AP says Clinton to concede; campaign pushes back

June 3, 2008

For a few minutes, this AP report certainly captured the political world’s attention.

Hillary Rodham Clinton will concede Tuesday night that Barack Obama has the delegates to secure the Democratic nomination, campaign officials said, effectively ending her bid to be the nation’s first female president. […]

The former first lady will stop short of formally suspending or ending her race in her speech in New York City. She will pledge to continue to speak out on issues like health care. But for all intents and purposes, the two senior officials said, the campaign is over.

Most campaign staff will be let go and will be paid through June 15, said the officials who spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to divulge her plans.

Just a few minutes later, the Clinton campaign issued a formal statement. In its entirety:

The AP story is incorrect. Senator Clinton will not concede the nomination this evening.

That sounds pretty categorical, though “will not concede” doesn’t rule out the possibility of suspending campaign operations.

Either way, there is increasing evidence that the withdrawal announcement may not come tonight, but it may not be too much longer, either.

Clinton campaign chairman Terry McAuliffe’s comments this morning sounded encouraging to those looking forward to the end of the Democratic race.

When asked whether Clinton would concede if Obama reaches the magic number today or tomorrow, McAuliffe said, “Yeah, I think that if Sen. Obama gets the number, I think Hillary Clinton will congratulate him, and call him the nominee.” He added, “I don’t think she’s going to the Credentials Committee…. We’re not gonna have a fight over four delegates.”

If McAuliffe’s perspective reflects the campaign’s current thinking, his remarks this morning tell us an awful lot. First, as we discussed yesterday, there was some talk that the Clinton campaign would not stop fighting even if Obama reached the 2,118 threshold, under the assumption that they Clinton and her team could change superdelegates’ minds between now and the convention. This morning, McAuliffe said this is not the case, and that Clinton is prepared to congratulate Obama once he reaches the magic number.

Second, McAuliffe certainly didn’t sound like a guy ready to appeal the Rules and Bylaws Committee compromise to the Credentials Committee. Just the opposite; he suggested Clinton doesn’t want to pursue that avenue at all.

It is, in other words, almost over.

I guess only time will tell if the story is true, but Obama picked up multiple uncommitted superdelegates while Clinton only picked up one. Combine that with what Obama is slated to get today and it would not seem unlikely that it wouldn’t happen soon, though it wouldn’t serve her well to concede until tonight anyway.

  • Watch me now as I defend Clinton!

    We have two primaries going on as we speak. It is not in Clinton’s interest to discourage anyone from going to the polls today just because the news is reporting that it’s all over. In fact, everyone knows it’s over, but she understandably wants to get the highest vote total she can today. There is nothing wrong with that if she uses it to go out on the highest note possible. What will be wrong is any attempt to use it as an excuse to drag this out further.

    Regardless of what she’s saying this morning, I think she will back off tonight. Probably not concede, probably just suspend, but she will walk it back tonight.

  • McCauliffe actually said that she’s not happy that “the Rules and Bylaws committee just took four delegates that belong to her…” This is Clinton’s way of saying thank-you after the majority of the members of the RBC, who planned to split the delegates 50-50 in recognition of the fact that the Michigan election results were bogus, reached out to Hillary and gave her additional delegates, thereby allowing her to benefit from breaking the Four State Pledge she signed.

    In fact, whether enough supers come out tonight or not, Hillary Clinton will go on television to make the case that she is the legitimate nominee (popular vote nonsense, stolen delegates, electoral college, …) and that the nomination was stolen from her because she’s a woman. She knows this race is over, and her new goal is to undermine Obama (and the Party and the country) and either prevent him from winning or prevent him from achieving a strong mandate if he does win.

    In short, she desperately wants to be able to say: “I told you so.”‘

  • It might be seen as going a wee bit out on a limb, but the time between “point A” (the AP report) and “point B” (the Clinton camp’s denial) suggests that (1) the Clinton people knew about the AP report before it was released, and/or (2) that they aren’t/weren’t exactly happy about the AP stealing their final moments of pre-concession campaign limelight.

  • Sooner or later, Billy and Hilly will step into their TARDIS and return to the BizzarroClintonUniverse, where they are emperor and empress, legends in their own minds.

    The law of gravity does indeed exist, and lead balloons don’t float.

  • Well, Rick, I won’t be surprised if I’m wrong. 😉

    I just think there are legitimate reasons for any candidate not wanting “She’s/he’s conceding” all over the news while people in the very last primaries are still voting.

    We’ve waited long enough…guess we can wait till tonight. I need to go check my popcorn and Junior Mints supplies.

  • Chris: I disagree. She already holds half the party. She doesn’t need to keep Obama from a mandate. He has never had it.

    Steve: I agree with your assessment.

  • AP just needs to just kick back and relax – let this play out.

    If they need work, they could document McCain’s flip-flopping.

  • FYI Everett — I was referring to the possibility of achieving a mandate in November. This designation isn’t bestowed upon party nominees.

    I don’t know if Clinton “holds half the party”, but if true, the question becomes: will she let go? And if not, why not?

  • “I don’t know if Clinton “holds half the party”, but if true, the question becomes: will she let go? And if not, why not?

    Good questions. The fact that the answers are unknown is pretty damn disturbing and a strong indictment against Hillary Clinton’s character.

  • If I were running the Obama super delegate process this would be my pitch:

    It’s important for the democratic party that the voters push this over the top rather than the super delegates. We want to get enough supers before the polls close tonight to allow the voters of South Dakota and Montana to end this.

    It will hurt the party if we allow party insiders to decide this.

  • We want to get enough supers before the polls close tonight …It will hurt the party if we allow party insiders to decide this.

    Regardless of when the supers come along, Party insiders will not have decided a thing.

    Obama played by the rules and collected the most pledged delegates (campaigning for pledged delegates requires a different strategy than campaigning for popular votes — a 50 state strategy). Although irrelevant, Obama also won the most states and, despite Clinton’s assertions to the contrary, the most popular votes.

    That party insiders determined this nomination is what Clinton wants us to think. Spin and fact are not the same thing.

  • Spin and fact are not the same thing.

    True.

    But they are both important.

  • My greatest concern is that she may have been planning to suspend and endorse, but all of the news stories and the palpable excitement over the possibility may make her vow to fight on out of sheer orneriness. She seems to take everything personally, and I find it totally believable that she would want to spoil what could be a great day just to get back at Obama, his supporters, and the country in general.

    I truly hope she’s not that bitter, but that is how far my opinion of her has fallen.

  • “Watch me now as I defend Clinton!” — Maria

    Makes sense to me. As an aside, that campaign’s inability to show enough discipline to control its message should alone be sufficient to disqualify HRC as a viable nominee. We bust McCain and his campaign for contradictions and flip-flops but HRC’s is a whirling dervish. And if it’s intentional, that’s even worse. You can’t run a country like this.

  • I really think she’s going to fight on, and I am glad.

    I’m glad she’s taken the scorched earth route to political irrelevance. If she hadn’t there would be a lot more people saying that she should be Obama’s VP, and the campaign we just saw her run tells us about her character, which should tell us how the people of America would take to a ticket with her on it. Obama is not running that kind of operation and for good reason. Change is not just a slogan.

    Burn those bridges, Hillary. Fight like hell and take your die-hard idiots with you as you go over the cliff. The age of post-Washington politics is about to begin and you really have no place in it.

  • I think the strongest argument for her to NOT be the nominee is the way the campaign handled the caucus and post Super Tuesday states. Considering how slip shod her campaign has been I think that it’s fair to wonder where she’d be right now if her name was Hillary Clinton. They were sloppy because they expected to be able to capitalize on her early momentum and didn’t think beyond that. I’ll say the same thing about her that I asid about Rudy Guliani’s “Florida or Bust” strategy: if this is the way the campaign is run, what does that say about how the administration would be run? No plan B? All your eggs in one basket? Not good. She might be ready to serve on day one but what about day two if day one doesn’t go smooth?

  • Tom, a less serious disagreement but as someone who has watched every available Doctor Who adventure from the Original and new series — except for those the BBC destroyed and which didn’t turn up elsewhere — will you please stop using the TARDIS as a negative reference.

    Btw, which Doctor is your favorite and least favorite?

  • beep52: As an aside, that campaign’s inability to show enough discipline to control its message should alone be sufficient to disqualify HRC as a viable nominee.

    The temperature in hell is approaching 0 celsius, because here I go getting Clinton’s back again:

    I think the wheels are coming off the cart of her campaign and it’s no longer possible to control the message. Aides, all of whom are concerned about their next career moves and most of whom have friends in the media, are going to talk and at this point no one can stop them. And many of them are probably wondering why she’s making this so hard on herself and the party, and genuinely want her to end this.

    On the other hand, if she is intentionally putting out bizarrely contradictory messages, I agree with you that that’s just pathetic and the opposite of calm authority and solid leadership…the opposite of presidential.

  • The rumor mill keeps on going. “She’s gonna drop out.” “She’s gonna keep going.” “Obama has all these superdelegates waiting.” “If he had them he would have used them.” “He’s saving them and just releasing enough of them so that it will be the voters tonight who push him across the finish line.”

    We’re going to know in about 24 hours what the next step will bring. Let’s not spend time arguing possibilities when we don’t have the facts now, and will have them in such a short time.

  • I don’t get it.
    She has always said that she will end her campaign when Obama wins the nomination. She has resisted ending her campaign when some collection of pundits, Obama staff people, bloggers and blog commentators have been convinced that she cannot win the nomination.
    She has always said that she intends to support the nominee of the party and work to defeat McCain in the fall. She has resisted announcing that Obama will be the nominee of the party before he has finally won it.
    Yet so many people have determined, through their tremendous analytical powers, that she, in fact, has always intended to take this to the convention, wreck the party, throw the election to McCain by mounting an independent candidacy for President as the nominee of the Lieberman for CT Party. Even if she were to explicitly deny such a plan, such a denial for some, would only be evidence that it is her true intention.
    The sound you hear all over America today and tomorrow will be sound of the heads of immature leftists exploding. The fact that there might be real, loyal Democrats who disagree with them is too much cognitive dissonance for them to handle. They want a 50-state Party, which has room for only one potential nominee. They view the fact that about half the party wanted another nominee is some kind of satanic conspiracy. And the fact they have completely bought into the GOP’s demonization of Hillary Clinton, because she opposed their candidate in the primary, will become clear to them.
    Their paranoia about Clinton has never had any real basis in fact, but has always been just fevered speculation. They will have to ask themselves how it came to be that they invested so much bile and fear in her.
    Their only alternative is to ask themselves “How can I continue to support Obama if he is the candidate of Shillary, the Empress of Evil? What secret hold does she have on him?”

    It’s time to grow up.

  • Everett,

    I don’t know if Clinton “holds half the party”, but if true, the question becomes: will she let go? And if not, why not?

    I, too, would like to hear your perspective on this.

    I must admit that I read a lot of requests by Clinton supporters to Obama supporters for arguments as to why Clinton voters should support Obama and what Obama should do to mend fences/attract Clinton voters. I think those are potentially reasonable requests, but they are only one side of the coin. What about the flip side? What will Clinton do to mend fences/unify the party/get her voters to suppport Obama? Why shouldn’t Clinton voters support Obama?

  • “She might be ready to serve on day one but what about day two if day one doesn’t go smooth?”

    What’s interesting about this comment is it’s admirable lack of perspective. Remember back in the old days when Clinton was working in Arkansas and helped to lead the committee on educational reform, and had to work really hard to win over a exceptionally reluctant Teachers’ Union? And then there was the time when she was fighting for health care and got her lunch served to her? And then she was accused of that whole White Water thing, and then there was that whole impeachment thing? And then she was elected to the Senate. And then she came out on the stage at Madison Square Gardens after 9-11 and was vociferously boo-ed. And then she enetered the race for president and won New York, and it’s been so close that we’re actually paying attention to Peurto Rico, Montana and South Dakota, and Obama will win the nomination, but he will have to rely on super-delegates to do so.

    Granted, it’s just my opinion, but I think that if things go wrong on day one, she just might stick around to day two.

    I ask only because I am curious: How do I make a similar extrapolation with Obama?

  • She doesn’t need to keep Obama from a mandate. He has never had it. -Everett

    The mandate is not for Obama, it’s for Democratic ideals. It’s for us.

    That’s the only mandate she’s preventing by playing these foolish games.

    I think the strongest argument for her to NOT be the nominee is the way the campaign handled the caucus and post Super Tuesday states. -Chris

    I’ve said it all along. If you can’t manage a campaign, can’t pay your bills, can’t win with every built-in advantage, and don’t plan for contingencies, like, say, a competent opponent, what makes you qualified to run the country?

    The way I see it, nothing.

  • No offense, but the amount of attention to minutae around this race is getting rather deafening. This is a stark example of it. How about we wait and see? How about more reporting on what’s going on in government and the media right now, rather than this constant drumbeat of campaign trail details? I know you don’t have to, but it would be much appreciated 😀

  • Tom in Ma,

    you pack a lot of nonsense in that overly long screed. I’ll just address a small part of it:

    She has always said that she will end her campaign when Obama wins the nomination. …
    She has always said that she intends to support the nominee of the party and work to defeat McCain in the fall.

    Here’s where it gets sticky. If she decides the clause “Obama wins the nomination” can only be valid when he accepts the nomination in August at the convention, then the last part of the quote above doesn’t hold true. Unless you are willing to say that “she worked to defeat McCain” simply by giving a few speeches offering tepid support for Obama. That’s not going to cut it. The party needs to unify and turn its sights onto McCain long before August.

    I’m fine with waiting a few more days, but not until the convention.

  • She has to work to undermine the Obama candidacy to confirm her conception of what has transpired and lay the groundwork for 2012. She can’t let the healing begin. She knows, somewhere in her denying brain, that if she really gets behind Obama, he will definitely win and 2016 is just too far away.

    There is no way she easily gets the nod from the democratic party, as it now exists, in 2012, barring an incredible Obama blunder. Just losing a close race wont be that blunder. The loss would attributed to her and her voters, unless she can convince people that she really worked for and wanted Obama to win after this week. She wont be able to convince the majority of Obama supporters, and many others imho, that she truly backed him.

    If Obama doesn’t win the general, we are looking at 4 more years of this internal strife. Does anybody really want that?

  • EDO asked: Why shouldn’t Clinton voters support Obama?

    I can’t speak for the 17+ million voters who did not vote for Obama, but here’s my humble opinion.

    1) I think he is a youthful and dynamic speaker who has captured the imaginations of almost half the party. However, saying and doing are different. In short, I heard a lot of hype but I was never sold on his ability to make it happen. The whole “because he’s hip” thing just didn’t do it for me.

    2) I’ve seen what having a President with no Foreign Policy experience is like.

    3) I am not confident that he will run well against McCain.

  • The Democratic Party left ALL of Hillary’s supporters when they made their decisions on Michigan the other day. This only capped off the months of alienating all of us (Clinton supporters) by their statements, etc. We (Clinton supporters) have absolutely NO obligations to the Democratic Party and in November the Democratic Party will reap it’s just rewards!!!

  • Everett,

    Those talking points are months old. Is that really the best you can come up with? You think he’s all talk, has no experience, and is poison for the general election?

    Those seriously aren’t going to fly here.

    I’ll give you a website where you can find the answer to all of your ‘concerns:’

    http://www.google.com

    Read about Obama, what he’s accomplished, and what his plans are. Then get back to us. And before your half hearted, incensed rebuttal about how you have been following this election and you know so much about Obama, let me tell you, none of the regular readers here will buy it following your comment at 31.

    Educate yourself. Ignorance is the Republicans’ red carpet.

  • 2) I’ve seen what having a President with no Foreign Policy experience is like.

    What extensive foreign policy experience does Senator Clinton have?

  • Piggybacking on doubtful: Everett, this is why no one here is taking you seriously. You come waltzing in, terribly late to the party, and start solemnly asking “questions” that have been answered hundreds of times before here and thousands of times all over the toobz. To further set off your poorly informed status, you keep congratulating yourself on the belief that you bring a sorely needed gravitas to the conversation. Can it be possible that you have no idea how risibly this comes off?

    Educate yourself (on everything from policy to polls), bring yourself up to June 2008, and then we’ll talk.

  • Wow. It’s only 2:30 Eastern and Obama already has 10 superdelegate endorsements for today (for a total of 7.5 votes since some are from MI/FL), plus an Edwards pledged del from FL (for .5 vote).

  • I’m disappointed in everyone. That’s all I have to say. So disappointed, and worried about the direction we go no matter who our leaders are. And we have divisive “role-models” like Hillary to thank.. The sad thing is, a lot of you don’t get it.

  • OK This race is WAY too stressful for me to continue to follow, so consider this my parting comment on this circus that is posing as “election coverage.”

    Here is why Hillary shouldn’t become President. She is a good politician, but she doesn’t actually stand for anything and she doesn’t actually have any core beliefs. She stands for what ever will get her elected.

    Think about it. Her campaign was failing in the beginning, because she ran on being the “experienced strong leader – commander-in-chief” type of leader who would be ready on “day one” to take the world stage and kick butt. That didn’t work. She floundered for a while, conducted a few more “focus groups,” hired a few more pollsters and figured out how to tap into the worst instincts of the remaining voters. She became the “champion of the ‘hard working white people’ and the ‘blue collar’ baroness. It’s not that she believes anything in particular, but that she figured out how to “connect” with a group of people by telling them what they wanted to hear.

    Obama, on the other hand, has remained remarkably consistant about what his core beliefs are. You might not agree with him, but I have not seen any attempts on his part to “re-invent himself” during the campaign. When ever I hear a politician is trying to “re-invent” themselves, it almost always means, they are transitioning into – morphing into – a fresh new series of lies about who they really are.

    It sickens me that the media plays along and refuses to call Clinton on her “blue collar” make over. Before Pennsylvania, I never saw Clinton wearing powder blue pantsuits with too much eye shaddow. Since Pennsylvania she has even changed her accent. This is rediculous.

    Wake up America. Our leaders should be chosen from among the very small handful of sincere leaders who just happen to have ideas and approaches that capture the imagination of the American people and propel us forward into a positive future.

    The first Clinton Presidency was a disaster because the Clintons did not have a set of core beliefs. Thier strategy was to morph themselves into what ever public opinion seemed to expect. They made no real attempt to mold and craft consensus. That type of amoral approach to governing is extremely dangerous and lends itself to all manor of excess which eventually lead to Bill’s impeachment.

    Don’t be fooled friends.

    Gary Bonner, Baltimore, Maryland

  • 1) I think he is a youthful and dynamic speaker who has captured the imaginations of almost half the party. However, saying and doing are different. In short, I heard a lot of hype but I was never sold on his ability to make it happen. The whole “because he’s hip” thing just didn’t do it for me.

    First of all, no matter how you count it — delegate lead, popular vote total, or most relevant here preference of Democrats — he’s captured the imaginations of “more than half” of the party. Not “almost half.”

    And second, the whole “because he’s hip” thing probably didn’t do it for you because the only ones saying that were the the voices in your head. Same with “he’s the messiah” or whatever fanboy bullshit the Clinton diehards attribute to Obama voters because they’re too busy to listen to our actual reasons.

    2) I’ve seen what having a President with no Foreign Policy experience is like.

    Obama sits on the Senate committees for Foreign Affairs, Homeland Security and Veterans’ Affairs, and co-authored a major piece of nuclear non-proliferation legislation with Richard Lugar. That’s real foreign policy experience, and much more than George W. Bush — or Bill Clinton– had when they assumed office.

    3) I am not confident that he will run well against McCain.

    He’s beating him in the Electoral Vote predictions (and picking up steam, with a gain of about 40 EVs there in the last month alone) and the national polls. As the party coalesces around him, he’s going to leave McCain in his wake.

  • Maria: I like the word risibly. I applaud your vocab. Excellent word.

    And I did take “Doubtful’s” advice. Impressively, Senator Obama has served on committees. And introduced legislation.

    All I can say on this point we we can agree to on the relative value of said service.

    What I find most revealing is that when you are challenged, they lash out, as opposed to presenting a well reasoned response. Note, you did not say, “If you are concerned about his track record on X, then consider this, that and the other thing.” Instead, you impugn my character.

    Yes, I am late to the party. Theoretically, I am one of the 17 million who came, saw and were not impressed, but now are just suppose to assume that Obama my guy.

    Well, folks, based upon your responses, I am still less than swayed. If you can’t treat other Dems with respect, this does not bode well for your chances with Independents and Centrist Republicans.

  • Once again…

    What foreign policy experience does Senator Clinton have?

  • TR: Thanks for the info. That’s what people will respond to. It’s a sugar v. vinegar thing.

    Interestingly, using your same citation: “Meanwhile, Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton leads McCain 48%-44% among likely voters and 49%-43% among registered voters. A month ago, she trailed McCain 49%-46% among likely voters.”

  • What I find most revealing is that when you are challenged, they lash out, as opposed to presenting a well reasoned response. -Everett

    Lashed out? You haven’t seen lashed out. You got it easy because we’re all troll weary.

    Why the hell do you expect a well reasoned response when you are:

    a.) online
    b.) perfectly capable of looking things up yourself
    c.) unwilling to do so, unless told to

    and most importantly,

    d.) perfectly happy repeating debunked talking points from months ago

    We gave well reasoned answers to those questions back in November. Obama gives well reasoned answers to those concerns on his websites, in his books, and through his past work in Illinois and his current work in the Senate.

    It’s not the job of blog commenters to educate you. What’s next? Should I chew your food and regurgitate into your mouth for you?

    I am one of the 17 million who came, saw and were not impressed, but now are just suppose to assume that Obama my guy. -Everett

    Don’t lay your ignorance at their or my feet. You’re knowledge or lack thereof is not anyone’s responsibility but your own. Don’t assume. Look it up. Read. Learn. Repeat.

    Well, folks, based upon your responses, I am still less than swayed. -Everett

    Take responsibility for yourself. It’s not my fault you are willfully ignorant. Stop wallowing in it and go do some research. On all the candidates. Then pick one that most closely represents your world view.

    If you can’t treat other Dems with respect, this does not bode well for your chances with Independents and Centrist Republicans. -Everett

    Respect is earned, not given. You want to earn people’s respect, educate yourself and drop the talking points.

    I’m done with this new troll. Good day.

  • Everett earlier: “I heard a lot of hype but I was never sold on his ability to make it happen. The whole “because he’s hip” thing just didn’t do it for me.”

    Everett later: “What I find most revealing is that when you are challenged, they lash out, as opposed to presenting a well reasoned response.”

    Everett didn’t offer any challenge…he offered bullshit and insults. Apparently, according to Everett, those of us who voted for Obama or plan to in the fall (including former Biden, Dodd, Kucinich, Richardson and Edwards supporters) are buying “hype” and voting for Obama because he’s “hip”. In other words, Everett believes we’re a bunch of zombies with the maturity of a pre-adolescent child.

    If Everett wants to challenge somebody, then he should do so with facts and reason — he can’t feed us his “hype/hip” bullshit and expect to be taken seriously.

  • She’s trying to get VP nod, using duress. She won’t quit until she loses, but even if she loses she will not go away until she gets something. $20M campaign debt paid off and the VP slot. What a b.

  • Prup @21, David Tennant, that man is gorgeous and sexy and ever so naughty , just as a good Time :ord should be. I love Torchwood also.

  • I agree, beans… she’s blackmailing Obama to get something she really wants in place of the nomination she didn’t get and thinks she deserved. Look for it to be something BIG. And her supporters will think it’s about them…

  • She’s a fighter all right, but this is NOT a war. The Primary is a CONTEST, and the candidates are not supposed to be FIGHTING to the death, as one of them seems to have in her mind to do. It is crass politics at its worst; yes, she wants something–it was to keep the Clinton machine up to the spigot to keep the money flowing and the power & adulation going. It is as if they are drunk on being in office. I do not want to see somebody as dysfunctional, delusional, and threatening as HRC to be head of state. No thank you. and keep her out of the VP as well. STAND UP OBAMA for the principles you ran on. CHANGE!

  • HRC has the popular vote. I hope to see Hillary run as an Independent. Hillary has my vote! If she doesn’t run then my vote goes to Mccain.

  • So the voters decided that it is better to have a Muslim president than a woman. To quote Julia Roberts in the movie “Pretty Woman” — “Big mistake. Huge.”

    My only hope at this pointis that Obama loses big to McCain so Hill can come back and say with a smile, “I told you so.”

  • Marsha: Unfortunately, in this country, the popular vote does not count – or Al Gore would have been in the White House instead of Bush.

    Jules: Why do you care what religion he practices – unless you are

    Pronunciation: \ˈbi-gət\
    Function: noun
    Etymology: French, hypocrite, bigot
    Date: 1660

    : a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance

    How about voting for Barack Obama because he offers us a chance to affect change in Washington and to make a difference.

    HRC claim to fame is riding her womanizing husband’s coat tail and voting in favor of a totally unnecessary war – what makes you think it would have been any different had she been the nominee. It would have been more of the same old – same old.

    • Comments are closed.