OBAMA / RICHARDSON!!!

that is a winning ticket.

The Clintons definitely played the game they are good at. That is being dirty and mud slinging. it is amazing how and where they are able to pull the filth from. But they are the best at it. The Clintons deal with the Canadian government and Mexican government got them NAFTA. Now the Canadians want Hillary in office and not Obama. Hillary could have easily set up this whole thing to throw Obama off. They have people in the Canadian embassy. Those people could have just called Obama's office and said 'We want to talk to your expert on NAFTA, Ay. We will talk privately ay. It is unofficial ay'. Once the meeting is setup, they just ask one question about NAFTA and then create an internal memo as if Obama is faking is stance. Well Hillary knows how it is done, since she was the one who gave the Canadians her copy of the Karl Rowe playbook. By the way as a side note, 100% of the Karl Rowe playbooks that were printed were bought by the Clinton library. And the Clinton library is accessible only to the Clintons.

Hillary's win in Texas and Ohio can not be attributed to her ability or leadership skills. It is puurely dirty politics. If she was a soccer player, she would have been shown the red card long time ago, and will be off the playing field. But her game is more akin to the hockey. The referee watches two players punch each other to death, and when one of them is bloddied enough gets to go and sit out for a few minutes. Well her style of politics is the one that is played in most third world countries, where the politicians have no backbone, and they align themselves with whomever and whatever they can align with to stay in power. Now is that the type of leader we want for this country. During the primaries in Texas and Ohio, Hillary has shown her waved her right hand in front of the people while her left hand dipped into their pocket and stole their wallet. A con artist, a pickpocket. Texans and Ohioans gave their vote to Hillary thinking what she was saying was right. But her camp had approached the Canadians first to tell them that she is going to have some rhetoric that they should not worry about. Then comes out and puts the blame on Obama before he could figure that out. This is dirty politics by all means.

The question is do we want Hillary Clinton in the white house for the next 4 or 8 years fooling the American public and making deals with foreign governments for her own political survival. Well, if we think it is okay, then this country can be ruled easily by people like Saddam or the likes of Castro. We have to see dirty politics for what it is and nip it in the bud. That is possible during the primaries. If we make the wrong choice in the primaries, we are stuck with that choice for the next 4 years or even 8 years.

The 2nd fight...Overtime

Hillary will bounce back, just as McCain did. The Clinton campaign was completely
blindsided by Obama's success.

Now the real race will begin between these two camps, you might call it 'overtime'. I pray that they won't bloody each other up to much (and look like Steve Nash did) in last year's OT game!

THE REV (GREAT POST).
P.S. Those who say ...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YuB_W8o_UsU

dr. n

Thank you, I was not aware of this youtube presentation! The more things changes, the more they stay the same!

All those Obama voters who say they won't vote for Hillary should be ashamed of themselves. They're like those Nader supporters who put Bush in office and claimed there were no differences between Bush and Gore.

I support Hillary but will vote for the Democratic nominee, whoever it is, because the real differences between Obama and Clinton are so small.

If you're deluded about that, read this. http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/3/1/115458/5190

I will not vote for Hillary!! A hot debate about this news is taking place in the forum of Richromances.com where celebrities and wealthy singles connected''''''

Hillary is playing a losing game for no purpose other than to serve her overblown sense of martyred entitlement. Her only path to the nomination is through the superdelegates, who appear unpersuaded by her 100-delegate gap behind Obama. Her ruthless ambition is crystallized in her vow to seat the Florida and Michigan delegations. Thank God, Howard Dean finally laid down the law on Hillary's circus today, saying, "Changing the rules halfway through the game is incredibly unfair to both of those candidates and frankly would split the Democratic Party," he said, "so we're not going to do it."

End of story, Hillary. Get over it.

It's a hell of a call, if you care about the country, at all ...
The phone rings at the Obama household at 3 a.m. and it is Hillary on the line.

"Okay, so you won. Can I be your vice presidential running mate?

"You know the slash and burn, hack-type politics expected of the No. 2 person comes naturally to me."

Obama: "Hillary, I said you should believe in hope, not miracles.

"No thanks, no way."

CLEAN SLATE,

OBAMA/WEBB,

'08!!!

==HRC will be ready to hit the ground running on Day One.==

Should you not be embarrassed to repeat, word for word, commercially created political advertisements?

==P.S. Those who say they are voting for Obama because he is not "dirty" politics. GET REAL. He is. He is.==

Doctur, you sound positively happy to have "discovered" that all your patients have deep phychoses and shoplift, to boot.

Makes youself feel better about your own little "transgressions", don't it?

"There's a world of difference between Clinton's lack of action and Bush's actions.
Too bad you can't tell..."

You'd have to be deaf, dumb and blind not to see the difference in the level of action. In the aftermath of 9/11, that's to be expected.

But "level of action" isn't success. If 5 years later we've deployed hundreds of thousands of troops and spent a trillion dollars, you'd think we'd have accomplished something.

Instead, we're praying Iraq keeps heading in the right direction, and we're firing missiles at Al Qaeda in distant mountain hide-outs. Worse off than when we started, in other words.

Too bad you can't tell.

THE REV (GREAT POST).
P.S. Those who say they are voting for Obama because he is not "dirty" politics. GET REAL. He is. He is. Don't be deluded. He is what we call in my profession an APD.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YuB_W8o_UsU

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

Will Hillary kill hope as she enjoys her reinvigorated spoiler role?

Here she is, a tool of the lobbyists, claiming she is the "people's" choice.

Hillary even refuses to release her tax returns for the past two years, which would reveal the source of her sudden wealth.

If Hillary claims experience in foreign affairs, then let her share responsibility for her husband's immoral inaction on Rwanda, when hundreds of millions of black Africans were slaughtered while the Clinton White House refused to act.

(According to the British Guardian newspaper: "President Bill Clinton's administration knew Rwanda was being engulfed by genocide in April 1994 but buried the information to justify its inaction, according to classified documents made available for the first time. ...

"It took Hutu death squads three months from April 6 to murder an estimated 800,000 Tutsis and moderate Hutus and at each stage accurate, detailed reports were reaching Washington's top policymakers." [http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/mar/31/usa.rwanda])

For every comment the Clinton trained seals make about Hillary's favorite target--Rezko--it is important that people remember the reason Jimmy Carter's chief of staff, Hamilton Jordan, called the Clintons our "First Grifters."

Remember their ties to disgraced fugitive financier Norman Hsu?

Remember Bill's supping at the trough of the emir of Dubai?

Speaking of the Middle East, remember Hillary's silence when Yassir Arafat's wife libeled the state of Israel?

Of course, the media bends over trying to accommodate Hillary, today the MSNBC talking heads explained that they have to tread softly because it is hard to criticise a woman.

National security and the fate of the country are apparently tied to some moronic political correctness from a media that did not exactly cover itself with glory when America was about to go to war.

Of course, today's media establishment cares as much about access to the red carpet as anyone else.

The legendary journalist Edward Murrow would have liked Barack Obama, because he also believed, like Obama himself has said, that cynicism is a sorry kind of wisdom.

Fight back America!

Believe in yourself!

The bridge to the future, and the future...

Mr. Sullivan it was said, I believe on the Christ Matthews show this past Sunday that the Clintons were the bridge to the future, and that Obama is the future.

If you vote for either one of them, you will not have wasted your vote!

Whatever you do, please stay off of the retrograde bridge to the past. The current administration has shown what it is like when the nation takes a detour back to the neolithic age!

America needs capable and erudite leadership that can solve problems, not create new ones - we have a sufficient amount of problems already that the Republicans simply have not been able to solve!

Sigh...how about a discussion on if the surge is ACTUALLY working, and what working even means???

People thinking Iraq is "going well" is further proof of the idiocy and asininity of the nation which elected Bush twice.

//Yes, that limp-wristed Clinton, firing missiles at Al Qaeda in the mountains of Afghanistan. Not like our stout W, firing missiles at Al Qaeda in the mountains of Pakistan.\\

There's a world of difference between Clinton's lack of action and Bush's actions.
Too bad you can't tell...

America's "national security consensus" is a consensus of madmen.

It's a bunch of lunatics, collectively agreeing to remain insane.

Yes, that limp-wristed Clinton, firing missiles at Al Qaeda in the mountains of Afghanistan. Not like our stout W, firing missiles at Al Qaeda in the mountains of Pakistan.

With 1000x times the incentive, and 1,000,000x the expense, W is back where we started before 9/11 -- except now we have to rebuild a dysfunctional state that prefers religious civil war.

We are "pot committed" in Iraq, as they say in poker, but as a terror strategy, invading that country always was dangerous, dumb and delusional. Anyone who can't admit that doesn't have a brain.

I generally don't care for long blogs, but Patrick Sullivan's comments on this page were extremely well written.

Obama's campaign did excite me for the first time in years. Particularly after we elected George Bush the second time, I just thought I was outside the mainstream. "Hey, if that's what America wants, that's what it should get." It wasn't like anyone hid the ball. We voted him in, war(t)s and all.

Then Obama came along and captured the hopes and dreams of millions who had given up on dreaming we could do better. I don't think any of us see him as a hero or a god (as some have blogged), but someone who said it was okay to reach for the stars. To look at issues with an open mind and concerned heart.

I'm fully aware that when you reach high, there is a risk of falling down. But I certainly thank him for giving us that feeling that we can see things and believe they can be better. I respect Senator Clinton mightily, but a unique opportunity still exists. May the best candidate emerge victorious.

I generally don't care for long blogs, but Patrick Sullivan's response on this article was extremely well done.

The Obama candidacy also excited me for the first time in years. After GW Bush got elected the second time, I just figured I was outside the mainstream. Hey, if that's what America wants, that's what it should get. Nobody hid the ball there, and America voted him in again...war(t)s and all.

Maybe America doesn't want real change. In Ohio, I felt like people didn't want change, they wanted a job. And if they had a job, they wanted a more secure job.

In my opinion, Hillary would be a competent president. But there's a chance for so much more. Frankly, there's a risk in reaching even higher. Sometimes you fall down. But there's a unique opportunity in Obama that millions aren't going to give up on yet. And I certainly can't blame someone without a job, or who fears for their job, to vote for Ms. Clinton. The economy was good during Bill Clinton's presidentcy. But a lot of that was the Internet explosion. For once, I'd like us to ask for even more.

Remember the days of Bill Clinton's presidency? I sure do. Terrorist attacks upon the US with a limp-wrist response from good ol' Billy Boy.

I doesn't make an iota of difference who will be in the White House, what appeasing change in foreign policy they establish, or where we station our troops. I cannot remember a president who kept his campaign promises, with the exception of Reagan. He didn't keep all of his - either...

We all want to see a return of the good ol'days. How will people react when they realize that may well be over. To put it another way: would you like some cracked pepper on your dog-eat-dog world?

I think Hilary cheated Obama in Ohio and got away with it. Obama doesn't want to make the claim because he doesn't want to appear as slinging more mud in the democrat's mud bath.
IMHO, he might as well - at least he would be honest...

BTW John McCain...

has repeatedly praised Ms. Clinton in all of her compentecies, as well as for her hard-work ethic.

Hillary has reached across the aisle, and she has been very succesful working with the less demagogic Republicans, just as Dimity has pointed out.

She will be the conccensus-builder and uniter that her predcessor was supposed to have been. She also has the requisite ability and understanding to manage every aspect of the office of President, including the ability to manage a 'necessary war'!

Neither one of the other candidates even comes close!

Republicans,

...during the Clinton presidential years argued that Hillary knew better, was smarter and was telling President Clinton what to do. And now that she is a front-runner in the presidential race, they are trying to say that she doesn't know anything!

They can't have it both ways. Of the three, McCain, Obama or Clinton, she is what the world needs, not only today, but in the future. Getting the troops out of Iraq is only one thing, keeping them out of unnecessary wars in the future is more critical.

Clinton is the president of the future who will reform America's venal and reckless foreign policy. If Obama were to become the President tomorrow, he would have to turn to the Clintons for help and guidance.

And that is just one more reason why Hillary needs to be president. Senator McCain admits that his whole reason for wanting to be President is so that he can protect America.

Okay, he can have Donald Rumsfelds old job. What the American mysognists are afraid of is that a female President will be the start of a new trend in Washington DC. Women are the majority in this nation and it is time that they run this nation!

It is time for a course change, again, men have screwed this country up for over the past 232 years, and enough is enough!

Bill Clinton, Oct. 2004: "One of Clinton's laws of politics is, if one candidate is trying to scare you, and the other one is trying to make you think, if one candidate's appealing to your fears, and the other one's appealing to your hopes. You better vote for the person who wants you to think and hope."

"The consensus position of the national security establishment, and the position of the American military, is that drawdowns have to continue, but some sort of relatively large residual force will be necessary to preserve security and credibility."

that is biggest crock i have ever heard. what has the established wisdom done for amercian security recently? not much. the conventional wisdom was supporting dictators is a great idea. the cw is that supporting the taliban against the soviets was good. that supporting sadam against iran was good. does anybody think that supporting the shah worked out well for us in the long run. the idea that we need to sacrifice the lives of soldiers for "military honor" is absurd. you know how we are keeping the peace in iraq? segregation and bribes. spare me conventional wisdom because really thats just a farce.

To Steve who wrote "I would challenge any of HilLIARy's supporters to tell us what SHE really stands for. Not something she says she stands for but something HER record shows she stands for. By the way, did she really LIE about Obama sending people to Canada to let them know everything with NAFTA would be ok after the election?"

Hillary didn't have to say anything. The Obama camp hung THEMSELVES on that one. WHy don't you ask to see their memo on it? Afraid you'll find out you've been following a fake? Don't drink the Kool-Aid!

There is more action afoot to ruin the democratic party. The Canadian Prime Minister is under attack for trying to influence the democratic election by leaking information the eve of the March 4th vote. Too bad he neglected to mention the republican donations to his campaign that totalled over $1+ million to get him elected.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eLJJ88HTiX8&feature=user

FOOLS! That is what Obama supporters are. For all of you who think Rush asking Republicans to vote Hillary to keep her in actually worked. Republicans did vote in the Dem election. 9% in TX- but 53% of those votes went to Obama. So if anything the Republicans helped Obama not lose by as much as he would have. VOTE HILLARY!

FOOLS! That is what Obama supporters are. For all of you who think Rush asking Republicans to vote Hillary to keep her in actually worked. Republicans did vote in the Dem election. 9% in TX- but 53% of those votes went to Obama. So if anything the Republicans helped Obama not lose by as much as he would have. VOTE HILLARY!

Someone said they didn't know what Barack stood for.

Tell you what - I know what he does NOT stand for - Lies and dirty politics. That's good enough for me.

If Hillary Clinton's experience qualifies her to be President, what does Monica Lewinski's experience qualify her for, the Secretary of State? This last week has recalled for me why I felt relief at the end of the Clinton presidency. The Clintons are political animals, this country and indeed the world cries out for leaders who can steady the ship and speak to a troubled world in a calm voice. But it seems that many believe that a shrill and strident Hillary Clinton is the right person to succeed the shrill and strident George Bush. You may remember that before there was Rove, there was Carville (the "I will not piss down his throat if his heart was afire" Carville).

We are rightfully proud of our values but we keep offering political space to the worst this country has to offer. Talk of doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.

If Clinton is nominated, this left-leaning independent will sit out the election or vote for McCain.

I would challenge any of HilLIARy's supporters to tell us what SHE really stands for. Not something she says she stands for but something HER record shows she stands for. By the way, did she really LIE about Obama sending people to Canada to let them know everything with NAFTA would be ok after the election?

And by the way..the economy was great when bill CLinton WASI N THE WHITEHOUSE.
OBAMA has alligned himself with some negative radical people and people are questioning that. Many Hillary voters will NOT vote for OBAMA if he is on the ticket. The votes will go to McCain.
It makes me sick to think that someone who calls a minister like an "uncle" ...is affiliated with this man who gave Faracon an award and commended his greatness. the man who called white people the "skunks of the earth" and Jews THE DIRTIEST RELIGION. His wife (OBAMA'S) WAS SHOWN ON YOU TUBE SAYING "I AM HEAR TO INTRODUCE MY HUSBAND..but first let me say "if hillary can't control her family she can't control the white house.." what a discusting cheap shot..she is no lady...and she won't be a FIRST LADY EITHER. I am very unimpressed iwth Obama's wife....

Hillary won because more people think she would make a better presidential candidate. I have never seen OBAMA answer a question once ...he talks in circles.
Hillary won because she is the best PERSON for the job.
Hillary won because the media and OBAMA'S PEOPLE grossly miscalculated how people feel in the US about her...and OBAMA.
BOY they must be eating crow...GO HILLARY!!!! She is an inspiration to all women and American's..eat your hearts out. no more excuses.

Damn, "Rush was Right." (This time.)

GObama - OEIGHT

I keep hearing people talk about what wonderful candidates the Dems have this election. One lady even said "I would be proud to vote for either...." Well, I wouldn't!

I am hopeful the Democratic party's "powers that be" will end this thing very, very soon. Or Barack quickly and forcefully gets enough delegates to call it a day. Dems are taking sides now and the longer it goes on the larger the danger of a divided Democratic base looms. Again, we shoot ourselves in the foot and everyone just sits back and says....."it's good for the party to continue this battle.....no way.

At this point, I will not vote for Hillary for she is more of the same, and her "dirty tricks" done, in the waning days of yesterday's primaries, did it for me. It makes me feel physically ill to imagine Bill and Hillary back in the Whitehouse again....and I think I am NOT ALONE in feeling this way.

Peg W.

==-Out of that came the children's health insurance that many benefit from today. Tell all those children to their face that are being helped today or would be dead otherwise that she was a failure.==

But she didn't set out to produce a children's health care legislation - she headed up a taskforce on national health care legislation. Her hard-partisan approach, secrecy and inability to work with others resulted in a crushing defeat of the whole concept for decades to come. Afterwards, others, who could work together, picked up the wreakage and passed children's insurance - largely inspite of H. Clinton's destructive and divisive history.

==Barack could not vote at that time; so who knows if he was presented with that same information that was off limits to him because he was a mere state senator what he would have done. Plus, the vote was for the use of force in the lack of compliance with U.N. inspections not to go to war in Iraq. ==

What is the meaning of "IS", right? Everybody and their brother knew that vote was a vote for WAR. She, along with many other self-serving politicians voted "YES", because she did not want to be accused of not being "TOUGH". The result was a worst national strategic blunder since Vietnam.

The Republicans now have their biggest spokeswoman.

Hillary linked arms with McCain on experience.

How smart can you be when you open a can of worms and find you are one of them?

But her record on hard partisan positions has been dismal failure - consider the health care debaucle.

-Out of that came the children's health insurance that many benefit from today. Tell all those children to their face that are being helped today or would be dead otherwise that she was a failure.

Where she did get "things done" was in compromises or alignment with Republicans

-Which is what Barack is saying he will do with Bipartisan support so they are really no different in that aspect. Barack could not vote at that time; so who knows if he was presented with that same information that was off limits to him because he was a mere state senator what he would have done. Plus, the vote was for the use of force in the lack of compliance with U.N. inspections not to go to war in Iraq.

I would challenge any of Obama's supporters to tell us what he really stands for. Not something he says he stands for but something his record shows he stands for. By the way, did he really send people to Canada to let them know everything with NAFTA would be ok after the election?
Assuming this is not a rhetorical question the answer can be found here: http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=7A599C51-3048-5C12-00D200E95BA86DED

LOL, so much for Change you can believe in.

==This is where Hillary's experience has taught her that the reality of trying to get things accomplished in Washington requires a fight so that you wind up somewhere in the middle.==

But her record on hard partisan positions has been dismal failure - consider the health care debaucle.

Where she did get "things done" was in compromises or alignment with Republicans - such as her vote for Iraq war and her vote to make military actions against Iran easier.

==They just want to beat him badly in the general election.==

Riiiight! That's why all the polls show him beating McCain.

==Except the African Americans, Obama is not supported by anyone in the spectrum.==

Riiiight! That's why he has consistently lead H. Clinton in both popular vote and delegate count (and stil does). It because nobody is supporting him.

You folks who think that Barack Obama can make a republican think that we should NOT drill for oil in Alaska, leave the choice of abortions in women's hands, and remove tax cuts for the wealthy to be extended to the middle and lower classes are full of you know what. These things will still be hotly contested in Washington the day he would presumably step in. Bipartisan support my a**. If they all felt the same way about everything we'd have just one party anyway, DUH! If you think the insurance and pharmaceutical industries won't put up a fight when he tries to pass his healthcare plan you are living in the dark. His plan is starting out in the middle where Hillary's will actually end up. His plan will end up going nowhere because he is starting out in the middle. By the time the insurance and healthcare industries nibble it to death that is. That's why we need a fighter who knows how to wager with these people who have opposite interests in mind. This is where Hillary's experience has taught her that the reality of trying to get things accomplished in Washington requires a fight so that you wind up somewhere in the middle. Not starting out in the middle so that you wind up nowhere! This is why it's also important for people to remember to vote for Democrats in Congress not just the President so that there will be less of a fight and more things get accomplished with the interest of the ordinary, everyday man at heart instead of big business and the wealthy elite.

Go Hillary 2008!

I am glad to see some even reporting from the press not finding fault in Senator Cllinton's every speech.
I also appreciate the publishing comments from both Senator Clinton and Senator Obama supporters in an even matter.
It is up to the candidates not only to demonstrate their policies but to point out weaknesses in their opponent. We will more likely have the right democratic candiate at the end as long as the elected delegates make the choice as opposed to appointed Super Delegates from the National Pary.

Hillary Clinton keeps on emphasizing her experience and recently started claiming that she has the solutions to America's problems. Solutions to what exactly? The economy? What experience does she speak of? She has the answers to the subprime morgage mess? All in all, the experience she is alluding to is that her husband, not her own. The only reason, she is a Senator is because of Bill Clinton's popularity and influence.
Can Michael Jordan's [ex] wife claim that she is an expert at the game of basketball due to her association with MJ? If that is the case, then anyone who has closely follow his playing career can make the same claim and go after top coaching gigs in the NBA. The truth of the matter is the job of the president is not to DO, but to inspire, to movitate and manage; to get things done, in a nutshell, to provide much needed leadership. Anyone can become president. However, to be an effective leader, one needs to be able to reach across party lines and get representatives behind your vision. In that aspect, Obama and McCain can deliver; Hillary cannot. She is and had been a polarizing figure and will not get much done. She's beholden to special interest groups and will keep the status quo.
Funny thing is that I use to support her (well I was a fan of Bill, say what you want I'd rather have a "relaxed" prez who is trying to get his groove on than a cranky one looking for wars and senselessly risking the lives of our poor soldiers, while enriching the pockets of his friends at the expenses of the taxpayers).

I would challenge any of Obama's supporters to tell us what he really stands for. Not something he says he stands for but something his record shows he stands for. By the way, did he really send people to Canada to let them know everything with NAFTA would be ok after the election?

But you forgot that the Republicans are not voting for Obama, because they like him. They just want to beat him badly in the general election. Except the African Americans, Obama is not supported by anyone in the spectrum.

==If not, Mrs. Clinton is our best choice.==

She is definitely the best choice for President McCain.

You forget how polarizing she will be in a general election. Many Democrats don't like the Clintons, but ALL republicans hate them.

On the other hand, many Republicans have voted for Obama in the primaries and he consistently outperforms H. Clinton in national polls against McCain.

I was deeply dissapointed in Hillary for resulting to scare tatics. It makes me not want to vote for her if by some remote chance that she gets the nomination.

We'd better all get used to President McCain

So far, Hillary's successes came because of using racism, sexism and fear on the Democratic electorate in working class demographics.

She is scaring Hispanics with Obama's race.

She is appealing to gender-identity politics and victimization with female voters.

She is using Rovian fear-mongering to scare voters away from Obama, based on her dubious national security credentials.

Her tactics may secure her the nomination through a back room deal at the convention, but it will severely decrease Democratic turnout at the general election. To people who do not vote based on fear, racism or gender, her behaviour would forever taint her as a potential presidential candidate. Surely there isn't too many of us around, say 20%, but that is generally enough to decide the outcome of a Presidential election.

In a nutshell, by winning the nomination the only way she now can, she will loose about 20% of the votes in the general election. Independents will swing Republican or sit out the election. Young Obama supporters will be no show.

Hello, President McCain!

I am a life-long democrat, never voted for any Republicans. I am ashamed to see the tactics of Obama and his surrogates. To me Mr Obama is a person driven by ego, but no substance. An Empty, hollow suit. Take the facts. Mr. Obama won the caucuses. Big deal! If you have few activists, you can easily won the caucuses. Working people don't have time to spend that many hours for caucuses. They need to take care their own family. Mrs. Clinton won most of the primaries. She won most of the blue states. It shows only one thing. The real democrats, supports her. NOT the anti-Clinton group, that now supports Mr. Obama. These people will support Obama now, but will leave him in the street during the general election. According to the polls, people who make more than $100,000, support Obama. How many of them are really democrats? Very few. These are all Republicans, trying to play the game. Mr. Obama is not ready to become the president. He need to learn humilty, and learn to work with people. As some one else mentioned before, the only reason he became Senator, because his opponent was Alan Keyes. The day he became tthe senator, he started running for President. The states he won, for example, Kansas and South Carolina, will he win in general election? No way. If he is candidate, not only, the democrats will lose Whitehouse, but will lose Senate and congress, because the true democrats will stay home.
It is time for the democratic leadership to take a deep look and understand the democrats, other than driven by some ego.
It may be best to recruit Al Gore as the President and John Edwards as the VP. If not, Mrs. Clinton is our best choice.

This is simple:
The most important thing is for the Republicans in DC to be removed from power. Every day they run this country further into the ground on behalf of the greedy rich & powerful.
Last I heard Hillary's 'negative' rating was around 40%. That would leave McCain needing just over 1/6 of the remaining voters to win, while Hillary would need over 5/6 of the remaining voters.
This is simple arithmetic - a Hillary candicacy means a Republican president and a continuation of the Bush disaster.

Thank you for your article.

I fully concur, Hillary Clinton is the best person for the job at the current situation.

Also, I have yet to see any data that shows Obama has a better chance than Hillary against McCain. There is no such statistical trend. I believe that democrats are much better off to vote for the quality.

Hillary 08!

Clinton needs to give up. She is not a fighter. She is a self-interested, self-serving politician. If she really cared about the Democratic party, she would drop out now instead of prolonging the primary which she has no mathematical chance of winning. The only way she could possibly win is if the superdelegates give her the nomination at the convention. Or if she keeps whining about FL and MI. This is something that Obama supporters will NOT stand for. And by the way, it does not matter whether she won a couple of big states in a primary because the Democrats in those states will vote for the Democratic candidate, there arent going to switch parties just because she is not going to be the nominee.

This guy has no clue about leadership.

If he is not lying to the public about his poistion on NAFT, why doesn't he fire his strategic manager or polititical advisor who went into Canadian consulate in Chicago and told what BO 's poistion on NAFTA is???

Probably BO is a creation of some gangs behind the scene (democratic party) to excite all young people, though they knew this guy is not yet ready to lead this great country. He is a good empty bag in a suite.

Hillary Clinton didn't win votes on a "surge," but on voters understanding that the Clintons as a team can help get the US out of this economic mess. Both Ohio and Texas voters understand what you have failed to understand, Mr. Arkin, i.e. the economy will always guide people's votes. As we go into recesssion, the more Hillary will gravitate to someone who can make a difference not empty promises like Barack Hussein Obama.

Clinton was expected to win TX and OHIO. The fact is Obama closed the gap in TX and won the delegates he needs to win. Ohio is a take all state so no point in campaigning hard there. The Clinton campaign did a brilliant 4 day media PERCEPTION blitz starting with Bill Clinton saying if she wins TX and OH she will be the nominee. Mathematically, that isnt possible, but the media jumped on it. Then, Jack Nickelson put a high profile ad for her on youtube. She also put in appearances on SNL and Jon Stewart. Then they created the Canada/Nafta "scandal" which the Canadian govt has scoffed at and denied ever even happened. Then they created the Rezko scandal, which is unrelated to Obama, and they squashed the lawsuit against Hilary in LA for hiding campaign contributions. And that stupid 3 am ad as well. And, she showed up at polling places on election day while Obama was at a rained out Rodeo?! Obama's campaign never saw it coming. And if Clinton has any advantage, it is the experience of using the media to manipulate public perception. The truth: Obama closed the gap in Texas, as he was trying to do, he let Ohio go because it's a delegate take all state and there was no way he could beat Clinton there, and he won Vermont, also as expected. Clinton won RI, as expected. Nothing has changed, except the media's bias. Obama needs to start using the media, instead of running from it. They are beginning to resent his not being available and not giving them juicy phrases like the Clinton dynasty feeds them. Wake up Obama campaign. If the Clinton campaign has an advantage, it is the "experience" of working the media to their advantage.

The war only goes as well as the political situation goes. If Moqtada al Sadr waits until October to end his agreement to keep his forces in line, and the bloodshed starts recurring, I think you'd find that the electorate will have a very different take on how well the war is going.

And this is Obama's point - the political process is what needs to hold. You cannot have conditions where humanitarian aid can step in to help the millions of refugees unless the factions agree to stop shooting at each other and anyone who is not Iraqi. They don't even SEE themselves as Iraqis, as one nation. They see themselves as Baath, Mahdi Army, Sunni, Shia, etc.

The only question is how do we make the political process hold. And whose approach do you agree with? Staying there is not economically feasible, no matter how you slice it, especially in light of the crises with the sub-prime mortgages and the weakening dollar, which is under attack from Iran, Venezuela, and others. 100 years is not the answer.

If Barack wants the nomination lets see if he can win a blue state in an actual primary election, not a caucus. So far he's not doing well in states with demographics similar to the nation. Secondly, lets put it right out there today, Obama people, listen up! You can not win the election without the Hillary supporters, I suspect the reverse is also true.
The positions of the candidates on actual issues are virtually the same. The Obama difference is his hope and "bipartisan" promise. The HRC supporters all want to know what his plan B is.

So far there has been nothing that would be considered negative in this election campaign when compared to previous elections. The general election will should much more negative and, dare we say lying, attacks on the cangidates. Someone will say Obama is a muslim and the mainstream media will give it equal coverage with his denial. There will be stories of "is there anything to this". Racial and religious swift boating. How will Obama deal with this? More importantly, how will his supporters?

Hillary Clinton won because people are really paying attention to what Barack Obama can really bring to the table and what experience does he have to prove things will get done in the white house. I do respect him and admire him. He really inspires people. However, at this point in time our country needs someone who has more knowledge, experience, and has been exposed to events that will make that person more capable to get things done. That person is Hillary R. Clinton. Respect and positive recognition of this nation around the world will come once again when we prove to the world what have a leader who will make the right decisions, our economy improves, and our nation prospers.

Food for thought for my fellow democrats.....

Obama = Inspirational & Idealistic
McCain = War Hero & Status Quo
Clinton = Politica as usual but Fighter

If Obama can't finish Hillary after 12 lop-sided wins his candidacy and capaign have a problem. Check this out.

1. When a candidate says that phone-ad is fear mongering but cannot substantiate with his/her own forcefull & positive response, they will be seen as weak. For the Obama fans to call the AD negative is fear mongering imho. The republican (right wing) machine would surely ask 100 times more much tougher questions since they have a war hero (Obama's valuation of Mccain) as their candidate. If Obama fails this forget the election in NOV.

2. Obama is inspirational but far from being a change candidate. His senate record or whatever experience doesn't prove that he actually went across the isle to get positive agenda implemented. Clinton even for arguments sake say did not do much either but she fought for democratic principles. In a idealistic world, Obama might work but in the dirty world of politics you need to play dirty and fight to fulfill your agenda.

3. Obama wins red states and has more cross-over appeal. Gimme a break. Except for Missouri (Clinton won every county in that state except for St.Louis) which red-state is in play for the democrats practically speaking. With McCain there is a risk that New Jersey and Calif might be in play for Republicans if Obama is the candidate (even with the bumper African-American vote). The reason is simple, he can lure the independents and low-income white along with traditional republicans. Clinton won the big blue states handily and more importantly won Ohio, Florida(arguable) & New Mexico (probable) the true bellweather states. Let me not even get into the caucus and non-caucus states discussion. Out of Obama's 22+ wins, 13 are caucuses and general election will not be a caucus. Activists and youth vote are the bane for a caucus and the same count very little for the outcome in November.

4. Likability factor: The republican and Independent support that Obama is drawing now will evaporate if Hillary is the nominee because she is polarizing is a stupid argument because, it has already evaporated with Mccain being a maverick. Obama is no sure-shot with that support when pitted against towering Mccain. I think the sisterhood & fighter in Hillary is a better bet to handle Mccain. What more new dirst can they fling at Hillary or Bill. But with Obama, they could define him as in-experienced or speeched-only guy. If Hillary can stick it with obama on that front, think about Republican machine.

I think a Clinton/Obama(as VP) ticket would not only provide a favourable argument of National Security & Experience but also inspire African-American and youth vote. Its a forgone conclusion that Obama cannot have clinton as VP since the premise of his candidacy is anti-washington-insider (though he is one imo)

Just my 2 cents
Don

Thank you, Patrick Sullivan.

This is pretty shrewd political analysis from a national security expert.

Most of the people who do campaign analysis for a living have missed this aspect of the race on the Democratic side, though they have noticed that the reduction in violence in Iraq has helped the "surge's" greatest champion, McCain. Of course, since McCain brings this up in every speech, it would be hard to miss the impact of Iraq on his candidacy.

What McCain has argued is that as American casualties in Iraq go down, public opposition to the American presence there will go down as well; if no Americans get killed there in the next hundred years, the American public would be fine with having troops there for the next hundred years. Though this is an exaggeration for effect, McCain is basically right. He's gained politically by the American public's decreased focus on the war. But Clinton has too, because she's had to appeal to Democrats whose biggest gripe against her was her vote -- politically expedient at the time, which was why she cast it -- in favor of authorizing force in Iraq.

Less attention to Iraq means less attention to that vote. Since Democratic primary voters are inclined to vote on domestic policy issues anyway, this strengthens Clinton's candidacy in what had been its greatest weakness against Obama. He can still use Iraq against her, but it doesn't pack the same wallop as an issue that it did a few months ago.

I don't want Hillary anywhere near the white house, in any way, shape or form.

She is bad news.

Obama needs someone more uplifting for a running mate.

Hillary has put in thirty years of working and speaking on behalf of the civic values I hold dear. She knows and has worked with hundreds, probably thousands, of people with expertise across a wide spectrum. I KNOW the quality of person she will appoint to work with her. Despite my admiration for Barack, at this point I can only hope--I don't know--that he would appoint such people.

Hillary has worked on issues such as health care and child poverty. Her professional and political resumes are fleshed out; they are studded with verifiable accomplishments. In political terms, Barack is still a neophyte. He has been a US Senator for four years, and I know of no legislation he has sponsored, or issue with which his name is associated as an agent of change.

This election is a watershed moment, and not just because Hillary and Barack are so unique in our political history. There is too much to undo, to repair, too much to accomplish in the next few years. With these stakes, I can't in conscience experiment and put my dearly-loved country in the hands of someone who, though I believe he shares my values and would do his utter best, is untried and untested on this large a stage.

I want Barack to be President someday. But I want Hillary to be President next year.

It is a good thing that Hillary stay in this race. The voice of America will be heard. The Obama camp, nor the Media will
be sending her away, or shutting her up!

Hillary remains the assertive woman, and we admire that the most.

As a liberal Democrat I can't stand politicians who will say or do anything to get elected: that's Clinton, starting with her carpet-bagger campaign in New York state.

Attacking a candidate for eloquence is America at it's worst. What a disappointment. For the first time ever I'll say this: I'd rather vote for Nader than Hilary.

http://facts.hillaryhub.com/

Patrick,

Your comments really touched me. Thank you so much for writing such an eloquent reason why Hilary Clinton's "victory" was indeed pyrrhic for the Democratic party and for the American people. It speaks to the triumph of fear and negativity. I am really disappointed in her tactics as well...And how will she realistically "heal" the party after all of her damage? I shudder to think.

I too will keep campaigning for Barack Obama.

Reality Check. Barack has the delegate votes. Hilary doesn't. The attacks and distortions will continue.

Gee, you whiners sure are long winded. American voters are questioning Obama now. Should have been done long ago. If you take away everything Clinton said you still have a guy who has done nothing, nada, zip. Kumbaya is over.

Pure BLACK propaganda:

"...the situation on the ground has improved..."

What a truly ignorant thing to say.

Our troops are hunkered down in the secure bases (not so secure really) watching rented Blockbuster videos and munching BK burgers or CiniBonn sticks while the B-2 airstrikes soften up intransigent urban areas and civilian population. (soften... like to to pink bloody mush soften) and the casualty rate for Iraqi security forces is up 30% in the last month.

Headline: Clinton Wins, We Lose.

I had not paid much attention to the 2008 Democratic Primary, or any other primary for that matter, before January 3rd. After all, it seemed like it should have been called the 2007-2008 Primary. Then Barack Obama scores an impressive victory and the heir apparent, Hillary Clinton, places third in Iowa.

This peaked my interest and I wanted to find out more about who Barack Obama was. I watched the political talk shows and listened to his speeches and I became even more interested in the Senator from Illinois. After all, the only thing I knew about him was that he made a keynote speech at the last Democratic convention. A lot of what he said at his rallies really made a lot of sense to me and I started thinking that maybe this guy was someone different than the usual politician.

I went out and bought his book The Audacity of Hope, which tells Senator Obama's thoughts on how we can get past our divisions and politics as usual to accomplish what needs to get done to continue to make this country great. I do vote, but prefer not to be registered either Republican or Democrat. I lean towards the Right, having never voted for Bill Clinton and voting twice for George W. Bush.

But after reading Barack Obama's book, I was drawn more to the Left and actually found myself, along with millions of other Americans, truly excited about Obama's candidacy and the outlook of our future through his leadership of bringing America back to a tighter knit community. I became so enthusiastic about the Senator's call for involvement of the American people that I have considered running for a local political office or school board position. He has inspired people to become involved and take action to improve not only our own lives, but that of others. He has created hope for millions that we don't have to put up the same old government and we do not have to stay stuck in the status quo. The critics still claim they are just words.

I am sure that Hillary Clinton is a very nice person and I am sure in her heart she wants to do all that she says she will do. Maybe she will. Being the father of four young daughters, I think Hillary becoming the first female President would only open more doors of opportunity for them and other girls in their generation. But, in the last week I have come to realize why perhaps she shouldn't be our next President.

It is not because of any of her votes in the U.S. Senate. It is not because her unkept promise of 200,000 new jobs in New York State she made during her 2000 Senate campaign. It is not because of the reason she gave Tim Russert of why we have lost 30,000 jobs in New York State since she took office. It is not because of Whitewater and any other dealings she has been scrutinized for in the past. Its not even the fact on national television she lead us to believe she "might release her tax information before today's primaries" and we have yet to see them. None of these are reasons why she shouldn't become the 44th President.

The reason why she should not become our next Commander in Chief is that when she was losing, when her back was up against the wall she did exactly what has become a norm in our society today. She blamed the other guy. She ran negative. After losing eleven consecutive contests in a row and people becoming disinterested in what she had to say about her own qualifications for the job, her campaign became a campaign of fear. Fear of the unknown, fear of Barack Hussein Obama.

I just knew this is how the Clintons would react if they were still behind in the primary when they arrived at their fire wall states, but I did not believe people would actually buy into their fear tactics. I thought this was the year we would finally get beyond that. Unfortunately, I knew I might be wrong when I had lunch with my good friend on this very day.

I mentioned today's primaries and he said he didn't like politics, but he did say that Barack Obama scares him. I asked him why and he said he didn't know, but he just scares him. This is the problem we have today. We are willing to watch hours of an American Idol season seven before we cast our vote for the next idol yet we will cast a vote for the a Presidential candidate who will lead us through the next four, possibly tumultuous years on the basis of a thirty second commercial or sound bite we saw on the evening news.

A campaign of winning at any cost is not the lesson I will be teaching my daughters. I hope for more for my children. Perhaps I have a soft spot for Frank Capra's Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, but I still have hope that this is the year that Jefferson Smith can withstand Senator Joseph Paine's false accusations and someone can stand up to the Clinton, I mean Taylor political machine.

Despite what the pundits might say, I believe that most of us believe that one person truly can make a difference despite tremendous odds. We have seen that repeatedly throughout our great history. I not only hope, but believe with millions of other people, that Senator Barack Obama is the person to make that difference this year for this generation.

Now that Hillary Clinton has won three out of four states tonight, I can hear that Clinton machine revving up to steam roll its way to her the nomination no matter what. Maybe that is best for everyone. That way we can go back to the voting booth and "politics as usual" and perhaps one day one of my daughters can become the first woman President of the United States.

Patrick Joseph Sullivan
Upstate New York

Hillary's "victory" is an unfortunate setback for the Democratic agenda. It is great that her supporters can revel in a feminist comeback - triumphing against perceived prejudices that Clinton herself stirred up only in the past few days. It is not so great that a national movement that aims to elect a new Democratic majority has been bludgeoned by personal attacks and innuendo.

It will be up to Obama to rally the people and demonstrate leadership in a difficult hour without responding in Clintonian smear tactics.

Hillary didn't win because people thought her policy positions were better. I've heard her say that she has "very specific plans", but I've yet to hear some real specifics on anything accept healthcare. Another thing, she won this by taking the focus off of her, she won by attacking Obama, not by her own merits. One more thing, in my opinion, Barack can claim victory last night... everyone seems to forget that up until 2 weeks ago, he was down 20 in Ohio and at least 10 in Texas. He gained ground in Ohio, and he only lost by 3% in Texas where the electorate had the largest latino and woman percentage thus far... that's something. It my humble opinion that we raised the bar again on Mrs.Clinton. When her leads are dwindled in her most promising "firewall" states, and we phrase the outcome as if Barack Obama is losing his constituencies... that's ridiculous. As controversial as this may sound, we have set a much higher bar for Sen.Obama and I am proud to be supporting a candidate who does not engage in fear-mongering and runs on his own strengths and ideas rather than condemning those opposed to him. If Hillary gets the nod, I will vote for McCain. People say that's crazy, you'll vote for her... well, I'm going to vote for somebody who can actually get something done in Washington. Hillary has experience... at polarizing opposing forces so much that she could never gain a new majority which is required to bring about any kind of change. John McCain is at least an fair minded Republican, and that's what we want. We're tired of the divisiveness and negative politics that help campaigns and ruin administrations!!! If Hillary decided to change her tone and give me a good reason to vote for her as opposed to blanketting the media with theories as to why I shouldn't vote for Obama, then I could be swayed, but the way she has run her campaign the last few weeks is disgusting and if it continues, she'll ruin the Democratic party.