Hillary Clinton complains that the news media is biased against her. Actually, the opposite is true.

The news media have respectfully (not to say timidly) refrained from revisiting the corruption and abuses that have marked her and her spouse’s careers -- the Whitewater, Travelgate, Chinagate and cattle-futures scandals; the illegal closed-doors health-care meetings; the pardoning of convicted criminals who had bribed Tony Rodham, Hillary’s brother, to sway the President; the using of uniformed Marines as errand boys and waiters; the hiring of detectives to dig up dirt on the women seduced by the President; the claiming of gifts to the White House as personal property; the scores of violent and untimely deaths of potentially threatening witnesses (Vince Foster, Bill Shelton, Jerry Parks, Mary Mahoney, to name some.)

Cleary, Obama’s high -minded rhetoric is starting to lose appeal. To defeat the Clintons at their game, to come across as a fighter, he must start responding to their negative ads by dredging up their sleazy past. There would be plenty of sleaze, volumes of it, from which to draw.

Carlos Navarro
Davidson, NC

No, Carlos you are wrong about this. Hillary Clinton's past has been more than thoroughly vetted and what you cite is seriously old news and not worthy of current debate.

I am a solid Obama supporter, but cannot support further pseudo-review of old Clinton dirt. Remember, the taxpayers of this country already paid millions upon millions of $$ investigating the Clintons...let it go already.

Concentrate on the present and the future! I will continue to support Obama but will never consent to re-trashing of Bill/Hillary Clinton over past nonsense.

The NAFTA issue unmasked Obama as a two-faced hypocrite and a con man.

He makes all this sanctimonious speeches about how different he is from other politicians and then gets caught speaking with a forked-tongue.

He almost pulled a fast one by trying to get Hillary to quit in the middle of the contest while everyone was mesmerized by his B.S. smooth-talk and soothing words (high-minded rhetoric to some people).

Not so fast Obama, we're on to you now. We're staying with Momma.

Actually, the cattle futures deal was investigated, and it's 100% clear that she laundered a $100,000 bribe through phony trades. But it's so long ago that she couldn't be prosecuted.

Katerm, why are the Hillary scandals any less significant because they've been investigated and found true. Hillary has 20 Rezko's in her past and now that the press has followed her whining and looked into his past, they'll swing back against her.

And Ruel, have you stopped reading? The Canadians have confirmed that the anonymous internal memo is inaccurate. Sorry that you don't have your "gotcha" moment. Hillary would rather call the Canadian consul general a lawyer so she can win the election; nice experienced diplomat, she sure is... not.

JohnnyU: I say this because they have in fact not been found true. If they were, the Clintons would not be around campaigning as they are today. They are literally the most investigated folks in D.C. in literally decades, and no charges have stuck to them (unless you count the ridiculous impeachment which also didn't result in conviction). Again, I support Obama. Just don't keep bringing up this old nonsense and expect it to stick.

So you don't think Obama constantly, consistently and uniformly discrediting and ridiculing Hillary Clinton's 35 years of public service for children, women and families precipitated the Clinton campaign's "jabbing " back at Obama? The latest and most effective jab was brought about by the Obama camp itself. Remember his own associate went to Canada and, according to this associate, was misunderstood by Canadian politicians. "No I did not say Obama was posturing about Nafta". That's what Obama's associate said. But the Canadian report states there was no miss-understanding about Obama's Nafta sentiments as expressed by Obama's man.
Lets be quite frank about one thing and ask what the heck Obama's man was doing in Canada discussing Nafta in the first place? Any reasonable and logical person can only conclude that what the Canadian report says is absolutely true! Such an assertion by one of this country's friends is to be taken seriously and is political fodder and therefore needs to be openly debated. And for the Clinton campaign not to at least address this issue with a political jab would be absolutely ridiculous. And there is more to be gleaned from this episode and that is that Obama is again exposing how terribly inexperienced he is in foreign affairs. What he caused to happen in Canada is something only a novice would do.
Here Obama was cruising along and he sends one of his people to assure Canada that when he is President Nafta is essentially safe. How presumptuous in the first place and how politically stupid over all.
And although this article implies that Hillary Clinton is the first to use underhanded politics the truth is that Obama has been attacking Hillary Clinton's credentials even before Iowa when he was saying over and over, "what about being the first lady qualifies you for the Presidency?" What an insult and degrading posture to take against a women of great intelligence and with a long record of public service. She was there in the White House and I'm sure she was privy to just about every thing that went on there and that has to be one of the most valuable experiences for an aspiring President as I'm sure many a vice president will attest.
And there are a lot of issues Hillary could hammer at but she has chosen to concentrate such jabs as related to the real issues of this campaign and rightly so.
What amazed me until tonight is that many Obama pundits recently were saying that Hillary should graciously bow out and allow Obama the nomination because his delegate lead is insurmountable. Hogwash!
Right now there are approximately 90 delegates which separate the two and there are about 600 left in the remaining primaries. Three pro-Clinton states have about 286 delegates to win or lose between them. Pennsylvania has 188 and according to everything I've read and heard is heavily pro-Clinton much like Ohio's mix. Give Hillary 118 there and Obama 70. The same holds true for West Virginia where 39 delegates await the campaign. Here give Hillary 24 and Obama 15. In Kentucky there are 59 delegates again favoring Hillary. Give Clinton 38 and Obama 21. In this admittedly optimistic Clinton scenario Obama's delegate lead is almost gone and since 2 dozen super delegates have switched to Obama it is possible that now, in light of Hillary's positive showing, some will switch back to Hillary. Even if the rest of the delegates split to favor Hillary or Barack niether will have 2025 delegates unless all the super delegates swing to either one.
The truth of the matter is that this race will not be decided until the convention because neither candidate will muster the 2025 delegates needed to claim victory. And this is great news for politics in America and for the Democratic Party. The excitement generated by this campaign will bring more and more citizens out to vote in the Presidential election and the overall winner will be the America people. We will embrace the democratic process again and vote who we want in office. The issues will have been repeated over and over. The candidates will be as transparent as a sheet of glass after all the dust and dirt settles and America will show the world how a civilized democracy works in such an active and bustling country.
After all is said and done I support Hillary because I've watched her on the national stage and have been privileged to observe a gracious and true public servant of high intelligence and character. There are some who believe Obama has what it takes. I am not one of those. I admit he is a wonderful orator and has fired up the voters in this country for and against him but after all is said and done Hillary Clinton is the most qualified because of her record, her experience and the solutions she proposes and will enact.

I honestly believe Obama supporters are some of the worst Clinton Haters in politics.

1. The first person to make a personal attack was Barack Obama. He said that Hillary Clinton was unelectable.
2. The first person to make a racial or sexist comment was Chris Rock, who made a racist AND sexist comment last November. He told Obama's audience that they would be embarrassed if "they voted for the white lady."
3. We can all agree that the media has proven itself to be fools over and over and over in this campaign. They discounted the ad Jack Nicholson did for Clinton last Friday. I think it was one of the most timely ads of the campaign. It gave white guys an opportunity to vote for a female Commander-in-Chief, to the cheers of the coolest white guy on the face of the planet.

Johnny U: Read this:

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20080302/nafta_memo_080303/20080303/
_______________________

Anonymous internal memo? You wish.

Official Canadian Embassy (Washington) statement:

The Canadian Embassy in Washington issued a statement on Monday saying its envoys "regularly contact those involved in all of the Presidential campaigns and, periodically, report on these contacts to interested officials."

The statement went on to say that in the recent report from the Consulate General in Chicago, "there was no intention to convey, in any way, that Senator Obama and his campaign team were taking a different position in public from views expressed in private, including about NAFTA.

"We deeply regret any inference that may have been drawn to that effect."

Yessir, it's ALL about Hillary! The GOP is loving the Dems slugfest. IF, and that's a big IF, Clinton ends up the Dems candidate this November....they lose the White House, you get a Prez. McCain for 4 years. That's not the only wake-up call the Dems will get - the turnout for GOP will be large. Will they be voting for McCain? NO, the turnout will be to vote AGAINST Clinton....AND....Speaker Pelosi will be history, the large turnout will lose the Dems' majority in the House.'

It's the first time in history that the GOP is loving a Clinton!! Go girl go - you are on a role of destruction

Try this "delegate calculator" and find me a way that Clinton gets to the number she needs? http://www.slate.com/features/delegatecounter/

Also, please list 5, just 5, issues that HRC can boast as experience? I have looked and can't find them. (being First Lady does not count as experience to be a President) Whitewater, filegate, cattlegate, and all the other ....gates of the Clinton years aren't the kind of experience I want to see in the Prez. either.

Obama won the delegate majority in Texas. His popular vote fell short a few percent (4-5). Ohio was a different story. Billary took Ohio. RI and Vermont were split and are not relevant anyway.
Obama has been getting too cocky and by trying to overpower Billary with TV cash, he has only succeeded is squandering his edge as an "underdog" and, more importantly, someone who is getting votes from people who think he can save this country through novel approaches. His strategists also failed him with that inane TV ad, about him being better at answering the “red telephone” because he voted against Iraq invasion. First of all, it’s a non-sequiter and secondly, the Iraq military action is not over. While people are very unhappy about the lack of success, the ridiculous spending and the great loss of life, counted in that number are those who would have preferred a 3-state solution and those who would have just bombed the crap out of Iraq. This is especially true in Texas where much of the military spending is done.
When all the delegates are counted, Billary may have netted a loss for the day. The other posters are correct when they say that Billary can’t win a sleaze contest with anyone, which is part of the reason why we have George W Bush right now. Also, the news media has turned against Obama, probably because they do not want the contest over yet (self preservation).
Obama is faced with a paradox. Either take off the gloves and begin the mutual assured destruction of the democratic party or be subjected to Billary’s campaign by innuendo.
Either way, Obama needs to demote whomever made strategic decisions in the Texas and Ohio contests. I get the feeling they must have been lawyers, who are great at producing money but awful at spending it and have no clue what lurks in the ‘reptilian’ portion of the human brain—mainly because they are too close to it themselves.

I live in France -- in the aftermath of a presidential election whose female candidate got more than side-swiped by the press during the campaign. I was appalled by CNN coverage of that race and therefore sensitized to the possibility of a possible sexist slant in the media.
I don't think anybody would argue with the fact that up until the last few days the media have been lenient with Obama and hard on Hillary. And those last few days have been telling.
The media seem to have an undue influence.
This morning in France (2 am in New York) I tried to see a little footage of newscasters at CNN on the results of Ohio and Texas. What I found was a clip showing a series of mini-interviews of voters who were willing to share their vote with us. Among them was an older, full-bodied black woman named something like "Dibbles" who introduced herself as a nurse and a minister. She had this to say about the candidate that she voted for :

"She implement change. She stands on her words. She do what she say. She bring it home."

The eloquence of the woman struck me all the more in that she was going against
the trend among black voters.
Another woman -- fifty-year-old and white -- voted Obama, saying that this was the first time she had ever voted in a primary. She also was an exception to the tendencies within the demographic group of older white women.
The interviews reminded me that the process of primaries and general elections is complex and that there are INDIVIDUALS who are thinking things through. That the Democrats have the privilege of focusing people on this election should be applauded. That there are voters resisting all the "versions of what's happening" and voting free on their own convictions constitutes an ESSENTIAL part of the process.
As to David Corn's preoccupation with Obama being used as a punching bag, this is NOT about electing OBAMA but about electing a president. Let him and Hillary put their ultimate commitments where their mouths are, let them run together on the same ticket
in whatever order the Democratic Party decides, but let's not deprive the voters than remain of their voting rights.

wow, Clinton wins Ohio! This is excatly why we have a sub prime mess. We do not know how to count! Clinton has not won Ohio. She has probably netted 5 to 7 delegates in Ohio which is wiped out by the net delegates won by Obama in Vermont!

It only makes sense to talk about winning a State in the electoral college winner take all USA general election.

The choice of a nominee is the party's method of canvassing the views of citizens everywhere in the Country. Thus a whisper from Idaho is as important as a shout from California.

This is not the general election where you can win CA, MA, NY, OH and a few other States and be declared a winner! Thus, it is equally senseless to claim that we win the big states or the blue states or any number of the extravagant claims being made by the media and Clinton campaign.

Wake up from the sub-delegate crisis, media! It is the same miscalculation that has sunk the Clinton campaign! She cannot figure out this simple electoral math but she wants to run the country.

Jokers!

I am glad to see Obama stay above this dirt that Clintons have been throwing.
But what if he decides to:
1. Clearly run ads that show a family life in White House with the Obamas and their children rather than a bunch of Monica L.s running around?
2. Clearly bring up the issue that he attends breakfast prayer sessions with Hillary as a Christian and wonders why she said she was not sure about his religion?
3. Explain his manufacturing vision of America as an Automated Society with Green jobs etc.
4. Explain that he will bring the troops back home and establish peace because he will seek the help of the international community-- including Iran and Syria -- without whom nothing can be done in Iraq.
5. Explain he had the Vision and the foresight to identify attacking certain uncontrolled areas of Pakistan that provide terrorists refuge--now being implemented
6. Explain that the way to bringing Al Qaeda to their knees is by issuing a request as a Christian nation's leader to the Imams and Priests of Mecca to prohibit Al Qaeda members from praying towards Mecca for killing women and children--or whatever-- use legitimate tactics prescribed by their religion against them. In other words show your grasp of these details.
7. Have your white grandma besides you-- for anyone unsure of his race.
8. Don't jump in and use things like NAFTA-- the Clintons have done enough good and bad things that will haunt them
9. Campaign a lot harder with your surrogates and make sure they don't make faux pas like Michelle's unpatriotic moment.

Fantastic! Can't wait til the record GOP turnout in November puts Herr McCain in the White House!

Thanks, Democrats!

All I have to say is to quote the Pretenders song that, ironically enough, Rush Limbaugh uses as his opening theme (coincidence? I think not, considering he WANTS Clinton to win):

A, O, WAY TO GO, OHIO! Thanks a lot, you are doing your part to vote us into a McCain presidency.

As a Democrat, Obama supporter, and someone who is getting sick and tired of the bickering between the two camps in general, I have to hope that Howard Dean can convince Hillary to throw in the towel. It will not work if she's on the ticket. The delegate count and the polls prove it.

i hope howard dean can roll up his sleeves and fix this mess.

the clinton candidacy ended tonight. the math isn't there for her. she got three wins, but she didn't get the tko she desperately needed, and it looks like she'll end up losing the delegate count in tx. what we'll get now is 6 weeks of obama and hillary sniping at each other and exposing each other's weaknesses. obama needs some seasoning, but 6 weeks will be overcooking him.

and if hillary somehow wrangles out the nomination at the convention, well, her goose is cooked in the general then. she's the best candidate for mccain to run against. he'll chew her 'experience' up and spit it out when comparing their senate records. and on the war? well, we'll see hillary as the 'me too' candidate as she tries to hew rightward for the general election, except she'll be debating her matching positions on the war (voted for it, for the surge) with a former pow.

what i think the democrats need now is a unity ticket. obama for prez, hillary for vp. they compliment each other's strengths. she could be his cheney, except not incompetent. together, they could win. separately, well, obama's chances are slightly better than hers, but why take the risk.

Ahh, the Democratic party - talk about eating their own. Let's see - Hillary can't/shouldn't win because she married Bill/had a failed healthcare plan as first lady (and since when do we care what the heck first spouses do or don't do)/didn't bake cookies/is a lawyer/voted pro-con depending on what YOU (usually someone NOT from NY)want/according to the Pundits, wears pantsuits/shows cleavage. . .
We love retro in this country - so, welcome back early 1950s when women were women who knew their place and shut their face. Rise up Obama Rise Up and save us from ourselves. . .take us to the promised land of diversity without controversy, place without race, and happy happy people everywhere.

I don't find the 3am phone call that Hillary Clinton would get very concerning but rather the phone calls from health insurance and pharmaceutical companies in the afternoon that she gets.

I don't find the 3am phone call that Hillary Clinton would get very concerning but rather the phone calls from health insurance and pharmaceutical companies in the afternoon that she gets.

Get the Hunchback of John McCain T shirt at http://hunchback.democratz.org

I apologize for the accidental multiple posts.

As predicted -- the hidden racism of the rust belt rears its ugly head in Ohio.

Pennsylvania is no better: a state where white people aren't afraid to use the n-word, where blacks are still second class citizens, and where an antiquated primary system closed to the independent voter guarantees a landslide for the party machine candidate.

Ironically, Ohio and Pennsylvania will most assuredly vote for McCain, because as they have a racist side, they also have a sexist side, and there's no way a woman wins a battle over the 3AM call against McCain.

So congratulations in advance for a Pyhrric victory, and recognize that the blood of the ensuing McCain administration is on your hands.

Given the disasters we're facing, perhaps it's best that McCain serve the next four years. Then perhaps you party machine DLC corporatist slugs will get the message that we've had it with your ilk. As for me, I'm weary of two-faced thievery of Republicrats, and so I'm just tuning out for the rest of this disaster, and certainly won't concern myself with the false choice between Clinton and McCain.

Congrats to Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton who on 1/20/09 we will be able to address as President Hillary Rodham Clinton. A woman's place is in the house...The White House, and certainly this woman, who is the most qualified person to seek this office in modern times, deserves to serve as President. What an inspiration she is to everyone, not just women.

No John, you're the one who isn't reading. The Canadians have confirmed that Goolsbee met with the Canadians. There was even a memo that was typed up by the Canadians regarding what was discussed at this meeting. Obama blatantly lied and said no meeting took place. And, he's been caught. And, if anyone believes Obama's story about how doing the real estate deal with Rezko was just a dumb mistake they're making a terrible mistake. This was a completely calculated scam that Obama and Rezko engaged in and it will eventually be exposed as such.

But, Hillary has her own problems. all the scandals from her past are going to be resurrected and she's going to have to answer for them all over again. She's been vetted to some extent in the past, but she's never been vetted with the intensity that she's going to be vetted with in the near future.

Maybe Ralph Nader isn't so bad after all.

Hillary, is a virtue and a true inspiration for all South Africans. She shows the kind of ability that one can compare with the type of leadership of Nelson Mandela and Thabo Mbeki.

She has grown as a wife, mother, woman and especially as a leader over the past couple of years.Her leadership ability and experience makes her the right person to lead the Democrats and the American people into a new decade.

Change is good, but one needs an experience person to drive the change process.Hope is fine, but an unexperience person may not be the best person to give hope, in a time where the Republicans had destroy the good name of the American PEOPLE.

Hillary Rodham Clinton, is the change that America needs.......

Oh, pul-eeeze. I am so happy that HRC has finally pulled off the gloves and really gone after Obama. Boo hoo....the.Clintons are picking on poor little Obama. The Clinton slime machine... Oh, the shame of it....the inhumanity....Like it or not, politics are a dirty business....just wait until McCain gets to really whack Obama. You think it's bad now?
I am so sick of all the cable news networks decidedly anti-Clinton slant, that I don't even bother to watch anymore. Just seeing Matthews' face makes me switch channels. She's been damned if she does, and damned if she doesn't. Why, pray tell, should she drop out of the race? She is getting people to vote for her.
Quite frankly, I am so sick of seeing AFrican-American voters voting for Obama just because he's a "brother". First of all it's insulting to African Americans intelligence and second of all, if that isn't racism, I don't know what else is. Yah, Yah, I know, white people did it for years. I get it. But hey, don't you think issues matter more than race or gender? I do. I resent people who had pledged their vote being pressured to vote for the black candidate and then being told that the Clinton's are using race against Obama.
I also don't want to leave my future up to those 18-29 year olds who are the biggest support of Obama. When have they had to pay a mortgage, buy health insurance, be worried about saving for retirement, or about social security? Please. Don't tell me that there are those who are serious about the political policies that each of the candidates espouse. Most of them are still living at home with Mommy and Daddy and expecting someone else to take care of them. They are the celebrity watching generation who lap up all the glitz and glamour around the Paris Hiltons, the Britney Spears. Well versed in theory but not in the practical.
Every single one of the supposed Clinton scandals have been investigated and proved inconsequential. Every single one of them. I still do not know why they generate such an amount of hate out there when the two of them have devoted their entire adult lives to service in this country.
I want someone who is grounded in reality to be my president. We voted for someone before who had little or no experience in running anything and look what we got. I'm not saying that Obama is comparable to GWB, but.....
What is happening now is the fawning press for Obama is now just starting to lift a few rocks and see what lives under them in Obama's life. They have essentially given him a pass ever since he dithered back and forth about running for President.
These are serious times. We don't need a rock star President. We need someone who knows what it means to work and work hard.

Hilary came to the Presidential contest as though she had divinely been the inheritor of the White House. It makes sense, since America, a nation of 300,000,000 does not seem to mind living under a seemingly dynastic system, in which two families, the Bushes and the Clintons would occupy the White House for well over thirty years straight; granted, that is not my issue with Hilary. To this end, she, Billy and her click will go to any sleasy extent to win. Unfortunately, her negative tactices are bloodying, not only Obama's message of hope and change, but ultimately the Democratic Party itself, giving credence in the process to the fact that even if Obama goes to the general election he will not have enough meat left on his skeletal body to withstand the visious blows from the mighty Republican Party, comes the general election. Obama has been running a noble contest based on the credo of this great nation that power does not have to be passed on from one powerful hand to the next. For one thing, I'll be among the thousands who will feel disanfranchised if it turns out that the Super Delegates cut some under-the-table deals with Bill and Hilary against the will of the American voters.

It's debatable whether or not you can count Hillary Clinton's time as first lady as "experience." But to say that she is the most qualified to seek the office of President in modern times is a bit silly -- unless you only count the last 7 years as “modern times.”

She has served 7 years in the Senate. That puts her slightly ahead of GWB (6-yr Gov) and slightly behind Reagan (8-yr Gov) and Carter (4-yr St. Sen, 4-yr Gov). She's way behind GHWBush (4-yr Rep, 8-yr VP); Ford (24-yr Rep, 2-yr VP); Nixon (4-yr Rep, 2-yr Sen, 8-yr VP); LBJ (4-yr Rep, 12-yr Sen, 3-yr VP); JFK (6-yr Rep, 8-yr Sen); and DDE (5-star Gen, 2-yr Supreme Commander of the Allied Forces in Europe, 2-yr Supreme Commander of NATO.

I'm sorry, Paris Hilton? Britney Spears? and THEORY!?! Nice incomprehensible rant, there, Ms. Levy.

When will you start discussing WHERE these delegates are coming from? It's NOT just the total number of delegates, it's how and where they were won.

Obama is good at rounding up delegates through caucus states, oftentimes in states that go RED in the general election. He has not shown that he can carry major blue states.

Clinton has won BIG with major delegate states such as California, New York, New Jersey, Ohio...and more.

Folks, in the end you want a candidate who can carry enough voters in states with big delegate counts (like Ohio and Florida) in order to win the presidential election. Caucus state wins, and wins in small, traditionally RED states like Idaho, do not win the presidential election.

And if you want the super delegates to cast their votes according to the will of the people in their particular state, then Massachusetts' super delegates such as John Kerry and Ted Kennedy must give their votes to Clinton!

Turn around is fair play...

My view from Oregon

To All those up on your high horses, leading the Obama band wagaon:

Do you really think a country that elected that Fuc**ng Monkey Man for 8 years would ever let Obama be president? Where have you all been?

If he does get elected, I give him one month in the white house, before the GOP bends him over his presidential desks and gives it to him good. poor Obama, he doesn't even see it coming.

I've said it before, but I'll say again because you all aren't that bright: pull your heads out of your over-privileged asses and face reality. Hillary IS the ONLY chance of beating the GOP. Get over it, now move on.

Re: C'mon Obama--: Quit Thinking You Can Stay Clean In A Mud Fight, Also
Hillary’s Commencement Speech
I'd definitely bet the ranch that GWB- -who merely followed the Clinton paradigm--totally enjoys getting all the "credit". Among the biggest lies ever told was that Hillary had been "vetted." It's little known she took the 5th 200+ times, let alone their career-long involvement with the most nefarious characters, & their convoluted schemes such that the sheer complicity of smoking guns proves fatiguing to most, if not intimidating. One would think NAFTA, at least, would have been an issue, but it took almost a generation to hear, just recently, from a big union leader (whose rank & file voted to endorse O) that: "Finally, our workers begin to connect the dots." In a democracy they would have read it in the press-- 15 years ago, before Bill disabled the free press. That they cultivate the worst of us & our instincts, has to be chief among the reasons why I've always seen Hill & Bill as so uniquely threatening

Birth Of The Clinton Paradigm
Hillary’s Commencement Speech

Wellesley College
1969 Student Commencement Speech
Hillary D. Rodham's (Problem With Empathy)

May 31, 1969
Remarks of Hillary D. Rodham, President of the Wellesley College Government Association and member of the Class of 1969, on the occasion of Wellesley's 91st Commencement, May 31, 1969:

"Part of the problem with empathy with professed goals is that empathy doesn't do us anything. We've had lots of empathy; we've had lots of sympathy, but we feel that for too long our leaders have used politics as the art of making what appears to be impossible, possible. What does it mean to hear that 13.3% of the people in this country are below the poverty line? That's a percentage. We're not interested in social reconstruction; it's human reconstruction. How can we talk about percentages and trends? The complexities are not lost in our analyses, but perhaps they're just put into what we consider a more human and eventually a more progressive perspective. The question about possible and impossible was one that we brought with us to Wellesley four years ago. We arrived not yet knowing what was not possible. Consequently, we expected a lot. Our attitudes are easily understood having grown up, having come to consciousness in the first five years of this decade -- years dominated by men with dreams, men in the civil rights movement, the Peace Corps, the space program -- so we arrived at Wellesley and we found, as all of us have found, that there was a gap between expectation and realities".

That may be so, but when Obama starts dealing in sludge, do you think none of it will stick to him? He's in a corner: How can he claim to be the champion of a new kind of politics while enaging in the old kind? Either he's the candidate of "change," or he's more of the same. He loses either way.

Hillary is polarizing and has zero chance of beating the Republicans. Obama is a Democrat and will get hosed by Diebold. McCain is the annoited one who will provide the USA with 8 more years of quagmire and death. Yeah, Death! Go team.

"We cannot just pull out"

General Aleksandr Naborov, Kremlin, 1982 Former Soviet General

I'm glad someone besides me is sick and tired of the Obama faerie tale. I know there are still those mesmerized by his "hope" campaign, but I hope they are beginning to see that there is nothing there to be hopeful about!

Hillary can actually win the election. She will certainly get my vote.

Forgetaboutit... This thing is so over. Don't underestimate Barack. He like the coach of a good team. Given time to prepare, he will take PA and the other states he already way out ahead in. Does the media forget about the large lead he has in other upcoming states. She cannot afford to lose a state, and there are nearly gauranteed wins for him upcoming. They're gonna be smart. No worries.

Even with the numbers last night HRC would have to win every contest at 62 to 38 to get ahead 5 electoral votes, if she only wins ALL the next contests at 61 to 39 she still loses by 5 electors.

Barack has already won.

That is for the fact based community not the unicorns and rainbows sect that still thinks HRC can do anything except more damage to her party.

;=)

I'm from Indiana and we here do not consider it tearing the Democratic Party apart because the Democratic candidate is not decided yet. NO one should drop from the race until the race is actually OVER -- we all deserve a say in this election!

Whatever happens after the two frontrunner campaigns chew one another up, they can always blame the McCain victory on Ralph. After all,blaming Ralph kept the campaign managers from 2000 and 2004 employed in 2008. So what if taking on his issues would be a winning strategy? It's so much easier (and less controversial) to Blame It On Ralph!!

I'm a helicopter pilot and have been married 35 years. Care to ride with my wife?

Much like Karl Rove Hillary has learned to appeal to the basest instincts among the voters. Either HIllary or McCain will be Bush term III. She has bought into the rediculous pseudo religious war foisted on us by the pseudo tough neocon wing of the GOP. Democrats must have a death wish to vote for more of the same. However if she fights and claws her way to the nomination she will destroy the Democratic Party. I will regard that as a favor since the relacement party might have a mind and a spine, both sadly missing on the current scene.

Past nonsense about the Clintons? How about Bill's pushing through NAFTA and Hillary's support of it until recently. The Clintons will do anything to win, and Hillary's slurs against Obama is proof.

Correction! It was Hillary who supported NAFTA up until the last debate. The Canada story was a lie.

The headline should be:
Lady NAFTA Cashes in on Ohio's Collective Amnesia. Like the Sioux waiting for the buffalo to return, the Buckeyes willingly enter into a 1992 trance.

The Clintons are fully aware of the process of sleeze. They have practiced it for years. They know how to bully and freighten the press to gain advantage. This was shown when the media started doing favorable pieces on Clinton presumably aimed at being able to claim balance. The press fell right into it. They went looking for blood and when they could not find it created it. The Clintons loved it. She show she has no moral roadmap. They will do whatever to gain an advantage even to the extent of doing damage. Their rational is that they will fix it later with a lie or by claiming to be victimized. Her refusing to flat out deny Obama is a Muslim is an example. I know some will say she did that. However she did not. She qualified her answer. we must also remember she put the photo out their. All in all she is showing the true Clinton form. Obama should not sink down to their ;evel but perhaps its time for the press to revisit the scandles of the 90s. Unlike Obama the Clintons assoicates have already been convicetd of corruption and Bill has been guilty of perjury. Whats more does anyone beleive that the denials from Canada are false? Does anyone question how and why the matter was leaked in the first instance. Obviously the Clintons knew if they timed it right they would acheive the desired results. Also where are the tax-returns and where are the papers that have been repeatedly requested?

Although, I am an avid Obama supporter, I feel that it's time either Clinton or Obama drop out of the race. I am hopeful that one of them will put the interest of the people that they claim to want to help above their own egos and personal interests. If the ultimate goal of the party and each of the candidates is to win the White House and to not allow "the people" to subjected to this abuse again, then the needs of the people need to be considered above all else. We don't need a protracted and destructive continuation of this primary. Clinton has left me somewhat "cold" because of her tactics with Obama. She is not "honorable". Her machine is in place, so I'm certain that some type way they are going to give her the nomination. This would only farther disillusion voters. Obama has his issues as well. I would support Obama leaving now, even though I am one of his supporters, because now he DOES legimately have the lead. For him to step aside would DEFINITELY identify that he is noble man with the interests of the party and the people ahead of his own.
But, then, perhaps I'm just too idealistic. It appears that both have gotten caught up in the "hype", energy, and rhetoric of the campaign. WE THE PEOPLE, will probably once again be lost in all this...and most sadly, we will probably be forced to endure the Republicans in power for four (4) more years.

Hey Katerm, thank you!

They have a saying in boxing: "it's the punch you don't see that knocks you out!" After the Ohio debate, anti-Hillary punsters were saying she lost because she didn't get a knockout. Oh, but she did. The phantom punch, which no one at first saw, came in the form of her vigorous challenge against the fraudulent flyers sent out by Obama's campaign re her Healthcare and NAFTA stances. Eventually, that would be remembered as saying volumes about Obama's lack of integrity while giving legitimacy to HRC's outcry, "Shame on you Barack Obama!" This was a silent victory that paved the way for more to come. Later, people began noticing BO's double-talk, cons, defensiveness, and how quickly he comes unglued whenver presented with a tough question. Add to this, he peaked too soon and now his speeches are sounding old and overly repetitive, even if they aren't his speeches.

No, no, Barack Obama is not yet presidential material. Maybe next time, after serving 8 years as Hillary's VP.

Hey Al Comstock, I agree with everything you say, and I thank you for the insight! If you look past the speeches, the whiteman's guilt, the color of skin, the white guilt, the media bandwagon, and all those young millenials wanting change for the mere sake of change--if you are able to look at both HRC's and BO's credentials on paper, there can be but one clear front runner. That is handsdown, second-to-none, Hillary Rodham Clinton.

And, she's "only getting warmed up." They have a saying in boxing: "it's the punch you don't see that knocks you out!" After the Ohio debate, anti-Hillary punsters were saying she lost because she didn't get the big knockout blow. Oh, but she did. Her phantom punch came in the form of her vigorous challenge against the Obama's fraudulent flyers re her positions on Healthcare and NAFTA. Eventually, that would be remembered as saying volumes about Obama's lack of integrity while giving legitimacy to HRC's outcry, "Shame on you Barack Obama!" This was a silent victory that continued to resonate later. Later, people began noticing BO's double-talk, conning, baseless promises, defensiveness, and how quickly he comes unglued whenver presented with a tough question. Add to this, he peaked too soon and now his speeches are sounding old and overly repetitive, even if they aren't originally his speeches.

This is making me sick . . .the republicans are laughing their assess off because of this stupid in-fighting amongst democrats. Too bad the Clintons play the same dirty game as the Republicans and now Obama is going to start slinging mud just like the rest . . .so much for change. Disappointed once again by our screwed up system . . .

Scoutpilot:

Tell me little about your wife? Does she have an interest in flying? Do you talk about your job with her? Does she ever fly with you?

I understand that flying a helicopter is pretty tricky--you wouldn't want to trust your life to an untrained pilot.

But if your choice is between someone with a good deal of exposure to the job, and someone with none...

Close exposure to job IS a form of experience if you're paying attention.

I believe this is very divisive for the Demos. A long expensive fight burning through millions that will not be available for the National election. Karl Rove is chuckling all the way to the bank.
BTW I don't include 8 years as First Lady and another 4+ as First Lady in Arkansas should be included as experience.

Al Comstock, beware, lest you become exhibit A, in the "uninformed rant" display.

Hillary Clinton does not have "35 years of public service," unless you include her time as consort to the governor of Arkansas, and as First Lady.

Goolsbee never went to Canada to meet anyone. That meeting happened in the Canadian Embassy in Chicago, and seems to have been at the request of the consulate.

Neither party to that meeting can quote verbatim, on being pressed for details, but Goolsbee is clear on what his meanings were, and were not. Your own reaction exhibits knee-jerk credit for flawless memory and impeccable character, on the part of the Canadian consulate. Whether that is so or not, I maintain that you cannot know such a thing.

Obama's staffer, by the accounts I've referenced, spoke with the Ambassador as a representative not of Obama, but of the the University of Chicago, only briefly touched on NAFTA, and said nothing at all about Obama not meaning what he's been saying to the American public. Your own confessed bias toward Clinton may be leading you to give credence to a rather thin attempt to black-wash Obama, just before the critical Ohio and Texas primaries. An attempt that now seems to have worked as planned (welcome to the ranks of the deceived).

The very WORST Goolsbee might have said, could be characterized as saying that Obama wanted to maintain good economic relations with Canada, should he become president. Canada's Ambassador might have taken this as he wanted to hear it, or phrased his memo as he thought the current Right-Wing administration in Ottowa wanted to hear it.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20080302/nafta_memo_080303/20080303/

The Canadian Embassy's story has also undergone seizmic adjustment since the leak, which in itself puts the lie to any assumption of absolute verity. Goolsbee, on the other hand, is very clear, not to say vehement, that the Ambassador's portrayal of his words on the NAFTA topic were a decided misrepresentation.

Keep in mind that Clinton is running desperate and starting to go negative. The first casualty of negative campaigning is a commitment to the whole truth. THAT'S why people hate it; because most of it is clever lies and misdirection.

If you don't want to add to the misdirection, perhaps you could do a little research before you pan someone's character.

If you really are "Disappointed once again by our screwed up system . . ." and/or disappointed that your beloved Obama is/will get caught up in the dirty game of politics, then you haven't been paying much attention.

Remember the election in 2000? and all the preceding ones?

Seriously people, if you were paying any attention or remembered anything past what you ate for lunch, you wouldn't be disappointed, you would expect this shit from the system we so admirably call "Democracy".

If Obama is the great inspirer and unifier of the masses, why doesn't he prove it and unify the Democratic Party behind him? If he can't do that, what chance does he have in Washington as president?

And if 8 years of close exposure to the office of president (when you are truly interested in what is going on) shouldn't be included as a form of experience, then I'd like to know what does? And why is just this sort of exposure often considered valuable in a resume?

This is this gonna split the party down the middle.The Convention is gonna be good.

The comments on this article are definitely more interesting than the article itself. Lots of people passionate about their candidate. Just for background, I don't favor either candidate (will likely vote McCain...fascinated with the democratic race) but like most independents and republicans, just cannot stand the site of HRC. I played around with the delegate calculator on the CNN website and I'm not really understanding why HRC is still in the race. Can someone help me out here? Any realistic way I calculated the outcomes of the remaining primaries...which of course takes into account some givens like Clinton will win in PA and Obama will win NC....I don't see anyway the she comes within 100 delegates of him in the end. Isn't the winner of the most delegates supposed to be the nominee? Are these superdelegates really going to nominate the candidate with fewer delegates? And what about Michigan and Florida? My understanding was that it was decided and agreed upon way before the voting season started that these delegates would not count. So why does this keep coming up? Can someone intelligent please give me a realistic and plausible way she can win the nomination? The news media sure can't and apparently neither can any of HRC's supporters. The guy on CNN last night told us that her political base lies with the old, poor, and stupid. Have fun with that one. I'm out.

I think Hillary will be our next POTUS, and have thought so from the start. I think the main thing for most folks is to get our country back on track and do the best we can to undo the failed policies of the current Administration.

Getting back to the original article, why is everyone so damn afraid of aggressive campaigning between these two candidates? Most of the intelligent democrats I've heard seem to say they'd find either one acceptable as a presidential candidate, and they both show a good deal of deference to one another in debates. Neither is immune to criticism and neither is unwilling or unable to take a few hits and give a few back. The democrats who are so concerned about not splitting the party are worrywarts or control frieks who cannot tolerate what is an everyday part of politics. Who could ever handle being president of the United States if he or she couldn't deal with criticism, even personal attacks on their character? Bill Clinton survived eight years of constant attack by the republican attack machine, including an impeachment that went nowhere. Dubya has survived criticism by everyone in the world, including the majority of his own countrymen. It comes with the job. If John McCain can smile and shake hands with Bush after what the Bush people did to him in the 2000 campaign, I'm sure Hillary and Barack will be able to put the campaign behind them when it ends and go on. Hillary showed that capacity when she entered the senate and got cozy with her husband's worst detractors. Obama hasn't been flummoxed by anything said so far in the campaign. Give both of them credit for being skilled and crafty politicians who will support the party's interests after the fight is over. Politics is a contact sport. Get used to it.

Obama's NAFTA double-talk is a solid story that he cannot just B.S., spin or smooth-talk out of. He's clearly caught red-handed on this one.

Check this out:

Obama says Canada ‘misreported’ NAFTA meeting with campaign adviser

http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/story.html?id=6a0ad227-2175-4142-8c40-a21c6e301223&k=46757
____________________________________

Of course there will always be people who will say:
"Yes, he's a hypocrite. But he's OUR hypocrite".

Some of these points about who is supporting which candidate are misleading and not worth making the point. For example "Voters with incomes over $50,000 supported Obama, 52 to 48 percent. Those earning less went with Clinton, 51 to 49 percent." Good grief, big difference huh? Both are almost 50-50.

Or even this one "Obama fared well among Democrats who attended college (53 to 46 percent)" So 46%, almost half, of people who have some college went for Clinton.

Some of the profiles in article above are worth making, and some are not since the percentages are so close.

Regarding this comment above "being First Lady does not count as experience to be a President."

I very much disagree with this in the case of Hillary Clinton. Unlike most first ladies, HRC was already a career woman, an attorney (do you know any other first ladies who were?) and was very involved in the Clinton administration. This was so much so that Republicans constantly complained.

For example, when Bill was first elected, she personally took lead on Health Care reform. Even though they did have to back off on this, she hasn't given up today, because she deeply believes that health care coverage for all in a properous country like the US, should be a given. It may take most of her life to make it happen, but it is one of her personal committments. She is for real about this and it is not just a campaign promise.

Much good and progress improving health care for children and and other health care reforms did emerge from this effort. For example, most states implemented legistation that improved health care coverage, including options for small business coperations, not available prior to this.

She claims she visited over 80 countries during this 8 years. She took on political issues of poor treatment of women and others. She has met and dined with leaders of countries all over the world. Is that not appropriate experience that helps prepare for being our president. She has CONTACTS, personal contacts. Think about your own job. Isn't that part of how you make things happen?

No, HRC was not your typical 1st lady. She knows the issues here, the issues and many of the leaders around the world, and much of the current details and history of the US's tangeled web with global issues.

Perhaps some people didn't follow what was going during the years in the Clinton adminstration, the period of US prosperity and favorable reception from most of the world. Anyone who says this first lady's experience during this time didn't count, isn't old enough to have noticed it, or just wasn't paying attention. The comment is not defendable.

The Sean Hannity radio show was on when I came home from work today.

Anyone who heard this call in from one of Obama's supporters would have been concerned.

He talked about a Scorched Earth reaction (whatever that means, sounded nasty to me) if Clinton gets the nomination. His defense of racist and black militant orientation was troubling.

Hannity did his typical talk over and agressive attack towards the caller and finally hung up on him. This time I agreed with Hannity. I don't think Obama thinks like this, at least I pray he does not, but it makes one wonder where some of his supporters are coming from. After hearing this, I don't think Obama is the only one who has to worry about their safety either.

Aren't there now 30 US Generals in the military supporting Clinton?

I predict Clinton will be our next president, and a good one too. A mess she will inherit.

Florida is the 4 largest state in the union. Our votes must be counted. Even if Florida and Michigan have to revote, the votes will be counted. HRC will take Florida! Probably Michigan also.

Without these two states, we could go into the primary without either delegate having enough delegates to win the nommination. Saw this plotted on one of those big maps, cable news tonight.

Yes, Clinton will beat McCain. Some of her votes will be because people just think she is the best choice. Other votes will be because people are disgusted with the Bush administration and don't want more of the same McCain.

MARY, YOU ARE ACCURATE. The GOP is loving it and getting a bunch of tapes to use for McCain. Billary is out of control. This must be stopped soonest.

FLUMMOXED ?

Bravo ! Joanne ! go back and read what joanne had to say, but this time take the rings out of your eyelids ,and pull up your pants, tie your shoes, and turn your baseball cap around.

Florida and Michigan have over 350 delegates between them. These states are a part of America and, one way or another, their delegates will be counted. You cannot deny the citizens of any state in America from having their delegates counted, especially in a race as tight as this. There is already talk of a re-do in both states and where Hillary will win the majority. And as far as being the candidate for President goes that's only guaranteed if you have at least 2025 delegates in your pocket.
Now if Obama were to win "all" remaining 610 delegates he would have enough to win but the same can be said for Hillary. Neither will win all of the remaining delegates but Pennsylvania will give Hillary a nice boost, as will Kentucky and West Virginia. After these 286 delegates are apportioned to whom they belong Hillary may lead or be very close to Obama's total. There are 12 states left and these three have close to half of those left and these states favor Hillary.
And some say Obama has won; to the contrary, he is slipping and slipping badly. If he does not do well in the remaining 9 states, then with Pa, Kt and WV delegates favoring Clinton, he may not have a lead at all come the convention.
As far as the super delegates go they will decide who is the Democratic representative in this fall's election and it will more than likely happen at the Democratic Convention.
It surprises an old duffer like me when so many people see the Democratic primary as being a bad thing if the contests goes right into the convention. It's a great thing! Like Obama says so often, "the world is watching" and I say, as they do they will witness the greatest democratic republic in the world in an awesome display of political and social passion without its citizens smashing and burning buildings or themselves in the streets. There will be anti-Hillary and anti-Obama crowds at the convention but they will behave as civilized beings; mostly.
And after the convention the same driving thoughts that have driven so many Americans to the polls will drive them in the Presidential election.
And there is one thought that is most prevalent in America today and that is that the GOP have really screwed our country and the world up so bad they gotta go! And that sentiment is what has driven the voters in the Democratic primaries and will drive the voters in the Presidential election.
Either Democratic candidate will beat McCain for three very good reasons. The first, Iraq; the second; the GOP's squandering of our tax dollars to favor the wealthy to the tune of about 3 trillion dollars and the terrible impact this squandered fortune has had on Social Security, other federal funded programs, the future for our children and the economy and the third and last but not least, McCain's age. He would be the oldest President elected; that ain't gonna happen. He belongs in Jurassic Park and that is where he will be sent in November.
At the Democratic convention, with neither candidate having the required number of delegates to clinch the nomination, it is likely we will have a ticket of both. Who will be President and who will be VP? The back rooms there will be ringing and roaring 24/7 and the winner in the Democratic Convention will be----The one with the majority in the popular vote. No! the leader in the delegate vote. No! The winner will be the American people!

Oh Ruel, you are so full of shit.

Guess who leaked that "memo"? The government of Stephen Harper, the right-wing Canadian PM who's a very strong Bush ally. And he got his wish: a further-drawn-out, bloody Democratic primary. That's obviously your wish too, and you want the candidate with the highest negatives of the entire field to win. Brilliant strategy to take the WH for the Democrats. That is, if you are a Democrat.

Mike Lux, President, American Family Voices, Director, Women's Voices Women Vote, cofounder of OpenLeft.com, and a longtime Clinton loyalist, discusses his recent endorsement of Obama at http://www.openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=4355 .

He also discusses, on the Peter B Collins show (link at OpenLeft.com), the whole Harper-Bush-Clinton "Memo" farce.

Not that that matters to you. Because you'll use anything, no matter how flimsy, to support The Inevitable One, The One Who Has The Entitlement To The Nomination.

Meanwhile, Clinton runs scaaaary "3:00 AM Phone Call" ads claiming The Terrarists Are Comin To Get Yer Baby And Barack Hussein Obama Won't Stop Them, and goes on the national stage claiming that both she AND McCAIN have "a lifetime of experience" to bring to the WH, while Obama "has a speech he made in 2002." Never mind that that's a lie. Never mind that she boosts a Republican candidate over a fellow Democrat. Just think back to something Bill Clinton said in, oh, about 2004:

"Now one of Clinton’s laws of politics is this: If one candidate’s trying to scare you and the other one’s trying to get you to 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."

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0208/Clintons_laws.html

As always, the Clintons change the tune when it suits their political interests.

joanne,

what did she accomplish as 1st lady?

HRC didn't even have a security clearance as 1st lady. she was given the lead on one task and failed badly. you say states built on her failed efforts. which states? how many governors worked with her? how many governors would tell me that they admired what she tried, but their efforts were their own, and they didn't bother to contact her?

when she visited those 80 countries, what did she negotiate? was she sent as an official us envoy, allowed to state the US' position, and decide policy? i remember she gave a speech about human rights at the UN on women's rights that made china harrumph angrily, and then the next year her husband asked congress to retain their most favored trading partner status. did china change after her speech? what did her speech accomplish?

and her contacts from a decade ago. tony blair's out of office. bhutto, yeltsin, and arafat are dead. jiang zemin is retired. venezuela is now a regional player. does she know anyone from the winning parties in pakistan? What contacts does she have that will be useful in facing the challenges we face in the 21st century?

You ask us to count her experience as 1st lady. she was in a marriage, not an apprenticeship. please, give us some quantifiable accomplishments she achieved.

OBAMA OR DUMP THE DEMS 4 EVER

WE ONLY REGISTERED DEM FOR OBAMA

GOING BACK 4 EVER IF HE LOSES

thank you! nice summation. The cable talking heads ARE slanted towards Obama. The MSNBC guys are the worst example. And it is about the glitz. Which won't last long when the GOP opens up. Mrs. O's "for the first time in my adult life, I am proud of America" got a pass, people. It will not be forgotten this summer, nor should it.

Please, folks, please! Let's not forget a few things, here. First of all, the Primaries are all about finding out who will be the best Commander in Chief. As much as I abhor using sport analogies, this IS a game, and it's a game played out heatedly and vigorously by all involved. It's what it is supposed to do. My criticism about my Party (Dem) is that we in-fight, and we pick and we bicker amongs ourselves. Fine, that means we're engaged in the process (finally and yea!), but the danger is that we then allow the opposition (not Senators Clinton and Obama, but the right-wing craaaazzeee conservatives!) to win! WE CANNOT ALLOW THIS TO HAPPEN!!

Follow my thought process: IF we have a Clinton/Obama (my choice) or Obama/Clinton (my second choice) ticket....we have THE BEST OF BOTH WORLDS! WE WOULD NOT LOSE! We will have experience, grace under pressure, and a definitive plan, coupled with passion, flair, and a TRUE shift of paradigms....AND the first woman president and first African-American vice president (or visa versa)...HOW SWEET IS THAT?! Good people on both sides of the Democratic debate....let's not forget the big picture! PLEASE! Vote as you will, our right, our privilege, but do not allow this Clinton vs Obama to cloud our thinking! Our "opponents" are made of steel (because they have the "almighty" on "their side", don't ya know) and they are WAITING for the (inevitable?) dissension in our party to destroy our hopes for an end to this immoral and criminal war, an end to the "dumbing down" of the White House, an end to domestic spying, and an end to the "welfare for the wealthy."

Vote as you will....but I am begging you to be careful and see past the obligatory "calling out" process of the primaries, and ON TO A UNITED FRONT AND A UNITED PURPOSE...a DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENT IN THE WHITE HOUSE.

Thank you for the privilege of this discourse. Thank you Senators Clinton and Obama for giving us the rainbow at the end of these 7+ longggg years of torture! (And Senators and your strategists: you BETTER be reading these blogs!)

Florida and MI probably should be allowed to re-vote, provided that independants ARE NOT allowed to vote. However, don't be so sure that HRC will have the same victory margins and if she looses FL, she should have to conciede--for the benefit of the Democratic party. Florida BTW, is now on strike 2.

Oh, please reconsider (re: abandoning the Party). I know we (the Dems) don't always agree, but that's ok! We're contributing to FREEDOM of Speech, which we haven't been "allowed" to do for over 7 years now!

I am a Senator Clinton supporter AND a Senator Obama supporter! This is NOT a conflict. Why, you may ask? Because BOTH are worthy, and EACH will make a wonderful Commander in Chief, or VP. Let's not demonize either. I truly feel, "Whatever happens, happens for a reason." Will you support an Obama/Clinton OR Clinton/Obama ticket....? A "win/win"!!! So much more preferable to the "we'll be in Iraq for 100 years" McCain!

Let's have fun while we're being passionate about our beliefs...it's what "we Democrats do"!!

Kat:
I resented HRC long before I ever heard the name Obama. It is my belief that Obama beats McCain but HRC can't. She is too universally disliked among independents and they often decide the elections. Therefore, I can't support both, even if I wanted to. Supporting HRC (at this point) is (IMHO) handing a free ticket to McCain. That is not a "Democratic party" ideal.
The USA has only had 2 "D" presidents for a total of 12 years in office since 1968 (40 years ago.) Yet, a vast majority of Americans have consistently agreed with the specific Democratic ideals.
Money has been a factor but one can also say that money goes in the same direction as the voters (chicken-and-egg). So what other explanation have we, except that our CEO candidates usually suck??
Obama moves people. HRC can only recite study-grouped sound-bites and get her sycophants to respond with golf-applause. And then, she has the audacity to insult Obama--because he sounds like MLK?
He is the "Devil" we don't know but want to get to know. She is the "Devil" we know and don't want to know.
Did you hear her victory speech after her molecular win this Tuesday? Like she just lifted her 5th Oscar in one night. Pathetic. If that is not convincing enough, listen back to her "victory" speech after her Iowa loss.
HRC: "I am sooooooo ready to lead...."
Fact is she had no speech ready in the event she lost. But that did not bring her a moment's hesitation.
Calling her a robot is an insult to robots.
If she becomes President (which I doubt is possible) she will change her entire personality. She would morph into Rosey O’Donnell, only without the sense of humor. There would not be another woman US President for 50 years, making her victory also a bad idea for the “Women’s movement”. She is a bad selection. She had little business becoming Senator. She moved into NY and her Husband’s network of law firm donors got her rolling. Guliani was about 25 points ahead of her in the polls when his ex-wife went ballistic and he dropped out. I am personally convinced that Guliani’s replacement candidate, an unknown by the name of Rick Lazio--was actually a shill, intended to loose. Keep in mind that in in 2003, John Kerry ran unopposed for reelection in the US Senate. When is the last time you heard of that? There are only 100 US Senators and no one runs unopposed. Such is the power of these connected “skull-and-bones” lawyer/politicians. They are not our friends. They don’t play fair and far too rough. Nothing good can come of this person.

Kat wrote:

"Follow my thought process: IF we have a Clinton/Obama (my choice) or Obama/Clinton (my second choice) ticket....we have THE BEST OF BOTH WORLDS! WE WOULD NOT LOSE!"

Wrong. Any ticket with HRC on it is a weak ticket. Any ticket with HRC on it activates the Rethuglican base, which hates Hillary (like it or not, they do) to come out and vote against her. (CERTAINLY if she's at the top of the ticket.) Any ticket with HRC on it turns off independents. This is why Drugster Limbaugh was urging his listeners to go out and vote for HRC in the TX and OH primaries -- to lengthen the Dem primary process, to bloody Obama, and in the best of all worlds, to give HRC a win, which very much increases Rethug turnout in November and strongly increases the chance of President John McCain, who will likely fill the next THREE Supreme Court vacancies.

You want that? Go ahead. Support HRC.

HRC can fundraise. HRC can fight. Let her do both. From within the party, but not on the ticket. If she cares about the country and about the Democratic Party more than her own personal ambition and power, that's what she'll do.

I'm not holding my breath.

who wants to bet? hillary will beat bamma in pennsylvaina, by 20% points.I'm born and raised in PA. i travled thru the whole state all my life, I know the miners, steel workers, farmers, the problem may be the school children, who's biggest problem is to get a tatoo on their neck or put a stud in their eyebrow, also lets face it ,this is racial . if it wern't than explain why 95% of the blacks are voting for obamma, or could they be 95% more knowledgeable than the rest of the voters? I'm white so I must be racist for even mentioning this, is'nt that what we are all to think? BS

Hmmm, what did Hillary do in the so-called 35 years of public service and as first Lady: After graduating from Wellesley she attended
Yale Law School, where Hillary focused on questions about how the law affected children and began her decades of work as an advocate for children and families. As a law student, Hillary represented foster children and parents in family court and worked on some of the earliest studies creating legal standards for identifying and protecting abused children. Following graduation, she became a staff attorney for the Children's Defense Fund.
After serving as only one of two women lawyers on the staff of the House Judiciary Committee considering the impeachment of Richard Nixon, Hillary chose not to pursue offers from major law firms. When Hillary Clinton move to Arkansas she continued to work for children and families. Hillary ran a legal aid clinic for the poor when she first got to Arkansas and handled cases of foster care and child abuse. Years later, she organized a group called Arkansas Advocates for Children and Families. When she was just 30, President Carter appointed her to the board of the United States Legal Services Corporation, a federal nonprofit program that funds legal assistance for the poor.
When Bill Clinton was elected Governor of Arkansas, Hillary continued to advocate for children, leading a task force to improve education in Arkansas through higher standards for schools and serving on the board of the Arkansas Children's Hospital, helping them expand and improve their services. She also served on national boards for the Children's Defense Fund, the Child Care Action Campaign, and the Children's Television Workshop.
She also continued her legal career as a partner in a law firm. She led the American Bar Association's Commission on Women in the Profession, which played a pioneering role in raising awareness of issues like sexual harassment and equal pay. Hillary was twice named one of the 100 most influential lawyers in America.
As First Lady in the White House The foreign policy achievement most often credited to Mrs. Clinton came in 1995, with her speech to the United Nations conference on women in Beijing, where she declared that “human rights are women’s rights, and women’s rights are human rights.” She also tangled with Chinese officials, she said, and refused to bow to pressure to soften her remarks.
“She had a good balance of being firm on these issues, even if they clearly covered Chinese sins, but also understanding the need for good relations with China,” said Winston Lord, then the assistant secretary of state for East Asian and Pacific affairs, who briefed and accompanied her on the trip.

In visits to Bosnia and Kosovo after the American-led bombing of Serbia, she entered war zones before officials believed it was safe for her husband to go and acted as a spokeswoman for American interests. Many officials — including Madeleine K. Albright and Richard Holbrooke in the administration and Tony Blair, then Britain’s prime minister — turned to her at times to help in convincing Mr. Clinton to take on Serbia.

As First Lady she was instrumental in the creation of CHIP, (Children's Health insurance Program) which is the basis for children's health insurance in this country. She advocated for funding and research for breast cancer and other women related health issues.

And as obvious as it has to be to any intelligent person, a person with the desire and intelligence of Hillary Clinton would gain a great deal of experience as First Lady in the White House, especially as she was actually involved to such an extent she did travel around the globe in the interests of the USA at the behest of the President.

Obamaites will attempt to discredit her experience as First Lady because that is the only way Obama can try to achieve a comparative level of experience. But the truth is Hillary's experience as First Lady is a tremendous experiential advantage over Obama; and he knows it, so he has and will continue to attack her experience by ridicule, denunciation and by not giving her the credit Hillary is due for her public service as first lady. <