Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Clinton Still In The Race, But Faces Major Hurdles

Ever since Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) swept 11 straight contests between Feb. 5 and March 4, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's (N.Y.) path to the Democratic presidential nomination has been a narrow one.

Obama's winning streak not only gave him momentum (and money) but also something close to an insurmountable lead among pledged delegates and the popular vote. While Clinton's wins in Ohio and Pennsylvania put off talk of just how perilous her path had become, the results from last night's votes have put the difficult task before Clinton in sharp relief.

Clinton's campaign made no secret that they believed she was on the upswing in advance of the votes in North Carolina and Indiana; they had hoped for a high single-digit win in Indiana and a close single-digit loss in North Carolina. Neither materialized, and the heavy weight of expectations overturned are being visited on the Clinton campaign today.

For now, her campaign is insisting she will continue on in the race. Senior adviser Howard Wolfson answered "no" when asked whether there were any discussions under way about her dropping out of the race.

Clinton told reporters in Shepherdstown, W.Va. today that "I'm staying in this race until there's a nominee."

But, that belief is not universally held throughout the campaign. "I believe there is no path to victory," said one Clinton strategist granted anonymity to speak candidly about the future of the campaign. "I also believe she wants to see a Democrat win in November and she will do the right thing."

Nor are there many among unaffiliated Democratic consultants who believe she is ready to bail out. "She is the Japanese soldier in the Pacific island that hasn't been told the war is over," said Democratic pollster John Anzalone. "Occasionally she picks off a few islanders and considers it a victory. Well, yesterday she found out the war was over."

It's clear that neither Obama nor his surrogates will try to push Clinton out of the race anytime soon. "It would be inappropriate and awkward and wrong for any of us to tell Senator Clinton when it is time for the race to be over," said Sen. Claire McCaskill (Mo.), one of Obama's most vocal supporters. This is her decision and it is only her decision."

As expected, the Obama campaign began rolling out superdelegate endorsements this afternoon. The first three announced: North Carolina Democratic Party Chairman Jerry Meek, North Carolina Democratic National Committee member Jeanette Council and California DNC member Inola Henry.

So, what are the factors that would force Clinton to reconsider her decision to remain in the contest? In conversations with a number of party operatives this morning, three developments came up time and time again: money, superdelegates and senior statesmen/party officials.

Let's break these factors down one by one.

*Money: The biggest problem for Clinton going forward is how to continue to fund her campaign -- a vast operation that costs huge sums to finance on a daily basis. Clinton's second personal loan of the campaign -- bringing the Clinton's total investment in her race to more than $11 million -- speaks to the dire state of the campaign's finances. And, unlike when she made her first loan in advance of the Super Tuesday votes on Feb. 5, it is hard to imagine that this personal investment will spur donors across the country to dip into their own pockets. Donors, from the whales who give massive sums to candidates and causes to small dollar donors who cough up $25, want to be with a winner. Clinton could make the case after Feb. 5, when she notched wins in major states including California and New Jersey, that she was that winner; it's a much tougher sell now. As one unaffiliated Democratic consultant put it: "The price for her continuing is literally becoming too steep."

All of that is not to say that Clinton cannot continue in the race even if her fundraising slows to a near stop. She has comfortable leads in West Virginia, which votes next Tuesday, and Kentucky, which is set to vote on May 20, and neither state costs all that much to run a television campaign. Clinton could well claim victories in each of those states regardless of where she stands financially.

In a fundraising email entitled "Here's Why" and sent to supporters this morning, Clinton reiterated her pledge to remain in the race. "Today, in every way that I know how, I am expressing my personal determination to keep forging forward in this campaign," she wrote.

*Superdelegates: As has been repeated ad nauseam over the last 24 hours, there are now more undecided superdelegates than there are pledged delegates left in the remaining six contests. Given that reality, Obama's campaign is sure to put pressure on superdelegates leaning his way to come out and make their choice clear in the coming week. Gov. Janet Napolitano (Ariz.) put that sentiment bluntly on a conference call featuring Obama surrogates this morning. "It is now time for the superdelegates to begin bringing this process to a close and announcing their preference," she said.

Clinton did get a bit of good news on the superdelegate front Wednesday as Rep. Heath Shuler, whose 11th district Clinton won by double digits yesterday, threw his support behind her.

An avalanche of superdelegates to Obama would have both practical and symbolic importance. On the practical level, it would severely complicate Clinton's attempts to sustain the possibility, however slim, that she could overtake Obama in the final delegate count. Symbolically, it would provide a stern rebuke to Clinton's argument to superdelegates that she represents the party's best chance of defeating Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) in the fall and reclaiming the White House for the party.

As dangerous for Clinton as a stampede of undecided superdelegates to Obama is a series of defections among superdelegates currently committed to her. Clinton has done a masterful job of keeping wavering superdelegates in line despite the setbacks of the last few months. But as spring blooms and the her arguments about winning the popular vote or overtaking Obama in the delegate race become more and more far-fetched, the difficulty of keeping a united front increases exponentially. Already today, Clinton has watched as former South Dakota Sen. George McGovern, a supporter of the New York senator but not a superdelegate, has said it is time for Clinton to leave the race. If more of Clinton's supporters make similar calls, it will be hard for Clinton to keep on keeping on.

*Senior Statesmen/Party Officials: Looking for the most important date left on the nominating calendar? It's May 31, when the Democratic National Committee Rules and Bylaws Committee meets in an attempt to (finally) decide the fate of delegates in Florida and Michigan. Clinton has long pledged to remain in the race until that quandary is resolved. But, in the likely event that the ultimate conclusion of that meeting is some sort of splitting of the two states' delegates (the most likely option), it will make it all that much more difficult for Clinton to make a case that a path exists for her to win the nomination. It well could be the final domino in a game that has gone on far longer than almost anyone expected.

The other part of the puzzle is how do the senior statesmen (and women) of the party, many of whom remain on the sidelines, handle the events of last night. If former Vice President Al Gore, former Sen. John Edwards (N.C.) and others of that ilk decide that now is the time to step forward and try to bring the contest to a close, it could have a real impact on Clinton's decision-making process. (On the other hand, Clinton couldn't ever have expected to be endorsed by Gore, so perhaps it would be less of a momentous development than many people think.)

Make no mistake: Clinton can remain in this contest as long as she likes, and she resumed campaigning in West Virginia today. But, her path to the nomination has grown so perilous after last night's disappointing performance that if she collides with any (or all) of the hurdles we cited above, she may well have to finally pull out of the contest.

For the moment, the race continues on. But, for how long? And to what end?

By Chris Cillizza  |  May 7, 2008; 3:20 PM ET
Categories:  Eye on 2008  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: The Hoosier-Heel Primary: Winners and Losers
Next: Fix Housekeeping

Comments

9cgojudiilrh8e3zp 0jgh45mq9x [URL=http://www.288745.com/549984.html] crhz6uve3f [/URL] 1xjra470a1x

Posted by: r3ikbal9h2 | May 21, 2008 6:15 AM | Report abuse

003omlgl6piztfj9 http://www.1063457.com/743646.html ecywzqukp4diqo8o

Posted by: de77tebrzp | May 16, 2008 2:45 AM | Report abuse

02bggtlr5pv r8dorprndbiuh95l [URL=http://www.682607.com/970560.html] 7atdw1go1m [/URL] j9w6pi9qqof

Posted by: aonaip95jv | May 16, 2008 2:44 AM | Report abuse

Does Hillary really want to win by receiving the white racist vote?

Posted by: Maddogg | May 13, 2008 8:04 AM | Report abuse

Now Hillary says she represents" hardworking white Americans". That sounds like a line out of a 1964 George Wallace speech.I just heard she turned down the proposal for seating Michigan that the Michigan Democratic Party had proposed for seating 69 Clinton/59 Obama.

Posted by: Majorteddy | May 8, 2008 10:33 PM | Report abuse

Why do people get accused 'racists' when they are speaking the truth? why is it that it is ok for 91% of the Blacks to vote for an AA and these Blacks are not called racists? If it is ok for the blacks, then it should also be ok for 91% of non-black to vote for the non-black candidate. Let's play by the same rule and Obama and his supporters should stop the double talk.
Obama's win in NC proves beyond any doubt that he is a racially-based candidate. He can't win the general election with just the blacks and the young. It would be another 'Tsongas' election! Clinton's win in Indiana, by a slim margin, also raises the big question why Obama lost a state that he is supposed to win!
Clinton also started out about 23 points behind in North Carolina, and 8 or 10 points behind in Indiana. She narrowed the gap in NC, and won in Indiana. Can you imagine what would be the headlines if the situation was reversed? probably "Obama trounced Clinton with a huge 2% margin". And she did it with Obama continuing to outspend her by 3 or 4:1.
The media continues to be anti-Clinton. Her win should be presented in the proper context of the quality of each of these candidates' electability!

Posted by: vote4thebest | May 8, 2008 9:13 PM | Report abuse

Words of Wisdom is svreader

The Washington Post should close this comment board. I've not seen ignorance like this since I made the mistake of watching "Fox & Friends."

Barack Obama will not only be the next President, he will also save YOUR ass from ending up living in a third world country that owes it's existence to China, Russia, and Venezuala.

The only thoughtful post here is the one copied by Micahel Moore.

Bu-bye, ship of fools.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 8, 2008 9:05 PM | Report abuse

Top Edwards Adviser Endorses Obama, Ariel Alexovich, NT Times, 8 May 2008, 10:19 am, at http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/05/08/top-edwards-adviser-endorses-obama/
John Edwards's endorsement still eludes the Democratic candidates, but today one of his top advisers threw his support behind Barack Obama.
David Bonior, a former congressman and the national campaign manager for Mr. Edwards's failed bid, said Mr. Obama's "commanding lead" and "positive campaign" led him to his decision.
"Tuesday was a critical moment in this race," Mr. Bonior said in a statement. "Because Barack Obama continues to run a positive campaign that focuses on the issues that matter to ordinary Americans, he has won a commanding lead in this race, and I believe he can and will defeat John McCain in November. Now is the time to unite behind Barack Obama so we can end business-as-usual in Washington and fulfill our moral obligation to America's hardworking families."

Mr. Bonior also invoked his old boss in his official endorsement.
John Edwards ran a campaign focused on fulfilling a promise to America's working families that they could once again trust their leaders to put them first. As I look at the presidential race as it stands today, I see one candidate who has proven he can bring the kind of change to Washington that will mean more jobs, better pay for American workers, and health care for every single American. That candidate is Barack Obama.
This is a critical election in our nation's history. For too long, Wall Street lobbyists and special interests have blocked real change for hardworking Americans. Senator Obama is the candidate who can take on the Wall Street lobbyists and make sure Washington works for working families again. Senator Obama has been fighting for working families ever since he moved to Chicago more than twenty years ago to help turn around communities that were struggling after the local steel plants closed.
The Obama campaign will hold a conference call with Mr. Bonior later Thursday morning.

Posted by: Loup-bouc | May 8, 2008 12:41 PM | Report abuse

Clearly, Clinton is no longer running for the "good of the country" but rather just to fulfill her blind personal ambition.

Also it seems she is now throwing a 3-year-olds temper tantrum while holding the Democratic party hostage, appearing to be stamping her feet and holding her breath till she turns blue.

IE; if she can't have the #1 spot, she'll DEMAND the #2 spot, so that she'll be have another shot at the Oval Office later.

Posted by: demforobama | May 8, 2008 12:23 PM | Report abuse

Quote: "Why? Well, she has said that she will do everything she can to support Obama in the general election, and allowing her the opportunity to bow out gracefully would give her supporters a reason to still be behind the Democratic nominee in November."

I'm sorry, she also said that she had to duck and run to her car in Bosnia when the pilot of the plane and the commander on the ground said she did not, that she helped with the Irish Peace Process when all those there said she did not. She said she was against NAFTA all along, when records show she was attending pro-NAFTA meetings in congress.
Can you believe what she says. No, she is a compulsive liar. Why would you believe that she would support Obama when she has done and is doing everything to help McCain be elected?

Posted by: Anonymous | May 8, 2008 11:55 AM | Report abuse

It is very clear that Ms. Clinton is race baiting. By calling him unelectable she should just call him a n#####. What else is her excuse for embarrassing the party. She acts like she was the President as is running for re-election. Give it up! You lie to much,as I cannot trust a family who claim they made 50 million from speeches. That is called bribe money. America has spoken!

Posted by: crooks | May 8, 2008 11:53 AM | Report abuse

I'm an Obama supporter who surprisingly thinks that at this point, Hillary should just hang in there through the last primary. I do think the Supers need to start coming forth in substantive numbers (whether they be for Hillary or Obama) to give us the sense that we are moving towards an end game (though it would be a shame for the 2025 number to be reached before the last primaries as it would be nice for everyone to have felt that they were a part of the process in this unique cycle).

re Michigan and Florida: there needs to be some kind of a significant penalty or it will eventually make it impossible for the DNC to keep the primaries from being moved up and spread out even more than they already are. However, I can sympathize with an ultimate compromise, but, whatever they decide the vote proportions to be, they should only count by 1/2 like the Republicans (and I personally think the State Super delegates should be seated, but have no votes.)

Posted by: Shannon S | May 8, 2008 11:49 AM | Report abuse

The super delegates, in my opinion, will nominate neither Clinton or Obama for the good of the democratic party. The democrats have seen to that with their outing of what they consider to be wrong with their own candidates. You would think they were ranting against their opponent, John McCain. NO, instead they are placing both of their candidates in jeopardy.
All of this is moot if the super delegates do what is best for the party after the first ballot in the convention.
Now answer this. If all of this rhetoric is null and void, what has all of the past months taught us? The democrats are not voting for a candidate in the first place, they are voting for delegates. If super delegates can decide to do whatever they want at the convention, what has all this been about?? The republicans have none of this and have had a candidate for nearly two months, ready, waiting, and laughing all the way to the white house.

Why does the democratic party hate a winner take all primary with a passion? Is there a good reason? Why is it so complicated to vote democratic?

Posted by: Anonymous | May 8, 2008 11:46 AM | Report abuse

Most Americans know that Washington is broken and government no longer serves the people because it is controlled by special interest groups who can buy policymakers.

The November, those who want a change will vote for Barack Obama. When 1.5 million Americans fund a campaign, it is the strongest evidence that Barack Obama can win the November. This base is made up of Democrats, Independents and Republicans of all ages, races and both genders.

So we can say goodbye to polarization and finally get the country moving again.

Hillary ran the race that most expected her to run. The tactics represent how elections were won in the past. Senator Obama used a different strategy, one that will be the model for future contests.

Now any talented candidate who does not have a deep base of donors, can get to the White House. This is what the founding fathers of America had in mind and our republic has become more democratic, thanks to Senator Obama's great performance against entrenched Washington thinking.

The winner is America.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 8, 2008 11:37 AM | Report abuse

What a COMPLETE WASTE of money, Chris!

Posted by: KYJurisDoctor | May 8, 2008 10:18 AM | Report abuse

I had hoped that Hillary would be able to come back and justify taking the nomination by winning the popular vote. That seems very unlikely now, even with MI and FL. However, these calls for her to get out are short-sighted. Obama cannot win in November without getting the votes of those who were for Hillary. He certainly will get most of those voters, but he may need nearly all of them to win. McCain is the only republican that could win in November because he does have cross-over appeal. If Obama and his surrogates do not show respect to Hillary or her supporters, then they cannot expect to earn their votes.

Posted by: Edward | May 8, 2008 9:28 AM | Report abuse

This should be a very good year for Democrats but it appears that the DNC is screwing it up again by pushing hard for the wrong candidate.

Do you want REAL CHANGE? Then hear this... The McCain and Clinton ticket is probably the BEST and THE REAL DEAL to COME!!!

With this combination, McCain will have a better shot of winning PA, OH, FL, NJ, MA and even CA. The women's votes, the blue collar votes, independents, older people, and yes young Hillary supporters as well. With Hillary in the team, it will put our candidate in at a very meaningful lead position moving forward.

This will be a LANDSLIDE and UNSTOPPABLE COMBINATION!!!

Yes we're democrats but are seriously thinking of voting for McCain if Hillary doesn't win the nomination. If Hillary is with him so much the better. This will be a very strong ticket. As the exit polls show there is at least 40-47% of us, middle of the road democrats, who feel this way right now. Even if only 15%-20% of that is more than enough to win this election.

Unlike Obama, McCain and Hillary have very strong records of TRUE BIPARTISANSHIPS in the Senate, NOT ONLY IN WORDS BUT IN DEEDS!!!

What a very SOLID COMBINATION this will be.

SEN McCain show your maverick self and make REAL HISTORY...

Posted by: The Wiser Choice | May 8, 2008 8:59 AM | Report abuse

This should be a very good year for Democrats but it appears that the DNC is screwing it up again by pushing hard for the wrong candidate.

Do you want REAL CHANGE? Then hear this... The McCain and Clinton ticket is probably the BEST and THE REAL DEAL to COME!!!

With this combination, McCain will have a better shot of winning PA, OH, FL, NJ, MA and even CA. The women's votes, the blue collar votes, independents, older people, and yes young Hillary supporters as well. With Hillary in the team, it will put our candidate in at a very meaningful lead position moving forward.

This will be a LANDSLIDE and UNSTOPPABLE COMBINATION!!!

Yes we're democrats but are seriously thinking of voting for McCain if Hillary doesn't win the nomination. If Hillary is with him so much the better. This will be a very strong ticket. As the exit polls show there is at least 40-47% of us, middle of the road democrats, who feel this way right now. Even if only 15%-20% of that is more than enough to win this election.

Unlike Obama, McCain and Hillary have very strong records of TRUE BIPARTISANSHIPS in the Senate, NOT ONLY IN WORDS BUT IN DEEDS!!!

What a very SOLID COMBINATION this will be.

SEN McCain show your maverick self and make REAL HISTORY...

Posted by: The Wiser Choice | May 8, 2008 8:58 AM | Report abuse

With all due respect to this columnist, and considering that I am a staunch Obama supporter, it is my opinion that Hillary should be allowed to continue to the very end.

Why? Well, she has said that she will do everything she can to support Obama in the general election, and allowing her the opportunity to bow out gracefully would give her supporters a reason to still be behind the Democratic nominee in November.

As much as I despise some of her tactics and downright ugly attacks on Obama, they really are serving a purpose. That being they serve to make Obama a much stronger candidate against Mr McBush in November.

So, keep on keepin on, Hillary!!!

Posted by: CW-in-Wichita | May 8, 2008 8:19 AM | Report abuse

The problem with Clinton is that she feels that she is entitled to the White House. The Clinton's having ruled the Democratic party for so long. The Republicans have done so badly under Bush that she feels that it is a shoo-in for any democratic challenger and she has to be the one, even if most Americans do not trust her!

She needs to be in the White House to extend the Clinton dynasty. Obama has a longer history of serving the common folks. Most American's are smarter than Clinton give them credit for.

Posted by: Frank | May 8, 2008 8:04 AM | Report abuse

So far the great film maker Michael Moore does not have any good luck on presidential elections. In year 2000, he supported Ralph Nader, resulting in a narrow win by w. Bush over Gore. In 2004, Moore supported John Kerry, a war hero but also an elitist, who was beaten by Bush in both electoral and popular votes.

Posted by: austin c | May 8, 2008 7:57 AM | Report abuse

What a pity, the lack of foresight Democratic primary voters have. When Obama gets pulverized in November (like all far-left Democratic party nominees do), then America and the world will have to put up with McBush. Disaster. Oh well, Hillary 2012 - start printing your t-shirts now!

Posted by: MB | May 8, 2008 5:40 AM | Report abuse

Many months further and still the Florida and Michigan stories.
Next weekend take your little league team to the ball park where their fixture has been cancelled. Let them play for the afternoon, alone. Then suggest to the administrating powers of the league that despite the cancellation of the game you want the points because your team played on the playground. When they do not support your argument then suggest it is the fault of the other team not turning up despite the annullment of the game.
Whatever the future planned competitions in your little league games are, I would suggest that you organise the new FIXED RULES before the actual game instead of trying to change them in the middle of a game.
Sometimes I wonder about the adults? on this board. Seems to me you should all go back to kindergarten schools to learn the 3 Rs in life.

Posted by: noparticularaxetogrind | May 8, 2008 3:57 AM | Report abuse

I smell a rat. "Hillary Simply The Best" and "Obama and Caucuses" were written by the same person.

What is going on here. Sir, have you know shame?

Posted by: Anonymous | May 8, 2008 3:39 AM | Report abuse

Hillary Simply the Best wrote:

Obama is not QUALIFIED to be President.

...if she doesn't get a fair shake and that includes the votes she got from Michigan and Florida.

The media and Howard Dean act as if Obama, by virtue of being black, has a higher claim than Hillary

Do this today and pass it on please. Time is running out.

Then I wrote:

Dude you really need to get a grip on reality. You don't decide if Obama is qualified, WE DO! The votes she got in Michigan and Florida are the most unfair votes she has gotten all year. Obama DOES have a higher claim because he is black. Didn't you get the memo? We all agreed to this last fall. Where were you? And as far as retribution goes I think we should TP his house and egg his car. Are you in?
And here is another shocker for you: Time has already run out.

I thought you had to be intelligent to be able to find these web sites?

Posted by: Can Just Anybody Vote? | May 8, 2008 3:34 AM | Report abuse

Clearly the Superdelegates do not want to go with Obama unless at the very end there is no other way to go.
Posted by: Words of Wisdom |


Any you know this because.....they told you???

Posted by: Patrick | May 8, 2008 3:17 AM | Report abuse

Clearly the Superdelegates do not want to go with Obama unless at the very end there is no other way to go.
Posted by: Words of Wisdom |


Any you know this because.....they told you???

Posted by: Patrick | May 8, 2008 3:17 AM | Report abuse

Hillary is DONE!!! But as usual, she won't bow out gracefully. Her only tactic left is to injure Obama as much as possible. A befitting conduct from a L-O-S-E-R!

History has a funny way of setting things straight. The once mighty Clinton "machine" is finally going down. All the shenanigans and lies are finally out for the world to see. Her credibility is totally shot and she finally knows how much people dislike her. For all of the negative publicity Obama received the past two weeks, it was not enough to change people's view for her. They still dislike her.

I just hope that New Yorkers will wise up and realize how pathetic Hillary is and not re-elect her in the next elections for senator of the state.

Posted by: carlos | May 8, 2008 3:11 AM | Report abuse

Hillary is DONE!!! But as usual, she won't bow out gracefully. Her only tactic left is to injure Obama as much as possible. A befitting conduct from a L-O-S-E-R!

History has a funny way of setting things straight. The once mighty Clinton "machine" is finally going down. All the shenanigans and lies are finally out for the world to see. Her credibility is totally shot and she finally knows how much people dislike her. For all of the negative publicity Obama received the past two weeks, it was not enough to change people's view for her. They still dislike her.

I just hope that New Yorkers will wise up and realize how pathetic Hillary is and not re-elect her in the next elections for senator of the state.

Posted by: carlos | May 8, 2008 3:11 AM | Report abuse

Hillary is DONE!!! But as usual, she won't bow out gracefully. Her only tactic left is to injure Obama as much as possible. A befitting conduct from a L-O-S-E-R!

History has a funny way of setting things straight. The once mighty Clinton "machine" is finally going down. All the shenanigans and lies are finally out for the world to see. Her credibility is totally shot and she finally knows how much people dislike her. For all of the negative publicity Obama received the past two weeks, it was not enough to change people's view for her. They still dislike her.

I just hope that New Yorkers will wise up and realize how pathetic Hillary is and not re-elect her in the next elections for senator of the state.

Posted by: carlos | May 8, 2008 3:11 AM | Report abuse

Yes, Obama did win eleven "contests" but the vast majority of them were CAUCUSES.

Guess what? There are NO MORE CAUCUSES left. And there are no CAUCUSES in the general that he can manipulate.

What will he do then?

Contribute to HillaryClinton.Com

THERE IS STILL SOMETHING WE CAN DO TODAY:

Right now, it is Obama and his supporters who are blocking any Michigan revote or Florida seating for that matter.

WE VOTERS need to write Howard Dean and our state superdelegates and convince them that we WILL NOT STAND for the contest to be stacked in favor of Obama because "his supporters might get upset". Hillary's supporters WILL GET UPSET as well if she doesn't get a fair shake and that includes the votes she got from Michigan and Florida. (The media and Howard Dean act as if Obama, by virtue of being black, has a higher claim than Hillary. Listen and you will hear this outrageous bias everywhere.)


If Obama gets his way, it will be all of us who lose since he will have NO chance in November without the support of Michigander and Floridian voters as well as angry voters such as me. We must promise retribution if Howard Dean and the credentials committee refuse to play fair.

Write congress.org and Howard Dean at [www.democrats.org].

Do this today and pass it on please. Time is running out and the Rules Committee is meeting at the end of May.

Posted by: Obama and Caucuses | May 8, 2008 2:38 AM | Report abuse

Obama is not QUALIFIED to be President.

Right now, it is Obama and his supporters who are blocking any Michigan revote or Florida seating for that matter.

WE VOTERS need to write Howard Dean and our state superdelegates and convince them that we WILL NOT STAND for the contest to be stacked in favor of Obama because "his supporters might get upset". Hillary's supporters WILL GET UPSET as well if she doesn't get a fair shake and that includes the votes she got from Michigan and Florida. (The media and Howard Dean act as if Obama, by virtue of being black, has a higher claim than Hillary. Listen and you will hear this outrageous bias everywhere.)


If Obama gets his way, it will be all of us who lose since he will have NO chance in November without the support of Michigander and Floridian voters as well as angry voters such as me. We must promise retribution if Howard Dean and the credentials committee refuse to play fair.

Write congress.org and Howard Dean at [www.democrats.org].

Do this today and pass it on please. Time is running out and the Rules Committee is meeting at the end of May.

Posted by: Hillary Simply the Best | May 8, 2008 2:34 AM | Report abuse

This supplements Loup-bouc | May 8, 2008 1:36 AM

Also, count former Clinton supporter George McGovern among those who switched to Obama (and entreated Hillary to drop from the race). Total: 5 in one day for Obama, and two defected from Clinton's camp, while Clinton gaines just one.

Posted by: Loup-bouc | May 8, 2008 1:46 AM | Report abuse

"Words of Wisdom"

Not my major point, but really: I admire the sincere modesty of your nom de plume. It speaks volumes.

On to your argument about blue states/red states.

A Democratic Primary is not the same thing as the General Election. Solidly Blue states will vote for the Democratic candidate even if he lost in the state's primary. This is all the more true when he lost by quite narrow margins. Do you think NY, MA, and CA are going for McCain this year? Really? This is a simple concept, you shouldn't waste much time worrying over it.

Part of the reason the Democratic Primary is so fierce this year is that the candidates know that whoever wins it will win the general election. Seldom is a party handed the gift of a general election in the midst of both a serious economic downturn and an unpopular war. The Democrats could run Micky Mouse this year and win. That's why the campaign is so fiercely contested. The nominee is almost guaranteed the presidency.

Be aware too that things change. States that were not once Blue are ripe to become so. Colorado. Virginia. Obama is intensely aware of this and planned his campaign around it. Hillary staked her entire campaign on the idea that all she needed was early wins in Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey, California, and a few other reliably blue states, and she was done. That's a narrow base. Huge miscalculation. Now she's forced to fight like crazy for Indiana. Not what she had in mind.

Remember, too, that she has almost always won states by very narrow margins. That's why she's in the pickle she's in. Even when she wins, it's just barely and doesn't result in a net surge in delegates. Obama is very popular even where she squeaks out a win.

Obama's support is quite deep and wide. Look at his donor base. Look at hers. It's wide and deep enough to crush an establishment candidate widely hailed as uncontested just a few months ago.

I would reverse your assertion about superdelegates and argue instead that if they wanted to go with Hillary, they would have done so long ago. The fact that so many have remained uncommitted for so long says much more about her than about Obama.

Posted by: drossless | May 8, 2008 1:44 AM | Report abuse

I am re-posting the following message, because earlier I neglected to "sign" it.

Concerning the blathering of Words of Wisdom and 37th&OStreet and my (and others') observation that Obama is gaining several superdelegates every day and that some are switching from Clinton to Obama but none from Obama to Clinton:

From Associated Press, 7 May 2008 -- at http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5g90V8XQZSWr4K1yzT-vNrffP9wNQD90H03RG0

Obama picks up superdelegate support
10 hours ago

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Barack Obama has won the endorsement of four new superdelegates helping push him toward the Democratic presidential nomination, including a backer of rival Hillary Rodham Clinton.

The support comes the day after Obama's victory in North Carolina and closer than expected finish behind Clinton in Indiana.

Among the supporters is Virginia's Jennifer McClellan, who used to support Clinton.

The Obama campaign announced three other supporters -- North Carolina Democratic Party Chairman Jerry Meek, North Carolina Democratic National Committee member Jeanette Council, and California DNC member Inola Henry.

Clinton picked up another delegate in Rep. Heath Shuler, who said he would support whoever won his district in North Carolina.

Posted by: Loup-bouc | May 8, 2008 1:36 AM | Report abuse

Concerning the blathering of Words of Wisdom and 37th&OStreet and my (and others') observation that Obama is gaining several superdelegates every day and that some are switching from Clinton to Obama but none from Obama to Clinton:

From Associated Press, 7 May 2008 -- at http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5g90V8XQZSWr4K1yzT-vNrffP9wNQD90H03RG0

Obama picks up superdelegate support
10 hours ago

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Barack Obama has won the endorsement of four new superdelegates helping push him toward the Democratic presidential nomination, including a backer of rival Hillary Rodham Clinton.

The support comes the day after Obama's victory in North Carolina and closer than expected finish behind Clinton in Indiana.

Among the supporters is Virginia's Jennifer McClellan, who used to support Clinton.

The Obama campaign announced three other supporters -- North Carolina Democratic Party Chairman Jerry Meek, North Carolina Democratic National Committee member Jeanette Council, and California DNC member Inola Henry.

Clinton picked up another delegate in Rep. Heath Shuler, who said he would support whoever won his district in North Carolina.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 8, 2008 1:34 AM | Report abuse

The reason neither candidate could close the deal is because for the first time I can remember we have two appealing candidates who both draw (a record?) amount of voters to the polls. Neither candidate is that much stronger than the other on the issues, they are both very good. As it happens, Obama has drawn just enough more to win with his well run campaign.

Its that simple.

Let's go beat McCain for the good of our party, country and the world in general, if we blow it then we are no better than the ones we criticize because we have the ability to win this election with Hillary or Obama.

Posted by: JR | May 8, 2008 1:27 AM | Report abuse

jaded


I came to the same conclusion.


After looking at the list, Washington State, Minnesota and Wisconsin were all won by Obama, however all of them have been viewed as more swing states than blue states.

Maryland is probably the largest blue state outside of Illinois which Obama has won.

What does that tell you??


If Obama does win the nomination, the support he has will be very unique in history, what he is bringing to the table is not what one would consider broad or wide.

Clearly the Superdelegates do not want to go with Obama unless at the very end there is no other way to go.

Posted by: Words of Wisdom | May 8, 2008 1:02 AM | Report abuse

Words of Wisdom wrote


Obama has had three months to gain a final confirmation that he is the nominee - from the larger states that have gone since February, from a showing in a wider demographic profile - or from the Superdelegates endorsements which would put him over the top - specifically he needs 100 additional superdelegates.

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

Think about it, in the primary process which has developed, the leading candidate needs a confirmation or some re-assurance to put him over the top.

Words of Wisdom outlines three ways that Obama could have done that.


1) Win one of the big blue states not Illinois


2) Widen the demographic in the primaries - this is something Axelrod was talking about after Wisconsin - if Obama had kept up a wide, broad demographic we would not be here right now


3) Line up the Superdelegates - since mid-February everyone had penciled in a minimum amount of delegates Obama would win in the remaining primaries.


There was little reason to go through the motions and spend millions on commercials.


From that minimum delegate projection, one could easily project how many superdelegates Obama needed after mid-February.


Everybody did it. Everybody had a number. At this point, after some more returns are in, Obama is 100 superdelegates short.

If these 100 superdelegates were lined up in March, the race would have been over and there would have been no need to go through the motions in Pennsylvania.

The REALITY is that Obama didnt get those 100 Superdelegates, he doesnt have them now and he really does not know when he is going to get them.

AT any time, 100 additional superdelegates is the end of this race - it could have been in late February, March, April or now


At any time, that ends the race.

Obama is a stalled car about a mile from the finish lne.


Obama either gets there or he doesn't.


It is time for someone else to step in and try to assemble the necessary majority. Obama had his chance. He didnt do it.

I think there would be a sense of relief in the Democratic Party if this did happen.

Biden jump back in, Dodd jump in. Someone start calling the Superdelegates.

After all the millions spend and all, to really believe that we are at the equivalent of the third ballot at an Open Convention is not too far off.

Release the delegates. Pick a nominee and get going.


Posted by: 37th&OStreet | May 8, 2008 12:56 AM | Report abuse

WoW,

"They said, Obama win a blg blue state in which you do not live."

And you said Obama never did it right?

Maryland is a Blue state. Really. I live there. He won Maryland. But I'd think that winning a red state would be even better, considering that we need those.

And by the way, since you talk about keeping words, why don't you answer why HRC didn't keep hers when she agreed that MI and FL wouldn't count.

And since we're talking about judgment and guilt by association, have you noticed that the Obama campaign never ONCE brought up Monica or the Lincoln Bedroom? But then again, by your logic, HRC could get a car accident, hit and run because she couldn't be bothered with sticking around and you'd be there saying that it's the other driver's fault for getting hit.

Posted by: jaded | May 8, 2008 12:51 AM | Report abuse

wait a second...

is someone actually quoting michael moore?

fail.

Posted by: Trisha | May 8, 2008 12:38 AM | Report abuse

For all you HILLARY/MCCAIN hags...

By all means, if you think that by throwing temper tantrums because Hillary has lost - face it, LOST and you say you will all go and support MCCAIN, then you are obviously not really Hillary supporters, but just women who have an agenda, and care little or nothing for the state of our country.

You would go for a war-mongering right winger that will put in right-wing justices. As a woman, I find it disgusting that you are willing to hold the party hostage to threaten a coup - I say good riddance to bad rubbish. By all means, GO, and please don't come back. I am a white, mid-50's, well educated woman, who would never put my whims above that of my country. It just goes to show, some people have NO CLASS and NO LOYALTY to anyone but themselves.

Get out of the party once Hillary is gone, PLEASE, BUT before you do, don't forget to mail her the $5.00 so she can pay herself back that 11.4 million she's out.

Posted by: granma | May 8, 2008 12:35 AM | Report abuse

Yeah Hill!

Posted by: Patriot | May 8, 2008 12:33 AM | Report abuse

My Vote's for Obama (if I could vote) ...by Michael Moore

Friends,

I don't get to vote for President this primary season. I live in Michigan. The party leaders (both here and in D.C.) couldn't get their act together, and thus our votes will not be counted.

So, if you live in Pennsylvania, can you do me a favor? Will you please cast my vote -- and yours -- on Tuesday for Senator Barack Obama?

I haven't spoken publicly 'til now as to who I would vote for, primarily for two reasons: 1) Who cares?; and 2) I (and most people I know) don't give a rat's ass whose name is on the ballot in November, as long as there's a picture of JFK and FDR riding a donkey at the top of the ballot, and the word "Democratic" next to the candidate's name.

Seriously, I know so many people who don't care if the name under the Big "D" is Dancer, Prancer, Clinton or Blitzen. It can be Mickey Mouse, Donald Duck, Barry Obama or the Dalai Lama.

Well, that sounded good last year, but over the past two months, the actions and words of Hillary Clinton have gone from being merely disappointing to downright disgusting. I guess the debate last week was the final straw. I've watched Senator Clinton and her husband play this game of appealing to the worst side of white people, but last Wednesday, when she hurled the name "Farrakhan" out of nowhere, well that's when the silly season came to an early end for me. She said the "F" word to scare white people, pure and simple. Of course, Obama has no connection to Farrakhan. But, according to Senator Clinton, Obama's pastor does -- AND the "church bulletin" once included a Los Angeles Times op-ed from some guy with Hamas! No, not the church bulletin!

This sleazy attempt to smear Obama was brilliantly explained the following night by Stephen Colbert. He pointed out that if Obama is supported by Ted Kennedy, who is Catholic, and the Catholic Church is led by a Pope who was in the Hitler Youth, that can mean only one thing: OBAMA LOVES HITLER!

Yes, Senator Clinton, that's how you sounded. Like you were nuts. Like you were a bigot stoking the fires of stupidity. How sad that I would ever have to write those words about you. You have devoted your life to good causes and good deeds. And now to throw it all away for an office you can't win unless you smear the black man so much that the superdelegates cry "Uncle (Tom)" and give it all to you.

But that can't happen. You cast your die when you voted to start this bloody war. When you did that you were like Moses who lost it for a moment and, because of that, was prohibited from entering the Promised Land.

How sad for a country that wanted to see the first woman elected to the White House. That day will come -- but it won't be you. We'll have to wait for the current Democratic governor of Kansas to run in 2016 (you read it here first!).

There are those who say Obama isn't ready, or he's voted wrong on this or that. But that's looking at the trees and not the forest. What we are witnessing is not just a candidate but a profound, massive public movement for change. My endorsement is more for Obama The Movement than it is for Obama the candidate.

That is not to take anything away from this exceptional man. But what's going on is bigger than him at this point, and that's a good thing for the country. Because, when he wins in November, that Obama Movement is going to have to stay alert and active. Corporate America is not going to give up their hold on our government just because we say so. President Obama is going to need a nation of millions to stand behind him.

I know some of you will say, 'Mike, what have the Democrats done to deserve our vote?' That's a damn good question. In November of '06, the country loudly sent a message that we wanted the war to end. Yet the Democrats have done nothing. So why should we be so eager to line up happily behind them?

I'll tell you why. Because I can't stand one more friggin' minute of this administration and the permanent, irreversible damage it has done to our people and to this world. I'm almost at the point where I don't care if the Democrats don't have a backbone or a kneebone or a thought in their dizzy little heads. Just as long as their name ain't "Bush" and the word "Republican" is not beside theirs on the ballot, then that's good enough for me.

I, like the majority of Americans, have been pummeled senseless for 8 long years. That's why I will join millions of citizens and stagger into the voting booth come November, like a boxer in the 12th round, all bloodied and bruised with one eye swollen shut, looking for the only thing that matters -- that big "D" on the ballot.

Don't get me wrong. I lost my rose-colored glasses a long time ago.

It's foolish to see the Democrats as anything but a nicer version of a party that exists to do the bidding of the corporate elite in this country. Any endorsement of a Democrat must be done with this acknowledgement and a hope that one day we will have a party that'll represent the people first, and laws that allow that party an equal voice.

Finally, I want to say a word about the basic decency I have seen in Mr. Obama. Mrs. Clinton continues to throw the Rev. Wright up in his face as part of her mission to keep stoking the fears of White America. Every time she does this I shout at the TV, "Say it, Obama! Say that when she and her husband were having marital difficulties regarding Monica Lewinsky, who did she and Bill bring to the White House for 'spiritual counseling?' THE REVEREND JEREMIAH WRIGHT!"

But no, Obama won't throw that at her. It wouldn't be right. It wouldn't be decent. She's been through enough hurt. And so he remains silent and takes the mud she throws in his face.

That's why the crowds who come to see him are so large. That's why he'll take us down a more decent path. That's why I would vote for him if Michigan were allowed to have an election.

But the question I keep hearing is... 'can he win? Can he win in November?' In the distance we hear the siren of the death train called the Straight Talk Express. We know it's possible to hear the words "President McCain" on January 20th. We know there are still many Americans who will never vote for a black man. Hillary knows it, too. She's counting on it.

Pennsylvania, the state that gave birth to this great country, has a chance to set things right. It has not had a moment to shine like this since 1787 when our Constitution was written there. In that Constitution, they wrote that a black man or woman was only "three fifths" human. On Tuesday, the good people of Pennsylvania have a chance for redemption.

Yours,
Michael Moore

Posted by: Anonymous | May 8, 2008 12:11 AM | Report abuse

Democrats I have spoken to today are convinced that Obama is a flawed candidate.


The weakness is there.


The problem is essentially the front-loading of the primaries - there are not enough primaries after mid February to allow the party to go in a different direction.

The proportional system also turned out to be difficult and unworkable in such a race.


If one thinks about it, a proportional system lends itself toward a Convention fight.

All the party needs is three or more viable candidates dividing up the delegates and a Convention fight is almost assured.

The Superdelegate system is also a mess because 20% of the delegates are not available to the candidates unless they want them to be available. Control of the whole process is subjected to not only the preferences of the Superdelegates, but their fears as well.

Obama has had three months to gain a final confirmation that he is the nominee - from the larger states that have gone since February, from a showing in a wider demographic profile - or from the Superdelegates endorsements which would put him over the top - specifically he needs 100 additional superdelegates.


Obama has failed on each of the above.

They said, Obama win a blg blue state in which you do not live.


Obama didnt do it. Name the largest blue state Obama won - you really have to think about it if you have to exclude Illinois.

McGovern was a sign today - Oh it was. Reminding us of what the democrats do not want.


Posted by: Words of Wisdom | May 7, 2008 11:56 PM | Report abuse

For many long time Democratic members, one of the major source of frustration is the current Dem. primary election system, which is so mediocre and ill-designed, the rules of which is so complicated that even a rocket scientist will have problem to comprehend, The result of these awkward situation of invalidating the Florida and Michigan election appears to the power struggle between the national and local bureacrats of the Dem. party. The leading candidate, i.e. sen. Obama has not won any key battleground state as well as any major large state except his home state Illinois. The fact is that, if the simple electoral vote system (used in the general election) was adopted, the primary election in the Dem. party would be long over, with sen. Clinton as the nominee.

Posted by: austin de | May 7, 2008 11:56 PM | Report abuse

If another candidate wanted to run, that person should start calling superdelegates and line up enough support to block anyone else from getting a majority.


At that point, perhaps at about 100 superdelegates, all the delegates would feel free to wander if they wanted.

Such a candidate could campaign in the remaining states too, perhaps too late to get on the ballot however as a write-in or simply to get out there.

Biden or Dodd could jump in.

To be honest, I thought they all, including Edwards were going to stay in the race until at least the end of February and see how the delegates broke out.

There was always the possibility that what happened on SuperTuesday would not carry the entire race.


There was always the scenario that the SuperTuesday states would go in a direction which was not sustainable - and the potential problem that there were not enough states after SuperTuesday to sustain a new direction.

I believe we have experienced that scenario.


Posted by: 37th&OStreet | May 7, 2008 11:38 PM | Report abuse

By "throw Open the Convention" I meant make the delegates available and free to be courted by other candidates.


Technically, the Convention is Open.

Even the pledged delegates are free to switch sides at anytime. The story is this: in 1980 Ted Kennedy wanted a vote at the Convention to allow Jimmy Carter's delegates to be free to vote for Kennedy.

Ted Kennedy lost that vote, so he could not prevail on the vote for Presidential nominee.


These were back in the days.


In the days when they took votes at Conventions.


Ted Kennedy, after that Convention, when to the DNC and got a rules change - all pledged delegates would be forever able to vote for whoever they wanted at the Convention.

So, in truth they are not pledged delegates. Or they are pledged, however they do not have to follow the pledge.

OK, got that straight.

It is an Open Convention. Already.

Maybe someone should release all the delegates and invite other candidates to go it.

Posted by: Words of Wisdom | May 7, 2008 11:30 PM | Report abuse

I owe apologies to Mr. or Ms. "Words of Wisdom" and also to the anonymous one who posted at May 7, 2008 10:38 PM -- and (let me not forget) to the Dalai Lama, Mamie Eisenhower, King Cong, Hoodini, Spider Man, Snow White, and the Geico Gecko. Why?

I ought not thrust you into painful guessing so long as I have, lest the torture spoil digestion of your dinners. The truth is that Hillary and Billy-boy seek to delay the election for several years, and they plan to embroil people in election-foiling litigation (even if by becoming defendants and material witnesses in election fraud suits like the one fulminating in California). Why? They knew that Hillary could not win the prize (or close the deal), but they want to create a setting that will let Chelsea become old enough to run for the presidency before anyone else can take the office. (In the meantime, Billy-boy will take the other New York Senate seat to prove God chose the Clintons (not the children of Abraham).

Posted by: Loup-bouc | May 7, 2008 11:23 PM | Report abuse

What a disaster for the Democratic Party. You would think we had learned our lesson from 2004 when we nominated the most liberal member of the Senate. When will Barack don the helmet and ride a tank? Just keep him away from the bowling alleys, will ya, Mr. Axelrod?

Posted by: Hyde Park Moderate | May 7, 2008 11:04 PM | Report abuse

""And consider that if Hillary does not quit soon, her campaign will owe her a debt near-large as the U.S. owes China. Have pity for her grandchildren.""

LOL, but she will re-coup it one way or another. She can always send Bill out to make more speeches backing trade with Colombia. That seems to pay well.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 7, 2008 11:00 PM | Report abuse

To the anonymous one who posted at May 7, 2008 10:38 PM :

Ah, but can McCain solve this riddle with the correct Bible reference? Which stretches farther (not further)? Rubber or skin? I think he can't. I think he can't. I think he can't. And I am the little train that could.

Truly, the November winner will not be anyone you imagine to be the winner you imagine to be, O anonymous one. And consider that if Hillary does not quit soon, her campaign will owe her a debt near-large as the U.S. owes China. Have pity for her grandchildren.

Posted by: Loup-bouc | May 7, 2008 10:51 PM | Report abuse

""But I will tell you the outcome of the November election (and you can make book on what I tell, for I am Nostradamus's frontal and occipital lobes), if only you can solve this riddle: If a chicken and a half can lay an egg and a half in a day and a half, how long must a tree-frog kick to knock the warts off a cuke-pickle? [The riddle submits to logical solution.] Oh, and my name is not Rumpelstiltskin, either.""

The winner of the November election is John McCain. He knows all about the chicken and the egg and the tree-frog. The Obama/Clinton supporters told him.


Posted by: Anonymous | May 7, 2008 10:38 PM | Report abuse

Words of Wisdom | May 7, 2008 10:09 PM :

My name is not Loop, or Loup-de-doop. You're making me cry. My dog is liking my tears. You are a very naughty bad bad bully, and a badder badder boy (even if you are a girl). And I continue to await your throwing sticks and stones.

You cannot hold the proposition that I have made clear what I feel concerning the French. You have no premise (despite in my earliest post I wrote to CntrvilleCitoyen: "Vous êtes...comme moi, une francophile?"). You seem to fancy that you are not only a soothsayer but also a clairvoyant.

But I will tell you the outcome of the November election (and you can make book on what I tell, for I am Nostradamus's frontal and occipital lobes), if only you can solve this riddle: If a chicken and a half can lay an egg and a half in a day and a half, how long must a tree-frog kick to knock the warts off a cuke-pickle? [The riddle submits to logical solution.] Oh, and my name is not Rumpelstiltskin, either.

Posted by: Loup-bouc | May 7, 2008 10:33 PM | Report abuse

They don't have to "throw open the convention". After the first ballot, the super delegates can go any way they want.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 7, 2008 10:32 PM | Report abuse

delegate should read nominee.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 7, 2008 10:30 PM | Report abuse

Well, Words of Wisdom, you are finally getting it. Neither Clinton nor Obama will be the delegate from the convention.

That's for the good of the democratic party.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 7, 2008 10:29 PM | Report abuse


The more I post here the more I become convinced that the Superdelegates do not want to go with Obama.


Sorry to Planet O.

If they wanted Obama, they would have made him the nominee in March and all this nonsense would not be happening.


The Superdelegates are risking damage to the party - there must be a reason.


There could be a movement to throw Open the Convention - let the other candidates have the summer to organize.


100 Superdelegates could probably declare that they want an Open Convention and refuse to endorse and will open up the possibility that someone else jumps in.

This is the endgame people. We have been in the endgame since at least March 4 -


Maybe both Obama and Hillary should release all their delegates.


Posted by: Words of Wisdom | May 7, 2008 10:25 PM | Report abuse

"The truth is Obama called Indiana a tiebreaker."

So? Who cares? Does that mean Obama should step down or something? As if that means anything. Didn't Clinton say that Michigan and Florida don't count?

These aren't Republican primaries. States aren't won or lost. For all this talk about vote rigging or something, you think that there was vote rigging over ONE delegate??

Idiot

Posted by: DDAWD | May 7, 2008 10:24 PM | Report abuse

And McCain will have a woman for VP. Unbeatable.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 7, 2008 10:24 PM | Report abuse

Three cheers for the next president of the US, Senator John McCain.

The Obama/Clinton supporters have seen to that.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 7, 2008 10:20 PM | Report abuse

OK How about if we make West Virginia the tiebreaker ?????

Posted by: Words of Wisdom | May 7, 2008 10:17 PM | Report abuse

""What was so great about what Obama did last night was it the 37% of white voters in North Carolina or was it losing the tiebreaker Indiana ??""


This statement is correct.

The Obama people are a little delusional.


Posted by: Jimmy Boy | May 7, 2008 10:14 PM | Report abuse

Also, I was referred to as a "Hillary hag." This is somewhat problematic to me, since, you know, racism and sexism was apparently dead with the dinosaurs. That's okay, though. No one wins on the internet, but I'd like for you to call me a McCain Hag, instead.

Kthnx.

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

Loop


Our feelings about the French are clear.


Posted by: Words of Wisdom | May 7, 2008 10:09 PM | Report abuse

Is the poster at 9:51 in reality Dick Cheney ???

Posted by: 37th&OStreet | May 7, 2008 10:07 PM | Report abuse

Additionally, I think one thing we can all agree on, Obama OR Hillary, is that Washington Post > CNN.

Seriously.

Posted by: Trisha | May 7, 2008 10:07 PM | Report abuse

BSIMON,

Yep. I loved that man, but sadly was 17, a Junior in high school, campaigning for him, trying to get the vote out even though I couldn't do the same. And then when Johnny boy became the nominee, I lost faith in politics 'til I was 20 and for the first time, I was able to vote and helped give Ohio a Democratic governor and senator.

I was an activist; now I know better.

Posted by: Trisha | May 7, 2008 10:05 PM | Report abuse

""maybe it would be smart to throw open the Convention and go for what is best for the party.

Both Hillary and Obama out - ""

That is what will happen if the super delegates are smart. Obama nor Hillary as the nominee. The democrats have now proven that neither is electable.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 7, 2008 10:02 PM | Report abuse

"Obama said Indiana was the tiebreaker between Pennslvania, North Carolina."

You too, nope, he said it COULD be the tiebreaker. Read the statement made on the campaign bus. He said Could be, not Will be.
Obama won the most delegates in the two states. Facts is facts.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 7, 2008 10:00 PM | Report abuse

I have been reading through these comments and Words of Wisdom is correct.


The Obama people are confused or something.


Obama needs 100 additional superdelegates - in fact the superdelegates could say no one has a majority and we are going to have an Open Convention.

The question is who is the best candidate for the ticket in November.


Because the superdelegates all come from different places, their down tickets all look different.


One thing is clear: the caution flag is out on Obama. The superdelegates really are not sure they want Obama on the top of the ticket.

In fact, they are willing to risk a destructive spring for the party in order to be sure to have a strong top of the ticket in November.

Clearly Obama is fading as the right candidate for November - the results in North Carolina were horrible for Obama.

This is the equivalent of the third ballot at an Open Convention - maybe it would be smart to throw open the Convention and go for what is best for the party.

Both Hillary and Obama out -


Posted by: Dan Virtue | May 7, 2008 9:59 PM | Report abuse

""What was so great about what Obama did last night was it the 37% of white voters in North Carolina or was it losing the tiebreaker Indiana ??""

No, it was the delegates that he picked up over Clinton. Read slowly and move your lips if necessary, he won the most delegates and that is what the primaries are about.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 7, 2008 9:56 PM | Report abuse

Obama said Indiana was the tiebreaker between Pennslvania, North Carolina. Hillary won the tie breaker. Now the pundits and all Obama supporters want Hillary to quit.

What is wrong with Hillary going all the way. Remember Kennedy against Carter. Kennedy went all the way with no chance.

Obama could be another McGovern/Kerry/Adli.

Posted by: J Carney | May 7, 2008 9:52 PM | Report abuse

""New England liberals and eager young activists back him up.""

You've been reading too many media reports. I can assure you that I am white, male, college educated, retired from the oil industry, from the southwest and in my 70's.

Obama is the candidate that I back, and you are mightily in the wrong if you believe what you just posted.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 7, 2008 9:51 PM | Report abuse

Words of Wisdom | May 7, 2008 9:13 PM

You wrote: "The French are a little confused we all know that."

My name is French. I am not my name. I am not French. I am not a Tasmanian devil. I am. But while my name is Louc-bouc, my true name is not Wolf-goat. Rather, it MEANS "Il qui a le coeur du lion," and it is not Richard. I await your throws of sticks and stones. Can't you find any?

For the rest of your above-cited post, the answer is twofold: (1) You cannot find a premise to support your soothsayer's assertions. (2) You need to learn the meaning of relevance.

Now to 37th&OStreet | May 7, 2008 9:22 PM :

Your retort is irrelevant speculation (like "the superdelegates took a look at Obama in March...and...said...they did not want to endorse Obama") mixed with assertions belied by actual facts (like the fact that Obama is gaining superdelegates at a rate about 3 times the rate of Clinton's superdelegate gains and Clinton superdelegates are switchiing to Obama but Obama superdelegates are not switching to Clinton).

Posted by: Loup-bouc | May 7, 2008 9:50 PM | Report abuse

It is amazing, this is about the third time the Obama people have been jumping up and down saying "we won, we won" - the media reports that and it just isn't true.

It is bizarro land. Planet O.

What was so great about what Obama did last night was it the 37% of white voters in North Carolina or was it losing the tiebreaker Indiana ?????

Posted by: Words of Wisdom | May 7, 2008 9:48 PM | Report abuse

""The superdelegates know what many are afraid to admit. This country is not ready to elect a bi-racial, phenotypically black man for president, no matter how many New England liberals and eager young activists back him up.""

That's now what the average of the polls say. Obama over McCain as of today that went up .3 percentage points again.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 7, 2008 9:47 PM | Report abuse

No, he said Indiana COULD be a tiebreaker. Read the outtakes. You stop being a baby, and admit defeat. You and the people like you are the exact reason that John McCain will be the new president. And you know it.
If the super delegates are super smart, neither Clinton or Obama will be the nominee after the first ballot in the convention. The democrats are now a split party down the middle and the republicans and democrats were already split down the middle. That leaves McCain as a shoo-in. and the democrats brought it on themselves, again.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 7, 2008 9:46 PM | Report abuse

Ccornsilk is correct Come on people, think about it. Obama is 100 superdelegates short and he can't do anything, he is stalled like a junk car on the side of the road.

Corn you forgot to add Metrosexual.


Posted by: 37th&OStreet | May 7, 2008 9:43 PM | Report abuse

The superdelegates know what many are afraid to admit. This country is not ready to elect a bi-racial, phenotypically black man for president, no matter how many New England liberals and eager young activists back him up. Hillary could beat McCain. Obama would go down with Kerry, McGovern, McCarthy, Humphrey and Stevenson. Isn't is curious that like endorses like? This emperor has no clothes. Who will be the first to notice?

Posted by: ccornsilk | May 7, 2008 9:40 PM | Report abuse

Words of Wisdom is 100% correct in most things he says.


I can not remember a frontrunner who has gone through the spring without being able to close the deal.

All the Obama people do is talk about Hillary's delegates, and they never say that Obama doesn't have enough for a majority.


Posted by: James | May 7, 2008 9:39 PM | Report abuse

To the poster at 9:24 who refuses to make up a name because you are probably the Obama campaign staff:


What did you do, have your research department dig up something that you could parse?


The truth is Obama called Indiana a tiebreaker.

So you can stop twisting the truth like translator, or maybe you are translator or translator is at another PC at headquarters with you.

Stop being a baby.

Posted by: Words of Wisdom | May 7, 2008 9:37 PM | Report abuse

From today's news:

Hillary Super-Delegate Defects To Obama
By Eric Kleefeld - May 7, 2008, 3:43PM

Barack Obama is picking up yet more super-delegate support -- and Hillary Clinton might be starting to bleed hers.

Virginia DNC member Jennifer McClellan has now switched from supporting Hillary over to Obama, further diminishing her slim advantage in the super-del count.

And Obama picked up 3 more besides the switch.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 7, 2008 9:34 PM | Report abuse

Words of Wisdom, you can't win for losing. Give it a break, or get educated. the more that you post, the more stupid you look.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 7, 2008 9:26 PM | Report abuse

Chris: BILLARY Clinton is D-O-N-E, but it's going to take someone to step up and push her OFF the political cliff!
OsiSpeaks.com

Posted by: KYJurisDoctor | May 7, 2008 9:25 PM | Report abuse

Sorry Words of Wisdom, it didn't happen on TV or anywhere else:

From NBC/NJ's Aswini Anburajan
INDIANAPOLIS, Ind. -- On the second day of his Indiana bus tour, Obama said the state could be a potential "tiebreaker" in the lengthy nomination process.

"I think Indiana is very important," Obama said. "We've got three contests coming up in pretty big states -- Pennsylvania, North Carolina and Indiana. They all have significant numbers of delegates, and they are states where Sen. Clinton and I are actively campaigning."

"You know, Sen. Clinton is more favored in Pennsylvania," he added, "and I'm right now a little more favored in North Carolina, so Indiana right now may end up being the tiebreaker. So we want to work very hard in Indiana. While Sen. Clinton has some advantages here, I benefit coming from an adjoining state."

Posted by: Anonymous | May 7, 2008 9:24 PM | Report abuse

Response to Loop


Obama has had enough time to close the deal on this nomination. Obama has known since February about how he would poll in the remaining contests and about how many superdelegates he would therefore need.

Come on, you are all acting like children.

The truth is the superdelegates took a look at Obama in March when this race should have been closed out and they said that they did not want to endorse Obama at that time.

We are sitting here with Obama stalled, like a junk car, 100 delegates short of a majority.

At the Convention, that would call for another ballot, other candidates could jump in and start to gather delegates.

That is how the process works.

Perhaps that is what should happen right now - we have the equivalent of an Open Convention on the third ballot.

Obama is weakening as a candidate, the superdelegates really don't want him on the ticket in November, OR he would have the nomination already.

Posted by: 37th&OStreet | May 7, 2008 9:22 PM | Report abuse

""How about Obama doing the right thing, and offering Clinton the VP spot right now? Or is his ego and lust for power more important than healing the party? I suppose that's ok since he has the correct genitals to behave that way and be admired for it.""

Now why would he do that oh under educated, old, white, female. He would have to be looking over his shoulder and expecting it to be his last day at any time. They've done worse.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 7, 2008 9:21 PM | Report abuse

To the poster at 9:03


Are you Bill Clinton

Obama said on television Indiana is the tiebreaker.

Dont quibble


Posted by: Words of Wisdom | May 7, 2008 9:16 PM | Report abuse

Response to Loop-de-do


All your points are incorrect.


The French are a little confused we all know that.

The simple truth is that the remaining uncommitted Superdelegates really do not want to go with Obama, OR they would have already.


Obama has been the frontrunner since mid-February - this race should have been decided in March.

The time for the superdelegates to have decided was March - they are holding back.

All your reasoning and crazy math means nothing if you can not get the additional 100 superdelegates that Obama should have gotten in March.


Posted by: Words of Wisdom | May 7, 2008 9:13 PM | Report abuse

""Let's face it Maybe she could have done a few percentage points better - what is that 3 delegates???
You guys are acting like this over 3 delegates ???"

That puts her 3 more delegates behind.
You can bet if it were 3 more for Hillary, you would be shouting from the rooftops.

Get real, give it up.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 7, 2008 9:12 PM | Report abuse

""If you do not believe me, call an uncommitted superdelegate and find out why they are not the person who you think is the nominee already.""

Oh good grief, 3 more super delegates for Obama today, and one as yet unconfirmed switch from Clinton to Obama. We don't need to call anyone, they are announcing daily.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 7, 2008 9:05 PM | Report abuse

From LA Times, at
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/05/dianne-feinstei.html

Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California was an early and stout supporter of Hillary Clinton's presidential bid (see this campaign release from July).

Might Feinstein's comments today be a harbinger of the feedback Clinton now can expect from many backers for whom politics is a full-time occupation?

The Times' Janet Hook trolled Capitol Hill for assessments from various Democratic lawmakers on the state of their party's presidential race and reports that Feinstein signaled that, at the least, Clinton needs to provide a renewed rationale for remaining a candidate.

"I have great fondness and great respect for Sen. Clinton, and I'm very loyal to her," Feinstein said. "That said, I'd like to talk with her and get her view on the rest of the race and what the strategy is" for proceeding.

The question, Feinstein continued, is whether Clinton "can get the delegates that she needs."

She added, perhaps most ominously for Clinton: "I think the race is reaching the point now where there are negative dividends from it, in terms of strife within the party."

Feinstein said she placed a call to Clinton the other day, and expects to talk to her soon about the campaign.

Posted by: Loup-bouc | May 7, 2008 9:05 PM | Report abuse

Words of Wisdom. Obama did not say that Indiana would be the tiebreaker. He said it Could be the tiebreaker. Look it up.
And nothing broke the tie. Indeed he came out with more delegates in the two primaries than Clinton. Look it up, and give it up.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 7, 2008 9:03 PM | Report abuse

To Words of Wisdom | May 7, 2008 8:25 PM :


You wrote: "The article you reference does not account for the May 31 DNC Rules Committee Meeting on Florida and Michigan."

Your wish makes your eyes deceive you. The article accounts thoroughly for the meeting. It supposes that the Florida and Michigan votes count just as Hillary wants, and it shows that the count would leave Obama in the lead.

Your wrote: "Also, it does not account for Hillary having the inside track for the remaining Add-On Superdelegates."

What inside track? Nearly every day, superdelegates pledge for Obama, and in numbers greater than of those pledging for Hillary. And superdelegates have switched from Hillary to Obama, but none has switched from Obama to Hillary. Also, the article accounts for superdelegates, thoroughly.

You wrote: "And it [the article] does not account for the fact that Obama has failed to get the 100 additional Superdelegates that he has needed."

The article does account for the matter -- thoroughly. E.g.: "Including superdelegates, Mr. Obama leads 1,836 to 1,678, according to a New York Times count. To win the nomination, he needs about 35 percent of the delegates that remain. (So far, he has about 52 percent of the delegates). [New paragraph] The Clinton camp has been arguing that the full number of delegates needed to claim the nomination is 2,209, which includes Florida and Michigan, as opposed to 2,025. If those delegates are seated, Mr. Obama would need about 43 percent of the delegates that remain"

YOU do not account for the fact that superdelegates are declaring for Obama more and faster than they are declaring for Hillary. And you do not account for Hillary's needing more than 100 superdelegates. But the article DOES account for that matter: "To win this count, Mrs. Clinton would need to pick up more than 80 percent of the unallocated pledged delegates. One measure of how difficult this would be: in her best state so far - Arkansas - she won 77 percent of the pledged delegates."

Oh, and my name is Loup-bouc (and it's French, you know), NOT Loup-de-do (which is of language that is alien tongue). Throw sticks and stones, please, 'cause names do ever hurt me. You nasty bad bad bully, you.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 7, 2008 8:47 PM | Report abuse

Response to Loop-de-do


The article you reference does not account for the May 31 DNC Rules Committee Meeting on Florida and Michigan


Also, it does not account for Hillary having the inside track for the remaining Add-On Superdelegates.

And it does not account for the fact that Obama has failed to get the 100 additional Superdelegates that he has needed.


Everyone expected the Democratic nominee to be able to tie this thing together in March.


Not much has changed since then.

Obama has failed to close the deal - he lost what he called the tiebreaker.

The race is much much closer than everyone is pretending here.

If you do not believe me, call an uncommitted superdelegate and find out why they are not the person who you think is the nominee already.

Posted by: Words of Wisdom | May 7, 2008 8:25 PM | Report abuse

Chris and the media:


With all seriousness, what results did you expect from yesterday ???

North Carolina has a massive black population.

How much of the white vote did you really think was realistic for Hillary???

Indiana is not just close to Chicago, it is right next to Chicago - it is in Chicago's media market.

What result did you really think Hillary could get in Indiana, when the whole northwest corner of the state is part of Chicagoland?

The media is a little out there.

Let's face it Maybe she could have done a few percentage points better - what is that 3 delegates???


You guys are acting like this over 3 delegates ???


I have ceased to take the media seriously when reality is so far away from what has been reported.


Posted by: Words of Wisdom | May 7, 2008 8:18 PM | Report abuse

To Words of Wisdom | May 7, 2008 8:05 PM :

You delude yourself, but few others.

To confront the math truth, read "By the Numbers,"
Amanda Cox, New York Times, 7 May 2008, 4:04 pm: http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/05/07/by-the-numbers/

Posted by: Loup-bouc | May 7, 2008 8:16 PM | Report abuse

Hillery will stage an assination if she don't get her way she must be stopped before our man is killed to give her the nomination.

Posted by: Obama is God | May 7, 2008 8:16 PM | Report abuse

Is Clinton now resorting to credit card fraud to get money?
One of my tenants told me today her credit card had been hit by Clinton again even though she just made one donation about a month ago.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 7, 2008 8:15 PM | Report abuse

The Clinton Campaign more and more resembles the final weeks of Hitler's dictatorship... sending impossible-to-sustain orders to phantom divisions, wild schemes to pit the Russians against the Americans, fixed grins on the faces of the generals who know the hopeless reality, while the true believers carry on in their kookooland fantasy world, inner-circle "advisors" who parrot the Leader's ridiculously optimistic evaluations of the situation, while all the time the circle tightens around them, reality hammering at the gates as the "world-historic figure" denies the harsh but inescapable reality of certain doom. No matter how the possibilities are re-shuffled, it is OVER!!! "Bite the Bullet", Hillary, and spare us any further drama. Your Clinton Restoration will not happen, so put your Coronation gown in mothballs. Forever.

Posted by: jack bauer in' 08 | May 7, 2008 8:12 PM | Report abuse

Sen. Clinton felt she had a personal mission and destiny to become America's first woman president. That was a noble, worthy and historic goal, and she must feel deeply disappointed not to reach it. Clinton must search her own inner self and find the courage to accept Obama's near certain nomination and work for the higher good of her party and the country.

Now is the time for all Obama supporters to embrace Clinton's supporters, not gloat over his probable victory and not rub their noses into the dirt! Now is the time for Sen. Clinton to make peace with her self, stop the denial and new math, accept the primary results, and move on to support the party's campaign against John McCain!

Posted by: Jim | May 7, 2008 8:10 PM | Report abuse

HILLARY'S PATH TO VICTORY


Not sure how all this adds up - the delegate situation is about the same as it was last weekend.

The democratic race is essentially a tie - we have analyzed the popular vote totals and the various anomalies in the delegate distribution formulas which explain over half of the difference in the delegate totals between the candidates - WHAT IS THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE ? Hillary right now is exactly where she thought she would be -

Here is Hillary's Path to Victory There are more than enough delegates for Hillary to win a majority:


1) Win West Viriginia on May 13

2) Win Kentucky on May 20

3) Lock up the vote at the DNC Rules Committee on May 31 on Florida and Michigan giving Hillary PLUS 70 delegates cutting Obama's lead in half.

4) Win the majority of the 50 Add-On Superdelegates which have yet to be chosen.

5) Win Puerto Rico.


Pretty Clear ahead - all of these things are likely to happen.


At that point, the Superdelegates have to wonder how they can go with Obama who has failed to close the deal, failed to poll well among key demographics and failed to show how he can win in November.


It's not like baseball where a team can clinch the pennant by losing that day and "backing in" - Obama needs to have a winning streak going in. Where is it ????

Obama said Indiana would be the tiebreaker - what about keeping Obama to his word ???

Posted by: Words of Wisdom | May 7, 2008 8:05 PM | Report abuse

Response to translator


Did you read the Comment on Comments this week?


YOU were told to stop the personal attacks

If you have an opinion, state it.

YOU should stop attempting to twist people's words around, you are starting to sound like Obama himself.


Posted by: 37th&OStreet | May 7, 2008 8:03 PM | Report abuse

have something better to do than


hang around and intimidate civilians...


daygo

Posted by: don't you | May 7, 2008 7:57 PM | Report abuse

knows better than you,

with your face glued to his crotch...

once is all you get schieesskopf


come closer, I'll show you glory.


heh heh heh...


Posted by: who | May 7, 2008 7:56 PM | Report abuse

"...a gay, alcoholic, coke snorting, lackwit, ..."

Who?

Posted by: Anonymous | May 7, 2008 7:50 PM | Report abuse

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

Posted by: Anonymous | May 7, 2008 7:47 PM | Report abuse

little bit of honesty

would be you showing your intent to not elect the best candidate

but to persuade that


the best candidate isn't as important as


"the smear,"


repuddlickings are all about

straight "appeal to emotion," that's why AMERICANS

can be sold something like homophobia, by a gay, alcoholic, coke snorting, lackwit, with no reallife experience doing anything except

administering BJ's as party favors in frat houses all accross the country...


but you knew that you have given as well as recieved aincha.


.

Posted by: a | May 7, 2008 7:46 PM | Report abuse

Words of Wisdom wrote:

"Obama was earlier projected to win Indiana - funny how over a few weeks - the bar shifts to state that Hillary has to win with 55% of the vote in a state that includes Chicago suburbs. Who is writing this stuff?"

Who? Easy - the people who have been calling for Hillary to do the right, subservient, female thing and quit. They keep saying "she must win this state or she's done;" then she wins the state in question, and they still say she's done.

She should not quit. The only way a woman is ever going to be the POTUS is by ignoring the people who would drag her down before the finish line. They've been trying for months now, and apparently are every bit as unenlightened as they appear to be, because they just don't get it. Obama may win the battle, but sadly there's a good chance the Democrats will then lose the war. Never underestimate how much Republicans and mid-staters will allow themselves to be fleeced as long as they are made to feel morally superior by the people doing the fleecing. Unlike this stupid primary set up, the GE is winner take all.

It may be childish to some, but as a middle aged woman who has given the Democrats the benefit of the doubt my entire life, mainly as the lesser of two evils, I'll be an independent from this year forward. The misogyny on display in the media and the halls of power within the party is sickening. Enough. Many of us will move on without you, count on it.

How about Obama doing the right thing, and offering Clinton the VP spot right now? Or is his ego and lust for power more important than healing the party? I suppose that's ok since he has the correct genitals to behave that way and be admired for it.

Posted by: Cat | May 7, 2008 7:45 PM | Report abuse

One thing that REALLY amuses me is that the Clinton supporters are saying "Count ALL the votes in ALL the states."

But if you remember back, Clinton had a 27 state strategy - have the nomination sewn up by the time the ballots were counted after the polls closed on Super Tuesday.

So her original intent was to exclude the voters of:

Democrats Abroad (oooops, no EC votes, so doesn't count)
Louisiana
Nebraska
Virgin Islands (oooops, no EC votes, so doesn't count)
Washington state
Maine
District of Columbia
Maryland
Virginia
Hawaii
Wisconsin
Ohio
Rhode Island
Texas
Vermont
Wyoming
Mississippi
Pennsylvania
Guam (oooops, no EC votes, so doesn't count)
Indiana
North Carolina
West Virginia
Kentucky
Oregon
Puerto Rico (oooops, no EC votes, so doesn't count)
Montana
South Dakota

So why a "50 state" strategy now, but prior to Super Tuesday it was a "27 state" strategy?

A little bit of honesty on that point would be appreciated.

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

I could give a big rats BEE HIND!!!

HOWSOME_EVUH, a lot of rethuglicans are being scammed by bushCO and CRONYs into thinking that it's just a dem thing, or a liberal thang...

listen up


little dawg stools, I used to work in Washington D.C. for the Defense Department and as a beltway bandit contractor, been over to Fort Meade too. Have some friends in the CIA...think tank worker too...you couldn't dream of where ah been....you war profiteers ?


"your kind," are criminals,

bushCO and CRONYies are treasonous pieces of scum....

if that's true then,

WHY, isn't AMERICA fighting back against it's own EVILE dictatorship ???


MOST AMERICANS, are too busy too, trying to "get by," just getting by...


look at the empty factories

look at customer service overseas

look at computer jobs, overseas

look at medical jobs going overseas

look at foreigners controlling former AMERICAN COPORATIONS, and making decisions based upon what is best for their "families," AND NOT EVEN considering what is best for AMERICA at all...not at all...it doesn't enter their minds what the CITIZENS OF AMERICA want as long as they get to use AMERICA's MONEY and MILITARY as their business tools...


globalization ??? right....that's what it is....sure !!! gotta be it ....uh huh.

if you consider the MAFIA a governing body, you're right.


bushCO and CRONYs und families is ~= mafia


"~=" means is "approximately equal to"


give it up for ORGANIZED CRIME, that is what bushCO and CRONYs are...

.EXAMPLEs:
1. Scooter Libby

2. IRAN CONTRA in the whitehouse

3. bush family collusion w/nazis, with no repurcussion...teaching the children that treason is alright as long as no one prosecutes.

.

Posted by: speak up for AMERICA, arrest and prosecute the disinformationists and freeze their bank accounts in | May 7, 2008 7:40 PM | Report abuse

who are al QUEADA?

they are SUNNIs of one stripe or another...the people that bushCO and CRONYs are making the scapegoat of their occupation...

scapegoat? why are they funding them? you think I am crazzy to say bushCO and CRONYs are funding al Queada???

SEARCH on bush funding al QUEADA, sunni
SEARCH on bush crime family, WMR, Sunnunu

it da truut.

why did bushCO and CRONYs say that the SAUDIS would be coming into IRAQ, if AMERICANs left? was that a threat? or just information that a thief w/o fear would make, to tell the world that he had his bases covered.....

his Sand Bro Collaborators the SAUDIS, would be taking over I_RACK if he scheiss_fo_brains_butholesurfer, georgeclueless bush was forced to eat that pie he stuck his fanger in...

What right does SAUDI ARABIA have to IRAQ?

just because bushCO and CRONIES offered them a cut, for thier aid? who cares what bushCO and CRONYs offered them...

IRAQ belongs to IRAQIs,

what should happen when AMERICA leaves?

several things.

1. complete removal of all bushCO and CRONYs influence....conscripting all contractors in the field and giving them GS level salaries , reporting to their GSA or Military counterparts immediately.

2. arrest and/or confine MICHAEL CHERTOFF UNTIL MISSING FUNDS FROM DHS can be located....along with his coheart JohnNegroponte...."hider of billions."

3. form a multinational coalition to best determine how to rebuild IRAQ using IRAQI oil revenues, while working to restore a government that represents the IRAQI people in power...that should take about 6 months.

NOTE: if the IRAQI people don't stand down and make peace with them selves, place the country into absolute embargo, and let them self destruct until they are willing to talk....keeping out outside influence and retaining sovereignity.

.bushCO and CRONYs taking drug trafficking and money launderting to new highs, in a neighborhood near you...

think the bushCO and CRONYs scum are short on cash?

SEARCH on Gary Webb, Parry, George H.W. Bush, BCCI

SEARCH on Bush CRIME FAMILY

SEARCH on Silverado Savings and Loan, KEATING FIVE, McCain

.feed em to the pigs.


yowzah....heh heh hehhhhhhhhhhhhh popah.

.

Posted by: the AMERICAN people are losing a chance to have a future...once again... | May 7, 2008 7:38 PM | Report abuse

It is time for the democratic party to unify.

Statements from Clinton supporters that Obama can not win are incorrect, defeatist, and counterproductive. Obama has an amazing energetic campaign, a true vision for change, vast fund raising capabilities that empower small donors, intelligence, youth, eloquence, charisma, popularity with independents, a record of integrity, etc.

Likewise, I believe gloating and negative statements directed at Clinton and her supporters are not what we need.

Many of the most inflammatory comments on the internet may be either direct attempts to create divisions within the Democratic party, or may be posted by individuals who have been influenced and agitated by what is known as 'project chaos'. I find it sad that some of us believe that the use of deception to create division will benefit our nation in any way. This 'ends justify the means' tactic is destructive and unpatriotic.

Sometimes the means undermine the ends.

Clinton has the right to continue her campaign, but it is time for the democratic party to unite, and that should start with the people. In the likely event that Obama wins, Clinton should be considered as a vice presidential option. Her supporters have earned that much for her. In that position she could continue to fight for them, a promise she has made often. I encourage her supporters to reach out to her and guide her into making the right decision.

Let us do our candidates proud by coming together and restricting ourselves to well reasoned debates on real issues without distractions and flared tempers.

We can not afford four more years of GOP policy. McCain appears to be a decent man, but he no longer seems to know who he is, and his policies will be destructive. I believe that the American people know this.

I have a proposal:
Let us counter 'project chaos' with our own mission. Let us take stock of our priorities and recognize the great number of issues we democrats agree upon. We should reach out to one another and find a way to work together. We might even consider reaching out to conservatives. Isn't that what our candidates want? Isn't that what is best for our nation and the world? Isn't that the only way we will truly move forward?

We can name this new mission after the man who ultimately inspired it: We can call it 'PROJECT LIMBAUGH'.

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

So, let's get all our Clinton excuses together:

1. Caucuses are unfair
2. Only big states count
3. Only battleground states count
4. Obama supporters are young and brash and how dare they question their elders who have fought for decades to build a party that was incapable of cracking 50% in the popular vote in any presidential election
5. Black voters don't count
6. Florida and Michigan don't count.
7. Whoops, we're losing, so now Florida and Michigan do count.
8. Raising money from 1,500,000 people doesn't count, but loaning yourself $11.4M is a sign of strength and confidence.

What else are we missing?

The Clintons lost this election. I know, sometimes it sucks to lose. But this is life. All you party elders who have been backing Clinton should know about life lessons. You keep preaching them to the rest of us constantly. I'll get off your lawn now.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 7, 2008 7:35 PM | Report abuse

""Remember that those delegates will be pledged only for the first vote. Think about that.""

Yep, this convention is going to make history. I can hardly wait. it's all moot.
Obama nor Clinton will be the nominee at the convention.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 7, 2008 7:33 PM | Report abuse

Loud and dumb, Good thing you didn't post Hillary's lies. We all would still be reading when the nomination of Obama occurs.

Posted by: splitbill | May 7, 2008 7:33 PM | Report abuse

fraud is fraud...

you think AMERICA's soldiers know that they are killing people to help a few old men make book/get closure on some oil deals, that'll make bushCO und CRONYs families richer than rich ???

I don't think so. if that's is what they are doing, and it's not part of their "work description," then no the didn't "volunteer for it,"

what is all of this talk of "defeated," or "undefeated."

how about some real talk like...

LEGAL or _ILLEGAL_


OCCUPATION????


no stones compadres????

who's making book over there? AMERICA?

AMERICA's soldiers?

or bushCO UND CRONIES?????


the latter pen day holes.

.

think Hillary knows who's who in Washington ???


damstraight...


does Obama no, that is why these boyz want him...

they need another washington insider or someone that doesn't know that they exist...


and thinks it's all Hillary's imagination or anger about the past...


problem is, it aint the past, and doofus won't figure it out until

it's too late for AMERICA. I don't care for or against O ba ma....but I do care about the future


something he cares not jack schitt about


.

Posted by: hey little pinto... | May 7, 2008 7:30 PM | Report abuse

Oh, I am so sick of hearing how many 'straight' wins Obama had beginning on super-Tuesday. I wish that some of you highly paid journalists would take the time to look behind the caucus system and learn what an undemocratic insider operation it really is. Winning delegates through caucuses should be outlawed if many of the others were like the one I attended in Nebraska. The reason that Obama won caucuses in the dead of winter in the upper midwest is that you have to be a young, political activist to find it important enough to go out in weather like we had on Feb. 9th. The ice covered roads and sub-freezing temps kept older people, families with young children and many SENSIBLE people at home. We'll see how the 'popular' vote compares to the 34,000 or so Dems who turned out for the 1st NE caucus. My sense is that Obama strategists have pulled the wool over many eyes by playing up the importance of caucus wins that represent tiny percentages of registered voters. If this primary has taught us anything it should be that the rules should be equal in each contest. The caucus is the equivalent of only allowing the most aggressive people to vote. I believe that practice ended long ago in Sparta. But no! It lives on in states where the party elite essential control delegate selection as deftly as did the Supreme Court select our 43rd president.

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

the voters of the United States have proved once and for

all that if you pander to their childishness

that they will buy the devil a drink.

because the sheeple don't know the difference between a sheepdog and a wolf...


and they're proving it once again, in the replay of

McGovern vs Nixon


even George don't remember how he was butfxxxed


he just has a painbody memory of the event...


but we had to live through Viet Nam because of his need to


"do the right thing,"

hey George wander over to the WH and see if little George W. needs a BJ

.


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

Hillary Clinton is being cruelly treated by Fate. Victory is just out of reach . . . if only one more push . . . and then victory is pulled a little further beyond her grasp.

It's trully h*ll to come in a close second - in football, contract bid, in anything.

Posted by: NoOneImportant | May 7, 2008 7:23 PM | Report abuse

Obama is not ready for the Repuglican attack machine. Besides, have you noticed he looks like J Fred Muggs? HRC will be ready to hit the ground running on Day One. You Go Girl.

Posted by: Geraldine | May 7, 2008 7:23 PM | Report abuse

7:13 p.m. post

"I don't know what metric to use to determine how the tie has been broken in Obama's favor. I will cut-and-paste this quote because many other people have used it, and ignore Hillary's observation that yesterday would be the 'game-changer.' Has the game changed? Maybe I should check the news."

Posted by: 37th&OStreet Translator | May 7, 2008 7:21 PM | Report abuse

Today, Hillary Clinton's campaign stopped being about what's best for America.
Instead, she has shown us once and for all that it is clearly only about one thing - personal ambition.

People want change - and since we haven't had a presidential election in this country for nearly 24 years that didn't include a Bush or a Clinton, Hillary isn't it.

Posted by: DemForObama | May 7, 2008 7:20 PM | Report abuse

Anyone remember Ned Lamont? Leave the liberals behind. Break up the useless party of Kerry and Kennedy. Hillary doesn't need Obama voters; She need the 54 million that voted for BUSH THE SECOND TIME in 2004.

Posted by: Colin | May 7, 2008 7:17 PM | Report abuse

Suddenly this thread has turned into an anti-Bush thing? I thought that all Dems agreed with that. Better try uniting behind one candidate quickly or you will have 8 more years of it.

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

Hey translator


How do you translate Obama's own words that Indiana is the "tiebreaker" ??????


Posted by: 37th&OStreet | May 7, 2008 7:13 PM | Report abuse

Being from Illinois I know Emil Jones senate president- Obama's mentor -has saved Gov Blo's butt several times and the number of governors in jail here so far 3.
Ill. politics is so corupt worse than anything Clintons have ever done and weak. Obambi is a Carter, Gore, Kerry, Dean, Pelosi, Reid, Dukakis, see face with exposure re: Wright more to come-weak Democrat. Mc Cain will continue the Bush years. Dems are Donkeys for sure. Only Clinton's have won re-election since FDR! They are strong. If Obambi i am voting for Nader and let the dems go down-again! Carter and Hammmas ha!

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

Washington Post newspaper article regarding bushCO und CRONYs aid to Mexico, buying them helicoptors:

"Document Details U.S. Aid Proposed For Mexico" - washingtonpost.com on 10/27/2007

so, it looks like georgeWorgie is buying Mexico's drug workers some new helicoptors so that they can deliver that

South American COKE, und Afghani Heroin to dah United States more easily, what a sweet bugg er...

Article from Mexico's news sources earlier in the year:

Monday, June 25, 2007
Blackwater Mercenaries on the USA-Mexico Border


By Nancy Conroy

In San Diego County, California, a firestorm has erupted over plans to build a Blackwater mercenary training camp in the hills behind Potrero, a remote area east of the city. The residents of San Diego are opposing the idea on the grounds that firing ranges are noisy and mercenaries would be undesirable neighbors. So far the controversy has been a localized, "not in my backyard," type of debate involving planning commissions and citizen's action groups.

Americans tend to think in an American way, and therefore nobody seems to have noticed that the location of this camp is right on the US-Mexico border, just a few miles from Tecate.

From an international perspective, there are a number of geopolitical reasons that could explain why this border location was selected. This is probably not merely an issue for the local planning commission, given that the idea of mercenaries along the border has broader international implications.

...

The presence of Blackwater in Iraq has generated controversy over the concept of an "outsourced" war, using mercenaries instead of regular US troops. The mercenaries do not answer to US military commanders, their conduct is not governed by the Geneva Convention, and they answer only to the people who are signing their paychecks.


A Blackwater camp on the border may be a covert attempt to militarize the border without going through congressional oversight or public debate. A so-called "training camp" could probably also function as an operational base. Perhaps Blackwater will obtain government contracts to patrol the border, gradually edging out US agents and putting border security into the hands of a private army away from public scrutiny.
.....


The proposed training camp is located near

international drug supply routes,

controlled by the Sinaloa Cartel.


The remote, mountainous terrain is like Afghanistan, where Blackwater has years of experience running covert operations.


Six miles from the proposed Blackwater camp, northern Mexico has a serious problem with "Men in Black" who coincidentally look, dress, and act just like the Blackwater people. In Mexico, the Men in Black are kidnappers, corrupt police officers, fake federal agents, or Zetas, a narco-paramilitary group. Although Americans may still be swallowing the argument that Blackwater is a "military auxiliary" outfit, the Mexicans are not fooled about who the Men in Black are, what they do, and who they work for. That these same people are now camped out on the US border, or are somehow involved in border enforcement, will lack credibility in Mexico.

http://www.mexidata.info/id1416.html


you might also check this out,


SEARCH on

Gary Webb, Parry, Letter of Understanding, CIA, DOJ

read the letter of understanding. the DoJ gave the CIA permission to drug traffick and use the proceeds, without record keeping or fear of prosecution in Central and South America and AFGHANISTAN [ the HEROIN CAPITOL OF THE WORLD! ]


yeah, dat bushF.U. he got duh hot a gold...

Posted by: I tink the Loup-bouc is dee BJ man for Karl Rovererto hold itinside.. | May 7, 2008 7:07 PM | Report abuse

Hey detection limited to the intellectually sound...


crack is whack dude...
step away from the pipe slowly...

Posted by: CBS | May 7, 2008 7:06 PM | Report abuse

6:46 p.m. post

"I don't have a TV so I don't know how badly Hillary Clinton lost last night."

Posted by: 37th&OStreet Translator | May 7, 2008 7:04 PM | Report abuse

so what is the fascination of handlers of our nations wealth

with

1. populists

2. socialists

3. communists


first of all, what do those three groups have in common ???

they share the wealth....

who are most of the legislators/officials/minions, that use those words, as pejoratives ??

inherited wealthy.


people that regularly concoct deals through favors, not through actually being good at industry....

EXAMPLE: george w. bush, failed miserably at the "oil business," and finally commiting unprosecuted insider trading he got out of it...

the whole time he was in the "oil business," he was granted favors by companies and countries from the middle east....supported, as it were.


now he owes them some favors in return, like having the United States Military invade certain strategic areas....the Saudi OIL FIELDS are over 50 years old, and beginning to decline...

and so on...

SEARCH on Marvin Bush, Securacom/Stratsec, WTC

Search on SAUDI, bin Laden, bush, baker

w/o criminal activities some families would cease to exist....and that might be a good thing

Search on Niel bush, silverado, prostitutes, NCLB

Search on Jeb Bush, mafia

...have a nice day.

Posted by: you are my sunshine....like hell... | May 7, 2008 7:02 PM | Report abuse

To MarkInAustin | May 7, 2008 6:48 PM :

You wrote:

"Loup-bouc, Did you write the "Pinnochio" fantasy about the Survivor of Bosnia that appeared in the LAT blog last month?"
------

Yes. How flattering your recollection! But last month? Am I aging so fast?

Posted by: Anonymous | May 7, 2008 7:00 PM | Report abuse

Buh-Bye, Hillary!

Posted by: mobina | May 7, 2008 6:59 PM | Report abuse

John Perkins wrote a book, Confessions of an Economic Hit Man (Barrett Koehler, 2004).

It is the War is A Racket for our times.

Some of it is hard to believe.

You be the judge.

In 1968, after graduating from Boston University, Perkins joined the Peace Corps and was sent to Ecuador. There, he was recruited by the National Security Agency (NSA) and hired by an international consulting firm, Chas. T. Main in Boston.

Soon after beginning his job in Boston, "I was contacted by a woman named Claudine who became my trainer as an economic hit man."

Perkins assumed the woman worked for the NSA.

"She said she was sent to help me and to train me," Perkins said. "She is extremely beautiful, sensual, seductive, intelligent. Her job was to convince me to become an economic hit man, holding out these three drugs -- sex, drugs and money. And then she wanted to let me know that I was getting into a dirty business. And I shouldn't go off on my first assignment, which was going to be Indonesia, and start doing this unless I knew that I was going to continue doing it, and once I was in I was in for life."

Perkins worked for Main from 1970 to 1980.

His job was to convince the governments of the third world countries and the banks to make deals where huge loans were given to these countries to develop infrastructure projects.

And a condition of the loan was that a large share of the money went back to the big construction companies in the USA - the Bechtels and Halliburtons.

The loans would plunge the countries into debts that would be impossible to pay off.

"The system is set up such that the countries are so deep in debt that they can't repay their debt," Perkins said. "When the U.S. government wants favors from them, like votes in the United Nations or troops in Iraq, or in many, many cases, their resources - their oil, their canal, in the case of Panama, we go to them and say - look, you can't pay off your debts, therefore sell your oil at a very low price to our oil companies. Today, tremendous pressure is being put on Ecuador, for example, to sell off its Amazonian rainforest -- very precious, very fragile places, inhabited by indigenous people whose cultures are being destroyed by the oil companies."

When a leader of a country refuses to cooperate with economic hit men like Perkins, the jackals from the CIA are called in.

Perkins said that both Omar Torrijos of Panama and Jaime Boldos of Ecuador -- both men he worked with - refused to play the game with the U.S. and both were cut down by the CIA -- Torrijos when his airplane blew up, and Roldos when his helicopter exploded, within three months of each other in 1981.

If the CIA jackals don't do the job, then the U.S. Marines are sent in -- Butler's "racketeers for capitalism."

Perkins also gives lurid details of how he pimped for a Saudi prince in the 1970s, in an effort to get the Saudi royal family to enter an elaborate deal in which the U.S. would protect the House of Saud. In exchange, the Saudis agreed to stabilize oil prices and use their oil money to purchase Treasury bonds, the interest on which would be used to pay U.S. construction firms like Bechtel to build Saudi cities.


......"Confessions of an Economic HitMan,"

check it out....Noriega/Saddam Hussein

check out how George H.W. Bush, Donald Rumsfeld,dichCHEENIE

and the rest of the IRAN CONTRA snuggle buggers/huggers...

been hugging the world...Perkins worked the World Bank angle....


lending money to countries to control them...

.

Posted by: simple toons for simple tuns | May 7, 2008 6:59 PM | Report abuse

WaPo

Venezuela Increasingly A Conduit For Cocaine at 10/28/2007 9:59 PM EDT


sounds like solidprojects, a blackwater MERC, is trying to sell

CIA backed contra thugs.... "protection,"

ma fia styled...

check his IP, Washington D.C. follow his connections.......


.heh heh heh.


what does this have to do with "the election,"

what does _this_ have to do with

law enforcement, _illegal_ immigration, crack cocaine, insurance costs, paying to keep a segment of the population under lock and key, disenfranchising black people, money ill-spent


you people are the dumbest mxxxxx fxxxing people on the face of the earth...


that's what it has to do with...and if it isn't in your pants playing with you...you don't want to think about it...


gimme some Britneys snatch staring at me getting out of the car....

people !!!! get your head out of Britney's lap...
.

SEARCH on Gary Webb, Parry, cocaine:

"
On May 7, 1998, another disclosure from the government investigation shook the CIA's weakening defenses. Rep. Maxine Waters, a California Democrat, introduced into the Congressional Record a Feb. 11, 1982,

letter of understanding between the CIA and the Justice Department.

The letter, which had been sought by

CIA Director William Casey,

freed the CIA from legal requirements that it must report drug smuggling by CIA assets, a provision that covered both the Nicaraguan contras and Afghan rebels who were fighting a Soviet-supported regime in AFGHANISTAN.

Justice Report

Another crack in the defensive wall opened when the Justice Department released a report by its inspector general, Michael Bromwich. Given the hostile climate surrounding Webb's series, Bromwich's report opened with criticism of Webb. But, like the CIA's Volume One, the contents revealed new details about government wrongdoing.

According to evidence cited by the report, the Reagan-Bush administration knew almost from the outset of the contra war that cocaine traffickers permeated the paramilitary operation. The administration also did next to nothing to expose or stop the criminal activities. The report revealed example after example of leads not followed, corroborated witnesses disparaged, official law-enforcement investigations sabotaged, and even the CIA facilitating the work of drug traffickers.

The Bromwich report showed that the contras and their supporters ran several parallel drug-smuggling operations, not just the one at the center of Webb's series. The report also found that the CIA shared little of its information about contra drugs with law-enforcement agencies and on three occasions disrupted cocaine-trafficking investigations that threatened the contras.

Though depicting a more widespread contra-drug operation than Webb had understood, the Justice report also provided some important corroboration about a Nicaraguan drug smuggler, Norwin Meneses, who was a key figure in Webb's series. Bromwich cited U.S. government informants who supplied detailed information about Meneses's operation and his financial assistance to the contras.

For instance, Renato Pena, a money-and-drug courier for Meneses, said that in the early 1980s, the CIA allowed the contras to fly drugs into the United States, sell them and keep the proceeds. Pena, who also was the northern California representative for the CIA-backed FDN contra army, said the drug trafficking was forced on the contras by the inadequate levels of U.S. government assistance.
"

the information is interesting, real and it makes the crap that bushCO and CRONYs are trying to lay down, transparent...

educate yourselves.


you own this country not these smut peddlars.


frock them hard.

.

Posted by: shelling with insights the dependant upon others for mastication... | May 7, 2008 6:56 PM | Report abuse

To Cryos | May 7, 2008 6:10 PM :

Apparently reacting to my earlier post criticizing LoudandDumb's hideously long list of libels, you wrote:

"LoudAndDumb's posts might be long and annoying to some, but a lot of the content and points are interesting.

However I don't expect many Obama supporters to look into it since to them words and their projected ideals seem to be all that matters. I also wouldn't want them to have to take time away from the important things in their lives like American Idol and Entertainment Tonight."
-------

LoudandDumb's "points" are interesting like front-page tripe of the National Enquirer and other such dross one sees while waiting in a supermarket check-out line.

I am NOT an Obama supporter. I oppose Clinton and McCain.

I HAVE researched LoudandDumb's list. I opt to spare readers the detailed results of my research, because I wish not to exhaust their patience and eyes.

I do not know what are "American Idol and Entertainment Tonight." But please do NOT educate me.

Posted by: Loup-bouc | May 7, 2008 6:55 PM | Report abuse

the anti hillary, anti dem crowd is mostly republican...

because they fear her, and will bend any issue to meet their needs...

morals??? those are for humans...not lizzards...


the piglizzard trough will be empty... if Hillary wins, or the democrats scoot the tapdancers out of washington...

however there are some tapdancers that may look like dems, they are zionistas instead...look at them.


mark it.


WASHINTON INSIDERS, depend on a new president being one of them, or not knowing who they are...


and crushing them under her heels like planaria

Posted by: declarations of honesty,forthose of you who need walkers to get there... | May 7, 2008 6:50 PM | Report abuse

Loup-bouc, Did you write the "Pinnochio" fantasy about the Survivor of Bosnia that appeared in the LAT blog last month?

Posted by: MarkInAustin | May 7, 2008 6:48 PM | Report abuse

Chris


What happened to Obama's own analysis of the race that Indiana was the TIEBREAKER ???


Basically, Obama said that if he did not win Indiana he would drop out.

The race is a tie.

The pledged delegate totals of Obama are inflated by the red states, the small states and by the caucus system.

Everybody knows that.

Everybody knows that Hillary deserves delegates for Florida and Michigan.

If one pencils in adjustments for all the above, it is a tie - adjustments are fair in life and that is one reason why they have superdelegates.

Obama himself looked at the schedule and said Indiana was the "tiebreaker"

OK so why isn't Obama a man of his word???

The media actually is unbelievable, seeking to bury Hillary as she won the "tiebreaker."

How about keeping Obama to his word ???

Posted by: 37th&OStreet | May 7, 2008 6:46 PM | Report abuse


McGovern Kerry Dukakis Gore Carter>>20+years of NOT learning a darn thing and COUNTING

i know...it'll be DIFFERENT THIS TIME uh huh
Well I DOUBT THAT.


If Obama runs against McCain we'll soon find out if he can sell himself to the general population or whether his supporters
have, in their zeal, did a better job than the Supreme Court did back in 2000 and the Republicans did on the Democrats during the past many elections.

Personally, I am not optimistic about Obama winning a general election against Senator McCain.

Personally, I am not that optimistic about Obama becoming a "successful" President as in repairing the damaged USA and engaging a "successful" foreign policy.

I do realize those of you who support him really disagree with me. However, if what might happen (he does or does not get elected) actually does happen than given a brief amount of time you'll find out...if you recall this that you made a mistake.

Posted by: jatox | May 7, 2008 6:46 PM | Report abuse

Obama is a Gracious Winner and Hillary is a Good Loser; however, she is staying in the Race in Hopes to Raise Money. There is Life after the primaries; however, Hillary has no other Plans at the moment.
Obama vs. McCain, Obama 08.

Posted by: Fareed | May 7, 2008 6:45 PM | Report abuse

What young European/African Americans do not realize is that the dynasty has been ended! The Clintons/Bush tag team has been in office since Bush Sr VP 4 years,Bush Sr. President 4 years, Bill Clinton 8 years, Bush Jr. 8 years. A total of 24 years! Including the 200 years that excluded an African American candidate.

We are on a role, so next is the Federal Reserve Bank and the IRS.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 7, 2008 6:42 PM | Report abuse

To DickeyFuller | May 7, 2008 5:36 PM :

You wrote:

"All of the people I know who are lawyers, whom I've known since college, went into the law because they were English majors, with strong verbal skills, and a fear of anything quantitative or mathematical.

Executive management, which, among other things, the presidency is, requires the ability to analyze quantitatively."
------

(a) You could benefit much from learning English grammar and the logic of language. Your syntax reads like a mis-harvested crop of graffiti snippets.

(b) Many lawyers enjoy fine math skills. Many have undergraduate training in political science, sociology, or accounting. Though I am a law professor, my published work includes three concerning law, statistics, math theory, and the philosophy of science, and statisticians have yielded to my arguments.

(c) Most government executives and many CEOs are law-trained, many even past attorneys, and they will tell you that law-training is an invaluable aid of their executive management work.

(d) Hillary's government executive experience is nil (especially if the measure is the relative frequency of her Oval Office time versus Monica Lewinsky's). Hillary is fond of claiming foreign affairs experience she did not attain, as in the case of her sorely false claim of participating in Northern Ireland peace negotiations. She used to taut the health care plan she proposed during Billy-boy's first term; but when (during the current election contest) the press observed that health care plan was rejected roundly, she said that actually it was Billy-boy's (so that either she lied when she proposed it or she lied when she denied it was hers).

(e) My earlier message's point aimed not at whether Obama is "qualified" (by legal training or anything else) but at the lack of premise of those who say he is not qualified and those who say that Hillary (or McCain) is.

(f) My name is Loup-bouc, not Loup. Please do not lop off half the appendage. I bleed, and it hurts.

Posted by: Loup-bouc | May 7, 2008 6:36 PM | Report abuse

Chris:

I like your articles and your blog.


However on this one, I have to disagree with the way you are presenting the situation.


First, from mid-February, when anyone looked at the primary schedule, it was clear that yesterday was not going to be easy - yesterday met expectations.

Obama is the one who really did not meet expectations - he fell far short of his performance in Virginia, Maryland and Georgia, similar states in the region.


Obama was earlier projected to win Indiana - funny how over a few weeks - the bar shifts to state that Hillary has to win with 55% of the vote in a state that includes Chicago suburbs. Who is writing this stuff?

The truth is that Hillary does have a path to victory, outlined above and in your other comments section - she has nothing but good days ahead of her in the month of May and she realistically can cut the margin down to 30 - 50 delegates.

That leaves the remaining 200 Superdelegates who would rather not make a decision because of ties to supporters of both sides.

The truth is that those 200 superdelegates have had since the Wisconsin primary to size up Obama - after almost 3 months they have not gone with him.

The failure on the part of Obama to come up with an additional 100 superdelegates is telling.

I would agree with all this "math" that these guys are talking about IF Obama had an additional 100 Superdelegates.

However, the situation is that Obama, the frontrunner for the past three months during the time the party would have expected to have a nominee, has been unable to get those 100 superdelegates.

We are in overtime now.

Obama had his chance to wrap this up and he has not.

The other failure of Obama is his failure to live up to the expectations created by his campaign after the Wisconsin primary concerning the white vote - he hasn't done it. 37% of the white vote in North Carolina does not cut it AND it does not meet the expectations talked about by the Obama campaign in February.

Finally, Obama himself stated that he would lose Pennsylvania, he would win North Carolina and Indiana was the tiebreaker.


THOSE WERE OBAMA'S OWN WORDS.


What happened to that? Not enough voting machines at the Gary airport??

Obama stated that Indiana was the tiebreaker, Hillary wins and the media is trying to give her a funeral.


It has become a joke.


Posted by: Words of Wisdom | May 7, 2008 6:26 PM | Report abuse

bsimon, You raise an interesting point. The D Party may not be the same coalition it was even four years ago.

I had suggested last year that in our two party system in a giant nation, the two parties do the work of nine separate interest groups, four of which were on the D side:

Populists [e.g., Edwards].
DLC types [e.g., Clinton].
"blue dogs"[e.g., Webb, Jack Reed, Jane Harmann].
FDR-LBJ Big Guv program liberals [e.g.Teddy].

BHO may not fit - and that means my groupings must be modified.

Posted by: MarkInAustin | May 7, 2008 6:21 PM | Report abuse

AP reports: Rev. Al Sharpton, Others Arrested at Rallies to Protest Slaying

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,354487,00.html


Good lord, do we have to have this nut dominating the news again? Where's Rev Wright when you need him.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | May 7, 2008 6:15 PM | Report abuse

HILLARY'S PATH TO VICTORY


The democratic race is essentially a tie - the popular vote totals have been analyzed and the various anomalies in the delegate distribution formulas which explain over half of the difference in the delegate totals between the candidates - WHAT IS THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE ? Hillary right now is exactly where she thought she would be -

Here is Hillary's Path to Victory There are more than enough delegates for Hillary to win a majority:


1) Win West Viriginia on May 13

2) Win Kentucky on May 20

3) Lock up the vote at the DNC Rules Committee on May 31 on Florida and Michigan giving Hillary PLUS 70 delegates cutting Obama's lead in half.

4) Win the majority of the 50 Add-On Superdelegates which have yet to be chosen.

5) Win Puerto Rico.


Pretty Clear ahead - all of these things are likely to happen.


At that point, the Superdelegates have to wonder how they can go with Obama who has failed to close the deal, failed to poll well among key demographics and failed to show how he can win in November.


It's not like baseball where a team can clinch the pennant by losing that day and "backing in" - Obama needs to have a winning streak going in. Where is it ????


Posted by: Words of Wisdom | May 7, 2008 6:11 PM | Report abuse

LoudAndDumb's posts might be long and annoying to some, but a lot of the content and points are interesting.

However I don't expect many Obama supporters to look into it since to them words and their projected ideals seem to be all that matters. I also wouldn't want them to have to take time away from the important things in their lives like American Idol and Entertainment Tonight.

Posted by: Cryos | May 7, 2008 6:10 PM | Report abuse

It's over.

It's OK to say it Hillary.

Posted by: KEVIN SCHMIDT | May 7, 2008 6:09 PM | Report abuse

I have scrolled down these comments , reading all of them and am struck by the comments that insinuate either the classical child's temper tantrum approach or worse still, a loose blackmail approach.
One spots the "I will never vote for him", "I will vote for the other side", or the "I'm going to stay home and not vote at all if my candidate is not the one". Crystal clear thinking eh? in a time when not only America but the world awaits change from an adult american electorate. The idea of threatening to invalidate your valuable voting right because your candidate might, it's not yet certain, but might not succeed.
Life , and living it is never easy! One has to push dissappointments aside not store them up as a pool of hate to punish another where indirectly you punish yourself and your own party, or nearest and dearest..
That said one must then ask:- What reason has Hillary to keep going? Pride, yes. To recoup costs, also a possibility. To show herself as the true candidate after 4 years of whoever is elected because with Obama or Mccain it is not going to be a cakewalk. We will all be tightening our belts before the downturn or recession turns the corner.
My only worry if I now accept the fact that Obama will front the Democrat push is that Hillary in her God given right to be crowned the candidate for the party is also , as the people placing comments above have already done:- she is also about to instigate a blackmail ploy. 1. Against the DNC to get a chosen position of power in the senate. Hence staying in the race she can not win. Or 2 To undermine the electorate vote via the supers and win the nomination. Bill I believe has a lot of favours that he can now call from his days in power. He and Hillary know where all the skeletons are buried, political or personal, and they probably still have copies of the FBI /CIA files that got lost.
I am afraid it's going to get very, very dirty. I pray I'm wrong

Posted by: darkthoughtsarescary | May 7, 2008 6:03 PM | Report abuse

Hillary got outspent 4-1 and 5-1 depending what state we talk about and you can not keep that up. A good campaign manager could get a dog elected with that kind of an advantage. Where is all that Obama money coming from? God only knows but you wonder sometimes. As for Hillary, bow out gracefully now, raise money to pay the debts, including your self and be ready to take on McCain or his VP four years from now. (Yes, I know what I am saying)

Posted by: Opa2 | May 7, 2008 5:58 PM | Report abuse

response to: (tanya | May 7, 2008 3:44 PM)

As opposed to being a mealy-mouthed, uppity Republican fruitball?

Posted by: Dr. Don Key | May 7, 2008 5:58 PM | Report abuse

Gotta love the people who won't vote for Obama because he is unelectable. Hmmm...

Posted by: DDAWD | May 7, 2008 5:56 PM | Report abuse

Obama has the MATH in the PRIMARY!

Hillary has the MATH in the GERNERAL ELECTION!

Which one is more important?

Wake up Dems or we LOSE in NOVEMBER!!!

Posted by: DEM | May 7, 2008 5:55 PM | Report abuse

To LOUD and DUMB | May 7, 2008 5:05 PM :

I've been flipping a coin, over and over, since I read your post. Heads = you're nuts and believe YOUR lies and misrepresentations. Tails = you're psycopathic and don't give a damn for aught but being better than Limbaugh.

I've seen your same list in other blogs. Like so many, you post your stock message despite it's irrelevant to the blog's topic, because you adore feeling that you're creating road rage in the traffic of politics.

If you can find a tiny molecule of empathy in your disfigured character, please devote it to shortening your rants. Reading them feels a bit like trying to trudge through Gibbon's "Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire."

Posted by: Loup-bouc | May 7, 2008 5:51 PM | Report abuse

I hope Obama names a lady vice-president candidate! 8 years for him and 8 years for VP and 0 years for Hillary!

Posted by: Dan Sample | May 7, 2008 5:49 PM | Report abuse

The tireless scrivener writes
"Obama can't draw "Reagan Dems" (read: white working class voters) and Hillary has alienated the Dems' base, its leadership, and just about anyone else paying attention with her self-aggrandizing, polarizing manner."

The Reagan Dems aren't a target market for Obama. They're also a diminishing demographic, truth be told. In exchange for the Reagan Dems, Obama is attracting the 'Obama Repubs'. The college educated, suburban living white voters who've been voting Republican but have tired of endless deficits, tax cuts coupled with spending increases, endless war and gov't in disarray. They liked it when Repubs promised small government, but the Repubs have delivered growing government, poorly managed. The Obama Republicans are looking for a political leader that will demonstrate some real leadership nationally and internationally. They've realized that reasonable taxes coupled with properly run government is superior to the starve-the-beast-but-don't-take-away-my-earmarks fiscal policy of the last seven years. The Obama Republicans are going to deliver a blowout win to the Senator from Illinois this year. Sen McCain is struggling to rally the base & alienating swing voters in the process. The fiscal responsibility and maveric style that attracted the Obama Republicans in 2000 has been co-opted over the intervening years. The maveric is gone, replaced by the desperate panderer. The Dems will coalesce by November, along with the swing voters & the Obama Republicans, leaving McCain with the 29% of voters that still think President Bush is doing a good job.

Posted by: bsimon | May 7, 2008 5:42 PM | Report abuse

Update on Indiana results-- the last reported 100% statistics show the margin at 13,195 (644,560 Clinton to 630,395 Obama) or a percentage margn of 1.12%. An exit poll revealed that 7% of Clinton backers were Republicans already planning to vote for McCain in the fall regardless of who was the Democratic nominee. I guess Rush can chalk up another assist for Hillary as 7% of her total is in the neighborhood of 45,000 votes which is about 3 1/2 times her margin.

Posted by: ejgallagher1 | May 7, 2008 5:39 PM | Report abuse

LOL - Heath Schuler is now on Hillary's side. Up here in DC, we all know where that will get you...

Posted by: Kevin | May 7, 2008 5:37 PM | Report abuse

Chris,

You fail to mention another obvious reason why Clinton should pack it in. This is supposed to be about us, not just her. She gave it her best shot, but, she needs to put the needs of the party first. I realize this is a tall order for someone as self-absorbed as she is, but that is the truth. She won Indiana because Rush Limbaugh is convincing people to vote for Hillary. She is playing into his racism by staying in. Frankly, this isn't her last shot at the nomination, she is 60, so in 8 years she will be 68, still more than capable of running again. If she allows her own needs to take precedence over the needs of the Democratic Party, this won't be forgotten or forgiven.

Posted by: gerard | May 7, 2008 5:37 PM | Report abuse

Congratulations to our next US President, Barack Obama! This man has the intellectual and leadership skills and abilities that our country badly needs. We were misled and lied once in 2004 by George W. Bush....but you will not see a repeat. As to John McCain....he is an "empty suit" who cannot even perform his US senatorial duties (He is my local US Senator). He has never done anything for people or organizations who ask for his help....unless of course, you are a lobbyst and big money contributor to his party.

Posted by: doctormiguel | May 7, 2008 5:36 PM | Report abuse

~
Loup: You implied that "[h]is magna cum laude Harvard law degree and his having been President of Harvard Law Review? His being a member of the University of Chicago law faculty?" are two things that qualify Obama to be president.

You lawyers are so incredibly biased in your belief that, just because someone is a trained in the law, even at the highest level, they are also trained in the skills of executive management.

All of the people I know who are lawyers, whom I've known since college, went into the law because they were English majors, with strong verbal skills, and a fear of anything quantitative or mathematical.

Executive management, which, among other things, the presidency is, requires the ability to analyze quantitatively.

Most lawyers, even the Park Avenue partners I've worked with on a couple of deals, run from the room when we start calculating.

Obama is just not qualified because he lacks the experience.

And, his claims of what he will do once in office are not supported by his actions, thus far, in the Senate.

~

Posted by: DickeyFuller | May 7, 2008 5:36 PM | Report abuse

"But, in the likely event that the ultimate conclusion of that meeting is some sort of splitting of the two states' delegates (the most likely option), it will make it all that much more difficult for Clinton to make a case that a path exists for her to win the nomination."

Remember that those delegates will be pledged only for the first vote. Think about that.

Posted by: NMAIF | May 7, 2008 5:30 PM | Report abuse

TO ANY SUPERDELEGATES LOOKING FOR SOME "VOX POP"...

If you insist on choosing between Obama and Hillary, you will lose in the fall. Obama can't draw "Reagan Dems" (read: white working class voters) and Hillary has alienated the Dems' base, its leadership, and just about anyone else paying attention with her self-aggrandizing, polarizing manner.

If you, the supers, choose to go "the third way" with a compromise candidate such as Al Gore, paired with Obama, you MAY have a shot... but Gore's still a bore and there will be those Obama diehards who will say that the big-wigs stole the nomination from their guy.

(Even though the superdelegate system is the only thing that can save the Dems from themselves this cycle.)

So after pushing the idea of a compromise candidate and finally realizing that you, the supers, lack the will to come up with a truly electable candidate, I have come to a tentative conclusion (I say "tentative" because I'd like somebody to tell me why I'm wrong). Here it is:

Many registered Democrats will be looking for a viable THIRD PARTY CANDIDATE. His name is not Ralph Nader. Chuck Hegel's okay on the war but not exactly in the mold. Bloomberg's a non-starter; he'd never get elected.

I don't know who else is out there at this late juncture. But I can tell you this: If you go with either Hillary or Barack, you're going to lose, and many Dems will vote for a third-party candidate, or not at all.

I'd like to hear some nominations for a viable third-party candidate -- because the present choice is really no choice.

Posted by: scrivener | May 7, 2008 5:25 PM | Report abuse

{anonymous} at 2:07 p.m.

ROFLMAO!!! So wrong! Funny, but so, sooo wrong.

Posted by: buzzardist | May 7, 2008 5:23 PM | Report abuse

Money, does the story with Clinton and Florida and michigan teach you anything? mrs. clinton is not to be trusted ever, especially when her personal interests are involved. If you and other Obama's supporters give her money, she, of course, would take them, but would ignore any strings attached to them and any of her pertinent promises also, if it is not profitable for her to remeber these promises. That is who she is. And that is what her personality is about.

Posted by: aepelbaum | May 7, 2008 5:21 PM | Report abuse

Obama is Reagan to Bush's Carter. A serious map-changing blowout is in the works. McCain has to focus on his own party, leaving the swing voters ripe for the pickin.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 7, 2008 5:19 PM | Report abuse

My only prediction this year: Howard Dean will be getting a pink slip on Wednesday November 5th.

Posted by: kim | May 7, 2008 5:18 PM | Report abuse

"Obama is not on trial. "

Indeed, he is under no scriutiny whatsoever. But when it does start he will flame out like the others before him. Dukakis, McGovern, Dean, Kerry, Gore, Mondale.

I am liberal, vote for me.

Voters: I don't think so!

Posted by: LOUD and DUMB | May 7, 2008 5:14 PM | Report abuse

"the filly came in second. euthinize her. brown wins."

tasteless yet laugh out loud funny

Posted by: Anonymous | May 7, 2008 5:13 PM | Report abuse

COUNTDOWN TO VICTORY (Update)
177 to 2025 Obama (172 likely)
488 total delegates remain
264 supers 214 elected 10 elected IN NC (not awarded)

Go OBAMA

Go new dems +12,000,000 net registered since 2004
We have the numbers. come on

Posted by: Anonymous | May 7, 2008 5:12 PM | Report abuse

Loud and Dumb. We might listen to you except that Obama is not on trial. The Clintons are, for fraud. That's Los Angeles Superior Court case number BC304174.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 7, 2008 5:09 PM | Report abuse

Is there a way to see donations to BO and HRC broken down by zip code? And then some intelligent media type could correlate that to income levels by zip code. Then we might see who is elitist and who now has much more support in the post California time frame. I suspect BO has wider and more numerous donations. And perhaps he's getting more donations now from California than before its Primary when HRC was riding high. But time change!

Posted by: Anonymous | May 7, 2008 5:09 PM | Report abuse

you think the ba ba man...


knows how to close a deal on sharks???


he's probably want to give them a chance to

"rest up," so that they would appreciate what a good guy he was...


rest up as in form Project For a New American Century...


when George H.W. Bush lost his second term of office to Bill Clinton....


A brief history of the PNAC: a refresher

Once upon a time in an office rented to them by the American Heritage Foundation, a group of powerful men directly connected to the halls of the capital and the defense and energy industry formed a fringe rightwing organization based loosely on the teachings of Leo Strauss. They called themselves the Project for the New American Century. The Project is an initiative of the New Citizenship Project (both chaired by William Kristol) and as such is largely funded through it. Direct funding for PNAC comes from, but isn't limited to, the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation ($700,000), the Sarah Mellon Scaife Foundation ($50,000), and the John M. Olin Foundation ($70,000).


Unsurprisingly these three exceedingly conservative foundations have strong ties to weapons manufacturing and several members of the Project are former CEOs and board members of defense contractors and energy companies. (Halliburton, Trireme, Bechtel, etc.)

These guys drew up a plan for using our role as last remaining super power to expand their respective global markets through force. Specifically, their published documents call for the violent overthrow of regimes around the world that weren't friendly to their business interests. The plan, as it was drawn out, called for the toppling of Saddam Hussein and seizing control of the Iraqi oil fields. Also, the regime of Afghanistan had to be deposed in order to construct a pipeline to secure access to the natural gas reserves of Central Asia. Once the energy resources were secured, the next step in the plan was to create an archepelago of military bases throught the Middle East and Central Asia as a staging point for further operations including the toppling of Iran and Syria.

On page 52 of a document published by them called Rebuilding America's Defenses (.pdf), they stated that there was such resistance to transforming America's military machine for the job of acting as the world policman that there would have to be "a catalyzing catastrophic event, similar to a new Pearl Harbor".

The new Pearl Harbor.

With the security apparatus that had been monitoring Al Qaeda effectively disbanded, the network was able to orchestrate and carry out the worst terrorist attack in American history. Testifying under oath before the 9-11 commission (which the whitehouse tried to prevent) the Nat'l Security advisor, Condi Rice (Who the Whitehouse also tried to prevent from testifying and then later tried to prevent he from having to testify under oath) testified under oath that the Bush administration had no idea that domestic flights could be highjacked and flown into domestic tagets in a coordinated terrorist attack. Not only did the the famous August 6th PDB seem to refute this in general terms, but also it has come to light that the FAA and the FTA had sent 52 memos to the White House specifically mentioning the impending threat of domestic flights being highjacked and flown into domestic tagets in a coordinated terrorist attack.

Shortly after 9-11, the Taliban regime is toppled, and Hamid Karzai is placed as the President. Karzai is a former Unocal Advisor and CIA asset. Zalmay Khalizad, another Unocal advisor, is placed as the United States envoy to Afghanistan. Shortly after, the natural gas pipeline is finished and Osama Bin Laden is allowed to escape.

go fricking figure...how could this be? they planned it morons...

they planned, "they," as in bushCO und CRONYs the war profiteers...they guys making a buck on your backs...

.

Posted by: do | May 7, 2008 5:08 PM | Report abuse

It bewilders me how HRC supporters can, with a straight face, query why Obama has thus far failed to "close the deal." A year ago, Clinton was the presumptive nominee, the beloved first "black first lady," the frontrunner in the race. It was her "deal" to lose. Obama, on the other hand, supposedly just threw his hat in the ring to improve his less than 5% name recognition rating and to get a jump on his 2016 candidacy.

Senator Obama is a self-made man. He has earned every inch of his career on his own credentials, by staying true to himself and his message and by dint of his own hard work and his own achievements. She, on the other hand, is a senator of her not-quite-arbitrarily chosen new home state because of her husband's name recognition. She had the name, the money, the power, the publicity, and a boat-load of political favors owed to her because of her husband's past dealings. If she couldn't pull it off with all those advantages, that's gotta tell us all something.

Hillary is the one who failed to close the deal. Watching her watch the deal slip away is painful for all of us. Shame on her for not being gracious enough to admit defeat and get on board with the new "deal."

Posted by: elbows | May 7, 2008 5:08 PM | Report abuse

"I'm one of the many Clinton supporters who won't vote for Obama if he's the nominee. I'd be tempted to vote for McCain except for the judges issue, therefore I'd likely stay home."

I don't get it. Won't this still be helping McCain?

Posted by: DDAWD | May 7, 2008 5:06 PM | Report abuse

To deepness on... | May 7, 2008 4:56 PM :

This revision corrects two typing errors of my message.

One ought sympathize with your upsets (big oil, GW Bush & company, corruption...). But what is your point? Or are you stuck in a 60s acid trip and looking at randomly-selected news footage of the past 20 years?

Do you recall (or did you ever notice) that the topic is whether Hillary will keep running until the Dem Convention?

Posted by: Anonymous | May 7, 2008 5:06 PM | Report abuse

Hillary, an independent candidate? I don't think so. According to her campaign, she has already put in over 11 million of her own money. If she can't raise it now, she sure couldn't as an independent.

BTW, where is that money going to come from?

Better get Bill out there making some more speeches for Colombia trade.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 7, 2008 5:06 PM | Report abuse

Obama is been pushed by the far left and the MSM (CNN, NBC, WSJ, MSNBC, CBS
and ABC) - Here are Obama LAUNDRY LIST OF LIES.

1.) Selma Got Me Born - LIAR, your parents felt safe enough to have you in 1961 - Selma had no effect on your birth, as Selma was in 1965.

2.) Father Was A Goat Herder - LIAR, he was a privileged, well educated youth, who went on to work with the Kenyan Government.

3.) Father Was A Proud Freedom Fighter - LIAR, he was part of one of the most corrupt and violent governments Kenya has ever had

4.) My Family Has Strong Ties To African Freedom - LIAR, your cousin Raila Odinga has created mass violence in attempting to overturn a legitimate election in 2007, in Kenya . It is the first widespread violence in decades.

5.) My Grandmother Has Always Been A Christian - LIAR, she does her daily Salat prayers at 5am according to her own interviews. Not to mention, Christianity wouldn't allow her to have been one of 14 wives to 1 man.

6.) My Name is African Swahili - LIAR, your name is Arabic and 'Baraka' (from which Barack came) means 'blessed' in that language. Hussein is also Arabic and so is Obama.

7.) I Never Practiced Islam - LIAR, you practiced it daily at school, where you were registered as a Muslim and kept that faith for 31 years, until your wife made you change, so you could run for office.

8.) My School In Indonesia Was Christian - LIAR, you were registered as Muslim there and got in trouble in Koranic Studies for making faces (check your own book).

9.) I Was Fluent In Indonesian - LIAR, not one teacher says you could speak the language.

10.) Because I Lived In Indonesia , I Have More Foreign Experience - LIAR, you were there from the ages of 6 to 10, and couldn't even speak the language. What did you learn, how to study the Koran and watch cartoons.

11.) I Am Stronger On Foreign Affairs - LIAR, except for Africa (surprise) and the Middle East (bigger surprise), you have never been anywhere else on the planet and thus have NO experience with our closest allies.

12.) I Blame My Early Drug Use On Ethnic Confusion - LIAR, you were quite content in high school to be Barry Obama, no mention of Kenya and no mention of struggle to identify - your classmates said you were just fine.

13.)An Ebony Article Moved Me To Run For Office - LIAR, Ebony has yet to find the article you mention in your book. It doesn't, and never did, exist.

14.) A Life Magazine Article Changed My Outlook On Life - LIAR, Life has yet to find the article you mention in your book. It doesn't, and never did, exist.

15.) I Won't Run On A National Ticket In '08 - LIAR, here you are, despite saying, live on TV, that you would not have enough experience by then, and you are all about having experience first.

16.) Present Votes Are Common In Illinois - LIAR, they are common for YOU, but not many others have 130 NO VOTES.

17.) Oops, I Misvoted - LIAR, only when caught by church groups and democrats, did you beg to change your misvote.

18.) I Was A Professor Of Law - LIAR, you were a senior lecturer ON LEAVE.

19.) I Was A Constitutional Lawyer - LIAR, you were a senior lecturer ON LEAVE.

20.) Without Me, There Would Be No Ethics Bill - LIAR, you didn't write it, introduce it, change it, or create it.

21.) The Ethics Bill Was Hard To Pass - LIAR, it took just 14 days from start to finish.

22.) I Wrote A Tough Nuclear Bill - LIAR, your bill was rejected by your own party for its pandering and lack of all regulation - mainly because of your Nuclear Donor, Exelon, from which David Axelrod came.

23.) I Have Released My State Records - LIAR, as of March, 2008, state bills you sponsored or voted for have yet to be released, exposing all the special interests pork hidden within.

24.) I Took On The Asbestos Altgeld Gardens Mess - LIAR, you were part of a large group of people who remedied Altgeld Gardens . You failed to mention anyone else but yourself, in your books.

25.) My Economics Bill Will Help America - LIAR, your 111 economic policies were just combined into a proposal which lost 99-0, and even YOU voted against your own bill.

26.) I Have Been A Bold Leader In Illinois - LIAR, even your own supporters claim to have not seen BOLD action on your part.

27.) I Passed 26 Of My Own Bills In One Year - LIAR, they were not YOUR bills, but rather handed to you, after their creation by a fellow Senator, to assist you in a future bid for higher office.

28.) No One Contacted Canada About NAFTA - LIAR, the Canadian Government issued the names and a memo of the conversation your campaign had with them.

29.) I Am Tough On Terrorism - LIAR, you missed the Iran Resolution vote on terrorism and your good friend Ali Abunimah supports the destruction of Israel .

30.) I Am Not Acting As President Yet - LIAR, after the NAFTA Memo, a dead terrorist in the FARC, in Colombia , was found with a letter stating how you and he were working together on getting FARC recognized officially.

31.) I Didn't Run Ads In Florida - LIAR, you allowed national ads to run 8-12 times per day for two weeks - and you still lost.

32.) I Won Michigan - LIAR, no you didn't.

33.) I won Nevada - LIAR, no you did not.

34.) I Want All Votes To Count - LIAR, you said let the delegates decide.

35.) I Want Americans To Decide - LIAR, you prefer caucuses that limit the vote, confuse the voters, force a public vote, and only operate during small windows of time.

36.) I passed 900 Bills in the State Senate - LIAR, you passed 26, most of which you didn't write yourself.

37.) My Campaign Was Extorted By A Friend - LIAR, that friend is threatening to sue if you do not stop saying this. Obama has stopped saying this.

38.) I Believe In Fairness, Not Tactics - LIAR, you used tactics to eliminate Alice Palmer from running against you.

39.) I Don't Take PAC Money - LIAR, you take loads of it.

40.) I don't Have Lobbysists - LIAR, you have over 47 lobbyists, and counting.

41.) My Campaign Had Nothing To Do With The 1984 Ad - LIAR, your own campaign worker made the ad on his Apple in one afternoon.

42.) My Campaign Never Took Over MySpace - LIAR, Tom, who started MySpace issued a warning about this advertising to MySpace clients.

43.) I Inspire People With My Words - LIAR, you inspire people with other people's words.

44.) I Have Passed Bills In The U.S. Senate - LIAR, you have passed A BILL in the U.S. Senate - for Africa , which shows YOUR priorities.

45.) I Have Always Been Against Iraq - LIAR, you weren't in office to vote against it AND you have voted to fund it every single time, unlike Kucinich, who seems to be out gutting you Obama. You also seem to be stepping back from your departure date - AGAIN.

46.) I Have Always Supported Universal Health Care - LIAR, your plan leaves us all to pay the 15,000,000 who don't have to buy it.

47.) I Only Found Out About My Investment Conflicts Via Mail - LIAR, both companies you site as having sent you letters about this conflict have no record of any such letter ever being created or sent.

48.) I Am As Patriotic As Anyone - LIAR, you won't wear a flag pin and you don't put your hand over your heart during the Anthem.

49.) My Wife Didn't Mean What She Said About Pride In Country - LIAR, your wife's words follow lock-step in the vain of Wright and Farrahkan, in relation to their contempt and hatred of America .

50.) Wal-Mart Is A Company I Wouldn't Support - LIAR, your wife has received nearly a quater of a million dollars through Treehouse, which is connected to Wal-Mart.

51.) Treehouse Is A Small Company - LIAR, the CEO of Treehouse last year, made more than the CEO of Wal-Mart, according to public records.

52.) University Of Chicago Hospital Pay Is Fair - LIAR, your wife's pay raise was nearly 150% her already bloated rate and the hospital is a Non-Profit Hospital, which made $100,000,000 in the last 3 years. They overcharge blacks VS whites for services, and overcharge everyone in general by 538%!

53.)I Barely Know Rezko - Only 5 Billed Hours - LIAR, you have known him for 17 years, and decided to do a real estate deal with him during a time when he was proven to be under investigation. Despite this, you divided your property and had them take off $300K before the mortgage problems started. Then Rezko's wife buys the lot beside it that you can't afford, saving you $625,000.

54.) My Donations Have Been Checked Thoroughly - LIAR, you only gave back Hsu ($72K) and Rezko ($150K) their money when publically called on their involvement in your campaigns.

55.) My Church Is Like Any Other Christian Church - LIAR, your church is so extreme, the pastor who married you, Rev. Wright, just got done blaming the US for 9/11 and named Louis Farrahkan their person of the year.

56.) I Disagree With My Church All The Time - LIAR, you still have yet to repudiate Wright, who married you and your wife, and you still donate large sums of money to assist the church in furthering its message - hatred and revenge. You donated in 2006 alone, $22,500 to the church that you so terribly disagree with. That is nearly $500 PER WEEK - that sure is disagreement, Senator Obama.

57.) I Have Clean Connections Despite Rezko - LIAR, you are not only connected to Exelon and Rezko, you are also connected to Hillary PAC supporter Mr. Hsu, AND an Iraqi Billionaire of ill repute, Nadhmi Auchi, who ripped off people in the Food For Oil, Iraqi deal. Seems Mr. Auchi may have helped Obama buy his million dollar property long before Obama had millions of dollars. Wonder what favors Mr. Auchi expects, when Obama leaves Iraq free to be taken over by special interests such as him.

58.) I never heard sermons like Rev. Wright's, that have been in videos all day, You Tube - LIAR! 3 days later during your Mea Culpa BS speech you said "Did I hear controversial statements while I sat in that church? Yes I did."

Posted by: LOUD and DUMB | May 7, 2008 5:05 PM | Report abuse

To deepness on... | May 7, 2008 4:56 PM :

One ought sympathize with your upsets (big oil, GW Bush & company, corruption...). But what is your point? Or are you stuck in a 60s acid trip and looking at randomly-selected news footage of the past 20 years?

Do you recall (or did you evern notice) that the topic whether Hillary will keep running until the Dem Convention?

Posted by: Loup-bouc | May 7, 2008 5:03 PM | Report abuse

I tried to place nice in the sandbox, but the cat kept trying to bury me.

Posted by: Spectator2 | May 7, 2008 5:03 PM | Report abuse


Obama gets George McGovern.

Clinton gets Heath Shuler.

lol.... if nothing else told you it was over, that does. It's time for Al Gore to endorse Obama. Hillary can stay in the race as long as she wants to, but King Arthur has cut off both the Black Knight's legs.

Note to Dan: it's not just media that Sen. Clinton needs money for. I'm sure most of her paid staffers have been unpaid this last month or so, and they're going to be bailing, along with a lot of her high-priced talent. If she can't read the writing on the wall, they can.

Posted by: DDS | May 7, 2008 5:02 PM | Report abuse

the filly came in second. euthinize her. brown wins.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 7, 2008 5:01 PM | Report abuse

Quote: "I am wondering why some of the posts say Obama is unelectable in Nov? They spew venom about how only blacks and college kids want him. Well, all my white middle-aged women friends are for him. Have been for ages now. This man is the future. Get it."

Beats me. I am in my 7th decade, retired, college education, white, and I voted for Obama as did most of the whites in Texas. BTW, he won, no matter what the media says. Look it up.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 7, 2008 5:01 PM | Report abuse

PatrickHuss,

Don't hold your breath waiting for an Independent candidacy from Hillary. She can't raise money running as a Democrat with the most recognizable brand name.

Posted by: maxfli | May 7, 2008 5:01 PM | Report abuse

On an added note this election has been amusing and revealing. The media does a good job of hiding it, but I think now a lot of democrats can see there are as many left wing radicals nutjobs as there are right wing. They just need now to combine the list of people who voted for Obama and Huckabee and con artists have a free ride for decades :)

Posted by: Cryos | May 7, 2008 5:00 PM | Report abuse

I am a complete idiot.

Posted by: Spectator2 | May 7, 2008 4:59 PM | Report abuse

deepness on, Say What??

Try making some sense in your posts.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 7, 2008 4:58 PM | Report abuse

COUNTDOWN TO VICTORY (Update)
177 to 2025 Obama (172 likely)
332 to 2025 Clinton (327)
488 total delegates remain
264 supers 214 elected 10 elected IN NC (not awarded)

Go OBAMA

NY stop locking up super delegates
FREE AL SHARPTON


Posted by: Anonymous | May 7, 2008 4:58 PM | Report abuse

I am wondering why some of the posts say Obama is unelectable in Nov? They spew venom about how only blacks and college kids want him. Well, all my white middle-aged women friends are for him. Have been for ages now. This man is the future. Get it.

Posted by: lanz | May 7, 2008 4:58 PM | Report abuse

16 YEARS OF CLINTON BASHING, seems to be working...


disinformation is the new truth.


this is a blatant


attempt by a bunch of losers,

to say,


give control back to us.


keep them under house arrest, tap their phones, pursue them catch them and arrest them...

acting against the best interests of your county while a leader, serving your own private interests or the interests of another country


or BIG OIL

amounts to TREASON....take them down cut them up and use themfor chumbait....figuratively of course...

FTU


.
let's be clear here:


what are bushCO and CRONYs about ????

influence peddling and non-compete contracts

getting a cut of the action if _they_ get you the contract...


evidence:

1. IRAQ

2. AFGHANISTAN

3. Katrina

4. attempting to have BLACKWATER take over the Border Patrol

5. Appointment of Mike McConnel to the Directorship of National Intelligence and the subsequent award of an intelligence "data mining," contract to 6 times felon from the IRAN CONTRA thugs for drugs crowd, Adm Poindexter...

what do bushCO and CRONYs do?????


favor their own, and not all of _them_ are AMERICAN...


castrate them, "figuratively," remove their influence and income and let them loose to fend for themselves amongst the other predators...

nothing more exciting than watching a bleeding shark swim up to a crowd of unbleeding sharks....


pick a chair.

.cut them.and release them to be eaten.


.

Posted by: deepness on... | May 7, 2008 4:56 PM | Report abuse

Al Sharpten Arrested

HEADLINES

NY CRACKING DOWN ON UNCOMMITTED SUPER DELEGATES

Posted by: Anonymous | May 7, 2008 4:55 PM | Report abuse

think running INDEPENDENT

may be what needs to happen if we can't educate

the stupid people...


are you going to let the HOMOPHBIA users crowd run the country again...

last time we got a gay president who snorts crack off of Karl Rove's rear end...


who couldn't close a business deal without holding a gun to his opponents skull to get him to sign the papers...

Palfrey died so that these people can continue....


get a grip losers.

.

Posted by: I | May 7, 2008 4:53 PM | Report abuse

Quote: "Having a Dem president increases her power as a senator immesureably."

Maybe she could even do something on her promise of 200,000 new jobs in New York, if elected to the senate. Instead they lost 35,800 jobs.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 7, 2008 4:52 PM | Report abuse

COUNTDOWN TO VICTORY (Update)
177 to 2025 Obama (172 likely)
332 to 2025 Clinton (327)
488 total delegates remain
264 supers 214 elected 10 elected IN NC (not awarded)

Go OBAMA

Posted by: Delegate Math | May 7, 2008 4:52 PM | Report abuse

This certainly has been a wild ride!

Posted by: CT | May 7, 2008 4:50 PM | Report abuse

To Tobias | May 7, 2008 4:16 PM :

You wrote: "I'm a life long Democrat and if Obama gets the nomination I will not vote for him. He is not qualified to be president and he is unelectable." [Others wrote similar propositions, and this note addresses those others, too.]

I love your logic and judgment, just as I loved Bullwinkle and Rocky Squirrel and Boris and Natasha and Dr Peabody's Improbable History when, Saturday mornings, after studying law 16 hours daily Monday through Friday, I wanted to vacate my mind and knew that only determined nonsense would help. Thank you Tobias. [Last hour I finished producing a litigation-memo that took me through four all-nighters.]

Oh, I owe an explanation, since my last-preceding paragraph must seem like Martian to you -- like the alien ack-ack language of the film "Mars Attacks!"):

(1) Life-long Democrat-ness is irrelevant to not voting for Obama, just as shunning Obama is irrelevant to being a life-long Democrat.

(2) If Obama is "unelectable," your McCain vote (or your non-vote) will not matter.

(3) If Obama is not qualified, is he unqualified more than McCain? Or is McCain's qualification his corruption, as corruption is Clinton's, and was Johnson's and is Bush's -- the corruption that pundits call toughness and realism and savvy? (I would accept the proposition that Obama is not quite corrupt as Clinton or McCain and that, therefore, the shallow-sighted may view Obama as being naïve.)

(4) What are the emblem's of Obama's incompetence? His magna cum laude Harvard law degree and his having been President of Harvard Law Review? His being a member of the University of Chicago law faculty? His understanding why a summer's gas-tax suspension would not achieve a net savings but cost consumers more than the tax-amount cut?

Posted by: Loup-bouc | May 7, 2008 4:49 PM | Report abuse

Clinton will not run as an independent. She will campaign strongly for Obama. People, get a grip.

Having a Dem president increases her power as a senator immesureably.

Now it's time to begin the assault on the doddering, crotchety McCain.

Posted by: Spectator2 | May 7, 2008 4:47 PM | Report abuse

NYC, do you really think the best interests of the Democratic Party would be served by having the nomination of the first black candidate be overturned based on the vote of old white women?
-----------------
I think the best interests for the Democrats is pickiing the person who can be elected.

Posted by: Patrick NYC | May 7, 2008 4:47 PM | Report abuse

anonymous @ 3:30 PM: "whatmeregister wrote: Instead of divorcing him, she swallowed her (considerable) pride and stuck by him.....

Sort of like the way John McSame swallowed his pride (and his balls) and draped his arm around Chimpy's shoulder after the Chimp's thugs spread the "McCain's black baby" smear in the South Carolina campaign back in 2000, huh? And now here's McCain bellying up to the trough to get his payoff...but you don't mention that one, do you, whatmesh!thead?"

Why would I mention McCain's craven pandering to Bush and the religious right cretins like Falwell, Robertson, Hagee, Parsley, et al in a thread discussing Hillary's motivations for staying in the race? It's just as hypocritical and cynical as Hillary's behavior, yes, but that's pretty off-topic here.

I don't get your kneejerk hostility at all. But I do realize that some folks on here apparently just enjoy viciousness for it's own sake, so whatever gets you through the day...

Posted by: whatmeregister | May 7, 2008 4:42 PM | Report abuse

I'm beginning to think she will pull a Lieberman and run as an independent after Obama is officially the nominee.

Posted by: Patrick Huss | May 7, 2008 4:40 PM | Report abuse

ONLY RACISTS AND/OR REPUBLICANS AND/OR RICH LOBBY GROUPS WOULD VITE FOR CLINTON OVER OBAMA.
DEMOCRATS NEED TO GET RID OF THIS PRIVALIGED FAMILY ONCE AND FOR ALL AND START HEALING IN ORDER TO WIN THE REAL RACE.

Posted by: Patricia | May 7, 2008 4:39 PM | Report abuse



Case Summary


Los Angeles Superior Court
Case Number: BC304174
PETER F PAUL VS WILLIAM JEFFERSON CLINTON

Filing Date: 10/14/2003
Case Type: Fraud (no contract) (General Jurisdiction)
Status: Pending

Future Hearings

05/13/2008 at 08:37 am in department 47 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012
OSC RE: CONTEMPT

08/08/2008 at 08:31 am in department 47 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012
Further Status Conference

Documents Filed | Proceeding Information

Parties

CLINTON HILLARY RODHAM - Defendant/Respondent

CLINTON WILLIAM JEFFERSON - Defendant/Respondent

D. COLETTE WILSON ATTORNEY AT LAW - Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner

DOYEN MICHAEL R. - Attorney for Defendant/Respondent

HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON FOR U.S. SENATE - Defendant/Respondent

KREEP GARY G. - Former Attorney for Pltf/Petn

LEVIN JAMES - Defendant/Respondent

MACHTINGER LEONARD A. - Attorney for Defendant/Respondent

NORMAN JAN B. - Associated Counsel

NORRIS STERLING E. ESQ. - Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner

PAUL PETER F. - Plaintiff/Petitioner

ROSEN DAVID - Defendant/Respondent

SMITH GARY - Defendant/Respondent

TONKEN AARON - Defendant/Respondent

WILLAMS & CONNOLLY - Attorney for Defendant/Respondent

Posted by: Anonymous | May 7, 2008 4:39 PM | Report abuse

Lol. I hope all you Obama supporters like Robocalls, telemarketers and junk mail.

And those complaining about how the Clinton's have gotten rich; it appears your beacon of hope has got himself set for life from the personal information given by naive supporters.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=aW_Qty8aiVTo&refer=us
http://www.barackobama.com/privacypolicy/

Posted by: Cryos | May 7, 2008 4:39 PM | Report abuse

rosebud---

Bye. Have fun with McWar. And, um, say goodbye to Roe vs. Wade on your way out.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 7, 2008 4:38 PM | Report abuse

rosebud---

Bye. Have fun with McWar. And, um, say goodbye to Roe vs. Wade on your way out.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 7, 2008 4:38 PM | Report abuse

Why it is difficult for me to vote for Hillary if she becomes the nominee.

1. She PLEDGED to obey the DNC rules about MI and FL. Then she changed her stance. It means nothing if she takes a pledge. I cannot trust such a person for the Office of the Presidency when they are asked to pledge to uphold the constitution.

2. She was initially for delegates (which is the DNC rule). Now she wants it to be popular vote.

3. Basically, she is true-and-true politician i.e., cannot be trusted.

Why I am for Mr. Obama

1. He has run an exemplary race: he never tried to attach a label (elitist, etc) to Hillary. He even came to her support in the three-against-one in the ABC debate when they tried to kill his candidacy.

2. He has been 'presidential' through out.He gave great speeches that came from his heart. One could tell when he was sad or angry: he wore his emotions on his sleeve. In contrast, even when it was obvious that Hillary was losing, she pretended to be upbeat.

3. I was very much impressed with how he handled all that controversy.

4. He seems to be a very decent man, imperfect as he may be, gracious in victory as well as defeat.

5. I would rather stand with him even if he has very little chance of winning : he is very much the underdog and has always been due to his perceived 'blackness'. The truth is that he is multi-ethnic although most people judge him by the color of his skin. He cannot be a racist as he is half white/black/etc.

6. I only urge him to be completely honest at all times especially when he is with the media. For e.g., if he voted for gun control long time ago, he should be upfront about it. It is OK to change one's mind but not for political reasons. It is better to lose an election than compromise on ones principle.

7. I only wish he was against the death penalty: this type of punishment is an abomination in this day and age.

Cheers

Posted by: Hobbs | May 7, 2008 4:38 PM | Report abuse

For the first time in my adult life, I will be voting for a Republican. I feel Senator Obama is not a viable candidate for the Democratic Party. He is just another politician through and through. And when his pastor said he is a politician saying what we wanted to hear, his pastor was right. And only then did Obama denounce and throw him under the bus because his pastor only told the truth. Yes we have all heard the crazy and horrible things his pastor has said about America but in this one instance he was saying something totally honest about Obama. Now I am waiting for the video to surface that shows Obama in the audience when his pastor was delivering his horrible sermons and then we will hear another sorry story from Obama....

Posted by: rosebud | May 7, 2008 4:36 PM | Report abuse

Quote: "Obama supporters --- WHAT are you going to do AFTER Obama gets the nomination, and THEN, The MEDIA, Pops the LID OFF all the REAL News about Obama they ... just ... haven't told you about --- YET?"

What are you going to do when the media finally reports that the Clintons are on trial for fraud?

That's Los Angeles Superior Court case number BC304174.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 7, 2008 4:35 PM | Report abuse

From the news of 53 minutes ago:

From NBC's Domenico Montanaro
The Obama campaign annouced three super delegates -- Jeanette Council (NC); Jerry Meek (NC) and Inola Henry (CA) -- have pledged support. AP is reporting one more, a switch from Clinton in Virginia, Jennifer McClellan. (We're working to confirm that and will update.)

Posted by: Anonymous | May 7, 2008 4:32 PM | Report abuse

Obama supporters --- WHAT are you going to do AFTER Obama gets the nomination, and THEN, The MEDIA, Pops the LID OFF all the REAL News about Obama they ... just ... haven't told you about --- YET?

HIS "CLAIM TO FAME" is: Working Across the Aisles - Bringing People together to Make CHANGES.

His whole campaign is based on
ONE BIG LIE:

OBAMA = NO Experience

Obama claims 7 years experience in the Illinois legislature - Working Across the Aisles, Bringing people together to get good CHANGES passed -as exemplified by 26 good bills with his name on them.

A Chicago reporter says all 26 bills were passed in ONE Year and they were NOT Obama's.

http://wweek.com/editorial/3418/10516/
EXCERPTS:

But what's interesting, and almost never discussed, is that he built his entire legislative record in Illinois in a single year.

Republicans controlled the Illinois General Assembly for six years of Obama's seven-year tenure.

Then Emil Jones Jr. (became the Senate Majority leader), He became Obama's kingmaker.

Jones appointed Obama sponsor of virtually every high-profile piece of legislation, angering many rank-and-file state legislators who had more seniority than Obama and had spent years championing the bills.

During his seventh year in the state Senate, Obama ... sponsored a whopping 26 bills including many he now cites in his presidential campaign when attacked as inexperienced.

Working Across the Aisles/
Making CHANGES = ZILCH
Taking Credit for Other People's Work/ INTEGRITY = ZERO
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - -
Still have any doubt this election is about GE Cheney ... "the establishment" ... running Obama AND McCain for President in order to assure themselves of Pulling Off Cheney's NEXt Big Energy RIPOFF?

You think Obama's 20 year "friendship" with the Rev. Wright makes people suspicious of his ... spiritual ... beliefs?

Just Wait until his 20 year "friendship" with Rezko ... shows up on your TV screen - AFTER he gets the nomination, or, AFTER he's OUT of the race:

GOOGLE Info about: The 3 friends who attended engineering school in Illinois: Rezko Alsammarae Auichi:

Auichi (still a billionaire) convicted in a French court of MASSIVE fraud/looting involving ELF a French petroleum company and the UN Oil for Food program. Rezko business partner.

Alsammarae - convicted in an Iraq court (under its current govt) of LOOTING the Iraq ELECTRICITY Grid [while he was Minister of Electricity ...He was Appointed Electricity Minister by the Bush/Cheney ...Coalition Provisional Authority]. Rezko was...allegedly...his partner in LOOTING the electricity grid, and partners in planning to build a power plant in Iraq.

Last week's NEWS from the Rezko trial ...

. . . .you didn't see on TV:
Federal prosecution witness testified that Obama and his wife DID attend a party at Rezko's home thrown in honor of Auichi.

Obama has previously said: He doesn't recall meeting Auichi.

The MEDIA is NOT asking him this question: Did you and your wife attend that Party?

Another prosecution witness testified that REZKO told him not to worry about the upcoming trial because the White House was going to fire the prosecutior (Patrick Fitzgerald) - to kill the criminal prosecution of Rezko.

COMMON DENOMINATOR: National and International MONOPOLY POWER
***Energy RIPoffs*** That's a WHOLE LOT of REALLY BIG DIRT the CORRUPT Politicans and their CORRUPT Media are desperately trying to keep covered up. Obama is part and parcel of it.

The Corporate-Controlled MEDIA is SELLING Obama and McCain to assure themselves that the NEXT President WILL: COVERUP PAST Bush/Cheney/Rezko /MASSIVE FRAUDS/LOOTING of IRAQ, and to PULL OFF Cheney's Next Big .... ENERGY RIPOFF.

"Getting off coal to go nuclear is like giving up cigarettes to take up smoking crack".

Posted by: elme | May 7, 2008 4:31 PM | Report abuse

There is no coming back for Hillary no matter what happens now. That's the price to pay for doing whatever, saying whatever to clinch the votes. Obama didn't do whatever necessary to clinch his votes and yet he is way ahead. Doesn't this say something to ordinarily intelligent people ? Yes it does. Obama didn't dish out dirt on Hillary when he knew that she just had so much of it. No he didn't. He stayed the course according to his principles. That's how he earned my respect while Clinton earned nothing but contempt from me and many hundreds of millions of others like me.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 7, 2008 4:30 PM | Report abuse

"She PLEDGED to obey the DNC rules about MI and FL. Then she changed her stance."

She was FOR the DNC rules before she was AGAINST them.

Posted by: MakeLemonade | May 7, 2008 4:29 PM | Report abuse

Quote: "
I believe in government health care. I believe in withdrawing from Iraq beginning immediately. I believe in the great liberal agenda. I know Hillary can do all this for us. But Obama is going to win. What to do, what will I do???"


Hillary can do none of this for you.
There is such a thing a congress voting on it, you know. They remember the Clintons.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 7, 2008 4:29 PM | Report abuse

Oddball,

No you can't unless you can explain his racist comments...stupid

Posted by: Bye Bye Hillary | May 7, 2008 4:29 PM | Report abuse

Will someone please tell mewhat is the Electoral College count of the States hillary has won and the count for Obama?

Posted by: DR | May 7, 2008 4:27 PM | Report abuse

Trish, Agnes and the rest of the Hillary Hags...she lost you wretched witches. Go vote for Mccain who disagrees with everything Hillary stood for because that makes you feel better. Stupid stupid women!!

Posted by: Hags for Hillary Unite | May 7, 2008 4:27 PM | Report abuse

heath shulers decision making in endorsing hillary explains why he could not cut it as the skins quaterback.

Posted by: ron | May 7, 2008 4:27 PM | Report abuse

It is funny how all these "lifelong democrats" say they won't vote for Obama. I mean, there have been some real losers as far as nominees go, and yet somehow Obama is "not fit".

Give me a breakkkkkk!

Posted by: Brendan | May 7, 2008 4:26 PM | Report abuse

Restore Honor, Honesty, Decency and Integrity to the White House and to the Democratic Party ...

Barack Obama, '08!!!

Posted by: MARTIN EDWIN ANDERSEN | May 7, 2008 4:26 PM | Report abuse

Peeps - Don't be stupid:

WHY is MSNBC/NBC ----PRO-Obama, Anti-Clinton?
ANSWER: Because Obama is PRO-Nuclear & he voted FOR the Cheney Energy Bill; Clinton is NOT Pro-Nuke & Voted AGAINST the Cheney Energy Bill.
GE owns MSNBC/NBC ... & Thanks to the Cheney Energy Bill is planning to reap BILLIONS in profits (Risk-Free) from building 29 new nukes AND from 30-40 years of HIGHER ELECTRICITY RATES. (ONE of those nukes is scheduled to be built in North Carolina)
Other participants in Cheney's NExt Big MONOPOLY POWER
---ENERGY RIPoff---
Excelon Corp. of ILLINOIS, Westinghouse (Owner of CBS), Entergy (owners of many utilities in the Southern States); 3 consortiums of nuke industry corporations.
McCain voted for the Cheney Energy Bill & has already said on the campaign trail: I have to remember to say ... its absoultely necessary for ...us... to build nuclear power plants.
GE, et al ... Are running Obama AND McCain for President.
If you think nukes are ok... just
GOOGLE: Rocky Flats Denver plutonium, and, Hanford WA nuclear waste.

Posted by: elme | May 7, 2008 4:24 PM | Report abuse

Tobias---

Fine. Bye. I am so sick of hearing people say this. Obama will win with or without your vote. We would all prefer it to be with, but it will happen either way.

Posted by: Brendan | May 7, 2008 4:23 PM | Report abuse

I'm just glad that Obama ran 4 years ahead of the time for when they had him groomed to run so the media hasn't had enough time to dumb down enough of America for him to become president. It's amazing how people who like to consider themselves intellectuals depend solely on idealism to choose their candidate and refuse to evaluate facts, use common sense and reason, etc. Obama's actions, associations, etc all contradict his words but apparently a lot of people want to believe something so bad they put on blinders and narrow their mind.

Posted by: Cryos | May 7, 2008 4:23 PM | Report abuse

Quote: "why can't the Dem. party cut to the chase and get a re-vote done?"

Because both states have already refused a re-vote.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 7, 2008 4:22 PM | Report abuse

Why it is difficult for me to vote for Hillary if she becomes the nominee.
1. She PLEDGED to obey the DNC rules about MI and FL. Then she changed her stance. It means nothing if she takes a pledge. I cannot trust someone as President when they are asked to pledge to uphold the constitution
2. She was initially for delegates (which is the DNC rule). Now she wants it to be popular vote.

Why I am voting for Mr. Obama
1. He has never tried to attach a label (elitist, etc) to Hillary. He even came to her support in the three-against-one in the ABC debate when they tried to kill his candidacy.
2. He has behaved more presidential through out.He gave really good speeches that came from his heart. One could tell when he was sad or angry: he wore his emotions on his sleeve. In contrast, even when it was obvious that Hillary was losing, she pretended to be upbeat.
3. I was very much impressed with how he handled all that controversy.
4. He seems to be a very decent man, imperfect as he may be, gracious in victory as well as defeat.
5. I would rather stand with him even if he has very little chance of winning : he is very much the underdog and has always been due to his perceived 'blackness'

Posted by: Hobbs | May 7, 2008 4:21 PM | Report abuse

From the news of 53 minutes ago:

From NBC's Domenico Montanaro
The Obama campaign annouced three super delegates -- Jeanette Council (NC); Jerry Meek (NC) and Inola Henry (CA) -- have pledged support. AP is reporting one more, a switch from Clinton in Virginia, Jennifer McClellan. (We're working to confirm that and will update.)

Posted by: Anonymous | May 7, 2008 4:21 PM | Report abuse

Excellent analysis. The biggest factor will probably be the decision about Florida and Michigan. At this juncture Clinton's insistance that the delegates be counted at the convention may seem like sour grapes at first, but she's been fairly consistent about her stance on the issue. Voters had nothing to do with the primaries in those states - why can't the Dem. party cut to the chase and get a re-vote done? It's like the y2k general election debacle all over again - except this time it's the party of the people allowing voters to be disenfranchised. At this point, she's not completely irrelevant. That probably won't happen until superdelegates start swinging Obama's way big time. Yeah she's (literally) made a personal investment in her campaign and the numbers don't look too promising, but it's not yet gospel that she won't get the nomination. Why not soldier it out for another month? I'm sick and tired of hearing how the Dem primaries are fragmenting the party. Both candidates are matching up very well against McCain. The longer Dems can shut up Karl Rover and Co. by actually talking about the issues, the better.

Posted by: Dr. Don Key | May 7, 2008 4:20 PM | Report abuse

Just what we need. Another politician who ignores the will of the people.

She, and her followers - appear to be more Republican every day.

You know things are bad when the demographic that is jumping off your bandwagon is referred to as 'logical voters'.

Educated males and females, 18-65 years old.

Posted by: Horace P Manure | May 7, 2008 4:18 PM | Report abuse

Chris --

I think it was just fine to use "going forward" -- ignore those comments to the contrary.

I actually thought Clinton might pull out today, but I guess I was mistaken. I am also a little surprised that there was not an avalanche of superdelegates for Obama this morning. Perhaps they are just giving her a little more time (like a day) out of respect. In a general sense, I appreciate the democracy inherent in their letting everyone vote before they jump in. But the pragmatist in me wants them to simply bring it to a close.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 7, 2008 4:17 PM | Report abuse

I'm a life long Democrat and if Obama gets the nomination I will not vote for him. He is not qualified to be president and he is unelectable.

Posted by: Tobias | May 7, 2008 4:16 PM | Report abuse

OBAMA is the best option, and the right candidate!

Posted by: vb | May 7, 2008 4:14 PM | Report abuse

Clinton is done! It is that simple. And since it appears that Ameica is not going to put the single most immoral Man back in the White House as anything I am greatly relieved! That is the real problem I had with the Clinton presidency.

Posted by: mvers | May 7, 2008 4:13 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: | May 7, 2008 3:31 PM, "You Idiot" - Around the same ercentage of women older than 50, identifying themselves as feminist's, voted for Clinton. Actually, self identified "feminists" voted for Clinton by a three to one margin. They, the tame and witless beta males, and Limbaugh's troops, were all that has kept Hillary's pathetic campaign going.

As for feminist's in general, they have stolen the food from our table for too long. Affirmative Action programs created set asides for minorites. Those set asides were designed to keep OUR families together, to provide jobs and training and dignity to people of color. Instead, feminists, the spoiled college educated brats of upper Middle and uper class America, descended on table set for minorities, and with their blathering about glass ceilings and misogony, took those jobs, the trainign, the vast bulk of the money, leaving minority people alienated, with no hope, with no future, with no means of survival in a culture that portrays them as subhuman and congenitally criminal. And, you silly twits STILL have the nerve to sit back and screetch about "strong women" and "sexism", equating this with racism. How dare you! You small minded, self serving collection of pathetic twerps and parasites. Be our guest. Go sit out this election. Better yet, go vote for McCain. We'll still beat you and you will still loose your place at the table that was meant for others.

Posted by: MikeB | May 7, 2008 4:13 PM | Report abuse

"Beri, Since you are not an American...mind your business."
Posted by: Bye Bye Hillary | May 7, 2008 3:24 PM

As a fellow Obama supporter, "ByeByeHillary", can I just say: shut the hell up?

We've seen enough mindless xenophobia in the past 8 years. The Obama campaign is not about that.

Posted by: oddball | May 7, 2008 4:12 PM | Report abuse

something doesn't smell right in the post by 'Trisha' at 3:41 PM...
"I can't believe I was once a Dean supporter considering how badly he's dealt with this process... my obligatory tag before you call me a bored housewife, a peasant, or senile: 21, f, college student, history major in ohio."

Are we really supposed to believe that a 'former Dean supporter' is now a 21 yr old student? So, 'Trisha', are you claiming to have been one of Dean's rabid 17 year old followers who was unable to vote for him back in 2004? I suppose its not impossible, but I am certainly skeptical.

Posted by: bsimon | May 7, 2008 4:10 PM | Report abuse

Why should Hillary leave the race now? She hasn't bowed out yet, despite each scenario for her actually winning the nomination looking implausible at best for months. She's in it until at least 6/3.

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

Posted by: mpp | May 7, 2008 4:07 PM | Report abuse

Oh what to do? I love Hillary but Obamam is going to win. I believe in government health care. I believe in withdrawing from Iraq beginning immediately. I believe in the great liberal agenda. I know Hillary can do all this for us. But Obama is going to win. What to do, what will I do???

Oh, I know!! I can vote for John McCain. Yes, that's a great idea. And it makes sense to me!!!

Posted by: Patrick | May 7, 2008 4:06 PM | Report abuse

Agnes just said:

I guess I'm voting and campaugning for McCain now that Hillary will lose the primary.
I will not support Obama after what they did to Indiana - withholding and massaging the votes. Cheaters!

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

I'm tired of worthless old women supporting Hillary just because they want to see a woman president -- regardless of issues or anything else! Shame on you!!!!!!!

And, you go ahead and be a **** and support McCain, and then you can sit here in a police state, with a fascist supreme court, and wonder why it happened.

On the other hand, I'm otta here. Got a great job in Germany. Pays lots of EUROS (that's money worth something. Hope everything works out for ya' :)

Posted by: Harry Rothschild | May 7, 2008 4:06 PM | Report abuse

Oh what to do? I love Hillary but Obamam is going to win. I believe in government health care. I believe in withdrawing from Iraq beginning immediately. I believe in the great liberal agenda. I know Hillary can do all this for us. But Obama is going to win. What to do, what will I do???

Oh, I know!! I can vote for John McCain. Yes, that's a great idea. And it makes sense to me!!!

Posted by: Patrick | May 7, 2008 4:06 PM | Report abuse


what you incompetent consumers / or sellors of evil fail to understand / and understand completely is...


this:

Hillary Clinton actually understands the territory that needs to be covered in order to turn the country around...


baba boy?


right. most of his followers posting here are Republick Conners...


they do want him to win. he will be ineffective without support on the hill...and no insights about the players...


he just wants the prize. that he can't use it or keep it don't matter.


if he cared about the United States of America


he would walk away and come back when he can actually do the job.


we don't need to hire incompetence.....his "win,"


is being handed to him by republick conners...


Florida is bush family territory


it was decisive in keeping Al Gore BLOCKED from the presidency....


and it is being used again to block Hillary.


is Obama a bad person? no.


is he capable? absolutely not.


he's a suit.


period.


. he can't deliver . what he doesn't understand .


even the "gas tax," thing show his stupidity


saying that George H.W. Bush could teach him something


is to totally ignore that the bush family and friends have been running the United States as an extension of their business interests and using the CIA as a political tool...


he doesn't even KNOW THAT.


what a mxxxxx fxxxing idiot


. these guys kill people as a solution .


Posted by: chasing evil | May 7, 2008 4:05 PM | Report abuse

"The superdelegates are under no obligation to anyone but the best interests of the party."

NYC, do you really think the best interests of the Democratic Party would be served by having the nomination of the first black candidate be overturned based on the vote of old white women?

Sure, she can do well in the other elections and even ignore her sworn obligations to discount the Florida and Michigan votes, but SHE STILL CAN'T WIN. So unless the Democratic superdelegates steal the election from Obama, she is finished.

But as a life long Clinton watcher, believe me, she would steal anything to get elected.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 7, 2008 4:04 PM | Report abuse


here's someone that has enough sense to look at the piece of apparel...and not buy by the label... "keep hope alive!"


how about keep the citizens futures alive!


jail a republick scammer....

__________________________________________


I've been a Hillary supporter since the beginning, and I'm sticking with her until the OFFICIAL end. I don't care that the media is digging her grave and that superdelegates are jumping ship; that doesn't matter. I'm not naive, nor am I ignorant to the math. She can't win, but I, like so many others, are still invested in her candidacy intellectually and emotionally.

She's running for a reason. Some of you claim it's because of her ego, but that doesn't explain her win in Indiana yesterday. She has a core constituency that is unwinnable for Obama. And once again, Democrats will lose in November.

So many of us are already signing up to johnmccain.com because we are serious. I'm an independent, and I don't give a damn about the party. I care about the country, and I don't want an empty suit in office.

I'm tired of the stratification involved in this primary -- both racially and socially. And I can't believe I was once a Dean supporter considering how badly he's dealt with this process. I don't want to associate myself with it anymore. Black people vote Obama, wealthy and young vote for Obama, and the elderly and the poor vote for Hillary.

And of course, all the wildcard Obama fans have to state their educational background when posting comments on here, while criticizing or challenging others to do the same. GET OVER YOURSELVES. There is a difference between optimism and naivety. Obama does not have a magic wand; he is a politician.

As soon as he's declared the nominee, the GOP will start the attacks, and he will be wiped off the map. He can't compete. He's built such a damning facade; he can't attack back and he can't remain silent because he's "new" politics, remember? He doesn't sling mud. This is a joke, as we've seen so far, and I find it hard to believe that people still vote for this clown.

Hillary's wise; she knows what she's doing. She's making her case; that although she can't win, she's still viable. She'll win in 2012 after Obama puts his still between his legs, and after McCain becomes too old.

So, congratulations kids; for all your supposed education, you sure have made some stupid mistakes.

Oh and my obligatory tag before you call me a bored housewife, a peasant, or senile: 21, f, college student, history major in ohio.

Posted by: Trisha | May 7, 2008 3:41 PM

Posted by: here's someone that has enough sense to look at the piece of apparel...and not buy by the label... | May 7, 2008 4:03 PM | Report abuse

There's an argument to be made, I think, that the best-case scenario for the Democratic Party is for Clinton to stay in the contest until the primaries are completed. Then she can tell her supporters they tried their best, but America has voted, blah, blah, blah, and then throw her support behind Obama. The DNC agrees to split the MI and FL delegates between Clinton and Obama, and the remaining superdelegates get off easy, saying they'll bow to the will of the electorate and support Obama. And all is well and peaceful with the world once again. For Obama, I think his best chance of winning over her supporters is if they can feel that their candidate (Clinton) "fought the good fight" and simply came up short, not that she was forced out too early by the evil media and Obama supporters.

Posted by: Kirsten | May 7, 2008 4:03 PM | Report abuse

For those of you who won't vote for Obama if Clinton looses, and for those of you who won't vote for Clinton if Obama looses:

When I was in sixth grade, there was an election for class president. In the first round four students were chosen. From this group, the two who received the highest votes would go on to compete for class president. When the time came to cast our votes, many kids where saying, "If my friend doesn't win, I'm not going to vote in the final round." Finally, two were selected. One student was really smart/brainy, and the other was very popular. The winner would need 50 percent of the class votes to become class president. And you guessed it. No one won. But I did get elected class secretary. TRUE STORY.

My point is, I'm hoping that those of you who have allegiance to the democratic ticket, that you will behave better than six graders. (Thank goodness I''m an Independent.)

Posted by: Maizie James | May 7, 2008 4:02 PM | Report abuse

There is nothing destructive or wrong in the way Hillary Clinton fights Obama: he is, after all, her oponent in this race. He, on the other hand, appears smug and pleased with himself in the knowledge that all (racists) blacks will vote for him - nomatter what his positions are!

Posted by: Alex | May 7, 2008 4:01 PM | Report abuse

@Agnes: if you believe that there was hanky-panky in the elections in Indiana, please report the issue @ http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/vpchome

I read somewhere that many blacks and students were turned away as well.

Posted by: Hobbs | May 7, 2008 4:01 PM | Report abuse

Game.....Over.

Posted by: Mac-Nab | May 7, 2008 4:01 PM | Report abuse

The Heroine of Tuzsla lives.

No male could have boasted he had been under fire when he had not and survived in politics.

John Kerry was under fire, and some goons lying about his conduct did him in.

Chivalry demands that a woman be permitted to fabricate her physical courage, I suppose, if she is of an age that actual combat duty was denied to her.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 7, 2008 4:01 PM | Report abuse

Hillary Clinton actually understands the territory that needs to be covered in order to turn the country around...


baba boy?

right. most of his followers posting here are Republick Conners...

they do want him to win. he will be ineffective without support on the hill...and no insights about the players...


he just wants the prize. that he can't use it or keep it don't matter.


if he cared about the United States of America


he would walk away and come back when he can actually do the job.

we don't need to hire incompetence.....his "win,"


is being handed to him by republick conners...


Florida is bush family territory


it was decisive in keeping Al Gore BLOCKED from the presidency....


and it is being used again to block Hillary.


is Obama a bad person? no.


is he capable? absolutely not.


he's a suit.


period.


. he can't deliver . what he doesn't understand .


even the "gas tax," thing show his stupidity


saying that George H.W. Bush could teach him something


is to totally ignore that the bush family and friends have been running the United States as an extension of their business interests and using the CIA as a political tool...


he doesn't even KNOW THAT.


what a mxxxxx fxxxing idiot


. these guys kill people as a solution .

Posted by: chasing evil | May 7, 2008 4:00 PM | Report abuse

Beri it just wont work!!

Your opinion looks and sounds like a replublican who is trying to get Clinton elected.
Again As You Can see by the republican phoneys commit here
and
Rush Limbaugh
Ann Coulter
and
ALL
republicans
want
H Clinton to win

I WONDER WHY?????

PS I have this prime Waterfront Property for Sale --Cheep

Posted by: GHM | May 7, 2008 4:00 PM | Report abuse

It's very unlikely that Gore will endorse anybody unless the fight goes on for so long that he considers it an emergency. He doesn't have much clout to gain at this point, it won't change the outcome of the race anyway, and he has a huge reputation to lose. It's better to spare that capital for the fight for the environment.

Posted by: T | May 7, 2008 4:00 PM | Report abuse

The best thing that could happen to Hillary is all the Superdelegates vote for Obama now and close the whole thing down. The reason its good for her is she is convinced its her destiny and her right to that nomination. She cannot accept anything less than that. She is going to lose no matter what. But if she can blame it on anyone and argue the nomination was stolen from her then she won't have to look in the mirror and admit to herself that after all was said and done, the voters didn't pick her.

Posted by: Patrick | May 7, 2008 3:59 PM | Report abuse

Please do, I would not want to be a member of a party with people like you as a members. Two faced is not a very good attribute, you and Mccain deserve each other. Good luck

=====
I guess I'm voting and campaugning for McCain now that Hillary will lose the primary.
I will not support Obama after what they did to Indiana - withholding and massaging the votes. Cheaters!

Posted by: Agnes | May 7, 2008 3:45 PM

Posted by: Anonymous | May 7, 2008 3:56 PM | Report abuse

Hmmm... All this debate and fighting...
Doesn't Hillary seem like she has trouble running against Obama? First off, Obama is a gigantic black dude, with style, who nobody should run against, because it would be like running into the Great Wall in China. Second of all, she keeps talking smack about Obama, obviously because she's having trouble, and not to mention that she's losing. Let's stop fighting over this, and wait for the outcome of all this. Fighting like this IS FUN, I gotta admit.

Posted by: Abno Semufid | May 7, 2008 3:53 PM | Report abuse

Quote: "The superdelegates are under no obligation to anyone but the best interests of the party."

That's why, if they are half smart, neither Obama or Clinton will be the nominee at the convention.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 7, 2008 3:52 PM | Report abuse

Jose Augustus Christ! What will it take for this **** to give up -- for the betterment of us all (including those ignorant Southern rubes who vote Republican, even though is is directly against their interest).

As "Clark" said, a moment ago, "Enough already."

What can Clinton possibly gain?

I've read a couple of insidious commentators suggest that Clinton just wants to be the President soooooo badly that she's continuing this charade just to sabotage Obama's chance this fall, to Hillary can face McCain in 2012.

And, that sounds nuts! And, I don't subscribe to that theory ... but, holy cow, it's sure beginning to look like that.

I was a huge supporter of the Clintons since 1992, 'till this year, and now we get to see things they way they actually are.

Posted by: George Abercrombie | May 7, 2008 3:51 PM | Report abuse

By the way Louisiana resident. Take back your Katrina refugees that are causing the crime statistics to skyrocket.

Oh, they don't want to come back, I forget.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 7, 2008 3:50 PM | Report abuse

There is only a month to go and while it is not very likely the supers could all lean towards Hillary if she does very well in the next remaining contests. The superdelegates are under no obligation to anyone but the best interests of the party.

Posted by: Patrick NYC | May 7, 2008 3:48 PM | Report abuse

The poor woman is DEEELUSIONAL.

Posted by: FL Cracker | May 7, 2008 3:48 PM | Report abuse

Heavens, please stop with the "Obama can't win because he only gets the blacks and young vote" hooey.

Do we have to list all of the states that Obama has won? Do we have to list the popular vote totals?

Please, HRC fans, stop. She is a good candidate. She is losing. No desperation skewing of facts after this much has played out.

Put another way: do you think Clinton would win the White House by only getting the white underclass vote and the gray hairs? That is MaGoo's bread and butter.

Obama's voters EXPAND the Democratic Party as much as Clinton's would... or more.

Posted by: steve boyington | May 7, 2008 3:48 PM | Report abuse

To CntrvilleCitoyen | May 7, 2008 1:58 PM :

Vous êtes de France ou Belgique ou Québec ou un Etat qui étais une colonie de la France -- ou, comme moi, une francophile?

I fear you may be correct. And such outcome would be specially sad, because Dodd or Richardson would have enjoyed a good chance (had the mainstream media not blinded the public to Dood and Richardson and selected Clinton and Obama long before both took the lead). And their policies would have been superior to Obama's and far superior to Hillary's, and Dodd or Richardson would have brought integrity and honor to the office.

If we lived in a good dream, Kucinich would have been our candidate. Perhaps we can dream that the Clinton/Obama war becomes too ugly and Obama too sloppy and a draft Gore movement succeeds.

But the here-pertinent matter is why Hillary continues. I appreciate some (not all) of the "sophisticated" reasons pundits have suggested, but my perception compares Clinton to Nader (she the Yang form, and Nader the Yin of the same character-structure, and both children who hold their breaths till they turn blue to coerce mommy or daddy to yield them the toys they covet).

Posted by: Loup-bouc | May 7, 2008 3:47 PM | Report abuse

hillary should drop out.afetr yesterday result i think it's time for her to come back to reality.if she want to run,she may run in 2016.

Posted by: Alain | May 7, 2008 3:47 PM | Report abuse

Quote: "The problem with most of you are that you are mostly quite vulgar, common and low-class."

Hmmm, in other words, the typical Louisiana resident. I could say what we call 'em over here, but I won't.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 7, 2008 3:47 PM | Report abuse

Hillary might as well become a Republican. If she keeps moving the goal posts for success any further, she'll be stumping on the Mall during Barack's induction ceremony.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 7, 2008 3:46 PM | Report abuse

I guess I'm voting and campaugning for McCain now that Hillary will lose the primary.
I will not support Obama after what they did to Indiana - withholding and massaging the votes. Cheaters!

Posted by: Agnes | May 7, 2008 3:45 PM | Report abuse

Quote: "I don't trust him, for the typical politician reasons and also for unusual suspicions about his motives that rose after the issues about his wife's beliefs and his pastor."

Who cares whether you trust him or not? What is all this about his pastor? I have attended the same church for years and pay no attention whatsoever to what my pastor says. Are you responsible for what your kids say?? Hillary stuck with Bill for 35 years now and he was accused of rape, accosted women, was impeached for lying under oath, was barred from practicing law in the supreme court and his own state, and many other things. She is still sending him out to help her be crowned. Now, anything more about Rev. Wright??

Posted by: Anonymous | May 7, 2008 3:44 PM | Report abuse

Memo to all you democrats on this blog, from a Republican. My goodness, you are one mean bunch. How you have turned against one of yours " the clintons" who gave you one of the few moments in the White House in the last 30 years. As they say here in Louisiana, "Obviously, you don't buy Democrat vote, you just rent it by the hour." The problem with most of you are that you are mostly quite vulgar, common and low-class. And that is an unforgivable sin.

Posted by: tanya | May 7, 2008 3:44 PM | Report abuse

President Obama will go down as one of the greatest ever, if not the greatest.

Posted by: Maddogg | May 7, 2008 3:44 PM | Report abuse

Feminists have never been anything other than self serving parasites, that took the affirmative action set asides, meant for people of color to preserve OUR families. As a collection, they are lazy and racist, self obsessed, and anything other than liberal. Let them go to Pat Robertson and McCain and demand their "choice" and other "women's initiatives". For the rest of us, we want a divorce!

Posted by: MikeB | May 7, 2008 3:23 PM
---------------------------
You are an idiot. You must be typing with your feet since your knuckles are obviously on the ground.

Posted by: YOU IDIOT | May 7, 2008 3:43 PM | Report abuse

Obama wins the nomination, 'nuff said.

Since he polls behind McCain in all the swing states after spending $100 million there to polish his image, and the Republicans will take the gloves off the way Clinton never could, Obama is yet another sacrificial lamb for an election loss, in a long line of such Democratic liberal sacrifices.

When, someday, the Democrats wake up and go back to being the party of the middle class, they may win again, and they might get my vote. Meanwhile, John and Cindy McCain are practicing their dance steps for McCain's inaugural ball.

Posted by: dyinglikeflies | May 7, 2008 3:43 PM | Report abuse

This situation really calls for a fresh examination of those so called 'uncommitted supers'and their duties. They say what they like to justify their indecisiveness but at the end of the day, voters know it is 'they' who prolong this tragic-comedy, by refusing to decide when the time calls for their collective decision.


These uncommitted supers themselves are risking the wrath of the voters who are going to hand out their judgment in their next elections.

They are mostly elected officials which means they have mandates to serve. Every one of them. One of those mandates is to blow the whistle when it becomes necessary to do so, in the interest of the Party.

Avoiding difficult jobs because they are just too afraid to make their choices public will cost them the very jobs they are all dearly holding onto. How very ironic that these undecided supers still have not learnt the truth about this Obama movement.

It is truly in their own interest to come out and line up behind the inevitable nominee, Obama before they begin to look really irrelevant.

Posted by: thisworld | May 7, 2008 3:42 PM | Report abuse

I've been a Hillary supporter since the beginning, and I'm sticking with her until the OFFICIAL end. I don't care that the media is digging her grave and that superdelegates are jumping ship; that doesn't matter. I'm not naive, nor am I ignorant to the math. She can't win, but I, like so many others, are still invested in her candidacy intellectually and emotionally.

She's running for a reason. Some of you claim it's because of her ego, but that doesn't explain her win in Indiana yesterday. She has a core constituency that is unwinnable for Obama. And once again, Democrats will lose in November.

So many of us are already signing up to johnmccain.com because we are serious. I'm an independent, and I don't give a damn about the party. I care about the country, and I don't want an empty suit in office.

I'm tired of the stratification involved in this primary -- both racially and socially. And I can't believe I was once a Dean supporter considering how badly he's dealt with this process. I don't want to associate myself with it anymore. Black people vote Obama, wealthy and young vote for Obama, and the elderly and the poor vote for Hillary.

And of course, all the wildcard Obama fans have to state their educational background when posting comments on here, while criticizing or challenging others to do the same. GET OVER YOURSELVES. There is a difference between optimism and naivety. Obama does not have a magic wand; he is a politician.

As soon as he's declared the nominee, the GOP will start the attacks, and he will be wiped off the map. He can't compete. He's built such a damning facade; he can't attack back and he can't remain silent because he's "new" politics, remember? He doesn't sling mud. This is a joke, as we've seen so far, and I find it hard to believe that people still vote for this clown.

Hillary's wise; she knows what she's doing. She's making her case; that although she can't win, she's still viable. She'll win in 2012 after Obama puts his still between his legs, and after McCain becomes too old.

So, congratulations kids; for all your supposed education, you sure have made some stupid mistakes.

Oh and my obligatory tag before you call me a bored housewife, a peasant, or senile: 21, f, college student, history major in ohio.

Posted by: Trisha | May 7, 2008 3:41 PM | Report abuse

dnjake is right on.

The mainstream media is so in the tank for Obama that they refuse to recognize what the voters are saying. They're not saying they are in love with Hillary. They are saying that they'd like another choice other than Obama.

Last night's promouncements by Tim Russert and others that Obama is the nominee should be grounds for seriously questioning his ability to fairly and impartially analyze election results. I'm no fan of Fox, but at least they consider the possibility that the Obama candidacy could indeed collapse in the late stages.

Even Mr. Cillizza has been parroting the line about Obama's "inevitability."

Weren't these the same pundits who declared Hillary the inevitable candidate months ago?

Posted by: scrivener | May 7, 2008 3:41 PM | Report abuse

The Super Delegates need to fish or cut bait. Now is the time to make their voices heard. By sitting on the fence post they continue to continue the party's anguish and weaken any chance of a strong victory at the general election. The ride was fun for a while, but now it is getting monotonous.

Posted by: AZMac | May 7, 2008 3:41 PM | Report abuse

Quote: " How much have heard about the lawsuit against the Clintons in the MSM? Almost nil."

That is for sure. The case number is Los Angeles Superior Court number BC304174. I wrote the Los Angeles Times and asked why they were not reporting on it, and received no answer. The judge did rule on 4/25 that Hillary did not have to file a deposition until after the election and then told her defense attorney to "say hi to Bill". Look it up, so much for justice.
The Clintons are on trial for fraud. She sure hasn't said anything about that.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 7, 2008 3:40 PM | Report abuse

Oh well. She's soon gone. I wanted to vote for Hillary, honest. I didn't trust her, but only as much as I don't trust most politicians for the typical reasons. But I really believe that she would be an effective leader. McCain is the opposite. I actually trust the man. I just don't think he will be effective. After the last 8 years I swore that I would vote for anyone the Democrats nominated. But that was before Obama. I don't trust him, for the typical politician reasons and also for unusual suspicions about his motives that rose after the issues about his wife's beliefs and his pastor. I don't believe that Obama will be effective if he managed to get elected because of those suspicions. So I will vote for McCain and hope that many of my fellow Democrats do as well.

Posted by: John | May 7, 2008 3:39 PM | Report abuse

Hey Beri,

Your statement about Blacks voting for Obama because he is Black is WAY off-base. I know PLENTY of Black folks who will NOT vote for Obama. I am Black and am still unsure of whether I want to vote for him (registered Independent). So please do not generalize. I do not deny there are some Black folk who will vote Obama simply because he is Black...but there are many, MANY more who see him as more than that. Thank you.

Posted by: ShouldHavePlayedHookie | May 7, 2008 3:39 PM | Report abuse


BTW, Clinton did not win Indiana by a squeaking 2%. She won by a scraping 1.14%. According to MSNBC's data:

Total Vote: 1,272,471
Clinton: 643,442 (50.57%)
Obama: 629,029 (49.43%)
==============================
Difference: 14,413 ( 1.14%)

I only mention it because Clinton seems to have trouble with math this campaign season.

Peace.

Posted by: egc52556 | May 7, 2008 3:37 PM | Report abuse

For those that want to know why 95% of black people voted AGAINST Hillary Clinton and FOR Barack Obama take your scared racist butts up to one and ask. Then you can stop posting all this BS.

Posted by: Bye Bye Hillary | May 7, 2008 3:36 PM | Report abuse

Indiana is another example that illustrates Obama's failure to gain support from more than a very narrow majority of the Democratic Party. We have gone through several primaries now where much of the media and some leading Democrats have pushed the idea of a premature termination of the primary process. But Hillary Clinton has continued to win primaries. The voters have repeatedly rejected the idea of simply accepting Obama's narrow lead and moving on. At this point, the primary campaign is mostly over. So finances should not be a big issue for Clinton. If the superdelegates are ready to commit to Obama, we will know the outcome soon. If they are not, we will have to wait until the votes are counted at the convention. In any case, large numbers of Clinton delegates are coming to the convention. They should certainly have the chance to actually cast their vote for her and participate in a convention process that determines how the party moves forward in the fall. That is the way the process is designed. If the party wants a different one, they should redesign it for next time. But this time around the nominee is chosen at the convention and the convention happens in August.

Posted by: dnjake | May 7, 2008 3:34 PM | Report abuse

Clinton should exit, and help unite the party. I can't imagine Obama wanting her as vice, as she and bill would be power-grabbing souls, but who knows. With this new and final breath of a clear perception of Obama's certain victory, super-delegates and bylaw votes will not give her the nomination with the price of deeply fracturing the party. It's over, unite and beat McCain!

Posted by: Beat McCain! | May 7, 2008 3:34 PM | Report abuse

Clintons
three reasons
1 No money


2 No Money


3 No money

Posted by: GHM | May 7, 2008 3:32 PM | Report abuse

Clinton is the quintessential example of what many hate about politicians who were elected to serve their constituents yet become self possessed, self-indulgent power mongers. Her unwillingness to acknowledge the obvious along with her willingness to spend her contributors money,an example of fiscal irresponsibility, is precisely why she should not be elected. Is this the kind of person I want running our country when she doesn't have enough common sense to acknowledge that it's over. The fat lady has sung, Hillary. Get over it and let us all move on.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 7, 2008 3:32 PM | Report abuse


OBAMA'S FREE PASS

The unfairness to Clinton is that her baggage was known ot the outset, and only after the first 11 contests (which Obama won)did his baggage become fully known. Wright hit the news only on March 13, and after that Obama's free pass was over.

Posted by: Billw | May 7, 2008 3:31 PM | Report abuse

So mikeB help me here!

you say Hillary is selfish and racist and yet 95% of black people voted for obama only based on colour of his skin,and most of them have no even clue what his policy is????

confused!!!!!!!!


Posted by: Anonymous | May 7, 2008 3:31 PM | Report abuse

To B. Kaufmann:

And you don't think this process is already a farce?

If Obama gives his blessing, his followers would support a compromise candidate with Obama as VP as a means of ending Hillary's destructive fight for the nomination.

Also, may I remind you that conventions, not primaries, nominate candidates. That is why all delegates have the legal and moral right to vote any way they want after the first ballot... and even then, they still can vote their conscience.

Please look up accounts of the 1952 GOP Convention, which nominated Ike after a floor fight...

Electability, not primary election results, is the major criterion that convention delegates consider in casting their votes at the convention. A lot can change between primaries and the convention. Obama looked eletable early on; he hasn't looked electable for the general for several months now.

Obama's candidacy remains subsumed by questions and doubts, and the supers are troubled. If they nominate him out of concern that the "people's will" will somehow be subverted, the Dems will lose.

Politics is all about winning. That's why Hillary's challenge to Obama must be taken seriously -- and why the only way out may be a compromise candidate who is not Obama or Hillary.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 7, 2008 3:31 PM | Report abuse

whatmeregister wrote: Instead of divorcing him, she swallowed her (considerable) pride and stuck by him.....

Sort of like the way John McSame swallowed his pride (and his balls) and draped his arm around Chimpy's shoulder after the Chimp's thugs spread the "McCain's black baby" smear in the South Carolina campaign back in 2000, huh? And now here's McCain bellying up to the trough to get his payoff...but you don't mention that one, do you, whatmesh!thead?

Posted by: Anonymous | May 7, 2008 3:30 PM | Report abuse

FINALLY.

sha na na na...na na na na... hey heeyyy.. good bye!

Posted by: NoCal | May 7, 2008 3:29 PM | Report abuse

""This lifelong Dem will vote McCain in the fall if Hillary is not the nominee of the Democratic party. I promise.""

That's ridiculous and a sad statement on your general beliefs when you think another 4-8 years of Republicans would serve us all well.

Posted by: yikes | May 7, 2008 3:29 PM | Report abuse

Any "lifelong Dem" who votes for McCain instead of Obama is not really a Democrat. A "lifelong Dem" is someone who believes in the liberal causes, some completely absurd other completely noble, espoused by the party over the years.

What has McCain said in this campaign that could conceivably attract the "lifelong Democrat"? He's going to appoint judges who will overturn Roe v. Wade, rail against liberal causes, and continue to stymie civil and privacy rights. He's going to lower taxes unnecessarily (and imprudently). He's going to leave you on your own when it comes to health care, slowly eroding the employer-sponsored plans you may currently enjoy. He's going to espouse every cause you, as a "lifelong Dem", have been against your entire life.

The other candidate, be it Obama or Clinton, is aligned with your philosophy, possesses great intellect, and has survived the most grueling presidential campaign in modern history.

Stop the childish proclamations. If you're a lifelong Dem and your candidate doesn't win, you're going to vote for the other candidate. Anyone who says otherwise has a completely illogical mind. You may have to hold your nose when you do it. You may have to swallow your own bile as you hand in your ballot. You may even have to close your eyes, pray you don't get struck by lightning, and smile to your friends. But if you're a lifelong Democrat, you're voting Democrat.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 7, 2008 3:29 PM | Report abuse

In her quest to lure voters, I think that HRC's strange ability to morph into different personas from the experienced politician ready on day one, to Rocky, to the working girl who wants to give poor middle income folk a summer tax break, has not helped her. In fact, I think that working people who do not have a college degree, may even feel she is treating them as if they are stupid. Afterall, do you need a college degree to know that her proposal is political pandering and a ploy that will never get passed in congress and certainly not signed by Pres Bush and that it will not help the economy in the long term? Are working people really impressed that HRC shot her mouth off about dropping an atomic bomb on Iran, while their friends and relatives are risking their lives in Iraq in a war she authorized? Who is Hillary, other than these stories she tells about herself and which she imagines up as the need arises? I agree - Hillary's proposal of no gas tax during the summer has not helped her in the least.

Although people know a lot about the many Hillary personas over the years, we do not know who HRC is and fear she doesn't know either. By the same token, we do not know a great deal about Senator Obama but we know who he is.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 7, 2008 3:29 PM | Report abuse

Fact Check:
The media has been playing devil all along, recent weeks however, have shown the MEDIA taking EVERY Chance to mention the WRIGHT-factor, in reports or newspapers. This ought to have worked in Clinton's favor. HOWEVER, voters showed up in large number and voted overwhelmingly for SENATOR OBAMA. This process ought to be over, she needs to bow out with whatever little dignity she has left (if she had any at all).


To the user reason that black votes and young votes do not win elections,
1. Blacks are STILL people, just like whites are, entitled to voting
2. using the same logic, wouldn't it be possible to say that Hillary can't win the dedicated 90% of blacks that vote for democrats, faithfully , every single election year? If she's winning by getting majority white women and men votes over the age of 65, same logic applies
3. MI and FL did NOT follow rules. If rules are meant to be changed, broken (remember 2004? and how cheated we felt?) why should any exceptions be made now?

OBAMA 08.
LETS GO!

Posted by: A time for change | May 7, 2008 3:29 PM | Report abuse

She's Broke
no money

Posted by: GHM | May 7, 2008 3:28 PM | Report abuse

Kevin Phillips is an interesting guy. A former Republican political consultant, it was he who coined the term "Silent Majority." The resulting political strategy facilitated the election of Ricard Nixon in the midst of the biggest set of cultural upheavals the country has ever experienced. He later renounced his work, Nixon was impeached, and the Republicans have used a revised version of the bigoted, divisive and elitist "Silent Majority" strategy to wreck the country (large and growing rich/poor wealth gap, huge deficit, dollar weak, gas at $4/gal and heading to $10, irresponsible war, etc...) by holding the White House for 20 of the last 28 years. Here is what he says now:

"The U.S. political system is not broken---but both political parties have calcified in terms of interest group domination and limited strategic capacity. The problem of dynasty, which I analyzed in detail with respect to the Bush family and the Republican party in 2004, has since confirmed its power in the Democratic Party as well, through the Clinton family. The drawbacks include a particular legacy of family biases, funding, precedents, and immobility operating within the related entrenchments and limitations of the 150-to 200-year-old political parties. Parenthetically, the inheritability of civic office in the later years of Rome, Spain, and the Dutch Republic was an earlier symptom of calcification."

This is why Hillary will not leave: she thinks she has inherited the Office of President. We know what happened to Rome, Spain and the Dutch Republic. They fell.

In other words, a vote for Barack is a vote against dynasty and decline.

Posted by: KB | May 7, 2008 3:28 PM | Report abuse

GET OUT OF THE RACE HILLARY!!! What more do you need, McCain has already drawn even with you two, you're loaning yourself money, you can't win outright only through legal bs with Michigan and Florida, two contests that Obama didn't even participate in

. . . GET OUT NOW and maybe you can help save the party and the general election.

Posted by: delantero | May 7, 2008 3:26 PM | Report abuse

Beri,

Since you are not an American...mind your business.

Posted by: Bye Bye Hillary | May 7, 2008 3:24 PM | Report abuse

Of course Hillary should stay in.

There is only one month to go.

Florida and Michigan have not been counted.

Posted by: Comment | May 7, 2008 3:23 PM | Report abuse

She's running for VP, but Obama doesn't want her and nonse of us will vote for a ticket that has her on it anywhere. The image of Bill kicking around the Whitehouse or Hillary and her angry shrivelled old 60's feminist Bolshevik's lurking about, seeking revenge against anyone, but especially men, for delussional past insults, is ugly, frightening, and too much of a joke to even bear thinking about. Feminists have never been anything other than self serving parasites, that took the affirmative action set asides, meant for people of color to preserve OUR families. As a collection, they are lazy and racist, self obsessed, and anything other than liberal. Let them go to Pat Robertson and McCain and demand their "choice" and other "women's initiatives". For the rest of us, we want a divorce!

Posted by: MikeB | May 7, 2008 3:23 PM | Report abuse

aaaghhh!! drossless! Quit polluting this board with facts! Numbers, worse! Don't wake up the dreamers! AND WHERE'S MINNESOTA'S FLAG PIN???

YES WE WILT!
YES WE WILT!
YES WE WILT!
YES WE WILT!
YES WE WILT!
YES WE WILT!

Posted by: treetopflyer | May 7, 2008 3:22 PM | Report abuse

Excellent statistics Drossless :)

Posted by: Bye Bye Hillary | May 7, 2008 3:22 PM | Report abuse

The Chief will perform yet another rain dance on Hillary Clinton's parade. Apparently, yesterday's dance did not have enough oooommmph.

Posted by: Chief Two Dogs | May 7, 2008 3:21 PM | Report abuse

"The media makes me sick ... They took her victory from her."

This is what bothers many people, this notion of entitlement that Hillary and her supporters have held. If the media isn't constantly praising her every moment, they feel like they have been horribly mistreated.

The 1 delegate she got from Indiana by winning by only 20K votes was negated by George McGovern's defection and honest advice telling her to drop out. You can't blame the media for that.

Posted by: THuff | May 7, 2008 3:21 PM | Report abuse

I am not an American but would never want Obama to win , because of racial devide he creates ,its not his fault but he creates lots of hate and tribal tendenies ,, just check all those posts from obama clan ,,,
full of hate and self righ with a zero tolerance.
Its Hillary's right to run so stop erging her to stop so you could have your way..
its disgrace
yes you are right she has little chance but neaither has he won ..

1. Obama winning based on over 90 % of black vote seriously bothers me ..its shows that you have serious racial issues over there..
and after seeing that interview with a few black people standing in a row to vote for Obama ,when asked,they had no a clue what Obama was standing for ////
is just too disturbing

its obvious black people voted for Obama only because he is black,
and its only proves black people would still vote for Obama even if he was a total looser, and why ? because of colour of his skin

for Hillary to get where she is now,in such strong racial devide is bigger achevement then any of you can imagine

and yet again bilion of people eating mcdonalds does not make it the best food neither, and I still think Hillary is much better and more inteligent and expirienced candidat ...

and good luck to you all

Posted by: Beri | May 7, 2008 3:20 PM | Report abuse

Tell me Hillary? Why? Why keep this up? You tried. You had a pretty good comeback attempt albeit negative and petty. You showed you can change your personna to fit the audience you want to pander to. That just does not work anymore. Return to the classy lady you always hoped to be. Bow out gracefully instead of being a sore loser. Its over baby. Just say good-bye. But thank you for giving Obama focus and teaching him to trust God to get him through whatever evil vile bigots and stupid people want to spew. God makes the final decision. I am praying for you and your supporters to get pass the hate and love the country we all share again.

Posted by: Bye Bye Hillary | May 7, 2008 3:19 PM | Report abuse

Money is certainly as issue: her boorish plea for cash at the top of her "victory" speech not only conveys her dire financial situation, but also her poor management skills. Clinton tapped the "wealth and well connected" (to use her words) for the max way too early in the game; she shunned the average Jane and Joe as a source for funds in favor of the rich; and she ignored how her cabal of loyalists spent her money.

Super delegates are another issue: the super delegates cannot justify a vote for her in light of the fact that she is behind in the delegate count and the popular vote. To award the nomination to the loser violates the fundamental principle of democracy.

Electability is still another issue: she did not beat her opponent despite the massive tornadoes of controversies whipping him about day in and day out over the past few weeks. Clearly, the voters are not abandoning Obama for Clinton.

Posted by: txgall | May 7, 2008 3:19 PM | Report abuse

For all you out there cherishing racist explanations for the election results, here's a little table showing the results for the whitest states in the union (* = predicted winner):

State % Black Winner
Montana 0.3 Obama*
Idaho 0.4 Obama
Maine 0.5 Obama
Vermont 0.5 Obama
North Dakota 0.6 Obama
South Dakota 0.6 Obama*
New Hampshire 0.7 Clinton
Wyoming 0.8 Obama
Utah 0.8 Obama
Oregon 1.6 Obama*
Hawaii 1.8 Obama
New Mexico 1.9 Clinton
Iowa 2.1 Obama
Arizona 3.1 Clinton
West Virginia 3.2 Clinton*
Washington 3.2 Obama
Minnesota 3.5 Obama
Alaska 3.5 Obama
Colorado 3.8 Obama
Nebraska 4.0 Obama

Posted by: drossless | May 7, 2008 3:16 PM | Report abuse

Hillary vowed today to stay in the race "until there is a nominee". Hmmmm, that would be the convention. She has no interest in anything other than winning, if not now then in 2012. Earlier blogs which surmised that she's willing to have McCain win now to give her a shot later are spot-on. She will spend the next few months continuing to set up Obama like a bowling pin for McCain. Those who think that McCain has no chance becuase the party will overcome these deep-seated personality driven rifts are living in a complete and utter fantasy.

Posted by: calls'emasIsees'em | May 7, 2008 3:15 PM | Report abuse

Clinton will campaign even after the next president is sworn in.

She inhabits her own reality.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 7, 2008 3:14 PM | Report abuse

Where's that a-hole JakeD??? I waited all day for him to spew some crap on the WAPO posts.

Too busy washing all that egg off his face?

Perhaps he didn't realize that his EGO was so huge that its gravitational pull returned to him all the eggs he's been throwing at every poster for the past 2 months.

Nothin quite shuts them up like being dead wrong.

Feels sooo good.

Posted by: JakeD's withered pair | May 7, 2008 3:14 PM | Report abuse

Hillary for Senate Majority Leader. A meaningful job that needs a new face.
YES SHE CAN!

Posted by: PRinNJ | May 7, 2008 3:13 PM | Report abuse

[QUOTE]
"She is the Japanese soldier in the Pacific island that hasn't been told the war is over," said Democratic pollster John Anzalone. "Occasionally she picks off a few islanders and considers it a victory. Well, yesterday she found out the war was over."
[/QUOTE]

If I remember correctly, the actual Japanese soldier needed a lot of gentle coddling before he was willing to trust anybody enough to lay down his arms. Afterwards, he needed lots of psychotherapy to cope with the post-war world.

Or perhaps a better analogy to Clinton is Josef Fritzl who has kept his party -- er, family -- imprisoned for his own mad plans.

Peace.

Posted by: egc52556 | May 7, 2008 3:13 PM | Report abuse

Go Hillary! Do not quit! We need a Democratic nominee who has a chance in the GE.

Obama = Ned Lamont : a candidate loved by the far left of the party and the netroots but has no appeal to the center of the electorate, which is the majority of the electorate.

This lifelong Dem will vote McCain in the fall if Hillary is not the nominee of the Democratic party. I promise.

Posted by: TerryM3 | May 7, 2008 3:13 PM | Report abuse

America needs someone of stamina and experience to get America strong again. She is the one to do it and the one we need to lead us and restore dignity to the United States. Our country's economics and world-standing are at stake. Go Hillary!

Posted by: Emily Duncan | May 7, 2008 3:12 PM | Report abuse

**Sighs** The race for the nominee is over. I guess we're stuck with Obama.
Tim on MSNBC last night had an interesting observation. He said that one of the reasons Clinton is still pressing on is bc of debt. Need to get donors to make up some of it.

The media makes me sick - first they predicted that Obama would win Indiana, but when he lost, they didn't give credit where credit is due. They took her victory from her and down played it. All in all, I thought it has been a great and close race. The candidates are very similar. I commend Clinton for not giving up so easily. If we were going to have our first woman president, it would be her. I think that she's going to leave on a high note and that maybe she's doing all this to run again in 2012.

I pray that Obama can now prove us Clinton-supporters wrong and lead this country in the right direction. Don't let us down, Obama!

No McBush in 2008!

Posted by: Disappointed | May 7, 2008 3:10 PM | Report abuse

It's time for Hillary to go back to her constituents in New York and introduce herself to them. They might like to actually be served by her after she lied to them and told them she wasn't considering running for President.

And we can stop listening to her phony baloney lies and stop watching her ridiculous character morphing. (The mighty hunter, Jane Sixpack who loans herself $11 million.)

It would be nice if today's whopping lie was the last one she told in this campaign. (If you missed it, she told West Virginia's crowd today that students were repaying their student loans at 30% interest!!!)

Posted by: THuff | May 7, 2008 3:06 PM | Report abuse

I expect her to consider their legacy at this point. I believe she will campaign hard then get out and support the nominee. Those who take personal shots such as whatmeregister baffel me. She is a woman running against a black man to be the democratic nominee for president. This party will be fine! My advice to Obama is to toughen up! You think HRC hit you hard. Wait for the general election. McCain will keep throwing haymakers.

Posted by: markesq | May 7, 2008 3:06 PM | Report abuse

She needs to bow out and let Obama get to the business of campaigning against McCain so the Democratic Party can win. Of course, Clinton doesn't care about the party and only cares about herself.

Posted by: gcndc | May 7, 2008 3:04 PM | Report abuse

Mark our words: there won't be a check in the mail, rivers of milk and showers of bread for all those dreamers that believe that the Hamelin Pied Piper will rescue them from their own ineptitude and shortcomings!

Keep on pounding the drums, maybe the miracle will come true!

If it doesn't work, consider Oprah for the next election!

Posted by: Tarzan and Jane | May 7, 2008 3:02 PM | Report abuse

If I hear another "the media is against Hillary" comment, I swear I'm going to vomit.

For all those Hillary followers here are some facts:

1. Rev. Wright has been a multi-week discussion point with the media beating it to death EVERY day.
2. How much have heard about the lawsuit against the Clintons in the MSM? Almost nil.
3. The Bosnian lie ended up being a 2 day blip. Major screw-up glossed over by all the "Obama-loving media". If it was Obama, they would still be talking about it.

Time to get over it. Your candidate LOST. Now it is time to put it aside and work to winning the general election. Else we get Four more years of the same.

Posted by: morning joe | May 7, 2008 3:01 PM | Report abuse

Go Hillary it is not over yet . We all no you are the right one. I hope that Mich. and Flo. get the change to vote again. I believe if they new there vote would not count they sure would not show up at the polls. I would be very upset. There is something fishy about the hole thing. I just pray things will get better, GO HILLARY.

Posted by: sharon morley | May 7, 2008 3:00 PM | Report abuse

You think you have a clever argument there, scrivener, but it's completely absurd. Look at the fuss over the legitimate, long-agreed and planned exclusion of Mich and Fla, and how the losers whine that it's "disenfranchisement".

Yet you propose that the Democrats nominate a candidate who's received NO VOTES AT ALL?

It would merely drive away the Obama supporters without appeasing Clinton supporters. It would make a farce of the whole primary process.

Totally delusional, totally against the party constitution, totally impossible to defend against GOP attacks and in all probability illegal.

There is no "Third Way". Your idea is just dumb, sorry.

Posted by: B. Kaufmann | May 7, 2008 2:59 PM | Report abuse

Hillary Clinton is finished! She had a narrow win in the state of Indiana but
couldn't finish it off in North Carolina.
But now, she is pulling for a miracle in the remaining primaries before she gets to 2,2025 delegates. Baraback Obama has got it locked up for the nomination. He's got to score a few victories to clinch it. Hopefully, its Baraback's!

Posted by: kenlttlflls | May 7, 2008 2:59 PM | Report abuse

I posted: "She seems to have that 'going down kicking and screaming' mentality."

You posted: "the need for Monica is finally explained"

And I am now LMAO!! Totally opened the door and walked into that one!

Posted by: ShouldHavePlayedHookie | May 7, 2008 2:58 PM | Report abuse

The same "Judgement" Senator Clinton uses to run a campaign lost, is the same kind she will use as President. An era has changed from the War Room to a Peace Room.
The "Fighter" emblem is not what we need to lead and assist our world. The New York Senate Lady is a no rules Fighter, on and off the job, not knowing when the bell sounds, or who all gets hurt. She is great, but her time is not this time.

Posted by: DeeEl Pea | May 7, 2008 2:58 PM | Report abuse

It was a mistake to continue to support B. Obama after all the dirt started coming out on him, i mean it is the type of dirt you dont want to talk about in public.

disgusting.

Posted by: Suezy | May 7, 2008 2:56 PM | Report abuse

We are sorry that our canidate didn't come from ROYALTY and breeding

like many GOP's

Posted by: amnesty blood for oil | May 7, 2008 2:56 PM | Report abuse

@whatmeregister

Spot on analysis!

Posted by: citizentm | May 7, 2008 2:55 PM | Report abuse

Quote: Hillbillary Insider
______________________________
______________________________
But, that belief is not universally held throughout the campaign. "I believe there is no path to victory," said one Clinton strategist granted anonymity to speak candidly about the future of the campaign. "I also believe she wants to see a Democrat win in November and she will do the right thing."

________________________________
________________________________

This is denial in it's worst form.
The American People are suffering
on every level.

1). The Wars in the Middle-East

2). The Environment

3). The Economy

4). Health and Medical

All of these are issues that the
Clintons have proven to care less
about. The Balance Budget Act of
1996 and the Telecommunictions Act
of 1996 are a clear and devestating example of how careless the Clintons can be.

Just look at the chants of last night... Obama's People say, 'Yes WE Can' and Hillbillary's people play to the self-induldgent Neo-Con nature of Hillary with 'Yes SHE will'.

We need Meaningful Change!

Obama '08

Posted by: Anonymous | May 7, 2008 2:55 PM | Report abuse

hillary and bill clinton have become the jim and tammy faye bakker of american politics--robbing from and lying to the elderly and uneducated.

NO MORE DONATIONS TO THE CLINTONS--SAVE YOUR HARD-EARNED MONEY!!

Posted by: nomoreclintons | May 7, 2008 2:54 PM | Report abuse

Like it or not Hillary Clinton is the democratic parties only chance. Obama will not with stand the GOP attack machines.
Most of Hillary supporters will vote McCain or simply not vote at all. The democratic party will attempt to rush Clinton with an endorsement for Obama, which will not sit well with the voter's. Just like FL, and MI has already stated they would not vote democratic in the general election if their votes not be counted without further delay.
For the Democratic party this will ultimately bring about a "CHANGE" but in a way that destroys the party.

Posted by: JaSon | May 7, 2008 2:54 PM | Report abuse

Democrats are so thirsty for poltical power they would support an unqualified socialist.

Why they don't rename their party, "Socialist Democrats", is beyond logic.

Posted by: Ohio Republiscum | May 7, 2008 2:53 PM | Report abuse

I wish we could redo Gaum everday...for like a month.

and OBAMA wins by 7 each time

Posted by: groundhog day | May 7, 2008 2:52 PM | Report abuse

make it stop.

Posted by: mobina | May 7, 2008 2:51 PM | Report abuse

For some reason I never figured out, I always get Clinton campaign emails (I've never seen an Obama one) in my Junkbox.

I got one this morning called "Because of You" which consisted of a small letter saying her success was all because of me, with a cute little Hillary virtual signature and a giant "CONTRIBUTE" button.

Are people going to send her a bunch of money now? I find that hilarious. Hillary LOANS money to her campaign. Her supporters GIVE it.

That means that when she pulls out and closes the fund that was meant to give her her dream job, she will take the money they sent, and put it in her own personal bank account, to get back her $11.4 million-plus.

It will go right next to the other $97.6 million in her bank account to pay for the upkeep of her mansions, her vast designer pantsuit collection, Bill's midnight dalliances etc.

She will get her money back from her supporters, and end up making no sacrifice. Her supporters will get an email saying something like "thank you for all you did, it was all possible because of Americans who care like you."

When you think about it like that, it's no wonder that Hillary supporters were all suckered by Bush over Iraq in 2003.

There really is one born every minute.

Posted by: kenonwenu | May 7, 2008 2:49 PM | Report abuse

While the race has certainly been exciting, and I am not one of the observers that subscribes to the theory that the alleged "infighting"is bad for party unity, it appears appropriate for Hillary to recognize that HER needs are now second to the imperative need to support the nominee of choice: OBAMA, and work toward unification of voice and energy. This is the election opportunity of the last 20 years that Democrats can change the current course. And, despite two very qualified candidates, one must surface, and it's obviously OBAMA.
I am very doubtful about the likelihood of this happening, as I do think the Clinton's family EGO will prevent common sense prevailing. I think the most appropriate influencing factor is to get superdelegates to publically proclaim the mathematical formula and come in force behind OBAMA and force her hand. time to call the game!

Posted by: pmonti | May 7, 2008 2:49 PM | Report abuse

Wait, Clinton still has a chance! She's doing great with Latinos. If we annex northern Mexico and create four new states, she could snare enough delegates to put her over the top.

Posted by: jrh | May 7, 2008 2:47 PM | Report abuse

TO PUNDITS WHO THINK HILLARY IS GIVING UP:

Yes, I heard Chris & Co. on the Diane Rehm show and their wishful thinking that Hillary is looking for a "graceful" way out. Or Russert saying the nomination is Obama's.

I am not buying it, and neither are the supers.

Hillary remains determined to prove that Obama is unelectable in the general. She will do well in West Virginia and Kentucky, casting further doubt on Obama's ability to draw white suburban and rural voters. She will pull out the nastiest of opposition research in an attempt to denigrate Obama's character.

Hillary's intransigence eliminates her from consideration on a "dream (?) ticket." Any talk of Hillary accepting the veepee slot is simply delusional.

Hillary will succeed in the next few weeks in planting more seeds of doubt about Obama's electability. He drew only about a third of white voters in NC -- better than in his last outing, but arguably not good enough to assure victory among the white vote in the general.

"THE THIRD WAY" -- THE ONLY WAY TO FORCE HILLARY OUT NOW

Last night's split decision increases the likelihood that the supers will seek to broker a deal that could lead to an Al Gore or John Edwards candidacy, with Obama on the ticket as veepee. The "third way" increasingly looks like the only way to force Hillary out of the race before she does even more damage to the party. Either Gore or Edwards could unite the party; only the most extreme factions of the Hillary coalition would hold out, and the party can afford to lose the fringe feminists, gays and older women who would reject a compromise candidate.

Why, you ask, should Obama, who is ahead, settle for number two and withdraw from the presidential race? The answer is simple: Party unity and the chance to checkmate Hillary once and for all. Obama would be hailed as the peacemaker while in fact assuming the mantle of Dem kingmaker. The party would unite enthusiastically around a Gore-Obama or Edwards-Obama candidacy, if Obama gives his blessings.

Obama's NC victory proves nothing about his electability. The results show he's still got a problem with white voters. Hillary soldiers on, each day doing further damage to Obama. This must end. Hillary must be stopped. Obama has failed to seal her fate himself. It is time for Obama to parlay his delegate lead into a substantive power play that will ensure his legacy and his future viability as a potential presidential candidate in 2016.

OBAMA FAILED TO CLOSE THE DEAL -- AGAIN

Obama has had ample opportunities to "close the deal." He failed to do it again last night. You can blame Operation Chaos or whatever; the fact is, Obama's electability remains in doubt. Hillary has alienated the supers and the party's base; she is done. But that doesn't mean the party will stick with Obama as their nominee, not as long as these primaries continue to show that he cannot draw a sufficient percentage of the white suburban and white rural vote.

Last night may have convinced the pundits, people like Tim Russert and yes, Chris Cillizza, that Obama is the nominee. But the supers, rest assured, remain very much unconvinced, and very much concerned that Hillary's slash-and-burn campaign is hurting the party's chances each day it is allowed to go on.

BARACK MUST ATTACK WITH A DECISIVE POWER PLAY THAT CHECKMATES HILLARY FOR GOOD

It's time to lance the boil, and only Barack can do it. That is the message the supers are delivering to him today. If the message was otherwise, they'd be declaring their support for him. Today, only George McGovern has done so. The rest of the supers remain tellingly quiet.

What they are saying with their silence: This must end, and it may not end with the supers throwing their support to Obama -- unless it's part of a "third way" that gives him the veepee slot on a compromise ticket that stops Hillary cold, once and for all.


Posted by: scrivener | May 7, 2008 2:47 PM | Report abuse

This may very well play out like a shakespearian tragedy for the Clintons. The last act may not be pretty.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 7, 2008 2:47 PM | Report abuse

if I were "Obama" I wouldn't pay off her loans to herself....That is probably why she is still in the race.....

Posted by: Anonymous | May 7, 2008 2:47 PM | Report abuse

Dems all ready disenfranchised MILLIONS of voters in FL and MI, if they stop the race before the states that do not give Obama his usual guaranteed 20-30% lead from black voters get their chance to vote, then those same states should tell the Dems in November that because their votes did not matter when it was time to select the nominee they will not matter in November either..

Hillary needs to pull a Lieberman and run as an independant in November. It worked for Lieberman, it can work for her. Hillary supporters need to go to Hillaryclinton.com and donate $5, $10 or more.

Posted by: tiredofit | May 7, 2008 2:46 PM | Report abuse

Enjoy the mud 'noname'

Posted by: Pragmatic86 | May 7, 2008 2:45 PM | Report abuse

PRIDE COMES BEFORE A FALL

Posted by: Anonymous | May 7, 2008 2:44 PM | Report abuse

So the only "game changer" for Hillary this week comes in the form of Heath Shuler!? Those of us in DC have seen the kind of game that he changes... the outcome is not good Hills.

Posted by: Kev | May 7, 2008 2:44 PM | Report abuse

pragmatic86: get to swimmin' baby, get to SWIMMING!!!!!

Posted by: Anonymous | May 7, 2008 2:43 PM | Report abuse

You may have made the best analysis I have read yet.


=======
Hillary won't drop out because, psychologically, she's incapable of doing it. Everything she is is invested in this shot. She's following a storyline that she formulated all the way back in 1998 when she made the decision to stay with Bill and discard her self-respect and dignity for an eventual shot at the presidency. Instead of divorcing him, she swallowed her (considerable) pride and stuck by him, and in exchange she was rewarded with a carpetbagged Senate seat in New York, a powerful state that would be immensely beneficial to her eventual presidential campaign.

And everything for the past eight years has been focused on that goal: Hillary in the White House. Tragically (and I mean that in the literal sense), now that that goal is unattainable, she is totally unable to accept that she has wasted an entire decade attached to a man she despises for nothing. She sold her soul for the presidency, and she'll never reach it. As I said, psychologically she can't walk away from this race; that would mean facing the next logical step she has managed to avoid since her public humiliation in 1998, namely, leaving Bill and making a life for herself undefined by his presence. So she stays in, and fights more and more bitterly so that she can delay the inevitable. And we Americans get to sit through one more installment of that great '90s viewing pastime, The Clinton Family Psychodrama.

Please God, it's time to change the channel already.

Posted by: whatmeregister | May 7, 2008 2:25 PM

Posted by: Anonymous | May 7, 2008 2:41 PM | Report abuse

The old bat should just give it up.

Posted by: Yuri Lipitzmeov | May 7, 2008 2:40 PM | Report abuse

You can spin it any number of ways, but the rules are the rules and she lost.

Posted by: Amy | May 7, 2008 2:39 PM | Report abuse

OK America, it seems that you prepared yourself during the Bush era to become a second class country!

Now that you are ready, fasten your seat belt and enjoy the ride!

If this black rookie is elected, I will swim back across the Atlantic to rest in peace in a decent place!

Posted by: Pragmatic86 | May 7, 2008 2:39 PM | Report abuse

By all means let Hillary stay in if she's that obsessed with clinging to dreams of power.

By all means, let her put her some of her own millions into the campaign, as Romney did. The Clintons made $109 million out of their first stint at the White House trough, it's no wonder they're prepared to bet $11.4 million on a long second shot at it.

But it's disgusting and disgraceful that she will take her money back out of the common pot at the end of the campaign, while her supporters never see their money again.

Even Mitt Romney wasn't low enough to "lend" money to his campaign. Many of Hillary's supporters are not exactly PhDs - just look at their spelling and their inability to turn off the Caps Lock key - if she's rolling them like this in the primary campaign, how would she stick up for them in the White House?

Posted by: oddball | May 7, 2008 2:39 PM | Report abuse

It's all irrelevant. McCain's got it wrapped up, and THAT is the true outrage, and nobody's fault but our own.

Posted by: rgs tnr | May 7, 2008 2:38 PM | Report abuse

I LOVE RUSH LIM.

HE HAS THE USA AT HEART1111

FACE IT OP CHAOS ISSSSSSS
WORKING1 AMERICA IS A WONDERFUL COUNTRY.


THANK YOU EL RUSHBO

Posted by: WINNER | May 7, 2008 2:38 PM | Report abuse

I LOVE RUSH LIM.

HE HAS THE USA AT HEART1111

FACE IT OP CHAOS ISSSSSSS
WORKING1 AMERICA IS A WONDERFUL COUNTRY.


THANK YOU EL RUSHBO

Posted by: Anonymous | May 7, 2008 2:37 PM | Report abuse

vnd22 writes
"The stress of the presidency requires fortitude: mental, physical and spiritual, and I think Obama's lacking on more than one front."

Hey, at least he never misremembered undergoing sniper attack due to lack of sleep.

Posted by: bsimon | May 7, 2008 2:35 PM | Report abuse


Looks like Hillary needs some more money, so she can pay herself back.

I wonder if she has got any more cards up her sleeve like that gaso tax holiday gimmick. That one may help her votes in WV but mainly it just helps the oil companies, that will take over and up their take where there was taxes, while President Bush would refuse to sign any tax law proposal that put controls on the Cheney-Bush oil profits.

Posted by: Jobless old white guy | May 7, 2008 2:34 PM | Report abuse

I just thought of an interesting analog. Think of Bush and Rove. Rove, an unelected fiend, manipulated the tragically stupid and worthless cretin, Bush, and used Bush's inclination to reward loyalty as a tool.

Now Hillary has Wolfson whispering in her ear. She is not an idiot but does seem to need to prove herself masculine enough and aggressive enough. Isn't this pretty worrisome to any of you? You know that in a Clinton WH, Wolfson would play the role of Rove. Could you just see this fiend manipulating her by using her need for recognition, power and aggressiveness? Pretty dang frightening I would say.

Posted by: rkb | May 7, 2008 2:33 PM | Report abuse

finefettle, I completely agree. When I read about that comment, I was flabbergasted. I truly don't understand how disavowing expert advice makes you more populist. No one here would attempt to reshingle their roof with no prior experience, would they? Or to replace their own transmission? Of course not, you would enlist the help of experts. So why exactly is it elitist for a politician to listen to economists or foreign policy experts or energy experts, ect? No one person can be an expert in everything and it's a sign of wisdom and leadership to acknowledge that. Honestly, Hillary's comment was like Bush redux.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 7, 2008 2:32 PM | Report abuse

Hillary, I also supported you, but it is time to get out. All you can do now is divide the party and help McCain get elected. I don't know about you, but it will be unbearable for us all to deal with another 4 years of Bushes policies. We can't stand to keep 150,000 troops in Iraq another 4 years at the cost of trillions, nor can we or should we try to invade Iran. Let's not let McCain be the one with his finger on the "nuclear button." It's not good for America and it's not good for the world. So Hillary, you are still and will continue to have a big influence on American politics and American policies, you are still the Senator from a very large state. I implore you to do the right thing for the people of America and the people of the world. Get out now, and fully endorse and campagin for Obama. That way, we will all still have a chance.

Posted by: George | May 7, 2008 2:32 PM | Report abuse

The quality of tenacity is to be admired. But there comes a point when doing the right thing is more important. I understand how doing the right thing may be lost on someone of Hilary's ilk. But it is time Hilary, to bow out. Do it for the sake of party unity, stop being the divisive persona you are widely known for. And stop being masochistic, end your pain now.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 7, 2008 2:32 PM | Report abuse

A year ago - Obama began his "Dem for a day" play - urging Repubs and Indys to vote for him in primaries and caucuses - and assuring them they could reregister by Nov. and vote Repub.

Obama was "breaking the law" longggg before Limbaugh.
And no - this wasn't Obamabots acting on their own. This was straight from Obama's mouth on the campaign trail - urging Repubs to vote in Dem primaries for HIM.

Obamabots - enjoy your beer with Obama.
The media has sold the public another empty suit.
Mission Accomplished!

Posted by: Anthony | May 7, 2008 2:31 PM | Report abuse

"Let the word go out that the torch has been passed to a new generation" - JFK

Posted by: gregrocker | May 7, 2008 2:30 PM | Report abuse


I'm one of the many Clinton supporters who won't vote for Obama if he's the nominee. I'd be tempted to vote for McCain except for the judges issue, therefore I'd likely stay home. People don't get that the reason so many Clinton supporters won't vote for Obama is because they don't think he's ready to be president. Personally I don't think he's got the mental fortitude for the job, that he'd be another George Bush who just frays at the seams. The stress of the presidency requires fortitude: mental, physical and spiritual, and I think Obama's lacking on more than one front.

There have been several accounts of Obama making mistakes, not knowing the day/time/place on the campaign trail, observations that he's out-of-it, disconnected and tired. Just Monday he called Matt Lauer "Tim" three times during a Today Show interview. These may be minor things but they are telling -- and let me just say it takes one to know one. I think he's got low energy and an attention problem. He's the absent-minded professor who always loses his paperwork, he's indecisive, bored by mundane details, restless for new things and performs inconsistently. I think Michelle Obama has been very helpful in organizing and motivating him. I'm sure he's super-intelligent but I don't think (ego aside) that he's got what it takes to be president. In contrast, Hillary Clinton is super high-energy and sharp as a tack; she also happens to be a woman -- and it's time to remember that Obama doesn't have the market cornered on identity politics. Black voters didn't take Obama for granted but women voters failed Clinton. Women may be waking up to this fact, hopefully in time. We can still win this for her.


Posted by: Vnd22 | May 7, 2008 2:30 PM | Report abuse

you go girl.......

Posted by: ed d | May 7, 2008 2:30 PM | Report abuse

hillary and bill clinton have become the jim and tammy faye bakker of american politics--robbing from and lying to the elderly and uneducated.

NO MORE DONATIONS TO THE CLINTONS--SAVE YOUR HARD-EARNED MONEY!!

Posted by: nomoreclintons | May 7, 2008 2:30 PM | Report abuse

Okay Hillary, the clock is ticking. I give her until May 23rd to remain in the race. That will be her best time to exit the race with only three voting contests remaining in which two favor Obama, Montana and South Dakota. I don't count Puerto Rico because Hillary is behind in pledged delegates and popular votes and Puerto Rico is not able to vote in the general election.

So from May 7th to June 3rd, five primaries remain (excluding Puerto Rico per the Hillary camp past arguments) in which Hillary is predicted to win 2 and Obama is predicted to win 3. GAME OVER.

Posted by: AJ | May 7, 2008 2:29 PM | Report abuse

Okay Hillary, the clock is ticking. I give her until May 23rd to remain in the race. That will be her best time to exit the race with only three voting contests remaining in which two favor Obama, Montana and South Dakota. I don't count Puerto Rico because Hillary is behind in pledged delegates and popular votes and Puerto Rico is not able to vote in the general election.

So from May 7th to June 3rd, five primaries remain (excluding Puerto Rico per the Hillary camp past arguments) in which Hillary is predicted to win 2 and Obama is predicted to win 3. GAME OVER.

Posted by: AJ | May 7, 2008 2:29 PM | Report abuse

GO HILLARY! You mad dog, you!

Posted by: ant | May 7, 2008 2:28 PM | Report abuse

Anyone who sends Hillary money now shouldn't kid themselves.

This isn't going to be campaign spending money. Hillary will use the money you send to pay back her loans to herself when she drops out.

She's literally going to take your money and pocket it, adding it to her vast personal fortune. Incredible, but true.

Posted by: Kevrobb | May 7, 2008 2:28 PM | Report abuse

Obama knew he had to smear the "first Black president" and his wife as racists to get the black vote.
And with the media's assistance, Obama and his bots and surrogates false accused the Clintons of racism!

That's more evil than anything Rove has done.

Posted by: Frank | May 7, 2008 2:27 PM | Report abuse

I have been an HRC supporter throughout this nomination contest. I believe, however, that the time has come to bring the Democratic Party together. Mrs. Clinton needs to endorse the obvious. She has lost a gruelling and devisive contest to Mr. Obama and needs to concede that fact. She can then play an important part in defeating John McCain and the Republicans in November, the most important goal of Democrats and Independents. Change in the direction of America needs to take place. The Republicans represent more of the same. John McCain tries to speak to the workers and middle class of this Country but his words are hollow shells of reality. The middle class and those at the bottom of the trickle-down economic policies of the Republicans must vote their own interests. Democrats have always represented the workers of this country as opposed to Corporate greed and power usurption. November is the time to make this change and HRC must be a catalyst for a crushing defeat of Republicans, not only for the Presidency, but for the seats in the Congress. For the good of us all, Mrs. Clinton, get behind the people's chosen candidate, please.

Posted by: Harold F. Crockett Jr. | May 7, 2008 2:27 PM | Report abuse

Well, obviously Wolfson knows how much money Bill and Hillary have left in *their* bank account, and, like a good lawyer, wants them to keep fighting until that amount is in *his* bank account. You can just imagine him whispering in her ear... with dollar signs in his eyes. Why would he tell her to quit while he still has yacht payments to make?

Now HOWARD Wolfson is the guy who doesn't give a plugged nickel for his country.

Posted by: rkb | May 7, 2008 2:26 PM | Report abuse

Hillary won't drop out because, psychologically, she's incapable of doing it. Everything she is is invested in this shot. She's following a storyline that she formulated all the way back in 1998 when she made the decision to stay with Bill and discard her self-respect and dignity for an eventual shot at the presidency. Instead of divorcing him, she swallowed her (considerable) pride and stuck by him, and in exchange she was rewarded with a carpetbagged Senate seat in New York, a powerful state that would be immensely beneficial to her eventual presidential campaign.

And everything for the past eight years has been focused on that goal: Hillary in the White House. Tragically (and I mean that in the literal sense), now that that goal is unattainable, she is totally unable to accept that she has wasted an entire decade attached to a man she despises for nothing. She sold her soul for the presidency, and she'll never reach it. As I said, psychologically she can't walk away from this race; that would mean facing the next logical step she has managed to avoid since her public humiliation in 1998, namely, leaving Bill and making a life for herself undefined by his presence. So she stays in, and fights more and more bitterly so that she can delay the inevitable. And we Americans get to sit through one more installment of that great '90s viewing pastime, The Clinton Family Psychodrama.

Please God, it's time to change the channel already.

Posted by: whatmeregister | May 7, 2008 2:25 PM | Report abuse

It is all about fund raising now before they fold the tent. Anyone who gives her a cent now is just a sucker.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 7, 2008 2:25 PM | Report abuse

"It has become popular in conservative circles these days to suggest that "you just gotta admire her tenacity," a sentiment that is advanced at her campaign rallies...

But what is there to admire about this so-called "tenacity"? Clinton began this campaign with a financial edge, the support of a popular former Democratic president, a built-in political apparatus, a consistent lead of more than 20 points in national polls, and more than a hundred superdelegates.

If a candidate starts off with all of those advantages and is too stubborn to drop out of the race, it's no surprise that she is still hanging on.

There is absolutely nothing admirable about a politician so narcissistic and hungry for power that she is willing to say or do whatever suits her political interests at any given moment. If the Republican Party has declined to the point where conservatives are so worried about defeating a freshman Senator that they are rooting for Clinton to do their dirty work for them, it is simply pathetic," - Philip Klein, American Spectator

Posted by: nomoreclintons | May 7, 2008 2:25 PM | Report abuse

She is only waiting for "Barry" to "Show her the $$$$$".

She has Loans from herself to herself she needs to pay back-don't you know! ;~)

Posted by: RAT-The | May 7, 2008 2:24 PM | Report abuse

What? A thread not started with a comment by JakeD and an ALL CAPS middle name? I think he's been taken hostage.

BB

Posted by: Fairlington Blade | May 7, 2008 2:24 PM | Report abuse

I think if Sen. Clinton is not herself the nominee, then she'd rather Sen. McCain win. This way she can run for the White House again in four years. If this is indeed how she is thinking, then she would stay in the race as long as possible and damage Sen. Obama and restrict his chances of winning.

Posted by: Miftah Ismail | May 7, 2008 2:24 PM | Report abuse

The biggest hurdle to Hillary Clinton is Hillary Clinton. She needs to give up the fight and move on.

Posted by: Amer-I-Can | May 7, 2008 2:24 PM | Report abuse

Enough, please.

Posted by: DFC102 | May 7, 2008 2:21 PM | Report abuse

Obama's win in NC proves beyond any doubt that he is a racially-based candidate. He can't win the general election with just the blacks and the young. It would be another 'Tsongas' election! Clinton's win in Indiana, by a slim margin, also raises the big question why Obama lost a state that he is supposed to win! Her win is indeed a tie breaker!
The media continues to be anti-Clinton. Her win should be presented in the proper context of the quality of each of these candidates's electability!

Posted by: vote4thebest | May 7, 2008 2:20 PM | Report abuse

The pessimism is on two fronts:

1) she didn't simply lose NC, she got blown out. The Clinton campaign invested heavily in NC, with Bill and Chelsea criss-crossing all over the state. Despite their best efforts with manpower and money, they lost big. Indiana is a duly noted victory in her column, but given the "last stand" mentality the campaign had, they had to exceed expectations. Such is the reality of the scoreboard.

(to continue the Fix tradition of lame sports metaphors: A football team losing in the waning moments of a game by a touchdown needs a touchdown to win, not a field goal. At best, Hillary got a field goal, at worst her attempt was wide right.)

2) she is out of money. There is no way to sugarcoat this. Her voter base is predominantly people with limited means. If the $28/summer gas tax was a big deal for these folks, we can all be assured they are not going to donate enough money to get Clinton out of her hole.

She has run a divisive, negative, polarizing campaign. And she is out of resources. This whole campaign has been a war of attrition, and after this battle, she is out of weapons, while Obama is still locked and loaded.

She should rightfully stay in the race until June 3rd. She owes that to her millions of supporters. But she should run a classy campaign, devoid of the polarizing, divisive politics she has wielded in her last ditch effort to win. She owes that to 350 million Americans.

Put simply, these last few weeks of the Clinton campaign could go a long way towards healing the rift in the party and setting the Democrats up for a big November win, top to bottom on the ticket.

Posted by: P Diddy | May 7, 2008 2:20 PM | Report abuse

No her campaign ISN'T viable.

Time to go back to NY, Senator.

We've decided to re-claim America from the dinasaur classof political hypocrites with dignity, intelligence, and honest, plain spoken integrity.

Vote Obama for President!

Posted by: JBE | May 7, 2008 2:19 PM | Report abuse

for the love of god drop out hillary, any claim you make about having a path to the nomination requires a willing suspension of disbelief

Posted by: common sense | May 7, 2008 2:18 PM | Report abuse

I just learned that Hillary has scheduled a press conference for 8:00 this evening. She will announce that she is suspending her campaign, but will still be a candidate. This will leave the door open in case Obama implodes.

Posted by: Ear To The Ground | May 7, 2008 2:17 PM | Report abuse

Somebody remind me - when was HRC's first record opposition to unseating MI and FL delegates? Is there any record of her having opposed that action or having opposed adoption of the rule that led to that result? Wasn't she considered the leading candidate when the unseating decision was made? In that role why was she unable to affect party policy?

Alternatively, could it be the case that HRC didn't give a monkey's about MI and FL until she found herself in desperate need of votes? How credible is this newfound indignation?

Finally, why do the media continue to report the Clinton campaign's demands to seat these delegations, without exploring the issue of her prior incompetence or present hypocrisy?

Posted by: FlownOver | May 7, 2008 2:17 PM | Report abuse

Somebody remind me - when was HRC's first record opposition to unseating MI and FL delegates? Is there any record of her having opposed that action or having opposed adoption of the rule that led to that result? Wasn't she considered the leading candidate when the unseating decision was made? In that role why was she unable to affect party policy?

Alternatively, could it be the case that HRC didn't give a monkey's about MI and FL until she found herself in desperate need of votes? How credible is this newfound indignation?

Finally, why do the media continue to report the Clinton campaign's demands to seat these delegations, without exploring the issue of her prior incompetence or present hypocrisy?

Posted by: FlownOver | May 7, 2008 2:17 PM | Report abuse

Maybe she just needs a snappy new campaign theme:

Hillary Clinton NOW, Hillary Clinton TOMORROW, Hillary Clinton FOREVER!

Posted by: steve boyington | May 7, 2008 2:15 PM | Report abuse

Hillary Clinton actually understands the territory that needs to be covered in order to turn the country around...

baba boy?


right. most of his followers posting here are Republick Conners...


they do want him to win. he will be ineffective without support on the hill...and no insights about the players...

he just wants the prize. that he can't use it or keep it don't matter.

if he cared about the United States of America

he would walk away and come back when he can actually do the job.


we don't need to hire incompetence.....his "win,"

is being handed to him by republick conners...


Florida is bush family territory

it was decisive in keeping Al Gore BLOCKED from the presidency....

and it is being used again to block Hillary.

is Obama a bad person? no.


is he capable? absolutely not.

he's a suit.

period.

. he can't deliver . what he doesn't understand .

even the "gas tax," thing show his stupidity


saying that George H.W. Bush could teach him something


is to totally ignore that the bush family and friends have been running the United States as an extension of their business interests and using the CIA as a political tool...


he doesn't even KNOW THAT.

what a mxxxxx fxxxing idiot

.

Posted by: chasing evil | May 7, 2008 2:12 PM | Report abuse

I don't understand this pessisism everyone is giving the Clinton campaign. She did win in Indiana after all and has consistently proven the choice pick of blue collar Democrats. Obama won NC because of the racial divide there and overwheming black support. He's weak, very weak when it comes to blue collars. The Democrats should learn before they alienate this constituency once again like in 1968, 1972, 1980, 1984, 2000, and 2004. If Clinton drops out, these voters will undoubtedly switch to McCain.

I'm always amazed at how Dems find pleasure in shooting themselves in the foot. I'm a Republican and if the race came to Clinton v. McCain, I would likely vote Clinton for a variety of reasons.

Posted by: Matt | May 7, 2008 2:12 PM | Report abuse

republicans


will polarize defame and piss on obama and he will become the

flash in the pan he really is.

Republicans want him to run, he's the lone Indian


who will stop the whiteman....uh huh, sure he will...


John Riggins was something that happens once in awhile...


he certainly has more in common with "The Clintons,"


than obama


obama would be the towel boy


Andrew Young said that, Andrew Young knows the difference between hopes and dreams and "what is possible,"


Bill Clinton has demonstrated his strength of character and heart....relentlessly pounded by the Miami Dolphins / Washington INSIDERs

Cheney, Libby, the bush families, Paul Wolfowitz, the Kagans, Rumsfeld

he punched through their line, time after time...

he cut through the line, the hype, the spin , the BS storm...


how did they defeat him finally? they didn't , they couldn't so

they cheated....

they opted for electoral fraud, Diebold, voter culling, Ken Blackwell in Ohio...now working for a NEOCON think tank on K street , they intimidated the vote counters in Dade County FL, put Jeb Bushes girlfriends in charge of verifying the vote count...

talked trash relentlessly

and stained the reputation of a man that would go on to become a Nobel Prize winner...

Al Gore,

and instead of being celebrated as a great AMERICAN


we have to put up with these scheiss talking schiess stormers crap


as_if _that_ were okay,


it's not, in the real world it's called fraud

and CIA agents spinning schiess against the citizens would be called TREASON


because

that is what it is....and the punishment proscribed would death according to judicial studies that I'm familiar with, as and


because that is what it those treasonous acts are causing.


be forewarned, fair trial first, the rest is unscripted.


.your reponsibility is to the people first.


not the president by fraud.


get over it schitt stormers, you deserve jail time...real time


real soon time....fraud is a crime crime crime time...


expose' coming to your town soon. on Monday...be prepared...gomers...


.

Posted by: detection limited to the intellectually sound... | May 7, 2008 2:11 PM | Report abuse

Being the Billary Mean Machine is a work of art in itself. Hill will go on to win W. Virginia and Kentucky, just to rub it in everyone's nose that she will go out winning. It is a pitiable piece of narcissism prodded on by Bubba himself. The last dog died yesterday. She knows it but what the heck, the Clintons are unkillable, or something.

My prediction is that May 20 contests will send the Billary cadaver to the morgue. For good. I hope. She is toast, definitely, unequivocally, toast.

GOBAMA!

Posted by: piktor | May 7, 2008 2:10 PM | Report abuse

The World Tipping Points
by Bianca Jagger

We are at an unprecedented moment in human history. We stand on the precipice of not one or two global crises, but many.

The world stands at the tipping point of human security, nuclear disaster as well as climate chaos. We are living at a dangerous period in world politics. We are witnessing unprecedented assaults on the rule of law, human rights and civil liberties, and our politicians are no longer being held accountable for their deceptions and failures.

What happens next will be determined by our actions. These issues have a pressing urgency, an urgency that demands radical and complete reform of the way we see the world and the way we live our lives.

To read more, visit: http://www.wagingpeace.org/articles/2008/04/15_jagger_tipping_points.php.

Posted by: Francine Last | May 7, 2008 2:08 PM | Report abuse

She seems to have that "going down kicking and screaming" mentality.

the need for Monica is finally explained

Posted by: Anonymous | May 7, 2008 2:07 PM | Report abuse

A GRAND BARGAIN FOR DEMOCRATIC VICTORY

It is clear, with even Hillary's campaign is coming to the rational conclusion that she cannot win, that uniting the Democratic Party around Barack Obama is imperative.

Here is a solution that allows everyone to take something from the table, which is what it is going to take for the Party to begin the healing process.

A deal should be struck whereby Hillary agrees to withdraw from the race, and Obama agrees to let most of the Florida and Michigan delegations be seated at the convention.

Hillary could then claim a victory of sorts, as making this the "price" of a dignified exit would allow her to say she is putting the Party's prospects in November above her own personal ambitions.

It would also help the Democrats win those two states in the general election.

It requires noblesse oblige from both sides.

Obama clearly has it.

And if Hillary takes the deal, it would do a lot for her to begin restoring a family legacy that this ugly campaign, and especially Bill Clinton's role in it, has so tarnished.

Posted by: MARTIN EDWIN ANDERSEN | May 7, 2008 2:05 PM | Report abuse

Clinton plans to continue the race until there is a nominee? Wake up, Hillary. We have a nominee, and his name is Barack Obama.

She has no hope to secure the nomination now. Even if Florida and Michigan are seated as-is, it isn't going to matter. Obama's won, period.

Posted by: ASinMoCo | May 7, 2008 2:05 PM | Report abuse

You forgot one (BIG) loser: the Clinton legacy. Bill Clinton has devalued himself in the past few months beyond, I believe, any repair. In other words: Goodbye, Obscenely Enormous Speaking Fees. (And hello: Truly Humiliating Closing Paragraphs In Upcoming Clintonian Historical Assessments.)

And then, of course, there's all that credibility and influence within the Democratic Party that's gone bye-bye, too.

Posted by: Carmen Cameron | May 7, 2008 2:04 PM | Report abuse

Only way to win for HILLARY:seated Florida and Michigan and to convince the superdelegates.Everything will be okay. Yes, She can!!!

Posted by: johnny | May 7, 2008 2:02 PM | Report abuse

so i'm curious now...

after obama wins the demo nomination, and then after obama wins the election on nov 2nd, will hillary still be running?

RUUUNNN HILLARY GUMP! RUUUUUUUNNNN ! ! !

people will have to hold up the sign for hillary....

------->>> S * T * O * P ! ! ! <<<-------


Posted by: presGWBfanclub | May 7, 2008 2:01 PM | Report abuse

Who cares at this point? Neither Hillary nor Obama would be a viable candidate in the General Election. We Democrats have decided that we would rather just be Democrats and field historic candidates than actually win and wield power.

Posted by: CntrvilleCitoyen | May 7, 2008 1:58 PM | Report abuse

One thing I never heard Obama supporters say was that they would vote for McCain if their candidate lost.

Cliton's supporters ARE saying they'll vote for McCain if their candidate is out.

That PROVES that the neocons have tried (and failed) to infiltrate the Democratic Party. Hillary represents conservatives. The Democratic Party has NO room for conservatives. LIBERALS RULE.

But we outsmarted the neocons and won.

Thank you, North Carolina.

And to the three stooges (Indiana, Ohio, Pennsylvania): wake up. You're the ones losing the jobs because of NAFTA. And yet you back the very horse that supported it.

Go slap and poke each other's eyes or something.

Posted by: Mike of Atlanta | May 7, 2008 1:58 PM | Report abuse

Same old thing from chris cilliza lackluster win in Indiana, She started 8 points behind evidently that is lackluster. I am so sick of these peop at the washing post fall all over themselves for obama it makes me sick.I guess if she had won by 20 points it would still have been lackluster according to ding bat.

Posted by: jrs6776 | May 7, 2008 1:56 PM | Report abuse

Did I spell hookie right? Anyhoo...

I have had the eeriest feeling for the past couple months that Hillary will run on an independent ticket if she doesn't win the nomination. I hope I'm wrong. She seems to have that "going down kicking and screaming" mentality.

Posted by: ShouldHavePlayedHookie | May 7, 2008 1:56 PM | Report abuse

Clinton is a disgrace. After her comments that she didn't "put her lot" in with economists on economic issues -- I just about had it! As a student who is studying economics myself, and has studied the effects of a gas tax holiday -- she is plain wrong on the issue. The burden of tax is on the producers because the supply of gas is almost completely inelastic during the summer months. Because of this once the tax is eliminated, the price will rise to about 80 percent of what the original tax was. Consumers get a 3 cent break on price, while the oil companies profit the difference. And more importantly the treasury is out $9 billion! This is simple economic principle. But Clinton doesn't listen to the elitist economist! What does everyone think about that?

Posted by: finefettle | May 7, 2008 1:52 PM | Report abuse

Obama won. Only the Clinton inner circle thinks she can still win.

The real question is how much damage will they (the Clinton team) do on the way out? Last night her "posse" was out declaring, FALSELY, that Obama was the only reason MI and FL didn't revote could cause him damage in the general election.

On the FALSE it was only Obama re-vote mess - Guess Clinton posse missed the points of needing 30 MILLION dollars to do a re-vote and lack of support from their state legistators for a re-vote. Or the fact they wanted to rush a mail in ballot in FL thou they had never done one before nor were not 100% sure who it would go to and if it would be secure.

Surely all minor points right?

Posted by: arewedoneyet | May 7, 2008 1:50 PM | Report abuse

Chris, the phrase "going forward" is just silly and has no meaning. The challenge for Clinton is... That is perfectly clear. Drop the MBA jargon.

Posted by: Abe | May 7, 2008 1:49 PM | Report abuse

Hillary's a goner, get used to it! I love the Clinton's, but everyone needs to
face reality. And that reality is ...OBAMA

Posted by: A.Lincoln | May 7, 2008 1:48 PM | Report abuse

I agree that it would be better for her to leave after Kentucky/Oregon, or wait until the very end with Montana/South Dakota. Give Obama a chance to run against her in those states and include them in the process. One thing she needs to do, however, is back off the personal attacks on Obama. She should start swinging at McCain and emphasize that it is a crucial election for the Democrats, and all Americans, regardless of who the nominee ends up being.

Posted by: Chuck | May 7, 2008 1:48 PM | Report abuse

Hillary's a goner, get used to it! I love the Clinton's, but everyone needs to
face reality. And that reality is ...OBAMA

Posted by: A.Lincoln | May 7, 2008 1:47 PM | Report abuse

She can stay in if that makes her feel better. But for the sake of the party, the country, and the world, she should run a clean campaign dealing with substantive issues only. Please!

Posted by: Seattle 24 | May 7, 2008 1:47 PM | Report abuse

Hillary's a goner, get used to it! I love the Clinton's, but everyone needs to face reality. And that reality is ...OBAMA

Posted by: A.Lincoln | May 7, 2008 1:46 PM | Report abuse

Let's see if "Operation Chaos" has any genuine teeth, and if Rush can mobilize his audience to stop directing money to advertisers Joint-Ritis and Goody's Headache Powder, and start giving money to the Hillary campaign.

Posted by: bondjedi | May 7, 2008 1:45 PM | Report abuse


Former Sen. George McGovern, an early supporter of Hillary Rodham Clinton, urged her to drop out of the Democratic presidential race and endorsed her rival, Barack Obama.

Will Super Delegates end the Democratic race by the end of this week?

http://www.youpolls.com/details.asp?pid=2358


.

Posted by: Frank, Austin TX | May 7, 2008 1:40 PM | Report abuse

I, and I am sure other Obama supporters, will be happy to go to the Clinton Website and make a donation to her campaign.... after she announces that she is suspending the campaign. If that's the only reason that she's staying in, my money would be well spent in such case.

Posted by: Money | May 7, 2008 1:38 PM | Report abuse

I will reiterate what I said after Super Tuesday, "Stick a fork in Hillary, she's done."

Posted by: Matt | May 7, 2008 1:36 PM | Report abuse

Daily Kos made a good point today. It is better for Obama if Clinton stays in for a while. Is she were to drop out this week, then, when she wins WV, it will be embarrassing for Obama (loosing to someone still in the race). As long as she turns her attacks on McCain and not on Obama, she should stay in until they split KY & OR then drop out and give a full throated endorsement to Obama.

Posted by: Matt | May 7, 2008 1:36 PM | Report abuse

Of course she wont drop out she is out of money.. She needs to fundraise.. Its all about eliminating the subprime loan to herself.

Posted by: Ann | May 7, 2008 1:36 PM | Report abuse

From Matthew Mosk's post (to which Chris links) on the money subject:
"The campaign said Clinton made three separate loans leading into the Indiana and North Carolina primaries, of $1 million, $5 million and $425,000. Earlier this year she loaned the campaign $5 million -- a move that triggered a wave of contributions from small donors over the Internet."

Without visibility to the campaign's balance sheet, all money talk is speculative. But, given what we knew last time the numbers were announced & that she's subsequently made multiple sizable donations to her campaign, you have to wonder how long she'll continue to be willing to do so. Or Bill. Or Chelsea, for that matter. She could probably end the race with one comment. "Mom, please think of the grandchildrens' inheritance..."

Posted by: bsimon | May 7, 2008 1:36 PM | Report abuse

I don't think Clinton will bow out until it is obvious to her, and her alone, that she will not receive the nomination. I think this post hits the nail on the head.

It is time to focus attention on increasing the Democrats lead in the House and Senate while facing McCain head-on with a united front behind Obama.

Posted by: Tim | May 7, 2008 1:30 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company