Bill Clinton put it well a few years ago:

"Clinton's Laws of Politics"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yZW0m2nWB_M&eurl=

One has to ask oneself:

If not for the Republican voters registering in the Democratic Party to vote in, or simply showing up during the Democratic Party primary in their state to vote, caucus, or vote and caucus for Obama strictly to prevent Clinton from winning the Democratic Party nomination, how many delegates would Obama actually have?

Additionally, one has to ask oneself:

If the Democratic Party nomination process awarded delgates in a way that resembled the national election, who would be in Obama's corner now, despite the huge number of Republicans that voted for him in Democratic primaries (who will instead vote for Mc Cain in the general election), arguing that Obama has more ability to win actual general election electoral college votes?

Lastly, I ask:

How long will it take for Clinton to ask the general public and the Democratic Party super delegates these questions, and will they take the Republican stance when these questions are asked?

Thanks.

I will tell you what is threatening the party: indiscriminate voters.

I am livid at self-identified "black" voters who are voting on the perception of race alone. 92%, 92% of black voters voted for Obama! That is statistically significant and goes to show that at least a third of "black" voters are not making decisions based on issues (Clinton and Obama are similar enough to warrant about 60/40 splits). Following black voters is a finding that white women are voting 66% for Clinton. This is not nearly as high and indiscriminate, but it is of concern still! In fact, the most "fair" groups now voting are perhaps white males and Jewish voters which have swung both ways across many states. Mind you, I understand the plight of both women and minorities: forced to see yourselves through the lens of a majority, you begin to accept the label placed upon you and now find no place out but through that lens. However, has anyone thought of the long-term implications of a failed minority presidency using the same mindset? It would be devastating to "race" relations and/or sexual discrimination in the workforce. This is where my concern shoots up. I don't believe in the modern concept of race, but I know that as long as enough Americans believe it exists, then it becomes real. So in their minds, what happens if Mr. Obama who is we behind the ears fails? I doubt many people would ever vote for an "black" presidential candidate ever again. To make things more interesting, Mr. Obama may look "black" but his heritage is not all black. I've been tempted to compare my face to both Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama to determine who I look like most so I can make my choice for president, but I'm registered as Republican - too much of a segue here. So my message to voters is this: stop, read, educate yourselves. Project Vote Smart. Look at Clinton/Obama's voting records while in Congress. Are they different? No! Their plans are barely except on healthcare, relationship with the Muslim world and rogue regimes, and a handful, only a handful of others. So, before you go playing the race or race/sex card at the voting booth, ask yourself who has the most political courage, is more likely to follow through with what he or she says, and has been consistent on voting record to promises now made. We don't need a "token" of any sort in the White House. We need a guarantee of honest, not two-faced hope, of American patriotism not anti-American sentiment or overly zealous behavior. We need to be careful because the next president is going to face several challenges which may create a backlash that won't be written off the history books for over a hundred years. I support Mrs. Clinton over Mr. Obama, but given better choices than Clinton, Obama, or McCain, I would vote for Kucinich, Nader, or Powell anyway - people who recognize when they are wrong and don't just lip service but actually act on new information.

Curious 1
Where do you get your information that Republicans are voting for Obama when they seem to prefer to face Hillary in the national election?

Rex you beat me to it.

I'm curious why I keep seeing this allegation when we all know that the right-wing pundits have been telling their listeners to go vote for Hillary. And why is it that I see far more Clinton "supporters" stating that they will vote for McCain if Obama gets the nomination than I see Obama supporters saying that *they* will vote for McCain if Clinton gets the nomination?

I don't care for this comparison because it conjures Clinton as stolid, undeadness as a strategy by which to persevere. That is too positive a spin, I think. One foot after the other, in this case, seems bit like stalking. There seems something abusive about it. Persistence morphs into insistence. Persuasion loses touch with principle; it becomes obsessive, abusive.
In this sense, Hillary seems the perfect spawn of the last two administrations. No, thanks! I'll take my chances with the constitutional scholar.

Republicans are crossing over to vote for Obama... BECAUSE THEY LIKE OBAMA. But they are crossing over to vote for Hillary BECAUSE THEY HATE HILLARY -- that is, they believe McCain (a problematic candidate in many ways) would have a better chance against her than against Obama. This is the meaning of Limbaugh's "Operation Chaos."

The Clintons are playing to these voters because they don't care WHY they would be supporting Hillary, just that they are, making her look less bad against Obama. This is one reason why her campaign looks so much like a Republican campaign.

By any reasonable account, Hillary Clinton cannot win the nomination. She picked up a mere 13 delegates last night. She is expected (and, I believe will) lose handily in NC. Obama is expected to win or tie Indiana.

The issue that Hillary's campaign is raising is that somehow, despite her high negatives, despite the fact that the GOP prefers her to run against over Obama, despite all the baggage and dirty Clinton laundry that will resurface and take over the election campaign, she is somehow more "electable" than Obama. That is pure nonsense.

It's not only nonsense, it's a non-issue. It's not up to the Clintons to tell the Democratic electorate who is electable or not. She's a candidate, not an authority. The authority to chose the winner lies with the voters, who so far have given Obama more votes. If she's so "electable", why is she going to lose the nomination contest?

If the race continues to the projected conclusion, Obama will lead the popular vote and delegate count when the smoke clears. The mere suggestion by Hillary that the superdelegates should overturn the will of the electorate should be a red flag. It tells us that she will do anything to win, including destroying the Democratic party and subjecting this nation to 4 more years of Bush policies.

Is that what you want? I don't.

Time to quit, Hill.

-Wexler

If you look at what reporters were saying on the day of the PA primary before the polls closed, there was uncertainty of whether Clinton would win at all. She ended up winning by 10 points despite an enormous barrage of tv advertising by Obama. Yet few of you comment on the fact that HE didn't deliver.
In the fall, he would not be facing a financially inferior candidate. And -- as is evidenced by the 2004 victory of Bush, the Republicans have advisors every bit as good at marketing as Obama's Axelrod.

I think the showing by Obama was poor indeed and the showing of Clinton surprisingly good. That will create waves and I don't think that it's sound journalism to pretend that nothing has happened.

William, please...Even Obama said, if he was in Hillary's shoes there's no way he would drop out...Let's play this thing out...I don't think Hillary can run the table, but stranger things have happened...If Hillary makes a great showing in these final primary states, and if you were a superdelagate, wouldn't you give her a second thought??...After all, that's what superdelagates are there for...Personally I think either candidate will bury McCain...I'm a Hillary supporter and there's no doubt I'll be voting for Obama in the fall if he wins...And when the dust settles, which ever candidate runs against McCain will have a total Democrat support...

Liberman.

Diebold.

Curious,

How do you explain the fact that you don't even understand your own parties dirty trick that you seem to be so proud of. Obama polls better against McCain and the neo-cons like Limbaugh have called for all the biggots and tax evaders to go and vote for Hillary. Maybe you should stick to neo-nonsense blogs.

unidiotic,

You'd probably look less idiotic if you knew how to spell properly.

Cheers.

CNN and other news sources continue to report that Hillary Clinton won Pennsylvania's primary by 10 percentage points of “about 10 percentage points.” The State of Pennsylvania election returns webpage says that with 9,179 out of 9,263 districts (99.09%) reporting statewide, the percentages are 54.3% for Sen. Clinton and 45.7% for Sen. Obama. Is my math wrong, or is that an 8.6% margin of victory?

The fact that Obama leads in delegates is the product of manipulation of the voters by the media, Mother Jones, is a good example of that manipulation and how they always paint a negative spin on Hillary; ACORN, widely noted for voter fraud, has been registering black voters and dragging them to the voting booth in huge numbers; and just where is all the money coming from into Obama's campaign where the average donation is supposedly around $96.00 from a huge base that does not have the 'change' in their pocket for much more than the next Big Mac? I personally know people who perceived they were bullied by Obama supporters, in the caucus they attended which may account for why he racks up more delegates in a caucus setting than in the popular vote, and I have heard his campaign being described as being run by a bunch of thugs. No surprise he would have those kinds of connections coming out of the Chicago election environment. But, in spite of spending about three time as much as Hillary's campaign did in PA, he still lost and lost soundly. If he is the party's nominee, he will get trounced in a general election.

JKP,

Maybe you should psot more than 13 words and then we could check your spelling. How about an idea while you're at it.

Liberman!

The latest spin from the Left: Hillary is destroying the party! Excuse me? Mother Jones, AlterNet, and Nation have declared open season on Hillary, Bill, the Clinton legacy, and anyone who shows them the slightest support since January 1st, but Hillary is destroying the party. Say what you like about the Clintons, they've never backed down from a political battle to date. To paraphrase Charlton Heston, "Obama can have the nomination when he pries it from Hillary's cold dead hands."

BillMar...

It's the New Math. If Hillary can rewrite the rules of the Democratic party, why can't she change the laws of the universe?

-Wexler

Jim,

"they've never backed down from a political battle to date."

What do you call allowing Mr. Star to use a hundred million dollars of tax payer money to impeach a President with a 70% approval rating? What do you call allowing the supreme court to stop the count in Florida while still the sitting President? Seems like they are battling for the other team.

Lieberman!!!!

Convert each states Democratic Primary into an all or nothing electoral vote, just as the general election will, and you shall find that thus far Obama is trailing Clinton:

Clinton 246 Obama 165

Yet, according to CBS, Obama leads Clinton in Democratic Party delegates:

Obama 1710 Clinton 1584

If anything, this is a compelling criticism of the Democratic Party's Primary system, and an excellent explanation for why that party produces so many losing candidates for president.

Curious...

In other words, if you could rewrite the rules of the Democratic party, you'd rewrite them so Clinton would win.

Why is she losing the popular vote?

By more than half a million?

Why is she in financial trouble?

Why has Obama set an all time record for number of donors to a political campaign?

If she's so electable, why is she losing?

-Wexler

In the general we will be facing a Republican who had to marry himself to Bush's insane failed policies to get his parties nomination. Remember way back in '06 when the republicans gained zero democratically held seats and we took half of the available Republican seats. Better get your hackers ready to steal some votes.

Florida and Ohio. 25 and 20 electoral votes that will count during the general election, but are irrelevant in the Democratic Party primary system in 2008.

That would be another 45 all or nothing electoral college votes in the general election.

Count those states using an all or nothing system, such as the general election will, and perhaps the numbers look more like this:

Clinton 291 Obama 165

Lastly, I offered a truthful criticism of the Democratic Party primary system.

It stands as truth.

If you disagree, then try disputing that criticism with facts.

DavidD, come to Philadelphia. You've talked to two people, and now you feel justified in saying "I see far more Clinton 'supporters' stating that they will vote for McCain if Obama gets the nomination than I see Obama supporters saying that *they* will vote for McCain if Clinton gets the nomination?" Most of the people I've spoken to who are Obama supporters are terribly anti-Clinton. They almost seem to forget that they're in the same party and have near identical politics. I (gasp) am a Hillary supporter and from PA and was more than ready to get behind Obama, had he defeated Clinton. But she won folks! Let the people speak. This race is close. You wouldn't tell the Lakers to "concede defeat" after they win game three. Or would you? Or have Americans become so boring and superficial that we would rather the whole thing just be over and decided for us by one or the other quitting? Can we all remember the fury on which this country was founded?

I did no event read the article but just the title and man, you go and get a live!!!!!!!!! Why do you think the party rules stablish primaries in ALL the States!!!!!!! So that they have the opportunity to choose. Let the people from every State VOTE!!!!! And hope that Obama has a better answeer for his flawn comments and associations because they DO MATTER for the election!!!!!!!

Hillary cannot be the Democratic nominee. If she were, she would have to stop endorsing John McCain. Poor Hillary can't quit him.

Count the delegates and let us go home. The Democratic party is looking like the Democratic party of Florida in 2000 where every chad was counted by a differnt standard.

In Texas, Clinton won by 100,000 votes. She received 100,000 votes from Rush Limbaugh Republicans who were publically encouraged to vote for her to create chaos in democratic primary.

The same republicans gave Clinton 78% of their vote in Mississippi.

Fox news and all Clinton former enemies who used to call her a murderer 12 years ago are now endorsing her.

I think it is clear that republicans are supporting Clinton because they think she is easier to beat.

Curious1

The Fact is that a primary is not a general election. It is also a fact that the general election is a less representative one then the Democratic primary. It frankly makes me sick when Clinton supporters discount the voters of small states. Do their voices count? Should it matter at all in our system what the overall popular vote is? If the answer to these questions is No then your analysis is correct. If as a democratic party we belive that our govenment should be a representative one, then the answers should be yes. The democrats primary system currently reflects these values.

I also take significant issue with your sugesstion that republican voters have been crossing over to vote for Obama because they feel he is a weaker candidate and will vote for Mcain in the general. I belive this statementto be compleatly unsupported by emperical evidence, and frankly calls into question your overall veracity and motivation.

Lastly, the reason democrats have been loosing has little to do with our primary system, and much more to do with how we have been communicating our positions, and conducting our politics. I dont think you can question the Fact that Obama has a differnt approch to communication and politics then we have seen in quite some time. I also do not think that you can dispute the fact that Hillary's campain has sounded and acted a lot like a republican one. Will she try to out republican the repulicans in the general? Do you honestly belive that is a good strategy? We have been loosing elections because of this falicy.

Obama offers a new direction away from this type of politics and a majority of voters have recognized this. Why havent you?

Ashley,

"Interesting result from a recent survey conducted by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press: If their favored candidate is not the Democratic nominee, a quarter of Hillary Clinton's primary supporters would defect and vote for John McCain in November, while only 10 percent of Barack Obama's supporters would do the same." This quote taken from an article by Alex Koppelman. Last time I heard about this the it had increased from 25% to over 30%. I could not find that poll however.

I wish you were right on this one. Also, Hillary and Obama are not the same on one very important aspect. Hillary has a history of making things very easy for these neo-cons by trying to find the middle ground. Unfortunately these republicans are so far right that Hillary's middle ends up way right of where the Democratic message should be. Obama won his seat by opposing the war and by promoting a new vision of Washington politics. Granted they have voted the same on most issues but his message has been consistent and strongly opposed to any message the Neo-cons offer up. It's time we stick to a message opposing that opposes the Republicans.

Thank you.It is about time the media started talking straight. Penn. was not a turning point for Clinton. It was however a turning point for Obama. He kept her margin relatively small and she is now in debt. She is going to have to close up shop soon.

Remove "opposing" and that last sentence will make sense.

Curious1: Better start by checking your own facts. I believe you mean Michigan, not Ohio.

I look for evidence when I make conclusions. Obama has given me no evidence that he can do what he says he will do. Clinton has evidence in HIPPA, in CHIPS and in her bi-partisan work in the Senate (most notably on health care for veterans). Clinton also brings a set of interests and experience to the White House that befits a very different kind of president - one in which children, women, health care, education at all levels, and middle class issues are the general theme of her life. If you think that Hillay Clinton will not change the emphasis of this country for the better, you are fools.

But, of course, fools have elected our president before.
Well said dont you think?
Look at the Obama attack timline. It is fact that he and his campaign work behind the scenes. Your journalistic integrity is in question. Do the research.

Are we missing the obvious - that it IS possible that the suspicion is accurate that Hillary wants a floor fight at the convention, and would be willing to permanently destroy Obama, lose the election in November to McCain, to come back in four years???? To overturn the nomination of a decent man, the majority of the votes of the people, the rules, etc., is simply a staggering consideration for any democrat to entertain, and rather unforgivable.

Pat in Ca...

That's exactly right. There has been a concerted effort for GOP fringers to get Hillary nominated. For what reason? Have they suddenly developed a fondness for her personality and politics?

We understand... it's because they think they can beat her while they don't think they can beat Obama.

That ought to be a clue about the "electability" issue.

-Wexler

"Count the delegates and let us go home." John James

At last count, Obama does not have enough delegates to secure the Democratic Party nomination for president, and it is impossible for him to add enough to his present total during the Democratic Party primary process to reach that milestone.

According to the rules of the Democratic Party primary system, both Clinton or Obama failed to earn a sufficient number Democratic Party primary delegates to merit winning outright the nomination of the Democratic Party to be that party's candidate for president of the United States.

After the remaining Democratic Party primaries, a Democratic Party convention will occur.

There, both Clinton and Obama will need to make their cases to the delegates in order to persuade those delegates to leave candidates they are presently committed to so that either Clinton or Obama may become the Democratic Party nominee.

Based on the electoral college map, and Obama's strong hold on small states, and his huge popular vote tallies in those small states, and Clintons stronghold on the popular vote in the most populous and electoral-college-vote-rich-states, it is clear that between Clinton and Obama, Clinton is more likely to win a majority of the nationwide electoral votes between the two.

No matter how you slice it, Clinton's primaries results translate into far more general election electoral college votes than Obama's.

All the punditry in the world cannot change that fact!

All the Republicans that participated in the Democratic Primary process did not change that!

Obama has failed to make a persuasive argument for the convention that he is entitled to be the Democratic Party nominee based on winning a sufficient number of delegates via Democratic Party primary process, as the party rules outline

AND

via state-by-state popular votes and state-by-state primary wins that translate into a majority of the nationwide electoral college votes at stake in the general election.

Clinton at least can make a very persuasive and fact based argument that demonstrates that her state-by-state popular votes and state-by-state primary wins translate into a landslide over Obama using the standards of the general election: winner takes all electoral college votes of each state.

Don't let these facts stand in your way on your way home.

P.S. JP, I stand corrected. Thanks for the correction. Michigan, not Ohio. That is 18, and not 20 electoral college votes.

Richard and others approve of Clinton's experience, but... She voted for Bush's war in Iraq, voted to keep using cluster bombs in civilian areas (estimated to have killed and maimed upwards of a thousand Iraqis), voted for a bankruptcy bill largely authored by the credit card companies, and lays claim to her husband's legacy, a legacy which includes the egregious Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy, selling presidential pardons (look up Mark Rich if you like research), and the use of Extraordinary Rendition whereby terror suspects were sent to Egypt for torture.

Hmmm, war, torture, letting corporations writing the rules that regulate them, maybe the Clintons are in the wrong party.

One thing should be abundantly clear by now is that Democrats are not coalescing around Obama. Whither Hillary stays or goes, Obama clearly has serious problems "uniting" Democrats. He is perhaps the weakest nominee since Mondale.

Perhaps John Edwards should have hung in there a little longer, he's seems like the only Candidate that might have been able to bring us together.

First off....unidiotic, you are automatically disqualified for calling Rush Limbaugh a "neo-con" and in the process simultaneously insulting Mr. Limbaugh and showing your limited command of the political landscape.

Secondly, the goal of Limbaugh's Operation Chaos is NOT to get Hillary Clinton the Dem nomination. The goal is to flush the Democratic Party out of it's media-protected PC lair and into the glaring spotlight of public scrutiny where in all probability it will melt like the witch in the Wizard of Oz (my apology to any Hillary supporters offended by the analogy.)

So far, so good.

"And--no small matter--Democratic voters do keep turning out for her". David Corn's grudging acknowledgment really sums up the PA results. Despite the fact that Senator Obama vastly outspent Senator Clinton, PA Democrats didn't want Obama at any price. Despite a media that has clamored for Senator Clinton's departure from the race virtually non-stop since the last primaries in March, PA Democrats didn't want Senator Obama. Obama supporters need to stop blaming Senator Clinton for their candidate's inability to draw key Democratic Party voting demographics...Jews, Catholics, and blue-collar whites. Senator Obama's 20 year stint in the pews of Trinity absorbing the anti-white, anti-semitic, and frankly, anti-American rants of self-described "spiritual mentor" and "moral compass" Jeremiah Wright, as well as the Senator's remarks about rural America, clearly did not go unnoticed in PA. Until he resolves questions regarding his character and core beliefs to the many Democrats, like those in PA, that have serious reservations about him, Senator Clinton isn't going anywhere.

Finally, let me emphatically state here that I firmly believe that John McCain will be the next president of the United States.

"that it IS possible that the suspicion is accurate that Hillary wants a floor fight at the convention, and would be willing to permanently destroy Obama, lose the election in November to McCain, to come back in four years????"

She may be thinking that, but after this Hillary Clinton will be a pariah to the Democratic party. She won't get another chance in four years. Barack Obama is one of those once in a generation political figures a party can build itself around, and the Democrats desperately needed that. They had high hpes for him. If the Clintons destroy their star (which is what they're attempting to do) they will have no home left for themselves in the Democratic party.

To be honest, the 2012 strategy might be better for Obama. The Clintons have poisoned the well as far as this election goes. If Obama were to drop out he would be welcomed as a hero in four years.

That is right. Rush Limbaugh is encouraging Republicans to vote for Clinton in the Democratic primaries.

Ashley -

I can't speak as to where David D got his facts and I don't doubt you have encountered supporters from both camps who vow not to support the other candidate, however, the polls as cited on CNN & MSNBC support David's assertion.

Additionally, can we all agree that using sports metaphors to rationalize the election is a futile exercise? Every sports metaphor used to support an argument can be countered by just as persuasive a counter metaphor.

For example, I would counter your "Lakers" argument by saying there is a reason QB's wear red "no contact" jerseys when scrimmaging against their teammates; it's the reason linebackers don't use the same tactics in that scrimmage as they will in a game: so that no one is irrevocably injured by their own teammate. If players did use the same tactics in a scrimmage as they do in a game, the coaches would step in and stop the scrimmage - regardless of score - to make sure that everyone on the team is ready to play in the real game - against the other team.

So while we may not be able to reach consensus on a Dem. Nominee - at this point, let us find consensus in abolishment of sports metaphors. Let us also insist each candidate run a respectable campaign focused on uplifting the American people rather than tearing down their party brethren.

"Based on the electoral college map, and Obama's strong hold on small states, and his huge popular vote tallies in those small states, and Clintons stronghold on the popular vote in the most populous and electoral-college-vote-rich-states, it is clear that between Clinton and Obama, Clinton is more likely to win a majority of the nationwide electoral votes between the two."

That's a fallacy.

-Wexler

Typical to accuse HRC of tearing the party apart. The Clintons have done more for the democratic party than almost anyone else. One thing that they have done is actually WIN elections. Statring with Carter we have lost 5 presidential election and only one 2 and who won those 2 THE Clintons. As to unidiotic's comments about Obama being further left than HRC, I agree he probably is. I am further left than either one of them. I support abolishing the death penalty I support gay marriage (neither Obama nor Clinton do). However in a general election being far left of center is not an advantage. The Clintons do well because they know where the middle is and just how far left you can lean without loosing those middle voters. The large percentage of HRC supporters that say they would vote Mccain over Obama can be ascribed to a several factors. First some voters wont go that far left. Second some women are voting for her because she is a woman, but whith her out of the mix they go to Mccain. Many older voters identify with the Clintons, but don't with Obama. Finally some are outright racist and wouldn't vote for a black man no matter how good he is.

There are two things that I don't get. I'm kind of agnostic with respect to Hillary and Obama but before Pennsylvania, everyone was saying that if Hillary didn't win, she'd have to drop out. So she won by 10% . . . and everyone's saying she has to drop out?

Second, what's the point of the superdelegates? It seems to me that this is EXACTLY the kind of situation they were designed for. Why is everyone insisting that they blindly follow the pledged delegate count when they vote? I mean, if that's all they're going to do, what's the point of having them? They ought to be exercising independent judgment. Maybe for Obama, maybe for Hillary -- but they shouldn't just be rubber stamps.

Hillary's strategy is obvious. Hope for a miracle. If not, then savage Obama so he loses to McCain and then she gets the nomination 4 years from now. Eight years is too long to wait.

Your comparison with Monica/Impeachment is more apt than probaly intended. If Bill had cared a little about the welfare of us citizens, he would have resigned and Al Gore would now be finishing his second term, but with the Clintons there is no possability of their putting the country/world's welfare above their quest for power. In their three decades of public life it has never occured.

Tyler,

I disagree with you. The Clintons are only for themselves and have all but destroyed the party. Look what happened to Congress after Bill got into office. He didn't care about anyone but himself.

Also I think any point about the electoral college in the primary is comparing apples to oranges. Any Democrat will carry the traditional Democrat states. The only difference here is that as you said we can't discount the number of people who will not vote for a Black man to be president regardless. I think that's why many of the pre-election polls have been wrong. Earlier this week one article stated it was 15% of the electorate. I think is may be 5-10 points higher.

In the wake of this Penn. contest Clinton has been making the limp argument that "Obama just doesn't seem to be able to close with the voters."

So far she seems to be getting away with such nonsense. How about turning that lens back around at her?? How well has she closed? She had this thing pretty well in her pocket back in December ... but she couldn't close it. Since then, how many ways has she managed to blow her own golden opportunity?

The "closing with voters" argument is another ridiculously weak claim. She has shown consistently that she totally sucks at closing.

Mike R. -

Perhaps the reason is that despite her 55%-45% win, she only picked up 9 delegates. She will have to roughly win 70% of the remaining delegates to equal Obama's total. Just to get within 100 delegates of Obama, she has to win 57% of the remaining delegates. Is it realistic to believe she will ever overtake Obama's pledge delegate total? And what kind of campaign would she have to conduct to accomplish that?

I'm not arguing for her to exit the campaign, that's for her to decide, but both candidates must take steps to make sure they do not irrevocably damage the future nominee, whomever that may be. So isn't the key making sure candidates run positive campaigns articulating their policy stances and vision rather than running a republican style campaign against their own party?

As for the "superdelegates" is it a tenable argument to suggest they overturn the will of the people? Would such an act benefit the party as a whole in the fall (i.e. politicians lower on the ballot) or just the Clinton's?

Why don't suggest that is Obama who is tearing the party apart.. . unexperienced newbie that just arrived into big politics in 2004 and wants to be president just because he can do a speech...wake up America!

How arrogant and elitist. This is not the Socialist party. The far left anti-war obama, Kunicich, Dean supporters should leave. If you succeed in getting Obama on the ballot -your wing is responsible for tearing the party apart. Michigan and Florida are not going to vanish. their electoral votes WILL count in November.So will PA, OH, and MA where another South Chicago candidate of "change" has caused a voter backlash.

Jose

If Hillary's last name wasn't Clinton and she didn't have her husband's political machine behind her would we still have this discussion?

As I see it, the difference between Clinton and Obama's wins is this...The states she has won are Dem states -- and they have chosen her. The states he has won are Rep (red) states and are not going to vote for a Dem in the General Election. These are Republican voters voting anti-Hillary rather than pro-Obama. Because they FEAR her.

Think about that Superdelegates!!

Curious1

You conveniently fail to address my previous comments about the differences between the primary process and the general election, when you go back to your "facts" about how primary victories are equivalent to general election electoral votes. I agree with Wexler that your argument equating the two is a fallacy.

Obama does have a convincing argument to make to the Supers; I am ahead in the popular vote, and I am ahead in the delegate count. Is there a more convincing argument that I am not aware of?

The only chance McCain has of winning in November is if Clinton is the democratic candidate, and even then I think his chances are poor. However, I am firmly convinced that Clinton will finally unite the Republican party and give them something to vote about, or perhaps better said against.

A poster was correct in that Hillary had this thing in the bag and hasn't been able to close it, either. As for Obama supporters that won't support Hillary - whomever is making these assertions just don't know the African American race. If an Obama win is overturned by Superdelegates, you'll be hard pressed to find any African Americans at the polls in November. This could be the thing to thrust African Americans to overwhelmingly become Independents, if they continue to participate in the process at all.

It is offensive that with two candidates running neck and neck for months, only one gets accused of damaging the party by continuing to legitimately participate in a democratic process until that process has concluded.

"Senator Obama's 20 year stint in the pews of Trinity absorbing the anti-white, anti-semitic, and frankly, anti-American rants of self-described "spiritual mentor" and "moral compass" Jeremiah Wright"

Are you really still trying to push that H-Dog? Maybe you should read up on who counseled your Clintons during a certain difficult time in their partnership- sorry- "marriage?" A Reverend Jeremiah Wright, but it's probably a different guy.

I respect the fact the the Obama campaign has let this little known fact be. It shows he's not one for "kitchen-sink, below the belt, say-anything, do-anything" politics, but actually wants to see a united party. Clinton is tarnishing the family name.

During the Monica Lewinsky scandal, the Clintons learned a valuable lesson about staying alive. But the PA dead-parrot trick is all Hillary.

(from the MoJo email)

lol

Obama has been going after Republicans to vote for him & register Democratic just for primary day since Nevada.
check out the following Obama flier. His vote totals are inflated by Republicans who will vote for McCain in the GE.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/01/14/nevada-flier-by-obama-pre_n_81451.html

Mark from Pennsylvania,says the problem is black people are voting “on the perception of race alone.” He apparently misunderstands black voters. Black people vote on the candidate’s progressivity (real of perceived) on the issues, not racial solidarity (ask what they think about about Clarence Thomas or Condi Rice). They have voted for Democrats in presidential elections by over 90 percent because Democrats are more progressive than Republicans (Watch Fox News for evidence), and they even supported Bill Clinton even when he was undeserving. In this primary, they are voting against Hillary Clinton's blatant invocation of racism. Bringing up Louis Farrakhan and Hamas during the last debate even when the moderators never asked about them, and twisting Obama's reference of "bitter" small towns people to mean he does not share "their values," not to mention the overkill on Jeremiah Wright (who actually prayed with Bill in the White House during his darkest hour in the Lewinsky scandal), is enough for black folks. We know when a candidate is playing the race card.

I thought that your man was all about bipartisanship?

"Obama won his seat by opposing the war and by promoting a new vision of Washington politics. Granted they have voted the same on most issues but his message has been consistent and strongly opposed to any message the Neo-cons offer up. It's time we stick to a message opposing that opposes the Republicans."

And here, readers, is the greatest problem with Obama supporters. They think that his rhetoric and message override his actual voting pattern. In what reality? That is called hypocrisy or in the least not having the guts to stand up for what you profess. Explain to me again why Kucinich didn't make it to our primary here in Pennsylvania.

One more thing: according to convention rules, to clinch the nomination, a candidate needs a certain number of delegates. Because neither candidate, at this rate, will acquire the delegates necessary to win outrightly, it is the place of the convention to determine the nominee, not the voters. Harsh reality, huh? Primaries are hyped up, and I have a suspicion that they are meant to be in order to suppress third party influence by causing almost 9 months of Democrat-Republican media identification prior to about a four to five month general election clamor. It's time to truncate primaries down to no more than an 8-week period. And third parties, please begin holding your own contests and requesting media attention for these staged contests. You'll find that the drooling masses at their television sets will suddenly take interest in non-Republicrats.

Uhhhh, a few points:

Hildabeast fans- Love the "winner take all" comments. However, it seems you don't quite fathom that your party rules don't allow for 'winner take all".

What next? Award SB XXI to the Steelers for gaining more yards not scoring more points?

Same goes for MI and FL.

Barry O fans- Dick Morris has detailed Hildabeast's connections to Islamo- terrorists quite extensively.

Why not get in the game and show Hildabeast is a bigger America hating, pro-terrorist lib than Barry O?

The evidence is there.

so this is nice set up - very smooth. Let's see if I understand your premise - that if the Democrats lose in November, it will be HRC's (and by virtue of association - the people who voted for her) fault? wow. Brilliant. Absolute genius. Already have a ready escape plan of deniability - oh well, it's more than what Bush has and he was re-elected! What an effing circus, and with MoJo leading the freak show.

Love the tofu fight.

However, both sides are guilty of trying to recruit Republicans. I received calls from BOTH sides begging for my vote.

Ofcourse, when I pointed out voting in a Dim primary was unethical, both camps had no idea what I was talking about.

Tess,

The premise is that Hillary can't win the nomination, she can only steal it.

If that's what you are trying to say, you have nailed it.

Also, you might be asking your fellow Hillary supporters if she's so much more electable that Obama, why is she losing? If she can't even win Democrats, what makes you think she can beat GOPERs?

?

-Wexler

This post by Mark from Pennsylvania is nice indeed. It is a very intelligent analysis of the importance of experience as a factor in our candidate selection process. Too bad it will not be seen or processed by so many idealists who think the most important thing they can do at this historic juncture is to help put a well-spoken symbol of hope into the U.S. Presidency. Then, just like those who voted for Jimmy Carter more than three decades ago, they'd likely be content to sit back and wait for the magic to be performed. When it wasn't--because it cannot be--because such a large part of success in Washington is knowing how to spin the #%@& that happens in a positive way, and how to work with the illicit powers that be until those powers can be usurped--they would do just as Mark has suggested and abandon their man, leaving him to the neoconservative, corporation-fed wolves who will happily prepare for a political feast four years from now. Yes, that could be the last black--or even Democratic--president we’d see for quite awhile.

Black, white, red, or blue--whosoever takes on the challenge of beginning to undo the harm done to our crippled Democracy by decades of greed-driven political power brokering must have more than good ideas and honorable intentions. She must also be able to put her knowledge of the "system" to use avoiding its traps and pitfalls and utilize her time in office not for training herself but for rehabilitating that corrupted "system." Then, let us have as our first black President a person who, by patience and experience, has been empowered to carry forward into the foreseeable future an agenda of success built upon eight years of effective Democratic leadership. Let the American voters make use of a plan that does more than simply giving any single minority the instant gratification of a symbolic win this November--a plan that will not likely be undermined by harsh reality as soon as the afterglow fades.

I, too, support Hillary Clinton--all the way to her inauguration in January 2009. I won't call for Mr. Obama to gracefully bring about unity to the Democratic party by acknowledging his failure to win a true Democratic majority of voters in this country (excluding the misleading effect of "Caucus Magic") and yielding the Democratic torch to the candidate far more prepared for what's in store after the Bush Regime is finally unseated. Like Hillary, Barack's a fighter and cannot be expected to loose his grip when victory seems so close at hand.

Instead I call for the Democratic party's unpledged superdelegates to step up to the plate and assume a responsible leadership role in beginning the constructive change necessary for turning our nation around. Take your place in history and get behind the candidate who, by sheer unbiased logic, is most ready to represent her constituency's interests and have the positive healing impact that has been the theme of every presidential candidate over the past year. No matter what you choose to do, the future of our country now rests squarely on your shoulders and we voters will hold you accountable.

In return for taking on this challenge, I promise that I, for one, will remain active in the process of helping you make that decision the best one possible!

I suspect that not too many people can explain how the number of "pledged delegates" per candidate per state are determined.

I suspect that not too many people understand (or agree with when explained) why the DNC doesn't want the votes in Florida and Michigan to count for anything.

I suspect that not too many people know that more people have voted so far for Clinton than Obama - when counting everyone who voted.

I suspect that not to many know why there are super-delegates at all? It implies that "pledged delegates" are not sufficient to choose the Democratic candidate.

I suspect that not too many poeple know there are no set criteria (e.g., candidate most likely to win) for the super-delegates to choose a candidate.

At the end of the day, the Democratic Party deserves what it gets. If this were private enterprise, Howard Dean and the other decision-makers who set up this process would be fired.

She is splitting the party willingly. Anything to win!

The lead was not 10% but 8.5%...

why can't Hillary close the deal???

Wed Apr 23, 2008
She is the ex-President's wife.

She started out with all the cards on her side.

She had the most delegates.
The most money.
The most votes.
She had the AA community.
The Hispanic Community.
The men's vote.
The women's vote
all the other votes

Yet she is behind in pledged dels, popular vote, money and popular vote.

Why can't this famous and well-connected woman close the vote to a young, black, rookie?

:

I am sick and tired and tired and sick of all those people who ask this question of Barack Obama: Why can't Obama close the deal?
I strongly take offense at this question.

For a rookie who is clothed in black skin he has done pretty darn well don't ya think?

Coming from behind he has bested the best. H

He has taken out experienced candidates like Biden, Edwards, Richardson and others.

He has raised more money and put together the most effective campaign in decades.

He has created a movement and a fundraising that is growing by the minute.

He has followed the rules and competed in all the states without disrespecting those that are too large or too small.

He has cut into all demographics and remained above the fray as best he can while being attacked from the Clintons, the republican 'vast right wing conspiracy', McCain and his machine, the media machine and Hillary supporters.

He keeps adding superdels at a steady stream.

He has overcome, wrightgate, naftagate, bittergate and all hypothetical gates to come.

He held Hillary back on her heels in Pa causing her to go into the red financially and win in only single digits in a state that was tailor made for her.

He has been cast as uppity, elite, effette, liberal, too black, not-too-black.

He has been linked by handcuffs to Jesse Jackson, Farakkan.

He has been called naive, weak, a communist, a marxist, a socialist.

Yet Obama stands tall and strong. Hillary wallows in the mud and is sinking slowly.

Yes, she wins to fight another day but she is no longer electable even though she took the low road to get there.

Her negatives are high and she has revealed herself to be a neocon hawk.

Her husband's legacy is in question and people are wondering about the psychological well-being of her daughter Chelsea after she enabled the Bosnia sniper-fire lie.

Many who loved Hillary now hate her and most of the country would rather see her gone.

So I ask my question again.

Why can't Hillary close the deal?

She had it all and she lost it and she stands to lose more in the coming weeks if she continues her, china-kitchensink-buffet throwing strategy.

She cannot win because she is not authentic. She does what she has to do to win the contest in front of her without looking at the entire landscape. She is a selfish babyboomer who wants what she wants regardless of the consequences.

She has always dreamt of being President and she will get there and damn anyone or anything that gets in her way.

However, she did not bank on Barack Obama the guy with the funny name and the big ears and black skin.

She cannot close the deal because she is flawed and inadequate as a candidate and this is now clear to all the world.

Hillary will eventually have to come to terms with this.

Wish I could be a fly on the wall...

Wexler, the question comes down to why people do not vote for the other nominee. If it is because of a perceived fatal flaw, then electability becomes an issue. Nevertheless, I have the same feeling about Obama that I had with Bush so many years ago. Something doesn't sit right in my gut - his vagueness, his message of hope and yet votes establishment, his name or skin color do not matter at all but his character is too flawed for someone claiming the high road.

Mr. Wexler, who do you trust more - the man who admits he is lying to you or the man who tells you he is telling you the truth but is in fact lying? That's my issue with him. His supporters seem more like a cult than an objective group that can point to concrete evidence of his message of hope. Hope is beautiful, now show me the brickwork you started, oh you haven't started yet, then why should I believe you?

Change is voting in ways that make others call you crazy - a la Mr. Kucinich. Mr. Obama is a lawyer, and an intelligent one. His ability to use rhetoric has its ups and downs, but it seems when he is caught tripping up, he has a hard time centering himself again. Will he do this with other heads of state? Will he sit down for tea with the ruler of Iran and listen to him bad mouth one of the few steadfast allies in the Middle East - Israel? Will he sell us out to the Middle East? Why does he continue to support No Child Left Behind - a failed Republican measure meant to centralize power rather than enable states to act locally based on regional economic and educational requirements? Where is his plan for energy independence? For that matter, where is Mrs. Clinton's plan? Their plans are probably in the pocket of their energy industry donations (non-PAC and all individual of course for Mr. Obama so as to maintain the perception of no big interest money).

As for Mrs. Clinton's statements, I agree. If Iran wants to play nuclear, and we cannot afford to invade nor is pre-emptive invasion a wise course; then a plausible threat of retaliation for a nuclear act of war is sufficient deterrent, at least we hope, though the minds of zealot Islamofascists answer very little to reason.

Still, do you think Mr. Wexler, getting back on topic, that Mr. Obama will be able to retain blue collar white workers if Mrs. Clinton is not at least his running mate. According to his unwanted psychoanalysis, Clinton voters will just turn to their guns, religion, anti-immigrant patterns to deal with anger and bitterness (over having to pick Obama) and thus will vote based on these which Republicans have unjustly but shrewdly aligned to themselves.
Do not underestimate the lack of foresight of the American majority, especially when they are struggling to make ends meet and have very little solid information to go on regarding Mr. Obama (his plans are at best vague and at worst quite cliche Republicrat). After all, Bush was elected not just once, but twice and while McCain seems like a Bush lackey, he is known to have some liberal knee-jerk surprises. I would personally vote for McCain over Obama and Clinton over McCain if those were my only choices. Thank God, I'm informed enough to know I have more and better options even if the media and establishment make such a vote almost inconsequential. Conscience matters most.

P.S. Hillary needn't steal the nomination, because according to party primary rules, Obama has never won it. Reality and truth can be quite harsh and cruel to blind zeal.

I am urging Hillary to stay in and fight all the way !!!!!

And she owes me for Texas.

Operation Chaos

Rush Limbaugh
Ft. Lauderdale, Fla.

Hecklers, the trouble with internet anonymity is profoundly evident by the fake Rush Limbaugh post.

A key point that most of you are missing when you talk about how Clinton beat Obama in the big states: Obama would not be running against Clinton in the General Election, so those numbers are meaningless. Take Pennsylvania - Clinton won it by a fair margin. If 30% of the Clinton voters decided, in the general, to vote for McCain, then 70% of them would be voting for Obama, right? Between the votes he got last night, plus 70% of Clinton's voters, plus the independents that could not vote in the primary (where he does well) plus the thousands who he seems able to encourage to sign up and vote, how well would he do THEN againt McCain?

All the arguments that Clinton uses to try to prove that she is more electable than Obama are fallacious. In each of them, Clinton or her handlers determine what the criteria of electability ARE, then dredge up some data that shows Obama doesn't clear the bar that Clinton set.

Final thought: the Dem Convention is only 9 weeks before the general election. If Clinton wins in a floor fight, can she possibly shore up Democratic support from the Obama camp and make a run at McCain, who will have all spring, summer, and half the fall to make his case? And can the DNC encourage donations over the summer if no one knows who the candidate is? Money matters, and I think most donors will wait to find out who they are supporting before they start writing checks.

You Clinton Democrats make me sick. As a Canadian watching the circus you call Primaries I am sickened by some of the more stubborn of you who insist on keeping Hillary Clinton in the race. It's so obvious to the rest of the world that the drama this November will be Obama vs McCain. Why can't you just see that. Are you blind? America, or should I say the World cannot afford another Clinton in the Whitehouse...that would make two families the only people to occupy the top office in the land in TWENTY YEARS!!! It's time you put away your petty predjudices and get on with the job at hand.

Actually, Mark, it's Hillary Clinton that has been caught in lie after lie.

She lied about her resume. She lied about NAFTA and her part in it. She committed a lie of omission by not mentioning that her campaign strategist was working on CAFTA. She has claimed 35 years of experience when in fact she has never had a responsible position in government until she was elected US Senator.

Regarding the cult comment, I don't feel like I'm any cult member at all. I'm just a person who knows that the foundation for what happened in the last 8 years was laid brick by brick by William Jefferson Clinton with an arrogant disregard for anything except lining his pockets and having his horn tooted.

The hypocrisy of the Clinton campaign is startling. They are shameless manipulators of the truth, and once in a while they get caught. I have mentioned a few of them. Barack mentioned one during the debate but apparently you didn't hear it. Hillary was bashing him for his "involvement" with William Ayers, who was part of the Weather Underground but never was even charged with a crime. He is now considered to be quite mainstream in Chicago. Yet Hillary is bashing Obama over knowing this man when her husband PARDONED two WU members who were CONVICTED OF MURDER.

Is that not perfect? Is it not perfect that she bashes Obama for his association with the church where Wright preaches. "You choose your own pastor", she says. Yep, and that's exactly what Bill Clinton did when he needed to publicly flagellate himself and try to rehabilitate himself for cuckolding Hillary. CALL REVEREND WRIGHT.

So, you see, I am learning to expect this kind of crapola out of the Clintons. They circulate pictures of Obama wearing African clothes. They circulate emails accusing him of being a Muslim. They try to associate him with Louis Farrakhan and then it turns out that Rendell actually told a room full of people that Farrakhan was exactly the kind of people he was proud to know.

The worst gall from the Clintons is the notion that they know better than the electorate about who can beat McCain. She's a stronger candidate, she claims. If that were true, she'd be WINNING, not all but eliminated, wouldn't she?

I'm getting used to it. And I'll sure as hell be glad when she slinks back into her lair and gives it up.

-Wexler

Wexler for some of your question's my answer would be shes a man basher, one very viscous woman.

I am a registered Republican who is leaning Democratic in this coming election. I understand, and have seen first hand, the loathing Republicans and independents have for Hillary Clinton. Many, many Republicans who would not man the phones or otherwise campaign for John McCain will gladly do so if Hillary Clinton is the nominee. Her insistance on chipping away at Barack Obama's character can only do harm to the Democratic party, either by weakening his candidacy or by defeating him altogether and sending a very polarizing HRC into November. Is the Democratic party's debt to the Clintons so great that they would risk another four years of Republican rule as payment?

You are so off base. The Clintons were ahead by more than 20% a mere month ago. The fact that Senator Obama was able to close that tremendous gap in a primary that was earmarked for a Clinton landslide is testimony to the quality he brings to the table. So get a grip. It's time for the Clintons to go home to NY or AZ or wherever they can do the least harm with their vitriol.
Incidentally, why does she keep hinting that she would choose Senator Obama as her running mate? She's running second!

Why don't you think it's Obama that's tearing apart the party?

Democrats are overwhelmingly backing Clinton.

This nonsense that Dems want the race to end or Hillary is the one causing issues for the Party, if there are any, is pure fabrication not supported by the numbers.

Independents do tend to vote for Obama but they aren't members of the Party.

As far as Nov is concerned, 15 million people think Hillary is best able to win that contest.

Your premise is completely false and manufactured by the MSM.

Rationale:

www.tinyurl.com/yjyrtn

I would just for the heck of it like to see Monica Lewinsky walk up to Obama and shake his hand at one of the campaigns when both Dems are there!

All things considered, and for the most part, this has been a remarkably civil, informed and informative exchange of views and ideas. How refreshing! Thank you.

I would just for the heck of it like to see Monica Lewinsky walk up to Obama and shake his hand at one of the campaigns when both Dems are there!

With Limbaugh ordering his dittoheads to switch and vote for Hillary because she's more vulnerable against McCain, I think you've got this reversed.

Curious: It is of course trivially true that if the rules were changed and both candidates had employed the same strategy, Hillary would be winning. You conveniently overlook the fact that the rules were not secret and revealed only after the voting.

Obama chose to employ a strategy that would result in his victory given his understanding of the rules (stay competitive in big states, and womp in smaller states). Hillary chose a different strategy (concentrate resources in big states), because she did not understand the rules well enough to craft a winning strategy.

This isn't some kind of trick or loophole. Hillary had four years to prepare, and she didn't bother to study the rule book. If you play basketball as though there were no such thing as a three point shot, and your opponent concentrates on three-point shots, there's a good chance you'll lose, even with a slightly higher FG percentage.

"Obama's 20 year stint in the pews of Trinity absorbing the anti-white, anti-semitic, and frankly, anti-American rants of self-described "spiritual mentor" and "moral compass" Jeremiah Wright, as well as the Senator's remarks about rural America, clearly did not go unnoticed in PA."

I know Jeremiah Wright and he is neither anti-white, anti-semitic nor anti-American! This is libel.

Subject: Real men

In 1961, a young African-American man, after hearing President John F. Kennedy's challenge to, "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country," gave up his student deferment, left college in Virginia and voluntarily joined the Marines.

In 1963, this man, having completed his two years of service in the Marines, volunteered again to become a Navy corpsman. (They provide medical assistance to the Marines as well as to Navy personnel.)

The man did so well in corpsman school that he was the valedictorian and became a cardiopulmonary technician. Not surprisingly, he was assigned to the Navy's premier medical facility, Bethesda Naval Hospital, as a member of the commander in chief's medical team, and helped care for President Lyndon B. Johnson after his 1966 surgery.

For his service on the team, which he left in 1967, the White House awarded him three letters of commendation.

What is even more remarkable is that this man entered the Marines and Navy not many years after the two branches began to become integrated.

While this young man was serving six years on active duty, Vice President Dick Cheney, who was born the same year as the Marine/ sailor, received five deferments, four for being an undergraduate and graduate student and one for being a prospective father.

Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, both five years younger than the African-American youth, used their student deferments to stay in college until 1968. Both then avoided going on active duty through family connections.

Who is the real patriot? The young man who interrupted his studies to serve his country for six years or our three political leaders who beat the system? Are the patriots the people who actually sacrifice something or those who merely talk about their love of the country?

After leaving the service of his country, the young African-American finished his final year of college, entered the seminary, was ordained as a minister, and eventually became pastor of a large church in one of America's biggest cities. He's lectured throughout the world, earned 3 additional degrees, received 8 honorary degrees, speaks 5 languages and has an all encompassing ministry where he has devoted his life to caring for God's children.

This man is Rev. Jeremiah Wright, the retiring pastor of Trinity United Church of Christ.

Richard - that is precisely the reason I support Hillary as well. Well said!

I heard on NPR earlier today that the Republican Party of one of the upcoming primary states (I'm pretty sure it was North Carolina) is actually spending money to run tv ads bashing Obama. They are not running ads bashing Clinton. I think that pretty much ends the "which candidate are Republicans voting for simply to screw the Democrats" debate.

"Why don't you think it's Obama that's tearing apart the party?

Democrats are overwhelmingly backing Clinton."

Completely agree....this is a contest with a lot at stake - of course Hillary wants to go the distance and so would Obama (if it were reversed) - - it's not over yet and quite frankly I hope this brings them together on a ticket in the end. I would prefer Hillary as Prez and then Obama can learn the ropes and take his front running position when the next election is open for it. From the beginning the Republicans have only been 'worried' about a Hillary ticket. The Dem party will unify after it is all done like it should with one common denominator to WIN - - if you listen to the news shows they will have you crazy as they are trying to pursuade the outcome at every turn with their reporting (or lack of) and haven't been unbiased through this whole process - - they are basically useless - and one last note - a vote for Nader = McCain - - this country cannot afford that!

Great post, David. How far will HRC go? She will take the party down before she will throw in the towel. Howard Dean said back in August, '07--"if there's a way to lose, we will figure it out--after all, we're Democrats." Hillary (and Bill Clinton will destroy the Democratic party; thus, its savior will have been its destroyer. John McCain will be the next president.
I plan to move to New Zealand.

Again...BUSH/CLINTON/BUSH/CLINTON??? America WAKE UP!!!

she can't ask that question, cause the only reason she "won" in Texas was due to the Limbaugh's Operation Chaos, where he still proudly takes credit for a Hillary "victory", ignoring the FACT that Obama walked away with more delegates - the barameter that all agreed at the BEGINNING of the race was what counted.....but go ahead, keep deluding yourself that somehow Obama isn't legitimately winning this race, and let your ole gal rip us apart.....nice!

Obama is fading fast. Clinton just keeps getting stronger. Which one is tearing up the party? Obama's campaign started out by calling the Clintons racists. These are two people who have been solid Democrats for decades. They have worked for civil rights and equal rights. And the Obama campaign has the nerve to call them racist. Obama was the first to say that his supporters would not support Hillary. Who's being divisive? Hillary has the guts to go anywhere and talk to anyone about her campaign. She'll face down Scaife, Matthews, Olberman, anybody. She sits across from them and takes their best shots with calm, grace, and poise. Obama will only appear in front of friendly crowds. He backed out of the NC debate 'cause he's scared. He's been working to keep the voters of MI and FL from being heard. Who's tearing up the party? The people at Mother Jones should come back to earth from planet Obama and take a look around.

Hey Billy Bob,
How much is the Clinton campaign paying you??? Hope it's more than minimum wage.

Why such a biased title? Why not say that Obama is the one threatening to tear the party apart? What business did he have running against Hillary? Why blame Hillary? We've known for years that she would run for the presidency!

The Obamaites just don't get it--politics aint bean bag. They will only be happy when Barrack McGovern leads them off a cliff. Excuse me when Barrack Obama leads them off a cliff. Remember 1972?

The current new hope of the Internet and its bloggers is that, not being beholden to anyone actual truth and validity
will win ou