Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Wag the Blog: The Longer, the Better?

HALLANDALE BEACH, Fla. -- Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) continues to show no signs of dropping her candidacy for the Democratic presidential nomination, despite the seemingly quixotic nature of her bid.

"I'm going to keep going because you're keeping me going," she said at a rally yesterday in Oregon, pledging to her supporters to remain in the race regardless of the long odds against her.

At issue now for Democrats is not whether Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) will be the nominee -- he will be barring some sort of unforeseen catastrophic event -- but rather whether Clinton's pledge to remain in the race until the nomination fight ends in June (and perhaps beyond) is a good or bad thing for the party.

There are adherents of both positions.

Those who say Clinton's continued candidacy is for the good point to the massive attention and turnout that the race has produced to date and argue that it makes no sense to cut short the already-extended contest with just six votes left.

Those who oppose the continuation of the campaign see Clinton's presence as a nuisance that keeps Obama from focusing full time on Sen. John McCain (Ariz.). While Obama is the presumptive nominee, the argument goes, he can't entirely ignore Clinton the way McCain ignored former governor Mike Huckabee (Ark.) in the final days of the GOP contest. Clinton's aggressive approach and standing within the party make her impossible to look past.

For today's Wag the Blog we want to know where you fall on this question. Is Clinton doing damage or doing Obama a favor by staying in the race?

The comments section awaits your thoughts. The most thoughtful will be plucked out for a post of their own later next week.

By Chris Cillizza  |  May 10, 2008; 1:00 PM ET
Categories:  Wag The Blog  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: The Friday Line: Veepstakes!
Next: Week in Preview: North Mississippi All Star Race

Comments

You wonder what will happen to West Virginia's tourist economy if they overwhelmingly support Hillary in their primary. She is the self proclaimed ambassador for ignorant, poor white Americans who hate black Americans. Sadly, she's proud of it. Perhaps the KKK will find it a tourist's haven.

Posted by: MikeMcNally | May 12, 2008 10:24 AM | Report abuse

You wonder what will happen to West Virginia's tourist economy if they overwhelmingly support Hillary in their primary. She is the self proclaimed ambassador for ignorant, poor white Americans who hate black Americans. Sadly, she's proud of it. Perhaps the KKK will find it a tourist's haven.

Posted by: MikeMcNally | May 12, 2008 10:05 AM | Report abuse

You wonder what will happen to West Virginia's tourist economy if they overwhelmingly support Hillary in their primary. She is the self proclaimed ambassador for ignorant, poor white Americans who hate black Americans. Sadly, she's proud of it. Perhaps the KKK will find it a tourist's haven.

Posted by: MikeMcNally | May 12, 2008 9:05 AM | Report abuse

Wow, is it me or has this blog gone hopelessly over the cliff? It's not just one or two days' worth; it's virtually every entry. No more debate, no more discourse.

Now it's just commercials for people's favorite pet candidates. I liked it better when rufus and che were posting (gasp)

PS This new comment mechanism sucks! Constant hangups, missed posts, or duplicate posts. WaPo, please buy yourself a real web server.

Posted by: JD | May 12, 2008 8:57 AM | Report abuse

You wonder what will happen to West Virginia's tourist economy if they overwhelmingly support Hillary in their primary. She is the self proclaimed ambassador for ignorant, poor white Americans who hate black Americans. Sadly, she's proud of it. Perhaps the KKK will find it a tourist's haven.

Posted by: MikeMcNally | May 12, 2008 8:50 AM | Report abuse

Wow, is it me or has this blog gone hopelessly over the cliff? It's not just one or two days' worth; it's virtually every entry. No more debate, no more discourse.

Now it's just commercials for people's favorite pet candidates. I liked it better when rufus and che were posting (gasp)

Posted by: JD | May 12, 2008 8:48 AM | Report abuse

Ha ha, the Clinton legacy just keeps on growing. You wonder what will happen to West Virginia's tourist economy if they overwhelmingly support Hillary in their primary. She is the self proclaimed ambassador for ignorant, poor white Americans who hate black Americans. Sadly, she's proud of it. Perhaps the KKK will find it a tourist's haven.

Posted by: MikeMcNally | May 12, 2008 8:13 AM | Report abuse

Evidence for the voter registration effect: A couple weeks ago I was chatting with a Rock the Vote organizer who said that huge registration swells were following the primary calendar contest by contest. Interestingly, the Rock the Vote registration web page was seeing a big surge in each state on its election day, even where (as in most states) the registration deadline to participate in the primary had long passed. All the publicity around the primaries was definitely motivating people to register.

Posted by: Jason | May 12, 2008 1:50 AM | Report abuse

IT'S 'DEWEY BEATS TRUMAN' TIME AGAIN -- AND OBAMA WILL GET THE MESSAGE

Progressive Democrats are coming to the realization that what the "right wing" has been saying about the "mainstream media" is true: They're a bunch of arrogant, insulated, self-important plutocrats who believe it's their right to dictate the course of American politics.

Hillary Clinton will win, and win big, in both West Virginia and Kentucky, while Obama already has ceded both states to her. Once again, she will score a landslide in rural areas and the suburbs, areas where most voters are not members of minority groups.

She's already toned down her rhetoric (something she should have done a lot sonner), so charges of "playing the race card" just won't fly.

With the demos looking very much like Pennsylvania and Ohio, the smug confidence that has pervaded the Obama camp will turn to panicked concern: What if Hillary scores big in the suburban and rural areas of a state like Oregon? What if Oregon looks more like Ohio and Pennsylvania than Virginia or Indiana?

Hillary Clinton is proving that Obama cannot compete where Democrats need to win in the fall: In the suburbs, in rural America, and in the big states.

But she's already disqualified herself from the nomination, having alienated both the party's base and its leadership with her self-aggrandizing and polarizing persona and her husband's flubbering bluster.

So where does that leave the superdelegates? Once again, the mainstream media has misread the political landscape. So Obama has pulled slightly ahead in the superdelegate count. But where is the tidal wave? It's not happening, and it won't happen. The supers are waiting, quietly, nervously.

JOHN EDWARDS TO THE RESCUE?

Just dissect what John Edwards had to say on the Sunday shows. Obama, he said, is the likely nominee. But he's withholding his endorsement. Why? Because his real message is this: Obama looks like he's ahead now, but as he continues to perform poorly among the demographics that the Dems need to win in the fall, the superdelegates will sit on their hands. And guess who wants to be available as an uncommitted party wise man when the party looks for a way out of its dilemma? John Edwards, of course.

Why else did Edwards use the Sunday shows to announce a renewed initiative for fighting poverty? He's not running for anything, right? So what's up with the poverty talk? Why were his words about Obama so cool and so measured? Why did he express appreciation for Hillary's show of "fight"?

Because John Edwards needs Hillary as his stalking horse. He wants to be the go-to guy, should the supers decide that neither Obama nor Hillary is electable in the fall.

OBAMA WILL TAKE THE VEEP SLOT TO FINISH OFF HILLARY -- AND HIS FOLLOWERS WILL GO ALONG

But what about the legions of Obama supporters, all those new voters who are supposed to be ready to vote Democratic iin the fall? Here's the calculus: They'll fall in line to support John Edwards, because Barack Obama just may decide that in the wake of Hillary victories in West Virginia, Kentucky, Montana, and yes, Oregon, he has no choice but to withdraw from contention for the presidential nomination and throw his support, and his delegates, to Edwards.

Edwards, of course, would immediately name Barack Obama -- the selfless healer -- as his pick for veepee. In terms of sheer power, this would be a co-presidency, because none of this can or will happen without Obama's enthusiastic backing. And both John Edwards and Barack Obama will know it, as will the entire
Democratic leadership.

This is the price that Obama must pay for defeating Hillary Clinton once and for all. And it is a price he SHOULD pay -- because this nation simply will not elect as their president a man with a scant three years on the national scene. Barack Obama may be a great inspirational leader, but he simply lacks the experience, as well as the political savvy, to deliver the voting blocs the Dems need to win.

OBAMA HAS CHOSEN NOT TO FIGHT FOR THE TOP JOB -- PERHAPS WISELY

Obama proved his political ineptitude by conceding West Virginia and Kentucky before a single vote was counted. Ask yourself: Is that what a Bobby Kennedy would have done? Of course not. Now Obama's rushing to West Virginia on election eve, a clear acknowledgement that his pre-election concession was a grave political error.

But it's too late. Hillary's on a roll. The only way the man Time magazine declared "the winner" can come out on top is to withdraw from contention for the top spot. Obama should do it soon, before Hillary has a chance to rack up more victories, because wiith each Hillary win, the doubts about Obama's electability will grow.

Obama could have finished off Hillary long ago if he went in for the kill. But he's proven that's not his nature. And maybe that's a good thing in the end, for this cycle - because it shows that he lacks the political will to triumph as the party's presidential nominee.

Hillary is not defeated. With each additional win, Obama looks weaker. It's time for Obama to play kingmaker, and execute the power play that will finish off Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton and their machine once and for all.

It's time for Obama to let John Edwards pick up the mantle in a year that should heavily favor the Democratic nominee. The "inexperience" rap won't work if Obama runs for vice president. He'll bring along his devoted followers, and Hillary's too, except for the extreme feministas and gays who constitute her diehard core of support.

It's time for Obama to end it with a power play that will show who's got the real poltical stones.

Your move, Barack -- before the supers force you to do it.

Posted by: scrivener | May 12, 2008 12:45 AM | Report abuse

Clinton is only doing herself a favor by staying in the race, in the hopes of keeping herself relevant in politics.

But it's for naught, just as the NY Times said earlier today, Obama is the candidate who beat the Clintons. For someone who was a political unknown just a few years ago, Obama has shown in doing this that he is the real thing, not just another politician.

Posted by: Working-class White Guy | May 12, 2008 12:25 AM | Report abuse

Consider what some members of this blog have been posting - that Obama's tactics and contradictions have been tearing the party apart - good thesis.


The problem at the moment is that the partisans within the democratic party really can not see what is going on - and alot has gone on.

The truth is that Obama's contraditions -

first post-racial, then the blacks are all for him,

first he is standing by Wright, then not,

first he is for Black Liberation Theology, taking his children to the church, then no one wants to believe it.


first he is for the bitter guns statement, then he didnt mean it


This is the kind of stuff that NO ONE wants in a Presidential candidate.


This country has gone through Bill Clinton, then Bush.


The Obama people are desperate for a fresh approach, a fresh face - that is clear - however Obama is not your guy for that

Obama is not.

The last time the democratic party fractured, there was a civil war in this country and millions of people died.

Let's be serious and honest - the democratic party went through the 2002 and 2004 elections in support of the war.


To then blame Bush is a little well, you come up with the adjective.

If you look back at the 2006 election, the democrats could not even come up with a clear anti-war position then, their position was hazy at best.

Obama is not your guy to fix any of this.


Obama's little game of being post-racial however not practicing it - is tearing the democratic party apart.


Worse, it is distracting the party from a clear message.

Governing the country effectively and properly comes in a distant last in all this craziness.


Posted by: Consider It | May 12, 2008 12:04 AM | Report abuse

I think it is great for Obama that the race continues, and it will give him a huge advantage going into November. This is true for a few reasons: vetting, organization, and Democratic party messaging. First of all, the things that have all come out about Obama are things that Republicans would not hesitate to use in November. This is still a time when the general electorate isn't paying attention. He is able to deal with things and get the media frenzy out of the way in front of a friendly crowd of Democratic primary voters. The Reverend Wright story will have no more legs in the media during the general election. Second is the huge national organization he is building. Because he will run in all 50 states, he will have organizations in every precinct in the country already. We already know that Obama can run an amazing GOTV effort, and now in the general election it will be with experienced staff in all 50 states. Voter registration and party organizations has gone through the roof in competitive primary states. This will be a huge asset for a general election campaign. In addition, he has been on TV in almost all 50 states already. While targeted to primary voters, general election voters have already been made aware of who Obama is and have a general idea about his campaign. This runs into my next point, messaging. Clinton or Obama are polling way ahead of John McCain in both Ohio and Pennsylvania, but not so much in Florida. I think this has something to do with which state's had competitive Republican primaries. The Democrat's have been able to spend millions of dollars and have received free media bringing their issues to the table. The general electorate in all these states has seen a debate on different degrees of universal health care or the dismantling of NAFTA, or Democratic economic ideas in general. Either way, they are all Democratic talking points. The point is, when John McCain has to start telling people about market based solutions to health care or why free trade is actually good, the messaging battle has already been won. Extremely competitive primaries in swing states have created a huge Democratic party machine, increased voter registration, and a favorable climate to their issues. As long as they can keep it positive, a June 3rd end to the race would definitely favor Obama's chances for a November success.

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

An interesting question to throw out there: who are all these Clinton supporters who claim they won't vote for Obama in the general? I don't know entirely how to interpret this phenomenon, which is documented very clearly in the exit polling. Do they really find him that distasteful? Are they just bluffing?

I'm inclined to think the latter.

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

Nah, let Hillary end this with dignity. No harm there.


I stand by my assumption: Barack Obama will win in the fall. Not to sound glib, but neither the RNC, right wing talk radio, the McCain campaign, the droves of "talking points" Republicans, nor John McCain himself have convinced me that he is going to win in November. I hate to sound cavalier, but I'd hardly be excited if I were supporting McCain. It will doubtless be close, but it plays like Bob Dole. Bob Dole & Jack Kemp are both good guys, decent people. But they lacked that "agency," as I like to call it, Which George W. Bush possessed, and still possesses, I think. John McCain is an avuncular figure, and a refreshing aside from most politicians on TV. But in the end, McCain is a country club Republican. Again, a good guy, many would rightly say a great man, but not the right guy. He's clearly well liked, well respected, and will probably continue to be. But he is not activating anyone in the way that George W. Bush, Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, or Ronald Reagan have (or do). This strikes me as problematic. The right wingers on TV are getting really excited at premature polling, and singular slices of the electorate. Meantime, the Obama campaign and people like me are seeing the bigger, broader picture: this is going to happen.


Three worst issues for John McCain this fall, in increasing order of importance: 1) "...the economy, stupid!" This really holds up. This more than anything else engenders my confidence in Obama. He's going to look like the resident expert next to John McCain. McCain's admitted deficits regarding the issue of the economy provide me with little confidence in his ability to steward the ship. This is transparent to me, and to Joe Six Pack, Mike Middle Class and Bonnie Broke. The right wing talking heads on tv & radio have more faith in their own ability to race-bait and play McCarthyism. I welcome the challenge, dear friends.
2) The Iraq War. BOOOOHH!! People are done with this war. It has been managed ineptly at best. People need to hear that this thing is coming to a close, not that the RNC & John McCain know what victory really looks like, and that they'll tell us when they think they see it.
3) Abortion. Obama is definitely carrying the under forty crowd this fall, but by how much. This issue could be more helpful for Democrats this year. Firstly, President Bush has recently appointed two very right wing Supreme Court Justices in John Roberts, and even more so in Samuel Alito. These men are hostile to Roe v. Wade and John McCain says they're his model. That means John McCain is hostile to Roe v. Wade, which means he is hostile to women in support of their own personal right to choice, and privacy. John McCain is very vulnerable here because it hurts his image as a maverick, an independent. Women would be wise to re-evaluate how important this issue is to them in the fall. Do two or three more Samuel Alitos on the Supreme Court leave you confident that Roe v. Wade --a woman's right to privacy-- is safe in the hands of John McCain. Not me, and I have a penis.

Barack Obama is going to win.


New York City Secession 2010

Posted by: legan00@ccny.cuny.edu | May 11, 2008 11:51 PM | Report abuse

YOU All HAVE BEEN PLAYED


Obama started off as the post-racial candidate, stating all this lofty trascendent storyline -


however the truth soon came out -


Obama planned this early on - he planned on taking some innocent thing that Hillary or Bill Clinton said - and he planned on starting a whisper campaign to unite the black community in a racial way


This was completely at odds with his orginal campaign theme.


The way they planned this: they had to wait until right before SuperTuesday to pull this - so has to maximize the whisper campaign but not give the national media enough time to catch on.


well


Then the Obama campaign was ready in Virginia and Maryland - to score big wins based on a RACIAL CAMPAIGN - all the while deceiving white voters that he was running a post-racial candidacy.


It is pretty apparent how much of a fraud this was.


This complete contradiction was carried through to Wisconsin, where the progressives bought this wacky story.

The schedule provided Obama with some opportunities - however they PLAYED everyone.


This is more of a fraud than clever politics - and to be honest the people on this blog and others who claim that Obama is the one who is destroying the democratic party are not too far off.

After the nation was able to fully examine what had happened in the front-loaded primaries - Obama lost Ohio, the popular vote in Texas, Pennsylvania and Indiana. This week will provide more losses for Obama.

This is hardly a mandate for Obama - Obama has a narrow, narrow lead which was built upon a fraud and quirky democratic rules which obviously need repair.

The question is does the democratic party want to implode over Obama? Everything else is hard enough - the mixed feelings from the Clinton years, the facts that the democratic party supported the Iraq War in 2002, 2004 and who knows what their position was in the 2006 election however it SURELY WAS NOT clearly anti-war.

The democratic party is indeed in a mess - and it is hard to see how the party does not undergo severe strain with either candidate as the nominee.

One thing is for sure - the democratic party looks like it is on the verge of getting torn apart - the coalition of groups which make up the democrats have driven out white males through a hostile work environment and what is left is a coalition of groups which really do not appear like they want to work together.


The women want to make "history" the blacks want to make "history"


Anyone want to govern properly ???


The answer is no, they just don't care - these people are all losing it -


Have you seen these Obama people - somehow their hatred of Bush, their hatred of the war has driven them to Planet O and they do not appear to be thinking clearly.


The Hillary people are equally blinded by their drive for a historic year, and I don't hear too much about them caring about governing for the good of all.

Send us a candidate who wants to be President for everyone.

Obama is not the post-racial candidate - he is not for everyone - take a rational and objective look at his associations over the years.


His resume is not even close to the kind of experience or knowledge of the workings of Washington which he needs for the job. He got to Washington and immediately .... didn't do his job, he went on a book tour.

If Obama came into your office for a job interview, is he qualified ? Not for the top job.

Anyway, Obama's campaign has been a disgrace - and after much thought I do submit for discussion that it has been a fraud on the American people.

.

Posted by: Florida&18th | May 11, 2008 11:28 PM | Report abuse

Hillary is toast now and Obama will be toast come the general election in November.
While Obama's love affair with the racist white and America--haters Jerimiah Wright and Louis Farrakhan, and his association with Weather Underground America-hater Bill Ayers and criminal Tony Rezko don't make much difference to the mostly like-minded liberal blame-America-firsters Democrats during the D's primaries they're killers in the general election with the rest of the American voters. Add to that that there are millions of racist-Democrats who give lip-service support for Obama because he's a politically correct black candidate, but once in the voting booth change their minds (called the Bradley Effect) and you have someone who is un-electable.

Posted by: mojoe | May 11, 2008 10:54 PM | Report abuse

I have mixed feelings about whether she should drop out now or play her hand through the end. However, in my mind, if she stays in, then what is important is how she behaves. Tuesday night when I watched her speech, I thought it would be okay if she played it out. Wednesday morning came the "hard working white people" comment.

That kind of campaign is destructive to the party. It is destructive to Obama's ability to win in November. It is destructive to the Clintons. I for one am sick of it. I have lost all respect I had for the Clintons. So if she continues on in this type of campaign, then I am against it 100%. If she continues on as Huckabee did, well then I am okay with it. As of today, five days after the vote on last Tuesday, I'm certainly not okay with her or her campaign. And I have little hope that she will change for the last three weeks at this point. It is really quite sad when you think about it.

Posted by: JWC | May 11, 2008 10:41 PM | Report abuse

Bottom Line: Hillary Democrats, please recognize that, should Hillary lose the nomination, under established rules, that she (nor any politician for that matter) is worth cutting off your nose to spite your face - especially when there is so much at stake. If you don't get your preference, will you stay at home, or vote for McCain, thereby allowing the Republicans to finally get complete control of the Supreme Court (bye-bye, Roe v. Wade, Griswold (privacy) and any assortment of civil liberties), to continue monetary policies that will further burden "hard-working" Americans, to continue to overextend our military and fail to go after Al Qaeda in Afghanistan/Pakistan, or pressure their financial support in Saudi Arabia, etc.? Get a grip. If you are willing to risk all that you claim is important by failing to support Barack if he is the nominee, then you are no Democrat at all. If Hillary is not the nominee, and she fails to support Barack whole-heartedly, then she is no better than Nader - a limousine liberal for whom this politics thing is all a game because, no matter how large the stakes to us common folk, s/he can afford (literally) to go against our best interests because the consequences will never really affect him/her. I remain hopeful that, if she loses, Hillary will remember that this is about so much more than her. It's about all the Democrats who have gone before and created an America where she, and Barack, could compete for the party's nomination - and about preventing their legacy from being further eroded by the Republicans.

Posted by: Bottom Line | May 11, 2008 10:20 PM | Report abuse

bonjedi -


You say meaningless WV primary - that is no different from what Bill Clinton said after South Carolina - and the Obama campaign went on a vicious and evil whisper campaign calling the Clintons racist and saying that they offened the black community.


That was THE disgrace coming from the supposedly "post-racial" candidate - who with that episode bascially proved that he was full of a load of crap.

Well bonjedi, your statement is nothing less than racist against whites - to say that their votes do not matter.

I say their votes do matter.


Hillary still has a chance, especially since your candidate has zero chance of winning in the swing states, the superdelegates would be wise to think carefully about this post-racial fraud.

.

Posted by: Words of Wisdom | May 11, 2008 9:55 PM | Report abuse

bonjedi -


You say meaningless WV primary - that is no different from what Bill Clinton said after South Carolina - and the Obama campaign went on a vicious and evil whisper campaign calling the Clintons racist and saying that they offened the black community.


That was THE disgrace coming from the supposedly "post-racial" candidate - who with that episode bascially proved that he was full of a load of crap.

Well bonjedi, your statement is nothing less than racist against whites - to say that their votes do not matter.

I say their votes do matter.


Hillary still has a chance, especially since your candidate has zero chance of winning in the swing states, the superdelegates would be wise to think carefully about this post-racial fraud.

.

Posted by: Words of Wisdom | May 11, 2008 9:54 PM | Report abuse

Do you feel you owe the American people anything? Why would you vote against your own interest just for spite? That is the question I would have to ask people who say what you do?

)))))))))))))))
Happy: its interesting you are rich and can't wait to pay 28% in capital gains as though 20% was not enough. Last year I received repeated emails from moveon and DFA insisting that I support Obama or leave then repeated calls inisting that I contribute to Obama when they knew I was a founding member an a HC supporter. For 2 months every HC supporter here was constantly insuled including repeated racists posts pasted with HC supporters names to drive voters to believe that HC were racists when it was determined that those posts were actually being generated by Obama supporters.And you think it was acceptable for a GenY Obama supporter in W. Va to personally interrupt and insult a former Pres. and use vulgar names against a 28 year old Chelsea and former First Lady? And then the thugs in Gary Indiana who deliberately in co ordination with David Axelrod withheld Gary votes until 2 am that all surrounding mayors reorted on MSNBC had been delivered at 7:30 pm but deliberately withheld until after HC's 10 pm speech to create maximum damage to her campaign. Next was Obama's comment to Chris Wallace how surprised they would be how he supports comprehensive tort reform after insisting just weeks before that friends of mine who are trial lawyers and did not know of this sentiment that they max out for Obama; how cynical.

I spent 6 weeks in Denver with the Kerry/Salazar legal team, at a high level in Shaker Hts with the Strickland campaign and made 1700 virtual calls in Richmond, all at huge expense to my legal practice so please don't lecture me about what I have done for the D Party or the country, I could certainly ask you the same.

16 million Clinton supporters owe Sen Obama absolutely nothing for this abuse.

Posted by: Leichtman | May 11, 2008 7:39 PM

Posted by: happy | May 11, 2008 9:52 PM | Report abuse

Do you feel you owe the American people anything? Why would you vote against your own interest just for spite? That is the question I would have to ask people who say what you do?

)))))))))))))))
Happy: its interesting you are rich and can't wait to pay 28% in capital gains as though 20% was not enough. Last year I received repeated emails from moveon and DFA insisting that I support Obama or leave then repeated calls inisting that I contribute to Obama when they knew I was a founding member an a HC supporter. For 2 months every HC supporter here was constantly insuled including repeated racists posts pasted with HC supporters names to drive voters to believe that HC were racists when it was determined that those posts were actually being generated by Obama supporters.And you think it was acceptable for a GenY Obama supporter in W. Va to personally interrupt and insult a former Pres. and use vulgar names against a 28 year old Chelsea and former First Lady? And then the thugs in Gary Indiana who deliberately in co ordination with David Axelrod withheld Gary votes until 2 am that all surrounding mayors reorted on MSNBC had been delivered at 7:30 pm but deliberately withheld until after HC's 10 pm speech to create maximum damage to her campaign. Next was Obama's comment to Chris Wallace how surprised they would be how he supports comprehensive tort reform after insisting just weeks before that friends of mine who are trial lawyers and did not know of this sentiment that they max out for Obama; how cynical.

I spent 6 weeks in Denver with the Kerry/Salazar legal team, at a high level in Shaker Hts with the Strickland campaign and made 1700 virtual calls in Richmond, all at huge expense to my legal practice so please don't lecture me about what I have done for the D Party or the country, I could certainly ask you the same.

16 million Clinton supporters owe Sen Obama absolutely nothing for this abuse.

Posted by: Leichtman | May 11, 2008 7:39 PM

Posted by: Anonymous | May 11, 2008 9:51 PM | Report abuse

Leichtman

I seem to recall you claimed to be a member of the bar. I presume you practice neither corporate nor tax law, since you are apparently paying 5% more in capital gains tax than the rest of us.

I also note that you cite no -- zero -- evidence in support of your smears of Obama supporters.

You've certainly been liberal with your comments here. It's time to put up or shut up. Do you have anything other than gossip to rely on?

Posted by: Helen | May 11, 2008 9:31 PM | Report abuse

Most would have the number of people who still believe that Hillary has at least a miniscule chance at becoming the nominee at two - Bill and Hill. Apparently there are still some deadenders here who have been away from newspapers for the last week.

Nice to see Leichtman, hanging in there, energized by the meaningless WV primary. Where were you in the days after Clinton got clobbered this week and Obama wrapped up the nom? Caw caw caw!

Posted by: bondjedi | May 11, 2008 9:26 PM | Report abuse

Leichtman

I seem to recall you claimed to be a member of the bar, yet you cite no -- zero -- evidence in support of your smears of Obama supporters.

You've certainly been liberal with your comments here. It's time to put up or shut up. Do you have anything other than gossop to rely on?

Posted by: Helen | May 11, 2008 9:24 PM | Report abuse

As far as I'm concerned, Barack Obama is the only one inflicting serious damage on the Democratic Party. The sooner he's gone the better. I'd love to see Senator Clinton take the nomination, but there's always Al Gore, Bill Richardson or Chris Dodd. I'd take them over Obambi any day. I'll be writing in one of them on my ballot come November.

Posted by: Tom | May 11, 2008 8:44 PM | Report abuse

As far as I'm concerned, Barack Obama is the only one inflicting serious damage on the Democratic Party. The sooner he's gone the better. I'd love to see Senator Clinton take the nomination, but there's always Al Gore, Bill Richardson or Chris Dodd. I'd take them over Obambi any day. I'll be writing in one of them on my ballot come November.

Posted by: Tom | May 11, 2008 8:44 PM | Report abuse

As she long overstays her welcome, she continues to damage herself, while ironically helping Obama. I used to blame Penn for this strategy, but he's been under the bus long enough for her to really "own" the master plan. I also assume Bill has a significant say in what happens as well, which I attribute to seeing a second Clinton presidency too irresistible to analyze logically. Problem is, her attacks have provided Obama fertile ground to grow in nuance in his repetoire of responses to these real world challenges, an opportunity lost if she had withdrawn earlier. Also ironic, he has the chance to be the next "teflon" president, just like Reagan, who Obama quoted oh so many months ago (seems like eons).

Posted by: medhat | May 11, 2008 8:27 PM | Report abuse

Happy: its interesting you are rich and can't wait to pay 28% in capital gains as though 20% was not enough. Last year I received repeated emails from moveon and DFA insisting that I support Obama or leave then repeated calls inisting that I contribute to Obama when they knew I was a founding member an a HC supporter. For 2 months every HC supporter here was constantly insuled including repeated racists posts pasted with HC supporters names to drive voters to believe that HC were racists when it was determined that those posts were actually being generated by Obama supporters.And you think it was acceptable for a GenY Obama supporter in W. Va to personally interrupt and insult a former Pres. and use vulgar names against a 28 year old Chelsea and former First Lady? And then the thugs in Gary Indiana who deliberately in co ordination with David Axelrod withheld Gary votes until 2 am that all surrounding mayors reorted on MSNBC had been delivered at 7:30 pm but deliberately withheld until after HC's 10 pm speech to create maximum damage to her campaign. Next was Obama's comment to Chris Wallace how surprised they would be how he supports comprehensive tort reform after insisting just weeks before that friends of mine who are trial lawyers and did not know of this sentiment that they max out for Obama; how cynical.

I spent 6 weeks in Denver with the Kerry/Salazar legal team, at a high level in Shaker Hts with the Strickland campaign and made 1700 virtual calls in Richmond, all at huge expense to my legal practice so please don't lecture me about what I have done for the D Party or the country, I could certainly ask you the same.

16 million Clinton supporters owe Sen Obama absolutely nothing for this abuse.

Posted by: Leichtman | May 11, 2008 7:39 PM | Report abuse

CC, that's the question you and others should have been asking a month or two ago. It doesn't really matter at this point whether Hillary stays in or not. She's done, and everyone but her loyal dead-enders know that now. Everything she does and says now is seen through the prism of the defeated candidate. Even a 30-point win in West Virginia.

What matters now is how gracefully she bows out and how enthusiastically she endorses Obama. And then whether she takes to the elder statesman role and makes herself scarce until the convention. So that's the question: how much grace does Hillary have? We'll know in the next week or two.

Posted by: novamatt | May 11, 2008 7:35 PM | Report abuse

I should add, they have plenty to be worried about after seeing what he did to Clinton. She ran a bad campaign but didn't collapse by any means. She got BEAT plain and simple. And the machine is only getting stronger

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

I should add, they have plenty to be worried about after seeing what he did to Clinton. She ran a bad campaign but didn't collapse by any means. She got BEAT plain and simple. And the machine is only getting stronger

Posted by: happy | May 11, 2008 7:06 PM | Report abuse

I should add, they have plenty to be worried about after seeing what he did to Clinton. She ran a bad campaign but didn't collapse by any means. She got BEAT plain and simple. And the machine is only getting stronger

Posted by: happy | May 11, 2008 7:06 PM | Report abuse

I should add, they have plenty to be worried about after seeing what he did to Clinton. She ran a bad campaign but didn't collapse by any means. She got BEAT plain and simple. And the machine is only getting stronger

Posted by: happy | May 11, 2008 7:03 PM | Report abuse

They know they have a weak candidate but all that stuff is a little silly anyway who they run against. The election will happen and there will be a winner regardless what we say here.


))))))))))))))
happy: What you are others are missing is from the very start of this 2008 campaign for Prez, the Repubs pretty well KNEW they could not beat Hillary in the GE, and they could beat any of the others. Then comes their thinking of Obama being the weakest of all the rest. They then launched this strategy to vote for Obama in their hope of stopping Hillary and having the WEAKEST of the Dems as their opponent. This has worked very well so far, and it should also be noted that there is a whole bunch of the "Far Left Wing" of the Dem Party that are HELL BENT on destrpying the party, this includes Move-On, Huff-Post, The Nation Magazine, just to name a few. These folks are considered by most as being "Communist/Socialist" leaning. The Media, especially NBC/MSNBC , and all the others are almost 100% in favor of Obama, contrary to most Dems that have and in FACT support Hillary. My contention about these FACTS cannot be denied or disputed in any way shape or form.

Posted by: lylepink | May 11, 2008 6:13 PM

Posted by: Anonymous | May 11, 2008 6:54 PM | Report abuse

They know they have a weak candidate but all that stuff is a little silly anyway. The election will happen and there will be a winner regardless what we say here.


))))))))))))))
happy: What you are others are missing is from the very start of this 2008 campaign for Prez, the Repubs pretty well KNEW they could not beat Hillary in the GE, and they could beat any of the others. Then comes their thinking of Obama being the weakest of all the rest. They then launched this strategy to vote for Obama in their hope of stopping Hillary and having the WEAKEST of the Dems as their opponent. This has worked very well so far, and it should also be noted that there is a whole bunch of the "Far Left Wing" of the Dem Party that are HELL BENT on destrpying the party, this includes Move-On, Huff-Post, The Nation Magazine, just to name a few. These folks are considered by most as being "Communist/Socialist" leaning. The Media, especially NBC/MSNBC , and all the others are almost 100% in favor of Obama, contrary to most Dems that have and in FACT support Hillary. My contention about these FACTS cannot be denied or disputed in any way shape or form.

Posted by: lylepink | May 11, 2008 6:13 PM

Posted by: Anonymous | May 11, 2008 6:53 PM | Report abuse

If Hillary wants to continue campaigning, then let her. She's effectively marginalizing herself and ruining her chances for any future run.

As to the Hillary supporters who express the fervent desire to see this through to the end to give the remaining states their say, the Republicans seem just fine with their choice being determined early and without the wear-and-tear and financial drain of a drawn-out primary election.

Posted by: SDG | May 11, 2008 6:26 PM | Report abuse

happy: What you are others are missing is from the very start of this 2008 campaign for Prez, the Repubs pretty well KNEW they could not beat Hillary in the GE, and they could beat any of the others. Then comes their thinking of Obama being the weakest of all the rest. They then launched this strategy to vote for Obama in their hope of stopping Hillary and having the WEAKEST of the Dems as their opponent. This has worked very well so far, and it should also be noted that there is a whole bunch of the "Far Left Wing" of the Dem Party that are HELL BENT on destrpying the party, this includes Move-On, Huff-Post, The Nation Magazine, just to name a few. These folks are considered by most as being "Communist/Socialist" leaning. The Media, especially NBC/MSNBC , and all the others are almost 100% in favor of Obama, contrary to most Dems that have and in FACT support Hillary. My contention about these FACTS cannot be denied or disputed in any way shape or form.

Posted by: lylepink | May 11, 2008 6:13 PM | Report abuse

I think it is good as well. Both Hillary and Obama can use it as the lead up to the GE and concentrate on Mccain and not each other to get the ball rolling.

(((((((((((((((((
It's good for the Democratic Party for all states to be contested at the primary level. Acropolis Review has a summary of some good reasons to consider supporting Obama. Feel free to share with friends in West Virginia and Kentucky:
http://acropolisreview.com/2008/04/top-reasons-to-give-barack-obama-your.html

Posted by: Tina | May 11, 2008 5:11 PM

Posted by: Anonymous | May 11, 2008 5:17 PM | Report abuse

It's good for the Democratic Party for all states to be contested at the primary level. Acropolis Review has a summary of some good reasons to consider supporting Obama. Feel free to share with friends in West Virginia and Kentucky:
http://acropolisreview.com/2008/04/top-reasons-to-give-barack-obama-your.html

Posted by: Tina | May 11, 2008 5:11 PM | Report abuse

Why would you say that? Even the republicans think they have a very up hill task to get this weak flawed candidate elected. I mean you can be a cheer leader all you want but you need to have a base in some kind of reality. Getting Mccain elected is going to be a monumental task against the political machine being assembled by Obama. You saw what he did to Clinton and she was a strong worthy opponent. He will destroy Mccain. You have to be kidding.

))))))))))))))
JoyceV: Look at FACTS about the Rush Chaos and when it was revealed, as A JOKE. I Posted the Repub Strategy in January of this year, 2008, as to how the stop Hillary at any cost/price, was being done. This included voting for Obama in the X-over states and the changing of Registration in the non X-Over states. This has been very effective, and I commend those that have used this tactic. There is no way I can see Obama winning the GE and I also have stated from the beginning, IMHO, Hillary was the only Dem that could win in the GE in Nov. 2008. Look at the EC map and you will see how I have maintained from the start, Obama has ZERO chance of winning in 2008. Everything I can see NOW proves how ACCURATE I have been from the beginning. About the only thing I have been off on are the % of the votes cast and there is no way of KNOWING how many of these were in the stop Hillary category.

Posted by: lylepink | May 11, 2008 4:55 PM

Posted by: happy | May 11, 2008 5:10 PM | Report abuse

JoyceV: Look at FACTS about the Rush Chaos and when it was revealed, as A JOKE. I Posted the Repub Strategy in January of this year, 2008, as to how the stop Hillary at any cost/price, was being done. This included voting for Obama in the X-over states and the changing of Registration in the non X-Over states. This has been very effective, and I commend those that have used this tactic. There is no way I can see Obama winning the GE and I also have stated from the beginning, IMHO, Hillary was the only Dem that could win in the GE in Nov. 2008. Look at the EC map and you will see how I have maintained from the start, Obama has ZERO chance of winning in 2008. Everything I can see NOW proves how ACCURATE I have been from the beginning. About the only thing I have been off on are the % of the votes cast and there is no way of KNOWING how many of these were in the stop Hillary category.

Posted by: lylepink | May 11, 2008 4:55 PM | Report abuse

No you will have made your bed. I am a wealthy man, it doesn't matter to me if gas is $50.00 a gallon. If you want the average person to suffer though just because of your spite, you are one sick individual. By the way, are you typing with your feet or something?

(((((((((((((
Happy
Your sidw has been abusive to Bill Hc and Chelsea have abuse the D Party with Fla Michigan and Indiana and played the race card lile a Stratavarious callwd us old evil and dinosaurs.
Don r you dare play the guilt game. Youe side also told Boomers to leave the D PARTY.
We now are taking you and ypur campaign ay its word so don t think further insults or abusive cenY behaviors will win you more enritlents or our votes. GROW UP. You made your bed.

Posted by: LEICHTMAN | May 11, 2008 4:43 PM

Posted by: happy | May 11, 2008 4:52 PM | Report abuse

No you will have made your bed. I am a wealthy man, it doesn't matter to me if gas is $50.00 a gallon. If you want the average person to suffer though just because of your spite, you are one sick individual.

(((((((((((((
Happy
Your sidw has been abusive to Bill Hc and Chelsea have abuse the D Party with Fla Michigan and Indiana and played the race card lile a Stratavarious callwd us old evil and dinosaurs.
Don r you dare play the guilt game. Youe side also told Boomers to leave the D PARTY.
We now are taking you and ypur campaign ay its word so don t think further insults or abusive cenY behaviors will win you more enritlents or our votes. GROW UP. You made your bed.

Posted by: LEICHTMAN | May 11, 2008 4:43 PM

Posted by: happy | May 11, 2008 4:51 PM | Report abuse

No you will have made your bed. I am a wealthy man, it doesn't matter to me if gas is $50.00 a gallon. If you want the average person to suffer though just because of your spite, you are one sick individual.

(((((((((((((
Happy
Your sidw has been abusive to Bill Hc and Chelsea have abuse the D Party with Fla Michigan and Indiana and played the race card lile a Stratavarious callwd us old evil and dinosaurs.
Don r you dare play the guilt game. Youe side also told Boomers to leave the D PARTY.
We now are taking you and ypur campaign ay its word so don t think further insults or abusive cenY behaviors will win you more enritlents or our votes. GROW UP. You made your bed.

Posted by: LEICHTMAN | May 11, 2008 4:43 PM

Posted by: Anonymous | May 11, 2008 4:51 PM | Report abuse

Something interesting, My mother-in-law was a Hitler youth. What would it mean if I was running for office? That my wife must be a Nazi?

Posted by: happy | May 11, 2008 4:47 PM | Report abuse

appy
Your sidw has been abusive to Bill Hc and Chelsea have abuse the D Party with Fla Michigan and Indiana and played the race card lile a Stratavarious callwd us old evil and dinosaurs.
Don r you dare play the guilt game. Youe side also told Boomers to leave the D PARTY.
We now are taking you and ypur campaign ay its word so don t think further insults or abusive cenY behaviors will win you more entitlents or our votes. GROW UP. You made your bed.

Posted by: Leichtman | May 11, 2008 4:47 PM | Report abuse

Happy
Your sidw has been abusive to Bill Hc and Chelsea have abuse the D Party with Fla Michigan and Indiana and played the race card lile a Stratavarious callwd us old evil and dinosaurs.
Don r you dare play the guilt game. Youe side also told Boomers to leave the D PARTY.
We now are taking you and ypur campaign ay its word so don t think further insults or abusive cenY behaviors will win you more enritlents or our votes. GROW UP. You made your bed.

Posted by: LEICHTMAN | May 11, 2008 4:43 PM | Report abuse

You have it backwards. The phony votes were for Hillary not Obama and he would be even farther ahead. I would say they did not account for even 1% if that. How could you get it so backwards?

(((((((((((((((
I will remind you again, the votes cast must be counted, and as of now Hillary is about one hundred thousand [100,000] behind. This is with the X-Overs and Repubs that changed their Registration and voted for Obama in their all out effort to stop Hillary, because they "Feared" she would beat them in the GE. I cannot even give an ACCURATE estimate of how many Repubs did this but I think it is well within the 25% range. All these things considered as anywhere even close, then Hillary would be way ahead in the Popular vote when the Repub votes, and they will never vote Dem in the GE, are taken as not a vote for Obama, but as a vote against Hillary. I KNOW it is hard for you younger folks to understand this, but give it a couple of minutes and think about it, and then you will understand.

Posted by: lylepink | May 11, 2008 3:14 PM

Posted by: wonder | May 11, 2008 4:42 PM | Report abuse

Happy
Your sidw has been abusive to Bill Hc and Chelsea have abuse the D Party with Fla Michigan and Indiana and played the race card lile a Stratavarious callwd us old evil and dinosaurs.
Don r you dare play the guilt game. Youe side also told Boomers to leave the D PARTY.
We now are taking you and ypur campaign ay its word so don t think further insults or abusive cenY behaviors will win you more enritlents or our votes. GROW UP. You made your bed.

Posted by: LEICHTMAN | May 11, 2008 4:42 PM | Report abuse

You have it backwards. Ther phoney votes were for Hillary noy Obama and he would be even farther ahead. I would say they did not account for even 1% if that. How could you get it so backwards?

(((((((((((((((
I will remind you again, the votes cast must be counted, and as of now Hillary is about one hundred thousand [100,000] behind. This is with the X-Overs and Repubs that changed their Registration and voted for Obama in their all out effort to stop Hillary, because they "Feared" she would beat them in the GE. I cannot even give an ACCURATE estimate of how many Repubs did this but I think it is well within the 25% range. All these things considered as anywhere even close, then Hillary would be way ahead in the Popular vote when the Repub votes, and they will never vote Dem in the GE, are taken as not a vote for Obama, but as a vote against Hillary. I KNOW it is hard for you younger folks to understand this, but give it a couple of minutes and think about it, and then you will understand.

Posted by: lylepink | May 11, 2008 3:14 PM

Posted by: wonder | May 11, 2008 4:41 PM | Report abuse

You have it backwards. The phony votes were for Hillary not Obama and he would be even farther ahead. I would say they did not account for even 1% if that. How could you get it so backwards?

(((((((((((((((
I will remind you again, the votes cast must be counted, and as of now Hillary is about one hundred thousand [100,000] behind. This is with the X-Overs and Repubs that changed their Registration and voted for Obama in their all out effort to stop Hillary, because they "Feared" she would beat them in the GE. I cannot even give an ACCURATE estimate of how many Repubs did this but I think it is well within the 25% range. All these things considered as anywhere even close, then Hillary would be way ahead in the Popular vote when the Repub votes, and they will never vote Dem in the GE, are taken as not a vote for Obama, but as a vote against Hillary. I KNOW it is hard for you younger folks to understand this, but give it a couple of minutes and think about it, and then you will understand.

Posted by: lylepink | May 11, 2008 3:14 PM

Posted by: wonder | May 11, 2008 4:41 PM | Report abuse

Happy
Your sidw has been abusive to Bill Hc and Chelsea have abuse the D Party with Fla Michigan and Indiana and played the race card lile a Stratavarious callwd us old evil and dinosaurs.
Don r you dare play the guilt game. Youe side also told Boomers to leave the D PARTY.
We now are taking you and ypur campaign ay its word so don t think further insults or abusive cenY behaviors will win you more enritlents or our votes. GROW UP. You made ypur bed.

Posted by: LEICHTMAN | May 11, 2008 4:40 PM | Report abuse

The one thing that I would like to clarify about my comment below is that, when I wrote that the dream of Clinton's candidacy was irrelevant to the rest of the country, I meant her personal dream. The dream of a woman's election to the oval office is relevant to all of us, and her candidacy has brought us a step closer to that.

Posted by: Adam | May 11, 2008 4:38 PM | Report abuse

jedwards posted this:

"...but even so, Obama will eat McCain alive. It's going to be Kennedy vs Nixon."

Kennedy vs.Nixon was a very, very close election, jedwards. Kennedy did not "eat
Nixon alive."

Polling indicates a Democratic year but McCain running ahead of his Party. Considering his excellent service to the country he should run ahead of his party.

While it may appear that McCain cannot overcome the tide, he will surely be competitive.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 11, 2008 4:35 PM | Report abuse

I think that it would be appropriate for Clinton to finish out the primary season, given her stature, the historic nature of her campaign, and her success as a candidate (the math may be impossible, but she did get a lot of votes and win a lot of big states). That said, I hope to see her treat these last weeks as a valedictory and conduct herself graciously, rather than continue to tilt at windmills and scorch the earth with incendiary attacks on Obama. And I expect that, when it's over, she support Obama's candidacy with full-throated ardor.

I understand how difficult it must be for her to watch the fading of a dream that was within reach of being realized. But that is of no relevance to the rest of the country. Similarly, I understand how difficult it is for her supporters to witness that same dream die. As much as I disliked much of the way she conducted herself throughout the campaign, she remains a forceful proponent of what I consider to be the right (as opposed to the Right) values and the right way of governing and leading this country. And she would very likely have made an excellent president, particularly in contrast to John McCain, who strikes me as a catastrophe-waiting-to-happen.

But Obama appears to be the winner of this contest, and he, too, stands for what I (and, I think, the Democratic party) believe. I also think that he will make a superb president, but even as just a figurehead, a symbol of who we are and who we aspire to be as a people, he is worth his weight in gold many times over. And so I hope that even Clinton's most vociferous and angry and disappointed supporters will rally behind Obama. Bruised egos and personal rancor shouldn't be writ large on the national (or the world) stage. The consequences are too potentially calamitous.

Posted by: Adam | May 11, 2008 4:28 PM | Report abuse

Sorry, I forgot to put my name on it until the last one, so I thought only that one would go through.

Posted by: joyceV | May 11, 2008 4:09 PM | Report abuse

lylepink 3:14pm,
Have you heard of Rush Limbaugh's Chaos plan? You really think the cross over Republicans have been voting for Obama? You need to do some homework!

Posted by: Anonymous | May 11, 2008 4:06 PM | Report abuse

lylepink 3:14pm,
Have you heard of Rush Limbaugh's Chaos plan? You really think the cross over Republicans have been voting for Obama? You need to do some homework!

Posted by: Anonymous | May 11, 2008 4:06 PM | Report abuse

lylepink 3:14pm,
Have you heard of Rush Limbaugh's Chaos plan? You really think the cross over Republicans have been voting for Obama? You need to do some homework!

Posted by: Anonymous | May 11, 2008 4:06 PM | Report abuse

lylepink 3:14pm,
Have you heard of Rush Limbaugh's Chaos plan? You really think the cross over Republicans have been voting for Obama? You need to do some homework!

Posted by: Anonymous | May 11, 2008 4:06 PM | Report abuse

lylepink 3:14pm,
Have you heard of Rush Limbaugh's Chaos plan? You really think the cross over Republicans have been voting for Obama? You need to do some homework!

Posted by: JoyceV | May 11, 2008 4:06 PM | Report abuse

Since about 1 March, extrapolation yielded that Mr. Obama would be the nominee. I suppose, like Tommy Lasorda on TV, saying "so your team isn't in the playoffs, watch the champions", heightened interest in the primaries should translate into turnout in November. Current polls are immaterial; handicapped with his Republican baggage, there's no way Mr. McCain can beat Mr. Obama.

Posted by: David | May 11, 2008 3:41 PM | Report abuse

I will remind you again, the votes cast must be counted, and as of now Hillary is about one hundred thousand [100,000] behind. This is with the X-Overs and Repubs that changed their Registration and voted for Obama in their all out effort to stop Hillary, because they "Feared" she would beat them in the GE. I cannot even give an ACCURATE estimate of how many Repubs did this but I think it is well within the 25% range. All these things considered as anywhere even close, then Hillary would be way ahead in the Popular vote when the Repub votes, and they will never vote Dem in the GE, are taken as not a vote for Obama, but as a vote against Hillary. I KNOW it is hard for you younger folks to understand this, but give it a couple of minutes and think about it, and then you will understand.

Posted by: lylepink | May 11, 2008 3:14 PM | Report abuse

So you are not a true demarcate.
So you don't care about the country beyond your own selfish wants.
So you don't care about the war and the number of guys who will die if you aid in helping Mccain win.
So you don't care about the economy.
So you don't care about gas maybe going to $8.00 a gallon.
By the way Hillary said just yesterday that she believed gas will be over $5.00 a gallon by this July.
So do what your heart tells you if your hate goes that deep.
I think you need to take a long hard look inside yourself.
If Obama wins you will still benefit even though you did little to help your fellow Americans when they needed you.
Last but not least, your comments are pretty much what I would expect from a Hillary supporter and that is exactly what Obama has been running against from the beginning.
I feel sorry for you.


))))))))))))))
Catherine I share your sentiments 100 per cent. For 2 months I have been here begging the Obama supporters to back off and show some respect to their opponents or they will permanently destroy the party. Obama supporters have repeatedly said in a gestapo manner to either get in line or lea ve the party. So after spending 30 years as a paety activist I have decided to accept their challenge. I won t be a part of a party of teamster thugs who deliberately hold back the vote in Gary til 2 am to control the primsry spin and deliberately stop a revote in 2 of our largest states. These know it all Obama supporters will deserv e the wrath they will get from 16 million HC supporters. And after tues I suggest they not wate their time or energy in W Va who will totally trounce him. Proud you now have another supporter. At least they have had better since then to tell the Huckabee and Romney supporters to leave the party as expressed by the totally obnoxious Obama campaign. Don t gravel when you need our votes in Nov.We warned you and your response was to tell us to go to h+++.

Posted by: Leichtman | May 11, 2008 10:23 AM

Posted by: happy | May 11, 2008 2:26 PM | Report abuse

'JD the thing is the democrats who supported the Clintons and supported all their trade deals and lobbyist sell-outs - they are all with Obama now !!!'

Another slam at Clinton supporters turning to McCain, not smart.

'The sooner Clinton realizes this and begins working to unify the party and bring her supporters on board for the fall campaign,'

DON'T LECTURE US THEN BEG FOR OUR VOYES !!!

Once again the Obama suppporters call us evil have called Hc and Chelsea bitcvhes and .onsters then have the audacity to tell us WE OWE YOU OUR SUPPOET

That sense of entitlement is typical of genY and the Obama campaign. The more I read that garbage the more certain I am that this Yellow Dog will be working for McCain. Keep alienating,Obama supporters,that shpuld work out just great for your candidate.

Posted by: Leicht.man | May 11, 2008 1:39 PM | Report abuse

For those caught up in the moment and unwilling to step back to engage the sense of history in the making I repost:

As I posted yesterday, HRC's candidacy has proven to be a world changer whether you were for her, indifferent, or against her. Proud disagreed, but she was only posting the obvious truth that the quality of the candidate was paramount. I was arguing that even a high quality female candidate never had a chance before and now that mindset is GONE. HRC was, in that sense, the right woman at the right time, and when she loses, even if ungraciously, we are all talking seriously about women as VPS in both parties as if that were the norm; which of course it should be.

Ferraro's nomination and the candidacies of Chisolm and Braun added together did nothing for women compared with the coming out party of HRC. If Rice or Palin or Sebelius or McCaskill do not end up on a ticket this time they will be front and center again next time and so will others whose names do not come as easily to the mind and keyboard.

This historic fact alone means that no one else should pressure HRC except her closest advisers and friends. Anything else is too much of a reminder of what was behind the corner we just turned.
----------------------------

I will add that there is a great distinction to be drawn between political differences and even doubts about character, on the one hand; and the sort of misogynist name calling that not only Leichtman deplores, but that makes every decent American, R, D, I, male or female, have to think twice about the cost borne by HRC just to get us to the point where we
no longer think Gov. Sebelius is a "novelty".
----------------------
bsimon asked whether BHO will symbolize turning the corner for America with regard to race in politics. Will there be many fewer stupid remarks about the next national candidate of color?

What do you think?

Posted by: MarkInAustin | May 11, 2008 1:33 PM | Report abuse


SUNDAY READING


Today's Sunday reading is a story about Obama's friend Bill Ayers - who started the Weather Underground - let's just have a short story about Bill:


Just so everyone here is up on the details we must review US History 101:


The founding document of Obama's friend Bill Ayers' Weather Underground called for the establishment of a "white fighting force" to be allied with the "Black Liberation Movement" and other "anti-colonial" movements to achieve "the destruction of US imperialism and the achievement of a classless world: world communism."

Apart from an apparently accidental premature detonation of a bomb in the Greenwich Village townhouse explosion which claimed the lives of three of their own members, no one was ever harmed in their extensive bombing campaign, as they were always careful to issue warnings in advance to ensure a safe evacuation of the area prior to detonation.


Nevertheless, their activities have often been characterized as domestic terror. Also included with the evacuation warnings issued in their communiqués were statements indicating the particular event to which they alleged to be responding. For the bombing of the United States Capitol on March 1, 1971, they issued a statement saying it was "in protest of the US invasion of Laos."


For the bombing of The Pentagon on May 19, 1972, they stated it was "in retaliation for the US bombing raid in Hanoi." For the January 29, 1975 bombing of the Harry S Truman Building housing the United States Department of State, they stated it was "in response to escalation in Vietnam."


.

Posted by: 37th&OStreet | May 11, 2008 1:09 PM | Report abuse


SUNDAY READING


Today's Sunday reading is a story about Obama's friend Bill Ayers - who started the Weather Underground - let's just have a short story about Bill:


Just so everyone here is up on the details we must review US History 101:


The founding document of Obama's friend Bill Ayers' Weather Underground called for the establishment of a "white fighting force" to be allied with the "Black Liberation Movement" and other "anti-colonial" movements to achieve "the destruction of US imperialism and the achievement of a classless world: world communism."

Apart from an apparently accidental premature detonation of a bomb in the Greenwich Village townhouse explosion which claimed the lives of three of their own members, no one was ever harmed in their extensive bombing campaign, as they were always careful to issue warnings in advance to ensure a safe evacuation of the area prior to detonation.


Nevertheless, their activities have often been characterized as domestic terror. Also included with the evacuation warnings issued in their communiqués were statements indicating the particular event to which they alleged to be responding. For the bombing of the United States Capitol on March 1, 1971, they issued a statement saying it was "in protest of the US invasion of Laos."


For the bombing of The Pentagon on May 19, 1972, they stated it was "in retaliation for the US bombing raid in Hanoi." For the January 29, 1975 bombing of the Harry S Truman Building housing the United States Department of State, they stated it was "in response to escalation in Vietnam."


.

Posted by: 37th&OStreet | May 11, 2008 1:05 PM | Report abuse


SUNDAY READING


Today's Sunday reading is a story about Obama's friend Bill Ayers - who started the Weather Underground - let's just have a short story about Bill:


Just so everyone here is up on the details we must review US History 101:


The founding document of Obama's friend Bill Ayers' Weather Underground called for the establishment of a "white fighting force" to be allied with the "Black Liberation Movement" and other "anti-colonial" movements to achieve "the destruction of US imperialism and the achievement of a classless world: world communism."

Apart from an apparently accidental premature detonation of a bomb in the Greenwich Village townhouse explosion which claimed the lives of three of their own members, no one was ever harmed in their extensive bombing campaign, as they were always careful to issue warnings in advance to ensure a safe evacuation of the area prior to detonation.


Nevertheless, their activities have often been characterized as domestic terror. Also included with the evacuation warnings issued in their communiqués were statements indicating the particular event to which they alleged to be responding. For the bombing of the United States Capitol on March 1, 1971, they issued a statement saying it was "in protest of the US invasion of Laos."


For the bombing of The Pentagon on May 19, 1972, they stated it was "in retaliation for the US bombing raid in Hanoi." For the January 29, 1975 bombing of the Harry S Truman Building housing the United States Department of State, they stated it was "in response to escalation in Vietnam."


.

Posted by: 37th&OStreet | May 11, 2008 12:59 PM | Report abuse

YES A CALL FOR SANCTIONS AGAINST THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY


Florida and Michigan have the ball in their court now - the Democrats don't want the voices of Florida and Michigan citizens to be heard while the democratic nomination is still being decided?


How about if there is a movement within Florida and Michigan to deny the democratic party nominee ballot access in November in return ????


There is no way that the democratic party should expect ANY cooperation from Florida or Michigan.


Florida and Michigan have the CONSTITUTIONAL POWER to set the rules for their own elections.


If the democrats do not want to respect Florida and Michigan, it doesn't have to go the other way either.


Make a law that states that no political party can have its nominee on the ballots in Florida and in Michigan if the delegates selected are not counted BEFORE the nominee is decided, in this case when one candidate has the majority of delegates.


Obama has only himself to blame for actively attempting to PREVENT re-vote in Florida and Michigan.

Posted by: Words of Wisdom | May 11, 2008 12:45 PM | Report abuse

Did you know that Obama's friend William Ayers was part of the WeatherUnderground - here is the quote from their papers:

Their founding document called for the establishment of a "white fighting force" to be allied with the "Black Liberation Movement" and other "anti-colonial" movements[1] to achieve "the destruction of US imperialism and the achievement of a classless world: world communism."


Just would like you Obamaniacs to know what you are supporting.


Posted by: 37th&OStreet | May 11, 2008 12:33 PM | Report abuse

'The sooner Clinton realizes this and begins working to unify the party and bring her supporters on board for the fall campaign,'

Once again the Obama suppporters call us evil have called Hc and Chelsea bitcvhes and .onsters then have the audacity to tell us WE OWE YOU OUR SUPPOET

That sense of entitlement is typical of genY and the Obama campaign. The more I read that garbage the more certain I am that this Yellow Dog will be working for McCain. Keep alienating,Obama supporters,that shpuld work out just great for your candidate.

Posted by: Leichtman | May 11, 2008 12:28 PM | Report abuse

The sooner Clinton realizes this and begins working to unify the party and bring her supporters on board for the fall campaign,

Once again the Obama suppporters call us evil have called Hc and Chelsea bitcvhes and .onsters then have the audacity to tell us WE OWE YOU OUR SUPPOET

That sense of entitlement is typical of genY and the Obama campaign. The more I read that garbage the more certain I am that this Yellow Dog will be working for McCain. Keep alienating,Obama supporters,that shpuld work out just great for your candidate.

Posted by: Leichtman | May 11, 2008 12:25 PM | Report abuse

Tom J


THESE ARE SERIOUS FIGHTING WORDS DO NOT SAY ANYTHING ABOUT DISCO.

.

Posted by: Words of Wisdom | May 11, 2008 12:04 PM | Report abuse

Che Tortoise and the Hare
The Clintons looked at Obama's ears and decided he was the Hare and Hillary was the Tortoise? All she had to do was stay in? Maybe Bill believes in fables, if not fairy tales.

There are lots of hardworking, white Americans who are working hard to elect Barack Obama. Between Clinton's comment about them, and her 'gas tax holiday' debacle, she's simply not the candidate for 2008. (And the sniper fire and NAFTA didn't help.) It's like disco. Fun at the time, but we look back and wonder what on earth the attraction was.

The Party isn't being hurt. The Clintons are destroying their own reputation and legacy. Obama may be helped in the longer run because Clinton is losing her supporters not because of technical reasons and counts, but because of the above reasons. There's a difference.

p.s. Good job on Meet the Press today!

Posted by: Tom J | May 11, 2008 11:57 AM | Report abuse

The sooner Clinton realizes this and begins working to unify the party and bring her supporters on board for the fall campaign,

Once again the Obama suppporters call us evil have called Hc and Chelsea bitcvhes and .onsters then have the audacity to tell us WE OWE YOU OUR SUPPOET

That sense of entitlement is typical of genY and the Obama campaign. The more I read that garbage the more certain I am that this Yellow Dog will be working for McCain. Keep alienating,Obama supporters,that shpuld work out just great for your candidate.

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

The sooner Clinton realizes this and begins working to unify the party and bring her supporters on board for the fall campaign,

Once again the Obama suppporters call us evil have called Hc and Chelsea bitcvhes and .onsters then have the audacity to tell us WE OWE YOU OUR SUPPOET

That sense of entitlement is typical of genY and the Obama campaign. The more I read that garbage the more certain I am that this Yellow Dog will be working for McCain. Keep alienating,Obama supporters,that shpuld work out just great for your candidate.

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

I am a lying sack of, uh, 'spit', and my opinion is worth far less than an invitation to the Hillary Clinton 2008 Inaugural Ball.

Posted by: 37th & O. Street | May 11, 2008 11:22 AM | Report abuse

The sooner Clinton realizes this and begins working to unify the party and bring her supporters on board for the fall campaign,

Once again the Obama suppporters call us evil have called Hc and Chelsea bitcvhes and .onsters then have the audacity to tell us WE OWE YOU OUR SUPPOET

That sense of entitlement is typical of genY and the Obama campaign. The more I read that garbage the more certain I am that this Yellow Dog will be working for McCain. Keep alienating,Obama supporters,that shpuld work out just great for your candidate.

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

To Joyce: I reposted what you wrote below but you may not know that it is a fact Barack Obama toured Walter Reed Long before any scandal broke.
Believe me I know my Senator better than most... And have the current honor of being discriminated against by him in Illinois just becuase I am Hispanic. What a way to unify our country.

THANK YOU HARRY!
156 to go...

I'd like to thank my own Congressional Representative Harry Mitchell, who endorsed Barack Obama today with this statement:
"I'm proud to support Barack Obama for President. Senator Obama and I worked together last year to improve care for our soldiers and veterans in the wake of the scandal at Walter Reed, and I know that, as President, he will work hard for our men and women in uniform. Like the primary voters of my congressional district, which Senator Obama carried, I am inspired by Barack's vision for America, his ability to unify our country and bring much-needed to change to Washington."

Posted by: Joyce | May 10, 2008 9:20 PM

Posted by: Chaos45i | May 11, 2008 11:20 AM | Report abuse

JD the thing is the democrats who supported the Clintons and supported all their trade deals and lobbyist sell-outs - they are all with Obama now !!!


How can one separate the Obama people from the Clinton people??


Over half the Clinton administration rats have jumped ship and are now on the Obams ship, waiting for their next lobbyist deal.

Can anyone take these people seriously ?


Posted by: Words of Wisdom | May 11, 2008 11:12 AM | Report abuse

JD the thing is the democrats who supported the Clintons and supported all their trade deals and lobbyist sell-outs - they are all with Obama now !!!


How can one separate the Obama people from the Clinton people??


Over half the Clinton administration rats have jumped ship and are now on the Obams ship, waiting for their next lobbyist deal.

Can anyone take these people seriously ?


Posted by: Words of Wisdom | May 11, 2008 11:11 AM | Report abuse

To Joyce: I reposted what you wrote below but you may not know that it is a fact Barrack Obama toured Walter Reed Long before any scandal broke.
Believe me I know my Senator better than most... And have the current honor of being discriminated against by him in Illinois just becuase I am Hispanic.

THANK YOU HARRY!
156 to go...

I'd like to thank my own Congressional Representative Harry Mitchell, who endorsed Barack Obama today with this statement:
"I'm proud to support Barack Obama for President. Senator Obama and I worked together last year to improve care for our soldiers and veterans in the wake of the scandal at Walter Reed, and I know that, as President, he will work hard for our men and women in uniform. Like the primary voters of my congressional district, which Senator Obama carried, I am inspired by Barack's vision for America, his ability to unify our country and bring much-needed to change to Washington."

Posted by: Joyce | May 10, 2008 9:20 PM

Posted by: Chaos45i | May 11, 2008 11:11 AM | Report abuse

JD the thing is the democrats who supported the Clintons and supported all their trade deals and lobbyist sell-outs - they are all with Obama now !!!


How can one separate the Obama people from the Clinton people??


Over half the Clinton administration rats have jumped ship and are now on the Obams ship, waiting for their next lobbyist deal.

Can anyone take these people seriously ?


Posted by: Words of Wisdom | May 11, 2008 11:05 AM | Report abuse

JD the thing is the democrats who supported the Clintons and supported all their trade deals and lobbyist sell-outs - they are all with Obama now !!!


How can one separate the Obama people from the Clinton people??


Over half the Clinton administration rats have jumped ship and are now on the Obams ship, waiting for their next lobbyist deal.

Can anyone take these people seriously ?


Posted by: Words of Wisdom | May 11, 2008 11:05 AM | Report abuse

The reason I think that it's useful for her to be in the race, but positive, are two-fold:
1. She'll win WV/KY by large margins, which would be bad for Obama if she's not in the race.
2. It's better if the supers don't step in and endorse Obama en masse until he clinches the pledged delegates (either 5/20 or 6/1, depending on whether or not MI/FL are counted). By waiting for this milestone, the supers avoid the political issue of appearing to have decided the nomination.

Note: These are both conditional on her campaigning without negative attacks on Obama. If she attacks him, the supers will step in.

Posted by: vshawnt | May 11, 2008 11:02 AM | Report abuse

The reason I think that it's useful for her to be in the race, but positive, are two-fold:
1. She'll win WV/KY by large margins, which would be bad for Obama if she's not in the race.
2. It's better if the supers don't step in and endorse Obama en masse until he clinches the pledged delegates (either 5/20 or 6/1, depending on whether or not MI/FL are counted). By waiting for this milestone, the supers avoid the political issue of appearing to have decided the nomination.

Note: These are both conditional on her campaigning without negative attacks on Obama. If she attacks him, the supers will step in.

Posted by: vshawnt | May 11, 2008 11:01 AM | Report abuse

I'd guess the country is getting tired of the Clintons. Maybe their legacy wasn't all that plus a bag of chips. Otherwise, how to explain HRC losing a one-time sure thing, Al Gore losing, etc.

Posted by: JD | May 11, 2008 10:47 AM | Report abuse

To Everyone and flarrfan :


If you do not believe this story about Obama's house please feel free to search the archives of the Chicago Sun-Times and the Chicago Tribune and verify for yourself.

This character Obama is in with a bunch of very very bad people.


Posted by: 37th&OStreet | May 11, 2008 10:35 AM | Report abuse

To Everyone and flarrfan :


If you do not believe this story about Obama's house please feel free to search the archives of the Chicago Sun-Times and the Chicago Tribune and verify for yourself.

This character Obama is in with a bunch of very very bad people.


Posted by: 37th&OStreet | May 11, 2008 10:33 AM | Report abuse

To Everyone and flarrfan :


If you do not believe this story about Obama's house please feel free to search the archives of the Chicago Sun-Times and the Chicago Tribune and verify for yourself.

This character Obama is in with a bunch of very very bad people.


Posted by: 37th&OStreet | May 11, 2008 10:32 AM | Report abuse

Additional response to flarrfan


Stop the deception right now - Since you decided to point this out.

When Obama decided to buy his house, the story is the house next to Rezko was for sale.


Obama said he could not afford to buy the house. So Resko offered to buy the empty lot between the houses. HOWEVER, the story is that Rezko OVERPAID $300,000 FOR THE EMPTY LOT.

That transaction allowed Obama to get the house for $300,000 BELOW MARKET VALUE (in addition to the reduction by the proper value of the empty lot.)

NOW why in the world would someone enter into such a transaction if there were not alot of shady deals going on between the two and amongst their friends ????

This in the neighborhood of William Ayers - so Obama jumped through a bunch of hoops to get closer to William Ayers the terrorist who bombed America.

NOW the story gets deeper: the title for the empty lot has apparently been transferred back to Obama, but the mortgage is still being paid by the guy on federal trial.

How this guy is paying the mortgage and the lawyers at the same time, who knows.

The story is there are now TWO deeds for the property, the one supporting the mortgage is not the strong one. So the mortgage has to be reviewed.

OK flarrfan let's tell the truth - stop with your deceptions and lies.


.

Posted by: 37th&OStreet | May 11, 2008 10:24 AM | Report abuse

Catherine I share your sentiments 100 per cent. For 2 months I have been here begging the Obama supporters to back off and show some respect to their opponents or they will permanently destroy the party. Obama supporters have repeatedly said in a gestapo manner to either get in line or lea ve the party. So after spending 30 years as a paety activist I have decided to accept their challenge. I won t be a part of a party of teamster thugs who deliberately hold back the vote in Gary til 2 am to control the primsry spin and deliberately stop a revote in 2 of our largest states. These know it all Obama supporters will deserv e the wrath they will get from 16 million HC supporters. And after tues I suggest they not wate their time or energy in W Va who will totally trounce him. Proud you now have another supporter. At least they have had better since then to tell the Huckabee and Romney supporters to leave the party as expressed by the totally obnoxious Obama campaign. Don t gravel when you need our votes in Nov.We warned you and your response was to tell us to go to h+++.

Posted by: Leichtman | May 11, 2008 10:23 AM | Report abuse

Response to flarrfan


Birds of a feather flock together. Rezko is a good friend of Obama who is on federal trial in Chicago.

The whole thing stinks from A to Z.

I really do not appreciate you attempting to make light of these serious charges or attempting to deceive people about the relationship to Obama.

Take your lies elsewhere.


.

Posted by: 37th&OStreet | May 11, 2008 10:15 AM | Report abuse

Your post exemplifies what happened to Hillary. Times have changed. Those races were run at a time when all people knew was what they learned from the 6 o'clock evening news. The campaigns ran almost in a vacuum as far as most voters were concerned. This is today. 24 hour news in an instant on at least 5 cable channels. The candadets get almost complete saturation. There is no need any more. Nothing new is to be learned from the candidates. Not running a campaign geared to the 21st century in terms of the internet, fund raising, youtube, ability to see through lies. Hillary learned that with the sniper story. She has been used to BS people and then, DENY, DENY, DENY, DENY, DENY. I am sorry, Hillary and Bill don't get it anymore and they are paying the price.


++++++++++++
et's see:

Reagan in 1976
Ted Kennedy in 1980
Gary Hart in 1984
Jesse Jackson in 1988
Jerry Brown in 1992

All stayed in the race long after it was clear they wouldn't win, some to the convention. They didn't face this barrage of calls to quit - which Hillary started getting even while her candidacy was viable.

There has been a double standard applied to Hillary, and it's because she's female. A female has upset the status quo far more than a black candidate has. Women don't fit the paternalistic norm of a US president. People obviously are uncomfortable with a woman in power. That should be the story.

Posted by: Yappa | May 11, 2008 9:52 AM

Posted by: honesty | May 11, 2008 10:11 AM | Report abuse

flarrfan


I hate to tell you, however if you are implying that McCain is a status quo candidate, you are out of your mind.


I suggest you read a little about McCain before typing.

The democrats have already started their campaign of lies about McCain and to be honest after all the complaining about swiftboating, it appears they are first in line this time.

Posted by: Who Are You Trying To Kid ??? | May 11, 2008 10:10 AM | Report abuse

Your post exemplifies what happened to Hillary. Times have changed. Those races were run at a time when all people knew was what they learned from the 6 o'clock evening news. The campaigns ran almost in a vacuum as far as most voters were concerned. This is today. 24 hour news in an instant on at least 5 cable channels. The candadets get almost complete saturation. There is no need any more. Nothing new is to be learned from the candidates. Not running a campaine geared to the 21st century in terms of the internet, fund raising, yuotube, ability to see through lies. Hillary learned that with the sniper story. She has been used to BS people and then, DENY, DENY, DENY, DENY, DENY. I am sorry, Hillary and Bill don't get it anymore and they are paying the price.


++++++++++++
et's see:

Reagan in 1976
Ted Kennedy in 1980
Gary Hart in 1984
Jesse Jackson in 1988
Jerry Brown in 1992

All stayed in the race long after it was clear they wouldn't win, some to the convention. They didn't face this barrage of calls to quit - which Hillary started getting even while her candidacy was viable.

There has been a double standard applied to Hillary, and it's because she's female. A female has upset the status quo far more than a black candidate has. Women don't fit the paternalistic norm of a US president. People obviously are uncomfortable with a woman in power. That should be the story.

Posted by: Yappa | May 11, 2008 9:52 AM

Posted by: Anonymous | May 11, 2008 10:10 AM | Report abuse

What is astonishing is that many Obama people are not aware that one of Obama's close friends is on trial on federal charges.

Posted by: 37th&OStreet | May 11, 2008 7:52 AM

The Rezko trial is NOT about Obama, and just about the only evidence against him has been supplied by a credibility-challenged GOP operative who worked closely with Rezko on patronage schemes involving Illinois politicians with no direct connections to Obama.

Paul vs. Clinton is all about Billary. On the slim chance that blog regulars here are not familiar with the case, Google is your friend.

Posted by: flarrfan | May 11, 2008 10:09 AM | Report abuse

The democrats seriously made a mistake with Michigan - Florida is lost I can tell you that.


Michigan the democrats need to win in November.

Think about it - what was so bad about allowing Michigan and Florida to go ahead like Nevada and South Carolina ?


Now the democrats may have ruined their chances to put forth the strongest candidate.


If Florida and Michigan's delegates had counted for Hillary all along, Obama's lead would be extremely different, it would be much smaller.


The Obama people are lost.

I'm sure any of the Obama people who take their minds off of Plantet O may believe they can win without Floriday, however Michigan is a whole different story.

The truth is Bill Clinton and the democrats pushed through all those trade deals which hurt Michigan - its a plan to limit the voice of Michigan to complain about the free trade deals.


Why do you think Ohio was buried so late in the democrats' schedule ???


It was a plot to keep the free trade deals off the table.


Michigan is going through a political awakening right now - they know now that the democrats sold them out.


It is clear.


.

Posted by: Words of Wisdom | May 11, 2008 10:05 AM | Report abuse

A female has upset the status quo far more than a black candidate has.

Posted by: Yappa | May 11, 2008 9:52 AM

Give me a break! There are three realistic candidates left, at least in terms of any chance, however small, of winning a major party nomination. Two of them are clearly establishment "status quo" candidates. HRC is certainly one of them. HRC supporters are now revising objective campaign history in expectation that her educational demographic is incapable of remembering or even knowing what the status quo establishment was saying about her inevitability just six months ago.

Posted by: flarrfan | May 11, 2008 10:02 AM | Report abuse

Honestly, I don't want a woman for president. Especially not that woman.

++++++++++++
Let's see:

Reagan in 1976
Ted Kennedy in 1980
Gary Hart in 1984
Jesse Jackson in 1988
Jerry Brown in 1992

All stayed in the race long after it was clear they wouldn't win, some to the convention. They didn't face this barrage of calls to quit - which Hillary started getting even while her candidacy was viable.

There has been a double standard applied to Hillary, and it's because she's female. A female has upset the status quo far more than a black candidate has. Women don't fit the paternalistic norm of a US president. People obviously are uncomfortable with a woman in power. That should be the story.

Posted by: Yappa | May 11, 2008 9:52 AM

Posted by: Anonymous | May 11, 2008 9:59 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: | May 11, 2008 8:28 AM

URGENT

Just hold on Obama!!!

Last night at 9:00 on Fox News, Hannity and Colmes, Hannity talked about Obama's new pastor at Trinity United Church of Christ.

Yeah, that's the ticket...if Hannity says it, it must be true. Oh yeah, that "social gospel" stuff, how shocking...do you even know the difference between "social gospel" and "Liberation Theology"? Do you understand the similarities and how the latter simply builds on the concepts of the former?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Gospel

Wikipedia is your friend.

Hannity has nothing but sheeple behind him. Talk about preaching to the choir!

Posted by: flarrfan | May 11, 2008 9:57 AM | Report abuse

Let's see:

Reagan in 1976
Ted Kennedy in 1980
Gary Hart in 1984
Jesse Jackson in 1988
Jerry Brown in 1992

All stayed in the race long after it was clear they wouldn't win, some to the convention. They didn't face this barrage of calls to quit - which Hillary started getting even while her candidacy was viable.

There has been a double standard applied to Hillary, and it's because she's female. A female has upset the status quo far more than a black candidate has. Women don't fit the paternalistic norm of a US president. People obviously are uncomfortable with a woman in power. That should be the story.

Posted by: Yappa | May 11, 2008 9:52 AM | Report abuse

Okay,so if the dimwit Democrats are fools
enough to nonimate a real loser totally out
of touch with reality,left wing liberal
like Barack Hussein Obama for President then that alone with prove that the Democratic Party is finished since Obama
will go down to the biggest defeat in all
poltical history. So face it Obama is totally Unelectable. No Obama in 2008!

Posted by: Sherry Kay | May 11, 2008 9:22 AM | Report abuse

It's the political game, so what. Hillary has done everything short of having Obama killed, and who knows they may have talked about it, to win. They said the other day they wanted to could Puerto Rico's votes. They can't even vote in the election. Screw Hillary if they want see why they lost just look at the campaign they ran, It is being called one of the worst in modern times. If the way she ran her campaign was any indication of what kind of president she would have been we may have lucked out.

)))))))))))))
Everyone should be WELL AWARE that the Obama campaign actively campaigned to stop the re-vote in Michigan this year.


Obama's people did eveything they could to delay or stop the primary.

Some post-racial candidate, let's hold the votes of two states off the books.

The Obama campaign should not be rewarded with a ballot position this fall in Michigan or Florida.


Obama took his name off the ballot - he should be stuck with that decision this fall.


.

Posted by: 37th&OStreet | May 11, 2008 6:22 AM

Posted by: Anonymous | May 11, 2008 9:22 AM | Report abuse

URGENT

Just hold on Obama!!!

Last night at 9:00 on Fox News, Hannity and Colmes, Hannity talked about Obama's new pastor at Trinity United Church of Christ. I do not have the transcript in front of me, but it is something to investigate as soon as possible.

They discussed many issues relating to Senator Obama's Church, Reverend Moss and Black Liberation Theology. According to one of Hannity's guest, Obama used the word "social gospel" in one of his speeches. Hannity's guest suggested that that term was a cue to his believers: A type of nod to his beliefs and to the believers of Black Liberation Theology. The guest compared "black liberation theology" and the "social gospel" to Marxism.

Hannity also talked about Obama's new pastor, Otis Moss that Senator Obama is presently supporting. Reverend Moss, the "hip hop" pastor had spoken much like Reverend Wright but many of his statements were worse: " F***. America" plus other inflammatory statements. Hannity asked his guest if the media should be aware of Otis Moss. The guest was vague, but did mention that Reverend Moss had great credentials.

Lastly, Hannity also discussed Michelle Obama and her angry speeches. They addressed Michelle Obama's remarks and addressed her as "America's Unhappiest Millionaire." They sited different comments that were very unbecoming and negative about our country.

Please investigate this as soon as possible. No doubt this will eventually hit the main stream media. I would think that this is an appropriate time as I believe that Obama plans on announcing his presidency sometime within the next few weeks.

The youth of America need to "SEE" videos. Talking about these issues is not registering to the youth whatsoever. Special news segments to demonstrate Marxism, Black Power, Reverend Otis, Louis Farrakhan and Black Liberation Theology.

Show tapes of the new Reverend speaking at his sermons. He is very similar to Reverend Wright, if not worse.

These issues should be brought to the attention through all avenues of the media for the sake of all Americans, especially the youth. All candidates need be thoroughly investigated. Denouncing and rejecting is not enough. If Obama does not like this: too bad for Obama. He is running for the President of the United States.

Millions of people do not want him to enter this race regardless of what the mass media is ignoring. He's embarrassing to millions and is surely unelectable. If Americans knew then what they knew now and Florida and Michigan were in this race, Obama would not even be in the race.

Senator Clinton has spoken the truth about Obama for months. For the media to spin everything she speaks about as a tactic to attack Obama is crazy.

All of her statements about the following issues are true:
1.) Senator Clinton states that she is the only candidate offering Universal Health Care
Obama says a lie: My plan of Universal Health Care is like Senator Clinton

2.) Senator Clinton states that she is getting the voters that are the base of the Democratic Party: White, Hispanics, Catholics, Older Americans and Women. Obama is getting Black Americans and some elitist.
Obama states that he is winning these people over.

3.) Senator Clinton states that Senator Obama is "out of touch". Obama doesn't even understand that he is "out of touch'. That's worse.

4.) Senator Clinton States: We should have a gas holiday as a seed to start the process of investigating the big oil companies and to give Americans immediate relief.
Obama says "no" to a gas tax holiday, but has no other options for the "here and now" to help the poor.

The media uses the results of NC as a true showing that Obama can win over everyone after he has had challenges with Reverend Wright. However, according to Bill Schneider from CNN's exit polls, there were masses of preregistered and absentee voters (possible 80 percent) that voted 16 days before the Reverend Wright press conference occurred.

Senator Obama is very deceiving. He is vague with answers about policies, his faith and his family. For the sake of our country and most importantly for the sake of Democrats these issues should be addressed as soon as possible.

Most importantly, this message is not to smear any candidate. This is a Presidential election and all candidates need to be transparent. It would be so wrong if the media did not bring these matters to the forefront. It is the media's obligation to report the news and not show bias supporting one candidate over the other.

CNN and its quote "The Best Political Team" on television should be asked that they eliminate their segment "The Carfferty Files". This segment of the Situation Room on CNN is a daily relentless bashing of all of the Clinton family. This man deliberately comments and reads a vicious question relating to any one of the Clinton Family. He then adds his cherry picked messages from blogs to further demonstrate his hatred for the Clinton family. It is of poor taste and very destructive to Senator Clinton's campaign.

Please investigate and address theses issues as soon as possible.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 11, 2008 8:28 AM | Report abuse

URGENT

Just hold on Obama!!!

Last night at 9:00 on Fox News, Hannity and Colmes, Hannity talked about Obama's new pastor at Trinity United Church of Christ. I do not have the transcript in front of me, but it is something to investigate as soon as possible.

They discussed many issues relating to Senator Obama's Church, Reverend Moss and Black Liberation Theology. According to one of Hannity's guest, Obama used the word "social gospel" in one of his speeches. Hannity's guest suggested that that term was a cue to his believers: A type of nod to his beliefs and to the believers of Black Liberation Theology. The guest compared "black liberation theology" and the "social gospel" to Marxism.

Hannity also talked about Obama's new pastor, Otis Moss that Senator Obama is presently supporting. Reverend Moss, the "hip hop" pastor had spoken much like Reverend Wright but many of his statements were worse: " F***. America" plus other inflammatory statements. Hannity asked his guest if the media should be aware of Otis Moss. The guest was vague, but did mention that Reverend Moss had great credentials.

Lastly, Hannity also discussed Michelle Obama and her angry speeches. They addressed Michelle Obama's remarks and addressed her as "America's Unhappiest Millionaire." They sited different comments that were very unbecoming and negative about our country.

Please investigate this as soon as possible. No doubt this will eventually hit the main stream media. I would think that this is an appropriate time as I believe that Obama plans on announcing his presidency sometime within the next few weeks.

The youth of America need to "SEE" videos. Talking about these issues is not registering to the youth whatsoever. Special news segments to demonstrate Marxism, Black Power, Reverend Otis, Louis Farrakhan and Black Liberation Theology.

Show tapes of the new Reverend speaking at his sermons. He is very similar to Reverend Wright, if not worse.

These issues should be brought to the attention through all avenues of the media for the sake of all Americans, especially the youth. All candidates need be thoroughly investigated. Denouncing and rejecting is not enough. If Obama does not like this: too bad for Obama. He is running for the President of the United States.

Millions of people do not want him to enter this race regardless of what the mass media is ignoring. He's embarrassing to millions and is surely unelectable. If Americans knew then what they knew now and Florida and Michigan were in this race, Obama would not even be in the race.

Senator Clinton has spoken the truth about Obama for months. For the media to spin everything she speaks about as a tactic to attack Obama is crazy.

All of her statements about the following issues are true:
1.) Senator Clinton states that she is the only candidate offering Universal Health Care
Obama says a lie: My plan of Universal Health Care is like Senator Clinton

2.) Senator Clinton states that she is getting the voters that are the base of the Democratic Party: White, Hispanics, Catholics, Older Americans and Women. Obama is getting Black Americans and some elitist.
Obama states that he is winning these people over.

3.) Senator Clinton states that Senator Obama is "out of touch". Obama doesn't even understand that he is "out of touch'. That's worse.

4.) Senator Clinton States: We should have a gas holiday as a seed to start the process of investigating the big oil companies and to give Americans immediate relief.
Obama says "no" to a gas tax holiday, but has no other options for the "here and now" to help the poor.

The media uses the results of NC as a true showing that Obama can win over everyone after he has had challenges with Reverend Wright. However, according to Bill Schneider from CNN's exit polls, there were masses of preregistered and absentee voters (possible 80 percent) that voted 16 days before the Reverend Wright press conference occurred.

Senator Obama is very deceiving. He is vague with answers about policies, his faith and his family. For the sake of our country and most importantly for the sake of Democrats these issues should be addressed as soon as possible.

Most importantly, this message is not to smear any candidate. This is a Presidential election and all candidates need to be transparent. It would be so wrong if the media did not bring these matters to the forefront. It is the media's obligation to report the news and not show bias supporting one candidate over the other.

CNN and its quote "The Best Political Team" on television should be asked that they eliminate their segment "The Carfferty Files". This segment of the Situation Room on CNN is a daily relentless bashing of all of the Clinton family. This man deliberately comments and reads a vicious question relating to any one of the Clinton Family. He then adds his cherry picked messages from blogs to further demonstrate his hatred for the Clinton family. It is of poor taste and very destructive to Senator Clinton's campaign.

Please investigate and address theses issues as soon as possible.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 11, 2008 8:28 AM | Report abuse

PMinDC


The laws of physics still apply - these Obamaniacs are not only on Planet O, however they do not believe the laws of nature apply to them.


This is the case.

Obama's numbers in key swing states are falling apart. Key demographics do not want him. It is that simple.

Obama is not simply going to pull votes out of thin air in some small red caucus state have that mean something in the swing states.

The complete disregard for reality is really amazing. Jay Cost was even saying that for Obama to win some swing states, he would have to do it in a new way. Well, what exactly is that new way?

It's a mess.

Obama is going to make democrats in many close races lose. It is about time that people wake up to that fact. Obama isn't even a very good candidate. It is stupid to nominate someone with such little experience.


If you owned a company, and Obama came to you with this resume, would you hire the guy? What has he done except to hang out with Rev. Wright, Ayers and Tony Resko, the guy on federal trial in Chicago.


What is astonishing is that many Obama people are not aware that one of Obama's close friends is on trial on federal charges.


Wake up people. Obama is a disaster waiting to happen.


,

Posted by: 37th&OStreet | May 11, 2008 7:52 AM | Report abuse

In general, even the attention on Obama's negatives, will likely accrue to the Democrats benefit in the fall. The longer the media is talking about the "divided" Democratic electorate, the fresher the analysis will be of how brittle McCain is with his base.

I am a political progressive but attend a conservative, evangelical church in the exurbs of DC. I have spoken to more than a few members of our church (who I never thought I'd talk politics with) and there's a common theme - "I'm pretty excited about Obama."

What I hear behind that comment is - "I don't feel compelled to vote McCain." I'm not suggesting an avalanche of support for Obama from evangelicals but I think there would be a level playing field in a way there hasn't been for Democrats for years. It's been a long time since evangelicals have faced a Republican candidate who seems this distant from their core issues and values.

It seems to me that a McCain vs Obama general election match up would likely yield a significant number of evangelicals in the Democratic column that haven't been there for decades.

Posted by: PMinDC | May 11, 2008 7:33 AM | Report abuse

Everyone should be WELL AWARE that the Obama campaign actively campaigned to stop the re-vote in Michigan this year.


Obama's people did eveything they could to delay or stop the primary.

Some post-racial candidate, let's hold the votes of two states off the books.

The Obama campaign should not be rewarded with a ballot position this fall in Michigan or Florida.


Obama took his name off the ballot - he should be stuck with that decision this fall.


.

Posted by: 37th&OStreet | May 11, 2008 6:22 AM | Report abuse

Everyone should be WELL AWARE that the Obama campaign actively campaigned to stop the re-vote in Michigan this year.


Obama's people did eveything they could to delay or stop the primary.

Some post-racial candidate, let's hold the votes of two states off the books.

The Obama campaign should not be rewarded with a ballot position this fall in Michigan or Florida.


Obama took his name off the ballot - he should be stuck with that decision this fall.


.

Posted by: 37th&OStreet | May 11, 2008 6:22 AM | Report abuse

The essence of the dispute is this: who gave a bunch of Washington insiders the right to demand that Nevada and South Carolina vote before Michigan and Florida???

Sanctions should be called for against the Democratic candidate who was selected without Michigan and Florida.


I dispute their right to make that decision.

Political parties are quasi-public entities - no one would tolerate them practicing discrimination or any other forms of anti-democratic actions.


The whole thing smacks of some back-room Washington insider deal.


So what gives the democratic party the right to deny the principle of equal protection to the people of Michigan and Florida ???

The truth is that there is NO REASON by Nevada should be placed ahead of Michigan - and then for the democratic party to carry on a national campaign to de-legitimize the Michigan primary is a disgrace.

The democrats actually intimidated Presidential Candidates into signing pledges not to campaign in Michigan and Florida. Does anyone find that offensive?


These pledges were not entirely voluntary - those pledges were signed under threat that the candidates would be harmed in New Hampshire and Iowa.

So the democratic party did this: they used New Hampshire and Iowa to force the candidates to back the plan to let Nevada and South Carolina go before Michigan and South Carolina.

The People of Michigan and Florida should have one message back to the democrats: your candidate does not count here - NO POSITION ON THE BALLOT FOR THE DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATE.

It goes both ways. This may be a bitter lesson for the democrats.


The Michigan primary was open to Obama - it was his choice to take his name off.


MICHIGAN SHOULD NOT ALLOW OBAMA TO HAVE HIS NAME PLACED ON THE BALLOT THIS FALL BECAUSE OF THIS FIASCO.


Obama wanted off the ballot, so he is off.

No more discussion.


Posted by: Words of Wisdom | May 11, 2008 6:19 AM | Report abuse

The people of Florida and Michigan should consider a sanction for what the democrats have done to them this year.


The democrats have no right to force those two states to vote behind Nevada and South Carolina - the tactics used to attempt to enforce that against those two states - getting Presidential candidates to sign pledged not to campaign.


The best thing the people of Florida and Michigan can do is say - "We had nothing to do with the selection of your candidate, and we will have nothing to do with the candidate in the fall election."

The people of those two states should be asked to sign pledges to ignore the candidate.

The states should not even allow the candidate on the ballot. If the democrats believe Michigan and Florida don't count, then the candidate doesn't count on Michigan's and Florida's ballot.


yea

The democratic party as attempted to bully Michigan and Florida - It is time to push back - If the democrats want to go with 48 states this year, Michigan and Florida should keep them to that pledge for all of 2008 - a 48 state campaign.

.

Posted by: Words of Wisdom | May 11, 2008 5:51 AM | Report abuse

I have seen more than a few dopey comments on this subject thus far, but by far the dumbest is the comment claiming the "stock market doesn't like Obama!" Who gives a s#%t what the market likes or doesn't like? I mean really. It's bad enough that every economic analysis weighs so heavily what "the market" does. Think about how many times "the market" and it's greedy, speculative outlook has caused economic slumps through bad psychology and hyperbolic estimates of value! The Dotcom bust! The sub-prime mortgage fiasco, and so on, and so on! As such, if the market doesn't like Obama, I say thank god! The market doesn't know dick about the value of commodities or products much less a Presidential candidate. Let's not forget that the market LOVED George W. Bush . . . not mention two other GOP felons (convicted or otherwise) Ronald Reagan AND Richard Nixon! The only thing the market cares about is consolidated wealth! Not humanity!

Posted by: kk | May 11, 2008 1:12 AM | Report abuse

Hillary is her own worst enemy. Her termiting of Obama means that if Obama loses, she will not win the 2012 nomination. She has revealed her grasping extreme sense of entitlement which to all but her most steadfast supporters looks repulsive. If she were truly selfless and had the interests of the party at heart, she would withdraw gracefully and support the inevitable nominee. But she does not care about the Democrats winning, merely her own aggandisement. Her thinly veiled comments which equated hard working with white are divisive and immoral. HILLARY HERSELF IS MAKING THESE COMMENTS, NOT SOME DISOWNED PREACHER. If she is raising doubts about electability, does she think McCain who was REALLY under fire will NOT make mince meat of her dissembling. I can see the adds now with clips of her mis speaking about sniper fire. Surely she will look unelectably ridiculous bragging untruthfully when McCain can claim his POW status quite truthfully. Even saying she had the popular vote recently, without any qualification, looked embarrassingly like lying. She says things for effect and has an insanely deluded look in her eye when she says she is marching on to the Whitehouse after a 14 point defeat. Anybody who plans to run the economy ought to at least know how to do simple addition.
She is ripping the party apart. Even if Michigan and Florida were included she would still be behind. To drag this issue into it will only hurt the party... but the only thing important to her is her massive ego. If she isn't listening now, what makes you think she would listen as Commander in Chief? The woman is dangerously deluded. That mad delusional glint in her capacious eyes reminds me of Mugabe. She thinks she is more electable?
Avoid dynastic grasping for power. The USA is a democracy- dynasties are for monarchies. Many who would have been supportive in 2012 are now so turned off that now she would not have a chance.

Posted by: mightycrows | May 11, 2008 1:05 AM | Report abuse

I have seen more than a few dopey comments on this subject thus far, but by far the dumbest is the comment claiming the "stock market doesn't like Obama!" Who gives a s#%t what the market likes or doesn't like? I mean really. It's bad enough that every economic analysis weighs so heavily what "the market" does. Think about how many times "the market" and it's greedy, speculative outlook has caused economic slumps through bad psychology and hyperbolic estimates of value! The Dotcom bust! The sub-prime mortgage fiasco, and so on, and so on! As such, if the market doesn't like Obama, I say thank god! The market doesn't know dick about the value of commodities or products much less a Presidential candidate. Let's not forget that the market LOVED George W. Bush . . . not mention two other GOP felons (convicted or otherwise) Ronald Reagan AND Richard Nixon! The only thing the market cares about is consolidated wealth! Not humanity!

Posted by: Market This | May 11, 2008 12:42 AM | Report abuse

I wish she could spend her energies attacking McCain. The media will continue to cover the "race" such as it is, and the Dems would get free coverage tag-teaming the McCain campaign.
But as far as her own party goes, if she can't say anything nice, she should say nothing.

Posted by: John Sgammato | May 11, 2008 12:40 AM | Report abuse

Hillary is her own worst enemy. Her termiting of Obama means that if Obama loses, she will not win the 2012 nomination. She has revealed her grasping extreme sense of entitlement which to all but her most steadfast supporters looks repulsive. If she were truly selfless and had the interests of the party at heart, she would withdraw gracefully and support the inevitable nominee. But she does not care about the Democrats winning, merely her own aggandisement. Her thinly veiled comments which equated hard working with white are possibly illegal. If she is raising doubts about electability, does she not think McCain who was under fire will make mince meat of her dissembling. I can see the adds now with clips of her mis speaking about sniper fire. Surely she will look unelectably ridiculous bragging untruthfully when McCain can claim his POW status quite truthfully. Even saying she had the popular vote recently, without any qualification, looked embarrassingly like lying. She says things for effect and has an insanely deluded look in her eye when she says she is marching on to the Whitehouse after a 14 point defeat. Anybody who plans to run the economy ought to at least know how to do simple addition.
She is ripping the part apart. Even if Michigan and Florida were included she would still be behind. To drag this issue into it will only hurt the party... but the only thing important to her is her massive ego. If she isn't listening now, what makes you think she would listen as Commander in Chief? The woman is dangerously deluded. That mad delusional glint in her capacious eyes reminds me of Mugabe. She thinks she is more electable?
Avoid dynastic grasping for power. The USA is a democracy- dynasties are for monarchies.

Posted by: mightycrows | May 11, 2008 12:38 AM | Report abuse

Mrs. Clinton staying in the race is fine. Its the tone she seems to be taking that is the problem. She is angry. And she is thinking about herself only. Not the party. Not the country. If she were she would watch her tone. I understand repecting her as a candidate and former First Lady. However, I think the media is handling her at this point particularly, with kid gloves. There are some who has said that the media has done the same to Mr. Obama. But. If Mr. Obama were in the same position, there would be a hue and a cry by the party elders and the media, for him to get out. When he had won 11 states in a row, the media was lovin him. Which if it was Mrs. Clinton, they would have done the same thing. As well as wondered why he was still running.

In fact, this arugument about her being the best candidate is insane. He has the most votes. Cant get that without a very large cross section of voters. He has won the most sates, he has the most delegates, and has rasied the most money. What has she done to show that she is the best suited to win against John McSame? Dont give me that white voter arguement. Mr. Obama couldnt have gotten where he is with just Black votes. So please dont be silly. He couldnt have won more states, with just Black votes. Some states he won had hardly any Blacks.
And why is Mrs. Clinton not getting the Black vote. If you remember, Mr. Obama wasn't thought to be able to get those votes in the beginning. What happened? Shes not getting them now. Why. If you say because hes Black, then that same case can be made that shes supposely getting the white vote because shes white. And women because shes a woman. She can stay in, but she may hurt the party. Which is what I think her mission is.

Posted by: antonio | May 11, 2008 12:29 AM | Report abuse

It's fine if Hillary stays in the race as long as she doesn't keep drawing attention to Obama's weaknesses. Now, he has weaknesses, that's for sure. Just as she does. And McCain does as well. But when you have someone pounding those weaknesses into the heads of YOUR OWN VOTERS, that's problematic.

What's additionally problematic is that Obama, to show deference to Clinton and reflecting his own political philosophy (perhaps in an intramural race, but not necessarily in one involving a Republican), won't hit back at those criticisms in the same way that he would if McCain/Republicans were the source.

Thus, you have a serious conundrum for Obama. He risks being pummeled by Clinton, but won't hit back. At that pummeling is making him weaker not only in the general election, but also to Democrats. This dynamic, I think, is why we have to ask why Clinton is still pushing ahead.

Posted by: Bubba | May 11, 2008 12:29 AM | Report abuse

TO: FEMINISTS/WOMEN(specifically)/and EVERYONE ELSE FOR OBAMA 08'

We really need to mobilize and stop just talking about the party.
Blogsites like TaylorMarsh and Hillaryis44 are like the HQ for
ignorant, malinformed females voting for Hillary for the wrong reasons.
It wouldn't be as bad if the sites weren't so onesided, but they've become
a refuge for vitriol, to reflect the idiocy of the maker of the blog. Please help
by threadjacking these sites and getting the word out. We already know
most on HuffPo get it. It's time to descend into the crevasses and abysses
of degeneracy and shine a flashlight. I don't mean fight VITRIOL WITH VITRIOL.
These places really need a help with information, because the blog owners
are keeping them dumb with lies, bias, and selective information. HELP ME OUT.

qrasteira@gmail.com (if you're interested)

Posted by: Quei | May 11, 2008 12:29 AM | Report abuse

It's fine if Hillary stays in the race as long as she doesn't keep drawing attention to Obama's weaknesses. Now, he has weaknesses, that's for sure. Just as she does. And McCain does as well. But when you have someone pounding those weaknesses into the heads of YOUR OWN VOTERS, that's problematic.

What's additionally problematic is that Obama, to show deference to Clinton and reflecting his own political philosophy (perhaps in an intramural race, but not necessarily in one involving a Republican), won't hit back at those criticisms in the same way that he would if McCain/Republicans were the source.

Thus, you have a serious conundrum for Obama. He risks being pummeled by Clinton, but won't hit back. At that pummeling is making him weaker not only in the general election, but also to Democrats. This dynamic, I think, is why we have to ask why Clinton is still pushing ahead.

Posted by: Bubba | May 11, 2008 12:26 AM | Report abuse

Mrs. Clinton staying in the race is fine. Its the tone she seems to be taking that is the problem. She is angry. And she is thinking about herself only. Not the party. Not the country. If she were she would watch her tone. I understand repecting her as a candidate and former First Lady. However, I think the media is handling her at this point particularly, with kid gloves. There are some who has said that the media has done the same to Mr. Obama. But. If Mr. Obama were in the same position, there would be a hue and a cry by the party elders and the media, for him to get out. When he had won 11 states in a row, the media was lovin him. Which if it was Mrs. Clinton, they would have done the same thing. As well as wondered why he was still running.

Infact, this arugument about her being the best candidate is insane. He has the most votes. Cant get that without a very large cross section of voters. He has won the most sates, he has the most delegates, and has rasied the most money. What has she done to show that she is the best suited to win against John McSame? Dont give me that white voter arguement. Mr. Obama couldnt have gotten where he is with just Black votes. So please dont be silly. He couldnt have won more states, with just Black votes. Some states he won had hardly any Blacks.
And why is Mrs. Clinton not getting the Black vote. If you remember, Mr. Obama wasn't thought to be able to get those votes in the beginning. What happened? Shes not getting them now. Why. If you say because hes Black, then that same case can be made that shes supposely getting the white vote because shes white. And women because shes a woman. She can stay in, but she may hurt the party. Which is what I think her mission is.

Posted by: antonio brown | May 11, 2008 12:23 AM | Report abuse

McCain who?... The best thing about the lengthy contest is that all of the attention is on the Democrats.

Posted by: homer | May 11, 2008 12:20 AM | Report abuse

It would be a sad day for our country if Hillary is forced out of running. She has racked up more votes in this primary than anyone would have believed possible - and so has Obama! To deny the remaining few states and others to have their day in the sun is patently unfair. Obama is just another man - and we've had 43 of them so far, but a woman would surely be a change that's worth having.

This is a Democracy - but somehow only a small portion of the population will have their chance to choose. I suspect that there is a lesson to be learned in all of this. One must register to vote in order to be heard - and for the next Presidential election the registered voters will be many millions.

Posted by: phyllis | May 11, 2008 12:18 AM | Report abuse

Mrs. Clinton staying in the race is fine. Its the tone she seems to be taking that is the problem. She is angry. And she is thinking about herself only. Not the party. Not the country. If she were she would watch her tone. I understand repecting her as a candidate and former First Lady. However, I think the media is handling her at this point particularly, with kid gloves. There are some who has said that the media has done the same to Mr. Obama. But. If Mr. Obama were in the same position, there would be a hue and a cry by the party elders and the media, for him to get out. When he had won 11 states in a row, the media was lovin him. Which if it was Mrs. Clinton, they would have done the same thing. As well as wondered why he was still running.

Infact, this arugument about her being the best candidate is insane. He has the most votes. Cant get that without a very large cross section of voters. He has won the most sates, he has the most delegates, and has rasied the most money. What has she done to show that she is the best suited to win against John McSame? Dont give me that white voter arguement. Mr. Obama couldnt have gotten where he is with just Black votes. So please dont be silly. He couldnt have won more states, with just Black votes. Some states he won had hardly any Blacks.
And why is Mrs. Clinton not getting the Black vote. If you remember, Mr. Obama wasn't thought to be able to get those votes in the beginning. What happened? Shes not getting them now. Why. If you say because hes Black, then that same case can be made that shes supposely getting the white vote because shes white. And women because shes a woman. She can stay in, but she may hurt the party. Which is what I think her mission is.

Posted by: antonio brown | May 11, 2008 12:17 AM | Report abuse

Though I do agree that Clinton's seemingly perpetual campaign has done unnecessary damage so far, and the sooner it ends, the better. But at this point the circumstances, in my mind, seem to forbid it. If Hillary dropped out right now, she would still win West Virginia, Kentucky, and Puerto Rico. This would mean Obama, in the first weeks of his general election campaign, would face scrutiny about losing primaries by landslides to a former candidate. The damage caused by that would likely equal or exceed the damage caused by a continued, but slightly less negative primary.

Posted by: perez | May 11, 2008 12:17 AM | Report abuse

Mrs. Clinton staying in the race is fine. Its the tone she seems to be taking that is the problem. She is angry. And she is thinking about herself only. Not the party. Not the country. If she were she would watch her tone. I understand repecting her as a candidate and former First Lady. However, I think the media is handling her at this point particularly, with kid gloves. There are some who has said that the media has done the same to Mr. Obama. But. If Mr. Obama were in the same position, there would be a hue and a cry by the party elders and the media, for him to get out. When he had won 11 states in a row, the media was lovin him. Which if it was Mrs. Clinton, they would have done the same thing. As well as wondered why he was still running.

Infact, this arugument about her being the best candidate is insane. He has the most votes. Cant get that without a very large cross section of voters. He has won the most sates, he has the most delegates, and has rasied the most money. What has she done to show that she is the best suited to win against John McSame? Dont give me that white voter arguement. Mr. Obama couldnt have gotten where he is with just Black votes. So please dont be silly. He couldnt have won more states, with just Black votes. Some states he won had hardly any Blacks.
And why is Mrs. Clinton not getting the Black vote. If you remember, Mr. Obama wasn't thought to be able to get those votes in the beginning. What happened? Shes not getting them now. Why. If you say because hes Black, then that same case can be made that shes supposely getting the white vote because shes white. And women because shes a woman. She can stay in, but she may hurt the party. Which is what I think her mission is.

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

I have seen more than a few dopey comments on this subject thus far, but by far the dumbest is the comment claiming the "stock market doesn't like Obama!" Who gives a s#%t what the market likes or doesn't like? I mean really. It's bad enough that every economic analysis weighs so heavily what "the market" does. Think about how many times "the market" and it's greedy, speculative outlook has caused economic slumps through bad psychology and hyperbolic estimates of value! The Dotcom bust! The sub-prime mortgage fiasco, and so on, and so on! As such, if the market doesn't like Obama, I say thank god! The market doesn't know dick about the value of commodities or products much less a Presidential candidate. Let's not forget that the market LOVED George W. Bush . . . not mention two other GOP felons (convicted or otherwise) Ronald Reagan AND Richard Nixon! The only thing the market cares about is consolidated wealth! Not humanity!

Posted by: Market This | May 11, 2008 12:09 AM | Report abuse

Though I do agree that Clinton's seemingly perpetual campaign has done unnecessary damage so far, and the sooner it ends, the better. But at this point the circumstances, in my mind, seem to forbid it. If Hillary dropped out right now, she would still win West Virginia, Kentucky, and Puerto Rico. This would mean Obama, in the first weeks of his general election campaign, would face scrutiny about losing primaries by landslides to a former candidate. The damage caused by that would likely equal or exceed the damage caused by a continued, but slightly less negative primary.

Posted by: jsperez | May 11, 2008 12:05 AM | Report abuse

Though I do agree that Clinton's seemingly perpetual campaign has done unnecessary damage so far, and the sooner it ends, the better. But at this point the circumstances, in my mind, seem to forbid it. If Hillary dropped out right now, she would still win West Virginia, Kentucky, and Puerto Rico. This would mean Obama, in the first weeks of his general election campaign, would face scrutiny about losing primaries by landslides to a former candidate. The damage caused by that would likely equal or exceed the damage caused by a continued, but slightly less negative primary.

Posted by: jsperez | May 11, 2008 12:05 AM | Report abuse

I have seen more than a few dopey comments on this subject thus far, but by far the dumbest is the comment claiming the "stock market doesn't like Obama!" Who gives a s#%t what the market likes or doesn't like? I mean really. It's bad enough that every economic analysis weighs so heavily what "the market" does. Think about how many times "the market" and it's greedy, speculative outlook has caused economic slumps through bad psychology and hyperbolic estimates of value! The Dotcom bust! The sub-prime mortgage fiasco, and so on, and so on! As such, if the market doesn't like Obama, I say thank god! The market doesn't know dick about the value of commodities or products much less a Presidential candidate. Let's not forget that the market LOVED George W. Bush . . . not mention two other GOP felons (convicted or otherwise) Ronald Reagan AND Richard Nixon! The only thing the market cares about is consolidated wealth! Not humanity!

Posted by: Market_This | May 10, 2008 11:57 PM | Report abuse

I have seen more than a few dopey comments on this subject thus far, but by far the dumbest is the comment claiming the "stock market doesn't like Obama!" Who gives a s#%t what the market likes or doesn't like? I mean really. It's bad enough that every economic analysis weighs so heavily what "the market" does. Think about how many times "the market" and it's greedy, speculative outlook has caused economic slumps through bad psychology and hyperbolic estimates of value! The Dotcom bust! The sub-prime mortgage fiasco, and so on, and so on! As such, if the market doesn't like Obama, I say thank god! The market doesn't know dick about the value of commodities or products much less a Presidential candidate. Let's not forget that the market LOVED George W. Bush . . . not mention two other GOP felons (convicted or otherwise) Ronald Reagan AND Richard Nixon! The only thing the market cares about is consolidated wealth! Not humanity!

Posted by: Market_This | May 10, 2008 11:57 PM | Report abuse

As an Obama supporter, I have come to think that he is best served at this point by Hillary staying in the race. Why? Because the votes that he will not receive in the upcoming primaries (and there will be plenty regardless of whether she drops out or not) can be interpreted as votes for Hillary as opposed to votes against Obama. If, on the other hand, she pulls out it must be kept in mind that her name will still be on the ballot of upcoming primary states and that she will still receive a lot of votes. The media would then have a field day with pushing the theme of Obama's lack of support within certain important segments of voters - a potential self-fulfilling prophecy if hammered enough by our media "experts." It is when the primaries are over that Hillary should should then drop out, and hopefully give her full support to Obama.

Posted by: Jimmy Mac | May 10, 2008 11:45 PM | Report abuse

As an Obama supporter, I have come to think that he is best served at this point by Hillary staying in the race. Why? Because the votes that he will not receive in the upcoming primaries (and there will be plenty regardless of whether she drops out or not) can be interpreted as votes for Hillary as opposed to votes against Obama. If, on the other hand, she pulls out it must be kept in mind that her name will still be on the ballot of upcoming primary states and that she will still receive a lot of votes. The media would then have a field day with pushing the theme of Obama's lack of support within certain important segments of voters - a potential self-fulfilling prophecy if hammered enough by our media "experts." It is when the primaries are over that Hillary should should then drop out, and hopefully give her full support to Obama.

Posted by: Jimmy Mac | May 10, 2008 11:41 PM | Report abuse

I don't know what it is doing, but Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton has to stay in. She has to finish the process. She absolutely has to. She can't quit. She is symbol for great things and she has an obligation to her supporters to stay in and compete. I dont care what the odds are. She has to stay in.

Posted by: Joan | May 10, 2008 11:33 PM | Report abuse

Does it matter?

The Democrats will be naming, publicly, a running mate--VP- before the Replublicans.

Should be an easy bet the GOP has a very short list for the VP.

I'm betting Mitt Romney.

Posted by: David | May 10, 2008 11:31 PM | Report abuse

This Clinton football analogy of playing until the game is 'over' is so bogus, as is half the other stuff coming out of Billary's mouth. First of all, full-out bone-crushing take-no-prisoners football games are not played by members of the SAME team. This is because players may seriously injure one another and be unable to play real games against other teams. Of course practice sessions can get pretty rough but they are never played with the same intensity of real games. But apparently Billary doesn't understand this concept and they feel that it is OK to devastate their own players until they limp - no, crawl - into the big stadium that will be the upcoming election against John McCain. Enough is enough! The Democrats have already had their pre-game season and they are not only bleeding, beaten and broken - a good many of them are ready to call it quits and support the other team. If the Democrats want to win the election, they will have to play smart and save it for the coming battle against the Republican attack machine. More importantly, the Democrats will need time to start to learn how to play as a unit. And while they are at it they may want to stop Billary from further coaching - because they know absolutely nothing about football. What's more they know little, if anything, about teamwork!

Posted by: woody | May 10, 2008 11:28 PM | Report abuse

This Clinton football analogy of playing until the game is 'over' is so bogus, as is half the other stuff coming out of Billary's mouth. First of all, full-out bone-crushing take-no-prisoners football games are not played by members of the SAME team. This is because players may seriously injure one another and be unable to play real games against other teams. Of course practice sessions can get pretty rough but they are never played with the same intensity of real games. But apparently Billary doesn't understand this concept and they feel that it is OK to devastate their own players until they limp - no, crawl - into the big stadium that will be the upcoming election against John McCain. Enough is enough! The Democrats have already had their pre-game season and they are not only bleeding, beaten and broken - a good many of them are ready to call it quits and support the other team. If the Democrats want to win the election, they will have to play smart and save it for the coming battle against the Republican attack machine. More importantly, the Democrats will need time to start to learn how to play as a unit. And while they are at it they may want to stop Billary from further coaching - because they know absolutely nothing about football. What's more they know little, if anything, about teamwork!

Posted by: Woody | May 10, 2008 11:17 PM | Report abuse

Let her stay in the race even until the convention. It would give us a chance to rally together around one candidate and celebrate big time in the convention. We are not going to fight each other this year after the convention.

Posted by: Jim | May 10, 2008 11:17 PM | Report abuse

Obamaniacs Do you want to hear the TRUTH ?

---- don't read this if you want to continue to deceive yourself -----


Obama is actually better off if he does not win the nomination.

The fall campaign is going to wreck Obama - seriously can you imagine what people around this country are going to say about this guy???

Obama is so much better off if Hillary wine, he goes back to the Senate, gets some experience and shows that he can handle the job.

Otherwise he is the next Dukasis, the next Kerry the next Gore - Ghosts or even worse the next McGovern.


Posted by: 37th&OStreet | May 10, 2008 11:17 PM | Report abuse

Whatever else you can say about Hillary and her bid, I do not think you can say as the 11:02pm post did that she is "not relevant." Her victories in all the big states - other than Obama's home of Illinois and North Carolina and Georgia which have large African-American minorities - shows she is still quite relevant.

Posted by: AB | May 10, 2008 11:14 PM | Report abuse

This Clinton football analogy of playing until the game is 'over' is so bogus, as is half the other stuff coming out of Billary's mouth. First of all, full-out bone-crushing take-no-prisoners football games are not played by members of the SAME team. This is because players may seriously injure one another and be unable to play real games against other teams. Of course practice sessions can get pretty rough but they are never played with the same intensity of real games. But apparently Billary doesn't understand this concept and they feel that it is OK to devastate their own players until they limp - no, crawl - into the big stadium that will be the upcoming election against John McCain. Enough is enough! The Democrats have already had their pre-game season and they are not only bleeding, beaten and broken - a good many of them are ready to call it quits and support the other team. If the Democrats want to win the election, they will have to play smart and save it for the coming battle against the Republican attack machine. More importantly, the Democrats will need time to start to learn how to play as a unit. And while they are at it they may want to stop Billary from further coaching - because they know absolutely nothing about football. What's more they know little, if anything, about teamwork!

Posted by: Woody | May 10, 2008 11:14 PM | Report abuse

In the spirit of a competition I would like for Clinton to stay on through the end of the primaries. But for her to act like she really has a chance makes her look a bit ridiculous at this point. For her to alienate voters by making disturbing, racially divisive innuendos is harmful -- both to herself and to the Democratic Party.

Personally, I wish she would just leave now with some grace and dignity.

Posted by: waitingforjanuary | May 10, 2008 11:05 PM | Report abuse

Hillary is no longer relevant. Kennedy put it best when asked about her for VP. Essentially he said they need a better representative of the party. In other words, she has no class and is not what they want.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 10, 2008 11:02 PM | Report abuse

From the perspective of someone who watches the stock market, I think the long primary is bad. The market doesn't appear to like Obama. Each time he does well, the market turns sour, like it did last week. While there are always factual reasons for market movements, the timing is usually psychological. For example, poor earnings reports are sometimes associated with market drops, sometimes not.

At best, analysts and reporters just guess at what caused certain unintuitive market movements that day. What I have seen is negative, unintuitive market movements following headlined Obama successes.

The stock market doesn't like Obama. Not sure why.

Posted by: Annette Keller | May 10, 2008 11:00 PM | Report abuse

Larry==== I've been thinking and I can not recall one contest of physical or mental testing in society where they change the rules after the contest has started and the contestants have completed part of the course or task--- except the 2000 Florida election. The rules were established before the contest. Hillary was vocal last October that Michigan and Florida were wrong and wouldn't and shouldn't be counted. Now she wants to change the rules. She wants a Florida recount. She wants to change the rules in the middle of the game. Michigan and Florida wanted to make their own rules independently of the 50 state DNC.This week the Michigan Democratic Party proposed a solution that would have fixed Michigan's dilemma. Deb Dingell,Carl Levin,Ron Gettelfinger and Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick wre the "gang of four" that suggested a solution. None have committed. It was immediately turned down by Hillary. She doesn't want a solution. She wants a cause.She wants chaos to turn things around and get a Hillary recount of the delegates.

Posted by: major teddy | May 10, 2008 10:56 PM | Report abuse

What the 2008 Democratic primary season has done in state after state is to mobilize Democrats, increase Democratic voter registration to levels higher than ever, and to give the Democrats opportunities in states that haven't gone blue in decades. Not just for Obama in November, but in Senate, House, gubernatorial, state legislature and other races.

Part of the aftereffects were felt in the special elections for open Congressional seats in IL and LA. The Republicans have real problems in November, thanks to how many more Democrats Obama and Clinton brought into the party.

Posted by: NoVA Dem | May 10, 2008 10:50 PM | Report abuse

One big benefit of this long campaign season is that Obama has turned out a lot of young voters into the process. These young voters who would not have registered and voted otherwise will remain engaged and informed at a higher level of involvement than they would have otherwise.

This means that, at an earlier age than usual, these young voters will learn that politicians do lie, they do make promises that they won't keep, they do pretend to be that which they are not and they do cast their opponents in a false negative light.

These young voters who are voting for Obama out of the idealistic belief that he is unlike "old" politicians will learn that what they fell for is an argument that they will hear every election cycle from every under-qualified, inexperienced politician (it's called running against Washington Insiders). They will probably through being disillusioned by Obama himself.

Posted by: Annette Keller | May 10, 2008 10:38 PM | Report abuse

Now that we know Hillary is a Republican, we can all feel better. She can be what she really liked to be as a teenager, a Goldwater Republican and the Democratic Party can feel better that they don't have to put up with her any more. And the Republicans, they'll be a lot smarter after this. They've been praising her so much---well boy and girls of the Republican Party, you've learned a valuable lesson. Watch what you ask for! Take her, she's yours!

Posted by: Majorteddy | May 10, 2008 10:37 PM | Report abuse

I certainly haven't liked some of the rhetoric from Hillary Clinton, or the tussling between Clinton and Obama in general, but I think when the final story is written this will turn out to have helped the Democrats a lot more than it hurt.

First off, Obama's vulnerabilities were exposed and tested. Reverend Wright would have been far more damaging as an October Surprise than he was as April Showers. Which, to continue the cliche theme, would seem to have brought May Flowers.

In any case, the Republicans won't be able to get away with the usual smear 'n slime in this election. They'll keep trying, but it's not going to work. The public will be pretty hostile toward that sort of thing, after what's gone on in the spring.

Secondly, under the theory that any publicity is good publicity, the Democrats have dominated the news for three months. This has not only kept McCain out of the public eye, but it also has given the public a good, long look at Obama.

Not only has Obama been introduced to everyone, but I think he's been very impressive on one absolutely critical dimension: Coolness under pressure. The man hasn't cracked. And that, folks, is something voters are watching very carefully when picking the next president.

Had the Democratic contest been a boring civics lesson or a victory-tour by the Obama Fan Club, I think the Democrats would have faced a tougher challenge in overcoming the "Who is this guy?" factor. It hasn't been pretty, but these primaries have done the job.

Posted by: Watching Closely | May 10, 2008 10:30 PM | Report abuse

I certainly haven't liked some of the rhetoric from Hillary Clinton, or the tussling between Clinton and Obama in general, but I think when the final story is written this will turn out to have helped the Democrats a lot more than it hurt.

First off, Obama's vulnerabilities were exposed and tested. Reverend Wright would have been far more damaging as an October Surprise than he was as April Showers. Which, to continue the cliche theme, would seem to have brought May Flowers.

Secondly, under the theory that any publicity is good publicity, the Democrats have dominated the news for three months. This has not only kept McCain out of the public eye, but it also has given the public a good, long look at Obama.

Not only has Obama been introduced to everyone, but I think he's been very impressive on one absolutely critical dimension: Coolness under pressure. The man hasn't cracked. And that, folks, is something voters are watching very carefully when picking the next president.

Had the Democratic contest been a boring civics lesson or a victory-tour by the Obama Fan Club, I think the Democrats would have faced a tougher challenge in overcoming the "Who is this guy?" factor. It hasn't been pretty, but these primaries have done the job.

Posted by: Watching Closely | May 10, 2008 10:29 PM | Report abuse

Hillary Clinton is damaging Barak Obama because without a practical or ideological rationale for continuing her campaign, her remaining "justification" is race-based, divisive, and wrong.

Clinton has no practical rationale for continuing her campaign. After Indiana and North Carolina, it is clear Barak Obama's campaign will not implode nor will Clinton overcome his lead in pledged delegates or popular vote. (Even if pledged delegate and popular vote totals from Florida and Michigan were included, Clinton still trails Obama in each category--even if Obama were to derive ZERO popular votes or delegates from Michigan!).

Nor does Clinton have an ideological rationale to justify the continuation of her campaign. In three commonly cited modern instances in which elections were contested through the respective conventions, the unsuccessful primary candidates had credible rationales for pressing their internecine campaigns. In 1968, Eugene McCarthy opposed US involvement in Vietnam. In 1976, Ronald Reagan had substantial domestic taxes and spending) and foreign policy concerns (low defense spending, strenuous objections to SALT II). In 1980, Ted Kennedy sought to displace an extremely unpopular and ineffectual incumbent perceived as vulnerable to the Republicans (there were policy differences too; the Iran hostage crisis, begun days after Kennedy declared, apparently influenced the dynamics of that race).

What is Clinton's rationale for continuing her campaign at this point? By her own admission, she and Obama have few differences on key policy matters. Since she is not driven by a need to push any high-minded principles ignored or opposed by Obama, the only apparent reason continuing her campaign appears to be raw, personal ambition.

The historical nature of her candidacy is canceled out by the historical nature of his.

What's left? "A black man can't get elected"? She has already stated emphatically that she believes Obama can win the election.

Clinton should suspend her campaign the moment Obama obtains a majority of pledged delegates, then work vigorously to mend gender and racial divisions she and Bill Clinton helped exacerbate. In short, she should prove that she is concerned about country rather than career.

Posted by: Paul Martinez | May 10, 2008 10:27 PM | Report abuse

Many of these comments are a waste of time. You need to admit that Hillary has already handed the Republicans their main attacks in the general election -- and most of them are pretty scurrilous.

So-- should she stay in? If she'd try to stop feeding the GOP party line, I would have no problem. Playing "good old gal" is both insulting to the polity and counterproductive. I notice she dropped it when she was on stage with Charlie Rangel.

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

If she continues to hand the Republicans their anti-Obama tag lines, her continued tenure in the race is inappropriate.

However, I noticed that when she was on stage with Cong. Rangel, she dropped the "I'm a good old white gal" routine. Will Rangel, or Clyburn, have to follow her everywhere to keep her act clean?

By the way, Emily, I really doubt if I will every contribute to you again.

Posted by: Helen | May 10, 2008 10:17 PM | Report abuse

Larry


Again I dispute the right of the people who made the "rule" to make the rule in the first place.

I also dispute their right to choose Nevada and South Carolina over Florida and Michigan.


Traditionally over the past several election cycles, Florida and Michigan had voted before SuperTuesday.


So the decision was not unanimous as you claim - Florida and Michigan never agreed.

In addition, you are pretending that this rule makes any sense.

I also dispute the gall of the Washington insiders to attempt to de-legitimize these elections by having the candidates sign pledges not to campaign there.


Again, these are not the people who have been given the right to make these decisions.

The Constitution gives powers to hold elections to the states.

I dispute the idea that political parties are private clubs which do not have to respect the principle of equal protection of all the citizens of the US. The parties are quasi-public entities which must comply with Constitutional principles.


Just like a hotel is in public trade, and as such must follow the laws of interstate trade.


A party is in the proces of electing a President, therefor the Constitutional rules and rights of Voter prevail over private interests.

You have everything upside down. You think the private Washington insiders are more important than the Voters.


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

It is essential that the Obamites stop their vitriol against Senator Clinton. They are doing Mr. Obama no favors through this act of self satisfaction by heaping invective on her. He will need the support of the Clinton constituency if he were to win the nomination, and insulting Mrs. Clinton is a surefire way of losing big in November.

Yes, she should stay in the race through the convention in August. The Democratic Party is built on rock solid principles and will not splinter because it isn't fragile. What is particularly encouraging is the fact that the nomination fight does not involve policy and the two factions are likely to coalesce after tempers have cooled. But as is the case in any personal fight, it is important to watch what you say. It will behoove the apparent victor to start counseling his/her followers to be gracious to the other faction. Far more is at stake in the General.

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

It is essential that the Obamites stop their vitriol against Senator Clinton. They are doing Mr. Obama no favors through this act of self satisfaction by heaping invective on her. He will need the support of the Clinton constituency if he were to win the nomination, and insulting Mrs. Clinton is a surefire way of losing big in November.

Yes, she should stay in the race through the convention in August. The Democratic Party is built on rock solid principles and will not splinter because it isn't fragile. What is particularly encouraging is the fact that the nomination fight does not involve policy and the two factions are likely to coalesce after tempers have cooled. But as is the case in any personal fight, it is important to watch what you say. It will behoove the apparent victor to start counseling his/her followers to be gracious to the other faction. Far more is at stake in the General.

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

Larry


Again I dispute the right of the people who made the "rule" to make the rule in the first place.

I also dispute their right to choose Nevada and South Carolina over Florida and Michigan.


Traditionally over the past several election cycles, Florida and Michigan had voted before SuperTuesday.


So the decision was not unanimous as you claim - Florida and Michigan never agreed.

In addition, you are pretending that this rule makes any sense.

I also dispute the gall of the Washington insiders to attempt to de-legitimize these elections by having the candidates sign pledges not to campaign there.


Again, these are not the people who have been given the right to make these decisions.

The Constitution gives powers to hold elections to the states.

I dispute the idea that political parties are private clubs which do not have to respect the principle of equal protection of all the citizens of the US. The parties are quasi-public entities which must comply with Constitutional principles.


Just like a hotel is in public trade, and as such must follow the laws of interstate trade.


A party is in the proces of electing a President, therefor the Constitutional rules and rights of Voter prevail over private interests.

You have everything upside down. You think the private Washington insiders are more important than the Voters.


Posted by: Words of Wisdom | May 10, 2008 10:05 PM | Report abuse

It is essential that the Obamites stop their vitriol against Senator Clinton. They are doing Mr. Obama no favors through this act of self satisfaction by heaping invective on her. He will need the support of the Clinton constituency if he were to win the nomination, and insulting Mrs. Clinton is a surefire way of losing big in November.

Yes, she should stay in the race through the convention in August. The Democratic Party is built on rock solid principles and will not splinter because it isn't fragile. What is particularly encouraging is the fact that the nomination fight does not involve policy and the two factions are likely to coalesce after tempers have cooled. But as is the case in any personal fight, it is important to watch what you say. It will behoove the apparent victor to start counseling his/her followers to be gracious to the other faction. Far more is at stake in the General.

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

i throw in $6 million of my own, because you keep me going.

thank you!

Posted by: egalitaire | May 10, 2008 9:56 PM | Report abuse


George McGovern
has a history of associations with transformative political figures.

He campaigned at the sides of John F. and Robert Kennedy during their respective runs for the White House, and he's currently writing a book about Abraham Lincoln.

McGovern thinks Barack Obama may be cut from the same historic mold as those men, and that's one reason McGovern said Wednesday that after eight months of supporting Hillary Clinton for president, he is switching sides.

McGovern even compared Obama to Lincoln, saying he discovered similarities between the two men while doing research for the Lincoln book.

"As I have researched this book and followed the current presidential nomination contest, I have slowly come to believe that, in Barack Obama, we may have a second Lincoln," McGovern, a Mitchell native and resident, said in an Obama campaign news release.

"With passion and eloquence, he is calling America home to its founding ideals, both at home and abroad."

Posted by: jeff shawn | May 10, 2008 9:54 PM | Report abuse


George McGovern
has a history of associations with transformative political figures.

He campaigned at the sides of John F. and Robert Kennedy during their respective runs for the White House, and he's currently writing a book about Abraham Lincoln.

McGovern thinks Barack Obama may be cut from the same historic mold as those men, and that's one reason McGovern said Wednesday that after eight months of supporting Hillary Clinton for president, he is switching sides.

McGovern even compared Obama to Lincoln, saying he discovered similarities between the two men while doing research for the Lincoln book.

"As I have researched this book and followed the current presidential nomination contest, I have slowly come to believe that, in Barack Obama, we may have a second Lincoln," McGovern, a Mitchell native and resident, said in an Obama campaign news release.

"With passion and eloquence, he is calling America home to its founding ideals, both at home and abroad."

Posted by: jeff shawn | May 10, 2008 9:53 PM | Report abuse

This is getting tiresome. To the people who claim Florida and Michigan are being deprived of their vote, listen to what really happened. Last SUMMER the Democratic National Committee, including representatives from Michigan and Florida and supporters of all Democratic candidates, decided on a primary schedule, The decision was unanimous. If the decision was not adhered to, the primary result would not count. After that had been decided and agreed to by everyone, Florida and Michigan, thinking they would have an advantage, decided to dishonor the agreement. So, the results of the primary don't count. Obama and all other candidates except Clinton did not list their names in Michigan. No one campaigned in Florida.

I agree people in Florida and Michigan should have a voice in the selection of the candidate. But they don't at the moment not because of some sinister conspiracy by "Washington insiders," not because Obama supporters are trying to do harm to Clinton. Michigan and Florida are in the position they are in because of the decisions made by their leaders not to follow the rules EVERYONE (including them) had agreed to last SUMMER. If people in Florida and Michigan are upset, they have no one to blame but their leaders, who thought they could game the system. The wounds are self-inflicted.

Posted by: larry | May 10, 2008 9:37 PM | Report abuse

What is funny is you can try to attach all kinds of theories but like everything it just comes down to money. She is trying to shake down Obama right now to pick up he debts. You know the old saying, "When they say it has nothing to do with money, it's money". That is the simple reality of it

)))))))))
Hillary is staying in for one reason. She is holding out for a possible implosion by Obama due to a Rev. Wright type scandal, plane crash, Eliot Spitzer moment, whatever. She is smart to do this. It ain't over 'till its over.
The long campaign has been good for the dems:
dirty laundry has been aired, democrats have framed the debate, Obama has been tested and has prevailed, the democratic voting bloc has been energized like never before, new younger voters have joined the process en masse.
Hillary will behave herself from now on. She will work hard to see Obama elected to the White House. Its going to be a rough ride in the GE, the Rove playbook will be used relentlessly, but even so, Obama will eat McCain alive. It's going to be Kennedy vs Nixon.
BTW, I'm a white working class male voter who drives a pickup truck. Go Obama.

Posted by: jedwards | May 10, 2008 8:59 PM

Posted by: changer | May 10, 2008 9:29 PM | Report abuse

What is funny is you can try to attach all kinds of theories but like everything it just comes down to money. She is trying to shake down Obama right now to pick up he debts. You know the old saying, "When they say it has nothing to do with money, it's money". That is the simple reality of it

)))))))))
Hillary is staying in for one reason. She is holding out for a possible implosion by Obama due to a Rev. Wright type scandal, plane crash, Eliot Spitzer moment, whatever. She is smart to do this. It ain't over 'till its over.
The long campaign has been good for the dems:
dirty laundry has been aired, democrats have framed the debate, Obama has been tested and has prevailed, the democratic voting bloc has been energized like never before, new younger voters have joined the process en masse.
Hillary will behave herself from now on. She will work hard to see Obama elected to the White House. Its going to be a rough ride in the GE, the Rove playbook will be used relentlessly, but even so, Obama will eat McCain alive. It's going to be Kennedy vs Nixon.
BTW, I'm a white working class male voter who drives a pickup truck. Go Obama.

Posted by: jedwards | May 10, 2008 8:59 PM

Posted by: Anonymous | May 10, 2008 9:28 PM | Report abuse

THANK YOU HARRY!
156 to go...

I'd like to thank my own Congressional Representative Harry Mitchell, who endorsed Barack Obama today with this statement:
"I'm proud to support Barack Obama for President. Senator Obama and I worked together last year to improve care for our soldiers and veterans in the wake of the scandal at Walter Reed, and I know that, as President, he will work hard for our men and women in uniform. Like the primary voters of my congressional district, which Senator Obama carried, I am inspired by Barack's vision for America, his ability to unify our country and bring much-needed to change to Washington."

Posted by: Joyce | May 10, 2008 9:20 PM | Report abuse

VS- where are you from?

As a native NYer let me just point out to you that we INVITED HER HERE. Congressman Rangel and then Senator Torecelli of NJ asked her to run here- there were other seats open or opening in Illinois (where she is from) and in Arkansas (where she lived most of her adult life).

Please stop all of the hating. She has been a very good senator overall. She actually has spent time in the Senate, it wasn't just a resume builder for a couple of years of posturing while she went from state senator to presidential candidate- a far more political, selfish and blindly ambitious move.

Leon

Posted by: Anonymous | May 10, 2008 9:09 PM | Report abuse

Hillary is staying in for one reason. She is holding out for a possible implosion by Obama due to a Rev. Wright type scandal, plane crash, Eliot Spitzer moment, whatever. She is smart to do this. It ain't over 'till its over.
The long campaign has been good for the dems:
dirty laundry has been aired, democrats have framed the debate, Obama has been tested and has prevailed, the democratic voting bloc has been energized like never before, new younger voters have joined the process en masse.
Hillary will behave herself from now on. She will work hard to see Obama elected to the White House. Its going to be a rough ride in the GE, the Rove playbook will be used relentlessly, but even so, Obama will eat McCain alive. It's going to be Kennedy vs Nixon.
BTW, I'm a white working class male voter who drives a pickup truck. Go Obama.

Posted by: jedwards | May 10, 2008 8:59 PM | Report abuse

Don't write the old gal off yet, Obama. The conniving methods she has used before lead me to think she has more tricks up her sleeve.

Remember, this is the same unorthodox rule-bender who found the legal loophole that allowed someone from Arkansas, who had previously resided in DC for 8 or 9 years, to run for (and get elected as) Senator from New York. When else in the history of Senate elections had that been done previously?

There is an avenue that would allow her to continue all the way to the convention, and beyond.

I've predicted this elsewhere before, and as this delaying drags out, I see more and more signs that lead me to believe that she will not count herself out of the race for the job she feels she is entitled to hold.

Here's how it could play out for her.

She sees the polls that show that SHE does better in a head-to-head race with McCain than Obama does. And she has stated that she would be the better choice in that head-to-head race.

She knows that some of the Obama vote has been from voters who, in the past, might otherwise have voted Republican, but supported Obama to keep her from winning. (Look to Alabama a number of years back and say 'Charlie Graddick for Governor', on a national scale)

She may think that in a 3-way race between herself, McCain, and Obama, that enough McCain voters would abandon Obama, and go back to the Republicans, that it would allow her and McCain to be the top 2 vote getters.

She could even stay in it until the convention, so that she can use the convention itself as a platform to lay out her path to the Presidency.

What if she shows up at the convention, amid all the national press, and states that the only reason Obama has more delegates than she is because the Republicans have tampered with the process.

She can make herself the victim (and demonize the Republicans) by saying that their reason for this tampering is to make sure she isn't the Democratic nominee. After all, the Republicans (she could say) fear her more than Obama.

From the article above ...
""I'm going to keep going because you're keeping me going," she said at a rally yesterday in Oregon, pledging to her supporters to remain in the race regardless of the long odds against her."

So, by painting this as a sense of obligation to her millions of supporters (many of whom she will say have advised her she is doing the right thing), she can continue to claim her refusal to drop out of the race is not designed to tear the party apart, but rather, to meet the wishes of the true members of the Democratic party.

Now, fast forward to the convention.

After a few weeks of making Obama's lead out to be a rigging of the Democratic party process by Republicans, she could announce that she will NOT allow the Republicans to get away with this underhanded conspiracy.

She could claim at the convention, that if it had been a fair fight she would have beaten Obama.

And she could announce that "out of a sense of obligation to all Democrats who have supported her superior ideas" she will continue to seek the Presidency.

And then, the bombshell, she will do this for the true Democrats ,,,, even if she has to do it as a write-in candidate ,,, seeking the position as an independent.

Then, believing McCain will get about 40% in a 3-way race, she could try to get more of the remaining 60% than Obama does, so that it forces HER and McCain into a run-off. I believe she thinks she would still be able, even after all those shenanigans, to beat McCain head to head.

That's the only way, short of Obama suddenly dropping dead, she will get what she openly covets more than anything - the Presidency.

Posted by: VS | May 10, 2008 8:55 PM | Report abuse

Don't write the old gal off yet, Obama. The conniving methods she has used before lead me to think she has more tricks up her sleeve.

Remember, this is the same unorthodox rule-bender who found the legal loophole that allowed someone from Arkansas, who had previously resided in DC for 8 or 9 years, to run for (and get elected as) Senator from New York. When else in the history of Senate elections had that been done previously?

There is an avenue that would allow her to continue all the way to the convention, and beyond.

I've predicted this elsewhere before, and as this delaying drags out, I see more and more signs that lead me to believe that she will not count herself out of the race for the job she feels she is entitled to hold.

Here's how it could play out for her.

She sees the polls that show that SHE does better in a head-to-head race with McCain than Obama does. And she has stated that she would be the better choice in that head-to-head race.

She knows that some of the Obama vote has been from voters who, in the past, might otherwise have voted Republican, but supported Obama to keep her from winning. (Look to Alabama a number of years back and say 'Charlie Graddick for Governor', on a national scale)

She may think that in a 3-way race between herself, McCain, and Obama, that enough McCain voters would abandon Obama, and go back to the Republicans, that it would allow her and McCain to be the top 2 vote getters.

She could even stay in it until the convention, so that she can use the convention itself as a platform to lay out her path to the Presidency.

What if she shows up at the convention, amid all the national press, and states that the only reason Obama has more delegates than she is because the Republicans have tampered with the process.

She can make herself the victim (and demonize the Republicans) by saying that their reason for this tampering is to make sure she isn't the Democratic nominee. After all, the Republicans (she could say) fear her more than Obama.

From the article above ...
""I'm going to keep going because you're keeping me going," she said at a rally yesterday in Oregon, pledging to her supporters to remain in the race regardless of the long odds against her."

So, by painting this as a sense of obligation to her millions of supporters (many of whom she will say have advised her she is doing the right thing), she can continue to claim her refusal to drop out of the race is not designed to tear the party apart, but rather, to meet the wishes of the true members of the Democratic party.

Now, fast forward to the convention.

After a few weeks of making Obama's lead out to be a rigging of the Democratic party process by Republicans, she could announce that she will NOT allow the Republicans to get away with this underhanded conspiracy.

She could claim at the convention, that if it had been a fair fight she would have beaten Obama.

And she could announce that "out of a sense of obligation to all Democrats who have supported her superior ideas" she will continue to seek the Presidency.

And then, the bombshell, she will do this for the true Democrats ,,,, even if she has to do it as a write-in candidate ,,, seeking the position as an independent.

Then, believing McCain will get about 40% in a 3-way race, she could try to get more of the remaining 60% than Obama does, so that it forces HER and McCain into a run-off. I believe she thinks she would still be able, even after all those shenanigans, to beat McCain head to head.

That's the only way, short of Obama suddenly dropping dead, she will get what she openly covets more than anything - the Presidency.

Posted by: VentingSteam | May 10, 2008 8:53 PM | Report abuse

Don't write the old gal off yet, Obama. The conniving methods she has used before lead me to think she has more tricks up her sleeve.

Remember, this is the same unorthodox rule-bender who found the legal loophole that allowed someone from Arkansas, who had previously resided in DC for 8 or 9 years, to run for (and get elected as) Senator from New York. When else in the history of Senate elections had that been done previously?

There is an avenue that would allow her to continue all the way to the convention, and beyond.

I've predicted this elsewhere before, and as this delaying drags out, I see more and more signs that lead me to believe that she will not count herself out of the race for the job she feels she is entitled to hold.

Here's how it could play out for her.

She sees the polls that show that SHE does better in a head-to-head race with McCain than Obama does. And she has stated that she would be the better choice in that head-to-head race.

She knows that some of the Obama vote has been from voters who, in the past, might otherwise have voted Republican, but supported Obama to keep her from winning. (Look to Alabama a number of years back and say 'Charlie Graddick for Governor', on a national scale)

She may think that in a 3-way race between herself, McCain, and Obama, that enough McCain voters would abandon Obama, and go back to the Republicans, that it would allow her and McCain to be the top 2 vote getters.

She could even stay in it until the convention, so that she can use the convention itself as a platform to lay out her path to the Presidency.

What if she shows up at the convention, amid all the national press, and states that the only reason Obama has more delegates than she is because the Republicans have tampered with the process.

She can make herself the victim (and demonize the Republicans) by saying that their reason for this tampering is to make sure she isn't the Democratic nominee. After all, the Republicans (she could say) fear her more than Obama.

From the article above ...
""I'm going to keep going because you're keeping me going," she said at a rally yesterday in Oregon, pledging to her supporters to remain in the race regardless of the long odds against her."

So, by painting this as a sense of obligation to her millions of supporters (many of whom she will say have advised her she is doing the right thing), she can continue to claim her refusal to drop out of the race is not designed to tear the party apart, but rather, to meet the wishes of the true members of the Democratic party.

Now, fast forward to the convention.

After a few weeks of making Obama's lead out to be a rigging of the Democratic party process by Republicans, she could announce that she will NOT allow the Republicans to get away with this underhanded conspiracy.

She could claim at the convention, that if it had been a fair fight she would have beaten Obama.

And she could announce that "out of a sense of obligation to all Democrats who have supported her superior ideas" she will continue to seek the Presidency.

And then, the bombshell, she will do this for the true Democrats ,,,, even if she has to do it as a write-in candidate ,,, seeking the position as an independent.

Then, believing McCain will get about 40% in a 3-way race, she could try to get more of the remaining 60% than Obama does, so that it forces HER and McCain into a run-off. I believe she thinks she would still be able, even after all those shenanigans, to beat McCain head to head.

That's the only way, short of Obama suddenly dropping dead, she will get what she openly covets more than anything - the Presidency.

Posted by: VentingSteam | May 10, 2008 8:53 PM | Report abuse

>>"Florida and Michigan voted out of turn, they are right not to be allowed national spotlight until everyone else has had their say"

Banning FL and MI has no functional meaning as a form of punishment.

The whole point of an elective primary process is to create a process for people to vote, to gauge the support candidates have going into the general election from party voters. To "punish" a state by denying its votes just means that you get a less accurate and less representative set of primary results. That's a serious problem if the unrepresented states are big swing states.

The real thing the primary counts are supposed to do is provide meaningful insight into a candidate's chances for the Fall based on how the party voters vote.

The only thing Howard Dean got by expelling the FL & MI democrats is that the Democratic Primary results will be much less representative than usual of what the electorate wants and voter sentiment about the candidates. The Democratic Primaries this year will be much less accurate as a predictor of what will happen with Democratic voters this Fall. The Democrats have only lessened the value of their primary results by ignoring two big swing states.

They can refuse to "count" the delegates and the popular votes, but they can't expel those two states from the general election. By the time the voters in MI & FL have expressed their will, the Democrats who nominate Obama will wish they had counted them in the Primary.

Posted by: Annette Keller | May 10, 2008 8:53 PM | Report abuse

Karen, Obama has been a senator for 3 years. He's not any more of a fraud than your claim that he is. Who else are you going to support in this dark hour when every politician's inherent evil is right there in front of you?

WAKE UP AND SUPPORT OBAMA LIKE THE WORLD HAS NOTHING TO LOSE

Posted by: donny jeffcoat | May 10, 2008 8:53 PM | Report abuse

Don't write the old gal off yet, Obama. The conniving methods she has used before lead me to think she has more tricks up her sleeve.

Remember, this is the same unorthodox rule-bender who found the legal loophole that allowed someone from Arkansas, who had previously resided in DC for 8 or 9 years, to run for (and get elected as) Senator from New York. When else in the history of Senate elections had that been done previously?

There is an avenue that would allow her to continue all the way to the convention, and beyond.

I've predicted this elsewhere before, and as this delaying drags out, I see more and more signs that lead me to believe that she will not count herself out of the race for the job she feels she is entitled to hold.

Here's how it could play out for her.

She sees the polls that show that SHE does better in a head-to-head race with McCain than Obama does. And she has stated that she would be the better choice in that head-to-head race.

She knows that some of the Obama vote has been from voters who, in the past, might otherwise have voted Republican, but supported Obama to keep her from winning. (Look to Alabama a number of years back and say 'Charlie Graddick for Governor', on a national scale)

She may think that in a 3-way race between herself, McCain, and Obama, that enough McCain voters would abandon Obama, and go back to the Republicans, that it would allow her and McCain to be the top 2 vote getters.

She could even stay in it until the convention, so that she can use the convention itself as a platform to lay out her path to the Presidency.

What if she shows up at the convention, amid all the national press, and states that the only reason Obama has more delegates than she is because the Republicans have tampered with the process.

She can make herself the victim (and demonize the Republicans) by saying that their reason for this tampering is to make sure she isn't the Democratic nominee. After all, the Republicans (she could say) fear her more than Obama.

From the article above ...
""I'm going to keep going because you're keeping me going," she said at a rally yesterday in Oregon, pledging to her supporters to remain in the race regardless of the long odds against her."

So, by painting this as a sense of obligation to her millions of supporters (many of whom she will say have advised her she is doing the right thing), she can continue to claim her refusal to drop out of the race is not designed to tear the party apart, but rather, to meet the wishes of the true members of the Democratic party.

Now, fast forward to the convention.

After a few weeks of making Obama's lead out to be a rigging of the Democratic party process by Republicans, she could announce that she will NOT allow the Republicans to get away with this underhanded conspiracy.

She could claim at the convention, that if it had been a fair fight she would have beaten Obama.

And she could announce that "out of a sense of obligation to all Democrats who have supported her superior ideas" she will continue to seek the Presidency.

And then, the bombshell, she will do this for the true Democrats ,,,, even if she has to do it as a write-in candidate ,,, seeking the position as an independent.

Then, believing McCain will get about 40% in a 3-way race, she could try to get more of the remaining 60% than Obama does, so that it forces HER and McCain into a run-off. I believe she thinks she would still be able, even after all those shenanigans, to beat McCain head to head.

That's the only way, short of Obama suddenly dropping dead, she will get what she openly covets more than anything - the Presidency.

Posted by: VentingSteam | May 10, 2008 8:45 PM | Report abuse

Don't write the old gal off yet, Obama. The conniving methods she has used before lead me to think she has more tricks up her sleeve.

Remember, this is the same unorthodox rule-bender who found the legal loophole that allowed someone from Arkansas, who had previously resided in DC for 8 or 9 years, to run for (and get elected as) Senator from New York. When else in the history of Senate elections had that been done previously?

There is an avenue that would allow her to continue all the way to the convention, and beyond.

I've predicted this elsewhere before, and as this delaying drags out, I see more and more signs that lead me to believe that she will not count herself out of the race for the job she feels she is entitled to hold.

Here's how it could play out for her.

She sees the polls that show that SHE does better in a head-to-head race with McCain than Obama does. And she has stated that she would be the better choice in that head-to-head race.

She knows that some of the Obama vote has been from voters who, in the past, might otherwise have voted Republican, but supported Obama to keep her from winning. (Look to Alabama a number of years back and say 'Charlie Graddick for Governor', on a national scale)

She may think that in a 3-way race between herself, McCain, and Obama, that enough McCain voters would abandon Obama, and go back to the Republicans, that it would allow her and McCain to be the top 2 vote getters.

She could even stay in it until the convention, so that she can use the convention itself as a platform to lay out her path to the Presidency.

What if she shows up at the convention, amid all the national press, and states that the only reason Obama has more delegates than she is because the Republicans have tampered with the process.

She can make herself the victim (and demonize the Republicans) by saying that their reason for this tampering is to make sure she isn't the Democratic nominee. After all, the Republicans (she could say) fear her more than Obama.

From the article above ...
""I'm going to keep going because you're keeping me going," she said at a rally yesterday in Oregon, pledging to her supporters to remain in the race regardless of the long odds against her."

So, by painting this as a sense of obligation to her millions of supporters (many of whom she will say have advised her she is doing the right thing), she can continue to claim her refusal to drop out of the race is not designed to tear the party apart, but rather, to meet the wishes of the true members of the Democratic party.

Now, fast forward to the convention.

After a few weeks of making Obama's lead out to be a rigging of the Democratic party process by Republicans, she could announce that she will NOT allow the Republicans to get away with this underhanded conspiracy.

She could claim at the convention, that if it had been a fair fight she would have beaten Obama.

And she could announce that "out of a sense of obligation to all Democrats who have supported her superior ideas" she will continue to seek the Presidency.

And then, the bombshell, she will do this for the true Democrats ,,,, even if she has to do it as a write-in candidate ,,, seeking the position as an independent.

Then, believing McCain will get about 40% in a 3-way race, she could try to get more of the remaining 60% than Obama does, so that it forces HER and McCain into a run-off. I believe she thinks she would still be able, even after all those shenanigans, to beat McCain head to head.

That's the only way, short of Obama suddenly dropping dead, she will get what she openly covets more than anything - the Presidency.

Posted by: Venting Steam | May 10, 2008 8:45 PM | Report abuse

I have been all over the net today on political sites and there is hardly a mention anymore of Hillary. It is all Mccain and Obama. She is no longer relevant I guess.

Posted by: changeagent | May 10, 2008 8:44 PM | Report abuse

I have been all over the net today on political sites and there is hardly a mention anymore of Hillary. It is all Mccain and Obama. She is no longer relevant I guess.

Posted by: changeagent | May 10, 2008 8:42 PM | Report abuse

I have been all over the net today on political sites and there is hardly a mention anymore of Hillary. It is all Mccain and Obama. She is no longer relevant I guess.

Posted by: changeagent | May 10, 2008 8:39 PM | Report abuse

Don't write the old gal off yet, Obama. The conniving methods she has used before lead me to think she has more tricks up her sleeve.

Remember, this is the same unorthodox rule-bender who found the legal loophole that allowed someone from Arkansas, who had previously resided in DC for 8 or 9 years, to run for (and get elected as) Senator from New York. When else in the history of Senate elections had that been done previously?

There is an avenue that would allow her to continue all the way to the convention, and beyond.

I've predicted this elsewhere before, and as this delaying drags out, I see more and more signs that lead me to believe that she will not count herself out of the race for the job she feels she is entitled to hold.

Here's how it could play out for her.

She sees the polls that show that SHE does better in a head-to-head race with McCain than Obama does. And she has stated that she would be the better choice in that head-to-head race.

She knows that some of the Obama vote has been from voters who, in the past, might otherwise have voted Republican, but supported Obama to keep her from winning. (Look to Alabama a number of years back and say 'Charlie Graddick for Governor', on a national scale)

She may think that in a 3-way race between herself, McCain, and Obama, that enough McCain voters would abandon Obama, and go back to the Republicans, that it would allow her and McCain to be the top 2 vote getters.

She could even stay in it until the convention, so that she can use the convention itself as a platform to lay out her path to the Presidency.

What if she shows up at the convention, amid all the national press, and states that the only reason Obama has more delegates than she is because the Republicans have tampered with the process.

She can make herself the victim (and demonize the Republicans) by saying that their reason for this tampering is to make sure she isn't the Democratic nominee. After all, the Republicans (she could say) fear her more than Obama.

From the article above ...
""I'm going to keep going because you're keeping me going," she said at a rally yesterday in Oregon, pledging to her supporters to remain in the race regardless of the long odds against her."

So, by painting this as a sense of obligation to her millions of supporters (many of whom she will say have advised her she is doing the right thing), she can continue to claim her refusal to drop out of the race is not designed to tear the party apart, but rather, to meet the wishes of the true members of the Democratic party.

Now, fast forward to the convention.

After a few weeks of making Obama's lead out to be a rigging of the Democratic party process by Republicans, she could announce that she will NOT allow the Republicans to get away with this underhanded conspiracy.

She could claim at the convention, that if it had been a fair fight she would have beaten Obama.

And she could announce that "out of a sense of obligation to all Democrats who have supported her superior ideas" she will continue to seek the Presidency.

And then, the bombshell, she will do this for the true Democrats ,,,, even if she has to do it as a write-in candidate ,,, seeking the position as an independent.

Then, believing McCain will get about 40% in a 3-way race, she could try to get more of the remaining 60% than Obama does, so that it forces HER and McCain into a run-off. I believe she thinks she would still be able, even after all those shenanigans, to beat McCain head to head.

That's the only way, short of Obama suddenly dropping dead, she will get what she openly covets more than anything - the Presidency.

Posted by: Venting Steam | May 10, 2008 8:38 PM | Report abuse

Don't write the old gal off yet, Obama. The conniving methods she has used before lead me to think she has more tricks up her sleeve.

Remember, this is the same unorthodox rule-bender who found the legal loophole that allowed someone from Arkansas, who had previously resided in DC for 8 or 9 years, to run for (and get elected as) Senator from New York. When else in the history of Senate elections had that been done previously?

There is an avenue that would allow her to continue all the way to the convention, and beyond.

I've predicted this elsewhere before, and as this delaying drags out, I see more and more signs that lead me to believe that she will not count herself out of the race for the job she feels she is entitled to hold.

Here's how it could play out for her.

She sees the polls that show that SHE does better in a head-to-head race with McCain than Obama does. And she has stated that she would be the better choice in that head-to-head race.

She knows that some of the Obama vote has been from voters who, in the past, might otherwise have voted Republican, but supported Obama to keep her from winning. (Look to Alabama a number of years back and say 'Charlie Graddick for Governor', on a national scale)

She may think that in a 3-way race between herself, McCain, and Obama, that enough McCain voters would abandon Obama, and go back to the Republicans, that it would allow her and McCain to be the top 2 vote getters.

She could even stay in it until the convention, so that she can use the convention itself as a platform to lay out her path to the Presidency.

What if she shows up at the convention, amid all the national press, and states that the only reason Obama has more delegates than she is because the Republicans have tampered with the process.

She can make herself the victim (and demonize the Republicans) by saying that their reason for this tampering is to make sure she isn't the Democratic nominee. After all, the Republicans (she could say) fear her more than Obama.

From the article above ...
""I'm going to keep going because you're keeping me going," she said at a rally yesterday in Oregon, pledging to her supporters to remain in the race regardless of the long odds against her."

So, by painting this as a sense of obligation to her millions of supporters (many of whom she will say have advised her she is doing the right thing), she can continue to claim her refusal to drop out of the race is not designed to tear the party apart, but rather, to meet the wishes of the true members of the Democratic party.

Now, fast forward to the convention.

After a few weeks of making Obama's lead out to be a rigging of the Democratic party process by Republicans, she could announce that she will NOT allow the Republicans to get away with this underhanded conspiracy.

She could claim at the convention, that if it had been a fair fight she would have beaten Obama.

And she could announce that "out of a sense of obligation to all Democrats who have supported her superior ideas" she will continue to seek the Presidency.

And then, the bombshell, she will do this for the true Democrats ,,,, even if she has to do it as a write-in candidate ,,, seeking the position as an independent.

Then, believing McCain will get about 40% in a 3-way race, she could try to get more of the remaining 60% than Obama does, so that it forces HER and McCain into a run-off. I believe she thinks she would still be able, even after all those shenanigans, to beat McCain head to head.

That's the only way, short of Obama suddenly dropping dead, she will get what she openly covets more than anything - the Presidency.

Posted by: Venting Steam | May 10, 2008 8:37 PM | Report abuse

As Rahm Emmanuel said in the New Yorker interview with you, this year is uncharted territory. I don't think, other than the usual extrapolations and conventional wisdoms, it can be said without knowlege of ticket negotiations between the Clintons and Obame whether it is postive or negative for the Democratics. I presume there will be a deal and the ticket will be announced after Oregon.

The real losers will of course be the american people who will either accept change within the corporate system or allow themselves to be driven by ignorance and bigotry into more of the criminal mismanagement of their country and squandering of precious time and resources observed especially over the last 8 years. Time sensitive resources which might be applied to perform the radical restructuring american democracy requires at this congjuncture.

Oder...

juan@acm.org

Posted by: Ren Ren-Juan | May 10, 2008 8:29 PM | Report abuse

Andrew


I dispute the right of the democratic party to be able to tell the states to do anything.

PLUS the voters are getting punished, no one else, except for democracy itself.

The Presidential elections should be run with the voters supreme - the People hold sovereignty in this country, not a group of stuffy Washington insiders.

In your clinging to those "rules" how much of the power to select the President are you ceding to these Washington insiders?


I also dispute the right of these Washington insiders to choose Nevada and South Caroline over Florida and Michigan. Every citizen in this nation is equal - citizens of one state should not have additional influence over citizens of another state.

Florida and Michigan were correct in opposing the anti-democratic and elitist actions of these Washington insiders.

AND instead of seeking an agreement of all the parties, the Washington insiders sought to IMPOSE their will on Florida and Michigan by intimadating Presidential candidates not to campaign there, by getting them to sign "pledges" recognizing the power of the Washington insiders over these decisions and seeking to "punish" all who opposed them.

Who gave them this power?


It is not in the Constitution.


No voters approved their plan.

Electing the President is the domain of the People of the nation, not some Washington insiders seeking the easiest way to obtain Presidential appointments for themselves and their closest political operatives.


.

Posted by: Words of Wisdom | May 10, 2008 8:25 PM | Report abuse

As Rahm Emmanuel said in the New Yorker interview with you, this year is uncharted territory. I don't think, other than the usual extrapolations and conventional wisdoms, it can be said without knowlege of ticket negotiations between the Clintons and Obame whether it is postive or negative for the Democratics. I presume there will be a deal and the ticket will be announced after Oregon.

The real losers will of course be the american people who will either accept change within the corporate system or allow themselves to be driven by ignorance and bigotry into more of the criminal mismanagement of their country and squandering of precious time and resources observed especially over the last 8 years. Time sensitive resources which might be applied to perform the radical restructuring american democracy requires at this congjucture.

Oder...

Posted by: Ren Ren-Juan | May 10, 2008 8:25 PM | Report abuse

Sorry about the repeated posts, the posts weren't showing up on my display of the web page so I hit "Submit" more than once.

>> lizard5 wrote: "My guess: Clinton is staying in this just to ruin any chance for Obama to win in the general election so she will have a shot at it in 2012."

My take on her objectives is that there are many reasons why she would stay in the race at least until all the primaries are finished. There are few reasons for her to quit now, since the Clintons are wealthy enough to fund her loans to her campaign.

One reason for Clinton to stay in is obvious in her oft-shared belief that Obama is unelectable. If you really research his background beyond what the pro-Obama mainstream media allows the public to hear about, there are serious problems with Obama's background. Rev. Wright is a Hamas sympathizer who has published pro-Hamas and Hamas material on the Church website and travelled to the Mideast to meet with those who are considered terrorists. Hamas this week "endorsed" Obama for President, even. The list of problems Obama will have in the general election, in just the information that is already out but being blocked from public awareness by the pro-Obama media, is pretty serious.

If Clinton stays in the race until she's forced out of the Primaries against her will, and Obama loses the general election as she obviously and strongly believes he will, she won't own the Democrats' loss of the White House this Fall. She must insist on having her MI and FL delegates seated and she must insist on taking the contest to the convention. If and when the Democratic Leadership (including Howard Dean) and a block of pro-Obama delegates do an end run around the rules and try to end the contest before the convention, they will own the loss of the White House this Fall, and Clinton will be vindicated and absolutely positioned as the next nominee (in 2012).

This isn't the only benefit to her remaining in the contest. There are many.

To understand Hillary Clinton's behavior, you have to believe that she means what she says when she says that she doesn't think that Obama is electable. All of her strategy and words and arguments are consistent with a very strong belief that if Obama is the nominee, the Democrats will lose the White House this Fall. The only way her behavior seems dysfunctional or obnoxious is if you buy into Obama's fairy tale candidacy and not her arguments.

I agree with Clinton. Obama is a freshman senator with 3 years in the U.S. senate and national politics, and 2 of those 3 years have been spent campaigning. He has not succeeded in anything he has tried to do professionally, from being a community organizer (he felt he was getting nowhere and went back to school to read Law), he failed to make partner in his first firm out of Law School and went into politics, and he has never really won a true contest against a real opponent (all his opponents have imploded, were never viable or he got them disqualified). Obama has more or less defaulted or career-switched into being where he is today, and yet he has a bid to be top executive of the United States. The fact that he assumes that he doesn't need at least 8 years more experience and believes that, as he says, he can delegate policy advising and rely on his rhetorical power to lead by vision, is very troubling.

At no level, from Obama's very close ties with terrorist sympathizers and former terrorists to his thin resume for being top executive of anything without a lot more experience, does it look like the Democrats are making a reasonable gamble in nominating him this year instead of 8 years from now.

If you listen to Clinton and her supporters, you can see why Clinton does the things she does and why her supporters insist that they will vote for McCain if Obama is nominated.

If you buy into the media and Obama campaign version of reality, her behavior and decisions obviously look irrational.

If you want to understand a person's behavior, you have to listen to them and try to understand that they mean what they say. You don't listen to what their enemies and opponents say about them. Clinton isn't mysterious at all, if you listen to what she is saying.

Posted by: Annette Keller | May 10, 2008 8:23 PM | Report abuse

Andrew


I dispute the right of the democratic party to be able to tell the states to do anything.

PLUS the voters are getting punished, no one else, except for democracy itself.

The Presidential elections should be run with the voters supreme - the People hold sovereignty in this country, not a group of stuffy Washington insiders.

In your clinging to those "rules" how much of the power to select the President are you ceding to these Washington insiders?


I also dispute the right of these Washington insiders to choose Nevada and South Caroline over Florida and Michigan. Every citizen in this nation is equal - citizens of one state should not have additional influence over citizens of another state.

Florida and Michigan were correct in opposing the anti-democratic and elitist actions of these Washington insiders.

AND instead of seeking an agreement of all the parties, the Washington insiders sought to IMPOSE their will on Florida and Michigan by intimadating Presidential candidates not to campaign there, by getting them to sign "pledges" recognizing the power of the Washington insiders over these decisions and seeking to "punish" all who opposed them.

Who gave them this power?


It is not in the Constitution.


No voters approved their plan.

Electing the President is the domain of the People of the nation, not some Washington insiders seeking the easiest way to obtain Presidential appointments for themselves and their closest political operatives.


.

Posted by: Words of Wisdom | May 10, 2008 8:21 PM | Report abuse

Sorry about the repeated posts, the posts weren't showing up on my display of the web page so I hit "Submit" more than once.

>> lizard5 wrote: "My guess: Clinton is staying in this just to ruin any chance for Obama to win in the general election so she will have a shot at it in 2012."

My take on her objectives is that there are many reasons why she would stay in the race at least until all the primaries are finished. There are few reasons for her to quit now, since the Clintons are wealthy enough to fund her loans to her campaign.

One reason for Clinton to stay in is obvious in her oft-shared belief that Obama is unelectable. If you really research his background beyond what the pro-Obama mainstream media allows the public to hear about, there are serious problems with Obama's background. Rev. Wright is a Hamas sympathizer who has published pro-Hamas and Hamas material on the Church website and travelled to the Mideast to meet with those who are considered terrorists. Hamas this week "endorsed" Obama for President, even. The list of problems Obama will have in the general election, in just the information that is already out but being blocked from public awareness by the pro-Obama media, is pretty serious.

If Clinton stays in the race until she's forced out of the Primaries against her will, and Obama loses the general election as she obviously and strongly believes he will, she won't own the Democrats' loss of the White House this Fall. She must insist on having her MI and FL delegates seated and she must insist on taking the contest to the convention. If and when the Democratic Leadership (including Howard Dean) and a block of pro-Obama delegates do an end run around the rules and try to end the contest before the convention, they will own the loss of the White House this Fall, and Clinton will be vindicated and absolutely positioned as the next nominee (in 2012).

This isn't the only benefit to her remaining in the contest. There are many.

To understand Hillary Clinton's behavior, you have to believe that she means what she says when she says that she doesn't think that Obama is electable. All of her strategy and words and arguments are consistent with a very strong belief that if Obama is the nominee, the Democrats will lose the White House this Fall. The only way her behavior seems dysfunctional or obnoxious is if you buy into Obama's fairy tale candidacy and not her arguments.

I agree with Clinton. Obama is a freshman senator with 3 years in the U.S. senate and national politics, and 2 of those 3 years have been spent campaigning. He has not succeeded in anything he has tried to do professionally, from being a community organizer (he felt he was getting nowhere and went back to school to read Law), he failed to make partner in his first firm out of Law School and went into politics, and he has never really won a true contest against a real opponent (all his opponents have imploded, were never viable or he got them disqualified). Obama has more or less defaulted or career-switched into being where he is today, and yet he has a bid to be top executive of the United States. The fact that he assumes that he doesn't need at least 8 years more experience and believes that, as he says, he can delegate policy advising and rely on his rhetorical power to lead by vision, is very troubling.

At no level, from Obama's very close ties with terrorist sympathizers and former terrorists to his thin resume for being top executive of anything without a lot more experience, does it look like the Democrats are making a reasonable gamble in nominating him this year instead of 8 years from now.

If you listen to Clinton and her supporters, you can see why Clinton does the things she does and why her supporters insist that they will vote for McCain if Obama is nominated.

If you buy into the media and Obama campaign version of reality, her behavior and decisions obviously look irrational.

If you want to understand a person's behavior, you have to listen to them and try to understand that they mean what they say. You don't listen to what their enemies and opponents say about them. Clinton isn't mysterious at all, if you listen to what she is saying.

Posted by: Annette Keller | May 10, 2008 8:19 PM | Report abuse

Don't bet on it, the Dems have a way of turning on it's losers. This is it for her and she knows it. That is why she won't quit, this will be her only chance.

______
Why is Hillary staying in?

Easy. To help McCain win the general election, so she can run again in 2012 after four disastrous years of a McCain administration.

Posted by: oldhonky | May 10, 2008 8:02 PM

Posted by: wiseman | May 10, 2008 8:14 PM | Report abuse

Why is Hillary staying in?

Easy. To help McCain win the general election, so she can run again in 2012 after four disastrous years of a McCain administration.

Posted by: oldhonky | May 10, 2008 8:14 PM | Report abuse

Don't bet on it, the Dems have a way of turning on it's losers. This is it for her and she knows it. That is why she won't quit, this will be her only chance.

______
Why is Hillary staying in?

Easy. To help McCain win the general election, so she can run again in 2012 after four disastrous years of a McCain administration.

Posted by: oldhonky | May 10, 2008 8:02 PM

Posted by: wiseman | May 10, 2008 8:14 PM | Report abuse

Words of Wisdom:

They lost their voice through their own actions, not anybody elses. The party told them not to hold their votes so early, but they went ahead and ignored them, and not they're paying the consequences. The party rightfully punished them, and told the candidates not to campaign there, which all of them did (generally, Clinton bent the rules a bit in Florids), and most candidates weren't even on Michigan ballot through the request of the Party.

This is a party's nomination, not a general election. The state itself has no say, the state's party does, and if they disobey what the rest of the party tells them to do, then there is no reason NOT for the party to ignore them (even Repubicans punished the Florida and Michigan parties). On top of that, to suggest that the 2 states be allowed in with the vote totals from the elections they had is nothing more than political games, clearly favoring Hilary (who had an advantage in those states before any campaigning). This is why she is so for seating them now, because she knows its her only chance at winning.

The Democratic Party made a choice at the beginning of this primary, and they should stick to it. If they reverse this decision (which Obama listened to and did not campaign in these places) and seat the delegates as they voted earlier, and Hilary becomes the nominee, then congrats. You will have destroyed any chance of blacks, young people, and many other dems rallying to the party in the fall. If they reverse this decision and Hilary wins, then my vote is for McCain in November.

Posted by: Andrew | May 10, 2008 8:11 PM | Report abuse

Damage to herself if he somehow, I can't see, loses in the fall. She will be blamed and the democrats have a history of not being kind to their members when they fall from grace. Hillary will be a lepor

Posted by: Anonymous | May 10, 2008 8:11 PM | Report abuse

Words of Wisdom:

They lost their voice through their own actions, not anybody elses. The party told them not to hold their votes so early, but they went ahead and ignored them, and not they're paying the consequences. The party rightfully punished them, and told the candidates not to campaign there, which all of them did (generally, Clinton bent the rules a bit in Florids), and most candidates weren't even on Michigan ballot through the request of the Party.

This is a party's nomination, not a general election. The state itself has no say, the state's party does, and if they disobey what the rest of the party tells them to do, then there is no reason NOT for the party to ignore them (even Repubicans punished the Florida and Michigan parties). On top of that, to suggest that the 2 states be allowed in with the vote totals from the elections they had is nothing more than political games, clearly favoring Hilary (who had an advantage in those states before any campaigning). This is why she is so for seating them now, because she knows its her only chance at winning.

The Democratic Party made a choice at the beginning of this primary, and they should stick to it. If they reverse this decision (which Obama listened to and did not campaign in these places) and seat the delegates as they voted earlier, and Hilary becomes the nominee, then congrats. You will have destroyed any chance of blacks, young people, and many other dems rallying to the party in the fall. If they reverse this decision and Hilary wins, then my vote is for McCain in November.

Posted by: Andrew | May 10, 2008 8:03 PM | Report abuse

Words of "Wisdom"

I know that you like perpetrating a good lie, but Barack Obama did not prevent a re-vote in MI or FL.

He had the sheer audacity to ask for an open process in MI that would allow independents (as well as some Democrats) who participated in the Republican primary in January to be allowed to vote in the re-vote. You know, seeing as how the Jan. 15 primary was open to begin with, and that 18% of voters in that primary were identified as independents (7% of voters in the R primary were Democrats, too).

I guess that was too much to ask, right?

As for FL, he had nothing to lose in a re-vote. If the delegates are seated based on the 1/29 primary, I guarantee you that he'll receive fewer than he would if a re-vote takes place.

Posted by: JamesCH | May 10, 2008 8:03 PM | Report abuse

Why is Hillary staying in?

Easy. To help McCain win the general election, so she can run again in 2012 after four disastrous years of a McCain administration.

Posted by: oldhonky | May 10, 2008 8:02 PM | Report abuse

YES A CALL FOR SANCTIONS AGAINST THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY


Florida and Michigan have the ball in their court now - the Democrats don't want the voices of Florida and Michigan citizens to be heard while the democratic nomination is still being decided?


How about if there is a movement within Florida and Michigan to deny the democratic party nominee ballot access in November in return ????


There is no way that the democratic party should expect ANY cooperation from Florida or Michigan.


Florida and Michigan have the CONSTITUTIONAL POWER to set the rules for their own elections.


If the democrats do not want to respect Florida and Michigan, it doesn't have to go the other way either.

Make a law that states that no political party can have its nominee on the ballots in Florida and in Michigan if the delegates selected are not counted BEFORE the nominee is decided, in this case when one candidate has the majority of delegates.


Obama has only himself to blame for actively attempting to PREVENT re-vote in Florida and Michigan.

.

Posted by: Words of Wisdom | May 10, 2008 7:44 PM | Report abuse

YES A CALL FOR SANCTIONS AGAINST THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY


Florida and Michigan have the ball in their court now - the Democrats don't want the voices of Florida and Michigan citizens to be heard while the democratic nomination is still being decided?


How about if there is a movement within Florida and Michigan to deny the democratic party nominee ballot access in November in return ????


There is no way that the democratic party should expect ANY cooperation from Florida or Michigan.


Florida and Michigan have the CONSTITUTIONAL POWER to set the rules for their own elections.


If the democrats do not want to respect Florida and Michigan, it doesn't have to go the other way either.

Make a law that states that no political party can have its nominee on the ballots in Florida and in Michigan if the delegates selected are not counted BEFORE the nominee is decided, in this case when one candidate has the majority of delegates.


Obama has only himself to blame for actively attempting to PREVENT re-vote in Florida and Michigan.

.

Posted by: Words of Wisdom | May 10, 2008 7:44 PM | Report abuse

I feel that there are obvious positives to the long and impassioned campaign. As others have pointed out, there are millions of new being Democrats registered. Moreover, in each state there are millions of people who are dissatisfied with the Bush Administration being introduced to the Democratic message and ideas, who would never have listened before. Finally, each of the candidates have been brilliant, talented people.

The negatives to the long campaign has been the media coverage. They media and literati are part of Obama's core base of white ivory tower liberals and editors and journalists are under his spell out of sheer cultural affinity and their belief in the power of rhetorical skills in a charming politician. In their misguided attempts to promote Obama and hamper Clinton's campaign, the media has injected considerable bias, negativity, Clinton-bashing and lame coverage of Obama's negatives. The problems introduced into the Democratic Primaries by the impassioned and biased media may cost the Democrats the White House this Fall.

While there has been some coverage of the media bias of the Democratic Primaries, it's hard to capture the full extent of the negativity injected into the Clinton-Obama debate and the black eyes that the media's unloading onto Clinton has given the Democratic Party and its legacy. One example is Bob Herbert's extremely negative, jeering and race-baiting article in today's NY Times, that portrays Hillary Clinton's recitation of data about white voter rejection of Obama in recent polls, as the racist argument "He can't win! Don't you understand? He's black! He's black!" This is despite the fact that many pundits, including journalists, are expressing concerns about white voter flight from Obama recently and that it is a perfectly legitimate unelectability argument.

The problem introduced by media attacks on Clinton to advocate for Obama, is How is Clinton supposed to respond to the negative attacks from a press that has internalized and highly personalized the campaign between candidates so that they write as if they were part of the campaign blogging staff? She can't attack journalists or demand to hold debates with the Washington Post editorial board. Obama doesn't respond much to her, and he has let the media be his attack dogs, with their using information sent via his campaign's talking points and signal sent behind-the-scenes from his surrogates. To defend herself against the constant barrage of attacks from the press who argue on Obama's behalf and who have personalized the debate between candidates and propagandize for Obama, Clinton must attack Obama and pick fights with him.

In this way, the media has created a dysfunctional, negative atmosphere in the campaign. It has set a very low, sneering, disrespectful, ugly and negative tone in the Democratic Primaries, turning it into a spectacle of media bias, sexism, race-baiting (white-on-black and black-on-white) and sheer disrespect. As many people who have been reintroduced to Democratic ideas and platforms as the fascinating primary has moved from state to state, there are people who have been treated to the spectacle of reverse discrimination, shrill accusations of racism, sexist portrayals of a female executive in mainstream verbalizations and imagery and Democrat-on-Democrat rules-bending and favor-playing.

There have been benefits to the long primary, but the benefits of respect, dignity and party goodwill have largely been squandered by the media's inappropriate and highly personalized, unprofessionally biased coverage of the contest and its issues. It is said that in this contest, identity politics have ruled. The identification with, and personalization of candidate's respective campaigns has been nowhere as evident in the electorate at large as it has been in the media world. It is those scars that will not heal soon.

It's a strange thing when the media is part and parcel of a single candidate's very narrow but very deep voter base. It's my feeling that the interference of the media, its personalizing the debate between the two candidates and hijacking it, and the inappropriate activism interfering with professional responsibilities and objectivity, will cost the Democrats the White House yet again.

Posted by: Annette Keller | May 10, 2008 7:39 PM | Report abuse

Response to Erica:

Who has the right to decide that Nevada and South Carolina should be able to go before Florida and Michigan ??


I dispute the validity of that decision.


I also dispute the RIGHT of some group of Washington insiders to make that decision.


The states rightly resisted the attempt by the party to take the control of the elections away from the states, which the Constitution provides to the states, not to Harry Reid and his thugs of political operatives who have not had enough slop at the pig trough.


Posted by: 37th&OStreet | May 10, 2008 7:32 PM | Report abuse

I feel that there are obvious positives to the long and impassioned campaign. As others have pointed out, there are millions of new being Democrats registered. Moreover, in each state there are millions of people who are dissatisfied with the Bush Administration being introduced to the Democratic message and ideas, who would never have listened before. Finally, each of the candidates have been brilliant, talented people.

The negatives to the long campaign has been the media coverage. They media and literati are part of Obama's core base of white ivory tower liberals and editors and journalists are under his spell out of sheer cultural affinity and their belief in the power of rhetorical skills in a charming politician. In their misguided attempts to promote Obama and hamper Clinton's campaign, the media has injected considerable bias, negativity, Clinton-bashing and lame coverage of Obama's negatives. The problems introduced into the Democratic Primaries by the impassioned and biased media may cost the Democrats the White House this Fall.

While there has been some coverage of the media bias of the Democratic Primaries, it's hard to capture the full extent of the negativity injected into the Clinton-Obama debate and the black eyes that the media's unloading onto Clinton has given the Democratic Party and its legacy. One example is Bob Herbert's extremely negative, race-baiting article in today's NY Times, that portrays Hillary Clinton's recitation of data about white voter rejection of Obama in recent polls, the racist argument "He can't win! Don't you understand? He's black! He's black!" This is despite the fact that many pundits, including journalists, are expressing concerns about white voter flight from Obama recently and that it is a perfectly legitimate unelectability argument. How is Clinton supposed to respond to the negative attacks from a press that has internalized and highly personalized the campaign between candidates so that they write as if they were part of the campaign blogging staff? She can't attack journalists or demand debates with the Washington Post editorial board. To defend herself against the constant barrage of attacks from the press who have personalized the debate between candidates and propagandize for Obama, she must attack Obama.

In this way, the media has dictated a very low, sneering, disrespectful, ugly and negative tone into the Democratic Primaries, turning it into a spectacle of media bias, sexism, race-baiting (white-on-black and black-on-white) and sheer disrespect. As many people who have been reintroduced to Democratic ideas and platforms as the fascinating primary has moved from state to state, there are people who have been treated to the spectacle of reverse discrimination, shrill accusations of racism, sexist portrayals of a female executive in mainstream verbalizations and imagery and Democrat-on-Democrat rules-bending and favor-playing.

There have been benefits to the long primary, but those benefits in the form of respect and party goodwill have largely been squandered by the media's inappropriate and highly personalized, unprofessionally biased coverage of the contest and its issues. It is said that in this contest, identity politics have ruled. The identification with, and personalization of candidate's respective campaigns has been nowhere as evident in the electorate at large as it has been in the media world. It is those scars that will not heal soon.

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

Neither. At this point it doesn't matter. Hillary Clinton can't really hurt Obama any more than she already has. She has gotten full penetration with her negative message. Those who are susceptible to it have heard it and taken it in. Those who are not have rejected it. Hillary and Bill Clinton can, sooner or later, play a role in retrieving as many of their supporters to the Obama column as is possible, or they can leave that work in capable hands of their well-positioned supporters in states like Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan, etc. It won't matter now. The spotlight on Hillary Clinton will fade and will focus on Obama and McCain. More important than anything Hillary Clinton does is how Obama reacts to it. His grace is what people will be judging, because he is the nominee and the one they will be deciding whether or not to vote for.

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

I feel that there are obvious positives to the long and impassioned campaign. As others have pointed out, there are millions of new being Democrats registered. Moreover, in each state there are millions of people who are dissatisfied with the Bush Administration being introduced to the Democratic message and ideas, who would never have listened before. Finally, each of the candidates have been brilliant, talented people.

The negatives to the long campaign has been the media coverage. They media and literati are part of Obama's core base of white ivory tower liberals and editors and journalists are under his spell out of sheer cultural affinity and their belief in the power of rhetorical skills in a charming politician. In their misguided attempts to promote Obama and hamper Clinton's campaign, the media has injected considerable bias, negativity, Clinton-bashing and lame coverage of Obama's negatives. The problems introduced into the Democratic Primaries by the impassioned and biased media may cost the Democrats the White House this Fall.

While there has been some coverage of the media bias of the Democratic Primaries, it's hard to capture the full extent of the negativity injected into the Clinton-Obama debate and the black eyes that the media's unloading onto Clinton has given the Democratic Party and its legacy. One example is Bob Herbert's extremely negative, race-baiting article in today's NY Times, that portrays Hillary Clinton's recitation of data about white voter rejection of Obama in recent polls, the racist argument "He can't win! Don't you understand? He's black! He's black!" This is despite the fact that many pundits, including journalists, are expressing concerns about white voter flight from Obama recently and that it is a perfectly legitimate unelectability argument. How is Clinton supposed to respond to the negative attacks from a press that has internalized and highly personalized the campaign between candidates so that they write as if they were part of the campaign blogging staff? She can't attack journalists or demand debates with the Washington Post editorial board. To defend herself against the constant barrage of attacks from the press who have personalized the debate between candidates and propagandize for Obama, she must attack Obama.

In this way, the media has dictated a very low, sneering, disrespectful, ugly and negative tone into the Democratic Primaries, turning it into a spectacle of media bias, sexism, race-baiting (white-on-black and black-on-white) and sheer disrespect. As many people who have been reintroduced to Democratic ideas and platforms as the fascinating primary has moved from state to state, there are people who have been treated to the spectacle of reverse discrimination, shrill accusations of racism, sexist portrayals of a female executive in mainstream verbalizations and imagery and Democrat-on-Democrat rules-bending and favor-playing.

There have been benefits to the long primary, but those benefits in the form of respect and party goodwill have largely been squandered by the media's inappropriate and highly personalized, unprofessionally biased coverage of the contest and its issues. It is said that in this contest, identity politics have ruled. The identification with, and personalization of candidate's respective campaigns has been nowhere as evident in the electorate at large as it has been in the media world. It is those scars that will not heal soon.

The Washington Post stock and profitability has plummeted disproportionate to other comparable media companies, with its trajectory traceable to primary weeks of its heavily negative coverage of Clinton. It is my feeling that women have been pummeled, disrespected and marginalized by and through the poor treatment of Hillary Clinton's historic campaign both by the media and the Democratic Party leadership. That white female alienation will show up, along with other migrations, as continued drift toward more conservative media outlets and the Republican party.

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

My guess: Clinton is staying in this just to ruin any chance for Obama to win in the general election so she will have a shot at it in 2012.

Posted by: lizard5 | May 10, 2008 7:25 PM | Report abuse

Why isn't Clinton campaigning like Huckabee, after he had decisively lost this year's Republican nomination?

Easy. She doesn't want Obama to be elected President. That way, she can come back after four disastrous years of McCain -- and try again!

Posted by: oldhonky | May 10, 2008 7:22 PM | Report abuse

I agree that the tenor of the remaining contest is much more important than its length, but I guess I disagree with some of the other pro-Obama posters out there who seem to take Clinton's "white voters" comment as a sign that she would sooner divide the electorate than lose.

I agree that it's an unfortunate comment for someone in her position to make, but it differs so little from the kind of demographic slicing-and-dicing that's bandied about every day in the media and, no doubt, among her pollsters. I mean, she's right. She is stronger among white, working-class voters than he is. And it's a real problem he is going to have to confront in the general. It's just that such arguments leave a sour taste in the mouth, which is why we rightly chastise influential people who make them in public view.

But I still think it was more likely a slip than a crass, racial ploy. She's been running TV ads in West Virginia directed against the Republicans, and not Obama. If the "white voter" comment was a ploy, it was an extremely clumsy one entirely uncoordinated with the rest of her campaign.

So, yeah. I think a longer campaign is fine, and I think it's probably what will happen. Apart from the continued voter registration and fundraising that a longer campaign generates, it will also keep Obama in the news, and give him the opportunity to look confident and magnanimous. He's quite good at that.

Posted by: CR | May 10, 2008 7:08 PM | Report abuse

I agree that the tenor of the remaining contest is much more important than its length, but I guess I disagree with some of the other pro-Obama posters out there who seem to take Clinton's "white voters" comment as a sign that she would sooner divide the electorate than lose.

I agree that it's an unfortunate comment for someone in her position to make, but it differs so little from the kind of demographic slicing-and-dicing that's bandied about every day in the media and, no doubt, among her pollsters. I mean, she's right. She is stronger among white, working-class voters than he is. And it's a real problem he is going to have to confront in the general. It's just that such arguments leave a sour taste in the mouth, which is why we rightly chastise influential people who make them in public view.

But I still think it was more likely a slip than a crass, racial ploy. She's been running TV ads in West Virginia directed against the Republicans, and not Obama. If the "white voter" comment was a ploy, it was an extremely clumsy one entirely uncoordinated with the rest of her campaign.

So, yeah. I think a longer campaign is fine, and I think it's probably what will happen. Apart from the continued voter registration and fundraising that a longer campaign generates, it will also keep Obama in the news, and give him the opportunity to look confident and magnanimous. He's quite good at that.

Posted by: CR | May 10, 2008 6:58 PM | Report abuse

I agree that the tenor of the remaining contest is much more important than its length, but I guess I disagree with some of the other pro-Obama posters out there who seem to take Clinton's "white voters" comment as a sign that she would sooner divide the electorate than lose.

I agree that it's an unfortunate comment for someone in her position to make, but it differs so little from the kind of demographic slicing-and-dicing that's bandied about every day in the media and, no doubt, among her pollsters. I mean, she's right. She is stronger among white, working-class voters than he is. And it's a real problem he is going to have to confront in the general. It's just that such arguments leave a sour taste in the mouth, which is why we rightly chastise influential people who make them in public view.

But I still think it was more likely a slip than a crass, racial ploy. She's been running TV ads in West Virginia directed against the Republicans, and not Obama. If the "white voter" comment was a ploy, it was an extremely clumsy one entirely uncoordinated with the rest of her campaign.

So, yeah. I think a longer campaign is fine, and I think it's probably what will happen. Apart from the continued voter registration and fundraising that a longer campaign generates, it will also keep Obama in the news, and give him the opportunity to look confident and magnanimous. He's quite good at that.

Posted by: CR | May 10, 2008 6:58 PM | Report abuse

Why isn't Clinton campaigning like Huckabee, after he had decisively lost this year's Republican nomination?

Easy. She doesn't want Obama to be elected President. That way, she can come back after four disastrous years of McCain -- and try again!

Posted by: oldhonky | May 10, 2008 6:58 PM | Report abuse

Why isn't Clinton campaigning like Huckabee, after he had decisively lost this year's Republican nomination?

Easy. She doesn't want Obama to be elected President. That way, she can come back after four disastrous years of McCain -- and try again!

Posted by: oldhonky | May 10, 2008 6:52 PM | Report abuse

I am a Barack Obama supporter and graduate student in Political Science and there are several reasons why I think the campaign should continue. In fact, I've made this claim for the past couple of months due to the literature that I am exposed to.

First, in order to create an infrastructure for Democratic support in 2008, it makes sense for both candidates' campaigns to be out on the trail registering new voters for the party. With both campaigns out registering voters, we are almost assured that ALL demographics targeted by each campaign will be added to the voter registration lists. Furthermore, it should be assumed that each state party and the national party will be further registering new voters closer to the general election. All else being equal, this should create an infrastructure for Democratic support in which the job of the candidate's campaign and National, State, and Local parties will be able to concentrate on turning out these voters. It should be great news that the voter registration lists are being bolstered in states such as Alabama, Mississippi, Georgia, Idaho, etc. It might be possible that Democratic candidates for office will benefit from these increased voter regristration lists at the gubernatorial, Federal, state, and local level.

Indeed, part of the job will be already done in turning out these voters according to some of the literature in Political Science. Some literature suggests that if a voter makes it out to the polls, they are more likely to return to the polls again in a future election to vote. Whether or not this holds for primary and general elections, notwithstanding voter fatigue, requires a further review of the literature (which I have not been able to conduct at this point as an overworked and underpaid graduate student). So if voters in MT, OR, WV, etc. are sufficiently interested in the race and make it out to the primary polls to vote, it might be possible to expect that part of the job will be done in ensuring these voters make it to the polls for the general.

A longer campaign might even ensure that negative information is made available for campaign watchers earlier, rather than later, in the campaign process. We have already seen this in the primary campaign thus far with the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, etc. By acknowledging and addressing this information earlier, some of the campaign consultant literature suggests that it will not be an issue closer to the general election. There might also be a benefit for allowing this negative information to be cast in Democratic terms rather than Republican terms.

Whether the campaigns of each candidate will be able to convince supporters of the challenger to vote for him or her is a story that will be told after the 2008 General Election. However, I do not foresee Democrats voting for John McCain with the relative ease in which the national party and presidential campaign will be able to tie McCain to George Bush.

Posted by: Aaron Ley | May 10, 2008 6:49 PM | Report abuse

How about asking if the media is damaging the chances for me and other women to see the first woman elected as President in the United States? If y'all keep this up and Obama is the nominee, you can count on me NOT to vote for him.

Hillary should stay in the race and see her candidacy through til the end. I still believe (like many people in Kentucky) that she will be the Democratic nominee.

Posted by: Jess | May 10, 2008 6:49 PM | Report abuse

Florida and Michigan voted out of turn, they are right not to be allowed national spotlight until everyone else has had their say. What they wanted by moving up their voting calender was to dominate the voting process of the other 49 states (or whoever was still behind them). Why should they be given a megaphone and why do we need to throw a media circus for them?

I'm sure they will be given at least half of their voting delegates. Its just let Porto Rico and Oregan have their say first. The race isn't over yet. Let them wait until the end. :)

Posted by: Erica | May 10, 2008 6:44 PM | Report abuse

She should stay in in West Virginny with all us rubes - we can get her some ammo and throw her out back in the trailer and she can start reading us our mail - we been saving it for twenty years for someone with some book learnin.....

Let it roll on - it is now funny, and I think the fix is really asking for jokes and not serious content to this event that is really just a spectacle and you all know it.

Posted by: Rubes | May 10, 2008 6:44 PM | Report abuse

Florida and Michigan voted out of turn, they are right not to be allowed national spotlight until everyone else has had their say. What they wanted by moving up their voting calender was to dominate the voting process of the other 49 states (or whoever was still behind them). Why should they be given a megaphone and why do we need to throw a media circus for them?

I'm sure they will be given at least half of their voting delegates. Its just let Porto Rico and Oregan have their say first. The race isn't over yet. Let them wait until the end. :)

Posted by: Erica | May 10, 2008 6:44 PM | Report abuse

MCShame NATIONAL PARKS FOR REAL ESTATE CAMPAIN FUNDS

Arizona news

Posted by: REal estate and Keating too | May 10, 2008 6:44 PM | Report abuse

I am a Barack Obama supporter and graduate student in Political Science and there are several reasons why I think the campaign should continue. In fact, I've made this claim for the past couple of months due to the literature that I am exposed to.

First, in order to create an infrastructure for Democratic support in 2008, it makes sense for both candidates' campaigns to be out on the trail registering new voters for the party. With both campaigns out registering voters, we are almost assured that ALL demographics targeted by each campaign will be added to the voter registration lists. Furthermore, it should be assumed that each state party and the national party will be further registering new voters closer to the general election. All else being equal, this should create an infrastructure for Democratic support in which the job of the candidate's campaign and National, State, and Local parties will be able to concentrate on turning out these voters. It should be great news that the voter registration lists are being bolstered in states such as Alabama, Mississippi, Georgia, Idaho, etc. It might be possible that Democratic candidates for office will benefit from these increased voter regristration lists at the gubernatorial, Federal, state, and local level.

Indeed, part of the job will be already done in turning out these voters according to some of the literature in Political Science. Some literature suggests that if a voter makes it out to the polls, they are more likely to return to the polls again in a future election to vote. Whether or not this holds for primary and general elections, notwithstanding voter fatigue, requires a further review of the literature (which I have not been able to conduct at this point as an overworked and underpaid graduate student). So if voters in MT, OR, WV, etc. are sufficiently interested in the race and make it out to the primary polls to vote, it might be possible to expect that part of the job will be done in ensuring these voters make it to the polls for the general.

A longer campaign might even ensure that negative information is made available for campaign watchers earlier, rather than later, in the campaign process. We have already seen this in the primary campaign thus far with the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, etc. By acknowledging and addressing this information earlier, some of the campaign consultant literature suggests that it will not be an issue closer to the general election. There might also be a benefit for allowing this negative information to be cast in Democratic terms rather than Republican terms.

Whether the campaigns of each candidate will be able to convince supporters of the challenger to vote for him or her is a story that will be told after the 2008 General Election. However, I do not foresee Democrats voting for John McCain with the relative ease in which the national party and presidential campaign will be able to tie McCain to George Bush.

Posted by: Aaron Ley | May 10, 2008 6:40 PM | Report abuse

I am a Barack Obama supporter and graduate student in Political Science and there are several reasons why I think the campaign should continue. In fact, I've made this claim for the past couple of months due to the literature that I am exposed to.

First, in order to create an infrastructure for Democratic support in 2008, it makes sense for both candidates' campaigns to be out on the trail registering new voters for the party. With both campaigns out registering voters, we are almost assured that ALL demographics targeted by each campaign will be added to the voter registration lists. Furthermore, it should be assumed that each state party and the national party will be further registering new voters closer to the general election. All else being equal, this should create an infrastructure for Democratic support in which the job of the candidate's campaign and National, State, and Local parties will be able to concentrate on turning out these voters. It should be great news that the voter registration lists are being bolstered in states such as Alabama, Mississippi, Georgia, Idaho, etc. It might be possible that Democratic candidates for office will benefit from these increased voter regristration lists at the gubernatorial, Federal, state, and local level.

Indeed, part of the job will be already done in turning out these voters according to some of the literature in Political Science. Some literature suggests that if a voter makes it out to the polls, they are more likely to return to the polls again in a future election to vote. Whether or not this holds for primary and general elections, notwithstanding voter fatigue, requires a further review of the literature (which I have not been able to conduct at this point as an overworked and underpaid graduate student). So if voters in MT, OR, WV, etc. are sufficiently interested in the race and make it out to the primary polls to vote, it might be possible to expect that part of the job will be done in ensuring these voters make it to the polls for the general.

A longer campaign might even ensure that negative information is made available for campaign watchers earlier, rather than later, in the campaign process. We have already seen this in the primary campaign thus far with the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, etc. By acknowledging and addressing this information earlier, some of the campaign consultant literature suggests that it will not be an issue closer to the general election. There might also be a benefit for allowing this negative information to be cast in Democratic terms rather than Republican terms.

Whether the campaigns of each candidate will be able to convince supporters of the challenger to vote for him or her is a story that will be told after the 2008 General Election. However, I do not foresee Democrats voting for John McCain with the relative ease in which the national party and presidential campaign will be able to tie McCain to George Bush.

Posted by: Aaron Ley | May 10, 2008 6:40 PM | Report abuse

INVESTIGATE CAMPAIN FUND FRAUD FOR ALL CANDATES

Posted by: Anonymous | May 10, 2008 6:37 PM | Report abuse

I am a Barack Obama supporter and graduate student in Political Science and there are several reasons why I think the campaign should continue. In fact, I've made this claim for the past couple of months due to the literature that I am exposed to.

First, in order to create an infrastructure for Democratic support in 2008, it makes sense for both candidates' campaigns to be out on the trail registering new voters for the party. With both campaigns out registering voters, we are almost assured that ALL demographics targeted by each campaign will be added to the voter registration lists. Furthermore, it should be assumed that each state party and the national party will be further registering new voters closer to the general election. All else being equal, this should create an infrastructure for Democratic support in which the job of the candidate's campaign and National, State, and Local parties will be able to concentrate on turning out these voters. It should be great news that the voter registration lists are being bolstered in states such as Alabama, Mississippi, Georgia, Idaho, etc. It might be possible that Democratic candidates for office will benefit from these increased voter regristration lists at the gubernatorial, Federal, state, and local level.

Indeed, part of the job will be already done in turning out these voters according to some of the literature in Political Science. Some literature suggests that if a voter makes it out to the polls, they are more likely to return to the polls again in a future election to vote. Whether or not this holds for primary and general elections, notwithstanding voter fatigue, requires a further review of the literature (which I have not been able to conduct at this point as an overworked and underpaid graduate student). So if voters in MT, OR, WV, etc. are sufficiently interested in the race and make it out to the primary polls to vote, it might be possible to expect that part of the job will be done in ensuring these voters make it to the polls for the general.

A longer campaign might even ensure that negative information is made available for campaign watchers earlier, rather than later, in the campaign process. We have already seen this in the primary campaign thus far with the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, etc. By acknowledging and addressing this information earlier, some of the campaign consultant literature suggests that it will not be an issue closer to the general election. There might also be a benefit for allowing this negative information to be cast in Democratic terms rather than Republican terms.

Whether the campaigns of each candidate will be able to convince supporters of the challenger to vote for him or her is a story that will be told after the 2008 General Election. However, I do not foresee Democrats voting for John McCain with the relative ease in which the national party and presidential campaign will be able to tie McCain to George Bush.

Posted by: Aaron Ley | May 10, 2008 6:36 PM | Report abuse

Were the situation reversed and Hillary the likely nominee, the Clintons and most of their strongest supporters would be calling upon Barack to concede, for the good of the party. Anyone who denies this is very naive.

Of course, the longer Hillary is a candidate, the more damaging her campaign is to Barack, perhaps intentionally, to enhance her chances at becoming president in 2013. The Clintons are desperate to get back into the White House. They are the most egotistical politicans on the national stage since Lyndon Johnson.

Robert Reich and Bill Richardson were two of the most respected individuals in the Clinton administration. They have described their opposition to Clinton tactics, which speaks volumes about the integrity of the Clintons.

I blame the media more though than the Clinton camp or the Republicans for this presidential primary campaign being so negative. Much of the media has played up trivial and relatively unimportant issues into major ongoing controverises, as the Hearst press did in manipulating public opinion leading up to the Spanish-American war. Guilt by association has been a major issue because of the media, which shows how little most journalists know about or learned from McCarthyism.

Posted by: CaIndependent48 | May 10, 2008 6:34 PM | Report abuse

??????????????______________

Posted by: Mcshame | May 10, 2008 6:33 PM | Report abuse


YES A CALL FOR SANCTIONS AGAINST THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY


Florida and Michigan have the ball in their court now - the Democrats don't want the voices of Florida and Michigan citizens to be heard while the democratic nomination is still being decided?

How about if there is a movement within Florida and Michigan to deny the democratic party nominee ballot access in November in return ????

There is no way that the democratic party should expect ANY cooperation from Florida or Michigan.

Florida and Michigan have the CONSTITUTIONAL POWER to set the rules for their own elections.


If the democrats do not want to respect Florida and Michigan, it doesn't have to go the other way either.


Make a law that states that no political party can have its nominee on the ballots in Florida and in Michigan if the delegates selected are not counted BEFORE the nominee is decided, in this case when one candidate has the majority of delegates.

Obama has only himself to blame for actively attempting to PREVENT re-vote in Florida and Michigan.

Posted by: Words of Wisdom | May 10, 2008 6:29 PM | Report abuse

Mr. McCain should quit, like, Mrs Clinton !!!

Based on same the logic of Obama supporters, Mr. Mc Cain should quit for the sake of the united country, for the tough times ahead.

For the following reasons (using Obama supporters logic):

1. Obama raised much more money than Mc Cain. Threfore Obama has more support.
2. Elect Mc Cain in the general election will hurt all black population. This will show we are racist.
3. Elect Mc Cain will make all young people who just involved the first time this elction feel disappointed, and they never involve politics again. That is bad for the country.
4. Mathematically (statistical math, they mean) Mc Cain will never be able to win, since the public disaprove of the way Republic Party and George Bush handle economy and the war.
5. Mc Cain is old and have been in Washington too long. We want change !!!!
6. For the good of our contry. We need united to fight against our common enemy abroad. Mc Cain should quit to avoid divide the country.
7. Mc Cain also should quit to avoid expose what ever short comming Mr. Obama has to the world. He should not critize Mr. Obama, since it will be bad for our next president.

Why Mr. Obama's supporters afraid to expose Mr. Obama's weakness, now? Do they think Mr. Mc Cain's staffs are so stupid, that they will not expose Obama weaknesses in the general election in order to win.

Obama's supporters worry that their group will feel bad and quit in the general election. Let's those cry babies quit!! What about Clinton supporters feel? Are her supporters better, and high minded people? They will be OK, and not quit in the general election.

Are we in the dictatorship third word countries?

Mr. Mc Cain should not quit now!
Mrs. Clinton should not quit now, neither !!!

Let the democratic process goes through it cource.

What is good about this country: Every body have their said, if they want too. Then the democratic way will decide.

Posted by: Kinh Bui | May 10, 2008 6:26 PM | Report abuse

Mr. McCain should quit, like, Mrs Clinton !!!

Based on same the logic of Obama supporters, Mr. Mc Cain should quit for the sake of the united country, for the tough times ahead.

For the following reasons (using Obama supporters logic):

1. Obama raised much more money than Mc Cain. Threfore Obama has more support.
2. Elect Mc Cain in the general election will hurt all black population. This will show we are racist.
3. Elect Mc Cain will make all young people who just involved the first time this elction feel disappointed, and they never involve politics again. That is bad for the country.
4. Mathematically (statistical math, they mean) Mc Cain will never be able to win, since the public disaprove of the way Republic Party and George Bush handle economy and the war.
5. Mc Cain is old and have been in Washington too long. We want change !!!!
6. For the good of our contry. We need united to fight against our common enemy abroad. Mc Cain should quit to avoid divide the country.
7. Mc Cain also should quit to avoid expose what ever short comming Mr. Obama has to the world. He should not critize Mr. Obama, since it will be bad for our next president.

Why Mr. Obama's supporters afraid to expose Mr. Obama's weakness, now? Do they think Mr. Mc Cain's staffs are so stupid, that they will not expose Obama weaknesses in the general election in order to win.

Obama's supporters worry that their group will feel bad and quit in the general election. Let's those cry babies quit!! What about Clinton supporters feel? Are her supporters better, and high minded people? They will be OK, and not quit in the general election.

Are we in the dictatorship third word countries?

Mr. Mc Cain should not quit now!
Mrs. Clinton should not quit now, neither !!!

Let the democratic process goes through it cource.

What is good about this country: Every body have their said, if they want too. Then the democratic way will decide.

Posted by: Kinh Bui | May 10, 2008 6:26 PM | Report abuse

Mr. McCain should quit, like, Mrs Clinton !!!

Based on same the logic of Obama supporters, Mr. Mc Cain should quit for the sake of the united country, for the tough times ahead.

For the following reasons (using Obama supporters logic):

1. Obama raised much more money than Mc Cain. Threfore Obama has more support.
2. Elect Mc Cain in the general election will hurt all black population. This will show we are racist.
3. Elect Mc Cain will make all young people who just involved the first time this elction feel disappointed, and they never involve politics again. That is bad for the country.
4. Mathematically (statistical math, they mean) Mc Cain will never be able to win, since the public disaprove of the way Republic Party and George Bush handle economy and the war.
5. Mc Cain is old and have been in Washington too long. We want change !!!!
6. For the good of our contry. We need united to fight against our common enemy abroad. Mc Cain should quit to avoid divide the country.
7. Mc Cain also should quit to avoid expose what ever short comming Mr. Obama has to the world. He should not critize Mr. Obama, since it will be bad for our next president.

Why Mr. Obama's supporters afraid to expose Mr. Obama's weakness, now? Do they think Mr. Mc Cain's staffs are so stupid, that they will not expose Obama weaknesses in the general election in order to win.

Obama's supporters worry that their group will feel bad and quit in the general election. Let's those cry babies quit!! What about Clinton supporters feel? Are her supporters better, and high minded people? They will be OK, and not quit in the general election.

Are we in the dictatorship third word countries?

Mr. Mc Cain should not quit now!
Mrs. Clinton should not quit now, neither !!!

Let the democratic process goes through it cource.

What is good about this country: Every body have their said, if they want too. Then the democratic way will decide.

Posted by: Kinh Bui | May 10, 2008 6:26 PM | Report abuse

Mr. McCain should quit, like, Mrs Clinton !!!

Based on same the logic of Obama supporters, Mr. Mc Cain should quit for the sake of the united country, for the tough times ahead.

For the following reasons (using Obama supporters logic):

1. Obama raised much more money than Mc Cain. Threfore Obama has more support.
2. Elect Mc Cain in the general election will hurt all black population. This will show we are racist.
3. Elect Mc Cain will make all young people who just involved the first time this elction feel disappointed, and they never involve politics again. That is bad for the country.
4. Mathematically (statistical math, they mean) Mc Cain will never be able to win, since the public disaprove of the way Republic Party and George Bush handle economy and the war.
5. Mc Cain is old and have been in Washington too long. We want change !!!!
6. For the good of our contry. We need united to fight against our common enemy abroad. Mc Cain should quit to avoid divide the country.
7. Mc Cain also should quit to avoid expose what ever short comming Mr. Obama has to the world. He should not critize Mr. Obama, since it will be bad for our next president.

Why Mr. Obama's supporters afraid to expose Mr. Obama's weakness, now? Do they think Mr. Mc Cain's staffs are so stupid, that they will not expose Obama weaknesses in the general election in order to win.

Obama's supporters worry that their group will feel bad and quit in the general election. Let's those cry babies quit!! What about Clinton supporters feel? Are her supporters better, and high minded people? They will be OK, and not quit in the general election.

Are we in the dictatorship third word countries?

Mr. Mc Cain should not quit now!
Mrs. Clinton should not quit now, neither !!!

Let the democratic process goes through it cource.

What is good about this country: Every body have their said, if they want too. Then the democratic way will decide.

Posted by: Kinh Bui | May 10, 2008 6:26 PM | Report abuse

Mr. McCain should quit, like, Mrs Clinton !!!

Based on same the logic of Obama supporters, Mr. Mc Cain should quit for the sake of the united country, for the tough times ahead.

For the following reasons (using Obama supporters logic):

1. Obama raised much more money than Mc Cain. Threfore Obama has more support.
2. Elect Mc Cain in the general election will hurt all black population. This will show we are racist.
3. Elect Mc Cain will make all young people who just involved the first time this elction feel disappointed, and they never involve politics again. That is bad for the country.
4. Mathematically (statistical math, they mean) Mc Cain will never be able to win, since the public disaprove of the way Republic Party and George Bush handle economy and the war.
5. Mc Cain is old and have been in Washington too long. We want change !!!!
6. For the good of our contry. We need united to fight against our common enemy abroad. Mc Cain should quit to avoid divide the country.
7. Mc Cain also should quit to avoid expose what ever short comming Mr. Obama has to the world. He should not critize Mr. Obama, since it will be bad for our next president.

Why Mr. Obama's supporters afraid to expose Mr. Obama's weakness, now? Do they think Mr. Mc Cain's staffs are so stupid, that they will not expose Obama weaknesses in the general election in order to win.

Obama's supporters worry that their group will feel bad and quit in the general election. Let's those cry babies quit!! What about Clinton supporters feel? Are her supporters better, and high minded people? They will be OK, and not quit in the general election.

Are we in the dictatorship third word countries?

Mr. Mc Cain should not quit now!
Mrs. Clinton should not quit now, neither !!!

Let the democratic process goes through it cource.

What is good about this country: Every body have their said, if they want too. Then the democratic way will decide.

Posted by: Kinh Bui | May 10, 2008 6:26 PM | Report abuse

Mr. McCain should quit, like, Mrs Clinton !!!

Based on same the logic of Obama supporters, Mr. Mc Cain should quit for the sake of the united country, for the tough times ahead.

For the following reasons (using Obama supporters logic):

1. Obama raised much more money than Mc Cain. Threfore Obama has more support.
2. Elect Mc Cain in the general election will hurt all black population. This will show we are racist.
3. Elect Mc Cain will make all young people who just involved the first time this elction feel disappointed, and they never involve politics again. That is bad for the country.
4. Mathematically (statistical math, they mean) Mc Cain will never be able to win, since the public disaprove of the way Republic Party and George Bush handle economy and the war.
5. Mc Cain is old and have been in Washington too long. We want change !!!!
6. For the good of our contry. We need united to fight against our common enemy abroad. Mc Cain should quit to avoid divide the country.
7. Mc Cain also should quit to avoid expose what ever short comming Mr. Obama has to the world. He should not critize Mr. Obama, since it will be bad for our next president.

Why Mr. Obama's supporters afraid to expose Mr. Obama's weakness, now? Do they think Mr. Mc Cain's staffs are so stupid, that they will not expose Obama weaknesses in the general election in order to win.

Obama's supporters worry that their group will feel bad and quit in the general election. Let's those cry babies quit!! What about Clinton supporters feel? Are her supporters better, and high minded people? They will be OK, and not quit in the general election.

Are we in the dictatorship third word countries?

Mr. Mc Cain should not quit now!
Mrs. Clinton should not quit now, neither !!!

Let the democratic process goes through it cource.

What is good about this country: Every body have their said, if they want too. Then the democratic way will decide.

Posted by: Kinh Bui | May 10, 2008 6:26 PM | Report abuse

Mr. McCain should quit, like, Mrs Clinton !!!

Based on same the logic of Obama supporters, Mr. Mc Cain should quit for the sake of the united country, for the tough times ahead.

For the following reasons (using Obama supporters logic):

1. Obama raised much more money than Mc Cain. Threfore Obama has more support.
2. Elect Mc Cain in the general election will hurt all black population. This will show we are racist.
3. Elect Mc Cain will make all young people who just involved the first time this elction feel disappointed, and they never involve politics again. That is bad for the country.
4. Mathematically (statistical math, they mean) Mc Cain will never be able to win, since the public disaprove of the way Republic Party and George Bush handle economy and the war.
5. Mc Cain is old and have been in Washington too long. We want change !!!!
6. For the good of our contry. We need united to fight against our common enemy abroad. Mc Cain should quit to avoid divide the country.
7. Mc Cain also should quit to avoid expose what ever short comming Mr. Obama has to the world. He should not critize Mr. Obama, since it will be bad for our next president.

Why Mr. Obama's supporters afraid to expose Mr. Obama's weakness, now? Do they think Mr. Mc Cain's staffs are so stupid, that they will not expose Obama weaknesses in the general election in order to win.

Obama's supporters worry that their group will feel bad and quit in the general election. Let's those cry babies quit!! What about Clinton supporters feel? Are her supporters better, and high minded people? They will be OK, and not quit in the general election.

Are we in the dictatorship third word countries?

Mr. Mc Cain should not quit now!
Mrs. Clinton should not quit now, neither !!!

Let the democratic process goes through it cource.

What is good about this country: Every body have their said, if they want too. Then the democratic way will decide.

Posted by: Kinh Bui | May 10, 2008 6:26 PM | Report abuse

Mr. McCain should quit, like, Mrs Clinton !!!

Based on same the logic of Obama supporters, Mr. Mc Cain should quit for the sake of the united country, for the tough times ahead.

For the following reasons (using Obama supporters logic):

1. Obama raised much more money than Mc Cain. Threfore Obama has more support.
2. Elect Mc Cain in the general election will hurt all black population. This will show we are racist.
3. Elect Mc Cain will make all young people who just involved the first time this elction feel disappointed, and they never involve politics again. That is bad for the country.
4. Mathematically (statistical math, they mean) Mc Cain will never be able to win, since the public disaprove of the way Republic Party and George Bush handle economy and the war.
5. Mc Cain is old and have been in Washington too long. We want change !!!!
6. For the good of our contry. We need united to fight against our common enemy abroad. Mc Cain should quit to avoid divide the country.
7. Mc Cain also should quit to avoid expose what ever short comming Mr. Obama has to the world. He should not critize Mr. Obama, since it will be bad for our next president.

Why Mr. Obama's supporters afraid to expose Mr. Obama's weakness, now? Do they think Mr. Mc Cain's staffs are so stupid, that they will not expose Obama weaknesses in the general election in order to win.

Obama's supporters worry that their group will feel bad and quit in the general election. Let's those cry babies quit!! What about Clinton supporters feel? Are her supporters better, and high minded people? They will be OK, and not quit in the general election.

Are we in the dictatorship third word countries?

Mr. Mc Cain should not quit now!
Mrs. Clinton should not quit now, neither !!!

Let the democratic process goes through it cource.

What is good about this country: Every body have their said, if they want too. Then the democratic way will decide.

Posted by: Kinh Bui | May 10, 2008 6:26 PM | Report abuse

Barring some sort of unforeseen catastrophic event? Lets stop and ask Chris Cillizza. Do Americans who happen to be Hispanic have the same civil and equal rights as you? Common sense tells us the answer is yes. Unles you agrre with and condone Barack Obama's actions and or inactions in Illinois. I ask yow becuase you know, I've been reporting and posting on your blog that there is a written record indicating Barack Obama has continued to take a antithetical position to equal rights for all Americans which has harmed Hispanics in Illinois where he is a Senator. In a racist manner reducing Americans that are Hispanic such as myself to a level currently unequal to non-Hispanics at IDHR & EEOC. Maybe that's why you haven't written a story on this or are currently investigating the facts in Illinois yourself. Is it really a thoughtful post you're looking for? I would love to debate on this issue. It is an issue, but if you don't care for Hispanics or are not one yourself it's not your problem is it Chris?

Posted by: Chaos45i | May 10, 2008 6:21 PM | Report abuse

I don't know about anyone else, but all the Clinton bashing and biasness toward Obama I see on CNN, New York Times, and elsewhere, only increases my resolve to be at the polls bright and early on election day in November casting my vote for WHOEVER is running against Obama. Mcain or Clinton.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 10, 2008 6:17 PM | Report abuse

"...Black racism cannot trump the Democratic nomination process. Obama's lead in delegates, superdelegates and votes is due to the black racism in voting against Sen. Clinton...."

Oh please, there is a bit more to the election to that. How did they swing the nomination against HRC? All 12-13% of them leaning in unison? Also it ignores the equal and opposite force, the small percentage of white, hispanic and other ethnic groups who are letting their racism come out in voting patterns against Obama- everyone else making up 87% of the population. :P

Lets just say that some people are ethnicity obsessed. The country used to be that way and I would say having Clinton try to revive the "silent majority coalition" (circa 1970's), would probably have something to do with why black people feel so threatened. Tit-for-tat, they are reacting towards forces in their environment, perfectly rational, and Obama is running an exceptional campaign, so is a perfectly good candidate to be their knight in shining armour.

I am pretty tired of people taking our statistics from us, it is a democracy we all get our vote and our slight tendancies are not the whole of our political and social identity- gerrymandering voting patterns does not a good democracy make!! (white, female, and voting Obama. :P)

Posted by: Elizabeth | May 10, 2008 6:17 PM | Report abuse

This is really very simple. Clinton should stay in the race. Florida should count. Michigan should count. Obama should have been on the ballot in Michigan. Despite the insane nature of the American primary system we still live in a democracy. The citizens of the remaining states deserve to vote for presidential nominees like the rest of us have. Those in Florida and Michigan also have the right (and the duty) to vote for presidential nominees. The Obama camp will not object to this because Obama disapproves of "politicians who focus only on how to win the next election instead of why they should." He should win only if every vote is counted. Thankfully he will win if every vote is counted.

Posted by: Mickey | May 10, 2008 6:15 PM | Report abuse

My guess: Clinton is staying in the race now to try to ruin any chance for Obama to win, so she will have a shot at the 2012 election. Of course she should get out, but she won't.

Posted by: lizard5 | May 10, 2008 6:15 PM | Report abuse

My guess: Clinton is staying in the race now to try to ruin any chance for Obama to win, so she will have a shot at the 2012 election. Of course she should get out, but she won't.

Posted by: lizard5 | May 10, 2008 6:15 PM | Report abuse

WHY OBAMA WILL NOT WIN THE GENERAL ELECTION

Lack of proven record of accomplishments
Some of Obama's supporters have defended Obama's thin resume as being unimportant - it's leadership qualities that count. I have certainly seen nothing in Obama's past or in the way he has run his campaign to support that claim. He has not stepped up to denounce Wright until it was too late, he has not stepped up to denounce Clyburn for playing the race card (see below), he has encouraged his campaign to spread disinformation and to bash Clinton at every opportunity. On top of that, Obama has no significant record of accomplishment. I don't think the American public is willing to let Obama experiment with their lives and livelihood.

Tarnished image, propped up by the press
Obama has run every bit as negative a campaign as Hillary yet he can play the victim card and the press is reluctant to call him on it. Every time a primary comes up with a significant black electorate, the black political leadership such as Clyburn makes a big play about the Clintons pushing the race card. Why has Obama not spoken out against that kind of tactic? It is akin to his sitting in Wright's church for 20+ years, listening to the lies that were and are being perpetuated; yet he said nothing.

Unfair dealings practiced by the Obama camp
Obama stole the nomination from Hillary. Why doesn't he support a revote in Michigan and Florida? Despite the rules millions of voters voted thinking that their voices will be heard, now it appears the way they voted will not matter and the delegates will be divided up in a manner that will favor Obama. This is not democracy and the Democratic Party is doomed. More and more people are not aligning themselves with specific parties but will vote for the candidate who is best suited to the job.

Obama has stolen the nomination from Clinton by playing the victim card, by refusing to debate before important primaries, by trucking impressionable college kids to the voting booth, by hypocrisy, by spreading disinformation, by pushing the caucus states where voting is entirely undemocratic, by buying voters through massive ad campaigns. He is most certainly not another JFK nor a Bill Clinton. He is but a typical Chicago politician who has learned how to manipulate the system. Why hasn't the press figured out what is going on with Rezko, Ayers and what Obama did to win his State Senate seat?

Race card pushed by the Obama camp
Because Hillary and her supporters are stating the voting demographics as they are, somehow she is branded as a racist. What about the fact that 93% of blacks in NC voted for Obama? What do we call that? In fact, not just Whites, but Hispanics and Asians have also supported Hillary in overwhelming numbers. To me, that seems most representative of the US voting public.

As an Asian, I find it disturbing that Obama never even mentions us as a group. His campaign organizers at one of Michelle Obama's events reseated Asians to make room for Whites to be photographed behind Micelle O. That is pretty blatantly racist. Obama is certainly not post racial nor does he stand for unity. More than anyone in recent memory, Obama has peeled open racial scabs and polarized the nation. Obama should drop out if he wants what is best for the country and not what is best for him. The real winner in all this is Axelrod and his ilk, not the American public.

SOLUTION: HILLARY RUNS AS AN INDEPENDENT - save the US's economy, stance in the world and move science/research forward.

Posted by: alee21 | May 10, 2008 6:15 PM | Report abuse

Florida and Michigan


Let's be straight here - the process of the democratic party to enforce its will on two states Florida and Michigan was flawed - the states did not go along.

So what happened?


They attempted to "enforce" their power-play by getting Obama not to exercise his rights to campaign in Florida and Michigan - same with the other candidates.

HOWEVER - what happened when people in those two states ATTEMPTED to re-schedule ??? Obama said NO.


On what legitimate basis could Obama's campaign have said no ????


In fact, a re-vote was offered to Obama's camapaign in both states, and instead of agreeing, Obama said no -

Obama has only himself to blame for that refusal.

NOW Obama has no choice to accept what comes his way - he can't veto everything - because he said no to the re-vote those state parties should be free to send the delegates from the earlier primary.


Obama had his chance for a re-vote.

Obama's main objection is this: ANY delegates from those states will upset his pretend lead in the race - Obama doesn't have a lead if one starts to count Florida and Michigan.

IN life one must weigh competing interests, and the idea of keeping Florida and Michigan out of the decision making process with the democratic nomination is completely insane.

This is a road that should have never gone down, much less have this issue be an important difference in the margin between the two candidates.


Seating Florida and Michigan AFTER the decision for the nomination has already been made is an attempt at deception which will never be accepted.

Florida and Michigan now have the RIGHT, almost the OBLIGATION, to sanction the democratic nominee who was selected without those States having a voice.


.

Posted by: 37th&OStreet | May 10, 2008 6:13 PM | Report abuse

Florida and Michigan


Let's be straight here - the process of the democratic party to enforce its will on two states Florida and Michigan was flawed - the states did not go along.

So what happened?


They attempted to "enforce" their power-play by getting Obama not to exercise his rights to campaign in Florida and Michigan - same with the other candidates.

HOWEVER - what happened when people in those two states ATTEMPTED to re-schedule ??? Obama said NO.


On what legitimate basis could Obama's campaign have said no ????


In fact, a re-vote was offered to Obama's camapaign in both states, and instead of agreeing, Obama said no -

Obama has only himself to blame for that refusal.

NOW Obama has no choice to accept what comes his way - he can't veto everything - because he said no to the re-vote those state parties should be free to send the delegates from the earlier primary.


Obama had his chance for a re-vote.

Obama's main objection is this: ANY delegates from those states will upset his pretend lead in the race - Obama doesn't have a lead if one starts to count Florida and Michigan.

IN life one must weigh competing interests, and the idea of keeping Florida and Michigan out of the decision making process with the democratic nomination is completely insane.

This is a road that should have never gone down, much less have this issue be an important difference in the margin between the two candidates.


Seating Florida and Michigan AFTER the decision for the nomination has already been made is an attempt at deception which will never be accepted.

Florida and Michigan now have the RIGHT, almost the OBLIGATION, to sanction the democratic nominee who was selected without those States having a voice.


.

Posted by: 37th&OStreet | May 10, 2008 6:13 PM | Report abuse

I think Hilary is trying to recoup some of her money. I also think that working white class people are voting for Obama because if they weren't then he would be the one that everyone would be saying why is he still in this race. She got more in some states but working class white people are voting for him.

Hilary Clinton is complaining about the rules because they are not working in her favor. These are the same rules that got her husband elected twice. They just worked in his favor. If she were winning then there would be nothing wrong with the rules.

Obama won fair and square and now it's time to move on. She ran a good campaign now it's time to unite the party. But I don't think she should be VP. If you all were Obama would you want Bill and Hilary at your back with the knife everyday.

Posted by: bridgette | May 10, 2008 6:13 PM | Report abuse

"...Black racism cannot trump the Democratic nomination process. Obama's lead in delegates, superdelegates and votes is due to the black racism in voting against Sen. Clinton...."

Oh please, there is a bit more to the election to that. How did they swing the nomination against HRC? All 12-13% of them leaning in unison? Also it ignores the equal and opposite force, the small percentage of white, hispanic and other ethnic groups who are letting their racism come out in voting patterns against Obama- everyone else making up 87% of the population. :P

Lets just say that some people are ethnicity obsessed. The country used to be that way and I would say having Clinton try to revive the "silent majority coalition" (circa 1970's), would probably have something to do with why black people feel so threatened. Tit-for-tat, they are reacting towards forces in their environment, perfectly rational, and Obama is running an exceptional campaign, so is a perfectly good candidate to be their knight in shining armour.

I am pretty tired of people taking our statistics from us, it is a democracy we all get our vote and our slight tendancies are not the whole of our political and social identity- gerrymandering voting patterns does not a good democracy make!! (white, female, and voting Obama. :P)

Posted by: Elizabeth | May 10, 2008 6:11 PM | Report abuse

My guess: Clinton is staying in the race now to try to ruin any chance for Obama to win, so she will have a shot at the 2012 election. Of course she should get out, but she won't.

Posted by: lizard5 | May 10, 2008 6:11 PM | Report abuse

I think Hilary is trying to recoup some of her money. I also think that working white class people are voting for Obama because if they weren't then he would be the one that everyone would be saying why is he still in this race. She got more in some states but working class white people are voting for him.

Hilary Clinton is complaining about the rules because they are not working in her favor. These are the same rules that got her husband elected twice. They just worked in his favor. If she were winning then there would be nothing wrong with the rules.

Obama won fair and square and now it's time to move on. She ran a good campaign now it's time to unite the party. But I don't think she should be VP. If you all were Obama would you want Bill and Hilary at your back with the knife everyday.

Posted by: bridgette | May 10, 2008 6:07 PM | Report abuse

I think Hilary is trying to recoup some of her money. I also think that working white class people are voting for Obama because if they weren't then he would be the one that everyone would be saying why is he still in this race. She got more in some states but working class white people are voting for him.

Hilary Clinton is complaining about the rules because they are not working in her favor. These are the same rules that got her husband elected twice. They just worked in his favor. If she were winning then there would be nothing wrong with the rules.

Posted by: bridgette | May 10, 2008 6:05 PM | Report abuse

I think Hilary is trying to recoup some of her money. I also think that working white class people are voting for Obama because if they weren't then he would be the one that everyone would be saying why is he still in this race. She got more in some states but working class white people are voting for him.

Hilary Clinton is complaining about the rules because they are not working in her favor. These are the same rules that got her husband elected twice. They just worked in his favor. If she were winning then there would be nothing wrong with the rules.

Posted by: bridgette | May 10, 2008 6:05 PM | Report abuse

She can do whatever she wants, but prolonging this race seems to only tire the candidates out. Hence Obama's recent gaffe in Oregon about him visiting 57 states with 1 or 2 more to go. The increasingly expensive travels and the long hours of the same stump speech is not healthy for either of them or this country. We need minds that are fresh enough to speak clearly with the rest of us, and The Dems don't need any more fodder for superficial attack ads like this than they already do.

Posted by: jojo | May 10, 2008 6:00 PM | Report abuse

I believe with Obama campaigning in 57 states, the American people will soon wise up and realize this 2 year, very liberal, very partisan senator is a fraud.

Posted by: Karen | May 10, 2008 6:00 PM | Report abuse

ON the Florida and Michigan issue:


The whole process the democratic party used to make these "rules" was not legitimate -

Check out as proof the entire lame attempt at "enforcement" of these rules - pledges, threats of sanctions, - the whole thing to attempt to intimidate the states into ceding their control over their elections - control which they legitimately hold and the Constitution recognizes.


Who cares if some people believe the political parties are private clubs.


The fact is the parties play a public role in selecting the President - almost like utilities which serve the public interest.


The parties are subject to certain rules - for instance no one would tolerate discrimination on the part of the parties.

The fact of the matter is the states control their own elections.

The selection of Nevada and South Carolina to go before 46 other states makes a complete farce of this issue. Florida and Michigan are right to oppose this power play.

Posted by: Words of Wisdom | May 10, 2008 5:57 PM | Report abuse

It's hard to support a candidate who just can't keep her mouth shut. This campaign was not supposed to be about race, but it appears as if it is. I don't know why she mentioned white middle aged working women who didn't graduate college were her main supporters. Even if it were true, which I doubt, why verbalize it? It is insulting to everyone. She keeps shooting herself in the foot and losing pledged delegates. I have reservations about Obama's past associations with Farrakhan and Rev Wright, whom I consider extremely racist. I may, for the first time in my voting life, just stay away from the polls. Regarding the Michigan and Florida primaries, what DNC needs to do is a revote. They have the funds; but I really don't know who could really support either Democratic candidate at this point, knowing what we now know. I do know I am NOT in favor up superdelegates voting in my behalf. Only if there were NO OTHER CHOICE would I go along with that.

Posted by: granny | May 10, 2008 5:56 PM | Report abuse

It's probably a net good thing for the race to continue. The pair of them are dominating the airwaves, and while John McCain may be getting a 'free ride', the flip side is that any punches he throws are more like throwing fluffy pillows.

A week is a long time in politics, having it over with in late June leaves four solid months...leaving an eternity to smooth over some of the cracks to bring the family together.

Posted by: Simon | May 10, 2008 5:55 PM | Report abuse

Those who argue that prolonging Clinton's now-futile effort helps the Democratic Party, should ask: Why are Rush Limbaugh and other right-wing ideologues cheering her on? If the Democratic infighting so great for the Democrats, why are Republicans so gleeful about it?

The answer is obvious. To maintain a shred of her dignity and to rebuild party unity, Hillary should gracefully bow out, then turn her sights on defeating John McCain. She now has the power in her hands to powerfully unite the Democratic Party. If she uses it to defeat McCain, her stature will be immeasurably restored. In she doesn't, the Clinton "brand" will be soiled for good.

You've got to "know when to hold 'em, and know when to fold 'em."
It's time to move on.

Posted by: reflection | May 10, 2008 5:49 PM | Report abuse


What right does the national party have to tell the States what to do ????

What right does the party insiders have to select Nevada and South Carolina over Florida and Michigan ??


These are the questions at the core of the issue - not that Florida and Michigan violated the "rules."

I submit that the Washington operative of Harry Reid DO NOT have the right to make "rules" that Florida and Michigan have to follow.


The lame attempts at pledges and sanctions have only made this dispute worse - instead of actually finding a compromise, a fair system and something that everyone would AGREE on.

The central dispute is this: Harry Reid pushed through Nevada and South Carolina ahead of Florida and Michigan.


WHY? Furthermore, what gives this group of Washington Insiders the right to violate all sorts of EQUAL PROTECTION principles and actually go ahead and try to enforce this power play ???


That is the core of the problem - a bunch of arrogance short-sighted people who think they are important because they are in Washington.

Florida and Michigan should NEVER cooperate with the democratic party after this fiasco - they should decide when they will hold their own primaries.


It's about time to tell these Washington insiders to go back to Nevada, and leave the rest of the country alone.

.

Posted by: Words of Wisdom | May 10, 2008 5:45 PM | Report abuse

Actually, I am beginning to enjoy the spectacle of Hillary. She is defying common sense and I found her just incredible, just not in a flattering way. Her blind refusal to see the matters as they are, is not only a sign of her arrogance but I believe, her stupidity.

I suspect that the media people have been giving her just too much credit for her 'intelligence' which is a bit of a myth. She may be street smart but is not intelligent as we understand it. The recent comic gaffe about the gas tax holiday has revealed to anyone who has a basic understanding of economics that this woman simply does not understand the logics of the subject.

Posted by: bb | May 10, 2008 5:44 PM | Report abuse

It doesn't matter if she stays or not. If she wants to, Feel Free.
It is clear that Obama will be the nominee barring some unforeseen phenomenon.

Clinton can do what she wants, but she knows this is over as far as the nomination goes. Maybe she wants to increase her base for a future run. Maybe she wants to energize and get more voters registered for the Dems in November. Nothing motivates voters like having a horse in the race.

This could pay off big for the Dems in the fall. I'm happy Obama is the nominee, but wouldn't have been TOO disappointed with Hillary. We've got to get out there and vote like there is no tomorrow in November, though.

We can't afford "Four More Years" of Republican mismanagement and "fuzzy" ideology.

I really think that Obama is looking at one of the most lopsided wins in history.

Posted by: LeftWithNoChoice | May 10, 2008 5:41 PM | Report abuse

before this race, Democrats criticized those who called Clinton a b**ch and a witch. Now, I think many democrats understand...

Hilarious Hitler / Clinton Downfall video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B6Lstkiexhc


Posted by: freeDom | May 10, 2008 1:29 PM
-------------------------
Thanks for posting this. Tasteless, but very funny.

Posted by: Steve | May 10, 2008 5:39 PM | Report abuse

Which part of "THE DEMOCRATS IN FLORIDA DIDN'T PICK THE TIME OF THE PRIMARY" the DNC and some bloggers here don't understand.

Posted by: rjc | May 10, 2008 5:25 PM
---------------

As somelone who lives in Florida I can tell you that Democrats in the state legislature joined with Republicans to move the primary date forward. They voted for it. And since we are talking Florida primary the Florida primary should NOT count, I know people that would have voted for Obama but were told it wouldn't count and joined the Republican Party to vote for antiwar candidate Ron Paul. Hillary Clinton and Rudy Giuliani are both celebrity candidates, both led their respective parties in the polls; the difference is when Rudy had other candidates campaign in Florida he lost, Hillary had no candidates campaigning in Florida and she won. It was an unfair primary as the candidates couldn't campaign in Florida and that favors Hillary. To now claim they should count shows that you cannot trust Hillary to keep her word.

Posted by: Scott | May 10, 2008 5:38 PM | Report abuse

I think Hillary is only staying in long enough to recoup some of the money she has loaned her campaign. Her pleas for donations is prominent in all events and if she walks away now, she will be out 11 million of her own funds as well as outstanding debt still owed. Other than that, it does not make any sense for her to stay in the race except to do harm to Obama because no one is playing the game so she will win .

Posted by: lookingfortherightone | May 10, 2008 5:37 PM | Report abuse

At this point Hillary is irelevant. What Hillary and her campaign don't realize is her negatives have increased so much I doubt Hillary could win in a general election. I know Jewish seniors that use to love the Clintons and when the primaries started were Hillary supporters but as Hillary and Bill started going negative they lost large chunks of their constituency and now those people that loved the Clintons have completely reversed and have actually said to me they would never vote for Hillary. They don't believe a word she says. Hillary and Bill took a winning campaign and ran it into the ground. The constant belittling of Sen. Obama has turned many of their former supporters against them and they will never get them back. The Clintons just don't get it, Hillary can't win a general election they soured too many people with their negativity and few believe anything they now say. Hillary and Bill went from political dynasty to irrelevant.

Posted by: Scott | May 10, 2008 5:34 PM | Report abuse

Which part of "THE DEMOCRATS IN FLORIDA DIDN'T PICK THE TIME OF THE PRIMARY" the DNC and some bloggers here don't understand.

Posted by: rjc | May 10, 2008 5:25 PM | Report abuse

This is no big deal. The key story (which the McCain adoring press (and so is the Fix) are ignoring along with his active solicitation of a group of viciously bigoted clerics)is that while Obama and Clinton exchange barbs and McCain has the stage to himself he is not gaining but is actually falling behind. Check the latest 10 polls and the polls of polls. McCain has been losing ground at a moment when he should be soaring ahead. When the Demnocrats do resolve this on June 3 and the press begins to finally ask why McCain keeps refusing to release the results of his medical examination in March, he will find himself 15 points down instead of the 6-11 points down he has been in the past week.

Posted by: djah | May 10, 2008 5:16 PM | Report abuse

Obviously, whether or not Clinton's continued campaign is harmful to Obama (as the inevitable nominee) and/or the Democrat(ic) party depends entirely on what sort of campaign she runs.

If she spends the next 3 weeks flaunting her never-say-die, comeback-kid stick-to-it-ness and her experience and electability, all she does is keep her chances open until May 31 for an appeal to the bylaws committee, and a subsequent post-June 3 appeal to the superdelegates, with no harm to the party or to Obama.
That's what I would call a benign campaign.

If, on the other hand, she campaigns in a manner that demeans not just Obama as her presumed competitor, but indeed his support base (including everyone who's voted for him so far, be they states or demographic categories), then, and ONLY then, she harms his inevitable canidacy and the party itself.
This would be a malignant campaign.

That's what makes her post-NC/Indy race-based comments so troubling; as the first stretch of campaign after that day's events locked things up for Obama, what she came out with set the tone for how she will approach this stretch run, and she indicated that she intends to take the scorched-earth, malignant option which puts the party and nominee at risk.

It doesn't have to be this way, and she still has the option of campaigning in a benign manner, but her immediate post-May-6 comments indicate that she intends to do the wrong thing.

This does, however, increase the chances of the superdelegates (be they undecided or currently pro-Hillary) abandoning her before June 3, despite their indications that they will make no shift until after the primaries are over. They can punish her for campaigning in a malignant manner, or at least threaten to do so in order to coerce her not into withdrawing, but into conducting a benign campaign down the stretch.

It's not the "what", whether stays in or drops out, it's the "how":
How she campaigns if she stays in, which she clearly intends to do.

Posted by: Geoffreyb | May 10, 2008 5:05 PM | Report abuse

I do not believe Hillary is causing any damage. This is all part of the Democratic process, if there is any damage being laid; it has been inflicted by the Democratic Old Guard, the DNC. Their insane notion that a person with hardly any public service, no accomplishments other than writing a book (sounds like Perot) which cannot hold his own in a debate and isn't capable of winning the "Big States" (other than his home state); Not to mention, only ran for president in 49 of the 50 states ....is somehow the presumptive nominee...its ABSURD!

The DNC is forcing the public to elect a lesser candidate for their own personal benefit. The DNC needs to be TAUGHT A LESSON... the American people DO NOT SETTLE, Bush was a great example of when we settled.

We are not obligated to vote for Obama just because he's the Democrat nominee; there are always options the ballot.

Posted by: pahqlle | May 10, 2008 4:58 PM | Report abuse

Let me tell you something about Florida and Michigan: The Constitution gives the states power over their own elections.


What we have here is a JOINT JURISDICTION over the elections by the states and the parties.

NO ONE has ever resolved this issue - the Democratic Party does not have the right to tell the states what to do.

YOU have here a historic power-play - led by political operatives - to have the states start to listen to party INSIDERS in Washington.

Two states said NO. Those two states said we are not going going to listen to the Democratic Party Insiders - who do they think they are ????

Florida and Michigan did not agree.

WHY should the party insiders have jurisdiction over the STATES ??


WHO gets to choose Nevada and South Carolina over Florida and Michigan ????

Why do the states have to submit to Harry Reid's deal making in Washington ???


Seriously, there was no compromise, there was no agreement. The Washington Insiders just said: you are going to do it our way or hit the road.

On the road they are.


Let me ask you this: Why should Florida and Michigan cooperate next time ???

I wouldn't - Keep holding those primaries on the same days as Nevada and South Carolina.

Tell those Washington Insiders to hit the road !!!!


.

Posted by: Words of Wisdom | May 10, 2008 4:57 PM | Report abuse

Any publicity is good publicity.

Obama is on the front page every day; McCain is not.

The story every day is that Obama can win. That can't hurt in October and November, when the non-political junkies make up their minds.

Posted by: Bob | May 10, 2008 4:56 PM | Report abuse

24 days until the last primary. Then she can bow out gracefully claiming that she met her committment to her supporters.

Tick-tock!

Posted by: End of Line | May 10, 2008 4:54 PM | Report abuse

I am a Latina voter in California, and even though most Latinos have voted for Clinton this primary season, I will absolutely vote for Obama in the general election. Let's be honest. The policy differences between Clinton and Obama are quite small. Between McCain and Obama? Enormous. Obama's campaign has been all about inviting all ethnic, socio-economic and political groups to end the divisive climate in our country. He is intelligent, hard-working and has the support of many well-respected, experienced political figures. If Latinos decide to vote for McCain over Obama this Fall, what possibly could be motivating them other than the slightly darker hue of his skin?

Posted by: Anita in SoCal | May 10, 2008 4:53 PM | Report abuse

Hillary is DEFINITELY doing the party a favor by staying in. Poll after poll shows that Obama cannot beat McCain.....Hillary stands a much better chance. The people pushing Obama.....and much of the press.....simply don't want to confront this reality. Democrats may nominate Obama only to lose in November.

Posted by: Mike | May 10, 2008 4:50 PM | Report abuse

Obama has the support of most of the remaining superdelegates but he wants to cross the finish line with elected delegates.
He will have the majority of elected delegates after Oregon votes. That will be the end of the road for Hillary.

Posted by: Lilly1 | May 10, 2008 4:47 PM | Report abuse

50 states and the house of Clinton...
If it is true that we are 50states then Michigan and Florida misbehaviours; because that is what they did. they did not respect the rules as all the other states did so REINSTATE BUT WITH PENALTY. Cut by half their delegates. Respect the results of the vote. Hillary won, ok, we shall not debate on the fairness of the election. Respect the results but halve the representativity as a warning for future miscreant.
Even with a nicer judgement she is still trailing, and good states as WV will be happy to have their vote fully accepted. After that, we need unification and the pb is what to do with HRC once she finally put her glasses on and read her bank statement. More she plays after the fat lady sang, less she is to play any part in this administartion if Obama is elected in November. Whatever happens now, if she wants to run in 2012she is cold turkey. So wisdom will ahve it she graciously bows out after may 20, because after that even her re election as a senator of NY is at stake with an Obama administration. Obama is not vindictive, but the Clintons, Penn; Craville, Wolfson etc have made a lot of enemies. I am concerned about the payback time. So many people are holding a grudge agaist that couple I am afarid Denver may turn out to be the same for them than in 89 for the Ceacescus.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 10, 2008 4:44 PM | Report abuse

If Hillary Clinton wants to continue her campaign until the end of the primaries in order to provide a "soft landing" for her campaign effort, I think that is fine.

However, if she is going to continue to make comments that undercut Obama, such as her insidious suggestions that white Americans will not support a black candidate, then I think she should be pressured by Democrats to end her campaign. If you need further convincing, see Bob Herbert's excellent column in today's New York Times.

Posted by: Chuck in Denver | May 10, 2008 4:41 PM | Report abuse

I think the Long primary has been good for the democrats,
that by having this race go to markets that hadn't seen
a contested democratic primary, we pushed the messages
of the democratic party into areas long abandoned as
flyover country.


Posted by: pat b | May 10, 2008 4:32 PM | Report abuse

Hillary can actually help the Democratic Party unite itself by staying in the race until all the primaries are over.

She needs to speak to her rabid followers about toning down the hate and disrespect that they exhibit towards her opponent. Senator Obama certainly does not allow his audiences to disrespect her.

He has earned the lead in the race, and the nomination can only be wrested from him, by some back room deals by Party insiders. If this were to happen, forget all the people who were brought into this process for the first time. They would either not vote, or vote for Nader in protest.

I, myself, am a 67 year old retired airline pilot who voted for both JFK and Ronald Reagan.I did not vote for Bill Clinton because I did my homework and understood that he was just another politician and really had no intention of making the needed changes in Washington. Senator Obama is the first candidate that I have ever donated to, and really the first one in my life, that has impressed me with his intelligence, integrity, and ability to provide the leadership that America so sorely needs.

I voted for Al Gore and John Kerry, but also watched as the Clintons really did nothing to support these great candidates against the disastrous George Bush. They were too busy making their $109,000,000 to really get involved.

Now they have a chance to get behind a once in a life time candidate. A candidate who will bring the grassroots back into American politics. Will they stand up and do the right thing? Only the next few weeks will tell.

Time for change that we all can believe in.

Posted by: Luke Gilmore | May 10, 2008 4:32 PM | Report abuse

Re: "Frankly speaking, we Democrats can have the best of both worlds. Senator Clinton can go out with a blaze of wins and can help to increase attention and turnout...."

I would hardly call this the best of both worlds. Clinton's landslide wins in WV and KY will only highlight Obama's major vulnerabilities with working class whites. And people who turn out for her won't turn out for him. I know something abut this, as not a single member of my Latino family, who all voted for Clinton, will vote for Obama.

Posted by: N in CA | May 10, 2008 4:29 PM | Report abuse

Hillary staying in the campaign makes Obama look good. I hope she stays.

She acts like a disgruntled witch...
He reacts like a gentleman...
She stretches truth...
He stays on track nipping at McCain...
She behaves like a child having a tantrum over being told "not this time"...
He is civil and offers an olive branch.

Posted by: darlineishere | May 10, 2008 4:29 PM | Report abuse

The Democratic professionals - the party leaders - aka Superdelegates are saying : let's hold back on this guy Obama.


They are the experts - they know what is headed.

Obama may be flying now, but he will come down to Earth soon - the Superdelegates are actually hoping he comes down to Earth before June, but it will not happen then.

The prospect is for a slow deflation of Obama throughout the summer - the fall will be difficult with few democratic canidates wanting to be seen with Obama.


Disaster? The Superdelegates know what the REAL disaster is - and they want to avoid it - is anybody being realistic here.

is anyone?


Have any of you actually worked with college kids? They turn out in huge numbers, however when finals come, the summer comes, you can't find any of them. Enthusiasm bounds, however one can not count on it continuing into the future.

Obama's campaign is in serious danger of not being able to continue the level of enthusiam through the fall campaign.


The Superdelegates KNOW this - they are cautious - they are holding back - not really sure where they go with this - the party is imploding before them and they are frozen in their response.


.

Posted by: Come ON | May 10, 2008 4:28 PM | Report abuse

HOW OBAMA CAN TURN THE CLINTON FIGHT TO HIS ADVANTAGE:
There are still six months left before Election Day, so there's plenty of time to see how the Obama-Clinton fight will affect the general election, and we have yet to determine whether the fight will help or hurt. However, in several significant ways the extended nomination contest has already worked to Obama's advantage, and while the Obama-Clinton fight has exposed several potential pitfalls, damage can be avoided if BOTH sides play their cards right.

To the line! (Sorry Chris)
How the fight has helped Obama so far:
3. Obama is gaining valuable campaign experience. Sports fans know that NFL and NBA teams that cruise through the playoffs may not have their "A" game when they reach the finals. Clinton has kept Obama sharp, and has forced him to hone his message and optimize his campaign and media operations.
2. The fight keeps Obama in the spotlight. There has been some negative press, but the primary victories and increased name recognition outweigh the negatives. I strongly suspect Obama is more famous than McCain, and that helps!
1. The fight increases voter participation and enthusiasm. Democratic turnout is WAY up because of the extended primary battle and Obama is raising unprecedented amounts of cash.

Potential pitfalls and how they can be avoided:
3. McCain's free ride. McCain is enjoying some relative peace and quiet, raising money and avoiding media scrutiny. However, assuming the Democratic contest is decided in June, there is plenty of time to exploit McCain's weaknesses on policy, misstatements, flip-flops, and most importantly, his association with Bush.
2. Clinton has exposed Obama's weaknesses. Obama has already proved adept at defending himself against attacks so far, but the current battle is child's play compared to what the Republicans can do. The tougher fight is yet to come, and Obama will need to improve on offense and defense.
1. The Obama-Clinton fight will split the party. The Democrats can avoid repeating the infighting of 1968 and 1980 if Clinton lends her full support behind Obama, and they appear as allies instead of adversaries, united in attacking McCain. Any primary animosity will be long forgotten, if Clinton cooperates.

Posted by: skipdaniels | May 10, 2008 4:25 PM | Report abuse

I think there should be a revote in both Michigan and Florida. The DNC rules were so poorly conceived. They created this mess. The states should have the right to set their primaries when they want. To penalize the voters because of a decision by legislatures that are composed of people from both parties, and may be more than two parties, is ridiculous. Hold the primaries a week apart in June. The DNC should raise the funds and pay for it, not the candidates or the states. The result will be a truly democratic process.

During the campaign to the end, both candidates should focus on explaining their stand on issues and not on attacking each other. We can make our own decisions about the fitness of the candidates. We don't need to be told by the opposition what the other thinks. We want to know what they think. It would be really nice if the media would broadcast a greater portion of the speeches and town hall meeting then to take a snippet and spin it into a media fed "non issue" frenzy that dominates the airwaves.

Posted by: Jim Reed | May 10, 2008 4:20 PM | Report abuse

Chris:

I am indifferent as to whether Clinton stays or goes. She can get the message from voters and delegates soft, or hard. Its really up to her.

I am a feminist, and I look forward to the day when we have a woman President with an entirely self-made political career, a genuinely grounded feminine persona, and ethical bearings that I can be proud of. Clinton is a transitional figure who will be remembered for her narcissistic campaign and her effort to act like a man with testicular fortitude, "sniper fire" and assorted other lies. We deserve better.

To paraphrase Oprah, "She is NOT the one"

Posted by: efindsart | May 10, 2008 4:15 PM | Report abuse

There are those who would like to silence anyone but themselves and, from where I am sitting, they are Obama supporters. So, there goes the argument about "uniting" the party. How do you unite the party by telling the 47+% who support Clinton to shut up and go home? How do you "bring back America" by denying nearly half of the party their existence? And, I am not surprised when Obama supporters call Clinton a "b**ch", a witch, a racist, and a narcissist who is dividing the Democratic party. Blaming, belittling, and threatening are not characteristics of the "change" we all can believe in! They are more characteristics of abuse and bullying. And, by the way, they are "attacks". I have read more attacks (and much more nastiness) from Obama supporters than from Clinton's. I would say that Obama supporters are much more like McCain's than like Clinton's. Clinton herself is much, much, much more positive than most of the Obama folks. What many of us admire about Clinton is that she has withstood the attacks and remains overwhelmingly positive. Can Obama? Whether it is good or bad for the Democrats is irrelevant; the process of democracy means that all votes must count. Even those for a woman who refuses to be intimidated.

Posted by: Catherine Smith | May 10, 2008 4:11 PM | Report abuse

intcamd,

You are the fool! Whatever the reason, it is a fact now that white Democratic politicians cannot get elected (for the most part) without overwhelming support from the black community-PERIOD. In fact, this support is even more valuable in a General Election because they don't really have to campaign for it...Republicans concede it.

The Clintons will freely admit that they have been tremendously from black support and as much as Hillary wants to make hay of hardworking white Americans, you can best believe if she is able to somehow steal the nomination, she will run to all the acknowledged black leaders, attend black church services, and pander to the masses to get that support. That's why she didn't run with the Jeremiah Wright situation.

I hardly consider it racism when a group of people who freely votes for others decides to support one of its own. It's only in Hillary World that someone thinks a Harvard educated attorney with an extensive resume is somehow not qualified for president! You don't have to like him or support him but that doesn't change anything. You are entitled to your own opinion but not you own facts.

Posted by: Speaker | May 10, 2008 4:08 PM | Report abuse

I think there's a silver lining to the race continuing, and being so heated, that no one seems to be mentioning.

Because the race has gone on so long, and has been so heated, all of Obama's dirty laundry has already been aired. Meanwhile, the media hasn't spotlighted the skeletons in McCain's past because he's not newsworthy as long as the Clinton/Obama battle wages on. When the media finally does focus on McCain, and when his questionable associations (Hagee, Bush), views (not voting for MLK Day), and scandals (Keating 5) are aired on the nightly news every night like Obama's have been, it'll be much closer to election time. His dirt will be fresh in the public's mind while Obama's will be old news.

This is really related to the topic, but I think the media is also downplaying the importance of the black vote in this election. Not only will Obama crush McCain by over 95%, black voter turnout will be the highest we've ever seen. S.C., VA, Georgia, and N.C. will all be in play because there will be people coming out to vote that have never cared about voting until now.

Posted by: A-Townie | May 10, 2008 4:07 PM | Report abuse

While I voted in the VA primary for Sen. Obama, I would like to see Sen. Hillary Clinton stay in to the end and give everyone in all the primaries the opportunity to vote for the candidate of their choice . We lived in WV for 8 years and my first choice dropped out twice before I ever got a chance to cast a vote. It felt like our votes did not matter. It is ridiculous to have a two year campaign. One of the major downsides is the enormous cost of sustaining a campaign for this long. Some potentially great candidates could skip the process due to the enormous cost. It also renders the two years that Congress is in session during the campaign useless as there is no focus on getting anything done for fear it becomes a campaign issue.

Posted by: Jim Reed | May 10, 2008 4:02 PM | Report abuse


The "Obama movement" is making a lot of people in Washington excited and nervous at the same time. Especially nervous is the corporate hand in Washington. Obama (not Clinton) is the overwhelming reason the party has increased its members so significantly and made it interesting to so many newcomers. Although Obama has corporate donors, his base of everyday people is much larger. It's only natural that Obama pledge more loyalty to the people. Hillary cannot win and should drop out now but the fact that she is staying in says something unusual. She is a leader of her own movement. And it's not powered by people like you and me. At least not as many. It is powered by those who have bought and sold every line in the constitution in order to manufacture your consent. It's only natural that Hillary pledge more loyalty to corporate America. In this perspective, continuing the race to the last contest is actually better for Obama and the Democratic party. And I'm not talking about getting Obama seasoned and ready for the Republican machine. I'm refering to a new story that is brewing. Corporate control of the party vs. people control of the party. Harvey Weinstein threatened Nancy Pelosi to stop funding congressional Democrats if she didn't support a revote in Michigan and Florida. A curious move since Harvey Weinstein doesn't really care about Michigan and Florida voters. He's worried about everyday people having more power influence than corporate elites have in these elections. Nancy Pelosi is right to have the race go to the last contest. It will send a very strong message to the likes of Weinstein that a presidential nomination cannot be bought. Obama will be the nominee but more importantly he will gain an even stronger coalition of "hard caring" Americans who will take the party and America back from corporate thugs and their Washington appointees.

Posted by: Matt | May 10, 2008 4:02 PM | Report abuse

Thank you, Hillary, for continuing to run. The media continues to couch any question about Obama's experience in race, rather than reality. Notably, Sen. Obama became an Illinois State Senator by default. He came into the US Senate almost as easily. Obama was a Senator for 18 months before he considered himself ready to for the most rigorous job in the world. If your company was looking for a CEO, Obama wouldn't even get an interview. His CV would be considerably short of qualifications even to run a Fortune 500 company. The media put many people off Obama, though you will never hear them admit it. "Affluent" people vote for him. "Poor" people vote for her. "Educated" people vote for him. "Uneducated" people vote for her. I am blessed to be in the top 1% for income and to have two-post grad degrees. My extensive family also is blessed by similar circumstances. We drew this lucky hand because of a blue collar family that worked hard, saved their money, and sent 35 children (my siblings and all of my cousins) to college. My parents, aunts and uncles were the smartest people I ever knew. They read books, traveled and had experiences that season a person more than a piece of paper can. And they were not crippled by a news media that cannot handle the rigors of real journalism anymore and that isn't clever enough to call itself entertainment. It takes a united America to solve all of the problems before us. Smart people respect each other, draw from each other, support each other in time of need. I love Hillary Clinton. She will turn out to be the winner in this thing, because no matter where she ends up, she had earned enough votes and support that the party will have to broker its best deal with Hillary...or there won't be enough votes to win.

Posted by: Run, Hill, Run | May 10, 2008 3:47 PM | Report abuse

I think the best thing she can do, if she stays in the race, is accept whatever the DNC decides on Michigan and Florida. If she blames Obama all summer for trying to disenfranchise those states, she may knock a couple of points in his margins in both those states in November... this might very well cost him the election. It would be unfair to burden Obama with this cost, since he did not decide to strip them of delegates and is guilty only of agreeing to the DNC rules (which Hillary did as well).

Posted by: Tetris | May 10, 2008 3:46 PM | Report abuse

Hillary is power hungry and ambitious. (All pols at this level are.) That is not to say that she is delusional. She can read the handwriting as well as any. She needs a way to exit without loosing face.
She will win WV, KY, and get creamed in OR.
The supers will continue their exodus to Obama.
She will stand down after that.
She has said that she will campaign to make sure that a D is elected in Nov. Let us hope that that is the case.

She is not damaging the party, the candidate or the system. At least not now. Though she certainly has that potential. I do not think that she will do it. It will destroy her and Bill's standing, future in the party or even on the political stage. If she looses the nomination, then campaigns her heart out for Obama, and then he looses, she will have a legitimate claim to try again next time.

If she kneecaps him, she will not

Posted by: smartinsen | May 10, 2008 3:46 PM | Report abuse

Why are the Superdelegates holding back?


The analysis is simple: why are the supderdelegates holding back, risking massive damage to their own party, for the luxury of deciding in June ???

It makes no sense, unless they are attempting a way to NOT endorse Obama without offending the black community.

That can be the only explanation.

The Superdeleates actually could have ended this race in late February, early March - essentially nothing has changed at all - Obama is basically in the same position that he was then - Hillary has strengthened herself by winning some more big states - if anything Obama is a little weaker because Hillary won Ohio, Pennsylvania and the popular vote in Texas.

I stand by my earlier point: the Superdelegates have gained nothing by holding back from early March until now and onward to June - the party is suffering.


From an organizational point of view, this waiting is horrible - they have cut 3 months from the calendar for the nominee, perhaps four - for little reason - now the nominee may have only from July-October when the nominee could have had almost twice that amount of time.

It is beyond that - people need time to heal and time to warm up to the nominee -

It is amazing - however the people most responsible for the democratic party - they are doing this to themselves - they are also going down this insane road with Florida and Michigan - it should have never gone this way.


Do you really want these people to run our government??


Do you ??? Think about it.


.

Posted by: Words of Wisdom | May 10, 2008 3:44 PM | Report abuse

My only thoughts about Sen. HRC staying or going is not as important as will she find herself able to help the party in the end. She she be on the stumps supporting the nominee with those who supported her, or will she be a dead fish like Sen. Edward's was for Sen. Kerry.

The country does need her abilities and talent, maybe not as President in my vote, but we need her to fight for us. Make sure NAFTA is reviewed correctly for the average man & women. Make sure Healthcare gets done right for us. Make sure we get out of Saddam Iraq. Make sure jobs come back rather then have the FDA tell us about paint in our children's toys. Work for Sustainable Energy on a local level with other Congress members.

She can do that as a Senator, a future governor of NYC or as a administrator in the Obama cabinet.

If you look at the choices above, Sen. HRC could be Secretary of Energy, Secretary of Defense, Secretary of Health and Human Services, etc.

I believe in the end, she has a wealth of ideas to offer. I just don't believe she is right at this time for the Presidency.

Posted by: jerry rubin | May 10, 2008 3:42 PM | Report abuse

As a voter in Connecticut, I was delighted that I actually got to cast a meaningful vote in the Democratic primary for once (and I didn't know at the time that my state wouldn't have had to move the primary up to Super Tuesday in order to have that be the case). I remember reading last week that voters in Indiana were pleased to have the candidates take some notice of them for the first time in forty years. Is there some way that the calendar could be arranged so that voters in all the states could have that experience every election year?
By the way, I am old enough to remember that 1968 election year, and back in those days RFK was campaigning in a meaningful primary in California in June. While there was plenty of hand-wringing about how the Democratic party was tearing itself apart over the Vietnam War, I don't recall that a meaningful primary contest that late in the year was regarded as disastrous in and of itself. Of course, I also am old enough to remember when candidates were actually selected at the convention, and nobody thought that was a disaster either.

Posted by: jhurwi | May 10, 2008 3:41 PM | Report abuse

Regarding the ending:

A house doesn't fall on her. She falls down an elevator shaft (see Rosyln Shays, L.A. Law).

BB

Posted by: Fairlington Blade | May 10, 2008 3:39 PM | Report abuse

TROW DA BUMS OUT -- BOTH OF 'EM

The Dems' only hope now is for Hillary to stay in the race, and continue to prove by her narsissitic, racially-charged rhetoric that she has disqualified herself from the nominiation. Concurrently, her presence in the primaries will continue to reveal Obama's inability to attract what Hillary calls "hard-working Americans, white Americans" in sufficient numbers to earn him the nomination.

HILLARY'S RIGHT -- OBAMA'S NOT A FIGHTER

And the more we get to know him, the more we see Obama as vacillating and weak. Robert Kennedy had the courage to successfully compete in places like West Virginia. Instead, Obama blithely writes off the state, along with Kentucky. That in itself is demeaning to voters who might have supported him, had be decided to show some "fight." His unwillingness to compete does not speak well of his abilities to win in the general.

HILLARY CAN'T EITHER -- SO GO THE THIRD WAY

Hopefully, the prolonging of this mutual self-destruction will cause the party elders to finally realize that neither of its "wonderful" candidates deserves the nomination. Perhaps the supers will muscle up the wisdom and courage to demand that Obama, for the good of the party, cede his delegates to Al Gore and agree to run as Gore's designated vice presidential pick.

If Hillary, as expected, does well in the remaining contests, it will only underscore his unelectability at the top of the ticket and convince him to be satisfied with the number two slot. Thus, Hillary will finally meet her just desserts, and Obama can lay claim to the title of peacemaker and kingmaker.

This is the only path for victory for the Democrats. both Hillary and Obama are fringe candidates. Together they would make a disastrous ticket, destined for sure defeat. But with Obama as veepee and Gore his anointed compromise candidate, the Dems will cruise to a sure victory and solve the Hillary Problem once and for all.

DO THE SUPERS HAVE THE "COJONES"?

The question is, do enough supers have the intestinal fortitude to challenge conventional thinking and the Obamaniacs and chart a winning course? Past history makes me doubtful. Too many in this party would rather put some misplaced notion of "principle" before pragmatics, thus setting up for yet another presidential loss.

Posted by: scrivener | May 10, 2008 3:39 PM | Report abuse

Compared to the systematic and sustained attacks against Hillary during her entire campaign, Obama has been treated with kids' gloves. Obama's campaign should get ready for what Republicans are about to throw at him. Obama's supporters have no cause for whining.

Posted by: Kevin99999 | May 10, 2008 3:38 PM | Report abuse

Speaker

You are a fool.

You said w/o Black Amercian support, dems would n't have won for 40 years.

The fact is, dems lost the Southern vote when they threw in their lot with civil rights.

So, your read of the situation is sadly mistaken. Whoever supported civil rights was going to lose the majority white vote, and certainly African Americans did no favors to Dems. Simply stated, whites and Blacks in the country had divergent interests.

Now, Black voters decided to support NObama solely based on race. Of course, that is their prerogative, though no better or no more just than the thugs who supported Duke in LA governer race a few years ago. However, what is horrible is that to get their man up, scumbags such as Herbert and RObinson also needed to bring the CLintons down. So, they painted him a racist.

DO the Obama groupie gutter rats seriously think that ordinary whites don't notice that if some one like Clinton can be branded racist, no one else is safe from this charge? And what is racism? Any opposition to anointing NObama is racist?

Posted by: intcamd | May 10, 2008 3:37 PM | Report abuse

After a while, the laws of gravity do apply.


Come on, we can pretend that the laws of physics do not exist.


This is a disaster for the party, a disaster - in fact permanent damage may be done by this election.

It is not permanent damage that has not had its roots in the party for years - it is along fault lines that have been appearing for years.

Basically this is the situation: the coalition of groups which make up the democratic party have systematically pushed out white males in favor of their own people for years - going back maybe 15 or 20 years.


Now they have few white males left to push out.


Take a look at Biden and Dodd - unable to raise enough money to compete - Richardson may have raised more money - and Richardon had more traction - those two candidates are symbolic of what has been going on for years - white males are not getting support.


Now a funny thing happened on the way to town: the womens' groups and the black community - without the white males around - have found they have little in common as to policy goals - and the coalition is not completely fractured.


One may think, OK they can work together, get some sharing going, however there is a fracture and the alliance is not strong.


Hillary is in her own campaign bubble - she has been listening to the womens' groups pushing her - first as a candidate in New York now as a nation-wide candidate. There is a disconnect which is not all Hillary.


The democrats have fractured - without the anti-war rhetoric - one might fight one group or the other leaving the party in large numbers.

The women certainly are angry and want to leave.

Posted by: Words of Wisdom | May 10, 2008 3:35 PM | Report abuse

I think Hillary staying in the race is good for Obama who at this point is the presumptive nominee. If you think that Hillary's campaign is negative, you aint nothing yet...just wait and see what the Republicans would do to him.

Posted by: Kevin99999 | May 10, 2008 3:34 PM | Report abuse

The Dems' only hope now is for Hillary to stay in the race, and continue to prove by her narsissitic, racially-charged rhetoric disqualifies her from the nominiation. Concurrently, her presence in the primaries will continue to reveal Obama's inability to attract what Hillary calls "hard-working Americans, white Americans," in sufficient numbers to earn him the nomination.

And the more we get to know him, the more we see Obama as vacillating and weak. Robert Kennedy had the courage to successfully compete in places like West Virginia. Instead, Obama blithely writes off the state, along with Kentucky. That in itself is demeaning to voters who might have supported him, had be decided to show some "fight." His unwillingness to compete does not speak well of his abilities to win in the general.

Hopefully, the prolonging of this mutual self-destruction will cause the party elders to finally realize that neither of their "wonderful" candidates deserve the nomination. Perhaps the supers will muscle up the wisdom and courage to demand that Obama, for the good of the party, cede his delegates to Al Gore and agree to run as his vice presidential pick.

If Hillary, as expected, does well in the remaining contests, it will only underscore his unelectability at the top of the ticket and convince him to be satisfied with the number two slot. Thus, Hillary will finally meet her just desserts, and Obama can lay claim to the title of peacemaker and kingmaker.

This is the only path for victory for the Democrats. both Hillary and Obama are fringe candidates. Together they would make a disastrous ticket, destined for sure defeat. But with Obama as veepee and Gore his anointed compromise candidate, the Dems will cruise to a sure victory and solve the Hillary Problem once and for all.

The question is, to enough supers have the intestinal fortitude to challenge conventional thinking and the Obamaniacs and chart a winning course? Past history makes me doubtful. Too many in this party would rather put some misplaced notion of "principle" before pragmatics, thus setting up for yet another presidential loss.

Posted by: scrivener | May 10, 2008 3:23 PM | Report abuse

My favorite line from the YouTube clip: "The voters have stolen my nomination." LOL

Posted by: treetopflyer | May 10, 2008 3:22 PM | Report abuse

A lot depends on what kind of campaign Clinton tries to run from here on out. If she continues with the kinds of attacks she has made, adding on new attacks and driving a wedge deeper between Obama and white voters, then a further protracted race could be counterproductive.

On the other hand, Clinton hanging in the race a bit longer has advantages for Obama. A loss in West Virginia after Clinton dropped out would be embarrassing for the newly minted nominee. Obama can lose more gracefully with Clinton still in the race, and the need to fight gives Obama a chance to display himself to the citizens of the remaining states. Add to this the continued media attention on the race, and Clinton might even be doing Obama a big favor.

To an extent, too, the attacks that Clinton has made on Obama were good for him. Facing the Rev. Wright controversy now is much better than facing it in August or September. Certainly some fallout from Wright will linger, but the "old news" will have less teeth than if it were a new revelation.

The rush to nominate was precisely one of the problems with Kerry. Democrats wanted to rally around one person so that they could aim cannons at Bush, and the race seemed virtually resolved after New Hampshire, despite the fact that none of the candidates had actually been put through their paces and tested yet. Had Kerry faced some strong attacks, people might have gone back to Dean, or perhaps shifted to Edwards, but even if Kerry had ended up the nominee, he would have already beaten back some of the attacks that dogged him in the general campaign.

What won't be good for Obama, though, is a fight all the way up to the convention, nor would a nasty public fight over Florida and Michigan help him in any way. There is a fine line between what Clinton can do at this point to help and hurt Obama, and so far she doesn't seem particularly interested in taking notice of where that line is.

Posted by: blert | May 10, 2008 3:20 PM | Report abuse

dnbraggs

Saying lower middle class whites are not voting NObama is not a racial attack (to see an example of a racist attack, read any column by pigs such as Bob Herbert or Eugene RObinson) - its a FACT.

NObama is toast. Nothing can be sweeter.

Stop blaming Clinton for what her supporters will do (which is, not vote NObama). Just because groupie gutter rats like yourself have lostall sense of balance does not mean the rest of the country should follow.

Posted by: intcamd | May 10, 2008 3:17 PM | Report abuse

dnbraggs

Saying lower middle class whites are not voting NObama is not a racial attack (to see an example of a racist attack, read any column by pigs such as Bob Herbert or Eugene RObinson) - its a FACT.

NObama is toast. Nothing can be sweeter.

Stop blaming Clinton for what her supporters will do (which is, not vote NObama). Just because groupie gutter rats like yourself have lostall sense of balance does not mean the rest of the country should follow.

Posted by: intcamd | May 10, 2008 3:17 PM | Report abuse

dnbraggs

Saying lower middle class whites are not voting NObama is not a racial attack (to see an example of a racist attack, read any column by pigs such as Bob Herbert or Eugene RObinson) - its a FACT.

NObama is toast. Nothing can be sweeter.

Stop blaming Clinton for what her supporters will do (which is, not vote NObama). Just because groupie gutter rats like yourself have lostall sense of balance does not mean the rest of the country should follow.

Posted by: intcamd | May 10, 2008 3:17 PM | Report abuse

Her staying in the race has the possibility of helping, but the manner in which she is conducting herself is hardening her supporters to the point where they may not vote for Obama, or at least he will have to use resources to reach out. In the end, it will be fine, and Obama will be victorious, but hillary could make things easier if she started campaigning with a little more tact. For example, the recent strong emphasis on how she wins Whites, Catholics, and hard-working Americans will not help.

Rasmussen has Obama receiving only 70% of Democrats, whereas McCain receives 81% of Republican voters. This number has the potential to get worse for Obama. All the blame does not lie solely with Hillary, as Obama should also be out there reaching out to folks in WVA and more rural parts of OH and PA. He hasn't done a good job here, and he needs to get on it quickly.

The most important point is that Hillary MUST stay in past WVA. Even if she dropped out, she would still win WVA, and that would be embarrassing if the presumptive nominee cannot win a state. It's one thing to get 75% like McCain, but to get blown out, like Obama would in WVA is embarrassing. Hillary should really stay in through Kentucky, and then she can exit gracefully. In the meantime, Obama should campaign in WVA and Kentucky and reach out to the section of voters he has not. He needs to go answer questions, look them in the eye, and earn their votes.

Go Barack!! Go Democrats!! We are on our way to a strong governing majority that will remake America into the respected world power I believe in and love.

Posted by: GoHuskies08 | May 10, 2008 3:15 PM | Report abuse

I feel Hilary has been put in a corner and forced to continue by the large special interest groups funding her campaign. For example, the traditional supporters of the democratic party, specially the powerful jewish groups, have rarely tasted failure of this scale in a presidential election. They have put all their eggs in one basket and are forced to accept defeat. Hilary seems to be under the control of such groups and her strange behaviour lately testifies to that.

Posted by: J.HYDE | May 10, 2008 3:15 PM | Report abuse

Obviously, with very few exceptions, the posts I have read have been generated by card-carrying Democrats, primarily Obama supporters. Keep in mind that Hillary is a tenacious and effective campaigner, that Obama has not answered, to the satisfaction of all, his relationship with the infamous Dr. Wright, nor his (Wright's) fawning acceptance of the militant racism of Ferrakan (spelling, sorry?), and Rezko (once again orthography)is still lurking in the shadows: he could become a major embarrassment for Obama and the Democrats in the fall. There are additional skeletons in his closet that will be outed during the campaign by the Republicans.

Hillary's position, reinforced by national polls, is that she will not alienate the White majority of working-class voters and senior citizens the way Obama will. Who thinks that Obama, against McCain, can win over these voting blocs? Surely the blacks will turn out massively in favor of Obama, but once again the racial issue will be front and center: the spurious claim of national healing and reconciliation under a biracial candidate will be shown to be at best idyllic, if not excessively idealistic. We are voting, as we always have, along lines of personal preference, not hard-core issues. Do you like Hillary? then vote for her! Do you feel Obama is a good guy, cool and laid back with minimal baggage? then vote for him. So goes life in our great, multi-cultural society. As the French say, "plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose" or more a-propos: "Il n'y a rien de nouveau sous le soleil."

Before I end (some of you are sighing in relief), let's not get carried away about with the false analogy of Obama and JFK. The latter grew up in a stable, American catholic environment (no dysfunctional family)who was/were nourished on politics since birth, served his country heroically in war time, whose father was a wealthy and ham-handed tyrant pushing his sons into public service and politics, etc. Kennedy was intelligent but hardly an honors student; Obama doesn't fit any of those criteria, other than being a graduate of Harvard Law School. Michelle is hardly Jacqueline (she spoke Spanish and French, remember) and, after her disparaging remarks about America's racial divide, will be viewed with cautious enthusiasm by the general public. She is not Laura or Barabara Bush, to say the least.

Yes, Hillary will continue and most likely win West Virginia, Kentucky, and Puerto Rico. Oregon will be the test of her assertion that she can stay close and be competitive. Also, dear readers, remember that superdelegates once committed to Hillary have de-committed to Obama's camp. Prior to the convention, they can reverse their course and re-commit to Hillary. No contract has been signed.

Don't gloat before the goats have been counted.

Posted by: Jussi | May 10, 2008 3:15 PM | Report abuse

It's hilarious (pun intended) listening to folks whine about so-called black racism because of overwhelming support for Obama. First of all, black voters have been supporting white Democrats for more than 40 years! At this point, its fair to say most white Democratic politicians could not win statewide or national offices without that 90% black vote.

The Clintons in specific have enjoyed this support. Bill Clinton didn't win the white male vote in '96 but still won re-election. When white America was ready to throw him under the bus with the Lewinsky impeachment scandal, it was black America that stood by him from the start until cooler heads prevailed. What you are seeing now in terms of the overwhelming Obama support is a community that has NEVER had a black even NOMINATED for a national office enthusiastic about the the very real possibility-the same reason white women are fanatic about Hillary's chances.

Bottom line, a community who has long supported the Democratic Party unconditionally is now saying it's time that partnership became a two-way street

Posted by: Speaker | May 10, 2008 3:12 PM | Report abuse

before this race, Democrats criticized those who called Clinton a b**ch and a witch. Now, I think many democrats understand...

Hilarious Hitler / Clinton Downfall video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B6Lstkiexhc

Posted by: freeDom | May 10, 2008 1:29 PM
------------------------------------------------------------
OMFG, that is ephin hilarious! I had to rewind several times because I couldn't read the subtitles, I was laughing so hard! Thank you for this.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 10, 2008 3:11 PM | Report abuse

I mocked Romney when he ended his candidacy because he said he was getting out for the good of his party. He decided that if he did not leave the race then he was all but anding the election to the Democrats. In hindsight he was correct. By dropping out he allowed McCain time to shore up his base and look presidential.

Hillary is still throwing punches at Obama (the latest being that the hardworking white Americans will not vote for him). She is wrong and it is hurting the democratic chances to win the general election. The difference between Hillary and Huckabee is that Huckabee remained positive and did not attack McCain.

By remaining in the contest and spewing her increasing negative attacks, Hillary does nothing but give the Republicans a blueprint for the general election.

Democrats need to coalesce behind Obama and that will not happen as long as Hillary stands in the way shouting "but it's my turn, not his".

Posted by: dnbraggs | May 10, 2008 3:06 PM | Report abuse

I don't think there's any harm to Hillary staying in the race UNLESS she continues to campaign like a Republican against Obama. We can all wait three more weeks or so.

In a perverse way, the long Democratic race has benefited Obama. He's built a fund-raising and organizing campaign that cannot be equaled. He has a base in every state. He has withstood the Rove-like attacks Hillary has thrown at him, so he's well-prepared for the general election.

The most important thing now is for the superdelegates to give a signal to Obama that they will indeed declare him the nominee by mid-June or so. Obama needs to prepare, and if Hillary hangs on after that, it won't be fair to him or the party.

Posted by: Seneca | May 10, 2008 3:05 PM | Report abuse

If she get nastier if such thing is possible I see a massive move by superdelegates toward Obama pretty fast right now we got the beginning of that move. But instead of getting 10 a day soon it going to be 30 a day!

I also think that she got until Monday to drop out or at least show that she is no longer running negative! After Monday the superdelegates would let her have one last win on Tuesday to leave on her term. After that if she stay and is still negative she going to get a backlash like you never seen. Some peoples would smell blood and would want to get even with the Clintons.

Posted by: Rambling Johnny | May 10, 2008 3:05 PM | Report abuse

She'll stay in long enough for donations from ignorant poor people to pay her campaign's debt to Mark Penn (several million dollars) and Bill Clinton ($11 million).

Posted by: aleks | May 10, 2008 3:05 PM | Report abuse

It hardly matters. There's no possible way McCain can overcome the "R" after his name on the November ballot. Karl Rove's "permanent Republican majority," like Communism, has been consigned to the dustbin of history.

Next subject please. :)

Posted by: Mike234 | May 10, 2008 3:03 PM | Report abuse

Mrs. Clinton is neither damaging nor helping Mr. Obama. I think that the people who worry about the damage being done to Mr. Obama 1) underestimate his strength, and 2) overestimate her power. The Clintons are relentless, but not all powerful as their many mistakes in this campaign have shown. Mr. Obama has seen "the fierce urgency of now", and he knows how to take advantage of it.

Mrs. Clinton missed her moment, and she's having a hard time accepting that. But the die is cast, and she will eventually come to terms with it. Michigan and Florida will be seated and all eyes will turn toward Mr. McCain. Mrs. Clinton will realize then that how she reacts to the new reality of a Democratic ticket headed by Mr. Obama will affect her future, and it will be in her best interest to fully get behind the ticket (assuming, as I do, that she is not on that ticket). That will help Mr. Obama a great deal.

I do not think that Mrs. Clinton has done anything to Mr. Obama that the Republicans could not do, and I believe that they have bigger things in store for him. Overcoming that is part of what Mr. Obama has chosen to take on, and I think that Mr. Obama and the Democratic Party will succeed. This is their moment and they bring a lot of strength and plenty of new ideas and strategies to create a new moment in American politics.

Mr. Obama is cool under fire, and I think we can be, too. Mrs. Clinton is neither damaging nor helping Mr. Obama.

Posted by: Bunker | May 10, 2008 2:55 PM | Report abuse

I think HRC is in a bit of a quandary.

First, she certainly wants to be president, and to that end, there is no sense in quitting until BHO gets the required number of delegates to win the nomination. There is always the chance of a Hail Mary (last second 3-pointer, walk-off grand slam, etc.) to rescue her candidacy.

Second, the best thing she could do for BHO is to "vet" him so that there are no surprises for the R's to spring on him in the general election campaign. But in order to do that, she has to go really negative. If she does that, and BHO handles it well, then he'll be all that much more prepared for "Swiftboating" in the fall. If he doesn't handle it well, then she'll be blamed for tearing down the party and destroying the D's best chance of getting the Presidency in a decade.

Staying in the race and playing nice is not going to get HRC the nomination, unless BHO has some really serious unrevealed skeletons in his closet. She might as well drop out now if she's going to do what Huckabee did -- she's just wasting WJC's time and Chelsea's inheritance.

In the end, BHO and HRC are going to have to reconcile. But I think there is plenty of time for that after the last primary in June (>2 months until the convention).

More importantly, they will have to get their supporters to reconcile as well. That may take considerably longer. It's amazing how much "bitterness" there seems to be between the BHO and HRC supporters on any number of blogs, which I've found to be just as true in political discussion in person. If the loser can get 85-90% of his/her supporters to vote for the winner, the D nominee should win in a walk this fall. Otherwise, it'll be President McCain.

Posted by: mnteng | May 10, 2008 2:53 PM | Report abuse

Clinton did damage to the democratic party the day she decided to throw her hat into the ring. She doesn't have a fraction of her husband's public speaking skills. She's just a defiant moron, and should stop wasting everyone's time.

Posted by: dsv | May 10, 2008 2:51 PM | Report abuse

The Democratic voter doesn't forgive the candidate who quits when there's still a fight to be fought. Gore: forgiven. Kerry: unforgiven. Lieberman: forgiven.

Clinton would be a fool to drop out before the convention.

Besides, if Obama is going have a prayer of beating McCain, he needs the skeletons to come out of his closet now while there's still time for voters to get used to them. You just know a Dem from Chicago has skeletons.

Posted by: Bill | May 10, 2008 2:48 PM | Report abuse

Oh, as an aside. For supporters of the two democratic candidates who feel that the bitterness of the campaign drives them to vote for McCain in the general election:

Are you nuts?

On the issues, Obama and Clinton are much closer together than either is to McCain. Choosing to cast your vote for McCain rather than the democratic candidiate in the general election because the latter beat your candidate is cutting off your nose to spite your face. You ignore all of the reasons you chose to vote democratic in the first place.

If you believe that McCain and your candidate share qualities that you think are important and which the other candidate lacks, that's a different arguement altogether.

In short, if you are a voter who is voting democratic and basing your vote on policy issues, choosing to change your vote out of spite is foolish and shortsighted.

If you are voting based upon who you like or have a gut feeling for, that's your call. All I can say is that lots of people liked our current president and look where we are now.

Posted by: jpl | May 10, 2008 2:47 PM | Report abuse

Any damage Clinton could have done is already realized. Therefore, letting the last six states participate probably will provide more benefit (increased voter registration & interest) than harm (costing Obama time and money, though he seems to have plenty of both between June and November). If there is a fear that the extended campaign might reveal an Obama weakness, better to do so in the Democratic primaries than in the run up to the general election. Also, stopping the contest at this point, by superdelegates dictating the victory, might leave some voters disenchanted with the Democratic system of selectign a nominee.

Posted by: ccarter | May 10, 2008 2:47 PM | Report abuse

What I can't figure out is why she wants to spend her own money flying back and forth from WVa and Ky to Oregon for the next two weeks. Her fundraising must have cratered in the last few days--where's the money coming from?

Hillary's "white voters" remark, unintended though it (presumably) must have been, is a perfect illustration of the dangers of her remaining in the race, even in a muted fashion. Coming on top of her failed pandering with the "gas tax holiday," that comment has stained her reputation further and made Obama's path to the presidency just a bit more difficult.

If she wants to keep campaigning for a few more weeks, she should start campaigning WITH Obama, not against him--giving speeches that criticize McCain's policies rather than perpetuating the identity politics that might peel voters away from Obama in the fall.

If she can campaign without criticizing Obama and goes on to win WVa, Ky. and PR, terrific--she'll have proven her ability to attract votes and pumped up her ego without destroying her party's chances. But she should be warned by the party leadership that if she goes any further down the road of separating Democratic constituencies from their nominee, she will be punished for it.

Posted by: jonfromcali | May 10, 2008 2:41 PM | Report abuse

I really don't have a problem with her staying in. At this point she can stay in and not damage herself. If she gets ugly then she will become a traitor to her party and become the next Ralph Nader. If she stays positive she will help build Democratic organizations in the remaining states and suck the media attention away from McCain. She may be able to damage Obama by staying but she will destroy herself and her husband's legacy if she goes negative.

Posted by: Brad | May 10, 2008 2:39 PM | Report abuse

I prefer Obama to Clinton (and John Edwards to both), but at this point in the game, let her play out the string and beat Obama in states such as West Virginia and Kentucky where she was going to win anyway. It would be absurd (not to mention embarrassing for Democrats) to have her drop out of the race, then beat Obama in those states. Let her take the high road to oblivion, with the Obama camp satisfying her wing by selecting a running mate they might prefer (as long as it isn't her). Webb or Clark could do that.

Posted by: Vincent | May 10, 2008 2:38 PM | Report abuse

It would be good for her to stay in the race and take this time to reposition herself as a New York senator. Previously, her underlying motivation for serving New Yorkers was to position herself for a presidential run. If she fails as the Democratic nominee, what would be her motivation to serve New Yorkers? Her solitary focus for eight years has come to this moment, so what's a few more weeks? Beyond all the talk, it has to be psychologically devastating. Allow her the next few weeks as a swan song. Then, she can return to New York and the Nation with dignity.

Posted by: NewYorker | May 10, 2008 2:38 PM | Report abuse

It is a very good thing for the democrats for a number of reasons.
1) It keeps the media focused on the competitive Democratic race rather than on their Republican counterpart. In a more complex way, it mutes McCain's activities. Positive news is drowned out by the Democratic campaign while negative news tends to be reported.
2)It reinforces Obama's 50 state strategy by building campaign organizations in each state. Combined with his financial strength he can potentially threaten or win states thought to be comfortablly Republican, forcing the Republicans to allocate scarce resources.
3)Financially, continued campaigning by Obama comes out of his primary cash pool. His campaign has largely been receiving cash for the primary rather than the general election. All of his current spending is ostensibly for the primary. Once he becomes the candidate, his presidential election money will not need to be spent on establishing state organizations. It can be spent on other resources, further stretching tight Republican resources.
4) It encourages and improves Democratic turnout across the country aiding both bama and the Democratic party. Voter registartion and Democratic participation are way up.
5)It creates fear among the Republicans who worry about the outcome of the 2008 elections
and a potential landslide.

Many of the negatives discussed includig the negativity of the campaign I feel are non-issues. They certainly would have been raised during the presidential campaign.

Posted by: jpl | May 10, 2008 2:37 PM | Report abuse

The NObama supporting gutter rats should not abate their vitriolic attacks on Sen CLinton any time soon. Your continued attacks will ensure that the Clinton supporting base will stay united and vote McCain in Fall.

Posted by: intcamd | May 10, 2008 2:33 PM | Report abuse

The radical left-wingers that support Barack Obama will galvanize the evangelical Republican vote. This is best summed up in Issac Newton's third law of motion: "Every action has an equal and opposite reaction".

Hillary would've energized the evangelical Republican's to vote against her. The more the Christian right sees of Barack Obama and his radical left-wing extremist supporters, the more the evangelicals will rally for John McCain inspite of their indiffence to McCain. It will not be a vote for John McCain, it will be a vote against the radical agenda of those who enthusiastically support Barack Obama.

Posted by: The.Facts | May 10, 2008 2:31 PM | Report abuse

Better for who? FOr the democratic party? Which democratic party? That half which is populated by African Americans who voted solely on the basis of race, and along the road branded the Clintons, who have always stood for them, as racists? That half of the democratic party which is populated by bitter, biased media pigs such as Eugene Robinson and Bob Herbert, who wear their racial bias on their sleeve, and spout racial venom on the Clintons day after day? That half of the democratic party which is populated by the pompous fat bas*ards such as Tim Russert who has been a pompon waving fool for NObama from day one? That half of the democratic party populated by *utt kissing NObama groupie gutter rats such as those posting on WaPO pages for a year now?

Yes, the continued fight of Sen CLinton is bad for them.

However, that half is already doomed. They will succeed in stealing the nomination, but then will get their **ck handed to them in Nov.

Posted by: intcamd | May 10, 2008 2:29 PM | Report abuse

Man, CC's really going for the gutter with his headlines now to increase readership...

Posted by: kreuz_missile | May 10, 2008 2:26 PM | Report abuse

it actually a good thing,
obama had and his having what he needed more,
national exposure to introduce himself to the country
and he came out as calm and resolut
and with some wide policy already accomplished, like the race dialog that has set a high pass since his speech

his network policy is also exponential in its growing dinamic, as any of the other webbased communities
so the longer the repubblican will have to wait to face it,
the stronger it will be

on the other end by fightin this way senator clinton is implicitly renouncing a vp solution
allowing obama to pick up someone tuned with his thoughts
healin a country will take a lot of coherence

Posted by: giab | May 10, 2008 2:24 PM | Report abuse

Maybe throw water on her and she will just melt like the other witch we are all familiar with. Where does she hide all those flying monkeys I have been wondering?

Posted by: Anonymous | May 10, 2008 2:13 PM | Report abuse

Doesn't this story end with a house falling on her?

Posted by: Anonymous | May 10, 2008 2:11 PM | Report abuse

The pro-Obama biased media have interfered in, undermined, and subverted the Democratic nominaton process. The pro-Obama biased media continue to sabotage Sen. Clinton's presidential campaign.

Black racism cannot trump the Democratic nomination process. Obama's lead in delegates, superdelegates and votes is due to the black racism in voting against Sen. Clinton.

The Democratic nominaton process calls for all states to vote and if the candidates come up short in delegates for the nomination, then the superdelegates must select the best qualified candidate for the presidency using their independent judgment.

Obama does not have the requisite number of delegates for the nomination; he has no presumptive lock on the nomination. The Democratic nomination process is still in progress and concludes when all of the remaining states have voted and the superdelegates select the best qualified candidate using their independent judgment. Sen. Clinton is the best qualified presidential candidate and she must continue her fight for the future of America.

Qualifications must be the unyielding principle, similar to the rule of law, for the presidential nomination. Obama's skin color and fear of alienating the black vote or the threat of "massive demonstrations" cannot trump the unyielding principle of qualifications.

Obama's trying to swipe the nomination from Sen. Clinton with the premature end of the nomination process called by the pro-Obama biased media is a subversion of the Democratic nomination process, and Obama will crash and burn in November and the Democratic Party will be a train wreck in November. I will vote McCain. McCain will be president and it will be four more years of Bush under McCain. Media tyranny and black racism must be defeated.

Posted by: crat3 | May 10, 2008 2:09 PM | Report abuse

The pro-Obama biased media have interfered in, undermined, and subverted the Democratic nominaton process. The pro-Obama biased media continue to sabotage Sen. Clinton's presidential campaign.

Black racism cannot trump the Democratic nomination process. Obama's lead in delegates, superdelegates and votes is due to the black racism in voting against Sen. Clinton.

The Democratic nominaton process calls for all states to vote and if the candidates come up short in delegates for the nomination, then the superdelegates must select the best qualified candidate for the presidency using their independent judgment.

Obama does not have the requisite number of delegates for the nomination; he has no presumptive lock on the nomination. The Democratic nomination process is still in progress and concludes when all of the remaining states have voted and the superdelegates select the best qualified candidate using their independent judgment. Sen. Clinton is the best qualified presidential candidate and she must continue her fight for the future of America.

Qualifications must be the unyielding principle, similar to the rule of law, for the presidential nomination. Obama's skin color and fear of alienating the black vote or the threat of "massive demonstrations" cannot trump the unyielding principle of qualifications.

Obama's trying to swipe the nomination from Sen. Clinton with the premature end of the nomination process called by the pro-Obama biased media is a subversion of the Democratic nomination process, and Obama will crash and burn in November and the Democratic Party will be a train wreck in November. I will vote McCain. McCain will be president and it will be four more years of Bush under McCain. Media tyranny and black racism must be defeated.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 10, 2008 2:08 PM | Report abuse

The longer, the better? Should read, the longer, the bitterer!!!

I don't believe the clintons know how to be "civil" in any instance, so I tend to believe that they will continue to politically terrorize and lynch Obama in an effort to win! Dividing the Dem Party so bitterly is the worse underhanded ploy any candidate can do to another in the same Party.

Posted by: Disparaged | May 10, 2008 2:07 PM | Report abuse

It's a bad thing. If Clinton continues to attack Obama and he ends up the nominee, she has practically handed Republicans ammunition to use against him. Meanwhile, the only way that Clinton can become the nominee is a coup by superdelegates. This will anger A LOT of voters, who will visit their ire upon not only Clinton, but the supers who went over voters' heads to give her the nomination. What looks like a Democratic presidency and majority in Congress for the next four to six years is fundamentally changed overnight. The damage is not against Obama, but the whole party

Posted by: corinthian | May 10, 2008 2:05 PM | Report abuse

Mike Huckabee successfully stayed in the Republican primary race due to the fact that he refused to criticize McCain. Hillary Clinton could do the same and exit gracefully. However, I question whether it is in her DNA to take the high road and exit positively . Her continued talk about how Obama cannot win the "hard working white voter without a college degree" is divisive and not helpful at a time when we need to unify the divisions in the party. Her choice to totally ignore the African American community vote as necessary for a Democratic win at the same time Paul Begala makes his "eggheads and African Americans" comments are counter productive to a Democratic win in November. Words matter. If this is what we have to endure, she should leave or the superdelegates should come out sooner rather than later to end this thing.

Posted by: sryanbailey | May 10, 2008 1:50 PM | Report abuse

I agree with all the posters who say its the character of the campaign that counts, not the length.

As I posted yesterday, HRC's candidacy has proven to be a world changer whether you were for her, indifferent, or against her. Proud disagreed, but she was only posting the obvious truth that the quality of the candidate was paramount. I was arguing that even a high quality female candidate never had a chance before and now that mindset is GONE. HRC was, in that sense, the right woman at the right time, and when she loses, even ungraciously, we are all talking seriously about women as VPS in both parties as if that were the norm; which of course it should be.

Ferraro's nomination and the candidacies of Chisolm and Braun added together did nothing for women compared with the coming out party of HRC. If Rice or Palin or Sebelius or McCaskill do not end up on a ticket this time they will be front and center again next time and so will others whose names do not come as easily to the mind and keyboard.

This historic fact alone means that no one else should pressure HRC except her closest advisers and friends. Anything else is too much of a reminder of what was behind the corner we just turned.

Posted by: MarkInAustin | May 10, 2008 1:49 PM | Report abuse

If Clinton can shift into a more positive mode of campaigning and remakes herself into a less divisive candidate, then a) she would go a long way to restoring party unity, and b) opinion of her in the Obama camp would be boosted dramatically.

Here in Oregon at least, this race has been nothing but good for the dems: the obama campaign has apparently registered almost 32,000 new democrats alone, and the clinton campaign's voter reg numbers are nothing to sneeze at either. People have been really excited about this and the nov. election cycle. and new registrants could trickle down-ballot to House and state elections.

Posted by: d.liu | May 10, 2008 1:38 PM | Report abuse

Frankly speaking, we Democrats can have the best of both worlds. Senator Clinton can stay in and keep the media attention but what she needs to do is to stop attaching Senator Obama. Senator Clinton can go out with a blaze of wins, can help to increase attention and turnout while Senator Obama and Clinton can fully focus their attention on Senator McCain.

Posted by: Jake | May 10, 2008 1:36 PM | Report abuse

before this race, Democrats criticized those who called Clinton a b**ch and a witch. Now, I think many democrats understand...

Hilarious Hitler / Clinton Downfall video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B6Lstkiexhc

Posted by: freeDom | May 10, 2008 1:29 PM | Report abuse

It's not the staying in that's damaging: it's the extremely negative way that she's chosen to run her campaign. If she stays in and continues to damage Obama, even after she's lost any chance of winning the nomination herself, then she could cost the Democratic Party the presidency this November.

If Clinton stays in but ends the negative attacks, serving as a foil for Obama, she could provide an important service to the Democratic Party, allowing it to build additional interest and excitement (and voter and donor lists).

Hillary Clinton faces a massive test of character: will she bow out gracefully or engage in a destructive game of "if I can't have it, then neither can you."

Posted by: The Richmond Democrat | May 10, 2008 1:26 PM | Report abuse

I am of the mind that one of the problems of her staying in the race is the self-fulfilling prophecy problem. The more she repeats he has a "problem" with white blue-collar voters, the more she amplifies the problem in people's mind and in the media which, as we have seen in the past, can induce a snowball psychological effect.

Posted by: Benjamin | May 10, 2008 1:17 PM | Report abuse

Obama has won the nomination. The sooner Clinton realizes this and begins working to unify the party and bring her supporters on board for the fall campaign, the stronger her reputation will be and the greater her chances for the future. If she persists in blasting Obama, fighting over the invalid primaries in Florida and Michigan, and roiling the waters all the way to the convention, she will come off as a huge jerk, damage her Senate career, and build a wall of resentment that will block her future chances.

Posted by: TKD | May 10, 2008 1:16 PM | Report abuse

Her staying in does no harm by itself. lt's the nasty stuff she says while she's there. If she can stay upbeat, no problem.

Posted by: Charlie | May 10, 2008 1:15 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company