Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Why Clinton (Still) Runs

Day after day, Hillary Rodham Clinton, her husband, former president Bill Clinton, and their daughter Chelsea -- travel the country stumping for support in a race that is, by almost any measure, over.

Hillary Clinton
This campaign's not over. (Michel du Cille / The Washington Post)

Clinton trails in Barack Obama in every meaningful metric of the Democratic nomination fight; she has fewer pledged delegates and superdelegates, has won fewer states and trails in the popular vote (unless, of course, Michigan and Florida are included in that count).

All of which begs the question: Why does she go on?

It's a question that can't be fully answered by anyone but Clinton. Since the New York senator hasn't called The Fix to fill us in (we are anxiously awaiting said call!), we sought out several Democratic Party operatives, consultants and other politicos to answer the "why" question.

Their thoughts ranged from the obvious (she wants to see the race through) to the Machiavellian (she is positioning herself to run again in four years time if Obama loses).

Interestingly, the sources The Fix spoke with were roundly dismissive of the idea that she has continued on in the contest to better her chances at being vice president, Senate Majority Leader or, even, a Supreme Court Justice. (For what it's worth, it doesn't appear likely Obama would pick Clinton for vice president, even if she was genuinely interested. And there doesn't appear to be any real momentum to push Harry Reid out of his current perch as leader of Senate Democrats.)

The consensus of the operatives' views about why Clinton continues the campaign are below. Have some thoughts of your own? The comments section awaits.

* Out of Obligation: Clinton has been at this for the better part of the last two years, along with her staff and many of her supporters. The amount she has given to the process and the amount she has asked others to give means that Clinton sees it as an obligation to stay in the race through the end of the primary season. "She feels a responsibility to the party, the process and the people who have invested time and money on her behalf" to stick it out, explained former Democratic National Committee chairman and Clinton supporter Don Fowler. "I don't think there is a blind optimism or that she is fooling herself."

* Making the Brand: No one we talked to -- even those who clearly believe the fight for the Democratic nomination is over -- suggested that this race will be the end of Clinton's political life. The final weeks of this campaign then are as much about polishing -- and restating -- the Clinton brand for future endeavors as anything else. As one party strategist friendly to Clinton put it: "Fighting on reinforces the core [Clinton] brand and cements her status as the leader of lunch pail carrying, hard hat wearing, coffee drinking, pinochle playing working class Democrats." With Sen. Ted Kennedy (Mass.) -- long the voice of the "little guy" in the halls of Congress -- likely to take a step back from the Senate after his brain cancer diagnosis, an opening exists for Clinton to step into the void. Her demonstrated strength among white working class voters in Ohio, Pennsylvania, West Virginia and now Kentucky give her a real platform as the Senate's populist should she want to occupy it.

* Running Out The Clock: As we've noted in this space before, one of the defining lessons of the Clintons' time in elected office is that perseverance and endurance pay off. Although Clinton is running out of time, she and her campaign see little benefit to her dropping out of the race before it is mathematically impossible for her to get the nomination. While the campaign doesn't expect any major bombshell to emerge that will disqualify Obama (and isn't spending time looking for one), they also want to be ready if and when a game changing event occurs. One observer compared it to last week's Game 7 between the Boston Celtics and the Cleveland Cavaliers. The Cavs were down and not likely to win but spent the last 90 seconds of the game fouling and trying to make a comeback. A longshot? Yes. Worth doing? Absolutely.

* Whither Winning? Many Democrats not favorably disposed to Clinton like to compare her current plight to that of former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee, who remained in the Republican race despite the fact that he had next to no chance of defeating John McCain in the fight for the nomination. The comparison fails, however, in one important aspect: Clinton continues to win, and win handily, while Huckabee was relegated to second place status throughout the final weeks of his campaign. Since March 4, Clinton has won the same number of contests (5) as Obama. From her perspective, then, there is no reason to leave the race now. She is likely to win Puerto Rico on June 1 and lose in South Dakota and Montana on June 3. At that point, it will turn into a superdelegate contest that is almost certain to go against her. But as long as she can continue to win primaries -- no matter how meaningless they are to the math equation that is the Democratic primary race -- and raise enough money to keep the campaign afloat, why not stay in?

* 2012!: For the last month or so a strain of thought has emerged among the Democratic political class that goes something like this: Clinton has not and will not lose the urge and drive to be president. She knows she can't win this time. So she will stay in the race long enough to be able to make the argument about Obama's weakness as a general election candidate but not so long as to poison the well among party activists and donors for a possible re-run bid in 2012 if the Illinois senator loses in November. "She's trying to pick exactly the right time when she can say 'I told you so' if Obama loses but still not take the blame for the loss," said one Democratic media consultant granted anonymity to speak candidly. "That means June as opposed to August. And she's thinking president again, period."

By Chris Cillizza  |  May 22, 2008; 8:30 AM ET
Categories:  Eye on 2008  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Clinton's Convention Fight Comments
Next: Clinton Campaign Pushes on Florida-Michigan

Comments

This world is comming to an end no matter who win, people need to put there faith in God,not just any God cause there many out there,there is only one true God and you can tell by the people who follow him.

Posted by: coop | May 25, 2008 4:38 PM | Report abuse

Obama has lost every key state in the nation.

Working class whites won't vote for him.

Latinos won't vote for him.

Caucus votes won't get him in the White House.

Democrats for McCain!

Posted by: rob | May 24, 2008 4:41 AM | Report abuse

Hopefully this won't go until the convention but she needs to be in the race so she can raise the money to pay herself back. It just isn't going as well as she would have liked.

Please! Not a Clinton in the White House. NAFTA did me in as well as increasing my tax burden when Bill lowered the taxes on the rich...yes, more so than GWB.

But the heavens WILL open up one day or in HRC speak "as far as I know".

Posted by: IDGem | May 23, 2008 7:36 PM | Report abuse

Why can't you folks just take United States Senator Clinton at her word? She really means to win the nomination by getting the most popular votes and by showing that she can win in the fall, whereas Senator Obama cannot. It's that simple. If the Democrats want the White House in the fall, they need to nominate Senator Clinton. There is no need or justification for questioning Senator Clinton's intentions. She means to be the next president, and I for one expect that she will be.

Posted by: James H. Dautremont | May 23, 2008 4:20 PM | Report abuse

Isn't it interesting that Hillary wants to get everyone in Florida and Michigan fired up that they are being "disenfranchised" and yet it is her ultimate hope to convince the superdelegates to disenfranchise everyone who voted for Obama!

The Clintons are people of the lie. Don't be fooled.

Posted by: Seetha Truth | May 23, 2008 7:54 AM | Report abuse

The Crazy John McCain Song.

Listen to The Crazy John McCain Song or download it for FREE at http"//www.johnmccainusa.com/

THE CRAZY JOHN MCCAIN SONG

Lyrics by J.J. Spoons & Willie G. Smith
Music by Doc. "Skippy" McGhee

A Product of the Heartland.
Witten in Beautiful Akron, Ohio USA.
Recorded at Little Shack Studio, Okahumpka, Florida.
Mixed at Tall Tree Productions, Clarion, Pennsylvania.
Remixed at Big River Records, Joplin, Missouri.

Posted by: The Crazy John McCain Song | May 22, 2008 11:38 PM | Report abuse

clinton continues to run because she simply has no alternative in her mind...she is sour, not about the "noble" cause of mich/fla(michigan being the state that she said "doesn't matter"), not about the debt, but about the fact that she is being beaten...i think it drives her mad to think that she really isn't going to get this spot...and it is humbling to her to think of returning to the senate...

she has run an abysmal campaign, finding herself mired in substantial debt...she finds herself facing an opponent who has garnered more monies and support from the masses and run a tighter ship, with, whether one likes it or not, a definitive idea of his goals for the american people...

and, so, she flails about, grasping at anything that will validate her...she has claimed the joan of arc title for the "white, hard working american", i.e. uneducated, culturally stifled, poor man(the very people she told bill "to screw, you don't need them")...the masses of women of which i am happy to not be a part of...she offends my feminist sensibility...thatcher would never cry "foul" over gender...she would simply play a better game...

the art of a master warrior is to remember what one is fighting for...and to weigh the end against the means...she seems to have forgotten this...she has poisoned the bigger picture for her personal gain and worth...it is a sad state to finally have a woman with a chance to shine, only to have her shame us with this desperate, disingenuous behavior...there is more nobility in losing fairly with grace, than scorching the world around you to steal what simply isn't yours to have.

Posted by: jazzgrrrl25 | May 22, 2008 11:00 PM | Report abuse

For example, I hope the state of Washington is trying to figure out what went wrong with their caucuses. All of their pledged delegates were based on this flawed caucus vote in the state of Washington. To see what I am saying, look at the Map Room on the site election.msn.com and compare the caucus result to the primary result for the state of Washington. The caucus came first: Obama 68% and Hillary 31%. Then, the primary was next: Obama 51% and Hillary 46%. What is the explanation for such a big difference?

The FairVote organization opposes caucuses for good reasons. It is perfectly legimate to consider the will of the people in a democracy, and caucus results clearly do not represent the will of the people.
========================================
jch..now there you go again. You and I have gone toe to toe before on the Washington State caucus. The local paper had published up to a year before the primary that the Democratic Primary would decide the delegate allocation in total, while the Republicans would have a 51-49 split between the primary and the caucus. The news went over this every night leading up to the caucus; our local NPR radio station had an entire hour detailing the proceedure 2 weeks before the caucus. I went to my local caucus, as I mentioned to you on the other thread, on a Saturday and had a lively vibrant dialog with members of my community of all ages and persuasions. As for the difference between caucus results and the ballot results, I can only assume that there was some confusion for some people who might have gotten the Republican and Democrat's proceedures mixed up; possibly most of the people realized that there was no need to vote for a Democrat on the ballot, and far fewer people did so, thus the decrepency, without seeing a break down of the votes checked for the Democratic primary relative to the ballots cast overall, I don't believe we can say with authority why there was such a big spread, ...I can assure you however, if there had been offical malfeasence, Mrs Clinton would have been on it like white on rice. As for reflecting the "will of the people," elections frequently don't in this country because we are 1) a Republic with a representational Democracy...we do not do not elect our Politicians by the popular vote...(see Al Gore who won the popular vote in 2000, but lost the electoral college), 2) since so many Americans don't even bother to vote, it is hard to determine what the larger Will of the people is in the first place.

Personally, I would rather have a primary...I'm pretty lazy, and I like to mail in my ballot, but I can honestly say that we are very pro Obama up here...Oregon and Washington State are virtual demographic twins, and Obama won their primary easily. Look, you seem to be an intelligent woman, why is it so difficult to accept that Senator Obama simply had the more passionate advocates at the caucuses? I can honestly say that I witnessed no coercion at my caucus to go with either candidate...passion, yes, bullying, no. Obama and Clinton are equally as Progressive, their issues, positions, etc., are virtually the same with only minor differences...the significant ones being the color of their skin and their gender...I just don't understand the hostility and suspicion in the Hillary camp toward Senator Obama except that he is viewed as the usurper.

Posted by: Hold_That_Tiger | May 22, 2008 10:42 PM | Report abuse

Mary O'Bryan said:
Let it be known that the damage has already been done to the largest voting block in America. However, it remains to be seen how deep these "bitterly disappointing and highly blatant attacks" are to women. In my mind, this is a travesty and affects all women of America.

Speak for yourself.
I'm a woman, white and mature, and totally disagree.

In fact, I'm tired of hearing since I'm such and such then I should vote such and such.

This year I'm voting American and HRC isn't on that ticket.

Why would I want someone to be president that lies about sniper fire and has a $31M campaign debt? Look at the crowds that she doesn't draw. Look at the money she isn't getting. Look at her America that only includes 17 states.

I know millions of women that agree with me.

So your "all" doesn't apply.

Posted by: IDGem | May 22, 2008 8:28 PM | Report abuse

You know I have been a very liberal Democrat for 27 years and this is the first time I have come to realize that I am not as liberal as I thought. I backed Kucinich, Gore, Kerry ---BUT I WILL NOT VOTE FOR OBAMA. The Obama supporters have no problem with Obama's church that hates America, he and his wife's seething racism, his Muslim anti-Israel ties, his blocking of FL and MI voters rights, his lack of experience, his phony simple speeches where he never talks about the issues. They don't question why the media has worshipped him, why he has raised triple the $$$$ of the Hillary camp, why he proclaims himself the winner before having won, why he would sit down and talk with Muslim terrorist leaders, why he won't wear an American flag pin, that he simply can not win in a national election among mainstream America (I mean if you think Gore and Kerry had a hard time, then guess what a loss would incur with this guy as our candidate?)...it just goes on and on. So now I realize that if these people are 'ultra liberal' and it causes them not to question their chosen one, then I have no interest in being an 'ultra-liberal'. I'm starting to think 'ultra-liberal' means 'blind lunatic idol worshipper'. So this has been good for me. I now know that I'm not an ultra liberal which now I equate with 'gullible'.
I want some one at the helm that can fix this mess. It took a Clinton to clean up after the first Bush, it will take a Clinton to clean up after the second Bush.

Remember the ENORMOUS debt our country was in due to Bush's failed administration and how Clinton used his 8 years in office not only to get us out of national debt but also to put us in a surplus? Well folks, we are headed for a very nasty recession and we need someone who knows how to fix this mess. Not some inexperienced dreamer who wants to hold hands with Muslim extremists. You had better hope that Hillary Clinton is the nominee.

Had to cancel the 'Nation' mag when I saw they too were biased towards Obama & spewing hate at Clinton. Had to dump 'Move-on' when I saw they also threw Clinton under the bus. So much for 'ultra-liberals'----SEE YA, ya'll are nuts.

Posted by: g | May 22, 2008 7:47 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: Chris Johnson | May 22, 2008 5:58 PM | Report abuse

Obama is an oddity. He has nothing in common with vast majority of american blacks and yet blacks blindly vote for him as they think he is one of them, which he is not. Throw republican party and democratic party out and elect an independent in November as the parties have failed to bring the best. Let a leader emerge from the American mainstream to be the next President. McCain is old. Hillary is not likeable by many. Obama should never have been there in the first place. Obama's run so far appears to comapre to "an unprotected fort will fall to the first venturer, albeit temporarily, no matter how unfit and ineligible that venturer is to occupy the fort". Americans should get inspiration from their own history and leaders of the past, not Obama. Generation after generation, Americans are being dumbed down by the system. It is so stupid of many Obama voters to say "let us try something new". Eve was influenced to try something new. What Obama voters brought upon America is a perversion.

Posted by: take_it_or_leave_it | May 22, 2008 5:45 PM | Report abuse

Hey um, polls today show Obama losing to McCain. Could that be why she stays in the race? Ya think?
Oh and um these polls reflect what we have been hearing. Clinton voters are very unlikely to vote for Obama and this is why he would lose.

Posted by: face_it_stupid | May 22, 2008 5:35 PM | Report abuse

I was looking over the issues lists from both candidates today. I thought, belatedly, in the interest of left brained thinking I would look at the topics in terms of prioritization.
On Senator Obama's side, the very first issue was "Civil Rights" and a discussion of voting problems before the Civil Rights act of 1965, and how to improve disenfranchisement now. On Senator Clinton's side, the first issue was "Strengthening Middle Class Families". I am a long term liberal democrat, with a working history in affirmative action causes. His list was well calculated in terms of voting blocks. However, even I think Obama's list reflects ward thinking and does not translate well to the larger issues at hand. I could not agree more with weigh_in's comments above. Power bases, money trails and endorsements are indicative of the path we will take in any candidate. I suggest a review of their Issues lists priorities to anyone who thinks these candidates are really the same. No one should wonder that "Middle Class America" has concerns. No wonder, when women are not even a issue, and the Iraq war is 14th is on his list. No one should be surprised that as the true change candidate, Senator Clinton has encountered the most resistance.

Posted by: roofingbird | May 22, 2008 5:10 PM | Report abuse

Well normally I go to the Fox News Website to see such mind bending, torturous arguments that defy known reality (see discussions as to how Iraqi war was justified, is successful, and we're better off for it).

But here we are with so called reality based, clear thinking, fair minded Democrats arguing that Obama should not be the candidate. OMG.

All these tortuous arguments about popular vote, caucus states, swing states, blue collar voters, are great folder for discussing how the primaries should be run for 2012. But the 2008 primaries are for all intent and purposes over.

There were a set of rules, procedures, agreements, punishments, etc. that happened at the beginning and then the race began. After it begins, you can't change it. It doesn't matter that Hilary got more runners on bases, gained more yards, had more dunks, or would better represent the league in the playoffs; she didn't get as many points so she loses. Keep it simple,

And all business about Florida and Michigan. Yes it's bad, but as they say too often "it is what it is" and there is no way to twist it up to favour one candidate over the other at this point. Would all the Hilary supporters be so righteously indignant if this had happened to Illinois and North Carolina.

If the 'system' is wrong, then get it changed for 2012. But quit tearing the party apart in 2008.

As Rodney said "Why Can't We All Just Get Along"

Posted by: SimpleCalGuy | May 22, 2008 5:07 PM | Report abuse

She's running because there's a black man behind her.

Posted by: RUN!!! | May 22, 2008 4:20 PM | Report abuse

She is still running to lose weight.

Posted by: Jenny Craig | May 22, 2008 4:14 PM | Report abuse

Tydicea,

There are so many things wrong with your numbers it's hard to know where to begin.

First of all, your numbers don't include the votes from 4 caucus states (3 that Clinton lost). Adding these alone would give Hillary only a 58,000 vote lead. Secondly, they include Michigan, where Barack wasn't even on the ballot. Excluding that Soviet style ballot gives Barack a 270,000 vote lead.

It's amazing that Hillary's team worked so hard to prevent Michigan's vote from counting and how she's convinced you that now they really should count. If you think winning only 55% of the vote when you're the only person on the ballot is impressive, I can see how you're dumb enough to fall for Hillary's lies.

Posted by: Jason Dixon | May 22, 2008 4:07 PM | Report abuse

Has anyone ever considered that Hillary REALLY believes that it is absolutely essential that a Democrat become President to get this country back on track. And she knows that she is more likely to put together a winning electoral map against John McCain. Just check out the latest polls (Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida).

And maybe she knows that she will be the best President for this country between Obama, McCain, and Clinton.

Lastly, is it possible that she WOULD be the best candidate and President?

Many think so and keep voting for her!!!

Posted by: bbdv | May 22, 2008 4:07 PM | Report abuse

i am a young, white, registered independant male, and i voted for and support barack obama because after john edwards, he addresses the issues that need to most attention in this country from a truly passionate, honest, and intelligent perspective. does he have as much political experience as hilary clinton? no, and thank God for that, because if he was as much of a slickened weasel career politician as the clintons then i'd have nobody to support (ron paul?). before obama got into politics he decided to teach the law to younger generations from an academic perspective instead of cash in on his license like most lawyer-politicians do. is he naive? hopefully as naive as roosevelt to think that increased government involvement in the financial market would pull the nation out of the great depression. obama is the best candidate for me, and apparently most of my peers. thank you.

Posted by: bsnyder | May 22, 2008 4:04 PM | Report abuse

It is now well understood that the people in FL and MI are being ripped off by DNC because of the conflict between the Rep. controlled FL legislature and DNC. It seems to be they are being over-published for something which is not their fault. Pretty soon, the DNC rules committee will have to make serious reconsideration of their position on FL and MI, because their voters' opinion and votes are important in the November's general election. From the past experience, the whole election could depend on FL and OH, which Kerry lost to Bush only four years ago. As a long time Democrat, I am very confused and dissatisfied by the current system of Dem. party primaries. Sen. Clinton is the winner in popular vote as well as electoral votes while Obama is now well ahead in delegate counts mainly because of the caucus votes and his big winninng mostly in the red states as well as the failure of counting FL and MI votes by DNC. Overall, he has not won any traditional key battleground state as well as any major large state except his own home state Illinois. For the latest prediction for the general election in November participated by McCain, Obama or Clinton, which shows Obama is an inferior Dem. candidate for November election , see the website:
http://www.electoral-vote.com

Posted by: austin b | May 22, 2008 4:01 PM | Report abuse

Hey, ding dong, of course I am trying to get the DNC to declare caucuses illegal, for the future. That is why I have written them, on numerous occasions.

Big question: Do you know of a primary state that does NOT allow absentee ballots? I don't. If caucus states allowed absentee ballots, the problem would be solved. Please respond.

Posted by: jchbrock | May 22, 2008 4:00 PM | Report abuse

More people have cast their ballot for Sen. Clinton in the Democratic Primaries (17,387,254) than for any other person in history, giving her a majority of 198,285 over Sen. Obama. In a democracy that should be the only metric that matters.
Posted by: endodoc79 | May 22, 2008 3:50 PM

It didn't when the supreme court gave to presidency to Bush, although Gore had the majority of the popular vote. We are clearly not a democracy in terms of electing a president, can you say republic?

Posted by: tydicea | May 22, 2008 3:53 PM | Report abuse

Actually Hillary is not the only one Torpidoeing the DM Party, what are the remaining sup-del waiting for, move to either side for God sake's, if you want Hillary just say so. If you want Obama so be it. This is the old 420 BC CAESAR strategy on GALLI, surround the candidates and make no move until they run out of supplies and ammunitions, well one candidate has run out of supplies already, get it ?

Posted by: adios | May 22, 2008 3:51 PM | Report abuse

The DNC has shown that their nominating process is not about one person one vote, but about them, the effete elite of Dean and Pelosi who wan't a coronation and not a fair election. More people have cast their ballot for Sen. Clinton in the Democratic Primaries (17,387,254) than for any other person in history, giving her a majority of 198,285 over Sen. Obama. In a democracy that should be the only metric that matters.

Posted by: endodoc79 | May 22, 2008 3:50 PM | Report abuse

Couple of other reasons: a) Under campaign law, she can only pay back her loans based on pre-convention donations; b) Praying for another Rev. Wright problem to arise; c) Neither has it in the bag, at least not yet.

Posted by: LawyerTom1 | May 22, 2008 3:46 PM | Report abuse


Nothing is quite so stupid as some big mouth Hillary supporter

supposing that she speaks for 'women'.

NOwhere a majority of woman have voted for her, to date.

Some idiot saying what "woman will do and won't do" and one particulary vapid idiot who says she is a 'real woman' and the rest of us aren't if we don't adore her is typical of Hillary's screaming people.

In fact, most of us don't see Hillary as a "real woman"
a woman so much as a female harridan.

And Billy Boy isn't too much ineterested in her "real womanhood" either, what?

Posted by: sick ofi t | May 22, 2008 3:45 PM | Report abuse

To Mary O'Bryan
You refer to "us girls" and "all women" like you speak for the majority of women, you don't, so speak for yourself. You also state that women are the most loyal bloc of dem voters, well, what about African Americans. I'm sick of people saying that Obama can't win without Hillary's hard working white americans (that's code for dumb poor-a$$ white people) Guess what, she can't win without African Americans! Talk about loyalty! I regret to say that most AA's vote democrat without even taking the time to review the platform and issues of the candidates, they are that loyal, but if the DNC steals the nomination for Hillary, AA's will not take that lightly and the displeasure will be felt at the polling places!

Posted by: bklvr | May 22, 2008 3:44 PM | Report abuse

The dems can't win without women, even if you choose to call them "bitter old ladies." And they can't win without the "some educated and unsuccessful appalacians."

If the nastiness continues, the dems won't win, because it will be too divided to come together. If you want your candidate to win, you are going to have to be nice to the bitter old ladies and the working class white people. The question is, do you want to win? Can you suck it up and play nice with your teammates?

Posted by: Anonymous | May 22, 2008 3:43 PM | Report abuse


Hillary CLinton started with sky hi negatives.

Those negatives have grown

If she steals the election, or keeps -trying, no blacks will vote for her.

Republicans detest her, always have. Vicious dislike. They won't vote for her.

That leaves?
--Older ladies who are bitter
--some educated and unsuccessful appalacians

How many times have we heard that dems can't win without the black vote?

She'll leave detested, disinfranchized and a big fat joke.

Posted by: Election facts | May 22, 2008 3:38 PM | Report abuse

"Good luck, sweetie"

Be careful. Comments like this will lose the election for the Democrats. Women are a big voting block. Bigger than any other minority (we are, after all, about one half of the overall population). Senator Obama has made the mistake of condescending to women before, and so have lots of other men in the political arena. But I think, this year, they are underestimating the power that women now wield. Give us some respect, or you won't get our vote. It's just that simple.

Posted by: a girl | May 22, 2008 3:36 PM | Report abuse

not that facts seem to matter these days but lets remember that the election was not stolen from Gore because he won the popular vote any more than it would have been stolen from GWB had Kerry won Ohio in 2004.

It maybe a crazy system that allows the person with fewer popular votes to win the Presidency but those are the rules. If you don't like the rules get them changed before the game not 90% through the game.

Posted by: crazyv | May 22, 2008 3:35 PM | Report abuse

Posted by Elinda: My hope is that she eschews the "old politics" of two-parties and takes her popularity with moderate voters ... and runs an independent campaign and wins from the center ... with Obama on the left and McCain on the right ... she is the right candidate this time!

I am a registered independent. The reason why I chose to be an independent is I vote for the best candidate based on the issues confronting the country, and not blindly conform to whatever a particularly party says is in my best interests. In other words I think for myself and decide what is best for me. I hope she does what you suggest, it will guarantee an Obama victory in November. And he is what is best for this country after almost 8 crippling years of a failed Bush presidency.

Posted by: str8talk | May 22, 2008 3:34 PM | Report abuse

Poor Hillary. Her menopausal symptoms are getting worse by the day. One just wishes she would call it quits and go back to the Senate and finish out her change of life there. As for 2012, Obama will win his second term easily. If Hillary is still alive in 2016, she will be 68, far too old. It's over, girl. Get over it!

Posted by: DSRobins | May 22, 2008 3:33 PM | Report abuse

She runs to change her image as that of a crooked real estate lawyer to that of career politician. Good luck, sweetie. You are and always will be just a crooked real esate laywer pretenting to be something else.

Posted by: M.Marcotte | May 22, 2008 3:30 PM | Report abuse

Hillary is staying in now to push for the seating of a full Michigan and Florida delegate slate. Why? The Clinton's realized they made a mistake in preventing Florida and Michigan from moving up. Team Clinton wanted almost every state to vote on February 5th. They thought the expense of running a semi-national campaign would crush the rest of her competition and victory would be hers. They obviously thought wrong.

If they can get Michigan and Florida seated in full, the DNC will be powerless to stop other states from moving up in the future. This will allow the Clinton's to use their machine to push up states that favor them in 2012. If Barack loses in 2008, look for Kentucky, West Virginia, Pennsylvania, Ohio and Florida being early on the calendar.

Posted by: Jason Dixon | May 22, 2008 3:28 PM | Report abuse

I started 2008 supporting Sen Clinton mainly because of President Clinton. However during this Nomination process I feel repulsion and disbelieve at the many lies & mischaracterations of the facts from Sen Clinton. She has shown that has very little respect for anyone not even herself. The Super delegates need to act now, so that the Democratic party is no longer held Hostage by this Egomaniac!
I would've loved to have a woman President, but not Sen Clinton. How could anyone trust her?

Posted by: James | May 22, 2008 3:27 PM | Report abuse

My hope is that she eschews the "old politics" of two-parties and takes her popularity with moderate voters ... and runs an independent campaign and wins from the center ... with Obama on the left and McCain on the right ... she is the right candidate this time!!

Posted by: Elinda | May 22, 2008 3:25 PM | Report abuse

Give me a break. If Clinton STEALS the nomination from Obama, she will lose in a landslide because she pissed off millions of Democrats along the way, and independents will not vote for her. SHE IS NOT ELECTABLE. PERIOD!

Posted by: gipper1 | May 22, 2008 3:24 PM | Report abuse

Give me a break. If Clinton STEALS the nomination from Obama, she will lose in a landslide because she pissed off millions of Democrats along the way, and independents will not vote for her. SHE IS NOT ELECTABLE. PERIOD!

Posted by: gipper1 | May 22, 2008 3:24 PM | Report abuse

Give me a break. If Clinton STEALS the nomination from Obama, she will lose in a landslide because she pissed off millions of Democrats along the way, and independents will not vote for her. SHE IS NOT ELECTABLE. PERIOD!

Posted by: gipper1 | May 22, 2008 3:24 PM | Report abuse

She runs because, just as in 1993, her way is more important than anyone else's, and if that helps the Republicans so be it. It serves the D's right for not respecting her. It would have been ok if certain groups had voted the way they were supposed to, or certain caucuses did. Since they didn't, they don't matter. Only HRC matters and no matter how much carnage, how much deceit, how much money, she wil have her way. Clinton Agonistes. It isn't her fault

Posted by: Tired of It | May 22, 2008 3:23 PM | Report abuse

HRC did not get as many popular votes as she thinks due to the effects of "operation chaos". A lot of Reps voted for her (I know of several myself) to screw up the stats. They will not be with her in November.

Posted by: anti-womanizer | May 22, 2008 3:22 PM | Report abuse

Why didn't you mention Clinton's sense of entitlement to the nomination? Clinton is yet to come to terms with the fact that a 46-year old junior senator from Illinois, an African American, could floor her. She, an establishment candidate, who knows Washington in and out. This is the only reason that's keeping Clinton in this race. She is full of herself.

And then you fail to mention the hardcore white supremacists in this country who can't countenance being governed by an African American. It's these white supremacists who are egging on Clinton to keep fighting until the end. I hear that Clinton has all along been a champion of civil rights. How come she has failed to admonish her supporters who have declared in open daylight that they're supporting her because she is white. To paraphrase David Gergen (watch this video:http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2008/05/21/taking-race-out-of-the-race/)Hillary should tell off these folks.

I know some folks here will jump with a rejoinder to the effect that 90 per cent of African Americans have been supporting Obama. For many,many years the African American community in this country has been supporting white presidents to the hilt. All that time, I have not heard people complain about racism. Now that the African Americans have a one-for-a-lifetime opportunity to send one of their own to the White House, why can't the white folks, as a gesture of appreciation of all those years of support from these people, come out and support Obama?

This country remains polarized along racial lines. This is what I have come to learn during the five years I have lived in this country. There are deep-rooted stereotypes that, time and again, have been and continue to be hurled at African Americans. Like there is this argument that the blacks cannot manage a big organization and they can't raise a family. Why are we pretending that these issues are not being played out in this campaign.

I will believe Obama will be the president of this great country in November when the election is finally held and votes counted.

Posted by: James | May 22, 2008 3:22 PM | Report abuse

Hey JBE,
How's that Kool-Aid taste? I know feminists, and your no feminist. When your done listening to Fergie, go do some research and get back to us.

Posted by: A Real Woman | May 22, 2008 3:22 PM | Report abuse

Blah Blah Blah, a hundred reasons. There is only one EGO.

Posted by: Peter | May 22, 2008 3:21 PM | Report abuse

I fear many of you endow Clinton with Machiavellian characteristics that if she truly had, she would have been a conclusive, unquestionable victor in this nomination.

Clinton still runs for the same reason Coulter still opines, because she can.

Posted by: merrill1 | May 22, 2008 3:19 PM | Report abuse

Hillary would have already won nomination if the Republican voting process was used.
Posted by: JCarn | May 22, 2008 3:15 PM
-----------------------------------------

Apparently she ran for the wrong party's nomination amongst other errors.

Posted by: ding-dong-the-witch-is-dead | May 22, 2008 3:18 PM | Report abuse

She runs on and on because she thinks she more important than the Demcratic party. She wants to change the rules in the middle of the game. She voted twice for the war. She didn't know what George Bush and Dick Cheeeney where up to; two of the biggest Nazis since Hitler and "his stupid and ignorant crowd" as William Shirer referred to them? She cooked herself and now she parades around like she is one of us...Please. She has never been one of us...The only self-made person in this race is you know who. He will end: the war, oil dependence, sloth on Capitol Hill, provide health care to ALL and improve our schools by teaching children to think critically again. Hey, check it out in November.

Posted by: royals1 | May 22, 2008 3:17 PM | Report abuse

The FairVote organization opposes caucuses for good reasons. It is perfectly legimate to consider the will of the people in a democracy, and caucus results clearly do not represent the will of the people.

Posted by: jchbrock | May 22, 2008 3:06 PM
------------------------------------------

Why not work to change the way the DNC elects a nominee? HRC essentially forfeited the caucuses for the reasons you cite. They don't play well to her core voters. In addition to that, she didn't think she needed the caucus states because she was going to wrap things up early in the game.

Additionally, all the reason you cite for a person not being able to caucus can also be applied to a primary vote. You still have to get up and go to a polling location--unless the state offers absentee ballots.

However, the rules were in place before the primary began. You can complain about them, but cannot change them to suit your desires during the primary. Afterwards, one can certainly put the energy into changing the way the DNC elects a nominee.

And, while you're at it, you might as well challenge the electoral college as well, since, as you know, one can win the popular vote and still lose the electoral college like we saw in 2000.

Posted by: ding-dong-the-witch-is-dead | May 22, 2008 3:16 PM | Report abuse

" Clinton has that majority now because she broke her word and competed against essentially nobody."

No, the agreement was to not campaign in those states. She didn't. Keeping her name on the ballot wasn't a violation. She wasn't being disingenuous then.

She is now. That majority thing is a totally bogus argument. That's why superdelegates aren't buying it.

Posted by: DDAWD | May 22, 2008 3:15 PM | Report abuse

Meaningful metric: leading in popular vote, leading in states that provides 308 electoral votes, leading in states that have a true voting process. Caucuses are a joke. Meaningful metric: Hillary would have already won nomination if the Republican voting process was used.

Obama will lose the general election: this is a meaningful metric also.

Fox news is more fair and balanced than Chris and his media buddies. I am a life long Democrat and I never thought I would ever rather watch Fox news than all the other news media.

Posted by: JCarn | May 22, 2008 3:15 PM | Report abuse

Meaningful metric: leading in popular vote, leading in states that provides 308 electoral votes, leading in states that have a true voting process. Caucuses are a joke. Meaningful metric: Hillary would have already won nomination if the Republican voting process was used.

Obama will lose the general election: this is a meaningful metric also.

Fox news is more fair and balanced than Chris and his media buddies. I am a life long Democrat and I never thought I would ever rather watch Fox news than all the other news media.

Posted by: JCarn | May 22, 2008 3:15 PM | Report abuse

Hey Mary O'Brien...

The women of my generation are voting for Obama. They're all feminsts. I know of 2 that are voting otherwise. One for Hillary, and one for McCain.

Its the misandrist and the Gloria Steinem generation that are voting for Hillary.

Everyone else knows there are FAR better women in America for the job... Misandrists just didn't take them seriously enough to fund their campaigns, and instead went with hillary...

Hillary might have won had she abandoned the old style politics of pandering and one liners, lobbiests and back room deals. She might have won had she been a good financial manager, had she been a better strategic planner beyond super tuesday, had she abandoned her hubris, had she been transparent, honest, not lied about her experience, had she not insisted she was inevitable and our votes don't matter, and had she not twisted the arms of party insiders to deny our votes.

Hillary lost the race and alienated the electorate ALL ON HER OWN.

Sorry you're disappointed - but don't blame us for voting for the stronger candidate who rejects lobbiests and the old ways of doing politics that Hillary embraces wholesale.

Posted by: JBE | May 22, 2008 3:14 PM | Report abuse

Posted by bevvyjean: Hello. There are many of us who still don't believe that obama has been properly vetted. I remain suspicious that some surprise will come up that will be a real turn off for his continued root for the presidency. I know that there is a possibility of this happening. I hope it does.

Sorry to say but you are as delusional as Hilary. Keep hope alive!

Posted by: Anonymous | May 22, 2008 3:14 PM | Report abuse

"Michigan and Florida should count. Howard Dean does not make the law. State lawmakers pay for the primary and should be able to set legal dates as to when it will be held. Does Dean consider himself above the law????? "

Of course they can decide when the primary is held. They moved it to the dates of their choosing.

The DNC is not obligated to seat their delegates at their convention.

Hope that didn't make your head hurt.

Posted by: DDAWD | May 22, 2008 3:13 PM | Report abuse

Cillizza is a slightly inaccurate when he says Clinton trails in every meaningful metric. After Tuesday night, she is now ahead by 58,141 votes in the popular vote IF you include Florida, Michigan and the estimates from the four caucus states that did not report vote totals (Iowa, Nevada, Maine and Washington). These metrics are meaningful to anyone in those states and also to anyone still sore that Gore lost the 2000 election with a 400K pop. vote majority. This is the first time Clinton can _almost_ legitimately claim a popular majority, regardless of delegate count. I say "almost" because it is a safe bet that had his name been on the ballot, Obama would have won at least 250,000 votes, thereby maintaining a lead of nearly 200,000. Clinton has that majority now because she broke her word and competed against essentially nobody. The DNC and superdelegates understand that, and once it makes the 24/7 news cycle for 2 or 3 days so will the rest of the country. Clinton won what was essentially a one-candidate election in MI (Dodd, Kucinich, and Gravel won less than 5% total).

The popular vote majority is meaningful to me and a lot of Americans, even if it isn't to Cillizza and the DNC. It's why I finally went to KY over the weekend to help the Obama campaign, to keep his majority. If after June 3rd Clinton can achieve a _legitimate_ majority, including all caucus states and accounting for her having no real competition in MI, I will shift my support to her and ask the superdelegates to do the same. If she can't I hope she'll be consistent and accept the will of the majority voters and get behind Obama as the Democratic nominee.

Posted by: treetopflyer | May 22, 2008 3:12 PM | Report abuse

"A former KKK member recently endorsed him."

Hillary also cited him as a good friend. So that's a wash.

Idiot

Posted by: DDAWD | May 22, 2008 3:11 PM | Report abuse

Is Obama for quotas and preferences for the selection of blacks, or as some like to state the democratic party is color blind. Which?????

Michigan and Florida should count. Howard Dean does not make the law. State lawmakers pay for the primary and should be able to set legal dates as to when it will be held. Does Dean consider himself above the law?????

Posted by: fullertonpaul | May 22, 2008 3:09 PM | Report abuse

Hello. There are many of us who still don't believe that obama has been properly vetted. I remain suspicious that some surprise will come up that will be a real turn off for his continued root for the presidency. I know that there is a possibility of this happening. I hope it does. He remains a roll of the dice and is NOT qualified and experienced enough to lead our country. He proves this time and time again with his naivete and bad judgment. He does not have what it takes to be our leader.

Posted by: bevvyjean | May 22, 2008 3:09 PM | Report abuse

This isn't rocket science. Why shouldn't she run if she's still winning primaries (fairly handily too) and building up her bargaining power for whatever she wants to bargain for (personally, I do think it's the VP because Gore and Chaney have changed the nature of that job and she can have a major impact)?

Plus she's bringing more folks to the polls and the Dems will need as many as they can get to turn this thing in November into a route. 60 in the Senate is within reach, for example and that will be key to complete success of an Obama/Dem policy agenda.

She's no longer dissing Obama on the trail; in fact, she's double-barrellng against McCain. She's an important asset for the Dems. Obama needs her in his corner, perhaps not as VP but in his corner in some way. That's the reality and she's a realist.

Clinton has absolutely nothing to lose and much to gain by doing this. I'm an Obama supporter but I understand what she's doing and approve of it.

Posted by: Moshe Avram | May 22, 2008 3:06 PM | Report abuse

First, I do not see that Hillary is hurting the party or Obama. Quite the opposite. I agree with all of the comments that supported that view. Second, I believe that in this election the popular vote is a meaningful metric. Why? Because of the flawed outcome of the caucus states, which do not represent the popular vote, or as sometimes described, the will of the people.

The press is silent on the issue of caucuses, but caucuses have determined the lead in the pledged delegate count for Obama and what has happened since then. Why? Caucuses disenfranchise Hillary's main voter base: older voters, working people who cannot take off from work or cannot afford baby sitters to participate in lengthy caucus processes, and the many women who are intimidated or pressured by the fact that caucuses are public. Primaries use secret ballots and absentee ballots for a reason. Obama's main voter base consists of the young, for example, college students, and the wealthy that can afford to take time off to participate in the lengthy caucus process.

To compare primary results to caucus results, look at the Map Room on the site election.msn.com, specifically the states of Washington and Texas. The outcome of the caucuses is skewed towards Obama. Now consider that Obama won the ca ucus states Alaska, Colorado, Connecticut, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Minnesota, Nebraska, North Dakota, and Wyoming. Hillary won Nevada because the caucuses were held in the workplace in the cities, and people were given time off to vote. Obama won the primary state Utah but the result was singular because Romney was on the ballot and won the vast majority of votes. Many delegates were awarded on the basis of low voting numbers in these states, making the skew towards Obama even more pronounced.

The Obama supporters that I have presented this argument to reply that Obama won the caucuses because of superior organization and that in itself is a reason that he should have the delegates, but I contend that it i s not a matter of organization. I fell last year and broke a T5 vertebrae quite badly. I would not have been able to vote in the caucus in Texas because of the long lines and the cold night. Fortunately, I live in the great state of California and we have a prim a ry, that Hillary won by 10%. And, yes, I am an older woman, part of Hillary's voter base.

Everyone agrees that this nomination race has been a demographic race, notably David Brooks. In the past, the race between two (or more) white men did not split the demographics in a noticeable way. This year is different! The popular vote is important in the Democratic nominating process, especially this year. And, I think everyone in this country should start investigating caucuses, exactly how they are run in each caucus state.

For example, I hope the state of Washington is trying to figure out what went wrong with their caucuses. All of their pledged delegates were based on this flawed caucus vote in the state of Washington. To see what I am saying, look at the Map Room on the site election.msn.com and compare the caucus result to the primary result for the state of Washington. The caucus came first: Obama 68% and Hillary 31%. Then, the primary was next: Obama 51% and Hillary 46%. What is the explanation for such a big difference? Why would anyone bother to vote in the primary if they knew that their vote would not count towards winning delegates for their candidate? My guess is that there was voter confusion. Why? I have no idea. I have informed the DNC of this anamoly.

The FairVote organization opposes caucuses for good reasons. It is perfectly legimate to consider the will of the people in a democracy, and caucus results clearly do not represent the will of the people.

Posted by: jchbrock | May 22, 2008 3:06 PM | Report abuse

Maybe, like many of us, she doesn't agree with the Media's early and often coronotion of Jesus Christ II Barack Hussien Obama?

Posted by: pgr88 | May 22, 2008 3:01 PM

-----------------------------------------

HRC definitely believed in the media's coronation of Jesus Christ II Hillary R Clinton. That's why she screwed up her campaign so badly.

She did not fully understand the media cycles fully and fell in love with her image in the mirror.

Posted by: ding-dong-the-witch-is-dead | May 22, 2008 3:05 PM | Report abuse

As a woman there is no way that I would vote for HC at any time. Her hubby showed the kind of man he is and she just goes along with it - she is tainted by his womanizing ways. If Obama selects her as VP, he will lose my vote.

Posted by: anti-womanizer | May 22, 2008 3:04 PM | Report abuse

birdman, thank you for you unbiased post. It is very rare to come across the unbiased truth nowadays. Thank you.

Posted by: Obama2008 | May 22, 2008 3:03 PM | Report abuse

Posted by Sisters for Hillary: Obama got Zero votes in Michigan. Zero! There's no way Obama can will the general election if some States are not even voting for him. Hillary leads in popular vote. She's the best candidate ever. Rise Hillary, rise.
Clinton '08, '12

Sisters, I understand your allegiance to your candidate but let's not twist and stretch the truth, as your candidate is apt to do. Obama's name was not on the ballot in Michigan. He took his name off after sanctions were put in place by the DNC against MI because of their refusal to not move up their primary schedule. All the candidates in the race then agreed, and signed off on not campaigning there or in Florida. Your candidate agreed to this but now wants the very rules she signed off on changed because she is the direct beneficiary. Hilary is a no principled fraud.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 22, 2008 3:03 PM | Report abuse

Its far simpler, Chris!

Hubris.
Power.
Saving Face.
Ego.
Getting Obama to pay off her $20 million in debts.

...and she TRUELY believes it is fair game and A WISE CHOICE (fancy THAT display of judgement) to "Weasle-lawyer" her way into the nomination by twisting arms at the convention, regardless of how the electorate has decided.

Posted by: JBE | May 22, 2008 3:02 PM | Report abuse

Bye, bye and good riddance from Mary O'Bryan, Louisville, KY, to my former party, no matter what happens in the primaries left to come.

Posted by: Mary O'Bryan | May 22, 2008 2:54 PM
------------------------------------------
Don't go away mad Mary O'Bryan, just go away.

Posted by: ding-dong-the-witch-is-dead | May 22, 2008 3:01 PM | Report abuse

Maybe, like many of us, she doesn't agree with the Media's early and often coronotion of Jesus Christ II Barack Hussien Obama?

Posted by: pgr88 | May 22, 2008 3:01 PM | Report abuse

The post by whomever who said "assuming Obama got the nomination and even more of a long shot,the Presidency, Whoever runs as VP with Obama will become President. I think Obama will be shot by a KKK member.If you thought Reagan had a reason to be shot, then what do you think would happen to Obama etc;

That post is hopfully not typical of those who object to Obama. A sick mind, prejudice, hateful and downright stupid comments like that could just enourage some nut to do that dastardly deed. America needs Obama to prove that a person of his intellect, dedication and savvy can bring about the changes needed in this country. As his first act maybe he can deport the sickos who make statements like the post above in quotes!

Posted by: Dr Dan | May 22, 2008 3:01 PM | Report abuse

f.dlang:

A former KKK member recently endorsed him. Also, we had a few conspire to assassinate our current President Bush, and failed thank goodness. I have reason to believe should someone attempt a hateful act, will fail too. I also believe Obama has no reason at all to fear that. Obama would be absolutely fine, thank you for your comment.

Posted by: Obama2008 | May 22, 2008 3:01 PM | Report abuse

Clinton is not winning the popular vote, even counting MI and FL. The Fix, like many of these posters, seems to be getting its information from talk radio. Clinton has already lost the plegded delegate race. Clinton's only chance to win the nomination is to get nearly every undeclared superdelegate to forget the above cited facts and to vote for her. I don't recall hypnotism among her self-professed accomplishments.

Posted by: dmw | May 22, 2008 3:00 PM | Report abuse

I think Sen Clinton is still running is because she is a strong candidate who has attracted a passionate base of voters. Why stop?

Having said that this race is killing me because passionate Obama and Clinton supporters are so angry at each other that many will not vote (or vote for McCain). The vitriol in some of these posts (on both sides) is nothing short of amazing.

We went from having an embarrasement of riches (4-5 strong candidates) to having 2 damaged candidates. Neither Obama nor Clinton can win in the GE without the others supporters.

Posted by: birdman | May 22, 2008 2:59 PM | Report abuse

Chris.. the primary reason she is in the race is $$$s. She can continue to recoup her $11 mill only if she is in the race. She cannot raise funds if she is not in the race. She has raised a lot of money after PA. She'll be able to quit this race without losing too much money.

Women have bought into the sexism argument. Without that argument they may not contribute at the same level they are right now.

Posted by: YellowShoe | May 22, 2008 2:59 PM | Report abuse

obama has shown how powerful the politics of hope and change can be. he's got the nomination, he's going to win in november, and america will reenter a camelot period, with modern ingenuity and honest sensibility. a real democratic leader is what this country, and the world, needs.

Posted by: bsnyder | May 22, 2008 2:55 PM | Report abuse

Do we really want another 2000? We somen have been messed over for many years by the Democrat Party and it appears that millions of "US" will be returning the favor, should this primary season continue on its current path. Hillary Clinton is clearly the best choice to be our party's nominee for President. As a life-long Democrat, age 55, I think the way my party has hosed Hillary and their most loyal and largest voting block; women intolerable. I am confident the Democrat Party will pay a severe price for this blatant assault on women in November. Cry all you want about this being "sour grapes" but little good will result from your on-going efforts to rally Hillary's staunch supporters around your chosen candidate instead of the people's choice. Now, the Democrat Party leaders want women to get their pre- selected from the start, elite, wimp, Barack Obama elected in November. It will be cold day in hell before I comply and I also hope Hillary walks away from this Party. Most of the women, and many men as well, with whom I have contact are finished with the Democrat Party, now and forever. Also, many of "US" are starting a grassroots movement to insure these kind of sorry tactics employed by my now soon to be former party, never happen again. This clear favoring of Obama, making him the nominee because the party doesn't want a woman, especially a Clinton woman, is more that I can tolerate. Of all the gall, the Democrat Party now expects "US" girls, including Hillary, to turn over our undying support to Obama. Sorry guys, this is not going to happen. Obama has no shot of winning in November without Hillary's help and all of us, her supporters. Not on your life or in your wildest dreams is this going to happen. Democrat Party leaders take heed and you superdelegates had better wait to declare your support until the final results of all the primaries are tallied and the voices of all 50 states and territories are heard from. At that time, the real nominee of the people can be declared for the fall election. Let it be known that the damage has already been done to the largest voting block in America. However, it remains to be seen how deep these "bitterly disappointing and highly blatant attacks" are to women. In my mind, this is a travesty and affects all women of America. I for one will change my registration to Independent, and possibly Republican, on the day I vote for Hillary Rodham Clinton in the KY primary. Bye, bye and good riddance from Mary O'Bryan, Louisville, KY, to my former party, no matter what happens in the primaries left to come.

Posted by: Mary O'Bryan | May 22, 2008 2:54 PM | Report abuse

So Clinton wants all 50 states to be heard.

But she keeps spouting this popular vote argument.

13 states had caucuses, not primaries.

Does that mean she only wants 37 states to be heard?

Posted by: DDAWD | May 22, 2008 2:52 PM | Report abuse

Haswalnut,

You can't think of anybody less qualified than Senator Obama? How about yourself! I am amazed at how some many people feel they can make derogatory comments about his intelligence when they know darn well they aren't the sharpest knives in the drawer.

Whether or not Senator Clinton is the best candidate is up to each individual voter. Saying it loud doesn't make it so. Also, any Democratic Party voting for Sen. McCain deserves another 4 to 8 years of the same. Instead of worrying about Senator Obama's intelligence, you should focus on how you are going to pay for gasoline, skyrocketing fuel prices, a never ending war, a stagnant economy, health insurance, etc. Only a fool will vote to cut off his nose to spite his face!

Posted by: Anonymous | May 22, 2008 2:52 PM | Report abuse

Senator Clinton stays in the race because she will take the White House with her experience and millions of backers. If the media mysogynists and Obama sexists think this is over now, they ain't seen nothing yet!

Posted by: librairie | May 22, 2008 2:52 PM | Report abuse

Only one possible choice for Obama as Vice President: the Dalai Lama. ObamaLama 08!

Posted by: Andrew | May 22, 2008 2:51 PM | Report abuse

it's her ego.

Posted by: pv | May 22, 2008 2:50 PM | Report abuse


.
Voters (aka bitter, religious, gun-toting commoners) with IQs greater than their shoe size are not swayed by the meaningless Hope-Change, Change-Hope, Hope-able Change and Change-able Hope BS of "God D*#! America", "Sweetie" hussein. Experience and competence matter.

The majority of Democrats simply do not want the party to make the same mistake twice by nominating another Kerry-like shallow, arrogant, platitude-spouting, gas-bag - who is so mentally deficient from extensive drug use he even has to plagiarize his hollow platitudes!

One thing is certain: millions of Dems will leave the party if the loony left and a pal to Weathermen terrorists hijack the nomination. To prevent that disgraceful event, responsible Dems will continue to fight to save what was once a great political party.

/

Posted by: ALEX H. | May 22, 2008 2:49 PM | Report abuse

Is there a single Hillary supporter who can explain why the Florida and Michigan votes ought to count, when she herself agreed when the DNC stripped them of their primaries?

Is there a single Hillary supporter who denies that Obama played by the rules, and that Hillary wants to change them retroactively for no better reason than the fact she's behind?

Posted by: DavLaurel | May 22, 2008 2:49 PM | Report abuse

Why should Hillary continue in the race? Because that is the democratic way. Also because, nobody got the majority of the delegates. The fact is that Barack Obama, the media darling, has lost again now in Kentucky with an unheard of margin for a candidate who is supposed to have aleady locked up the nomination. This is a chilling reminder to the democrats that their victory in the presidential election in november is anything but assured. If the women voters ditch the democrats in the presidential election along with the seniors, jews and the latinos,Obama is in a tight corner. Loosing to McCain is a real possibility eventhough the Republicans donot deserve the presidency after the mess they have created during the last eight years. But democrats have outdone the Republicans in their insensitivity to people, the way they want to discard FL and MI votes and delegates and the way they pressured Hillary to give up her fights when she was actually winning in big numbers. The long line of insults including racism charge against Hillary, Bill and others as well as the insulting tone of Obama campaign against Hillary calls for proper accounting. There should be a convention fight over the FL and MI votes if the credentials committee does not resolve the issue fairly on a one vote for one voter basis. Anything less will be a sellout of all the votes Hillary received from real people.

Posted by: Nathan | May 22, 2008 2:47 PM | Report abuse

Perhaps she's trying to entice stalwart supporters into putting money into her failed campaign so that she can pay back some of the millions of dollars she lent the campaign from her own bank account.

Posted by: wm | May 22, 2008 2:47 PM | Report abuse

Everyone out there who doesn't support Obama is a hater and a loser. Period. Clinton (the racist) should leave the race because her agenda is against democratic values.

Posted by: Ob | May 22, 2008 2:47 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.

Posted by: whatmeregister | May 22, 2008 2:46 PM | Report abuse

Since when is leading in the POPULAR VOTE not a "meaningful metric?" The ridiculous anti-Clinton bias rolls on. Well, we're taking this campaign all the way to Denver, and we're going to win.

Posted by: Cali_snowboarder | May 22, 2008 2:46 PM | Report abuse

assuming Obama got the nomination and even more of a long shot,the Presidency, Whoever runs as VP with Obama will become President. I think Obama will be shot by a KKK member.If you thought Reagan had a reason to be shot, then what do you think would happen to Obama?

my goodness Obama hates America and he's a black racist with Muslim name. He's a dead man walking as Pres. ,sad but true enough. I hope he loses the nomination just so that he wont be shot.

Posted by: f.dlang | May 22, 2008 2:39 PM | Report abuse

"Taking out the red states which the democrats have no chance of winning in November, and reviewing a "number of delegates from the swing and blue states" is a "meaningful metric.""

If you take out the red states that the dems have no chance of winning, why not take out the blue states that they have no chance of losing?

Posted by: DDAWD | May 22, 2008 2:36 PM | Report abuse

Senator Clinton stays in the race because we believe in her and want her to stay in the race. We continue to contribute to her campaign and on her website we continue to encourage her and ourselves. I don't know why the media finds this so hard to believe. I also don't believe she wants anything from Obama or his campaign. Early on in an interview with Katie Couric she said that if she didn't win the nomination she would be the Senator from NY - seat once held by Bobby Kennedy. I also have never thought that either Bill Clinton or Hillary Clinton were ever motivated by money to do anything. I honestly believe that Senator Clinton has loaned her campaign money ....because it allows her to keep her promise to the 17 million plus people that have voted for her..to stay in the race until there is a nominee. If Senator Clinton is not the nominee...then I will vote for Senator McCain. I will do so because he is a true American patriot. I also believe that he will continue to work across the aisle to solve America's problems. I do not trust Senator Obama to do the same.

Posted by: Kathy Corey | May 22, 2008 2:32 PM | Report abuse

Obama can't win in November. The super delegates need to take an objective, serious, thorough look at the reality of Obama not being able to win the General Election.

People keep saying that women won't vote for him because of women issues. That isn't the only reason people will never vote for Obama.

He has a very radical background, his father, his mother, his communist mentor in Hawaii, Michelle Robinson before they were married, Rezko, Auchi, Saddam Hussein, Rev. Wright, William Ayers, Dohrn, Farrakun, and others.

How do you expect us to follow lock step with a man like Obama with the radical, anti-American and terrorist ties he has?

It isn't going to happen and the super delegates and the DNC have a very limited time to correct their mistake of thinking Obama was the one we have all been waiting for. Obama is a huge mistake. gw.

Posted by: Iowatreasures | May 22, 2008 2:31 PM | Report abuse

Ok, she continues to hang in there which for the Democrats is a good thing, because, if Obama makes it into the final round he will loose against McCain. I myself am an independent but for the most part I have voted Democratic which I will not do in the upcoming elections thanks to people like Howard Dean, Bill Clinton, Nancy Pelosi and Jimmy Carter, I would rather vote for Humpty Dumpty. I see no plans for our recovery. Remember the Democrats have had controll of both the House and the Senate and have done little if anything except try to raise tax's and attempt to force troop withdrawl from Irag, this action would end up placeing our troops in greater danger as they were withdrawing, just think what would happen to the people of Irag with their military not being ready to protect them. Put yourself in their shoes

Posted by: Robert | May 22, 2008 2:29 PM | Report abuse

She is delusional as are many of her supporters.

Posted by: Reality Bites | May 22, 2008 2:29 PM | Report abuse

I think Clinton should stay in at least long enough to ensure that the votes in Florida and Michigan are counted somehow, and I think it's also refreshing this time around that everyone in the country is being asked about who they prefer as the standard bearer, via the ongoing primaries. I must say though, that it's also clear that we will all be ready to elect a black man before turning the reins over to a female of whatever color. Also, I haven't heard much about why Florida voted early, but I thought the decision was under the control of the republicans in Florida.

Posted by: rbe1 | May 22, 2008 2:29 PM | Report abuse

It will do neither the Obama supporters or the Clinton supporters to say I told you so after November.The parties pick will be tainted because the party Hacks will pick the winner.
They just might pick the weakest of the two thus grabbing defeat from the jaws of victory

Posted by: truth teller | May 22, 2008 2:28 PM | Report abuse

http://usasurvival.org/ck05.14.08.html

Look at this for news on Obama's communist ties . This news conference is being held in Washington DC today

Posted by: Ash123 | May 22, 2008 2:26 PM | Report abuse

Mrs. Clinton is still in the race because this race technically isn't over yet. We still have states to vote. We still have Puerto Rico, South Dakota, and Montana to submit their votes. After that, I can't say. I do hope that after voters have been heard, and supers make up their minds soon enough we can finally get a darn nominee and prepare to do battle with Mr. McCain on the issues.

Posted by: Obama2008 | May 22, 2008 2:26 PM | Report abuse

"I believe this situation has created a dilemma for the party - Obama's support is more anti-hillary than pro-Obama."

The funny thing is that according to polls, Clinton supporters are more likely to not vote for Obama in the general than the other way around.

Posted by: DDAWD | May 22, 2008 2:25 PM | Report abuse

She appears to be oblivious or indifferent to the fact that by displaying her pathological pursuit of power, she demonstates she's unfit to be president.

If she won't abide by the rules ahe herself agreed to months ago, what rules would she be willing to break as President?

Posted by: DavLaurel | May 22, 2008 2:24 PM | Report abuse

http://usasurvival.org/ck05.14.08.html

Look for Obama's communist acts to be on the news soon...

Posted by: Ash123 | May 22, 2008 2:24 PM | Report abuse

THIS IS WHY CLINTON IS STILL IN THIS RACE FOLKS:

McCain leads Obama in two battlegrounds: polls

Thu May 22, 11:02 AM ET

WASHINGTON (AFP) - Republican John McCain leads Barack Obama in two presidential swing states, as some of Hillary Clinton's core supporters shun the Democratic front-runner, polls showed Thursday.

ADVERTISEMENT

The Quinnipiac University surveys had McCain up 45 to 41 percent on the Illinois senator in Florida, the epicenter of the 2000 recount drama, which also helped President George W. Bush back to the White House in 2004.

In Ohio, another vital battleground that narrowly went for Bush last time around, McCain leads Obama 44 percent to 40 percent.

Obama however leads McCain in Pennsylvania, by 46 to 40 percent. The state is a must-win for Democrats eyeing the White House.

The poll also appeared to bolster Clinton's arguments that she and not Obama is the best bet for Democrats to take on McCain in states likely to shape the outcome in November's general election.

She led Arizona Senator McCain in all three states, in which she also won in primary votes against Obama. The former first lady led 48 to 41 percent in both Florida and Ohio and by 50-37 percent in Pennsylvania.

The poll showed that between 26 and 36 percent of Clinton supporters in primaries in the three states would switch to McCain if Obama, vying to become the first black US president, becomes the Democratic nominee.

Only 10 to 18 percent of Obama supporters would shun Clinton for McCain, the data suggested.

********************
Wake up! We need Clinton for nominee not another loser.

Posted by: Hillarysupporter | May 22, 2008 2:19 PM | Report abuse

Sen. Obama, if the nominee, will have a far stronger claim to legitimacy (in the Political Science sense) for having had an opponent like Sen. Clinton.

He will have earned it; it won't be "just because he's black" and will go a long way to obviate an attack that he was just "given" the nomination because of his race.

Crazy, I suppose, but that canard "of just because he/she is Black" (and can cry Racism) is all too prevalent in the workplace. If Sen. Clinton had dropped out earlier, or even now, that duck would be flying.

Posted by: Poli Sci 101 | May 22, 2008 2:18 PM | Report abuse

To answer your silly question - to Win.

The people of these United States of America are not ruled by the media or a corrupted Democrat 'Socialist Elitist' Party.

We rule.

Posted by: ztormtra | May 22, 2008 2:16 PM | Report abuse

Clinton in eight years will look like the crypt keeper. Her face, already wrinkling despite the best efforts of the best plastic surgeons, will scream old.
~

This, ladies and gentlemen, is why this country will never elect a woman. In America, being female means being a pretty, incompetent thing for men's pleasure:

"It's now or never for her (which means its never). We don't watch middle-aged female news anchors, we definitely will not elect a Social Security recipient.

Posted by: gbooksdc | May 22, 2008 12:42 PM"

The author of this post is a misguided, pathetic moron.

~

Posted by: DickeyFuller | May 22, 2008 2:13 PM | Report abuse

It's better for Obama, in a way, if she stays in the race for a little while longer. There's no use in allowing the Democratic nominee-to-be, Obama, lose any states to a person who's no longer in the running. That would be embarrassing.

Posted by: mahmud010 | May 22, 2008 2:03 PM | Report abuse

It is pretty simple, the Clintons think they can save the Democratic Party from itself by convincing the superdelegates to vote for her. They know that Obama is a certain loser in November, he cannot win OH, PA, FL, and he may even lose some other states like CA, without which it is certain he cannot win. The problem is that the Democratic Party cannot save itself, HRC was always unelectable because of her huge negative numbers (49% of all voters hated her guts to start with). John Edwards was the Dems only chance, but he was too white, too male, and too Southern for them (please note that the last three actual Democratic Presidents were all of that strip). It won't even be close in a year that should have been a 1980 style blowout for the Democrats. Pitiful.

Posted by: MRM | May 22, 2008 1:59 PM | Report abuse

If Clinton dispassionately argued to the superdelegates that they should ask themselves which candidate has the better chance of beating McCain, I would have no problem with her.

But her arguments about Florida and Michigan are so dishonest and, recently, so inflammatory, that I think that once this is all over, she should be invited to leave the Democratic Party.

Posted by: Eric | May 22, 2008 1:50 PM | Report abuse

"When a loser is still beating so called a winner in swing states like PA, FL and OH with 68 Electoral College votes, the Democratic Party has a serious general election problem in November.

If you literally hand over these three big states to the Republican Party..."
===============
The fact that the loser has a Big "Brand name" like Clinton and managed to beat newcomer Obama in the democratic primaries in these States means diddley-squat in the General...the States mentioned have leaned Republican in the last 2 elections, they would be tough sells no matter who the Democratic Candidate is, further, Independents and undecided voters didn't cast ballots in the Democratic primaries in many States, Obama polls favorably among Independents. And, more significantly, the case hasn't even begun to be made why voting for McCain would be against all American's best interest this year. Some years Americans have the luxury of voting for the person instead of the party, but not this year...far too much is at stake. America has been diminished under the current inept, and dangerous regime, voting for McCain will be like voting for a third Bush term; McCain voted the Bush agenda 95% of the time...I think that once the American electorate has a crystal clear idea of how needed a change in the White House is, that they will do the right thing come November no matter what the hysterical Clinton-centric Cassandras are predicting at the moment.

Posted by: Hold_That_Tiger | May 22, 2008 1:35 PM | Report abuse

Marie Cocco writes today in the Post:

The record suggests that if Clinton is not the nominee, no woman will seriously contend for the White House for another generation. This was the outcome of the 1984 Geraldine Ferraro experiment. After 24 years, Ferraro remains the only woman ever to run for national office on a major-party ticket. And she was selected, not elected, as a vice presidential candidate.

"Maybe a generation from now," says Debbie Walsh, director of the Center for American Women and Politics at Rutgers University. "My feeling is, I don't see who's coming after Clinton, and I don't feel like it's going to be easy for whoever comes next."

It is quite possible that HRC does not want to let this large constituency down.

While I disagree with Professor Walsh and believe that HRC has permanently changed the playing field for qualified female candidates, I am a male, and have not experienced being "shut out". HRC should finish her campaign, preferably with grace.

The Cocco article:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/21/AR2008052102424.html

Posted by: MarkinAustin | May 22, 2008 1:33 PM | Report abuse

Wow, this year the GOP doesn't need Ralph Nadar to divide our votes. The GOP couldn't have orchestrated a better scenario to divide our party. They managed to drive a stake into the heart of our country and divide America and now we are putting up fences and driving a stake into ourselves, the Democratic Party. Some will retaliate and jump the fence to the GOP, some will not even show up to the polls. Are we not listening to ourselves, do we need more hatred and divisive issues, haven't we had enough. Are we going to fall again to the "Puppet Master" Karl Rove. Is this his parting gift to us? We will fail and we will fall if we continue this in-fighting. We, as Democrats, appear to be no better than a second rate circus act. Listen! Can you hear the hushed laughter and ridicule from the GOP. Maybe they are orchestrating this whole fiasco...

Jesse "The Mad Texan"

Posted by: Jesse | May 22, 2008 1:32 PM | Report abuse

there are 6 letters which state clearly why Clinton cannot win the presidency:
B O S N I A

Those 6 letters are code for another word:
L I A R

You can bet she'll be hammered by the GOP day in and day out to further boost her negative rating, already extremely high for a presidential candidate.

Even if you like Hillary you have to be realistic, that she is very divisive and she will bring out disaffected GOP voters in unprecedented numbers, enough so that the scales could be tipped to McCain.

Posted by: David | May 22, 2008 1:32 PM | Report abuse

To Amod ("I fail to see how [Sen Clinton] is in any way dividing the party"): Sen Clinton has every right to continue her campaign. But her words Wed pushed emotional buttons on issues that will make it harder to heal the party. If she persists in doing this party leaders will be justified in committing against her.

Sexism--yes, just as there are voters who vote against Obama for race (More than 20% in WV admitted it to exit pollers). But she's behind because her campaign wasn't ready to compete after Super Tuesday (going 0-11) and mismanaged resources so badly they've raised $80-$100M yet ended up $20M-$30M in debt--not sexism. She also squandered her initial position as the "Establishment Candidate" with more money, superdelegates, and name recognition by far.

MI/FL--a way will have to be found to seat delegates that reflect but do not slavishly follow flawed primaries--some penalty must be paid for knowingly violating rules (I'm in favor of seating FL as is, giving MI's uncommmited to Obama, and stripping both states of superdelegates--but the RNC method of halving delegates is also possible). Holding out for counting votes for Sen Clinton and only her in MI is patently absurd, and acting as if she had nothing to do with the penalty (her advisors on the DNC voted to strip MI/FL of their delegate zero, and she both publicly and firmly supported the "votes will not count" line until she needed them) is also. Whipping up emotions against the DNC will only make it harder for ANY democrat to win those states in Nov.

Popular vote: this is a powerful emotional issue in a democracy, but the truth is neither party's primary process is designed to generate a meaningful nationwide popular vote. Several have pointed this out (Slate Magazine, Jonathan Alter, etc), yet the emotional power of this leads to things like RealClearPolitics tracking SIX different ways to compute it. By thundering loud and long over a statistically invalid number, Sen Clinton is ensuring that whomever loses the nomination will have supporters who can point to a "popular vote" that "proves that the nomination was stolen." Again this can only end up worsening party divisions.

Does that help you see how she's dividing the party?

To conclude--it would be harder to unify the party if superdelegates committed early enough close out the process before June 3rd. But it will be impossible for ANY Democratic candidate to unify the party if Sen Clinton and her surrogates keep pushing the above emotional arguments in ways that deepen and solidify resentments. That would justify superdelegates stepping in to stop the bleeding.

Posted by: Mike | May 22, 2008 1:13 PM | Report abuse

Bill Clinton seems to have a pretty clear idea what he thinks she should get as a consolation prize. In Bill Clinton's view, she has earned nothing short of an offer to be Obama's running mate, according to some who are close to the former President. Bill "is pushing real hard for this to happen," says a friend. Hillary is more opaque about what she might want, divulging little even to those who see and talk to her every day. "It's as plain as the nose on your face that this whole thing has shifted to a different mode," says a top Clinton strategist. "But I don't know what she wants. I don't know what she's thinking."

What Does Hillary Want?

http://www.youpolls.com/details.asp?pid=2461

.

Posted by: Frank, Austin TX | May 22, 2008 1:02 PM | Report abuse

Here's what I don't get: why does the press swallow whole every talking point the Clinton campaign puts out? For instance, when was "electability" the point? I thought that was taken care of through the judgment of voters who selected pledged delegates. And supposedly, caucuses are anti-democratic and bad, but unelected superdelegates are good? How do you figure THAT!?

Clinton claims she's gotten more primary votes from Democrats, but the case she is making for being nominated is because KARL ROVE says she stands to win more electoral votes? And if it were the REPUBLICAN primary system -- which does not reward minority candidates like the Democrats -- she would be ahead? But her saving grace is her willingness and skill and perseverance in fighting Republicans?

And through all of this the MSM acts like lapdogs. During the entire campaign, the MSM has held a candidate accountable once - - Clinton's Bosnia lie. The rest has involved issues started in some other media (for instance, Rev. Wright was a YouTube phenomenon). And then they complain about declining readership.

Posted by: gbooksdc | May 22, 2008 1:02 PM | Report abuse

Hillary Clinton is still running because she is the best and strongest candidate to win in November. The media ignores that, and so do Obama's supporters. Clinton is still kicking Obama's behind in primaries in states the Democrats desperately need to win in the general election. There are millions of people who prefer her, and will vote for McCain if she is not on the ballot in November. The DNC and superdelegates are taking Democratic voters for granted, and this is a lethal error. Dis-enfranchising Michigan and Florida early in the process was a stupid power play, and hamstrung the whole process from the start. Hillary is right - you rob the primary process of legitimacy by eliminating the influence of these two big states. If they had counted early on, we wouldn't be in the current situation. Michigan and Florida WILL be voting in November, and those people are angry at the Democratic party. People are making (again) the invalid assumption that voting Democratic means more to people than a sense of personal integrity in the face of a terribly mismanaged party. You can count out Ohio and Florida, and probably Pennsylvania if Obama is the nominee. Fantasies are running rampant that Obama will re-write the electoral vote map and pick up states in the mountain west and south to counter-balance those losses. Maybe he will accomplish this - but even if he wins, our president will still not have been our best candidate.

Posted by: LK2008 | May 22, 2008 12:59 PM | Report abuse

I have not read all of the postings yet and I am sure some more sensible person has made comments on DR. DANIEL FESTLER's very long and strange posting on Barack Obama's "lies," but I'll put in a quick two cents.

Admittedly, DR. DANIEL FESTLER appears to be a bit off, however his comments are worth addressing as the perpetuatation of ignorance regarding experiences outside of domainant western cultures is not helpful to Americans who live in a world that is growing smaller and more interconnected each day.

Again, I could not be bothered to sift through DR. DANIEL FESTLER's entire rant however, I'd like to point out a few comments for correction, at least on some issues dealing with identity and culture.

Obama could be correct in stating that his name is Swahili considering that this East African language (spoken in Kenya) is a hybrid of other languages most notably, Arabic. So where is the "lie" in attributing "Barack" to Swahili one of the majority languages of his father's country? However, Arabic is not one of the languages of Kenya. Therefore, why must he attribute "Barack" to Arabic just as any number of words in English find their roots in Latin but we rarely refer to such names or words as Latin rather than English. Again, so where is the "lie."

In terms of his father being a herder, I cannot say that his father was or was not that such thing. However, who told you, DR. DANIEL FESTLER to associate African herding with being impoverished? If you believe this, then you are in fact playing into the spin that Obama may in fact be trying to create--one of a meek background (from "rages to riches" story). But how many families even during the time of British colonialism might have had the financial means through farming and herding to send their children through school and to university? Obviously, more than you assume otherwise you would not have called Obama's story of his father's background, a lie!

These are the stereotypes and seemingly, the lack information about Africa, that Obama can readily play on.

As far as Indonesia, if in fact Obama was listed as a Muslim in school as a child, would this not make sense? Does not Indonesia have the largest Muslim population in the world based on its size?! Is it not even the "official" religion of that country? And, if he were living with his step-father who was Indonesian and presumably Muslim, what else would he be registered as at school? This seems just nuts to consider anything else. He may have been registered Muslim by an adult however this does not mean that was the religion of his choice and clearly from all the controversy surrounding his pastor, Obama chose Christianity as his faith, whether as an adult or for political reasons, I don't know. But why people chose any particular religion, for those of us fortunate enough to have such choice, none of us can ever know for certain.

Regarding his confusion with his identity as the cause of his drug use, to go back and ask his fellow student from high school whether he was happy being referred to as "Barry," as contradicting his admission to using drugs because of his ethnic confusion, well you just proved his point for him. And perhaps his insight into his drug use occurred during his adult life and not a result of psychoanalysis as a teenager?

In fact, why would he be happy being called "Barry" instead of "Barack" if he were not ethnically/culturally confused and did not have identity issues? And, how can you ever truly know the inner challenges of another human being? How can such assertions be "lies."

Again, I did not feel compelled to read your entire list of "lies" but I feel certain that there were probably more inconsistencies than not.

However, these were just a few points to consider.

Posted by: American PhD Student Living Abroad | May 22, 2008 12:54 PM | Report abuse

Like my bonnet? My hood is at the dry-cleaners...

Posted by: madhatter | May 22, 2008 12:49 PM | Report abuse

The Barack Obamination of racist blacks, guilt-trip ridden liberal whites, and still immature college students who are Obama's base will win him the democrats nomination but will result in a McCain rout in the general. He might carry the liberal la-la-land states like Massachussetts, New Jersey, Vermont, Oregon, Rhode Island, Connecticut and the mostly black city of Washington DC but in the rest of the country he's toast. Hillary is counting on that, and four years down the road when McCain will be pushing 80 will be the democrats savior (she thinks). Another reason she's staying in is money. She has a campaign debt of something like $20 million dollars and doesn't want to pay it out of her own pocket. If Barack Obama wants his main competition out of the race, he can offer to pay Hillary's debt (she thinks). Voila, all of Hillary's problems are solved. She owes nothing to nobody and becomes the front-runner in 2012 (she thinks).

Posted by: madhatter | May 22, 2008 12:46 PM | Report abuse

I don't care if Clinton stays in the race until 2 days after the election so long as she and her surrogates stop whinging that everybody is being mean to her because she's a woman. The fact of the matter is, she ran an incompetent, dishonest, low-down campaign and she does not deserve to be elected dog catcher. Her loss has nothing to do with her gender and everything to do with her inadequacies and shortcomings as a human being.

Posted by: Helena Montana | May 22, 2008 12:44 PM | Report abuse

Clinton in eight years will look like the crypt keeper. Her face, already wrinkling despite the best efforts of the best plastic surgeons, will scream old.

It's now or never for her (which means its never). We don't watch middle-aged female news anchors, we definitely will not elect a Social Security recipient.

Posted by: gbooksdc | May 22, 2008 12:42 PM | Report abuse

Chris trying to force Senator Clinton out of the race, telling her she's had enough time and it's time to let wonder boy win? Imagine that! Has anyone ever read or heard this idiot say anything positive about Senator Clinton. I would never vote for Senator Obama because I know if he appeals to the press idiots, he's got to be an idiot also. I can't think of anyone who would be less qualified than Senator Obama.

Posted by: hazwalnut | May 22, 2008 12:41 PM | Report abuse

Chris --

In an odd way, her staying in gives Obama some cover. If she dropped out, and states like KY voted 40% undecided (or worse) -- not outside the realm of possibility -- then Obama would look a lot weaker than he does losing (even by a wide margin) to an aggressive, nationally-known candidate. Could she actually be trying to help Obama? Give him an excuse for losing now, so he's not branded as unelectable out of the gate?

Posted by: MShake | May 22, 2008 12:40 PM | Report abuse

Sen. Clinton's ferocious sense of personal entitlement was the foundation of her campaign at the start, and is the driving force behind her campaign now.

The Fix's alternative explanations would be plausible if Clinton were someone we didn't already know. The reality, though, is that she has always believed she has the White House coming to her; she went to the best schools, she made all the right connections, she is Bill Clinton's wife and she's the woman he cheated on. He owes her this, and so do we.

In this generation, Clinton is not that exceptional among American politicians. To take only the most obvious example, the Bush family also operates on a powerful sense of personal entitlement -- it doesn't matter what they do, or what goes wrong on their watch, they still deserve high office because that's who they are. An earlier generation of politicians felt some obligation to do something with their public positions besides pursue higher public positions: the Kennedys, Humphreys, Doles, Goldwaters and McCains. Clinton and the Bushes are more modern figures in this respect. So, too, may be Sen. Obama, though in this as in much else he is something of a blank slate right now.

Something might happen between now and the Convention: Obama might have a heart attack or reveal that he has ties to the mob, or announce he doesn't want to do this politics thing after all. Or all the superdelegates could just change their minds. As long as there is the slightest chance Clinton could win, she will stay in the race. After this year she will stay prepared to run again as long as there is the slightest chance she could ever win. You don't give up something you think you're owed just because some people want to give it to someone else.

Posted by: Zathras | May 22, 2008 12:39 PM | Report abuse

Senator Hillary Clinton still runs because she is a strong candidate. She may win the nomination. This race is not over. Senator Clinton follows the primary rules of the Democratic National Committee. The last primary day is June 3rd. Senator Hillary Clinton is the first female presidential candidate. She will not quit. Keep moving forward all the way to the convention. Senator Clinton has intelligence and determination. She is a fighter. Senator Hillary Clinton cares about democracy. Count every vote. Michigan and Florida matters. Senator Hillary Clinton is the best option in November. She will beat McCain. Senator Hillary Clinton is still running because Senator Obama is weak. He does not have 2,210 delegates. Senator Clinton still running because she is loyal to her supporters. Go Hillary 2008!

Posted by: mmarii | May 22, 2008 12:34 PM | Report abuse

When a loser is still beating so called a winner in swing states like PA, FL and OH with 68 Electoral College votes, the Democratic Party has a serious general election problem in November.

If you literally hand over these three big states to the Republican Party, it will take following eight states just to recoup 68 Electoral College votes you just took off the table:
Colorado, Georgia, Indiana, Iowa, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico and Virginia.

DNC has its way they will select eight Vice Presidents just to win these tiny states. US constitution is a big problem for them. Remember, they believe in proportional representation of delegates rather than winner-takes-all democratic approach. They still believe in these dinosaur rules just to please different political tribes.

Democratic Party is guilty of losing presidential election every four years? This election will be no different than previous eight elections.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 22, 2008 12:34 PM | Report abuse

When a loser is still beating so called a winner in swing states like PA, FL and OH with 68 Electoral College votes, the Democratic Party has a serious general election problem in November.

If you literally hand over these three big states to the Republican Party, it will take following eight states just to recoup 68 Electoral College votes you just took off the table:
Colorado, Georgia, Indiana, Iowa, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico and Virginia.

DNC has its way they will select eight Vice Presidents just to win these tiny states. US constitution is a big problem for them. Remember, they believe in proportional representation of delegates rather than winner-takes-all democratic approach. They still believe in these dinosaur rules just to please different political tribes.

Democratic Party is guilty of losing presidential election every four years? This election will be no different than previous eight elections.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 22, 2008 12:34 PM | Report abuse

Bill said Chelsea may consider running for an office after her extraordinary campaign experience this year.

I believe Chelsea cannot represent the American People after growing up in the White House with two politicians, who are most infamous as perpetual liars.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 22, 2008 12:31 PM | Report abuse

When a loser is still beating so called a winner in swing states like PA, FL and OH with 68 Electoral College votes, the Democratic Party has a serious general election problem in November.

If you literally hand over these three big states to the Republican Party, it will take following eight states just to recoup 68 Electoral College votes you just took off the table:
Colorado, Georgia, Indiana, Iowa, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico and Virginia.

DNC has its way they will select eight Vice Presidents just to win these tiny states. US constitution is a big problem for them. Remember, they believe in proportional representation of delegates rather than winner-takes-all democratic approach. They still believe in these dinosaur rules just to please different political tribes.

Democratic Party is guilty of losing presidential election every four years? This election will be no different than previous eight elections.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 22, 2008 12:31 PM | Report abuse

From today's WaPo Q&A:

Buffalo, N.Y.: When she says that every vote counts, is Hillary Clinton counting all those caucus votes in her popular vote total?

Lois Romano: She is not.

Gee, it's almost like she is trying to bully her way onto the ticket instead of getting there while playing by the rules.

If she can't have the top spot, she will jump into the VP space, even if this sinks the canoe. After all, defeat will then be blamed on Obama and she will have a clear shot as the inevitable choice for 2012. And if the forced marriage should somehow not founder between now and this November, she and Bill will prevail in an administration nominally referred to with a reference to Obama's name.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 22, 2008 12:26 PM | Report abuse

The Daily Kos' "valentine" to Clinton mathematics, otherwise known as THE REALITY CHECK:

"One of the wonders of this primary season has been the ability of the Clinton campaign -- including Hillary herself -- and their supporters to engage in some of the most patently ridiculous and bald faced lies, knowing that everyone else knows they are engaging in patently ridiculous and bald faced lies.

Chief among those lies is the fiction that Clinton leads in the popular vote.

Aside from the idiocy of the argument itself -- 1) this is a delegate race, and 2) unlike the 2000 presidential election, you can't compare the popular vote from contest to contest since each state has different rules (caucus or primaries, open, closed, or hybrid -- the way the Clinton campaign and its supporters shamelessly stretch this argument is almost embarrassing.

Clinton is "leading" the meaningless popular vote, but only if:

You count the unsanctioned contests in Florida and Michigan, where candidates were not allowed to campaign;
You give Obama zero votes in Michigan's Soviet-style election, where Clinton was essentially the only name on the ballot; and
You don't count the caucuses in Iowa, Nevada, Maine, and Washington.

In reality, Obama leads by over half a million votes, for whatever that's worth (not much). But don't worry, the Clinton argument is so asinine, it has gotten little traction among super delegates.

In fact, it's so insulting to people's intelligence, that it's hurting the credibility of anyone stupid enough to use it."

Posted by: fly swatter | May 22, 2008 12:23 PM | Report abuse

"All of which begs the question: Why does she go on?"

No, it RAISES that question.

Posted by: Chris | May 22, 2008 12:22 PM | Report abuse

Simply put Hillary doesn't know what to do, so it easier to just to continue campaigning.

If you listen to the tone of Hillary's campaign, look at how it has evolved over the past one-and-half years. Hillary started off attacking Bush and the Republicans and pushing "experience". And now, Hillary spends most of her campaign arguing and complaining how unfair the Democratic Party is, how unfair and sexist the media is, and how selective polling (from even Karl Rove!)shows she is more electable than Obama.

Posted by: AJ | May 22, 2008 12:22 PM | Report abuse

Sisters for Hillary... The reason Obama got zero votes in Michigan is BECAUSE HE WASN'T ON THE BALLOT! Nor was any other Democratic nominee except Hillary.

http://whathappenedtomycountry.blogspot.com

Posted by: Truth Hunter | May 22, 2008 12:18 PM | Report abuse

it seems to me that hillary is preparing for 2012, by undermining the legitamacy of obama's win.

clinton is conducting this political guerilla warfare on three main fronts: 1) publicly clinton is saying (without explaining her convoluted arithmetic) that she won the popular vote and, like gore in 2000, the election is being stolen from her; 2) there are reports that in private clinton is claiming that she lost because of sexism; 3) clinton will be sniping at obama until the convention. that way she detracts from obama's attempts at establishing himself as a viable alternative to mccain.

the clintons often operate on the subliminal level. they are forever victims. over the years their persecutors have ranged from a biased media with a "double standard" agenda to a "vast right-wing conspiracy". these tactics persuade people, rather effectively it seems, to question others rather than the clintons themselves.

now, if enough of clinton's supporters begin to think that she was robbed they might not come out in november and obama loses.

then, of course, it is not the fault of clintons. hillary was the best candidate as demonstrated through the popular vote. and if not for rampant sexism hillary would have been the nominee and the democrats would surly have won in 2008. but worry not: all is forgiven and hillary will graciously run again in 2012.

i think the only way the democratic leadership can prevent political sabotage is to make the clintons irrelevant. the clintons and their supporters within the party should purged as soon as possible.

with no base of support within the party the clintons will fade away. there will certainly be howls of outrage for a month to six weeks. but there will still be enough time for obama to win over the electorate by pointing out the threat of a mccain presidency.

the clintons should be viewed as a toothache. the surest way to end the distracting pain is with extraction.

Posted by: a. g. c. | May 22, 2008 12:17 PM | Report abuse

I dont know if Obama will win the GE, nut if he dont, I am smart enough and not alone in that appreciation, to lay the deed at the feet whose deserves it. it will be payback time. Clinton might boasted to have make obama stumble this time but a lot of people among them AA and the whites who never indulged in the clinton mystique will held a very long memory- She may try to run in 2012 , we shall lie in ambush for her.

Posted by: saintixe | May 22, 2008 12:17 PM | Report abuse

How can the Clintons get away with changing the rules? And so she won the swing states that are going to vote Republilcan anyway. Who do these people think they are? Now they are pushing Chelsea into politics. NO MORE CLINTONs!! and McLAMES!!! We have had it with the occupation of Irag and the same old political lies that we have heard over, over, and over again. You want credentials, experience, and name recognition then write in Rumsfeld or Cheney? I DIDN'T THINK SO!!!

Posted by: sally | May 22, 2008 12:17 PM | Report abuse

How can the Clintons get away with changing the rules? And so she won the swing states that are going to vote Republilcan anyway. Who do these people think they are? Now they are pushing Chelsea into politics. NO MORE CLINTONs!! and McLAMES!!! We have had it with the occupation of Irag and the same old political lies that we have heard over, over, and over again. You want credentials, experience, and name recognition then write in Rumsfeld or Cheney? I DIDN'T THINK SO!!!

Posted by: sally | May 22, 2008 12:17 PM | Report abuse

Success! (GOP style)

Posted by: | May 22, 2008 12:05 PM

compare to success Lib style:

Kerry, Gore, Dukakis, McGovern, Mondale, Carter and coming soon -Obama.

Posted by: snObama | May 22, 2008 12:15 PM | Report abuse

it seems to me that hillary is preparing for 2012, by undermining the legitamacy of obama's win.

clinton is conducting this political guerilla warfare on three main fronts: 1) publicly clinton is saying (without explaining her convoluted arithmetic) that she won the popular vote and, like gore in 2000, the election is being stolen from her; 2) there are reports that in private clinton is claiming that she lost because of sexism; 3) clinton will be sniping at obama until the convention. that way she detracts from obama's attempts at establishing himself as a viable alternative to mccain.

the clintons often operate on the subliminal level. they are forever victims. over the years their persecutors have ranged from a biased media with a "double standard" agenda to a "vast right-wing conspiracy". these tactics persuade people, rather effectively it seems, to question others rather than the clintons themselves.

now, if enough of clinton's supporters begin to think that she was robbed they might not come out in november and obama loses.

then, of course, it is not the fault of clintons. hillary was the best candidate as demonstrated through the popular vote. and if not for rampant sexism hillary would have been the nominee and the democrats would surly have won in 2008. but worry not: all is forgiven and hillary will graciously run again in 2012.

i think the only way the democratic leadership can prevent political sabotage is to make the clintons irrelevant. the clintons and their supporters within the party should purged as soon as possible.

with no base of support within the party the clintons will fade away. there will certainly be howls of outrage for a month to six weeks. but there will still be enough time for obama to win over the electorate by pointing out the threat of a mccain presidency.

the clintons should be viewed as a toothache. the surest way to end the distracting pain is with extraction.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 22, 2008 12:15 PM | Report abuse

it seems to me that hillary is preparing for 2012, by undermining the legitamacy of obama's win.

clinton is conducting this political guerilla warfare on three main fronts: 1) publicly clinton is saying (without explaining her convoluted arithmetic) that she won the popular vote and, like gore in 2000, the election is being stolen from her; 2) there are reports that in private clinton is claiming that she lost because of sexism; 3) clinton will be sniping at obama until the convention. that way she detracts from obama's attempts at establishing himself as a viable alternative to mccain.

the clintons often operate on the subliminal level. they are forever victims. over the years their persecutors have ranged from a biased media with a "double standard" agenda to a "vast right-wing conspiracy". these tactics persuade people, rather effectively it seems, to question others rather than the clintons themselves.

now, if enough of clinton's supporters begin to think that she was robbed they might not come out in november and obama loses.

then, of course, it is not the fault of clintons. hillary was the best candidate as demonstrated through the popular vote. and if not for rampant sexism hillary would have been the nominee and the democrats would surly have won in 2008. but worry not: all is forgiven and hillary will graciously run again in 2012.

i think the only way the democratic leadership can prevent political sabotage is to make the clintons irrelevant. the clintons and their supporters within the party should purged as soon as possible.

with no base of support within the party the clintons will fade away. there will certainly be howls of outrage for a month to six weeks. but there will still be enough time for obama to win over the electorate by pointing out the threat of a mccain presidency.

the clintons should be viewed as a toothache. the surest way to end the distracting pain is with extraction.

Posted by: a. g. c. | May 22, 2008 12:15 PM | Report abuse

This will be an illegitimate nomination if Obama is the candidate and he has not received more actual votes.

Posted by: dyinglikeflies | May 22, 2008 11:48 AM

That kind of logic worked out really well for President Gore, didn't it?

Posted by: fly swatter's shadow | May 22, 2008 12:15 PM | Report abuse

I'd have a lot more respect for Hillary Clinton continuing the primary fight to the bitter end if she weren't simultaneously trying to do in Obama for November. She and Bill know exactly what they are doing. Implicitly to voters and explicitly to delegates, she has been saying that Obama can't win because he is black and hard-working white Americans won't vote for him. It's a permission slip for white voters to vote against a black candidate while keeping the cover that it is all about electability and not race. Yes, Obama does have a problem with Appalachian white voters who earn less than $50,000 and have not had a college (or often, a high school) education. But not all white voters share Hillary's view. She couldn't win "white hard-working Americans" in Oregon -- or Wisconsin or Missouri or Virginia or Iowa. Did I say Iowa. Sorry about that Hillary. In claiming the majority of primary voters, you don't want to count Iowa or any other primary state that used caucuses without reporting a total popular vote.

Her future in the Democratic Party is not as rosy as it may seem now. Her Senate colleagues have not been impressed, and it's by no means certain they would want her as Majority Leader. She may carry the over-65 female vote by asserting simultaneously that she is a victim and a leader, but those voters today will have attrition in the next 4 years. The rest of us may see her campaigning for Obama at some point, but the Clintons are well known for their ability to send dual messages, and the clearest message Hillary ever sent was, "I have a lifetime of experience. McCain has a lifetime of experience. Obama has a speech in 2002." In her own version of self-interest, wouldn't she prefer a McCain presidency in 2008 to position herself for 2012 on "I told you so." We've seen through that.

Now Hillary wants us to see her as a victim of sexism. Some leadership that suggests. But it is not sexism that defeats her. She could look to her own male advisors -- Bill Clinton Mark Penn and Howard Wolfson -- who believed she should run a campaign first claiming a divine right to the nomination, then playing "depends on the meaning of the word 'is' is" games on math, then crying sexism. No male candidate could get away with this and she can't either.

I look forward to a woman president. Just not this one.

Posted by: aj | May 22, 2008 12:09 PM | Report abuse

I hope the voters have the audacity to ignore reason and hope for the best.


Consider these abysmal grades from a recent ABC/Washington Post survey that asked voters to compare Obama with the veteran Arizona senator:

-- Regardless of who you may support, who do you think (Obama or McCain) has the better experience to be president?

McCain: 71 percent, Obama: 18 percent.

-- Regardless of who you may support, who do you think has better knowledge of world affairs?

McCain: 65 percent, Obama: 24 percent.

-- Regardless of who you may support, who do you trust more to handle the U.S. campaign against terrorism?

McCain: 55 percent, Obama: 34 percent.

Posted by: snObama | May 22, 2008 12:08 PM | Report abuse

Obama got Zero votes in Michigan. Zero! There's no way Obama can will the general election if some States are not even voting for him. Hillary leads in popular vote. She's the best candidate ever. Rise Hillary, rise.
Clinton '08, '12


Posted by: Sisters for Hillary | May 22, 2008 12:08 PM | Report abuse

You always know you've struck gold when liberals react with hysteria and rage to something you've said. So I knew President Bush's speech at the Knesset last week was a barn burner before even I read it. Liberals haven't been this worked up since Rev. Jerry Falwell criticized a cartoon sponge.

Calling the fight against terrorism "the defining challenge of our time" -- which already confused liberals who think the defining struggle of our time is against Wal-Mart --

Posted by: anne C. | May 22, 2008 12:07 PM | Report abuse

You didn't mention the most important thing...Debt!

Posted by: Gabe, Chicago | May 22, 2008 12:06 PM | Report abuse

Hopefully, she is not staying in for the last reason - I told you so. If that is the reason, then it clearly shows everything is all about Hillary and not the Democractic party.

Posted by: nevadaandy | May 22, 2008 12:05 PM | Report abuse

Hopefully, she is not staying in for the last reason - I told you so. If that is the reason, then it clearly shows everything is all about Hillary and not the Democractic party.

Posted by: nevadaandy | May 22, 2008 12:05 PM | Report abuse

"Commander: Al Qaeda In Iraq Is At Its Weakest The Al Qaeda terror group in Iraq appears to be at its weakest state since it gained an initial foothold in the aftermath of the U.S.-led invasion five years ago"

That was a productive 5 years.

A couple billion dollars, a couple thousand dead soldiers. Tens of thousands of wounded soldiers. hundreds of thousands of dead, wounded & displaced Iraqis.

And Al Queda in Iraq is at its weakest since they first showed up in Iraq - where they never were before we invaded.

Success! (GOP style)

Posted by: Anonymous | May 22, 2008 12:05 PM | Report abuse

She and Bill helped to drag the Democrats down in 1994 and apparently want to see if they do to the Presidency in 2008 what they did to Congress in 1994. It will be interesting to see when Obama gets the needed 62 (to 2026) if she will skidoo. Right now it's look like she's on to the bitter end. By the way, where's the work in the Senate on the gas tax? Another gimmick that has passed its usefulness. I think the most interesting election we could have in this country would be one between her and Bill for president of the Liars Club. No first for third play in 2008.

Posted by: ejgallagher1 | May 22, 2008 12:05 PM | Report abuse

She is simply and logically the best of the three available choices.

-gala1

Posted by: gala1
*************************
did you bump your little head? We got your foot-stamping manifesto the first time...

Posted by: Anonymous | May 22, 2008 12:05 PM | Report abuse

I dont know if Obama will win the GE, nut if he dont, I am smart enough and not alone in that appreciation, to lay the deed at the feet whose deserves it. it will be payback time. Clinton might boasted to have make obama stumble this time but a lot of people among them AA and the whites who never indulged in the clinton mystique will held a very long memory- She may try to run in 2012 , we shall lie in ambush for her.

Posted by: saintixe | May 22, 2008 12:05 PM | Report abuse

As Mrs. Clinton keeps trying to prove herself "the little engine that could," a new poll has come out taken only in the so-called "swing states" (co-incidentally, those that Clinton won) that has her wining over McCain in the General and McCain over Obama in the General...which, according to the purportedly biased toward Obama media, is another "so called tell" that Obama is in trouble. I see it in a different light altogether, I see this poll as more indication that the prolonged primary battle headed by a determined Hillary Clinton (who apparently has reimagined herself as a Queen Boudica for the 21stc defending her tribe of middle-aged women against the sexist patriarchy) is hurting the presumptive Democratic Nominee which is Barack Obama. Obama should be hitting back hard against McCain with Party elders such as Clinton at his side. (Meanwhile, McCain is enjoying an "employment fair" style barbeque over memorial day, while Obama is still struggling with a Political Opponent who has no "honest" way to win.)

It is getting harder and harder to understand what she is doing....is Hillary a Democrat or not? I understand that she "knows" that only SHE can win against McCain, that it is only the Clinton brand that provides the "best" Candidate,(her confidence is such that I realize that she doesn't merely "Think" that she is the best candidate), unfortunately for Clinton over half of the electorate disagrees. And, let me point out that in the Democratic primary, as in the General election, having a majority of the "popular" votes does NOT elect the Candidate (ask Al Gore.)

Posted by: Hold_That_Tiger | May 22, 2008 12:05 PM | Report abuse

I dont know if Obama will win the GE, nut if he dont, I am smart enough and not alone in that appreciation, to lay the deed at the feet whose deserves it. it will be payback time. Clinton might boasted to have make obama stumble this time but a lot of people among them AA and the whites who never indulged in the clinton mystique will held a very long memory- She may try to run in 2012 , we shall lie in ambush for her.

Posted by: saintixe | May 22, 2008 12:05 PM | Report abuse

How can the Clintons get away with changing the rules? And so she won the swing states that are going to vote Republilcan anyway. Who do these people think they are? Now they are pushing Chelsea into politics. NO MORE CLINTONs!! and McLAMES!!! We have had it with the occupation of Irag and the same old political lies that we have heard over, over, and over again. You want credentials, experience, and name recognition then write in Rumsfeld or Cheney? I DIDN'T THINK SO!!!

Posted by: sally | May 22, 2008 12:00 PM | Report abuse

Media Silence 31,000 Scientists Reject 'Global Warming' Agenda More than 31,000 scientists in fields including atmospheric science, climatology and environment, including more than 9,000 Ph.D.s, have signed a petition rejecting "global warming,"

al gore, cal your office. You are obsolete.

Posted by: 16th minute | May 22, 2008 12:00 PM | Report abuse


Obama should decide whether he wants to be the first black candidate to lose or the first black Vice-President.

Hillary isn't his impediment. She's his his way up to the next step.

Toss her, and he's tossed his future time in the next administration. This time next year, he'll be hearing how he was the one to lose the good fight in exactly the same terms he's condescended to the one person who could have saved him form it.

Obama will redefine the concept of a Pyrrhic victory for the Democratic Party.

Bottom line. Are the Democrats going to go again for another 6 month flame out, especially when the alternative is so obviously a sixteen year stretch.

A Clinton-Obama ticket probably won't lose.

An Obama-Anybody ticket probably won't win.

At which point will the Obamabots start considering that Obama isn't ultimately running against Clinton, but against John McCain?

Being the candidate doesn't mean a whole lot if you aren't the winner.

And so who is it that is supposed to end up voting for Obama? All he's carrying are the same places that gave Kerry his blue approval. They don't call it the Silent Majority for nothing.

That used to be Karl Rove's motto. Once again, we democrats are going to make sure we find out exactly why.

Do you seriously think that people who voted TWICE for Bush and rejected both Dean and Kerry as too peculiar to suit a predictably American mind-set are going to vote ONCE for Obama?

And why should they?

You want spin? He's just the latest in empty suits and campaign promises to anyone who's been around long enough to have heard them before.

We've come to this.

Cassandra reappears to warn Troy one last time, and only the older people listen. So we are told we are inconsequential because we are older and many of us are irrelevant. Which is where Americans put bimbos when they go grey.

Rather than figure out what older and wiser means, the Obamabots have unleashed all the ad homina in their arsenal.

Thereby making Obama look like like an utterly untenable and ultimately unacceptable choice for those of us who will either go McCain or write-in.

These are not people who will docilely fall back into the flock when they can write-in.

They owe no allegiance to the Democratic Party.

What have the Democrats done for us these past eight years?

In wartime and a period of unprecedented financial crisis, Obama has nothing at all TANGIBLE to offer them other than ambition followed up by bad judgement.

It was the original objection to him on Day One. it's even truer now.

It is in one word- inexperience- what will defeat an Icarus who insisted on peaking too soon.

If Obama can't even control the extraordinary way his supporters have managed to permanently turn off a huge number of older Democrats, nearly half the party I should remind you, how can he be expected to co-operate with a Congress that doesn't include affirmative action and on the job training as part of their responsibility.

He can tell you whatever you want to hear, and if you believe rhetoric is worth any more than the paper its printed on, well, exactly what do you think a campaign politician would be saying, anyway?

He very visibly has no way to relate to Joe Sixpack and Joe will let him know that on Election Day.

Whatever Obama's merits, any semblance of the Common Touch is way too definitely not one of them.

It's not what you or I want that will win.

It's what the middle will carry.

And being in one of those Flyover places, all I'm seeing are people being resigned to voting for McCain. Usually at 3 or 5 to one in situations I've been keeping tabs on.

They want Hillary or McCain. Obama is mentioned in generally resentful terms as being a marketed Kerry re-tread foisted upon them. Kerry in a Hurry will only lead to President MCCain.

Everybody has dreams - and he's up against a genial war hero that triumphed though nightmares.

Lots of arrivistes would like to be president. McCain has been in Congress since before Obama was even grown.

Bad Republican connections? We are a nation of second chances. Especially when they concern those with a Reaganesque charm

Just who do you think people will choose to lead wisely if you eliminate Hillary? A junior Mr . Rodgers who handlers are trying to have nationally canonized and can't stand up to scrutiny or a crusty, wily professional politician who's seen it all?

Pity is that he is a war-monger and a corporate shill.

If the voters aren't happy about it BEFORE the convention, what do you think that bodes for the election?

I'm writing in Hillary. I would in this election even if she were a plaid hermaphrodite.

She is simply and logically the best of the three available choices.

-gala1

Posted by: Anonymous | May 22, 2008 11:58 AM | Report abuse


Obama should decide whether he wants to be the first black candidate to lose or the first black Vice-President.

Hillary isn't his impediment. She's his his way up to the next step.

Toss her, and he's tossed his future time in the next administration. This time next year, he'll be hearing how he was the one to lose the good fight in exactly the same terms he's condescended to the one person who could have saved him form it.

Obama will redefine the concept of a Pyrrhic victory for the Democratic Party.

Bottom line. Are the Democrats going to go again for another 6 month flame out, especially when the alternative is so obviously a sixteen year stretch.

A Clinton-Obama ticket probably won't lose.

An Obama-Anybody ticket probably won't win.

At which point will the Obamabots start considering that Obama isn't ultimately running against Clinton, but against John McCain?

Being the candidate doesn't mean a whole lot if you aren't the winner.

And so who is it that is supposed to end up voting for Obama? All he's carrying are the same places that gave Kerry his blue approval. They don't call it the Silent Majority for nothing.

That used to be Karl Rove's motto. Once again, we democrats are going to make sure we find out exactly why.

Do you seriously think that people who voted TWICE for Bush and rejected both Dean and Kerry as too peculiar to suit a predictably American mind-set are going to vote ONCE for Obama?

And why should they?

You want spin? He's just the latest in empty suits and campaign promises to anyone who's been around long enough to have heard them before.

We've come to this.

Cassandra reappears to warn Troy one last time, and only the older people listen. So we are told we are inconsequential because we are older and many of us are irrelevant. Which is where Americans put bimbos when they go grey.

Rather than figure out what older and wiser means, the Obamabots have unleashed all the ad homina in their arsenal.

Thereby making Obama look like like an utterly untenable and ultimately unacceptable choice for those of us who will either go McCain or write-in.

These are not people who will docilely fall back into the flock when they can write-in.

They owe no allegiance to the Democratic Party.

What have the Democrats done for us these past eight years?

In wartime and a period of unprecedented financial crisis, Obama has nothing at all TANGIBLE to offer them other than ambition followed up by bad judgement.

It was the original objection to him on Day One. it's even truer now.

It is in one word- inexperience- what will defeat an Icarus who insisted on peaking too soon.

If Obama can't even control the extraordinary way his supporters have managed to permanently turn off a huge number of older Democrats, nearly half the party I should remind you, how can he be expected to co-operate with a Congress that doesn't include affirmative action and on the job training as part of their responsibility.

He can tell you whatever you want to hear, and if you believe rhetoric is worth any more than the paper its printed on, well, exactly what do you think a campaign politician would be saying, anyway?

He very visibly has no way to relate to Joe Sixpack and Joe will let him know that on Election Day.

Whatever Obama's merits, any semblance of the Common Touch is way too definitely not one of them.

It's not what you or I want that will win.

It's what the middle will carry.

And being in one of those Flyover places, all I'm seeing are people being resigned to voting for McCain. Usually at 3 or 5 to one in situations I've been keeping tabs on.

They want Hillary or McCain. Obama is mentioned in generally resentful terms as being a marketed Kerry re-tread foisted upon them. Kerry in a Hurry will only lead to President MCCain.

Everybody has dreams - and he's up against a genial war hero that triumphed though nightmares.

Lots of arrivistes would like to be president. McCain has been in Congress since before Obama was even grown.

Bad Republican connections? We are a nation of second chances. Especially when they concern those with a Reaganesque charm

Just who do you think people will choose to lead wisely if you eliminate Hillary? A junior Mr . Rodgers who handlers are trying to have nationally canonized and can't stand up to scrutiny or a crusty, wily professional politician who's seen it all?

Pity is that he is a war-monger and a corporate shill.

If the voters aren't happy about it BEFORE the convention, what do you think that bodes for the election?

I'm writing in Hillary. I would in this election even if she were a plaid hermaphrodite.

She is simply and logically the best of the three available choices.

-gala1

Posted by: Anonymous | May 22, 2008 11:58 AM | Report abuse

Hillary only wins states through fraud and negativity. She is not going to be President ever because she is a crooked lying lesbian. And Bill, the womanizer "I did not have sexual relations with that woman (young girl)! They are trying to hold on to the power and it's not going to work.

Posted by: fatflush3 | May 22, 2008 11:58 AM | Report abuse


Obama should decide whether he wants to be the first black candidate to lose or the first black Vice-President.

Hillary isn't his impediment. She's his his way up to the next step.

Toss her, and he's tossed his future time in the next administration. This time next year, he'll be hearing how he was the one to lose the good fight in exactly the same terms he's condescended to the one person who could have saved him form it.

Obama will redefine the concept of a Pyrrhic victory for the Democratic Party.

Bottom line. Are the Democrats going to go again for another 6 month flame out, especially when the alternative is so obviously a sixteen year stretch.

A Clinton-Obama ticket probably won't lose.

An Obama-Anybody ticket probably won't win.

At which point will the Obamabots start considering that Obama isn't ultimately running against Clinton, but against John McCain?

Being the candidate doesn't mean a whole lot if you aren't the winner.

And so who is it that is supposed to end up voting for Obama? All he's carrying are the same places that gave Kerry his blue approval. They don't call it the Silent Majority for nothing.

That used to be Karl Rove's motto. Once again, we democrats are going to make sure we find out exactly why.

Do you seriously think that people who voted TWICE for Bush and rejected both Dean and Kerry as too peculiar to suit a predictably American mind-set are going to vote ONCE for Obama?

And why should they?

You want spin? He's just the latest in empty suits and campaign promises to anyone who's been around long enough to have heard them before.

We've come to this.

Cassandra reappears to warn Troy one last time, and only the older people listen. So we are told we are inconsequential because we are older and many of us are irrelevant. Which is where Americans put bimbos when they go grey.

Rather than figure out what older and wiser means, the Obamabots have unleashed all the ad homina in their arsenal.

Thereby making Obama look like like an utterly untenable and ultimately unacceptable choice for those of us who will either go McCain or write-in.

These are not people who will docilely fall back into the flock when they can write-in.

They owe no allegiance to the Democratic Party.

What have the Democrats done for us these past eight years?

In wartime and a period of unprecedented financial crisis, Obama has nothing at all TANGIBLE to offer them other than ambition followed up by bad judgement.

It was the original objection to him on Day One. it's even truer now.

It is in one word- inexperience- what will defeat an Icarus who insisted on peaking too soon.

If Obama can't even control the extraordinary way his supporters have managed to permanently turn off a huge number of older Democrats, nearly half the party I should remind you, how can he be expected to co-operate with a Congress that doesn't include affirmative action and on the job training as part of their responsibility.

He can tell you whatever you want to hear, and if you believe rhetoric is worth any more than the paper its printed on, well, exactly what do you think a campaign politician would be saying, anyway?

He very visibly has no way to relate to Joe Sixpack and Joe will let him know that on Election Day.

Whatever Obama's merits, any semblance of the Common Touch is way too definitely not one of them.

It's not what you or I want that will win.

It's what the middle will carry.

And being in one of those Flyover places, all I'm seeing are people being resigned to voting for McCain. Usually at 3 or 5 to one in situations I've been keeping tabs on.

They want Hillary or McCain. Obama is mentioned in generally resentful terms as being a marketed Kerry re-tread foisted upon them. Kerry in a Hurry will only lead to President MCCain.

Everybody has dreams - and he's up against a genial war hero that triumphed though nightmares.

Lots of arrivistes would like to be president. McCain has been in Congress since before Obama was even grown.

Bad Republican connections? We are a nation of second chances. Especially when they concern those with a Reaganesque charm

Just who do you think people will choose to lead wisely if you eliminate Hillary? A junior Mr . Rodgers who handlers are trying to have nationally canonized and can't stand up to scrutiny or a crusty, wily professional politician who's seen it all?

Pity is that he is a war-monger and a corporate shill.

If the voters aren't happy about it BEFORE the convention, what do you think that bodes for the election?

I'm writing in Hillary. I would in this election even if she were a plaid hermaphrodite.

She is simply and logically the best of the three available choices.

-gala1

Posted by: gala1 | May 22, 2008 11:58 AM | Report abuse

Obama should decide whether he wants to be the first black candidate to lose or the first black Vice-President.

Hillary isn't his impediment. She's his his way up to the next step.

Toss her, and he's tossed his future time in the next administration. This time next year, he'll be hearing how he was the one to lose the good fight in exactly the same terms he's condescended to the one person who could have saved him form it.

Obama will redefine the concept of a Pyrrhic victory for the Democratic Party.

Bottom line. Are the Democrats going to go again for another 6 month flame out, especially when the alternative is so obviously a sixteen year stretch.

A Clinton-Obama ticket probably won't lose.

An Obama-Anybody ticket probably won't win.

At which point will the Obamabots start considering that Obama isn't ultimately running against Clinton, but against John McCain?

Being the candidate doesn't mean a whole lot if you aren't the winner.

And so who is it that is supposed to end up voting for Obama? All he's carrying are the same places that gave Kerry his blue approval. They don't call it the Silent Majority for nothing.

That used to be Karl Rove's motto. Once again, we democrats are going to make sure we find out exactly why.

Do you seriously think that people who voted TWICE for Bush and rejected both Dean and Kerry as too peculiar to suit a predictably American mind-set are going to vote ONCE for Obama?

And why should they?

You want spin? He's just the latest in empty suits and campaign promises to anyone who's been around long enough to have heard them before.

We've come to this.

Cassandra reappears to warn Troy one last time, and only the older people listen. So we are told we are inconsequential because we are older and many of us are irrelevant. Which is where Americans put bimbos when they go grey.

Rather than figure out what older and wiser means, the Obamabots have unleashed all the ad homina in their arsenal.

Thereby making Obama look like like an utterly untenable and ultimately unacceptable choice for those of us who will either go McCain or write-in.

These are not people who will docilely fall back into the flock when they can write-in.

They owe no allegiance to the Democratic Party.

What have the Democrats done for us these past eight years?

In wartime and a period of unprecedented financial crisis, Obama has nothing at all TANGIBLE to offer them other than ambition followed up by bad judgement.

It was the original objection to him on Day One. it's even truer now.

It is in one word- inexperience- what will defeat an Icarus who insisted on peaking too soon.

If Obama can't even control the extraordinary way his supporters have managed to permanently turn off a huge number of older Democrats, nearly half the party I should remind you, how can he be expected to co-operate with a Congress that doesn't include affirmative action and on the job training as part of their responsibility.

He can tell you whatever you want to hear, and if you believe rhetoric is worth any more than the paper its printed on, well, exactly what do you think a campaign politician would be saying, anyway?

He very visibly has no way to relate to Joe Sixpack and Joe will let him know that on Election Day.

Whatever Obama's merits, any semblance of the Common Touch is way too definitely not one of them.

It's not what you or I want that will win.

It's what the middle will carry.

And being in one of those Flyover places, all I'm seeing are people being resigned to voting for McCain. Usually at 3 or 5 to one in situations I've been keeping tabs on.

They want Hillary or McCain. Obama is mentioned in generally resentful terms as being a marketed Kerry re-tread foisted upon them. Kerry in a Hurry will only lead to President MCCain.

Everybody has dreams - and he's up against a genial war hero that triumphed though nightmares.

Lots of arrivistes would like to be president. McCain has been in Congress since before Obama was even grown.

Bad Republican connections? We are a nation of second chances. Especially when they concern those with a Reaganesque charm

Just who do you think people will choose to lead wisely if you eliminate Hillary? A junior Mr . Rodgers who handlers are trying to have nationally canonized and can't stand up to scrutiny or a crusty, wily professional politician who's seen it all?

Pity is that he is a war-monger and a corporate shill.

If the voters aren't happy about it BEFORE the convention, what do you think that bodes for the election?

I'm writing in Hillary. I would in this election even if she were a plaid hermaphrodite.

She is simply and logically the best of the three available choices.

-gala1

Posted by: gala1 | May 22, 2008 11:58 AM | Report abuse

Commander: Al Qaeda In Iraq Is At Its Weakest The Al Qaeda terror group in Iraq appears to be at its weakest state since it gained an initial foothold in the aftermath of the U.S.-led invasion five years ago

sounds like the time for Libs to evacuate and surrender the field. they must love losing so much they would nominate an extreme leftist who would hand over the keys to loons and latte sipping elitists. In other words, the liberal base.

Posted by: snObama | May 22, 2008 11:58 AM | Report abuse

"but not so long as to poison the well among party activists and donors for a possible re-run bid in 2012 if the Illinois senator loses in November"

Um, WAY too late for that. Most pro-Obama activists (both left-wing types and civil-rights types) have come to despise her and Bill during this campaign. Unless only Appalachia is allowed to vote next time (or she runs in 2016 after serving as Obama's veep), she's through as a presidential candidate.

And anyway, we can name some past non-winners who tried to run for the Democratic nomination again (Edwards, Gephardt, Hart, Jackson), but how many won? The only one was Al Gore, who was veep in between. Progressives go for fresh energy. Next time around -- 2016 -- there will be plenty of female candidates with a chance -- McCaskill, Landrieu, Sebelius, and probably others who haven't yet reached reached the Senate or governor's mansion.

Posted by: John Z. | May 22, 2008 11:56 AM | Report abuse

Commander: Al Qaeda In Iraq Is At Its Weakest The Al Qaeda terror group in Iraq appears to be at its weakest state since it gained an initial foothold in the aftermath of the U.S.-led invasion five years ago

sounds like the time for Libs to evacuate and surrender the field. they must love losing so much they would nominate an extreme leftist who would hand over the keys to loons and latte sipping elitists. In other words, the liberal base.

Posted by: snObama | May 22, 2008 11:55 AM | Report abuse

Commander: Al Qaeda In Iraq Is At Its Weakest The Al Qaeda terror group in Iraq appears to be at its weakest state since it gained an initial foothold in the aftermath of the U.S.-led invasion five years ago

sounds like the time for Libs to evacuate and surrender the field. they must love losing so much they would nominate an extreme leftist who would hand over the keys to loons and latte sipping elitists. In other words, the liberal base.

Posted by: snObama | May 22, 2008 11:55 AM | Report abuse

In particular, Elliott Abrams, Mr. Bush's deputy national security adviser, has cautioned against an Israeli-Syria negotiation, according to Israeli and Bush administration officials. Administration officials said they feared that such a negotiation would appear to reward Syria at a time when the United States was seeking to isolate it for its meddling in Lebanon and its backing of Hezbollah.

But a few weeks ago, Israeli officials told their counterparts at the State Department that they planned to begin the negotiations, which are being mediated by Turkey.

"They weren't asking our permission," one senior administration official said. Another Bush official characterized the Israeli announcement as "a slap in the face."

Posted by: xx | May 22, 2008 11:51 AM | Report abuse

And that is the very reason that the Obama camp has been so desperate to bully Clinton out of the race- because she might just be the true winner.

Posted by: dyinglikeflies
*************************
Gosh, I missed the front page article of "Obama campaign desperate - Tries to Bully Clinton out of campaign with thought control!"

Posted by: fly swatter | May 22, 2008 11:50 AM | Report abuse

solution to the Lebanese stalemate, administration officials said.

"Bush's rhetoric is completely disconnected from everything on the ground," said Martin Indyk, head of the Brookings Institution's Saban Center for Middle East Policy. "While he's giving his speech against appeasement last week, Hezbollah was taking over control of the Lebanese government."

The events in Lebanon, Mr. Indyk said, show that the administration ought to put more pragmatic considerations ahead of principle.

The Israel-Syria announcement, in particular, offers an interesting case study, because Israeli officials have said for months that the United States was the only obstacle blocking talks with Syria, which both Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Defense Minister Ehud Barak advocated.

Posted by: xx | May 22, 2008 11:50 AM | Report abuse

Why are there so many kooks on this blog and in the Dem party?

Posted by: snObama
*************************
I don't know - why did someone think having you would make the world a better place? These questions haunt us...

Posted by: snObama's brother | May 22, 2008 11:48 AM | Report abuse


As for Hamas and Hezbollah, which have both refused to acknowledge Israel's right to exist or to forswear violence, the administration official said that a criterion for talks with the United States would be that "they'd have to change their behavior."

But Israel is in indirect talks with Hamas, with Egypt serving as the go-between, over a cease-fire in Gaza. Under the proposal that the two sides are considering, Israel would end its blockade of Gaza in exchange for a Hamas agreement to stop the rocket fire from Gaza into Israel, among other things.

Posted by: xx | May 22, 2008 11:48 AM | Report abuse

One major reason that this column left out: she may win the vote. If all primaries end with Clinton ahead in the popular vote, it will erase the smears that the Obama naysayers have been repeating about Clinton being a "spoiler" etc. Obama cannot win enough pledged delegates on his own to go over the top. Neither can Clinton. The party BOSSES are going to choose Obama, over the heads of the Democratic voters.

This will be an illegitimate nomination if Obama is the candidate and he has not received more actual votes. The voters will punish the Democratic party accordingly in the general election.

And that is the very reason that the Obama camp has been so desperate to bully Clinton out of the race- because she might just be the true winner.

Posted by: dyinglikeflies | May 22, 2008 11:48 AM | Report abuse

I'm back and furiously cutting and pasting lies and spin. Aren't I smart?

Posted by: drindl | May 22, 2008 11:47 AM | Report abuse

Inside the administration, many officials, particularly at the State Department, concede that the United States does not hew to one policy on engaging its enemies. "I'd rather be right than consistent," a senior Bush administration official said, in explaining the willingness to talk to North Korea, which the administration accused just last month of trying to help Syria build a nuclear reactor. He said the United States wanted to make sure that talks were "purposeful engagement, not witless engagement."

To that end, the administration has tried to be sure preconditions are met; for instance, it repeatedly says that it restored diplomatic relations with Libya only after Libya renounced terrorism in 2003. But Bush administration officials were in talks with Libya before that happened, and many credit the negotiations with leading to Libya's change in behavior.

Posted by: xx | May 22, 2008 11:47 AM | Report abuse

A top economist expressed the opinion that take a good look around because in a "VERY VERY" short we will see today as the good old days. $10, to $12 a gallon gas is in our future and things look very bleak. We are in a need for change to the level maybe not seen in our past. It will also take a commitment by us and for that we need a leader that can rally the public to what it will take to survive, yes survive. I think the biggest thing Obama has going for him is he is new. I don't care about his experience he can surround himself with that. Experience comes cheap you just buy it. You then require the wisdom to take that information and put it into action. That is where I believe Obama will excel. By November I believe things will have gotten so bad Mccain could not get elected by any rational voter and way shape or form. Someone like Obama may be our only chance. My dad used to say, "Nothing is forever" and that may very well be the case with the USA. We may be in our final days as a super power. Now we just want to survive as a country.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 22, 2008 11:46 AM | Report abuse


Under Mr. Bush, the United States has held direct talks with Libya (which has admitted responsibility for the bombing of Pan Am flight 103, which killed 270 people); sent envoys and a warm presidential letter to North Korea (which detonated a nuclear device in 2006); and even participated, through American diplomats in Iraq, in talks with Iran (which the United States has accused of backing attacks against American forces in Iraq).

American diplomats do not talk to Hezbollah or Hamas -- both militant Islamic organizations that Washington considers terrorist groups. But while the Bush administration long ago withdrew its ambassador from Syria, the United States does business with its government, which backs Hezbollah, and which the State Department has designated a state sponsor of terrorism.

So what was Mr. Bush talking about last week when he compared negotiations with terrorists and radicals with "the false comfort of appeasement"?

Posted by: xx | May 22, 2008 11:45 AM | Report abuse

Dr. Festler, you have **way** too much time on your hands (either that or you're good at cutting and pasting/regurg). :)

Posted by: Mary | May 22, 2008 11:45 AM | Report abuse

I have many times on this board described what I mean by dirty campaign - referring to

1) Obama's race pushing in South Carolina -
cite the evidence aside from responding to Bill Clinton's remarks. As a matter of fact, many VOTERS took exception to Clinton's remarks, which is their right to do when a public figure makes these remarks. Bill Clinton started that mess.

2) The attacks on Gerry Ferraro:

Again, Ferraro put her big mouth out there made some inflammatory remarks publicly and got hoisted on her petard, rightly so. As Hillary says, if you can't stand the heat...

3) The threats to the Superdelegates that if they don't cave in and endorse Obama there will be "riots in the streets" and it will "tear the party apart" along racial lines.

Listen, you lying bag of sh*t, give us one real bit of evidence, stated or written as to this gem. You are taking snatches of excited commentary out in the blogsphere and trying to attach to Senator Obama's campaign.You got Clinton supporters outside the NBC studios protesting, and some dim-witted campaign to camp outside the DNC rules committee on May 31. What say you on that?

Now, why don't you quit while you are still behind?

Posted by: 37th & O - Clinton's paid liar | May 22, 2008 11:44 AM | Report abuse

WASHINGTON -- Israel, America's staunchest ally in the Middle East, just became the latest example of a country that has decided it is better to deal with its foes than to ignore them.

The announcement that Israel has entered into comprehensive peace talks with Syria is at odds with the course counseled by the Bush administration, which initially opposed such talks in private conversations with Israelis, according to Israeli and American officials. A week ago, President Bush delivered a speech to the Israeli Parliament likening attempts to "negotiate with the terrorists and radicals" to appeasement before World War II.

"We have heard this foolish delusion before," Mr. Bush said. "As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared, 'Lord, if only I could have talked to Hitler, all of this might have been avoided.' We have an obligation to call this what it is: the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history."

But in many ways, the Bush administration's own policies appear to be at odds with his thesis.

While Mr. Bush and his advisers have repeatedly scorned the idea of talking to enemies without first getting preconditions met, administration policy over the last seven years has been far more nuanced. In fact, the United States under the Bush administration has shown a sliding definition of just when it is beneficial to talk to whom

Posted by: Anonymous | May 22, 2008 11:44 AM | Report abuse

All this adds up to the inescapable conclusion that "[j]ust days after President Bush returned from the Middle East, the Middle East is moving beyond the Bush administration," the WP's Robin Wright poignantly notes in an analysis piece. And it's not just in those two countries. The United States is notably not a player "across the board" in the Middle East, one analyst said. Experts emphasize this is related to Bush's "lame duck status," although it's also clear that more countries in the region are simply not listening to the United States and are openly making moves that go against the Bush administration's stated strategy. But the truth is that even as Bush espouses lofty rhetoric about not talking to enemies, his own administration "has shown a sliding definition of just when it is beneficial to talk to whom," notes the NYT's Helene Cooper. During Bush's presidency, the United States has held direct negotiations with Libya, made direct overtures to North Korea, and even does business with the Syrian government. "I'd rather be right than consistent," a Bush official succinctly explained.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 22, 2008 11:43 AM | Report abuse

Hillary understands the math. She's running at this point to get whatever she can for herself:
-- donations to pay off her debt
-- more time in the spotlight
-- vengence against Obama
-- VP on either Obama's or McCain's ticket
-- various "benefits" from the DNC

Hillary is now running an extortion campaign, and it won't be long before even her supporters see through her selfish desperation.

"So she will stay in the race long enough to be able to make the argument about Obama's weakness as a general election candidate but not so long as to poison the well among party activists and donors for a possible re-run bid in 2012." She poisoned the well long ago.

Posted by: Barbara Campbell | May 22, 2008 11:41 AM | Report abuse

What a difference a party makes (R v D):

Reagan knew rogue states only change when they see there are real consequences of their actions, and when it is in their interest to change. This requires patience, vision, hard work and the use of all the tools, talents and relationships available to the U.S. We saw a recent example when Libya, fearful of American resolve after 9/11, gave up its chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs. These programs, incidentally, were more advanced than Western intelligence thought.

Reagan knew he must not squander the prestige of the American presidency and the authority of the United States by meaningless meetings that serve only as propaganda victories for our adversaries. Mr. Obama seems to believe charisma and smooth talk can fundamentally alter the behavior of Iran, Syria, North Korea, Venezuela and Cuba.

Posted by: snObama | May 22, 2008 11:40 AM | Report abuse

One family can not have such level of influence and power. Not a single family in Northamerica should have the power to change the rules at their will, not a single family in the USA should have the power to create a dynasty...it is dangerous.
Neighbours we are not a banana republic.

Posted by: PCM 01 | May 22, 2008 10:53 AM
---------------------------------------
You mean like the Adams, Roosevelts, Kennedys, Bushs and of course the Clintons?

As we are seening we have a way to stop any 'dynasty', it's called not voting for them.

Posted by: Patrick NYC | May 22, 2008 11:40 AM | Report abuse

11:35 a.m. post

"Now that the idiocy of my Rules COmmittee comments has been exposed, I am back to the discredited notion that the Obama campaign has nothing better to do than personally attack me.

Oh yeah, when people like Bill Clinton and Geraldine Ferraro try to drag Obama down into the racial muck, what is really happening is Obama is attacking them. Doesn't that make sense to you? It makes sense to me, but I don't know why."

Posted by: 37th&OStreet Translator | May 22, 2008 11:39 AM | Report abuse

It's hard. I'm busy. cut me some slack sweetie:

On Sunday at a stop in Oregon, Sen. Obama was dismissive of the threats posed by Iran, North Korea, Venezuela, Cuba and Syria. That's the same Iran whose Quds Force is arming and training insurgents and illegal militias in Iraq to kill American soldiers; that is supporting Hezbollah and Hamas in violent attacks on Lebanon and Israel; and that is racing to develop a nuclear weapon while threatening the "annihilation" of Israel.

By Monday in Montana, Mr. Obama recognized his error. He abruptly changed course, admitting that Iran represents a threat to the region and U.S. interests.

Voters need to ask if Sunday's comments, not Monday's correction, aren't the best evidence of his true thinking.

Is Mr. Obama's first instinct to dismiss North Korea, the world's worst nuclear proliferator, as an insignificant threat? Is his immediate reaction to treat Venezuela as a wayward child, rather than as an adversary willing to destabilize the hemisphere? Is his memory so short he has forgotten the Castro brothers' willingness to aid revolutionary movements? Is he so shortsighted as to ignore the threat to Mideast stability that Syria's meddling in Lebanon and support for Hamas and Hezbollah represents?

Posted by: snObama | May 22, 2008 11:39 AM | Report abuse

HOW do you know when things are going well for the US and its coalition allies in Iraq? When you see virtually nothing about it on your television screen or in the papers.

Why are there so many kooks on this blog and in the Dem party?

Posted by: snObama | May 22, 2008 11:36 AM | Report abuse

To the poster at 10:36


Please identify yourself as a staffmember at Obama headquarters at Michigan & Lake -


I have many times on this board described what I mean by dirty campaign - referring to

1) Obama's race pushing in South Carolina

2) The attacks on Gerry Ferraro

3) The threats to the Superdelegates that if they don't cave in and endorse Obama there will be "riots in the streets" and it will "tear the party apart" along racial lines.


All that is dirty and sleezy especially if one is talking the talk of a post-racial campaign.


Obama has made himself a FRAUD.


You know this, stop with the questions which pretend you have no idea. Tell Axelrod I said he is a fraud too.

Posted by: 37th&OStreet | May 22, 2008 11:35 AM | Report abuse

The Ball Don't Lie

The views held by the Obamakins and the Clintonistas regarding what might and should happen for the rest of the nominating process are so different that you might think that they are participating in entirely different political systems. Each is baffled by and suspicious of the motives of the other group. The Clinton camp thinks the Obama supporters are presumptuous, condescending, naïve, sexist elitists, and generally expect if Obama wins a rerun of Adlai Stevenson vs Ike (the Dems did poorly in that one, for those of you who weren't around at the time). Obama people think the Clintons are underhanded, secretive, somewhere between disingenuous and dishonest, mired in outdated battles, divisive, faux populists who, if Hillary wins, will give us a rerun of Humphrey vs Nixon (which also didn't turn out well for the Dems). How is it that two groups of people with such similar political views have such widely varying opinions of each other and the process in which they are engaged?

The answer, obviously, has to do with culture in some form. Geography and various demographic factors have been widely discussed in all media, but have proven to be not definitive. But last night, while watching the Pistons (basketball) get blown out on one channel and the Tigers (baseball) not quite blowing out the Mariners on a different channel, the differentiating factor, the world view that explains all, the Rosetta stone of political orientation, occurred to me - it is baseball people (Hillary) vs basketball people (Obama). Lacking any data whatever to prove this thesis, which makes it easy to defend since nobody has any contrary information, I offer the following unassailable argument:

Hillary is widely known to be a Yankee (and, when she is in Illinois, a Cub) fan. I don't know Obama's views on the Cubs, but the man can actually play basketball. I watched a tape of a pick-up game that he played with some Secret Service personnel after the bowling fiasco, and he has a quick first step, a soft-looking baseline jumper, and a superior no-look drop-off pass when he drives the basket. Admittedly, these guys might work for him some day, but he looked pretty good.

The difference in political outlooks arises out differences between the end-game strategies in the two sports. Early in the game, there isn't much difference. If the Tigers are down by 4 runs in the third inning, no big deal. They can easily come back. Same thing if the Pistons are down by 15 points in the middle of the first half. But at the end of the game things are not similar at all.

If you are down by 4 with two out in the bottom of the ninth, you probably won't come back to win, but you might. A hit, an error, a walk, and a home run (not likely, but by no means impossible either), and you are back in the game. But if you are down by 15 points with 30 seconds to go in a basketball game, it's over.

This is reflected in the argot of the games. In baseball, it ain't over 'till the fat lady sings. It ain't over 'till it's over. We won't quit 'til the last dog dies (not strictly baseball, but you get the idea). In basketball, as Rasheed Wallace, the Piston's center, shouts to nobody in particular after an opponent misses what he considers to be an unjustified free throw: "The Ball Don't Lie!". Or, as smack I have never actually heard on the court, but can imagine, might say, "Give it up, man, your dog died 10 minutes ago". In baseball, there is no clock. In basketball, the clock rules. Or, as they say about dominant centers in crucial late-game situations, "At the end of the game when everybody's tired, he's still tall". In this case, Obama's pile of delegates is taller.

Obama's delegate lead isn't all that large, but this point in the process is more like a basketball than a baseball game. In baseball, at the end of the game, you keep batting until you make an out. In basketball, every time you get a point, you have to give the ball back to the other guys. So end-game rallies are not too uncommon in baseball, but as a practical matter they don't happen in basketball. When the other team gives you the ball, you just hang onto it and let the clock run. The other team can foul you, but if you make your free throws, you win. That's what Obama is doing. He is making his free throws. Not spectacular, and a very annoying and helpless feeling if you are the team that is behind, but that's how the game is played. She wins Ohio and Pennsylvania, but he more than makes up for it with the delegates from North Carolina. She clobbers him in West Virginia and Kentucky, but he is right back in Oregon.

If Obama could be prevented from having primaries and caucuses in states where he is going to do reasonably well or win, Clinton could catch him. But he can't, so she won't. In baseball, you're outdoors (at least in real parks), and lightning might strike. In basketball, you are indoors, the clock rules, and the ball don't lie. As a basketball-first kind of guy, I can tell you, it's over.

Posted by: BillD | May 22, 2008 11:34 AM | Report abuse

She is trying to bully her way on to the ticket. She knows that not for 35 plus years has there been better odds on the VP being sworn in surrounded by grim, weeping faces.

Posted by: jo1952 | May 22, 2008 11:33 AM | Report abuse

"She's trying to pick exactly the right time when she can say 'I told you so' if Obama loses but still not take the blame for the loss . . . . That means June as opposed to August. And she's thinking president again, period."

As far as this Obama supporter is concerned Hillary has long since passed the point where she can escape any blame if Obama loses to McCain. She has said and done things (most recently her "white working voters" insult) that will be burdens to him in November.

She's also disqualified in my mind because she is a chronic liar and distorter of the facts. One of the biggest lies: she has perpetuated the fiction that Obama is crippled with white voters -- when she knows that, historically, no Democrat since LBJ, including her husband, has gotten as much as 40% of the white vote. In fact, no Democrat can win without the African American vote, and she and Bill have pretty much screwed the pooch on that one. Mark my word: if Obama loses this year, HRC can kiss the black vote goodbye in '12 or anytime thereafter.

Please just go away, Hillary.

Posted by: jac13 | May 22, 2008 11:31 AM | Report abuse

They pay the same for gas as we do. They just tax their people to death on it.

+++++++++
*we pay half as much for gas as europeans do . my father lives in slovenia and he pays $8 a gallon.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 22, 2008 11:31 AM | Report abuse

To the poster at 10:36


Please identify yourself as a staffmember at Obama headquarters at Michigan & Lake -


I have many times on this board described what I mean by dirty campaign - referring to

1) Obama's race pushing in South Carolina

2) The attacks on Gerry Ferraro

3) The threats to the Superdelegates that if they don't cave in and endorse Obama there will be "riots in the streets" and it will "tear the party apart" along racial lines.


All that is dirty and sleezy especially if one is talking the talk of a post-racial campaign.


Obama has made himself a FRAUD.

You know this, stop with the questions which pretend you have no idea. Tell Axelrod I said he is a fraud too.


Posted by: 37th&OStreet | May 22, 2008 11:30 AM | Report abuse

JIN -

Maybe comparing the US to Slovenia is where your logic has derailed.

Things here SUCK and are getting worse, not compared to Slovenia, but compared to how things were only 2 Bush terms ago.

Half of your reasons are BS. MORE of us can afford healthcare? Really?

Where do you get your figures? Are you really that stupid?

Things here are good because "we stand with Israel?" -Are you kidding? This is a benefit to us how?

I say we pass the Israel Body Guard role to Slovenia and worry about ourselves.

Go vote Republican, if you can even vote at all, but spare us your juvenile lies. Do you live in some sort of Bubble?

Posted by: Better than Iraq, too? | May 22, 2008 11:30 AM | Report abuse

Hillary has already jumped the shark. She is just nothing more then a public embarrassment.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 22, 2008 11:28 AM | Report abuse

as if the world is going to sunshine, rainbows and bunnies simply because neither a bush or a clinton are in the white house.

as if the last 20 years have been horribly bad in some way.

*we pay half as much for gas as europeans do . my father lives in slovenia and he pays $8 a gallon.

*we have 5% unemployment, a near record low bettered only by marks set in the last couple of years. like with gas prices, unemployment is twice as bad in most western european countires. Germnay and France are up around 10%.

*we have first rate medical care. sure, it might cost a little more than it should, but more of us can afford it because more of us are employed than in europe.

*we have taken out the most brutal dictator in a generation, who had had a strangle hold on the resources, people, and spirit of the cradle of civilization.

* we are standing up other bad actors in the region, such as Iran and Hezbollah.

*we stood behind israel in its response to unwarannated aggression by Hezzbollah.

*we have largely defused the potentially explosive situation with north korea by entering into multilateral negotiations with N. Korea and other countries in he region.

*we are pursuing a multilateral approach in talking to Iran.

*we are pursuing stem-cell research and pushing ahead with alternative fuel production.

But yeah, we should CHANGE, because clearly are country is "Broken" in some amphorous and undefined way. Why? because a one term senator from illinois tell us we are.

*********************
Now we know the answer to the question: "What sort of an idiot would vote for Bush twice?"

Posted by: Obama '08 | May 22, 2008 11:28 AM | Report abuse

I have to say it - the use of the word "brand" in the political context is the fastest instance to date of a new term jumping the shark...

...except, of course, for "jumping the shark."

Posted by: FlownOver | May 22, 2008 11:26 AM | Report abuse

DON'T STOP HILLARY!!! NEVER SAY "DIE!!!"

RUN ALL YEAR FOR FOUR MORE YEARS!!!

DON'T STOP HILLARY!!! NEVER SAY "DIE!!!"

RUN ALL YEAR FOR FOUR MORE YEARS!!!

DON'T STOP HILLARY!!! NEVER SAY "DIE!!!"

RUN ALL YEAR FOR FOUR MORE YEARS!!!

DON'T STOP HILLARY!!! NEVER SAY "DIE!!!"

RUN ALL YEAR FOR FOUR MORE YEARS!!!

DON'T STOP HILLARY!!! NEVER SAY "DIE!!!"

RUN ALL YEAR FOR FOUR MORE YEARS!!!

DON'T STOP HILLARY!!! NEVER SAY "DIE!!!"

RUN ALL YEAR FOR FOUR MORE YEARS!!!

DON'T STOP HILLARY!!! NEVER SAY "DIE!!!"

RUN ALL YEAR FOR FOUR MORE YEARS!!!

DON'T STOP HILLARY!!! NEVER SAY "DIE!!!"

RUN ALL YEAR FOR FOUR MORE YEARS!!!

DON'T STOP HILLARY!!! NEVER SAY "DIE!!!"

RUN ALL YEAR FOR FOUR MORE YEARS!!!

DON'T STOP HILLARY!!! NEVER SAY "DIE!!!"

RUN ALL YEAR FOR FOUR MORE YEARS!!!

DON'T STOP HILLARY!!! NEVER SAY "DIE!!!"

RUN ALL YEAR FOR FOUR MORE YEARS!!!

DON'T STOP HILLARY!!! NEVER SAY "DIE!!!"

RUN ALL YEAR FOR FOUR MORE YEARS!!!

DON'T STOP HILLARY!!! NEVER SAY "DIE!!!"

RUN ALL YEAR FOR FOUR MORE YEARS!!!

DON'T STOP HILLARY!!! NEVER SAY "DIE!!!"

RUN ALL YEAR FOR FOUR MORE YEARS!!!

DON'T STOP HILLARY!!! NEVER SAY "DIE!!!"

RUN ALL YEAR FOR FOUR MORE YEARS!!!

DON'T STOP HILLARY!!! NEVER SAY "DIE!!!"

RUN ALL YEAR FOR FOUR MORE YEARS!!!

DON'T STOP HILLARY!!! NEVER SAY "DIE!!!"

RUN ALL YEAR FOR FOUR MORE YEARS!!!

DON'T STOP HILLARY!!! NEVER SAY "DIE!!!"

RUN ALL YEAR FOR FOUR MORE YEARS!!!

DON'T STOP HILLARY!!! NEVER SAY "DIE!!!"

RUN ALL YEAR FOR FOUR MORE YEARS!!!

DON'T STOP HILLARY!!! NEVER SAY "DIE!!!"

RUN ALL YEAR FOR FOUR MORE YEARS!!!

DON'T STOP HILLARY!!! NEVER SAY "DIE!!!"

RUN ALL YEAR FOR FOUR MORE YEARS!!!

DON'T STOP HILLARY!!! NEVER SAY "DIE!!!"

RUN ALL YEAR FOR FOUR MORE YEARS!!!

DON'T STOP HILLARY!!! NEVER SAY "DIE!!!"

RUN ALL YEAR FOR FOUR MORE YEARS!!!

DON'T STOP HILLARY!!! NEVER SAY "DIE!!!"

RUN ALL YEAR FOR FOUR MORE YEARS!!!

DON'T STOP HILLARY!!! NEVER SAY "DIE!!!"

RUN ALL YEAR FOR FOUR MORE YEARS!!!

DON'T STOP HILLARY!!! NEVER SAY "DIE!!!"

RUN ALL YEAR FOR FOUR MORE YEARS!!!

DON'T STOP HILLARY!!! NEVER SAY "DIE!!!"

RUN ALL YEAR FOR FOUR MORE YEARS!!!

DON'T STOP HILLARY!!! NEVER SAY "DIE!!!"

RUN ALL YEAR FOR FOUR MORE YEARS!!!

DON'T STOP HILLARY!!! NEVER SAY "DIE!!!"

RUN ALL YEAR FOR FOUR MORE YEARS!!!

DON'T STOP HILLARY!!! NEVER SAY "DIE!!!"

RUN ALL YEAR FOR FOUR MORE YEARS!!!

DON'T STOP HILLARY!!! NEVER SAY "DIE!!!"

RUN ALL YEAR FOR FOUR MORE YEARS!!!

DON'T STOP HILLARY!!! NEVER SAY "DIE!!!"

RUN ALL YEAR FOR FOUR MORE YEARS!!!

Posted by: HILLARY 08 - 24 !!! | May 22, 2008 11:23 AM | Report abuse

ggggg

Posted by: Anonymous | May 22, 2008 11:20 AM | Report abuse

Dr. Daniel Festler - Lie.

You have amounted to nothing but a troll in life, PhD, and all, while Barack Obama, despite his name, despite his under-privileged beginnings, despite his color, AND without his family friends at the local synagogue to help him, has risen to one step away from the Presidency of the United States of America.

Yeah, that's gotta hurt, huh, crybaby?

Posted by: Dr. Steven O'Connor | May 22, 2008 11:18 AM | Report abuse


"Two quick optimistic notes:
1. This November, the name George W. Bush will not be on the ballot.
2. This November, the name Hillary Rodham Clinton will not be on the ballot.

There is yet hope for this country! Go Obama."


This is might be meant as a joke, however, this type of slimpistic thinking is indicative of the naivete of obama and his supporters.

as if the world is going to sunshine, rainbows and bunnies simply because neither a bush or a clinton are in the white house.

as if the last 20 years have been horribly bad in some way.

*we pay half as much for gas as europeans do . my father lives in slovenia and he pays $8 a gallon.

*we have 5% unemployment, a near record low bettered only by marks set in the last couple of years. like with gas prices, unemployment is twice as bad in most western european countires. Germnay and France are up around 10%.

*we have first rate medical care. sure, it might cost a little more than it should, but more of us can afford it because more of us are employed than in europe.

*we have taken out the most brutal dictator in a generation, who had had a strangle hold on the resources, people, and spirit of the cradle of civilization.

* we are standing up other bad actors in the region, such as Iran and Hezbollah.

*we stood behind israel in its response to unwarannated aggression by Hezzbollah.

*we have largely defused the potentially explosive situation with north korea by entering into multilateral negotiations with N. Korea and other countries in he region.

*we are pursuing a multilateral approach in talking to Iran.

*we are pursuing stem-cell research and pushing ahead with alternative fuel production.

But yeah, we should CHANGE, because clearly are country is "Broken" in some amphorous and undefined way. Why? because a one term senator from illinois tell us we are.

Suckers for Obama/Deval Patrick in '08

Posted by: jin | May 22, 2008 11:18 AM | Report abuse

I lost my license today...patients said that they did not want to be worked on by a retard...

Posted by: DR. DANIEL FESTLER | May 22, 2008 11:13 AM | Report abuse

Someone called 'Insider Informant' claims
"I'm a staunch Rebublican for 42 years..... I have been a super delegate."

But Republicans don't have super delegates. Something smells fishy...

Posted by: bsimon | May 22, 2008 11:13 AM | Report abuse

This Country's problem is too huge to put a ROOKIE in the White House. SPIN, SPIN, SPIN and MORE SPIN PLEASE...

Posted by: The Wiser Voter
****************
Working awfully hard if you are not worried. Hope you get your money's worth spinning for McSame, troll:

"Wishing you could be a campaign surrogate, but don't have a national platform? Do you find blogging your own opinions tedious? Wish you could have someone tell you what to think during this political season? Well look no further than John McCain's new blog outreach!

That's right; the McCain camp wants to recruit online supporters and activists to serve as comment trolls. From their website:

Help spread the word about John McCain on news and blog sites. Your efforts to help get the message out about John McCain's policies and plan for the future is one of the most valuable things you can do for this campaign....
Select from the numerous web, blog and news sites listed here, go there, and make your opinions supporting John McCain known. Once you've commented on a post, video or news story, report the details of your comment by clicking the button below.

Now, don't worry if you've never heard of a blog, or never written a comment, or heck, even used a computer. Because not only does the campaign tell you on which blogs to comment -- Redstate for right-wingers, Daily Kos for progressives -- it will even tell you what to say! Just click on the Blog Interaction page for "Today's Talking Points."

Just look at today's gem, entitled "Time For Solutions:"

John McCain will put the national interest ahead of partisanship, he will work with anyone who sincerely wants to get this country moving again. If John McCain is elected President, the era of the permanent campaign will end. The era of problem solving will begin.

You might be thinking, "What's in it for me?" As a matter of fact, for every comment the McCain verifies, you will awarded McCain Action Center. Which is important, because in Fantasy Land 2013, those things will replace the dollar as American currency."

Posted by: Has own working brain... | May 22, 2008 11:12 AM | Report abuse

Rumors are that a couple of the Clinton's mansions are being renovated and that she and Bill would be sleeping in 5 star hotels, anyway. Might as well see the country.

Plus, Chelsea doesn't spend a whole lot of quality time with them and this campaign has afforded an opportunity for the Clinton family to really "bond" with each other. All indications are that this has been a great experience for each of them as they get Chelsea's campaign feet wet for her own Presidential Run in a few years.

Some people say that Hillary will not quit until Barack taps Chelsea as his Vice President.

Who knows for sure?

One thing IS for sure, though. Hillary has put the gloves back on and Obama seems to recognize this. I think she should continue to run until she is elected President. Why take time off to go back to the Senate?

The stupid Senate kept her from winning THIS time. She should run a perpetual campaign - all year round, non-stop - stumping and all, through the next four plus years.

It's never been done, and she's the type of true fighter that could pull off that kind of never ending campaign.

Go Hillary !

Don't EVER Stop !

NEVER !

NO MATTER WHAT !

YOU CAN NEVER, EVER, EVER, EVEN IN A MILLION YEARS, QUIT !

NEVER !!!!

GO HILLARY !!

Hillary 08 - 12 - 16 - 20 - 24...

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

I think its an apt metaphor that you compare the Clinton campaign to the losing Cleveland Cavaliers who spent the last 90 seconds committing fouls.

Posted by: PaulC | May 22, 2008 11:07 AM | Report abuse

The Many Lies of Barack
1.) Selma Got Me Born - Lie, you were born in 1961 - Selma had no effect on your birth, as Selma was in 1965.
2.) Father Was A Goat Herder - Lie, he was a privileged, well educated youth, who went on to work with the Kenyan Government.
3.) Father Was A Proud Freedom Fighter - Lie, 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 - Lie, 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 many years.
5.) My Name is African Swahili - Lie, your name is Arabic and 'Baraka' (from which Barack came) means 'blessed' in that language. Hussein is also Arabic and so is Obama.
6.) I Never Practiced Islam - Lie, 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.
7.) My School In Indonesia Was Christian - Lie, you were registered as Muslim there and got in trouble in Koranic Studies for making faces (check your own book).
8.) I Was Fluent In Indonesian - Lie, not one teacher says you could speak the language.
9.) Because I Lived In Indonesia, I Have More Foreign Experience - Lie, 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.
10.) I Blame My Early Drug Use On Ethnic Confusion - Lie, 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.
11.) An Ebony Article Moved Me To Run For Office - Lie, Ebony has yet to find the article you mention in your book. It doesn't, and never did, exist.
12.) A Life Magazine Article Changed My Outlook On Life - Lie, Life has yet to find the article you mention in your book. It doesn't, and never did, exist.
13.) I Won't Run On A National Ticket In '08 - Lie, 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.
14.) Present Votes Are Common In Illinois - Lie, they are common for YOU, but not many others have 130 PRESENT VOTES.
15.) Oops, I Misvoted - Lie, only when caught by church groups and democrats, did you beg to change your misvote.
16.) I Was A Professor Of Law - Lie, you were a senior lecturer ON LEAVE.
17.) I Was A Constitutional Lawyer - Lie, you were a senior lecturer ON LEAVE.
18.) Without Me, There Would Be No Ethics Bill - Lie, you didn't write it,introduce it, change it, or create it.
19.) The Ethics Bill Was Hard To Pass - Lie, it took just 14 days from start to finish.
20.) I Wrote A Tough Nuclear Bill - Lie, 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.
21.) I Have Released My State Records - Lie, as of May, 1 2008, state bills you sponsored or voted for have yet to be released, exposing all the special interests pork hidden within.
22.) I Took On The Asbestos Altgeld Gardens Mess - Lie, you were part of a large group of people who remedied Altgeld Gardens. You failed to mention anyone else but yourself, in your books.
23.) My Economics Bill Will Help America - Lie, your 111 economic policies were just combined into a proposal which lost 99-0, and even YOU voted against your own bill.
24.) I Have Been A Bold Leader In Illinois - Lie, even your own supporters claim to have not seen BOLD action on your part.
25.) I Passed 26 Of My Own Bills In One Year - Lie, 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.
26.) No One Contacted Canada About NAFTA - Lie, the Candian Government issued the names and a memo of the conversation your campaign had with them.
27.) I Am Tough On Terrorism - Lie, you missed the Iran Resolution vote on terrorism and your good friend Ali Abunimah supports the destruction of Israel.
28.) I Am Not Acting As President Yet - Lie, 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.
29.) I Didn't Run Ads In Florida - Lie, you ran ads ONLY along the florida border as well as national ads in an attempt to reach Florida voters 8-12 times per day for two weeks - and you still lost.
30.) I Won Michigan - Lie, no you didn't.
31.) I won Nevada - Lie, no you did not.
32.) I Want All Votes To Count - Lie, you said let the delegates decide, and you have fought not to have another primary in Michigan or Florida.
33.) I Want Americans To Decide - Lie, you prefer caucuses that limit the vote, confuse the voters, force a public vote, and only operate during small windows of time.
34.) I passed 900 Bills in the State Senate - Lie, you passed 26, most of which you didn't write yourself.
35.) My Campaign Was Extorted By A Friend - Lie, that friend is threatening to sue if you do not stop saying this. Obama has finally stopped saying this.
36.) I Believe In Fairness, Not Tactics - Lie, you used tactics to eliminate Alice Palmer (a fellow democrat that wanted you to replace her in the next term) from running against you by challenging ALL of her signatures and thus running unopposed.
37.) I Don't Take PAC Money - Lie, you take loads of it. The Obama PAC is the largest PAC in the US Senate. I dare Obama supporters to go look this up.
38.) I don't Have Lobbyists - Lie, you have over 47 lobbyists, and counting.
39.) My Campaign Had Nothing To Do With The 1984 Ad - Lie, your own campaign worker made the ad on his Apple in one afternoon.
40.) My Campaign Never Took Over MySpace - Lie, Tom, who started MySpace issued a warning about this to MySpace clients.
41.) I Inspire People With My Words - Lie, you inspire people with other people's words.
42.) I Have Passed Bills In The U.S. Senate - Lie, you have passed A BILL in the U.S. Senate - for Africa, which shows YOUR priorities.
43.) I Have Always Been Against Iraq - Lie, 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. You also seem to be stepping back from your departure date in Iraq - AGAIN.
44.) I Have Always Supported Universal Health Care - Lie, your plan leaves us all to pay for the 15,000,000 who don't have to buy it.
45.) I Only Found Out About My Investment Conflicts Via Mail - Lie, both companies you site as having sent you letters about this conflict have no records of any such letters ever being created or sent.
46.) My Wife Didn't Mean What She Said About Pride In Country - Lie, your wife's words follow lock-step in the vein of Wright and Farrahkan, in relation to their contempt and hatred of America.
47.) Wal-Mart Is A Company I Wouldn't Support - Lie, your wife has received nearly a quater of a million dollars through Treehouse, which is connected to Wal-Mart.
48.) Treehouse Is A Small Company - Lie, the CEO of Treehouse last year, made more than the CEO of Wal-Mart, according to public records.
49.) University Of Chicago Hospital Pay Is Fair - Lie, your wife's pay raise was nearly 150% her already bloated rate (going from $120K to $320K weeks after you got into the US Senate and tried to get a $1 million pork project for the very same hospital) 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%!
50.) I Barely Know Rezko - Only 5 Billed Hours - Lie, 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.
51.) My Donations Have Been Checked Thoroughly - Lie, you only gave back Hsu ($72K [Yes, the same Hsu, Obama supporters try to tie Clinton to]) and Rezko (first $66K, then when caught lying $86K, then when caught lying again $150K and now caught lying YET AGAIN, it's $250k) their money when publically called on their involvement in your campaigns.
52.) My Church Is Like Any Other Christian Church - Lie, 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.
53.) I Disagree With My Church All The Time - Lie, you only recently repudiated 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.
54.) I Have Clean Connections Despite Rezko - Lie, 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. Mr. Auchi was also found guilt in another political corruption scandal (largest in France since WWII). And this is one of Obamas' good supporters that paid millions into the Obama campaign.
55.) I never heard sermons like Rev. Wright's, that have been in videos on You Tube all day - Lie! 3 days later during your Mea Culpa speech you said "Did I hear controversial statements while I sat in that church? Yes I did." FLIP-FLOPPER
56.) The Passport Invasion is a conspiracy to find dirt on me! - Lie. Your own Campaign Foreign Policy Advisor is the CEO of the company that looked into your records. Could it be that you had them look into yours to hide the fact you looked into Clinton's and McCain's more than a year before!
57.) Rev. Meeks has nothing to do with my campaigning - Lie. Rev. Meeks appeared in ads for your Senate Campaign, donated to you, and helped raise money, then AND NOW. He also seems to despise America as much as Rev. Wright.
58.) My wife didn't mean America is ignorant, she was just using a phrase - Lie. Again, MicHELLe's comments are perfectly in sync with Wright's, Meeks', and Farrakhan's, both in language, anger, and direction.
59.) I am very Anti-Terror - Lie. One of your good pals is long time radical and terrorist William Ayers, with whom you have been seen in the last 12 months and who has helped the now jailed Khalidi, Professor at Columbia who invited Ahmadinejad to the University, to raise money for Palestinian terrorism attacks against Israel. PS - Your church published a pro Hamas Manifesto - guess you weren't there on THAT Sunday either? How lucky for you.
60.) I have the best plan to cure the Mortgage Crisis - Lie. You and your campaign buddy Penny 'Sub Prime Bank Collapse' Prizker have had your little fingers full of subprime cash - Obama has taken $1,180,103 from the top issuers of subprime loans: Obama received $266,907 from Lehman, $5395 from GMAC, $150,850 from Credit Suisse First Boston, $11,250 from Countrywide, $9052 from Washington Mutual, $161,850 from Citigroup, $4600 from CBASS, $170,050 from Morgan Stanley, $1150 from Centex, and last but certainly NOT LEAST - Obama received $351,900 from Goldman Sachs. I am sure that cash all came from folks who knew the subprime loan they had was a dream, eh?
61.) I played a greater role in crafting liberal stands on gun control, the death penalty and abortion - Lie - It was found that Obama -- the day after sitting for the interview -- filed an amended version of the questionnaire, which appears to contain Obama's own handwritten notes added to one answe

Posted by: DR. DANIEL FESTLER | May 22, 2008 11:07 AM | Report abuse

It's not true that Clinton would lead the popular vote if Michigan and Florida were counted. She would still trail even then, unless you also refused to count a bunch of caucus voters, as she does in her dodgy accounting.

Posted by: kenonwenu | May 22, 2008 11:06 AM | Report abuse

The Many Lies of Barack
1.) Selma Got Me Born - Lie, you were born in 1961 - Selma had no effect on your birth, as Selma was in 1965.
2.) Father Was A Goat Herder - Lie, he was a privileged, well educated youth, who went on to work with the Kenyan Government.
3.) Father Was A Proud Freedom Fighter - Lie, 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 - Lie, 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 many years.
5.) My Name is African Swahili - Lie, your name is Arabic and 'Baraka' (from which Barack came) means 'blessed' in that language. Hussein is also Arabic and so is Obama.
6.) I Never Practiced Islam - Lie, 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.
7.) My School In Indonesia Was Christian - Lie, you were registered as Muslim there and got in trouble in Koranic Studies for making faces (check your own book).
8.) I Was Fluent In Indonesian - Lie, not one teacher says you could speak the language.
9.) Because I Lived In Indonesia, I Have More Foreign Experience - Lie, 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.
10.) I Blame My Early Drug Use On Ethnic Confusion - Lie, 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.
11.) An Ebony Article Moved Me To Run For Office - Lie, Ebony has yet to find the article you mention in your book. It doesn't, and never did, exist.
12.) A Life Magazine Article Changed My Outlook On Life - Lie, Life has yet to find the article you mention in your book. It doesn't, and never did, exist.
13.) I Won't Run On A National Ticket In '08 - Lie, 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.
14.) Present Votes Are Common In Illinois - Lie, they are common for YOU, but not many others have 130 PRESENT VOTES.
15.) Oops, I Misvoted - Lie, only when caught by church groups and democrats, did you beg to change your misvote.
16.) I Was A Professor Of Law - Lie, you were a senior lecturer ON LEAVE.
17.) I Was A Constitutional Lawyer - Lie, you were a senior lecturer ON LEAVE.
18.) Without Me, There Would Be No Ethics Bill - Lie, you didn't write it,introduce it, change it, or create it.
19.) The Ethics Bill Was Hard To Pass - Lie, it took just 14 days from start to finish.
20.) I Wrote A Tough Nuclear Bill - Lie, 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.
21.) I Have Released My State Records - Lie, as of May, 1 2008, state bills you sponsored or voted for have yet to be released, exposing all the special interests pork hidden within.
22.) I Took On The Asbestos Altgeld Gardens Mess - Lie, you were part of a large group of people who remedied Altgeld Gardens. You failed to mention anyone else but yourself, in your books.
23.) My Economics Bill Will Help America - Lie, your 111 economic policies were just combined into a proposal which lost 99-0, and even YOU voted against your own bill.
24.) I Have Been A Bold Leader In Illinois - Lie, even your own supporters claim to have not seen BOLD action on your part.
25.) I Passed 26 Of My Own Bills In One Year - Lie, 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.
26.) No One Contacted Canada About NAFTA - Lie, the Candian Government issued the names and a memo of the conversation your campaign had with them.
27.) I Am Tough On Terrorism - Lie, you missed the Iran Resolution vote on terrorism and your good friend Ali Abunimah supports the destruction of Israel.
28.) I Am Not Acting As President Yet - Lie, 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.
29.) I Didn't Run Ads In Florida - Lie, you ran ads ONLY along the florida border as well as national ads in an attempt to reach Florida voters 8-12 times per day for two weeks - and you still lost.
30.) I Won Michigan - Lie, no you didn't.
31.) I won Nevada - Lie, no you did not.
32.) I Want All Votes To Count - Lie, you said let the delegates decide, and you have fought not to have another primary in Michigan or Florida.
33.) I Want Americans To Decide - Lie, you prefer caucuses that limit the vote, confuse the voters, force a public vote, and only operate during small windows of time.
34.) I passed 900 Bills in the State Senate - Lie, you passed 26, most of which you didn't write yourself.
35.) My Campaign Was Extorted By A Friend - Lie, that friend is threatening to sue if you do not stop saying this. Obama has finally stopped saying this.
36.) I Believe In Fairness, Not Tactics - Lie, you used tactics to eliminate Alice Palmer (a fellow democrat that wanted you to replace her in the next term) from running against you by challenging ALL of her signatures and thus running unopposed.
37.) I Don't Take PAC Money - Lie, you take loads of it. The Obama PAC is the largest PAC in the US Senate. I dare Obama supporters to go look this up.
38.) I don't Have Lobbyists - Lie, you have over 47 lobbyists, and counting.
39.) My Campaign Had Nothing To Do With The 1984 Ad - Lie, your own campaign worker made the ad on his Apple in one afternoon.
40.) My Campaign Never Took Over MySpace - Lie, Tom, who started MySpace issued a warning about this to MySpace clients.
41.) I Inspire People With My Words - Lie, you inspire people with other people's words.
42.) I Have Passed Bills In The U.S. Senate - Lie, you have passed A BILL in the U.S. Senate - for Africa, which shows YOUR priorities.
43.) I Have Always Been Against Iraq - Lie, 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. You also seem to be stepping back from your departure date in Iraq - AGAIN.
44.) I Have Always Supported Universal Health Care - Lie, your plan leaves us all to pay for the 15,000,000 who don't have to buy it.
45.) I Only Found Out About My Investment Conflicts Via Mail - Lie, both companies you site as having sent you letters about this conflict have no records of any such letters ever being created or sent.
46.) My Wife Didn't Mean What She Said About Pride In Country - Lie, your wife's words follow lock-step in the vein of Wright and Farrahkan, in relation to their contempt and hatred of America.
47.) Wal-Mart Is A Company I Wouldn't Support - Lie, your wife has received nearly a quater of a million dollars through Treehouse, which is connected to Wal-Mart.
48.) Treehouse Is A Small Company - Lie, the CEO of Treehouse last year, made more than the CEO of Wal-Mart, according to public records.
49.) University Of Chicago Hospital Pay Is Fair - Lie, your wife's pay raise was nearly 150% her already bloated rate (going from $120K to $320K weeks after you got into the US Senate and tried to get a $1 million pork project for the very same hospital) 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%!
50.) I Barely Know Rezko - Only 5 Billed Hours - Lie, 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.
51.) My Donations Have Been Checked Thoroughly - Lie, you only gave back Hsu ($72K [Yes, the same Hsu, Obama supporters try to tie Clinton to]) and Rezko (first $66K, then when caught lying $86K, then when caught lying again $150K and now caught lying YET AGAIN, it's $250k) their money when publically called on their involvement in your campaigns.
52.) My Church Is Like Any Other Christian Church - Lie, 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.
53.) I Disagree With My Church All The Time - Lie, you only recently repudiated 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.
54.) I Have Clean Connections Despite Rezko - Lie, 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. Mr. Auchi was also found guilt in another political corruption scandal (largest in France since WWII). And this is one of Obamas' good supporters that paid millions into the Obama campaign.
55.) I never heard sermons like Rev. Wright's, that have been in videos on You Tube all day - Lie! 3 days later during your Mea Culpa speech you said "Did I hear controversial statements while I sat in that church? Yes I did." FLIP-FLOPPER
56.) The Passport Invasion is a conspiracy to find dirt on me! - Lie. Your own Campaign Foreign Policy Advisor is the CEO of the company that looked into your records. Could it be that you had them look into yours to hide the fact you looked into Clinton's and McCain's more than a year before!
57.) Rev. Meeks has nothing to do with my campaigning - Lie. Rev. Meeks appeared in ads for your Senate Campaign, donated to you, and helped raise money, then AND NOW. He also seems to despise America as much as Rev. Wright.
58.) My wife didn't mean America is ignorant, she was just using a phrase - Lie. Again, MicHELLe's comments are perfectly in sync with Wright's, Meeks', and Farrakhan's, both in language, anger, and direction.
59.) I am very Anti-Terror - Lie. One of your good pals is long time radical and terrorist William Ayers, with whom you have been seen in the last 12 months and who has helped the now jailed Khalidi, Professor at Columbia who invited Ahmadinejad to the University, to raise money for Palestinian terrorism attacks against Israel. PS - Your church published a pro Hamas Manifesto - guess you weren't there on THAT Sunday either? How lucky for you.
60.) I have the best plan to cure the Mortgage Crisis - Lie. You and your campaign buddy Penny 'Sub Prime Bank Collapse' Prizker have had your little fingers full of subprime cash - Obama has taken $1,180,103 from the top issuers of subprime loans: Obama received $266,907 from Lehman, $5395 from GMAC, $150,850 from Credit Suisse First Boston, $11,250 from Countrywide, $9052 from Washington Mutual, $161,850 from Citigroup, $4600 from CBASS, $170,050 from Morgan Stanley, $1150 from Centex, and last but certainly NOT LEAST - Obama received $351,900 from Goldman Sachs. I am sure that cash all came from folks who knew the subprime loan they had was a dream, eh?
61.) I played a greater role in crafting liberal stands on gun control, the death penalty and abortion - Lie - It was found that Obama -- the day after sitting for the interview -- filed an amended version of the questionnaire, which appears to contain Obama's own handwritten notes added to one answe

Posted by: DR. DANIEL FESTLER | May 22, 2008 11:06 AM | Report abuse

The Daily Kos' "valentine" to Clinton mathematics, otherwise known as THE REALITY CHECK:

"One of the wonders of this primary season has been the ability of the Clinton campaign -- including Hillary herself -- and their supporters to engage in some of the most patently ridiculous and bald faced lies, knowing that everyone else knows they are engaging in patently ridiculous and bald faced lies.

Chief among those lies is the fiction that Clinton leads in the popular vote.

Aside from the idiocy of the argument itself -- 1) this is a delegate race, and 2) unlike the 2000 presidential election, you can't compare the popular vote from contest to contest since each state has different rules (caucus or primaries, open, closed, or hybrid -- the way the Clinton campaign and its supporters shamelessly stretch this argument is almost embarrassing.

Clinton is "leading" the meaningless popular vote, but only if:

You count the unsanctioned contests in Florida and Michigan, where candidates were not allowed to campaign;
You give Obama zero votes in Michigan's Soviet-style election, where Clinton was essentially the only name on the ballot; and
You don't count the caucuses in Iowa, Nevada, Maine, and Washington.

In reality, Obama leads by over half a million votes, for whatever that's worth (not much). But don't worry, the Clinton argument is so asinine, it has gotten little traction among super delegates.

In fact, it's so insulting to people's intelligence, that it's hurting the credibility of anyone stupid enough to use it."

Posted by: Obama '08 | May 22, 2008 11:04 AM | Report abuse

No question there's a lot of Obama PAID BLOGGERS on this thread exchanging talking points between themselves. Hah, hah!!!

The Democratic Party is screwing this up again by CROWNING a weaker candidate in Obama.

We've been a long time Democrats but I just don't see how Obama will have a chance of winning this against McCain this FALL. His speeches and rhetorics are getting old and monotonous already. And his inexperienced specially on National Security is getting more pronounced day after day. Or shall we call them FLIP-FLOPS, FLIP-FLOPS, FLIP-FLOPS....

The guy is nothing but a duplicate of Jeremiah Wright trying to sound different but deep inside of him, he doesn't believe what he says.

This Country's problem is too huge to put a ROOKIE in the White House. SPIN, SPIN, SPIN and MORE SPIN PLEASE...

Posted by: The Wiser Voter | May 22, 2008 11:01 AM | Report abuse

Two quick optimistic notes:
1. This November, the name George W. Bush will not be on the ballot.
2. This November, the name Hillary Rodham Clinton will not be on the ballot.

There is yet hope for this country! Go Obama.

Posted by: Former McCain contributor | May 22, 2008 10:56 AM | Report abuse

Will someone explain to me how Clinton is more electable, if the Black vote and younger voters decide to 'underperform' in places like Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan? How does she win swing states, if her nomination is seen as illegitimate? And in 2012 how does she win Iowa... as she demeans caucus states and how does she win South Carolina, as she demeans African-American voters? Remember also, in 4 years, these young voters suddenly are little older and will remember what the Clintons did during 2008. It seems to me, if she wants to run for 2012... she bows out now, gracefully, makes amends with Obama, fights her head off for him and the Democratic Party, and then if Obama loses, runs again in 2012. Anything short of this, her Presidential prospects are zilch. Do you think voters want to hear "I told you so" from the Clintons? NO!

Posted by: jute | May 22, 2008 10:56 AM | Report abuse

Hillary fights on for very good reason. She has easily won all the big state primaries (New York, Pennsylvania, California, Florida, Michigan, Ohio, etc etc etc. She has a profound lead in popular votes with her oponent not having enough delegates (including Michigan and Florida)to be nominated and a firm hold on middle income voters across the country. The voters in this country want change however the blind faith some have put into Obama is based on little comprehensive background information made available for this politician. His past associations with questionable individuals has been insufficiently documented and squelched by Obama's campaign team. The many intelligent individuals I have contacted over the past several month have serious concerns about a Obama White House, expressing good reasons to withold their vote for him. Many feel there are still powerful revelations yet to come out about his past that would jeapardize any nomination for any office.
It is foolish to believe the Democratic big wigs will ex-communicate the voters of Florida and Michigan, even though Obama lobbyists are pressuring the party to do just that. Hillary won those states with landslide proportions.
Hillary fights on....rightfully so..... it has been an historic democratic campaign....one for the history books....the other shoe will soon drop in favor of Hillary.....Just for the record I'm a staunch Rebublican for 42 years.....and Hillary would be a much stronger advisary for McCain in November.
I would love to see Obama vs McCain in November, which would insure a Rebuplican White House for 4 more years. My Republican lobbyist friends have spent millions to help Obama financially, but Hillary is so much more qualified and much more the threat to McCain in the fall. History will be re-written...for those non- believers...it will be Clinton vs McCain in November...the writing is now clear...it is inevitable, and we (Republican Party) will lose the White House. I have been a super delegate.

Posted by: Insider Informant | May 22, 2008 10:53 AM | Report abuse

Scott (from Canada) writes
"Hillary has been in politics a long time. She will have made enemies...and friends, no doubt. BUT, she has done things."


Such as?

Posted by: bsimon | May 22, 2008 10:53 AM | Report abuse

Today I read that Mr.Clinton is pushing her daughter to get into politics.
In the past I participated in giving my opinion about this Presidential process. I enjoyed;it was fun.
But now, I have concerns.
I sincerely believe that the Clinton's family are in desperate need for psychological evaluation(this a caring comment, I am not throwing mud at them).

Their obsessive thirst for power and their difficul relationship with the truth are the red flags waving under strong winds.

We have read comments that the Clinton's are the Ceausescu's of North America;my favourite one is that the Clinton's are becoming like the Juan Domingo and Evita Peron of the North.

I feel like the frog in the water, the temperature is raising in such sneaky way that I will not feel it when start boiling, thus I will not be able to jump out of the beaker.

The Clinton's megalomenia is destroying them...and this country.
One family can not have such level of influence and power. Not a single family in Northamerica should have the power to change the rules at their will, not a single family in the USA should have the power to create a dynasty...it is dangerous.
Neighbours we are not a banana republic.

Posted by: PCM 01 | May 22, 2008 10:53 AM | Report abuse

Obviously, if losing the GE were fatal, then we wouldn't have had Nixon in '68. Hillary is only the 2nd best candidate in a great field of Democrats this time around, and losing the nomination is far from a death sentence.

I think the comment comparing her to Ted Kennedy is interesting. Ted flamed out in presidential politics because he went after a sitting Democratic president and lost in the primaries. This loss was more comparable to losing the GE. TK decided not to run again, but he was already 16 years into his 40+ year career in the Senate, and so he went back to being a great senator.

Hillary has done some good, hard work in the Senate, but I think it is generally acknowledged that she ran for Senate in 2000 as a step toward the 2008 election. Whether she really likes her current job (or could learn to) is anybody's guess.

My expectation is that she might be publicly offered VP (only if she has already privately refused it) as a party-unification gesture. She may also be offered any number of positions in the Obama administration, but I doubt she would take any of them.

She may well continue on for a long career in the Senate, similar to the way Joe Biden does, always looking for their next opportunity to claim the nomination.

Posted by: mikeinmidland | May 22, 2008 10:49 AM | Report abuse


Add to that she wants to count the PR votes by people who aren't even citizens who can't vote in the election.

++++++++

Wrong - Hillary Clinton does not lead in the popular vote count even if you include Michigan and Florida. The Clinton campaign only comes up with this figure by not including the votes cast in 4 caucus states that Obama won heavily. Because Clinton does not believe that those states 'count' for some esoteric reason.
If you managed to add up every single vote cast in this nomination process thus far, Obama is well ahead.

Posted by: Jackson Landers | May 22, 2008 10:46 AM

Posted by: Anonymous | May 22, 2008 10:49 AM | Report abuse

Didn't the people of Kentucky/West Virginia/Pennsylvania - and almost the rest of the big electoral states tell the Democratic Party anything.

Posted by: chambedr | May 22, 2008 10:46 AM | Report abuse

Wrong - Hillary Clinton does not lead in the popular vote count even if you include Michigan and Florida. The Clinton campaign only comes up with this figure by not including the votes cast in 4 caucus states that Obama won heavily. Because Clinton does not believe that those states 'count' for some esoteric reason.

If you managed to add up every single vote cast in this nomination process thus far, Obama is well ahead.

Posted by: Jackson Landers | May 22, 2008 10:46 AM | Report abuse

We will give in and concede to WoW and his related sock puppets that they are bitter and unhappy about backing the wrong horse in the face of incontrovertible evidence and subsequently made to look like fools IF the same sock puppets will concede that Obama is going to knock the snot out of McCain in November to kick off eight years of putting this country back on track.

There, are you happy? Now go away.

Posted by: bondjedi | May 22, 2008 10:46 AM | Report abuse

With all due respect, what the F**K are you talking about? What do you base your retarded, evenly spaced, factually challenged daily diatribes on? You waste a lot of time on this board with the same sh*t every day. Do us a favor and throw yourself and your lap top into the traffic on 37th and O and end this primary season's participation with a bang.

We get it, you will not be voting for Obama - he cried himself to sleep over it, but will survive. Bye now!


Posted by: 37th and O troll alert repeat message | May 22, 2008 10:40 AM | Report abuse

soccermom6... Give me a break. Oh, boo-hoo, poor Clintons. That "poor me" line is wearing so thin.

Billary is still running because she/they can't give up center-stage power.... they'll do literally anything to stay there, even ruining the party's chances in November then blaming it on Obama.

I used to be a Clinton diehard.... now I just feel like I was duped. It's about, and has always been about... THEM!

http://whathappenedtomycountry.blogspot.com

Posted by: Truth Hunter | May 22, 2008 10:40 AM | Report abuse

I read a great deal of "anti" Hillary comments in these posts. In fact, much of Obama's support and strategy seems predicated on this alone. This is a good strategy for the person wishing to get elected but devastating for the electorate. History teaches this over and over again. People should learn the lessons from history NOT repeat them. Reactionary politics is never a good thing.

I live in Canada. We had a Prime minister who wanted to raise the gasoline prices to 38 cents a litre. (this was obviously some time ago) The people of Canada were outraged. His opposition counterpart told that public as a campaign "promise" that he would "never raise gas prices 38 cents a litre". The people kicked out the old government on a non confidence motion, elected this new person based on their "promise", and then he raised the gas prices 43 cents a litre. When asked, about the new price , he replied that he ONLY said he wouldn't raise them 38 cents a litre.
We had another government leader who brought in "photo radar" (the police took pictures of your car speeding and gave your car a ticket, whether you were driving it or not...the most hated "device" in Canada ever). Another unheard of politician said he would get rid of it. The people just wanted it gone...or more to the point, the leader who gave it to us. They didn't elect the new leader, they threw the old leader out...and that is not the same as "picking", or intelligently choosing the next government. This next government, or rather next leader was Mike Harris (google him, if you want. He destroyed education, nursing, and many other systems in our province). He had an agenda that no-one knew about or saw, because they only wanted to rid themselves of the old, and whatever the new was, they hardly cared less about....that is, until it arrived on their doorstep.
Lastly, we had a liberal leader, who people didn't trust any more, and a new conservative leader, Mike Harris, the same guy from above (he was just starting his career) so they didn't want to give him a chance), and an NDP leader (Bob Rae) whose party had never held power in its history. In fact they had never enjoyed more than 19% of the popular vote. But on this night, voters, in a monumental mental brain fart decided to kick out the old, and elected a party who had no experience.
In the next five years they tripled out debt, reduced our credit rating, ...etc, etc. Our province has still not recovered.
Hillary has been in politics a long time. She will have made enemies...and friends, no doubt. BUT, she has done things.
From what I have read on these posts, Obama has not done anything, so it easy not to hate him. He has no enemies. Quite obviously. He has stepped on no-ones toes. But he has also made no friends either. He talks about change. But HOW is he to accomplish this change?
He reminds me of those students (I am a teacher in a catholic school) who gets up every student election and "promise" more "civies" days because it is what the other students want to hear, and it gets them elected, but as a staff member, I know that the administration will never allow them to make those changes: the rules are the rules, and the principal makes those, not the students.
It is one thing to promise something, it is quite another to have the resources to deliver it.
Similiarly, it is one thing to "pick" a new leader, and quite another thing to "kick" the old one out. I hope for all of your sakes, that your not just kicking Hillary out (and yes, I am aware that she was not really leading anything, but just wishing to lead), because you will live to regret your decision to accept Barrack, and all that Barrack "really" encompasses...an agenda that you don't really know about, inexperience (you have no track record, so you can't really predict how he will react to any real political situation), inexperience again (how do you accomplish things in the back rooms of power without powerful friends)...I hope that he is all he is promised to be because it looks like he will win. Keep an eye on him,...make him accountable,...make him do what he said he was going to do. Each of our leaders, we "kicked" out...not really a good example, eh? (hey, I am Canadian)

Posted by: Scott | May 22, 2008 10:40 AM | Report abuse

Why Clinton (Still) Runs:

She has nothing else to do. I don't doubt for a minute that she has no real desire to be in the Senate. The Senate seat was supposed to be a stepping stone to the Presidency, nothing more. Her Senate career is marked by clear decisions intended to boost her future candidacy. For instance, the vote for approval to use force in Iraq was a clearly calculated move to appear 'tough enough' to be Commander in Chief. That she now claims she never thought Bush would actually invade stretches the limits of credibility beyond breakage. Likewise, her efforts to establish herself as an agent of compromise - working with colleagues of both parties - was intended to burnish her image as a uniter, not a divider, to borrow a phrase from another fraud. Most telling, I think, is that while she argues that she's been a lifelong fighter for the little people, for women and children, for healthcare - where's the legislative record? Where's the landmark bill with the name Clinton stamped on top? We don't see it, because it would have been something that could be used against her in her run for higher office. Much like the way McCain is tarnished - to some voters - for McCain-Feingold, or Kennedy-McCain. No, Clinton was 'too smart' to get caught in that trap. Her campaign for the Presidency is unencumbered by 'signature' legislation that could be used against her.

So, to repeat the point, she runs because that's all she knows how to do.

Posted by: bsimon | May 22, 2008 10:39 AM | Report abuse

Oh, and here's what I noticed; the Obama supporters would rather have Obama win the nomination and lose the election then admit that a Clinton nomination is in our best interest as Democrats if we hope to win the 2008 Presidency. But they would rather go down with the Obama ship in Nov. by handing the Presidency to McCain. Obama is the dumbest pick I have ever seen. He is ripe for losing the election badly it will make history. Obama bank on the Clinton Democrats falling behind him and yet they won't. They are more careful than the Obama Democrats. This is why Hillary Clinton must stay in all the way to the convention.

Posted by: g | May 22, 2008 9:52 AM

******************************

This thesis is that the Superdelegates are willing to tank the November election just to get rid of Hillary now - Maybe there is some truth to it.

Think about it.

The Superdelegates are the people who have been dragged through the mud by the Clintons - they were ready to cut the Clintons loose in 1998 - but Ken Starr came out with that report which offended so many people - caused the democratic wins in 1998.

The thing is this: it isn't 1998 anymore - all these people are living in the past - 10 years ago.

Once Hillary is gone, the democrats will see Obama for what he is - an empty suit with a campaign theme which he can't match his actions to.


Obama has so little experience it is scary.

Our nation is at war - the world is in a dangerous place right now - an inexperience person is just NOT the way to go and it is unbelievable how many people out there are willing to forget that.

Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country.

How about starting with a serious evaluation of the Presidential candidates and their qualifications????


/

Posted by: 37th&OStreet | May 22, 2008 10:38 AM | Report abuse

Hillary doesn't get it any more. She is drawing a few hundred old ladies to her events while Obama is over flowing 20,000 capacity arenas with people wanting change. He will be at the BankAtlantic Center tomorrow in Broward county and we are being told to be there before 2 p.m. for what is to start at 3:30. They expect an over flow crowed. The B.A. center seats 21,000. Hillary is becoming a joke and parody of herself. She looks like an SNL skit anymore not a presidential candidate. She is doing senior centers for God sake, talking to people in wheelchairs who probably won't even vote. She has completely lost it.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 22, 2008 10:37 AM | Report abuse

A dirty campaign usually ends dirty - the two candidates do not get along - the other candidate usually takes the opportunity to slam the other.


Obama ran a dirty campaign.

Posted by: 37th&OStreet |

With all due respect, what the F**K are you talking about? What do you base your retarded, evenly spaced, factually challenged daily diatribes on? You waste a lot of time on this board with the same sh*t every day. Do us a favor and throw yourself and your lap top into the traffic on 37th and O and end this primary season's participation with a bang.

We get it, you will not be voting for Obama - he cried himself to sleep over it, but will survive. Bye now!

Posted by: to the troll on 37th and O street | May 22, 2008 10:36 AM | Report abuse

I just read an interesting post over at TNR and I see quite a bit of truth to it - the Clintons are fighting so hard b/c they feel as if they are being impeached all over again...

Posted by: soccrmom6 | May 22, 2008 10:30 AM | Report abuse

Yep there he goes again! Good Old WAPO Chris The Head Obama Shill Still Trying to
Smear Hillary Clinton and Stop All Votes
Being Counted in 2008! Give it up Chris as
the voters are on to you and Obama and know
your a pair of losers! Go Johnny Mack! Go
Hillary Clinton! No Way Obama in 2008! And
No Way Do We Want Bitter Black Racist
Michelle Obama as First Lady or a another
Inexperienced,Arrogant,Smirking, Phony
Lying Braindamaged Cocaine Addict Democrat
Version of George W Bush in tnhe form of
Democrat Barack Hussein Obama in the White
House in 2008! No To Obama and Obama! NO WAY Howard Dean and Nancy Pelosi will the
Independent Voters like me ever vote for
your Loser Barack Hussein Obama the Democrat Black Version of Bush! NOBAMA!

Posted by: Ralphinphnx | May 22, 2008 10:30 AM | Report abuse

I don't care. I just want her to go. She competed well, she was defeated by a more skilled candidate with a better message, and there was a time long ago when anyone else would have dropped out for the good of their own political future and that of the party. She didn't because people are scared of the Clintons and didn't act strongly enough to get her to recognize the inevitable and bow out, as they would have anyone else, male or female.

Here are the \consequences of her self-absorbed, baby-boomer attitude.

McCain is interviewing vp finalist candidates after acknowledging over a month ago that his search was beginning. He had time to take a world tour and look reasonably presidential with world leaders in important countries, while his slips of the tongue were reported but not obsessed over. He had time to do a biography tour to explain who he is and where he came from. He had time to visit New Orleans and other desperately poor places to show that he is not oblivious to issues of poverty and social justice; he may not have a particular plan to deal with them but he at least acknowledges the issues are there. He's had time to confront lurking, long-standing issues like the lobbyists in his campaign and clean house. He's had time to put his field organization and fund-raising in order. He's even had time to take it easy, rest up, and socialize with reporters at the ranch.

Meanwhile, the person whom the Democrats will obviously nominate, simply based on the rules of the Democratic primary process and the results of the first 25 or 30 contests, has had to stay in the US and not go abroad as McCain could; stay out of important, even crucial states for the fall so he can battle full tilt for guaranteed-red states like Kentucky and territories like Puerto Rico that cannot vote at all in November, as well as for very blue states that will go for whoever is the nominee; fight a war on "two fronts" in which at many times prior to North Carolina his Democratic opponent and John McCain have mimicked and buttressed each others' attacks on him; and watch as his Democratic opponent has systematically inflamed racial, gender, regional, and class tensions in a way that has no real chance of helping her with the superdelegates but may inflict lasting damage through to November.

Why has she done this? Who knows and who cares.

Posted by: Fairfax Voter | May 22, 2008 10:25 AM | Report abuse

Mr. Fix.. non of the above, but you already know that. This rag of a site couldn't get it right even if they wanted to....but hey.. thanks for the b$ read...

Posted by: Robinhood | May 22, 2008 10:23 AM | Report abuse

What worries me the most about Clinton's continual campaigning is her lack of judgment. Can't she tell the race is over for her? I appreciate that she really wanted the presidency - too bad; not enough voters wanted her. What type of leadership is she demonstrating by not making decisions on clear, convincing evidence. The argument that the presidency is due her is laughable - the same is true for any other position in public service. When it's an elected position you earn it via votes. When it's an appointed position you earn it by inspiring confidence in the person that can appoint you. What is her strategy? I know she is a smart person, but she appears to be stuck on stupid at the moment.

Posted by: Dorothy | May 22, 2008 10:23 AM | Report abuse

To quote Robert Novak today:

"At the same time, Obama implores McCain in the interest of "one nation" and "one people" not to attack him. The shorthand, widely repeated by the news media, is that the Republican candidate must not "Swift boat" Obama. That amounts to unilateral political disarmament by McCain."


THAT IS WHY HILLARY IS STAYING IN.

Obama talked the talk of one nation - do not attack Obama on race - Hillary bought into that and decided to play along with Obama.


Then the FRAUD Obama and its ugly head came out.

Obama turned around and ran a sleazy race-baiting smear campaign against Bill Clinton.


This ran complete with false charges that the black community should be "offended" by remarks.


NOT your post-racial paradise.


A dirty campaign usually ends dirty - the two candidates do not get along - the other candidate usually takes the opportunity to slam the other.

Obama ran a dirty campaign.


Posted by: 37th&OStreet | May 22, 2008 10:22 AM | Report abuse

Chris,

I am going to repost my 2 comments together, then exit this discussion. I moved to DC in 1961 and I know it well. I have watched many White Houses. Please give some consideration to discussing the backroom dealings that went on at Greenbriar, as well as those that are going on right now in the chambers of Nancy Pelosi and others who understand the disgusting way the Clintons have treated their fellow Democrats. I don't think even most of her dedicated volunteers know about any of this, but you must know it is true. Why don't you say it?
----------------------------
The Democratic power struggle has now come full circle, as the quiet machinations of the moneyed "group" which in 1990 huddled at Greenbriar - the one that helped put Bill Clinton in the White House - can no longer serve his wife, even with the name recognition she brings.

And why? Aside from the unprecedented but (now obvious) infusion of normally inactive new voters, the country will soon awaken to the stories of how the Clintons quietly "left for dead" the campaigns of both Al Gore and John Kerry. (Not to mention what they did to Jimmy Carter after Bill's first term).

What these two have done to their fellow Democrats behind the scenes is truly disgusting, and it surprises me that the Post and other press has not yet given this any attention.

But behind the scenes, I can guarantee that the wheels have been turning. Hillary Clinton is finished, at least for now, and I sure hopes she has the good sense to exit gracefully.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mo is correct. Clinton is finished, and another writer said she should take the money and run. I'm sure they will survive, but the question remains whether the Democratic party can survive the continuing machinations of this political couple.

Hillary is only starting to get a clue about how many lies she has seen uncovered. The sniper fire comments pretty much did it for me. As one who has known many Special Forces volunteers, I have to ask her: "Hillary, which sniper fire incident did you confuse the one in Bosnia with?"

And you people who support her want her as Commander-in-Chief? Get real.

Obama may be untested, but I much prefer him to Clinton. She needs to exit this race, if not today, as soon as the primaries are finished. Or perhaps she wants to repeat what she did (along with Bill) to Al Gore and John Kerry: leave them for dead and ignore them in the general election, hoping for a resurgence in 2012. It would not surprise me if this is what I would be hearing were I a bug on their backroom walls. Having voted for Bill Clinton twice, I feel I have done my part to ignore my gut feelings about him. But I now suspect his wife is and has been as involved in these machinations as he, and that is what truly disgusts me about this race.

Posted by: Expat2MEX | May 22, 2008 10:21 AM | Report abuse

That is exactly the reason Clinton can't get the Supers any more, they are gutless. You don't think in your wildest imagination they would over turn anything at this point? They will go with the flow to Obama from now on. They don't even have the courage to commit yet and get it over with much less do anything as radical as over turning results.

+++++++++

Hillary may want to run until there is nobody listening to her manipulative, disingenuous arguments. But what I would like to know is where are our fearless superdelegates? What are they waiting for? Are they also math-challenged like Hillary? Or are they just gutless? To let her ruin Obama's and the
party's chances by such vindictive campaigning is just not defensible. I just hope they are just a few brave souls willing to incur the wrath of Clintons that will announce for Obama soon to put him over the 2026 (or even 2209) number so we can shut her up once and for all!!!

Posted by: kant | May 22, 2008 10:13 AM

Posted by: Anonymous | May 22, 2008 10:20 AM | Report abuse

How many different people are posting under the name Words of Wisdom?

Posted by: aleks | May 22, 2008 10:20 AM | Report abuse

Hillary may want to run until there is nobody listening to her manipulative, disingenuous arguments. But what I would like to know is where are our fearless superdelegates? What are they waiting for? Are they also math-challenged like Hillary? Or are they just gutless? To let her ruin Obama's and the
party's chances by such vindictive campaigning is just not defensible. I just hope they are just a few brave souls willing to incur the wrath of Clintons that will announce for Obama soon to put him over the 2026 (or even 2209) number so we can shut her up once and for all!!!

Posted by: kant | May 22, 2008 10:13 AM | Report abuse

You are spot on with your obversation

At an appearance in Florida yesterday people were stunned by her. She was manic and nothing short of crazy. As we were leaving one older lade said she thought she may be insane and everyone began to laugher. I doubt anyone who was there would any longer vote for this nut after seeing her act up close.

+++++++++
SPARE us any crap about Hillary wanting to help anyone or anything.

She's a greedy, egomaniac, lying money grugging crazed
loser.

She wants to be president. She wants attention. She wants prestige. She can't get off the stage, and nothing else in the world matters.

Imagine THAT in the WH in these tremulous times. Imagine her on the interatnioanl stage when she didn't get enough of her way or attention! She's freaky. A huge danger.

Posted by: cristtalize | May 22, 2008 10:06 AM

Posted by: Anonymous | May 22, 2008 10:11 AM | Report abuse

Mo is correct. Clinton is finished, and another writer said she should take the money and run. I'm sure they will survive, but the question remains whether the Democratic party can survive the continuing machinations of this political couple.

Hillary is only starting to get a clue about how many lies she has seen uncovered. The sniper fire comments pretty much did it for me. As one who has known many Special Forces volunteers, I have to ask her: "Hillary, which sniper fire incident did you confuse the one in Bosnia with?"

And you people who support her want her as Commander-in-Chief? Get real.

Obama may be untested, but I much prefer him to Clinton. She needs to exit this race, if not today, as soon as the primaries are finished. Or perhaps she wants to repeat what she did (along with Bill) to Al Gore and John Kerry: leave them for dead and ignore them in the general election, hoping for a resurgence in 2012. It would not surprise me if this is what I would be hearing were I a bug on their backroom walls. Having voted for Bill Clinton twice, I feel I have done my part to ignore my gut feelings about him. But I now suspect his wife is and has been as involved in these machinations as he, and that is what truly disgusts me about this race.

Posted by: Expat2MEX | May 22, 2008 10:10 AM | Report abuse

Assuming for the sake of argument that HRC has a lot of party loyalty, maybe she is trying to keep Florida in play for the Dems this fall. She knows Florida Dems are feeling burned and by fanning the flames, she is trying to ensure that the party and the Obama campaign reach some compromise that makes the Florida voters feel better about the outcome. Thus, they will be favorably disposed to vote Democratic in the fall, rather than defecting to McCain or staying home.

That's a lot of "if's", but I'm trying to look at it in the light most favorable to her.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 22, 2008 10:09 AM | Report abuse

By running Hillary does several things....She keeps McCain out of the headlines somewhat. She keeps democrats, all democrats energized, she keeps the money flowing, and of course Chris you are correct she positions herself for 2012.

Contrary to the Obama people's thoughts, she also strengthens her hand with Obama and the party. No one is going to just excuse her, and send her home. She has amassed a huge following. The Obama people actually need her in a very basic sense.

She has the majority of the democratic voting people behind her. Obama made his wins with a hybrid of voters that included republicans that may, or probably will, switch back to McCain.
She and Obama know that in the end, he needs her to help to make inroads into her base (there is only about 5 months for this to happen).

Obama is handling her with kid gloves because he needs her, and she knows it. Contary to the pundits, and core Obama supporters, she is alive and still a valuble member of the party.

In the end, she could become the Senate Majority Leader or even Vice President if Obama wants her support enough. I believe he knows that needs it.......

Posted by: jb | May 22, 2008 10:08 AM | Report abuse

CC:

You spent your time talking to political operatives to get this set of reasons why HRC is continuing her campaign? Except for the "Whither winning?" possibility, which you point out is fatally flawed, all of these possibilities have been mentioned at some point in the comments section of your blog. Even the basketball analogy, though without the specifics of the C's vs. the Cavs.

If your "insiders" are no more insightful than the posters on your blog, maybe you need to find more knowledgeable political operatives. Of course, the other possibility is that political insiders don't have a clue what they're doing except getting paid to spout platitudes that anyone with a computer and ISP can type.

Posted by: mnteng | May 22, 2008 10:07 AM | Report abuse

Pure and simple! She wants her birthright - the presidency! To achieve that, she will do anything, no matter how despicable, including soliciting the votes of racists in Kentucky and elsewhere. She is a true "psycho." One moment, she is all so nice - "honor to be with ypu Obama," and the next an ice queen - "too bad for you! I am going to win." It is scary to think that such an unstable person will have her finger on the nuclear trigger. Hope to God such a mean, vindictive, unscrupulous person does not get the democratic nomination.

Posted by: kant | May 22, 2008 10:07 AM | Report abuse


SPARE us any crap about Hillary wanting to help anyone or anything.

She's a greedy, egomaniac, lying money grugging crazed
loser.

She wants to be president. She wants attention. She wants prestige. She can't get off the stage, and nothing else in the world matters.

Imagine THAT in the WH in these tremulous times. Imagine her on the interatnioanl stage when she didn't get enough of her way or attention! She's freaky. A huge danger.

Posted by: cristtalize | May 22, 2008 10:06 AM | Report abuse

Kick-ass analysis CC. Comprehensive stuff.

2012 is definitely on her mind. Forget VP... she wants the top gig.

Unfortunately for her, it will be 2016 at the earliest... and whoever Obama picks as VP will have been on the scene for 8 years, and may well give her a second nomination defeat to send her into her 69 year old retirement.

Posted by: Boutan | May 22, 2008 10:04 AM | Report abuse

There is a great scene on "The West Wing." Sam is talking to Will about why he is still running a congressional campaign after the candidate died in a district where Democrats never compete.

Sam asks, "What are ya doing here man?"

Will: "Sam, I swear to God, I'm trying to win an election."

I can't help but think of that scene every time this discussion comes up.

Posted by: Zach | May 22, 2008 10:02 AM | Report abuse

By running Hillary does several things....She keeps McCain out of the headlines somewhat. She keeps democrats, all democrats energized, she keeps the money flowing, and of course Chris you are correct she positions herself for 2012.

Contrary to the Obama people's thoughts, she also strengthens her hand with Obama and the party. No one is going to just excuse her, and send her home. She has amassed a huge following. The Obama people actually need her in a very basic sense.

She has the majority of the democratic voting people behind her. Obama made his wins with a hybrid of voters that included republicans that may, or probably will, switch back to McCain.
She and Obama know that in the end, he needs her to help to make inroads into her base (there is only about 5 months for this to happen).

Obama is handling her with kid gloves because he needs her, and she knows it. Contary to the pundits, and core Obama supporters, she is alive and still a valuble member of the party.

In the end, she could become the Senate Majority Leader or even Vice President if Obama wants her support enough. I believe he knows that needs it.......

Posted by: jack ryan | May 22, 2008 10:00 AM | Report abuse

9:46 a.m. post

"I know as little about baseball as I do politics."

Posted by: Words of Wisdom Translator | May 22, 2008 9:58 AM | Report abuse

People Bill has been doing his influence peddling and paid him tens of millions of dollars are on the case and will take out Obama before this is all over. In short, she is waiting for Obama to be dead so she can step in. These are the Clintons and nothing is off the table for them, not even murder.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 22, 2008 9:58 AM | Report abuse

Let me suggest another reason why Hillary stays in the race. It is becoming increasingly apparent that military action against Iran is imminent. When it happens, Hillary will join McCain in supporting such action and urging even harsher measures. Obama will be painted as weak and vacillating, not matter what he says, and even if he proclaims support for the strike.

We are seeing the predicates for this strategy being laid every day: the stories about Jewish concerns about Obama, the incessant media drumbeat about the alleged Iranian threat, the absurd spin that Hillary is "tough" and "a fighter."

Hillary will succeed in slowing the tide of superdelegates flowing to Obama, and will damage the democratic party and its prospects in November immeasurably. She will not, however, succeed in grabbing the nomination from Obama.

Posted by: thomas c | May 22, 2008 9:58 AM | Report abuse

It is time for the Clintons to go away from the national political scene. It is time for a new direction, new people, new ideas. Enough already...too much money, energy and time has been spent on this primary....Time to move on...

Posted by: ANG | May 22, 2008 9:56 AM | Report abuse

Clinton's relentless and unprincipled march to the white house is the most unAmerican campaign I've ever witnessed. She seems to talk out of both sides of her mouth on every issue:

In effect, Hillary says:

'Every vote must count! (except those cast in caucus states won by Obama!)'

'Yes, Yes , Yes - Sen. Obama would win against McCain (By the way, he can't win!)'

'My healthcare mandate plan is universal (Except for those people excused from enforcement!)'

'I was against the war from the start (except for when I voted for it!)'


I'm tired of this. She needs to stop dividing the country, swallow her pride and step aside gracefully. She needs to put the country first. And the rest of the party regulars need to stop being so cowardly and take a stand against her.

I for one, as a true democrat, will never vote for Hillary Clinton ever again.

Posted by: Mo | May 22, 2008 9:53 AM | Report abuse

Clinton's relentless and unprincipled march to the white house is the most unAmerican campaign I've ever witnessed. She seems to talk out of both sides of her mouth on every issue:

In effect, Hillary says:

'Every vote must count! (except those cast in caucus states won by Obama!)'

'Yes, Yes , Yes - Sen. Obama would win against McCain (By the way, he can't win!)'

'My healthcare mandate plan is universal (Except for those people excused from enforcement!)'

'I was against the war from the start (except for when I voted for it!)'


I'm tired of this. She needs to stop dividing the country, swallow her pride and step aside gracefully. She needs to put the country first. And the rest of the party regulars need to stop being so cowardly and take a stand against her.

I for one, as a true democrat, will never vote for Hillary Clinton ever again.

Posted by: Mo | May 22, 2008 9:53 AM | Report abuse

Well duh! You mentioned every crazy scenario but the obvious! The reason she stays in has been stated in her interviews recently....

She can still win! All she has to do (after Florida and Michigan are counted) is convince superdelegates that she is the only candidate that can beat McCain in the election.

No, she has no interest in being VP with Obama because Obama would lose the election.

Clinton's case is this; she is waiting for Obama to stumble again as he has recently by showing his weakness on foreign policy. One day he says Iran is not a threat, two days later...he flip-flops and says Iran is a threat. Obama says he will sit down and talk with Irans leader with no pre-conditions. This shows he has no clue about how to handle hostile leaders of nations. If Obama keeps stumbling and stumbles big, the superdelegates will flock to her and she will be nominated at the convention. The important thing for her right now is to not give up all the way to the convention. If Obama continues on as he is, he is sure to really dig a bigger hole for himself.

Oh, and here's what I noticed; the Obama supporters would rather have Obama win the nomination and lose the election then admit that a Clinton nomination is in our best interest as Democrats if we hope to win the 2008 Presidency. But they would rather go down with the Obama ship in Nov. by handing the Presidency to McCain. Obama is the dumbest pick I have ever seen. He is ripe for losing the election badly it will make history. Obama bank on the Clinton Democrats falling behind him and yet they won't. They are more careful than the Obama Democrats. This is why Hillary Clinton must stay in all the way to the convention.

Posted by: g | May 22, 2008 9:52 AM | Report abuse

Chris:


The major reason why Hillary is staying in is because Obama talked up a "post-racial" campaign and then turned around and race-baited with a smear campaign against Bill Clinton in South Carolina.

Who are you trying to kid?

Obama can not play dirty like that and expect everyone to make nice and help him out later.

Obama is a FRAUD and a HYPOCRITE.

Hillary is not going to make it easy for Obama - Hillary just might turn around after Puerto Rico, say she has the most popular votes and she is going to the Convention. I don't know if Obama can hold on against Hillary all summer.

.

Posted by: 37th&OStreet | May 22, 2008 9:52 AM | Report abuse

No one leaves the stage while the Klieg lights are on until the exit cue. As long as she can get others to pay or retire her campaing debts, it's free, full-time exposure: regardless of her future plans or what destiny has in store.

Until Tosca has completed her aria, it's not hit-the-bricks time.

Thanks much. HLB

Posted by: HLBeckPE | May 22, 2008 9:48 AM | Report abuse

The Democratic power struggle has now come full circle, as the quiet machinations of the moneyed "group" which in 1990 huddled at Greenbriar - the one that helped put Bill Clinton in the White House - can no longer serve his wife, even with the name recognition she brings.

And why? Aside from the unprecedented but (now obvious) infusion of normally inactive new voters, the country will soon awaken to the stories of how the Clintons quietly "left for dead" the campaigns of both Al Gore and John Kerry. (Not to mention what they did to Jimmy Carter after Bill's first term).

What these two have done to their fellow Democrats behind the scenes is truly disgusting, and it surprises me that the Post and other press has not yet given this any attention.

But behind the scenes, I can guarantee that the wheels have been turning. Hillary Clinton is finished, at least for now, and I sure hopes she has the good sense to exit gracefully.

Posted by: expat2MEX | May 22, 2008 9:47 AM | Report abuse

Enhancing the inevitable book deal, which is why she was comfortable lending campaign from personal monies. First woman, in modern times to run for President; she a former First Lady and current NY Senator. Like her or not, that's Historic beyond measure. She can't drop out. She will be better remembered than her husband, and with the already established book deal, will be poised to make more money speaking than Bill. Smart Cookie, but would be a poor choice for President. She's too bitter, too vengful, and not Margaret Thatcher enough (which is to say she's not both a fighter and a lady to the first degree.)

Posted by: emeraldfalcon | May 22, 2008 9:46 AM | Report abuse

"Number of delegates from the swing and blue states" is a "meaningful metric."

Chris - this number is sort of like "on base percentage" - it doesn't win the game but it certainly brings you there.

Posted by: Words of Wisdom | May 22, 2008 9:46 AM | Report abuse

Hillary presses on because she, as a long-time target of the dark side, knows that Obama's quest for the presidency will implode due to:

* Skepticism over his electability;

* His lack of experience and seasoning;

* His unwillingness to do what it takes to finish her off. (Each time he praises her, he only looks weaker.)

When the doubts catch up to Obama, Hillary wants to be at the ready, with a string of recent victories as justification for awarding her the nomination.

What she may not realize is that Obama surely will play any cards he may have left -- uniting with others in the party who are repelled by the idea of a Clinton dynasty.

The unity effort will result in the nomination of a compromise candidate wholly backed by the Obama forces, perhaps with Obama as the vice presidential nominee.

At that point, Hillary will be checkmated -- consigned to return to her Senate career, where she stands the best success of forging a true legacy in the Teddy Kennedy mold.

As of now, she's just a mean-spirited opportunist who rightly has earned the reputation as a politician who will do or say anything to win at any cost, even if it destroys her party's chances in the fall.

Posted by: scrivener | May 22, 2008 9:43 AM | Report abuse

Hillary presses on because she, as a long-time target of the dark side, knows that Obama's quest for the presidency will implode due to:

* Skepticism over his electability;

* His lack of experience and seasoning;

* His unwillingness to do what it takes to finish her off. (Each time he praises her, he only looks weaker.)

When the doubts catch up to Obama, Hillary wants to be at the ready, with a string of recent victories as justification for awarding her the nomination.

What she may not realize is that Obama surely will play any cards he may have left -- uniting with others in the party who are repelled by the idea of a Clinton dynasty.

The unity effort will result in the nomination of a compromise candidate wholly backed by the Obama forces, perhaps with Obama as the vice presidential nominee.

At that point, Hillary will be checkmated -- consigned to return to her Senate career, where she stands the best success of forging a true legacy in the Teddy Kennedy mold.

As of now, she's just a mean-spirited opportunist who rightly has earned the reputation as a politician who will do or say anything to win at any cost, even it destroys her party's chances in the fall.

Posted by: scrivener | May 22, 2008 9:40 AM | Report abuse

"Clinton trails in Barack Obama in every meaningful metric of the Democratic nomination fight; she has fewer pledged delegates and superdelegates, has won fewer states and trails in the popular vote (unless, of course, Michigan and Florida are included in that count)."


Chris with all due respect


Adding up all the 50 states has to be a "meaningful metric" - please Chris do not leave us for Planet O.

The popular vote, with whatever adjustments, is a "meaningful metric"


Also the CLOSENESS of the popular vote is a "meaningful metric" Obviously, the Superdelegates could much more easily go with a candidate which is 1 or 2 % behind in the popular vote as opposed to 7 or 8 % behind.

The large blue states - that is a "meaningful metric."

Taking out the red states which the democrats have no chance of winning in November, and reviewing a "number of delegates from the swing and blue states" is a "meaningful metric."

In all honesty, there are several meaningful metrics in which Hillary is ahead - or at least close - and there are few like the latter in which she is well ahead.


I believe anyone who has been following these boards knows that I believe the Superdelegates should add in Florida and Michigan in their decisions - and use those numbers in there determination of who is ahead in "pledged delegates."

50 States is a meaningful metric - to be honest I believe anyone who believes 48 states is a meaningful metric is completely out of their minds, especially when it is clear the democrats need Michigan this fall.


/


Posted by: Words of Wisdom | May 22, 2008 9:39 AM | Report abuse

'Chris please understand she soaked up so much media time from Al Gore in 2000 - that just may have been the difference that year.'
-------------------------------
Gore ran as far away from the Clintons as he could because of the Blue Dress. Had he asked for their help they would have given it. Is their any lost love? No doubt they dislike each other. If Gore had a spine and taken on the FL vote we might not even be talking about this, then again we would have had to deal with VP Lieberman, YUK.

As for her 'evil plans' of running in 2012, I doubt very much since as was mentioned earlier, very few losers get a second shot, plus she would have to give up her Senate seat, very unlikely, unless it is for the Supreme Court. As for the party pushing out Reid, if it means them getting Hillary and Bill to help Obama, look for the tire marks on Reid and Pelosi's backs.

Posted by: Patrick NYC | May 22, 2008 9:34 AM | Report abuse

Frankly, I could give a rat's a$$ why she stays. She is prolonging the inevitable and if she would spend this remaining time contrasting the Dems and Repubs positions instead of practicing her "voice of the people" act (Hola, Puerto Rico!), it might be interesting to speculate her next move. However, her and the shrill heifer brigade that plants itself in front of every camera to scream "sexism" is getting old.

Posted by: LABC | May 22, 2008 9:31 AM | Report abuse

Hillary voted to give George W. Bush the authorization to invade Iraq - in 2002 -why?

Not to please her NY Democratic constituents who would have strongly supported a NO vote.

Hillary voted YES because she was positioning herself for an eventual election in which she would run against the Republicans -- a General Election.

That is why she refused for years to admit she had made a mistake with that vote. She saw the YES vote as a bulwark against Republican criticism.

For which race? 2004? Or 2008?

My point is that Hillary always has a reason for what she does -- and, although she may be frequently too cunning by half, you can bet that her refusal to leave the race has been coolly calculated to play to her advantage at some point in HER future.

The future of the United States, the cause of women shattering glass ceilings, the lives of our young soldiers thrust into a needless war are not as important to Hillary as is HER OWN FUTURE.

She is the quintessential amoral politician.

Posted by: GandalftheGrey | May 22, 2008 9:31 AM | Report abuse

What else is she going to do? Return to the Senate and hang out with those traitors who helped that upstart rob her of her crown? Spend more time with Bill?

Posted by: aleks | May 22, 2008 9:30 AM | Report abuse

Continuing on in the face of such immense futility is stupid. How can Clinton claim this is good for her, her party, and her country to act stupidly? Is this the role model for young (female) Americans she wants to be?

Posted by: egc52556 | May 22, 2008 9:27 AM | Report abuse

"Americans never give a loser a second chance in Presidential elections."

Off the top of my head, Kennedy handed Nixon his butt on a plate in 1960, but he managed to get into the White House 8 years later without too much trouble (and a few dirty tricks of course, but he would have won even without them). I'm sure there have been others.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 22, 2008 9:25 AM | Report abuse

Sadly, the HRC situation is beginning to look more and more like an "Old Yeller" scenario. To wit: what do you do with the old beloved family dog once it has become hopelessly and irretrievably rabid? The time has come for the so-called super delegates to exercise a modicum of moral authority and coax her from the stage with a sweeping endorsement of Obama. They may be the party's (and the nation's) last hope of a deus ex machina intervention in the third act of a Greek tragedy that looks and sounds more and more like Medea each minute.

Posted by: Kevin | May 22, 2008 9:25 AM | Report abuse

Hillary has been running for President for 10 years - she ran for the Senate as a platform for her run -

Chris please understand she soaked up so much media time from Al Gore in 2000 - that just may have been the difference that year.

She should not have run for the Senate out of the White House - she should have waited a bit so it appeared to be more on her own - AND she should have focused in on helping Al Gore.

In 2004 there is a curious story - Hillary was actually fearful that Howard Dean would win the White House and be in office for 8 years - which would effectively block Hillary from running until 2012.


Hillary was part of an organized effort to stop Howard Dean and bring back Kerry from the dead of his campaign - money was actually raised and commercials were aired.

That gives you an idea of how obsessed she was with her "set-up" to 2008 - she was willing to torpedo Howard Dean and then turn a cold shoulder to John Kerry, who also almost won.

It is NOT a stretch to say that SHE tanked the 2000 and 2004 Presidential elections for the democrats so that she could "set-up" her campaign in 2008.


In addition, there is ample evidence for this thesis.


Chris - if you do not believe me, when you have an off-the-record moment with Howard Dean, ask him what he thinks -


If she actually is tanking Obama in 2008 that makes 3 elections which she has tanked for the democrats just to get herself "set-up."

The democrats have to be ready to get rid of her - Howard Dean certainly is.


.

Posted by: 37th&OStreet | May 22, 2008 9:19 AM | Report abuse

If Obama becomes President, and succeeds, he will be re-elected in 2012.

If Obama becomes President, but fails, then the Democrats have no chance in 2012.

If McCain becomes President, and succeeds,
he will be re-elected in 2012.

If McCain becomes President, but fails, the Democrats have a good chance.
But I doubt if that is going to help Hillary because Americans never give a loser a second chance in Presidential elections.

The way I see it, she was given a chance mostly because of the popularity of her husband, and she blew it by a) picking the wrong people and b) running a hopelessly disorganized campaign. She thus demonstrated that she is neither well organized nor does she know how to pick the right people -- the two most important requirements for the job of President.

Posted by: Bodo | May 22, 2008 9:18 AM | Report abuse

"Hillary is dividing the party or destroying everyone in her path"

Admittedly I am a Hillary supporter and will be through the very end but I fail to see how she is in any way dividing the party. Given the electoral process of this country - she has every right to stay all the way through till the Dems officially decide on their nominee at the convention. Sen. Dodd, Sen. Biden, Sen. Edwards, Gov. Richardson didnt run to diss Sen. Clinton because "despite being a freshman senatoru she claimed she was #1 in line to be president (which by the way is exactly what Sen. Obama has done)" or anything else - they ran either cause they thought they had a chance or had issues they wanted to highlight and got out when they thought they were done. I think Sen. Clinton has infact made Sen. Obama a better candidate - despite his nice happy stories of "lets all hold hands and work together and hope to hope" she taught him that election is hard fought - all issues, topics, backgrounds are in play - everything you say, do or associate with is fair game - she prepared him for what will be potentially thrown at him in the general - which i think was clearly evident when recently Pres. Bush critized Sen. Obama's foreign policy in Israel - he immediately came back and hit hard! Something I doubt he would have done had he not learned that from the primaries...

Posted by: Amod | May 22, 2008 9:16 AM | Report abuse

"All of which begs the question: Why does she go on?"

No, it does not beg the question. It may lead you to ask the question, but to "beg the question" is a term of logic or argument that refers to a question that answers itself.

Posted by: Noonan | May 22, 2008 9:14 AM | Report abuse

"Clinton trails in Barack Obama in every meaningful metric of the Democratic nomination fight; she has fewer pledged delegates and superdelegates, has won fewer states and trails in the popular vote (unless, of course, Michigan and Florida are included in that count)."

No, not "of course" with MI and FL. it's only if MI and FL are counted THE WAY CLINTON WANTS and a bunch of caucus states are ignored. You have to ignore every person who caucused for Obama in Iowa where he crushed Clinton in order to get to her leading the popular vote.

Posted by: Noonan | May 22, 2008 9:13 AM | Report abuse

Here's the Democrat's general election problem in a nutshell. If Obama is the nominee he may not win the GE. There are two bad days of polls in the McCain-Obama matchup. In FL, according to Quinnipiac, Obama loses to McCain by 4 (Clinton is up by 7). In Ohio, the margins are exactly the same. In PA, she's up by 13, Obama by just 6 over McCain. Yesterday, Obama was ahead in Colorado, but in Missouri Clinton wins by 2 but Obama loses by three. (Rasmussen) Rasmussen also had Clinton winning FL, but Obama losing it. The worst is NC, where Survey USA has Clinton winning by 6 but Obama losing by 8. In Virginia, which was supposed to be close for Obama, the VCU poll has McCain beating Obama by 8 (and Clinton by 9).

So the Dems may have huge majorities in both houses, but not enough to overcome a probable McCain veto of progressive legislation. It is not rabid Dems I'm worried about crossing over. It's hundreds of thousands of moderate Republicans (who are really angry about the Bush years) and moderate to conservative Democrats. They're not on these sites.

Posted by: Katmandu | May 22, 2008 9:12 AM | Report abuse

The only folks who are obsessing over Clinton's drop out date are those in the media. Obama has expressed little concern but the media use language to describe his position that gives the impression he's tip-toeing around worrying about Clinton. The Fix and others would do the world a favor by just forgetting about her and start focusing on the general election issues. We're sick of this obsession and are ready to move on. Get a life!

Posted by: Media Critic | May 22, 2008 9:08 AM | Report abuse

Of all the arguments laid out, I think the 2012 argument makes the most sense - and I think the "making the brand" fits nicely into it - assuming for 1 sec that Sen. Obama wins the democratic nomination and goes on the lose the general electio - it is easy to see that the young voters will be disheartened which will go back to Sen. Clinton's argument that to win - you need someone who can play in OH, PA, WV, KY, FL, MI - I also think thats why she is fighting tooth and nail to get FL and MI delegates seated - she is laying the ground work for 2012 or 2016 (which might be too late given her age is going to come into play)

Posted by: Amod | May 22, 2008 9:07 AM | Report abuse

Please stop the misuse of the phrase "begs the question." The current situation may "raise the question" in your mind and your readers' minds. You may have chosen "beg" because you think the situation "screams out for us to ask this question."

Begging the question, or "petitio principii" is a debate tactic which is equivalent to asking for a summary judgement in a court of law. You are asking the other side to give up.

Please stop this abuse.

Posted by: mikeinmidland | May 22, 2008 9:03 AM | Report abuse

It's just all about Hillary. She will kill every sign of life in her path, a wrecking ball determined to fit her fantasies. I don't see her as a courageous fighter, I see her as a pathetic figure who will do and say most anything to get what she obviously feels is her birthright. And get it for her, not for her supporters just for her. No team player her. She has the potential to be entirely destructive as president for her hubris and her tin ear.

Posted by: nclwtk | May 22, 2008 9:02 AM | Report abuse

Chris:


Hillary is done after this year - the incentive of speaking fees might even cause her to leave the Senate and simply go make money.

The country is tired of her - she knows it is this year or bust.

Hillary has destroyed her relations in the Senate as well. She went in there as a freshman Senator and told everyone that she was first in line to run for President.

As one might imagine, that did not go over too well. Biden and Dodd ran against her. Others were not too happy.


The audacity was exceeded only by Obama, who had even less experience.

In the Senate, they expect respect for those who have been there for 20 years - Hillary did not do that.


I would find it hard to see Hillary be majority leader after her track record of the past few years however I guess it is possible.

Hillary did have a part in Bill's administration and there is a reason for term limits - putting them back in just will not work - let the other people in the party have their chance.

I really do not believe that many people appreciate the impact of the Gennifer Flowers episode on her ascent.


Without Gennifer Flowers, Bill would have never won, Hillary would have never made it anywhere.


Hillary would still be renting the cabin with Vince Foster, who would still be alive.

Her ascent has been fragile at best.


It is way past the time for her to go.

I believe this situation has created a dilemma for the party - Obama's support is more anti-hillary than pro-Obama.

Watch - when Hillary finally is gone, the anti-hillary supporters of Obama will get cold feet and start looking to 2012.


The age of McCain really works in McCain's favor - the democrats may believe that 4 years for McCain is pretty much not that bad - McCain deserves it.


Obama peaked on February 19th - his people can pretend all they want.

.

Posted by: Words of Wisdom | May 22, 2008 9:02 AM | Report abuse

Is it not evident ??

The false image as "resilient" and "tough", by continuing to misspending the money of the donors, will help her handily in 2012 if her goal to make lose OBAMA and win McCAIN succeeds.

Assuming that McCain will be unable to show a good performance, she will claim that she was right by qualifying OBAMA as bit electable and she would easily win the 2012 nomination !!

Of course, if Obama wins or McCain is successful, her bet would misfire !!

caminito

Posted by: caminito | May 22, 2008 8:59 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company