Is Clinton Staying In To Say, "I Told You So"?

More important than the red phone is the golden phone–the one used by lobbyists, major campaign contributors and other high rollers to influence policy. And we can be sure that all three of the candidates would be quick to answer cheerfully, but none more than Hillary Clinton, who shamelessly sold pardons to criminals through her brother.

It also matters not just who wins, but how he or she wins. I don’t think Hillary is a racist in the conventional sense, but it’s clear that she’s willing to pander to and inculcate racist sentiments to win, and in this she reminds us of George HW Bush and his Willie Horton advertisements. We don’t need, at this time of unprecedented economic, military, foriegn relations, environmental, healthcare and constitutional crises, a divisive, polarizing and zero-sum-paradigm driven chief executive. We need not only someone who can offer plausible solutions (as both Democrats can and McCain manifestly cannot), but someone who can unite, inspire and conciliate. And of the major candidates in the contest, only Obama can do that.

IF McCain were to win in the fall, there will be no "I told you so" because HRC would be blamed because of her Rep like campaigning of smearing our candidate.

for what it's worth, i think the above two comments are right on the money.

She would have no chance in 2012. If Obama loses, I will not vote for her now--or ever. I can confidently say that the white working-class would have even more clout after an Obama loss. Because they would be the only ones left in the Democratic Party.

When are the Democratic party leaders going to quit pandering to white racists and make the moral case that the party will unite behind Obama and not choose Hillary just because racists like her better. Giving in to that would be worse than losing to McCain.

Hillary is a selfish selfcentered,egotistical woman. She doesn't give a damn about the democratic party. If she manages to somehow steal this nomination from Obama,I will not vote for her. I'll stay home.

How is it that Hillary can announce in a speech on national television that an 11 year old sold his bike and his video games to donate the proceeds to her campaign? I thought that federal law required a person to be a certain age before they could donate. What am I missing?

We all clearly know that a unified democratic party behind Obama will win in november. Clnton has run a poor, dispicable, disrespectful and nasty campaign from the beginning and more after Super Tuesday, she cannot win in november because almost half of our nation just don't like her, in the democratic party and beyond, so Obama is the only who can win: Democrats (if we're united behind him), almost all Independents and a lot of republicans, this is what's gonna happen in november if we have Obama, he'll win.

Clinton is dammadging Obama with her "kitchen sink" campaign, here in NY a lot of her supporters have switched to Obama because of her nasty behavior, so if Obama loses in november, it'll be because of her, because of what she did in this campaign and we'll never forget that, if she hopes for his defeat to have a free pass in order to run again in 2012, so she's the most stupid woman of our party, nobody will vote for her now or in 4 years from now, we'll have another nominee at that time, another more qualified woman than her. If she has a bit of good sense then she'd better do everything to elect Obama, his victory will be our country victory and we'll do extremely well, the contrary will destroy the party and she'll be hold responsible for.

If she loses, she will be enemy #1 for the Democrats. Her baseless, vile lies attacking Obama have made it difficult for him to get his message out, while doing nothing for her.

I will never forgive either of the Clintons for playing to the ugliest side of the Democratic Party, and for reminding me why I only became a Democrat because of George W. Bush.

Your theory is borderline paranoia!How about if she believes that her argument will be accepted by a majority of the supers!

Hey People,

You democrat voters are soooo blind. Can't you see that if you DON"T vote for hrc, that you WILL loose in November..? Already most of the southern voters, who are not black, are NOT going to vote for bho in November. And in many states they have no problem in telling obama workers just that. And for every 1 who will say it outright, there are 2 who will think it in the voting booth.
Now you probably think this is racists to assert, but if 90% of blacks voting for obama are NOT racists then white doing the opposite is NOT racist..!!!
You forgot that when 90% of the blacks vote for obama, you think that is fine, but you NEVER thought that it might work the other way..HUH..?
If obama is the candidate in November, you will finally be OVER as a party, only the fringe will become a democrat, (gays, lefties, etc..)

How very sad and ending to such a grand party..:-(

Bill

You Obama cultists are just mad because Hillary whooped Obama's ass and owned him in West Virginia.

Love it.

All you big brained Star buck elitists have been experiencing a premature political ejaculation regarding who will be the parties nominee! Females, especially eschew premature ejaculations! But they always want to keep trucking!

I am not ugly and I am not racist. I even did community organizing in Ethiopia, India and Thailand. I came from a family where neither parent had a college degree and I got myself into the School of Foreign Service at Georgetown. I have affinities for both candidates and have personally, professionally (I track accountability on cleaning up one of our major ecosystems.) You insult me. I don't insult you or Obama's supporters. Get a grip on your sense of being infallbly correct. I hope Obama can win, I hope he can govern. But I think Hillary is a better bet, warts and all. Show me a little respect or I will struggle not to stay home in November.

I beg to differ with those who would say Hillary is not racist. It is just as ill willed to use
racism to win as it is to be a racist.

I will not vote for Barack Obama. If Clinton is not the nominee, I will most likely not vote.

Should Hillary get the nomination, I will vote for Ralph Nadar, even though I know he won't win, at least I will have placed my vote, but won't help get rid of the DLC. Obama actually could get rid of the DLC. Believe me folks, getting rid of the DLC is the main most prime objective. Apparently, white West Virginians aren't even aware of the DLC, much less know that Hillary Clinton is one of the traitorous cooperating leaders following the corporate REPUBLICAN DLC lobbyists that caused all the outsourcing and job losses with their N.A.F.T.A. plan to redo the United States.

Obama can win against McCain -- Yes, He Can --- McCain said he doesn't know anything about economics, so how good could he be? McCain would be just another Bush type puppet president, and I doubt if he would be as good even as Bush. If the REPUBLICAN side of the Democratic Party doesn't plan on fraud to get Hillary in, then Obama is going to be our next president. West Virginia hillbilly white folk just do not seem to me to be the deciding factor.

How about Nebraska? I haven't heard who led in Nebraska. I only get local channels and local channels are just not good at telling anything of interest in politics. Just the RIGHT WING leaning Sunday talk shows, so if I don't see the figures on the net, I guess I'll have to wait until Sunday to find out about Nebraska.

i come here and read a insightful article and then look at the comments and want to puke!i am 54 ,ive been a moderate democrat all my adult life.i am a proud contributor and supporter of HRC and will not vote for obama in novemeber.you can call me any name or lable me as you like and this is a small reason why we hillary supporters will not support obama.the main reason why i will not is he is a marxist and has stated this in his own booksw and by his associations.this country is not always right we make mistakes as people and our government makes mistakes but this is still the best nation on earth.also contray to you obamaites thought is this country is a centrist country not a peoples marxist society so grow up.

I suggest that some of you chaps and gals swallow a chill pill or alternatively like Carl Sagan inhale some good "kind bud"!Most Obama supporters are young folks! Relax you will have your time! You are the next American generation and have permission and leave to rule -someday!

It's sad to see such Faustian ambition. I fear that there are forces of darkness at work here.

M. Scott Peck speaks in his work "People of the Lie", about people who attack others instead of facing their own failures. These people wreak havoc in the lives of others, in this case perhaps, a whole nation. A whole world that is watching our nation, which, at this time, and because of the actions of other People of the Lie, is a fragile nation.

I pray that our Union will endure, and our Planet.

This election should be about beating Republicans, not destroying Democrats. Do we really want McCain selecting Supreme Court justices?

Hillary has managed to expose and underscore every fault-line in the Democratic Party. What she is savoring in West Virgina is not a victory, it is a Democratic Party defeat. She needs to stop now.

To Bill Nigh; I'm not sure where you live, but I live in the south. There are lots and lots and lots of us typical white people who have, and will will be happy to again vote for Obama. He didn't get 700,000 more votes than hrc just by getting the "black vote". Do the math.

Voting for someone of the same color / gender / state of origin / age group because you relate to them doesn't mean you're racist / sexist / etc. It's when you refuse to vote for them because of that trait that it becomes discriminatory. If I'm from West Virginia and I vote for you because you're also from WV, that's not Statist. But if I refuse to vote for you because you're from WV, then that would be discriminatory. If women vote for Hillary, that's not sexist. If they refuse to vote for John McCain for the single reason that he's male, that's sexist. So you see, it really doesn't work both ways. Sorry.

Oh please, if Obama loses it has nothing to do with Clinton at all....it has to do with him....sorry but the party is divided not becoz of her, but becoz of RACE....simple....its not her fault and its not his fault....the voters have their own opinions etc and this has been shown during the primaries....Sorry to say if he loses is Clintons fault is plain stupid....look at what is happening here, Obama getting 90% of black votes and Clinton 60+% of white votes....you trying to tell me thats Clinton's fault NO.....Obama is not experience enough to run America or even win the election....thats the end of the point....All Clinton is trying to do is tell the American people this....

I for won, will vote McCain in the fall over Obama...not becoz of color....but coz of experience....at a time that our country is in a HUGE mess, we need someone who has the experience to turn it around, especially the economy etc...All this about change etc, sorry thats not HOPE for me....there is a song that sums it up for me "Better The Devil You Know" and i know about McCain so would rather go for him then someone we know nothing about and how is a junior....

don tufts- I thought I was the only little brain that had out- thought the big brains! You figured out Obamas's intrinsic endemic political Achilles heal!His political malady is that he appears to be a communist and the republicans will swift boat him to death driving home this erroneous propaganda!In addition he appears to be a pansy that rebuffs gays like senator Craig!

The truth of the matter is that a Democrat will win the Presidency regardless. Nominate Mickey Mouse, he'll win. These flipped congressional seats show how fed up the country is of Republicans. Clinton is lobbying for the VP slot.

The Clinton machine is forever labeling groups of people. Well, where would you place me? A 60yo white conservative republican female who plans on voting for Obama! And I also have a twin sister that is doing the same. What category do we fit in? Silly, silly Clintonites. All for themselves with no concern for America.

May be that Hillary Clinton is looking ahead to 2008, but that is no excuse for discounting West Virginia. WV was overtime for the near tie in Indiana, and absolute devastation any way you cut it.

Just in case no one gets it, the Clintons are going all the way to the first ballot no matter what happens.

The end of the primaries on June 3 are the beginning of a second campaign, with ten weeks for the Clinton campaign to make Sen. Obama implode.

This is a battle which will be taken to the rank and file, not the leadership, with a new strategy and an outreach for every segment of the electorate.

Get ready, because it ain't over just quite yet!

Predicated upon American tradition and meme's Hillary's rank and standing in the American democratic party is far superior to Obama's! Her contributions by Bill and her are endless and have earned substantial success and plaudits and econumums!He deservedly should join her ticket and agree to run for Vice President!He would not be "Driving Miss Daisy" but rather learning to take the ropes of America for his generation of Americans;in addition gaining "American Trust"!

The most important traits for an executive are the ability to hire good advisers and the judgment to know the best advice when you hear it. I think Obama has those traits. Clinton probably does too, though sometimes she seems a little stubborn and her gas tax proposal makes me wonder if she really does know what she's doing.

If Obama losses to McCain it well be Clinton's fault. She's wounding our chances for real change. McCain and the right's already starting to crucify Obama and Hilary's holding the nails. She is self serving and she's as crustie as McCain, I'll never vote for her. It's only white Alpha females that well, I don't know what they see in her?

Hillary won't be alone in saying, ''I told you so.''

She has garnered at least 55% - 60% of the Democratic vote during the primaries, once you exclude Republicans and independent voters. For example, in California (a semi-open primary), Clinton won by 8 points and 427,000 votes (this gave her a 204-166 lead in pledged delegates in the state).

But if you were to factor in the exit polls to estimate the registered-Democratic vote only, she would have won the state by a whopping 19 points and 770,000 votes. Her pledged delegate victory in California would have increased significantly as well.

Democratic leaders like Howard Dean, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid want this campaign over with yesterday, not only because they privately prefer Obama to Hillary, but because the funding has dried up for the DCCC and the DSCC, as $$$ is flowing to the presidential primary races instead. They, like Obama, have decided to take for granted the votes of the lower-income voters, the blue-collar working class and senior citizens and instead lust over a massive campaign contribution data list that Obama can provide them.

Potential Hillary-turned McCain-voters if Obama is the nominee are constantly told by the pundits how dare we consider voting against our supposed economic interests, as if national security, experience and values don't matter. Only the almighty buck.

Congressman Steve Cohen (D-TN 9th) insinuates that Hillary is obsessed and mentally unstable in a recent sexually-toned attack.

Hillary supporters are constantly branded racists by Obama's supporters and the press.

Lower-income whites who couldn't afford to attend college are constantly referred to as ''downscale voters'' or ''uneducated, low-income voters''.

If the elitist snobs in the press could get away with it, they'd say what they are really thinking: ''stupid, poor white people.''

When Obama rolled off a streak of wins after Super Tuesday that has as much electoral significance COMBINED as California, he was treated as if he was the Second Coming by the media.

Yet when Hillary won nearly all the primaries since (Ohio, Texas, Pennsylvania, Indiana, Rhode Island, West Virginia to Obama's Vermont and North Carolina), every day a handful of turncoats or previously undeclared supers announce for Obama.

The DNC will soon officially throw Hillary overboard (either in June with the supers to push Obama over the 2025 mark to make him the nominee-apparent before Florida and Michigan can be contested or at the Con with a floor fight, even though 2025 number means absolutely nothing until the delegates at the convention rule it so).

But with her, they are also tossing overboard many of the most loyal Democratic voters - in exchange for shacking up with the latte-lefties and the unreliable never-have-voted and first-time-voter crowd and will be in for a rude awakening come November.

There's a price to be paid for throwing Hillary over the side the way they are doing and it will be paid for in spades. Many longtime, loyal Democratic voters will rightfully feel betrayed by their party and will cross party lines in November and help send John McCain to the White House.

After the Potomac primaries certain surreptitious T.V. journalist became complicit with certain print press newsmen and women to attempt to influence the American presidential election!Until the American people spoke in West Virgina they were having their way with the process! This is an entirely different election now!In reality this was more of a fight for historic remembrance! what family name will be spread across future American textbooks? Clinton or Kennedy?

Obama is up by 20 points now in Oregon. Blacks make up only 1.5% of the Oregon population. And nevermind that he won a majority of white votes in numerous western states. Furthermore, he is up by anywhere from six to ten points nationwide among democrats.

Well, I don't know what she's looking for, but I'm looking for some of the "denouncing and rejection" that she dished out earlier. As in "I denounce and reject the racism blatantly displayed in West Virginia". And as in " I would not solicit or accept votes from racists." Come on, Hillary. Turn around is fair play. Step up. I and others are really disappointed in your lack of display of integrity on a really basic issue. I'm worried abut how low you will stoop to get votes. Do you really consider yourself the leader of white racists, or will you take the high road and publicly and widely reject and denounce these shameful expressions of racism? Exactly where do you stand on this issue? As an American, I'm embarrassed and sad that our first seriously-taken female candidate would build support based on racism and ignorance. Hoping you and Chelsea and Bill will stand up, reject and denounce. Your response?

don tufts:

dont forget to look for that socialist under your bed tonight.

it is called corp fascism brainwashing and with you it worked wonders.

and the dollar is doing what against the euro.

vote repub you will fit right in.

On 05/13/08 at 9:01 PM, James said:
----This election should be about beating Republicans, not destroying Democrats. Do we really want McCain selecting Supreme Court justices?----

Get real! It was a Democratic-controlled Senate that put Scalia (97-0, by the way) and Thomas on the bench. Yes, even Ted Kennedy, Pat Leahy and John Kerry voted for Scalia.

Preceding that 1986 vote was one to make Rehnquist Chief Justice. You can thank recent Obama-endorsees Sam Nunn and David Boren for that one.

Furthermore, it was the fighting, PARTISAN Democrats (the kind Obama and his supporters constantly disparage), like the late Howard Metzenbaum, who helped spare us Robert Bork.

So, please. Spare us the crocodile tears about Supreme Court appointments.

After the election and the dust settles their will be a serious investigation by Congress regarding the standards of conduct of T.V. commentators! They will scream bloody murder that the proposed legislation attacks the first amendment but it will be demanded acquiescence!Their conduct and journalistic ethics will be myopically focused upon!

"There's a price to be paid for throwing Hillary over the side the way they are doing and it will be paid for in spades. Many longtime, loyal Democratic voters will rightfully feel betrayed by their party and will cross party lines in November and help send John McCain to the White House."

john mc cain deserves to be in the white house. after all he bombed women and children in that other illegal war and americans call him an american hero.

that is how warped the minds of americans has become. power corrupts and super power status has corrupted most of americans mind.

the white house should be painted red in memory of all the vietnamese we killed.

now we kill iraqis for their oil and not many americans lose a minute of sleep over that.

there is a name for people like that: war mongers.

Dean 2012!

Researcher,

The name for people like that is: American veterans who've protected our sorry asses while you go off on them for the decisions made by political leaders at the time. Democratic political leaders, unfortunately (JFK and LBJ).

When you insult John McCain, you insult every other Vietnam War vet. Be sure to pass on that advise to Barack Obama and see how many electoral votes he'd get if he made the same comment you just did.

No doubt you probably think fighting the Nazi's was morally wrong, too.

Gute Nacht!

Four years is forever in politics, and anything can, and usually does, happen. Hillary's campaign will be ancient history by then, and many other Dem candidates will be on the scene.

More to your point, though, Dem insiders/funders would have two easy comebacks to your hypothetical "I told you so" argument: 1) Hillary, you had massive leads in every state going into the primaries, a huge lead in early superdelegates, the Democratic Party establishment basically in lock step behind you, and YOU BLEW IT! No way we're going to back you again. 2) The GE polls showed Obama doing better electorally than you, Hillary, against McCain, late in the primaries, so it looks like you would have lost too.

@WomanOver50

Thanks so much for putting that into words. I'm not the best at expressing my thoughts in language and you did it better than I ever could.

@Mary Beth

I hear where you're coming from. The best I can say is that I know that of course not all Clinton supporters are the names that people call them - really the names and the insults usually generate from the extreme of one side directed toward the extreme of the other. Most democrats (and rational people) will vote for the democratic candidate.

ps. i would love to hear more about your life. very interesting.

She can't be too smug. She'll get quite a bit of the blame if Obama loses.

It's obvious voters have a mind of their own. Hillary has said Obama can win in November. She has also said it is essential that Democrats win the Presidency in 2008. But her supporters, who may be sore losers, don't seem to care about her priorities. She has the maturity level to play an all-out game, and in the end, if she loses, to get behind the winner. It doesn't seem like Clinton's support is really all that strong, because her supporters do not share her values. It's like they are just using her as a way to vote against the black, or the less experienced candidate. Who ever heard of choosing a Republican over an inexperienced Democrat? Is choosing a president really about something that simple, not the policy positions of the candidates? I went to a Hillary campaign event recently in which President Clinton spoke. He told the sudience why he thought Hillary would make a great President. He said nothing against Obama, and the subtext of his entire presentaton was that a Republican win in November would be a disaster, as there are stark differences between the two parties. Hillary's ideas are great, but she has no lock on them. They are probably supported by 90% of Democratic senators. There is no reason that Obama cannot adopt any of them, and as he is intelligent and in the Democratic mainstream, no doubt he will, as the sincerest form of flattery to his tenacious opponent. However, Obama has outmaneuvered her in the race for the nomination, and much of her necessary pursuit of a "comeback" was due to strategic errors in her own campaign. Does this mean the Democratic Party will have the "wrong" nominee? No, it has the one the rules delivered. And one can't change the rules after the fact, and insist on choosing the nominee some other way, because one's favored candidate did not prevail, unless one prefers anarchy. Obama's strategy for victory in November will be realistic. He is leaving nothing to chance, and if he loses some of the "traditional" vote, he aims to make it up by increasing turnout in the youth, Latino, and African American community. In other words, he plans a new sort of race, in which the patterns of past elections do not restrict the outcome. Certainly he will make every effort to connect with the white, working class, but if some of them are in love with McCain, and want McCain's policies to prevail, he will follow another strategy to victory. When true Democrats contemplate what a McCain presidency will mean, they will have a hard time voting for him, just because their candidate did not win the nomination. Many Hillary supporters insinuate that party elders who want the divisive primary campaign to win, are being unfair to Hillary. They must realize that had Obama faced the same odds, he could never have withstood the pressure to quit. Can you imagine Obama pressing on, pitching to the superdelegates that he'd better be the nominee because his black supporters won't vote for a white and his male supporters won't vote for a female, and his young supporters won't vote for an older person? Take the majority of the Democratic party out of her vote and of course she loses in November. What does she have against McCain? He's white, he's male, and he's experienced. All she has is her Democratic approach to the issues. But if Americans vote identity instead of party she's doomed in November, without the blacks, the young, and the liberals.

I don't see how anyone with a healthy skepticism of the corporate owned media can claim that it has been biased against Hillary: 1)they have utterly failed to vet Hillbill since the WH years (Bill's continued connection to Walmart--the most anti-union company ever, his millions earned from helping oil rich middle-eastern countries invest in U.S. banks, the saudi donors to the Clinton library, and their ties to fat-cat donors, ect.)2)they continue to pretend that the race is not over--even though it has been over since Feb.3)they spent weeks trotting out the Rev. J. Wright and even mentioned Ayers--a completely erroneous connection (do your homework--the media will not do it for you)3)they have failed to challenge the Clinton spin on Obama's money advantage going into Pennsylvania by failing to acknowledge that unlike her, his donations came from the people--not corporate interests.4)and now, as I write, they are touting the Clinton win as if it gives her a chance--nevermind that the only way she can win is if the super's subvert the will of the voters--and yes, seating Mich. and Florida as they voting would be a subversion of all those voters who did not vote because either Obama was not on the ballot (Mich), or they did not show up because they knew their vote wouldn't count (Mich. and Flor.)

There is no reason that makes complete sense. Except one:

Hillary is a neocon. She is pushing for VP. Obama is no neocon, and his none advisors are. Maybe one or two are sympathizers.

The war party wants to make sure it infiltrates the Whitehouse whether it is a Democrat or a Republican.

Hillary's job is to either ruin Barak's chances, or get in as VP to push the "more war" agenda of the neocons.

I hope you keep your word. Shame on you if you vote for him. Obama does not have to be president. All this man did was offer goodwill to America. I dont think America is ready again to experience greatness. Self defeat is not bliss. Don't vote for him and see who loses. You say you wont vote for him. Wow! that will teach him. Like he will be the one who would lose health care, go into forclosure, go to war lose civil liberties, lose a job and pension etc. You all really think this man will be the final loser. Ha! think again. The world will seek him that's for sure. He will move on to higher callings and that is certain. I just think he is too good for the crap he has been recieving from this society and it is a big shame. The world is watching the United States. We want to sell Democracy around the world and have none in our own back yard. Dont vote for Obama and have John Macain. I think this country deserve another eight years of George Bush. Obama is not the one who will lose you will. Losing the White house will hurt him but he will move on to bigger things like peace around the world. Hurt yourselves for all I care

Oops, I accidentally posted. The last thing I wanted to mention was that while the horse race is fun for voters, this has been an intense, incredibly long campaign, and the candidates are not superhuman. The nominee needs a rest, before going forward into the grueling general election. When Clinton excused her Bosnia sniper-fire story based on mental exhaustion, she had a point. I realized Clinton would not be "Ready on Day 1" , but instead recovering from exhaustion and settling into a 6-month nap after her inauguration.The problem with Clinton's drawing this out until June or later is that she is probably thinking of it as a long-shot for herself. She's not really thinking of what lies ahead should she actually end up with the nomination. When you don't think you will get the nomination, you are glad to take it any way you can, and worry about the difficulties later. But the exhaustion factor is a real one. The nominee faces a huge battle after the primary, while the loser goes home and rests. This might be a good time for Hillary to apply the golden rule: take the pressure off the presumptive nominee, just as she would appreciate herself if she were the nominee. Bill Clinton says you must be ready to play the game, but that should apply to some rough and tumble, not an ordeal that leaves you so exhausted you stagger into the general election. While it seems "rude" for Obama to slide through the rest of the race, really this is the only rest he is going to get, and he's just human. He has to pace himself for the long haul, because it's more important for the Democrats to win in November than who the nominee is. He's just doing what he needs to in order to give it his best shot, and most Democrats are behind him.

This whole discussion is just silly. My parents are white working-class folks in Indiana (dad works in a factory, mom's a school bus driver) and they both LOVE Obama and both called me excitedly while driving away from the polling place to tell me how thrilled they were to have voted for him. To say that he can't win over white working class voters is a gross oversimplification.

If she manages to steal the nomination OR if Obama chooses her as VP, I will not vote for them either. At that point, I would say F***K them, F***K the DNC and F***K the Political process altogether!

What set of rules for obtaining the nomination are you following? What do you mean that the press overdid the February Obama victories? They gave him an unassailable delegate lead, that Clinton's convincing victories in Pennsylvania, Ohio, and West Virginia, and her narrow victories in Texas and Indiana could barely dent. Do you contend that the DNC, and the nominating rules which were set long ago, set up the number of delegates awarded in each state in a way that was fundamentally unfair to Clinton, even though she was still the First Lady of Arkansas at the time they were adopted? I simply cannot understand the contention that the DNC or the superdelegates "betrayed" Clinton, because they are using their own independent judgment of what is in the best interests of the Democratic Party, when she argues that they should consider her record in the big states, as opposed to the pledged delegates or popular vote. These guys are politicians: they understand the difference between self-serving assertions and the actual governing political calculus. It is exceedingly naive to think Clinton could prevail against MCCain in November if she got her nomination by the superdelegates looking past her failure to win in the popular vote or in pledged delegates. It would make a mockery of the whole process, divorcing the choice of nominee from the democratic votes and so many people would be so offended by this abandonment of the fundamental principles of democracy and vote for McCain to affirm their faith in democracy before all else that she would be doomed. So, it's interesting you have become so attached to your candidate or opposed to the other one that you can't even see what is so obvious. Hillary is in a position where she loses because she does not have a path to the nomination that seems legitimate to most Americans. Her supporter, the Senator from New Jersey, made it plain, as have many other superdelegates, that she has to win in at least the popular vote, or the pledged delegate race to get his vote at the convention. This is a betrayal of a large swath of Democratic voters? I'd hope you would subscribe to some semblance of democracy. I'm getting close to being as incendiary as your post. Perhaps you would be more at home in Russia , Pakistan , or Zimbabwe, where democratic traditions are not such a problem to the elevation of your preferred candidate to a position of power? What you seem to be so upset about is that the media may have played a role in advancing Obama's candidacy. So, what now? You would prefer to have no free press, because the ignorant voters are misled? You really don't belong in a democracy, seriously, if you are not willing to buy into the choices of the voters. We have the media we have, and people can watch Fox or CBS, or hit the Internet. What other way would work better for you, some state-approved media, that only presents the choice approved by your branch of the party? What really gets me, is when you imply this is a principled decision about "democracy" and somehow it's gone awry because your candidate did not come out on top. I think you are sincere, but I think you really need to think about the way you react. There are plenty of us who thought the voters chose poorly in 2000 and 2004 and with Nixon, and even Reagan. But, I don't remember blaming it on the media, or thinking I had been "betrayed" or my Democratic Party had been "betrayed" or my country had been "betrayed" It's just the way a democracy works. And I didn't think about moving someplace else where people would vote the way I prefer. A democracy is an exceedingly messy thing, and it's probably true that people of a certain temperament just don't value it, even though they were born and raised here in America. I am sure that lots of people like McCain, and that's fine. But, can we just get rid of the huffy threats. Vote for him because you like what he stands for, and his character, experience. Don't vote for him because you want to send a message to the DNC that you've been betrayed by the Democratic Party. Your candidate did not prevail, and in large part it was because of the failure of her campaign to take the race as seriously as she should have. She should not have been reduced to seeking unusual scenarios to secure the nomination. It's too bad for people who thought Hillary would be a better President than Obama that she wasn't able to convince enough voters. And how is it relevant that some primaries are open and others are closed and in the past it was winner-take-all? What do we do? Choose the way we wish the rules were, and deny legitimacy to any other set of rules? I'm not an expert, but I assume that those who are interested play a role in setting the rules, and that they are chosen in a basically democratic process. Maybe we really should submit the party's rules to a vote by everyone in the Party, so they can gain that level of further "democratic" legitimacy. Certainly, voters have been aghast at the realization of the role the superdelegates play, and that will be addressed before the next election. It's great that you like McCain, but I doubt that California will go for McCain in November. I'm from Oregon, and I am rather pleased that the nominee is chosen in a process that reflects the results from all states in a summation rather than just a few that are more important than the others. Clinton even said after 2000 that she thought the electoral college ought to be abandoned and the President chosen on the basis of the over-all popular vote, as reflecting our modern understanding of democratic process. The electoral college was one of the compromises the new nation faced so slave states and free states could coexist. It delivered more "power" to small states, just as the Senate does. Isn't it ironic that Clinton has been reduced to a big state strategy, which seems as undemocratic to the citizens of the other forty states as giving slave states a comparative advantage in the electoral college. Some day we will get to one man, one vote, so peope in Ohio or West Virginia are not the only ones electing a President, which seems to be the way some presidential candidates think. I don't think it's a good thing that our process has given us this intuitively undemocratic result. As an Oregonian, I've gotten so used to never having a role in choosing the nominee, that I can't understand why suddenly it's an essential part of democracy for everyone to have their vote be decisive, instead of merely confirmatory. I've always thought that the nominee had legitimacy despite the fact that Oregonians had to put up with what Iowa and New Hampshire chose. But I never thought of bolting the party because of this antiquated way of choosing the nominee. I could be an upset Biden supporter who thinks that the nomination was "stolen" from him, just because Iowans didn't like him. But, i've had a basic faith that although the process was not perfect, it still conferred legitimacy on the nominee. After all, if I didn't spearhead a movement to change the rules, I'd have to accept them as legitimate. In the end , we will have two choices, as we always do. Actually more. You can vote for Nader or the Libertarian candidate who also offers an anti-war position, plus experience, and maybe character. Many people voted for Perot in 1992. We get enough choices. Happy voting!!

Do NOT ever give up on your hopes and dreams. If you believe in Baracks vision for a more united country then FIGHT for what you believe in! Fret not because of evil doers, neither be thou afraid of workers of inquity. Yes there are hateful people in this world who tear down others to push their agenda. This race is about character, principles, values and policies. What I have seen from Clinton is very dissapointing.... Funny how proud she is that some of her base of supporters have OLD views, racist, sexist or ignorant and uneducated.

She says WV voted her husban in office and GW Bush.. need I say more about these two people. I will say they have one thing in common ... dishonesty.. I sorry but this God Fearing Woman can not and will not vote for a proven liar, race baiter and manipulator. Unless she repents of her wrong doing and evil tactics- Hillary will never get my vote. I intend to vote with my morals and values...Hillary is too corrupt for me!

Me too!

African Americans have been the most loyal voters in the Democratic Party. We don't switch, no matter who is running on the Democratic ticket.

I have been watching the MSM since the beginning of the election and it is the MSM that has been "dicing and slicing" the electorate. However, it is the electorate who is responsible for believing and adopting the MSM's message.

You say we, Obama supporters, are elitist and are looking down on you; because, Hillary Clinton has said Obama is an elitist, and the MSM has called her supporters uneducated or less educated.

Can people just get a grip, and stop trying to hold the Democratic Party hostage by saying you won't vote for Barack if Hillary doesn't get the nomination. The nomination belongs to the person who wins it (earned it), not the person who was given it (did not earn it).

If you don't want to vote for Obama, then by all means, don't vote for Obama. Hillary Clinton does not deserve the nomination simply because she's a fighter . The fact is she's not just a fighter; she is a dirty fighter.

Why is it that Obma can't close the deal with rank and file Democrats? He has won almost exclusively in states that haven't voted for a Democratic presidential nominee in 50 years! The only exception was Illinois and we don't know for sure if that was rigged like Obama tried in Indiana. If he hadn't been caught red handed in the process he would have stolen the Indiana election. Now why do suppose the media isn't howling like banshees over the attempted theft of an election? Could it be the fix is in with the media to foist Obama on the Democrats only to turn around and choose McCain just like they did Bush II? War always makes some Republicans rich. And they aren't done looting this country yet.

As a New Yorker, I have held my nose and voted for the Clintons four times. I won't do it again. Anyone who buys Hillary's contention that she's been thoroughly "vetted" has been drinking the kool-aid that Obama supporters are frequently accused of imbibing. All the old sleaze will be trotted out again and we'll be exposed to whatever new sleaze Bubba's managed to involve himself in during the past seven years. These two have the personal ethics of garden slugs.

More alarming to me than their collective sleaziness is her constant shape shifting. A sixty year-old woman should know who she is. During this campaign, she has tried on more personalities than pant suits. Her latest seems to be Lurleen Wallace. I don't remember a Democrat so joyfully playing on race and class resentments. Even the Rebublicans are constrained to using code words to slice and dice the electorate. She comes right out with it!

If lightning strikes Obama and she somehow ends up being the nominee and President, we'll be subjected to at least four more years of the same divisiveness, gridlock and ugliness that have distinguished the past sixteen years. No thank you. I am sick to death of having The White House being synonymous with deceit, divisiveness, pandering, arrogance, and sleaze. It's time for a President who can appeal to "the finer angels of our natures" and try to bring people together instead of pushing them apart in order to gain and hold power.

Like the people in West Virginia are going to vote for ANY democratic nominee this November. Who are we trying to kid???? Before you answer, let me know if you have ever visited the state of West Virginia. I have. Not a snowballs chance in hell. They voted for Bill Clinton because they believed that he was like them - a good old southern boy. Read into that what you may.
Hillary just perpetuates that belief - Obama can't win because he is black and they will never vote for him because of his skin color. SAD day in America and Bill and Hill are just pushing that thought. If they won't go quietly then Democrats need to throw them out on their rear ends.

If this be case then I hope the Black voters for Hillary's opponent in 2008.

If she's in it in case something happens... she doesnt even need to campaign anymore... so that can't be it...it's the money and prestige issues, really... that's what the Clintons were always about... shes too smart to think she needs to campaign in case something happens.. as she is second in line already and needs to do no more.... please!!! She looks crazed and outrageous.... backed by a bunch of looney uninformed low class... that is her legacy... folks she and Bill screwed out of jobs and who they look down upon are holding them up to the public (for what they are!)....how ironic!!!

Interesting comments.

First, those of you who claim you won't vote for Obama will come around. All it's going to take is watching McCain operate for a week or so with the full attention of the media. Even his own party won't be voting for him.

Second, anyone who includes the "America is the greatest nation on earth" argument in a comments section, immediately report to a library near you for a fact check.

Third, Obama voters who say they would vote for Nader rather than Clinton... I feel your pain, but as much as I admire Nader and would hate to think of what circumstances would land Hillary the nomination, see number one above.

-Wexler

According to the "woman over fifty", any white person who votes for Hillary Clinton because she is white is not a racist. I'm not sure that the majority of Americans would publicly agree with you. No politician or newscaster would DARE affirm that. Always replace "black" with "white" before stating a generality and if reads like a KKK brochure, drop the generality.

When with the help of the Daily Show and SNL, sexism temporarily replaced racism as the dominant bias in the race, Obama lost in Ohio. It's all marketing and one of the big targets to exploit in the American public right now is residual guilt among whites for what happened to the blacks over the years.

With the skillful guidance of his campaign director Axelrod, Obama is cashing in big time.

Dear Womanover50
With all due respect,

Do you support the WAR IN IRAQ? Well Mr. McCain does. He would like us to continue for a 100+ years Hillary and Barrack said it.

Would you support an over turning of Roe by the supreme court that he would appoint over his tenure in the whitehouse?

Many civil liberties would be violated and over turned under a Mccain presidency.

I am a DEMOCRAT and I support Senator Obama but I respect Mrs. Clinton because she and Obama share my social values.

If Mr. Obama was not to get the nomination I would be disappointed but I could NEVER pull the lever for McCain against Hillary.

She and Barack are Dems. We should support family (DEMS in NOVEMBER) Barrack or Hillary. Let us not lose focus we need a DEM to set the country back on the right track again.

Respectfully,
Carly Lewis

Good Grief! People get a grip. Barack Obama will be the nominee of the Democratic Party. Hillary Clinton will go back to the Senate of the United States, (where, henceforth, she will have a big problem getting a new post office for her Senate District.

She is hoping for a "deal." The Clintons are always looking for "a deal." There has been none offered. So, she makes empty threats, with a lot of empty rhetoric, to take this all the way to the convention.

Obama has said this will be over by May 20th. It will be over by May 20th.

If you want to know why Obama will win in November, check out the results of the special election that was held yesterday in Mississippi. The Democratic party won a seat that has been Republican since 1994, (Clinton's first term.)

There is more at stake in the November election than the top of the ticket, and Democrats know that.

The Hillary spin is correct: no Democrat has won the presidency without carrying VW since 1916. On the other hand: no Democrat has won the presidency without carrying Minnesota since 1912.

Hillary has decided to go for broke, and that means she has to panic Obama into foolishness by unending provocations and attempts at caricature. A particular brilliance of Clinton has been to define the "must have" vote in terms of the 1992 electoral map, and argue that Obama can't win that map because the white voters who comprise it won't won't for a black man. It's the basest of tactics, a blackmailing hurrah for racist politics, but it's a real challenge to Obama because there is an anti-Obama vote Hillary Clinton has empowered. When that group is added to the vast majority of Clinton supporters, who aren't racist, but women, seniors, and everyday workers, a coalition of real force emerges. The consequence is that Obama has to deal with unfamiliar, people who aren't like him while being very unfamiliar to them. The discomfort factor is very high for Obama, but he can't shirk the challenge. Winning means convincing even those who are initially inclined to give you short hearing and not to listen. Obama's intelligence is beyond question, and so is his campaign management, but neither quality wins the day with life experience voters like those in West Virginia. He ought to be looking in these last weeks of the primary to Clinton's successes, and figuring out how to move these voters to the polls. It's the cheapest and most important lesson of this campaign, how Hillary Clinton, a white, rich, compromised member of the Washington political elite and the immaculate President apparent, successfully remade herself into an outsider fighter for the ordinary voter. It's an incredible story that Barack can't ignore as he moves into general campaign mode. He is the presumptive nominess, but he needs in the next month to convince us that he is our nominee. Hillary Clinton's strategy, since she can not win the delegate counts, is to jump in as often as she can and claim that if Barack may win the Oscar from the Academy, but that she is winning the People's Choice Awards.

i don't know if hillary is expecting to look at 2012. one of the narratives that's going to come out of this campaign season is the collapse of the clinton machine. her campaign failed on so many levels; any talk by her now of leadership or management experience is just a joke. democrats hate the stench of losing, and right now hillary's marinating in it. the nomination was hers to lose in the beginning, and lose she did. nobody's going to forget in four years that on the way down she tried to take the nominee with her, and there's not enough forgiveness in the democratic party to bring her back.

No democrat has won the presidency during a space alien invasion. No republican has won the presidency during a collective increase in the national IQ.

-Wexler

What flavor kool-aide do you want?

Does Hillary really think she can win without the Black vote? That must be the case since she has run the worst racebaiting divisive campaign in history and yet she continues to act like she can win in November. Who is feeding her this information because they are delusional if they think Black people are going to have a short memory of her and Bill "fingerpointing redfaced" Clinton for whatever office she runs for. She only has herself and Bill to blame for losing the Black vote that propelled her husband into the Whitehouse twice. There's a reason why she had over 60% of the Black vote when this race began and now can barely pull double digits of the Black vote.

I'm going to say something brazenly superior and piss someone off, but here goes anyway. I really don't care if, as So Cal Dem says, the blue-collar Dems are being ignored by the DCCC because, the 'average joe' of both parties notoriously vote like idiots, making their decision based on who they'd like to have a beer with instead of who would be a good leader. The 'masses' voted in George W. TWICE, so I have little confidence in candidates who win the confidence of the 'average American'. I think the record indicates that the 'average American' is usually a moron who barely deserves the right to vote. And I wish to hell everyone would stop with the 'all Obama supporters are college kids' malarcky, because it simply isn't true. I'm in my thirties and never finished my degree so you've struck out twice there. Nor am I the 'Starbucks elitist' you'd like to paint me as for two reasons: a] I eschew corporate coffee shops for mom and pops because, being a Progressive, that is OF COURSE what you'd do, and b] I don't even make twenty-five thousand a year. My in-laws are from WV so let me tell you about the mindset that would vote in Hillary - they would be hesitant to vote for Barack because not only is he black, but they 'saw on the TV box that he was one of them terrorist religions or something - that Bill O'Reilly said it but he uses a lot of big words, so I might of got it wrong, but I don't think so'. Also, when it comes to November, 80% of the registered Dems in WV will vote for McCain because, as pro-Union as they may be, they are convinced that a vote for a Dem president will lead to a government truck coming round to take their guns away from them. It's sad, it seems like a mean-spirited observation, but it is grossly true for the average voter in those hills [not just WV - many rural parts of the country]. I've lived in WV, love numerous people who still do or grew up there, and I'm speaking from experience. I'm tired of the country being ruined by ignorant voters who only listen to sound-bites and don't get the bigger picture.

Answer to headline: Of course she is. But I want to know what is so wonderful about attracting the bigot vote. I want HRC to reject AND denounce the 2 in 10 voters who said they would vote based on race, be they black or white. But I guarantee 90% were the white bigot voters. And when it's time to join the rest of the party and support Barack will she make sure that people know that Barack is NOT a Muslim and his wife is NOT an atheist as these West Virginia voters were told and still believe? Or will she do another lame divisive, "not as far as I know" answer?

I dont have a real issue with Hillary and her constituencies. I think people have the right to vote for whomever they want to vote for and there reasons should be whatever they choose.
Myself and im a black guy from the projects of Chicago(when i was younger....Remember the harold washington mayoral race?)wanted initially to vote for ,and still wishes e becomes vp Joe Biden from Delaware because i just think he would establish to the world my vision of who america is. He was my pick because he seems to be very honest and very sincere and very focused and very experienced and.....very connected.a man that can make things happen.
Hillary was my second choice because she was connected to acluster of democrats that were helpful in the uplifting of a lot of communities when Bill Clinton was in office.Tims were good and when times were rough for the "homeboy Clinton I knew of no one black that didnt have disdain for the Republican vast right wing conspirators.We loved the man and i dont think in our deep hearts as black people we dont give up love like this too easily.We give it our kids.I had Hillary as my second choice because of this,but i wsnt really sure of her policies,because she is different from Bill,because like me she is from Chicago so i know she is built different and i love chicagoans that fight....I say all of this because i honestly have to say that the main reason i had to disqualify her from getting my vote was because that she did the one thing that wouldnt allow me to vote for her Chris Dodd ,Barack Obame,Joe Biden,or any other candidate.The President of the United states of America Cannot be caught Lying and perpetuating the lie and embellishing it even more thereafter.he or she disqualifies themselves by doing so. They have to be trueted.We have to know that what they are saying is true no matter what the cost or consequences.Even if its grim.To me Hillary disqualified herself at that point because with her prefabrication,it to me says that when there would be a need for rel honesty there is a real chance that you will recieve none.And to complicate it even more soBill clinton was caught in office doing so too.I stuck with him at the time because i deemed it trivial to bring up his personal troubles in public,and i didnt smirk too much when he said he didnt inhale...lol,but the whole point is this....if you get a lie about a trip to a foreign land that was about nothing,what happens when the REAL issues come about? This is how a black man from the projects of Chicago came around to Vote for a change.....with a little help from an Honest Joe Biden...lol. I hope my message helps a few people

HRC won the poorest, whitest, most-uneducated state in the country, Big Deal!

Hillary and covertly prejudiced Bill have successfully painted a bi-racial candidate as "The Black Candidate" and will stop at nothing to destroy, not just the 1st real and best candidate from the Black community, but America's best hope to regain its stature as the Global leader it should be.

AlexLawyer, Bravo.

HRC won the poorest, whitest, most-uneducated state in the country, Big Deal!

Hillary and covertly prejudiced Bill have successfully painted a bi-racial candidate as "The Black Candidate" and will stop at nothing to destroy, not just the 1st real and best candidate from the Black community, but America's best hope to regain its stature as the Global leader it should be.

Red States, Blue States, Black, White, Democrat, Republican, Southern, Northern, Midwestern, Wealthy, Middle Class, Poor, Insured, Uninsured....
Get the picture. Until we get rid of labels and categories and names and colors and regions and classifications. The "United" States of America will continue to erode and have difficulty finding commom ground.

How childish, I guess you told us. Your attitude leads me to believe you're willing to join our soldiers in Iraq.

I think the Clintons' star has faded and they are on their way out.

I think she's staying in for the fundraising effort and because she's not willing to go down without a fight.

I can't help but wonder how her white, working people line is playing in New York. People don't forget what candidates say, and if they do, there's always video to help them remember.

Hillary should have gracefully dropped out and thrown her support behind Obama. It would have shown good will and would have put her in good standing with the Dem party. Now she just looks like the guest that won't leave, and the more she says, the more ugly it gets.

Pass in pop vote? Except MI and FL don't count! HRC is doing the "Bush" ... repeat it enough times and the dumbaxx public starts to believe it. In fact media repeats it and All Bill Clinton network post results on website w/ MI and FL counted even though no one in their right mind believes this will actually get counted AT ALL and no one can count caucus vote counts accurately. This is blatant BS and you should be ashamed to even allude to it.

I am one that believes the DNC - will - hand this nomination to the Clintons, and are working behind the scenes to give Clinton a road map (no matter how slim) to make it happen. Do I want this to happen? heck NO! Hillary is more than willing to give the White House to the Republicans in 2008 to solidify 2012 as Clinton's YEAR. Hillary is wise enough to see that she put down her guard early in this primary to an upstart black man, lost momentum, and eventually the nomination - Hillary is also shrewd enough to put a plan in place NOW for 2012 and a storyline that will allow her to be the come back kid that can say, "See I told you so. I am here to be your savior". Hillary cares not about the Democratic party, not about a majority in the Senate or House, not the country, not about the poor white voter - she cares only about Hillary.....and.....the DNC is scared as hell that if they don't give her the nomination on a platter, Obama might lose the White House - they know what the "wrath" of Hillary can and will inflict!

I also am one that believes that when, during Hillary's college days, she told a close friend that "Bill could be President one day" - what was truly on her mind was that SHE could be President one day and Bill just might be her ticket to the big prize. Hillary lacks self confidence. Granted Hillary knows how to fight, but self confidence is not her strong suit. (points that support my view: once a Repub, her numerous hair style changes, hiding behind HER theory of the Right Wing Conspiracy) Hillary, from day one, has used (or should I say, hidden behind) Bill to reach HER goals. I don't think the woman has ever had clearly defined goals - all she has known is that she has a need for POWER! - you see, with power comes the 'confidence' she lacks. Hillary's life has been made up of someone that lies. The problem is that her 'dream world' leads her to actually believe the lies; this is why she can actually continue to tell the Bosnia tale. Hillary is worst than George W Bush, in my opinion, when it comes to lying.

And my prediction if the DNC allows Hillary the nomination - you will find in 2010 the start of a 3rd party and by the time 2012's Presidential election roles around that 3rd party will have picked up steam, voter support, and a real interesting pool of possible candidates.....Hagel, Bloomberg, Chafee, Webb, Tester, and let's not forget a guy named OBAMA.

The bottom line is - if the DNC does not want to be marginalize to the bottom of the pack of a 3 party system - they need to wake up now, show THE Clintons the exit door, no compromise of Clinton as VP, and come out and fully support an Obama ticket to victory in 2008!

I am still so baffled by the voters who are interviewed say that their choice is HRC not because they are so enthralled with her, but because they believe Obama is a Muslim - one of the worst things you can be called, apparently, if you are running for president, although he has also paradoxically been called a Marxist, a believer in Black Liberation Theology, and a Christian only for superficial, political purposes? I am sorry for the Muslim children who watch the news and see that being a Muslim is not so good in the USA. Without any proof at all, but plenty of proof to the contrary, it is natural to ask what it really is that some voters object to in Obama? Why so much hostility towards him? I think it is possible that some HRC supporters are angry at the way things have turned out for their candidate in a year that she was supposed to win. And that HRC herself led the way to very negative feelings toward Obama, never herself defending a fellow Democrat when questions as to his religion arose - questions she herself knows the answer to. Questions she kept open by not addressing them so that she could pull ahead. This strategy, in the end, has not worked, yet it has left her supporters with a feeling of disdain, sometimes even hatred, for Obama. I am always perplexed when I see some of her supporters say they will vote McCain or not vote at all. Is this a punishment? What we have to remember as Democrats is that their platforms are nearly the same. Even if HRC is not the nominee, don't her supporters want her platform and the dreams she has for the American people to be advanced? Doesn't she want her platform and her dreams to be advanced? A McCain win would not do anything to advance this platfrom, worse, it might bankrupt us as a country and take us back years in hard fought legislation. I ask voters to please ask themselves, no matter who they are supporting, "Why am I supporting this person and not the other candidate/s? In the end, please vote with you whole heart and mind, not out of anger or ignorance.

Hillary Clinton is great! She is the leader this country needs. Her husband Bill is also wonderful. When Hillary wins the nomination it will take both she and Bill to put this country back on its feet.
Most real people know this. You know, the ones that actually create the rythm of this country not the ones who try to dance (badly) to it.
Susannah Jones

If HRC wins/won fair and square. I would vote for her over McCain in a heartbeat. Neocons must be stopped. But if in fact she were to get the nomination now, it would have to be because the DNC found a way. If this occurs I will disavow ever being a Democrat. One thing I hate and Republicans play on every election is the inability of the party to have balls and stick with it when its tough. Whether its war or crime or flip-flopping based on polls. The rules of the game were set, Obama will win. End of story. Because its rocky w/ MI and FL so what? Heal the wounds after. The biggest injustice in modern elections, other than Gore-FL maybe, would be to change the rules because one campaign complained loud enough. Talk about the embodiment of flip-flopping! And I will flip-flip OUT OF THE PARTY. The DNC needs to absolve both campaigns of any responsibility in MI and FL fiasco NOW.

Hillary has played the race card,has said anything to try to win, has shown no ethical code in the last three months, and has LOST. She's like the person who won't leave your party. You're in your pjs and she still rambles on and stays and stays. She has become a pathetic figure, and is becoming despised within her own party. I used to love the Clintons and am now questioning my own judgement, as we probably all are. I have this secret wish...that Barack wins the nomination and she DEMANDS time to speak to the convention. She comes to the podium, expecting love to pour from everyone, because, after all, SHE IS HILLARY CLINTON, and the boos start. They get louder and louder until she cannot do anything but stand there and take it. She has a look of disbelief on her face, like, what happened here? Why don't you love me? Because you are the mean girl at school, Hillary, the one who is only out for yourself and the one who just does not understand anyone else. I've been booing since last night, and will continue forever. The Clinton machine has shown its rust, its ineffective engine and its uselessness. We've finally broken their chain.

Group pushing Clinton as VP choice secretly
tied to her campaign
Article By Margaret Talev McClatchy Newspapers

A group called VoteBoth has been leading the charge for Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama to team up on the Democratic ticket.
But the people behind it come from just one of those camps — Clinton's — and one of their goals may be keeping Clinton's White House prospects alive.
The group's founder, Adam Parkhomenko, until recently worked as an assistant to Patti Solis Doyle, who was Clinton's campaign manager until February. Parkhomenko in 2003 founded the Draft Hillary for President Committee.
VoteBoth's spokesman is Sam Arora. He's a law school student who in recent years worked for Clinton and for former Democratic National Committee chairman Terry McAuliffe, Clinton's presidential campaign chairman.

VoteBoth's Facebook page lists three others as administrators, all with Clinton connections.
One is a Richmond-based Democratic technology consultant, who was quoted in a New York Times story about the Iowa Democratic Party's 2006 Jefferson-Jackson dinner, where he was passing out "Hillary for President" stickers.VoteBoth first filed with the Federal Election Commission on April 8, two weeks before the Pennsylvania primary that Clinton won and that was considered a crucial window for her comeback.

As Obama's strong showing made him all but certain to clinch the nomination, VoteBoth leaders began putting themselves in the spotlight, sending regular press releases, posting blogs and appearing in interviews.

Visit: Blacks4Barack.org
A Multi-Racial, Grassroots Org...Dedicated To Truth !

haha, people claiming that HIllary voters are just racists are so incredibly dumb, and are just trying to feel O.K about what is an impending loss in Nov for Obama, his LOFTY rhetoric doesnt connect with these folks, its not about RACE, he fails at POPULISM, thats what its about.

There could be a racist in there ofcourse, but its not a majority, and its NOONE that i know that supports Hillary. The internet anonymous haters are clearly against Hillary (they're sexits!!!not) , but overall dem. party is split, deal with it. in 2012 she would win in a MINUTE, since Obama will lose Ohio,PA because of his rhetoric that doesnt connect, not the fact that his skin is dark.

And all this talk of 'stealing' the nomination from POOR BABY OBAMA! whaaam. Umm, ever heard of CAUCUSES? he gamed them and HE stole the election... they are undemocratic and the sole reason for his winning margin.

Hillary in '12!!! (though i will vote for Obama in '08)

I am sorry you feel so bad. Tantrums and name calling aside, I am glad you have brain cells enough to vote the right way in Nov, look fwd to you joining the team. And you do know Caucuses are part of the process. That in fact HRC's people architected the whole schedule to favor her. The fact that she blew the whole Caucus concept, is clear indication of why she should not be in charge of anything. Horrible campaign. And its so sweet to savor ... HillFarce1 riding around IA in helicptors like the Queen ... remind anyone of GW in a jet?? Obama team had same rules as everyone else, they created a plan and executed and they are where they are. Whine away if it makes you feel better.

Secretly .. try openly. See Rendell's comments today!

Hillary loses, Obama wins.

Barack: "I told you so"

And the net gain from her victory is?

Only racists continue to ignore the fact that there was no 90% turnout for Obama until HRC went negative. You all conveniently forget that she actually had more support among black voters than Obama right up until the the primaries began and he proved to be the real deal. Furthermore, ever since Ed Rendell first stated that there were white people that would not vote for a black man in PA they have been parroting that theme in many ways ever since. The hypocrisy of white America never ceases to amaze me. Tried to brand him a Muslim, that didn't work. Attacked his pastor although Falwell, Robertson, Hagee and others are and have been far worse and embraced publicly by political leaders but that didn't work. Finally, you just come right out and say it..."He's black!" and the red neck vote, now called the white working class without college, won't vote for him.
This nation is pathetic! And yes, I"m black but I am also a decorated veteran who has earned the right to say so!

mike from west philly,just look at yourself and be ashamed. 90% of Blacks vote for a Black man, this shows that they are racist. As a group, Blacks are more uneducated than the poorest of Whites(e.g. West Virgina). Talk about the drug, crime, breakdown of family structure, and you see the type of people that vote for Obama. I am not one of them. I vote for Senator Clinton because I am well educated.

I noticed that Senator Obama has played by the DNC rules through out this campaign. He has not tried to move the goal posts. He has wide support in many demographics. He has garnered the most delegates (135.5 to go). He has won in twice as many states, he has won more popular votes. By all metrics he is going to be the democratic nominee. Despite labels being stuck on him and 'guilt by association' tactics, he has shown tremendous grace. His success has been due to volunteers and grass roots organization skills. He has run a very good campaign. He has raised sufficient money and is in the black. He has already changed how one should run political campaigns. He has attacked candidate policies but never questioned their patriotism or played the race card or tried to impugn their character. He has not resorted to sending emails saying nasty things about his competitors but he has been at the receiving end of such tactics.

I am sure he will appeal to other voters as they get to know him better. This race is not about Obama but about giving the power back to the people: in that respect Senator Obama has already succeeded.

I request that HRC supporters not to be turned off by some passionate Obama supporters and actually educate themselves about him before deciding to switch to a republican candidate. This is a very crucial presidential election.

I read and listened carefully to all his public speeches from 2004 before making up my mind about which candidate to support. http://www.barakobama.com is a good place to start. You can check out 'Know the Facts'. You will notice the difference right there between the HRC website and Obama website. He does not say anything nasty about HRC but HRC on the other hand, when I last visited her website, starts off talking about 'bitter' remarks of Obama.

Thank you and have a nice day.

Hillary wishes to continue her cherished role as Most Devisive and Toxic Politician in American. I suspect she has mental problems.