I just caught a glimpse at what Sen. McCain was saying about his upcoming electioneering, saying among other things that he wanted the voters to know where he came from, beginning with his grand father and father etc. If that is not a hint what the Republicans will do to Obama and his wife, I don't know what is.So far, Mr. Obama has managed to skirt all questions about his real background, and when he speaks about it, it is usually faulse. Wait till McCain and his party take hold of the real biography of Sen. Obama, especially his father who kept on drinking and driving and killing people until at the age of 43 in a drunken stupor was involved into yet another accident and was himself killed as well. Wait until they raise the question of whether it is constitutional for a US President to be the son of a non American with a student visa status. You think that they will not question all these things? That is why Obama is the darling of the media just like McCain. They know that Obama will not have a chance in the debates.

Clinton and Obama should be pressured to agree now that they will form a ticket, even without resolving who is at the top. This way, they are running mates, and the personal attacks will simmer down. It will remind all Democrats that they will be playing together all the way to November, so they should play nicely. This would also legitimize their forming a joint plan of attack on McCain, something that would otherwise look conspiratorial and weird prior to the emergence of a Democratic nominee.

Why is Hillary Clinton still in the race?
She is NOT PAYING VENDORS FROM OHIO.
Yet she's paying for ads in Pennsylvania.
This is absolutely unacceptable. This is a person who says she is working for the middle class yet she stiffs those"MIDDLE CLASS"vendors in Ohio. She has lost my vote. IT"S ABOUT TRUST!!! HOW CAN SHE BE TRUSTED With the U.S. purse stings when SHE DOES NOT PAY HER CAMPAIGN BILLS.These vendors need and deserve their money Hillary. It proves to me SHE IS ONLY INTERESTED IN HERSELF!!! NOT MIDDLE CLASS FOLKS!!!

Candidate Charles R Newman, President 2009-2013

Charles R Newman, a write-in candidate for the Republican Nomination for President knows everyone wants more from his or her Presidential Candidate than what is being offered. Mr. Newman is sure the other candidates will be surprised when they wake up and find..."They lost to a write-in candidate". A write in candidate might be facing an uphill battle, but when the candidate has truth, respect and foresight in his corner. He is wining already.

Mr. Newman wants and needs to hear from you. He does not only tolerate decent, but encourages it. He does not want a yes man always following him around. He wants someone or others that will test what he is saying and push him into thinking to make the best decision.

You can contact him at crnewman@charlesrnewmanuspresident.com and he will personally answer your question, and post it on his site at http://CharlesRNewmanUSPresident.COM if it is an original thought never discussed on the site.

Charles R. Newman is a 37 years old, a resident born in Fort Wayne, Indiana and has lived in the State of Indiana ever since. So he is more than qualified to be President as defined by the US Constitution. The reason why I am running is simple. The United States needs to return to what they can be, not go along day to day. They need a real choice, not a member of the political elite. The President should be an intellectual who can understand the power is derived from the people, by the people and for the people, and that choice is the future President Charles R. Newman.

Charles R. Newman has been a life long Republican, but more important, a life long American Citizen with the idea as the original Patriots had. No Political Parties. His Great Grandfather, Charles R Newman was a life long FDR Democrat, who voted one time in his life for a Republican, and that was for his Great Grandson for Republican Delegate to the State Convention in 1990. Mr. Newman will remain positive about his campaign and asks the press to do the same and asks all of his opponents not to go negative against him.

Even prior to that time, Mr. Newman was working on his leadership skills. He started out as a Squadron Commander (Local President) of the Sons of The American Legion in 1984 at the age of 13. In 1985 he was appointed Membership Chairman for the State of Indiana's Sons' of The American Legion and continued to hold other appointments. In 1992 he was running for Detachment Commander (State President), but had the misfortune of having a car wreck about 2 weeks prior to his election. Because the people knew his willingness to serve, and knew of his ability to lead, they elected him while he was in a hospital. He knew that if you believe in people, people will only do good things. Under his leadership Indiana obtained many firsts and received recognition from the National Level. In 1993 he was appointed to a National Office, but has since after his national appointment has been working only in his local level.

Mr. Newman is a member of the Alpha Sigma Phi fraternity. He believes the fraternity experience is a wonderful growing adventure, but college students must be aware of what they are doing when they decide to get involved. Mr. Newman believes his prior heavy drinking can be traced back to when he was an active fraternity brother in the house. When students decide to go to college, they should have in their mind they are going to stay sober through their experiences.

He has written papers for two national economic conferences at Vladimir State University, Russia. Americans have a very narrow view of what is, and what should be. He will take what is the best of American ideas, and work on making them better, and replace the poor American ideas with ideas from other countries and make it American, and therefore, better. One thing that can be said about English is, the English created it, but it took the Americans to perfect it.
Stances on Current Topics
1. The Economy
The economy is doing great, because the economy is just waiting to break through. People need to know and believe they have a secure and safe job. Ignore what you hear, and only believe your job is secure, and your company is always making money. Feel good about life and your life is getting better as Pres. Ronald Reagan would say and as Pres. Roosevelt said, the only thing we have to fear is fear itself. Uncertainty is what is bad for the economy. People don't spend money, because they are afraid. Know you have a safe and secure job, your company is making money, and you will see the economy improve.

Recession? The Economy is expanding, slowly, but still at 0.6%
All of the candidates are trying to scare Americans when in fact the economy is slowly expanding. To be in a recession, the economy needs to be contracting, when in fact it is still expanding. The US economy is strong. With the weak dollar, American companies are starting to buy raw products from US companies. US products are looking better worldwide because they appear cheaper than other products, plus having an American product is still looked at as a status symbol. The US Economy is on the verge of breaking out. The only thing we have to fear is fear itself. FDR

2. Taxes
Everybody hates taxes, but taxes are an evil of life. Without taxes, the services the government provides to the citizens would be unavailable. The tax system and the social system should work in conjunction for all AMERICANS so the tax system does not make the rich richer.

Mr. Garry Schaaf who taught Mr. Newman in Total Quality Management brought up the 80-20 rule. Mr. Newman looked at this ratio because Mr. Schaaf talked about it being a common ratio in almost everything. If you do look at it in-depth about 80% of the taxes are paid by 20% of the people. Changing that would be the best for society in general.

If you think about it, if people make $10 million a year after taxes, would they miss only making $9 million? How many people would not have to have to pay taxes only to receive it back from the government after the government has used their money interest-free? That would be the best injection of capital into the economy.

President Ronald Reagan used supply side economics as the best idea for the economy. Even if you do not have a degree or know a lot about economics, you know if a factory/store has too large of an inventory, they will have to lower the price to sell them. If they would have continued with the idea, prices on all products made in the US would have lowered, and instead of inflation, we would have been experiencing something the world has not had to adjust to in 500 years, deflation.

3. Capital Gains Tax
There is no such reason for capital gains taxes. Some people believe that those that are rich are the ones paying the tax are correct, but also those selling their house or such, are also affected by this tax. Capital Gains Taxes will be eliminated during Mr. Newman's first term for the best of the US.

4. Sales Tax
Most sales taxes are levied by the state, some by localities, but all sales taxes are in actuality a tax on the poor. Although this is not a federal issue, you should be aware of it.

5. Government Spending
This is the only reason for taxes. You would agree the government is very poor at spending your money. You can spend your money much better than they can. Just as Mr. Newman would postulate, Non-Profit organizations spend money more efficiently than the government. This is a building block from taxes. The IRS is a way of keeping good people good. Delete the IRS, as it currently exists, and trust the American people. People are generally good. Give people a 110% deduction for donations to Non-profit organizations. The deduction should not be on the actual income taxed, but rather on the amount of taxes paid. The efficiently spent money would more than make up a 10%+ loss by the government for spending by non-profit organizations. The government spends too much of your money needlessly.

6. Race
I share more than just a birthday with Martin Luther King, Jr. I know the average white person's stance on race is more accepting than what others have said.

7. War on Terror (Creating Peace)
President Bush's ideas on Iraq and Afghanistan are working. It is the people on both sides of the aisle giving aid and comfort to those who oppose the national governments of Iraq and Afghanistan. President Bush is the Commander and Chief of the Military, and as such, should be left alone. The tribal chiefs in Iraq and Afghanistan are starting to be peaceful and are working towards peace. Give it time and the two countries will be great countries of the world, surpassing the economic powers of that area. There are more people killed on the streets of the US per year, than will be killed in Iraq and Afghanistan even if we were there for another decade. If you put it in the proper perspective, you would have to agree, we should make our community safer, than to worry about our troops helping a fledgling country.

8. Immigration
There are proper ways for those of other countries to legally enter the US. Those should be enforced. If you marry someone to be a legal US resident, you should be married to that person for the 10 years as is required by USCIS (Immigration).

Allow companies to hire non-citizens, but with the idea it is going to cost them a fee to the US government, and those companies will then be responsible to make sure that person is staying proper and legal according to the laws of the US and of the individual states.

9. Abortion
Everybody only has his or her conscience to deal with in life. Personal beliefs are just that. My personal belief is abortion should not be, but in a conversation with someone from my church, it is the law of the land.

10. The Environment
If people remember the 70's, the big worry was global cooling, but now global warming. The atmosphere is just going through a cycle. The atmosphere will be fixing itself, just give it time. Humans have only been on the Earth for a short time, and the Earth will adjust to humans, but give it time and the atmosphere will be as it has always been.

I am not saying Global warming is a myth, but the Earth is just going through a cycle and a very natural cycle. The atmosphere is repairing itself through its natural cycle.

11. HEALTH CARE

The US Military Veterans do disserve health care as promised to them, but do away with the VA system as it currently is and create a new system for them.

For everyone else create a system working with employers to cover everyone.
12. Senator Barack Obama, Senator Hillary Clinton and Senator McCain are all GREAT SENATORS.

And as such should work in the senate and work on what change they want. Their experience is in the legislative branch. Barack Obama will be a GREAT MINORITY LEADER for the Democratic Party. Almost everyone is calling for change, but they have had time to make the change and have failed, now it is my turn because unlike them, I do have experience as an executive head and I would be honored to have John McCain as my Vice Presidential running mate.
The Best Reason Why Charles R. Newman is Your President

Unlike the others, Mr. Newman is a real human being. If he promises something, he will live up to his promises. He is an American engineer, not an American politician. As you have read this, you are starting to feel good, and in his presidency, good feelings are what will happen to everybody not only in the US, but also in the US dealing with the world.

John McCain may have a lead in delegate numbers, but because I am entering so late and running on a shoestring budget, when the Republicans Delegates meet, they can choose to elect someone else if they believe the best for America and the Republican Party would be another candidate.

All the candidates have dympathy for those, but what is needed is empathy. I have the empathy. I know exactly what is going on, because I am experiencing the problems that mean things in this life. I am the man for this GREAT COUNTRY!!!

Charles R Newman
Garrett, Indiana

Cafferty, CNN said of Florida.

"Let's keep them in the union,"
"But let's not let them vote at elections."

Great media!

Is it true that any monies collected during the current campaign but not spent during the campaign goes to the candidate rather than into the party? If this is true then I can see why Clinton would stay.

Hillary and Bill should be proud of her campaign and high standing in America.
She will go down in the anals of history along side of Dan Quayle and Mike Huckabee.

VOTE NO FOR THE JERKORAMA, THE PHONY. THE DEMOCRATIC RACE WILL END WHEN HILLARY IS SELECTED. SHE IS 14 POINTS AHEAD. SHE IS THE WINNER.

mark_in_austin:

I wish I could see "John Adams". My wife put the kibosh on premium cable channels ("we watch too much TV as it is!").

I too really enjoyed the book -- I'll have to add "Truman" to my list after the good reviews you and jac13 have given it.

At least the 'Horns made it to the tourney. The Nittany Lions haven't been there since 2001.

Hillary's children need a time out. Luckily, there's plenty of time to detox before November. They will vote for Obama despite all the crying. They will vote for Obama and they will like it!

Bonjedi, Again, just like an Obamabot, when you can't respond to the Obama question, just raise a Hillary one instead. Just like Obama himself. Like if Hillary does it, it's okay for Obama? All things considered then, I'd rather have Hillary.

hdimig: you understand that I am saying that as a HC supporter. If you are new to this site you will quickly understand the utter contempt the Obama supporters have for the 13 million Clinton supporters like you.

"hdmig: HC will not be on an Obama ticket if he is the nominee. His supporters have nothing but contempt for the 13 million HC voters"

Well then you all have to face the possibility of losing big in November. Look how badly Obama polls in big swing states and (at-large) in red states. If the Obama-freaks think they can do it alone: good luck with that.

hdmig: HC will not be on an Obama ticket if he is the nominee. His supporters have nothing but contempt for the 13 million HC voters. I can't stand Leiberman or the thought of someone like Ted Olson being the swing vote on the Supreme Ct. which turns me off about McCain, but neither am I prepared to vote for Sen Obama a candidate who I do not like nor feel I share his values, especially when I heard his minister damn america and make antisemtic slurs, while Sen Obama sat silently. I also agree that he is the least experienced Presidential candidate running as a Democrat in my lifetime. The only thing that Might make me reconsider is if he was to select Joe Biden who could hold his hand for 4 years. I expect him instead to do the political thing and pick an inexperienced vp running mate as well.

If the jerk from Illinois gets the nomination, and God forbid, the Presidency, I think we will all get a rude awakening. We don't know who is really backing him (besides the rebel-rouser talking head media, and print as well).
He is a smooth talking, expensive suited
sinister person. He could be green with yellow polka dots and have a halo, he still will never get my vote. Clinton has had mud thrown at her since the beginning, mostly because she is a smart woman, men cannot stand that, so she is ridiculed and talked about like she is a moron. Try to look at some of her ideas. You may be pleasantly surprised if you get past the gender issue.

proudtobeGOP

Missed it; interesting point (that you never hear about).

The campaign will end at the Democratic Convention if not before and that is the way our system works.

Gov. Madelaine Kunin spoke the truth when she said over the weekend, that people like Leahy, Kerry, Dean and Richardson are sounding like the good ole boys saying to the lady, "Ok like always, you be a good girl and give in".

Hillary Clinton is less than 140 pledged delegates behind Obama and neither she nor Obama will get enough to win on that basis. If you look at the number of votes received there is less than a 1% difference if you count Florida and Michigan. (now some people say those votes shouldn't count because no one campaigned, but people forget that it was in Michigan that the Obama friends ran a full scale campaign to get people to vote uncommitted and I can just see what they would be saying now if that won, and in Florida it was only the Obama campaign that was on TV-CNN to be exact for a week before the election).

I think that Hillary has a great chance to win many of the upcoming primaries and close the gap in public votes by the end of the primary season.

A New York Times reporter who wants her to drop out yesterday said the real problem is that Hillary may come into the convention with the momentum- well who is that a problem for? The other thing that Jerk Russert brought up was the picture of Hillary Clinton with Richard-melon Scaife as if it was something she should be ashamed of. Well at least one person remarked correctly that maybe it really is Hillary Rodham Clinton the is the uniter. Read Scaife's column in the Pittsburgh Trib yesterday. Pretty amazing and a real tribute to the courage and intelligence of Clinton.

This idea that you have to drop out before anyone has enough votes to win is crazy. And all these silly polls that people are doing now are also rediculous. The press- guys like Russert and Williams -along with the Obama people said how crazy they were when Hillary was leading and they didn't really mean anything. Well it was true then and true now.

On September 1st we will have a candidate and there will be a strong race for the Presidency. The press will have a field day and there will be story after story coming out on McCain and on whoever the Democratic candidate is.

It is Clinton who actually will make less news during that time as we know about as much as we will ever about her. But the Republicans are set to unload on Obama and the Democrats will unload on McCain who has yet to be seriously vetted either. We will rehash the Savings and Loan scandal and we will remind Democrats why they really don't like Joe Lieberman who is likely to be in a McCain cabinet.

We will leave the Democratic convention with the picture of all the Democratic candidates joining hands on that stage and pledging to support our candidate whether it is Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama.

And we will remind Democrats why it is crucial that we win. Naming the next Supreme Court Justice-(we often forget McCain is Pro-Life), why gays and lesbians will fair better under Democrats, why African Americans and Hispanics will do better under Democrats.

It is Hillary that will have the easier time of that as she is winning in the groups that we need to win. Women, Hispanics and white men over 50 and making less than $50,000. But whoever it is we will fight to win.

But a hint to the Obama folks which is something their candidate seems to understand. Don't tell the woman who still has a chance to win- whatever the percentages to drop-out. You won't get her supporters that way. Women know they have always had to work twice as hard and be twice as smart to get ahead. Clinton is both twice as smart and has worked harder in her career than any man running.

So on with the rest of the campaign- it is not over despite what a group of old white men are saying. We have a system to decide and it is working. It's called primaries and people voting. They haven't all spoken yet. And no matter how dumb the super-delegate system is, it is there and they aren't there as potted plants. They are there to determine who can win in November.

The way I see it both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama will win the states Kerry won. Hillary with Strickland on the ticket can add Ohio and Arkansas. What can Obama add? That is what the super delegates will have to decide.

I give a lot of credit to women and to African Americans. The Hillary women will vote for Barack Obama, and the African American Democrats will vote for Clinton.

It is those white Reagan Democrats who concern me. We need to know what they will do and that is something the Superdelegates will have to judge.

Maybe the next Democratic President,whoever he or she may be will finally get rid of the stupid system we Democrats have to select our candidate. But for now its the one we have and I hope those Superdelegates are thinking not only with their hearts or for the next press release- but with their heads and what and who will get us the Presidency.

"Edward Kennedy after 1980, won't dare ask Hillary to quit."

Hypocricy is not above the good Sen. Kennedy.

Just ask him about his view, unobstructed by wind power.

Or his dumping of fuel right into what he describes as a "national treasure".

He will call for her to quit.

Cuomo's suggestion is a good one. I am an HRC supporter. If Obama loses, I will be less than thrilled with the prospect of voting for him in November. My reasons are mostly because I think Hillary can deal with the issues that are important to me much better than Obama and I think Obama represents a huge risk (he has no experience whatsoever on economic matters, he is idealistic in foreign policy like (gulp) Carter, and I also personally think he is a hypocrite.) I will be tempted to not vote at all for president if faced with the choice of Obama and McCain. McCain you would know what you are getting but not like it, Obama you get a roll of the dice that I am not willing to take with a teetering economy and 2 unfinished wars. With HRC on the ticket, I would feel much better.

GOP the Dems saying they will support McCain are completely turned off by seeing Leiberman standing next to McCain whispering in his ear, McCain's lack of any sense of economics, and whether he will bow to his right wing and repeat the names Scalia and Thomas as the type of justices he wishes to appoint. I can tell you first hand if any of the Clinton supporters hear either from McCain those numbers will evaporate.

mark, USMC, Did ya'll happen to catch Karl Rove on C-SPAN addressing the Young America's Foundation @ GWU? It was really good.

He pointed out, among other things, that there are more democrats for McCain than there are republicans for Obama.

Augustine likely to go pro; no wonder mark that can't advance.

Edward Kennedy after 1980, won't dare ask Hillary to quit.

Objectively shouldn't it be asked why the Obama campaign is so much against a revote in Michigan or Fla, no matter how structured even a Firehouse Primary which they originally asked for and the effect that opposition will have in a general election in those 2 states. As many as 25% of Michigan and Fla voters have told pollsters that that position will make them less inclined to support the nominee in Nov. And on sunday the Obama spokesman said its OK to Wolf Blitzer to just go ahead and Punish those voters. Can't believe he so cavalierly used the word Punish. James Carvell just shook his head and commented that is nuts; he said these folks just don't understand how impt. Fla and Michigan are in a general election? Al Gore certainly did. Whether you agree or not about a revote, politically for the general election, it could be political suicide.

The cluelessness, or dishonesty, of republicans regarding Iraq is staggering:

"The U.S. has stepped up its involvement in the intra-Shiite militia fighting in southern Iraq in recent days, air bombing several targets. The Bush administration is supporting the Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council (ISCI) and the Badr militia, which are aligned with the Iraqi government, against Muqtada al Sadr's Mahdi Army.

On Fox News Sunday today, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) said the U.S. support was necessary to tame Iranian influence in Iraq:

Now we have a battle with militias who are operating outside the government. ... We must win this fight. The militias that we are fighting are backed by Iran. So this is an effort by Iran to destabilize Iraq.

Watch it:

Graham is trying to oversimplify the situation. In reality, the U.S. is helping bolster Iran's influence by injecting itself into this fight. Sen. Jack Reed (D-RI) explained:

The Iranians have close associations with all the Shia communities, not only with Sadr but also Hakim. ... The notion that this is fight by American allies against Iranian-inspired elements is not accurate.

Ray Takeyh of the Council on Foreign Relations noted the ISCI "was essentially created by Iran, and its militia, the Badr Brigade, was trained and equipped by the Revolutionary Guards" -- which the Bush administration calls a "terrorist" organization.

Journalist Gareth Porter added the Badr militia is the "most pro-Iranian political-military forces in Iraq." In fact, ISCI leader Abdul Aziz al-Hakim "met with [Iranian Revolutionary Guard] officers to be his guests in December 2006, apparently to discuss military assistance to the Badr Organisation."

Graham, underscoring his cluelessness about the situation on the ground right now, added that "the Badr brigade is not the problem." Graham seems to be supporting an effort to fight Iran by supporting Iran."

Has anyone asked Sen. Clinton why she wasn't vocally opposed, and "effective," back when the Democratic organizational poobahs were in the process of "disenfranchising" Michigan and Florida? Was she somehow unable, back when she was supposed to be her party's inevitable nominee, to head off the November catastrophe she now predicts?

Does anyone else find it curious - or just obvious - that her indignant posture arose only once she realized it was necessary for her campaign?

"I find it incredulous that he would "mistake" something that seems so important to his campaign."

You must be flabbergasted then at the yarns Clinton has been spinning (Bosnian snipers, Northern Ireland peace, I'm good for those Dunkin Donuts so you can send me a bill).

Mark - I am sorry about your Longhorns, although I can't say I didn't get any satisfaction out of their loss.

Do what I do when my Aggies lose.

Cry.

Just kidding.

I would suggest taking comfort in a rival team losing, but we beat you to the punch. Try ice cream. (Do you own a left-handed scoop?)

Jac13

It's amazing to me how Obama supporters claim this very intelligent man with very intelligent people surrounding him cannot fact check something as simple as a date and an event when no one else seems to have any trouble. Obama is so intent on identifying himself with the Civil Rights movement, I find it incredulous that he would "mistake" something that seems so important to his campaign. But then again, he goes on and on about justifying his relationship with Wright, that maybe it's not so surprising at that. He is a political opportunist. And Obamabots will do anything to justify his errors. If I had a father with a serious drinking problem, I'd question things he told me. But of course that's just something I read in the fact check. They could all be wrong.

I hope it ends as soon as possible, because there's only one conclusion that can result from it and it's not going to change anytime between now and the convention.

Sorry, Hillary.

"He should have gone further by agreeing that the people of Michigan and Florida should be allow to re-vote or recognizing their early vote result."

Why not just take it all the way, and hand over the nomination that is already his? Why not hand over the Senate seat he occupies, also?

Get this through your thick skull -- FL and Mi were told that id their primaries were moved up, the results would not count. They moved them up, aware of the consequences. The candidates were all told that those primaries did not count. The candidates agreed.

Clinton has "disenfranchised" the two states as much as anybody. Her dope strategists, the ones that you twits love to quote, WANTED the two states out of the running, as part of the inevitability strategy.

As long as Clinton supporters want to cheat, why are you stopping with the attempt at padding vote totals with bogus primaries? Why not just lobby to have the rules changed to only candidates whose names begin with "H" can be nominated? How about a rule that says in the states of Texas, Illinois, Nevada, South Carolina, and Washington, the loser is really the winner?

Even your own party (if Democrats you truly be) is laughing at you. Pelosi shined the Clinton donors, Reid says this will be over by the summer, and every time Clinton says it's not over, another super signs up for the Obama campaign. Now the supers are doing more than supporting Obama, but they'r also lambasting the Clinton narcissism.

OBAMA '08! OBAMA '08! OBAMA '08!

"Excuse me sir who made you god? Only in totalitarian countries do we hear such garbage."

This coming from the troll who exists only to vomit up Clinton spin.

Hello, pot? This is the kettle -- you're black.

"Could the Republicans Pick the Democratic Nominee? -- The Untold Story of How the GOP Rigged Florida and Michigan"

Now even Democratic incompetance is the fault of the R's! LOL! Here is the sentence that tells me Barrett is full of it - "All Clinton-backer Granholm did, however, was a sign a bill." Yep, that was all she did. Certainly no fault there. The R's probably superglued her fingers to the pen, locked her in a room and made her listen to hours of Rush to get her to do it (with Bush and Cheney both signing off on the use of the torture)! The Dems are going to have to get a couple of the latest Iranian centerfuges in order to get enough spin for this one!

One of the themes of the Clinton-Gore campaign was It ain't over till the fat lady sings. Seems like the fat lady has sung but Hillary has turned a deaf ear to her, just like she'll turn a deaf ear on American voters if she is elected - which is highly improbable.

Hillary's staying in this contest because of her blind ambition to be the first female president. Blind ambition creates a very dangerous person and doesn't make for a good president.

Apparently, the candidate, Senator Obama ,became aware of the extremely unfavorable public response to Sen. Pat Leahy's request that Sen. Clinton should quit soon. Sen. Obama had to say that Sen. Clinton could run as long as she wants. He should have gone further by agreeing that the people of Michigan and Florida should be allow to re-vote or recognizing their early vote result.

leichtman, "TheTruth" is a troll. Pay no heed.

Mike - I am in mourning. Horns crushed by Memphis. I liked McC's foreign policy address.

lyle - there is no policy difference worth mentioning between the two Ds so they tend to get off on petty stuff - both of them, and many of their supporters, both in the field and posting on these blogs. If you are for one of the Ds you will think your candidate's whining to the media is appropriate and the other's is sour grapes. If you have no allegiance to either, you would wish they would just stick to the issues.

Your own opinions are generally stated politely, but you often cite your intuition as authority. No one who does not know you personally can rate the value of your intuition and thus must discount it. We all know folks who are "intuitive", but about people they know.

I had a 5th grade teacher who always knew what I was thinking, dammit, and my Dad knew if I told a lie. I was very intuitive about two of my daughters, but not about one of them and not about my son until he was an adult.

As I said to you the other day, none of us know any of the candidates.

I am growing very weary (and not a little bit annoyed) at repeatedly being branded a sexist because I do not support Hillary Clinton. My reasons are grounded in questions about her integrity/trustworthiness, her divisiveness, and the clear impression that her campaign is based on her being entitled to the office. To my mind, she represents a return to a time that has passed. She could be a man and it would not make a whit of difference to me. I do not think she can win and, if she were elected, I think she would be a less effective president than Obama.

The race will end in May after HRC barely wins PA and loses big in In and NC. Expect Obama to pick Bloomberg because he 's got deep pockets and will help with the jewish vote.

dave writes
"The combined ticket would have potential for Republicans to exploit and that opening would be good news to McCain."

I agree. The combined ticket has a lot of negatives & limited positives. It is one of several ways the Dems could shoot themselves in the foot.

The race will be over when one of the two gets 2024 pledged and super delegates on their side. Both candidates have both a mathmatical chance as well as an at least somewhat realistic chance at garnering those delegates. Wishful thinking by the likes of Leahy and Dodd does not change that. Cuomo's idea of a combined ticket is more realistic than many give it credit for (think JFK/LBJ) and probably less beneficial than most think. HRC at any spot on the ticket will bring out the 'anti' vote which only helps the R's. Additionally, Obama being on a ticket with the candidate he has spent the better part of a year trying to make the poster child of the kind of politician the country needs to get rid of completely torpedoes his "change we can believe in" and "new kind of politician" message. And make no mistake, those are keys to his success and his draw. The combined ticket would have potential for Republicans to exploit and that opening would be good news to McCain.

you are hysterical, merryjaine. i suggest you slam your head against the wall a few times...maybe that will knock some sense into your empty head.

"Could the Republicans Pick the Democratic Nominee? -- The Untold Story of How the GOP Rigged Florida and Michigan"

title of barrett story...

"You WILL all vote for Obama and you will like it!"

Excuse me sir who made you god? Only in totalitarian countries do we hear such garbage.

lyle -- is it possible to flat out not agree with HRC's politics without you dubbing me envious, jealous, hateful, fearful, or any other such adj.?

I will not vote for Obama! He is NOT an unifier!!! He is a sham! He has no experience, has done nothing, and continues to be pandered by the press and pundits! I will NOT Vote for Obama! This election has been a sham! The Press and the Pundits are falling all over themselves to get Obama elected, and Obama just goes along to get along! He has no backbone! The Press and Pundits have no conscience! Stop acting like you are being such an objective reporter! I will not vote for Obama because this whole election process is flawed. I am glad to know that you "get" racism, but whenever will you ever "get" sexism??? You demean Clinton and bow down to whatever happens with Obama ... even putting a good spin on his 20-year relationship with his so-called "pastor" ... Obama has no experience, he lied about being a law professor, he has no conscience or backbone about his association with the despicable anti-semitic, anti-gay pastor, he had no basis for his anti-war position on Iraq, he has had nothing but a black experience and a Harvard degree ... and how as a HS student who smoke, drank and abused girls, could get into Columbia and Harvard, is beyond me! He is a fraud! He is not a nice guy! And you and the rest of the press have never done anything about anything, yet, belittle and demean Clinton ... that's why her supporters will NEVER vote for the unqualified and inexperienced Obama ... Blame yourselves for the destruction of the so-called democratic party ... don't blame Clinton ... she's the only one who's trying to keep the "democrat" in the Democratic Party ... the rest of you are just doing whatever you can do to get your MAN into the White House!

lyle writes
"folks I have talked with pretty well do not understand how this "Viseral Hatred" of the Clintons are shared by so many in The Media and the upper income and higher educated [Elite]. I can't find anything other than the 'Envy/Jealous' Factor I mention so often."

Lyle, you continue to make no sense. Why would the 'elite' (as you call them) have a visceral hatred of the Clintons based on envy/jealousy? If they're the 'elite', of what would they be jealous? You're babbling incoherently.

good article about the republican prints on the MI and FL debacles..

"What a probe might have discovered was a rationale for doing, at worst, what the RNC did to its own overeager primary schedulers in the same two states -- cutting the delegations by half. That's precisely the penalty specified in DNC rules, but the committee, exercising powers it certainly had the legal discretion to exercise, upped the ante as far as it could. In a bizarre reversal of public policy, the RNC, surely aware that the principal miscreants in both states were Republicans, applied a sane yet severe sanction. The Democrats opted for decapitation.

The presumption of much of the national coverage about Michigan, to start with, has been that the Dems did this one to themselves -- a presumption based, in large part, on Democratic governor Jennifer Granholm's endorsement of a January 15 vote, a date far ahead of the anticipated February 9 primary. All Clinton-backer Granholm did, however, was a sign a bill. The bill originated in a Republican-controlled Senate and passed by a 21-to-17 straight party-line vote -- with every Democrat casting a no vote.

Florida's Republican governor, Charlie Crist, is, like Granholm, seen as a prime player behind the state's acceleration of the primary calendar. But Crist isn't half the Florida story; Marco Rubio, a Jeb Bush protégé who runs the nearly 2-to-1 Republican Florida House, drove that bill through the legislature like it was a tax cut limited by law to top GOP donors.

Indeed, the tracks under this train wreck trace back, in each case, to Republican maneuvers in state legislatures, political no- man's-lands for all who've blithely dismissed the disenfranchisement of the millions of registered Florida and Michigan Democrats."

Very informative. can't link of course, but it's by Wayne Barrett [long time NYC reporter who's written for a ton of publications, but this piece is on Huffington Report.

I asked several days/weeks ago if anyone had an opinion simular to mine about how so many of the leading Libs are seemingly Hell bent on destroying the Dem party in this 2008 election cycle. The supporters of Obama are now in the process of blaming Hillary for the loss in Nov. [I think it is certain] should he be the nominee. From the hundreds of folks I have talked with pretty well do not understand how this "Viseral Hatred" of the Clintons are shared by so many in The Media and the upper income and higher educated [Elite]. I can't find anything other than the 'Envy/Jealous' Factor I mention so often.

the lying snake lieberman:

"On ABC's This Week today, Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) falsely claimed that Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) "is not for the private accounts to take the place of social security." "He's for what Bill Clinton used to call Social Security plus," said Lieberman.

Lieberman didn't disagree, however, when host George Stephanopoulos pointed out that McCain had "disputed that in the Wall Street Journal" recently. Instead, he brushed the contradiction aside and changed the subject.

As Stephanopoulos noted, McCain has abandoned his initial Social Security plan, which called for "supplementing the current Social Security system with personal accounts," in order to embrace President Bush's failed effort to replace the system with private accounts. "I believe that private savings accounts are a part of" Social Security reform "along the lines that President Bush proposed," McCain told the Wall Street Journal earlier this month."

An interesting FYI:

I recently went to Mexico for a weekend trip to see my wife's extended family.

Not only do they closely follow our politics, but they have strong opinions.

A boyfriend of a cousin remarked about Spitzer's disgraced fall from power.

Another cousin believes McCain will win the Presidency, to her dismay (she is anti-war).

That McCain will win was widely agreed upon. Whether or not that was a good thing, was debated.

Uninimously, there was skepticism about Obama. He was either inexperienced or untrustworthy.

Most of the family are what we would call Democrats, although socially conservative (pro-life Catholics).

2 'take aways' from that experience:

1. Interestingly, the conspicuous LACK of GOOD choices is aparent south of the border even.

2. Europe's favorite, the 'unifying' Obama, doesn't seem to get much support from our southern neighbors.

Truth, thanx. Drindl, you are now experienced in link posting savagery.
----------------------------
Optimyst, you must analyze the Clinton returns if they are revealed and if they contain schedules. My guess is that schedules will be omitted.

My wife took a quick peak at the Obamas' returns and said she saw a claimed deduction for a contrib to the Black Caucus which should have been disallowed if it was a political contrib. I told her I would ask you.

yes we are definitely 'winning' in Iraq.. we should certainly spend all our money staying there 100 more years...

"The NYT, WP, and USAT point out that Maliki allies traveled to Iran in order to negotiate with Sadr. USAT focuses its Page One story on the Iran angle and says the agreement was brokered by the commander of the Quds brigades of Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps. "The government proved once again that Iran is a central player in Iraq," a political analyst tells USAT.

How much the violence will decrease in the coming days still needs to be seen, but the NYT and LAT both note that if there's one single loser from the six days of clashes it's Maliki, who clearly underestimated the strength of the militias. The prime minister made a big deal of emphasizing that he was overseeing the operation in Basra and vowed to stay in the area until the militias were defeated. "If anyone comes out a winner, it's Sadr," a Middle East expert tells the LAT. "He's coming out stronger, and Maliki looks like a lame duck."

The WP points out that Sadr appears "more politically astute" than he was a few years ago because he seems to realize that his chances of winning big in the upcoming provincial elections would markedly improve if he can claim credit for helping end the current bout of violence.
Early-morning wire stories report that the Green Zone was once again pounded by rocket and mortar attacks today."

Admittedly, I have not read this entire thread. (Only scanned it).

Dispassionately, I can say I don't think HRC should be pressured to give up. She has won a lot of votes, and deserves her "shot".

Politically, I want to see her continue, because I buy in to the idea that it makes them both "weaker", and couldn't stand either in the WH.

Regarding MI, FL:

It's a shame that unelected party officials can make choices that 'take away' the value of your vote, without consent.

But it is also true that they were warned, and rules are rules.

They should reach a compramise; the answer is neither to seat all the delegates nor to bar them all.

My commentary: Surely, the supposed party of peace, tolerance, and inclusion, can bring itself to resolve its own discontent. [If you're going to 'unify' the country, the world, the galaxy, FL and MI are a good place to start.]

that article i reference was on slate, btw, this site wouldn't allow a link.

Drindl.... What Mark means is that posts with links are being sidelined. I had to repost when my blog link sidelined my last comment.

stop bickering over hillary and obama and start realzing that McCain as president will utterly destroy what's left of this country's economy, not to mention its credibility and security:

"McCain wants to extend the Bush tax cuts, which he once opposed as a needless sop to the rich in a time of war. (I await David Brooks' inevitable explanation of how opposing taxes in a time of war in 2001 and 2003, when deficits were low, but supporting them in 2011, in a time of war and high deficits, is deeply moral and admirable.) But McCain wants to see Bush's tax relief and raise it some. McCain would slash the corporate-income-tax rate from 35 percent to 25 percent (because corporate profits as a percentage of GDP didn't spike enough this decade?), and he'd abolish the Alternative Minimum Tax, which would be a welcome move for many upper-middle-class taxpayers.

"In all, his tax-cutting proposals would cost about $400 billion a year, according to estimates of the impact of different tax cuts by CBO and the McCain campaign," the Wall Street Journal reported. And how to make up for the lost revenues? Hmmm. McCain promises to cut earmarks; to eliminate waste, fraud, and abuse; and to reduce the projected growth of Medicare; but he won't provide many numbers. As the WSJ deadpanned: "The cost will make it difficult for him to achieve his goal of balancing the budget by the end of his first term." That's perhaps the understatement of the year. The 2009 budget calls for a deficit of $407 billion on projected receipts of $2.7 billion, as this table shows. Essentially, McCain wants to cut revenues by about 15 percent from current levels, with nothing close to that in spending reductions, in a time when, even after spending excess Social Security payroll taxes, the deficit is running at more than $400 billion. Here's some straight talk: McCain's fiscal program is either a joke or a fantasy."

The conservative apparatchiks want Hillary to stay in the race.... the longer the better. Clears the path for McSame. Divides the Democratic party.

I can't imagine anyone wanting to be Hillary's VP, let alone the leading-by-all-measurements Obama. Bill will be the VP regardless of who holds the title in a Hillary White House.

The DNC needs to stop the Billary ego trip.... the Queen has no clothes.

I hear that 7 NC House members are waiting to endorse Obama en masse when the timing is right.

I also think April 15th could play a big role in the Clintons' decision making. They have pledged to make public their 2006 tax return on that date. If the poll numbers, the fundraising, and the delegate math are all continuing to run against them. don't be surprised if the active phase of the Clinton campaign shuts down by then.

The tax return likely shows big income which in itself will raise questions about Bill's overseas commitments and if they used tax shelters to reduce their tax liability, it could be a big negative for the campaign.

'The WaPo has been vicious to link posting for the last day or so'

what do you mean, mark?

"So, again if you really wants CHANGE I think you should vote for H.Clinton and voters from Florida and Michigan should not be disenfranchised."

Who cares what you think? You don't know what you're talking about.

"The fact remains that a sizable constituency of the Democratic party want Hillary to be involved, and are willing to vote the other party if not."

That's not a fact, it's an opinion. Learn the difference, you moron.

Not only is the Clinton campaign broke financially, but it is broke morally and ideologically. Hoping to appeal to the small percentage of voters - superdelegates - that can win it for her on the level, she has instead won over the small percentage of voters that are clinically insane and demented, and those dead-enders that congregate here.

Hey all you broke-ass Hillary supporters - dig deep in the seat cushions of the insane asylums where you live, and send the nickels and dimes to Hillary!

I'm personally offended by all the people who say Hillary should bow out for the unity of the party. The fact remains that a sizable constituency of the Democratic party want Hillary to be involved, and are willing to vote the other party if not. That means only one thing. Mr. Obama will probably be the presidential candidate, but he can't pick his VP. The voters want Hillary on that ticket too, and her substantive showing in the polls indicate as such. If the voters are really the ones who count then the high count of Hillary support needs to count for something.

Nay-sayers that think Hillary should bow out want their cake and to eat it too. That isn't playing out. So... let's get used to a dream ticket NOW... rather than later.

The mentality of black and white men are more alike than the mentality of women compared to men. If you really want change you should vote for Hillary Clinton.

Barack Obama has never ever been talking about gender and discrimination towards people based on their sex rather than their individual merits. I think that he and his followers (mostly young women as well as young men) are very strong supporters of male chauvinism, which refers to the belief that males are superior to females.

Clinton is strong, intelligent and experienced but of course it´s almost impossible to make comparisons. But the mentality of men and women is for sure different.

Obama behaves like a self-confident, "cocky" lady-killer and his male identity can be associated with the tough-guy Macho Culture. In that sence President Bush, Senator Obama and Senator McCain are alike and I really mean so.

So, again if you really wants CHANGE I think you should vote for H.Clinton and voters from Florida and Michigan should not be disenfranchised.

Anyone who does not want citizens to vote does not deserve to be president.
New Hampshire in December 2007 and Puerto Rico in March 2008 changed their voting dates and were not penilized! Why do Florida and Michigan get picked out to be penilized?
Posted by: GSWAGNER | March 31, 2008 09:33 AM

They get penalized because you have convienently not provided all the facts. Michigan and Florida moved their primaries before "super tuesday" which the DNC told them they could not do without penalty.

You lose when you don't play by the rules.
It isn't disenfranchisement either; there is no legal right to vote in a primary.

Yet more mindless babbling from Hillary's goose steppers. The Clinton era is over, like it or not. So have your tantrums now. You will all vote for Obama and you will like it!

Obama and his supporters want to disenfranchise the rest of America that has not voted the same way Obama wants to disenfranchise Florida and Michigan.
Anyone who does not want citizens to vote does not deserve to be president.
New Hampshire in December 2007 and Puerto Rico in March 2008 changed their voting dates and were not penilized! Why do Florida and Michigan get picked out to be penilized?
I will not support Obama as the nominee if he does not support a revote or allow the vote to stand as voted one or the other. We have been thru this before in 2000!

padman wrote:

"Now that the martini drinking crowd in Wall Street are behind on their monthly payments for their Ferraris they will have second thoughts on supporting the fraud called Barack Hussein..."

While most of padman's post was opinion, this phrase seems based on a false premise. The WaPo has been vicious to link posting for the last day or so, but if you will google for "campaign contributions" you will learn that HRC's biggest donors are Wall Street investment bankers. You will learn that she is a bigger recipient of Wall Street largesse than BHO or than any R.

I'm in favor of a re-vote in Michigan and Florida, but NOT having the sham of primaries recognized. Clinton came to my Florida city (even though candidates did not "campaign") and addressed people here. I would have voted Obama (based on morality issues), but didn't waste the time because I was told my vote wouldn't count. In Michigan (where my family is from), people could not vote for anyone other than Hillary, and those that "wrote in" other names had their votes discounted. Therefore, how would it be "fair" to direct the results of these "primaries" to the Clinton side? While not wanting Florida or Michigan to be disenfranchised, neither should they be taken advantage of by dirty politics.

The so called elders among Democrats particularly Ted Kennedy, Kerry and Dodd disgraced themselves by openly aligning with Barack Hussein and abusing Hillary. They lost their stature for all times by such partisanship whose roots lay in heir own long enmity with the Clintons rather than any great conviction about Barack Hussein's bogus rhetoric about "hope".

Hillary must remain unto the last as she is the only hope for the working American who is facing hard times with the recession on and fear about loss of job, loss of home and penury haunting him/her. Barack Hussein can do nothing to give him succor only homilies on "hope" while Hillary has the guts, grit and can do attitude that will bring cheer (not mere hope) to the lives of ordinary folks of our country. Now that the martini drinking crowd in Wall Street are behind on their monthly payments for their Ferraris they will have second thoughts on supporting the fraud called Barack Hussein whose sermon goes down well only on a full stomach!

Hillary will prevail as our voters are slowly coming to grips with reality that the wolf is at their door and they need real leadership not empty talk. And if the Democratic party denies her the nomination on some specious plea, her supporters will switch to McCain as they are convinced Barack Hussein is a real threat to our country.

roy,

I do not "belong" to either party because I could never defend any organization the primary purpose of which was self-perpetuation.

A case can be made that the Ds' handling of FL and MI is inconsistent with the Party's interest in self-perpetuation.

I would accept the winner of the GE as Prez absent major election fraud or the like.

In 2000, I thought the Supremes ruled incorrectly in Gore v. Bush. but I think the correct ruling, recognizing that Congress had plenary power over the election after December 20, 2000, would have resulted in GWB being elected by the House of Representatives.

However, the Senate would have voted for the VP in those circumstances, and it is likely that for four years Al Gore would have been GWB's VP.

Thus I have some problems with the 2000 election.

Mark,

I did see your post about McCullough, but not until this morning. I get into the office around 6:15, so I went to bed last night after my last post. I'd love to meet the guy. He's a terrific writer. "Truman" was every bit as good as the Adams bio, and I also recommend his earlier book about the building of the Brooklyn Bridge. He has a way of hooking you on the narrative, even when you know how the story ends!

Judicial Watch: By Klaus Marre
Obama 'intended to leave no paper trail' OBAMA REFUSES to cooperate in releasing 8 years of his state senate records. One main reason REZKO!

The WashigntonPost Fact Checker/ABC
Senator Obama CAUGHT LYING about Kennedy Role in Helping His Father
Contrary to Obama's claims in speeches Kennedy family did not provide the funding for a September 1959 airlift of 81 Kenyan students to the United States that included Obama's father. According to historical records and interviews with participants, the Kennedys were approached for support for the program a year later, July 1960. family responded with a $100,000 donation, which went to pay for a second airlift in September 1960.

OBAMA LIES IN PENNSYLVANIA AD
From NBC/NJ's Aswini Anburajan
GREENBURG, Pa
It's unfortunate that Senator Obama is using false advertising to explain why he can be trusted to do something about energy prices. In his ad, Obama says, I'm Barack Obama, and I don't take money from oil companies or lobbyists, and I won't let them block change any more. Obama has been the recipient of more than $220,000 from the oil and gas industry just since as of Feb/08. Two of Obama's campaign bundlers are also CEOs for oil and gas companies, per his campaign Web site? Obama needs to answer to VOTERS about his dealings with one of his largest contributors Exelon, a big nuclear power company that he cut deals behind closed doors protecting them from full disclosure in the nuclear industry. Exxon, Shell, and others are among his biggest donors

Thank`s "mark_in_austin" (08:00).

If I understand you correctly this is a question of DEMOCRACY within the DEMOCRATIC party or rather lack of "Equel Citizenship" within the party! Great!

If no votes from Florida (and Michigan) is counted, what kind of legitimity would Barack Obama have if he becomes President?

jac, The reality includes the string of unpaid bills and the grumbling of providers/creditors as early as IA. So she must win in a way that allows her to raise substantial funds; I would think you are exactly correct.

Did you see my reply to you last night that included the narrative of my chance encounter with McCullough?

These people pushing for a Gore nomination are smoking something. The guy's been on the sidelines for almost 8 years, and has obviously lost the fire for the job. Otherwise he would have been a candidate in '04 or this time. Also, everybody seems to be forgetting what a lousy campaign he ran in 2000. Jeez, he didn't even carry his own state! If he had, Florida wouldn't have mattered.

I think we all need to be patient. This thing is likely to be over after May 6, if things go the way they look like they will now: HRC wins PA by a comfortable but not blowout margin, likewise with BHO in NC, and one of them wins IN in a close one. Then I think HRC folds. I know she's talking about going all the way to the convention, but if she wants to keep raising money and doing as well as she can in these three states, what do you expect her to say?

Pelosi neutral? Give it up! She's in the closet for Obama, with the door open.

The smartest move for a superdelegate right now is to announce for Gore. If Gore gets enough first ballot votes to force a second, he's nominated.

BJLeone -

A "misstatement" is making a mistake and/or confusing dates, as Obama apparently did when he referred to the Kennedy grant that took place before he was born, and that he had to have heard about from his father.

On the other hand, describing an event in terms that are demonstrably false, as proven by videotape of the event or other contemporaenous records, cannot fairly be called a "misstatement." It is a "lie." Such is the case with HRC's claims of early opposition to NAFTA, directly contradicted by her WH schedule showing several meetings to gin up support for NAFTA, where she was a veritable cheerleader for the treaty, as confirmed by people in attendance at those meetings. Likewise with the alleged "sniper fire" story (as if one could possibly be unclear about whether or not bullets were whizzing around one's head), repeated THREE separate times, the last time after others who were present contradicted it.

As for the attention that is given these things, the Obama/Kennedy story was on the front page of yesterday's Washington Post.

It's interesting how Hillary's supporters always cry foul when the media report negative, but true, things about her.

royrichard, the short answer to your question is "yes".

While the courts will not allow the Parties to exclude voters on the basis of race, and presumptively religion, gender, age, disability, or national origin, primaries are not part of the federal election system in the sense that general elections are. They are the province of the political parties, the existence of which are not addressed in the Constitution.

I have an aunt who lives i Florida. She is 60 years old, widow and slightly disabled after a car accident. She sent me a letter asked about the Democratic voting procedure. She is worried that her vote and the votes of other Floridians will not be counted. She is not strong enough to fight but she asks me if the Democratic National Committee, Howard Dean, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and other Democrats are able to overrule the the Ideal of Equel Citizenship.

She refers to Amendment 14 - Citizenship Rights: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

She wants change in the White House and she hopes that her vote for Hillary Clinton will be counted. Her opinion is that no real change is possible if a woman is not elected during the General Election in November. My question on behalf of my aunt is: Can any person or organization strip her previlege to vote?

Maybe when the media pays as much attention to Obama's misstatements (See fact checker on Obama's Kennedy/Civil Rights story) as they do Hillary's. Obama was criticizing Hillary's Bosnia story, but tries to twist his own exaggerations about his father. The Media still continues to give Obama a free ride. MSNBC the most consistant defender of Obama, and the network which regularly uses guests only sympathetic to Obama. I dread the Matthews Hardball with Obama this week as he salivates over his guest.

Hillary will play every card, going "Nuclear" if she has to. The Clintons have teamwork - Hillary, Bill, and the political machine that they've developed over a lifetime in politics. There's no alternative to their sense of entitlement to power. I'll be greatly surprised if this doesn't end in a floorfight at the convention.

My favorite filmclip is Hillary and Chelsea arriving in Bosnia, with Hillary's recollection of the event playing in the background. In the filmclip Hillary signs an autograph for a little girl on the airstrip. The audio talks about her vivid recollection of their keeping their heads down as they debark under gunfire. I have no doubt that she remembers the event this way, much as she remembers most of her leadership experience.

Michigan and Florida will not be seated until the convention after a presumptive nominee is clear. That person will be Barack Obama unless he loses all remaining contests. These are guarantees folks. Read all you want, watch all the networks, hang on both campaign's every word if you've got the time and want to but I'm here to tell you your just feeding the media's interest and the republican's interest by creating a market for the media to cover conflict and horse races rather than facts and truth. Hillary Clinton has less than a 10% chance to win every remaining state and even if she did she will only be able to get close enough to basically be the default winner by strength of name and power. That would guarantee a huge problem for the future of the party as 2 generations of young Obama supporters would feel no loyalties and many African Americans will never come back. If all you Clinton people who consider yourselves Democrats first want this country to be a two party system with Republicans and Libertarians instead of Democrats keep up your illogical pursuit. The longer Hillary stays in and stays negative the more she has to win because the damage she is causing herself chasing her life's ambition. She will lose her senate seat at this rate and may be forced from the party if she goes much further. For those who think she can just bloody Obama in hopes he loses and she can run again in 2012, I would like to know where you think her positives and votes are going to come from?

Ultimately it's a good idea that Clinton is not stepping down. Because the entire world is watching the conduct of these elections.

I would have never guessed that BILL or HILLARY would make such senseless remarks on Race and Color, so in the end I am happy to see where the Party is split.

The DNC is split not by RACE or COLOR, but by IDEAS. Some Democrates are OK with the status quote, and others can see the senselessness of being the most powerful nation in the world having 40 million plus homeless and building fast.

One group in the DNC believes in right of inheritance in the American political structure and the other is totally against the idea.

One group in the DNC knows the cycle of war , economy and morgage rates, and want to open peoples eyes to it. The other group wants people stuck in the dark to an obvious cycle of crime being committed against American citizens.

Bill Clinton tried to take American citizens GUNS. Now BUSH is taking there Homes. It's time one party woke up and stopped the left right manipulation and freed america.

I THINK SO

The point is the top spot will go to a reasonable president again, one who doesn't hate minorities or immigrants, no matter who gets chosen.

The biggest difference between all candidates now seems to be iraq.

As for another washington post blog that ran out of room:
(Texas gives Hillary another opportunity to show she meant it when she said she was a loyal party Democrat, and she should congratulate Barack Obama for his victory in Texas.

This just gets us closer to what we all knew was gonna happen. Barack Obama will be the Democratic nominee even against a strong Democratic opponent with good name recognition, financing, and popularity... even a legacy.

Obama, first minority president in US History? One of the first black presidents elected in a majority white western democracy?)

This SUPER-REF has just called a FOUL:

Arrow goes to Obama.

TV TIME OUT ON THE FLOOR.

//
BACK IN THE ACTION...in the NCAA March Madness Tournament...
//

It's NOT a game, but can we at least PLAY by the rules? Rules set down before the primary [i.e.: before the game (name it) started?"].

Yes, WE can ~!

First: The DNC rules were agreed to in advance.

Second: Let every vote count. [note: this may contradict rule #1, but WE AGREED to those rules beforehand - so the point is moot].

FL and MI have fouled out.

Period.

Third: Let the games continue, without any Monday Morning Quarterbacking.

THE RULES STAND.

s/The Super-Ref.

This SUPER-REF has just called a FOUL:

Arrow goes to Obama.

TV TIME OUT ON THE FLOOR.

//
BACK IN THE ACTION...in the NCAA March Madness Tournament...
//

It's NOT a game, but can we at least PLAY by the rules? Rules set down before the primary [i.e.: before the "game" [name it] started?

Yes, WE can ~!

First: The DNC rules were agreed to in advance.

Second: Let every vote count. [note: this may contradict rule #1, but WE AGREED to those rules beforehand - so the point is moot].

FL and MI have fouled out. Period.

Third: Let the games continue, without any Monday Morning Quarterbacking.

THE RULES STAND.

s/The Super-Ref.

So, Democrats can't handle dissension and debate (democracy); it is simply too destructive and therefore it is best to curtail all and call one candidate a winner prior to the rest of the country voting or finding a way to count votes presently being discounted. What on earth will happen to them, then, when the general election occurs and the Democratic candidate is possibly maligned in some manner by a Republican? Perhaps the Republicans should just call an end to the whole affair early to protect the public/ scarred Democrats/call themselves (the Republicans) the winners. Who needs an election if it appears that the Republicans are going to win, anyway? Is it necessary to go through all of that if it is going to divide the nation? Also, since the public is simply too sensitive to deal with so much perhaps they should bunker down and let the rest of the world deal with their own problems since Americans won't be able to handle tribal differences, much less religious or political - problems (war) elsewhere, generally.

Wanting to cut all short due to the possible ruination of the Democratic Party reminds me of kindergarten competitions where everyone gets a ribbon so that no one will feel like a loser or where grades aren't given out because no one should be made to feel worse than another or where many aren't told that they are not measuring up because it will ruin their self esteem. Buck up and get real! This is real life and there is a country and world with real and increasing problems to deal with. Personally, I think the leaders should have debates with questions given about the history of various countries, questions on different religions, cultural matters - about how much they really know about a variety of matters (without the ability to call their advisors for answers). After George Bush, one would think that the more debate and discussion the better to ensure an actual leader is chosen that can lead.

At the moment, it looks like there is an old boys' club surrounding Obama which will be buoying (or actually boying) him up, a club that includes Richardson, Casey, and Kennedy, among others. If Obama really wanted change, he would have told Richardson and Casey and Ted Kennedy to stay out of it/that he would run on his own merits. So much for change. He is playing the same old games that everyone has played forever and if he wanted the party to not be divided, he wouldn't have accepted the backing of those who have, by their actions, already divided the party. However, their actions certainly have shone light upon their character - and their concern for party unity. Hillary should stay and be, among other things, the reminder that America is supposed to be a democracy (even though the whole process of electing a Democratic leader seems to be far from a democratic process or that the media has such an influence, or that money or race or gender is still a factor).

It is astounding how most job candidates actually have to have pertinent experience, yet to be the leader of the U.S. and the military one doesn't have to have relevant experience at all. There is the test by fire ref. running for the leadership, but there isn't really a test one has to pass ref. knowledge. One passing or one failing might damage the unity of the party, though, so perhaps it is, after all, best to let the candidate the media favours win so that the media can get on to newer stories more quickly.

This SUPER-REF has just called a FOUL:

Arrow goes to Obama.

TV TIME OUT ON THE FLOOR.

//
BACK IN THE ACTION...in the NCAA March Madness Tournament...
//

It's NOT a game, but can we at least PLAY by the rules? Rules set down before the primary [i.e.: before the game (name it) started?"].

Yes, WE can ~!

First: The DNC rules were agreed to in advance.

Second: Let every vote count. [note: this may contradict rule #1, but WE AGREED to those rules beforehand - so the point is moot].

FL and MI have fouled out.

Period.

Third: Let the games continue, without any Monday Morning Quarterbacking.

THE RULES STAND.

s/The Super-Ref.

This SUPER-REF has just called a FOUL:

Arrow goes to Obama.

TV TIME OUT ON THE FLOOR.

//
BACK IN THE ACTION...in the NCAA March Madness Tournament...
//

It's NOT a game, but can we at least PLAY by the rules? Rules set down before the primary [i.e.: before the "game" [name it] started?

Yes, WE can ~!

First: The DNC rules were agreed to in advance.

Second: Let every vote count. [note: this may contradict rule #1, but WE AGREED to those rules beforehand - so the point is moot].

FL and MI have fouled out. Period.

Third: Let the games continue, without any Monday Morning Quarterbacking.

THE RULES STAND.

s/The Super-Ref.

This SUPER-REF has just called a FOUL:

Arrow goes to Obama.

TV TIME OUT ON THE FLOOR.

//
BACK IN THE ACTION...in the NCAA March Madness Tournament...
//

It's NOT a game, but can we at least PLAY by the rules? Rules set down before the primary [i.e.: before the "game" [name it] started?

Yes, WE can ~!

First: The DNC rules were agreed to in advance.

Second: Let every vote count. [note: this may contradict rule #1, but WE AGREED to those rules beforehand - so the point is moot].

FL and MI have fouled out. Period.

Third: Let the games continue, without any Monday Morning Quarterbacking.

THE RULES STAND.

s/The Super-Ref.

This SUPER-REF has just called a FOUL:

Arrow goes to Obama.

TV TIME OUT ON THE FLOOR.

//
BACK IN THE ACTION...in the NCAA March Madness Tournament...
//

It's NOT a game, but can we at least PLAY by the rules? Rules set down before the primary [i.e.: before the "game" [name it] started?

Yes, WE can ~!

First: The DNC rules were agreed to in advance.

Second: Let every vote count. [note: this may contradict rule #1, but WE AGREED to those rules beforehand - so the point is moot].

FL and MI have fouled out. Period.

Third: Let the games continue, without any Monday Morning Quarterbacking.

THE RULES STAND.

s/The Super-Ref.

So, Democrats can't handle dissension and debate (democracy); it is simply too destructive and therefore it is best to curtail all and call one candidate a winner prior to the rest of the country voting or finding a way to count votes presently being discounted. What on earth will happen to them, then, when the general election occurs and the Democratic candidate is possibly maligned in some manner by a Republican? Perhaps the Republicans should just call an end to the whole affair early to protect the public/ scarred Democrats/call themselves (the Republicans) the winners. Who needs an election if it appears that the Republicans are going to win, anyway? Is it necessary to go through all of that if it is going to divide the nation? Also, since the public is simply too sensitive to deal with so much perhaps they should bunker down and let the rest of the world deal with their own problems since Americans won't be able to handle tribal differences, much less religious or political - problems (war) elsewhere, generally.

Wanting to cut all short due to the possible ruination of the Democratic Party reminds me of kindergarten competitions where everyone gets a ribbon so that no one will feel like a loser or where grades aren't given out because no one should be made to feel worse than another or where many aren't told that they are not measuring up because it will ruin their self esteem. Buck up and get real! This is real life and there is a country and world with real and increasing problems to deal with. Personally, I think the leaders should have debates with questions given about the history of various countries, questions on different religions, cultural matters - about how much they really know about a variety of matters (without the ability to call their advisors for answers). After George Bush, one would think that the more debate and discussion the better to ensure an actual leader is chosen that can lead.

At the moment, it looks like there is an old boys' club surrounding Obama which will be buoying (or actually boying) him up, a club that includes Richardson, Casey, and Kennedy, among others. If Obama really wanted change, he would have told Richardson and Casey and Ted Kennedy to stay out of it/that he would run on his own merits. So much for change. He is playing the same old games that everyone has played forever and if he wanted the party to not be divided, he wouldn't have accepted the backing of those who have, by their actions, already divided the party. However, their actions certainly have shone light upon their character - and their concern for party unity. Hillary should stay and be, among other things, the reminder that America is supposed to be a democracy (even though the whole process of electing a Democratic leader seems to be far from a democratic process or that the media has such an influence, or that money or race or gender is still a factor).

So, Democrats can't handle dissension and debate (democracy); it is simply too destructive and therefore it is best to curtail all and call one candidate a winner prior to the rest of the country voting or finding a way to count votes presently being discounted. What on earth will happen to them, then, when the general election occurs and the Democratic candidate is possibly maligned in some manner by a Republican? Perhaps the Republicans should just call an end to the whole affair early to protect the public/ scarred Democrats/call themselves (the Republicans) the winners. Who needs an election if it appears that the Republicans are going to win, anyway? Is it necessary to go through all of that if it is going to divide the nation? Also, since the public is simply too sensitive to deal with so much perhaps they should bunker down and let the rest of the world deal with their own problems since Americans won't be able to handle tribal differences, much less religious or political - problems (war) elsewhere, generally.

Wanting to cut all short due to the possible ruination of the Democratic Party reminds me of kindergarten competitions where everyone gets a ribbon so that no one will feel like a loser or where grades aren't given out because no one should be made to feel worse than another or where many aren't told that they are not measuring up because it will ruin their self esteem. Buck up and get real! This is real life and there is a country and world with real and increasing problems to deal with. Personally, I think the leaders should have debates with questions given about the history of various countries, questions on different religions, cultural matters - about how much they really know about a variety of matters (without the ability to call their advisors for answers). After George Bush, one would think that the more debate and discussion the better to ensure an actual leader is chosen that can lead.

At the moment, it looks like there is an old boys' club surrounding Obama which will be buoying (or actually boying) him up, a club that includes Richardson, Casey, and Kennedy, among others. If Obama really wanted change, he would have told Richardson and Casey and Ted Kennedy to stay out of it/that he would run on his own merits. So much for change. He is playing the same old games that everyone has played forever and if he wanted the party to not be divided, he wouldn't have accepted the backing of those who have, by their actions, already divided the party. However, their actions certainly have shone light upon their character - and their concern for party unity. Hillary should stay and be, among other things, the reminder that America is supposed to be a democracy (even though the whole process of electing a Democratic leader seems to be far from a democratic process or that the media has such an influence, or that money or race or gender is still a factor).

It is astounding how most job candidates actually have to have pertinent experience, yet to be the leader of the U.S. and the military one doesn't have to have relevant experience at all. There is the test by fire ref. running for the leadership, but there isn't really a test one has to pass ref. knowledge. One passing or one failing might damage the unity of the party, though, so perhaps it is, after all, best to let the candidate the media favours win so that the media can get on to newer stories more quickly.

This democratic "mess" that is unfolding is a tribute to the party that is made up of losers! Only the democratic party can destroy an "easy layup" of a campaign to oust the republicans from the Whitehouse. But leave it to the "jackass" party to bungle the whole thing.

Hillary Clinton is a liar and Barack Obama is closely associated with a bigot. Great prospects for president. I think not!!!

It goes to show that "liberals" just don't get it!!!

Large State Analysis.

Assuming for a minute that the Clinton supporters are "correct"in their Big State fixation, (A highly questionable supposition based on the Structure of the Electoral College which actually gives smaller States more clout), they continue to lie about Clinton's success. The argument, as I read it, is that the "only"