It is doubtful that the media-saavy public in the upcoming "Crabcake primary" states will buy into the faltering Clinton campaign.

Living in France I've just experienced a presidential campaign where a male candidate ran and won on his rhetoric instead of his record. French people were so fed up with the president in place that they opted for change at any price. The person who won was part of incumbent Chirac's cabinet. His party the UMP was responsible for dismantling "neigborhood" police forces whose ties with the immigrant population in Paris suburbs were
essential. Without these policemen, the French suburbs went up in flames for weeks upon weeks and Sarkozy as the then minister of the interior got to play robocop and flash his face all over the media. Since his election in May, voters have been confronted with his actions and pay the heavy price of allowing themselves to be "sweet-talked" into electing him. Fortunately for the French, another round of elections threatens to eliminate the UMP party from half of the city halls they control. Sarkozy is reinstating the neighborhood police, part of the platform of his female opponent who -- unlike him -- had done the groundwork of auditing the real needs of the country.
Ambitious young men such as Sarkozy and Obama have to be forced to fill out the promises they so glibly spew out by being made to do the groundwork. Let Obama roll up his sleeves and write up some honest-to-god legislation to remediate the situation in Iraq instead of constantly pulling out his old speech which -- in the end -- is nothing but hot air gone cold. He has proposed NO legislation to undo Iraq. Zero.
Some little boys never grow up. They go to expensive schools and simply develop a sense of entitlement. We the voters in the primaries must put this little boy back in the traces so that maybe America may be able to profit from the leader he may become IF he does the groundwork of a Biden or a Clinton.

My mother died of cancer before the elections began. I donated part of my inheritance to the Hillary Clinton campaign because mom loved Hillary's compassion for all people, her courage, and her follow through. Mom shared stories of Hillary's work for poor children(The Children's Defense Fund), and adults, over the past 35 years. I became a Special Education Teacher. In the 1970's, Hillary Clinton fought to pass the legislation that gives children with Special Needs the right to a Free and Appropriate Public Education. I look around my classroom at all the beutiful faces My students are here because Hillary Clinton is their champion. I am so glad that my mother told me about Hillary Clinton.

Well said, Kathy and Jacqueline! Let's hope that Virginia, Maryland and DC voters can see through the rhetoric and look at the hard work and compassion that Hillary has shown over the years. Her time has come.

Why is it in politics, as in other spheres of our working lives, we don't hire the most qualified candidate?

If IBM or Mircorsoft hired their CEOS the way some Americans want to hire the "CEO" of the United States, those firms would face dire consequences. Blue chip companies don't hire people because they 'sound good.' They hire people who have the credentials and the track record of accomplishment.

Do you think the CEO's of companies are responsible these days? Isn't part of the problem we have due to golden parachutes, where regardless of how well the CEO does they get a multi-millon dollar retirement package even if they run the company into the ground?

So no just having experiance isn't enough, it has to be experiance doing what the majority of the people in the country are happy with and not just doing it. The Clintons are polarizing, not everyone agrees on their record. There are also legitimate problems, such as how she tends to gloss over economics and tried to declare herself the frontrunner before any states had voted.

Katy it is very possible that you live in France but
your statment is not correct. I'm french citizen and i do follow very closely the US election. First of all even if i did not vote for Sarkozy but for Royal it is not exact that he had less experience than Royal on the contrary. He had much more higher positions in Chirac cabinet than Royal did in Miterrand and Jospin cabinet.... In fact BO'policy is much closer to Royal than to Sarkozy. For instance Sarkozy was one of the few french politicians who was not against the war as BO and Royal were. Furthermore Hillary approch about foreign policy is much closer to Sarkosy than Royal. Of course i am only an observator and don't want to interfer, but i just think that your statment is somehow misleading. I wish you the best for the election. Sorry if my english is not that good.

I feel so sad today knowing that the "race card" has been played all through this election. The debates were great in that Hillary showed Obama up. Now, the media, the blacks, the kids, and the elite cancel every issue out. Save America, please, vote for Hillary!

Hillary is the peace maker!!

I'll support whoever the Dem. Nominee is.

Hilary is my first choice-- her plans are thoughtful, presented well, and inclusive. Some of her plans come from having learned what does NOT work, which makes her all the more seasoned.

I like inspiration as much as anyone but I also like results.

I am a white, suburban male, married ,two boys. And I voted for Hillary Clinton in the primary today for VA. I have never understood the hate directed towards this woman. She has some good ideas, is highly educated, is well respected by high-ranking military people that have had to deal with her from her position on the Senate Armed Forces Committee, and has been able to reach across the aisle to work with Republicans. She has clearly learned from her failure at health care reform while she was First lady and we as a nation will benefit from that, and while she does not have the charm or smoothness of Barack Obama, she is more adept at the back-office details often needed to get things done in Washington. Many like the idea of Obama "changing" things in Washington; they said the same thing about Jimmy Carter's election after the disgrace of the Nixon Administration. We know how that turned out...
Sometimes, change for the sake of change is NOT a good thing. I will vote for Obama if he gets the nomination, but I think Hillary is the better President.

Today, I talked to a black man who was like me in his fifties and he told me he was voting for Hillary Clinton when he saw my Hillary sticker. He told me that it was a hard decision but that he felt he owed the Clintons because of all they did for him and he felt that Hillary Clinton was the most capable leader. And he looked into my eyes and I into his and it occurred to me that alll these years he and I have been fighting against the same demons. He couldn't change the color of his skin and I can't change my gender and neither of us wanted to. We are content in our skin and in our gender. We have endured different degrees of prejudice and a part of me has to rejoice for this moment and yet I realize that inevitably no matter who wins this nomination the victory will be bittersweet, probably more for Hillary Clinton if she wins than Obama. It is ironic that we are competing for our dreams to come true but as my black friend said what matters is that the next President be a democrat. I hope it is Hillary Clinton because I believe she is the most capable but I know that we are closer than we have ever been before and that one day in America there will be a Black man as President, and a White woman, and a black woman, and an Hispanic man, and a Asian man, and an Asian woman, and Hispanic women, and a Moslem, and a Jew, etc. I take it back -- there is nothing better than being a democrat. Tonight and tomorrow let's support our candidates who we believe in with our hearts and minds but at the end of the day, just let us rejoice with tears in our eyes that this day has come and we are close, closer than we have ever been to the change that we have sought for so long and we seek for our children and grandchildren.

Where was Hillary today? She had my vote until 3:30 this afternoon, when i learned she didn't vote on the telecom immunity amendments. Of all the things WRONG with Washington...granting immunity to telecoms for illegally listening in our telephone calls based on Bush & company's say-so is about the best example i know.

I'd been attracted to Hillary's understanding of how Washington works. Her vote on this issue would let a lot of us know how she stood on our current administration's flagrant violations of the law while citing executive privilege. By not voting on the issue...she did tell us...she's more concerned about her campaign than what she can use her legitimate authority to handle today. It cost her my vote...and the votes of several others.

I'm 44 year old white Virginia male, father of three, and ardent liberal. I work with many staunch Republicans (and like most of them). Nearly to a person they dislike Hillary so much that her nomination will do for Republicans what Barack's will do for Democrats, get them to the polls.

The policy differences between the two are small, but their impacts on Republicans and independents are vastly different. If Hillary wins, I'll support her campaign, but we'll be climbing up a much steeper hill.

I was very surprised at the response of the person living in France. No mention was made on his or her part about my example of the neigborhood police in France being reinstated in the suburbs. Instead, the person tried to counter me on a point that I DIDN'T make : I NEVER said that Nicolas Sarkozy was inexperienced. I said that France wanted a change and picked the candidate that SPOKE of change but did not embody change: he was part of the cabinet of the incumbent president! The importance here is that Mr. Sarkozy diverted the attention away from his track record which included eliminating an evidently much needed neighborhood police force while minister of the interior under Chirac. Now he is being forced to set that police force back up as he free falls in the polls and as the co-members of his party risk being voted out as mayors during the upcoming election.
Wouldn't it have been simpler to vote Royale in to begin with? Which is the point at which American citizens find themselves today and the reason I posted the comment. Will Americans vote for rhetoric or will they vote for results? Will they vote for rhetoric and spend years trying to nudge their elected president toward acceptable governing as France is doing now? or will they pick the candidate who has proven she can do the job and who has shown us what she has already done. In that sense Hillary CLINTON and Ségolène ROYALE are comparable, although their convictions diverge on a variety of issues.
At the risk of sounding simplistic, France had a choice between a "mom" and a "little boy" and they chose the little boy. Now the mom is on the sidelines in France trying to get the little boy to read up the room. Why not choose the mom to begin with and get the house in order? That's the choice that is still open to Americans. Both CLINTON and ROYALE have that roll-up-your-sleeves get-down-to-work ethic. The difference is that Americans can vote Hillary in as of this fall, whereas France will have to wait until 2012.

I'm an Obama supporter. But I loved the post by Cybermom75.