Hoyer: Electability Key to Democratic Choice

"Electability." That has been the fundamental premise of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's (D-N.Y.) presidential campaign for months now, as she makes the case that, even if Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) leads in delegates or the popular vote, she should be the Democratic nominee because she has the best chance in November.

As House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) sees it, electability should also be the animating principle behind Democratic superdelegates' decisions on which candidate to support.

At his weekly press briefing today, Hoyer cited the mantra of the civil rights movement: Keep your eyes on the prize. "The prize for me is winning the November election and changing direction in this country," Hoyer said. "And as a delegate to the convention ... I intend to vote in a way that best accomplishes that objective."

Hoyer has repeatedly made clear in the past that he believes it is the responsibility of superdelegates to bring their experience and judgement to their decision, and not to necessarily be guided by metrics like the pledged delegate count or the popular vote in their respective states.

Hoyer reiterated that point again today, barely 12 hours after Clinton beat Obama by 10 points in Pennsylvania and left the contest still unsettled. But Hoyer also suggested that Democratic elected officials, unlike regular delegates, could be held accountable for their decisions in the fall. Superdelegates are "some of the few delegates who will have to go back in November and answer for the decision that they made in August. That's the irony. The rest [of the delegates], you know, they're going to do what they do" and they're "not going to be on the ballot," Hoyer pointed out.

Hoyer, who said he has no plan "at this point in time" to declare his preference, disputed the suggestion from a reporter that his focus on electability implied that he supported one candidate over the other. "My premise is that we have two excellent candidates, both of whom could win. ... From my standpoint, I'm happy with either," he said.

On the semantic front, Hoyer also continued his losing battle to call himself and his ilk "ex officio" delegates rather than the more heroic-sounding "superdelegates." Despite his best efforts, the alternative phrase has not caught on.

"I'm not selling 'ex officio,' I know," Hoyer said. "I keep selling, but nobody's buying."

By Ben Pershing |  April 23, 2008; 12:15 PM ET 2008 Campaign , Dem. Leaders
Previous: Miss. House Special Heads to Runoff | Next: Another Victim in GOP Embezzlement Scandal

Comments

Please email us to report offensive comments.



Well, Hoyer has still got a problem because they are both electable. They are both stronger candidates than John McCain and they both know it. So the superdelegates are going to need more than this to go on. It's going to be about 51/49 anyway although national polls see a bigger divide than that. But basically, the divide is about 51/49. AT least it's great theater if not especially constructive or pleasant.

Posted by: Gaias Child | April 23, 2008 1:06 PM

Obama is our Savior. Obama, Ayers, and Reverend Wright are Right! God D*** america! The stupid, bitter, racist "typical white people" of pennsylvannia voted for clinton. How disgusting. They ignored their opportunnity to redeem themselves for their racist past - slavery - and finally make Michelle proud. How sad. Please no hater responses, but do please stop buying guns you biiter small town hicks, and save it for my reparations check! Obama '08, Repartions Check, '09!

Posted by: Obamamania | April 23, 2008 1:10 PM

Given the fact that polls show Hillary Clinton being regarded as "untrustworthy" and "dishonest" by a majority of potential voters, it seems pretty obvious that the electability argument doesn't work in her favor.

Posted by: Durant Imboden | April 23, 2008 1:13 PM

the democratic party is in deep doo doo. they allowed an unqualified person to run for president, and now don't know how to get rid of him. if obama is nominated, he will definitely lose the dems the presidency as most dems will vote for mccain. maybe not a good choice for our top office, but at least we know where he is coming from and going to. the worst he'll do is give us four more years of war.

Posted by: gin711 | April 23, 2008 1:14 PM

As to electability, I would discount statements made in the heat of the primaries as to whose voters would refuse to support the other Democrat in the fall. But, if the nomination is taken away from the pledged delegate winner, the nominee will lose. Guaranteed.

Posted by: Eulenspiegel | April 23, 2008 1:16 PM

What makes the superdelegates qualified enough to determine electibility of a particular nominee ?

Posted by: Vinod | April 23, 2008 1:18 PM

At this point, neither Senator is electable, because whoever is nominated, half the core stays home in November.

It's time to draft Al Gore ....

Posted by: underalms | April 23, 2008 1:22 PM

Representative Hoyer is one of the few superdelegates, excuse me, ex officio delegates, that understands the rules and intent of having these delegates in the first place (maybe he should break it to the MSM too since most of them don't seem to understand it). As he states by design it is their duty to cast their vote for the candidate who in their personal judgment is most likely to win in November. If these super or ex officio delegates follow the rules and act with courage (and not fear of the repercussions to their own personal careers) they will have no choice but to support Hillary Clinton as the nominee. Primary after primary is proving that Barrack Obama cannot carry the democratic base and you can't expect to win in November without it.

Posted by: SusanL | April 23, 2008 1:24 PM

Hoyer's comment on being accountable for the decisions made by super-delegates is only partially correct. The entire country will suffer if they use their "experience" and pick the wrong candidate for "electability". We have had 8 years of "experience" that has proved incompetent. We may never be able to recover as it is. It is a poor argument to criticise Obama for being made up of "words" and no "experience". The Constitution is only words on paper. We have seen what happens when the words are ignored.

Posted by: JKtheowl | April 23, 2008 1:24 PM

Hillary has over 50% negative rating, that means she CAN'T win. The Clintons are too deep into this, that's why their pride and hunger for power won't let them quit. And who's gonna want to be her vice presidential pick with Bill in the middle? Please, Hillary, GO AWAY.

Posted by: Tim | April 23, 2008 1:26 PM

For Change Vote Obama!

John Mellencamp Small Town
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3eDkAG3R0h8

Bruce Springsteen Radio Nowhere
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XmLt6kcZ72Q

Supporting Barack Obama 08!

Posted by: tongassberry | April 23, 2008 1:27 PM

Steny Hoyer's statement might indicate a predilection to vote for Obama; though I doubt it. Hoyer is a known CONSERVATIVE democrat. For him to say, "The prize for me is winning the November election and changing direction in the country....I intend to vote in a way that best accomplishes that." seems farcical. If he leans towards Clinton, which I presume, how does he deal with her high negatives? This cat and mouse game of super delegates, who are fearful of not being on the right team, is nauseating, at best!

Posted by: Jayne | April 23, 2008 1:27 PM

It is sad to see that the potential to win in November is going to be lost to McCain. The party will split the unity of Democrats by pushing through Hillary. You will see a blood bath that will turn off the new voters and 50% of the others. McCain will win in a landslide, giving Bush the cover he needs for 8 years of disasterous policies surving those who paid to put him in the White House...

Posted by: Allen | April 23, 2008 1:27 PM

I don't understand how she wins? I understand that everyone has their own opinion and can choose either candidate. My issue is the economy and HRC has put her campaign in a huge debt and I think running a campaign should be easier than running our country. If she can't balance her campaign budget how can she balance the budget of the United States of America?

Posted by: kdr | April 23, 2008 1:27 PM

TO MR KENNEDY

FROM : ALL AMERICANS

SIR, PLEASE DO ME A FAVOR, HOW ABOUT TELL ALL IN THE MEDIA AND NEWS, THAT LOOK AT WHAT ONE AMERICANS SAY, THAT WOULD STOP ALL BLEEDING IN THIS MORTGAGE MESS..

IT IS SIMPLE AS IT GETS...

HELP!!!

PEOPLE - - BEGIN TO RESEARCH and PROBE THIS ! ! ! !

SPECIAL "CLOSED SESSION" OF U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Word has begun leaking from last nights special,
Closed-door session of the United States House of Representatives.
Not only did members discuss new surveillance provisions as was the publicly stated
Reason for the closed door session, they also discussed :

1. The Imminent Collapse of the U.S. economy to occur by September 2008
2. The imminent collapse of US federal government finances by February 2009
3. The possibility of Civil War inside the USA as a result of the collapse
4. Advance round-ups of "insurgent U.S. citizens" likely to move against the Government
5. The Detention of those rounded-up at "REX 84" camps constructed throughout the USA,
6. The possibility of retaliation against members of Congress for the collapses
7. The Location of "safe facilities" for members of Congress and their families
To reside during expected massive civil unrest
8. The necessary and unavoidable merger of the United States with Canada
(for its natural resources) and with Mexico (for its cheap labor pool)
9. The issuance of a new currency - THE AMERO -
For all three nations as the proposed solution to the coming economic armageddon.

Members of Congress Have Been FORBIDDEN to reveal what was discussed
Several are so furious and concerned about the future of the country,
they have begun leaking info.
US Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson
Has Already Received His PERSONAL BAIL-OUT

Under Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson's .. Former leadership at
Goldman Sachs, the company has been instrumental to its penetration of Western
capital and other markets. - - Henry Paulson was vastly effective in Communist
China's .. Interests and enabling their access to Western economic assistance
and high technology

In late January 2006, Goldman Sachs purchased a stake in the Industrial and
Commercial Bank of China (ICBC), China's biggest bank, for $2.58 billion
Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson''''s .. Personal stake .. In this transaction
was $25 million

A PERSONAL BAIL OUT for : Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and His
Criminal Friends

(Mar 27, 2008 (ruters.com) BBC) ... White House Resists Pleas for .. Mortgage Bailout
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - As clamor rises for federal help for homeowners
who face losing their homes .. U.S. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson .. Seems
to be digging in heels against the effort.

U.S. Treasury Secretary Paulson sounded a tougher note than ever against any
possibility of bailout for individual mortgage holders, singling out the growing number
going "under water" as their loans exceed the diminishing value of their properties.

please this is a simple thing to fix, why are you bending over for all of the wallstreet scum.
you have the right to do what this paulson/ben did for wallstreet,saying they had to to save america. so you can say the same thing, but this time you would be saveing america, and not wallstreet.
you must come out and stop the forcloseing of all these millions of homes, now,
ALL YOU HAVE TO DO IS MANDATE THAT ALL MORTGAGES THAT HAVE BEEN TAKEN OUT FROM 2000 TO 2007 BY ALL AMERICANS TO BE RE-FI A.S.A.P. NO EXCEPTIONS,


NO MATTER WHAT THE CREDIT IS, THEY WILL RE-FI EVERYONE AT JUST OVER PRIME, AND AT A RATE OF 40% OF WHAT IS OWED ON THE PROPERTY( PERSONAL HOMES ONLY)!!
WHY, BECAUSE MOST HOST ARE SELLING AT FORCLOSER FOR 20 TO 30 CENTS ON THE DOLLAR, SO AS TO WHAT PAULSON SAID TO BEARSTEARN 2 DOLLARS IS BETTER THAN NO DOLLARS SO TAKE THE DEAL..NOW REMEMBER ALL OF YOU, IF THIS COMPANY IN 6 MONTHS LOST 98% OF THEIR VALUE FROM 700 BILLION TO WHAT IS IT NOW. AND FOR SOMEONE TO COME IN AND BUY IT FOR NOTHING, WHAT IS THE REAL VALUE OF ALL THESE HOMES???NOBODY KNOWS, SO WHY NOT JUST START OVER??? AND STOP THE BLEEDING FOR ALL AMERICANS.

FOR-AMERICA@HOTMAIL.COM
DAVID A BELANGER
FOR COMMON SENSE THIS IS SO EASY TO FIX DONT MAKE IT HARDER THAN IT IS PEOPLE.

AND LOOK AT THIS MORNINGS NEWS, THE GREAT POTATOHEAD PAULSON,AND BEN ARE IN TALKS WITH ANOTHER WALLSTREET FIRM GOING DOWN. MERRILL LYNCH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

WHAT MORE BAILOUTS FOR WALLSTREET COMING.

Posted by: DAVID | April 23, 2008 1:31 PM

Hoyer does not have a problem because Hillary is electable & Obambi is not!

Look at who voted for who without drinking the Obambi Kool-Aid.

Hoyer is absolutely correct, if super delegates choose the wrong candidate and looses the White House, all of them will be sent home in the next election.

Obambi will do worse than McGovern as a liberal elitist with the support of Moveon and Michael Moore.

His friends Wright, Rezko, Ayers and Farrakhan should really help him get elected along with his and Michelle's comment. As if that is not enough, participating in the Million Man march should really help him.

Stay tuned more to come.

Posted by: Cerebral | April 23, 2008 1:31 PM

Unfortunately it's a choice between the devil and the deep blue sea for superdelgates now. Clinton was better positioned to win the center and the general election before Obama's rise but nominating her now alienates a huge cadre of black and younger voters.

As a Republican, I'm a bit ashamed of my schadenfreude.

Posted by: Ed | April 23, 2008 1:34 PM

So McCain is a better choice than Obama? several seem to say so - gin711 "the worst McCain will do is 4 more years of war" - how could Obama do any worse? The country has been sold to the Fascist corporate elitists and your a big enough fool to reelect another corporate fascist elitist?

Clinton isnt trustworthy, McCain is a war mongering bueracratic sellout and we dont have another choice except Obama.

Posted by: fool_hater | April 23, 2008 1:35 PM

If superdelegates are to be held accountable and we have a party-wrecking situation here, I have a solution. Seat Fla delegates as "elected", seat MI 50-50, and deprive all unelected superdelegates of their votes. I wonder how that comes out?

Posted by: Eulenspiegel | April 23, 2008 1:37 PM

So, what happens if the superdelegates are as divided in their opinions about electability as the American public is, and we end up with a tie or near-tie from them as well?

Posted by: Anne in TX | April 23, 2008 1:38 PM

Finally the corner has been turned and Hillary is on her way to the White House! We always knew you were a fighter and would whatever was necessary to fight for the people.

Even back in Arkansas you stood up to those who tried to ruin the state's reputation by trying to make something of Bill's rumored affairs. You stood by your man and the people of Arkansas, shut down the talk, and showed your opponents what you were made of.

When you got to the White House you didn't forget where you came from and helped the people of the good state of Arkansas. You did everything you could to be sure that any investors in the Whitewater real estate investment opportunity didn't lose the investment money they worked so hard for. It took years but you didn't quit because you are a fighter, and in the end, you won.

You never stopped fighting. Even though you knew your intentions would be misinterpreted by the rabid press, you knew you had to remove those Travel Office beaurocrats who were just wasting taxpayer money. It just made plain sense to put your own people in because you knew you could count on them. Your loyalty to your friends is inspirational!

You and Bill are always thinking ahead in your commitment to the American people. For decades the Congress had been dominated by the same old 'business as usual' politicians. You knew it was time for change and everything you did in your administration encouraged it. And when the 1994 elections were over we had a whole new Congress! Even though they were all Republicans, you and Bill were in the White House and in charge. You could reach across the aisle and lead the way forward with your vision of the future.

With greatness comes adversity and you rose to the challenge. Many people were afraid of your 'yes we will!' vision of the country and tried to put roadblocks in your way. It was amazing how low people would go to try to destroy you and Bill. They tried to manufacture that story about Johnny Chung, and how the head of the Chinese military intelligence gave him $300,000 to help you and Bill get re-elected. But you persevered and in the end you were vindicated when the FBI found it was only $20,000 in non-legal contributions that he made.

You have proved yourself over and over to the American people. When Bill was duped by Monica Lewinsky, you knew he was only trying to help out what he thought was a young, bright intern by showing her how great national service could be. He couldn't know that she didn't possess the most important character trait needed for political life - that you must always protect national secrets. She didn't remember that old saying that loose lips sink ships.

As always, though, you came to the aid of your country. After all the guilt he had that he could have been so naïve when he was only trying to help someone get ahead, I'm sure it was you who contacted Reverend Wright and had him counsel Bill (I don't blame you for calling on him, because back then, he was known as a great religious person and a respected theologian and all those videos of him weren't around yet).

You were always very tuned into God, and you have always followed your faith, like the example you set when you joined The Fellowship back in 1993. You had the foresight to see that the message of faith could only be spread through power. You reached with other members like Rick Santorum to follow in the footsteps of past Fellowship members like Duvalier of Haiti, Park of South Korea, Martinez of Honduras, and Barre of Somalia. Some called them dictators but you in the Fellowship knew they were leaders of strength.

And when it was time for you and Bill to finally leave the White House you knew you were not done. There was so much more opportunity in this great nation, and the fight had to continue. You chose to run for the Senate and work with those you brought to power those many years ago. Together you sought out tyranny in Iraq and put our country on a path that will be remembered throughout history.

Now it's your turn to do for America as much as your great husband Bill did. The circle will be complete and the days of the past will again forever change the future. How fantastic it will be to have both you and Bill in control again. It's something that can hardly be imagined!

Continue your fight. Do whatever it takes. We all know that you are up to it, and as you always tell us - Count on Hillary!

Not only can she do it, but we know she most certainly will!

Posted by: JPFL | April 23, 2008 1:42 PM

Steny Hoyer is right. The idea is to elect a Democrat as President in November. That means that it is not the person who can get the most votes in one state or another but the Democrat who can get the most electoral votes. Al Gore showed us that winning the popular vote doesn't mean a hill of beans. We may not like that but it is the system we are working with.

Hillary Clinton can win the States we need to win the Presidency. She can add Ohio and maybe even Florida to the tally for Democrats. The question for those who support Obama is what can he add and even can he hold PA and MI.

Today the Governor of Oklahoma endorsed Obama. Is the term "crazy" too nice for him. Hillary Clinton won the Oklahoma primary by 24% but like Obama will lose big in Oklahoma to any Republican. So what does he think he is doing by not going with his voters and on top of it supporting someone who will lose even bigger in his state. Gov. Henry may find it hold his seat next election if this is a sample of his judgement.

I think it is time for super delagetes to do as Hoyer says. Think of the party not just go with your personal feelings. If you think Obama can win then at least hold off until June 3rd and see what the rest of the states do and make Obama prove it. Can he win Indiana or WV?

Hoyer is a smart guy and he has proved it over and over. Guys like the OK Governor won't be around as long with this kind of judgement.

Posted by: peter DC | April 23, 2008 1:47 PM

In all honesty only the voters in November will determine true electibility, until then it is just a point of speculation.

Posted by: pdm | April 23, 2008 1:50 PM

You want to talk about elect ability? The Republicans have already discarded at least 5 people that would make a better President, than the Dems Preachy Obama or Lying Hillary. I think PA's voters should be proud that they stood up and voted their hearts instead of caving to the masses, and media that have fallen under the Obama spell. You are not a racist or a hick because you did not pick the path the sheep are following.

Posted by: Jerry | April 23, 2008 1:52 PM

Last Week's Results Have Just Been Posted For The
2008 Presidential Election Weekly Poll
http://www.votenic.com
Vote to See Results.

Posted by: votenic | April 23, 2008 1:55 PM

I can only ask, like the New York Times, Like Eric Bloom, Producer Anderson Cooper 360, "Why can't Obama close the deal?" Outspending Clinton sometimes as much as 5-1, using a biased media to his full advantage, sending forth his fanatical followers to intimidate and co-erce, given all of those advantages, Why CAN'T HE close the deal? Something is terribly wrong with him and his campaign and it is starting to seep into the voting conciousness.
Should he be the nominee, the Republicans are going to masacre him.

Posted by: Wyoming Dem | April 23, 2008 2:01 PM

After all of his spending...and the media love affair with him...HE STILL CAN'T WIN the states that will matter in the general.

Why?? After all this time is he still not the nominee?

I hope she stays in and fights for it all the way to Denver.

GO HILLARY!

Posted by: | April 23, 2008 2:14 PM

Why does'nt the DNC or somebody just knock these two knuckle heads together and make it a CLINTON/OBAMA ticket.

Then in 8 years he will be president and he can shut up already.
My gosh we are glad to see him gone in PA. The constant ads make you wanna vomit.
Maybe it was a backlash...the Obama bandwagon is over. Let's hope.

Posted by: | April 23, 2008 2:17 PM

First, let me say I'd be happy to vote for either Hilary or Obama in the fall. But Hillary is so "electable", can someone explain to me why she is still stuck in a close race with a relatively unknown, inexperienced, minority, first-term Senator when she started the Primary race with more money and name recognition than all of the Democrats or Republican Primary candidates? I think everyone would have to admit that she's run a terrible primary campaign, which begs the question: how good a campaign would she run in the Fall?

Posted by: Democrats_in_2008 | April 23, 2008 2:18 PM

Those big states that Hillary is claiming are going Blue in November, no matter who the candidate is. One candidate will bring in new voters, attract the moderate Republicans, and won't unite the far right-wing nuts. One candidate is ahead in votes, states, money, delegates and organization. One Candidate got it right about Iraq, has out organized and out hustled the presumptive Queen of the Party. One candidate represents the future of the party and that candidate isn;t named Clinton!

Posted by: thebob.bob | April 23, 2008 2:21 PM

Hill wil take it to the convention, do a backroom deal with the liberal slime and drop BOB ( Barack o' Bama) in the grease and ask him to move to the back of the bus. Blacks will riot and burn down the Denver convention center and boycott the election. Hillary will loose all 50 states for the first time in history. Blacks will not trust Dems EVER again. opening for Republicans. Dems are displaying their chaotic disorganized messy leadership for all to see. Want to turn the country over to this fraternity?

Posted by: DEnny | April 23, 2008 2:21 PM

Those big states that Hillary is claiming are going Blue in November, no matter who the candidate is.

One candidate will bring in new voters, attract the moderate Republicans, and won't unite the far right-wing nuts. One candidate is ahead in votes, states, money, delegates and organization. One Candidate got it right about Iraq, has out organized and out hustled the Establishment Choice, the presumptive Queen of the Party. One candidate represents the future of the party and that candidate isn't named Clinton!

Posted by: thebob.bob | April 23, 2008 2:22 PM

If he is the "future" and such a "uniter"...why is half the party not voting for him.

I do not trust him and most of his supporters are just down right ugly towards her.

Posted by: Micha | April 23, 2008 2:29 PM

I am voting for Nader. I am not a democrat or a republican, and urge both to see beyond the party line and the emotional tugs. Us, Americans have sold themselves out in hopes of obtaining a life style that is unavailable and unnecessary. We do need change, we need to change ourselves and our ideas of life. We can not survive continuing to live and think the way we do. Get over yourself and get to work for change one person at a time.

Posted by: DWR | April 23, 2008 2:30 PM

All this Hillary v. Obama talk is nonsense. In November, the electorate may very well decide to go with neither. This is the same electorate that gave Bush 8 years. For them, the most important issues are hanging the 10 commandments in schools, hanging onto their guns, cowering in fear from unnamed terrorists, and electing a "tough" guy to save them from these largely imagined fears. Intellect & vision be damned. War, corruption, secrecy, torture, outrageous military spending, climate; hell, human survival - these issues pale in comparison with the nned to sleep with a gun under the pillow and a free pass to the promise land in hand. Never under-estimate the ability of the right to exploit the ever-growing American underclass.

Posted by: 11thCavVet | April 23, 2008 2:35 PM

Ms. Clinton has a personal unfavorable rating of 54 percent, according to a recent Washington Post/ABC polls, conducted between April 10-13. Fifty Four Percent. Not among the Republican, which is sure to be higher, but among all Americans. That is unelectable no matter who you are. And the same poll also showed that among Democrats, Obama leads Clinton, 62% to 31%, on the question of who has the better chance of getting elected president in November. That is electability in a nutshell.

Posted by: anthony | April 23, 2008 2:48 PM

And the polls are always right yea?

Posted by: Jason | April 23, 2008 3:24 PM

Many of these comments reflect doom and fear, not to mention the silly Fox News parrots. The world is not going to end if Hillary wants to stay the course. The country is broke, we lost another senseless war, the dollar is declining, SS is broke, taxes are high, no health care, terrorists are hiding everywhere, gas prices unbearable--come on folks--mickey mouse could win any state against McSenile. The primary was over for Hillary after Texas. Do the math. If we don't have a free and fair election of Obama this time, at least we'll all know the truth and reality of what our country has become. Let's get behind Obama and get to work he will need all the help he can get to clean up this mess. Get to work or get out of the way.

Posted by: hammerdown | April 23, 2008 3:47 PM

Americans, especially lawyers and liberals (including me on both counts), sometimes have an excessive focus on process to the point of ruining the country. While fair play is important, it is sometimes the case that the best result is more important than exhaustive and and exhausting (not to mention self-defeating) process. In this case, fair play, sensible process and the best result are all accomplished by shutting down the Clinton campaign as soon as possible. Those with money or influence or super delegate votes should act now to avoid disaster in the fall.

Posted by: Eulenspiegel | April 23, 2008 4:52 PM

I think everyone who is asking "Why can't he close the deal" has it all wrong. Why can't she close the deal????? This nomination was her's to lose and she is. I will admit the Democrats are torn but nontheless he is winning. And if you think about it, He shouldn't be, especially with all this "experience" she has. It looks like SHE can't seal the deal. He may not be winning by much but he's still winning. That is pretty good for a 2 term Senator.

Yes We Can!

Posted by: Monique | April 23, 2008 4:59 PM

If Obama is the nominee I will vote for McCain. I am tired of hearing about Obama bringing in the youth vote. They have no clue as to what state this country is in and I don't want someone with little experience leading us.The democratic party has the worst leadership I have ever seen. Why doesn't Dean and Polosi keep their mouths shut and wait for the people to cast their votes. This is America and not some third world country.

Posted by: hedy | April 23, 2008 7:47 PM

If Obama is the Nominee he will carry most of Hillary's voters ,as well as his.Most of Hillary's support are women.Women who will not risk McCain choosing 2 supreme court judges,whom he has promised are like Roberts.I'd personally like to see it overturned but a heavily one sided supreme court is dangerous in alot ways.Obama along with Most of Hillary's women supporters will easily beat McCain.

Posted by: Binea | April 23, 2008 10:19 PM

IT'S TIME AMERICA:

It's time for everyone to face the truth. Barack Obama has no real chance of winning the national election in November at this time. His crushing defeat in Pennsylvania makes that fact crystal clear. His best, and only real chance of winning in November is on a ticket with Hillary Clinton as her VP.

Hillary Clinton seemed almost somber at her victory speech. As if part of her was hoping Obama could have defeated her. And proved he had some chance of winning against the republican attack machine, and their unlimited money, and resources. In all honesty. I felt some of that too.

But it is absolutely essential that the democrats take back the Whitehouse in November. America, and the American people are in a very desperate condition now. And the whole World has been doing all that they can to help keep us propped up.

Hillary Clinton say's that the heat, and decisions in the Whitehouse are much tougher than the ones on the campaign trail. But I think Mr. Obama faces a test of whether he has what it takes to be a commander and chief by facing the difficult facts, and the truth before him. And by doing what is best for the American people by dropping out of the race, and offering his whole hearted assistance to Hillary Clinton to help her take back the Whitehouse for the American people, and the World.

Mr. Obama is a great speaker. And I am confident he can explain to the American people the need, and wisdom of such a personal sacrifice for them. It should be clear to everyone by now that Hillary Clinton is fighting her heart out for the American people. She has known for a long time that Mr. Obama can not win this November. You have to remember that the Clinton's have won the Whitehouse twice before. They know what it takes.

If Mr. Obama fails his test of commander and chief we can only hope that Hillary Clinton can continue her heroic fight for the American people. And that she prevails. She will need all the continual support and help we can give her. She may fight like a superhuman. But she is only human.

Sincerely

Jacksmith... Working Class :-)

Posted by: jacksmith | April 24, 2008 1:42 AM

People are losing site of the fact Hillary would be ahead if Micigan and Florida voters were counted. They will be in November and they will remember being disqualified.

Racism, yes it's alive and well and has been taught at Trinity church since 1979. Black Theology has been taught there since 1979. Black Theology teaches black people their problems are because of "white" people. Look it up, please. Also look up Nation of Islam, wikipedia.org/wiki/Nation_of_Islam, Black Muslim
and read the platform, this is in line with Black Theoeogy. Look at this link it shows Trinity has been teaching/preaching :http://chronicle.uchicago.edu/000316/hopkins.shtml , Why is everyone turning a blind eye to this?

Black Theology and Black Muslim have nothing to do with religon. Black Theology and Black Muslim is a MOVEMENT. Please read the links and decide for yourself. Black preachers of all dominations are teaching black liberation theology

Posted by: Us Voter | April 24, 2008 2:17 AM

Why call the race when the deadline is not up? Go Hillary!!! The more people learn about Obam and the fact that she would be ahead if Florida and Micigan counted will tell you why obam hasn't closed the deal and also why Hillary hasn't. She didn't get credit for those two states.

Obam belongs to a church that teaches Black Theology, look it up, look up trinity church and nation of islam while your at it.

Posted by: Us Voter | April 24, 2008 2:28 AM

Obamamania

Entries like that only hurt Obama's professed platform, which is that he is a unifier. Your words are like living proof that he isn't bringing you close to any one!

Posted by: thinktank | April 24, 2008 5:52 AM

draft Al Gore draft Al Gore draft Al Gore draft Al Gore draft Al Gore draft Al Gore draft Al Gore draft Al Gore draft Al Gore draft Al Gore draft Al Gore draft Al Gore draft Al Gore draft Al Gore draft Al Gore draft Al Gore draft Al Gore draft Al Gore draft Al Gore draft Al Gore draft Al Gore draft Al Gore draft Al Gore draft Al Gore draft Al Gore draft Al Gore draft Al Gore draft Al Gore draft Al Gore draft Al Gore draft Al Gore draft Al Gore draft Al Gore

Posted by: tfg | April 24, 2008 7:55 AM

The American people did not elect Steny Hoyer to his leadership position in Congress, and he doesn't think voters are as able as superdelegates to choose our President. The concept of superdelegates is inherently undemocratic. The voters did not elect anyone to an office called superdelegate. The people should decide elections, and we don't want superdelegates to over-ride our votes. If leaders of the Dem Party really valued democracy, then they would abolish superdelegates. Even the Republican Party got that right.

Posted by: Chuck | April 24, 2008 1:49 PM

Electability is indeed the issue. However, one can never underestimate the stupidity and ignorance of the American public. For one thing they actually pay attention to the polls, bloviating talking heads, columnists and pseudo pundits. Worse yet, they let all of these irrelevant bodies influence their. votes. When will these idiots in this country wake up to the fact tha they have very little influence as to who becomes president? The media controls that by the constant blather about Reverends, compatriots of candidates (present and past), negative ads, he-said, she said garbage, etc., etc.etc. And they love being the king makers and then the kingbreakers. Funny how they are suddenly gushing over HRC's 8 1/2 point win over Obama. Remember whe was 20-25 points ahead at one time. Finally, it doesn't matter which of the two Dems becomes the nominee. The press will NEVER let McCain get called on any of his associations, associates and his ignorance about the economy and foreign policy. He's their "darling" because of his accessiblity, his joking with them and becasue the LIKE him. Sounds like 2000 redux. Look what liking Bush better than Gore resulted in.It's deja vu all over again. And the moronic Americans will continue to vote against their own best interests as well as the countrys" interests.

Posted by: Natalie Kauffman | April 24, 2008 3:39 PM

I don't know why anyone is concerned about what the SDs decide because last Tuesday night, John McSame won the GE. After the Clinton machine wreaked it gutter, sleaze and trash tactics against Obama, how can anyone compete. But I do know one thing; Billary CANNOT WIN anything without Obama supporters (and we are many), so she can kiss this GE goodbye if she manages to STEAL the nomination. And if she thinks for one second that she will be able to run in 2012 [even though she will be A FATTER COW than she is currently], Obama supporters will NOT forget her republican campaign and we will NOT vote for her then either - NOT NOW, NOT EVER!! I have the same two words for her that she had for the middle class in 1995!!!

Posted by: ObamasLady | April 24, 2008 6:48 PM

As a liberal Democrat who was chair of the Hardin Iowa County Democrats, I know for a fact that Obama won Iowa because of cross-over Republicans and young students who generally do not vote. I also have listened to hours of sermons by the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, and find them dispicable. As a life-long Democrat, if Obama is the nominee, I will most assuredly vote against him in November.

Posted by: Dr Arthur Frederick Ide | April 24, 2008 6:51 PM

JPFL, you must have been living in a cave for the last several decades. ALL THE DRAMA/TRAMA of the Clintons and you think that would be GOOD for this country! After Bush/Cheney and company RAPING this country for their own greed, and you want to put the LYING, NONETHICAL, CROOKED, AND GREEDY Clintons in office, you need to do some research or someone is feeding you a line of BS. THEY WILL SCREW THIS COUNTRY AGAIN! NOT MY VOTE; NOT NOW, NOT EVER!!!!

Posted by: ObamasLady | April 24, 2008 6:53 PM

After seeing Obama give Hillary "the finger" on You Tube, I won't vote for him if he is the nominee. He has no class. He is arrogant, cocky, and immature. I'll be writing in Hillary's name in November because I believe she's the best person for the job. She has a lot of flaws, but I trust her on the economy, healthcare, and national security. Obama has nothing in his background that backs up his claim that he will provide "change".

Posted by: goldenstate | April 25, 2008 3:07 AM

Anyone who votes based on MSM talking points doesn't deserve their vote.

Posted by: | April 25, 2008 11:35 AM

Question: Why do some journalists keep claiming that Clinton won Pennsylvania by 10 points? That simply isn't true--even if you round the decimal to the nearest whole number.

Posted by: Durant Imboden | April 25, 2008 1:20 PM

What an idiot. If his argument for an ELECTION is to choose someone who wasn't elected, why even hold elections?

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

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 

© 2008 The Washington Post Company