Superdelegates following the "will of the people" is purposefully vague. This means they can take MANY factors into account for a QUALITATIVE assessment. Comments on a bloating of 100+ delegates for Obama thanks to the DNC system are irrelevant in this respect.

I would like to express agreement with the posts pointing out that Clinton's attempts to get Michigan and Florida votes included in the totals is incredibly bad form. Indeed, there were rules that BOTH Clinton and Obama agreed to. Unfortunate as it is for the Michigan and Florida voters, it remains an internal DNC issue of rules.

Look, moving the goal posts during the game is no good. Florida and Michigan DNC parties did this and were punished according to rules agreed by the candidates. If Clinton litigates Florida into her pocket (like a certain president we all know), this would be a travesty for both the party and America.

The point is that there are rules, and they were agreed upon. This is part and parcel of a Western democracy, which also incidentally includes opportunities to change the rules, JUST NOT IN THE MIDDLE OF THE GAME.

If Hillary wins because superdelegates decide to flock to her, fine. It's a sickness in the DNC that was bound to rear its ugly head. If she has to FORCE anything (superdelegate pledges, getting Florida and/or Michigan votes counted) and STILL wins the nomination, she will seal the deal for another Republican White House. There are enough people who hate her already (as opposed to mere dislike of Obama), and a boneheaded move like forcing her nomination will not just generate more strong feelings against her, but shoot America in the foot as well.

Why is Hillary not playing by the very rules that she herself agreed to?

Of course Hilary has a "path" to the nomination, but the point is: how probable is that scenario? I mean, there are scenarios where Al Gore could get nominated.

CHRIS WE KNOW THAT YOU ARE IN CLINTON CAMP BUT THERE IS THE SIMPLE TRUTH YOU HAVE TO FACE UP. HILLARY IS BEHIND IN ELECTED DELGATES,BEHIND IN POUPLAR VOTES AND BEHIND IN STATES WON.EVEN IF YOU COUNT FLORIDA AND MICHIGAN UNLESS YOU GIVE ZERO VOTE IN MICHIGAN FOR OBAMA. THE MATH WILL NOT ADD UP. WHAT IS SO HARD TO UNDERSTAND THIS IS NOT EVEN SECOND GRADE MATH.MATH IS A VERY FACTUAL CONCEPT IT IS VERY HARD FOR SPINNING.MY FRIEND REMENBER YOU GUYS WERE SAYING A WIN IS A WIN IN PENSALVANIA THAT IS IT A WIN IS A WIN FOR MR OBAMA I HAD A BIG CONVERSATION WITH FRIENDS THE OTHER NIGHT OVER COUNTING FLORIDA AND MICHIGAN WE BELIVE THEY SHOULD NOT COUNT.. YOU DO NOT MAKE THE RULES AS YOU GO OR THAT IS NOT THE CASE WHEN IT COMES TO THE CLINTONS.I COULD NOT BELIVE IT WHEN I HEARD CARVELL SAING ON MR KINGS SHOW "THE RACE IS TIED"THIS MADNESS HAS TO STOP SOMEONE HAS TO SHOW MRS CLINTON THE EXIT DOOR YOU TALK ABOUT ELECTABLITY YOU KNOW THE CLINTONS ARE DONE WITH BLACK VOTERS SO,THE PARTY CAN NOT COUNT ON BLACK VOTERS THE ROCK OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY REMENBER THOSE BLUE COLOR WORKERS YOU ARE TAKING ABOUT HAS VOTED FOR BUSH LAST TIME.MEANING THEY ARE NOT AS DEPENDABLE AS BLACK VOTERS.WHAT ABOUT THE YOUNGESTERS WHO ARE OBAMAS BIG BLOCK?WHO ARE ALLERGIC TO CLINTONS. DO YOU THINK SHE CAN WIN THE ELECTION WITH OUT THEM?BELIVE ME THE CLINTONS ARE PLAYING THE SAME POLITICS THAT OBAMA IS TALKING ABOUT AND WE ARE TIRED OF IT LIES AND LIES AND SOME MORE LIES THAT IS THE CLINTON AND THEIR STYLE NO GRESS AT ALL. WE SHOULD HAVE DUMPED THEM WHEN THE HUSBAND CAME OUT AND LIED IN FRONT OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE REGARDING MONIKAS SCANDALE. AS FOR ME I AM DONE WITH THEM THE DAY HILLARY QUESTIONED OBAMAS EXPERIANCE IN COMPARISON WITH MCcAIN.THESE PEPOLE ARE FULL OF DIRT OBAMA COULD HAVE BLOWN A NUMBER OF THEM AGANST THE CLINTONS BUT THAT WILL BE THE POLTICS OF WASHINGTON NO BODY WANTS, EXCEPT YOU AND FOX NEWS AND THE LIMBO INST.FOR DRUG ADDICTS.SO MY FRIEND THE CLINTONS ARE DONE JUMP ON THE NEW TRAIN MOVING TWARDS WASHINGTON`.

TOP TEN REASONS HILLARY SHOULD BE PRESIDENT

10. SO SHE CAN SIGN AN EXECUTIVE ORDER OUTLAWING MOVEON.ORG

9. RUSH LIMBO SEC. OF EDUCATION

8. SHE WILL RAISE McCAIN A NUKE ATTACK TO HIS BOMB BOMB BOMB BOMB BOMB IRAN SONG

7. SO BILL CAN FIND THOSE EARINGS HIS FRIEND LOST ON AIRFORCE ONE

6. HILLARY CLINTON CURED DISCO FEVER

5. THE CLOSETS IN THE WHITE HOUSE ARE LIKE TOTALY CLUTTERED

4. SHE BELIEVES IN CHANGE - OF THE NOMINATION RULES AND HAS CREATED NEW MATH

3. ONE WORD, PANTSUITS

2. SHE WILL END THE WAR BY FALLOUT FROM NUKING IRAN

THE NUMBER ONE REASON HILLARY SHOULD BE PRESIDENT;

1. TO PISS OFF DICK MORRIS

THE NUMBER ONE REASON HILLARY SHOULD BE PRESIDENT;

1. BILL AND HILLARY CLINTON ENDED DISCO FEVER

TOP TEN REASONS HILLARY SHOULD BE PRESINDENT

2. SHE WILL END THE WAR BY FALLOUT FROM NUKING IRAN

TOP TEN REASON HILLARY SHOULD BE PRESIDENT

3. ONE WORD, PANTSUITS

TOP TEN REASONS HILLARY SHOULD BE PRESIDENT

4. SHE BELIEVES IN CHANGE - OF THE NOMINATION RULES AND HAS CREATED NEW MATH

TOP TEN REASONS HILLARY SHOULD BE PRESIDENT

5. THE CLOSETS IN THE WHITE HOUSE ARE LIKE TOTALY CLUTTERED

TOP TEN REASON THAT HILLARY SHOULD BE PRESIDENT

6. TO PISS OFF DICK MORRIS

TOP TEN REASON HILLARY SHOULD BE PRESIDENT

7. SO BILL CAN FIND THOSE EARINGS HIS FREIND LOST ON AIRFORCE ONE

TOP TEN REASON HILLARY SHOULD BE PRESIDENT

8. SHE CAM BLAIM HER HUSBAND ALL THE BAD THINGS AND TAKE CREDIT FOR THE GOOD

TOP TEN REASON HILLARY SHOULD BE PRESIDENT

9. RUSH LIMBO SEC. OF EDUCATION

TOP TEN REASON WHY HILLARY SHOULD BE PRSIDENT.

10. SO SHE CAN SIGH AN EXECUTIVE ORDER OUTLAWING MOVE ON.ORG

Nancy Pelosi has accomplished nothing for the American People.
This year she has 1 mission to get Obama the nomination. She has spent all her time and energy on trying to cajole and when necessary strong arm congress members to support Obama.

Speaker Pelosi has never spoken out on counting the 2.3 million votes in Florida or Michigan. When Senator Clinton suggested a revote, the DNC agreed the two states agreed, Clinton agreed and even arranged the financing of the revote Obama killed the idea! Speaker Pelosi has remained silent on the issue. It is more important to her that she twists the super delegates arms to vote for Obama in June then it is to disenfranchise 2.3 million democratic voters.

By the way 6 states have violated the DNC rules by moving up their primary: Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina , Nevada, Florida and Michigan. The DNC are only punishing two of the states; Florida and Michigan.

I did not understand Pelosi especially since she knew about Reverend Wright, Rezko, Ayers, Auchi and other problems over a year ago. Pelosi's close friend Obama supporter Chicago Congresswoman Jan Schkawski had informed Pelosi of Obamas associations. I finally understood why Pelosi is so pro Obama it is because she is so Pro Palestine like Obama.

NANCY PELOSI IS ANTI ISREAL

It is true that Jewish people make up only 3% of the population. However, we are one of the largest finical contributers of Democrats. It is very upsetting to learn the truth about Speaker Pelosi and her hidden hatred of Jewish people. Speaker Pelosi on one hand has raised large amounts of money from Jewish contributers yet on the other hand harbored hated of the very people that have supported her entire political career.

There are a long litany of facts that support Pelosi's Anti Semitism :

In 2007 the Speaker had 67 staff members. The Speaker only two Jewish staffers (one part time). In fact the Speaker has more Arab staffers than Jewish staffers not an easy feat to pull off.

The Speaker has one of the worst hiring records of Jewish staffers of anyone in congress

The Speaker was cruel and belittling publicly to only one member of congress Jane Harman (a Jewish Congresswomen) who is a strong supporter of Israel. Pelosi had the need to single her out for public humiliation. Harman was the ranking member of the Intelligence Committee and was due to be Chairwomen of that committee. The Speaker stepped in and refused to allow Harman to become the Chairperson. Pelosi gave the position to a less qualified person who is not a strong supporter of Israel.

When Pelosi became Speaker she did not promote any Jewish congress members to the top echelon of Congress or leadership positions in the Democratic Party.

Speaker Pelosi has failed to speak out against Former President Carters
unauthorized meeting with Hamas. (President Carter wrote in his latest book that Israel is a terrorist country) After the book was published the CEO of The Carter Center told President Carter that he is barred from the Carter center)

Speaker Pelosi had no objection to Obama wanting to meet with Almadademajade (the President of Iran who believes that Israel should be wiped off the face of the earth)

Speaker Pelosi had no objection when Obamas stated his intention to meet with Hamas

Speaker Pelosii is the highest ranking Democrat she has the moral duty to speak out against speech which is anti american, anti semitic, anti white, and anti gay. When the Speaker was faced with this very issue what did she due? Nothing she failed to support any of us!
The Speaker remained silent on Reverend Wrights sermons that preached death to jews, the Israelis were responsible for the booming of the world trade center and various other hate filled speech.

On repeated occasions Obama has stated the Palestinians are the most persecuted people in the world. The Speaker again failed to speak out or to show any support for Israel

2008 Presidential Election Weekly Poll

http://www.votenic.com

Results Now Posted Instantly! Barack Obama In the Lead!

Like It? Don't Like It? Vote.

The polpular vote doesn't count in the general election for the president...why does everyone think it would be overly important in the primaries? Do any of you that keep talking about the "most votes" understand that the general election works in a similar fashion and that President
Bush didn't get the most votes but is still our president?

No matter how much you complain about it, the individual political parties have made up a bunch of rules for how they pick their candidate and that is the way it works. Period. Obama can't "decide" to not count FL and MI anymore than Hillary can decide to count them...that is all political posturing and media sensationalism. The DNC decides, not the candidates.

If you don't like the rules of your party, change parties or start a new one. Obama is in position within the rules as they stand today to win. HC has no chance unless the rules change and that would be cheating.

If Obama is really as bad as some people say he is then all of the delegates (super and not) can decide to chose someone else at their sole discretion...that's part of the rules too. Strange how many of you think Obama is pure evil but the majority of the Democratic party insiders are supporting him...do you think they are all stupid?

Sorry to join the fun so late but...Words of Wisdom, you sound like a football fan whose team lost the game and says, "We really won because we had more total yards than they did." The rules are the rules, and the only fair measure for determining who wins in delegate count. The reason some parts of a state get a disproportionate amount of delegates is because they have more Democrats there. Wouldn't you think it makes sense they have a greater say in the process? Also, you can't use popular vote when many states have caucuses. Caucuses aren't designed to be reviewed by popular vote (four states-Iowa, Washington, Nevada and Maine-didn't even issue popular vote counts). In all likelihood, if those states had held primaries instead of caucuses, Obama may have won slightly viewer delegates (but would still be in the lead) and would have an insurmountable lead in popular vote.

Trying to judge an overall national race based on popular votes when many states have held caucuses isn't just wrong, it's deceitful (just like trying to count Florida or Michigan in the popular vote). Bottom line, the rules of the game say the winner is the one with the most delegates, super or otherwise. And everybody knows the rules up front when they start campaigning. Whining about it after the fact or trying to change the rules is the sign of a loser.

Paul and Wingood are right: Mrs Clinton agreed to the rules (re Florida and Michigan) before the primaries began. Now her camp is pressing to abandon those rules because they don't like the result. "Wordsofwisdom" is missing the entire point: all the candidates agreed to the rules of the contest in advance. If those rules are unfair in any way, the time to object was BEFORE the contest. To object NOW is just unprinicipled whining.

The momentum is with Hillary now. Obama is being exposed for the dirty career politician he actually is.

Wow. I can't believe the way Obama supporters try to blame his loss on "racist, trailer park, red neck" PA voters. It is no wonder that people think he sounds elitist. The vitriol being spewed on his behalf will not garnish him support from the working blue collar vote. A difference of opinion does not give you the right to look down your nose and call PA voter's "stupid" or "racist". He outspent her 3 to 1 in PA and saturated the local media with negative commercials and ads, and he still couldn't close the gap. PA saw him as a weak candidate...his debate performance was terrible, he surrounds himself with questionable people, and his rhetoric is bogus. He pretends to be above the fray, but engages in all of the dirty politics he claims to be against. If anyone is fooling themselves, it is Obama.

END THE DRAMA
295 DELEGATES TO OBAMA

700 LEFT

436 NEEDED BY CLINTON

COUNTDOWN TO VICTORY
295

GO BOAMA

This election is ridiculous. We just need to elect a democrat NOW. I am republican, but this is ridiculous. Im tired of hearing the debates between Clinton and Obama. My tv stops my shows to show them. I don't care who wins the election between the democrats. So please, hurry up America and vote.

And don't forget...angels could also come down from heaven. Back away from the computer Chris & take a walk. What a bunch of BUT IFs...

Jnoel: Interesting -- polls dont matter yet?? Look at CC next post.....

Lets face it there won't be a Democrat in the White House this time around because whoever wins the nomination those who lost won't vote for the other side. I say this because I know without a doubt if Hillary gets the nomination I'm not voting for her underhanded dirty tricks. I will vote the Green Party or McBush (leaning more toward McBush though) so that the "un-bitter" voters in PA just might have something to be bitter about with four more years of Bush lies for war in Iraq and other failed policies or lack of policies for serious issues facing this country.

With four more years of Bushes' war at a multi-trillion dollar tab leaving no money for college, healthcare, infrastructure repair maybe PA voters will come to their senses and remember that Hillary is to blame for Bushes' war, also. PA voters must have forgotten the twisted tale of Clinton's campaign calling Canada and telling them to not take seriously any campaign talk about trade agreements between US and Canada because it's just "campaign talk". When a reporter got it mixed up and blamed this on the Obama camp Hillary & company stayed mum. Hillary was more than happy to let the innocent party take the blame what kind of character is that? Hillary did the same thing when asked if she thought that Obama was a Muslim she said, "I don't think he's Muslim". She knows that "implying with innuendo" is just as destructive as push polling which is another activity her campaign deals in.

Maybe PA voters will also remember how Hillary stood there reciting the "snipper fire" story, not once BUT FOUR TIMES, and they don't see her as squirrel and unhinged? I don't want her anywhere near my kid and I certainly DO NOT WANT her finger on the button!

If you wonder how far Hillary is willing to take this dirty little campaign she's started well, you heard her say it with that evil chackle of hers, " If you can't take the heat get out the kitchen" she meant "Hell's Kitchen". See ya there.

"Given that reality, the overarching question facing party activists and elected officials (read: superdelegates) over the next five weeks is whether or not Clinton has a legitimate and plausible path to the nomination."

NOTHING you described, Chris, can be termed a "path to victory" but rather merely a rationale for stealing the nomination. Period.

Sure she can win...with superdelegates. They were created for a reason and they should be allowed to do their part as was written when they were created, or else why do they even exist? Do away with them then if they are not able to do what they were created for. Telling the superdelegates that they have to (or should) vote for the person with the most votes/delegates is no different than seating Michigan & Florida regardless what the DNC originally decided. It is changing the rules in the middle of a game.

I read every word of that and when it was over, it boiled down to this: She can't win unless Obama is hit by a meteor. Or unless she can convince 70% of all the remaining super delegates that they should be willing to sacrifice their future careers in politics so that she and Bill can live in the big house again. If the supers overturn the people's choice, they won't be working in politics anymore and they aren't too dumb to know it. They're just holding out and hoping that somehow they won't have to make anybody mad at them. But, push come to shove, they're safer going with the voters, then against them. And they know it.

Sure, Hillary can win if she just step aside, so she can get herself by. She's in her own way. To the left, hon.

sheridan1 I am really looking for humility from Obama before I will give him any thought in Nov. Tsongas, Bradley, Edwards and I think even Kerry were humble I just don't get that sense from Obama. The closest I have heard from him that illicits humility was a comment in his Tues speech 'I may not be perfect'. He needs to do a lot more of that if he expects to be viewed as humble. Continual comments like that to a Jewish group on fri. like I give a really good speech don't I to me is like a teacher's nails scaping on a blackboard but maybe that is just the way I react to him. I imagine if they were doing a focus group and heard that comment the dials would go to zero. And moveon is no longer what it was founded to be and they now refuse diverse opinions imho.

Chris,

Laying out all of these possibilities and requirements is all fine and good. But the problem is that you folks in the media don't stick to these bits of conventional wisdom after the fact. It was widely written that Clinton had to win PA by doublt digits. She didn't, and yet all of the momentum went her way. Everybody is writing about how Obama can't force her out, and yet the conventional wisdom was that a single digit loss would have been considered good for Obama given the early PA polls and the characteristic of those who live there.

If Obama wins Indiana, Clinton will dismiss the victory as being the product of "next door" syndrome, a difference in money spent, and whatever other excuse her campaign can come up with. If you stick to your guns here, you and others in the media will declare her dead. Let's see if you stick to it this time.

Be honest, the Clinton campaign spins so well, you start buying in to it while knowing that you're getting spun (the fact that you folks are giving any credence to the popular vote argument in a contest decided by delegates is exhibit A). You guys also have to admit that you have a financial interest in seeing this race continue, and you have an interest in making it juicy as well. It's really disheartening.

Here is an entry from the MI / FL petition;

Jocelyn and Michael in Michigan - We are so furious with Barack Obama at this point in time that we have both made a pact NOT to vote for him in November if he is the nominee for the Democrats. We've had enough of this absurdity. We VOTED. And this freshman rookie Senator from Illinois doesn't want our votes to count? To hell with him.

--

There you have it. Sign at;

http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/seatourdelegates/signatures.html

-

Leichtman - thanks for answering my question. I appreciate your appreciation of the Clintons, and personally, I was a big supporter of Bill Clinton. I joined MoveOn.org when it was founded - YOU DO KNOW it was founded to get the Ken Starr bunch to MOVE ON passed the impeachment and get back to governing. The 90's in my own world were just fine, thank you - and I had no idea how naieve I was about the Clintons.
Still, if it was Bill running - I might be swayed. Heard this one?:
"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." (Of course, that was Bill Clinton 1.0 talking.)Then you call Obama arrogant and stubborn? I have a feeling you know this is not true. He is certainly one of the most humble politicians I have seen since...1968. Stubborn? Doesn't that make him a FIGHTER? isn't that why you love Clinton so much? She IS a figter. And a good one. Only problem is, she fights to win at any cost - once that happens, do you think she has the integrety to keep her promises to the American people if they do not suit her? With negatives above 50%, don't you think she is the ONLY WAY John McCain can win? He's such a nice old guy...I'd kinda like to have a beer with him.
But I hear he's arrogant and stubborn.

Leichtman - thanks for answering my question. I appreciate your appreciation of the Clintons, and personally, I was a big supporter of Bill Clinton. I joined MoveOn.org when it was founded - YOU DO KNOW it was founded to get the Ken Starr bunch to MOVE ON passed to impeachment and get back to governing. The 90's in my own world were just fine, thank you - and I had no idea how naieve I was about the Clintons.
Still, if it was Bill running - I might be swayed. heard this one?
"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." (Of course, that was Bill Clinton 1.0 talking.)Then you call Obama arrogant and stubborn? I ahve a feeling you know this is not true. He is certainly one of the most humble politicians I have seen since...1968. Stubborn? Doesn't that make him a FIGHTER? isn't that why you love CLinton so much? She IS a figter. And a good one. Only problem is, she fights to win - once that happens, do you think she ahs the integrety to keep her promises to the American people if they do not suit her? With negatives above 50%, don't you think she is the ONLY WAY John McCain can win? He's such a nice old guy...I'd kinda like to have a beer with him.
But I hear he's arrogant and stubborn.

Super delegates, are you watching??

The upcoming Clinton fraud trial:

Quote: "A status conference hearing is scheduled for April 25, 2008, and a trial date is expected to be announced soon.

Discovery in the case is expected to begin in May, 2008 as it proceeds to trial.

The discovery will expose an ongoing cover-up of the campaign finance crimes and the obstructions of justice directed by Hillary Clinton with the help of Bill Clinton and former DNC Chair Ed Rendell. The cover-up rivals Watergate in its corruption of each branch of government and the media."

Quote: "The double (and more) posts are an issue with the blog server not responding and people clicking the "post" button numerous times because they are impatient..."

I know, and as the old saying goes, "patience is a virtue".

The upcoming Clinton fraud trial:

Quote: "A status conference hearing is scheduled for April 25, 2008, and a trial date is expected to be announced soon.

Discovery in the case is expected to begin in May, 2008 as it proceeds to trial.

The discovery will expose an ongoing cover-up of the campaign finance crimes and the obstructions of justice directed by Hillary Clinton with the help of Bill Clinton and former DNC Chair Ed Rendell. The cover-up rivals Watergate in its corruption of each branch of government and the media."

The double (and more) posts are an issue with the blog server not responding and people clicking the "post" button numerous times because they are impatient...

leichtman, again with the double posts. Please learn how to use a computer.

Quote: "My guess is that Obama if he gets the nomination will tell the Convention he offered the VP spot to HC, and that she rejected it(wink wink) and then turn to Bill Richardson who HC supporters now despise as his VP and that HC supporters will then become so outraged that they turn in mass to McCain. Its my finger in their eyes theory. I hope I am wrong."

Good grief, leichtman. Do you not think that Senator Clinton would not deny that if it were not true. wink, wink?? The voters will turn "in mass" to McCain anyway since this prolonged debacle.

A primary election is no different than a teacher asking her students for a show of hands on which field trip they would like to go on. The teacher and school is under no obligation to send those students on the trip that the majority raises their hands for...or any obligation to even ask for a show of hands in the first place.

Word of ? - you are still laboring under the mis-conception that voting in the primaries has anything to do with rights or legal issues. Who decides? the leaders of the party do. They decide everything...members of a party have no "rights" under the law whatsoever. If you are the member of a party that happens to hold primary elections, then the party can chose or not chose to listen to your vote at their sole discretion. You and your primary vote have no legal implications at all. The primary is simply an internal process used by a political party to decide who their candidate will be.

Her only chance to a legitimate win is to win North Carolina and it ain't happening. She could attempt to steal pledged delegates but that'll NEVER happen. She could keep claiming Florida and Michigan but that'll NEVER happen in the way she'd need it to. Florida and Michigan WILL suffer for moving up their dates against the RULES JUST LIKE HILLARY SAID BEFORE THE PRIMARY VOTES THERE :)

I still have not heard from the posters to whom I asked questions.

Leichtman:

I appreciate your honesty. And I hadn't considered the "value" of your Democratic vote for president in Texas.

My hope is that a D-controlled Senate would have enough backbone to reject a doctrinaire Supreme Court nominee (see Bork, Robert) if McCain were to become POTUS and Stevens decided to retire. Of course, Stevens might go on as long as Byrd.

MarkInAustin:

We could go threadjack a different comments section to post about more interesting matters than delegate counts, popular vote. jac13 could give some more grammar and spelling lessons too.

"He is a very solid, reasonable, seasoned Democrat who will bring a huge level of support in the hispanic and catholic groups to the ticket."

thought that too sense I contributed $100 to him before getting behind Edwards, no longer. He sounded bitter and resentful last night and I truly sense HC supporters no longer care for him; that decision just won't sit well and hopefully Obama understands that.

mark will try and read that Harvard Law Review analysis you posted; seems like we needed you hear to bring back reason and calmness.

To those calling for a re-vote: forget it; it won't happen. The rules are the rules. Primaries are at the option of the party and the states. They get to choose any way they wish. It's over.

To those who think HRC actually has a path to nomination: forget it; apart from Obama's physical death or political death, it cannot happen. The latter is in his hands now. A comment that is more egregious than the "bitter" comment would do it. It that what she's hoping for? Dream on!

To the few "off the wall" Hillary supporters" please note that I'm not attacking her. You should also not attack me or Obama unless you're trying to prove that she should not be nominated by showing how rabid her supporters are.

To those attempting to blemish Barack with Ayers, Wright, et al.: You'll not find a politician without some past associations that are not nice. In some cases, (e.g. DeLay and Abramoff), they knew with whom they were dealing and are culpable. Not so in Obama's case.

To those comparing qualifications: based on the record, he has more years in elective office and has had more Senate bills passed that he co-authored or co-sponsored. That doesn't necessarily make him more qualified to be **President**. It does, however, put the lie to his putative inexperience. Phui!

In the end, you have two **relatively** qualified people running for President. One is well ahead according to the party rules. One is so far behind that she cannot win except by a miracle. Talk about the "audacity of hope!"

Note that I said relatively qualified. Compared to some past Presidential candidates they can be either more or less qualified. Was being a five-star general qualification for Eisenhower? How about the young senator from Massachusetts in 1960? What about a wealthy, elite New Yorker in 1932? Another example is the political novice in 1860. How about the general who couldn't win any of his early battles until the French helped out?

Also, winning has little to do with qualifications as GWB has proven repeatedly to all of us. He was completely unqualified compared to his competitors but won anyway and we'll be suffering for a long time because of it.

Neither Democratic candidate will cause that kind of suffering. Either will probably beat McCain to pieces in November. Obama has one significant advantage that the HRC campaign never talks about. He'll improve the downticket races.

They're both good as potential Presidents. They'll both break new ground. They'll both probably win (suspect that he'll do a bit better). He'll increase Dem majorities in Congress more than she. He's ahead, and she cannot catch up except by the audacity of hope and by political assassination, which would hurt her and the party very much.

So, relax. Chill. Stop busting a blood vessel over President Obama. It's in your future. Get used to it. He doesn't have to become a "fighter" and destroy her more than she's doing to herself in order to win. Let him establish a pattern that will be able to bury McCain without breaking the country apart even further. He'll deal with the 527 groups just fine.

If you're an Obama supporter, you should also relax. Brush off the ludicrous attacks. Look forward. Be magnanimous. Follow the scripture teaching of loving your enemies, especially if they're in your party. You'll hope for their friendship soon enough. Remember that the nicer we all are to Hillary, the easier we make it for her to leave. Maybe her ego needed the PA victory. Let it be.

Besides, Obama is getting a great education in running for President the only way that anyone can -- by doing it. Hillary and her supporters are paying to provide that education. How can you get mad at that?

Leitchman - just because Richardson snubbed Hillary doesn't mean that all of the fair minded people that support her now "hate" him...you are assuming that all Hillary supporters are stupid and can't understand political manuvering. He is a very solid, reasonable, seasoned Democrat who will bring a huge level of support in the hispanic and catholic groups to the ticket.

" Anyone wanting to know about electability need only look at whose coffers are overflowing to know who can win in November."

Yea that theory worked out pretty well for Mitt Romney didn't it.

simple you are 100% right and that is a mature observation but since Sen Obama has indicated that he would not even consider HC on a joint ticket and that he won't budge on either seating Fla or Michigan and their delegates, then don't expect that to happen any time soon. My guess is that Obama if he gets the nomination will tell the Convention he offered the VP spot to HC, and that she rejected it(wink wink) and then turn to Bill Richardson who HC supporters now despise as his VP and that HC supporters will then become so outraged that they turn in mass to McCain. Its my finger in their eyes theory. I hope I am wrong.

simple you are 100% right but since Sen Obama has indicated that he would not even consider HC on a joint ticket and that he won't budge on either seating Fla or Michigan and their delegates, then don't expect that to happen any time soon. My guess is that Obama if he gets the nomination will tell the Convention he offered the VP spot to HC, and that she rejected it(wink wink) and then turn to Bill Richardson who HC supporters now despise as his VP and that HC supporters will then become so outraged that they turn in mass to McCain. Its my finger in their eyes theory.

The $10 million keeps taking longer to earn, notice? At first it was that much in a day, and now we are into a day and a half...

Howver long it ends up taking, it doesn't matter. All the people who have been sandbagging their contributions for the past six weeks just blew their wads. But ee have no indication these are people Hillary will be able to go to again and again as Obama has. Perhaps this is the problem with having retired working class uneducated white grandmothers as your base. They don't have the energy. More importantly, they don't have the money.

It's typical that Democrats, so uncomfortable with capitalism and inept at managing their own money, worry about intangibles like "electability" and other nonsense, and can't see that as that Randy Newman song says, "It's Money that Matters." Anyone wanting to know about electability need only look at whose coffers are overflowing to know who can win in November.

JD, I give you the historic moment of conception of the "Right to Privacy." You may use it to bolster your argument that the phrase is extra-constitutional. But you should read it as part of your general political education, so that you will not say the supposed right was "invented" by the Griswold Court. FWIW, I buy the reasoning of this 1890 gem, and think it makes libertarian sense.

http://faculty.uml.edu/sgallagher/Brandeisprivacy.htm

-------------------------------------
jac13 and I both think that the incredible increase in representation of women at the bar since 1967 may evidence that affirmative action has had a role, or not. Mnteng notes the effect on women's athletics.
-----------------------
Except for threadjacks on "affirmative action" and the "right to privacy" this has been another miserable thread, IMHO.

Leitchman, the Democratic party is already in deep trouble for this general election...no doubt about it. Both candidates have areas of weakness that have been seriously exacerbated by this ridiculous 50 round knockout only primary.

It doesn't matter who we field now..we are in trouble and need to come together, work together to get out of it.

simple we have already had that discussion but there are definitely signs of trouble for Sen Obama from the overwhelming numbers of catholics (72%) who have said they will not support Obama in Nov. Some here thinks that means nothing, I think it is a sign of trouble in the general election if Sen obama still becomes the nominee.

My question is: Does this new/old evidence, if true, change the dynamic about whether Hillary is trust worthy?

Posted by: Thomas Snow | April 24, 2008 3:53 PM

NONONONO!!!! There is a filom of them deplaning in DAYLIGHT. They WALKED across the tarmac and were greeted by a CHILD with flowers and a poem.
Bill and Hillary To Face Fraud Trial

While Hillary Clinton battles Barack Obama on the campaign trail, a judge in Los Angeles is quietly preparing to set a trial date in a $17 million fraud suit that aims to expose an alleged culture of widespread corruption by the Clintons and the Democratic Party.

Funing for Senate Campaign

FYI: CLINTON will be in court in California on Fri 25 April. FRAUD charges.

Absolutely our nation is based on the right to vote in a public election.

A primary is a political party decision and not a public institution. You do not have a legal "right" to vote or be counted by your party. That is a fact.

You need to brush up on your facts.

The whole premise of this article is happy horse poo-poo. Barack Obama has already closed the deal for millions of people. Hillary Clinton has absolutely NO possibility of winning the nomination unless of course it is stolen from the voters (you know, the people) by the superdelegates. Not very likely unless the Democrats have a penchant for political suicide.

I am willing to admit that maybe I'm wrong, after all the Democrats have been trying to follow the Republican's lead on a host of issues including Iraq, who knows maybe subverting the will of the people is their next act? But I believe, no strike that, I KNOW I'm right and this entire discussion has been a concoction of the dumb and ignorant in the media and is without any basis in reality.

mnteng: first of all I am in Texas so who I vote for for Pres means zero. But as you know there are many reasons beyond the Supreme Court and Roe that I use to decide who to support. I am lifelong Dem and that and Stevens are reasons I won't vote for McCain but neither will I stamp my Nov ballot with a vote for Senator Obama. I find him arrogant and stubborn flaws I have seen for 7 years with W, and have yet to hear one oz of humility from him. I doubt I am alone in that sentiment. That could change but I see that as likely as W becoming an articulate speaker or humble human being between now and January 2009. I have already signed up to help with a local D Congressman's campaign who I trust, admire and strongly believe in, sorry that is the best I can give you.

My question is: Does this new/old evidence, if true, change the dynamic about whether Hillary is trust worthy?

Posted by: Thomas Snow | April 24, 2008 3:53 PM

NONONONO!!!! There is a filom of them deplaning in DAYLIGHT. They WALKED across the tarmac and were greeted by a CHILD with flowers and a poem.

FYI: CLINTON will be in court in California on Fri 25 April. FRAUD charges.

My question is: Does this new/old evidence, if true, change the dynamic about whether Hillary is trust worthy?

Posted by: Thomas Snow | April 24, 2008 3:53 PM

NONONONO!!!! There is a filom of them deplaning in DAYLIGHT. They WALKED across the tarmac and were greeted by a CHILD with flowers and a poem.

FYI: CLINTON will be in court in California on Fri 25 April. FRAUD charges.

Our nation is premised on the right to vote; so please repeat what you wrote to to the millions of voters who didn't get their votes counted in FL/MI.

The point is that Obama was complicit in taking their right to vote away.

Lawyers do that sort of thing, we should know from 2000; they use all their legalese speak to deprive people of their votes.

It didn't go over well in 2000 and eight years later we are paying for it with an illigit President who has wrecked havoc on every aspect of our democracy..

Republican legislators had a hand in this manipulation. Maybe you should brush up on the facts..

Just because 1.25 million PA residents voted for Hillary doesn't mean they will vote against Obama.

sheridan asked a reasonable question about why we support HC which I answered in detail sorry the system posted it twice.

Apparently folks like jk5432 only want to hear amen to their posts praising Sen Obama and when engaged in a discussion turn to insults and diatribes saying he knows everything, don't dare challenge his opinions or conclusions. Maybe he is just not used to being told no you are incorrect. Fine you can ignore the actual sentiments of 1.25 million Pennsylvanians who firmly rejected Sen Obama and their demographics and who have said they won't be supporting him in Nov. as well. You think that is false bravado, just keep it up and you will find out exactly how serious those voices are. HC supporters as much as her opponets may try will not silenced nor will we be censored for disagreeing with your candidate. That tactic is not new here.

Leichtman:

Just to be clear. You wouldn't vote for Obama if he were the nominee and "risk" having McCain as POTUS as long as McCain is fine with Griswold. Even if McCain would likely nominate Stevens' replacement, who might then help to overturn Roe?

I have to say that even though I like all three candidates, this is one of the parts of McCain's platform that gives me pause.

One point that is being fully over-looked in this discussion is that no one actually has a legal or constitutional right to vote in the primaries. That constitutional right pertains to the presidential election. Each political party that choses to field a candidate picks it however they feel like picking it.

Did the Green Party legally have to hold a primary? The Liberatarians? NO. But they do have presidential candidates.

The Republican and Democratic parties have chosen a mixture of votes and caucuses but they could just pick someone out of the blue without any feedback from the party members...which is all that the primaries are, simply feedback to the party from it's members about what they feel.

No one in ANY state has a legal or constitutional "right" for thier individual primary vote to be counted, heard, paid attention to, etc.

If you don't like your party rules, switch parties or start your own.

What a time for a good 3rd party candidate. He/she would win in a landslide.

Anybody want to run??

Dear Mr / Ms Scrivener,
Late here abroad ,just finished the evening meal and tried to reply to your answer using a different take on the devil you know quote.
Unfortunately Chris objected to my pun using the word war with wh#re in my reply even though there was no definite link to any candidate.
Hope I can still post on the blog.
All the best with whatever candidate you choose.
Sincerily C.

Ahh yes, but when the super delegates take one look at the upcoming Clinton fraud trial, which will take place before the primary, it's Obama in a landslide.
Either that, or they are super dumb.

Well Patrick, if you don't agree with that one try this one, or any of the others that discuss the delegates:

If Obama captures 53 percent of them, (the remaining primaries) which is the share he has gained in contests to date, he would close out the primary season with at least 1,945 delegates, only 80 less than the total needed to clinch the nomination. If he and Clinton split the 566 evenly, he would still be within 100.

Actually all delegates are only pledged for the first vote, then all are open.

Pledged delegates are only "pledged" for the first vote at the convention. After that, all bets are off.

Go Hillary!

Soon Obama can be content to eat his waffles without the pesky media asking him annoying questions. He is getting delerious. At a campaign stop on PA's election day, he babbled on for several minutes about how good the pancakes were at a diner, telling the press to get some for themselves too..."they are crispy too!"

nite nite Barry...

Ayers? Obama's relationship with Ayers? What a joke! The man may have been a member of the Weathermen in the early 70's. So what? The Weathermen were an anti-war protest group who took things to the extreme and were against alot of instutions in the U.S. They hated the VN war and what it was doing this country. They tried to blow up chemistry labs affiliated with DOW Chemical who was doing Agent Orange development and testing to be used to defoliate forests, jungles,all animals including humans, theirs and ours, in SE Asia. Obama was 8 years old at the time. Bill Ayers went underground and eventually resurfaced and charges against him were dropped. He's teaching at the university level in Chicago. That proud institution of higher education doesn't care about his past. Why do you? And why make up and pretend there's some sinister connection between him and Obama? Obama was a community organizer of the South Side. Ayers, from his liberal background, was also involved in his own projects. So eventually they both end up sitting on the same Board of Directors of some community organization. Big friggin' deal. Both t`rying to help lessen the burdens of poverty, education and health care in an at-risk area and THAT's reason to pick up this non-story and make it something bad? What a bunch of Hannity-losers.

and why in the world would I care about your worthless Federalist Society driven incomprehensable drivel?

"You haven't comprehended a single thing I've posted said JD"

leichtman, I might put more belief in some of your posts if you only knew how to post them.

Repeating them doesn't make them any more believable.

Wright to have several big public appearances. According to the Chicago Sun Times, it's not exactly what Obama needs right before NC and Indiana...Wright attempting to say they took his words out of context in a Chicago Tribune article.. like in "mangeled my words," perhaps??

LYNN SWEET blogs.suntimes.com/sweet
WASHINGTON--The controversial Rev. Jeremiah Wright -- Sen. Barack Obama's pastor -- is speaking Monday at the National Press Club as part of a divinity conference of black church leaders. Wright's decision to headline an event at the Press Club -- open to all media -- risks giving Obama's critics more fodder, as if they don't have enough already.

Meanwhile, PBS is touting an interview with Wright to be broadcast Friday on "Bill Moyers' Journal." Fresh material from Wright -- no matter how well-intended -- is not what Obama needs.

Wright's Press Club talk is supposed to be about offering perspective on black churches -- theology, history and politics, and the torrent of coverage stemming from Obama's presidential bid.

Wright's relationship with Obama triggered an uproar when video of Wright's inflammatory sermons surfaced. Faced with a crisis, Obama delivered a highly regarded speech in March about race and why he would not "disown" Wright, the senior pastor at Trinity United Church of Christ on Chicago's South Side.

But the speech, good as it was, did not push Wright out of the picture.

Wright looms as a serious problem for Obama in his fight to be the Democratic presidential nominee over Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton and, if he wins, as a general election candidate against Sen. John McCain. Look no further than an ad the North Carolina Republican Party released Wednesday featuring a clip from Wright's "God Damn America" sermon and calling Obama an "extremist."

http://www.suntimes.com/news/sweet/913018,CST-NWS-sweet24.article

"WASHINGTON - "The pledged delegate count is basically over," MSNBC's Chuck Todd reported on Tuesday night as the Pennsylvania results rolled in, summarizing calculations showing Barack Obama holding what now appears to be an insurmountable lead over Hillary Rodham Clinton in pledged delegates..."

Posted by: | April 24, 2008 4:39 PM
-------------------
Well if the MSM says so it must be true, are they not the ones who sold us on the Iraq war and WMD?

Speaking of MSM, two interesting interviews ahead. In his first since the story broke, Bill Moyers interviews the Rev Wright tomorrow on PBS and Chris Wallace interviews Obama on FAUX, I mean FOX.

Quote: "As Hillary Clinton's belief in the inevitability of her 2008 ascension to the Oval Office is being shattered by the voters, the landmark civil fraud suit against Bill Clinton, with Hillary as a material witness, is proceeding to discovery and trial in California ..."

"Uh...I have a question for Hillary people. WHY? WHY do you want her to be President? In speaking to people, I find it is more about having Bill back in the White House. Other than that, or the two heads theory, WHY?

She does NOT have more experience. He has more years as an elected official"

Multiple reasons:

1. I would not vote for my local state Senator who skipped out on critical crime bills votes in the Texas State Senate or a critical vote regarding Iran to go campaign, to be re-elected to his seat in the Texas Senate much less US President;

2. Her detailed knowldeg of healthcare, intricate economic policies, mtg policies and vision for energy independence;

2. She is a fighter an unlike her opponent won't back down when it comes to fighting for her policies;

3. I have spent the time to read her healthcare plan and its details are superior;

4. rather than just talking about being bi partisan she has actually written and pushed bi partisan legislation with Linsey Graham and Orin Hatch like bringing tri care, rural health facilities, and disability benefits to reserves;

5. She had a mtg plan 6 months before Sen Obama even thought about it and bravely proposed boycotting the opening the Olymics that Sen Obama coyly agreed to 2 weeks later when the heat was on;

6.I agree that the next POTUS should not be traveling to countries like Iran and North Korea to gravel;

7. She has been a champion pof education since her days in Ark and even Sen Kennedy has reluctantly she was a strong voice for children and SCHIPS legislation as first lady;

8. Ted Strickland- her best supporter and link to carrying Ohio, a state that would have made John Kerry Pres with a mere 80,000 votes and the belief that she connects with moderates, the elderly, boomers and rural voters that we will need to win in Nov and that I believe that she is the stronger g.e candidate and that Sen Obama earjily reminds me of the Dukakas candidacy;

9. Her willingness to debate and understan sovereign wealth funds and hedge funds with Jim Cramer and bring in advisors like Bob Rubin and that folks like Sen Robert Byrd has praised her service, undertsanding and leadership in the US Senate while the NY Times has stated that Sen Obama has very little to show for his few years as a US Senator;

10. Exactly what was it about the 90s that you didn't like, the Peace or prosperity?My families' economic well being was far better then currently and minority povert was at a gerational low;

Hopefully that will make it clear that I support her because I believe she is leaps and bounds above Sen Obama in her qualifications to clean up the complicated mess that W will leave us in Jan '09 more than any dislike of Sen Obama, an honorable but highly unqualified candidate.

"Uh...I have a question for Hillary people. WHY? WHY do you want her to be President? In speaking to people, I find it is more about having Bill back in the White House. Other than that, or the two heads theory, WHY?

She does NOT have more experience. He has more years as an elected official"

Multiple reasons:

1. I would not vote for my local state Senator who skipped out on critical crime bills votes in the Texas State Senate or a critical vote regarding Iran to go campaign, to be re-elected to his seat in the Texas Senate much less US President;

2. Her detailed knowldeg of healthcare, intricate economic policies, mtg policies and vision for energy independence;

2. She is a fighter an unlike her opponent won't back down when it comes to fighting for her policies;

3. I have spent the time to read her healthcare plan and its details are superior;

4. rather than just talking about being bi partisan she has actually written and pushed bi partisan legislation with Linsey Graham and Orin Hatch like bringing tri care, rural health facilities, and disability benefits to reserves;

5. She had a mtg plan 6 months before Sen Obama even thought about it and bravely proposed boycotting the opening the Olymics that Sen Obama coyly agreed to 2 weeks later when the heat was on;

6.I agree that the next POTUS should not be traveling to countries like Iran and North Korea to gravel;

7. She has been a champion pof education since her days in Ark and even Sen Kennedy has reluctantly she was a strong voice for children and SCHIPS legislation as first lady;

8. Ted Strickland- her best supporter and link to carrying Ohio, a state that would have made John Kerry Pres with a mere 80,000 votes and the belief that she connects with moderates, the elderly, boomers and rural voters that we will need to win in Nov and that I believe that she is the stronger g.e candidate and that Sen Obama earjily reminds me of the Dukakas candidacy;

9. Her willingness to debate and understan sovereign wealth funds and hedge funds with Jim Cramer and bring in advisors like Bob Rubin and that folks like Sen Robert Byrd has praised her service, undertsanding and leadership in the US Senate while the NY Times has stated that Sen Obama has very little to show for his few years as a US Senator;

10. Exactly what was it about the 90s that you didn't like, the Peace or prosperity?

Hopefully that will make it clear that I support her because I believe she is leaps above Sen Obama in her qualifications to clean up the complicated mess that W will leave us for Jan '09 more than any dislike of Sen Obama, an honorable but highly unaualified candidate.

Quote: "There is zero chance mnteng that I will vote for Obama in Nov. which will be my first time in a lifetime to do so."

One more reason why McCain is laughing all the way to the White House.

Quote: "You need to get your Prozac (or whatever you should be taking) prescription refilled because you are really losing it (presuming you ever had it). You haven't comprehended a single thing I've posted and, the more I've refused to crawl into the gutter with you, the more you spew at me."

No, leichtman needs to get off whatever it is he is taking. He is over-dosing.

It will be interesting to see how the end of the spring college semester will change the results for Obama. If all his swooners go home, they may not be voting, opting instead for playing on facebook, working at Starbuck's, watching "American Idol" and voting by text! Ha.

Quote from today's news:

"WASHINGTON - "The pledged delegate count is basically over," MSNBC's Chuck Todd reported on Tuesday night as the Pennsylvania results rolled in, summarizing calculations showing Barack Obama holding what now appears to be an insurmountable lead over Hillary Rodham Clinton in pledged delegates..."

leichtman, becoming increasingly frantic, posts (among other diatribes):
"Its the in your face tactics from people like you screaming its the math its the math, and we know everything,and totally ignoring the overwhelming sentiments by Pennsylvanians and Ohioan, Catholics, blue collar and elderly voters who simply don't care for sen obama.

I despise W and have an Impeach W bumper sticker but how you thinks that somehow translates into I now love Obama is beyond comprehension. You just have zero grasp about how resentful the HC supporters are towards the absolute abuse taken from your campaign in this process. It is real and it is deep. I have given you that 1/2 of those exit pollers will flip, even that is not a given and by the arrogance of the Obama supporters it could certainly be less. But no one knows those exact numbers by Nov. Even a CNN Obama spokesman said he was shocked when he went on a supporting radio station and heard the horrible vitriol coming from Obama supporters on the radio station. If your side doesn't calm your rhetoric a I will guarantee there will be millions of HC supporters who will never support Sen Obama in Nov and I doubt that I am alone in that sentiment."

You need to get your Prozac (or whatever you should be taking) prescription refilled because you are really losing it (presuming you ever had it). You haven't comprehended a single thing I've posted and, the more I've refused to crawl into the gutter with you, the more you spew at me.

You're just like the Clinton team - if you don't like what you hear, or the facts don't match what you want to believe, you either move the end line or attack the one giving you the bad news. Well, too bad if you can't face reality.

No matter how much you bleat it, no one knows what will happen in November; could there be a negative effect from the groups you posture about towards Obama? Sure. Then again, them debbil high negatives towards your candidate might factor into other groups, donchathink? Of course not - the only statistics that matter are the ones that you care about.

So be it. This has become tedious for me and probably everyone still reading. So, feel free, like your candidate, to claim victory in your never ending quest for truth, justice and a grasp on reality. You're just no fun any more.

Bill and Hillary To Face Fraud Trial

While Hillary Clinton battles Barack Obama on the campaign trail, a judge in Los Angeles is quietly preparing to set a trial date in a $17 million fraud suit that aims to expose an alleged culture of widespread corruption by the Clintons and the Democratic Party.

Words, it's not up to me to justify the rule.

If you don't like it, then vote GOP. Or vote out Howard Dean or whoever put it in in the first place.

But if it IS in place, then follow the d@mn thing, don't just ignore it/change the rule after the fact.

Does that change your mind about McCain?

Posted by: mnteng | April 24, 2008 4:11 PM

I know that mnteng and why I will likely vote present like Sen Obama on the presidential race and hope my straight D down ballot votes will make up for it. There is zero chance mnteng that I will vote for Obama in Nov. which will be my first time in a lifetime to do so.

Uh...I have a question for Hillary people. WHY? WHY do you want her to be President? In speaking to people, I find it is more about having Bill back in the White House. Other than that, or the two heads theory, WHY?

She does NOT have more experience. He has more years as an elected official. The Repubs are DYING for her to be the nominee - McCain doesn't know how to campaign against Obama. The 527's can do what they will, but Hillary has pretty much already "vetted" him and he is still ahead. McCain is his own worst enemy - I don't believe he can beat either Obama or Clinton, but I do know SHE is the one who will bring the Republican base together. A lot of R's seem to like Obama - he is a natural leader.

Even as First Lady, Hillary had a reputation for being difficult and nasty. Why are so many former Clinton people now with the Obama campaign?

Working class, blue collar,white collar - what ever you want to bunch people together as...we are ALL affected by the economy, by the bastardization of our Constitution, by gas prices, by GLOBAL threats of Terrorism and Global Warming. ALL OF US!

Obama is not a liar. He is not one who values loyalty over competance, like the Bush and Clinton administrations. He is not one to just dismiss those who disagree with him. He has run an amazing campaign. He has brought in thousands of new voters. WHY Hillary? The Clintions are known for their do-anything style, their half-truths, their triangulation. Is it that you think this is the only way a government can be run?

Someboday sane (please not svreader) please explain it to me; WHY HILLARY??

ELECTION 2008
Clintons to face fraud trial,
Judge setting date, testimony to include ex-president, senator.

Quote: "I guess my discussion is too intellectually complex for some of you!! Read my comments!!!!"

No, I don't think so, but I do know that the more that you post, the more foolish you look. Keep up the good work. And keep bragging on your expertise, makes you and leichtman look like buddies.

Posted by: | April 24, 2008 4:17 PM
---------------------------------------
And what makes you so certain that you are right in your points? To those narrow minded I could certainly appear foolish but you and I are entitled to our precious opinions. Good bye, young one. You do not fool me!!!

You know that old saying, Liar, liar, pants on fire...

MICHIGAN FLORIDA Why?

Why wasn't Barack's name on the Michigan ballot? Daily Kos, a Liberal media outlet says "The bottom line of all of [the] information [about Florida and Michigan] is this:

"Barack played a foolish game in Michigan, and now the chickens are coming home to roost. In a deliberate plot to hurt HRC, he took his name off of the Michigan ballot. Michigan had been capriciously penalized by the DNC, unlike New Hampshire which was the state which first broke the rule/agreement which forced Michigan's hand."

"The delegates deserve to be, and I believe will be, seated. The DNC faces both charges of selective enforcement of its rules as well as disaster in November if they do not do this. The same goes for Florida."

"However, Barack has NO -- I repeat, ZERO -- case for what happened to him in Michigan. HE CAUSED IT, and he did it as a ploy to try to hurt Clinton. He gambled, he lost, and he is going to pay the price which he deserves to pay."

Don't let anyone tell you differently. This is what happened and what is likely to happen. Check the links, and see for yourself."

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/2/14/133526/537/909/456759

All the candidates, all their handlers, all the state party leaders,all the national leaders, the news media, and whomever else knew the format for the Democratic primary, since before last year.They signed off on Michigan and Florida also. To pine away and say it is wrong, not fair, leaving people out is disingenuous, etc. etc.etc. is a lot of hooey. get over it, stick a fork in it, it's done.

Quote: "Hmm...sure, Clinton can still win it - if Obama is eaten by a bear."

Don't mention it, Hillary has done worse.

Quote: "I was a Manager for 30 years in the Federal Government and the points I made were taught to us in basic training..."

Well, there is the problem in a nutshell.
------------------------------------------
I guess we cannot have an intelligent conversation with some of you. And enough said for those of you with such limited minds and lack of respect!!! You could not even understand the above statement!!! What is happening these days in our colleges? Education is being wasted!!!

Quote: "I guess my discussion is too intellectually complex for some of you!! Read my comments!!!!"

No, I don't think so, but I do know that the more that you post, the more foolish you look. Keep up the good work. And keep bragging on your expertise, makes you and leichtman look like buddies.

Very good, VANMAP--you've discovered that vast evil left-wing conspiracy against, well, the vast evil left wing. Did you figure that one out all by yourself?

The MI voter problem is all Obama's fault...and, of course, all of those other candidates (I mean, conspirators)who also respected the Party's rules, however inane they might have been. Oh, perfidious conspirators! All played by the preset rules--all that is, except the Clintons, whose only rule is that the rules are made only for me to decide.

No more Bushes. No more Clintons.
Let lying dogs sleep!

OK, so you say that rules are made to be broken if we don't agree with them. That's what the guy who ran into me said last week. "I wasn't breaking the law, the light was just starting to turn red."

Now I know why you support Clinton.
-------------------------------------------
I guess my discussion is too intellectually complex for some of you!! Read my comments!!!!

Hmm...sure, Clinton can still win it - if Obama is eaten by a bear.

Posted by: | April 24, 2008 2:33 PM
-------------------
And as Stephen Colbert says Bears are the number one threat to America.

Quote: "I was a Manager for 30 years in the Federal Government and the points I made were taught to us in basic training..."

Well, there is the problem in a nutshell.

Leichtman @3:14P
"If Roe is ever overturned it is likely to be drawn very narrowly and not overtrurn its fundamental right to privacy. Incidentally is that what McCain champions b/c that would sure turn me into a strong Obama supporter if he is the nominee, which I am not."

From http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues/95b18512-d5b6-456e-90a2-12028d71df58.htm

"John McCain believes Roe v. Wade is a flawed decision that must be overturned, and as president he will nominate judges who understand that courts should not be in the business of legislating from the bench. Constitutional balance would be restored by the reversal of Roe v. Wade, returning the abortion question to the individual states. The difficult issue of abortion should not be decided by judicial fiat."

Does that change your mind about McCain?

Quote: "All the talk here about Constitutional Law - do not the states govern their own elections? Doesn't the Constitution say the States are the judge of their own elections???"

No, the Texas Two Step was set up by the national and state democratic party who hate a winner take all primary.
Do I agree with it? No. Is it legal, YES. And has stood for decades.

Hispana, that's actually a reasonable reply. But think about the downside: chaos on the next go-around. Every state wants to go first next time, and no DNC rules are going to keep them from it.

Do you really want to see the first primary in June 2011, 6 months before Iowa?

Either have the rule, and enforce the teeth, or do away with it completely. Don't move the goalposts, don't try to be Mr Nice Guy.

Posted by: JD | April 24, 2008 3:54 PM
----------------------------------------
Still, you can easily document an exception for future purposes without licensing for trouble in the future. Its all about how you do it and it calls for LEADERSHIP!!! And this has nothing to do with enforcing or having the guts to do it!!!

I was a Manager for 30 years in the Federal Government and the points I made were taught to us in basic training. We were paid to exercise leadership, make tough decisions and sometimes go outside your guidelines if the ocassion warranted it. And you document these scenarios and communicate them to all. And I completed successfully 30 years with a reputation of being fair and balanced and taking care of all of my people.

JD

I am still waiting for you and Brad K to respond and justify the rule to begin with - Michigan and Florida should have never ever been told in the first place that they had to go after Nevada or South Carolina.

It is simply wrong to select 4 states to go in the first round and tell everyone else to wait.

Who is deciding which 4 states? Seriously.

Florida and Michigan had a history in several elction cycles of voting before SuperTuesday - what right does anyone here have to tell them when they can vote??

All the talk here about Constitutional Law - do not the states govern their own elections? Doesn't the Constitution say the States are the judge of their own elections???

We have a gray area in the Constitution here which involves Voting Rights of Citizens, the State's Right to Govern Elections and understandable the parties' rights to set their own rules.

However, this Harry Reid power play is simply just wrong.

Who gets to say that the political operatives from Nevada should have the inside track on Presidential appointments??

That is the charge, no one disputes that Harry Reid and his patronage hopes are at the heart of this dispute.

To place the Voters of two major states in the middle of that - and then justify the penalty - you guys are all nuts.

Quote: "That is an example of a cop out or a narrow mind if we are to always follow sets of rules and not allow common sense to be used in certain circumstances. Rules have been established in societies as a way of channeling behavior but they are not in and by itself the end result. As human beings and cultured individuals we need to understand that sometimes we can inject exceptions if there are compelling reasons."

OK, so you say that rules are made to be broken if we don't agree with them. That's what the guy who ran into me said last week. "I wasn't breaking the law, the light was just starting to turn red."

Now I know why you support Clinton.

Ditto vanmap and keep it coming!!!

you are absolutely right Sandra Day O'Oconnor is left wing and so was Ronald Reagan when he appointed her. That was her signature on Roe v Wade JD was it not?

"O'Connor--has reliably voted to strike down severe restrictions on reproductive choice. ...citing 4th amendment"

"There is an article that claims to have proof that Hillary did not lye about her experiences in Bosnia."

You believe everything that you read?? The pilot of the plane and the person in charge of the ceremony in Bosnia, both are on tape saying she lied.

Hispana, that's actually a reasonable reply. But think about the downside: chaos on the next go-around. Every state wants to go first next time, and no DNC rules are going to keep them from it.

Do you really want to see the first primary in June 2011, 6 months before Iowa?

Either have the rule, and enforce the teeth, or do away with it completely. Don't move the goalposts, don't try to be Mr Nice Guy.

WND Exclusive ELECTION 2008
Clintons to face fraud trial,
Judge setting date, testimony to include ex-president, senator.

Hillary may have not lied about Bosnia.

There is an article that claims to have proof that Hillary did not lye about her experiences in Bosnia.

The web site with the article is:

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/03/clinton-bosnia.html

This next web page is the results of a You Tube site search using the words "Hillary Clinton Bosnia under fire":

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=Hillary+Clinton+Bosnia+under+fire&search_ty

This search finds the videos in the LA TIMES article and demonstrates the conflicting statements in the press about Hillary's "lye".

My question is: Does this new/old evidence, if true, change the dynamic about whether Hillary is trust worthy?

Reponse to JD

Obviously, you are pretending that those who made the 'rules' were correct - answer me why does Nevada get to leapfrog Michigan and Florida

Is it just because Harry Reid is there

Why was the rule made this way?? Obviously Michigan and Florida dispute the rule and believe it is not correct to allow a few states to be entitled and make them wait.

What is your answer????

out of curiosity since annonymous insist that HC quit and put the nomination on an Obama silver platter, doesn't that contradict what your own candidate has repeatedly said(or was that just posturing) and last time I checked your side is close to 275 delegates short of the nomination. Are those delegates an entitlement that should just be handed over to Sen Obama. Who knows if McCain will win but if the rhetoric doesn't cool down yes that could certainly happen, but constant yelling at HC supporters thaty its the math its the math, you are evil, your candidate should quit really outrages most of the HC supporters and shows them absolute disrespect. Would those sentiments be made by you today if you replace the name HC with Joe Biden or John Edwards today, doubtful.

excuse me I have taught con law and will not stand for your arrogant rewriting of the US Constitution.

Posted by: Leichtman | April 24, 2008 3:44 PM

LOL. Seriously. LOL.

Based on your laughable responses, now that you claim to be some Constitutional Law professor, I'm afraid we're going to have to ask for some ID here.

Oh, and I'm the one 're-writing the Constitution'? Go back and re-read your own posts. Your concept of a living document, finding the mythical privacy rights justifying a federal right to abortions, etc., is VERY left wing.

Which is fine, don't get me wrong, it's a free country. But you continue to emabarrass yourself with your postings, you might, you know, think about walking away from the computer now, go sweep up the law school hallways or something.

I know that Democrats sometimes struggle with the concept of there being consequences for actions. But try to stretch your mind here; actions count, and if rules are to have any teeth whatsoever, there must be punishment for breaking them.
---------------------------------------
That is an example of a cop out or a narrow mind if we are to always follow sets of rules and not allow common sense to be used in certain circumstances. Rules have been established in societies as a way of channeling behavior but they are not in and by itself the end result. As human beings and cultured individuals we need to understand that sometimes we can inject exceptions if there are compelling reasons.
That is something that we teach our children as they grow.

In this c