This world is comming to an end no matter who win, people need to put there faith in God,not just any God cause there many out there,there is only one true God and you can tell by the people who follow him.

Obama has lost every key state in the nation.

Working class whites won't vote for him.

Latinos won't vote for him.

Caucus votes won't get him in the White House.

Democrats for McCain!

Hopefully this won't go until the convention but she needs to be in the race so she can raise the money to pay herself back. It just isn't going as well as she would have liked.

Please! Not a Clinton in the White House. NAFTA did me in as well as increasing my tax burden when Bill lowered the taxes on the rich...yes, more so than GWB.

But the heavens WILL open up one day or in HRC speak "as far as I know".

Why can't you folks just take United States Senator Clinton at her word? She really means to win the nomination by getting the most popular votes and by showing that she can win in the fall, whereas Senator Obama cannot. It's that simple. If the Democrats want the White House in the fall, they need to nominate Senator Clinton. There is no need or justification for questioning Senator Clinton's intentions. She means to be the next president, and I for one expect that she will be.

Isn't it interesting that Hillary wants to get everyone in Florida and Michigan fired up that they are being "disenfranchised" and yet it is her ultimate hope to convince the superdelegates to disenfranchise everyone who voted for Obama!

The Clintons are people of the lie. Don't be fooled.

The Crazy John McCain Song.

Listen to The Crazy John McCain Song or download it for FREE at http"//www.johnmccainusa.com/

THE CRAZY JOHN MCCAIN SONG

Lyrics by J.J. Spoons & Willie G. Smith
Music by Doc. "Skippy" McGhee

A Product of the Heartland.
Witten in Beautiful Akron, Ohio USA.
Recorded at Little Shack Studio, Okahumpka, Florida.
Mixed at Tall Tree Productions, Clarion, Pennsylvania.
Remixed at Big River Records, Joplin, Missouri.

clinton continues to run because she simply has no alternative in her mind...she is sour, not about the "noble" cause of mich/fla(michigan being the state that she said "doesn't matter"), not about the debt, but about the fact that she is being beaten...i think it drives her mad to think that she really isn't going to get this spot...and it is humbling to her to think of returning to the senate...

she has run an abysmal campaign, finding herself mired in substantial debt...she finds herself facing an opponent who has garnered more monies and support from the masses and run a tighter ship, with, whether one likes it or not, a definitive idea of his goals for the american people...

and, so, she flails about, grasping at anything that will validate her...she has claimed the joan of arc title for the "white, hard working american", i.e. uneducated, culturally stifled, poor man(the very people she told bill "to screw, you don't need them")...the masses of women of which i am happy to not be a part of...she offends my feminist sensibility...thatcher would never cry "foul" over gender...she would simply play a better game...

the art of a master warrior is to remember what one is fighting for...and to weigh the end against the means...she seems to have forgotten this...she has poisoned the bigger picture for her personal gain and worth...it is a sad state to finally have a woman with a chance to shine, only to have her shame us with this desperate, disingenuous behavior...there is more nobility in losing fairly with grace, than scorching the world around you to steal what simply isn't yours to have.

For example, I hope the state of Washington is trying to figure out what went wrong with their caucuses. All of their pledged delegates were based on this flawed caucus vote in the state of Washington. To see what I am saying, look at the Map Room on the site election.msn.com and compare the caucus result to the primary result for the state of Washington. The caucus came first: Obama 68% and Hillary 31%. Then, the primary was next: Obama 51% and Hillary 46%. What is the explanation for such a big difference?

The FairVote organization opposes caucuses for good reasons. It is perfectly legimate to consider the will of the people in a democracy, and caucus results clearly do not represent the will of the people.
========================================
jch..now there you go again. You and I have gone toe to toe before on the Washington State caucus. The local paper had published up to a year before the primary that the Democratic Primary would decide the delegate allocation in total, while the Republicans would have a 51-49 split between the primary and the caucus. The news went over this every night leading up to the caucus; our local NPR radio station had an entire hour detailing the proceedure 2 weeks before the caucus. I went to my local caucus, as I mentioned to you on the other thread, on a Saturday and had a lively vibrant dialog with members of my community of all ages and persuasions. As for the difference between caucus results and the ballot results, I can only assume that there was some confusion for some people who might have gotten the Republican and Democrat's proceedures mixed up; possibly most of the people realized that there was no need to vote for a Democrat on the ballot, and far fewer people did so, thus the decrepency, without seeing a break down of the votes checked for the Democratic primary relative to the ballots cast overall, I don't believe we can say with authority why there was such a big spread, ...I can assure you however, if there had been offical malfeasence, Mrs Clinton would have been on it like white on rice. As for reflecting the "will of the people," elections frequently don't in this country because we are 1) a Republic with a representational Democracy...we do not do not elect our Politicians by the popular vote...(see Al Gore who won the popular vote in 2000, but lost the electoral college), 2) since so many Americans don't even bother to vote, it is hard to determine what the larger Will of the people is in the first place.

Personally, I would rather have a primary...I'm pretty lazy, and I like to mail in my ballot, but I can honestly say that we are very pro Obama up here...Oregon and Washington State are virtual demographic twins, and Obama won their primary easily. Look, you seem to be an intelligent woman, why is it so difficult to accept that Senator Obama simply had the more passionate advocates at the caucuses? I can honestly say that I witnessed no coercion at my caucus to go with either candidate...passion, yes, bullying, no. Obama and Clinton are equally as Progressive, their issues, positions, etc., are virtually the same with only minor differences...the significant ones being the color of their skin and their gender...I just don't understand the hostility and suspicion in the Hillary camp toward Senator Obama except that he is viewed as the usurper.

Mary O'Bryan said:
Let it be known that the damage has already been done to the largest voting block in America. However, it remains to be seen how deep these "bitterly disappointing and highly blatant attacks" are to women. In my mind, this is a travesty and affects all women of America.

Speak for yourself.
I'm a woman, white and mature, and totally disagree.

In fact, I'm tired of hearing since I'm such and such then I should vote such and such.

This year I'm voting American and HRC isn't on that ticket.

Why would I want someone to be president that lies about sniper fire and has a $31M campaign debt? Look at the crowds that she doesn't draw. Look at the money she isn't getting. Look at her America that only includes 17 states.

I know millions of women that agree with me.

So your "all" doesn't apply.

You know I have been a very liberal Democrat for 27 years and this is the first time I have come to realize that I am not as liberal as I thought. I backed Kucinich, Gore, Kerry ---BUT I WILL NOT VOTE FOR OBAMA. The Obama supporters have no problem with Obama's church that hates America, he and his wife's seething racism, his Muslim anti-Israel ties, his blocking of FL and MI voters rights, his lack of experience, his phony simple speeches where he never talks about the issues. They don't question why the media has worshipped him, why he has raised triple the $$$$ of the Hillary camp, why he proclaims himself the winner before having won, why he would sit down and talk with Muslim terrorist leaders, why he won't wear an American flag pin, that he simply can not win in a national election among mainstream America (I mean if you think Gore and Kerry had a hard time, then guess what a loss would incur with this guy as our candidate?)...it just goes on and on. So now I realize that if these people are 'ultra liberal' and it causes them not to question their chosen one, then I have no interest in being an 'ultra-liberal'. I'm starting to think 'ultra-liberal' means 'blind lunatic idol worshipper'. So this has been good for me. I now know that I'm not an ultra liberal which now I equate with 'gullible'.
I want some one at the helm that can fix this mess. It took a Clinton to clean up after the first Bush, it will take a Clinton to clean up after the second Bush.

Remember the ENORMOUS debt our country was in due to Bush's failed administration and how Clinton used his 8 years in office not only to get us out of national debt but also to put us in a surplus? Well folks, we are headed for a very nasty recession and we need someone who knows how to fix this mess. Not some inexperienced dreamer who wants to hold hands with Muslim extremists. You had better hope that Hillary Clinton is the nominee.

Had to cancel the 'Nation' mag when I saw they too were biased towards Obama & spewing hate at Clinton. Had to dump 'Move-on' when I saw they also threw Clinton under the bus. So much for 'ultra-liberals'----SEE YA, ya'll are nuts.

Please read http://begthequestion.info/

Obama is an oddity. He has nothing in common with vast majority of american blacks and yet blacks blindly vote for him as they think he is one of them, which he is not. Throw republican party and democratic party out and elect an independent in November as the parties have failed to bring the best. Let a leader emerge from the American mainstream to be the next President. McCain is old. Hillary is not likeable by many. Obama should never have been there in the first place. Obama's run so far appears to comapre to "an unprotected fort will fall to the first venturer, albeit temporarily, no matter how unfit and ineligible that venturer is to occupy the fort". Americans should get inspiration from their own history and leaders of the past, not Obama. Generation after generation, Americans are being dumbed down by the system. It is so stupid of many Obama voters to say "let us try something new". Eve was influenced to try something new. What Obama voters brought upon America is a perversion.

Hey um, polls today show Obama losing to McCain. Could that be why she stays in the race? Ya think?
Oh and um these polls reflect what we have been hearing. Clinton voters are very unlikely to vote for Obama and this is why he would lose.

I was looking over the issues lists from both candidates today. I thought, belatedly, in the interest of left brained thinking I would look at the topics in terms of prioritization.
On Senator Obama's side, the very first issue was "Civil Rights" and a discussion of voting problems before the Civil Rights act of 1965, and how to improve disenfranchisement now. On Senator Clinton's side, the first issue was "Strengthening Middle Class Families". I am a long term liberal democrat, with a working history in affirmative action causes. His list was well calculated in terms of voting blocks. However, even I think Obama's list reflects ward thinking and does not translate well to the larger issues at hand. I could not agree more with weigh_in's comments above. Power bases, money trails and endorsements are indicative of the path we will take in any candidate. I suggest a review of their Issues lists priorities to anyone who thinks these candidates are really the same. No one should wonder that "Middle Class America" has concerns. No wonder, when women are not even a issue, and the Iraq war is 14th is on his list. No one should be surprised that as the true change candidate, Senator Clinton has encountered the most resistance.

Well normally I go to the Fox News Website to see such mind bending, torturous arguments that defy known reality (see discussions as to how Iraqi war was justified, is successful, and we're better off for it).

But here we are with so called reality based, clear thinking, fair minded Democrats arguing that Obama should not be the candidate. OMG.

All these tortuous arguments about popular vote, caucus states, swing states, blue collar voters, are great folder for discussing how the primaries should be run for 2012. But the 2008 primaries are for all intent and purposes over.

There were a set of rules, procedures, agreements, punishments, etc. that happened at the beginning and then the race began. After it begins, you can't change it. It doesn't matter that Hilary got more runners on bases, gained more yards, had more dunks, or would better represent the league in the playoffs; she didn't get as many points so she loses. Keep it simple,

And all business about Florida and Michigan. Yes it's bad, but as they say too often "it is what it is" and there is no way to twist it up to favour one candidate over the other at this point. Would all the Hilary supporters be so righteously indignant if this had happened to Illinois and North Carolina.

If the 'system' is wrong, then get it changed for 2012. But quit tearing the party apart in 2008.

As Rodney said "Why Can't We All Just Get Along"

She's running because there's a black man behind her.

She is still running to lose weight.

Tydicea,

There are so many things wrong with your numbers it's hard to know where to begin.

First of all, your numbers don't include the votes from 4 caucus states (3 that Clinton lost). Adding these alone would give Hillary only a 58,000 vote lead. Secondly, they include Michigan, where Barack wasn't even on the ballot. Excluding that Soviet style ballot gives Barack a 270,000 vote lead.

It's amazing that Hillary's team worked so hard to prevent Michigan's vote from counting and how she's convinced you that now they really should count. If you think winning only 55% of the vote when you're the only person on the ballot is impressive, I can see how you're dumb enough to fall for Hillary's lies.

Has anyone ever considered that Hillary REALLY believes that it is absolutely essential that a Democrat become President to get this country back on track. And she knows that she is more likely to put together a winning electoral map against John McCain. Just check out the latest polls (Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida).

And maybe she knows that she will be the best President for this country between Obama, McCain, and Clinton.

Lastly, is it possible that she WOULD be the best candidate and President?

Many think so and keep voting for her!!!

i am a young, white, registered independant male, and i voted for and support barack obama because after john edwards, he addresses the issues that need to most attention in this country from a truly passionate, honest, and intelligent perspective. does he have as much political experience as hilary clinton? no, and thank God for that, because if he was as much of a slickened weasel career politician as the clintons then i'd have nobody to support (ron paul?). before obama got into politics he decided to teach the law to younger generations from an academic perspective instead of cash in on his license like most lawyer-politicians do. is he naive? hopefully as naive as roosevelt to think that increased government involvement in the financial market would pull the nation out of the great depression. obama is the best candidate for me, and apparently most of my peers. thank you.

It is now well understood that the people in FL and MI are being ripped off by DNC because of the conflict between the Rep. controlled FL legislature and DNC. It seems to be they are being over-published for something which is not their fault. Pretty soon, the DNC rules committee will have to make serious reconsideration of their position on FL and MI, because their voters' opinion and votes are important in the November's general election. From the past experience, the whole election could depend on FL and OH, which Kerry lost to Bush only four years ago. As a long time Democrat, I am very confused and dissatisfied by the current system of Dem. party primaries. Sen. Clinton is the winner in popular vote as well as electoral votes while Obama is now well ahead in delegate counts mainly because of the caucus votes and his big winninng mostly in the red states as well as the failure of counting FL and MI votes by DNC. Overall, he has not won any traditional key battleground state as well as any major large state except his own home state Illinois. For the latest prediction for the general election in November participated by McCain, Obama or Clinton, which shows Obama is an inferior Dem. candidate for November election , see the website:
http://www.electoral-vote.com

Hey, ding dong, of course I am trying to get the DNC to declare caucuses illegal, for the future. That is why I have written them, on numerous occasions.

Big question: Do you know of a primary state that does NOT allow absentee ballots? I don't. If caucus states allowed absentee ballots, the problem would be solved. Please respond.

More people have cast their ballot for Sen. Clinton in the Democratic Primaries (17,387,254) than for any other person in history, giving her a majority of 198,285 over Sen. Obama. In a democracy that should be the only metric that matters.
Posted by: endodoc79 | May 22, 2008 3:50 PM

It didn't when the supreme court gave to presidency to Bush, although Gore had the majority of the popular vote. We are clearly not a democracy in terms of electing a president, can you say republic?

Actually Hillary is not the only one Torpidoeing the DM Party, what are the remaining sup-del waiting for, move to either side for God sake's, if you want Hillary just say so. If you want Obama so be it. This is the old 420 BC CAESAR strategy on GALLI, surround the candidates and make no move until they run out of supplies and ammunitions, well one candidate has run out of supplies already, get it ?

The DNC has shown that their nominating process is not about one person one vote, but about them, the effete elite of Dean and Pelosi who wan't a coronation and not a fair election. More people have cast their ballot for Sen. Clinton in the Democratic Primaries (17,387,254) than for any other person in history, giving her a majority of 198,285 over Sen. Obama. In a democracy that should be the only metric that matters.

Couple of other reasons: a) Under campaign law, she can only pay back her loans based on pre-convention donations; b) Praying for another Rev. Wright problem to arise; c) Neither has it in the bag, at least not yet.

Nothing is quite so stupid as some big mouth Hillary supporter

supposing that she speaks for 'women'.

NOwhere a majority of woman have voted for her, to date.

Some idiot saying what "woman will do and won't do" and one particulary vapid idiot who says she is a 'real woman' and the rest of us aren't if we don't adore her is typical of Hillary's screaming people.

In fact, most of us don't see Hillary as a "real woman"
a woman so much as a female harridan.

And Billy Boy isn't too much ineterested in her "real womanhood" either, what?

To Mary O'Bryan
You refer to "us girls" and "all women" like you speak for the majority of women, you don't, so speak for yourself. You also state that women are the most loyal bloc of dem voters, well, what about African Americans. I'm sick of people saying that Obama can't win without Hillary's hard working white americans (that's code for dumb poor-a$$ white people) Guess what, she can't win without African Americans! Talk about loyalty! I regret to say that most AA's vote democrat without even taking the time to review the platform and issues of the candidates, they are that loyal, but if the DNC steals the nomination for Hillary, AA's will not take that lightly and the displeasure will be felt at the polling places!

The dems can't win without women, even if you choose to call them "bitter old ladies." And they can't win without the "some educated and unsuccessful appalacians."

If the nastiness continues, the dems won't win, because it will be too divided to come together. If you want your candidate to win, you are going to have to be nice to the bitter old ladies and the working class white people. The question is, do you want to win? Can you suck it up and play nice with your teammates?

Hillary CLinton started with sky hi negatives.

Those negatives have grown

If she steals the election, or keeps -trying, no blacks will vote for her.

Republicans detest her, always have. Vicious dislike. They won't vote for her.

That leaves?
--Older ladies who are bitter
--some educated and unsuccessful appalacians

How many times have we heard that dems can't win without the black vote?

She'll leave detested, disinfranchized and a big fat joke.

"Good luck, sweetie"

Be careful. Comments like this will lose the election for the Democrats. Women are a big voting block. Bigger than any other minority (we are, after all, about one half of the overall population). Senator Obama has made the mistake of condescending to women before, and so have lots of other men in the political arena. But I think, this year, they are underestimating the power that women now wield. Give us some respect, or you won't get our vote. It's just that simple.

not that facts seem to matter these days but lets remember that the election was not stolen from Gore because he won the popular vote any more than it would have been stolen from GWB had Kerry won Ohio in 2004.

It maybe a crazy system that allows the person with fewer popular votes to win the Presidency but those are the rules. If you don't like the rules get them changed before the game not 90% through the game.

Posted by Elinda: My hope is that she eschews the "old politics" of two-parties and takes her popularity with moderate voters ... and runs an independent campaign and wins from the center ... with Obama on the left and McCain on the right ... she is the right candidate this time!

I am a registered independent. The reason why I chose to be an independent is I vote for the best candidate based on the issues confronting the country, and not blindly conform to whatever a particularly party says is in my best interests. In other words I think for myself and decide what is best for me. I hope she does what you suggest, it will guarantee an Obama victory in November. And he is what is best for this country after almost 8 crippling years of a failed Bush presidency.

Poor Hillary. Her menopausal symptoms are getting worse by the day. One just wishes she would call it quits and go back to the Senate and finish out her change of life there. As for 2012, Obama will win his second term easily. If Hillary is still alive in 2016, she will be 68, far too old. It's over, girl. Get over it!

She runs to change her image as that of a crooked real estate lawyer to that of career politician. Good luck, sweetie. You are and always will be just a crooked real esate laywer pretenting to be something else.

Hillary is staying in now to push for the seating of a full Michigan and Florida delegate slate. Why? The Clinton's realized they made a mistake in preventing Florida and Michigan from moving up. Team Clinton wanted almost every state to vote on February 5th. They thought the expense of running a semi-national campaign would crush the rest of her competition and victory would be hers. They obviously thought wrong.

If they can get Michigan and Florida seated in full, the DNC will be powerless to stop other states from moving up in the future. This will allow the Clinton's to use their machine to push up states that favor them in 2012. If Barack loses in 2008, look for Kentucky, West Virginia, Pennsylvania, Ohio and Florida being early on the calendar.

I started 2008 supporting Sen Clinton mainly because of President Clinton. However during this Nomination process I feel repulsion and disbelieve at the many lies & mischaracterations of the facts from Sen Clinton. She has shown that has very little respect for anyone not even herself. The Super delegates need to act now, so that the Democratic party is no longer held Hostage by this Egomaniac!
I would've loved to have a woman President, but not Sen Clinton. How could anyone trust her?

My hope is that she eschews the "old politics" of two-parties and takes her popularity with moderate voters ... and runs an independent campaign and wins from the center ... with Obama on the left and McCain on the right ... she is the right candidate this time!!

Give me a break. If Clinton STEALS the nomination from Obama, she will lose in a landslide because she pissed off millions of Democrats along the way, and independents will not vote for her. SHE IS NOT ELECTABLE. PERIOD!

Give me a break. If Clinton STEALS the nomination from Obama, she will lose in a landslide because she pissed off millions of Democrats along the way, and independents will not vote for her. SHE IS NOT ELECTABLE. PERIOD!

Give me a break. If Clinton STEALS the nomination from Obama, she will lose in a landslide because she pissed off millions of Democrats along the way, and independents will not vote for her. SHE IS NOT ELECTABLE. PERIOD!

She runs because, just as in 1993, her way is more important than anyone else's, and if that helps the Republicans so be it. It serves the D's right for not respecting her. It would have been ok if certain groups had voted the way they were supposed to, or certain caucuses did. Since they didn't, they don't matter. Only HRC matters and no matter how much carnage, how much deceit, how much money, she wil have her way. Clinton Agonistes. It isn't her fault

HRC did not get as many popular votes as she thinks due to the effects of "operation chaos". A lot of Reps voted for her (I know of several myself) to screw up the stats. They will not be with her in November.

Why didn't you mention Clinton's sense of entitlement to the nomination? Clinton is yet to come to terms with the fact that a 46-year old junior senator from Illinois, an African American, could floor her. She, an establishment candidate, who knows Washington in and out. This is the only reason that's keeping Clinton in this race. She is full of herself.

And then you fail to mention the hardcore white supremacists in this country who can't countenance being governed by an African American. It's these white supremacists who are egging on Clinton to keep fighting until the end. I hear that Clinton has all along been a champion of civil rights. How come she has failed to admonish her supporters who have declared in open daylight that they're supporting her because she is white. To paraphrase David Gergen (watch this video:http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2008/05/21/taking-race-out-of-the-race/)Hillary should tell off these folks.

I know some folks here will jump with a rejoinder to the effect that 90 per cent of African Americans have been supporting Obama. For many,many years the African American community in this country has been supporting white presidents to the hilt. All that time, I have not heard people complain about racism. Now that the African Americans have a one-for-a-lifetime opportunity to send one of their own to the White House, why can't the white folks, as a gesture of appreciation of all those years of support from these people, come out and support Obama?

This country remains polarized along racial lines. This is what I have come to learn during the five years I have lived in this country. There are deep-rooted stereotypes that, time and again, have been and continue to be hurled at African Americans. Like there is this argument that the blacks cannot manage a big organization and they can't raise a family. Why are we pretending that these issues are not being played out in this campaign.

I will believe Obama will be the president of this great country in November when the election is finally held and votes counted.

Hey JBE,
How's that Kool-Aid taste? I know feminists, and your no feminist. When your done listening to Fergie, go do some research and get back to us.

Blah Blah Blah, a hundred reasons. There is only one EGO.

I fear many of you endow Clinton with Machiavellian characteristics that if she truly had, she would have been a conclusive, unquestionable victor in this nomination.

Clinton still runs for the same reason Coulter still opines, because she can.

Hillary would have already won nomination if the Republican voting process was used.
Posted by: JCarn | May 22, 2008 3:15 PM
-----------------------------------------

Apparently she ran for the wrong party's nomination amongst other errors.

She runs on and on because she thinks she more important than the Demcratic party. She wants to change the rules in the middle of the game. She voted twice for the war. She didn't know what George Bush and Dick Cheeeney where up to; two of the biggest Nazis since Hitler and "his stupid and ignorant crowd" as William Shirer referred to them? She cooked herself and now she parades around like she is one of us...Please. She has never been one of us...The only self-made person in this race is you know who. He will end: the war, oil dependence, sloth on Capitol Hill, provide health care to ALL and improve our schools by teaching children to think critically again. Hey, check it out in November.

The FairVote organization opposes caucuses for good reasons. It is perfectly legimate to consider the will of the people in a democracy, and caucus results clearly do not represent the will of the people.

Posted by: jchbrock | May 22, 2008 3:06 PM
------------------------------------------

Why not work to change the way the DNC elects a nominee? HRC essentially forfeited the caucuses for the reasons you cite. They don't play well to her core voters. In addition to that, she didn't think she needed the caucus states because she was going to wrap things up early in the game.

Additionally, all the reason you cite for a person not being able to caucus can also be applied to a primary vote. You still have to get up and go to a polling location--unless the state offers absentee ballots.

However, the rules were in place before the primary began. You can complain about them, but cannot change them to suit your desires during the primary. Afterwards, one can certainly put the energy into changing the way the DNC elects a nominee.

And, while you're at it, you might as well challenge the electoral college as well, since, as you know, one can win the popular vote and still lose the electoral college like we saw in 2000.

" Clinton has that majority now because she broke her word and competed against essentially nobody."

No, the agreement was to not campaign in those states. She didn't. Keeping her name on the ballot wasn't a violation. She wasn't being disingenuous then.

She is now. That majority thing is a totally bogus argument. That's why superdelegates aren't buying it.

Meaningful metric: leading in popular vote, leading in states that provides 308 electoral votes, leading in states that have a true voting process. Caucuses are a joke. Meaningful metric: Hillary would have already won nomination if the Republican voting process was used.

Obama will lose the general election: this is a meaningful metric also.

Fox news is more fair and balanced than Chris and his media buddies. I am a life long Democrat and I never thought I would ever rather watch Fox news than all the other news media.

Meaningful metric: leading in popular vote, leading in states that provides 308 electoral votes, leading in states that have a true voting process. Caucuses are a joke. Meaningful metric: Hillary would have already won nomination if the Republican voting process was used.

Obama will lose the general election: this is a meaningful metric also.

Fox news is more fair and balanced than Chris and his media buddies. I am a life long Democrat and I never thought I would ever rather watch Fox news than all the other news media.

Hey Mary O'Brien...

The women of my generation are voting for Obama. They're all feminsts. I know of 2 that are voting otherwise. One for Hillary, and one for McCain.

Its the misandrist and the Gloria Steinem generation that are voting for Hillary.

Everyone else knows there are FAR better women in America for the job... Misandrists just didn't take them seriously enough to fund their campaigns, and instead went with hillary...

Hillary might have won had she abandoned the old style politics of pandering and one liners, lobbiests and back room deals. She might have won had she been a good financial manager, had she been a better strategic planner beyond super tuesday, had she abandoned her hubris, had she been transparent, honest, not lied about her experience, had she not insisted she was inevitable and our votes don't matter, and had she not twisted the arms of party insiders to deny our votes.

Hillary lost the race and alienated the electorate ALL ON HER OWN.

Sorry you're disappointed - but don't blame us for voting for the stronger candidate who rejects lobbiests and the old ways of doing politics that Hillary embraces wholesale.

Posted by bevvyjean: Hello. There are many of us who still don't believe that obama has been properly vetted. I remain suspicious that some surprise will come up that will be a real turn off for his continued root for the presidency. I know that there is a possibility of this happening. I hope it does.

Sorry to say but you are as delusional as Hilary. Keep hope alive!

"Michigan and Florida should count. Howard Dean does not make the law. State lawmakers pay for the primary and should be able to set legal dates as to when it will be held. Does Dean consider himself above the law????? "

Of course they can decide when the primary is held. They moved it to the dates of their choosing.

The DNC is not obligated to seat their delegates at their convention.

Hope that didn't make your head hurt.

Cillizza is a slightly inaccurate when he says Clinton trails in every meaningful metric. After Tuesday night, she is now ahead by 58,141 votes in the popular vote IF you include Florida, Michigan and the estimates from the four caucus states that did not report vote totals (Iowa, Nevada, Maine and Washington). These metrics are meaningful to anyone in those states and also to anyone still sore that Gore lost the 2000 election with a 400K pop. vote majority. This is the first time Clinton can _almost_ legitimately claim a popular majority, regardless of delegate count. I say "almost" because it is a safe bet that had his name been on the ballot, Obama would have won at least 250,000 votes, thereby maintaining a lead of nearly 200,000. Clinton has that majority now because she broke her word and competed against essentially nobody. The DNC and superdelegates understand that, and once it makes the 24/7 news cycle for 2 or 3 days so will the rest of the country. Clinton won what was essentially a one-candidate election in MI (Dodd, Kucinich, and Gravel won less than 5% total).

The popular vote majority is meaningful to me and a lot of Americans, even if it isn't to Cillizza and the DNC. It's why I finally went to KY over the weekend to help the Obama campaign, to keep his majority. If after June 3rd Clinton can achieve a _legitimate_ majority, including all caucus states and accounting for her having no real competition in MI, I will shift my support to her and ask the superdelegates to do the same. If she can't I hope she'll be consistent and accept the will of the majority voters and get behind Obama as the Democratic nominee.

"A former KKK member recently endorsed him."

Hillary also cited him as a good friend. So that's a wash.

Idiot

Is Obama for quotas and preferences for the selection of blacks, or as some like to state the democratic party is color blind. Which?????

Michigan and Florida should count. Howard Dean does not make the law. State lawmakers pay for the primary and should be able to set legal dates as to when it will be held. Does Dean consider himself above the law?????

Hello. There are many of us who still don't believe that obama has been properly vetted. I remain suspicious that some surprise will come up that will be a real turn off for his continued root for the presidency. I know that there is a possibility of this happening. I hope it does. He remains a roll of the dice and is NOT qualified and experienced enough to lead our country. He proves this time and time again with his naivete and bad judgment. He does not have what it takes to be our leader.

This isn't rocket science. Why shouldn't she run if she's still winning primaries (fairly handily too) and building up her bargaining power for whatever she wants to bargain for (personally, I do think it's the VP because Gore and Chaney have changed the nature of that job and she can have a major impact)?

Plus she's bringing more folks to the polls and the Dems will need as many as they can get to turn this thing in November into a route. 60 in the Senate is within reach, for example and that will be key to complete success of an Obama/Dem policy agenda.

She's no longer dissing Obama on the trail; in fact, she's double-barrellng against McCain. She's an important asset for the Dems. Obama needs her in his corner, perhaps not as VP but in his corner in some way. That's the reality and she's a realist.

Clinton has absolutely nothing to lose and much to gain by doing this. I'm an Obama supporter but I understand what she's doing and approve of it.

First, I do not see that Hillary is hurting the party or Obama. Quite the opposite. I agree with all of the comments that supported that view. Second, I believe that in this election the popular vote is a meaningful metric. Why? Because of the flawed outcome of the caucus states, which do not represent the popular vote, or as sometimes described, the will of the people.

The press is silent on the issue of caucuses, but caucuses have determined the lead in the pledged delegate count for Obama and what has happened since then. Why? Caucuses disenfranchise Hillary's main voter base: older voters, working people who cannot take off from work or cannot afford baby sitters to participate in lengthy caucus processes, and the many women who are intimidated or pressured by the fact that caucuses are public. Primaries use secret ballots and absentee ballots for a reason. Obama's main voter base consists of the young, for example, college students, and the wealthy that can afford to take time off to participate in the lengthy caucus process.

To compare primary results to caucus results, look at the Map Room on the site election.msn.com, specifically the states of Washington and Texas. The outcome of the caucuses is skewed towards Obama. Now consider that Obama won the ca ucus states Alaska, Colorado, Connecticut, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Minnesota, Nebraska, North Dakota, and Wyoming. Hillary won Nevada because the caucuses were held in the workplace in the cities, and people were given time off to vote. Obama won the primary state Utah but the result was singular because Romney was on the ballot and won the vast majority of votes. Many delegates were awarded on the basis of low voting numbers in these states, making the skew towards Obama even more pronounced.

The Obama supporters that I have presented this argument to reply that Obama won the caucuses because of superior organization and that in itself is a reason that he should have the delegates, but I contend that it i s not a matter of organization. I fell last year and broke a T5 vertebrae quite badly. I would not have been able to vote in the caucus in Texas because of the long lines and the cold night. Fortunately, I live in the great state of California and we have a prim a ry, that Hillary won by 10%. And, yes, I am an older woman, part of Hillary's voter base.

Everyone agrees that this nomination race has been a demographic race, notably David Brooks. In the past, the race between two (or more) white men did not split the demographics in a noticeable way. This year is different! The popular vote is important in the Democratic nominating process, especially this year. And, I think everyone in this country should start investigating caucuses, exactly how they are run in each caucus state.

For example, I hope the state of Washington is trying to figure out what went wrong with their caucuses. All of their pledged delegates were based on this flawed caucus vote in the state of Washington. To see what I am saying, look at the Map Room on the site election.msn.com and compare the caucus result to the primary result for the state of Washington. The caucus came first: Obama 68% and Hillary 31%. Then, the primary was next: Obama 51% and Hillary 46%. What is the explanation for such a big difference? Why would anyone bother to vote in the primary if they knew that their vote would not count towards winning delegates for their candidate? My guess is that there was voter confusion. Why? I have no idea. I have informed the DNC of this anamoly.

The FairVote organization opposes caucuses for good reasons. It is perfectly legimate to consider the will of the people in a democracy, and caucus results clearly do not represent the will of the people.

Maybe, like many of us, she doesn't agree with the Media's early and often coronotion of Jesus Christ II Barack Hussien Obama?

Posted by: pgr88 | May 22, 2008 3:01 PM

-----------------------------------------

HRC definitely believed in the media's coronation of Jesus Christ II Hillary R Clinton. That's why she screwed up her campaign so badly.

She did not fully understand the media cycles fully and fell in love with her image in the mirror.

As a woman there is no way that I would vote for HC at any time. Her hubby showed the kind of man he is and she just goes along with it - she is tainted by his womanizing ways. If Obama selects her as VP, he will lose my vote.

birdman, thank you for you unbiased post. It is very rare to come across the unbiased truth nowadays. Thank you.

Posted by Sisters for Hillary: Obama got Zero votes in Michigan. Zero! There's no way Obama can will the general election if some States are not even voting for him. Hillary leads in popular vote. She's the best candidate ever. Rise Hillary, rise.
Clinton '08, '12

Sisters, I understand your allegiance to your candidate but let's not twist and stretch the truth, as your candidate is apt to do. Obama's name was not on the ballot in Michigan. He took his name off after sanctions were put in place by the DNC against MI because of their refusal to not move up their primary schedule. All the candidates in the race then agreed, and signed off on not campaigning there or in Florida. Your candidate agreed to this but now wants the very rules she signed off on changed because she is the direct beneficiary. Hilary is a no principled fraud.

Its far simpler, Chris!

Hubris.
Power.
Saving Face.
Ego.
Getting Obama to pay off her $20 million in debts.

...and she TRUELY believes it is fair game and A WISE CHOICE (fancy THAT display of judgement) to "Weasle-lawyer" her way into the nomination by twisting arms at the convention, regardless of how the electorate has decided.

Bye, bye and good riddance from Mary O'Bryan, Louisville, KY, to my former party, no matter what happens in the primaries left to come.

Posted by: Mary O'Bryan | May 22, 2008 2:54 PM
------------------------------------------
Don't go away mad Mary O'Bryan, just go away.

Maybe, like many of us, she doesn't agree with the Media's early and often coronotion of Jesus Christ II Barack Hussien Obama?

The post by whomever who said "assuming Obama got the nomination and even more of a long shot,the Presidency, Whoever runs as VP with Obama will become President. I think Obama will be shot by a KKK member.If you thought Reagan had a reason to be shot, then what do you think would happen to Obama etc;

That post is hopfully not typical of those who object to Obama. A sick mind, prejudice, hateful and downright stupid comments like that could just enourage some nut to do that dastardly deed. America needs Obama to prove that a person of his intellect, dedication and savvy can bring about the changes needed in this country. As his first act maybe he can deport the sickos who make statements like the post above in quotes!

f.dlang:

A former KKK member recently endorsed him. Also, we had a few conspire to assassinate our current President Bush, and failed thank goodness. I have reason to believe should someone attempt a hateful act, will fail too. I also believe Obama has no reason at all to fear that. Obama would be absolutely fine, thank you for your comment.

Clinton is not winning the popular vote, even counting MI and FL. The Fix, like many of these posters, seems to be getting its information from talk radio. Clinton has already lost the plegded delegate race. Clinton's only chance to win the nomination is to get nearly every undeclared superdelegate to forget the above cited facts and to vote for her. I don't recall hypnotism among her self-professed accomplishments.

I think Sen Clinton is still running is because she is a strong candidate who has attracted a passionate base of voters. Why stop?

Having said that this race is killing me because passionate Obama and Clinton supporters are so angry at each other that many will not vote (or vote for McCain). The vitriol in some of these posts (on both sides) is nothing short of amazing.

We went from having an embarrasement of riches (4-5 strong candidates) to having 2 damaged candidates. Neither Obama nor Clinton can win in the GE without the others supporters.

Chris.. the primary reason she is in the race is $$$s. She can continue to recoup her $11 mill only if she is in the race. She cannot raise funds if she is not in the race. She has raised a lot of money after PA. She'll be able to quit this race without losing too much money.

Women have bought into the sexism argument. Without that argument they may not contribute at the same level they are right now.

obama has shown how powerful the politics of hope and change can be. he's got the nomination, he's going to win in november, and america will reenter a camelot period, with modern ingenuity and honest sensibility. a real democratic leader is what this country, and the world, needs.

Do we really want another 2000? We somen have been messed over for many years by the Democrat Party and it appears that millions of "US" will be returning the favor, should this primary season continue on its current path. Hillary Clinton is clearly the best choice to be our party's nominee for President. As a life-long Democrat, age 55, I think the way my party has hosed Hillary and their most loyal and largest voting block; women intolerable. I am confident the Democrat Party will pay a severe price for this blatant assault on women in November. Cry all you want about this being "sour grapes" but little good will result from your on-going efforts to rally Hillary's staunch supporters around your chosen candidate instead of the people's choice. Now, the Democrat Party leaders want women to get their pre- selected from the start, elite, wimp, Barack Obama elected in November. It will be cold day in hell before I comply and I also hope Hillary walks away from this Party. Most of the women, and many men as well, with whom I have contact are finished with the Democrat Party, now and forever. Also, many of "US" are starting a grassroots movement to insure these kind of sorry tactics employed by my now soon to be former party, never happen again. This clear favoring of Obama, making him the nominee because the party doesn't want a woman, especially a Clinton woman, is more that I can tolerate. Of all the gall, the Democrat Party now expects "US" girls, including Hillary, to turn over our undying support to Obama. Sorry guys, this is not going to happen. Obama has no shot of winning in November without Hillary's help and all of us, her supporters. Not on your life or in your wildest dreams is this going to happen. Democrat Party leaders take heed and you superdelegates had better wait to declare your support until the final results of all the primaries are tallied and the voices of all 50 states and territories are heard from. At that time, the real nominee of the people can be declared for the fall election. Let it be known that the damage has already been done to the largest voting block in America. However, it remains to be seen how deep these "bitterly disappointing and highly blatant attacks" are to women. In my mind, this is a travesty and affects all women of America. I for one will change my registration to Independent, and possibly Republican, on the day I vote for Hillary Rodham Clinton in the KY primary. Bye, bye and good riddance from Mary O'Bryan, Louisville, KY, to my former party, no matter what happens in the primaries left to come.

So Clinton wants all 50 states to be heard.

But she keeps spouting this popular vote argument.

13 states had caucuses, not primaries.

Does that mean she only wants 37 states to be heard?

Haswalnut,

You can't think of anybody less qualified than Senator Obama? How about yourself! I am amazed at how some many people feel they can make derogatory comments about his intelligence when they know darn well they aren't the sharpest knives in the drawer.

Whether or not Senator Clinton is the best candidate is up to each individual voter. Saying it loud doesn't make it so. Also, any Democratic Party voting for Sen. McCain deserves another 4 to 8 years of the same. Instead of worrying about Senator Obama's intelligence, you should focus on how you are going to pay for gasoline, skyrocketing fuel prices, a never ending war, a stagnant economy, health insurance, etc. Only a fool will vote to cut off his nose to spite his face!

Senator Clinton stays in the race because she will take the White House with her experience and millions of backers. If the media mysogynists and Obama sexists think this is over now, they ain't seen nothing yet!

Only one possible choice for Obama as Vice President: the Dalai Lama. ObamaLama 08!

it's her ego.

.
Voters (aka bitter, religious, gun-toting commoners) with IQs greater than their shoe size are not swayed by the meaningless Hope-Change, Change-Hope, Hope-able Change and Change-able Hope BS of "God D*#! America", "Sweetie" hussein. Experience and competence matter.

The majority of Democrats simply do not want the party to make the same mistake twice by nominating another Kerry-like shallow, arrogant, platitude-spouting, gas-bag - who is so mentally deficient from extensive drug use he even has to plagiarize his hollow platitudes!

One thing is certain: millions of Dems will leave the party if the loony left and a pal to Weathermen terrorists hijack the nomination. To prevent that disgraceful event, responsible Dems will continue to fight to save what was once a great political party.

/

Is there a single Hillary supporter who can explain why the Florida and Michigan votes ought to count, when she herself agreed when the DNC stripped them of their primaries?

Is there a single Hillary supporter who denies that Obama played by the rules, and that Hillary wants to change them retroactively for no better reason than the fact she's behind?

Why should Hillary continue in the race? Because that is the democratic way. Also because, nobody got the majority of the delegates. The fact is that Barack Obama, the media darling, has lost again now in Kentucky with an unheard of margin for a candidate who is supposed to have aleady locked up the nomination. This is a chilling reminder to the democrats that their victory in the presidential election in november is anything but assured. If the women voters ditch the democrats in the presidential election along with the seniors, jews and the latinos,Obama is in a tight corner. Loosing to McCain is a real possibility eventhough the Republicans donot deserve the presidency after the mess they have created during the last eight years. But democrats have outdone the Republicans in their insensitivity to people, the way they want to discard FL and MI votes and delegates and the way they pressured Hillary to give up her fights when she was actually winning in big numbers. The long line of insults including racism charge against Hillary, Bill and others as well as the insulting tone of Obama campaign against Hillary calls for proper accounting. There should be a convention fight over the FL and MI votes if the credentials committee does not resolve the issue fairly on a one vote for one voter basis. Anything less will be a sellout of all the votes Hillary received from real people.

Perhaps she's trying to entice stalwart supporters into putting money into her failed campaign so that she can pay back some of the millions of dollars she lent the campaign from her own bank account.

Everyone out there who doesn't support Obama is a hater and a loser. Period. Clinton (the racist) should leave the race because her agenda is against democratic values.

Hillary won't drop out because, psychologically, she's incapable of doing it. Everything she is is invested in this shot. She's following a storyline that she formulated all the way back in 1998 when she made the decision to stay with Bill and discard her self-respect and dignity for an eventual shot at the presidency. Instead of divorcing him, she swallowed her (considerable) pride and stuck by him, and in exchange she was rewarded with a carpetbagged Senate seat in New York, a powerful state that would be immensely beneficial to her eventual presidential campaign.

And everything for the past eight years has been focused on that goal: Hillary in the White House. Tragically (and I mean that in the literal sense), now that that goal is unattainable, she is totally unable to accept that she has wasted an entire decade attached to a man she despises for nothing. She sold her soul for the presidency, and she'll never reach it. As I said, psychologically she can't walk away from this race; that would mean facing the next logical step she has managed to avoid since her public humiliation in 1998, namely, leaving Bill and making a life for herself undefined by his presence. So she stays in, and fights more and more bitterly so that she can delay the inevitable. And we Americans get to sit through one more installment of that great '90s viewing pastime, The Clinton Family Psychodrama.

Since when is leading in the POPULAR VOTE not a "meaningful metric?" The ridiculous anti-Clinton bias rolls on. Well, we're taking this campaign all the way to Denver, and we're going to win.

assuming Obama got the nomination and even more of a long shot,the Presidency, Whoever runs as VP with Obama will become President. I think Obama will be shot by a KKK member.If you thought Reagan had a reason to be shot, then what do you think would happen to Obama?

my goodness Obama hates America and he's a black racist with Muslim name. He's a dead man walking as Pres. ,sad but true enough. I hope he loses the nomination just so that he wont be shot.

"Taking out the red states which the democrats have no chance of winning in November, and reviewing a "number of delegates from the swing and blue states" is a "meaningful metric.""

If you take out the red states that the dems have no chance of winning, why not take out the blue states that they have no chance of losing?

Senator Clinton stays in the race because we believe in her and want her to stay in the race. We continue to contribute to her campaign and on her website we continue to encourage her and ourselves. I don't know why the media finds this so hard to believe. I also don't believe she wants anything from Obama or his campaign. Early on in an interview with Katie Couric she said that if she didn't win the nomination she would be the Senator from NY - seat once held by Bobby Kennedy. I also have never thought that either Bill Clinton or Hillary Clinton were ever motivated by money to do anything. I honestly believe that Senator Clinton has loaned her campaign money ....because it allows her to keep her promise to the 17 million plus people that have voted for her..to stay in the race until there is a nominee. If Senator Clinton is not the nominee...then I will vote for Senator McCain. I will do so because he is a true American patriot. I also believe that he will continue to work across the aisle to solve America's problems. I do not trust Senator Obama to do the same.

Obama can't win in November. The super delegates need to take an objective, serious, thorough look at the reality of Obama not being able to win the General Election.

People keep saying that women won't vote for him because of women issues. That isn't the only reason people will never vote for Obama.

He has a very radical background, his father, his mother, his communist mentor in Hawaii, Michelle Robinson before they were married, Rezko, Auchi, Saddam Hussein, Rev. Wright, William Ayers, Dohrn, Farrakun, and others.

How do you expect us to follow lock step with a man like Obama with the radical, anti-American and terrorist ties he has?

It isn't going to happen and the super delegates and the DNC have a very limited time to correct their mistake of thinking Obama was the one we have all been waiting for. Obama is a huge mistake. gw.

Ok, she continues to hang in there which for the Democrats is a good thing, because, if Obama makes it into the final round he will loose against McCain. I myself am an independent but for the most part I have voted Democratic which I will not do in the upcoming elections thanks to people like Howard Dean, Bill Clinton, Nancy Pelosi and Jimmy Carter, I would rather vote for Humpty Dumpty. I see no plans for our recovery. Remember the Democrats have had controll of both the House and the Senate and have done little if anything except try to raise tax's and attempt to force troop withdrawl from Irag, this action would end up placeing our troops in greater danger as they were withdrawing, just think what would happen to the people of Irag with their military not being ready to protect them. Put yourself in their shoes

She is delusional as are many of her supporters.

I think Clinton should stay in at least long enough to ensure that the votes in Florida and Michigan are counted somehow, and I think it's also refreshing this time around that everyone in the country is being asked about who they prefer as the standard bearer, via the ongoing primaries. I must say though, that it's also clear that we will all be ready to elect a black man before turning the reins over to a female of whatever color. Also, I haven't heard much about why Florida voted early, but I thought the decision was under the control of the republicans in Florida.

It will do neither the Obama supporters or the Clinton supporters to say I told you so after November.The parties pick will be tainted because the party Hacks will pick the winner.
They just might pick the weakest of the two thus grabbing defeat from the jaws of victory

http://usasurvival.org/ck05.14.08.html

Look at this for news on Obama's communist ties . This news conference is being held in Washington DC today

Mrs. Clinton is still in the race because this race technically isn't over yet. We still have states to vote. We still have Puerto Rico, South Dakota, and Montana to submit their votes. After that, I can't say. I do hope that after voters have been heard, and supers make up their minds soon enough we can finally get a darn nominee and prepare to do battle with Mr. McCain on the issues.

"I believe this situation has created a dilemma for the party - Obama's support is more anti-hillary than pro-Obama."

The funny thing is that according to polls, Clinton supporters are more likely to not vote for Obama in the general than the other way around.

She appears to be oblivious or indifferent to the fact that by displaying her pathological pursuit of power, she demonstates she's unfit to be president.

If she won't abide by the rules ahe herself agreed to months ago, what rules would she be willing to break as President?

http://usasurvival.org/ck05.14.08.html

Look for Obama's communist acts to be on the news soon...

THIS IS WHY CLINTON IS STILL IN THIS RACE FOLKS:

McCain leads Obama in two battlegrounds: polls

Thu May 22, 11:02 AM ET

WASHINGTON (AFP) - Republican John McCain leads Barack Obama in two presidential swing states, as some of Hillary Clinton's core supporters shun the Democratic front-runner, polls showed Thursday.

ADVERTISEMENT

The Quinnipiac University surveys had McCain up 45 to 41 percent on the Illinois senator in Florida, the epicenter of the 2000 recount drama, which also helped President George W. Bush back to the White House in 2004.

In Ohio, another vital battleground that narrowly went for Bush last time around, McCain leads Obama 44 percent to 40 percent.

Obama however leads McCain in Pennsylvania, by 46 to 40 percent. The state is a must-win for Democrats eyeing the White House.

The poll also appeared to bolster Clinton's arguments that she and not Obama is the best bet for Democrats to take on McCain in states likely to shape the outcome in November's general election.

She led Arizona Senator McCain in all three states, in which she also won in primary votes against Obama. The former first lady led 48 to 41 percent in both Florida and Ohio and by 50-37 percent in Pennsylvania.

The poll showed that between 26 and 36 percent of Clinton supporters in primaries in the three states would switch to McCain if Obama, vying to become the first black US president, becomes the Democratic nominee.

Only 10 to 18 percent of Obama supporters would shun Clinton for McCain, the data suggested.

********************
Wake up! We need Clinton for nominee not another loser.

Sen. Obama, if the nominee, will have a far stronger claim to legitimacy (in the Political Science sense) for having had an opponent like Sen. Clinton.

He will have earned it; it won't be "just because he's black" and will go a long way to obviate an attack that he was just "given" the nomination because of his race.

Crazy, I suppose, but that canard "of just because he/she is Black" (and can cry Racism) is all too prevalent in the workplace. If Sen. Clinton had dropped out earlier, or even now, that duck would be flying.

To answer your silly question - to Win.

The people of these United States of America are not ruled by the media or a corrupted Democrat 'Socialist Elitist' Party.

We rule.

Clinton in eight years will look like the crypt keeper. Her face, already wrinkling despite the best efforts of the best plastic surgeons, will scream old.
~

This, ladies and gentlemen, is why this country will never elect a woman. In America, being female means being a pretty, incompetent thing for men's pleasure:

"It's now or never for her (which means its never). We don't watch middle-aged female news anchors, we definitely will not elect a Social Security recipient.

Posted by: gbooksdc | May 22, 2008 12:42 PM"

The author of this post is a misguided, pathetic moron.

~

It's better for Obama, in a way, if she stays in the race for a little while longer. There's no use in allowing the Democratic nominee-to-be, Obama, lose any states to a person who's no longer in the running. That would be embarrassing.

It is pretty simple, the Clintons think they can save the Democratic Party from itself by convincing the superdelegates to vote for her. They know that Obama is a certain loser in November, he cannot win OH, PA, FL, and he may even lose some other states like CA, without which it is certain he cannot win. The problem is that the Democratic Party cannot save itself, HRC was always unelectable because of her huge negative numbers (49% of all voters hated her guts to start with). John Edwards was the Dems only chance, but he was too white, too male, and too Southern for them (please note that the last three actual Democratic Presidents were all of that strip). It won't even be close in a year that should have been a 1980 style blowout for the Democrats. Pitiful.

If Clinton dispassionately argued to the superdelegates that they should ask themselves which candidate has the better chance of beating McCain, I would have no problem with her.

But her arguments about Florida and Michigan are so dishonest and, recently, so inflammatory, that I think that once this is all over, she should be invited to leave the Democratic Party.

"When a loser is still beating so called a winner in swing states like PA, FL and OH with 68 Electoral College votes, the Democratic Party has a serious general election problem in November.

If you literally hand over these three big states to the Republican Party..."
===============
The fact that the loser has a Big "Brand name" like Clinton and managed to beat newcomer Obama in the democratic primaries in these States means diddley-squat in the General...the States mentioned have leaned Republican in the last 2 elections, they would be tough sells no matter who the Democratic Candidate is, further, Independents and undecided voters didn't cast ballots in the Democratic primaries in many States, Obama polls favorably among Independents. And, more significantly, the case hasn't even begun to be made why voting for McCain would be against all American's best interest this year. Some years Americans have the luxury of voting for the person instead of the party, but not this year...far too much is at stake. America has been diminished under the current inept, and dangerous regime, voting for McCain will be like voting for a third Bush term; McCain voted the Bush agenda 95% of the time...I think that once the American electorate has a crystal clear idea of how needed a change in the White House is, that they will do the right thing come November no matter what the hysterical Clinton-centric Cassandras are predicting at the moment.

Marie Cocco writes today in the Post:

The record suggests that if Clinton is not the nominee, no woman will seriously contend for the White House for another generation. This was the outcome of the 1984 Geraldine Ferraro experiment. After 24 years, Ferraro remains the only woman ever to run for national office on a major-party ticket. And she was selected, not elected, as a vice presidential candidate.

"Maybe a generation from now," says Debbie Walsh, director of the Center for American Women and Politics at Rutgers University. "My feeling is, I don't see who's coming after Clinton, and I don't feel like it's going to be easy for whoever comes next."

It is quite possible that HRC does not want to let this large constituency down.

While I disagree with Professor Walsh and believe that HRC has permanently changed the playing field for qualified female candidates, I am a male, and have not experienced being "shut out". HRC should finish her campaign, preferably with grace.

The Cocco article:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/21/AR2008052102424.html

Wow, this year the GOP doesn't need Ralph Nadar to divide our votes. The GOP couldn't have orchestrated a better scenario to divide our party. They managed to drive a stake into the heart of our country and divide America and now we are putting up fences and driving a stake into ourselves, the Democratic Party. Some will retaliate and jump the fence to the GOP, some will not even show up to the polls. Are we not listening to ourselves, do we need more hatred and divisive issues, haven't we had enough. Are we going to fall again to the "Puppet Master" Karl Rove. Is this his parting gift to us? We will fail and we will fall if we continue this in-fighting. We, as Democrats, appear to be no better than a second rate circus act. Listen! Can you hear the hushed laughter and ridicule from the GOP. Maybe they are orchestrating this whole fiasco...

Jesse "The Mad Texan"

there are 6 letters which state clearly why Clinton cannot win the presidency:
B O S N I A

Those 6 letters are code for another word:
L I A R

You can bet she'll be hammered by the GOP day in and day out to further boost her negative rating, already extremely high for a presidential candidate.

Even if you like Hillary you have to be realistic, that she is very divisive and she will bring out disaffected GOP voters in unprecedented numbers, enough so that the scales could be tipped to McCain.

To Amod ("I fail to see how [Sen Clinton] is in any way dividing the party"): Sen Clinton has every right to continue her campaign. But her words Wed pushed emotional buttons on issues that will make it harder to heal the party. If she persists in doing this party leaders will be justified in committing against her.

Sexism--yes, just as there are voters who vote against Obama for race (More than 20% in WV admitted it to exit pollers). But she's behind because her campaign wasn't ready to compete after Super Tuesday (going 0-11) and mismanaged resources so badly they've raised $80-$100M yet ended up $20M-$30M in debt--not sexism. She also squandered her initial position as the "Establishment Candidate" with more money, superdelegates, and name recognition by far.

MI/FL--a way will have to be found to seat delegates that reflect but do not slavishly follow flawed primaries--some penalty must be paid for knowingly violating rules (I'm in favor of seating FL as is, giving MI's uncommmited to Obama, and stripping both states of superdelegates--but the RNC method of halving delegates is also possible). Holding out for counting votes for Sen Clinton and only her in MI is patently absurd, and acting as if she had nothing to do with the penalty (her advisors on the DNC voted to strip MI/FL of their delegate zero, and she both publicly and firmly supported the "votes will not count" line until she needed them) is also. Whipping up emotions against the DNC will only make it harder for ANY democrat to win those states in Nov.

Popular vote: this is a powerful emotional issue in a democracy, but the truth is neither party's primary process is designed to generate a meaningful nationwide popular vote. Several have pointed this out (Slate Magazine, Jonathan Alter, etc), yet the emotional power of this leads to things like RealClearPolitics tracking SIX different ways to compute it. By thundering loud and long over a statistically invalid number, Sen Clinton is ensuring that whomever loses the nomination will have supporters who can point to a "popular vote" that "proves that the nomination was stolen." Again this can only end up worsening party divisions.

Does that help you see how she's dividing the party?

To conclude--it would be harder to unify the party if superdelegates committed early enough close out the process before June 3rd. But it will be impossible for ANY Democratic candidate to unify the party if Sen Clinton and her surrogates keep pushing the above emotional arguments in ways that deepen and solidify resentments. That would justify superdelegates stepping in to stop the bleeding.

Bill Clinton seems to have a pretty clear idea what he thinks she should get as a consolation prize. In Bill Clinton's view, she has earned nothing short of an offer to be Obama's running mate, according to some who are close to the former President. Bill "is pushing real hard for this to happen," says a friend. Hillary is more opaque about what she might want, divulging little even to those who see and talk to her every day. "It's as plain as the nose on your face that this whole thing has shifted to a different mode," says a top Clinton strategist. "But I don't know what she wants. I don't know what she's thinking."

What Does Hillary Want?

http://www.youpolls.com/details.asp?pid=2461

.

Here's what I don't get: why does the press swallow whole every talking point the Clinton campaign puts out? For instance, when was "electability" the point? I thought that was taken care of through the judgment of voters who selected pledged delegates. And supposedly, caucuses are anti-democratic and bad, but unelected superdelegates are good? How do you figure THAT!?

Clinton claims she's gotten more primary votes from Democrats, but the case she is making for being nominated is because KARL ROVE says she stands to win more electoral votes? And if it were the REPUBLICAN primary system -- which does not reward minority candidates like the Democrats -- she would be ahead? But her saving grace is her willingness and skill and perseverance in fighting Republicans?

And through all of this the MSM acts like lapdogs. During the entire campaign, the MSM has held a candidate accountable once - - Clinton's Bosnia lie. The rest has involved issues started in some other media (for instance, Rev. Wright was a YouTube phenomenon). And then they complain about declining readership.

Hillary Clinton is still running because she is the best and strongest candidate to win in November. The media ignores that, and so do Obama's supporters. Clinton is still kicking Obama's behind in primaries in states the Democrats desperately need to win in the general election. There are millions of people who prefer her, and will vote for McCain if she is not on the ballot in November. The DNC and superdelegates are taking Democratic voters for granted, and this is a lethal error. Dis-enfranchising Michigan and Florida early in the process was a stupid power play, and hamstrung the whole process from the start. Hillary is right - you rob the primary process of legitimacy by eliminating the influence of these two big states. If they had counted early on, we wouldn't be in the current situation. Michigan and Florida WILL be voting in November, and those people are angry at the Democratic party. People are making (again) the invalid assumption that voting Democratic means more to people than a sense of personal integrity in the face of a terribly mismanaged party. You can count out Ohio and Florida, and probably Pennsylvania if Obama is the nominee. Fantasies are running rampant that Obama will re-write the electoral vote map and pick up states in the mountain west and south to counter-balance those losses. Maybe he will accomplish this - but even if he wins, our president will still not have been our best candidate.

I have not read all of the postings yet and I am sure some more sensible person has made comments on DR. DANIEL FESTLER's very long and strange posting on Barack Obama's "lies," but I'll put in a quick two cents.

Admittedly, DR. DANIEL FESTLER appears to be a bit off, however his comments are worth addressing as the perpetuatation of ignorance regarding experiences outside of domainant western cultures is not helpful to Americans who live in a world that is growing smaller and more interconnected each day.

Again, I could not be bothered to sift through DR. DANIEL FESTLER's entire rant however, I'd like to point out a few comments for correction, at least on some issues dealing with identity and culture.

Obama could be correct in stating that his name is Swahili considering that this East African language (spoken in Kenya) is a hybrid of other languages most notably, Arabic. So where is the "lie" in attributing "Barack" to Swahili one of the majority languages of his father's country? However, Arabic is not one of the languages of Kenya. Therefore, why must he attribute "Barack" t