupted by lobbysts and special interest groups. He is exactly who we need!

Brilliant!!!

Posted by: Henry B | May 28, 2008 10:12 PM | Report abuse

Who is the dipsht who said that Obama can win without Clinton supporters? You think Obama can beat McCain without 50% of democrats voting for him? It is people like you who make Obama even more unappealing - you do express his hatred for our country and everyone who opposes him well though... like most of his supporters do.

Posted by: OBAMAHATESWHITEAMERICA | May 28, 2008 10:12 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: lsb | May 28, 2008 10:05 PM | Report abuse

ATTN: American Voters
These are the Democrat Clowns some of you want running the Free World?

Posted by: LDC | May 28, 2008 10:03 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: LSB | May 28, 2008 9:38 PM:

The reason is, the news media (NBC, MSNBC, CBS) is OWNED by big corporations that are helping Obama get elected because he has promised them he would build nuclear power plants which will reap them billions of dollars. Hillary Clinton is against it.

http://blatantreality.com/2008/02/03/obamas-nuclear-lob

Correction: Hillary is not in favor of building nuclear power plants and indicated that her Energy Plan does not include it.

This is believed to be what's behind much of the effort by the media to discredit her.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 28, 2008 9:53 PM | Report abuse

Petty, egoistical, vindictive, she intends to lose this election for the Democratic Party. We won't get the landslide we should have gotten, but we will get Obama in the White House. We do not need Clinton or her supporters anymore, they are mere historical footnote. Too bad, she could have been a great politician.

Posted by: EmmanuelWinner | May 28, 2008 9:53 PM | Report abuse

Obama has no experience in Foreign Policy ... that I am aware of ... the last President that the Electoral College elected - Bush - had none either ... and look at the mess he has made of our country and our lives and the people who have died in his wars.

2 wars that Bush started ... Afghanistan the country and their official government did not "officially" attack the US during 911 ... Bush declared war on their country and took out their government ... our government is just as guilty of "unofficially" supporting terrible people in other countries ... like when they supported Saddam all those years ago ... then Bush started the war in Iraq over oil ... and gas costs nearly $4 a gallon today. Thousands have died in the Middle East due to Bush's wars and many who have not died are permanently disabled and in desperate need of the financial aid we are throwing away on wars we cannot win and should never have started in the first place.

And people expect me to vote for Obama - does he have ties to organized crime in the Midwest? That question worries me much more than if Obama is or is not a Muslim and whether he practices radical thinking in private based on his minister's thoughts, beliefs and teachings.

If Obama wins the nomination ... I will NOT vote for a man who has no experience with the things our country is desperately needing changed and has no real clue how to actually get Congress to work with him.

If Obama becomes President ... I think his main accomplishment will be the fact of being the first African American to be President ... and the things he won't accomplish are the things that frighten me the most.

I remember how Vietnam dragged on forever being a war we could not win and the emotional damage it did to our soldiers ... and how badly the returning soldiers were treated by the US governement and the US people ... and are still treated today.

To vote for Obama - to me, that would be like voting for Bush to remain in office and damage our country and our citizens and keep on sending our soldiers to be killed or injured in un-winnable wars for another 4 years.

Posted by: Barbara Burns | May 28, 2008 9:49 PM | Report abuse

One other item if McCain Wins.... DRAFT! someone got to fight this war until 2013???
The woman can't even manage her own campaign! Killing rival to become the nominee? Hello! AA are all reacist? Right... When are you HRC abd BIll supports going to let her take owenership for what they do and say? For 2 months I did we did not hear 1 word from their supports, When the media was going after Obama for Rev. Wright, elitis, and Avery Over 2 months whis went on He said very little and answered all questions... She and Bill can't take the heat for 4 days with out wineing like spoiled kids? unemployment line is only a week away Thank God!

Posted by: Moses56 | May 28, 2008 9:48 PM | Report abuse

Dont have much to say,but i think the way things are now in our country,we don't need a woman to be our next persident.Let Mrs Hillary try something els to do

Posted by: hill the talker | May 28, 2008 9:47 PM | Report abuse

shut up you fat moron

Posted by: shut up fat moron | May 28, 2008 9:45 PM | Report abuse

who cares what she says if she was never in the general. hey, huckabee could say the same thing if mccain doesn't win-- whatever.

Posted by: RJII | May 28, 2008 9:43 PM | Report abuse

@ Jamie
You wrote: "If Hillary doesn't get the nomination I will vote for McCain because Hillary is more important than all other women."

You're kidding, right? Is this someone you have a grade school crush on, or is running for president?

Time to get a grip.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 28, 2008 9:39 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: Sonya M | May 28, 2008 9:19 PM
"I'm courious to know why Obama has been plastered EVERYWHERE and most comments on Clinton are rather negative...
All you intelligent people don't see that obvious bias???"

The reason is, the news media (NBC, MSNBC, CBS) is OWNED by big corporations that are helping Obama get elected because he has promised them he would build nuclear power plants which will reap them billions of dollars. Hillary Clinton is against it.

http://blatantreality.com/2008/02/03/obamas-nuclear-lobby/

Posted by: LSB | May 28, 2008 9:38 PM | Report abuse

Hillary is leading McCain in polls...So What?

Did we forget that this candidate was leading Obama in polls by about 20 points even upto 2 weeks prior to the Iowa Caucus? That until then she was considered the inevitable, establishment candidate who had a disciplined , well-oiled campaign machine ready to roll over all other contestants for the nomination?

Since then Hillary's fate has revealed a tendency to choose bad advisers, believe what she wants to (as opposed to reality), to change rationales for why she should be the winner (e.g., unfair rules, white voters, 90 year old women voters, civil right battle, inevitable), and to lie in the face of easily available contradictory evidence. In short, she has revealed herself to be the democratic Bush.

What makes anyone believe that her lead against McCain will hold up?

Posted by: DKR | May 28, 2008 9:35 PM | Report abuse

I am totally & completely astonished at the very obvious and deliberate actions bill and hillary have taken in attempt to win the democratic nomination. It literally blows my mind to watch the two fabricate numbers and scenarios that are designed to get hillary nominated. What really blows me away is how quickly they will change from one argument or approach to another just to fit their agenda. I can't believe the American public is so naive that it can't see what's going on. I hope our kids aren't watching this garbage materialize. I've already lost a ton of faith in the credibility of politicians. I'm sure many others have too. This whole affair leaves me aghast.

Posted by: d.d.d | May 28, 2008 9:34 PM | Report abuse

This only works if Obama selects a VP who won't run in 2016 or Obama loses in spite of Hillary's best efforts. Campaigning for that empty suit will tarnish her reputation. Maybe Bill and Hillary can BOTH develop heart trouble in September.

Posted by: Mr Pike | May 28, 2008 9:28 PM | Report abuse

I do not remember any surplus under any Republican president. I do know that we got out of debt with Clinton. Bush has put us back in debt. A lot of debt.

Posted by: m | May 28, 2008 9:28 PM | Report abuse

It is sad that we must base our KNOWLEDGE and OPINIONS on what we hear in the MEDIA.
I'm courious to know why Obama has been plastered EVERYWHERE and most comments on Clinton are rather negative...
All you intelligent people don't see that obvious bias???
Personally, I am not so gullible to believe everything I read or hear from the media.
Honestly, If I believed everything NO candidate would be electable... LMAO
McCain will keep us in Iraq til h_ll freezes over, Obama will make Rev Wright vice pres and Clinton...well according to the media there is just too many to mention... GOOD GRIEF.
I am NOT an Obama supporter but I am offended that anyone would say "we clinton fanatics will all vote for McCain"
I WILL NEVER VOTE REPUBLICAN,,,,,EVER!!!!

Posted by: Sonya M | May 28, 2008 9:19 PM | Report abuse

Hillary AND Bill have every intention of making that --- "I told you so" come true. And they will SPECIFICALLY work on making it happen. Why? They've been embarrassed by a junior senator. No one does that --- up against the Clinton Machine!

Look for ---- problems (encouraged by the Clintons). No THEY won't JUST GO AWAY. The Clintons have a point to prove --- even though America WILL KNOW underhanded.

Posted by: Greg | May 28, 2008 9:15 PM | Report abuse

I'm a die-hard conservative who is (in some ways) perversely rooting for a Democratic rout in November. I'd like to see the Dems take full control of government so they can let their true colors shine through.

If all of the idiots who are currently whining about 5.0% unemployment and high gas prices get a chance to experience what big government liberalism is all about, maybe they'll wake the hell up.

My God, people are so spoiled by the last 25 years of low-inflation and steady growth that they have no idea how we got there in the first place: reducing regulations, lowering taxes, and empowering the individual.

Unfortunately, we've had a Republican president preside over the biggest expansion of federal power in the history of the republic. GW Bush has single-handedly destroyed the Republican party in eight short years, not by intervening in Iraq (as his moronic critics claim), but by destroying the Republican push for limited government and federalism (you know, the same movement that lead to economic surpluses and welfare reform during the 1990's).

In the end, I will certainly vote for John McCain because I know that he understands the outside threats that America is currently facing. However, if Obama wins, it'll be fun to watch the Democrats trying to blame the 40 remaining Republican senators for all of the world's problems.

Who will the world's biggest imbecile, Keith Olberman, rant and rave about if Obama is in office? What will all of the poor lunatic leftists do once they actually have to try to advance their own ideas instead of attacking George W. Bush?


Posted by: stickety | May 28, 2008 9:14 PM | Report abuse

Hillary should stay in, just check out http://www.hellnobama.com

She's better for the General Election!!

Posted by: IllinoisAgainstObama | May 28, 2008 9:11 PM | Report abuse

OH please...I bet you (Chris C.) sit in your I "heart" Hillary underwear writing this crap. 5 more days of this mess....!

Posted by: Tia | May 28, 2008 9:07 PM | Report abuse

It is AMAZING that Mike Huckabee was behind McCain by a THREE to ONE margin and no one made the calls for him to leave. HIllary was at most 150 delegates behind Obama (who by the way STYILL HAS NOT CLINCHED) and folks have been screaming for her to drop out for weeks... WTF???!!!

I WILL BE VOTING REPUBLICAN in the Fall. But I'm going to do it RIGHT AND LEAVE the DUMB DEMS - they have fallen in line behind a vapid, empty suit candidate with nothing but Hope and Change to speak of. HIllary and Bill literally brought the D@#M Democratic Party from the DEAD after the Reagan years and I can't believe that this is the gratitude that the Party shows them. Had this been the Republican Model where "Winner Takes All" - Hillary would have SMOKED Obama!!! And by the way - I am an educated African American Woman from Chicago - not all of us are behind the Slick-politican who has had everything handed to him!

Posted by: Trace - Chicago | May 28, 2008 9:06 PM | Report abuse

Words of Wisdom wrote
"MCCAIN HATES BUSH - BUSH RAN A SMEAR CAMPAIGN AGAINST BUSH IN SOUTH CAROLINA - MCCAIN HAS SPENT MUCH OF THE PAST 7 YEARS OPPOSING BUSH POLICIES."
McCAIN has spent the last 7 years voting 80%+ on everything Bush has endorsed look at the Bills McCAIN has voted on.

Posted by: Chris In MO | May 28, 2008 9:04 PM | Report abuse

Why should Hillary Clinton campaign for Obama. It seems that she has a lot of baggage, negatives, polarizing, an uncontrollable husband, makes racists statements, disingenuous,someone the repubs would love to run against to bring them out....all words from the Obama campaign.

If he loses, they will blame her. My advice to Hillary.......go on vacation....Obama can walk on water so he should be able to handle an old man like McCain and besides the country is LOOKING FOR CHANGE.... he should be able to do it on his own..

Posted by: JAFO | May 28, 2008 9:01 PM | Report abuse

She has already told everyone that she is staying in until we have a nominee. That means convention, folks. Until then, she will continue to throw mud until stuff starts sticking. She apparently has no filter as to truth or fiction before she speaks, so it's gonna get interesting.

The concept that every poll ever taken shows she is head and shoulders better against McCain is simply false, and she knows it. She also knows that she has so whipped her followers into a victimization spiral, that she could say anything and people will buy it.

When she makes obvious false statements two things happen:

1) someone refutes them, where she gets to use the refrain "They have always wanted me to lose, and have always treated me unfairly."
2) nobody calls her on it, and it builds a larger fictitous arsenal of "evidence" that she really has won the election.

Posted by: steve boyington | May 28, 2008 9:01 PM | Report abuse

Let Obama win the nomination. Then let HRC run as an independant against Obama and McCain or Let HRC win the nomination and then have Obama run as an independant.

This sounds fair. LOL

McCain would win hands down.

Posted by: Jr | May 28, 2008 9:01 PM | Report abuse


Mike: You should try using spell-check:

"How a person like him make it this fair in national politics is unbelievable."

"And I am a moderate to conservative democrat voting for McCain in the general elction"

Then you won't be mistakenly identified as a Hillary supporter.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 28, 2008 9:00 PM | Report abuse

If Iowa would have had a primary instead of a caucus, Obama would only add to his popular vote.
Obama and Hilary are both Democrats and are not that far apart polically. So why would People vote for Mccain?
I was a Conservative Republican until Obama. After hearing him speak with hope and inspiration. Speeches with solutions.
I would be proud of our country with Obama as Commander and Chief.
I don't think Hillary is being pushed out because she is a Women.
I don't see the Obama campaign treating Hilary with disrespect.
No one can trump the disrespect her Husband Bill showed her while in the White house.

Posted by: Laura | May 28, 2008 8:57 PM | Report abuse

I'm getting sick and tired of people false accusations of Obama being this and Hillary being that. The point is that the country is looking for a change and improvement from what the current president has done to this country. Trying to degrade what experience or lack of experience Obama has is not going to change what alot of people want and believe that Obama will bring to existance. If everyone believe, like so many you are trying make people to believe,with Hillary's experience, she can win FL, MI, OH, and all other important states that you claim to be true in the November is pure opinions not a fact. But if it so much a fact, as you keep saying, than she would have won the nomination a long time ago and Obama would have been out supporter her for the general election but that is not the case, so everyone to keep discredit what Obama can bring and do for the country and what Hillary's experience she has or doesn't is irrelevant to what most people are saying and wanting for the country; which is a change and they believe that Obama can bring that.

You can also look at this way: If Obama clinch the nomination and you decide to vote for McCain because Hillary didn't win and over false accusations that were brought about during the campaign like his religion, his preacher, and so on, than look at the country right now and add another four years of job going overseas, gas and food prices going up, tax cuts that would benefit the rich and not the poor, minimum wage unchanged, unemployment on the rise;need I say more. That is what you will bring into existence if you turn your backs and vote for McCain because your candidate (Hillary) got beat out by Obama. THINK!!!! Do reallly want that?

Posted by: Democratic Supporter | May 28, 2008 8:57 PM | Report abuse

Obama has won the nomination fair and square. If the nomination is stolen from him, Hillary will never be president. I am so tired of people citing polls about how strong she is against John McCain. Remember, she was 20+ points ahead of every democrat 6 months ago. Now all of a sudden the nomination should be "given" to her because of threats from her supporters? Lets get real.

Posted by: allec | May 28, 2008 8:56 PM | Report abuse

I've said before I have nothing against a woman president.I just don't believe Hillary is that woman.I still think there is a logical way to seat Florida and Mich.Both candidates knew the rules and agreed to them.Obama removed his name in Michigan while Clintons stayed on. I still think because the governor of Michigan is a Democrat a woman and supports Clinton is why she stayed on the ballot. Give each one half of the delegates and don't let the super delegates have say. This way both states can attend the convention. I am a registered democrat but that is easy enough to change.If Clinton backs into the nomination I'll have to vote for McCain.If Clinton can come down off her high horse accept the Vice President position and work with the Democratic party then I would vote democrat. She's made an absolute mockery of the system.Now people are bringing up the fact that Obama never servered in the military. Bill Clinton dodged the draft and Hillary didn't serve so what difference should that make.A president is only as good as what congress will let him or her be.The president still has to get things through congress.I have not heard anyone say what they intend to do about the price of gas,food,and the economy in general.I'm on disability and my check will only go so far.I'll be watching saturday to see what the rules committee comes up with and the last three primaries before deciding who to vote for in November. I hope I can vote DEMOCRAT.

Posted by: Dan Dibble | May 28, 2008 8:51 PM | Report abuse

Hillary's Neg Rating is near 50%, and will stay that high.

And yes, TODAY, she is probably the stronger candidate. But keep in mind that TODAY about 25% of Americans (Democrats included) believe that Obama is a Muslim.

I am a Conservative Christian that has always voted Republican, but of the 3 viable candidates, Obama would be my choice. Sorry McCain, but I can not go along with your Iraq policy that will continue to bleed this nation dry.

Has anyone else besides me read the book Unlimited Access by former FBI agent Gary Aldrich? Read about the REAL Hillary, and her power crazy ways.

Posted by: Mike | May 28, 2008 8:46 PM | Report abuse

Right now I am paying taxes to support a war that we should not be in. That war is costing billions and a lot of that money seems to be wasted thru processes that are not efficient. Without the war my taxes could go to helping Americans. I would far rather my hard earned money go for taxes that will help Americans instead of lining the pockets of some contractor in Iraq who is not even doing the job he is being paid to do.

I will vote for the Democratic party either for Obama or Clinton. I am fed up with Republicains. They will not help the American people. McCain is another Bush!

We need to pull together and realize it would be a mistake to vote for McCain just because we do not like Obama or Clinton.


Posted by: monette | May 28, 2008 8:43 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: Mike | May 28, 2008 8:21 PM: "Funny, all of the misspelled words come from Hillary supporters!"

Then I guess you must be a Hillary supporter since you posted this today: "She really doen't care about her political career."

Posted by: Anonymous | May 28, 2008 8:41 PM | Report abuse

you're joking that Obama is beating McCain in Ohio. Ohio really does not like Obama.

Posted by: hahaha | May 28, 2008 8:41 PM | Report abuse

I am a nearly 68 years old white LOL who has a good education and still working in a decent job. No President can be an expert in all areas any more. A good CEO brings in the best brains available, listens to many opinions and works with people - not fights with them. Obama looked ahead and laid his groundwork for beyond Big Tuesday. That is thinking and planning ahead - contingency plans. He or managers have managed his finances superbly to be fiscally responsible and we certainly are in desperate need of that skill. HRC did not look head to be able to hit the road running and her campaign debt is in the millions. Obama has many detractors as is obvious above, but no outright enemies in Congress which cannot be said of Hillary Clinton. Many White women will vote for him because we see beyond gender. And, perhaps some of us can better 'read' one of our age/peer group and the nuances. One day, I would like a woman who really represents us by running on her name and credentials. Hillary has not, but always been a Clinton, her husband's aura. Her 35 years of experience and accomplishments in that time frame are pretty shallow. Churchill was one of the greatest orators of our time. Many doubted his abilities. Turned out to be one of the greatest war leaders for England. And, we are still at war! He could pull people together for the good of the Nation. We need that. Congress is the Legislative Branch, or used to be. It makes the laws. The Presidency is the Executive Branch but talk about power grabbing this past seven years and the most secrative Administration. I am no angel, but do not want another scandal-ridden White House, revengeful long knives in action, mass firings, etc. I work in a Juvenile Probation Department where rules are rules for the kids! I cannot believe the twists and turns to change rules or manipulate numbers within the HRC campaign. And, I thought that I heard it all. No, I could not vote for McCain but neither could I support the Party I have belonged to for 43 years if it decides to change its decisions to allow a 2nd place candidate to take over. I would have to consider one of the Independents who are now announcing their candidacy. Yes, HRC is being very divisive to the Party. My Black and Hispanic co-workers of both genders who were her supporters are outraged at the American White workers statement and have pulled away. They hear tall tales all day long and recognize when there is a steady stream of them. And, Florida is now another Zimbabwe! President Mugambe is a murderous tyrant who is determined to hold onto power so I dislike and mislike that analogy but nobody seems to have thought about him. I shall continue to hope that the rule of law will prevail and not hysteria. I think too many people are not taking time to get their head around Obama who is not a let it all hang out, touchy, feely kind of person. Should nicely confound a lot of world leaders! We also need that in a changing world because altogether too many know us all too well to be able to anticipate us.

Posted by: KiwiTricia | May 28, 2008 8:40 PM | Report abuse

Obama lacks experience and that scares me because this country is in such dire straits. I really don't believe he is capable of rectifying these problems even if he wanted to.
McCain is too much like Bush, regardless of what he is trying to convince people.
Clinton has made bad choices, she has also made some great choices and has dedicated many years to the betterment of this country.
I just don't understand how people in this country cannot see that Clinton is the best choice if you are looking for change.
But, more than that she knows HOW to get things done and has proven to be a fighter.
I am not wealthy and I am certain that McCain has nothing to offer me.
I am not stupid and I don't want the future of my children in the hands of someone that is in no way ready to be commander in chief, meaning Obama.
PLEASE VOTE FOR HILLARY AND GIVE THIS COUNTRY A CHANCE, GIVE OUR CHILDREN A CHANCE, AT A BRIGHTER FUTURE.

Posted by: Sonya M | May 28, 2008 8:36 PM | Report abuse

I don't care if McCain is anti-woman and ant-choice. If Hillary doesn't get the nomination I will vote for McCain because Hillary is more important than all other women.

Posted by: Jamie | May 28, 2008 8:34 PM | Report abuse

Katherine,
So... um... you are just going to exclude all of the caucus voters in the popular vote argument and feel fine about it because you think Clinton supporters were bullied? And you'll bend over backwards to seat delegates who broke the rules because it's only fair that "they have a voice" even though Obama's name wasn't on the ballot? Wow. You get an A+ in Tortured Math taught by Prof. H. Clinton.

Posted by: Omama | May 28, 2008 8:30 PM | Report abuse

Face it-billary's done. It's Obama vs. McCain(McBush). And all you Billary supporters who say you'll vote for McCain(McBush) better realize what you're doing. Do you really want more of what got this great country in such a mess? Just because your candidate lost?

Posted by: Don Dodge | May 28, 2008 8:29 PM | Report abuse

Why will this centric independent vote repub?

Because McCain will serve a 4 yr term, after which the Dems will have to face reality and choose a reasonable candidate with experience and gravitas (I hope). This candidate will win because people will be REALLY sick of Republicans by then. Total: 4 years Rep vs 8 years Dem.

The other option is choosing Obama, who is naive and inexperienced, and if he wins now, will probably be voted out of office by....a Republican who is not too old to run for 2 terms. Total: 4 years Dem vs 8 years Repub.

Far better 4 years of "maybe not the best" than 12 years of "really bad".

McCain is at least someone I can respect, and he is at least still human enough to recognize that he will need good advice to manage the economy....last time I checked Obama has NO credentials whatsoever in this regard.

I will choose the person wise enough to know that they can not do all things by themselves (GWB anyone?) and hope for a better future.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 28, 2008 8:27 PM | Report abuse

Funny, all of the misspelled words come from Hillary supporters!

Posted by: Mike | May 28, 2008 8:21 PM | Report abuse

Obama will win, as he should fair. If Hillary somehow pulls this off, then we have a cheater running for Prez.

I was supporting Hillary until I understood just how low she could go.

It looks like the country is behind Obama and so am I.

McBush will be toast. I can't wait for the debates. this should be priceless.

Obama'008

Posted by: Mark T | May 28, 2008 8:19 PM | Report abuse

So the old saying is true, Democrats fall in love and Republicans fall in line. We Democrats deserve to lose in the GE. Clinton people won`t vote for Obama. and Obama people won`t vote for Clinton. Neither can win the general election. Because for us it`s not about what is best for America it`s about getting our way. We are doomed. and deservedly so for sheer stupidity

Posted by: Jax | May 28, 2008 8:19 PM | Report abuse

Think about it. There is a difference between being intelligent and being smart. It looks like there are more smart people than intelligent people around here. I thought everyone who is a citizen is qualified to run for the office. If the mass votes for that person then the person can surround themselves with the best America has to offer to lead this country and the world to a better tomorrow.

The candidates have said it themselves (unless they didn't mean it). It is not about Sen. Borack Obama; and it is not about Sen. Hillary Clinton. It about whether it is time to give the Democratic Party platform a chance at this point as an alternative the apparently failed Republican Party platform. The rules and the populace have worked in Sen. Obama's favor to be the candidate to represent the Democratic Party platform.

All this nonsensical talk about voting for Sen. McCain if Sen. Hillary is not the nominee may be indicative of your ingrained dislike for men or ingrained disdain for African Americans; or it may be that you're one of the few who think the GOP has done the best job for America in the last 7+ years and should therefore continue to govern the nation.

Consider this: you and I live in the same Western Conf but we support two different hockey teams. Only one of the two teams will represent our conference to play against the Eastern conference. Now, my team has defeated your team, and my team is going to represent us to play against another team from the Eastern conference. Are you now saying that you won't root for our Western conference finalist (my team) against the Eastern conference team when the games begin? Are you now saying that you will cheer the Eastern conference team against our Western conference finalist because you hate that our Western conference finalist defeated your team to advance to the playoffs against the Eastern conference? Think about this intelligently, not smartly.

Posted by: Adams | May 28, 2008 8:17 PM | Report abuse

FYI, an update. New polls now put Obama ahead of McCain in Ohio, so in a head-to-head with McCain in a general election, we now have:

Obama 293 vs. McCain 244
Clinton 271 vs. McCain 266

Obama currently leads McCain by 49 electoral college votes. Clinton leads McCain by 5 votes. The only state that Clinton is currently winning that Obama is not is Florida (where Obama is currently campaigning). But there are many states that Obama is currently winning that Clinton is not: Michigan, Washington, Wisconsin, Colorado, Oregon, Iowa, and New Mexico. And Obama is only behind in Nevada by 0.6% (Clinton is behind by 4.2%).

This is further evidence that Clinton's argument that she is the better general election candidate is simply not true (while she is right that she does better than him in PA, OH and FL, Obama still carries PA and OH, but she is not carrying many other states). Below is the tally. Note that these are the battleground states that Obama or Clinton are currently winning; neither Obama nor Clinton are currently leading in Georgia (15 EV), North Carolina (15 EV), Virginia (13 EV), Missouri (11 EV), or Nevada (5 EV).

***

Obama beats in McCain in:

California (54.5/45.7 +8.8) -- 55 EV
Pennsylvania (53.3/46.7 +6.6) -- 21 EV
Ohio (50.7/49.3 +1.4) -- 20 EV
Michigan (50.3/49.7 +0.6) -- 17 EV
New Jersey (55.2/44.8 +10.4) -- 15 EV
Washington (55.6/44.4 +11.2) -- 11 EV
Minnesota (56.1/43.9 +12.2) -- 10 EV
Wisconsin (50.9/49.1 +1.8) -- 10 EV
Colorado (52.8/47.2 +5.6) -- 9 EV
Oregon (55.8/44.2 +11.6) -- 7 EV
Iowa (53.1/46.9 +6.2) -- 7 EV
New Mexico (51.4/48.6 +2.8) -- 5 EV
New Hampshire (50.2/49.8 +0.4) -- 4 EV
-
TOTAL -- Barack Obama 293 EV vs. John McCain 244 EV

Clinton beats in McCain in:

California (53.9/46.1 +7.8) -- 55 EV
Florida (50.9/49.1 +1.8) -- 27 EV
Pennsylvania (55.7/44.3 +11.4) -- 21 EV
Ohio (55.1/44.9 +10.2) -- 20 EV
New Jersey (53.0/47.0 +6.0) -- 15 EV
Washington (50.9/49.1 +1.8) -- 11 EV
Minnesota (52.8/47.2 +5.6) -- 10 EV
Arkansas (57.4/42.6 +14.8) -- 6 EV
New Hampshire (50.2/49.8 +0.4) -- 4 EV
--
TOTAL -- Hillary Clinton 271 EV vs. John McCain 266 EV

Posted by: neenee45 | May 28, 2008 8:16 PM | Report abuse

So the change you want is higher taxes on anybody who makes decent living, to pay for all those benefits. Be honest. Somebody has to pay for it. All those things aren't free. So, tax and spend. Take money from those who have it and give it to those who don't. Typical socialist liberal democrat.

>

Posted by: Anonymous | May 28, 2008 8:13 PM | Report abuse

There is no way she's dropping out of this race, ever... she has shown no signs that she will do so. She's in it to the convention and beyond... She really doen't care about her political career... this IS her political career... She's all in for the presidency and that's it!

Posted by: Mike | May 28, 2008 8:13 PM | Report abuse

News Flash!
At an Obama rally, the assembled crowds were fainting from hunger/excitement. An Obama staffer provided a can of sardines and some baguettes, and Sen. Obama proceeded to feed the entire gathering.

Chris Matthews said it sent a chill up his leg and gave him a warm feeling in his tummy. John King used the magic map to break down the opinion of voters in precincts around the country. Bill ("Bill-O") O'Reilly wondered if "the folks" would think this was suitable behavior for a presidential candidate. Keith ("Mini-O") Olbermann denounced Hillary for not leaving the race and stopping the solution to world hunger and declared her the worst person in the world.

Posted by: bk | May 28, 2008 8:12 PM | Report abuse

Omama:

You don't really make sense. Caucuses do not really represent the majority. The vote does. Caucuses are unfair and people are bullied and some people in the caucuses try to demean some to vote the way they want them to.

Plus in the states where they get to vote twice, I always thought popular vote won. I believe most people weren't even aware of how the Democrats screwed up their elections just because Ted Kennedy lost.

For many reasons, if I don't have a third party alternative, I may have to vote for McCain as the lesser of the evils presented. I would have voted for Hillary, but not for Obama with all the bad things he and his surrogates have said and done--the name calling, the bashing of the one woman candidate because she is a woman and so on and so on.....

Posted by: katherine | May 28, 2008 8:10 PM | Report abuse

REAL News you won't see on TV

WHY HILLARY CLINTON IS BEING TOLD "SHE NEEDS TO GO" AND WHY THE REPUBLICANS WANT OBAMA OVER CLINTON:

"This election is about 29 nuclear power plants /Cheney's NEXT Big MONOPOLY Power ENERGY Ripoff.

Built by GE, Westinghouse, Excelon Corp. of Illinois & 3 consortiums. Excelon has been one of Obama largest contributors since his entry into politics.

Obama Voted FOR the Cheney Energy Bill (H.R.6) in 2005 & is in favor of nuclear. McCain is in favor of nuclear. Clinton Voted AGAINST the Cheney Energy Bill and says her Energy Plan does not include nuclear.

A vote for Obama or McCain will get you 29 nuclear power plants.

No nukes were built for 30 years because the banks wouldn't loan the money - too risky. Cheney 's Energy Bill solved that problem for them by GUARANTEEING Taxpayer Payback of any loans that default. (The Congressional Budget Office rated the risk of default at 50% or greater.)

Its the most obsolete - expensive - and dirty form of power plant we could build.

GE owns NBC & MSNBC. Westinghouse owns CBS. They are planning to reap BILLIONS -RISK FREE-. THAT is WHY they are PROMOTING Obama for president & smearing the Clintons."

(For More info see Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting website):
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=3258

Posted by: SMD | May 28, 2008 8:10 PM | Report abuse

It's over and the people have spoken. Obama is 45 delegates from winning.

grow up people

I am a former Hillary supporter who now is behind Obama.

Posted by: Kel g | May 28, 2008 8:10 PM | Report abuse

Given the demographics of her supporters actuarial tables suggest that she will have even less supporters in 4 years.

Posted by: Jane | May 28, 2008 8:09 PM | Report abuse

It's over and the people have spoken. Obama is 45 delegates from winning.

grow up people

I am a former Hillary supporter who now is behind Obama.

Posted by: Kel | May 28, 2008 8:09 PM | Report abuse

Funny how all these pundits think Clinton will drop out after June 3. Every indication, including her own words, suggest that she is in all the way to the convention.

All it takes is one more major scandal to move the uncommitted supers to her, or to cause Obama's supers to rethink who they want oppose McCain.

There really isn't any good reason for her to drop out, at least from her point of view.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 28, 2008 8:09 PM | Report abuse

The problem is that the Dem's have no winner takes all approach on the states. If that was the case Hillary would have buttoned this one up a long time ago. She still feels she won on Super Tuesday and now she is the "President in Exile".

Michigan and Florida would have more power now if they moved their elections to June.

Once again - Florida is a joke. When will they get it?

Now there's Bill - He just wants his free jet back. He should just keep his mouth shut because he is ruining her chances. We don't need Two President's in Charge.

No experience = Lose in November
Obama will not win.

I thought Hillary had too much baggage. Obama would be charged thousands of dollars by the Airlines for all that excess baggage he carries with him. To bad the so called News Media is carrying water for him - he would have been out of this race in Iowa. He has just started to be vetted.

A little late for the real contenders.

Posted by: John K. | May 28, 2008 8:03 PM | Report abuse

For all you democrats that are Hillary supporters.
1. Me personaly I dont have nothing against Hillary Clinton she's a politician thats trying to win, I might disaggree with her method, but if she win the nom. I'll vote for her.
2. Before Feb, 5 the Clintons didnt mention nothing about Flor. and Mich.in fact she was caught on tape saying that those two states shouldnt count because they broke the rules. So dont let her fool you. She is a politician and guess what shes trying to win.
3. All WOMEN that have had an abortion in the past are dont wanna have kids anymore embrass yourselfs because if JOHN MCAIN become president, your rights will be overturned by the supreme court. Gov. has no right to tell you what you should do in that regard, thats between you and your maker(GOD).
4.All military VETERENs after you serve in the military and do your 4 years you have the right to an education under the G.I. bill, after all thats nothing but fair. You fighting in a war that should not have been authorized in the first place and you working side by side with contractors thats getting paid $200,000 to $400,000 more than what the average troop is. John Mcain want you to serve your country more than 4 years in order for you to recieve an education.


Look people this is not about white or black nor male or female and to be honest its not about Hillary nor Barrack its about the right choice for America. So all you Hillary supporter don't be stuck on stupid, and one thing I can bet you money on if Barrack win the nom. Hillary and Bill will support Obama because they no whats at stake.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 28, 2008 7:59 PM | Report abuse

I fully expect Hillary's diehard fanatics to be as sore of losers as she is, but trying to extort the nomination by threatening to vote Republican is a new low. Your children may very well pay for your mistake with their lives.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 28, 2008 7:59 PM | Report abuse

Hillary, run as a third party candidate just like Liberman. You have your own brand and enough support to win the presidency. Teach them (the Liberal media and the democratic establishment) a lesson for disrespecting you. You don't need them. Split it 3-ways. You have the votes.
The liberal media has been attacking you viciously and asking you to drop out of the race since the Iowa primary while pushing for their candidate "Obama" . This is totally undemocratic. Whatever you (Hillary)do I hope you will not drop out the race. Your loyalty is to the more than 16 millions who voted for you, not the democratic establishment who is trying to screw you and certainly not the liberal media. With this many votes you represent the democratic party; you are the democratic party. This should always be your answer to the people who are asking you to drop. They should listen to you not the other way around. If the democratic establishment denies you the nomination then you should run as a third party candidate just like liberman. After all, if this party is not loyal to you why should you be loyal to it. Let's face it, the democratic party is controlled by a bunch of losers such as Kennedy, Kerry, Edwards etc... They all lost their bid for the White House. Why should anybody take them seriously or care about what they say? Hillary, you have a huge support from groups like women, hispanics etc.. They will take you to the White House. This will be something that will register in the books of history. Leave your name on the ballot until November regardless. You will win just like Liberman.

Dr. E. Giessinger

Posted by: Dr. E. Giessinger | May 28, 2008 7:59 PM | Report abuse

AG,

Yes I need change. I need change for the families that are going bankrupt because of medical bills they cannot afford to pay. I need change for people who cannot afford college or any kind of an education so they can try to get better paying jobs. I need change for all the children who do not get needed healthcare. I need change for the people whose jobs are lost to other countries. I need change for the all the people trying to survive on Social Security alone. I need change so people can heat their homes in the winter without going without food. I need change for the people who have to choose between eating or buying their needed medicine.


Since the Republicians do NOT seem to care about these people I think I will give the Democratic party a chance to make some needed changes.

Posted by: monette | May 28, 2008 7:57 PM | Report abuse

Hillary should be the nominee. All the women with any sense with not vote for a sexist which is what Obama is. For the first time in my life I experienced sexism at my poll where I was outside for six hours. Sexism is more widespread and worse than racism. More women die grom sexism. Obama has supported sexism and misogyny (I heard, I saw) to help him win. His surrogates say it is because of Hillary. It is not. He uses the fact that she is a woman. Obama thinks he can use sexism to win now and fix it all for the general election. It doesn't work like that. We remember, we remember, we remember.

Posted by: katherine | May 28, 2008 7:51 PM


Can we please have a spelling prerequisite before we let idiots like Katherine post? Katherine, you're a prime example of why there should be an IQ test for people to be allowed to vote. You fail miserably, by the way.

Truth2008

Posted by: Truth2008 | May 28, 2008 7:57 PM | Report abuse

What Hillary needs to do is go "INDEPENDANT" and that will shut everyones mouth!!! She will then be our next president!!! GO HILLARY 08....Dont give up........

Posted by: HILLARY 08 | May 28, 2008 7:54 PM | Report abuse

First, people, people, people, please take a deep breath and be rationale and factual:

1. Clinton was the frontrunner and basically appointed Democratic party nominee before the campaign started. At that time she was getting 90% of the black vote (and Obama was nothing) and no one accused black voters for being racists.
2. Black voters have voted in drove for white candidates throughout history.
3. Obama has put up a formidable and smart campaign and will win this thing fair and square. You have to give him that.
4. Obama (a black candidate) has run a campaign against a former first lady, a former president, the main stars of the democratic party establishment, and former vice president candidate (Edwards) and beat them. That tells you something about the guy's abilities, doesn't it?
5. McCain has not received any scrutiny - for Keating 5, cheating on his first wife, his flip flops, his conservative views on SUpreme Court nominees, etc etc. Once that starts, he is dead as a candidate.
6. This talk that McCain will beat Obama - Obama has been attacked in the past few months by Clintons, McCain, Republican party machine, and is still ahead of or competitive with McCain in May. That says a lot.
7. McCain is old old old. That will show up in debates with Obama.
8. A matchup with Clinton and McCain has no distinction in policy. What would CLinton say opposite McCain - that she has mor experience?
9. This idea that McCain has experience - yes he does, and look where we are with his leadership and "experience". Like Obama said, Washington experience does not mean good judgment. McCain has shown bad judgment from day 1 - Keating 5, dumping his wife for a rich, younger blonde, Iraq War, Housing crisis, lobbyists, etc etc etc. So all you voting for McCain because he has experience, this is the experience you will be getting!
10. Obama has never asked Clinton to leave the race - he has said she should stay till the end. But there is no faulting him for doing what he can to win and thus she loses - why is he faulted for winning or is Hillary entitled to the nomination?
11. How is FL and MI Obama's fault? He played by the rules - isn't that what we all want from our President especially after George W. Bush? Someone who knows the rules and plays by them? Obama has played by the rules with MI and FL and if anyone is to blame, blame the states' legislators for shortchanging their voters with a bonehead move. FL was caused by the Republican legislators. Why is that Obama's fault?
12. Obama is part white, a Christian and more like the same white people who claim will not vote for him because he is black. Strange isn't it?
13. The Presidency of the USA is a unique job and no one has experience for it except a sitting President running for reelection. FDR and Lincoln did not have any experience but they were our best Presidents.
14. Obama has been a state legislator for 61/2 years and Senator for 2 years. How much more experience do you need?
15. Just because someone was prisoner of war 30 years ago does not make them the best candidate for President today.
16. This same McCain for President has been rejected by Republicans going back to 1988. Why is he fit now at 71? What insight has he gained that we have not seen in the past 7 years?
17. All these Clinton supporters who claim to voting for McCain in the fall, remember Nader. You get what you wish for and you have only yourselves to blame! You want to vote for McCain because he is a white man or because you agree with his positions? Really? Think twice.
18. If HRC's campaign is 20 million in debt, why should we trust her with the US economy if she cannot run a positive debt free campaign?

I started out a big Clinton supporter by the way, and voted for Bill 2x and had vapid disagreements with my wife when she thought HRC was a rhymes with witch and I vehemently defended her. I think HRC is one of the smartest people in this country, but she should not be the nominee or President if she runs a campaign with 20 million in debt. Period!!!

Posted by: george | May 28, 2008 7:52 PM | Report abuse

let' face it hillary is the britney spears of politics

Posted by: jim | May 28, 2008 7:52 PM | Report abuse

Hillary should be the nominee. All the women with any sense with not vote for a sexist which is what Obama is. For the first time in my life I experienced sexism at my poll where I was outside for six hours. Sexism is more widespread and worse than racism. More women die grom sexism. Obama has supported sexism and misogyny (I heard, I saw) to help him win. His surrogates say it is because of Hillary. It is not. He uses the fact that she is a woman. Obama thinks he can use sexism to win now and fix it all for the general election. It doesn't work like that. We remember, we remember, we remember.

Posted by: katherine | May 28, 2008 7:51 PM | Report abuse

When considering the candidates' policy and ideology . . .

If I were to vote for Clinton that would be very similar to voting for McCain.

If I were to vote for Clinton that would be very similar to voting for Obama.

If I were to vote for Obama that would be very different than voting for McCain.

If I were to vote for McCain that would be very different than voting for Obama.

I don't like the extreme end of McCain's policies. I DON"T LIKE THE PROTRACTED WAR!!! It is the sign of the demise of a nation. Doesn't anybody study Greek: Athenian history anymore?

I don't like the extreme end of Obama's policies. I DON"T LIKE UNSTRUCTURED NEGOTIATIONS!!! It is the sign of the demise of a nation. Doesn't anybody study Greek: Athenian history anymore?

Heck, does any study poker anymore? It would be really good to have a leader that would know when to bluff and when to fold.

Who can I live with? Clinton with her policy of NO WAR AND STRUCTURED NEGOTIATIONS, that is know when to bluff and when to fold.

What do the polls say about the General Election at Polling Report and Real Clear Politics? Clinton leads McCain, while McCain leads Obama.

This really sucks because McCain is going to win and there is not a damn thing I can do about it. The US is going to go bankrupt from a protracted war and multiply its enemies by showing signs of being a bully.

I suppose that I could vote for Obama but then he will negotiate the country away and multiply our enemies by showing signs of weakness.

Posted by: Whatrmyoptions? | May 28, 2008 7:48 PM | Report abuse

HIllary would bring out the 54% of voters who find her unlikeable in a general election. There would be Obama supporters voting against her, there would be Republicans who don't like McCain voting for him just to keep HIllary out of the White House, There would be independents who say , Anybody but Hillary, who would vote against her. If she is having a tough time now with only Democrats voting, who do you think is going to vote for her when the rest of the voters get involved? She is the one that is not electable...ever.

Posted by: Dale Netherton | May 28, 2008 7:48 PM | Report abuse

West Coast:
What did she actually accomplish, not "fought for," "served on," "led," "helped," or any of the other verbs you substituted for "accomplish." What takes the cake is the inclusion of becoming partner in the Rose Law Firm. There are only a million or so law firm partners in this country, precious few of whom became partner while their spouse was Attorney General. What was any significant piece of legal work she did for the benefit of a client of the firm? As Senator, what legislation did she author that became law?

Posted by: jim brown | May 28, 2008 7:48 PM | Report abuse

I want everyone to understand this very important thing,we that are Democrats must vote the Republicans out of the White House in November.If we donot we are not hurting Hillary or Obama we are hurting American people, because there are people that can't afford to take an eight or nine dollar an hour job because of the state of this economy. Gas,food,and those soldiers in Iraq is what we need to focus on, Please don't loose site of that.

Posted by: M. Rogers | May 28, 2008 7:44 PM | Report abuse

Anyone wondering why Hillary Clinton is being treated unfairly by the mainstream media and why Barack Obama has been able to significantly outspend her, should read this:

http://blatantreality.com/2008/02/03/obamas-nuclear-lobby/

Posted by: lsb | May 28, 2008 7:42 PM | Report abuse

Obama is the next president..talk all you want

Hillary should eb ashamed talking about an assasination, and then lying about her trip to Bosnia...HILLARY SUCKS! HILLARY SUCKS!

Posted by: ss | May 28, 2008 7:41 PM | Report abuse

Reality check:
1. You only need to look as far as how each candidate has run their campaign to get a feel for how s/he'd run an administration. Obama has run the smoothest campaign with the best qualified managers of all of the primary candidates. Hillary is running hers with deficit spending and both Hillary and McCain have had a number of shakeups in their staff. Not so with Obama. If he chooses his cabinet as well as he chose his staff, we'll be doing OK. I think this speaks to his wisdom versus her experience. He doesn't "owe" anyone and can chose people based on their qualifications.
2. Regarding those who yelp about Hillary winning the popular vote once Fl and MI are counted -- well, I'm from a caucus state and she conveniently ignores those voters in her tally. So I guess the popular vote only counts in states where it's favorable to her. Just one more sample of Clinton twisting the rules to fit her.

BTW, I'm a middle-aged suburban mom who will be voting for Obama. And you Clinton supporters who insist you'll stay home or vote McCain in November, please think about the Supreme Court and the fact that 3-4 justices may be retiring in the next president's term. Would you really want McCain nominating them??

Posted by: Omama | May 28, 2008 7:40 PM | Report abuse

Nice to know we have the media to tell us some of what candidates say BUT MORE IMPORTANTLY what they mean. With but a few words the press reveals all. Heck, why wait for the Clinton's to say anything, you're just going to make something up anyway, but hey gotta cover your behind right?

Posted by: I and I | May 28, 2008 7:40 PM | Report abuse

Florida & Michigan voters have a right to have their votes count and SHOULD be counted fully. It wasn't the voters who made the dumb decision to have the elections earlier than party rules allow. Republicans are smacking their lips thinking that BO is going to secure the nomination. They will be laughing all the way to the polls. Why would anyone NOT want to vote for experience? Do you think 2 years experience is going to get this country out of the mess we have been in for the last 8 years? Eight years ago, Florida was responsible for the mess we are in now...let the Democrats have their votes count and their voices heard, do not strip them of their American privilage....to VOTE.

Posted by: P Rames | May 28, 2008 7:39 PM | Report abuse

Obama exploited RFK's assassination? He's not the one who brought it up, Hillary did, and in what universe did the RFK comment backfire on Obama? As for race baiting.. get real. Hillary and Bill are the ones who bring up race, and Hillary has been exploiting the gender issue since 1992. She is nothing more than a carpet bagging opportunist. This is one New Yorker who is voting for Barack Obama, and I know I'm not alone...not by a few million.

Posted by: JB | May 28, 2008 7:39 PM | Report abuse

DSR,
I'm a woman and I will definitely vote for Obama if he is the nominee. By the way, he did not steal the nomination from anyone; he campaigned and suffered Hillary's kitchen-sink attacks. The man has honor and ideas that are NOT rooted in the past.

I WILL vote for him.

Posted by: Terese | May 28, 2008 7:37 PM | Report abuse

First of all, the only reason--and I mean the ONLY reason--she is showing up decently in some polls is that nobody is running against her. McCain is ignoring her and blasting Obama; Obama is just saying nice things about her and blasting McCain. Either of them could blow her out of the water in two seconds with some ads highlighting her stupidities and lies of the last three months, starting with Bosnian sniper fire. She could not pass the laugh test as a national candidate. She would not have a prayer as the Dem nominee.

Second, if Obama loses, and even if she works hard for him (without making any of her patented stupid mistakes), Hillary will be widely blamed for his defeat, and will not be getting the nomination in 2012, no chance. And she'll be too old in 2016.

So there you have it. Say good night, Hillary. The nation has a lot to thank Obama for in helping the party dodge what would have been a disastrous candidacy and the remote possibility of even worse presidency.

Posted by: LongTom | May 28, 2008 7:34 PM | Report abuse

Jim Brown:
You want to know what Senator Clinton has accomplished:
1) As a LAWYER, was Committee counsel to the House Impeachment committee on Watergate; worked at the Children's Defense Fund, an advocacy organization for abused and neglected children and their rights; appointed by President Carter at the age of 30 to the Legal Services Corporation, which provides legal services to the poor; 10-12 years in private practice, became a partner at the Rose Law Firm;
2)As First Lady of Arkansas -- led task force on educational standards for children in Arkansas; served on the Board of the Arkansas Children's Hospital; was on the national boards of the Children's Defense Fund, the Child Care Action campaign; and the Children's Television Network.
3)As First Lady of the UNITED STATES -- Led efforts to make adoption easier, expand early learning and childcare; instrumental in increasing funding for Breast Cancer Research; helped create the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997; led efforts to help veterans suffering from Gulf War Syndrome; attempted to get universal healthcare for all Americans;
4) As a United States Senator -- After 9/11, fought and got legislation to provide compensation to families who lost loved ones, for small business relief, and for "first responders" suffering health problems; 1st New Yorker to serve on the Senate Armed Services Committee, and has visited troops and commanders in Iraq and Afghanistan; fought for better health care at Walter Reed; original sponsor of legislation that expanded health care to National Guard and Reserve troops who have fought in Iraq;helped create the S-CHIP program (Children's Health Insurance Program) for low and middle income children without health care; helped pass legislation that became Best Pharmaceuticals for Children Act, to improve safety of drugs for children.

That answer your question? Now, I'd like you to list what Barack Obama has accomplished in the U.S. Senate, and in Illinois (not just by having his name put on legislation that others authored, but which he actually sponsored or originated AND which were enacted.

It's a short list.

Posted by: West Coast | May 28, 2008 7:33 PM | Report abuse

This statement has know been posted several times.
"rational people would rather not RISK the national security of this nation on someone who used cocaine."
Are you people Aware of Current President George W. Bush. Hey News flash rational people have already accepted the RISK He is Current President George W. Bush and when his term is up Americans would have put the National Security Risk of someone that used Cocaine in office for 8 years. Seriously where do you idiots come from. Bush even admitted to Past Cocaine and drinking use and guess what we still elected him President.

Posted by: Chris in MO | May 28, 2008 7:32 PM | Report abuse

"Clinton is a much better choice by any measure. And, no, this is not the stereotypical aged female clinton supporter. Wrong on both counts."

As someone who just threw out a wild, grossly general, nonsensical argument, I'd say you are a VERY typical Clinton supporter

Posted by: DDAWD | May 28, 2008 7:29 PM | Report abuse

Jim Brown:
You want to know what Senator Clinton has accomplished:
1) As a LAWYER, was Committee counsel to the House Impeachment committee on Watergate; worked at the Children's Defense Fund, an advocacy organization for abused and neglected children and their rights; appointed by President Carter at the age of 30 to the Legal Services Corporation, which provides legal services to the poor; 10-12 years in private practice, became a partner at the Rose Law Firm;
2)As First Lady of Arkansas -- led task force on educational standards for children in Arkansas; served on the Board of the Arkansas Children's Hospital; was on the national boards of the Children's Defense Fund, the Child Care Action campaign; and the Children's Television Network.
3)As First Lady of the UNITED STATES -- Led efforts to make adoption easier, expand early learning and childcare; instrumental in increasing funding for Breast Cancer Research; helped create the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997; led efforts to help veterans suffering from Gulf War Syndrome; attempted to get universal healthcare for all Americans;
4) As a United States Senator -- After 9/11, fought and got legislation to provide compensation to families who lost loved ones, for small business relief, and for "first responders" suffering health problems; 1st New Yorker to serve on the Senate Armed Services Committee, and has visited troops and commanders in Iraq and Afghanistan; fought for better health care at Walter Reed; original sponsor of legislation that

Posted by: West Coast | May 28, 2008 7:28 PM | Report abuse

Please! I saw a reference to an electoral college map based on a CANADIAN blog-spot! Want the truth? GO to... www.electoral-vote.com Totally non partisan site, and it clearly shows Hillary the stronger candidate. See for yourself.

Posted by: John Lee Bingham | May 28, 2008 7:25 PM | Report abuse

The following message is about Political Connections:

All I need to know about Ba_rack Hussein Obama:

http://www.barackobamaassociates.info

His fellow associates are like socialist, communist, and people that follow Sharia law (Islamic law). Scares the heck out of me. How a person like him make it this fair in national politics is unbelievable. After looking at this template and reading the capsules, I see how he made it this far. Ba_rack Hussein Obama would have to cut off my right arm to get my vote. I am a moderate to conservative democrat voting for McCain in the general elction should
Ba_rack Hussein Obama be the democratic nominee. And I have never voted for a Bush and always knew he was one of the worst modern day Presidents we have ever had. If anything we, the American people, can not afford another naive, inexperienced person like Bush when he first got in office as President.

Just SAY NO to ... Ba_rack Hussein Obama.

Thank you,
Mike in Harford County, MD

Posted by: mike | May 28, 2008 7:25 PM | Report abuse

I am constantly amazed by folks that "Need Change". Change can be good, but history tells us that politicians change is mostly bad. Bad because there is little foresight into the ramifications and implications of the "change". Have not we learned any lessons from the 20th century. It appears not. I truly fear an Obama presidency. Clinton is a much better choice by any measure. And, no, this is not the stereotypical aged female clinton supporter. Wrong on both counts.

Posted by: AG | May 28, 2008 7:24 PM | Report abuse

I live in New York city too and Clinton wont have to worry about her senate seat since the super delegates will either honor the majority of the will of the people and give her the nomination or the Democratic party goes to pieces since NO Clinton voter is voting for Obama and his race baiting and the way he exploited RFK's murder for his own cheap political purposes which thankfully has blown up in his face.

www.tominpaine.blogspot.com

Posted by: MDR | May 28, 2008 7:22 PM | Report abuse

Cynthia, If you want us to take you serioisly, stop yelling, learn to spell and above all else if you want to stop temper tantrums dont show us by having one yourself. You look rediculous.

Posted by: frankie | May 28, 2008 7:22 PM | Report abuse

Hillary will not run in 2012 - she'll be older, her legaacy (read Bill's) will be a hazier, more distant memory, and people will still remember the dishonourable campaing she ran this year.

So, really, her only chance was 2008 - and she blew it through hubris, and through managerial and financial incompetence.

Posted by: piul05 | May 28, 2008 7:21 PM | Report abuse

I live in New York city too and Clinton wont have to worry about her senate seat since the super delegates will either honor the majority of the will of the people and give her the nomination or the Democratic party goes to pieces since NO Clinton voter is voting for Obama and his race baiting and the way he exploited RFK's murder for his own cheap political purposes which thankfully has blown up in his face.

www.tominpaine.blogspot.com

Posted by: Anonymous | May 28, 2008 7:21 PM | Report abuse

First of all, I'm from Michigan and voted in the primary like everyone else here had the chance to do. I'll be extremely upset if my vote doesn't count because of politics. Don't disenfranchise me because the Democratic Party didn't follow the rules here or in Florida...not the voters fault! Fine "them" somehow but not the voters in Michigan or Florida who took the time to vote! I'm a Hillary supporter and if she does't get the nomination, I will be voting for McCain. I know a lot of people here who are going to do the same. We want someone with experience who we can trust and that's NOT Obama, for too many reasons to list!!!

Posted by: Go Blue | May 28, 2008 7:19 PM | Report abuse

Get real people. Obama will be crushed by McCain if he is the nominee. One way or another an Obama presidency aint gonna happen.
Posted by: wbboei | May 28, 2008 6:46 PM

McCain will crush Obama? Based on what?

Polls?

Five months out from the election?

Polls five months ago, said Hillary would win the Democratic election in a landslide.

Sounds like you just hope this will be true.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 28, 2008 7:18 PM | Report abuse

Over educated's comments proves again there is a big difference between being educated and being smart.

Posted by: MDR | May 28, 2008 7:16 PM | Report abuse

you are truly nuts. she has the popular vote lead and will have it when the primary season is over. anyone with 2c for a brain knows Obama will lose in November.
In fact if she wanted to run as an independent she'd win and Obama would not get a single electoral vote. Popular vote means more Democrats want her as the nominee than Obama. If super delegates dont honor that there will be an uncivil war in the Democratic Party. THAT is when she will say "I told you so and so did my supporters". www.tominpaine.blogspot.com

Posted by: MDR | May 28, 2008 7:13 PM | Report abuse

No matter what Hillary says I'm voting for McCain. I hope she has it in her to run in 2012. She might not say "Told you so" but I will sure will to Obamabots this Novemeber!!!
NObama Noshelle 08
Posted by: Carol 17 | May 28, 2008 7:08 PM

I live in NYC and due to Clinton's race baiting and assassination dreaming she will be pretty busy fighting to hold on to her Senate seat in 2012.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 28, 2008 7:13 PM | Report abuse

This article never made a compelling argument that what Bill Clinton said, which is inherently true, this article is certainly evidence of that, has some devious or conspiratorial meaning or 'laying of groundwork'. In fact it made the opposite argument because in the end you say you have no evidence that what Hillary is hoping for is an Obama defeat. However, it did continue to stir up the pot of enmity between candidate's supporters.

I spent time on these boards during the early years of the Bush administration and I recall the poison. It's back and the thing that weirds me out the most is that the things I see some Obama supporters say...'Will say anything to get elected' is exactly the thing that the right-wing said about Gore supporters.

This has nothing to do with issues anymore. It's about destruction and humiliation.

Posted by: tcwilmont | May 28, 2008 7:12 PM | Report abuse

I am a woman over 60 who works in a technical field. I did not vote from Clinton because she helped bring in an outsourcer from India to NY. She has received campaign money from this company. Jobs like mine are being outsourced to India and out of the US. Soon we will have nothing left but mim wage jobs. Everything else will be outsourced overseas. I voted for Obama because of Clinton being alligned with the outsourcing company and because of NAFTA. BUT I will vote for MY best interest in the election. I will vote for the winner of the Democratic primary race whether it is Obama or Clinton. I do not need a temporary gas tax cut. I need much more than that. I NEED CHANGE!

I cannot believe people would be so stupid as to vote for McCain. Do you not value your Social Security? He wants to turn it over to Wall Street. They will get richer on fees and you will have less money to live on. He wants to continue a war that is bankrupting our country!

Since I am not one of the wealthy 1% of the US or a big Corporation I will not vote for McCain.

Posted by: monette | May 28, 2008 7:10 PM | Report abuse

Nothing is heard about Hillary's temperament and very foul mouth. During her time in the Whitehouse she used a lot of unreasonable and illegal demands, followed by threats and four letter words towards family, employees, assistants, FBI agents and Secret service agents, etc.

She simply is not worthy of being the country's leader.

Posted by: Parcival | May 28, 2008 7:10 PM | Report abuse

The problem is, Bill Clinton is wrong. While Hillary is polling better than Obama in OH and PA, he is still winning them, while she is losing MI, WI, CO, OR, IA, and NM. There are 2 states that Hillary is winning that Obama is not: FL and AR. So the current electoral college math is:

Obama 293 / McCain 244
Clinton 271 / McCain 267

see http://democraticSPACE.com/blog/2008/05/obama-has-advantage-over-clinton-in-general-election/

Posted by: Greg Morrow | May 28, 2008 7:10 PM | Report abuse

Why are the democrats fighting each other when we need to come together to end the current regime of the 'decider' Both sides are alienating many loyal democrats that might not vote for anyone ...and where will that get us? another eight years of well you all know.
When some people come out and say that race determined their vote more ignorant people say that Hilary should say she doesn't want their vote. Why did they assume that the only people who were letting race determine their vote were voting for Hilary? It shouldn't matter on either side what their reasons are. This is a free country and we can vote for who we want at this stage....well in November also but hopefully everyone will be on board behind our canidate by then. No one should drop out of the race. What's wrong with going to the convention and coming away with a canidate. Just start fighting the replublicans rather than each other, these are two wonderful candidates that will make a great president if either of them gets the chance.

Posted by: gramma | May 28, 2008 7:10 PM | Report abuse

If the Clintons are preparing an "I told you so" argument in hopes of running again in 2012 she will to toxic waste to the Democratic party if she does not actively support the general election campaign for Obama in the (likely) event of his nomination.

Posted by: smartinsen | May 28, 2008 7:09 PM | Report abuse

No matter what Hillary says I'm voting for McCain. I hope she has it in her to run in 2012. She might not say "Told you so" but I will sure will to Obamabots this Novemeber!!!

NObama Noshelle 08

Posted by: Carol 17 | May 28, 2008 7:08 PM | Report abuse

Sen Clinton will work hard to help unite the party once we have a nominee, even if she is not the nominee. She realizes that this is her only shot, and all of the energized young people will not work with her or vote for her in the future (and before people start sneering, please remember how people treated you when you joined the political process).

And any thoughts that she can run again in 2012 should be rubbished for two reasons. First, the Democratic party does not treat well candidates that have lost. Sen Kennedy is an exception, and he has worked hard and has earned respect for it. Second, in four years time there will be alot more young people who have vague or no memories of the Clinton administration, and thus will not be loyal to them. However, there may be lingering animosity directed to who they see as torpedoeing their candidate.

Regardless, I just want a Dem in the office and hope all of the people threatening to vote McCain are doing just that - threatening - and will not tear the party in half.

Posted by: Richelle | May 28, 2008 7:08 PM | Report abuse

Maybe Hillary can also rewrite the history of the 1960 World Series so that her beloved New York Yankees can win. For those who forgot, or are too young, the Yanks outscored the Pirates 55 to 27 and outhit them .338 to .256, but lost 4 games to 3! Drat those stinking rules!

Posted by: jim brown | May 28, 2008 7:04 PM | Report abuse

Those of you who will be voting for McCain in order to vote for HRC in 2012, just remember that is quiet possible that the gass prices by that time will be around $8.00 and only well off will be able to afford to get to the polls, and I don't think they'd be voting for HRC.

The second point is that for my personal well being, it does not matter whether McCain is a president or not. I tend to vote democrat due to my commitment to social justice that the Repubicans seem to oppose, but if I see that there were spite votes for McCain, I will start voting straight Republican because it would make clear to me that Democracts don't deserve my vote.

Posted by: Alex | May 28, 2008 7:01 PM | Report abuse

"Obama would have seen McCain opposing Bush in the Senate on issue after issue."

Anyone have examples of this?

Posted by: DDAWD | May 28, 2008 7:00 PM | Report abuse

Was it sexist when Hillary was a self-professed right-wing "Goldwater Girl?"

Maybe Bill didn't inhale, but that's only because Hillary shotgunned it from him before he got a chance. Obviously, she's still inhaling.

Posted by: goldwater girl | May 28, 2008 6:58 PM | Report abuse

Obama has NO RIGHT TO SAY that McCain is going to continue Bush's policies.


PERHAPS if Obama actually did his job instead of going on a book tour:


Obama would have seen McCain opposing Bush in the Senate on issue after issue.

The reason Obama hasn't seen this is because Obama hasn't EVEN BEEN COMING TO WORK SINCE BEING ELECTED - OBAMA HAS BEEN COLLECTING A PAYCHECK BUT GOING ON BOOK TOURS AND RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT.

Instead, Obama was MIA selling books instead of WATCHING MCCAIN WORK ACROSS THE AISLE.


Seriously - Obama wasn't doing his job so he wasn't even IN THE SENATE TO BE ABLE TO WATCH MCCAIN SHOW HIM HOW ITS DONE.

Obama, if he wasn't so arrogant and uppity, could have ACTUALLY LEARNED SOMETHING FROM MCCAIN.


NOW we have the curious sight of Obama the inexperience person who knows very little about Washington attempting to find something wrong with the MAVERICK.


The truth is Obama has nothing on McCain so Obama HAS TO MAKE UP SOME SET OF LIES.


Of course, then Obama has to focus-group his lies to see which ones work the best.


Obama sickens anyone who truly wants to see this country run correctly.

Obama take your race-baiting and your lies and your false charges of "offensive remarks" and go back to Chicago.

Charge made.


Charge sticks.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 28, 2008 6:57 PM | Report abuse

F* the Clinton'a, I'm so tired of them getting coverage for their BS.

Posted by: Jtown | May 28, 2008 6:52 PM | Report abuse

Dear Senator Clinton:
On behalf of the automatic delegates, I would appreciate your input with respect to what you will say in response to Republican inquires during the general election as to what you have specifically accomplished in your adult life as: (1)a lawyer; (2)First Lady of Arkansas; (3)First Lady of the United States; (4)Senator from New York. No platitudes or vague generalities, please.

Posted by: jim brown | May 28, 2008 6:50 PM | Report abuse

MONEY TALKS
SUPERDELGATES FOR SALE


http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/Top_News/2008/03/29/obama_leads_in_superdelegate_donations/6691/

Obama leads in superdelegate donations

Published: March 29, 2008 at 3:03 PM

WASHINGTON, March 29 (UPI) -- Barack Obama has donated more money than his Democratic U.S. presidential campaign rival, Hillary Clinton, to superdelegates in the last three years.

The Illinois senator's political action committee has donated $710,900 to superdelegates since 2005, compared to his New York colleague's PAC donations of $236,100, McClatchy Newspapers reported Saturday.

The report of the donations by the two candidates for the Democratic presidential nomination comes as a study has indicated a link between such funds and superdelegates' voting.

The Center for Responsive Politics study found that 82 percent of those superdelegates who have backed a candidate since Feb. 25 supported the candidate who donated to them in the past

Posted by: Typical White Person | May 28, 2008 6:50 PM | Report abuse

For those of you who voted for hillary just because she was a woman or because of Bill SHAME ON YOU. yOU HAVE KNOW IDEAL WHAT KIND OF EXPERIENCE HILLARY HAS.SHE IS A JUNIOR SENATOR. DO YOU KNOW WHAT THAT MEAN? SHE HAS NO EXPERIENCE AS PRESIDENT!!!!. DO YOU REALLY WANT HILLARY TO STEAL THE ELECTION? WE ACCUSED BUSH FOR DOING JUST THAT. IS THAT WHY YOU SAY YOU WILL VOTE FOR MCCAIN? YOU ARE EITHER PREJUDICE OR JUST PLAIN OH STUPID. ALL OF YOU WHO BELIEVE SHE DESERVE THIS BCAUSE SHE IS A WOMAN SHAME ON YOU. DO YOU SEE HOW SHE IS ACTING? SHE IS THOWING A DAMN TEMPER TATRUM AND HER HU8SBAND IS LOSING HIS MIND. CHELSEA SHOULD BE EMBARASSED. IF HILLARY WAS IN THE LEAD THEN SHE SHOULD HAVE IT BUT SHE IS NOT. ARE YOU THE GROUP OF UNEDUCATED LOW CLASS PEOPLE SHE PLAY ON? SHE MUST KNOW THAT YOU CAN'T COUNT EITHER. WOMEN IF WE ARE GOING TO HAVE A WOMAN TO REPRESENT US AT LEAST LET HER NOT BE A CHEATER AND A LIAR!!. i AM A WOMAN AND DHE EMBARASSED THE HELL OUT OF ME. SHE IS SHOWING ALL OF AMERICA WHAT A SORE LOSER SHE IS AND HOW WOMEN THROW TEMPER TANTRUMS WHEN THEY CAN'T HAVE THEIR WAY. IS THIS WHO YOU TRUST TO RU THE COUNTRY? pPLEASE THINK THIS OVER AND STOP THROWING A TEMPER TANTRUM.WE WOULD VOTE FOR HER IF SHE WON IT FAIR AND SQUARE BUT IF SHE STEAL IT NO ONE WITH ANY SENSE WOULD VOTE FOR HER. SHE CAN'T BEAT OBAMA HOW CAN SHE BEAT MCCAIN. WHAT ARE YOU ALL GOING TO DO WHEN ALL THOUGHS SKELETONS COME OUT OF HILL AND BILLS CLOSET. IF YOU DON'T VOTE FOR OBAMA AND VOTE FOR MCCAINE YOU ARE TRULLY NOT A DEMOCRATE AND YOU ARE JUST LIKE HILLARY THROWING A DAMN TEMPER TANTRUM. YOU AND HILLARY MAKE PEOPLE KNOW YOU CAN DEPEND OR TRUST A WOMAN TO RUN THIS COUNTRY

Posted by: Cynthia | May 28, 2008 6:47 PM | Report abuse

Get real people. Obama will be crushed by McCain if he is the nominee. One way or another an Obama presidency aint gonna happen.

Posted by: wbboei | May 28, 2008 6:46 PM | Report abuse

Polling this far out is only a small piece of the electoral puzzle. It is true that Hillary is polling way ahead at this moment, but that doesn't mean that she is the stronger candidate in the fall. A few other things need to be considered...

1. The more Hillary's campaign becomes irrelevant, the more the press is laying off her. So we aren't hearing anything bad about her.
2. Obama is a better fundraiser, and that's important in the fall when attacks become more prevalent.
3. Obama has a better grass roots organization that will help get out the vote.
4. Michigan and Florida are still angry at Obama about their votes not counting... I think once those states get resolved, he will start polling much better in those states.

While polls are important, they are not the only thing that should be considered. I still think Obama is the stronger candidate.

Posted by: Nathan | May 28, 2008 6:45 PM | Report abuse

If Hillary had been treated fairly from the beginning instead of being mistreated the way she was by the Media and the Democratic Committee we would have a good nominee we could vote for in November and win the Democratic Party. But no, she wasn't given half a chance. Women know what has been going on with Hillary and it's because she is a WOMAN that she hasn't been given a chance to run a fair race. She has been picked on, harped on, blamed for and everything else. As a woman myself I will not vote for Obama because he doesn't have the qualification for president and he has been handed the nomination on a silver plater. We want a worthy and qualified person, not a pompous, overspoken and not history educated or informed pretty boy for a president. We need someone that knows how to do the job and knows his history. We already know from two previous incidents that Obama does not know his American History. IF NO HILLARY THEN GO MCCAIN!!!

Posted by: Anonymous | May 28, 2008 6:44 PM | Report abuse

One more thing, How did Obama steal this from Hillary? Everyone agreed to the rules before this started! What happened? What changed? Obama won? Is that it? Is that why so many fair minded Americans are on here saying Obama stole this election? How could Obama steal an election anyways? The new guy on the block who happens to be Black stoled the election from the "etsablished, experienced candidate with all the connections"... You guys are crazy, the only one trying to steal anything is Hillary.

Posted by: Mac | May 28, 2008 6:42 PM | Report abuse

Sad that everyone is saying that Black voters are racist because 90% are supporting the black guy, even though black voters have supported every white candidate the dems put up, every time! So were all the Black Voters anti Black when they voted for Kerry, Gore, Clinton twice, Carter... you get the point!

Posted by: Mac | May 28, 2008 6:38 PM | Report abuse

Any democrat who votes for John McCain is only spiting ones own self. The supreme court is in major jeopardy of being taken over by republicans for the next 40-50 years. We do not have the luxury of voting for McCain to spite ourselves. Yes I am an Obama supporter but all you Hillary supporters who are women will only be doing irreparable harm to yourselves and the pro choice rights we have now. Please quit thinking of this spiteful behavior. Voting for McCain is against all your core beliefs if you voted for Hillary in the primary. If you want to be spiteful you will only harm yourselves in the long run.
Obama and Hillary have very similar policies to each other. Please consider what you will be doing to the Supreme Court.

Posted by: cag | May 28, 2008 6:37 PM | Report abuse

Chredon


Clearly number 3 on your list is wrong - OK give Obama credits for a partial of the uncommitteds in Michigan - Edwards was not on the ballot either

The key is after the next 3 primaries Hillary will be leading in ALL the categories.


I personally do not know why the MILLLIONS OF DEMOCRATS IN MICHIGAN AND FLORIDA SHOULD NOT COUNT, BUT THAT IS JUST THE OBAMA PEOPLE TALKING - they have other issues as well

Posted by: Anonymous | May 28, 2008 6:36 PM | Report abuse

Hillary Clinton is a fraud, fraud, fraud,,,,,,,, IT IS A BEAUTIFUL THING TO WATCH HER AND HER DESPERATE CAMPAIGN IMPLODE !!!!!!

Posted by: Nancianne | May 28, 2008 6:32 PM | Report abuse

If you cared about "experience", you shouldn't have been voting for Hillary anyway, because she's eons behind McCain when it comes to that and has less time in elected office than Obama does.

If you say you can't tolerate more of Bush, I really can't see why you would vote for the man who is his clone on economic and foreign policy issues, except maybe McCain is more hawkish

Posted by: Common Sense | May 28, 2008 6:28 PM | Report abuse

Why even have an election in November? Just go by the polls in May and coronate HRC!

Posted by: jim brown | May 28, 2008 6:26 PM | Report abuse

I love how Obama Hate-mongers always use his full name, as though Hussein means something about the man. How many of YOU got to choose your own middle name? How many of YOU think that your middle name says more about who you are than all the rest of your life put together?

My middle name is Kevin. I must be a member of the Irish Republican Army!

My mother's middle name was Mary. Does that mean she was a virgin?

McCain's middle name is Sidney. That's a French word meaning Wide Meadow. Hey, McCain is FRENCH! No wonder he got captured during Viet Nam - the French are professionals at getting captured in war!

See how stupid it sounds?
-----------------------------------------
You are assuming the people who do such things know stupid when they read it. Don't bother - they do it because they've run out of (or never had) anything intelligent to say.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 28, 2008 6:24 PM | Report abuse

Obama has never said she should quit the race. She Who Has Feet of Clay did:

Posted March 10, 2008 1:39 PM
by John McCormick and Mike Dorning, updated

COLUMBUS, Miss. - Sen. Barack Obama said today that Sen. Hillary Clinton has no standing - at least right now -- to offer him the job as her vice presidential running mate. I don't know how somebody who is second place is offering the vice presidency to the person who is in first place.

"I don't understand," he said. "If I'm not ready, how is it that you think I should be such a great vice president? Do you understand that?"

Posted by: Anonymous | May 28, 2008 6:20 PM | Report abuse

I'm a Hillary democrat that will be voting for John McCain in the general. It doesn't matter how much Hillary backs him, she will not be able to cover the fact that he has so little experience. In these critical times it's simply unthinkable to put someone in the White House with so little substance. He should have waited eight years and been prepared. We've had eight years of little experience in the White House and we know what happens. Everyday Obama makes statements that he and his entourage have to correct. The presidency is not a training ground. Say what you will, Hillary IS vetted.

Posted by: js | May 28, 2008 6:17 PM | Report abuse

While Clinton may be running stronger than Obama in key battlegrounds, in Ohio and Pennsylvania, they are both beating McCain. Thus there's a bit less merit to your argument when Obama is also winning in states out West, giving him more electoral votes than Hilary in that regard. And he leads in what actually matter, the races that have been determined already: the Democratic primary. Oracles six months in advance hardly trump actual wins.

Posted by: chelsea | May 28, 2008 6:15 PM | Report abuse

This is what I've suspected for some time. Of course, I would prefer it be stated without the Machiavellian overtones. When discussing Hillary (and, frankly, the Clintons in general), there is always this assumption that they are seeking power for power's sake, while politicians like Obama are driven by noble purpose.

I personally think Hillary is pursuing power because she believes she can make a real difference for the American people, and she would therefore genuinely want Obama to succeed if she can't (however envious she might be toward him deep down). There is nothing wrong with being pragmatic about leaving an election by positioning one's own political future in the best possible way.

Posted by: harlemboy | May 28, 2008 6:12 PM | Report abuse

I love how Obama Hate-mongers always use his full name, as though Hussein means something about the man. How many of YOU got to choose your own middle name? How many of YOU think that your middle name says more about who you are than all the rest of your life put together?

My middle name is Kevin. I must be a member of the Irish Republican Army!

My mother's middle name was Mary. Does that mean she was a virgin?

McCain's middle name is Sidney. That's a French word meaning Wide Meadow. Hey, McCain is FRENCH! No wonder he got captured during Viet Nam - the French are professionals at getting captured in war!

See how stupid it sounds?

Posted by: Chredon | May 28, 2008 6:11 PM | Report abuse

She can TRY that all day long but IF Obama lost to McCain> SHE is the one the democratic party will blame for dragging the obvious nominee through the mud in her unhinged quest to win. She lost after Super Tuesday and had the right to continue though it was hopeless IF she had not resorted to GOP tactics to win. Lying being one of the worst of her offensive actions and the worst being admitting she stayed in so that she would be ready if Obama was shot.
Nope...no matter how they spin if he loses? She will become a target so wide it will match the back of her pnatsuit.

Posted by: Deanna | May 28, 2008 6:09 PM | Report abuse

If Democrats don't fall in line behind whichever candidate wins the nomination, they will be handing an election over McCain.

Cutting off the nose to spite the face, much?

Vote Democrat in 08. Period. Get over yourselves and your stupid petty rivalry.

Posted by: latteliberal | May 28, 2008 6:06 PM | Report abuse

I look forward to a resounding defeat of Barack Obama in the fall if he is the candidate. He DOES NOT have the qualifications to hold the highest office in our land. He is a shallow thinker who has a cult-like following because of his soaring rhetoric. Racist as this sounds, a black man will not be elected POTUS in this election.

Posted by: JaneThe Third | May 28, 2008 6:04 PM | Report abuse

What experience does Hillary have?

Obama has more years as an elected representative than she does. He had 6 1/2 years in the Illinois senate.

Being the president's spouse isn't political experience. She has less time in elected political office than he does.

She served a ceremonila role in foreign affairs, as papers in Northern Ireland have related over and over and as the recently released white house files clearly indicate. The one true responsibility she had was Health Care, and she squandered that, settin the issue back a decade in 1994.

Is the argument that experience breeds judgment? She was the one who voted for the war and against the Levin Amendment that would have given inspectors a further chance. She continued to support the war and her vote for years. She was a supporter on NAFTA.

Obama in words opposed free trade policies he felt would hurt America and was adamently against the war from the get go.

Posted by: Common Sense | May 28, 2008 6:02 PM | Report abuse

I'm a 48-year old white woman who thinks that Hillary has set the womens movement back decades with her incidious comments about race, white people and RFK. Her nastiness, shreaking and scolding (Shame on You Barack Obama!) and whiney victimization is an insight into her character. And it's not pretty. She is not fit to lead this country.

Posted by: Lori | May 28, 2008 5:58 PM | Report abuse

OK, I have definitely voiced my opinions in this blog today and it has gotten somewhat intense, but now I just want someone to explain to me why Obama hovers b/t 202 and 266 electoral votes for the fall and why Clinton has been above 300 electoral votes for the fall consistently for the past couple months. Yes we can "hope" that Obama starts to stack up better against McCain, but isn't it safe to say that Clinton is the stronger candidate? Even if you dislike or even hate her, aren't you letting that bias cause your mind to deny that she's stronger? The only reason I get so passionate about this is because I want a Democrat in office in January and I don't want to be disappointed...again...like I was in 2000 & 2004.

Posted by: Christopher | May 28, 2008 5:58 PM | Report abuse

Thank you President Bill Clinton on calling out the main stream media like CNN & MSNBC on the complete disrepect and unfair treatment of Senator Clitnon and women in general, they have continued to receive and endure assults from these biased scared tabloid media fools, like Ken Oberman and Chris Matthews with their man infatuation with Obama...its funny how they claim over and over Clinton Lies but Obama flubbs???? come on!!! OBAMAS gets caught in lie after lie after lie!!!!! why would ANY VOTER BELIEVE OBAMA CAMP!!!!!

OBAMA LIES AGAIN
http://www.dontvoteobama.net


Obama LIES about Concentration Camp Claim at an attempt to attract Jewish voters, Often Obama inaccurately recalls his own history and American history, so it's important that we point to the facts Barack Obama's dubious claim is inconsistent with world history and demands an explanation,"It was Soviet troops that liberated Auschwitz, so unless his uncle was serving in the Red Army, there's no way Obama's statement yesterday can be true. Obama's frequent exaggerations and outright distortions raise questions about his judgment and his readiness to lead as commander in chief.

Sen. Obama referrers to himself as 'a constitutional law professor on the campaign trail. TRUTH: He never held any such title! Obama changed website bio to reflect that he was a 'lecturer' rather than 'professor. Chicago Daily Herald

Judicial Watch: Klaus Marre-Obama 'intended to leave no paper trail' OBAMA REFUSES to cooperate in releasing 8 years of his state senate records. One main reason REZKO!

Obama gets 4 Pinocchio's for 100 Years War-why national media won't call out Obama for his distortions on McCain's Iraq comments.

Washington Post caught Obama in a lie about the Kennedy family role claiming them helping his Father Contrary to Obama's claims Kennedy family did not provide the funding for a September 1959 historical records July 1960. Family Kennedy's donated $100,000 to pay for a second airlift in September 1960.

Politico reports, "During his first run for elected office, Barack Obama played a greater role than he acknowledges in crafting liberal stands on gun control, the death penalty and abortion- positions that appear at odds with the more moderate image he's projected during his presidential campaign. The evidence comes from an amended version of an Illinois voter group's detailed questionnaire, filed under his name during his bid for a state Senate. In response to a Politico story, Obama's answers he never saw questioaire?

NBC OBAMA LIES IN PA-AD
It's unfortunate that Senator Obama is using false advertising to explain why he can be trusted to do something about energy prices. In his ad, Obama says, I'm Barack Obama, and I don't take money from oil companies or lobbyists, and I won't let them block change any more. Obama has been the recipient of more than $220,000 from the oil and gas industry just since as of Feb/08. Two of Obama's campaign bundlers are also CEOs for oil and gas companies, per his campaign Web site? Obama dealings with one of his largest contributors Exelon, that he cut deals behind closed doors protecting them from full disclosure in the nuclear industry. Exxon, Shell, and others are among his biggest donors

Obamas record shows he infact did support the war when he got to the senate, voted twice against bringing America's troops back home. He voted for war appropriations giving our money to Halliburton and Blackwater where Texas woman, was gang-raped by her co-workers at a Halliburton/KBR camp in Baghdad, His latest bit of posturing S 433 allows the Bush Administration to suspend any troop withdrawal, if not suspended, keeps the troops in Iraq for a long time to come

Obama said he goofed on votes angered fellow Democrats in the Senate when he voted to strip millions of dollars from a child welfare office on Chicago's West Side. But Obama had a ready explanation: He goofed! Also announced he had fumbled an election-reform vote the day before, on a measure that passed 51 to 6. The next day, he acknowledged voting "present" on a key telecommunications vote. He stood on March 11, 1999, to take back his vote against legislation to end good-behavior credits for certain felons in county jails. "I pressed the wrong button on that," he said. Obama was the lone dissenter on Feb. 24, 2000, against 57 yeas for a ban on human cloning. "I pressed the wrong button by accident," he said. But two of Obama's bumbles came on more-sensitive topics; he backed legislation to permit riverboat casinos to operate even when the boats were dockside. The measure, pushed by the gambling industry and fought by church groups whose support Obama was seeking, passed with two "yeas" to spare -- including Obama's. Moments after its passage he rose to say, explaining that he had mistakenly voted for it.

Obama would later develop a reputation as a critic of the gambling industry, and he voted against a similar measure two years later. But he was clearly confused about how to handle the issue at the time of his first vote, telling a church group that he was "undecided" about whether he backed an expansion of riverboat gambling. And, months earlier, he had voted in favor of a version of the bill.

Posted by: OBAMA LIES AGAIN | May 28, 2008 5:57 PM | Report abuse

OK, let's do the math one more time...

Clinton has a popular vote lead IF AND ONLY IF...

1) You could Florida and Michigan
2) You give Obama zero for Michigan
3) You don't count the four caucus states that don't report raw votes numbers, which went heavily for Obama.
4) You ignore the fact that caucus states have much lower turn-out.

Then, all you have to do is forget the fact that popular vote is TOTALLY MEANINGLESS. It's the delegates, stupid.

Finally, Clinton MIGHT come out with a popular vote win even if you don't whack the numbers, given that she could win a lot of votes in Puerto Rico. Which would be signifiant if Puerto Rico voted in the general election. But they don't, so why use those numbers as any indication of general electabiliy?

Posted by: Chredon | May 28, 2008 5:56 PM | Report abuse

Superdelegates jumping ship on Obama!!!!
Kevin Rodriquez, a superdelegate from the Virgin Islands, was supporting Clinton earlier this year, then switched to Obama and now back in the New York senator's corner.
http://www.dontvoteobama.net

ABSOLUTE MUST READ BEFORE YOU VOTE FOR OBAMA

http://www.dontvoteobama.net

BOYCOTT CNN & MSNBC for manipulating the Presidential election with the biased pushing of obama before researching.

May 27, 2008
Tracking Polls (General)
Gallup: McCain 47, Obama 45
Gallup: Clinton 49, McCain 44
Rasmussen: McCain 45, Obama 45
Rasmussen: Clinton 47, McCain 45

http://www.dontvoteobama.net


Hillary Clinton's plummets Obama in West Virginia and KY raises serious doubts over Barack Obama's ability. SENATOR CLINTON WINS THE STATES NEEDED TO TAKE WHITE HOUSE, OBAMA DOES NOT

FACT: NO Democrat has won the White House since 1916 without winning West Virginia, Obama lost West Virginia by more than 40 points, an enormous fall, voters who went against Obama -- white, rural, older, low-income and without college degrees who live everywhere in the country, where Obama would need to win in a general election. In anticipation of the West Virginia primary, Obama supporters were hurling insults at farmers and truck drivers. Now we hear pained remarks from the Obama camp that many white men won't vote for any black. Oh really? No one was complaining during the early races in Iowa, Maryland, Virginia and Wisconsin, when most of the white male participants backed Obama. That was before the Rev. Jeremiah Wright ugliness became public. Obama's inability to persuade working-class white voters to back him points to serious problem for him in the presidential election. A large percentage of voters who back Mrs Clinton said they would not vote for Obama. Disrespecting the nearly 22 million who have supported Clinton is politically unwise, Obama camp turning them into "the enemy" is insane. More facts and proof Obama is to inexperienced and as a political elite out of touch with everyday America, Obama received glowing, it's-over-he-is-the-nominee coverage for the past six days, and that amounted to nothing in West Virginia. One has to wonder if the giddy praise and tingling feelings jolting up the legs of ALL at CNN and the Chris Matthewses, Keith Olbermanns cable news "Wright-free zones" of the world amounts to a hill of beans. Voters have figured out the biased media and no longer relying on them for truth!


Bill Clinton presided over the longest peacetime expansion since World War II. His budget surpluses put his so-called conservative predecessors and successor to shame. Wouldn't a vow to build on the Clinton legacy, rather than dismantle it, be a better tack for the Obama campaign? More Quote of the Year From The Audacity Of Hope... I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction. Senator Barack Hussein Obama
Quote of the Month: "My friends, we live in the greatest nation in the history of the world. I hope you'll join with me as we try to change it." - Senator Barack Hussein Obama

Reason Obama said he wanted to be President of ALL 57 states. Keep in mind U.S. doesn't have 57, but...ISLAM is what he is talking about!
Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) is an international organization grouping 57 states which have decided to pool their resources together, combine their efforts, and speak with one voice to safeguard the interests and secure the progress and well-being of their peoples and of all Muslims in the world.

President Obama A Victory For Islam

If Barack Obama Enters The White House, Islam Will Have Conquered The Heart Of American Civilization. Said; IsraCast, Menashe Amir an Israeli expert on Iran.

Posted by: Obama not wright for U.S. | May 28, 2008 5:56 PM | Report abuse

The rules?

Hillary Clinton agreed to the DNC sanctions recognizing the non-status of the Florida and Michigan democrat parties who bumped up their primaries against DNC rules to exert undue influence on the electoral process at the expense of rule abiding states.

Hillary agreed with this ruling, Solis Doyle and her surrogates showed absolute support for this ruling, Mark Penn said it's "the delegates" that matter. Prior to the Michigan primary, on a New Hampshire radio show, Hillary admitted that the vote wouldn't count.

Now, only after she has squandered her titanic lead, spent herself into debt in the worst managed campaign one could imagine, her pledge to recognize the DNC ruling has been revoked. How convenient.

She is the one not abiding by the rules.

Those votes were known to have non status, and it depressed voter turnout, which is why Florida had 200,000 more republicans attend the GOP primary than Demos attended the democrat primary in an election where the Democrats have dwarfed the GOP as far as turnout is concerned, this is why Michigan had such a low turnout.

Hillary most likely would not have won Michigan, as Michigan is not a state at all like Ohio or PA, it has far more urban centers and it's rural areas are closer to Wisconsin. In the grand majority of polling, Obama has done better than Clinton against McCain in Michigan.

To count her votes in Michigan, when Obama and Edwards and nearly everyone (who also agreed to the DNC sanctions) took their name off is perhaps the biggest cheat and unethical/unfair thing one could imagine.

She and her team agreed with the rules and now she wants to change them.

She lost...that just is. You can't count Michigan votes in the popular vote totals, that's ridiculous and it's really unfair to count Florida.

Posted by: Common Sense | May 28, 2008 5:52 PM | Report abuse

Senator Clinton's 'argument' is not persuasive. Obama has been picking up superdelegate after superdelegate for weeks. Remember when Clinton was trumpeting her lead in superdelegates and how important that was? Gone. Obama has wiped it out, and Clinton is left trying to come up with some plausible reason for staying in the race. I understood several weeks ago that she wanted to wait a while to see if Obama made some huge mistake late in the race, but he hasn't. He has proven himself. He's a strong candidate, if not stronger, than Clinton would be in November. Unless Clinton can absolutely prove that that is not true, she should leave the race.

Posted by: wesfromGA | May 28, 2008 5:43 PM | Report abuse

As an over-50 female, I am appalled at the whiny, woe-is-me attitude of the Clintons and any of the supporters on this comment line who are upset because Obama "stole" her rightful place in the White House. Obama has appealed to a spirit in Americans who are tired of the Clintons, the Bushes, and all the other main-line politicians. I'm not saying he's without fault, but at this time, I'm not sure that being inexperienced is such a bad thing.

Isn't it interesting that the Clintons and their backers thought that inexperience in Washington politics was such a great thing in 1992? But now they are threatened by the very thing they thought was so great back then.

Posted by: Liz | May 28, 2008 5:40 PM | Report abuse

If Obama wins the presidency the US will be even worse off then with Bush I cannot believe how naive you Obama supporters are how can you vote for an unexperieced bag again after having had one for 8 years you guys don't learn from your mistakes not only do you make the same mistake 2 times in a row but you do it again I think that is so sad.

Posted by: Breeze | May 28, 2008 5:37 PM | Report abuse

JWilson, we can agree to disagree. The fact that a simple majority is no guarantee of victory seems lost upon you. So be it. I just ask, don't flaunt the rules when it seems rules are only valid if they support your position. There was no rule that anyone remove their names from the Michigan ballot, yet many Obama supporters claim there was. In Florida, no one could remove his/her name and remain in the contest. Everyone knew at the time that the outcome in both states would be determined later. Therefore, both camps laid out their positions for political purposes. There was no high moral ground. Obama knew he would lose and the rules gave him an out. According to wikipedia, exit polls show that if all candidates had remained on the ballot, Clinton would have gotten 46%, Obama 35%.
This process is not about "the will of the people" or the "good of the party," it is, as it has always been, about politics. Both candidates know it, it is only the public that is confused.

Posted by: josgirl | May 28, 2008 5:31 PM | Report abuse

I for one am amazed that Senator Clinton is polling better in a GE after not getting attacked by either McCain or Obama in over a month. An absolutely "shocking" development.

Mark -- I saw your note, and Iam sorry I haven't checked in of late. I think your commentary is better than most pundits, and I've missed it. Work hasn't left much time for this hobby of late, but I hope that changes going forward.

Posted by: Colin | May 28, 2008 5:30 PM | Report abuse

This inevidably myth that it has to be Obama puzzles me. Senator Byrd, close to 90 years old, used to be a KKK-man before getting behind civil rights (a bit late, but who cares?). Byrd endorsed Obama, even though voters in Byrd's state went 67% to Clinton. This has little to do with Obama, but more to do with superdelegates close ties and loyalties. Biden, Byrd, Kennedy and Kerry might think downside og loosing to their friend McCain is acceptable. I am not sure younger superdelegates should be equally content to gamble the election.

Besides, superdelegates are free agents, which mean they are like polls. You don't trust them until election day at the convention.

Posted by: S. Johnsen | May 28, 2008 5:29 PM | Report abuse

Hillary smarter and tougher everyone. She can singlehandedly take on all the Republicans and everyone else that disagrees with her. Hillery for Empress!!

Posted by: Everyman | May 28, 2008 5:25 PM | Report abuse

"2. More pledged delegates, yep, you're right...but who'd win more if it were a winner-take-all primary...Clinton!!...and yes, the Republicans mainly use the winner-take-all system"

Winner-take-all is moronic for a primary. As Hillary lovers like to say, its all about electability. Why give the same number of delegates for a candidate who wins a state by half a percent as one who wins a state by 30%? In the former scenario, clearly there is no favorite. Why give an assload of delegates to one person for a virtual tie?

"3. Ahh yes, the popular vote argument...you have to include at least FL and in MI, if there was a revote, it would most likely be 55% Clinton, 40-45% Obama, which was basically "Uncommitted," and you know she'd win that state by 10 points like OH & PA. The rules don't state that you can't use popular vote totals anyway AND you're not a FL or MI democrat supporting Clinton so why should you care...right?"

The rules also don't state that you can't use ovary totals either. Perhaps we should award the victory to Clinton based on that.

Idiot, the rules say that you use delegates to name the nominee. Just because the rules don't delineate the infinite other metrics you can use doesn't make them valid.

"4. Wow, Obama raised more money!!!...and that really matters when it comes to defeating the best candidate the Republicans can nominate this election year...(THAT is sarcasm as well AJ.)"

You know, the rules don't say you can't use amount of money raised. Why not make that a metric?

Besides, raising money is pretty well correlated to getting votes. (this is different from spending your own money which has no such correlation)

"5. Superdelegates, yeah, well duh, they are rejecting the evidence as well...they're designed to possibly overturn pledged delegate leads if need be...and even John Edwards thinks Clinton is a stronger candidate now but thinks the "math" is against her.. go to http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/05/11/ftn/main4086431.shtml"

He says Clinton is a stronger candidate now. He does not say Clinton is stronger than Obama.

"6. Obama wins in National Polling against Clinton, hahahaha, you wanna poll some people in individual states AJ?...cause we use this thing called the ELECTORAL COLLEGE!! National polling means squat. Go to www.electoral-vote.com and look at the current Obama-McCain map and Clinton-McCain. I just wonder who is stronger!!!...again...Clinton!!!"

We've had polls already. That's why Clinton is losing so badly.

That website says that Clinton is going to pick up NC while Obama fails to do so. Um, yeah, didn't he destroy her in NC? I think that website has Clinton picking up like eight states that Bush carried.

I'll let you interpret that as you wish.

Posted by: DDAWD | May 28, 2008 5:25 PM | Report abuse

JWilson -
The CIA's response included a copy of the estimate, NIE 2002-16HC, October 2002, Iraq's Continuing Programs for Weapons of Mass Destruction, consisting almost entirely of whited-out pages.

The report:
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB129/nie.pdf

"We judge that Iraq has continued to its weapons of mass destruction (WMD)programs in defiance of UN resolutions and restrictions ... "

The CIA's censorship of the estimate mirrors its apparent treatment of the Senate's own report. The Senate Intelligence Committee had previously noted, in a 17 June 2004 press release, that "The Committee is extremely disappointed by the CIA's excessive redactions to the report." News accounts quoting Senate sources estimate that this excessive redaction amounted to 50% of the entire text.


Posted by: Genevieve | May 28, 2008 5:25 PM | Report abuse

To Common Sense!!! "Hillary is not the stronger candidate." WHAT!!!!!!! Are you crazy?

She isn't going to lose Washington, Oregon, Minnesota, and New Hampshire. She's fine in Nevada and New Mexico. Look at www.electoral-vote.com Mr. or Mrs. Common Sense!!!

Posted by: Christopher | May 28, 2008 5:11 PM


Poll after poll from Surveyusa (by far the best polling firm in the business as been proven each election cycle) have shown her either down or in a statistical tie with McCain in Washington, Oregon, Minnesota. Wisconsin and New Hampshire.

www.electoral-vote.com is a terrible site for actual examination. All it does is offer the most recent poll for a state as evidence.

A for instance: Well, Rasmussen has been horrible in state by state polling this cycle, absolutely horrible...worse than Zogby.

The latest North Carolina Rasmussen shows Hillary doing like 9 points better than Obama in the general against McCain. actually has her winning solid and obama losing solid

Well, that flies in the face of every single solitary NC poll that came out before it, from better and more accurate firms and kind of flies in the face of logic when Obama just beat her by about 18 points in that state....doesn't it?

It was what us poll hounds like to call an "outlier".

Hillary is absolutely not stronger in a general matchup poll.

Yes, she would only lose West Virginia by about 5, when she is outed as a social liberal in a general and would only lose Kentucky, Tennessee and Oklahoma by about 8 and she would probably win Arkansas by about 5, as compared to the 25 point loss Obama would have in WV, Kentucky, Tennessee and the 15 point loss in Arkansas, but in a winner take all contest based on the electoral college, the margins don't matter...a loss is a loss.

Her overall numbers are inflated by how much stronger she is in selected states, her EV primary cume is inflated by winning big states who have already determined outcomes for the general

Posted by: Common Sense | May 28, 2008 5:25 PM | Report abuse

And for all of those who continue to look at polls (this being May - half a year before the general) - you're intentionally not taking into account the preconcession bump (9% historically), and most importantly, you're not taking into consideration that polls are still asking for which of THREE candidates for whom you would vote.

This is classic vote-splitting, and it only becomes reality that Obama is effectually "unelectable" if the people arguing his "unelectability" comes to fruition because the people whose chief argument this is, decide not to cast their votes for him. It's self-fulfilling prophecy.

This is a 9-year old in the kitchen, holding a bucket full of dog sh@t, screaming that the floor needs to be cleaned. When someone points out that the floor is actually perfectly clean, they dump it onto the kitchen floor and scream "NO it's not! See!"

Posted by: Anonymous | May 28, 2008 5:22 PM | Report abuse

josgirl,

When the "I have more this and I have more that" is in regards to votes and delegates, I dare say that it's a valid argument, considering the pledged delegate count is the metric by which the nomination is attained.

To assert that there is a reality failure - when by definition the nomination is granted after winning the majority of delegates - I do believe Obama has a pretty strong argument, considering he has the majority of delegates. If the argument then becomes - ah, but he needs another 48 to have the majority including Superdelegates, then on the 4th you'll see that too.

And you will still argue, I assume, that it needs to go to the convention... for some reason.

Posted by: JWilson | May 28, 2008 5:18 PM | Report abuse

Three things:
(1) This Democratic race will not end until the Convention, when the delegates cast their ballots - between now and then, EVERYTHING is just puffery and posturing.
(2) If Obama wins the Democratic nomination, he will lose in November (see: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sean-wilentz/barack-obama-and-the-unma_b_103353.html & see: http://democrats-against-obama.org/)
(3) Obama has a VERY tenuous claim winning more delegates (he has won fewer voters per delegate and nearly all of his pledged delegate lead comes from caucuses - see: http://www.talkleft.com/story/2008/5/28/12921/1804)

In short, superdelegates would be foolish to turn away from the FACTS to go with the PUNDITS - but then again, it wouldn't be the first time that either the politicians or the media fell for SPIN (see: Scott McClellan's new book on how Bush & Co. sold the Iraq War)!

Posted by: Lbrown | May 28, 2008 5:18 PM | Report abuse

The Clintons will NOT support BO if he is the nominee . . . only give lip service. And many of HRC's supporters will NOT vote for BO and will make McCain the next president. Bet on it.

Posted by: The Big Mahoff | May 28, 2008 5:17 PM | Report abuse

All,

Just read this:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/107539/Hillary-Clintons-SwingState-Advantage.aspx


Posted by: Rneydr6034 | May 28, 2008 4:49 P

This is fundamentally flawed for several reasons.

A) Yes Clinton has a greater EV cume than Obama in primary won states. What does this mean?

Nothing.

She won Texas (34EV)....neither would win that in November.

She won NEw York and California (86 EV)....both will win that anyway.

That's 120 of her EV.

That also incorporates Florida and Michigan, which is not accurate, because Obama has often out polled her in Michigan for their 17 electoral votes.

What's also wrong with the premise they over is the total point spread. Yes, Hillary is performing about 30 points better in Arkansas than Obama as a swing state. In West Virginia, she is significantly better.

There are states where Hillary does eons better than Obama...Tennessee, Oklahoma, Kentucky, West Virginia, Arkansas....I suspect she's on avg 30 points stronger than Obama in all those states, but the sad reality is that she could only win Arkansas of those states and Arkansas only has 6 electoral votes.

That poll also doesn'yt incorporate the battleground states of Maine, Hawaii, Delaware and Connecticut, which have shown Hillary (in better Surveyusa polling and Surveyusa is the best polling firm) struggling

The numbers are about like this.

Obama is about 3-8 points stronger in Oregon, Washington, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Colorado, Virginia, Iowa.

About 5-8 points stronger in Maine, Delaware, Connectict and Hawaii.

About a point or two stronger in Michigan, New Mexico and Nevada

Also, Obama isn't trailing in Pennsylvania and Ohio according the best polls, and the REALCLEARPOLITICS average.

Hillary's margins are created by way of the fact that she is significant;y stronger in Arkansas, Florida and the appalachians. Her total numbers are skewed by way of how strong she is in such few select states,and in the case of Florida, a state she would (any democrat would) have serious trouble banking on.

That poll is not nuanced enough to show the micro-scale realities of this race.

Hillary is weaker, has less money and starts down on all the mid-sized states she needs.

I would rather Obama only needing to win one or two big states he's in trouble in, than Hillary trying to hold onto 8-9 small states she's in trouble in.

If her primary campaign is any indication on how she spends money or approaches states, her general election campaign and the strategy needed for her to survive would be disastrous

Posted by: Common Sense | May 28, 2008 5:14 PM | Report abuse

Another article and position effectively saying Clinton is not running to win, but she is cynical and plans for year 2012. I have stopped listening to Obama supporters characterization of Clinton; they are just too vile and condecending.

This week an admission of sorts, Obama campaigning in Puerto Rico. What more proof do we need, we know it to be true: This race is not over!

Posted by: S. Johnsen | May 28, 2008 5:13 PM | Report abuse

To Common Sense!!! "Hillary is not the stronger candidate." WHAT!!!!!!! Are you crazy?

She isn't going to lose Washington, Oregon, Minnesota, and New Hampshire. She's fine in Nevada and New Mexico. Look at www.electoral-vote.com Mr. or Mrs. Common Sense!!!

Posted by: Christopher | May 28, 2008 5:11 PM | Report abuse

Ah, but JWilson, the argument has been the same since Super Tuesday, maybe even New Hampshire. Both sides have known forever what the deal was. Obama, however, has been allowed and assissted by the media to frame his "inevitability" arguement publicly since then. The notion that "I have more this and I have more that" is just part of a candidates overall arguement to the super delegates. Unless, of course, you can get the gullible to swallow the "I'm winning because I say so" line.

Posted by: josgirl | May 28, 2008 5:09 PM | Report abuse

The Clintons are probably the most corrupt politicians in our life today along with Bush and Cheney. They are liars, dishonest, disingenUous and not to be trusted just like the administration today. We need new blood. GO OBAMA 08

IT IS A BEAUTIFUL THING TO WATCH HER AND HER DESPERATE CAMPAIGN IMPLODE !!!!!!

Posted by: NANCIANNE | May 28, 2008 5:09 PM | Report abuse

Senator Adalai Stevenson Jr, had the misfortune to vote for confirmation of Clarence Thomas to the supreme court, significantly angering part of his base. The next election cycle, he was defeated in the Illinois primaries by an unknown, a Black Woman that went on to claim his senate seat. Senator Clinton lives in New York, not Illinois. However, New York does have a very significant Black population and unlike Illinois, it has much more of a recent proclivity to elect republicans to statewide office.

Having made numerous statements about how caucuses don't count, Senator Clinton sets herself up to do even worse than her third place finish in the next round of Iowa caucuses in 2012. Further, her mishandling of the democratic party's black base makes it questionable she can even retain her senate seat let alone seek other office. This election is it for her, she is not leaving herself any second chance.

Posted by: Norman Hairston | May 28, 2008 5:08 PM | Report abuse

Hillary will do everything in her power to see BHO does not win election. If he does win, she will never again have a chance to be president again. Unless BHO proves to be a disaster as expected by most intelligent people (does the name Jimmy Carter bring back memories?) and the party boots him out. If McCain wins she can be the agressive Demo candidate and very possibly win. Who do you think Hillary cares more about Obama, or Hillary? Given Hillary's character or lack of, it's a no brainer

Posted by: josh irvin | May 28, 2008 5:04 PM | Report abuse

josgirl,

That's pretty much the answer I was expecting. So the question becomes - what is the purpose of the primaries and caucuses? What is the purpose of the exercise, if not to allow voters the opportunity to voice their preference for a candidate? On a legal level, you're absolutely right... delegates can change whenever they want. On a moral level, history will shot this not as a righteous battle by a fighter, but rather as in immoral, unscrupulous and vile action pushed by a former candidate whose every intention is not to overturn the pledged delegate count, but to continue to argue that the process, the body, and the nominee are illegitimate - effectively guaranteeing an open spot in 2012.

Unfortunately Americans are nearly that stupid. And I can assure you that, as they now recognize who got them into Iraq, they'll not soon forget whose actions kept us there.

Posted by: JWilson | May 28, 2008 5:02 PM | Report abuse

Uh Huh AJ...it does look like you will get what you want with the nomination of Obama, but here's some defenses to you previous defenses to me...

You also know that if this situation were reversed, you would be defending your case just like I am, and if it WERE reversed, I WOULD be choosing Obama b/c my main concern is to choose who is stronger against McCain.

1. Oooohhh, more contests huh...and of course denying how strong she is in MI,OH,PA,and FL seems like a good argument, huh...and wow, they just happen to be 4 HUGE states in general elections

2. More pledged delegates, yep, you're right...but who'd win more if it were a winner-take-all primary...Clinton!!...and yes, the Republicans mainly use the winner-take-all system

3. Ahh yes, the popular vote argument...you have to include at least FL and in MI, if there was a revote, it would most likely be 55% Clinton, 40-45% Obama, which was basically "Uncommitted," and you know she'd win that state by 10 points like OH & PA. The rules don't state that you can't use popular vote totals anyway AND you're not a FL or MI democrat supporting Clinton so why should you care...right?

4. Wow, Obama raised more money!!!...and that really matters when it comes to defeating the best candidate the Republicans can nominate this election year...(THAT is sarcasm as well AJ.)

5. Superdelegates, yeah, well duh, they are rejecting the evidence as well...they're designed to possibly overturn pledged delegate leads if need be...and even John Edwards thinks Clinton is a stronger candidate now but thinks the "math" is against her.. go to http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/05/11/ftn/main4086431.shtml

6. Obama wins in National Polling against Clinton, hahahaha, you wanna poll some people in individual states AJ?...cause we use this thing called the ELECTORAL COLLEGE!! National polling means squat. Go to www.electoral-vote.com and look at the current Obama-McCain map and Clinton-McCain. I just wonder who is stronger!!!...again...Clinton!!!

Posted by: Christopher | May 28, 2008 4:59 PM | Report abuse

LISTEN UP AMERICA,HILLARY CLINTON HAS DEMONSTRATED BY FAR JUST HOW TOUGH SHE IS, SHE HAS MORE FIGHT AND DETERMINATION THAT ANY GREAT LEADER WOULD EXHIBIT,CONSTANTLY,WITH EVERYTHING SHE HAS ALREADY ENDURED BY FRIENDS,COLLEGUES,THE D.N.C, AND OHHHHH YEAHHHH THE MEDIA AND SHES STILL FIGHTING!!! I'LL PUT MY STOCK IN HILLARY CLINTON INSTEAD OF OBAMA WHO IN MY OPINION REMINDS ME OF A USED CAR SALESMAN WITH A MILLION DOLLAR SMILE!!!!!

Posted by: Thunderjack8 | May 28, 2008 4:58 PM | Report abuse

"I believe you fail to fully explain the entire issue. You did not take into account the feelings of apprehension the American people had after 9/11. There were ongoing investigations under the UN to determine if WMDs did exist at the time and could possibly be used. Our intelligence reports indicated they did exist and would be used. "

Wrong. Very wrong.

The Intelligence Estimate was given to each Senator one week before the vote for war. In it, there were very serious questions raised about the WMD likelihood, and it showed that much of the claim and necessity for war was being intentionally escalated.

Questioned on this issue, Clinton said that "she skimmed it, but didn't read it".

Posted by: JWilson | May 28, 2008 4:57 PM | Report abuse

I will be first in line to say I told you so. The Dems DESERVE to lose, AGAIN, for being so STUPID. FIRST, for being hoodwinked by Obambi, SECOND, for their idiotic & arcane nominating procedure. To Hell with them. I will vote McCain rather than vote for a party that is so dumb it can lose in '08.

Posted by: MJ | May 28, 2008 4:54 PM | Report abuse

JWilson, super delegates are unpledged until the convention. They have changed their minds during the primaries, they can change their minds again. And again and again. They can vote for either candidate for any reason. Those are the rules. Nothing will change on June 3, 4, 5,....until the convention, or somebody drops out.

Posted by: josgirl | May 28, 2008 4:53 PM | Report abuse

As posted by "unknown":
"The most important issue in this election is unfortunately not even being discussed. It is the rewarding of those guilty of poor judgment, which resulted in calamitous actions. They are, namely, John McCain and Hillary Clinton."

I believe you fail to fully explain the entire issue. You did not take into account the feelings of apprehension the American people had after 9/11. There were ongoing investigations under the UN to determine if WMDs did exist at the time and could possibly be used. Our intelligence reports indicated they did exist and would be used. I think all of our representatives, at the time, acted on what they thought was best for the people and this country. As a matter of fact, somewhere I read that Sen. Obama was asked, if he had been a member of the U.S. Senate how would he have voted, and his reply "I don't know". And when bills came up for further funding of the war, he did not work to tack on anything to the bill which would set a timeline to bring the troops home, he voted along with the rest to continue funding the war. You can not lump all of our representatives in office to a poor presidential decision. And to this day, I will never believe that Colin Powell was even aware of all the facts while he stood in defense of our actions to the U.N. But as much as any of us dislike the President's decisions, while he is still President, he is owed the respect of the "position" but not necessarily the "person".

Posted by: Genevieve | May 28, 2008 4:53 PM | Report abuse

How can it be argued by some that Hillary Clinton lost because she's a woman? That is absolutely absurd. I can guarantee you that 99% of the male voters from the Democratic Party would vote in a HEARTBEAT for Sebelius.

This isn't about rejecting a woman who happens to be Hillary Clinton. This is about rejecting Hillary Clinton, who happens to be a woman.

Grow up. We've come way too far as a society to have this sexist crap thrown around.

Posted by: JWilson | May 28, 2008 4:51 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: Rneydr6034 | May 28, 2008 4:49 PM | Report abuse

Hillary is not the stronger candidate.

Polls have shown her in consistent trouble in Oregon, Washington, Minnesota, Wisconsin and New Hampshire and have shown her consistently weaker in Nevada, New Mexico, Iowa, Colorado, Virginia and Nevada.

She has also had polling difficulties in Hawaii, Maine, Connecticut, and Delaware and Obama has often out polled her in Michigan.

Obama has been up solid in PA in most polling.

Clinton is not stronger electorally, she is weaker.

John Kerry won Wisconson, Minnesota, Oregon, New Hampshire, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Maine, Delaware, Hawaii, Washington and Oregon. If he would have won Ohio? That would have only been 272 electoral votes and you need 270.

Hillary is in danger of losing 10 of those states and she couldn'y afford to lose a single won if she only added Ohio.

You want to bank on Florida? The same Florida where the Republican primary had 200,000 more voters, where the popualr governor Charlie Christ is a huge McCain backer, a state that is trending right, a state with a vaunted and famous GOP GOTV machine and a historically weak democrat party? A state where Gore and Kerry both outspent Bush (Kerry when Bush was unpopular) and still couldn't win?

Hillary is the weaker opponent because of how weak and unstable she is in small to mid-sized electoral states. She's weaker in the ones needed to hold and less strong in the ones needed to gain.

Posted by: Common Sense | May 28, 2008 4:47 PM | Report abuse

"Neither candidate will end the primary season with a majority of pledeged delegates. They are both arguing to the super (unpledged) delegates at this point.
Unless somebody concedes, this thing goes to the convention."

You will, then, after June 3rd, when all primaries are complete, and the superdelegates support a candidate that puts him/her over the top for required number of pledged delegates - that the runner up's only motivation to bring it to the convention would be sabotage, then. I think most will agree with you.

Posted by: JWilson | May 28, 2008 4:46 PM | Report abuse

FloridianVoter,

You are being misled. That's why it's not being talked about...it's not true. I could make up similar stuff about Hillary & post it on a legitimate-looking site somewhere.

BY THE WAY...I searched 'www.fecwatch.org' and couldn't find ANYTHING about this...so you must have seen this legitimate-looking post in another blog somewhere?

It's hooey.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 28, 2008 4:46 PM | Report abuse

dear Buying Superdelegates Wrote:

Hey look just quit this BS already ..if thats your argument than why did hillary start off with 2 to 1 super delegates when she was never ahead 2 to 1..

Clintons pulled favors to get supers... so now your saying supers are being paid off for Obama? LOL thats a stupid argument ... how many times have the clintons had them at their house... they are both playing the same game there...

Posted by: ed fort lauderdale | May 28, 2008 4:45 PM | Report abuse

Many people here seem to be missing the point. You can't win the Democratic nomination with a plurality of pledged delegates, you need a majority. Unpledged (super) delegates don't vote until the convention, they can only endorse. Neither candidate will end the primary season with a majority of pledeged delegates. They are both arguing to the super (unpledged) delegates at this point.
Unless somebody concedes, this thing goes to the convention.

Posted by: josgirl | May 28, 2008 4:42 PM | Report abuse

I have a problem with people blaming Hillary for Barack for being a great candidate - if Barack was a great candidate then he presented himself well and that's what he was supposed to do. If he appealed to constituencies in the democratic party that's what he was supposed to do.Hillary didn't lose, Barack won. Now if he doesn't make a great President or doesn't get elected he did his best and gave it his best shot - he's a politician and that's what he was supposed to do. If people voted out of emotion and he gets put out there too soon that's on them - they screwed up - he saw an opportunity and he went for it. Barack will be a better President than George Bush. Unfortunately we need a much better President than George Bush because we had 8 years of incompetent leadership. I hope Barack is the much better choice because I suspect John McCain is too old or too ignorant to provide the leadership needed.

Posted by: Jack | May 28, 2008 4:40 PM | Report abuse

Buying Superdelegates Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Since the superdelegates are bought and paid for,
> I'm not sure Clinton has a chance. Being a
> democrat, I've never realized that superdelegate
> votes could be so easily bought! Let's see.
> Patrick Murphy is a delegate who's constituents
> voted for Clinton. He's for Obama. No wonder when
> he's received $18k in contributions from Obama.
> Charlie Wilson of Ohio is an undeclared
> superdelegate that's constituents voted for
> Clinton that is undeclared. Oh, and did I mention
> that he's received 7k from Obama. Gabriel Gifford
> of Az, same thing - constituents voted for Clinton
> - "undeclared" but has received 9k from Obama. Jim
> Costa, CA, got 5k from Obama. Joe Courtney, CT -
> 5k from Obama, Niki Tsongas, Mass - 5K from Obama,
> Luatenberg, NJ $9k, Zack Space, OH $7500, Jason
> Altmire, PA got 10k, Jack Reed, RI 5k, Nick
> Lampsen TX, 5k All of the above superdelegate's
> constituents voted for Clinton. Yet, they are
> undeclared (except for Murphy). Which is fine. And
> yes, they can vote their conscience. But will
> they? I don't understand how this can be the
> democratic party. You get to pay for a vote? If a
> voter goes into the booth and is first handed a
> $100 bill from one of the candidates, is that
> okay? Buying votes, whether off the street or from
> the Superdelegate pool should be off limits! This
> is why the popular vote matters. Because when
> delegates are bought and paid for, they might not
> be the most objective decision makers of the
> DEMOCRATIC party.
>
> [www.fecwatch.org]
> -update.html


WHAT? IS HE BUYING SUPERDELEGATES????WHY NOBODY IS TALKING ABOUT???
I WOULD LIKE SOMEBODY STAND AND SAY THE ALL DEMOCRATIC ELECTORAL SYSTEM SUCKS!
BY REPUBLICAN RULES, SIMILAR TO THOSES IN NOVEMBER, HILLARY IS ALREADY THE NOMENEE BY FAR!!!

Posted by: FloridianVoter | May 28, 2008 4:38 PM | Report abuse

The 'iron my shirt' brigade were never going to see a woman as president. So they wheeled out the patriarchal big guns to spout venom. The hatred of women witnessed day in day out was terrifying. It has been demonstrated in this campaign as never before. Even more terrifying is the silence of the big wigs on the subject.

Posted by: tony leavy | May 28, 2008 4:37 PM | Report abuse

I JUST WANT DEMOCRAT TO WIN

Im not against Hillary or for Barack but Barack mathematically has won...AND YOU CANT BEAT MATH

And Obama certainly is not calling for her to quit...

Its like a race between your 2 best runners to represent your school...SOMEONE WINS?

Do you NOT SUPPORT your school rep because you were for the opponent?

The big picture overides...but IT CERTAINLY DOES NOT SEEM SO HERE...

TAlk about highschool mentality... I guess this is why the country is screwed up ....

Posted by: ed fort lauderdale | May 28, 2008 4:35 PM | Report abuse

The most important issue in this election is unfortunately not even being discussed. It is the rewarding of those guilty of poor judgment, which resulted in calamitous actions. They are, namely, John McCain and Hillary Clinton.
That America, the nation, is virtually in total denial of what these two did in voting to dive head long into Iraq is reprehensible. They, Hillary and John, are going all over the country touting their vast experience and readiness to lead. Where is the evidence? When it came to the most important decision they ever made in the public arena, they came up awfully short.
They voted to, in effect, attack another country virtually without provocation. The experts on the ground were summarily pushed aside like so much shaft in the wind, to make way for the invasion. Now, we suddenly hear left and right, listen to the folks on the ground! Both McCain and Clinton as experienced as they are supposed to be didn't even bother to read the intelligence estimates on Iraq. How callous can one be with the lives of the sons and daughters of others?
Those, who flew the planes into our buildings were neither from nor trained in Iraq. The base of Bin Laden and Taliban was Afghanistan. Bush went racing into the Middle East, came to a fork in the road and "took it" smack dab into Iraq. McCain and Clinton voted for this blockbuster blunder.
Here we are, stuck in a hole from which we cannot escape. Millions of deaths and casualties have followed, a trillion dollar nightmare, sending the economy teetering on bankruptcy, is being thrust upon the taxpayers and two, who helped sponsor this debacle, are running for President.
Maybe I don't have a proper understanding of the term elitism. But, I believe that they feel exempted from the rules, which would get most Americans kicked out the door of our employers, were we involved in such a huge blunder. Are the taxpayers and voters so blind and gullible that these two have no problem looking straight into cameras and say: "Vote for me." "I want a promotion and a pay raise."
That they can do this, says something unflattering about their characters, doesn't it? Also, what message does it send to our youth and the world that we even tolerate them being in the race? Mughabe of Zimbawe must be feeling quite comfortable. We are talking third world attitudes and activities here.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 28, 2008 4:33 PM | Report abuse

To all -

If you really, REALLY want to get a Hillary supporter to stop and think for a moment about the current circus and their complete and absolute support for someone who isn't a candidate in November, ask them, simply -

"Why are you a Democrat?"

It's amazing what you'll get in response. First there's reflection, then crickets.

They can't answer the question. If they explain why they really are Democrats, they then have to also state that the values of the Party, the unemployed, the neigbor whose son was just killed in an illegal war, those who can't get off welfare, the homeless veteran, and the teen who cannot terminiate a pregnancy after a rape - all pale and are trumped by Hillary's struggle to become President.

Suddenly they have to explain that they belong to the party because of the values... then argue that those values come second to a multi-millionaire whom they know only from the television.

Posted by: JWilson | May 28, 2008 4:33 PM | Report abuse

I will vote for Obama. If Clinton is the nominee I will vote and work hard for McCain. Both Clintons are manipulative, self absorbed and dishonest. The first one corrupted our national souls and the second one would finish us off.

Posted by: fred17 | May 28, 2008 4:33 PM | Report abuse

If Hillary is the strongest candidate then why is she going to lose. Why did she not win more delegates? Why does she have to make up something new each week to convince people that she is ahead? Wasn't her campaign the ones that said that the only thing that counts is the DELEGATES? She had every advantage going into this that anyone could have and she ran a TERRIBLE campaign but we are supposed to believe that she is the better candidate which is her FIRST EXPERIENCE running something of her own. What other excuses can the Clintons and their supporters make up next?

Posted by: Joe | May 28, 2008 4:31 PM | Report abuse

Chris, there is no "told ya so" for Clinton! If she loses this nomination thats it for her!

Posted by: gordon | May 28, 2008 4:30 PM | Report abuse

Obama will not be elected. Millions who voted for this poseur in the primaries deeply regret it & will never vote for him in the general. All the wrong Wrights, Marxist associates, gaffes etc. will expose this empty suit for the fake he is.

Posted by: beachbum

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

Keep dreaming...polls suggest you are not living in reality. Not only that...but ALL the Obama voters I know are stronger supporters now...than they were just a couple months ago. I even know several Independents who have started campaigning for Obama for the General Election even though they weren't allowed to vote for him in their home states. (due to closed primaries)

Posted by: Our Only Hope | May 28, 2008 4:27 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: AlwaysforHillary: "If he [Barack Obama] were a woman, he would have NOT gotten as far as he has."

Absolutely.

Posted by: lsb | May 28, 2008 4:26 PM | Report abuse

Ultimately the voters still have control over the situation. If you are a Sen. Clinton supporter and you feel your candidate has not be given a fair break, yet you do not want to totally align yourself with the GOP, please consider registering as an Independent. Presently, 40% of the electorate consists of Independents. You will be in a position to pull the parties' nominees closer to center when these major parties keep disregarding the desires of the majority of Americans which are centralists or moderate in thinking.
If you are considering writing in Sen. Clinton's name during the general, you need to check and see if your state allows it. Some of the states discount write ins or will give the vote to the Dem. nominee.
The true power of the voter lies when neither party can take them for granted. When you remove the cloak of these major party affiliations, you are more apt to stand back and research the position of all candidates and make the best decision which will affect you and the direction you feel this country should take.

Posted by: Genevieve | May 28, 2008 4:25 PM | Report abuse

NEWSFLASH: Withing the past couple of hours, Obama picked up two more superdelegates. He now needs 46. See for your self at www.Dailykos.com

Posted by: gmundenat | May 28, 2008 4:25 PM | Report abuse

The Clinton's real agrument is more like this. Some people voted for Barack because he was fresh (and has a great speaking voice) - some people voted for him because he is black and they are black (nothing wrong with that - my father voted for JFK because he was Irish & catholic) but while the black voter and the white liberal are significant constituencies in the democratic party - their significance gets deluted in the general election where a ton of people will vote against Barack because he's fresh and because he's black.
She on the other hand is smart and her husband has a great economic track record and the economy's about to deep six- we don't know when - economic models aren't good at dates just eventual outcomes. So you need her to put the puzzle back together again - whether Barack gets elected or not.
So why not elect the person who is going to have to do the dirty work - its a lot faster and you can bet it will get done right. That's their argument. Now unfortunately for us it probably holds water.

Posted by: Jack | May 28, 2008 4:24 PM | Report abuse

Since Hillary first began campaigning, I can't believe how much bashing against her by the media. They just don't want any woman for President.
People who usually vote democratic are switching parties if Hillary doesn't win.

Posted by: artsy | May 28, 2008 4:24 PM | Report abuse

Here it is. The media is starting to lay the groundwork so that The Anointed One gets clobbered this fall, the fault will be Hillary's because she dared to want to win and actually have people's votes counted. The argument will go something like, "Well, if she hadn't stayed in so long, and pointed out his weaknesses, the Republicans would have never been able to use them against him and he would have won." Right - because the Republicans are stupid.

Obama will lose and it will be Hillary's fault.

Ok. Got the talking point down.

Posted by: cmugirl | May 28, 2008 4:23 PM | Report abuse

For those who continue to say "Wait! Hillary's the stronger candidate!"... learn about politics, plese. This is what has always been dubbed the "preconcession bump", which is what happens to candidates who are mathematically eliminated, but to continue to campagin. In effect, McCain is running against Obama. Obama is running against McCain, and Hillary is running against no one. When a candidate has no one competing with him/her, there is an immediate and guaranteed swell in polling numbers for the three-four weeks following (depending on how long they continue to run).

This argument that Obama is "unelectable" is a bit weird, too.

Consider that when you ask any Hillary supporter - "If she were the nominee, and Obama's supporters voted for her, could she win?"

"In a freakin' LANDSLIDE!", they say.

How 'bout if Hillary's supporters voted for Obama? Could he win?

"Not a CHANCE! He's unelectable!".

Remarkable. The very people who push the argument that they don't want to vote for Obama because he is "unelectable" are the ones deciding not to elect him, because they've decided he's "unelectable".

With 61% of registered voters being Democrats this year, there is but only one way by which Obama can't win... if Hillary's supporters don't elect a Democrat.

Brilliance. In honor of this woman's right to the presidency, some are asserting that it would be in the best interest of this country and the core values that brought them to this party, they should show disdain by voting not for a man who supports women's rights - but rather vote for a party and man who will appoint three conservative SC Justices, and overturn Roe v. Wade.

In effect - twenty years from now, someone's going to ask "How did Roe v. Wade get overturned, Grandma?"

"We did it for the sake of women's rights".

History will surely be kind.

Posted by: JWilson | May 28, 2008 4:22 PM | Report abuse

Obama will not be elected. Millions who voted for this poseur in the primaries deeply regret it & will never vote for him in the general. All the wrong Wrights, Marxist associates, gaffes etc. will expose this empty suit for the fake he is.

Posted by: beachbum | May 28, 2008 4:20 PM | Report abuse

You know -- swing states, white voters, black voters, old voters, young voters, yada yada -- why don't we stop and consider the fact that in the modern age, the Electoral College is a bunch of crap? Is there some reason why citizens of the United States shouldn't just elect their president directly? There's no "college" in the middle of the election that made Hillary Clinton the Senator from New York, and there shouldn't be - the voters voted, that's democracy. It should be the same for President. And if it were, either Hillary or Barack would probably beat John McCain, and if Barack gets nominated, he probably will beat McCain anyway, electoral college or no.

The Electoral College gave us George Bush when the majority of Americans wanted Al Gore. Now Hillary is all about the Electoral College -- but she's like some kind of street democracy activist when it comes to seating the Michigan delegation where her opponent was not even on the ballot. The opportunism and cynicism here are painfully transparent.

But as a voter, with no stake in anybody's ego or ambition on either side -- I say forget the games and let's have real elections in America, how about. Get rid of this Electoral College baloney, it serves no useful purpose. Let the people vote directly. Let's run our own country here.

Posted by: pressF1 | May 28, 2008 4:19 PM | Report abuse

Whatever Clinton does between the time she loses or concedes and November, what I am going to remember is that she spent much of her primary campaign arguing to her supporters that McCain is better/been in office longer/better able to handle a 3AM phone call/whiter than Obama, and that McCain can beat Obama in the general. If McCain somehow pulls this off and we end up with 4 more years of ful-speed ahead in Iraq and I am looking for someone to blame, I will blame Clinton.

Posted by: Michael | May 28, 2008 4:17 PM | Report abuse

If the GE were held today, then this "i told you so" argument might have merit. But elections are not static. If that were the case, Hillary would have wrapped up the nomination by February 5th, as she planned way back in October 2007.

Let's not rewrite history. Hillary had the benefit of name recognition, the strongest name brand in Democratic politics. She enjoyed over 50% of the black vote (while Obama only had 30%). She had the advantage in fundraising. She dominated all the debates. The media universally declared her the inevitable nominee. That is why she admitted that the Michigan primary "wouldn't count for anything", because NO ONE, especially her, thought that anyone was going to mount a serious challenge to her inevitability. Then, Obama won Iowa, and things started to change.

Hillary failed to deliver a consistent theme or message. She began attacking Obama, for the first time. Obama started gaining small donors. Hillary began mismanaging her own money. Hillary ignored the caucus states completely, losing by margins of up to 60% in some places. She then found herself, basically mathematically eliminated in the pledged delegate race.

Now, Obama's ability to close the gap in states where he was losing by over 20% (Ohio, California, Texas, Pennsylvania) to around 10% shows that voters become more comfortable with him as they get to know him. I am confident that this trend will continue in the 5 months leading up until the General Election in November. Ohio polls already show him leading McCain. He is winning Iowa and Colorado (Clinton is losing those states to McCain) and he is closing the gap in Virginia. As this campaign focuses more on substance and the difference in ideas between Republicans and Democrats, Obama's numbers will continue to strengthen.

There is no doubt that McCain will continue Bush's "permanent campaign" approach to foreign policy, as it was described by Scott McClellan. AFter all, Karl Rove is advising his campaign. There is no question that if elected, McCain will nominate at least two new supreme court justices to replace Stevens and Ginsburg, and these new justices will be carbon copies of justices Scalia and Alito.

Its time for Democrats to start focusing on the issues, because there truly is not much that separates Obama and Clinton on that front. If you want to erode female reproductive rights, and continue a belligerent, arrogant foreign policy bent on scaring people into uniform acceptance of adminstration policy, then vote for McCain.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 28, 2008 4:17 PM | Report abuse

In the 20 states where Hillary Clinton has claimed victory in the 2008 Democratic primary and caucus elections (winning the popular vote), she has led John McCain in Gallup Poll Daily trial heats for the general election over the past two weeks of Gallup Poll Daily tracking by 50% to 43%. In those same states, Barack Obama is about tied with McCain among national registered voters, 45% to 46%.

Hillary's claim that her primary-state victories over Obama indicate her potential superiority in the general election.

Should S.D. factor swing state advantage that shows Hillary Clinton leading McCain?

http://www.youpolls.com/details.asp?pid=2503

.

Posted by: DBlake, Austin TX | May 28, 2008 4:15 PM | Report abuse

MissingThePoint,


Your name alone is a complaint. I like Hillary, too. She's been my senator for the past 7.5 years. But don't say Obama doesn't support the same policies as you or Hillary Clinton. Hillary & Obama's platforms are virtually identical. Just because you don't like him doesn't mean he doesn't support the same policies as you. I know it will take some humility to support the candidate who just beat your candidate, but spare us the self-righteousness. We're not fourteen years old, you can't guilt trip us into renouncing our support for Obama.

Posted by: legan00@ccny.cuny.edu | May 28, 2008 4:14 PM | Report abuse

MissingthePoint,

Your name is apt...YOU are missing the point.
IF you support Hillary because of her stance on issues...then Obama SHOULD be your second choice. ON THE ISSUES they are 95% similar.
If you support Hillary because of her EXPERIENCE...then Sen. Obama has VERY SIMILAR experience...the difference is that Hillary was a lawyer who went to the White House & then to the Senate...whereas Obama worked as a community organizer...then a lawyer who became an Illinois Senator & then a U.S. Senator from Ill. (not so different)
If you support Hillary because she is a WOMAN...then I'm sorry. There aren't any other women running this year.

However, If you refuse to VOTE for Obama just because you are angry that Hillary didn't win the Nomination...You need to rethink your values...because this type of manipulative attitude says nothing good about you.

I would vote for Hillary if somehow she becomes the nominee, NOT because I am a STRONG Obama supporter who believes that he didn't get the nomination through political manipulation & blatant racism, but because I LOVE this country. I DO think Obama will do a better job...but that's what the Primary is for...to determine who gets to run as the Democratic nominee.

Do YOU love this country? or do you just want to create hate & dissent because you are angry?

Posted by: Anonymous | May 28, 2008 4:14 PM | Report abuse

Why Vote at all?
Hillary supporters have determined she should win... so it doesnt matter about delegates popular vote or states won.

Who cares about rules and votes.... you people are acting like 7 yr olds that lose a competition.."BUT MOMMY I WANTED TO WIN CHANGE THE RULES"

This is really sad... with the threats about voting for Mccain because your candidate did not win by the rules which they all agreed to.

Actually its pathetic... you are not democrats and you do not care about the country you just care about QUEEN HILLARY being corronated ..HEC WITH the LAWS RULES AND VOTES

Posted by: ed fort lauderdale | May 28, 2008 4:13 PM | Report abuse

This is the part of the problem with too many Hillary supporters like... MissingthePoint.

MissingthePoint did not list one issue that he/she disagrees with Obama on that would allow him/her to support McCain. According to Bill Clinton (for what its worth) back in February 2008, since Obama and Hillary have been in the senate, they have voted alike 90% of the time.

MissingthePoint...what is your excuse for not supporting Obama?

Posted by: AJ | May 28, 2008 4:13 PM | Report abuse

If Clinton wins the nomination and is elected, the Clintons will occupy a storied place in American history.

If Obama is nominated and wins, the Clintons will become a humorous footnote to American history.

If Obama is nominated and loses, the Clintons will become the king of the hill as far as the Democratic Party is concerned.

President Clinton will still outshine Carter and Pelosi. Gore and Reid don't even count. All the others count even less.

If Hillary Clinton is elected President in 2012, the Clintons will be treated by history less like the Adams and more like the Harrisons.

Posted by: True Observer | May 28, 2008 4:12 PM | Report abuse

Not wanting to sound like a complete jerk, but I made an awful lot of money off of my wife with all of this.

I said, after Hillary and Obama split Super Tuesday, that if Obama wins any more than half of the next ten contests, Hillary will go into guaranteed sabotage mode, painting herself as a victim, sabotaging the process, the system, the DNC, and the nominee, in order to ensure the slate remains open in 2012.

My wife screamed "not a chance". I asked her when she would admit that Hillary's intentions are sabotage, to which she replied, if she doesn't concede after the last primary, or threatens to take it to the convention.

I win. America loses.

Posted by: JWilson | May 28, 2008 4:11 PM | Report abuse

Are we still on this? Blaming the media is the oldest one in the book. Maybe Hillary Clinton's supporters should blame the media for anointing her in 2006. I like Hillary, voted for her in 2006, and Obama wasn't even my first choice. But any person willing to defect to John McCain is just a child. You don't like Obama, fine. If Hillary couldn't beat Obama, a tragically flawed candidate according to 'Hillary Nation', then why should I expect her to beat McCain. Stop arguing balls and strikes. Your candidate lost. And instead of accepting that they ran a bad campaign, they blame the media. It's victim politics, and it doesn't wash. And although the Clintons claim they've never seen a candidate urged to leave the race, which Obama has not even done, Bill Clinton and his supporters urged Jerry Brown to leave the race early in 1992, or at the least to prepare for Bill Clinton as the presumptive nominee. I just can't believe everyone pretends their feelings have been hurt. Grow up, America! I was supporting Edwards and Biden initially. And I'm not crying now, because I am not sixteen years old. None of these candidates are that great, but Obama is by far the best one in the race today. So swallow your pride and vote for him. If you want to blame the media for not covering the news, I'm on board. But Hillary Clinton hasn't exactly given the media or the public, reason to support her. And so she lost. Life will somehow resume after the millionaire Clintons have been deprived of their power. AWWWWW! Let's blame everyone but the candidate and her poorly run campaign.


New York City Secession 2010

Posted by: legan00@ccny.cuny.edu | May 28, 2008 4:08 PM | Report abuse

Hillary appears to be a real team player, don'tcha think? Maybe that's the issue--you don't think! She is manipulative and self-absorbed as her husband was when in office. Both talk about respect but didn't have the courtesy to respect the office of the Presidency and respect their fellow countrymen enough to travel the high moral ground? C'mon, Hillary--give it a rest!

Posted by: Tom R | May 28, 2008 4:07 PM | Report abuse

Yea right, Christopher...great argument there {I SAY WITH MAJOR SARCASM!}

I guess the 17 million of us Obama supporters are delusional? No! We just really believe in the integrity and honesty of our candidate, Barack Obama.

How do you measure Hillary's strength Christopher?

I measure Obama's strength by the following:
1) Obama has won more contests (including states &/or caucuses) than Hillary
2) Obama has won more pledged delegates than Hillary.
3) Obama has won more popular vote (not incl. Michigan and Florida) than Hillary.
4) Obama has raised more money from way more donors than Hillary.
5) Obama leads in the superdelegate (total and among elected officials) count over Hillary.
5) Obama currently leads Hillary in nationally polling (Gallup) by over 10pts.

Posted by: AJ | May 28, 2008 4:04 PM | Report abuse

Everyone who says that if she does not get the nomination herself Hillary Clinton can, and should, work her heart out for Obama in order to heal the rifts that she is perceived by party loyalists as creating is missing the points.
First, if Hillary, as the nearly universally recognized strongest candidate in the general election, doesn't get the nomination it will because "party loyalists" were NOT loyal to the Deomcratic party, but rather too feckless to be loyal enough to help us put a Democrat in the White House, and to stand up for freedom of speech and association. Those with the courage to support Hillary know better than to think that she created the divisions, or the weaknesses, and since they make up half the party, they have no need to kowtow to the feckless disloyalists by requiring Hillary to pay penance to anyone.
Second, expecting Hillary to be able to be able to turn the support for her candidacy into support for Obama relies on the mistaken assumption that Hillary somehow hypnotized American voters to vote for her. Wrong. They voted for her because she stands for the issues, policies, ideals, and experience that they want in their President. Obama didn't get their vote because he does not stand for those. I adore all four of my sisters as I adore Hillary, but if they told me to vote for Obama, I wouldn't, because he still wouldn't have any of the strengths that I look for in a President. Likewise, if Hillary stood right in front of me and personally asked me to vote for Obama, I'd have to look her in the eye and say, "Hillary, you are my hero, but you aren't the Pied Piper, and I'm not a lamb; thanks but no thanks." I have more faith in my half of the Democratic party voters than to think that they will allow themselves to be led to slaughter either.
We do have options. Our votes are powerful. If our party won't let the strongest candidate run, then we have at least two other choices: persuade Hillary to run as an independent, or offer our votes as a block to McCain in return for his committment to the center. Simultaneously, we vote for the Democrats for Congress who had the sense to support Hillary as superdelegates rather than throw us to the wolves with the loser.

Posted by: MissingthePoint | May 28, 2008 3:57 PM | Report abuse

Who cares if HRC is ahead in the polls in certain swing states? Polls are not primaries. The point is there is a PROCESS to nominating a candidate. It has RULES. Obama has gone through the process and has won (effectively). He is the nominee.
What is it HRC supporters want - to maker her the nominee IN SPITE OF the process? Throw the process out, so as to increase the party's chances in November? What kind of suspension of rules - and reality - is that? Just another act of disorientation and confusion, like we don't have enough of that in this country already.

Posted by: polls aren't primaries | May 28, 2008 3:56 PM | Report abuse

Last month, after ABC News spent 45 minutes grilling Obama on trivial nonsense issues, Hillary was telling Obama "If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen." Now she is once again whining about unfair treatment. This is just another in a long line of Clinton inconsistencies. They claim that no candidate has ever been treated so harshly by the media -- really? I seem to recall that in 1988 George Bush was called a "wimp" and that a whole month was devoted to the "wimp factor." Doesn't get much more sexist than that! Hillary complains about how the media make fun of her cackle. Well, in 2004 wasn't Howard Dean roundly lampooned, and subsequently dismissed from the race, for his boisterous "Yeah!!!" comment?

Perhaps Senator Clinton ought to take her own advice -- if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.

Posted by: Charles | May 28, 2008 3:54 PM | Report abuse

Clinton supporters say she is the stronger candidate, but trail in
1. pledged delegates
2. superdelegates

which is the rule of the DNC.

So go ahead, Clinton people, vote for Mccain and then you will really be crying in November.

Posted by: Funny Isn't it | May 28, 2008 3:53 PM | Report abuse

Christopher...

Polls are small snapshots in time. These same polls that Hillary and her surrogates like to tout, had her 20 to 30pts higher than Obama (or any other Democratic candidate) back in November 2007.

Hillary has lost the Democratic nomination contest fair and square. Whining about the DNC rules and procedure is pretty petty at this point. As Hillary has stated on several occasions in the past (that's 2007), she thought that the Democratic nomination would be wrapped up on February 5th. That was the Hillary campaign game plan, be leading way ahead in delegates coming out of February 5th.

It is always easier to blame external forces (i.e. DNC rules, Oprah Winfrey, media sexism, Bill Clinton, Barack Obama) for internal problems of the candidate and the campaign.

Hillary stated at the last infamous debate that Obama can win the general election, so why are Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton saying otherwise?!?!

Posted by: AJ | May 28, 2008 3:52 PM | Report abuse

Hey AJ

It's the people like you who are delusional. Hillary is fighting b/c she is the stronger candidate and YOU know it!! If she wasn't stronger in November electoral votes, she would 100% be out of this race by now. Thankfully she is still continuing the race.

If you disagree, then join all the other delusional people out there in denial that she's the stronger candidate and go ahead and commit political suicide!!!

Posted by: Christopher | May 28, 2008 3:46 PM | Report abuse

Unbelievable... Bubba Clinton is 100% correct. The Dems are being led to destruction by a cabal of monumental presidential losers.... Dean, Kerry, Kennedy, Dodd, Richardson, Edwards, Carter, McGovern, etc. I expect another ridiculous loser, Gore, to join the freak show of Obama's supporters any day now. At that point the Dems's doom this autumn will be sealed by a bunch of elitist liberal twits that America has already flushed down the toilette, in some cases more than once.

The naive Dems are ignoring the only Democrat with enough political savy since Harry Trumann to actually win re-election as POTUS and leave office with historically high favoribility ratings.

Posted by: Told you so | May 28, 2008 3:43 PM | Report abuse

"who stole the nomination from Hillary"

huh?? boy the hrc koolaid is thick here at WoPo.

I know he stole the nomination by running a better campaign and getting more delegates (the one and only measure of who wins and loses).

Posted by: democrat first | May 28, 2008 3:39 PM | Report abuse

"who stole the nomination from Hillary"

huh?? boy the hrc koolaid is thick here at WoPo.

I know he stole the nomination by running a better campaign and getting more delegates (the one and only measure of who wins and loses).

Posted by: Anonymous | May 28, 2008 3:38 PM | Report abuse

Question for Hillary supporters?

Do you see any Republican candidates crying and whining about the Republican nomination process and the penalized votes out of Michigan and Florida?!?!

Hillary is becoming a disgrace to the Democratic Party. If Hillary feels that the Republicans are so much better, she should try running for President under the Republican banner, and then we will see how far she gets!

Posted by: AJ | May 28, 2008 3:36 PM | Report abuse

Now I must say that I am a Clinton supporter, mostly because I feel she is the stronger general election candidate and that was my main concern when I went to vote in the Pennsylvania Primary. If you look at www.electoral-vote.com and look at the Obama-McCain map and the Clinton-McCain map, Clinton has over 320 electoral votes when it comes to the November election. She's also getting, at this point, North Carolina, Kentucky, West Virginia, Missouri, Arkansas, New Mexico, and Nevada. Isn't she the one actually expanding the electoral map, not Obama? She has consistently for at least the past two months been stronger against McCain than Obama. Also, it could not be more crystal clear that she is strong in the Big 4 swing states as well: Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida. Yes, Obama might be able to hang on to Pennsylvania and one poll showed he was doing well in Ohio, but that isn't consistent yet. They also say he could take Colorado and Virginia, but none of that is proven yet. Why should we go with the candidate that "might" be able to get some swing states and "might" get Virginia, etc. to make up for swing state losses if he doesn't get them? Isn't it astonishing that this argument is not pasted in the minds of more Superdelegates? It really seems like a "no-brainer" to me. Why in the world would you choose the riskier candidate and just "hope" that he will eventually be able to take the electoral college over McCain? This has been so incredibly baffling to me. I don't understand it. I don't dislike Obama, nor will I choose McCain over him if he's the nominee, but he is going to have some serious problems uniting this party and I think people will end up realizing that they made a mistake by nominating him.

Posted by: Christopher | May 28, 2008 3:32 PM | Report abuse

The Dems are committing Political Suicide by nominating Obama, who is obviously unqualified to be president of a company, much less of our country! If he were a woman, he would have NOT gotten as far as he has. All he is is talk and no action. He could NOT make decisions in the state senate - voting present over 130 times. How can he become president and make such hard difficult decisions?

Obama is a JOKE, FRAUD, LIAR, and has too many friendships with radicals, criminals and terrorists.

If I were Hillary, I would run as an Independent. If Hillary does not become president, it will be the greatest TRAVESTY to this country and to all the women and little girls who have once again been shoved aside by men!!

Posted by: AlwaysforHillary | May 28, 2008 3:32 PM | Report abuse

The Dems will control BOTH the House and the Senate. There is no way voters will CHOOSE to give Dems control of the entire Washington.

Posted by: Brent | May 28, 2008 3:24 PM

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

Why not...Bush & the Reps had the Hill to themselves from 2001-2007. It will take AT LEAST 6 years for a Dem Pres, Senate Majority & House Majority to correct all the mistakes they made

Posted by: Anonymous | May 28, 2008 3:32 PM | Report abuse

I am ashamed and embarrassed at anyone who directs derogatory names or comments at anyone who is running for the highest position in our country. Americans should show respect to others, just as they would want respect. If it is believed that some one is acting disrespectfully, okay point it out, if that is the want. If each of us would keep our respect above reproach we would have respectful candidates. Right now, America does not deserve respectful candidates. I was raised a strong believer in all that is good about America and Americans, my Father was a strong proud soldier that believed and taught a sense of respect and convictions to beliefs. We are southerners who embody the chivalry and respect and dispel the ignorance of arrogance and divisiveness that are always attributed. While I have disagreed with what President Bush has stood for, what he believed in, and his right to the position, I still call him Mr. President, because he holds that position. And as a liberal minded person, I do not want Senator McCain or any of the current leading Republicans to hold any office, especially the highest. So while I will vote because I believe it is the most powerful and beautiful right I possess, I will vote for the Democratic nominee. I have my preference and can give a great argument as to why, but it is more important to me to rid our oval office of conservative thoughts. And I find it of the utmost importance to return our country to a respectful place. Love your country and it will love you back. Continue the snide hatefulness and it will only show you hate in return.

Posted by: G. C. S. | May 28, 2008 3:31 PM | Report abuse

This is just another reason why Hillary should not be president. Let's all be honest and reasonable about Hillary's campaign and its tactics. Obama's campaign has mostly been consistent on message and focus. Hillary's campaign has been all over the map from strong and evitable to fear-mongering and race-baiting.

While Obama and McCain are sparring over issues of foreign policy and the housing crisis, Hillary has been complaining about Florida and Michigan votes counting as is, telling voters in the upcoming primaries lies about how electable she is over Obama, alleging sexism, and pretty much bashing the DNC over how wrong the Democratic nomination process is.

Hillary looks like a whining, nagging, sore loser as the days go by. How sad.

Obama in 08!

Posted by: AJ | May 28, 2008 3:31 PM | Report abuse

I disagreement with the argument that not seating the delegates somehow "disenfranchises" voters in Michigan and Florida. This argument goes that 2.3 million voters cast ballots in these States, and Senator Clinton often adds that the 1.7 million turnout in Florida was the highest ever for a Democratic primary. However, one blogger compared the number of persons who cast ballots this year in each of the other top ten States to the number of persons who voted for John Kerry in the 2004 general election. He notes: "In every single State where both candidates campaigned -- meaning every State but New York, which Obama ceded to Hillary and Illinois, which Hillary ceded to Obama -- the turnout was at least 75% of the Kerry vote. (CA: 75%; TX: 103%; PA: 79%; OH: 85%; NC: 107%; GA: 79%; as for IL and NY, IL: 70%; NY: 44%). In contrast, in Michigan, the percentage was a paltry 24% and in Florida the percentage was 44%." The blogger then argues, "that counting Michigan and Florida would disenfranchise a large number of voters who did not vote, because there was no campaigning and/or the voters there thought the contest would not count and so did not bother to vote." And the fact is that highest voter turnout in Michigan history was in 1972.

Another argument is that not seating the delegates would get voters so upset that they wouldn't vote for the Democrats in the general election. Peggy seems to be one of the angry voters referred to but I still find this argument to be specious for many reasons and I won't go into all of those reasons here but I present one reason that seems not to have been taken into account. Two weekends ago, I started participating in the 50 state voter registration drive being sponsored by Senator Obama's campaign. This drive is taking place in localities throughout Michigan. I've worked two consecutive weekends in small areas of Ypsilanti and Ann Arbor, Michigan and we are averaging forty new voter registrations per hour. As mentioned, I think the voter anger argument is specious anyway but even if it were modestly correct, the new voter registrations will offset that and mean a big victory for the Democrats and Senator Obama in the general election.

Finally agree with comments voiced on The Daily Dish blog where Andrew Sullivan wrote, "The fundamental point is that a contest should be governed by the rules agreed to in advance. Period. To change the rules of the contest retroactively because one candidate lost is an outrageous attack on fairness, civility and sanity. It would turn all future primary races into complete mayhem, as candidates would vie to make any number of different factors count at any point in the race."

Keith Hood

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

BRAVO!

VOTE for a DEMOCRAT if you want to save the middle class. (or if you want the middle-class to finish sinking into poverty vote for McSame)

Posted by: Anonymous | May 28, 2008 3:29 PM | Report abuse

Mr. Obama's plans will increase Federal government spending by at least 1,000,000,000,000 (that's a TRIllion) dollars. That's not the end of it. When the economy is bad. There might not be any need to cut more taxes. But to increase taxes paid by the average American when he/she is already facing rising costs in food, health care, gas and everything else? Merely letting tax cuts for over 250,000+ earners will NOT be enough. Many studies have shown Obama will significantly expand the government, based on his proposals to date.

The Dems will control BOTH the House and the Senate. There is no way voters will CHOOSE to give Dems control of the entire Washington.

Posted by: Brent | May 28, 2008 3:24 PM | Report abuse

Yes Bill and Hillary are sowing the seeds of doubt against Obama in the general election, no matter the B.S. they both spew about the Democratic Party needing to "chill out" and "everything's gonna be alright".

There are a few reasons why Hillary is ahead in the polls currently. One is that Hillary has the last name Clinton, and all the continued support that Bill Clinton garners within the Democratic Party. Secondly, Hillary has been able to change her tune to show that she is the champion of Florida and Michigan voters by constanting pressing for the delegates and popular votes to be counted. Lastly, Obama has not been able to spend a lot of time in Florida or Michigan. Once Obama is the presumptive Democratic nominee, he focus 100% of his efforts against McCain in a 50-state strategy.

The remaining undeclared superdelegates could simply vote as their states did prior, in which Obama would garner at least 54% of the superdelegate vote.

Posted by: AJ | May 28, 2008 3:21 PM | Report abuse

As a Hillary Clinton supporter I strongly feel that she has been forced by the DNC elite out of the race. Therefore, in November this is what I will do, vote McCain and then down ballot vote Democrat so that McCain will be held in check by a Democratic Congress.

Posted by: |
*********************
more gridlock! That will show 'em, 'tard - I mean caculating voter person.

Posted by: who says Clinton supporters are dumb? | May 28, 2008 3:20 PM | Report abuse

I'm sick of all you Hillary supporters thinking Obama will not win if you white older women don't vote for him, well:

1. I am an older white woman who is an Obama supporter. I was a former Hillary supporter who could not continue to support a woman who seeks power over the good of the country and party.

2. If you are a Democrat and believe in Democratic principles, you could NOT, I repeat, could NOT vote for McCain. We have so many problems that only a Democrat and a change election can address ie: Supreme court appointments, the war, reputation in the world, a huge deficit and I could go on and on.

Hillary supporters need to stop the emotionalism and look at the logistics of the situation. Obama isn't perfect, but he's alot better than McCain.

Posted by: Peg | May 28, 2008 3:20 PM | Report abuse

I love putting Hillary Clinton bumper stickers over the Barry Hussein bumper stickers in my neighborhood. So if you park in or around Dupont Circle you better check your bumper. LOL!

Posted by: Ahmed
*******************************

really, I thought you were just cruising the neighborhood, you hot man...

Posted by: looking to be a filling in an ahmed sandwich | May 28, 2008 3:18 PM | Report abuse

Being a sore loser, Hillary is already starting to prepare her usual blame game. The buck has never stopped at her desk. All her life she blamed other people for her many failures. It was always the fault of the wrong assistants, the wrong secretaries, the wrong strategists, and the wrong campaign managers. Let's be honest about it: If Obama does not win in November, it will only be the fault of Hillary's divisive campaign.

Posted by: Bodo | May 28, 2008 3:17 PM | Report abuse

I'm from Michigan like Peggy but I have a different point of view which I've expressed to the DNC.

I disagreement with the argument that not seating the delegates somehow "disenfranchises" voters in Michigan and Florida. This argument goes that 2.3 million voters cast ballots in these States, and Senator Clinton often adds that the 1.7 million turnout in Florida was the highest ever for a Democratic primary. However, one blogger compared the number of persons who cast ballots this year in each of the other top ten States to the number of persons who voted for John Kerry in the 2004 general election. He notes: "In every single State where both candidates campaigned -- meaning every State but New York, which Obama ceded to Hillary and Illinois, which Hillary ceded to Obama -- the turnout was at least 75% of the Kerry vote. (CA: 75%; TX: 103%; PA: 79%; OH: 85%; NC: 107%; GA: 79%; as for IL and NY, IL: 70%; NY: 44%). In contrast, in Michigan, the percentage was a paltry 24% and in Florida the percentage was 44%." The blogger then argues, "that counting Michigan and Florida would disenfranchise a large number of voters who did not vote, because there was no campaigning and/or the voters there thought the contest would not count and so did not bother to vote." And the fact is that highest voter turnout in Michigan history was in 1972.

Another argument is that not seating the delegates would get voters so upset that they wouldn't vote for the Democrats in the general election. Peggy seems to be one of the angry voters referred to but I still find this argument to be specious for many reasons and I won't go into all of those reasons here but I present one reason that seems not to have been taken into account. Two weekends ago, I started participating in the 50 state voter registration drive being sponsored by Senator Obama's campaign. This drive is taking place in localities throughout Michigan. I've worked two consecutive weekends in small areas of Ypsilanti and Ann Arbor, Michigan and we are averaging forty new voter registrations per hour. As mentioned, I think the voter anger argument is specious anyway but even if it were modestly correct, the new voter registrations will offset that and mean a big victory for the Democrats and Senator Obama in the general election.

Finally agree with comments voiced on The Daily Dish blog where Andrew Sullivan wrote, "The fundamental point is that a contest should be governed by the rules agreed to in advance. Period. To change the rules of the contest retroactively because one candidate lost is an outrageous attack on fairness, civility and sanity. It would turn all future primary races into complete mayhem, as candidates would vie to make any number of different factors count at any point in the race."

Keith Hood

Posted by: Keith Hood | May 28, 2008 3:09 PM | Report abuse

Anyone who thinks Sen. Obama has not put forth a substantive plan on how to help the economy has simply not looked. So, for those who don't want to 'look it up' here it is:

The Problem with our Economy:

Wages are Stagnant as Prices Rise: While wages remain flat, the costs of basic necessities are increasing. The cost of in-state college tuition has grown 35 percent over the past five years. Health care costs have risen four times faster than wages over the past six years. And the personal savings rate is now the lowest it's been since the Great Depression.

Tax Cuts for Wealthy Instead of Middle Class: The Bush tax cuts give those who earn over $1 million dollars a tax cut nearly 160 times greater than that received by middle-income Americans. At the same time, this administration has refused to tackle health care, education and housing in a manner that benefits the middle class.
Barack Obama's Plan
Provide Middle Class Americans Tax Relief

Obama will cut income taxes by $1,000 for working families to offset the payroll tax they pay.

* Provide a Tax Cut for Working Families: Obama will restore fairness to the tax code and provide 150 million workers the tax relief they need. Obama will create a new "Making Work Pay" tax credit of up to $500 per person, or $1,000 per working family. The "Making Work Pay" tax credit will completely eliminate income taxes for 10 million Americans.
* Simplify Tax Filings for Middle Class Americans: Obama will dramatically simplify tax filings so that millions of Americans will be able to do their taxes in less than five minutes. Obama will ensure that the IRS uses the information it already gets from banks and employers to give taxpayers the option of pre-filled tax forms to verify, sign and return. Experts estimate that the Obama proposal will save Americans up to 200 million total hours of work and aggravation and up to $2 billion in tax preparer fees.

Trade

Obama believes that trade with foreign nations should strengthen the American economy and create more American jobs. He will stand firm against agreements that undermine our economic security.

* Fight for Fair Trade: Obama will fight for a trade policy that opens up foreign markets to support good American jobs. He will use trade agreements to spread good labor and environmental standards around the world and stand firm against agreements like the Central American Free Trade Agreement that fail to live up to those important benchmarks. Obama will also pressure the World Trade Organization to enforce trade agreements and stop countries from continuing unfair government subsidies to foreign exporters and nontariff barriers on U.S. exports.
* Amend the North American Free Trade Agreement: Obama believes that NAFTA and its potential were oversold to the American people. Obama will work with the leaders of Canada and Mexico to fix NAFTA so that it works for American workers.
* Improve Transition Assistance: To help all workers adapt to a rapidly changing economy, Obama would update the existing system of Trade Adjustment Assistance by extending it to service industries, creating flexible education accounts to help workers retrain, and providing retraining assistance for workers in sectors of the economy vulnerable to dislocation before they lose their jobs.

Technology, Innovation and Creating Jobs

Obama will encourage the deployment of the most modern communications infrastructure to reduce the costs of health care, help solve our energy crisis, create new jobs, and fuel our economic growth.

* Support Job Creation: Barack Obama believes we need to double federal funding for basic research and make the research and development tax credit permanent to help create high-paying, secure jobs. Obama will also make long-term investments in education, training, and workforce development so that Americans can leverage our strengths - our ingenuity and entrepreneurialism - to create new high-wage jobs and prosper in a world economy.
* Invest in U.S. Manufacturing: The Obama comprehensive energy independence and climate change plan will invest in America's highly-skilled manufacturing workforce and manufacturing centers to ensure that American workers have the skills and tools they need to pioneer the first wave of green technologies that will be in high demand throughout the world. Obama will also provide assistance to the domestic auto industry to ensure that new fuel-efficient vehicles are built by American workers.
* Create New Job Training Programs for Clean Technologies: The Obama plan will increase funding for federal workforce training programs and direct these programs to incorporate green technologies training, such as advanced manufacturing and weatherization training, into their efforts to help Americans find and retain stable, high-paying jobs. Obama will also create an energy-focused youth jobs program to invest in disconnected and disadvantaged youth.
* Boost the Renewable Energy Sector and Create New Jobs: The Obama plan will create new federal policies, and expand existing ones, that have been proven to create new American jobs. Obama will create a federal Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) that will require 25 percent of American electricity be derived from renewable sources by 2025, which has the potential to create hundreds of thousands of new jobs on its own. Obama will also extend the Production Tax Credit, a credit used successfully by American farmers and investors to increase renewable energy production and create new local jobs.
* Deploy Next-Generation Broadband: Obama believes we can get broadband to every community in America through a combination of reform of the Universal Service Fund, better use of the nation's wireless spectrum, promotion of next-generation facilities, technologies and applications, and new tax and loan incentives.
* Protect the Openness of the Internet: Obama supports the basic principle that network providers should not be allowed to charge fees to privilege the content or applications of some web sites and Internet applications over others. This principle will ensure that the new competitors, especially small or nonprofit speakers, have the same opportunity as big companies to innovate and reach large audiences.
* Invest in Rural Areas: Obama will invest in rural small businesses and fight to expand high-speed Internet access. He will improve rural schools and attract more doctors to rural areas.

Labor

Obama will strengthen the ability of workers to organize unions. He will fight for passage of the Employee Free Choice Act. Obama will ensure that his labor appointees support workers' rights and will work to ban the permanent replacement of striking workers. Obama will also increase the minimum wage and index it to inflation to ensure it rises every year.

* Ensure Freedom to Unionize: Obama believes that workers should have the freedom to choose whether to join a union without harassment or intimidation from their employers. Obama cosponsored and is strong advocate for the Employee Free Choice Act, a bipartisan effort to assure that workers can exercise their right to organize. He will continue to fight for EFCA's passage and sign it into law.
* Fight Attacks on Workers' Right to Organize: Obama has fought the Bush National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) efforts to strip workers of their right to organize. He is a cosponsor of legislation to overturn the NLRB's "Kentucky River" decisions classifying hundreds of thousands of nurses, construction, and professional workers as "supervisors" who are not protected by federal labor laws.
* Protect Striking Workers: Obama supports the right of workers to bargain collectively and strike if necessary. He will work to ban the permanent replacement of striking workers, so workers can stand up for themselves without worrying about losing their livelihoods.
* Raise the Minimum Wage: Barack Obama will raise the minimum wage, index it to inflation and increase the Earned Income Tax Credit to make sure that full-time workers earn a living wage that allows them to raise their families and pay for basic needs.

Protect Homeownership and Crack Down on Mortgage Fraud

Obama will crack down on fraudulent brokers and lenders. He will also make sure homebuyers have honest and complete information about their mortgage options, and he will give a tax credit to all middle-class homeowners.

* Create a Universal Mortgage Credit: Obama will create a 10 percent universal mortgage credit to provide homeowners who do not itemize tax relief. This credit will provide an average of $500 to 10 million homeowners, the majority of whom earn less than $50,000 per year.
* Ensure More Accountability in the Subprime Mortgage Industry: Obama has been closely monitoring the subprime mortgage situation for years, and introduced comprehensive legislation over a year ago to fight mortgage fraud and protect consumers against abusive lending practices. Obama's STOP FRAUD Act provides the first federal definition of mortgage fraud, increases funding for federal and state law enforcement programs, creates new criminal penalties for mortgage professionals found guilty of fraud, and requires industry insiders to report suspicious activity.
* Mandate Accurate Loan Disclosure: Obama will create a Homeowner Obligation Made Explicit (HOME) score, which will provide potential borrowers with a simplified, standardized borrower metric (similar to APR) for home mortgages. The HOME score will allow individuals to easily compare various mortgage products and understand the full cost of the loan.
* Create Fund to Help Homeowners Avoid Foreclosures: Obama will create a fund to help people refinance their mortgages and provide comprehensive supports to innocent homeowners. The fund will be partially paid for by Obama's increased penalties on lenders who act irresponsibly and commit fraud.
* Close Bankruptcy Loophole for Mortgage Companies: Obama will work to eliminate the provision that prevents bankruptcy courts from modifying an individual's mortgage payments. Obama believes that the subprime mortgage industry, which has engaged in dangerous and sometimes unscrupulous business practices, should not be shielded by outdated federal law.

Address Predatory Credit Card Practices

Obama will establish a five-star rating system so that every consumer knows the risk involved in every credit card. He also will establish a Credit Card Bill of Rights to stop credit card companies from exploiting consumers with unfair practices.

* Create a Credit Card Rating System to Improve Disclosure: Obama will create a credit card rating system, modeled on five-star systems used for other consumer products, to provide consumers an easily identifiable ranking of credit cards, based on the card's features. Credit card companies will be required to display the rating on all application and contract materials, enabling consumers to quickly understand all of the major provisions of a credit card without having to rely exclusively on fine print in lengthy documents.
* Establish a Credit Card Bill of Rights to Protect Consumers: Obama will create a Credit Card Bill of Rights to protect consumers. The Obama plan will:
o Ban Unilateral Changes
o Apply Interest Rate Increases Only to Future Debt
o Prohibit Interest on Fees
o Prohibit "Universal Defaults"
o Require Prompt and Fair Crediting of Cardholder Payments

Reform Bankruptcy Laws

Obama will reform our bankruptcy laws to protect working people, ban executive bonuses for bankrupt companies, and require disclosure of all pension investments.

* Cap Outlandish Interest Rates on Payday Loans and Improve Disclosure: Obama supports extending a 36 percent interest cap to all Americans. Obama will require lenders to provide clear and simplified information about loan fees, payments and penalties, which is why he'll require lenders to provide this information during the application process.
* Encourage Responsible Lending Institutions to Make Small Consumer Loans: Obama will encourage banks, credit unions and Community Development Financial Institutions to provide affordable short-term and small-dollar loans and to drive unscrupulous lenders out of business.
* Reform Bankruptcy Laws to Protect Families Facing a Medical Crisis: Obama will create an exemption in bankruptcy law for individuals who can prove they filed for bankruptcy because of medical expenses. This exemption will create a process that forgives the debt and lets the individuals get back on their feet.

Work/Family Balance

Obama will double funding for after-school programs, expand the Family Medical Leave Act, provide low-income families with a refundable tax credit to help with their child-care expenses, and encourage flexible work schedules.

* Expand the Family and Medical Leave Act: The FMLA covers only certain employees of employers with 50 or more employees. Obama will expand it to cover businesses with 25 or more employees. He will expand the FMLA to cover more purposes as well, including allowing workers to take leave for elder care needs; allowing parents up to 24 hours of leave each year to participate in their children's academic activities; and expanding FMLA to cover leave for employees to address domestic violence.
* Encourage States to Adopt Paid Leave: As president, Obama will initiate a strategy to encourage all 50 states to adopt paid-leave systems. Obama will provide a $1.5 billion fund to assist states with start-up costs and to help states offset the costs for employees and employers.
* Expand High-Quality Afterschool Opportunities: Obama will double funding for the main federal support for afterschool programs, the 21st Century Learning Centers program, to serve a million more children. Obama will include measures to maximize performance and effectiveness across grantees nationwide.
* Expand the Child and Dependent Care Tax Credit: The Child and Dependent Care Tax Credit provides too little relief to families that struggle to afford child care expenses. Obama will reform the Child and Dependent Care Tax Credit by making it refundable and allowing low-income families to receive up to a 50 percent credit for their child care expenses.
* Protect Against Caregiver Discrimination: Workers with family obligations often are discriminated against in the workplace. Obama will enforce the recently-enacted Equal Employment Opportunity Commission guidelines on caregiver discrimination.
* Expand Flexible Work Arrangements: Obama will create a program to inform businesses about the benefits of flexible work schedules; help businesses create flexible work opportunities; and increase federal incentives for telecommuting. Obama will also make the federal government a model employer in terms of adopting flexible work schedules and permitting employees to request flexible arrangements.

Posted by: Our Only HOPE | May 28, 2008 3:03 PM | Report abuse

Clinton Addresses the 'Forgotten Man'
Increase Decrease

May 4, 2008 (LPAC)--Senator Hillary Clinton, appearing on a town hall-format ABC-TV news show in Indianapolis on Sunday, maintained her sharp focus on the economic crisis and the hard times faced by the vast majority of Americans in the lower 80 percent income brackets. In response to one audience question, citing Alexander Hamilton's focus on manufacturing, Senator Clinton differentiated herself from both John McCain and Barack Obama, by stressing the need to defend and expand U.S. manufacturing jobs. She attacked Bush era legislation that created tax incentives for U.S. corporations to export manufacturing jobs, and said she would renegotiate the NAFTA treaty if elected President. She also reiterated her pledge to work for a universal health care system, noting that the skyrocketing costs of health care have further eroded U.S. manufacturing.

In response to another question, about the collapse of agriculture, Clinton focused on the global food crisis, citing rioting in Haiti and other countries, faced with starvation. She noted that the shift to biofuels, based on corn and soy, has further added to the food crisis.

Pressed on her published warnings to Iran about harsh American retaliation if they obtained a nuclear weapon and attacked Israel, Clinton emphasized that she would engage in tough but comprehensive diplomacy with Iran, and she also said she would ask the Secretary of Defense and Joint Chiefs of Staff to draw up a withdrawal plan from Iraq, that would start the pullout of American troops 60 days after she took office.

After emphasizing that the last seven years had been ``really hard on Americans,'' Sen. Clinton concluded the one-hour dialogue with voters in both Indiana and North Carolina by saying that the American people urgently needed a ``champion'' of their needs in the White House.

Posted by: maryjane | May 28, 2008 3:01 PM | Report abuse

PREDICTION: On November of 2008, Democrats will pick up at least 30 more seats in the House of Representatives, they will pick up 7 more Senate seats, and they will get 4 or more Governorship positions. But they will lose the White House to Senator John McCain because they intentionally and purposely would rather lose an election than nominate Honorable Senator Hillary Clinton!!! Democrats are so foolish and ignorant that they still will call this outcome a victory!!!! They can not recognize and realize the important power of the office of the President of the United States. We in Michigan will never forget that Honorable Governors Ed Rendell of Pensylvania and Jon Corzine of New Jersey accepted the full financial compensation for a RE-VOTE in Michigan and Florida. Mrs.Clinton accepted the deal, but Mr. Obama did not agree. Mr.Obama CONTRIBUTED to DISENFRANCHISING my beloved state of MICHIGAN. NONE of the Sexist media said anything about this story. If it was Mrs.Clinton who would not agree to the idea of RE-VOTE, all of the press would have raised hell with her. If Democrats pick Obama as their nominee, my entire family for the very first time ever would vote for the Republican John McCain. Peace. Peggy

Posted by: Peggy Hart | May 28, 2008 2:59 PM | Report abuse

McSAME IS AT IT AGAIN:
McCain has now unveiled his 'Foreign Policy', which was supposed to show his BREAK from the Bush administration. It is an utter joke. In his speech, McCain proposes doing several things we are already doing to prevent nuclear proliferation, followed by a handful vague promises quite similar to those made by Bush as a candidate in 2000?
Is this guy even aware of the REAL change Americans are looking for?
If McCain's campaign wants to claim they are breaking with the Current Administration, a few vague details in a speech and some new inspirational rhetoric won't cut it. They'd have to lay out a whole new approach to foreign policy, one that includes actual engagement. But McCain won't, because he's even more hawkish than Bush.
However, if they want to show 'the REAL' John McCain...I found this post which was quite appropriate:

Senator McCain´s foreign policy plans probably include the use of military forces. His foreign policy representative poster should be that of an Apache helicopter with guns ready under the caption "Wanna talk?"

Posted by: Anonymous | May 28, 2008 2:58 PM | Report abuse

"I love putting Hillary Clinton bumper stickers over the Barry Hussein bumper stickers in my neighborhood. So if you park in or around Dupont Circle you better check your bumper. LOL!"

That's both vandalism and election fraud bub, LOL!

Posted by: Anonymous | May 28, 2008 2:55 PM | Report abuse

"Google "Obama Caught Up in Gay Murder Scandal""

Then go read about their polygraph examinations and why no one with a shred of credibility wants to touch this with a ten foot pole.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 28, 2008 2:54 PM | Report abuse

"Amazing to me that people forget that Bill Clinton was the only Democrat elected to office twice since a failed Jimmy Carter. He did this by appealing to working class people in all states."

1992 Clinton - 43.0% of the popular vote
1996 Clinton (I) - 49.2% of the popular vote
2000 Gore - 48.4% of the popular vote
2004 Kerry - 48.3% of the popular vote

Was Clinton's electoral support really that much greater than the two recent nominees?

Posted by: kreuz_missile | May 28, 2008 2:53 PM | Report abuse

I love putting Hillary Clinton bumper stickers over the Barry Hussein bumper stickers in my neighborhood. So if you park in or around Dupont Circle you better check your bumper. LOL!

Posted by: Ahmed | May 28, 2008 2:50 PM | Report abuse

"Amazing to me that people forget that Bill Clinton was the only Democrat elected to office twice since a failed Jimmy Carter. He did this by appealing to working class people in all states."

And by having the opposition split, allowing him to win with less than a majority each time...

Posted by: kreuz_missile | May 28, 2008 2:49 PM | Report abuse

Clinton lost because she didn't compete in the month after Super Tuesday and Obama did. It is as simple as that.

Hillary has no one to blame for her loss other than herself and her inner-circle who developed her losing strategy.

Posted by: PeninsulaMatt | May 28, 2008 2:45 PM | Report abuse

"She will be a champion for women, for all of her constituents and she will have, in their name, defied the will of the Democratic Party. She still may not win, but she will be a heroine to her backers for her daring to stand up to the Party and for their cause."

I also feel sorry for whoever posted this. You must be a real loser to think that Clinton's campaign is somehow furthering the cause of feminism. Women are not pathetic. Clinton is.

Posted by: DDAWD | May 28, 2008 2:44 PM | Report abuse

DNC Super Delegate Rules are......

- Best Interest of the Nation? -

The issue is the key item on the agenda when the DNC's Rules and By-Laws Committee meets on May 31. Based on the nature of the issue, and the composition of the committee, it is expected that, at the very least, they will meet the demands and seat the Florida delegation. If that occurs, it is likely that the Obama campaign will take the issue before the Credentials Committee, which will have jurisdiction over the question beginning in mid June. But, until the issue of Florida and Michigan is resolved, nobody knows what the threshold number of delegates needed to secure the nomination is.

The other issue, of course, is the question of how the approximately 850 Super Delegates vote. At first, the Obama camp attempted to discount their role, since they seemed to heavily favor Clinton. Then, the argument was put forward that the Super Delegates must follow the lead of the pledged delegates in their respective districts. That argument was joined by House Speaker Pelosi and Senate Majority leader Harry Reid. But, it seems that they only apply that argument to states in which Obama won the majority of the elected delegates.

But, the Party rules on the question of the "Super'' delegates, as they are called, couldn't be clearer. Whether the super delegates publicly or privately support a candidate they are outside of the rule that binds the elected delegates to vote for the candidate (at least on the first ballot) they were elected to represent. When political analyst was asked to comment on the scramble for Super Delegate endorsements, he explained that "A super delegate commitment today and four bucks will get you a cup of coffee at the Ritz-Carlton.'' Not only are they not bound to vote for any candidate, regardless of what they may or may not promise at any point prior to the convention, the very purpose of designating automatic delegates in the first place, according to Party Rules, "is to give our convention more flexibility to respond to changing circumstances, especially when those changing circumstances might make the voters' mandate less clear. The Super Delegates are expected to exercise their best judgment in the interests of the nation and the Democratic Party.''

It would seem to make a strong argument for Hillary Clinton to remain in the race until the Convention. She is expected to make a strong showing in the remaining primaries and regardless of who the Super Delegates endorse today, the Convention is a long way away and it would seem that they are expected to cast their votes based on the circumstances AT THE TIME OF THE CONVENTION, and not before it. In the midst of the rapidly worsening economic conditions, given Clinton's continued focus on economic issues, and the lack of any substantive economic policy proposals to date by Obama, the Automatic Delegates might do well to abide by their own rules.

Additionally, if they are indeed to "exercise their best judgment in the interest of the Democratic Party,'' given that virtually all polls show that Clinton can beat Republican John McCain while Obama cannot, one would conclude that, at the very least, they should remain publicly uncommitted until the Convention.

Although all these arguments seem rational enough, the fact is that none of them are reflected in the press, the media, or the statements by leading so-called Democrats.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 28, 2008 2:41 PM | Report abuse

Don't you guys get it?
Hillary Clinton is going to be blamed no matter what happens.
Even if she were to win the nomination, she would get blamed for winning.
Bill Clinton got blamed for Al Gore losing.
"Blame the Clintons" is to America what "Blame Canada" is to South Park.

Posted by: Mullet | May 28, 2008 2:41 PM | Report abuse

She voted for Iraq and most of the democratic party was against the war..her last name is Clinton and people didnt want any more Bush / Clinton. That's why she lost..it wasn't stolen from her she lost even with every advantage. People who say they'll vote for MCCain because something was stolen from Hillary care about their own hurt feelings more than they do about preventing more Republican B.S...get over it!

Posted by: markca | May 28, 2008 2:40 PM | Report abuse

Amazing to me that people forget that Bill Clinton was the only Democrat elected to office twice since a failed Jimmy Carter. He did this by appealing to working class people in all states.
How can Obama win without this BITTER CLASS of people.
Obama will be another failed Carter and John Mccain will be elected.

Posted by: sweetpea | May 28, 2008 2:39 PM | Report abuse

Of course Hillary Clinton is going to tell you all "I told you so!"

Most polls show this to be a tight race with many of the fundamentals favoring McCain and Obama having mined the bulk of his votes in the Democratic primaries. Getting more support will be a tough slog for him.

More than that, the "McSame" label is not sticking to McCain nor is the "senile old man" label. Ageism it appears is the last refuge of a scoundrel!

In fact by wide margins, Obama is perceived as a liberal and McCain is seen as the candidate who can reach across the aisle (check out Rasmussen).

When the secrets come out of the closet about Obama, his campaign will implode. Cillizza and the liberal media know exactly what I am talking about but don't want to break the story because they are all in the tank for Obama and the stuff is so incendiary that they dare not risk their reputations among their colleagues.

Fox news and the right wing press and pundits too are waiting to time this just right. They do not want the revelation of the story to become the story, but rather the story itself should be the story.

I am just a nobody from KY but even I can Google names like Larry Sinclair and Donald Young and know there is a lot more there there!

Posted by: Pete Kent | May 28, 2008 2:36 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: no horse in this race | May 28, 2008 2:11 PM
"More than any arguments Sen. Clinton's supporters make, this argument tickles me most. "

Glad I could make you laugh today, but it still doesn't change the fact that I feel the nomination has been stolen from her. And I will vote as previously mention (as will numerous others).

Posted by: Anonymous | May 28, 2008 2:32 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: francine223:"What is most alarming about this today, is the mafia-style pressure which Howard Dean's office, and the super-rich Obama campaign have put on Senator Clinton to resign here and now, at a time when the tallies on primaries to date, including that in Florida, show her to be still very much a leading contender. There is the smell of something very evil in the role which Obama and others are playing on this account."

Something stinks alright. And the big question all Democrats should be asking is: What is going on here?

It seems that some Dems have gone from years of rolling over and playing dead, to revealing that they are just as scheming, controlling and bullying as the Republicans. What a total disappointment!

Hillary Clinton does not "need to go". It's Howard Dean that needs to go!

Posted by: lsb | May 28, 2008 2:30 PM | Report abuse

Unless,Clinton recognizes her only choice. She can take her case to the convention under the guise of insisting that all the voters ballots be counted. She will be a champion for women, for all of her constituents and she will have, in their name, defied the will of the Democratic Party. She still may not win, but she will be a heroine to her backers for her daring to stand up to the Party and for their cause. Then she will have something to start with when the next election cycle comes around.

Halli Casser-Jayne


Keep Dreaming! If your scenario plays out, Hilary will be vilified as a sore loser who cares only about herself and she would be BLAMED for Obama's loss in the General. She woul dprobably go on to lose her Senate seat in 2012 if she even decides to run again.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 28, 2008 2:29 PM | Report abuse

You know, Hillary's eyes are actually brown, thats, true she wares blue contact lenses. I guess because she read somewhere they make her look more electable who knows. Maybe it is because she is so full of s**t and she wants to cover them up.

=============
You know if Hillary and her supporters bottled that BS they spew they might be able to sell it to a foreign country and pay some of her Bills!

Posted by: Sue F | May 28, 2008 1:43 PM

Posted by: Anonymous | May 28, 2008 2:22 PM | Report abuse

ANY PERSON WITH AN OUNCE OF COMMON SENSE CAN DO A BETTER JOB THEN G.W.B. OBAMA PROMISES CHANGE...WHAT HE DOES NOT SAY IS THAT CHANGE WILL BE GOOD OR BAD.WE ALL CAN ASSUME HE MEANS GOOD...HOWEVER WE ALL KNOW THAT WHEN WE ASS-U-ME.OBAMA WILL HAVE THE LAST LAUGH.

Posted by: STEVE Sr. | May 28, 2008 2:22 PM | Report abuse

I'm starting to feel bad for Clinton. She can't win if there's any kind of compromise on Michigan and Florida.

I really doubt she wanted to get so divisive and nasty, but she's really got to do all this stuff to have any chance of winning. The RFK comment was a historical comment, I believe that, but it was chosen for its emotional impact and shock.

But there's no way she can possibly believe the stuff she's saying. Only an idiot would think Michigan and Florida should count as is. Only an idiot believes the popular vote count is meaningful. I've lost a LOT of respect for her, but she's no idiot. She's saying what she thinks needs to be said. You can tell that she and her surrogates are having a really hard time swallowing their words. Terry McCauliffe (sp) is normally a pretty straightforward guy, but you can see that even he doesn't believe what he is saying. This is about feminism? Really? This is about voter suppression? Really? Hillary doesn't believe that. Not for one second.

But when you're this close to the end, the temptation is too great to just cling to whatever hope there is. Obama might get shot. The superdelegates might have a change of heart. Some scandal might come out.

Athletes seem to be more disheartened by a two point loss in overtime than a blowout. That is what seems to be happening here.

It's really tough especially given the fact that the media had awarded her the nomination and even the presidency a year ago. Its not a deluge of superdelegates. Each day, a few more trickle over to Obama. That's what makes it hard.

I really do feel bad for her. I hope she can be happy without achieving this particular goal.

Posted by: DDAWD | May 28, 2008 2:22 PM | Report abuse

Dear scrivener - Interesting point...

Other sources say the Anglo-Dutch oligarcghy made up of international financiers with main offices in London is behind the orchestrated chaos, confusion and public discontent in our U.S. elections. Their goal is to rid of our government (both DNC and RNC) and install corporate fascism which is the privatization of U.S. government for profit$$$ and domination. There are already U.S. politicians working on their behalf and and the following three scenarios may result by the fall elections:

Scenario I
1. Hillary is rid of by Obama - She pose as threat to the fascist privatization plan as her FDR-like solutions cater to the 80% of the population.
2. Obama is rid of by his own scandals such as Rev. Wright, Lewis Sinclair, Rezko, Ayers, Auchi, his 1st cousins tampering with Kenya's elections, etc.
3. As oligargcial employee and whose help enabled him to get his questionable 'global warming' message out and subsequent Nobel Peace Prize, Gore annoints himself as Dem nominee at Aug. Dem. convention because he has already secretly set aside about 100 super delegates for himself so neither Hillary or Obama will have enough delegates to win nomination. He's been actively fundraising (5/31 in NYC for example) and dieting to lose 50 lbs. to look 'presidential' for the big day.
4. Due to poor health history, GOP McCain may not survive grueling campaign schedules, etc.

Scenario II
1. Other oligarcghical employee with record in massive fascist-privatization of NYC already, billionaire Mayor Mike Bloomberg emerges as knight on white horse as new Independent Party candidate answer to the orchestrated DNC and GOP chaos. Example includes - mayor selling city's infrastructure to private sector vs. efficiently fix which is cheaper. Private company's profits increases by charging taxpayers for usage of same infrastructure (street, bridge, tunnel, etc.) which was originally built by taxpayers' monies.
2. With too many people catching on, he may attempt to distract the public by getting selected as VP for either party instead and where he'd be another Cheney-like VP with full reign cloaked in secrecy to install corporate fascism agenda.

Scenario III
1. Either in October or in the period after November elections and before January 20 when new president starts, Bush/Cheney orchestrates WWIII with Iran war, declares martial law and does not leave office.

We need Hillary! Go Hillary go......

Posted by: Anonymous | May 28, 2008 2:19 PM | Report abuse

I disagree with you. This is not the Republican Party; it is the Democrack-up Party. They eat their own in this party, particularly those who come up short. Further, Hillary Clinton is a woman who wears the name Clinton across her breast. The Party wants to move on from the Clinton's, and won't be looking backward.

Unless,Clinton recognizes her only choice. She can take her case to the convention under the guise of insisting that all the voters ballots be counted. She will be a champion for women, for all of her constituents and she will have, in their name, defied the will of the Democratic Party. She still may not win, but she will be a heroine to her backers for her daring to stand up to the Party and for their cause. Then she will have something to start with when the next election cycle comes around.

Halli Casser-Jayne
http://www.thecjpoliticalreport.com

Posted by: Halli Casser-Jayne | May 28, 2008 2:16 PM | Report abuse

Some thouhgts:
1) For God's sake, we vote to select the Preseident of United States of America (U.S.A) not the Republican or Democrat President so Senator Linton's claim of significant chance to defeating Senator John McCain in the general election is irrelevant.
2) Mr. Bill Clinton must remeber that he is former Prsident of U.S.A. so anything he says may affect the images of our country.
3) Our country's problems today are more complex than normal. The solutions require the system thinking. We can't solve the economy, foreign policies, war and health cares independently since they are interwined. Solutions based on experienced might not be helpful.
4) We are the citizen of most powerful country in the world so please think like ones. Don't be caught in the little thigs.

Posted by: Nga | May 28, 2008 2:16 PM | Report abuse

Well, this really isn't a surprise to anyone. It is amazing just how conninving and scheming camp CLINTRRUPTION, can be.

It's really unfortunate, however, that some possibly, delusional, and sadly decieved white females, have totally bought into this BLATANT LIE. Senator Clinton and her poor and misguided constituency isn't being BULLIED or DISENFRANCHISED. SHE'S MEARLY BEEN BESTED and PROVEN to not be QUALIFIED or DESIRED based on CHARACTER and merit.

Most of what is happening to her is due to her very own VILENESS and UNDERHANDED, scheming. Not to mention a totally MISMANAGED and ABSOLUTELY FISCALLY IRRESPONSIBLE campaign. YOU, her supporters, would still insist she run our NATION? Senator Clinton was once viewed as one of the most intelligent persons in the world. She trumped in the beginning of this campaign that she has been, 'FULLY VETTED'. Yet, her character hadn't REALLY been tested. Gold is purified by the fire of smelting and the skimming of dross from the top. If Senator Clinton would've really been as she claimed "..the best person for the job..', "ready on day one", "EXPERIENCED", etc.., when this testing took place she would've taken a different road.

YET CHARACTER IS TRULY TESTED WHEN THINGS AREN'T GOING OUR WAY...

That's when everyone get's the opportunity to see who we really are. After 11 straight defeats by Senator Obama, Senator Clinton allowed (fortunately for us) her TRUE SELF to EMERGE.

WHAT DID HER TESTING REVEAL TO THE NATION AND THE WORLD?

All of you have your own words to describe what you saw. I won't be nice about this in any sense. What I saw emerge was GUILE. Nothing more than a deceptive, divisive, SELFISH, spoiled, SELF EGRANDIZING, egomaniac who felt ENTITLED to the most HONORABLE office in the WORLD.

Then she begin to STOOP lower and lower, LIE more and more, and then she begin to PANDER to the VILEST and UGLIEST sentiments in her constitency. She did this unapologetically. She begin to seperate the party by RACE, CLASS, and finally GENDER. And if that wasn't enough, she FINALLY (at least to date)REVEALED to the world, her VILEST sentiment, the very demise of her opponent I.E. her invoking of RFK'S assassination, for the FOURTH time. This, again, she did UNAPOLOGETICALLY.
Even to the point of returning to VICTIM MODE and then seizing on these words, "this is the media's and the Obama camps doing..." She has refused to accept responsibility for this. She has also never apologized to Senator Obama or His Wife and Children.

I've never been as disgusted with a person as I am with Senator Clinton. I've also never witnessed the type of SICK POWER she wields with deception over some obviously gullible white women. It's absolutely saddening. It's a demonstration of the very same type of sick psychotic power and influence Adolf hitler and Joseph Stalin and Khadafy, and Osama Bin laden, and George W. Bush, just to name a few Insane Dictators, have wielded over people who do not have a mentally healthy sensibility.

I personally believe GOD allowed her to undue herself so some worse catastrophe than what George W. Bush has acheieved would be spared our nation.

She has done this WITH FULL KNOWLEDGE. She has PURPOSELY divided THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY. Why? Because she can not accept being BESTED...Fair and Square.

If anything, now we all know WHO Senator Hillary Clinton REALLY is.

Ismael 29yrs old San Francisco CA.

Posted by: need4trth | May 28, 2008 2:13 PM | Report abuse

Has it ever occurred to anyone that possibly the reason Hillary is so desperate about winning this nomination is that she believes that if Obama gets it he will win the election. That means the next viable chance she would have would be 2016. And if the Obama presidency is successful, more than likely she would be running against a popular VP for that nomination. Her whole campaign is not based around "I Told You So" but rather "Oh No, There Goes My Only Chance!" If you think this is far-fetched, one of her own advisors - off the record, of course - said that given the anti-Republican feeling in this country right now that a refigerator could win the general election against McCain! Look at all the other polls outside of the match-ups with McCain and clearly the choice is leaning in the Democrats favor. The only reason McCain is breaking even with Obama in some polls is because all the media attention has been on the Clinton-Obama campaign. The idea that if Hillary is taken off the tickect then Florida, Ohio will automatically go to McCain is not very realistic. Plus we are looking at the electorial map through the lens of the past two elections. Each election is different with different battleground states.

Posted by: dre7861 | May 28, 2008 2:12 PM | Report abuse

Re: "As a Hillary Clinton supporter I strongly feel that she has been forced by the DNC elite out of the race."

More than any arguments Sen. Clinton's supporters make, this argument tickles me most. It's SEN. CLINTON who represents the power structure of the DNC, DLC, and most other Democratic party organizations, and Sen. Obama who's run the insurgent campaign. Now that the insurgency has been successful, the Clintons cast themselves as political OUTSIDERS!!! Anybody who believes that has to acknowledge Pres Bush's place as the people's president!!

Posted by: no horse in this race | May 28, 2008 2:11 PM | Report abuse

If the Democratic party leaders can just pick who they want to be the nominee, as Clinton wants, why even have primaries and caucuses? Wouldn't that just be a huge waste of taxpayer money?

Posted by: jbilsborrow | May 28, 2008 2:08 PM | Report abuse

Darned right she is being mistreated.

This should be a wake up call to all women. And EVERY WOMAN IN THIS COUNTRY SHOULD BE OUTRAGED, no matter what party or candidate you support.

This is the single most disappointing aspect of this entire ordeal, and very revealing about the true attitudes that prevail in our country. It's vicious. And I am beginning to believe that if some men could get away with burning her at the stake, they probably would.

This is not a "Clinton" thing, it's a "woman" thing!

Posted by: lsb | May 28, 2008 2:07 PM | Report abuse

Hillary is running for President, LET HER RUN! Get a grip and analyze the polls to see where Obama will be by November... Back in Chicago, writing another book and making millions off of his supporters!

Posted by: PA Voter | May 28, 2008 2:07 PM | Report abuse

As a Hillary Clinton supporter I strongly feel that she has been forced by the DNC elite out of the race. Therefore, in November this is what I will do, vote McCain and then down ballot vote Democrat so that McCain will be held in check by a Democratic Congress.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 28, 2008 2:02 PM | Report abuse

Whatever Clinton does you can be sure it is always self serving, calculated, shrouded in opaque secrecy, and spin, and Maciavellian.

Its how she has always operateds.

Posted by: JBE | May 28, 2008 1:57 PM | Report abuse

McCain's situation is the complete opposite of Clintons. He was the outsider only independents liked. She is the establishment pick. McCain had to grovel to avoid banishment after 2000. She just has to say she's sorry. Bush picked a heart attack prone, Darth Vader like VP who knows he has no chance at the Presidency even if Georgie boy was riding a 90% approval rating. Clinton has to assume Obama will pick a VP who will seriously consider his or her own bid - and that person will have the inside track in 2016 if Obama wins twice. Therefore Clinton's only hope is Obama loses this time or when he runs for reelection. Because she'll be too old in 2020 or 2024.

Posted by: muD | May 28, 2008 1:57 PM | Report abuse

In describing the health-care plan of the presumptive Democratic nominee, Sen. Barack Obama, reporters invariably parrot the campaign line that he would build on, not replace, today's dominant employment-based system of private insurance.


Fortunately, voters will not have to rely exclusively on information from a swooning press corps and the Obama propagandists for the duration of the coming campaign.

There are, and will be, more rigorous assessments by outsiders of what the Obama plan would really mean, financially and otherwise. Indeed, a partial assessment of an Obama-like plan is already available -- financed by an Obama ally, no less.

Tellingly, even it points to the inescapable bottom line: Obama's plan would put the country on an irreversible fast-track to government-run health care for everyone.

Government control brings government bureaucracy, inefficiency, and heavy handedness. The tragedy is that price controls are only effective if they control and limit the supply of services.


In time, that means waiting lists and other barriers to accessing care, along with skyrocketing costs to the taxpayer. That's the true bottom line of the Obama plan.


http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NTVmY2QxNWMzN2YzNmUzZGU0MGM5MmQzOWQ4MmUyYzc=


Posted by: Obama’s Bad Prescription | May 28, 2008 1:54 PM | Report abuse

'Lay off my wife."

So says Barack Obama about his controversial spouse, Michelle.

If he truly finds it "unacceptable" for people to criticize his wife, he might want to rethink sending her out as his chief campaign surrogate, particularly when she has proved to be such a rich source of copy for journalists and barbs for critics.

And just out of curiosity, what does it mean, exactly, when a candidate finds something "unacceptable"? In a democracy, finding criticism unacceptable is a surefire way to drive yourself bonkers. It's like saying you find it unacceptable that bears use the woods for a bathroom.

It's going to happen whether you accept it or not.


Gallantry has to take a backseat when your wife is riding shotgun. Indeed, there might even be something sexist in all of this, somewhere. After all, no one thinks that criticizing Hillary's husband is "unacceptable."


Michelle Obama says some fascinating, substantive things. She appears to have a gloomy opinion of America, for instance, a country apparently full of desperate, isolated people whose only hope lies in an Obama presidency.


I, for one, want to hear more from her, and she seems perfectly willing to oblige.

But if I don't like what she has to say, I reserve the right to say so, whether her husband finds it acceptable or not.

Posted by: JonahG | May 28, 2008 1:49 PM | Report abuse

The Brilliance of the Clinton campaign at work, from today's Clinton campaign conference call:

"And during the Q&A, Flourney disputed the interpretation of a DNC memo containing legal guidance for the Rules committee -- which seems to suggest that Florida and Michigan must be penalized by losing at least 50% of their delegates. According to Flournoy, the memo says one of two things can happen: that you seat only 50% of the delegations or that you seat the delegations in full but give each delegate just half a vote. 'The DNC is saying that the rule can be read either way.'"

No, no, they didn't say just seat 50% of the delegates- they could also choose to split all the delegates but just give each half a vote!! How does that change the underlying math? Clinton still loses by 120 pledged delegates either way. Fighting for one last irrelevant pyrric victory. See, this is why she's an inferior candidate, this is why she lost to an "inexperienced" senator from Illinois, and this is why she would get creamed in November. She's just ran an awful campaing that still can't shoot straight.

Posted by: kreuz_missile | May 28, 2008 1:48 PM | Report abuse

"Like the NBA loving young and inexperienced teenagers, the DNC Insiders are appealing to the young voters who have almost no clue on how Democracy and the world works. Hillary R. Clinton is light years more qualified and has much more experience than Obama. How the Democrats do not realize is the million dollar question. The only explanation is that the Old Boys and Men in the DNC and among the Super Delegates are not yet ready to be lead by such a strong and super qualified woman like Hillary R. Clinton. It is the only possible explanation."

Yeah, it must be that, and not, say, the fact that Obama has won the pledged delegate race, has won more races and, yes, MORE POPULAR VOTES than Hillary did? No, the Supers going along with that shows that it's the old boys sexist network at play, there has to be some excuse, because surely it wasn't Hillary's fault. Nothing ever is.

Posted by: kreuz_missile | May 28, 2008 1:43 PM | Report abuse

You know if Hillary and her supporters bottled that BS they spew they might be able to sell it to a foreign country and pay some of her Bills!

Posted by: Sue F | May 28, 2008 1:43 PM | Report abuse

You know if Hillary and her supporters bottled that BS they spew they might be able to sell it to a foreign country and pay some of her Bills!

Posted by: Sue F | May 28, 2008 1:43 PM | Report abuse

"She faced those odds in the Dem primary because the African Americans don't know how to make choices...they have in the past voted for the Dem candidate no matter what and now they will vote for the black candidate no matter what."

Poor ignorant black people, maybe we should just give them 3/5ths of a vote?

Posted by: Anonymous | May 28, 2008 1:39 PM | Report abuse

If she is so electable than why is she facing almost impossible odds?
-----------------------------------
She faced those odds in the Dem primary because the African Americans don't know how to make choices...they have in the past voted for the Dem candidate no matter what and now they will vote for the black candidate no matter what. The AAs make up a small minority of the voting public in the general election....and that just won't do it. That's why both McCain and Clinton are polling ahead of Obama in NC, even though he won a landslide there in the primary. Goodbye to a Dem president in 2009. Hope all those AAs can get jobs under a Republican administration cause they're going to need them to pay back all those Obama campaign donations they put on their credit cards.

Posted by: hazwalnut | May 28, 2008 1:37 PM | Report abuse

Anyone who believes this tripe from the Clintons is about as guilible as the faithful GOP herd and others who still believed during the previous presidential election the Bush-Cheney propaganda about the rationale for the invasion of Iraq. First, Senator Clinton is not "winning the general election." She could make this claim convincingly only if she was the nominee and leading in electoral votes during election night, then the statement would be literally true. No one truly believes some of the states won by Clinton in the primaries, such as California, New York, Massachusetts, New Jersey, etc. will be lost by Barack in the fall.

The Clintons seem to be sore losers. Barack has won the nomination fairly, playing by the rules. By trying to overturn rules they and their supporters agreed to, the Clintons are trying to win by cheating, by flouting party rules. They seem to be bitter and angry about Senator Clinton being the overwhelming favorite to win the presidential nomination, but then mainly because of deficient campaign strategy and Bill's racial comments, losing the nomination.

Much of the media does not trust the Clintons because going back to their two terms in the White House, many reporters believed the Clintons often had a hard time telling the complete truth. The Clintons are not the first leading politicians to expect a meek, deferential media to refrain from questioning their actions or motives. President Johnson and Nixon had similar attitudes.

Barack has been far more disrespected by the Clinton campaign than vice versa. Racial comments, claiming John McCain is more qualified to be president, McCarthyite obsessing with the comments by Barack's pastor and Barack's "bitter" comment, the unprecedented ghoulist comments about Robert Kennedy. Has any candidate in modern United States history been more disrespected by his opponents and their most rabid supporters than Barack? One of Barack's flaws is he has not more vigorously responded to such disrespectful rhetoric. Perhaps Maureen Dowd is correct in her recent comments about Barack being "intimidated" by Senator Clinton.

It is widely believed by many persons, the Clintons hope Barack will lose so they can have a better chance of returning to the White House in 2013. The most recent occasion when a major political candidate openly whined and was a sore loser was Richard Nixon in 1962. Most Americans do not like whiners and sore losers, they seldom are effective, strong leaders.

Posted by: Independent | May 28, 2008 1:34 PM | Report abuse

The polls are misleading because a huge number of voters polled do not have landline telephones anymore, but exclusively use cell phones. Most are young and overwhelmingly support Obama. General election polls which show Clinton doing better than McCain, than Obama, are therefore greatly skewed.

Posted by: AJ | May 28, 2008 1:34 PM | Report abuse

When Obama loses to McCain in the November election like Gore and Kerry, Obama, John Edwards, Howard Dean, the DNC Insiders and all the Super Delegates who voted for Obama (bet on the losing horse and cost the Democrats a sure Presidency, Hillary would have won in a landslide) should RESIGN. They will responsible for passing on one of the best qualified Democratic Candidates in the Democratic party and putting a candidate which in every country of the world EXCEPT the USA realizes is much less qualified and who has much less experience. Like the NBA loving young and inexperienced teenagers, the DNC Insiders are appealing to the young voters who have almost no clue on how Democracy and the world works. Hillary R. Clinton is light years more qualified and has much more experience than Obama. How the Democrats do not realize is the million dollar question. The only explanation is that the Old Boys and Men in the DNC and among the Super Delegates are not yet ready to be lead by such a strong and super qualified woman like Hillary R. Clinton. It is the only possible explanation. The DNC is in the worst state it has ever been, and it will lose again. And why? For not putting forth its best candidate and thinking (erronerously) that they could put put forth such an unqualified and experienced candidate and still win. It does not work that way. It was the same with Kerry and it will be the same with Obama. People are American FIRST and Democrat second, and the DNC Insiders, Obama, Howard Dean, John Edwards and the Super Delegates do not realize that. Between McCain and Obama, McCain is clearly the more qualified American and gets the votes of Republicans, Independents and many Democrats who put the welfare of the USA above the DNC.
John McCain the next President of the USA, and due to the DNC Insiders and the Super Delegates.

Posted by: Aussie2020 | May 28, 2008 1:33 PM | Report abuse

The dems are doing more than ignoring the past...they are completely ignoring BO's history; and sometimes the total lack of.

Hillary won't have to say I told you so...all the voters will do that for her.

Posted by: debbie | May 28, 2008 1:28 PM | Report abuse

Michelle Obama as First Lady would a disaster. She would make a mockery of the institution.

Posted by: Sandy | May 28, 2008 1:24 PM | Report abuse

I am a life-long Dem. I voted for and supported Bill Clinton. I liked Hillary as a First Lady. I have never wanted her to run for the presidency. Her campaigning has reinforced my position, big time.

Posted by: Dave | May 28, 2008 1:22 PM | Report abuse

If she is so electable than why is she facing almost impossible odds?

Posted by: JR | May 28, 2008 1:14 PM | Report abuse

Clinton Addresses the 'Forgotten Man'
Increase Decrease

May 4, 2008 (LPAC)--Senator Hillary Clinton, appearing on a town hall-format ABC-TV news show in Indianapolis on Sunday, maintained her sharp focus on the economic crisis and the hard times faced by the vast majority of Americans in the lower 80 percent income brackets. In response to one audience question, citing Alexander Hamilton's focus on manufacturing, Senator Clinton differentiated herself from both John McCain and Barack Obama, by stressing the need to defend and expand U.S. manufacturing jobs. She attacked Bush era legislation that created tax incentives for U.S. corporations to export manufacturing jobs, and said she would renegotiate the NAFTA treaty if elected President. She also reiterated her pledge to work for a universal health care system, noting that the skyrocketing costs of health care have further eroded U.S. manufacturing.

In response to another question, about the collapse of agriculture, Clinton focused on the global food crisis, citing rioting in Haiti and other countries, faced with starvation. She noted that the shift to biofuels, based on corn and soy, has further added to the food crisis.

Pressed on her published warnings to Iran about harsh American retaliation if they obtained a nuclear weapon and attacked Israel, Clinton emphasized that she would engage in tough but comprehensive diplomacy with Iran, and she also said she would ask the Secretary of Defense and Joint Chiefs of Staff to draw up a withdrawal plan from Iraq, that would start the pullout of American troops 60 days after she took office.

After emphasizing that the last seven years had been ``really hard on Americans,'' Sen. Clinton concluded the one-hour dialogue with voters in both Indiana and North Carolina by saying that the American people urgently needed a ``champion'' of their needs in the White House.

Posted by: funny33 | May 28, 2008 1:14 PM | Report abuse

There is no doubt in my mind that many posters in these comment sections are Republicans posing as Democrats and spewing misinformation in an effort to make it appear that the Democratic Party has been irreparably damaged by the extended primary campaign and cannot win the general election no matter who is the party's nominee. Well, the truth is that any real American knows that either Obama or Clinton would make a great President. Furthermore, the mere fact that one of them will win the Democratic nomination according to the rules governing such that have been in place for a long time is not going to cause supporters of the loser to rush to support McSame. As proof that this won't happen, I offer the latest Zogby poll, which shows that Obama has pulled out to a 10 point lead over McSame in the last week. And, I believe this gap will widen considerably once the primaries are over and Sen. Clinton throws her support behind Obama (it does appear at this point that Obama will be the duly chosen nominee). However, the same would happen, if Sen. Clinton won the nomination and Obama threw his support behind her. The GOP is already deathly afraid of the November elections because they see the Democratic landslide in the making. But, following the lead of such brilliant GOP luminaries as Rush Limbaugh, the Republicans think they can confuse the electorate one more time to the point of making the wrong choice in November. Well, I have news for them, it isn't going to happen. The American People know exactly what the Bush Administration's policies have done to harm them. And, they're not foolish enough to put into office a senile, old man, who is promising nothing more than to continue those policies.

Posted by: Caliguy55 | May 28, 2008 1:13 PM | Report abuse

I love all the spin but the most important question here is:

How's she going to make up nearly 200 delegates?

IT'S A DELEGATE RACE

started that way and still is.

Posted by: JR | May 28, 2008 1:13 PM | Report abuse

Sorry Doug, but you're wrong.

Plans for fully funded revotes that were acceptable to both the Clinton camp and the DNC were in place, only to be blocked at the last minute by specious opposition from Obama.

Posted by: Jerry | May 28, 2008 1:08 PM | Report abuse

Obama's Backers Make Their Threat
Increase Decrease

Obama's Backers Make Their Threat

by Debra Hanania-Freeman

As it stands at this moment, unless Sen. Hillary Clinton continues her campaign for the Democratic nomination until the Party's convention, there is no presently visible chance that the U.S. will come out of the presently skyrocketting hyperinflationary crisis in any form easily recognized as being, still, our Constitutional republic. The attempt by the powerful, and also predatory financier groups which have sought to crush Senator Clinton, as they had attempted to destroy the nomination of President Franklin Roosevelt in Hoover's favor in 1932, has the smell of a serious attempt at fascist dictatorship all over it.

What is most alarming about this today, is the mafia-style pressure which Howard Dean's office, and the super-rich Obama campaign have put on Senator Clinton to resign here and now, at a time when the tallies on primaries to date, including that in Florida, show her to be still very much a leading contender. There is the smell of something very evil in the role which Obama and others are playing on this account.

The facts of the matter as they stand on Friday morning, May 9, are as follows.

In the period between overwhelming Obama in the critically important state of Pennsylvania, and the opening of the polls in Indiana and North Carolina on May 6, every poll in the nation showed that momentum was very clearly on Hillary Clinton's side. Obama, whose candidacy had yet to face a serious defeat, was clearly badly shaken. Things only grew worse for Obama when his longtime pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, made a highly publicized appearance at the National Press Club, and uttered some of his most controversial remarks to date. Obama did ultimately cut the wrong Rev. Wright loose, but did so only after Wright turned his polemics against Obama for not defending him more strongly. In the eyes of both the press and the pundits, Obama handled the entire affair badly and appeared to be melting down.

The view seemed to be proven by both public and private polls. Clinton held an unwavering double digit lead over Barack Obama in Indiana, a state that shares a border with his home state of Illinois, and which he had long been expected to win. In North Carolina, where Obama was once as much as 30 points ahead, polls showed that Clinton had whittled that seemingly insurmountable lead down to 6-7%. Then, the polls opened.

There were some very troubling features to the way voting was structured in each state; features that should have served as red flags to ballot security experts. In North Carolina, largely as a result of a massive drive by the Obama campaign, a record 272,000 registered to vote for the first time this year. Eighty percent of them were Democrats and independents, both eligible to vote in the Democratic primary; in fact, those who registered as "unaffiliated'' or independent, comprised the vast majority of the new voters. Another 31,250 voters switched their party affiliation so they, too, could vote in the Democratic primary. Again, the vast majority of those individuals switch to "unaffiliated'' status.

Isn't bringing new voters into the process a good thing? The answer, of course, is that it is. But, what should have been troubling to those charged with guaranteeing fair and honest elections, especially in a state that is still under the watch of the Voters' Rights Act, is that over 300,000 new voters were now eligible to vote (and by all accounts DID vote) in a Democratic primary election where ultimately 1.5 million voted, and the vast majority of that 300,000 were NOT Democrats. Ultimately, contrary to press reports that secret Republicans in both Indiana and North Carolina were casting ballots for Hillary Clinton, when the votes were tallied, in North Carolina, they supported Obama a startling 13-to-1 (more on the Indiana vote later...).

For those monitoring the vote count after the polls closed, things grew more and more confusing. From very early in the evening, as expected, Obama had and held a solid lead in the Raleigh-Durham, an area dominated by colleges and universities. But Raleigh-Durham only accounts for 29% of the voters eligible to vote in the Democratic primary. For most of the night, both candidates were within a point of each other in both Eastern NC, which accounts for 23% of the vote, and in Charlotte (22%). In Greensboro (17%), although Obama took an early lead in the city itself, Clinton was winning in the surrounding area. In the less densely populated Western NC (10%), Clinton held a double digit lead. In fact, in the rural areas (Western NC is included in this group) that comprise some 47% of the vote in the state, Clinton was either leading Obama or within 1 point of him. Then, suddenly, within the course of approximately 17 minutes, all the numbers, save those in Western NC, inexplicably changed and Barack Obama gave one of the earliest victory speeches in North Carolina history, claiming 56% of the vote. Election analysts are still trying to figure out how the sudden shift occurred, and some are still arguing that the numbers just don't add up. But, the nation's attention has already shifted to Indiana.

- Indiana Vote Stumps the Experts -

The Indiana Democratic Primary was open to all voters, regardless of party affiliation. 1.6 million voters ultimately voted--of the 1.3 million votes cast in the Democratic Primary, 200,000 of them were voters of "undetermined'' party affiliation. Despite the bellowing from Rush Limbaugh, who is presumably drug-free following his latest stint in rehab, that he was leading a charge of Republican voters for Hillary Clinton in an effort to "sabotage'' the Democratic primary, the results show that in Indiana, as in North Carolina, the independents and Republicans who voted in the Democratic Primary voted overwhelmingly for Obama. Despite the fact that Clinton held a solid lead of 7-9% all night long, the networks inexplicably refused to declare her the winner, arguing that they would not do so until the votes came in from several counties in the northwest corner of the state, one of which included the city of Gary, which was expected to go to Obama. It seemed odd. The total population of Gary is about 103,000, half of them under 18. Even if every registered voter in the city voted for Barack Obama, it would not have been enough to change the ultimate outcome of the election.

Obama conceded Indiana to Hillary long before the networks did and she gave her victory speech at about 11:30 pm edt. Long after all the speeches were given and everyone turned in for the night, the tally shifted. An attempt to deprive Clinton of a win would have been too reckless, but her lead somehow diminished to just one percentage point. Again, election analysts were stumped. Clinton took 84 of the state's 92 counties. Although Obama won the urban areas, those areas only comprise about 30% of the vote. In the suburban and rural counties, which comprise 70% of the vote, Clinton's lead ranged from 8-32%. The next morning, when Indiana Sen. Evan Bayh (who is, admittedly, a Clinton supporter) was asked on CNN how he could account for such a close race between Clinton and Obama, Bayh said that he couldn't account for it at all and asserted that a recount would likely show that Clinton had indeed taken the state by a far larger margin.

One could argue that, ultimately, the results were what everyone expected. Obama took North Carolina and Clinton took Indiana. However, the press played it as a crushing defeat for Clinton and began speculating on when and how she would make a "dignified'' exit from the race. And, according to all reports, the pressure on undeclared Super Delegates to declare for Obama and for those already pledged to Clinton to switch allegiance became excruciating.

Despite the clamor, Hillary Clinton, looking bright, refreshed, and nothing like a loser, appeared before a rally in Sheparherdstown, W.Va. and continued to hammer away at the issues that have defined her campaign, "This election is about solutions, not speeches,'' she declared. When she continued, shouting out "High-speed rail! Mass transit! Water systems!'' the crowd roared its approval. She's expected to win the next round of primaries in West Virginia and Kentucky by very sizeable margins. Yet, the calls for her to drop out continue to build, arguing that the numbers show she can't win. But, those arguments aren't based on reality.

- The Threat of Disenfranchisement -

By the close of business on Friday, May 9, Obama picked up the support of 5 additional Super Delegates. ABC-TV declared that Obama had taken the lead among the Super Delegates and most of the pro-Obama blogs carried banner headlines asserting the same. In fact, though, Obama now has 1592 elected delegates and 268 Super Delegates for a total of 1860 to Hillary Clinton's 1424 elected delegates and 272 Super Delegates for a total of 1696 delegates, making it a very close race.

Clinton detractors had argued from the start that she could not take the nomination without a significant vote from the Super Delegates. And, while that is true, the fact is that neither can Obama. The nominating process is designed in such a way that any presidential nominee must attain a majority of the elected delegates AND a significant portion of the Super Delegates. Just what that number is, however, has become the source of major controversy. Obama and DNC Chairman Howard "Scream'' Dean have declared the threshold number of delegates to take the nomination to be 2025 (based on a total number of 4049 delegates) and Obama has indicated his intention to declare himself the Democratic nominee on May 20, after the primaries in Kentucky and Oregon, where it is expected that he will reach that number.

If Obama does so, it will be a premature declaration. The 4049 delegate count does not include some 368 delegates from Michigan and Florida. In January, Clinton won both states by very wide margins, but Dean stripped both states of their delegates for holding early primaries that he did not sanction. Democrats from Michigan, where Obama took his name off the ballot, have proposed some compromise apportioning of delegates between the two candidates that is currently under consideration. The Florida case is far more problematic.

Both Clinton and Obama were on the Florida ballot, which accounts for 185 elected delegates of 26 Super Delegates. Florida Democrats had no say in the setting of the date and turned out to vote in record numbers. They also voted overwhelmingly for Clinton. But, regardless of whether one supports Clinton or Obama, to disenfranchise some 2 million Florida Democratic voters who came out to participate in the electoral process in good faith is not only unfair, it is illegal. Also, given that Florida Democrats feel that they have been disenfranchised in the past, they are unwilling to allow it to happen again.

A vocal group of some 600 Floridians, lead by their congressional representatives, the Hispanic organization LULAC, and members of the Bldg Trades rallied in front of the DNC's Washington headquarters this week and have scheduled additional demonstrations in major Florida cities throughout the month of May. The speakers at the Washington, DC rally made clear that if the Florida delegation is not seated intact, they will disrupt the Convention. There is also the very real possibility that Hispanic delegates from other states would join such floor demonstrations.

- Best Interest of the Nation? -

The issue is the key item on the agenda when the DNC's Rules and By-Laws Committee meets on May 31. Based on the nature of the issue, and the composition of the committee, it is expected that, at the very least, they will meet the demands and seat the Florida delegation. If that occurs, it is likely that the Obama campaign will take the issue before the Credentials Committee, which will have jurisdiction over the question beginning in mid June. But, until the issue of Florida and Michigan is resolved, nobody knows what the threshold number of delegates needed to secure the nomination is.

The other issue, of course, is the question of how the approximately 850 Super Delegates vote. At first, the Obama camp attempted to discount their role, since they seemed to heavily favor Clinton. Then, the argument was put forward that the Super Delegates must follow the lead of the pledged delegates in their respective districts. That argument was joined by House Speaker Pelosi and Senate Majority leader Harry Reid. But, it seems that they only apply that argument to states in which Obama won the majority of the elected delegates.

But, the Party rules on the question of the "Automatic'' delegates, as they are called, couldn't be clearer. Whether the automatic delegates publicly or privately support a candidate they are outside of the rule that binds the elected delegates to vote for the candidate (at least on the first ballot) they were elected to represent. When political analyst James Carville was asked to comment on the scramble for Super Delegate endorsements, he explained that "A super delegate commitment today and four bucks will get you a cup of coffee at the Ritz-Carlton.'' Not only are they not bound to vote for any candidate, regardless of what they may or may not promise at any point prior to the convention, the very purpose of designating automatic delegates in the first place, according to Party Rules, "is to give our convention more flexibility to respond to changing circumstances, especially when those changing circumstances might make the voters' mandate less clear. The Automatic Delegates are expected to exercise their best judgment in the interests of the nation and the Democratic Party.''

It would seem to make a strong argument for Hillary Clinton to remain in the race until the Convention. She is expected to make a strong showing in the remaining primaries and regardless of who the Super Delegates endorse today, the Convention is a long way away and it would seem that they are expected to cast their votes based on the circumstances AT THE TIME OF THE CONVENTION, and not before it. In the midst of the rapidly worsening economic conditions, given Clinton's continued focus on economic issues, and the lack of any substantive economic policy proposals to date by Obama, the Automatic Delegates might do well to abide by their own rules.

Additionally, if they are indeed to "exercise their best judgment in the interest of the Democratic Party,'' given that virtually all polls show that Clinton can beat Republican John McCain while Obama cannot, one would conclude that, at the very least, they should remain publicly uncommitted until the Convention.

Although all these arguments seem rational enough, the fact is that none of them are reflected in the press, the media, or the statements by leading so-called Democrats. If one were to draw a conclusion based on their utterings, "Hillary Clinton is toast.''

- Why So Desperate? -

One cannot help but wonder why Clinton's opponents seem so recklessly desperate? Why not just let the electoral process run its course? Why not let all of the voters have their say and then proceed to the August Convention? If the Obama campaign is so confident of a win, then why are automatic delegates, particularly African Americans, coming under such excruciating pressure? Why are so many promises of money and appointments (most of which will never be met) being made?

Unimpeachable sources very close to the Clintons have reported that the morning after the Indiana and North Carolina primaries, calls were made by individuals recognized as high ranking members of the U.S. political elite informing the Clintons that, "while this was not necessarily (their) position,'' they wanted it passed along that under no circumstances would Hillary Clinton be permitted to take the Democratic nomination and that, if by some miscalculation, she did take the nomination, she would never be permitted to take the presidency. Apparently, the messages concluded that if, by some unanticipated occurrence, she were to actually go ahead and win the presidency, it would be the shortest lived presidency in the history of the United States. The message was explicit. The combination of Hillary AND Bill Clinton in the White House meant a presidency that would simply wield more independence and more power than they were willing to tolerate. Undoubtedly, Clinton's continual pledge to represent the lower 80% of the U.S. population, and the unspoken fear that some of her policies seem to lean too far in the direction of the proposals put forward by Lyndon LaRouche, has lowered their toleration level.

The point seemed to be underlined in a none-too-subtle cartoon in the Friday online edition of the London Times. It showed Hillary Clinton laying face down, arms spread, eyes bulging. The American flag is the backdrop, but one of the stars has fallen, its point lodged deep in her back.

Note also widespread, and undisputed, reports that top officials of the Obama campaign have offered to pay off the financially strapped Clinton campaign's $15 million campaign debt as well as the $11.43 million that Clinton has loaned her campaign organization, in return for her shutting down her campaign. The offer comes at the same time that Clinton's finance committee has insisted on a meeting with the candidate next week, in what some believe will be an attempt to force her to withdraw.

The fact is that Obama, despite the fact that his campaign has raised sizeable funds, does NOT have the capability to make good on an offer of that magnitude. A payoff of that size could only be made by the powerful financial forces tied to the City of London that have backed the Obama candidacy. It is a blatant attempt and illegal to shut down Clinton's candidacy and to proceed with a completely orchestrated U.S. election.

So far, Clinton has remained steadfast in her commitment to continue her campaign. Individuals close to the Clintons don't see her bowing out at this point. James Carville, who is personally close to both Bill and Hillary, told Newsweek, "If Hillary Clinton gave Obama just one of her cojones, they'd both have two.'' Hillary Clinton is tough and she is certainly no quitter. But the issues at stake here are far bigger than any individual's candidacy or any election itself. Those who are attempting to shut down the Clinton campaign and control this presidential election have no allegiance to Democratic Party or to the United States. They are acting as agents of a dangerous foreign influence. If they were to succeed, the U.S. were to have lost its sovereignty, and there would be very little hope for the continuation of civilized life on this planet as we know it.

Posted by: francine223 | May 28, 2008 1:07 PM | Report abuse

The author makes some very valid points.

It's sad, but even if HRC works her heart out to support Obama, there are many Democratic insiders who simply don't want HRC to be president. I would suspect as many if not more than even Republican insiders.

Obama is intelligent, a fresh face, the Ronald Reagan of the Democratic Party. He inspires parts of the base in ways that Clinton does not.

Most youth have no idea what sacrafices HRC or women like her made to get the rights and respect that women currently experience. They still suffer, but America notices Obama more easily because of his race. He breaks both white and black stereotypes of blacks, which is both good and bad. HRC doesn't break stereotypes of women who are successful because she already did that 20 years ago when she was First Lady. Society was much less willing to accept change in the 90s than they are today, but unfortunately, HRC continues to carry the "baggage" or "fallout" of attempting such change in the 90s.

The DNC insiders don't want Clinton to lead the team, despite her skill or knowledge. That skill and knowledge actually impedes them from shaping the policies and procedures they wish to implement in Obama's administration. He is afterall, the outsider and naive one.

How's the saying go? You can't teach an old dog new tricks? There's this big claim that Obama is going to "change" WDC. Hello!!! LOL. The only thing that's going to change is DNC insiders will now be able to shape policy more easily with Obama at the helm, similarly to what Republicans were able to do while Ronald Reagan was in office.

That could be a good thing if the generals that Obama appoints are as skilled as those generals under Reagan, but if they're as good as Obama's surrogates were in Canada and Europe speaking on NAFTA and trade issues, we're in for a hell of a ride!

Posted by: Jim C | May 28, 2008 1:06 PM | Report abuse

Obama's Backers Make Their Threat

by Debra Hannia-Freeman

As it stands at this moment, unless Sen. Hillary Clinton continues her campaign for the Democratic nomination until the Party's convention, there is no presently visible chance that the U.S. will come out of the presently skyrocketting hyperinflationary crisis in any form easily recognized as being, still, our Constitutional republic. The attempt by the powerful, and also predatory financier groups which have sought to crush Senator Clinton, as they had attempted to destroy the nomination of President Franklin Roosevelt in Hoover's favor in 1932, has the smell of a serious attempt at fascist dictatorship all over it.

What is most alarming about this today, is the mafia-style pressure which Howard Dean's office, and the super-rich Obama campaign have put on Senator Clinton to resign here and now, at a time when the tallies on primaries to date, including that in Florida, show her to be still very much a leading contender. There is the smell of something very evil in the role which Obama and others are playing on this account.

The facts of the matter as they stand on Friday morning, May 9, are as follows.

In the period between overwhelming Obama in the critically important state of Pennsylvania, and the opening of the polls in Indiana and North Carolina on May 6, every poll in the nation showed that momentum was very clearly on Hillary Clinton's side. Obama, whose candidacy had yet to face a serious defeat, was clearly badly shaken. Things only grew worse for Obama when his longtime pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, made a highly publicized appearance at the National Press Club, and uttered some of his most controversial remarks to date. Obama did ultimately cut the wrong Rev. Wright loose, but did so only after Wright turned his polemics against Obama for not defending him more strongly. In the eyes of both the press and the pundits, Obama handled the entire affair badly and appeared to be melting down.

The view seemed to be proven by both public and private polls. Clinton held an unwavering double digit lead over Barack Obama in Indiana, a state that shares a border with his home state of Illinois, and which he had long been expected to win. In North Carolina, where Obama was once as much as 30 points ahead, polls showed that Clinton had whittled that seemingly insurmountable lead down to 6-7%. Then, the polls opened.

There were some very troubling features to the way voting was structured in each state; features that should have served as red flags to ballot security experts. In North Carolina, largely as a result of a massive drive by the Obama campaign, a record 272,000 registered to vote for the first time this year. Eighty percent of them were Democrats and independents, both eligible to vote in the Democratic primary; in fact, those who registered as "unaffiliated'' or independent, comprised the vast majority of the new voters. Another 31,250 voters switched their party affiliation so they, too, could vote in the Democratic primary. Again, the vast majority of those individuals switch to "unaffiliated'' status.

Isn't bringing new voters into the process a good thing? The answer, of course, is that it is. But, what should have been troubling to those charged with guaranteeing fair and honest elections, especially in a state that is still under the watch of the Voters' Rights Act, is that over 300,000 new voters were now eligible to vote (and by all accounts DID vote) in a Democratic primary election where ultimately 1.5 million voted, and the vast majority of that 300,000 were NOT Democrats. Ultimately, contrary to press reports that secret Republicans in both Indiana and North Carolina were casting ballots for Hillary Clinton, when the votes were tallied, in North Carolina, they supported Obama a startling 13-to-1 (more on the Indiana vote later...).

For those monitoring the vote count after the polls closed, things grew more and more confusing. From very early in the evening, as expected, Obama had and held a solid lead in the Raleigh-Durham, an area dominated by colleges and universities. But Raleigh-Durham only accounts for 29% of the voters eligible to vote in the Democratic primary. For most of the night, both candidates were within a point of each other in both Eastern NC, which accounts for 23% of the vote, and in Charlotte (22%). In Greensboro (17%), although Obama took an early lead in the city itself, Clinton was winning in the surrounding area. In the less densely populated Western NC (10%), Clinton held a double digit lead. In fact, in the rural areas (Western NC is included in this group) that comprise some 47% of the vote in the state, Clinton was either leading Obama or within 1 point of him. Then, suddenly, within the course of approximately 17 minutes, all the numbers, save those in Western NC, inexplicably changed and Barack Obama gave one of the earliest victory speeches in North Carolina history, claiming 56% of the vote. Election analysts are still trying to figure out how the sudden shift occurred, and some are still arguing that the numbers just don't add up. But, the nation's attention has already shifted to Indiana.

- Indiana Vote Stumps the Experts -

The Indiana Democratic Primary was open to all voters, regardless of party affiliation. 1.6 million voters ultimately voted--of the 1.3 million votes cast in the Democratic Primary, 200,000 of them were voters of "undetermined'' party affiliation. Despite the bellowing from Rush Limbaugh, who is presumably drug-free following his latest stint in rehab, that he was leading a charge of Republican voters for Hillary Clinton in an effort to "sabotage'' the Democratic primary, the results show that in Indiana, as in North Carolina, the independents and Republicans who voted in the Democratic Primary voted overwhelmingly for Obama. Despite the fact that Clinton held a solid lead of 7-9% all night long, the networks inexplicably refused to declare her the winner, arguing that they would not do so until the votes came in from several counties in the northwest corner of the state, one of which included the city of Gary, which was expected to go to Obama. It seemed odd. The total population of Gary is about 103,000, half of them under 18. Even if every registered voter in the city voted for Barack Obama, it would not have been enough to change the ultimate outcome of the election.

Obama conceded Indiana to Hillary long before the networks did and she gave her victory speech at about 11:30 pm edt. Long after all the speeches were given and everyone turned in for the night, the tally shifted. An attempt to deprive Clinton of a win would have been too reckless, but her lead somehow diminished to just one percentage point. Again, election analysts were stumped. Clinton took 84 of the state's 92 counties. Although Obama won the urban areas, those areas only comprise about 30% of the vote. In the suburban and rural counties, which comprise 70% of the vote, Clinton's lead ranged from 8-32%. The next morning, when Indiana Sen. Evan Bayh (who is, admittedly, a Clinton supporter) was asked on CNN how he could account for such a close race between Clinton and Obama, Bayh said that he couldn't account for it at all and asserted that a recount would likely show that Clinton had indeed taken the state by a far larger margin.

One could argue that, ultimately, the results were what everyone expected. Obama took North Carolina and Clinton took Indiana. However, the press played it as a crushing defeat for Clinton and began speculating on when and how she would make a "dignified'' exit from the race. And, according to all reports, the pressure on undeclared Super Delegates to declare for Obama and for those already pledged to Clinton to switch allegiance became excruciating.

Despite the clamor, Hillary Clinton, looking bright, refreshed, and nothing like a loser, appeared before a rally in Sheparherdstown, W.Va. and continued to hammer away at the issues that have defined her campaign, "This election is about solutions, not speeches,'' she declared. When she continued, shouting out "High-speed rail! Mass transit! Water systems!'' the crowd roared its approval. She's expected to win the next round of primaries in West Virginia and Kentucky by very sizeable margins. Yet, the calls for her to drop out continue to build, arguing that the numbers show she can't win. But, those arguments aren't based on reality.

- The Threat of Disenfranchisement -

By the close of business on Friday, May 9, Obama picked up the support of 5 additional Super Delegates. ABC-TV declared that Obama had taken the lead among the Super Delegates and most of the pro-Obama blogs carried banner headlines asserting the same. In fact, though, Obama now has 1592 elected delegates and 268 Super Delegates for a total of 1860 to Hillary Clinton's 1424 elected delegates and 272 Super Delegates for a total of 1696 delegates, making it a very close race.

Clinton detractors had argued from the start that she could not take the nomination without a significant vote from the Super Delegates. And, while that is true, the fact is that neither can Obama. The nominating process is designed in such a way that any presidential nominee must attain a majority of the elected delegates AND a significant portion of the Super Delegates. Just what that number is, however, has become the source of major controversy. Obama and DNC Chairman Howard "Scream'' Dean have declared the threshold number of delegates to take the nomination to be 2025 (based on a total number of 4049 delegates) and Obama has indicated his intention to declare himself the Democratic nominee on May 20, after the primaries in Kentucky and Oregon, where it is expected that he will reach that number.

If Obama does so, it will be a premature declaration. The 4049 delegate count does not include some 368 delegates from Michigan and Florida. In January, Clinton won both states by very wide margins, but Dean stripped both states of their delegates for holding early primaries that he did not sanction. Democrats from Michigan, where Obama took his name off the ballot, have proposed some compromise apportioning of delegates between the two candidates that is currently under consideration. The Florida case is far more problematic.

Both Clinton and Obama were on the Florida ballot, which accounts for 185 elected delegates of 26 Super Delegates. Florida Democrats had no say in the setting of the date and turned out to vote in record numbers. They also voted overwhelmingly for Clinton. But, regardless of whether one supports Clinton or Obama, to disenfranchise some 2 million Florida Democratic voters who came out to participate in the electoral process in good faith is not only unfair, it is illegal. Also, given that Florida Democrats feel that they have been disenfranchised in the past, they are unwilling to allow it to happen again.

A vocal group of some 600 Floridians, lead by their congressional representatives, the Hispanic organization LULAC, and members of the Bldg Trades rallied in front of the DNC's Washington headquarters this week and have scheduled additional demonstrations in major Florida cities throughout the month of May. The speakers at the Washington, DC rally made clear that if the Florida delegation is not seated intact, they will disrupt the Convention. There is also the very real possibility that Hispanic delegates from other states would join such floor demonstrations.

- Best Interest of the Nation? -

The issue is the key item on the agenda when the DNC's Rules and By-Laws Committee meets on May 31. Based on the nature of the issue, and the composition of the committee, it is expected that, at the very least, they will meet the demands and seat the Florida delegation. If that occurs, it is likely that the Obama campaign will take the issue before the Credentials Committee, which will have jurisdiction over the question beginning in mid June. But, until the issue of Florida and Michigan is resolved, nobody knows what the threshold number of delegates needed to secure the nomination is.

The other issue, of course, is the question of how the approximately 850 Super Delegates vote. At first, the Obama camp attempted to discount their role, since they seemed to heavily favor Clinton. Then, the argument was put forward that the Super Delegates must follow the lead of the pledged delegates in their respective districts. That argument was joined by House Speaker Pelosi and Senate Majority leader Harry Reid. But, it seems that they only apply that argument to states in which Obama won the majority of the elected delegates.

But, the Party rules on the question of the "Automatic'' delegates, as they are called, couldn't be clearer. Whether the automatic delegates publicly or privately support a candidate they are outside of the rule that binds the elected delegates to vote for the candidate (at least on the first ballot) they were elected to represent. When political analyst James Carville was asked to comment on the scramble for Super Delegate endorsements, he explained that "A super delegate commitment today and four bucks will get you a cup of coffee at the Ritz-Carlton.'' Not only are they not bound to vote for any candidate, regardless of what they may or may not promise at any point prior to the convention, the very purpose of designating automatic delegates in the first place, according to Party Rules, "is to give our convention more flexibility to respond to changing circumstances, especially when those changing circumstances might make the voters' mandate less clear. The Automatic Delegates are expected to exercise their best judgment in the interests of the nation and the Democratic Party.''

It would seem to make a strong argument for Hillary Clinton to remain in the race until the Convention. She is expected to make a strong showing in the remaining primaries and regardless of who the Super Delegates endorse today, the Convention is a long way away and it would seem that they are expected to cast their votes based on the circumstances AT THE TIME OF THE CONVENTION, and not before it. In the midst of the rapidly worsening economic conditions, given Clinton's continued focus on economic issues, and the lack of any substantive economic policy proposals to date by Obama, the Automatic Delegates might do well to abide by their own rules.

Additionally, if they are indeed to "exercise their best judgment in the interest of the Democratic Party,'' given that virtually all polls show that Clinton can beat Republican John McCain while Obama cannot, one would conclude that, at the very least, they should remain publicly uncommitted until the Convention.

Although all these arguments seem rational enough, the fact is that none of them are reflected in the press, the media, or the statements by leading so-called Democrats. If one were to draw a conclusion based on their utterings, "Hillary Clinton is toast.''

- Why So Desperate? -

One cannot help but wonder why Clinton's opponents seem so recklessly desperate? Why not just let the electoral process run its course? Why not let all of the voters have their say and then proceed to the August Convention? If the Obama campaign is so confident of a win, then why are automatic delegates, particularly African Americans, coming under such excruciating pressure? Why are so many promises of money and appointments (most of which will never be met) being made?

Unimpeachable sources very close to the Clintons have reported that the morning after the Indiana and North Carolina primaries, calls were made by individuals recognized as high ranking members of the U.S. political elite informing the Clintons that, "while this was not necessarily (their) position,'' they wanted it passed along that under no circumstances would Hillary Clinton be permitted to take the Democratic nomination and that, if by some miscalculation, she did take the nomination, she would never be permitted to take the presidency. Apparently, the messages concluded that if, by some unanticipated occurrence, she were to actually go ahead and win the presidency, it would be the shortest lived presidency in the history of the United States. The message was explicit. The combination of Hillary AND Bill Clinton in the White House meant a presidency that would simply wield more independence and more power than they were willing to tolerate. Undoubtedly, Clinton's continual pledge to represent the lower 80% of the U.S. population, and the unspoken fear that some of her policies seem to lean too far in the direction of the proposals put forward by Lyndon LaRouche, has lowered their toleration level.

The point seemed to be underlined in a none-too-subtle cartoon in the Friday online edition of the London Times. It showed Hillary Clinton laying face down, arms spread, eyes bulging. The American flag is the backdrop, but one of the stars has fallen, its point lodged deep in her back.

Note also widespread, and undisputed, reports that top officials of the Obama campaign have offered to pay off the financially strapped Clinton campaign's $15 million campaign debt as well as the $11.43 million that Clinton has loaned her campaign organization, in return for her shutting down her campaign. The offer comes at the same time that Clinton's finance committee has insisted on a meeting with the candidate next week, in what some believe will be an attempt to force her to withdraw.

The fact is that Obama, despite the fact that his campaign has raised sizeable funds, does NOT have the capability to make good on an offer of that magnitude. A payoff of that size could only be made by the powerful financial forces tied to the City of London that have backed the Obama candidacy. It is a blatant attempt and illegal to shut down Clinton's candidacy and to proceed with a completely orchestrated U.S. election.

So far, Clinton has remained steadfast in her commitment to continue her campaign. Individuals close to the Clintons don't see her bowing out at this point. James Carville, who is personally close to both Bill and Hillary, told Newsweek, "If Hillary Clinton gave Obama just one of her cojones, they'd both have two.'' Hillary Clinton is tough and she is certainly no quitter. But the issues at stake here are far bigger than any individual's candidacy or any election itself. Those who are attempting to shut down the Clinton campaign and control this presidential election have no allegiance to Democratic Party or to the United States. They are acting as agents of a dangerous foreign influence. If they were to succeed, the U.S. were to have lost its sovereignty, and there would be very little hope for the continuation of civilized life on this planet as we know it.

Posted by: francine223 | May 28, 2008 1:05 PM | Report abuse

LaRouche Assessment: Honest Tally Would Show Clinton Won May 6th Primaries
Increase Decrease

May 10, 2008 (LPAC)--Lyndon LaRouche declared today that, in his opinion, an honest tally of the votes actually cast in the May 6, 2008 Indiana and North Carolina primaries, would have revealed that Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton won Indiana by a margin of at least 10 percent of the vote, and that she also won the North Carolina primary by a slim margin.

LaRouche elaborated, ``I have received reports that strongly indicate that the recorded vote results in both North Carolina and Indiana were fraudulent.'' LaRouche added, ``The thuggery that has been directed against the Clintons stinks. It is coming from the top-down, way above the Obama campaign and even way above the Karl Rove apparatus, which has certainly had a hand in the crimes committed.''

LaRouche added that a further complication in assessing the North Carolina vote was the reported massive voter turnout for Obama in the Raleigh-Durham ``research triangle'' area, dominated by 18-25 year old university students, many of whom have had their brains ``scrambled'' by the MySpace/Facebook brainwashing. ``Some of these My Space zombies have no idea what they are doing,'' LaRouche explained. ``Some extreme cases are very similar to the video-game addicted mass killers. There are some real `no brainer' cases out there, and this further complicates any assessment of what actually happened in that part of North Carolina on Tuesday last.''

Posted by: screamer23 | May 28, 2008 1:04 PM | Report abuse

Once I was for Hillary, now I believe that no matter what happens she will NEVER admit to losing this election, will never accept the election as fair and valid and will not "work her heart out" for thew Dem nominee unless it is her. I think that she never has intended to accept anyone but her as the nominee and is trying to take down the Dems with her.

Supers need to step up and stop being "duped" by this horrible politician.

Posted by: JR | May 28, 2008 1:04 PM | Report abuse

Florida Demonstrators Challenge Obama To "Respect Our Votes"
Increase Decrease

Florida Demonstrators Challenge Obama To "Respect Our Votes"; DNC Ends Blackout on Rules Committee Meeting

May 22, 2008 (LPAC)--Members of Florida Demands Representation (FDR) are taking their demand for Florida's voters' rights to have their delegation seated at the Democratic National Convention, directly to Sen. Barack Obama who is currently on a campaign swing through Florida. Demonstrators numbering from 50 to 100 greeted Obama at the first two of in his numerous campaign stops; holding signs reading "Florida to Obama; No You Can't". According to FDR state chair, Jim Hannagan, the group will demonstrate on each of the three days that Obama is in the state, and a group of Orthodox Jews have been gathering since 7:00 am Thursday at a synagogue where Obama was expected to speak at 2:00 pm.

Hannagan reiterated that the group, which endorses neither Hillary Clinton nor Obama, believes that the Democratic National Committee, in not recognizing the Florida primary vote, is damaging the Party, perhaps irreparably. Hannagan says that they have had not response yet from Obama; but that Senator Clinton"s speech in Palm Beach on May 21st represented the kind of elevation of the debate that `FDR' seeks from both candidates. Clinton located the Constitutional rights of Floridians in the context of the long process of ending slavery and winning the right to vote for all Americans.

FDR is plans a major demonstration at the May 31st meeting of the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee in Washington. Updates on their plans are available at www.floridademandsrepresentation.org Howard Dean's DNC made public today the location of the Rules meeting, which the `FDR' group had been seeking.

Hannagan, saying that the Democratic primary process must be permitted to play out until the Convention in August, noted that even a great leader like Abraham Lincoln did not win the nomination on the first ballot. On May 21st, American statesman Lyndon LaRouche issued a statement on Florida, citing Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation and noting that the proposal by DNC Chair Howard `Scream' Dean to count Florida's 1.7 million Democratic voters as 1/2 voters, represented a return to the condition of slavery that existed before Lincoln's Proclamation. "At least slaves were counted as 3/5 of a citizen, for purposes of distribution of Congressional seats" LaRouche noted.

Posted by: fuelproblems | May 28, 2008 1:03 PM | Report abuse

Hey, fuelproblems: It think you just solved fuel problems with all the gas you expelled. Thanks for the Clinton propaganda...and Larouche? LOL!!

and Sandy? I find your continued existence on the planet to be offensive..

Posted by: bye, bye, Hillary... | May 28, 2008 1:00 PM | Report abuse

NOW IT'S HILLARY'S TURN TO PLAY HER DELEGATE CARDS
IN A COUP TO TAKE DOWN OBAMA

... A Gore/Powell Ticket for the Dems in '08?


All the negative talk from Hillary and Bill Clinton against the Obama candidacy in the face of their own demise could add up to this:

The Uber-Democrat power couple is considering throwing its support, and Hillary's delegates, to an alternative candidate who stands a better chance of winning the general election than Obama.

They know there's no chance in the hell that Hillary has created for the party that the leadership and core constituencies will back a Hillary candidacy. So, just perhaps, they're about to stage their own delegate power play in a bold move to checkmate Obama.

Here's the evidence for a Hillary-led delegate coup against Obama:

1) The Clinton's talking points. They know the party and the supers have had enough of the divisive Hillary candidacy, but they believe they've got the facts on their side -- that Obama can't win the general due to his inexperience, his naivete, and his dismissive attitude in the late-season primaries toward rural and suburban white voters, whom he cavalierly wrote off in the states where Hillary triumphed.

2) Superdelegate hesitancy to embrace Obama. Where's the "flood" of supers racing toward the Obama camp? It's still a mere trickle. The supers don't like the idea of nominating a likely loser any more than do the Clintons, or the lunch-bucket Dems who lodged their protest votes against Obama by supporting Hillary.

3) Al Gore's refusal to endorse Obama. This is key. Edwards, ever the opportunist, actually believed Obama could win the nomination and, presumably, the general, so he cast his political fate with the Obama campaign. That could prove to be a costly error. Had he hung back, as Gore has done, he could have been a successor to Obama if and when the supers reject his candidacy. Given the Clinton's enmity towards Gore (and vice versa, for sure), Edwards would have been far more palatable to Billary than Gore.

But Gore is last man standing; and Hill and Bill would much prefer that Gore get the nomination than Obama, whom they see as a rookie usurper.

Remember all my talk a few weeks back about a third way candidacy, with Obama taking the lead at unifying the party by tossing his delegates to Gore? Well, it appears that Obama believes his own press to the point of self-delusion. As a result, he could be the one to go down hard, even harder than Hillary, who would go back to the Senate as the party unifier and savior of the Dems' general election hopes.

It's Hillary's final solution -- the chance to pull a major power play, back a compromise candidate, unite the party and better prepare the party for victory in the fall. No other third way candidate has the gravitas and the star power to pull off a late-season nomination coup. Only Gore could do it.

And by his refusal to endorse Obama, Gore is sending a powerful message to the superdelegates: You can't go with Obama and still expect to win, and I can save the party and redeem my rightful role as the party standard-bearer with your pledge of support.

For this to happen, powerful Obama backers like Kennedy, Kerry and Dodd have to be convinced that Obama can't win in a matchup against McCain. The polls are showing that he can't. The supers are sitting on their hands, waiting for a sign from Al Gore.

In a very few weeks time, as the Obama candidacy slips further into the realm of the improbable (to use Obama's own word), Gore will give that sign. He may have to make Colin Powell his running mate to prevent all hell from breaking loose among fervid Obama supporters -- and Gore just might do just that, winning back blacks who might otherwise sit out the election, and forging a unity ticket that will appeal to Republican moderates.

Posted by: scrivener | May 28, 2008 12:59 PM | Report abuse

SnObama makes a valid point about the indigenous languages of Afghanistan... I doubt there are many Afghans whose first language is Arabic. HOWEVER: Al Qaeda's leaders, and much, perhaps most, of its rank and file, INCLUDING in Afghanistan in Pakistan, are Arabs (like Osama bin Laden, a Saudi). Its just silly to think that Arabic translators were and are NOT needed in that region because the general population there speaks Pashtun or other languages.

Posted by: Iconoblaster | May 28, 2008 12:59 PM | Report abuse

Florida Demonstrators Challenge Obama To "Respect Our Votes"; DNC Ends Blackout on Rules Committee Meeting

May 22, 2008 (LPAC)--Members of Florida Demands Representation (FDR) are taking their demand for Florida's voters' rights to have their delegation seated at the Democratic National Convention, directly to Sen. Barack Obama who is currently on a campaign swing through Florida. Demonstrators numbering from 50 to 100 greeted Obama at the first two of in his numerous campaign stops; holding signs reading "Florida to Obama; No You Can't". According to FDR state chair, Jim Hannagan, the group will demonstrate on each of the three days that Obama is in the state, and a group of Orthodox Jews have been gathering since 7:00 am Thursday at a synagogue where Obama was expected to speak at 2:00 pm.

Hannagan reiterated that the group, which endorses neither Hillary Clinton nor Obama, believes that the Democratic National Committee, in not recognizing the Florida primary vote, is damaging the Party, perhaps irreparably. Hannagan says that they have had not response yet from Obama; but that Senator Clinton"s speech in Palm Beach on May 21st represented the kind of elevation of the debate that `FDR' seeks from both candidates. Clinton located the Constitutional rights of Floridians in the context of the long process of ending slavery and winning the right to vote for all Americans.

FDR is plans a major demonstration at the May 31st meeting of the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee in Washington. Updates on their plans are available at www.floridademandsrepresentation.org Howard Dean's DNC made public today the location of the Rules meeting, which the `FDR' group had been seeking.

Hannagan, saying that the Democratic primary process must be permitted to play out until the Convention in August, noted that even a great leader like Abraham Lincoln did not win the nomination on the first ballot. On May 21st, American statesman Lyndon LaRouche issued a statement on Florida, citing Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation and noting that the proposal by DNC Chair Howard `Scream' Dean to count Florida's 1.7 million Democratic voters as 1/2 voters, represented a return to the condition of slavery that existed before Lincoln's Proclamation. "At least slaves were counted as 3/5 of a citizen, for purposes of distribution of Congressional seats" LaRouche noted.

Posted by: francine223 | May 28, 2008 12:59 PM | Report abuse

Interesting enough there is a major polling service doing not just Obama vs. McCain but how they do with potential running mates.

Guess what in all those states that the Fix mentions as being a problem when Obama is paired with Edwards he wins them by 8-12 points regardless of who McCain is paired with.

Think a VP doesn't matter? Remember one of the reasons that Bush won in 2000 was he had "Darth VP" on the ticket as the voice of "reason".

Posted by: readsomeotherpolls | May 28, 2008 12:58 PM | Report abuse

Also, I feel sad for the GOP rat-trolls who are trying to stoke the "division" (Obama and Clinton are nearly indistinguishable candidates when it comes to policy positions) in the Democratic Party.

Won't they be surprised when Obama is elected President in a modern landslide election victory, with both Clinton's and her supporters enthusiastically by his side?

Mark my words, it's gonna happen.

Posted by: Doug in Mount Vernon | May 28, 2008 12:57 PM | Report abuse

LaRouche: Dean Condemns Florida To Slavery
Increase Decrease

May 21, 2008 (LPAC)--On the eve of the May 31 scheduled meeting of the Democratic Party rules committee, which is to take up the question of the Florida and Michigan primary votes, Lyndon LaRouche denounced Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard ``Scream'' Dean, for his attempts to relegate the voters of Florida to a status lower than that of the slaves.

[grrrDEANy]

LaRouche condemned Dean's apparent plans to arbitrarily give Florida half of the delegates to the convention, as a return to slavery. "At least slaves were counted as 3/5 of a citizen, for purposes of distribution of Congressional seats, before President Abraham Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation. What Howard Dean proposes is a return to conditions worse than slavery, where Florida's several million Democratic voters are counted as 1/2 a citizen.''

LaRouche asked: "Has Howard Scream forgotten about the Emancipation Proclamation? Or is he just issuing a 'clarification of interpretation' that slavery still has its place within the Democratic Party, when it comes to the voters of Florida?''

Florida Democrats are demanding that the results of their primary elections be fully certified, and that Florida delegates be fully seated at the nominating convention in Denver in August, a position that LaRouche and the LaRouche Political Action Committee has fully endorsed.

Posted by: francine223 | May 28, 2008 12:57 PM | Report abuse

It's Sen. Clinton's fault that she couldn't get AA & young vote. Fine! She can't convince those people to vote for her, she only has herself to blame. Fine!

So it's Sen. Obama's fault that he couldn't get white middle class vote, senior vote, women vote, catholic vote.

He can't convince those people to vote for him and he only has himself to blame.

Posted by: Nzone71 | May 28, 2008 12:56 PM | Report abuse

Democratic Presidential Race: `It Ain't Over Yet'

by Debra Hanania Freeman

May 24, 2008 (LPAC)--Despite the desperate assertions and wishful thinking of the pundits, as well as of the Obama campaign, that the race for the Democratic Presidential nomination is all but over, voters in both Kentucky and Oregon turned out to vote in large numbers on May 20, delivering another landslide victory for Hillary Clinton in Kentucky. In Oregon, although Barack Obama won (as expected), he did so with a far narrower gap between himself and Mrs. Clinton than had been projected.

Clinton's continued command of the popular vote and her stated intention to stay in this fight, forced Obama to back off from his earlier plan to claim the nomination. Lyndon LaRouche issued the following statement regarding Clinton's determination to stay in the race in the aftermath of the Kentucky and Oregon votes: ``The onrushing collapse of the global floating exchange rate monetary system is accelerating, in a hyperinflationary mode. Nothing is being done by any governments around the world to stop it. Today, in May, with petroleum prices soaring past $130 a barrel, with prices of food and other basic commodities skyrocketing, with the collapse of the international banking system moving apace, it is certain that the situation we shall encounter in June, July, and August will be far more severe than the crisis we face at this moment, as bad as it already is.... By the time of the Summer Democratic Party convention, the reality of this global financial and economic catastrophe will be clear to all, and will be the dominant issue in the minds of all American citizens. It is from that standpoint, and that standpoint alone, that one must judge the candidates and their prospects in November''.

Former President Bill Clinton made a similar point in a conference call with his wife's campaign strategists, in which he strongly asserted that there is absolutely nothing to be gained, either for the Democratic Party or for the nation, if Hillary were to withdraw now. ``It's only May and people are already paying over $4 for a gallon of gas,'' he said. ``What do you think the price is going to be in July? That's just one example for you. This population is going to be beside itself looking for answers. Hillary's focus on the economy has gotten her this far in this campaign and it is what is going to win her the nomination. We can't stop now. The American people need us to not stop now.''

It is indeed true that it is Clinton's focus on the economy and her consistent appeal to the lower 80% of the American people that has continued to bring out record numbers of voters, despite the pleas of the press and much of the Democratic Party establishment, and it is what continues to show that Clinton would beat John McCain 49-41% in November. Even liberal blogger Arianna Huffington, who is certainly no Clinton supporter, has been forced to remark that Hillary has found her own message, and in so doing, has rejected ``the message Mark Penn's poll numbers told her to adopt.''

``And in doing so,'' Huffington continued, ``she has redefined and taken over the Clinton brand. Forget the past. Forget welfare reform, free-trade uber alles, and third-way DLC [Democratic Leadership Committee]-economics. Since hitting her stride in Ohio, Hillary has transformed the Clinton brand into one that represents working-class Americans.'' Huffington noted that if Hillary were to fail to take the Presidency, she would nevertheless become ``a commanding progressive force in the Senate.''

Although Huffington's comments, especially coming from a source not politically friendly to Clinton, do represent what LaRouche called ``a highly significant assessment,'' Clinton is clearly not thinking in terms of what she will do back in the Senate, but what she will do as President. Right now, she is mounting a gritty fight in the remaining primaries in Montana, South Dakota, and Puerto Rico, and, at the same time, she is aggressively seeking support from the 212 superdelegates who are as yet uncommitted to any candidate. And, in a fight that may prove to be decisive for the future of the Democratic Party, the issue of the seating of delegates from Michigan and Florida will go into its first round when the Democratic Party's Rules and Bylaws Committee meets in Washington, D.C. on May 31, to decide whether, or how, to allocate the delegate votes from the two states.

- The FDR Fight Over Florida

Democratic National Committee (DNC) chairman Howard Dean petulantly stripped those states of their delegate votes for holding their primaries earlier than the party wanted. Clinton, who won both states' primaries, has repeatedly called for the panel to seat the delegations. During her Kentucky victory speech, she told her supporters, ``I'm going on now to campaign in Montana, South Dakota, and Puerto Rico. But I'm also going to be standing up for the voters of Florida and Michigan. Democrats in those two states cast 2.3 million votes and they deserve to have those votes counted.'' Although it is true that the seating of the Florida and Michigan delegations would significantly cut into Obama's lead in pledged delegates--cutting it, by some estimates, to only one--there is a far larger issue at stake. In Florida, where more than 1.7 million Democrats went to the polls in good faith, a broad coalition of Democratic voters, which calls itself ``FDR,'' for Florida Demands Representation, is appealing for national support. Close to 400,000 Democrats from outside of Florida have signed a letter to the Committee, stating: ``I, along with millions of other Democrats across the nation, feel the DNC's punishment of the Florida Democratic electorate is alienating and disenfranchising its own members. The DNC's refusal to seat Florida delegates and COUNT its popular vote is an act of sabotage against Florida's Democrat Party and the Democratic Party nationally.'' The letter implores the Committee members to re-examine their rules and procedures, stating: ``It is clear the rules are broken and they can be fixed in time. But the imminent damage by not listening to the will and the voices of millions of voters may never be overcome if the delegates from Florida are not seated and the votes of Democrats continue to be ignored.''

FDR has staged demonstrations across the state of Florida and plans a major demonstration at the May 31 meeting in Washington. The group also took its fight directly to Obama during his campaign swing through Florida this week. Demonstrators greeted the Senator at his numerous campaign stops, holding signs reading ``Florida to Obama: No You Can't.''

FDR state chair Jim Hannagan has stressed that the group, which endorses neither Democratic candidate, believes that by not recognizing the Florida primary vote, the DNC is damaging the Party, perhaps irreparably. Hannagan says that FDR has had no response yet from Obama; but that Clinton's speech in Palm Beach on May 21 represented the kind of elevation of the debate that FDR seeks from both candidates. Clinton located the Constitutional rights of Floridians in the context of the long process of ending slavery and winning the right to vote for all Americans. Hannagan insisted that the Democratic primary process must be permitted to play out until the Convention in August, noting that even a great leader like Abraham Lincoln did not win the nomination on the first ballot.

Ironically, one of the ``compromise'' proposals favored by those close to Dean would seat the Florida delegation, but grant them only 1/2 a vote. LaRouche condemned Dean's apparent plans to arbitrarily give Florida half of the delegates to the convention, as a return to slavery:

``At least slaves were counted as 3/5 of a citizen, for purposes of distribution of Congressional seats, before President Abraham Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation. What Howard Dean proposes is a return to conditions worse than slavery, where Florida's several million Democratic voters are counted as 1/2 a citizen. ``Has Howard Scream forgotten about the Emancipation Proclamation? Or is he just issuing a `clarification of interpretation' that slavery still has its place within the Democratic Party, when it comes to the voters of Florida?''

It is unlikely that the issue will be settled at the May 31 meeting, because the decision by the Rules Committee, whatever it is, is subject to appeal to the Credentials Committee and, ultimately, to the floor of the Convention itself.

- Obama's Imperial Problems -

Despite Obama's public attempts to stake his claim to the Democratic nomination, more and more problems for his candidacy are being exposed. For one, Obama's top foreign policy advisers are working hand-in-glove with leading neocons--and McCain advisers--to forge an imperial policy of forcible interventions into sovereign nations such as Myanmar, Sudan, and Zimbabwe. (See ``Will Obama Reject the Pinochet Team?'' in this section.) Obama should remove these neocons from his campaign.

And although the press reports that the Obama campaign is flush with money, the latest fundraising numbers show that the Obama campaign spent more than it raised in April--a first for them in 2008--as it poured money into Pennsylvania, Indiana, and North Carolina. Despite outspending Clinton in Pennsylvania and Indiana by more than 2 to 1, Obama lost both contests. This poses a particularly significant problem for Obama, whose effort to persuade superdelegates to declare for him not only includes increasingly heavy-handed pressure, but often is accompanied by outright bribery (see ``If He's So Confident, Why the Desperate Behavior?''), leading the Obama superdelegates to be dubbed ``the best delegates money can buy.''

But, Obama's biggest weakness continues to be his inability to mobilize the Party's blue-collar base. Clinton's recent landslide victories in West Virginia and Kentucky make clear that while the press loves Obama, the lower 80% of the electorate loves Hillary. And, that isn't going to change, as long as Clinton continues her focus on vital economic issues. In fact, her overwhelming popular support may make it impossible to settle the nomination battle before the August Convention.

LaRouche has emphasized that, if Senator Clinton continues her active candidacy into the August convention, she will win the nomination, and then go on to soundly defeat John McCain in the general election in November. LaRouche has warned for months that Obama is not electable, and that leading City of London financial circles had backed Obama, only to knock Clinton out of the race. Ultimately, they intend to assure that he is never elected President. Increasingly, Democratic leaders and elected officials are quietly coming to see that LaRouche's warnings were correct.

Posted by: fuelproblems | May 28, 2008 12:55 PM | Report abuse

Jerry, it is you who are being incredibly disingenuous, and completely shrill, for that matter.

Barack Obama never stood against holding revotes in MI & FL, and IN FACT, lobbied very hard to support the efforts to hold re-votes.

Hillary and her supporters would have had a chance in this election if they'd actually tell the truth and deal with people on a level reflective of reality and with honesty.

Alas, that is not the course they have chosen.

And so, we will be inaugurating President Obama in January---and my gut tells me this great nation and the World will be much, much better off for having done so.

Posted by: Doug in Mount Vernon | May 28, 2008 12:54 PM | Report abuse

DNC Wants Superdelegates To Override Popular Vote; Bill Clinton Exposes Pressure on Hillary to `Quit While Winning'

May 27, 2008 (LPAC)--Pressure is increasing from Howard Dean's DNC and Nancy Pelosi's Democratic Congressional leadership, for Democratic superdelegates to overrule the popular vote in primaries and caucuses, by forcing Sen. Hillary Clinton out of the Presidential race immediately after June 3, when she likely will have won the total Democratic popular vote.

Former President Bill Clinton laid out to a crowd of Hillary supporters in Ft. Thompson, South Dakota, the pressure on Hillary Clinton to quit the race while she leads in the primary popular vote--before Florida and Michigan are counted and increase her lead further--together with "unbelievable" attempts to "bully" superdelegates into prematurely declaring for a candidate.

"Why have all these people tried to force her out of this race?" Bill Clinton posed to the South Dakota crowd on May 25. "This is really interesting.... Because, if you vote for her, and she does well in Montana, and wins in Puerto Rico, then she will be ahead in the popular vote, and they're trying to get her to cry `uncle' before the Democratic Party has to decide what to do about Florida and Michigan... They are closing it out, saying it takes 2,029 votes on the first ballot to win. It takes a lot more if you put Florida and Michigan back in. Well, they'll have to put them back in, unless we want to lose the [November] election."

Today, ABC-TV pundit George Stephanopoulos rose to the bait, and pronounced on "Good Morning America" that Hillary Clinton's chances were "zero" of continuing her campaign past the end of the primaries on June 3. "Once these contests are done, said Stephanapoulos, "you'll see several dozen superdelegates go his [Obama's] way following June 3."

Former President Jimmy Carter said on May 25 on Rupert Murdoch's Sky TV, "I'm a superdelegate. I think a lot of the superdelatges will make a decision announced quite rapidly after the final primary on June 3.... I have not yet announced publicly, but I think at that point it will be time for her to give it up."

Carter, who was the Democratic Party's "sure loser" nominee against Ted Kennedy in 1980, when Carter went on to a landslide loss to Ronald Reagan, now ironically sees no problem with enforcing a "can't win" Obama nomination.

Bill Clinton charged that polls showing that Hillary would win the general election, while Obama would not, were being suppressed. He cited polls showing Hillary winning states which Democrats must carry to win in November.

Posted by: funny33 | May 28, 2008 12:53 PM | Report abuse

DNC Wants Superdelegates To Override Popular Vote; Bill Clinton Exposes Pressure on Hillary to `Quit While Winning'

May 27, 2008 (LPAC)--Pressure is increasing from Howard Dean's DNC and Nancy Pelosi's Democratic Congressional leadership, for Democratic superdelegates to overrule the popular vote in primaries and caucuses, by forcing Sen. Hillary Clinton out of the Presidential race immediately after June 3, when she likely will have won the total Democratic popular vote. President Bill Clinton laid out to a crowd of Hillary supporters in Ft. Thompson, South Dakota, the pressure on Hillary Clinton to quit the race while she leads in the primary popular vote--before Florida and Michigan are counted and increase her lead further--together with "unbelievable" attempts to "bully" superdelegates into prematurely declaring for a candidate.
"Why have all these people tried to force her out of this race?" Bill Clinton posed to the South Dakota crowd on May 25. "This is really interesting.... Because, if you vote for her, and she does well in Montana, and wins in Puerto Rico, then she will be ahead in the popular vote, and they're trying to get her to cry `uncle' before the Democratic Party has to decide what to do about Florida and Michigan... They are closing it out, saying it takes 2,029 votes on the first ballot to win. It takes a lot more if you put Florida and Michigan back in. Well, they'll have to put them back in, unless we want to lose the [November] election."

Today, ABC-TV pundit George Stephanopoulos rose to the bait, and pronounced on "Good Morning America" that Hillary Clinton's chances were "zero" of continuing her campaign past the end of the primaries on June 3. "Once these contests are done, said Stephanapoulos, "you'll see several dozen superdelegates go his [Obama's] way following June 3."
Former President Jimmy Carter said on May 25 on Rupert Murdoch's Sky TV, "I'm a superdelegate. I think a lot of the superdelatges will make a decision announced quite rapidly after the final primary on June 3.... I have not yet announced publicly, but I think at that point it will be time for her to give it up."
Carter, who was the Democratic Party's "sure loser" nominee against Ted Kennedy in 1980, when Carter went on to a landslide loss to Ronald Reagan, now ironically sees no problem with enforcing a "can't win" Obama nomination.
Bill Clinton charged that polls showing that Hillary would win the general election, while Obama would not, were being suppressed. He cited polls showing Hillary winning states which Democrats must carry to win in November.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 28, 2008 12:52 PM | Report abuse

what if Obama win's? Well Rodham Clinton and her cadre of bullet dodgers will claim it was because of them. Man, I wish they were not so far in debt so they could run as an independent and people can finely make their voices heard by directly voting against the ERA and Gay Sex Party.

Posted by: pubichaironmycokecan | May 28, 2008 12:51 PM | Report abuse

An independent is a progressive smarter voter. They are exactly who would vote for Obama.

+++++++++
have you actually TALKED to any independents who 'would vote for Hillary'? The hundred or so Independents I know scattered around the east coast & over in the midwest..say they would NEVER vote for Hillary. Even when I have tried to defend her as a better choice than McSame...they remain adamant. However, they ALL say they are planning to vote for Obama (okay...2 want to vote for Ron Paul).

But, the truth is...most independents like Sen. Obama.

Posted by: Our Only Hope | May 28, 2008 12:47 PM

Posted by: Anonymous | May 28, 2008 12:50 PM | Report abuse

berrymonster,

have you actually TALKED to any independents who 'would vote for Hillary'? The hundred or so Independents I know scattered around the east coast & over in the midwest..say they would NEVER vote for Hillary. Even when I have tried to defend her as a better choice than McSame...they remain adamant. However, they ALL say they are planning to vote for Obama (okay...2 want to vote for Ron Paul).

But, the truth is...most independents like Sen. Obama.

Posted by: Our Only Hope | May 28, 2008 12:47 PM | Report abuse

So they want more of the same? You don't give them enough credit, I have more faith in the American public then that. And if they do vote Mccain then they get what they deserve. It is a contest there will be only one winner, but if Mccain gets in, there will be a lot of losers.

++++++++
Hillary did what the whole Democratic party should have done: attract those independent, middle-class voters who preferred Bush over Gore in 2000, and Bush over Kerry in 2004.

This year, when the nation is sick of Bush, those independent people were willing to vote for a Democrat. But not for any Democrat. Independents won't vote for someone who was sitting in Jeremiah Wright's church for 20 years, listening to his hate speech, and now suddenly throws his pastor under the bus. Independents won't vote for someone who insulted them on guns and religion. Independents won't vote for someone with the most liberal voting record in the Senate. Independents won't vote for an empty suit, with bombastic rethoric, and zero real achievements. Independents look for a down-to-earth person who understands and respects them.

Choosing Obama as the Democratic nominee is the sure path to defeat. Told you so.
Posted by: berrymonster | May 28, 2008 12:40 PM

Posted by: Anonymous | May 28, 2008 12:44 PM | Report abuse

Hillary did what the whole Democratic party should have done: attract those independent, middle-class voters who preferred Bush over Gore in 2000, and Bush over Kerry in 2004.

This year, when the nation is sick of Bush, those independent people were willing to vote for a Democrat. But not for any Democrat. Independents won't vote for someone who was sitting in Jeremiah Wright's church for 20 years, listening to his hate speech, and now suddenly throws his pastor under the bus. Independents won't vote for someone who insulted them on guns and religion. Independents won't vote for someone with the most liberal voting record in the Senate. Independents won't vote for an empty suit, with bombastic rethoric, and zero real achievements. Independents look for a down-to-earth person who understands and respects them.

Choosing Obama as the Democratic nominee is the sure path to defeat. Told you so.

Posted by: berrymonster | May 28, 2008 12:40 PM | Report abuse

Chris, you're such an idiot. Why would Clinton want to make this inexperienced person and the DNC look good by offering him support and help. Even if she would, we would not vote for him in November. We are disgusted with you, Chris, and all the other press who have annointed this idiot as the nominee. We will do our utmost to prove you and the DNC wrong, wrong, wrong. No vote for Obama!

Posted by: lezah2 | May 28, 2008 12:40 PM | Report abuse

Do you fill in the blanks?

Posted by: Mullet | May 28, 2008 12:33 PM

Yes, you do. ___Mullet___, like so many of Hillary's supporters, is an inbred ___jackass___.

Posted by: Semi-rational | May 28, 2008 12:39 PM | Report abuse

All you have to do is ask anyone from NY. She won't get by default because the other candidate got cancer like with RG. And she won't run unopposed like in her second term just because she was a Clinton. There is probably no chance she will keep her senate seat. She may be done as a politics. Time for another book I guess.

++++++
This "told you so" argument that you accurately bring up is the death rattle of the Clintons' political aspirations. Obama will face incredible obstacles in his bid to win the presidency against John McCain to be sure, and as such, the obstacles the Clintons throw in his path to the presidency will be unforgivable. Forget 2012, 2016, and a challenge to her Senate seat is not out of the question.

Posted by: Matt | May 28, 2008 12:31 PM

Posted by: Anonymous | May 28, 2008 12:38 PM | Report abuse

sRita wrote:
Stunning while the media is obsessed with Rev. Wright, Hillary Clinton will be called to testify in a civil fraud case against Bill Clinton. It appears that Bill is being accused of defrauding a dot com millionaire for Hillary's 2000 Senate race. To me this is of paramount importance and once again the media is asleep at the wheel. We have barely survived 7 years of Bush corruption I really don't think we need to sweep Clinton corruption under the rug.

Another shocking point to the story is the Judge has ordered Hillary's testimony after the November election. What a bunch of crap. I'm sure the Judge is a Clinton supporter.

Call to all super delegates wake up!!!

H/T Talking Points Memo

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

While Bill Clinton, Chelsea Clinton, Al Gore, Ed Rendell, Barabara Streisand, Cher, Stan Lee, Brad Pitt, Mike Wallace, Larry King et al may be called to testify and be deposed starting in May, Hillary alone has been protected from explaining her role in her husband's fraud charges.

In an astonishing ruling by the Judge, Hillary Clinton may NOT be deposed about her role in the illegal solicitation and cover up of the largest contribution made to her Senate campaign until after the presidential election. This is the same contribution Hillary denied knowing about or receiving when Lloyd Grove of the Washington Post asked her specifically about it and her relationship with the donor, Peter Paul, in August 2000. Its the same contribution her finance director David Rosen was criminally tried in May, 2005, or hiding from her and her campaign. Its the same contribution the FEC fined her campaign for hiding from the voters in three false FEC reports by her treasurer between 2000-2006. (www.paulvclinton.com)

Equally surprising as the ruling was the judge's request to Hillary defense lawyer David Kendall to "say hello to his ( Judge Munoz") friend Bill, also a partner in Kendall's law firm"

The decision to shield Hillary Clinton from civil discovery for an additional seven months, thereby delaying a long postponed trial, was made by the judge on his own, without any request by Hillary or her lawyer to make the ruling. No discussion was permitted by Paul's lawyer before the decision was made. Judge Munoz' unilateral decision effectively saved the floundering campaign and hopes of Hillary Clinton to win her party's Presidential nomination!

Had Senator Clinton be forced to testify under oath, as a material witness and beneficiary of the fraud that her husband is being sued for before the Democratic Convention, her remote chances for being nominated the party candidate would have been unquestionably destroyed.

Hillary has never publicly commented on the case in which she was a defendant from 2003-2006. Nor has Hillary ever commented on the videotaped phone call she made to Peter Paul the day he began spending more than $1 million for her Senate campaign, the false statements she made through Howard Wolfson to the Washington Post denying working with Paul or receiving any contributions from him, the sworn Declaration she made under oath where she refused to deny any of Paul's allegations, the role her White House aide Kelly Craighead played in coordinating Paul's expenditures and befirending Paul's Japanese business partner during a White House visit and many other unanswered questions of illegal conduct.

The illegalities detailed in Paul's civil complaint and FEC complaint caused Hillary's finance director to be criminally indicted and tried in 2005 by the Department of Justice Office of Public Integrity (the same group that prosecuted Scooter Libby) for hiding the cost of a fundraiser paid for by Paul. Paul's FEC allegations forced Hillary's campaign to admit to the FEC in October, 2005, that it violated FEC reporting requirements by hiding more than $700,000 received from Paul that Hillary personally said she never received.

Hillary's sworn deposition is expected to reveal numerous illegalities directed by Hillary, with Bill's help, to win and keep her Senate seat and avoid being accountable to the law. The judge's sua sponte decision to delay Hillary's deposition until after the presidential election denies the public's right to know what a presidential candidate and a former president have done to undermine the Rule of Law and the Constitution by corrupting the Department of Justice Office of Public Integrity and its very Chief, Noel Hillman, federal judge A Howard Matz appointed by Bill Clinton

Posted by: MsRita | May 28, 2008 12:34 PM | Report abuse

The only remaining chance Clinton has is in 2012. And that only happens if Obama loses the general election this year. Why is she and her husband setting up an "I told you so" argument, if they expect Obama to win. They have no intention of vigorously supporting Obama. They'll provide lip service while doing everything they can behind the scenes to ensure that he loses.

Posted by: Steve | May 28, 2008 12:33 PM | Report abuse

I am a 93 year old WWII vet with two Ph.D.'s, one in archeological biology and another in electoral psychology.
I was born in a log cabin with no running water to a widow who later posed as the original Rosie the Riveter.
Although I am a life-long Republican, I marched on Washington and once baked Martin Luther King a pie.
I bought 5 shares of Microsoft in the early eighties and am now worth (with my lottery winnings and investments) 2.9 billion dollars.
This election is the first time I've been inspired enough to vote for a Negro and I will do so proudly.
Hillary sucks and so does her husband.


That's the jist of every semi-rational pro-Obama post I've ever read anywhere.
Is there a form letter.
Do you fill in the blanks?

Posted by: Mullet | May 28, 2008 12:33 PM | Report abuse

This "told you so" argument that you accurately bring up is the death rattle of the Clintons' political aspirations. Obama will face incredible obstacles in his bid to win the presidency against John McCain to be sure, and as such, the obstacles the Clintons throw in his path to the presidency will be unforgivable. Forget 2012, 2016, and a challenge to her Senate seat is not out of the question.

Posted by: Matt | May 28, 2008 12:31 PM | Report abuse

Once people get past their anger they will see Clinton and Obama are pretty much the same candidates on the issues. People just have to vote their interests and they will be fine. To vote against what is in your own best interest just because you are mad makes no sense. Problem is, people still smoke and are obese, live on credit like there is no tomorrow and so on. They do self-destructive things in their lives everyday. I could see some voting for Mccain as if to say "I showed you". But who did they really hurt? Smarten up people, it is hard to quit smoking but easy to do the right thing here. Support the candidate of your party who ever that may be.

+++++++++
I have read my share of the Clinton and Obama bashing comments on line but I have never spoken to anyone on a face to face level who ever told me that Clinton is a Shill or Obama is an empty suit. I guess this is the nature of the internet. You can create a fake name and say anything you want. If I where to believe everything I read on line I would say this party is in big trouble but for some reason I don't believe it. I have a lot of Obama fans that are friends of my who where greatly confused by my support of Clinton but never where they mean spirted. I explained that I saw Clinton as are smartest strongest choice in the fall but by no means did I ever see her as our only choice. As this primary season whines down and the question changes to Obama or McCain my answer changes. Thanks to some of the Obama supporters (few) who seem to be able to move past this primary and switch into the Gen election mode, as a Clinton supporter it is people like you that will help Obama get elected far more then the others who tells us (Clinton supporter's) to go ahead and stay home. The few of you on line need to know that their are Clinton supporters that will have no problem supporting Obama. Of course I can only speak for the people I know. To the rest of you ask yourself one question. How many Clinton / Obama supporters have you spoke to on a face to face level? How many of them where as rude as what you have read online.

Posted by: Chicago Joe | May 28, 2008 12:19 PM

Posted by: Anonymous | May 28, 2008 12:30 PM | Report abuse

People seem to confuse Obama losing PA and OH to Hillary and the current polls between Obama and McCain. Obama is already ahead of McCain in both states according to RCP. This already includes the people polled that are still hoping Hillary can win the nomination and are saying they would never vote for Obama. If he is ahead of McCain now just wait until he wins the nomination and some of them change their mind. Bill and Hillary are not correct when they state that Hillary is the only one that can win. Since their statements are not backed by the polls I can only think that they are being made for self serving purposes.

Posted by: Jason45962 | May 28, 2008 12:28 PM | Report abuse

I stand amazed at much of what I read in both the comments sections (which I really need to quit doing !) and from the big media commentators. I think the facts are fairly evident, and while always subject to interpretation and discussion, should have some standing within those discussions.
1. The Republicans wanted badly to run against Hillary Clinton. It was the only major Dem. candidate who they were confident that they could beat, at least at that time. She was probably the only person, let along Democrat, who could unite a very divided Republican party.
2. A tremendous effort has been waged, only recently in public, to convince Republicans and conservative independents, to vote for Hillary in the primaries to assure that she would be the candidate.
3.The Obama movement was not expected by the party insiders. It was driven by the public, many of whom have never even voted before, let alone donated and worked on behalf of a candidate. This is why the parties old guard can not turn off the movement. There has not been this powerful of a non-traditionally driven campaign in many years, if ever.
4. and at this time....and there is absolutely no threat included or intended..this is just the way that it is.. the facts... If Obama goes into the convention in the lead among delegates (and he will) and the old party pols give it to Clinton instead.....Clinton would be very lucky to carry a half a dozen states. With her name of the top of the ticket, and black voters and new young voters sitting it out (even if they do not vote for McCain, which I would certainly hope that they would not do) all of the races in the south, southwest, and west where for the first time in a long time where Democrats have a viable possibility of winning due to the deserved unpopularity of the current administration would be lost. The Senate would go Rep. The house would go Rep. and the Supreme Ct.,as a result, would finally tip the scales in favor of reversing Roe vs. Wade, among many other long term issues.
I am doing my best to believe that it is not Hillary's intention to weaken Obama to the point that he loses to McCain, giving her one last shot at the presidency in 2012. I am not fully convincing myself, but will keep a close eye on the level of commitment I see from she and Bill during the general election on the behalf of Obama. My health would indicate that I might well not get to see that election, but my children and grandchildren will, and they are my legacy.
Incidentally, I am a progressive (liberal) white, senior, male, and a veteran. I love my country..and I want Obama to be leading it for the next 8 years.

Posted by: waynep | May 28, 2008 12:27 PM | Report abuse

don no much about history:

Sometimes, Obama invents Bosnia-sniper-style whoppers about his personal history. In Selma, Ala., Obama claimed that the spirit of hope derived from the civil rights protests in Selma in 1965 inspired his birth -- when he was born in 1961. He also has inaccurately claimed that the Kennedys funded his Kenyan father's trip to America in 1959.

Posted by: snObama | May 28, 2008 12:23 PM | Report abuse

don no much about language:

But there have also been gaffes on more serious matters. ABC found that campaigning in Rush Limbaugh's hometown of Cape Girardeau, Mo., Obama argued that our military's Arabic translators in Iraq are needed in Afghanistan: "We only have a certain number of them and if they are all in Iraq, then it's harder for us to use them in Afghanistan," he claimed. But Afghans don't speak Arabic; they speak several other languages. That's a lot like McCain's gaffe -- except for the degree of media attention, which in the Democrat's case was virtually nonexistent.

Posted by: snObama | May 28, 2008 12:22 PM | Report abuse


The stench of a Clinton spokesman reeks in this column.

Fairytales and excuses.
Hillary could never be elected now. And insiders know it. She has ruined her chances.

As Billy screeches insanely on, insiders have suddenly realized that he wants the reins of the WH again, desparately, to a degree that is insane.

"THEIR" supporters would suddenly be his, his old claque.

HER PART would be to whine that everyone was disrespecting her. She isn't as clever or devious as he; she'd be his patsy.

Her bleating female supporters are FOOLS.

Posted by: reality check | May 28, 2008 12:20 PM | Report abuse

Don't no nutin bout geografy:

Just in the last few days, in Sunrise, Fla., Obama said, "How's it going, Sunshine?" He did the same thing in Sioux Falls, S.D., calling it "Sioux City." Some of his geographic struggles seem calculated. When asked why Hillary Clinton trounced him in Kentucky, Obama claimed "I'm not very well known in that part of the country ... Sen. Clinton, I think, is much better known, coming from a nearby state of Arkansas. So it's not surprising that she would have an advantage in some of those states in the middle." But Obama's home state of Illinois is more than "near" Kentucky -- it borders Kentucky.

In Oregon, there was a doozy. Obama said of his long campaign, "I've been in 57 states, I think, one left to go."

Posted by: snObama | May 28, 2008 12:20 PM | Report abuse

Another Clinton zombie dumb enough buy her BS.

++++++++
What Bill Clinton is talking about, is the POPULAR VOTE; Hillary Clinton is ahead when Michigan and Florida are counted.
Take a lok at the numbers and see how close this race really is:
RealClearPolitics.com

Obama supporters and other political operatives want Hillary to drop out of the Democratic primaries so that Barack can be anointed the Democratic candidate who will face the Republican, John McCain, in November.

Hillary's only chance of becoming the Democratic candidate for president is in the hands of the super-delegates. If no candidate wins the required majority of delegates in the primary, the super-delegates should cast their votes for the candidate they deem to be the stronger of the two and the person they believe is most likely to win in the general election.

The majority of them prefer to wait and decide that issue closer to or at the Democratic convention. Why?
If Barack were the clear choice, as his supporters believe he is, why haven't they convinced enough super-delegates to announce their support of him and end the ongoing series of primaries?
Why shouldn't the last states to vote have a chance to affect the result?
The reason is obvious. Many super-delegates are not convinced Barack Hussein Obama can win in November, and they are correct to have that concern based on the outcome in key states a Democrat needs to win.

Why are Hillary's opponents so afraid of a fair fight? Let the voters decide this campaign.
Posted by: Manolete | May 28, 2008 12:16 PM

Posted by: Anonymous | May 28, 2008 12:20 PM | Report abuse

Pat and Words of "Wisdom",

Please, PLEASE continue to post your rantings here. Every single piece of uneducated vitriol you spew forth solidifies my commitment to Barak Obama a little bit more, and hopefully is doing the same for others. Do you REALLY think that the inanities you leave are actually influencing people to vote AGAINST Obama? I can't help but note that most of the posts for Obama are educated and civil in their discourse. Most (there have been good, well-argued posts by some) of the posts for Hillary or McCain are, well, you! Please, keep representing the supporters of Hillary and McCain as being moronic loudmouths who think that persuasion is accomplished by screaming the same gibberish over and over again, it's really appreciated. In case the big words here are confusing...

YOU KEEP POSTING! YOU IS GOOD FOR OBAMA! YOU SOUND FOOLISH, WE DO OPPOSITE OF WHAT YOU SAY!

Posted by: Jim | May 28, 2008 12:19 PM | Report abuse

I have read my share of the Clinton and Obama bashing comments on line but I have never spoken to anyone on a face to face level who ever told me that Clinton is a Shill or Obama is an empty suit. I guess this is the nature of the internet. You can create a fake name and say anything you want. If I where to believe everything I read on line I would say this party is in big trouble but for some reason I don't believe it. I have a lot of Obama fans that are friends of my who where greatly confused by my support of Clinton but never where they mean spirted. I explained that I saw Clinton as are smartest strongest choice in the fall but by no means did I ever see her as our only choice. As this primary season whines down and the question changes to Obama or McCain my answer changes. Thanks to some of the Obama supporters (few) who seem to be able to move past this primary and switch into the Gen election mode, as a Clinton supporter it is people like you that will help Obama get elected far more then the others who tells us (Clinton supporter's) to go ahead and stay home. The few of you on line need to know that their are Clinton supporters that will have no problem supporting Obama. Of course I can only speak for the people I know. To the rest of you ask yourself one question. How many Clinton / Obama supporters have you spoke to on a face to face level? How many of them where as rude as what you have read online.

Posted by: Chicago Joe | May 28, 2008 12:19 PM | Report abuse

SCRIVNER IS RIGHT.Gore/Powell 2008, a winning ticket!

Posted by: mikey11 | May 28, 2008 12:18 PM | Report abuse

PRINCETON, NJ -- In the 20 states where Hillary Clinton has claimed victory in the 2008 Democratic primary and caucus elections (winning the popular vote), she has led John McCain in Gallup Poll Daily trial heats for the general election over the past two weeks of Gallup Poll Daily tracking by 50% to 43%. In those same states, Barack Obama is about tied with McCain among national registered voters, 45% to 46%.

In contrast, in the 28 states and the District of Columbia where Obama has won a higher share of the popular vote against Clinton in the 2008 Democratic primaries and caucuses, there is essentially no difference in how Obama and Clinton each fare against McCain. Both Democrats are statistically tied with him for the fall election.

All of this speaks to Sen. Clinton's claim that her primary-state victories over Obama indicate her potential superiority in the general election.

Posted by: greenfun | May 28, 2008 12:18 PM | Report abuse

We will pay no price, bear no burden, forsake any hardship, support any foe and oppose any friend that wishes to pursue liberty.

Posted by: snObama | May 28, 2008 12:17 PM | Report abuse

What Bill Clinton is talking about, is the POPULAR VOTE; Hillary Clinton is ahead when Michigan and Florida are counted.
Take a lok at the numbers and see how close this race really is:
RealClearPolitics.com

Obama supporters and other political operatives want Hillary to drop out of the Democratic primaries so that Barack can be anointed the Democratic candidate who will face the Republican, John McCain, in November.

Hillary's only chance of becoming the Democratic candidate for president is in the hands of the super-delegates. If no candidate wins the required majority of delegates in the primary, the super-delegates should cast their votes for the candidate they deem to be the stronger of the two and the person they believe is most likely to win in the general election.

The majority of them prefer to wait and decide that issue closer to or at the Democratic convention. Why?
If Barack were the clear choice, as his supporters believe he is, why haven't they convinced enough super-delegates to announce their support of him and end the ongoing series of primaries?
Why shouldn't the last states to vote have a chance to affect the result?
The reason is obvious. Many super-delegates are not convinced Barack Hussein Obama can win in November, and they are correct to have that concern based on the outcome in key states a Democrat needs to win.

Why are Hillary's opponents so afraid of a fair fight? Let the voters decide this campaign.

Posted by: Manolete | May 28, 2008 12:16 PM | Report abuse

Only a wee bit disingenous to headline a piece the "told you so" calculation and state later "we have ABSOLUTELY no evidence to believe" that HRC wants Obama defeated in November. Huh?

Posted by: ??? | May 28, 2008 12:14 PM | Report abuse

Out of curiosity what ever happened to the ads she was running about the

"Can't stand the heat get out of the kitchen"?

Sounds like she has always been the one who could not stand the heat with all her crying and playing the victim. Remember Bill Clinton with

" If you don't want to get hit don't put on the pads, politics is a contact sport"?

What a couple of pathetic hypocrites they turned out to be in the end. All they do is cry about everything and play victims. Of course what else would you expect from these two phonies, they have a history of this. We really lucked out with them screwing up her campaign so bad we don't have to worry about those two criminals in the white house.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 28, 2008 12:14 PM | Report abuse

don't know much about geography - how many states are there again - 57? Isn't aushwitz in France???

Don't know much about history - didn't Nixon meet Mao with no preconditions, didn't Kennedy suck up to Kruschev?

don' know nuthin bout economics - except everyone should be equal and my gubberment will see to it.

Meanwhile, please keep thinking I am really smart.

Posted by: snObama | May 28, 2008 12:13 PM | Report abuse

To all you bitter Hillary Clinton supporters:

I know exactly how you feel. A few months ago the political establishment and their allies in the media were treating Clinton as the heir apparent. They parroted her "experience" claims and printed every musing that came from her mouth. The New York Times put a cover story about her campaign staff in their magazine. I was in despair about how the democrats were ever going to hold a fair primary.

You should thank your lucky stars that anyone even pays attention to what Hillary is saying and doing. To paraphrase Geraldine Ferraro, If Hillary Clinton were a men she would have been gone and forgotten a long time ago.

I am an anti-Bush republican and if I have to I will vote with my party in November, but I'm really hoping to have a chance to cross over and vote for Obama.

Posted by: Viejita del oeste | May 28, 2008 12:13 PM | Report abuse

In the beginning, the nomination was Clinton's to lose - and like a good Democrat, she proceeded to do just that.

Posted by: nofluer | May 28, 2008 12:12 PM | Report abuse


Cillizza writes like someone just massaged by a Clinton staffer.

His arguments are cheese cloth to downright inaccurage.

And he lesser known Obama hasn't had a chance to campaign against McCain yet,

WHEN HE DOES his numbers will zip up, as they have in every state he entered.

As far as Hillary quitting the race and behaving with class. She has no class.
And proves it every day.

Posted by: sillly cillizza | May 28, 2008 12:09 PM | Report abuse

NOW IT'S HILLARY'S TURN TO PLAY HER DELEGATE CARDS IN A COUP TO TAKE DOWN OBAMA

All the negative talk from Hillary and Bill Clinton against the Obama candidacy in the face of their own demise could add up to this:

The Uber-Democrat power couple is considering throwing its support, and Hillary's delegates, to an alternative candidate who stands a better chance of winning the general election than Obama.

They know there's no chance in the hell that Hillary has created for the party that the leadership and core constituencies will back a Hillary candidacy. So, just perhaps, they're about to play their own delegate power play to checkmate Obama.

Here's the evidence for a Hillary-led delegate coup against Obama:

1) The Clinton's talking points. They know the party and the supers have had enough of the divisive Hillary candidacy, but they believe they've got the facts on their side -- that Obama can't win the general due to his inexperience, his naivete, and his dismissive attitude in the late-season primaries toward rural and suburban white voters, whom he cavalierly wrote off in the states where Hillary triumphed.

2) Superdelegate hesitancy to embrace Obama. Where's the "flood" of supers racing toward the Obama camp? It's still a mere trickle. The supers don't like the idea of nominating a likely loser any more than do the Clintons, or the lunch-bucket Dems who lodged their protest votes against Obama by supporting Hillary.

3) Al Gore's refusal to endorse Obama. This is key. Edwards, ever the opportunist, actually believed Obama could win the nomination and, presumably, the general, so he cast his political fate with the Obama campaign. That could prove to be a costly error. Had he hung back, as Gore has done, he could have been a successor to Obama if and when the supers reject his candidacy. Given the Clinton's enmity towards Gore (and vice versa, for sure), Edwards would have been far more palatable to Billary than Gore.

But Gore is last man standing; and Hill and Bill would much prefer that Gore get the nomination than Obama, whom they see as a rookie usurper.

Remember all my talk a few weeks back about a third way candidacy, with Obama taking the lead at unifying the party by tossing his delegates to Gore? Well, it appears that Obama believes his own press to the point of self-delusion. As a result, he could be the one to go down hard, even harder than Hillary, who would go back to the Senate as the party unifier and savior of the Dems' general election hopes.

It's Hillary's final solution -- the chance to pull a major power play, back a compromise candidate, unite the party and better prepare the party for victory in the fall. No other third way candidate has the gravitas and the star power to pull off a late-season nomination coup. Only Gore could do it.

And by his refusal to endorse Obama, Gore is sending a powerful message to the superdelegates: You can't go with Obama and still expect to win, and I can save the party and redeem my rightful role as the party standard-bearer with your pledge of support.

For this to happen, powerful Obama backers like Kennedy, Kerry and Dodd have to be convinced that Obama can't win in a matchup against McCain. The polls are showing that he can't. The supers are sitting on their hands, waiting for a sign from Al Gore.

In a very few weeks time, as the Obama candidacy slips further into the realm of the improbable (to use Obama's own word), Gore will give that sign. He may have to make Colin Powell his running mate to prevent all hell from breaking loose among fervid Obama supporters -- and Gore just might do just that, winning back blacks who might otherwise sit out the election, and forging a unity ticket that will appeal to Republican moderates.

Posted by: scrivener | May 28, 2008 12:08 PM | Report abuse

DSR: I am a 45 year old caucasian woman. I once supported Hillary, but no more. Her misleading (at best) campaign reeks of politics-as-usual, which as mislead the public in the past and brought us debacles such as the Iraq War. Hillary does what she needs to do to get elected - or sympathy. She's great at what she does: manipulation. That's politics.

I am sorry for you and supporters like you who will harm only yourself if you do not vote Dem in the Fall.

Hillary is not the nominee. Even her "popular vote" math is flawed (though it's delegates that count).

You should accept reality.

Do you really want someone like McCain in office? Think about his policies for women. He's become more conservative over the years as well. He is no longer the maverick.

Don't shoot yourself in the foot this November. Unless you're a Republican.

Posted by: scj, anytown, usa | May 28, 2008 12:05 PM | Report abuse

I, a retired member of the US Army, spent many years forging the desires and wishes of the White House. The numerous "DIRTY TRICKS"; the bending of rules of engagement when it came to filling the desires of people like Bill Clinton; The total disrespect of "CIVIL DISCIPLINE" and the utilization of their political powers to achieve their twisted desires is and are well documented. Bill Clinton is a master of this type of manipulation to get what he desires. I personally feel that He would go to any length to get his wife into the White House. Why let the assassination of a "BLACK MAN WHO HAS THE NERVE TO FIGHT AGAINST THE DESIRES OF HIS WIFE" stand in his way.
The Clintons are in this race to win....at all costs. I do not believe for a minute that the thought of political assassination would stand in the way of either Hillary or Bill Clinton if it meant that she would gain access to the White House. Her mentioning of the assassination of Bobby Kennedy was no slip and/or mistake (the only mistake being that she made the comment in public).
The "HAG' and her husband have utilized every dirty trick in the book so/as to steal this election. They have TRIED TO TWIST, AT EVERY OPPORTUNITY, NUMEROUS STATEMENTS SO/AS TO SLANDER THEIR OPPONENT. Bill Clinton has the nerve to state that this was a political fight and if their opponent can't take it then they should get out of the fight.
This election has been, and is being, fought at a level of disgust that knows no bounds. The utilization of "UNDERLYING RACIAL PREJUDICSOUSES " ; the deformation and devastation of character ; the outright dishonesty and forging of background experience (re:/ the "HAGS" statement that she is the only person qualified to step into the job.....to destroy another nation with NUKES?????) and the numerous attempts at character assassination are prime examples of how low the Clintons are willing to go to achieve their objectives.
I am glad that I have left both the US Army and the USA. I am totally ashamed of where this election has led the American People.
Major Michael Saunders (retired)

Posted by: Major Michael Saunders US Army retired | May 28, 2008 12:05 PM | Report abuse

Which is worse, sexism, racism or anti-Semitism?

So what tactic is she using today? Will she continue on racism issues? What about the veiled anti-Semitism? Oh that's right, she using the sexism ploy now.

I am beyond heartbroken that in four states, 20-25% of the people exiting voting polls actually admitted that their votes were racially based. This is unbelievable and despicable! In the interest of encouraging honest and constructive dialogue, I would like to share a link to a video of Mr. Tim Wise presenting his theory of "The Creation of Whiteness".
http://www.redroom.com/video/tim-wise-creation-whiteness-clip

This theory explains the historical roots of racism in our country and its context to current problems. I remember quite distinctly the debate wherein Clinton insisted that Obama use specific language to denounce renounce and reject an anti-Semitic supporter. Am I the only person that sees the hypocrisy in Clinton accepting and boasting the support of white racists?

Which leads me to ask; how in the world could she be proud of that kind of a win? Further to that, by being proud of those wins, she is saying to every ethnic group that has been supporting her, "Hey people of every other color than white, look at how I devalue your importance to me by accepting all my white racist supporters!" How does Andrew Young and all the other ethnic supporters continue to stand by her? In essence she is saying that it is okay to be racist. How is that any better than being anti-Semitic?

If she argues sexism, that really falls flat for me. She came out of the election block with the highest namebrand recognition. Her husband is a former President, of popular and controversial fame. She also commanded extreme support of the big money donors in the party. Sexism implies disadvantage and when you look at the majority of the mainstream media play that she has received, she can not argue disadvantage.

Are Clinton supporters saying that being anti-Semitic is worse than being racist, or now is sexism worse? For thinking people everywhere, all three are completely despicable. This can not stand as acceptable to anyone, other than a racist or a bigot. Please view this video and let us all start to communicate towards solutions that value the preciousness of everyone.

So here is the larger personal question, how can I as a Hispanic woman and Democrat support her if she seeks the support of white racists? I could never support McCain for reasons related to the religious supporters that he seeks such as Reverend Rod Parsley, and Reverend John Hagee either. For anyone with principles and convictions, this is an impossible situation.

Deeply disappointed and bitter, rural voter

Posted by: MaggieCat | May 28, 2008 12:05 PM | Report abuse

In three months as she sits around doing nothing waiting for the convention being totally ignored, what is Hillary going to do, run around pretending to be campaigning against Mccain? Mean time Obama and Mccain will be running a general election, campaigning against each other ignoring Hillary, (They are already doing it). By November Obama will have gained such strength and power and such a base the idea of Hillary as the strongest candidate will seem ridiculous even to the strongest Hillary supporters. There is just a simple dynamic called time and irrelevance that she can't over come with any argument. After next week it is over for Hillary regardless what she wants to do. She will in one week not even be able to get news coverage. Remember how fast Rudy Giuliani became irrelevant? A week in a politics is like a life time, she will disappear so fast her head will be spinning and we will all forget we were even having these conversations as we discuss Obama and Mccain. At the convention she will be kicked aside in one vote if she pursues it. She is no longer irrelevant a bad thing when you are in politics. In a few weeks it will be" Hillary who"?

++++++++++++++
It is impossible to envision a scenario where Hillary would be the nominee in a future year.

One of the biggest gripes about Hillary is that she is polarizing. This primary season has borne that out. In a general election, it would be no different, but the Democratic Primary, wherein she pulled less than half the vote, is a more fertile ground for her to win with that polarization. As we get farther away from the primary, the polarization will be clearer.

The number of lies, half-truths, misspokens, flip-flops, and pandering statements she made this time will not age well. She's permanently done damage with several large voting blocs within the party and, frankly, her supporters - elderly women and Appalachians - will be smaller groups in four or eight years. She's screamed "victim of a conspiracy" one too many times to be treated as a credible human being by most of the electorate - probably even more than the 60% who claim they find her dishonest. Other Dems will not be scared off by the "Clinton Machine" and will be willing to run against her. While she was able to stack the Democratic Party with her partisans - without much of a payoff - neither she nor Bill will be able to do that in the future. The party leaders will have no loyalty to the Clintons.

Hillary knows it's now or never, and now ain't looking so good.

Posted by: CJKatl | May 28, 2008 11:45 AM

Posted by: Anonymous | May 28, 2008 12:03 PM | Report abuse


God Bless Americans, and God Bless the United States.

If you look at the election map after February and still believe BHO can win the November, you must be a born loser.

Posted by: Period | May 28, 2008 12:03 PM | Report abuse

1. I supported Bill when he was president, and I was ready to support Hillary in her run this year, but now I see why people don't like the Clintons. I get it.

2. They always play the victim card when things don't go their way. Always. They play the "fear" card in a different way than Bush, but its still a fear card. The boy and girl who cried wolf. Do you want people in charge who are always blaming others? Is this responsibility?

3. The Clintons and Bushes only care about the Clintons and Bushes, respectively. If you don't agree, you haven't been paying attention for the last two decades.

4. Relax everybody. The fact that our voters of both parties chose Obama and McCain is a victory for America. The Clinton and Bush regimes are ending, and America will begin to move forward.

Posted by: History Teacher 0214 | May 28, 2008 12:02 PM | Report abuse

Bill Clinton is now worried about his wife being treated with disrespect? Um, he's about 12 years too late. She suffered some of the most brutal humiliation on his behalf. Give it a rest Bill, and go back to being a terrific ex-president. You were really, really good at it.

Posted by: BJA | May 28, 2008 12:01 PM | Report abuse

Your analysis is right on the mark. However, as hard and sincerely as Hillary will campaign for Obama, this is the point at which many of her supporters will cease to follow her lead. Many feel that Obama's supporters, the DNC, and the liberal press have been dismissive of her, her backers, and, most important, the need for fair play in a democratic process. Out of irrational concern that her continuing candidacy damages the electability of their anointed candidate, the press repeatedly question her motives, asking "What does she want?" They never ask what it is about Obama, with all his money and favorable media coverage, that explains why he is taking so long to reach the goal post. Their surprise and indignation (e.g., Matthews, Schuster, and sidekicks) that Bill and others would dare to accuse them of unfair treatment of Hillary's candidacy is disingenuous. The fact that she has been treated with less bias by Buchanan, Scarborough, and Fox analysts reveals much about the personal agendas of the liberal pundits (notable exceptions are Joan Walsh, Harold Ford, John Harwood, Jonathon Kapart (?), and Ron Allen. As for the DNC which created the mess in FLA and MI and is trying to appease voters by coming up with a compromise that reflects Hillary's plurality of votes without altering Barack's lead in pledged delegates, they don't have to wonder why contributions are down. Many of us have responded to mailed and phoned requests with the declaration that we will not give another dollar until the FLA and MI are treated equitably, either by counting actual votes or holding new primaries. Neither will we vote in the general elections for the candidate who, while always pretending to take the high road, blocked efforts to hold new primaries in those states. With apologies to Hillary who is by far the more effective leader, democratic principles, which are being ignored by the DNC, and the right of citizens to an unbiased press have priority over uniting around a candidate who has benefited from the very forces that threaten those rights.

Posted by: MJS | May 28, 2008 12:00 PM | Report abuse

If Senator Hillary is not the nominee, I will definitely be voting for Senator McCain. Senator Obama has no meaningful qualifications to be president plus there is his long association with Rev. Wright and other America haters. Much is not known about Senator Obama, and I don't trust him.

Except for Senator Clinton and a few others, the Democratic party no longer seems to care about the middle class (and the Republicans are no better). We desperately need a sane third part that will occupy the middle ground. If the Obama/Clinton contest causes the Democratic party to split, it would probably be a good thing in the long run. With a Democratic Congress (as is widely expected this election), maybe it would be best to have a President from the other party.

This will be my first ever vote for a Republican after a lifetime of voting for Democrats. Thankfully, Senator McCain seems to be an honest and honorable man who is not as far to the right as many others in his party.

Posted by: NL | May 28, 2008 11:57 AM | Report abuse

"You are so weak minded you let yourself be influenced and manipulated by internet boards? Is your house filled with junk you bought off late night TV. Do you even have any free will? Try thinking for yourself and vote your own best interests. Half of what you read on these boards are fake anyway. People posing as something other then what they are to try to manipulate people like you. Don't be a sucker."
-------------------------------------------

I'm NOT being manipulated by people on these boards, I'm being insulted by jerks like you on these boards.

That was the entire point I was making and you missed.

Perhaps you and all the other Obama trolls should buy a book on "How to win friends and influence people".

You sure as hell are gonna need it.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 28, 2008 11:56 AM | Report abuse

@Doug M

We make disparaging comments about Obama BECAUSE we don't want a third Bush term.

We don't believe Obama can win in November.

If he is the candidate, welcome to President McSame.

Posted by: Jerry | May 28, 2008 11:51 AM | Report abuse

You are so weak minded you let yourself be influenced and manipulated by internet boards? Is your house filled with junk you bought off late night TV. Do you even have any free will? Try thinking for yourself and vote your own best interests. Half of what you read on these boards are fake anyway. People posing as something other then what they are to try to manipulate people like you. Don't be a sucker.

++++++++++++
You keep telling yourself that, if it helps you sleep at night.

I'm not a Republican and I certainly won't vote for McCain, but I'm seriously considering sitting this one out.

Not least because every bog and commentary page I go on is plaugued with vicious little Obamabots, spewing venom and hatred at anyone who dares question their messiah.

You are so niaive that you haven't realized that you're alienating the very voters that your candidate cannot win in November without.

Keep telling yourself that we're all Republicans. To borrow a phrase from the Rev. Wright... in November the chickens will come home to roost.

Posted by: Jerry | May 28, 2008 11:38 AM

Posted by: Anonymous | May 28, 2008 11:46 AM | Report abuse

Do you think they will allow Barry Hussein's grandmother into the country for the inauguration?

Posted by: Ashok | May 28, 2008 11:45 AM | Report abuse

It is impossible to envision a scenario where Hillary would be the nominee in a future year.

One of the biggest gripes about Hillary is that she is polarizing. This primary season has borne that out. In a general election, it would be no different, but the Democratic Primary, wherein she pulled less than half the vote, is a more fertile ground for her to win with that polarization. As we get farther away from the primary, the polarization will be clearer.

The number of lies, half-truths, misspokens, flip-flops, and pandering statements she made this time will not age well. She's permanently done damage with several large voting blocs within the party and, frankly, her supporters - elderly women and Appalachians - will be smaller groups in four or eight years. She's screamed "victim of a conspiracy" one too many times to be treated as a credible human being by most of the electorate - probably even more than the 60% who claim they find her dishonest. Other Dems will not be scared off by the "Clinton Machine" and will be willing to run against her. While she was able to stack the Democratic Party with her partisans - without much of a payoff - neither she nor Bill will be able to do that in the future. The party leaders will have no loyalty to the Clintons.

Hillary knows it's now or never, and now ain't looking so good.

Posted by: CJKatl | May 28, 2008 11:45 AM | Report abuse

To Senator Clinton and her supporters:

If you want to criticize Bush/McCain go for it. But why do you continue to make disparaging and divisive comments about Obama? This serves no purpose other than to help McCain win in November. Do you really want a third Bush term?

I would hope that Senator Clinton and her supporters are better than that.

Posted by: Doug M | May 28, 2008 11:44 AM | Report abuse

A substantial amount of middle-aged and older women, voted for Hillary because she is a woman. This group is now angry, bitter and vindictive, bordering on irrational. They are blaming Obama for "stealing" the election when the Senator ran a cleaner-than-average, very smart campaign, playing be the rules. Whereas, Hillary ran a dumb-as-dirt campaign and is now trying to bend the rules in her favor. Instead of blaming others for Hillary's shortcomings, Hillary and her supporters need to look at all the missteps they made and learn from their mistakes.

Posted by: Munk | May 28, 2008 11:39 AM | Report abuse

Look DUMMIES!!!
Most of this trash is by republicans trying to divide Democrats.

Posted by: OK4U | May 28, 2008 11:27 AM
-------------------------------------------

You keep telling yourself that, if it helps you sleep at night.

I'm not a Republican and I certainly won't vote for McCain, but I'm seriously considering sitting this one out.

Not least because every bog and commentary page I go on is plaugued with vicious little Obamabots, spewing venom and hatred at anyone who dares question their messiah.

You are so niaive that you haven't realized that you're alienating the very voters that your candidate cannot win in November without.

Keep telling yourself that we're all Republicans. To borrow a phrase from the Rev. Wright... in November the chickens will come home to roost.

Posted by: Jerry | May 28, 2008 11:38 AM | Report abuse

Mullet


I prefer the short slams myself


Posted by: Anonymous | May 28, 2008 11:35 AM | Report abuse

OK4U


Most of this election is Hillary people realizing that they ARE republicans


.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 28, 2008 11:34 AM | Report abuse

Hillary Clinton fans-

Please vote McCain and enjoy.

Posted by: OneFreeMan | May 28, 2008 11:28 AM | Report abuse

Look DUMMIES!!!
Most of this trash is by republicans trying to divide Democrats.

Posted by: OK4U | May 28, 2008 11:27 AM | Report abuse

Do check out today's new gallup pole on the swing states and Hillary's numbers at the Gallup site. Also, congrats Chris. You'r co-written column about the DNC being unable money was the front page banner headline on the Palm Beach Post yesterday. Can you imagine a political party getting that much free publicity in any other year? What a sham. And what a shame.

Posted by: Mandelay | May 28, 2008 11:27 AM | Report abuse

Look DUMMIES!!!
Most of this trash is by republicans trying to divide Democrats.

Posted by: OK4U | May 28, 2008 11:26 AM | Report abuse

Rae, 20+ screen inches is *wayyy* too much information just for an comment on a daggum Fix entry. :)

Posted by: Mary | May 28, 2008 11:26 AM | Report abuse

These long-winded pro-Obama posts are tedious.
Point by point straw man destruction may make you feel better but have little influence on those not already swayed, nor do they have much to do with reality.
Many people simply do not find Barack Obama to be an acceptable candidate.
Most often that has less to do with race, gender or any other superficial consideration, and more to do with his inexperience, his vague, happy-talky policies, his manipulative tactics and the whole Orwellian/Manchurian tone of his campaign.
His supporters call anyone who holds these views delusional racists and worse.
That doesn't help, either.

Posted by: Mullet | May 28, 2008 11:24 AM | Report abuse

Didn't Michelle Obama change her first name from Shaniqua to her present alias? She's a real soul sista - pigs feet and corn cobs on her dinner table.

Posted by: Gale | May 28, 2008 11:23 AM | Report abuse

"It appears the democratic party is divided and deeply entrenched in their prospective candidates to the detriment of the party."

Fear not, most of the people parroting the Clinton camp stuff are really Republicans, it's sad but it's the only strategy they have left.

Posted by: kreuz_missile | May 28, 2008 11:23 AM | Report abuse

BREAKING NEWS...

According to a CNN court, the Florida Court just threw out the lawsuit filed by the FL representatives, saying that the DNC has the right to set the rules for its primaries.

The FL Democratic delegation is going to appeal the decision to the Supreme Court.


Posted by: | May 28, 2008 11:10 AM
***********************************

The irony is incredibly delicious..

Posted by: meet the new boss, same as the old boss | May 28, 2008 11:23 AM | Report abuse

coffee break - I see dcgrasso's plea for sane discourse - and am reminded by her support of JB and BR that the press early annointed HRC at the expense of JB, CD, and BR. HRC was the certain nominee, then BHO became the fundraising crowd pleasing novelty. In fact, the double novelty appealed to the infotainment industry of 24/7 news. I believe I heard Brokaw admit that the three strongest Ds on resume got the shaft.

Posted by: MarkInAustin | May 28, 2008 11:22 AM | Report abuse

Senator Clinton has burned so many bridges with her sleazy campaign and sore loser mentality that if Senator Obama loses she will have some explaining to do if she wanted to run again.

It wouldn't be enough to say "I told you so," she would probably have to convince party leaders at the very least she didn't work against Obama, and more likely she rallied behind him. Right now, it's unclear she would support an Obama nomination.

Posted by: A dem. | May 28, 2008 11:21 AM | Report abuse

Do you want MaCain to win-
keep it up you Dummies!
let the process work-
a party that is devided will fail!

Posted by: OK4U | May 28, 2008 11:19 AM | Report abuse

Cherry says: "Someone needs to remind Michelle Obama that she is not Jackie Kennedy. She lacks the class and refined background to carry it off. She is ghetto to the core..."

Er, Cherr, are you on the right comment board?? Go 'way now, little girl.

Posted by: Mary | May 28, 2008 11:19 AM | Report abuse

I love the way Obama supporters have, for some time now, been using the past tense to describe his 'victory' in this Primary election. Despite the fact that neither candidate had won anything, and still haven't. This of course, is exactly the same strategy used by Bill Clinton in 1992, but what bugs me most is that Obama and his sanctimonious supporters employ this, and other old political tactics, while maintaining that they are above that type of thing. Standing in the way of revotes in FL an MI for the sake of political expediency is also politics as usual.

This wouldn't be quite so annoying if it weren't the CENTRAL PLANK of Obama's entire candidacy. Strip away the "I don't do politics as usual" rhetoric, and there is nothing left.

Worse than that, he has not once outlined HOW is going to change the way politics operates in Washington. Exactly HOW is he going to get his legislative program past the 535 members of Congress who are still in the pockets of special interests? IF he gets elected, I give him a year of goodwill, before Washington reverts to business as usual and all these idealistic kids that propelled him into the White House are going to be bitterly disappointed.

He is running on borrowed policies, empty rhetoric and promises he can't keep.

Good luck with that.

Posted by: Jerry | May 28, 2008 11:18 AM | Report abuse

Senator Clinton has miscalculated throughout this race.

For instance, she believed (and still does) that she would be the inevitable nominee and didn't plan for any kind of serious opposition. After Iowa and Super Tuesday showed that there was a formidable opposition she began to dig herself in hole.

She lied about being under sniper fire, to reinforce the empty experience claim, another bad miscalculation.

Finally, she continues to calculate that playing the victim will get votes beyond those who already support her.

Posted by: A dem. | May 28, 2008 11:17 AM | Report abuse

Someone needs to remind Michelle Obama that she is not Jackie Kennedy. She lacks the class and refined background to carry it off. She is ghetto to the core...

Posted by: Cherry | May 28, 2008 11:17 AM | Report abuse

Your post today is right on the money....
She will throw in the towel some time in June, after she has put Florida and Michigan in play (which is good for the Obama and the party)...
She cannot take this thing to convention because, you're right , she will wear out her goodwill ( and again you are right, she will camapign for Obama)....
But on Novemeber 5, 2008, if Obama loses, she will remind everyone, as you say, 'I TOLD YOU SO' loud and clear, and she will begin her second campaign for president ( as the unoffical leader of the party), wiser and in much better shape than this time...
She will have four years to mend the wounds with blacka and liberals in the party, while holding on to the majority of democrats in the party, who voted for her this time....

Posted by: james b | May 28, 2008 11:14 AM | Report abuse

The level of discontent on this blog (and others) is disheartening. It appears the democratic party is divided and deeply entrenched in their prospective candidates to the detriment of the party. The Clintons have always been a polorizing couple. They had a divide and conquer strategy when Mr. Clinton was in the White House which was not good for the country. His presidency is the reason I changed my political affiliation from Democrat to Independent.

That said, Mr. Obama did not steal the nomination from Mrs. Clinton.

Hillary Clinton was the presumptive candidate until February 5th when she all but stopped campaigning. The states that counted had voted so why worry about the other states. Who ever she put in charge of her campaign strategy failed in his/her job and should have been fired because they failed her. When the error in strategy was discovered she rectify it but Mr. Obama's momentum was hard to stop.

The Clinton supporters keep talking about Mr. Obama's lack of experience as one reason he should not be elected. They appear to forget Mr. Clinton had no Foreign Affair experience when he was elected for his first term in office. He learned as he did his job as President. I know the fear of having someone with no Foreign Affair experience after the George W. Bush Foreign Affairs policy fiasco but none of the current candidates have any experience in the arena. As for Mrs. Clinton, the experience her constituency claim she has comes from being First Lady. Although she was an unusual First Lady in the fact she was charged with getting Universal Healthcare passed. Look how good that worked out for us as a country. They failed miserably which resulted in Mrs. Clinton being relegated back to First Lady status (at which point she was put in charge of the firing squad whenever Mr. Clinton caused a scandal that needed to be curtailed). However, the Clintons were instrumental with putting Universal Healthcare on the political map. Irregardless of whether Mrs. Clinton is President or not, the Clintons will get credit when the country finally has Universal Healthcare. By the way, why does Congress have to pass special legislature to give the country Universal Healthcare? It is naive, but, I believe Congress should expand the coverage we pay through our tax dollars to insure Congress to encompass the whole country.

For those women who are siting sexism as the reason Mrs. Clinton is losing. As a 47 year old white woman, who according to the polls is part of the group supporting Mrs. Clinton, I saw no signs of sexism rearing its ugly head until Mrs. and Mr. Clinton and her contituents brought it up. She is a woman. For the media to talk about the historic perspective of her being the first female presidental candidate is a fact not sexism. Just like I see no racism in pointing out that Mr. Obama is the first viable black candidate.

I was an Edwards supporter who was extremely disappointed when he dropped out of the race. At which point I looked at two other candidates - Mr. Obama and Mr. Paul. If Mrs. Clinton somehow manages to steal the nomination from Mr. Obama I will either vote for Mr. Paul, write in Mr. Edwards name at the polls or not vote. I will not vote for Mrs. Clinton under any circumstances. I have gone to Thomas.gov (the site that lists the legislature Congress has either passed or tried to pass to do research on both Democratic candidates) and Mr. Obama has a more impressive record than Mrs. Clinton.

For a person who has no business experience according to the bloggers, pundits, etc. I find Mr. Obama has set up his campaign based in large part on the business model of organizations. He has set up a chain of command that is impressive. It runs like a well oiled machine. There appears to be little controversy between the campaign staff unlike the well publicized disagreements between the Clinton campaign staff members

Florida and Michigan voters and Mrs. Clinton cannot have it both ways. There have been bloggers from both states who say there was a sort of media blitz stating their votes would not be counted because they were holding their primaries in advance of party rules. Mrs. Clinton agreed to follow the rules until she needed these votes to obtain more delegates. Late breaking news - CNN just reported the judge reviewing the lawsuit from the Florida democratic activist found the lawsuit did not discriminate against Democratic voters because the Democratic Party has the right to set rules in connection with when primaries are to be held. The gentleman who brought the lawsuit is planning to appeal.

I have been a proponent of a third party for almost 20 years because I believe the politicians have lost sight of the fact they work for the betterment of the American people. We have always lived in a global economy but our policies and legislature should be to maintain our businesses here in this country. If a business chooses to leave the country for whatever reason then they should be penalized in some way to make it less economically feasible for it to move its base of operation to a foreign country.

Posted by: Rae | May 28, 2008 11:14 AM | Report abuse

In terms of electoral votes which is used in GE, it is HRC 307, Obama 224 if OH and MI are included, and HRC 263, Obama 224 if OH and MI are excluded.
According to the latest best educated prediction by electoral-vote.com, sen. Clinton can beat McCain better than Obama in the general election, i.e. 327 to 194 if Clinton vs. McCain, and 266 to 246 if Obama vs. McCain (taking into account the latest surveyusa.com prediction that Obama can also win OH in November).
Like the years 2000 and 2004, the general election in 2008 will probably depend again on FLORIDA, which sen. Clinton can win and Obama has ZERO chance to win.

Posted by: austin b | May 28, 2008 11:13 AM | Report abuse

Someone mentioned that we shouldn't vote for Obama because he used to use cocaine. Um, if that were a parameter for not voting for someone, Bush wouldn't have made it past the primaries in 2000.

And Michelle Obama, for all her faults, as never killed anyone.

Posted by: Seriously?? | May 28, 2008 11:11 AM | Report abuse

BREAKING NEWS...

According to a CNN court, the Florida Court just threw out the lawsuit filed by the FL representatives, saying that the DNC has the right to set the rules for its primaries.

The FL Democratic delegation is going to appeal the decision to the Supreme Court.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 28, 2008 11:10 AM | Report abuse

Anyone not paid by or overly enamored of Obama, including politicians, are aware of the realities of the Obama/media machinations. That's why she still has loyal support from many of them and likely will not have much trouble adjusting whatever happens.
Old dogs hate to be cornered.

Posted by: Mullet | May 28, 2008 11:10 AM | Report abuse

Mullet,

Enough with the Media Conspiracy bunk. The idea of questioning Obama's legitimate claim to the nomination is being openly touted by the CLintons and their surrogates daily. Just look into their polling claims their matrix for the popular vote count. Does that see really seem rational to you?

If anything the media has been doing the CLintons a great service by broadcasting the increasingly outrageous claims and the idea that this election is being stolen by a vast sexist conspiracy.

Posted by: swalker3 | May 28, 2008 11:07 AM | Report abuse

All the black people need to vote for Obama. Remember 40 acres and a mule?

Posted by: Shawanda | May 28, 2008 11:03 AM | Report abuse

White women of the world unite! WE do not all support HIllary Clinton, we are not all angry at men and black people, and we did not all wear those awful little ties in the 1980's to pretend we were little men. The women who so ardently support Hillary as an icon, or as "the women" forget about Hillary the person who is terribly flawed in so many ways. Just for one - she blames everyohne else for her mistakes, just as her supporters are now blaming everything in sight for her failure to secure the nomination. It was hers on a plate and she continues to lose it every day as eviced by her stupid comments about RFK.

Please, not all women are as obtuse and "crazy" as some of the female bloggers here. And by far less angry. It is really too bad that people back themselves up against a wall and say never, never, never because life is about possibilities that open up when a door closes

Posted by: nclwtk | May 28, 2008 11:02 AM | Report abuse

That's it! Now I understand! It's her endurance, her stamina! She can "cross the isle". She's a hiker! But when elected president, what isle will she be crossing? Ireland? Sicily? Hmmm..maybe Bosnia, no that's not an isle.

Glad that got cleared up.

Posted by: Another Innocent Bystander | May 28, 2008 10:57 AM | Report abuse

Now the groundwork is being laid that puts the blame for any future shortcomings and failings of BO on HRC.

Posted by: Mullet | May 28, 2008 10:55 AM | Report abuse

@Mark 10:07 am

"I have been a life long Democrat and supporter of liberal causes. However, this year I will find myself voting for McCain rather than Obama. I know there are many out there like myself."

WHY?????????????

THIS MAKES NO SENSE!!!!!!!

Get over your pique and VOTE THE ISSUES.

Geez.

Posted by: herzliebster | May 28, 2008 10:54 AM | Report abuse

Chris your post today is right on the money....if he loses she will start her next campaign on November 5th, automaticly becoming the front runner for 2012. She will not make the same mistakes she made this time......

Posted by: james b | May 28, 2008 10:53 AM | Report abuse

Pat- Mission accomplished- you ruined this blog- you idiot.

Posted by: Billy Bob | May 28, 2008 10:50 AM | Report abuse

I have been a life long Democrat and supporter of liberal causes. However, this year I will find myself voting for McCain rather than Obama. I know there are many out there like myself.

Posted by: mark | May 28, 2008 10:07 AM


As a life-long supporter of liberal causes you want to vote for McCain? Exactly what liberal casuses are you hoping he champions for you? Have you been to Obama's webisite to see his positions on the issues that are important to you? Your reasoning is absurd and makes me think you are nothing but a Republican troll.

Posted by: NM Moderate | May 28, 2008 10:49 AM | Report abuse

" That is a terrific historical reality that will redound to the everlasting credit of our nation."

I would love to join in for that reason, but the price they want me to pay is too great. We can not afford to retreat in the Middle East. The price we will give up in the future will be awful.

Posted by: Gary E. Masters | May 28, 2008 10:47 AM | Report abuse

The Clinton's arguement does not have "real merit".

According to the latest polls (SUSA for one) Obama is leading McCain by 9 points in Ohio and Virginia and Obama is up 7 points in both Pennsylvania and Iowa. In case you're counting that puts Obama up 40 electoral points from Kerry's 2004 totals. On top of this he's leading McCain in Colorado, New Mexico and within the magin of error in North Carolina and Nevada, even Texas is close.
Given the point we are at, Clinton supporters are having a case of sour grapes and polling for McCain just out of spite for Obama. If the case was reveresed Obama supporters would feel the same way, I'm sure.
The sooner this thing ends and Democrats and like minded Independents see the real choice in November, they will coalesece around the candidate who best refelects their values and Obama's numbers will grow even stronger.

Posted by: swalker3 | May 28, 2008 10:46 AM | Report abuse

" know that the likelihood of convincing the vast majority of remaining super delegates to side with her over Obama -- who leads in pledged delegates, popular vote (excluding Florida and Michigan) and total contests won -- is slim."

Sure. Unless they have a winning block of super delegates they bought many months ago with Harold Icke's help. Then the trick now is to give the super delegates a reason to vote for her for public consumption. I got it - greater popular vote.

It wins. Just like a stacked deck.


Posted by: Gary E. Masters | May 28, 2008 10:43 AM | Report abuse

To all the hysterical, fanatical supporters of either Clinton or Obama:

OK. I'm a 56 year-old white woman. I voted in our state's primary for Clinton, NOT because she's a woman, OR because I'm a racist (an insinuation that outrages me). I voted for her, very simply, because I felt she had policies that were better thought-out than Obama's, and were a little stronger in the areas of environmental issues and health care, and also because I believe she would be better able to stand up to the garbage that will be thrown at any Democratic nominee by groups such as the Swift Boat creeps. I felt she was far more electable. Close friends of mine felt otherwise and voted for Obama. Guess what? We're still friends.

And I will vote for Obama in the fall, perhaps with not as much enthusiasm as I would have voted for some of the other candidates (my top two choices were Richardson and Biden), but the fact is, Obama's policies are fairly close to Clinton's and if the rhetoric dies down, I think people will find his policies acceptable. I could never support the policies that McCain espouses.

That said, I STRONGLY resent the anger that's raised by the name-calling, on BOTH sides. I am absolutely sickened by the level of hatred I see posted on this blog. It is simply NOT true that ALL Clinton supporters are, as one poster put it, "poor, bitter, old, blue-haired little ole ladies, and poor, uneducated, beer swilling, NASCAR watching, hillbilly racists." Not a single one of those adjectives applies to me or to anyone I know, who voted for Clinton. Nor does the reverse apply to ALL Obama supporters.

I deeply resent the fact that people on both sides are creating this divide. Haven't we had enough of that over the past 7-plus years? I resent the idea of being lumped in with some racist, bigoted creeps like some who've posted here today, simply because I supported the same candidate. If I were an Obama supporter, I would equally resent being lumped in with some of the screaming fools who support him.

Grow up, people. End the hatred, and realize that screaming insults never converts anyone to your point of view.

Posted by: dcgrasso1 | May 28, 2008 10:42 AM | Report abuse

I could never vote for someone who has renounced their muslim faith. The only thing Obama believes in is what will get him elected.

Posted by: Rahiq Syed | May 28, 2008 10:39 AM | Report abuse

Of course this election year is an anomaly: we are poised to elect a black man as president of the United States. That is a terrific historical reality that will redound to the everlasting credit of our nation.

The Clintons passive-aggressive response to this historic development is sad and symbolic of their entanglement with the past rather than the future of the country.

I am mystified by any person who claims to be a liberal Democrat who would even consider voting for John McCain in November. McCain represents the corporate/lobbyist/military interests who have conspired to drive our nation into the ground these past eight years. In his cramped and inflexible world view, he is against a woman's right to choose, against helping working people damaged by predatory home loans, against universal health care. McCain supports extending the disasterous occupation of Iraq and entering a new and equally dangerous war with Iran.

How in the world could any thinking person, Democrat or Independant, vote for John McCain?

Sen. Obama offers a fresh, thoughtful perspective on the world and its opportunities. His energy, intellect, empathy, and breadth of experience is what we need to get our nation on the right track again.

Posted by: dee | May 28, 2008 10:37 AM | Report abuse

The argument that as per current polls she has a better chance to win GE is absurd. We ought to remember that 5 months back she was tipped to easily win the nomination.Once the GE campaigns get into full swing(for which she has to back out and clear the way for Obama to have just one opponent instead of 2), you would see the swing.

Posted by: Jay Nair | May 28, 2008 10:35 AM | Report abuse

What qualifies Senator Clinton to be President? What qualifies anyone for anything? Education? Well she has one of the better ones available. Political experience? Again, she has one of the better ones in the nation and from right there on the front lines. If you think she was baking cookies and waiving to tours while in the White House, you're sadly mistaken. For the innocent bystanders that voted Republican twice sucked in by the machine (Thanks Mr. McClelland) like lambs to slaughter, it's obvious that they would miss reality while standing by. What qualified Bush? Everything he's touched- including the United States of America has failed. That's a track record to be REAL proud of. Gee, I can vote for that- TWICE. What qualifies Senator Obama? He's obtained a tremendous education and he's full of fire and can whip a crowd into a frenzy but isn't that is the same thing Bush did to take us to war? Isn't that what many unqualified leaders have done to sell the wrong choice? Where is the substance for Obama? Where is his legislation? (look it up) If he's running on his ability to make the right choice, what's he doing with an extremist like Rev. Wright for 20 YEARS? What qualifies Obama if he alignes himself with someone like Rev. Wright who then in turn throws him under the bus? That affiliation showed some SOUND judgment. There's a track record I can get behind. What qualifies Senator Clinton? She's the best candidate for the job and we've all seen that she does not wilt under pressure, can handle a crisis and can cross the isle. Ann Coulter says she's voting for Hillary as stupid as she allegedly is. She's on the right side of politics for America and a leader we can count on. Senator Clinton has more practical experience than any other candidate as well as she's more centrist than Senator Obama or Senator McCain. This is not McCain 2000, by the way, for the kids at home. This is the "I learned from Rove 2008" machine that is gearing up for the fall so just wait for the swiftboat that is coming for Senator Obama. It's already on the water and sailing as we've already identified that his wife is a sensitive issue so just wait for those "issue" ads to surface involving the alleged affiliations of Mrs. Obama. Race, class, Rev. Wright, Mrs. Obama, Senator Obama's very liberal politics which really do not play nationwide and once again that questionable land deal in Chicago (the GOP LOVE when Dems. are involved in the questionable land deal. Look for the reemergence of Ken Starr here shortly) Senator Clinton has been there, done that and she has survived and thrived. She's been re-elected by the way too for the bystanders still not paying attention. She's not in the middle of her 1st term like Senator Obama so she's been around the block just a few more times. Unfortunately for the free world Obama will lose come November as McCain has employed mini-me Rove to stir the dust and we all know that they are going to do it. They already have to some extent and unfortunately it's gonna get worse and it will be sold and sadly accepted as politics as usual. McCain will win by a respectable margin and Senator Obama will join Gore and Kerry in a long list of ill prepared democratic candidates. I'll be back in November to tell you all "I told you so" because our party AGAIN has blown it

Posted by: Uneducated white folk | May 28, 2008 10:31 AM | Report abuse

Chris Cillizza's Electoral math is fuzzy. Yes, Obama victories in CO (9), NM (5), and IA (7) would garner 21 Electoral Votes. But that is not equivalent to carrying OH, which has 20 EVs, not 21--PA has the 21 EV equivalent.

Also, to David Halliday (5/28 9:21 a.m. posting), you did indeed spell Claire McCaskel's name correctly, but she's a senator from MO, not MN.

Posted by: Dem Political Junkie | May 28, 2008 10:31 AM | Report abuse

"Is Barry Hussein's definition of "Hope" is attacking Pakistan? He said as much last summer. Such audacity!
=============================
Can you really be this clueless?
=============================

Personally I don't care that Mrs.Clinton has stayed in the race to the bitter end, where it gets sticky for me is how divisive she has allowed her campaign to become. I consider many of her tactics; allowing the discourse to hinge not on policy differences, but on extraneous issues (Wright, Is he a Muslim?, etc.), and now gender Politics...ugh...I just don't see WHY she chose the "low road," and I don't see how she and Bill can't see that they have harmed the Party. I can only hope that her stumping for our Party Nominee, Barack Hussein Obama, will heal the ugliness that her gigantic ego has wrought.

Posted by: Hold_That_Tiger | May 28, 2008 10:31 AM | Report abuse

The media has played a big hand in keeping the Democratic nomination fight going, not just for the ratings, but because they sense that Hillary has a "You-won't-have-Nixon-to-kick-around-anymore" speech in her just screaming to get out.

I say thank God for the fight and thank God for the media prolonging it. This campaign has displayed once and for all what overrated politicians these Clintons are. Hillary has (again) demonstrated that she is capable only of fouling up dirt, and when it's pointed out to the pair how crummy and calculating they are, they play the victim card. Just like Nixon.

The 2012, spoiled brat, I-told-you-so candidate strategy lined out can backfire in two ways. First, if Obama wins in November, the Clintons will have found a way to destroy the tawdriest, flimsiest legacy of any president in history, and will be relegated to the laughing stock pile. The Bill-and-Hillary Show is a sideshow now, playing to half-filled gyms and supermarkets (!) with rallies attended only by the curious. Will Bill start biting the heads off of chickens when his misogyny-victim-media rap start to gets stale? Will Hillary take her act to the amusement parks of this world, opening up for puppet shows, a la Spinal Tap?

Two, if Obama doesn't make it, God only knows who will crawl out of the woodwork to thump Hillary in 2012. She was anointed once already, and it looks like some are ready to anoint her again.

Posted by: bondjedi | May 28, 2008 10:30 AM | Report abuse

My comments:

After the CONDUCT OF THE OBAMA CAMPAIGN, the Clintons have a right to bring the campaign to the Convention.
_____________________________________________

I keep hearing about the Obama campaign and "their" conduct. Would that be the conduct to win the primary? Oh and by the way, the Shillary handlers couldn't even figure out the way the primaries were being run until it was too late, and her campaign manager was on the "rules" committee that set it up. She "signed" a paper that she wouldn't campaign in FL and Michigan, and that they would not count, why now change the rules in the middle of the game. She has lied, "misspoke" ,obfuscated, distorted, cheated, killed, maimed, misled, smoked crack, is a muslim, her husband is a child molester, entitled, her husband went to rev wright after the "lewinsky" thing, there are pictures, she is a skank, need I say more?

Posted by: F u k Hillary | May 28, 2008 10:30 AM | Report abuse

So If you are ready to vote for McCain id HC doesn't win the nomination, does that mean that you supported the republican agenda all along and perhaps saw HC as a semi-republican bid?

Posted by: Jose | May 28, 2008 10:29 AM | Report abuse

Joyce

In reply to your question

1 Article 2 Section 2 of the US Constitution. Presidential powers/foreign policy.

2 Check and Balances

3 Legislature makes laws and will remain in Democratic hands. Devolution will continue and is good government. Social issues will be decided by each state. RvW will never be overturned.

4 Re: Courts - Justice Roberts, while not MY personal pick, is highly qualified. I would expect McCain to continue selecting justices of this caliber/character.

Posted by: Lee12 | May 28, 2008 10:28 AM | Report abuse

After 60 years, I finally have things fugured out. I used to be a racist bigot, until I realized that the blacks are not the problem. They are the result of hundreds of years of oppression that still exists, mostly in economic form. Dammit, they are more American than I am. Who am I to think that they are any worse than the white trash I run across all the time. The real problem is women. They are generally a pain in the a$$. Hillary and all her screeching and cackling hens who support her are their own worst enemies. With some luck, we'll be rid of her and her philandering husband for good. As for McCain, was there ever a more empty-headed nincompoop in politics? Oh wait, I forgot about Reagan, Bush 1 and of course Bush 2.

Posted by: Paolo | May 28, 2008 10:25 AM | Report abuse

Anon at 10:05-seriously, there are 57 contests in this primary season (when you add DC, American Samoa, Guam, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, the Texas caucus and the Democrats Abroad).

And furthermore, your post doesn't even make any sense as a response to what I wrote. And give yourself a handle. Criminy.

Posted by: ASinMoCo | May 28, 2008 10:18 AM | Report abuse

The mysogony, homophobia, sexism of the media, and other OBAMA supporters and endorsers is one of the WORST marks this country will endure for a very long time.

And guess what folks, it is not ONLY the women of all ages and backgrounds who are FURIOUS. SO ARE MEN who have integrity and respect for all human beings!

I see OBAMA as an EMPTY SHELL a nothing, a Blabber. Send him back to stand for re-election in Illinois and that will be the end of him!

Those of angry at what has been happening are just as angry, if not more, at the DNC.

And so Houston, DNC has a bigger problem then it ever imagined!

IN IT'S FAILURE TO PUBLICALLY CONDEMN MEDIA BIAS and HATRED toward Clinton, it is FAILING to stand behind BOTH candidates EQUALLY!

IT ALSO INSISTS ON IT's OWN RULES TO DISENFRANCHISE voters in 2 States....votes counted as cast......THUS voters in our United States are NOT being treated EQUALLY by the DNC.

So think of this: we will be voting on the DNC PARTY in November as much as we will be voting on candidates!

Is this the year the DNC implodes????

Clinton or McCain in November '08!!!!

Posted by: Steve | May 28, 2008 10:16 AM | Report abuse

My God the rationale of the Clinton supporters is SO twisted! Obama hasn't stolen anything. He has more elected delegates...period!!

People on BOTH sides of this arguement are completely demonizing either Clinton or Obama, and it's just ridiculous. If the supers give it to Obama, her supporters will claim he "stold" it, even though his numbers are ahead. If they give it to Clinton, his supporters will claim it was stolen from him. Everyone seems to have forgotten about the BIG picture!! If you care about the economy, women's rights, 4000+ soldiers killed in Iraq, lies from the Bush administration that got us into this war to begin with, and McCain vowing to stay in until we "win" even though they don't have a realist goal of what winning is, then you need to get over hating Obama or Clinton because they beat the other one and actually give a cr@ap about the ISSUES.

Voting is a right, and also a privilege, not a game or something to use to protest. Our economy and the people who volunteer to fight for our country deserve better than this...

Posted by: XME | May 28, 2008 10:14 AM | Report abuse

I have been a life long Democrat and supporter of liberal causes. However, this year I will find myself voting for McCain rather than Obama. I know there are many out there like myself.

Posted by: mark | May 28, 2008 10:07 AM | Report abuse

What all Hillary supporters don't remember is that Hillary was never a good candidate. Her negatives were always through the roof and she was always considered to be too liberal by much of the country. Now she seems to have sold herself as mainstream and Obama as a far left extremist. The republican attack machine would have been able to remind everyone of this fact should she have prevailed and don't forget that the right was salivating over the prospect. In the end she was never a good candidate. Why on earth a strong dem didn't run (Mark Warner anyone) is a testement to the Clintons tenacles through the party and their now obvious sense of entitlement which they will use to destroy everything in thier path. They will make their loss everyones loss. The reality is there will not be another chance for them after this as in 2012 we will all be so over them. Sick of them as I now am. I would never support them after what they have demonstrated over the past few months and I am as left of center as they come. Further I would rather loose with Obama than chance having that pair soiling the White house ever again

Posted by: rokkyrich | May 28, 2008 10:05 AM | Report abuse

ASinMoCo

Which planet are these states on ????

Remember Obama thinks there are 57 states - you have to watch his calculations.


.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 28, 2008 10:05 AM | Report abuse

Hillary's problem is that she

Can't
Understand
Normal
Thinking

Posted by: Yuri Lipitzmeov | May 28, 2008 10:05 AM | Report abuse

Alright, the Clintons contain fathomless self-serve.

A provisional definition of a politician: those whose departure never comes soon enough.

Posted by: David | May 28, 2008 10:03 AM | Report abuse

Lee12...
What is it that appeals to you about John McCain's policies?

Posted by: Joyce | May 28, 2008 10:03 AM | Report abuse

The Clintons are doing a con job. Candidates get elected with votes, not with arguments after the voting.

Obama has won this nomination contest, there is nothing anybody can do about it.

He will probably win the general election because there is a shift change from center-right to center-left in the mood of the electorate. Obama is as bold a statement for change as Republicans will see in a generation.

The Clintons are only burying themselves in their own entitled hubris, "inevitable" baloney and those roaring 90's they are so fond of.

Obama outsmarted the Clinton machine. End of story.

Posted by: piktor | May 28, 2008 9:59 AM | Report abuse

Do not underestimate the blowback/backlash and buyers remorse toward Obama. I have changed my registration to Republican after 30 years of voting democrat and have prepared my family to go with McCain and the republicans for another four if need be.

Senator Hillary Clinton For President

Posted by: Lee12 | May 28, 2008 9:59 AM | Report abuse

Hey Chris,

Do you despair at the level of discussion on these blogs? I do.

I worked for Bill back in '92. I was an ardent supporter. I have to say the "brand" has worn thin though. Bill accomplished far less than he might have, in part because of relentless attacks, but in no small part because of his own misconduct.

Hillary ran on that brand, but both Clinton's have done a lot to diminish it in this election. Their insincerity and their looseness with the truth really have impacted me negatively. They create and attract controversy, heck, they seem to thrive on it. They've been brutal to one of their most dependable constituencies (African Americans), and they've done a lot off whining about mistreatment (no Clinton apparently loses anything, they're always victims of conspiracies).

I view Clinton's determination at this point as damaging the party's chances in the fall. She's free to choose to stay, but so were Edwards, Richardson, BIden and Dodd. She's sadly confusing her determination and "will to win" with what one hopes she might see as her country's best interests. At this point, it's hard for me to imagine forgiving her for this stubbornness.

I haven't ever really forgiven Kennedy for what he did to the party in 1980. Carter may have lost anyway, but Kennedy did a lot of damage. In all honesty, it will be hard for me to ever vote for a Clinton ever again.

Max

Posted by: Max Sewell | May 28, 2008 9:55 AM | Report abuse

Hillary needs to reconcile herself with Obama nation if she were to run again in 2008 and 2012. That will be a very, very uphill battle. She appears to think she can do it, but Obama would need to add his blessing. This I see as unlikely, and something she can't use her mighty will to change. Never coutnt 'em out, but my sense is that Hillary has just as good a chance as Carter does at becoming the next nominee - especially given Gore's meteoric rise in the Democrati party.

Posted by: Dan | May 28, 2008 9:54 AM | Report abuse

Is Barry Hussein's definition of "Hope" is attacking Pakistan? He said as much last summer. Such audacity!

Posted by: Nadeem Zakaria | May 28, 2008 9:52 AM | Report abuse

Boomer-aged white woman here. I'm capable of assessing the candidates on their merits and long ago moved away from Hillary to Obama. To vote for Hillary simply because she's a woman would actually be the antithesis of feminism -- it would continue the pattern of making choices according to what is EXPECTED. McCain's anti-choice position, among others, is also anti-feminist. Voting for McCain is a vote against women across the board.

Legally, the DNC Rules committee cannot seat more than 50% of the Florida/Michigan delegates. For the Hillary camp to be stirring up anger at Obama and sending protesters to this Saturday's meeting accomplishes only the sabotaging of the Democrats' chances in November. Her selfish ambition has harmed not only her political future, but the future of this nation.

Posted by: Barbara Campbell | May 28, 2008 9:50 AM | Report abuse

We are going to take over when black folks get into the white house. white people are corrupt and you can't ever trust them.

Posted by: Lakisha | May 28, 2008 9:49 AM | Report abuse

This constant referencing to current polls in OH, PA and FL mystifies me. The Clinton's have run hardest there, won there, and it is very difficult territory now for Obama as the final showdown approaches. But a lot can happen between now and the general. Should we all try to remember who was trouncing whom in the polls last August?

And can we please stop talking about the popular vote including MI and FL without also including the four caucus states HRC loves to pretend don't exist (IA, NV, ME, WA)? If states where no campaigning was allowed are going to be included, surely we can approximate the popular vote in these hard-fought states based on delegate counts.

Posted by: lisaAK | May 28, 2008 9:48 AM | Report abuse

The meds must be working!! Some actual, educated arguments/discourse from both sides in the last several posts.
I applaud you and say it's a pleasure when it goes this way to blog here.
That said...have fun kiddies...I'll see ya on the anon side.

Posted by: easyenough | May 28, 2008 9:48 AM | Report abuse


The Clintons have destroyed their legacies and I would never, EVER vote for that witch now.

Posted by: Shawn | May 28, 2008 9:45 AM | Report abuse

By Nov Obama will be a lock. They could not get Mccain elected on a bet. You could run a baby killer against him and get them elected. Things are going to be getting worse over the months and people will want change more then ever. Gas is predicted to be over $5.00 by late July and by november maybe $6.00. 24 months $8.00 to $10.00. Watch what people do as panic sets in when every cost in their lives is rising.

================
I can tell you so. The Democrats are about to nominate one of the least qualified candidates ever. We could have had a President who can manage the economy, get national health care started, and begin to end the war. Another four years lost, either with a guy who's got empty bromides to offer or a hotheaded guy who's got no clue about the economy.

Posted by: RAC | May 28, 2008 6:53 AM

Posted by: Anonymous | May 28, 2008 9:43 AM | Report abuse

August 18, 2007: It's entertaining, in that I was the greatest critic of the initial four years, three and a half years. I came back from my first trip to Iraq and said, This is going to fail. We've got to change the strategy to the one we're using now. But life isn't fair.

January 4, 2008: We'll stay 100 years.

January 4, 2008 (later): Make it a thousand, no... A MILLION!

May 15, 2008: Okay, okay, make me President and we'll be leaving by 2013, when have I ever been wrong before?

May 27, 2008: "I will never surrender in Iraq, my friends, I will never surrender in Iraq." (to protesters demanding "End this War!") So ending the war means "surrender"...at least until 2013.

And this doesn't even approach the many justifications of "why" we are there from WMD's to Democracy to fighting them there so they won't swim over here.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 28, 2008 9:42 AM | Report abuse

IF we could predict the outcome of the race by the clinton's fuzzy math and lies...she would lose to McCain. The RNC is not so reticent to bring her baggage and lies to the table...Besides , she voted with McCain and Bush most of the time!!!

Posted by: bink1 | May 28, 2008 9:42 AM | Report abuse

"Every nation has its war party. It is not the party of democracy. It is the party of autocracy. It seeks to dominate absolutely. It is commercial, imperialistic, ruthless. It tolerates no opposition. It is just as arrogant, just as despotic, in London, or in Washington, as in Berlin. The American Jingo is twin to the German Junker.... If there is no sufficient reason for war, the war party will make war on one pretext, then invent another."
--Robert M. La Follette

Which brings us to St. McCain.

September 2002: "Success in Iraq will be fairly easy."

And this is but one of many such predictions and proclamations over the years:

March 20, 2003: "But I believe, Katie, that the Iraqi people will greet us as liberators."

April 9, 2003: "It's clear that the end is very much in sight."

April 23, 2003: "There's not a history of clashes that are violent between Sunnis and Shiahs. So I think they can probably get along."

December 12, 2003: "This is a mission accomplished. They know how much influence Saddam Hussein had on the Iraqi people, how much more difficult it made to get their cooperation."

March 7, 2004: "I'm confident we're on the right course."

October 31, 2004: "I think the initial phases of it were so spectacularly successful that it took us all by surprise."

December 8, 2005: "I do think that progress is being made in a lot of Iraq. Overall, I think a year from now, we will have made a fair amount of progress if we stay the course. If I thought we weren't making progress, I'd be despondent."

January 4, 2007: Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) claimed that he knew the Iraq war was "probably going to be long and hard and tough," and that he was "sorry" for those who voted for the war believing it would be "some kind of an easy task."

Posted by: Anonymous | May 28, 2008 9:41 AM | Report abuse

As I watch this fascinating psychodrama unfold, the one question that no one has answered "that I know of" is this - what, in her background, among her accomplishments, on her resume, qualifies Hillary Clinton to be president? She has held one elective office which she was awarded simply because of her name, and has introduced no bills of any substance (look it up). Her one attempt at crafting policy (health care) was an utter disaster. Is it her speaking ability? Her intelligence? Her laugh? Her gender? What is it? I'm beginning to think there's more than meets the eye with her demonstrated appeal to "uneducated white folks". And no, I'm not an Obama supporter. I'm just genuinely baffled.

Posted by: innocent bystander | May 28, 2008 9:40 AM | Report abuse

Hillary Clinton: "Bla, bla, bla, bla, bla".

Bill Clinton: "Bla, bla, bla, bla, bla".


By November, no one will even remember what they said.

Posted by: Susan | May 28, 2008 9:36 AM | Report abuse

Whoa-lots of over- (or under-) medicated posters this morning.

Chris, the minor flaw in your analysis is this: although Hillary might outpoll Obama vs McCain in some of the battleground states, the polls still have Obama beating McCain in those states. I've seen a couple of recent polls where Obama wins Ohio, Pennsylvania and Michigan. Combine that with the new states Obama puts in play (VA, CO, NC, maybe some of the Mountain West states), as well as his stronger performance against McCain versus Hillary in all of the Southwestern states, and you see Obama actually has the stronger position for the general.

And also, let's just accept the fact that Obama has won the nomination, for crying out loud. He has an insurmountable delegate lead, and unless you're doing Hillary voodoo math (let me translate for those who don't understand: this is fictional math created by the Clinton campaign, the kind that awards Obama zero votes in Michigan and discounts the caucus states), he is also winning the popular vote.

Hillary has just a couple of days left to implement step one of Chris's plan. It won't work, of course, because Obama has already won the nomination. She needs to move on to step two as soon as possible if she wants to restore her credibility in the party.

Posted by: ASinMoCo | May 28, 2008 9:34 AM | Report abuse

The McCain campaign has provided an ongoing tutorial in the subtle ethics of lobbying. For instance, you might think that a politician who professes to be abhorred by special interests would not surround himself with lobbyists. Not so. What a politician can be drowning in lobbyists -- what matters is his integrity. And for that, you'll just have to take his word.

Charlie Black, McCain's campaign chairman and a veteran lobbyist, provides another tutorial today. Some have criticized the McCain camp for keeping Black while other McCain campaign officials have had to resign for their lobbying on behalf of Myanmar's ruling junta. Black lobbied for plenty of shady characters, they say, including Ferdinand Marcos and Jonas Savimbi. But Black has an answer for that. He has a code:

Black said he never took on work for foreign figures "without first talking to the State Department and the White House and clearing with them that the work would be in the interest of U.S. foreign policy."
For instance, he said, the U.S. considered Marcos an ally when his firm took on work for his government, and "when the White House pulled the plug on Marcos, we resigned the account the same day," Black said. He said his firm was hired to help show [Mobutu Sese Seko in Zaire] how to form political parties and conduct elections, and when Mobutu canceled the results of the parliamentary election, "we quit."

This rule would surely also cover Black's work for Ahmad Chalabi's Iraqi National Congress, which provided much of the dubious evidence that formed the administration's case for war with Iraq, and the Lincoln Group, the State Department contractor that was hired to plant stories in the Iraqi press. So I guess there's no problem with that.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 28, 2008 9:33 AM | Report abuse

You must be insane! This is too simple.If Obama wins the nomination, he loses in November. Women absolutely will not vote for this unqualified, gasbag who stole the nomination from Hillary. You pundits just don't get it.There is no way for him to win without white women!

Posted by: DSR | May 28, 2008 6:25 AM

Please explain to me how Obama is going to "steal" the nomination? He is ahead in pledged delegates, popular vote, superdelegates, states won and money raised.
I am fascinated by this "stealing" statement that I have seen several Clinton supporters mention. Please explain your rationale - I am willing to listen to any sensible arguments.

Posted by: pico sanchez | May 28, 2008 9:33 AM | Report abuse

Regarding Re-Votes/Re-doing the 2 primaries: The only proposals involved Clinton-supporting billionaires funding new primaries. The states were not willing to fund new primaries and Obama-supporting billionaires could not be forced to pay for new primaries (it would be illegal for Obama to even ask them as this would be "soft money" which federal candidates are not allowed to solicit).

Clinton-supporting billionaires funding new primaries would have been more grounds for lawsuits and the Democratic Party would have had 4 disputed primaries instead of 2.

Posted by: malia2 | May 28, 2008 9:30 AM | Report abuse

Since when is fundraising wrong ? I find it curious that the national party deems it appropriate to put Freedom of Speech restrictions on its candidates for the highest office on the planet


just so the national party can somehow assert authority over the calendar

The Constitution gives the STATES authority over the elections, not the national parties.

The national party is attempting to perform a CONSTITUTIONAL FUNCTION WITHOUT CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY

YOU guys are acting like violating a DNC rule is grounds for throwing someone off a bridge.

Be serious - step back - get a grip on yourself.


Michigan has a right to run a primary in January.


It is the PARTY that has no right to place Nevada ahead of Michigan and then cook up all these restrictions to enforce its rule that it had no authority to make in the first place.

Posted by: Words of Wisdom | May 28, 2008 9:29 AM | Report abuse

The reality is that Clinton won only those states that vote Democratic in every election, no matter who is the candidate. Obama would of course also get those states in November. She "won" the Black vote in FL only because it was an early primary. She would NOT win the Black vote in Florida now if the FL primary were repeated.

Posted by: Bodo | May 28, 2008 9:26 AM | Report abuse

Shrillary Clinton does not want to see Obama assasinated so she can grab the nomination.

As far as I know . . .

Posted by: Sleazery Clinton | May 28, 2008 9:24 AM | Report abuse

david halliday


Obama is not going to be elected, haven't you been listening to anyone?

.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 28, 2008 9:24 AM | Report abuse

I live in Florida and Obama was not here at all nor did he purchase ad's in the Florida market. Clinton in fact did campaign her in person under the disguise of fund raising. She was here several times drawing media attention every time and being interviewed. I guess thinking she was pulling a fast one or something.


++++++++++
malia2


Obama would have been wise to back the revotes - now he is stuck with the results of the January elections - Obama probably would have lost both elections - however with more delegates than he would have received as compared to the January results.


Obama did the wrong thing here.

By DNC Rules, Obama broke the rules by running commercials in Florida - also the efforts of the Obama campaign to stop the revotes could be a violation of the DNC rules - because those states were seeking to comply and Obama did not cooperate.


The penalty for such violations is the loss of ALL the delegates for a candidate from that state, which would not be good for Obama.

Obama should be thankful that his efforts to PREVENT a revote are not the subject of a violation complaint.

Actually, if this goes to the Convention, that is likely to be an issue.


.

Posted by: | May 28, 2008 9:16 AM

Posted by: Anonymous | May 28, 2008 9:23 AM | Report abuse

While I appreciate Cizzila's contention that Hillary is just waiting to say I told you so... he neglects to add that Hillary would be almost singularly responsible for such an outcome -- if it comes to pass. Obama and McCain have run (for the most part) relatively civil and issue oriented campaigns -- eschewing the personal attacks and other mudslinging -- while the Clintons have resorted to the personal destruction, lies, inuendo and other ruthless and unapologetic "lose at any cost" scorched earth campaigning.

Posted by: Vic | May 28, 2008 9:22 AM | Report abuse

Hillary Clinton will not go quietly into the night. She will make it as difficult as possible for Barack Obama to win the Democratic Nomination, and then claim as the former President is doing now,that in selecting Obama the Democrats will lose in November, echoing of course, Chris, your "told you so" scenario.

Obama has to damn the Clinton torpedoes and go "Full Speed Ahead." He should select Senator Webb as his VP: Edwards as his Attorney General; Biden as his Secretary of State: Dodd as his Secretary of Labor: Representative Ford as head of the newly constituted Department of Homeland Security; and then offer Hillary Clinton the post of Secretary of Health Education and Welfare. She may decline the appointment, but Obama will get high marks for his graciousness in making the offer, and Senator Clinton has always claimed that her Medical Program was more complete than his. This would give her the opportunity to implement it, if she were so inclined. If not there is always Minnesota Senator Claire McCaskel (I might have mangled the spelling) waiting in the wings. Thus far Obama's initiatives against McCain have been right on. The Republicans have a lot of accounting to do, and the American electorate will certainly find them wanting. Bush and Cheney will be fortunate to be able to step down without being pursued by any Federal Investigation. It should be noted, as it seldom is, that Obama, is not running on his own record, his national record is barely perceptible. He is running against McCain's record, just as he did against Senator Clinton's. Fortunately for Obama, McCain has not only his support of Bush's policies; his affinitity and near collaboration with Lobbyists to explain, but he must defend the indefensible record of the current Republican Administration.

Posted by: david halliday | May 28, 2008 9:21 AM | Report abuse

malia2


Obama would have been wise to back the revotes - now he is stuck with the results of the January elections - Obama probably would have lost both elections - however with more delegates than he would have received as compared to the January results.


Obama did the wrong thing here.

By DNC Rules, Obama broke the rules by running commercials in Florida - also the efforts of the Obama campaign to stop the revotes could be a violation of the DNC rules - because those states were seeking to comply and Obama did not cooperate.


The penalty for such violations is the loss of ALL the delegates for a candidate from that state, which would not be good for Obama.

Obama should be thankful that his efforts to PREVENT a revote are not the subject of a violation complaint.

Actually, if this goes to the Convention, that is likely to be an issue.


.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 28, 2008 9:16 AM | Report abuse

So under this scenario, we must assume that everything the Clinton family will do, between 2008 - 2012, is all about the White House. The thought of Bill wagging his finger at America for 4 years, is more than a person can take. Apparently this family is convinced that we need more of them and will pound away until they get it. What's wrong with just blending into to normal life and being satisfied??

Posted by: Edmonds | May 28, 2008 9:14 AM | Report abuse

THe Clintons are right. We all will be saying I told you so if Obama loses the election. I for sure have just turned Republican. I want to be sure our country is safe and not run by a bigot and liar.

Posted by: mzha | May 28, 2008 9:13 AM | Report abuse

Now these folks at the Washington Post seem to know what is in the minds...hmmmm...did they get hold of some mind reading machine from the movie set of Minority Report...

Just listen to this "In doing so, Clinton and her husband seem to be laying the groundwork -- whether unconsciously or consciously -- to go back to Democratic voters if Barack Obama comes up short"

Do you do any palm reading too...May be you and the slime ball Chris Mathews can go into private venture.

Posted by: Kevin99999 | May 28, 2008 9:11 AM | Report abuse

malia2


That is EXACTLY why a Constitutional argument would work well for the Rules Committee

The Rules committee could rely on Equal Protection =


With that reasoning, the lawsuits would be blunted. Besides, I seriously doubt that a Court would accept jurisdiction in which a Rules Committee voided one of it own rules.


.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 28, 2008 9:11 AM | Report abuse

Jim Whittaker....
I support Obama. I am a hillbilly as were my ancestors. WE were never racists. Be careful with the generalizations.

Posted by: easyenough | May 28, 2008 9:09 AM | Report abuse

The Democratic Party cannot give Clinton what she wants re Michigan and Florida because the Party would get lawsuits galore that the Party had constructed a conspiracy to disenfranchise voters by loudly, repeatedly, publicly proclaiming that those primaries would not count.

Obama cannot go along with Clinton just for the sake of ending her argument either because he cannot give credence to her "I won more votes" argument. Florida was a Saddam Hussein style primary where candidates only got their names on the ballot and weren't allowed to campaign and Michigan didn't even give the voters that much. And thats the way it has to go down for history.

Posted by: malia2 | May 28, 2008 9:06 AM | Report abuse

Pat..thank you...I read your considered (non-cap) post. An excellent example of civil discourse!

btw: I am not a big fan of George Will, but he has an excellent article posted here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/16/AR2008051603432.html
which makes for some real thought.

Posted by: easyenough | May 28, 2008 9:06 AM | Report abuse

OK, I try to be an objective reader. I try to look at both sides. Even when Clinton lost any of my support by playing to ignorance and fear and trumping up McCain as better than Obama; I continued to look at things from her POV, and tried to give the benefit of the doubt. But the whining that has been exhinited by Bill and Hillary is pathetic. NO ONE is forcing them out of teh race, Obama has said on more than one occasion as have his surrogates (Claire McCaskill anyone??). I think it is just sour grapes, because they are not being given the nomination, then they see it as being forced out. How dare they be forced out after every single primary has voted and FL and MI decided. How dare they be forced out after Obama time and time again has played by the rules and been a gentleman opponent. How dare they be forced out after losing the majority of the pledged delegates, and the lead with super delegates. How dare they be forced out at all! they should be allowe to campaign and create new metrics until finally they can be declared the winner. Hillary would make a good president, I am sure of it; but as a campaigner and candidate she needs to get over herself.

Posted by: chadibuins | May 28, 2008 9:05 AM | Report abuse

If Obama fails in his bid in 08 The democrat's most loyal base will not support her in 2012. What do you think would happen if African Amercans start to form groups to support Obama as women are forming groups to support Hillary? The Back lash would be an all out war in the Democratic Party. Hillary has done more to divide this country along race and gender lines than anyone I know in the last thirty years.

Posted by: Sandy | May 28, 2008 9:04 AM | Report abuse

My question is in direct relation to the article. Where are the numbers that support both Hillary's and Bill's assertion that Hillary has won the popular vote? Can someone point me to a website,article, etc. that substantiates this claim? Also, Hillary is a senator just like Obama, so what makes her more experienced. Not having experience is not necessarily a bad thing. This president we have now had "experience" and the United State is now like hell in a hand basket and ensconced in a war that we cannot and will not win. The dollar is worth a dime and the regular American folk are losing homes and jobs on a daily basis. America needs something new. The "Clintons" have been there and done that. And no, I am not a Black American, I am a white female voter. And what scares me most is this sense of desperation that both Bill and Hillary have on getting this nomination. It is almost like they want it by any means necessary and that scares the hell out of me about the Clintons.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 28, 2008 9:03 AM | Report abuse

JIM WHITTAKER, Hemet, CA is going ALL OUT to unite the democratic party


.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 28, 2008 9:01 AM | Report abuse

First of all, Obama cannot win a national election. This idea that he can win swing states is pure fantasy, like his autobiography. As people in the media have finally started to note, Obama is one big gaffe machine, i.e., seeing the dead, thinking the Americans freed the prisioners at Auchswitz. Clinton has won the popular vote and that is the problem. Obama was ready to declare victory in Iowa, but guess what, he couldn't do it because he didn't have the delegates. Many Democrats (who will be re-registering as an Independent as soon as possible) know that Obama is the same as McGovern. The party elites have determined this disaster named, Obama, is the left wing ideal they want. The problem is, the rest of the country is MODERATE, not left wing. He may lose 49 states like McGovern (I think at least 40 states), but Clinton will get the blame, no doubt. It is convenient to blame the Clintons for everything but the blame needs to be squarely placed on Howard Dean, Nancy Pelosi and others who engineered this disaster. Because of the fear of a revolt by AA, who have been the Democrats most loyal supporters, and literally another 1968 convention only this time in Denver, they have sacrificed the White House to be PC. Well, when President McCain takes over, and he might be there for 8 years, the Democrats will realize they made a very serious miscalculation, aided by the media (who will turn against Obama when some tapes that are being held finally come out-everyone knows they exist it is just a question of who has them). These are the same media that aided in the Iraq war, who have abandoned real journalism. That is why all of these other websites like SavagePolitics, dontvoteforobama, etc., are rising. People are fed up with the media and their bias. They are fed up with the charge of racism every time someone says something about Obama, whether historically accurate or not, that he does not like. People do not want this guy in the White House, and the DNC ignores the latest voting results in OH, CA, TX, FL, WV, KY, NY, NJ, MA, PA - at their own peril. Obama will crash and burn and there are some of us who know it.

Posted by: Polcomm | May 28, 2008 9:00 AM | Report abuse

Seneca


you have good points, that is why we were saying last night that Obama would be wise to concede to Hillary the entire delegations of Michigan and Florida - then she loses that issue as a justification to go to the Convention.

I am not sure why Obama hasn't figured this out already.

Obama is making a critical, critical error if he does not agree to give Hillary ALL the delegates she won in those two states -


First those delegates were voted by the Voters - the delegates are more the Voter's than Hillary's

Second, Obama really did not "Win" all the uncommitted votes in Michigan - Edwards took his name off the ballot - so the uncommitteds included Edwards' people.

Obama would be wise to take the deal that gives him all the uncommitted and run.


The reason is the uncommitted delegates, or at least some, could go to Hillary - which would be worse for Obama as opposed to getting all the uncommitteds committed to Obama.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 28, 2008 9:00 AM | Report abuse

Poor Hillary...

All she's now left with as supporters are
poor, bitter, old, blue-haired little ole ladies, and poor, uneducated, beer swilling, NASCAR watching, hillbilly racists.

A helluva base...

Posted by: JIM WHITTAKER, Hemet, CA | May 28, 2008 8:59 AM | Report abuse

What you should have said is that Obama is going to be undermined by Clinton every step of the way just so the Clintons can say "I told you so". Obama will have to not only fight against the Republican machine he will have to fight against the Clinton machine. Pretty formidable odds. But I think Americans are finally waking up and are sick of the inside the beltway pundits and lobbyists running the Country. We need change and so I predict Obama wins in a landslide.

Posted by: Barb | May 28, 2008 8:57 AM | Report abuse

She can say I told you say all she wants but that doesn't mean it's so. If she counts votes like she should there is no way she can be ahead in the popular vote She has to include this and leave out that. Obama is around 500,000 votes ahead if adding correctly. There is no way she can overcome that. If she wants to count every vote, then she has to include the caucus states and keep in mind that is not a vote per person so she should have to dream up the real count there. Of course she didn't win there so she doesn't like them so they won't be counted at all. Woops so much for disenfranchising voters. Hillary did not want to count Fla or Mi and said so until she needed them. Everyone knows that. She is only concerned about herself not the voters. Everyone should know that too. Is that the kind of president we want? I don't think so. This campaign has shown the real Hillary or at least one side of the real Hillary. That is why she is losing/has lost. No I told you so about it at all. And there may be more hidden from the real Clinton years. I am sure someone will say I told you so but it won't be Hillary.

Posted by: ktlin | May 28, 2008 8:57 AM | Report abuse

The problem with 7:55 am's argument is that the Obama campaign's spreadsheet precicted the primaries after Super Tuesday so accurately, months in advance. I think the only errors they made were they thought Maine would go Clinton and Indiana would go Obama. The former was a big Obama win by over 10 points and the latter was a Clinton squeaker by 1.4 points.

Therefore, Clinton's campaigning has had nothing to do with the results, which were always predictable based on demography of the individual states. (Plus, she's been helped a lot by Republicans messing with the Democratic primaries in an effort to damage.)

Posted by: malia2 | May 28, 2008 8:56 AM | Report abuse

Great Post:

Who needs race as an excuse when there are so many reasons to oppose Obama? His supporters (poor victims!) want to call everyone a racist who sees him for what he is. A superficial, unqualified gasbag!He no more deserves the nomination than I do!I am representative of Florida women, and I promise you he will not win our state.But maybe he won't need to. Maybe he'll win Kentucky and Utah and Mississippi and S Carolina.Ya Think?


.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 28, 2008 8:52 AM | Report abuse

What the party elite and "superdelegates" must realize -- before it's too late -- is that this disenfranchisement with the Democratic Party is not an isolated occurrence among a tiny minority of bloggers. These are everyday Democrats, most of whom are just casual visitors to political websites. They are mostly women, although many men have written too, and they have been the foundation of the party for decades. Many of them were Reagan Democrats re-captured by Bill Clinton. Almost all consider themselves "lifelong Dems."

Anyone who's paying attention will understand that we're witnessing an extraordinary movement, one which could lead to the creation of a structured third party or a significant population of former Democrats registered as "independent"

statement taken from the no quarter site.

Posted by: PAT | May 28, 2008 8:50 AM | Report abuse

(and we have ABSOLUTELY no evidence to believe she would like to see that scenario come to pass),

as far as we know...

Posted by: Anonymous | May 28, 2008 8:50 AM | Report abuse

MarkInAustin


You keep looking for these people - they are simply made-up names of people at the Obama campaign

.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 28, 2008 8:48 AM | Report abuse

Last post for me this morning: RBuschFL at 8:38A really called on Chris to fill a void before Saturday. I join RB in that request.

Optimyst at 7:55A posted on how unvarnished facts without race-gender spin and including concessions of bad strategy could be presented by HRC as a strong argument. That was an eye-opener.

Bhoutan, what time is it Down Under?

Alan in Missoula, Colin, and blert:
send an email to mark_in_austin@operamail.com

Posted by: MarkInAustin | May 28, 2008 8:45 AM | Report abuse

BOTTOM LINE IS:you don't have to be real smart to realize that both candidates do not yet have enough votes and will require the support of the Super Delegates in order to win. In other words, it is in the hands of Super Delegates.

Leave it to Barack's folks to threaten race riots. Intimidation through the threat of violence, even race violence, is one of Obama's insidious weapons in stampeding super delegates like a herd. Here's a radical alternative. Let's use reason and intelligence. Is that feasible?

Posted by: PAT | May 28, 2008 8:44 AM | Report abuse

What "historical" pattern is there for nominating a former first lady? She is a weak candidate who has always been a sure loser for the general election but she's stayed in the race in an effort to damage Obama for November. Like that guy in Idaho said in response to Bill Clinton, if Bill Clinton had done for the elk in his state what he'd done for the Democratic Party, there wouldn't be any elk left. By the numbers, the Clintons greatly damaged the Democratic Party and if she was the nominee, the Party would be headed down again.

Posted by: malia2 | May 28, 2008 8:44 AM | Report abuse

Agree that the 7:55 am post presents a cogent argument for Clinton. Unfortunately, it's a bit too late and would appear as another desparate change in tactics.

Regardless of who wins the presidency in November, the Dems look set to dramatically increase their majorities in the house and senate which will hamstring McCain (should he win) or greatly help Obama (should he win)

Posted by: RickJ | May 28, 2008 8:42 AM | Report abuse

reading this is simply a waste of time. If I wanted to read the candidate's talking points, I could go to her web site. I am amazed that there is no mention of the current context, in analyzing polls for an election six months away. But I'm really not; CC is more comfortable critiquing Obama's attitude, with videos of him being civil but chily to a pushy photo seeker.

As for Clinton being "savvy", please don't make me laugh over breakfast. A savvy politician doesn't make the RFK remark, or the Bosnia remark, or the hardworking whites remark, or the Jesse Jackson remark, or the MLK-LBJ remark (yeah, yeah, they were misconstrued, it's a political trick by Obama -- the all-purpose excuse every time they put their foot in their mouth), and sure doesn't go from being the presumptive candidate to hoping to win the "popular vote" by winning Puerto Rico (which has zero electoral votes) and couting a primary in which Obama was not on the ballot, while excluding caucuses Obama won, but tallies weren't kept. And you say their argument has "some merit"?

Posted by: gbooksdc | May 28, 2008 8:42 AM | Report abuse

Pat...you can get your message across without shouting with all caps...It's still rude and has been since the first days of the internet.

Posted by: easyenough | May 28, 2008 8:39 AM | Report abuse

Chris, I would like to see more analysis of the Rules Committee: starting with some basic info that I have not seen in the media ---who are these people, how did they get on the committee, why are Hillary Clinton supporters 49% of the committee?

The other big story that the media is ignoring (perhaps because it's difficult to tease out) is what is the game that the uncommitted superdelegates are playing? It looks like classic political science game theory -- they are holding a chip and they know the value of the chip goes up over time, so they are holding on to it. One wonders what kinds of conversations / pressures the Clintons are putting on these folks; it's amazing they have not succumbed.

Nevertheless, Hillary right now has a lot of power - she can bring down Obama if she's a total obstructionist in the rules committee. The superdelegates can take that power away. But they aren't (so far) in order to hold onto that chip.

Posted by: RbuschFL | May 28, 2008 8:38 AM | Report abuse

I;M NOT CAPPING TO BE RUDE ESPECIALLY BUT TO FILL THE BLOG JUST LIKE THE ARMY OF OBAMABOTS FILL THE BOARDS TO DROWN HILLARY OUT AND MAKE HER INSIGNIFICANT.JSUT GIVING THE SAME FEELING YOU OBAMA SUPPORTERS HAVE BEEN GIVING HILLARY SUPPORTERS WITH YOUR UNJUST HATE TOWARDS HILLARY WHO HAS STOOD AND HELPED WOMAN AND BLACKS SINCE WAY BEFORE OBAMA WAS EVER AROUND.WHAT HAS HE DONE WHAT CAN HE VOUCH FOR IN ANY WORK HE HAS DONE.HE CANT EVEN TELL US HOW HE WILL DO ANYTHING TO HELP HE HAS NO PLAN THE WORDS ALONE HOPE AND CHANGE DO NOTHING.

Posted by: PAT | May 28, 2008 8:37 AM | Report abuse

You're correct. That 7:55 post is most excellent. Wish more of here supporters could think and speak as well.

Posted by: easyenough | May 28, 2008 8:31 AM | Report abuse

Chris, you wrote "...To be sure, the Clintons are FAR too savvy to use that exact language, but the sentiment, nonetheless, is accurately summed up in those three words."

Far too savvy??? How soon you forget the Bosnia whopper or the Jesse Jackson remark in SC or indeed the RFK assassination amongst others.

Far too savvy?? You've figured it out havent you Chris? As have many other voters some time ago. How savvy can that be?

In order to be REALLY savvy there must be much sophistry and murkiness. I fail to see intelligent covertness of action and speech even at this late date. Future slips of the tongue in her "efforts" to assist during the general election is much feared by this writer.

Posted by: Ohillary | May 28, 2008 8:30 AM | Report abuse

Chris you are in the tank for Obama, what else is new!! you have to bein stae of delusion not to see that that Hillary is by far stronger candidate and she is wining as we speak in most important states. The Obamedia UAS is stealing our election and want to crown their own candidate.

Posted by: nancy sabet | May 28, 2008 8:29 AM | Report abuse

Sorry, Chris, but I think you're wrong. Hillary is not going to wrap this up by June 3rd. Hillary is going to take her fight to seat the FL and MI delegates all the way to the convention. If a report today is true, the DNC will only agree to seat half their delegates, which is not what Hillary wants. To have a chance at getting the full delegates seated, she has to get the approval of the Credentials Committee, which can't happen until the convention. THAT is the route Hillary will choose.

Either way, the Democratic Party is now hopelessly divided. Older white females will not vote for Obama now that they have been persuaded that Hillary's civil rights have been violated. And if Hillary gets her way, changes the rules and steals the nomination, some Obama supporters will lose heart and not vote for her.

I'm not a bettin' woman, but if I were, I'd say the Democrats are doomed.

Posted by: Seneca | May 28, 2008 8:29 AM | Report abuse

Lot of republican posters in here supporting Hellary.
That certainly explains a large amount of the incivility.

Posted by: easyenough | May 28, 2008 8:28 AM | Report abuse

Read Optimyst a 7:55 AM. That post is extraordinary, and worth your focus. No capitalizations, no ranting, just better analysis.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 28, 2008 8:27 AM | Report abuse

"Last August, when the DNC Rules Committee voted to strip Florida (and Michigan, if it persisted in clinging to its date) of its delegates, the Clinton delegates on the committee backed those sanctions. All 12 Clinton supporters on the committee supported the penalties. (The only member of the committee to vote against them was an Obama supporter from Florida.) Harold Ickes, a committee member, leading Clinton strategist and acknowledged master of the political game, said, "This committee feels very strongly that the rules ought to be enforced." Patty Solis Doyle, then Clinton's campaign manager, further affirmed the decision. "We believe Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina play a unique and special role in the nominating process," she said, referring to the four states that the committee authorized to hold the first contests. "And we believe the DNC's rules and its calendar provide the necessary structure to respect and honor that role. Thus, we will be signing the pledge to adhere to the DNC-approved nominating calendar."

Not a single Clinton campaign official or DNC Rules Committee member, much less the candidate herself, said at the time that the sanctions imposed on Florida or Michigan were in any way a patriarchal plot or an affront to democratic values. The threat that these rules posed to our fundamental beliefs was discovered only ex post facto -- the facto in question being Clinton's current need to seat the delegations whose seatings she had opposed when she thought she'd cruise to the nomination.

Clinton's supporters have every right to demonstrate on Saturday, of course. But their larger cause is neither democracy nor feminism; it's situational ethics. To insist otherwise is to degrade democracy and turn feminism into the last refuge of scoundrels."

Posted by: easyenough | May 28, 2008 8:26 AM | Report abuse

easyenough


since when are the Obama posters into being polite and civil ???

.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 28, 2008 8:25 AM | Report abuse

Obama has NO RIGHT TO SAY that McCain is going to continue Bush's policies.


PERHAPS if Obama actually did his job instead of going on a book tour:


Obama would have seen McCain opposing Bush in the Senate on issue after issue.

The reason Obama hasn't seen this is because Obama hasn't EVEN BEEN COMING TO WORK SINCE BEING ELECTED - OBAMA HAS BEEN COLLECTING A PAYCHECK BUT GOING ON BOOK TOURS AND RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT.


Instead, Obama was MIA selling books instead of WATCHING MCCAIN WORK ACROSS THE AISLE.


Seriously - Obama wasn't doing his job so he wasn't even IN THE SENATE TO BE ABLE TO WATCH MCCAIN SHOW HIM HOW ITS DONE.


Obama, if he wasn't so arrogant and uppity, could have ACTUALLY LEARNED SOMETHING FROM MCCAIN.

NOW we have the curious sight of Obama the inexperience person who knows very little about Washington attempting to find something wrong with the MAVERICK.


The truth is Obama has nothing on McCain so Obama HAS TO MAKE UP SOME SET OF LIES.


Of course, then Obama has to focus-group his lies to see which ones work the best.

Obama sickens anyone who truly wants to see this country run correctly.


Obama take your race-baiting and your lies and your false charges of "offensive remarks" and go back to Chicago.


Charge made.


Charge sticks.

Posted by: Words of Wisdom | May 28, 2008 8:24 AM | Report abuse

AUDACITY OF HOPE WRIGHT OUT OF THE CHURCH WHERE WHITEY IS PORTRAYED CHICKENS HAVE COME HOME TO ROOST ON 9/11 AND THEY THINK HE IS GOING TO MAKE PRESIDENT.LMAO WHAT A JOKE.HOW CAN ANYONE TAKE HIM SERIOUSLY OR VOTE FOR HIM.

HE IS GOING TO TAKE AWAY YOUR RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS AND YOUR TAX THE PANTS RIGHT OFF OF YOU.WHILE MICHELLE FINALLY THINKS SHE MIGHT BE PROUD IF SHE BECOMES THE FIRST LADY.AND AL SHARPTO AND JESSE JACKSON WILL COME OUT OF THE WOODWORK AND STILL FINDS WAYS TO SUE THE WHITE WORKING CLASS PEOPLE TO MAKE A LIVING.ONLY WILL HAVE MORE POWER IN THE OBAMAS ADMINISTRATION ANAD ADD WRIGHT,AYERS,AND EVERY ANTI AMERICAN ACTIVIST IN THE NATION.FAR LEFT LIBERALS WHO WILL MAKE YOU REBUKE CHRISTIAN BIBLE THUMPING THEOLOGY AND TRADE IT FOR BLACK LIBERATION THEOLOGY.

Posted by: PAT | May 28, 2008 8:23 AM | Report abuse

LOL Chuckamok!! Great idea! They are either always shouting or are newbies and don't know that all caps is shouting and very impolite.
Wait! Since when did the HillBills know anything about civil discourse?

Posted by: easyenough | May 28, 2008 8:22 AM | Report abuse

What worries me is that the Clinton campaign is spinning the results to make it look as if Hillary's loss of the nomination somehow compares to Gore's loss of Florida in 2000: technicalities thwarting the will of the people. But you really cannot compare a general election with this kind of nomination contest. Are we supposed to look at who voted and try to figure out the what the "real" rank-and-file Democrats want, discounting how the crossover independents and Republicans voted in the open primaries? What about caucuses? Where do we draw the line?

Hillary, of course, is playing the hand she was dealt. However, playing that hand is very risky for the Democratic Party. Most people don't know about or care to understand the rules governing how a nominee is chosen. So if Hillary is creating the mistaken impression that Obama won the nomination only because "votes were not counted," many of her supporters could feel irreversibly aggrieved and cheated. How do we then unite the party for the fall?

There are numerous reasons why Hillary is coming up short, mostly related to miscalculations by her own campaign, but you cannot legitimately argue that the rules were stacked against her. The nomination is not being "stolen" from her in the way the presidency was stolen from Gore. There's just no comparison.

Posted by: harlemboy | May 28, 2008 8:20 AM | Report abuse

CAN'T WAIT FOR THE WHITEY VIDEO TO COME OUT.BET CARL ROVE HAS IT.MCCAIN TO.OBAMA DOOM IS SOON TO COME.THE DNC WILL SEE HIS EVIL WAYS.

Posted by: PAT | May 28, 2008 8:16 AM | Report abuse

SORRY GET SO MAD ABOUT THE STEALING OF THE NOMINATION I CANT EVEN SPELL RIGHT!!

MY UNCLE SAVED THE JEWS GIVE ME A BREAK!!

JUST LIE LIE LIE I'M THE MESSIAH THEY WILL LOVE ME ANYWAYS.

I CAN DO WHAT I WANT I AM NOT HELD ACCOUTABLE FOR WHAT I SAY.

BUT I OBAMA JUST LOVE IT WHEN I CAN MAKE HILLARY LOOK RACIST WITH MY RACE BATING LOW LIFE CHICAGO POLITICS DOWN AND DIRTY.

BLACK ELITE---ISTS NOT PROUD TILL OBAMA STEALS THE NOMINATION.

MY PRINCETON EDUACATION IS NOT PAID FOR YET OH MY!!

Posted by: PAT | May 28, 2008 8:15 AM | Report abuse

Hillary Clinton, run as an independent. Barack Obama will lose the General Election and Democratic ideals will be dead for another 8 years. And the waars will continue. Obama is a misjudgement!

Posted by: Anonymous | May 28, 2008 8:15 AM | Report abuse

Obama has NO RIGHT TO SAY that McCain is going to continue Bush's policies.

PERHAPS if Obama actually did his job instead of going on a book tour:


Obama would have seen McCain opposing Bush in the Senate on issue after issue.

Instead, Obama was MIA selling books instead of WATCHING MCCAIN WORK ACROSS THE AISLE.

Seriously - Obama wasn't doing his job so he wasn't even IN THE SENATE TO BE ABLE TO WATCH MCCAIN SHOW HIM HOW ITS DONE.


Charge made.


Charge sticks.

.

Posted by: Words of Wisdom | May 28, 2008 8:14 AM | Report abuse

Wow, Valium all around for Hillary's fanatics. ;)

Posted by: Chuckamok | May 28, 2008 8:13 AM | Report abuse

YAH THATS WHY HARKEM GOT MILLIONS TO BUILD IT UP FROM THE CLINTONS.THATS WHY DURING BILL CLINTONS PRESIDENCY THE AA AMERICAN WHER TEH BEST OFF IN HISTORY.FICKLED RACISTS VOTE FO THE BLACK GUY VOTE FOR SKIN COLOR NOT SUBSTANCE.VOTE 92%-97% SAYS IT ALL.

Posted by: PAT | May 28, 2008 8:11 AM | Report abuse

Everyone is getting sick of Obama's uppity lying ways


SICK


McCain is not going to continue the policies of Bush - that is a LIE.


It would be convenient for Obama if it were true.

MCCAIN HATES BUSH - BUSH RAN A SMEAR CAMPAIGN AGAINST BUSH IN SOUTH CAROLINA - MCCAIN HAS SPENT MUCH OF THE PAST 7 YEARS OPPOSING BUSH POLICIES.

No one wants to hear Obama's lies.


To be honest, Obama has a bad attitude - he LIED in his campaign against Hillary - and now it is beginning to look like Obama intends to LIE HIS WAY THROUGH THE FALL CAMPAIGN.

Give us a break.


.

Posted by: Words of Wisdom | May 28, 2008 8:10 AM | Report abuse

Everyone is getting sick of Obama's uppity lying ways


SICK


McCain is not going to continue the policies of Bush - that is a LIE.


It would be convenient for Obama if it were true.

MCCAIN HATES BUSH - BUSH RAN A SMEAR CAMPAIGN AGAINST BUSH IN SOUTH CAROLINA - MCCAIN HAS SPENT MUCH OF THE PAST 7 YEARS OPPOSING BUSH POLICIES.

No one wants to hear Obama's lies.


To be honest, Obama has a bad attitude - he LIED in his campaign against Hillary - and now it is beginning to look like Obama intends to LIE HIS WAY THROUGH THE FALL CAMPAIGN.

Give us a break.


.

Posted by: Words of Wisdom | May 28, 2008 8:10 AM | Report abuse

"Oh and sorry, if Hillary is not at least on the ticket, then she need not campaign for OB"

Oh and sorry - she has pledged many times to support the Dem nominee, whoever that is. And that whoever is Obama.

But I DO hope she abandons her party. New York Dems will yank that Senate seat from beneath that wide load. Buh-bye, Billary. ;)

Posted by: Chuckamok | May 28, 2008 8:09 AM | Report abuse

AT LEAST HILLARY HAD A PLAN THAT MAKES SENSE.SHE JUST DIDNT BECOME THE MESSIAH AND BAMBOOZLED EVERYONE INTO THINKING LIKE OBAMA CREATING PROPOGANDA THAT HE IS THE NOMINEE.WHO IS TIM RUSSERT ANYWAYS OR MSNBC TO DECLARE THE WINNER.


IT AINT OVER TILL THE LADY IN THE PANTSUIT SINGS!!


VOTE HILLARY SHE HEARS YA.

SHE UNDERSTANDS YA!

AND SHE TRULY CARES!!!!

Posted by: PAT | May 28, 2008 8:08 AM | Report abuse

She's absolutely vile and her husband is no better. After this election they'll be the most hated figures in the Democratic Party. If she thinks she'll have another shot in 2012 if Obama loses she better guess again. She'll be a pariah to the Party.

Her campaign has been a cesspool, but raising the specter of assassination is unforgiveable. Once and you're given the courtesy of claiming a gaffe. Four times is a deliberate theme. The sooner the Democratc Party cuts out the Clinton cancer once and for all the better it will be.

Posted by: Caligula | May 28, 2008 8:07 AM | Report abuse

Another bone thrown out to am obvious pack of wild dogs. Here is your snack for teh day, all you hate mongers and vengeful loyalist to chew on. No go ahead, attack each other like the mindless loons you are.

He stole, she stole, conspiracy theories abound. This is what "they secretly" are doing, and you morons bite right into your piece of the bone and hold on with dear life. Shouting your hate through clinched teeth, vowing to cut off your noses - for no other reason than sore feelings. Irrational thought, followed by even more irrational comments. Look the race is almost over, it was as fair as teh rules allowed, and if any of you think the media dictated who would win, you are not as bright as you assume yourself to be.

The voters voted, and have been for several months - now to come in here with the he/she stole something is pure fantasy. They both campaigned, one will win the other will lose, get over it...you pie will still warm in the oven, and you can sit back and eat it, get fatter and life goes on. Grow Up.

Posted by: Huh | May 28, 2008 8:06 AM | Report abuse

It amazes me how Hillary supporters claim that Obama is "stealing" the election. Sorry, but I'm afraid the voters have all but taken the nomination away from Hillary. So sorry that they didn't vote the way you wanted, but you might have run a better campaign... So you should blame the voters, not Obama. Then you have other Clinton supporters who write things like this: (From post below by pat at 7:11 - excuse the incoherent sentence structure, but this is a Clinton loyalist, so we can't expect educated discourse here.)
-----
You think Nafta Hurt a lot of people in this country.Just wait with Obama his eye on foreign affairs will give every minority tax dollars and every other nation but the United States will be taken care of but us as always only more attention on the minority agenda.
-----
This, dear readers, is bigotry. Don't forget that Hillary had a loud voice in supporting NAFTA when it was passed during Bill's administration. No matter how much Clinton supporters claim that getting the black vote makes Obama a racist, statements like this on Hillary's behalf are instructive. Democrats have always had strong, reliable support from the black community - it seems to be a wonderful thing when they turn out for a white candidate, but when they vote for a black man, it's racism. This is a double standard of the worst kind. It proves one thing - many Clinton supporters are hoping that she'll save us from the scary Black man!
What I'm hoping for is an Obama victory over McCain. If bigots write in Hillary and hand the election to McCain, then I hope that by 2012 a better candidate than Hillary Clinton will arise. Perhaps Katherine Sibelius. In any event, the "I told you so" concept ignores what a horrible candidate Hillary Clinton is. This campaign has proven that there are much better choices than Hillary Clinton for president. To be specific: any or all of them!

Posted by: Anonymous | May 28, 2008 8:06 AM | Report abuse

GLAD TO KNOW I GOT YOU TO CUSS AND SWEAR,MUST BE TRUTH TO WHAT IM SAYING.AND OBAMA WILL BE CALLED OUT TO BY THE REPUBLICANS AND HE WILL LOSE.

Posted by: PAT | May 28, 2008 8:05 AM | Report abuse

THRE YOU GO WHITE TRASH TRUE RACISM LIVES IN THE HEARTS OF THE AA AMERICAN THEY ARE LIVING 200 YEARS AGO IN THE UNFORGIVENESS THAT IS PREACHED IN THIER CHURCHES.ANY EDUCATION THEY HAVE COMES OUT OF THE WHITEY THEY SO HATES TAX DOLLARS.

Posted by: PAT | May 28, 2008 8:04 AM | Report abuse

Hillary needs to do what Joe Lieberman did, run as an independant. The Dem party has shown no loyalty to either her or President Bill Clinton, so it is time for her to show loyalty to the people that support her and vote for her. Dems tried to push Lieberman out and he came back stronger. The Dems in the party kiss his A-- now because without him they could lose their majority. Must be awful for the Dems to have to be nice to Lieberman after dogging him. Hillary, run as an independant so your supporters can vote for you in November, don't force us to vote for McCain. Oh and sorry, if Hillary is not at least on the ticket, then she need not campaign for OB because McCain is the better option.

Posted by: tiredofit | May 28, 2008 8:04 AM | Report abuse

Hey Pat

You are a complete f___king White Trash, moron. Keep exposing the Clinton supporters for what they really are, uneducated, lowlife bigots.

Posted by: Shiva | May 28, 2008 8:01 AM | Report abuse

It's over, Hillary supporters. And all the exclamation points and caps in the world won't change it. Now ... your hero has PROMISED to get out there and fight for the Dem nominee, whoever that is. So fall in line and practice - "GO-BAMA!" Remember - the next prez will appoint maybe THREE justices to the SCOTUS.

Posted by: Chuckamok | May 28, 2008 8:00 AM | Report abuse

thesuperclasssux writes:

Make no mistake -- the Clintons are taking this all the way to the convention and beyond.

They'll stage a bitter and bloody floor fight, further dividing the party along race and gender lines. And if they fail (an almost certainty to anyone with two eyeballs), they'll extend the battle into the GE campaign, by either sitting it out on the sidelines and (surreptitiously) lobbing little potshots at Obama, or continuing to raise the battle cry for their cause, whatever the hell it may be.

If Obama loses, they can say, "We told you so," and thereby vindicate themselves to posterity.

If he wins, they stand to be remembered as two sore old losers who shared the fate that most narcissists face -- death by hubris.

**************************************

My comments:

After the CONDUCT OF THE OBAMA CAMPAIGN, the Clintons have a right to bring the campaign to the Convention.


We have talked about this numerous times.

Simply the false charge of "offensive remarks" against Bill Clinton is sufficient to justify going to the Convention.

There are boundaries in politics and Obama certainly has crossed several of them.

The Obama campaign and Obama campaign should have had an eye all along on proper conduct because for nothing less than its self-interest in uniting the party this summer.

Obama has only himself to blame.

AND half the democrats out there want to call Obama smart. I don't see it.

.

Posted by: Words of Wisdom | May 28, 2008 7:57 AM | Report abuse

AND NOW AL SHARPTON AND JESSE JACKSON FINALLY COME OUT OF THE WOODWORK.TO HELP HIM STEAL IT.LETS JUST SUE EVERY WHITEY TO MAKE A LIVING.ISNT THAT THE FAMOUS VIDEO THAT WILL COME OUT TO BE OBAMAS DOOM.THE WHITEY VIDEO.

Posted by: PAT | May 28, 2008 7:57 AM | Report abuse

As we head toward resolution of the FL & MI delegate situation, I look at the Clinton campaign delegate strategy as having been very weak. The first problem with it is that it hasn't been consistent. As needed they've rolled out all kinds of rationales for her candidacy:

1) That she wins the big states
2) That she wins the key swing states
3) That she wins the popular vote (using amazing mathematical dexterity
4) That caucus states don't really count
5) That Michigan & Florida must count
6) That the electoral votes of the states she won exceeds Obama's
7) That it's up to the super delegates to decide

I think the waffling has hurt her. It reminds me of a well-heeled defendant with a losing case bankrolling a good lawyer to try every possible argument, even when the lawyer knows the chances are remote. The other part of this that hurts her is the technical argument about MI & FL. Without a re-vote, it gets too complex for the average voter to grasp. While her argument is direct and forceful, it is hard to grant legitimacy to a result in MI where Obama wasn't on the ballot. It seems desperate.

On the other hand, the one clear case she can make, above all the technical arguments, I haven't heard made at all. It would go something like this:

Barack Obama has been a formidable challenger for the democratic nomination. I was not adequately prepared early on to fight him and I did not put my full effort into campaigning. I mistakenly thought I'd have the nomination locked up on February 5th. I was wrong, and then was not prepared to challenge Mr. Obama for the remaining contests in February. He performed magnificently and won ten contests in a row. But then I realized I was in for the battle of my life and I retooled my campaign and got down to business. Since then, the results have been gratifying. Since March, I have won more states, more votes, and more pledged delegates. I will probably come up short to my challenger in pledged votes because I failed to perform well in the early contests. However, I have shown recently that I am the better campaigner. I have shown that I can work harder and have more heart than my opponent. I have made a real connection with the people who are suffering the most in this soft economy, and I will take the momentum of my success and beat John McCain in November.

There's no silly math or wishful thinking in the above paragraph. There is, however, a dose of humility and an admission of mistakes. If Hillary and her campaign had been better at strategy, she'd now be in a place where the super delegates would be ready to fall her way. As it is, I guess they are very tired of being gamed with all the funny math, technical arguments and lame excuses.

Posted by: Optimyst | May 28, 2008 7:55 AM | Report abuse

Who needs race as an excuse when there are so many reasons to oppose Obama? His supporters (poor victims!) want to call everyone a racist who sees him for what he is. A superficial, unqualified gasbag!He no more deserves the nomination than I do!I am representative of Florida women, and I promise you he will not win our state.But maybe he won't need to. Maybe he'll win Kentucky and Utah and Mississippi and S Carolina.Ya Think?

Posted by: dsr | May 28, 2008 7:54 AM | Report abuse

Senator Clinton and her supporters are living in a parallel universe. They want to count the votes of MI and FL, where the states and the voters were informed in advance that they would not count. If I hear one more person say 'I didn't know!" I will scream. I live in MI. It was on local and national TV, radio and the internet every single day for weeks before the primary. People were talking about it incessantly beforehand. If you didn't know, you obviously live under a rock.

They want to throw out the caucus states' results because she doesn't think they are fair.

They want this primary election to be decided by popular vote, but does not want the caucus state vote totals counted (see above).

Clinton supporters, your candidate was beaten fair and square. if you do not like the rules by all means, try to change them for the next election. But you cannot get in your time machine and change the results from this one!

Posted by: Ann | May 28, 2008 7:48 AM | Report abuse

Sen Clinton isn't as clean as some of you would like to have us think. She's a politician like all the rest with all of their foibles as well. If she loses, then she lost it; not her advisors, the media or Sen Obama, her failure is her own darn fault. Deep down all of you know this.

Posted by: RO | May 28, 2008 7:47 AM | Report abuse

Sen Clinton isn't as clean as some of you would like to have us think. She's a politician liek all the rest with all of their foibles as well. If she loses, then she lost it; not her advisors, the media or Sen Obama, her dailure is her own darn fault. Deep down all of you know this.

Posted by: RO | May 28, 2008 7:46 AM | Report abuse

YEAH IT AINT OVER TILL THE LADY IN THE PANTSUIT SINGS!!!!!!!!!


VOTE HILLARY VOTE HILLARY!!!

I'M TIRED OF THE OBAMBOTS TAKING OVER THE BLOGS AND DRWONING OUT THE VOICE OF THE PEOPLE AND THE ONLY CANDIDATE WHO CAN BEAT MCCAIN.

Posted by: PAT | May 28, 2008 7:42 AM | Report abuse

Obama IS ATTEMPTING TO STEAL THE ELECTION


LET US BE CLEAR.


First, he played this game by pretending to be the post-racial candidate and then he turned around and pushed race in South Carolina like no other Presidential candidate in recent memory.


Obama is attempting to STEAL THE ELECTION by pretending to be "offended" by comments by Bill Clinton, and then again by Gerry Ferraro - and others.


Obama was never offended by any of these comments - these are false charges.


Third, Obama is attempting to STEAL THIS ELECTION by playing the race card with the Superdelegates - again this is out of bounds and serves to divide this nation even more.


Obama is actually sacrificing the work of many people - white and black in recent decades - in order to run this kind of campaign.


It is a joke that Obama would try this.


Perhaps if Obama actually had a history of slavery and Jim Crow in his family, he would be more in touch with these issue.


However Obama does not have that family history, he is from an immigrant family who is basically carpetbagging on the Black Liberation Theology radical section of the Black community.


Obama IS ATTEMPTING TO STEAL THE ELECTION.


However, the way his is attempting to the steal the election is even worse.

.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 28, 2008 7:41 AM | Report abuse

Obama is the foil to Hillary - that is how he gained his momentum.


Clearly.


Without Hillary in the race, Obama would have fallen flat.

.

Posted by: Words of Wisom | May 28, 2008 7:40 AM | Report abuse

VOTE HILLARY!!!

VOTE HILLARY!

VOTE HILLARY!

SHE HEARS THE VOICE OF THE PEOPLE AND WILL BE ACCOUNTABLE FOR HER WORDS THAT DO NOT MATTER IN THE RHETORIC OF OBAMA.


VOTE HILLARY!


SHE GETS IT!!!!!!

Posted by: pat | May 28, 2008 7:39 AM | Report abuse

thesuperclasssux

How do you look at yourself in the mirror in the morning?

You have no opinion


You are simply harassing other posters

Words of Wisdom is 100% correct in the facts that he has revealed to you.

.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 28, 2008 7:37 AM | Report abuse

He will never be noticed by the Hillary 's core Democrats as the true winner.But the Dirty Chicago politics that got him his senate seat to begin with when he used rules like MICH AND FL to knock his oppoent out and steal the nomination.

Posted by: PAT | May 28, 2008 7:37 AM | Report abuse

Howdy999 says "People have a right to not only think and say I TOLD YOU SO, but to SHOUT IT." Yeah, it's a free country (unless you prefer cannabis to killer alcohol), shout anything you want. But you're a little EARLY. Why don't you wait til the election is OVER before you congratulate yourself for being right that Obama can't get elected?

Posted by: newageblues | May 28, 2008 7:36 AM | Report abuse

Boutan, thanx for the compliment the other day.

Bhoomes and Boutan, Viewed from the McC side, McC figured to run ahead of the R Party and be competitive with any D in Nov.

Once the Ds eliminated JB, CD, and BR, McC had a heavy edge in his resume against the remaining D candidates. In the longer view, the GE Campaign will turn on events that have not yet occurred. Hopefully, these events will include the quality of the discourse between the nominees and their willingness to go off script when they talk to us. I also hope that events they do not control do not radically change the race. And I hope that "age" and "skin color" or "gender" take a back seat, or miss the bus entirely, compared to addressing foreign policy, energy/environment, and entitlements, as well as any legit character/leadership issues.

As a result, I completely disagree with WJC about the meaning and import of current polling. Current polling shows the Ds with different strengths summing to about the same totals, in my view, but the GE will not turn on the current polling, IMHO, for the resons I stated above.

Posted by: MarkInAustin | May 28, 2008 7:35 AM | Report abuse

The democrats who decide not to vote for Obama will do so because Obama is an empty suit with no experience and rational people would rather not RISK the national security of this nation on someone who used cocaine.


Your pretend that a charge of racism is equivalent to a reasonable evaluation that Obama does not have the resume or the experience or anything which qualifies him to perform the job.


If Obama was actually in business, running a company, things would be different.


Pull out Obama's resume and look at it all by yourself, would you hire this guy?


The thing is there are THOUSANDS of people who are far more qualified to be President as compared to Obama - it is sad sad that these two are the best the democrats could come up with.


.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 28, 2008 7:35 AM | Report abuse

YOU CAN TAKE MY OPINION SERIOUSLY BECAUSE I REPRESENT THE REAGAN DEMOCRAT WHO WILL VOTE MCCAIN IN THE FALL.IF OBAMA WINS BY AFFIRMATIVE ACTION

Posted by: PAT | May 28, 2008 7:34 AM | Report abuse

The self-delusion and hysteria of Hill-Bot backers is reaching a crescendo. As it should, of course. The end is nigh. Now ... as Her Highness has stated MANY times, she'll campaign wholeheartedly for the Dem nominee, whoever that is. And that whoever is Obama.So gird your loins, suck back that outrage, and practice - "GO-BAMA!" Heh, heh. ;)

Posted by: Chuckamok | May 28, 2008 7:34 AM | Report abuse

OBAMA WON CAUCUS NOT PRIMARY POPULAR VOTES HE WON THE MONORITY AND STAKED NUMBERS IN CAUCUS STATES.HE GOT THE NUMBERS AFTER PEOPLE HAD THEIR SAY AND ALL WENT HOME.

Posted by: PAT | May 28, 2008 7:32 AM | Report abuse

WELL MAYBE WHAT POSITION SHE GETS AND DESERVES HE CAN SHINE HER SHOES.
JUST REMEMBER YOU STARTED THE IRON HIS SHIRT STATEMENT!!

WHAT GOES AROUND COMES AROUND.

Posted by: PAT | May 28, 2008 7:30 AM | Report abuse

wordsofwisdom(?) --

Your delusional analysis of how Obama came to overtake Hillary is a little flawed, to put it mildly.

How do you account for the fact that Hillary was far and away the prohibitive favorite, according to all the polls and pundits, prior to Iowa and even NH?

This was true among all demographic groups, including A-As.

If, as you assert, Obama was created as a "foil" to Hillary by some super-secretive wing of the party on the pretext of really nominating someone else, just who was this person supposed to be?

Your logic(?) is tortured at best, and sophomoric at worst -- who writes this kind of crap for Hillary supporters anyway -- an eight-year-old?

Anyone, like you, who thinks a person that daydreams about her rival being assassinated, just so she can lay claim to his impending nomination, is as sick and morally corrupt as she is.

Why should anyone take your opinion seriously?

Posted by: thesuperclasssux | May 28, 2008 7:30 AM | Report abuse

Obama IS ATTEMPTING TO STEAL THE ELECTION


LET US BE CLEAR.


First, he played this game by pretending to be the post-racial candidate and then he turned around and pushed race in South Carolina like no other Presidential candidate in recent memory.


Obama is attempting to STEAL THE ELECTION by pretending to be "offended" by comments by Bill Clinton, and then again by Gerry Ferraro - and others.


Obama was never offended by any of these comments - these are false charges.


Third, Obama is attempting to STEAL THIS ELECTION by playing the race card with the Superdelegates - again this is out of bounds and serves to divide this nation even more.

Obama is actually sacrificing the work of many people - white and black in recent decades - in order to run this kind of campaign.


It is a joke that Obama would try this.


Perhaps if Obama actually had a history of slavery and Jim Crow in his family, he would be more in touch with these issue.


However Obama does not have that family history, he is from an immigrant family who is basically carpetbagging on the Black Liberation Theology radical section of the Black community.


Obama IS ATTEMPTING TO STEAL THE ELECTION.


However, the way his is attempting to the steal the election is even worse.

.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 28, 2008 7:29 AM | Report abuse

CHECK YOUR POLLS AGAIN SHE OUT POLLS HIM AND HAS WON STRAIGHT THE LAST FEW MONTHS AND HE KEEPS LOSING.SHE WILL SHOW IN THE END WHAT A RACE BAITER HE IS AND HOW HE STOLE THIS ELECTION IF HE GETS NIMINATED AND HOW CORRUPT THE DNC HAS GOTTEN THAT MONEY FUND RAISUNG IS MORE IMPORTANT THEN THE PEOPLES VOICE AND TRUE VOTES.

Posted by: PAT | May 28, 2008 7:28 AM | Report abuse

Fact is Pat, DSR and the rest of you, you're full of it. African-Americans backed Clinton overwhelmingly at the start of this campaign until both of them "blew it". The "White Woman" comment reveals a deeper racism. How'd the rally go? Cross burn ok? Robes fit! Disgusting!

No, the popular vote is Obama's and besides, it doesn't matter. Delegates elect candidates and electoral votes elect Presidents.

Once the Clinton shills get over denial perhaps they'll realize that while the Clinton's pulled the wool over a lot of eyes in the 90's those days are over. Also, for you popular vote fanatics, Bill Clinton never won the majority of the popular vote in either election and Hillary won't have it now either. She's ingnoring some caucus states. Know you don't caucuses either, but those are the rules. Remember rules? Most of us, except the Clintons, live by them.

The Democratic Party may or may not unify, but the Clintons will go on with their power grab and damn the party. Clinton as Veep? Yeah, and Bill didn't have sex with that woman!

Posted by: You Know You Might Be A Rednect If.. | May 28, 2008 7:27 AM | Report abuse

It'll be loads of fun watching Hill-Rod live up to her commitment to wholeheartedly support the Dem nominee. That nominee, of course, will be Obama. And HRC will be stumping in Bugtussle, ID, and all the other places the top guy, the Veep nominee, and Michelle will be "too busy" to visit. Now, if she reneges on her commitment ... well ... buh-bye to that cushy Senate seat. What fun it'll be. Maybe she can iron Barack's shirts, too. ;)

Posted by: Chuckamok | May 28, 2008 7:27 AM | Report abuse

VOTE HILLARY TRUE STRENGTH AND GRIT!!!!

VOTE HILLARY


VOTE HILLARY


VOTE HILLARY


VOTE HILLARY


VOTE HILLARY


VOTE HILLARY

VOTE HILLARY


SHE'S THE ONE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: pat | May 28, 2008 7:26 AM | Report abuse

Fact is Pat, DSR and the rest of you, you're full of it. African-Americans backed Clinton overwhelmingly at the start of this campaign until both of them "blew it". The "White Woman" comment reveals a deeper racism. How'd the rally go? Cross burn ok? Robes fit! Disgusting!

No, the popular vote is Obama's and besides, it doesn't matter. Delegates elect candidates and electoral votes elect Presidents.

Once the Clinton shills get over denial perhaps they'll realize that while the Clinton's pulled the wool over a lot of eyes in the 90's those days are over. Also, for you popular vote fanatics, Bill Clinton never won the majority of the popular vote in either election and Hillary won't have it now either. She's ingnoring some caucus states. Know you don't caucuses either, but those are the rules. Remember rules? Most of us, except the Clintons, live by them.

The Democratic Party may or may not unify, but the Clintons will go on with their power grab and damn the party. Clinton as Veep? Yeah, and Bill didn't have sex with that woman!

Posted by: You Know You Might Be A Rednect If.. | May 28, 2008 7:26 AM | Report abuse

kcbob


The democrats who decide not to vote for Obama will do so because Obama is an empty suit with no experience and rational people would rather not RISK the national security of this nation on someone who used cocaine.

Your pretend that a charge of racism is equivalent to a reasonable evaluation that Obama does not have the resume or the experience or anything which qualifies him to perform the job.

If Obama was actually in business, running a company, things would be different.

Pull out Obama's resume and look at it all by yourself, would you hire this guy?

The thing is there are THOUSANDS of people who are far more qualified to be President as compared to Obama - it is sad sad that these two are the best the democrats could come up with.


.

Posted by: 37th&OStreet | May 28, 2008 7:25 AM | Report abuse

Pat at 7:11:

I really hope Americans aren't as stupid as you. Asking Americans to serve doesn't necessarily mean fighting in wars for one thing. Grow up and use the brain God intended you to use.

Posted by: DH | May 28, 2008 7:25 AM | Report abuse

Just Remember How He rails gun toting bible thumping antipathy towards others not like them how racist and elitist that statemnet is.

Posted by: pat | May 28, 2008 7:23 AM | Report abuse

"To be sure, the Clintons are FAR too savvy..."
These kind of statements just aren't true. All this supposed Clinton brilliance has led to nothing more than a 2nd place finish at the hands of a guy coming off the JV bench.
Its simply amazing that with all their political backing, knowhow, support, network, and so forth, Hillary has come up short. That's the bottom line, she had all the king's horses and all the king's men, but couldn't put Clinton on the Hill again.

Posted by: vcsmith | May 28, 2008 7:22 AM | Report abuse

Nice stream of logic there.

1) It's obvious Obama will get the nomination.

2) It's obvious Obama can't win in November.

3) When Obama loses it will be Clinton's fault.

Posted by: Lynn | May 28, 2008 7:20 AM | Report abuse

It's getting tougher to participate in this process without the sinking feeling that the Democrats are about to do it again-nominate the sure loser in November and by giving it to Obama snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

It's Groundhog Day again for the Democrats. That animal would be a much more fitting symbol than the donkey (or is it an ass?_)

Posted by: dyinglikeflies | May 28, 2008 7:19 AM | Report abuse

THE only thing Obama did for this country along with his wife Michelle the AMERICA HATER who rants WHITEY in her church is let the people know just how racist the AA American community really is and it set us back 50 years.TRUE RACISM REVEALED in his sitting with her int he pews of REV. WRIGHTS CHURCH.RAILING WHITEY and GODAM AMERICA!!!

Posted by: pat | May 28, 2008 7:19 AM | Report abuse

Make no mistake -- the Clintons are taking this all the way to the convention and beyond.

They'll stage a bitter and bloody floor fight, further dividing the party along race and gender lines. And if they fail (an almost certainty to anyone with two eyeballs), they'll extend the battle into the GE campaign, by either sitting it out on the sidelines and (surreptitiously) lobbing little potshots at Obama, or continuing to raise the battle cry for their cause, whatever the hell it may be.

If Obama loses, they can say, "We told you so," and thereby vindicate themselves to posterity.

If he wins, they stand to be remembered as two sore old losers who shared the fate that most narcissists face -- death by hubris.

Posted by: thesuperclasssux | May 28, 2008 7:17 AM | Report abuse

The historic anomaly is Hillary !!!


it is true.


Obama would not exist without Hillary - that is the analysis - why? because Obama is the anti-Hillary.

Whoever came up with this idea deserves some credit -

The group of Washington insiders who initially decided to back Obama had as their reason an intense dislike of Hillary - their support was more anti-Hillary than pro=Obama.


welllllll

I believe the initial PLAN A was to get Obama to take a significan portion of the Black vote from Hillary in an effort to stop her from getting to a majority of delegates.

Then the idea was to swing the delegates to a third candidate who they supposedly liked.


PLAN A worked a little too well.

The thing is in order to create a foil to the cache of the first woman President - they created a movement centered on the cache of the first black - whether that was an idea they had and were able to implement or it just happened that way - it was enough to derail Hillary in a wicked way.


Without the momentum of people actually seeking an anti-Hillary, I do not believe there would be an Obama.

That goes from the initial group of support Obama received from the Washington insiders to the mass support - people were looking for a candidate to get away from Hillary.


Eventually it became "cooler" to support the first black instead of the first woman - intriguing but a historic anomaly.

Posted by: Words of Wisdom | May 28, 2008 7:17 AM | Report abuse

Scott McClennan came out today saying the Bush administration used propaganda to promote the war. THE MEDIA NEVER QUESTIONED IT. INSTEAD THEY PROMOTED IT. These same journalists are now in the tank for a candidate who has no experience. These same journalists have trashed the candidacy of a candidate who can win in November. People have a right to not only think and say I TOLD YOU SO, but to SHOUT IT.

Posted by: howdy999 | May 28, 2008 7:15 AM | Report abuse

92%-97% of the AFRICAN VOTE!!!!!!!!!!!!!THAT IS TRUE RACISM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: pat | May 28, 2008 7:15 AM | Report abuse

Just another example of how the Clintons sicken the majority of americans. Hang tough America, just a couple more months and we should be rid of this sociopathic couple. Obama will be the next President because millons of conservatives like myself will do one of three things, vote for Obama, vote for Bob Barr or stay home.

Posted by: bhoomes | May 28, 2008 7:13 AM | Report abuse

There seems to be little doubt that Clinton is tilting towards a run in 2008 or 2012 (she WILL run again, even if she is 69 in 2012).

The question is how seriously she campaigns for Obama and whether Bill becomes an asset for Obama or a milstone around Obama's neck, like he was for Hillary at times.

Either way, this thing is over by June 4.

Final thought - all this hypothetical polling is pointless until the Dem's have a nominee and it is 6 weeks down the track when some healing has happened. Just wait and see the bounce Obama gets in the polls once HRC is out and a few weeks are gone. Then we will be reading articles about HOW MUCH Obama is going to win by...

Posted by: Boutan | May 28, 2008 7:11 AM | Report abuse

I do not agree this Insane progoganda to make Hillary look like she has no chance.Fact is she is ahead in the popular vote.Obama is another Bush stealing this election.He just another politician that has shown in recent weeks and past few months he is weak,untruthful about how he runs is campaign.Hope and change HUH!!! From Chicago politics down and dirty.Just a punk in my book and the democrats will lose my lifetime vote in the fall if he is nominated.Hillary does not want to prove her case for 2012 are you kidding she is still fightin on for her supporters who tell her everyday not to give up.Mark my words her supporters will fall from her only if she teams up fo Obama.She would be better to leave the party and go independent.SHe ows nothing to the party who through her under the bus.The democrats are no better then the Republicans she should go Independent.For all who do not like her she is very very capable to run this United States in a very great way.Obama will not I repeat will not help the economy.You think Nafta Hurt a lot of people in this country.Just wait with Obama his eye on foreign affairs will give every minority tax dollars and every other nation but the United States will be taken care of but us as always only more attention on the minority agenda.Why does he keep establishing the fact that Americans should serve.Ever think about it could it be a further war longer wars .Serve what why is he so hell bent on the American People to serve.he lies continually and only tells people what is beneficial at the time to him and himself only.he does not care about you are any American's Dream.He only cares about not being proud as Michelle till he gets what he wants.POWER.

Posted by: pat | May 28, 2008 7:11 AM | Report abuse

Just another example of how the Clintons sicken the majority of americans. Hang tough America, just a couple more months and we should be rid of this sociopathic couple. Obama will be the next President because millons of conservatives like myself will do one of three things, vote for Obama, vote for Bob Barr or stay home.

Posted by: bhoomes | May 28, 2008 7:10 AM | Report abuse

It's amazing to hear those who call themselves feminists turn racist.

DSR writes, "There is no way for him to win without white women!" and descends into name calling, claiming Obama stole the nomination.

This is the seed planted by Camp Clinton as they play racism like old fashioned Dixiecrats. It's been fertilized by a one-time vice presidential candidate and by a former president and first lady. It's sad, of course. More than that, it's a stain on the Clintons and the Democratic party.

The race was lost by Hillary Clinton and her advisors. They didn't expect a substantive challenge. And they didn't recover from it in time.

Now we have Hillary and Bill claiming the broken rules in Florida and Michigan don't matter. Votes are votes, legal or illegal. What does matter, they say, is that Hillary makes white women and white blue collar workers happy and Obama doesn't. It's shameful. But that doesn't seem to register to some Clinton supporters.

If the Democrats put up with this racist hash, they deserve to be turned away from the table come November and sent to bed without supper.

This racist garbage turns sixty years of Democratic principal into mush. From integrating the army to passing civil rights and voting rights laws, Democrats have stood for what is right. Now, for the sake of power, one candidate and her supporters, cling to racism as a last resort.

If "Women absolutely will not vote for this unqualified, gasbag who stole the nomination from Hillary," because he is an African American, the nation needs to know the level of bigotry we're still trying to overcome.

Posted by: kcbob | May 28, 2008 7:09 AM | Report abuse

It's amazing to hear those who call themselves feminists turn racist.

DSR writes, "There is no way for him to win without white women!" and descends into name calling, claiming Obama stole the nomination.

This is the seed planted by Camp Clinton as they play racism like old fashioned Dixiecrats. It's been fertilized by a one-time vice presidential candidate and by a former president and first lady. It's sad, of course. More than that, it's a stain on the Clintons and the Democratic party.

The race was lost by Hillary Clinton and her advisors. They didn't expect a substantive challenge. And they didn't recover from it in time.

Now we have Hillary and Bill claiming the broken rules in Florida and Michigan don't matter. Votes are votes, legal or illegal. What does matter, they say, is that Hillary makes white women and white blue collar workers happy and Obama doesn't. It's shameful. But that doesn't seem to register to some Clinton supporters.

If the Democrats put up with this racist hash, they deserve to be turned away from the table come November and sent to bed without supper.

This racist garbage turns sixty years of Democratic principal into mush. From integrating the army to passing civil rights and voting rights laws, Democrats have stood for what is right. Now, for the sake of power, one candidate and her supporters, cling to racism as a last resort.

If "Women absolutely will not vote for this unqualified, gasbag who stole the nomination from Hillary," because he is an African American, the nation needs to know the level of bigotry we're still trying to overcome.

Posted by: kcbob | May 28, 2008 7:09 AM | Report abuse

Among the ignored realities by MSNBC and the rest of the Obama pandering media is this one: "W" originally made his mantra "a kinder gentler nation." Now we have Obama claiming (despite all the evidence to the contrary) that he is the one to bring bipartisanship to Washington. AND THE CLINTON'S ARE ACCUSED OF DUPLICITY! The Obama team is as hard-nosed as any in history and their candidate has shown in office as little grace from the left as the Bushies havce shown from the right. Today, the Dems face an election only a bunch of fools could lose...that's why they're about to replace the Donkey as their symbol with Harlequin.

Posted by: j | May 28, 2008 7:07 AM | Report abuse

A couple of inconvenient facts for Hillary supporters to note:
1 In a climate where it was difficult and unpopular to do so, Obama had the foresight, principle and sheer courage make a speech against the Iraq war at the anti-Iraq war rally in Federal Plaza Chicago. That was October 2 , 2002.

2 A week and a half (9 days) later Hillary Clinton voted to authorize the war.

Later when it was convenient and the war became unpopular she switched. Either her principles were lacking on 11 October 2002 or her judgment was lacking.

These are undeniable facts though I am sure that Hillary's camp will somehow spin this reality into some bizarre distortion.

Posted by: Bill Kane | May 28, 2008 7:07 AM | Report abuse

Among the ignored realities by MSNBC and the rest of the Obama pandering media is this one: "W" originally made his mantra "a kinder gentler nation." Now we have Obama claiming (despite all the evidence to the contrary) that he is the one to bring bipartisanship to Washington. AND THE CLINTON'S ARE ACCUSED OF DUPLICITY! The Obama team is as hard-nosed as any in history and their candidate has shown in office as little grace from the left as the Bushies havce shown from the right. Today, the Dems face an election only a bunch of fools could lose...that's why they're about to replace the Donkey as their symbol with Harlequin.

Posted by: j | May 28, 2008 7:06 AM | Report abuse

Hillary is all about Hillary, the Democrat Party and America be damned.

Posted by: miked | May 28, 2008 7:03 AM | Report abuse

I have read similar analysis elsewhere. I think it leaves out some of the other states Obama puts in play - VA and NC key among them. I don't think Obama loses all of the 'rustbelt' states, but let's also be clear he could pick up more than 21 electoral college votes from a combination of the upper south and western states.

Posted by: PMinDC | May 28, 2008 7:00 AM | Report abuse

Hillary can win in November, but the media is doing all it can to not only tank her campaign but her career now as well.

In contrast, Obama, who has outspent Hillary by 3:1 even 4:1, has lost five of the last seven primaries, lost all the battleground states, and punted the swing states. In the general election, the GOP will not only target Obama's Achilles heel, but will amplify it ten times. They already have enough ammo with Wright, but when you add Rezko into the mix, you have serious damage.

On the issues, Hillary is the only one standing up to Big Oil. She is the only one with an excellent environmental record. She has the best health care plan. She has stood up for human rights around the world.

In contrast, Obama voted for Cheney's energy bill. He voted for the Class Action Reform Bill of 2005 which makes it difficult for families to bring class-action suits against corporate polluters. He personally crafted a bill to not only water down regulations of radioactive leaks but to prevent local and state authorities from regulating nuclear power plants. He's in bed with the nuclear industry and fighting for its executives instead of the families that have been harmed by its negligence.

What's appalling is that Obama claims that he is above special interests, when in fact he receives more money from special interests than any other candidate. He is preying on youth and their idealism and he is able to get away with it because the media has been in the tank for him since day one, and we now live in an age of American Idol and MySpace.

Obama told large crowds of students how Cheney's energy bill was bad for America, but never once mentioned the fact that he voted for it, and the media never questioned it. He has boasted about authoring bills that he never he even worked on. He was caught in his double-talk with NAFTA and Iraq troop withdrawals. He made a pledge to use public financing a year ago, accusing the current political system of being corrupt, but now has his own political machine that is two, three, four times more powerful than anything we've seen before. He has financial sheisters like Penny Pritzker running his finance committee, and Exelon executives bundling hundreds of thousands of dollars for him.

There has been a double-standard in the media where everything that Clinton has said has been deconstructed and reconstructed to fit an ugly image. If she had a shadowy relationship with Rezko and a corrupt Chicago political machine, or had a 20 year relationship with Wright, or was making back room deals with the Teamsters or nuclear power executives, or was donating large sums to superdelegates to sway their votes, and was out all the while stumping about how corrupt Washington politics is, how bad special interests are, and how a change needed to be brought about, she would have been toast on day one.

Posted by: howdy999 | May 28, 2008 6:59 AM | Report abuse

"Clinton needs to hope that if Obama is defeated (and we have ABSOLUTELY no evidence to believe she would like to see that scenario come to pass)," says Chris Cilliza in the article. You have EVERY reason to believe she wants that unless you are extremely naive. I hope you were being ironic. She wants the Democrats to lose so she and Bill CAN say "I told you so". Its exactly what she wants so she can try again in 2012. "I told you so, the whites will not vote for this uppity cotton picker." She has little faith it seems in the fair mindedness of the everyday American. She has underestimated how broad minded most Americans are. This is an insult to the American people of every ethnic background.
DSR in her post above calls Obama an "unqualified, gasbag who stole the nomination from Hillary." "Stole?" He won by the rules. First if he stole it then DSR concedes he has in fact won. Secondly it indicates an absurd sense of entitlement on the part of the Clinton camp. If they feel it was stolen then they must have been entitled to it in the first place. They whine incessantly about how badly Hillary was treated but its OK to call the professor who was correct about the Iraq war (when she expediently supported it)the insulting label "gasbag". There is a word for this double standard:HYPOCRISY.

Posted by: Bill Kane | May 28, 2008 6:59 AM | Report abuse

I can tell you so. The Democrats are about to nominate one of the least qualified candidates ever. We could have had a President who can manage the economy, get national health care started, and begin to end the war. Another four years lost, either with a guy who's got empty bromides to offer or a hotheaded guy who's got no clue about the economy.

Posted by: RAC | May 28, 2008 6:53 AM | Report abuse

So now the white female fanatics supporting Clinton are planning a protest rally outside the Rules Committee meeting on Saturday. In the words of their valiant leader, it is analogous to the Selma March for civil rights. How can these people look themselves in the mirror? Do they teach their children to lie and attempt to break rules when an outcome is not in their favor? The Clintons have proven their mastery of mendacity in a ruthless, single minded pursuit of power. But how does a fifty year old woman buy into such deceit? One can only assume that they are in complete denial that Clinton will not be ordained as the Democratic nominee, or like HRC herself, have become utterly delusional.

Posted by: Shiva | May 28, 2008 6:50 AM | Report abuse

DST:

Concern troll is concerned. I imagine Hillary will have to work VERY hard to re-establish credibility with most non-Clinton Kool-Aid drinkers.

Posted by: over_educated | May 28, 2008 6:42 AM | Report abuse

You must be insane! This is too simple.If Obama wins the nomination, he loses in November. Women absolutely will not vote for this unqualified, gasbag who stole the nomination from Hillary. You pundits just don't get it.There is no way for him to win without white women!

Posted by: DSR | May 28, 2008 6:25 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company