Why the Democratic race may continue beyond the finish line

By most counts, Barack Obama is about 46 delegates shy of the threshold needed for the Democratic presidential nomination. After tomorrow’s contests in Montana and South Dakota, he’ll probably be around 20 or so delegates shy of the magic number. So, if 20 or so superdelegates endorse Obama once the final primaries are complete, he’ll have secured the party’s nomination and the fighting will finally be over. There won’t be any need to push the matter all the way to the convention; it’ll be over.

Or not.

Even with her decisive victory in the Puerto Rican primary Sunday, by some estimates Sen. Hillary Clinton still needs to win more than 80% of the remaining superdelegates to have a prayer of winning the nomination. That is, of course, if superdelegates who’ve already publicly endorsed Sen. Barack Obama stick with their pick. On a brief press conference held aboard her campaign plane Sunday night, Sen. Clinton hinted that options remain for superdelegates, even those that have already endorsed her rival.

“One thing about superdelegates is they can change their minds,” Clinton told a gaggle of reporters in the aisle of the plane…. “I think it’s only now that we’re finishing these contests that people are going to actually reflect on who is our stronger candidate. And I believe I am. And I’m going to make that case,” Clinton said.

In other words, by Wednesday morning, there will be no more primaries or caucuses on the calendar, and neither Clinton nor Obama will have passed the 2,118 threshold on the basis of pledged delegates. The eventual nominee will need superdelegates, then, to put him or her over the top. And while Obama will very soon have enough commitments from superdelegates to give him the nomination, they won’t literally be able to vote for him until the convention in late August.

So Obama may very well cross the 2,118 finish line this week, and think he’s the nominee, only to have Clinton possibly say, “I want to fight to change those superdelegates’ minds. Their commitments aren’t votes, so Obama’s victory remains speculative.”

Clinton campaign chairman Terry McAuliffe, who had recently said he thought the race would be over this week, conceded yesterday that the finish line may not actually be the finish line. Asked whether the race would be over when Obama passed 2,118, McAuliffe said, “No, it’s not it.”

McAuliffe added, “We’re calling the uncommitted ones, primarily. But we’ve heard things. You know, you pick up stuff. So we’re following up on leads that we get. Just remember: No superdelegate is bound until they vote at the convention.”

What’s more, the Politico’s Ken Vogel reported that Clinton was asked directly at a press conference whether she considers the 2,118-delegate threshold as the finish line, and she said, “[T]hat’s a question we’re going to be considering.”

So, even if the race looks over this week, there’s no guarantee the Clinton campaign will believe it is over. The Clinton campaign would be within its rights — and would be playing by the rules — if it kept on going, trying to win the nomination by hoping to flip Obama superdelegates to their side.

I’m not saying this will happen, only that Clinton and her campaign chairman hinted that it is an option on their minds.

Of course, it appears that if the Clinton campaign were to pursue such a course, it might backfire.

Pointing the way to a peaceful end for the tumultuous presidential primary campaign, some key supporters of Hillary Rodham Clinton said Sunday that they accepted a new finish line in the race for delegates, a threshold Barack Obama could reach as soon as this week.

Obama aides said they expected him to surpass the 2,118 needed delegates after the final Democratic balloting finished Tuesday in South Dakota and Montana, and as more superdelegates backed the Illinois senator.

Moreover, a number of Clinton backers signaled Sunday that they were wary of the kind of protracted fight that some of her aides said they might wage in the coming months.

“It would be most beneficial if we resolved this nomination sooner rather than later,” said U.S. Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz of Florida, a high-profile superdelegate who backs Clinton. “The more time we have to get through a general-election period and the more time we have to prepare in advance of the convention, the better.”

We’ll know more soon enough.

“One thing about superdelegates is they can change their minds,” Clinton told a gaggle of reporters in the aisle of the plane

Does she realize that works in both directions? A number of her high-profile supers have made noises about switching camps if Obama comes out with the pledged delegate lead, and I’m sure others will want to cross over and settle this once and for all after tomorrow night.

Even Tom Vilsack, a Clinton campaign co-chair, is saying it’s over. Yeesh.

  • Obama is an inspirational leader. I’ll be more excited to vote for him in November than I was when I voted for Bill Clinton in 1992.

    Fire it up! Ready to go!

    (Yes. I’m ignoring Hillary.)

  • I expect Obama to get the delegates he needs on Wednesday and Clinton to withdraw on Thursday.

    I hope that people can tone down the name calling for a few days.

    If we all stick together we can get 56+ Senators, 250+ Congressman and the first black President in history.

    Name calling does nothing but help McCain and the down ticket Republicans.

  • Once again it is up to the Superdelegates to choose between self interests and the party with its stated principles. At this point I think we know Hillary’s priorities. I suspect that part of what’s going on is that there are a lot of special interests who know they will have continued influence if Hillary wins the election. Some will have more, others less with McCain, but at least they will have a timeworn set of procedures that allow money to influence government. Many of these groups (investment, banking, big business, Big Pharma, military complex, etc.) play both sides of the aisle.

    With Obama as president, they would be subjected to free market principles that they have always been able to get around.

  • And not a word here from anyone about the Larry Sinclair / Donal Young allegations about Obama, and how that’s going to affect the race. And down in Puerto Rico, it’s been all over the TV and news for days.

    It’s probably all crap, but Sinclair’s had over 100,000 hits on You-tube, and the word is spreading.

  • Lenko (6) – really? And do you want to revisit all the Republican spread rumors about Hillary being a lesbian, too. I’m guessing you do.

  • Pledged delegates can change their minds too! I hope my man Edwards is working the phone! Oh wait. He’s not that big of a putz.

  • She must realize that it takes quite a lot for a super-delegate to change his or her mind, either a change in that supers personal philosophy or a reversal in feeling toward either herself or Mr. Obama. So her task right now is to convince the supers to vote FOR her or AGAINST Obama and if she hasn’t convinced a particular delegate to vote FOR her by now, then she never will. Her only remaining option is to keep tossing stinkbombs into the Obama camp and hope that the metaphoric meteor arrives in time to destroy Obama and cause that reversal of opinion she desperately prays for to cause enough superdelegates to abandon Obama. It’s the politics of division and destruction and it’s reprehensible. Clinton needs to quit the race, retire to the senate and spend her years recounting stories of her time fighting the war against the republicans where she learned all these wretched tactics to begin with.

  • The Detroit Red Wings and Dallas Stars fight in the western conference finals to see who will go against the Pittsburgh Penguins in the Stanley Cup.

    At the end of the series, the Detroit Red Wings have won. Then the coach of the Stars comes out on the ice with a microphone and announces to the crowd…

    “Yes, we were behind at the end of the series; but since we’re ahead in third period scores, did better at home games, and have a better chance of beating Pittsburgh in the Stanley Cup Finals, we want to be declared the winner.”

    The crowd laughs him off the ice, and go home thankful that in the real world no one would think of being so unsportsmanlike.

  • Each new day, there is a new Goal Post. There is no reason to believe tomorrow or the next day will be any different.

    If Hillary (and her surrogates) is really proposing to get the nomination to convention and win in the smoke filled room, she should just say so. Because all the rationales for continuing the race eventually prove to be more BS than spin.

  • I can’t see Hillary quitting if there is ANY chance for her. I can see her “suspending” her campaign.

    She would have sounded more convincing in her argument that she is the better candidate against John McCain if she actually ran AGAINST McCain in the primary.

  • Let’s forget all this nonsense and just go with the candidate who had the most yard signs.

  • Correct me if I’m wrong, but even the elected (or “pledged”) delegates don’t actually cast their votes for the candidate until the convention.

    As Hillary reminded us a month or so ago, the pledged delegates are not legally committed to vote for one candidate over another any more than the superdelegates are.

    This is true in every Democratic primary. If he had wanted to, Howard Dean could have gone to the convention in 2004 and argued that he wuz bein’ robbed, and that his passionate activist supporters should throw the nomination to him, even though he had won fewer contests, fewer votes, and fewer delegates than John Kerry. There would be no difference.

    So, while I expect fully that the Clinton campaign will exploit this fact as a rationale for fighting through the convention, it makes no more sense than any rationale she has come up with so far.

    Hillary Clinton only path to the nomination is to steal it away from Barack Obama by means of a backroom deal with the superdelegates. She is absolutely willing to go that far.

  • “Time to put Old Yeller out of her misery….”

    I have to say that I’ve been following the Democratic presidential process since the
    John Kennedy years and this is the first time that any candidate has been urged to leave the process at all, much less since the February prior to the convention. I am appalled at
    what Obama supporters consider appropriate. This is supposed to be a democracy where everyone gets a chance and everyone gets to vote. Chicago style politics are disgusting.

  • Clinton should stay in the race.
    Most Americans will not vote for Obama – a man 2 of whose 3 spiritual advisors for 20 years have been the Revs Wright and Pfleger.

    Obama chose as his closest associates and inspiration two men who preach hatred of whites and women. Such a person can not be the President of the US (or any muti-racial country or one that is 50% women, hence any.) People simply won’t vote for someone who condones and even endorses such bigotry.

  • FWIW, Ben Smith has a short piece this morning, Clinton camp converging on New York Tuesday, and shedding staff. Maybe she’s seen the writing on the wall?

    Members of Hillary Clinton’s advance staff received calls and emails this evening from headquarters summoning them to New York City Tuesday night, and telling them their roles on the campaign are ending, two Clinton staffers tell my colleague Amie Parnes.

    The advance staffers — most of them now in Puerto Rico, South Dakota, and Montana — are being given the options of going to New York for a final day Tuesday, or going home, the aides said. The move is a sign that the campaign is beginning to shed — at least — some of its staff. The advance staff is responsible for arranging the candidate’s events around the country.

    With the future of her campaign in doubt, Clinton hasn’t announced her plans for the final election night of the primary cycle or beyond, but the aides said she would stage her election night event in New York City. Her entourage is currently expected to wake up Tuesday in New York and to arrive in Washington, D.C. Tuesday night.

    Clinton’s senior aides didn’t respond to requests for comment on her Tuesday night plans.

  • Further evidence of the likelihood that Clinton is strongly considering taking her fight to the convention is her “we won the popular vote” nonsense, which is intended to undermine the legitimacy of Obama’s nomination and hurt his chances in November (in my opinion).

    If true, this irrelevant assertion about winning the popular vote (in a competition for delegates) could only be true because Obama honored the Four State Pledge (pdf) while Clinton broke it (notice the word “participate” in the Pledge and listen carefully for the word “participate” in this NPR interview of Clinton at around the 2:40 mark).

  • Yes, I’m sure what the superdelegates are waiting for is just one more argument from the Clintons. They just need to hear, one more time, about what a better candidate she is, because she won a territory that can’t vote in the general election. C’mon, does anyone seriously believe these people haven’t made up their minds yet? Just because they’re uncommitted doesn’t mean they’re undecided. And personally I hope we have about forty more of them by Wednesday.

  • “…and this is the first time that any candidate has been urged to leave the process at all, much less since the February prior to the convention.”

    This is the first time HRC was a candidate. She had incredibly high negatives to begin — and a lot of people who were fed up with old establishment politics saw her as just that once Obama started gaining traction. Given how close the two are on published positions, I think that’s really what’s going on here — the safe, comfortable predictability of politics as usual vs the chance of something new.

  • …it appears that if the Clinton campaign were to pursue such a course, it might backfire.

    It will backfire because of this constant across all cultures: Nobody likes a sore loser.

    As CB pointed out: she will be a numeric loser in a day or two.
    Henceforth, if she denies reality, the “sore loser” meme will find play and arc towards crescendo.

    In other words: Clinton can’t win for losing…

  • I agree with #12. Even though the primary season will be over, Hillary’s going to make a big stink of publicly “suspending” her campaign, hoping nobody will realize how stupid that sounds.

    Behind the scenes, there will be much superdelegate arm-twisting to get them to commit to her instad of Obama. PUBLICLY, there will be whisper campaigns of what’s going on behind-the-scenes, to keep Clinton’s name in the news. The face that the desire to keep Clinton’s name in the news does more harm than good for her behind-the-scenes superdelegate arm-twisting will be lost on the chowderheads who work for her campaign until late night comics start lasting her. Even then, they’ll be stupid enough to try to spin it into a positive: “She’s still out there, Hillary IS out there.”

    As the convention nears, Clinton will demand a primo time for a concession speech. She’s earned at least that much, her people will whine. In the interest of party healing, she’ll get it. She’ll be working to get superdelegates right up to the wire, she’ll even have two speeches prepared. In the final moments leading up to the speech time, she’ll have the epiphany that she expended SO much good will for nothing. She’s nowhere close to a delegate lead, & resignes herself to concede.

    As she begins her speech, ardent supporters & prankster Republicans will chant that she was robbed, and won’t even shut up to let her concede, and as those wack jobs are escorted out of the hall, shouting over the boos of what few Democrats chose to listen to her speech, Clinton will have that numbing realization that this sort of spectacle is now her legacy.

    Heckuva job Hillary.

    The only thing that MIGHT save Clinton from embarrassing herself like this is if, after Tuesday, a ginormous chunk of her pledged superdelegates switch to Obama. Plus she gains few to no NEW superdelegates. That level of loss just might cut through the clutter in her cranium that it ain’t really over. That will will still be embarrassing to her, but not as embarrassing as if it happened on the convention floor.

    It’s all up to the unpledged supers & those still clinging to Clinton’s campaign to end this decisively. Fingers are crossed, breath is NOT held.

  • I have to say that I’ve been following the Democratic presidential process since the
    John Kennedy years and this is the first time that any candidate has been urged to leave the process at all, much less since the February prior to the convention.

    Then you slept through 1980 and 1992, just to name two. Repeating a false Clinton line a million times doesn’t make it any truer than when the Bush administration uses the same M.O. to seed lies.

    She must realize that it takes quite a lot for a super-delegate to change his or her mind, either a change in that supers personal philosophy or a reversal in feeling toward either herself or Mr. Obama. So her task right now is to convince the supers to vote FOR her or AGAINST Obama and if she hasn’t convinced a particular delegate to vote FOR her by now, then she never will.

    This is the point that some of her less rational supporters are missing. There is a large difference between “it’s technically possible” and “it has a chance in hell of happening.” While superdelegates have the right to change their minds and pledged delegates can do the same on a second ballot (literally no one of character suggests they do so before that time, and Obama has been correct to discourage this), in reality the movement is toward the known winner. When people like Mary slack-jawedly believe in what another poster amusingly called “sleeper cells of HRC superdelegates rising up to vote for her,” they sound like small boys doing the “and then, and then, um, I’ll smash them with my super laser gun” thing. It is simply untethered to reality and it demonstrates a very unhealthy level of denial.

    This will be over by Thursday.

  • I have to say that I’ve been following the Democratic presidential process since the
    John Kennedy years and this is the first time that any candidate has been urged to leave the process at all,

    Uh, no.

    The LBJ people tried to scoot Wallace out of the primaries in 1964, when he embarrassed the president’s favorite son stand-ins in Maryland and Indiana. Humphrey backers made a lot of noise about RFK getting in late, and the McCarthy people were none too happy in ’68. In ’76, Carter’s victories against Jackson and then Udall led to call for them to quit, and then Brown and Church led an “Anybody But Carter” movement to try to get Carter to quit. In 1980, when Ted Kennedy took it to the convention, *tons* of Democratic Party officials tried to get him to quit, to non avail. Hart was told to get out after the Monkey Business affair in ’88, and Jackson was told to hang it up when Dukakis took the lead — including a statement by Gov. Bill Clinton, I believe.

    So, yes, this is the first time any candidate has been urged to drop out of the race, but only if you ignore all the other ones.

  • I think a lot of Hillary’s philosophy could best be summed up as “Never give in.” And that seems to be alien to most of us Democrats. We don’t seem to get it. For most of us, hey — if the going gets tough — give in.

    Obama may be the dove of peace, or the dawn of fresh hope, or whatever stupid phrase you choose.

    But give me a fighter every time.

  • @lenko,
    You mean the Larry Sinclair who failed two lie detector tests about his “story”? That’s old news.

    I’ve noticed that the Clinton supporters have basically run the “Vast RW Conspiracy” playbook on Obama and it didn’t work so well, like it didn’t work on the Clintons when the Scaife’s troops did it the first time.

  • It will be interesting to see how her donations hold up. I can’t imagine her big doners sticking with her. If she does continue and remains a major influence it will be by the grace of relentless free publicity supplied by the media. My fear is that a disproportionate amount of attention will be given to her core of rabid cultists (which I suspect isn’t all that large).

  • TR, and, of course, the Clinton camp demanded that Jerry Brown drop out in 1992.

    Are there any past Clinton positions/actions/statements left that they haven’t flatly contradicted since January?

  • Obama may be the dove of peace, or the dawn of fresh hope, or whatever stupid phrase you choose.

    No, it’s whatever stupid phrase you choose. The anti-Obama trolls like you are the only ones who apply that sort of moronic rhetoric.

    The ones of us who support Obama are watching him beat the ever-loving shit out of McCain. He kept the gloves on for the intramural squabble with Clinton, but he’s bringing his A-game to McCain.

    Unlike Clinton, who’s had nothing but praise for McCain. McCain meets the commander-in-chief threshold, she tells us. McCain is a good friend, she assures us. McCain is an honorable man above reproach. You call that fighting?

  • Then there’s this news today, via the Political Wire:

    Members of Sen. Hillary Clinton’s advance staff “received calls and emails this evening from headquarters summoning them to New York City Tuesday night, and telling them their roles on the campaign are ending,” according to the Politico.

    “The advance staffers — most of them now in Puerto Rico, South Dakota, and Montana — are being given the options of going to New York for a final day Tuesday, or going home, the aides said. The move is a sign that the campaign is beginning to shed — at least — some of its staff. The advance staff is responsible for arranging the candidate’s events around the country.”

    Meanwhile, Newsday reports Clinton “is headed to Chappaqua late tonight for a somber and potentially momentous homecoming” where she “will huddle with advisers and husband Bill Clinton at her mansion tomorrow… She will monitor results from the final 2008 primaries in South Dakota and Montana and decide whether, how and when she will end her campaign as Barack Obama nears the nomination threshold.”

    So if Clinton decides to hang in there, it’s unclear to me how she does anything other than embarrass herself and hobble Obama.

  • My fear is that a disproportionate amount of attention will be given to her core of rabid cultists (which I suspect isn’t all that large).

    I think this attention will be provided for the first few days, and that’ll be it except for a few burps here and there. In this final stretch of the process, we’re seeing some people who can’t yet deal with loss giving up their worst rage and bitterness and lashing out at anything that moves. That will die down either of its own accord or because the media moves on from covering it.

  • Over the weekend we corralled all of Hillary’s die-hard supporters into a hotel ballroom. Hopefully by the end of this we can get the remaining ones into a service elevator with plenty of slack cable headed rapidly toward the sub-basement.

    She really needs as much rope as she can get right now, for the sake of the majority of her supporters who are sane and have passed first grade math and who possess the normal amount of self shame.

    I noticed about a month or so ago this happened to Hillary Rosen.

  • “…and this is the first time that any candidate has been urged to leave the process at all, much less since the February prior to the convention.”

    Correct me if I’m wrong, but didn’t Bill Clinton urge Gerry Brown to quit the campaign, in 1992, stating that a delegate victory for Brown was mathematically impossible?

  • Chris #18, we’ve all heard your nonsense before about Clinton participating in the Michigan contest by not taking her name off the ballot, it’s a silly argument at best.

    So, has anybody checked out RCP’s popular vote count this morning?

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_vote_count.html

    FYI, if you give ALL of the uncommitted votes in the popular vote in Michigan to Obama along with the estimates for the caucuses which did not have an official count, then Obama is only winning by 44,605 votes.

    Uncommitted received 238,168 votes in Michigan. Since Edwards was still in the race and had been receiving on averate 14% of the vote to that point, let’s subtract that amount from the 600,000 votes and see what Obama would have received, ok.

    That is a difference of 84,000 (14% of 600,000), which gives Obama 154,168 instead of 238,168.

    That calculation gives Clinton an edge of roughly 44,000 votes.

    If my calcluation is invalid then indeed the rules and bylaws committee calculation for assigning Michigan delegates based on exit polls and guess-work is also invalid, at least my argument uses precedent based on prior voting results.

  • #18 Chris is right – the “popular vote” bullshit is really catching on, and that is not a good thing. Chuck Todd said on TV this morning that, “it is actually true”.

    Obama surrogates should fight back on that point, not just with regards to Michigan and Florida, but that Clinton is disenfranchising caucus states, such as IA, NV, ME, WA etc.

    In other words, if you are B.S-ing, then you have to AT LEAST B.S. based on all contests, not just non-caucus states.

  • Greg, your calculations are not invalid, just your candidate. This is a delegate race. The popular vote count does not include caucus states. This is just silly….. Really.

  • TiredofthisfrickinPrimary, my calculations included the caucus estimates, so YES they are included.

    Should we start parsing this further by counting ONLY democrat votes, you would be surely surprised to find out just how many voted for Obama.

  • slappy

    Even though the primary season will be over, Hillary’s going to make a big stink of publicly “suspending” her campaign, hoping nobody will realize how stupid that sounds.

    The reason candidates “suspend” rather than “end” their campaigns:

    Edwards said he was suspending his campaign rather than ending it, but aides said that was simply legal terminology so that he can continue to receive federal matching funds for his campaign donations.

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22913001/

    And there was Hillary’s very unfortunate mention of RFK’s assassination that will lurk in the minds of some if she “suspends” her campaign.

    What I keep wondering is how she’s going to pay her enormous debts. She’ll have to continue fundraising for years, and given the self-destruction of her political reputation, who is going to send her money? I suspect some people will never be paid.

  • I’m not sure whether to laugh or cry. A few weeks ago, I was peacefully ignoring her and feeling friendly toward her – even entertaining the idea that she could make a decent VP even though I think her style is radically different from Obama’s and would be a detriment to the post-DLC message. But then when it became clear she would not get the nod, she went way beyond jumping sharks to jumping dozens of marine animals per week – clams and squid and jellyfish and just about anything you could think of. Jumping the Loch Ness Monster, for all I know. Like I said, I’m not sure whether to laugh or cry. I have always liked Hillary, and I hate to see her martyring herself like this.

    For me, it’s important to keep my mind on the real subtext of this race: Clinton and Obama are the standard-bearers for two different camps that are fighting for long-term ownership of the Democratic Party’s message. Not the platform, but the political methodology. When I look at in those terms, I despair less of Clinton’s sanity. I was never a huge Obama fan (agreed most with Kucinich, supported Edwards as the candidate), but I am a huge fan of what he represents: the death knell of the DLC. Do not ask for whom the bell tolls, Evan Bayh.

  • Let’s nominate the candidate who turned a huge surplus into a deficit. You know, the fiscally responsible one.

  • This thing won’t even be over at the Convention; it won’t be over in November; it won’t be over at Obama’s inauguration, and it won’t be over four years from now—when he’s running for re-election.

    Hillary is The Stalker.

    The Thing That Would Not Die.

    She’s the Eternal Eating Disorder at an All You Can Eat Pancake Breakfast, scarfing food off the plates of everyone else at the table.

    She is a Political Extinction Event Unto Herself, and to the Democratic Party, and—like an eternal crack addict—she will not stop snorting/shooting/popping this
    “Freebasing of Fame and Glory for Self” until she destroys herself, and everything else around her.

    She is the suicide-bombing political jihadist—and the suicide vest—combined….

  • Greg, but shouldn’t we also subtract the votes from people who said they voted for Hillary in the primary but wouldn’t support her against McCain if she were to win the nomination. Jedsreport extrapolates exit poll data for a single month spanning from April to May and comes up with 362,000 of them. To me that not only means she’s less electable, but that the Republicans feel so strongly that this is so, that they are trying to help her.

    http://www.jedreport.com/2008/05/clinton-gets-36.html

  • I’m stealing this from somewhere, but:

    Winners never quit and quitters never win, but those who never win and never quit are idiots.

  • I was never a huge Obama fan (agreed most with Kucinich, supported Edwards as the candidate), but I am a huge fan of what he represents: the death knell of the DLC.

    Wow, I could have written this almost word for word.

    So much of Obama’s support comes not in any kind of hero worship or illusions about the candidate’s limitations, but in the form of staunch determination that we not repeat the mistakes of the DLC. The 50-state strategy is starting to pay off big. Real, long-term party-building is a beautiful thing to see…and be part of.

  • slappy magoo, to me, the cogent point about waiting till we get to Denver before Hon. Sen. Clinton makes some conciliatory noises, is that we risk the prospect of a nationally televised convention featuring nearly half the delegates protesting the result.

    The nonsense about these fictitious ‘popular vote’ tallies, especially as it concerns Fla. and MI, is that there is absolutely no way to know what the results would have been if they had been normal contests. Turnout would have undoubtably been higher, Democrats in MI would not have been exhorted by their own party to vote for ‘uncommitted’ to support specific candidates, write-ins would have been honored (thus even more people who could only vote via mail, would have done so). It isn’t even clear how many Dems took GOP ballots (and vice versa). Fla. has similar problems associated with it’s poll.

    Even the reconstructed caucus votes, no matter how accurate they might be, are bogus when considered as one-to-one equals to primary votes, since fewer people participate. The very arguments that Hon. Sen. Clinton makes about the problems with caucuses are arguments that the turnouts in these states would have been higher had they been primaries. Maybe Sen. Clinton would have fared better, but the fact remains that we cannot know this.

    The clincher for me is that the Clintons have had somewhere around twenty years to advocate for changes in the nominating process and have not said anything (indeed have defended it) until precisely the moment when doing so was their only prospect for electoral success. This sums up my disdain for their brand of politics quite nicely.

  • There are no remaining primaries after Tuesday, so of course Clinton is letting staff go. That means nothing. There is no advantage to be gained from conceding, so why should anyone expect Clinton to do so? It only takes her out of all contention at the convention without any benefit to her. The comments above listing the situations where others have been asked to pull out of a campaign do not include anyone whose vote counts were as close to the frontrunner as Clinton’s are. She is still in contention and you don’t quit when you are in that position and the race is still open (e.g., Obama has not acquired the magic number).

    Here’s the problem for Obama. First, if Clinton is really dragging this out to no purpose, why have not her superdelegates been switching in droves? If this were a lost cause, her superdelegates would have convinced her to quit. Instead, she is somehow convincing them to hang in there (e.g., Feinstein most visibly). Second, if Obama has been successfully battling McCain during the past several weeks while Clinton has stopped attacking Obama, why is Obama not pulling ahead more in the polls? Third, if everyone knows that Clinton is finished, why hasn’t Obama been successful in getting the remaining superdelegates to declare for him and thereby end the process? Fourth, if Clinton was not a viable candidate, why did so many turn out for her in the last few primaries and why are people still donating money to her campaign? Fifth, why have Obama’s people been working so hard to deny Clinton any scrap of support (e.g., at the rules committee hearing, where Obama fought tooth-and-nail to reduce Clinton’s FL delegates to .5 instead of a whole vote)? All of these things suggest that Clinton is far from finished and they show that Obama is far from the confident winner he keeps declaring himself to be.

    The Larry Sinclair stuff is interesting. Are there now two men coming forward to claim they had sex with Obama? In the case of Clinton’s lesbian rumors, no woman ever stepped forward to say “I had sex with that woman.” In the case of a single accusation, generally people assume it is some attention seeker. If someone is engaging in gay sex while married and pretending to be straight, it isn’t usually a one-time occurrence and there will be others who step forward, other proof will surface. If these accusations are true, they will torpedo Obama in the Fall. It wouldn’t be anything Clinton could or would use against him in the primary (because she wouldn’t approve of involuntary outing), but it is something the Democratic primary voters should have known about before making their decisions about Obama.

    Passing or failing lie detector tests doesn’t mean anything. That’s why they aren’t used in court. Police use them to coerce confessions and defense attorneys use them to give the illusion of reliability to PR statements. Only Obama knows whether Sinclair’s accusations are true and we’ve heard him lie before (e.g., about knowing what was in Wright’s sermons, for one thing, about how many times he’s had dinner with Rezko for another, about whether his office did favors for Rezko’s scummy associates, for another, and the beat goes on.)

    This isn’t over until it’s over.

  • what jhm said. The Clintons had a lot of time to roll out these arguments, but they only employed them when it was to their political benefit. If Obama tried the same thing they would be crying about that.

    The Clintons and their people suck ass, and I am glad they hate our team. Their hatred is a badge of honor.

  • I think a lot of Hillary’s philosophy could best be summed up as “Never give in.” And that seems to be alien to most of us Democrats. – lenko

    Perhaps because we live in a little place called reality.

    She put up a good show, but it’s a zero sum game where second place only nets you the home game.

  • But give me a fighter every time.

    Having a fighter is one thing; having a fighter fighting the right battles in another altogether.

  • mrs. clinton had my respect and good will for a long time, but her “campaign” has devolved into “if you don’t give me all the votes, i’m going to alternate holding my breath and screaming.”

    do we really want another four or eight years of a megalomaniac in the white house?

    “The megalomaniac differs from the narcissist by the fact that he wishes to be powerful rather than charming, and seeks to be feared rather than loved. To this type belong many lunatics and most of the great men of history.” [Bertrand Russell]

    check and check.

    and don’t misunderstand bertrand russell’s use of the phrase “great men of history” — “great” is not necessarily equivalent to “good” or “just.”

    but even discounting the apparent character defect, her policies do not strike me as being much more than incrementally better than what is currently in place.

    oh, yes, and let’s not forget the additional danger posed to this country if she were to be elected president — being held hostage while the clintons and the republicans work out their oedipal issues on a national scale.

    tell me again why she “deserves” the nomination?

  • Tenacity without sound judgment or objective principle is worthless, a liability rather than a virtue.

    Politically, it results in moral calamities like the Bush administration.

  • Maybe this will work?

    My wife and our best friend both tip the scales at about 180 pounds, and either one of them would be prepared to go to Hillary, and give her a rendition of “The Party’s Over.”

    You know — it isn’t over till…

  • Passing or failing lie detector tests doesn’t mean anything. That’s why they aren’t used in court. -Mary

    Actually, they aren’t used in court because they can’t accurately measure the affect of a psychopath. I figured someone so well versed in psychology would have known that after your oh so enlightening diatribe on false memory last week.

    If a person is not a psychopath, they are a perfectly legitimate way of measuring emotional response and judging whether they are telling the truth or not. So unless you’re alleging that Sinclair is a psychopath, you got nuthin’.

    This isn’t over until it’s over. -Mary

    It’s over.

  • Greg – the popular vote doesn’t count. Only the delegate count does,and Obama is considerably far ahead at this point.

    Delegates Obama Clinton
    Total – 2118 2070 1914
    Super Delegates 823 331 290
    Pledged Delegates 3410 1739 1624

    And Mary – it’s over.

  • In addition to Obama’s Larry Sinclair problems, there is the ominous discovery being talked about on FOX and some blogs about Michele Obama appearing with Louis Farrakhan in Trinity church trashing “Whitey”.

    I don’t believe we will have a unified party if any of these things are true, and certainly his other relationships have not been fully vetted yet either, Ayers, Khalidi, etc.

    We are in serious trouble, he is barely running even with McCain as it is, and the republicans haven’t even started attacking him yet.

    God help us.

  • On a more serious note, what are the Democratic Party rules for picking a VP. I believe I heard that the Republicans only allow — I assume this is on the first vote — the candidate’s choice to be nominated, and then there is an ‘up-or-down’ vote on the choice. (Presumably if it ‘no,’ other nominations can be made.)

    The Democrats might have the same process — after the 1972 absurdity — but I’m not sure. If they don’t, what is the liklihood of someone nominating Hillary, hoping to stampede the convention, and arguing the ‘dream ticket’ nonsense.

    I strongly suggest that Obama announce his VP choice — hopefully Sebelius or Clark — soon, ideally within the next week, and have them run as a ticket starting now. (This might also force McCain into an early pick, which would be delightful.) This wouldn’t rule out a Hillary attempt, but it would lessen it — if nominations are permitted from the floor.

    (I’ll try and check it out if nobody else knows if it is a possibility.)

  • A Clinton tactic backfiring?? Never. As we all know, Dems will only support the most ruthless candidate with the strongest of brass knuckles who attacks the Democratic challenger more than the Republican challenger, and who changes positions faster than most people breathe.

    BTW, I’m still challenging Kennedy in the 1960 primary and am really inching closer to getting him to concede. Any day now. Any day. It never is too late to get delegates to switch. My ads nailing him for the Cuban Missile Blunder are really starting to payoff.

  • There is no advantage to be gained from conceding, so why should anyone expect Clinton to do so?

    Because she is making it more likely that John McCain will win in the fall.

    Do you need a better reason?

  • In addition to Obama’s Larry Sinclair problems, there is the ominous discovery being talked about on FOX…

    Swiftboating… the last refuge of the sore loser.

  • We are in serious trouble…

    “Ya got trouble, I’m tellin’ ya, One fine night, they leave the pool hall, heading for the dance at the armoury, libertine men and scarlet women. and Ragtime, shameless music that will drive your son, your daughter to the arms of the jungle, animal instinct, mass ‘steria. Trouble!” – Prof. Harold Hill

  • Former Dan @ 26#…

    Wow! So much anger inside you. Have you sought professional help? FYI I am NOT an anti-Obama troll… I am FOR whichever Democrat wins the nomination. But I like to see fairness and at present that exactly what I’m not seeing. What I’m seeing is mindless investive again opposing points of view. And I also like perseverance. Hilary has every right to play BY THE RULES — as has Obama — and if she goes to the convention, well sobeit.

    Far from being a troll, I listen carefully, then post only when I have something to say. If only everyone did the same.

  • Do I want to stay in a party where insiders choose my presidential candidate for me and have no problem telling me that NONE of the public’s votes count; that Obama’s majority doesn’t matter?

    I know there are great people in the down ticket races, but I may have to change party registration is the Democrats are no longer Democratic.

    C’mon supers. We need all of you to flood Obama’s totals so Clinton’s hopes of persuading a sufficient number of you collapse and any efforts to TRY will be seen as irrefutable evidence of Quixotic megalomaniacal neurosis. (the current preponderance of evidence is clearly insufficient)

  • #47. There are no remaining primaries after Tuesday, so of course Clinton is letting staff go. That means nothing.

    Makes you wonder why Obama isn’t doing that then, if it “means nothing”. He’s going full steam ahead….

  • @lenko,
    Anger? Really? I merely pointed out the similarities between the Clinton campaign and 90s era vast right wing conspiracies. Considering that your candidate lost, I think perhaps you are the one who has the anger issues.

    Nor did I accuse you of being a troll. Sometimes a comment/observation is just a comment/observation, dude.

    Thanks for making me seem deeper than I really am.

  • IF HILLARY IS NOT IN THE TICKET I WILL VOTE McCAIN. – LUCKIE

    You made my day by taking the time out of your shouting to use a lower case ‘c’ in McCain.

  • The trolls are definitely running on fumes… I was wondering why it took more than 48 hrs for Mary to jump on the Larry Sinclair bandwagon – I guess she had to spend that much time turning raving into acceptable prose… Meanwhile, the whole “Whitey” thing has been exposed on Booman Tribune this morning… read it for yourself – you won’t believe how pathetic is is.. I can’t believe that I worried for even 30 seconds about this when I saw the warning on Memeorandum a couple of days ago.

    http://www.boomantribune.com/story/2008/6/1/235757/2325

  • Former Dan @ 67#…

    My abject apologies… got mixed up… it was TR at 30# who called me an anti-Obama troll. I take it all back.

    Going away now to hang myself in shame.

  • Makes you wonder why Obama isn’t doing that then, if it “means nothing”. -aristedes

    Haha, yeah, he’s still got a campaign to run for November.

    Mary’s dismissal of the Clinton staff dismissal illustrates just how much this is the battle they care most about and not the more important one in November.

    It only lends credence to what I’m sure many of us have long suspected: the trolls are not, nor ever have been Democrats.

  • @ 15.Impartial said:

    I have to say that I’ve been following the Democratic presidential process since …blahblahblah … Chicago style politics are disgusting.

    Yet, Chicago-style pizza is so delicious…

  • As a writer of horror movies, allow me to remind you all that you can “kill the monster” all tyou want but it never really happens till you blow the damn thing out the air lock, drive a stake through its heart, etc. In other words, you have to be sure you kill the monster. Thoroughly.

  • I’ve been arguing with Bush-loving Republicans for eight years now. And what amazes me at this point is how it’s become impossible to distinguish their tactics from those shown by Clintons-Uber-Alles Party members like Mary, Greg and the other trolls here.

    No objectivity, no honesty, no shame. Just win, baby–and whoever gets destroyed along the way, whichever larger battle is lost or principle ripped to shreds, well, that’s how the game is played. I think it’s way, way overboard to compare Hillary to Hitler or whoever–but the blind loyalty of her followers comes from the same dank place as those who forgive Bush all his failures, and earlier generations of “good Germans.”

    You all should be deeply ashamed.

    Clinton is my senator, unfortunately. I will grant that she’s shown vastly more fight against Barack Obama than she ever did against George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Bill Frist or anyone else who has made this decade such a tragic one for our country. The conclusion I draw from this is that she cares vastly more about Herself than any principle, any value, or the public interest.

    The sooner the narcissistic and sociopathic Clintons are drummed out of the progressive movement, the better.

  • IF HILLARY IS NOT IN THE TICKET I WILL VOTE McCAIN.

    IF I CAN’T HAVE SEX WITH ANGELINA JOLIE, THEN I WILL HAVE SEX WITH SYLVESTER STALLONE.

    Why not? Makes as much sense.

  • The trolls are definitely running on fumes… I was wondering why it took more than 48 hrs for Mary to jump on the Larry Sinclair bandwagon

    Because Mary has repeatedly shown herself to be utterly incapable of peeping outside her personal demographic group, my guess is that she’s in a (probably post-bitter divorce, judging from some of her comments) lesbian relationship. Some fiber of her character waaaaaaaaay down deep inside, something still capable of remembering that right and wrong exist, shuddered at the prospect of trying to use sexuality as a weapon against anyone.

    But then she remembered her vow to exclude no behavior in the service of her icon Hillary. Plus she recalled that she really, really doesn’t like black guys. So she went for it.

  • (Not so) Impartial: you and the rest of the brain-deads seem to forget that the other times the contest “went to the convention” the Democrats lost. Since you’re quoting history, it’s most likely that this is the history you want, since you are deluded enough to think that Hillary Clinton has the slightest chance in hell of being the candidate for Dog Catcher in 2012.

    Too bad she had to run and let all the Clintonistas prove in public what morons they are. Your stupidity is something that isn’t going to be forgotten for a very long time.

  • On June 2nd, 2008 at 11:15 am, LUCKIE said:
    IF HILLARY IS NOT IN THE TICKET I WILL VOTE McCAIN.

    And I take it you are volunteering your children today for their service in his war???

    Fucking moron.

  • Mary: I actually defended you in another thread, saying you were wrong and ‘fact-averse’ but attempting to make the best case possible for your candidate, but using the Larry Sinclair story has made me lose respect for you — in exactly the same way as i would lose respect for any Obama supporter who mentioned Vince Foster.

  • Delegates can change their minds, too. Everyone can change their mind. They won’t, but they can. Hillary’s still the loser.

  • We also must not forget that Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June.

    Also…

    James Garfield was assassinated in July

    William McKinley was assassinated in September

    Thanks god we already made it through April (when Abraham Lincoln was assassinated)

    You never know what may happen.

    Pompeii erupted in August. What will we do if Obama dies when a Volcano erupts…?

  • Actually Pompeii didn’t erupt, Vesuvius did.

    Pompeii was buried in ash.

    We need HRC to stay in the race in case Obama is buried in ash by a volcano in August.

  • Impartial: “I am appalled at what Obama supporters consider appropriate.

    I thought impartial people didn’t get appalled.

  • I thought impartial people didn’t get appalled. -chrenson

    I’m pretty sure the name field is just stripping the formatting off that particular commmenter’s moniker, and it should actually read: I’m partial.

  • Excellent points, Erik. Also, I need hardly remind anyone that we’ve now entered hurricane season, so the potential for Obama to be buffeted straight out of presidential candidacy by gale force winds has just grown exponentially. And do you guys have any idea how many people each summer are claimed by heat stroke or die of anaphylactic shock after bee stings?

    Is it irresponsible to mention these things? It’s irresponsible not to plan for them.

  • So even if all the superdelegates(hers and the undecided) come out for Obama, she would be within the rules to fight on to the convention trying to switch them? She needs a solid SD smackdown this week. If in spite of a strong SD move to Obama she continues, then I suggest that she will never run for any office with a democratic nomination again. She has placed charges on all her own bridges. Is she crazy enough to detonate them?

  • Huffington Post is reporting that Clinton plans to suspend her campaign tomorrow night.

  • Doubtful, lie detectors aren’t used in court because they have a 50% false positive rate. Lie detectors detect 95% of liars and miss 5% of liars, that makes them pretty good with those who are lying. Among the non-liars, they identify 50% of the non-liars as liars. That makes them terrible with those who are not lying. The problem in court is that you do not already know whether someone is lying or not. Since there is such a large chance that a non-lying person will be wrongly called a liar, and that is the circumstance where someone would falsely be sent to jail, lie detectors are not admitted as evidence.

    Psychopaths would be in the category of people lying. Only 5% of them are missed. That would probably be an acceptable error rate, especially since mistakenly calling a liar innocent would not tend to send someone wrongly to jail. So, if this were the only problem with the tests it wouldn’t be enough to disqualify their use.

  • TR said: “’One thing about superdelegates is they can change their minds,” Clinton told a gaggle of reporters in the aisle of the plane.’

    Does she realize that works in both directions?”

    It already has worked that way. She’s lost “committed” Super Delegates to Obama, so she thinks she can get them (or others) back.

    Or is that unfair? The end of the Primaries is June 10th (last allowable date). The Convention is in August. The votes aren’t counted until then. Sadly, nothing makes them fixed (rules are rules remember).

    So from now until then all we have to do is attack McCan’t every way we can.

    And yes, Hillary should ‘stop’ after enough Super Delegates ‘commit’ to him, if they do. But I wonder how many of the administratively ‘neutral’ super delegates (Pelosi, Reid and Dean) are going to have to commit to Obama to get him over.

  • You Hillary haters are hoping it will be over, but what if, enough super-delegates switch sides and Hillary comes out to be the winner. What are you going to do then, cry foul?

  • WAKE-UP HILLARY AND YOUR SUPPORTERS REMEMBER WHEN GORE WON THE POPULAR VOTE AND THE DELEGATES GAVE BUSH THE NOMINATION !!!!!!!!!!!!!! SOOOO YOUR VOTES DON’T COUNT !!
    PUT YOUR LIPS TOGETHER !!!!! SIT DOWN !!!!! YOU HAVE TALKED ABOUT OBAMA SOOO BAD THAT YOU WILL LOOK STUPID SUPPORTING OBAMA
    BECAUSE WE KNOW THAT YOU WON’T MEAN A THING YOU SAY
    GO HOME TAKE A BREAK !!!!!!!!!!!!! AND YOU WON’T BE ON HIS TICKET
    BECAUSE OF YOUR MOUTH !!!!!!!!!!!!

  • “One thing about superdelegates is they can change their minds,” – We all remember how Gov. Richardson was treated by Hillary’s spoke persons….and he wasn’t even fully committed.
    For how long can the cape turn with the wind before it wears out and there are only threads left?
    What was once, is not left….. sad ending of a promising story.
    A movement for claiming the integrity back is needed in this county. This goes on in topic after topic. Agreements to not count the votes in Florida and Michigan… will this ever end?
    What do you call this, selling out…

  • Does anyone remember when Hillary said that if Obama won the nomination that she’d back him completely? Well, given all that has taken place since then, how many of you think she’ll really stick by what she said? 🙂

    Oh, and for those of you who still want to bring up the “church thing,” you can shut up. If we’re going to slam people for being associated with a church who has speakers who “speak their own mind,” then we need to slam all Catholics for still be Catholic after all the charges of child molestation went down. Oh, that just shut the majority of you all the way up! Well, no one can use the “church thing” against him anymore because he has removed himself from all subjection…I know many are angry because they were going to try and use that against him until the very end…sorry people…won’t work!

    For those of you who are prone to this “new math” of Hillary’s…quit now please! Rules are rules, it is what it is, no one can change what has happened…just deal with it please!

    If you’re a (D), then vote (D). If you’re considering voting (R) just because you’re mad…GREAT because he doesn’t need any ignorant people behind him anyway. It’s about being true to your party. My big toe and anyone elses can be a better president than McCain. If that’s who you want running the country, more power to you, but remember this….you’ll lose right along with McCain!

    Hillary, it’s over. The fat lady and all of her relatives have sung (3 times already) and performed 3 encores! The venue is empty and the lights are dim, yet you’re the only one still sitting in your seat. GET OUT before security locks the door. Fade to black…no pun intended! 🙂

  • UNDISPUTED FACTS:

    1. Hillary won in 17 large, mostly BLUE states (and 297 electoral college votes) Democrats have any realistic chance of winning %u2013 Arizona (10), Arkansas (6), California (55), Nevada (5), New York (31), New Jersey (15), Texas (34), Tennessee (11), Ohio (20), Florida (27), Michigan (17), Pennsylvania (21), Kentucky (8), New Mexico (5), Massachusetts (12), West Virginia (5), Indiana (11), Rhode Island (4), and Puerto Rico (Commonwealth).

    2. She already proves she can take 297 electoral votes. To become president you need only 270.

    3. These mostly BLUE states have the majority of the Electoral College votes – which determines the presidency.

    4. Unfortunately, Obama won in mostly RED states where mostly GOP out number democrats 3:1 – so it”s Gore, Kerry, and McGovern all over again. Even if Obama could win there – it”s only 199 electoral votes.

    Therefore, as we much as we once respected Obama, until he didn’t offer Hillary the VP spot to unify the party, he is not going to beat McCain.

  • Benita, those church people were not just members of Obama’s church but they were his friends and spiritual advisors (by his own statement). Did you see what Father Pflager did? Do you know what Rev. Wright said? If these were just other church members expressing opinions, you’re right, it’s no big deal, but these were Obama’s professed mentors saying and doing this stuff. We care about it because it brings into question Obama’s judgment that he would select such people as his guides — that he would not recognize how out-of-bounds their behavior is.

    Hillary doesn’t believe she deserves the nomination because she’s white — she believes she deserves it because 17 million people have voted for her — more than for any other candidate in the history of presidential elections — more than for Obama.

    Just out of curiosity, what kind of pun did you think existed in the phrase “Fade to black”?

  • i am one of the 17 million voters that will vote for mccain if obama wins the nomination. i will do this because i can not trust obama to be the leader of the free world. i believe what i see and what i hear from his moth and his wifes. i believe that they do have a problem with white folks, that they do think that this country “owes” them something and that they socialize with radicals because they share some sort of kinship. ayers and now this fella from the university that used to be a terrorit for the palestine liberation organization. i also belive that obama is a sore loser and that he made it possible to wipe out all competition so that he could run unopposed. he did this both times he ran for office and now hes trying to push hillary out. he has a real people problem. yes he does. he cant get the latino vote, the bitter blue collor and middle class white vote, the elderly, the native americans and woman of all races, shapes and sizes. yet the dnc has their reasons for wanting to see him run against mccain. they are a sad lot because we all told them that we would all vote mccain but they refuse to hear the voices of the people. therefore, mccain will win the presidency with hillary supporters. mark my words. the dnc will be sorry that they drank the kool aid and hillary will run in 2012 and win by a landslide.

  • 1. Hillary won in 17 large, mostly BLUE states (and 297 electoral college votes) Democrats have any realistic chance of winning %u2013 Arizona (10), Arkansas (6), California (55), Nevada (5), New York (31), New Jersey (15), Texas (34), Tennessee (11), Ohio (20), Florida (27), Michigan (17), Pennsylvania (21), Kentucky (8), New Mexico (5), Massachusetts (12), West Virginia (5), Indiana (11), Rhode Island (4), and Puerto Rico (Commonwealth).

    2. She already proves she can take 297 electoral votes. To become president you need only 270.

    You’re saying HRC would win in Arizona and Texas against John McCain.

    OK. Sure, there goes your credibility.

  • Re #98, I’m starting to think that many Clinton supporters truly don’t understand what a primary process is, what a general election is and the differences between them. Lord, this is sad.

  • Mary, first of all “Fade to black” is what happens when the movie is OVER. That’s it…nothing more. Please don’t try to read more into what I said….See that’s the problem. Everyone’s trying to read into what people say when they fell asleep in reading class. Yes, Obama said that those two minister’s were his long time friends, but he also rebuked what they said when they said it. You can’t make someone responsible for what someone else said, even if they are long time aquaintances, friends, brothers, advisors. Do we really know for sure that Obama knew their “stand” on the subject? You can’t say that he did because this is the first time he has run for President and been put in this situation. Tell me, when would it have ever come up before? And yes I heard what was said by both, and I heard it as someone speaking their own mind. Can two people not be associated with each other and also disagree on certain issues? It’s called agreeing to disagree! Do you agree with EVERYTHING your associates say or think or do? Can you be responsible for your grown kids and what they do or say? Of course not, so then should you be blamed for what they say or do? Of course not! I would think that your response would be that you raised your kids the best you could and they have to make their own decisions now that they’re older.

    It appears to me that Obama has very good judgement…especially since he spoke out against them and has now seperated himself from the church. I’d be nervous if he had said nothing at all and took the posture of “freedom of speech.”

    Please don’t question his judgement…his campaign has been run like a “well oiled machine.” He has raised more money in the history of all elections, and spent very wisely. He has kept his dignity throughout all of the drama, and all of Hillary’s supporter “showing out” over the last few weeks. And please don’t mention anything about race…Remeber he’s both black and white..! It does him no good to be against any race when he represents many of them. Besides, we’re all the same, just don’t get treated the same, but that’s a different story.

    Please do question Hillary’s judgement…she’s 20+ million in debt, and loves to change the rules when it benefits her. Ask yourself this question…if the shoe was on the other foot, and Obama wanted to change the rules to suit himself…would Hillary agree to it? Of course not! She thought she was going to have this thing wrapped up early and she had a rude awakening! So, now she’s very desperate and it shows!

    Come on people…quit being stupid about this. It’s over already!

  • I find so much of this as humorous. There are so many cultists out here who espouse the vaporous rhetoric of Obuma as the word from up high. All this hype regarding “change” is no more than smoke screen and fairy tales and naivete.

    The DEMS are definitely going to strongly take over congress so any DEM president will be free to roam–so much as Bush did. The problem in my mind is that for all this rhetoric about how wonderful this guy is makes me shutter. Where exactly is ANY leadership background, have you noticed who his LONG TERM associates have been and what they state, have you read his book, have you listened to his ludicrous foreign policy and economic drivel, AND did you see your saviour during the last debate fall as would a house of cards when under the SLIGHTEST pressure???

    He is very good when prescripted and has time to mull over things and to smooze to say what people want or find as satisfactory (his racial speech after the Wright debacle was touching as he FINALLY could use his white side while not addressing the meat of the situation). When pressured he falls apart and that is no leader in a TRUE crisis in my mind. FACT, not just talk.

    Party be damned in my estimation. I have voted DEM for 40 years and will NEVER vote for this fraud. I truly believe that many others will follow suit as many see the SERIOUS flaws in this media created and driven novice. I would rather see a flawed McCain with a large DEM congress at work than a neophyte with NO REAL EXPERIENCE OR RESUME at full control. It is the scariest situation I can imagine in my 63 years as he is the least qualified of anyone I have ever seen.

  • HRC has proven she can’t run a competent presidential campaign.

    HRC has proven she can’t get health care done DESPITE a democratic majority.

    What makes you think she has the expereince to be president.

    At least Obama can run a campaign according to the rules without going broke.

  • @ everyone who thinks that Hillary should be handed the nomination because she can “beat McCain” in the general…

    Correct me if I’m wrong, but didn’t Obama come out of nowhere and skunk (what many have spent years telling us) are the two greatest political minds of a generation (Bill and Hillary)??

    I think he can take care of McCain. The general election is going to be a cake walk compared with the primary.

  • Budo, tell me what experience does ANYONE have being president unless their running for a second term? Hillary preaches she has “more experience” but last I remember it was Bill who was president NOT HER! AND she also preaches change…is that a smoke screen as well?

    In all for your “63 years” you’re an idiot if you think people should know exactly what to do on day one. That’s what advisors are for! Take a look at how he’s run his campaign and that should give a light as to how he would run the white house!

    Oh, and please don’t vote, because we CERTAINLY don’t need your vote. We’ll do it without you. You’re not a real (D) anyway. And when the state of the nation grows better over time, have some tea with your words! Eat up buddy!

  • [d]oubtful, lie detectors aren’t used in court because they have a 50% false positive rate. -Mary

    Polygraphs are actually occasionally used in court in the US, and is also used in supervision of parolees. Most US intelligence agencies use them to screen applicants, as well.

    Care to cite a source for you wildly inaccurate statistics?

  • 50% false positives? Lie detectors have been around for almost 100 years. Why would anyone have been using them that long if the results were really the same as flipping a coin?

  • Does anyone else think Clinton is starting to sound like Bush? Bush: We’ve made advances in the war, we’re at a turning point, we’re defeating the insurgents, we just need to give the surge a chance. He’s a master at moving the goal posts so he can continue to fight the war which is his legacy. Clinton: It’s all about Iowa. We’re going to fight in New Hampshire. We’re going to win Super Tuesday. It’s all about Pennslyvania. Indiana. West Virginia. We’ve won the most votes. The most states. The most primaries. We just need more time to fight for this election. She continues to move the goal posts because this is supposed to be her legacy. And in the end, the damage she will do to the Democratic Party will be her legacy. How sad.

  • Trey

    There’s another possible outcome, too, I think. The Democratic party might finally become the progressive political arm of America instead of the DLC’s corporate-infested political hacks, a shadow of the Republican party. If Obama has a successful two terms, as I expect he will, the party will be rejuvenated, with triangulating warmongers, no-government-oversight -on-anything Blue Dogs fleeing elsewhere and breaking the overlap between the two parties.

    We can hope, can’t we?

  • Obama may well win the nomination but he’s already lost the war for the White House. He can’t let the nomination go all the way to to the convention because the more you know about Obama the less there is to like about the man.

  • Is it possible Democrats, after being handed an open invitation to occupy the White House in 2009, have forgotten how to win an election? Is it possible the extreme liberal wing of the party has so hijacked the agenda of the party that it believes running a race is better than winning the race? Does the experience of the past two elections, with a man who should have been handily defeated winning because the party, so naive and employing the very worst of judgment, nominated two unelectable candidates, to first make it a race, and then, lose the race? Could the party possibly want anything else than to avoid that? Given these considerations, why oh why would the party want to make it another horse race? Why would the party choose to nominate a man who cannot possibly win the election? No matter how many young people and black people vote for Obama, even if he retains the 90% he got in some states, he will not beat McCain in critical states. To pretend this is not the case in order to plunge ahead into the far left liberal woods is the height of stupidity. When people get into the voting booth, like they did with Kerry and Gore, they will ask themselves which guy is going to keep America safe, and a majority will decide it’s not Obama, with his pseudo-European view of the world, which means asking permission to protect America. The democrats cannot win with an Obama – anybody ticket because too many votes will switch to McCain, even if “anybody” is Clinton. On the other hand, a Clinton-Obama ticket will maximize votes because Obama’s supporters would vote for him if he was running for dog-catcher, so it doesn’t matter if president or vice-president. If the party cannot understand this, if they cannot figure out how to put the best foot forward in a presidential campaign, then we are in for four more years of Republican leadership. It’s up to the Democrats. Shift towards the votes, not towards some naive commitment to an extreme ideology that cannot win elections, or lose again. How much plainer can it be?

  • 1- He’s not black. If he’s half black then he’s half white. What he is is Hawaiian. This could be our first Hawaiian President. Yahoo. Who cares.

    2- Are you all so naive that you don’t consider the (possibility) that this is all part of a Muslim plot to take advantage of a country that doesn’t watch it’s own back? I consider all possibilities. Clinton would be the first female American President. That’s all. Men and women are equal, right? If a decent, honest, human runs for President, I don’t care if he or she is black, brown, red, yellow, whatever.

    3- I’d rather have Morgan Freeman in office because he’s a good enough actor to convince me. What’s wrong with you people for trusting this guy? All BS aside, would you cast a vote for Count Dracula? Husein Osama scares me just as much as the Vampire. I expect him to peel off his human skin at any time and reveal himself. This country is full of sheep. You might as well be rats following the Pied Piper. I’m disgusted. I was sad when you allowed the absurd Bush Jr. Shrub into the Office. I was dumbfounded when you re-elected him. I think I am now completely insane. What happened to the best country in the world?

  • Comments are closed.